JoJo_Jost > 9 hours ago
(9 hours ago)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't have to, because they're keywords separated by the + sign. But it still tells a story.
It's just a curse.
Aga Tentakulus > 9 hours ago
JoJo_Jost > 6 hours ago
(9 hours ago)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're forgetting the “so nim xxx mich o” part.
Now you've got a suicide in the sea, and that whole thing with the Virgin Mary.
It's exactly because of nonsense like this that I don't like to give explanations.
(8 hours ago)sōlstəs Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am having issues as well, to find the information I am looking for.
monisusa > 5 hours ago
(Yesterday, 09:33 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With some assumptions, it still sounds plausible. However, if this is bocksleber, then why did the author write it down as poxleber? Are there any other examples of similar practices where words were written down the same way they were pronounced? And is it really worth omitting the pox-prefix?(Yesterday, 09:11 AM)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-06-2026, 09:50 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="JoJo_Jost" pid='86149' dateline='1782074313']By the way, there are problems even with reading text on f17r. Even if we accept this as true, the meaning of this text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not particularly clear in this form. I believe that the combination of the word poxleber and crosses suggests a magical rather than a medicinal meaning.
Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) mo vix? mo = mollire vix = wax.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything
And I would also like to know why the author shortened the words so much...
P.S. Of course, it's off-topic, but I had a theory that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were not written by the author, but by someone who received the manuscript from the author. This person might have known more about the manuscript and attempted to decipher it. It's possible that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents an unsuccessful attempt at deciphering the manuscript (it's possible that the recipe).
Hi, thank you for your question. Bocksleber = poxleber = liver of a billy goat. Liver was a common ingredient of medieval medicine. I explained that the "crosses" simply are addition signs to note which ingredients have to be added and which production steps to be carried out next. I could not find any trace of a magical content however, it is clearly a recipe with ingredients as willow bark, wax, potash, quick lime. I had these lines checked by the Head of the Austrian Chamber of Pharmacy Prof. Beba and he confirmed the plausibility of it. I reproduced this ointment successfully.
monisusa > 5 hours ago
(Yesterday, 10:39 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."an c hi ton olas a bas(sin) + mvltos(ch) + tc + ca v cevc + povtas(ch) + M +
s(al)ix + ma(cerat) vix + mo(llire) vix + V\X + atzia + ma(na) in vi(tr)a +
ar(d)or (ar)t(ri)ticus vals c nv z vey so nim gasmich o…"
"Apply to toe, everything into a basin + gauze bag + sebum + quicklime + potash + M(mix)
salix (willow bark) + (into) macerate(put)wax + melt wax + V\X(minutes) + let get thickly + pour it into glasses+
ardor artriticus if toe still too painful then take goatsmilk o…"
It still looks like nonsense to me. Could you show any actual medieval manuscripts with all these Bavarian spellings, or are those just your guesses?
monisusa > 4 hours ago
(11 hours ago)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Today, 07:28 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These are sayings.
As you can see above, the “x” here is a sharp ‘s’ (double “ss”).
This has all been discussed countless times.
I'm sure Koen has dozens of sayings like this in his archive.
But I'm not willing to repeat everything 100 times just because people are too lazy to read.
??? That was not my question.
You write: If you replace the “x” in “six, marix morix vix” with an “s,” you get a saying. It's in Latin, and according to the dictionary, it's error-free.
sis maris moris vis abeat maria = “Bock, die with the power of the Holy Mary.”
Where did you get that translation from? What are the latin word roots you used for that translation? I wanted examples of that I dont undestand ur translation, thats all.
Hello, please do not mix up the r with the v! In my study I refer to it. It reads: ma vix and not marix, mo vix and not morix, ma + via. "Vix/wichs" is an old German word for "Wachs" meaning wax.
It is still used today in Bavarian regions mostly when putting wax on to skiers. Also for "Schuhwichse" which is wax for shoes. We shouldn't replace letters just because we do not
understand them and make something new of it. By the way: "abea" is not correct, the second character represents the gothic cursive "tz/z". Kind regards Monika
Bernd > 4 hours ago
(10 hours ago)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, this indicates that the marginalia was added probably after 1500. Is there any reason to think otherwise?In addition to Koen's remark that the handwriting is likely early 15th century, contemporary with the VM vellum, the images associated with the marginalia closely resemble the regular imagery of the bifolio and quire. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the marginalia were written by the same person who made the VM drawings, and shortly after those were created. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a bit problematic in this regard as the quire contains no imagery aside from stars, but all in all the marginalia follow a consistent pattern. I find it unlikely that someone should and could closely mimic the author's bad drawing skills in matching style of the quire when adding the marginalia at a significantly later date. I would not rule out that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were created after the entire VM was finished as the nymph is fairly advanced for VM standards, but not much later.
(5 hours ago)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi, after years of research there are more than guesses. I discussed the text with pharmacists to check the ingredients and logical sequence. My local pharmacist remembered to have learned the expression "mana in vitra" at university. Moreover I also discussed it with experts of German studies at University of Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck. The last sentence has a proper syntax.Again I have to ask - which experts specifically, and did you show them a scan of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , or just your transliteration of the marginalia text?
Aga Tentakulus > 3 hours ago
(4 hours ago)monisusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello, please do not mix up the r with the v!
monisusa > 3 hours ago
(Today, 06:00 AM)Zauriek Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Based on what some experts say, the + is a clear indication it is a charm. And recepies are like like vertical listings in medieval manuscripts, right?