+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited (/thread-1428.html)
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Kestrel - 19-08-2017
Hello everyone,
This is my first post, so be gentle with me!
I would suggest that there are in fact no Sphinxes or "schaedata" in the Marci to Kircher letter of 12 September 1640.
The word modo is preceded by an abbreviated word. That word is read by Philip Neal as "Sphi with a line over it." I think it is actually Sili with a line over it: an abbreviation of simili: a form of the adjective similis (meaning "similar"). The phrase simili modo simply means "likewise," "in like manner." The abbreviation in the last-but-one paragraph (sile with a line over it) stands for simile (quid simile = "something similar"), and has nothing to do with 'matters for silence,' or censorship.
The word in the letter which both Fletcher and Neal read as the (non-existent) word "schaedata" is surely schedula, meaning a leaf of paper.
My proposed reading of the "sphinx" sentence would therefore be:
Si[mi]li modo quae Amicus meus M. Georgius Barschius per me scribi uoluerit, ex schedula hic adiuncta intelliget.
[Your Reverence] "will likewise gather, from the attached sheet of paper, what my friend M. Georg Barschius wanted me to convey in writing."
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Anton - 19-08-2017
Hi Kestrel, and welcome to the forum!
I look at the original for the first time after reading your post. Your reading makes sense, but there are some strange points nonetheless.
The supposed "e" in "schedula" is written like capital letters "e"' elsewhere in the document - in the shape of the greek "epsilon". At a glance I could not locate any other case when this letter would not be a capital one. The question is - why? Also, there's a diacritic above "a" (similar diacritics are found elsewhere). What does it stand for?
The first word of the line does not look like "Sphi" at all. If we suppose "ph", then it is "Sph" at most. But the dot to the right above suggests that the last character is "i". For the "Sili", we would need to suppose that the descender of the character after "S" is just a blot. Possible, but it would be the only blot in the whole letter. The curvature of the supposed letter "l" does not look like other letters "l" (neither like "h", I would add). And the whole word is written strangely - like "S" and "l" connected in one pass (which would explain the absence of curvature), and then "p" added in between and "i" to the right. My best guess would be "Spli". Does that make any sense?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Anton - 19-08-2017
I also need to add that "likewise" is out of place in the context of the previous sentence.
I think one should detect the expansion of this abbreviation other than "sphinx" and "simili".
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - ReneZ - 19-08-2017
(19-08-2017, 10:00 AM)Kestrel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would suggest that there are in fact no Sphinxes or "schaedata" in the Marci to Kircher letter of 12 September 1640.
[...]
Many thanks for bringing this up. For one thing it allowed me to correct a pointer to the wrong letter on my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
I can't say much about the 'Sphinx' reference, since I can't read the text with sufficient certainty.
On the 'schaedata' reading, this is indeed what Fletcher read, and I can't say to what extent Philip Neal was influenced by that.
The one thing that I am fairly confident about, is that the second last letter is not an 'l', because as far as I can see, Marci always writes the l as a single stroke. It's also not a typical t, but it fits better.
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Kestrel - 19-08-2017
Hi Anton,
Thanks for your greetings and insightful criticism!
With regard to schedula, I think the following letters are clear: sch.dula. I admit that the letter e is strangely written, and can only ascribe its capital-like form to a slip on the part of the writer. But if the other letters are correct then it simply has to be an e, and it does actually look like an e (albeit in a form which the writer generally uses for capitals).
I noticed the marks over both schedula and adiuncta, and could not figure out their purpose or significance. Hopefully someone else may be able to shed some light on this.
As to simili, you are right to point out that my reading requires the apparent letter p to be a blot. I think it is a blot, and nothing more. I wouldn't concede that "likewise" (simili modo) is out of place in the context, though, because I believe it refers back to Marci's remark that he had copied out part of the letter from Father Gans for Kircher's benefit (presumably also supplied on a separate sheet, as an attachment).
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Kestrel - 19-08-2017
(19-08-2017, 03:31 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The one thing that I am fairly confident about, is that the second last letter is not an 'l', because as far as I can see, Marci always writes the l as a single stroke. It's also not a typical t, but it fits better.
