Koen G > 16-09-2016, 07:18 PM
-JKP- > 16-09-2016, 11:16 PM
(16-09-2016, 07:18 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively refer to plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
MarcoP > 17-09-2016, 08:49 AM
(16-09-2016, 11:16 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2016, 07:18 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively refer to plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
You might want to reword "refer to" to "represent" (or "depict"). When you say "refer to" it has a broader meaning. It's possible the plants refer to all sorts of non-plant concepts, but they do seem to represent plants.
To answer the question...
It depends whether the "cube" in the small plants section is resin or mineral (or something else). If it's resin (e.g., myrrh, frankincense, dried balsam, bdellium, etc.) then they may all be plants/plant parts.
If the cube is alchemical mercury or a mineral, then it would be an exception to this statement.
Koen G > 17-09-2016, 09:21 AM
MarcoP > 17-09-2016, 09:33 AM
Koen G > 17-09-2016, 10:50 AM
MarcoP > 17-09-2016, 11:29 AM
(17-09-2016, 10:50 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, you are right Marco. This is the reason why I originally used the word "refer". Does anyone have a suggestion for a better phrasing?
What we want to say is basically that there are only plants, and not, for example, beaver testicles or other animal ingredients. This is relevant because animal parts were used in various traditions, and hence depicted in some manuscripts.
Koen G > 17-09-2016, 11:45 AM
Diane > 17-09-2016, 12:12 PM
-JKP- > 17-09-2016, 11:15 PM