(09-10-2025, 04:25 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is another double-legged and weird 'f' (or 'p'?) on the same page, in the lower right (not that I can say what this might mean)
I can't explain it either, except note that this
f is a Frankenstein monster of retracings, and it crosses or touches glyphs on the line above and on the line below. Who knows what it was originally.
By the way, there is another interesting case in that same area.
Note that there is a light brown crescent shape just to the SW of that glyph. That turns out to be an offset print from a dark blue flower on page f46v. That particular blue paint seems to have a component that collects along the edges of the painted area and then leaves offset traces on the facing page.
Just inside that crescent there is an
o that crosses the loop of the
t on the line below. That
o is retraced (probably Rt2) and happens to match in part the outline of that flower offset.
So my guess is that the
o was not there originally, but the Rt2 Retracer mistook the flower offset for text and "restored" a non-existent
o on that spot...
All the best, --jorge
Actually I now have an idea about that bizarre f. Note the greenish smudge just to the left of it. That is a leaf on the other side of the folio (f47v). The green paint on that leaf is heavier than usual, and a streak of dark material seems to have oozed out of the paint and collected along the left and bottom edge of the painted area. (Not as badly as in the dark blue areas on the flowers above, but perhaps the same substance. We know that the Painter is rather cavalier about cleaning the brush when switching colors...)
That dark stripe on f47v seems to be precisely opposite to that bizarre f on f47r. So perhaps the Retracer mistook the ghost of that dark stripe for a faded glyph, and "restored" it...
All the best, --jorge
(09-10-2025, 05:16 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I now have an idea
Tweaking that idea about that bizarre
f. I think that originally there was an isolated
r in that gap.
That is, the original text was ...
ChtChy r Char ... The body of the
r probably was where the
darker of the two "shins" of the
f is now, between points (A) and (B). The plume of the
r went through ( C), curled up along the right "thigh" until a bit below the horizontal part of the
f, turned 90 degrees at (D), and followed the horizontal arm to the end (E).
[
attachment=11613]
Here it is again, with the conjectured
r in dotted magenta, with the estimated baseline and topline in blue.
[
attachment=11614]
The rest of the previous post still stand: I guess that, by the time the Retracer(s) did their job, the
r had all but faded away. They got confused by the ghost of the dark band from f47v (why should
I be the only VMS reader with Superior Pareidolia?) , and "restored" the
r as that bizarre "sitting
f".
The (J) and (K) on the first image are the offset print from the flower on f46v, and the
o that I think was invented by a Retracer, confused by that print.
All the best, --jorge
(10-10-2025, 12:29 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The (J) and (K) on the first image are the offset print from the flower on f46v, and the o that I think was invented by a Retracer, confused by that print.
Sorry, I take this part back. That
o is almost certainly original. The Scribe
did sometimes write gallows with the loops overlapping glyphs on the previous line.
All the best, --jorge
Another installment of retracing pareidolia, this time about a drawing of the Bio section.
Again, all the statements below should be implicitly prefixed with "I believe that", "my best guess is that", etc.
[
attachment=11771]
Clip of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. covering the top pond with 10 nymphs. (A) The typical state of traces by the original Scribe (Rt0). (B,C,D,E,F,G,H) Evidence of retracing over Rt0 or later traces. (I) Apparent erasure by scraping. (J1-J3) Characteristic "showercap" diadems added by (Rt3). (K1-K3) evidence that the "showercaps" were added by the third Retracer Rt3 after the water stream was (re)drawn by Retracer Rt1 or Rt2. (Q1-Q6,Q9) The outstretched arms of the nymphs were misinterpreted by Rt1 or Rt2 as the far wall of the pond (R1,R2), or vice-versa. (S1-S5) Original near edge of the pond. (T) Near edge of the pond as "restored" by Rt1 or Rt2. Everything betweeh the original and new edges of the pond was added by Rt1 or Rt2. (U1,U2) Text crossing the "restored" near edge of the pond. (V1) Rt1 or Rt2 misinterpreted the top of the thigh of Miss
okShy saral for the far edge of a narrow "island" running along the whole pond, so he added the left end of the "island" (V2). But then he noticed the mistake and refrained from "restoring" the rest of that island.
All the best, --stolfi
Here is one I find interesting from the section Jorge that you may be interested in.
The lack of hands in most parts can be put down to fading or such, but the top left figure seems to have some sort of spike lower arm.
I don't really see how this is just missing bits.
The same thinner(?) darker ink lines seem to also make up 2 of the mouths, the ^ shapes below breasts of figure lying down and maybe an object in right figures hand, or maybe this is just a rogue line.
[
attachment=11789]
I always thought that was the line of the belly, with the other arm being behind it. So she's holding her enlarged belly with both arms. Either way, I agree these three figures are anatomically bizarre.
(23-10-2025, 09:00 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the top left figure seems to have some sort of spike lower arm.
I agree with Koen, except that I believe that the leftmost (darker) of the two strokes that make the spike is an addition by a Retracer. Who also added the right breast.
My best guess is that the original figure did not have a left arm, and the rightmost (lighter) of those two strokes was the outline of her torso and belly. The Retracer mistook it for the left arm and added a new outline for the torso, which he assumed had been lost.
By the way, some people have suggested that deciphering the VMS may be anticlimactic because the contents will probably turn out to be just another load of boring medieval nonsense. But look at the canopy above the second nymph from the top on the left margin. The VMS may, among other things, provide zoologists with unique evidence for the extinct European pangolin.
?
All the best, --stolfi
Yeah I think that has a good chance, it just seems a really solid example for later additions/retracing as its hard to explain without some sort of misunderstanding of what was meant to be there. You would think if the original drawer touched up the faded area they would know what was meant to be there.
I remain highly skeptical about a retracer as a separate figure. In these nymphs we see someone really struggling with human poses.
Drawing humans believably in various compositions (without the required artistic experience) is harder than you'd think. Once in secondary school, I had been injured so I missed gym class for several sessions. As an alternative assignment, the teacher asked me (on the spot) to make a sketch of the various stages of the gymnastic leap the other students had been practicing. I'm ashamed to admit that the lines emerging from my pen did not agree at all with human anatomy. Having to draw a person in a pose I had never drawn before was hard, especially without reference.
If you look at the nymph's visible arm, you'll notice that it is in a position rarely seen in the MS. This artist had never drawn anyone holding their belly before. The torso is angled in an unusual way, the breasts are messed up. The line we see of the hidden arm is actually quite... good? It's the overall perspective that's messed up, because they had to draw something different here, away from their familiar cookie-cutter pose of one angled arm placed on the hip, one arm extended.
The darker bit is just ink pooling in the sharp angle. This happens a lot...