Thanks for the links. I don't know how helpful this will be, but I'll put it out there anyway...
I've just looked up the Augsburg herbal and Cadamosto after looking at the reproduction again and it's not the same hand (clearly not), but this line of herbals was, in a sense, a transitional style (there are traces of contemporary style in the drawings that were not commonly seen in the early 1400s), so perhaps it's worth noting.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
To me, nothing about the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. on the left resembles 15th-century works—not the pigments, not their application, not the style of drawing, not the way the pen is used or the ink (it looks more like India ink than gall ink), or the way the hatching is applied, but it hit me out of nowhere (while I was looking at an unrelated 12th-century manuscript) that something about the roots of the claimed VMS page nevertheless reminded me of Spenser MS 65 (middle left), Cadamosto (middle right), and a few of the other illustrators working in the late 15th and 16th centuries. The one on the far right, from Augsburg (BSB Cod.icon.26, c. 1520s), is probably the most similar in terms of the hatching and the light application of pigment to the root.
I would be very surprised if the drawing on the left were earlier than about 1540 and would not be surprised if it turned out to be 17th century (or later) after inks, paint pigments, and drawing styles had significantly changed. Perhaps it was copied from the VMS so it could be sent to someone for decipherment without giving up the original.
So
maybe (this is very speculative) ... whoever made a copy of the VMS page was influenced by the drawing style in this branch of herbals since the root does not resemble VMS roots.