Hello Rene, I agree with the great interest of the central part of the herbal. I haven't looked much into it yet, but it seems clear that the illustrations are much more realistic than those in the last section of the herbal.
I think that in the illustrations you presented, the second Palma Christi plant is not Ricinus, but some kind of orchid (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Ricinus has palmate leaves, Epipactis hand-shaped roots: to the medieval mind, both of these were apparently related with the hands of Christ.
I agree with your observation that, while Cambridge 65v clearly is the same plant as that in Tractatus De Herbis, it is not clear if the illustrations are related or not. I do hope that some scholar has looked into this ms, because there is a huge amount of interesting stuff in text and images. Thank you again for pointing it out!
I think that in the illustrations you presented, the second Palma Christi plant is not Ricinus, but some kind of orchid (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Ricinus has palmate leaves, Epipactis hand-shaped roots: to the medieval mind, both of these were apparently related with the hands of Christ.
I agree with your observation that, while Cambridge 65v clearly is the same plant as that in Tractatus De Herbis, it is not clear if the illustrations are related or not. I do hope that some scholar has looked into this ms, because there is a huge amount of interesting stuff in text and images. Thank you again for pointing it out!