I suppose a large proportion of the ‘charms’ and ‘spells’ have been lost over the centuries. That’s why we shouldn’t expect to find a similar spell. Charm were often passed down orally and learnt, and then someone wrote them down. In the process, a great deal of information may well have been lost over the course of several hundred years. There are well-known charms that sound the same but have been written down differently.
Some of the charms are realy strange…
Here’s an example of an incomprehensible charm: It begins with the German instructions: ‘Whoever is afflicted by the evil enemy, let them speak these words with a priest in that ear, and he will respond when asked.’
And then the charm begins (black lines) – there isn’t a single coherent sentence to be made out over four lines. Most of the words are not even legible.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Amara Tonta Tyra post hos firabis ficaliri
Elypolis starras poly polyque lique linarras
buccabor uel barton vel Titram celi massis Me-
tumbor o priczoni Jordan Ciriacus Valentinus.
The similarities with 116v
Latin morphology/disguise. ‘firabis’ has the form of a future tense, 2nd person singular (like ‘amabis’), ‘buccabor’ that of a future passive, 1st person singular (like ‘vocabor’), and ‘Titram’ an accusative ending. The words are formed in the Latin manner, without actually being Latin. This is not random letter noise, but neither are they genuine words.
Here, too, we see ‘phonetic’ pair formation: starras / linarras – buccabor / Metumbor – polyque / lique.
There are rhyming and assonant pairs. The text is structured phonetically – which fits with a formula intended to be spoken aloud.
‘priczoni’ is interesting. The letter sequence ‘cz’ is a German spelling convention, not a Latin one. So here, a German-speaking scribe has written down a ‘heard text’ which he cannot have recognised as words.
This is therefore also direct evidence of the copying mechanism I wrote about above.
So what we do is try to make sense of these words; you can do that, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to anything, as this charm illustrates.
---------------
PS: As I’ve just come across this by chance:
a version of it dating back 250/270 years spells it as follows:
Amara tanta tyri pastos sycalos sycaliri
Ellivoli scarras polili posylique lyvarras
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (last Sentence on the page)
Comparison:
Amara Amara
tanta Tonta
tyri Tyra
pastos post hos
sycalos firabis
sycaliri ficaliri
Ellivoli Elypolis
scarras starras
polili posylique lyvarras poly polyque lique linarras
I think that shows where the problem lies
Some of the charms are realy strange…
Here’s an example of an incomprehensible charm: It begins with the German instructions: ‘Whoever is afflicted by the evil enemy, let them speak these words with a priest in that ear, and he will respond when asked.’
And then the charm begins (black lines) – there isn’t a single coherent sentence to be made out over four lines. Most of the words are not even legible.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Amara Tonta Tyra post hos firabis ficaliri
Elypolis starras poly polyque lique linarras
buccabor uel barton vel Titram celi massis Me-
tumbor o priczoni Jordan Ciriacus Valentinus.
The similarities with 116v
Latin morphology/disguise. ‘firabis’ has the form of a future tense, 2nd person singular (like ‘amabis’), ‘buccabor’ that of a future passive, 1st person singular (like ‘vocabor’), and ‘Titram’ an accusative ending. The words are formed in the Latin manner, without actually being Latin. This is not random letter noise, but neither are they genuine words.
Here, too, we see ‘phonetic’ pair formation: starras / linarras – buccabor / Metumbor – polyque / lique.
There are rhyming and assonant pairs. The text is structured phonetically – which fits with a formula intended to be spoken aloud.
‘priczoni’ is interesting. The letter sequence ‘cz’ is a German spelling convention, not a Latin one. So here, a German-speaking scribe has written down a ‘heard text’ which he cannot have recognised as words.
This is therefore also direct evidence of the copying mechanism I wrote about above.
So what we do is try to make sense of these words; you can do that, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to anything, as this charm illustrates.
---------------
PS: As I’ve just come across this by chance:
a version of it dating back 250/270 years spells it as follows:
Amara tanta tyri pastos sycalos sycaliri
Ellivoli scarras polili posylique lyvarras
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (last Sentence on the page)
Comparison:
Amara Amara
tanta Tonta
tyri Tyra
pastos post hos
sycalos firabis
sycaliri ficaliri
Ellivoli Elypolis
scarras starras
polili posylique lyvarras poly polyque lique linarras
I think that shows where the problem lies
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
