• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
• The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Mauro > 04-11-2025, 04:24 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.

  
  Well, no. The first evidence is the C14 dating, coupled  with the fact that vellum was generally used a little time after it was made (I'd guess in a few years). It's not impossible for pristine vellum to sit unused for ~500 years, but it's quite improbable, expecially in the quantity needed for the VMS. It's not enough to say 'he might have found 500-years old pristine vellum when he bought a whole library': unless you can demonstrate he actually found pristine vellum there or that at least it was highly probable to find it, it's just an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. hypothesis.
  
  It's also not impossible that a forger will use unusual foldouts, then bind his forgery out of order and add additional quire marks, add arcane marginalia and doodles, then add stains, damages, colour transfers etc. in so good a way to be undistinguishable from what usually happens to a manuscript during 500 years of history, then cut away pages, then replace the cover and rework the binding... But all this to happen is, again, quite improbable.
  
  The Baresch letter is fully expected on the hypothesis that the Voynich existed when he wrote, it's also fully expected if some other similarly unreadable manuscript was involved too, of course, but we know the Voynich exists and has the right characteristics, while we do not know of another comparable manuscript which could have been referenced by Baresch. Occam's razor favors the first hypothesis (even if this is a rather weak evidence compared to C14 and the overall status of the manuscript).
  
  Add in the Tepenecz signature, then the fact he wanted to sell the manuscript as a Roger Bacon work but did not put in the book even a hint of it being Bacon's (microscopes in the recipe section are in the eye of the beholder, imho), etc. Everything we know is explained quite well by the hypothesis the VMS was penned in the XVth century, while the hypothesis of it being a XXth century forgery requires a lot of improbabilities to be overcome, that's the harsh reality.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  asteckley > 04-11-2025, 04:28 PM

  (04-11-2025, 04:15 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (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...

  Good point -- I missed collecting that reference into the set that I itemized (previously) for where descriptive references were made.
  And it does help to narrow the description.
  
  We should be careful on the precise words used, by the way, as they are all translations from an old version of Latin. The actual word used was not the English word "exotic", but the Latin word "peregrinae", which can simply mean foreign or non-native. 
  
  The English translation you are quoting was obtained by Philip Neal (not a linguist) from the translation of another person (I forget his name) whose expertise and effort on those letters is unclear. (He later published a book about some of his Latin translation work and curiously omitted any mention of those letters.)

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  asteckley > 04-11-2025, 05:03 PM

  (04-11-2025, 04:24 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (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.

  
  Well, no. The first evidence is the C14 dating, coupled  ... the hypothesis of it being a XXth century forgery requires a lot of improbabilities to be overcome, that's the harsh reality.

  Yes, yes, we all know there is the whole set of evidence that is consistent with the genuine 15th century theory. No one has said there isn't. None of that changes what I said (and which you quoted).  
  
  If the hypothetical book described by Baresch were to be found today, then all of the provenance that we have for the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 simply collapses. That alone shows that everything about the provenance (actually just prior to 1912, since the C-14 does not prove when the book was written) hinges on the described book being the VMS and only the VMS.
  
  And finding such a book wouldn't prove the modern forgery theory -- and no one has claimed that either. It would only negate one of the most common arguments used to say the VMS definitely existed by the 17th century.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Mauro > 04-11-2025, 05:44 PM

  (04-11-2025, 05:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the hypothetical book described by Baresch were to be found today, then all of the provenance that we have for the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 simply collapses.

  
  No no, sorry. If that book were to be found just a rather weak (*) piece of evidence for the VMS being written in XVth century would collapse.  And, by the way, the Baresch letter does not estabilish provenance, it just estabilishes a terminus ante quem.
  
  The bulk of the evidence would remain intact: C14, which does not prove VMS was written in the XVth century, but which makes it highly probable, the unusual steps the faker must have taken (yet again possible, but highly improbable), and the overall physical status of the manuscript (ditto for probabilities), + miscellaneous facts (ditto&ditto). The modern forgery hypothesis would need a lot more evidence, besides finding the yet-to-be-found Baresch manuscript, before becoming viable.
  
  (*) weak, because we cannot prove Baresch was actually talking about the VMS

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  asteckley > 04-11-2025, 06:07 PM

  (04-11-2025, 05:44 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (04-11-2025, 05:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the hypothetical book described by Baresch were to be found today, then all of the provenance that we have for the VMS between ~1438 and 1912 simply collapses.

  
  No no, sorry. If that book were to be found just a rather weak (*) piece of evidence for the VMS being written in XVth century would collapse.  And, by the way, the Baresch letter does not estabilish provenance, it just estabilishes a terminus ante quem.
  
  The bulk of the evidence would remain intact: C14, which does not prove VMS was written in the XVth century, but which makes it highly probable, the unusual steps the faker must have taken (yet again possible, but highly improbable), and the overall physical status of the manuscript (ditto for probabilities), + miscellaneous facts (ditto&ditto). The modern forgery hypothesis would need a lot more evidence, besides finding the yet-to-be-found Baresch manuscript, before becoming viable.
  
  (*) weak, because we cannot prove Baresch was actually talking about the VMS

  
  I’m sorry, but you’re conflating unrelated issues and misattributing points -- too much to justify further response.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Koen G > 04-11-2025, 07:45 PM

  Just to make sure that I understand correctly. When you say the entire pre-Wilfrid provenance depends on our correct assessment of the Baresch letter, you are implicitly also assuming that the Marci letter did not belong to the VM, correct? Otherwise I'd guess we would fall back to that for our earliest provenance (hence my confusion).

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  proto57 > 04-11-2025, 08:42 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. All this is historical fact, from documents that Voynich had nothing to do with.

  
  Of course, agreed. 
  
  

  Quote: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.

  Yes, agreed. We must remember the context, though... the characters were "unknown" to these men who discussed book A, at the time they wrote about them. We can't assume, I mean, that they would have still been unknown any time after that, to them or anyone else. While that is only an important point in some contexts, while I have you again, I point it out. 
  

  Quote: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'.

  
  Ok, good idea. 
  
  

  Quote:The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich.

  That is AN argument, but really unrelated to the question as to whether or not books A and B are the same. The Voynich could be real or fake, but I contend that the descriptions of the book the "Men of the Letters" (MOTL) were referring to because of the reasons listed below. I have a more complete breakdown of the descriptions on my page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but actually, since I wrote that, I can add a couple more.
  
  1) The descriptions of A lack important, obvious features in book B. Considering the purpose of those descriptions was to help Kircher determine the nature of book A, this is, alone, clear evidence they were looking at a different book. Among the things not mentioned were the Zodiacal symbols, many nude women, the tubes and colored baths, the "magic wheels", unusual devices, items which look anatomical, the many cylinders, and the "signature". Even if one contends that for modesty/propriety sake they left out the nudes (this argument has been presented more than once), still, mentioning many "bathing women" would have been an obvious and valuable bit of description to Kircher... but the lack of mention of the zodiac might rise above that. But trumping all might be not mentioning the signature... that alone could make the case that A was not B. The FIRST thing that Kircher would have been told was whose name was on it, if it was on A. For that, I've heard the excuse... I think it is in a comment on my page on the signature... that it was "too light" for the MOTL, but darkened later. Also, that Voynich added the signature, as I think he probably did.
  
  2) The "chemical symbolism" description: If you look at the hundreds of examples of chemical symbols which were familiar to the MOTL, only one, I think... on the Rosettes pages... the "clock hands"... would match the term. Is there a second? In any case, why would they go to such a comparison, with one or few examples, yet ignore the items in my #1, above?
  
  3) "Exotic" plants... Andrew pointed this out, the actual word translates closer to "foreign". But in any case, "exotic" or "foreign", I don't see how this particularly points to the Voynich, and no other. Even today one could have a book of plants and describe them as "exotic". And "unknown to the Germans"? So, book A was an herbal with plants they did not know. I know others here, and elsewhere, think that would have been unique to the Voynich, if they had seen it, but I disagree... there are still a great many Medieval herbals out there, and the plants are drawn with a wide range of accuracy, often almost unidentifiable, and sometimes symbolically, and many are foreign to one another.
  
  4) Unknown script: OK there is unknown script, in there, but it is among a good number of matches to known Latin characters. Yet the Latin characters are not mentioned? This strongly implies they were not looking at book B, the Voynich. Especially since the entire reason for writing to Kircher was precisely because he had such a high reputation in languages and characters. An obvious and proper description would have been "With many unknown characters, intermixed with Latin letters".
  
  Considering these points, I think it clear that book A, the Baresch Manuscript, clearly NOT the Voynich in front of us, today. In fact, those descriptions are not only bad, they actually work against it being the Voynich.
  
  

  Quote: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').

  
  Well I disagree that it can be described as a "close match". It is a bad, to contrary comparison. If there was a scale of 1 to 10 likely hood, I'd give it maybe a 2" for the few items that matched; then subtract a good "5" for the things of great importance not in the descriptions... so, -3.
  
  

  Quote:We are not talking about another 'complete works of Cicero' here. This is a very specific and highly unusual book.

  
  But herbals abound, they are not so specific. All of the few features the men described can already be found in dozens, if not hundreds, of existing manuscripts, and even, in better form... such as better examples of "chemical symbolism". The stars are less common, but I have found them in several books with plants. So the Voynich is, yes, unique, but the descriptions of book A? Not unique. Still, I have not found a book that satisfactorily holds all the descriptions, but in part to the fact that I haven't determined an accurate list of characters... script... they would have felt "unknown" from there perspective. So we I... you, too... may have already seen it, just not realized it is book A. But many herbals are contenders, and certainly not rare.
  
  And as pointed out, if one uses the "absence of evidence" so often used to defend missing genuine evidence, such as the watermark, the foldouts, the overall style of everything, the plants, the writing, some test results...... I think Andrew made this point too, above... I could... do not, but could... simply say, "The match must be out there, we just haven't seen it yet". So I do not agree with that argument, but clearly many do, so I leave others with that dilemma. Does it no longer count, in this case? Why? 
  
  

  Quote: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.

  
  Well I think you fully well know, and have known for decades, that if Wilfrid could have either seen those letters, or heard of them through others, that it is a undermines even the slim value of them as provenance. For years you have claimed that it was impossible, that they were "under lock and seal", and Voynich had no chance of access.
  But looking closely at all aspects of this situation, and knowing and taking into consideration your arguments against it, I actually discovered that it is quite plausible that he saw them, or alternatively, was privy to some report on them, which may have mentioned the descriptions of book A. I give my findings, and reasoning, in this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  
  

  Quote:Now, the argument is, that Book 'B' must be a fake, because it supposedly does not sufficiently match the description in the Barschius letter.

  No, that is not at all my argument. Lack of evidence for genuine in no way means the work is fake. I believe it is fake for an entirely different set of reasons. What lack of evidence for real, such as provenance, does, simply means there is no evidence for real. Well, in a tangential sense it does imply it more likely, after finding none of the necessary evidence it existed after looking for a hundred and thirteen years, well into the internet age, too... it begins to become evidence of its own. But "must", no, I don't say that at all.
  
  The Voynich can still be real, but if it is, it is probably not the Barshius Manuscript. And that possibility causes a problem for those heavily invested in Marci and all that comes along with him, because all the eggs of 1420 Genuine research are in the basket of those descriptions, except for the C14 and a smattering of other points. So, for instance, if this turned out to be, say, a 1490 herbal from France, by Louis Smith, all the rest vanishes. And much time was wasted on false leads... I do wish, along with people considering my own ideas, that they were more open to the great many possibilities which hang on the single thread of those very poor, and even contrary, descriptions of book A. And I am not just saying that now, anyone who knows me that I have long helped others, with other ideas than mine, with their work. I don't necessarily agree they are correct, but I support their work.
  
  Point being, there are a great many people who believe the Voynich is 1420 Genuine, and genuine another century, or whatever... who also realize that the descriptions just do not match all that well. 
  
  

  Quote: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.

