The core of the schema covers the codicological descriptions for early modern manuscripts. It encompasses an extensive, detailed, and modular characterisation focused on codicological units at an increased level of detail but also includes descriptions of gathering structures and bindings. A codicological unit is a distinct manuscript segment, usually consistent in material, format, and content (Gumbert 2004). This concept is key to understanding the manuscript’s physical and historical aspects, revealing insights into its construction, the technological resources available during creation, and the design intentions.
We provide a model for the codicological descriptions for Early Modern Manuscripts. For each codicological unit, the model records its scope in terms of pages or folios, providing an understanding of its size—whether the full length of the bookblock or a small section—and the height and width of a typical page. The material field meticulously details various writing supports. Given the temporal scope of the model, the model offers simple descriptions for “parchment” (species and colour) and a free-text option for the remote possibility of an “other” writing support material. The treatment of paper, the most prevalent material in the period, is notably more extensive. It involves distinguishing between laid (most probable) and woven (likely for later endleaves). The production type is specified as either hand-made or machine-made. The perceived colour is also documented. Watermarks are described in detail, including detailed measurements (maximum height and width in mm), their positional mapping on the page (in horizontal and vertical zones like left-centre-right and top-middle-bottom), and the specific pages where they are found. A free-text description of the visual watermark pattern is also included, with a future goal of developing a more controlled vocabulary. Importantly, the schema requires a detailed description of the chain lines and laid lines for laid papers. This includes noting the average distance between chain lines and the number of laid lines in 20 mm. Regarding the classification of laid line patterns in paper, our documentation includes various types: the regular pattern, characterized by uniformly spaced and evenly distributed marks; the alternate or double pattern, identified by papers featuring alternating thick and thin laid lines; and the grooved pattern, distinguished by its regular intervals of pronounced laid lines among a number of finer ones (Muzerelle 2002, N. 134.05; Maniaci 1996, 54–55). In addition, the chain and laid line orientation should be recorded (vertical, running parallel to the book’s spine, or horizontal, perpendicular to the spine) as this is directly correlated to the format. This level of detail is vital for identifying the paper’s manufacturing process and comparing papers without watermarks. Additionally, the schema looks at paper formation peculiarities that might indicate the paper’s quality or the specific mould used in its manufacture. This encompasses resewn and skewed watermarks, irregularities in chain-/laidlines, or the presence of extraneous materials in the pulp. The format of the bookblock and specific trimming features, like deckle edges, turned-in corners, edges that escaped trimming, or bolts, are also described, as they contribute to reconstructing the original size of the paper mould (see Needham 2017). The schema’s codicological analysis then delves into how the pages were prepared to receive the text. This includes noting if the paper was burnished and documenting ruling and pricking patterns, crucial as they can indicate the specific preparation models of production centres. The ruling arrangement, defining margins and overall page layout, is expressed through a layout formula using a pipeline sign “|” to denote vertical bounding lines that run the full height of the page and square brackets “[“ “]” for vertical lines limited to the text frame. The use of opening “[“ or closing “]” brackets is interchangeable, but they can be strategically utilized to visually represent the boundaries of the text frame. For instance, a bracket facing outward “[“ might indicate the start of the text frame, while a bracket facing inward “]” can signify the end. The second element of the formula are the letters T, G, and C to represent a text column, a gloss, and the vertically ruled column for initials (in verse texts), respectively. Therefore, a full-page manuscript with a vertical line on each side would be denoted as “| T |”. A manuscript with a two-column layout, each column bounded by one vertical line, is represented as “| T | | T |”. In the case of a two-column manuscript with glosses on either side, the formula is “| G || T | | T || G |”. The notation for a verse text in a one-column layout with bounding lines for initials and a right-side bounding line for the verse limited to the text frame is “[ C [ T ]”. For complex cases, the description of vertical and horizontal lines is more detailed, indicating whether they are “base” lines, guiding the writing, or “marginal”, used for marginalia (e.g., titles, running titles, foliation, notes) (Derolez 1984, 15, vol. 2). The description includes whether these lines span the full length or width of the page or are confined to the text frame and the method of their production. There are many methods for producing ruling patterns, and distinguishing among them is not always easy; however, ruling patterns can be generally classified based on the traces left on the leaves, including relief methods (creating ridges and furrows, e.g., ruling board, folding), coloured-in methods (leaving a trace on the surface, e.g., dry or leadpoint, ink), and untraced methods (using an external