(11-01-2019, 10:45 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Yes. Totally agree.
I was trying to think of a good term for drawings constructed that way. It's not really a combination plant, it's intended to represent one plant and sometimes all they had to go on was something like this description from Pliny's Natural History:
"The plant itself is hardy, bushy with prickly leaves and jointed stem, a cubit high or occasionally taller, partly palish in colour, partly dark, and with a fragrant root."
It's assumed the person knows the plant by name (Eryngium). If one were to say the flowers are like teasel and the root like parsnip, that would describe it pretty well to someone who already has a general knowledge of plants. Perhaps one could call it a "referential" drawing, since it may just be a bad drawing constructed by reference to morphologically similar plants (that may or may not be related to the plant being described).
Imagine how an illustrator might interpret Pliny's "partly palish in colour, partly dark". Many plants in herbal manuscripts have some odd combinations of colors on the leaves or flowers, quite stylized, and descriptions like this might account for why they were drawn this way since Pliny didn't clarify his cryptic description.
(11-01-2019, 03:48 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (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.
@hi Marco, could you check if I am blocked? I've send an email a while back and also a PM here to you. Both probably did not arrive.
Looks like we finally talking
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
A hybrid plant is the result of cross pollinating two different plant varieties and growing the seed the mix produces. The plant that grows from that seed combination is called a hybrid. Commercial cross planting is done to get some type of valued attribute of each initial variety into the offspring.
(You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
for example
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
explained here??
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I haven't seen very many hybrid plants in medieval herbals, only one or two that I can think of and I can't remember which ones they were.
It depends how you look at it. Many plants hybridize naturally and eventually some of them become a new species, but the hybrids are not always distinguishable from their parent plants. Without a good microscope, if they look the same, they are the same to the unaided (medieval) eye.
Botany was of little concern to most medieval herbalists. The doctors wanted to know which basic plant cured such-and-such, and the apothecaries wanted to know which ones they could sell to the "wise women" and the doctors (and probably also to other non-professional patrons).
Hybrids were actually more interesting to gardeners than to people using them for medical use. For medical use, you want consistency—a hybrid could have unexpected results (or no results). Gardeners are delighted with hybrids, however, because sometimes you'll get something really different and beautiful (like a multilayered purple rose), or you get a giant melon or a strawberry plant with 20% more berries.
Most medieval herbals were aimed at medical purposes. The interest in garden plants, vegetables, and such was mostly restricted to those with medical uses (like using a melon to promote urination). Ornamentals and hybridized commercial vegies and bulbs (e.g., tulips) didn't really catch on in a big way until the 16th and 17th centuries.
I was cleaning the garden pond and took a photo of the nymphaea root. The root at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks realistic. Even the small grooves on the stumps can be mapped to dots on f2v.
[font=Arial, sans-serif][attachment=5483][/font]
Yes! When I saw the dots on the VMS drawing, back in 2007 I thought WOW! He drew the pores!
THIS, more than anything else, is what endeared me to the VMS. I know that may sound strange, but no one else, as far as I knew (and still as far as I know) drew plants at that level of detail at that point in history. I was IMPRESSED and that's why I have stuck with the VMS.
Vallarsia also has those pores, by the way, they are just smaller and not quite as easy to see unless you look closely. Its growth pattern is very similar to the larger (more familiar) water lilies, like Nymphaea. I think I posted a pic (or a link) a few years ago, but it would be hard to find it again. The forum has grown so large.
another 'possible possibility' (sic!) for f2v: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
the leaves are similar (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.), the flowers could be (under the correct angle!?) and the root... is not a root! it's the trunk!You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
ps: sorry for that but i had to add my little tiny idea to VM odyssey (et in arcadia ego etc)...!
Back to the "water lily" talks. I have collected a few of the information and imagery about this plant.
The names of the plant I've stumbled upon (if talking about Nymphaea) pre-VM: numfaia, numfea, nenufa, numfea, nilufer, nilufar.
What intrigues me is that the name of the plant comes from the Ancient Greek word
νύμφη (númphē - nymph) and as you know, there is a lot of nymphs in the manuscript itself. Also as JKP already pointed out, the rhizome is nicely detailed (that can only mean one thing- the root system is important; or that the illuminator was looking at the plant whilst drawing).
Also since the books from that time were full of mysticism, I think there could be a connection between this plant and the Pisces Sign
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. were quite helpful to me and I hope it will be helpful to your research too. The first site contains a comparison between the most impressive Ancient Greek illuminated manuscripts and the second site lists a lot of pictures from other manuscripts.
Indeed, the imagery found in these manuscripts and VM is very different and since we haven't found any provenance for the imagery we can only argue about whether its fake or not.