  
  There is a simple explanation for this, and it is a matter of both degree, and how well that degree of similarity worked for the purpose intended: So, those scant descriptions, in the Letters, of the Barschius Manuscript, were hoped to be close enough to convince others that the fake Voynich was one and the same manuscript, and so, serve as sufficient provenance for it. And the proof is in the pudding, they were more than enough, because they worked for 113 years, and are defended, today. This afternoon, in fact. But long ago, people start noticing... I'm far from the first... that those descriptions really are not that good of a match.
  
  But an herbal using ONLY those descriptions would not be very interesting, nor valuable. I've looked at the value of average herbals from the early 20th century, and a rough estimate would be around 1,000 British pound. So, around those few points were added all the bizarre excitement we see today... pushing to and beyond the limits of the descriptions, to create a work hoped to be of tremendous value.
  Rich

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  proto57 > 04-11-2025, 10:51 PM

  (04-11-2025, 04:24 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (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.

  
  Well, no. The first evidence is the C14 dating, coupled  with the fact that vellum was generally used a little time after it was made (I'd guess in a few years). It's not impossible for pristine vellum to sit unused for ~500 years, but it's quite improbable, expecially in the quantity needed for the VMS. It's not enough to say 'he might have found 500-years old pristine vellum when he bought a whole library': unless you can demonstrate he actually found pristine vellum there or that at least it was highly probable to find it, it's just an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. hypothesis.
  
  It's also not impossible that a forger will use unusual foldouts, then bind his forgery out of order and add additional quire marks, add arcane marginalia and doodles, then add stains, damages, colour transfers etc. in so good a way to be undistinguishable from what usually happens to a manuscript during 500 years of history, then cut away pages, then replace the cover and rework the binding... But all this to happen is, again, quite improbable.

  
  I see you are somewhat familiar with my theories, and used the (Yale) words "highly unusual" for the use of foldouts in a 15th century book. How do you explain... a real question, not really a challenge... how do you explain the use of foldouts this way, so much earlier than standard practice?
  
  Well of course the idea that Voynich could have found enough vellum at the Libreria Franceshini is a judgment call, and of course we don't have a record of it being there, and never will. But in my opinion, the fact he had this vast repository of 500,000 items of all types, certainly rises to the level of a plausible source for it. I don't know, Mauro, if you had seen this, but the quantity of parchment needed would have only been three quires of full folio size, which could be cut down to the size of the Voynich bifolios, and at the same time afford the source for the anachronistic foldouts... from uncut bifolios. I mention it in this context because I feel that idea, a physically possible idea, and supported by some evidence... is easier to picture than the four times greater number of bifolios needed if not cut down.
  
  There are instances of vellum, wood and bark being used by forgers up to millennia after it was made. And many cases of parchment sitting blank for centuries. But also, foldouts of this type are very anachronistic... not having shown up, for this type of use for about 150 years, or more, from the C14 dates.
  
  The last page marginalia was written with the same ink as the main text, according to McCrone.
  
  

  Quote:The Baresch letter is fully expected on the hypothesis that the Voynich existed when he wrote, it's also fully expected if some other similarly unreadable manuscript was involved too, of course, but we know the Voynich exists and has the right characteristics, while we do not know of another comparable manuscript which could have been referenced by Baresch. Occam's razor favors the first hypothesis (even if this is a rather weak evidence compared to C14 and the overall status of the manuscript).
  
  Add in the Tepenecz signature, then the fact he wanted to sell the manuscript as a Roger Bacon work but did not put in the book even a hint of it being Bacon's (microscopes in the recipe section are in the eye of the beholder, imho), etc.

  
  Again, a genuine question... have you thought about the fact that none of the letters describing the Voynich in the Carteggio, nor 1665/66 letter, mention the name of Tepenecz being there on f1r? How would you explain this omission by them?
  
  And to make it clear, I doubt this was created AS a Roger Bacon, and if those are microscopes... yes speculative microscopes... if that is what they are, there is an explanation, context, for why they would be there, in my hypothesis: They were known and described as being in the Court of Rudolf II, and I believe that was the intended, false origin for the manuscript.
  
  

  Quote:Everything we know is explained quite well by the hypothesis the VMS was penned in the XVth century, while the hypothesis of it being a XXth century forgery requires a lot of improbabilities to be overcome, that's the harsh reality.

