- 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 > 1 hour ago
(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...