The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[ioannestritemius]

Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity?

Isn't that a paradox ?  

Thank you, I think ... If I understand the logic of the comment "Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity" correctly, it is the same thing as stating that a fake-Rembrandt, for example, is the cornerstone that supports its authenticity??

To return to Voynich's forged letters in several PUG-volumes, allow me to deconstruct Baresch 16390427. Incidentally, I do not understand why, in a predominantly English speaking forum, the Kircher-correspondence keeps being referred to by the Italian word "carteggio". To over-inflate its importance? In plain English, a "carteggio" is a "correspondence".   
 
Re 16390427, PUG 557, f. 353rv, Jiří Bareš (Georg Baresch) to Kircher. I suggest that the interested reader consult neither the English translation, nor the English summary, and especially not the Latin transcript, but the original text which is available at [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. The same scrupulousness bestowed on the VM itself should also be applied to its supporting documents, i. e. its "certificates of authenticity", meaning the two letters Baresch 16390427 and Marci 16650819.

I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery, the diacritics over the "u", "ú", and "ù" (yes, there is more than that). Background: in humanist Latin, scribes occasionally used "ü", not as a modern trema, but to visually distinguish lines of neighboring letter-shapes, e. g. "adinüentionis" (Trithemius, letter to Germain de Ganay, 1515, not autograph). The "sharp" accent" (accent aigu) "ú" was used predominantly in print to indicate the ablative case; the "grave" accent (accent grave) "ù" to indicate an adverb, e. g. "lectúque", "minùs" (Historia rei litterariæ Ordinis S. Benedicti, 1754). In Latin, "ú" was not used to distinguish the sounds /u/ and /v/ or to mark diphthongs. The custom to put a little "flourish" above the "u" to distinguish it from "n" was limited to German handwriting. And Latin diacritics did not have the same meaning as those, for instance, in modern French: in "à côté" the grave is semantic (distinction from the verb "a"), the circonflexe is etymological (vestige of Latin and old French "s", "costa", "coste"), while the accent aigu is phonetic in that it indicates the sound of the long vowel [e:]. – To return to Latin: whichever convention a Latin writer or printer followed, he applied or not applied diacritics to the written letter "u" with 97.8543 percent %regularity.
 
Follows the smorgasboard of u-diacritics Voynich used in his forged Baresch-letter of 1639. Voynich was familiar with the appearance of the diacritics but had no understanding of their meaning. It helps to read the words. The diacritics are not only wrong or misapplied, they follow no pattern at all. No writer or printer of a Latin text at whatever point of the existence of the language, in this case the 54-year-old Baresch or even an ignorant and underpaid amanuensis in the year 1639, would have applied such a completely nonsensical array of diacritics and non-diacritics to just one letter – unless he was a forger. If you, the reader, are sincere about exploring the provenance of the VM, please provide just one written or printed Latin document – no, texts in the "carteggio" will not do, since Voynich forged at least dozens of letters in it, at least the entire "correspondence" from Jonny Lichtenstein, Marci, Martinic, Schega – with an identical array of diacritics. If yo[u|ú] can find any a) grammatical, b) phonetic, c) etymologic, d) semantic rhyme or reason in this, yo[u|ú] are a ling[u|ú]istic geni[u|ú]s. The diacritics in the fake-Baresch letter were applied by a person familiar with their appearance in Latin texts, but not familiar with their reason. Please cross-check possible mistakes in the following transcript against the original:
 
Obsequijs, Aúthore, Nactús, út, secum, obtinúi, quibús, reúocaretúr, scriptura, quædam, Moretum, Cujus Scripturæ, fúit, caúsa, Postquam, públicum, mundo, inno=túisset, aúxiliares, aúgenda, sui, lúcem, omnibús, qui, aliqúid, qúo, opús, queat, postúlasset, dúbitaúi, qúin, múlti, tantum, ejúsmodi, diúitijs, onústas, expediúerint, comparúerint, ut, obseqúium, conatibús, Repub:, susceptis, laboribus, qúasi, supra, úires, humanas, Authoris, congratúlarentúr, Qúi, núncius, gratissimús, cùm, perúenisset, solum, illiùs, lùcem, súo, proditúri, vtinam, qúantocius, breúem, edocúisset, inaú=dita, qúoque, Sphingibús, obscúrissimarum, scriptúrarum, cúmque, Scriptúra in=cognitorúm, character[u/ú]m, inútiliter, occupasset, locum, júdicaúi, soluendum,Traducta ali=qúa, scriptura, qúodam, úetústo, cújus, ocularis, præsentium, scripturam, sesquialterúm, annúm, út, inúesti=gatione, aliquod, indústriæ, súo, qúatenús, occúl=tatæ, communi, Librúm, ipsum, longinqúo, pericúlis, consúl=tum, Siquidem, illúd, qúod, úice, missúm, fúit, perúenit, ut, quod, tractú, re=scriptúm, Quapropter, dúxi, repetendum, qúod, appúlisse, súpradictus, Moretús, retúlit, qúo, úehe=menter, gaúisus, sum, gaúdebo, prædictús, reclu=sús, fúerit, út, ejús, pictura, herbarum, quarum plúrimús, númerús, imaginúm, diúersarum, Astrorum, aliarumque, rerum, chymicorum, arca=norum, referentium, totum, qúa, salutem, núlla, humano, salúbrior, Opús, indignúm, conatú, virtúosi, vúl=garis, út, júdicari, qúod, caúsa, plebeiorúm, occultandorum, indústria, aúthor, úsús, fúisset, Qúin, ali=qúem, virúm, bonúm, úeræ, cùm, partibùs, Eúropæis, vulgarem, methodum, parúm, frúctúosum, thesaúros, mo=númentis, librorúm, túm, conversatione, cum, talibús, Augent, volumine, hominúm, partibus, subterfugientes, qúod, qúæ, públicum, bonùm, qúod, characteribús, sepúltúm, commúni, promoúere, dedignabitúr, siquidem, subeúndo, sufficiens, útpote, obscúritati, quæ, singúlare, ingenium, modum, aliquem, requirat, qúo, obligatús, tantúm, qúod, opús, illúd, quicqúid, aliúd, Adiungo, aliqúot, scriptúræ, reúocandum, similiúm, characterúm, prosperum, exitúm, laborúm, Vúlgariúm, Deús, Reipúb:, conserúet, diútissime, Vniúersitate, datúrús, obseqúia, Peroratissimús, Georgiús.

Please do not ask me how and why Voynich forged so many other letters not bearing directly on the VM, and how he injected them into the respective PUG-volumes, and why no one has noticed these forgeries so far. Forgers, as is documented with some better known cases in the art world, tend to be obsessive. The letters referred to above scream outloud "we are forgeries, and very poor forgeries" to anyone actually reading the originals. If my math is correct, it took 492 years to decipher the liber tertius of the Steganographia, 409 years to figure out a forged Steganographia of 1591, 380 years to decipher Ferdinand's III zifra picolominea, 317 years to crack Wolfgang Ernst Heidel's cipher from 1675. Some things take a little time. But appr. 110 years of the Voynich-nonsense should be enough. Would you like me to serve up few more forgeries from the Kircher-correspondence? Some of them are so bad, they are funny, like pseudo-Martinic 16400317 (yes, that is the Martinic of defenestration-fame), or pseudo-Lichtenstein 16411023, a brief, almost postmodern text that literally is about nothing?

Writing in this much detail is exhausting. Thank you for your patience. Iam satis est, as Ferdinand III occasionally concluded his letters.