- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 9 hours ago
(9 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.IIRC, the letter was supposedly written by Marci's secretary, at a time when his eyesight was failing and he could no longer write by himself.
This supposition can --rather conveniently-- explain almost any suspicious aspect of the letter, including the pantographic accuracy of the signature that Rich has observed.
Is there any evidence for the idea of a secretary penning the letter?
We can be confident of Marci's age at the time ... but that explanation of the letter's anomalies is completely circumstantial. I'm curious as to what the evidence is that his sight was failing to that extent, and that he had ceased to write his own letters? Or that an assistant was involved in his letter writing by that time?
--A -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 6 hours ago
(11 hours ago)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't have the knowledge to talk about the Latin, but why is a guy possessing paper from different sources a "very serious problem"?
Hi Koen, and Happy New Year.
You have misunderstood my phrasing. What I wrote was, "... we are told he could have had many brand papers, and that "scribe", and a hundred other excuses for a hundred other, very serious problems, that other manuscripts, and other letters, simply do not have."
Each problem with the letter, and with the Voynich, have varying levels of problems. No, I would not say that the owning different paper would be a "very serious problem", and I didn't, as you mistakenly thought. And I was including the Voynich by adding in "manuscripts", which is why it is "hundreds of other serious problems". The letter probably has a half dozen or so problems.
But I would say it is a "problem" that the paper does not match, because it shows the paper used in the letter in question is from a different source than his other letters. That fits with the letter being a forgery on the one hand, because it would have been hard for a forger to find the exact paper Marci used on other letters, which used a foolscap watermark.
And then it is a problem for you, because in order to dismiss this anomaly, you have to suppose situations you have no evidence for, in order to explain it. In this case it was one or more of, "Marci had multiple papers; or the scribe had different papers". That is called an "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". No, before I am accused of using an ad homonem there, of course not! The "ignorance" in that form of false argument refers to using a lack of evidence as evidence, "The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."
This same argument is necessary, and often used, to defend many problems with the Voynich, and written here, on this very forum, as a defense, and worded as, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is a false argument, known as another form of "argument from ignorance". Among other arguments, it was used to dismiss the proper observation that (even made by Yale itself) that the Voynich's foldouts were "highly unusual". Lisa pointed out that, since only about 10% of all Medieval manuscripts survive, "we don't know" if other manuscripts do exist, with foldouts, among those missing 90%. While strictly, logically, technically true, it is not how science is done, not at all. For that 10%, being a very good cross sampling of all manuscripts, of all ages, geography, purpose, value, and so on, and does then give a very reasonable description of the understanding of how manuscripts were made.
Without sampling, most science would grind to a halt. And think of this, it is why Yale called them, "highly unusual" in the first place... it was that 10% they know about, which do exist. They tell us something, otherwise we all ought to pack up and go home, because we will never find every, single, one.
Ok then... for the problem of the paper not matching the other papers Marci used, you can only suppose he or his scribe "may" have had other papers. On the contrary, I have actual evidence I do not have to suppose, nor imagine, because I have it right in front of me, in front of us: Different paper. No, not "proof", but evidence. Put another way, my evidence need is fulfilled already; you must still hope to find yours, or continue to claim it is out there somewhere, without finding it.
As for what I would consider rising to "serious problems", for the 1665/66 Marci letter, I would list that bad Latin; and the fact it does not fold on the lines into a letter or envelope as all real letters do; and the fact that it refers to the Bacon rumor decades after Marci would have obviously already told Kircher about these things already. Other problems might be Voynich claiming he didn't see the letter (until he needed it for his Bacon fiction), and the absolute perfect overlay of the signature and date... well, except where someone seems to have added a line to make that "5" into a "6". It is a mass of problems, that one letter. And rather than any of these problems being explained, each time it is investigated deeper, new problems crop up! And those, in turn, do not get explained properly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But really, trying to defend all the many problems with that letter are a problem in itself. Looking and dealing with them individually ignores another "serious" problem: The overall context of all of those problems together, a situation which strains credibility.
And here is one more thing which relates to all this: For the Voynich to be a modern fake, it does not "need" that letter to be fake. I mean, it fits with my hypothesis and the timeline of it, that it would be fake, but it does not really matter one way or the other. Also, it does not matter to the 1420 Genuine Theory that it be real, either. It could simply be that Voynich, with a real manuscript, wanted to steer toward Bacon, or whatever, and faked the letter.
But the thing is, if that letter goes away, then probably 90% of the current "Voynich Story" also goes away... no Marci, no Rudolf, and none of the vast corpus of scholarship surrounding them, all evaporate. The 1420 Genuine theory would basically have to start from scratch, because that story is what the letter actually supports, that is its real importance, and not the genuine nature of the Voynich really, at all. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 6 hours ago
(11 hours ago)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It should be noted that the paper is of the correct time that we would expect. This should cast serious doubts on a fake proposal. Though I doubt it will..
