Notitia Dignitatum

[Renatus]

Ingo Maier's description makes it clear they are indirect copies, because the pictures in W are not the original tracings (his "W" equals your M2) - see in particular the conclusory second last paragraph of p 21, which I will quote here


"Second, the pictures in W are not direct copies of those in the alt exemplar and they were not traced from the pictures in the alt exemplar. This is demonstrated by the request discussed on 19.Jun.1550, and by the evidence of the existence of the tracings on paper in 1557, and by the fact that the pictures in W exist on vellum. The pictures on vellum in W are copies of the tracings, on transparent paper, of the pictures in the alt exemplar. The pictures in W are, therefore, indirect copies of those in the alt exemplar. And, importantly, an examination of the vellum in W reveals no evidence that the paper tracings were retraced onto the vellum in W".

I take the point but, if the Count Palatine Otteinrich was concerned about accuracy, it would appear perverse if his artist went to the trouble of tracing the original and then copied the tracing inaccurately. As to matters of detail, my post here may have some relevance:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-...#pid287527

(the treatment was with oil, by the way)

You are right, of course: a lapse of memory on my part.

ProQuest is something I am not familiar with.  A brief search of their site makes it look like my university (Osaka) does not appear to have joined them, so it would appear I am out of luck...

This is no problem. You can create a personal account and order it on that (I have just done so).