The Voynich Ninja

Thanks Marco. I think I understand most of it, since this Latin is a bit easier than the stuff I had to translate in high school
What I wanted to read for myself was on the one hand whether the "host" is mentioned in any way, but it seems like it isn't. They even call the ivy itself "arbor".
And on the other hand which importance was given to the berries. I'm not sure here, but it looks like they mostly recommend the leaves and the roots?

I took a screenshot of the section, I don't really see why you shouldn't be allowed to read it if I am..
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thank you, Koen!
I found the page very interesting. As you say, it doesn't mention the "host" tree nor any other data that could be used to identify the plant. Ancient herbals were often brief on these subjects, relying on the images for the identification of plants, but here there is nothing at all. The chapter is made of:

• a list of names in different languages;
  
• seven recipes that make use of different parts of the plant;
  
• a final sentence about its Galenic properties (without the usual indications of "degrees").
  

The first recipe mentions the berries (bacchas) and it's the only one which provides a quantitative dosage (7 or 9 berries). Several of the recipes mention ivy juice, but it's not clear from which part of the plant this should be extracted.

Ahh right, I should have looked for the meaning of bacchas, thanks. I also found the "juice" parts rather unclear.
Some herbals seem to draw a snake next to the plant, would it be correct to read this as a generic marker of "used against poisonous bites"? Some kind of insect in this case.
What I find interesting to witness here first hand is how image and text seem to follow a separate line of development. 

The fact that the VM does not draw the leaves of the vine but only of the host is something that remains hard to explain. If all associated remedies had been about the berries this would have been easy. But the leaves are such in important omission that we can't even tell whether this is ivy to begin with... Also within the plant corpus of the Voynich itself it's a strange thing that only the fruits of a plant are drawn.

(20-04-2017, 07:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ahh right, I should have looked for the meaning of bacchas, thanks. I also found the "juice" parts rather unclear.
Some herbals seem to draw a snake next to the plant, would it be correct to read this as a generic marker of "used against poisonous bites"? Some kind of insect in this case.

Apparently the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a poisonous spider and in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. a spider is represented. One should check the text of the herbals in which a snake is represented and see if snakes are mentioned, but it could very well be as you say, a generic illustration of "poisonous bites".

(20-04-2017, 07:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I find interesting to witness here first hand is how image and text seem to follow a separate line of development.

Here I don't follow you. I can see that image and text are complementary, since the text doesn't describe what the plant looks like. In general, it is true that the two evolved independently. If I remember correctly, the Tractatus De Herbis originally had no illustrations, but I think that this process of separate development can only be observed by comparing the evolution of text and images in several manuscript copies. I don't find this page particularly informative in this respect.

(20-04-2017, 07:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that the VM does not draw the leaves of the vine but only of the host is something that remains hard to explain. If all associated remedies had been about the berries this would have been easy. But the leaves are such in important omission that we can't even tell whether this is ivy to begin with... Also within the plant corpus of the Voynich itself it's a strange thing that only the fruits of a plant are drawn.

I agree that this detail is very difficult to explain. My personal speculative opinion is that the ivy illustration was used to represent a different plant: the author was only familiar with its black berries and only illustrated the part he knew.

Yes, there are surely much better examples even within this group of manuscripts of images developing independently. The one comes to mind where suddenly a dragon in a castle is defending certain trees.

Still even here we see a small shift from something that might be oak in the Egerton to definitely oak in the other MSS. I think this can only be explained by the formation/evolution of some convention, since there is no particular reason to put ivy on an oak branch. 

Just idle speculation, I wonder if the association between mistletoe and (holy) oaks might have pushed the oak as a chosen host for ivy as well.

(20-04-2017, 07:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

The fact that the VM does not draw the leaves of the vine but only of the host is something that remains hard to explain. If all associated remedies had been about the berries this would have been easy. But the leaves are such in important omission that we can't even tell whether this is ivy to begin with... Also within the plant corpus of the Voynich itself it's a strange thing that only the fruits of a plant are drawn.

It's true that the leaves are missing, and it's an unusual "omission" so when I was studying this folio I looked very closely at all the tree-climbing ivies with berries.

It's possible it's one of the other ivies but... the drawing very closely resembles the shape and colors of Hedera helix berries, so it's still likely that H. helix is intended.

One explanation for the way it's drawn is that many ivies lose their leaves in the winter (after turning bright red), but retain the berries for a while, except that Hedera helix is very cold-tolerant ivy and retains its leaves longer than most plants, sometimes all winter.

Another possibility is that it is, in fact, an ivy similar to Hedera helix but one that does lose its leaves in the winter. Some species of Parthenocissus (which loses its leaves in winter) have berries similar to H. helix but they are native to the far east and New World and unlikely to have been known in the middle ages, even to those who traded with middle Asia.


Or, the creator may have considered the leaves unnecessary for identification since the berries and habit of the plant, taken together, are distinctive. If it's Hedera helix, it's a very common plant.

JKP: yes, but then again I have the impression that if there's one thing the VM finds important, it's the leaves. I just don't see why exactly the berries of ivy would be singled out. Even in images of grape plants, the leaves would usually be featured, whether it be in antiquity or the middle ages, in decorations or otherwise. 

