• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?
• Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

• Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

  crezac > 01-02-2016, 11:01 PM

  I don't see anything in any of the drawings to indicate scale.  Possibly scale isn't important.  Possibly the scale is mentioned in the text.  Maybe all the drawings were recognizable to the authors contemporaries.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is often identified as a water lily.  If it isn't a water lily something like European wild ginger (asarabacca) is a possibility if it's a smaller plant. I don't see anything to indicate scale, but I know only a little about plant drawings in manuscripts.   Can someone who knows more say if there are conventions in drawing to indicate how large the plants are?  If not are there ways to estimate the plant sizes based on any of the plant structures?

• RE: Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

  -JKP- > 02-02-2016, 03:48 AM

  (01-02-2016, 11:01 PM)crezac Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't see anything in any of the drawings to indicate scale.  Possibly scale isn't important.  Possibly the scale is mentioned in the text.  Maybe all the drawings were recognizable to the authors contemporaries.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is often identified as a water lily.  If it isn't a water lily something like European wild ginger (asarabacca) is a possibility if it's a smaller plant. I don't see anything to indicate scale, but I know only a little about plant drawings in manuscripts.   Can someone who knows more say if there are conventions in drawing to indicate how large the plants are?  If not are there ways to estimate the plant sizes based on any of the plant structures?

  
  There are many ways in which scale was indicated in old herbals. Sometimes it was as simple as drawing the plant larger. At other times they put a human figure next to it to indicate it was a large plant (like a tree).
  
  Sometimes the bole (the thicker part at the bottom) was used to indicate that it was a larger plant with a thicker stem but a smaller younger version is portrayed that can fit on the page.
  
  Sometimes wrapping part of the plant around the margins intended to show that it was larger or longer (e.g., like a vine).
  
  Sometimes a broken stalk indicates it's a tall plant that won't fit on the page (an idea that was probably inspired by herbarium specimens).
  
  Sometimes another plant that is associated with the plant in nature is included in the same drawing to show scale and habit (like climbing vines that wrap around certain trees).
  
  
  It's entirely possible that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is Asarum. Both water lilies and Baccara/Bachara (as it was often called) have kidney-shaped leaves, long rhizomes and flowers spaced along the creeping stem. The VMS flower does not match either one (this is neither lily flower nor Asarum flower).
  
  Both water lilies and Asarum were commonly included in herbals at the time. Nenufar may refer to a very small lily (it's typically yellow or white and has flowers more like other flowers than like the big water lilies). But neither has a protruding hirsute pistil.
  
  If You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents one of these two options, then eiither the flower was drawn from memory (inaccurately) or a dried specimen was misinterpreted (dried flowers can look quite different from the live ones) or it's a different plant.
  
  Notice that the way the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. flower is drawn matches another plant that comes later, but which is definitely a different plant. It's almost as though a generic concept of a flower was added to some of them. If that's the case, specific identifications will be very difficult.

• RE: Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

  ReneZ > 02-02-2016, 07:16 AM

  Assuming that towards the end "f2v" is meant...
  Several unrelated thoughts to this.
  
  
  Elsewhere you mention that this illustration shows more detail than usually found in (early) 15th C manuscripts. In 2012 I made an illustration putting it next to the Nenufar / Nymphaea in several MSs of the Tractatus de Herbis, showing exactly this point.
  
  In general, many details of the herbs are quite elaborate. There is basically no sign of symmetry or "2D" representation of herbs. This would be much better visible if the painting was not there. Very often, one has leaves in front of others, or in front of stems, folding around etc. Some celebrated ("expensive")  herbal MSs of the time have far inferior drawings. (E.g. Casanatense 459 made for emperor Wenceslaus).
  
  Much longer ago, I thought that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could be "Nymphoides peltata", another similar plant, but this one has a flower very similar to the one on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (though invariably yellow):
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  I believe that that one is native to N. America but could not find out definitely. I no longer think that is a certain identification, simply because the drawings should not necessarily be expected to be exact copies of the herb. 
  
  I find the idea that some drawings have "generic" flowers or leaves quite plausible, especially for some other cases. Here, the flower looks more like a (real) lily, which allows one to speculate as follows: it could simply be an association of the illustrator based on his native language. In English it is water lily and in German Wasserlilie.

• RE: Are there any traditional ways of indicating scale in mauscript drawings?

  -JKP- > 02-02-2016, 10:19 AM

  (02-02-2016, 07:16 AM)Rene Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Much longer ago, I thought that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could be "Nymphoides peltata", another similar plant, but this one has a flower very similar to the one on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (though invariably yellow):
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  I believe that that one is native to N. America but could not find out definitely. I no longer think that is a certain identification, simply because the drawings should not necessarily be expected to be exact copies of the herb. 

  
  Yes!! Native to N. America. It's not N. indica, even though it's somewhat frilled. Indica doesn't have this pistil. Even the minority of N. indica that have longer pistils, do not have hirsute pistils, so it doesn't appear to be an eastern version. I tried to track down a match for a couple of years, actually, trying to reconcile the flower with the rest of the plant, which is actually well drawn (even the veins in the leaves).
  
  The one that is a possible match is indeed North American, from the north Gulf area, but it is not a common plant, and probably wasn't then either. It matches on all counts, but the odds of someone from the 14th or even 15th or 16th century coming across it is very remote and it doesn't appear to grow near the Spanish colonies in the Aztec region, as far as I've been able to determine and... other plants in the small area where it grows do not match with other plants in the VMS.
  
  It's interesting to hear you followed a similar trail. I don't think we have a definite ID on 2v yet but, assuming it's early 15th century, the illustrator deserves credit for being one of the first to represent the morphology of the rhizome so well.
• Next Oldest Next Newest