15-02-2017, 08:36 AM
The complete version of Currier's paper, i.e. including all the tables, may be found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
The identification of the various hands and languages are of course his personal work and his opinion. Currier was not a palaeographer, or any other type of handwriting expert.
Other people have come to contrary conclusions, e.g. Panofsky (included in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ), but it is not obvious that he made as thorough a study of the handwriting as Currier did. I also recall one statement from a palaeographer, but can't find the source, who considered it all in a single hand.
The identifications of the hands by Currier derive from one of the tables, and what I have added to my 'MS Browser' and Gabriel Landini/Jorge Stolfi to the interlinear transcription file should be fully consistent. If not, it's a mistake and I would appreciate hearing about it.
The identification of the various hands and languages are of course his personal work and his opinion. Currier was not a palaeographer, or any other type of handwriting expert.
Other people have come to contrary conclusions, e.g. Panofsky (included in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ), but it is not obvious that he made as thorough a study of the handwriting as Currier did. I also recall one statement from a palaeographer, but can't find the source, who considered it all in a single hand.
The identifications of the hands by Currier derive from one of the tables, and what I have added to my 'MS Browser' and Gabriel Landini/Jorge Stolfi to the interlinear transcription file should be fully consistent. If not, it's a mistake and I would appreciate hearing about it.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)