The Voynich Ninja

(11-09-2025, 03:49 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All that extra work - and no boobs?

Both the Scribe and the Retracer soon got better in that department as they continued their work.

Have you considered that the artist may have sketched with a pencil lead tip?
Sometimes you can see it.
In that case, the artist is also the illustrator.

(11-09-2025, 07:51 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Have you considered that the artist may have sketched with a pencil lead tip?

Yes.  It is a variant of the alternative "the Scribe himself went back and retraced parts that had come out faint or crooked"
I don't think o, for several reasons.  Among others:

• The retracing is often limited to parts of single glyphs or parts of the figure outlines.
  
• The original traces often clearly look like they were drawn with a pen, namely with broad strokes whose width varies with orientation and apparent speed -- only faded in various degrees.
  
• The parts that I think are retraced are often grossly wrong, like on that nymph. Sometimes they include invalid glyphs.  I don't see how that could happen if the Inker was the same person as the Penciler, or even if they were working for the same Author.
  
• My hypothetical Retracer had some specific obsessions, like the right breasts of the nymphs and the distinctive "showercap" diadems, that were not shared by the original Inker.
  
• In some places (liek f57v) the inked text and drawings are faded to the point of being almost invisible.  If any parts already looked like that before 1910, any owner who prized the manuscript (including the Jesuits at the Collegio Romano) would surely have wanted to restore them. 
  

And I think -- but I am not quite sure yet --- that there were at least two rounds of retracing, by different people.  The first one was more careful and used brown ink similar to the original.  The second one was clumsier and used a much darker ink, with a different tone, but retraced only a few parts that the first one had skipped, and a few parts that had been retraced but were again faded or damaged.

All the best, --jorge

(11-09-2025, 07:51 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Have you considered that the artist may have sketched with a pencil lead tip?

PS.  The circles in the Zodiac and Cosmo sections may have been done in pencil, originally.  

The thinnest (~0.1 mm) and lightest parts of those circles ('A' in the f71v clip below) are very smooth and the radii seem to be all different, so they must have been made with a compass (as opposed to by hand or by tracing around a template).
[attachment=11420]
There is a pinprick in the parchment where the "dry" point of the compass ahould have been planted. It is best seen in the transmitted-light multsipectral images:
[attachment=11419]
However, most circles fail to close: the two ends often miss each other by up to a millimiter or two, and continue past each other by a centmeter or more.  I suppose that these defects could be explained by the parchment warping during the tracing, or by a compass that was not as rigid as it should be. Needless to say, if any part of any circle was originally traced with a compass, then all circles must have been originally wholly traced that way.
 
Pencil would be the most convenient choice for drawing with a compass.  And the thinnest and lightest parts of the circles look just like one would expect from pencil.  o we may assume that all circles where originally wholly traced with pencil.

However, some parts of the circles are a bit thicker (~0.3 mm) and darker, with the light yellowish-brown color of the ink used on that page.  See 'B' in the clip above. Those parts of the circles must have been retraced in ink.

There are compass attachments for drawing circles in ink (I used one in college, in the technical drafring class) but I don't know how common those were in the time and place where the VMS was scribed.  Anyway the Scribe may have improvised some eqivalent arrangement, e. g. a sharp quill attached to the compass.

However, those inked parts of the circles sometimes are jittery, not as smooth as the penciled parts, and in a few spots they deviate from the underlying penciled circles.  This is best seen on that same page, in the circles bounding the inner text band, around 03:00:
[attachment=11421]
Here 'A' are the original circles (~0.1mm, light, and smooth), and 'B' are the retraced ones (~0.3mm, darker, jittery). The latter deviate from the former by ~0.4 mm in the indicated spots.

So I am fairly convinced that those inked parts of the circles were not re-drawn with a compass, but were retraced with free hand. 

One puzzling detail is that these "medium-thick" retraced circles also fail to close, like the original thin traces did. If they were retraced by the original Scribe, I would expect that he would use the occasion to fix that defect of the penciled traces and join the two ends.  My explanation is that the Retracer was not the original Scribe, but someone who had been hired to restore the faded parts of the book -- and this person thought that he ought to retrace the original as faithfully as he could, defects and all.

And then there are sections of the circles which are clearly retraced with a broader pen, and even less care. Like 'D' in the first clip...

