(24-06-2026, 06:45 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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. 
Hi, please look into my study where I explain in detail the correct reading of the gothic cursive script. Kind Regards, Monika
(25-06-2026, 10:02 AM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
The medieval abbreviation for "et" was the Tironian note "⁊" (sometimes looking more or less like "7" or "2" or "z"), then later (Renaissance) "&".
[
attachment=16203]
@Nablator
You're thinking of that “et,” right?
I saw the other “2” and “z” too.
With the “2,” I see the connection to “EVA
s.”
(22-06-2026, 09:54 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would really like to see any 15th ct. reference for the letter „c“ used as an abbreviation of german „Zeh“ (toe).
This may be some child‘s play with our language, but not all a usual speaking and writing — not even in some „Bavarian“…
Hello Stefan, thank you for your question. I agree, indeed it looks a little bit funny. It took quite some time, until I understood what the scribe wanted to express.
The point is not that "c" is a "usual" abbreviation for
Zeh in German
- it is that the scribe was not a native speaker of German and
therefore did not follow usual German orthographic conventions.
Apparently the author had no dedicated grapheme for the German /ts/ sound and when confronted with vernacular words containing this affricate, he used
approximate spellings. The reading is not hypothetical: it appears in two positions where the meaning "Zeh" is required by the recipe's semantics e.g.
an
c hi ton (an Zeh hin tun - apply to toe ) and vals
c nu z'vey so nim gasmich (if toe still too painful then take goatsmilk). A scribe with a foreign background might very well
use
c to spell "Zeh".
Although the use of "c" for
Zeh is unusual, it is entirely consistent with the orthographic habits of a non-native German scribe approximating unfamiliar sounds. A single text or
word only shows,
HOW ONE person chose to spell a word. It is
not automatically representative of the entire era. Apart from that, the orthography was not yet standardized at that time.
Kind regards, Monika
(24-06-2026, 12:42 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Hello, it is not a misspelling, the word is in fact "gasmich". It shows the sound shift from Middle High German
ei > a (long a), Geis > Gas (Standard German Geiß, English: goat). This pronunciation remained until today in the Eastern part of Tyrol. "Mich" represents "milk". In my study, I refer to the illustrations of f116v and the connection to the last sentence.
Kind regards, Monika
(26-06-2026, 05:30 PM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reading is not hypothetical: it appears in two positions where the meaning "Zeh" is required by the recipe's semantics e.g.
an c hi ton (an Zeh hin tun - apply to toe )
You want to explain to me—you’re breaking down the word and separating the “c” from the “ch.” And now you’re trying to convince me that this “c” is an abbreviation for “zeh,” the German word for “toe.”
Do you even know German?
Häsch no alli Latte am Haag, da fehlet sicher Zeh Stuck.
(23-06-2026, 11:45 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (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.
And please explain: what exactly is it you consider "nonsense" ? Do you refer to the ingredients, the reading of the gothic cursive, the dialectal spelling? These spellings are exceptional just as the Voynich-Manuscript is exceptional. Nevertheless, there are in fact numerous manuscripts in Bavarian language but this is indeed special. However, it is just a brief note, not a manuscript.
Everday texts as e.g. housebooks were written in vernacular. Medical expressions in Latin. Last but not not least - I understand the language. Kind regards Monika
If you cannot show these words and spellings in contemporary manuscripts or documents (housebooks will do), they are essentially your guesses. Educated guesses, quite possibly, but still unproven. We cannot deduce if any of these words were actually spelled this way in the XV century without a clear proof.
As for the nonsense - your proposed reading doesn't look coherent to me, way too abbreviated with no reason at all. There is plenty of space on the page and the scribe had time to write in small neat letters and add embellishments like the dots over o, so probably not in a hurry either.
Hello, the request for parallels is understandable. However, this recipe appears to be unique (as the whole codex is). My interpretation is not based on comparisons but on reproducing the recipe and discussing it with pharmacists. Have you reproduced the recipe yourself? Of course, we do not know how people spoke 600 years ago. Many medieval words have disappeared but some survived in local dialects until the present day. Furthermore, there is some evidence that he was not a native speaker and probably did not have an university education.
Kind regards, Monika
(27-06-2026, 06:23 AM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course, we do not know how people spoke 600 years ago. Many medieval words have disappeared but some survived in local dialects until the present day. Furthermore, there is some evidence that he was not a native speaker and probably did not have an university education.
Then unfortunately this theory looks unprovable to me. No amount of indirect evidence like the plausibility of the recipe can replace the direct evidence of actual spellings being used in the XV century. There are just too many possible different ways to interpret a badly spelled and heavily abbreviated short text.
(26-06-2026, 07:10 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (26-06-2026, 05:30 PM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reading is not hypothetical: it appears in two positions where the meaning "Zeh" is required by the recipe's semantics e.g.
an c hi ton (an Zeh hin tun - apply to toe )
You want to explain to me—you’re breaking down the word and separating the “c” from the “ch.” And now you’re trying to convince me that this “c” is an abbreviation for “zeh,” the German word for “toe.”
Do you even know German?
Häsch no alli Latte am Haag, da fehlet sicher Zeh Stuck.
Beleidigungen sind einfach, wenn man nichts Konkretes beitragen kann. Ich habe dies dem Administrator gemeldet. Viele Grüße Monika
There is simply no historical evidence that a “c” is an abbreviation for the word “Zeh.” If you know of any, you'll have to provide evidence for it here.
I also haven't found any evidence that the word “Zeh” was ever written with a “c,” i.e., “ceh.” Moreover, a single “c” would have been interpreted at the time as a Latin abbreviation.
While “c” (tse) sounds similar to “zeh,” “ceh” would be extremely atypical.
Do you have at least one instance where “Zeh” was written as “ceh”???