The Voynich Ninja

The Center of All Hallucinations!

(It is on the Rosettes page, of course.)

[attachment=13267]

  This clip covers the very center of the Rosette's page (f85v2), specifically the "central plaza" with "six "onion roof towers", the "starry sky" hovering above them, and the central text; as well as portions of the three rings of decorative "tombstones" to the west of it, part of the text ring, and three labels just inside it.
   
    Like most pages of the VMS, the text and inked figure outlines in this clip show evidence of at least three passes of tracing, re-tracing, and improvements; not counting the color painting. The original traces (Rt0) are few, thin, and rather faint; see (A1,A2,J1,W1) below.  There was a general restoration pass (Rt1) in medium brown ink, with varying shades depending on pen loading; it redid all the text, except for the tips of some tails, and most of the figure outlines. See (B1,B3,E1) below.  Finally there was a scattered retouching pass (Rt2) with dark brown ink, almost black, which retraced a few glyphs in the central text and some parts of the figure outlines. See (C1,C2,Q2,Y1) below.
   
    The drawings have several errors of perspective and rendering. Many of them can be attributed to the, erm, limited artistic abilities of the original Scribe.  However, quite a few of them can only be explained as incorrect "restorations" or additions by Retracers who failed to see the Rt0 traces or misunderstood them.  See for example (U1), (T1), (L1,P1,P2) (L1), and (T2) below.
   
    Outer decoration:
   
    (A1) Short longitudinal Rt0 hatching lines on the inside of the tube, depicted with a single rim, as if its wall had negligible thickness. Some of these hatching lines were retraced by Rt1.  (A2) Rt0 rim of the tube, incorrectly retraced by Rt1 as a wider rim to the NW.
   
    (B1) Rim of tube retraced by Rt1. (B2) This dot is Rt1. No Rt0 trace is visible here.  (B3) Rt1 retrace of the "tombstones".
   
    (C1) Rim of tube retraced bt Rt2. (C2) the black openings of these tubes are Rt2.  There may have been earlier versions,but no trace of them is visible now. (C3) Tombstone outlines partly retraced by Rt2. (C4) These dots are Rt2, apparently retracings of Rt1 dots. It is not clear whether they were Rt0 too.
   
    (D1,D2) Examples of Rt0 incompletely retraced by Rt1/Rt2. (D3) Possibly an Rt0 hatching line missed by Rt1. (D4) Rt0 hatching lines imperfectly and/or incompletely retraced by Rt2. (D5) The Rt0 outline of the walkway extends across the lower edge of the starry sky, supporting the point (V1) below.

    (E1) Same as (B2). (F1) Same as (C4).
   
    Central plaza:
   
    (G1) This inner rim of the central plaza seems to be Rt0.
   
    (H1,H2) Outline of the central plaza retraced by Rt1.
   
    (I1) This part of the inner rim of the central plaza, presumably Rt0, was painted over in light yellow.
   
    Onion tower (1) at 10:00:
   
    (J1) Rt0 trace of the tower's base.
   
    Onion tower (2) at 09:00:
   
    (L1) Bit of the Rt0 E outline of the tower, not retraced by mistake.
   
    (L1,L2) Misaligned spire outlines by Rt1 or Rt2; it is not visible if they were also misaligned in the Rt0 version, which may have been erased by the yellow paint.
   
    Onion tower (3) at 07:00:
   
    (O1) Rt0 trace of the tower's base, partly retraced bt Rt2.
   
    (P1) Original outline of the onion roof, mistaken by Rt1 for a rib of the same. (P2) Continuation of the outline of the central plaza, mistaken by Rt1 for the outline of the onion roof.
   
    (Q1) Bogus ball at the tip of the spire, added by Rt2. (Q2) The two parallel traces on the E side of the tower's outline are a mistake by Rt2 and his way to fix it.  It is not clear which was drawn first. Anyway, the westernmost of the two traces seems to be the correct one, that matches the Rt0 trace (O1) of the tower's base.
   
