The Voynich Ninja

(12-03-2026, 02:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, but then that mistake makes no difference to any of the provenance/switch/forgery theories, does it?  

It is fundamental. Just talking about the book switch theory here.

All the way from the beginning until 1918, Voynich did not bring the letter in connection with Rudolf's Prague, but with Roger Bacon (Paris) and Rudolf I (until 1290, various places in Germany).

He only started thinking about Rudolf II and his court in 1918-1919, after he was finally convinced of his mistake.

You correctly pointed out that the two references to Rudolf's court in the letter and the MS are probably a bit too much of a coincidence, but Voynich was not making that connection.

Anyway, there would be a far greater coincidence that cannot be explained away.

The Marci letter says that the previous owner left him the book in an inheritance, and that owner also wrote to Kircher. Now we don't know from how many people Marci inherited stuff, but one person from whom he did inherit was Barschius, and Barschius indeed wrote to Kircher, and the one surviving letter describes a book that closely fits the Voynich MS. 

That is too much of a coincidence.

Letters from November 1915.

Garrison to Voynich:
[attachment=14591]

Response:
[attachment=14592]

(13-03-2026, 12:43 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Letters from November 1915.

Forgive me if I have missed or misread some details, but are you, Rene (or others), of the belief that Wilfrid had actually read the Marci letter at least by Nov 1915 and misunderstood the "Rudolph" that Marci mentioned as Rudolph I, and not Rudolph II?   If it is not believable that he would have misunderstood the reference in Marci's letter, then the Garrison letter you showed is evidence that he did not bother to read the Marci letter for at least 3 years after acquiring it. (Before seeing this Garrison letter, I have only seen evidence that his tardy reading of the letter could have been up to 9 years.)

(12-03-2026, 07:58 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-03-2026, 07:18 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-03-2026, 04:29 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At least, knowing this, now, the official claim "he could not and would not have known" will no longer be claimed, right?

Gosh, Rich, I guess I'll just have to grit my teeth and concede as gracefully as possible that if Voynich had access to Google Books in the 1890's or early 'aughts he would have had no problem making the connection between Sinapius and Tepenc.

Meanwhile, in the absence of a letter from Voynich to someone saying, "My latest copy of Communications of the Association for the History of Germans in the Sudetenland just showed up, and I can't wait to read it cover-to-cover," color me skeptical.

Your sarcasm aside, the counter-point you are attempting make is totally unfounded. While the systems of cataloging that would have been in place in 1910 to 1912 would obviously have far less capable, by magnitudes, than the are today, they were nonetheless quite efficient and extensive to a really remarkable level. You know that, though, or should.

I've done much research spanning the old card catalog days, and bridging to the new. The existence of these books, containing the three versions of Horcicky's name... Horcicky/Sinapius/Tepenenc, would have been easily findable. 

I am, as you surmise, very familiar with doing library research in the pre-internet days. Which means I am also very familiar with the challenges involved in locating material in periodicals back in the day. And in my case, "back in the day" was a lot more recent than back in Voynich's day. The issue isn't "Could Voynich have found a card catalog listing for bound volumes of _Mitteilungen Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in den Sudetenländern_ or _Alterhümer und Denkwürdigkeiten Bömens_?" The issue is how he would have known to look at those specific pages in those specific issues for information on Sinapius. What printed index(es) including those periodicals available at the time had entries pointing to those items? Were those periodicals even indexed anywhere?

But let's let that pass. Let's focus on _Konfessy Katholicka_. Let's make the following (I'm more than willing to grant) perfectly reasonable assumptions:

* the 1782 edition of _Konffessý katholická_ currently in the British Library was there at the period of the supposed forging, and

* the card catalog listed the author as "Horčický z Tepence, Jakub, 1575-1622", as the current on-line catalog does, and

* Voynich either spoke Czech or could have easily found someone who did.

Granting those assumptions, then yes, Voynich could in principle have found out that Rudolph ennobled Sinapius and granted him the Tepence estate. He also could have found the "Tepenecz" form of the spelling on the page showing the "INSIGNIA NOBILIS D. IACOBI HORCZIcky à Tepenecz".

Thing is, every reference to him in that book using "Tepence" is always as "Jakub Horcicky z Tepence" (or, in the above case the Latin form "Iacobi Horczicky a Tepenecz"). So what he could not have gotten from that was the idea of forging Sinapius' ex libris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. using the form "Jacobi à Tepenecz" without the Horcicky.

Quote:But I will add that your point here is yet another example of needing to vary a standard of understanding, like Koen said, "sliders", for, in this case, Voynich's abilities. This needs to be done all the time to protect the Paradigm: Voynich was smart, he was stupid; he was extremely knowledgeable, but he was ignorant; he was a liar, we can't trust him, and then, "Voynich said, so we KNOW..."; Voynich was an honest man; but he was a cheat, and made illegal sales; the 'signature' was JUST visible enough to guess "tspenencz", but not enough to guess "tepenencz"; and so on, up and down, depending on what is needed to protect the paradigm.

