The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

There are two problems with your theory of modern forgery, I don't know if this has already been discussed.

I think you've listed four or so, and I do think these rebuttals to my theory might have appeared in various forms already... but of course I will answer you, from my perspective:

1. As we know, forgers tend to pay very close attention to how originals behave. Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc. This was especially true for texts that were obviously not written by someone skilled in high-end handwriting.
A ‘modern’ forger would have copied something like this to give the whole thing a sense of originality. These corrections are missing from the VMS, and potential buyers would also notice this.
In short: since Voynich was familiar with old texts, the few clear corrections ironically argue against a forgery, not for it.

Well there are many points in that, but I'll try to answer them as succinctly as I can:

I. There is an assumption on your part, "what a forger would do", or, "what the forger should have done", and they didn't, therefore, "Its not a forgery". But if you were You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., you probably would not assume these things "would have been done", because you would realize that many forgeries are perfect, with no corrects, and many forgeries are imperfect, with many corrections. And every possible level in between. And yes, they might try to mimic a particular style of a particular person, era or purpose, including or excluding errors they found. But the Voynich has no similar examples, so none were copied. As a 100% unique item, then, if forged, the forger would know "anything goes".

II. That being said, there actually are errors in the Voynich, places were we see characters added, and a section were characters are missing and new ones written in, and so on. Not many, but some. And no I don't agree that they would be evidence of forgery, any more than your claim that lack of corrections is evidence of genuine.

III. We don't actually know if there are errors, or how many. For all we know, 20%, or 50%, or whatever numbers, are uncorrected errors anyway. We can't read it, so we don't know. For instance, think the Zodiac Ciphers: Before they were deciphered, there would have been no way to realize there are many spelling and grammar errors, and even errors in the Zodiac's own cipher!

IV. Also, your claim here is a case of one side of an anti-forgery argument that is argued from both sides: That is, it is argued, as you did, that "lack of corrected errors implies genuine", while others have argued that the few corrections we see mean it is genuine, because "why would a forger have or correct errors? It must be a meaningful text, for which corrections mattered". This is common in rebuttals to my theory... arguing both sides of an argument, contrary and hypocritical to each other, while leap-frogging over the middle. The "middle" in this case is, I would posit, "The text, while mostly (seemingly) error-free and uncorrected, has some, but in any case, without being able to read it, we can't know if the text is fake or real".

V. There could be a case made... although I don't usually make it, as it is not, to me, a strong one... but one could actually make the case that, as you note or believe there are few corrections, this would favor nonsense writing in the Voynich... that is, errors would not matter to nonsense. And of course, while most forgeries do have meaning; the contrary is also true: Most nonsense items are forgeries! So by your own observation, i.e., few errors, that favors nonsense, therefore your observation actually favors forgery or fake.

VI. All the above being said, you actually undermine your own position at the very beginning, by noting, "Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc.". You are admitting that the Voynich has writing that is NOT "Typical for the period...". That is, if, as you say, "typical writing" of the period exhibits corrections, words filled in, crossing-outs, additions... and the Voynich does not, that means that, by your own criteria here, the Voynich is not "Typical for the period...", i.e, anomalous. As I frequently point out, some of the common signs of forgeries, and the Voynich to a very great degree, reflect many anomalies and anachronisms... that is usually how they are "found out".

2. If one follows Jorge Stolfi's retracer theory, which has now been proven in countless examples, the question arises as to how a modern forger could have managed to make the writing so faint that it is barely recognisable, only to then paint over it again and make mistakes in the process?
This is more than illogical.
But above all, why would they do it? Bleach out writing only to trace it again? Extremely unlikely. Faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer.

I. I am only partially aware of Jorge's retracer theory (hi, Jorge!), and so I can't personally attest to its accuracy. But for the sake of this discussion, again, how can you assume what a forger would or would not do? Either on purpose, or for effect, or for any number of reasons we can and cannot imagine?

II. You are now describing what you believe are corrections, which you denied are apparent in your first argument. Which is it? A perfect text devoid of any corrections; or a text bleached and retraced, where the author "made mistakes"? Wouldn't the existence of all these, by your own logical argument, mean "A forger replicated corrections and additions and therefore it is a forgery"? At least, doesn't it obviate your first argument, these bleachings and retracings?

III. You assume, again, that "faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer". This, again, assumes you or a better forger would have done "a better job" at this, therefore it is not by a forger. But you cannot argue with success... in that your own interpretation here implies, to you, that it is genuine... so than how would NOT doing this be "a better job"? I mean, it worked, no?

IV. That being said (III), again, there could be a million reasons a real work, or a forged work, might have been traced over (if, as Jorge suggests, it was). Some would overlap. Say, for instance, either a real 15th century author, OR likewise, a 1908-1910 forger, inked the work, and felt the writing too faint. They might, in both cases, trace over it, to make it more legible.

V. And THAT being said (IV), forgers often falsify corrections and errors... as you yourself point out in your first argument, they might, and I agree... so again this retracing may just be that... because...

VI. ... we have examples of forgers doing just this, tracing over their own, forged works: Think the Vinland Map, in which McCrone deduced that the forger traced over most of their own lines, for purposes unknown.

Of course, one could say that he accidentally bleached it too much and then hastily painted over it. But if the retracer (in this case, the forger) could recognise the writing, i.e. trace it (which is evident), it would still have been a much better selling point as faded text than as illegible text. So that argument doesn't hold water either.

I see you have circled around here, and tried to cover a possible rebuttal to your points with a reason for observing this. Whew that was complicated... what I mean is, you in a sense give a speculative reason a forger may have done this, i.e., "accidental bleaching", and then you give a reason a forger might leave that bleached text alone. Well I don't really think such an argument can be weighted either way... I mean, I feel it logical that a forger, or a genuine author, would likewise desire the text more readable if they felt it was too light to begin with. Your argument that a forger would "leave it alone" and very light as "faded text" would seem more genuine... maybe, but again, this is assuming "what a forger would do, and didn't do, therefore it is not a forgery", and we can't know the decision process on the part of this forgery, if a forger, and again "You can't argue with success". If a forgery, all these choices, if they were choices by a forger, I mean, must have been good ones, because they fooled many so far.

I need a better way to phrase that point, it is hard to relate. Maybe, "You argue a forger would have done a 'better job' on specific features, therefore it is not a forgery; yet you claim these very features are genuine, so then they must have been done well, to fool you".

Or further, "Since you admit these features were not done well, if a forger... and I agree... then isn't that actually evidence of forgery?" I think that is the logical conclusion here. 

The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against a ‘modern’ forgery.

Well again, your conclusion here admits peculiarities, yet it is argued that both the presence and absence of said problems is evidence against forgery. But most forgeries are "peculiar", and most genuine articles are not "peculiar". I would say that, on the contrary, "The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against this being a genuine 15th century manuscript", because such observed anomalies, anachronisms, inconsistencies are very much signs that a work is a forgery, and not that it is genuine". Again, by fully studying the history of forgeries, and hundreds of examples, I think that the reality is very much the opposite of what you claim here.