[HN Gopher] Fragments of a rare Merlin manuscript from c. 1300
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Fragments of a rare Merlin manuscript from c. 1300
        
       Author : derbOac
       Score  : 124 points
       Date   : 2025-03-31 01:27 UTC (21 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cam.ac.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cam.ac.uk)
        
       | ggm wrote:
       | I believe one of the early maps of the americas by Amerigo
       | Vespucci was found in a similar way. Re-using paper to hand
       | making the binding, padding the covers, wrapping the bound
       | signatures before the outer leather or board was added was
       | surprisingly common. John Le Carre uses it in "the perfect spy"
       | as a mechanism to pass secret information to an amateur book
       | binder.
       | 
       | It speaks to me of Robert Grave's fictitious account of Claudius
       | deciding rather than hiding them, to leave his (fictional)
       | autobiographical scrolls just lying around, let history decide
       | what to keep and what to dispose of.
        
         | staplung wrote:
         | As you pointed out, reusing parts of old books or manuscripts
         | was quite common. Evidently, there was quite a lot of it going
         | on in England just after the dissolution of the monasteries by
         | Henry VIII. Their libraries had a lot of books that were
         | "unwanted" and there was also a lot of new stuff getting
         | _printed_ that needed binding. Parchment is a very sturdy
         | material (consider that it 's essentially a bag meant to hold
         | in the internal organs of an animal that may weigh hundreds of
         | kilos).
         | 
         | Anyway, I guess the novelty here is that they were able to read
         | much of the older work without dismantling the Turducken book
         | (one article I read used that term).
         | 
         | Was a little surprised to see that the researchers seemed to be
         | holding the book with bare hands. Would have guessed those
         | sorts of things are usually handled with gloves but maybe this
         | was about pioneering the technique on something considered less
         | valuable.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_waste
        
           | ggm wrote:
           | I've noticed recently historical works being handled
           | differently depending on the materials. I think there's been
           | a revision in the protocols: Maybe the white cotton gloves
           | are mechanically harmful sometimes? I doubt they let somebody
           | do it who just fixed their bike chain, but if you wash your
           | hands before touching it's possible for parchment, it's not
           | that big a deal.
           | 
           | https://library.pdx.edu/news/the-proper-handling-of-rare-
           | boo...
        
             | staplung wrote:
             | Oh, interesting. Makes sense, I suppose. The article you
             | linked doesn't recommend it but if you wash your hands with
             | detergent (e.g. a drop or two of liquid Tide) you'll pull
             | all the oil right out of your skin. No fingerprints! It
             | only lasts for a few minutes however and I doubt that
             | removing the oil from your skin is really doing you any
             | favors, long term but maybe there's some extremely narrow
             | Venn diagram intersection where you need to commit the
             | perfect crime but are unwilling to carry nitrile gloves but
             | are willing to carry around a bottle of laundry detergent
             | and wash your hands every few minutes. ;-)
             | 
             | Anyway, thanks for the link.
        
             | rags2riches wrote:
             | I think some of the harm of wearing gloves is in the loss
             | of sense. Fingertips are very sensitive, which must be
             | helpful when handling something delicate. They mention
             | tearing in the link. I guess they just found you're more
             | likely to accidentally tear the pages when wearing gloves.
        
               | permo-w wrote:
               | can confirm that this is the logic. odd source of
               | confirmation, but nonetheless:
               | 
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxZDx8dmCXM&pp
        
             | mdiesel wrote:
             | In the highly educational show Cunk on Shakespeare, she's
             | told not to wear gloves when looking at an early book since
             | doing so tends to result in people being more heavy handed
             | with the pages.
        
               | permo-w wrote:
               | yes true!
               | 
               | link for anyone curious:
               | 
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxZDx8dmCXM&pp
        
               | 6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote:
               | It's important to note that Cunk, whilst highly
               | informative in many domains, is essentially winging it
               | when it comes to Shakespeare.
        
           | colanderman wrote:
           | Somewhere I read that the cotton gloves are just for show,
           | because onlookers get in a tizzy if they see things being
           | handled without them. Gloves limit dexterity, so it's
           | apparently less damaging to use bare hands.
        
             | mistrial9 wrote:
             | there is oil on your skin and perhaps waxes.. if those stay
             | on the paper after handling the paper, then those elements
             | will contribute to accumulation of dirt and new kinds of
             | rot
        
         | RataNova wrote:
         | I love how these layers of reuse in bookbinding turn ordinary
         | archival work into a kind of historical archaeology
        
       | sema4hacker wrote:
       | I find these modern web page layouts, with peek-a-boo sections,
       | independently scrolling columns, and other unnecessary fancy
       | features to be frustrating to read, which is somewhat ironic
       | since the story is about a difficult to read 13th century
       | manuscript.
        
         | graemep wrote:
         | I suppose it is appropriate to a site with discussing medieval
         | manuscripts - a lot of them prefer aesthetics to readability!
         | 
         | A cynic might say something about it being a university website
         | and appropriateness to academia. Not me of course!
        
