The Voynich Ninja

It would certainly be an argument for the colour of the ink.
I'll stick to the simple one first.
1. closed inkwell. Over time, light-coloured ink and watery. Sinking of the particles.
2. open inkwell. Ink becomes thick and sticky. Evaporation and thickening. Seen in this light, the ink does not flow cleanly.

Something that would lead me to believe in a "retracer" over ink variation in certain circumstances, is that the dark ink on the nymph (in zodiac) eyes mostly shows a different style of drawing eyes. The dark ink leans towards a "c c/o o" style, where as the lighter ink leans towards ". ./- -", interestingly the "c c/o o" style is what seems to have made it to Q13.

Even the texts of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. show under enlargement/zooming a clear tendency to fade into brownish colour tones.
At several positions of the script the writers had the opportunity or skill to work in a smaller, compact handwriting with more use of ink.
But this ink always seems to come from a same production or mixing principle and remains as a more or less brown lining.

Against this, the darker ink of "retractor" aka "ladies private parts' improver", of the months' names, the baby dragon (f25v), the most pagenumbers, the strange animals at and in pond of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and several smaller scribbles 
clearly turns into a grey fading, if at all. "Black" ink still looks black mostly.
If it was necessary to retrace some vords in those "zodiacs", it may not happen the next day, but quite timespan later: maybe centuries.
I see at least the funny guy who tuned some ladies' drawings and added a dragon and some stranger creatures into the green colour-peeled-off patches of 79v as someone who had nothing to do with the original script and just joked araound a long time later in a book which said him as little as we know today about it.

Finally, there is not any proof for one or the other theory to find a valid consensus about it.

(04-06-2025, 02:17 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I tend to agree with that earlier handwriting expert that there was only one original Scribe, who wrote all the text and drew all the figures in the same yellowish brown ink.

Who was that ?

(04-06-2025, 01:40 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, I am well aware of the changes in darkness due to mere variations of ink flow.  Like suddenly darker after dipping the pen in ink, then gradually lighter as the pen runs out of ink.  Or when the Scribe him/herself goes back and corrects some mistakes. Or when he/she presumably mixes a new batch of ink halfway through a page.  But those are easy to spot because (1) the hue of the ink does not change, and (2) the sequence makes sense considering the way he/she must have operated.

I'm not sure the change in hue necessarily means a different kind of ink, if the ink is not mixed very well and there is some layering in the inkwell. And I'm not even sure there is a change in hue.

If I understood correctly which ok/tedal you are referring to, here it is from the TIFF. I sampled the hue from the dark label and from the faint nymph outline, and it looks like the hue component is practically the same (30 vs 31).

[attachment=10736]

What we have here is an approximation of a probable process of construction. First, illustrations were drawn, then text was added and/or paint was applied; some parts were retraced or added, etc. The number of persons involved and the timing between the various events, lacking evidence, is open to various interpretations.

Why not look at what the VMs has to say? First, because the written text remains unintelligible despite the recent claims, which leaves us with the strange illustrations, an exotic garden of botany and imagination, and so on. While much remains unclear, a few illustrations have potentially given up some of their secrets and revealed the nature of the VMs artistry.
 
This is demonstrated in these two examples. The VMs cosmos is a visual oxymoron, two contrasting elements combined. Oresme's cosmic structure from BNF Fr. 565 (plus Harley 334 with a mermaid) inside the moon wheel of Shirakatsi. Second, the intentional duality regarding heraldic identifications on VMs White Aries. Structurally there are two different interpretations and lots of little details. Intentional duality is duplicity and duplicity is deception. The VMs is a puzzle hidden by a façade of trickery.

(04-06-2025, 06:17 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Who was that ?

Possibly A. H. Carter, although it doesn't seem clear that he was a paleographer. 

Here's a reference in Currier: 

Quote:These findings put an entirely different complexion on this problem than any that I think I have noted before in any other discussions or solutions. It’s curious to me that a calligraphic or paleographic expert in one of the writings I have seen* says that the writing is consistent throughout, and is obviously the work of one man. Well, it obviously isn’t, and I don’t see how anyone who had any training could make any such statement, but there it is!

