# USED 21-10-2025, 06:07 PM (21-10-2025, 05:45 PM)R. Sale Wrote: How can we # USED evaluate the time intervals between graphic events in the creation and # USED production of the VMs, as we have it now? After the original creation, # USED there are presumed to be Retracers #1 -> N. Is this a lengthy process of # USED accumulation by various *owners* of the VMs over the centuries? Or is it # USED all (for the most part) accomplished by five scribes within a month's # USED production? Or is it the cumulative work of a single person's lifetime? # USED # USED As I see it, the motivation for the first round of retracing was that a # USED substantial part of the original text and drawings had faded to near # USED invisibility. Therefore, that must have been at least several decades # USED after the book was written. # USED # USED That first round of retracing(Rt1) was a "professional" restoration, # USED presumably by a scribe who was used to do that kind of job. He seems to # USED have tried his best to match the ink color and trace the text as # USED accurately as a modern painting restorer would do. He was a bit less # USED careful and less thorough on the drawings. # USED # USED We can see those severely faded original traces here and there. Those # USED are ink strokes that, at the time of the first retracing, were still # USED legible enough so that retracing was not seen necessary. Now imagine # USED what the strokes that were retraced would look like now. In some places # USED it is clear that there was some ink stroke that is now completely # USED invisible. # USED # USED I think that there were at least two subsequent rounds of retracing. # USED Retracer Rt2 was a bit less careful than Rt1 (not "professional" but # USED still seemed to care about preserving the appearance) and limited his # USED work to parts that either had been skipped by Rt1 or had faded again # USED after being retraced, from wear or spill damage. Thus it too was # USED probably decades or centuries after Rt1. Retracer Rt3 was quite # USED careless; fortunately he retouched only a few characters here and there. # USED But he seems to have enjoyed "enhancing" the drawings, especially the # USED nymphs. # USED # USED The original Scribe apparently knew the alphabet but could not read the # USED text. The Retracers did not know the alphabet, although Rt1 may have # USED inferred it as he worked through the book. Thus they often "restored" a # USED normal but faded glyph into a bizarre weirdo. # USED # USED # USED All the best, --stolfi ###################################################################### 21-10-2025, 04:04 PM (21-10-2025, 11:14 AM)Koen G Wrote: you say that the tubes seem more important on f75r and f75v , but I don't even see anything on there that I'd call a tube. More like streams of water. On f75r, there is a separate "waterfall" on the side of the "umbrella" at the top, that feeds a narrow channel that eventually joins the "water slide" near the nymph with the "staff". But there is also a raised rill with a scalloped parapet that connects the "waterfall" to the top of the "slide", along a curved path. What is the point of that design? Why would the Author chose to draw that detail? On f75v, the upper end of the "channel" at the top has a rim, as if it was meant to be a tube rather than a channel. If it was just the channel feeding water to the pond, why would the Author draw it in the middle of the paragraph? Or at all? But beware that the drawings on this page, most other drawings, were partially retraced and "enhanced" by later owners. Thus one should not draw conclusions about the nature of the scene from just one or two details, which may have been added or grossly mangled by the Retracers. Like that rim around the top end of the channel, the wavy lines along it, and the long and narrow "island" in the middle of that pond (which apparently was one of their most dramatic hallucinations). All the best, --stolfi # USED ###################################################################### # USED #115Yesterday, 02:36 PM (Yesterday, 08:27 AM)Koen G Wrote: I would like # USED to see what the original version of that nymph looked like. Well, here # USED is my guess: # USED # USED # USED Quote: There is just no way you can make it look like a normal drawing # USED of a human being. # USED # USED Well, that can be said of most most nymphs in the VMS... # USED # USED Note that the actual drawing of that nymph is only ~18 mm tall. About # USED 1/3 of the size you see on your computer screen. # USED # USED The proposed original above has the features of many other nymphs, # USED including the two other nymphs in that group: The outline of the left # USED breast is just a deviation of the torso outline Only one arm and # USED shoulder are visible What is a bit unusual is that the nymph is rather # USED quite well on the plump side. But that is the case even if we take the # USED other trace as being the outline of the torso. # USED # USED The face is one part I am unsure about. It is quite possible that the # USED original had a smaller chin, about where the mouth is now. Note that the # USED original nose was a bit shorter than the current one. Maybe the Retracer # USED mistook the mouth for the bottom of the nose, and the chin for the # USED mouth... # USED # USED All the best, --stolfi # USED ###################################################################### # USED 24-10-2025, 02:42 AM (23-10-2025, 08:00 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: the top # USED left figure seems to have some sort of spike lower arm. # USED # USED I agree with Koen, except that I believe that the leftmost (darker) of # USED the two strokes that make the spike is an addition by a Retracer. Who # USED also added the right breast. # USED # USED My best guess is that the original figure did not have a left arm, and # USED the rightmost (lighter) of those two strokes was the outline of her # USED torso and belly. The Retracer mistook it for the left arm and added a # USED new outline for the torso, which he assumed had been lost. # USED By the way, some people have suggested that deciphering the VMS may be anticlimactic because the contents will probably turn out to be just another load of boring medieval nonsense. But look at the canopy above the second nymph from the top on the left margin. The VMS may, among other things, provide zoologists with unique evidence for the extinct European pangolin. ? # USED All the best, --stolfi # USED ###################################################################### # USED 23-10-2025, 08:00 PM [Bluetoes101] Here is one I find interesting from # USED the section Jorge that you may be interested in. The lack of hands in # USED most parts can be put down to fading or such, but the top left figure # USED seems to have some sort of spike lower arm. I don't really see how this # USED is just missing bits. # USED # USED The same thinner(?) darker ink lines seem to also make up 2 of the # USED mouths, the ^ shapes below breasts of figure lying down and maybe an # USED object in right figures hand, or maybe this is just a rogue line. # USED ###################################################################### # USED 21-10-2025, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2025, 07:08 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: grammos ) # USED # USED Another installment of retracing # USED pareidolia, this time about a drawing of the Bio section. # USED # USED Again, all the statements below should be implicitly prefixed with "I # USED believe that", "my best guess is that", etc. # USED # USED # USED # USED Clip of f75v covering the top pond with 10 nymphs. (A) The typical state # USED of traces by the original Scribe (Rt0). (B,C,D,E,F,G,H) Evidence of # USED retracing over Rt0 or later traces. (I) Apparent erasure by scraping. # USED (J1-J3) Characteristic "showercap" diadems added by (Rt3). (K1-K3) # USED evidence that the "showercaps" were added by the third Retracer Rt3 # USED after the water stream was (re)drawn by Retracer Rt1 or Rt2. (Q1-Q6,Q9) # USED The outstretched arms of the nymphs were misinterpreted by Rt1 or Rt2 as # USED the far wall of the pond (R1,R2), or vice-versa. (S1-S5) Original near # USED edge of the pond. (T) Near edge of the pond as "restored" by Rt1 or Rt2. # USED Everything betweeh the original and new edges of the pond was added by # USED Rt1 or Rt2. (U1,U2) Text crossing the "restored" near edge of the pond. # USED (V1) Rt1 or Rt2 misinterpreted the top of the thigh of Miss okShy saral # USED for the far edge of a narrow "island" running along the whole pond, so # USED he added the left end of the "island" (V2). But then he noticed the # USED mistake and refrained from "restoring" the rest of that island. # USED # USED All the best, --stolfi # USED ###################################################################### # USED 10-10-2025, 06:23 AM (09-10-2025, 11:29 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: The (J) # USED and (K) on the first image are the offset print from the flower on f46v, # USED and the o that I think was invented by a Retracer, confused by that # USED print. # USED # USED Sorry, I take this part back. That o is almost certainly original. The # USED Scribe did sometimes write gallows with the loops overlapping glyphs on # USED the previous line. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 11:29 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2025, 11:36 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: superior pareidolia credit ) (09-10-2025, # USED 04:16 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: I now have an idea Tweaking that idea about # USED that bizarre f. I think that originally there was an isolated r in that # USED gap. # USED # USED That is, the original text was ... ChtChy r Char ... The body of the r # USED probably was where the darker of the two "shins" of the f is now, # USED between points (A) and (B). The plume of the r went through ( C), curled # USED up along the right "thigh" until a bit below the horizontal part of the # USED f, turned 90 degrees at (D), and followed the horizontal arm to the end # USED (E). # USED # USED Here it is again, with the conjectured r in dotted magenta, with the # USED estimated baseline and topline in blue. # USED # USED The rest of the previous post still stand: I guess that, by the time the # USED Retracer(s) did their job, the r had all but faded away. They got # USED confused by the ghost of the dark band from f47v (why should I be the # USED only VMS reader with Superior Pareidolia?) , and "restored" the r as # USED that bizarre "sitting f". # USED # USED The (J) and (K) on the first image are the offset print from the flower # USED on f46v, and the o that I think was invented by a Retracer, confused by # USED that print. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2025, 04:16 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: markup ) Actually I now have an idea about # USED that bizarre f. Note the greenish smudge just to the left of it. That is # USED a leaf on the other side of the folio (f47v). The green paint on that # USED leaf is heavier than usual, and a streak of dark material seems to have # USED oozed out of the paint and collected along the left and bottom edge of # USED the painted area. (Not as badly as in the dark blue areas on the flowers # USED above, but perhaps the same substance. We know that the Painter is # USED rather cavalier about cleaning the brush when switching colors...) # USED # USED That dark stripe on f47v seems to be precisely opposite to that bizarre # USED f on f47r. So perhaps the Retracer mistook the ghost of that dark stripe # USED for a faded glyph, and "restored" it... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 03:57 PM (09-10-2025, 03:25 PM)Mauro Wrote: There is another # USED double-legged and weird 'f' (or 'p'?) on the same page, in the lower # USED right (not that I can say what this might mean) # USED # USED I can't explain it either, except note that this f is a Frankenstein # USED monster of retracings, and it crosses or touches glyphs on the line # USED above and on the line below. Who knows what it was originally. # USED # USED By the way, there is another interesting case in that same area. # USED # USED Note that there is a light brown crescent shape just to the SW of that # USED glyph. That turns out to be an offset print from a dark blue flower on # USED page f46v. That particular blue paint seems to have a component that # USED collects along the edges of the painted area and then leaves offset # USED traces on the facing page. # USED # USED Just inside that crescent there is an o that crosses the loop of the t # USED on the line below. That o is retraced (probably Rt2) and happens to # USED match in part the outline of that flower offset. # USED # USED So my guess is that the o was not there originally, but the Rt2 Retracer # USED mistook the flower offset for text and "restored" a non-existent o on # USED that spot... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 03:25 PM [Mauro] (09-10-2025, 02:37 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: # USED By the way, since we are looking at f47r, consider the very first glyph # USED on the page. # USED # USED The arm and hook are those of a p. But it has two legs. More precisely, # USED one and a half. What is it? # USED # USED If it is original, it would be either a one-of-a-kind weirdo, or a p # USED with an extra leg added as some bizarre form of decoration. # USED # USED But I would now say "neither". That was originally a simple p. On round # USED Rt1 the loops, arm, and hook were retraced (a bit clumsily). On that # USED occasion the Retracer (who presumably did not know the Voynichese # USED alphabet) added the left half-leg by mistake, perhaps by confusion with # USED the two-legged gallows... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED # USED There is another double-legged and weird 'f' (or 'p'?) on the same page, # USED in the lower right (not that I can say what this might mean) # USED # USED ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 02:37 PM By the way, since we are looking at f47r, consider # USED the very first glyph on the page. # USED # USED The arm and hook are those of a p. But it has two legs. More precisely, # USED one and a half. What is it? # USED # USED If it is original, it would be either a one-of-a-kind weirdo, or a p # USED with an extra leg added as some bizarre form of decoration. # USED # USED But I would now say "neither". That was originally a simple p. On round # USED Rt1 the loops, arm, and hook were retraced (a bit clumsily). On that # USED occasion the Retracer (who presumably did not know the Voynichese # USED alphabet) added the left half-leg by mistake, perhaps by confusion with # USED the two-legged gallows... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 02:23 PM (09-10-2025, 01:27 PM)oshfdk Wrote: From my point # USED of view it does look a bit as if you have theoreticized yourself into a # USED corner, but who knows, maybe it's the right corner after all. # USED # USED Well, so far I don't seem to have convinced anyone... but, on the other # USED hand, I have not seem plausible explanations for many of the details # USED that I have pointed out in previous posts. Just blanket statements "look # USED like normal ink weight variations". So I am still unmoved. # USED # USED Quote: Otherwise I find it very implausible that three different people # USED would spend so much effort with extreme precision and yet achieve # USED somewhat visually poor result of very uneven ink density. # USED # USED Only the first retracing round required high effort and extreme # USED precision -- and it was so good and extensive that most people still # USED cannot see it. That restoration left out only parts that were so faded # USED that the Retracer himself did not see them, parts that could not be # USED easily retraced (like the tips of plumes and tails), and parts that were # USED still acceptably clear. But a couple centuries later the latter had # USED faded further, and the contrast with retraced parts became much more # USED pronounced. # USED # USED later retracing rounds were much more limited and clearly did not care # USED much about fidelity and quality. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 01:27 PM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 09-10-2025, # USED 01:28 PM by oshfdk.) (09-10-2025, 12:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: Hey, you # USED are not questioning my Superior Pareidolia, are you? Wondering # USED # USED First of all, thank you for providing a detailed answer. I'm not sure # USED the presence or the absence of retracing affects my deciphering # USED attempts, but I'd rather keep track of all new developments. # USED # USED From my point of view it does look a bit as if you have theoreticized # USED yourself into a corner, but who knows, maybe it's the right corner after # USED all. # USED # USED (09-10-2025, 12:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: On that micrograph (as in the # USED Beinecke 2014 scans) I see four very different ink types, Rt0-Rt3, with # USED well-defined coverage areas and sharp transitions between them. Rt0 are # USED the original traces. Rt1 is the first round of retracing, that was # USED applied to almost the entire text of this page, as well as many pages in # USED the whole book. Presumably, the few parts that were not retraced by Rt1 # USED were still legible enough at the time. Rt2 and Rt3 are later rounds that # USED retraced a few glyphs and words, or parts thereof. # USED # USED Rounds Rt2 and/or Rt3 may have been cases of what I call "back-tracing", # USED when a scribe goes back and retraces some stuff that he recently traced # USED himself. The back-traced glyphs then may come out darker only because # USED the pen is more loaded with ink. But retracing and back-tracing are # USED distinct processes from variations of darkness along the same trace, due # USED to variations of pressure, ink flow, speed, etc. The distinctions # USED between Rt1, Rt2, and Rt3 cannot be explained by such variations. # USED # USED Between Rt0 and Rt1 enough time passed for the Rt0 traces become so # USED faint that the owner decided to commission a full restoration of the # USED manuscript. The intervals between Rt1, Rt2, and Rt3 are less certain, # USED but at least one of them was long enough for the leftover Rt0 traces, # USED and possibly the Rt1 traces themselves, had faded substantially. # USED # USED I wonder, if it's possible to compare in any meaningful way the old # USED photographs/photocopies from Voynich times with the modern scans to see # USED if any perceptible fading has occurred in the last 100 years. Would you # USED expect some visible fading? # USED # USED (09-10-2025, 12:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You mean at the point X3? As I # USED see it, the original trace (A3) was wider, and the dark ink flowed only # USED over the top 1/3 of that trace, for a little bit. It is not strange that # USED the new ink speads over older traces. Those would have traces of binder, # USED which is probably more wettable than