VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jorge,

I look forward to your website update. Much of what we're arguing may not be
cleared up through imagery alone, but we do find some points of agreement
amidst our varied interpretation of the visual evidence.

As to "optical effects", I'm not using simply the color images to weigh my
estimates, rather the black and whites and various spectrums.  Some of the
older documents clearly show the "rougher" vellum areas on some pages as
shadows that coordinate with dark areas of text.  These areas are sometimes
invisible in the color images.  Interestingly enough, if the darker glyphs I
see in areas of the color images are merely an optical illusion, that
illusion is much stronger in the microfilm images, as this effect stands out
most obviously in black and white.  This effect is also seen in black and
white where the verso paint is red or very light colored and not optically
visible behind the text that has been affected.  Something to consider is
that the microfilm, the British Library images, and the MrSids (as well as a
few color images of various folios) were taken at different times under
different lighting and photographic conditions.  We really do have a wealth
of information at our fingertips in this modern age.

You wrote:

> So I think that the burden of proof is on those who claim that the
> painting is original, not on those who believe it to be a later
> addition. (For instance, it would be a good start to find a single
> example of brown text or outline written on top of the paint, rather
> than under it.)

I have personally stated the opinion that the drawing and the text came
before the color, and on that point we agree.  I hold the conservative view
that without some supporting evidence, one does not know if the paint were
applied one hour after the drawing and text were completed, or 100 years
after.  Since we are not arguing that the painting itself has been
retouched, the painting can in fact be considered "original", since it was
apparently done only once. :-)  Also, I might argue that there are colors in
places of the Voynich that appear to be some sort of ink and not watercolor,
and these might without much effort be considered the original work of the
author.  There are also many very detailed areas that were carefully
colored, and in one instance, apparent Voynich writing added in blue to the
pool on lower left f84r in blue paint/ink.  On the other hand, there are
indeed those areas where the addition of paint is very sloppy, which has led
to much speculation.

> As for the colored paints, not only the visual evidence but simple
> common sense point to them being the work of a later owner.

I can't believe that the situation has changed so much over the last few
years that I'm now offering conservative opinion as the "voice of reason",
and you, whom I've considered a trusted counter-balance and even
friend-from-afar because of your consistency in trying times, are now taking
the radical stance.  This all feels terribly out of character, but hell, the
earth's poles must have reversed or some other catastrophe ensued, so here
goes:

It may well be that the manuscript was either partially or entirely painted
by a later owner, and this may also not be the case at all.  "Simple common
sense" without credible evidence is insufficient for this task, as you've
taught me so well, and I don't believe the images provide enough physical
information to make a positive determination either way.

If this work were started while the author was a young student, as I have
suggested from time to time, (not without evidence, mind you), what if the
author decided to pull it out of a dusty drawer or leather folder on a
liesurely day some 25 years later and "enhance" the book before passing it
on to a friend or family member? Would his hand have been as steady or his
eyes as keen?  Would we then consider him a "later owner", or simply an
"older author"?  I have agreed with you that the physical evidence suggests
a passage of time between text and a good portion of the coloration,  and be
cause of the effect the application of paint apparently had on the verso
text, that this period of time is on the order of years in places - though
several years seems to be indicated, exactly how many years is unknown.  Not
knowing the physical characteristics of the substances applied to the
vellum, common sense tells me not to go beyond that observation other than
in mere speculation.  As you've pointed out so many times, stating something
extraordinary as "fact" requires extraordinary proof.

Your remarks on the text:
> On the whole, "retracing" seems to be a much simpler explanation for
> all that evidence. It does not require UFOs or bizarre sects or
> super-human cryptographers/forgers, nor unspecified ink chemistry --
> just an ordinary book owner doing a very simple and natural thing, for
> a very plausible reason...

