Time to retire Currier languages?

[Emma May Smith]

Neither the C. languages nor the LFD sribes exist in reality, they are only learned inventions and only hinder the research of the ms.

Can you clarify your comment in reference to the scribes? Are you saying that five different people (or fewer people but at different times) didn't write the manuscript?

[byatan]

Currier languages -> Currier spectrum. Done.

[tavie]

I use Lisa's groupings.  There are definite differences between Scribe 2 and Scribe 3, even occasionally where Scribe 2 is closer to Scribe 1 than 3.  Or vice versa.  So I would agree the Currier distinction is no longer so helpful.

I suppose the counter would be that while everyone agrees there is a difference between A and B, not everyone has accepted Lisa's scribal classifications.

[Koen G]

Currier A vs B is based on a number of very salient features. But if we were to use something like entropy, the division would be Q13 vs the rest. Only entropy is hard to see at a glance, while edy edy edy is rather visible.

Entropy and the prevalence of certain suffixes are more similar than you might think. Both can be indications of a different language *or* a different text type in the same language.

[Aga Tentakulus]

Thank you, samples to the manuscripts are no longer necessary.

I found the pattern possibilities on Rene's website. The works by Lisa Fagin Davis are also there.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Helmut Winkler]

Neither the C. languages nor the LFD sribes exist in reality, they are only learned inventions and only hinder the research of the ms.

Can you clarify your comment in reference to the scribes? Are you saying that five different people (or fewer people but at different times) didn't write the manuscript?

What I mean - and I have said so before - is that one person wrote the whole ms. over a certain period of time or rather he wrote  notes about several topics, I think we could even build timelines of writing and illustrations. The variations we see in the script are easily explained this way, they are the variations we all have in our personal handwriting. The same person illustrated the ms. and very likely had it bound, I would it compare to one of our loose leaf books. I really can't see a group of four or five different scribes in an isolated environment using this very peculiar script, not to mention the methodical problems of different hands.

[bi3mw]

What I find remarkable, at least, is that the five scribes are distributed throughout the manuscript and do not appear in successive "blocks." This is especially true for the "botanical section".
One would assume that one scribe takes over a section and then passes the MS to the next scribe for further editing (and so on).

[Helmut Winkler]

What I find remarkable, at least, is that the five scribes are distributed throughout the manuscript and do not appear in successive "blocks." This is especially true for the "botanical section".
One would assume that one scribe takes over a section and then passes the MS to the next scribe for further editing (and so on).

I thought so too and I would use in the place of 'remarkable' rather 'very odd',

[Emma May Smith]

The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order. I don't see how the order of sections or scribes can be used as an argument unless the original order can be fully reconstructed.

Has anybody done that?

[Anton]

What I find remarkable, at least, is that the five scribes are distributed throughout the manuscript and do not appear in successive "blocks." This is especially true for the "botanical section".
One would assume that one scribe takes over a section and then passes the MS to the next scribe for further editing (and so on).

This may be explained away by the tedious work being distributed across a number of scribes working in parallel. Imagine there are plain text sheets prepared, and the job is to just encipher the contents and plot it all down.