blank parchment. # USED # USED This is the only explanation consistent with retracing that I can think # USED of - that somehow new ink would just stick to the old ink and would be # USED repelled by the parchment. Otherwise I find it very implausible that # USED three different people would spend so much effort with extreme precision # USED and yet achieve somewhat visually poor result of very uneven ink # USED density. ###################################################################### # USED 09-10-2025, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2025, 01:03 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: EVA markup ) (07-10-2025, 08:32 PM)oshfdk # USED Wrote: I've looked through the microphotograph samples uploaded by # USED @proto57, this one seems to show great variation in the ink density. I'd # USED love to hear your opinion about this one. # USED # USED Hey, you are not questioning my Superior Pareidolia, are you? Wondering # USED # USED # USED # USED First, note that this image (like many other micrographs from the # USED report) is out of focus on the right side, over most of the r. # USED # USED Second, for brevity, in what follows I will state as facts many things # USED are only my opinion with various degrees of certainty. Thus, please # USED assume an "I think that" inserted before each statement. # USED # USED On that micrograph (as in the Beinecke 2014 scans) I see four very # USED different ink types, Rt0-Rt3, with well-defined coverage areas and sharp # USED transitions between them. Rt0 are the original traces. Rt1 is the first # USED round of retracing, that was applied to almost the entire text of this # USED page, as well as many pages in the whole book. Presumably, the few parts # USED that were not retraced by Rt1 were still legible enough at the time. Rt2 # USED and Rt3 are later rounds that retraced a few glyphs and words, or parts # USED thereof. # USED # USED Rounds Rt2 and/or Rt3 may have been cases of what I call "back-tracing", # USED when a scribe goes back and retraces some stuff that he recently traced # USED himself. The back-traced glyphs then may come out darker only because # USED the pen is more loaded with ink. But retracing and back-tracing are # USED distinct processes from variations of darkness along the same trace, due # USED to variations of pressure, ink flow, speed, etc. The distinctions # USED between Rt1, Rt2, and Rt3 cannot be explained by such variations. # USED # USED Between Rt0 and Rt1 enough time passed for the Rt0 traces become so # USED faint that the owner decided to commission a full restoration of the # USED manuscript. The intervals between Rt1, Rt2, and Rt3 are less certain, # USED but at least one of them was so long that the leftover Rt0 traces, and # USED possibly the Rt1 traces themselves, had faded substantially. # USED # USED Specifically: # USED # USED (A1,A2,A3) Surviving original traces (Rt0): very faint, with fuzzy # USED edges, low saturation (more like gray than brown). Visible not only as # USED extensions of the other stages (like on the left leg of the k and at the # USED top of the left half of the o), but also by the side of those later # USED traces (like in the "armpits" of the horizontal arm of the k, its right # USED foot, the bottom of the o, and the start of the r plume). # USED # USED The extreme fading of this ink is puzzling. Could it have been an # USED organic (plant) dye? To bad that the lab did not analyze this faded ink # USED and did not even comment on this striking difference. # USED # USED (B1,B3) The global retracing round Rt1 included the o and the plume of # USED the r. The ink is light brown with only a few darker (but not black) # USED spots, apparently where the ink pooled into cavities of the parchment. # USED Unlike the original Rt0 ink, the Rt1 traces have sharp borders. # USED # USED The lower half of the left leg of the k and its right foot may be Rt1 # USED too, but faded a bit more than the other Rt1 traces; or they may be # USED original Rt0, that survived better than other Rt0 traces. The Rt1 # USED Retracer was very careful and mostly followed what was left of the # USED original traces, but he surely made some mistakes. One of them probably # USED was at the top of the right half of the o (flagged X2), which should # USED have been thinner, like the top of the left half. # USED # USED (C1) The partial retracing Rt2 here shows only in the lower half of the # USED right leg of the k. It is darker than Rt1 and mottled with darker (but # USED still not black) spots. It probably was used on other parts of the k, # USED excluding the left leg; but the loop, for one, came out crooked (note # USED Y1) and had to be retraced or backtraced again. # USED # USED (D1,D3) Round Rt3 here included the horizontal arm, the loop, and the # USED top of the right leg of the k, as well as the body (i stroke) of the r. # USED Note the sharp transition (at X1) between the Rt3 and Rt2 parts of the # USED leg. The ink is darker than the Rt2 ink, and has lots of very dark # USED spots. The white glints show that these are neither solid pigment # USED particles, nor places where the ink pooled into cavities of the vellum, # USED but smooth rounded lumps that rise above the surface of the parchment # USED and tend to collect along the borders of the ink trace. It looks as if # USED the ink was a mixture of a water-based liquid with an oil-based one, and # USED one of these phases collected into the black droplets while the other # USED spread out evenly to give the brown stain. # USED # USED Quote: To me the match between the shape of the dark ink blobs and the # USED faint ink strokes looks extremely hard to explain by retracing. The dark # USED ink from the base of r seems to flow perfectly into the line of the # USED flourish. # USED # USED You mean at the point X3? As I see it, the original trace (A3) was # USED wider, and the dark ink flowed only over the top 1/3 of that trace, for # USED a little bit. It is not strange that the new ink spreads over older # USED traces. Those would have traces of binder, which is probably more # USED wettable than blank parchment. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 07-10-2025, 08:32 PM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 07-10-2025, # USED 08:35 PM by oshfdk.) (06-10-2025, 12:15 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: All the # USED best, --jorge # USED # USED I've looked through the microphotograph samples uploaded by @proto57, # USED this one seems to show great variation in the ink density. I'd love to # USED hear your opinion about this one. 06-10-2025, 10:26 AM (06-10-2025, # USED 09:43 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You can't blame it all on the restoration # USED either, because then the restorer was a bungler and had no idea what he # USED was doing. # USED # USED Again, the Restorer(s) obviously did not know the alphabet, and the # USED Author must have been long gone to Higher Spheres. And the first # USED Restorer was recruited precisely because many parts of the book had # USED become almost unreadable, or worse. # USED # USED Even so, the first Restorer did a good job overall. Thus, for most # USED meaningful analyses, this General Retracing Hypothesis can be ignored. # USED The restoration added some errors -- switching some r for s or # USED vice-versa, changing some Sh into Ch and some Ch into ee, etc. But any # USED meaningful analysis must allow for a certain percentage of errors by the # USED Author, by the original Scribe, and by the Transcribers. (My readings # USED disagree with Rene's at the rate of one glyph every ~10-20 lines, even # USED though we both use the same high-resolution 2014 images.) # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 06-10-2025, 10:26 AM (06-10-2025, 09:43 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You # USED can't blame it all on the restoration either, because then the restorer # USED was a bungler and had no idea what he was doing. # USED # USED Again, the Restorer(s) obviously did not know the alphabet, and the # USED Author must have been long gone to Higher Spheres. And the first # USED Restorer was recruited precisely because many parts of the book had # USED become almost unreadable, or worse. # USED # USED Even so, the first Restorer did a good job overall. Thus, for most # USED meaningful analyses, this General Retracing Hypothesis can be ignored. # USED The restoration added some errors -- switching some r for s or # USED vice-versa, changing some Sh into Ch and some Ch into ee, etc. But any # USED meaningful analysis must allow for a certain percentage of errors by the # USED Author, by the original Scribe, and by the Transcribers. (My readings # USED disagree with Rene's at the rate of one glyph every ~10-20 lines, even # USED though we both use the same high-resolution 2014 images.) # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 06-10-2025, 10:26 AM (06-10-2025, 09:43 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You # USED can't blame it all on the restoration either, because then the restorer # USED was a bungler and had no idea what he was doing. # USED # USED Again, the Restorer(s) obviously did not know the alphabet, and the # USED Author must have been long gone to Higher Spheres. And the first # USED Restorer was recruited precisely because many parts of the book had # USED become almost unreadable, or worse. # USED # USED Even so, the first Restorer did a good job overall. Thus, for most # USED meaningful analyses, this General Retracing Hypothesis can be ignored. # USED The restoration added some errors -- switching some r for s or # USED vice-versa, changing some Sh into Ch and some Ch into ee, etc. But any # USED meaningful analysis must allow for a certain percentage of errors by the # USED Author, by the original Scribe, and by the Transcribers. (My readings # USED disagree with Rene's at the rate of one glyph every ~10-20 lines, even # USED though we both use the same high-resolution 2014 images.) # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED # USED [OSHFDK] # USED # USED To me the match between the shape of the dark ink blobs and the faint # USED ink strokes looks extremely hard to explain by retracing. The dark ink # USED from the base of r seems to flow perfectly into the line of the # USED flourish. ###################################################################### # USED 06-10-2025, 08:47 AM (06-10-2025, 07:49 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: If # USED these were isolated cases, one could still discuss it. But it is the # USED high number of overwritings that makes it implausible, because it is no # USED longer comprehensible. # USED # USED But the claim is precisely that the first round of rewriting was not # USED just a few touch-ups here and there, but a global restoration # USED enterprise. # USED # USED The claim is that, a century or two after the VMS was created, its owner # USED did what the owner of a badly degraded valuable painting would do. # USED Namely, he handed over the book to a scribe, with the task of bringing # USED the book back as close as possible to the original state. The scribe may # USED even have been one who specialized in such restoration work. That goal # USED implied matching the ink in color and appearance, and tracing over all # USED the original traces that had significantly faded, as closely as # USED possible. # USED # USED But the work could not be perfect. Some parts had already been # USED irremediably lost. The new scribe (unlike the original one) did not know # USED the alphabet not the "morphology" of the words, and thus could not tell # USED whether a partly faded glyph was a q or an y or and l or some new # USED weirdo. Many Ih and eiin may be the outcome of that confusion. And even # USED if the scribe was hired for six months, the time he could spend on any # USED page was limited. # USED # USED I understand that people may be very reluctant to accept this claim. But # USED can it be denied? Please check my previous post. Can you deny points # USED 1-4? Could they have not triggered such a global restoration? # USED # USED Unfortunately, matching the original ink meant that the restored text # USED and drawings were themselves vulnerable to wear, humidity, insects, # USED spills, etc. And the parts that the first Retracer skipped, because they # USED were still good enough, continued to fade away. # USED # USED So eventually there were other more limited "restoration" rounds -- but # USED clearly not as skillful and careful as the first one. On some pages # USED these later Retracers had fun embellishing the drawings, adding breasts # USED and hats to the nymphs, more fantastic details to the plants. And then # USED there was the Dark Painter... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 06-10-2025, 03:06 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2025, 03:12 AM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: typos ) (05-10-2025, 04:15 PM)Aga # USED Tentakulus Wrote: It is difficult enough to trace your own handwriting # USED written in pencil with a ballpoint pen. Indeed. The retracing must be # USED much slower and more careful than the original writing. And that is why # USED a handwriting expert can often detect forgery in a signature at first # USED glance, unless the forger himself is an expert. The slower speed results # USED in broader and more jittery traces. # USED # USED And that is why we can detect retracing of plumes and tails on the VMS. # USED Retracing causes the plume to become thicker, with a blunt end, instead # USED of the smooth tapering "mousetail" created by a quick swish of the pen. # USED And it helps when a Retracer who does not know the alphabet chooses to # USED trace a plume or a gallows loop in the wrong direction. # USED # USED By the way, the only difference between these two Japanese katakana # USED characters, "shi" and "tsu" # USED # USED is the sense in which the big stroke is to be written. That is why # USED learning the Japanese (and Chinese) script requires learning the order # USED and direction of the strokes, not just the final shapes. Even when using # USED a pencil or ballpoint. # USED # USED Quote: It is the same ink [...] simply too thick. # USED # USED It is probably the same ink, at least for the first round of retracing. # USED See below. # USED # USED I am aware that stroke weight varies while one is writing -- darker # USED right after the pen is dipped, normal for a while, then fainter as the # USED pen runs out of ink. And that the Scribe himself may go back to text # USED that he wrote previously, to correct mistakes, redo characters that cane # USED out fainter, etc. # USED # USED But stroke weight is not the only criterion I use to decide whether some # USED glyph, word, or page was retraced. Crooked plumes is only one of several # USED clues that can add up to make the conclusion unavoidable. # USED # USED Quote: This only indicates that one of the writers was not familiar with # USED the consistency of the ink and colour as it should be. # USED # USED On the contrary, the original Scribe was obviously an experienced "quil # USED driver", since he could write neat text only 1.5 mm tall or less. He was # USED poor only at drawing figures. # USED # USED Quote: This happens throughout the book. # USED # USED Yes. Because the first round of retracing was applied to the whole book. # USED # USED Consider this: There are many characters and drawings that have visibly # USED faded to the point of near invisibility, and now can be read only with # USED magnification and contrast-stretching. There is no reason to believe # USED that those cases of fading are the worst possible. There must be strokes # USED that have become completely invisible. Indeed, there are many places # USED where only part of a glyph or figure detail is visible, even with those # USED tools. Thus the missing part must have faded completely There is no # USED reason to believe that the those cases of extreme and total fading # USED happened only after Voynich bought the book. They probably happened many # USED decades or centuries before that. # USED # USED Are you still with me on that? # USED # USED Now imagine that one of the many owners of the VMS before Voynich, who # USED believed it to contain who-knows-what great secrets, saw that the text # USED was fading all over the book. # USED # USED What would he do? Sigh and philosophically recite tout passe, tout # USED casse, tout lasse? # USED # USED [Answer in the next episode.] # USED # USED [Hint: suppose that the VMS was a painting instead of a book, with the # USED same level of degradation.] # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 05-10-2025, 03:38 AM Another batch of Retracing Hallucinations, now on # USED page f67r2 (the one with red text). # USED # USED Same premises and caveats as before. I see three layers on the brown ink # USED text: original and retracing rounds Rt1.B, Rt2.B. The evidence is mainly # USED ink density and plumes traced in the wrong direction, but there is one # USED example where a glyph was mangled in a way suggesting that the Retracer # USED did not know the alphabet. # USED # USED There may be also two layers of red ink text, "original" and Rt1.R. The # USED main evidence is some glyphs mangled beyond recognition, besides plumes # USED traced in the wrong direction. The red ink has cracked an flaked off # USED near the W and E edges of the panel. A faint brownish trace may or may # USED not be visible in those places. # USED # USED # USED # USED # USED Clip of the NE part of the diagram of f67r2. Green, cyan, and blue # USED labels indicate (re)tracing rounds for the brown ink, respectively # USED original, Rt1.B, and Rt2.B. Orange and pink labels indicate (re)tracing # USED of the red ink text, respectively original and Rt1.R. (A) Original # USED glyphs (B) Rt1.B glyphs. (C,D) Rt2B glyphs. (E,G) Frame decorations in # USED original traces (F,H) Frame decorations in Rt1.B. (I) Original trace of # USED glyph h. (J) Probably a y that was retraced incorrectly as a disembodied # USED tail. (K) glyphs n and r with badly Rt1.B retraced plumes. (L) possible # USED brown ink or binder residue under red ink. (M) A brown ink dot in the # USED middle of red text. (N,O) plumes of s and Sh in original red ink and # USED Rt1.R. (Q,R) Glyph parts by Rt1.R. (S,T) Ligatures that start original # USED red and end Rt1R. (U,V) glyphs that were mangled by Rt1.R. (W) In this k # USED glyph, the part of the loop between the two legs is not aligned with the # USED part to the right of the right leg. (X) loop of k traced in the wrong # USED direction. (Y) Plume of r mangled by Rt1.R. (Z) Red ink cracked and # USED flaked off near the edges of the panel. ###################################################################### # USED 02-10-2025, 09:13 PM [BLUETOES101] (I've given up with the VM font.. # USED apologies for non-EVA users) Though if all cases are EVA eeeb or eeb # USED (and word end) to me it shows the link with EVA iiin/iin, but that's not # USED to say you are not right, I just don't think it was ever intended to be # USED "n" # USED # USED I think there's lower hanging fruit for unsureness on scribe or # USED retracer's part, such as below from f115v. To me there's no where this # USED swish can go and still make a grammatically correct (by usual # USED preference) word. It's also unclear if it was intended to be an "n" with # USED an "o" in the way, or "r" and they put it in the wrong place. Obviously # USED 1 example can be explained away in various ways but I could pull 10 # USED examples each page from the "recipes" section that don't really make # USED much sense. On this same page there's a word that starts with "i" and a # USED backwards "e" shape to start a bench, fully looped "r" like a capital # USED "P", black (actually black) ink splodge above the top star and in the # USED same ink (to my eye) a "retracing" of "r". # USED # USED I do think there's some additions to the text, and various levels of # USED understanding of how this whole thing works from different scribes (or # USED maybe one with different states..) but I also think the text made no # USED sense to any observer at anytime (yet) and so I don't think meaning was # USED lost by these sorts of additions or such that these things turned # USED something that once made sense into something that does not now, at # USED least from what I know so far ###################################################################### # USED 02-10-2025, 08:02 PM (02-10-2025, 04:10 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: I'd just # USED note that G is soeeb and eeb is fairly rare but not unattested like een. # USED I actually think its s o eeb but that's another topic.. # USED # USED Right. But the b glyph itself is quite rare. # USED # USED I went through all occurrences of b in Rene's IVT transcription. There # USED are 17 of them, of which 13 in the Herbal section, one in Bio, two in # USED Cosmo, and one in Stars. The last two are transcription errors. All the # USED others are in endings eeeb or eeb, which may have been mistakes by the # USED Scribe or the Retracer, and could have been eees or ees. