Author: Emily Sun

Handout 7 HW

-RUBRICATION (a good amount of rubrication to be noted on the pages, which also helps to distinguish the sections of the text) : <hi rend=”red”>

-LIGATURES, DIFFERENT R/S SHAPES, BITING, ETC (it might be interesting to mark the presence and distribution of special or uncommon letter forms): <hi rend= “ct ligature/do bite/o2/etc”>

-GOLD TOUCHED INITIALS (a good amount of these on our pages, as with the rubrication): <hi rend=”gold touched”>

-SCRIPT DESCRIPTION (it’s important to categorize and characterize the script/hand of the manuscript): <hi rend= “gothic”> or <handDesc> or <handNote>

-DECORATION DESCRIPTION (a very dense and varied amount of decoration on the pages. It would be useful to describe it.): <desc type = “initial”>, <desc type = “miniature”>, <desc type = “border”>, etc. 

-ABBREVIATIONS (a high rate of abbreviation is present in the manuscript–in addition to allowing for ease of reading, it might be interesting to better characterize the distribution/frequency of abbreviations): <choice> with <abbr> and <expan>

General Layout and Bibliography (Group D: James and Emily)

General layout: The central text is 15 lines tall, with 3/4 decorated borders when there are miniatures on the page (each 8 lines tall), otherwise 1/4 border along the vertical outer margin spanning the height of the central text. Decorated initials are 2 lines tall.  Thicker bottom margins, thinner top margins. Text starts below the top line, and bounded on all sides and interlinearly by rubricated lines.

  •  Bibliography:
    • Bond and Faye, 237; Roger S. Wieck, “French Illuminated Manuscripts in the Houghton Library: Recent Discoveries and Attributions,” Harvard Library Bulletin 31 (1983) 192 and fig. 6) reproducing f. 75); Wieck, pp. 30-31, no. 14 (reproducing f. 79).
    • Laura Light, “Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. Volume 1: MSS Lat 3-179, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies. Tempe, Arizona, 1997. pp. 224-229.

Pre-Workshop Reflection

In “Visualizing the Archive,” Whitley notes that “While digital visualization tools are poised to deal with a similar set of issues as those faced by our colleagues in the sciences and social sciences, some of the assumptions about reading expressed in the scholarship on information visualization tend not to sit well with scholars and teachers of literature” (192). Whitley observes that such a disparity arises from the differing natures of the documents that are the traditional objects of study in their respective fields. The gap is of course very marked across the scientific-literary divide, but I wonder about the differing sets of assumptions and challenges that exist across different literary subfields. The projects presented in the excerpts from “The American Literary Scholar in the Digital Age” that we read chiefly (and naturally) focus on American documents from the 19th and 20th centuries. While Burnard does briefly discuss the challenges of treating a text such as Beowulf, I would love to learn more extensively about how the use of the same digital technology is translated across the study of, say, a medieval manuscript fragment and Herman Melville’s draft of Typee.  In “A Case for Heavy Editing,” Gailey mentions TEI’s “recommended vocabulary for the treatment of humanities texts” (131)–I wonder how this standardization (or the process thereof) accounts for the different sorts of document format, circulation, authorship, and readership that occur across the humanities.

Skip to toolbar