The Voynich Ninja

(11-03-2026, 12:41 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Additionally, as Anton pointed out in that other thread, the sequence  number of 4 should logically precede the later book with Nr 7 which had an even earlier date of 1602 associated with it.

That is based on an assumption ("logically"), and if our observations do not fit with some assumption, one should revisit the assumption.

Unfortunately, this is an inherent problem in many, if not most Voynich theories, not just the book swap theory. Often they are based on numerous assumptions, which are rarely stated, and not even always properly realised. They take as much importance as evidence, which is of course invalid.

Fortunately, assumptions in this thread have been clearly numbered in a post by Stolfi, and it is easy to see which ones are based on no evidence at all.

Anyway, the year 1604 is already explained on the web page. Note also that the 4 in the number and the 4 in the year are in quite different hands. 

Even though Tepenec's testament (including documents of its execution) has been found, it does not include the much hoped for list of books. We don't know if this ever existed but it would have been nice.

(10-03-2026, 02:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But also, I read with great interest this entire thread, started by user Anton: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thanks for all the info an for that link! I had not seen that thread before.  A lot to unpack...

Maybe the recent posts on this thread that refer to Jacobus's "signature" should be moved to that thread.

Quote:Here is a link to the full size image: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I will try to process that image to bring out the signature.  But I suppose many others have done that already?

Quote:The clear and obvious picture that emerges, to me, is that the overwhelming evidence is that the name on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. cannot be the living signature of Sinapius/Horcicky/Tepenencz.

Indeed... Until yesterday, my probabilities were something like:  

• 50% for (A) the name on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is genuine in Jacobus's own hand, 
  
• 30% for (B) it is someone else's annotation made sometime before Wilfrid got it, 
  
• 20% for © it was forged by Wiflrid to support the Rudolf II claim.
  

But now that I have looked more carefully at those images on Rene's page, I have reversed my opinion: 5% (A), 20% (B), 75% ©...

Here is a summary of the data from Rene's page:

#4   Clementinum=CzechNatLib      "Jacobj à Tepenecz"  "No// 4"
#7   Strahov Monastery            "Jacobi Sinapij"     "N/ 7."
#18  Strahov Monastery            "Jacobi Sinapij"     "N/ 18."
#19  VMS                          "Jacobj à Tepenecz"  "No// 19"
#40  Charles University           "Jakuba z Tepen??"   "??? 40"
LEG  Legal document               "Jakub z Tepen??"    ---

On #40, the abbreviation before the number does not seem to an "N" or "No"; more like "H".  What could that be?  Since the name is in Czech, maybe it is a Czech word, like "Heslo"?

Anyway, to my eyes, the handwriting of LEG matches quite closely that of #40 (including the "x-like p"!), and does not match at all those of the other entries.  Not to mention that both wordings are the same, except for the genitive "Jakuba" instead of "Jakub".   I suppose that Jacobus's handwriting could have changed in the time between #19 and #40 -- but by that much? 

So that is why I now give only 5% (being generous) to hypothesis (A).

What I find most strange is that #19, the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "signature", is not just similar to #4: it is practically identical to it.  Even though there should have been 14 books between them -- including the two at Strahov, that are completely different in every respect -- the form of the name, the handwriting, the abbreviation for "Number", and the period after the number (which I suppose is the German ordinal sign, like "th" in English).

Maybe there is a natural explanation, like two employees of Jacobus or two librarians who alternated writing those ex-libris.  Or there were two sets of books, independently numbered by two different people, and we have only #4 and #19 from one set and #7 and #18 from the other.

But another explanation is that Wilfrid decided that he had to forge the signature of a plausible link between Rudolf II and Barschius, so he sent agents hunting ex-librises of Rudolf II courtiers that he could copy.  And they immediately found #4 -- at the National Library, formerly Clementinum, the college that reportedly inherited Jacobus's possessions.   

And the rest of © is how I wrote before. As a doctor and herbalist, Jacobus was a perfect candidate.  So Wilfrid faithfully copied #4 (the only sample he had at the time) on f1r, changing only the number to #19, then erased almost all of it and smeared it with chemicals to make the forgery impossible to detect, leaving just enough traces that would be sufficient to convince buyers that the book did go through Jacobus's hands.

