The Voynich Ninja

I'd just note that G is soeeb and eeb is fairly rare but not unattested like een. I actually think its s o eeb but that's another topic..

(02-10-2025, 05:10 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd just note that G is soeeb and eeb is fairly rare but not unattested like een. I actually think its s o eeb but that's another topic..

Right. But the b glyph itself is quite rare.

I went through all occurrences of b in Rene's IVT transcription.  There are 17 of them, of which 13 in the Herbal section, one in Bio, two in Cosmo, and one in Stars.  The last two are transcription errors.  All the others are in endings eeeb or eeb, which may have been mistakes by the Scribe or the Retracer, and could have been eees or ees. 

All the best, --jorge

(I've given up with the VM font.. apologies for non-EVA users)
Though if all cases are EVA eeeb or eeb (and word end) to me it shows the link with EVA iiin/iin, but that's not to say you are not right, I just don't think it was ever intended to be "n"

I think there's lower hanging fruit for unsureness on scribe or retracer's part, such as below from f115v. To me there's no where this swish can go and still make a grammatically correct (by usual preference) word. It's also unclear if it was intended to be an "n" with an "o" in the way, or "r" and they put it in the wrong place. Obviously 1 example can be explained away in various ways but I could pull 10 examples each page from the "recipes" section that don't really make much sense. On this same page there's a word that starts with "i" and a backwards "e" shape to start a bench, fully looped "r" like a capital "P", black (actually black) ink splodge above the top star and in the same ink (to my eye) a "retracing" of "r".

I do think there's some additions to the text, and various levels of understanding of how this whole thing works from different scribes (or maybe one with different states..) but I also think the text made no sense to any observer at anytime (yet) and so I don't think meaning was lost by these sorts of additions or such that these things turned something that once made sense into something that does not now, at least from what I know so far 


[attachment=11546]
[attachment=11547]

Another batch of Retracing Hallucinations, now on page f67r2 (the one with red text).

Same premises and caveats as before.  I see three layers on the brown ink text: original and retracing rounds Rt1.B, Rt2.B.  The evidence is mainly ink density and plumes traced in the wrong direction, but there is one example where a glyph was mangled in a way suggesting that the Retracer did not know the alphabet.

There may be also two layers of red ink text, "original" and Rt1.R.  The main evidence is some glyphs mangled beyond recognition, besides plumes traced in the wrong direction.  The red ink has cracked an flaked off near the W and E edges of the panel.  A faint brownish trace may or may not be visible in those places.


[attachment=11553]

Clip of the NE part of the diagram of f67r2.  Green, cyan, and blue labels indicate (re)tracing rounds for the brown ink, respectively original, Rt1.B, and Rt2.B.  Orange and pink labels indicate (re)tracing of the red ink text, respectively original and Rt1.R. (A) Original glyphs (B) Rt1.B glyphs. (C,D) Rt2B glyphs. (E,G) Frame decorations in original traces (F,H) Frame decorations in Rt1.B. (I) Original trace of glyph h. (J) Probably a y that was retraced incorrectly as a disembodied tail. (K) glyphs n and r with badly Rt1.B retraced plumes. (L) possible brown ink or binder residue under red ink. (M) A brown ink dot in the middle of red text. (N,O) plumes of s and Sh in original red ink and Rt1.R. (Q,R) Glyph parts by Rt1.R. (S,T) Ligatures that start original red and end Rt1R. (U,V) glyphs that were mangled by Rt1.R. (W) In this k glyph, the part of the loop between the two legs is not aligned with the part to the right of the right leg. (X) loop of k traced in the wrong direction. (Y) Plume of r mangled by Rt1.R. (Z) Red ink cracked and flaked off near the edges of the panel.

It is difficult enough to trace your own handwriting written in pencil with a ballpoint pen. Try it with someone else's handwriting.
It is the same ink as in the crescent moon. Simply too thick. This happens throughout the book. To me, this only indicates that one of the writers was not familiar with the consistency of the ink and colour as it should be. Nothing else.

(05-10-2025, 05:15 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is difficult enough to trace your own handwriting written in pencil with a ballpoint pen. Try it with someone else's handwriting.
It is the same ink as in the crescent moon. Simply too thick. This happens throughout the book. To me, this only indicates that one of the writers was not familiar with the consistency of the ink and colour as it should be. Nothing else.

The color saturation of the ink in the ligature determines the order in which the characters in the ligature are read.

(05-10-2025, 05:15 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is difficult enough to trace your own handwriting written in pencil with a ballpoint pen.

Indeed.  The retracing must be much slower and more careful than the original writing.  And that is why a handwriting expert can often detect forgery in a signature at first glance, unless the forger himself is an expert.  The slower speed results in broader and more jittery traces.

