24-02-2026, 08:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-02-2026, 08:31 PM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
f79v: pregnant, or hallucinating?
This clip of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covers the second nymph from the top in the West (left) margin, and abut 10 glyphs worth at the start of lines 23-30.
As usual, this clip shows evidence of at least two retracing layers: the general restoration pass (Rt1) that retraced almost all the text and large parts of the drawings with a yellowish brown ink; and a later retouching pass (Rt2) that re-retraced some strokes with a darker ink. The bits of original (Rt0) traces that survive are quite faint, almost invisible in places.
The Rt1 retracer was very careful and skillful, but must have made some errors when trying to restore Rt0 strokes that had been completely lost. The Rt2 retracer was rather careless, and intentionally modified some details of the figures, or even added new ones of his own imagination. The possibility of adulteration casts doubt on the interpretation of the figures on this page, including the cross held by the nymph in the NW corner.
On this page we say that a retracing is imperfect if the new trace did not follow the original precisely, thus leaving some of the latter visible as a "ghost" or "shadow" trace by the side of the new one. It is incorrect if it changes a glyph to a different glyph, or changes the nature of a detail on a drawing. We say that a retracing is incomplete if the new trace stops before the end of the original one, leaving part of the latter visible as a continuation of the new trace; which often happens on the tails of glyphs.
Nymph
(1a) Rt0 outline of the typical Rt0 hair style, namely a finger-wide strip of hair above the forehead and a roundish tuft of hair covering the temple, barely reaching down to the top of the neck.
(1b) Partial Rt1 (or Rt2?) retrace of the top of the hair.
(1d) Eyes and nose retraced and modified by Rt2. There is no visible vestige of the Rt0 versions (except perhaps below the very tip of the nose, but on other pages Rt0 eyes are just slits, and the nose is more rounded, with no explicit nostrils.
(1e,1f) Original (Rt0) parts of the nymph's outline.
(1g) Breast outlines retraced and/or extended by Rt2.
(1h) Nipple probably added by Rt2.
(1i) Unlikely parts of the outline, apparently added by Rt2 (or Rt1).
(1j,1k) Spurious outline traces added by Rt2.
(1m) Rt1 trace that is possibly a retrace of the Rt0 outline.
(INSET) A possible reconstruction of the Rt0 drawing of the nymph, based on drawings in the Zodiac section that seem to be relatively free from adulterations.
Tub and tubings
(2a,2b) Original (Rt0) traces.
(2c) Rt1 or Rt2 retrace of the tub's outline.
(2d) Very incomplete Rt1/Rt2 retracing of the outlines.
(2e) Original (Rt0) parts of the tub's rim, whit probably was a single line.
(2f) Extra rim line added by Rt1/Rt2 to give thickness to the tub's wall.
(2g) Original (Rt0) edge of pipe, a single line.
(2h) Original (Rt0) level of water inside the pipe.
(2i) Second edge of tube added by Rt2 to give thickness to the tube wall.
Text
(3a) This r glyph seems to be Rt0, except for a couple of light touch-ups on the plume.
(3b) imperfect Rt2 retracing of the right leg of a k, leaving the Rt1 retracing visible alongside it, on the right side.
(3c) Transition between the incomplete Rt2 retracing of the y (presumably over the Rt1 retracing of the same) leaving the lower part of the tail as Rt0.
(3d) Incomplete retracing of the p leg by Rt1 and Rt2.
(3e) Incorrect retracing by Rt1/Rt2. This glyph was probably a d originally, like the second glyph of this same line, but it was retraced as a midget k by Rt1, and Rt2 doubled down on that mistake.
As always, assume "I believe that", "I think that" etc. before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
This clip of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. covers the second nymph from the top in the West (left) margin, and abut 10 glyphs worth at the start of lines 23-30.
As usual, this clip shows evidence of at least two retracing layers: the general restoration pass (Rt1) that retraced almost all the text and large parts of the drawings with a yellowish brown ink; and a later retouching pass (Rt2) that re-retraced some strokes with a darker ink. The bits of original (Rt0) traces that survive are quite faint, almost invisible in places.
The Rt1 retracer was very careful and skillful, but must have made some errors when trying to restore Rt0 strokes that had been completely lost. The Rt2 retracer was rather careless, and intentionally modified some details of the figures, or even added new ones of his own imagination. The possibility of adulteration casts doubt on the interpretation of the figures on this page, including the cross held by the nymph in the NW corner.
On this page we say that a retracing is imperfect if the new trace did not follow the original precisely, thus leaving some of the latter visible as a "ghost" or "shadow" trace by the side of the new one. It is incorrect if it changes a glyph to a different glyph, or changes the nature of a detail on a drawing. We say that a retracing is incomplete if the new trace stops before the end of the original one, leaving part of the latter visible as a continuation of the new trace; which often happens on the tails of glyphs.
Nymph
(1a) Rt0 outline of the typical Rt0 hair style, namely a finger-wide strip of hair above the forehead and a roundish tuft of hair covering the temple, barely reaching down to the top of the neck.
(1b) Partial Rt1 (or Rt2?) retrace of the top of the hair.
(1d) Eyes and nose retraced and modified by Rt2. There is no visible vestige of the Rt0 versions (except perhaps below the very tip of the nose, but on other pages Rt0 eyes are just slits, and the nose is more rounded, with no explicit nostrils.
(1e,1f) Original (Rt0) parts of the nymph's outline.
(1g) Breast outlines retraced and/or extended by Rt2.
(1h) Nipple probably added by Rt2.
(1i) Unlikely parts of the outline, apparently added by Rt2 (or Rt1).
(1j,1k) Spurious outline traces added by Rt2.
(1m) Rt1 trace that is possibly a retrace of the Rt0 outline.
(INSET) A possible reconstruction of the Rt0 drawing of the nymph, based on drawings in the Zodiac section that seem to be relatively free from adulterations.
Tub and tubings
(2a,2b) Original (Rt0) traces.
(2c) Rt1 or Rt2 retrace of the tub's outline.
(2d) Very incomplete Rt1/Rt2 retracing of the outlines.
(2e) Original (Rt0) parts of the tub's rim, whit probably was a single line.
(2f) Extra rim line added by Rt1/Rt2 to give thickness to the tub's wall.
(2g) Original (Rt0) edge of pipe, a single line.
(2h) Original (Rt0) level of water inside the pipe.
(2i) Second edge of tube added by Rt2 to give thickness to the tube wall.
Text
(3a) This r glyph seems to be Rt0, except for a couple of light touch-ups on the plume.
(3b) imperfect Rt2 retracing of the right leg of a k, leaving the Rt1 retracing visible alongside it, on the right side.
(3c) Transition between the incomplete Rt2 retracing of the y (presumably over the Rt1 retracing of the same) leaving the lower part of the tail as Rt0.
(3d) Incomplete retracing of the p leg by Rt1 and Rt2.
(3e) Incorrect retracing by Rt1/Rt2. This glyph was probably a d originally, like the second glyph of this same line, but it was retraced as a midget k by Rt1, and Rt2 doubled down on that mistake.
As always, assume "I believe that", "I think that" etc. before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi