07-07-2026, 10:45 PM
Thanks! I was afraid it's like that, somehow like the month names. Hard to nail down. But there are a bit too many coincidences between Cgm 728 and the VM for my taste. The color annotations are unlikely to have been invented independently, I'd rather say they originate from the same educational background. Which leaves us with 2 hypotheses:
A) Both the authors of the VM and Cgm 728 learned how to use color annotations from the same source, be it a book or an institution.
B) The VM author copied the color annotations from a source (maybe accidentally), and the artist of this source shared an educational background with the author of Cgm 728
In both cases, we have a slight timeline problem. Or - is the VM indeed younger than we think? Taccola as source already pushes the creation date post 1433.
So my question is - do we have German color annotations like the vertical 'rot' in younger herbals?
Another thing I cannot wrap my mind around is the whole point of these Schöffer print copies. Maybe I am missing something here, but why were they created?
There was a printed work of Gart der Natur. Surely, while cheaper than a manuscript, not everyone could afford it. But if we look at Cgm 728 - the author decided to copy the plants starting with letter A, and the plants starting with letter M. While skipping the rest. He copies the plants quite well and seemingly at random adds very few color annotations. Someone paints the plants basically dumping paint on the page, ruining the drawings. All in all a lot of work with questionable result. What was the entire point of painstakingly hand-copying parts of a printed book anyway? Why only the A and the M plants?
In contrast, Strasbourg ms. 2152 is a complete copy of Schöffer's print, but the painter effectively destroyed the manuscript as the paint soaked the paper and made it brittle, so many drawings are now holes. I mean, why for heaven's sake? At least after the 1st attempt one should realize that you can't do it like this. But the painter mercilessly massacred his way through the entire manuscript. It all seems so absurd...
A) Both the authors of the VM and Cgm 728 learned how to use color annotations from the same source, be it a book or an institution.
B) The VM author copied the color annotations from a source (maybe accidentally), and the artist of this source shared an educational background with the author of Cgm 728
In both cases, we have a slight timeline problem. Or - is the VM indeed younger than we think? Taccola as source already pushes the creation date post 1433.
So my question is - do we have German color annotations like the vertical 'rot' in younger herbals?
Another thing I cannot wrap my mind around is the whole point of these Schöffer print copies. Maybe I am missing something here, but why were they created?
There was a printed work of Gart der Natur. Surely, while cheaper than a manuscript, not everyone could afford it. But if we look at Cgm 728 - the author decided to copy the plants starting with letter A, and the plants starting with letter M. While skipping the rest. He copies the plants quite well and seemingly at random adds very few color annotations. Someone paints the plants basically dumping paint on the page, ruining the drawings. All in all a lot of work with questionable result. What was the entire point of painstakingly hand-copying parts of a printed book anyway? Why only the A and the M plants?
In contrast, Strasbourg ms. 2152 is a complete copy of Schöffer's print, but the painter effectively destroyed the manuscript as the paint soaked the paper and made it brittle, so many drawings are now holes. I mean, why for heaven's sake? At least after the 1st attempt one should realize that you can't do it like this. But the painter mercilessly massacred his way through the entire manuscript. It all seems so absurd...