>> lrf. How I wish I had been able to attend the lecture. I looked into the
>exhibition on my own on Wednesday, the day of the outings, couldn't make the
>National Museum soiree there. I was rather disappointed with what text was
>on display: it looked extremely fragmentary. But people at the Congress
>told me the real value of the find is in the book-making techniques
>displayed, and that it lays to rest altogether the theory that, for
>instance, the Stowe Missal might have originated from an English workshop.
> Are you in a position to comment on this?
I am sadly not in a position to comment on that. It seems to me that there
is still so much to be done on the manuscript that conclusions like that
would be premature, but as I said, I can't really comment intelligently on
that. Gillis did present some interesting arguments that the cover, while
seemingly unusual (e.g. location of flap and shape of buttons), was likely
common for the period in question. That doesn't bear on book-making, however.
As for the display at the museum, I think they displayed what they did
because it was the most intact part of the manuscript. I think about 50-75%
of the bifolium was there, which is a good amount when one considers that
maybe 15% of the total manuscript is still intact.
As one of my professors was fond of saying, "I have already told you more
than I know." With that, I think I should stop.