02-07-2018, 01:03 PM
Pages: 1 2
02-07-2018, 04:16 PM
When I first saw it, it looked like 13 to me, but I guess it depends on whether something in front of it was also washed away. If it was text, rather than a number, then it could be the "z" symbol (or "3" symbol) that is used at the ends of words as an abbreviation. It looks a bit big though, compared to the other text in the manuscript, so perhaps it is 13.
Very interesting. I hadn't noticed it before.
Very interesting. I hadn't noticed it before.
15-07-2018, 12:20 AM
Great finding, Wladimir.
At first it looks like the symbol of "9", but playing with colour I see that it is letter "h" much of the same shape as in "anchiton".
At first it looks like the symbol of "9", but playing with colour I see that it is letter "h" much of the same shape as in "anchiton".
15-07-2018, 12:30 AM
15-07-2018, 05:23 AM
Wow, it's huge compared to most of the marks and the VMS main text, but it does look like "h" in the colorized scan. Exactly the right shape.
15-07-2018, 02:01 PM
If measured to the imaginary baseline, it's approximately as tall as the pagination digits - that is, as tall as the gallows or evel slightly less taller that some of them.
I have an impression that "h" is the last character of a word, I think I discern "c" or "t" preceding it, and also the shape of marginalia-characteristic "p" is barely discernable in the right half of the left red oval.
I have an impression that "h" is the last character of a word, I think I discern "c" or "t" preceding it, and also the shape of marginalia-characteristic "p" is barely discernable in the right half of the left red oval.
15-07-2018, 09:03 PM
Unfortunately, there are a lot of worm trails at the top of this folio and they so often look like letter shapes. It's hard to distinguish the ink from the tiny chewed parts (and from the tanning-process scumble).
If that is "h" (it looks like one), it's a calligraphic "h", someone who knows how to hold the pen properly, not the same handwriting as the main text or the marginalia. I wonder if there was a heading on the parchment before the VMS text was added that was removed so the sheet could be used.
If that is "h" (it looks like one), it's a calligraphic "h", someone who knows how to hold the pen properly, not the same handwriting as the main text or the marginalia. I wonder if there was a heading on the parchment before the VMS text was added that was removed so the sheet could be used.
15-07-2018, 11:01 PM
I don't see anything especially calligraphic. IMO, the same "L" shape as in "lab" with a descender added.
16-07-2018, 02:29 AM
It's the thick and thin shapes that distinguish calligraphic writing from simple writing with a quill.
Those who were not expert, like the main text writers and the marginalia writer, don't hold the quill correctly to optimize the contrast between the thick and thin shapes as the pen is moved. Also, connecting the letters in a certain way (stroke direction, for example), also emphasizes this characteristic. Medieval book-hand scribes were good at it (the late 15th-century French scribes were very good at it). That's why their script almost always looks different from cursive scripts. Even when they draw the same shapes, they draw them so the balance between the vertical and horizontal strokes takes advantage of the dynamic range (from thin to thick) of the quill.
Note how nicely the last downstroke on the "h" in the above example is thin-thick at the top and then tapers very gradually and elegantly as it becomes thinner toward the bottom. Even when the VMS marginalia writer drew a good book-form "g" (in which the shapes are correct and well done), the thick-thin balance was not properly used to enhance the transitions.
Now look at the VMS "h" (the one with the tail). The shape is basically right, but he goofed up the ascender and turned the quill a little too much so it's too thin at the top-left. The example on this page has a more evenly thick ascender, done the way a calligrapher would do it. I think it's pretty clear the marginalia writer was not a professional scribe. Uneven balance, quill turning this way and that.
Of course, that doesn't mean that all professional scribes were good at it... the Lauber studio (mid-15th century) was a commercial manuscript copying studio, yet none of the handwriting comes up to the professional standards of the various ecclesiastical scriptoria where they were trained in book hands but even the Lauber scribes, as hasty as they were, were more consistent than the marginalia writer.
Those who were not expert, like the main text writers and the marginalia writer, don't hold the quill correctly to optimize the contrast between the thick and thin shapes as the pen is moved. Also, connecting the letters in a certain way (stroke direction, for example), also emphasizes this characteristic. Medieval book-hand scribes were good at it (the late 15th-century French scribes were very good at it). That's why their script almost always looks different from cursive scripts. Even when they draw the same shapes, they draw them so the balance between the vertical and horizontal strokes takes advantage of the dynamic range (from thin to thick) of the quill.
Note how nicely the last downstroke on the "h" in the above example is thin-thick at the top and then tapers very gradually and elegantly as it becomes thinner toward the bottom. Even when the VMS marginalia writer drew a good book-form "g" (in which the shapes are correct and well done), the thick-thin balance was not properly used to enhance the transitions.
Now look at the VMS "h" (the one with the tail). The shape is basically right, but he goofed up the ascender and turned the quill a little too much so it's too thin at the top-left. The example on this page has a more evenly thick ascender, done the way a calligrapher would do it. I think it's pretty clear the marginalia writer was not a professional scribe. Uneven balance, quill turning this way and that.
Of course, that doesn't mean that all professional scribes were good at it... the Lauber studio (mid-15th century) was a commercial manuscript copying studio, yet none of the handwriting comes up to the professional standards of the various ecclesiastical scriptoria where they were trained in book hands but even the Lauber scribes, as hasty as they were, were more consistent than the marginalia writer.
21-10-2018, 05:23 PM
I believe this was discussed on the (pre-SantaColoma) Voynich Mailing List: I have a (literally) faint recollection it may have been "15" added incorrectly and then removed, before being replaced by the correct "16" folio number.
Pages: 1 2