And that is why I now am leaning much more towards © than even (B)...

All the best, --stolfi

(11-03-2026, 01:16 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, the year 1604 is already explained on the web page. Note also that the 4 in the number and the 4 in the year are in quite different hands. 

This doesn't explain what I pointed out at all though. I think what you might be trying to say, without simply saying it, is that the librarian who wrote down that he donated the book in 1604 erroneously made that assumption because he saw the year 1604 written on the same page as the signature in the book. (Even though he would have been conflating the donation date with the signature date.) He was in error though because that 1604 was part of the stroked out previous owner whereas our Jakob actually wrote his signature on that page much later -- after 1608. Is that what you are trying to say?

That would still not explain the mixed up sequence numbers though.  You seem to be suggesting that the idea of "sequence numbers" being assigned in the natural order of our Arabic numbering system is merely a bad "assumption" on our part.  And  that that assumption needs to be reconsidered entirely because such an assumption lacks any evidence, and because these records do not otherwise make any sense. Is that what you are suggesting?  
OR...
Do you have a more reasonable explanation for the problem of the sequence numbers?

It is not a bad assumption that:
- he wrote his ex libris in each book right at the moment he received it
- he added the number in ascending order at the same time

but this is clearly not what happened.

I can think of several alternative explanations, but have no evidence for any of them, so I won't.

(11-03-2026, 01:36 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed... Until yesterday, my probabilities were something like:  

• 50% for (A) the name on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is genuine in Jacobus's own hand, 
  
• 30% for (B) it is someone else's annotation made sometime before Wilfrid got it, 
  
• 20% for © it was forged by Wiflrid to support the Rudolf II claim.
  

But now that I have looked more carefully at those images on Rene's page, I have reversed my opinion: 5% (A), 20% (B), 75% ©...
...
And that is why I now am leaning much more towards © than even (B)...

Jorge— I believe you have essentially retraced much of the logical path that Richard SantaColoma has followed regarding the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. signature!

Rich will likely be pleased to see that there is now a “convert” among us. (I say that with tongue-in-cheek, though. From what I have come to know of Rich, he is not really motivated by gathering converts; he is genuinely just interested in following the data wherever it leads.)

I, however, am not yet a complete convert myself. The broader network of connections linking the VMS to Marci, Kircher, and ultimately to Rudolph II—and especially to Hořčický via the signature that is ostensibly his—is tenuous to be sure, though.

By the way, is there anyone here who advocates for the validity of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. signature and who would be interested in finding evidence that actually supports that claim? (By the validity of the signature, I mean that it is indeed the signature of the Jacobus Hořčický associated with the court of Rudolph II.)

I ask because I would genuinely like to see a stronger case made for it, and I believe I can suggest a proper way to approach this—one that follows the standards of good research rather than simple advocacy for a favored theory.

The misalignments we see between the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. signature and the known signatures of Hořčický need to be shown to be neither unexpected nor uncommon. To do that, one could randomly select a few other historical figures (or at least one such figure) who also received the ennobling title “de Tepenecz” (or a similar honor) and who left behind some number of ex libris signatures. Samples of their signatures could then be compiled. The goal would be to show that other individuals likewise exhibited a range of variation in how they formed their signatures, including a comparable degree of anomaly in sequence numbers and dates.

Such a demonstration would help establish that there is nothing unusual about the case of Hořčický and would lend much greater credibility to the claim that he is indeed the signer of the VMS.

However, no one appears to have carried out this exercise. Without such a demonstration, the problems involving signature variants, sequence numbers, and dates continue to undermine the claim—especially since Hořčický did not enter the picture on his own, but rather as a result of Wilfrid Voynich searching for a suitable candidate.

There's no hope :-)

(10-03-2026, 08:06 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(10-03-2026, 02:40 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) Wilfrid Voynich said in his 1921 lecture to the College of Physicians in Philadelphia that he found the Marci letter "attached" to the front cover of the VMS.  Is there any other documented reference to the Marci Letter being colocated with (even if not actually attached to) the VMS from PRIOR to that 1921 lecture?. 

