Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> Well... some do and some don't, but what does that really tell us? For
> example, look at the word-final "s" of f3v.4.2 (EVA <chs>) - this crosses
> in and out of a patch of green bleed-through. Those parts of the letter
> inside the bleed-through are slightly darker than those outside it.
>
> IMO, what examples like these tell us about the VMs' ink is that, for the
> most part, it simply hasn't got a thick enough consistency to completely
> cover the vellum - in image processing terms, it's "semi-transparent".
This
> means that not only you can see the vellum beneath it, you can also see
any
> bleed-through through it. No need to invoke mechanical / chemical effects
> at all.

I'm at least happy you're using terms like "consistency" and "inconsistent",
because that's exactly what we're seeing. The 8 in f3v.14.1 is inconsistent
with your counter-observation above, as are the e's in f3v.8.4 and f3v.9.3.
One may identify specific features consistent with a specific subset, but no
single subset of observation creates the entire image.

> But hold on a minute: look again at the top line of the same page, and you
> should see some very unVoynichese Voynichese going on. Words three and
four
> (EVA <qotoa sha>) break most of the structure rules we're used to (no
> word-final a's, etc) - and in fact, I think you can see a faint tail on
the
> sidfile beneath the first word-final <a>, where the original word was
> <qotoy>. Also, the second "o" of "qotoa" has a slightly different shape
> from other o's (it has a "v-notch" at the top) - IMO, these letters were
> retouched by someone who was not the author, who simply did not understand

v-notch - these o's were accomplished writing two strokes.  The v-notch is
where one stroke ends and the other begins.  This can be seen in varying
degrees throughout the manuscript, and is a Voynich feature.

No word-final a's, is this a Voynich rule?  In the contiguous herbal section
there are seven, and though that's not a large number, I am reminded that
for every Voynich "rule", there is something to be found that does not
follow the rules.  These examples are located at:

f3v.1.4
f3v.8.5
f11v.4.8
f14r.2.5
f32v.3.9
f44v.8.7
f45v.9.6

> Voynichese. FWIW, the "a" of the "sha" word looks (IMO) more like a
> Renaissance hand, where the leftmost down-stroke of the "a" starts thicker
> but becomes thinner, rather than starting thin and broadening out -
compare
> it (for example) with the third glyph on the same line.
>

It is handwriting and not typesetting, but FWIW you can cut this 'a' out,
overlay it against several of the other a's on this folio and others, and
you'll find a margin of consistency between the two strokes and the strokes
of other a's. Check it against the a at f3v.6.4 for instance, or check the c
stroke of the a against other c strokes on the page.  Or for that matter
check the width, angle and termination of the i stroke against similar ones
on the page.  IMHO whoever wrote this 'a' wrote the others.  The real
question is - is there any evidence of retouching on this a?  The simple
fact that it's darker than surrounding text does not immediately imply
retouching, yet you've already jumped to this conclusion.

> Really, I think your selection of dark-letter evidence from this page does
> not support the theory you describe - sure, some are slightly darkened by
> the green bleedthrough (but that's surely because the ink is too thin to
> completely cover the vellum?), some strokes are obviously reinking
splodges
> (as the ink-flow settles down after dipping the quill in the pot,
analogous
> to the page I tried to mark up in an earlier mail) - but some are from
> retouching, which was done by someone who did not understand Voynichese...

The effects you describe from the bleed-through is not the case at all.  If
the dark background were the cause of the ink appearing darker, EVERY glyph
inside the dark background would appear darker than those outside.  Only the
heavier inked portions of the glyphs appear to be affected, not the lighter
sections.  This effect is relational to the pigmentation portion of the ink,
not to the sections where the ink is too thin to cover the bleed-through.
Where the pigment is too light or non-existent, this effect does not play
through.

> Alternatively, if the same retouching ink was used (for example) for the
> foliation, then we might then be able to argue for the retouching's having
> been done after the VMs had been misbound. Personally, I think that we
> should be able to differentiate the retouching not only by ink colour, but
> also by quill technique - ie, from the precise shapes of the strokes. This
> kind of dual identification would surely be enough to prove different
> authorship.

First you have to get to the stage where you're producing conclusive
evidence of retouching, then I'll pull out my stroke evidence relating to
the same hand at work.

> >The answer is simple - no one went through and touched up a portion of a
> >glyph here, a portion of a glyph there.

> This is right - where he/she retouched a glyph, the retoucher seems to
have
> retouched the whole glyph. Dark strokes seem to be largely from reinking:
> and dark parts of strokes seem to have arisen (especially in weak strokes)
> from bleed-through.

Are there any "retouched" glyphs you see on f3v besides the 'a'? Look to the
right of the first four lines of f3v, at the left edge of the blue flower.
Here's a cluster of darker glyphs to be found, but they are inside what
appears to be either a stain or a roughness of vellum.  If you look at the
entire page, the lighting used identifies an inconsistency in the surface in
several areas.  This is yet another feature that must be ruled out before
any glyph inside such boundaries can be claimed to be "retouched".

> >   The ink itself has a minimum of two
> >incompatible components, and one of them did not survive well.
Incompatible
> >as the components are, even their ability to exist in solution for any
> >period of time is questionable.  What may have appeared to be a uniformly
> >pigmented application when new is now discovered to be somewhat less than
> >uniform, as the water-soluble component (the pigment portion), was rarely
> >mixed well enough to be applied uniformly.  Those pigments exposed to
> >moisture early on had a better chance of survival, and when the ink was
> >thicker, as in the down strokes or o's, the chances of survival increased
to
> >some degree.
>
> I think this theory fails to explain away all the variations in darkness
in
> the kind of systemic way you originally claimed. However, the ink splodge
> on f103r does seem to show two components to (what could well be) the
brown
> ink: perhaps this would be a good place for Raman spectroscopy to try to
> separate out the physical makeup of those two components.

I said that features can be categorized in subsets, and when this can be
done, the effect is systemic in nature, not systematic as retouching would
be.  I also implied if not directly stated that there are several subsets
here, the above discussion being on only one of these.  Knowing the
component nature of the ink would be nice, but I think it unnecessary toward
gaining an understanding of the exact nature of variation observed in the
manuscript.  The physical variables are the ink - at least two components -
one water-soluble and one not, the poor nature of the vellum and its
apparent roughness in spots, the effects of moisture on the pigment, as seen
in bleed-through examples and stains, the ever-changing nature of the
writing instrument, and probably a few features I didn't bother to look at.

> Ultimately, I suspect that it will indeed turn out that (as you assert)
> only one scribe wrote the original text - but I also think that we will be
> able to systematically identify retouchers, and hence work out that which
> was added (in good faith, but perhaps also in error) to that original.
>
> Why decode noise when you can decode signal? :-o

I look forward to the retouching evidence.  So far we have Jorge's 'm'.

GC

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list