Gripla - 2023, Blaðsíða 183

THE GENESIS OF A COMPOSITE 181
missing from the manuscript,23 thirty-one of them from PU1, meaning
that this production unit was once at least twice the size that it is today.24
The codicological aspects of PU1 seem to have set the tone for all the
following production units. The properties of the writing support of PU1
can be characterized as follows: The writing support is vellum (calf skin),
as is visible from the hair follicles. In its current form, PU1 consists of a
defective quire, currently consisting of two bifolia (I1-4), three intact gath-
erings made of four bifolia (II5-12, III13-20, IV21-28), a defective gathering
made of three bifolia (V29-34), and a singleton (fol. 35) (see figure 1 for the
current collation). The gatherings that are preserved in their full size (gath-
erings II, III and IV) adhere to Gregory’s rule, meaning that hair-sides face
hair-sides within an opening, following the continental-European fashion
of constructing quires.25 The leaves measure 287x200 mm on average.
Other codicological features that shape the appearance of PU1 include
the mise-en-page, in that the layout of the pages is rather homogeneous.
The average text block size of 205x146 mm is arranged in one column per
page throughout. The line count, however, varies. The first page, fol. 1v,
counts 33 lines to the column. Fol. 2r counts only 28 lines, before immedi-
ately returning to 33 lines on fol. 2v. The line count stays stable until fol.
13v, from whence 32 lines are written per page, until 35v. PU1 was pricked
with a tool that left slit-like marks, probably a knife (see image 2). On fols.
5–12, x-like pricking marks can be observed alongside slits (see image 3).
This shape might be the result of double pricking whereby the knife was
held at different angles.26 The ruling in PU1 appears to be lead ruling, as
23 Excluding the unknown number of leaves missing between fols. 85 and 96 and the lost end
of Viðræður Gregoríusar.
24 At present it cannot be ruled out that PU1 contained further texts, especially when consid-
ering that the table of contents is not legible in its entirety.
25 On Gregory’s rule, see for instance Frank M. Bischoff, “Pergamentdicke und
Lagenordnung. Beobachtungen zur Herstellungstechnik Helmarshausener Evangeliare
des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts,” in Pergament: Geschichte, Struktur, Restaurierung, Herstellung,
ed. Peter Rück, Historische Hilfswissenschaften, Bd. 2 (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1991),
99.
26 In her BA thesis, Björk Þorleifsdóttir remarks: “Krossinn er bara notaður til að merkja fyrir
spássíum.” Björk Þorleifsdóttir, Af bókfelli: Smásjárathuganir á íslenskum skinnhandritum
(Reykjavík, 2003), 47. This could imply that different tools were used to indicate differ-
ent boundaries and lines. A wider comparison of the use of pricking tools is currently in
pro gress and will be considered in a forthcoming publication concerning late-fourteenth-
century manuscript production.