02-10-2016, 05:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 05:28 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cut
)
May I just say that there is a distinction between "relative size" which just means "little-bigger-biggest" and "dimensions". The latter refers strictly to measurements.
Rene's picture illustrated the relative sizes of European herbals;
My research was into the distribution of manuscripts having exactly the same dimensions as the standard bifolia in Beinecke MS 408.
Rather different.
Sam - you are right that some kinds of books were made bigger than others; just as Rene was illustrating, though, big herbals, middle-sized herbals, and small herbals are known.
There are a number of good sites online; my posts linked to some and quoted others. You will find that the dimensions for sheets of paper and of membrane were subject to legislation once the manufacture of books moved from the in-house environment of the monastic houses to the commercial environment.
Two critical points apply when doing the more precise sort of study (i.e. of bifolio dimensions rather than just "small-bigger-biggest")
1) Unlike the Voynich ms, the great majority of extant manuscripts may show signs of having been trimmed substantially when re-bound (sometimes more than once).
Second - that my study was begun only after being assured by Rene that the Voynich bifolia showed no signs of having been trimmed ( I was also interested in the possibility that a pricking line may have been sliced away, as often happened).
At the same time - because I see no point in wasting my time and effort if something is already done - I was assured (correctly) that no survey had ever been done to determine if the dimensions of the manuscript's ordinary bifolia were common, or uncommon.
They are uncommon. Very.
It was suggested at the time, that such a survey would be "another irrelevancy" but in fact it turned up some very interesting results - chiefly that in the whole collection of the British Library's illuminated manuscripts and digitised manuscript herbals, there were only two items having those dimensions: one made in Northern Italy and another in England, and both in the second half of the 1430s. Rather pleasing, I thought.
Rene's picture illustrated the relative sizes of European herbals;
My research was into the distribution of manuscripts having exactly the same dimensions as the standard bifolia in Beinecke MS 408.
Rather different.
Sam - you are right that some kinds of books were made bigger than others; just as Rene was illustrating, though, big herbals, middle-sized herbals, and small herbals are known.
There are a number of good sites online; my posts linked to some and quoted others. You will find that the dimensions for sheets of paper and of membrane were subject to legislation once the manufacture of books moved from the in-house environment of the monastic houses to the commercial environment.
Two critical points apply when doing the more precise sort of study (i.e. of bifolio dimensions rather than just "small-bigger-biggest")
1) Unlike the Voynich ms, the great majority of extant manuscripts may show signs of having been trimmed substantially when re-bound (sometimes more than once).
Second - that my study was begun only after being assured by Rene that the Voynich bifolia showed no signs of having been trimmed ( I was also interested in the possibility that a pricking line may have been sliced away, as often happened).
At the same time - because I see no point in wasting my time and effort if something is already done - I was assured (correctly) that no survey had ever been done to determine if the dimensions of the manuscript's ordinary bifolia were common, or uncommon.
They are uncommon. Very.
It was suggested at the time, that such a survey would be "another irrelevancy" but in fact it turned up some very interesting results - chiefly that in the whole collection of the British Library's illuminated manuscripts and digitised manuscript herbals, there were only two items having those dimensions: one made in Northern Italy and another in England, and both in the second half of the 1430s. Rather pleasing, I thought.