This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Codex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Early Christian writers did not use page numbers. As anyone who has read the Bible knows they use references to chapter and verse. page numbers were unworkable in any case since there was no standardization of the page format and it would be most unlikely to have survived translation into Latin. The form used is Corinthians II Chapter 4 verse 12.
Page numbers were invented after the invention of the mechanical printing press, or at least that is what Alan Kay told me. I had come here to find out the full reference.
There seems to be a lot of other Christian propaganda here. References to 'pagan' religions should be 'non-Christian' to maintain the NPOV. Judaism is not a Pagan religion, nor is Zorastratharianism. The Torah is by tradition always a scroll. The Talmud and the glossaries are codex form.
I *think* that the word 'code' to refer to a law code indeed comes from the late antique and early Byzantine codifications of earlier legal works, culminating in the Justinianic Code in the 7th century. These were, in the fashion of the time, in codices rather than scrolls, and the nomenclature was transferred to the contents from the objects.
I think a codex is any book with pages, as opposed to a scroll, not necessarily hand-written. -- Marj Tiefert, Saturday, April 6, 2002
I agree with Marj , also , it would be good idea to check the ethyomology of 'codex' since 'liber' is the direct traduction of book in latin language . Library comes from this word, and in spanish libro (meaning book) . -- 200.61.10.20 16:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Manuel
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)
Johnbod 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
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)
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)
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)
codex is allso a kind of tv show /halo
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)
Sometime it art on it may be under other name. If you know contrubute. Nasz 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
An image used in this article,
File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 October 2011
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
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)
As there doesn't seem to be much interest in this, or intervention by an expert, I'll edit the article's introduction. Pol098 ( talk) 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. •Bobsd• ( talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Codex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Early Christian writers did not use page numbers. As anyone who has read the Bible knows they use references to chapter and verse. page numbers were unworkable in any case since there was no standardization of the page format and it would be most unlikely to have survived translation into Latin. The form used is Corinthians II Chapter 4 verse 12.
Page numbers were invented after the invention of the mechanical printing press, or at least that is what Alan Kay told me. I had come here to find out the full reference.
There seems to be a lot of other Christian propaganda here. References to 'pagan' religions should be 'non-Christian' to maintain the NPOV. Judaism is not a Pagan religion, nor is Zorastratharianism. The Torah is by tradition always a scroll. The Talmud and the glossaries are codex form.
I *think* that the word 'code' to refer to a law code indeed comes from the late antique and early Byzantine codifications of earlier legal works, culminating in the Justinianic Code in the 7th century. These were, in the fashion of the time, in codices rather than scrolls, and the nomenclature was transferred to the contents from the objects.
I think a codex is any book with pages, as opposed to a scroll, not necessarily hand-written. -- Marj Tiefert, Saturday, April 6, 2002
I agree with Marj , also , it would be good idea to check the ethyomology of 'codex' since 'liber' is the direct traduction of book in latin language . Library comes from this word, and in spanish libro (meaning book) . -- 200.61.10.20 16:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Manuel
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)
Johnbod 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
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)
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)
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)
codex is allso a kind of tv show /halo
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)
Sometime it art on it may be under other name. If you know contrubute. Nasz 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
An image used in this article,
File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 October 2011
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
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)
As there doesn't seem to be much interest in this, or intervention by an expert, I'll edit the article's introduction. Pol098 ( talk) 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. •Bobsd• ( talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)