Re: VMs: Fw: VM Bulletin

["Larry Roux" <lroux@xxxxxxx>]

Has there been a proposal in the past that perhaps the "erased (scraped)" signature could be due to the vellum being re-used.  Or, worse yet, a fake done on old used vellum to better replicate an "old" document?

Certainly these are techniques that have been used by forgers for just about forever.



******************************
Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx
*******************************
>>> rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx 02/21/04 17:11 PM >>>
DANA SCOTT wrote:

> Here is Jan's formal announcement of the discovery of Horczicky's signature.
> It is quite different from the "signature" at the bottom of f1r in the VMS.
> I question whether or not the signature in the VMS was even written in ink.
> Could it have been fabricated using a stylus? Did W.M. Voynich actually
> fabricate the signature? 

Jan's publication of the signature of Sinapius from a dicument
in Melnik is a great and important addition to whatever little
hard evidence we have. As you say, it looks quite different from
what seems to be on f1r - if what we seem to see there are really
the remnants of that signature and not the Rorschach effect of
jpg artefacts! But even then, it must be noted that the signature
posted by Jan is in fracture - as is the accompanying text.
It is a rather formal situation. In a less formal context, such
as signing one's own manuscript, he may have used roman cursive.

I believe it would still be crucial to obtain a copy of
his signature on the Albertus manuscript in Prague.
And - obviously - a UV photograph of the VMS signature for
comparison cannot be supplemented by what we think we can
see on the poor reproductions which are available.

I absolutely agree with Jan that Sinapius requires much
more attention and research than he has received so far.
So the recent findings and comments by Manfred are most
welcome additions to our understanding of the earliest
possible known owner of the VMS (I do not consider Rudolf II
to be a proven owner - the whole episode about 600 ducats
sounds to much like "marketing slogan" in Marci's letter 
- and Jan rightly asks why would Marci part with it for free?).

Concerning Rene's comments on the sources for the known
biography of Sinapius - one reason for our misunderstanding
might be that the terms "chemist" and "alchemist" (practically
synonymous at that time) did not designate a high position.
It was usually a craftsman who was skilled in various standard
chemical procedures like distillation, typically employed
by pharmacists/apothecaries to work in their laboratories,
purify mineral substances, etc. So their status was not high
- even if they worked in royal laboratories. Thus there is
really no contradition - and as Manfred said, Sinapius being
"Hofdiener" might have been employed as a "chemist" - not
to search for the Philosopher's Stone but to produce his
curative waters for the use of the imperial court.

As I mentioned on my Web page description of the Albertus MS
with Sinapius's signature, it was earlier owned by Jiri Berthold
Pontanus - so he may also have been the owner of the VMS, 
especially as he was a known collector of old manuscripts.
It is also important to note that according to Pelzl there
were unpublished medical works of Sinapius left in manuscripts.
If these are still extant, finding them would uncover very
important evidence for VMS research: their handwriting and
medical/herbal content would throw much new light on 
his possible authorship/hoaxing of the VMS. It is also possible
that while the VMS was produced a century or more earlier,
Sinapius could actually read it - and used some of the information
in his own works.

Best regards,

Rafal
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list