- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-02-2026, 05:04 AM
(03-02-2026, 11:47 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Strictly speaking, the ownership by Tepenec does not depend on any of the people above him, so his probability does not have to be less than theirs.
Mostly true.
But if MS 408 is BookB=BookA (the one mentioned by Baresch and Marci on their letters) then MS 408 was in Prague during Barchius's life, so it having been owned by Jacobus before him is not suspicious.
On the other hand, if MS 408 is not BookA, then it having been in Prague at that time and being owned by another person of Rudolf's court would be a suspicious coincidence, increasing my prob that the signature is fake.
That is, the low probability for MS 408 being BookA=BookB does contribute to my assignment of a low prob of it having ever belonged to Jacobus.
But that prob is so low mainly because I find Wiflrid's behavior quite suspicious --- in general, and on that "enhancement" attempt in particular. And I still find it strange that neither Baresch nor Marci mentioned Jacobus, or bothered to cancel his ex-libris.
By the way, the Jacobus's "signatures" on the two books in the Strahov library, with the same distinct form of his name, could have been written by the librarian, of by someone who arranged the transfer of his books there. No?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Aga Tentakulus > 04-02-2026, 09:09 AM
Question:
Wasn't there a number on the book next to Tepenece's signature?
Hadn't Tepenece numbered all the books?
Was it the highest number in the series?
It would be embarrassing for Wilfried if a book with the same number suddenly turned up. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 04-02-2026, 01:27 PM
Yes, it's 19, which doesn't appear in any other Tepenecz book. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 04-02-2026, 03:28 PM
(04-02-2026, 09:09 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Question:
Wasn't there a number on the book next to Tepenece's signature?
Hadn't Tepenece numbered all the books?
Was it the highest number in the series?
It would be embarrassing for Wilfried if a book with the same number suddenly turned up.
Hi Aga: I do admit that this is one of the best arguments for authenticity of the Voynich. Not as much the "signature", but the number "19". And, for the very reason you point out.
You may have missed my answer... totally speculative, as all the answers by anyone on any Voynich issue... in my response to Lisa a few comments back. It was one of the points that she brought up. Here was my response,
Rich Wrote:Good point about the use of the "19", and I could only guess: Perhaps he had, at one time, the book that numbered signature came from? He cut up lots of books and covers, when he found them of little value. But your point just sparked a question, which maybe you can answer: Is there any rhyme or reason to Tepenecz's numbering system? I mean, could one determine a category, or acquisition date, or something, to the use of that number?
At any rate, when I found the "pre-treatment" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. photograph (which others must have seen, long before me, and despite its importance, never mentioned?), it made it clear that the signature would have been visible to Voynich. So I can only guess, along with you, as to the reasons he would have messed around with it. And, I believe, his stories about why he did that, and how, varied. So, you and I and anyone can only speculate as to his motives. Did he try to erase it? Do we know that? I wondered, but never heard that we know he did.
Jan Hurych wrote of the signature, in part, "His [Horczicky/Tepenencz] library and the most of his worldly possessions went after his death to Societas Jesu in Prague, but they have no record about the VM either. Needless to say the role of Horczicky in the provenance would be only the passive one, i.e.only as an owner and collector of books. The "signature" was considered by many as his exlibris, however it has no accompanying logo and date, while other books owned by Horczicky have it. If it is genuine, it was not in his handwriting and was most likely written in by some archiver. Also, it was erased by somebody who had good reason to hide that Horczicky was once the owner."
Here is an excellent paper by Jan, which shows comparisons of the known Horcicky/Tepenencz signatures, with the name on Voynich f1r:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And here, of course, is Rene's excellent page on the signature:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And here is my own page on the "signature", after I "found" the pre-chemical treatment photograph, showing that it was actually visible to Voynich, before he started messing around with it:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If you read and digest all that, one thing becomes very apparent: You have to make up your own mind as to whether it was Horcicky himself who "signed" the Voynich; a later librarian or cataloger who wrote his name in it; whether the writing of the names match or not; and so on. The thing is, even Jan changed his mind it seems. At one point he calls it a "signature", but also, he wrote (in his above linked B12 page):
Jan Hurych Wrote:Again, we can accept the signatures of Horczicky (No.1. and No.3.) as being very similar and
undoubtedly in the true hand. However, based on that, we can raise serious doubts about the
claim that the "signature" in the VM was also written by Horczicky. Moreover, we cannot date
the VM "signature" nor the erasure.
Comment: later, we have found the title text we received with the "signature" was also in
Horczicky's hand - compare letters "p" and "k" in both samples, they are the same elaborated
style.
