Reconstruction of the surviving fragments of a manuscript, flyleaves preserved in Nuremberg Fragm. lat. 9, Nuremberg Fragm. lat. 9a & Melk MS 749 (StroMB). This reconstruction follows CuthbertNMfrags, but places the Melk fragment in the middle of the 9a fragments. This assumes (as Cuthbert suggests) that the Melk fragment only fits with the others if they were all part of a large (6+ bifolio) gathering; see his article for hypothetical explanatory gathering diagrams. If the Melk fragment is not placed between the 9a fragments, it may (Cuthbert argues) merely be from the same workshop rather than from the same manuscript.

Copied by a single scribe. The original manuscript was probably copied at the Benedictine monastery at Melk, and used as flyleaves in binding in the 1460s. Alternatively (StroMB), perhaps copied in Vienna; used at Church of St. Stephen.

NurS 9 is 2 folios; NurS 9a a bifolio (folios A-D in Cuthbert's reconstruction) and a small fragment of another bifolio (folios B-C). The Melk flyleaves are the top & bottom of two contiguous sheets. Images of the Melk fragment are not yet on DIAMM.

No original foliation; modern pencil folio numbering on NurS 9 & 9a. The relationship of the leaves to one another is unclear; though the Glorias and Credos of fr. 9a and MS 749 suggest they form part of a manuscript gathering containing the end of a 'Gloria' section and the beginning of a 'Credo' section.

Letters are used to identify the pages of fr. 9a & the Melk fr., signalling that their sequence is uncertain. The 9a fragments were previously foliated 1-4(r-v). This reconstruction however follows CuthbertNMfrags in labelling them A-D. The 2 foliations correspond as follows: A=f.2, B=f.3, C=f.4, D=f.1.

Note that, for the Melk fragment, the recto of the front flyleaf is the top of the verso of the current rear flyleaf, and vice-versa.

Parchment; vellum (RISM)

for further information, bibliography etc, see the entries for the original sources.