Re: Re: Re: VMs: Re: VMS, languages and Jacobus signature

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marcio,  

the top line in our first picture is actually the enlargement of the last line 
of the same picture and was done by the archive office.     It is truly the signature 
and reads "Jakub z Tepence", written really in Czech - Jakub is still today a 
Czech name for Jacobus  and  "z" ( looks like "3") is  "de" - meaning "from" in 
Czech.

The name of "Tepenec" ( today's Czech spelling of the little castle in 
Moravia - already in ruins in his time, but still existing today under the name 
of Tepenec) is  pronounced in Czech as "Tepenetz" ( meaning something which is 
wrought, in case of iron, or chiseled, in the case of stone) and should not be 
written as "Tepenecz" pronounced "Tepenetch" ) in spite of the fact that  "etch"  is more  common Czech suffix for location names ("etz" is more used for persons).  

However,   it looks to me that Jacobus was really using two letters for spelling "c", 
both in "Tepenec" and "Horczicky".  There was a different pronunciation for 
letters "c" , "z" and the combination "cz" ( pronounced "tz", "z" and "tch") in 
that time (and still is, but "cz" is no more used in today's Czech spelling, it 
was replaced by letter "c" with little "v" above).  Letter "c" in today's 
Czech is  pronounced   as   "t" in Horatio in  true Latin (not 
as in English version :-), but I prefer to use here more common transcription 
"tz".  "z" was pronounced same way as  "z" in English (say "zero")  and "cz" was 
pronounced like English "ch" (or "tch").   So "Horczicky" was pronounced 
"Horczitzky" there is at lest no doubt about that  - suffix "cky" is still commonly used 
in Czech (but the whole name would be written today as "Horc'icky", where c' is the c with the little "v " above).

I  have no problem with  Jacobus writing the  "z" in the first picture as  "3" and in 
the second picture as more developed "3", with full bottom loop.  
However, I cannot figure why he writes   "c" in "Tepenec" as "cz", while in the 
place where there should be "cz" (Horczicky) he also writes "cz" (that if 
"Horcziczky"). Both bi-letter groups however do look slightly different and we also 
 have to take in account the fact that  the spelling 
in that time was not unified ( same way as it was not in the Shakespearean England 
:-).  We can however assume that if Jacobus signed the VM for his own purpose, 
he would probably use Czech  language ( that is using "z" instead of "de"), but if it 
was for reference to his colleague or scientific catalogue, he might use 
"de" (as it was in Rudolph's "nobilitatio" document).

As for the picture of fr1,  I am trying to use my graphics editor for some 
enhancementand; I will release it by the end of month. Also, as I may guess from 
the official zerox copy, there were several technologies used in the place where the alleged 
name was erazed: one can see some soaked liquid ( big spot covering the signature) and 
some parallel scratches (in angle)  as well as some unidentifiable marks,
consistent with mechanical erasure (the name was apparently in ink). I do not think
the original erasure was done by chemicals, but cannot eliminate it either. As for 
chemicals used: I think that the copying method of Voynich time was similar as 
for blueprints, that is ammonia vapors and ultraviolet light, no soaking was needed. That 
would hardly destroy the indentation seen even today, but could 
slightly change the color. If however the document was experimented on after 1912
when unprofessionally soaked by some liquid, we can kiss the further  analysis good buy :-),

regards,
Jan

P.S. Why did Voynich also use the crude  copying methods instead
of pure and clean photography, well developped in his time? He certainly knew it would
eventually somehow damage the VMand he kn ew its value :-).
Also, covering the vellum permanently with plastic sheets - as somebody suggested -
 may in long run create unwanted reactions - valuable originals are usually not tampered with, 
but only stored in nitrogen atmosphere and darkness to prevent aging.


======= At 2004-03-13, 22:23:00 you wrote: =======

>Hello Jan,
>
>On Saturday 13 March 2004 16:47, Jan wrote:
>> I guess that the letters in "our signature" of Tepenecz are more on the side 
>of 
>> cursive, than that of fracture  script -  after all the connections between 
>some 
>> letters are clearly visible - and the additional text is even more on the 
>side 
>> of cursive.
>
>About the signature on your site. The big text on the top of the bigger 
>picture reads "Jakub z Tepencz" ?
>
>I did some photoshoping on f1r trying to enhance the signature. The result can 
>be seen at http://netpage.uai.com.br/mmand/sig.gif, but I am not even sure if 
>I am looking at the right place. I *think* I saw a "J" and a "z" like in the 
>other signature, but it is probably the roscharch effect :-)
>
>Regards,
>Marcio.
>______________________________________________________________________
>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