* ‘‘Some Impressions of the Voynich Manuscript,’’ unpublished notes by Prof. A. H. Carter (Former technical historian, Army Security Agency), 1946, p. 1. -Ed

There's also a reference in D'Imperio, although it is in a section about the relationships of the drawing to the text, rather than specifically about whether there were different scribes:

Quote:Elizebeth Friedman states for example "There can be no question that the same scribe wrote the text and made the drawings, as any handwriting expert would readily agree" (1962).  Dr A. H. Carter concurs in the above opinion:  "Because the same ink and the same kind of penstrokes appear in the illustrations and because the text forms an integral and unified part of many of the illustrations, it appears probable that the same person wrote the text and drew the illustrations." (1946 p.1)]

(04-06-2025, 02:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It would certainly be an argument for the colour of the ink.
I'll stick to the simple one first.
1. closed inkwell. Over time, light-coloured ink and watery. Sinking of the particles.
2. open inkwell. Ink becomes thick and sticky. Evaporation and thickening. Seen in this light, the ink does not flow cleanly.

One problem with this explanation is that the darker ink is seen only in some pages, and then only some details.  On the Zodiac pages, for instance, there are of course many "original" variations in stroke darkness and width that are apparently done in the standard yellowish-brown ink, and therefore can be attributed to ink-flow variations and immediate self-corrections by the Scribe.  But there are scattered "new" strokes in a distinctive dark brown-black ink that was used only in the labels of two pages and applied to a bizarre selection of figure details.  Here is a list of the instances I can see, with RB = right breast, LB = left breast, L+RB = both breasts, SSC = "scallopped showercap":

• Pisces (f70v2): No "new" strokes.
  
• Aries Dark (f70v1):  Outer band nymph at 07:00 (RB, right groin), 08:00 (RB, hairline, collar, left wristband, left elbow), 09:00 (RB, left eye), 10:30 (hair, star, second star tail, LB? back? chest?), 12:00 (RB, hair, belly?) 01:00 (LB, hair, collar?), 02:30 (RB, hair), 05:30 (hair, wristbands? hands? collar?); inner band nymphs at 12:00 (left face, neck, torso), 07:30 (hair? hat? collar?), and 10:45 (fat striped star tail).  Also the word otodal on the middle text ring, except the "a" glyph.
  
• Aries Light (f71r):  The nymph in the outer band at 02:00 (SSC).
  
• Taurus Light (f71v): Outer band nymphs 08:30 (hair), 11:00 (hair), 03:30 (chin, RB) and 06:00 (hair, RB, left arm); inner band nymphs at 05:30 (hair), 07:00 (hat, cheek, belt), 08:00 (hair), 10:30 (hairline), 12:00 (hair and "arches" on barrel). Also a weird "dog nose" on the bull.
  
• Taurus Dark (f72r1): Outer band nymphs at 03:30 (RB), 09:15 (RB) and 10:30 (RB).  Note that the bull has a fairly realistic nose, unlike that of Taurus Light.
  
• Gemini (f72r2): Top nymph, outside circles, at 11:00 (RB); outer band nymphs at 10:45 (RB), 01:30 (RB), 03:30 (RB), 04:00 (RB), 05:00 (RB), and 06:00 (RB); inner band nymphs at 10:30 (RB), 12:30 (RB), 01:30 (RB), 07:00 (RB, hair, belly).
  
• Cancer (f72r3): outer band nymphs at 02:00, 03:30, 05:00, and 08:00 (all RBs); middle band at 03:15 (RB), 06:30 (RB and face), 08:00 (RB) and 11:00 (RB), 12:00 (nose and eyebrows); inner band at 12:00 (middle breast(!)), 03:15 (RB, crown, groin), 07:00 (RB), 10:15 (L+RB). Also the month name strokes are darker and wider than those of other text and drawings, including the lobsters'.
  
• Leo (f72v3): outer band nymphs at 07:15 (hair, chest), 08:45 (RB), 09:00 (RB), 09:30 (RB), 10:45 (RB), 11:15 (RB), 12:00 (RB, nape, thigh?), 01:15 (RB), 02:30 (L+RB), 03:00 (RB, SSC?), 03:30 (RB), 04:30 (RB), and 06:00 (RB); inner band nymphs at 06:30 (RB, front), 07:45 (RB), 09:15 (RB, left leg, right foot), 10:45 (RB), 11:45 (RB), 12:30 (right thigh), 02:00 (RB), 03:00 (RB), 04:30 (RB), and 05:00 (RB). Also maybe the month's name.
  
