>>82157604
hmm. i mean a lot of these illuminated manuscripts are kind of samey anyway
e.g. here's an actual botany book:
https://iiif.bl.uk/uv/#?manifest=https://bl.digirati.io/iiif/ark:/81055/vdc_100058663072.0x000001

but the same way perverts online go "aha i recognise that artist, that's VoreMan37 (it's how he draws noses)" is there no style to the art, or something?
i guess the individual monks may have been pretty anonymous (CREDIT ARTISTS FOR THEIR WORK!!! reee) but that seems like one way of doing SOME pattern-matching. author can't draw hands. and his letters are all loopy. just like this other book.

fuck knows. part of me hopes it's a mad practical joke, but that's pretty elaborate for the time period. then again, what else you gonna do?