[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VMs: The first of the Russian letters at the Grolier Club
Hello all,
Approximately a week ago I had asked the list to receive the scans of
the three Russian letters, allegedly from Voynich, kept at the Grolier
Club.
Claudio Antonini sent them to me: I am actually able to read them,
with a good deal of effort. Thanks to John Grove's excellent work,
which provided an invaluable starting point, I can now post a
transcription and a translation of the first of them. When they are
all translated, they will be an interesting addendum to Xavier
Ceccaldi's page about Voynich's London years and the Society of
Friends of Russian Freedom. Perhaps they will also shed some light on
the kind of person our man was.
This mail is rather long: I am writing my results first so that people
not interested in grammar of 19th-century Russian can stop reading
when details get too boring for them. However, I do ask Russian and
Polish speakers to bear with me to the end, since I really need their
help to check the correctness of my translation and to clarify a
couple of points I am at odds with. I also ask native English speakers
to point to possible better wordings. I am a native speaker of
Italian, the languages of those Germanic and Slavic barbarians still
puzzle me sometimes...
I have bought some webspace for my Voynich activities and I agreed with
Claudio that I'll put pictures, transcriptions and translations online
as soon as possible. We already have the explicit permission of the
Grolier Club. My plan is to put up the website before attacking the
other two letters. I don't know how long it will take precisely: I have
also some real work to do. If anybody wants to help in the
transcription and translation work, they are really welcome.
INTRODUCTION
I don't think it is possible to form an educated opinion about the
letters before translating them all. The Grolier Club catalog says
they are all from Voynich. I don't know. The signatures are different,
but the same persons appear in the texts and the handwriting seems to
be always the same. Only the first letter is addressed to a Russian
police officer: the other two are addressed to a woman with whom the
writer is apparently on very friendly terms. At the end of the second
letter there is an additional message for "Krolik and his roommate",
and we will see that Krolik is also mentioned in the letter I am about
to translate here. Krolik is an existing family name, but it could
also be a nickname ("the Rabbit"), given the spy-story setting of it
all.
The last words of the first letter are in Polish, in latin script. The
rest, but for a couple of addresses, is in pre-1917 Russian, in cyrillic
script. The handwriting is rather typical for the late 19th century,
but it is a very bad one. Many letters end up having practically the
same shape, (a bit like "u", "n", "m" in hasty latin scripts) and you
can tell which is which only by guessing the intended word from
context. This doesn't work with proper names, and in fact the reading
"Kilja" for the signature of the first letter is _highly_ conjectural.
In Petrovskij's "Dictionary of Russian Personal Names", available online
at http://www.gramota.ru/, "Kilja" is mentioned only as a pet form of
two rather rare female names ("Akilina" and "Kikilija"), but a case
could be made for it to be a possible derivative of Voynich's original
name Michal. In any case, the writer uses masculine forms when referring
to himself.
The main problem with the text of the first letter is that it mixes very
formal language with slang, colloquial forms, and an exaggerated
depiction of the conspirators' infamy. I must admit I have come to the
end of my Russian language feeling, so I am asking the opinion of native
speakers, but my impression is that either the writer's command of
Russian is not perfect (quite possible, if he was a Pole; there are also
some spelling errors in the text) or the whole letter is some kind of
joke, or both. In this respect, have a look at what I say in note (1)
below.
To begin with, the official letterhead of a "subversive" organization is
not the most sensible choice for a covert agent...
Conjectural readings are in angle brackets <>.
Inline comments are in brackets [].
Footnote numbers are in parentheses ().
TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST LETTER
[On official letterhead of the "Society of Friends of Russian Freedom"]
Aug. 17th
Highly respected policeman,
I have the honor to inform Your Policemanly Excellence
that I received both your insulting(1) messages.
Everything is all right. Nobody suspects my involvement(2). Subversion
has been eradicated. In the last days "Volzhskij Vestnik"(3) was
arising some doubts, but it also began appearing at the police
headquarters at 102 S.P.(4) every day, already in the morning.
Our little friend behaves obediently, and Free Thinking(5) doesn't
show up, but this does not prevent us from putting him under
secret surveillance, to avoid possible manifestations of rebellious
instincts.
I could not inform Your Excellence about all this before, because all
available funding went away for the sustenance of two agents at Circus
Str.(6), entrusted to Your Excellence.
I could not transmit your orders to Krolik, because he has left for
nobody knows where and is on the run. Measures for his capture have
been taken, but we haven't found his track so far.
Reports from France and Switzerland say that the inveterate
conspirator, addict to delicts and crimes(7), is not to be found in
these malicious anarchic movements, but on the other hand I say that
exactly there the old gang "Narodnaja Volja"(8) is being revived by
new bosses.
I have the honor to kneel before you,
K<ilja>
Please tell mum(9) that I "trzy palce do czota"(10)
NOTES TO THE TRANSLATION
(1) I am only able to read a form of the adjective "rugatel'nyj"
here, that is, "abusive, insulting". If this reading is correct,
I think that the case is settled: this letter is a joke. I
might be wrong, however. As "g" and "ch" have the same shape, one
could also read "ruchatel'nyj". As far as I know this
adjective does not exist. If it existed, it could mean "in
relationship to a guarantee or a warrant", so that the "insulting
messages" could become something like "warrant letters" and the
case might be open again... Maybe it is possible to read even
other words there. I simply cannot do any better than this by
now.
(2) "There are no thoughts in my involvement". I am not sure that my
interpretation is correct. See also note (13) below.
