So cool, in that totally-not-nerdy sort of a way . . .

I've moved on from the octavo books to the quarto/folio book section in Special Collections. Before I had picked up from where someone else had left off so I began my evaluation in PS, American Literature, which is fine except that the bulk of the books were dated 1970-2006. If I'm doing a preservation assessment, I don't want there to be anything wrong, but I do want there to be the possibility that there could be something wrong. But yesterday I finished the Z section of the octavos, so I moved on to the pre-1700 books of the quarto and folio books. I love it! The first thing I pulled off the shelf is the oldest item in the library, dating from the 15th century, though exactly when is unknown. This is a rubricated, codex manuscript bound between heavy boards, and it's terribly cool!

Today, though, I ran across some interesting things as well. One was a 1639 Natural History in excellent condition. As I was flipping through it to check the binding, certain words set in italics caught my eye, and I stopped at one spot to read about horse teeth. Surely everyone has at some point heard the phrase "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." But why would anyone do this? To tell the horse's age. Right. I've been told that you can tell a horse's age by looking at it's teeth. . . How?

Horses have, at three yeares old, a Tooth put forth, which they call the Colt's Tooth; And at foure yeares old, there commeth the Mark-Tooth, which hath a Hole, as big as you may lay a Pease within it; And that weareth shorter and shorter, every yeare; Till that at eight yeares old, the Tooth is smooth, and the Hole gone; And then they say; That the Marke is out of the Horse's Mouth.

If I could have, I'd have sat and read through the whole book today, but of course I had other work to do, but I absolutely love the random bits of information I get through working here. This little morsel is from Sylva Sylvarum: Or, A Naturall Historie.

This brings me to my next exciting discovery, for the spelling for the book title was actually Sylva Sylvarvm. This is not surprising given that the Latin alphabet did not originally have the letters U, W, and J. Instead, V was used for both U and W, while I was used for J. I knew all of this before, but what I discovered today was that the introduction of these new letters was not necessarily seamless, and I have to wonder if there was misunderstanding among some as to just what was going on with their alphabet. I ran across at least two books today which surprised me by replacing Vs with Us. So, for example, Henry the Seventh was written as Henry the Seuenth. I think I feel a future research topic coming on!