- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
- Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
-
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
sivbugge > 29-11-2025, 02:18 PM
(28-11-2025, 05:06 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've been thinking about this question for some time, and I think there is evidence that at least in the herbal section, each scribe also drew/colored their own plants. On the other hand, the nudes in the Cosmological/Astrological section are by the same artist as those in the Balneological/Biological section (Quire 13), but the two sections are by different scribes (4 and 2 respectively), so in that case, the artists and scribes weren't the same. In other words, the evidence suggests to me that both scenarios are true - there are times when the scribe was also the artist of particular pages, but other sections where that isn't the case. I'm still working out the details, but that's how I currently see it.
Thank you so much, it was truly fascinating to read!
People find so many beautiful ways to cooperate. Artists can even cooperate on the same picture. Attached is a painting created through such collaboration. Gude focused on the landscape, while Tideman painted the boats and the figures. Gude, though brilliant with landscapes, was less skilled at painting people, so Tideman, a master of figure painting stepped in.
Best regards,
Siv
(The Bridal procession on the Hardangerfjord, 1848)
-
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-11-2025, 03:02 PM
(29-11-2025, 12:04 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So many people here don't even believe in different persons for A and B text?
I know of no reason to think that there might be more than one Author. One person who knew the language devised the script (or the encryption, if you will), chose the material, and composed the draft of the text. Whatever the origin theory, there are many possible explanations for the statistical differences between "language A" and "language B", that do not imply two different Authors.
There may have been more than one Scribe who copied the draft to vellum. The size of the book makes that theory somewhat likely. It also makes it somewhat likely that the book was composed and scribed in installments separated by months or years; and this in turn makes it more likely that different scribes worked on each section.
On the other hand the drawings all look very much like the work of a single person; except for the Herbal, where there are no details that can be compared to the other sections. As for the handwriting, while there may be significant differences between sections, the similarities are quite remarkable.
One would expect that each new scribe would be trained by the Author on the alphabet, and would start working on the VMS only when the Author was satisfied that he could recognize the glyphs and copy them accordingly. But I find it hard to believe that the Author also required that each new Scribe learned to imitate the handwriting and general sloppiness of the previous one...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-11-2025, 04:15 PM
Quote:However, in 11r we do not see the kind of bleeding that appears in 65r and 65v.
Actually, looking closely, I see some cases of that bleeding on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. too. Check (B) in the
image below.
But I still think that it does not necessarily imply that the ink was wet when the paint was applied.
A surface intended for ink writing ideally should strike a balance between water-loving (wettable, hydrophilic) and water-repelling (non-wettable, hydrophobic).
It should be hydrophilic enough to hold any ink that is applied to it. Otherwise the ink will bead up and not form a trace. Like what happens when you try to use water-based paint on plastic.
But the surface should be hydrophobic enough to prevent the ink from spreading beyond the place where it was applied. Like what happens if you try to use water-based paint on wet paper. This spreading is often desired in watercolor painting, but hated in most other contexts.
On page f112r, the Scribe apparently ran into a spot on the vellum where the surface was too hydrophilic, and as a result his Ch became blurred (A). He then tried to stay away from that bad area in the following lines, but kept running into it (B,C).
The last step in the manufacture of vellum/parchment was to apply some light coatings to the surface and smooth it with a pumice stone (a "natural sandpaper"). I don't know exactly which coatings were used, but of course they were such that the surface became good enough for writing -- not too hydrophilic and not too hydrophobic.
But once the surface was coated in ink, even dry ink, that balance could change. For instance, a common ingredient in ink formulas was gum arabic, which is mostly a carbohydrate between sugar and starch. It stays dry in normal air, but it remains water-soluble and presumably water-loving.
In those examples you posted, the big green stain inside the leaf looks like it was a very wet puddle. Gravity would try to spread it out, but the vellum surface apparently was not hydrophilic enough to let it do so. But, as you noted, it found it easy to travel along the ink traces, for quite a distance.
So the question is whether it could have done that over dry ink, or whether the ink had to be wet. I am undecided...
Anyway, note that those ink traces are [censored]. Compare them to the [censored] traces, for example on the last leafstalk that branches off the stem on the right side. Thus, even if the ink had to be wet for the paint to run along it, that would show only that the green paint was applied at the same time as those specific traces were [censored].
