- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 05-01-2026, 06:02 PM
(05-01-2026, 05:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The handwriting tells us all we need. If one really wants to believe that this is a forgery, then one automatically has to believe
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ["Yes, Wilfrid May Have Seen the Letters"]
Well I am very proud of that post, and there is nothing "incredible" about it. The possibility that Voynich could have seen the Carteggio, either in its repository... either the Villa Mondragone, or the Villa Torlonia in Castel Gandolfo, is based on your very own research, in your very own words! So if you disagree this is possible, you might need to argue with yourself, not me. And, I do give you credit. I won't repeat all that, here, anyone is encouraged to read You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and make up their own minds about it. But whether or not one thinks this is what actually happened, it is factually possible, based on your research, plus the research and writings others, including my own.
By the way, in that cartoon one might notice I have a copy of De Sepi on the table. I did because it is considered the place Voynich learned of the Kircher Carteggio in the first place, as it is listed and described in that book, and he is known to have owned it. In any case, since drawing that, I purchased a facsimile of the book ($$ouch!$$$- but it is MAGNIFICENT!) with English translations (of the proper Latin) at the back... and in reading and looking through this work, I think it may answer many other points about the Voynich, and explain various features about it, and the backstory. I mean, I don't think the reference to the Kircher Carteggio is the only "tip" Voynich derived from this work... I think it may have been influential in several other ways.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Rafal > 05-01-2026, 07:30 PM
Quote:Hi Rafal: A few points about what you wrote ...
It would be nice for me if you check my solution of Rohonc Codex once. Just please remember that the type of solution I propose (logographic writing) means that the solution may be not only just right or wrong but also let's say 80% right.
It's not the case that once you get values for letters then you can read any word. You get the meaning of each word in standalone process from the context and other clues. So some words may be right while other may be wrong. As you may guess the most unsure are hapax legomena, words that appear only once and you cannot see them in different contexts.
As for Voynich Manuscript I believe that we cannot say that fake is just a fake. If I understand your position correctly you claim that it is 20th century fake of Wilfrid Voynich. And I am close to opinion that it is a fake of some anonymous 15th century German charlatan and his team. Such opinions aren't compatible, they involve accepting and not accepting different things as "truth".
Sorry if I sounded impolite at moments. It wasn't my intention and English is not my native language. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ioannestritemius > 05-01-2026, 09:14 PM
If the two "corner stones" which support the authenticity of the VMS, the letters Baresch 1639 and Marci 16650819, could be proven to be forgeries – along with a whole stash of other letters in the Kircher-correspondence, such as the Martinitz-, Liechtenstein- and Schega- exchanges – what would be the best venue to present such evidence? Paper-analysis not necessary. Letter-texts themselves suffice.
An addendum: hermeneutics dictate that a text should be about something. The VMS is, or rather was. In June 1921, two months after his joint presentation with Newbold, Voynich followed up with the sales pitch in Citizen Kane's "Hearst's International", at the time the most widely distributed American monthly: "Mr. Voynich [...] holds the Bacon manuscript at a value of over one hundred thousand dollars, and he is eager that the manuscript should fall only into the hands of a purchaser who will consider it a public trust." That equals about $2,000,000 in modern currency. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Legit > 05-01-2026, 10:16 PM
(04-01-2026, 03:39 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) I believe the "resources needed" came from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a vast repository of over 500,000 items, from scrap to treasures.
2) I do not think it would take all that great an ability at calligraphy to recreate the Voynich characters, or, for that matter, better ones, as I and others have done experiments in trying to do so, and seen many manage it- and anyway, in 1910, most educated people were well versed in using pens and quills. Virtually everyone wrote with them! It was part of every child's schooling, and from a young age.
3) Yes the illustrations are bad, I agree, many agree, but I would ask "Why is that a sign of genuine"? In any case, I think the abilities and style of the Voynich illustrations, while bad, do fit the look and methods of Voynich's pretty darned well:
4) "Why would he leave out all references to popular esoteric knowlede?" Not sure what you mean here? First of all, I and others do see possible references to many fields of "esoteric knowledge", such as Astrology, astronomy, magic wheels, possible tincture baths and cures, and much more. Very little abjectly drawn alchemical imagery, but some, perhaps. And so much more, whether you consider the Voynich genuine or not. But maybe I misunderstood you?
5) "Seriously, the level of genius and stupidity required not to add a single hieroglygh precludes any possibility of this being a forgery from 1910." I admit you've stumped me with this one, and maybe it is because I (again?) misunderstood, sorry. But first of all, "Why?" WOULD a forger, in 1910, choose to include hieroglyphics a book which was intended to look 15th or 17th century, and possibly as an herbal or medicinal? Or maybe you don't mean "Egyptian hieroglyphs"? But on the contrary, I think it would have been a very poor choice to include them, in this case, if that is what you meant.
Rich
In response to your "Modern Voynich Myths", individually you make good arguments for the forgery being possible. However the high number of these issues make it more and more unlikely to be forged. There is still no proof that it is a forgery even if there is evidence that Voynich lied about it's origin. There's no 'smoking gun'.
Also the entire claim seems self contradictory
- he was trying to sell the VM as a manuscript with a connection to Bacon in the 13th century, forged it himself but never thought to include anything that directly ties it to Bacon or features to place it in the 13th century. He even includes features that make the VM seem more recent, not older like the crossbow on Sagittarius.
- as he wrote it he included a huge number of features, showing extensive knowledge of a very niche part of the medieval period with a very complex internal structure, tying it to the 15th c but (in your claim) one day forgot himself and added a microscope, an armadillo, sunflower, cells, and a spiral galaxy.
