The Voynich Ninja

(29-09-2025, 09:20 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point about the Marci annotations is that they have NO iron AT ALL. Only zinc and a few other trace elements.

Ak, OK.  In other words, it is not iron-gall ink (IGI).  Probably India (China, lampblack) ink or the like.

Iron-gall ink makes sense in only two situations:

1. Someone wanted to write something on vellum or parchment, and wanted it to last for many decades, even in damp environments and/or under frequent handling of the document; or
   
2. Someone wanted to write something in ink, and had some IGI at hand already.
   

Apart from case 2, for writing on paper IGI should be slightly worse than India ink, pencil, or other media. 

Even for writing on vellum or parchment, there would be no point in using IGI for temporary annotations -- like quire numbers to guide the book-binder, or a tentative letter substitution table on the margin of a presumed cipher book.  In fact, if the annotation was meant to be erased later, it had better not be in IGI.

Marci's secretary presumably had IGI at hand at all times, to write permanent stuff on vellum.  Marci himself may have written only on paper, and then he would have no reason to make and keep IGI.

By the way, AFAIK labs like McCrone have no way to positively identify iron-gall ink.  X-ray fluorescence (XRF) only reveals the metallic elements present in the sample, not their chemical state.  X-ray diffraction can identify crystalline minerals like azurite or rutile. But IGI is not crystalline, and other than iron it does not contain anything distinctive. (Tannin, the component from galls, is used in tanning the vellum; so, even if it could be detected, that would not mean anything.)

So I suppose that those labs "identify" IGI only by exclusion:

  If there are "modern" pigments like rutile or prussian blue, it is a forgery; else
  If there are known crystalline minerals like azurite, it is "paint from the period"; else
  If there is iron, it must be iron-gall ink;  else
  If there is no iron, then... duh... it must be "iron-free iron-gall ink".

The honest thing to say would be "it is unidentified dark ink that contains iron" or "it is unidentified dark ink that does not contain iron".  But that would not look good on the report, would it?

All the best, --jorge

(29-09-2025, 04:19 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is no question that the order of application was pigment, upper-margin stain, foliation. The green is offset from the damp of the stain, and the foliation wasn't damaged by the stain elsewhere. I haven't looked at f.42 under a scope, but I would be extremely surprised if the green was on top of the folio number.

This was looked at under a microscope during the Folger workshop. I had a look myself, and both the conservator and I could see that the paint was on top of the ink.

Now this is unexpected for several reasons, but on the other hand, it probably could not be otherwise. The paint lies on top of the parchment while the ink goes inside (mostly). So the question remains: even if the ink of the folio number were applied later than the paint (which is what one would really expect), would the result look like this, because the ink penetrated the parchment?

I cannot answer that, but it looks like something that can still be addressed and resolved using the right expertise. One specific detail is that this paint included small crystals which were obviously on top of everything else.

A second question is: would it be logical/expected for someone to write the folio number over an area where paint was applied? Would the number not have been written more to the left? This is subjective and may not be possible to resolve.

With respect to the water damage and its effect on the ink, I know that this is part of on-going work, so I am not trying to get to the bottom of it here. Just my small input to this question:

My knowledge about this is from reading things online, so I am very much aware how limited that knowledge is.
This basic knowledge says that iron gall ink is relatively light in colour, but the dark colour we see after its application is the result of a chemical process also involving the parchment.

That made me wonder how long after applying the ink, plain water would still be able to affect it.
Is there a cut-off limit? Could this be even as short as 5 years (arbitrary number)?

So I asked someone who knows more about this. The surprising (to me) answer is that it mainly depends on whether the ink had any surplus iron. This could be on the surface for a long time, and even very old ink could show blurring from water damage.

There may well be reports about this that would be relevant for this whole question.

I'll be with the manuscript on Oct. 10 and will take a close look at f. 42r. (I'll also image the Marci-letter wax inside the front cover)

(30-09-2025, 12:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[The f42 folio number] was looked at under a microscope during the Folger workshop. I had a look myself, and both the conservator and I could see that the paint was on top of the ink.

Another interesting case is f102v1 and f103r.  There is a big orange stain near the top right corner of the latter, that ofsetted on f102v1. After profound analysis of the images, I concluded that the offending substance was ketchup. OK, OK, I mean, some reddish sauce that had small bits of a very thin dark red membrane.  Probably a goulash-like sauce with bits of bell pepper skin.  

On f103r, the stain fell over the text; and the sauce (or, more likely, the mopping up of it) severely effaced the text. (Incidentally, the state of that area is one of the best pieces of evidence for the Retracing Hypothesis.  And for the claim that the Retracer could not read the text and had no access to the Author)   

On f102v1, the stain fell mostly on the figures of two plants.  There, it had a similar erasing effect not only on the outlines of the plants, but also on the painted areas (a green leaf from the plant on the left, and one of two blue ... duh ... leaves of the plant at right.

Thus I think that we can confidently say that the ketchup goulash spill happened after the painting.   

However, I see no trace of offsetting of the paint from f102v1 onto f103r, even though the paint was obviously softened by the sauce.  Maybe my pareidolia is not that good after all.  Or maybe any paint that did offset onto You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was promptly wiped off together with the sauce. 

All the best, --jorge

Moved by the recent discussion, I went through all transitions between successive quires of the VMS looking for instances of "offsetting": paint or ink from one page that got transferred by contact to the facing page, that is, the page that is in contact with it when then book is closed and all fold-outs are folded in.

In summary, there are clear instances of offsetting in almost all such quire transitions that still exist.  However, they are not cases where the Painter closed the book or stacked quires with the paint still wet. 

In all cases the transfer clearly occurred some time after painting. In one case, water seeping between the pages softened some red paint, which then stuck to the facing page.  In all other cases, there was no transfer of pigment.  Rather, some component of the paint somehow transferred to the facing page. 

The most common type of offsetting is due to a certain dark blue-gray paint. The offsetted image is a light gray stain with sharp edges, but only along the edges of the painted source area, not in the interior. In one case, that smudge includes some dark particles. That blue-gray paint seems to be a mixture of some dark ingredient, which causes the stain, and a lighter and more vivid blue paint, which never stains.  Maybe the grey component was deliquescent, or food for mold?

A few other cases of offsetting are caused by other paints (red and vivid green). In these cases, the offsetted image is a very very light tan stain with fuzzy edges.

In one case, the same blue-gray paint created two offsetted images, separated by ~8 mm. In another case, there the offsetted images are rotated relative to their expected position by about 30 degrees.

The colors must have been applied when the manuscript was unbound -- a pile of bifolios -- since there are several examples where the painting extends into the binding gutter. Or beyond it, as in the well-known case of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f81r.

On the other hand, Rene reports that microscopic examination of f42 shows that at least some of the green paint was applied after the folio numbers were written. Hence after the bifolios were incorrectly folded and nested, including You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f81r.

So, here is my guess for how the VMS we see today was created:

  1. The Scribe(s) wrote the text on the parchment, and drew the outlines of the illustrations in the same ink with the same quills. The bifolios already had the future folds and were grouped into quires, but are still unbound.
 
  Each section was scribed in one or more episodes separated in time, possibly by several years. Cosmo and Zodiac were scribed in that order, before Bio. Pharma was scribed before Herbal. Otherwise the order of scribing of the sections is uncertain.
 
  2. Decades later, the book, still a collection of unbound bifolios, was in possession of another owner, who could not read it and could not consult the Author.  This person defined the ordering and nesting of the bifolios and the order of the quires, and wrote the folio numbers accordingly.  At this point the incorrect shuffling and ordering of pages became crystallized.  But he still kept the bifolios unbound.
 
  3. The figures were painted. The Painter was careful to let the paint dry thoroughly before re-folding and re-stacking the folios.
 
  4. The book, still unbound, was kept for a long time in a damp place.  During this time some components of some paints migrated to the facing pages.  Some quires were shifted once or twice during this time, so that the same painted area created two offset stains, or stains in "wrong" positions.
 
  5. The book was bound, as per the written folio and quire numbers.
 
Details:
 

• QUIRES 1 and 2 (f8v and f9r):  Some red paint from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the edge of the water stain at top left, left red spots on f8v.
  
• QUIRES 2 and 3 (f16v and f17r):  Imprint of the  right red flower of f16v. No transfer of pigment, but rather of some other component of the paint (e.g. binder) that left a very faint fuzzy tan smudge on f17r.  There may also be imprints of the blue-gray flowers of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onto f16v, but they are hard to see among the clutter of the text.
  
• QUIRES 3 and 4 (f24v and f25r): Maybe a very faint imprint of the bottom right leaf of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onto f25r, with no pigment transfer, only a very very faint tan smudge. If so, it is displaced by ~8 mm NE from the expected position.
  
• QUIRES 4 and 5 (f32v and f33r):  Offset of the right blue-gray flower of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (only?) onto f33r.  As discussed above, no pygment, Only a gray smudge along the corolla's outline, and some dark gray-brown solid particles along the bottom edge of the corolla.
  
