And in this specific instance, it would make sense to me to cite Laura’s work when outlining to specific definition of the Paris Bible that she has been the one to largely define in modern scholarship. But this is all personal opinion, of course!

All very fair points! I would say that citing the basic definition of the Paris Bible wouldn’t seem tangential to me, if it’s discussed specifically in a description. And I find that often—a reference that clearly points to a certain scholar’s work or argument without mentioning them.

I suppose I’m dissatisfied with the way things have been done in the past, and feel that we should make citation a more regular and thorough practice in all areas of book history!

I’m thinking beyond mss, as well! There are so many ex.s of auction catalogs perpetuating false claims about books and their histories (ex. Samuel Johnson did NOT write the penultimate chapter of the Female Quixote, as Romney shows) enabled in part by of a lack of meaningful citations.

Thanks for clarifying, Peter. It seems that as we strive for better citation practices in scholarship across the board, places like Christie’s should be leading the pack in terms of acknowledging where the arguments they make come from—esp. since catalogs are such valuable reference sources.

Also, it’s not just bad scholarly practice and suspicious. It’s LAZY. Many bookseller catalogs don’t cite sources at all—which is often standard practice. But “citing sources” only to include the literal most basic source on the market is showing that Christie’s doesn’t really care about rigor.

For example, “The so-called ‘Paris Bible’, the epitome of 13th-century book production, offered…” DOES NOT CITE Laura Light. The scholar who has defined our understanding of the Paris Bible—though citing her would require Christie’s to at least sort of accurately represent what the “Paris Bible” is.

New favorite manuscript unlocked!

This would be SO helpful!

There is indeed! Thinking more along the lines of the use of the term “marginalia” itself—where it is used to describe added content that specifically responds to or relates to the text itself, versus added content that is more general or unrelated to the specific text.

In my head, every time, I say: yes. You got me. I, a rare book professional, am knowingly and brazenly flaunting best practice in this public forum in which I’m a representative of my department and my profession.

This era of American politics has eroded respect for expertise, in all fields.

This is one of many reasons @digitalscriptorium.bsky.social Catalog is built on Wikibase. Less at risk of platform-level obsolescence!

I cannot WAIT to read this!!

Bond (or at least ONE of the Bonds, it’s a little hard to ID them all clearly) also included a eulogy for his son at the time of his death in the back of the book, dated 1738.

It’s unclear if Jugge’s printer’s mark is genuine because of the way the page it’s on is attached, and the accompanying explanation given by Bond (1817). But a very cool example of owners engaging deeply with the book’s origins!