The Voynich Ninja

Addendum: Canopy beds were of course reserved for the upper classes. The “common man” probably had much simpler sleeping places (not to mention the peasants).

Here a “normal” bed
[attachment=9819]
European depiction of the Persian (Iranian) doctor Al-Razi at the bedside of a patient.
Gerardus Cremonensis, “Recueil des traités de médecine”, 1250-1260.

Harley MS 941 - treaties on magic: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

not found in British library at this time (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

Reference: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and http://data.onb.ac.at/dtl/8721382

Interesting similarities from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (16th century, Heidelberg?) Herbarium, below just one of them.

@lazylizard493
The first plant at the top is the pumpkin. Not surprising, as it is written.
Recently there was a report on TV about the use of this pumpkin in monasteries. Apart from the soup, it was dried and used as a vessel bottle.

Some more interesting similarities, MS B.27 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
Germany ca. 1450-1475. I

I just came across a manuscript image of "Crocus Orientalis". When I was a bit more of a theorist 10 years ago, I always thought this would make a nice crib. There are a couple of ways you could make a nice "crocus" out of that label. Obviously didn't lead to much 

I still think it's a decent plant inspiration though. What other reason to elongate the thing that pokes out of the flower so much.

[attachment=10286]

I am not really convinced.
Crocus sativus has a 3-pronged style each of which bears a crimson-red stigma. So there are 3 band-like stigmas per flower. The VM plant only has a single feathered protrusion that looks vaguely like the ones in the 'campanulate' flowers of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . It also has no corm-like belowground-organs, rather boring roots.

To me this VM plant looks no less imaginary than many other ones. It appears the VM plants were created by combining a number of stock elementes which frequently repeat with slight variation.

The stock elements thing is certainly true, but it also doesn't define the whole paradigm. Each plant (bar a few cross-section repeats) is unique, and many have unique elements to them. Something weirdly repeating is going on with the flowers, where one would think that they overuse a few basic types, which are sometimes copied exactly and placed on the wrong kind of plant. But the leaves display an unusual variety. Even the roots, which in nature and some other herbals are often generic looking, in the VM each have their own flair.

Even this flower, which does include the common element of the long stamen, has unique elements to it. One of the "heads" is closed, the other open. They don't have the more common lily shape, but rather one appropriate for (an approximation of) something like crocus. The scale makes sense. One could argue about the thickness of the roots, but I take your point. The leaves are alright.

In general, I have a feeling that we still struggle with finding the best paradigm for discussing these plants. It's good to think about this though.

Yes, you are certainly right.
One thing to consider is that the plant drawings probably do not all have the same construction mechanism.
Some like the Viola are probably faithfully copied from live or herbarized plant material - or a good herbal.
Most are possibly composites with roots derived from one herbal, stem/leaves from another and flowers invented by the artist.
Others might have been entirely invented by the artist.

So looking at plants as a whole is likely misleading. Especially the flowers. I strongly suggest treating roots/shoots/flowers separately when looking for matches with other sources

Regarding this particular plant, those 'pharma' drawings are very rudimentary. One has to wonder what their purpose (if any) is?
decorative - just to illustrate the text for ornamental purposes
descriptive - a visual description of the text
mnemonic - a help to memorize the plant's properties and uses
?