Comparable Interleaved Books
Introduction to MS Codex 2161) Astronomy Compendium
GC5.Sp236.539c
This is a book containing 3 separate texts:
Spangenberg, Johann. Computus ecclesiasticus in pueriles quaestiones redactus. 1553. Print.
[PICTURE OF TITLE PAGE HERE]
Qvaestiones nova in Libellvm de sphaera Iohannis de Sacro Busto. 1549. Print
[PICTURE OF TITLE PAGE HERE]
Distinctio astronomiae et astrologicae. 16th century. Manuscript.
[PICTURE OF FIRST PAGE HERE]
Is it comparable with my manuscript?
No: it's organised 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 pages.
No: The scribal hand does not appear as a marginal hand in the two other books.
So: The 3rd manuscript text seems to be treated the same as the print texts, i.e. as another book collected for an astronomy compendium.
2) Poetry dialogue
N6923.B9 G5
This is a book containing (3?) separate texts:
Giunta, Jacopo. Eseqvie Del Divino Michelagnolo Bvonarroti. 1564. Print.
[PICTURE OF TITLE PAGE HERE]
Tarsia, Giovanni Maria. Oratione O Vero Discorso Di M. Giovan Maria Tarsa. 1564. Print.
[PICTURE OF TITLE PAGE HERE]
Cellini, Benvenuto. Ten Sonnets. Late 16th century. Manuscript.
[PICTURE OF FIRST PAGE HERE]
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: the writing on the manuscript leaves does not continue into the gutter; it is possible that the leaves were assembled with the text as blank pages and written in later. COPY THIS FOR ABOVE SECTION
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."
So: FILL THIS IN LATER
3) Legal notes
MS Codex 234
This is a book containing 2 texts:
Magna Charta cum satutis tum antiquis tum recentibus. 1587. Print.
[PICTURE HERE]
William Ellis. Legal Notes. Late 17th century. Manuscript.
[PICTURE HERE]
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.
Yes: there are quires of manuscript leaves at the beginning and end of the print book.
No: the writing on the manuscript leaves does not continue into the gutter; it is possible that the leaves were assembled with the text as blank pages and written in later.
No: there is a direct relationship between the manuscript and print leaves; the manuscript writing is frequently composed of short notes which appear to directly reference the accompanying print page.
[IMAGE HERE]
There are frequently sections where the manuscript leaves are blank and there are only handwritten notes on the print leaves.
[IMAGE HERE]
So: The notes on the manuscript leaves seem to occupy the same function as those written on the print leaves, i.e. they all seem to be notes written for the purpose of supplying a commentary to the print text, and would be mostly incomplete without the print text, except for the quires at the beginning and end.
This page has paths:
- Some preliminary theories 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