Talk:Nowell Codex

Digital images
For such an old and important document, it is unfortunate that the only external link in this article is to a google image search. Is there a way to make higher quality images from the British Library? Jeff Carr (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Manuscripts, codices, books ...
This article is extremely confusing. Is it talking about a single 'volume' or two? Looking up 'manuscript' and 'codex' (for which there is no link) and comparing to how these terms (as well as 'book') are used throughout the article the reader could conclude that this is simultaneously a single volume and two distinct volumes (codices?). And if only the second 'manuscript' is known as the Nowell Codex why does the article talk about the first manuscript and/or codex (or whatever it is) at all? 87.113.170.112 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It says "The current codex is a composite of at least two manuscripts, the first manuscript and the second manuscript.The main division is into two totally distinct books which were apparently not bound together until the 17th century. The first of these dates from the 12th century and contains four works of prose. It is the second, older manuscript that is famous." Isn't that clear enough? It was two books with no connection that were later bound together for convenience, so now it is one book with two manuscripts. This is a common situation. The whole book, as it exists now, is the Nowell Codex. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still confusing. It says "The current codex is a composite of at least two manuscripts ..." and then in the next paragraph "This second manuscript is popularly known as the Nowell codex..." So is the Nowell Codex, the subject of the article, the composite of two manuscripts or just the second manuscript? 91.125.136.9 (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just the second, as is clearly said. But the lead gives Cotton Vitellius A. xv (both) as its subject. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)