Talk:Codex

message: Is the list, "some codices" really useful here? This list contain some of the codices that happen to have "Codex" in their name giving the false impression that other manuscripts like the Book of Kells are not codices.  In reality almost every item catagorized on wikipedia as a "manuscript" or "illuminated manuscript" is a codex. Dsmdgold 12:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Good point: I made some additions precisely that way, using the Index; the Book of Kells certainly belongs in the list: I'll add it now. But, among all the really trivial lists at Wikipedia, doesn't some version of this very selective list of Codices with individual entries belong somewhere, with redirects from here and from Manuscript etc? Perhaps New Testament codex is a better title? I'm scratching my head here... --Wetman 15:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose removing the list of codices from here and creating a separate list for it. Personally I do not see the point of maintaining possibly endless list of books here, but if people think this would be useful... then I will create the article and remove the list from here in one week. If no one objects. → Aethralis 12:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by all means please do this.  I was just thinking that the list of codices needs to become, yes, a List of codices (or something similar).  Thanks for volunteering, Aethralis.   Madman 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on the first major expansion of List of books to include both published books and manuscripts -- anything that people would call "a book".  It desn't make sense to have to update both the list of books and list of codices; someone might update one but not the other.  Many manuscripts have been published (in facsimile or retyped) with the same title, so they would be found in both lists.  Just have a selective list of examples in the article, and create a :Category:Codices, as a subcategory of :Category:Books. (:Category:Illuminated manuscripts already exists, if that's close enough.) GUllman 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the :Category:Codices idea. → Aethralis 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree - Codex is an entirely arbitary title for certain manuscripts (often chosen because "gospels" etc has already been taken for that place); I know it will take longer but "Category: Illuminated manuscripts" should either:
*a) be broadened (to include non-illuminated or not much illuminated ones), 
*b) or, better, made a sub-category of a new overall category for pre-printing Western manuscripts divided between those notably illuminated and those not. 
Johnbod 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what way is codex arbitrary? In this sense the "illuminated manuscript" is far more arbitrary as it is not usually properly (what is decorated?) defined. I have a manuscript here what has some decorated initials, but it's not illuminated. But codex on the other hand has a very good definition. I consider scroll & codex to be the main types of manuscripts and all illuminated, minuscule, uncial, gothic, bastarda, anglicana etc are the subtypes, which are sometimes overlapping. But scroll and codex are _never_ overlapping. → Aethralis 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  You're misreading me. I said "entirely arbitary title for certain manuscripts " - ie as a Name. As a term it it is clear. But the list here mainly consist of books which happened to have "codex" in their usual name, or one of their names, which is arbitary. The various bits of the List of manuscripts are already much fuller, better described and organized.  But they don't distinguish between those mainly notable for their decoration and those mainly notable for their content - which would be useful. Johnbod 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. I get your point. I agree that the can be no category of _notable_ codices (notable is not categorizeable) and maybe indeed the "list of notable codices" is more meaningful to have. → Aethralis 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of ''Codices with individual entries''

message: From the article:
:The designation Codex is less used in conventional names given Medieval manuscripts, when the codex form is universal and understood.
It strikes me that this sentence is actually rather hard to parse.  Perhaps someone who is certain of what it means could rephrase it in clearer language?
— Haeleth Talk 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to limit the article to handwritten codices.  Nearly every document referred to as a Codex is handwritten, and info about printed books is contained in the printing and book articles.  Hope this helps, Madman 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to read in places 

message: I moved this mis-stated misunderstanding here: "A legal text or code of conduct is sometimes called a codex (for example, the Justinian Codex), since laws were recorded in large codices." This is simply an error, one that doesn't come into educated or official discourse. --Wetman 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistaking Codex for Code

message: Fellow editors:  When typing the name of a Codex, e.g. Codex Rios, should I italicize it (e.g. Codex Rios)??   I see that the convention in the Codex article is "No", but I thought I'd ask as I've seen it italicized elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Curiously yours, Madman 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicize named Codices?? 

message: Don't we have with codices a similar case as with printing insofar as all books today derive from Western books (and therefore, ultimately, from the Roman codex)? Amerindian book tradition was destroyed by the Spanish, dunno about India, but Chinese books were only printed on every second page and the bookbinding remained different. Leaves Muslim and Christian which are derived from the Roman codex. Does the Roman codex rule globally now? Gun Powder Ma 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of our books today 

message: Codex Neapoletanus
Sometime it art on it may be under other name. If you know contrubute. Nasz 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some unknow to wikipedia books ? 

message: According to Henry Petroski's "The Book on the Book Shelf", books did not get shelved spine out until the practice of chaining books ended. See chapter 5, the Press of Books. Chaining ended when printed books became commonplace (as opposed to manuscript books). The chains attached to the clasps on the manuscript books, and therefore to the non-spine side. On page 125 he has an illustration of books with authors and titles on their spines, and the caption reads "In the sixteenth century, books began to have authors and titles, and the date of the edition, imprinted on their spines." Remember that very early books often did not have titles, and the idea of authorship was a fairly recent invention (I don't have time to look it up right now.) LaMona 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some books in chained libraries were placed spine out, though they mostly lied on their backs or fronts (depending on the chained library type) or were shelved spine inwards. For different methods of shelving chained books see  J. A. Szirmai, The Archaeology of Medieval Bookbinding (Scolar Pr, 1999), p. 269. → Aethralis 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelving of Books 

message: Although it's probably reflected in the fuzzy boundary in reality, the article is confusing as to what the practical distinction between a codex and a modern book is. "The codex in turn became the printed book, for which the term is not used." - So what was the turning point/main feature which caused the transition between 'codex' and 'book'? "Although technically any modern paperback is a codex ..." - So what about modern hard-covers? It would be nice to have a clarification/history lesson as to why there is a Book/Codex distinction. The history section peters out in the Middle Ages. -- 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that modern books simply are intimately associated with the printing press as opposed to codices, but the evolution in bookbinding technique is probably a more relevant distinguishing factor. Abvgd (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book vs. Codex 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The definition here as of today—a bound book with pages, including modern books—is plain wrong. The OED says a code of laws, a manuscript volume, or a collection of receipts for the preparation of drugs, and nothing more. According to the definition here, Maya codices such as the Dresden codex (not in book form) are not codices; a modern perfect-bound book is. Both untrue.
A stab at a definition following sources and including the Maya, Ethiopian, etc. codices would be something like: "a handwritten manuscript divided into pages, as distinct from a continuous scroll; the pages are usually bound into the form of a book, but may be folded in accordion folds as, for example, the Dresden Codex." I don't think that quires, stitching, or a cover are necessary for a volume to be a codex.
Pol098 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, "handwritten manuscript" is like saying "frozen ice". Second, pages are one side of a leaf; each leaf consists of two pages. The fundamental definition of codex is that there is folding, and often binding, as opposed to a scroll. I'm surprised by the OED's handling of the word; Wiktionary does a better job (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codex). See also the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (http://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_C.aspx?#codex). —Diiscool (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: News to me—I thought authors prepared their manuscripts on computers nowadays, even typewriters being abandoned. Anyway, seriously, my alternative is no more than a starting suggestion. I'm not sure of the exact definition of a codex (is there an agreed one?); couldn't you make a codex of cut, but not folded sheets? Are there any books handwritten on single unfolded sheets of parchment sewn together? I have no idea. My point is that what passes for a definition in the article is nonsense (and unsourced); I won't make any claims for my proposal (which is why I didn't put it in the article). My "divided into" pages (or leaves or sheets) is pretty bad too.BTW, I agree that the OED is pretty bad—I had sent them an email to that effect before seeing above comments; their definition doesn't exclude a scroll (according to the OED a volume can be a scroll). Pol098 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call that a typescript but I know that people do refer to typescripts as manuscripts. You could certainly make a codex out of cut, not folded sheets. That's how most modern paperbacks—and even some hardbacks—are made unless they are very high quality in which case they might have sewn quires. I think we need to look at some more reliable sources in the field of book history. —Diiscool (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does a modern, printed book count as a codex? I don't know the answer; possibly authorities will disagree. I was relying on the OED which specified manuscript (which I interpret as being holograph, or at least not mass-printed). BTW, manuscript in the modern sense is not a synonym of typescript (nor is typescript a subset of manuscripts); it's the original version of a written work, which a typescript need not be.  Getting this article right is a matter of finding sources. We might find several sources meeting the criteria for reliability with contradictory definitions. Pol098 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Codex may be like some other technical words, which beside their narrow technical meaning also have acquired a wider popular meaning. Abvgd (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The potential problem that I see with the above definition is that it might leave an important development in the history of writing without its own dedicated term by giving undue weight to the geometric shape over book-binding technique and reading style. The random-access format of the Roman codex was the most important characteristic, as this made possible pagination and with it tables of contents, chapters, etc. This all in turn changed the nature of reading itself. Are Maya codices random-access codices? It seems to me that they are sequential just as scrolls are? If so, that difference should be underlined in the introductory section. Maybe the best solution would be to keep the current use of 'codex' to denote handwritten historical manuscripts of a book-like format but to use a more detailed term like "codex format" or "codex book format" to specifically denote the random access book-binding format as developed by the Romans? Such a distinction would acknowledge the subsequent spread of the word 'codex' to include any handwritten rectangular-shape manuscripts, but it would also retain the original and technically more rigorous definition, which is of significant historical importance for the development of the modern book. Abvgd (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition wrong (29 May 2012) 

