- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 28-01-2026, 12:38 AM
I have met with three professional researchers who work in historical Jesuit archives in Rome. One of them I met on three different occasions. I have corresponded with one more over a time span of several years.
One of the first things I remember is that they kept saying: why are people always asking about Villa Mondragone? There was never anything there.
Anyway...
if anyone tells them that these volumes of correspondence were tampered with, by an intruder to the place where they were hidden, who unbound the volumes and replaced some of the originals with fakes, this person would not get an anwer, but would get a very funny look indeed.
Just as a reminder: there used to be twelve volumes of these letters, as written in a catalogue of Kircher's Museum, that was printed in 1678. These original volumes were labeled as Tomus 1 to Tomus 12.
Now there are fourteen, with modern shelf marks APUG 555 to APUG 568.
The difference is easily explained: two of the volumes were split into two parts.
How do we know that?
Twelve of the fourteen modern volumes start with an index of the letters they contain.
For example: APUG 555 has its index on page 1r to page 5v and the first letter appears on page 6r. In all, the volume has 279 (double sided) pages.
This index is written in a hand contemporary with the letters.
This could be Kircher himself, but I am unable to say. (It is probably documented somewhere).
For two of these twelve, the index stretches far beyond the letters included in them, and cover letters in two remaining volumes that do not themselves have indices:
The index of APUG 557 covers APUG 557 and 568 (combined: over 800 double-sided pages)
The index of APUG 561 covers APUG 561 and 567 (over 500)
These indices demonstrate that, at the places where the letters from Marci, Barschius, Kinner appear, there really were letters from these people already in Kircher's time.
That, or the fake proposal has to be yet even more unrealistic.... -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 30-01-2026, 05:03 AM
(28-01-2026, 12:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have met with three professional researchers who work in historical Jesuit archives in Rome. One of them I met on three different occasions. I have corresponded with one more over a time span of several years.
One of the first things I remember is that they kept saying: why are people always asking about Villa Mondragone? There was never anything there.
Well of course that used to be the "story line", partially based on Voynich's supposed claim to Ethel, written up the note to be opened after her death. I'm not convinced we know they were not there. I think your own site does not yet close that possibility. Of course the issue is moot to both my forgery theory, and to your genuine theory alike.
But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once. Of course I think that the reason he could not is because the truth was it came from Florence, circa 1908 to 1910.
Quote:Anyway...
if anyone tells them that these volumes of correspondence were tampered with, by an intruder to the place where they were hidden, who unbound the volumes and replaced some of the originals with fakes, this person would not get an anwer, but would get a very funny look indeed.
First of all, I don't believe, myself, that those letters were "tampered with", nor that any were replaced with fakes. Yes I know you are probably referring to the work and opinions of ioannestritemius, but he, too now seems to believe the letters in the Carteggio are actually authentic.
What I do believe... and it is allowed by what we do know for certain... is that the letters, or the content of those letters could have been seen, by several means, either directly or indirectly, contrary to decades of proclamations to the contrary: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But I note that you now say that to replace letters (again, not my idea, nor currently anyone's claim that I know of), the "intruder" would have needed to "unbound the volumes" (of letters?) "... and replaced some of the originals with fakes". But I looked at every single one of all approximately 2,000 of those letters, which were photographed individually, both sides, over a marathon period of many hours... and I don't recall ANY of them being "bound" to begin with.
Among those curious things I do note was that there were a few loose sheets, which were unattributed to any letter. It was as though, through handling, many sheets became orphans. And many of those loose sheets had transcribed characters on them, presumably to share with Kircher. I still wonder if among them are characters that were copied from the Barschius Manuscript (claimed to be the Voynich today), to show the man. I put a smattering of them in one sheet, a long time ago:
Of course the obvious implication/concern/observation/question- whatever- to those characters dutifully making it from the correspondent to Kircher, would be why didn't the supposed copied Voynich pictures and characters likewise survive in the Kircher Carteggio, so we could see them, today?
Every single time it "just happens" that the "right thing" to "prove" genuine is missing; while other references, labels, catalog entries, descriptions, for other, known genuine items, are in all the places the Voynich examples are supposed to be, where we would expect them to be, but never are. That is either really, really, bad luck for the Genuine Voynich Theory, or the Voynich was just never there to begin with. Because it wasn't.
