"Are there others?"
Yes there was.
F90r2 was once seen as a lion. I think there was some discussion about that. I think the suggestion also came from Valeska. But I'm not sure, it was all a long time ago.
And there was something else with the Visconti snake. Somewhere there should still be the trade
George Thomson has published an article about Voynich plant IDs. I don't have access to it but if someone has and has interest, here's the link:
Abstract
The Voynich Codex is one of the greatest bibliographic mysteries of our time. Its origin and interpretations have puzzled academics for decades. The botanical illustrations are equally enigmatic and have defied accurate identification Recently, Tucker & Janick (2019) have produced a plausible list of identified plants, some of which are succulent. This paper discusses the succulent species identified by Tucker & Janick in the context of identifications by others and concludes that, although these authors have contributed to the debate, their conclusions still lack certainty.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
In You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., I collected a few plant identification lists:
- Th.Petersen
- ELV (Ethel Voynich), Grolier Club Notebook
- ELV, Beinecke Notebook
- The anonymous Finnish biologist You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.'s identifications
The first three are from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. Ethel's list could probably be expanded on the basis of the notebook pictures shared by Lisa, but now I just picked the ids as listed by Rene.
I have only slightly edited the lists, mostly correcting typos and folio identifiers. Some of the authors sometimes give no id for some of the plants and multiple candidates for a single plant.
The following illustrations are consistently identified by at least three of the four authors (the two ELV columns were merged together). Multiple candidates have been considered as valid for these matches (an author "agrees" even if he mentions several other possible candidates). In brackets, the different id by the dissenting author. Given that each plant has several different names, it is possible I have missed some matches. As always, it is also possible that I made other errors.
Plants mentioned by at least 3 authors:
- f1v deadly nightshade or belladonna (atropa belladonna) [All 4 mention Belladonna]
- f2v nymphaea [ELV: Colosia? Villarsia, Limnanthemum]
- f5r paris quadrifolia [ES: Wolf’s bane (Arnica montana)]
- f6v castor oil plant (ricinus) [ES: Sea Holly (Eryngium maritimum)]
- f9v viola [Finn: no id]
- f17v tamus (dioscorea) [Finn: Rumex acetosella? Smilax aspera (=common smilax) or Smilax excelsa]
- f23r veronica [ES: Pasque flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris)]
- f25v plantago [ES: Woad (Isatis tinctoria)]
- f65v chamomile [ES: Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus)]
Considering the list in the first post of this thread:
(30-12-2018, 05:52 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- Knapweed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Water lily You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Ricinus (castor oil plant) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Viola You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Cannabis You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Calendula / Mountain aster You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Malva You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (JKP)
- Sedum telephium You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (JKP)
- Prunella You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Oak (but the climbing plant remains unclear) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Teasel f43v (right)
- Cuscuta (JKP) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The intersection between the two lists is:
- f2v nymphaea / water lily
- f6v ricinus / castor oil plant
- f9v viola
Maybe these three can be highlighted as the most certain ids? E.g. in bold and starred?
The other 6 ids where three of the authors agree could be added to the list of weaker (non-bold) plants together with JKP's:
- f1v deadly nightshade (belladonna)
- f5r paris quadrifolia
- f17v tamus (dioscorea)
- f23r veronica
- f25v plantago
- f65v chamomile
Good idea, Marco. It seems that there are still some glaring omissions from the list. I will add the plants as you suggest.
I wonder about the relations between these lists though. It seems that Th. Petersen, ELV and the Finnish biologist often agree where Sherwood has a different ID altogether. Does this mean that the first three partially influenced each other? Or that Sherwood had deviant identifications? Both scenarios have implications.
It's been edited, with reference to Marco's post. I reduced the number of bolded ID's to the three superstars viola, ricinus and water lily. Let me know if anything else deserves to be bolded. (My personal favorite remains polygonum for You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. - there was great agreement on the forum and it is found in some of the old lists).
(25-08-2022, 08:38 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder about the relations between these lists though. It seems that Th. Petersen, ELV and the Finnish biologist often agree where Sherwood has a different ID altogether. Does this mean that the first three partially influenced each other? Or that Sherwood had deviant identifications? Both scenarios have implications.
This seems difficult to answer. Rene says that
"Ethel Voynich ("ELV") appears to have used Th.Petersen's lists and other sources to create her own list of tentative identifications". I don't know to which extent the Finnish biologist and Sherwood made use of the work of others. My impression is that the biologist worked from scratch on the basis of his professional knowledge.