    Onion tower (4) at 05:00:
   
    (S1) Bit of Rt0 rib on the onion dome that was imperfectly retraced by Rt1 or Rt2.  (S2) In Rt0, the upper half of the tower's outline (almost invisible) was aligned with the bottom half.  Rt1/Rt2 retraced the upper half on the W side misaligned.
   
    (T1) Outline of starry sky incorrectly drawn over the tower outline by Rt1. (T2) Bit added by Rt1 to match his retracing of the W side of the same onion roof.  (T3) This line along the base of the tower may have been added by Rt1. No Rt0 trace for it is visible now.
   
    Onion tower (5) at 03:00:
   
    (U1) Bit of starry sky outline incorrectly drawn over the spire of the tower by Rt1.

    Starry sky:
   
    (V1) This part of the starry sky, retraced by Rt1, has a single outline. May indicate that the Rt0 version of the starry sky had a single-traced outline, as if it had no thickness.  The second trace, supposedly the lower edge of a thick plate, may have been added by Rt1.
   
    Text:
   
    (W1,W2) The distal parts of the tails of these y and l glyphs are Rt0.
   
    (X1) This glyph is Rt1, like most of the text in this clip.
   
    (Y1) This s glyph is Rt1, except for the distal end of the plume which is Rt2. (Y2) These glyphs are Rt2.

As usual, assume "I think that", "My best guess is that", etc prefixed to every claim above.

All the best, --stolfi

Hallucinations of Galactic proportions! Or maybe just of a little pond...

On f68v3, the "Spiral Nebula" diagram:

[attachment=13311]

This image is a mosaic of clips from page f68v3, the "Spiral Nebula" page. 
   
    The clips cover the perimeter of the wavy ("nebuly") closed line between the outer text ring and the central "T-O map". The region between the latter and the wavy line contains a couple dozen stars.  In spite of these stars, that area is traditionally called the "pond" (possibly because of the mottled blue paint, that recalls water more than sky).
   
    This wavy line can be split into eight sections, such that the midpoints of the "fingers" (waves) in each section lie approximately on a straight line.  Thus the shape of the pond is roughly an irregular octagon, shown by the orange lines in the image above.  The lengths of the sides vary from ~22 mm to ~55 mm, and the outer angles vary from ~12° to ~69° (compared to the 45° of a regular octagon). Clips 01-08 cover these sections in clockwise order starting from the one at ~10:30.  Here is a zoom-out view:

[attachment=13313]
   
    Note that most of the fingers consist of two parallel traces, ~1 mm apart, either on the CW side of the finger or on its CCW side.  The choice between the two sides changes at random places.  The exceptions are noted below.
   
    This page underwent at least one comprehensive restoration pass (Rt1) that retraced almost all the text and a large part of the diagram.  On the BL 2014 images, these traces are medium to dark yellowish brown and rather broad (~0.4 mm).
   
    The original (Rt0) traces, narrower and quite faint, survive as the tips of some tails and a few portions of the spiral arms, annotated below.  Unfortunately Rt1 outline traces with reduced pressure may look like Rt0 traces.  Outside these clips, Rt0 traces survive also as most of the mechanical circles, and a few bits on the star outlines.
   
    Outside of these clips there is evidence suggesting a third round of retracing, with even broader traces than Rt1 (~0.6 mm) and darker and slightly more reddish ink.  This pass retraced some of the text, but apparently had little impact on the nebuly line. 
   
    (A1,A2,A3) The distal halves of these tails are Rt0.
   
    (B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6,B7) Possible original (Rt0) traces on the figure.
   
    (C1,C2,C3,C4) Fingers without double trace.
   
    (D1) Finger with double trace on both sides.
   
    (E1) This finger may be normal, but the image is heavily distorted by the fold on the vellum.
   
