I am excited to get back to the Lilly Library and re-evaluate the manuscript now that we have had the chance to sharpen our codicological skills. In addition to the simple physical descriptions that we can make from oberving the manuscript, I think it might be interesting to cross reference our findings with the other areas of study we are conducting surrounding the manuscript. Something that comes to mind is the study of the paper and other binding practices used. Perhaps we can uncover some information about where Smith might have purchased the book, where and when it was made, and if this has any relation to what we uncover about where Smith was during this time. Perhaps there is some overlap here between our manuscript description and the historical background sections. As Annemieke pointed out, the use of guided, directed headings leading the reader to the "so what" of what we are doing would really add to the impact of our project.
I think this idea of overlap might be a good way to structure our project as a whole. Rather than having several seemingly separate sections of information, finding a unifying narrative could really help with the overall presentation of Smith's transcriptions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm sorry for my tardy posts - my recital is finally done, and my family has just left. Now I can devote some serious time to JSS project!
ReplyDeleteI think it will be great to get back to the Lilly Library for some hands-on work with the manuscript.
When we started the class, no skills as codicologist were non-existent - I didn’t even know what codicolgy was! However, since then, I have acquired some essential tools and practical experience which have molded me into a grade “A” novice. The ideas we learned during the first unit (codicology) have marinated nicely, and I’m feeling prepared to get down to the nitty-gritty of the Helm Manuscript.
I agree with James that we might want to compare notes with those working on the Manuscript History. Sharing our discoveries between the two groups will assuredly lead to a thorough understanding and knowledge of the manuscript and it’s history.
Not being an experienced codicologist, I would like to have the work that I do on the project looked over by one of my professors or colleagues to ensure accuracy and precision in my findings. Should the members of the Manuscript Description section meet and work on the manuscript together, or should we work individually and then compare notes?
This is going to be a lot of fun!
I will be glad to help the group out. Remember that we can also run our final product by Joel Silver.
ReplyDelete