-JKP- > 28-04-2017, 05:53 AM
MarcoP > 28-04-2017, 09:10 AM
(27-04-2017, 08:19 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the tree on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is? I've gotten used to the script a bit and I think I can make out;
The name of the tree is "Quibanos". The tree grows in "anglica"
- - then there's a bunch of abbreviations I don't understand yet - -
and then, I guess: the tree was brought into the island by sea from Ethiopia (??)
By the way, there is something special about reading an abbreviated text like this. I don't really read the letters but rather at a glance I recognize the "shape" of an abbreviation. Like it doesn't really matter whether they drop one letter more or less. The abbreviations are almost like markers for the plant's name, for where it's from... And the paragraph markers are also really handy for seeing immediately where a section starts about a new plant. I'm starting o get a better feel for certain gallow hypotheses that have been proposed before.
(28-04-2017, 05:53 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now that I have a few spare moments (not as many as I'd like) and access to my notes, here's a thought about this image:
The Trinity Plant (left)
I think there's a fairly good chance that the Trinity plant on the left, labeled "deronica, veronica, deronoga" is Veronica abyssinica.
It mentions Ethiopia in the text and this plant is native to Ethiopia and some of the higher-elevation areas around it.
Veronica abyssinica has deeply toothed leaves, sometimes so deep botanists refer to them as crenelated, and it has medium-small pink or purple flowers growing out from the nodes. It's considered a medicinal plant.
There are many species of Veronica in the various herbals but not all of them have these deeply toothed leaves. The Ethiopian species does. There are a few other Ethiopian Veronicas that might fit, but they are less well known and documented and may not have been known in the middle ages.
Searcher > 28-04-2017, 11:47 AM
(27-04-2017, 03:32 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am still lost about “barthifos” (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. second plant of the left). In theory, the names in other languages should be helpful, but I am more familiar with Latin than the other sources mentioned here.Anyway, "Columbanos", "columbinus", "columbarius", etc. must relatate to doves (dove's plant). There are only a few names similar to Columbanos: Columbaria herba (Scabiosa), herba Columbaris (Vervein), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Geranium) and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Menispermum palmatum, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). It is interesting that the last one is mostly fits the data, although it is difficult to say it about the image. There are no early official sources (encyclopedies, etc.) about this item, unfortunately, but, possibly, it was known much earlier under the name Colombo, etc.???
I guess the abbreviation at the end of the Hebrew name is something like a superscript “9” and should stand for -us: “landufius”?.
The Tartar “columbanos” / “columbanes” sounds very Latin to me: I think it either is not Tartar or was badly corrupted. Searcher's suggestion of Vervain is consistent with this name (taken as a Latin name) but not with the other data.
ReneZ > 09-05-2017, 06:20 AM
MarcoP > 09-05-2017, 04:16 PM
(09-05-2017, 06:20 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One of the earliest thoughts I've had about the herbal illustrations in the Voynich MS, or perhaps rather a question was:
"could the drawings be the result of someone painting herbs on the basis of a non-illustrated herbal text?".
This idea has, in a way, stood the test of time, in the sense that this is still a possible explanation for many of the features.
Some elements very strongly suggests that they have been drawn from nature or from a live example of a herb. They are 'better', or more realistic than in most contemporary herbals.
This includes the flowers of the viola / daisy (f9v), the root of the supposed water-lily (f2v) and the entire drawing on f21r, which looks more like a modern photo of knotgrass than any of the many old herbal illustrations of poligonum ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ).
ReneZ > 09-05-2017, 07:17 PM
Quote:The supposed waterlily on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is particularly intriguing, since it combines the root and leaf of a waterlily with the flower of a lily (which was also pointed out by Alain Touwaide in November 2014). An example of a similar lily flower was already shown here, but there are many others, and Alain compared it with the lilies in Sloane MS 4016.
Quote:the idea that the illustrations in the VMS might derive from a herbal text with no illustrations didn't occur to me until I read Darren Worley mention that possibility. I guess he had the idea independently from you.
-JKP- > 09-05-2017, 11:23 PM
(09-05-2017, 04:16 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is particularly intriguing when compared with the illustrations in the Cambridge ms. If the plant was meant to represent water-lily, the root and leaf are too good to be derived from a textual description: they were clearly originally drawn by someone who knew the plant very well. Could it be something else than waterlily, described as having roots and leaves similar to Nymphaea and a flower similar to waterlily? Was it derived from a good but flowerless illustration of waterlily and the illustrator decided to add a lily-like flower?
Helmut Winkler > 10-05-2017, 08:02 AM
Koen G > 10-05-2017, 08:18 AM
(10-05-2017, 08:02 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a very simple explanation for f. 2v and that is that it is showing two different plants touching by accident.The two script blocks look as if they did belong to two different plants as well