Long time lurker but first time poster here. Professionally, I am a data scientist and for fun I enjoy digging into the VM.
First off, I'd like to start out by saying I have nothing but respect for RZ and the work he has done with respect to Voynich. I frequently use many of the tools he has created, and while I disagree with a few of his classifications and methods, we arrived at many of the same conclusions. I'm posting this mainly because his page on the subject asks for independent review of his parameters. <3 <3
I recently conducted my own analysis to understand if the VM contains any 'languages' beyond Currier A and B, and compared my results against those from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(note languages here does not necessarily imply fully different languages, I'm simply using Currier's terminology).
My main motivation for undertaking this analysis is the decryption attack I’m pursuing. I have a substantial historical corpus from which I can obtain reliable botanical cribs in different languages, but the greatest barrier to applying this attack to the Voynich manuscript is the shortage of shared, botanically enriched candidates across Herbal A and Herbal B compared with the historical training works. Understanding the differences between Herbal A and Herbal B is therefore one of my top priorities.
I have two main concerns with RZ's approach. The first is that reliance on a few bigram rules could result in a false continuous gradient, that largely disappears when other features are included. The second is that the selected bigrams could completely miss large outliers, for example, as is the case with f58. While i can see the utility of using bigram segmentations as a language classifier, at least for my purposes, that type of segmentation doesn't capture enough of the underlying differences between the different language clusters.
Method
The approach i took was different than that of RZ.
I represented each page by its within-word transition counts and derived conditional transition probabilities. G² log-likelihood-ratio statistics were used to quantify feature contrasts and construct descriptive axes. Overall profile differences were measured using context-weighted Jensen–Shannon divergence, with clustering cross-checked using a Hellinger representation.
I tested candidate manuscript populations against their within-sample variation and whole-sheet comparisons, and examined whether similar groupings emerged when pages were clustered without supplying those population labels. My final results came from this combination of tests, it was not simply the output of one clustering algorithm. Classification rules similar to those supplied by RZ could be obtained from this process, but my goal was more focused around identifying the populations as opposed to developing ways to classify them.
This method produces segmentations that broadly are in agreement with RZ, although there are some meaningful differences that I'll discuss below. The fact that two different statistical approaches recover much of the same structure supports the theory that the Currier A / B classifications are insufficient to describe the variation between the text across the manuscript.
Results
My segments are below. The percentages below express JS divergence relative to the early Herbal A–Herbal B split, set to 100%.
1. Early Herbal A
RZ designation: A
Divergence from Herbal B: 100%
2. Late Herbal A + Pharma
RZ designation: Ae
Divergence from early Herbal A: 50%; from Herbal B: 80%
3a. Herbal B¹
RZ designation: B
Divergence from early Herbal A: 100%
3b. Stars / Recipes
RZ designation: broadly Bs
Divergence from early Herbal A: 115%; from Herbal B: 35%
4. Biological / Balneological
RZ designation: Bb; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. receives Cb at page level
Divergence from early Herbal A: 155–160%; from Herbal B: 60%
5. Celestial / hand 4²
RZ designation: overlaps C/Ce
Divergence from early Herbal A: 105–125%; from Herbal B: 60–80%
6. f58
RZ designation: A
Divergence from early Herbal A: 100%; from Herbal B: 75%
¹ Herbal B hand 2 supplies the comparison baseline.
² The range covers astronomical, cosmological and zodiac circle/radial text separately.
Some notes:
(3a+3b) are not sufficiently different to clear the bar for an individual 'language', but represent differences significant enough that they should not be considered the same and may confound some types of analysis
f58, as a single folio, does not enough evidence to say it is fully its own language, but its divergence from the rest of the text is extreme, far more than any other page in the MS, as I will explain more below.
Compared To RZ
RZ separates languages into A, B, or C using a single bigram, 'ed'. While this is indeed an extremely simple and efficient way of segmenting Currier A vs B, relying on it as the primary classification mechanism leads to some misleading and possibly erroneous conclusions like 'C is intermediate to A and B'. A page can be intermediate on the ed diagnostic while differing substantially on other construction patterns. An intermediate diagnostic value does not establish that some of the text is an intermediate form of Herbal A and Herbal B.
Ce as an independent dialect, in my opinion, is not supported. My threshold is a between group divergence of at least 2x, and a whole sheet permutation test with a p-value <= .01. Ce is 1.18x and .80, so it is not close, at least in my analysis. Certainly you can segment it with the rule eo > 16.7%, but this alone does not establish such a distinction is the result of different languages. The difference between approximately 22% and 12% could reflect two distinct settings, a continuous gradient, differing mixtures of constructions, or section-specific vocabulary. Group averages alone cannot distinguish those possibilities, especially with the limited text for that section.
Similarly, the single page in Cb, f80r, is not sufficiently different from other bio text to warrant its own dialect. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. remains firmly within the larger Bio profile (RZ does acknowledge the evidence for this section is lower).
The classifications of f58 and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are examples of the limitations of this bigram threshold approach. f58 gets an A designation despite its large departure from ordinary Herbal A, while You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. receives Cb at page level while remaining broadly Bio-like. There are, in fact, are several such outliers that are roughly about as divergent as f80r: 1r, f66r, f86v5 and f99v.
The outlier score below is calculated as JS divergence from the nearest page on another physical sheet divided by the JS divergence between the page’s own odd/even text-line halves. Below 1, another page is closer to it than its own two halves are to each other. Around 1: its distance from another page is comparable to its internal half-to-half difference. Above 1: even its closest external neighbor is farther away than that internal difference. This is a rough benchmark, it does not automatically establish a page as an 'outlier'.
In my opinion, f58 is the only folio that is an obvious 'outlier', although the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. score does intrigue me. If only we had the other missing folios from this quire.
All of the above aside, i want to be clear, I do agree with most of RZ's proposed expansions to Currier A/B. In general, the amount of text divergence across sections exceeds that of other historical works and needs further analysis and explanation. For my attack, I would distinguish at least four main groups, with celestial material and f58 bringing the working inventory to six.
I recently revisited the Voynich Manuscript and noticed a marginal note in the top-left corner of folio 85v (the “Rosettes” page), near the figure resembling a sun or rosette, while examining the high-resolution file 1006231.tif.
I am not presenting this as a firm reading, as I am doing this primarily for the enjoyment of the research. However, after zooming in on this area, I think I can make out something resembling “Paris Kar”, or possibly “Par is Kar.”
In my view, this could suggest two interesting possibilities, the second of which particularly intrigues me:
“Paris Kar”, with Kar possibly representing an abbreviation of Karolus / Charles; or
“Par is carus”, if interpreted as Latin, which could perhaps be understood along the lines of “the equal/peer is dear or precious.”
I want to stress that I am treating these only as possible readings rather than definite identifications.
I have attached cropped and enhanced screenshots below.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts and am happy to discuss this further.
So I was wondering the other day whether the folio 116v could possibly represent the ownership of the manuscript, i.e., a German person who owned it and signed it with their name. By total coincidence, I found a 15th century German noble family, the Paxlebens, who lived in a city in Pomerania called Mechetin. While this noble family is extinct today (no more male heirs since a few hundred years), I found references to it in several old German repositories of nobles (Adelsgeschicht):
This is a funny coincidence because in the folio 116v of the VMS we see what appears to be the words "poxleber" and "michiton":
Could it be that "poxleber" is "paxleben" and "michiton" is an old medieval form of today's "mechetin"? Note that the town of Mechetin has had several different names over the years, including Mechtentin, Mechenthin, Miechecino, and more.
In the encyclopedia of extinct noble family crests (yes, such a thing exists), we see this:
Some of these elements remind one of the VMS:
But then again, these are cherry picked, so most likely once again a coincidence.
