Having read the thread, I'm at a loss about what's the point of dispute here regarding section 3.2 of the subject article.
See, Timm & Schinner start (that section 3.2) with the Davis' conclusion of five scribal hands present in the VMS, which conclusion they do not support, so the remainder of the section is dedicated to substantiation of this disagreement. Basicaly two arguments are provided: the first one is that some other people, e.g. Carter, did not support the viewpoint of several scribes, the second one is that Timm & Schinner's own observations do not lead to the conclusion of several scribes.
Since both Timm and Davis agree that palaeography is not "exact science" and implies a degree of subjectivity, I can't see how this dispute can lead to any productive outcome. Two palaeographers may quite likely disagree in their conclusions. So if one looks for a solid practical basement of palaeographic conclusions, which to use as input for further codicological or statistical discussions, then averaging opinions of several professional palaeographers would, I think, be the best way for constructing that kind of palaeographic foundation. And, in this light, every input from a professional palaeographer is most valuable and welcome. Since a palaeographic conclusion, especially in this case when the VMS is a unique specimen of the script, is not something objectively verifyable, then the only way is some kind of consensus at large, is it not?
Regarding the point that only a subset of the folios was analyzed: that would be important if the conclusion put forward by Davis were that there was only a single scribe. But since she suggests that there were several scribes, then folios omitted in the analysis would not diminish the number of discerned scribes, they could only add even more scribes.
See, Timm & Schinner start (that section 3.2) with the Davis' conclusion of five scribal hands present in the VMS, which conclusion they do not support, so the remainder of the section is dedicated to substantiation of this disagreement. Basicaly two arguments are provided: the first one is that some other people, e.g. Carter, did not support the viewpoint of several scribes, the second one is that Timm & Schinner's own observations do not lead to the conclusion of several scribes.
Since both Timm and Davis agree that palaeography is not "exact science" and implies a degree of subjectivity, I can't see how this dispute can lead to any productive outcome. Two palaeographers may quite likely disagree in their conclusions. So if one looks for a solid practical basement of palaeographic conclusions, which to use as input for further codicological or statistical discussions, then averaging opinions of several professional palaeographers would, I think, be the best way for constructing that kind of palaeographic foundation. And, in this light, every input from a professional palaeographer is most valuable and welcome. Since a palaeographic conclusion, especially in this case when the VMS is a unique specimen of the script, is not something objectively verifyable, then the only way is some kind of consensus at large, is it not?
Regarding the point that only a subset of the folios was analyzed: that would be important if the conclusion put forward by Davis were that there was only a single scribe. But since she suggests that there were several scribes, then folios omitted in the analysis would not diminish the number of discerned scribes, they could only add even more scribes.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)