The herbal section of the Voynich Manuscript is the historical part.

[Gregor]

who actually wrote "ab ovo" ... It was Jorge Stolfi who used the expression first; I merely referred to his earlier post.

I am jumping into the middle of the conversation and sorry if I missed the joke or proper reference.  But just to clarify, the expression "ab ovo" is not mine.  It refers to the Roman poet Horatio praising Homer for not starting the story of the Trojan War "from the egg", namely from the birth of Helen out of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that resulted from, ahem, the interaction of Leda and Zeus materialized as a swan.

All the best, --stolfi

It seems to me that in trying to correct someone else’s statement, you ended up introducing several inaccuracies yourself, including one fairly clear case of overinterpretation.
First, you write that the expression “ab ovo” “refers to Horace.” It does not. In its idiomatic sense, it was popularized by Horace in the Ars Poetica, but the phrase itself is not his invention.

Second, you claim that Horace was “praising Homer.” This is also an oversimplification. Horace presents Homer as a model of epic composition, pointing out that he does not begin his narrative from the furthest origins of the myth. This is not a simple act of praise, but part of a broader discussion on the principles of poetics.

The biggest issue, however, appears later. You write about “the birth of Helen from one of two eggs.” Horace says nothing of the sort. In the original text we find the phrase nec gemino bellum Troianum orditur ab ovo — “he does not begin the Trojan War from the double egg.” There is no mention of Helen, nor of “one of two eggs.” That is your own reconstruction, based on one of several versions of the myth of Leda. You are therefore presenting an interpretative expansion as if it were part of Horace’s text.

Additionally, you omit the word gemino (“double”), which is crucial for understanding the allusion. This may seem like a minor detail, but it is precisely what links the passage to the myth of Leda.
Stylistically, your wording is also questionable. The phrase “interaction between Leda and Zeus” sounds more like a sociological experiment than a mythological narrative, while “Zeus materialized as a swan” is simply unnatural phrasing. In classical mythology, Zeus is said to have taken the form of a swan, not to have been “materialized” as one.

In short: you intended to clarify the etymology of ab ovo, but instead introduced elements that are not present in Horace’s text. A classical philologist would not necessarily accuse you of complete misunderstanding, but they would certainly question both your overinterpretation and several of your formulations. The difference between what Horace actually wrote and what later mythological tradition adds is not a minor detail — it is precisely the core of careful textual interpretation.