+- 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: f17r (/thread-498.html)
RE: f17r - JoJo_Jost - 02-11-2025
I withdraw my comment after seeing the high-resolution image.
RE: f17r - Skoove - 02-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 06:29 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must confess I hadn't noticed this before!
The flower appears to be connected to the word below.
I wouldn't call it a 'tulip' but it matches the other 'campanulate' tetramerous flowers found in the VM like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. f32v or the bulbous calyx style popular in A plants. Curiously there are also some streaks of blue. Is this a transfer (from where?), or was this flower indeed painted?
I think this is a major find as now all marginalia are associated with drawings and those drawings match the VM style. Though in this case the drawing is a bit detached. I do think it paints a coherent picture that all marginalia were created by the same person.
I agree that it does seem to fit the style of flowers that you cited, although they are often significantly larger than this one (with the potential exception of f32v). I'm not sure what to make of the blue since it doesn't really look like it was 'painted', although it is quite common for VMS illustrations to have a couple of strokes of paint and the illustrator then calling it a day.
I think that the implications of this sketch being attachted to the rest of the marginalia would be very interesting since as you mentioned, the flower style is similar to that of the A plants, whilst the majority of the marginalia is found in B sections.
I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that this sketch is physically connected to the marginalia found on f17r, however it brings the question: Is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia connected to / describing the flower and does this change any interpretations of the marginalia itself?
RE: f17r - Skoove - 02-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 06:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But this case seems to be different, because some of the blue pigment got transferred as well, and the lines look more like ordinary brown ink than the bad gray component above. But "stepping back" and looking at that area at 100% magnifcation or less, one can see that this print lies precisely inside a water stain (which is more visible in the UV images).
So it seems that spilled water softened the ink and blue paint on a page that was originally in contact with f17r, and some of that ink and paint "offsetted" onto f17r.
I agree that the water stain is definitely complicating any confident intepretation of how it got there. That said, my understanding is that much of the paint and ink transfer within the VMS is from centuries of contact between the pages which I don't think is likely in this case.
(01-11-2025, 06:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We actually do not know how many pages were in the VMS when it was written. The folio and quire numbers were written when the bifolios were bound. We can see that they were arranged in the wrong order, thus the binding and numbering must have happened when the Author was no longer around.
It seems possible that the water damage that left the stains we see today (which must have happened much after the original scribing, too) damaged some folios so much that they had to be discarded before the rest were numbered and bound.
Also possible the page that caused this is one of the lost pages, although this would have had to happen before the folio numbers were added so I don't think it could have been one that was removed by Georg Baresch. This might also provide evidence that even more pages were in the original manuscript than we know of based on folio and quire numbers. [b]Georg Bar[/b]
I also wonder what relevance this might have to Lisa's new theory of an unbound VMS?
RE: f17r - Skoove - 02-11-2025
It is actually more visible in the other multispectral image, which shows a 'stem' of some kind leading up to the flower.
I did a quick tracing of the outline in red to show the flower and stem. Also in this image I put a blue line in to show the distance between the flower and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia writing.
I think it is hard to argue that they are connected in any meaningful way based on their structure on the page itself (certainly less obviously connected compared to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia).
RE: f17r - Jorge_Stolfi - 02-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 06:50 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you really think this is a print, Jorge? The blue maybe, but the brown ink? I cannot imagine that. The lines and dots are as accurate as drawn ones, I see no difference from the marginalia text which is similarly partly faded partly visible.
Hm, you are right. The brown lines are too thin and sharp. And the flower is actually outside the water stain.
And the blue paint looks like an accidental smudge created by a clumsy Painter.
Mysteries, mysteries...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: f17r - JoJo_Jost - 02-11-2025
After analyzing the high-resolution image, I have come to the following translation with some doubts:
"mensis Aprili Aprili Lunam haec"
= In the month of April, this will be
and then it becomes illegible to me. I could guess an “erit” and then an l or even a d follows. Maybe: discrimen?
= in the month of April, the decision will be?
Reason:
m:
the m stands before a month name for mensis (month)
April:
if the left "April" is supposed to be April, it has one letter too many or he has mixed up the letters. And then it looks as if the word is repeated without the letter and written more hastily. Another repetition error?
the first "l" belongs to the a (see below)
the apostrophe at the end, which appears in both words, indicates the “i.”