• Virgo (f72v2): outer band nymphs at 11:30 (RB, SSC), 12:15 (RB), 13:00 (RB), 13:45 (RB), 04:00 (RB), right leg), 05:00 (L+RB, left hand, right armpit, SSC), 06:00 (RB, hair, upper right arm, right thigh), 06:30 (RB, SSC, hair, right groin), 07:00 (RB), 07:30 (RB, SSC), 08:15 (RB), 09:00 (RB, hair), 10:00 (RB), and 10:45 (top of hat?); inner band nymphs at 12:30 (RB), 13:15 (RB), 03:00 (RB, SSC, belly, groin), 04:00 (L+RB), 05:00 (RB), 06:15 (RB, nose? groin?), 07:15 (RB, SSC), 08:00 (RB, hairline), 09:15 (RB), and 11:30 (RB).  Also perhaps the month's name.
  
• Libra (f72v1): outer band nymphs at 12:00 (RB), 12:30 (RB, right thigh and pubis, eyes, crown), 01:00 (RB, hair, eyes), 01:30 (RB), 02:30 (RB), 03:00 (RB), 03:30 (RB), 04:00 (L+RB), 04:45 (RB, left knee?, left arm?, pubis?) 05:00 (RB, hair), 5:45 (RB), 06:15 (RB), 07:00 (RB), 07:30 (RB, SSC?) 08:00 (RB, SSC), 09:15 (RB), 10:15 (L+RB, nose tip) 10:45 (L+RB, left eye), and 11:30 (RB, hair?); inner band nymphs at 12>15 (RB?) 01:15 (RB, left thigh), 04:15 (RB, hair, SSC), 05:30 (RB, hair), 06:30 (RB, SSC), 07:30 (RB), 09:00 (RB, hair), and 08:15 (RB).  Also perhaps the month's name.
  
• Scorpio (f73r): top nymphs, outside circles, at 11:00 (RB, hair, SSC), 11:30 (RB, hair), 12:30 (L+RB, hair, SSC), and 01:00 (L+RB, hair, right thigh); outer band at 12:00 (RB, left eye), 01:00 (hair, L+RB, eyes), 01:30 (RB, hair), 02:00 (RB, right thigh), 03:00 (RB, left arm?) 03:45 (L+RB), 04:45 (RB), 05:30 (RB, SSC, left thigh), 06:30 (RB, left eyebrow), 07:15 (RB), 07:45 (RB, right thigh), 08:30 (RB), 09:30 (LB, eyes), 10:30 (L+RB), 11:00 (RB), and 11:30 (L+RB, hair, right thigh); inner band nymphs at 12:30 (L+RB, hair), 01:30 (L+RB), 03:30 (RB), 05:00 (RB), 06:30 (RB), 07:00 (RB) 08:30 (RB), 09:30 (L+RB, eyes), 10:30 (RB), and 11:30 (RB, right arm).  Also all labels outside the circles, all outer labels from 03:15 and 11:00, and all inner labels from 04:00 to 10:45.  And the month's name. (Note that the top half of the first "e" is in the standard ink.)
  
• Sagittarius (f73v): top nymphs, outside circles, at 11:00 (RB, barrel), 11:30 (RB, hairline, right eye), 12:00 (RB, top of LB, hair, eyes), and 12:30 (RB, armpit, right eye); outer band nymphs at 12:00 (RB), 12:30 (RB, hair, SSC), 01:00 (right eye), 01:30 (RB), 02:15 (RB, SSC, hair), 03:15 (RB), 04:00 (RB), 05:00 (RB), 06:00 (RB), 07:00 (RB, bottom or nose, eyes), 07:30 (RB, eyes), 08:15 (RB, eyes), 09:00 (RB, partial SSC), 10:00 (RB), 10:45 (RB), and 11:30 (L+RB, SSC, hair); inner band nymphs at 01:15 (L+RB), 02:30 (RB), 04:30 (RB), 06:00 (L+RB), 07:00 (RB), 08:00 (L+RB), 09:30 (RB), and 11:30 (RB). Also maybe the month's name. And all the labels (but not the text rings).
  

The dark ink strokes may also include many nipples and eye pupils, but since these are mere dots it is hard to tell.  I would guess that dots tend to be darker than traces in any case because of thew way ink flows on a quill pen.

So, whoever applied those distinctively dark strokes was obsessed with female hair and breasts; an obsession which does not seem to have been so strong in the original Scribe.  (Could it be that the original Scribe was a 12-year-old boy, and the Retracer was the same boy but a couple of years older?  Hmmm...)

