Talk:Hemming's Cartulary

Scrolly/hidden section...
That's gotta go. It's very much against the MOS and it'll get whapped at FAC (where this article is headed at some point.) Is that level of detail REALLY necessary for an encyclopedia article? If it is, a plain table would probably be best. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I do think it's unneeded detail. The exact folios and what is on them is probably better for a monograph, not Wikipedia. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That one can go, no probs. Apart from the fact that something had gone awry with the cells, it's probably not meaningful to most readers anyway. Cavila (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the other additions though, looking good. I always need someone to help with organization on these sorts of articles... I'm not really a "document" scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi Ealdgyth, here are some ideas for expansion:

How about more on the fate of the manuscript? How did it end up in the Cotton library? Are there any other medieval copies or modern transcriptions?

Although this might be extremely boring for the average reader, what about palaeographical and codicological information. This might fit in with the "composition" section at the beginning, which already has some of that info. How big is the manuscript? How many lines per page? What kind of script(s) does it use? Does that help date it? Are there different colours of ink? Are there any illustrations? My palaeography terminology is a little rusty, but some of that info is obvious from the one example image (I mean, it looks insular, or uncial - or is it insular uncial? - mixed with Carolingian, typical of pre-Gothic scripts of the 11th-12th centuries, but definitely don't take my word for it!). Have any of the editors gone into such detail? Hopefully the forthcoming edition would do so. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll dig a bit. Found some refs to some books I hope I can check out next week sometime when I run up to U of I for a bit. I'm wondering how this should be structured. Strictly speaking, the Liber is a separate work, but I'm not sure there is enough to make its own article, and if we do, we have the issue of the manuscript is left without a "home". Suggestions? Should we split LW off, leave the Hemming work itself here and maybe do a manuscript page for the details of the manuscript itself? Or keep everything here which will have the advantage of making this article actually of a decent size. Now I remember why I don't do manuscripts... blech! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If a work is contained in only one manuscript (as this is? Unless I have misread), then I think we can keep all the info in one place. This is unlike, say, all those articles about Bible fragments, along with a general article about the Bible. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes while I'm on the road...
Ownership of the main manuscript seems to be obscure. There are annotations in it that were made by John Joscelyn, who was a secretary to Matthew Parker and Parker died in 1575. Most of Parker's manuscripts went to Corpus Christi College, so it is possible that Joscelyn's annotations came after Parker's death and the manuscript was not owned by Parker. It's worth noting that Parker owned the Worcester version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle though, could the Cartulary have been sold off at some point from Parker's collection? Otherwise there isn't much to note on who owned it prior to Cotton. It was in Cotton's hands by 1612-1615, when the manuscript was loaned out to Arthur Agarde. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Parker (according to the ODNB) got a number of manuscripts from Worcester Priory. And that a number of manuscripts owned by him were not given to CC but instead ended up in his sons' hands and then were sold later, so it's possible that HC was owned by Parker prior to it ending up with Cotton. Will track down some works on Parker's library ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

working section...
Going to try a "small" table of the overview of the contents, without getting into excrutiating detail here. Working space/sandbox!

How does this look to everyone? It avoid the incredible detail that would overwhelm the article but yet gives a graphical organization of the information for those that do that easier. Any thing else that's needed? Other bits are welcome to be added to. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think something like this is needed, and this is about the right level of detail. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Something went wrong when I had my Open Office table converted into a wiki-table (using the otherwise handy built-in Open Office function for these purposes), so it would be better to rely on Francesca Tinti's table (at p. 238 of her aricle) directly. But I somehow assume you did exactly that, with Ker to hand. I should probably explain to other readers that Tinti's table represents a reconstruction of what Hemming's (own) cartulary might have looked like, with the sections and quires being re-aligned to follow a different sequence from that presently suggested by the foliation in the manuscript. The different columns are then used for (1) MS sections (numbered H, I, J, K and L, per Neil Ker; A to G being used for the Liber); (2) folio numbers; (3) MS quires (numbered 1 to 10); (4) a description of the contents of each quire; (5) the hands used; and finally, (6) the pages in Hearne's edition. Folios 143, 153 and 177 do not belong to the original cartulary. That's surely more than I would bargain for as a general reader and a tad speculative, to boot. That said, a couple of things just had to be in there. I added some content, providing an extremely brief explanation where our main text does not go into further detail. Note the gap, however, on fos. 165r-166v, which is left unexplained in the article (?). Cavila (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's an error with my copying, actually. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, they are not discussed in the article that I can find. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had a good look at Hearne's edition, which has the king-list at ff. 164r-v, a charter of King Edgard concerning Bickmarsh (Sawyer no. 751) at f. 165r-166r and then a charter issued in Coenwulf's name. Which means that in deciding on folio numbering, he disregarded the 15th-century addition, whereas modern scholars now include it. Good to know, actually. Cavila (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hemming's Cartulary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016155533/http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F65409.htm&Search=Cott.+Tib.+A.+xiii.&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F65409.htm&Search=Cott.+Tib.+A.+xiii.&Highlight=F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016155533/http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F65409.htm&Search=Cott.+Tib.+A.+xiii.&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F65409.htm&Search=Cott.+Tib.+A.+xiii.&Highlight=F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016155721/http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F73750.htm&Search=Cott.+Nero+E.i.&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F73750.htm&Search=Cott.+Nero+E.i.&Highlight=F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016155800/http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F1251.htm&Search=Add.+46204&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F1251.htm&Search=Add.+46204&Highlight=F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

2010 edition
Hi Ealdgyth. I think it's very important to acknowledge that, as of yet, the 2010 edition has not emerged. I've seen countless people trying to hunt down that edition, assuming it has been produced and published. Faust.TSFL (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You added the information to the lead, but not to the body - and added it without a source. The lead summarizes the body and new information should be sourced. The reason it's worded as it is, is because we don't have a source that states it hasn't been published yet - we can't do WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and say it's not out yet when our sources don't say that. Sucks, but that's the way wikipedia works. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It has never been published and the statement that it is forthcoming as of 2010 is cited to the 2004 ODNB article, so I will delete the statement. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)