Loeb Classical Library
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
I've been reading Xenophon in a Loeb book & fell in love with them. There are many editions going back to 1909 and there are over 500 volumes. Great fun again, eBay,etc.
i'm not crazy about that particular translation, but the facing English/Greek printing is outstanding!
i would love to collect these, but they're a bit beyond my budget at the moment.
Some of the translations are a bit dated, but I really love the fact that they generally follow the Greek/Latin pretty closely.
In particular I'm thinking of thinking of the poems of Catullus. So if you don't read Latin, you don't get the 'naughty bits'. ; }
As I recall, they're often translated into French or Italian. Maybe I'm thinking of Martial.
Cataloging Loebs was one main impetus to LibraryThing. I collect them, and basically buy used whenever I see a book. That means I never know exactly what Aeschylus I have. So I was forever calling up my wife and asking her to check.
Anyway, the crap thing is that I don't have them all in yet. When LibraryThing took off I was only part-way through, and I moved upstairs to take an open apartment as my office. My books got all mixed up—cataloged and not. Clearly I have to delete everything and start over. Yuck.
I'm in the process of boxing up my books. Originally I was trying to put them into categories... and then I discovered LT. Now I can box them up any which way. HOWEVER, now I have to go back and open up the ones that were boxed so I can make notes on what is actually in them. So I feel your pain.
I have 44 tagged in my library, all of which are currently in boxes some 3,500 miles away. There will be a tear-jerking reunion later this year, at which point I'll be able to find out what the other 20 or so titles I have are, but can't bring to mind from a distance.
Oh, pshaw. Latin had about two centuries of good lit., most of it just warmed-over Hellenistic poetry. Greek has a millennium at least! :)
That's exactly the sort of thing LT was designed to do. Did you know they can all have their own accounts and then make a "group" that includes all of them. That way you can search everyone, but you can also keep stuff separate.
oooh, strong counterpunch to the body! (lol!)
I think this fails. I want to browse a group catalogue, not just search it.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris, sed his pilosis,
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
Vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
--Gaius Valerius Catullus
Fuck you both and suck my dick
Swishy Aurelius and queeny Furius
For thinking me, because my verses
are rather sissy, not quite decent.
Although the true poet should be pure
himself, his poems don't have to be.
Indeed, they have only flavor and charm
if they are sissy and indecent
and when they can incite arousal,
I don't speak of boys, but big hairy guys
who have difficulty moving their limbs.
You, because you've read of my many thousand kisses
believe that I'm not really manly?
Fuck you both and suck my dick.
This is not my translation. I lifted it from the web.
I only have eight Loeb's so far (sigh!), but I hope to have a couple of hundred one day!
To quibble: I'd say Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo is, I think, not a dismissal but a threat—literally "I will bugger you and rape you orally." (There's something to a language that has an active verb for the latter.) Anyway, it's hard to translate the sexual implications—the implied sexual world—into English. "Swishy" and "queeny," while derogatory, don't have the same perverted, abject flavor of pathicus and cinaedus, pathic and a synonym.
it sure did when my English grandmother used to yell it at me as when i was constantly underfoot...
"Bugger off, or i'll lock you in the coal shed!"
and post #27 is closer to the translation i was thinking of... far more graphic and effective.
Euripides: You've never seen him?
Kinsman: Absolutely not, as far as I know.
Euripides: Well, you must have fucked him ...
In an earlier Loeb edition, the final line of this excerpt was translated: "I fear there's much you don't remember, sir." A footnote then gave in Latin the real meaning of the Greek line. '
I heard an interesting story about the author of Latin Sexual Vocabulary, although I can't vouch for it's authenticity: the author is/was (I'm not sure if he's still around at this point) quite prim and proper - the typical Classics prof stereotype, but his students gave him the nickname Dirty Words Adams (his last name) because of this book, and apparently he really hated that. Great book, though.
tim - thanks for the tip about group vs separate accounts - I'll keep bugging them about doing it, since I know they'll love it once it's done.
I agree that it's about power. Ancient sexual relations were all about that--the standard formulation being that modern sex is about who you're with, ancient about "who's doing what to who."
That is so true. As far as I have been able ever to uncover, the only truly homosexual man ever recorded in classical history was Augustus' adviser, Maecenas, who preferred only men.
Several years ago, when I was taking a class in Petronius, we read an article which discussed what is actually meant by the pejorative terms "cinnaedus" and "pathicus". The conclusion was that the subjects were passive males, rather than active ones, and not necessarily homosexual.
While some of the translations may be outdated, they are still a useful set, especially for authors that cannot be found in either OCTs or Teubners, and don't require the additional knowledge of French, in order to access the Budé editions.
Plus, their size makes them handy for travel on bed-time reading. Right now, I am re-reading some of Hesiod's minor works (or, works attributed to him).
I have some problems with the new orthodoxy here, which has, I think, some ideological roots too. The effort to reduce ancient sex to power and the endless noodling about the body get to me.* But the main point is fair enough. As much as I detest the "Alexander was/wasn't gay" argument—it dominates Wikipedia—he's another good candidate. Although not exclusive, his long relationship with a coeval was worth mentioning precisely because it's assumed he wasn't always the doer.
*My favorite anecdote, which, alas, I got at second-hand. Apparently Michigan's Clasisics dept. had a speaker about this topic. His point was that ancient depictions of sexuality--particularly on vases and etc.--were about male desire, not social reality. Fair enough. But anyway, he made this argument that one position in particular showed this--ones where the woman put her legs over the man's shoulder. Since this is physically impossible or uncomfortable, the vases were all about male desire. What? Anyway, this was a window into the guy's sex life, I suppose, and the willingness to see deeper meaning in what was merely a sad lack of sexual experimentation on his part. Apparently two graduate students offered to demonstrate the position on the carpet right there and then.
Again, the gay/not gay issue is difficult, because it's hard, within class discussion at least, for people to distinguish between the idea of 'would we call him gay?' and 'would the ancients call him gay?' and all the different wormcans both those questions crank open. It's always good for getting students to actually speak up in class, though. And is gets them nearly as riled up as my "Christianity is just a mystery cult" lecture. Hoohoo, *that's* always a fun day...
How about the "Jesus and Socrates are the same character" lecture?
At least it's not: If Socrates had died at the battle of Delos (? fact-check needed here on correct name of battle), Plato would have been a pre-Socratic. Honestly, I've heard that talk given (by a 'famous' Classicist/historian), and it wasn't pretty.
But Catullus is great for dirty stuff, so is Horace!
As for the translation of Latin sexual terminology, sometimes it is just hard to find an English idiom that encapsulates the violence of the act, e.g. irrumabo.
I think the un-translate-ability of some Latin phrases makes it all worthwhile! :)
It's the smell. They smell sooo good. Has to do with paper I imagine.
That and the fact that in the old days, no scholar would have sat hunched over them eating cheetos so there's no orange fingerprints ;
(btw, chocolate is the worst. At least that's what I assume those dark smudges are. Could be blood I suppose ;)
ETA: message reference, since it seemed confusing to cross over the Catullus conversation and back to the 'stain' conversation (although I'm sure there's a link somewhere to be made between Catullus and stains of some variety - sheesh, did I really just say that? ;) )
>60 scaifea: Catullus and stains... well, yes I suppose there is a connection of sorts. At least it's not Propertius writing about watching his friend have sex... That's disturbing, especially if you're reading it for class!
(Ya know, there'd be alot more interest in classical studies if they didn't sterilize so much of the literature)
This thread made me go down to the makeshift library in my office and lovingly leaf through the Loebs. Sadly, we don't have any Catullus. I had students catalog all of our journals last summer, and now I'm kicking myself that I didn't just get a LT account and a couple of cuecats for them.
BTW: I have an extra copy of volume two of Pliny's Letters. It's an old enough edition that it doesn't have an LCL number on the spine, but it corresponds to the newer edition #59, sort of (the old edition contains books 7-10 of the letters and the newer one has books 8-10 and Panegyricus). If anyone's interested in adopting this lovely, slightly worn (with a very slightly warped cover), little loeb, just let me know and I'll send it to you (first-come first-served, of course).
what do i have to do?
Garp83: she, not he - hard to tell from my username, I know. And my Greek is rusty enough that I'd really prefer to stick with Pliny in the Latin (I can read Greek, but I'd just prefer not to).
The Loeb translation of Procopius (Secret History) was fairly full of Latin translations to spare blushes. Even Longinus' Daphnis and Chloe didn't escape the Latin version treatment for some passages.
The discussion of rendering erotic classical poetry into a modern idiom that reflects the earthiness and power of the original is interesting. The new Loeb Aristophanes versions must have provided the translator with some amusement - I think he's made a good stab at capturing the original double entendres in many passages that present not inconsiderable challenges.
How to do Catullus justice in an English version is a perennial problem. I think it a great shame that the poet W H Auden never tried his hand at a version. Those who have read Auden's suppressed poems can't help but feel that he might well have been inspired by Catullus. He was a competent classicist. Just look at lines like: "He rocked to the shock of my cock" and you almost immediately start scratching around in Catullus to see where he got the idea from.
There is another well-known English classicist poet/playwright - Tony Harrison - who might also be able to do Catullus justice. He did an interesting recreation of Martial's epigrams in his book U.S. Martial - and his inspired play The Trackers of Oxyrrhynchus triumphantly (and shockingly for some) brought Ichneutai to life. See http://www.terrydavies.com/musicanddance/thetrackers.html for what the satyrs looked like in one production. When I saw it some of the audience audibly gasped when the satyrs sprang out of the cases. The Greeks loved it when it was peformed (in English) at Epidaurus.
I met Barry Rutter, pictured in the link above, at a conference in Athens in the mid-1990s where his wife Carol Rutter was giving a paper, although sadly he wasn't in that costume. Later, in a restaurant, he somehow cajoled everyone into singing party-piece songs. I seem to recall that they tackled some English folk song or other, and had very fine voices.
I ended up drinking steins of lager with some Swedes in a seedy bar under a overpass, who enlightened me as to the fact that my surname (a corruption from the Swedish) does not in fact mean 'spur of land extending into the sea', which I thought suitably wistful and romantic for a literature PhD, but rather 'plank', which is unquestionably more appropriate.
anyway, great profile & eclectic reading taste ... and you can read Greek?!! I am not worthy ....
Good luck with the book sale - let us know what Loebs you pick up!
Big sale at my local used bookstore today & he has several hundred Loeb's
I saw your comment, and I have to ask: where?
Raven in N'hampton is on my list of 'must-visit-when-I'm-en-route-to Boston' bookstores, I'll try to take a look at Troubadour sometime soon.
One reason I rather went off them is the small amount of text there is on each page. So that if a Latin author writes long sentences (as many do) it is hard to grasp the sense when you only get to the main verb 2 pages further ahead.
BTW I just rememberd that I once attended a series of lectures by a retired school teacher who mentioned that he was the translator of one the Loeb series (?Lucian). I was amazed at this I assumed they had all died at least 50 years ago.
yeah i can understand that, although it doesn't bother me too much with the Loebs.
however i recently finished the Forgotten Books edition of 'The Argonautica' (R.C. Seaton translation, same as the Loeb). in this one each page is divided into two columns, one in English and the other in Greek. now THAT was frustrating as hell, and i really had a hard time keeping the sense of continuity from page to page.
i will never again buy such a book.
Forgotten Books, if you are reading this... cut that shit out!
I was interested to see you are reading the Argonautica. I have only read the Pengiun translation though I do own a parallel Greek /Latin text (also in 2 columns in the Firmin-Didot edition.
Apollonius' Greek is far too difficult for me. The Latin version is o.k. but odd too with weird hyphenated compound words invented as presumably the closest he could get to the Greek but I have never seen these anywhere else.
i was aware of the criticisms that Seaton's text was a bit ponderous, but that didn't bother me much at the time. however, that combined with the difficult format AND far too many typos made it difficult going by the end.
The Greek Anthology was subjected to some Greek>Latin translations as well:
"Puerorum, O Diodore, vascula in tres formas cadunt, quarum disce cognomenta. Adhuc enim intactam lalu nuncupa, eam quae turgescere modo incipit coco, quae vero jam ad manum agitatur, dic lacertam ; perfectior autem scis quomodo appellanda sit."
Finally revised to English in the '70s.
On the old printings, the vol. numbering is sometimes stamped on the back cover, in the lower right corner, but without any gold-leafing so it's hard to see.
Some of the originally planned volumes did not apear until comparatively recently, so not surprising that some of the translators are still around. Like, they didn't finally complete the 23-vol. set of Aristotle until 1991--the last vol. of the History of Animals, I think.
But I'm always happy when I end up "having" to buy a Loeb. They're charming. The small size, the bright red and green covers and dust-jackets, the fact that they're hardback books . . I try to avoid the whole "books as commodity fetish" thing, but Loebs are a seduction in the opposite direction, at least for me.
I remember some years back, Martha Stewart was using entire sets of Loebs purely as decorating accents. If memory serves, she bought her daughter all the Latin translations as a wedding gift purely to serve as a red accent for a certain room. This is gauche, but I figure at least this means more Loebs bought, and more impetus for HUP to continue publishing them.
HUP also has a similar series of translated Latin works from the Renaissance named the I Tatti Renaissance Library. My wife has one, and there are a few I'm considering getting at some point. They're very nice, but I wish they were the same small size as the Loebs. Their size just makes them far less portable.
"... let just as many books be acquired as are enough, but none for mere show. ... For it is in the houses of the laziest men that you will see a full collection of orations and history with the boxes piled right up to the ceiling; for by now among cold baths and hot baths a library also is a necessary ornament of a great house. I would readily pardon these men if they were led astray by their excessive zeal for learning. But as it is, these collections of the works of sacred genius with all the portaits that adorn them are bought for show and a decoration of their walls." — Seneca, De tranquillitate animi, IX, 4-7 (in Moral essays, Vol. 2)
Reading through this thread reminded me of A-levels. Our Latin teacher was ..inspiring. We had wine-stained and smiley-stamped papers and chocolate muffins as standard. Once she went through a whole load of our old text-books (by which I mean c.1920's extract books) finding the dirty bits and reading the German translations that were given before discussing the Latin.
She also enticed people to take Classical Studies by asking them what other subject allowed them to read sex guides, look at porn and debate the ethics of suicide, murder and incest.
"Perhaps Martha Stewart should reach up on the shelf, pull off the Loeb vol. 254, and read this on p. 249:"
hey Proclus, nice pull!
#95 LittteKnife: She sounds like my kind of gal, and it sounds like you had a great Latin experience, and I love to hear those kinds of stories.
""We have had orders, for the entire sets for interior decorating purposes," the professor said. Martha Stewart, for instance, has the entire set. In her magazine a few years ago, they were featured in her daughter's kitchen. There was a section of built-in bookcases in the kitchen with the green Greek Loebs in it, as a decorative touch, and on the end along with all these mixers and coffee makers and ovens and things, there was the Loeb Classical Library. Martin Scorsese bought a set."
I think I remember Loebs being used in layouts in a few more issues of Martha Stewart's Living at the time too. I can just imagine the purchasing decisions this touched off . . .
"Ah, the Greek translations have just the green to accent those curtains in the foyer. Much better than the ghastly light blue of the I Tattis. It's a Good Thing."
I think 'bite the dust' also appears in a choral ode in the Agamemnon. I wonder who first translated it that way?
Hear, hear! Would that some of our leaders had the wherewithal to get into a nice warm tub and open a vein as noble acknowledgement that they have screwed the pooch.
People should at least pick up a few of his letters to Lucillius (Epistulae Morales), they are wonderful and very very short.
>106 Makifat: That really wasn't his reason for committing suicide. He may have felt severe regret that Nero turned out to be a megalomaniac, but his suicide was the noble thing to do in that circumstance according to Seneca. Just look at how much praise he affords Cato the younger for having the guts to rip out his own guts.... hmm.
Regarding the nobility of the suicide thing, it was pretty clear that Seneca was to die. The question was whether he would chose his own time and method, or have the humiliation of being publically accused and killed like a common criminal. For a person of his rank, the latter was unthinkable, and of course there is the mafia-like compassion of allowing his family to hold onto his considerable wealth, which I assume would have been confiscated if they had had to "come get" him.
I don't know to what extent the first century Romans (particularly those of higher social standing) subscribed to the idea of a "good death", or whether that is a medieval concept. I suppose I should brush up on Stoic ideas and attitudes regarding death.
What's the consensus regarding whether Seneca was involved in a real conspiracy against Nero?
Stevia - mind telling us in particular what you're working on with Seneca (I'm a Seneca fan myself)?
Also Seneca definately has a concept of a good death. Unfortunately I don't have any of my books on me at the moment, but for a man to be able to scorn life and instrument his own death in spite of fata was a noble thing to do.
>109 scaifea: Scaifea, I'm fully aware that there is a resurgence in Seneca. My supervisior is absolutely chuffed that he's making a come back!
I'm working Senecan philosophy and tragedy through an analysis of the Troades. I love his philosophy and his poetry. I'm one of the few who actually love both!
I had fun translating "ista uestra diffututa mentula" (29.13) for the rest of the class.
93 is "Nil nimium studeo, Caesar, tibi uelle placare,
nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo"
Which I translated as "I am not overly keen to want to be pleasing to you, Caesar,
Nor to know whether you are white man or black man"
Another translator (I'm not sure who now) tried to "capture the spirit". His translation was,
"Caesar, Caesar who?"
Some people take artistic liberties WAY too far!
It is really great that you teach that poem. I fell in love with it and can recite it now. It's the sheer flippancy that Caesar's not even worth an insult that makes it brilliant.
Unfortunately it's too short to be on my exam :(. Oh well, if I get Lucan on the exam, I'll be a happy student!
Like many of the posts I've read here, I love their size, the colors, the ease of use. Another thing that I love about them is the high quality paper. it is much smoother than most books. I love to touch them while i read.....Sorry. Don't get me started!
Anyway, as a layman and a history enthusiast, the Loeb series has made available the primary sources that used to be the sole pervue of the professional scholars.
SO far, i've mostly coloected the historians, but I plan on expanding to the poets, playwrites, and philosophers in the future.
I look forward to exchanging prespectives on this wonderful series.
Male lovers In ancient Rome: male homosexuality was common and widespread throughout society, especially amongst the upper classes. However, it was thought to be improper for a freeborn boy or man to be penetrated anally as Caesar was alleged to have been in his youth. For a man or boy to participate in the passive role during anal sex, it generally indicated that they were a slave (the purchase of male slaves for sexual purposes was common in Rome) or one that had earned his freedom. Under Roman law, emancipated slaves may still be required to render certain services, including sexual ones, to their former master.
Roman society viewed the passive role during sex, regardless of gender, to be a sign of submission or inferiority. Indeed, it was said some soldiers sang mockingly of Caesar that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar". According to Cicero, Bibulus, Gaius Memmius (whose account may be from firsthand knowledge), and others (mainly Caesar's enemies), he had an affair with Nicomedes III of Bithynia early in his career. The tales were repeated by some Roman politicians as a way to humiliate and degrade him. Caesar himself, according to Cassius Dio, denied the accusations under oath.
The "Caesar may have Conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar" comes from Suetonius's Life of Caesar, 49.4
Here it is in Latin
"Gallias Caesar subegit, Nicomedes Caesarem:
ecce Caesar nunc triumphat qui subegit Gallias,
Nicomedes non triumphat qui subegit Caesarem."
As far as Roman "homosexuality" goes, I find that term anachronistic and it upsets me. But I've got nothing better. I think the real problem wasn't sex between men but the passive/dominant distinction.
The problem with the term "homosexual" in this context is that it does not at all reflect the cultural bisexuality that was prevalent in the classical period, which had various sometimes contradictory expressions among the Greek city states and in the Roman World. But you are right -- we have no other word for it, probably because the Christians that crushed the classical world with their own peculiar culture tried to pretend such things didn't exist, a practice we see in Loeb translations -- as discussed earlier in this thread -- until quite recently.
Today I got Aristophanes Volume 2 -- Loeb #488 -- "Clouds" - "Wasps" - "Peace".
the complete loeb catalog is at:
I have made a concerted effort to resist buying these but I can't ... seem ... to ...stop ...
Good books! I loooooooove having the original text on the left! Even if I can't quite decipher it, it looks cool and adds an extra "layer" to your reading experience.
Speaking of this, do you know of any other books that are done in the Loeb style (orig language on the left, modern English on the right)? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf (which is great). I'd love to get like, The Canterbury Tales, Kalevala, or The Epic of Gilgamesh in this style... but then again I suppose "reading" tiny little cuneiform marks would get a bit tedious.. hehe
Forgotten Books does a similar parallel text with their classics, and much cheaper too (my Argonautica was only $10 new!).
however each page is divided into columns with the English translation on the left and the original language on the right. personally i find this to be quite awkward, as the lines of text are too short to get into a decent 'flow'. this seems to be especially annoying when trying to read verse.
i've also found a higher than usual rate of typos, so the old adage "you get what you pay for" seems to hold true here.
really, there is just no beating the Loebs!
You might also want to look at the Islamic Translation Series which includes:
The decisive treatise by Averroes
The Incoherence of the Philosophers by Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali
Middle Commentary on Aristotle's De anima by Averroës
The Metaphysics of The Healing by Avicenna
Unfortunately, they publish very rarely and it may be, for all I know, discontinued.
edited: just saw a similar post by ontheroad (Message 118)
Still holding out for finding some über cheap at Book Barn in CT this summer :-D
There seems to be some quality problems with some Loeb editions. I've gotten some from Amazon and B&N that looked pretty rough for new books (mostly torn covers, but some also noticeably faded and bent or torn pages). Also, some editions have looked like they were mimeographed (poorly mimeographed at that). I once bought some directly from HUP. I figured paying full price (plus S&H) would be worth it if I was guarantied good quality books. Some of the worst copies I got came directly from the source. Best to buy from a store - at least you know what you are getting.
Why wait till summer? The good classical stuff is at the downtown Niantic store and there's no mud running through the floors over there!
I'm still pouting I missed the 30% off winter sale...
