Read on Twitter
Happy Birthday-ish to the #GutenbergBible!
We don’t exactly know when this book was born, but at least one copy of the original was completed on this day in 1456.
But whose copy is better: the Bodleian’s or the @vaticanlibrary's?
(A thread)
We don’t exactly know when this book was born, but at least one copy of the original was completed on this day in 1456.
But whose copy is better: the Bodleian’s or the @vaticanlibrary's?
(A thread)
Round 1: Material.
Ours is printed on paper. The Vatican’s is vellum. While the latter is more tactile, our completely independent adjudicators favour sustainability & cruelty-free production. (One vellum volume would require approx. 170 calves.)
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 0
Ours is printed on paper. The Vatican’s is vellum. While the latter is more tactile, our completely independent adjudicators favour sustainability & cruelty-free production. (One vellum volume would require approx. 170 calves.)
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 0
Round 2: Aesthetics
Team Vatican take a well-earned point here for lavish decoration, multicolour initials and gold leaf.
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 1
Team Vatican take a well-earned point here for lavish decoration, multicolour initials and gold leaf.
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 1
Round 3: Condition
The Vatican copy has water damage along the top edge.
Team Bodleian are awarded one point, which is swiftly withdrawn due to excessive gloating.
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 1
The Vatican copy has water damage along the top edge.
Team Bodleian are awarded one point, which is swiftly withdrawn due to excessive gloating.
Bodleian: 1
Vatican: 1
Round 4: The Matthew 22 Error
Here’s where it gets complicated.
The Bible’s printers missed a line break between chapters 21 and 22.
Catching the error, they left annotations to instruct rubricators - the people who wrote the red titles and headings in manuscripts.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
The Bible’s printers missed a line break between chapters 21 and 22.
Catching the error, they left annotations to instruct rubricators - the people who wrote the red titles and headings in manuscripts.
The Bodleian version’s rubricator appeared to follow the guide.
It has the recommended paragraph marker (in blue) and chapter number written in red in the margin. The rubricator has also added a fancy pen-flourishing, to draw attention to the chapter break.
(One point awarded.)
It has the recommended paragraph marker (in blue) and chapter number written in red in the margin. The rubricator has also added a fancy pen-flourishing, to draw attention to the chapter break.
(One point awarded.)
However there is some variation in wording.
The Bodleian copy dispenses with a few words ('hellesmoth id est') in order to make space for 'capitulum primum' (first chapter).
(One point deducted.)
The Bodleian copy dispenses with a few words ('hellesmoth id est') in order to make space for 'capitulum primum' (first chapter).
(One point deducted.)
The Vatican’s rubricator may not have got the memo.
They miss the chapter 22 correction completely, and the following chapters are misnumbered.
(One point deducted)
They miss the chapter 22 correction completely, and the following chapters are misnumbered.
(One point deducted)
The errors were, however, corrected at a later date in brown ink.
'Capitulum xxii' has been written in brown in the margin near the beginning of what should be chapter 22. The subsequent chapter headings have also been modified to show the correct number.
(One point awarded.)
'Capitulum xxii' has been written in brown in the margin near the beginning of what should be chapter 22. The subsequent chapter headings have also been modified to show the correct number.
(One point awarded.)
The final score?
A tie of course. Everyone's a winner with such beautiful manuscripts as these!
Such comparisons were made possible by the landmark Polonsky Foundation Digitization Project (2012-2017).
http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/
A tie of course. Everyone's a winner with such beautiful manuscripts as these!
Such comparisons were made possible by the landmark Polonsky Foundation Digitization Project (2012-2017).
http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/
The project enabled the Bodleian Library and the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican Library) to open up their repositories of ancient texts.
You can also check out - and compare side-by-side - the @britishlibrary's two digitized two copies, and see the Bibliothèque nationale de France's ( @laBnF) two copies
https://www.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/homepage.html https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9912811/f13.image
https://www.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/homepage.html https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9912811/f13.image
The source of this thread is the blog: 'Printing errors and corrections in the Gutenberg Bible'.
Read more: http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/news/printing-errors-and-corrections-in-the-gutenberg-bible
Read more: http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/news/printing-errors-and-corrections-in-the-gutenberg-bible
Our lovely copy is one of the Bodleian's real treasures. You can learn more about it - and many more of our extraordinary items - in this book: https://bodleianshop.co.uk/products/bodleian-library-treasures-hardback?_pos=7&_sid=2209e2611&_ss=r
Our copy is also available to view on the #DigitalBodleian
https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/bea56620-793f-4dee-875d-ff051563292a
Thanks for joining us today!
https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/bea56620-793f-4dee-875d-ff051563292a
Thanks for joining us today!