My opinions on all the above, in no particular order:
- I do not, as I've said, consider the name at the base of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. an actual signature of Tepenencz. It is by someone else, it simply does not match his actual signatures. Several letters, such as the "p", are just very different.
- I think, then, the use of the name itself is a very weak argument for the authenticity of the Voynich.
- But in addition to the lack of similarity, I think the actions of Voynich, his various claims as to "why" he messed around with chemicals on it, the fact that it was actually visible before he did so, and his pathetic letter to Prague (I think pretending) to get validation FOR the signature, all add to my belief this is just another poor fake, and probably by him: "You Say “Tspenencz”, I say “Topenencz”: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- I do think the number "19" is probably the best evidence for an age of the Voynich Ms. being sometime before Voynich said he "found" it; and even, before he was born.
- But I do think it perfectly plausible that the name is a forgery by someone who was aware of one or more of the other cases of the name being written in books, and even by Voynich himself. The use of the "19" would then have been a clever addition, either as Aga suggests, a very risky one; or as I suggest, found on another book he didn't intend on listing nor selling, perhaps as it was in bad shape, or for whatever reason. Such a book would not have necessarily been worth more than a few pounds, while we know he valued his Ugly Duckling at $160,000. And, he destroyed many books searching out valuable items, throwing out what he didn't want, and selling blank paper from them.
TL/DR: I agree with the opinions of others that the name at the bottom of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not in the hand of Tepenencz himself. I agree that the inclusion of the number "19" is something that I can only provide speculative counters to, and is probably the best evidence for an old, if not genuine Voynich, there is. But I do think it plausible Voynich knew that, too, and simply added it from another, lost, example.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 04-02-2026, 04:25 PM
An excellent point about the Tepenecz inscription...technically, we should call it an "ex libris" rather than a "signature" since we can't say with 100% certainty that it was written in his hand. It matches the style and format of several of the signatures that Rene has posted, which to me is sufficient to affiliate the manuscript with his collection. It is not uncommon for an ex libris to be in someone else's hand: Sir Thomas Phillipps didn't "sign" his manuscripts himself - the shelfmarks and Phillipps name were added by his cataloguing librarian.
I'll also add that it is quite common for later owners to erase, cross out, or otherwise render-illegible evidence of past owners. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 04-02-2026, 07:10 PM
(03-02-2026, 03:08 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am glad you agree the "folding problem" is as of yet unexplained. You know I am the author of that discovery? And I would be interested in seeing the results of your experiences with the Siloe replica letter. But I did make an accurate representation of the letter, and a couple of others that were (supposedly) contemporary with it, and it was obvious to me that the 1665/66 Marci letter does not fold properly along the existing fold lines.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Apologies if this is something that has already been brought up. I printed out my own version of the marci letter and added folds as well as I could along the fold lines similarly to how you did in that video.
As far as I can tell, it folds nicely into a pocket, similar to the first two examples although the wax would have been completely inside. You can fold it such that it nicely presents Marci's name on the left side, and the "prague 19 augusti" wraps around the curved part of the paper, with the year being in the middle of that curve.
"Atia vestre" is in the middle of the other side.
Folding it like this (i'll do my best to explain through photos, sorry):
The full letter:
Folding it this way:
Bending the left side (not tightly folding it): Note that the missing paper from the top left corner lines up nicely here.
Now sticking the wax together: Note that the mark above "vestre" and the mark above marci's name line up on opposite sides
Here is the year and augusti going around the curve:
If the paper was intact when sealed, this configuration lends itself to accidentally ripping the paper when trying to open it. It would have also stayed together much more nicely with the full straight edge of the paper.
I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to others to work out whether the letter being folded in that way would have made sense. I definitely feels natural to open and close. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-02-2026, 08:13 PM
(04-02-2026, 07:10 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I can tell, it folds nicely into a pocket, similar to the first two examples although the wax would have been completely inside.
Apart from the folding, there is the problem that, AFAIK, the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet. If so, any stains on the new lining will not be evidence that the letter was originally attached to the book.
(And besides I wonder if 400-year-old seal wax can still stain anything.)
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 04-02-2026, 08:27 PM
(04-02-2026, 08:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(04-02-2026, 07:10 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I can tell, it folds nicely into a pocket, similar to the first two examples although the wax would have been completely inside.
Apart from the folding, there is the problem that, AFAIK, the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet. If so, any stains on the new lining will not be evidence that the letter was originally attached to the book.
(And besides I wonder if 400-year-old seal wax can still stain anything.)
