The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

One case that stands out is the anomaly, and possible (to me probable) gross anachronism of the use of foldouts in the Voynich. There simply is no other example from the time revealed by the C14 tests. Yes, "accordion type" prayer books, .... (omissis, but interesting reading)

The foldouts are a double-edged sword for the modern forgery theory (MFT). They can be seen as a 'gross anachronism' where, consequently, Voynich (a master forgerer according to MFT) made a gross revealing error (and for no discernible purpose I can think of, why add foldouts in the first place?), or as someone who long ago thought he really needed some more space for all those cool diagrams he had in mind and used some of the low quality  parchment he had to add the foldouts (mores of the times notwithstanding).

The reasoning you use here I have seen many times before, in this and slightly different forms, and I totally disagree. You see, I do NOT believe he, or whoever was responsible for this tragedy, was a "master forger". I think the Voynich a sloppy and low skilled mess of poor artistic ability, and a loose choice of a wide range of colorful styles, construction methods, materials and images from hundreds of years, from multiple cultures, diverse disciplines, all picked somewhat "willy-nilly" by an imaginative showman, who was trying to create his own colorful, if approximate, but still exciting version of "a cool old herbal".

And I have heard that it "must be" a good forgery if it fooled so many. But how something appears to some... even many... people is not necessarily an indication of how much like that thing it actually is. Think of just how many years that dog of a forgery, the Vineland Map, fooled many thousands of people. That didn't help turn it into a genuine map one bit... it always was what it was, a bad fake.

So why do I think the Voynich fooled for so long, and continues to?:

1) The timing: It came out when standards were more "loosey goosey", and then, like a concrete foundation, set there, its old reputation being carried along into the modern age. As I have often pointed out, I believe that if the Voynich were presented in modern times, say 2012, it would be laughed off the stage as a very poor forgery. It has instead been riding on an out-dated set of standards that no longer should apply.

2) While it is a poor manuscript, with bad illustrations, it is still exciting and mysterious to many. I've heard it said, in many ways, that people would be disappointed if it turned to be a forgery. I know of at least two people who gave up and dropped the thing like a hot rock after they came to agree with me. All the fun times would end.

3) Reputational Investment in Genuine: Many people have... I don't they should, but they do... seem to link their own reputations TO their own past opinions. It is, I have thought, as sort of "Sunk Cost Fallacy" of scholarship to do so... as though the years, the effort, invested, and one's personal image of being correct, is somehow tied to the respect others might have for them. This goes to institutions, too... which have  an "institutional image" to preserve. I am not alone in thinking this... several well known Vms researcher have openly mused as to how much Yale would have to "lose" if this were (another, now, after they finally admitted the Vinland Map is a fake) disclosed as a forgery. Or even, for that matter, generally believed to BE a forgery, even if they never openly admitted it.*

4) The current image of the Voynich as a wonderful, colorful, genuine and old mystery is in the form of a very powerful paradigm, which, by correct and proper, but also some very wrong methods, preserves and defends itself. The people relied on by the Institutions to decide what opinions are shared, and which will not be, and who has access to materials and tests, and who has access to what results of tests (it took me over 10 years to shake loose the C14 report ALONE... and another to have them release [most of] the photomicrographs... we still do not have many tests which have been done)... and who gets to speak on their own varied theories, or what they will be "allowed" to say, if they do...

I mean, the picture you are offered, of the Voynich, is not anything close to what we actually know about it, or should know about it. It is a carefully curated, heavily promoted, and fiercely protected image, an image which relies far more on the exclusion of facts and opinions, and tweaking of those which are allowed to remain, to even come close to keeping the Bunnies and Roses picture we are fed, today.

For these and many reasons what one thinks one knows is not necessarily what is the truth of the matter. For that, one has to forge through and dig deep, and have a really hard shell, one which must be maintained for years, and even decades.

Reasoning a fortiori in favor of MFT I can't really give more than even 1:1 odds to the two possibilities, which changes nothing for MFT nor for the ancient manuscript theory, so for me the evidence from the foldouts is at best (for MFT) irrelevant. But not reasoning a fortiori I'd give at least 1:3 against "Voynich the forgerer made a purposeless gross mistake", which is a (quite weak, by itself) evidence against MFT.

Well I'm not sure how to apply those odds you give there, that is, I don't understand exactly what you mean. But I could and would and will argue until the cows come home the very obvious fact that the very curious and rare appearance of an admittedly (by Yale) "highly unusual" presence of these foldouts in the Voynich is far from an "irrelevant" bit of evidence, and actually one of the chief damning traits of the thing.

And Voynich didn't make a mistake in using them, let alone a gross one... most, like you, are perfectly fine with it. So it was actually quite a clever use if you think about it, it has continued to work for over 100 years! It is I who is in the minority in believing it is a real problem for old and genuine.

Rich

* One of my favorite quotes, which goes to the heart of our points here, is this one, from the excellent book, Faking MesoAmerica:

"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 dismissed 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"