I love books. For what they say and how they say it, of course, and also for their physicality, their heft, their smell (surely others than myself smell a book before they buy it?), for the font and the all-important cover. I’ve even been told that overloaded bookshelves function as insulation, although maybe not quite to the level of R-20.
But I’m not sure I’d ever thought about the shape of books until I started reading Christopher de Hamel’s “Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts: Twelve Journeys into the Medieval World.”
Chapter Four of this erudite, splendidly illustrated and entertaining book is about the Aratea, a 9th century manuscript in the University of Leiden’s library. Its oral precursors are unknown. The original Greek text, now lost, may have been written by Eudoxus in the 4th century BCE; from it a hundred years later Aratus of Soli probably derived his own text, which was subsequently translated into Latin by Germanicus Caesar, who might have been Mark Anthony’s grandson (the subjunctive abounds when it comes to medieval manuscripts).
Caesar’s Latin copy was in turn the exemplar for a 9th century copy made in the Carolingian court that emerged in Charlemagne’s day. The Aratea depicts gold-leaf constellations set against blue skies in orange-framed paintings, along with brief poems whose lines begin with red capitals. It is a codex, a book, its leaves hinged at their inner edges. Furthermore, it is square.
Roman books were made of Egyptian papyrus: two layers of neatly cut reeds laid on top of one another. The result? A square book.
After the Roman Empire fell, the import of papyrus ended. Instead, animal skins, treated, stretched and scraped, were made into parchment. “Most mammals are oblong,” says de Hamel (mammalian tongue in cheek?). The stretched hides are oblong. Sheets cut from the hide are oblong, and so were the books made from them. When paper came into use, the oblong format was maintained as a matter of custom, and books to this day are upright, not square.
How interesting! I had no idea, nor had I ever wondered why books were oblong. Many children’s picture books are square however.
I hadn’t thought of picture books!
Of course now I want to read this remarkable book about remarkable manuscripts. Thanks for this post.
One more book on the pile!
How fascinating! I need a copy of that book. And yes, I sniff books too!
A fellow sniffer – hurray!
How fascinating that there would be such an unexpectedly practical reason. Wonderful.
Glad you liked it, Sharon!
Fascinating! And you are not alone, I sniff too.
Rectangular books: another of my many assumptions that has never occurred to me to wonder about, but very interesting. At least they fit better on shelves than round books would, and i would have thought that was part of the reason. PS My two favourite phrases in your post: ‘the subjunctive abounds’ and ‘mammalian tongue in cheek?’😆 Thanks for another thought provoking article, Jill.
Maybe bookshelves were designed to house oblong books. Stretches the imagination to visualize book shelves for round books.
I’d never thought about it. Thanks for raising the question and answering it, Jill.
The backstory of the text is fascinating.
I wish I had seen the original manuscript when I was in Leiden staying with my cousin. It is a lovely town with more museums than you can count on one hand. I missed that one
Fascinating!