10-05-2020, 09:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2020, 09:21 PM by Mark Knowles.)
It appears with this idea of multiple scribes discussed here that we are talking about a group of semi-autonomous agents working to produce the manuscript; this being opposed to one individual dictating to other individuals what to write.
If one has one "author" and many scribes working under that author each scribe having a different handwriting then that is one scenario.
If one has multiple authors each author having a different handwriting then that is quite another scenario.
My understanding is that the implication from Lisa Fagin Davis's analysis seems to be that there were multiple authors.
Both scenarios could be possible given my theory. The 2nd scenario would fit quite neatly for a variety of reasons, however I find it a bit disconcerting. It feels like a multiple author scenario would make the Voynich not least a folie a deux, but rather folie a cinq. The idea that one person might of their own will decide to produce such a document could be put down to their own personal peculiarities. The idea that this was a collaborative exercise seems very strange with each of them enabling each other's folly.
If one has one "author" and many scribes working under that author each scribe having a different handwriting then that is one scenario.
If one has multiple authors each author having a different handwriting then that is quite another scenario.
My understanding is that the implication from Lisa Fagin Davis's analysis seems to be that there were multiple authors.
Both scenarios could be possible given my theory. The 2nd scenario would fit quite neatly for a variety of reasons, however I find it a bit disconcerting. It feels like a multiple author scenario would make the Voynich not least a folie a deux, but rather folie a cinq. The idea that one person might of their own will decide to produce such a document could be put down to their own personal peculiarities. The idea that this was a collaborative exercise seems very strange with each of them enabling each other's folly.