24-09-2025, 04:13 AM
This is an old thread but I do want to draw attention to a few things I think might be misleading. Firstly, Jennifer Rampling saying that the balneological section bears no resemblance to alchemical imagery is misleading - there was no alchemical illustrative tradition, aside from some alchemical instruments, before the VMS, the Book of the Holy Trinity, and the revised Aurora Consurgens, all published around the same time frame. So the VMS could not possibly be displaying in its balneoligical images any kind of alchemical illustrative tradition. There wasn’t one.
And one didn’t become apparent afterwards largely because, I suspect, the VMS text was indecipherable. But the images from the Book of the Holy Trinity and the Aurora were regurgitated many many times over the centuries and form the foundation, along with illustrated texts written after them, for illustrated alchemicals. Even though I myself suspect the VMS might have similarities to The Book of the Holy Trinity, I don’t think the VMS authors read it. The similarity would arise because both manuscripts share a similar time period, similar topic and likely similar production location.
The VMS thus has no alchemical illustrative forbears aside from its interpretation of alchemical non-illustrated texts, if it’s alchemical at all.
But the “plants of the alchemists” might prove to be one illustrative ancestor. I don’t find Neal, Beasley, Segre, et al. convincing when they say these should not be called alchemical herbals because only a few recipes deal with metals. By the late 14th century, alchemy was mostly concerned with aqua vita and plant distillation for medicine. It would be far more surprising to me if it did deal with metals.
This does not mean I believe the so-called “alchemical herbals” must be alchemical; I just want to remove the “proof” for their non-alchemical nature from the equation. It’s not proof at all.
And one didn’t become apparent afterwards largely because, I suspect, the VMS text was indecipherable. But the images from the Book of the Holy Trinity and the Aurora were regurgitated many many times over the centuries and form the foundation, along with illustrated texts written after them, for illustrated alchemicals. Even though I myself suspect the VMS might have similarities to The Book of the Holy Trinity, I don’t think the VMS authors read it. The similarity would arise because both manuscripts share a similar time period, similar topic and likely similar production location.
The VMS thus has no alchemical illustrative forbears aside from its interpretation of alchemical non-illustrated texts, if it’s alchemical at all.
But the “plants of the alchemists” might prove to be one illustrative ancestor. I don’t find Neal, Beasley, Segre, et al. convincing when they say these should not be called alchemical herbals because only a few recipes deal with metals. By the late 14th century, alchemy was mostly concerned with aqua vita and plant distillation for medicine. It would be far more surprising to me if it did deal with metals.
This does not mean I believe the so-called “alchemical herbals” must be alchemical; I just want to remove the “proof” for their non-alchemical nature from the equation. It’s not proof at all.