Jacobus' signature

[Rene Zandbergen <rene@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I never saw anything suspicious in the Jacobus
signature. Surely enough, I have toyed with the idea that the
whole MS was a modern fake, but it would also mean that 
the Marci letter in the VMs, at least one more Marci letter
and the Baresch letters are all fakes as well. And the Baresch
letter does fit into the pagination. And it is included in the
index of APUG 557 so that would have to be a fake as well...

Stolfi wrote:
> Do they spell the name in the same way?

As I learned from Rafal, the one in the Pontanus MS is in Czech
while 'ours' is in Latin.

> Can we confirm whether the handwriting is Jacobus's own, or
> someone else's?

I can't think of any reason why anyone else would have written
Jacobus' name on the first page, unless he had a personal scribe
(even then....). But then it doesn't matter too much. Surely it
will be interesting to find some of Jacobus handwriting, since then
we can see if the 'michiton oladabas' is his.... It could be
Baresch'. The handwriting is somewhat similar.

> (And, whether the handwriting is Jacobus's or not, there is still a
> small chance that the signature was forged by Voynich, in order to
> back up Raphael's assertion and neutralize Marci's skeptical
> disclaimer.

Marci's disclaimer should probably not be taken as skepticism, but 
simply a reluctance to formulate an opinion. This phrase is used
in other letters as well. I don't see how Jacobus' signature
helps in favor of the Bacon hypothesis. The statement by Raphael
seems sufficient. I therefore also do not doubt (speaking for 
myself of course) that Rudolf did indeed once buy the VMs for 600
ducats or thereabouts. He may have learned this from one of
the Ferdinands or even from the seller himself. 

> Note that Jacobus's signature is still the only concrete evidence
> connecting the VMS with Rudolph's court, and therefore with Dee and
> Bacon. Without it, Raphael's assertion can be easily dismissed ---
> Marci's letter does not even tell whether Raphael ever saw Rudolph's
> "Bacon" MS. Perhaps RM only heard of it and *presumed* it was the VMS.

I wouldn't so easily dismiss R's assertion about Rudolf the buyer of
the MS. After all, there is nothing controversial about it - it
doesn't contradict any known fact. Yes, Rudolf was not good at paying
all his bills (in particular Kepler's) but he did not mind spending
money on his collection. And the price may not necessarily have been
paid in gold pieces. It could have been anything worth 600 ducats,
such as a piece of land with an accompanying title. He did this all
the time.
The Marci letter is good evidence IMO, and what we learned from the
Baresch letter confirms the Marci letter in almost every detail. 
I agree Raphael may never have seen the VMs, although it seems more
than likely that he did round the time he discussed it with Marci.

> Rene, do you recall when it was that V. identified the signature as
> Jacobus's --- was it before or after he picked Dee as the likely
> "bearer"? And is it known who applied the chemicals to f1r, and when?

We have only Voynich's word for it, of course, but he did pick
Bacon as the writer while still in the Mondragone, and before he read
the Marci letter. (This is so hard to believe that I wonder if it can
be a lie). He writes that he made the Dee connection after he
learned from the Marci letter that the VMs was at Rudolf's court and
after he studied the lives of many people who were there (there is some
evidence for this in the Beinecke material, but when exactly he 
settled on Dee we cannot know).

Now the letter he got from Prague explaining about Jacobus and Raphael
arrived in March 1921, i.e. exactly one month before he gave his
lecture and paper for the college of physicians. This was in reply
to a query he made, and from the reply, the query can in part be
reconstructed. This had Jacobus' name badly misspelled and included
the assumption that he was a contemporary of Marci.
Thus, he made the Dee connection before he was told who were Jacobus
and Raphael.

I will become suspicious again if there is evidence that V knew
who they were before this date (e.g. if there is a draft of his paper
more than 1 month old :-) )

Cheers, Rene