04-11-2022, 04:08 PM
Some addition: The paper from 2020 also contains a short statement about the stars section "The entire Quire is written by Scribe 3 with the exception of folio 115r, where the first twelve lines were written by Scribe 2." [Davis 2020, p. 177]. This statement is contradicted by the fact that the first 18 lines on folio 115r appear darker. This can only mean that at least these 18 lines were written with the same quill and therefore belong to the same scribe. What arguments did Davis present for her idea that only some of these 18 lines were written by Scribe 2? Unfortunately beside the short statement no further explanation is given in the paper.
However, there is a video from 2021 "The Voynich Manuscript with Lisa Fagin Davis" presented by the Beinecke Library at Yale. In this video Davis gives some details for folio 115r (see minute 68@You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Davis is arguing that the darker color of the first 18 lines would indicate a different scribe. Consequently she assigns all 18 lines to scribe 2 (by using a red rectangle). In my eyes this argument is unconvincing since the change of a quill or the sharpening of the quill etc. could also explain the color change. Moreover, such an argument also contradicts the statement that it is possible to use the shape of EVA-k and EVA-iin to distinguish between scribe 2 and scribe 3. In the video Davis even argues that the use of these "glyphs is really consistent from hand to hand" (see minute 58@You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
A little bit odd is that in the video Davis speaks about 115 verso instead of 115 recto. Davis argues "if you go back and forth you can convince yourself that every line is written by a different scribe". To make things even more confusing Davis uses an image of folio 34v as illustration for scribe 2 on folio 115r.
So why did the paper only attributes 12 lines to scribe 2 whereas in the video 18 lines were attributed to scribe 2? (Side note: There is another folio where in fact the first 12 lines appear in darker color. This folio is 105 recto. So maybe the number of lines is correct and the reverence to folio 115r is just a typo? But if this the case why Davis didn't notice this mistake while preparing the video presentation?)
However, there is a video from 2021 "The Voynich Manuscript with Lisa Fagin Davis" presented by the Beinecke Library at Yale. In this video Davis gives some details for folio 115r (see minute 68@You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Davis is arguing that the darker color of the first 18 lines would indicate a different scribe. Consequently she assigns all 18 lines to scribe 2 (by using a red rectangle). In my eyes this argument is unconvincing since the change of a quill or the sharpening of the quill etc. could also explain the color change. Moreover, such an argument also contradicts the statement that it is possible to use the shape of EVA-k and EVA-iin to distinguish between scribe 2 and scribe 3. In the video Davis even argues that the use of these "glyphs is really consistent from hand to hand" (see minute 58@You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
A little bit odd is that in the video Davis speaks about 115 verso instead of 115 recto. Davis argues "if you go back and forth you can convince yourself that every line is written by a different scribe". To make things even more confusing Davis uses an image of folio 34v as illustration for scribe 2 on folio 115r.
So why did the paper only attributes 12 lines to scribe 2 whereas in the video 18 lines were attributed to scribe 2? (Side note: There is another folio where in fact the first 12 lines appear in darker color. This folio is 105 recto. So maybe the number of lines is correct and the reverence to folio 115r is just a typo? But if this the case why Davis didn't notice this mistake while preparing the video presentation?)