It was Currier who first determined that Scribe 1 writes in Dialect A and that Scribe 2 writes in Dialect B. The other three scribes I have identified—3, 4, and 5—also use Dialect B, at least according to the tests developed by Currier.17 I have sent my preliminary results to a professor of linguistics who is running several different linguistical analyses on the Voynich as part of a long-term class project and her own research. I have suggested that the work of the five scribes be analyzed separately to look for patterns that may distinguish them further. The preliminary results of these analyses are forthcoming.

It is my hope that these conclusions will be useful to all Voynichologists, whether they are linguists, cryptologists, botanists, or medical historians. There are still many fundamental things we do not know about the Voynich Manuscript, but there are some things we do know: the date of origin, the [End Page 179] use of at least two dialects, the provenance, the codicological structure. To these we can now add the number of scribes and an understanding of the collaborative nature of its creation. Any potential "solution" or reading of the Voynich Manuscript must take these facts into account, combining them with an interpretation of the text and images to unravel the enigma that is the Voynich.