Just in time for the holidays, issue #3 of Fragmentology is out!
This issue features a few rather long articles, where the authors explore the potential of an online journal. In addition, it contains detailed book reviews of key texts in Fragmentology and Manuscript Studies more generally.
As fragmentologists, we have a collection of techniques that we use to work on our fragments. Some of the most common involve estimating the size of a leaf (or the written area on a leaf) from the partial fragment that survives. While many of us make such estimates all the time, a nagging question remains: how good are our guesses? Can our methodology be tested?
I think it can. Using the vast collection of manuscripts available at e-codices, I created five simulated fragments that can be printed or studied online. These ‘fragments’ are designed to mimic the appearance and content of actual manuscript fragments, and each one contains text from a recto and matching verso of an entire manuscript. Therefore, using these test cards, one can estimate the size of the original, and then check the results against the surviving original.
The test card is available as a PDF, which, if printed out as Actual Size, and duplex (flip on long edge), can even be cut into fragments. It is also available as front and back images. To aid in the work, excerpts from edited sources are also available.
This is part of an experiment that we’re conducting, for which we’d like your help. If you’d like to take part, please follow the test instructions. In effect, we’re asking you to take the test and send us your estimates. We will then compile the anonymous results to answer the question: how good are these guesses, anyway?
Regardless of whether you take the test, we will provide the answer key (and source information) on request.
The second issue of Fragmentology has now received an index of manuscripts. More precisely, we have published an “Index of callmarks to objects that are or contain manuscript material discussed in the issue”, since, as is well-known, fragments often do not have their own shelfmarks. Please note as well that we tried to standardize the shelfmarks, but since shelfmarks are, by definition, non-standard, we did not always succeed. As always, we invite feedback with criticism and correction.
Just in time for the holidays, Fragmentology 2 has been published, featuring six fine articles, three research notes, and a series of detailed reviews. As with the previous issue, an index manuscriptorium and HTML versions of the articles will follow in the coming weeks.
The first issue of Fragmentology, a Journal for the Study of Medieval Fragments, has now been published. This first issue features contributions by Mariá Adelaida Andres Sanz, Pierre Chambert-Protat, Ivana Dobcheva, William Duba, Christina Duffy, Andrew Dunning, Christoph Flüeler, Christoph Mackert, and Ruth Mullett.