8 ms·

Someone over on reddit identifies it as Quikscript, it certainly seems likely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quickscript_alphabet_revised_names.png https:

• kbar13 13y ago
  link to actual wikipedia quikscript article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickscript
• gregschlom 13y ago
  The notes seem to be written in French, but Quickscript is much more appropriate for English, therefore I don't believe it's Quickscript. It's much more likely to be one of the several shorthand methods used in France throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. List here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9nographie http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9nographie I'm personally betting on the Bertin method. The full book describing the method is available here, if anyone wants to go learn it: http://books.google.fr/books?id=q-hirCm0ec0C http://books.google.fr/books?id=q-hirCm0ec0C (in French, though :))
  • pcrh 13y ago
    If one assumes that the unknown scripts are transliterations of the original Greek text, then shorthand or sténographie might not fit. Unless, of course, the marginalia are commentary rather than translations or translitterations.