Aga Tentakulus > 06-05-2021, 10:39 PM
geoffreycaveney > 06-05-2021, 10:45 PM
(06-05-2021, 10:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, the sentence has to make sense.
With the word "aller", I'm sure everyone agrees on what it means and that it is written correctly.
Here too, "aller" is connected to the first word. The interesting thing is that "aller" does not leave too many possibilities open.
-JKP- > 06-05-2021, 10:53 PM
(06-05-2021, 08:54 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-09-2020, 01:11 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first word is clearly written as "mallier" in the same style as the text on 116v. Look at the long approach stroke on the "i" and the angular "L". Same style as 116v.
I really think it is a mistake to change the letters to something else in order to try to turn them into proper sentences/phrases. Maybe they are NOT proper sentences.
JKP, I respect your analysis and judgment of the handwriting in reading the first word as "mallier", but at the same time it must also be noted that if it is at all possible to read the first vowel somehow as a misshapen "u" or "o", then it does become very natural to read the entire word as a Latin/Romance language word form meaning "woman", which fits the illustration quite well, as Koen pointed out in an earlier comment in this thread. Also, "mallier" does not look like an abbreviated word, it looks like a complete word, so how solid an interpretation does anyone have for "mallier" as opposed to "mullier"/"mollier"? Maybe the writer simply made a spelling mistake with that one letter?
...
geoffreycaveney > 06-05-2021, 11:03 PM
(06-05-2021, 10:53 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It cannot be a misshapen "o" (mollier) unless it is a significant mistake. It has a very clear serif. The letter "u" or "a" often had a serif, but never "o". The letter "u" would be strange also, since it would not be covered on the top. So, a proposal of "u" or "o" would have to be a spelling mistake rather than a misshapen letter.
-JKP- > 06-05-2021, 11:10 PM
Koen G > 06-05-2021, 11:26 PM
geoffreycaveney > 06-05-2021, 11:28 PM
(06-05-2021, 11:10 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay... here's a question I don't think has been discussed on the thread (unless I have forgotten)...
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the first word is mallier and the second one is aller/allar or something like that. Don't worry about the small letters, only look at the ones with ascenders.
The "ll" in "mallier" is written the same way the Gothic "l" letters are written on 116v (inconsistent from one to the next but still a common way to write them with a loop).
The pair of ll in "aller/allar" is written the same way (Gothic ell with somewhat angular loop) but smaller (almost half as tall). Why?
This is not something I see in manuscripts and even when people are switching to a rougher cursive note style, they don't usually cut the height of the ascenders by such a significant amount. Then the next one is tall again, to match the first "ll", and the "h" in "hoc/hov" or whatever the next word is, is also full height.
What is up (or down) with that second word? This dramatic reduction in the height of ascenders is unusual.
geoffreycaveney > 06-05-2021, 11:42 PM
(06-05-2021, 11:26 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the past I was in favor of a "mulier" reading, but now I think something related to painting is more likely. Why? Well, this text is in the "hot zone" for color annotations.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the color red only appears in Herbal A, and color annotations are absent from B as well.
If the color annotations are someone communicating with the painter in this same little part of the MS, and we have a word in the marginalia that could be read as relating to painting, then I'd think it's reasonable to lean more heavily on this interpretation.
geoffreycaveney > 06-05-2021, 11:49 PM
(06-05-2021, 11:10 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay... here's a question I don't think has been discussed on the thread (unless I have forgotten)...
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the first word is mallier and the second one is aller/allar or something like that. Don't worry about the small letters, only look at the ones with ascenders.
The "ll" in "mallier" is written the same way the Gothic "l" letters are written on 116v (inconsistent from one to the next but still a common way to write them with a loop).
The pair of ll in "aller/allar" is written the same way (Gothic ell with somewhat angular loop) but smaller (almost half as tall). Why?
This is not something I see in manuscripts and even when people are switching to a rougher cursive note style, they don't usually cut the height of the ascenders by such a significant amount. Then the next one is tall again, to match the first "ll", and the "h" in "hoc/hov" or whatever the next word is, is also full height.
What is up (or down) with that second word? This dramatic reduction in the height of ascenders is unusual.
-JKP- > 06-05-2021, 11:53 PM
(06-05-2021, 11:28 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Just to clarify something, and setting aside the "a" in "mallier"...you are certain that is "lli" and not "lh" as in "malher", correct? I just want to confirm this and make sure of the point for certain.