medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
John Briggs wrote:
> I think you mean the "Clementine text". And I am not sure to what extent
> the substantives (rather than the accidentals) conform to early editions.
> Unfortunately, this text was mostly taken from a late (1946) edition. It
> has the "re-classicised" spelling (e.g. 'caelum' rather than 'coelum',
> although it still has 'quotidianum' rather than the 'cotidianum' of
> the Nova
> Vulgata and the Stuttgart Vulgate.) The accompanying 'Douay-Rheims'
> translation is a (late) version of Challoner's revision rather than the
> original Douai-Rheims text, and the 'Stuttgart Vulgate' text is the usual
> defective text.
How unfortunate. I had assumed that the person responsible was mistaken
in his claim that it was the 1598 edition that he presented, but had not
realized how far off it was. I had also wondered about his assertions
regarding the copyright status:
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html#x5. He seems to be under the
impression that only the introductory and editorial materials of an
edition would have been protected.
Phil Feller
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|