• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS
• I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Jorge_Stolfi > 24-08-2026, 11:04 AM

  (23-08-2026, 10:57 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Suppose every single word of what Voynich said about the manuscript was made up, the signature forged and the letter sourced separately. Does this really change a lot? This is genuine ~15 century parchment, judging by the images this manuscript was created in Europe, looking at wear and tear and insect holes going through the ink, the writing appears to be old too.

  
  I agree.  
  
  

  Quote:What would materially change if the provenance story is wrong? There are of course hopes that tracing the provenance further in time would answer a lot of questions, but as it stands now, the provenance doesn't affect our reasoning about what the manuscript is and how to approach it.

  
  But the Standard Provenance theory is affecting the reasoning of many people, because it makes it seem likely that the VMS was made in Central Europe (not just by an European scribe).  
  
  Could it have been created in Constantinople or Yerevan or Samarkand by an European scribe?  Or by a local scribe who was used to writing in Greek or Armenian or Glagolitic but in paragraph format like European scribes did?  Currently, most people would consider that unlikely, because it seems unlikely that a manuscript produced in those places could have been sold to Rudolf in Prague by ~1590.  
  
  But suppose that Wilfrid in fact did not get the VMS from the Jesuits, but instead obtained it from some other source; and then faked Jacobus's "signature". and falsely claimed that Marci's letter had been attached to it.  Then that objection above would disappear. 
  
  

  Quote:Marci, Baresch, Kircher appeared to be as clueless about the manuscript they talked about as we are about the Voynich Manuscript.

  
  That is a weak argument for the provenance. There were hundreds of thousands of manuscripts that would have left them equally clueless.  
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  tavie > 24-08-2026, 11:17 AM

  Just a reminder - if you want to talk specifically about it being a modern hoax by Voynich, rather than just querying what is thought to be the provenance - we have the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  A lot of the points in this thread have been discussed there.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > 24-08-2026, 12:00 PM

  I am not specifically claiming that it is a modern hoax by Voynich. There are also the following two possibilities that should be, in my opinion, seriously considered:
  

  • An 18th or 19th century forgery,
    
  • Parts of the VMS are forgery, others are not. What if the herbal section is genuine 15th century "magical" herbalism, like in the second half of MS 02.48, while the pharma section, which is written in a totally different hand and features what appears to be 18th century microscopes, were added later as a forgery?
    

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Oscroft > 24-08-2026, 12:44 PM

  (24-08-2026, 10:38 AM)Oscroft Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (24-08-2026, 09:52 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Birth, marriage and death registers all contain a date for each individual entry. There are plenty of such registers that still have plenty of space left.

  
  There are surely not "plenty of such registers that still have plenty of space left" that exist from the period in question.
  
  I only know about the UK (from a genealogical perspective), but births, marriages and deaths back then were recorded and held by parish churches, and today there are very few still in existence even going back just 200 to 300 years - and we're only about 100 years on from Voynich. In genealogical searches, I've seen none at all dating back even close to the 13th century (which is what Voynich would have been trying to forge if that theory is true).
  
  What was the chance of Voynich being able to find a dated document still in existence from the 13th century, and then gain possession of it from the church (or whoever else had it) to reuse the parchment? Enough parchment for all the pages of the VMS? I'd put it at at close to zero.

  
  Looking at what I wrote and doing a bit of research...
  
  According to the UK National Archives, births, marriages and deaths were not recorded at all in the 13th to 15th centuries. The only such records I can find information about are all much later and on paper - parchment would surely have been too expensive to waste on such mundane parish matters (even in other countries).

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  oshfdk > 24-08-2026, 12:46 PM

  (24-08-2026, 11:04 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the Standard Provenance theory is affecting the reasoning of many people, because it makes it seem likely that the VMS was made in Central Europe (not just by an European scribe).  
  
  Could it have been created in Constantinople or Yerevan or Samarkand by an European scribe?  Or by a local scribe who was used to writing in Greek or Armenian or Glagolitic but in paragraph format like European scribes did?  Currently, most people would consider that unlikely, because it seems unlikely that a manuscript produced in those places could have been sold to Rudolf in Prague by ~1590.

  
  Why not? What would prevent a manuscript created in Samarkand circa 1420 from reaching Prague 170 years later? If the gap was 10-30 years one could argue that the author of the manuscript could still be around and geography would matter a lot more. In 170 years it's almost certain that the manuscript changed hands several times, be it via sale, inheritance, or many other possible ways, and it makes it more likely that it travelled some way or even a lot before coming to Prague. I don't think the Standard Provenance limits the possible origin of the manuscript more than the observables (radiocarbon dating and generally European imagery).
  
  

  (24-08-2026, 11:04 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  Quote:Marci, Baresch, Kircher appeared to be as clueless about the manuscript they talked about as we are about the Voynich Manuscript.

  
  That is a weak argument for the provenance. There were hundreds of thousands of manuscripts that would have left them equally clueless.  

