The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

I appreciate your response, and to be clear i'm coming at this from a fresh perspective, not anti-your theory or pro any other. I'm sure i'm rehashing plenty of points that have been discussed before, but at this point that applies to almost everything. There's always a chance that something has been missed.

It's all good, as they say, and I appreciate your genuinely being curious about all these things, and keeping an open mind. I feel the same way about "missing" something, and that is part of my loving discussion. That, and also... it turned out... I am what is known as an ENTP Type personality, which is labeled "The Debater". Funny that. 

First of all, Voynich himself was surrounded by mountains of materials of all types, estimated to be over 500,000 items:

I agree that if someone has access to 500,000 items that it's not exactly crazy that they would indeed have access to a few large pieces of parchment.

Yes, and the other thing about this is to view it from my perspective: Before I learned of his purchase of the Libreria, the argument was explicitly made that Voynich, himself, would not have had access to the appropriate materials. I was told, yes, he sold the odd blank sheet of paper, which he cut out of discarded, disassembled, worthless books... but enough to make a Voynich? "Impossible!". Now, the only people who say "impossible" are those who don't know about the purchase. The others, crickets. Although I actually had one person argue, "We don't KNOW it was 500,000 items! I could have been far less!". OK, W/E. But my point is that this has been the direction of my progress: I started with a dozen major objections, and thought, "OK, what about that?". And... nope, it turned out, not a problem. Then the next, and next... it keeps happening. Anyone around less than ten year will not know this process, and worse, they will not be told of the factors involved. I'm accused of "hand waving" type arguments... well, I am verbose, but I disagree that I do this. I just feel it is fair for people to know everything, so they can make up their own mind. Most don't do this... but, kudos to Lisa... hi, Lisa... whom, I have noted, has modified her lectures somewhat over time so that some counter ideas to 1420 Genuine are provided, so her audience is more fully informed.

   

the cumulative effect should be, must be: The Voynich is not normal for its time, nor for any time. We can't, I mean, base our opinions on negative, missing, evidence, when it is not one or two instances, but in virtually every instance.

In the 1000s of documents in the libraries in the world, are there not other examples of completely unique documents? Two questions that are worth asking ourselves may be:

1) How many truly unique -or almost unique- works existed in say, the 15th century? Tens, hundreds, thousands?
2) What is the approximate survival rate of a given work from the 15th century? 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000?

I'm not asking for a specific/technical answer -unless you have one ready of course- but instead to gauge how reasonable these things are. If there were only 100 such works that existed, and the rate of survival for a work is 1/1000, statistically we wouldn't even expect to find another. In such a case, it's entirely reasonable to take the stance that we may never find another, or that we may hope to find another eventually.

I don't know the absolute number, maybe we could look that up. I have no idea. Often though, when one comes across any manuscript, they say, "of such and such number" of copies. Or this or that number in someone hand, while this other number in some other hand. My point is, intuitively I cannot recall if and how often totally unique items are found.

But here is a point, one of hundreds probably, that are really hard for me to express in absolute terms: Whenever totally unique items are found, the reason for their being, or their purpose and origin, are still known. As an example, the Rongorongo "texts" on bark. Unique characters, substrate, style... but we know from the context in which they are found, approximately why they were made, and by whom, and when... because of context. So for the Antikethera mechanism: At first, the context in which it was found belied its ancient Greek origins... it was thought a modern mechanical computer somehow fell on the ancient wreck. But when they began to study it, and were able to read some Greek letters and so on, the writing and the technology placed the item in the context of the wreck, and so, dated to it. It would be the same for a unique herbal, or medicinal, or sculpture of and unknown person. For most unique things, I mean, we can place them in some context, some discipline, some age, some purpose. So "unique" does not mean the same thing in every case... and I think, in all cases except the Voynich.

You see what I mean? Whatever the total number of absolutely unique cases are in literary history, I think that most of them would still be identifiable to a far greater extent than the Voynich. The Voynich is different... all the experts disagreed, and still disagree on the origin, meaning, age, influence, by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. THAT is what sets its uniqueness apart, I feel. Well, the C14 results have been used... incorrectly I feel... in becoming the "nexus" of all explanations, stripping away much valuable evidence and opinions improperly. But, still, for that C14 timeframe, or really any other, I think the Voynich has a very different type of "unique" not seen in anything else that is one of a kind.

