- 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?
-
Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
sivbugge > 28-11-2025, 12:25 PM
I would like to share some reflections on the questions "Was the paint added later?" and "Is the artist the same person as the scribe?"
I see that some in this forum claim that there are evidence that the paint is added much later, by someone else. I find this hard to believe.
In folios 65r and 65v, by scribe 3, I observe areas where the green paint bleeds into the outlines of the plant, which I find very significant. This could not happen if the paint hade been applied much later. Since there are no indications of the outlines being redrawn, the only reasonable conclusion I see, is that the plants on these two pages were coloured before the outlines were fully dry
Certain features in the line work also lead me to believe the artist and the scribe were the same person.
-
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
LisaFaginDavis > 28-11-2025, 05:06 PM
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. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Doireannjane > 28-11-2025, 07:12 PM
This could be the case if a someone knew the plant but not how to write in this script so instructions/descriptions were transcribed by someone else after the drawing -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 28-11-2025, 07:39 PM
(28-11-2025, 12:25 PM)sivbugge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I observe areas where the green paint bleeds into the outlines of the plant, which I find very significant.
Indeed, the interaction between ink and paint is a very important detail. But I don't think your conclusion that they were contemporary is certain.
Take for instance this clip from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Beinecke 2014 scan, 2x):
There are some places, like (A) where the paint seems attracted to the inked outline, as you point out. But that does not imply that the ink was fresh. It could be that the ink, even when dry, was a bit more wettable (hydrophilic) than the bare vellum.
More interestingly, there are also places like (J,K,L) where the paint completely washed away the ink. But that did not happen everywhere the paint was applied over the ink. In some places, like (M), the ink does not seem to have been affected by the brushed-over paint, at all.
So, my preferred interpretation is that the paint was applied when the ink was already dry, but the ink was not waterproof and did not "bite" into the vellum. Thus, when the inked outline was over-painted with a quick stroke of a relatively dry brush, it just stayed put. But when a stroke of wet paint stood over it for many seconds, the ink became soft again, and a second brush stroke would wipe it away completely.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Bernd > 28-11-2025, 10:53 PM
I think the observation that the same pen might have been used for text and drawing is worth investigating And a page-by page assessment would be very valuable. Which pages have a match, which don't?
Still I think it's not that easy. In the beginning I thought I had found a strong correlation between drawing stye and scribal hands but there are also extremely striking similarities across hands that are very difficult to explain with different untrained artists sharing the exact same style.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
For example the strong similarities between the small root faces on f89r1 (Hand 1) and the small astro faces on f67v2 (Hand 4).
Same for the root face in f101v2 that resembles zodiac faces like the crossbowman (Hand 4)
And the root faces in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Hand2) closely match the large astro faces (Hand 4).
I see no difference in ink suggesting those were added later. As Lisa pointed out, while there are clear differences, all human figures and faces likely were drawn by the same person. Same goes for stars by hands 2,3,4.
I still don't know what to make of this but my personal opinion is that a single author for all text and imagery is the most parsimonious hypothesis to reconcile all this oddness. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Koen G > 29-11-2025, 12:04 AM
So many people here don't even believe in different persons for A and B text? That's surprising to me. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
ReneZ > 29-11-2025, 01:17 AM
(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? That's surprising to me.
Based on the textual statistics? I am not at all sure.
Based on the handwriting variations? I am more confident but a bit less than 100% sure.
In the herbal part, the differences are striking.
In the zodiac, where all text is in one hand (hand 4), namely the hand that did all circular texts, there is a gradual introduction of B-language words.
Nothing really fits perfectly.
Now one can entertain the hypothesis that hand 4 looks different from the others, just because the guy was writing in circles and must have had a different posture, but my confidence in this is quite low. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Bluetoes101 > 29-11-2025, 02:05 AM
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.
These would imply whoever is doing the paint (where they are found) would not know the colour without them.
Why they would not know the colour without them seems interesting to me.
Surely the scribe and drawer sitting in front of a plant, or copying from a manuscript knew the colour?
Maybe they did the paint in a batch once the ink had dried and left reminders for later.. but only extremely few reminders, mostly at the start of the manuscript?
What changed in the process?
Either way, if the "paint instructions" theory is right, and the scribe did them (not sure if anyone tried proving this), surely the scribe intended to paint it soon, or someone else soon. If it was intended to be left, then why bother?
Unless the paint instructions are also much later?
Clarity on any of this might lead to better understanding I think. -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-11-2025, 05:05 AM
(28-11-2025, 10:53 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the observation that the same pen might have been used for text and drawing is worth investigating
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.
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.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Was the paint added later? And is the artist also the scribe?
sivbugge > 29-11-2025, 01:49 PM
(28-11-2025, 07:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(28-11-2025, 12:25 PM)sivbugge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I observe areas where the green paint bleeds into the outlines of the plant, which I find very significant.
Indeed, the interaction between ink and paint is a very important detail. But I don't think your conclusion that they were contemporary is certain.
Take for instance this clip from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Beinecke 2014 scan, 2x):
There are some places, like (A) where the paint seems attracted to the inked outline, as you point out. But that does not imply that the ink was fresh. It could be that the ink, even when dry, was a bit more wettable (hydrophilic) than the bare vellum.
More interestingly, there are also places like (J,K,L) where the paint completely washed away the ink. But that did not happen everywhere the paint was applied over the ink. In some places, like (M), the ink does not seem to have been affected by the brushed-over paint, at all.
So, my preferred interpretation is that the paint was applied when the ink was already dry, but the ink was not waterproof and did not "bite" into the vellum. Thus, when the inked outline was over-painted with a quick stroke of a relatively dry brush, it just stayed put. But when a stroke of wet paint stood over it for many seconds, the ink became soft again, and a second brush stroke would wipe it away completely.
All the best, --stolfi
Thank you for your reflections Stolfi!
I agree with you regarding f11r. There is no evidence in 11r that the colouring was applied while the ink was still wet.
However, in 11r we do not see the kind of bleeding that appears in 65r and 65v. So far, I have only found this specific type of bleeding in those two folios (although I haven´t systematically examined the entire manuscript for this phenomenon).
Perhaps the word "bleeding" is too broad and doesn't clearly describe what I´m trying to highlight. What I wanted to demonstrate is how the ink line absorbs the green paint when the ink line is wet. This absorption can only occur if the ink line itself is wet. Chemical factors might influence how strongly it absorbs, but the line cannot be dry for this effect to happen. I´ve attached a reconstruction using the materials I had available.
Based on this, my conclusion is that the green paint was applied before the ink lines had dried in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and 65v.
About the reconstruction:
1. A watery brown line was drawn.
2. Before the line dried, I applied a watery green paint that touched the brown line.
3. The brown line then began to absorb the green paint.
All the best,
Siv