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

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Perodic hallucinations: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the 3x7 sequence
   
Introduction
These three slightly overlapping clips span the left edge of the text of page f49v, including the column of 26 single glyphs in the left margin. That is lines 1-52 of Rene's transcription, where the odd line numbers are the single glyphs and the even numbers are the text lines. The clips also include the Arabic digits 1-5 further to the left, aligned with glyphs 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, and with text lines 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12.

Some of the glyphs in that column are common Voynichese "letters", but, at first sight, some seem to be weirdos that occur rarely in the rest of the VMS, or not at all. However, how discussed below, these weirdos probably were common glyphs that were partly effaced and then incorrectly "restored" by later owners.

With that interpretation, the first 22 entries in the glyph column can be parsed as three repetitions of the same period or seven glyphs, @p-@o-@r-@y-@Ch-@o-@s (@ = EVA), except that in the first period the @p is replaced by @f, and a @k is inserted between the second @o and the @s. See (b1) and (e1) in the key below. The remaining four glyphs of the column, @y-@Ch-@k-@y, are elements of the first period, but are not in the same sequence.

As in most other pages, one can distinguish there layers or retracing passes. The original traces (Rt0) that remain -- mostly in tails and plumes, and in a some parts of a few glyphs -- are generally faint, ranging all the way to invisibility. A later general restoration pass (Rt1) carefully retraced most of the text with ink that now looks light to medium brown, semi-transparent. Then later still scattered glyphs and parts thereof were retraced again with darker brown ink (Rt2).

Tails and plumes were often incompletely retraced by Rt1, probably because the Restorer felt that a complete retracing would have made them uglier. Rt2 apparently did not have such scruples, and retraced several plumes, often in the wrong direction (clockwise, CW), leaving them fat and crooked. Presumably, the other parts of Rt0 that did not get retraced by Rt1 were those that were still "good enough" at the time. So we can imagne how the parts that were retraced looked like then.

As usual, it is sometimes uncertain whether a trace belongs to some retracing pass (Rt1 or Rt2), or was done in a previous pass (Rt0 or Rt1, respectively) with a freshly recharged quill. Still, the large number of possible cases of Rt1 is strong evidence that retracing did happen.

Key to annotations

Layers
(a0) The lower half of the plume of this @Sh is Rt0. The upper half is Rt1. The left @c stroke is Rt2. The @h part is Rt1.
(a1) The horizontal arms of this @p are Rt2.
(a2) The leg of this @f seems to be Rt0.
(a3) The hook and distal part of the arm of this @p are Rt1.

The 3x7 sequence
First period
(b1) This glyph may have been a @p. See (x1).
(b2) The right half of this @o may be Rt0.
(b3) The body of this @r is Rt2, the plume is Rt1;
(b4) This @y glyph is Rt1.
(b5) This glyph may have been a @C in Rt0. Only the left @e stroke was restored by Rt1, and with reduced size.
(b6) This glyph was @o originally, but Rt1 restored only the right half (an @e stroke rotated 180°).
(b7) The body of this @s is Rt1. The plume is Rt2, retraced in two separate fat strokes.
Second period
(c1) This @p has Rt0 hook, and Rt1 leg and lower horz arm; the rest is Rt2.
(c2) This @o is Rt2.
(c3) The Rt0 version of this @r had the body only ~30° from horizontal, instead of the typical ~60°. The Rt1 retrace of the body may have been even more horizontal. Rt2 then misread the @r as a digit "2", and "corrected" the body to be horizontal. Rt2 also retraced the plume with a fat clockwise stroke, typical of the digit.
(c4) This @y is Rt2. The tip of the tail may be Rt0.
(c5) This @e glyph seems to be Rt1 at bottom, Rt2 at top, with bits of Rt0 sticking out.
(c6) This glyph may have been an @o, only the right half of which was retraced by Rt1 and Rt2. Bits of Rt0 are sticking.
(c7) This @s was badly retraced by Rt1 and/or Rt2. Bits of Rt0 are still visible. The fat plume was retraced in two strokes; the right one was traced in the wrong sense (clockwise).
Third period
(d1) This @p seems to be all Rt1.
(d2) This @o is Rt2, like (c2).
(d3) The case of this @r is similar to (c3), except that the Rt1 retrace of the body is still instead of horizontal. The plume was retraced in the wrong direction.
(d4) This @y is Rt1, but there may be an almost invisible tail extending past the visible one.
(d5) This @e glyph seems to be Rt1 at bottom, Rt2 at top, with bits of Rt0 sticking out.
(d6) Bits of this glyph's Rt0 are still visible, especially in the SW quarter of the loop. The original glyph may have been an @o, but it is far from certain. It was retraced by Rt2 as an incomplete, oversize, deformed @o.
(d7) This glyph was @s in Rt0; the top half of the plume is still barely visible. It was misread as @d by Rt1, and "restored" as such.

Extra glyphs in the column
(e1) This @k glyph breaks the repetition of the sequence. But see (g1) below. The ink is probably Rt1, but looks darker because of the bleed-through of the green paint from f49r.
(g1) This @k may correspond somehow to the intrusion (e1) in the first period, just out of place. The left leg seems to be Rt0, the rest Rt1.
(h1) This @y glyph was incompletely retraced by Rt1, leaving two sections of the tail as Rt0 with a stroke of Rt1 in the middle.
(h2) This glyph was @C in Rt0 but was retraced as @e by Rt1. It may even have been @Ch. It suggests that the @'e's in the repeating sequence may have been @C or @Ch too.
(h3) There seems to be a bit of Rt0 inside the loop of this @y. On the other hand there is no sign of an Rt0 tail. Thus this glyph may have been an @o,"restored" as @y by Rt1. On the other hand there seems to be a very faint Rt0 tail extending beyond the Rt1 tail.

The digits
(n1) This digit "1" seems to be Rt2.
(n2) This digit "2" seems to be Rt1, but malformed -- squashed vertically, with uniformly thin strokes.
(n3) Most likely the lower half of this digit "3" is Rt2 and the top half is Rt1. But Rt1 and Rt0 is also possible.
(n4) This part of the digit "4" seems to be Rt0. The rest may be Rt1 or Rt2.
(n5) This digit "5" seems to be Rt1.

Incomplete retracing
(r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7) The tails of these @q are Rt0. Part of the head is Rt1 or Rt2.
(r8) This @q glyph is entirely Rt0.

Incorrect retracing
(x1) For the three periods to be equal, there should have been a loop here, turning the @f into a @p. Perhaps there was, but it got completely erased.
(x2) This glyph was probably mangled by Rt1 and Rt2. It is unclear what it was originally. An @o would be morphologically expected after the @q; in that case the plume may be an hallucination by Rt1, reinforced by Rt2. Or perhaps the lower half of the plume is Rt0; in which case the original would have been an @s (creating an unusual ligature @qs), and the right half of the @o would then be hallucination by Rt1 and Rt2.
(x3) There may be a very faint plume extending upwards from the top loop of the (d5) glyph. Thus that glyph probably was @s originally, consistent with the other two periods. It seems that Rt1 did not see the top half of the plume and mistook the bottom half for the remnants of the upper loop of a @d, which he then "restored" as such.