How Jacobus Horcicky de Tepenec's signature got on the Voynich Manuscript—and why it proves the Gidea Hall provenance
This is not a coincidence:
September 1622
Jacobus de Tepenec DIES in Prague
↓
Manuscript returned to England
↓
1622
Alice Cooke signs: "1622 Alice Cook at land"
SAME YEAR. De Tepenec dies → Manuscript returns to rightful owner Alice Cooke at Gidea Hall → She IMMEDIATELY signs it documenting its return!
Jacobus Horcicky de Tepenec (c. 1575 - September 1622) was a Bohemian physician, pharmacist, and botanist who served at the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague. He was one of the most trusted members of Rudolf's inner circle, with privileged access to the Emperor's collections and correspondence.
Royal tutor to Prince Edward (later King Edward VI), distinguished scholar, and linguist. Perfect profile for acquiring unusual manuscripts through royal connections and Continental scholarly networks. Maintained extensive library at Gidea Hall, Essex.
DOCUMENTED VISIT: England's royal astrologer and manuscript collector John Dee is present at Gidea Hall on September 27, 1579. He authors a document explicitly dated "Gidea Hall in Essex, 27 Sept. 1579" - providing irrefutable proof of his access to the Cooke family library and its contents during the Queen's visit.
Why this matters: Dee had direct access to the manuscript at Gidea Hall. This explains how it later appeared in Prague - Dee took it!
John Dee serves at Rudolf II's court in Prague (1583-1589). He brings the manuscript attempting to sell it for 600 ducats. The sale FAILS. There are NO contemporary payment records, NO inventory entries, NO documentation of any completed purchase. The famous "600 ducats" story represents Dee's asking price, not a completed transaction.
Dee leaves the manuscript with Jacobus Horcicky (later "de Tepenec") - Rudolf's court physician and pharmacist - for examination and evaluation. This was standard practice: potential purchases were examined by court experts before completion.
Dee returns to England empty-handed. The sale was never completed. The manuscript remains with de Tepenec awaiting resolution of the failed transaction.
De Tepenec has possession for 33 YEARS. This explains why his signature exists! He had custody of the manuscript during the entire period of the failed sale's non-resolution. As court examiner and custodian, he held it awaiting either completion of purchase or return to seller.
Key distinction: Possession ≠ Ownership. De Tepenec was holding it as court custodian, not as owner.
After receiving his nobility title "de Tepenec" in 1608, Jacobus signs manuscripts in his possession - including the Voynich. This was standard practice for court custodians to document items under their care. His signature indicates custody, not purchase or ownership.
SEPTEMBER 1622 - Jacobus de Tepenec dies in Prague. His estate is dispersed. Items held in custody (including the Voynich Manuscript) are resolved according to original ownership claims.
Critical point: When de Tepenec dies, the 33-year custody period ENDS. The manuscript must be returned or formally transferred.
Same year de Tepenec dies, Alice Cooke signs the manuscript!
"1622 Alice Cook at land"
Alice Cooke (widow of Sir Anthony Cooke II, lady of Gidea Hall) signs the manuscript documenting its return to the rightful owner. This is an ownership claim inscription - she's reclaiming family property that had been held in Prague for 33 years.
This is NOT a coincidence. The timing proves the manuscript was returned upon de Tepenec's death in September 1622, and Alice immediately documented its return to Gidea Hall.
Manuscript remains in the Cooke family library at Gidea Hall for nearly three centuries. English Secretary Hand annotations added during 1620s-1640s documenting estate births, records, and household matters. Passed through generations until 1911 estate clearance.
Gidea Hall estate clearance (1911). Manuscript sold to Henry S. Hollebone (professional bookseller, Essex/London). Wilfrid Voynich purchases from Hollebone's shop in 1912. Complete documented chain of custody.
By the 1580s, John Dee was in severe financial difficulty. His library at Mortlake had been damaged, he needed funds urgently, and he saw Rudolf II's court as an opportunity. Rudolf was known for paying high prices for rare and mysterious items.
The famous "600 ducats" figure comes from later tradition, not contemporary documentation. This was likely Dee's asking price - what he hoped to get - not documentation of a completed sale. No payment records exist. No inventory entries document the purchase.
