Bad news: f116v was substantially mangled by Retracer

[oshfdk]

Consider the leg of the initial "six" on line 3, for example.  Could that be the worst level of fading that happened?  Statistically, we must assume that the worst was worse than that.  Many original glyphs must have faded even more than that leg -- that is, they are totally invisible now.

I'm not sure I understand your statistical argument. On this page there should be some stroke that is the faintest of them all. Why can't this be this leg of "s"? 
While being faint, it's very clearly visible in normal light scans, and it's even more distinct in far UV, with a very clear border. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

If we assume there are strokes that are more faint than this one, I'd say that statistically I'd expect distinct traces of at least some parts of these strokes either in the visible light scans or in UV.

Also, this particular "s" has a very dark cap and a very faint leg. If we attribute this to retracing, then the question arises why didn't the retracer touch up the leg as well?

In fact, it is the claim "there was no retracing" that needs to be proved. Hundreds of years ago large parts of the text would have already faded away to the point of almost being lost forever.

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no retouching in the MS. Certainly some details on some drawings were added using a different batch of ink and/or a different writing implement and there are a few clear examples of retracing in the text, but there are maybe a handful of them.

As for the irregularity of the ink density, which happens over almost all folios of MS, the absence of double strokes on visible or MSI scans is a sufficient proof for me that these are not a result of retracing.

"Hundreds of years ago large parts of the text would have already faded away..." - I'm not sure I agree. As far as I understand, the type of pigmentation that this iron-based ink produces is quite durable. I'm not an expert, but I've heard that there is an actual chemical reaction that alters ("burns") the very vellum, so it's not just some coloring on top of the page.

As to why the ink is so patchy, there are many possible explanations, here's another one, just as an example.

A while ago I conjured up You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. just to make some point about the assumptions one cannot make about the MS. Since then I've noticed that a lot of things can be explained in it.

Consider someone who had to covertly write this book while being a prisoner, using some materials that were smuggled in by an accomplice. So, the author/scribe had no control over the quality of the vellum, the ink or the quill. Suppose the author was writing by night using some dim point light source, like a candle or oil lamp. I vaguely remember I tried writing with ink using candle light when I was a kid as a part of some make believe play, and as far as I can remember, you can't really see how dense the ink is, what you see is the shiny surface of the wetted page. You could write with clear water and still the see the text. Maybe the author/scribe just couldn't tell if the ink was doing a good job or not.

Interestingly, this scenario can explain the stark contract between obvious proficiency of the scribe with the quill (no ink blobs, very clear execution of many complex strokes) and overall bad quality of the writing and drawing (jumping baselines, irregular shapes, lines curling up/down). And the "hands" could be just the difference between writing with a perfectly made fresh quill and an old quill that the author had to mend with their teeth (no knives or tools in prison). Consider the difference between writing with a quality ballpoint pen and a wide sharpie. These would look like two quite different hands, I suppose.

While there is no direct evidence that points towards this scenario, to me it servers as a good reminder, that the common idea of the circumstances under which this manuscript was created (which I think defaults to a well lit room full of scribes working at special desks using state of the art tools and materials) can be quite different from the reality, we just don't know.

Edit: I'm a bit sorry for rubbing it in, I think I have repeated this many times already in various threads, but the above scenario also explains very well two peculiarities: 1) a completely invented script; 2) total lack of regular Latin inscriptions in the main text, if this is a cipher, the whole book is encoded. These two features allow for total deniability of involvement by the author-prisoner should the book be discovered, because you cannot match the handwriting to known documents when the book uses an invented script. "This is just a foreign herbal book from the prison library/my reading collection, I enjoy looking at the pictures, but I have no idea what is written there and I have nothing to do with it. I know that the King prohibited me from writing any more under the threat of capital punishment, and I will never disobey the King. BTW, could you kindly send this herbal to my children, I think they'll enjoy it, look at this cute dragon chewing on a root!"