+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Can... : Transcriptions (/thread-3495.html)
Can... : Transcriptions - R. Sale - 26-02-2021
Well, it's a start. Sloane MS 1975
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Can't read this either.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Meanwhile, The VMs text of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. clearly has three short, distinctive sections.
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - -JKP- - 26-02-2021
As a general note on how Cannabis was used, it is mostly mentioned for muscle aches, cramps, ear infections. They primarily used the root but sometimes also the seeds.
The name hemp referred to a wide variety of species, including some from the mallow family, and non-hallucinogenic varieties of plants used to make cloth or rope. Also, even if some of them were hallucinogenic, it was probably at a much lower level than current plants, as they have been selectively bred over the centuries to emphasize certain aspects of the plant (medicinal or psychoactive). I read in a few places that the psychoactive species did not grow in northern countries in the Middle Ages, so if they knew about it, it was through manuscripts, not direct experience.
I haven't seen many references to hallucinogenic properties, and quotes from Pliny that are sometimes posted on forums are not verified to be Cannabis (they might be other psychoactive plants).
One of the alternate names was Kiki.
The one depicted in most medieval herbals is probably C. sativa. The eastern versions didn't come until later in the medieval period.
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - -JKP- - 26-02-2021
Many of them only have a label.
I glanced through my files. These are the ones that jumped out at me that have descriptions and which are probably describing the same plant:
Sloane 1975 (Canabe)
Plut 73.16 (capae silvatice)
Palatino 586 (Canapa)
Historia Plantarum (Canap domestica)
Harley 1585 (Canabe)
Harley 5294 (Canebe silvatica)
Trinity (Canabi silvatici)
I can't remember if the one in Egerton 747 is Cannabis or one of the other plants that looks like it (it is called Canapa but it is not drawn like the plant we call Cannabis).
The one in Morgan M.652 is probably Eupatorium (not Cannabis).
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - bi3mw - 26-02-2021
Just to be sure, cannabis is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ?
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - -JKP- - 26-02-2021
Yes. The ID is not consensual, but there are quite a few that believe that this is Cannabis, so it's one of the "stronger" IDs (if you can call any of them strong).
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - R. Sale - 26-02-2021
Higher probabilities are good. Probabilities may prove interesting. The need for absolute identification is not essential in order to examine 'the literature.' A prospective identification and a bit of curiosity is enough for a discussion. But which is the better choice? 'Viola' has strong visual correlations, but it does not currently appear to have good textual representatives in the herbal manuscripts. *Disclaimer: I know nothing about VMs botany, well, virtually nothing. I'm a gardener, not a botanist. I only have questions.
Cannabis appears to have a stronger 'medical' history and so more numerous representations in the literature than 'Viola'. That really improves the chances of finding a match for the *text*, a match between the VMs text, and some historical text about cannabis, yet to be discovered.
The VMs text is clearly separated into three parts. It's probably not poetic, constructed word for word, and line for line. But it does have three short sections instead of one long one. And it's not that this short-section writing style is uncommon. So, I guess the question is; does the set of extant manuscripts possess an example of a cannabis illustration where the relevant text is also laid out in a short, three-part sequence?
If such examples did exist, correspondence might proceed further.
One thing is clear, the VMs representation is a lot better than the Sloane illustration, and the Sloane illustration has a label.
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - R. Sale - 01-03-2021
(26-02-2021, 06:13 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many of them only have a label.
I glanced through my files. These are the ones that jumped out at me that have descriptions and which are probably describing the same plant:
Sloane 1975 (Canabe)
Plut 73.16 (capae silvatice)
Palatino 586 (Canapa)
Historia Plantarum (Canap domestica)
Harley 1585 (Canabe)
Harley 5294 (Canebe silvatica)
Trinity (Canabi silvatici)
I can't remember if the one in Egerton 747 is Cannabis or one of the other plants that looks like it (it is called Canapa but it is not drawn like the plant we call Cannabis).
The one in Morgan M.652 is probably Eupatorium (not Cannabis).
Building on that list, here is what there is so far.
Sloane 1975 (Canabe) - late 12 C; Eng. / N. Fr. Has labeled image and text.
Plut 73.16 (capae silvatice) - 1200-1299; Byzantine
Palatino 586 [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](Canapa) - Provencal[/font]
Historia Plantarum (Canap domestica) - multiple texts from Arab sources.
BNF Latin 9333 - Rhineland; 1445-1451
Harley 1585 (Canabe) - 1175; Neth. (Liége?)
Harley 5294 (Canebe silvatica)- 2nd half of 12 C; Eng. Has labeled image and text.
Trinity (Canabi silvatici) - no info
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Egerton 747 - c. 1280- c. 1310; Italy (Salerno)[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Morgan M.652 - 10 C; Constantinople[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]So this includes a wide variety of potential 'sources' for a VMs illustration and text 'monograph', if that is truly what the VMs illustration represents. Somehow these manuscripts and their potential readers traveled and mingled during the time of the VMs C-14 dates. Some of them seem more probable than others.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It is interesting to see the matching provenance Sloane 1975 and Harley 5279, both of which have revealed their illustrations, and yet their representations can be so different. Sloan is highly stylized. It almost looks like a poster from the '60s. While in this Harley at bottom of f40r, the illustration is all gray and spikey. Structurally like [/font]the stem of a lily. Also strangely like the nearby top You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - the viola. Nevertheless, there still needs to be an investigation of both texts.
Also of potential interest is the other Harley ms. though 1175 is petty early. So what is missing are more examples dated to 1300-1450. The intent is not to match the illustrations, though that would be great, but to build on the topical identity in order to collect these examples of the related texts and look for the three section structure that the VMs text has. But if all these historical examples begin with "Nomen herbe", that might not work out.
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - -JKP- - 02-03-2021
The one called "Canapa" in Egerton 747 might be "hemp" but it's probably not Cannabis. It doesn't have palmate/digitate leaves, they are odd-pinnate. The Egerton 747 plant is the same one illustrated in Circa Instans that is labeled Canapa, which also is not drawn like Cannabis.
Trinity has one called "canaparie" which is more similar to Canapa than it is to Cannabis (there is a Cannabis sativa plant labeled Canabi silvatici).
Some of the Althaeas are also called hemp or canapa (and some of them have the finger-like leaves) but they are from the mallow family.
Some of the Eupatoriums are also called "hemp" (specifically hemp agrimony). They don't look like hemp but they are used for fiber.
There is also a plant in the Galeopsis group called hemp-nettle.
"False hemp" is included in some of the medieval herbals. It does not look like Cannabis and is probably Datisca cannabina (or one of its look-alikes).
The finger-leaved plant in Morgan M.652 is probably Eupatorium (hemp agrimony), not Cannabis. It is labeled Epatorios.
They sometimes drew Delphinium like Cannabis (it also has palmate leaves) but you can tell the difference by the flowers.
I think it's fairly certain that the one that is often labeled Canabi and the one often labeled Canapa are not the same plant and that the first one (with finger-like leaves) is Cannabis. I would not include Egerton 747 Canapa on the list of Cannabis plants.
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - R. Sale - 02-03-2021
Certainly these more improbable identifications should be set aside to begin with. Any investigation needs to start with the strongest candidates. That's what has been done on a visual basis. But, what about the comparison of texts. I would think someone might have looked at this, and I really don't know much about it. I've read about these older herbals, but only seen a few of them.
The nature of the VMs illustration shows that the image comes from a better and far more naturalistic source than either Sloane 1975 or Harley 5294. Where does the VMs image come from and where does the VMs *text* come from?
The comparative text investigation also needs to start with the strongest candidates. The primary characteristic is that the VMs demonstrates formatting into (3) short sections. If the VMs cosmos is any guide, the Oresme and de Metz mss., we are looking at a later version of an earlier example. That would imply looking at 14th and 15th century herbals, where any useful, prior information would be far superior to starting from scratch.
I don't recall any herbals being in the KBR library, which made me wonder, why / if a royal library would have a use for such texts. Would herbals more likely be found in monasteries or elsewhere?
RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions - -JKP- - 02-03-2021
I think whoever drew the VMS plants knew plants. When I compare the more naturalistic VMS plant drawings with others from the early 15th century, I always get the feeling that the person wasn't just copying some text in a library or university, that it was someone who was interested in gardening or perhaps had gathered plants in order to draw them in addition to having seen at least one or two medieval herbals.
Part of the reason I think it's someone who knew plants is because there's quite a bit of emphasis on the seeds and on sprouts (or possibly pruning) compared to some of the other plant books. If you garden (especially in the Middle Ages), seeds (and sprouting new plants from tubers) represents the future.
But, I only get this feeling from the more naturalistic plants. Others appear to be symbolic or stylized.