I'm disappointed to find that you've lumped my "unspecified ink chemistry"
among UFO's and bizarre sects, and I'm a little more than surprised that
your tone suggests a man of your education, talent and obviously gifted
intuition actually doesn't believe in UFO's! :-)

The fact is that everything I've read on the composition of
medieval/renaissance inks states quite clearly that the inks of the time
were composed of varying compounds, a compound being more than one
ingredient.  Not all of these weathered well, and not all were compatible in
terms of longevity.  Common ingredients, such as charcoal or ash, are not
stains or organic acids, but primarily particulate "compounds", which may or
may or may not contain indelible components.  Barbara Barrett was kind
enough to offer privately that even in the inks that had great longevity,
application varied.  A drying effect could be witnessed where the
particulates formed a "hump" in the center of the stroke, while the staining
or etching portion dried first along the outside of the stroke.  Barbara was
describing a capillarity action, and as she has noted (and anyone who writes


with a Waterman's like I do can attest) that this effect alone sometimes
appears as a "retracing" of portions of the writing.  This occurs most often
in my pen when I've allowed ink to dry on the nib, and more particulate is
deposited than usual when pressure is applied.  This is something I hadn't
even brought up, and I haven't looked hard enough to see if this effect is
present, but it most certainly must be evident in one or two places.

If I weren't working so danged hard to get that free pizza, I'd have had
some more time to state my case rather succinctly, but I'm willing to work
through this as time permits.  There are a host of things affecting the text
and its longevity, as are made more visible by black and white and
greyscale.  Even on your f56v, we see an area or "vein" around the bottom
portion of the green paint in the plant that has affected the text.  Even
the green paint has been darkened by whatever touched the text.  This
roughly coincides with the paint on the verso f56r.  The same again on the
left.  By my theory we're looking for areas where moisture has been applied
to the verso, and these examples fit the "at or near" scenario.

As to the very dark strokes at the top, again, even extreme magnification
does not reveal one penstroke over another, but a function of the writing
instrument and the surface is suggested by the strokes.  Remember, by my
calculation we're dealing with handwritten glyphs of approximately 9 points
by type standards, sometimes slightly more, sometimes slightly less.  This
is smaller than what you're currently reading if you're set to 10 point type
like many of us. EXACT touch-up or retracing would be difficult, and require
almost perfect conditions.  Your own {m} is an example of how inaccurate
retracing would be on average.  Don't think so?  Get out your Waterman's and
try it yourself, then consider the flexible and inconsistent nature of a
quill pen over a gold-plated nib in completing this task with accuracy, even
with the precise consistency of Parker's ink, as I'm using.

Unless any one of you can reproduce these "retracings" with the accuracy we
see in the Voynich in such a small scale, it would appear that it would be
more productive to correctly identify (in more exact and scientific terms)
the general effects I've been describing, rather than to dismiss them as
"illusion" and bundle them with UFO's, while we save our assumptions for the
few outstanding examples.  Or perhaps I'm wrong, since the later owner was
obviously an expert "dark ink engraver" who had access to optical eye loops
and other precise instruments to perform his task?  But wouldn't that
assumption throw us back to the category of "super-human
cryptographers/forgers", which is also in the UFO and "magic ink" category?

The folio you pointed to in the Zodiac section - can't remember it now but I
did give it a very thorough examination a week ago - two rings of text were
written in different ink.  I didn't see any evidence of retracing in the
text, but I did notice that there must have been more ash, charcoal, or
whatever in this ink.  The thought struck me that the author may have
originally attempted to write the second and fourth circles in "black" ink,
offset against the usual brown for contrast, (much like the red ink), as
much of the black pigment still remains.  Perhaps the red was not available?
This was probably accomplished by simply adding another pigment to the same
ink base.  I've had no problem accepting that some breasts have been drawn
in this ink, and that a stroke or two may have been retraced, though I did
not examine all the details in "zoom", just trying to take in the image in
proper size, as it would have appeared to the author.