Quote:Just as a reminder: there used to be twelve volumes of these letters, as written in a catalogue of Kircher's Museum, that was printed in 1678. These original volumes were labeled as Tomus 1 to Tomus 12.
Now there are fourteen, with modern shelf marks APUG 555 to APUG 568.
The difference is easily explained: two of the volumes were split into two parts.
How do we know that?
Twelve of the fourteen modern volumes start with an index of the letters they contain.
For example: APUG 555 has its index on page 1r to page 5v and the first letter appears on page 6r. In all, the volume has 279 (double sided) pages.
This index is written in a hand contemporary with the letters.
This could be Kircher himself, but I am unable to say. (It is probably documented somewhere).
For two of these twelve, the index stretches far beyond the letters included in them, and cover letters in two remaining volumes that do not themselves have indices:
The index of APUG 557 covers APUG 557 and 568 (combined: over 800 double-sided pages)
The index of APUG 561 covers APUG 561 and 567 (over 500)
These indices demonstrate that, at the places where the letters from Marci, Barschius, Kinner appear, there really were letters from these people already in Kircher's time.
That, or the fake proposal has to be yet even more unrealistic....
Well that is interesting, and is a good outline of the collection... at least, I'm sure it is, you know these details inside and out. But while I think you mean to imply that what is there is all neat and accounted for, no, it does not, 1) obviate the possibility that these were seen, or the contents were seen, by Voynich, and 2) Nothing in there proves the Voynich was being discussed, and even, by the lack of good descriptions, nor any drawn images or characters from the Voynich, means that collection works against the Voynich being the Bareschius Manuscript.
EDIT TO ADD: In writing the above, then re-reading it, I recalled an old idea for an experiment I had, but then forgotten about until now. I wanted to compare the line & chain count, and any visible water marks, of all the orphan sheets with characters on them... then, see if any matched with the descriptions of the Barschius Manuscript. I thought it could... think it might possibly... help determine what the Barschius Manuscript actually was. Oh my kingdom for a staff... -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 30-01-2026, 06:35 AM
(30-01-2026, 05:03 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once.
I did not realize this point before.
While I still think the Standard Provenance Theory (SPT) is the most likely, at least going back to Barchius, my hunch that there was some serious foul play by Wilfrid is getting stronger.
I don't think he would go as far as forging the VMS, or even Marci's letter. The risk of being caught was too great and the consequences would be very serious. But I think he would be quite capable of any or all of these, in any order:- Forging then almost but not quite completely erasng Jacobus's signature on f1r, after obtaining a photo of one of his ex-libris
- Bribing the Jesuits to sell him some books from Kircher's library and having the VMS (which he believed to be worth millions) included in the lot, listed only as "uh, also another manuscript, boring, not worth specifying, ignore it"
- Bribing the Jesuits to pilfer Marci's letter from the Carteggio and then claiming that it was attached to the VMS when he bought it
- Substituting another manuscript for Baresch's book ("BookA"), because the latter turned out to be definitely not Bacon's.
- Removing from BL MS 408 any pages that would have shown it was not Bacon's and/or not BookA.
The weakness of the SPT is that it relies entirely on Wilfrid's claim that Marci's letter was attached to BL MS 408 when he bought it. But there is no evidence for that claim, and the way Wilfrid handled the letter is suspicious. The paper lining of the cover, where the letter could have been attached to, was removed by him and seems to be lost.
Shouldn't that letter have been filed in the Carteggio?
If that undescribed MS in the list of his purchase was the BL MS 408, why wasn't the letter mentioned there?
If we assume that Marci's letter may not have been attached to BL MS 408, then there is no evidence that Wilfrid bough that book from the Jesuits, much less that it came from Kircher's library.
Even if we accept Jacobus's signature as genuine, that is not evidence that BL MS 408 is BookA. On the contrary, it is a bit strange that neither Marci nor Barschius mentioned Jacobus as a previous owner, even though his ex-libris should have been quite legible then. And it is a bit strange that Barschius did not cross out Jacobus's name and write his on instead.
Anyway, to me it does not make any difference whether BL MS 408 is BookA or not, much less whether it was owned by Jacobus or Rudolf. That is not why I think MS 408 is interesting...
All the best, --stolfi - Forging then almost but not quite completely erasng Jacobus's signature on f1r, after obtaining a photo of one of his ex-libris
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 31-01-2026, 03:16 PM
(30-01-2026, 06:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(30-01-2026, 05:03 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once.
