- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Book Switch Theory
- The Book Switch Theory
-
RE: The Book Switch Theory
Jorge_Stolfi > 11-03-2026, 11:06 AM
(10-03-2026, 02:21 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't matter whether you knew about N18 or not. What's important is that the numbering has the same characteristics as the others.
But it doesn't. Numbers #7 and #8 are very different from #4 and #19.
Quote:But if he knew about it, he should have expected that there would also be another N19. A counterfeiter would never have done this based on a mere assumption, as he has no knowledge of what else might be in the archives.It's not a banknote where the same serial number doesn't stand out.
As I wrote, maybe he had some reason to believe that #19 would never be found.
But I think that he just gambled. Like forgers and con artists do all the time. Because they trust that, if someone finds evidence of the fraud, they will be able to talk their way out of trouble. It is one of the basic and necessary skills of the "trade".
Victor Lustig was a 19th century con man who, among other exploits, sold the Eiffel tower to a scrap metal dealer, by pretending to be a representative of the city's department which had decided to demolish it. Check what he did when the dealer became suspicious and confronted him.
"So you say your experts found that in the library of the Zapadákov Monastery there is another book with Jacobus's ex-libris, numbered 19 too? How strange. Could it be that, when he acquired #20, Jacobus forgot that he already had #19? Or maybe he gave #19 away at some point, and reused the number for his next acquisition. Or maybe he erased the name and reused the number because he thought he could get in trouble if someone found that he had taken possession one of Rudolf's most precious books. Or perhaps ... I don't want to offend anyone, but could that ex-libris out there be a forgery by some unscrupulous book dealer?"
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
eggyk > 11-03-2026, 05:33 PM
(10-03-2026, 02:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as "vague traces of parts of the signature", it is actually quite better than that. Yes, my 2013 photograph, which still seems to be the only one on the internet, does give that impression.
The original files are on the online yale university library. You can download the (very high resolution) photos here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
It certainly could be missed by anyone who simply flipped through the pages. I'm reminded that even here on this forum, certain new marks are still noticed now and then, and that's with an entire community scouring the document for every detail. Look at this page, with everything else going on the potential faint signature is the last thing i'm noticing.
In my opinion, it isn't all that inconcievable that the few people who owned the manuscript did not mention the signature. In candle lighting settings, I would imagine the visibility would be even worse.
Actually, the only potential difference that I noticed is that the T on Tepenecz has some marks above, but that may just be the parchment. It does remind me of the signiture on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. though.
-
RE: The Book Switch Theory
oshfdk > 11-03-2026, 05:58 PM
(11-03-2026, 05:33 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
If something is visible on a photograph, especially on a black and white photograph, this doesn't necessarily mean it was visible just as well with a naked eye. B&W photography often employs many techniques to enhance contrast.
As far as I remember, this also was mentioned by Voynich himself, that he first was able to notice the signature on the photograph and only then checked the page. I can't find a source, but Lisa Fagin Davis mentioned this: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
proto57 > 11-03-2026, 09:09 PM
(11-03-2026, 05:33 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(10-03-2026, 02:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as "vague traces of parts of the signature", it is actually quite better than that. Yes, my 2013 photograph, which still seems to be the only one on the internet, does give that impression.
The original files are on the online yale university library. You can download the (very high resolution) photos here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
Thank you, eggyk: Yes that seems to be an original negative film strip, which I am not sure was online in 2013 or not. If so, I missed it! No matter, it is great, and possibly the source of the "pre-treatment photograph" positive which I photographed in 2013. But also, if you look at the positive I photographed, the tape is in a different place:
Anyway, I disagree that the name would not be obvious. This is unprocessed, by me, and taken directly from the link you provided:
All the letters, I think, are there. It may be hard to make out the "z", but all the rest are readable. I think at 1:1 view, this name would be very visible, and readable. But it would certainly draw attention of anyone who saw this negative, and by projecting the image with a film strip projector, even be very readable.
But when I reverse it into a positive image... which of course negatives were intended to do... and in printing, it would have lost no information. I have photographed and processed hundreds of feet of various black and white films, from Pan-X, to Tri-X, lithographic, and more... and it is a very easy matter to control contrast, tone, brightness... in other words, see what we can see today, by reversing the negative into this positive on my computer:
I have not altered the brightness, contrast, nor sharpness of that reversal. And I can clearly read the name... although perhaps I might leave off the "z", and write it as, "Tepenec". I think, close enough to see who was being referred to... and, not an "unknown person" to those of the era of discovery of the Voynich.
Rich -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
eggyk > 12-03-2026, 09:41 AM
(11-03-2026, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you, eggyk: Yes that seems to be an original negative film strip, which I am not sure was online in 2013 or not. If so, I missed it! No matter, it is great, and possibly the source of the "pre-treatment photograph" positive which I photographed in 2013. But also, if you look at the positive I photographed, the tape is in a different place:
You're welcome! There are two seperate versions at the link. I believe 6r is an uncropped version of the one at your blogpost? Theres also 6v, which is the back of that scan which has a note "To be kept - ???? without ???? - Before it was chemically treated". I can't read the second line.. "Photograph without Autograph"?
(11-03-2026, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, I disagree that the name would not be obvious. This is unprocessed, by me, and taken directly from the link you provided:
...
I have not altered the brightness, contrast, nor sharpness of that reversal. And I can clearly read the name... although perhaps I might leave off the "z", and write it as, "Tepenec". I think, close enough to see who was being referred to... and, not an "unknown person" to those of the era of discovery of the Voynich.
I agree that on these scans/photos that the signature is faintly visible, if you are looking for it. But again, you may not need to increase contrast or brightness to see the signature within these images, but when the images were taken the page was extremely well lit (a flash from a camera, an overhead projector above the page while the photo was taken, or other contrast enhancing methods like @oshfdk mentioned)
It was almost certainly was less visible in person than these scans suggest, especially in candle-lit or dim lighting conditions. Surely this is a significant factor?
Of course voynich had a magnifying glass, but if you were unaware of the signature in the first place I don't think an empty part of the page would generate enough curiosity to investigate with one. I would imagine that even if you printed out a copy of these well lit images, and then viewed them in a candle-lit room at true scale, you may struggle to honestly make out the signature.
Perhaps it would be interesting to have people try it, like family members or a partner who have no pre-bias or knowledge of the signature. If one asks 10 people to describe the page under such conditions, how many of the 10 would notice the signature and mention it? How many would ignore it and focus on the mystical text above? It could be an enlightening experiment. -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
ReneZ > 12-03-2026, 10:40 AM
(10-03-2026, 12:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(10-03-2026, 08:06 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are some 1915 and 1918 newspaper reports where the letter is called a 'flyleaf' and some of the names in the letter are quoted.
If indeed those newspapers cite Marci, Barschius, Kircher, or Raphael, that would indeed be evidence that Voynich at least knew the contents of the letter by 1917. But anyway I already think that it is quite likely that he knew about the letter and its contents well before the 1911 sale.
...
Since, by coincidence, I received another newspaper clip just a few days ago, let me just add this one thing, since it perfectly fits with this point.
The 1918 article has been transcribed partly here (I only took the bits I found interesting):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Items from the Marci letter that are named here are Rudolf, Kircher, Ferdinand and the 600 ducats.
BUT!...
As already in 1915, and here still in 1918, he is not talking about 'our' Rudolf II of Bohemia, but about Rudolf I who died in 1291 and was a contemporary of Bacon. Voynich believed that the Rudolf in the Marci letter bought the MS from Bacon for 600 ducats.
He does get Ferdinand III right, but I am especially amused that he mentions Kircher only by his first name: Atanasius.
Now the Marci letter only includes this first name, and not his family name Kircher.
So was Voynich also confused about who he was?
No, certainly not, because the article includes:
Quote:Atanasius, noted astronomer and philosopher of that period, is said to have transliterated the beginning of the book, the study of ciphers being one of his achievements. It was Atanasius who established the famous astronomical observatory in Peking, China, and wrote many books on the Chinese.
-
RE: The Book Switch Theory
Jorge_Stolfi > 12-03-2026, 02:26 PM
(12-03-2026, 10:40 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Items from the Marci letter that are named here are Rudolf, Kircher, Ferdinand and the 600 ducats.BUT!... As already in 1915, and here still in 1918, he is not talking about 'our' Rudolf II of Bohemia, but about Rudolf I who died in 1291 and was a contemporary of Bacon. Voynich believed that the Rudolf in the Marci letter bought the MS from Bacon for 600 ducats.
OK, but then that mistake makes no difference to any of the provenance/switch/forgery theories, does it?
In particular, there was absolutely to reason to think that MS 408 had anything to do with Bacon, except that specific letter. There was absolutely no evidence that he could have shown to the millionaire buyer, except that letter. So how come he "didn't think it was important at first"?
Quote:I am especially amused that he mentions Kircher only by his first name: Atanasius.
Fair enough -- I prefer to call him "Wilfrid" because the name "Voynich" is "burned out"...
Quote:Atanasius, noted astronomer and philosopher of that period, is said to have transliterated the beginning of the book, the study of ciphers being one of his achievements. It was Atanasius who established the famous astronomical observatory in Peking, China, and wrote many books on the Chinese.
Athanasius wrote an encyclopedia on China, based on the work of other Jesuits, but never set foot there, and did not establish any observatory there.
That is one reporter who did not need AI.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
proto57 > 12-03-2026, 03:24 PM
(12-03-2026, 09:41 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was almost certainly was less visible in person than these scans suggest, especially in candle-lit or dim lighting conditions. Surely this is a significant factor?
Of course voynich had a magnifying glass, but if you were unaware of the signature in the first place I don't think an empty part of the page would generate enough curiosity to investigate with one. I would imagine that even if you printed out a copy of these well lit images, and then viewed them in a candle-lit room at true scale, you may struggle to honestly make out the signature.
Perhaps it would be interesting to have people try it, like family members or a partner who have no pre-bias or knowledge of the signature. If one asks 10 people to describe the page under such conditions, how many of the 10 would notice the signature and mention it? How many would ignore it and focus on the mystical text above? It could be an enlightening experiment.
Well, not to beat a dead horse, or a dead Wilfrid for that matter... I don't think there is any comparison to what the average person would have done, to what an invested and eager and hungry book dealer would do. Wilfrid was quite intense about his finds, and hoped his "ugly duckling" was worth the modern equivalent of over a million dollars ($100,000 to $160,000 at the time). A literal fortune.
You put a million dollar carrot in front of anyone, and I guarantee they will peer into the very fibers of its being, using every method at their disposal, until their eyeballs fall out. Heck I once had a first edition Bell, Book and Candle, and trust me, not a speck of the smallest mark or writing went unnoticed before I put it up for sale. And that was "only" several hundreds of dollars at stake, should I have missed something on its pages.
And also, he was technically adept. One very good example is his having created for him a COLOR photograph of his "lost chart of Magellan", in 1928. That was a very rare thing to have done: "In the 1920s, color photographic printmaking in New York was a specialized field primarily serving the commercial, advertising, and publishing sectors. Unlike the automated systems of later decades, color prints at this time were often produced through labor-intensive processes like Trichrome Carbro or Photochrom"
He was state of the art. Since, when looking at the unaltered copies of the original, pre-treatment You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. name, we can clearly see the name there, I find it implausible that Wilfrid would not have noticed, then read, under bright lights (not "candles", they had very bright electric lights in the teens and twenties, of course), that name. Just like any person collecting anything... stamps, coins, paper currency, and books. And I know it was readable, I can see it now, right in front of me. All of us can. The very same thing he saw.
So I completely disagree he would not have seen it, and also, that he would not have been able to read it. I don't buy his excuses, which to me are just another example of his feigning ignorance in order to draw out an "expert opinion", which he could then use to say, "Expert so-and-so TOLD me this is Tepenencz". He did this several times that I have seen... he was a slippery character, IMO. When he "found" the above mentioned Magellan chart, he showed it to Ravenstein, whom he then quoted in his catalog. He handed poor Newbold his "Bacon Cipher", and wink-wink nod-nod, and an offer of over $10,000 if it sold AS a Bacon... then quoted the poor man into mortal reputational embarrassment that has followed him past his grave. But he got his attribution!
And when he saw what we see here, easily, rather than report it as T-e-p-e-n-e-c, which we can all see, and he would have been able to see, too, he instead wrote to Prague, "As nearly as I can read the name it is Jacobij a Tspenecz or Topenecz, and I am enclosing [a] photograph of it.” That seems so disingenuous to me: He thought that "e" was either an "s" or an "o"? When does "s" come after "T"? It doesn't, to my knowledge, at least in a name. He didn't "guess" "e"? But still, somehow saw the "z" which probably the hardest for us to discern?