All the best, --stolfi
If the letter was folded this way, theres no reason why it needs to match marks on the inside. It could have just been loose, right?
But the reason I mentioned this is to show that the letter could have been folded in a natural way that makes sense (and could explain the apparent ripping on the left side). The other issues are another matter. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 04-02-2026, 08:27 PM
(04-02-2026, 07:10 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(03-02-2026, 03:08 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am glad you agree the "folding problem" is as of yet unexplained. You know I am the author of that discovery? And I would be interested in seeing the results of your experiences with the Siloe replica letter. But I did make an accurate representation of the letter, and a couple of others that were (supposedly) contemporary with it, and it was obvious to me that the 1665/66 Marci letter does not fold properly along the existing fold lines.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Apologies if this is something that has already been brought up. I printed out my own version of the marci letter and added folds as well as I could along the fold lines similarly to how you did in that video.
As far as I can tell, it folds nicely into a pocket, similar to the first two examples although the wax would have been completely inside. You can fold it such that it nicely presents Marci's name on the left side, and the "prague 19 augusti" wraps around the curved part of the paper, with the year being in the middle of that curve.
"Atia vestre" is in the middle of the other side.
Folding it like this (i'll do my best to explain through photos, sorry):
The full letter:
Folding it this way:
Bending the left side (not tightly folding it): Note that the missing paper from the top left corner lines up nicely here.
Now sticking the wax together: Note that the mark above "vestre" and the mark above marci's name line up on opposite sides
Here is the year and augusti going around the curve:
If the paper was intact when sealed, this configuration lends itself to accidentally ripping the paper when trying to open it. It would have also stayed together much more nicely with the full straight edge of the paper.
I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to others to work out whether the letter being folded in that way would have made sense. I definitely feels natural to open and close.
That is an excellent experiment, Eggyk, but I have to say that the results of your experiment only bear out what I also found: The folds make no sense in any real context. When I say that the letter "doesn't fold", I don't mean, of course, that it cannot be folded into SOME shape or another. Any flexible sheet CAN be folded. Your photographs are a clear demonstration of this, as none of the results are normal for any letters of the time.
So as my demonstration and your experiment both show, the 1665/66 Marci letter does not fold in one of the ways letters of the time folded:
1) When a single letter, ending up so that the address is on one side, and room for the seal to hold it together.
2) When folded as an envelope, in order to contain other sheets, it may not have writing nor markings on the reverse. Then, one side usually folds over the other, and the seal can be affixed to secure that fold.
The Marci letter cannot do any of that. It does not make sense in any context.
Here again is my demonstration:
And here, again (for anyone who has not seen this), the blog post I created it for: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You may also come to the conclusions I have... that is, that this letter "doesn't fold into anything reasonable, normal, logical", by repeating your experiment on the other Marci letters from the Kircher Carteggio. You will quickly see the difference.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 04-02-2026, 08:44 PM
(04-02-2026, 08:27 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is an excellent experiment, Eggyk, but I have to say that the results of your experiment only bear out what I also found: The folds make no sense in any real context. When I say that the letter "doesn't fold", I don't mean, of course, that it cannot be folded into SOME shape or another. Any flexible sheet CAN be folded. Your photographs are a clear demonstration of this, as none of the results are normal for any letters of the time.
So as my demonstration and your experiment both show, the 1665/66 Marci letter does not fold in one of the ways letters of the time folded:
1) When a single letter, ending up so that the address is on one side, and room for the seal to hold it together.
2) When folded as an envelope, in order to contain other sheets, it may not have writing nor markings on the reverse. Then, one side usually folds over the other, and the seal can be affixed to secure that fold.
The Marci letter cannot do any of that. It does not make sense in any context.
You may also come to the conclusions I have... that is, that this letter "doesn't fold into anything reasonable, normal, logical", by repeating your experiment on the other Marci letters from the Kircher Carteggio. You will quickly see the difference.
Thanks
To me, it feels like it would have been shut close in order to make it small and fit within something else. The wax on the inside would then be to keep it flat, tidy and manageable. Either way, folding it in this way feels like how it would have shut, regardless of where and when this letter was made. It's not a random configuration; it makes sense and lines up nicely (the part that bends also naturally gets the creases you see in the letter, such as above the R in "Reverende".
So i don't agree that it doesn't fold into anything reasonable, normal or logical, it clearly does (if you cast aside the notion that it must have been an envelope). In the context of making folded paper stay shut it makes complete sense.
Why does this letter itself need to have been an envelope, anyway? Why not an insert amongst other correspondence, or within another envelope?