• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

About the scribes

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • About the scribes
• About the scribes

• About the scribes

  ololololo > 06-06-2026, 12:37 AM

  In this post, I will describe my assumptions about the supposed scribes of the manuscript. I have identified three of them: A (the author of Herbal A and part of the pharmaceuticals), B (the author of balneology and part of the recipes), and C (the author of Herbal B and the diagrams). I will not touch on the topic of languages A and B, I will only look at the features specific to these scribes and make some suggestions. Perhaps they will be useful...
  Also, don't forget that I'm not making any claims here; this is just MY OPINION, and you may have a different one (and I would love to hear it ) !
  
  What can we say about scribe A? First of all, this person knows how to write beautifully. Of course, it can't be called calligraphy, but it's definitely noticeable that he writes evenly, even without lines, and his letters are uniform and clear. One of the best examples of this is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page
     
  The first two volumes were written by him alone.The first folios (especially 1-3) were written by his hand. Starting from page. But folio 4 already contains traces of the scribe C's intervention (f26v and f31), and so on. 
  First, he could have been a professional scribe, as evidenced by his rather skillful writing style. This suggests that he is most likely the author of the notes on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f116v. It is possible that he has written other books as well.
  Second, he clearly understood what he was writing (in any case). This is evidenced by the confidence in his handwriting, as well as the fact that his "language" (Voynich A) differs from the language of other scribes. It is possible that the differences in language are a result of the fact that scribe A knew a little more about what he was writing. I also suggest comparing the lines written by scribe A and the lines written by scribe B:
  Tsheoarom shar or chor olchsy chom otchom oporar (f3r)
  qokchdy chcthy lo dsheckhy qokain chckhy lshedy okeedy (f75r)
  Maybe this examples they are not entirely accurate and do not reflect the general pattern of language differences, but you may notice that while scribe A often repeats a single character, scribe B tends to copy an entire word with slight variations. 
  Thirdly, he may well be the author of the manuscript. Since he was a good writer and seemed to understand what he was writing, he could have been the creator of what we call voynichese (i.e., a code, a system of abbreviations, transcriptions, etc. I still respect the opinions of other users, so we'll avoid being too specific).
  
  What can we say about the scribe C? His handwriting is minimalistic and "blurred":
     
  However, the blurring does not always occur, and there are cases where the handwriting is similar to that of scribe C, but more distinct:
     
  First, scribe C was most likely an assistant to scribe A. Since they first wrote a section together, it cannot be said that scribe A invited scribe C only to reduce his workload. However, it is worth noting that scribe C often writes more than scribe A, as exemplified by f34r. 
  This is not a result of his small handwriting, or at most only partially so (perhaps because of his small handwriting, he was able to fit more text on a page, and so was entrusted with such work).
  
  Secondly, he was probably also aware of what he was writing. You see, while Herbal A and Herbal B have visible differences, if you compare Herbal B and balneology, you can also find quite a few differences between them. Since scribe C was likely "hired" before scribe B and worked on the same section as scribe A, he may have known a bit more about the cipher. This is also evidenced by the fact that he is entrusted with working with diagrams, and as we know, the vocabulary of astro- and cosmology cannot be unambiguously assigned to any particular language.
  Thirdly, apparently, he was sometimes... very lazy (f65r looks like it wasn't finished).
  
  What can you say about scribe B? And there's a lot to be said about him...
  Let's start with the handwriting. In general, his handwriting is quite standard and does not have any distinctive features. The glyphs are even, and the letters are clearly visible. The overall appearance of the handwriting seems somewhat rushed, as if the person was writing quickly.
  I assume that the first pages written by scribe B are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f58v. On voynich.nu, the text on these pages is described as "a transitional stage between A and B". However, this is not a fact, as the handwriting could also belong to scribe A. 
  One of the distinctive features of scribe B's handwriting is the lines - they are not always straight, and there is often very little space between them. Sometimes, the author even falls off the lines, as seen in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps he was simply tired).
  First, scribe B writes exclusively in Voynich B, and his version is the most different from Voynich A (I don't think it needs to be explained that the botanical and balneological sections are different).
  Second, the texts of scribe B are always larger than those of scribes A and C. It seems that he was almost always given larger texts. This suggests that he was likely a hired individual who was employed by scribe A to reduce his workload.
  Thirdly, it may be that scribe B did not understand what he was writing at all, or that he was writing nonsense on purpose. The text he wrote is characterized by a lot of repetition, similar words (usually placed next to each other), and a generally low level of text variability (this is especially evident in f75r, but it is also reflected in other pages of balneology). Such a drastic difference may indicate that he most likely wrote it himself (it is unlikely that the author gave him something to copy, as he could have done it himself if he had the strength to give scribe B a sample), and most likely, if he wrote it meaningfully, it was not always accurate or meaningful. There is an example of a rather unusual word taken from the Rosettes and clearly written by the scribe B:
     
  It is quite long, consists only of "vowel" characters, and has two consecutive double letters. For the entire manuscript, this word is too strange. Although this is an isolated example, it raises questions about the meaning of this word and whether scribe B may have "slacked off" on other pages.
  This person also seemed to be very interested in drawing betonies, but he wasn't always successful...
     
