This content was created by Curtis Fletcher.
Fig. 1. Inside back cover
1 2016-06-30T08:00:10-07:00 Curtis Fletcher 3225f3b99ebb95ebd811595627293f68f680673e 9533 1 Dartmouth Brut, inside of back cover, showing lacing pattern and extended flap. Photo by Deborah Howe, courtesy of Dartmouth College Library. plain 2016-06-30T08:00:10-07:00 Curtis Fletcher 3225f3b99ebb95ebd811595627293f68f680673eThis page is referenced by:
-
1
2016-06-30T07:41:35-07:00
First Impressions
11
plain
2016-07-09T08:57:05-07:00
Deborah Howe
My first impression of the Brut was one of awe and intrigue (Fig. 1). It is one of the oldest items to pass across my bench and I revered it for its historic provenance and enduring nature. The condition of the binding reflected its age as evidenced by various damages throughout, including visible signs of water and insect damage. The parchment pages were heavily soiled and the gutters were filled with dirt and debris. Folds of the exterior folios were weak and had losses, and several of the inside text pages had tears and surface degradation. The sewing threads of the first and last quires barely held the fragile pages together, and with each successive viewing this sewing became weaker and more insubstantial. Without proper support, the binding was becoming its own worst enemy, mechanically self-destructing.
Michelle Warren
I did not get to see the Brut at its dirtiest. Indeed, scholars who are not curators or conservators are generally not afforded such views. By the time we see a manuscript, it has usually been made relatively presentable (otherwise, we are not allowed to see it). We are thereby taught to think of books as static: we do not leave any signs of our reading even as we delight in discovering notes and doodles made by our predecessors. An accidental change in the book is an embarrassing problem (“please don’t break while I’m touching!”). I love how the Brut’s arrival shattered these barriers and prompted us to think of the artifact as our contemporary. In need of care, certainly, but not frozen in time. -
1
2016-06-30T08:10:05-07:00
Looking More Closely
7
gallery
2016-06-30T08:23:49-07:00
Deborah Howe
I would not be the first to modify the codex (Fig. 2). Previous repairs were evident: machine made paper and leather glued over the interior of the lower cover and flap to strengthen it; a thin thread used as reinforcement sewing. The nature of the paper and the method of application suggest that these repairs were done by an amateur in the 1950s. The cover’s leather spine was disintegrating to the point that one could see the backs of the quires and the heavy tanned leather supports. The exposed quires revealed another set of sewing holes and evidence of old adhesive, indicating that there was a previous binding, most likely the original one. This second set of sewing holes explained the incongruity of the binding with the text-block, an observation that had perplexed me from the beginning: the worn and damaged binding was historical but was not completely contemporary with the text-block.Michelle Warren
Physical evidence of past changes draws attention to the artifact’s ongoing life (Fig. 3). With every turn of the page or pixel shift of the screen, we must grapple with temporal syncretism. Authenticity is a moving target. What state do you seek to “restore”? Is the fifteenth century more valid than the sixteenth? The twentieth? We can have legitimate questions about each. The evidence of past practice provides a model for current and future practice, leavened with an archeology of the codex. How can we make visible as many aspects as possible of the object’s life? Centuries from now, the actions taken today will be evidence of our own historical epistemology, about which future curators and readers will hopefully be curious.