Login

MarcoP · (This post was last modified: 26-09-2025, 02:26 PM by MarcoP.)

(24-09-2025, 02:31 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that "rot" key was not followed by the Painter, and the letters look rather awkward.

So here is another theory: when the VMS Scribe was copying plant parts from another herbal, which happened to have been created in a German-speaking area, he saw the "rot" color key on the stem of that plant, and --- not speaking German -- thought that it was a Voynichese label that had to be copied too. So he did, striving to interpret the German letters as Voynichese letters...

Color annotations were sometimes ignored by painters. Examples from the Vermont herbal are discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. That same comment also shows that color annotations on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were followed. The painters who applied colors were often (usually?) different from the scribes who wrote the annotations, so what the painters did or did not doesn’t tell us much about the scribes, in my opinion.

Considering how small they are, letters in the “rot” annotation seem to me rather ordinary. Maybe one could argue that the downward serif at the top left of ‘r’ is unusually long, e.g. compared with ‘r’ types 62/63 from Derolez’s book. Concluding from this possible tiny difference that the scribe couldn’t read German and that he was trying to hammer the Latin alphabet into Voynichese seem to me two cases of “non sequitur”.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that the scribe who wrote the color annotation “rot” was a German speaker.