27-08-2019, 06:34 PM
I belong to a mailing list for medievalists who work in history of science and history of medicine and one of the members today shared a manuscript that I had never seen before and which made me think of a certain other manuscript that we all know and love.
The manuscript apparently dates from 1497* and contains two texts known as De corpore et anima, and De complexionum cognitione. The first part of the MS shares material with the anatomy section of the Compendium of Johannes Peyligk, a medical text printed in Leipzig in 1499, but the second part, with the diagram that I am interested in doesn't seem to be in that book in the same format based on my very quick skim of an online copy of that book.
This is the diagram [attachment=3212]
You can browse the whole You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (link takes you to the John Rylands Library MS viewer) and the diagram is on f. 20v.
I haven't read the diagram or the rest of the MS in any detail, and it's later than stuff I usually work on, but I was struck by the blue flower-star thing, the wavy lines and the particular way that the information had been arranged.
* The date is on f. 11v of the actual manuscript and says "1497", which fits in with the palaeography. For reasons that aren't clear to me, one of the list members expressed a concern that that date seemed unlikely.
The manuscript apparently dates from 1497* and contains two texts known as De corpore et anima, and De complexionum cognitione. The first part of the MS shares material with the anatomy section of the Compendium of Johannes Peyligk, a medical text printed in Leipzig in 1499, but the second part, with the diagram that I am interested in doesn't seem to be in that book in the same format based on my very quick skim of an online copy of that book.
This is the diagram [attachment=3212]
You can browse the whole You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (link takes you to the John Rylands Library MS viewer) and the diagram is on f. 20v.
I haven't read the diagram or the rest of the MS in any detail, and it's later than stuff I usually work on, but I was struck by the blue flower-star thing, the wavy lines and the particular way that the information had been arranged.
* The date is on f. 11v of the actual manuscript and says "1497", which fits in with the palaeography. For reasons that aren't clear to me, one of the list members expressed a concern that that date seemed unlikely.