The Voynich Ninja

There is a distinction between what is known now and what was common in the Midde Ages. There is also a distinction between plant species illustrated in herbals, which were copied and copied again and again from De Materia Medica, Theophrastus, Galen, and many others. If you delve into ethnobotany and the study of herbaria, in all ancient Germanic lore the herb “par excellence” was Mutterkraut, and it is also found in Old English (notably the first herbal ever to be written/translated in vulgar, that is not copied in Latin) herbals, in all three manuscripts (of which one is illustrated).Chamomile is found in the VM in another folio, and the observation of the illustrator was so deep he depicted exactly that plant.
I’m sorry you cannot accept my transliteration and translation, which is not only literal but also iconographic. There are so many topoi and references to other Germanic herbals, or - just to give an example - of Aconitum spp., always known as the most poisonous species in continental Europe (and which is found in mountains only),the VM says it is ðauðis, “deadly”, that is mortal.

(10-09-2025, 08:45 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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.

Eleonora, you say Baresch wasn't a botanist, and that's true. But I think it's easy to understand that during the years—and there were many—that the Voynich was in Prague, it must have been examined by the best botanists, especially given the Emperor's interest.

  There are over 120 herbs in the codex, and none of them seem to have been recognized. Baresch clearly states that they have not been seen in Germany.

  Koen, you say that Baresch makes that claim 200 years after the creation of the Voynich, but it doesn't seem reasonable that all the herbs in the codex would have disappeared from German lands in such a short period of time.

The quality of the VMs botanical illustrations runs the gamut from a few reasonable identifications of violets, waterlilies, costmary, etc., but the quality of identification goes rapidly downhill for much of the rest. Did they have waterlilies in Germany? Yet even for the best identifications there is little benefit. Is the plant name found in the text? Does the VMs text match that in some medieval, herbal manuscript? Not so far. The texts of the botanical pages are yet to reveal any information. The path of discovery lies elsewhere.

(10-09-2025, 03:59 PM)eleonoramatarrese Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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. 

Dear Eleonora,

you probably misunderstood my intention. I did not think that you are argumentative or arrogant.
I was simply responding to other people's posts about the style and purpose of this forum. 

Everybody is free to decide where they do or do not prefer to write about the Voynich MS, and no reason needs to be given.
I personally know quite a number of people (mostly, but not all, serious researchers in their fields) who deliberately avoid interacting here. I can also understand them (not that that matters, of course).

(10-09-2025, 05:29 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The greater problem here is the illustration of the roots which look like a pair of wings

It just hit me that the roots of most or all plants in the Herbal section may be later additions.  They are usually squashed against the bottom edge of the panel, with no blank margin, and their style seems to be more crude than the rest of the plants. 

So perhaps the original drawings had no roots, or maybe sometimes only the top part of the root.  And later someone added the roots, perhaps because otherwise the VMS would seem to be inferior to all other European herbals (and "alchemical hebals") which showed the roots.

All the best, --jorge

(10-09-2025, 09:53 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.during the years—and there were many—that the Voynich was in Prague, it must have been examined by the best botanists, especially given the Emperor's interest.

According to the signature on page f1r, before Baresch the VMS belonged to Jacobus Tepenecz, who was a renowned herbalist and doctor.

--all the best, Jorge