The Voynich Ninja

Well, I must admit that tonight it struck me that it could be basil, as I've been going through different plants that were associated with wyrms and their ilk.





What really tipped me off was the mnemonic of the dragon. T.H. White makes mention of basil being an antidote to basilisks, and by extension, to other stinging worms such as scorpions and the like. He notes:

Quote:Basil and Basilisk both derive from the same Greek root meaning Royal, so the one was presumed to be the antidote to the other.
Turner's Herbal says: "it is goode for the stryking of a dragon or sea serpent".

In White's 1954 translation of The Books of Beasts (a translation of a 12th century bestiary) the scribe mentions that basil is used to catch animals under the sign of Scorpio, as it is the active ingredient in the bait recipe given. Aldrovandus adds a recipe including basil to catch sea scorpions, as well as carp for some reason.

The only thing stopping me from crowing here is that despite the obvious similarities in the crowned leaf arrangement of the depiction and original plant, basil leaves have a single distinctive central vein with arteries radiating out to the leafs edge, whilst the Voynich plant has multiple strong central veins with no radiating arteries.

Can anyone think of a plausible reasoning for this? Is there a close family of the basil with these attributes, or do dried basil leaves go like this?

I've had similar thoughts when I saw a mint plant once. That's the problem with these VM drawings, no scale...

Yes, but mint has no obvious medieval connection with dragons.

Yeah and basil is a better fit leaf-wise. Though I agree that the veins are problematic.

I'd be disinclined to identify this as basil. The illustrator who drew some of the other naturalistic plants (and I think this is one of them) was quite careful with leaf proportions, shapes, margins, and veins.

This plant has a completely different leaf from basil—they are much longer. and narrower than basil. It has different veins—they are parallel. It has a leaf whorl— basil doesn't have a leaf whorl, it has leaves growing all the way up the stem. In other words, it doesn't look like basil in any way. There are several plants common to medieval usage that match the VMS plant in all respects.

Even with the dragon, it's hard to make an argument for basil when there are other plants in the manuscript that resemble basil more closely and several plants that resemble the VMS plant much more closely than basil. If it's basil, then the plant is deliberately drawn to not look like basil and the identification is based only on the dragon (basilisk). I suppose that's possible, but doesn't seem to be the general pattern with the rest of the plants.

I don't think the overall shape of the leaf is that far different from basil - it's simply that the leaf is drawn flat, whereas basil tends to be more concave in real life.
It's certainly a better match for basil than You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which shows basil in flower 

Which page would you suggest are basil? Looking up the ones suggested so far (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Derek Vogt) (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., MarcoP) (27r Ocimum basillicum, 24v genus Aquilaria/Gyrinops, 15r genus Crataegus, 31r genus Croton all Derek Vogt) I have to say I can't see as much similarity as on this page.

It's bad that the older thread about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is lost, there were some valuable posts there. But considering David's suggestion, I'd point out, in the first place, that a dragon is not a basilisk, and vice versa. Even older authors like Pliny distinguish between dragons and basilisks.

Quote:Even older authors like Pliny distinguish between dragons and basilisks.

They do, although both were considered to be "wyrms", a generalised category of animals that included serpents and reptiles. A brief overview may be useful to distinguish between the two in traditional bestiaries of the high middle ages.

Aldrovandus makes the point that dragon and serpent are interchangeable terms - a dragon was a type of snake with demonic overtones. The basilisk was a cross between a snake and a chicken (actually an egg laid by a Rooster - some Roosters do have vestigial eggs inside) and was considered to be the King of serpents, hence its name basilisk or Regulus in Latin. It has been suggested that the basilisk is actually based on the King Cobra - Europeans talked of the basilisk's only enemy being the weasel, and of course the Cobra was hunted using mongooses. A Cockatrice appears to be a later Renaissance invention based upon mistranslation of the earlier myths and can be ignored for our purposes.

Both are depicted from the 12th century onwards with front feet and wings, but the dragon tended to be longer in body whist the basilisk was more cock shaped.


15th century basilisk (source unknown) - note the "weasel" attacking, a common basilisk motif


Dragon - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Français 377, fol. 164r.

Dragons are often symbolically linked to the Devil and have a crest (or crown) to symbolise that he is the King of Pride, an attribute missing in basilisks (who have no link to demonic overlords). Another importance difference in illustration is that dragons sting with their tails, whereas basilisks kill by looking (or sometimes their smell).

Even as I write this I realise it's of no use in helping to identify the beast - it has a body like a basilisk but a crown like a dragon (unless it's a rooster's crest). But the symbolism may have been ignored by the scribe, who was jotting this down for his own personal reference.

On the other hand - I return to an earlier question of mine. Is the beast an original creation by the scribe or drawn later? The penmarks and illustrative style look different to me.

I'm certain in one point (this was expressed in another thread which was also lost ) - the plant of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is rare (or imaginary). This follows from the fact that this is the only (!) botanical folio which does not contain any label.

I remember now when I was considering wheter this could be a herb instead of a tree what made me abandon the idea. We clearly see here only one 'crown' of leaves. On the other hand, the VM is comfortable representing a herb-like habit. Then there is the matter of the veins, which have been drawn very meticulously and differ significantly from those found in herbs like basil. So I'd stick with the tree for now. 

Unless it's taragon.