29-01-2026, 09:36 AM
Hallucinations on f70r1, the Nine-Mouthed Sphere:
General remarks
This clip spans the middle part of the west half of page f70r. The page contains a circular diagram with three rings of text, several labels, and a central structure with a large six-armed star in the middle.
The diagram has five mechanical circles, C1 to C5 from outside in. Circles C1 to C3 delimit the two outer rings of text and the primeval scream '...@ooooooolar...@sara.....'. Circle C4 delimits what can be interpreted as a sphere with nine flared "mouths" opening out around its perimeter, with many small lobes around their rims. There are nine radial labels that start just inside C3 and are directed towards the gaps between those nine mouths.
Most of the text and drawings on this page was retraced in the general restoration pass (Rt1), with the light brown ink. Only bits of the original (Rt0) traces remain here and there; they are generally faint. There may be some isolated instances of later retouching (Rt1), but they may be just Rt1 with more ink on the quill.
The sphere with flared mouths may have been copied from a source image that had a cloud band. The Scribe would not know what that thing was and how it was supposed to be drawn (see what he did with the "Oresme" cloud band on f68v3), and produced a circle with nine frilled petals instead.
The rim of each mouth is now depicted as two scalloped and arched lines, the "foreground half-rim" (FH, nearest to center) and "background half-rim" (BH, farthest from center), that meet at the ends with the walls of the mouth. As if the opening of the mouth was tilted towards the reader by ~10°. Except that the FH arches outward, like the BH, instead of inwards as perspective would require.
There no definite bit of Rt0 on any of the FHs. It is possible that the FHs were added by the Rt1 retracer, who mis-interpreted the mis-interpretation of Rt0.
Just outside circle C5 there is a ring of "tombstones" with round tops, ~1.8 mm wide by ~3.5 mm tall, which alternate between blank and containing a vertical row of two or three dots. The dots may have been created by Rt1.
Key to the annotations
Original traces
(1a,1b) Mechanical circles, original (Rt0).
(1c) Possible Rt0 dot. All other dots in the tombstones are Rt1.
(1d) This word and the previous one may be Rt2.
(1e) The traces of this arm of the big star are still Rt0.
Rt2 retraces
(2f) This arm of the star was retraced by Rt2 with broadstrokes but an almost dry quill.
(2g) These six short dark strokes at at the base of the star arms were retraced or created by Rt1. There is no definite sign of Rt0 traces for them.
(2h,2i,2j) These glyphs may be Rt2, or just Rt1 with a loaded pen.
Incomplete retracing
(3a) Bit of Rt0 on the side of the mouth.
(3b) Possible bit of Rt0 on the background half-rim (BH).
(3c) Possible bits of Rt0 in the tombstone ring.
(3d) The right loop of this @t seems to be Rt0, the rest is Rt1.
(3e) The right loop of this @t is probably Rt0, while the rest of the glyph is Rt1. The liquid blue paint wicked over a bit of the right loop and more than half of the left loop.
(3f) This @d was incompletely retraced by Rt1.
(3g) Incomplete Rt2 retrace of incomplete Rt1 retrace of Rt0 tail of @m.
(3h) The tail of this @y was traced only halfway by Rt1.
Imperfect retracing
(4a) The body and most of the plume of this @r were retraced by Rt1,leaving only a bit of Rt0 near the middle of the plume. The top of the plume was traced in the wrong direction (clockwise), then a fat dot was added at the tip.
(4b) The lower half of the plume of this @r may be Rt0. The body and the top half of the plume are Rt1. The plume was retraced in two strokes: a short one about 3/4 of the way, probably CW, and a fat dot at the tip.
(4c) This @s plume originally cut through the ligature of the @Ch, but the Rt0 trace is almost completely invisible. Only the upper half was restored by Rt1 -- with two strokes, of them a CW broadstroke.
Ambiguous retracing
(5a) These three @c strokes were either @che or @ech in Rt0, or maybe @eee. The Rt1 "restoration" left them ambiguous.
(5b) This glyph probably was @r, but Rt1 "restored" it as an ambiguous glyph more like @s than @r.
Incorrect retracing
(6a,6b,6c,6d) Failure by Rt1 to retrace the Rt0 tails of these @y glyphs made them look like @o or @a.
(6e) This glyph probably was @eo in Rt0, and was mangled by Rt1 into a single weirdo.
(6f) This glyph probably was @Ch in Rt0, but was "restored" as @Ih by Rt1.
(6g) This glyph probably was a @d; or maybe a @g, whose tail faded to oblivion. The Rt1 restored version is neither.
(6h) The word @or is 10 times more common than @os, therefore it is quite possible that this glyph was @r originally but was mistakenly "restored" as @s by Rt1.
(6i) Incorrect retracing as @a of an Rt0 @d.
