Zooming into a manuscript can feel like stepping past the editor and meeting the past directly. The image does offer a different kind of access, but it does not automatically explain the language, page order or history of the object on screen.
Keep the catalogue beside the image
Start with the institution, shelfmark and description. The British Library’s digitised-manuscripts guide directs readers through its catalogue to available digital items. The catalogue provides the identifying context that a detached image can lose.
For your own notes, preserve the stable record link as well as the image or folio reference. A viewer’s image number may not be the same thing as historical page numbering. Write down which system you are using.
Describe only what you can inspect
You may notice a blank area, a darker mark or a change in the arrangement of lines. Record the appearance first. Calling it a correction, a later addition or damage requires more than simply noticing that it looks different.
If the catalogue or scholarly edition supplies an interpretation, attribute it. If the image is too small or a page is unavailable, say that the relevant detail cannot be checked from the material you accessed.
Bring image and edition into conversation
A printed edition can provide readings, comparisons and explanations that are not visible in a photograph alone. The image, in turn, may help you understand why the editor marks a gap or comments on the layout.
Neither needs to replace the other. Keep a note of what you observed, what the editor explains and what remains unresolved. For a useful distinction to carry into this work, read the difference between a codex and a work. It helps ensure that the page you are viewing stays connected to the correct object and text.