Search

EUROPEAN AND ASIAN PAPERS IN MALAY MANUSCRIPTS Introduction [178]One of the advantages of discussing the materials on which manuscripts are written (as opposed for example to discussing language or script) is that any findings can usually be extended to the manuscripts produced in other traditions. The reasons seem to be the failure to distinguish between manuscripts and lithographs, or manuscripts and photocopies; and between manuscripts in Malay and those in Arabic or Acehnese; and scholars seem to borrow manuscripts from each other, further blurring the size of actual collections. At the workshop the participants agreed on a number of Malay/Indonesian terms relating to the physical characteristics of manuscripts that could be employed, such as I cap kertas i (for watermarks), I kertas acuan garis i (for laid paper) and I jilidan i (for binding) (Jones [36]: 70).[174] Russell's articles (Jones [64], [65]) were summarised in a paper, 'Watermarks in Indonesian and Malay manuscripts, some developments in theory and practice' (Jones [66]), presented at the 2011 ASEASUK conference in Cambridge. The data must be regarded as provisional: the dates especially may have to be revised when the manuscripts have been studied more carefully; also, the data may not be representative of Malay manuscripts as a whole; for one thing, there is in it a preponderance of manuscripts written on paper made in Britain, and quite possibly the list contains a disproportionate number of manuscripts "copied to order", giving quite possibly a shorter interval between the making and the use of the paper than would be true of manuscripts in general. [Extracted from the article]

Research on manuscripts from early medieval Septimania and Catalonia has become quite sophisticated, but significant and detailed work remains to be done. The ongoing digitization of thousands of manuscript fragments, preserved especially in public, ecclesiastical, and private archives and libraries in Catalonia, will furnish a rich collection of unknown items that will allow for the reconstruction of lost testimonies of the region's religious culture from the ninth century onwards. This paper shows how modern fragmentology, based on systematic digitization and comparison of scattered pieces, enables us to rediscover and write the history of the Carolingian homiletic collections in the south-western periphery of the Carolingian empire formed by Septimania and Catalonia—both in general and in the specific case of the autochthonous Homiliary of Luculentius. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents notes for contributors in the submission of manuscripts and its style. Three complete copies of the authors' paper should by submitted, with author name omitted for double-blind review to the journal editor John B. Davis. Typed in double spacing on one side only of the paper, submission should be in English. Submission of a paper to a journal will be taken to entail that it presents original, unpublished, work not under condition for publication in or to another place. In addition, an abstract of the paper is required, of up to 150 words that should precede the article. Other guidelines related to the matter are presented.

The article presents notes for contributors in the submission of manuscripts. Three complete copies of the authors' paper should by submitted, with author name omitted for double-blind review to the journal editor John B. Davis. Typed in double spacing on one side only of the paper, submission should be in English. Submission of a paper to a journal will be taken to entail that it presents original, unpublished, work not under condition for publication in or to another place. In addition, an abstract of the paper is required, of up to 150 words that should precede the article. Other guidelines related to the matter are presented.

In this paper, I bring to scholars' attention for the first time and discuss in detail Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 602, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 88, two 13th-century English manuscripts containing bestiaries that are rarely mentioned in the scholarly literature. It will be argued that the images in these manuscripts supply proof of direct copying, although at first glance, the miniatures in question do not appear to be similar. This is because the artist of Douce 88 made numerous additions to and elaborations upon the images he was copying. For example, one scene in MS Bodley 602 has four geese, while the corresponding scene in Douce 88 has three. But, when the texts and details of the images are compared, it becomes clear that the images were indeed copied by the artist of Douce 88 before he elaborated on them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]