Of Mandrakes and Dogs: Myths, Medicine and Medieval Phylogeny Juergen Wastl & Danielle Feger submitted 24/01/2016 for peer review at http://www.voynich.ninja/index.php doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.2067033 This paper summarises and reviews the identification of a plant in f25v of Beinecke MS408, the ‘Voynich Manuscript’ (VM), from various sources. Based on additional detail, we improve and refine the identification of the plant illustration of f25v and follow up with discussing the particular relevance of this plant in medieval times. A comparative analysis of contemporary illustrations of mandrake plants in medieval manuscripts highlights the difficulties and variances of plant images in herbals and bestiaries. Following from that, based on the tradition of three available ‘main streams’ of text accompanying the plant illustrations, we discuss potential text blocks from classical mythology, magic, medicine and folk tradition and provide ideas and conceptions of new image-text linked analyses. 1 Introduction 1.1 History, Myths & Magic of Mandrake The origin of myths around Mandrake is difficult to trace. It is clear, however, that Mandrake was a focus of superstition and belief in magic for many centuries (1). The bible (Song of Solomon 7:13; Genesis 30:14ff) describes a plant with the name ‘Dudaim’ that is associated with Mandrake according to its use in relation to fertility. Other citations are multiple e.g. as ‘Moly’ (Homer), ‘Baraa’ (Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Wars VIII:6,3) and in the Natural History of Pliny and De Materia Medica of Dioscorides where it was known as Circaeon (after the mythical sorceress Circe). The history of Mandrake is highly divers and widespread (Central Asia, Himalaya, Greece to name a few (2). It is difficult to differentiate the myths around Mandrake from its description in traditional medicine. The use as aphrodisiac, hypnotic, sedative, narcotic, painkiller etc is described vividly through the ages. Towards the end of the medieval ages, the description of Mandrake changed to demonic characteristics culminating in Hildegard of Bingen’s demonic picture of Mandrake in her ‘causae et curae’ in the 12th century CE (3). 1.2 Mandrake illustrations and text in classical and medieval manuscripts As outlined above in the case of Mandrake, plants, their parts and contents were of diverse importance to mankind throughout all times. Until the late 18th Century CE, plant ingredients were the main source for medicine and potions. In order to keep and maintain knowledge of these plants, notes were kept for subsequent generations (text and images). Unlike some philosophical texts, a number of classical sources on plants were known throughout the medieval ages - most famously De Materia medica by Dioscorides (1st century CE), an encyclopedia of approximately 600 plants and derived medicines and recipes thereof. The oldest known illustrated copies include the ‘Vienna’ Dioscorides (composed in Constantinople, early 6th Century CE) and the ‘Naples’ Dioscorides (in Greek early 7th century CE). Noteworthy is a sudden increase of a diversity in medieval note keeping on plants and their features (Herbals, Kräuterbücher, bestiaries) around the 14th Century CE with the diversity expanding even further with the printing press in the late 15th Century CE. The 15th to 17th Century CE has been described as ‘Age of the Herbals’ (4). Descriptions of plants and their characteristics were not restricted to their anatomical-botanical details and medicinal characteristics; many myths that were linked to plants were written down next to the plant illustration. 2 Analysis 2.1 Scope and objective: For this paper we chose Mandrake (Mandragora spec) for the following reasons: 1) Relevance and use, particular history (see above), 2) Identification of a new relevant detail in the plant image f25v in VM 3) Availability of comparative analyses independent of current Voynich studies and activities 2.2 Review: What Voynich Manuscript folios have been associated with Mandrake? A good source and overview of the description of plant details is provided on the web portal of Rene Zandbergen (5). Supplemented by searches on Voynich blogs and websites (6, 7 and others) we summarise in Table 1 the plants that are postulated to be Mandrake (by folio and researcher) as well as all suggestions and identifications proposed for the plant depicted in f25v. Mandrake is .... F25v is... folio name of researcher Plant name of researcher f25v J. Petersen (9) Mandrake J. Petersen (9) N. Pelling (10) N. Pelling (10) & WR. Greetz (11) & WR. Greetz (11) f44r E. Sherwood (12) Plantago anon. Finnish botanist (17) f95v1 D. Voigt (13) Dracaeba cinnabari D. O’Donavan (18) f95v Peter (14) Woad (Isatis tinctoria) E. Sherwood (19) f100r L. Martz (15) Leontopodium, J. Petersen (20) D. Scott (15) Edelweiss, Plantago f101r M. Dunn (16) Plantago lanseolata Steve D. (11) Dracaena D. Scott (21) Table 1: Summary of postulated