The Voynich Ninja

I do not know someone mentioned any of the following associations? I think need to look for identification You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. among aquatic plants. " The tadpoles" - very similar to the larvae (pupae) mosquitoes.

Such a single unit leaf is hardly can stand alone in the air.

(22-08-2016, 08:03 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Such a single unit leaf is hardly can stand alone in the air.

I agree. And it's not just that. Many of the VMS plants look fantastic and imaginary, but this one really is an impossible feat of botany.


Taking the drawing at face value, the roots are probably the only realistic part of the plant (counter to many other plants, where the roots take on impossible shapes!) But it stops right at the root. Continuing upwards, we immediately see two flowers emerging from the root stem, right at the surface of the earth. The flowers seem to not yet be fully open - or perhaps they are in a post-blooming state, about to wither into seed pods.

The main plant stem continues straight up and then seemingly splits into three; with two stems in the foreground each terminating in similar pre- or post-bloom flowers, and a third, hidden stem in the background growing into this huge fern-like leaf shaped exactly like the fletching of an arrow.

With all this being said as a prelude: Yes! I do agree that the little shapes in the leaf resemble mosquito pupae.

I have for long had a difficult time accepting plant identifications made by simply comparing the actual botanical aspects. I like the idea of the drawings being just as encrypted as the text, with the drawings of the plants serving more like mnemonic devices than something meant to identify the plants by.

I do still find this to be a difficult angle of attack. Even if we, just for sake of argument, imagined that we were 100% sure that the drawing represented mosquitoes and arrows, where would that leave us? We could find mosquitoes in other manuscripts, look at the history of arrow fletching, but I can't see it getting us anywhere. We can't know how the author intended the mnemonic to be interpreted. Maybe he was just using it for the first letter of every word, to remember the syllables of the plant? Or was he connecting the elements in his mnemonics with stories from Greek culture like sometimes suggested (i.e. satyrs, priapus, mosaic etc. etc.) ? There's an ocean of possibilities, and not even knowing the language that the devices are meant to be interpreted in, that just further multiplies the research tracks to follow.

I keep following the discussion on this mysterious little book and its contents. It's been over 10 years since I first heard about it. And I keep having the idea that more tests need to be done on the physical manuscript before we can learn more... Many more ink samples could tell us so much. But alas - in my dreams!

Welcome to the forum, Chris!

I agree that symbolical aspects must always be taken into account. If our angle of attack relies purely on botanical aspects, we are bound to fail. 

The fact that you realize how difficult this is, I see as a good thing. Our understanding is growing that the manuscript may contain chronological and geographical layers that find their origins far beyond and before medieval Europe. It is this synthesis of various culture's edits to the material (which additionally are different from one section to the other) that make the imagery impossible to interpret at a glance - or even a thousand glances

(I add that this is still a minority view, though less so than before. Others will tell you that the manuscript is weird because its medieval European author had an unusual world view).

Now to the topic of this plant. Thinking of it as an underwater plant is a fresh idea, though I see absolutely no indication of water.
I have always thought of this plant as alluding to some kind of torch or brazier. Doesn't it look like a stick with some blazing flame? This would mean that the plant's wood was probably suitable for making a fire. I don't specialize in the large plants though, so this is mere speculation.

Thanks Koen! I've been lurking for a few days and decided to post. You'll probably see more of me around. I like to keep a very skeptical view of everything

I could definitely see it as a torch, though I'd expect a flame to have one centered point, not a "corner" at each side of its top.

I added an image just to show what I mean with my "arrow" comparison. Just pure guesswork - I don't claim to have figured anything out!

There is no denying that it looks a lot like an arrow. Wood for making arrow shafts could be one possible avenue of research. 

One important thing to keep in mind is that the resulting image is a synthesis of the symbolic object(s) and botanical features. That's why it looks not quite like a brazier, not completely like an arrow (the shaft does not run through) and not entirely like any real plant. Both of our suggestions still leave a number of aspects unaddressed as well:

• What are the white shapes in the leaf? Why are they arranged in an almost geometrical pattern?
  
• Why two flowers from the ground and two on a high stem? This seems biologically strange, so likely has a symbolical meaning. Our ideas explain the high stem, but not the flowers to the side.
  
• I don't entirely agree that the roots are normal. Granted, they are more normal than most, but they still appear to evoke something else than mere roots. They are very straight and spiky, while, I think, the VM defaults to bendy roots.
  

I looked around a bit and noticed that Ellie Velinska reluctantly identified this plant as torch ginger: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

For some basic info on its uses, see here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

We see that currently, it has minor culinary, medicinal and practical uses:
- The shoots are made into mats.
- A very fine fibre is obtained from the leaves.