Thanks Rene,
I'm not seeing a significant difference between the letter "l" in my proposed schedula reading and that in the word directly above it (declaratione). In both cases the"l" looks to me to be connected to the "a" which follows. Also, I can't make out any hint of a crossbar across the letter (which would obviously be decisive in making it a "t").
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Helmut Winkler - 19-08-2017
Well, it seems to be a pretty good idea to have a look at the originals of the 17th. c. letters, something I have never done, being not really interested in the life of the ms. after 1450.
I must say I read Sili with abbr. stroke myself, which should be simili, especially as simili modo is a very common phrase and there really seems to be a blot. And I think schedula is correct, the strange epsilon-looking letter is an e with a cedille, common at the time for ae. The second last letter is l, Marci in his t‘s always makes a connection from the middle of the letter to the next letter. And I think the quae is a quo and the et an ex.
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Anton - 19-08-2017
Quote:I wouldn't concede that "likewise" (simili modo) is out of place in the context, though, because I believe it refers back to Marci's remark that he had copied out part of the letter from Father Gans for Kircher's benefit (presumably also supplied on a separate sheet, as an attachment).
I can't read Latin, so I use the English translation by Neal. Here's the contents of the letter preceeding the alleged "simili modo":
Quote:Reverend Lord Father in Christ and valued friend
I wrote to your Reverence at Regensburg that the things entrusted to me by your Reverence had been transacted in the presence of the emperor as promised. I directed my letters to the most illustrious Count of Martinitz and I can confirm that they were received by him. And since six weeks have gone by I am eagerly awaiting the response.
The Reverend Father Gans has written to me that your reverence is having no end of troubles. He said it all too nobly, which arouses my concern. And since you are entitled to know something of this I have copied out part of the letter.
The most illustrious Count Bernard had lamented to me that he had received no reply to his letters. I have received many benefits from him, and I know that he is most concerned for your reverence, and has done no little in the presence of his Majesty which will benefit us, so I should prefer to welcome any kind of statement of goodwill and friendship.
Rev. Father Gans is separated by Count Bernard from "simili modo", so the latter cannot refer to him. Maybe "simili modo" can find its context within the very sentence where it appears?
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - ReneZ - 19-08-2017
Hmmm,
the difference of meaning between sch(a)edula and schaedata doesn't seem fundamental to me.
Barschius submitted *something* and it would have been something drawn or written on paper.
On top of that, nobody knows if this submission was related to the Voynich MS, and it also does not
really matter to much.
Now what does it really say.
(19-08-2017, 04:42 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, it seems to be a pretty good idea to have a look at the originals of the 17th. c. letters, something I have never done, being not really interested in the life of the ms. after 1450.
[...] And I think schedula is correct, the strange epsilon-looking letter is an e with a cedille, common at the time for ae. The second last letter is l, Marci in his t‘s always makes a connection from the middle of the letter to the next letter. [...]
No problem with the other assessments, but I really can't agree with this.
The 'e' or 'ae' somehow looks like an amendment, because Marci's 'ae' are quite consistent and easily recognisable. It could be either.
The 'a' or 'u' before the last consonant probably cannot be decided by itself. His 'u' is usually open at the top, but there are cases where this is less so.
Marci's 'l' basically *never* connects to the previous letter, and always starts at the top. Sometimes with a small loop.
The only case when it connects to the left seems to be when it is the second 'l' in a pair, e.g. 'illud'.
His 't' on the other hand has significant variety, and it does not always connect to the right from the middle.
The 't' in Ratisbona in the first line is a good example for comparison.
Mind you, I don't wish to argue that it makes a great difference, as I said before.
And it could be that this is the only 'l' that looks like this, but I just want to point out that the case is not clear and the evidence very thin.
RE: Marci's letters to Kircher, revisited - Anton - 19-08-2017
It occured to me that if the sequence be read as "Sili", then that element is not a blot, but the main portion of "i", while the smaller element which is currently considered as "i" is just the dot of the "i". In other words, those two are an "enlarged" letter "i". The reason why it appears in this awkward form is that "S" and "l" are obviously written in one pass (dunno what for), leaving no room for a common "i" in between. Hence the "i" is added afterwards, somewhat below the baseline, in an attempt to "fit" it.