The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

I include below transcriptions (there may be some typos) of a few letters exchanged between Voynich (in the US) and his London staff Herbert Garland.

So let me see whether I got this right... The letters indicate that Voynich in 1920 was very interested in a certain "Tepenecz" but did not know yet that he was Sinapius, which he knew as a member of Rudolf's court.

So, is this a hint that he had already been able to read Tepencz's signature on f1r, but did not know who he was?  And therefore that the signature is legit?

Do we know the date when he took that photograph of  f1r, before smearing it with chemicals?

He still could have become interested in "Tepenecz" for some other reason, connected or not to the VMS.  Then forged his signature only after learning that he was Sinapius.  But admittedly this makes the theory quite a bit less likely.

All the best, --stolfi

I agree with your points, Jorge... and in probably a very different way, they caused me to speculate on a few things:

First of all, you may or may not know this, but I photographed a photostat of f1r, prepared by Wilfred, which was made BEFORE the chemical treatment. While this was done hand held by me, in the Beinecke reading room, with window light, it was even more clear in person that the "signature" was quite obvious, and fairly readable to Voynich: So he did know of it, and what it said. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And here is a link to my full sized copy:

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

I want to go back with my copy camera stand, and make a proper, clearer copy. Anyway, I believe he very much did know the name, and the history, and the implications of all that, when he wrote to Prague. It is my opinion, but I believe he was "fishing" for official feedback, which he could then... and actually, did... use to "affirm" his desired information. It is a form of insulation. He had used this method before. In one case, using an expert in cartography to answer a question about the "Lost Chart of Magellan" he owned, and said expert opinion he then quoted in his catalog advertisement for the map!

Anyway, I wrote the post about the implication of his Prague letter, and what I feel was the very disingenuous nature, and purpose of it, in this post, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

I do believe this is all very fishy, and really doesn't directly relate to issues of Voynich authenticity... except, maybe, to the descriptions in the Carteggio, as it begs the question, "If Voynich could see it, why didn't the men of the Letters see it, and so, tell Kircher about it?". At least, though, Rob pointed out, and I agree, Voynich clouded many issues like this, making it difficult to sort through the chaff to the wheat.