The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once.

I did not realize this point before.

While I still think the Standard Provenance Theory (SPT) is the most likely, at least going back to Barchius, my hunch that there was some serious foul play by Wilfrid is getting stronger.

I don't think he would go as far as forging the VMS, or even Marci's letter.  The risk of being caught was too great and the consequences would be very serious.  But I think he would be quite capable of any or all of these, in any order:

• Forging then almost but not quite completely erasng Jacobus's signature on f1r, after obtaining a photo of one of his ex-libris
  
• Bribing the Jesuits to sell him some books from Kircher's library and having the VMS (which he believed to be worth millions) included in the lot, listed only as "uh, also another manuscript, boring, not worth specifying, ignore it"
  
• Bribing the Jesuits to pilfer Marci's letter from the Carteggio and then claiming that it was attached to the VMS when he  bought it
  
• Substituting another manuscript for Baresch's book ("BookA"), because the latter turned out to be definitely not Bacon's.
  
• Removing from BL MS 408 any pages that would have shown it was not Bacon's and/or not BookA.
  

While Wilfrid may never had access to the Carteggio, or to the VMS before the sale, it seems quite possible that his Jesuit friends could have told him about "this interesting letter from Marci that mentions a Bacon original which would have been owned by Rudolf".  And they could then have scanned the Carteggio, at his request, to locate and copy the letters from Marci's "good friend" that were implied by Marci's letter.

The weakness of the SPT is that it relies entirely on Wilfrid's claim that Marci's letter was attached to BL MS 408 when he bought it.  But there is no evidence for that claim, and the way Wilfrid handled the letter is suspicious.  The paper lining of the cover, where the letter could have been attached to, was removed by him and seems to be lost.  

Shouldn't that letter have been filed in the Carteggio?  

If that undescribed MS in the list of his purchase was the BL MS 408, why wasn't the letter mentioned there?

If we assume that Marci's letter may not have been attached to BL MS 408, then there is no evidence that Wilfrid bough that book from the Jesuits, much less that it came from Kircher's library.   

Even if we accept Jacobus's signature as genuine, that is not evidence that BL MS 408  is BookA.  On the contrary, it is a bit strange that neither Marci nor Barschius mentioned Jacobus as a previous owner, even though his ex-libris should have been quite legible then. And it is a bit strange that Barschius did not cross out Jacobus's name and write his on instead.

Anyway, to me it does not make any difference whether BL MS 408 is BookA or not, much less whether it was owned by Jacobus or Rudolf.  That is not why I think MS 408 is interesting...

All the best, --stolfi

Hi, Jorge... There are many reasons I post my various findings, and my ideas and opinions about them, and I don't always use them to argue my Modern Forgery Theory, specifically. One of the most important reasons I post and argue many points has more to do with making sure... or hoping to... that people have an honest and accurate view of what the Voynich, the Marci Letter, the "given provenance" all really entail. That is, a true picture with all its anomalies, inconsistencies, anachronisms, hypocrisies, and so on. That the Voynich and everything around it is actually a far cry from the pristine bunnies and roses picture many insist is the case.

And I often make it clear that I think this is important so that people don't waste their time going down impossible paths, no matter what their eventual opinions about the Voynich end up being.

And your ideas are a good example of this. You have very different ideas than I do about what the Voynich is, how it got where it did, why it was altered and by whom, and so on and so forth. But I think that is fine, because you take into account everything reasonably known about the Voynich, warts and all. And you have added some new "warts" in addition to many I and others have pointed out, which I had not thought of.

And there could be other opinions people could come to, also different than my own, and maybe different than yours... or some combination, of several possibles that neither of us has yet thought of.

I think doing this is far better, and potentially more fruitful, than denying these problems exist... which is what is usually done in defense of the work, because any true answer must take into account these serious issues, or what good is it? Even if the Voynich turns out to be early 15th century, and genuine, I mean, that verdict must explain everything wrong with the Voynich, too. You have come up with reasons this could be, instead of denying these problems exist, as is usually done.

I have come to realize that the reason the indefensible is strongly defended, or simply ignored, is not as much to "protect" a genuine 15th century picture of the Voynich (which I used to think was the case), but more to defend that very detailed story painstakingly built up around it, partly by Wilfred, and later by dozens of other: The whole Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher/Jesuits/Rare Find saga. I feel most of this story... maybe 90%?... can only exist if one continues to ignore the serious problems with it. It is that construction which is being protected, moreso than the Voynich itself. Even if the Voynich is real and 15th century, I mean, the current "baseline" story is actually very implausible, and has wasted the time and efforts of many over the years.

If the Voynich is real, it is more likely something else entirely than that so strongly projected for so long. Your alternate scenario is a good indication that people can look outside the current paradigm to find it, while still facing the many inconvenient truths about it.

All the best, Rich