The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Jorge_Stolfi]

"If Voynich could see it, why didn't the men of the Letters see it, and so, tell Kircher about it?"

Yeah, that is a puzzling point.  As you and Jan asked, why did neither Baresh nor Marci mention Jacobus, if his signature was readable on f1r?  Baresh knew Jacobus, at least by fame, and would have recognized his name even if it was only barely visible...

And why didn't Baresh cross out Jacobus's signature, and put his own besides it?

But my question still stands: is there any evidence (like a date for that rotograph) that the signature was on f1r before Voynich could possibly have received a copy of some of Jacobus's ex libris?  

Or also: could Voynich maybe have obtained some other book from Jacobus's library, from which he could have copied that signature?  Say, 

1. Voynich gets Marci's letter somewhere.
   
2. Marci's mention of Roger Bacon's lost book gets him salivating.
   
3. But the letter was either loose, or attached to a book that was obviously not Bacon's.
   
4. Voynich gets the VMS somewhere else. It did not have Jacobus's signature.
   
5. He thinks that the VMS fitted Marci's letter and, with it attached, could be passed off as Bacon's.
   
6. But he needs to make up some evidence that the VMS was indeed the book mentioned in the letter.
   
7. And he also needs an explanation for how the book got from Rudolf to Baresh.
   
8. So Voynich researches Rudolf's "alchemists" to see if any would fit that role.
   
9. He gets Sinapius and Tepenecz among other possible names.
   
10. He does not know who this Tepenecz was and asks Garland to find out. 
    
11. Garland tells Voynich that Tepenecz = Sinapius. 
    
12. Voynich somehow gets a copy of the ex-libris from one of Jacobus's books. 
    
13. Voynich forges Jacobus's signature on f1r.  
    
14. Voynich takes the first photo of f1r.
    
15. Voynich all but erases the forged signature, to make verification impossible.
    

I admit that I have no direct evidence for this theory, and I don't find it very likely myself.  

But is it possible?  I think the theory above (or some variant) should be considered, because I believe that an honest antiquarian is like an honest politician: an almost mathematical impossibility.  At a minimum, when he finds an object the he thinks may be worth $10 million, he will tell the owner that "it may be worth $200  if you can find the right buyer.  But that may take a long time.   I can give you $150 for it right away, deal?"  No way he will offer a million, or even $100'000 -- the owner would wake up and deduce that it must be worth a lot more.

And an antiquarian cannot count on a steady stream of cheap but valuable legitimate buys.  He may go months or years without finding one whose profit can pay his trips, rent, groceries, ... During those dry spells, cheating is no longer just a temptation, but a necessity... (Check the recent scholarly opinions on the sad story of Moses Shapira and Dead Sea Scroll Number Zero...)

By the way: did Voynich really keep that rotograph a secret?  It seems that he did not publish it, or mention it in public; but maybe he did show it to prospective buyers?

All the best, --stolfi