If this is one of the Indian plants, of which I believe there are a few, then it might be an important one for trade. For example, pepper was grown on trees (a commenter on Nick's site once proposed this could be pepper, can't recall his name at the moment). Pepper was, and still is, encouraged to climb on other trees and was also found like that in the wild. Not in the ivy-parasite way but in the grape-support way. If it's pepper though, or anything similar, I see no way to confirm it until we can read the text, since we've only got the berries...

Anyway, the reasoning would be then that whoever first composed this drawing used the "oak is host tree"-trope as a template and adapted it to add the other vine. This of course assumes that the oak pairing was present in the now lost sources that may have been common to the Italian herbals and the VM alike.

(20-04-2017, 10:35 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

If this is one of the Indian plants, of which I believe there are a few, then it might be an important one for trade. For example, pepper was grown on trees (a commenter on Nick's site once proposed this could be pepper, can't recall his name at the moment). Pepper was, and still is, encouraged to climb on other trees and was also found like that in the wild. Not in the ivy-parasite way but in the grape-support way. If it's pepper though, or anything similar, I see no way to confirm it until we can read the text, since we've only got the berries...

The only pepper plant I know that looks like the ivy "berries" on the VMS vine is Ampelopsis arborea (pepper vine) and it's a North American plant. The other pepper plants that I'm familiar with don't look at all like the VMS in coloration or the shape of the clusters (they tend to be long and narrow), and they retain their leaves.


It occurred to me at one point that it might be Bryony berries (Bryonia), because Bryony loses its leaves and retains the berries in winter, but they are in fairly large clusters and most of them are red rather than black. Bryony is a possibility, however, and matches the VMS drawing more closely than pepper. If Bryony were intended, leaving off the leaves might be one way to distinguish it from Hedera helix if a person were familiar with how the two vines differ in winter. Both Bryony and Hedera were considered medicinal plants.

(20-04-2017, 10:35 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: yes, but then again I have the impression that if there's one thing the VM finds important, it's the leaves. I just don't see why exactly the berries of ivy would be singled out. Even in images of grape plants, the leaves would usually be featured, whether it be in antiquity or the middle ages, in decorations or otherwise. 

If this is one of the Indian plants, of which I believe there are a few, then it might be an important one for trade. For example, pepper was grown on trees (a commenter on Nick's site once proposed this could be pepper, can't recall his name at the moment). Pepper was, and still is, encouraged to climb on other trees and was also found like that in the wild. Not in the ivy-parasite way but in the grape-support way. If it's pepper though, or anything similar, I see no way to confirm it until we can read the text, since we've only got the berries...

Black pepper looks like a good candidate to me too. In any case, we cannot be sure until we read the text. One can also hope to find a better parallel for this illustration in other sources: I think this is something that might still happen.

(20-04-2017, 10:35 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, the reasoning would be then that whoever first composed this drawing used the "oak is host tree"-trope as a template and adapted it to add the other vine. This of course assumes that the oak pairing was present in the now lost sources that may have been common to the Italian herbals and the VM alike.

Rene, Touwaide and Clemens seem to agree on the fact that the VMS "Oak and maybe ivy" is particularly close to Manfredus De Monte Imperiali BNF Lat 6823. This manuscript derives from Egerton 747 but (as you wrote above) in Egerton 747 the host tree is "something that might be oak". In the BNF ms it is definitely oak.
You speak of lost sources common to the Italian herbals and the VM which must be assumed. This can seem obvious to you, but I think that it must be explained more clearly. In particular, it is at variance with what art historians believe. It does not seem to me something that can be supported by a casual "of course".

I guess these lost sources account for the "definitely oak" feature, so they where not involved in the production of Egerton 747, right?
Why exactly can't BNF 6823 just derive from Egerton 747 as scholars normally assume?
Why can't the template of this Voynich illustration just be BNF 6823?

I tried to split off the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. discussion into a separate thread just for clarity.

Marco: what makes me believe that there is distance between the VM and the other examples is the fact that a number of crucial elements are different, which are common to the Italian herbals.

• presence of leaves on the vine
  
• coloration of berries
  
• manner of attachment to the host
  
• presence of prominent roots
  

Now I haven't studied the Egerton MS in detail, but it is a fact that most herbals did not feature 100% new illustrations. Even if a herbal was a new creation, they'd still have to borrow material from sources. Or is it known that the Egerton MS author drew all plants from scratch? Wouldn't this be highly exceptional?

As I explained in detail in the other thread, these drawings feature oak twigs or small branches instead of full trees. Other trees in the Egerton group are generally of the "full tree with enlarged leaves and fruits" type. The Voynich, on the other hand, seems to feature more of these "twig with roots" type drawings, as I explained in my latest blog post.

Hence, my hypothesis would be that a number of Voynich illustrations were derived from a source that illustrated trees by one of their twigs, in order to present leaf shape and arrangement in a decent way. A similar source, or image derived thereof, may have been the base for the Egerton drawing.

Now it is a good remark that the leaves in all MSS are somewhat different. The BNF MS shows a decent oak leaf. In the VM the leaf edges are strangely bulbous, and in the Egerton they are strangely spiky, almost like pine cones.

So while the diagram you offer is not entirely impossible, I do favor Rene's more cautious note on his site:

Quote:While the Voynich MS illustration clearly isn't a copy of the Paris MS, it is also inconceivable that it was not in some way inspired by this or a similar illustration in another MS.

In other words, some relation seems very likely but it may be through similar sources rather than through direct influence.