16-02-2017, 08:08 AM
(16-02-2017, 12:22 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Torsten
...Therefore I would say that there was only one scribe.
I would interpret that differently. I'm pretty confident there's more than one hand in this manuscript and I'm pretty close to being able to demonstrate that.
I would prefer to say there was only one method (even if it has variants) rather than only one scribe.
Indeed. Currier clearly addresses two different observations:
- the presence of different statistics in the text (languages A vs. B)
- the presence of different handwriting properties (hands 1 vs. 2, but also 3,4, X, Y...)
On the languages, he clearly states his criteria, and already in the earlier days Jim Gillogly made the effort of double-checking his identification based on these criteria.
The presence of more or less complete transcriptions makes it possible to automate the identification of languages or dialects according to all sorts of different criteria.
With the handwriting it is quite different. We don't know his criteria. There is also no numerical data (at least publicly available) to automate such an identification. I will be very interested to see the results of JKP, because this seems to be one of the things he has been working on.
One of Currier's main points was, in addition to the above, that he saw a full correlation between the application of different hands and different languages. This is why people may be inclined to connect the two.
However, I am not sure that this correlation has been demonstrated sufficiently.
It is clearly obvious (visually) in the alternation of Herbal-A vs. Herbal-B pages, but elsewhere it is not so much the case.
I think that it is very important to keep this uncertainty in mind.