I did not realize this point before.
While I still think the Standard Provenance Theory (SPT) is the most likely, at least going back to Barchius, my hunch that there was some serious foul play by Wilfrid is getting stronger.
I don't think he would go as far as forging the VMS, or even Marci's letter. The risk of being caught was too great and the consequences would be very serious. But I think he would be quite capable of any or all of these, in any order:- Forging then almost but not quite completely erasng Jacobus's signature on f1r, after obtaining a photo of one of his ex-libris
- Bribing the Jesuits to sell him some books from Kircher's library and having the VMS (which he believed to be worth millions) included in the lot, listed only as "uh, also another manuscript, boring, not worth specifying, ignore it"
- Bribing the Jesuits to pilfer Marci's letter from the Carteggio and then claiming that it was attached to the VMS when he bought it
- Substituting another manuscript for Baresch's book ("BookA"), because the latter turned out to be definitely not Bacon's.
- Removing from BL MS 408 any pages that would have shown it was not Bacon's and/or not BookA.
The weakness of the SPT is that it relies entirely on Wilfrid's claim that Marci's letter was attached to BL MS 408 when he bought it. But there is no evidence for that claim, and the way Wilfrid handled the letter is suspicious. The paper lining of the cover, where the letter could have been attached to, was removed by him and seems to be lost.
Shouldn't that letter have been filed in the Carteggio?
If that undescribed MS in the list of his purchase was the BL MS 408, why wasn't the letter mentioned there?
If we assume that Marci's letter may not have been attached to BL MS 408, then there is no evidence that Wilfrid bough that book from the Jesuits, much less that it came from Kircher's library.
Even if we accept Jacobus's signature as genuine, that is not evidence that BL MS 408 is BookA. On the contrary, it is a bit strange that neither Marci nor Barschius mentioned Jacobus as a previous owner, even though his ex-libris should have been quite legible then. And it is a bit strange that Barschius did not cross out Jacobus's name and write his on instead.
Anyway, to me it does not make any difference whether BL MS 408 is BookA or not, much less whether it was owned by Jacobus or Rudolf. That is not why I think MS 408 is interesting...
All the best, --stolfi
Hi, Jorge... There are many reasons I post my various findings, and my ideas and opinions about them, and I don't always use them to argue my Modern Forgery Theory, specifically. One of the most important reasons I post and argue many points has more to do with making sure... or hoping to... that people have an honest and accurate view of what the Voynich, the Marci Letter, the "given provenance" all really entail. That is, a true picture with all its anomalies, inconsistencies, anachronisms, hypocrisies, and so on. That the Voynich and everything around it is actually a far cry from the pristine bunnies and roses picture many insist is the case.
And I often make it clear that I think this is important so that people don't waste their time going down impossible paths, no matter what their eventual opinions about the Voynich end up being.
And your ideas are a good example of this. You have very different ideas than I do about what the Voynich is, how it got where it did, why it was altered and by whom, and so on and so forth. But I think that is fine, because you take into account everything reasonably known about the Voynich, warts and all. And you have added some new "warts" in addition to many I and others have pointed out, which I had not thought of.
And there could be other opinions people could come to, also different than my own, and maybe different than yours... or some combination, of several possibles that neither of us has yet thought of.
I think doing this is far better, and potentially more fruitful, than denying these problems exist... which is what is usually done in defense of the work, because any true answer must take into account these serious issues, or what good is it? Even if the Voynich turns out to be early 15th century, and genuine, I mean, that verdict must explain everything wrong with the Voynich, too. You have come up with reasons this could be, instead of denying these problems exist, as is usually done.
I have come to realize that the reason the indefensible is strongly defended, or simply ignored, is not as much to "protect" a genuine 15th century picture of the Voynich (which I used to think was the case), but more to defend that very detailed story painstakingly built up around it, partly by Wilfred, and later by dozens of other: The whole Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher/Jesuits/Rare Find saga. I feel most of this story... maybe 90%?... can only exist if one continues to ignore the serious problems with it. It is that construction which is being protected, moreso than the Voynich itself. Even if the Voynich is real and 15th century, I mean, the current "baseline" story is actually very implausible, and has wasted the time and efforts of many over the years.