    (F1) Incorrect tracing of the arm, and painting of the finger's side.  (F2) This detail is hard to parse. It could be an incorrect Rt1 trace that looks like Rt0 due to reduced pressure. (F3) Outline garbled by Rt1. (F4) This whole finger (both traces) may have been added by the Retracer. Note that it does not connect properly to the previous one or to the spiral arm. It is also unpainted, suggesting that the retracing happened after the painting. (F5) Outline garbled by Rt1.  (F6) Malformed finger, possibly because of the difficulty of drawing/retracing over the fold.

Discussion

    The diagram has eight "arms" -- curved bands of text that start at the outer text ring and spiral inwards. Four of them end at the edge of the pond, as if they were channels leading into it or out of it.  They alternate with four other arms that cross the edge of the pond and terminate at the inner text ring. 

    Apparently the plan was for each of these bands to end or cross the wavy line at a vertex of the octagon, each taking the place of a finger.  However in a few cases the arm crosses the octagon in the middle of a side, and its relation with the fingers may be confusing, as can be seen on the clips above.

    The double traces on the fingers give the impression that the pond is cut out of a thick plate, or is sunken or raised from the surroundings, with a sharp vertical step of uniform height all around.
   
    However, the rendering of this "cut" or "step" is geometrically inconsistent, so that the bottom edge is often visible or invisible where it should not be. All the fingers of the pond, except 4, have double tracing either on the CW side or on the CCW side, randomly. Sometimes this double tracing extends a bit over the "fingertip" and/or a bit along the bottom of the gap between fingers. One finger has double tracing on both the CW and CCW sides (but not at the tip), and some fingers are partly covered by the spiral arms, so that their double tracing would not be visible. Anyway, if the pond is meant to be flat and seen face-on, this cut or step should not be visible anywhere.
   
    Some of these rendering mistakes could be due to the notorious artistic incompetence of the original Scribe. However, some of the errors can be best explained as the result of retracing and "improvements" by a Retracer who did not understand the drawing, and therefore must have been distinct from the original Scribe.

    As usual, every statement above is implicitly prefixed with "I believe that" or "my best guess is that".

All the best, --stolfi

(04-01-2026, 08:56 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One or two nymphs have a more frontal orientation, notably the one centre top on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Admittedly, the face still tilts to the left, but it's more frontal than the rest of them, which also applies to the way the body is drawn.

Indeed that nymph is very unusual.  However, to me she seems to have been heavily altered.  I believe that the original version was substantially less "brutal".  I will post more details on the "Retracing" thread.

(By the way, why is that thread sorted under "Talk" rather than "Imagery"?)

All the best, --stolfi

Who said that hallucinations are easy? These ones consumed 5GWh of brainpower, six cups of coffee, and three beers!

On f77v:
[attachment=13326]
  This clip covers the figure at the top of page f77v, nicknamed "Kidneys and bladder" because of the figes in the side margins.  It comprises three nymphs N1, N2, N3 standding on tubs, plus two disconnected conduits at the top, and a complex structure that joins the three tubs from below. It also include lines 1 and 2 of the first paragraph. See the key below.
   
  General remarks
   
    On this page, as in most other pages, there is evidence for at least two and probably three passes of tracing,restoration, and retouching.  The original traces (Rt0) are faint almost to the point of invisibility and rather thin (%3.0) They survive on the text mostly as the tips of plumes and tails, and on the figure as bits of outline that were ignored in the subsequent passes, apparently on purpose. 
   
    Then a general restoration pass (Rt1) retraced all the text and most of this figure, with a slightly broader pen (%4) and medium grayish-brown ink.  This pass apparently added a few details to the figure.
   
    Finally a third pass (Rt2) retouched some glyphs and a large part of this figure, including parts that had been retraced by Rt1.  It also added many details to the figure, possibly including the entire lower connector.  See the Discussion below.  This pass used broader strokes (up to %7) with a darker ink.
   