(25-08-2022, 08:55 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's been edited, with reference to Marco's post. I reduced the number of bolded ID's to the three superstars viola, ricinus and water lily.
Thank you, Koen. I think these three really stand out having a rather solid "historical" agreement. It's interesting that the Water Lily is in the short list even if the flower is closer to Lilium than Nymphaea (long pistil, six petals, curved outward, with crenated margins): I guess this means that agreement does not depend on a perfect match but on something more complex.
(25-08-2022, 08:55 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me know if anything else deserves to be bolded. (My personal favorite remains polygonum for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - there was great agreement on the forum and it is found in some of the old lists).
It seems difficult to define a method to accept or reject candidates. Since this is based on agreement, maybe some kind of quantitative voting would be the way to go.
A possible addition could be 2r: the Finnish biologist says nothing, but the other three point out Cyanus (Cornflower, Centaurea Cyanus) or Knapweed (Centaurea Diffusa). If we limit ourselves to the genus (Centaurea) instead of a specific species (knapweed), maybe we can add this illustration to the list?
About f21r, this is the extended comment by the Finnish biologist from Stephen's site (italics mine):
Quote:The image 21r is a promising one in the sense that the artist has in my opinion certainly seen the plant when painting the image. It is so trustworthy and lively illustrated to represent a flat creeping plant, seen from above, radiating from a central root to all directions, which has been dug up - probably with a sharp tool - from a courtyard, roadside or similar hard, dryish site.
The plant seems to have modest tongue-formed leaves and modest more yellowish flowers in tight clusters. Unfortunately, the artist has not looked at the flowers more closely.
The problem is that there are so many unrelated plants which inhabit this niche and may have similar forms and rudimentary structures.
Without a systematic search, my first and best starting guess is some Herniaria species, since it is very similar indeed. The flower clusters are just like that, including te yellowish tone. It has been believed to cure hernia.
Secondary choices include Polygonum aviculare, Suaeda species and probably many mediterranean genera (Polycarpon, Parietaria etc.) which I am not so familiar with.
Polygonum Aviculare is confirmed as a candidate, but there are many unrelated plants that look similar to each other and to the illustration: from a biologist's point of view, there is no way to be sure about this id.
Centaurea is a good point, the genus can be bolded.
Regarding f21r, I see that there are several candidates. One of my goals for this thread was to find out which folios represent recognizable plants (which might perhaps reveal certain trends). And it is clear that You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. draws the plant well, probably better than many other medieval illustrations of this plant type. The issue appears to be that there are a bunch of plants that look very similar... So what to do here?
Edit: I fixed it by adding an explanation.
I don't understand the whole discussion.
They are all references where are quite questionable.
1. an anonymous Finnish biologist? The word "anonymous" says it all.
An anonymous alcoholic who knows the plants because he wakes up every morning in the grass ? Not a serious starting point.
2. Petersen, a priest who has assigned the plants to the new world. Whether he has any knowledge about plants is questionable.
He could not know that the time of the VM was dated before Columbus. Starting point America, therefore everything to be regarded as wrong.
3. Edith Sherwoods, an excerpt around the globe. All without looking at a reference point (pinnacles). It is a nice work, but not a reverence.
4. ELV notebook. It is simply not known enough. No reverence.
On the basis of this information, do you want to make a list of possible plants? You really haven't learned anything over the years.
Translated with You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (free version)
With respect to Th.Petersen, his identifications come from his hand transcription, and in this he also refers to the work of both O'Neill and Holm, whose complete works have not yet been studied.
Petersen and ELV were in correspondence about this. ELV also used other sources.
(26-08-2022, 10:49 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.alcoholic
I gave you a warning for ad hominem there, and you're lucky to get off with that.
Aside the improper remarks, I do understand your general concern. Who do we trust as an authority when it comes to identifying VM plants? Our problem is that the VM lies at a difficult intersection:
- It is not a modern book of plant portraits. If this were the case, botanists and biologists would be our go-to source. But the VM was made by someone who lived 600 years ago, when thoughts on biology and imagery in general were different, and tradition weighed on everything that was produced.
- It does not neatly fall into any of the common families of medieval plant books. This means that those specialized in those traditions (like Touwaide) can only help us so much.
In conclusion, some people can speak with more authority, but not completely so. If it were a set of modern pictures, a plant specialist could be relied on confidently. If it were a common Dioscorides, someone like Touwaide would have written an authoritative volume about it already. But neither of those situations are true.
So I looked for a different approach: which ideas stand the test of time? If people a hundred years ago agreed something was viola, and we still agree it is viola, then that's the best we have.