+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings (/thread-4740.html)
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 08:36 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not just the same ink, it's probably also the same nib and the same cut.
The nib of a quill pen had to be trimmed to a specific shape (tip squared-off, with a ~45 taper on the underside) and slit in half. Like fountain pens and steel pens, to this day. The slit is essential to ensure the proper flow of ink to the tip from the drop stored up in the qull/pen/reservoir.
So both lines highlighted on that image were written in shades of brown using pens with slits and squared-off tips. That is all the resemblance we can see. None of that counts as evidence that it was the same scribe.
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 07:44 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Couldn't one also assume that the text was written and painted by scribes on instruction, and then corrected again later by the client, who was dissatisfied with the work?
The text was copied by a Scribe from a draft provided by the Author, and the outlines of the figures were drawn by the same Scribe according to the Author's instructions -- which may have been anywhere between "draw some plant on this page" to a more or less detailed sketch.
(The color paints were applied later, after the bifolios were (incorrectly) bound and the folios were numbered. Probably in the 1600s or maybe even later, by someone who did not understand the text and did not have much respect for the book.)
However, in the examples of what I see as late retracings, the Retracer usually retraced the previous (faint) version, and often made stupid mistakes. Like (J) and (K) on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Thus the opposite of "corrections"...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Aga Tentakulus - 11-01-2026
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 11:35 AM)Aga Tentakulus 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.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(To be honest, the last one was made with a technical engineering pen, when page scanners had just become common accessories; and since then I have been editing my pen drawings heavily on the computer, with an image editor. I have many "honest" steel-pen-and-india-ink drawings from before that time, but they are packed away in a couple dozen boxes, with my Chaotic Randomized Filing System™. Owe you that...)
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 14-01-2026
Hallucinations on f10r:
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.
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - JoJo_Jost - 14-01-2026
What strikes me right now is that this retrace theory definitely contradicts modern forgery theories.
(But I'm sure that's already been discussed? I only read the thread on modern forgery theory sporadically.)
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 14-01-2026
(14-01-2026, 07:47 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What strikes me right now is that this retrace theory definitely contradicts modern forgery theories.
Indeed, I do not believe that VMS 408 is a modern forgery. Nor a 1600s' forgery. I believe it was indeed written in the early 1400s, close to the C14 date for the vellum. (It is possible that it was written many decades later, on vellum that was stored unused for a long time. But the probability is lower for longer delays, and I think it is very unlikely that an Author in 1530 would use a stack of bad ("reject" grade) vellum that had been stored away for 100 years...)
(I do have an alternative theory that contradicts the Standard Timeline and possibly involves fraud by Wilfrid. But that is another thread. Anyway that theory too assumes that the manuscript is a genuine 1400s' article, as per above; and I don't give it more than a 10% chance...)
All the best, --stolfi