03-09-2019, 12:42 AM
(02-09-2019, 10:28 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I didn't say "it's just a drawing". You added the "just" which changes the meaning.
I said it is a drawing. It is not a bull. It is a drawing of a bull. They are not the same thing. There are a lot of degrees of freedom in a drawing (together with iconographical traditions).
The color is very similar to some of the plant roots. There's no reason to presume that the color of the bull is marginalia.
Actually, I think there is plenty of reason to suspect marginalia, namely, to cover up the removal of two nude pages and their replacement with two clothes pages. Moreover, we have a precedent for color manipulation: in quire 20, we see the use of white-out on star centers followed by the addition of red coloring to some of the stars.
Colors that look the same to the naked eye might not look the same to a computer as I found out testing one of those roots.
(02-09-2019, 10:28 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You keep calling it ink. But that brick color might be mineral-based pigment or a mixture of mineral-based pigment and gall ink (they frequently mixed their textual ink with other pigments).
The gall ink (the blackish brown and the watered down gall ink which is brownish or even light brown if it is very diluted) are different from pigments that are made from ground stone.
I am unhappy speculating on colors and inks (or pigments) or whatever you want to call them when it is possible to make accurate determinations with our modern technology.
It seems Yale thinks the VMS is worth more money to them as an unsolved mystery than as a resolved one, and hence they have no wish to run a few tests for us as compensation for all the free publicity we have given their university over the years. Little do they know what they have in their possession.