It seems almost accepted as a truth that the colors in the MS were added later, by someone who didn't know what they were doing. When I saw the following quote by Stolfi, I thought it was time to collect the actual evidence.
What do we know, apart from hunches? Obviously, paint is applied in a later stage of a page's development: usually, the image is outlined first. But apart from that, all I know is this:
How does any of this tell us when the manuscript was painted, and whether or not the painter knew what they were doing? Or how many phases there were in the painting, and how much time was in between them? Where does the idea of centuries come from? What's the evidence?
(29-09-2025, 10:18 AM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It cannot be stressed enough that, almost certainly, the colors in the VMS are not original. They were applied centuries after the manuscript was scribed
What do we know, apart from hunches? Obviously, paint is applied in a later stage of a page's development: usually, the image is outlined first. But apart from that, all I know is this:
- Nothing in the manuscript is painted with great expertise.
- The paint job is bad in a variety of ways.
- The same pigments are used in a variety of ways.
- These pigments are widely available and compatible with 15th century Europe.
- Some colors are lacking from some pages.
How does any of this tell us when the manuscript was painted, and whether or not the painter knew what they were doing? Or how many phases there were in the painting, and how much time was in between them? Where does the idea of centuries come from? What's the evidence?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
