(30-04-2017, 11:04 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From what I have seen so far:
The Pseudo-Apuleius part of the MS is from folio 3v to folio 39r. Folio 14 (r+v) appears to be a dislocated page.
There should have been 4 herbs here, which I haven't yet found elsewhere in the MS.
Almost all herbs are easily identified with the standard set of herbs from this tradition, and most if not all names are standard.
The 'Ex Herbis Femininis' part is from folio 39v to folio 61r. The order is disturbed in several places, and a number of herbs have non-standard names, but the drawings are easy to match. The folio Marco has transcribed (54v) is in the middle of this sequence, but it does not belong to the 'Ex Herbis Femininis' list of herbs.
After this it gets more complicated.
Largely speaking, the herbs on folios 61 to about 106 or so tend to have recognisable names, but the drawings are different from those in the few herbals I compared them with.
From 107 onwards, the names all look as if they have been invented.
In addition, the Greek names aren't Greek if you ask me.
Even if it's obvious, I will add that the final "bestiary" section (starting at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is largely consistent with the Pseudo-Apuleius collection: it's the "Liber medicinae ex animalibus" in its longer version (including birds and human beings). I attach the illustration of Elephant from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. One can see that the first recipe is basically identical ("Ad maculas de facie tollendas" / "Ad maculas tollendas").
I think that the very last pages in the Trinity ms (including You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and Hippogriff) are a medieval addition.