@ Stolfi 

 It comes from the Latin: “putri-” = rotten, decaying, and the suffix “-fer” = carrying, producing.

So, producing Putrefaction = farting

Poxleber is a remedy for gastrointestinal disorders (see Hildegard von Bingen)

So if it says, “Poxleber pinen (pain) putrifer,” that’s probably a kind of mnemonic:

Poxleber for pain and bloating

------------

Just because we understand some of what Charms is all about doesn't mean it's nonsense...

AND: It’s completely beyond me why someone who has the entire text of the VMS right in front of them would suddenly get the idea to draw crosses in an attempt to reconstruct it, when there aren’t a single cross between any words in the whole manuscript????

@ Age but there is pbren

(07-08-2026, 06:07 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Age but there is pbren

That is the question.
The term ‘pb...’ does not exist as such. At least, I have never come across it.
The term ‘Bbren’ mentioned is an old abbreviation used in the printing trade which is no longer in use today.
The question regarding ‘pbren’ therefore remains unanswered.
If only because letterpress printing did not yet exist at the time of the VM.

(07-08-2026, 06:54 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2026, 06:07 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Age but there is pbren

The term ‘Bbren’ mentioned is an old abbreviation used in the printing trade which is no longer in use today.

But what about "Pbten" = "Prebigten" = "Predigten" = "Sermons"? That would be an abbreviation specific to that source.  The word "Predigten" occurs unabridged in the second of those three clips:
   
All the best, --stolfi

(07-08-2026, 06:07 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It comes from the Latin: “putri-” = rotten, decaying, and the suffix “-fer” = carrying, producing.  So, producing Putrefaction = farting

Good try, but is there any example of that word having been used with that meaning in any Medieval manuscript?  O with any meaning?

Quote:Just because we understand some of what Charms is all about doesn't mean it's nonsense...

But we don't recognize any of the words in that "charm" except "maria" (which is not capitalized -- would that be acceptable?).  The words don't even sound like Latin.  (Unless it is from the Latin edition of Asterix -- I must still have it somewhere...)

Quote:It’s completely beyond me why someone who has the entire text of the VMS right in front of them would suddenly get the idea to draw crosses in an attempt to reconstruct it, when there aren’t a single cross between any words in the whole manuscript????

That one is easy: because the clod who was trying to repair the damage had spent zero time studying the text of the manuscript.  

And he did not have "the entire text of the VMS in front of them".  The book was bound, so the only thing he could see was page f116v.

And we can turn the question around: if the text is original, why would the Author suddenly get the idea of writing marginal notes in Latin script with Christian crosses between words, when there is not a single word in that script or any cross or Christian imagery anywhere else in the whole manuscript?

All the best, --stolfi

@ Stolfi: In "Predigten" there is no “b”; and it says: “Pbden”

But I found a reference to the abbreviation (thanks to AI):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Page 159
Opbd = "Original Pappband” (cardboard cover/paperback covers ( i don't know the right translation here); “Pappband” is abbreviated as “Pbd”; the plural would be ‘Pappbänden’ = “Pbden”

   

You have leather, canvas, parchment and cardboard. Cardboard box.
Cardboard is corrugated cardboard

Du hast Leder, Leinwand, Pergament und Pappe. Pappschachtel.
Pappe ist Wellkarton

(07-08-2026, 07:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But we don't recognize any of the words in that "charm" except "maria" (which is not capitalized -- would that be acceptable?).  The words don't even sound like Latin.  (Unless it is from the Latin edition of Asterix -- I must still have it somewhere...)

We do, the clear ones:  multos, portas, abiat, maria = Latin
Poxleber, pinen, six, vix, palsen, so nim, mich = german

possible with few assumptions: Putrifer, gaf = (es von / auf)

not clear or with to many assumptions: mchiton, aladabas, tc, cxx, marix, morix, the two Voynich Token, vbren

(07-08-2026, 07:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That one is easy: because the clod who was trying to repair the damage had spent zero time studying the text of the manuscript.  
And he did not have "the entire text of the VMS in front of them".  The book was bound, so the only thing he could see was page f116v.

What you're writingis based on far too many assumptions for my taste. Let’s really assume he spilled the glass of water, then panicked and tried to salvage it. I can go along with that as a possible theory.

But he certainly would have looked at the other pages that in order to restore it better.  Anyone would do that. The idea that he didn’t do that, or that he hasn't other folios is far too implausible to me! In short: The crosses clearly contradict your theory Sorry.

(07-08-2026, 07:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And we can turn the question around: if the text is original, why would the Author suddenly get the idea of writing marginal notes in Latin script with Christian crosses between words, when there is not a single word in that script or any cross or Christian imagery anywhere else in the whole manuscript?

In other Book of the time, there are some marginalia where you wonder what the point is. Even down to sexual innuendos, where you wonder what the monks were doing all day. And some don’t even relate to the book. That’s actually pretty typical for marginalia.

@ Stolfi 

And it’s also normal for spells to contain words that nobody knows—the *voces magicae*.

