09-05-2024, 02:42 PM
Valid points.
I agree Alpha / Beta is a good naming to avoid confusion, also I should have clarified I meant plants drawn on pages assigned to scribes. We do not know if the same people drew the plants but there appears to be some pretty good correllation as you have shown, at least between Currier A and B. Also my approach was to mainly analyze the flowers, I have not found the time to extensively look at plants and roots.
I still think plants on scribe 5 pages differ stylistically (not in the term of Alpha / Beta) from those in scribe 1 pages but I need to look into it more It is hard to grasp.
Look at the 'Campanula'. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r2 on pages assigned to scribe 1 look extremely similar while You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. assigned to scribe 5 is much different and has some Beta-ish vibes. If this is the same plant, why is it reproduced much differently in the pharma-section? Or is it supposed to be a different plant? Interestingly, apart from the 'Campanula' on f102r2 I haven't found another flower in the pharma section that can clearly linked to the rest of the document while many roots can. There generally aren't much flowers depicted, they probably were not the active ingredient.
I disagree that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a daisy type it's not really a composite flower, i have classified such flowers as 'primula-type' together with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f94v. But the borders between single and composite flowers are fluent. I still think many flowers are fictitious or (auto)copied from diffferent stock parts. There is a continuum or evolution of odd flower shapes that is hard to come by if you draw real flowers.
I need to write up a post on the different components of VM flowers and how they were combined.
It would really be interesting to get an opinion of an art historian whether it can be assessed if the plants were drawn by different persons. If we accept that hypothesis, we struggle to explain how at least 2 but possibly up to 4 people came up with such similar styles even when copying each other or from a common source.
I have also been thinking, the quality of VM drawings is generally poor, yet after drawing a considerable amount of images the artist should have somewhat improved. Could this be what we are seeing in the different 'scribes' both in Currier A / B and Alpha / Beta plants? An evolution of imagery in connection with an evolution of the text wourld not be overly surprising.
On the other hand, the pharma section was likely drawn by the same artist, it has the same style. So it would have to been drawn before the Beta plants. Not sure how likely that is.
I agree Alpha / Beta is a good naming to avoid confusion, also I should have clarified I meant plants drawn on pages assigned to scribes. We do not know if the same people drew the plants but there appears to be some pretty good correllation as you have shown, at least between Currier A and B. Also my approach was to mainly analyze the flowers, I have not found the time to extensively look at plants and roots.
I still think plants on scribe 5 pages differ stylistically (not in the term of Alpha / Beta) from those in scribe 1 pages but I need to look into it more It is hard to grasp.
Look at the 'Campanula'. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r2 on pages assigned to scribe 1 look extremely similar while You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. assigned to scribe 5 is much different and has some Beta-ish vibes. If this is the same plant, why is it reproduced much differently in the pharma-section? Or is it supposed to be a different plant? Interestingly, apart from the 'Campanula' on f102r2 I haven't found another flower in the pharma section that can clearly linked to the rest of the document while many roots can. There generally aren't much flowers depicted, they probably were not the active ingredient.
I disagree that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a daisy type it's not really a composite flower, i have classified such flowers as 'primula-type' together with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f94v. But the borders between single and composite flowers are fluent. I still think many flowers are fictitious or (auto)copied from diffferent stock parts. There is a continuum or evolution of odd flower shapes that is hard to come by if you draw real flowers.
I need to write up a post on the different components of VM flowers and how they were combined.
It would really be interesting to get an opinion of an art historian whether it can be assessed if the plants were drawn by different persons. If we accept that hypothesis, we struggle to explain how at least 2 but possibly up to 4 people came up with such similar styles even when copying each other or from a common source.
I have also been thinking, the quality of VM drawings is generally poor, yet after drawing a considerable amount of images the artist should have somewhat improved. Could this be what we are seeing in the different 'scribes' both in Currier A / B and Alpha / Beta plants? An evolution of imagery in connection with an evolution of the text wourld not be overly surprising.
On the other hand, the pharma section was likely drawn by the same artist, it has the same style. So it would have to been drawn before the Beta plants. Not sure how likely that is.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)