<story><title>550-Year-Old Gutenberg Bible in High-Res Detail</title><url>http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/icv/page.php?book=arch._b_b.10</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ggchappell</author><text>Amazing.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s interesting to see the typographical conventions. For example, the first sentence of Genesis (the first black sentence on image 15): &amp;quot;In principio creauit deus celu et terram.&amp;quot; meaning, if &amp;quot;celu&amp;quot; is really &amp;quot;celum&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;In (the) beginning god created heaven and earth.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;But look at all the oddities. The &amp;quot;d&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;e&amp;quot; of &amp;quot;deus&amp;quot; are run together. What&amp;#x27;s up with that? The &amp;quot;m&amp;quot; in &amp;quot;celum&amp;quot; is missing, but there is a horizontal line above the &amp;quot;u&amp;quot;. I guess that means, &amp;quot;Throw in the obvious letter after this.&amp;quot; And then there is another word thrown in between &amp;quot;celu(m)&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;et&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;dicim&amp;quot;. This is in red, apparently marking it as going with the note above, and so not part of the flow of the text.&lt;p&gt;And &amp;quot;creauit&amp;quot; would normally be written &amp;quot;creavit&amp;quot;, but &amp;quot;u&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;v&amp;quot; used to be the same letter (along with &amp;quot;i&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;j&amp;quot;).&lt;p&gt;After that red &amp;quot;dicim&amp;quot; mentioned above is a little mark that looks like a raised &amp;quot;9&amp;quot;. That mark is all over. Does anyone know what it means?&lt;p&gt;Beginning at the end of the 5th line: &amp;quot;Dixitqz deus. Fiat lux.&amp;quot; I guess that little &amp;quot;qz&amp;quot; thing is an abbreviation for &amp;quot;quoque&amp;quot;? Thus: &amp;quot;Dixit quoque deus. Fiat lux.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Also God said. Let (there) be light.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Fun stuff &amp;amp; a nice post. :-)</text></comment>
<story><title>550-Year-Old Gutenberg Bible in High-Res Detail</title><url>http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/icv/page.php?book=arch._b_b.10</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>nwatson</author><text>I expected to be impressed by the printing itself, but what startled me was what one sees on pages 2 and 3 of the original link (and what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barbaradoyen.com/book-publishing/physical-anatomy-of-a-book&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.barbaradoyen.com&amp;#x2F;book-publishing&amp;#x2F;physical-anatomy...&lt;/a&gt; calls the &amp;quot;Fancy End Paper&amp;quot;).  I&amp;#x27;m assuming those are the original &amp;quot;Fancy End Papers,&amp;quot; but they look like something I&amp;#x27;d expect in a 20th century modern painting, not on a 500+ year old book.</text></comment>