Generally, the uses of these plants were more elaborate in the past, when no alternatives were available. To find out about this though, one needs a library at one's disposal. It is exactly looking into the historical uses of these plants that I find boring (and difficult), but this is the key to nailing down a solution. 

The fact that Velinska's proposed plant is still used today and yields a variety of useful products is promising, but needs more in-depth study.

One hypothetical way to make sense of mnemonic + plant ID is if the "fine fibre" from this plant's leaves was used to attach the feather to the shaft, for example.

I've read many of your posts Koen, and I like your method of analyzing things!

The wood of the plant being used for arrow shafts, or fibers of the plant being used to fasten feathers, are both practical uses of the plant. I see nothing wrong with that, and it could well be (if this line of thinking is even correct) that one of those two possibilities, or something similar, is the intended meaning of this hypothetical mnemonic device.

But I always feel a bit of a let-down when I remember that we just don't know whether that's the intended interpretation of a specific such device. It might as well be that the author modeled the leaf as an arrow because the initial letter, or first few letters, or entire word for "arrow" in his language would help to remember... the name of the plant? some cultural connotation with the plant? some religious ceremony where the plant is used? a disease that the plant helps against? and so the list goes on and on, as I see it

We probably need to establish a "beyond doubt" certain link between two interpretations of such mnemonic devices before it's worth spending much time researching a possible lead.

I like the effort by Don to create .PDF files listing mnemonic devices, though I disagree with almost all of his identifications. Or rather, I can "sorta kinda almost" see it, but remain unconvinced.

But of course, this is the devil of it all, eh? We just can't *nail anything down* and reach a consensus. Everything is in question about the VMS..! Up until maybe a week ago, before I read through past posts on this message board, I thought that the Emp. Rudolph connection was well-established and accepted. But now I see that some (and a significant number) of people even voice their doubt over that provenance! (Of course I'd seen crackpot theories, but no serious people suggesting it...)

I think we all hate and love the original scribe(s) of this ol' manuscript. Such a source of frustration, but at the same time, I can't even list all the things I've learned doing research trying to "figure it out".

Hah, I'd love to think that's the true purpose! Make something mysterious but with drawings that clearly pertain to different sciences, and everyone trying to figure it out will learn tons about herbalism, astronomy, balneology, pharmacology, heraldry, cartography... etc. etc... 

I'm just joking, but then again! I've probably learned more in my research than the plaintext could ever teach me

What I like most about Voynich research is that one learns a lot along the way. Half a year ago, I could name at most three or four constellations, and now I've written a paper about astronomy in the Voynich

Just to be clear, I think the large plants (like this one) use a different system of mnemonics than the small plants. I have almost exclusively written about the small plants, and I think I understand their underlying system rather well. At least of those that have been mnemonically edited, because some folios look like plain plant drawings and rather rushed.

After several discussions with Diane O'Donovan, I have come to agree that the large plant mnemonics use a different system, and betray a different cultural background. My comment above is mostly based on her analysis of the mnemonic system, which is the one I follow as well for the large plants. 

In summary:
- Large plants (O'Donovan): mnemonics are practical, reminding the viewer of the use of the plant. The mentality is that of a pragmatic trader who observes the ways various products are used without imposing any for of prejudice or cultural preference.
- Small plants (Koen): The mnemonics provide a cue to Greek speakers to help them remember the local names of useful/valuable plants or their products. These mnemonics are probably older and likely go back to the Hellenistic era (when intercontinental trade bloomed).

After having read many of Diane's analyses of the large plant mnemonics, I am fairly certain that they do indeed refer to their practical use. Since it is very likely that these images were composed before the 15thC and outside of Europe, these uses can be obscure and hard to find out for modern viewers. One advantage is that many of the traditional uses for plants have been maintained in certain rural areas (see my previous post), which can be a starting point.

I believe the plant illustrated on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is Stachys sylvatica, also known in English as woundwort, wood w., hedge nettle and white spot. This last name is related to the white spots found on the leaves of this plant.

If examined closely, the VMS image looks like a leaf on top leans to the right while the leaf behind it leans to the left. I think this is just a way to hide the natural shape of the leaves while still leaving it right our in plain sight. The partial shapes revealed in the image show partial woundwort-like leaf shapes. Stachys sylvatica leaves are heart-shaped - maybe this is a single leaf with a disguised heart shape instead of being an arrow's feathers.

The white spots on the leaves in the VMS image reflect the English common name of white spot - a fairly easy mnemonic to remember and recognize. (Anyone familiar with my ideas should know I favor an English origin and English language basis for the text.)

I don't think it is any more complicated than that.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee