# data[].attributes.body
AW: As we talked about in the live session, there are a number of possible explanations here. Some GREAT response and answers from you all in the live session - well done. These included (i) Scribe 1 was editor writing all the catchwords, but he did not need them for these sections for some reason -- one of the inconsistencies in the book; (ii) there were once catchwords on these fols, written by Scribe 1, but they have been trimmed, scraped or washed away during the conservation history of the book; (iii) there were once catchwords on these fols, but written by other scribes than Scribe 1, perhaps by S2 or S6 themselves and perhaps writing lower on the page so more at risk from trimming; (iv) there were no catchwords on the parts because they were made independently, at a different stage of production, and were not intended to be included int eh book. Perhaps you can think other possibilities?

# data[].attributes.body
If they are done by scribe 1,  then it gives greater evidence for the distribution theory. It can show that the production was overseen or organised by scribe 1 and  after the other scribes copied their parts of the manuscript, scribe 1 edited it together

# data[].attributes.body
Remember that you can click on the info book icon at the top of a text in the Auchinleck MS and it will give you information about that text - which scribe it was copied by (in Auchinleck), other manuscripts it is in, verse form, and so on.

# data[].attributes.body
here is a snip of the catchword on fol 99v - Note that the text (the Seven Sages of Rome) is in the hand of Scribe 3, but is the catchword? (or is the catchword Scribe 1?)

# data[].attributes.body
It would indicate that Scribe 1 isn't only acting as a compiler and that Scribe 3 had a hand in ordering the quires. Unlike the f.168v example, it doesn't seem I can compare the catchword to the following quire as there are 1400-ish lines of text missing, so it seems even tricker to ascertain the author of the catchword. Either Scribe 1 and 3 could have been co-editors, or they could all have acted as editor in some form.

# data[].attributes.body
Y

# data[].attributes.body
The '&' sign looks finer and more calligraphic than the examples you've provided in an alphabet of Scribe 1's hand, although this may be a variation. The first letter seems to be a t but I can't see any letter-form that matches the letter after the t in the alphabet of Scribe 1's hand. It looks like it could be a b or an l, and by comparing it to the main body of text, it seems that that style of b is used by Scribe 3 (see line 2742) Scribe 1's bs tend to be more curved from previous examples. Nonetheless, the y of the catchphrase looks more like Scribe 1's than Scribe 3's: see lines 2695 and 2696. They're more vertical and pointed, whereas Scribe 1's ys slant toward the left. As the ys in the main text vary consistently from the catchword more so than the b, I would conclude that the catchword was written by Scribe 1.

# data[].attributes.body
Would it aid the contest between bookshop v booklet?

# data[].attributes.body
Scribe 1 uses what Samuels calls 'Type II London English', meaning he is likely to have been a well-trained professional scribe as this is where our other Auchinleck scribes converge. If most of the catchwords, signatures and item numbers are by him, as Cunningham argues, it seems as though he is the editor.

# data[].attributes.body
I know we're discussing the dialects of the scribes this week, but with Scribe 5's first sentence on the next page, the deviation from the catchword on f.168v indicates that Scribe 5 probably didn't add the catchword, so Scribe 1 is likely to be the catchword-er.

168v: ȝis felonn quaþ þerl of cornwa...
169ra: Þes feloun queþ [þ]erl of Cornewayle

I wasn't too sure exactly what you were asking for in this question Alison, but I hope this is in the right direction!

# data[].attributes.body
As the last commenter outlined, all but f.168 are in the hand of Scribe 1. Initially, I thought Scribe 5 may have written the catchword on account of the n in 'feloun' being joined at the top, like Scribe 5's, rather than being separate minims, but looking at f.169ra supports Cunningham's claim.

# data[].attributes.headline
It is likely that the catchwords are written by Scribe 1 following the booklet theory that takes into account the physical evidence from the manuscript, the theory fits in with what we know about contemporary London society 

# data[].attributes.subject
It is likely that the catchwords are written by Scribe 1 following the booklet theory that takes into account the physical evidence from the manuscript, the theory fits in with what we know about contemporary London society 

# data[].attributes.headline
fol 38v catchword -- did you find this? You can post images here too... 

# data[].attributes.subject
fol 38v catchword -- did you find this? You can post images here too... 