18-08-2026, 12:16 AM
Hi, new to the forum and hoping to discuss the supposed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Going by the article, this might have been an early attempt at translation conducted by Johannes Marcus Marci. Now I know that this key cannot provide any actual translation of the manuscript. All the same I was curious as to why specifically this key was chosen. After all, someone (Marci according to the handwriting analysis) must have had a hunch that this was the way to go. They made sure to write it down on the very first folio. If they were just toying around why not scribble on some piece of paper instead of the actual vellum?
So I matched the table above to EVA transliteration and applied the key to the full "text" of the manuscript. The result can be seen in the attached file (split for file size). There are a couple of legit words that in there, but nothing that really stands out as a likely starting point for Marci's substitution attempt. If he believed an simple substitution was behind it (and not having the luxury of conducting computer powered brute force attempts), I would expect that he would pick some word standing by themselves or serving as a label to some image and go from there. "Rex" (latin for "king") shows up a couple of times, but usually in the middle of text blocks and not matching any part of the text you might expect to say "king".
Of course we do not know what Marci would have thought the original language of the manuscript to be.
There is also a chance that his key did produce some legitimate plain text words, but only in the folios lost to us. This might be supported by the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that do not appear anywhere else in the text.
Funny enough, there is one word that does appear quite clearly, showing up 17 times and perfectly describes my success rate so far: "bleak"
Going by the article, this might have been an early attempt at translation conducted by Johannes Marcus Marci. Now I know that this key cannot provide any actual translation of the manuscript. All the same I was curious as to why specifically this key was chosen. After all, someone (Marci according to the handwriting analysis) must have had a hunch that this was the way to go. They made sure to write it down on the very first folio. If they were just toying around why not scribble on some piece of paper instead of the actual vellum?
So I matched the table above to EVA transliteration and applied the key to the full "text" of the manuscript. The result can be seen in the attached file (split for file size). There are a couple of legit words that in there, but nothing that really stands out as a likely starting point for Marci's substitution attempt. If he believed an simple substitution was behind it (and not having the luxury of conducting computer powered brute force attempts), I would expect that he would pick some word standing by themselves or serving as a label to some image and go from there. "Rex" (latin for "king") shows up a couple of times, but usually in the middle of text blocks and not matching any part of the text you might expect to say "king".
Of course we do not know what Marci would have thought the original language of the manuscript to be.
- Does anyone know a good method to double check if there are more meaningful words in this substitution in any appropriate language?
There is also a chance that his key did produce some legitimate plain text words, but only in the folios lost to us. This might be supported by the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that do not appear anywhere else in the text.
- Are there any theories as to their meaning?
Funny enough, there is one word that does appear quite clearly, showing up 17 times and perfectly describes my success rate so far: "bleak"
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