• QUIRES 5 and 6 (f40v and f41r): Offset of the blue-gray paint (only?) from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to f41r.  As discussed above.  Notably, one of the blue areas created two imprints, displaced by ~8mm in the NE-SW direction. maybe also imprint of the leaves on left side of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onto f40v; again, not with any transfer of green pigment, just a very very faint and fuzzy tan smudge.
  
• QUIRES 6 and 7 (f48v and f49r).  Offset from the two blue-gray petals of the top left flower of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onto f48v, as discussed above.  The pure royal blue petal left no imprint.
  
• QUIRES 7 and 8 (f56v and f57r). Blue-gray petals on each page imprinted on the other page, as discussed above.  No imprint of the pure blue petals.
  
• QUIRES 8 and 9 (f66v and f67r1). Only the blue-grey corollas of flowers of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. offsetted ontp f67r.  The imprint of the right flower is near the expected place at coordinates A = [655,2166] on the BL 214 scan of f67r; but that of the left flower is out of place, at B = [1090,2530], as if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. had been laid over You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. rotated by about 32 degrees CCW, around its point C = [2156,2156] (the right flower).  As for the other direction, there are visible offset images of some of the blue-gray triangles of f67, mostly from the left side, onto f66v; but apparently with no relative rotation.
  
• QUIRES 9 and 10 (f68v1 and f69r). Only those spokes and terminal "cups" of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that were painted in blue-gray left imprints on f68v1.  There is also one light blue smudge with darker blue spots on f68v1, just outside the "windmill", at 12:00, below one of the seven stars in the 12:00 sector; but it does not seem to be an offset from f69r, rather an accident from the painting of f68v1, wth no corresponding stain on f69r.  There may be offsets in the other direction, especially from the lue-gray windmill blade of f68v1 at 08:30 onto the innermost area of f69r, at 03:30, near the @l label.  However any additional such offsets would be hard toidentify among the clutter of f69r.
  
• QUIRES 10 and 11 (f70v1, Aries Dark, and f71r, Aries Light). No visible imprints. The blue-gray paint that is prone to creating offsets is not used in either page. There is some fairly pure blue on f71r, but apparently it did not offset.
  
• QURES 11 and 12 (f71v1 and f72r).  No imprint. No blue-gray paint.
  
• QUIRES 12 and 13: The transition would have been between f74v1 and f75r, but folio f74 is missing.
  
• QUIRES 13 and 14 (f84v and f85r1). No imprint. No blue-gray paint.
  
• QUIRES 14 and 15 (f86v3 and f87r). Imprints of the blue-gray petals of the left flower of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onto f86v3.  Maybe also of the right flower, but very small and faint.
  
• QUIRES 15 and 16: The transition from would have been from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to f93r, but folio f92 is missing.
  
• QUIRES 16 and 17: The transition from would have been from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to f99r, but folio f98 is missing.
  
• QUIRES 17 and 18 Quire 18 is mssing entirely.
  
• QUIRES 18 and 19 Ditto.
  
• QUIRES 19 and 20 (f102v1, Pharma, and f103r, Stars).  Imprint ontp You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the blue-gray right ... duh ... leaf of plant 2 in the top row of f102v2.  There may have been also an imprint from the left leaf of that plant.  But the leaf was all but erased by the big goulash stain, and its imprint would have been inside the other side of that stain.  There is another bit of blue-gray on f102v1, on the second jar from the top; but the imprint on f103r, if any, is not evident.
  

(29-09-2025, 09:20 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point about the Marci annotations is that they have NO iron AT ALL. Only zinc and a few other trace elements. It's all in my lecture...recording coming this week hopefully...

Hi Lisa... where did the idea that these annotations are by Marci originate from? Is it your suggestion? Why do you think Marci wrote them? 

I'm watching the recording of your lecture, piece by piece when I have the chance. It is all very interesting, thanks for sharing...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rich.

(11-10-2025, 03:49 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Lisa... where did the idea that these annotations are by Marci originate from? Is it your suggestion? Why do you think Marci wrote them? 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The discussion thread for the blogpost on the forum is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(30-09-2025, 12:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The paint lies on top of the parchment while the ink goes inside (mostly)

This would be partly true for ink on paper, as the ink partly soaks into the fibers.  But on parchment the ink should stay mostly on the surface.  It would bind to it chemically, not mechanically, while becoming an insoluble opaque polymer.  

Even if the ink is applied over solid pigment paint, the pigment grains should become coated with it, at least partially.

Thus I see that painted-over folio number as definite proof that the painting happened after the book was bound.  And since the binding has the bifolios in the wrong order -- even those in the Bio section, where the order presumably matters -- it seems all but certain that the painting was done when the book was no longer in the Author's hands.  

