The Voynich Ninja

(08-03-2026, 11:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.he should have put a fake Dee signature.

(09-03-2026, 03:32 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As per above, the letter "proved" that Rudolf's "600 ducats" book was Bacon's.  There was no pressing need to explain how Rudolf got the book, or to identify its "bearer".   Dee was not mentioned in Marci's letter; he was only Wilfrid's guess.  What Wilfrid neeed was an explanation for the Rudolf to Barschius step.

As for Voynich's supposed "guess" that Dee possessed the book, I believe the evidence shows he was lying about this, and that he would have known he was lying. Shocking, I know. As I wrote in 2015, in my post, "Origin of the Dee Myth" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. :

"... suffice it to say that Voynich would have known the Dunstan book was the same one inaccurately referenced by Brown, to Ashmole, in 1675; that his knowing this is backed up by his conveniently leaving out the parts which showed that this reference was actually to an alchemical transmutation text and NOT his cipher ms.; or that it was a book claimed to be by Saint Dunstan, and clearly not by Roger Bacon. Voynich obviously knew all this, from what he says he read (Bolton, Fell-Smith), so hinting that the book Arthur Dee referred to could be Wilfrid’s Roger Bacon Cipher Manuscript was a purposefully disingenuous reference. But doing so was probably considered safe by Voynich, based on the hope that the Thomas Brown book, and the Dunstan book, would not be correlated."

Rich

Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.

As far as I'm concerned though, the fact that the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption. I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.

(09-03-2026, 04:16 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.

As far as I'm concerned though, the fact that the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption. I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.

But Koen, even the idea this is a "signature", and not added by someone else... during his life, or later... is seriously questioned by many who have seen all the instances of the name being written down. Would you also describe proposing it was written by someone other than Tepenencz as a "fringe" theory? It does not match his known signatures. The point being, there are three possible cases here:

1) The name is a signature by Sinapius/Horcicky/Tepenencz.
2) The name Tepencz was written in by someone else: Librarian, collector, some researcher
3) The name is a forgery by someone

There are serious problems with:

1) ... matching the name on Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with the existing, (reasonably known actual) signatures of Tepenencz
2) ... explaining the timing of the numbering system used in all the cases of the name appearing. They are illogical in their order and chronology.
3) ... the accuracy of the claim that is a "19" written by the name on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
4) ... the fact that Baresh, Kinner, Marci or Kircher seem to not have seen this name on f1r, when they should have screamed it from the rooftops
5) ... not to mentions Voynich's curious claim he didn't know whose name it was ("As nearly as I can read the name it is Jacobij a Tspenecz or Topenecz"- Wilfrid, writing to Prague- yeah, right)

So looking at all this, I it is at least clear to me that the men of the Carteggio didn't see the name there, and so, that it was added later by someone else, innocently or not, for this and all the reasons above. I mean, whomever and whenever it was added, and for whatever purpose, I do not agree at all that "... the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption." At best, that is an opinion, and one that can be reasonably argued as unsupported by the evidence. There is certainly nothing fringe about considering and exploring these other possibilities. And it is not a theory of "someone", rather, it is many people, even some who hold that the Voynich is 1420 genuine.

Rich

(09-03-2026, 04:16 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.

As far as I'm concerned though, the fact that the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption. I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.

As I said - the signature itself is  genuine in the sense that it exists on the VMS page.   But whether it is the signature of Jakub Hořčický is NOT based on any hard evidence -- it was conjectured by Wilfrid, which he came up with based on a reference to Rudolph II by Marci.  (I believe Rene also suggested he did not know who Hořčický was before that.) Wilfrid went looking toward the court of Rudolph II and found a likely candidate who had been granted the enobling title of "de Tepenec" and whose first name was (essentially) the same as "Jacobius".  But the signature also was not in a more common form of including his surname or its Latin equivalent.  (I have not actually been able to find another example of Hořčický using the specific signature form of "Jacobius de Tepenec" -- only indirect references to him doing so, some of which simply circle back to the VMS.)

