2. Page Marker
4. Seals
5. Rowels
8. Tweezers
9. Pricker
10. Leads
11. Quill Pens
12. Four-flanged Pen
13. Stylus
14. Penners
15. Firelighter Iron
16. Tooth Burnisher
17. Medieval Inks
18. Lead Inkwell
19. Inkhorn
Title Rowels
Brief description Line Marking and Ruling Techniques The most widely accepted theory as to how medieval scribes marked and ruled pages involves a pricker and some ruling device, such as a wire, to make indentations or holes through several pages at once. The scribe would first use the pricker to make small dotted indentations at both ends of the text column. Spur–like rowels may have also been used for a similar purpose. The points of the rowel would have been rolled up or down the parchment at either of the text column. After using either technique, the scribe would next use a wire, gut, or other ruling device to make lined indentations horizontally across the page. These would serve as his guide when writing the text. Some manuscripts were also lined with ink and left as part of the decoration. Alan Cole reconstructed a more complex line marking frame that used pieces of wood, or rules, with pegs attached and strings of gut wound around the pegs. Alan Cole posits an additional technique for line marking to the more widely known method of pricking. In 1964 while at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Cole noticed a unique impression in a medieval manuscript that appeared to have been made by a spur rowel. He also noticed that the space between the line markings on the page matched up exactly with the space between the impressions left by the points of the spur. After conferring with the curator, he concluded that the spur rowel was used to mark the lines. The next day Julien Cain, the director of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, brought several spur rowels to compare to the line markings on the manuscript. After experimenting with several spur rowels and a few manuscripts, they were able to match seven of thirteen rowels to manuscripts dating from the 13th to 15th centuries. Cole intended to eventually publish his findings, but unfortunately his notes, including identifying details about the manuscript, were lost. Cain also kept personal notes about the manuscripts and rowels, so these may still be at the Bibliotheque Nationale. Cole’s findings are supported by a Medieval Manuscript Manual created by the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central European University in Budapest, which mentions a spur–like device being used for line markings. (http://web.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/MMM/ruling.html). Other sources refer to the tool as a star wheel or parchment runner. Additionally the spurs shown here would most likely have been fitted with a wood handle for ease of use. It would have been pushed or pulled vertically along the margin to make indentations or holes similar to the pricker. Then wire or gut would have been used to make the actual line rulings. Traces of rowel holes were often lost when manuscripts were trimmed. Alan Cole: “In the Spring of 1964, I was researching some medieval documents at the BNF (Bibliotheque Nationale de France) in Paris, when I saw that some pages of the manuscript that I was reading were wrinkled. I held the pages at varying angles to the light and was surprised to see that there was the impression apparently of a spur rowel. It was quite feint, but still deep enough to see quite a defined outline. I called the curator over and he agreed that it did look like a rowel, but neither of us could see why and how it could have been left there. It so happened that two of the impressions of the points were aligned with a line of text in the manuscript. just out of curiosity, I measured the distance between the points and the line markings and found that they corresponded exactly. This intrigued the curator and we came to the conclusion that the rowel had been used to mark the lines. Shortly after this Julien Cain, the then director of the BNF, was making a regular tour of the library and the curator brought our findings to his attention. Cain was something of a legend who had suffered greatly during WW2, was genuinely interested in all aspects of his work and was very down–to–earth and sociable. Because of this character and temperament, he did not just nod and move on, but sat down and asked for all the details, which he noted and asked if I would be there the following afternoon, which I said I would. The next day, I was at the same desk when Cain came in followed by two other men. They opened a box they were carrying, which contained a number of spurs and spur–rowels. Cain then asked the curator to fetch the manuscript I had been looking at and he and one of the people with him got out a spur or loose rowel and started to see which, if any, fitted the indentation in the manuscript. They finished up with three of the commonest type of around 1300 that also matched the gauge of the line markings. After much discussion Cain asked for other manuscripts and tried the same experiment with them. Altogether, seven of the thirteen different rowels they tried matched different gauges from 13thC to 15thC, some one line, some two lines of a small manuscript or one of a larger manuscript. They came to the conclusion that indeed rowels, either on the spur or loose and no doubt fitted between a wooden handle as a roller, were used in marking lines in the medieval period. The curator suggested that the BNF should publish these findings. but Cain said that as I had made the discovery, I should be the one to publish it. He had made more notes and said that they would be kept in his office, should they be useful in the future. Because of personal situations at the time when I was living in France and certain obligations when I returned to the U.K, it went out of my mind, although I had kept all the details on my computer. Eight years ago - 2005 - a separate drive on which I had recorded about fifty years of research notes, photos, etc, crashed and crashed my computer. The latter I was able to recover, but all the data of the external drive was lost, despite attempts by IT experts to retrieve it. On it I had all the details of the manuscript date, provenance and other relevant details, which I cannot remember exactly, except it was written in about 1305 in a monastery in central France, which does not help in proving the conclusions made in 1964. Accordingly, this is the first time such research has been published. Below are photos taken of the three rowels shown in the initial description of line-markers; the points of rowels 1 and 3 and rowel 2, if extended to their original length, do exactly mach the line-markings of the manuscripts also shown. Cain's notes are the only proof of the experiments, f they still exist in the BNF archives, so I leave it to you to agree, or not, as to whether the conclusions drawn in 1964 are possible or not.”
Contributor: Heather Moshier, from notes by Alan Cole.
Contribution date: Winter 2014