Mandrake identifications in VM. Bibliography contains relevant quotes and text Table 1 highlights the difficulty of clearly identifying individual plants in VM. The variety and different suggestions and identifications highlight the difficulties in exact identifications of plants in illustrations in medieval manuscripts. This is not unique to VM studies; it is also known from other illuminated manuscripts where plants can't be identified although either text or plant names are shown beside the plants (22). The description of f25v in above mentioned web portal by Rene Zandbergen (5) has the following details: Plant apparently without flower (but difficult to see). Has a cute tiny little dragon eating from the bottom leaf. Text in one paragraph. This as well as all other proposed suggestions in Table 1 don’t take account of a detail that seems to have been generally neglected in f25v: It doesn’t mention the leash or cord that connects the animal (in the lower right of the folio f25v) to the top of the root area of the plant (see fig 1). Fig 1: Entire f25v (23, left) and detail (right) focusing on the animal linked via a leash to the top of the root. The detail image (right) was digitally enhanced (saturation, brightness, contrast) Based on these details we suggest that the plant in f25v is Mandrake and discuss in particular the leash, the animal, the position of the animal in the folio and where the leash is attached at the plant and the animal. Multiple illustrations of Mandrake in medieval manuscripts exist that display this particular feature attached to the plant (see inset plant illustrations in text below for reference). Not only is a leash or cord visibly attached to both plant and animal, but also the position in the lower right of the illustration on the respective folio seems very common. In the final paragraph we will compare and discuss these details in connection with medieval sources. In the following we will analyse the depiction and history of Mandrake during the ages from classical times to the late medieval period. 2.3 Tradition of Mandrake illustrations and text in classical and medieval manuscripts It is important to note that we focus on Mandrake only and won’t discuss the tradition of entire manuscripts here. Mandrake was first mentioned in De Material Medica and the oldest surviving illustrations are in the MS Dioscorides (512 CE, Vienna Nationalbibliothek, cod. med. gr.1) and Naples MS Dioscorides (7th Century CE, inset right). Both not only mention the medicinal use (Dioscorides introducing in this context the word for anaesthesia) but also contain anecdotes and myths around the plant, e.g. comparing the root with humans because of the tuberous form. Dogs were also mentioned in connection with the harvest of mandrake roots. Although dogs are part of the narrative, apparently no illustration of the dog was illustrated with the plant. Illustrations of a dog appear only later in illuminated manuscripts in the medieval ages where the dog also was chained to humanlike depictions of mandrake (see sketch left, copied from 24). The motif of a dog leashed to the plant depicts the superstition and myth related to the safe harvest of the roots to is used in later manuscripts. Interestingly, the joint depiction of male and female mandrake plants is kept. A second main stream of plant illustrations with accompanying text are Herbals that arose in the medieval ages.Their text and images were usually mechanically copied from earlier works of the most varied provenance, drawing upon the traditions of both the classical and Arab civilisations. The contents, however, were images with often shortened text blocks (for more practical use) and integrated with glosses and personal observations by the successive owners, who introduced additions and corrections that were based on their respective experience: Examples comprise ms. 106 in the Botanical Library of the University of Florence, ms. 1591 in the Museo Provinciale d’Arte di Trento, and ms. 1161 of Joppi Library in Udine (25). These manuscript consist of a series of botanical drawings executed in a markedly geometrical fashion, the artist sometimes incorporating anthropomorphic elements. Next to the Italian Herbals a strong German tradition arose: Most important example is Johannes Hartlieb’s Kräuterbuch (Book of herbs) of 1462 which is an extract from Konrad von Megenberg’s Buch der Natur (Book of nature) written a century earlier in the German language (transcription first line (German): ‘Mandragora heisset alrüne’; f289v, Konrad von Megenberg: Buch der Natur, 26) Hartlieb’s subject is plants, mostly herbs, and their medical uses. What makes the Kräuterbuch special is the side-by- side presentation of text and images. The high cost of such a richly decorated book makes it unlikely that it was actually used by doctors or pharmacists of the time. The botanical imprecision of the 160 pictures, in any case, would have made identification of particular plants in nature difficult.