Aga Tentakulus > 05-06-2025, 10:00 PM
(05-06-2025, 07:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-06-2025, 02:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It would certainly be an argument for the colour of the ink.
I'll stick to the simple one first.
1. closed inkwell. Over time, light-coloured ink and watery. Sinking of the particles.
2. open inkwell. Ink becomes thick and sticky. Evaporation and thickening. Seen in this light, the ink does not flow cleanly.
One problem with this explanation is that the darker ink is seen only in some pages, and then only some details. On the Zodiac pages, for instance, there are of course many "original" variations in stroke darkness and width that are apparently done in the standard yellowish-brown ink, and therefore can be attributed to ink-flow variations and immediate self-corrections by the Scribe. But there are scattered "new" strokes in a distinctive dark brown-black ink that was used only in the labels of two pages and applied to a bizarre selection of figure details.
Aga Tentakulus > 05-06-2025, 10:05 PM
Stefan Wirtz_2 > 05-06-2025, 11:13 PM
(05-06-2025, 07:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
What is certain is that the font was not finished with the old ink. This only came later with the new, darker ink. Whether the ink was new, or just stirred or thickened, I leave open.
What is certain is that the words were finished afterwards. I assume that the other corrections were also made at the same time.
The same ink can also be found on other pages in the text.
Bluetoes101 > 05-06-2025, 11:58 PM
ReneZ > Yesterday, 12:09 AM
(05-06-2025, 11:58 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.which would happen over time.
oshfdk > Yesterday, 12:14 AM
(05-06-2025, 11:58 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Whenever it happened I'll leave to others, but the fact it did happen seems pretty obvious to me. As pointed out previously, presumably the text was deemed "too faded" which would happen over time.
Aga Tentakulus > Yesterday, 12:56 AM
Hider > Yesterday, 08:01 AM
(05-06-2025, 11:58 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 12:14 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure what happened in your example. There are two layers of ink there, but to me this doesn't look like a retrace due to fading. Given that this is the first word of the paragraph and no other words appear to show any underlying faded ink, I'd rather believe that the scribe wrote the first word with a dry pen or badly watered down ink and then after realizing the mistake immediately retraced the letters with fresh ink. This is not at all like the proposed retracing on other pages. If anything, this shows what a true retracing would look like and I think it's quite different from dark ink/light ink parts on other pages.Apparently, errors were made in encryption by the author. The curator made corrections in darker ink when checking
oshfdk > Yesterday, 08:27 AM
(Yesterday, 08:01 AM)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apparently, errors were made in encryption by the author. The curator made corrections in darker ink when checking
Jorge_Stolfi > Yesterday, 08:44 AM
(05-06-2025, 11:13 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The whole "retracing" theory has a bit of a problem: under the best-possible enlargements/zooms is nothing of the original words visible anymore.