- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 04-11-2025, 06:27 AM
(03-11-2025, 03:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The purpose of the hypothesis would be to determine if it was the Voynich, or another manuscript entirely, and then describe what it could have looked like, and maybe help in finding it, if it still exists.
I can't resist...
Given that you don't accept the text in the Barschius letter to be an adequate description of the Voynich MS, finding one that does fit seems like an impossible task. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 04-11-2025, 07:33 AM
(04-11-2025, 06:27 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(03-11-2025, 03:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The purpose of the hypothesis would be to determine if it was the Voynich, or another manuscript entirely, and then describe what it could have looked like, and maybe help in finding it, if it still exists.
I can't resist...
Given that you don't accept the text in the Barschius letter to be an adequate description of the Voynich MS, finding one that does fit seems like an impossible task.
Clever point. But it doesn't really follow, does it.
Being an inadequate description of one document does not mean that it cannot be a more adequate description of some other document.
Furthermore the letter might be describing the other document with equal inadequacy -- which would have a bearing on the strength of connection to the VMS (since the two documents would become tied for the honor.) Or the other document could come along with additional evidence securing a superior connection to the letter (e.g. suppose it had an inscription by Barschius himself echoing the same description.) -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-11-2025, 09:37 AM
(04-11-2025, 06:27 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Given that you don't accept the text in the Barschius letter to be an adequate description of the Voynich MS, finding one that does fit seems like an impossible task.
Well, there are a few other seemingly encrypted manuscripts that, at the time, were known but not deciphered. Like the Tables of Soyga. The Rohonc codex even had mysterious illustrations.
And those are famous because of their material history, not so much because of themselves. So I bet that there are quite a few more "mysterious undeciphered manuscripts with unidentified plant and astronomical drawings" that have escaped public attention, because thy lack an interesting history, and are just sitting on obscure shelves.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 04-11-2025, 11:30 AM
Let me spell out the situation one last time.
The Barschius letter is a genuine letter from the 17th century, from a man known to be a close frend of Marci, and who left his library to Marci in his testament. All this is historical fact, from documents that Voynich had nothing to do with.
The letter describes a book written in unknown characters, with a great many pictures of herbs, stars and things looking like chemical symbolism. The herbs are described as unrecognisable. Let's call this book 'A'.
It really existed and Barschius owned it.
Now Voynich ended up in 1912 with an old manuscript, written in illegible characters, with mostly pictures of herbs but also stars and other things (yes, nymphs). Let's call this book 'B'.
The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich.
Can it be a coincidence, that Voynich created a book written in illegible characters, with mostly pictures of herbs but also stars and other things (yes, nymphs), supposedly from Prague, that so closely matched one that actually existed (our book 'A').
We are not talking about another 'complete works of Cicero' here. This is a very specific and highly unusual book.
So no, also Rich understands that this cannot be a coincidence, and it is therefore proposed that Voynich must have seen the Barschius letter, and created the fake (book 'B') based on it.
Now, the argument is, that Book 'B' must be a fake, because it supposedly does not sufficiently match the description in the Barschius letter.
Think about it.....
The book 'B', created based on the description in the letter, does not really look like the description, and therefore it is the book based on the description in the letter.
I have argued this before, and perhaps I was not explicit enough. This time, I think that I was, and I will leave it at that.
Everybody may form their own opinion about this. I may not hold it against you
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 04-11-2025, 11:48 AM
More generally, let us not forget that the existence of information about provenance is secondary in the whole discussion of fakes.
It is never decisive.
Genuine old books may or may not have a known provenance. In most cases, provenance information is patchy.
Fakes have no history and are very likely to have no realistic provenance.
This means:
No provenance? Nothing can be concluded.
Provenance information available? Much less likely to be a fake.
Provenance is secondary.
Fakes are detected exclusively by inspection, analysis and testing. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Antonio García Jiménez > 04-11-2025, 12:27 PM
I admire ReneZ's Franciscan patience -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 04-11-2025, 03:03 PM
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Barschius letter is a genuine letter from the 17th century, from a man known to be a close frend of Marci, and who left his library to Marci in his testament.
It doesn't seem that anyone has questioned any of that.
All this is historical fact, from documents that Voynich had nothing to do with.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The letter describes a book written in unknown characters, with a great many pictures of herbs, stars and things looking like chemical symbolism. The herbs are described as unrecognisable. Let's call this book 'A'.
Presumably true -- there's been no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter or that its contents are honest.
It really existed and Barschius owned it.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That is one reason that the description is of concern. It is also important because the entire theory of the provenance of the VMS hinges on that description.
The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich.
And, while it may be hard for some to understand, whether the scenario around the genuine manuscript theory is certain or not is relevant to discussions of any theory about the book being fake.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Absolutely yes -- it could be a coincidence. There are many books of herbs from that era. There may be books also including stars. And almost all of them include "other things", but, in particular, things relating to alchemisty. It would not be at all surprising for another book to match that description equally well.
Can it be a coincidence, that Voynich created a book written in illegible characters, with mostly pictures of herbs but also stars and other things (yes, nymphs), supposedly from Prague, that so closely matched one that actually existed (our book 'A').
We are not talking about another 'complete works of Cicero' here. This is a very specific and highly unusual book.
That we haven't found one does not prove it does not exist.
