[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMS -- Doctrine of Signatures
At 21:36 10/10/01 +0200, diane.cousteau wrote:
Maybe this is old news to some but as far as the
associations of the doctrine of signatures go, I recently found a list of
all correspondences between plants and planets, according to Paracelsus; it
is rather tedious to translate here, and I haven't found it on the Internet
yet but if anyone wants it I'll type it out. It gives planetary associations
for about 140 plants.
The (botanical section) question I'd most like answered is: even though the
stylistics are different from what you might expect, do the plants of the
VMS actually lie within an existing tradition?
That is, do the VMS actually espouse the Doctrine of Signatures? If not,
To determine this, what we'd need from Paracelsus (and from as many other
sources as we can find) is a reasonably cross-checkable list of the plants
used (and perhaps their associated conditions - I think it's a bit too
early for their associated planets).
The idea would be to then construct three separate datasets:-
(1) the range of plants thought to have pharmaceutical effect *by anybody*
(2) the best matches to those within the VMS
(3) the range of plants that were apparently *excluded* from the VMS
From these three, we can make an reasonably informed guess (OK, a stab in
the dark) as to whether the VMS is similar to anything else, or different
from everything else. Right now, either extreme is possible. :-/
So (getting back to the point, finally): yes, I think a list of plants
(with their modern names if possible) mentioned by Paracelsus might be very
helpful. If you have scans of these pages and you want to share out boring
jobs, please feel free to ask - I have a fast net connection and am happy
to help out (via email), and I'm sure others here would too.
Thanks, .....Nick Pelling.....