No, I believe he was, again, fishing for accreditation of what he already knew was there. Later he could then report that the Director of the National State Archives of Bohemia, Prague, Czecho Slovakia told HIM who "signed" his manuscript. You can read this letter, and related information, at my 2014 post, "You Say “Tspenencz”, I say “Topenencz”:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But also, and this is often the case, one aspect of the name is taken out of context. That context should be seen with all the other factors going against it: It does not match a genuine Tepenencz life-signature; the numbering and therefore dating is off, the problem with the uncrossed "N", the use of the title in the way it is here, as others have pointed out, and more. So his claiming to not be able to read the name, when we have the SAME images right in front of us, and can read it... all these work alone, but more importantly, together, which only serves to amplify the case for this not being a living signature of Tepenencz, and probably being added by Wilfrid or someone else, probably to support a desired, false provenance for a (genuine or not) manuscript.
Rich -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
eggyk > 12-03-2026, 04:01 PM
(12-03-2026, 03:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He was state of the art. Since, when looking at the unaltered copies of the original, pre-treatment You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. name, we can clearly see the name there, I find it implausible that Wilfrid would not have noticed, then read, under bright lights (not "candles", they had very bright electric lights in the teens and twenties, of course), that name. Just like any person collecting anything... stamps, coins, paper currency, and books. And I know it was readable, I can see it now, right in front of me. All of us can. The very same thing he saw.
Well, my point is that it's not the very same thing he saw. Photographs and scans show things differently to both eachother and real life. Looking at an enlarged digital scan on a computer and equating it to the real look of the pre-chemical treatment signature isn't appropriate in my view.
Here are the 3 examples from the link:
It's clear to see that even across these images that the signature is differently visible in each (the photograph is far less visible). We cannot therefore say with any certainty exactly how visible it was based on these images. To be clear, it may have been, but it also may not have been. We can't know definitively.
Seperately, if the signature is a fake signature, what is the motive for chemically treating it? The signature looks to have not been altered during the process, so if it was freely visible beforehand why go through the effort? -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
proto57 > 12-03-2026, 04:29 PM
OK... I just did a short search... took just a minute or two. And as often happens. I was stunned that, once I did do it, nobody, including myself, had thought to it this way. First I asked Google AI, "When was the name "tepenencz" first mentioned in any printed, published form in history. Did that version of the Horcicky name appear in print before 1910?" And I got the usual, and somewhat expected answer:
OK, except for the named spoiler, all is pat and as expected and reported. BUT I thought to try a method I often use to learn what information might have been available to various persons, and often, Wilfrid. So I put "Tepenec", in quotes, in a Google book search, then limited it to between 1/1/1500 and 1/1/1911. So, could Voynich, the well acknowledged book sleuth, have found out who his Ugly Ducking was "signed" by? Look at this, from "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - Volume 35 - Page 51, Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in den Sudetenländern 1897" (Communications - Volume 35 - Page 51, Association for the History of Germans in the Sudetenland · 1897):
This is not the only printed, published, pre-1911 reference to Horcicky AS Tepenenc. There are others, among them "Alterhümer und Denkwürdigkeiten Bömens, 1860 - Volume 1 - Page 217":
But it gets better... or worse?... with this printed edition of a book I think BY Horcicky, in which he mentions his own ennoblement. It is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., as "Konfessy Katholicka". Interestingly, this book is mentioned on Horcicky's Wikipedia page, but no one seems to have looked it up and searched it to see if it could have been the source for Voynich's knowledge OF Horcicky as Tepenenc? I didn't, I stand accused. Anyway:
This translates... badly but well enough to understand the premise here... to: ""He was called to the Court of Prague, where he could not live long, and he was counted. Here he showed great kindness and affection to the Emperor for his knowledge of the name of the chemist, in which Rudolf was more fond of the name of the chemist. For this reason the Emperor also counted him among his Court, and he was given a predicate by the holy Brchu Tepenec, called Darik. Nothing strange then, he said, is not counted, but he is counted, but he is the Emperor, who is inclined to the Emperor's grace..."
And also, by the way, this copy has his name, in pencil, on one of the first pages:
Is that his signature? Probably not, but I don't know. I would guess it was a librarian or collection cataloger. But interesting nonetheless, I think, and I had never seen this before.
Anyway, what I glean from this simple search, and related is this:
1) No, it is not at all correct that Voynich could not have easily known that Horcicky was Tepenenc(z), and vice versa, from various printed and published resources, not the least of which was Horcicky's OWN BOOK.
2) AI is not always correct, as in this case
3) Nobody looked before (or did look, and did know this? Is it already all online somewhere? Google missed it, if so), and my guess is, again, that the very powerful projection of a desired and created Paradigm causes people to not consider looking
At least, knowing this, now, the official claim "he could not and would not have known" will no longer be claimed, right?
Rich