The Voynich Ninja

I withdraw my comment after seeing the high-resolution image.

(Yesterday, 06:29 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

I agree that it does seem to fit the style of flowers that you cited, although they are often significantly larger than this one (with the potential exception of f32v). I'm not sure what to make of the blue since it doesn't really look like it was 'painted', although it is quite common for VMS illustrations to have a couple of strokes of paint and the illustrator then calling it a day. 

I think that the implications of this sketch being attachted to the rest of the marginalia would be very interesting since as you mentioned, the flower style is similar to that of the A plants, whilst the majority of the marginalia is found in B sections.

I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that this sketch is physically connected to the marginalia found on f17r, however it brings the question: Is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia connected to / describing the flower and does this change any interpretations of the marginalia itself?

(Yesterday, 06:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

I agree that the water stain is definitely complicating any confident intepretation of how it got there. That said, my understanding is that much of the paint and ink transfer within the VMS is from centuries of contact between the pages which I don't think is likely in this case.

(Yesterday, 06:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Also possible the page that caused this is one of the lost pages, although this would have had to happen before the folio numbers were added so I don't think it could have been one that was removed by Georg Baresch. This might also provide evidence that even more pages were in the original manuscript than we know of based on folio and quire numbers.  [b]Georg Bar[/b]
I also wonder what relevance this might have to Lisa's new theory of an unbound VMS?

It is actually more visible in the other multispectral image, which shows a 'stem' of some kind leading up to the flower.
[attachment=11971]

I did a quick tracing of the outline in red to show the flower and stem. Also in this image I put a blue line in to show the distance between the flower and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia writing. 
[attachment=11970]

I think it is hard to argue that they are connected in any meaningful way based on their structure on the page itself (certainly less obviously connected compared to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia).

(Yesterday, 06:50 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Hm, you are right. The brown lines are too thin and sharp. And the flower is actually outside the water stain.

And the blue paint looks like an accidental smudge created by a clumsy Painter.

Mysteries, mysteries...

All the best, --stolfi

After analyzing the high-resolution image, I have come to the following translation with some doubts:

"mensis Aprili Aprili Lunam haec"
 = In the month of April, this will be 

and then it becomes illegible to me. I could guess an “erit” and then an l or even a d follows. Maybe: discrimen? 
= in the month of April, the decision will be?

Reason: 
m:
the m stands before a month name for mensis (month)

April: 
if the left "April" is supposed to be April, it has one letter too many or he has mixed up the letters. And then it looks as if the word is repeated without the letter and written more hastily. Another repetition error?
the first "l" belongs to the a (see below)
the apostrophe at the end, which appears in both words, indicates the “i.”

Lunam: 
is a common abbreviation (see below). I see  the c before the 3, and that makes this interpretation a little uncertain, but I wouldn't overestimate the c.
The macron indicates the missing n.  

haec:
The h is clear, the e has a small downward stroke like ae, and then hae fits. The c is then more of a guess.

What do u think?