    In what follows, "incomplete retracing" means retracing that stops or starts abruptly, leaving the earlier trace visible beyond that point; "incorrect retracing" means retracing that does not follow the original trace it was supposed to retrace, leaving it visible as a "ghost" parallel trace; "creation" means a detail that did not exist in the Rt0 layer and was drawn by either retracer.  Incorrect retracing and creation may be due to the Retracer mistakenly believing that there an earlier trace there, or just because he decided to "fix" or "enhance" the figure.
   
    Whenever a trace is assigned to a retracing pass, it should be understood that it may be a perfect retracing of earlier passes.  Thus an Rt2 trace may be covering and Rt1 and/or Rt0 one, and an Rt1 trace may be covering an Rt0 one.
   
    One must be aware, however, that the weight and color of traces on each pass may vary depending on the pressure applied to the pen and its ink contents.  Thus, for example, it is possible that some traces that are assigned below to Rt0 were in fact drawn by Rt1 with an almost dry pen.
   
  Key to the annotations
   
    Text 
   
    (0a) Pen recharging event by Rt1.

    (0b) Rt0 tails incompletely retraced by Rt1.

    (0c,0d) The proximal part of these plumes is Rt0, the rest is Rt1, possibly traced in the wrong direction (clockwise).

    (0e) This glyph must have been @o in Rt0, but was retraced as @h by Rt1.

    (0f) This glyph was probably @o in Rt0, and was changed to @a by Rt1.

    (0g,0h) These @r glyphs were retraced by Rt2.

    Nymph N1 
   
    (1a) Bit of Rt0 on the outline of the arm.  The rest of the outline is retracing or addition by Rt1 and/or Rt2.

    (1b) Original hairline of N1, retraced by Rt1 and/or Rt2.

    (1c) Original Rt0 Top of hair outline, retraced by Rt1 as scattered dots.

    (1d) Hair outline added by Rt1, higher than original (1c).

    (1e) Possible original Rt0 of hair outline, partly erased by the yellow paint.

    (1f) Right breast outline added or retraced by Rt1.

    (1g) Left breast outline added or retraced by Rt1 then incompletely re-retraced by Rt2.

    (1h) Detail created by Rt1/Rt2.
   
    (1i) Part of Rt1 retrace of nymph that was incorrectly retraced by Rt2.

    (1j) Rt0 bits omitted or incorrectly retraced by Rt1 and Rt2. See ???hand reconstruction.

    (1k) Rt0 Outline of tub opening and wall. Omitted by Rt1/Rt2 who added a second outline (1m).

    (1l) Original Rt0 wall of tub.  Ignored by Rt1, who provided (1n) instead.

    (1n) Wall of tub created by Rt1. Compare with (1l).

    (1m) Outer edge of tup created by Rt1/Rt2.  Compare with (1k).

    Nymph N2
   
    (2a) Original traces (Rt0).

    (2b) Breasts of nymph were Rt0, incompletely retraced by Rt1 and re-retraced by Rt2.

    (2c) Probable Rt0, but maybe light Rt1.

    (2d) Edge of cube, possibly Rt0 or light Rt1, that was ignored when the nebuly line and the "cloud" was added.

    (2e) Rt0 trace of nymph's face, modified bt Rt1.

    (2f) Rt0 chest outline incorrectly retraced by Rt1/Rt2.
   
    (2g) Rt0 hairline of nymph.

    (2h) Rt0 outline of nymph's hair.

    (2i) Rt0 top outline of nymph's hair, retraced bt Rt2.

    (2j,2k) Bonnet added by Rt1.

    (2l) Rt0 outline of nymph's hair, retraced bt Rt2.

    (2m) The original Rt0 probably had a single trace between the two legs. Rt1/Rt2 added a second trace (making the nymph's left leg narrower) and added details to the pubic area.
   
    (2n) These bits of the tub's edge is Rt1.
   
    (2o) Possible original water level, retraced by Rt2 and painted over.

