[Article] Voynich Paleography article

[Torsten]

...

Thank you for your answer, Lisa. Since paleography includes some subjective elements I find it especially important to understand the methodology used. In other words, also in paleography methodology matters.

You wrote in your article "Folio 57v is somewhat problematic: there is too little text to reliable run Currier's dialect tests, ..." (Davis 2020, p. 176). Now you say the "conclusions are based on tendencies over the length of a scribe's corpora". This sounds to me as if the corpora of a scribe was first determined by taking "Currier's dialect tests" and the illustrations into account. Is my understanding correct?

By applying the criteria given in your article I come to the conclusion that scribe 2 and scribe 4 was one and the same scribe. What would you say to such a suggestion as that?