Re: Re: VMs: Colored paints, touch-ups, and the michiton text

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

HeHello Dana,  

>   "When I brought this manuscript to America the margins of the first page 
>had the appearance of being blank, 

They may have  looked blank, but were they discolored as we see them today? New scan  clearly 
shows  darker area, caused by some liquid,  across the bottom, almost full width. If that discoloration 
existed already before Voynich got the VM, he  didn't say. It may have not, but then it must have been 
caused by  handling while it was in his possession. But if the spot was already there, it must have 
brought his attention  to it.

 >but an accident to a photostaticreproduction of this page revealed the fact that an underexposure of 
the 
>plate brings out a faded autograph in the lower margin. 

First: what is meant by "accident"? Accidental spill, coincidence or just "wrong" procedure? If the  
photostat was the blueprint method, that is done in ammonia vapor, the light has high ultraviolet 
content a the lamp being powered by high voltage, one can sometimes even smell ozone.  But blueprint 
requires transparent original - it would be informative to know which photostat method was used  by 
Voynich.  Beinecke library should know.

 >Chemicals were, but  
>applied to the margins and the autograph, Jacobus de Tepenecz, became 
>visible, with some illegible figures below it." (Plate 2.--Voynich., p.421)
>
>Notice that there is no indication that chemicals were applied to the 
>original manuscript. 

True, but with copy you do not get anything "underneath", you just dissolve the single layer created by 
the copying process, while in original you can have different chemical reactions with the remains of the 
ink and you may even fill or disclose some grooves caused by pen application.   The copy has no ink 
and no grooves - or even traces of some solvent which may have been applied even 400 years ago 
(Marci did not see any autograph, he would certainly mention that  in his letter to Kircher).

>The photograph of Plate 2 showing the referenced 
>autograph is on the dark side.

Here we have a discrepancy: somewhere else Voynich claims it was "Jacobi de Tepenec(z?)" -  he 
probably made it more accurate later. But the name was in reality never written as "Tepenecz", but 
correctly, "Tepenec", as our  research of the new scan clearly shows at :

http://penigma.netfirms.com/VM/a22.htm

Our historical investigation revealed the place was never pronounced as "Tepenecz" neither, always as 
"Tepenec" , the last "c" being pronounced like "ts"  or "tz".

We could not make the fist two words however (the pictures are shown on the same page), but there 
was no other person bearing  that title which was created especially for  Horczicky ( it is a name of the 
small  castle in Moravia,  that was  in ruins already in the time of Horczicky).

   > The signature is visible; however, the 
"illegible figures below it" remain somewhat illegible, primarily evident 
>directly under "Tepenecz", though there may be more.

We could not see or read them either.

Regards,

Jan
 


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