    Nymph N3   
   
    (3a) Original Rt0 outline of nymph's belly and crotch, skipped by Rt1 and Rt2.  Compare wth (3b).

    (3b) Outline of nymph's belly and crotch incorrectly retraced by Rt1 and R1-retraced by Rt2. Compare with (3a).

    (3c) Possible Rt0 outline of nymph's right leg.  The bottom part may have been erased by the blue paint.  Note the brownish tone of the latter.

    (3d) Original Rt0 hairline retraced by Rt2,maybe Rt1 too.

    (3e) Rt0 top of hair outline, replaced by Rt1/Rt2 for a row of dots.

    (3f) Bit of Rt0 nymph outline that was skipped by Rt1 and Rt2.

    (3g) Bonnet created by Rt2.

    (3h) Veil created by Rt1.
   
    (3i) Probable Rt0 wall of tub.

    Top NW tube
   
    (4a) Probable Rt0 outline of tubes.  Note that (4a) ends at the <i>inner</i> edge of the tube.

    (4b) Bit of outline retraced by Rt1 and then imperfetly re-retraced by Rt2.

    (4c) The Rt0 outline of the tube ended at the <i>inner</i> edge of the tube, lile (4a).
   
    (4d) Flared-out outline of tube by Rt1, igoring original outline (4c).
   
    (4e) Inner edge of tube was Rt0; retraced by Rt1.

    (4f) Outer edge of tube added by Rt1.

    (4g) Inner edge of tube was Rt0, retraced by Rt1/Rt2.

    (4h) Outer edge of tube created by Rt1/Rt2.   

    (4i) Bits of the tube outlines that make no sense. Presumably they were Rt0 and got retraced by Rt1 and Rt2, before (5d,4k) were drawn. Compare with (5b).

    (4j) Probable Rt0 edge of tube, retraced by Rt1.

    (4k) Original Rt0 edge of tube opening, retraced by Rt1 and Rt2.  Note that there is no inner edge next to (4k).

    (4l) Outer edge of tube opening created by Rt1 and/or Rt2.

    (4m) Hatching probably Rt0 incompletely retraced by Rt1.

    Top NE tube

    (5a) Probable Rt0 outline of tubes.  Note that (4a) ends at the <i>inner</i> edge of the tube.

    (5b) Bit of the tube's outline, very faint, omitted by Rt1 and Rt2. Compare with (5e).

    (5c) Original Rt0 edge of tube opening, retraced by Rt1 and Rt2.

    (5d) New edges of tube openings, created by Rt1 and/or Rt2.

    (5e) Bits of the tube outlines that make no sense. Presumably they were Rt0 and got retraced by Rt1 and Rt2, before (5d,4k) were drawn. Compare with (5b).

    (5f) Rt0 outline of mouth of tube. Replaced by flared-out outline (???) by Rt1.

    (5g) Flared sides of the tube added by Rt1, replacing the Rt0 sides (5f).

    (5h) Inner edge was Rt0, ertraced by Rt1/Rt2.

    (5i) Outer edge of tube added by Rt1.
   
    (5j) Bit of original tube wall incorrectly retraced by Rt1 a bit higher up.

    (5k) Original Rt0 edge of tube, retraced by Rt1 then Rt2.

    (5l) Original Rt0 edge of tube retraced by Rt1.  Note overshoot at the W end.

    (5m) outer edge of tube created by Rt2 and maybe Rt1.

    (5n) Hatching by Rt0, partly retraced by Rt1/Rt2.

    (5o) Hatching outside the tube by Rt2.

    (5p) small bit of Rt0 that was part of the original edge of the tube, ignored or imperfectly retraced by both Rt1 and Rt2.

    (5q) Small Rt0 bit of tube outline; rest lightly retraced by Rt1. Possibly the original edge of the tube.

    (5r) Rt0 edge of tube retraced by Rt1. Note that there is no inner edge.

