(11-01-2019, 11:40 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.hi Marco,
I was looking for this left image of lily: from which ms does it come?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(can not find it in the Trinity MS O.2.48)
It looks like a combination of the water lily from Auslasser with a flower of the regular lily, to show how the VM image might be such a combination as well.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I don't know if there is such thing as a "regular" lily. Water lilies have many different kinds of flowers—single row, multiple rows; rounded petals, pointed petals; smooth petals, fringed petals.
Some herbals had accurate drawings, some didn't. The ones that look like combination drawings might not be combinations at all, they might just be inaccurate drawings. It's important to go through all the drawings to see whether they were trying to be accurate.
The VMS lily doesn't look like a combination drawing. It looks like an accurate drawing of one of the Menyanthaceae, especially Nymphoides. Everything matches (petals, pistil, leaf, rhizome, rhizome details). It's a common widespread lily. The only reason people don't notice it as much as the big fancy water lilies is because it is small and not as showy.
(11-01-2019, 11:40 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.hi Marco,
I was looking for this left image of lily: from which ms does it come?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(can not find it in the Trinity MS O.2.48)
Hi David,
I confirm what Koen wrote. The thread was split from that about Auslasser, and I didn't think of adding a reference, sorry.
(11-01-2019, 12:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
It looks like a combination of the water lily from Auslasser with a flower of the regular lily, to show how the VM image might be such a combination as well.
....
I heard that such combinations were often drawn. Does anyone know examples ? I do not mean the doctrine of signatures and corresponding representations, but "compound plants".
Quote:bi3mw: I heard that such combinations were often drawn. Does anyone know examples ? I do not mean the doctrine of signatures and corresponding representations, but "compound plants".
In herbal manuscripts?
Since 2007, I've intensively studied the drawings in more than 30 herbal manuscripts (a few of them are early printed copies from the 15th century, but most are hand-drawn) and I do not see evidence that combination drawings are common. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Combination drawings might exist, but they are definitely not the norm. The norm is for a drawing to represent one kind of plant.
It WAS common for them to put plants with related functions, names, or shapes next to each other, but not to combine them into one drawing. Occasionally if the plant comes in two different flower colors, they will sometimes show both colors on one plant, but even this is not very common.
(11-01-2019, 08:24 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..... In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Combination drawings might exist, but they are definitely not the norm. The norm is for a drawing to represent one kind of plant. ....
Thank you JKP, I do not know a single example too and thought I had missed something.
(11-01-2019, 04:38 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (11-01-2019, 12:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
It looks like a combination of the water lily from Auslasser with a flower of the regular lily, to show how the VM image might be such a combination as well.
....
I heard that such combinations were often drawn. Does anyone know examples ? I do not mean the doctrine of signatures and corresponding representations, but "compound plants".
I don't know how frequent this is, but it seems to occur in many plants of Trinity O.2.48.
See, for instance, the plant at the top of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (alfugia? scafisem? liur?).
It is described as having leaves like rumex ("lapacium"), flowers like wild sage ("centumgallus") and a root like a swallow ("in modo arundinis").
Compare with images of rumex and sage in Auslasser (he calls rumex "acetosa" and sage "sallfan?").
I hope this helps, because I find the Trinity ms quite hard to read: putting this together took me half a day
@MarcoP: That's amazing and it was previously completely unknown to me ! Thanks for that.
I put a lot of effort into going through the Trinity herbal page by page trying to identify every plant.
What I found, in the process, is that the descriptions that say leaves like _____, flowers like _____ are pretty accurate for the plant that is being described.
It's comfortingly demystifying that the VM's infamous "hybrid plants" may just be the results of verbal descriptions. I think this is especially true for species the illustrator was not very familiar with. If some author says "yo there's this plant and it's got leaves like oak, flowers like roses and roots like potatoes" then your only option is to draw such a thing.