- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 02-02-2026, 02:31 PM
(02-02-2026, 01:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(02-02-2026, 10:29 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- 10. Then Wilfrid finally dares to make the letter public. But he still pretends that the book was bought from the Mondragone high school or some other place, whose custodians allegedly did not know the book's importance and had not even noticed the attached letter.
But Wilfrid already made the letter public in his 1921 lecture to the College of Physicians in Phildelphia. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 02-02-2026, 02:48 PM
I have made the case for authenticity numerous times elsewhere in this forum, but there are some new folks in this thread who may not have seen my previous posts.
I have handled the Voynich Manuscript more than a dozen times. Over the course of the last 35 years, I have handled hundreds of other manuscripts, if not thousands. There is absolutely NOTHING about the materiality of the Voynich Manuscript that could possibly make anyone suspicious about its authenticity.
1) parchment is authentic 15th-century parchment. Yes, I know, that's doesn't prove anything: Voynich could have found piles of old, unused parchment...possible but unlikely.
2) inks and pigments do not have any of the chemical signatures one would expect in a modern forgery (such as, for example, traces of arsenic in the green pigment). I know the counter-argument: Voynich was a chemist and could have make the inks and pigments using authentic medieval recipes. Sure, that's possible. Here's my rebuttal: Why would he bother? The spectrometric x-ray-based testing done by McCrone in 2009 did not exist until the 1980s. Why would Voynich go to the trouble of crafting "authentic" ink and pigments when there was literally no way any of his clients could possibly have known the difference? And yes, I know that the McCrone findings include a few otherwise-insignificant outliers that they weren't able to easily explain, but none of these outliers raise suspicions about authenticity.
3) sewing structure: The flax cords and threads that bind the manuscript are authenticly medieval in style (with the exception, of course, of the threads added by Kraus' book conservator, which are clearly modern white thin thread, quite distinct from the original cords and thread). The sewing structure is a Gothic binding structure. The wormholes at the beginning and end tell us the manuscript had once been bound between wooden boards. The style of the limp-vellum covers is that used by the Jesuits in their nineteenth-century rebinding campaign. Again, how and why would someone fake all of that evidence, especially since, again, Voynich's clients wouldn't have known the difference?
4) Provenance evidence: There is no doubt that the evidence of the manuscript's history is largely circumstantial. Here's my rebuttal: So is the provenance for just about every single medieval manuscript in North America. The fact that the provenance is uncertain is not suspicious. If Voynich were trying to make a convincing fake, the smartest thing to do would have been to create a more convincing provenance, instead of making contradictory statements about his source. And what about that? Why would he make up so many different stories? Because he was an early twentieth-century rare-book dealer, and they were all cagey about provenance and their sources. Again, this neither surprises me nor makes me suspicious. It would have been more suspicious if he had laid out a crystal-clear chain of ownership.
5) Earlier provenance: The Marci letter's wax stains line up perfectly with the wax stains inside the front cover. I know the counter-argument: What about the folding pattern? Indeed, that is a currently-unresolved question. The next time I am with the manuscript, I'll work with my own facsimile of the letter (from the Siloe edition) to see if I can resolve this. Stay tuned. And there are many reasons that could explain the letter being overlooked by the Jesuits - the manuscript was likely stored in one of the library collections for hundreds of years. If no one was looking at it, which seems likely, how would they have found the letter?
6) More provenance: There is significant provenance evidence on f. 1r. The Tepenecz signature is authentic and matches several of the signatures identified by Rene on his website. The Tepenecz inventory number "19" is not otherwise used in Tepenecz books. How would Voynich have known to use that number? Why would he then erase the signture only to pour sulfuric acid ("liver of sulfur," the likely reagent he used) all over it to make it visible, only to leave a permanent stain that then made the signature invisible again? Light-based techniques for reading faded oak-gall ink on parchment had not yet been invented, so why go to the trouble when no one would be able to read it?
7) More provenance: My own research identified the alphabets in the right-hand margin of f. 1r as having been written by Marci himself. Why would Voynich fake a second piece of provenance on f. 1r using Marci's handwriting, when it doesn't match the handwriting in the Marci letter? Rene identified that letter as actually having been written by Marci's secretary. The hand on f. 1r is Marci himself, not his secretary, identified in earlier letter he wrote himself. Again, why go to the trouble? Also, that ink has a different chemical profile in the McCrone report - recent XRF testing (not public yet) identified a zinc signature in those alphabets that marks it as NOT a medieval iron gall ink. Why would Voynich use a 17th-c. ink recipe to forge those alphabets and then ersae them, when tests to authenticate or debunk the ink wouldn't exist for another 80 years?
8) Five scribes: Why would Voynich bother?
9) Evidence of misbinding (my own forthcoming work): Why would Voynich bother?
10) Later additions: Why add later-style quire numbers and even-later-style folio numbers? Why add the inscriptions on 17r and 116v?
