+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: 116v (/thread-437.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
RE: 116v - Kaybo - 31-10-2025
To answer the question from the first page, which has probably already done, but its a book ownership remark.
I can roughly make out something like: Anno 1583 die 19... Stephanus Revay Hic liber est audire... ... pulvis...
The phrase “Hic liber est…” is typical of Latin inscriptions (ex libris). A common formula would be something like: Hic liber est Stephani Revay. Non liber est auferre; si quis auferet, pulvis erit. (“This book belongs to Stephan Revay. It is not permitted to take it; whoever takes it shall turn to dust.”)
RE: 116v - MarcoP - 31-10-2025
The correct transcription is on page 1 of the thread, post #7
(01-03-2016, 09:58 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it is 19 December
Non labor es[t] audire cantantes pulchras puellas
Anno 1583 die 19 Decemb. Stephanus Reway
Non labor es[t] audire cantantes pulchras puellas
"Year 1583, on the 19th day of December. Stephanus Reway.
It is no hard task to listen to beautiful girls singing."
Ah, the wisdom of the ancients!
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 07:48 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Stephanus Reway.
Is that "Reway" or "Rewaij"? or "Rewaÿ"? There seems to be dots over the "y"...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-12-2025
Koen I just watched your new YouTube video about f116v.
You did a good job at summarizing the frustration of all the Voynichologists (including me) who have spent uncountably many hours poring at that page. (As you said, no bit of Medieval parchment has received so much attention, ever.)
But there is one important recent discovery that you missed. In the UV image (only) of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. one can clearly see the outline (A) of a big water spill that covered most of the page, starting at the top:
There is also a fairly sharp horizontal boundary (B) between a darker area at the top, including all the marginalia, and the rest of the page. It could be an area that was rubbed with chemicals (like the bottom of f1r), or that was rubbed with a wet rag to clean the vellum or erase whatever was written there.
I leave to you and others to consider the implications of these stains. I have my own theory, but will rather not state it here now...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: 116v - Koen G - 07-12-2025
Yeah, I kept this video "short" on purpose and decided to focus on one approach. It's mostly meant as a basis for the next video, a primer for casual enthusiasts and (as always), a warning against quick and easy "solutions".
I could have easily made it 10 times longer, but you have to make choices if you want to keep it watchable. Every side note you include adds minutes to the video and has the chance to drain people's attention span.
Things I omitted are the images, the details of any stains, possibility of overwriting, breakdown of proposed readings (and why they're no good), the once-popular reading of poxleber as a swearword (and why that's no good), etc... I also glossed over everything having to do with charms, but that's because I'll focus on that later.
The stain you point out is certainly interesting and would have made for a good visual though.
RE: 116v - Bluetoes101 - 11-12-2025
Not sure if this falls in the quick and easy solutions bin, but..
I thought maybe the weird "u" thing on the final word is part of a broken up "mit".
If this is "m" then the previous word must start "n", "niren?". Both "pocks/pochs leber" recipes on Corema contain "nieren" (kidney).
"pfer" may just be a short "peffer"? - "Bucks-liver kidney with pepper".
RE: 116v - RenegadeHealer - 11-12-2025
Awesome job on part 1 of your video, Koen. I can’t wait to see part two.
Also, if you ever fancy a change of career, I’m pretty sure you could make a living narrating ASMR videos, audiobooks of bedtime stories, and guided meditation tracks, or DJing a jazz station
(27-10-2025, 05:28 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And the fact that we can't immediately recognize the next two words from context.
I paused your video on the frame where you list all the usual possibilities for the letters of the two words following “poxleber” for some time. Then I took another look at the gif Marco made some years back, where each of the questionable Roman letters on 116v cycles through its possible states. Something jumped out at me, from my years playing Scrabble and doing word puzzles like hangman and word jumbles. I did a thorough search for previous mentions of it, but I couldn’t find any. I can’t imagine I’m the first to propose this:
pox leber pinen Potifar
I parse this as the title for a recipe, whether for a food, medicine, magical brew, or some medieval mixture of these: “Potiphar’s Agonies Goat Liver” or “Goat Liver à la Potiphar’s Pains”
Potiphar is a character who appears in the Book of Genesis chapter 39, and in the Qu’ran chapter 12. He was an Egyptian captain of the guard, who purchased Joseph son of Jacob as a slave. His wife Zulīkhah attempted to seduce Joseph, and when Joseph resisted the temptation, Zulīkhah publicly accused Joseph of trying to take advantage of her, forcing Potiphar to send his slave to prison. The real trouble was at home: Potiphar had an unfaithful and dishonest wife, and likely didn’t have a great relationship with her before Joseph showed up. Whether he believed Zulīkhah or not, he had no choice but to take her story at face value and let Joseph take the blame. Otherwise Potiphar would have lost face as a cuckold, and been forced to divorce or even kill Zulīkhah, in addition to punishing Joseph, to redeem his honor. But either way, he lost his investment in a slave, and was no closer to marital happiness. Plus, when Joseph gained the ear of the Pharaoh due to some fortuitous encounters in prison, this made Potiphar look and feel shaded and pushed aside yet again, by that same pesky foreign slave he bought!
So, my interpretation of “Potiphar’s torments” is that it has something to do with feeling emasculated and made to look weak, through no fault of one’s own.
Could this be a recipe and/or a charm for treating impotence, loss of libido, marital troubles, an unfaithful spouse, or even just a loss of power and social status? Goats figure heavily into this page, in one way or another. Goats traditionally symbolize stubbornness, resilience, overcoming obstacles, personal growth, and of course, libido.
(27-10-2025, 04:22 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stumbled on these in cooking recipes today, thought may be of interest.
Indeed! And my question for you, Koen, and anyone else here who’s spent more time staring at medieval German cookbooks and grimoires than I have: Could "pox leber pinen Potifar” a historically accurate syntax for the name of a recipe, in an Alpine German dialect? I don’t speak German, and I want to heed Marco’s usual advice about looking for grammar and phrases, not just words.
RE: 116v - Koen G - 11-12-2025
A construction ala "bucks liver 'Potifar's pains'" sounds a bit modern. For the grammar, at the very least I'd expect the genitive Potifars. The vowels don't quite match, but that may not be too much of a problem.
But more importantly, I just don't think Potifars' pains is really a concept. He's not really a character whose agonies would be the focus of attention.
I personally think "pinen" is a good reading. This was actually my preference, see the quote here all the way at the bottom: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'll have more to say about this after the next video though.
RE: 116v - Bluetoes101 - 12-12-2025
(11-12-2025, 07:21 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-10-2025, 04:22 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stumbled on these in cooking recipes today, thought may be of interest.
Indeed! And my question for you, Koen, and anyone else here who’s spent more time staring at medieval German cookbooks and grimoires than I have: Could "pox leber pinen Potifar” a historically accurate syntax for the name of a recipe, in an Alpine German dialect? I don’t speak German, and I want to heed Marco’s usual advice about looking for grammar and phrases, not just words.
My inclination is that it is not an accurate syntax but "marginalia speak".
I did a fair bit of deep dive to come up with my reading but I left it out because the "it's small" crew would come for me
. I have redone a little here (below).I leave out "pox" which has the clearest descender, but I think "pfer" is clear enough to show the others are not "p". I have a feeling I am in a team of one though, so I guess probably wrong.
Yellow = clear indicator, red = lack of. I felt like my m/n was consistently weird, but if Koen has a reading I shall shelve my 4 years of German I've never used (I am very good at asking to go to the toilet, or for various cakes) and bow to those that know more. I do think though that "not making logical sense" will have to be accepted with these marginalia scribbles, or they will just forever be nonsense "den mus mel! (ignore the problematic "p")"... I guess the video will show
RE: 116v - Koen G - 12-12-2025
I think it's key for all of us (which includes myself) to not lock anything down until this makes sense.
On that multispectral image, the supposed "e" in "pinen" or "umen" or whatever looks weird. Shaped kind of like ç. I can't tell what that's supposed to be.