05-05-2017, 08:28 PM
The part of the MS that intrigues me the most is the part from fol. 65v to fol 106. This has the two illustrations of Galen and Hippocrates at the start.
The problem is that the information about the origin of this MS is quite unclear. It would be extremely helpful if there was anything more concrete. The sticker on the inside of the front cover of the MS says:
"XIII-XIV Century, German? ".
The MS description on the web site says: "14th Century" and: "I think the work is German".
The descriptive introduction on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more concrete and says:
"Written and illustrated in Germany in the second part of the 14th Century".
Is that more reliable?
The interesting part of the section f63-f106 for me is that many of the herb names and illustrations are familiar.
But what could have been the source?
They are not repetitions of herbs from the earlier part.
Several do appear in the "Tractatus de Herbis" tradition that traces back to the Salernitan school and the text of Circa Instans, but the place and time are a bit challenging. The earliest illustrated herbals from this tradition are from the first hald of the 14th century and from way south of the alps. Were any examples in Germany?
Paris BN Lat 6823 (the "Manfredus" herbal) is interesting in this respect. For one thing it has an illustration of Galen facing Hippocrates in its introduction, but also several other ancient physicians.
More than this tradition, Dioscurides could have been a source, but most of these manuscripts were not illustrated, and in particular Latin illustrated copies are rare.
One of the most recognisable herbs in this part of the Cambridge herbal appears under two names, on two pages, and with two illustrations. This is 'Palma Christi' or 'Pentadactilus', presently known as Ricinus.
The version on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was already mentioned here before, and it provides a reasonably 'true to nature' version of Ricinus.
Someone wrote the name 'palma christi' (abbreviated) in black under the red name 'Pentadactilus'.
The version on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is also found in copies of Tractatus de Herbis:
The similarity is there, but one cannot say that the Cambridge illustration is a copy of one of the other two. It is the same herb, but in an original rendition.
This is where the question of time and place of creation of the Cambridge MS comes in.
Right now I am still puzzled, and I can only suspect that this has already been analysed by some scholar.
The problem is that the information about the origin of this MS is quite unclear. It would be extremely helpful if there was anything more concrete. The sticker on the inside of the front cover of the MS says:
"XIII-XIV Century, German? ".
The MS description on the web site says: "14th Century" and: "I think the work is German".
The descriptive introduction on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more concrete and says:
"Written and illustrated in Germany in the second part of the 14th Century".
Is that more reliable?
The interesting part of the section f63-f106 for me is that many of the herb names and illustrations are familiar.
But what could have been the source?
They are not repetitions of herbs from the earlier part.
Several do appear in the "Tractatus de Herbis" tradition that traces back to the Salernitan school and the text of Circa Instans, but the place and time are a bit challenging. The earliest illustrated herbals from this tradition are from the first hald of the 14th century and from way south of the alps. Were any examples in Germany?
Paris BN Lat 6823 (the "Manfredus" herbal) is interesting in this respect. For one thing it has an illustration of Galen facing Hippocrates in its introduction, but also several other ancient physicians.
More than this tradition, Dioscurides could have been a source, but most of these manuscripts were not illustrated, and in particular Latin illustrated copies are rare.
One of the most recognisable herbs in this part of the Cambridge herbal appears under two names, on two pages, and with two illustrations. This is 'Palma Christi' or 'Pentadactilus', presently known as Ricinus.
The version on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was already mentioned here before, and it provides a reasonably 'true to nature' version of Ricinus.
Someone wrote the name 'palma christi' (abbreviated) in black under the red name 'Pentadactilus'.
The version on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is also found in copies of Tractatus de Herbis:
The similarity is there, but one cannot say that the Cambridge illustration is a copy of one of the other two. It is the same herb, but in an original rendition.
This is where the question of time and place of creation of the Cambridge MS comes in.
Right now I am still puzzled, and I can only suspect that this has already been analysed by some scholar.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)