The Book Switch Theory

[proto57]

Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.

As far as I'm concerned though, the fact that the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption. I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.

But Koen, even the idea this is a "signature", and not added by someone else... during his life, or later... is seriously questioned by many who have seen all the instances of the name being written down. Would you also describe proposing it was written by someone other than Tepenencz as a "fringe" theory? It does not match his known signatures. The point being, there are three possible cases here:

1) The name is a signature by Sinapius/Horcicky/Tepenencz.
2) The name Tepencz was written in by someone else: Librarian, collector, some researcher
3) The name is a forgery by someone

There are serious problems with:

1) ... matching the name on Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with the existing, (reasonably known actual) signatures of Tepenencz
2) ... explaining the timing of the numbering system used in all the cases of the name appearing. They are illogical in their order and chronology.
3) ... the accuracy of the claim that is a "19" written by the name on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
4) ... the fact that Baresh, Kinner, Marci or Kircher seem to not have seen this name on f1r, when they should have screamed it from the rooftops
5) ... not to mentions Voynich's curious claim he didn't know whose name it was ("As nearly as I can read the name it is Jacobij a Tspenecz or Topenecz"- Wilfrid, writing to Prague- yeah, right)

So looking at all this, I it is at least clear to me that the men of the Carteggio didn't see the name there, and so, that it was added later by someone else, innocently or not, for this and all the reasons above. I mean, whomever and whenever it was added, and for whatever purpose, I do not agree at all that "... the signature is genuine should be the standard assumption." At best, that is an opinion, and one that can be reasonably argued as unsupported by the evidence. There is certainly nothing fringe about considering and exploring these other possibilities. And it is not a theory of "someone", rather, it is many people, even some who hold that the Voynich is 1420 genuine.

Rich