The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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

Jorge- I know I sound like a broken record, but I really think many people here would enjoy the stories from the history of forgery. You relate yet another one which I had not heard of... I'll look that up.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Voynich may or may not have been aware of owning or selling any forgeries, except for the Columbus miniature, as we can't prove this. All my arguments speculative in that area. But that being said, it is interesting to know the behavior and practice of the book dealers of Voynich's time, as related by Millicent Sowerby: In her biography she relates that any time a buyer suspected a book they bought was fake, or not as described in some way (condition, wrong edition, whatever), the dealer would not argue, not question, they would simply apologize, take the book back, and give a full refund.

Which is nice, really, but the effect of that behavior is that the instances of forged books being sold was then undocumented. There was no fight over it... no public argument or court case, nothing... just a smile and a refund. So we have NO idea how often this actually happened.

One story I love is one Edgar Allen Poe wrote about in the 19th century. He was very concerned when he learned of a technique which forgers did use, and the results of which he did see, for forging incunabula! This is never discussed today, even in the age of the internet. The process... I don't remember the name... involved soaking the pages of a genuine book in acid... I think, sulfuric acid?... which would not damage the ink nor the paper, but only soak into the paper, and not into the ink. Then this wetted sheet was pressed against a smooth zinc plate, and the acid would eat away the zinc, but not where the ink was. The result was a zinc printing plate that was an exact facsimile of the original. Using period paper, and period ink formulas, it would produce forgeries that were indistinguishable from the original in almost every way. It is believed that some number of such forgeries still exist in many collections, today.

One "tell" of such forgeries was that original typeface is not even. All the type letters press unequally in the surface. Hoffman, when he used a similar method to forge his "Oath of a Freeman", meticulously filed down a selection of the resulting type on his plate (which he had made by a different method, by an outside entity) so that if the depth of pressing was observed, it would look authentic. The recent (last 20 years?) forged Galileo Sidereus Nuncius  was similarly created with a fake plastic plate, digitally mastered from the original book. I think one of the reasons it was disclosed (by Wilding) was that it was ironically too good! That is, the forgery also had repeated flaws in one copy of the original, that other copies should not have. Or like that.

Anyway, a topic I love, so I'm rambling a bit. The lesson I learned is "never assume"... Don't assume something is real, because many are not, and never assume that any dealer never sold forgeries, because most actually did... whether they knew it or not. Never assume anything is impossible to forge, or forge perfectly, because everything is possible to forge. And never assume that all forgeries are found out, because logically this is not true: If any forgery is undetected, it is undetected still, and not counted among disclosures. We don't know how many forgeries are out there. Many people who have studied forgeries realize that it is actually, probably, a very high percentage. Right under the nose of the best experts in the world.

I met and spent some time with the artist Sanborn, who created of course the famous Kryptos sculpture (thanks to my friend Elonka, who invented myself and other friends to a filmed event at his studio before Covid). In his studio were many replicas of MesoAmerican statuary he was carving, as part of a project which was intended to bring to attention the phenomenon of forgery in the world. Afterwards I sent him a copy of "Faking Ancient MesoAmerica" as he had not heard of it. It is one of my favorite books on forgery: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

My favorite quote from that book,

"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dimsissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."- Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, "Faking Mesoamerica"