  
  But here is another problem with that... the overwhelming majority of experts, of all backgrounds, did not think this was penned in the 15th century... not until the results of the C14 came back did all the opinions begin to abandon those later theories, and begin to drift towards early 15th century. I've NO doubt that if that C14 dating happened to be different than it is, the opinions would drift to THAT date, too. And so on.
  
  Why can I say that? How could I know that? Because I trust those experts. For instance, Charles Singer. Well I have heard so many excuses, post C14, as to why he wasn't the "right" expert, and that is why he "got it wrong". And all the others... I trust them. I even trust the two who hit the C14. I think they were all right. I think all the stuff they "saw" in there, is in there. And there is only one way that could have happened.
  
  But in any case, in order to hold the position that, "Everything we know is explained quite well by the hypothesis the VMS was penned in the XVth century...", one has to ignore the great number of expert opinions, and evidence, that says it was not.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  davidma > 04-11-2025, 11:14 PM

  (04-11-2025, 10:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
  
  But here is another problem with that... the overwhelming majority of experts, of all backgrounds, did not think this was penned in the 15th century... not until the results of the C14 came back did all the opinions begin to abandon those later theories, and begin to drift towards early 15th century. I've NO doubt that if that C14 dating happened to be different than it is, the opinions would drift to THAT date, too. And so on.
  
  Why can I say that? How could I know that? Because I trust those experts. For instance, Charles Singer. Well I have heard so many excuses, post C14, as to why he wasn't the "right" expert, and that is why he "got it wrong". And all the others... I trust them. I even trust the two who hit the C14. I think they were all right. I think all the stuff they "saw" in there, is in there. And there is only one way that could have happened.
  
  But in any case, in order to hold the position that, "Everything we know is explained quite well by the hypothesis the VMS was penned in the XVth century...", one has to ignore the great number of expert opinions, and evidence, that says it was not.

  
  That's simply not true, take D'Imperio's Elegant Enigma, page 9: the overwhelming majority of experts placed it sometime between 1400 and 1550, consistent with the C14 dating.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  ReneZ > 05-11-2025, 12:13 AM

  The "Voynich faked it" theory has evolved over time, and at present, in essence, it says [with some comments in square brackets]:
  
  The Voynich MS was intended to represent a herbal written by Jacobus de Tepenec, around the year 1600.
  [Sorry, who???? And someone used valuable old parchment to fake a document that would with certainty have been written on paper??]
  
  It was then changed, in order to make it more valuable, into an autograph by Roger Bacon, of the 13th century. To do this, some pages with incompatible material were removed.
  [Though, inexplicably, the armadillo, acceptable for Tepenec but not Bacon, was overlooked].
  
  Following is all my comment.
  As a result of this erratic behaviour, the book cannot be distinguished, even using all modern forensic testing, from a late medieval manuscript, with parchment from the start of the 15th century, clothing from the early 15th century, a 15th century zodiac.
  
  So that's the hypothesis. In order to believe it, one has to:
  1) find this acceptable
  2) find the description of the Voynich MS in the Barschius letter not acceptable
  
  I see that as a judgment issue. (I'm not into biblical quotes but the one with the splinter comes to mind).
  
  Note also that the Barschius letter does not exist in a vacuum, but is part of a larger context.
  Marci's book, published in 1662 and definitely genuine, mentions Barschius as his close friend, and Marci also writes that he had just inherited Barschius' library.
  
  A (definitely genuine) letter from Kinner to Kircher in early 1666 says that Marci had just sent an illegible book to Kircher, which he had asked to be translated. This shows that 'the Marci letter' should exist, and Barschius' book should have made its way to Kircher's library in the Roman Collegium Romanum. It is not just some book in Prague in 1639.
  
  Demonstrations that something is a fake are actually quite interesting.
  There are a few examples in literature.
  These demonstrations are also very difficult, because any aspect that can be explained in a normal way (like all of the above) is not valid evidence for a fake.
  
  I think I will write about that too. It is interesting in itself.
  
  It is valid to wonder if the Voynich MS could be a fake.
  One can also believe that the Voynich MS is a fake.
  That's where we are.
• Next Oldest Next Newest