The Voynich Ninja

I agree with Anton; the stain managed to wash away some ink. That would indicate it is a water-based substance.

But I also disagree about the colour; it is different from the red of the "samovar" type next to it, but it is the same colour as the infill of the "roots"

Dripping wax wouldn't cause burns on the page/have a different interaction? Looks like a typical aquarel stain to me...

Some other observations on this folio:

- the text in the ciylinders that has been painted over, has been spotted by you of course, I see it now for the first time
- the highlighting/rewriting with fresh ink is not the same for the characters. That 8 that is transcribed as "d" (and that's how I'd read it too) is much more frequently re-inked than the other characters. Could mean something?

I am not so sure that water would have much of an effect on iron gall ink that has already dried.
It's probably worth trying to find out.

Whatever it was, it penetrated the parchment. It's visible on 102r, 102v, 103r, 103v and 104r.
Most affected are 102v and 103r, and perhaps the damage to the ink is from attempts to scrape it off. The smaller spot seems to have been mainly on 103v and 104r, and there is a similar one just a few pages before that.  

What I'd really like to know is how (un)usual such spots are. There is something similar on the first folio of the alchemical herbal Florence MS 106, and I long suspect a connection between the two MSs, for reasons which I have probably already posted elsewhere.

[attachment=588]

Did you think of red wine? Common drink at the time, there are poems of scholars craving for it and stains are notoriously difficult to remove and alcohol is a very good solvent. And I have not seen many such stains, people took care of their books

---

PS: I know this kind of stains, with  me it is tea

Quote:Whatever it was, it penetrated the parchment. It's visible on 102r, 102v, 103r, 103v and 104r.

Most affected are 102v and 103r, and perhaps the damage to the ink is from attempts to scrape it off. The smaller spot seems to have been mainly on 103v and 104r, and there is a similar one just a few pages before that. 

Quite the thing I planned to have a look at three days ago, but had not time yet...

(01-03-2016, 02:42 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wondered if it was caused by the Marci letter, that may have been preserved between the pages, in which case this could a stain from the wax seal.
An other suggestion I heard was that it could be wax of a candle that dripped off during an evening reading session.
There are a few more in the MS but not many.

Beeswax melts at ~60-70 C.  The wax pool around the wick of a candle must be  at about that temperature, since it is in contact with solid wax.  That is too cold to "roast" the vellum.  I guess that one would need at least 130 C, possibly more.  

Anyway any spill from a candle would cool quickly, as it does when it drips  along the cande.  I doubt that the molten wax it would have time to seep through the vellum of f103 and stain f104.

AFAIK solid beeswax has no liquid component that could seep out of it and stain vellum to the extend seen in f103.  But if the candle is made of  tallow, or has other ingredients like oil to make it cheaper, perhaps those could seep out over time.

I would say the same about seal wax, which usually was beeswax or shellac with solid pigments. Besides, I suppose people would avoid seal wax formulas that bled grease and stained paper.

Anyway, a greasy substance like tallow, wax, or oil should not dissolve or soften the ink, whether it is iron-gall or some other formula like gum arabic plus ocher.   Ditto fot Thus it would seem that the stains were made by some water-containing liquid.  The liquid may have just softened the ink; its erasure probably happened when the culprit cleaned up the spill by the blotting or wiping.

The stains may have happened at different times.  More on that later.

All the best, --jorge

We can't know what the stain is unless Yale does material testing, which is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all. I've examined the stain in person, and it is doesn't have the depth that a wax stain should have, even if the dried wax was removed. Whatever it was was clearly greasy, however, as seen by the way it bleeds through the leaf and offsets onto 102v and 104. The retouching is certainly later, as it was done by someone who was not as fluent a writer of Voynichese as was Scribe 3.

To reinforce Dr. Davis's point about the later retouching, only some of the glyphs within the stain are copied down. In fact, there are some glyphs within the stain that are not consistently reflected in current VMS transliterations. Here's an enhanced view of the stain:



Referencing You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the stain text in bold:

<f103r.1,@P0>    pchedal.shdy.yteechypchy.otey.ylshey.qoteey.qotal.shedy.yshdal.dain.okol.dal.dy
<f103r.2,+P0>    dain.shek.chcphhdy.daloky.opchedy.peshol.chep.ar.otchy.sal.lkeey.sar.ain.ok.chedy
<f103r.3,+P0>    yshdain.sheek.cheoty.chokal.chedy.chckhy.or.orol.okain.chal.ot.kar.ot.chym
<f103r.4,+P0>    ychedy.qokedy.okedy.qokeey.okey.chdarol.loty.chedar.aly
<f103r.5,+P0>    pocharal.okedar.shedy.oteey.qokey.lkar.sheeky.okalor.shedy.rkar.otan.okdy
<f103r.6,+P0>    ocheey.dain.shek.okeedy.okey.shedy.qokealdy.shcthy.qotedy.qot.san.am

There are vestiges of additional glyphs within the stain that the retoucher evidently missed or wasn't confident in filling in after the fact. My additions, bolded and underlined, with brackets denoting unclear additional letters:

<f103r.1,@P0>    pchedal.shdy.yteechypchy.otey.ylshey.qoteey.qotal.shedy.yshdal.dain.okol.dal.dy
<f103r.2,+P0>    dain.shek.chcphhdy.daloky.opchedy.peshol.chep.ar.otchy.sal.lkeey.sar.ain.ok.chedy
<f103r.3,+P0>    yshdain.sheek.cheoty.chokal.chedy.chckhy.or.orol.okain.chal.ot.shkar.ot.chym
<f103r.4,+P0>    ychedy.qokedy.okedy.qokeey.okey.chdarol.loty.chedar.aly
<f103r.5,+P0>    pocharal.okedar.shedy.oteey.qokey.lkar.sheeky.okalor.shedy.yt[?].rkar.otan.okdy
<f103r.6,+P0>    ocheey.dain.shek.okeedy.okey.shedy.qokealdy.shcthy.qotedy.qot.dy.ota[?].san.am

The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. includes some of these glyphs, but not the full shkar in f103r.3.

For thoroughness's sake, I have done a similar enhancement of the stain words on f103v:



The VT and ZL transliterations both have the beginning of f103v.3 as being qok or. I see a hint of a ch or ee in between the two, which would make the first word of f103v.3 either qokchor or qokeeor. The retoucher evidently didn't copy down all the stained glyphs on f103v, either.

There is one more comparison item in the MS, namely on the inside of the front cover.

These are definitely caused by the wax on the Marci letter, as a comparison of the two items shows: 
the locations and shapes match exactly, and even a tiny piece of wax was left on the cover, and is missing on the Marci letter.

Unfortunately, the online images of the inside cover do not show these. I would need to search for another image that shows them.

The odd thing is that these should not be there. This cover was added only in the 1800's (or 1700's).
At the time, there should also have been stuffing in the cover to make it stiffer, so if the Marci letter was glued on top of the paper pastedown on the inside cover, this would not have been the result.

The Marci letter was clearly folded to the size of the book. It could be that the letter was actually part of this padding. This would certainly be odd, but it might explain why Voynich found it only later (as he claims).

Just odd...

Rene, I think the stains you are referring to are the round red stains visible behind the bookplate in the online image, yes? When i was with the manuscript a few weeks ago, I noticed that the bookplate is now detached, leaving the inner front cover completely visible. I did not image the inner front cover then, but when I am next with the manuscript (in October), I'll be sure to do that.