01-01-2026, 02:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2026, 02:27 AM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
Hallucinating about queens (2-5)!
From f80r, the "Bathing Queens" page of Bio:
This clip from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (nicknamed "Bathing Queens") comprises nymphs 2-5 of the group at the top of the page (Misses olchdy, okaly, okolo, and okary), as well as the left half of lines 1-6 of the text.
This page seems to have had a rather complex history. Only a few bits of the original (Rt0) traces can be seen, and they are very faint, almost invisible; see (a1,A2,A3,A4,B1) below.
Then there seems to have been at least one, but possibly two later restoration passes where almost all of the texts and a good deal of the figure outlines were carefully retraced. I will assume two passes, Rt1 and Rt2, as a working hypothesis, but they may have been just one pass. On the BL 201 scans, the Rt1 traces are light grayish brown, while the Rt2 traces are medium to dark brown. The latter vary in darkness as expected from the normal ink flow dynamics (suddenly dark after recharging the pen, then progressively lighter for a line or two). Then there was a third pass, Rt3, with nearly black ink, that acted mostly outside this clip, but did make a couple of interventions here; see (X1,X2) below.
The Rt1 and/or Rt2 retraces may have "improved" the nymphs by adding breasts, nipples, belly buttons, and probably even arms that were missing originally. The inset image shows my guess at what those nymphs looked like originally, based on the visible remains of Rt0 traces and the appearance of the most "pristine" nymphs in the Zodiac pages. It is quite possible that they were more elaborate than that, say with the crowns/diadems, and the pool's edge; however, there are no definite Rt0 traces of those details.
(A1,A3) Original (Rt0) armpit, incorrectly retraced by Rt1. (A2) Rt0 outline of face. Rt1 and Rt2 mistook a hair curl as the face outline and retraced it as such. (A4) Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh, incorrectly retraced by Rt2; see (S5).
(B1) The bottom half of this plume is Rt0. (B2) This part of the f loop may be Rt0.
(J1,J2,J3,J4) Incongruent Rt1/Rt2 traces.
(K1) There doesn't seem to be any visible Rt0 trace on this arm or on the spinning whorl. They may have been added by Rt1. (K2,K3,K4) There seem to be no visible Rt0 trace on these arms. They may have been added by Rt1.
(L1) The original eyes of all four nymphs on this clip were probably simple dashes, as seen in the "pristine" Zodiac nymphs. These eyes were turned into C- or o- like eyes by Rt1, and then Rt2 retraced the left half (e).(L2) This pond edge seems to be Rt0, retraced in part by Rt1. (L3,L4) These headgear may be Rt0 or may have been added by Rt1.
(M1) the e strokes of this She are Rt1. (M2) Imperfect and incomplete retracing of Rt1 by Rt2. (M3) This CTh was retraced by Rt1, then the two e strokes and the bottom of both legs were retraced by Rt2.
(Q1,Q3,Q4) Breast added by Rt2, but maybe retraced over Rt0. (Q2) Breast added by Rt2.
(R1) Rt2 added nipples and belly-button to all four nymphs.. (R2) Incorrect Rt2 retracing of the Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh.
(S1) This t is Rt2. (S2) Unidentifiable glyph, possibly original Scribal error repeated by Rt1 and Rt2. (S3) This o was back-traced by Rt2. (S4) Pen recharging bt Rt2
(X1,X2) Details added by Rt3.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
From f80r, the "Bathing Queens" page of Bio:
This clip from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (nicknamed "Bathing Queens") comprises nymphs 2-5 of the group at the top of the page (Misses olchdy, okaly, okolo, and okary), as well as the left half of lines 1-6 of the text.
This page seems to have had a rather complex history. Only a few bits of the original (Rt0) traces can be seen, and they are very faint, almost invisible; see (a1,A2,A3,A4,B1) below.
Then there seems to have been at least one, but possibly two later restoration passes where almost all of the texts and a good deal of the figure outlines were carefully retraced. I will assume two passes, Rt1 and Rt2, as a working hypothesis, but they may have been just one pass. On the BL 201 scans, the Rt1 traces are light grayish brown, while the Rt2 traces are medium to dark brown. The latter vary in darkness as expected from the normal ink flow dynamics (suddenly dark after recharging the pen, then progressively lighter for a line or two). Then there was a third pass, Rt3, with nearly black ink, that acted mostly outside this clip, but did make a couple of interventions here; see (X1,X2) below.
The Rt1 and/or Rt2 retraces may have "improved" the nymphs by adding breasts, nipples, belly buttons, and probably even arms that were missing originally. The inset image shows my guess at what those nymphs looked like originally, based on the visible remains of Rt0 traces and the appearance of the most "pristine" nymphs in the Zodiac pages. It is quite possible that they were more elaborate than that, say with the crowns/diadems, and the pool's edge; however, there are no definite Rt0 traces of those details.
(A1,A3) Original (Rt0) armpit, incorrectly retraced by Rt1. (A2) Rt0 outline of face. Rt1 and Rt2 mistook a hair curl as the face outline and retraced it as such. (A4) Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh, incorrectly retraced by Rt2; see (S5).
(B1) The bottom half of this plume is Rt0. (B2) This part of the f loop may be Rt0.
(J1,J2,J3,J4) Incongruent Rt1/Rt2 traces.
(K1) There doesn't seem to be any visible Rt0 trace on this arm or on the spinning whorl. They may have been added by Rt1. (K2,K3,K4) There seem to be no visible Rt0 trace on these arms. They may have been added by Rt1.
(L1) The original eyes of all four nymphs on this clip were probably simple dashes, as seen in the "pristine" Zodiac nymphs. These eyes were turned into C- or o- like eyes by Rt1, and then Rt2 retraced the left half (e).(L2) This pond edge seems to be Rt0, retraced in part by Rt1. (L3,L4) These headgear may be Rt0 or may have been added by Rt1.
(M1) the e strokes of this She are Rt1. (M2) Imperfect and incomplete retracing of Rt1 by Rt2. (M3) This CTh was retraced by Rt1, then the two e strokes and the bottom of both legs were retraced by Rt2.
(Q1,Q3,Q4) Breast added by Rt2, but maybe retraced over Rt0. (Q2) Breast added by Rt2.
(R1) Rt2 added nipples and belly-button to all four nymphs.. (R2) Incorrect Rt2 retracing of the Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh.
(S1) This t is Rt2. (S2) Unidentifiable glyph, possibly original Scribal error repeated by Rt1 and Rt2. (S3) This o was back-traced by Rt2. (S4) Pen recharging bt Rt2
(X1,X2) Details added by Rt3.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi