medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
"The best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire, I think).
I did not really mean to open any cans of worms, but only to draw attention to some useful resources, one of them a readily-available printed Vulgate, which the original post in the thread implied was hard to find, the other a related electronic resource. It is valuable that their limitations are also pointed out, so that the adage "abusus non tollit usum" can be wisely applied by those who must sometimes settle for the merely good.
1) With regard to the Gloss, Frans is quite right to note the very defective nature of the PL version, which is used -- no doubt with the usual raft of introduced errors -- in VulSearch. I'm fortunate to have ready access to several 16th-century editions of the glossed Bible, which I find a good thing. I have to go to another library to check the 4-vol. Brepols reprint of the 1480 Strassburg edition, which is a better thing, though consulting it is less convenient and you cannot follow up every passing hunch if it means taking a bus. If there were a full critical edition that would be the best thing, but there is not (except, as far as I know, for Mary Dove's work on the Gloss on the Song of Songs). So I still find the VulSearch module "quite useful", though I'm grateful to be reminded of its defects, which I understand are rather severe.
2) With regard to the Douay-Rheims, I was aware of Challoner's Anglicising work to which John Briggs refers, the original having been long criticised for being too much like a Latin crib. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, pre-Challoner versions are surprisingly difficult to come by, even in libraries, and Challoner can still be handy.
3) I find it positively advantageous that the VulSearch version of the Clementine Vulgate has re-classicised spelling, as reliable electronic searching, the main use of a program such as this, is so much more challenging without it. If it's necessary to address some finer point--and for many or most such purposes it's not--one can go from the search results to an early printed edition or to the Stuttgart critical ed. as need requires.
4) I'm sorry if I inadvertently recommended a "defective pirated" edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. I was not aware of that, and would be interested to know more. Investigating just now I see that VulSearch takes the Stuttgart text from the main UK Sourceforge mirror at the University of Kent, which does not immediately put one in mind of piracy. What should we know? -- Paul Chandler
On 31/10/2007,
John Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Frans van Liere wrote:
>> Do be aware that the 'Stuttgart' text is the usual defective pirated
>> version. The 'Douay-Rheims' is from a modern edition of Bishop
>> Challoner's 18th century version (he revised the translation to bring it
>> more into line with the King James Version...) For that matter, the
>> Clementine text itself is from a 20th century edition with
>> 're-classicised' spelling. The whole thing has all the textual
>> authenticity of Project Gutenberg :-)
>
> And beware that the "Glossa ordinaria" here is, in fact, the
> incomplete Glossa ordinaria text that can be found in PL 113.
I think between us we've covered everything :-)
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
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