It is certainly not only the similarity in the drawings to today's plant pictures.
I am of the opinion one must look at the whole thing.
The applications and the knowledge of medicine from 1200 -1400, and the development of 1400-1600 What was used and for what.
It is not as if it was developed in one year.
The references in the VM speak for themselves. The assumption it could not be medical, for what then?
The VM tells about the medicine and its use and processing.
I see no reason to think otherwise.
Everything fits from A-Z.
(08-02-2020, 10:59 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I am a bit sceptical about the inclination to identify Voynich plants with modern images and classifications as modern species, I rather think I will take a look what the ancient writers called these plants, when we have simiiarities and how they identified them
I've been studying medieval plant books since 2007 and have an extremely extensive database of plants that includes them (plus a lifelong interest in plants before I knew about the VMS), so any opinion I have about drawings in the VMS is very much influenced by having looked at medieval resources in depth.
Aga, the problem i see with sticking to the examples of the time is that the vms does not appear to copy things per se, but tends to display them in unique ways. This to me means we need to look not only at contemporary and past references but to understand their connection to the present as well so we can see these differences and similarities and how the vms might be pointing them out. Many botanicals of the past were drawn in ways not identifiable to what they actually look like.
Sometimes i think that is what the vms is all about, a primer for looking things up from the past and understanding them. Once that is done, it serves as a mnemonic for the knowledge gained.
In the case of f2v, a conglomerate of water lilies would make sense to me. It may say something like watch out, there are different kinds, hence why we have partial matches among similar looking leaves well known as being water related, but they have their uses and here they are. It might say if it has that root, the flower is different, and you can eat the root and seeds, but not the leaves; however, if it has that flower, do not eat the root or seeds, eat the leaves instead. It might fix the problem of there having been one or the other portrayed in previous writings, and being mistaken for the local variety, because of the similarities and lack of correctness with regard to the parts portrayals. Here we have correct portrayals combined, which gives us enough clarity of each to see they do not all belong together, hence teaches us about more than one plant.
Medical uses might be there, (evidently mitigating male sex drive is involved in more than one species, i came across the idea twice just looking around yesterday, or maybe the uses of one have been attributed to the others over time through error, and i don't know if it is the case at all) but edibility and practical uses such as to prevent soil erosion, provide cover for fish or other creatures in order to gain other sources of food, or to make things out of, like rope, soap, dye, etc. or simply using the leaves to wrap things for transport or processing, might also be discussed.
Here's the problem with opening the door to composite plants...
We do not know the intention of the illustrator.
- There are a thousand flowers that look like 2v.
- There are hundreds of leaves that are shaped like 2v.
- There are many rhizomes that are similar to 2v.
Are we going to decide in advance that this is a combination of water plants? Even if it's narrowed down to water plants, if it's composite, that creates dozens of combinations. How can that even be discussed in a reasonable way without everyone having different ideas about how to combine them.
I'm not closing the door to composite plants. I just think it becomes difficult, maybe even impossible, to have any productive conversations about them.