As most forgeries are purposefully made with period materials, and forgers go to great lengths to obtain them, no, finding period correct paper does not at all cast doubts on a fake possibility. Even ancient bark, found in a cave, was used to forge MesoAmerican codices. Wood, ivory, paper, canvas, were all sourced by forgers.
But of course the materials are chosen by forgers based on the current state of the ability of the contemporary forensic sciences* to date and locate them. So, for instance, Voynich would have of course known the dating of the paper with the three hat watermark. This was already an area of scholarship widely known, and certainly by book dealers and collectors.
And Voynich knew paper, and sold much blank paper. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but he is known to have sold antique paper to the famous engraver, McBey. McBey writes about this in his biography. He liked old paper. In fact, McBey compiled a collection of papers which illustrated the history of paper production, as a reference to date paper (this is why it is always good to have these conversations, because, because of it I just realized it may be possible to see the watermarks on McBey's art! Wonder if he used "Tres Cappelli" paper, ever?).
TLDR: No, finding period correct paper on a forgery by Voynich would not at all be a problem, we would expect it to be exactly what he would do.
* Which is why, I posit, the paper is the right age, but the parchment he chose for the Voynich was not. Voynich would have known the age of the paper; but without predicting C14 testing, he got the parchment wrong... wrong for the 1550 to 1650 intended (I propose) content; and wrong for his Bacon nonsense. Today, a forger would have their parchment radiocarbon dated... and so, of course, would have Voynich. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 6 hours ago
Well I'll be... darned. I wanted to look at this years ago, but dropped the ball until just now. It looks like I have a field trip in my future:
"The James McBey collection of watermarked paper : fifty-seven original examples of paper made in Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries / together with a catalogue by Colin Cohen and an introduction by Nicolas Barker."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I knew that book existed, and referenced it to Bluetoes101, above... but I'm not sure if I went as far as looking it up, until just now.
I wonder if he kept a record of who sold him that paper, with that book? I wonder if there are examples of the Tre Cappelli watermark? And if so, it is the same Tre Cappelli watermark, not a variation?
Well that is getting way ahead of this issue, and a very, very long shot. But its worth a trip, or, an excuse for one... -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 5 hours ago
I do think though that for people reading we should say,
1. The paper is (as far as we know atm) the right age
2. The writing has been identified as 17C writing
This is enough evidence for most documents to be deemed legitimate from the time stated in the document, at least from what I have seen while browsing museum and library items.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Different paper (watermark) to usual, and weird Latin can be explained for "team legitimate" much easier than explaining time correct paper and writing for "team forgery". So I don't think it really adds to evidence of forgery (inc VMS).
If Wilfrid did sell old paper and knew the dates from which each come from, and knew of watermarks that would be interesting and make things a bit more suspicious. I'd be interested to see if he did (know dates and associated watermarks).
Here is one to ponder though.. why would anyone care what some guy in 17C heard from some other guy in regards to "Bacon"? It seems they didn't, as Wilfrid got stuck with his manuscript. Why not just take some of his (what he considered 13C) vellum and write some stuff on that? The provenance of "some guy 400 years after the fact heard from a guy that maybe..." is about as terrible a thing as you could think of doing given practically anything is available to you. Dee is said to have had around 50 Bacon pieces. Just write "heard from Dee" and not "Raphael".. or just anything more convincing that you can imagine.
Also, if Wilfrid had all this material laying about and he, or someone he hired, had a very convincing 17C hand, why not "discover" more provenance once the first batch were a dud? It seems like a case of Wilfrid being very intelligent where needed and very silly where needed.. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 5 hours ago
(6 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."The James McBey collection of watermarked paper : fifty-seven original examples of paper made in Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries / together with a catalogue by Colin Cohen and an introduction by Nicolas Barker."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Good find! Be very interested to see if we have our three hats in here
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 4 hours ago
(6 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for what I would consider rising to "serious problems", for the 1665/66 Marci letter, I would list that bad Latin;
In 2002, Margaret Garber successfully defended a PhD thesis about Marci's philospohical writings. In the committee was Joseph Smolka, who has studied Marci's life, and published about him continually since the 1960's. The title of the thesis is:
Garber, M.: Optics and alchemy in the philosophical writings of Marcus Marci in post-Rudolphine Prague 1612-1670, dissertation submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, San Diego, 2002.
In this thesis she literally writes that "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners".
His Latin was cumbersome.
This is a feature of Marci's writing. The opposite of evidence that this letter is not genuine. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 4 hours ago
(5 hours ago)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(5 hours ago)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2. The writing has been identified as 17C writing
What does that mean?
That the style of writing is consistent with the date on the letter.
I'd thought Lisa had commented on this, but maybe I am hallucinating.
Anyway, you don't really need a degree in these things to see. What we would be expecting for the time and place is Italic. You wouldn't expect a 20C hand to write in Italic.
Though if someone knew of the right paper to use, they probably knew of the right style to imitate too.