{"id":6797,"date":"2016-04-27T03:03:03","date_gmt":"2016-04-27T03:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?p=6797"},"modified":"2018-07-24T22:46:25","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T22:46:25","slug":"spoonful-of-sugar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/spoonful-of-sugar\/","title":{"rendered":"Spoonful of Sugar"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Reused Medieval Bifolium from a
\nLatin Treatise on Medicinal Substances<\/h3>\n

13th Century?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Double columns of 57 lines
\nwith rubricated headings
\nand
\ninitials and paraph marks
\nrendered in alternately red or blue pigment
\nand embellished with extended penline-flourishes in the contrasting pigment<\/h4>\n

\"Detail<\/a>Continuing our blog on Manuscript Studies<\/a>, we illustrate a fragmentary medieval bifolium, much damaged, from a large-format manuscript retrieved (without recording the contextual information) from its long-term reuse as the vellum cover of an unknown book with a thick back.\u00a0 The reuse, at an unknown stage, presumably took advantage of an out-of-date medicinal textbook.\u00a0 Shame on the retrievers for not recording and letting us know the location from which the bifolium was removed. <\/em><\/p>\n

Whereas many reused medieval manuscripts survive from discarded religious texts rendered obsolete by changes in liturgical practices and religious beliefs, for example during the Reformation, the French Revolution, or less catastrophic (r)evolutions, this case represents a relic, or battered fossil, of advances \u2014 or anyway transitions \u2014 in scientific, medical, pharmaceutical, and related spheres of knowledge in Western Europe.\u00a0 Some of our posts describe the former; now we turn to the latter.\u00a0 Here, we mainly allow the pictures to do the talking.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"696<\/a><\/p>\n

Inside \/ Outside<\/h3>\n

Only the inside of the bifolium of the medieval medical treatise in Latin retains legible text; the outside is scraped to illegibility, which back-lighting does not enhance.\u00a0 Which side was inner and which was outer in the original bifolium is established clearly by the sharp contour of the fold between the conjoint leaves.\u00a0 That fold derives from the original gutter of the bifolium, which the reuse centered along the spine of the secondary book.\u00a0 The color and texture of the two sides of the bifolium indicate that the hair side of the animal skin was turned outward and the flesh side turned inward in the layout and assembly of the written surfaces.<\/p>\n

In the reuse, after removing the bifolium from its original manuscript home, the reuser(s) spread it out, scraped or washed away its text from the ‘exterior’ side, wrapped the bifolium around the textblock of whatever new unit was its destiny, and folded inwards the upper, lower, and outer margins to form the enclosing turn-ins of the new binding.<\/p>\n

Scraping the surface of the outside of the new cover served to obliterate any distractions from the cover of the composite entity, as if the medieval text had never (much) existed.\u00a0 Some show-through onto that exterior in the mid-section of one of its columns, perhaps scraped more assiduously, both renders clear on its back side much of that text and reveals, in part, a ghostly remnant of the text on the exterior.\u00a0 Sometime, image-enhancement might render its contents more clearly.<\/p>\n

The interior has acquired many brown stains from its contact pasted to the wooden boards of the intermediary text.\u00a0 Shriveling, creases, tears, cuts, holes, stains, wormholes, you name it.\u00a0 Pretty much a mess.\u00a0 A routine specimen for a devoted archaeologist of the book.<\/p>\n

Outside (Folios IIv\/Ir)<\/h4>\n

\"5054<\/a><\/p>\n

Inside (Folios Iv\/IIr)<\/h3>\n

\"5053<\/a>
\nInto the Fold<\/h3>\n

\"5056<\/a><\/p>\n

The Show-Through onto the Exterior<\/h3>\n

\"Show<\/a><\/p>\n

Consultation<\/h3>\n

Here we show 1) the legible verso (folio Iv) and 2) the legible recto (folio IIr) of the inside of the bifolium, along with details of their enlarged and embellished initials.\u00a0 The initials, rendered rather simply in blue pigment with red pen-flourishing, stand to the left of the columns of text.<\/p>\n

Within the sections which open with these initials, the internal items are run-together in paragraphs, but they stand separate by virtue of paraph-signs alternately in blue and red.\u00a0 The approach enables a dense coverage of text-per-page, albeit with a care for legibility of consultation.\u00a0 We should be so lucky with textbooks nowadays.<\/p>\n

Folio Iv<\/h4>\n

\"Legible<\/a><\/p>\n

Folio IIr<\/h4>\n

\"Legible<\/a><\/p>\n

Initial Reactions<\/h3>\n
\"Detail<\/a>

Initial M<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Detail<\/a>

Initial G<\/p><\/div>\n

And now a close-up view of some of the initials, set to the left of the columns of text and embellished with pen-flourishes. Note that they have discreet cue-letters written in the ink of the text, standing at the left of the intended area for the initial and stating the letter form, as with G<\/em> for G<\/em> here.<\/p>\n

The flourishes involve curves and coils as well as parallel lines and bulbous elements.\u00a0 Their assured quality of execution allows for recognition of a skilled hand offering forms of fantasy or whimsy within a sterner world of medical reference.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

We thank the owner of the bifolium for permission to reproduce and publish it.<\/p>\n

Do you recognize the text?\u00a0 Do you know of other leaves from the same book, by the same scribe, or from the same center of production?\u00a0 We offer the images for further examination and, it may be, recognition.\u00a0 Please let us know.\u00a0 You could leave Comments here, interact with us on Facebook<\/a>, or Contact Us<\/a>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Reused Medieval Bifolium from a Latin Treatise on Medicinal Substances 13th Century? Double columns of 57 lines with rubricated headings and initials and paraph marks rendered in alternately red or blue pigment and embellished with extended penline-flourishes in the contrasting pigment Continuing our blog on Manuscript Studies, we illustrate a fragmentary medieval bifolium, much […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6836,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[678,115],"tags":[750,251,761],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6797"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6797"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6797\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11257,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6797\/revisions\/11257"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6836"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}