So yes -- the signature it self is genuine in the sense that it is actually there in the VMS, although even that is not certain, given that there seems to be no evidence, neither a visual photograph nor a written mention of the signature, prior to 1921 when Wilfrid described seeing it and chemically treating it.  (PLEASE point me to actual evidence for that if I am missing it.)

There is some variation in Tepenec's ex libris and other signatures, which is fine (people aren't computers). Here's an example I happen to have on hand. Someone on my grandfather's side of the family was an (obscure) artist, and I've been able to find some of his painting online over the years. Almost all signatures are somewhat different. He had a number of styles that switched sometimes. The descenders that form the "A" of "Antwerp" are used early (1900) but I also have one from 1937. Angular and round G are not consistent in any period, and extremes of both are found in the early period. And so on. 

[attachment=14547]


There was clearly no need to have a "legally consistent" artist's signature, and obviously the same was true for one's ex libris - these guys even had multiple versions of their names they could choose from. The signature in the VM fits well within Tepenec's style. Only when you have "forgery" on your mind, you will point out differences and call it fake. Just like one could easily point to any of my great-great-uncle's signatures and call that fake. But there is no reason to think that, unless you have a theory that something was forged.

As to what people should have said but didn't say: how are we to know the complex network of personal motivations at play? How are we to know the millions of words spoken but not written down for posterity? Arguments of "x should have said more about y" are uninteresting, because we have no way of knowing how much x said about y over a century ago. Or what x's motivations were to write about z instead of y.

The signature looks fine, and there is nothing wrong with the number. Of course, if you want everything to be forged, then the signature is forged. Easy to say, impossible to disprove. And I guess that makes the claim disputed. Just like the fact that the earth is round is, technically, disputed.

(09-03-2026, 04:16 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.
I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.

And which "fringe" theory are we now referring to? Presumably, given your preoccupation with it, you are referring to the Modern Forgery Theory of SantaColoma.  Or are you referring to the separate Book Switch Theory? They are not the same thing.

I suppose you can call the Book Switch Theory a fringe one since it is primarily only myself and Jorge who have written anything about it.  But, in any case, the questions around the "de Tepenec" signature  and the evidence for or againts it stands independent of any of those theories -- it is merely part of the standard provenance story.  

As for the Modern Forgery Theory, I don't happen to buy into all of its elements, but calling it a fringe theory comes across, again, as a weak attempt at dismissal. It still has considerable evidence in its favor.  At this point, it iis really a question of which collection of evidence is stronger -- that supporting the MFT or that supporting a genuine 15th century origin along with its standard provenance story.

If you draw a card from a deck, you might well be safe in betting that it will NOT be a  face card because that is indeed the most probable outcome. But suggesting that the outcome could be a face card is still justified and can't be called a fringe theory.

(09-03-2026, 05:41 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(I believe Rene also suggested he did not know who Hořčický was before that.) Wilfrid went looking toward the court of Rudolph II and found a likely candidate who had been granted the enobling title of "de Tepenec" and whose first name was (essentially) the same as "Jacobius".  But the signature also was not in a more common form of including his surname or its Latin equivalent.  (I have not actually been able to find another example of Hořčický using the specific signature form of "Jacobius de Tepenec" -- only indirect references to him doing so, some of which simply circle back to the VMS.)

So yes -- the signature it self is genuine in the sense that it is actually there in the VMS, although even that is not certain, given that there seems to be no evidence, neither a visual photograph nor a written mention of the signature, prior to 1921 when Wilfrid described seeing it and chemically treating it.  (PLEASE point me to actual evidence for that if I am missing it.)

I think it appropriate to also point out that Wilfrid compiled a list of names... something like 19 or 20... from what he described as one of his favorite books, which he "knew by heart", "The Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". One of the names mentioned in that book is Jacob Hořčický, along with a (seemingly fictional brother) Christian Hořčický. The author, Bolton, seems to place this Christian in the real role of Jacob... well, sorta. But the thing is, he well could have known of Hořčický years before "finding" the Voynich Ms., as that very popular book was published in 1904.

The question is more likely, then, not whether he knew of Hořčický, but whether he realized he was one and the same as the man whose name appeared on his Ugly Duckling.