The problem with the Loebs is they are too darn small...it takes several volumes for each of Josephus' works. And cheap they are not. I used to have two or three in use at a given time. I sometimes imagined I would learn Greek by comparing the two languages facing...a la Schliemann studying Greco/German copies of the Iliad in order to discover Troy.
Josephus was not much thought of by my professors back in those dark ages, but seems to have been rehabilitated in history circles in the intervening nearly fifty years. Brill Press in Leiden is in progress of publishing the Josepus Project under the aegis of Steve Mason at York (CAN) U. These volumes are not for the average reader, nor even the interested layman, being as they are more notes than text, and geared to the academic. In a brief e-correspondence with Prof. Mason, he told me that the translations would one day be available sans most of the expository, phililogical material, but not until the entire series had been published. I will not live that long at the rate they're going.
Then I remembered this thread, famous because Tim said: 'I love this thread. It's gotta have the highest ratio of filthy-language to the-expectation-of-filthy-language anywhere on LT. I mean, I think we hit an LT record for filthy language."
I only have 18 Loebs -- 486 to go!
I was surprised to find out that they are STILL adding volumes to the library! At the same time, I was saddened to find that there isn't yet one for Jordanes' De origine actibusque Getarum.
I'm sincerely hoping HUP shows up at Kalamazoo this year. I had a bunch of Loebs on my radar last year and they weren't there - probably saved me some money but I wanted that conf discount. I'm not planning to collect 'em or anything - just quite often they're the best resource. And they look sortta cute on the shelf.
Having a beer right now and toasting Tim for inventing LT & -- of course -- for this (almost) forgotten thread ...
Oh and I just checked, I actually have 14 of them, not 10 :-D
Out of curiosity, I counted mine and came up with 31, the oldest being a volume of Lucian dated 1919. Leather binding, rather than the more familiar red/green cloth. The three volumes of Lucian I have are definitely among my favorites. I picked them up years ago when it was difficult to find Lucian in any other edition.
I don't know Loeb's policy at present, but over the years they haven't stuck strictly to "Ciceronian" Latin. Perhaps they have even made more allowances for a falling away froma strictly classical standard within Latin than they have within Greek.
Having close to as many Latin titles as they have Greek, though, is a sign of some bias which makes them favor Latin over Greek. One of my professors, Mason Hammond said that even during the period of the Roman Empire, there was about 8 times as much writing in Greek as in Latin!
In the meantime , as a student, I was encountering Jordanes only "at one remove" -- mention of him by modern historians but little actual publication of him, let alone translation.
But of course that included works of which little more than the title has
survived. And of those available to them, many no doubt it would seem to them to be an obscure and even pedantic enterprise.
But still, I wonder if more Latin as opposed to Greek was preserved in the West by scribes during the Medieval period? I have nothing to back that up, but it wouldn't really surprise me.
Back to Jordanes though, I know what you mean. The number of books even about him are extremely limited, so no surprise there are very few translations of his work in English to begin with. Still, I wish Loeb would pick up the ball on this one :-D
Oh by the way... I remember hearing that there were some other Loebs of Medieval works in vulgar Latin and the covers were blue... anybody have any info on this?
It's been a couple of years - don't know what the status is of this.
Personally, I'd like a Loeb Symmachus. Heck, they have Prudentius - might as well have who he was contra-ing about.
I had my order all ready to send. My wife saw it sitting on the desk; threatened to leave me and take me for everything we own if I sent it in. It was a close call, but it would have made the cost much more than 9Thou.
Though the article focuses on recent translations of Aeschylus, it gives a thumbnail history of Loeb. Evidently up until the 1970s, many of its Greek and Latin texts were unreliable and uncritical (often based on old Teubner editions) and the translations also varied greatly in style and accuracy. Griffith writes that among professional Classicists they came to be regarded for the most part with scorn, and students were often forbidden to consult or use them. But he says that in the 1970s editorial standards were significantly raised and Loeb re-established itself on a new course focused on scholarly expertise and reliability resulting in a tremendous upgrade.
(Incidentally, I must once again most strongly recommend to general interest readers the regular reading of the weekly TLS -Times Literary Supplement - which is carried by most larger public libraries and if you're lucky an independent bookstore in your locality (though it is a bit pricey, the cover price is $5.75, and if you get addicted as I am, that's $5.75 per week.). Of course you can also subscribe and get a somewhat lower discounted price - if living in the US, call FULCO (fulfillment company) in New Jersey, 973-627-2427. Don't order it directly from Britain, costs too much.)
Chris -- are there online links to those articles in the Times Literary Supplement?
I checked for Chris469's recommendation online. It is archived at the TOL website, but there is a charge (if one doesn't subscribe to the paper) for access to said archives.
With regard to the medieval texts, this may be of interest:
But they don't come cheap:
Other medieval languages are represented in the series as well. I've been able to acquire a few of the volumes at good prices, and I've recently read the first two Middle Dutch volumes, Dutch Romances. Volume I: Roman van Walewein and Dutch Romances, Volume II: Ferguut. It was fun to be able to try to puzzle through some of the Middle Dutch occasionally. I'm now about halfway through another German Romance, Volume I: Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal, and this translation is pretty readable, too.
Here you'll find (mostly) scholarly journals and articles on the history and archaeology of all areas of the world. The more languages you read, the more useful this site. Much material is in French, German, Spanish, Greek, as well as English, among others. I look for articles relating to the Ancient Near East (as you can tell from the books listed at my library) and I miss a lot owing to lack of facility in other languages.
If you have an abiding passion in these areas you'll thank me with garlands and bon-bons...I'd rather have the candy.
Thus she spoke, and speechless amazement seized Cypris. She was awestruck to see Hera beseeching her, and then she addressed her with gentle words:
"Mighty goddess, may nothing be more vile to you than Cypris, if indeed, when you desire something, I slight you, either in word or any deed which these hands might perform, week as they are; and let there be no favor in return"
Thus she spake, and speechlessness seized Cypris. And beholding Hera supplicating her she felt awe, and then addressed her with friendly words : "Dread goddess, may no viler thing than Cypris ever be found, if I disregard thy eager desire in word or deed, whatever my weak arms can effect ; and let there be no favour in return".
Incidentally, an American woman has done Seaton's translation of Race for LibriVox- it's rather good, I think, and well worth downloading.
Here are three current 15% coupon codes for members:
R9X9V3D (exp. 5/17)
X9U8E9V (exp. 5/17)
C8P3Y3J (exp. 5/17)
Finally, if you reach BN.com through bing.com you'll get an additional 8% rebate bringing your final cost per volume down to $15.01 (plus tax).
ETA: The Latin text of Jordanes can be found online at Iordanis de originis actibusque Getarum, on The Latin Library website. So, those of you who want to tackle Jordanes, knock yourself out!
If Jordanes' historical value made Ammianus look like Livy, I suppose we would have to rank Jordanes with Thucydides...
lol! But it took me a couple of minutes to unpack. The grey cells are not what they were.
Unfortunately, my impression is that Jordanes' historical value is more or less on a par with Livy's. Or inferior. On the other hand, Livy beats Thucydides all hollow when it comes to Latin style. Or style period, in my opinion, but I know I should endeavor to improve my taste in this regard. Ammianus just chugs along . . . the Stephen Ambrose of late antiquity.
I must read Jordanes - one day... Still, the Stephen Ambrose (just looked him up on Wikipedia, as his fame and consequent notoriety isn't great on this side of the Great Water) slur doesn't really work so well in the ancient world (let alone the late antique one) where no-one is really transparent about their sources (well, Eusebius perhaps).
