They knew how to use a pen. You can't write that small or fluently unless you can do that.
But... there is a distinction between those who can use a pen in a competent way and those who can do calligraphy. That distinction still exists. It's about how you hold the pen and how artistic an eye you have and how CONSISTENTLY you can make strokes in each direction and how you BALANCE the lines and spaces.
The VMS scribes knew the basic mechanics of using a pen, and there are lots of small signs that they knew scribal conventions, as well.
But they were not top-quality calligraphers. The artistry and the consistency is not there. It's like the difference between a hobby painter (who learns to mix the colors correctly and to create brushstrokes without muddying the image), and a good professional artist who has ALSO mastered form and composition, light and shadow, etc.
There are many examples of good calligraphy in Italian and French texts of the 15th century. Also some good calligraphy in later 16th-century German manuscripts. The VMS doesn't look anything like these. It's not because some of the glyph shapes are different, Voynich glyphs can be written calligraphically like any other, it's a lack of consistency, thick-and-thin balance, and relative spacing of letters/words/lines. It's not bad, but it's not super good either.
The attention to detail is good in the VMS, considering its small size. It scores points for originality, as well. It has a certain charm. But the text is more functional than beautiful.
But... there is a distinction between those who can use a pen in a competent way and those who can do calligraphy. That distinction still exists. It's about how you hold the pen and how artistic an eye you have and how CONSISTENTLY you can make strokes in each direction and how you BALANCE the lines and spaces.
The VMS scribes knew the basic mechanics of using a pen, and there are lots of small signs that they knew scribal conventions, as well.
But they were not top-quality calligraphers. The artistry and the consistency is not there. It's like the difference between a hobby painter (who learns to mix the colors correctly and to create brushstrokes without muddying the image), and a good professional artist who has ALSO mastered form and composition, light and shadow, etc.
There are many examples of good calligraphy in Italian and French texts of the 15th century. Also some good calligraphy in later 16th-century German manuscripts. The VMS doesn't look anything like these. It's not because some of the glyph shapes are different, Voynich glyphs can be written calligraphically like any other, it's a lack of consistency, thick-and-thin balance, and relative spacing of letters/words/lines. It's not bad, but it's not super good either.
The attention to detail is good in the VMS, considering its small size. It scores points for originality, as well. It has a certain charm. But the text is more functional than beautiful.