3 ms·
All of these would be suitable as tweets. Manuscript margins are to Medieval Monks as Twitter is to Contemporary Socialites.
by loupeabody 13y ago
All of these would be suitable as tweets. Manuscript margins are to Medieval Monks as Twitter is to Contemporary Socialites.
- shmerl 13y agoIf you look at the page of the Talmud, it actually resembles an on-line forum, or more precisely some Wiki with discussions around some subject: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=1&daf=3&format=pdf http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=1&daf=3&format... It's more of a printed version style, but even hand written editions which predate the printing press had a similar arrangement.
- stan_rogers 13y agoIt's probably easier to follow in the Steinsaltz edition (I had been buying it for a while in the English translation as it came out, but it was like waiting for the fourth volume of TAOCP).
- shmerl 13y agoProbably depends on what you are used to. One of the best in typography and design was the Slavuta edition, but that printing press was shut down long ago, as known, and the Vilno edition became the widespread one ever since. This particular scan is from Moznaim. It's a newly typeset edition, but like most today follows the Vilno one.
- stan_rogers 13y agoI was thinking more about reading it than seeing it. Steinsaltz is translated, but retains the traditional layout (and distinct typefaces, as for Rashi), so it can give a taste of what's there in the original. One doesn't have to agree with Steinsaltz to admire the translation effort.
- shmerl 13y agoSure, but if you can read the original, good design still plays a big role.