The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Jorge_Stolfi]

And for old timers, too. Many may have dismissed Modern Forgery long ago, but usually not because they read the best arguments for it, but more because they retreated from the discussion, and have ignored it, assuming it is impossible without even knowing.

As for me, I became convinced that it is a genuine 1400-ish article for several reasons, but they are not worth repeating here because they follow from my own origin theory that many Voynichologists strongly reject.  

Here, again, is one argument that they could accept. As I said before, I think that Wilfrid would be morally capable of forging the book.  As you say, he could plausibly have obtained the necessary materials, including inks, parchment, and strings from 13th or 15 century, and binding materials from the 19th.   

But I don't think he would have the artistic ability to forge the entire book himself.  he would have to rely on an expert forger.  That would expose him to a much higher level of risk than merely sticking Marci's letter on the wrong book or writing a barely-legible name on f1r.  

If someone proved that the letter was not attached to the book when he bought it, he could claim that unfortunately it had been removed by the Jesuits before the sale, and he only got it a few years later, but could not reveal that detail because reasons.  

If someone proved that the scribble on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was not Jacobus's signature and was not 16th century, he could claim that it must have been written by some librarian at the Jesuits, and he did not know that.

But if the book was proven to be a recent forgery, he would be in big trouble. He could not claim that the Jesuits had forged it, or added a forged book to the PUG stash after 1900. If he had managed to sell the book to a Rich Banker, he would be facing jail. 

On the third hand, what you told recently about the other "lost books" that he managed to "find" may mean that he had already passed that risk threshold.  Maybe he indeed was a front for a forger, but through an intermediary.

I recently saw a video about a famous gallery in the US that had to close after it was revealed that they had sold dozens of forged paintings, supposedly by modern American "masters" like Pollock.  The gallery had bought them from a woman who claimed to be handling the estate of a Mexican magnate who had amassed a large collection of such paintings.  The actual forger was a Chinese painter who had immigrated to the US (and quickly fled back to China when the scheme blew up).  He managed to get the right materials, and imitated the styles so well that many experts who examined the paintings had declared them genuine. The gallery owners had never dealt with him and did not definitely know that the paintings were forged; they were just too happy to believe the woman's story, for the obvious reason.

So I think it is quite possible that Wilfrid was acting as an indirect front for forgers, like that gallery. Were it not for my other reasons, I would now consider modern forgery a real possibility...

All the best, --stolfi