The Scarlet Letter: Experimentation, Design and Copying Practice in the Coloured Capitals of MS Digby 86
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Ƨet morteus pecches sount. Li premer est orgod. Le secound est envie’. (fol. 1r) ON the first opening of Oxford, BodL, MS Digby 86 as it is currently bound, the first coloured capital is backwards. The initial S is drawn in the same ink as the text, with red infill and a flourish in the top corner. It has been drawn back-tofront, with the upper curve starting in the top left and the spine running diagonally right to left. The apparent error on this folio prompts several questions. How did such a reversal happen? What decorative practices or design considerations caused it? And, as a corollary of this, what does such an elementary mistake suggest about the competency, training, skills or objectives of the scribe? In attempting to answer these questions, it would be prudent first to confirm the identity of the person responsible for producing the initials and rubrication in Digby 86. Previous scholarship has suggested that the same person who decorated the manuscript was responsible for the majority of the writing – the scribe identified by Judith Tschann and Malcolm Parkes as Scribe A (termed here the ‘Digby scribe’). This ascription is probably correct; however, the evidence for it is rarely unpacked. In part, this evidence is material. The coloured capitals in Digby are usually filled in red or brown and sometimes a combination of the two. The same combination of red and brown inks is used in the marginal illustrations. By sight, it is possible to identify four different shades at various points in the manuscript: a pale brown, a dark brown, a watery orange-red and a thicker pink-red. In some sections, the colour of the line work and brown capitals appears to be the same as the ink used for the text. Similarly, the shade of red used for the capitals sometimes matches that used for titles and other rubrication. For example, the A that begins the Anglo- Norman verse Life of Saint Nicholas seems to have been drawn in the same ink as the text's title (‘Les miracles de seint nicholas’; fol. 150r), while initials several folios later seem to match the colour used to highlight the litterae notabiliores (fol. 152r). Palaeographic analysis suggests that the handwriting of these rubricated elements is the same leftward-sloping, late thirteenth-century anglicana of the main scribe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".