dvoileGenealogie > Yesterday, 03:53 PM
(Yesterday, 02:51 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks a lot nablator !(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.** Jakuba z Tepeneze - N°40
- we don't clearly see the color of the ink for "N°40", put the pen may be another for the number and for the ex-libris.
- we don't clearly see if the N has a double-stroke.
There is a color You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the book, shelf mark NKCR XVII.F.13.
pjburkshire > Yesterday, 04:12 PM
(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
dvoileGenealogie > 11 hours ago
(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.
dvoileGenealogie > 11 hours ago
Quote:More than that: they are identical except for the number.Indeed...
Quote:I don't see how you can say that for #19. Maybe the pen can be said to be similar, but the ink has been so altered by erasure and chemicals that it is impossible to tell.You are right. We can say it for #4 only.
Quote:That is definitely not an "N" but an "H". Since the name is in Czech, the "H" must be an abbreviation of some Czech word. Do we have any Czech speakers in the audience?Indeed, we need a letter from Jacobus Sinapius to state on it.
Quote:Indeed it matches the signature "manu propria" shown in René's page, including the peculiar x-like "p".Indeed !
Quote:I think in the whole collection of Jacobus Sinapius, there was at least 2 or 3 ordered sub-collections and this should explain why the books noted in 1602 and the "Voynich collection" have unordered (between) them chronological numbers.
Quote:Allright, but there are other explanations...This theory of two different collections could explain why the #4 (dated after 1608) is written after the #7 or #18 (dated from 1602).
dvoileGenealogie > 9 hours ago
(10 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11 hours ago)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Could you please give us other explanations ?
It is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
All the best, --stolfi
dvoileGenealogie > 8 hours ago
Jorge_Stolfi > 7 hours ago
(9 hours ago)dvoileGenealogie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The forgery hypothesis is possible, but what motive would Wilfrid Voynich have had to fabricate it? The manuscript’s origin from Prague seemed well established, supported in particular by the letter accompanying it. Its provenance was also traced back beyond the reign of the known emperor, which strengthens its credibility. Moreover, the manuscript was already considered valuable from the very beginning of its documented history.
Quote:I think the removal of the ex libris, as well as the alteration of the marginal mark, was likely carried out by someone else—someone intent on preserving the mystery, even before Athanasius Kircher became involved. This person may not have wanted anyone to know that the manuscript had been in the possession of Jacobus, nor to read the beginning of the unsuccessful decoding in the margin. Perhaps it was not even Jacobus himself.
dvoileGenealogie > 4 hours ago
Quote:By the way, what i'm puzzled about is what that "M" is preceding "Albertus" in the name of Wroblicius.
dvoileGenealogie > 4 hours ago