All the best, --jorge

Again, I now believe that the VMS was extensively restored, decades or  centuries after it was written, because large parts of it had faded to the point of near invisibility, or even beyond. The restoration consisted of carefully retracing the faded parts of the text and figures with somewhat similar ink, as well as possible.  For the most part, this retracing was quite careful and thorough on the text, somewhat less so on the figures.  

The evidence for this restoration includes

• Sudden variations in ink color and stroke weight, often in the middle of what should have been a single stroke, that cannot be explained by ink flow and recharging dynamics.
  
• In particular, traces that are faded to the point of near invisibility next to traces with "normal" weight.
  
• Darker traces that were meant to cover fainter ones, but deviate from the latter, exposing them.
  
• Parts of glyphs, such as the plumes of r and s, that were traced slowly in the wrong direction.
  
• Glyphs that are malformed in ways that make sense only as having been misread and mangled by a Retracer who (unlike the original Scribe) did not know the alphabet and had no feeling for the structure of Voynichese words.
  
• Figure details that are particularly incongruous and coincidentally were drawn in darker ink.
  

As a working hypothesis I have been assuming three separate rounds of restoration -- Rt1, Rt2, Rt3.  The last two passes would have been necessary because the parts that had not been retraced in Rt1, as well as the result of Rt1 itself, kept fading over time.  

The three passes would be distinguished by weight and ink color, and by the last two being less careful than the first one.  However, the assignment of a stroke to one of these rounds is subjective, and there may have been only two passes, or (less likely) only one.

So, here is part of what I think I see on page f57v, "the 4 x 17 sequence page":
[attachment=11484]
In the following legend, please assume "probably", "apparently", "perhaps" etc. before each claim:

• A composite of clips of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that cover some of the weirdos in the 4 x 17 sequence (text ring R2, left column) and the occurrences in the other text rings (right column). 
  
•  Specifically, in the left column: the "curly r"; weirdos &170 "claw" and &171 "fancy puff"; a normal-looking y; weirdo &249 "angular C" that alternates with I and C; and weirdo &172 "updown lambda". 
  
• In the right column: &172 "updown lambda" from ring R2 at ~07:30; &171 "fancy puff" from R4 at ~02:45; and weirdos &171 "claw" and &249 "angular C" also from R4 at ~00:00. 
  
• Colors distinguish original traces (A-D, green), and retracing stages Rt1 (F-I, blue), Rt2 (K-N, purple), and Rt3 (P-R, orange). 
  
• (A) Circles C1-C4, original. 
  
• (B) Original or Rt1 plume of r glyphs. 
  
• (C ) Original stroke in weirdo &171, visible only on the first occurrence.
  
• (D) Other original glyph strokes. 
  
• (F) Rt1 plume of r. 
  
• (G) Rt1 body and dot of &170 "claw". 
  
• (H) Other Rt1 strokes. 
  
• (I) Rt1 leg and part of loops of &171 "fancy puff". 
  
• (K) Rt2 body of r. 
  
• (L) Rt2 retrace of whole r. 
  
• (M) Rt2 leg and loops of &171 "fancy puff". 
  
• (N) Other Rt2 strokes. 
  
• (P) Rt3 retrace of r plumes, in wrong direction (CCW). 
  
• (Q) Rt3 retrace of loops of &171 "fancy puff". 
  
• (R ) Rt3 retrace of &172 "updown lambda".
  

Naughty, naughty retracer!

Take for example the nymph on the outer band of f72r2 (Gemini) at ~10:30.

This is my guess at how the Original Scribe drew her:

[attachment=11504]

This is my guess at what she looked like a couple centuries later, when the owner decided to restore the manuscript:

[attachment=11503]

And this is how she looks like now:

[attachment=11502]

To be fair, I believe that there were at least two rounds of retracing: the first one very careful and faithful to the original, but who may have left some parts un-retraced.  And later came another Retracer who, not satisfied with retracing faded parts, also added several details of his own, just for the fun of it.  

All the best, --jorge

Since we just compared You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f31r, here are some of my Retracing Hallucinations for f31r.

Again, as a working hypothesis I have been assuming three separate rounds of restoration -- Rt1, Rt2, Rt3.  The last two passes would have been necessary because the parts that had not been retraced in Rt1, as well as the result of Rt1 itself, kept fading over time.  