       | luhsprwhk wrote:
       | Disappointment alert: It wasn't fireball scrolls or a recipe for
       | healing potions. It's a medieval rom-com.
        
         | Apocryphon wrote:
         | Hey, audiences have been hungry for that sort of lost work:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortigern_and_Rowena
        
         | riffraff wrote:
         | I interpreted the title as a manuscript _by_ Merlin rather than
         | _about_ Merlin and was deeply confused for a bit.
        
           | barotalomey wrote:
           | Okay. Merlin is a medieval work of fiction. He's not a
           | historical figure.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin
        
             | alexey-salmin wrote:
             | Or so he was until we've found that manuscript of his!
        
       | RataNova wrote:
       | The fact that a 13th-century Arthurian manuscript was quietly
       | hiding inside a 16th-century book cover for centuries is wild
       | enough on its own, but the way they virtually unfolded it without
       | causing damage feels almost as magical as the story of Merlin
       | itself
        
       | grandchild wrote:
       | Once you know that _usually_ people use white cotton gloves when
       | handling museum artifacts, I find it a bit distressing that the
       | person halfway down the article is not wearing any while holding
       | the priceless 700-year-old pages.
        
         | Oarch wrote:
         | I believe this is no longer encouraged.
        
         | namaria wrote:
         | "According to the Library of Congress, wearing gloves while
         | handling antiquarian books may do more harm than good. Portland
         | State University Library Special Collections follows their
         | advice to handle most rare and valuable books with clean, dry
         | hands."
         | 
         | https://library.pdx.edu/news/the-proper-handling-of-rare-boo...
         | "Hands in gloves lack the tactility and manual dexterity of
         | bare hands. Handling a book with gloved hands could lead to
         | accidentally torn pages when the gloves catch on fragile edges,
         | or a dropped book if the gloves prove to be loose or slippery.
         | Cotton gloves in particular have a tendency to lift fragments
         | from pages, including pigments. Their fibers can catch in
         | cracks that are invisible to the naked eye, further damaging
         | friable pigments and inks.         This also means that cotton
         | gloves retain a lot of dirt, making them not so clean after
         | all! In this same vein, gloves cause the hands to sweat, and
         | this moisture can penetrate the gloves to wind up on the books.
         | Ew!"
         | 
         | https://blog.library.si.edu/blog/2019/11/21/no-love-for-whit...
        
         | jrimbault wrote:
         | From what I understand the gloves are only used on case-by-case
         | basis. For some items they are more damaging than the oils from
         | our (washed and dried) hands.
        
         | AdamN wrote:
         | Apparently archivists had a realization that clean and dry
         | hands are the most precise for handling delicate objects and
         | that actually mistakes are made with any sort of glove. It's
         | only dealers using white gloves at this point to give a sense
         | of mystique to what they're selling and to give the buyer the
         | sense that only the owner can really touch the object.
        
           | TheAceOfHearts wrote:
           | To clarify, the use of gloves depends a lot on the item.
           | Books are made to be handled by people and are usually
           | resilient to contact with clean human hands. However there
           | are other museum pieces that are far more sensitive to oil
           | which still merit the use of gloves. For example, here is a
           | video [0] of Adam Savage discussing a piece from the Met
           | Museum which is handled using gloves because they want to
           | preserve it.
           | 
           | [0] https://youtu.be/u_-oUvv28dE
        
         | DC-3 wrote:
         | Yeah bro I'm sure you know more about handling precious
         | manuscripts than a Cambridge University archivist.
        
         | IncreasePosts wrote:
         | I feel like you should give the presumption of confidence to
         | the archivist at one of the most prestigious universities in
         | the world.
        
       | mellosouls wrote:
       | A really nicely presented exposition of the benefits of an
       | institutions intra-departmental work.
       | 
       | Here's the manuscript itself for page-by-page viewing:
       | 
       | https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-VANNECK-BOX-00005-A-FOLIO...
        
       | zombot wrote:
       | Too bad all the photos in the article are all so small. I would
       | have enjoyed them in larger size.
        
         | TheAceOfHearts wrote:
         | Friend, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page they
         | include a link to Cambridge Digital Library which allows you to
         | look at the full resolution images:
         | 
         | > The digital results of the project are now available for
         | everyone to explore online via the > Cambridge Digital Library.
         | [0]
         | 
         | [0] https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/merlinfragment/1
        
       | JoeAltmaier wrote:
       | Was this 'unfolding' similar to how the burned library at Pompeii
       | had some ashen scrolls revealed?
        
       | clauderoux wrote:
       | "La suite vulgate du Merlin" might translate as: "the vulgate
       | follow up of THE Merlin", which I find quite curious. Modern
       | French would rather say: "DE Merlin". It was as if Merlin was not
       | a proper name but the name of some creature of the Merlin
       | species, or some kind of properties.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | It could be short for "du conte de Merlin".
        
       | dartos wrote:
       | The page refreshes when I scroll 80% down....
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-31 23:02 UTC)