- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
- [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
-
RE: Voynich presentation at Oxford Medieval Graduate Conference
MarcoP > 06-03-2017, 03:08 PM
(06-03-2017, 02:35 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So about Toresella and the VMS + alchemical herbals I note that:
- He brought the at the time relatively unknown alchemist's herbals to the attention of Voynich researchers
- He notes that the VMS contains "dozens of plants similar to those of the alchemists' herbals" (without going into much detail)
- He also says that the VMS plants " do not belong to that iconographic tradition" and that these "fantastic plants have no relation with those of the usual alchemical herbals".
These points seem to me to represent well Toresella's analysis. It's interesting that he doesn't formulate specific parallels. In principle, it is possible that the VMS represents a set of plants that has no intersection with those appearing in the alchemical herbals, just sharing some of the same visual lexicon (see also the passage by Segre I translated You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
On the other hand, one of the typical features of the alchemical herbals is that the plants (like those in the VMS) are very hard to identify. Segre's estimate is that only 55% of the plants in Aldini 211 could be reliably identified. Since the VMS plants are no easier subjects, it's really difficult to tell if there is any match. -
RE: Voynich presentation at Oxford Medieval Graduate Conference
Diane > 01-04-2017, 07:46 PM
I'd like to point out that the original description - by Ulisse Aldrovandi - was not 'alchemical herbals' at all.
It was a description of plants known to "the alchemists" and by reason of his distinguishing them from the content in your standard Latin herbal, it may imply plants outside that range.
Who exactly he meant by 'the alchemists' we don't know. But he called them 'plants of the alchemists', not 'alchemical herbals'.
Aldrovandi had a professional interest in non-standard (and non-European) collections of plants and plant-pictures, because he was - to quote the wiki - "a driving force behind Bologna's botanical garden".
"At his demand and under his direction a public botanic garden was created in Bologna in 1568, now the Orto Botanico dell'Università di Bologna"
It was certainly not the first botanical garden in Europe.
A merchant called Datini had a collection of rare and exotic plants in his own botanical garden in the 14thC.
Bologna's, under Aldrovandi, may have had greater emphasis on medicinal plants, but not all did.
In writing about Aldrovandi, I noted one point not in the wiki article, viz.
"...Aldrovandi in later life was appointed Inspector of Pharmaceuticals"
adding that "it seems reasonable to suppose that he might know which plants were of interest to pharmacists, and which of greater interest to ‘alchemy’ [I should have said 'alchemists'] – in whatever sense he might have meant that term.
Changing Aldrovandi's own description of the manuscripts he collected and called: "plants of the alchemists" to Torasella's "alchemical herbals" gives an altered sense of the original intention, and I do not think an easy assumption of alchemical content, or of these as a variety of ordinary medicinal herbal is necessarily desirable. But those are the facts.
That post about Aldrovandi
'The Great Aldrovandi... owned a Ming bowl' was published at voynichimagery on April 4th., 2013, and considers the issue of plants depicted apparently from first hand knowledge appearing the Voynich manuscript as much as two centuries earlier than the same plants' forms were correctly known to Europeans - who were still hunting for specimens of plants named in Dioscorides.
I also mention the arrival in Italy of some Japanese converts to Christianity in the first half of 1585, with the persons they met, and some annoyed remarks by Sassetti that the Jesuits in the east were not sending back information about any eastern natural history or botany.
So what does that say about the Voynich and the oft-assumed connection between it and the old Latin herbals?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
Koen G > 02-04-2017, 08:54 AM
I split all posts that relate to the Alchemist herbals, Toresella, related terminology.... into this thread, feel free to discuss this tradition here. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
MarcoP > 02-04-2017, 10:38 AM
As far as I know, the most authoritative study on this tradition is “Il Giardino Magico degli Alchimisti” by Vera Segre Rutz. She calls these manuscripts “erbari alchemici.” The University of Bologna titles ms. Aldrovandi 152 “erbario alchemico”. The English translation of this expression (“alchemical herbals”) is used by scholars like Minta Collins, Sachiko Kusukawa, Karen Reeds (in the book she co-edited with Givens and Touwaide).
“Alchemical herbals” is the name that has been attributed to this tradition in the academic world and I see no reason to adopt a different name. Since (as I said above) the name can mislead the newbie, I will try to remember writing “the so-called alchemical herbals”. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
ReneZ > 02-04-2017, 11:27 AM
There's much more potentially misleading information, and the purpose of this contribution is to try to clarify some of these points.
The alchemical herbals were introduced into the "Voynich MS community" in two waves.
The first was introduced by Jim Reeds, after he and his wife had a discussion with Sergio Toresella who had just seen the Voynich MS in the Beinecke. This was in 1995 and Toresella also published a paper about it, equally dated 1995. This led to some discussions in the old mailing list, and to the summary by Dennis Stallings, that has been quoted here in this thread.
The second wave was introduced by Philip Neal, who had read the 2000 book by Vera Segre Rutz, and wrote his very useful You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
Since the earliest surviving copies of the alchemical herbals are from the second half of the 14th century, and the other MSs from the 'direct tradition' are from the 15th century, they have nothing to do with Ulisse Aldrovandi, who was born in the 16th century. He was clearly interested in them, and he collected a few of the later copies, all of which he donated to the university of Bologna.
Clearly he is responsible for the association with alchemists, but all authors agree that not much importance should be given to that.
What is never really addressed is that the 'alchemical herbal' tradition is closely associated with the 'Tractatus de Herbis' tradition.
Most of the manuscripts I have seen have a seamless continuation from the alchemical herbs to a subset of herbs from the Tractatus de Herbis. The last two herbs in the sequence of alchemical herbals, nrs. 97 and 98, are called Consolida Maior and Consolida Minor. These are exact copies of the same herbs in the 'Tractatus' tradition, which also includes a Consolida Media.
At least the following alchemical herbals:
- Oxford Canon. Misc 408
- Florence MS 108
- Paris BN Lat 17844 and 17848
- Paris BN Hebr. 1199
then continue with the sequence (sometimes in a partly different order):
- Consolida Media
- Volubilis Minor
- Adianthos
- Tetrahit
- Calcantem
etc. etc. (in total some 60-70 herbs).
MS Aldini 211 seems to do the same, but I have not seen these illustrations.
In a following post I will add some illustrations. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
ReneZ > 02-04-2017, 03:02 PM
Some illustrations related to the above:
This shows the three varieties of 'Consolida' in the earliest alchemical herbal that has been preserved, and in one of the copies of 'Tractatus de Herbis', namely the one that was created specifically for king Wenceslaus. It is rather unlikely that the former was used as a model for the latter, but both derive from a common source. These illustrations are quite constant in the various copies of these manuscripts.
The following illustrations show some of the herbs that are included in the alchemical herbals, as additions after the standard series of 98, in several manuscripts, and also in Sloane 4016, which was created shortly after the copy for Wenceslaus.
-
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
-JKP- > 02-04-2017, 03:30 PM
Notice how they group the Symphytum (Consolida) species in the above examples and one of them always has round knobby roots? That's Symphytum bulbosum, it's a specific species with round roots. The other species have long finger-like roots and some have tap roots.
I think many of the VMS plants are hard to recognize for the simple reason that they are drawn differently. But if you know the plant and really look at them and verbalize the individual characteristics, they express the plant accurately. For example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has droopy flowers, long-corn-like leaves (mostly opposite), and a strange, big brown asymmetric root.
Well... guess what, Consolida/Comfrey, a particular species of comfrey, is like that. It has droopy flowers, opposite, corn-like leaves (long and fairly narrow), and a large brown, asymmetric root. It's called Symphytum tuberosum and in terms of roots, it's the third kind of Symphytum (note that Pulmonaria used to be included in this group in the middle ages, they thought it was the same species as Symphytum and often drew it the same, but added dots to the leaves). It's not a 100% ID, but it's one worth considering as a possibility.
