Hard to describe. It has more of a 3D-feel than the others. Like the artist had overcome his perspective issues. The sheepgoat looks flat in comparison. If created by the same person, I wonder if it was done at the same time.

As for the clumsiness, I see little variation in all the marginalia. If we accept that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was written significantly earlier than You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , there is no real evolution in script, but in imagery. That also is hard to explain. Well the quality of art in the VM varies widely, even on the same bifoloa, what is to be expected for an amateur. I know all too well myself.

Not sure if I've posted this before, but here it is again. The organ is probably the liver of the sheepgoat, which represents the "pock". 

   

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

Leb.

Von einer pokch leber
The flourish stands for -er

Yeah I know, but it's a short step from there to writing "leb" in a marginal note. I think it's pretty reasonable overall to assume that these are related. I used to favor the idea that the (clearly informally written) lines on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. don't need to have any relation to one another. This may still be true, but it ignores the fact that they all seem to come from a very similar context.

Worse yet, the image in Post #7 is the Golden Fleece in its Burgundian manifestation. This depiction has the horns of an ibex. It revives a old VMs identification, which goes even further off topic. Unless it is all tied together. Where the words can't be read, try following the pictures.

(28-08-2025, 10:37 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The nymph on 116v is probably the most advanced in the entire manuscript, yet also shows key elements of VM imagery. So does the sheepgoat. I'd find it unlikely that the marginalia drawings were created by an unrelated later owner. Still there is a noticeable gap in artistic development between the best VM nymphs and this one on the last page.

Indeed, and I must retract my previous suggestion that those three pics on the corner of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were practice/tests.  They seem to be by the same hand as all the other nymphs and anmals, but they must have been drawn either halfway though the scribing or at the end of it.

My own best guess for the marginal texts (f116v and F17r) is that they were added by the Author himself some time after the Scribe(s) finished their job. 

Why can't dozens of paleographers even identify the letters, much less the words, language, and meaning, even though it is clearly plaintext in some European language and Latin letters?  

I propose that it is because the Author needed to write them in a specific European language, but had at best a very rudimentary knowledge of it and of the Latin alphabet.   So he either did the best he could with that limited knowledge, or asked someone how to write the intended message in that language and transcribed it, possibly without even identifying the letters.    If I had to write a message in cursive Armenian, in similar conditions, I bet that all the Armenian scholars in the world would be unable to decipher my scribbles.

By the way, this theory also might explain why we can't identify the language of the month names, and why there is not one line of plain European language and script in the body of the manuscript.

And I believe that lines 2 and 3 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (those with all the crosses) were meant to be a Christian charm: a precaution in case some Christian fanatic happened to  glance at the book and concluded that it was Satanic, Muslim, Pagan, or Heretic stuff.   Like John Dee, 200 years later, felt it necessary to preface his records of conversations with "Angels" with profuse statements of faith and invocations of protection by Mary etc.

All the best, --jorge

(28-08-2025, 01:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yeah I know, but it's a short step from there to writing "leb" in a marginal note. I think it's pretty reasonable overall to assume that these are related. I used to favor the idea that the (clearly informally written) lines on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. don't need to have any relation to one another. This may still be true, but it ignores the fact that they all seem to come from a very similar context.

It does appear to be goat-related. But the difference in quality between goat and nymph are stunning. I do believe the nymph came significantly later. Also it should be noted that there is no more space after the 3 letters above the animal, whatever they are. Writing 'leber' was out of question.

Btw I have never been able to find out what the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were. But the geese probably have nothing to do with goat milk. I still remain sceptical about the same in the VM.

(28-08-2025, 06:14 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My own best guess for the marginal texts (f116v and F17r) is that they were added by the Author himself some time after the Scribe(s) finished their job. 

Why can't dozens of paleographers even identify the letters, much less the words, language, and meaning, even though it is clearly plaintext in some European language and Latin letters?  

I propose that it is because the Author needed to write them in a specific European language, but had at best a very rudimentary knowledge of it and of the Latin alphabet.   So he either did the best he could with that limited knowledge, or asked someone how to write the intended message in that language and transcribed it, possibly without even identifying the letters.    If I had to write a message in cursive Armenian, in similar conditions, I bet that all the Armenian scholars in the world would be unable to decipher my scribbles.

By the way, this theory also might explain why we can't identify the language of the month names, and why there is not one line of plain European language and script in the body of the manuscript.

And I believe that lines 2 and 3 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (those with all the crosses) were meant to be a Christian charm: a precaution in case some Christian fanatic happened to  glance at the book and concluded that it was Satanic, Muslim, Pagan, or Heretic stuff.   Like John Dee, 200 years later, felt it necessary to preface his records of conversations with "Angels" with profuse statements of faith and invocations of protection by Mary etc.

All the best, --jorge

What you say makes sense. I also noticed one thing about the last line: it seems to have been written by the same author. Look at the direction of the two Voynichese words—they are perfectly continued by the other supposedly European language. Pay special attention to the third and fourth words. In my opinion, the writer seems unsure, as it almost looks like he or she was trembling while writing those two words.

(28-08-2025, 06:14 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why can't dozens of paleographers even identify the letters, much less the words, language, and meaning, even though it is clearly plaintext in some European language and Latin letters?  

Because it's (for a large part) not a plaintext in some European language.

If you've never transcribed medieval scripts before, you don't know how much of it is guessing from context. When that context is missing, you often can't be quite sure whether something is "c" or "t", or what the row of minims represent.

Here's from the editorial notes to "Magic in the Cloister" by Sophie Page:

Quote:The transcription of occult names in this text is more arbitrary than that of other words because it is often impossible to distinguish between a c and a t, or a u, a v, and an n, or to determine whether a superscript line over a vowel represents an omitted m or n, or to make other editorial judgments in the absence of a context for these names.