I see. So depending on the plant, it's kind of a balance between stories about the plant, etymological elements and hints about the purpose. I must say, maybe it's not so different from Voynich roots after all.
The Harley MS I find especially interesting. Roots like You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. can also be found in the Voynich, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going to have a closer look at that as soon as I have some time.
Constanza is not one of the alchemical herbs, nor does it figure among the typical set of herbs that are also included in many of hte alchemical herbals, and derive directly from Tractatus.
The root figures of the alchemical herbs are generally much more abstract than this, by the way.
I think it's always a good idea to cite any comparisons in the way that Marco has done, adding the date of each example; that helps avoid any confusion between cause and effect that might arise with regard to these images. "Herbs of the alchemists' is a term invented by Aldrovandi to describe his collection, begun at a time when, it is often thought, the Voynich manuscript was already in Prague. It was only relatively recently that they were called "alchemical herbals" - which gives rather a different impression. That term was created by Torasella late last century.
Ulisse Aldrovandi b.1522 – d.1605.
I was quite surprised to see a 1100 example with "root figures". Is that the earliest one we know of?
Koen Gh.One plant I find particularly fascinating is the one I aptly name the elephant plant. It strikes me as interesting because the elephant drawn here, blended to be hidden in a plant leaf, appears much more biologically accurate than elephants in comparable European manuscripts.
I offer a possibility. If the plant images represent trade good or sources of raw material for a process the elephant leaf may have been added to a real plant to indicate that a plant is a source of an elephant related resource. The real plant might not actually have any elephant shaped leaves on it. I think the similarity of the leaf to an elephant is too good to be coincidental; it's a very respectable drawing of an elephant incorporated into the plant image. Whosoever made the original drawing was familiar with elephants or with a plant with leaves that really, really looked like an elephant. My possibility is that if it was the former the plant might indicate a source of vegetable ivory. There are two, possibly three plants with large, hard, cream-colored seed that can be carved like ivory. Perhaps this page describes one of them.
Crezac - I agree with your way of thinking. I'm sure many plants in the root-and-leaf section ("pharma section") are drawn in a very non-realistic way to incorporate these elements. Sometimes it's even so bad that you need to understand the "hidden image" first before you can start identifying the plants.
Have you read my blog? I focus on a different page, where I argue that these hidden images offer clues about the plant's name rather than its use. So if this page behaves the same, the plant would have a local name that sounds like the Greek for "elephant". It could be that this pages behaves more like the botanical section though (see O'Donovan's work). In that case the mnemonic offers clues about the plant's use, which is more in line of what you are suggesting. At this point I'm open to both possibilities.
(12-03-2016, 10:43 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was quite surprised to see a 1100 example with "root figures". Is that the earliest one we know of?
I went to the library and borrowed Segre's book. Rereading it will not hurt.
I translated You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. so you can find some answers if you are still interested.
I saw it, really appreciated. I wouldn't be surprised if the Voynich root figures are a witness of an earlier form or independent side development of this practice. There are some interesting parallels but differences as well, and the "affected" plants are always different ones, as far as I can see.
Also, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. are my new favorite thing.
(12-03-2016, 08:51 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Crezac - I agree with your way of thinking. I'm sure many plants in the root-and-leaf section ("pharma section") are drawn in a very non-realistic way to incorporate these elements. Sometimes it's even so bad that you need to understand the "hidden image" first before you can start identifying the plants.
Have you read my blog? I focus on a different page, where I argue that these hidden images offer clues about the plant's name rather than its use. So if this page behaves the same, the plant would have a local name that sounds like the Greek for "elephant". It could be that this pages behaves more like the botanical section though (see O'Donovan's work). In that case the mnemonic offers clues about the plant's use, which is more in line of what you are suggesting. At this point I'm open to both possibilities.
And since you mention mnemonics I suppose it's also possible that the author of VMS has some of the same associations we make today and that the plant is supposed to be an aid to memory. Makes me wonder how old the phrase "an elephant never forgets" is ;-)
edit: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(12-03-2016, 09:58 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wouldn't be surprised if the Voynich root figures are a witness of an earlier form or independent side development of this practice. There are some interesting parallels but differences as well, and the "affected" plants are always different ones, as far as I can see.
This seems to me a reasonable hypothesis, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by "earlier". Earlier of what? As we have seen, also the most bizarre traits of the herbal tradition are so ancient!
The Voynich manuscript is slightly later than the earliest of the "alchemical herbals" (1378). The alchemical herbals are not the best possible matches for the Voynich manuscript: their main characteristic is that plants are drawn as simplified and geometric, whereas the illustrations of the Voynich manuscript are, in many respects, quite detailed (see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. here).
Also, the "quasi-quadruped" roots that appear in the Voynich manuscript, in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and (as you noted) You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. do not appear in alchemical manuscripts. It would be interesting to find a good essay about BSB cod.icon.26: likely that work is based on sources that could be interesting parallels for the Voynich manuscript.
Anyway, I think it is clear that the Voynich manuscript is somehow independent from other traditions: the difficult task would be to find the closest cognate. There are many of these manuscripts, and each one contains hundreds of illustrations!