Are you sure these are the same plants? In my opinion, the picture on the left looks like raspberries with picky leaves, while the picture on the right - from the VM looks like a combination of two invasive garden weeds: the blossoms, thin stem with tendrils and particularly leaves look like Morning glory , while the pink blossoms look like Persicia, also known as Kiss me over the Garden Gate or Princess' fedder. The logic why the author would combine both weeds is perhaps the fact that the Morning glory likes to wrap itself around Persicalia orientalis.
It says "Smilax" at the top. Therefore....
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
As it has hairy leaves, it is the rough bindweed.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
But what should be considered is that it could also be f96v.
More likely due to the shape of the leaves.
(16-06-2024, 03:09 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
There must be a great body of literature on these and related herbals, and such a comparison must have been made in the past. This may not be easily accessible, but it seems a worthwhile search.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is definitely
Smilax aspera, it is also marked as such on the page. A well-made and botanically more or less correct drawing. Heart-shaped alternate leaves with parallel venation and spiny margins and the zig-zagging spiny stem and tendrils at the base of the petiole.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is the corresponding
Smilax illustration in the Morgan Dioscorides Very similar including the crossed stems. Curiously both lack a distinct root.
[
attachment=8726]
[
attachment=8727]
Regarding VM You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., 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 am not sure if they are meant to depict
Smilax. An alternative would be
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It has a different leaf shape though and also alternate leaves whereas You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. VM has opposite leaves The other two have alternate leaves.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. - clearly
Bryonia dioica with red berries
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Bryonia alba with black berries
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. Bryonia without fruit
[
attachment=8728]
I haven't looked into the Vienna Dioscorides yet. Rene is right, one would assume there should be literature about the Dioscorides copies and other prominent herbals. I lack the time to do research on this at the moment.
There's also the painwort. It is visually very similar to the Smilax.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
That's a great find, Bernd. It feels relevant to me. Even if the species looks like a different one, I think there is a lot of explanatory power in this example. We have a vine-like plant with something that looks like a loop at the bottom. The thought that this overlapping of two stems then became an unnatural loop in the VM is just a very good explanation for the feature.
For what it's worth, for now I would personally operate under the paradigm that the VM makers used a few different illustrated herbals for whatever it is they were doing. I would say there must have been a Dioscorides among those, but also at least one different type.
I assume it may not be a stretch to say that a library that had one herbal MS may have had more of them.
Yes, but which libraries are these? KBR had the library of Philip the Good and I don't recall any herbal manuscripts there. Do herbals come from monasteries rather than 'royal' libraries?
Or here?
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
These recent discoveries seem to be an advancement in VMs botany, but botanical investigations have led to lengthy garden pathways, and those efforts have failed to make VMs connections regarding naming or other textual correspondence of the VMs with any other source.
The provenance for this recent source said: "XV century" Right century, no location. While this inclusion of C-14 dating is a small indicator of validity, it seems to do little else.
The failure of naming and textual correspondence is seen in VMs You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. costmary [the most probable example], where it cannot be determined whether the topic of the written text is botanical or religious.
(17-06-2024, 01:59 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's also the painwort. It is visually very similar to the Smilax.
Yes,
Dioscorea communis would indeed be another viable alternative but I haven't found an example of this plant in a herbal yet.
There is also this similar plant from the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. that has a strong resemblance to the VM versions but I can't find a name in the text. Could be any of the mentioned plants. Interestingly there are 3 silimar plants on the page.
[
attachment=8729]
The
'mistaking twisted stems as stem loop' hypothesis is just a hypothesis for now. It would be great to find similar examples for other VM plants with such loops like You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. or f40r. I find it a bit hard to believe that an educated person made such a mistake. It might just as well be intentional. Generally learning more about herbals would be a good start. Baby steps!
(17-06-2024, 08:42 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is also this similar plant from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that has a strong resemblance to the VM versions but I can't find a name in the text.
Several years ago, I listed all You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
This one is called "Astrologia minore", likely one of the genus aristolochia (as the other two plants in the same page).
(17-06-2024, 05:11 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For what it's worth, for now I would personally operate under the paradigm that the VM makers used a few different illustrated herbals for whatever it is they were doing. I would say there must have been a Dioscorides among those, but also at least one different type.
I assume it may not be a stretch to say that a library that had one herbal MS may have had more of them.
The Visconti library in Pavia, which owned the MS now preserved as BNF Lat 6823, the "Manfredus" herbal in the Tractatus de Herbis tradition, also owned at least one copy of Dioscorides. This is a 14th century Latin MS, now BNF Lat 6821, which is not illustrated.
It also had a beautifully illustrated copy of the Tacuinum Sanitatis, but I am not sure right now which one.
We know this from:
Elisabeth PELLEGRIN. La bibliothèque des Visconti et des Sforza, ducs de Milan, au XVe siècle. Paris, 1955. (Publications de l'Institut de recherche et ďhistoire des textes, V.)
She edited a catalogue of the library made in 1426.
It does not seem to have had any copy of the Balneis Puteolanis.
All in all, this library could have been a great inspiration for our unknown autors/artists, was there at the right time and at a very interesting location, and was open to visitors.
However, it still lacks on a few important points.
Unfortunately, there are not so many catalogues of contemporary libraries, and this type of knowledge is extremely fragmentary.
This book has interesting details, but may only be visible online very partially:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.