And that is why we can detect retracing of plumes and tails on the VMS.  Retracing causes the plume to become thicker, with a blunt end, instead of the smooth tapering "mousetail" created by a quick swish of the pen.  And it helps when a Retracer who does not know the alphabet chooses to trace a plume or a gallows loop in the wrong direction.

By the way, the only difference between these two Japanese katakana characters, "shi" and "tsu" 
[attachment=11554] [attachment=11555]
is the sense in which the big stroke is to be written. That is why learning the Japanese (and Chinese) script requires learning the order and direction of the strokes, not just the final shapes.  Even when using a pencil or ballpoint.

Quote:It is the same ink [...] simply too thick.

It is probably the same ink, at least for the first round of retracing.  See below. 

I am aware that stroke weight varies while one is writing -- darker right after the pen is dipped, normal for a while, then fainter as the pen runs out of ink.  And that the Scribe himself may go back to text that he wrote previously, to correct mistakes, redo characters that cane out fainter, etc.

But stroke weight is not the only criterion I use to decide whether some glyph, word, or page was retraced.  Crooked plumes is only one of several clues that can add up to make the conclusion unavoidable. 

Quote:This only indicates that one of the writers was not familiar with the consistency of the ink and colour as it should be.

On the contrary, the original Scribe was obviously an experienced "quil driver", since he could write neat text only 1.5 mm tall or less.  He was poor only at drawing figures.

Quote:This happens throughout the book.

Yes.  Because the first round of retracing was applied to the whole book.

Consider this:

1. There are many characters and drawings that have visibly faded to the point of near invisibility, and now can be read only with magnification and contrast-stretching.
   
2. There is no reason to believe that those cases of fading are the worst possible.  There must be strokes that have become completely invisible.
   
3. Indeed, there are many places where only part of a glyph or figure detail is visible, even with those tools.  Thus the missing part must have faded completely
   
4. There is no reason to believe that the those cases of extreme and total fading happened only after Voynich bought the book.  They probably happened many decades or centuries before that.
   

Are you still with me on that?

Now imagine that one of the many owners of the VMS before Voynich, who believed it to contain who-knows-what great secrets,  saw that the text was fading all over the book.

What would he do? Sigh and philosophically recite tout passe, tout casse, tout lasse?

[Answer in the next episode.]

[Hint: suppose that the VMS was a painting instead of a book, with the same level  of degradation.]

All the best, --jorge

PS Koen, is there a way to insert attached images with a specified size? Like [attachment=NNNNN width=100], except that it works?

If these were isolated cases, one could still discuss it. But it is the high number of overwritings that makes it implausible, because it is no longer comprehensible.

And as far as I know, the Japanese wrote with brushes, or at least that used to be the case. Today, it is still used in art. That gives exactly this image.

[attachment=11558]
Why does this happen?
It's because of the quill.
Geese, goose feathers.
Geese grease their plumage to make it water-repellent (oil glands). The ink doesn't stick to the quill. When you tap it on the inkwell, there isn't much ink left on it and it runs out faster when you write. That is why many people dip their quills repeatedly (light-dark in the writing).
He would have been better off degreasing the quill with vinegar, then the ink would adhere better and he could write for longer.
This tells me that the writer did not understand not only the ink and colour, but also the writing tool.
That's how I see it. For me, these are not overwritings, just a question of handling.

(06-10-2025, 08:49 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If these were isolated cases, one could still discuss it. But it is the high number of overwritings that makes it implausible, because it is no longer comprehensible.

But the claim is precisely that the first round of rewriting was not just a few touch-ups here and there, but a global restoration enterprise.  

The claim is that, a century or two after the VMS was created, its owner did what the owner of a badly degraded valuable painting would do.   Namely, he handed over the book to a scribe, with the task of bringing the book back as close as possible to the original state.   The scribe may even have been one who specialized in such restoration work.  That goal implied matching the ink in color and appearance, and tracing over all the original traces that had significantly faded, as closely as possible.  

But the work could not be perfect.  Some parts had already been irremediably lost.  The new scribe (unlike the original one) did not know the alphabet not the "morphology" of the words, and thus could not tell whether a partly faded glyph was a q or an y or and l or some new weirdo.  Many Ih and eiin may be the outcome of that confusion.  And even if the scribe was hired for six months,  the time he could spend on any page was limited.

I understand that people may be very reluctant to accept this claim.  But can it be denied?  Please check my previous post. Can you deny points 1-4?  Could they have not triggered such a global restoration?

Unfortunately, matching the original ink meant that the restored text and drawings were themselves vulnerable to wear, humidity,  insects, spills, etc.  And the parts that the first Retracer skipped, because they were still good enough, continued to fade away.  

So eventually there were other more limited "restoration" rounds -- but clearly not as skillful and careful as the first one.  On some pages these later Retracers had fun embellishing the drawings, adding breasts and hats to the nymphs, more fantastic details to the plants.  And then there was the Dark Painter...

All the best, --jorge