(3) "Volzhskij Vestnik" was actually a paper of the Volga region which
featured writings by people like Maksim Gor'kij and V.G. Korolenko.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/go/Gorky-Ma.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ko/Korolenk.html
http://www.moshkow.nino.ru/RUSSLIT/KOROLENKO/gorkiy.txt
(4) These two letters are in latin script in the original. Any ideas
of what S.P. could mean, in London? Saint Paul's? Any Russian
headquarters there?
(5) "vol'nodumstvo" (Free Thinking) is an alternate name for Russian
Nihilism, http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm
(6) Again in latin script. Below these words, a later reader's hand
repeated them in a much clearer handwriting. Was it actually a
street in London?
(7) This is the exaggerate depiction I have mentioned above. To use two
couples of synonyms in a row ("inveterate/addict" and
"delicts/crimes") is probably too much even for a cop who hated
those people.
(8) "Narodnaja Volja" (People's Will) was the socialist group
responsible for the assassination of Czar Alexander 2nd in 1881.
The ensuing repression did not make any distinctions, but the
anarchists were in fact a quite separate group. The point that I
think is being made here is that even if somebody says that the
anarchists are not worst-kind criminals, they are nothing different
from the old murderers. France and Switzerland were the countries
where Rachkovskij was (or had been) the Russian chief agent, look
at http://www.geocities.com/vms408/london.htm. (you might also
search google for "assassination" "czar" "Narodnaya Volya" for much
more on that topic.)
(9) The writer's mother? The recipient's? A nickname for a
higher-ranking officer?
(10) This is Polish, and I can understand "three fingers", but not
more...
"TECHNICAL NOTES" ON THE TRANSCRIPTION
My transcription system is rather obvious. Only note that I am using
"&" for "e oborotnoe", and capital "E" and "I" for "yat" and "izhe",
the two letters which disappeared from the Russian alphabet in
1917. Luckily this doesn't conflict with normal capitalization of this
text. I recall some of the differences with present-day spelling:
a) No word could end in a consonant. Those which now end in a
consonant were spelled with a final "jor" ("tverdyj znak"). Mr. Kilja
didn't follow this rule and dropped all those final jor's, as in
modern usage.
On the contrary, he followed all rules below, at least in principle.
b) Some i's were spelled izhe, according to etymology,
as in "blagorodIe" instead of "blagorodie".
c) Some e's were spelled yat, according to etymology,
as in "nEt" instead of "net". I spotted some wrong yat's in the text,
but I decided not to check them all against an old dictionary by now:
simply take note that Mr. Kilja was a bad speller.
d) Yat was also used in cases where now there is "i", such
as in "v moem uchastIE" instead of "v moem uchastii".
e) Gen.Sing. of masc. and neuter adj. in -ago instead of -ogo.
f) Nom.Acc.Plur. of adj. referring to neuter names in -ja instead of -e.
Line breaks follow the original.
// means change of page.
Words originally in latin script are in braces {}.
TRANSCRIPTION
17./Avg.
Mnogouvazhaemyj zhan-
darm. Chest' imEju do-
vesti do svEdEnIja vashego
zhandarmskago blagorodIja(11)
chto oba vashi rugatel'nyja(12)
poslanIja poluchil.
Vse obstoit blagopoluchno.
Nikakix myslej v moem
uchastIE nEt(13). Kramola
iskorenena. V poslEdnIe
dni zastavljal sumlEvat'-
sja VolzhskIj VEstnik, no
//
i tot stal javljat'sja uzhe
po utram v zhandarmskoe
upravlenIe na 102 {S.P.}
Druzhok sostoit v pokornosti
i vol'nodumstva ne
projavljaet, no vse takoe
ne mEshaet vzjat' ego
pod neglasnyj nadzor
vo izbEzhanIe vozmozhnosti
projavlenIja buntarskix
instinktov(14).
Ja ne mog obo vsem &tom
dovesti ran'she do
svEdEnIja V. BlagorodIja
v vidu togo, chto ves'
nalichnyj kapital
//
ushel na propitanIe
dvux vvErennyx V. Bl.
agentov na {Circus str.}
Vashego prikazanIja
Kroliku peredat'
ne mog (15) tak kak
on otluchilsja neizvEstno
kuda i chislitsja v bE-
gax. Prinjaty mEry
dlja poimki, no do six
por na slEd ne napali.
DonesenIja iz FrancIi i
ShvejcarIi glasjat
chto sego zakosnElago
i zakorEnElavo(16) v
prostupkax i prostup-
//
lenIjax(17) kramol'nika
v &tix zlovrednyx anar-
xIjax ne obrEtaetsja,
s drugoj zhe storony glashu
chto tamzhe izdaetsja novy-
mi konovodami
staraja kramola Nar.
Volja. Chest' ImEju
klonit'sja K<ilja>
pozhalusta do<lo>zhite
materi, chto ja {trzy
palce do czota}
NOTES TO THE TRANSCRIPTION
(11) Our writer seems to have really written "blogorodIja" here. As the
shapes are so similar and it is so difficult to guess what letter
was meant, I have decided to transcribe o's and a's according to
correct spelling, here and in several places below. This probably
makes Mr. Kilja a better speller than he is.
(12) See note (1) above.
(13) No, it's not "o moem uchastii", it's "v moem uchastii" and I
need the help of a native speaker.
(14) A stroke over the first letter would prompt the reading "pnstinktov",
which is of course impossible. Actually, that stroke is different from
the lines above p's (upward-bent instead of downward). It is
probably only an ink stain.
(15) Here you can read the word "za" ("because"), which was however
deleted by a penstroke.
(16) "v" instead of "g" is a gross spelling mistake, which however
doesn't change the pronounciation of the word.
(17) Should be "prestuplenIjax". The error was probably caused by
influence of the preceding word "prostupkax".
Many thanks for reading this posting to the end.
Have a nice day
Dario
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list