- That the various plants in any group are drawn accurately.
That the emphasis of the botanical section is not simply – nor even primarily – a plant’s medicinal uses.
and – to be covered by the following post –
- That some plants in the manuscript were unknown to Latin Europeans’ scholarship – whether in botany or in medicine – at this level of accuracy and with knowledge of the cultural habits alluded to in these drawings until decades and sometimes centuries after 1438, the latest date offered by the vellum’s radiocarbon dating.
One could go through the usual steps to explain the image, but this is one which is so familar to the west today, that there seems to be little need to labour the process.
The root [i.e. cortex and roots] shows no obvious signs of including mnemonics (though a similar form is used in other folios to suggest plants used for a fermented drink). Taken literally, however, that part of the drawing closely matches suits the overall form for this plant-group and is so accurately drawn that I leave comparisons to the reader.
The ‘stems’ [sheaths] closest to the viewer are sheered off, while those at the back, from which new leaves shoot, are drawn to indicate rapid regeneration.
Being herbaceous, members of the Musaceae [including the ‘plaintain bananas’ Musa acuminata and Musa balbisana] were indeed cultivated and trimmed after fruiting. And, in the same way, the new shoots will regenerate within the same growing season. In the photo the old growth is closer to the viewer, too.
The ‘regeneration’ motif is rightly shown; not as a series of shoots rising from a single surface, but as separate sheaths, only the new (furthest from the viewer) growing in that way.
New leaves with their stems (‘branches’) are continually harvested, used among other things for roofing, cooking and storage of perishables, so it is reasonable that we should see the smaller ‘cut bole’ motif, signifying what one might call a ‘small-t’ timber.
I cannot emphasise enough that the manuscript’s botanical drawings are neither ill-informed, nor childish, nor ‘bizarre’ or a tabula rasa on which one’s imagination may have free rein. Solid study of botany, and solid historical research – rather than imagination – is required here. And no-one, least of all the present writer, can hope for infallibility.
It is thought that the banana plant, native to much of Asia (even into the Himalayas ) was introduced into Arabia proper no later than the sixth century AD. There are even vague reports that a ‘banana’ of some form was cultivated in Norman Sicily in the eleventh or twelfth centuries, but I’ll take that up in a later post.
M. sikkimensis is one of those which has variegated leaves, though whether referenced in the drawing I cannot tell. I think it very likely that among the variegated leaves we have the important ‘blood banana‘ (M. acuminata spp zebrinus) included here.
Otherwise, one has 2,600 extant banana species to choose from, dispersed over an enormous geographic range.
Most have paddle-shaped younger with smooth margins which, in most cases, become increasingly tattered as they age, though here again exceptions exist: in this case e.g. Musa basjoo.
And others might have been included here, such as the important plant now called ‘the Traveller’s Palm’ Ravenala madagascariensis.
Two stylistic elements are worth mentioning – not only relevant to this folio in the manuscript:
(2) ~ omission of elements that are naturally coloured in the black- to dark purple range.
The ‘upturning’ has been referred to in earlier posts. (see e.g. the Myrobalans posts). It is seen in the relief shown (right) which comes from Buddhist India, during its Hellenistic period (to the 3rdC AD).
I don’t know the antecedents for this custom of omitting plant-parts coloured in the black-to-deep purple range. But it is seen in Karnak’s ‘herbal chamber’ and so may be Egypto-Phoenician. It was presumably known to the Hellenistic rulers of Egypt and Antioch, and indeed some specific examples (especially in portraying Dracunculus vulgaris) persist into the medieval herbals ~ themselves of Greco-Egyptian origins as far as we know.
Compare again those ‘upturned’ fruits with the picture (below, left). I’ve reversed the pendent fruit to make this point more clearly – namely that what makes the picture so clear in fol.13r is that this deep-coloured sheath has been omitted.
In one or two cases, a purplish element might simply be coloured blue (compare again with 9v, the ‘viola’ group).
But in fol.13r there is no effort to render the sheath blue; it is omitted altogether.
No dilettante or tourist so carefully observes other peoples’ taboos without having lived (voluntarily or otherwise) within a given culture for some considerable time.
In the next post, I review mainland Europe’s knowledge of the banana – to the end of the seventeenth century.
It shows, yet again, that the Voynich manuscript cannot be the product of an early fifteenth century European author and sheds light on why Kircher might have been so very keen to get hold of it after having first refused to pay it any attention – apparently believing or fearing that it was about alchemy of the seventeenth-century sort.
E. Sherwood recognised fol.13r as ‘banana’ though as far as I know her reasoning if any was never explained. Most of her identifications do not take into account the substantial difference between a made image and a photograph, and her ‘proofs’ consist only of a detail from the manuscript set side-by-side with a photograph of the plant she nominates as the subject. In some cases – such as this – our identifications more or less co-incide, though not every instance of our making similar identifications relates to the same folio.
Postscript (April 4th. 2013) Since writing this material, first published on my ‘notes’ blog, a number of my botanical identifications (and others’) have been adopted by Ms.Sherwood’s associate, “Steve D”. I gather they are collecting “Voynich” plants for an imaginary or semi-imaginary garden and tend to adopt one’s suggested botanical identification, or at least the taxonomic description, without troubling to consider the reasoning process or the specific folio it applies to. Their site is also notable for the lack of explanations given and lack of any reasonable historical or geographic limits.
Among plants whose names are adopted, but then reassigned, I find the most puzzling their taking up the eastern Kudzu vine and Rhus (both of which I identified after analysing a specific folio). More recently, my suggesting Amaranth for f.34v twelve days ago has yesterday seen “Steve” announce with some excitement the discovery of “a new Voynich genus” – Amaranth.
As usual, the conclusion is adopted, minus any explanation of it, and then transferred seemingly at random to some other folio.
I can only suggest the nature of their exercise by way of explanation. Steve and Edith are creating an imaginary botanical garden set in a more-or-less imaginary medieval Europe. In this garden, plants as diverse as the Kudzu and Amaranth or Banana are imagined planted by 1430.
“Steve D” sounds like lot of fun, but his outrageously arbitrary attitude to these drawings and utter indifference to whether or not his creating a supposed ‘official Voynich herbal’ will further delay, hamper and mislead those struggling with the written text makes reading his output a complete waste of everyone’s time – including that of his colleague, Edith Sherwood.