The Voynich Ninja

I agree. They can only be the dots of the is. They do tend to float to the right, still they are helpful. This is xii not xa

They are i dots of course and one of the most common things in 15th c. textura - mss. where readibility becomes  less important than style. Many of these dots or strokes seem to be by later users, who needed readibility more, cp. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And to who it may concern: It really would be helpful if folio numbers were given and not just cut outs

Thanks for the various responses.

The main point was whether the entire MS is in one hand or not, and I believe that this is reasonably certain.
It means the MS was created as a single composition of several books, at one place and one time.

With respect to the strokes above the text, there is indeed no doubt that they represents the dots on the i's.
Since this is also done consistently throughout the MS, this would support the 'single hand', but if they are a later addition, this is no longer a valid argument.

To me, it is not clear that we can be certain either way, though the fact that they are done in the same inks as the text itself, suggests to me that they are part of the original composition.

The link to the MS in 15th century 'textura' was helpful and I do now remember having seen similar examples. However, this is quite a different script than what is used in the Cambridge MS.

While wrestling with the script I've had the impression that the strokes on the i's were added by someone else. They are definitely not applied all the time, which seems to me an indicator of either various scribes or a later i-dotter. See for example this text from f.174v. There are dotted and undotted i's, though I can't eliminate the possibility that the dots were in an ink that faded more easily.

[attachment=1349]

... However, this is quite a different script than what is used in the Cambridge MS. ...

This statement  is not really correct, both scripts are broken (Gothic) book scripts and near related

Hi Helmut,
in post 5 above, Koen attached this image (I couldn't find a page number, sorry).


I thought it read something like "Dicaon", but then I noticed the first character is something like a Greek lambda, followed by a lower case "d", then "icaon" or "raon". How do you read this word?

(05-05-2017, 08:48 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Helmut,
in post 5 above, Koen attached this image (I couldn't find a page number, sorry).


I thought it read something like "Dicaon", but then I noticed the first character is something like a Greek lambda, followed by a lower case "d", then "icaon" or "raon". How do you read this word?

Sorry, third word on f.230r

(05-05-2017, 08:53 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-05-2017, 08:48 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Helmut,
in post 5 above, Koen attached this image (I couldn't find a page number, sorry).

I must say I read Dracon, D r a on with the c as superscription over the a. Since the first letter seems to be a capital letter I see no alternative (Idracon, ledracon ?). The ony capital D I have been able to find in a superficial search isn on 113v, second line from below

Might not the weird use of "K" in plant names only be an indication that there are actual Greek words involved? (nam greci .c. littera non habent)