Comparable Interleaved Books
Some preliminary ideas about the book1) Astronomy Compendium
GC5.Sp236.539c
This is a book containing 3 separate texts:
Spangenberg, Johann. Computus ecclesiasticus in pueriles quaestiones redactus. 1553. Print.
Qvaestiones nova in Libellvm de sphaera Iohannis de Sacro Busto. 1549. Print.
Distinctio astronomiae et astrologicae. 16th century. Manuscript.
Is it comparable with my manuscript?
NO: it's organized differently. None of the manuscript leaves are interleaved with the print leaves, but remain separate. Before the 2nd and 3rd texts, there are 2-4 blank pages of what appears to be the same size and type of paper as the other leaves.
NO: The scribal hand does not appear as a marginal hand in the two other books.
Why the interleaving: the manuscript leaves and the print leaves are all separate texts that collectively form a compendium on the same topic.
2) Poetry dialogue
N6923.B9 G5
This is a book containing 3 separate texts:
Giunta, Jacopo. Eseqvie Del Divino Michelagnolo Bvonarroti. 1564. Print.
Tarsia, Giovanni Maria. Oratione O Vero Discorso Di M. Giovan Maria Tarsa. 1564. Print.
Cellini, Benvenuto. Ten Sonnets. Late 16th century. Manuscript.
Is it comparable with my manuscript?
YES: the paper used for the manuscript is clearly different in size and type from the paper used for the print books.
YES: the scribal hand for the manuscript appears on both the title page for the first book (though nowhere else), and on the verso side of the title page of the second book, in a fairly extensive note.
YES: for the most part the manuscript leaves are interleaved with the print leaves, although they do not always follow this pattern.
NO: there is (according to the library catalogue) a direct relationship between the manuscript and 2nd print book: "The poems concern a rivalry between sculptors and painters. At least some of the poems appear to be polemics against Tarsia."
NO: the notes that appear on the print leaves in the scribal hand are fairly limited, and do not clearly reference the poems or extend them, as in my manuscript.
Why the interleaving: the manuscript leaves were arranged deliberately with the print leaves as a dialogue with/commentary on the print book.
3) Legal notes
MS Codex 234
This is a book containing 2 texts:
Magna Charta cum statutis tum antiquis tum recentibus. 1587. Print.
William Ellis. Legal Notes. Late 17th century. Manuscript.
Is it comparable with my manuscript?
YES: the paper used for the manuscript is clearly different in size and type from the paper used for the print books.
YES: the scribal hand from the manuscript frequently appears on the pages of the print book.
YES: for the most part the manuscript leaves are interleaved with the print leaves.
NO: the writing on the manuscript leaves does not continue into the gutter; it seems likely that the leaves were assembled with the text as blank pages and written in later.
NO: the manuscript leaves would be incomplete without the print text; i.e. there is no independent text on the manuscript leaves which does not directly reference the adjacent print leaves.
There are frequently sections where the manuscript leaves are blank and there are only handwritten notes on the print leaves.
Why the interleaving: blank leaves were interleaved to allow the user to create handwritten notes that supply a commentary to the print text.
Was this helpful?
While all these examples have some points of similarity with my book, none of them are similar enough to help explain why Ms Codex 216 was arranged the way it is.
This page has paths:
- Some preliminary ideas about the book Alison Harper
- Introduction to MS Codex 216 Alison Harper
- Why are there print and manuscript leaves interleaved in MS Codex 216? Alison Harper
