I'm intrigued by the notion that the scribe working on the Voynich Manuscript might have been unsupervised. Given the manuscript’s importance—especially as it is ciphered—you’d expect any errors introduced would be caught and corrected, perhaps by a supervisor or reviser. Yet, as some of you suggest, a few copying errors appear to have survived in the final version, which seems inconsistent with an oversight process.
Is it then possible that the manuscript was completed under circumstances where supervision wasn’t feasible—or simply didn’t occur? And if so, what implications might that have for dating and contextualizing the production process? If supervision had been in place, you’d think at least minor errors would have been subsanated—but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Is it then possible that the manuscript was completed under circumstances where supervision wasn’t feasible—or simply didn’t occur? And if so, what implications might that have for dating and contextualizing the production process? If supervision had been in place, you’d think at least minor errors would have been subsanated—but that doesn’t seem to be the case.