If the Voynich is real, it is more likely something else entirely than that so strongly projected for so long. Your alternate scenario is a good indication that people can look outside the current paradigm to find it, while still facing the many inconvenient truths about it.
All the best, Rich - Forging then almost but not quite completely erasng Jacobus's signature on f1r, after obtaining a photo of one of his ex-libris
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
nablator > 31-01-2026, 03:40 PM
(30-01-2026, 05:03 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once.
Did he ever name the Villa Mondragone?
Wikipedia insists he did, but there is no evidence AFAIK: "a mysterious manuscript he said he acquired in 1912 at the Villa Mondragone in Italy" -> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I tried to modify the article but it was reverted because there are many sources that mention Villa Mondragone...
(21-02-2021, 04:03 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Kraus was the one who named the Villa Mondragone, and this fact may be found in Tiltman's paper about the MS.
(30-04-2023, 01:22 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, the Voynich MS was NOT at Villa Mondragone.
This was Kraus' guess based on the very limited information he had, and he guessed wrong. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 31-01-2026, 05:59 PM
(31-01-2026, 03:40 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(30-01-2026, 05:03 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the interesting thing to remember, if it was not the Villa Mondragone, would be that Wilfrid lied about the provenance not just two, but at least three times: "Castle in Southern Europe", "Austrian Castle", and now, "Villa Mondragone". And conversely, never told the truth about it, not once.
Did he ever name the Villa Mondragone?
Wikipedia insists he did, but there is no evidence AFAIK: "a mysterious manuscript he said he acquired in 1912 at the Villa Mondragone in Italy" -> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I tried to modify the article but it was reverted because there are many sources that mention Villa Mondragone...
(21-02-2021, 04:03 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Kraus was the one who named the Villa Mondragone, and this fact may be found in Tiltman's paper about the MS.
(30-04-2023, 01:22 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, the Voynich MS was NOT at Villa Mondragone.
This was Kraus' guess based on the very limited information he had, and he guessed wrong.
True it was not directly named by Wilfrid, but strongly implied that this was the location he imparted on Ethel. In the note to be opened after her death, she wrote (From Rene's Transcription):
Quote:"The Cipher MS. was bought by W.M. Voynich, in or about 1911. It
was the property of the Vatican, and was (in a castle ?) at Frascati. The intermediary through
whom he approached the Vatican authorities was the English Jesuit Father Joseph (?)
Strickland, who had, I believe, some connection with Malta. Father Strickland, who has since
died, knew that the sale of certain MSS. had been decided upon, if a buyer could be found
whose discretion could be trusted. Whether this was because of the
strained relations with the Quirinal I do not know. Father Strickland gave his personal
assurance that W.M.V. could be trusted, and on that assurance he was allowed to buy, after
giving a promise of secrecy. He told me at the time, in confidence, feeling that someone
should know, in case of his death. For the same reason I am leaving this statement in the safe,
in case of my death."
So I think that it is incorrect to place the "blame" on Kraus. Anyone reading that would have come to the same conclusions as he did... and many did... that since it was "at Frascati", and that "Father Strickland" knew of it. Of course he ran the Villa Mondragone, which was of course "at Frascati". You can even sense the confusion of poor Ethel, with her parentheses around "in a castle?", seemingly in an attempt to equate her husband's previous "castle in Southern Europe with this later claim.
So if one wants to be strictly technical, and claim this was NOT the Villa Mondragone being referenced, it is still a lie, to Ethel, unless there is another location "at Frascati" which would exonerate Wilfrid in his claim to Ethel. But (from Rene's paper):
Quote:In particular, we can conclude that Wilfrid Voynich did not discover the collection himself, as he
always claimed, but instead he was invited to acquire part of it by its owners, under promise of
absolute secrecy. Furthermore, the Voynich MS was not kept in Villa Mondragone near Frascati, but
in Villa Torlonia in Castel Gandolfo.
So, if the Villa Torlonia was the location, Wilfrid lied to Ethel about Frascati. Claiming it was Kraus, or anyone else, who was mistaken in "assuming" Voynich meant the Villa Mondragone is an unnecessary distancing the claim from Wilfrid, who implied it. He lied three times, even if one does not want to believe this location in Frascati was the Villa Mondragone.