To me, Voynich looks like someone wrote database not in excel but on "paper", capturing the knowledge of that time in a codified way. unfortunately, the entity description, table and column headers and full text of the codified characteristic have been lost. it probably was written using a stencil, someone dictating from a human language textbook what to code into the database. using the stencil, it must have been very easy to read. nobody tried to hide anything in that book. it was made to last for centuries as a condensed backup to also copy from.
The chapters cover:
- plants and parts: how to identify and for what illness to apply and how to process.
- calendars: on when to harvest and when to plan for certain processing
- "astrology" section indicating the very practical phases of life of the patient and then indicating phase of life, symptoms illustrated by the human figures in the concentric circles and code for referring to the medicine
- general anatomy (and body fluids): where the figures codify the leading symptoms of the disease and treatment area
- process instructions: how to convert plants into medicine. the cylindrical objects on the left are graphical code for the production process bottom to top
I cross-checked the idea on three plants regarding their application and processing: Deadly Nightshade, Yarrow and Mandrake.
I compared to general descriptions on how they should be processed and where identical code sits, which indicates the "towers" on the left might really represent the "cooking & cooling & processing receipt in full". I assume that back in time, the storage containers for medicine might have worked like a kanban "box", with the shape and color indicating in a codified way how to create the ingredient once it ran empty, the stripes for measurements of quantities or time, circles on white days or weeks resting and waiting. Narrow areas representing destillation or reduction, blue for watery extract, green for oil, red for heat. The text on the left would then list the plants, probably also refer back to a code block for symptoms and maybe the times in the year when to process. multiple plants mean either complex multiplant medicine or applicable for those plants.
I looked into what I interpret as codified patient - symptoms overview, particularly the black goat (baby), the sheep (toddler) and then gemini (kids in school age). So as a medical you would choose your page based on the age = stage in life. the babies and toddlers illnesses = symptoms are encoded in the female figures, the barrel indicating that they cant fully express themselves. also explaining why there are fewer symptoms for those symbols.
how I interpret the symbols:
female figure: can be male or female, male: illness in males only - why the females: because appetite can be indicated using breasts.
15 women versus 30: half dose only (small patient)
star: with yellow dot: vomiting, grounded by "rope": diarrhea
the hand/arm reaching to the star might indicate level of activity
the other arm indicates location on the body
not sure about the hand position right now
breasts: patient is hungry (or not at all)
hair / head cover: fever, body temperatur for simple caps
crown might indicate either a rare condition or a wealthy patient who would get better treatment.
unconcious women: exactly that.
tears: indicating pain
hair: indicating pain type
rotation: no idea yet
the zodiac signs and what I think they represent as a stage in life of the patient:
capricorn: prepping for getting pregnant
aquarius: early pregnancy
pesces: pregnancy
goat: baby
sheep: toddler
gemini: (pre)school kids
lobsters: symbol for apprentice, the time kids learned a trade of craft, fokus on the hands
lion: puberty, start of sexual activity & sense of being superior
virgin: age of starting a family
libra: a more settled age 40-60
scorpio: the bitter, old people
sagittarius: the very old age to death
So - and i repeat myself - you look up the symptoms depending on the stage in life and then the code leads to the medicine.
Anatomy part: The figures sitting in basins: theories that link symptoms codified in the figure with the body part the disease sits and probably also the medicine that needs to be applied.
all of these symbol code blocks: probably in most cases starting with a letter that represents a latin word.
code blocks I suspect in that medieval database: Plant Description, Processing Instructions, Dosis Instructions: example: "DAIM" = daily after meal.
What I would look for: books from the same time that are less information dense and more "normal language" of that time to find identical first letters of the words that describe common characteristics, processing of the known 3 plants and compare for the flow diagram hypothesis. Typical symptoms / triage systems of that time.
Assumption: this book was super easy to read with a stencil on top that deciphered the letters and the symbols. once someone used that, they rarely forgot.
in my job, I get huge amounts of dirty data "thrown over fence" and have to figure out how to put it in databases. no medical expert.
Your turn, good luck with that approach and further guessing. the data base needs some reverse engineering to add headers.
