05-04-2016, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2016, 05:36 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: to clarify the link between the Cadomostro herbal and the plant illustrated in Marco's post.
)
In the comparative series of thumbnails shown with Marco's post of April 3rd, 2016, you can see the label "Brionia" on some, though in others the text is not shown.
The plant intended by those images appears to add the 'human body' as aid to distinguishing this plant as the White bryony.
It is poison, like the others called by that name - the Black Bryony (Tammis communis LINN) and the European white Bryony (Bryonia alba. LINN).
However, it is only the White Bryony (Bryonia dioica LINN.), so far as I can discover, which was associated with the Mandrake plant, whose roots also often show human 'roots'. White Bryony was called 'the English Mandrake'.
Such mnemonic elements, in imagery from the European medieval traditions, will often refer to the written text, and to popular lore, and are designed to recall specific words associated with a plant. (Alain Touwaide has also noted this connection in relation to the Latin European herbal tradition).
On that point, however, we find another distinguishing difference in the way the Voynich botanical folios employ roots as mnemonic. That is to say (and I'm not including the roots-and-leaves section in this), they refer only to the plant-group's economic value and practical uses. You don't need to know any language in particular, only enough about the plants - they are aids to recall of why a particular good is worth buying/selling/having.
I think this is an important difference - an instance of a very different mind-set - between these European works on paper and the imagery in the Vms.
I would agree in relation to stylistics, though, that the 'Veneto style' in European botanical imagery of the fifteenth century is very interesting. It would appear to have affected the earliest of the examples which Marco illustrates (with thumbnails) in the same post.
The earliest example, the 'Belluno' leaves themselves, are early fifteenth century, probably made in the Veneto, and are held as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. What I should ideally like to see is the opinion of an independent specialist (i.e. with no connection to Voynich studies), on what degree that style has influenced the later herbal imagery produced from the Veneto - including Cadamosto's.
When listing works considered similar, I think it is a good idea to list them in order of date if possible. Otherwise the reader tends to presume that the one on the top of the list is the 'ur' version, from which the following are descended.
Whether a text was produced on paper, as Cadomostro's was, or on membrane as the Vms is is also a very important difference for codicologists and for tracing the history of a given work.
For example, since MS Beinecke 408 is on vellum its absence of marking up is most unusual and another among many signals of non-Latin European origins. A different mind-set and set of customs.
On the other hand, people who used paper were often able to use the laid-lines to keep their writing straight and you may not see marking up on those pages. Comparing paper to the Vms, then, can tend to imply that 'other herbals' had similar format whereas in fact that similarity is invalid.
I had been wondering whether Torasella's views had changed in the past thirty years, but I see that he seems still to maintain his first idea that the manuscript had an 'author' whom he imagines as a sex-crazed herbalist obsessed with 'pea-soup' herbal baths. How he combines that with Pelling's Averlino thesis, I'm not sure, but then I don't believe either is sufficiently justified by the primary source, do I?
The plant intended by those images appears to add the 'human body' as aid to distinguishing this plant as the White bryony.
It is poison, like the others called by that name - the Black Bryony (Tammis communis LINN) and the European white Bryony (Bryonia alba. LINN).
However, it is only the White Bryony (Bryonia dioica LINN.), so far as I can discover, which was associated with the Mandrake plant, whose roots also often show human 'roots'. White Bryony was called 'the English Mandrake'.
Such mnemonic elements, in imagery from the European medieval traditions, will often refer to the written text, and to popular lore, and are designed to recall specific words associated with a plant. (Alain Touwaide has also noted this connection in relation to the Latin European herbal tradition).
On that point, however, we find another distinguishing difference in the way the Voynich botanical folios employ roots as mnemonic. That is to say (and I'm not including the roots-and-leaves section in this), they refer only to the plant-group's economic value and practical uses. You don't need to know any language in particular, only enough about the plants - they are aids to recall of why a particular good is worth buying/selling/having.
I think this is an important difference - an instance of a very different mind-set - between these European works on paper and the imagery in the Vms.
I would agree in relation to stylistics, though, that the 'Veneto style' in European botanical imagery of the fifteenth century is very interesting. It would appear to have affected the earliest of the examples which Marco illustrates (with thumbnails) in the same post.
The earliest example, the 'Belluno' leaves themselves, are early fifteenth century, probably made in the Veneto, and are held as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. What I should ideally like to see is the opinion of an independent specialist (i.e. with no connection to Voynich studies), on what degree that style has influenced the later herbal imagery produced from the Veneto - including Cadamosto's.
When listing works considered similar, I think it is a good idea to list them in order of date if possible. Otherwise the reader tends to presume that the one on the top of the list is the 'ur' version, from which the following are descended.
Whether a text was produced on paper, as Cadomostro's was, or on membrane as the Vms is is also a very important difference for codicologists and for tracing the history of a given work.
For example, since MS Beinecke 408 is on vellum its absence of marking up is most unusual and another among many signals of non-Latin European origins. A different mind-set and set of customs.
On the other hand, people who used paper were often able to use the laid-lines to keep their writing straight and you may not see marking up on those pages. Comparing paper to the Vms, then, can tend to imply that 'other herbals' had similar format whereas in fact that similarity is invalid.
I had been wondering whether Torasella's views had changed in the past thirty years, but I see that he seems still to maintain his first idea that the manuscript had an 'author' whom he imagines as a sex-crazed herbalist obsessed with 'pea-soup' herbal baths. How he combines that with Pelling's Averlino thesis, I'm not sure, but then I don't believe either is sufficiently justified by the primary source, do I?