I agree that the issue concerning the Tepenecz' signature is rather confusing. Since I can just barely make out the signature at the bottom of the Copyflo with my naked eye, I wonder how it was originally "erased" in the first place? It doesn't seem that it was erased as with a pencil eraser, not does it appear to have been scraped off. Did scribes have chemical erasers in those days? Perhaps it was never written there in ink in the first place but was pressed through from another sheet placed above the vellum? Why would the "original" inscription have been erased before being rediscovered by more modern techniques? Regards, Dana Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: Rafal T. Prinke Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:47 PM To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: VMs: new revelations
Nick Pelling wrote:
> But still, why would de Tepenecz' autograph have been removed
> in the first place?
There are extensive discussions on this in the archives which
I have just browsed looking for Siberia and 1930.
It is indicated there that:
1. The signature is (was?) not visible originally.
2. There is an UV or IR (also controversial which) photograph in
the Beinecke on which it can be seen - but no such photographs
of other pages.
3. Voynich said he had applied some chemicals to this place.
And now we know there are 4 letters in Moscow written
in "sympathetic" ink, i.e. one that becomes visible when
you apply chemicals to it.
The conspiracy theory would be that Voynich used sympathetic
ink for the signature so that it couldn't be easily
compared to the original signatures of Tepenecz.
As you may remember, there is at least one MS with his
signature in the same place:
http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~rafalp/HERM/VMS/manus.htm
Best regards,
Rafal
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
|