[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[Jorge_Stolfi]

To restate what should be obvious, I am fully convinced by now of my Massive Retracing Theory (MRT): that much of the text and large portions of the figures were retraced, with more or less care, decades or centuries after the original scribing.  

And I think that everybody should be aware of that, because many people have drawn very wrong conclusions by assuming that every stroke they see was penned by the Scribe (or, worse, by the Author) when he created BL MS 408.  As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence or argument supporting this alternative to MRT, the Everything's Pristine Theory (EPT).

For example, Lisa is convinced that the painting happened before the text was written, because (according to her blog) she sees the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. running over the "coffee stain"; which in the multi-spectral images looks exactly like the yellow paint on the flower.  She infers that the stain was caused by the Painter himself spilling his paint, while he painted the flower; and I am willing to go with that.  But she then must invent an excuse ("vellum was precious")  for why the scribe did not avoid the stain when writing the text. And she does not even mention that the stain, being watercolor, could have been cleanly washed off by the Scribe before he wrote the text.  

On the other hand, Rene says that on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the green paint was applied over  the folio number; and that observation was confirmed with a microscope by him and others.  But we know that the folio numbers were written centuries after the original scribing.

So, how can we resolve this significant contradiction?

The MRT provides a neat and logical resolution for it.  Namely, the painting did happen centuries after the creation of the VMS, when the book was already bound, with the current folio numbers.  The painter spilled his yellow paint over the original text.  He then quickly mopped up the spill with a cloth or blotting paper, but did not dare to wash it off because that would also erase the text.  Even though he was quick with the mopping, the spilled paint dissolved some of the ink on lines 9-12 and carried it away to the edge of the spill, leaving dark streaks there.  Then someone, sometime later, retraced the text that was affected by the spill, over the stain, to enhance it contrast.

(By the way, with this story, the spill shows that the Painter's paint was very runny; more like an ink than a typical watercolor or tempera paint.  Which is consistent with much of the "painting" apparently having been done with a broad quill rather than a decent brush.)

All the best, --stolfi