This zodiac page posed a difficult problem however, since no one exactly
aligns the page for each glyph while writing in a circle, so measuring
proper slant and drop of each glyph is difficult at best.  Still, my
*opinion* holds that there is a high probability that the text is written by
the same person, and no matter when it was added - moments or extremely long
moments later - that it is from the same author is the only question in need
of answering with any degree of certainty.  I do believe however, that the
suggestion that the difference in the ink in these two rings could have been
intended to convey contrast is an equally plausible alternative that
deserves due consideration.

What we've gained from the MrSids up to now is that we now know the order of
general construction - drawings first, then text, then paint.  From Currier
and similar statistics we have an idea that not all text was entered at the
same time, but that the manuscript was composed in sections.  We also know
that the sections are not always in their proper order.  Throughout the work
there is an increased variation in the handwriting from front-to-back, but
not enough to make a case for more than one author.  By this writing
variation we might go as far as to back up our Currier-based assumption that
the transition between sections involved a period of time.  Variations in
handwriting between sections imply years, not days or months, and a lot can
be added or altered in a manuscript over years.  I could go on with the list
of "knowns" about this manuscript, but most have heard it and choose to
ignore the majority of information in favor of speculation, which to other
lesser studied, risks as passing for fact.

Most recently I demonstrated a glyph concept that demonstrated the EVA <e>
glyph to become isolated on one folio, completely non-existant on the next,
and then return in full force.  I chose this example very carefully, mind
you, and yet it passed without comment.  And here I stand defending the
original author against the ravages of a "retoucher", when the entire
collective effort can't compute the approximate nature of a glyph as a
starting point on which to build, much less grasp the implication of the
cyclic nature of a glyph's appearance and disappearance.

The furtherance of knowledge is not in the pictures, it's in the text - not
the EVA text, the REAL text.  Just a reality check, since the poles of the
earth have obviously reversed recently.  But the burden of proof must lie
always with those who claim assumption as fact, not merely with those
opposed to your viewpoint.  Don't think for an instant I've forgotten this,
and I'm a little let down that you'd consider assigning your pizza delivery
duties to someone else. :-)

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jorge Stolfi" <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:16 AM
Subject: VMs: Re: Inks and retouching


