Re: VMs: Fw: VM Bulletin

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

The signature from Melnik givies his name in 
Czech (I think....), where on the VMs it says:
"of Jabobus de Tepenec" which is Latin. Indeed it
is cursive. It may also date from a quite different
time. 
Note that there are several rather clear copies
of the signature on f1r in the Beinecke!
The original MS page does not really show it 
anymore.
Note also, that a relatively clear copy appears
in the 1921 article by Voynich, but my photocopy
of (a photocopy of) that one is already almost
illegible. I ordered a photocopy of the best 
one I saw in Beinecke, but when it arrived by post,
it turned out that due to the illumination during
the copying it also became illegible.

> I absolutely agree with Jan that Sinapius requires
> much
> more attention and research than he has received so
> far.

There are still publication about him (in Czech)
that have not been checked by VMs enthousiasts,
although I will check again with Jan.

> 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?).

I would consider Rudolph's ownership 'legendary
but credible'. It is unproven but makes complete 
sense. On the other hand, it should (?) have been
mentioned in the Catalogue of the Wunderkammer.
Marci mentions the source for his
information.... to me it is indeed credible. 
We don't know if he was aware of Jacobus' 
ownership.

Another source that might be worth checking is
Balbin. True, his history books are well known
and well read, but I remember that Lubos
Antonin told us in Prague that these are only
printed summaries of his work. The original MSS
are not generally accessible. There are evidently
discussions of Sinapius in there. Information
not normally interesting for historians, and
skipped in the summaries, could well be interesting
for us.

> 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.

Yes, and there are a few more mentioned in Evans.
To me, any of these gentlemen is an equally
(if not more) likely seller of the VMs to
Rudolf (or Jacobus) as Dee or Kelly.

Cheers, Rene

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list