11) Its uniqueness: Some argue that the very fact of its uniqueness and our thus-far inability to decipher it MUST mean its a fake. The argument falls apart as soon as you consider the numbers: only 5-10% of medieval manuscripts still exist today, and a tiny fraction of those have been catalogued, and an even tinier fraction have been digitized. There is a lot that doesn't exist anymore and there's alot out there still that is not known or studied. It may turn out to indeed be unique, but I don't find that a convincing argument for concluding it's a fake.
And on and on.
It is one thing to forge a single document or painting, when all you are worrying about is the substrate and the inks/pigments. To forge an entire book, there are simply too many ways to go wrong: substrate, ink, pigments, sewing thread, binding, and provenance, must all be convincing and unassailable. There is absolutely nothing about any of those physical components that lends credence to the "modern forgery hypothesis." There's a reason why the Vinland Map was a forged map on a single sheet of authentic parchment, not a bound manuscript (the manuscript it is associated with was never suspect). There's a reason why the Spanish Forger painted on medieval parchment or wooden panels...when he tried to forge an entire manuscript (recently acquired by Harvard as an example of a forgery), the fake was so obvious that no one but an amateur collector could have been fooled by it. I saw it a few weeks ago - it is a laughable attempt.
I know that there are those among you who will now respond point-by-point to make your increasingly-complicated case. Until there is convincing scientific evidence identifying the manuscript as anything other than an authentic early fifteenth-century manuscript, you won't convince me. The case for forgery requires a truly implausible series of events. With each piece of the forgery argument, the improbabilities multiply. It is simply not plausible.
What IS plausible is that the manuscript was created by an unknown community for an unknown purpose in the early 1400s, likely in Central Europe or Italy (based on the script, illustrative style, clothing, and zodiac). We don't really know where it was for the first few centuries, although the month names are a nice clue that it was in Western Europe at one point. In the 1600s, it appears in Prague (possibly - but not definitively) sold to Emperor Rudolf by Carl Widemann from Augsburg in 1599. In Prague, it passes to Tepenecz, Baresch, and Marci before being sent to Kircher in Rome in 1665. It stays with the Jesuits in various collections in Rome until Voynich buys it in 1912 and brings it to London and then to America. After he dies, it passes to Ethel, and from Ethel to Anne. Anne sells it to Kraus in 1961. Kraus spends a few years trying to sell it, but in the end gives up and donates it to Yale in 1968. The end. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 02-02-2026, 03:01 PM
(02-02-2026, 02:48 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) parchment is authentic 15th-century parchment. Yes, I know, that's doesn't prove anything: Voynich could have found piles of old, unused parchment...possible but unlikely.
Until there is convincing scientific evidence identifying the manuscript as anything other than an authentic early fifteenth-century manuscript, you won't convince me. The case for forgery requires a truly implausible series of events. With each piece of the forgery argument, the improbabilities multiply. It is simply not plausible.
For what its worth, I think that the averaging of the each of the individual carbon dating results relies on assumptions we cannot rely on. I believe that you are personally working on how the pages were first organised before they were rebound? The statistical analysis that gave a clear early 15th century dating made assumptions on the timeframe of creation and binding in order to justify doing so.
Without doing that, you have individual folio ages from the mid 14th to late 15th century if including the uncertainty. Its a nitpick, and doesn't address it being genuine or a forgery, but it could be relevant for other discussions. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 02-02-2026, 03:03 PM
The question is medieval vs. modern, and the parchment is medieval, no matter how you interpret the C-14 tests. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 02-02-2026, 03:07 PM
(02-02-2026, 02:48 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.5) Earlier provenance: The Marci letter's wax stains line up perfectly with the wax stains inside the front cover. I know the counter-argument: What about the folding pattern?
I think most of your points are valid, but this one simply isn't true. The line up of the stains on the cover isn't "perfect" by any standard. But more importantly, the stains are in the wrong place on the book cover to account for the letter being their source. The distance between the stains seems to be approximately the same on both the letter and the cover, but only if you only unfold the letter, and then place it in a completely unnatural position and orientation -- with the letter itself extending beyond the cover. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 02-02-2026, 03:16 PM
(02-02-2026, 03:03 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question is medieval vs. modern, and the parchment is medieval, no matter how you interpret the C-14 tests.
I just meant that things being anachronistic is being used as part of the argument that the forgery hypothesis being true, so the exact dating is somewhat relevant in that discussion.
If the content in the manuscript matches the supposed dating, it lends credence to it being genuine (how would voynich know the age of the parchment before carbon dating, how would he know which mix of styles to add etc).
If we find 14th century handwriting on 15th century parchment, it could raise questions. If we find 14th century handwriting on 14-15th century parchment, it doesn't. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 02-02-2026, 03:23 PM
(02-02-2026, 02:30 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ...
... If these discrepancies disprove their theory or prove yours, the burden of proof is on you to show why, not on them to show why not. Add "thats why it's a modern forgery" to each of these and it shows the issue here.
(and so on and so on...)
"The Voynich has provably anachronistic, newer, content? That's why it's a modern forgery. "
(and so on and so on...)
Hopefully my point is clear.