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Bernd > 29-11-2025, 10:01 PM
(29-11-2025, 05:05 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem is that quill pens wear out relatively quickly -- especially when writing on vellum, which was often coated with chalk or other minerals to smooth out the surface.
Certainly true, but this should not stop us from investigating where - regardless of these uncertainties - strokes appear similar it text and imagery.What are the chances that, while written with different pen (tip)s, lines turn out highly similar? Non-zero for sure but I'd like to know if we can find any patterns. Until now I was convinced that imagery was created before and independently of the text.
Thus, after writing a bunch of text (guessing: a couple of pages), the tip of the pen had to be trimmed and re-sharpened. And then it would write thin strokes at first, then gradually wider as it wore down again.
Moreover, the Scribe may have re-shaped the quill's tip when switching between text (where a broader stroke works better) and drawings (where the thinner the trace, the better) . Or used different quills for each task.
And, finally, the width of the stroke depends totally on the pressure that is applied with the pen onto the vellum. Thus, even on the text, the tails, plumes, loops, and ligatures are thinner than the glyph bodies because they are traced with reduced pressure. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-11-2025, 11:08 PM
(29-11-2025, 10:01 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Until now I was convinced that imagery was created before and independently of the text.
I am happy with the theory that the same Scribe created images and text, one page at a time -- first drawing the plant or diagram, then writing the text in the space left around it.
However, he must have worked from a draft provided by the Author, which must have included a sketch of the figure and/or a separate source document where the figure, or part thereof, should be copied from.
Something like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
sivbugge > 30-11-2025, 06:28 PM
(29-11-2025, 04:15 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:However, in 11r we do not see the kind of bleeding that appears in 65r and 65v.
Anyway, note that those ink traces are [censored]. Compare them to the [censored] traces, for example on the last leafstalk that branches off the stem on the right side. Thus, even if the ink had to be wet for the paint to run along it, that would show only that the green paint was applied at the same time as those specific traces were [censored].
All the best, --stolfi
Stolfi, I really appreciate your post, I find your reflections both sharpening and helpful. Before responding, though, I´m unsure what you meant by traces that are [censored]. I am curious and want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Best regards
Siv -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-12-2025, 07:44 PM
(29-11-2025, 02:05 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An interesting point on this topic is "paint instructions". This seems to be the general consensus on what they are so I'm just going with that.
Not my consensus.
There are herbal manuscripts out there with such painting instructions. But, on the VMS, AFAIK there are only two short scribbles on plants that have been conjectured to be that.
But then 99.99% of all colored details were painted without such instructions. Why did those two details need them?
One of those cases is a Latin capital "F" on a flower on f4r. An alternative theory is that the Scribe copied the plant (or just the flowers) from some other herbal, and, without thinking, copied an "F" that was on that source. Possibly a painting instruction, but also possibly a key to a legend in the source manuscript.
Another case is read as the German word "rot" = "red", on the stem of the same plant. But the letters are crooked, and do not look quite like handwriting from the time. Maybe the sleepy Scribe copied that word too from whatever herbal he was using as a source. But there is another explanation that seems to make more sense: the word was not there originally, but was added by a [censored] who misinterpreted some faint smudges as effaced writing, and "restored" them.
And the details with those "painting instructions" were in fact left unpainted, while most of the plant was painted (including with red paint).
Are there any other "painting instructions"?
All tne best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-12-2025, 07:52 PM
(28-11-2025, 12:25 PM)sivbugge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see that some in this forum claim that there are evidence that the paint is added much later, by someone else.
The best evidence for this claim is the observation that the green paint on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. lies atop of the folio number. This observation was made by Rene and others while examining the actual manuscript with a microscope. Since the folio numbers are known to be much later than the original scribing, the claim would follow.
Another evidence, but weaker, is that on many pages the colors don't make biological sense, and seem to have been chosen only for decorative effect. That seems to be the case for the many plants whose leaves alternate between contrasting colors.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Koen G > 07-12-2025, 11:13 AM
The evidence for later painting is paper-thin. I personally see no reason to assume that the paint job is done by a disconnected, ill-informed person. See Lisa's comment on the folio number and green paint here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(and also the rest of that thread)