Ok. So since I read the original article scientists have run tests and one of the three books have been proven to actually be bound in sheepskin instead of human skin. However, the practice of binding books in human skin in olden times was not as rare as one might think. It may give you the creepy crawlies to think of holding a book bound in someone’s skin. The article mentions that when this practice was used it was often to bind the chronicles of a criminal’s crimes in his own skin. I wonder if this was in practice today how many crimes would still happen.
As it was recently found out that one of the volumes in question was bound in sheepskin it’s curious to think about why the author would say it was bound in the criminal’s skin. Was someone misinformed? What actually happened to the criminal’s skin?
Confessions of a Bibliophile 