When I was in Tokyo, I read a dozen or so Loeb classics in a bookstore and was amazed to find Plutarch's Morals was full of gems such as the reasons a Mare's tail is not as good as a stallions for music-making (she stalls on it) or Lucretius on various theories about thunder though he also made it clear that he took all such with a grain of salt and, yes, un censored Martial -- a selection of which was the first Occidental work translated into Japanese by the Jesuits! -- with what I would call the dozens (not necessarily the most recent -- does Loeb ever redo?) with the insulted party split from anus to navel and, my favorite a hen who clucked from both ends, so to speak (Tim, as you HAVE Loeb, could you please tell me if her name was Galena or what exactly?). And I bought Herodotus and you may find what I quoted in Topsy-turvy 1585 -- and if I had the time and energy, I would take his Babylonian street medicine idea onto the web (the closest thing is "patientslikeme," which is not de rigor).
Had I known that the ancients did not only write boring stuff about battles -- what I read in middle school Latin -- I might read Greek and Latin today! Has anyone made a two or three hundred page selection of the stuff in Loeb that any bright reader would be excited by? Ideally, I would have months to read through it all myself, but circumstances will probably not permit it, so I consider a collaborative editing effort . . . People who find various things could get the first shot at introducing them -- i get dibs on Herodotus's topsy-turvyism on Egypt which I could compare to Al Biruni on India vs the Occident including what we now call the Middle East, Babylonian marriage . . . --
I guess I havew written too much already.
For all I know, someone has already written a best of Loebs for laymen . . .
A Loeb Classical Library Reader
(1) "-- does Loeb ever redo?"
(2) "Had I known that the ancients did not only write boring stuff about battles . . . I might read Greek and Latin today!"
(3) "For all I know, someone has already written a best of Loebs for laymen . . ."
(1) Yes. Notably Aristophanes, and Sophocles. My 2-vol. ed. of S. is labelled "New translation"
(by Hugh Lloyd-Jones), 1994. I get the idea from LTʻs citations that there is a still newer tr. -- or ed. --different arrangement, anyway. I havenʻt checked up on Martial, as to new translation; the one I know of translated some of the more explicit passages into Italian (borrowing in principle, some of the other Loebʻs idea of translating such into Latin (where the original is Greek).
(3) Not that I know of, but it sounds like a good idea. And good idea, as you say, to check with Tim.
The other place where the Loebs have improved is in the Greek or Latin texts, currently at a very high standard of scholarship. Older texts vary, but often scholarship has lef the older texts behind. Not in the case of the Procopius, where Haury's text was used (OK, the current Teubner text has additional corrections by Wirth), but in general the individual texts should always be used with a little caution - if you have the opportunity to do so, always read the original academic reviews in the Classical Review or other journals. If you have the opportunity, I say, as many of these are only available on subscription - i.e. easily available to students and academics but problematic to everyone else.
Interesting that B. B. Rogers was of the 1860s-70s -- a "music hall" style, maybe? (Iʻm not even sure
of when or what that was). Anyway, I had bee going with a vague idea of Rogersʻs being just somewhere before my time -- the early 20th c., perhaps, and didnʻt know that he was that far back. And I didnʻt know about the translator who had just got started. (I did know the "B.B." was for "Benjamin Bickley". Touchstones doesnʻt seem to have picked him up as "B.B. ...". They give, in their inimitable style, a "John B., Jr. Rogers".)
The Euripides almost HAD to be an improvement, as the old Loeb Euripides (Arthur Way) was one of their two worst, 2nd only to Storrsʻs Sophocles.
I see praise lavished on the new Loeb version, but the only critical criterion ever evinced is that it includes the naughty parts. I have never seen a convincing Aristophanes translation, and for me his Greek is too hard (informal?) to read, easily enough to enjoy the comedy anyway.
Also I am glad you recommended the new Loeb Menander. I will put it on my list. I am very fond of Menander, what little there is. I wish you papyrologists would dig up more. At least his vestigia are preserved in Terence.
@190 Garp83: I didn't want to imply you shouldn't have the naughty parts, after all - LOL! I just wanted to know if this translation had other strong points besides being unbowdlerized.
A Loeb translation should be complete and accurate and not leave out stuff. A performance translation has to go with what the market will bear. Today the market finds the bawdy language in Aristophanes pretty tame. In 50 years, who knows? The Regency was a lot more down-to-earth than the Victorians, who were embarrassed by things their grandmothers would say!
Now at last Aristophanes begins to join the completed Sophocles and the progressing Euripides and Menander, with a Loeb text and translation to which undergraduates and non-specialists may safely make rapid reference, produced by a scholar who has proved himself over many years an outstanding interpreter of Aristophanic comedy and who in the next volume will be publishing his third translation of Lysistrata (cf. Aristophanes' Lysistrata (Cambridge, MA, 1988) and Three Plays by Aristophanes: Staging Women (New York and London, 1996)).
To some extent the translation falls between several stools-as perhaps any translation of Ar. must that aspires to be both reliable and readable. H. makes a serious attempt to capture the various distinctive registers of language that Ar. uses (and that he often jumbles in a wild medley), but what was presumably extremely funny in Greek can often be merely weird in English. Virtually always his renderings are based on a sound understanding of the Greek, and at many points they display admirable vis comica. Some of his best touches, alas, will be hidden from most readers: few are likely to perceive, for instance, that in Wasps 928 ('one copse can't support two robbers'), in addition to the evident pun on 'cops/robbers', there is another on 'robbers' and 'robins', that this is faithful both to the proverb which Ar. is adapting (τρέφει μία λόχμη δύο εριθάκους) and to biological fact (the robin being one of the most rigidly 'territorial' of all birds), and that the pun is actually an improvement on Ar. himself, who could do no better than replace εριθάκους by the totally dissimilar word κλέπτα.
Modesty is one thing, however, and obscurity is another. I am not sure that H. has always put himself in the position of typical Loeb users, who will not be Aristophanic specialists, may (these days) have a rather shaky command of Greek, and may take the translation as authoritative. For these users, more notes explaining the literal sense, where H. has (normally for good reason) departed from it, would be very welcome. In general, indeed, the annotation is very thin, considering the density in Ar. of crucial allusions to matters the average user is unlikely to know about (or is at risk of being misled about-e.g. the wildly exaggerated claim at Wasps 707 that there were a thousand tribute-paying cities). Many phrases are signalled by inverted commas (in text or translation or both) as being quoted or adapted from other poetry, but much too often the curiosity thus aroused is left unsatisfied. Stage directions, too, could with advantage be more numerous. In the passage where Philokleon is tricked into acquitting Labes (Wasps 982-1002), H. has only three inconsequential stage directions, making much of the script quite hard to understand; my translation (Aris & Phillips, 1983) and Pascal Thiercy's (in Aristophane: Theatre complet (Paris, 1997)) each contain thirteen stage directions in this passage. Sometimes even entrances and exits are forgotten: Xanthias is rightly sent off at Wasps 843, and then in 899-904 we find him and the two dogs all present although there has been no direction for their entrance.
The completion of this edition will be eagerly awaited.
I wouldn't take the slightly negative tone of some of the review here as a strong reason not to use the new Loeb - this is, after all, an academic review and is overall strongly positive.
I donʻt know* either, Anthony. I can think of at least 3 or 4 of my Classics professors who were sane, even though they didnʻt have much else going for them.
*"I donʻt know..." Euphemism for "The foregoing* (in this case Cynara and Beelzebubba)is/are wrong!"
