+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? (/thread-4951.html)
Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Torsten - 28-09-2025
Koen has published a YouTube video titled “Why do we think the Voynich Manuscript has multiple scribes? Answering your VMS questions (Pt. 2)”. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
In this video, he discusses constructed languages with Claire Bowern and speaks with Lisa Fagin Davis about her five-scribe hypothesis.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Torsten - 28-09-2025
It is noteworthy that both Davis and Koen refer to critical reviews of Lisa Fagin Davis’s work without engaging with, or even acknowledging, specific counterarguments. In light of this, I wish to highlight some points of critique.
In her initial paper from 2020, Davis emphasizes the advantages of the Archetype software system. However, to this day she has not made public the Archetype project that formed the foundation of her study. As a result, we are left solely with Davis’s assertion that the unpublished project supports her thesis, without the possibility of independent verification. Given the lack of transparency regarding research details, it is not possible to validate—or even adequately assess—the results she presents.
The available screenshots of the Archetype software suggest that only a limited subset of the manuscript—44 out of 225 pages—was included in the analysis. Yet, Davis’s 2020 paper neither mentions this restriction nor explains which 44 pages were selected for detailed examination. Only in her 2022 Malta Conference keynote does Davis clarify that she employed “a representative sample of leaves written by scribes 1 and 2" at least for the herbal section. In my view, it would be of considerable importance to know precisely which 44 pages constituted the representative sample for the whole Voynich manuscript. For instance, Davis associates all Currier A pages except one with scribe 1 (Herbal A as well as Pharma A), whereas Currier himself attributed only the Herbal A section to this scribe. It would therefore be important to know whether any pages from the Pharma section were included in the sample used in Davis’s analysis.
According to Davis, Scribes 1, 3, and 5 rendered the k-glyph with a single stroke, whereas Scribes 2 and 4 employed two strokes. A closer examination of the manuscript, however, suggests otherwise. The execution of the k-glyph appears strikingly consistent throughout: it is typically composed of two vertical strokes, each frequently terminating in a small tick or foot. These ticks result from the upward motion of the pen during the final uplift and thus mark the conclusion of individual strokes. The presence of two such ticks provides strong evidence that the k-glyphs attributed to Scribes 1, 3, and 5 were likewise produced with two strokes, rather than one, as Davis proposes. Moreover, on nearly every page there are instances of the k-glyph in which the first vertical stroke and the crossbar are visibly separated—further supporting the conclusion that the glyph was consistently executed with at least two distinct strokes. Taken together, these observations directly contradict Davis’s argument that the distinction between single-stroke and two-stroke execution of the k-glyph can serve as a reliable criterion for differentiating scribal hands.
lkody okodar on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
chkar on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
For more counterarguments see the full review "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." (Timm & Schinner).
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - ReneZ - 29-09-2025
(28-09-2025, 11:12 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For more counterarguments see the full review "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." (Timm & Schinner).
I'm sorry, but the reliance of this paper on the thoughts of Jan Hurych (nothing against him!), over the work of an academic working in her field, makes that I cannot take it seriously.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - LisaFaginDavis - 29-09-2025
Torsten, as I have told you on many occasions, Archetype is only a tool. It was just a way for me to organize my thoughts. I can't share it, because it was a bespoke databank that lived on an old computer whose operating system is now out of date and unbootable. But that doesn't matter. Ultimately, my work depends on my own experience and expertise. Archetype didn't do the work for me. It's not a neural network. It's just a tool. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, as is anyone, as paleography is a subjective methodology. After thirty years of studying hundreds, if not thousands, of medieval manuscripts, cataloguing and describing them, publishing five books and dozens of articles, elected by my peers to the International Committee on Latin Paleography, my expertise speaks for itself.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Koen G - 29-09-2025
Just a note on the title of this video: YouTube said I was eligible to try out a new system which allows you to launch a video with alternative titles, so you can see which one performs best for the algorithm. In my case this doesn't really matter since my audience is usually the same couple of thousand people. But I always like a good experiment, so it could be that you see a different title.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Koen G - 29-09-2025
Two things regarding the scribal question.
The difference between scribe 1 and scribe 2 is night and day. In any other manuscript, these would be considered two different scribes. But in the case of the Voynich, you'll often see special pleading about one person using different styles or returning to the writing at a later stage in life. This to me shows that there is a desire among some people to keep the number of scribes limited, regardless of common practice. (I'm not thinking of a specific person - it's just something we see often). As such, I think the debate is not always held on objective grounds.
That said, I concur that the difference between some of Lisa's B-scribes can be hard to see. I've tried and there was one I was unable to tell apart. But I'm not a paleographer, and I believe many people here underestimate the value of experience. When I see a herd of sheep, I see sheep. But an experienced sheep farmer will be able to tell you much more about each individual animal. They will see differences between the sheep that we don't notice, because our neural pathways haven't been trained to see those differences.
What I would not do, is go up to the farmer and start telling him I don't see the things he's talking about, so he must be wrong.
This is not a plea for blind acceptance of authority, but rather for acknowledging the limits of one's own expertise.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - dashstofsk - 29-09-2025
(29-09-2025, 02:01 AM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.an old computer whose operating system is now out of date and unbootable
That ought not to be a great problem. So long as the 'databank' still exists on some HDD it should be possible to recover the program. It would help if you could at least say what the operating system was. On my computer I can still run programs that are thirty years old, from the times of Windows 95. The compiler that I use for my private software development ( including my analysis of the VMS ) is over 25 years old, and still working nicely.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Jorge_Stolfi - 29-09-2025
(29-09-2025, 08:00 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just a note on the title of this video: YouTube said I was eligible to try out a new system which allows you to launch a video with alternative titles, so you can see which one performs best for the algorithm.
And YouTube then will recommend the same video to the same viewers multiple times, with different titles and thumbnails. "Annoying" would be the understatement of the century...
Far from the best, --jorge
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Aga Tentakulus - 29-09-2025
As I sent it, Lisa took the swing of the hand into account. Example: Is a swing (hand) inclined more to the left or right?
I cannot judge different writers, as the different symbols are also next to each other.
No one here can explain to me that there are several people involved. Period.
However, it does indicate that there are probably (certainly) more than just four gallows glyphs. Probably six. The truth is, there are eight.
That is how I see it. And it follows, even if it sounds a bit harsh, that one cannot read Hamlet with only 12 letters.
Assuming that up to 50% of transcriptions are incorrect, the rest follows.
I will try to explain this in more detail elsewhere.
RE: Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes? - Rafal - 29-09-2025
I will speak as a complete layman
For me it's very obvious there there are at least 2 persons involved. Compare for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f31r.
5 scribes are less obvious because there are "middle ground" pages, something in-between the given extremities where you may wonder if it's one the "extreme" guys in less extreme mood or yet another third guy.
I also understand that paleography will never deliver the definite answer that wil make all the critics silent. You may point the some writings look different but you won't say for 100% that they were written by different persons.
On the other hand I wonder is this question about the number of scribes really helpful in solving the manuscript. What would it give us if we know for sure that it was made by 1,2 or 5 people?