While the broader point is fine, the example to me is just bad to me: very narrow column with a lot of hyphens and identical width/no variety making it harder to anchor your eye (though colored letters are awesome and play this role)
Ok, bad rag is bad, but the ancient text goes overboard in the other direction. This looks close to the form-over-function vibe.
> Incipit epistola sancti iheronimi ad paulinum presbiterum de omnibus divine historie libris capitulum primum.
I'm not entirely up on all the abbreviations and and shorthand used in medieval manuscripts, but the macron over the final ū in 'capitulū' indicates the vowel being nasalized, which often happens before the final 'm' consonant which in this case is suspended. The 'pmū' is similar, but also I think a contraction or abbreviation for primum. With all these tricks available to the scribes it's no wonder they can make the right edge look nice.
Veni venti Gucci!
I guess it’s safe to say that you can read Latin? What I’m trying to figure out is whether the typography in the Gutenberg Bible was exceptional for its time.
So I guess the fairer question may be whether Germans would’ve found Latin difficult to read in blackletter/Gothic type, which apparently descends from Roman cursive anyhow.
I asked my initial question (whether the grandparent commenter understood the language) because I wanted to figure out whether criticizing the typography as “form-over-function” made sense.
Thanks.
Anyway, it's the Gutenberg bible. The epistle of St. Jerome, according to the alt text.