5 ms·

I'm really not getting the real added value of using such machine. Can't you just have the 8 books open on a table? Even placing them in parallel next to one an

I'm really not getting the real added value of using such machine. Can't you just have the 8 books open on a table? Even placing them in parallel next to one another an swiveling around on a swivel chair seems easier.

jmcgough 6y ago
I'm sure the 16th century engineer realized that too and designed it more because it was an amusing idea than anything practical. There's a reason it wasn't built until now.
Retric 6y ago
Think standing desk, you can raise or lower the books to your ideal height. Further, why stop at one? You could have a semicircle of 4 of these very easily. That said, this didn’t catch on for obvious reasons.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I don't think that really works with large leather bound books, especially in low light. Three rows of three [vellum] books on a table: You're looking at lifting a several kilogram book at a stretch of 60-80cm (quartos are about 30cm tall) ... my reach is only ~60cm (at ~175cm of height). I think what you're proposing is far less convenient than you're imagining. Especially working from candlelight (in UK most people would have used animal fat lamps at this time, I gather; but if you could afford 8 books I'm guessing you could afford proper candles).
troupe 6y ago
One possible reason it might have seemed slightly more useful in its time is that many books much bigger than what we expect today. I've seen some books from the 13th century that are over 20 inches across when open and quite heavy and I don't think those books were particularly large. (Codex Gigas is over 40 inches across when opened and weights 150 pounds, but is probably the largest book we know of.) Having 8 books of 24 inches across open next to each other would take 16 feet or so of linear space. In the drawings it doesn't look big enough to handle these large books unless it was made slightly wider. Of course your objections are probably very much why it was never built until now. :)

jmcgough 6y ago

I'm sure the 16th century engineer realized that too and designed it more because it was an amusing idea than anything practical. There's a reason it wasn't built until now.

Retric 6y ago

Think standing desk, you can raise or lower the books to your ideal height. Further, why stop at one? You could have a semicircle of 4 of these very easily. That said, this didn’t catch on for obvious reasons.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

I don't think that really works with large leather bound books, especially in low light. Three rows of three [vellum] books on a table: You're looking at lifting a several kilogram book at a stretch of 60-80cm (quartos are about 30cm tall) ... my reach is only ~60cm (at ~175cm of height). I think what you're proposing is far less convenient than you're imagining. Especially working from candlelight (in UK most people would have used animal fat lamps at this time, I gather; but if you could afford 8 books I'm guessing you could afford proper candles).

troupe 6y ago

One possible reason it might have seemed slightly more useful in its time is that many books much bigger than what we expect today. I've seen some books from the 13th century that are over 20 inches across when open and quite heavy and I don't think those books were particularly large. (Codex Gigas is over 40 inches across when opened and weights 150 pounds, but is probably the largest book we know of.) Having 8 books of 24 inches across open next to each other would take 16 feet or so of linear space. In the drawings it doesn't look big enough to handle these large books unless it was made slightly wider. Of course your objections are probably very much why it was never built until now. :)