02-05-2017, 01:52 PM
When interpreting old illustrated herbals, one is perhaps tempted to apply modern ideas, but these are often not valid.
The idea that the illustration is there to aid in identifying the herb seems completely logical, but this is not at all given.
Care for detail started becoming normal with the innovations in the 16th Century (Fuchs, Brunfels).
I can only recommend (again) for anyone really interested in this area to read Minta Collins, because these issues are clearly explained.
It covers more relevant ground than any other book about illustrated herbals and is the best available primer.
A much shorter book, also covering the age of printing, is the good old 'Blunt and Raphael: The illustrated herbal (1979)'.
It is also very well illustrated and even mentions the Voynich MS.
The idea that the illustration is there to aid in identifying the herb seems completely logical, but this is not at all given.
Care for detail started becoming normal with the innovations in the 16th Century (Fuchs, Brunfels).
I can only recommend (again) for anyone really interested in this area to read Minta Collins, because these issues are clearly explained.
It covers more relevant ground than any other book about illustrated herbals and is the best available primer.
A much shorter book, also covering the age of printing, is the good old 'Blunt and Raphael: The illustrated herbal (1979)'.
It is also very well illustrated and even mentions the Voynich MS.