28-02-2026, 04:02 AM
(28-02-2026, 02:39 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, the herbal illustrations are those of the alchemical herbals, not pseudo-Apuleus.
Of the two herbals in your post, the first (Canon.Misc.408) is also an alchemical herbal, while the second (Fir. Plut. 73.16) is a pseudo-Apuleius.
Well, I apologise then? There is a reason why I put "according to grok" in the post. If theres something wrong posted just say why it's wrong instead of just stating not to trust grok. I don't trust grok, that's why there was a disclaimer..
The plant drawings seem very similar between those two categories, at least to my eye. Why is one classified differently to the other? What makes the plants in this manuscript an alchemical herbal style and not a pseudo-apuleius style? If I look at marco's post, it says they are the "so-called alchemical herbals" and a google search for "alchemical herbals" returns effectively nothing other than than that exact voynich ninja thread so i'm basically out of luck here.