    (5s) New edges of tube openings, created by Rt1 and/or Rt2.
   
    (5t) Hatching probably Rt0 incompletely retraced by Rt1.

    Bottom tubes

   
    (6a,6b,6c) Tubes created by Rt1.
 
    (6d) The Rt1 drawing interferes with the text.
   
    (6e) This part is Rt1; if so, the rest of the lower "assembly" must be Rt1 too. But may be light Rt2.

    Base of nymph N1
   
    (7a) These hatching lines look like Rt0, but may be light Rt1.

    (7b) Rt0 wavy line that may be the original pond. Compare with (7e).

    (7c) Nebuly line added or retraced by Rt2

    (7d) Wavy lines added by Rt1 and partly re-retraced by Rt2.

    (7e,7f) Edge of east trumpet created by Rt1 and partly retraced by Rt2. Compare with (7b).

    Base of nymph N2
   
    (8a) Nebuly line and wavy lines created by Rt1.

    Base of nymph N3
   
    (9a,9b,9c) Nebuly and wavy lines created by Rt1, with a bit retraced by Rt2.
   
    (9d) This wavy line, with sharp peaks, may be Rt0, but more likely light Rt1.

  Reconstruction
 
    Here is my best guess at how the top of the page looked like after the original Scribe was done with it:

[attachment=13328]

  As always, assume "I think that", "my best guess is that" before all the claims above.
 
All the best, --stolfi

(04-01-2026, 09:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I believe that the original version [of the top center nymph on f77v] was substantially less "brutal".

Here is my best guess at what the top of that page looked like when the original Scribe was done with it:
[attachment=13329]
For a detailed analysis of what seems original and what is not under the Massive Retracing theory, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

"It looks so incomplete!", you will say.  Indeed, and that must be why someone eventually decided to complete that figure with a hydraulic cyclonic triple-ended fallopian tubes subsystem.  But he could not figure out how to label it properly, of course.

I should provide my explanation for why the Scribe left so much blank space between the figure and the main text.  But it is past my bedtime.  Later...

All the best, --stolfi

(06-01-2026, 06:17 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Who said that hallucinations are easy? These ones consumed 5GWh of brainpower, six cups of coffee, and three beers!

On f77v:
[..]
As always, assume "I think that", "my best guess is that" before all the claims above.
 
All the best, --stolfi

To be open, this all looks enourmously excessive to me.
I am regarding the idea of some (1) retracer who did a bunch of (silly) retraces and „improvements“ to a lot of drawings and really retraced some few words;
but in this image, I would assume only some „hairdo“ at the middle nymph, and even that seems not totally surely to be a retracing.
Would fix to the famous „darker ink“ only: thera a lot of passages where such darker ink clearly appear and even induce changes of the original content, but this seems not to be the case here.

(06-01-2026, 06:26 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am regarding the idea of some (1) retracer who did a bunch of (silly) retraces and „improvements“ to a lot of drawings and really retraced some few words

That was my feeling until a few months ago.  To me it was obvious that certain details of the drawings, like the "showercaps" on some nymphs, were late additions by someone who did not care much about the contents.  Call that the "Sparse Retracing" theory (SRT).

But now I believe that, between the original Scribe and that "Boobs Retracer", there was an episode where a scribe or scribal shop was hired to retrace the whole manuscript, as faithfully as possible, because the original writing had faded to the point of being almost illegible, or worse.  Call this the "Massive Retracing" theory (MRT).

There is no question that many ink traces have faded to that extent, especially in the figure outlines.  Examples can be found on every page.  

So, if one excludes the MRT, one must find an explanation for how those traces can fade that much, while others remain dark and broad.  And how one trace can suddenly transition from one to the other.  And then back again.  And sometimes split into two traces, faded and dark, that go parallel for a while but then merge again... Like (4c)/(4e), (2e), (5f)/(5g) above.

