Jorge_Stolfi > Yesterday, 11:40 AM
(Yesterday, 10:53 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me, the most interesting thing about this is that it is not so much a rule, but that it is 'just' a very strong trend. There are too many exceptions. [...]
Over the years, I have developed an opinion, which would explain a lot of the unusual things we are seeing. This is that the text has been encoded somehow, with rules that allow for some flexibility or some choice by the encoder.
dashstofsk > Yesterday, 11:51 AM
(Yesterday, 11:32 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.to protect the author's anonymity, especially if the author was somewhat famous
oshfdk > Yesterday, 11:58 AM
(Yesterday, 11:51 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The current evidence seems to be that the manuscript was written by at least three people. Possible five. So not the work of any one famous person.
dashstofsk > Yesterday, 12:00 PM
(Yesterday, 11:32 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a highly satirical pamphlet against the royalty, or a copy of a known banned book
dashstofsk > Yesterday, 12:04 PM
(Yesterday, 11:58 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it's very hard to tell whether they all belong to one hand or not
oshfdk > Yesterday, 12:20 PM
(Yesterday, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Really? It takes 36000 words and 226 pages to write something nasty about a Duke?
(Yesterday, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There were many herbal manuscripts at that period. Many were freely available and hardly likely to have anything so dangerous to society that they would have to be banned. Was it really necessary to have yet another herbal manuscript and for this one to be made unreadable?
(Yesterday, 12:00 PM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not so. The writing of hands 1, 2, 3 are all distinct. Even I who am not a trained handwritingologist can see that the writing in quires 1, 13, 20 are different.
ReneZ > Yesterday, 12:30 PM
(Yesterday, 11:58 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As a sidenote, I agree with Jorge_Stolfi that while it's possible to talk about different handwritings (or handwriting styles), it's very hard to tell whether they all belong to one hand or not.
oshfdk > Yesterday, 12:35 PM
oshfdk > Yesterday, 12:48 PM
(Yesterday, 12:30 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is difficult and I would not be able to do it.
That's why I prefer to trust a trained palaeographer.
Koen G > Yesterday, 01:11 PM