The format of the Loeb Classical Library--text and translation on facing pages, with a minimum of annotation--is now something widely taken for granted. In 1911, when T.E. Page and W.H.D. Rouse began their editorial work, it was not. ... Teubner had early established a lead with plain texts, Charles Cannan of Oxford University Press ... followed with the Oxford Classical Texts, which began to appear in 1898. At the same time, the Home University Library, which OUP took over in 1906, [began to cater] for the adult learner.The Loebs bridged the gap between these two spheres, offering an accurate plain text for scholarly use on the left-hand page, a readable and accurate translation on the right. In thus acknowledging a readership interested in, but not wholly competent to read, classical literature, the Loebs reflected contemporary changes in education and society. They form part of a transitional period in the history of the Classics, between an age when elite education could almost be equated with classical learning, and the present age, when the subject has been marginalised to such an extent that recent government proposals for a national curriculum do not even mention it.
If Tarzan was autodidact enough to teach himself to read, speak, and, presumably, write English from the picture books marooned with his infant self, it should have been a cinch for Schliemann with Greek-German alphabet chart handy. I know somebody will say there really was no Tarzan...spoil sport!
Schliemann, by digging willy-nilly, destroying everything in his path to Troy, and looting the artifacts for his wife"s pleasure, has set back a true (or at least more scientific understanding) of the site.
He actually did learn Greek, as well as English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Italian, Latin, Russian, Arabic, and Turkish and of course German. (According to Wikipedia, where else?)
Nathaniel Bowditch claimed to have learned 26 or so languages by reading the New Testament in each of them. But could he read a daily newspaper?
Sir Arthur Evans could spout classical poetry for hours. But he never learned Minoan. And neither have we. Has the New Testament been translated into Epic Greek?
Yes, that way was introduced to us some time in the 1950s by Prof. Joshua Whatmough*. But I had already heard of it. He said the Bible was a good
book to use for this purpose "because you already know what the English of it is" -- which if said today would probably be assumed to be a witty sarcasm. He didnʻt say to use an English Bible concurrently, but I suppose the possibility of that was understood.
At first I thought the Schliemann "system" (200) was a variation on Whatmoughʻs (not original to him) "Bible System". Quite different, though, when you think over what it would entail So, Anthony is right (201) that it would be "extraordinarily difficult and time consuming".
*A classicist who taught "Comparative Philology" at Harvard. He later re-named his department "Linguistics" without changing its content too much.
And I agree with Cynara on the delight in finding people so alive, even concerning a dead Language. I find it interesting that the closest thing to it – the same delightful intellectual energy may be found in the Ancient Chinese group. Unfortunately for me, my specialty is Japanese, and it seems to draw trendy pop culture groupies (maybe I exaggerate a little, but even university courses tend to go that way).
Re. the obscene stuff, for the conservative maybe new translations can leave the Latin of a predecessor in the text and translate the original in a note which you would be free to black out. I must admit to being astounded at material akin to the worst of dirty dozens in Martial. The shock at reading it as I stood in the Japanese bookstore was something like when I heard a rap song describing all sorts of sexual acts not only graphically but grossly as I ate in a Japanese restuarant with parents and kids of all ages – if they knew what was on that tape, i imagine all the boys, at least, would study their English with renewed energy -- I wonder if the Jesuits who made it there first book published in Japan had the pleasure of reading through that stuff to excise it or if it came to them already censored. Even with excuses about the use of obscenity as a tool for memorization, I cannot imagine them reading it.
Be that as it may, for all who do not mind soft-obscenity, I would love for you to peek at what i did with Lesbia who ought not rise or sit because of wedgies in chapter 19 (“wedged between her symplegades, or let’s stand up for wonderful translations from Latin*) of my Dolphin In the Woods (after Horace) which you can view 100% at Google Books.
*That is the name of the chapter in the ordinal table of contents. Above the chapter, itself, it is called, “Pangur Ban Finds Lesbia – from white cat & jack to calipygosity and back” --- the relevant magterial is on page 186-8.
And I wonder
1) What do you think of my version? Is it as awful as I think it is?
2) Does anyone know who the translator is for the example from the Swedish or Danish website?
3) Is anyone in touch with Wind or Salemi, whom I quote as they were found in “Maledicta” to which i subscribed maybe 25 years ago?
As far as I know, no one has bought a copy of this book I published a half year ago, and the first input I got (just yesterday night) came from a woman staying at my mom’s to care for her cat when she is away. She called me just to say how much she loved my rhyming and rectangular (ala Hofstadter) translations of a Chinese poem counseling mercy for mosquitos and flies. She read them to me and wondered who translated them and I could not recall, so I looked in my book and, loh and behold, it was me! It is easy to beat all translators of poetry from Chinese but the marvelous Professor Crump, but I am afraid I failed to match Wind or Salemi, though I may have matched them with the poems they inspired about a Brazilian Lambada dancer in Tokyo found in the chapter notes.
Also. I found one interesting translation in a Penguin book of Japanese verse that I felt was good as it seemed l translated in the style of one used to “our” classics. It (Making Fun of a Thin Man) was alive! The translators are Geoffrey Brownas and Anthony Thwaite. Are either known to classical translation buffs? (my book is old minus a preface etc). Sorry for such a long entry only partly about Loeb.
>Schliemann, by digging willy-nilly, destroying everything in his
>path to Troy, and looting the artifacts for his wife"s pleasure,
>has set back a true (or at least more scientific understanding)
>of the site.
I wonder whether that really matters. His example was what kicked archaeology off. And if you really think his work set back a "more scientific understanding" of the site, bear in mind that every dig, if delayed by a hundred years, would give a "more scientific understanding" of the particular site. We can only excavate in our own time and in the context of our own period's knowledge. As for Troy, it's just one site among thousands.
Schliemann's getting his beautiful wife to model the jewels was a rather good idea, helping Schliemann get publicity to raise funds for excavation. And they are still there to be seen, apparently in Moscow.
It is basically a mixed bag when we talk about him. Schliemann, love him or hate him, was a giant in the history of archaeology and the rediscovery of the classical world and we must credit him for that. He was brilliant. He was persistent. He was colorful.
It is not entirely true that he was such a pioneer that he was unaware of the appropriate way to excavate to avoid the kind of destruction he wrought, which is the story put out by his apologists. He was rich and he was the driving force, but Frank Calvert -- a real archaeologist -- was actually responsible for the real excavations at Hissarlik. Calvert eventually had a messy falling out with Schliemann due to the catastrophic destruction that occurred at the dig in Schliemann's stubborn zeal, destruction Calvert suspected and we now know for sure irrevocably erased the period of the Trojan War that Schliemann was determined to bring to light.
Schliemann was also a slippery character who was often unethical -- not only by our standards but by the standards of his own day, as well. This is not to say that we can overlook the fact that Schliemann was a monumental figure in the creation of modern archaeology, but any warts and all appraisal must acknowledge that the man was literally covered with "warts."
do have purported writings by them -- fragmentary in the case of Solon and not generally accepted as Mosaic (the Pentateuch) in the case of Moses. ) And I read in Martin Buberʻs Moses: Revelation and Covenant that even Moses has been considered fictional by some scholars.
If Schliemann thought that this hyper-cerebral trend might and could be reversed, I agree with him, in principle. This of course would not mean that he got all the details right.
Calvert is new to me. It sounds like he has been unjustly overlooked.
As for Calvert and more on Troy, I highly recommend the recent scholarly work "Troy and Homer" by Latacz fill in the blanks.
rolandperkins @#210 Thanks for the reference to Frank Perkins. Troy not being one of my main interests, I was unaware of him. A terrific, fairly recent popular overview of Troy archaeology can be found at:
On Moses status, from the NOVA episode "The Bible's Buried Secrets":
"Q: Questions about whether or not events in the Bible really happened evoke strong passions. As a biblical scholar, how do you see the issue of historical authenticity in terms of the earliest biblical accounts—the ones for which there is little archeological evidence?
Carol Meyers: Too often in modern western thinking we see things in terms of black and white, history or fiction, with nothing in between. But there are other ways of understanding how people have recorded events of their past. There's something called mnemohistory, or memory history, that I find particularly useful in thinking about biblical materials. It's not like the history that individuals may have of their own families, which tends to survive only a generation or two. Rather, it's a kind of collective cultural memory.
When a group of people experience things that are extremely important to their existence as a group, they often maintain collective memories of these events over generations. And these memories are probably augmented and elaborated and maybe even ritualized as a way of maintaining their relevance.
We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history—George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.
Q: Let's turn to one of the most vivid figures in the Bible, Moses. Who is the Moses of the Bible, and could there have been such a person?
Meyers: The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.
Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place.
"It's possible that a charismatic leader, a Moses, rallied people and urged them to make the difficult and traumatic and dangerous journey."
Q: What spurs the transformation of a real person into such a legendary figure?
Meyers: We can see the Moses narratives as the products of a period of trauma. We see this at other times and places. Think about our own American history. In the difficult period of the Revolutionary War, there's a lot of trauma and turmoil. Should people fight for freedom and risk losing everything? Or should they remain dominated by European colonial powers? And one man, George Washington, emerges as a superhero, the one in whom people could put their faith, who would take them to new terrain, who would lead them to independence. If you look at the biographies of George Washington that were written before 1855, you would think he was a demigod. The mythology about him is incredible.
In some ways, we have that kind of material about Moses. The hype about him is a way of expressing the fact that people could trust his judgment. They could trust that there would be success in this highly risky venture of leaving a place where they at least had food and water and going to a place where they might not have enough food and water. But they were apparently convinced it was worth the risk, if they might eventually be able to determine the course of their own lives and to escape the tyranny of Egyptian control."
Martin Buberʻs Moses reverses this, or such is my impression: assumes the historicity of Moses, and is complicated and sometimes vague about the context. But he does make it clear that the Biblical authorsʻ idea of "history vs. legend" was far from our ideas of those.
"Well after all Moses may indeed be mythical. . ." (211)
I think Martin Buber or even Sigmund Freud who was about 160 degrees removed from Buber on this topic, would shoot this supposition down: Moses was real, they agree, whatever you think was the form of his biography,
"The significance of the Exodus text is unitary, unless the text itself is a patchwork."
I think most biblical scholars (as opposed to true believers in the Bible as the literal word of God) do consider the text of Exodus to be patchwork, in the sense of having contributions from at least two authors separated in time, and at least one editor who fused the narratives. I'm no expert, but that has been my understanding.
"Meyers fudges the historicity of Moses while assuming the historicity of his context, as reported in Exodus. "
I see the point, but am not so sure I agree. One could think the context likely, while having doubts about the details of the character Moses. On the other hand, the quote may not reflect the complete views of the author, who was not trying so much to make a point about the context as about the process by which real persons become transformed into subjects of myth and legend.
It's an interesting subject, and a large one. There are pieces of evidence that demonstrate that slaves were brought to Egypt from abroad, and a few documents that talk of the flight of some disgruntled (surprise!) slaves. Traders from the eastern Med went to Egypt. Some believe Canaanites occasionally fled to Egypt during times of drought or famine.
I am no expert either, but there is a view that appears to be gaining adherents that there may have been an Exodus of a much smaller number of former slaves -- tens or hundreds rather than the thousands in the bible -- who met up with peripheral Canaanites, hill dwellers, disaffected people perhaps who resented the authority of the Canaanite cities and power structures, pastoralists, people anxious to hear a new story. A monotheistic story, one promising freedom from tyranny and a believable God, may have found a ready audience.
But I wasn't there either. Presumably one awaits either more evidence, or a time machine.
Canaanites . . ."
This reminded me of a delightful sub-heading used by Immanuel Velikovsky (who like Freud was an amateur historian, and the arch-rival of Freud on this topic. Velikovsky of course has his own chronology while the others weʻve been discusisng more or less use the conventional chronology.
V. argues to the affect: But if the Hyksos* were on their way INTo Egypt right when the Israelites were on their way OUT, they would have met.
Sure enough, his next sub-heading is:
THE ISRAELITES MEET THE HYKSOS.
Who ousted the Hyksos and restored the native Egyptin pharaohs, according to Velikovsky? A mercenary leader named Saul, otherwise known from I Samuel of the Bible. This is all perfectly possible chronologically-- provided you accept Velikovskyʻs chronology. Of course, as V. reminds us, you couldnʻt expect the Egyptians to NAME a foreigner who liberated them.
*The Hyksos were probably Semites, who ruled Egypt briefly as Pharaohs. (Briefly, in Egyptian history means " a couple of centuries or so")/
Sadly, my brother's father-in-law, a fixture at family gatherings, is a devoted follower of good old I.V. He regularly tries to corner me with V's brilliant deductions, and, naturally, is unimpressed by my feeble resistance...
Shlomo Sand has some interesting things to say on the subject in his Invention of the Jewish People, though I certainly wouldn't regard him as an authority.
@226 stellarexplorer: My father too was a keen I.V. follower. I'm not going to say 'sadly' - he learned a lot about the ancient world, bolstered his faith and got me interested in the ancient Near East into the bargain through his researches. That's quite a payoff, I reckon.
The Egyptologist will blandly accept V's geology and infuriate the geologist, and the geologist won't see the fuss about V's Egyptology, and give the Egyptologist an aneurism.
You did leave me with a couple of questions, however. First, why do you say that an account is "terribly powerful" as a result of being a story rather than history? That to me is counterintuitive but intriguing.
Second, though I think sirat refers to biographies of the Prophet, what is the significance of al-Nabi? I could not find this in any of my usual reference sources.
Third, do you know what font I could use on Windows to make long marks over vowels? I see you can do it but I don't know if you are using Windows.
Fourth, though the reviews of the Shlomo Sand book make it look very interesting, you (and they) seem to have some doubts about it. Is it a good introduction to the topic for someone who knows no more than what's in the Bible (and is likely to read no more than one book about it)?
And it looks like I should inform my self about Velikovsky, a new one to me.
Why "terribly powerful" as a story rather than history? I'd not really thought this through when I wrote, but this is roughly what I meant. A communal narrative ('story') has its power through common ownership, through the sense of commonality that it fosters, regardless of whether it is a fact-based account ('history') or not. Thus the narrative ('myth') of Brutus--Aeneas' son or grandson--founding Britain and naming it after himself underpinned a common British identity under the Tudors. Thus the narrative ('history') of the Potato Famine fosters a sense of common Irishness among diaspora Irish. Thus the trials of the Prophet and the fledgling Muslim umma as learned from the Sīrāt al-Nabī ('oral history') gives context and meaning to the Qur'ān and a sense of identity to Muslims. Thus the narrative of George Washington and the War of Independence ('history') helps give a sense of national identity to Americans. In these narratives, the relationship between 'history' and 'story', the two senses of ιστορία, historia or histoire, is determined by warrant. For post-Enlightenment communities, and in particular nations, such communal tales need the warrant of the discipline of history. In older communities, religious or cultural warrant is needed (hence Arabs in North Arabia claiming Ishmael, and thus Abraham, as the founding common ancestor, and Britons claiming Brutus, and thus Aeneas, as theirs). But more commonly ancient ancestral tradition was the key warrant, and narrative with this warrant was as powerful as a historically-underwritten communal narrative today. Thus the power of the Exodus narrative was both in its nature as a common narrative and in its warrant of ancient tradition.
