(11-06-2024, 02:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Edit: and here is the 'Malva':
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That is very close to the Chigi MS indeed. The other "similar yet not quite" herb underlines how remarkable the parallels to the Malva are.
I just looked at the Morgan version and here the leaves are less finger-like: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
In the case of this plant (Malva), the shape of the leaves in the Morgen MS are closer to nature, while those in the Chigi MS are closer to the VM plant.
Bernd: I'm inclined to believe that the makers of the VM had access to a number of broadly medically-themed illustrated works, including a Balneis, one or more plant manuscripts, something about astrology... This is probably a reasonable assumption which not many people will debate. But I also believe one of those sources likely derived from the Dioscorides tradition.
When the VM shows flashes of brilliance by accurately depicting botanical features, it is reasonable to think that they were drawing from nature - which they may well have done in some cases. But I think all in all the most can be explained by assuming that they made creative use of and/or misinterpreted source imagery.
It is worth noting that also in 'legitimate' herbals, the quality of illustrations can vary greatly.
This is true already for the Vienna Discurides, where different artists can be identified.
I am always reminded of Marco's reading of the text of the banana plant in one of the Tractatus de Herbis copies (BNF Lat 6823, if I remember correctly), where the plant does not look at all like a banana plant (tree), but it follows the descriptive text, namely that it looks like another bush with additional yellow fruit.
The drawing is based on this textual description.
The majority of other drawings are quite accurate.
Yeah, in all of the Dioscorides manuscripts I've seen, there are stunningly realistic pieces as well as things that look more like basic renderings of abstract plants. There is one of those shifts when you get various smaller plants on the same page.
Speaking of which, two of those include a vessel, although the style is very different from those in the VM.
[
attachment=8701]
(11-06-2024, 11:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is worth noting that also in 'legitimate' herbals, the quality of illustrations can vary greatly.
Not only drawing quality but also accuracy.
Chig.F.VII.159, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. indeed appears to depict a hellebore, there is a very similar drawing in the Morgan Dioscorides M.652, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. labeled as
Helleborus melas which is translated as
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/i] from the balkans It looks like the common You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Both drawings appear detailed and well made - but have nothing in common with any species of hellebore. Neither flowers, stem, leaves or root. Most hellebores are acaulescent, they don't have a stem. The leaves and inflorescences emerge directly from a rhizome and they do not have any sort of bulb either. The flowers are radically differend from the orange discs in the Dioscorides. The question is - why? One reason may be that the plant was confused and mixed with White Hellebore which is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a completely different monocot. To add to the confusion, there is also You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which has dark flowers but is otherwise identical to White Hellebore whereas Black Hellebore (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) has white flowers. This is why Linnaeus invented the binary nomenclature to combat the confusion of countless identical or conflicting vernacular names. Also both helleborus and veratrum are mountain species that city folk would not commonly encounter. Especially not in Southern Europe. Only the rhizome was traded so most lowland dwellers would never have seen the living plant, even when using the ingredient.
[attachment=8715]
I have posted similartites to other herbals here, maybe we should merge this somehow?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The origin of Beta-type VM leaves?
Chig.F.VII.159, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=8717]
Morgan Dioscorides M.652, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=8716]
The plant does not relly look like Arum dracunculus (
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) either but it's a better match than the hellebore. Interestingly it lacks the iconic inflorescence and in the Morgan manuscript appears to depict unripe fruit instead.
It's interesting that some of the VM things that look absurd could actually be explained by reliance on tradition. The challenge would be to make these correspondences more concrete, i.e. to do more with them than just point out similarities. Finding out how to do that - establish a more systematic correspondence to certain sources - would mean a lot for the "sources vs. nature" debate. It is certainly not easy, otherwise it would have been done already.
One thing I've been talking about with Cary is that it would be interesting to go through a number of other herbals and see to what extent they have any of the salient features we singled out for the alpha vs beta distinction. Paying attention to "different leaf shapes on the same plant" is what led me to notice these things here. Whatever is done would have to be a systematic approach rather than the haphazard piling up of resemblances I'm doing now.
For example, how often does the MS depict the terrain around the plant? How about "grass"? When flowers are drawn from the side, is it one layer of petals or two?
There are also interesting features that were not in our A/B distinction, like "stalk stubs". Do all traditions depict these regularly? Or only more naturalistic ones like the Dioscorides? You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=8720]
VM f5v, Chigi You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. It even looks like in the VM, there is a (bad) attempt at similar shading.
You have stumbled upon a treasure, Koen.
(11-06-2024, 10:27 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.misinterpreted source imagery.
This is apparently already the case in several images in the otherwise very well drawn Dioscorides, so if the VM source was a bad copy of a Dioscorides and badly copied it, adding yet another layer of misinterpretation, we should not be surprised to be confronted with very odd plants. I wonder if the VM stem loops are simply misinterpretations of crossing stems in the original. Are there unnatural stem-loops in other herbals? I haven't seen one so far, only twisted or crossed stems.
[
attachment=8724]
What I haven't found a source for are the VM 'daisies' and also the bent tube flowers like f24r.
One important step would be to compare plants depicted in several herbals to look for differences and similarities. As many plants are not clearly labeled, that's not an easy task but would help a lot.
(13-06-2024, 08:09 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.VM f5v, Chigi You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It even looks like in the VM, there is a (bad) attempt at similar shading.
This is the closest match I think I have seen for imagery. I remember this image from VM because I always felt like the images (circled in red and blue) had a lot more care taken with them ,so much so, it looked like another artist. Both circled leaves show movement and "3d" qualities when compared to other leaves on the page. The red is bird-like and the blue is mimicking movement, presumably of wind on the leaf. I see the same bird like artistic characteristics and the same (wind) movement, also the single and double leaves directly off the stem are also shown in both. I would personally be amazed if the leaves of both images were not based on the same plant, or a copy of artwork.
In both images you (to continue the bird theme) have some leaves showing the wings, body and tail feathers, then some which do not have tail feathers.
I can also see the "3D Sleeve" above the roots, and the (very) general representation of root pattern
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 tried to insert images and failed miserably.. hopefully the links work ok