The three passes would be distinguished by weight and ink color, and by the last two being less careful than the first one.  In the case of this page, Rt2 used a much broader pen than Rt1 or the original Scribe. However, the assignment of a stroke to one of these rounds is subjective, and there may have been only two passes, or (less likely) only one. As seen on the plant, on this page the original strokes have clearly faded to the point of almost complete invisibility, or beyond.

All the best, --jorge

[attachment=11541]
Clip of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covering the top part of the plant.  Label colors indicate original traces (green) and estimated retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) and Rt2 (purple).  (A) Original stem outline. (B) Rt1 retrace of stem. (C ) original flower stalk outlines. (D) Rt1 retraced and added flower stalk outlines.  (E) Original inner edge of corolla, all but invisible now, ~0.7 mm above Rt2 retrace. (F) Original petals, almost invisible. (G) Rt1 retracing of flower parts. (H) Rt2 retracing of flower parts. (L) Flowers (including calyces and stalks) added by Rt1. (O) Paint possibly over Rt1 trace. (P) Rt2 trace possible over paint.

[attachment=11540]
Clip of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covering the middle part of the plant.  Label colors indicate original outlines (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) and Rt2 (purple). (A) Original outline of stem, all but invisible now. (B) Rt1 outline of stem. (C,D) Original flower outline, all but invisible. (E,G) Rt1 outline and dots of flowers. (F,H) Rt2  outline and details of flowers.

[attachment=11539]
Clip of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covering the right half of text lines 1-12. Label colors indicate original outlines (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue), Rt2 (purple), and Rt3 (orange).  (A,B) Original y tail, maybe part Rt1. (C,D) An y with original right half and Rt1 left half. (E) Original platform slash missed by retracers. (F,G) Rt1 and Rt2 parts of a p gallows. (H,I) A q with Original or Rt1 tail and Rt2 head. (J,K,L) A q Rt3 head, top half of tail  Rt2, and rest of tail Rt1. (P) Unknown glyphs mangled by Rt1 into an e glued to a y. (Q) There is a very faint r-plume on the second i, and plume of the final n may be Rt1 invention.  Original word may have been airy or airl. (R ) Glyph probably was o originally; mangled by Rt2 into deformed a or y wo tail. (S) An Sh with C in Rt1, h in Rt2, and plume Rt3. (T) Glyph probably was r and was mangled to deformed n by Rt2. (U) This stroke probably did not exist originally and was added by Rt1 or Rt2. (V) Unknown glyphs mangled by Rt2. (W) Some r glyphs with Rt1 body and Rt2 plume. (X) Some s glyphs with Rt1 body and Rt2 plume.

There must be a way to detect if the dark ink has a different composition from the light ink and confirm the retracing...

(02-10-2025, 09:30 AM)quimqu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There must be a way to detect if the dark ink has a different composition from the light ink and confirm the retracing...

Hopefully that will happen one day.

For starters it would be nice to know the real composition of the ink(s).  It cannot be iron-gall ink. Not even expired iron-gall ink, or "low-iron iron-gall ink".

And it would help a lot to have some microscope images of some of the most obviously "retraced" glyphs and figure outlines. 

All the best, --jorge

Just for completeness, here are some of my Retracing Hallucinations for f30r, the other page that was compared to f31r.  The same general remarks apply, except that on this page there was no third round of retracing (Rt3), and the second round Rt2 used the same nib width as Rt1.  It is possible that Rt2 was merely the retracer of Rt1 back-tracing his own previous traces. 

[attachment=11543]
Clip of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covering the middle parts of lines 8-13 (parag P2). Label colors indicate original traces (green) and retracing rounds Rt1 (blue) and Rt2 (purple).  (A) Original plant outline. (B) Original tips of tails of y, nearly invisible. (C ) Ligature and possibly c  still original. (D,E) Rt1 part of the plant outline. (F) An r with lower half of plume original (neraly invisible) and rest Rt1. (G) Malformed n glyph creates unusual ending soeen. The glyph may have been invention of Rt1, and the original word may have been soeey with the y split off by plant. (H) Two Ch with Rt2 C and Rt1 h, and possibly a bit of original ligature in between. (I) One of the d that Rt2 was particularly fond of retracing.