02-11-2026, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure if this has been discussed. Looking at 1-5 numbers on the margin of f49v, it appears they exhibit some variation in darkness almost to the same extent as the main text. For example, the right part of the horizontal bar of 4 is nearly invisible and the top part of 3 is much fainter than the bottom. What would be the implications wrt retracing and bad ink/parchment views?
The way I see it:
1. Digits 4 and 5 are in their modern form (4 doesn't look like l from the quire numbers), so it's likely the numbering significantly postdates the main text. It's extremely unlikely the main text and the numbers were written with the same ink or quill.
2. 1-5 look a bit similar to the folio numbers, but the folio numbers are much more uniform in darkness, so it's not like the whole surface of the parchment was too badly prepared to write on.
3. If 1-5 irregular ink is the result of retracing (which I don't believe in, but just suppose), it's not clear why not retrace the whole digits. These are obviously normal digits, there was no risk of misinterpreting them by retracing incorrectly.
What do you think?
The way I see it:
1. Digits 4 and 5 are in their modern form (4 doesn't look like l from the quire numbers), so it's likely the numbering significantly postdates the main text. It's extremely unlikely the main text and the numbers were written with the same ink or quill.
2. 1-5 look a bit similar to the folio numbers, but the folio numbers are much more uniform in darkness, so it's not like the whole surface of the parchment was too badly prepared to write on.
3. If 1-5 irregular ink is the result of retracing (which I don't believe in, but just suppose), it's not clear why not retrace the whole digits. These are obviously normal digits, there was no risk of misinterpreting them by retracing incorrectly.
What do you think?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)