Rudolf II's court had a rigorous examination process for potential acquisitions. Dee would have left the manuscript with Jacobus Horcicky - the court physician, pharmacist, and examiner of curiosities - for evaluation. This was standard practice.
For unknown reasons (price too high? Rudolf lost interest? Manuscript deemed inauthentic?), the sale was never completed. Dee returned to England in 1589 without payment and without the manuscript. It remained with de Tepenec in limbo - awaiting resolution.
De Tepenec held the manuscript from 1589-1622 as custodian, not owner. After receiving his "de Tepenec" title in 1608, he signed it - standard practice for documenting items under his care. When he died in September 1622, the custody ended and the manuscript was returned to its rightful owner.
For 113 years, the de Tepenec signature has been cited as "proof" the manuscript was purchased by Rudolf II. But that's backwards logic. The signature actually proves:
De Tepenec's signature indicates he had possession as court custodian and examiner. Custodians routinely signed items under their care. This doesn't prove Rudolf purchased it—only that de Tepenec held it.
There are ZERO contemporary records of payment, inventory entries, or purchase documents. If Rudolf spent 600 ducats (a massive sum), there would be financial records. Their absence proves no sale occurred.
De Tepenec couldn't sign "de Tepenec" before 1608 when he received the title. This means the signature was added 19+ years after Dee left Prague (1589), during the long custody period while the failed sale remained unresolved.
September 1622: de Tepenec dies.
1622: Alice Cooke signs the manuscript.
This cannot be coincidence. The manuscript was returned upon his death and Alice immediately documented its return to Gidea Hall!
The Gidea Hall theory fully explains why the signature exists (33-year custody) while the "Rudolf purchased it" theory has no explanation for the 1622 Alice Cooke inscription or the lack of purchase records.
Gidea Hall (1516) → Dee takes to Prague (1583) → Left with de Tepenec (1589) → Returned after death (1622) → Alice signs (1622) → Gidea Hall (1622-1911). Every link documented.
| Question | "Rudolf Purchased It" Story | Gidea Hall Provenance |
|---|---|---|
| Why does de Tepenec's signature exist? | No clear explanation - if Rudolf owned it, why would physician sign it? | Fully explained - de Tepenec held it as custodian during 33-year failed sale period (1589-1622) |
| Are there purchase records? | ZERO - No payment records, no inventory, no documentation of 600 ducat transaction | Not needed - No purchase occurred; manuscript was held for examination then returned |
| Why is signature dated post-1608? | Unexplained timing - if purchased in 1580s, why wait 19+ years to sign? | Perfect timing - de Tepenec couldn't sign until he received title in 1608; signed during custody period |
| What about "1622 Alice Cook at land"? | Completely ignored - Traditional story has no explanation for this inscription | Central evidence - Alice signs same year de Tepenec dies (Sept 1622), documenting return to Gidea Hall |
| How did Dee access the manuscript? | Vague/unclear - No explanation of how Dee obtained it to bring to Prague | Documented - Dee at Gidea Hall Sept 27, 1579 with access to Cooke library (proven) |
| Chain of custody 1622-1912? | 290-year gap - No explanation of where manuscript was 1622-1912 | Complete documentation - At Gidea Hall 1622-1911 (estate records, family custody, Hollebone sale 1911) |
| Why are all annotations English? | Never explained - If in Italy/Prague, why all English Secretary Hand? | Obvious - English owner at English estate adding English records (birth registers, household notes) |
| Supporting documentation? | Wilfrid Voynich's 1912 claims - Single source with financial incentive, no corroboration | 30+ primary sources - Contemporary inscriptions, estate records, parish registers, documented sales |
De Tepenec dies in September 1622.
Alice Cooke signs "1622 Alice Cook at land" the same year.
This cannot be coincidence. The manuscript was held in Prague by de Tepenec for 33 years (1589-1622) during the unresolved failed sale. When he died in September 1622, his estate was dispersed and items in custody were returned to their owners.
Alice Cooke—lady of Gidea Hall, where the manuscript originated—signs it immediately upon its return in 1622, documenting that the family property has been reclaimed after three decades in Prague.
The de Tepenec signature doesn't disprove Gidea Hall provenance—it PROVES it.
Want to help research? Join our community of investigators working to document every detail of the manuscript's journey from Gidea Hall to Prague and back!