[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Smithsonian Botanical Symposium, 6th-8th May 2004
--- William Edmondson <w.h.edmondson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I looked at herbal drawings from 15thC in Wellcome.
> Some are accurate
> enough to be readily recognized. Clearly the poor
> quality drawings are
> less likely to have survived (they could have caused
> But VMs 22 as per you link is wrong on so many
> points, and is schematic
> to a weird degree (it is difficult to imagine what
> was being conveyed by
> rows of overlapping 'leaves' - even allowing for
> problems of perspective
> known to have cropped up in relation to, say,
> drawings of buildings).
> It could more plausibly be peony, but only just!
- peony probably does not have thorns on the roots
- peony is called 'pioenroos' in Dutch (peony-rose).
- More seriously, though, it is worth looking also
at some less well-executed herbal drawings like
in Toresella's article. I know that someone
geographically quite near you has a copy.
Overall, though, I am not at all convinced that it
is a rose, but I would be not the least surprised
if it turned out to be one, should the text ever
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: