27-04-2026, 02:54 PM
(27-04-2026, 10:36 AM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I think the actual question is whether the ink is overwhelmingly original or massively retraced. MRT requires non iron-gall ink, because this would explain how it could fade over and over again to allow for serial retracing. For people that deny the existence of MRT in the text and see the ink as original and mostly legible after 600 years, the most likely explanation is that the ink is iron gall based.
Ah, so that is why you are so keen on the ink being IGI.
MRT does not require the ink to have any particular composition. It assumes only that the ink had faded substantially by ~1630, to a point that threatened to make the text illegible.
And the ink obviously has faded in many places, to the point of invisibility. That is not a deduction from some theory about the ink's composition: it is just an objective observation.
And, actually, it was that observation that led me to wonder whether the ink was indeed IGI. Not the other way around.
All the best, --stolfi