Talk:Gospels of Máel Brigte

Recent edit

In the latest edit to this article, User:PeterKidd made a couple of edits which I think should be reconsidered. In the first he converted the sentence "The binding is of red leather with gilt tooling and dates from after 1600." to "The binding is The binding is post-medieval." Although I agree that the binding is of little interest to someone interest in the history of the manuscript itself, the binding is an integral part of the physical object, The details of what type and when the binding wa made would be of interest to those interested in the provenance of codicology of the book.

The second edit removed the sentence "The prefatory material is grouped together at the beginning of the manuscript." Although it may seem obvious that prefatory material is, by definition grouped together at the beginning, it isn't always so, as some insular manuscript are organized by having the prefatory material for each individual gospel precede that gospel. Dsmdgold 14:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The article is hardly so long as to need shortening. Johnbod 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings, but here is the reasoning for my edits. There is perhaps an implication that "after 1600" suggests 17th-century, but "post-medieval" is far less specific. If I remember correctly the binding was done in the 18th century for the Harleys, and "post-1600" is just the shorthand used for the BL database. The second edit is a matter of sematics. As I understand the word, 'prefatory' material can only be at the beginning; if it is in the middle it is not 'prefatory'. I agree that a gospel 'preface' can be in the middle, but that does not make it 'prefatory', and anyway it would be more accurate not to call it a 'preface', but to call it a 'prologue' or an 'argument' (to use a more technical term) PeterKidd 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You make two very good points. I think I will change the first sentence to "The binding of red leather with gilt tooling is post-medieval." until we have a more specific date. I see your point on the word prefatory. Can you suggest a better term to cover the all of non-biblical texts and tables that were included with with early Gospel Books (Jerome's letters, the canon tables, name lists, the various prologues and arguments, etc.) Perhaps "explanatory" might work. I do think that the fact that the prologues are gathered together in the beginning should be mentioned since in many of the other insular manuscripts they are not. Dsmdgold 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say it straight out, something like "The prologues do not precede each gospel, as in most manuscripts, but are gathered together with other prefatory material"?PeterKidd 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)