The Voynich Ninja

(07-09-2025, 08:28 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Phrases like "plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me" and "I translated ALL the codex" are the language of misguided Voynich solvers, not professors. Claims like these will keep drawing antipathy because they sound all too familiar.

Exactly. If it is that easy for her I am sure Professor Eleonora will give us some of the plant identifications that we were waiting for quite a few centuries now.

Quote:  Only if one ignores at least half the content, which is not easy.  

Yes the forum gets new “solvers” everyday and some of the discussion are utter nonsense or AI slop. But I can’t seem to find any other platform that has this level of knowledge passed in a civil manner, hence; “as it gets for the voynich manuscript discussions”

Hi Kendiyas, and sorry for my belated reply.
Please don't call me professor, just Eleonora is fine for me, thanks.
F. 1v is Myrtus communis. F. 2r is Centaurea spp. F. 2v is Nymphaea alba. F. 3r Polypodium vulgare. F. 3v Aconitum spp. F. 43 Linus spp.
And so on.
They are quite easily identifiable comparing to other manuscripts, although here the iconographic language is paramount, indicating which parts of the plants are the most important, or when to forage them. This was quite common for Germanic people, as can be seen in other manuscripts from the Germanic area, until the print was born.

(06-09-2025, 10:28 PM)Kendiyas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-09-2025, 05:11 PM)eleonoramatarrese Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My next work will be about botany, which is my main field of expertise (botanic iconography in manuscripts prior to the print) and the job to do is huge, since plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me (except 2 or 3 for which I will provide the family and the genre but not the species, which would be identifiable correctly in real life only)

This is a huge claim Professor. We have only 14-15 almost certain identifications for the 126 plants that are depicted in the manuscript. You are claiming that you can easily identify except for 2 to 3 plants is actually great news for the community. 

Would you be open to giving at least few examples professor? I am very excited and your opinion on this matter will be greatly appreciated not only by me I am sure this will make many people excited.

Hi R. Sale, and thanks for answering since I do believe here there is one of the most important key on an iconographical level to understand where the codex is from.
This is Tanacetum partenium, and in fact its flowers are in a round shape, that is the shape of a head, almost as a crown. This is the "mother of the herbs" for Germanic people even now in some narrow valleys in the Alps/Austria/Switzerland. Besides, the root of the plant is a symbol.
Did you think of another species?

(07-09-2025, 12:43 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is your interpretation of f46v?

Dear ReneZ,

I didn't mean to be argumentative or arrogant. I apologize for my belated reply. I "preferred" Facebook (though, to be fair, I'm not very active in that group either, partly due to lack of time and partly because I'm tired of reading outlandish theories with no concrete basis) only because Lisa Fagin Davis is in the group, who occasionally posts news about codex-related events, and because every now and then someone makes potentially interesting contributions that could broaden my research. Also, because at least in most cases you can read the person's name and surname, put a face to the person, and maybe even find out what they do for a living. Unfortunately, not in forums. But that's probably my problem. 
As for the seriousness, I've never questioned the content of this forum. I was just referring to the sarcastic attitude on one side and the aggressive one on the other. You know my name, but you don't know my background (on another forum a while back, someone wrote, "I read on LinkedIn that she's a botanist, so how does she know languages?" and other nonsense that I won't repeat here so as not to bore you).
I'm fundamentally convinced that if we're here, it's because we're all interested in a solution or a way forward, or at least that's what I've always hoped. I've pointed out that, unfortunately, despite being passionate about astronomy, I don't have the scientific tools to delve deeper into it and address certain topics, and for this reason, I've always deferred to those with experience in their field. However, I do have experience with languages (I've studied English, French, Spanish, German, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, and I specialized in Old and Middle English, Gothic, and I also know some Old Norse), and life has led me to specialize in botany, or rather, in botanical iconography of medieval herbals. I'm a simple person and don't want to brag. If I say I've identified plants, it's because it's true. It makes no sense to me to assert something that isn't true. Then, of course, there are so many things that need to be refined in my work. For example, someone here wrote that the translation sucks, making it impossible to understand anything, like previous attempts. I'd like to explain—something I wasn't able to do before, and I apologize—that what I wrote is a *literal* translation. If I did the same thing with an Italian sentence, the result would be the same. Languages, during translation, require interpretation (in some ways) to understand the context. And, among other things, with ancient languages, this is even more complex because they don't have the same syntax and construction as modern ones. Some are more "cryptic" despite having redundancy, like the language of the VM, in which the body of the text is reduced to the bare minimum, but some terms are repeated, like "in a song, a litany, a prayer."
Thank you.

(07-09-2025, 06:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-09-2025, 03:21 PM)Kendiyas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Professor, this forum is as serious and scientific as it gets for the voynich manuscript discussions.

Only if one ignores at least half the content, which is not easy.

I'm no botanist, so I get my information from other investigators. In this case, because the flowers are more "button-like" and lack the petals of the more "daisy-like" T. partenium, I believe that T. balsamita is a closer match. This is costmary as suggested by E. Velinska and possibly others.

The greater problem here is the illustration of the roots which look like a pair of wings. Certain investigators have called these eagle's wings or "eagle roots" and tried to draw a connection to the heraldic double-headed eagle of the HRE. Clearly however, there are no heads, let alone two. There are no legs or tail. It is a pair of wings, similar to a heraldic vol.

Another investigator (@Juan_Sali) has suggested that the wings are angel's wings, specifically the wings of Saint Michael the archangel. This makes for an intereesting interpretation. Costmary is also known as the "herb of the Virgin" - one of many plants named in the "Mary's garden" tradition. Saint Michael, meanwhile, in a secondary role, was seen as a psychopomp, a guide for the souls of the dead. In this capacity, associated with the flowers as representative of the Virgin Mary, the illustration becomes a botanical analogy of the Assumption of the Virgin. This event is depicted in other sources using more traditional forms.

Well, thanks for answering. The symbology of the eagle is of course the empire, however everybody is so focused on radiocarbon dating, as well as Christianity. When I approached the codex I made tabula rasa. It's extremely interesting considering St. Michael, although I've never seen anywhere in arts such wings connected to the figure and role of the Archangel. In Puglia there are the first two caves of the michaelic cult, and although the saint's wings are huge, they are not similar to this eagle-root. I'm pretty sure there is a connection since even now Tanacetum is the herb "of the Germans". 
Tanacetum balsamita does present "buttons", but no lingulate flowers, which are indeed found in T. parthenium, and are white. This is why it makes sense. Leaves are exactly as those of T. parthenium if seen from above, in maturity, so thick and with margins "like a lace" somehow.
Thank you!

Eleonora, It's curious that you mention the Germanic origin of some plants when there is serious evidence to the contrary. In his letter to Kircher in 1637, Georg Baresch says that the codex contains exotic plants that have not been seen in Germany. It is to be assumed that at the court of Emperor Rudolf II many botanical experts examined the Voynich.

That's making assumptions about a 17th century person's assumptions about a book that was written 200 years earlier.

(10-09-2025, 05:44 PM)eleonoramatarrese Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well,[..]
I'm pretty sure there is a connection since even now Tanacetum is the herb "of the Germans". [..]

Well, I am German and have not the slightest idea how you came to this statement.
If there was any „herb of the Germans“ (regarding those who are not relevant for brewing), it 
would be Kamille, Matricaria chamomilla.

Tanacetum, Zitronenmelisse, is just one of many herbs, and no one would consider it very important or relevant.
Even more, T. has it‘s origin in eastern mediterranian and Caucasus regions, which is more „my direction“ of understanding.
But this does not mean I would even see your identification as right.
And I heavily doubt that your interpretation aka translation has anything to do with a „Germanic“ language, be it medieval or even older.

All plants in all herbals are from the Mediterranean. However, in the VM probably for the first time there are varieties that only grow in the Alpine area (for example Eryngium alpinum). Also Mary D’Imperio in her 1976 paper affirmed that the VM plants are childish and probably not real… A botanist can identify plants, and as far as I know Baresch wasn’t a botanist…

(10-09-2025, 07:45 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Eleonora, It's curious that you mention the Germanic origin of some plants when there is serious evidence to the contrary. In his letter to Kircher in 1637, Georg Baresch says that the codex contains exotic plants that have not been seen in Germany. It is to be assumed that at the court of Emperor Rudolf II many botanical experts examined the Voynich.