Summary

  • Digital Scriptorium's early manuscript photography kept physical features visible and included references for scale and colour.
  • Shared images gave readers material for their own comparisons, while participating libraries could choose different ways to make them.

The medieval manuscript was going online, and the ruler had secured a place in the photograph.

Columbia University Libraries' account of its 1997–98 imaging work for Digital Scriptorium describes a deliberately unflattering policy. Uneven edges, surface flaws and writing showing through from the other side stayed visible. Each image included a ruler, a grey scale and a colour bar. Several centuries of wear would be joining the internet with supporting documentation.

The name of a script could only do so much

Digital Scriptorium brought together manuscript work at Columbia University and the University of California, Berkeley. In a 1999 conference paper, Charles B. Faulhaber explained a problem the project was trying to solve: catalogue descriptions could leave out visual differences that mattered to scholars. Two examples of handwriting with the same classification might look quite different.

A reader needed to see those differences. Images offered material for comparing scripts and judging where and when a manuscript might have been made. The catalogue could help someone find an item; the photograph gave that person more to work with after finding it.

This put a surprising amount of responsibility on the edge of the picture. A page fills a screen at whatever size the display allows. The ruler keeps its physical scale available. The colour references offer something more dependable than a visitor's impression that this parchment looks rather yellow today. The unglamorous objects in the frame were doing scholarly work.

Film was invited to the digital project

The two founding libraries took different imaging routes. Berkeley acquired a digital camera. Columbia continued with film followed by digitisation. Its historical account discusses the time, lighting and preservation concerns behind that choice, alongside the pressure to get the photography done. Film negatives served as archival copies, with digital versions for the web.

The contrast is a useful detail in an internet story. A common online collection could be assembled through different local production methods. The practical question was whether the resulting image carried the evidence another reader needed.

Faithfulness still involved careful work. Scans were calibrated, aligned and checked. Correcting the capture process helped preserve the page's appearance, including the features the photographer had deliberately left in view. An immaculate-looking image could be less useful if its tidiness removed a clue.

A photograph could have several jobs

Columbia's later selection guide, published in 2008, makes the editorial work explicit. A decorated initial might also show page layout, ruling or a gathering signature. Changes of hand and ownership marks could justify an image. Bindings and musical notation had their own uses. Selected views gave different readers different things to inspect.

The choice of a page therefore shaped the questions a distant scholar could ask. A striking illustration might attract a visitor; a less showy mark could help that visitor investigate the book's making or travels. A useful selection had to consider both.

Faulhaber's 1999 design argument also allowed descriptions to change as other institutions added evidence. That gives the photograph another job: it remains available when someone has a better question than the original catalogue entry anticipated.

Digital Scriptorium's contribution to web history includes this careful allocation of attention. Libraries prepared and described the material. Readers could look, compare and reconsider. The beautiful manuscript brought an audience; the ruler quietly helped the audience do some work.

Sources