04-03-2021, 07:46 PM
Based on the suggestion that the written text in the plant section may contain useful information, how can it be determined if this is valid? I do *not* consider myself well-informed regarding botanical identifications or about the history of botanical investigations related to the VMs, so background info is much appreciated, particularly as it relates to medieval monographs of Cannabis etc.
In order to establish topical relevance, it is necessary to have a firm plant identification in the VMs. Several possibilities have been suggested. VMs Viola may have the strongest visual comparison, but it has problems with different varieties and with a minimal number of historical monographs.
Cannabis appears to be the best available option, having more text options, while actual species variation may not have been recognized, and the various nominal distinctions are probably just linguistic.
Having provisionally established cannabis as the best apparent candidate, the matter now turns to the discovery of the best cannabis *text* for comparison with the VMs text. There is no reason to hold that the VMs illustration and text need to be from the same source. The primary characteristic of the VMs text is that it was formatted into three short sections. Some herbals have monographs that are formatted in multiple short sections, while others are not.
Chronological considerations might tend to favor something closer to the VMs C-14 dates versus sources prior to 1300, though older sources were often recopied. Geographical considerations would depend on the VMs creator's access to those sources.
The current goal of this investigation is to identify examples of potentially relevant cannabis monographs that fit the 'short section' formatting style. Then, from among this group, to look for the better comparisons with the VMs text. <<Unless this has been examined previously.>>
In order to establish topical relevance, it is necessary to have a firm plant identification in the VMs. Several possibilities have been suggested. VMs Viola may have the strongest visual comparison, but it has problems with different varieties and with a minimal number of historical monographs.
Cannabis appears to be the best available option, having more text options, while actual species variation may not have been recognized, and the various nominal distinctions are probably just linguistic.
Having provisionally established cannabis as the best apparent candidate, the matter now turns to the discovery of the best cannabis *text* for comparison with the VMs text. There is no reason to hold that the VMs illustration and text need to be from the same source. The primary characteristic of the VMs text is that it was formatted into three short sections. Some herbals have monographs that are formatted in multiple short sections, while others are not.
Chronological considerations might tend to favor something closer to the VMs C-14 dates versus sources prior to 1300, though older sources were often recopied. Geographical considerations would depend on the VMs creator's access to those sources.
The current goal of this investigation is to identify examples of potentially relevant cannabis monographs that fit the 'short section' formatting style. Then, from among this group, to look for the better comparisons with the VMs text. <<Unless this has been examined previously.>>