1. Clarkson, C. 1975.Limp Vellum Binding—and its Potential As A Conservation Type Structure For the Rebinding Of Early Printed Books—A Break with 19th and 20th Century Rebinding Attitudes and Practices, ICOM Committee for Conservation 4th Triennial Meeting, VeniceVol. 15/3, 1–15.
2. Many Library Schools today who advertise Archive and Rare Book courses do not mention preservation at all, let alone as a compulsory part of their curriculum
3. The limp vellum binding study was partly funded by a grant from the Council on Library Resources, Inc., Washington D.C. Out of this study grew two volumes of text supported by over 1000 photographs and six short films illustrating not only historical book structures but also technique and conservation procedures, samples of vellum skins made to different specifications to illustrate various qualities discussed and dummies of different book structures
4. This is due, in large part, to the lack of teaching principles of preservation or binding structure within the Library School curriculum
5. 1–6. I do not wish to get into terminological wrangles, but I feel that I should try to interpret Delaissé's terminology. He uses the phrase “archaeology of the book” in reference to the Mediaeval book whose execution was shared amongst various craftsmen, from the planning stage to the employment of scribes, rubricators, illuminators, binders. Their achievements were likely to be worked over, amended and altered, the final result being a complex “living” object. Delaissé's archaeological method started with the initial motivations influencing the production of a particular manuscript, and continued with the ramifications of its production, the materials and techniques being examined and recorded in each instance. This multi-disciplinary approach to the codex is not an isolated phenomenon; it is part of the present method of historical studies in general. (Cf. Professor Delaissé's book on the Thomas A. Kempis autograph (Les Publications de Scriptorium vol. II. Delaissé, L. M. J.Le manuscrit autographe de Thomas a Kempis et “L'lmitation de Jesus-Christ”. Examen archéologique et édition diplomatique du Bruxellensis 5855–61)gives brilliant purpose to such methods and makes codicology and the archaeology of the book viable disciplines. In France, “codicologie” is now preferred to the alternative term “science des manuscrits” which tends to stress the handwritten character of the codex whereas the former stresses the whole complex entity. The German “Handschriftenkunde” combines the handwritten and the hand-produced character of the mediaeval book. The term “codicology”, because of its classical roots, is understood internationally and so I have tended to use it myself in recent years to suggest the whole physical entity, the archaeology of the book, plus all its later accretions, and to offset J. C. Kamerbeek's opinion of the term “that monstrous hybrid word codicology”. (Cf. Kamerbeek, J. C, Positie der filologie,Forum der Letteren, 1970,1st. installment)