In addition to this, I suppose I don't agree that the foldouts being unique constitutes an anachronism. Again, if there were only 100 examples of anyone ever doing this type of foldout, and the rate of survival is 1/1000, we may never find another example of it, and that wouldn't be unexpected or suspicious at all. 

If the opposite is true and the amount of unique works is in the 1000s, and survival rate is 1/100, I would be far more open to it being considered anachronistic as we should have expected to find another by now.

Well there is another "level" to "uniqueness", in that each element of the Voynich is unique. So in trying to "crunch the numbers", for, say, some imaginary document with only unidentifiable plants, but everything else is "normal". Or lettering and content, but of a place and age that is not unique. And so on. I mean by this that whenever considering the probability of finding "a" unique item, one probably ought to calculate out the probability of the occurrence of, maybe, 50 unique attributes of that item, all in one place. I mean, like this, in an arbitrary example, with made up numbers: Unique plants, 1000:1. Unique, original script: 1000:1 Unique use of foldouts: 1,000,000:1 Unique "zodiac": 10,000:1 I think that all these unique features should not be "bundled" into the sense of a single unique object, rather what "are the odds" that one document would have all these unique elements in one place? Escpecially, when as I described above, we never see this effect in anything else?

Another point here, which I wrote about before I thought the Voynich was fake... but, getting there... was "what are the odds that each item in the Voynich happens to look like some real thing, but then be "off" just enough to not be identifiable AS that thing?" My thought was, and is, this must be intentional. A good example, of many I think, is that the last page marginalia, like the main text, is unreadable. I mean, marginalia is usually readable. How would it happen that both, in different styles, with mostly different symbols and content, are both unreadable? Like the plants, the Zodiac, the pictures...

"A Little Bit Like Everything, a Whole Lot Like Nothing": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I don't, first of all, agree that all of your cases are signs of "getting it right", but more importantly, you leave out the great many cases of anomalous and anachronistic content in making your point.

What i mean is that in order to do any of the things that i mentioned, the forger would clearly require some knowledge of old manuscripts, which would include the fact that none of them include foldouts. Effort was put to put things in that are many centuries old. I personally find the quire numbering interesting; the only reason you would use those forms would be if you had seen them, yet they are not extremely common. 

Of course there are many other reasons to include such foldouts in a forgery, such as to induce a sense of mystery. To me that's more likely than a mistake.

I understand your point here, and yes I do see it as a valid question. But in reading your questions and concerns in that, I almost sense the mechanations which might lead one to think of this as a forgery by Voynich himself: I do think these colorful and quirky and whimsical anomalies may be in there to create "interest" and "mystery", and that of course he quite a bit, not just "some" "some knowledge of old manuscripts", of course.

But I'm not meaning to misstate your point here, which seems to also be that with that knowledge, these problems should not be in there. I get that, I think. That anyone's opinion on this is decided by the outcome of a tug-of-war between a person knowledgeable enough to do the correct stuff; but ignorant enough to make stupid mistakes, like the foldouts. It is of course a valid point, which still needs explaining.

So point being, I understand and appreciate your examining the issue, and coming to your own mind on what it all means. You know mine of course: I think Wilfrid a somewhat odd fellow, who had a whimsical nature, and who was not a very exacting person in his behavior and actions. I think he tended toward the artistic... no, not in artistic skill, of course!... but as in that whole human Left/Right Brain thing; the whole form/function, dichotomy in all people, he tended (IMO) toward the "romantic", and less toward the pragmatic in nature. And so, he was of the type to do this... a bit of color, a bit of fun, a bit of whimsical content... some excitement to draw and keep attention: But pretty sloppy, and uncaring of specifics like when and how many of this or that appeared to literary history. I think it was personal judgement call on all these things, with far less consideration given, by him, than pretty much any of us give it, today. I don't think, I mean, that he would have thought of it this way, and probably been very surprised.