message: Should we point out somewhere that this article discusses codices in western civilization rather than, for instance, east Asia? Stating that the scroll was extinct by the sixth century is obviously wrong when discussing non-western culture. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Codex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624072331/http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/chb/ to http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/chb
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021017172935/http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/~tobin/maya/ to http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/~tobin/maya/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not happy with the sentence "The book is usually bound by stacking the pages and fixing one edge to a spine...".  Until the invention of modern glues and perfect binding there was no way to hold the edges to the spine.  All books, even early paperbacks, had their sheets assembled into quires or sections and sewn through the middle.  Can someone who is knowledgeable about ancient books (and who, unlike me, has access to sources) please sort this out?  Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Sorted - talk of spines is unhelpful & not needed here. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that spines don't help, but it still talked about attaching the edges.  I've changed it, but feel free to improve! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johnbod.  It's not "one set of edges", but the middle of the quire to form the signature.  Sort of <<<< rather than //// if that helps. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, but not always. Depends on the type of binding, which we don't need to go into here. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Their are those that are the beginning to the one that is going to the place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.128.176.116 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Address 

message: In the lede:  The codex (plural codices /ˈkoʊdɪsiːz/) was the historical ancestor of the modern book. Instead of being composed of sheets of paper, it used sheets of vellum, papyrus, or other materials.
In Etymology and origins: Technically, even modern paperbacks are codices, ...
Clearly, the use of the word "instead" in the lede is not consistent with the sentence in Etymology, since paperbacks are made of, well, paper.
This article seems to get hung up on Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidentals.  All of the historical objects discussed have the substance of a book ... recording of information, etc.  Some of the accidentals are different, which does not change their bookish nature.  Which accidental distinguishes the codex from any other form of "book"?   Is it the structure (sheets vs roll) or the material (paper vs animal skin vs papyrus).  I believe from the references given that the main difference is in the format being sheets of writing material, not the material itself.
If this is correct, the sentence in the lede could be changed to:   The codex (plural codices /ˈkoʊdɪsiːz/) was the historical ancestor of the modern book.  It commonly consisted of sheets of vellum, papyrus, or other materials.   And if we don't know for sure, then we should remove the "Instead" anyway, since it's being presented as a fact.  <B>•Bobsd•</B> (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, I have to read the talk pages before adding a new section ... old news with no probable solution. <B>•Bobsd•</B> (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent definition of codex