(6k) This @d was incompletely retraced by Rt1 and could easily be misread as @o.
General remarks
This clip spans the middle part of the west half of page f70r. The page contains a circular diagram with three rings of text, several labels, and a central structure with a large six-armed star in the middle.
The diagram has five mechanical circles, C1 to C5 from outside in. Circles C1 to C3 delimit the two outer rings of text and the primeval scream '...@ooooooolar...@sara.....'. Circle C4 delimits what can be interpreted as a sphere with nine flared "mouths" opening out around its perimeter, with many small lobes around their rims. There are nine radial labels that start just inside C3 and are directed towards the gaps between those nine mouths.
Most of the text and drawings on this page was retraced in the general restoration pass (Rt1), with the light brown ink. Only bits of the original (Rt0) traces remain here and there; they are generally faint. There may be some isolated instances of later retouching (Rt1), but they may be just Rt1 with more ink on the quill.
The sphere with flared mouths may have been copied from a source image that had a cloud band. The Scribe would not know what that thing was and how it was supposed to be drawn (see what he did with the "Oresme" cloud band on f68v3), and produced a circle with nine frilled petals instead.
The rim of each mouth is now depicted as two scalloped and arched lines, the "foreground half-rim" (FH, nearest to center) and "background half-rim" (BH, farthest from center), that meet at the ends with the walls of the mouth. As if the opening of the mouth was tilted towards the reader by ~10°. Except that the FH arches outward, like the BH, instead of inwards as perspective would require.
There no definite bit of Rt0 on any of the FHs. It is possible that the FHs were added by the Rt1 retracer, who mis-interpreted the mis-interpretation of Rt0.
Just outside circle C5 there is a ring of "tombstones" with round tops, ~1.8 mm wide by ~3.5 mm tall, which alternate between blank and containing a vertical row of two or three dots. The dots may have been created by Rt1.
Key to the annotations
Original traces
(1a,1b) Mechanical circles, original (Rt0).
(1c) Possible Rt0 dot. All other dots in the tombstones are Rt1.
(1d) This word and the previous one may be Rt2.
(1e) The traces of this arm of the big star are still Rt0.
Rt2 retraces
(2f) This arm of the star was retraced by Rt2 with broadstrokes but an almost dry quill.
(2g) These six short dark strokes at at the base of the star arms were retraced or created by Rt1. There is no definite sign of Rt0 traces for them.
(2h,2i,2j) These glyphs may be Rt2, or just Rt1 with a loaded pen.
Incomplete retracing
(3a) Bit of Rt0 on the side of the mouth.
(3b) Possible bit of Rt0 on the background half-rim (BH).
(3c) Possible bits of Rt0 in the tombstone ring.
(3d) The right loop of this @t seems to be Rt0, the rest is Rt1.
(3e) The right loop of this @t is probably Rt0, while the rest of the glyph is Rt1. The liquid blue paint wicked over a bit of the right loop and more than half of the left loop.
(3f) This @d was incompletely retraced by Rt1.
(3g) Incomplete Rt2 retrace of incomplete Rt1 retrace of Rt0 tail of @m.
(3h) The tail of this @y was traced only halfway by Rt1.
Imperfect retracing
(4a) The body and most of the plume of this @r were retraced by Rt1,leaving only a bit of Rt0 near the middle of the plume. The top of the plume was traced in the wrong direction (clockwise), then a fat dot was added at the tip.
(4b) The lower half of the plume of this @r may be Rt0. The body and the top half of the plume are Rt1. The plume was retraced in two strokes: a short one about 3/4 of the way, probably CW, and a fat dot at the tip.
(4c) This @s plume originally cut through the ligature of the @Ch, but the Rt0 trace is almost completely invisible. Only the upper half was restored by Rt1 -- with two strokes, of them a CW broadstroke.
Ambiguous retracing
(5a) These three @c strokes were either @che or @ech in Rt0, or maybe @eee. The Rt1 "restoration" left them ambiguous.
(5b) This glyph probably was @r, but Rt1 "restored" it as an ambiguous glyph more like @s than @r.
Incorrect retracing
(6a,6b,6c,6d) Failure by Rt1 to retrace the Rt0 tails of these @y glyphs made them look like @o or @a.
(6e) This glyph probably was @eo in Rt0, and was mangled by Rt1 into a single weirdo.
(6f) This glyph probably was @Ch in Rt0, but was "restored" as @Ih by Rt1.
(6g) This glyph probably was a @d; or maybe a @g, whose tail faded to oblivion. The Rt1 restored version is neither.
(6h) The word @or is 10 times more common than @os, therefore it is quite possible that this glyph was @r originally but was mistakenly "restored" as @s by Rt1.
(6i) Incorrect retracing as @a of an Rt0 @d.
(6k) This @d was incompletely retraced by Rt1 and could easily be misread as @o.