Example:
Notebook of Frederick III, Holy Roman Empire, Emperor, 1415–1493
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

First page with writing:

It says “brax + pax + max”

There are other versions of this, such as:
“nax + max + pax + vax” in other charms

“pax” could mean “peace,” “max” could be an abbreviation for “maximus,” but I can't think of any meaningful explanation for ‘brax’ or “nax”

(07-08-2026, 06:54 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2026, 06:07 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Age but there is pbren

That is the question.
The term ‘pb...’ does not exist as such. At least, I have never come across it.
The term ‘Bbren’ mentioned is an old abbreviation used in the printing trade which is no longer in use today.
The question regarding ‘pbren’ therefore remains unanswered.
If only because letterpress printing did not yet exist at the time of the VM.

I think looking for it as a word is probably a dead end, but for example in latin I have seen "pbrevi" which I'm guessing is a shorter version of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Given bren is "burn" (or alike in German) "(something+)burn, so take..." would be a fairly typical thing to find (aliment+cure at the end), though it's just a thought

(07-08-2026, 08:42 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We do [recognize some words], the clear ones:  multos, portas, abiat, maria = Latin
Poxleber, pinen, six, vix, palsen, so nim, mich = german

Except that 

• your "multos" requires assuming that the initial squiggles are "mu" rather than "um" or "nin" etc; and the last letter is too tall to be an "s", so it must have been a "d"; and the "o" has a bowtie below (not even Unicode...).
  
• your "portas", by the same argument, was more likely "portad".
  
• your "abiat" is "abia" (with a weird "i") followed by a cross; and "abia" is not a valid Latin word.
  
• your "vix" would be a German word in the middle of a "Latin" charm.
  
• your "palsen", by the same argument above, was more likely "palden"; and the "e" is rather dubious, may as well have been "c".
  

So, again, those words can be recognized only by first assuming that they must be German or Latin, and then picking the readings of the letters so as to make them such.

Quote:not clear or with to many assumptions: mchiton, aladabas, tc, cxx, marix, morix, the two Voynich Token, vbren

Meaning: even with all the "cheating", at most half of the words can be read as almost-German or almost-Latin words.  The rest cannot be identified at all.

Quote:But he certainly would have looked at the other pages that in order to restore it better.  Anyone would do that.

That may sound plausible to you, because you have spent years studying the Voynich script and you know the Voynich alphabet by heart, backwards and upside-down.

But imagine you borrowed a book in Arabic from your scholar friend, intending to do an in-depth scholarly study of the bathing houris depicted therein.  But before you start you research, you spill a glass of beer on the last page, and by wiping that off you also wipe off a paragraph of text that was written there. Only a few wisps of ink remain here and there.

Would you leaf through the rest of the book to try to learn the Arabic alphabet?
   
Do you think that, if you tried to imitate that script, your reconstruction would make more sense than if you didn't?

Quote:The idea that he didn’t do that, or that he hasn't other folios is far too implausible to me! In short: The crosses clearly contradict your theory

On the contrary, if the writing was original, the crosses would not not make sense.  They do make sense under the Big Wipe theory: namely, the Repairman saw a couple of smudges that looked like crosses (like the remains of gallows); and since there is no letter in that Latin script that looks like a cross, he guessed that the line must have been a Christian charm, like one found on many books at the time. 

(IIUC, those charms were meant to reassure casual onlookers that a book in unreadable language and/or script was not some pagan treatise or diabolical witchcraft manual; and/or to remind the owner to recite that charm for protection before or after perusing a book that could be such a thing.)

Quote:In other Book of the time, there are some marginalia where you wonder what the point is. Even down to sexual innuendos, where you wonder what the monks were doing all day. And some don’t even relate to the book. That’s actually pretty typical for marginalia.

But those marginalia were usually added by later owners or library patrons.  Not by the original scribes who created the copy.  Much less by the Author of the book. 

Quote:What you're writing is based on far too many assumptions for my taste.

The number of assumptions does not matter; what matters is how likely they are on the whole.

• Theory A: Assumptions (A1) 15th century scholar assembles a new Herbal. (A2) He also assembles a personal treatise of astronomy and astrology. (A3) He also writes a short treatise on human anatomy. (A4) He collects ~350 medical recipes. (A5) He devises an encryption method that not even the spooks at the NSA and Bletchley Park could crack.  (A6) he devises a new nice script to write the encrypted text, that does not look at all like any script ever seen anywhere, anytime. (A7) He teaches five Scribes that alphabet and has them write all those books on a bunch of vellum sheets. (A8) He writes on the last page a mysterious note with some German-souding words, some Latin-sounding words, and a lot of unreadable words, in case his original script was not confusing enough. 
  
• Theory B: The Chinese Origin theory.
  
• Theory C: The VMS is some alien's idea of a joke, that was dropped from a passing UFO.
  

You seem to prefer Theory A, even though it has a lot more assumptions than Theory C...

All the best, --stolfi