08-02-2016, 03:33 AM
Oocephalus,
I think Rene was summarising a well-established view shared by people who have investigated the botanical and so-called 'pharma' section in detail.
I recognised the common elements in the two sections when analysing some of the botanical images, and that was in 2010. At the time I was told it was already well-accepted that the two were connected, so I guess the original recogition, and various particular plant folios/'leaves and roots' details had been noticed well before then. It has become one of the things everyone accepts now and while more detail is always good, the idea hardly needs to be argued.
What is more dubious is the notion that the 'roots and leaves' section relates to practice in Latin European pharmacy.
There's no pharmaceutical text I know of which uses a page layout like the 'roots and leaves' section, and hunt as I might (and did) the historical and archaeological evidence absolutely refutes the idea that Latin pharmacies to 1438 regularly used containers anything like what we see in that section.
So a balanced assessment must come down to the view that (a) its not about European pharmacy and/or (b) its not about pharmacy.
I'm not saying so just to be difficult. Like everyone else, I began by expecting that a manuscript which turned up in Europe, and was evaluated by highly competent persons as a product of England or of Spain would be all about European plants and things.
But the weight of evidence is heavily against it.
Much of what is taken as the basis for a newcomer's research is, when investigated, found to be no more than someone's early exercise of imagination, solidified by unthniking repetition for as much as a century.
I think it's a great pity: it leads to so much tail-chasing, and re-discovery of well-known facts, when the talented researcher might be better employed, and we'd be all the better for it.
I think Rene was summarising a well-established view shared by people who have investigated the botanical and so-called 'pharma' section in detail.
I recognised the common elements in the two sections when analysing some of the botanical images, and that was in 2010. At the time I was told it was already well-accepted that the two were connected, so I guess the original recogition, and various particular plant folios/'leaves and roots' details had been noticed well before then. It has become one of the things everyone accepts now and while more detail is always good, the idea hardly needs to be argued.
What is more dubious is the notion that the 'roots and leaves' section relates to practice in Latin European pharmacy.
There's no pharmaceutical text I know of which uses a page layout like the 'roots and leaves' section, and hunt as I might (and did) the historical and archaeological evidence absolutely refutes the idea that Latin pharmacies to 1438 regularly used containers anything like what we see in that section.
So a balanced assessment must come down to the view that (a) its not about European pharmacy and/or (b) its not about pharmacy.
I'm not saying so just to be difficult. Like everyone else, I began by expecting that a manuscript which turned up in Europe, and was evaluated by highly competent persons as a product of England or of Spain would be all about European plants and things.
But the weight of evidence is heavily against it.
Much of what is taken as the basis for a newcomer's research is, when investigated, found to be no more than someone's early exercise of imagination, solidified by unthniking repetition for as much as a century.
I think it's a great pity: it leads to so much tail-chasing, and re-discovery of well-known facts, when the talented researcher might be better employed, and we'd be all the better for it.