The Voynich Ninja

(18-05-2019, 07:32 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The two "Jacobi a Tepenecz" exlibrises are in a hand different from three others. So they would not be directly comparable.

Well, if they are in a different hand then I agree: comparison is useless. But in that case, only the 1553 Dialectica Aristotelis is left to support the contention that the Voynich Ms ex-libris really is Horčický's. And it fulfils that task a little too conveniently for my liking.

Quote:But in that case, only the 1553 Dialectica Aristotelis is left to support the contention that the Voynich Ms ex-libris really is Horčický's. And it fulfils that task a little too conveniently for my liking.

Convenience is a rare guest at Voynich studies. But one should hope for it at least somewhere.

Quote:These considerations, I think, permit legitimate doubts as to the genuineness of the inscription in the 1553 Dialecta Aristotelis.

This book entered the Clementinum library directly after Horcicky's death and did not leave it thereafter. So any forgery is excluded - unless, of course, by jesuits themselves. :-)

(18-05-2019, 10:04 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This book entered the Clementinum library directly after Horcicky's death and did not leave it thereafter. So any forgery is excluded - unless, of course, by jesuits themselves. :-)

Well, strange things can happen in libraries when the curator's back is turned!

Seriously, it would be good to have some more detail about the circumstances surrounding the discovery of this copy, just for the historical record. On the linked page, Rene says that "The ex libris in book 1 was found by A. Sulzer."  But did Sulzer find it personally, or was it one of his production team who brought it to his attention, or was there a tip-off from someone inside the library... etc., etc.? I know it only features very briefly in the TV documentary, and I'm not suggesting that anyone associated with the programme had any hand in forging it. But further details on how it came to be discovered would certainly be of interest.

To my mind, there is a significant difference between the "bi" in Jacobi and the letter "p" in the Dialecta example, compared to the Ex Libris on the other printed books, but I have been withholding judgment until I have enough samples to verify this and to make it more clear for everyone looking at it (and I keep hoping more samples might turn up (or more multispectral images) while I'm doing the research).

I have been trying to palaeographically track this style of handwriting and had a somewhat surprising discovery along the way, but I don't have enough data yet to be sure of what I'm seeing.

For one thing, I want to be sure there is more than one handwriting rather than the same person with changed handwriting over time. For another, I need more samples to determine if this unexpected discovery has any relevance to the VMS.

The signature on the legal document does not match well with the handwritings on the books, which made me wonder the first time I saw it if a notary or attorney had signed on his behalf (it is in notarial style—I mean "notarial" in the general sense, not in the specific palaeographical-names sense).


I have not looked into the differences between the way the "number" abbreviation is written (No. 4). I haven't even given it much thought yet because I've been so busy with other aspects of the text.

(18-05-2019, 11:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The signature on the legal document does not match well with the handwritings on the books, which made me wonder the first time I saw it if a notary or attorney had signed on his behalf (it is in notarial style—I mean "notarial" in the general sense, not in the specific palaeographical-names sense).

This seems to be the simplest and most likely explanation in that case.

Ah, I had forgotten about this thread...

It is once again interesting to see that there are really no limits to human imagination, and the idea that  Voynich or one of his manikins took the trouble of adding a fake Tepenec signature to an old book in the Klementinum library is a fine example.

But let's start at the end.
The signature on the legal document is genuine beyond reasonable doubt. The whole purpose of someone's signature on a legal document is to prove that he/she has personally understood the contents.
Not only that, as my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. explains, this signature was written 'manu propria', i.e. in his own hand. This is what the scribble at the end of his name means.
One can see the same on the Barschius letter:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and many other examples.

That he would have a formal hand for such an occasion, and an informal hand for others, and that they would change over time, is nothing unusual.

What would be unusual would be that anyone writes somebody else's name in a book.
And even if this ever happened (a.g. by a scribe or a secretary) it would still mean that the book was owned by the named person. That's the whole point of an Ex Libris.

For the Voynich MS we don't know whether it was erased or just faded.

There's an interesting aspect related to these numbers written under the Ex Libris. The one in the Voynich MS was never recognised for what it was. The first who tried to read it was Brumbaugh, in the 1970's, and he thought it said "Prag".
It was only after several signatures appeared in other books, that it became clear what it said.

