Pricking and ruling medieval manuscripts3/30/2023 In England in the sixteenth century a similarly visible dichotomy between old and new means of accessing information was increasingly emerging as printing, introduced to England in 1476, became more widespread. ![]() This is a recent development, and one that is easily overstated, since even now the internet has not completely displaced written sources of knowledge books and online resources continue to coexist, and, in the field of practical information in particular, the medical encyclopedia, the DIY manual, and all manner of cookery books are still useful items on the family bookshelf. As a consequence the value of ordinary old books (that is, books that are not old and rare enough to be objects of interest to antiquarians and specialist collectors) has probably never been lower. ![]() Gaining access to the new has never been easier as online information increasingly displaces the printed work as the place of first resort. This prevailing attitude is especially true in scientific and medical subjects, but even in the arts and humanities a high value is allocated to new ideas. In terms of sources of written information, we seek out the most recently published works or the newest editions of old ones second and subsequent editions render earlier versions mostly obsolete, and ‘new’ is synonymous with ‘better, improved’. We look for currency in medical practice and seek reassurance that treatments are the most modern something that is ‘old’ in medical terms is liable to be little valued. Modern attitudes to knowledge in general and health care in particular place the highest value on new advances, discoveries, and techniques, and tend to regard older methods as old-fashioned and liable to be outdated. It is argued that the knowledge preserved in medieval books enjoyed a longevity that extended beyond the period of the manuscript book, and that manuscripts were read and valued long after the advent of printing. These two layers of engagement with the manuscript are interrogated in detail in order to reveal what ailments may have troubled this family most, and to judge how much faith they placed in the old remedies contained in this old book. Secondly, he, and other members of his family, added another forty-three recipes to the original collection (some examples of these are also transcribed). ![]() Firstly, the London lawyer who owned it not only inscribed his name but annotated the original recipe collection in various ways, providing finding-aids that made it much more user-friendly. The particular feature that distinguishes Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson c. 299 from other similar volumes is the evidence that it continued to be used during the sixteenth century. The difference between a remedy book and a leechbook is explained, and this manuscript is situated in relation to other known examples of late medieval medical anthologies. Some individual recipes are transcribed with modern English translations. The recipes are organised broadly from head to toe, and often several remedies are offered for the same complaint. ![]() This article examines a fifteenth-century remedy book, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson c. 299, and describes its collection of 314 medieval medical prescriptions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |