- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
A and B plants
- A and B plants
-
RE: A and B plants
ReneZ > 28-01-2016, 02:06 PM
For what it's worth:
when we look at this herb fragment on the A-language pharma page f89v2:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
it seems to be a copy of this herb on the B-language herbal page f48v:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quite a number of such copies may be found, though they are predominantly
from A-language herbal pages.
I like to see this as an argument that the MS as a whole is not meaningless,
though it is somewhat less than a firm proof....
(something seems to have gone wrong with the hyperlinks.... help ) -
RE: A and B plants
Oocephalus > 29-01-2016, 01:48 AM
Rene:
The similarity indeed looks convincing. I've seen other such instances as well, but they were all from A pages.
I hadn't checked the pharma pages before, now I see that plants with and without the line are mixed there, sometimes even on the same page, as in f102r1. -
RE: A and B plants
Sam G > 11-02-2016, 02:17 PM
The most striking difference between the Herbal A and Herbal B illustrations is the use of red in the coloring, which is abundant in A ("thin red lines" in branches and stems, and red "berries"/"seeds" and flowers) but basically absent in B (possible exception being f55r, though this looks like the work of the postulated "heavy painter" who modified the manuscript at a later date).
I think there's also a difference in the overall character or feel of the A and B illustrations too, though it is hard to describe. The B illustrations do appear a bit more "three-dimensional". -
RE: A and B plants
Oocephalus > 11-02-2016, 07:51 PM
(11-02-2016, 02:17 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The most striking difference between the Herbal A and Herbal B illustrations is the use of red in the coloring, which is abundant in A ("thin red lines" in branches and stems, and red "berries"/"seeds" and flowers) but basically absent in B (possible exception being f55r, though this looks like the work of the postulated "heavy painter" who modified the manuscript at a later date).
Interesting. I haven't noticed this before, but it seems to be true. The lower part of the flower on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. seems to be another exception, though. -
RE: A and B plants
Jorge_Stolfi > 17-07-2026, 10:13 AM
Most of the differences between A and B plants that Koen and Cary have noted seem indeed real. But they do not imply a change of Scribe. They are not really differences in "style" but in "contents".
The two different leaf shapes on the Viola Tricolor page (f9v) are an actual feature of the plant: the leaves simple lance-shaped at the bottom, changing to multi-fingered higher up. I pointed that out back in the mailing list days, after I saw that detail on a "scientific" herbal. When I was at the Mondragone conference, by luck there were potted pansies in the Villa's courtyard, so I was able to show a photo of the leaves in my talk.
For of that detail, more than for the flowers (which are upside down -- could that be a Chinese subspecies?
) I consider You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the only plant that has been identified with near certainty -- and the only one which can be assumed to have been drawn from nature. But unfortunately it grows wild all over the world...
The "color annotations" seem to be mostly a feature of the first few bifolios of the Herbal, not of Herbal-A as a whole. An explanation that seems plausible is that the Scribe at first copied those annotations from other books, together with the plants, without understanding what they meant; and stopped doing so when the Author noticed and told him to ignore any letters or text when copying a drawing.
The "line separating root from stem" is, in many cases, better described as the root ending abruptly with a broad flat top, from which there grows a much thinner stem or stems. I think that detail is due to many plant parts in the Herbal, especially roots, having been copied from the Pharma section. The latter may have lost two folios f97-f98 after the pages were numbered, and maybe more before that; so it is possible that even more Herbal plants were copied from it.
Now, I think that many Pharma drawings depict roots with the top cut off to show the internal appearance, or even cut into sections as the root would be found in a farmer's market or apothecary shop. And the drawings that show both roots and leaves were not depicting the whole plant, but only those two parts -- disconnected, but drawn one over the other for "artistic" effect. Thus the flat-topped roots in the Herbal would be more examples of the Scribe misunderstanding the figures that he was copying.
More generally, I believe that the differences between Herbal-A plants and Herbal-B plants can be explained by the two sub-sections having been scribed in that order, but with a long pause between them; and/or by the Scribe having used a different set of existing herbal(s) for "inspiration" on each sub-section. Whereas the style of the drawings, in the stricter sense of the term, seems to be the same through the whole book (apart from variations that can be ascribed to variable amounts of BEEEP).
We have seen even more dramatic differences between the nymphs on different pages of the Zodiac, or the jars on different pages of Pharma; but in these cases we can clearly see the gradual evolution over time.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: A and B plants
Bernd > 17-07-2026, 06:12 PM
I think it's a bit more nuanced.
The important message is that the imagery appears to behave very much like the text. There is a pretty clear distinction between Currier A and B, but there are also more subtle subdivisions. There similarly is a correlation between Imagery and scribal hands (I'm saying Hands, not Scribes on purpose). You know I'm not a fan of the multi-scribe hypothesis and I would also agree with you that the 'hands' are the result of progress of a single individual over time. Te imagery shows too many common elements between scribal hands to have been created by multiple individuals. Yet there is an artistic progress. In my opinion, the artist started with Hand1, copying diligently from a source. Many of the more realistic A plants appear to be Dioscorides copies, a source which probably had the most life-like plants of its time. The Viola is a special case and I believe the artist drew it from a cut (slightly limp) or pressed plant. Viola arvensis can be found in residential areas, in stark contrast to many other of the plants in classical herbals (many of which might never have been encountered in nature by a Middle European). If we consider the oddities of the VM in both art and writing, I have long been wondering if the artist grew up confined and isolated from nature, either due to illness or imprisonment. Which would explain oddities like the stem loops and odd plants in general.
Also note that there is a similar correlation between scribal hands and faces which I have shown here. This also shows a bridge from Hand1 (Pharma) to Hand4 (Cosmo).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I believe the artist got bolder towards Hand2 and finally Hand33 which shows a distinct and more abstract art style, both in plants and humans. Some plants were drawn by several hands, in different styles, for whatever reason. If we accept a single artist hypothesis, this however begs the question why this artist chose to continue drawing more plants in Herbal B after he finished Herbal A.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I would also agree that the VM probably has a non-linear and more complex history with the author overworking and adding parts after he was finished. Yet the vast majority of text and imagery appears to have been created in one go. Which is why we see the stylistic differences between scribal hands.