Speaking of "sliders"...so Voynich is so meticulous and devious that he roots through all the volumes of the Carteggio to find the handful of letters that reference the whatever-manuscript, then cunningly forged the Marci letter to plant a clue for others to follow to falsely link his forgery to them -- but then he idiotically forgot to take out pages with 17th century microscopes when he decided to make it a Bacon mss?

(13-03-2026, 05:06 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's focus on _Konfessy Katholicka_. Let's make the following (I'm more than willing to grant) perfectly reasonable assumptions:

* the 1782 edition of _Konffessý katholická_ currently in the British Library was there at the period of the supposed forging, and

* the card catalog listed the author as "Horčický z Tepence, Jakub, 1575-1622", as the current on-line catalog does, and

* Voynich either spoke Czech or could have easily found someone who did.

Granting those assumptions, then yes, Voynich could in principle have found out that Rudolph ennobled Sinapius and granted him the Tepence estate. He also could have found the "Tepenecz" form of the spelling on the page showing the "INSIGNIA NOBILIS D. IACOBI HORCZIcky à Tepenecz".

Well we are getting much closer, you are almost with me now on this... especially having dropped the need for Voynich to have Google to do this! You now agree with me that this would have been possible for him to do, to find the Horcicky/Tepenenc connection. And for those unaware, that is a light year of distance from from the old narrative, used as recently as yesterday, when still it was insisted in all sources that it would have been "impossible" for Voynich to find this out before his 1921 correspondence with Garland. 

But importantly, it was not just the Konffessý katholická, as Voynich would have had other targets, which I listed in my first answer to you... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., reference works, which also listed Horcicky as Tepenenc. And I also found others, which all would have also been in print and available to Voynich at some library or another.

Quote:Thing is, every reference to him in that book using "Tepence" is always as "Jakub Horcicky z Tepence" (or, in the above case the Latin form "Iacobi Horczicky a Tepenecz"). So what he could not have gotten from that was the idea of forging Sinapius' ex libris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. using the form "Jacobi à Tepenecz" without the Horcicky.

Ok? But the signatures use that form. I think now you are splitting hairs with this. Once he knew Horcicky was Sinapius was Tepenenc, then this would plausibly lead him to finding other references to Tepenenc... perhaps his signature, with that form... with no "Horcicky"? Who knows. But once he knew who he was, it would open the door to his learning more about him, and his title.

But also... and I do not remember the specifics off the top of my head, but it was in this thread or the Anton thread... aren't there errors or inconsistencies in the form used in the Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. version of the name? Somebody help me with that? Something with the use of the "z", or the "à" being wrong? If so, the point you make about the form might have an implication different than you intended.

Quote:Speaking of "sliders"...so Voynich is so meticulous and devious that he roots through all the volumes of the Carteggio to find the handful of letters that reference the whatever-manuscript, then cunningly forged the Marci letter to plant a clue for others to follow to falsely link his forgery to them -- but then he idiotically forgot to take out pages with 17th century microscopes when he decided to make it a Bacon mss?

I think he also did a "wink wink" suggestion to someone to look in De Sepi, too, where there is a mention of Kicher's Carteggio, but basically, yes.

But I JUST realized that you have strayed into my theory, and this thread is dedicated to the Book Switch Theory, of which the nature of the "signature" is a key point, but overall ms. forgery is not. So of course I'll answer your question, but really shouldn't continue along those lines, here. I'd be glad to discuss them there, though, if you are genuinely interested in my ideas, in the Modern Forgery sub-forum. But to answer your question:

Well my hypothesis is, yes, that he took out those pages with illustrations which would have revealed his ruse... like maybe, as my imaginary illustration to demonstrate what I mean... an illustration of an obvious Tycho Brahe, looking through one of his armillary spheres. And of course he would have to stop somewhere, and hope that nobody identified the less identifiable things he left behind... such as what O'Neil and others thought were old world plants, an armadillo, and microscopic cells and animals and diatoms, and yes, the microscopes. He may very well have hoped people would think they looked like jars, of all things...

But I'm glad you finally agree they are microscopes. Just kidding!

Rich

(13-03-2026, 06:51 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I JUST realized that you have strayed into my theory, and this thread is dedicated to the Book Switch Theory,

Yeah, watch out! I hear the whoop-whoop of black helicopters approaching.

(13-03-2026, 06:51 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-03-2026, 05:06 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's focus on _Konfessy Katholicka_. Let's make the following (I'm more than willing to grant) perfectly reasonable assumptions:

* the 1782 edition of _Konffessý katholická_ currently in the British Library was there at the period of the supposed forging, and

* the card catalog listed the author as "Horčický z Tepence, Jakub, 1575-1622", as the current on-line catalog does, and

* Voynich either spoke Czech or could have easily found someone who did.

