Quote:Possible explanation of all this: the number for # 4 was somehow "reserved", but not put down until after number 18. Perhaps the number was placed elsewhere in the book, but that piece of book got lost, so the possessor had to duplicate the exlibris later (and did it already as "z Tepenecz", not as "Sinapius"). The correct number could have been restored against a separate list of books which he possibly maintained.
Upon consideration, not very good idea, this.
The fact that the previous exlibris is dated to 1604 means that in 1604 the book belonged to someone else (btw, can anybody please decifer the name - "Ex libris Wroblicionim"?!)
Thus, Hořčický could not have had it before 1604. But in 1602 he already possessed books assigned higher numbers: 7 and 18. So even if he maintained a list of books, he could not have this book 4 above books 7 and 18 in that list, just because he obtained book 4 later than those.
Even if composition of the list of books was something retrospective (like, first he purchased many books, and only then the list was composed), our book number 4 still could not rest above books 7 and 18 in the list just because of the fact that as early as 1602 the numbers 7 and 18 were already assigned - which means that number four also would have been assigned by that date (belonging to some other book, not the number 4 as we discuss it now).
One can escape with suggestion that Hořčický's exlibris inscriptions were added first in the course of time (to mark his property), and the numbers were added much later - say, for all books in batch. But the reverse colouring on number 4 does not favor this hypothesis. It looks like the number was placed at the same time with the holder's name.
Whom can we get on the case? We need Perry Mason!..