The Voynich Ninja

(30-08-2024, 10:50 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And here's a quick thought experiment.  It's the year 2124, and a dozen disbound leaves from the VMS have just turned up in some overlooked corner of Athanasius Kircher's papers.  None of us here on this forum are still alive to greet the discovery, but Lisa's writings about the VMS are still available and well known.  Would a layperson of average abilities be able to take her written "key" to the five hands and use it to identify (correctly and confidently) which scribe had written each of the newly discovered leaves?  If not, what would the main obstacles be?

It's a good thought experiment. I think another trained paleographer would need to be brought in.

Let's imagine a similar scenario in a different field, one further removed from our personal sphere of interest. A sealed 16th century crypt is discovered, containing a dozen unknown paintings in the style of various masters. To determine the authorship of the paintings, would you even consider asking for the opinion of an amateur, or would you go straight to professional specialist?

I actually did this very thing a few days ago. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a fake "lost" page of the Voynich, created by the fictional conspiracy podcast Tanis (used in episodes You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and 206). It's very well done...whoever created it did their homework. Initially, I thought the top two paragraphs were Scribe 2 (which is what I Tweeted last week), but then I realized that the script was much too even to be Scribe 2, and the [n]s were wrong. So I took a closer look and revised my opinion to Scribe 3, and then confirmed that by searching the text in the EVA transcription to identify the page (95r1). The diagram at the bottom is obviously taken from the Rosette, so that's Scribe 4.

I used the XML files by Job (voynichese.com) to extract EVA 'k' and 'n' from each page. My code seems to roughly work when the text is written horizontally (I compared with a couple of the collections posted by Patrick). For rotated text, it doesn't work at all. I am not sure this can be of any use to anyone, but it only took me a few hours anyway. I attach a couple or examples.

Since the output is too large to attach a zip on the forum, I put the images here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(one can download a zip file of the whole thing)

That's exactly what I did in the first place, Marco, using the Archetype application to annotate and extract dozens of examples of each glyph so I could sort and compare them. Screenshot here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thank you, Lisa. I cannot see your screenshot, but, having read your paper, I am aware you did this, and much more accurately of course. I just put this together in case other amateurs like myself are curious to see collections of individual glyphs from different pages, as Patrick and Koen discussed in the previous posts.

(30-08-2024, 10:50 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-08-2024, 12:04 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another possibility is, of course, that these variations are the result of two different scribes working on the manuscript. However, I find this explanation less likely due to the numerous similarities in the script, particularly in the case of EVA-[k]: "For nearly every page it is possible to find instances of <k> written with bowed and with horizontal crossbar, respectively. Additionally, on nearly each page some instances of <k> show an overlap between vertical stroke and crossbar, also indicating two strokes." (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

I searched the forum for the keyword "crossbar" and ran across an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on this topic which probably warrants a link here.

I'm sympathetic to Lisa's argument that occasional "exceptions" within a page shouldn't be taken as evidence against the broad patterns she identifies with different hands and different scribes.  I also appreciate her reminder that paleography is subjective, and while it's not entirely clear to me which aspect of it is subjective, I imagine it has something to do with taking a step back, absorbing the larger picture, and making a holistic judgment call informed by long experience.

Actually, Davis is arguing: "Part of the discipline of paleography has to do with ductus, that is, the movement of the hand holding the writing implement. The same scribe might write the same character faster or slower or more or less carefully over the course of their lifetime, but generally speaking, the platonic ideal of that character won't change. For example, I've been writing [&] the same way my whole life, but over the course of time even if the character may look different, the series of penstrokes I use, their sequence and direction, will remain consistent." (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Therefore we would expect that a scribe is using the same penstrokes every time he writes a glyph like EVA-[k].

[attachment=9140]

The image shows paragraph 3 on folio 99r (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). After Davis folio 99r belongs to Scribe 1: The "[k] character in Scribe 1 is distinguished by a sharp angle at the top of the first vertical as the quill changes direction, a bowed crossbar, a round loop, and a very slight foot at the base of the second vertical." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 172). After Davis: "a bowed bar tends to result from a smooth directional change from the top of the first vertical, while a horizontal crossbar is the result of lifting the quill after completing the vertical." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 172). This means after Davis scribe 1 writes EVA-[k] with a single quill stroke. First the scribe writes the first vertical from bottom to top. Only this way the quill is at the top of the first vertical and can change direction as the scribe adds the bowed crossbar.

