[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: The Painter and the Retoucher
At 05:43 18/07/2004 -0300, Jorge Stolfi wrote:
After looking at a couple dozen pages in close-up, my impression is
that the Retoucher went through most of the manuscript, carefully but
rather mechanically retracing many drawing strokes and letters -- on
some pages, almost all of the text.
In some cases it seems that he was not quite sure of what letter he
was retracing. In some cases he may have misunderstood the drawing.
For instance, check the leftmost nymph at the top of page f73v
(Sagittarius). The Retoucher apparently mistook the bottom edge of the
nymph's leg for the top edge of a "barrel", and provided the rest
of the barrel -- presumably thinking that it had faded out completely.
Ditto for the next nyph. Presumably he then noticed the mistake
and so left the barrels unfinished.
Bravo, Jorge! Yet another silent player is discovered lurking within the
IMO, the most important issue would be to order the Retoucher's layer of
changes - specifically, did the Retoucher pre-date or post-date the Heavy
Painter? What would evidence to validate or falsify either of these
positions need to look like?
My impression is that (1) he was someone who valued the book quite a
lot and spent a long time on it; and (2) he did not understand it.
Could be, could be... examples of Baresch's handwriting might also prove to
be examples of the ink he used, so this idea might ultimately be testable
via physical evidence. But it's still a long shot for the moment. :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: