(02-06-2026, 07:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But all those pigments are naturally-occurring minerals that don't need any "alchemical" processing other than grinding.
And anyway,alchemists would have been unable to make azurite or orpiment. Even today they require special lab equipment.
That is simply not correct. Medieval manuscripts contain entire chapters on chemical creation of paints- gilding, silvering and pigment manufacture.
Me personally- listing over some alchemical works have found (usually at the end ) descriptions for creating of different paints and o yes they knew quite well orpiment manufacturing- not only grinding of material but using furnaces, crucibles and distillation.
Check this You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You do not need to go far but see the "pharma" part of VM.
Actually there are a lot of sources for medieval paint manufacturing, but this is another theme- and since there is no "Alchemy/pharmacy" department in this blog, we better leave it fornow.
Here is important to say that the fact that Voynich contains this pigments is another evidence for its authenticity.
(02-06-2026, 10:03 PM)Dunsel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And, if it is forged, that puts Wilfred back on the table as a possibility.
That is not what I meant. I meant that the Author may have used vellum and filled the book with drawings only for the artistic pleasure of doing so. Like many hobbyists would spend a lot of money and time making furniture or pottery for their own use, with no intention of selling it or giving it away.. Like (I think) was the case of that loose "VMS" page that surfaced in Italy and was discussed here a couple months ago.
All the best, --stolfi
(03-06-2026, 12:40 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A question to which I don't have the answer: do medieval herbal texts mention the colours of the plants, in particular also flowers? The answer to this will indicate (at least to some extent) how 'important' the colours were.
Hi Rene,
In the Pseudo-Apuleius transcription by Pradel-Baquerre You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., there seem to only be a few references to colors (a simple search finds ~10, but I am certainly missing some). A few of these distinguish different varieties of the plant listed in a single paragraph.
Examples:
Quote:L. HERBA GRIAS
Nascitur in Lucania, marmoris albi colorem habet, quattuor rubicundis ornata culiculis.
XCIII. HERBA PVLEIVM
A Graecis dicitur glicon.
Puleium quam uim medicamenti se cum habet, multi ignorant. Duo enim genera sunt, masculus et femina. Masculus florem album habet, femina rubeum siue purpureum.
In You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. Egerton 747 I find many more occurrences (~100).
Quote:357. DE PAPAVERE PAPAVER frigide et sicce complexionis est. Cuius triplex est maneries: est enim album quod frigidum et humidum, et nigrum quod frigidum et siccum, et rubeum quod florem habet rubeum ...
506. DE VIRGA PASTORIS VIRGA PASTORIS frigida est et sicca in initio tertii gradi. Solum folia medicine competunt et viridia et sicca. Per annum servatur. Viridia tamen sunt maioris efficacie. Virtutem habet constringendi et replendi et infrigidandi. …. Virga pastoris herba est frondes et ramos habens super terram exspansos, virides in estate et in hieme, florem habet album subtilem ut calamum. Radix est rubea, aliquantulum nigra.
We don’t have a full transcription of Trinity O.2.48, but it seems that the non-Apuleius paragraphs usually mention the color of flowers and other parts of the plants.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
In You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. I find a few references to colors, but they describe ingredients or conditions, not plant parts (e.g. “cera alba” “si quis haberet oculos rubeos”)
(03-06-2026, 04:58 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:But all those pigments are naturally-occurring minerals that don't need any "alchemical" processing other than grinding. And anyway,alchemists would have been unable to make azurite or orpiment. Even today they require special lab equipment.
That is simply not correct. Medieval manuscripts contain entire chapters on chemical creation of paints [...] they knew quite well orpiment manufacturing- not only grinding of material but using furnaces, crucibles and distillation. Check this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I was indeed wrong about orpiment (i confused it with You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.). And there were indeed other synthetic pigments used at the time, like lead white, minium, and the green that McCrone called "atacamite". But I stand about the other pigments you listed: they were natural minerals, not made alchemically.
And anyway McCrone did not detect any orpiment or minium. On the other hand, they were unable to identify the main green paint and suggested that it was synthetic.
Quote:You do not need to go far but see the "pharma" part of VM.
There is nothing in the Pharma section that suggests alchemy.
Quote:Here is important to say that the fact that Voynich contains this pigments is another evidence for its authenticity.
Apart from the unidentified green pigment, and the highly dubious identification of the text and drawing ink as iron-gall, all other pigments identified by McCrone were natural minerals that have been available all the time to this day. Thus the pigments do not give any information about the dates of writing, drawing, and painting.
I personally believe that the VMS is
not a modern forgery, and I am satisfied that that the brow-ink drawings and text date from the 15th century. On the other hand I see good evidence that the color paints (except maybe for the ubiquitous very light transparent yellow, but including the red text of f67r2) were applied after the book was bound, which must have happened after the Author was no longer around -- possibly as late as 1600 or thereabouts. I am not aware of any evidence for the thesis that they were contemporaneous with the text and drawings, or that the colors were specified by the Author. Thus any interpretation of the drawings that depends on the colors is probably spurious.
I think that the date of the painting could be even later than 1600, except that I doubt that it could have happened while it was in the Jesuits' possession. (On the other hand, I see a non-negligible probability that the VMS we know is not the book that was sent by Marci to Kircher; in which case any date up to 1911 would remain possible. But this is the topic of another thread.)
All the best, --stolfi
[
attachment=15900][
attachment=15901]
And once again.
When the red ink (text) was added, the author drew extra lines. You can see that more vertical space was allowed for the red text. The reason it’s larger and red is because it was important.
No one would draw lines for someone 200 years later.
Since the other writing ink is the same as the one in the circle, it allows for only one author (same ink).
Therefore, everything was done at the same time, and that also applies to the same red in the drawing next to it. Whether the book was bound or not.
So why not the blue at the same time as well?
Is everything clear now?
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(03-06-2026, 11:29 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[About f67r2] When the red ink (text) was added, the author drew extra lines. You can see that more vertical space was allowed for the red text.
We went through this before...
Sure, the text on that page was written all at the same time. But in what color?
I cannot repeat here my best theory for how the present state of that page came to be, because it seems that the essential word causes seizures and anaphylactic shock in some people. Perhaps this clip will do:
[
attachment=15904]
My second-best theory is that the red text
was written in red at the same time as the brown one -- but that was it. It does not imply that the rest of the color painting, elsewhere on the manuscript, was done at same time.
Too bad that McCrone did not get a sample of that red ink that could be compared to the red paint elsewhere.
Quote:So why not the blue at the same time as well?
Why not at a much later time (as other evidence suggests)?
All the best, --stolfi
With the red one, the case is clear.
At the same time or shortly after he had the red one.
The question for Lisa was whether the red and brown handwriting were from the same person. *Quite possible*.
A *quite possible* from Lisa, combined with the timeline, makes it pretty certain in my view.
[
attachment=15906]
I would even go so far as to claim that the yellow was there before the red. That’s just how it looks.
Why not blue, then? And what evidence are you referring to? I don’t know of anything that really proves it was much later. These are just theoretical assumptions.
The sequence: yellow, red, blue.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(03-06-2026, 04:51 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With the red one, the case is clear.
At the same time or shortly after he had the red one.
Could you please specify the page you took that clip from?
It seems to be a Herbal page. Is that "red" paint the same as the "red" ink of f67r2? They are probably the same pigment, but that does not mean much because in both cases it seems to have been the cheapest "red" available, namely hematite.
Quote:The question for Lisa was whether the red and brown handwriting were from the same person.
That unmentionable explanation would explain also why it seems so. But there are some peculiarities in the red writing that are not seen elsewhere, like these:
[
attachment=15907]
Quote:I would even go so far as to claim that the yellow was there before the red. That’s just how it looks.
And, as I wrote, I find that likely too. But only the very light transparent slightly brownish yellow. Which could be just a very diluted version of the same brown ink used in the text.
Quote:what evidence are you referring to? I don’t know of anything that really proves it was much later. These are just theoretical assumptions.
Did I just post it on another thread? Anyway, it is the green paint over the folio number on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and the mismatched blue paint on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and f40r. The are not proof, granted, but are evidence for "after the binding" hence "much later".
So it is not "just theoretical assumptions". The opposite claim is...
Quote:The sequence: yellow, red, blue.
Agreed (at least on the clip you posted). But the intervals may have been minutes or centuries...
All the best, --stolfi
[quote="Jorge_Stolfi" pid='85242' dateline='1780511454']
But there are some peculiarities in the red writing that are not seen elsewhere, like these:
[quote]
A bad nib recut on the quill? Or perhaps that was after writing a bit and the nib needed to be recut.
[
attachment=15931]
(03-06-2026, 07:30 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Could you please specify the page you took that clip from?
The excerpt is from the image shown here.