The Voynich Ninja

With the renewed interest in internal plant matching, I was reminded of a specific case that would be different from all the rest. It's basically the opposite of Stolfi's "complete plant" requirement - more of a conceptual match. I suspect that this is meaningful in some way, though I have no idea how. However, I understand it will appear as a stretch to many people.

I mentioned it briefly You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but didn't really focus on it. I will try to explain the situation as best as I can. We are comparing two parts of the drawings on f55v and f 99v : one "literal" visual similarity and one conceptual. It appears that the literal comparison was included in our spreadsheet at some point, referring to an old post by Wladimir D, number 12 here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I liked to think of the thing as a fancy moustache, but Wladimir called it a brush, so let's go with that since he clearly has the precedent. Let's look at the "brush" elements side by side:
[attachment=12422]
So far, we are still talking about a match in shape. I know that they are not exactly the same, but look a bit closer and similarities pile up. Both structures have a horizontal line on top, which leaves an opening for connecting to a vertical stick in the middle. Both are structured symmetrically, with longer parts hanging down towards the outsides. Both have ca. 5 parts on each side, though it's hard to count. The similarity between both structures seems to increase when the far right part on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is considered "extra", which could be defended on the basis of the linework.
[attachment=12423]
Even their absolute size looks somewhat similar, though this is difficult to compare.

Anyway, that's all pretty standard, we have a bunch of comparisons like these. What makes it weird though, is what happens when you zoom out on their respective pages and look to the bottom right of each "brush".

[attachment=12424]

I will argue that these are two elephants, each expressed differently due to their presence in a root and a leaf respectively. I know this is a claim that will elicit booing from the audience, but there is some supporting evidence:

1. Voynich plants are commonly accepted to contain zoomorphic and other non-botanical elements. The concept of shaping plant parts like something else is not unique to the VM (see the "plants of the Alchemists" tradition or plants like Palma Christi...) but some of the concrete utterances are not attested elsewhere. The VM plants are unusually prolific in zoomorphic inclusions, even by conservative assessments. 
   
2. f99v is on the same side of the same sheet as f102r. This means that originally, the "elephant leaf" (partially hidden in the fold) sat right next to the "mandrake". It's on the same folio that's infamous for having the best small-plant matches with large plants. One of those is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , generally thought of as zoomorphic. Another, corresponding to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , has been given a feline tail on the right, showing evidence for partial zoomorphology.
   [attachment=12435]
   
3. What requires more squinting? Seeing the big green leaf as an elephant's head with a curled-up trunk, or seeing it as a reliable rendition of an existing plant species? I'd love to see what the "literal plant pictures" crew makes of this one.
   

Might one be the being as it can be expressed with the luscious properties of a leaf, and the other with the sharp and wiry properties of a root? You can even overlay them and draw a decent elephant, although this is just for fun as it cannot have been the intention of the MS.
[attachment=12436]

This begs the question: isn't the shape of the leaf actually too good? Did 15th century Europeans have access to images that capture the qualities of elephants to this extent?  We're all familiar with the ridiculously bad examples from bestiaries, they get posted a lot (if you haven't seen them before, google "medieval elephant", you're in for a treat). But those tend to be from early centuries, when depictions of animals in general weren't particularly reliable. To test whether the elements of the leaf were known as elephant properties by the early 15th century, we must find at least: 

• the trunk is able to curl upwards
  
• the trunk has a "ribbed" texture, or something like that
  
• the ears are large
  
• if the root also refers to the elephant, we must see some tusks that are much longer than those of a boar and point forward instead of straight up, with an upwards curve
  

At first glance, it appears that there are many elephant images, but certainly no standard. All of the properties I mentioned are toggled at will in every possible combination. But it's not hard to find them combined. For example, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from an early 14th century bestiary basically has them all, including the profile of the head, position of the eye, and even right facing depiction:



WAIT A MINUTE

I just saw something while writing this post and reading the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page about elephants where I found the above image. When I pointed out that the elephant is right next to the mandrake on the same foldout, I did so because I wanted to show a similarity of symbolism in plants, as well as the connections between this particular small-plant foldout and the large-plant pictures of the herbal section. But apparently the bestiary entry for elephants is all about mandrakes?

Quote:Male elephants are reluctant to mate, so when the female wants children, she and the male travel to the East, near Paradise, where the mandrake grows. The female elephant eats some mandrake, and then gives some to the male; they mate and the female immediately conceives. The female remains pregnant for two years, and can only give birth once. When it is time to give birth, the female wades into a pool up to her belly and gives birth there. If she gave birth on land, the elephant's enemy the dragon would devour the baby. To make sure the dragon cannot attack, the male elephant stands guard and tramples the dragon if it approaches the pool.

So not only do we see the VM elephant leaf facing a mandrake root. It is also positioned above remarkably blue and flowy roots, which is part of the same mandrake-eating story: the elephant eats the mandrake, then gives birth in a pool. Guess I got more conceptual connections than I expected...

This elephant eye is perplexing. Why would someone put an O letter on a root? What could it mean?


By the way, in the middle ages people really struggled with elephant pictures. See for example:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

They knew that such animal exists because it is mentioned in the Bible and included it in most bestiaries. Yet the pictures were often
very fanciful.

And speaking of mandrakes, as most people know here, they were mostly presented in a different way, with roots depicted as man figure:

(17-11-2025, 12:55 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They knew that such animal exists because it is mentioned in the Bible and included it in most bestiaries. Yet the pictures were often
very fanciful.

Not always though  

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

Elephant of Cremona with 'o' eye
Matthew Paris, between 1235 and 1259 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



Koen, the bestiary.ca website lists the following sources for the mandrake association:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [circa 1200 CE] (folio 10v-11r)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [circa 1200-1272 CE] (Liber de natura rerum, Quadrupeds 4.33)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [ca. 1210 CE] (Bestiaire, Chapter 37)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [15th - 16th century] - is this a mistake? Many also appear to be from the 13-14th century

While I had never heard of this story, it was apparently widely known in medieval Europe.
Especially the Slavic Physiologus looks worth investigating as it has several German, French, Italian, Greek and Latin versions spanning over centuries

Note that there is also an o-eye in the root of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which shows that this was an option for the VM artist.

I don't know much about the mandrake story yet, I was finding out about it in real time  
Rafal: seeing this root as some kind of mandrake reference was not my idea, it's been suggested before. This is surely the closest thing to the traditional mandrake shape we have in the VM.

Here's an elephant head above wavy water and facing the dragon from the mandrake story (Bestiary, 1236 -c. 1250, British Library, Harley 3244 f. 39v)

It's curious we also have a dragon in the VM.

It appears there were only 2 elephants in medieval Europe until 1477, both of which we have covered here.

• The Cremona elephant presented to Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor by Al-Kamil in 1229.
  
• The elephant given by Louis IX of France to Henry III of England, for his menagerie in the Tower of London in 1255
  

Apparently only Henry's elephant was the source of life-like illustrations. While Matthew Paris drew both, he had never seen the Cremona elephant, but he drew Henry's elephant from life twice, which resulted in much better images.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(17-11-2025, 02:09 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is surely the closest thing to the traditional mandrake shape we have in the VM.

If the VMS refers to a mandrake, then in my opinion it is most likely in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . I find it difficult to follow other comparisons, but one can never be certain anyway.

[attachment=12438]

(17-11-2025, 02:45 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apparently only Henry's elephant was the source of life-like illustrations. 

A lot of the good images do appear to be British, early 14th century. 
I also noticed that "elephant in water" after the bestiary story is really a thing. Here's one with its young and the dragon:


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

This one is early 13th century Austria. The elephant's anatomy is lacking, but we have all the ingredients there:

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

This one is ca. 1290, Italian:

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

This one is from the 9th (!) century France. The description says the flow is one of the rivers of paradise, which is reminiscent of the way various blue streams depart from under the VM elephant head.

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

2nd half 15th century Austrian, perpetuates the wisdom of the bestiaries: 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
DUM COIT HIC ELEPHAS CONFESTIM CURRIT AD UNDAS
“When the elephant mates, it immediately runs to the waters.”

Speaking more about medieval elephants, this is probably the worst I have seen 



As for dragons, elephants were also linked with then and they were perceived as natural enemies. Pictures often showed elephants fighting with dragons:

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

There are 81 images in the 'elephant file'.

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