So, Voynich planting it, and then not pointing it out?
Voynich planting both signatures in Prague and in the Voynich MS and then erasing the one in the Voynich MS?


From a series of letters exchanged between Voynich and his staff, that is still preserved in the Beinecke, it is clear that Voynich only understood in February 1921 who was Tepenec. That is nine years after he got the book.

I'll need to dig a bit  in my old files, to explain a bit more about the Klementinum signature.

It's true that people had formal and informal hands (sometimes three hands).

John Dee is an excellent example. Three hands: calligraphy, regular, and fast-notehand. But... one can see the similarities between them, even though the calligraphy hand is very nice and his fast-notehand is a complete scrawl, there are still discernible similarities.


The de Tepenecz "legal signature" has quite a few differences from the others. The slant, the balance of the upper and lower, the style of the & symbol (much less angular), the style of the T, the style of the loop on the k, the wider n, are all different, and all the other signatures except the legal signature are written Jacobi or Jakuba. The legal signature doesn't have the vowel at the end. Also, the p on the Jakuba signature is quite different from the p on the Jacobi signatures. I've never quite been able to reconcile so many differences.

I don't think I've put out any suggestions as to why this might be. I did mention my "first impression" on seeing the legal signature (I wondered if it were a notarial hand, someone with power of attorney to sign for him, the first time I saw it, which was after I saw the scans from folio 1r and before I had read that it was confirmed to be his hand).

I may also have wondered out loud whether the Ex Lib markings (or perhaps the catalog numbers) on the other books were by an aid (someone cataloging his books) since they don't match the notarial-style hand. But even these are enigmatic because one of them varies from the others more.

I have also pondered whether the outlier (Jakuba) was done at a much later date and whether that might account for the difference in the handwriting and spelling, the main difference being the way the "p" is written.

The idea that the signature was forged on 1r never crossed my mind (I tend not to have a diabolical mind, which means I often miss the more sinister possibilities).


To try to understand the markings better, I have been keeping an eye out for more examples from his library (I frequently see books from this era scanned into Google Books) and have also collected samples of handwriting that are similar. These are longterm needle-in-a-haystack projects but since I'm searching for other things anyway, I keep an eye out for these also. I've been tracking the "p" in particular, to see if the style of "p" varied from one decade to the next during this time (which might account for an earlier p being quite different from a later one).

I don't feel I have enough data (or have spent enough time studying them) to have anything definite to say about them yet.

This thread reminds me of an story about a public notary (which in Spain is a very important public functionary position) who I know who has an ornate "official" signature, and a much simpler personal squiggle which he uses for everyday purposes in a personal capacity. Quite common it seems.
Older (or posher) notaries still like to incorporate their "ius sigilli", a personal sign, into their more important signatures, although I am told that most of the profession nowadays just use a squiggle over the official stamps. The ius sigilli used to be personal to each notary and recorded by the government from the early middle ages onwards.
This thread allows me to trot out this wonderful example of a Notorial Signature from the 18th century, which was obviously designed to be used by someone being paid by the hour:
[attachment=2982]
The signature is the bit to either side, and the ius sigilli is the rose in the centre.

Anyway, my vague point is that the idea that a signature is personal and inmutable across space and time is nonsense, signatures change naturally over time and circumstances without people even being aware of it. That's why we invented stamps and seals, to accurately repeat and present the information of the sealer / stamper.

The Ex Libris of Tepenec in the Aristotle book (Nr.4) was found by Andreas Sulzer in the digitised card catalogue of the Klementinum library.

This catalogue card is included here:

[attachment=2983]

I don't know if this has any significance, it's just an observation, but the "a" in the Dialecta Aristotelis signature doesn't match the second a in the name.



The first "a" in Jacobi is angled, narrow and sharp and the ink in Jacobi matches the ink in Tepenecz in the sense that it gets slightly lighter, which is what happens when the ink is being used (in quill pens, metal dip pens, and early fountain pens).

The à in between them is round and darker (almost as though it were added in after) and is more similar in darkness to the Ex libris Wroblicionim ink below it.

Might not mean anything, but it was something I noticed.