tool to guide writing without leaving a mark, e.g., a guide sheet behind the leaf). Additionally, the schema specifies counting horizontal lines and describing their use system (i.e., every other ruled line or all lines; top and last line usage). Another module in the schema focuses on the textual elements of the page. This includes documenting the number of lines on a typical page and measuring the span of ten lines, considering the nine interlinear spaces. The schema also captures paratextual elements like numeration (pagination or foliation), catchwords, running titles, and signatures of gatherings and leaves. These elements are recorded with their frequency within the unit and their specific positions on the page. Additionally, historical annotations, such as notes indicating possession or price, are accounted for in the description. Building on the textual analysis, the codicological unit further extends to include additional fields such as hybridisation. This aspect is particularly important as it recognises the presence of mixed media, exemplified by printed elements interspersed within primarily handwritten documents. Such details are crucial for understanding the technological transitions and innovations in manuscript production. In addition, the schema allows for noting other significant features, like intentionally left blank pages, which might hold particular importance in the context of the manuscript’s production. An analysis of the gathering structure is essential for understanding a manuscript’s assembly and production, as well as its relation to the content. This involves examining the arrangements of folios within the manuscript and noting any peculiarities in the sequence of gatherings. Such an examination is crucial for highlighting potential rearrangements or modifications over time, revealing the intentions or constraints of the scribe. For instance, there are manuscripts in our corpus where each canto is written by a different scribe on separate gatherings. The schema requires recording the number of gatherings and the general pattern of leaves per gathering, overlooking any irregularities. Notations like “8” or “10” typically indicate that the gatherings are quaternions or quinions, respectively, while “10 16” would denote a pattern of alternating quinions and senions. Additionally, the schema allows for integrating full collations modelled with VisColl (Porter and Campagnolo 2021), where references to the models’ URIs can be included. The final optional module pertains to the binding of the manuscript. Users have the flexibility to describe the binding’s status using a range of terms that reflect varying degrees of accuracy. These terms include modern, historical, original, non-original, and conserved/modified, allowing for a description that best fits the condition and history of the binding. Additionally, a description of the structure can be provided. This binding account draws from a simplified version of the schema developed by the Ligatus Research Centre of the University of the Arts London (Ligatus 2007), and includes elements like endleaves, sewing structures, edge treatment, spine lining, endbands, cover, markers, and furniture. The model’s hierarchical structure is designed for flexibility, allowing descriptions to be maintained at a generic level if desired. Within any option, the surveyor has the ability to indicate either that a specific feature was not examined (“Not Checked” or “NC”) or that its status is unknown (“Not Known” or “NK”). This selection effectively halts further detailing in the hierarchical tree at that point. The schema is meticulously designed to enable a detailed and systematic description of manuscripts, encompassing everything from individual codicological units to the overall binding, ensuring comprehensive documentation of their physical attributes.
Derolez, Albert. 1984. Codicologie des manuscrits en écriture humanistique sur parchemin. 2 vols. Bibliologia. Elementa ad librorum studia pertinentia. Turnhout: Brepols.
Gumbert, Johann Peter. 2004. ‘Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of the Non-Homogeneous Codex’. In Il Codice Miscellaneo. Tipologie e Funzioni: : Atti Del Convegno Internazionale Cassino 14–17 Maggio 2003, edited by Edoardo Crisci and Oronzo Pecere, 17–42. Segno e Testo 2. Cassino: Università degli Studi di Cassino.
Ligatus. 2007. Survey Schemas. London: University of the Arts London. http://www.ligatus.org.uk/stcatherines/node/1052.
———. 2015a. ‘Bolts’. In Language of Bindings Thesaurus. London: Ligatus. http://w3id.org/lob/concept/4081.
———. 2015b. ‘Deckle Edges’. In Language of Bindings Thesaurus. London: Ligatus. http://w3id.org/lob/concept/1284.
Maniaci, Marilena. 1996. Terminologia del libro manoscritto. Studi sulla conoscenza, la conservazione e il restauro del materiale librario. Addenda 3. Roma: Istituto Centrale per la Patologia del Libro; Editrice Bibliografica.
Muzerelle, Denis. 2002. Vocabulaire Codicologique: Répertoire Méthodique Des Termes Français Relatifs Aux Manuscrits Avec Leurs Équivalents En Anglais, Italien, Espagnol. Edition hypertextuelle, Version 1.1. Paris: Intitut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, CNRS. http://vocabulaire.irht.cnrs.fr/.
Needham, Paul. 2017. ‘Format and Paper Size in Fifteenth-Century Printing’. In Materielle Aspekte in Der Inkunabelforschung, edited by Christoph Reske and Wolfgang Schmitz, 59–108. Wolfenbüttel Writings on the History of Bookkeeping 49. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag in Kommission.
Porter, Dot, and Alberto Campagnolo. 2021. VisColl: Modeling and Visualizing the Physical Construction of Codex Manuscripts. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Libraries. https://viscoll.org/.