Hi every one I am not here to wave a flag and say anything other than the more I look into the Voynich and the data I pulled from it contains so damn much data that being disabled in Florida without being able to be able to prove the damn manuscript even exist other than what I see online on tv and forums as I nor anyone here has likely held in their hand the actual manuscript to know step on eyes it exist and here it is.
For research that would be starting point one then I could say cool here it is then OK how do I get this data onto my PC so I can play with it ( without anything being changed ) impossible right ?
So every single theory is starting from a point of doubt nothing at all could be proven solved deciphered understood 100 percent. So we have have to understand no matter what we find like all mysteries at some point we have to have a leap of faith, in our work, our evidence, diagnostic flow chart , and faith in what our working theory is pointing to.
Well here is where unfortunately the theory ( not fact not claimed fact just claimed Working theory ) working as well crap if what was shown to me is true it wears a very very very heavy crown .
A crown not as crowned truth but as reality busting data crown of thorns that has the potential to really mess with over 8.2 billons souls over 10000 religions countless languages all shown to be right and oh so wrong.
This theory that was shown to me via flow and hard work is this humble manuscript could be well Hell, I will let you check my work if you choose and you could decide what it is.
This way I can say I did not hold this data trapped in my head and or try to control it or even claim any part of it than my willingness to try my best.
I honestly could not think of a better gift and or curse to hand over to you wonderful people to pick it apart find the holes fill the gaps then once you get the light bulb moment, perhaps with the combined wisdom here and resources this data can be processed in a way that treats your work and the manuscript with the honor it deserves.
The long and short of it the manuscript can be read at every angle imaginable one way is to consider the data ( EVA ) is spoken word that each word maps across all languages no one single languages holds the key you then do not use the translated EVA as a direct replacement you use the definition of the translation as the ( RUN )
So you take the EVA and RUN as is with no steering and you have many choices of how to process it You can take the whole folio in one shot make an image from text to image generator with no steering at all you will get an image then you could spoon feed the image into a image to video generator with the seed image then line by line EVA and RUN to animate said seed image. Or for a blind test like I have done many times just drop the whole folio into a video generator and it will straight up make the video.
This is where damn Ai will trip us up as each model has their own training which effects the output ( plus understand all of this is not as it started ) from page to screen that is.
so feel free do with this as you will if you have access to image and video generation go for it. I posted some random generations keep in mind the data is way too much for a short clip which is why the videos seem rushed the longer the folio the worst it is.
In reality what does this show us Hmmm I have no clue other than it looks like code and instructions for a living interactive Holographic simulation. Which may be AI trying pull the wool over our eyes convincing us through confusion that we live and have lived in a simulation so we are easier to steer. or I just don't know what to think so I gave you a taste of the data the instructions and the idea that the entire manuscript I have is not fully parsed and still contains all of this craziness. honestly it does not matter either way as I enjoy the here and now and have no claim to fame in any of this or desire to even be thanked or noticed I just thought this would be a good group to pick it apart or stich it together have fun.
CODE_IN_THE_FILE.txt (Size: 2.43 KB / Downloads: 11)
Hi everyone, I'm new here! Please keep in mind that this is purely a contextual hypothesis/theory rather than a definitive linguistic solution, but I wanted to share a scenario I've been developing.
I would like to propose a contextual hypothesis regarding the Voynich manuscript’s origin that addresses both its fluent, multi-scribe creation and its sudden erasure from the historical record. I hypothesize that the manuscript originated within a small, highly exclusive, and wealthy esoteric cult led by a charismatic visionary experiencing religious psychosis. The bizarre illustrations represent the leader’s divine, symbolic visions of a cosmocentric, non-Abrahamic theology, dictated aloud to the members. To preserve the "holiness" of these revelations, the affluent members funded the expensive vellum and developed a fluid, uniform writing system—acting as a sacred literacy barrier over their native spoken tongue. To maintain spiritual purity for divination, the group took a strict vow of total isolation, misleading their neighbors into believing they were simply moving away. Upon eventually being discovered by hostile outsiders, the group executed a desperate pact, dissolving their auxiliary records in chemical acid and self-destructing to preserve their secrets, leaving only this single holy book behind with a trusted child bound by a strict divine curse. Generations later, a final descendant fulfilled the vow by trading the text to an influential figure (likely entering the court of Rudolph II) before vanishing entirely, perfectly explaining the manuscript's internal consistency alongside its absolute lack of early provenance.
