- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
- [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
-
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
MarcoP > 23-02-2018, 04:16 PM
Thank you, Koen, this is a great illustration!
As pointed out by Rene in another thread, the ms is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Samarqand,1083.
Collins comments on the image of balsam (f12a): "This is the earlies known Herbal to illustrate a method of sap-collecting, even if it is shown only my inanimate accessories. The illustration of Balsam is the first surviving example of a long line of images that appear in Arabic Herbals, but which enter the Western tradition only in the Tractatus de herbis of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century."
Apparently, both the sap-extracting scenes in balsam and Ivy's "support tree" in the Tractatus de herbis could derive from an Arabic source. I am not aware of other "oak and ivy" illustrations pre-dating Egerton 747. It seems very likely to me that Touwaide and Marraccini are right in believing that the VMS is connected with the Tractatus de herbis; it could then be related, at least indirectly, with Arabic sources. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
Koen G > 23-02-2018, 08:07 PM
Marco, I see the situation as follows.
- In the Leiden MS there's a loose vine on a host that does not look like oak.
- In the VM there's a loose vine on a host that looks like oak.
- In the Tractatus de herbis there's clinging ivy on a host that looks like oak.
- In the Leiden MS there's a loose vine on a host that does not look like oak.
-
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
MarcoP > 24-02-2018, 11:02 AM
(23-02-2018, 08:07 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, I see the situation as follows.
- In the Leiden MS there's a loose vine on a host that does not look like oak.
- In the VM there's a loose vine on a host that looks like oak.
- In the Tractatus de herbis there's clinging ivy on a host that looks like oak.
This contradicts the evidence we have.
Oak as a support tree was introduced by Manfredus de Monte Imperiali in BNF 6823.
Manfredus based his illustrations on Egerton 747 (which might have been influenced by Arabic sources) but he improved them with further direct observation of actual plants (Egerton 747 is considered to be the first herbal after classical times in which extensive observation of nature is evident). In the Ivy illustration, Manfredus added veinings to the leaves and corrected the shape of the berry clusters.
If one compares the two manuscripts, it is clear that oak was not present in his model ivy illustration but was derived from Egerton 747 oak illustration. - In the Leiden MS there's a loose vine on a host that does not look like oak.
-
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
Koen G > 24-02-2018, 11:28 AM
I see your point, Marco, though I still find the situation puzzling. How could the VM be dependent on the Tractatus tradition, but at the same time revert to a property that was present in hypothetical Arab exemplars, the loose winding?
And which host tree would be meant for the 747 Ivy? If the leaves in its exemplar looked like this, I can see how they gave rise to a "correction" towards oak on various occasions. The different leaf edges in the VM and different structure of the branch might also point towards a more complex relation. The manuscripts are likely related, but perhaps not as closely related as one would think at first sight. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
MarcoP > 24-02-2018, 12:48 PM
(24-02-2018, 11:28 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see your point, Marco, though I still find the situation puzzling. How could the VM be dependent on the Tractatus tradition, but at the same time revert to a property that was present in hypothetical Arab exemplars, the loose winding?
I would say that the "loose winding" in the VMS could be the same as the berry grapes in Manfredus: their similarity with Or.289 is mediated by direct observation of plants. Vines are sometimes loose and their fruits can appear in globular clusters (like in the Arabic, Manfredus and Voynich manuscripts) or "umbrella-like" clusters (like Egerton). Their climbing can also be more or less tight depending not only on the species, but also on the individual vine and host.
If you compare the Egerton and the BNF illustrations, you get an idea of how large a difference can sometimes be ascribed to the author of the "copy".
(24-02-2018, 11:28 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And which host tree would be meant for the 747 Ivy? If the leaves in its exemplar looked like this, I can see how they gave rise to a "correction" towards oak on various occasions. The different leaf edges in the VM and different structure of the branch might also point towards a more complex relation. The manuscripts are likely related, but perhaps not as closely related as one would think at first sight.
In the case of the Egerton / BNF manuscripts, they are related, but they are not just copies. Manfredus was evidently keen to be naturalistically accurate.
The relation between the VMS and the Tractatus de herbis cannot be that of a simple copy.
When comparing Leiden Or.289, Egerton 747, BNF 6023, the most conspicuous deviation in the VMS is that the vine has no leaves. A possible explanation for this is that we are seeing something similar to the most original section of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Voynich illustrations might be based on a textual description: details from available manuscripts (and possibly from actual plants) have been assembled together, with the result of producing hybrids that look familiar but are impossible to classify exactly. Of course, this is purely speculative, but the Trinity ms is so similar, with its deceptively familiar plants which turn out to be unidentifiable exotic species, that I can't see why a similar process might not have happened in VMS.
I think the lack of leaves is strong evidence for the Voynich plant not being "ivy". I find the parallel with BNF 6823 convincing, so I believe the illustrator of the VMS was familiar with BNF 6823 or a close copy of it and deliberately altered it. As in the Trinity ms, the text could explain both why ivy was used as a model and why the Voynich plant differs. The Trinity ms is a precedent for this kind of mixing of different plant images on the basis of a textual description. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
-JKP- > 24-02-2018, 01:02 PM
Another possible explanation for the lack of leaves might be an identification feature...
Assuming it's a form of ivy, perhaps it's Bryony (e.g., rather than Hedera). One of the distinctive characteristics of Bryony is that it loses its leaves and retains the berries through winter.
Both Bryony and Hedera are commonly represented in herbal manuscripts, but it's usually Hedera that is shown twining around a tree, but Bryony also twines around fences and other plants. Bryony, however, has red berries, whereas Hedera berries are colored like the VMS berries.
Because the berries are not numerous in the VMS drawing, it seems less likely that it's grape vine (plus the grapes are harvested and not left on the vine in winter). -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
Diane > 24-02-2018, 05:44 PM
I'm glad this mention of bryony has cropped up again, because I've been racking my brains to remember who it was who suggested that identification?
Was it perhaps Ellie Velinska's idea? Or one of the Sherwoods? Or perhaps Fr. Petersen's... ?
Rene isn't the first to refer to the Samarkand manuscript either - another which arrived in Europe in the seventeenth century. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
Koen G > 08-05-2018, 09:54 PM
So I was walking through the forest a while ago, and spotted something hanging from a birch tree which reminded me of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . I don't know much about plants so I'll provide the pictures and some info.
What drew my attention was this long thing hanging down from the canopy, it looked like intertwined aerial roots (of the type which does not belong in Flemish forests). That's the left picture, foreground, although my phone focused on the background.
I thought it was dead material, but here and there some young leaves were growing from it (right picture, bright leaves on the foreground). It was rooted in the ground very close to the host's roots (birch), similar to the VM drawing. I saw no berries but that's of course dependent on the time of year.
I'm not necessarily proposing an ID - we have no leaves for the parasite - but perhaps this can illuminate the drawing in some other way? I assume/hope identifying this plant should be easy for those with some experience. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
-JKP- > 08-05-2018, 11:13 PM
(24-02-2018, 05:44 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm glad this mention of bryony has cropped up again, because I've been racking my brains to remember who it was who suggested that identification?
Was it perhaps Ellie Velinska's idea? Or one of the Sherwoods? Or perhaps Fr. Petersen's... ?
Rene isn't the first to refer to the Samarkand manuscript either - another which arrived in Europe in the seventeenth century.
It may not have been in connection with f35v. Bryony has been suggested for other plants.
I've discussed Bryony as a possibility for 35v on earlier threads but I don't think it's the only possibility. As you know, I've also suggested Hedera (and a couple of other vines). It could be one of many vines, but the berries are drawn very much like Hedera berries.
The reason I wanted to include Bryony is because it loses its leaves in winter (moreso than Hedera), but retains the berries, which might account for the way 35v has been drawn. As far as I know, no one else has made that specific observation. -
RE: [split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"
-JKP- > 08-05-2018, 11:19 PM
Koen, are you saying that sprouted branch on the right is growing from the dead-looking (and very old) vine hanging from the birch?
If it's part of the vine, I think we can rule out clematis (some species have similar leaves but they don't usually get huge), swallow-wort, and lonicera (wrong veins) and jasmine (wrong leaf arrangement). It's much too big for anything in the pea or Hypericum family and I don't think catchfly could ever grow that big (although the leaves are similar to spring catchfly). Paederia doesn't usually get that thick.
Wisteria can get huge, but the leaves are odd-pinnate.
If it's an import, some of the South American creepers can get pretty big. Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with South American plants.
The leaves are somewhat similar to the Asian Lonicera but even the Asian varieties don't typically grow that big unless they are rain-forest plants. Too bad there are no flowers or buds yet. That would help a lot!