     
     
  Total, in my opinion:
  Scribe A is a professional, most likely an author or at least an expert in Voynichese.
  Scribe C worked with Scribe A and clearly understood Voynich.
  Scribe B may have been a hack or just a klutz. In any case, the question arises as to whether the texts he wrote make sense.

• RE: About the scribes

  DG97EEB > 06-06-2026, 04:45 AM

  
  Might I enquire of your academic experience in paleography?

• RE: About the scribes

  ololololo > 06-06-2026, 10:01 AM

  (06-06-2026, 04:45 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (06-06-2026, 12:37 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Might I enquire of your academic experience in paleography?

  I don't need to pretend, because it doesn't exist. I don't have any paleographic or cryptological qualifications, so you have the right to disagree with me and not believe what I say (however, this can't be the only argument).
  In fact, I was doubtful whether this post was necessary at all, as it is too speculative in itself. But I decided to post it anyway.
  As for identifying scribes and handwriting, I didn't use any measurements or meticulous comparisons. I looked at the handwriting in general, at the style of writing, and that's how I identified three scribes (there may be more or fewer. However, I believe you can see that there are significant differences in the handwriting examples I provided). So, yes, my "analysis" may be inaccurate and very subjective.
  However, I have come here not to defend my opinion, but to listen to you and other participants about their observations and possible suggestions.
  If you say that this post is meaningless and useless, then I will fully agree with you. But as you can see, there is nothing that can be done about it...

• RE: About the scribes

  Rafal > 06-06-2026, 10:14 AM

  Well, you probably know the view of Lisa Fagin Davies who is a professional paleographer and who claims that there were 5 and not 3 scribes.
  
  There are, however, people who don't agree with that and for example claim that there was only one scribe.
  
  Personally I just ... don't know. It seems to me there were more than one but I'm not sure about the exact number. And how could such claims be "proven"?
  
  I would be also careful with "psychoanalysis" of the scribes. As I said you end with long shots that not only have a low chance to hit but you never really know if you hit or not.

• RE: About the scribes

  ololololo > 06-06-2026, 10:26 AM

  (06-06-2026, 10:14 AM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, you probably know the view of Lisa Fagin Davies who is a professional paleographer and who claims that there were 5 and not 3 scribes.
  
  There are, however, people who don't agree with that and for example claim that there was only one scribe.
  
  Personally I just ... don't know. It seems to me there were more than one but I'm not sure about the exact number. And how could such claims be "proven"?
  
  I would be also careful with "psychoanalysis" of the scribes. As I said you end with long shots that not only have a low chance to hit but you never really know if you hit or not.

  I completely agree with you! Especially about the last one. I'm not sure about all of this myself, and it's a big speculation at the moment. 
  Yes, I am aware of Lisa Fagin Davis's point of view. Of course, she is an expert and her opinion will be more accurate than mine, however, in my division of scribes into A, B and C, I was guided by their "language" features. These differences could also help identify the authors, as it is expected that the words and speech patterns used by different people may vary.
  Regarding the language of balneology, I want to say that I really have doubts about it. Of course, it is most likely meaningful, but in the process, the scribe may have copied others without much understanding (copying symbols like x or words). It seems suspicious to me that despite the fact that the rules for writing words and symbols are almost identical in Voynich A and Voynich B, the statistics are different.
  I also want to say that the post itself did not carry any high value. It would be better to pay attention specifically to the differences between Herbal A, Herbal B, and balneology, rather than to the handwriting, which does not provide us with any information on its own (except for the assumption that the differences in the "languages" are not algorithmic but lexical).
  And don't forget, I might be wrong, even about everything I've said above.

• RE: About the scribes

  RadioFM > 1 hour ago

  Quote:It would be better to pay attention specifically to the differences between Herbal A, Herbal B, and balneology, rather than to the handwriting, which does not provide us with any information on its own (except for the assumption that the differences in the "languages" are not algorithmic but lexical).

  
  Handwriting does provide information. We can try to match the calligraphy with regional scripts. Are lines written left to right, or right to left? Are glyphs written sequentially? Slips of the pen can potentially give us insights on the scribe, even if accidental and due to fatigue.
  
  It's arguably subjective, speculative, and prone to confirmation bias, but handwriting analysis is not entirely useless at all.
• Next Oldest Next Newest