Indeed, I gather that the style of the folio numbers puts the binding centuries after the original writing.  Isn't that so?

All the best, --jorge

Sorry for insisting, but I think that the evidence for the painting being later than the foliation is quite strong.

(29-09-2025, 02:04 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't see any evidence to suggest that the pigment is later. Recent XRF elemental analysis on ff. 1r and 1v did not find any evidence that the pigments were later

XRF only tells the chemical elements in the sample.  It does not tell how those elements are combined, namely which chemical substances are present.

All that XRF did on those two pages was show that there were no significant amounts of any chemical element (like titanium, chromium, cadmium) that began to be used in pigments only in the era of modern chemistry, from the 1700s on.   It could not, and did not, tell anything about the date when the pigments were created or applied to those pages.  It id not even rule out a 20th century date for the manufacture and painting.

Quote:[except for the marginal letters] which are zinc-gall and therefore confirmed as post-medieval.

There is no such thing as "zinc-gall ink".   Zinc does not make a colored compound with tannin, and does not oxidize after application (which is what makes iron-gall ink darker and waterproof)

What the McCrone Inc. report found was that there was little iron in the ink of those letters.  They took one tiny sample (sample 20) from those letters, and got XRF spectra of four microscopic particles included in that sample (pages 42-45 of the attachment with the spectra).  In three of the spectra there were very small amounts of iron (0.8%, 0.3%, 1.9%), comparable to those of many other elements that do not belong in iron-gall ink (magnesium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, calcium, copper).  In other words, the iron content was no more than what would be expected from "dust of the centuries". The fourth particle from that sample had a larger amount (7%) of iron, but that too was comparable to those of calcium (6%), silicon (6%), potassium (3%), aluminum (2.6%), and even the infamous titanium (2%).  

Zinc occurred only in the first of the four particles, at estimated concentration of 0.21%. Less than copper (0.23%), iron (0.82%), calcium (1.7%), potassium (1%), sulfur (0.7%), silicon (3%) aluminum (1.1%), magnesium (0.4%).  Again, the best conclusion is that the particle came from the vellum coatings or from dirt collected over the last 600 years.

In all four particles, the most abundant element was carbon, consistently 50-60% in weight. The next most common was oxygen: 30-40% on the first three particles, only 14% in particle 4.  And carbon is the lightest element measured, so in terms of the number of atoms it was much higher: 73% in particle 4, against 14% of oxygen.  

While the carbon and oxygen in the first three particles could have come from tannin, gum arabic, or other iron-gall ink components, the oxygen number for last particle is too low.  The most likely conclusion is that the marginal letters on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were written in lampblack (china, india) ink, which is just carbon with a bit of binder like gum arabic; not "something-gall" ink.  

But "everybody knows" that dark ink on vellum is "always" iron-gall ink.  So it "had" to be "low-iron iron-gall ink"...

Quote:There is no question that the order of application [on f42r] was pigment, upper-margin stain, foliation. The green is offset from the damp of the stain,

Agreed, definitely the stain is later than the painting.

Quote:and the foliation wasn't damaged by the stain elsewhere.

But the foliation, which was meant to be permanent, would have been done in (true) iron-gall ink, because it is wear- and water-resistant.

Quote:I haven't looked at f.42 under a scope, but I would be extremely surprised if the green was on top of the folio number.

But several people who have looked at the folio number with  a microscope (not just Rene and others at the workshoop, but, now I see, even the McCrone guys)  all agree that the paint is over the ink.

(30-09-2025, 12:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[a possible explanation for why the pigment to appear to be over the inl is that] the paint lies on top of the parchment while the ink goes inside (mostly).

On paper, ink flows into the fibers and any solid pigment particles get trapped there when the ink dries.  Even without any binder (as in classical Chinese/Japanese ink).  That makes solid pigment suspension inks and paints (like lampblack ink, red minion or ocher ink, watercolor paints) the best for paper.

On vellum, neither ink nor paint can get into the material to any significant amount.  There, iron-gall is not just better than lampblack, it is necessary in order to get writing that does not rub or wash off at the first challenge.  It works by binding chemically to the proteins in the vellum, and then becoming an insoluble 3D polymer of tannin and iron.   Other color pigments need a good binder that can glue them to the vellum; but all common binders decay, or are not water-resistant. 

(29-09-2025, 06:26 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The colour [red ink of the text of f67r2] was also used during the writer's lifetime.

But (a) just because the original scribe used red ink, and the painter used red paint, one cannot conclude that the latter was applied by the original scribe too. And (b) as we discussed in another thread, the red text of f67r2 was quite likely [self-censored].

All the best, --stolfi