Koen G > 11-03-2016, 10:57 PM
ReneZ > 11-03-2016, 11:50 PM
Diane > 12-03-2016, 04:14 AM
Koen G > 12-03-2016, 10:43 AM
crezac > 12-03-2016, 08:01 PM
Koen G > 12-03-2016, 08:51 PM
MarcoP > 12-03-2016, 09:19 PM
(12-03-2016, 10:43 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was quite surprised to see a 1100 example with "root figures". Is that the earliest one we know of?
Koen G > 12-03-2016, 09:58 PM
crezac > 12-03-2016, 10:13 PM
(12-03-2016, 08:51 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Crezac - I agree with your way of thinking. I'm sure many plants in the root-and-leaf section ("pharma section") are drawn in a very non-realistic way to incorporate these elements. Sometimes it's even so bad that you need to understand the "hidden image" first before you can start identifying the plants.
Have you read my blog? I focus on a different page, where I argue that these hidden images offer clues about the plant's name rather than its use. So if this page behaves the same, the plant would have a local name that sounds like the Greek for "elephant". It could be that this pages behaves more like the botanical section though (see O'Donovan's work). In that case the mnemonic offers clues about the plant's use, which is more in line of what you are suggesting. At this point I'm open to both possibilities.
MarcoP > 12-03-2016, 10:49 PM
(12-03-2016, 09:58 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wouldn't be surprised if the Voynich root figures are a witness of an earlier form or independent side development of this practice. There are some interesting parallels but differences as well, and the "affected" plants are always different ones, as far as I can see.