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 02-10-2025, 01:59 PM Just for completeness, here are some of my # USED Retracing Hallucinations for f30r, the other page that was compared to # USED f31r. The same general remarks apply, except that on this page there was # USED no third round of retracing (Rt3), and the second round Rt2 used the # USED same nib width as Rt1. It is possible that Rt2 was merely the retracer # USED of Rt1 back-tracing his own previous traces. # USED # USED # USED Clip of f30r covering the middle parts of lines 8-13 (parag P2). Label # USED colors indicate original traces (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) # USED and Rt2 (purple). (A) Original plant outline. (B) Original tips of tails # USED of y, nearly invisible. (C ) Ligature and possibly c still original. # USED (D,E) Rt1 part of the plant outline. (F) An r with lower half of plume # USED original (neraly invisible) and rest Rt1. (G) Malformed n glyph creates # USED unusual ending soeen. The glyph may have been invention of Rt1, and the # USED original word may have been soeey with the y split off by plant. (H) Two # USED Ch with Rt2 C and Rt1 h, and possibly a bit of original ligature in # USED between. (I) One of the d that Rt2 was particularly fond of retracing. ###################################################################### # USED 02-10-2025, 09:04 AM (02-10-2025, 08:30 AM)quimqu Wrote: There must be a # USED way to detect if the dark ink has a different composition from the light # USED ink and confirm the retracing... # USED # USED Hopefully that will happen one day. # USED # USED For starters it would be nice to know the real composition of the # USED ink(s). It cannot be iron-gall ink. Not even expired iron-gall ink, or # USED "low-iron iron-gall ink". # USED # USED And it would help a lot to have some microscope images of some of the # USED most obviously "retraced" glyphs and figure outlines. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 01-10-2025, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2025, 06:23 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: signed ) Since we just compared f30r and # USED f31r, here are some of my Retracing Hallucinations for f31r. # USED # USED Again, as a working hypothesis I have been assuming three separate # USED rounds of restoration -- Rt1, Rt2, Rt3. The last two passes would have # USED been necessary because the parts that had not been retraced in Rt1, as # USED well as the result of Rt1 itself, kept fading over time. # USED # USED The three passes would be distinguished by weight and ink color, and by # USED the last two being less careful than the first one. In the case of this # USED page, Rt2 used a much broader pen than Rt1 or the original Scribe. # USED However, the assignment of a stroke to one of these rounds is # USED subjective, and there may have been only two passes, or (less likely) # USED only one. As seen on the plant, on this page the original strokes have # USED clearly faded to the point of almost complete invisibility, or beyond. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED # USED # USED Clip of f31r covering the top part of the plant. Label colors indicate # USED original traces (green) and estimated retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) and # USED Rt2 (purple). (A) Original stem outline. (B) Rt1 retrace of stem. (C ) # USED original flower stalk outlines. (D) Rt1 retraced and added flower stalk # USED outlines. (E) Original inner edge of corolla, all but invisible now, # USED ~0.7 mm above Rt2 retrace. (F) Original petals, almost invisible. (G) # USED Rt1 retracing of flower parts. (H) Rt2 retracing of flower parts. (L) # USED Flowers (including calyces and stalks) added by Rt1. (O) Paint possibly # USED over Rt1 trace. (P) Rt2 trace possible over paint. # USED # USED # USED Clip of f31r covering the middle part of the plant. Label colors # USED indicate original outlines (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) and # USED Rt2 (purple). (A) Original outline of stem, all but invisible now. (B) # USED Rt1 outline of stem. (C,D) Original flower outline, all but invisible. # USED (E,G) Rt1 outline and dots of flowers. (F,H) Rt2 outline and details of # USED flowers. # USED # USED # USED Clip of f31r covering the right half of text lines 1-12. Label colors # USED indicate original outlines (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue), Rt2 # USED (purple), and Rt3 (orange). (A,B) Original y tail, maybe part Rt1. (C,D) # USED An y with original right half and Rt1 left half. (E) Original platform # USED slash missed by retracers. (F,G) Rt1 and Rt2 parts of a p gallows. (H,I) # USED A q with Original or Rt1 tail and Rt2 head. (J,K,L) A q Rt3 head, top # USED half of tail Rt2, and rest of tail Rt1. (P) Unknown glyphs mangled by # USED Rt1 into an e glued to a y. (Q) There is a very faint r-plume on the # USED second i, and plume of the final n may be Rt1 invention. Original word # USED may have been airy or airl. (R ) Glyph probably was o originally; # USED mangled by Rt2 into deformed a or y wo tail. (S) An Sh with C in Rt1, h # USED in Rt2, and plume Rt3. (T) Glyph probably was r and was mangled to # USED deformed n by Rt2. (U) This stroke probably did not exist originally and # USED was added by Rt1 or Rt2. (V) Unknown glyphs mangled by Rt2. (W) Some r # USED glyphs with Rt1 body and Rt2 plume. (X) Some s glyphs with Rt1 body and # USED Rt2 plume. ###################################################################### # USED 28-09-2025, 11:01 PM Naughty, naughty retracer! # USED # USED Take for example the nymph on the outer band of f72r2 (Gemini) at # USED ~10:30. # USED # USED This is my guess at how the Original Scribe drew her: # USED # USED # USED # USED This is my guess at what she looked like a couple centuries later, when # USED the owner decided to restore the manuscript: # USED # USED # USED # USED And this is how she looks like now: # USED # USED # USED # USED To be fair, I believe that there were at least two rounds of retracing: # USED the first one very careful and faithful to the original, but who may # USED have left some parts un-retraced. And later came another Retracer who, # USED not satisfied with retracing faded parts, also added several details of # USED his own, just for the fun of it. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 23-09-2025, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2025, 09:08 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) Again, I now believe that the VMS was extensively # USED restored, decades or centuries after it was written, because large parts # USED of it had faded to the point of near invisibility, or even beyond. The # USED restoration consisted of carefully retracing the faded parts of the text # USED and figures with somewhat similar ink, as well as possible. For the most # USED part, this retracing was quite careful and thorough on the text, # USED somewhat less so on the figures. # USED # USED The evidence for this restoration includes Sudden variations in ink # USED color and stroke weight, often in the middle of what should have been a # USED single stroke, that cannot be explained by ink flow and recharging # USED dynamics. In particular, traces that are faded to the point of near # USED invisibility next to traces with "normal" weight. Darker traces that # USED were meant to cover fainter ones, but deviate from the latter, exposing # USED them. Parts of glyphs, such as the plumes of r and s, that were traced # USED slowly in the wrong direction. Glyphs that are malformed in ways that # USED make sense only as having been misread and mangled by a Retracer who # USED (unlike the original Scribe) did not know the alphabet and had no # USED feeling for the structure of Voynichese words. Figure details that are # USED particularly incongruous and coincidentally were drawn in darker ink. As # USED a working hypothesis I have been assuming three separate rounds of # USED restoration -- Rt1, Rt2, Rt3. The last two passes would have been # USED necessary because the parts that had not been retraced in Rt1, as well # USED as the result of Rt1 itself, kept fading over time. # USED # USED The three passes would be distinguished by weight and ink color, and by # USED the last two being less careful than the first one. However, the # USED assignment of a stroke to one of these rounds is subjective, and there # USED may have been only two passes, or (less likely) only one. # USED # USED So, here is part of what I think I see on page f57v, "the 4 x 17 # USED sequence page": # USED # USED In the following legend, please assume "probably", "apparently", # USED "perhaps" etc. before each claim: A composite of clips of f57v that # USED cover some of the weirdos in the 4 x 17 sequence (text ring R2, left # USED column) and the occurrences in the other text rings (right column). # USED Specifically, in the left column: the "curly r"; weirdos &170 "claw" and # USED &171 "fancy puff"; a normal-looking y; weirdo &249 "angular C" that # USED alternates with I and C; and weirdo &172 "updown lambda". In the right # USED column: &172 "updown lambda" from ring R2 at ~07:30; &171 "fancy puff" # USED from R4 at ~02:45; and weirdos &171 "claw" and &249 "angular C" also # USED from R4 at ~00:00. Colors distinguish original traces (A-D, green), and # USED retracing stages Rt1 (F-I, blue), Rt2 (K-N, purple), and Rt3 (P-R, # USED orange). (A) Circles C1-C4, original. (B) Original or Rt1 plume of r # USED glyphs. (C ) Original stroke in weirdo &171, visible only on the first # USED occurrence. (D) Other original glyph strokes. (F) Rt1 plume of r. (G) # USED Rt1 body and dot of &170 "claw". (H) Other Rt1 strokes. (I) Rt1 leg and # USED part of loops of &171 "fancy puff". (K) Rt2 body of r. (L) Rt2 retrace # USED of whole r. (M) Rt2 leg and loops of &171 "fancy puff". (N) Other Rt2 # USED strokes. (P) Rt3 retrace of r plumes, in wrong direction (CCW). (Q) Rt3 # USED retrace of loops of &171 "fancy puff". (R ) Rt3 retrace of &172 "updown # USED lambda". ###################################################################### # USED 11-09-2025, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2025, 02:40 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) (11-09-2025, 06:51 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: Have you # USED considered that the artist may have sketched with a pencil lead tip? # USED # USED PS. The circles in the Zodiac and Cosmo sections may have been done in # USED pencil, originally. # USED # USED The thinnest (~0.1 mm) and lightest parts of those circles ('A' in the # USED f71v clip below) are very smooth and the radii seem to be all different, # USED so they must have been made with a compass (as opposed to by hand or by # USED tracing around a template). # USED # USED There is a pinprick in the parchment where the "dry" point of the # USED compass ahould have been planted. It is best seen in the # USED transmitted-light multsipectral images: # USED # USED However, most circles fail to close: the two ends often miss each other # USED by up to a millimiter or two, and continue past each other by a # USED centmeter or more. I suppose that these defects could be explained by # USED the parchment warping during the tracing, or by a compass that was not # USED as rigid as it should be. Needless to say, if any part of any circle was # USED originally traced with a compass, then all circles must have been # USED originally wholly traced that way. # USED # USED Pencil would be the most convenient choice for drawing with a compass. # USED And the thinnest and lightest parts of the circles look just like one # USED would expect from pencil. o we may assume that all circles where # USED originally wholly traced with pencil. # USED # USED However, some parts of the circles are a bit thicker (~0.3 mm) and # USED darker, with the light yellowish-brown color of the ink used on that # USED page. See 'B' in the clip above. Those parts of the circles must have # USED been retraced in ink. # USED # USED There are compass attachments for drawing circles in ink (I used one in # USED college, in the technical drafring class) but I don't know how common # USED those were in the time and place where the VMS was scribed. Anyway the # USED Scribe may have improvised some eqivalent arrangement, e. g. a sharp # USED quill attached to the compass. # USED # USED However, those inked parts of the circles sometimes are jittery, not as # USED smooth as the penciled parts, and in a few spots they deviate from the # USED underlying penciled circles. This is best seen on that same page, in the # USED circles bounding the inner text band, around 03:00: # USED # USED Here 'A' are the original circles (~0.1mm, light, and smooth), and 'B' # USED are the retraced ones (~0.3mm, darker, jittery). The latter deviate from # USED the former by ~0.4 mm in the indicated spots. # USED # USED So I am fairly convinced that those inked parts of the circles were not # USED re-drawn with a compass, but were retraced with free hand. # USED # USED One puzzling detail is that these "medium-thick" retraced circles also # USED fail to close, like the original thin traces did. If they were retraced # USED by the original Scribe, I would expect that he would use the occasion to # USED fix that defect of the penciled traces and join the two ends. My # USED explanation is that the Retracer was not the original Scribe, but # USED someone who had been hired to restore the faded parts of the book -- and # USED this person thought that he ought to retrace the original as faithfully # USED as he could, defects and all. # USED # USED And then there are sections of the circles which are clearly retraced # USED with a broader pen, and even less care. Like 'D' in the first clip... # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 11-09-2025, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2025, 10:17 AM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) (11-09-2025, 06:51 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: Have you # USED considered that the artist may have sketched with a pencil lead tip? # USED # USED Yes. It is a variant of the alternative "the Scribe himself went back # USED and retraced parts that had come out faint or crooked" I don't think o, # USED for several reasons. Among others: The retracing is often limited to # USED parts of single glyphs or parts of the figure outlines. The original # USED traces often clearly look like they were drawn with a pen, namely with # USED broad strokes whose width varies with orientation and apparent speed -- # USED only faded in various degrees. The parts that I think are retraced are # USED often grossly wrong, like on that nymph. Sometimes they include invalid # USED glyphs. I don't see how that could happen if the Inker was the same # USED person as the Penciler, or even if they were working for the same # USED Author. My hypothetical Retracer had some specific obsessions, like the # USED right breasts of the nymphs and the distinctive "showercap" diadems, # USED that were not shared by the original Inker. In some places (liek f57v) # USED the inked text and drawings are faded to the point of being almost # USED invisible. If any parts already looked like that before 1910, any owner # USED who prized the manuscript (including the Jesuits at the Collegio Romano) # USED would surely have wanted to restore them. And I think -- but I am not # USED quite sure yet --- that there were at least two rounds of retracing, by # USED different people. The first one was more careful and used brown ink # USED similar to the original. The second one was clumsier and used a much # USED darker ink, with a different tone, but retraced only a few parts that # USED the first one had skipped, and a few parts that had been retraced but # USED were again faded or damaged. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge Website FindDelete * Reply Quote Report ###################################################################### 11-09-2025, 03:40 AM (11-09-2025, 02:49 AM)R. Sale Wrote: All that extra work - and no boobs? Both the Scribe and the Retracer soon got better in that department as they continued their work.###################################################################### # USED 11-09-2025, 01:46 AM # USED # USED # USED What I see here: # USED # USED A "Robot tentacle" added by Retracer B Original lower/left outline of # USED left arm C Original upper/right outline of left arm D Spurious nymph # USED outline added by Retracer E Spurious details added by Retracer # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 10-09-2025, 09:31 PM I have been trying to unravel the retracing history # USED of page f70v1 (Dark Aries, Ares 1). # USED # USED The most dramatic case that I can see with my pareidolioscope is the # USED inner band nymph at 10:30. The "robot tentacle" arm that she is holding # USED her star with is clearly spurious. One can see the original outline of # USED the left arm making a smooth 180 degree arc under that tentacle. # USED # USED That curve is anatomically absurd but consistent with the anatomical # USED absurdities in the other nymphs, such as the double elbow of the outer # USED nymph at 07:30. That "original" left arm, like the left arms of 10 of # USED the other 14 nymphs on this page, is tucked inside the tub. # USED # USED Moreover, all the other nymphs on this page (which I think it is the # USED earliest one with nymphs in the whole VMS) still have their Trump # USED signature pubic area prudely hidden inside the tubs. I conclude that the # USED details of that nymphs below her belly, whatever they were supposed to # USED be, are bogus "enhancements" by the Retracer, too. The original drawing # USED probably had just the (contorted and ungainly) torso emerging from the # USED tub. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 07-06-2025, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2025, 03:22 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) (07-06-2025, 11:09 AM)oshfdk Wrote: This l from 71r # USED (snippet 5) does look significantly darker in red/IR, but I see no # USED evidence of any obvious previous shape, no obvious double strokes or # USED anything like this. # USED # USED Thanks a lot for the MIS images! But I must apologize for a mistake: the # USED examples of "misshaped glyphs" on f71r were samples 6 and 7, not 4 and # USED 5. # USED # USED Anyway, as I wrote, on those two pages my hypothetical Retracer worked # USED only on the nymphs, if at all; not on the text. # USED # USED A more interesting example would be my sample 6 from f70. The hairline # USED of the nymph is clearly retraced, and the ink colors are very different. # USED That sample also has some of the light golden-yellow paint (distinct # USED from the "normal" ink) that was widely used through the VMs, in # USED particular on the hair of nymphs and and inside the stars. It would be # USED interesting to see what multispectral imaging shows about it. # USED # USED (By the way, the Beinecke link to the VMs image viewer has been # USED returning "403 forbidden" for me since yesterday. Is it working for # USED you?) # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED ###################################################################### # USED 07-06-2025, 02:53 PM (07-06-2025, 08:12 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: I # USED thought about whether it was a different ink. That would be walnut ink. # USED It has a more brownish colour. But the recipe is the same. Walnut is # USED used as the tanning agent instead of gall apple. The two colours would # USED allow it. # USED # USED That walnut ink is not at all similar to iron-gall ink. It is a soluble # USED dye ink that has no iron. As that webpage says, it is not waterproof and # USED would probably fade with light. And is made for artistic # USED painting/drawing on paper, not vellum. # USED # USED As one can see in that image, its color behaves in a manner # USED characteristic of soluble ink dyes: as it gets thicker, the hue changes, # USED and eventually becomes black, whatever its original color. This behavior # USED is a consequence of how they get their color: light goes through the # USED ink, scatters off the background surface (paper etc) and goes through # USED the ink again. The amount of light that gets absorbed by a layer of ink # USED of some unit thickness is some function T(f) of the wavelength f. The # USED shape of the function T (the transmittance spectrum) determines the # USED ink's color. The paper may absorb some light too; the fraction P(f) that # USED it scatters is its reflectance spectrum, which defines its color (P(f) = # USED 1 at any f for white paper). For an ink layer of general thickness x, # USED applied over paper, the fraction of light that comes back out is T(f) # USED raised to the power 2x times P(f). Since T(f) is always less than 1, as # USED x increases the result tends to zero, irrespective of the ink and paper # USED color. # USED # USED Suspension inks are another type of ink that is rather distinct from # USED soluble dye ones. They consist of finely powdered insoluble opaque solid # USED (a pigment) suspended in a binder such as gum arabic glue. The particles # USED are held onto the surface of the paper only by the binder, and thus # USED these inks are not usually waterproof and can be rubbed off. The # USED particles have a fixed reflectance spectrum R(f) that determines the # USED pigment's color. When the ink is applied over paper in a relatively thin # USED layer, some of the light will be scattered by the particles, some will # USED pass between them and will be scattered by the paper. The overall color # USED will be y R(f) + (1-y) P(f), where y is the fraction of the area that is # USED covered by the particles. At low y (diluted ink) the effect will be # USED similar to that of diluted dye ink. However, as the ink gets thicker, # USED the fraction y eventually becomes 1. At that point the inked surface # USED will have reflectance R(f), and making the ink layer thicker will have # USED no effect. Tempera and oil paints are intended to be used with full # USED coverage (y = 1). Watercolors are meant to be used with coverage varying # USED all the way between 0 and 1. # USED # USED Iron-gall ink is a third class of ink, which may be called mordant inks. # USED It is made by mixing a source of tannin with green vitriol (iron II # USED sulfate) Tannin molecules have many flexible arms that will stick to # USED protein molecules in general, thus binding them together. It is the # USED substance that "ties up the mouth" when we eat an unripe banana. It # USED hampers digestion of food by binding to digestive enzymes. Plants make # USED it as a defense against predators in general. # USED # USED When solutions of tannin and iron(II) sulfate are mixed, some arms of # USED the tannin molecule will wrap around the iron ions. This iron-tannin # USED complex remains soluble for a while. If it is applied to vellum, it will # USED infiltrate it and then the tannins will stick to the proteins in the # USED leather, thus binding the iron to the vellum. Soon the iron(II) ions # USED will oxidize to iron(III) and the complex will become a deep blue-black; # USED at the same time the complexes will bind to each other through the iron # USED atoms, with will help make the ink waterproof. This last process will # USED happen also when the liquid ink exposed to air, causing the complex to # USED precipitate out of solution rendering the ink useless. Even if stirred, # USED this spoiled ink will be a mere suspension ink, neither waterproof nor # USED rubbing-proof. # USED # USED Well-prepared iron-gall ink works well only on surfaces with proteins, # USED such as vellum and parchment. It will soak into the fibers of paper but # USED will not chemically bind to the cellulose. Still, it was commonly used # USED on paper too because it was available, and was a nice purple-black when # USED dry. It was not quite waterproof, but the paper wasn't either, so that # USED did not matter. # USED # USED However, iron-gall ink is like the first Ford Model T: it can be any of # USED color, as long as it is black. So, colored ink, like the red one used on # USED f67r2, is definitely not iron-gall. # USED # USED And here comes the big question: is the "normal" VMs ink, used for # USED practically all the text and figure outlines, iron-gall ink, or # USED something else? # USED # USED (I can hear you scream "X-ray fluorescence", but that test is not as # USED conclusive as it is assumed to be. Let me leave it at that...) # USED ###################################################################### # USED 07-06-2025, 11:09 AM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 07-06-2025, # USED 03:29 PM by oshfdk.) (07-06-2025, 09:37 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: Two # USED glyphs in the middle text ring are somewhat darker than the surrounding # USED ones: an in the word and an isolated next to the # USED "notched square" delimiter. Several other words appear to be retraced, # USED and several glyphs are misshaped to some extent (4,5). # USED # USED This l from 71r (snippet 5) does look significantly darker in red/IR, # USED but I see no evidence of any obvious previous shape, no obvious double # USED strokes or anything like this. The below is the contact sheet of all MSI # USED channels for this l. I don't know why it's darker specifically in IR/red # USED channels and looks almost the same as the rest of the text in UV. It # USED just looks as if this whole text was only written once, but one # USED particular letter got a much redder/darker portion of ink. Maybe the # USED letter itself was written out of sequence. # USED # USED # USED # USED (07-06-2025, 09:37 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: The word at 12:00 on # USED the middle text ring is darker than surrounding ones, so it may have # USED been written out of sequence. # USED # USED I won't post the whole sheet for otodal, it's rather unremarkable, but # USED what is interesting is the patchy appearance in near IR below (780 and # USED 940 nm, if the filenames mean what I think they do). So it looks like # USED the ink had a lot of irregularity, which could explain why some strokes # USED are darker than the others. # USED # USED # USED # USED (Edit: forgot my usual disclaimer: I know nothing about multispectral # USED photography, so my interpretations are not to be taken for granted.) # USED ###################################################################### # USED 07-06-2025, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2025, 09:41 AM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) (06-06-2025, 01:48 PM)oshfdk Wrote: If there are any # USED examples from f70v1 or f71r, I can make channel split images from the # USED MSIs. They are a bit higher resolution and much better at separating # USED inks from the vellum. # USED # USED I got most of the other images but the Beinecke library site went down # USED before I got f47r. But I did get f70v1 and f71r: f70v1: All text and # USED labels seem to be in the "normal" ink, only perhaps darker than usual. # USED There are large variations of stroke color in them but they all seem to # USED be consistent with ink flow effects. The word at 12:00 on the # USED middle text ring is darker than surrounding ones, so it may have been # USED written out of sequence. The darker strokes that could be attributed to # USED the Retracer are on a few nymphs, with his/her characteristic # USED "obsessions": hair and hat, breasts, body outline. There are no obvious # USED cases of original strokes peeking form under the dark ones, but some of # USED the dark strokes on the nymph outlines (e. g. on the left breasts) # USED transition abruptly from and to lighter strokes, as if they had # USED precisely covered part of the latter. [Image: examples-f70v1.png] f71r: # USED The Retracer apparently did very little on this page. Only three of the # USED nymphs have details in significantly darker ink: hair details on two, a # USED "scalloped shower-cap" on the other. Two glyphs in the middle text ring # USED are somewhat darker than the surrounding ones: an in the word # USED and an isolated next to the "notched square" delimiter. # USED Several other words appear to be retraced, and several glyphs are # USED misshaped to some extent (4,5). However, these are all in # USED "normal"-looking ink. Moreover, I believe that this page was one of the # USED first to be produced by the original Scribe; so those misshaped glyphs # USED and retracings could be due to him/her, no to the Retracer. [Image: # USED examples-f71r.png] # USED ###################################################################### 07-06-2025, 06:37 AM [KOEN] Often the retracing of images doesn't even increase the quality: it's just the same ugly lines as before. Weirdly oriented breasts drawn with a shaky line. Headgear made of a scalloped line, something even toddlers can do. To me this looks like the same person doing a second pass. If this is the case, the first pass ink was still dark when this happened, so the person did not notice the stark contrast they were creating. For some reason, the ink of the second pass would age darker. ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 05:32 PM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 06-06-2025, # USED 05:34 PM by oshfdk.) (06-06-2025, 05:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: So we # USED seem to agree that on those (and several other) words there are both # USED dark strokes and very faint ones. The dispute is whether both were drawn # USED at the same time, and came out different because of ink flow effects; or # USED the word was written once, was or became faint, and then was carefully, # USED but not always completely, retraced with dark ink. Is that a good # USED summary of the issue? # USED # USED Yes, this is a good summary. # USED # USED (06-06-2025, 05:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: In this image, the dark # USED strokes create two invalid glyphs, a reversed "i" with serif and an # USED incomplete infinity symbol. I don't see how those symbols could be # USED interpreted as valid glyphs with some parts missing. # USED # USED The infinity symbol is rare, but still appears a few times in the MS. # USED Probably this is just e and o jammed together. There has been a # USED discussion about these fused symbols, I think it was Dobri who started # USED it. Here's the thread # USED https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4470-po...l#pid64068 and I'm attaching # USED a sample image of fused characters I made for that thread. So, yes, it's # USED rare, but I don't think it's an invalid character in the sense that by # USED producing it the scribe indicated their lack of knowledge of the script. # USED # USED As for "reversed "i" with serif", I think there are a lot of base # USED minim/curve variations in the MS, so I'm not sure this symbol is # USED particularly strange, it's just not the most common version. If needed I # USED can try hunting for more examples, I don't have them ready. # USED # USED # USED Attached Files Image(s) ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 05:05 PM (06-06-2025, 01:31 PM)oshfdk Wrote: I can see that # USED the tip of the weird e glyph in y keeody wasn't very visible and that # USED the plumes of r and n were very faint, but it still looks like a single # USED character written once and not a retracing, but that's about it. # USED # USED So we seem to agree that on those (and several other) words there are # USED both dark strokes and very faint ones. The dispute is whether both were # USED drawn at the same time, and came out different because of ink flow # USED effects; or the word was written once, was or became faint, and then was # USED carefully, but not always completely, retraced with dark ink. Is that a # USED good summary of the issue? # USED # USED As evidence for the second view, let me point again to my example #3 in # USED this gallery # USED # USED [Image: examples-f73v.png] # USED # USED (Note that the label is almost upside down here.) # USED # USED In this image, the dark strokes create two invalid glyphs, a reversed # USED "i" with serif and an incomplete infinity symbol. I don't see how those # USED symbols could be interpreted as valid glyphs with some parts missing. # USED Whoever drew the dark strokes definitely drew them in the wrong place # USED and with the wrong shape. I can make sense of the "infinity" only by # USED assuming that the original was a "ch" (whose ligature I think I can see # USED poking out in the middle of the "infinity") that was retraced by someone # USED who mistook the two "e" strokes for two joined circles. And the reversed # USED "i" before it was perhaps an "e" whose bottom half was too faint, and # USED was mistook for a straight stroke with a serif. # USED # USED In example #4, the "i" stroke after the "a"/"o" would be a valid glyph, # USED but the word endings "oi" and "ai" are very rare, if they occur at all. # USED On the other hand "or" and "ar" are very common words; and indeed I # USED think I can see a very faint "r"-plume that starts at that "i" stroke, # USED glances off the nymph's hand, and curls above the gap between that "i" # USED and the next glyph. I am sure that anyone who was familiar with the # USED Voynichese alphabet (like the Scribe who wrote most of the VMs) and with # USED "typical" word patterns would have guessed an "r" there. # USED # USED These examples are all from f73v because it is the image I had at hand # USED at the time. I will try to show examples from other pages too. # USED # USED Even if my interpretation is correct, it will make little difference for # USED the understanding of the text of the VMs -- since the hypothetical # USED Retracer was obviously very careful there, and the errors that he made # USED (like that "infinity" above) would be negligible compared to all the # USED other errors that are likely to exist. One place where this question may # USED be relevant is the 17 x 4 sequence on page f57v: the failures in the # USED repetition may be due to incorrect retracing. # USED # USED The retracing may have a greater impact in the interpretation of # USED figures, since certain puzzling details -- like the crown on the Libra # USED page, or the barrels at the top of Sagittarius -- appear to have been # USED wholly created by the Retracer from nothing. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2025, 12:53 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: Retoucher -> Retracer ) (06-06-2025, 07:27 # USED AM)oshfdk Wrote: The word that shows clear obvious retracing/correction # USED is the first word of this block of text. And it is very obviously # USED retraced/touched up. Nowhere else in this block I can see anything # USED similar. [...] # USED # USED So, I still think the most likely explanation here is some problem with # USED the writing utensil or ink that made the first word very faint and the # USED scribe decided to fix this immediately. # USED # USED Looking at the whole page (not just the text) should give a different # USED perspective. # USED # USED The figures show clear signs of retracing, and in a pattern similar to # USED that seen in the Zodiac pages. Namely, emphasis on hair and body outline # USED of the nymphs, and addition of the characteristic "lobed shower-caps" on # USED the two nymphs on the left margin. The retouching is most visible on the # USED "satyr" and nymph at the upper right corner -- whose original outlines # USED are considerably faded, whereas the retraced parts show no sign of # USED fading. It seems clear those darker strokes are either retracing faded # USED original outlines, or adding spurious details like the showercaps. # USED # USED On the text, I see three things # USED # USED "normal" strokes with ink that gradually varies in color from dark # USED yellowish brown to light yellowish brown, then suddenly back to dark # USED when the pen is re-loaded with ink, as in the second qotal on line 3 # USED # USED retracings by the Scribe him/herself going back a few words and # USED correcting or reinforcing a few glyphs, like the first "l" and "o" on # USED line 2, and second "d" on lines 5 and 6; # USED # USED very rare retracings by the Retracer. # USED # USED Distinguishing between (2) and (3) is hard because the original text on # USED this page is not faded, except on the row of labels at the top, and uses # USED a relatively dark (but still yellowish) ink. For this reason, # USED presumably, the Retracer saw no need to retouch the text. However, on # USED that same word that you mention, I would say that the darker strokes # USED (which are visibly retraced over lighter strokes) are the work of the # USED Retracer, not of the original Scribe. # USED # USED By coincidence, that word is right next to a nymph that clearly had her # USED outline retraced in part (from the cheek down to the groin at left, from # USED the armpit to the waist at right), random wisps drawn over her hair, and # USED a "lobed showercap" added. # USED # USED Another possible example of (3) are the words qok and qokan, 4 and 5 # USED lines down from that word. It seems that there is a defect on the vellum # USED at that spot that interfered with the writing. On the first word, note # USED how the bottom half of the "o" and the top loop of the "k" are in # USED "normal" ink, and the latter is rather faint. As I see it, the Retracer # USED (not the original Scribe) clumsily tried to enhance those glyphs. Ditto # USED for the second word, on the next line, where the original plume of the # USED "n" was no longer visible, and the Retracer provided a misshaped one, # USED straight up with a round corner at the bottom. The ink in both # USED corrections is visibly darker than the darkest parts of the original # USED writing, just around those words. # USED # USED There is also a vertical stroke above the "o" of the first word, also in # USED the very dark Retracer ink. It may be an accident, but may also be some # USED noise that the Retracer mistook for a faded vertical plume, and decided # USED to "enhance" it -- again revealing his/her ignorance of the Voynichese # USED alphabet. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### 06-06-2025, 10:00 AM (05-06-2025, 07:59 PM)Bernd Wrote: Is there an # USED assumption why the last zodiac pages are so faded? Was the ink weak from # USED the beginning? Are these pages older or were they subjected to sunlight # USED for long periods (on top)? # USED # USED My guess is that, for several years after it was written, the VMs was # USED kept as a stack of separate quires; each quire being either unbound, or # USED bound all by itself, as a booklet. # USED # USED In the Zodiac section, each bifolio presumably was a quire by itself, as # USED it is now. In that case, when folio f70 was folded in, Aries Dark # USED (f70v1) was the last page of quire 10; Aries Light (f71r) was the first # USED page of quire 11; when folio f72 was folded, Libra (f72v1) was the last # USED page of quire 11; and Scorpio (f73r) was the first page of quire 12. The # USED last page of quire 12 would have been on folio f74, which is missing # USED (and appears to have been cut off after the book was bound; it may be # USED the sample that Georg Baresh sent to Athanasius Kircher). # USED # USED So, if the quires were kept unbounded, those pages above would have # USED suffered more from rubbing and exposure to sunlight than the pages # USED inside the quires. That may explain why some Zodiac pages are more faded # USED than, say, the Biology pages. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 12:51 PM (06-06-2025, 08:11 AM)oshfdk Wrote: # USED # USED I can't see any original faint strokes in these examples. # USED # USED Sorry, how come? In the last three examples, the original (valid) glyphs # USED can be seen under the (invalid) retraced ones. They are very faint (and # USED that would explain why they were retraced), but are definitely there. # USED # USED In each of the first two examples, the original trace cannot be seen # USED under the darker stroke, but it is there before and after it. Whether # USED the original had a gap there or not, it it is obvious that the dark # USED stroke was penned only after the whole nymph was outlined. # USED ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 12:55 PM [STEFAN WIRTZ] (06-06-2025, 07:44 AM)Jorge_Stolfi # USED Wrote: [..] I would say that the Retracer was very careful when # USED retracing the labels, although he/she apparently did not know the # USED alphabet. He was less careful when retouching the figures, and had fun # USED adding details like the "showercaps", crowns, and right breasts. Perhaps # USED because he guessed that (as in European astrological diagrams of the # USED time) the drawings were only ornamentation, and the only important parts # USED were the labels? # USED # USED All the best, --jorge # USED # USED These following are all vords of "sagittarius" f73v inner ring, I tried # USED not to exceed the zoom here to keep things recognizable: # USED # USED [Image: retracer.png?etag=W%2F%224ec0d-6842e09c%...quality=85] # USED # USED To me, there is nothing of any older/faded writing underneath these thin # USED retracing lines. Yes, there are several other positions were the # USED originals can be seen under black ink letters, but there are also # USED further positions were nothing is visible that could have been there # USED "before" the guy with the better ink inserted some vords. # USED # USED Don't get me wrong: I am personally rather convinced that the most # USED "improvements", tunings, the months' names, funny animals, # USED latin-alphabeted scribbles and all pagenumbers were added much later # USED without any understanding of the script itself by some foreigners. But # USED for a solid assessment it is not possible to leave out those details # USED which do not quite fit to one theory or the other. So if there was no # USED retracing or re-lining of previous vords, the dark-ink vocabulary might # USED have been inserted by another during VMS production already, but as well # USED inserted (much) later into blank places which were not used in the # USED original writing. # USED # USED Best regards, # USED # USED S. Wirtz ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 01:31 PM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 06-06-2025, # USED 03:56 PM by oshfdk.) (06-06-2025, 12:51 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: Sorry, # USED how come? In the last three examples, the original (valid) glyphs can be # USED seen under the (invalid) retraced ones. They are very faint (and that # USED would explain why they were retraced), but are definitely there. # USED # USED In each of the first two examples, the original trace cannot be seen # USED under the darker stroke, but it is there before and after it. Whether # USED the original had a gap there or not, it it is obvious that the dark # USED stroke was penned only after the whole nymph was outlined. # USED # USED Unfortunately I still can't see anything definite. In the image below # USED the top is a screenshot from your post, the bottom are (what I think) # USED the corresponding parts from the TIFF, with the curves correction set to # USED try boosting faint lines. I tried not to cut any blacks or whites, set # USED the black to the darkest part and white to the brightest pixel and then # USED use gamma to make it darker. # USED # USED # USED # USED I can see that the tip of the weird e glyph in y keeody wasn't very # USED visible and that the plumes of r and n were very faint, but it still # USED looks like a single character written once and not a retracing, but # USED that's about it. Could you maybe mark on these images the specific lines # USED that you see? There appears to be some kind of barely noticeable faint # USED outlines around all dark strokes, but these are very uniform in width, # USED so probably it's due to minor chromatic aberration or post-processing # USED effects. ###################################################################### # USED 05-06-2025, 09:00 PM [AGA TENTAKULUS] (05-06-2025, 06:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi # USED Wrote: (04-06-2025, 01:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: It would certainly be # USED an argument for the colour of the ink. I'll stick to the simple one # USED first. 1. closed inkwell. Over time, light-coloured ink and watery. # USED Sinking of the particles. 2. open inkwell. Ink becomes thick and sticky. # USED Evaporation and thickening. Seen in this light, the ink does not flow # USED cleanly. # USED # USED One problem with this explanation is that the darker ink is seen only in # USED some pages, and then only some details. On the Zodiac pages, for # USED instance, there are of course many "original" variations in stroke # USED darkness and width that are apparently done in the standard # USED yellowish-brown ink, and therefore can be attributed to ink-flow # USED variations and immediate self-corrections by the Scribe. But there are # USED scattered "new" strokes in a distinctive dark brown-black ink that was # USED used only in the labels of two pages and applied to a bizarre selection # USED of figure details. # USED # USED What is certain is that the font was not finished with the old ink. This # USED only came later with the new, darker ink. Whether the ink was new, or # USED just stirred or thickened, I leave open. What is certain is that the # USED words were finished afterwards. I assume that the other corrections were # USED also made at the same time. The same ink can also be found on other # USED pages in the text. ###################################################################### # USED 05-06-2025, 10:13 PM [STEFAN WIRTZ] (05-06-2025, 06:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi # USED Wrote: [..] What is certain is that the font was not finished with the # USED old ink. This only came later with the new, darker ink. Whether the ink # USED was new, or just stirred or thickened, I leave open. What is certain is # USED that the words were finished afterwards. I assume that the other # USED corrections were also made at the same time. The same ink can also be # USED found on other pages in the text. # USED # USED The whole "retracing" theory has a bit of a problem: under the # USED best-possible enlargements/zooms is nothing of the original words # USED visible anymore. I doubt that, especially in comparison to neighboring, # USED faded, but still readable words those under retracing disappeared so # USED completly / faded to zero, that not the smallest line can be seen # USED anymore. The retrace lining is very thin (and black), so I am sure it # USED would not cover completely the original writing. # USED # USED Apart from that, under some of the Nymphs' "tunings" there are the older # USED lines still visible, which wasn't not exciting enough for the retracer. # USED But this all cannot give secure proof whether those reworks were done 20 # USED minutes, 2 days or 200 years after the first writing of affected pages. ###################################################################### # USED Whenever it happened I'll leave to others, but the fact it did happen # USED seems pretty obvious to me. As pointed out previously, presumably the # USED text was deemed "too faded" which would happen over time. # USED # USED # USED Attached Files Image(s) # USED https://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=10771 ###################################################################### # USED 05-06-2025, 11:14 PM [OSHFDK] (05-06-2025, 10:58 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: # USED Whenever it happened I'll leave to others, but the fact it did happen # USED seems pretty obvious to me. As pointed out previously, presumably the # USED text was deemed "too faded" which would happen over time. # USED # USED I'm not sure what happened in your example. There are two layers of ink # USED there, but to me this doesn't look like a retrace due to fading. Given # USED that this is the first word of the paragraph and no other words appear # USED to show any underlying faded ink, I'd rather believe that the scribe # USED wrote the first word with a dry pen or badly watered down ink and then # USED after realizing the mistake immediately retraced the letters with fresh # USED ink. This is not at all like the proposed retracing on other pages. If # USED anything, this shows what a true retracing would look like and I think # USED it's quite different from dark ink/light ink parts on other pages. ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 07:27 AM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 06-06-2025, # USED 07:31 AM by oshfdk.) (06-06-2025, 07:01 AM)Hider Wrote: Apparently, # USED errors were made in encryption by the author. The curator made # USED corrections in darker ink when checking # USED # USED Let's zoom out a bit: # USED # USED # USED # USED This word that shows clear obvious retracing/correction is the first # USED word of this block of text. And it is very obviously retraced/touched # USED up. Nowhere else in this block I can see anything similar. # USED # USED If this was retracing due to fading, either the rest of the text didn't # USED fade at all, or it was retraced too perfectly leaving no sign of the # USED faded writing. I don't think either is realistic. # USED # USED If this is a correction, it's strange that the wrong text was written in # USED faint ink, and it's also not clear what exactly was corrected. To me # USED this looks like the characters were just retraced as they were, the only # USED one that could be a proper correction is the plume of s in sdy. Could # USED have been just edy in the faint ink. # USED # USED So, I still think the most likely explanation here is some problem with # USED the writing utensil or ink that made the first word very faint and the # USED scribe decided to fix this immediately. # USED # USED This example for me is the strongest argument against proposed retracing # USED of the text in most other places in the MS, because it shows that a # USED retracing would be very obvious. I agree with Stefan here. ###################################################################### # USED 06-06-2025, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2025, 07:49 AM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: explain coordinates ) (05-06-2025, 10:13 # USED PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: The whole "retracing" theory has a bit of a # USED problem: under the best-possible enlargements/zooms is nothing of the # USED original words visible anymore. # USED # USED But in fact there are examples where the "original" strokes are visible # USED under the "new" darker strokes. Here are some examples (all from the # USED Sagittarius page, with coordinates relative to the Beinecke "full jpeg" # USED scan): # USED # USED [Image: examples-f73v.png] f73v Sagittarius 1600,1290 inner band nymph # USED at 11:00 f73v Sagittarius 1280,1870 inner band nymph at 08:00 # USED # USED In both cases, note that the original drawing had the left breast # USED outline, and only half of it was retraced or completed in dark ink. # USED f73v Sagittarius 1240,2300 outer band label at 07:30 # USED # USED (This label is almost upside-down.) Note how the retracing converted two # USED common glyphs, still visible in "normal" ink, into two invalid ones: # USED an "e" into a reverse "i" with serif, and a "ch" into an incomplete # USED infinity symbol. f73v Sagittarius 2000,1520 inner band label at 01:30 # USED # USED Note how only the stem of the "r" was retraced in dark ink, while its # USED very faint plume, still in "normal" ink, was apparently missed. f73v # USED Sagittarius 1820,980 inner band label at 12:30 # USED # USED Here we have the opposite: a plume was retraced but not the glyph where # USED it was originally attached to, leaving it floating in mid-air. (It is # USED hard to tell what the original label was; perhaps "or y"?) # USED # USED I would say that the Retracer was very careful when retracing the # USED labels, although he/she apparently did not know the alphabet. He was # USED less careful when retouching the figures, and had fun adding details # USED like the "showercaps", crowns, and right breasts. Perhaps because he # USED guessed that (as in European astrological diagrams of the time) the # USED drawings were only ornamentation, and the only important parts were the # USED labels? # USED https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/voynich/Notes/075/examples-f73v.png # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 04:41 PM [STEFAN WIRTZ] Even the texts of f75r show under # USED enlargement/zooming a clear tendency to fade into brownish colour tones. # USED At several positions of the script the writers had the opportunity or # USED skill to work in a smaller, compact handwriting with more use of ink. # USED But this ink always seems to come from a same production or mixing # USED principle and remains as a more or less brown lining. # USED # USED Against this, the darker ink of "retractor" aka "ladies private parts' # USED improver", of the months' names, the baby dragon (f25v), the most # USED pagenumbers, the strange animals at and in pond of f79v and several # USED smaller scribbles clearly turns into a grey fading, if at all. "Black" # USED ink still looks black mostly. If it was necessary to retrace some vords # USED in those "zodiacs", it may not happen the next day, but quite timespan # USED later: maybe centuries. I see at least the funny guy who tuned some # USED ladies' drawings and added a dragon and some stranger creatures into the # USED green colour-peeled-off patches of 79v as someone who had nothing to do # USED with the original script and just joked araound a long time later in a # USED book which said him as little as we know today about it. # USED # USED Finally, there is not any proof for one or the other theory to find a # USED valid consensus about it. ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 05:55 PM [OSHFDK] (04-06-2025, 12:40 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: # USED Yes, I am well aware of the changes in darkness due to mere variations # USED of ink flow. Like suddenly darker after dipping the pen in ink, then # USED gradually lighter as the pen runs out of ink. Or when the Scribe # USED him/herself goes back and corrects some mistakes. Or when he/she # USED presumably mixes a new batch of ink halfway through a page. But those # USED are easy to spot because (1) the hue of the ink does not change, and (2) # USED the sequence makes sense considering the way he/she must have operated. # USED # USED I'm not sure the change in hue necessarily means a different kind of # USED ink, if the ink is not mixed very well and there is some layering in the # USED inkwell. And I'm not even sure there is a change in hue. # USED # USED If I understood correctly which ok/tedal you are referring to, here it # USED is from the TIFF. I sampled the hue from the dark label and from the # USED faint nymph outline, and it looks like the hue component is practically # USED the same (30 vs 31). ###################################################################### # USED 05-06-2025, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2025, 06:17 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: missing hald sentence "an obsession # USED which..." ) (04-06-2025, 01:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: It would # USED certainly be an argument for the colour of the ink. I'll stick to the # USED simple one first. 