The Voynich Ninja

What would you guys say of the handwriting in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., 15th century English. 
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-07-2018, 07:37 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What would you guys say of the handwriting in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., 15th century English. 
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hi Koen,
thank you for pointing out this script! This search for parallels is making me look at scripts in a different way. I am happy see that you share this interest!
I think the Ellesmere Chaucer script is not unrelated, several character shapes are good matches. 

I can see a few traits that I think are typically (but not exclusively) English:
* the two-storey "a"
* "ff" for uppercase "f"
The "r" that descends below the baseline is also interesting. After "o", the typical 2-shaped "r" occurs.
In general, I am also becoming interested to what Rene called the "look-and-feel" of a script. The Chaucer ms seems much more formal and elegant than the VM marginalia: characters have traits of various thicknesses and they are all well-recognizable. For instance, "c" "e" and "t" are similar in many Cursiva scripts, but here they seem easy to distinguish. The exception is "u", "n" and "m" that seem to  me to be markedly gothic and look like sequences of vertical "i"s (ii,iii).

According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the attached lines read:

For in his purs he sholde ypunysshed be.
"Purs is the erchedekenes helle," seyde he.
But wel I woot he lyed right in dede;

I have a sample of that in my files (also some of the other versions of the Canterbury Tales):




The first Canterbury Tales sample is from the preface of the Ellesmere version, which is probably later, but not too much later than the creation date of the main text.

The major differences in the Ellesmere main text are the looped "d", looped "g" (loop closes), the open loop on the "h", the m and n are quite different, the long-s has a shorter top and a curve. Small differences, but they add up. And then, of course, differences in spacing.


Also, an interesting characteristic of the main text that is not too common is that it has three forms of "s", the long-s, the final-s and also Greek sigma as initial-s.

I didn't include the Hengwrt version as it only scores 50/120, although it is somewhat similar in script to the Ellesmere version (but more angular).

Quote:MarcoP says
* "ff" for uppercase "f"

*The double FF for uppercase f in English probably comes from the Old English rune F. We commonly see it nowadays in old family names ie /Ffarington. But this appears to be a legal conceit from the late middle ages, which was later taken up by the families concerned when they traced their family histories in more modern times. The scribes thought it was "posh" to write with the names of nobility with a double character! See more You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It doesn't seem to have existed in medieval English in this fashion ( Farington in medieval times, Ffarington by the 18ty century)
-Many English words starting "xff" come from the old Latin ad+ (to do) (ad+facere (to do+creation of children = affair), which morphed into aff in English via the French; OR came straight through from Latin (affectione=affection).
-Meanwhile, suffixes appear because English tends to duplicate the final consonant after a single vowel at the end of a base word. (Tiff, skiff, sheriff, puff, bluff). The final f is silent in all cases.

David, I didn't know this about doubling the letter in names. I'll have to keep my eyes open so I'll recognize it (and the reason for it) when I see it.

(13-07-2018, 08:42 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This search for parallels is making me look at scripts in a different way. I am happy see that you share this interest!

Yes, I like that we collectively focus on certain aspects of manuscripts for a while. Layout, zodiac features, VM script, marginalia script... becoming aware of the most characteristic, defining features is allowing me to interpret parallels more completely. Sharpening our tools, so to say.

Alright, how about this one? 
Cod. Pal. germ. 359
'Rosengarten zu Worms' ; 'Lucidarius'— Straßburg - "Werkstatt von 1418", 1420


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Haha! Good choice. I have it in my files.

The reason I say it's a good choice is because it's a little more spindly than many scripts, it has a flat-bottom "b" (not common), and the line spacing is wider than most. It's hard to find scripts with those particular qualities.

However, it's a looped d, and the a, m, p and especially the r are somewhat different (and the "l" usually has a serif, which the marginalia l does not), and the h is a hooked-h rather than a round one, which drops down the ratings to the low 60s, but still, even though it doesn't score in the 70s, I thought it was interesting enough to sample in three different places:

How about the script in this one? It's contemporary with VM.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Konrad <von Ammenhausen>: Schachzabelbuch - BSB Cgm 1111, [S.l.] Elsass, 1414 [BSB-Hss Cgm 1111]

First my attention was drawn by these two; the man has the crossbowman's beard and the woman a somewhat familiar dress. Then I noticed the script was somewhat similar.

[attachment=2322]

(30-08-2018, 09:27 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How about the script in this one? It's contemporary with VM.

...

I might not have that one in my database. I'll have to check. Unfortunately, I can't do it until after work, but I'll let you know.