(05-05-2017, 08:28 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
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.
There are two different plants widely known as Palma Christi...
Dactylorhiza maculata (orchid) is Trinity folio 65v, and is reasonably accurate except for the extra leaves, Ricinus (f66v) is quite recognizable, so I've been assuming they were put close together in the Trinity volume due to the similarity in names (maybe to help disambiguate the names?).
As a point of interest, Palatino 586 also includes the orchid version of Palma Christi (with a hand for the root), as does LJS 419.