In fact, both of the golden arguments that are so often used against any possibility of a fake VMS apply:
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- 95% of all historical documents remain undiscovered.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I avoid speaking for what Rich thinks or for anyone else, but in this case I think I can say no -- Rich understands your argument well enough, but also recognizes it is not fact (which with all due respect, you seem not to.) That the letter is actually describing the VMS is a a definite possibility -- but it remains a supposition.
So no, also Rich understands that this cannot be a coincidence, and it is therefore proposed that Voynich must have seen the Barschius letter, and created the fake (book 'B') based on it.
And it's important to note that supposition is largely made based on the connection of the VMS back to Marci due to his letter being found colocated with the VMS 250 years later in 1912. And that discovery by Wilfred, itself has suspicious circumstances. (Because let's face it.. if Wilfred acquired the book and that letter was in the front-piece, it is huge stretch to believe he would not have immediately seen it and been compelled by the date and signature to immediately translate it. )
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
No -- that is not the argument. Rich is not arguing that the insufficiency of the description causes B it to be fake. The fact that the description could easily be referring
Now, the argument is, that Book 'B' must be a fake, because it supposedly does not sufficiently match the description in the Barschius letter.
to a different book is important because it directly impacts the generally accepted provenance of the VMS (book B). In fact, the ENTIRE evidence for the provenance of the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 hinges on that letter describing the book B and no other book.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Think about it.....
The description is not inadequate because it does not describe the VMS (as a potential forger might leverage); it is inadequate because it does not describe the VMS well enough to single it out from all others (which is what the entire provenance of the VMS depends on.)
The book 'B', created based on the description in the letter, does not really look like the description, and therefore it is the book based on the description in the letter.
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have argued this before, and perhaps I was not explicit enough. This time, I think that I was, and I will leave it at that.
Everybody may form their own opinion about this. I may not hold it against you
You have been fairly explicit. But you have not recognized the actual claims being made nor why your argument misses them. (And I don't hold it against you.) -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Koen G > 04-11-2025, 03:33 PM
(04-11-2025, 03:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In fact, the ENTIRE evidence for the provenance of the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 hinges on that letter describing the book B and no other book.
I agree that without that letter, there would be much less we could say. And even with the letter, I think some caution is required in trying to reconstruct the earlier provenance. For example, it would be great to have more evidence that Rudolf owned the MS (rather than it being present in courtly circles). You will never hear me say that Rudolf owned the MS with absolute certainty.
But the claim that the entire pre-Wilfrid provenance hinges on that letter is not true, or at least misleading. For example, Lisa matched the annotations on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to Marci's hand: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And the binding history of the MS is consistent with the broad strokes of the suggested provenance (going by Lisa's summary): first bound in medieval European fashion between wooden boards, then bound in limp vellum consistent with the practice of the Jesuits.
And like Rene says, the letter is extra: even if the MS was found in someone's attic yesterday, we would still (after analysis of material, images and text) come to the conclusion that it is a 15th century original with multiple stages of previous ownership. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 04-11-2025, 03:58 PM
(04-11-2025, 03:33 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I was not saying it hinges on the Marci letter found in the VMS front-piece. It hinges on the description in the Baresh letter. Lisa's analysis applies to the authenticity of the Marci letter -- nothing to do with what book Baresh was describing.(04-11-2025, 03:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In fact, the ENTIRE evidence for the provenance of the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 hinges on that letter describing the book B and no other book.
I agree that without that letter, there would be much less we could say. And even with the letter, I think some caution is required in trying to reconstruct the earlier provenance. For example, it would be great to have more evidence that Rudolf owned the MS (rather than it being present in courtly circles). You will never hear me say that Rudolf owned the MS with absolute certainty.
But the claim that the entire pre-Wilfrid provenance hinges on that letter is not true, or at least misleading. For example, Lisa matched the annotations on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to Marci's hand: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(04-11-2025, 03:33 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And the binding history of the MS is consistent with the broad strokes of the suggested provenance (going by Lisa's summary): first bound in medieval European fashion between wooden boards, then bound in limp vellum consistent with the practice of the Jesuits.
It is consistent with the "suggested provenance" that the VMS is very old ... it has nothing to do with the description in the letter or whose hands touched the book.
And any competent forgery attempts to simulate features that suggest it being older than it is. That the thread and binding would have been infeasible to simulate (by Voynich or anyone else) is a valid argument in relation to the overall modern fake theory, but it is an entirely separate line of evidence than the letters or descriptions and their impact what we know of the provenance before 1912. (And that provenance is one of the most common arguments used to support the genuine-15th century theory because it is one of the things that a forger is least able to fake.)
(04-11-2025, 03:33 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And like Rene says, the letter is extra: even if the MS was found in someone's attic yesterday, we would still (after analysis of material, images and text) come to the conclusion that it is a 15th century original with multiple stages of previous ownership.
We absolutely could. But we would still have to explain any evidence that is at odds with that scenario. And Rich has proposed several pieces of such evidence. The Baresh letter description is not among his evidence for a forgery; it is just the critical evidence for the provenance scenario between all of 1438 and 1912. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
nablator > 04-11-2025, 04:15 PM
(04-11-2025, 03:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Absolutely yes -- it could be a coincidence. There are many books of herbs from that era. There may be books also including stars. And almost all of them include "other things", but, in particular, things relating to alchemisty. It would not be at all surprising for another book to match that description equally well.
But how many of them depicted "exotic plants which have escaped observation here in Germany" (Barschius to Kircher 1639)? Given how unrealistic many illustrations were in herbals, they had to be really weird (as many in the VM are) to be called exotic...