I was a bit late posting group F yesterday, but with this one we're back on schedule. This might be one of the strongest batches in the tournament:
- 17v
- 23v
- 35v
- 41r
- 43v
- 45v
- 47v
- 94r
[
attachment=10574]
I chose 8 because I have two other drawings of this plant (older than the VM) where you can't see what it might be if it weren't for the text.
And yet it is a classic medicinal plant.
Possibly two plants can be seen on 35v (one of them climbing).
(11-05-2025, 03:20 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Possibly two plants can be seen on 35v (one of them climbing).
In such cases (like also number 5 here), the page as a whole should be considered. (Imagine "my favorite plant in the MS is the 'oak' of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. but I really don't care for the 'ivy'").
I suspect "oak&ivy" will win this one, but my favorite is "tendrilface" (1). Just look how elegantly it frames the text like a decorative border. The absurd sorting of root bottom, leaves right, berries top and tendril left. The commendably even paintjob on the leaves, the controlled application of red on the berries. The evocative "stem loop" atop the equally evocative root.
I like the curvy tip of 1, I guess one can easily find 3-4 Beneventan characters in it.
Tendrilface takes the lead
Both plants in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. are interesting. The snake-root is comparable with illustrations of "Bistorta" and other plants (but in the VMS the root has eyes like an actual snake).
The plant on the right could be a decent illustration of Teasel (Dipsacus).
Comparison images from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
[
attachment=10621]
(13-05-2025, 12:19 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The plant on the right could be a decent illustration of Teasel (Dipsacus).
Ah I cannot avoid playing the devil's advocate when talking about plants, sorry
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is a big herb, a couple meters tall. It's easy to recognize in the Aussler's herbal, which depicts rather accurately the topmost ~40cm of the plant (a single branch), but the Voynich drawing does not look like a real Dipsacus at all (imho). If it's a Dipsacus, it's as the top part of the plant has been directly connected to the roots, getting rid of about 1.5m of leaves, stems and flowers in between. It also should have thorns, which are the first thing one notices looking at a Dipsacus. The 'flowers' do not look like Dipsacus flowers at all (compare with the Aussler's herbal) and they could be flowers or infructescences of many different plants. The way the three 'flowers' are connected together does not look like Dipsacus, too (compare with the herbal).
Hi Mauro,
I agree with your observations. In general, I like Auslasser as a comparison because his herbal seems to me to be close the Voynich in style and artistic quality (dating to 1479, it’s certainly later). But Auslasser’s illustrations are also close to nature, which is not the case with many late medieval herbals - Voynich included in at least 95% of the cases (in my opinion, of course).
Possibly, the Tudor Pattern Book You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. could be a better parallel than Auslasser for some of the details you mention. Anyway, I did not mean to make any strong statement like “this plant can be identified”; I just wanted to share my personal opinion that the illustration could possibly be compatible with a late medieval drawing of Teasel. But, as always, who knows?
[
attachment=10628]