davishsh wrote: "now, i think the herbals are copied. Copied from different manuscripts. and details have been merged together."
If the VMS drawings are different from other herbals (and I've looked at hundreds of herbals from all over the world, both illustrated and unillustrated), it's not necessarily because researchers haven't found "the right herbal" it could be because the person who drew those images LOOKED AT PLANTS and that possibility is often overlooked.
No medieval herbal illustrator that I've seen in China, Arabia, the New World, or Europe took the time to really examine a rhizome and draw it accurately and in detail as the VMS illustrator did with the "water lily".
As Georgia O'Keefe famously quoted:
“Nobody sees a flower - really - it is so small it takes time - we haven't time - and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time.”
There's plenty of evidence that the VMS illustrator was exposed to western herbals. Look at the oak tree host for the ivy, the monks' heads in the roots, the animal shapes in others—these are all herbal tradition. We can hunt and hunt all we want for the "parent" manuscript, but if the VMS author filled in the gaps with genuine observation (and a dose of creativity), then a direct precedence for the VMS plants may not exist—any similarities are due to the properties of the plant itself rather than slavish copying from someone else's drawing.
Imagine this as one of several possibilities...
A medieval kid grows up somewhere near a library, maybe a university or monastery library. Kid sees plant drawings and medical compendiums, maybe a doctor's folding almanac (which usually included zodiacs). Now the kid grows up, ends up somewhere else, maybe somewhere remote (e.g., hilltop monastery or somewhere in another country) where the library is sparse or doesn't include herbals, creates one partly from memory, partly from direct observation. You might end up with something like the VMS.
If the VMS drawings are different from other herbals (and I've looked at hundreds of herbals from all over the world, both illustrated and unillustrated), it's not necessarily because researchers haven't found "the right herbal" it could be because the person who drew those images LOOKED AT PLANTS and that possibility is often overlooked.
No medieval herbal illustrator that I've seen in China, Arabia, the New World, or Europe took the time to really examine a rhizome and draw it accurately and in detail as the VMS illustrator did with the "water lily".
As Georgia O'Keefe famously quoted:
“Nobody sees a flower - really - it is so small it takes time - we haven't time - and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time.”
There's plenty of evidence that the VMS illustrator was exposed to western herbals. Look at the oak tree host for the ivy, the monks' heads in the roots, the animal shapes in others—these are all herbal tradition. We can hunt and hunt all we want for the "parent" manuscript, but if the VMS author filled in the gaps with genuine observation (and a dose of creativity), then a direct precedence for the VMS plants may not exist—any similarities are due to the properties of the plant itself rather than slavish copying from someone else's drawing.
Imagine this as one of several possibilities...
A medieval kid grows up somewhere near a library, maybe a university or monastery library. Kid sees plant drawings and medical compendiums, maybe a doctor's folding almanac (which usually included zodiacs). Now the kid grows up, ends up somewhere else, maybe somewhere remote (e.g., hilltop monastery or somewhere in another country) where the library is sparse or doesn't include herbals, creates one partly from memory, partly from direct observation. You might end up with something like the VMS.