(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here what I read and understand for the ex-libris of Jacobus Sinapius. I will split them into three groups :
** Jacobj à Tepenecz - N°4
** Jacobj à Tepenecz - N°19
- both ex-libris are written with the same hand.
- the name & number are, for each, written with the same pen and the same ink.
- it's writen in latein letters ('e', 'z')
- the N has a double-stroke
- there is an '°' after the N.
Thank you for this suggestion.
After you suggested it to me the other day, I had a look at some other documents that are not yet published (and unfortunately it is totally unclear if there is any progress in that).
In an autograph document of Tepenec, written in 1619, he uses the version of "No" with two strokes.
I don't know if one can conclude that the version with one stroke should be from another person, or it is something he used in earlier times.
I do agree that there is a possibility that the numbers with two strokes refer to a different (newer?) list, but more evidence would be needed.
While his belongings were left to the Society of Jesus, he also handed a few items to his friends. No 4 ended up with the Jesuits and No 19 did not, so it is not an option that this list would be of items not left in his will...
(Yesterday, 04:41 PM)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 04:12 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 02:29 PM)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'm genealogist and here I will give my opinion on all this interesting research on book proveniance.
That is fascinating. I assume Jacobus Horcicky/Sinapius de Tepenec never married. Do you know of information on his parents or siblings or other relatives? It is often said that he acquired the Voynich Manuscript in Prague but I wonder if he could have acquired it near where he was born or where he went to school.
Facinating for sure.
But for me, the investigation is not in his childhood... not yet... The facts first.
The fact is here, there was an identical ex-libris (except the number) on both books. And the name writen is Jacobj à Tepenec. The investigation should ever keep in mind this fact.
Further, it seems that Jacobus Sinapius de Tepenec didn't wrote these two ex-libris, so why ? Who wrote them, how, when, and why ?
Fabien.
Jacobus seems not to have been married, but some relatives have been identified, in Moravia, further suggesting that he was not from Cesky Krumlov but from Moravia.
I am curious how confident you (@dvoileGenealogie) are that the Ex Libris on No4 and No19 are not in Jacobus' hand.
Either way, there is no doubt that he owned these books at some point in time.
Quote:Jacobus seems not to have been married, but some relatives have been identified, in Moravia, further suggesting that he was not from Cesky Krumlov but from Moravia.
I am curious how confident you (@dvoileGenealogie) are that the Ex Libris on No4 and No19 are not in Jacobus' hand.
Either way, there is no doubt that he owned these books at some point in time.
When comparing the handwriting of ex-libris No. 4 and No. 19 with that of ex-libris No. 40 (whose script perfectly matches his
manupropria), it becomes clear that they are not the same. It matches with no writing of Jacobus. We are certain that he owned book No. 4 because of the ex-libris, but I would be less certain that Jacob himself wrote it. This raises the question: who wrote it for him? A friend who managed his collection? The person who gifted him the book?
This suggests that there may be some hope of identifying the scribe. Do we know the emperor’s handwriting? Or that of his friends?
Further, I notice Wroblicius himself, as poor student, wrote down his ex-libris on No.4, we can be sure of it, because when we look at the original scans of book No.4, as mentionned by Anton, we can see at the begining of the book a calculating : 1604-1553 = 51. The writing of the 1 and the 4 are identical with the 1 and 4 of the ex-libris ("1604"). Also, the ex-libris
"Jacobj à Tepenec" was not writen by Wroblicius.
Regards,
Quote:Thank you for this suggestion.
After you suggested it to me the other day, I had a look at some other documents that are not yet published (and unfortunately it is totally unclear if there is any progress in that).
In an autograph document of Tepenec, written in 1619, he uses the version of "No" with two strokes.
I don't know if one can conclude that the version with one stroke should be from another person, or it is something he used in earlier times.
I do agree that there is a possibility that the numbers with two strokes refer to a different (newer?) list, but more evidence would be needed.
While his belongings were left to the Society of Jesus, he also handed a few items to his friends. No 4 ended up with the Jesuits and No 19 did not, so it is not an option that this list would be of items not left in his will...
Thanks. Indeed, we should have more evidence. I'm curious to know this new document of 1619.
Concerning the history of book No.4, this is a possible genealogy of owners :
- Society of Jesus in Prag (1604 with ex-libris ?)
- Wroblicius 1604, then when he goes to study in Graz in November 1607, he left/sell the book at the Society of Jesus
- Society of Jesus in Prag 1607 (with ex-libris)
- Jacobus à Tepenec (after 1608)
- Society of Jesus in Prag (via testament of Jacobus) 1622 (no need to ex-libris, it exists already)
Regards,
(11 hours ago)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Concerning the history of book No.4, this is a possible genealogy of owners :
One curious detail: the "à" in #4 seems to be in darker ink than the rest of Jacobus's ex-libris.
As if it was left out at first, then someone felt it necessary to add it.
Could this mean something?
All the best, --Stolfi
Quote:One curious detail: the "à" in #4 seems to be in darker ink than the rest of Jacobus's ex-libris.
As if it was left out at first, then someone felt it necessary to add it.
Could this mean something?
All the best, --Stolfi
It seems but maybe the author of the ex-libris simply pressed a bit harder with his pen. If you look at the J of Jacobi, it seems a little bit darker too.
We can imagine that the author wanted to emphasize this nobility more strongly with this “à,” and therefore pressed a bit harder.
It is therefore possible that this was Jacob writing in his best scholarly Latin calligraphy. But for this point we need a document writen by himself where we could find the same writing.
Here my today thinking : It is possible that Sinapius, after receiving his nobility, purchased a collection of books from the Jesuits. One of the Jesuits, in his finest handwriting, may have noted the recipient of the book by adding a beautiful ex-libris. Alternatively, Jacobus Sinapius himself may have recorded his new name in a neat, scholarly manner, in Latin letters, as if he were “reborn.” Since Wroblicius left in November 1607 for other pursuits (studies in Graz), he may have left his book with the Jesuits. They could then have offered this volume (item #4) along with others to Jacobus, including (item #19) ca. November 1608 as a gift. Indeed why could Jacobus be interested in a book from first cycle of Studies (Artistote) as he's expert in alchemy and so on... ?