But I think it comes down to this: The adjustment of the known facts and eyewitness statements in order to better imply a desired outcome, rather than letting the facts define the truth. This needs to be done over and over, in order to "protect" the Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher/Jesuits version of the story. Could Voynich have been shown the Letters by Strickland, his friend, who ran the Villa Mondragone? Say it was never in the Villa Mondragone. Does Wilfrids statement to Ethel imply it WAS in the Villa Mondragone? Say it was Kraus's mistake, that he said that, and that the Jesuits would be confused today if you mention it. Imply instead it was in the the Villa Torlonia... where we have a guest record, thus (supposedly) cutting off the possibility Voynich saw it.
This needs to be done with virtually every thing known and reported about the Voynich, as new facts and data are recovered. A few examples:
- The C14 is far too old for the mass of expert opinions? Discard the expert opinions.
- The C14 dating has a range of more than 60 years? Average the dates together, to get a smaller range.
- The foldouts are hundreds of years too new? Say we just didn't find the "other" old ones yet.
- The Latin of the Marci Letter is poor? Claim a scribe wrote it.
- The paper of the Marci letter is different? Claim he had other paper, we just have not found the same paper yet.
- That letter doesn't fold, the creases don't fold, and the seals don't line up? Crickets.
- The Voynich does not appear anywhere in history? Claim we just have to look for another 100 plus years. We will find it!
- The Voynich has a myriad of anachronistic content? Who are you going to trust, me or your eyes?
- The artist was really good because they drew the old content well.
- The artist was really, really, bad, because other stuff ended up looking new.
- The Voynich has provably anachronistic, newer, content? That was added later.
- The Voynich has a 17th century cover? Added later.
- The "signature" should have been mentioned, if seen? Crickets.
- The ink has unexplained substances? Contamination.
- Wilfrid lied about that? It is because the Voynich is real, but he wanted to sell it.
- Wilfrid told the truth about this other thing? It is because he wanted the truth known, because the Voynich is real.
I could (and have) gone on and on. In this case, the claim used to be that Wilfrid revealed the Villa Mondragone was his source for the manuscript, based on Ethel's letter. It made sense, and when challenged... something I personally questioned, several times in the past... I was told it was wrong of me to impugn the reputation of Wilfrid, who was dead and could not defend himself! One person even suggested I should be "punched in the nose" for suggesting Wilfrid lied about the Villa Mondragone.
I even seem to recall flying from the USA TO Frascati, in 2012, and GIVING a talk at the Villa Mondragone, because that was the accepted story. Unless I was dreaming.
But now, it seems... and I would think, because it became increasingly clear that the Letters may have been with the "30 books" there, and if there, Voynich had a pretty good connection with the head of the place, Strickland... a real "in"... the trail got uncomfortably close. The solution?
- The Villa Mondragone not really the "lock" nor the "seal" necessary to isolate the Letters from Wilfrid's eyes? Simple: Move them!
The point is that this supposed "baseline" that we are supposed to accept as the truth of an untouchable, unassailable provenance and substance of the Voynich, the Marci Letter, and Wilfrid's good word are continuously adjusted as new tests are made, new finds and discoveries are made, to keep the increasing possibility the baseline is wrong, so it always appears just out of reach.
TLDR: Wherever in Frascati Wilfrid meant when he told Ethel that version, if it was actually in the Castel Gondolfo, he was lying the third time; and still never told the truth about where he got it. And we used to all interpret the information the same, exact way Klaus did, so don't use him as a scapegoat. There was a reason we were all in the Villa Mondragone in 2012.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 01-02-2026, 12:19 AM
Saying that Voynich hiding the place where he got the manuscript, suggests that the MS is likely to be a fake by him, is a classical example of a 'non sequitor'. This is when a conclusion does not follow from the argument presented.
First of all, there other perfectly valid explanations.
What is more: we even know exacly why he lied about this, both from his own words and from other documented and independent sources.
But it is even worse.
Apart from these points, Voynich actually bought about 30 perfectly genuine manuscripts from the very same place, so that settles that question.
This point is never mentioned, bceause it is also a bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.
Why present such obviously incorrect arguments? -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 01-02-2026, 12:59 AM
(01-02-2026, 12:19 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Saying that Voynich hiding the place where he got the manuscript, suggests that the MS is likely to be a fake by him, is a classical example of a 'non sequitor'. This is when a conclusion does not follow from the argument presented.