The standard answer to this question is to invoke some unspecified magical property of the ink and quill used by the original Scribe's, that would cause those abrupt shifts.  Over the whole book.  Without the Scribe trying to fix the problem.

The only argument I have seen so far against the MRT is the assertion that it is "obviously" impossible to retrace letters with that precision without leaving "ghost" traces sticking out by the side of the new ones.  That being put down as a dogma, it follows that any cases where such ghost traces are in fact visible "must" be due to the Scribe himself retracing his work with that magical ink.

I offer You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as evidence that experienced scribes can in fact retrace previous text with practically no ghosts, only with the thinner and lighter tails and plumes sticking out as continuation of the fatter and darker retraces.  Which is what happens everywhere in the VMS.  

But of course the infidels will claim that those scribes at St. Gallen too knew the recipe for the magic tone-switching ink...

Quote:but in this image, I would assume only some "hairdo" at the middle nymph, and even that seems not totally surely to be a retracing.

If you look closely, you will see the faint original outline of the top of the hair in all three nymphs as being just one finger above the hairline.  Like it is on the more pristine of the nymphs in the Zodiac.  The rest of the original hairdo is lost under the darker traces, but I see no sign of it below the tuft at the temples which I reconstructed above (also by reference to the pristine Zodiac nymphs).

And that also goes for the whole lower-tubes-and-whirlpools part of the figure.  Unlike the upper tubes, I can't see any sign of the original traces in that part.  In retrospect, it also looks quite odd and unlike the style of the upper part.

Again: for some Voynichologists, the SRT and the MRT should be largely irrelevant.  But I am aware that others will positively hate both, especially the MRT, because it conflicts frontally with any theories that depend on the details that were probably messed up by the retracers.  Oh well, what can I do...

All the best, --stolfi

(06-01-2026, 07:20 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I offer You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as evidence that experienced scribes can in fact retrace previous text with practically no ghosts, only with the thinner and lighter tails and plumes sticking out as continuation of the fatter and darker retraces.

Ink flow varies with pressure and speed: no supernaturally accurate retracing skills required.

(06-01-2026, 10:04 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-01-2026, 07:20 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I offer You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

Ink flow varies with pressure and speed: no supernaturally accurate retracing skills required.

Yeah, you only need a supernatural two-state pen that can produce just two ink colors and trace widths, with no transition.

That St. Gallen manuscript did not require "supernaturally accurate retracing skills" to produce as I described before (by a senior copyist who knew Latin and all abbreviations but had only a passable handwriting, a junior scribe who merely retraced his thin gray strokes with brown broad ink, and a reviewer who checked the result and retouched when necessary)  It required only a firm hand, sharp eyes, and the patience of a monk.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is my attempt at it.  Note that I m 75, with two cataract operations (meaning I can't focus closer than ~50 cm) and I haven't done any significant pen artwork by hand in more than 20 years.  As you can see, I am getting better at it even with a little practice.  Is that supernatural enough? 

[PS you may need to download the file (~20 MB); my browser can't play that link directly for some reason]

All the best, --stolfi

(07-01-2026, 12:06 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is my attempt at it.  Note that I m 75, with two cataract operations (meaning I can't focus closer than ~50 cm) and I haven't done any significant pen artwork by hand in more than 20 years.  As you can see, I am getting better at it even with a little practice.  Is that supernatural enough? 

[PS you may need to download the file (~20 MB); my browser can't play that link directly for some reason]

All the best, --stolfi

You are covering thin pencil strokes with wide pen or liner strokes. Assuming mm grid, the pencil strokes are ~0.25 and the pen strokes are ~0.4. This is not at all what the imaginary retracer of the Voynich manuscript would do. She or he would touch up existing stokes in a way to produce a seamless shape transition from pen to pencil. Can you draw a character that is half pen half pencil but at the magnification 4x higher than this video you would only be able to tell where the pen ends and the pencil starts by a change in color, not in shape.