[split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"

[MarcoP]

I tried to split off the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. discussion into a separate thread just for clarity.

Well done

Marco: what makes me believe that there is distance between the VM and the other examples is the fact that a number of crucial elements are different, which are common to the Italian herbals.

• presence of leaves on the vine
  
• coloration of berries
  
• manner of attachment to the host
  
• presence of prominent roots
  

Now I haven't studied the Egerton MS in detail, but it is a fact that most herbals did not feature 100% new illustrations. Even if a herbal was a new creation, they'd still have to borrow material from sources. Or is it known that the Egerton MS author drew all plants from scratch? Wouldn't this be highly exceptional?

I agree on the distance between the VMS illustration and other illustrations. I just can't see why this distance should be explained as due to some lost source.

The fact that ancient herbals are not 100% original is not an axiom but an observation based on the comparison with other manuscripts. If an illustration cannot be compared with other sources, it is normally assumed to be an original creation.

I think that Egerton 747 is largely original, but in part still derived from earlier sources. Its originality was highly exceptional when it was written (1300 ca) and makes it important in art history. That ms is the earliest case of a break with a tradition that had been mostly unchanged for several centuries. After this first break with tradition, other innovative works followed, some in the naturalistic line (e.g. the Carrarese Herbal Egerton 2020 -1400 ca-, Guarnerinus' Bergamo MA 592 -1441-, Auslasser's herbal BSB Clm 5905 -1479-) other in a more symbolic line (e.g. Florence Pal 586 -1350 ca-, the “Alchemical Herbal” BL Canon 408 -1378-, Cadamosto's herbal BNF Italien 1109 -1471-).

The carbon dating of the VMS and the hints that suggest a Northern Italian origin point to a time and area in which the production of original herbal illustrations is well documented. I guess this flourish of original illustrations can be seen as one of the manifestations of the Renaissance.

So while the diagram you offer is not entirely impossible, I do favor Rene's more cautious note on his site:

While the Voynich MS illustration clearly isn't a copy of the Paris MS, it is also inconceivable that it was not in some way inspired by this or a similar illustration in another MS.

In other words, some relation seems very likely but it may be through similar sources rather than through direct influence.

I think Rene's observation might be related to what he wrote above:

The Paris illustration is somewhat different, and more similar to the Voynich image.
The Paris MS was reportedly in the Visconti library in Pavia, at the time when the Voynich MS was written.
However, Toresella challenges this, and I am also beginning to doubt it.

It remains a very thin trail to the origin of the Voynich MS, but this is still a little bit more than nothing.

I would like to know more about this. If there are good reasons to believe that BNF Lat 6823 was not in Northern Italy, then direct transmission must be excluded. One could then think of an unknown copy of Lat 6823: the arrows in my diagram (and maybe also in formal “stemma” diagrams?) can be seen as direct or indirect transmission, possibly through intermediate copies.

Occam requires that there must be good reasons to introduce hypothetical sources. A hypothetical copy of a specific ms that explains a specific parallel seems to me a reasonable idea.