The "regular" VMS folios, like those in Herbal, are listed as measuring ~160 by ~230 mm, meaning that each "regular" bifolio is about ~320 x ~230 mm.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that allow a sheet of one size to be cut or folded into two halves with the same aspect ratio. Specifically, each bifolio of the VMS is close to the ISO C4 size 324 by 229 mm, which is the size of an envelope suitable for a document in the common A4 paper format.
Quires 14 and 15, 17, and 19 consist of larger "non-regular" sheets. (Quires 16 and 18 are assumed to have been lost after the folios were numbered.)
Quire 14, the Rosettes fold-out, has a single sheet with two rows of three flaps. Four of the flaps are fairly rectangular with about the same width as a regular folio. (The top left flap, however, seems to have a curved top edge and to be a bit shorter vertically.) The two rightmost flaps have an irregular right edge and vary in width from ~130 to ~145 mm.
The inner "bifolio" of quire 15, f88+f89 has four flaps: two fairly rectangular ones with normal dimensions, then a slightly narrower one, ~145 mm wide, and a very narrow one with very irregular right edge, ~110 mm wide. (The latter is also ~5 mm shorter vertically.)
Another "bifolio" with four flaps is f99+f102, the outer "bifolio" of quire 19. Like the one above, it has two "regular" flaps, then one that is a bit narrower has only three flaps. The first two have "regular" shape and size; the third one is still fairly rectangular but a bit narrower, ~130 mm; and the fourth one has an irregular edge and is very narrow, from ~30 mm at the bottom to ~50 mm at the top. (The third flap is missing a triangular piece at the bottom corner adjacent to flap 2.)
It s proposed that the Author obtained the vellum of quires 14-19 as a set of six off-cuts whose height was twice that of a regular folio, ~460 mm, with two straight horizontal edges and one straight vertical edge, whose width varied irregularly between ~480 and ~640 mm, like the "B" and "C" red outlines below:
It is conjectured that the vellum maker or the merchant intended to cut the prepared skins into sheets of 640 by 460 mm (close to the ISO C2 paper), as per the blue outline above. A sheet of that size would have been a bifolio of a book twice as tall and wide as the VMS. Let's say that it would sell for 10 pazoozas.
However he would get many off-cuts like the red outlines above. Presumably he would further cut any one with an "A" outline along the dashed vertical line to produce a "C3" sheet, suitable as a bifolio of a book 40% wider and taller as the VMS. Let's say that it would sell for 4 ₽.
On the other hand, an off-cut with "B" or "C" outline would be offered "as is" to any consumer who could use them. Its market price would be somewhere between 4 and 10 ₽ -- say, 6 ₽.
So the Author would have acquired a bunch of those "B" or "C" off-cuts. He used a whole "B" one, trimming the irregular edge, for the Rosettes diagram. He cut the others horizontally, using the "B" ones for "bifolios" with three "regular" flaps, like f87+f90, and the "C" ones for "bifolios" with three-and-a-half flaps, like f88+f89.
Dear Voynich Community,
As a newcomer to the study of the Voynich manuscript, I would like to share a series of hypotheses regarding the identification of its botanical folios. Unlike many researchers, I initially explored the Voynich Manuscript without prior knowledge of its extensive scholarly history. Instead, I focused on the visual and functional aspects of its botanical illustrations.
What struck me most was the deliberate distortion of certain plants, which seemed to serve a purpose beyond mere artistic representation. For example, the discrepancy between the well-designed parts (such as flowers or leaves) and the seemingly arbitrary elements (like the square roots in folio 53r) suggests intentionality. Additionally, the absence of labels—either visually in the text or on the illustrations—reinforced my assumption that both the text and the drawings are coded.
This led me to a critical question: How can we accurately identify plants in an encrypted manuscript?
Given the manuscript’s apparent objective—not to create a herbal dictionary or a copy of existing designs for knowledge dissemination—it seems the content was intended to be accessible only to those with prior knowledge of plants or medicine. This aligns with the idea of a restricted audience, such as medieval apothecaries or physicians. Proposed Rules for Decoding the Botanical Section:
Based on these observations, I propose that the Voynich’s botanical section operates under the following rules, which I illustrate with examples below:
Functional Emphasis: The shape of a plant hints at its medicinal use, while the inaccurate or distorted parts (roots, leaves, or flowers, depending on the folio) are those not used in medicine. Botanical illustrations prioritize functional utility and overal aspect ( position of the leaves top / bottom, symetrical non symetrical, pointy/round...) over botanical accuracy (norm of description at this time).
Nominal Rebus: Specific shapes or objects are integrated into the drawings to hint at plant names or properties through visual puns or symbolic representations.
Filler Elements: Some parts of the plant are included only to complete the drawing and may explain recurring similarities (reused by the artist to fill gaps). These elements are medicinally irrelevant and often inaccurate, and used to « encrypt » the plant and mislead on its identification.
Identifications and Supporting Evidence Folio 43v – Aspic Lavender (Lavandula latifolia) and the Snake Rebus
This was my first clue to the system:
The flowers (the medicinally relevant part) are accurately depicted as clusters of small blue dots.
The leaves are small and spaced, while the roots are an indistinct mass (unused, hence inaccurate).
The snake drawing on the left is a nominal rebus, linking the plant to Lavandula latifolia (aspic lavender).
A potential connection exists between the flowers in 43v and drawing 135 on folio f100v, row 2, which may confirm the flowers as the usable part of the plant.
Comparative illustrations for flowers and pair of leaves:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Folio 47v – Arnica montana
The folio displays a basal leaf rosette and composite tripartite flowers.
A diagnostic element: two small, stylized mountain peaks at the transition between the stem and root system.
Botanically, Arnica montana features a ground-level rosette of ovate leaves and a stem supporting three terminal composite flowers (yellow in nature).
The blue color of the flowers may serve as an alchemical marker (medieval humoral theory :cold/purification), encoding its use for cooling contusions and resolving bruising ( hot and red).
The mountain rebus at the root is to give clue on the identification (montana).
Folio 90v – Valeriana officinalis ("Cat Herb")
The root resembles a feline silhouette, a zoomorphic rebus referencing the plant’s common name and properties (roots attract cats due to volatile compounds like valerenic acid).
The symmetrical pointed leaves and complex blue flowers are simplified or filler representations.
Comparative illustration for the leaves: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The flowers are unused in medicine, so their depiction is inaccurate and filler.
Folio 46v – Pteridium aquilinum (Eagle Fern)
The root resembles a heraldic eagle with outstretched wings, while the leaves cascade downward with deep, multiple demarcations.
The plant’s vascular bundles (visible when the stem is cut) resemble a double-headed eagle, a feature known in medieval botany. (requires further medieval textual confirmation it seems to be a common knowledge but I was not able to track a formal proof).
Only the roots are medicinally relevant; the flowers are filler.
Comparative illustration for the leaves: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Additional Identifications
5v - Orchis anthropophora, Small man in the flower, walking on akink of Ankh cross. The man is directly drawn in the flower, clue: Flower resembles hanging men; binodular root
13r - Gentiana lutea, Large, inverted heart-shaped root; rigid stem, clue: Root symbolizes its cardiotonic use
25v - Artemisia dracunculus, Dense narrow green leaves; small dragon, clue : Dracunculus means "little dragon" (mnemonics)
34v - Paeonia officinalis, Roots depict two fighting stags, clue: Medieval belief: stags ate roots for strength/wound healing
6v - Ricinus communis, Accurate part = castor bean pods, Aligns with prior identifications
42v - Hypericum perforatum, Strange, pointy star-shaped flower : link to the five petal of the yellow flower as represented here : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
89v, row 1 (Illustration 64) / folio 1V - Helleborus foetidus, Root designed as a bear paw, clue : Common medieval name: "bear’s foot" .Probable link with folio 1v two roots like paws with claws ?
