07-01-2026, 04:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2026, 04:39 PM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
To relax, a short but sweet hallucination. Be sure to check items (J) and (K).
From page 115v:
This clip covers the left half of lines 35-41 of page f115v, in the "Recipes" or "Starred Parags" section. As usual, at least three layers of ink traces seem to be present. The original traces (Rt0) are extremely faint, almost invisible in places. Most of them were carefully retraced in a general restoration pass (Rt1), with brown ink. Later another retouching pass (Rt2) retraced several scattered glyphs with darker ink.
Some of these retracings were incorrect, meaning that the new trace did not follow the original precisely, thus leaving some of the latter visible as a "ghost" or "shadow" trace by the side of the new one. Other retracings, especially of tails, were incomplete, meaning that the new trace stops before the end of the original one, leaving part of the latter visible as a continuation of the new trace.
(A) Incorrect retracing of Rt1 t by Rt2.
(B) Incorrect retracing of the Rt1 loop of the d by Rt2.
© Incorrect retracing by Rt2 or an Rt1 plume, that may have been an incorrect restoration of an Rt0 plume.
(D) This glyph was o in Rt0, but turned ambiguous in Rt1/Rt2.
(E) This a may have been malformed in Rt0, was made worse by Rt1/Rt2.
(F) This y has an Rt2 tail only ~0.5 mm long, which is an incomplete retracing of an Rt1 tail ~1 mm long, which is an incomplete retracing of an Rt0 tail at least ~6 mm long.
(G,H) These r glyphs were restored by Rt1, then the body and a short piece of the plume were retraced by Rt2.
(J) The Rt0 version of the right loop of the t is practically invisible. Rt1 "restored" it in the wrong place -- below the horizontal arm rather than above it.
(K) In Rt0, this word was otainos, but with the n almost touching the o. Rt1/Rt2 did not see the lower half of the plume of the n, and "restored" the upper half as a plume on the o.
As usual, assume "I believe that", "my best guess is that" etc before every claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
From page 115v:
This clip covers the left half of lines 35-41 of page f115v, in the "Recipes" or "Starred Parags" section. As usual, at least three layers of ink traces seem to be present. The original traces (Rt0) are extremely faint, almost invisible in places. Most of them were carefully retraced in a general restoration pass (Rt1), with brown ink. Later another retouching pass (Rt2) retraced several scattered glyphs with darker ink.
Some of these retracings were incorrect, meaning that the new trace did not follow the original precisely, thus leaving some of the latter visible as a "ghost" or "shadow" trace by the side of the new one. Other retracings, especially of tails, were incomplete, meaning that the new trace stops before the end of the original one, leaving part of the latter visible as a continuation of the new trace.
(A) Incorrect retracing of Rt1 t by Rt2.
(B) Incorrect retracing of the Rt1 loop of the d by Rt2.
© Incorrect retracing by Rt2 or an Rt1 plume, that may have been an incorrect restoration of an Rt0 plume.
(D) This glyph was o in Rt0, but turned ambiguous in Rt1/Rt2.
(E) This a may have been malformed in Rt0, was made worse by Rt1/Rt2.
(F) This y has an Rt2 tail only ~0.5 mm long, which is an incomplete retracing of an Rt1 tail ~1 mm long, which is an incomplete retracing of an Rt0 tail at least ~6 mm long.
(G,H) These r glyphs were restored by Rt1, then the body and a short piece of the plume were retraced by Rt2.
(J) The Rt0 version of the right loop of the t is practically invisible. Rt1 "restored" it in the wrong place -- below the horizontal arm rather than above it.
(K) In Rt0, this word was otainos, but with the n almost touching the o. Rt1/Rt2 did not see the lower half of the plume of the n, and "restored" the upper half as a plume on the o.
As usual, assume "I believe that", "my best guess is that" etc before every claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)