05-10-2016, 02:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2016, 02:14 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: add to JKP
)
Rene,
Thank you for including the names of those two people.
I think that conversation will make clear why our own practice is to speak of "membrane" unless we are particularly addressing some issue where comparisons between specific manuscripts include reference to their being both of vellum, goat skin parchment etc.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the essays in the forthcoming edition was a formal opinion by Quant? Or indeed by Barabe though I would understand if he felt he'd already done enough.
JKP
I understand your point of view, but if you'll forgive me, I'll continue to speak of it as relatively coarse vellum, since the issue relates directly to issues of comparative codicology and provenancing in this case. Others, of course, may use more general terms - I'm not trying to legislate.
Thank you for including the names of those two people.
I think that conversation will make clear why our own practice is to speak of "membrane" unless we are particularly addressing some issue where comparisons between specific manuscripts include reference to their being both of vellum, goat skin parchment etc.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the essays in the forthcoming edition was a formal opinion by Quant? Or indeed by Barabe though I would understand if he felt he'd already done enough.
JKP
I understand your point of view, but if you'll forgive me, I'll continue to speak of it as relatively coarse vellum, since the issue relates directly to issues of comparative codicology and provenancing in this case. Others, of course, may use more general terms - I'm not trying to legislate.