Bolton 1904 Wrote:"The sun was getting low and the young man dismissed the gardeners, and turned his steps down the hill towards the river; passing near the animal cages the savage beasts showed by their antics that they regarded the florist as a friend, Ottakar, Rudolph's pet lion, uttering a gentle growl of greeting. Following the winding path to the riverside, Jacob Horcicky, for that was the name of the embryo botanist, crossed the dwindling Moldau on the old stone bridge built by Karl IV; here he was overtaken by a trim young army officer, whose costume and decorations proclaimed him a lieutenant of cavalry, and who shortened his stride to accost Jacob in a cordial, almost affectionate manner that met a like response. Together they threaded the ill-paved, narrow streets of Old Prague; the Officer talked about the splendid horses in the royal stables where he was on duty and called them by endearing names; Jacob chatted about domestic affairs and both made frequent mention of a certain lovely Fraulein Sofie whose capricious ways seemed to distress the Lieutenant."

Bolton 1904 Wrote:"The pharmacy of Christian Horcicky was the best appointed in the Capital of Bohemia and was noted for the purity of its medicines as well as for the accuracy with which the most complex prescriptions were compounded. Persons entering the front shop saw against the walls on two sides a double row ,of drawers, some shallow and some deeper, above which ran wooden counters and shelving reaching nearly to the ceiling; on the stone floor stood heavy tables, a mortar mounted on a pedestal made of a tree trunk, and some stools ; across one end, under the window opening into the street, ran a counter on which the work of mixing powders, rolling pills, making salves, and compounding the simpler prescriptions was performed. Above the counter, hanging within convenient reach, were two pair of scales; alongside of the window was a hanging shelf...", and etc.

Rich

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-03-2026, 06:27 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the Modern Forgery Theory, I don't happen to buy into all of its elements, but calling it a fringe theory comes across, again, as a weak attempt at dismissal. It still has considerable evidence in its favor.  At this point, it iis really a question of which collection of evidence is stronger -- that supporting the MFT or that supporting a genuine 15th century origin along with its standard provenance story.

This simply isn't true, and it's what makes these discussions so difficult. There is a scientific consensus, and then there are competing theories. But those do not stand on the same footing.

Challenge the consensus. Point at its cracks and hammer away. That's how we will make progress. But the fact that we can and should challenge everything we think worth challenging, doesn't mean that our ideas are automatically on par with the consensus. 

To get back to the diagram: as it stands now, it represents a minority view, since there aren't many people who would call the Tepenec signature uncertain.

(09-03-2026, 06:27 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The signature in the VM fits well within Tepenec's style. Only when you have "forgery" on your mind, you will point out differences and call it fake.

Surely you can see the irony in your words. The signature in the VM fits well to being that of Jakub Hořčický only when you have the "need for a connection to Marci's mention of Rudolph" on your mind.   And I actually never claimed it was a "fake". I have only claimed that here is no simply no hard evidence that it is authentically that of Hořčický.

(09-03-2026, 06:27 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As to what people should have said but didn't say: how are we to know the complex network of personal motivations at play? How are we to know the millions of words spoken but not written down for posterity? Arguments of "x should have said more about y" are uninteresting, because we have no way of knowing how much x said about y over a century ago. Or what x's motivations were to write about z instead of y.

Sure -- there are millions of words spoken about all kinds of things. That does not provide evidence for something either. It boggles my mind that you simply don't see the silliness of this.
In this case "absence of enviidence" is exactly that... "absence of evidence".

(09-03-2026, 06:27 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course, if you want everything to be forged, then the signature is forged. 

Of course, if you want everything to be authentic, then the signature is necessarily that of the person you need it to be to support your story.

(09-03-2026, 06:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This simply isn't true, and it's what makes these discussions so difficult. There is a scientific consensus, and then there are competing theories. But those do not stand on the same footing.

This is very reminiscent of various claims pushed around in the U.S. these days; whenever a particular dogma must be enforced, the term "scientific consensus" gets pulled out. The only "scientific consensus" regarding the VMS is in the minds of a limited group of people who consider themselves more enlightened about the subject than anyone else.  But, in the end, actual evidence will outweigh zealotry.