Another way to look at it, from the opposite direction: We all have problems explaining these thing, of course, because they are anomalous, and are odd. I mean, it's not like, for instance, 1420 genuine explains the foldouts in a convincing way, while Modern Forgery cannot. It is debatable, and fun and interesting to debate because of it.

[Fabrizio Salani]

I would say that this mystery deserves its own thread...

I absolutely agree.
Impeccable clarification, as always.
Kind regards.

[tavie]

The recent posts on Fabrizio's page have been moved to here:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[eggyk]

I was going to reply in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but I think I would probably derail the conversation there, so i'm answering here 

But I also note that, in this very thread in fact, we see an example of my "Voynich Theorem #1" being borne out... for most of the examples being discussed are admittedly and demonstrably either owned by Voynich, or somewhere he is known to have visited, and even, a couple, a short stroll from his Florence Libreria. That is another important aspect of this... it is not just that these comparisons are compelling, it is that they were either in print by 1910, or somewhere he plausibly, or is known to have, visited.

I wanted to discuss the month name marginalia and ask for your view regarding them. 

The month name marginalia represent extremely unusual forms to use as a forger. Even with the internet, digital libraries, access to 100s of examples and a dedicated search effort some of the forms are exceedingly rare to find. No matter who he was forging "as" (bacon, tepenec, anyone else), the forms make no sense to use. We would expect the forger to use at least semi-common forms from a plausible language. 

I do not believe it is likely that Voynich would have easily come across these forms. In fact, it is extremely likely that he would have come across and used one of dozens of other rare (but less rare) forms instead. While searching for these, i've come across almost everything you can imagine: juillet, jullet, julet, juingnet, juinget, jungnet, jugnet, jules, jullé, julh, iuylol, even an extremely rare joingnet or joignet. Not a single jollet has ever been found, other than a lone "joilet" that I had to request from the BNF library. 

Aberil is much the same. There are loads of abril, abrel, aberel, abrillen, abrellen floating around, but actual usage of "aberil" is almost non-existant and highly unlikely to come across. 2 of the 3 aberils we have (aberillen) are actually direct copies of an extremely old poem (and are nestled within 700 pages of text). The only other places we've seen aberil are in farmer records, where the people writing were far less educated and more likely to phonetically write their dialect. 

Additionally, the french sections correlate to eachother. The areas that most used 'o' in june and july (eg joing, joingnet) correlate strongly to the same areas that used 'octembre'.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, admittedly this means that whether or not the forgery hypothesis is true, something unlikely has occured. Either: 

1) Voynich happened to find extremely unusual month name forms in 2 different languages, and decided to mix them 
or 
2) Someone who spoke both a northern french dialect and an allemannic german dialect (alsatian, swabian, bavarian) wrote using both languages
or
3) Two seperate people (who both learnt to write in the exact same style, or at the same school) wrote the month names in their own dialects: one in northern french, and another in alemannic. 

None of these are provable of course, and we currently have no full or partial sequence that mix this way. However, we do see some unusual / relevant french forms near Metz, and also some relevant german forms near strasbourg. These really aren't that far away from eachother. However, the forgery hypothesis requires that voynich came across extremely rare forms two times, and then happened to choose those two sources instead of all of the other, less rare forms he would know existed. 

Considering how rare these forms are, what do you think the liklihood was that he would come across them in his stash?

[ololololo]

When you wrote this, I and others were explaining that, in fact, he had ample access to hundreds of thousands of books, many of them his very own. But I see you actually do agree with this level of access now, with, "It is not disputed that Voynich was an antiquarian, that is, a dealer in old, rare books and manuscripts."

Well... The problem with the claim that Voynich was an antiquarian is that it doesn’t prove anything.

Yes, he had access to the books and yes, he could theoretically take them to make a forgery, but... All major antique dealers fit this definition. There is no connection between "an antique dealer" and a "fraudster".

It’s the same as saying, “Someone littered on the street. John always goes out on the street, so he could well have littered.” But besides John, everyone walks on the street.

So, in my opinion, this is not a sufficient argument.

