Hmm. "Luczen":
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Automatic Google recognise:
Quote:Herde dorthin zu treiben zum Weiden. „Ach", habe er gesagt, dao lusen (lausen ziehen) se jao alle 'rum." So habe der ganze Distrikt den Namen Luse oder Lausebusch erhalten. Das Gekünstelte dieser Erklärung liegt auf der Hand und hat einen ähnlichen Ursprung wie Wart-burg; Wol-mir-stedt; (des) Mann's-feld; Ach-alm und manche andere. Durch den Hinweis auf die lüneburgische Gegend kommt jedoch Licht über den Namen. Da kommt nämlich bei Maschen (Gericht Pattensen) noch heute ein Forstort vor: „Lausemoor" und lekteres soll dem alten Luczenmoor gleich sein, von dem das Stift Verden den Rottzehnt in Anspruch nahm [Verd. Gesch. I, S. 47]. Dies Luczen oder Lause hat aber nichts zu thun mit lusen oder lausen = herumziehen, sondern es liegt dem Namen wohl das altslavische Wort luza Sumpf zu Grunde [Brückner S. 74]. Dies paßt auch treffend für unser in Frage stehendes Lusebuschland, zumal es unweit eines früher wendischen Dorses liegt.
Google translation:
To drive herds there to graze. "Ah," he said, "the lice (lice) are all wandering around." Thus, the entire district received the name Luse or Lausebusch. The artificiality of this explanation is obvious, and it has a similar origin to Wartburg; Wolmirstedt; (des) Mann's-feld; Ach-alm, and many others. However, the reference to the Lüneburg region sheds light on the name. A forestry site still exists today near Maschen (Pattensen court): "Lausemoor," and the lekteres is said to be similar to the old Luczenmoor, from which the Verden Abbey claimed the Rott tithe [Verd. Gesch. I, p. 47]. This Luczen or Lause, however, has nothing to do with lusen or lausen = to wander around, but the name is probably based on the Old Slavic word luza, swamp [Brückner p. 74]. This also aptly fits our Lusebuschland in question, especially since it lies not far from a former Wendish village.
(02-08-2025, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think there's a misunderstanding here.
Yes it was.
So I understand the trouble here now.
(02-08-2025, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I meant to say is that "cz" in German manuscripts always (as far as I'm aware) stands for the sound "tz". Sometimes scribes write only "z", but the sound is the same. For example, in medieval documents you can find both czehn and zehn.
Not quite. In
modern German, if first letter, the Z is standalone - it was different before, like your czehn and zehn. If somewhere midword, it is often the tz combination - today and in earlier times.
In older manuscripts, the t may appear as c , I saw that yesterday in my own examples. But the letter can mostly be identified as T because it is a bit higher than the following "3" / Z. Not much, hardly recognizable. I have never seen a "real" cz with meaning "tz", so I asked for your example.
This line in VMS f17 shows clearly a (real) c and the "3" / z, and these letters are the best visible of whole line. The "c" does not look like a medieval "t" here at all; therefore, each German reacts here with "cz is not one of our combinations, must be Czech!" as I did.
(02-08-2025, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In summary: when the cz ligature is used in Medieval German texts, it stands for the sound "tz". But it is not the exclusive way to represent this sound.
Regarding the "c" as a shy litttle "t", this could be right.
(02-08-2025, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I asked you is the following: since you think we should look at other languages, do you know how the ligature functioned in medieval texts in those languages?
Late already, have to track that the next days.
But "Chronica" up there gives another hint: the "un" between "fünffhundert ein
un dreyssig" with a line above it (just like in VMS) is an "und", where the dash serves as abbreviation for the "d" (or even "t", if a writer had other ideas of writing): I have seen this type of abbreviation in other german scripts before.
Must admit this would point a bit back to German as language of this VMS annotation, though the dash of f17 is spanning both letters; but when it is Czech or a different language, the dash may have a completely other function.
