From GPT, it seems there is even another one...
"The earlier witness is the Salvatorburg (Salvatorberg) Bestiary, now Wormsley Library MS BM 3731, formerly Phillipps 10850. It is a German, late-14th-century Second-Family bestiary, usually dated c.1375–1400, on vellum."
More importantly, Patricia Stewart does not merely call it a loose parallel. She writes that the Augsburg bestiary “appears to be a copy” of the Salvatorburg bestiary, based on a series of shared illustration motifs; the Augsburg drawings are cruder and not exact copies. She lists, among others, the peculiar panther, ibex scene, club-bearing satyr, crocodile biting a man's arm, paired fox composition, wolf/sheepfold and dragon beneath the Peridexion tree.
She explicitly considers the alternative that both derive from a common source, but says this seems unlikely because the two German manuscripts are much more iconographically similar to each other than to other Second-Family manuscripts. "
There's no link to it that I can find unfortunately...
I didn't have one in mind, but the principle that absence of evidence isn't evidence for absence holds here. You may be correct that this is the only one.. there's certainly enough here including the back story and link to the Munich apothecary family to make this interesting for a lot of reasons.. my wider point is that flipping characters starts to get in to "degrees of freedom" realms, and there's enough liberties taken with Voynich research as it is, but that's often the worst... Still, let's see what the community can figure out..
P.s. given JoJo's REVA experiment, maybe that's exactly what's going on here..
"The earlier witness is the Salvatorburg (Salvatorberg) Bestiary, now Wormsley Library MS BM 3731, formerly Phillipps 10850. It is a German, late-14th-century Second-Family bestiary, usually dated c.1375–1400, on vellum."
More importantly, Patricia Stewart does not merely call it a loose parallel. She writes that the Augsburg bestiary “appears to be a copy” of the Salvatorburg bestiary, based on a series of shared illustration motifs; the Augsburg drawings are cruder and not exact copies. She lists, among others, the peculiar panther, ibex scene, club-bearing satyr, crocodile biting a man's arm, paired fox composition, wolf/sheepfold and dragon beneath the Peridexion tree.
She explicitly considers the alternative that both derive from a common source, but says this seems unlikely because the two German manuscripts are much more iconographically similar to each other than to other Second-Family manuscripts. "
There's no link to it that I can find unfortunately...
(20-09-2026, 05:33 PM)JustAnotherTheory wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(20-09-2026, 04:09 PM)DG97EEB wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting indeed, but I think if you have the freedom to flip characters, you can probably compare a lot of different Manuscripts.. to my mind it's just a further localisation of southern Germany..
Excuse my ignorance, but what manuscripts exactly? I've been going through hundreds of e-codices and digital-sammlungen manuscripts page by page for the past months, and never have I seen such a match.
Of course, this could all be a coincidence. I'm well aware of that. But if there are others, which you can flip and produce EVA gallows, I'll be happy to look at them.
I didn't have one in mind, but the principle that absence of evidence isn't evidence for absence holds here. You may be correct that this is the only one.. there's certainly enough here including the back story and link to the Munich apothecary family to make this interesting for a lot of reasons.. my wider point is that flipping characters starts to get in to "degrees of freedom" realms, and there's enough liberties taken with Voynich research as it is, but that's often the worst... Still, let's see what the community can figure out..
P.s. given JoJo's REVA experiment, maybe that's exactly what's going on here..
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)