The Voynich Ninja

Thanks to JKP for this very clear picture:

[attachment=5341]

The three versions of cyclamen clearly show the difference between the alchemical herbal(s) - on the left - and the Tractatus de Herbis - the other two.
The two on the right have a reasonable resemblance with the real plant, while the one on the left could hardly be recognised if it weren't for the name. Even while the name is not the same, it is still a known name for cyclamen.

It would be easy to mistake the one on the left as a composite, even if it (probably) isn't, since the leaves are not the right ones for this plant. The only giveaway is the bulb.

(22-02-2021, 09:24 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even a potentially valid plant identification reveals nothing beyond itself.

I think it is possible that correct plant identifications could provide a crucial clue to deciphering the text. Very likely, the plant name is always at the beginning of the descriptive text and may occur only once. This opens different possibilities for investigation.

In the case of compound plants, identification would be practically impossible. Any effort in this direction would be doomed to failure from the start.

(23-02-2021, 07:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many plants are very similar, so the drawings may be similar even if they are not the same plants ... Medieval herbals sometimes include two or three plants of the same family that are very similar.

In your experience JKP, when this occurs, are these illustrations typically all found on the same page or nearby?

Also, on a related note, how commonly have you seen a medieval herbal include multiple hard-to-distinguish plant drawings in close proximity, which actually have nothing taxonomic or practical in common? (I’ve been thinking a lot about Herbal B with this second question; more on that later.)

(23-02-2021, 11:18 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-02-2021, 09:24 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even a potentially valid plant identification reveals nothing beyond itself.

I think it is possible that correct plant identifications could provide a crucial clue to deciphering the text. Very likely, the plant name is always at the beginning of the descriptive text and may occur only once. This opens different possibilities for investigation.

In the case of compound plants, identification would be practically impossible. Any effort in this direction would be doomed to failure from the start.

I do not disagree about the possibilities, such a breakthrough could be momentous, but so far this remains hypothetical. Meanwhile, here we are, with the long-standing and ongoing inability to make any such textual / linguistic connections as the current reality.

How about this? What VMs plant has the best identification? What names across a reasonable range of languages can be applied to that plant? What vord in the VMs text might represent that plant name? If that does not work, what are the prospects for progress in this method of investigation???

(23-02-2021, 07:37 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-02-2021, 07:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many plants are very similar, so the drawings may be similar even if they are not the same plants ... Medieval herbals sometimes include two or three plants of the same family that are very similar.

In your experience JKP, when this occurs, are these illustrations typically all found on the same page or nearby?

Also, on a related note, how commonly have you seen a medieval herbal include multiple hard-to-distinguish plant drawings in close proximity, which actually have nothing taxonomic or practical in common? (I’ve been thinking a lot about Herbal B with this second question; more on that later.)

Yes, they are often on the same page or nearby. Not always, but ones like bugloss are often near one another (e.g., dyer's bugloss and the more common bushy bugloss). Comfrey is often near bugloss, as well.

There are also many that have the same name or a similar growth pattern that are grouped but which are not related taxonomically. One example is the common English daisy and primrose. In fact, some of the old herbals call the daisy by the name "primrose" (a name that has mostly been dropped in favor of English daisy). They are often pictured together (or close to each other), but they are not related. So why put them together? They have similar growth habits, they are often found in grassy lawns or fields, they both have a basal whorl. The main difference is that the daisy prefers a little more sun.

Two additional plants that are frequently placed together (or nearby) are plants they called oxalis, the shade kind that looks like a giant shamrock (which now has the botanial name of Oxalis), and sheep sorrel, which has fish-shaped leaves (which resembles You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the VMS). They don't look alike and sorrel prefers sun, so they don't grow in the same areas either. I had to read the text to figure out why they associated them and it has to do with their slight acidity (I assume they were referring to taste). Both were used medicinally, and sorrel was and still is used as a salad green.


In other words, they had various ways of associating plants. Sometimes by shape, sometimes by taste, sometimes by use, and occasionally by taxonomic similarity. A lot of this association goes out of the window when plants are organized alphabetically, especially if they were organized by vernacular names (which were considerably different in various languages). But... many of them used the Latin names and some of these were adapted by Linnaeus when he standardized the nomenclature.

(23-02-2021, 08:30 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How about this? What VMs plant has the best identification? What names across a reasonable range of languages can be applied to that plant? What vord in the VMs text might represent that plant name? If that does not work, what are the prospects for progress in this method of investigation???

In my opinion, Ricinus, Cannabis, Viola, and Tragapogon are the most recognizable (there are a few others but those are the ones that come immediately to mind).

However, even with these, which I think are pretty solid IDs, there is no consensus.

And there is the problem of names. Ricinus was also called Palma Christi (there are several different "palma christi" plants). Cannabis has many names. Viola is one of the few that is an accepted ID and which has the same name in several languages. If you want to hunt for names in the text, Viola is probably the best place to start.

It's like JKP says, one plant can have many names. And depending on the region, it is called something else. What should I look for?
Take hazel root, for example: I've read it a hundred times in recipes, and it also has many names.

So far I have only found one name of a plant where I am 80% sure that it applies.
This is because it has the same name in Latin, Greek and German. The name matches the word Taurus, and only occurs once in the VM.
When you see it, it doesn't have much at first sight. But if you know the recipes and in which status it was used, that also matches the VM drawing.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

Aga, in that book, the names beside the plant are not always the different names for the plant (on some folios they are, but on some they are not).


For example, in that pic, the plant does have several names, like Asarum, Baccara, and Hazelwort, but it was not called Archangelica or Ciclamas (the names at the bottom are different plants).


Here is how you can interpret that list of names...

• The top name is correct for this plant (Azaru' = Asarum).
  
• The top two names on the RIGHT are alternate names for the plant (hazelwort).
  
• The bottom two names on the right (weyrachchrawt) refer to Weihrauch kraut, I believe. This is a resinous plant.
  
• Vulgaga is an alternate name for Asarum, I think, but it's so rare in medieval plant books I'm not 100% sure. Maybe it's a copying error.
  
• Spica agreste is one of the alternate names for the plant but it is rare, probably because it is easily confused with another plant of the same name (Celtic nard, similar in shape to spikenard). I have only seen this name for Asarum a few times.
  
• Azarea (Asara) baccarea (Baccara) are common names (although this spelling is not common).
  

The bottom half lists different plants (possibly ones that go together in a recipe?). Archangelica and Ciclamas are common medicinal plants but I have never seen these names used to describe Asarum.

Thanks for taking the time to answer that, JKP. What this means is, not knowing who the intended audience of the VMs was, or what the intended uses of its herbal sections were, we really don't have any solid basis for expecting any given plant to be juxtaposed (including "compounded") with any other. Add to this already tall stack of unknowns whatever rearrangement and removal of folios has been done, by people who had no more idea of the book's intended audience and use than we do.

I know this is a lot to assume, but just as a thought experiment, let's take it for granted that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. really is, and was always intended to be, the first and introductory page of Herbal A. This would mean that the plant on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was intended to the be the first plant the reader would encounter. This could be entirely coincidental, but I find it interesting that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not only the first plant pictured, but also one of the more realistic and agreed-upon identifications made. Could it be that the creators of the VMs initially intended to illustrate all of the plants realistically and unambiguously, but soon abandoned this plan due to time, talent, or resource constraints? Or increasing pressure to be cagey about the manuscript's contents?

Going out on this limb and deeming You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "the first plant drawing" also makes me want to ask this question: What kind of herbal writer, with what intended audience, might see it as proper to include water lily first?

It is very likely that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the actual first plant, but its ID is far from agreed upon. The water lily is f2v. Apparently You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is also accepted as knapweed, so there might be some initial clustering going on.