The Book Switch Theory

[asteckley]

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.

As I said - the signature itself is  genuine in the sense that it exists on the VMS page.   But whether it is the signature of Jakub Hořčický is NOT based on any hard evidence -- it was conjectured by Wilfrid, which he came up with based on a reference to Rudolph II by Marci.  (I believe Rene also suggested he did not know who Hořčický was before that.) Wilfrid went looking toward the court of Rudolph II and found a likely candidate who had been granted the enobling title of "de Tepenec" and whose first name was (essentially) the same as "Jacobius".  But the signature also was not in a more common form of including his surname or its Latin equivalent.  (I have not actually been able to find another example of Hořčický using the specific signature form of "Jacobius de Tepenec" -- only indirect references to him doing so, some of which simply circle back to the VMS.)

So yes -- the signature it self is genuine in the sense that it is actually there in the VMS, although even that is not certain, given that there seems to be no evidence, neither a visual photograph nor a written mention of the signature, prior to 1921 when Wilfrid described seeing it and chemically treating it.  (PLEASE point me to actual evidence for that if I am missing it.)