Do the other herbals draw it the same way? Nope. Most of the old herbals emphasize the leaf whorl at the bottom (not all, but many), only some of them show the leaves growing up the stem, the way the plant actually looks and the way the VMS does it. Also, many of the old herbals show the flowers standing up, but the plant doesn't look like that (Sloane 4016 shows the flowers correctly). If the VMS plant is Symphytum tuberosum, it is more accurate than many, especially the root. Later drawings (16th century) get the roots right, but many still draw the flowers standing up rather than following the good example in Sloane 4016.
So how do we account for this difference in interpretation?
Well... some people copy pictures, as we can see from the many examples, but if you were somewhat familiar with the plant and were working from a list of notes of the characteristics of the plant, it might come out the way it's done in the VMS (let's say you didn't have a sample, but someone wrote a description as was common in many of the early botany books, descriptions but no picture—even Pliny is like this). I think some of the VMS plants may have been drawn from samples (like Viola), but not necessarily all of them, maybe these harder-to-pinpoint plants are drawn from written descriptions.
P.S., I'm not certain of this VMS ID. I can't account for the double-bulb shape behind the flowerheads, Symphytum tuberosum doesn't have these, but Symphytum caucasicum does have small roundish buds (unopened) behind the top flowers that open first, that might be represented this way. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
MarcoP > 02-04-2017, 06:16 PM
Thank you Rene,
your observations are extremely interesting!
I guess that by “erbario alchemico” one should properly mean the set of 98 plants listed by Segre-Rutz and the associated text. The examples you provide highlight two phenomena:- some of the illustrations of the “alchemical herbal” are related with illustrations appearing in the Tractatus de Herbis tradition;
- several manuscripts combined different traditions; the “alchemical herbal” was often followed by a subset of the Tractatus de Herbis.
I think that four of the five plants you discuss could derive from Egerton 747 (1300 ca). The exception is Consolida Minor: this symmetric plant with two large flowers is very different from the plant in Egerton 747 (the Consolida at the bottom). As you say, Casanatense 459 can hardly have copied some plants from the Bodleian ms: one can think of an intermediate copy of Egerton 747. If I understand correctly, Egerton 747 was likely in Lombardy at the end of the XIV Century, when both the Bodleian and Casanatense manuscripts where written in that area.
I can think of no precedent for the Consolida Minor illustration, but possibly we could find something in other traditions (e.g. Pseudo-Apuleius, since the shape is so schematic).
In my opinion, a major problem is that late-medieval Italian herbals (in particular those of lower artistic quality) have only been studied in monographs. Since by now several of these “popular” manuscripts have been published, it would be time that some scholar tried a synthesis, discussing in detail the connections between the different manuscripts. - some of the illustrations of the “alchemical herbal” are related with illustrations appearing in the Tractatus de Herbis tradition;
-
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
Barbrey > 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. -
RE: [split] "Plants of the Alchemists"
ReneZ > 24-09-2025, 09:34 AM
The name 'alchemical herbals' is a misleading rendition of the name coined for these herbals by Ulisse Aldrovandi, who lived 1522-1605. He owned several of them and referred to them as 'plants of the alchemists'.
(He also created at least one copy himself).
Sergio Toresella explains that it is entirely unclear what sort of alchemists these would have been. Quoting:
Quote:Ma chi erano questi alchimisti?
Gli accenni agli alchimisti in relazione agli erbari o alle pratiche curative sono incredibilmente scarsi e vaghi, particolarmente nei periodi più antichi, cioè nel XIV e XV secolo.
In complesso essi vengono assimilati ai medici empirici, agli erbaioli e speziali vaganti, ai ciarlatani, alle vecchiette delle erbe, ai barbieri e castratori, ai "giudei praticoni", agli imbroglioni e spacciatori di remedi miracolosi, ai saltimbanchi e a tutta quella straordinaria congerie di personaggi che affollava le piazze dei mercati di città e ville medievali.
One can offer this to one's preferred online translator.