I noticed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has a rather unusual layout in that the text does not run on till the right margin, making it look like some kind of poem. Might this be because the parchment in this area was found unsuitable as a writing surface? There does appear to be some damage (edge of skin?) and the reverse You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also shows a slight bend in the text margin at this location, though not nearly as much. The images don't seem to care.
There's a lot going on on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . The bottom marginalia with the lying figure (mus del). A column of words seemingly added in the margin. But in between these words and the main text there's another row of what looks like single glyphs. I've cut the ribbon for easier viewing:
I just made a new thread to gather all counts of things: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Here any additions can be suggested. Count VViews, please make abundant use of your editing rights here, I must have forgotten quite a bit of things we've counted before.
Did we ever reach a definite count of the total number of human figures?
This first post will be updated with various counts of things, presented with a link to the source. For any corrections or additions, see the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Text
Number of characters: 160.000 to 165.000 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Number of words: 37.000 to 39.000 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Number of different words: 9.000 to 10.000 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Images
Human figures:
Human figures in Q13: 231 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Human figures in "Zodiac section": 303 (299 nymphs + 4 central figures) (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Figures wearing clothes (besides headgear): 50 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Number of visible shoes: 8 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Plants:
Number of large-plant drawings: 134, divided over 124 pages with a single plant and 5 pages with a pair (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
There are 45 containers in the small-plants section. Apart from containers, there are 241 other items (plants, roots, one cube...) (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Stars:
Stars in the margins of Q20: 324, of which 163 have red paint. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Number of stars in f68r1: 29 (all labeled)
Number of stars in f68r2: 59, of those 24 are labeled, 12 unlabeled, plus the additional outer circle of 23 unlabeled stars. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
In medieval manuscripts, does word-splitting across lines occur?
For example, I want to write the word abracadabra but run out of space on the current line and thus I split it into abra(linebreak)cadabra. Is this the way it's done or is this being taken care of in some other fashion?
Thanks in advance
Hildegard wrote the first of her vision-books, known as the Scivias , around 1151. Until WWII, one copy (Rupertsberg) survived which was made shortly after her death, and certainly under the immediate influence of her surroundings. This MS was lost to the war, but fortunately it was copied in the early 20th century. Most Scivias images you have seen are from this modern copy (Eibingen).
The following fragment is from the Eibingen copy. We can assume that this is more or less how Hildegard herself had envisioned it. The six days of Creation
Illustrations of Hildegard's work could give rise to comparison with Voynich images. The style isn't standard medieval and the compositions deviate from stock scenes. There are cosmological elements and many naked figures (souls in Hildegard, "nymphs" in the VM).
Now upon closer inspection I'd say that the earliest Hildegard MSS are in style much more like the Spanish Beatus MSS of a century before, and don't share much with the VM apart from some degree of strangeness.
Now, to get to the point, what made me open this thread is the 6-days-scene from the 12th century You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The overall style of the images is still quite different from the VM, and the same is true for the contents (an explosion of angels and Jesuses). But especially in the cosmological elements there is a departure from Hildegard's style towards things we are more used to, especially from the rosettes foldout. Note the eye-shape in the first day (top left), the blob representing the Earth with its waters, human heads in Sun and Moon, the green wave pattern under the dragon bottom left. Note certainly the "wavy starfish" bottom middle, which here represents the four rivers of paradise. Also androgynous human nudes, but that's not too exceptional in such works.
So, any thoughts? Has anyone studied this MS before?
Posted by: Anton - 30-07-2018, 09:04 PM - Forum: Marginalia
- No Replies
After Wladimir discovered You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., I began to investigate (on ad-hoc basis) other botanical folios on the subject of potential marginalia.
The idea, which may be very rewarding if it ultimately turns out to hold true, is that the guy had plant names marginalia put down (like to have some reminders of what the plant is, or of what plant should be depicted in the folio), but afterwards erased them out of caution. Interestingly, in some botanical folios certain areas of "erosion" are found, and these may be places where marginalia once were.
Such is f38v. There are three symbols, the first two are barely legible ("t" and "a" ?), the third one is either r rotunda or that Latin abbreviation which looks like Voynichese k (don't remember its meaning). If anything follows that, it's badly smeared.
There are other suspect-folios, but nothing well discernable at the moment.
(30-07-2018, 08:04 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the middle ages, manuscripts were typically bound by the owner, not the people who created it. It was a two-step process.
What about the creator being the owner at the same time?
It would be highly unusual for the manuscript to be bound before it was done.
In the middle ages, manuscripts were typically bound by the owner, not the people who created it. It was a two-step process. It's like buying a painting. The buyer purchases a painting and then takes it to a frame shop and picks out the colors and style of the frame.
A manuscript that was already bound was considered "second-hand" in those days.
That's not to say it couldn't happen, but it would be outside the norm.