• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Can... : Transcriptions

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • Can... : Transcriptions
• Thread Closed
• Can... : Transcriptions

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  -JKP- > 02-03-2021, 07:36 PM

  (02-03-2021, 06:28 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
  
  I don't recall any herbals being in the KBR library, which made me wonder, why / if a royal library would have a use for such texts. Would herbals more likely be found in monasteries or elsewhere?
  

  
  
  I've identified and classified drawings from about 100 classical, medieval (and a few early renaissance) plant books, but there are many more that are not illustrated (e.g., Ms Fabr. 91 4°), so it's a pretty long list. Many are in national libraries.
  
  If you're looking for ones in the Anglo-Norman/Flemish/Northern France region, one of the important early ones is Leiden Voss. Lat. Q.9.

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  bi3mw > 04-03-2021, 03:54 PM

  Here is a 2018 paper on the cannabis page by J. Michael Herrmann:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  A discussion was started You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  R. Sale > 04-03-2021, 07:46 PM

  Based on the suggestion that the written text in the plant section may contain useful information, how can it be determined if this is valid? I do *not* consider myself well-informed regarding botanical identifications or about the history of botanical investigations related to the VMs, so background info is much appreciated, particularly as it relates to medieval monographs of Cannabis etc.
  
  In order to establish topical relevance, it is necessary to have a firm plant identification in the VMs. Several possibilities have been suggested. VMs Viola may have the strongest visual comparison, but it has problems with different varieties and with a minimal number of historical monographs.
  
  Cannabis appears to be the best available option, having more text options, while actual species variation may not have been recognized, and the various nominal distinctions are probably just linguistic.
  
  Having provisionally established cannabis as the best apparent candidate, the matter now turns to the discovery of the best cannabis *text* for comparison with the VMs text. There is no reason to hold that the VMs illustration and text need to be from the same source. The primary characteristic of the VMs text is that it was formatted into three short sections. Some herbals have monographs that are formatted in multiple short sections, while others are not.
  
  Chronological considerations might tend to favor something closer to the VMs C-14 dates versus sources prior to 1300, though older sources were often recopied. Geographical considerations would depend on the VMs creator's access to those sources.
  
  The current goal of this investigation is to identify examples of potentially relevant cannabis monographs that fit the 'short section' formatting style. Then, from among this group, to look for the better comparisons with the VMs text.  <<Unless this has been examined previously.>>

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  Helmut Winkler > 05-03-2021, 03:32 PM

  @R.Sale
  
  There is a whole Corpus of plant descriptions, not only in herbals and you will have to take the trouble of sorting them out like other people who think there is contemporary information in the herbal texts, Cannabis is a bad example, even if the id is correct, there is not much information on hemp

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  R. Sale > 05-03-2021, 06:50 PM

  (05-03-2021, 03:32 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@R.Sale
  
  There is a whole Corpus of plant descriptions, not only in herbals and you will have to take the trouble of sorting them out like other people who think there is contemporary information in the herbal texts, Cannabis is a bad example, even if the id is correct, there is not much information on hemp

  
  Greetings Helmut,
  
  My original contention was that - for a variety of reasons - botanical investigation in the VMs, particularly botanical investigation as a way to access the VMs language is a waste of effort. The idea of being able to identify a plant from it's illustration, and then take the plant name and find the corresponding word in the VMs 'monograph' is a task of impossibility stacked on impossibility. That, in effect, the task of botanical identification functions as a sort of intellectual flypaper; it keeps the excessively curious away from the more important parts of the VMs.
  
  "Oh, no!", say the knowledgeable botanical investigators, with their various examples. So now we have this investigation. How can it be shown that the plant image to text connection is valid? And in order to make such a demonstration, what is the best candidate to examine further? At present, the best identification with significant literature is Cannabis / Hemp.
  
  The second part is the selection of the best historical monograph that might have served as the VMs proto-type. The VMs 'monograph' demonstrates a short section format style with its three short sections. There are clear chronological considerations with VMs C-14, though older sources would have been in use. 
  
  If correspondence is to be found in the texts, as others have suggested, those more familiar with the specific, background literature could propose and describe their stronger potential candidates for further comparison, if collaborative investigation works for them.

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  Aga Tentakulus > 05-03-2021, 07:34 PM

  @R.Sale
  
  It is as Helmut writes. Cannabis is a bad candidate.
  If you want to go through with it and be on the safe side, work with (Sempervivum tectorum) houseleek. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. belongs to the classical medicinal herbs and fulfils all the requirements for the VM criteria.
  
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  R. Sale > 06-03-2021, 12:22 AM

  As I've said, I am not a botanist. I would never match that plant with the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration. I don't see it. But that doesn't matter. What is the extent of the medieval literature on houseleeks, and is there sufficient character and correspondence among the historical monographs to suggest potential candidates for a closer comparison with the VMs text?
  
  Are you saying that the houseleek is a better investigative option, but no one has tried it out either - - seriously?

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  -JKP- > 06-03-2021, 03:46 AM

  (05-03-2021, 07:34 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@R.Sale
  
  It is as Helmut writes. Cannabis is a bad candidate.
  If you want to go through with it and be on the safe side, work with (Sempervivum tectorum) houseleek. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. belongs to the classical medicinal herbs and fulfils all the requirements for the VM criteria.
  
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Plant You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is one of the more contested IDs. We have a thread on it and there were numerous opinions, no consensus. I don't think this one can be used as a test case.
  
  House leek shows up in medieval herbals approximately as often as Cannabis, but like "hemp" there are often two versions. One is sempervivum (the one we know by this name) and one is pennywort (which grows in the same way but is a different plant). Just as "hemp" is sometimes Cannabis and sometimes one of the other fibre-plants with finger leaves (like the species of mallow that looks like Cannabis).
  
  
  One of the Cannabis references that might be of interest is in Historia plantarum. It is a pretty good drawing, it's labeled Canap domestica and there's a fairly long description.

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  bi3mw > 06-03-2021, 08:34 AM

  (06-03-2021, 03:46 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One of the Cannabis references that might be of interest is in Historia plantarum. It is a pretty good drawing, it's labeled Canap domestica and there's a fairly long description.

  I have found online only a Historia plantarum by Conrad Gessner (1541), signature: A.gr.b. 1360. Is this the right work ?
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Cannabis: Transcriptions

  ReneZ > 06-03-2021, 09:19 AM

  JKP probably refers to MS Casanatense 459, which is mentioned here:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  with a link to a digitised copy:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  I am not sure why it is also referred to as "Tacuinum Sanitatis"; that seems wrong.
  
  It is one of the copies of the "Tractatus de Herbis" tradition that has its roots in the Salernitan school. The texts of the various copies usually derive from each other, and have been modified / extended over time.
  
  This Casanatense MS is a typical case of an illustrated herbal that was made for a prince, and not to be used by some medical person. A copy of it was made and is now in Munich. Old shelfmark: UB 604, new shelfmark: Cim 79.
  It is also online:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
• Next Oldest Next Newest