History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm looking through a finding guide that uses a few abbreviations (Ts [typescript], Ms [manuscript], Tss [typescript signed], AMs [autographed (written by author) manuscript], AMss [autographed manuscript signed]).

Is the difference between a manuscript and typescript mainly that manuscripts are always handwritten and typescripts are always typed?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Tyler Durden, Branko Sego, Oldcat, Mark C. Wallace, Kobunite Aug 21 '14 at 8:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Requests for trivia or basic historical facts are off-topic if they can be easily answered by looking up the relevant topic on Wikipedia. We're trying to complement common historical references, not duplicate them." – Tyler Durden, Oldcat, Mark C. Wallace
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Yes. Yeppers. Correct. – Tyler Durden Aug 20 '14 at 15:46
Crayonscripts are much rarer.... – Oldcat Aug 20 '14 at 16:44

Not all manuscripts are actually manuscripts. It depends on the cataloguing that the archivist, librarian or records officer has done. Often manuscript is used as a short-hand for any original documentation produced.

Typescripts are relatively recent additions, and are often incorrectly referred to as manuscripts. Correspondingly, "mimeo" "xerography" "wet stencil copy" "carbon" "heat print" aren't really seen often. "Perishable office copy" might be a better classification for most of these, just like "perishable office print of electronic file" might be a long term result for those documents produced in offices from digital files.

This does leave out a bunch of more obscure classifications of documents, and obviously leaves out a bunch of electronic file types.

The only way to deal with a finding aid with partial or complete classification like that is to test the data by sampling cases you think are likely to be wrong, so you get an idea of what the archivist had in mind when producing the finding aid.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.