But if I look on folio 99r I see an overlap between the first vertical and the crossbar for the glyphs 1, 9, and 10. I also see a gap between the first vertical and the crossbar for the [k] glyph with number 5. Moreover for most instances of EVA-[k] on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it is possible to observe an slight foot at the base of the first vertical (see for instance the glyphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). In my eyes this can only mean that the scribe was writing the first vertical with a stroke from top to bottom and then lifting the quill. This results in a slight foot at the base of the first vertical. Then the scribes writes the crossbar in a second stroke. This results sometimes in a overlap between the first vertical and the crossbar.

Moreover, after Davis Scribe 1 "The word-end [m] and [n] glyphs conclude with a backward flourish that stretches as far as the penultimate minim." (Davis 2020, p. 173). But if I look on the words ending in [iin] or [in] on folio 99r most times I see a short final backstroke barely passing the final minim. This is also true for other pharma folios. See for instance paragraph 2 on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

[attachment=9141]

The backward flourish of EVA-[n] in Herbal A tends to stretch as far as the "penultimate minim" more often than in Pharma A. However, as Nick Pelling points out, there is still a significant amount of variation even within Herbal A: "some of these -n glyphs do indeed stretch as far as the “penultimate minim”, but others reach much further back or not as far back at all." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Therefore, in my view, the backward flourish of EVA-[n] is not a reliable indicator for distinguishing between different scribes.

Therefore I have concluded that Lisa Fagin Davis's descriptions do not align with my observations. I also question why Davis focuses on details like the "bowed crossbar" versus the "horizontal crossbar" in the first place. This is a handwritten manuscript, not a printed text, so some degree of variation is to be expected even for a single scribe. In my view, the slight foot at the base of the first vertical stroke and the overlap between the first vertical and the crossbar are more reliable indicators of scribal movements.

The crossbars of [k] glyphs are important precisely because they speak to the ductus...a bowed crossbar results from the scribe NOT lifting the pen at the top of the left-hand leg but pulling the pen down to start the crossbar. A horizontal crossbar results from the scribe lifting the pen at the top of the left leg and starting the crossbar with a new stroke. It's the difference between a scribe writing the glyph with one stroke or two. Try it yourself. If you write a [k] with one stroke (starting at the bottom left), you'll tend to have a bowed crossbar. if you write with two strokes, the crossbar will tend to be horizontal.

Please note that I have written "TEND TO BE" not "ALWAYS ARE," because humans are not automatons. Handwriting is about tendancies, not about perfect repetition. This is why paleographers still disagree about how many scribes wrote The Book of Kells, for example. I'm not sure how many more times I can say it: paleography is subjective. People disagree, and such disagreements are rarely resolved to everyone's satisfaction. All we can do is interpret the evidence in accordance with past experience. There cannot be an absolute right or wrong where a subjective analysis is concerned, but I stand by my results.

(31-08-2024, 05:10 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you, Lisa. I cannot see your screenshot, but, having read your paper, I am aware you did this, and much more accurately of course. I just put this together in case other amateurs like myself are curious to see collections of individual glyphs from different pages, as Patrick and Koen discussed in the previous posts.

Sorry about that! I just changed the permissions.

[attachment=9142]

In the first picture you can see the photocopying exactly.
It's like a fingerprint, it only exists once.
The person who did this was a complete beginner. A professional would have redrawn it to avoid such mistakes.
The question is, on which page did he steal the text?

[attachment=9143]

One tends to loop back over several characters and looks much more harmonious.
The other has more of a hook and only returns briefly.
They are certainly 2 different hands. But I still don't know which belongs to which.

[attachment=9144][attachment=9145]

For EVA (k). It's not just the graphic features.
You can already hear it. It literally screams entropy.
You want more entropy? there you have it.

Just take a closer look, and look twice.

There is a reason why not all EVA in, iin, iiin and iiiin are the same, whether they are written by one scribe or five. Thez represent more than five different letter combinations as Dr. Bax pointed out and as they 15th century European manuscripts. Proper reading of minims will also increase entropy.