A similar question that can be asked is, whether any scribe was preferentially writing the circular texts.
There are 81 circular texts in the MS, and the majority are on foldout bifolios. The exceptions are:
- 4 on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. - 6 on f73 (r+v) - but in this case we don't know if the lost folio 74 would have been a foldout.
Here we find that 71 of 81 circles were done by scribe 4.
Four were done by scribe 1 (namely those of f57v)
Six were done by scribe 2 (namely those on the obverse of the Rosettes diagram).
Interestingly, the exceptions are all related to bifolios that were shared by different scribes.
So could we suppose that scribes are differentiated by their qualification?
Let's say, 1, 3, 5 - one herbalist-healer with two assistants; 2, 4 - an astrologer/astronomer with an assistant.
Can we make an assumption that, for example, Ros and the quire 13 relate to cosmology or astrology?
My last two posts might suggest that scribe 4 was the one 'specialised' in writing circular diagrams, or more generally: complex diagrams. Without going into too much speculation yet, it's worth to check a few points.
Only Lisa can answer, of course, to what extent, while assessing the hands on each page, the circular writing was taken into account.
Also, I wonder if the different hand might not be a consequence of being forced to write along a circle. That depends on the previous point of course.
There are a few more interesting aspects, so more on this soon.
I was thinking it might help to visualize scribe coverage with colors, for example on a grid of thumbnails ala voynichese.com. The disadvantage there is that foldouts and their bifolio parts are not immediately clear. Any ideas on how this could be done best?
Quote:Can we make an assumption that, for example, Ros and the quire 13 relate to cosmology or astrology?
I checked right now that the Scribe 2 wrote not a small part of the botanical section and the Quire 13. It doesn't look like he is an assistant, he is rather e peer participant. Thus, my question must be only about the Scribe 4 and the connection between the cosmological section and Ros.
I have one more thought: if 57v is written by the Scribe 1, it can mean that it realates to the herbal section, as a table of propitious days for gathering of plants, or something similar, but there is one more possible explanation: if the cipher was invented by the Scribe 1, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. really can be a table with the key to his cipher.
This paper adds to what we know about the manuscript and opens new avenues of research. I am looking forward to its developments with the ongoing linguistic study at Yale.
In particular, I am curious to see the outcomes of a comparative analysis of the "Herbal A" and Recipes (or Pharma / Small-Plants) sections, both written by Scribe 1. This could allow us to understand how much of the difference between dialects is due to different scribes and how much to different contents.
Similarly, since "Herbal B" was written by three different scribes (2, 3, 5) a careful comparison between the dialects in single pages could be very informative. If I understand correctly, the contribution of Scribe 3 to properly herbal pages is limited to f65v, but for Scribes 2 and 5 there could be enough herbal text for an analysis.
Also, I am grateful to Lisa for joining the forum. Hopefully this will help making academic research more known between amateurs and improve the level of our contributions.
(11-05-2020, 11:11 AM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but there is one more possible explanation: if the cipher was invented by the Scribe 1, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. really can be a table with the key to his cipher.
I've been revisiting this old possibility too. I'm well aware that this folio has already received a lot of attention for its uniqueness — the presence of single characters and the strong impression of series, patterns, and tabular information. I understand why veterans here roll their eyes when a newbie comes in proclaiming "f57v contains the key!!!". But after Lisa's finding that this folio seems composed by the same person who composed Herbal A, and a different person than the rest of the bifolio or quire, I think we have real evidence of this folio's specialness. I agree that if any folio contains some sort of pullstring, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is a prime candidate.
Clearly being written in different scripts makes things a lot harder, though I don't know how hard.
I hope to be able to obtain one enciphered letter with some common characters with Voynichese, so that might make comparison easier.
I have no knowledge or experience of graphology and would only hope that one could identify common strokes, curves, proportions or things of that kind between writing in different scripts.
Maybe it isn't realistic to compare scripts to identify with some degree of confidence whether we have a common scribe. It is worth me answering that question as if it is unrealistic then it makes my obtaining scans of such letters significantly lower priority given the probable difficulty involved.
The catalogue that I have seen of the Milan State Archives is not nearly as granular enough for it to be clear to me where to find these letters within the archive. Nevertheless I may be able to find some idea from sources I do have as to where they might be. Without me being quite specific I can't see the archivist scouring the archives for the letters and scanning and emailing them to me. I have never visited the Miian Archives and so don't know how they are arranged. Clearly the letter in the cipher script would be the best one to see and one I want to see anyway.
I wonder how realistic or unrealistic Lisa thinks it would be to determine if someone is the author despite the use of different scripts.
Hi, everyone,
Lots of interesting discussion here! I'm glad my work has generated new ideas. That's what I was hoping for. Claire Bowern's linguistic study that takes my work into account will be out soon.
Circular diagrams: I rotated the diagrams as I read them so as to see each character right-side-up. I don't think writing in a circle requires any particular skill or expertise, although it does imply that the page was rotated while writing. It may indicate a scribe's particular interest, but I don't think it indicates a particular skill.
In terms of scribes/subjects, here's how "my" scribes sort:
1: botanical, 57v, recipes
2: botanical, rose dorse, a few lines on f. 115r
3: botanical (bifolia 58/65 and 94/95), starred section
4: circular foldouts and astrological diagrams, rose
5: botanical (bifolia 41/48 and 57/66 [except for 57v])
But we should always remember that there are at least fourteen leaves missing, and we have no idea who wrote them or what their contents were. Because the leaves seem to be out of order in some places, we can't even guess what topics were on the missing leaves. Ff. 59-64 (three bifolia) MIGHT have been botanical and MIGHT have been written by scribes 3 or 5, but there's just no way to know.
As for identifying any of these scribes writing in another language, I think it would be extremely difficult. If I were going to try it (which I'm not), I would focus on Voynichese glyphs that most resemble characters in the Roman alphabet or Arabic numerals, like EVA a, c, d, l, o, q, y. Others have tried this already. The problem is that none of those characters in Voynichese show scribal characteristics that could easily be matched with the same character written by one of the same scribes in a different character set. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done, but it would be take a lot to convince me (and others) that the identification was plausible.
(11-05-2020, 02:55 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done, but it would be take a lot to convince me (and others) that the identification was plausible.
Oh well, such is life. This is unfortunate. I guess the more similar the cipher script the easier it might be. It looks like I will need to find another way of validating or dismissing my identification of authorship.