Lunam:
is a common abbreviation (see below). I see the c before the 3, and that makes this interpretation a little uncertain, but I wouldn't overestimate the c.
The macron indicates the missing n.
haec:
The h is clear, the e has a small downward stroke like ae, and then hae fits. The c is then more of a guess.
What do u think?
RE: f17r - Koen G - 02-11-2025
This flower was known, but I've never looked at it much. Bernd: I agree that it looks like the Herbal A style. Herbal B generally can't do this. That's interesting, cause based on the other marginalia, I was already suspecting scribe 1 for other reasons. We'll probably never know for sure, but scribe 1 remains my main suspect.
RE: f17r - Bernd - 02-11-2025
Koen, as you pointed out, the face of the marginalia figure on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. somewhat resembles the ones on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also by scribal hand 1. It's hard to associate the goat on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with a hand as we only have a similar animal by hand 4. The nymph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks more evolved but may have been added later? I have expressed my opinion that all drawings were made by the same person. However I find it hard to argue why scribal hand 1 would write very clear and orderly 'Voynichese' but such clumsy ambiguous Latin characters. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does appear to be clearer in this regard, the Latin chars get worse in later marginalia.
But why did the 1 of 17 cut into the flower? Did the person writing the page numbers overlook the drawing? Strangely the bottom of the 1 intersects with the thickest and most distinct line of the drawing. I think the 365nm UV image gives the best details with fewest background noise.
Regarding the 'cz' ligature - wouldn't the macron indicate that this is not the usual 'tz' but some missing characters in between?But what can you insert between t and z? 'um' comes to my mind. '-tumz' -> -tums is a valid suffix in German. Not that 'lutums' makes any more sense. I remain highly skeptical that any of these marginalia make sense at all.
RE: f17r - Koen G - 02-11-2025
I can't make sense of the "cz" with macron either - it would be good if we could find it at all in a German context. I agree that something's off with the marginalia, though since they are typically scribbles for personal retrieval, they might just be someone's personal shorthand. Like the kind I developed in certain university classes that required lots of manual writing. For example, I would write "mpij" for the common word "maatschappij" (society), even though initial "mp" doesn't occur in Dutch.
On the cohesion of these three marginalia pages:
One thing I noticed is that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the left margin of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. have a lot in common. I cut up the images a bit for effect:
Both seem to have a drawing of a [patient?]. For the reclined figure, Marco has shown that he is applying the same yellow to his belly as what was used for the contents of the container. The figure on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has a different position than standard nymphs, one that wouldn't be out of place on one of those "bean bag" mattresses patients are depicted on in certain traditions.
We also have three drawings of [ingredients?] each with a three-word label. Mel/del, mus, leb. Of "leb", we suspect that it may be an abbreviation for "leber", without even an abbreviation mark or anything. Mel mus leb.
This shortening/dividing in threes might also be present elsewhere. Ma+ria. So nim gas mi/x/. Por tas. So I wonder if the word with the cz digraph was also seen as having three "letters", perhaps with the macron added after all to show that it's abbreviated. These are just some loose thoughts.
If the flower once had a label, I guess it's gone now. Maybe it would have had three letters
RE: f17r - schimmelchampagne - 02-11-2025
I'm the linguist who thinks that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is written mostly in an Old-Occitan-like Romance language -- that the first line reads pox leher isinon putis fer ("I can read [the following] and if not you can do").
I think that it is also true that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is written in the same Old-Occitan-like Romance language, and that the first few words are something like mellior albor lutz̅ her, where the first word is perhaps the word for "better" (I have some thoughts on the first vowel); the second word is the Old Occitan word for "dawn" or "morning light"; the third word is an inflected but abbreviated (with a macron) form of the verb luzir meaning "shine" (or is otherwise somehow related to Old Occitan lutz "light"); and the final word is the Old Occitan word for "yesterday." Perhaps this meant something like "a better dawn shone yesterday." I can't figure out what the following word says. Maybe, with the "ia" ending, it is a place name: "A better dawn shone yesterday on X."
I'll reiterate that I'm not sure this person was a native speaker of this Romance language; perhaps they were instead a native speaker of the Germanic language found in the final lines of f116v.