[split] f2v plant ID

[MarcoP]

The nymphea I saw in the "Pseudo-Apuleius" were all very unrealistic. The Nenuphar in the "Circa Instans" can be recognized pretty well. 

I would rather see the VMS in this tradition.

I am sorry I have been unclear: some aspects of the structure of Trinity College MS O.2.48 have been discussed by Rene You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It includes a copy of the Pseudo-Apuleius, but that is not what I was referring to. I totally agree that the Voynich herbal doesn't belong to to the  Pseudo-Apuleius tradition. By the way, discussing this tradition as a monolith is quite a problem, since it spans about a whole millennium (I attach the Leiden version of nymphaea). The basic process here was simplification and schematization: plant images were made more and more geometric and symmetrical. On the other hand, during this evolution symbolic elements (like zoomorphic roots) were sometimes added: this is something we see in the VMS too (though not in f2v).

I also don't believe that the VMS belongs to the Circa Instans tradition: the very few recognizable parallels (like the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration) are not enough to link the VMS and the Circa Instans. The two examples you provided make clear how close illustrations in this tradition can be. The VMS is both different and more detailed: it doesn't seem to be a derivation.

The non-Pseudo-Apuleius part of the Trinity ms is a unique work: we have been unable to trace it to any known written or illustrated tradition.  This part of the Trinity ms abounds with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic details. I don't see this section of the herbal as an ancestor of the VMS, but as a similar and independent creation. In my opinion, the VMS also appears to  be a unique work. It certainly draws from contemporary herbals, but (like a few other late medieval works) it does so in an original way.