For what it's worth, I think the 'architectural' style on this folio is a reflection of the copyist's being too clever by half and trying to render the original, fairly amorphous boundaries according to his ideas and habits - an understandable alteration from the original but a habit of re-interpretation which is not uncommon in copyists or in readers when confronted with something entirely 'alien' to their own ways of seeing.
That copyist's hand appears very briefly; here and in the next folio. The pronounced difference in tone is very clear if you lay the 'bathy-' folios side by side. There is a sort of three-D impression again in folio 75r, but the aim is gained by very different technique: doubled lines and shading to define the banks of the waterway.
It is telling that the draughtsman/copyist who made the other drawing so 'bath-like' did have in his repertoire a technique - however rudimentary - for rendering architectural forms as three-dimensional. I have always meant to count the number of times - in total - that a similar technique is used in the manuscript. Those I've noticed were all in the late stratum: this detail, arguably one in the map's inset 'minimap' (the content of the north roundel). Not many.
That copyist's hand appears very briefly; here and in the next folio. The pronounced difference in tone is very clear if you lay the 'bathy-' folios side by side. There is a sort of three-D impression again in folio 75r, but the aim is gained by very different technique: doubled lines and shading to define the banks of the waterway.
It is telling that the draughtsman/copyist who made the other drawing so 'bath-like' did have in his repertoire a technique - however rudimentary - for rendering architectural forms as three-dimensional. I have always meant to count the number of times - in total - that a similar technique is used in the manuscript. Those I've noticed were all in the late stratum: this detail, arguably one in the map's inset 'minimap' (the content of the north roundel). Not many.