Thanks again to all those who shared their ideas here!
As Rene wrote, the illustration in the Voynich manuscript appear to be less accurate than those in other herbals (even if some examples of the Pseudo-Apuleius are so much simplified that it is difficult to tell how accurate they are). This characteristic is quite evident, but I will try to ignore it as much as possible, since I think it depends more on the skill of the artist rather than on the will of the author (who of course might have been the same person).
I have tried to summarize your observations and mine:
As both Sam and Koen noted, “the VM does something special to the place where the roots join the rest of the plant”. This has been also discussed You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
In that thread, Oocephalus wrote that “in many plants, the stem is separated from the root by a horizontal line”. According to his analysis, about 30% of the plants in the first section of the manuscript (f1-57) present this feature in a greater or smaller extent (one of the plants compared with other manuscripts in the first post above, f5v, is included in his list).
This feature also occurs in other herbals, but it is very rare. In the alchemical herbals, it only occurs in very few of the 98 plants, e.g.: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
If I remember correctly, Segre Rutz explains this anomaly by the fact that the roots of these plants were usually sold separately.
Here are other two examples of three-dimensional roots from Cadamosto's herbal in Vienna and from another XV Century Italian herbal that Rene brought to my attention (Wellcome Library ms.336): they do not present the flat top that appears in Voynich illustrations and the two “alchemical” plants.
As Koen wrote about You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., roots are larger in the Voynich manuscript. This seems to be true in most cases (of the sixteen images in the first post, only the Pseudo-Apuleius Marsh Mallow / Malva has larger roots than those in the four Voynich illustrations). This feature is particularly interesting because it could be measured quantitatively.
Ancient herbals display a strong preference for symmetric plants. In the Pseudo-Apuleius tradition (the image on the left in the sample comparisons), this is almost universal. The much more naturalistic images in the Tractatus De Herbis tradition (the second and third images) still show a clear preference for symmetry. In the Voynich manuscript, most plants are asymmetric. As Koen noted, even when a plant drawing seems to have been inspired by a symmetric design, the final result “doesn't seem too concerned with actual symmetry”.
This feature seems to me to also have an impact on the shape of the leaves. Ancient herbals were subject to a process of simplification and schematization. For instance, Malva Officinalis has palmate leaves, but three of the herbals included here represent the leaves with simpler shapes. In the Voynich ms some kind of anti-schematization seems to occur: plant You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. has palmate leaves, but most leaves have four lobes (which is certainly not frequent in nature) and no two leaves look exactly the same.
Similarly, if we compare the leaves in Voynich You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. with Papaver/Poppy or the Reseda illustration posted by Ellie, the shapes of Voynich leaves are much more irregular.
- Mechanical / unnatural traits. See also “Root shape” above.
Koen wrote that, when compared with other herbals, the Voynich ms “adds more unnatural elements, mostly in the roots but perhaps also in other parts”. About f5v: “the VM has the stalks splitting and rejoining... Does this happen in nature?” (f22v provides another example)
Sam: “The plant illustrations in the VMS, or at least some of them, seem to emphasize how the parts of the plants are connected - how the leaf connects to the branch, how the shoot system and root system connect, etc. We can see that it is important because the illustrator does it differently on each plant, and the interconnections often look unnatural or mechanical.”
Oocephalus in another thread mentioned that Nick Pelling put forward the hypothesis that some plants “are actually hidden drawings of machines.”
I think these observations are correct. This could be the same phenomenon that is more frequently and clearly observed in the connections between roots and stem.
- Three-quarter view of flowers and fruits
(I noticed this after that Rene pointed out to me the frequent presence of 3D elements in Voynich plant illustrations). In the four comparison herbals, flowers and fruits tend to be viewed exactly in profile or exactly from the top. The two “De Herbis” manuscripts show Marsh Mallow flowers in both views. All four manuscripts show poppy pods exactly in profile. On the other hand, the later “De Herbis” by You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. posted by Ellie features more complex and three-dimensional views of fruits and flowers.
Voynich plant You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. also is three dimensional, with the ellipses on the tips of the pods likely representing circles seen in three-quarter view.
In the Voynich manuscript, about half of the flowers and fruits exhibit an attempt to represent a three-dimensional shape, sometimes with a strange mix of “from the top” and “profile” views. At least, this is how I interpret f5v. The artist has represented three distinct parts of the flower: red petals, blue sepals (?), a white spherical receptacle.
This feature is not special for herbals in general, but it is exceptional for a work dating to the first half of the XV Century. For instance, as you can see from the images on the right, the 1460 ca Cadamosto herbal has given up symmetry, but flowers are still only seen You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
Flowers and leaves were represented in three-quarter view in the early Dioscorides Greek manuscripts (Vienna and Naples). As far as I know, the only medieval herbal earlier than the Voynich manuscript to display flowers, fruits and leaves in three-quarter view is the celebrated “Carrarese Herbal” Egerton 2020 (1390-1404). See the flowers of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. of this plant I could not identify.
This feature possibly also appear in another herbal from Veneto recently mentioned by Diane (Bellunese herbal British Library You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
In the Voynich manuscript, this attempt at three-dimensionality is much more common in flowers and roots than in leaves.
I guess that the features listed above are not completely independent from each other, but of course it's not easy to say which are related and how.
Similarities with other herbals
A couple of notes about aspects that may seem strange at first sight but are actually common in medieval herbals.
Roots
Sam G noted that all Voynich plants have a root. This is certainly true, but it is also true of most ancient herbals. Roots contain a great part of the substances useful in pharmacology, so they were rarely omitted.
As I think is well known, the zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements that appear in a few of the Voynich roots also appear in Italian herbals of the XIV and XV Century.
"Flat" leaves
With few exceptions, leaves are bidimensionally represented in the Voynich ms and in other medieval herbals: only one side of each leaf is visible, as if the plant had been flattened on a sheet of paper. This is not the case in the earliest copies of Dioscorides (Vienna and Naples) and in later herbals (starting from the end of the XV century ca).
Manfredus De Monte Imperiali (BNF Lat 6832) is somehow intermediate, since he presents bidimensional images, but providing for many plants both a “top view” and a “profile view” (see “papaver” and “betonia”, for instance).
For the moment, I cannot comment on some of the features proposed by Sam (small dots on roots and leaves and red lines “flowing” between roots and stems). As a preliminary observation, it seems to me that these interesting features do not seem to be as frequent in the Voynich manuscript as those discussed above.