The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

"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

Wow... well those are all excellent points, and plausible scenarios I think. I've thought of a few of them, but you have added several new thoughts, such as this, which I don't think I ever knew, or had forgotten:

Baresh knew Jacobus, at least by fame, and would have recognized his name even if it was only barely visible...

And yes, we don't know... so there can be many variations of this line of speculation. To add to and comment on your points:

- yes, Voynich seems to have kept the pre-treatment rotograph a secret. I "found" it in the Voynich archives in the Beinecke, and only say "found" because it seems to not have been noted, described, nor certainly copied and published until I did. But I think that worse than it not being shared by Voynich or Ethel is the cryptic phrase penciled on it, "To be kept- Rotograph without autograph before it was chemically restored”. This implies, to me, that the importance of the pre-chemical state of the signature was deemed important to whomever wrote that (to my inexpert eyes, I think it was Ethel, not Nill nor Voynich... but IDK). In short, they knew it was important, and to the signature "story", but it was never shown. This "not sharing" of it must be considered against the version of the signature story which Wilfrid did, officially, share. Well he had slight variations of it, but none of those stories include, "I could read it before the chemicals, and it said 'Jacobius Tepencz'". That would have changed the story (and I want to reiterate that I would like to take a much better photo of that rotograph, because in person, the signature is even more apparent than in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

- As for the dating of that Rotograph, no, I still cannot recall if there is any evidence of this. But when I compelled the NYPL to dig for any possible photocopies of the Voynich Ms., as Ethel had mentioned she left these with them, and no further reference was made to them after her death... I (and they!) were surprised that they were still there, and uncatalogued. Anyway, here is what I wrote about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. copy, which they would not allow me to photograph. I wrote these notes to my laptop, while examining these copies,

[quote]"F1r- The chemical stains may be there, but they are faint and less apparent than on the JPG and SID. The “Signature” is moderately visible anyway. “E” at the end of “Tepence” seems to be a capital, or at least have a lower loop not presently visible. Other than that, it looks the same as we see today, if not a bit darker. Being small on this copy, and not having a means of enlarging it, it is hard to compare to what we have now.
Strings visible in binding, attached at top. Some sort of spine leather folded back.
The letter “column” down right side appears darker on the photostats than now seen."

There was no date on these copies, to my recollection, and I don't seem to have noted any. But I do note that Ethel only mentions them in a 1930 letter, when she suggests they retrieve them (which they never did, it seems)... so, before that date, at least. In any case, the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. rotograph treatment seemed "faint and less apparent" than the modern images showed. Not sure what to make of that, except, maybe, the chemicals had darkened by then?

- There are also the images taken of the rotographs in the British Library, which were on the Voynich.net when I inherited it. Either Gillogly or Reeds uploaded them there, I suppose. They are in folder BML MS FACS 46 : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. But unfortunately they are dark and not sharp

- Also uploaded are the famous film strips. But obviously these were copied far to dark and small to be of much, or any, use. I think Pelling found another copy of those strips in some USA archive years ago... maybe he has them linked to his site.

I think all this implies it could be valuable to seek out these filmstrips and rotographs again, attempt to date them, and get quality images of the signature from them. Maybe the NYPL would allow me a revisit to the rotographs they have, and this time, take a picture of f1r? The same with the BL rotographs... perhaps someone near or in London would take the time to stop in and do that?

"... the sad story of Moses Shapira and Dead Sea Scroll Number Zero...)"

I will look that up... it sounds fascinating! Well, our mystery is, too...

Rich