They didn't write 4 with the loop so small that it looks like a hook. They wrote it with a loop (the loop could be sharp or rounded). All you have to do is look at the 4 shapes on the same VMS folio to see that the little stroke with a hook is proportioned and written differently:
If one were to interpret the scribble as 4157, then I have to point out that they didn't write 5 or 7 like modern numbers either (it was uncommon to see the modern 5 or 7 in the early 15th century). Here are examples from the early 15th century and the late 15th century so you can see the transition to modern numerals (note that if you look at actual manuscripts, modern numerals for foliation or indexes were usually added at the time of binding, which was often a century or two after the creation of the manuscript).
Note how the numeral 1 often has a hook:
![[Image: 4175inMedievalNumerals.png]](https://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/4175inMedievalNumerals.png)
Note that the 7 was not written with curves, this came later (when fountain pens were introduced, which gave more control over the pen). It was usually two rather severe lines. Occasionally the top curved, but they didn't add an "s" curve to the stem as we sometimes do now.
Mark, it's more than a decade since Nick wrote Curse and I get the impression that he's always reading, always learning, so whatever he thought about this subject in the past might not be what he thinks about it now.
If you consider how tiny the text is (the Beinecke scans enlarge the image quite a bit), then whatever creates a lighter spot within a line might just be a bump in the vellum where less ink took hold. If we went through the whole manuscript with a magnifying glass, we could probably find bits of numbers and letters in many of the tokens that are nothing more than artifacts of the substrate.
I am reluctant to try to interpret something so small. If you need a magnifying glass to see it, it's probably smaller than a quill is capable of modeling. I'd rather look at the overall composition, how the shapes work together, to try to interpret it in context. If we accept that the VMS is early 15th century, it is extremely unlikely the letters 4175 would have been written this way. If it's a century later, then maybe (assuming the person was trying to partially hide the 4 by making it disproportionately small compared to the other shapes).
If one were to interpret the scribble as 4157, then I have to point out that they didn't write 5 or 7 like modern numbers either (it was uncommon to see the modern 5 or 7 in the early 15th century). Here are examples from the early 15th century and the late 15th century so you can see the transition to modern numerals (note that if you look at actual manuscripts, modern numerals for foliation or indexes were usually added at the time of binding, which was often a century or two after the creation of the manuscript).
Note how the numeral 1 often has a hook:
Note that the 7 was not written with curves, this came later (when fountain pens were introduced, which gave more control over the pen). It was usually two rather severe lines. Occasionally the top curved, but they didn't add an "s" curve to the stem as we sometimes do now.
Mark, it's more than a decade since Nick wrote Curse and I get the impression that he's always reading, always learning, so whatever he thought about this subject in the past might not be what he thinks about it now.
If you consider how tiny the text is (the Beinecke scans enlarge the image quite a bit), then whatever creates a lighter spot within a line might just be a bump in the vellum where less ink took hold. If we went through the whole manuscript with a magnifying glass, we could probably find bits of numbers and letters in many of the tokens that are nothing more than artifacts of the substrate.
I am reluctant to try to interpret something so small. If you need a magnifying glass to see it, it's probably smaller than a quill is capable of modeling. I'd rather look at the overall composition, how the shapes work together, to try to interpret it in context. If we accept that the VMS is early 15th century, it is extremely unlikely the letters 4175 would have been written this way. If it's a century later, then maybe (assuming the person was trying to partially hide the 4 by making it disproportionately small compared to the other shapes).