(23-06-2026, 09:53 PM)Zauriek Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A) What is the meaning of those markings? (We could pretend they do not exist of course.)
If the crosses mean the actual sign of the cross, and Maria actually reads Maria, it makes a lot of sense to put a separate dedicated cross over it. Could be very deliberate. Splitting the name of Maria in two to accommodate for an inline cross could be considered a sacrilege.
If you break the words down, you can do a lot with them—but is that really correct???? As long as u can’t find evidence in medieval texts to support ur theory, it remains just a theory.
Example:
aladabaz
Alada is the plant: "
hellebore" in Old High German / Middle High German
“baz” means “better” (later bazzer, the comparative form of “wol” = good)
olada baz = better hellebore
There are two varieties of hellebore:
“elleborus niger” = the potent one, the “better” one therapeutically
“elleborus albus” = milder, less drastic
“alada baz” would then be the “better” one, although ‘alada’ already stands for the “niger” variety on its own.
But have I found evidence for this? No....
so : diedelideli I have a theory....
In my view, the chiton is also unambiguous—the first line of the charm begins with “m” = Maria and ends with “n” = Nazarenus (from: iNri)
Maria’s chiton was one of the most significant relics of the Middle Ages. It is housed in Aachen Cathedral. While Aachen had a population of 10,000 at the time, the pilgrimage—which had been held every seven years since 1349—drew 142,000 pilgrims in a single day at the end of the 15th century! (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.)
According to tradition, the relics are a dress worn by the Virgin Mary on the night of Jesus' birth.
(You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.)
Mary’s chiton symbolizes healing, and that is why it is perfectly normal for such a relic to be invoked first in a charm.
And the sequence: invocation of the relic, followed by the remedy “alada baz,” then “rc” as “Recipe” = “take,” then “tere cere” = “rubbed it with wax, you shall carry it with you as an amulet” (“portas”)—followed by the “n” at the end. It’s all extremely logical. And, is there any evidence?
No, so that’s just another theory—one that nobody believes anyway, because everyone else believes in their own theories too.
[
attachment=16173][
attachment=16174]
That's all well and good, but do you have a theory that doesn't involve breaking down the words and rearranging them?
And it's spelled “oladabat.”
Taking spelling into account, it could be “olla dabat/dabad.”
Aside from the double “l” and the hyphen, it's perfectly normal and error-free
If you're going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all.
And if you want it in Bavarian, “auch i ton ola da bad”
"Auch ich tue einlassen das Bad"
“I'm running the bath, too”
That's exactly what I meant.
diedelideli i've a theory....
And each of us has a probability of nearly 100 percent of being wrong.
(24-06-2026, 09:00 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And each of us has a probability of nearly 100 percent of being wrong.
No, those are people who don't do real research and just rely on a blender and dice.
Real research involves knowledge and a lot of time spent getting to the bottom of things.
Even with elementary school students, when they do a math problem, you want to see the written steps so you know they actually understand how it works—and aren’t just relying on a calculator.
In the future, I won’t take your results seriously anymore, since your findings seem to come from a lottery.
Aga Tentakulus Wrote:No, those are people who don't do real research and just rely on a blender and dice.
Real research involves knowledge and a lot of time spent getting to the bottom of things.
So all the other theories aren't properly researched—only yours....
I've rarely laughed so hard....
I have another speculation to offer. Perhaps “gas mich” is a variant or a misspelling of “gred mich.” What makes this interpretation so appealing is a possible connection to the illustrations. An ugly Easter lamb and an oven would establish a link to the last sentence on 116v. As I said, this is pure speculation.
Reference for “gred mich”:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The oven:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(23-06-2026, 03:44 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (23-06-2026, 09:17 AM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, this indicates that the marginalia was added probably after 1500. Is there any reason to think otherwise?
In addition to Koen's remark that the handwriting is likely early 15th century, contemporary with the VM vellum, the images associated with the marginalia closely resemble the regular imagery of the bifolio and quire. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the marginalia were written by the same person who made the VM drawings, and shortly after those were created. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a bit problematic in this regard as the quire contains no imagery aside from stars, but all in all the marginalia follow a consistent pattern. I find it unlikely that someone should and could closely mimic the author's bad drawing skills in matching style of the quire when adding the marginalia at a significantly later date. I would not rule out that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were created after the entire VM was finished as the nymph is fairly advanced for VM standards, but not much later.
(23-06-2026, 02:50 PM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi, after years of research there are more than guesses. I discussed the text with pharmacists to check the ingredients and logical sequence. My local pharmacist remembered to have learned the expression "mana in vitra" at university. Moreover I also discussed it with experts of German studies at University of Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck. The last sentence has a proper syntax.
Again I have to ask - which experts specifically, and did you show them a scan of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , or just your transliteration of the marginalia text?
I remain agnostic about the text and its meaning (if any), but which letters represent a 'v' or 'r' is far from certain and debatable. As are most aspects of the VM.
Regarding the 'x' in pox, see here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hello Bern, thank you for your question. The experts were professors of dialectology and of German studies. Yes, of course I showed them the scan of the folio. All of them said, this text and writing was somewhat strange, they hadn't seen anything similar before. Two of them answered that the author must have been a non-German speaker writing in a language foreign to him. One of them said, that the spelling looks like that of a romance-speaking author. I did not ask them whether I am allowed to mention their names because I know many scientists do not want to be brought in connection with the Voynich-Manuscript. Please look again at the word "poxleber". The
r has a single stem. Thats how the author writes it. But his "
v" is open at the top and represents several phonems like u, /f/, w. It has to be read according to the context. Then we do get a plausible content. Kind regards from Black Forest, Monika
(23-06-2026, 04:27 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (23-06-2026, 04:11 PM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello, Here the + just represents an addition sign meaning "and".
The plus sign was "invented" by Nicole Oresme in ~1350, but I don't know how long it took for it to become common. If the VMS was scribed around 1430, and those "+" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are indeed plus signs, that would be evidence indicating that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. writing is not contemporaneous with the rest of the VMS text.
But I don't think those "+" are plus signs. I believe the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. text is much later than the rest of the VMS, but for other reasons.
All the best, --stolfi
Hello and thanks for your question regarding the
+ signs: As far as I know, they come for the Latin "et" (= and). Late medieval recipes were often written in prose.
I assume the text of f 116v could in fact be written earlier and later the parchment was used again to be written on. A palimpsest. Kind regards, Monika