[asteckley]

When you wrote this, I and others were explaining that, in fact, he had ample access to hundreds of thousands of books, many of them his very own. But I see you actually do agree with this level of access now, with, "It is not disputed that Voynich was an antiquarian, that is, a dealer in old, rare books and manuscripts."

Well... The problem with the claim that Voynich was an antiquarian is that it doesn’t prove anything.

I think you need to look back at why the question of his being a rare book dealer was brought up. It wasn't supposed to prove any of the claims being made about the forgery possibility. It was brought up to explain why some of the claims were plausible. Very different things.

This is the problem with people getting more fixated on discrediting someone's theory than they are on objectively evaluating it... they start to see things in the discussion that aren't there.

[ololololo]

they start to see things in the discussion that aren't there.

Oh, sorry. I guess I misunderstood.  But just a reminder that it’s important to maintain a boundary between explanation and reason...

This is the problem with people getting more fixated on discrediting someone's theory than they are on objectively evaluating it...

I have no intention of refuting or proving someone’s theory. This is a lie. Please don’t attribute someone else’s opinion to me

Any sufficiently well-founded theory can be considered true. If a modern forgery were based solely on the fact that Voynich was an antique dealer who wanted to profit, then it could easily be refuted. As it is, we have indirect facts and the same similarities with microscopes.

[asteckley]

I have no intention of refuting or proving someone’s theory. This is a lie. Please don’t attribute someone else’s opinion to me

You are absolutely right -- I'm guilty of exactly what I implied of you. Mea culpa.

(In my inadequate defense, I did mean to add more precision to my comment  but kept having problems with the website connection and so submitted the response with less said than I had intended.)

It's just that if you've been around this forum for long you've seen the extent to which my comment is true. It all gets tiresome to see, and I reacted to you suggestion prematurely.

... As it is, we have indirect facts ...

Indirect facts are a hallmark of most of the claims when it comes to the Voynich

[JustAnotherTheory]

i've come across almost everything you can imagine: juillet, jullet, julet, juingnet, juinget, jungnet, jugnet, jules, jullé, julh, iuylol, even an extremely rare joingnet or joignet. Not a single jollet has ever been found, other than a lone "joilet" that I had to request from the BNF library. 

Aberil is much the same. There are loads of abril, abrel, aberel, abrillen, abrellen floating around, but actual usage of "aberil" is almost non-existant and highly unlikely to come across. 2 of the 3 aberils we have (aberillen) are actually direct copies of an extremely old poem (and are nestled within 700 pages of text). The only other places we've seen aberil are in farmer records, where the people writing were far less educated and more likely to phonetically write their dialect. 

One could make the exact same argument about the lobster, whose:

• legs are on its tail (of which only a few very rare cases exist),
  
• has four tail flaps (of which no examples have ever been found, only 3 or 5 flaps exist),
  
• scissors on its head (of which still no examples exist).
  

It's not unlikely that a forger would simply:

• make mistakes by accident, say, because of a copy error, or
  
• make deliberate mistakes in an effort to obfuscate the manuscript even more.
  

The fact that you have found no examples of aberil or jollet in manuscripts, points to one of these hypotheses. It could therefore be that they were simply copied wrong, deliberately or otherwise, as the vast majority of the imagery in the VMS.

[ololololo]

It's just that if you've been around this forum for long you've seen the extent to which my comment is true. It all gets tiresome to see, and I reacted to you suggestion prematurely.

Nothing wrong. There are always misunderstandings.

Indirect facts are a hallmark of most of the claims when it comes to the Voynich

By indirect, I meant those facts that seem to be in favor, but still not positive enough. An example of such an indirect statement in the context of this theory is: "medieval experts cannot recognize what is depicted in the book." This is possible if the book was created by a person who is not well versed in medieval art. But there are other reasons...
Also, for example, according to Chinese theory, the red symbols on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. resemble hieroglyphs. But if that’s the case, they may also resemble hieroglyphs for other reasons — for example, if it’s a fake Chinese book...

In an effort to avoid such logical errors, I initially consider the theory to be true, and only then do I pay attention to the errors. The former helps to assess how realistic this view is in principle.

Sorry for the off‑the‑cuff remark...