But of course it is an argument toward some sort of subterfuge on his part. We know he was intentionally hiding "something", the question is "why?". It is valid and expected for anyone who wants to claim something is genuine, and/or not gotten under means, to present proof of how they did get it. Police usually demand a bill of sale, or a receipt, for instance.
Voynich either could not, or for some other reason refused to, explain where he actually got the manuscript. Simply stating this it not an argument is not correct... of course it is an argument to some sort of malfeasance: That the work was either forged, or stolen, or sold to him when he was not supposed to be allowed to buy it.
Quote:First of all, there other perfectly valid explanations.
What is more: we even know exacly why he lied about this, both from his own words and from other documented and independent sources.
These "valid explanations" are not actually known to be factual, they are opinions based on slim evidence, or worse, on Voynich's "word", when we know his word cannot be trusted.
Quote:But it is even worse.
Apart from these points, Voynich actually bought about 30 perfectly genuine manuscripts from the very same place, so that settles that question.
You have repeated this many times, and yet I don't see how his buying other manuscripts... genuine ones... 30 or 300 or 3000... has any bearing, at all, on his possibly forging or having forged the Voynich. There is zero connection between the two. I of course acknowledge he bought other, real manuscripts, and I don't understand your insisting this implies, in the least bit, that the Voynich is genuine.
In fact, it does the opposite: Because those 30 works, to varying degrees, do have provenance, do have name labels, do have ex libris plates. The Voynich does not. If it was among the other works, why does it not have any of this evidence?
Quote:This point is never mentioned, bceause it is also a bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.
But Rene, it is mentioned all the time, by you, but it does not logically follow. It is not at all a "killer" to modern forgery. He had plenty of motive to create one... his buying other works has no impact on his creating or owning or selling any forgery. Every forger... I think every forger I have ever learned about has also owned and sold genuine works (usually a great many more genuine works, in fact), and I don't have any reason to assume Voynich was any different.
I'm not sure why you continue to claim these as arguments against forgery... I don't mean that sarcastically, I hope you understand. I really don't understand it.
Quote:Why present such obviously incorrect arguments?
Well I don't present the arguments you have used, above... at least, not in the way you frequently misstate them... the actual arguments I use are different than the ones you claim I do. It is very simple: He bought real stuff, he used the places he did buy the real stuff as a cover for the fake Voynich by implying it was among them, while he had no provenance, otherwise, for the Voynich. There is no evidence, at all, that the Voynich was among those other works. It is that simple. There is no evidence the Voynich ever existed before about 1911, in fact. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 01-02-2026, 02:26 PM
Rene, just to be clear: I do not believe that Wilfrid forged MS408 or Marci's letter, and I do think that the Standard Provenance story is the most likely one. But still:
(01-02-2026, 12:19 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Saying that Voynich hiding the place where he got the manuscript, suggests that the MS is likely to be a fake by him, is a classical example of a 'non sequitor'. This is when a conclusion does not follow from the argument presented.
Indeed Wilfrid's lies do not imply that. But they mean that we cannot trust any of his statements.
Quote:What is more: we even know exactly why he lied about this, both from his own words and from other documented and independent sources.
We know a possible motive, which was to prevent the Italian government from knowing of the existence of that pile of books, which they might confiscate. But didn't that motive cease to exist in 1929? Was that the real motive, or just a convenient excuse for the lies?
I suspect that the real motive for the lies was, at a minimum, to prevent the Vatican from finding that the Jesuits had sold ~30 books from the Kircher and other libraries to an American book dealer. Strickland and the other custodians of those books could have been metaphorically burned at the stake if other factions of the Church, adversaries of the Jesuits, had found about the sale.
And that sale was almost certainly just a cover for the sale of what Wilfrid believed to be a Bacon Original worth millions of dollars. If MS408 was one of those ~30 books, it must have been that one which had no description (BookX). This fact alone should get all alarm bells ringing.
Quote:[The sale of ~30 genuine books] is bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.
Why? Even if there was nothing wrong with that sale, and BookX was indeed the one sent by Marci to Kircher (BookA), there is no real evidence that BookX was MS 408. It seems quite possible that Wilfrid was disappointed when he saw BookX, because it turned out to be just a 16th century manual of camel husbandry in Tiffinagh. But he still had Marci's letter, so he could still use it to sell a "Bacon Original" to some dumb banker ... if he somehow got another manuscript -- genuine or fake -- that loosely matched its description in the Kircher Carteggio.
All the best, --stolfi