(06-06-2025, 10:53 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me, the most interesting thing about this is that it is not so much a rule, but that it is 'just' a very strong trend. There are too many exceptions. [...]
Over the years, I have developed an opinion, which would explain a lot of the unusual things we are seeing. This is that the text has been encoded somehow, with rules that allow for some flexibility or some choice by the encoder.
I agree with the last statement, but I would change "encoded" to simply "written". The flexibility with regard to one-leg or two-leg gallows seems to be similar to that which other Medieval scribes would have when writing Latin. Namely, they would be free to use abbreviations or write words in full, to use ornate letter forms on the first line and first word of a paragraph, draw or omit serifs, etc.
A while ago I looked at the frequency of the glyphs immediately
following each gallows glyph, and concluded that
t and
k were very similar, and
p and
f were very similar, but the two pairs were quite different. On the other hand, the frequencies of the immediately
preceding glyphs were fairly similar for all four gallows. So indeed it would indeed seem that
p and
f are shorthands for combinations like
te and
ke; but I have no idea which is which.
These days I have been looking at the differences between the "hooked" and "unhooked" variants of p and f. I am still collecting the data, but I suspect that the hook (unlike the left loop that distinguishes p from f) is a purely aesthetic feature, which may be added when there is space for it (such as at the start of a word) and omitted otherwise. For one thing, there seems to be a continuous spectrum of shapes between the two variants. If p is indeed an abbreviation for te or ke, the hook may be just an optional visual reminder of the e.
By the way, I believe that the Scribe who put the text onto vellum was copying from a draft written by the actual Author on paper. In that case, it is possible that the line breaks of running text would fall on different places in the two versions. That could explain the occurrence of p and f in the middle of paragraphs: namely, in the draft those gallows were on parag-leading lines, but Scribe did not notice the parag breaks and wrote those lines as continuations of the previous parags. Because I also believe that the[font=Arial] Scribe knew the alphabet, but did not understand a single word of the language.[/font]
(06-06-2025, 11:32 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.to protect the author's anonymity, especially if the author was somewhat famous
The current evidence seems to be that the manuscript was written by at least three people. Possible five. So not the work of any one famous person.
(06-06-2025, 11:51 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The current evidence seems to be that the manuscript was written by at least three people. Possible five. So not the work of any one famous person.
Even better, three authors writing an incriminating manuscript in a way that would make it impossible to identify any of them, or attribute a particular section to a specific author.
As a sidenote, I agree with Jorge_Stolfi that while it's possible to talk about different handwritings (or handwriting styles), it's very hard to tell whether they all belong to one hand or not.
(06-06-2025, 11:32 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a highly satirical pamphlet against the royalty, or a copy of a known banned book
Really? It takes 36000 words and 226 pages to write something nasty about a Duke?
There were many herbal manuscripts at that period. Many were freely available and hardly likely to have anything so dangerous to society that they would have to be banned. Was it really necessary to have yet another herbal manuscript and for this one to be made unreadable?
(06-06-2025, 11:58 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it's very hard to tell whether they all belong to one hand or not
Not so. The writing of hands 1, 2, 3 are all distinct. Even I who am not a trained handwritingologist can see that the writing in quires 1, 13, 20 are different.
(06-06-2025, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Really? It takes 36000 words and 226 pages to write something nasty about a Duke?
Why not? An exhaustive list of 226 crimes and misdeeds.
I'm not arguing for any specific nature of the text, as long as the circumstances dictated that it shouldn't be traceable to its author or the scribe.
(06-06-2025, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There were many herbal manuscripts at that period. Many were freely available and hardly likely to have anything so dangerous to society that they would have to be banned. Was it really necessary to have yet another herbal manuscript and for this one to be made unreadable?
It depends. If it is indeed talking about actual plants (which I'm not sure of), a medieval PiHKAL (not an endorsement) would be a good candidate.
(06-06-2025, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not so. The writing of hands 1, 2, 3 are all distinct. Even I who am not a trained handwritingologist can see that the writing in quires 1, 13, 20 are different.
Handwriting is different. Whether it belongs to the same hand, I can't tell. And I'm not sure how anyone can tell really, given we know nothing about the circumstances. I think most people can easily mimic several different handwriting styles.
(06-06-2025, 11:58 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As a sidenote, I agree with Jorge_Stolfi that while it's possible to talk about different handwritings (or handwriting styles), it's very hard to tell whether they all belong to one hand or not.
This is difficult and I would not be able to do it.
That's why I prefer to trust a trained palaeographer.
One of scenarios that I considered is what if the manuscript was written in captivity/imprisonment. So, the author was not free in the choice of materials, inks and dyes available. Who knows, maybe the author had to hide the fact that she or he was writing the manuscript at all. This would explain the small format, use of vellum with holes and tears and writing in what appears to be a badly prepared quill on some of the folios, with a lot of splits of the tip. Then again, this would explain the encoding, if the author intended to smuggle the complete work to the outside world and then deny own involvement.
Then it's possible that different handwritings just correspond to using different kinds of quills, not all of them are comfortable, or having to write under different circumstances (in dim light, in an inconvenient pose).
This is all fantasy of course and may have nothing to do with the actual story behind the manuscript, but that's my point exactly. We don't know enough to be certain about different scribes, etc.
(06-06-2025, 12:30 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is difficult and I would not be able to do it.
That's why I prefer to trust a trained palaeographer.
As far as I understand, there have been different opinions as to whether it was written in a single hand or not. Normally I would here refer to the Handwriting section on this page: <https://www.voynich.nu/writing.html>, but I have some inkling that you are already familiar with it.
Seriously though, even with the recent identification of the 5 hands by Lisa Fagin Davis, I still think that we cannot completely discard the possibility that one single person for some reason unknown to us produced five different handwritings. If the author was the inventor of the script too, maybe this was an ongoing process of learning new techniques and ways of writing the script, adjusting to make it more efficient or more aesthetically pleasing.
Threads are getting bogged down into one vs multiple author discussions. Keep in mind that observations can be made without committing to either. Someone training their child or a partner into following their system may look the same as someone returning to the MS years later. Even if we cannot decide between the two, we can still observe what is happening on the page.