Granting those assumptions, then yes, Voynich could in principle have found out that Rudolph ennobled Sinapius and granted him the Tepence estate. He also could have found the "Tepenecz" form of the spelling on the page showing the "INSIGNIA NOBILIS D. IACOBI HORCZIcky à Tepenecz".

Well we are getting much closer, you are almost with me now on this... especially having dropped the need for Voynich to have Google to do this! You now agree with me that this would have been possible for him to do, to find the Horcicky/Tepenenc connection. And for those unaware, that is a light year of distance from from the old narrative, used as recently as yesterday, when still it was insisted in all sources that it would have been "impossible" for Voynich to find this out before his 1921 correspondence with Garland. 

But importantly, it was not just the Konffessý katholická, as Voynich would have had other targets, which I listed in my first answer to you... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., reference works, which also listed Horcicky as Tepenenc. And I also found others, which all would have also been in print and available to Voynich at some library or another.

Yes, I was well aware of the ones listed in post #100, as I made explicit reference to them in a part of my post you cut from your reply. Both refer to him including the Horcicky before Tepence. If any of the others you found didn't feel free to point me to them.

Quote:

Quote:Thing is, every reference to him in that book using "Tepence" is always as "Jakub Horcicky z Tepence" (or, in the above case the Latin form "Iacobi Horczicky a Tepenecz"). So what he could not have gotten from that was the idea of forging Sinapius' ex libris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. using the form "Jacobi à Tepenecz" without the Horcicky.

Ok? But the signatures use that form. I think now you are splitting hairs with this. Once he knew Horcicky was Sinapius was Tepenenc, then this would plausibly lead him to finding other references to Tepenenc... perhaps his signature, with that form... with no "Horcicky"? Who knows. But once he knew who he was, it would open the door to his learning more about him, and his title. 

Not splitting hairs at all. If the premise is that the ex libris was forged, then the question is necessarily where Voynich picked up that form of the name from. 

"...perhaps his signature..." -- how very coy of you. Who's being sarcastic now? Yes, he appears to have used Jakub z Tepen<squiggle> as a signature per the example found by K. Slajsna and J. Hurych shown at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Which, AFAIK, is the only known published example of his signature. So we have a grand total of one signature and two (non-MS 408/non-"Jacobi Synapij") ex libri (one of which J.B.Hurych claims was also written by Sinapius -- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Not sure how many Stefan Guzy will be adding to the mix. It would be easier to judge how plausible Voynich finding any of them was if I knew exactly how many person-hours went into locating them and what collection catalog information (if any) was used to find them. Rene, can you weigh in on how the ex libri were found?

(13-03-2026, 07:02 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-03-2026, 06:51 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I JUST realized that you have strayed into my theory, and this thread is dedicated to the Book Switch Theory,

Yeah, watch out! I hear the whoop-whoop of black helicopters approaching.

Yeah, I know...
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross-post the theories.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Raymond Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

(13-03-2026, 09:13 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the premise is that the ex libris was forged, then the question is necessarily where Voynich picked up that form of the name from. 

Its worth mentioning as well that in the only (known) version of "Jacobi à Tepenecz" does not share an identical "Jacobi" to the VMS. 
There are only a few options that allows a forgery to include both details. 

Option 1: Voynich had access to multiple books/pictures that include at least 2 different Tepenecz signatures, and chose to mix the aspects of each
Option 2: Voynich had access to a seperate, unknown book with an exact match for "Jacobi" and "Tepenecz", along with the knowledge that he also used "à" in his signature elsewhere
Option 3: Voynich had access to a seperate, unknown book with an exact signature match of "Jacobi à Tepenecz"

The most likely of the three, in my opinion, is that he had access to the book with "à Tepenecz" (Dialecta Aristotelis), along with one of the books that seperately matches the "Jacobi" (De Proprietatu Rerum / Opus Ruralium Commodorum).

As @kckluge asks, how plausible would this have been, and how much effort or time would that have taken?

(13-03-2026, 06:51 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But also... and I do not remember the specifics off the top of my head, but it was in this thread or the Anton thread... aren't there errors or inconsistencies in the form used in the Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. version of the name? Somebody help me with that? Something with the use of the "z", or the "à" being wrong? If so, the point you make about the form might have an implication different than you intended.

You're probably referring to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. JKP had a concern about the two a's not matching in the Aristotle ex libris (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Given that the "à" appears in the text of the digitized library catalog card, it can't have been added to the book ex libris any later than when the card was written.

It was useful to stumble across that thread, as it led to my discovering that I had missed the bit in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where Rene says, "The ex libris in book 1 was found by A. Sulzer. The ex libris in book 3 was found by myself. The ex libris in book 5 was found by R.Prinke and photographed by P.Kazil." In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Rene provides the detail that "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" along with an image of the catalog card.

Rene, how did you locate ex libris #3, and how much time did you spend doing it?