On Pisces, there is somewhat darker ink in the are around the fold at 07:00: some glyphs of the words okey, chtoldy, and otees in the outer text ring, the outer nymph just under those words, and her star and tail; but they seem to be "original", due to ink flow and sequence effects.  Also, on the Beinecke images, the darker color of the ink on those strokes there seems to be due to tiny black spots, that may be large ink particles in "expired" ink, or pockets on the vellum where the ink pooled.

A particularly interesting example is the outer band nymph at 05:30 on Scorpio (f73r).  A dark stroke (B) was applied apparently to complete the lower outline of the left thigh; but that part of the outline had already been drawn in normal ink (A). It would seem that the Retracer (whoever applied B) did not see A, or mistook it for something else, or (less likely) thought that A was wrong and corrected it.

(By the way, if you are looking at that part of the image with good resolution, note that the tail of the "l" glyph in the shekal label of the preceding nymph is much fainter than the body.  I would say that only the body was retraced, leaving the tail as it was.)

An even more interesting example is on the Sagittarius page (f73v), in the rather misshaped "barrels" of the first two nymphs at the top of diagram.  I propose that those barrels were not drawn by the original Scribe and were added by the Retracer, who misinterpreted the lower outline of the left thighs of those two nymphs as the top outlines of two "barrels" -- and thus decided to complete the drawing with the rest of the "barrels", which he/she assumed had been worn off.  Namely, he/she drew the "lips" at the end of each "barrel", and the horizontal traces attached to those "lips" -- neither of which were there before.

By the way, on that same page, note that the label on the outer band at 07:30 seems to have been originally ykechdy, but the retracing turned the "e" into an invalid glyph like a flipped "i" with a serif, and the "ch" into another invalid glyph, like an incomplete infinity symbol.  Futher evidence that the Retracer did not even know the Voynichese alphabet.

I take these two examples, and other details, as evidence that the Retracer (who made the "new" strokes) and the original Scribe (who wrote and drew everything else) were different persons; and also that the Retracer had no clue about the nature and meaning of these diagrams.

All the best, --jorge

Leaving the Retracer issue aside, about the the bulk of the text having been written by two or more Scribes, I would say that

1. One could in principle objectively establish that there are multiple handwritings, by statistical analysis of glyph shapes.  However, whether those handwritings belonged to distinct  people is a separate theory, that needs its own evidence.   My own hadwriting has changed an awful lot over the years, and still varies a lot depending on my state of mind and rest, posture, writing instrument and medium, etc.  The variations are much bigger than what we see in the VMS.
   
2. The "splitters" who saw multiple handwritings may have succumbed to "confirmation bias".  Namely, once they got the hunch that there were multiple Scribes, they set out to find evidence confirming it -- differences in glyph shapes -- while ignoring the much stronger evidence that contradictd it -- the similarities in glyph shapes.  And one similarity, in particular, is the range of variation of glyph shapes within the same page, or even the same line.  That is, the writing everywhere is very similar because it is similarly variable.
   
3. Surely there was some Author who decided to write this book, decided what would be in it, and invented the script.  The Author must have drafted the text and sketched the figures on paper first; it would be insanity to write everything directly from his head onto vellum.  Then he/she gave the draft and sketches to a Scribe who clean-copied them to the vellum.  If there was only one Scribe, he/she may have been the same as the Author.  If the Scribe was a different person, the Author had to teach him/her the Voynichese alphabet, and had him/her train writing it until the Author was satisfied with the result.  If there was a single Scribe, he/she could be an Author's secretary, apprentice, relative, etc.  But if there were five or six Scribes, the Author had to recruit, teach, and train all of them; which makes the idea quite a bit less likely.  Moreover, these multiple Scribes also had to conspire and train to write in similarly sloppy ways -- so similar that at least one handwriting expert and many amateur ones would swear that there was just one Scribe.
   

Interesting observations about the retracer, Jorge!
I had assumed it was the same person who drew the balneological nymphs because only in the retraced zodiac nymphs we see c-o shaped eyes.

It is really strange that he was so adamant on retracing the breasts. The question is - did he retrace or add them? There are some original nyphs with only one breast that is in the outline.

I can't comment specifically on the text but in my opinion everything was drawn by the same person. And seeing that the illustrations appear to show a similar continuum as the text (Page / Bifolio as a Fuction) I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the entire VM is an organic whole produced by one person. With the probable exception of month names and page numbers.

Is there an assumption why the last zodiac pages are so faded? Was the ink weak from the beginning? Are these pages older or were they subjected to sunlight for long periods (on top)?