+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Physical material (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-42.html)
+--- Thread: Colors (/thread-1484.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Colors - Searcher - 03-02-2017
Although my post in the lost thread of the same name went unnoticed, I want to renew it more widely, as at least, it has to do with color, but to a greater extent, reflects my idea of how the author created the Voynich manuscript, and what should be the real order of the manuscript pages.
Rene Zandbergen and Nick Pelling have enough information on their websites about the signs that the pages are placed in the wrong order, with different versions of who did it, when and why. Unfortunately, I have no possibility to read Nick's book, but his opinion seems to be clear from his articles. I must admit that I agree with much of this information. In addition, I'd like to complement the observations of the other researchers by my own observations and thoughts, which, I believe, can be a valid argument for the theory that the author created bifolio by bifolio (drew images, wrote the text, painted drafts), then they were sewn, then he or, at least, the other person added failing paint (blue, perhaps in some places, red).
I want to give a list of observations that I involve in the formation of my idea, how the Voynich manuscript was created:
1. The illustrations (their identification) in one way or another gives us to understand that some of the plants and / or animals in them are quite exotic, rare and, even unknown for medieval Europe, that could mean that the author has spent a lot of time in distant lands or traveling.
2. Comparison of the pages of the same bifolio shows that the author did the basic coloring most likely before bifolios were sewn into quires, since most of the plants pairs have the same colors and shades. Apparently (not surprisingly), the author prepared paints for a particular volume of work, depending on circumstances.
Examples of plant pairs from the same side of the same bifolio:
Currier A
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Currier B
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.
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.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
3. Imprints on the next pages in the current order - is most often blue paint, rarely – red, also rarely - green. In one case (f55r) – the imprint of green dye presents in the form of darkened areas on the opposite page ( f54v ), it is not green, it is likely appeared with the passage of time because of dampness, some particles gradually leaked into parchment. The other example is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the Sagittarius diagram). There are spots which look like imprints of the green dye, but where they are - from the offcut folio with diagrams of Capricorn or Aquarius, from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with the green pools, or from quite another bifolio, it is unclear for now.
4. The text has some differences in handwriting and in the so-called "languages" (Currrier A and B), which are characteristic of one bifolio, but placed in the manuscript not always in order.
5. The pictures have relatively small differences of style, but they are, in order to better characterize these differences, I would use the word "mood".
Among many opinions about that who and when added blue dye, perhaps, I choose an assumption that the author simply didn't have exactly blue pigment at the time of writing of the main content.
The part of the McCrone report taken from the Nick Pelling's website (ciphermysteries):
Quote:* The blue paint was ground azurite “with minor amounts of cuprite, a copper oxide”.As different pigments were used for blue and green paint in the manuscript, I believe that at the time, when the author began writing, he had only green, red and yellow pigments. He could be in prison or in exile, of course, but the presence of illustrations with plants which look very exotic and not European, gives grounds to suppose that the author was a traveller and he could be at work on the manuscript in another country or on way, for example, on shipboard. It is possible that he resided in places, where it was not possible to get the desired pigment.
* “The green paint is a mixture of copper-stained amorphous organic material optically consistent with copper resinate, and copper-chloride compounds consistent with atacamite or similar compounds”, but without any resins obviously present.
Consequently, when he arrived to the place, home or anywhere else, where he could get azurite, he or his assistant finished the work in progress, painting the parts of drawings in blue in already sewn quires, although, perhaps, not all of them were sewn at that moment. As for the rare imprints of the red paint, this is a questionable issue, on my view. For instance, I think that the imprint of the red dye on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (from the f3r ) is provoked by the moisture, the stain from which is visible on the top and in the left top corner of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the right top corner of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). So, in my opinion, this red dye was laid before sewing, although, perhaps, the time between coloring and sewing was short.
I am not against the assumption that the Voynich manuscript is stitched and partially painted by another person, who is not familiar with the content. But I still want to present my alternative version, especially as because it doesn't change the order of events dramatically. In any case, we know that both texts (Currier A and B) have been written before the linking, whether they were written by one person or another, whether the manuscript is stitched by an author or another person.
I doubt that two or more people wrote the manuscript. I'm rather inclined to think that it could be two writing periods (maybe, even 3). They can also mean two different themes and changing of the writing conditions, as we don't know whether the person was at the table at one or another moment, whether he was on land or on a board ship, and so on.
Anyway, the lack of blue paint perfectly explains why the pools in the quire 13 are green. They should not be green by intention, just the green color is selected as the closest to the blue. It can be assumed that the author at the time was sure he couldn't get the blue pigment in the near future. On the other hand, we observe the second type of coloring in the quire 13 (for example, the bifolio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), which contain much less or no green color, blue color replaces it. No doubt, this can be explained by the fact that the liquid itself in the course of any process changes the composition, properties and color (as on the bifolio f75-f84), but I find another explanation. I think that a part of the pages of the quire 13, as well, perhaps, the astrological section and the Rosettes, as well as the quire 20 were written last and in another circumstances. I suppose that it was already either on way or upon arrival, when the author already knew, or hoped, that will get blue pigment, so he had no need to paint the uncolored parts with green, to be blue, as water is usually represented. We can see that someone painted the liquid in the tubes in blue on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and, in addition, made a few strokes over the green liquid, just to show that it must be blue, indeed.
Probably, the author started to add blue paint in succession, beginning with the herbal section. He prepared the rich blue paint, but since it didn't have time to dry thoroughly (maybe everything was done in a hurry or surreptitiously), paint left imprints on the opposite page. Perhaps, the author noticed this and began to make a weaker solution and applied less amount of paint, so the biggest imprints - in the beginning. As I think that the pages are sewn by the author, I think that the order is wrong initially, that is, pages are deliberately mixed. The importance of this reason precisely defines the importance of this study. If it was just a random order and unintended confusion, if the text on different pages is unrelated to each other and represents individual descriptions and / or recipes for each of the plants, perhaps, it doesn't matter at all.
Regarding the quire 13, I think, the author used a blue dye, filling all the details which mean water and air, not colored with green paint at the time. That's all he could do to show that they should be blue. Naturally, those pages that haven't been painted, he had painted with the necessary colors.
You may notice that some details are painted clumsily or carelessly. I don't think a child painted them. I rather have the impression that the drawing tools were not always suitable, and even were not those tools at all, but some improvised means. Interesting that there are no imprints of the blue paint (as much as I could notice) in the quire 13, possibly, the author used it more carefully, but, from the other side, the same example of the bifolio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may show that the author (or any painter) colored these pages, when they weren't linked. Perhaps, the mentioned bifolio was the first in this quire (first - f78v-f81r, then - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), which was improved, but subsequently the author dismissed the idea to cover the green colored pools with the blue dye and decided just to color in those details, which weren't painted yet. Of course, I was confused with the bifolio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., since these folios contain the big green pools along the blue pools flowed from them. This is impossible to say for sure, but, if the quire 13 was colored in unsewn state, I think, the pictures could be incomplete, I mean that the blue pools could be drawn much later than the green ones.
At the moment, this is all that I can write on this topic. I'm curious to know the opinion of a third-party, and, in particular, on whether such a study is necessary, whether it will clarify important, but obscure issues, and help in the text deciphering.
P. S.
The blue pool on the page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is smaller than the green pool there and the figures of nymphs – too. Maybe, it is a sign that they were drawn later, but, what is strange is that the author could draw a less number of nymphs to keep proportions between the nymphs in the green pool and the nymphs in the blue pool. Maybe the number of nymphs is a significant detail?
RE: Colors - Linda - 03-02-2017
I think the blue and green in quire 13 is intentionally placed, and that they indicate fresh and saltwater respectively. There are many places where the two are mixed, or where different pools are coloured blue and green on the same page. I can think of no reason to do this if the two colours were considered equal.
RE: Colors - Searcher - 03-02-2017
(01-02-2017, 11:00 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I looked at the folios you mentioned and had a bit of a surprise when looking at 22v. Is that a "G", or possibly "A G" in one of the leaves or is it a trick of the paint? It appears in both the jasondavies and Beinecke scans.It is interesting that I always see quite another things
Based on Stirnemann and Petzold's articles, A G might indicate gold (Aurum) and Green... and these happen to be the two colors that are used in the leaves and stems. But this might just all be a trick of the paint/scans/bleedthrough.
This is a hidden bird-glyph.
RE: Colors - Searcher - 03-02-2017
(03-02-2017, 11:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the blue and green in quire 13 is intentionally placed, and that they indicate fresh and saltwater respectively. There are many places where the two are mixed, or where different pools are coloured blue and green on the same page. I can think of no reason to do this if the two colours were considered equal.
I think all the biggest pools were colored first, some/long time before the author get blue pigment, therefore they are green. But this is only my opinion.
RE: Colors - -JKP- - 04-02-2017
I see quite a few dark marks in the paint but I can't tell if any of it is writing or not.
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f22v-537-611-377-240]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f22v-537-611-377-240)
RE: Colors - Searcher - 04-02-2017
(04-02-2017, 05:47 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see quite a few dark marks in the paint but I can't tell if any of it is writing or not.
I see something else here, but I'm not sure that the rest are notes, too. I can't see such exact lines to the right. At least, they are illegible and fuzzy.
RE: Colors - Diane - 06-02-2017
Sam,
About the palette - don't know if you've noticed the section in d'Imperio but it seems that the range of reds and blues etc. is much greater than is usually mentioned, and the pigments vary in texture and density too - apart from the basic 'wash' and 'heavy paint' divisions that are normally discussed.
The mottled look which you mention represents water in the map's north-west roundel ( = your 'right-centre').
I won't add links to the posts where I looked for a similar range, or similar techniques in other medieval works - I'm sure you'll find them easily enough under 'pigments' and 'palette' at voynichimagery.
Cheers.