What's up with f49v?

[Koen G]

To clarify your number 11, I think it would be a very useful research project to check from which time and area those digits could be. I can't shed the feeling that they look incredibly modern. Like, if someone wrote his phone number to me in such digits, I wouldn't notice he was a time traveler.

[ReneZ]

11) Two possibilities exist: the digits column is the addition by the original author, or it is the addition by a later reader. In the former case, it might provide insight into the essence of the index column. In the latter case, it might reflect the trail of thought of the reader. If he considered r and &192; to be the same character, he might have discerned the repetitive pattern "o r y e &163;" and decided that those stand for numbers 1 to 5, or simply numbered that sequence for reference.

However, the ink of the digits column looks pretty the same, and faded out in the same degree. Thus the probability is higher that it was created by the original author.

This is a bit risky. If the ink looks different, it is most likely to be from a different production, but that does not say much about the time difference.
If inks look similar, they could still be from different production and different times.

To know more, one should do the chemical analysis similarly to what McCrone has done, or multi-specral imaging. This will say something about the chemical composition. One cannot really conclude just from the colour.
The ink does fade with time, but very slowly.

The month names in the zodiac look darker, but they are also in a different hand. It is justified to call them later additions, but it seems impossible to say how much later.

One cannot say anything with any certainty just from the darkness of the ink, because recipes for ink production were quite standard through several centuries. The McCrone report briefly mentions this, but the discussions we had with Joe Barabe at the time made this point very clearly.

[Anton]

Rene:

Yes, I agree.

Koen:

For the general shapes of the digits I can say that they are compatible with the era. I remember we discussed the "4" shape (application to the curious "417S" inscription in the flower of f28v) with Brian Cham, and I argued that "4" is more modern that the VMS is, but he proved me wrong.

As to the special peculiarities of how they are inscribed, I can't say. If they can be proven to be of a later period, then this is of course an easier way than to perform the ink analysis.

---

We can note though that these digits are different from the digits used in the pagination. It would be interesting to have a conclusion about which set of digits is paleographically older.

[Silent]

In case the VM has been written in the 15th century, the digits at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can't be from the author.

In the 15th century arabic numerals have been written different: "4" looked like EVA "l" and "5" looked more like a "4" nowadays. The symbol that looks like a "5" (at f49v) did not exist until 16th century.

At the end of the 16th century one started to write arabic digits as it is today, never before.

Another conclusion would be that the whole script is written at a later date. This would support the hypothesis of a later forgery.

Just one more odd thing in the VM...

[Anton]

In the 15th century arabic numerals have been written different: "4" looked like EVA "l"

Yes I said exactly that when criticizing Cham's article, and was proven wrong . The "4"  shape was already being spread at the time.

Check You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

[Helmut Winkler]

11) Two possibilities exist: the digits column is the addition by the original author, or it is the addition by a later reader. In the former case, it might provide insight into the essence of the index column. In the latter case, it might reflect the trail of thought of the reader. If he considered r and &192; to be the same character, he might have discerned the repetitive pattern "o r y e &163;" and decided that those stand for numbers 1 to 5, or simply numbered that sequence for reference.

However, the ink of the digits column looks pretty the same, and faded out in the same degree. Thus the probability is higher that it was created by the original author.

This is a bit risky. If the ink looks different, it is most likely to be from a different production, but that does not say much about the time difference.
If inks look similar, they could still be from different production and different times.

To know more, one should do the chemical analysis similarly to what McCrone has done, or multi-specral imaging. This will say something about the chemical composition. One cannot really conclude just from the colour.
The ink does fade with time, but very slowly.

The month names in the zodiac look darker, but they are also in a different hand. It is justified to call them later additions, but it seems impossible to say how much later.

One cannot say anything with any certainty just from the darkness of the ink, because recipes for ink production were quite standard through several centuries. The McCrone report briefly mentions this, but the discussions we had with Joe Barabe at the time made this point very clearly.

The month names in the zodiac ...

The month names can't be after 1500, even for a German origin they look old fahioned and I would rather say 1450/70,  about a generation after the VMs was written

In my opinion the month names ink looks like an ink made from soot (printers ink ?)

---

In case the VM has been written in the 15th century, the digits at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can't be from the author.

In the 15th century arabic numerals have been written different: "4" looked like EVA "l" and "5" looked more like a "4" nowadays. The symbol that looks like a "5" (at f49v) did not exist until 16th century.

At the end of the 16th century one started to write arabic digits as it is today, never before.

Another conclusion would be that the whole script is written at a later date. This would support the hypothesis of a later forgery.

Just one more odd thing in the VM...

At the end of the 16th century  ...


You mean 15th c. I suppose

---

Rene:

Yes, I agree.

Koen:

For the general shapes of the digits I can say that they are compatible with the era. I remember we discussed the "4" shape (application to the curious "417S" inscription in the flower of f28v) with Brian Cham, and I argued that "4" is more modern that the VMS is, but he proved me wrong.

As to the special peculiarities of how they are inscribed, I can't say. If they can be proven to be of a later period, then this is of course an easier way than to perform the ink analysis.

---

We can note though that these digits are different from the digits used in the pagination. It would be interesting to have a conclusion about which set of digits is paleographically older.

 We can note ...

 The foliation numbers look much later, I would have said at least late 16th c. or they even belong to the Prague period

[-JKP-]

As has been mentioned in this thread already, column text can have a number of functions.

I thought I would include an example from a 14th-century manuscript where the column text was specifically written as instructions to an illustrator to add embellished initials. For some reason, the drawings were done, but the initials were never finished. Perhaps a different person was assigned to this task or perhaps something interrupted the process.

It's interesting that they didn't always remove the small initials when adding the embellished version. I've seen quite a few manuscripts where you can see the instruction under the finished initial.