12-12-2025, 08:53 AM
I think enough of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has been covered for me. Thank you for offering to pick a page and thank you for your effort explicating the images.
I'm not a paleographer or a visual artist. I do have professional visual artists in my family, so I'm somewhat familiar with what modern professional capability with inks, paints and sketching looks like, but otherwise these are my amateur conclusions.
1) In the examples you have shown from f8r I haven't seen a single one where I would call the retracing the most likely explanation.
2) There is only one example from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where I would call the retracing a possible explanation: the leg of the first large p glyph at the very start of the page. However, I think it's more likely the double line there is by the original scribe:
- this is a huge glyph at the start of a page, which naturally calls for some embellishment or fix up. There are examples of embellished gallows elsewhere in the manuscript.
- most other cases of obvious retracing in the manuscript are at the beginning of a line, which is consistent with starting a line with a drained quill and redoing the first word in new ink immediately afterwards. The same could have happened here, the scribe could have started with a somewhat fainter vertical line and then retraced it.
So, overall on a randomly selected page I see no evidence of MRT.
I'm not a paleographer or a visual artist. I do have professional visual artists in my family, so I'm somewhat familiar with what modern professional capability with inks, paints and sketching looks like, but otherwise these are my amateur conclusions.
1) In the examples you have shown from f8r I haven't seen a single one where I would call the retracing the most likely explanation.
2) There is only one example from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where I would call the retracing a possible explanation: the leg of the first large p glyph at the very start of the page. However, I think it's more likely the double line there is by the original scribe:
- this is a huge glyph at the start of a page, which naturally calls for some embellishment or fix up. There are examples of embellished gallows elsewhere in the manuscript.
- most other cases of obvious retracing in the manuscript are at the beginning of a line, which is consistent with starting a line with a drained quill and redoing the first word in new ink immediately afterwards. The same could have happened here, the scribe could have started with a somewhat fainter vertical line and then retraced it.
So, overall on a randomly selected page I see no evidence of MRT.