>
> Glen writes
>
>   > [Glen:] While there is an indelible quality to the ink, the darker
>   > portions remaining appear to be a component that is very sensitive
>   > to moisture. Some time ago I examined this phenomenon on color
>   > jpegs, and reached the conclusion that the two portions of the ink
>   > in question did not mix well together. The indelible portion
>   > appears to be an organic non-soluble, possibly an organic oil or
>   > acid of some sort, capable of etching the vellum. I'm not up on my
>   > ink chemistry, so the exact chemical nature of the indelible
>   > compound is an assumption. The dark portion(s) in question appear
>   > to be water soluble.
>
>
> The assumption that the ink color is due to a mixture of two or more
> colored components, some of them soluble and some not, is quite
> reasonable. It does make color analysis more complicated (especially
> without those calibration strips...).
>
> However, I do not think that the color variations can be explained by
> the *soluble* component being lost. On most pages there is no evidence
> of water damage, or even moisture-induced smearing. Except for a few
> isolated cases where the water stains are themselves quite visible, I
> believe that the only viable explanations for ink fading are (a)
> mechanical wear or (b) chemical aging of the pigment/dyes themselves.
>
>   > The two together have separate absorption properties, and I
>   > wouldn't be surprised to find that most "retouching" evidence is
>   > caused by this dual-based ink and the effects of age on the two. I
>   > still stand by this conclusion.
>
> I grant that some of the dark/light variation is probably due to
> mecanical ink flow effects and differential wear/fading. However there
> are many, many places where that explanation does not seem to work.
>
> It is pretty obvious that the EVA "iin" (your "m") on f1r was
> retraced, and there are many similar examples all over the manuscript.
>
> Those retracings may have been done (A) by the author himself, as he
> was writing -- e.g. when the pen went dry halfway through a character.
> Or (B) by the author, at a much later date, to restore text that had
> faded over time; or (C) by a later owner, for the same reason.
>
> There are indeed many examples of (A); I have been just staring at
> seveal of those on f81v (top left). In these examples the under-ink is
> clearly the same color as the retracing ink, only fainter, and is
> clearly the end of an inking.  In fact, I have looked through most
> of the biological pages, and the only retracings that I can see
> on the text are of this type. (The drawings may be a diferent story,
> but I am not ready to make guesses on them yet.)
>
> However, there are many examples elsewhere that cannot be explained
> as (A). That covers most of the dark traces in f56v and in the
> Zodiac section. There the "old" and "new" inks are too consistently
> different, the "old" text is uniformly fainter, and the retracing
> seems to be consistently confined to certain parts -- such as
> labels in a certain band, or on a certain half of a circle;
> or all those right breasts.  Moreover the retracing there clearly
> seems to have been the work of someone who did not understand
> the drawings --- see the moustache on f56v, the nymph legs on the zodiac,
> etc. --- which seems to exclude (B) as well as (A).
>
>   > If you remember in an earlier email I asked why the dark ink tends
>   > to run in "veins"?
>
> First, a note of caution: beware that the human eye has a tendency to
> see lines in images that contain only random noise. Remember Powell's
> Martian Canals? For instance, when staring at the highly magnified
> images, I see all sort of drawings and characters in the blank vellum.
> I mostly learned to ignore them, but sometimes they seem so compelling...
>
> So the "veins" may be real, or may be an illusion. But I grant that
> the dark ink is often concentrated in certain areas of the page. Those
> may be simply raised spots on the vellum surface, which rubbed against
> other pages or the table, and hence had more wear. This wear is quite
> visible on sharp creases, and the vellum surface is likely to have
> less conspicuous waves (say 1mm high and 1 cm wide) which would not be
> visible on the images but would wear a lot more than the nearby
> throughs.
>
> Note that this explanation fits with (B) or (C) but not with (A),
> since those gentle waves should not have made much difference
> while the text was beeing written.
>
>   > Let's take f3v as demonstration that my theory
>   > has basis in observable fact. There's more than one mechanical (or
>   > chemical) effect observable on this folio, but right now I'm only
>   > interested in one. Here we see the image of the paint from f3r,
>   > and notice that the moisture from the paint on the other side of
>   > the folio causes some of the soluble portion of the ink to adhere
>   > better, causing the ink to appear darker.
>
> Are you saying that one side was written after the other side had been
> painted, and while the paint was still moist? It seems highly unlikely.
>
> Moreover, vellum (unlike paper) seems to be mostly impermeable. The
> "bleedthrough" effects that we see are largely due to it being
> slightly transparent, especially where a little dent on one side
> matches a little dent on the other side. (Ever wondered why "vellum
> paper" got that name?)
>
> I haven't looked for them, but I bet that there are few if any
> instances where the ink actually flowed across the vellum. Certainly
> no such "material" bleedthrough is visible on f3r, for example. In any
> case, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the "retraced"
> characters and bleedthrough.
>   > We see many dark portions on the edges of the painted image, and
>   > in a few places we see a glyph split between the painted image and
