Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?

[Jorge_Stolfi]

First, I would say No. 4. Copying from other images/books.

Thanks..  I think overall that is indeed the case for a majority of the drawings, and for the meaningful parts. 

But there must have been also a lot of painting form memory -- not of what the scribe saw directly, but memory of what he saw on other drawings, and of things he drew before.  This must have been the case for most stereotypical decoration, like floral patterns, wolkenbands, common animals, generic houses and church towers, dresses, dragons, etc.  And the nymphs of the VMS.  The scribe learned to draw the thing once, somehow, and then kept replicating that drawing from memory.

And there must have been also some amount of things that the scribe mostly made up on the spot.  Like trees with square leaves, strange monsters, fancy hairdos and hats, decorations on dresses, ... If for no other reason, just as a bit of relief from a boring job...

When I look at the architecture on Quire 14, I would say he drew it as he saw it.

That drawing (or some parts thereof) may depict specific castles, bridges, and islands, yes.  But even so the scribe surely did not take vellum, quill, and ink outdoors to draw those things by looking at them.  He or someone else made sketches and floorplans of those items, and the scribe copied from those.

All the best --stolfi