I'd like to make another suggestion in German. I don't mean traditional German, but rather Southern German and Swiss German. Maybe Stefan Wirtz as nativ speaker if he understand the southern dialect can give me a feedback to it. Since the book was possibly written in the Swiss-Italian border region, that might make sense. Even if it's a bit bold. It's also just my personal opinion, as I have no qualifications regarding medieval writings.
Malhor allor, lueg her un llan mi otmol nus/nuf
If my grandmother had told me this, I would have understood the following:
bad times/misfortune at this place, look at me and let me go out
Hi, thought I'd post this here, it's from a swiss manuscript from Aargau. Looks very similar.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You mean ‘bletz’. In Zurich, we spell it with an “ä” as ‘blätz’. It means piece.
Example: ‘i de Hose fehlt än blätz’ There's a piece missing from the trousers. They have a hole in them.
Du meinst "bletz". In Zürch schreiben wir es mit "ä" "blätz". Es bedeutet Stück.
Beispiel: "i de Hose fehlt än blätz" In der Hose fehlt ein Stück. Sie hat ein Loch.
This is again a good example of how the cz ligature stands for the sound "tz" in German MSS. I still haven't found one with a macron though.
I was looking through the multispectral images of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (looking at the maginalia actually) but then I noticed this in the top right hand corner of the page. It is visible in both the normal and multispectral images. It isn't caused by its neighbouring pages since there are no structures like this on either 17v or 16v. Forgive me if this has been brought up before (I suspect it has due to the amount of scrutiny the manuscript goes through)
Pareidolia aside, it looks like a flower such as a tulip to me (at least a basic draft sketch of one) or potentially some sort of sigil? I'm not really sure what the significance of this would be, maybe that this page had previously been used for a different drawing or that the scribe was practising their drawing skills?
I must confess I hadn't noticed this before!
The flower appears to be connected to the word below.
I wouldn't call it a 'tulip' but it matches the other 'campanulate' tetramerous flowers found in the VM like You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. f32v or the bulbous calyx style popular in A plants. Curiously there are also some streaks of blue. Is this a transfer (from where?), or was this flower indeed painted?
I think this is a major find as now all marginalia are associated with drawings and those drawings match the VM style. Though in this case the drawing is a bit detached. I do think it paints a coherent picture that all marginalia were created by the same person.
(Yesterday, 03:41 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was looking through the multispectral images of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (looking at the maginalia actually) but then I noticed this in the top right hand corner of the page.
It looks like a case of "offset printing" or "offsetting", which when moist paint or ink from on page gets tranferred by contact to the facing page.
Cases of offsetting are very common in the VMS. They are usually caused by a specific dark blue paint. It seems to be a mixture of royal blue paint (which seems to be based on azurite, a common copper pigment) and some other dark gray ingredient that does not dry well and collects along the edges of the painted area. Usually the offset print has only this dark gray component.
But this case seems to be different, because some of the blue pigment got transferred as well, and the lines look more like ordinary brown ink than the bad gray component above. But "stepping back" and looking at that area at 100% magnifcation or less, one can see that this print lies precisely inside a water stain (which is more visible in the UV images).
So it seems that spilled water softened the ink and blue paint on a page that was originally in contact with f17r, and some of that ink and paint "offsetted" onto f17r.
Quote:It isn't caused by its neighbouring pages since there are no structures like this on either 17v or 16v.
Indeed I cannot find a source that matches this offset print. It could be a folio that was lost, or a scratch drawing that was not included in the final set.
We actually do not know how many pages were in the VMS when it was written. The folio and quire numbers were written when the bifolios were bound. We can see that they were arranged in the wrong order, thus the binding and numbering must have happened when the Author was no longer around.
It seems possible that the water damage that left the stains we see today (which must have happened much after the original scribing, too) damaged some folios so much that they had to be discarded before the rest were numbered and bound.
All the best, --stolfi
Do you really think this is a print, Jorge? The blue maybe, but the brown ink? I cannot imagine that. The lines and dots are as accurate as drawn ones, I see no difference from the marginalia text which is similarly partly faded partly visible.