- in 1910 Egyptology was at a height in popularity, a hieroglyph would increase its value to undiscerning buyers. No overt religious, occult, mystical symbols. While forging he didn't think to add anything to excite any specific group that he wished to sell to. Except maybe the wealthy armadillo enthusiasts
- he chooses to invent - astrology information from an imaginary astrologer who hates using rulers - it simply stands out from other manuscripts of the period as poor illustration quality.
- granted the penmanship is only decent, but he decided to fast track the color and scribble it in - unlike the quality of practically every other medieval manuscript. Coloring within the lines is a skill anyone would have and most medieval manuscripts are very precise with coloring as books were very expensive to create in the 13th century. It would be a certain artistic choice to badly color this. It's really hard to reconcile deliberately making a forgery bad, yet to sell for a high price. Wouldn't this be a red flag to investors?
- he wrote it for botanists who like low quality imaginary plants, astrologers who hate constellations, herbalists who hate identifiable herbs, medievalists who can't read the text, 13th century works collectors who prefer 15th century detail
- he has a vast repository of 500,000 some treasures, but instead of copying real plants, spends his time inventing new ones.
- he spent ages designing creative unique layouts and an indecipherable code and then spent 15 minutes per page creating it. All that work, then to put no effort to make it look like it fits along other manuscripts of the time
- forge the VM. But also, the plan is to also forge a lot of documents from different eras to support the sale of the forged manuscript.
- risk his reputation selling a forgery while holding repository of 500,000 documents with some treasures.
A forgery would be made to fit within existing collections. Such an obscure, ugly, and poor quality document could not possibly serve this purpose. - he was trying to sell the VM as a manuscript with a connection to Bacon in the 13th century, forged it himself but never thought to include anything that directly ties it to Bacon or features to place it in the 13th century. He even includes features that make the VM seem more recent, not older like the crossbow on Sagittarius.
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Legit > 05-01-2026, 10:52 PM
(05-01-2026, 07:30 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As for Voynich Manuscript I believe that we cannot say that fake is just a fake. If I understand your position correctly you claim that it is 20th century fake of Wilfrid Voynich. And I am close to opinion that it is a fake of some anonymous 15th century German charlatan and his team. Such opinions aren't compatible, they involve accepting and not accepting different things as "truth".
...
To call the author a 15th century German charlatan is quite a compliment. Since the people of the time believed all kinds of superstition nonsense this would be like claiming the author is some kind of genius enlightened pragmatist. As if he knew better than to fall for beliefs about the stars, zodiac, and healing properties of plants yet still chose to write a book about it. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Rafal > 05-01-2026, 11:37 PM
I am going to write soon some long post about my charlatan theory.
But to make it short - I believe that the text is nonsense. The guy who had it was deliberately cheating the people. He pretended he was reading it, made wise face expressions and then sold them some random, not working tinctures. He knew pretty well he is cheating them.
A medieval doctor on the other hand seems like a modern charlatan too. He believed that planets influence your health, believed in 4 elements and their harmony in your body, believed in "zodiac man" and so on.
The difference is that he genuinely believed it and wasn't cheating. That was the official knowledge then. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 05-01-2026, 11:47 PM
(05-01-2026, 09:51 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, I am wholly satisfied that Marci's letter is genuine and that the VMS is a book from the 1400s, not a modern forgery. But what is it that you find "incredible" in that blogpost? That Voynich and/or Strickland may have seen the letters from Marci and Barschius in Kircher's Carteggio, before the sale of the books?
Going down from worst:
- that Voynich would be allowed to 'borrow' the entire Kircher correspondence and take it outside for some time. Forum rules prevent me from properly expressing the likelihood of that. Let's say: no chance on Earth.
- that anyone would be able to write a letter, copying 'free hand' the handwriting of another letter so accurately. The opportunity for that is already missing. (On a side note, the need of some contraption to then copy the signature seems superfluous but that is not for this list).
This is really enough, but I can go on:
- indeed, that Voynich would have had any access to the non-sellable material inside the Villa Torlonia (not Mondragone). Even the visit of the Vatican librarian, who was even a Jesuit, was hidden from the rector of the institution.
- that all this complicated, time-consuming effort was worth it for a completely innocuous letter. (Which, by the way, he then ignored for several years, and pretended it was for a different Rudolf than the one he supposedly intended to write about).
Indeed, Strickland is one of few people who knew about, and had full access to this material.
Now you have seen the extent of the carteggio, the many different volumes, the thousands of letters in various languages and different handwritings. The key material for this hypothetical enterprise is in completely inconspicuous letters spread over different volumes: the last letter from Marci that is in the different handwriting; the single line in a letter from Godefrid Kinner.
I could go on but I don't like long posts.... -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Koen G > 05-01-2026, 11:50 PM
(05-01-2026, 09:14 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the two "corner stones" which support the authenticity of the VMS, the letters Baresch 1639 and Marci 16650819, could be proven to be forgeries
Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity? -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-01-2026, 02:58 AM
(05-01-2026, 10:16 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.one day forgot himself and added a microscope, an armadillo, sunflower, cells, and a spiral galaxy.
This is not an argument. Those were highly strained interpretations by people who were trying to prove specific origin theories (American native lore, or a super-genius centuries ahead of its time). The C14 dating made it obvious that those interpretations were just old-fashioned NI hallucinations (NI = Natural Intelligence).
(Just to be clear, I think it is highly unlikely that Marci's letter or the VMS are modern forgeries. I have another "Wilfrid's foul play" theory, but it assumes that both are genuine. And I think this alternative theory is possible but still rather unlikely.)
All the best, --stolfi