1. closed inkwell. Over time, light-coloured ink and # USED watery. Sinking of the particles. 2. open inkwell. Ink becomes thick and # USED sticky. Evaporation and thickening. Seen in this light, the ink does not # USED flow cleanly. # USED # USED One problem with this explanation is that the darker ink is seen only in # USED some pages, and then only some details. On the Zodiac pages, for # USED instance, there are of course many "original" variations in stroke # USED darkness and width that are apparently done in the standard # USED yellowish-brown ink, and therefore can be attributed to ink-flow # USED variations and immediate self-corrections by the Scribe. But there are # USED scattered "new" strokes in a distinctive dark brown-black ink that was # USED used only in the labels of two pages and applied to a bizarre selection # USED of figure details. Here is a list of the instances I can see, with RB = # USED right breast, LB = left breast, L+RB = both breasts, SSC = "scallopped # USED showercap": Pisces (f70v2): No "new" strokes. Aries Dark (f70v1): Outer # USED band nymph at 07:00 (RB, right groin), 08:00 (RB, hairline, collar, left # USED wristband, left elbow), 09:00 (RB, left eye), 10:30 (hair, star, second # USED star tail, LB? back? chest?), 12:00 (RB, hair, belly?) 01:00 (LB, hair, # USED collar?), 02:30 (RB, hair), 05:30 (hair, wristbands? hands? collar?); # USED inner band nymphs at 12:00 (left face, neck, torso), 07:30 (hair? hat? # USED collar?), and 10:45 (fat striped star tail). Also the word otodal on the # USED middle text ring, except the "a" glyph. Aries Light (f71r): The nymph in # USED the outer band at 02:00 (SSC). Taurus Light (f71v): Outer band nymphs # USED 08:30 (hair), 11:00 (hair), 03:30 (chin, RB) and 06:00 (hair, RB, left # USED arm); inner band nymphs at 05:30 (hair), 07:00 (hat, cheek, belt), 08:00 # USED (hair), 10:30 (hairline), 12:00 (hair and "arches" on barrel). Also a # USED weird "dog nose" on the bull. Taurus Dark (f72r1): Outer band nymphs at # USED 03:30 (RB), 09:15 (RB) and 10:30 (RB). Note that the bull has a fairly # USED realistic nose, unlike that of Taurus Light. Gemini (f72r2): Top nymph, # USED outside circles, at 11:00 (RB); outer band nymphs at 10:45 (RB), 01:30 # USED (RB), 03:30 (RB), 04:00 (RB), 05:00 (RB), and 06:00 (RB); inner band # USED nymphs at 10:30 (RB), 12:30 (RB), 01:30 (RB), 07:00 (RB, hair, belly). # USED Cancer (f72r3): outer band nymphs at 02:00, 03:30, 05:00, and 08:00 (all # USED RBs); middle band at 03:15 (RB), 06:30 (RB and face), 08:00 (RB) and # USED 11:00 (RB), 12:00 (nose and eyebrows); inner band at 12:00 (middle # USED breast(!)), 03:15 (RB, crown, groin), 07:00 (RB), 10:15 (L+RB). Also the # USED month name strokes are darker and wider than those of other text and # USED drawings, including the lobsters'. Leo (f72v3): outer band nymphs at # USED 07:15 (hair, chest), 08:45 (RB), 09:00 (RB), 09:30 (RB), 10:45 (RB), # USED 11:15 (RB), 12:00 (RB, nape, thigh?), 01:15 (RB), 02:30 (L+RB), 03:00 # USED (RB, SSC?), 03:30 (RB), 04:30 (RB), and 06:00 (RB); inner band nymphs at # USED 06:30 (RB, front), 07:45 (RB), 09:15 (RB, left leg, right foot), 10:45 # USED (RB), 11:45 (RB), 12:30 (right thigh), 02:00 (RB), 03:00 (RB), 04:30 # USED (RB), and 05:00 (RB). Also maybe the month's name. Virgo (f72v2): outer # USED band nymphs at 11:30 (RB, SSC), 12:15 (RB), 13:00 (RB), 13:45 (RB), # USED 04:00 (RB), right leg), 05:00 (L+RB, left hand, right armpit, SSC), # USED 06:00 (RB, hair, upper right arm, right thigh), 06:30 (RB, SSC, hair, # USED right groin), 07:00 (RB), 07:30 (RB, SSC), 08:15 (RB), 09:00 (RB, hair), # USED 10:00 (RB), and 10:45 (top of hat?); inner band nymphs at 12:30 (RB), # USED 13:15 (RB), 03:00 (RB, SSC, belly, groin), 04:00 (L+RB), 05:00 (RB), # USED 06:15 (RB, nose? groin?), 07:15 (RB, SSC), 08:00 (RB, hairline), 09:15 # USED (RB), and 11:30 (RB). Also perhaps the month's name. Libra (f72v1): # USED outer band nymphs at 12:00 (RB), 12:30 (RB, right thigh and pubis, eyes, # USED crown), 01:00 (RB, hair, eyes), 01:30 (RB), 02:30 (RB), 03:00 (RB), # USED 03:30 (RB), 04:00 (L+RB), 04:45 (RB, left knee?, left arm?, pubis?) # USED 05:00 (RB, hair), 5:45 (RB), 06:15 (RB), 07:00 (RB), 07:30 (RB, SSC?) # USED 08:00 (RB, SSC), 09:15 (RB), 10:15 (L+RB, nose tip) 10:45 (L+RB, left # USED eye), and 11:30 (RB, hair?); inner band nymphs at 12>15 (RB?) 01:15 (RB, # USED left thigh), 04:15 (RB, hair, SSC), 05:30 (RB, hair), 06:30 (RB, SSC), # USED 07:30 (RB), 09:00 (RB, hair), and 08:15 (RB). Also perhaps the month's # USED name. Scorpio (f73r): top nymphs, outside circles, at 11:00 (RB, hair, # USED SSC), 11:30 (RB, hair), 12:30 (L+RB, hair, SSC), and 01:00 (L+RB, hair, # USED right thigh); outer band at 12:00 (RB, left eye), 01:00 (hair, L+RB, # USED eyes), 01:30 (RB, hair), 02:00 (RB, right thigh), 03:00 (RB, left arm?) # USED 03:45 (L+RB), 04:45 (RB), 05:30 (RB, SSC, left thigh), 06:30 (RB, left # USED eyebrow), 07:15 (RB), 07:45 (RB, right thigh), 08:30 (RB), 09:30 (LB, # USED eyes), 10:30 (L+RB), 11:00 (RB), and 11:30 (L+RB, hair, right thigh); # USED inner band nymphs at 12:30 (L+RB, hair), 01:30 (L+RB), 03:30 (RB), 05:00 # USED (RB), 06:30 (RB), 07:00 (RB) 08:30 (RB), 09:30 (L+RB, eyes), 10:30 (RB), # USED and 11:30 (RB, right arm). Also all labels outside the circles, all # USED outer labels from 03:15 and 11:00, and all inner labels from 04:00 to # USED 10:45. And the month's name. (Note that the top half of the first "e" is # USED in the standard ink.) Sagittarius (f73v): top nymphs, outside circles, # USED at 11:00 (RB, barrel), 11:30 (RB, hairline, right eye), 12:00 (RB, top # USED of LB, hair, eyes), and 12:30 (RB, armpit, right eye); outer band nymphs # USED at 12:00 (RB), 12:30 (RB, hair, SSC), 01:00 (right eye), 01:30 (RB), # USED 02:15 (RB, SSC, hair), 03:15 (RB), 04:00 (RB), 05:00 (RB), 06:00 (RB), # USED 07:00 (RB, bottom or nose, eyes), 07:30 (RB, eyes), 08:15 (RB, eyes), # USED 09:00 (RB, partial SSC), 10:00 (RB), 10:45 (RB), and 11:30 (L+RB, SSC, # USED hair); inner band nymphs at 01:15 (L+RB), 02:30 (RB), 04:30 (RB), 06:00 # USED (L+RB), 07:00 (RB), 08:00 (L+RB), 09:30 (RB), and 11:30 (RB). Also maybe # USED the month's name. And all the labels (but not the text rings). # USED # USED The dark ink strokes may also include many nipples and eye pupils, but # USED since these are mere dots it is hard to tell. I would guess that dots # USED tend to be darker than traces in any case because of thew way ink flows # USED on a quill pen. # USED # USED So, whoever applied those distinctively dark strokes was obsessed with # USED female hair and breasts; an obsession which does not seem to have been # USED so strong in the original Scribe. (Could it be that the original Scribe # USED was a 12-year-old boy, and the Retracer was the same boy but a couple of # USED years older? Hmmm...) # USED # USED On Pisces, there is somewhat darker ink in the are around the fold at # USED 07:00: some glyphs of the words okey, chtoldy, and otees in the outer # USED text ring, the outer nymph just under those words, and her star and # USED tail; but they seem to be "original", due to ink flow and sequence # USED effects. Also, on the Beinecke images, the darker color of the ink on # USED those strokes there seems to be due to tiny black spots, that may be # USED large ink particles in "expired" ink, or pockets on the vellum where the # USED ink pooled. # USED # USED A particularly interesting example is the outer band nymph at 05:30 on # USED Scorpio (f73r). A dark stroke (B) was applied apparently to complete the # USED lower outline of the left thigh; but that part of the outline had # USED already been drawn in normal ink (A). It would seem that the Retracer # USED (whoever applied B) did not see A, or mistook it for something else, or # USED (less likely) thought that A was wrong and corrected it. # USED # USED (By the way, if you are looking at that part of the image with good # USED resolution, note that the tail of the "l" glyph in the shekal label of # USED the preceding nymph is much fainter than the body. I would say that only # USED the body was retraced, leaving the tail as it was.) # USED # USED An even more interesting example is on the Sagittarius page (f73v), in # USED the rather misshaped "barrels" of the first two nymphs at the top of # USED diagram. I propose that those barrels were not drawn by the original # USED Scribe and were added by the Retracer, who misinterpreted the lower # USED outline of the left thighs of those two nymphs as the top outlines of # USED two "barrels" -- and thus decided to complete the drawing with the rest # USED of the "barrels", which he/she assumed had been worn off. Namely, he/she # USED drew the "lips" at the end of each "barrel", and the horizontal traces # USED attached to those "lips" -- neither of which were there before. # USED # USED By the way, on that same page, note that the label on the outer band at # USED 07:30 seems to have been originally ykechdy, but the retracing turned # USED the "e" into an invalid glyph like a flipped "i" with a serif, and the # USED "ch" into another invalid glyph, like an incomplete infinity symbol. # USED Futher evidence that the Retracer did not even know the Voynichese # USED alphabet. # USED # USED I take these two examples, and other details, as evidence that the # USED Retracer (who made the "new" strokes) and the original Scribe (who wrote # USED and drew everything else) were different persons; and also that the # USED Retracer had no clue about the nature and meaning of these diagrams. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 05-06-2025, 06:55 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2025, 06:57 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: typo ) Leaving the Retracer issue aside, # USED about the the bulk of the text having been written by two or more # USED Scribes, I would say that # USED # USED One could in principle objectively establish that there are multiple # USED handwritings, by statistical analysis of glyph shapes. However, whether # USED those handwritings belonged to distinct people is a separate theory, # USED that needs its own evidence. My own hadwriting has changed an awful lot # USED over the years, and still varies a lot depending on my state of mind and # USED rest, posture, writing instrument and medium, etc. The variations are # USED much bigger than what we see in the VMS. The "splitters" who saw # USED multiple handwritings may have succumbed to "confirmation bias". Namely, # USED once they got the hunch that there were multiple Scribes, they set out # USED to find evidence confirming it -- differences in glyph shapes -- while # USED ignoring the much stronger evidence that contradictd it -- the # USED similarities in glyph shapes. And one similarity, in particular, is the # USED range of variation of glyph shapes within the same page, or even the # USED same line. That is, the writing everywhere is very similar because it is # USED similarly variable. Surely there was some Author who decided to write # USED this book, decided what would be in it, and invented the script. The # USED Author must have drafted the text and sketched the figures on paper # USED first; it would be insanity to write everything directly from his head # USED onto vellum. Then he/she gave the draft and sketches to a Scribe who # USED clean-copied them to the vellum. If there was only one Scribe, he/she # USED may have been the same as the Author. If the Scribe was a different # USED person, the Author had to teach him/her the Voynichese alphabet, and had # USED him/her train writing it until the Author was satisfied with the result. # USED If there was a single Scribe, he/she could be an Author's secretary, # USED apprentice, relative, etc. But if there were five or six Scribes, the # USED Author had to recruit, teach, and train all of them; which makes the # USED idea quite a bit less likely. Moreover, these multiple Scribes also had # USED to conspire and train to write in similarly sloppy ways -- so similar # USED that at least one handwriting expert and many amateur ones would swear # USED that there was just one Scribe. ###################################################################### # USED 5-06-2025, 07:59 PM [BERND] Interesting observations about the retracer, # USED Jorge! I had assumed it was the same person who drew the balneological # USED nymphs because only in the retraced zodiac nymphs we see c-o shaped # USED eyes. # USED # USED It is really strange that he was so adamant on retracing the breasts. # USED The question is - did he retrace or add them? There are some original # USED nyphs with only one breast that is in the outline. # USED # USED I can't comment specifically on the text but in my opinion everything # USED was drawn by the same person. And seeing that the illustrations appear # USED to show a similar continuum as the text (Page / Bifolio as a Fuction) I # USED don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the entire VM is an organic # USED whole produced by one person. With the probable exception of month names # USED and page numbers. # USED # USED Is there an assumption why the last zodiac pages are so faded? Was the # USED ink weak from the beginning? Are these pages older or were they # USED subjected to sunlight for long periods (on top)? ###################################################################### 03-06-2025, 09:11 PM (03-06-2025, 03:47 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: many years later another person (the "Retracer") went through the manuscript, retracing many faded glyphs and figure details in a distinctive very dark ink. He may have been the same who retraced some lines of page f67r2 with red ink. But this Retracer also added some fancy details that apparently were not in the original (such as the crowns and multi-lobed "shower caps" on some of the Zodiac nymphs, e.g. the outer one at 05:30 on Scorpio). Is there any way to establish how much later this could have happened? ###################################################################### # USED 03-06-2025, 11:02 PM (03-06-2025, 09:11 PM)Bernd Wrote: Is there any way # USED to establish how much later this [retracing] could have happened? # USED # USED No idea. Except that it must have been decades later, because the # USED obvious motivation was that the original writing had faded out to the # USED point of becoming almost illegible. # USED # USED Also, the original Scribe must have known the Voynichese alphabet and # USED must have been supervised by the Author who invented the script (if they # USED were not the same person); whereas the Retracer seems to have worked # USED independently and did not know the alphabet. The Retracer was generally # USED very careful while retracing the text, but, IIRC, there are a few cases # USED where he/she mangled a glyph into an invalid squiggle. ###################################################################### # USED 03-06-2025, 11:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2025, 11:50 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: Note on character encoding - black # USED question marks. ) I think I saw someone in this forum, possible in this # USED thread, asking for a statistical summary of the nymphs and stars in the # USED Zodiac section. Maybe this file can help. It is (or was meant to be) a # USED verbal description of every page of the VMs. I started this project back # USED in 2000 or so, but it is still incomplete. The Zodiac pages should be # USED complete, though. # USED # USED I don't know how useful this file could be to Voynichologists, but, for # USED me, writing it was and is very useful -- because it forced me to really # USED look at every detail of each page, like how many leaves each plant has, # USED what each nymph is doing with her hands and feet, etc. -- and thus # USED notice many things that I had missed before. # USED # USED PS. That file is in the ISO Latin-1 encoding, and unfortunately the WWW # USED server of my univ does not like that and turns all Latin-1 characters # USED that are not ASCII into a black question mark. You will have to download # USED the file (say. with "wget") and read it with a suitable editor. ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 07:37 AM You can see it even better on page 115r. The second # USED part is lighter in colour. I am not thinking of a new mixture. I also # USED rule out diluting it a little more with water, as it wasn't particularly # USED dark before either. It is clear to me that the time it takes for the # USED pigments to settle is the main reason why the ink appears lighter. This # USED would have to be tested. How does it change after a few days if you # USED don't stir it? 1 day.....2day....etc. ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 07:37 AM [OSHFDK] (This post was last modified: 04-06-2025, # USED 07:38 AM by oshfdk.) What is more, there has been a discussion recently # USED (can't find it now, but I think ReneZ was involved) about the specific # USED properties of the iron gall ink and how some of it becomes much darker # USED over time via some chemical reactions with the vellum. This process # USED depends on the composition of the ink and it's not very easy to predict # USED which parts will get much darker if the ink is not very evenly mixed. # USED So, when the scribe initially inked the text, the text may have looked # USED much less pronounced and the scribe may have felt the need to strengthen # USED some of the outlines. # USED # USED I think I saw a proper paper on this, but I can't find it either, so # USED here's a link to a reddit thread: # USED https://www.reddit.com/r/fountainpens/co...over_time/ # USED # USED There it's claimed that the ink on a page gets darker within the first # USED 30-90 seconds, but then can get darker still within a day or so. # USED However, I assume this is talking about modern inks made with modern # USED technology. I vaguely remember reading in the past that authentic # USED medieval recipes produce inks that take much longer to darken and are # USED much less predicable in this. ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2025, 12:57 PM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi. Edit Reason: typos ) Yes, I am well aware of the # USED changes in darkness due to mere variations of ink flow. Like suddenly # USED darker after dipping the pen in ink, then gradually lighter as the pen # USED runs out of ink. Or when the Scribe him/herself goes back and corrects # USED some mistakes. Or when he/she presumably mixes a new batch of ink # USED halfway through a page. But those are easy to spot because (1) the hue # USED of the ink does not change, and (2) the sequence makes sense considering # USED the way he/she must have operated. # USED # USED And I am well aware of the chemistry of iron-gall ink. # USED # USED However, the retracings by the Retracer are quite distinctive in both # USED counts. The ink is not just darker, but has a different hue and # USED appearance: almost black, tending to purple rather than yellow -- as one # USED would expect from iron-gall ink. And it is applied in an unsystematic # USED manner: either on parts (text or figures) where the original ink had # USED clearly faded with time, or to add details that clearly were not there # USED initially, like the crowns and "lobed showercaps" in the Zodiac pages. # USED # USED Of the images you posted, f75r and the starred parags section are # USED examples of the former. Whereas f73r clearly shows the difference # USED between normal ink flow effects (e.g. in the text rings) and the # USED Retoucher's work. The former can be seen, for instance, in the middle # USED text ring at about 02:00: note how the traces become gradually fainter, # USED then suddenly darker but with the same yellowish brown hue. # USED # USED In contrast, note how the darker labels are uniformly dark, while the # USED lighter ones, by comparison, are uniformly light apart from normal # USED ink-flow variations. On higher resolution images, as one can download # USED from the Beinecke site, original faint yellowish brown strokes can be # USED seen in places under the dark labels; for instance, the "feet" of the k # USED gallows on the okedal label in the outer-band at 07:00. # USED # USED On the figures, note how the darker strokes cannot be explained by ink # USED flow variations or the original Scribe going back to fix mistakes and # USED accidental faint strokes. The darker ink was applied to the right breast # USED of almost every nymph, and to the left breasts, nipples, eyes, eyebrows, # USED and other details of some of them, apparently at random. Check the left # USED thigh of the outer nymph at 05:30, the right thigh of the one at 07:30, # USED and the right arm of the inner nymph at 11:00. All three are (wrongly) # USED retraced over a light yellowish brown trace, which the Retracer # USED apparently did not notice. And the dark traces on hair and "showercaps" # USED of some nymphs are clearly spurious additions. # USED # USED It would be very helpful if Beinecke provided some really high # USED resolution images, even if only of small selected areas of selected # USED pages. High enough that one could see whether glyphs or figure details # USED have been traced once or twice. # USED # USED PS - don't waste time and space downloading the "full size original # USED (tiff)" images from the Beinecke site. They are the same as the "Full # USED size (jpg)" images, merely converted to the much more wasteful TIFF # USED format. With the same resolution and JPEG encoding artifacts. ###################################################################### # USED 04-06-2025, 01:17 PM (04-06-2025, 07:04 AM)Koen G Wrote: At some point # USED in the history of Voynich research, it was fashionable to envisage a # USED parade of successive owners messing with the ink and the paint. (Nick # USED Pelling often argues something along those lines). I think that's pure # USED fantasy. Darker ink may have been from a different batch prepared the # USED same day for all we know. # USED # USED Indeed, one may easily go overboard with the "splitting". But it is a # USED consensus that several distinct agents added stuff to the VMS: the quire # USED numbers, the folio numbers, the month names, the marginal "letter" # USED tables, the 116v and other "semi-Roman" text, the penciled "a" and "b" # USED on f70r, the Jacobus signature... While some of these "agents" may have # USED been the same person, it is very unlikely that they all were the same # USED Scribe who penned all of the text. So the existence of a Retracer would # USED not be extraordinary. # USED # USED On the other hand, I tend to agree with that earlier handwriting expert # USED that there was only one original Scribe, who wrote all the text and drew # USED all the figures in the same yellowish brown ink. I respect Lisa's # USED expertise, but I believe that it does not apply to the VMs -- because # USED its nature and the circumstances of its creation are quite unlike those # USED of most manuscripts that she built her expertise upon. The variations in # USED glyph shapes that are supposed to indicate different "hands" on # USED different pages is dwarfed by the similarities that indicate the # USED opposite. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 11-10-2025, 10:00 PM Enough with pareidolia, let's try a bit of good old # USED paranoia. # USED # USED Here is again the E half of the big green pool at the bottom of f82r. # USED This time let's ignore the things that may be hidden by the green paint, # USED and focus on what is outside it. # USED # USED # USED # USED Here is what I see with my Ordinary Voynichologist Paranoia: # USED # USED The blue tub's outline (A1) seems original. Why does the second outline # USED (A2) stop at that point? How come the wall (A3) of the tub extends below # USED the floor? # USED # USED The outline of the big green pool at (B1) does not seem to want to meet # USED his buddy (B2) across the blue tub and pipe. # USED # USED The upright pipe of Miss okairady has a left outline that extends down # USED at least to (C1). Why is there no outline on the other side, at (C2)? # USED Why is the area (C3) at right of the tube, clearly inside the big green # USED pool, not painted green? # USED # USED What is the line at (D1)? The outline of a fat arm? And the stroke (D2)? # USED # USED The shoulder line of Miss olaiin must be the line that extends from the # USED outline of her neck. Then what are strokes (E1,E2,E3,E4)? # USED # USED And, speaking of Miss olaiin, is (F1) her breast, or her thoracic third # USED fourth eye, with swollen eyelid below and angry eyebrow above? # USED # USED Three theories for the double trace (G1,G2): (a) there are actually two # USED nymphs in that tub, (b) the nymph is actually a cut-out, part of the # USED place's decoration © the Author was not happy and told the Scribe to # USED make her plumper, (d) the Scribe had a glass too many and was seeing # USED double. # USED # USED Speaking of which, the right arm (H1) of that nymph is in a very strange # USED and strained position. Could it be that it was added by a (ahem!) # USED Retracer who did not notice the actual arm (H2), and mistook the hand # USED (H3) for er... something else? # USED # USED Lapsing into pareidolia mode again for a moment: could (J1) be the # USED original outline of of the right arm of Miss dolol, and (J2) be her # USED hand? # USED # USED People have been assuming that the green stuff inside the big pool is # USED water. But the Cutout Nymph at the NW corner is sitting inside a hole # USED (K1) that was cut out neatly from that stuff. Proving that it is not # USED water, but rather stiff lime jelly. And it is only a thin layer of jelly # USED smeared on the floor, since the hole leads to a well-lit space under the # USED floor. # USED # USED Why did the Painter leave (L1) and (L2) unpainted? Just to show us how # USED sloppy he was? # USED # USED Actually the big green "pool" must be a giant nymph-eating amoeba, since # USED it reproduces by budding, as seen at (M1). # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 11-10-2025, 11:22 PM [BLUETOES101] Damn it Jorge, you are going to make # USED me reveal my own hallucinations! A while back, I had thought there was # USED areas of multiple lines being used to convey a message, and the "solver" # USED had noted these same patterns. I believe the comparison images are from # USED a 15c blood letting, as per moon cycle chart, but I'd have to check # USED notes # USED # USED # USED But the MSI images showed actually, I'm an idiot. # USED # USED # USED # USED it's not 1 for 1, but shows how you can't trust scans. There are some # USED fully legit examples of writing under paint, I have a partial mapping of # USED "p" throughout the manuscript somewhere, but for the most part I think # USED it's smoke and mirrors ###################################################################### # USED 12-10-2025, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2025, 09:43 AM # USED by Jorge_Stolfi.) Good old paranoia, west half. # USED # USED And here is the W half of the big green pool at the bottom of f82r. # USED Again, ignoring the things that may be hidden by the green paint, and # USED focusing instead on what is outside it. # USED # USED # USED # USED Miss sokoly (shouldn't she have a falcon?) naturally has the privilege # USED of a semi-private pool (A1). But the edge (A2,A3) of the Big Green Pool # USED seems to waver in its respect for her privacy. # USED # USED Miss sokoly is definitely totally holding a ring (B1). NOT pointing to # USED the opening of a pipe, like many other Bio nymphs do. If this were the # USED case, there would be a pipe behind the ring, at (B2), and it has been # USED decided already that there is not. # USED # USED For explanation of the double outlines of the nymph at the top right, # USED Miss okal, see the explanations for her sister Miss okaldy in the # USED previous post. # USED # USED The private tub (D1) of Miss okal and its connection to the Big Green # USED Pool were evidently designed using four-dimensional non-Euclidean and # USED non-Desarguesian geometry. # USED # USED The pineapple (E1) is obviously a later addition to the figure, and must # USED have been drawn around 1700 -- after the fruit became widely available # USED in Europe, but before cultivation evolved it to its present size. That # USED style of hat unequivocally identifies Miss sokoly as the # USED great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother of Carmen Miranda. # USED # USED Miss olka-ky is very ill, already half-ghost, as revealed by her # USED transparent arm (F1) and transparent chest (F2). Her ears (G1,G2) reveal # USED her mixed ancestry, from the Bear Clan on her father's side and the Cat # USED Dynasty on the mother's side. Or maybe her mother hailed from the planet # USED Vulcan. # USED # USED It seems that the spa operators had already taken notice of Miss # USED olka-ky's half-alive state and started to merge her private tub (H1) # USED into the public Big Green Pool. # USED # USED As for the NW nymph, Miss okar (known as Miss Ocarina to her friends), # USED she got the most advanced private tub (J1) of them all, with a shape # USED that today still challenges students of Computer-Aided Design and # USED equilibrists alike. # USED # USED # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 14-10-2025, 12:42 PM (14-10-2025, 10:00 AM)quimqu Wrote: Look at the leg # USED of the upper nymph (red arrow) and the border of the pool (also red # USED arrow). It could have not been drawn while the parchment was stitched. # USED It was drawn before the parchment strip. Once stitched, the painting was # USED applied, that's why there is no painting at the inner side of the # USED stitching (blue arrow). # USED # USED THanks for calling the attention to the details of the interaction of # USED paint, drawing, and tear. But my conclusion is opposite... # USED # USED That tear probably happened during the manufacture of the vellum. The # USED sides were stitched together to prevent the tear from opening up into a # USED big hole as the parchment was stretched and tanned. The stitched edges # USED created either a ridge or a valley, a couple mm tall/deep. # USED # USED Once the vellum was dry and out of the stretching frame, the stitches # USED were removed. The tear did not open up, because at that point the vellum # USED was already stiff and no longer under tension. The "lips" that had been # USED stitched together were sort of flattened but remained rough and uneven. # USED # USED The original drawing probably stayed clear of those "lips", as they must # USED have been too rough to write on them with a sharp quill. But we cannot # USED tell for sure, because the original strokes are now very faint, and any # USED that were inside the big green pool would have been washed away by the # USED paint. # USED # USED Long time after the original was drawn, someone retraced large parts of # USED the drawing that were nearly faded away. Including the outlines of Miss # USED Okal and her tub. This Retracer also had fun "enhancing" the drawings # USED with extra details -- like the "pineapple" on the hat of Miss Sokoly and # USED the "shower cap" of Miss Okar. One of those "enhancements", I believe, # USED was the wavy outline of the big pool. These retraced strokes, applied # USED with a somewhat broader quill. extended a bit into the "lips" of the # USED tear (your red arrows). # USED # USED Some time after that, a Painter applied most of the paint we see. (The # USED light yellow paint on the nymphs' hair may be original, or at least much # USED earlier than the rest; not sure.) The Painter too generally avoided the # USED "lips" of the tear, presumably for the same reason (his "brush" does not # USED seem to have been a real brush, but more like a chewed up stick...) But # USED not completely: the green paint in the big pool did enter the "lips" # USED area at several places, including just below the wavy outline (your # USED bottom red arrow). It even covered a couple of the stitching holes. # USED Clearly it was applied after the stitches had been removed. # USED # USED And the painting must have been applied after the retracing. For one # USED thing, it is unlikely that the Painter would have painted a pool with # USED that peculiar shape if there was no outline. Also, on some of the places # USED where the paint overruns the pool's outline, the ink of the latter seems # USED to have been partially washed away and/or obscured by the paint. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### I # USED am sorry but I don't agree. If you compare f82r and f82v you can see # USED that in f82v the water in the pool covers almost all the stitching. # USED # USED # USED # USED I think that the stitching may be the reason for this difference. In # USED f82v the painting can cover all the surface once flattened. But in f82r # USED it can't. In fact, the bit of green that the orange arrow is pointing to # USED can easily come from the orange zone in the schema. # USED # USED # USED # USED There are also two points that may confirm that the drawing was previous # USED to the strip: # USED # USED - yellow arrow points to a line that looks like the original border fo # USED - the pool of the upper lady. Maybe oce painted, the painter retraced # USED - the curve wrongly (yes, I said retraced! Smile ) blue arrow: why would # USED - the person who was drawing end the line at a hole, when he could pass # USED - between both holes smoothly? black arrows: to me, the border ends at # USED - the strips are not coincident. If I would have drawn the border, let's # USED - say from left to right, the border of the right side should have been # USED - a bit up from where it is now. This difference can be explained by the # USED - strip and stitching after the drawing. # USED - ###################################################################### # USED - 14-10-2025, 06:20 PM (14-10-2025, 01:26 PM)quimqu Wrote: I am sorry # USED - but I don't agree. If you compare f82r and f82v you can see that in # USED - f82v the water in the pool covers almost all the stitching. # USED # USED Too bad that we don't have multi-spectral images of those pages. They # USED were taken with slanted light, so they would have shown the actual # USED relief in that area. Hopefully someone can check the actual book # USED someday. # USED # USED Until then, I am quite sure that the stitches were removed already by # USED the vellum maker. I suppose that he then pounced the "lips" as flat as # USED he could, stuck the two edges of the tear with hide glue, and plastered # USED the defect over with the paste (presumably glue and chalk) that he # USED generally used to smooth defects. Much of that plaster would have fallen # USED off by now, but the dark tan blobs like (A,B) on the clip of f82r (left) # USED would be remains of it. # USED # USED In spite of the plaster, that area of the vellum would still be too # USED rough for fine drawing or writing, so the original Scribe mostly avoided # USED it. As I see it, his original figure did not have the big green pool and # USED its wavy outline. He may have intruded in that area only with the belly # USED and thigh of Miss Okal, using the stitch hole as her belly button (a # USED kind of gag that he used elsewhere). But the Retracer may have done that # USED instead; I can't tell. # USED # USED [By the way, I noticed only now that the nymphs have belly buttons! # USED There goes my theory that they were supernatural fairies spontaneously # USED generated from the green and blue broths of that magical water # USED palace...] # USED # USED That rough area around the tear was invaded by both the Retracer who (I # USED believe) added the wavy big pool outline, and the Painter who filled it. # USED See (M) and (N), respectively. Thus, unfortunately, those details cannot # USED be used to decide which of them came first. # USED # USED The thread definitely was not there when the paint was applied. Note # USED that there is a broad paint stroke (E) that runs straight over one of # USED the stitching holes (F), across the whole pond. Moreover, if the thread # USED was still there, the greenpaint would have collected under it and left a # USED "shadow" of the stitching. # USED # USED On the other side f82v too (clip at right), both the pool outline (U,V) # USED and the green paint (P,Q) run into the "lips" that should have been # USED lumped together by the stitching. # USED # USED However, at (H,I) it seems that the green paint partially washed away # USED and/or obscured the big pool outline. At (H), it even seems that the # USED washed-off ink of the outline then collected at the edge of the green # USED paint. Thus, again, I beleive tha the Painter did his job after the # USED Retracer. