Hallucinations on f10r:
[
attachment=13440]
This clip spans the left half of lines 5-12 of Herbal page f10r.
As in most other pages, there are many bits of evidence of retracing visible in this clip. Tentatively one can distinguish original traces (Rt0) by the original Scribe, now extremely faint; a general "restoration" pass (Rt1) that retraced most of the text with medium brown ink, leaving out only a few bits here and there; and a "retouching" pass (Rt2) that re-retraced some parts of some glyphs with a darker brown ink. There may be some confusion between the latter and parts of Rt1 that were drawn with freshly recharged pen.
With only a couple of exceptions, all the plumes visible in this clip were retraced by Rt1 -- slowly and in the wrong direction (clockwise), leaving them misshapen, too thick, and often thicker at the tip than elsewhere. Some of those plumes were re-retraced by Rt2. Most of the tails were incompletely retraced by Rt1, leaving the distal part of the Rt0 tail visible as a faint mousetail.
(A) The tail of this
q is Rt0, almost invisible by now. The head is Rt1.
(B) The top of the left leg of this
k is Rt0, the rest is Rt1.
© The upper half of this
e is Rt0, the lower half is Rt1.
(D) On this
Sh, the body and the upper half of the plume (traced CW, starting ~1 mm above the ligature) are Rt1. The lower half of the plume, almost invisible, crosses the ligature and extends down to the baseline.
(E) This
y was "restored" by Rt1 as
a, omitting the very faint Rt0 tail.
(F) This glyph was probably an
y, but its Rt0 tail is almost completely invisible now. Apparently it was invisible to Rt1 too, who "restored" the glyph as
o.
(G) On this
q, the head is Rt2, the upper half of the tail is Rt1, and the lower half (faint but visible) is Rt0.
(H) This
l has the body and loop retraced by Rt2, leaving out the upper half of the tail by Rt1 and the lower half by Rt0.
(J) The distal part of this plume, from !N to NW, is probably Rt0. The rest of the plume is Rt1, and the body of the
r is Rt2.
(K,L) These
r glyphs were restored by Rt1 (with CW plumes) and then their bodies were re-retraced by Rt2.
(M) Imperfect restoration of this glyph as
o, leaving a bit of the Rt0 trace visible at the bottom of the hole. It is not certain that the original was
o.
(N) These
o glyphs are morphologically anomalous and are half an o-width to the left of the apparent left rail (the thin yellow line). There is no clear vestige of Rt0 ink, and the top one is on a crease of the vellum. They may have been hallucinated by Rt1.
(P) This
r glyph was probably drawn with the body more horizontal than normal by the Rt0 Scribe. See the inset image for my guess as to the Rt0 version of this glyph. When Rt1 restored the following
o, he drew it lower than it was before. That left the
r visibly higher than the new baseline. Rt1 then "fixed" that flaw by bending the body of the
r and extending it down to the new baseline, resulting in this mis-shapen glyph. Rt2 then doubled down on this mistake by re-retracing the body of the
r.
(Q) Same as (P), except that the whole glyph is Rt1. See the inset for my guess as the Rt0 version may have been. However, unlike (P), here no sign of the Rt0 version is visible, and the glyph lies mostly to the left of the presumed left rail. Therefore, it seems quite possible that this glyph did not exist in Rt0, and was hallucinated by Rt1.