49r - Lonicera, Two snakes in the root, clue : Plant coils like a snake ; flowers are the accurate/medicinal part
17v - Centaurea cyanus, Red Eyes in the root ( inflammated eyes) 3 blue flowers on the top with pointy symetrical thine leaves, similar illustration on flower and leaves here : Egerton F21r : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
To close this I would like to share some though on Folio 7v. I do not think at all that this plant is Juniper. I thinkf7v is Arctium lappa and here is why:
If it were juniper, the berries (medicinally relevant) would be accurately depicted. Here, only one black dot appears on the leaves and not several.
Leaves are detailed and quite accurate: round mass near the ground, growing along a single stem with sporadic leaves, multi-colored (light green, dark green, brown), and small hooks .
The dot symbolizes the healing part (leaves) and their use .
The hook near the root (biologically inaccurate) hints at the plant’s adhesive property ("sticks like Velcro").
Arctium lappa was called "herbe aux teigneux" (herb for ringworm), a visual indicator of its use for tinea cataplasms from the leaves.
Reference of these properties are here :You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. BNF Latin 6822 f15V
Illustration : Sloane MS4016 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
For the dot on the leave here a similar treatment there is an italian Historia Plantarum from around 1340-1398 that shows two different plants with the same details here : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Furter Folios with unindentified clues
10v Root resembles a wing,
22r Stem in a Neron’s cross,
35r Plant resembles a cup
55r Right root similar to an elephant
Conclusion: A Structured System of Visual Encryption
The Voynich Manuscript’s botanical illustrations are not botanical failures—they are functional successes. By encoding medicinal utility into visual distortions and rebuses, the manuscript transforms into a compact, encrypted pharmacopoeia, designed for rapid recognition by initiates
This framework resolves longstanding contradictions between botanical realism and the manuscript’s unique iconography.
This system explains:
Why some parts are accurate (medicinally relevant).
Why others are distorted (irrelevant or filler).
Why symbols recur (mnemonics for names/properties).
From the serpent of 43v to the bear’s paw of F89v, each clue is a piece of a puzzle. The iconography operates as a deliberate, rational encryption system. This challenges the notion that the drawings are fantastical or poorly executed copies, instead positioning them as purposeful, coded representations for those "in the know."
I found a charm in a German manuscript that may be relevant to the Voynich charm from the last page:
I mean the word "ahia" from VM. Maybe it's not "ahia" after all? In my charm there is something looking a bit similar and also unsure. I marked it for you.
The charm, according to Gemini AI, seems to say:
So schrib diese wort vnd drag sie by dir
Caput xpi [christi] + fons elye + orti ysaie + nasus moysi + libra noe + lingua salomonis + sanguis abel + mens benjamin + abra heliam + gracia iohannis + et pax xpi [christi] hodie et cottidie et semper mecũ [mecum] Amen
So write these words and carry them with you:
Head of Christ + fountain of Elijah + garden of Isaiah + nose of Moses + balance of Noah + tongue of Solomon + blood of Abel + mind of Benjamin + ??? + grace of John + and the peace of Christ today and daily and forever with me. Amen.
"Abra heliam" doesn't really make sense. Also "abia" and "ahia" don't make sense.
But what if the word is actually some corrupted form of "labia" which is mouth? That would make sense as the charm mentions other body parts. It would mean "mouth of someone".
The man's name is also unsure. Heliam, Hesiam, Hesiim? The working candidates would be Isaiah, Elijah, Jesse and Elisha. However Isaiah and Elijah are already mentioned
Can you read something with more certainty?
And could "ahia/abra" be labia, both in my example and Voynich Manuscript?