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 15-10-2025, 07:11 AM [AGA TENTAKULUS] # USED # USED # USED @Jorge I am always surprised at how different our results are. This is # USED how I see it. Quimu's sketch is correct. The parchment rolls up. It is # USED then flattened. The parchment becomes denser, harder and starts to # USED shine. The interesting thing is that the back has the wood grain from # USED his table or the cut marks from a saw blade imprinted on it. That's how # USED I see it. No plaster and no sanding. ###################################################################### 15-10-2025, 06:58 PM (15-10-2025, 07:11 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: I am always surprised at how different our results are. This is how I see it. Quimu's sketch is correct. # USED # USED I am no expert on the matter, but my analysis is based on all I know # USED about the way vellum is made, and a close examination of the image. # USED # USED From the latter, it seems that the stitching was not like that sketch, # USED but with the two lips mostly flat, with zigzag thread: # USED # USED # USED # USED The image at left is how the tear on the vellum must have been stitched # USED while it was still being stretched, smoothed, and dried. Orange is # USED thread on top of the vellum, blue is thread below the vellum. The # USED stitches not shown are uncertain. The thread must have gone through some # USED holes more than once. In particular the stitching had to be secured by # USED knots at the top and bottom. # USED # USED Again: once the vellum was dry and removed from the stretching frame, # USED the thread was removed, the lips were pounded as flat as possible, and # USED glued along the edges. Then the tear and the holes were plastered with a # USED mix of glue and chalk. And then the area was lightly sanded with pumice. # USED # USED This plastering and sanding was the standard way to remedy defects in # USED the vellum (although most were smaller than these). # USED # USED Over the last 600 years the plaster fell off from the holes, and partly # USED from the lips. But some still remained. # USED # USED The evidence for the stitching being as shown above left is in the # USED details of the image at right. Where the thread went under, the vellum # USED remained slightly raised, and where it went over, the vellum was # USED slightly depressed. The depressed places are still filled with the # USED plaster (the smooth darker tan spots). The raised places were sanded # USED clean (lighter streaks across the tear). # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 15-10-2025, 07:05 PM (15-10-2025, 07:11 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: The # USED interesting thing is that the back has the wood grain from his table or # USED the cut marks from a saw blade imprinted on it. # USED # USED To make vellum, the skin was usually split into two layers. I don't know # USED how that was done, but presumably it required a series of long cuts with # USED a sharp blade, across the whole skin, each a millimeter deep or less. I # USED would think that those parallel marks that you point out were the traces # USED of these cuts. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 16-10-2025, 08:28 PM (14-10-2025, 06:20 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: The # USED thread definitely was not there when the paint was applied. Note that # USED there is a broad paint stroke (E) that runs straight over one of the # USED stitching holes (F), across the whole pond. Moreover, if the thread was # USED still there, the greenpaint would have collected under it and left a # USED "shadow" of the stitching. # USED # USED This hole killed my theory ###################################################################### # USED 29-09-2025, 09:19 PM (29-09-2025, 08:20 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: The # USED point about the Marci annotations is that they have NO iron AT ALL. Only # USED zinc and a few other trace elements. # USED # USED Ak, OK. In other words, it is not iron-gall ink (IGI). Probably India # USED (China, lampblack) ink or the like. # USED # USED Iron-gall ink makes sense in only two situations: Someone wanted to # USED write something on vellum or parchment, and wanted it to last for many # USED decades, even in damp environments and/or under frequent handling of the # USED document; or Someone wanted to write something in ink, and had some IGI # USED at hand already. Apart from case 2, for writing on paper IGI should be # USED slightly worse than India ink, pencil, or other media. # USED # USED Even for writing on vellum or parchment, there would be no point in # USED using IGI for temporary annotations -- like quire numbers to guide the # USED book-binder, or a tentative letter substitution table on the margin of a # USED presumed cipher book. In fact, if the annotation was meant to be erased # USED later, it had better not be in IGI. # USED # USED Marci's secretary presumably had IGI at hand at all times, to write # USED permanent stuff on vellum. Marci himself may have written only on paper, # USED and then he would have no reason to make and keep IGI. # USED # USED By the way, AFAIK labs like McCrone have no way to positively identify # USED iron-gall ink. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) only reveals the metallic # USED elements present in the sample, not their chemical state. X-ray # USED diffraction can identify crystalline minerals like azurite or rutile. # USED But IGI is not crystalline, and other than iron it does not contain # USED anything distinctive. (Tannin, the component from galls, is used in # USED tanning the vellum; so, even if it could be detected, that would not # USED mean anything.) # USED # USED So I suppose that those labs "identify" IGI only by exclusion: # USED # USED If there are "modern" pigments like rutile or prussian blue, it is a # USED forgery; else If there are known crystalline minerals like azurite, it # USED is "paint from the period"; else If there is iron, it must be # USED iron-gall ink; else If there is no iron, then... duh... it must be # USED "iron-free iron-gall ink". # USED # USED The honest thing to say would be "it is unidentified dark ink that # USED contains iron" or "it is unidentified dark ink that does not contain # USED iron". But that would not look good on the report, would it? # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 29-09-2025, 11:10 PM [RENEZ] (29-09-2025, 03:19 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: # USED There is no question that the order of application was pigment, # USED upper-margin stain, foliation. The green is offset from the damp of the # USED stain, and the foliation wasn't damaged by the stain elsewhere. I # USED haven't looked at f.42 under a scope, but I would be extremely surprised # USED if the green was on top of the folio number. # USED # USED This was looked at under a microscope during the Folger workshop. I had # USED a look myself, and both the conservator and I could see that the paint # USED was on top of the ink. # USED # USED Now this is unexpected for several reasons, but on the other hand, it # USED probably could not be otherwise. The paint lies on top of the parchment # USED while the ink goes inside (mostly). So the question remains: even if the # USED ink of the folio number were applied later than the paint (which is what # USED one would really expect), would the result look like this, because the # USED ink penetrated the parchment? # USED # USED I cannot answer that, but it looks like something that can still be # USED addressed and resolved using the right expertise. One specific detail is # USED that this paint included small crystals which were obviously on top of # USED everything else. # USED # USED A second question is: would it be logical/expected for someone to write # USED the folio number over an area where paint was applied? Would the number # USED not have been written more to the left? This is subjective and may not # USED be possible to resolve. ###################################################################### # USED 30-09-2025, 12:55 AM [RENEZ] With respect to the water damage and its # USED effect on the ink, I know that this is part of on-going work, so I am # USED not trying to get to the bottom of it here. Just my small input to this # USED question: # USED # USED My knowledge about this is from reading things online, so I am very much # USED aware how limited that knowledge is. This basic knowledge says that iron # USED gall ink is relatively light in colour, but the dark colour we see after # USED its application is the result of a chemical process also involving the # USED parchment. # USED # USED That made me wonder how long after applying the ink, plain water would # USED still be able to affect it. Is there a cut-off limit? Could this be even # USED as short as 5 years (arbitrary number)? # USED # USED So I asked someone who knows more about this. The surprising (to me) # USED answer is that it mainly depends on whether the ink had any surplus # USED iron. This could be on the surface for a long time, and even very old # USED ink could show blurring from water damage. # USED # USED There may well be reports about this that would be relevant for this # USED whole question. ###################################################################### # USED 30-09-2025, 04:28 AM (29-09-2025, 11:10 PM)ReneZ Wrote: [The f42 folio # USED number] was looked at under a microscope during the Folger workshop. I # USED had a look myself, and both the conservator and I could see that the # USED paint was on top of the ink. # USED # USED # USED Another interesting case is f102v1 and f103r. There is a big orange # USED stain near the top right corner of the latter, that ofsetted on f102v1. # USED After profound analysis of the images, I concluded that the offending # USED substance was ketchup. OK, OK, I mean, some reddish sauce that had small # USED bits of a very thin dark red membrane. Probably a goulash-like sauce # USED with bits of bell pepper skin. # USED # USED On f103r, the stain fell over the text; and the sauce (or, more likely, # USED the mopping up of it) severely effaced the text. (Incidentally, the # USED state of that area is one of the best pieces of evidence for the # USED Retracing Hypothesis. And for the claim that the Retracer could not read # USED the text and had no access to the Author) # USED # USED On f102v1, the stain fell mostly on the figures of two plants. There, it # USED had a similar erasing effect not only on the outlines of the plants, but # USED also on the painted areas (a green leaf from the plant on the left, and # USED one of two blue ... duh ... leaves of the plant at right. # USED # USED Thus I think that we can confidently say that the ketchup goulash spill # USED happened after the painting. # USED # USED However, I see no trace of offsetting of the paint from f102v1 onto # USED f103r, even though the paint was obviously softened by the sauce. Maybe # USED my pareidolia is not that good after all. Or maybe any paint that did # USED offset onto f103r was promptly wiped off together with the sauce. # USED # USED All the best, --jorge ###################################################################### # USED 30-09-2025, 08:02 PM Moved by the recent discussion, I went through all # USED transitions between successive quires of the VMS looking for instances # USED of "offsetting": paint or ink from one page that got transferred by # USED contact to the facing page, that is, the page that is in contact with it # USED when then book is closed and all fold-outs are folded in. # USED # USED In summary, there are clear instances of offsetting in almost all such # USED quire transitions that still exist. However, they are not cases where # USED the Painter closed the book or stacked quires with the paint still wet. # USED # USED In all cases the transfer clearly occurred some time after painting. In # USED one case, water seeping between the pages softened some red paint, which # USED then stuck to the facing page. In all other cases, there was no transfer # USED of pigment. Rather, some component of the paint somehow transferred to # USED the facing page. # USED # USED The most common type of offsetting is due to a certain dark blue-gray # USED paint. The offsetted image is a light gray stain with sharp edges, but # USED only along the edges of the painted source area, not in the interior. In # USED one case, that smudge includes some dark particles. That blue-gray paint # USED seems to be a mixture of some dark ingredient, which causes the stain, # USED and a lighter and more vivid blue paint, which never stains. Maybe the # USED grey component was deliquescent, or food for mold? # USED # USED A few other cases of offsetting are caused by other paints (red and # USED vivid green). In these cases, the offsetted image is a very very light # USED tan stain with fuzzy edges. # USED # USED In one case, the same blue-gray paint created two offsetted images, # USED separated by ~8 mm. In another case, there the offsetted images are # USED rotated relative to their expected position by about 30 degrees. # USED # USED The colors must have been applied when the manuscript was unbound -- a # USED pile of bifolios -- since there are several examples where the painting # USED extends into the binding gutter. Or beyond it, as in the well-known case # USED of f78v and f81r. # USED # USED On the other hand, Rene reports that microscopic examination of f42 # USED shows that at least some of the green paint was applied after the folio # USED numbers were written. Hence after the bifolios were incorrectly folded # USED and nested, including f78v and f81r. # USED # USED So, here is my guess for how the VMS we see today was created: # USED # USED 1. The Scribe(s) wrote the text on the parchment, and drew the # USED outlines of the illustrations in the same ink with the same quills. # USED The bifolios already had the future folds and were grouped into # USED quires, but are still unbound. # USED # USED Each section was scribed in one or more episodes separated in time, # USED possibly by several years. Cosmo and Zodiac were scribed in that # USED order, before Bio. Pharma was scribed before Herbal. Otherwise the # USED order of scribing of the sections is uncertain. # USED # USED 2. Decades later, the book, still a collection of unbound bifolios, # USED was in possession of another owner, who could not read it and could # USED not consult the Author. This person defined the ordering and nesting # USED of the bifolios and the order of the quires, and wrote the folio # USED numbers accordingly. At this point the incorrect shuffling and # USED ordering of pages became crystallized. But he still kept the bifolios # USED unbound. # USED # USED 3. The figures were painted. The Painter was careful to let the paint # USED dry thoroughly before re-folding and re-stacking the folios. # USED # USED 4. The book, still unbound, was kept for a long time in a damp place. # USED During this time some components of some paints migrated to the facing # USED pages. Some quires were shifted once or twice during this time, so # USED that the same painted area created two offset stains, or stains in # USED "wrong" positions. # USED # USED 5. The book was bound, as per the written folio and quire numbers. # USED # USED Details: # USED # USED QUIRES 1 and 2 (f8v and f9r): Some red paint from f9r on the edge of the # USED water stain at top left, left red spots on f8v. QUIRES 2 and 3 (f16v and # USED f17r): Imprint of the right red flower of f16v. No transfer of pigment, # USED but rather of some other component of the paint (e.g. binder) that left # USED a very faint fuzzy tan smudge on f17r. There may also be imprints of the # USED blue-gray flowers of f17r onto f16v, but they are hard to see among the # USED clutter of the text. QUIRES 3 and 4 (f24v and f25r): Maybe a very faint # USED imprint of the bottom right leaf of f24v onto f25r, with no pigment # USED transfer, only a very very faint tan smudge. If so, it is displaced by # USED ~8 mm NE from the expected position. QUIRES 4 and 5 (f32v and f33r): # USED Offset of the right blue-gray flower of f32v (only?) onto f33r. As # USED discussed above, no pygment, Only a gray smudge along the corolla's # USED outline, and some dark gray-brown solid particles along the bottom edge # USED of the corolla. QUIRES 5 and 6 (f40v and f41r): Offset of the blue-gray # USED paint (only?) from f40v to f41r. As discussed above. Notably, one of the # USED blue areas created two imprints, displaced by ~8mm in the NE-SW # USED direction. maybe also imprint of the leaves on left side of f41r onto # USED f40v; again, not with any transfer of green pigment, just a very very # USED faint and fuzzy tan smudge. QUIRES 6 and 7 (f48v and f49r). Offset from # USED the two blue-gray petals of the top left flower of f49r onto f48v, as # USED discussed above. The pure royal blue petal left no imprint. QUIRES 7 and # USED 8 (f56v and f57r). Blue-gray petals on each page imprinted on the other # USED page, as discussed above. No imprint of the pure blue petals. QUIRES 8 # USED and 9 (f66v and f67r1). Only the blue-grey corollas of flowers of f66v # USED offsetted ontp f67r. The imprint of the right flower is near the # USED expected place at coordinates A = [655,2166] on the BL 214 scan of f67r; # USED but that of the left flower is out of place, at B = [1090,2530], as if # USED f66v had been laid over f68r rotated by about 32 degrees CCW, around its # USED point C = [2156,2156] (the right flower). As for the other direction, # USED there are visible offset images of some of the blue-gray triangles of # USED f67, mostly from the left side, onto f66v; but apparently with no # USED relative rotation. QUIRES 9 and 10 (f68v1 and f69r). Only those spokes # USED and terminal "cups" of f69r that were painted in blue-gray left imprints # USED on f68v1. There is also one light blue smudge with darker blue spots on # USED f68v1, just outside the "windmill", at 12:00, below one of the seven # USED stars in the 12:00 sector; but it does not seem to be an offset from # USED f69r, rather an accident from the painting of f68v1, wth no # USED corresponding stain on f69r. There may be offsets in the other # USED direction, especially from the lue-gray windmill blade of f68v1 at 08:30 # USED onto the innermost area of f69r, at 03:30, near the @l label. However # USED any additional such offsets would be hard toidentify among the clutter # USED of f69r. QUIRES 10 and 11 (f70v1, Aries Dark, and f71r, Aries Light). No # USED visible imprints. The blue-gray paint that is prone to creating offsets # USED is not used in either page. There is some fairly pure blue on f71r, but # USED apparently it did not offset. QURES 11 and 12 (f71v1 and f72r). No # USED imprint. No blue-gray paint. QUIRES 12 and 13: The transition would have # USED been between f74v1 and f75r, but folio f74 is missing. QUIRES 13 and 14 # USED (f84v and f85r1). No imprint. No blue-gray paint. QUIRES 14 and 15 # USED (f86v3 and f87r). Imprints of the blue-gray petals of the left flower of # USED f87r onto f86v3. Maybe also of the right flower, but very small and # USED faint. QUIRES 15 and 16: The transition from would have been from f92v # USED to f93r, but folio f92 is missing. QUIRES 16 and 17: The transition from # USED would have been from f98v to f99r, but folio f98 is missing. QUIRES 17 # USED and 18 Quire 18 is mssing entirely. QUIRES 18 and 19 Ditto. QUIRES 19 # USED and 20 (f102v1, Pharma, and f103r, Stars). Imprint ontp f103r from the # USED blue-gray right ... duh ... leaf of plant 2 in the top row of f102v2. # USED There may have been also an imprint from the left leaf of that plant. # USED But the leaf was all but erased by the big goulash stain, and its # USED imprint would have been inside the other side of that stain. There is # USED another bit of blue-gray on f102v1, on the second jar from the top; but # USED the imprint on f103r, if any, is not evident. ###################################################################### 05-10-2025, 04:15 PM [AGA TENTAKULUS] It is difficult enough to trace your own handwriting written in pencil with a ballpoint pen. Try it with someone else's handwriting. It is the same ink as in the crescent moon. Simply too thick. This happens throughout the book. To me, this only indicates that one of the writers was not familiar with the consistency of the ink and colour as it should be. Nothing else. ######################################################################