(05-03-2017, 10:40 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must admit that I have not read Toresella's comparison between VMS plants and the "alchemist herbals" tradition. Is he the one who has made the most concrete argument so far? What would you find the most convincing links beween the VMS and this particular tradition? It might be good to bring these arguments to the fore in anticipation of the upcoming article.
Hi Koen, you can find passages from Toresella's paper in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. by Dennis Stallings (2001).
In my opinion, these are some of the things the VMS and alchemical herbals have in common. With particular reference to BNF Lat. 17848:
* frequent appearance of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic elements, in particular in the roots;
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
BNF Lat 17844: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
* efforts to represent three-dimensional plant elements (again, in particular in the roots) - e.g.:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
* page layout: a single plant illustration and the corresponding text appearing on the same page, in a single column;
As far as I know, the oldest example is You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., Milan, 1378: this particular manuscript is, like the VMS, something that largely departs from earlier traditions. Differently from the VMS, other later manuscripts belong to the same tradition (while apparently the VMS was not followed by other works in the same line).
Toresella writes that about 70 manuscripts are linked with the “alchemical herbals” tradition and that there are huge differences between the various manuscripts. Unluckily, very few of these have been published and even fewer are available on-line. Many exemplars are not luxury works, but are actual manuals produced as a handy reference for practitioners (sometimes the author and owner of the manuscript were the same person).
A later manuscript that in part derives from the alchemical tradition is the often mentioned Vermont MS m 2, which features the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. mentioned by Rene.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., writes that “Toresella counted 193 surviving fifteenth-century Herbals, i.e. sixty-seven [sic] more than the 136 enumerated for the whole of the preceding nine centuries”. This huge number of works has been studied only in part. The so-called “alchemical tradition” certainly contributes in a lesser or smaller degree to many of these. But there also are XV century ms that are original, entirely scientific (i.e. devoid of “symbolic” non-naturalistic elements) and based on the direct study of plants (e.g. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
One of the works related with the so-called alchemical herbals I would be more curious to see is Florence Ashb. 731 (mentioned by both Toresella and Segre). It was written by “Magister Aloysius erbolarius et medicus de Palermo”. Since its geographic origin is so remote from that of most of the other manuscripts (typically Veneto) I guess it could be very different from what we have seen so far.