>   > regular vellum, where the portion of the glyph inside the painted
>   > image is dark, but that outside is faded. f3r, line 5, the <ch> in
>   > word 2. ...
>
> The green bleedthrough does indeed make the characters written over it
> look a bit darker. This is an expected optical effect and does not
> need to involve any moisture transfer.
>
> One interesting detail on page f3r (a page which I had not yet
> looked at in high-res) is the cracked green paint, on the bottom
> right leaf. Note that even though this area was positively
> flooded with paint, it did not cause any more bleedthrough
> than other places where the green paint was applied with an
> almost dry brush.
>
> Another interesting detail is the way this green paint darkens with
> increasing thickness. I don't know, but we may be looking at a green
> dye rather than a green opaque pigment. (The text ink on this page too
> looks transparent.) I wish I had looked at this page yesterday: I just
> spent many hours trying to separate the green ink on page f81v
> (biological section), and was frustrated -- that too seems to be a
> transparent dye.
>
> If it is indeed a transparent dye, I have no idea of what substance it
> could be. It may be much later than 16th century, perhaps 19th or 20th
> century. A student at the Collegio Romano, perhaps?
>
> I am well aware of this effect and I *do not* count those slightly
> darkened characters over bleedthroughs as retracing evidence, not even
> as "suspects". On the very first word of f3r (EVA "tsheos"), I would
> say that the final EVA "s" is of the same color as the legs of the
> initial "t", except for the effect of darker background.
>
> On the other hand, there are many cases of a single character or
> stroke being much darker than its neighbors, with all of them are over
> the bleedthrough, or all of them are outside it. The "o" on that
> same word is an example.
>
> Incidentally the darkening of the strokes over the bleedthrough
> may allow us to decide whether the brown ink is transparent dye
> or opaque pigment.  In both cases we would expect a darkening,
> but the numerical effects on each channel should be different.
>
> Most of the darker letters on f3v are what I would call "suspects"
> only, not evidence. The ink seems to be the same, and the "hand" too.
> So indeed they may well be instances of (A) above. E.g., after the
> author finished writing a paragraph, he went over it again and
> reinforced those letters which had come out too faint on the first
> pass -- paying special attention to those which are likely
> to be confused, like "o" and "a"s, "r"s and "s"s.
>
> There is marginal evidence of retracing is on the first "tsheos".
> Note that the horizontal stroke of the "t" does not connect to
> the left eye. Note that the plume is much fainter than any text
> around it; so it it was added later ("crossing the sh's") it must
> have been much after the end of that word.
>
> The first word of line 6 ("ychtaiin") also has a marginal evidence:
> a bit of light ink sticking out of the right foot.  A small bit,
> but note that the pen was obviously quite loaded, whreas the
> "old" stroke seems to have been done by a very dry nib.
>
> Other similar bits are seen on paragraph 2: at the very bottom of the
> first "s" in "sols" (line 1, word 3), which may even have been an "r"
> originally; and at the top of the second "i" of an "okodaiin" (line 2,
> word 1).
>
> The reason why we don't see more of such evidence could be that there
> was no retracing... or that the original text has mostly faded to
> invisibility. Check for instance the plume on the first word
> ("tsheos"), which I would guess is "old", and the EVA "y" (your "9")
> on the next-to-last word of the first parag, "otchody", which I guess
> had its head (but not its tail) retraced with an almost-dry pen. Under
> the "retouching" hypothesis, those details were still above the
> visibility threshold at the time, so the "old" characters that were
> traced-over should be even fainter.
>
> I can't reply to all of your other points here, unfortunately. (This
> thread seems to be snowballing, each line of one posting calls for two
> paragraphs of reply...) I will try to expand my webpage with a more
> systematic and organized list of examples. For now I can only say
> that, while most instances of "retracing" could be explained by
> "natural" accidents with a sufficiently magic ink, there are far too
> many examples to explain them that way.
>
> On the whole, "retracing" seems to be a much simpler explanation for
> all that evidence. It does not require UFOs or bizarre sects or
> super-human cryptographers/forgers, nor unspecified ink chemistry --
> just an ordinary book owner doing a very simple and natural thing, for
> a very plausible reason...
>
> As for the colored paints, not only the visual evidence but simple
> common sense point to them being the work of a later owner.
> That would hardly be an unusual occurrence: see
>
>   http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/oct2002.html
>
> for an example of a *printed* book that was completely and carefully
> colorized by a later owner. (Scroll about 2/3 down the page for the
> story.) On
>
>   http://www.med.yale.edu/library/historical/fuchs/
>
> you will find another copy of this same book - Fuchs Herbal - where a
> few pages have been fully (but crudely) colorized, a few more had only
> the leaves painted green, and the rest was still unpainted.
>
> So I think that the burden of proof is on those who claim that the
> painting is original, not on those who believe it to be a later
> addition. (For instance, it would be a good start to find a single
> example of brown text or outline written on top of the paint, rather
> than under it.)
>
> All the best,
>
> --stolfi
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

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