Steven Avery
Administrator
We probably should translate the book.
===================================
what did Lycourgas say about the chemical mixtures and tea leaves
In his definitive 1856 exposé,
Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios
("Revelations Concerning the Simonides-Dindorf Uranios"),
the Greek theologian and scholar Alexander Lykurgos systematically detailed the artificial methods used to manufacture the manuscript. [1]
Rather than relying entirely on the assistant's confession, Lykurgos used his own observations to detail exactly how the chemical mixtures and tea leaves left physical evidence of fraud:
1. The Corrosive "Aging" Mixture
Lykurgos pointed out that the yellowish, antique tint of the parchment was not the result of natural centuries of decay, but rather a harsh chemical wash.
2. The Behavior of the Fake Ink
Lykurgos focused heavily on how the artificial aging solution interacted with Simonides' calligraphy ink. [1]
3. Masking the Scent
Lykurgos and his colleagues also noted a highly practical, sensory flaw in Simonides' methodology. Freshly mixed chemical aging solutions and boiled tea leaves left a distinct, acrid, or herbal odor on the manuscript. To combat this, Simonides attempted to bury the documents in dirt or expose them to smoke to give them a "musty library" smell—an effort Lykurgos mocked as a desperate theatrical trick that failed to deceive any true expert's nose.
Lykurgos’ published findings effectively destroyed Simonides' academic credibility in Germany, forcing the paleographer to flee to England to find a new audience for his deceptions. [1, 2]
Would you like to know more about how Lykurgos and Tischendorf cooperated during the 1856 investigation, or how the British press reacted when Simonides arrived in London? [1]
===================================
what did Lycourgas say about the chemical mixtures and tea leaves
In his definitive 1856 exposé,
Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios
("Revelations Concerning the Simonides-Dindorf Uranios"),
the Greek theologian and scholar Alexander Lykurgos systematically detailed the artificial methods used to manufacture the manuscript. [1]
Rather than relying entirely on the assistant's confession, Lykurgos used his own observations to detail exactly how the chemical mixtures and tea leaves left physical evidence of fraud:
1. The Corrosive "Aging" Mixture
Lykurgos pointed out that the yellowish, antique tint of the parchment was not the result of natural centuries of decay, but rather a harsh chemical wash.
- The Recipe: He noted that Simonides mixed infused tea leaves, rust water, and corrosive chemical acids to stain the fresh surfaces.
- The Tell-Tale Proof: Lykurgos observed that this corrosive mixture had been applied carelessly. Because it contained modern chemical acids, it had eaten into the edges of the parchment far too aggressively. He argued that the uniform, artificially dark "charred" look on the edges looked like a chemical burn rather than the soft, uneven fading caused by true historical oxidation.
2. The Behavior of the Fake Ink
Lykurgos focused heavily on how the artificial aging solution interacted with Simonides' calligraphy ink. [1]
- No Ink-Acid Reaction: Lykurgos noted that genuine ancient ink (which was typically iron-gall based) naturally degrades and bites deeply into parchment over thousands of years, causing a distinct chemical reaction. [1]
- The "Smear" Test: He pointed out that Simonides used a modern, synthetic concoction mixed with tea to give his new text a faded, sepia appearance. Lykurgos proved that because this tea-and-ink mixture had only been applied recently, it sat loosely on top of the parchment. When subjected to moisture or light scraping, the "ancient" text easily smeared and lifted away, proving the ink had never deeply bonded with the medium over time. [1]
3. Masking the Scent
Lykurgos and his colleagues also noted a highly practical, sensory flaw in Simonides' methodology. Freshly mixed chemical aging solutions and boiled tea leaves left a distinct, acrid, or herbal odor on the manuscript. To combat this, Simonides attempted to bury the documents in dirt or expose them to smoke to give them a "musty library" smell—an effort Lykurgos mocked as a desperate theatrical trick that failed to deceive any true expert's nose.
Lykurgos’ published findings effectively destroyed Simonides' academic credibility in Germany, forcing the paleographer to flee to England to find a new audience for his deceptions. [1, 2]
Would you like to know more about how Lykurgos and Tischendorf cooperated during the 1856 investigation, or how the British press reacted when Simonides arrived in London? [1]
