13-09-2024, 06:01 AM
I'm the first to admit when I don't know enough about a subject to talk about it with any certainty, but in this case I can say with certainty that some parts of the marginalia are not problematic.
* "so nim" is frequent in recipe books, both cooking and pharmacy. We expect it to be followed by an ingredient.
* Gasmich is one word, and expected to be an ingredient. It does need a bit of massaging to be read as goat's milk, but it's not too much of a stretch. I wouldn't insist on this one though.
* poxleber is an excellent reading of the word, and the translation to male goat's liver is not problematic. The x for "ck + genitive-s" is rare, but not unattested.
*The central two lines have been shown to contain attested elements of charms: crosses, holy names (Maria in this case), hocus pocus language, capital N for insertion of the patient's or other subject's name when reading.
So we've got a "charm" in the middle and two ingredient-related lines top and bottom. I think there is enough certainty about this, which I don't say lightly in this case.
That said, I fully agree with Bernd's sentiment that it's bizarre that we can't make sense of the marginalia overall. Something's going on, and I think Patrick's line of reasoning is interesting. But that doesn't mean we have to get rid of the few footholds we have - quite on the contrary. A reading like "so nim" is solid, even if we can't read the words around it.
The fact that pocks leber would be spelled with x (again, a possible but rare choice) might already give us some insight into the marginalia writer's ways.
Edit: Patrick, regarding the 8-shapes: the ones on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are problematic. When I was studying the marginalia script with Marco, these gave us trouble. Lisa confirmed. However, as Aga points out, the one on f66 is different, an can be read as a final-s without much trouble.
* "so nim" is frequent in recipe books, both cooking and pharmacy. We expect it to be followed by an ingredient.
* Gasmich is one word, and expected to be an ingredient. It does need a bit of massaging to be read as goat's milk, but it's not too much of a stretch. I wouldn't insist on this one though.
* poxleber is an excellent reading of the word, and the translation to male goat's liver is not problematic. The x for "ck + genitive-s" is rare, but not unattested.
*The central two lines have been shown to contain attested elements of charms: crosses, holy names (Maria in this case), hocus pocus language, capital N for insertion of the patient's or other subject's name when reading.
So we've got a "charm" in the middle and two ingredient-related lines top and bottom. I think there is enough certainty about this, which I don't say lightly in this case.
That said, I fully agree with Bernd's sentiment that it's bizarre that we can't make sense of the marginalia overall. Something's going on, and I think Patrick's line of reasoning is interesting. But that doesn't mean we have to get rid of the few footholds we have - quite on the contrary. A reading like "so nim" is solid, even if we can't read the words around it.
The fact that pocks leber would be spelled with x (again, a possible but rare choice) might already give us some insight into the marginalia writer's ways.
Edit: Patrick, regarding the 8-shapes: the ones on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are problematic. When I was studying the marginalia script with Marco, these gave us trouble. Lisa confirmed. However, as Aga points out, the one on f66 is different, an can be read as a final-s without much trouble.
![[Image: San-Gal-904-p204-top.jpg?ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/San-Gal-904-p204-top.jpg?ssl=1)