  
  This was not an argument for the provenance, this was an argument for the lack of importance of the provenance, as it stands now, for the study of the manuscript itself. If Baresch wrote about "a manuscript originally acquired in Constantinople" it would be important to know whether Baresch was indeed talking about the Voynich MS or not. However, in the extant letters Baresch or Marci didn't appear to say anything that would add to what we know from the manuscript itself. The Standard Provenance is only important when looking for further clues, in itself it imposes no limits to most theories other than the modern forgery.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Oscroft > 24-08-2026, 01:04 PM

  (24-08-2026, 12:00 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not specifically claiming that it is a modern hoax by Voynich. There are also the following two possibilities that should be, in my opinion, seriously considered:
  

  • An 18th or 19th century forgery,
    
  • Parts of the VMS are forgery, others are not. What if the herbal section is genuine 15th century "magical" herbalism, like in the second half of MS 02.48, while the pharma section, which is written in a totally different hand and features what appears to be 18th century microscopes, were added later as a forgery?
    

  
  As far as I know, late forgery possibilities have already been extensively considered.
  
  The usual argument against late forgery seems to be the problem of obtaining sufficient 15th century parchment in the 18th or 19th century.
  
  And if it's part original and part forgery, wouldn't we find substantial differences in the two lots of parchment?

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Bernd > 25-08-2026, 11:35 AM

  (24-08-2026, 12:00 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not specifically claiming that it is a modern hoax by Voynich. There are also the following two possibilities that should be, in my opinion, seriously considered:
  

  • An 18th or 19th century forgery,
    
  • Parts of the VMS are forgery, others are not. What if the herbal section is genuine 15th century "magical" herbalism, like in the second half of MS 02.48, while the pharma section, which is written in a totally different hand and features what appears to be 18th century microscopes, were added later as a forgery?
    

  While I agree the provenance is shaky, it has already been pointed out that this is fairly normal for medieval manuscripts. I see no serious evidence that the VM is not a 15th century work and I think this still remains a more parsimonious hypothesis compared to being an 18th century+ forgery.
  
  I would categorically rule out that the VM was 'expanded' by a hoaxer. Lisa has told us that there is no difference in parchment quality. There also are no hard breaks in the VM, even between scribal hands. A forger would have needed extensive knowledge of Voynichese beyond our current understanding to forge an entire section. Furthermore the art style shows gradual development. While Balneo imagery may be especially weird (due to a weird Taccola source?), it contains elements such as faces identical to Astro (which in turn contains highly similar faces as in faces in Cosmo and Pharma and even some plants) and decoration and building blocks that can equally be found in all other sections, including plants. I doubt that even a highly skilled and motivated forger could have emulated the VM text and imagery in this way. There also is a lack of motive for such endeavor. I believe there is ample evidence that the VM was created by or under the supervision of one person. All VM imagery relays the same odd 'mindset', and so does the entire text, regardless of scribal hand.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Jorge_Stolfi > 26-08-2026, 08:28 AM

  (25-08-2026, 11:35 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While I agree the provenance is shaky, it has already been pointed out that this is fairly normal for medieval manuscripts.

  That fact is not an argument for "the VMS is not a modern forgery".  It is a great boon for forgers, since they don't have to forge the provenance for their "products".
  
  

  Quote:I see no serious evidence that the VM is not a 15th century work and I think this still remains a more parsimonious hypothesis compared to being an 18th century+ forgery.

  I agree that a modern forgery is very unlikely. (But not because it is the most parsimonious hypothesis -- that is a very weak argument in general, and even hard to apply.) 
  
  But I still give some probability -- say, 20% -- to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that says that the VMS is not the book that Marci sent to Kircher. 
  
  

  Quote:I believe there is ample evidence that the VM was created by or under the supervision of one person. All VM imagery relays the same odd 'mindset', and so does the entire text, regardless of scribal hand.

  
  And I agree with that, too.  And I don't think that there was more than one Scribe.  The calligraphy (cacography?) is quite uniformly sloppy throughout the whole book...
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > 27-08-2026, 09:48 AM

  (26-08-2026, 08:28 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And I agree with that, too.  And I don't think that there was more than one Scribe.  The calligraphy (cacography?) is quite uniformly sloppy throughout the whole book...

  
  Forgive me for asking, but how can you say there was only one Scribe, when paleographers have allegedly discovered at least 3 (and up to 5) different hands writing the text?

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Koen G > 27-08-2026, 11:01 AM

  The term "forgery" is applied too broadly. A forgery of what? 
  
  Merriam-Webster defines forge as "to make or imitate falsely especially with intent to defraud : counterfeit". Imitate what? Conterfeit what? The whole idea of a forgery is that similar documents exist, that there is an expectation which the forged object matches. For example, if someone made a bad version of a Ming vase, we could say it's an unconvincing forgery. 
  
  Take the Vinland Map; from the Wiki, first line: "The Vinland Map is a 20th-century forgery purporting to be a 15th-century mappa mundi with unique information about Norse exploration of North America." It falls within a very well-defined category (15th century mappae mundi), and it is very clear which expectations it answers to. There was a Vinland-Map-sized hole living in some people's imaginations that was begging to be filled. 
  
  When I ask what the VM is purporting to be, there isn't a clear answer, and you'll need to start speculating and making stuff up.
  
  Cambridge Academic Dictionary defines forgery as "a copy of a document, signature, painting, etc. that has been made illegally in order to deceive someone".
  
  Copy of what? Illegal by what law? Sure, if Voynich made the thing and passed it of as being from the 15th century (which he didn't!), then that's illegal, but the further we go back in time, the more problematic this part of the definition also becomes. And how on earth can we say that the intention was to deceive rather than making an idiosyncratic project?
• Next Oldest Next Newest