[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: new revelations
At 22:47 02/01/03 +0100, Rafal T. Prinke wrote:
> But still, why would de Tepenecz' autograph have been removed
> in the first place?
The conspiracy theory would be that Voynich used sympathetic
ink for the signature so that it couldn't be easily
compared to the original signatures of Tepenecz.
...or that Voynich forged the signature himself, then realised that he had
to remove it so as to prevent people checking his modern ink? :-)
It's the fact that a signature (presumably denoting ownership) had been
removed *without another being put in its place* that confuses me. Is that
normal behaviour for MS owners of this period?
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: