+- 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
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 15-08-2026
A new argument in support of the mchiton as Mary’s chiton.
A brief recap
To recap: Mary’s chiton—the undergarment Mary wore during the birth of Jesus—was one of the most important relics of the 15th century in Germany. It was displayed to the public every seven years, and even in the Middle Ages, hundreds of thousands (!) of people made pilgrimages to Aachen for this occasion.
It is said to have possessed extremely powerful healing properties. Invoking it at the beginning of a charm makes sense.
----
Have you ever wondered what that strange squiggle is doing there on the right, above the “m” in “chiton”?
That small superscript “e” next to an “m” is an abbreviation for “mariae.”
source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This provides further strong evidence that “m” is an abbreviation for “maria.”
mariae Chiton = marys chiton
PS People have previously complained that the “m” is lowercase. However, that’s a modern way of thinking. In the past, abbreviations of saints’ names were often written in lowercase—even “got” was written in lowercase.
RE: 116v - nablator - 15-08-2026
(15-08-2026, 07:38 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Have you ever wondered what that strange squiggle is doing there on the right, above the “m” in “chiton”?
Have you ever wondered why all the smudges of dirt can be read, if you squint, as b u l l s h i t e ?
RE: 116v - DG97EEB - 15-08-2026
(15-08-2026, 07:38 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A new argument in support of the mchiton as Mary’s chiton.
A brief recap
To recap: Mary’s chiton—the undergarment Mary wore during the birth of Jesus—was one of the most important relics of the 15th century in Germany. It was displayed to the public every seven years, and even in the Middle Ages, hundreds of thousands (!) of people made pilgrimages to Aachen for this occasion.
It is said to have possessed extremely powerful healing properties. Invoking it at the beginning of a charm makes sense.
----
Have you ever wondered what that strange squiggle is doing there on the right, above the “m” in “chiton”?
That small superscript “e” next to an “m” is an abbreviation for “mariae.”
source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This provides further strong evidence that “m” is an abbreviation for “maria.”
mariae Chiton = marys chiton
PS People have previously complained that the “m” is lowercase. However, that’s a modern way of thinking. In the past, abbreviations of saints’ names were often written in lowercase—even “got” was written in lowercase.
Genuinely interesting, but..if you account for one "funny mark", don't you need to account for all 3?
RE: 116v - DG97EEB - 15-08-2026
I know you covered this in a previous post, but is there any record of Chiton being used? I can only find Camista...
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 15-08-2026
Well, dirt or not—that is, of course, the question.
I’ve marked the dirt with blue arrows.
An with red arrows I’ve marked the dot on the “i” and the stroke that, in my opinion, differs from the dirt.
To me, it looks as if there is indeed a round stroke visible between the “m” and the “c,” roughly the same strength as the stroke on the “i.”
-------
@ Ed—yes, that’s right; “camisia” was the term used back then, and it’s still known today as the term from that period.
But it essentially means the same thing:
camisia ≈ chiton = close-fitting shirt/undergarment
“Camisia” is the standard Late Antique/Medieval Latin term for a shirt; “chiton” is the Greek or scholarly term for a specific type of tunic, as undergarment.
the source: Hieronymus (Jerome), Epistula 64,11, Ad Fabiolam / De veste sacerdotali.
11. Secunda ex lino tunica est poderes, id est talaiis, duplici sindone, quam et ipsam Iosephus byssinam uocat, appellaturque 'cotonat', id est chiton, quod Hebraeo sermone in lineam uertitur. haec aclhaeret corpori et ita arta est et strictis manicis, ut nulla omnino in ueste sit ruga et usque ad crura descendat. uolo pro legentis facilitate abuti sermone uulgato: solent militantes habere lineas, quas camisas uocant, sic aptas 10 membris et adstrictas corporibus, ut expediti sint uel ad cursum uel ad proelia, dirigendo iaculo, tenendo clipeo, ense librando et quocumque necessitas traxerit.
11. The second garment is a linen tunic, a poderes, that is, a garment reaching to the feet, made of double linen cloth; Josephus likewise calls it a garment of byssus. It is called cotonat, that is χιτών (chiton), which in Hebrew is rendered as a linen garment.
This garment clings to the body and is so close-fitting, with such tight sleeves, that there is not a single fold in it, and it reaches down to the legs.
For the reader’s convenience, I will use an expression from ordinary speech: soldiers are accustomed to wear linen garments which they call camisae. These fit the limbs and cling to the body so closely that the wearers remain unencumbered, whether running or fighting, throwing a spear, holding a shield, wielding a sword, or wherever necessity may lead them.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Page 598
RE: 116v - DG97EEB - 15-08-2026
[
-------
@ Ed—yes, that’s right; “camisia” was the term used back then, and it’s still known today as the term from that period.
---
Yes, but have you seen it written in a German Manuscript?
RE: 116v - DG97EEB - 15-08-2026
I've not worked through it all yet, but this might be helpful...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It's Claude Lecouteaux's 400 page dictionary of Ancient Magic Words and Spells..
For example we see
TERIX. CONTERIX. PETRONIX. PETRONISSA. TERIX:
According to a thirteenth-century manuscript, these are the words the
angel allegedly spoke to Mary during the Annunciation. With them, an
entity called “worm” is summoned in order to prevent it from devour-
ing you or biting flesh and bone. This spell is also effective against
migraines and the “flying gout,” a name for a parasite.
& Berlin, Prussian State Library, Latin ms., quart. 2, folio 25 r°.
And
PIX, NIX, NOX: The spell that features these three words was first
mentioned by Cesarius of Heisterbach in his book Dialogue on Miracles
(XII, 1). These particular terms designate torments. The complete spell
is: Pix, nix, nox, vermis, flagra, vincula, pus, pudor, horror. It perhaps
derives from a Greek list of demons: Ραξ Ριξ Ρηξ.
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 15-08-2026
(15-08-2026, 11:28 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, but have you seen it written in a German Manuscript?
m'chiton? no, but this could be very difficult, it's is surley not a common word.
RE: 116v - DG97EEB - 15-08-2026
(15-08-2026, 12:53 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-08-2026, 11:28 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, but have you seen it written in a German Manuscript?
m'chiton? no, but this could be very difficult, it's is surley not a common word.
No, Chiton... I don't dispute it is Greek, but if there is no recorded contemporaneous usage of it in German Manuscripts, it's hard to argue that's the correct interpretation...
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 16-08-2026
(14-08-2026, 09:00 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, that is one of the two assumptions (#2) that the Big Wipe theory requires.(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He just did not care enough about the manuscript to study its writing in any detail.Assumption.
Quote:Not an independent assumption. Assumption #1 of the Big Wipe theory is that there was Voynichese text in that area. Since now there is a text that is not Voynichese, someone (the "Repairman") must have tried to restore the lost text. If the Repairman was the owner himself, his motive can only have been that one. If he was someone else, the he may have had other motives, as I discussed.(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He naturally felt that any reconstruction, no matter how incorrect, would be better than just leaving that text erased for good.Assumption.
Quote:Why “abia” and not “ahta/abta”?There is a "dot" over the third letter: a diagonal stroke, like the "dot" on the "i" of "vix". Based on the UV image, it seeems very likely that those "dots" are both actual ink strokes, not random dirt. (Whereas the first "i" in "michiton", the former reading of "anchiton", is now seen to be just dirt.)
But maybe the Repairman wrote a "t" at first, then changed his mind and added the "dot" to turn it into an "i".
As for the second letter, it could indeed be "b" or "h". Either way, it would be different from the "b"s in "ola8aba8" and in "pbrey", and from the "h"s in "anchiton" and "mich".
Quote:Also, even though the text itself is not spoken, there are certain meaningful lines. The second line is a spellYes, the Repairman thought that the first and second lines were a spell or charm, and "restored" them as such. But those two lines are definitely not meaningful, and AFAIK there is no other manuscript with a spell or charm that matches them, even partially.
Quote:the third [line] is what needs to be done (to use, apparently, balm and goat’s milk).That interpretation requires reading the first "8" of "pal8cn" as "s" and the last two letters as "en", and assume that the "p" is a variant spelling of "b". Then one must assume a missing verb, like "take", for the balsam. Then one must ignore the word "pbrey". Then one must read the words after "so nim" as "gas" rather than "gaf" and interpret that as a dialectal variation of "gais". Then assume that the "mich" was supposed to be "milch" but the scribe skipped the "L". Then there is a meaningless "o". And that is it. But what is the reader supposed to do with that balsam and goat milk?
No doubt the "Repairman" wrote "so nim" because he thought that he saw a "so nim", and that was a very common phrase in medical recipe books. But he could not "reconstruct" any other meaningful words.
Quote:In terms of style, it’s the same cursive script as Latin. The scribe could easily have developed a skill and written e instead of c, and rendered the “ch” combinations as a gallows on a pedestal.But there is no precedent for this supposed effect (a person changing the way he writes Latin letters after writing some other script). Is there?
I could believe that, if the person who wrote that 116v text had no previous experience writing Latin script. Like, if he was a Greek, Arab, Russian, Armenian, Georgian, etc. (That could also explain why we can't identify the language of the month names.) Then, when he was forced to write in Latin script on f116v, he may have been influenced by Voynichese. But that hypothesis is not without problems. For instance, why are the "a"s on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. unlike Latin "a"s and unlike Voynichese as?
All the best, --stolfi