There are some 1915 and 1918 newspaper reports where the letter is called a 'flyleaf' and some of the names in the letter are quoted. I hesitate to associate this to a communications error or just bad journalism. Undoubtedly, there are many more newspaper reports that have not been found (online) yet, but they will tend to copy each other.

Why do you hesitate to associate this to a communications error or just bad journalism? My first inclination was to assume there was a young "Jimmy Olsen" type reporter who totally mangled his own notes that he perhaps gathered from a verbal interview of Wilfrid himself. But in any case, a "flyleaf" is simply not a "letter" -- it cannot be assumed to be some kind of poetic license on the part of the reporter.
The mention of some of the names found in the Marci letter only means that Wilfrid was aware of the Marci Letter (or at least the information within it) but not that it was colocated with the VMS when he acquired it. So none of this, unfortunately, provides any evidence of the Marci Letter being colocated with VMS.

(10-03-2026, 08:06 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(10-03-2026, 02:40 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Likewise, in that same lecture, Wilfrid Voynich described the signature of "Jacobus de Tepenecz" found on folio f1r. (There are variations of the spelling - I usually use "Tepenec".) Is there any other documented reference to the presence of this signature PRIOR to the 1921 lecture?

There is a photo in the Beinecke libary that was taken before the chemicals were applied, in which vague traces of parts of the signature can be seen. Rich should have this on his web site. 

But the problem here is that there is simply no date AFAIK for that photo. It was presumably taken prior to the chemical treatment that Wilfrid performed but that could have been very close to (i.e. just days before) the 1921 lecture or it could have been much earlier, closer to when Wilfrid first acquired the manuscript.  So that photo contributes little towards assessing any evolution of Wilfrid's thinking or behavior during the 9 years after he first acquired the VMS.

(10-03-2026, 08:06 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On 5 I would personally rank Wideman as quite possible, but Rauwolf and Mnisowsky (between Tepenec and Barschius) as unsupported by evidence.
Ownership after Kircher does not seem to be by any individual, and certainly Beckx should not be misunderstood as having been the owner at any time.

I had considered including Wideman, but didn't since Wideman generally hasn't been an oft quoted part of the "standard provenance story".   Perhaps it is worth including too though.

(10-03-2026, 08:06 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On 6, the link between the Marci and Barschius letters consist of several documents, including the Kircher letter in Moretus' notebook, Kinner's reference to Marci sending the book, and Marci's printed book referring to Barschius and his inheritance.

True, but all of those other documents only further confirm the fact that there was indeed some document that was being passed around (what Rich calls the "Baresch Document" and what Jorge calls "Book A" -- I prefer the former label as it is more descriptive.) They do not add any weight to the claim that the Baresh Document was in fact the VMS. By contrast, what you see in my diagram constitutes all the information that may actually unite the Baresch Document and the VMS.

(11-03-2026, 07:12 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's no hope :-)

Aw, come on - Sure there is! I have faith in your obvious skill with searching historical documents.  

But, I guess if you can't do it, nobody can :-)

(11-03-2026, 06:16 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.one could randomly select a few other historical figures (or at least one such figure) who also received the ennobling title “de Tepenecz” (or a similar honor) 

I seem to recall that "de Tepenecz" was a title that Rudolf created specifically for Sinapius, and Tepenecz (Tepenec) was a relatively small bit of land with only the ruins of a castle that had been destroyed around 1390.  Since Jacobus left all his property to the Jesuits, I suppose that he had no heirs.  So he must have been the first and last of the very illustrious line of Tepeneczes.

Quote:and who left behind some number of ex libris signatures. Samples of their signatures could then be compiled. The goal would be to show that other individuals likewise exhibited a range of variation in how they formed their signatures

I suppose that an ex-libris generally has the name of the owner, not his signature, and may be written by a spouse or employee.  Thus I expect that there will be examples with substantial variation of handwriting, language, and name.

But I think there will be very few examples where the person's ex-libris included a sequential number written at the same time as the name.   There must be many people who, having gathered or inherited a large library, decided to make a catalog for it, which implied numbering the books.  But then the numbers from 1  to several dozen would be written all at once, by whoever compiled the catalog.

And I expect that there will hardly be a case where ex-libris #4 and #19 have exactly the same form of the name, in exactly the same handwriting, while #7 and #18 are as different from those two as they could be...

All the best, --stolfi