What is clear is that you have completely missed the point that proto57 was making with that list of points and the contrivance of explanations for them.
And you are mis-stating the claims that he has made (as well as those of all the crazy moon-landing deniers). In none your examples did anyone ever suggest "that's why".
You fail to understand the difference between a claim being made based on some evidence vs a speculation within a theory's accompanying story given to explain points that lack observable data one way or the other. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 02-02-2026, 03:50 PM
(02-02-2026, 03:23 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is clear is that you have completely missed the point that proto57 was making with that list of points and the contrivance of explanations for them.
(31-01-2026, 05:59 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Perhaps I am mis-understanding. Was the list not a set of examples perceived to have been "adjusted" in a specific way for an agenda, along with some unanswered questions that the other side chooses not to answer? I was pointing out how many of those questions, even if answered, do not get to the core of the issue at hand (and that many of the questions are posed in ways that do not allow an answer without seeing it as a contrived explanation)
(02-02-2026, 03:23 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And you are mis-stating the claims that he has made (as well as those of all the crazy moon-landing deniers). In none your examples did anyone ever suggest "that's why".
I wasn't trying to say that proto57 was literally saying "that's why its a forgery" for each of the points. I was trying to say that if you were to do so that it wouldn't lead anywhere helpful for most of those questions, and that posing those issues in that way do not help in getting to the truth of the matter. I probably didn't do a good job explaining what I meant. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 02-02-2026, 04:24 PM
(02-02-2026, 02:33 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't know the historical details, so I have a question.
Anne Nill was Wilfried's secretary. She certainly had direct access to the VM manuscript.
Anne Nill also worked on the VM.
Although she was in close contact with the book and Wilfried.
Why did she work on the book? Wouldn't Wilfried have told her that it was pointless, or shouldn't she have realised that herself? Why her work?
Hi Aga: Only Anne could answer that completely, but from seeing her notes, and reading her letters... and looking at the overall situation, I would say it was a combination of curiosity (as all of us have for the Voynich) and a hope for a sale of the manuscript. It was and is historically difficult to sell an unidentified anything, of course. And I think it was clear after Wilfrid died that the real hope for a good retirement for Anne and Ethel would heavily depend on the sale of the Voynich. Well, and also the 1475 "Valturious" manuscript, which they also felt was worth a great deal of money.
The two of them were very close, she was not simply Ethel's employee. They lived together and clearly cared about each other. I've read all the letters in all the Voynich archives, at the Beinecke and the Grolier Club at least, and the above are the impressions I came to... which are I think were already shared by many.
Money was an ongoing issue for Anne and Ethel. A sale of the "Bacon Cipher Ms." would have set them for life. The modern equivalent of the money they wanted for it would be between one and two million dollars, today. I've written a basic outline of the issues these women faced in my blog post, "Anne Nill Speaks": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It is not a forgery-centric post, it is for anyone interested in the questions you brought up. You can read Anne's thoughts on the Voynich, its value, and how she and Ethel viewed issues about money, settling Wilfrid's will, and how to deal with the stock of the London office, which they were shutting down.
Rich
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 02-02-2026, 04:45 PM
(02-02-2026, 03:50 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps I am mis-understanding. Was the list not a set of examples perceived to have been "adjusted" in a specific way for an agenda, along with some unanswered questions that the other side chooses not to answer? I was pointing out how many of those questions, even if answered, do not get to the core of the issue at hand (and that many of the questions are posed in ways that do not allow an answer without seeing it as a contrived explanation)
As I've said earlier -- and you also said indirectly by referring to "normal science" -- it is indeed natural to fill in some gaps with speculative explanation. But I think that his point (at least part of it) is that there is a practice by opponents of his theory to not only come up with plausible explanations for various discrepencies (in the counter-theory), but to twist some facts as needed to do so. And to do this persistently regardless of what evidence - or how much of it-- is presented. If it does not align with the standard version of the story (i.e. the 15th century theory), then just devise yet another explanation to save the theory. But the aim of speculations within the "story" for a theory should be to assess if there are plausible explanations for a discrepency -- not to just save a theory (nor to act as evidence for a theory,)
(02-02-2026, 03:50 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wasn't trying to say that proto57 was literally saying "that's why its a forgery" for each of the points. I was trying to say that if you were to do so that it wouldn't lead anywhere helpful for most of those questions, and that posing those issues in that way do not help in getting to the truth of the matter. I probably didn't do a good job explaining what I meant.
No, you obviously weren't suggesting that anyone literally said "that's why". But the point is that your argument is asymmetric. The examples that proto57 listed were dealing with potential inconsistencies affecting the standard (genuine 15th century) theory and the speculative explanations that are put forth for each. But you then list examples that are not discrepencies in the MFT theory, but rather statements of his evidence -- and you then apply the "that's why" phrase to them as if the two sets of examples are of the same kind.
You are essentially pulling a 'switcharoo' to equate the two different things, And conveniently implying in the process that each piece of evidence is being claimed to support his theory all on its own, which is a misrepresentation.