In part this is the problem that Shlomo Sand faces: the historiography of the 'Jewish nation' has mixed warrants. Ancestral tradition talks of the diaspora as a second exile forced by Vespasian and Hadrian, and understates historical conversion to Judaism. And secular Zionism presents Jews as a homogeneous ethnic group, while the reality is more complex. Sand is at his strongest when discussing the complexities of contemporary Israeli Jewish historiography (this is, after all, the subject of the book and he himself in an appendix says people misunderstand the book if they think it's a history of the Jews). I wouldn't like to use his work as an authority for the alternative narratives he introduces, but his book's not a bad place to start looking for further reading. But he certainly shows how the national narratives that have helped form Jewish - and more particularly Israeli - identity are problematic in terms of historical warrant.
Sīrāt al-Nabī (sing. sīrat al-Nabī) is the full name of the 'biographies of the Prophet', Arabic nabī being equivalent to the Hebrew nāvī('), 'prophet'. Sīrah on its own simply means 'biography', 'life' (in the sense of history).
I produce my macrons (long marks) using a custom keyboard layout. It's based on US International, but extended and using the UK layout where it differs from the US one. Probably not too useful to you, but perhaps I could produce you an American version. I still use XP, though, and my keyboard layout may not be compatible with Vista or Windows 7.
Velikovsky had two main theses: first, the miracles of the Pentateuch (the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the sun standing still to let Joshua destroy the Amorites, etc.) could be explained by cosmic catastrophes (this has been dubbed Catastrophism, and the argument reversed to use Biblical and other ancient records to argue for catastrophes), and second the absence of the Israelites from the Egyptian records was a result of a mistaken chronology derived from misinterpretation of Manetho's Egyptian king-list, in which (Velikovsky postulates) whole dynasties are doublets, pharaohs appearing twice under different reginal names. Naturally these initial theses have been vastly extended, and not all Velikovskians subscribe to both. I hope this is accurate - if there's a defender of the theories here, perhaps he or she could correct any mistakes I've made.
This is btw one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.
Nancy Bellicec: "Why do we always expect metal ships?"
Jack Bellicec: "I never expect metal ships . . ."
That's the difference between history and "faith", I guess, and though the two often overlap (I'm sure there are tons of Americans who swear by the Washington cherry tree story), it is troubling to me when people try to "prove" that certain events that began as legendary history and are now accepted based on faith actually happened.
it is crazy though that Josh & I do think scarily alike sometimes -- the Moses/Lycurgas comparison jumped to both of our minds somewhat simultaneously, hundreds of miles away ...
As Josh said, however, it is strictly a matter of faith -- and we are all obligated to respect that even as we do not need to be persuaded of the historicity of a character simply because he occurs in a religious text ...
Again, I mean no offense to you or Moses ...
But that said, I can't remember being told to pray to Moses :-) Which is kind of funny, in a way, since (at least in legend) he was largely responsible for the fact that there even is Judeo-Christianity.
The approach to Moses in the other two great monotheistic religions is very different from the
Catholic Churchʻs approach to veneration and praying to the Blessed Virgin and the saints. Moses is honored in Islam as a "Major Prophet". There are 28 of those, of whom the last 3 are Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus) and Muhammad. Even Isaac is a "major prophet", even though the split between Jews and Arabs is
supposed to date from Isaacʻs being the recognized heir of Abraham, while Abrahamʻs other son Ishmael became the ancestor of the Arabs. The feeling about Moses in mainstream Christianity is similar to the Muslim feeling, without the emphasis on a succession of prophets.
In the Bahaʻi Faith, the Succession of Prophets (or "manifestations of God" as the Bahaʻis would call them) clashed with the Muslim doctrine that there can be no further prophets after Muhammad, but , for Bahaʻis this Succession is so important that it led to a separation from Islam, and a still continuing persecution by Islamists, esp. by Shiʻa Muslims in Iran, its country of origin.
Intercession, which is the basis of praying TO
prophets, saints, or even manifestations of God, is quite a different issue. The Catholic Church may be the last upholder of it. But to my mind the Church is downgrading the concept of sainthood by haivng such characters as even the devious Pope Pius XII get near to being canonized. Iʻve even heard of a deal in the Vatican, where John XXIII -- a v ery god candidate-- could not be considered for sainthood except in a "package deal" where he and his predecessor, Pius XII would both be canonized.
No doubt the Church is having second thoughts about the legacy of Vatican II, even though the present pope was, with Swiss theologian Hans Kung, one of the two main formulators of it.
I didnʻt say that NO Muslims invoke intercession, or that NO Jews pray to tsaddiqim.
I was just saying that Feichtʻs (242) suggestion of praying to Moses was a very different issue from the veneration of Moses outside of Judaism.
Thanks, however, for I didnʻt know of the specific Sufi or Hassidic practices you mention. And yes, though I havenʻt researched the Orthodox Christian* attitude, I would assume
that it allows for not only veneration of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, but prayer for intercession, too.
Interesting, too, about "aspirant saoshyants" in Zoroastrianism. But I wouldnʻt call a Bahaʻi
a "former Zoroastrian", (since the Bahaʻi Faith emerged directly out of Islam) --any more than I would call a contemporary Catholic a "former" Jew" or a "former Dionysiac pagan". I do know that some Iranians are interested in the pre-Islamic religion of the country: An Iranian-Ameircan woman asked for a copy of the Zoroastrian section in my translation of Claude Emmanuel Pastoretʻs Zoroastre, Confucius et Mahomet.
*In fact, though not an academic expert on Orthodoxy, I am a member of a Lutheran congregation, which I would call a sort of
"And after six days Jesus takes unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart: 2 And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. 3 And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. " --Matthew 17:1-3.
That is Moses's personal appearance in the New Testament. So if Jesus was on speaking terms with him, he must be OK. His feast day in both Roman and Eastern Churches is September 4. There is no specific liturgy for him in the West, but his feast may be celebrated using a common liturgy. I don't know whether or not there is any Eastern liturgy. He is named in the Roman Martyrology for September 4, which means he may be prayed to, he is included in the general invocation of Patriarchs and Prophets in the Roman (liturgical) Litany of the Saints. He is invoked extra-liturgically by name (e.g. http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/litany22.htm)
Bottom line: yes, there are instances of people praying to Moses.
No normative Jewish group prays to any entity save God. They pray not to or through Moses, Aaron, Maimonides or any other Jewish sage or leader. No prayer of petition or otherwise ends with such as, "We ask this in Moses' name."
Does this mean that no Jewish individual or isolated group has ever prayed to other than God? Perhaps some have, but I think this generally would be considered heresy. There are some in the Lubavitch movement who believe the late Rebbe Schneerson is the Messiah coming (some thought he was the Messiah come), but I don't believe he is prayed to as a God, nor do I know whether intercessionary prayers are made through him. Other Chassidic movements do not hold those beliefs. Perhaps someone with a more intimate knowledge of Chassidic movements can provide a more authoritative answer.
John uses the word "heresy"; I will add idolatry. It is considered idolatry to establish anything as a mediator between man and God.
Quoting from that esteemed Wikipedia:
"In short, the proper Jewish definition of idolatry is to do an act of worship toward any created thing, to believe that a particular created thing is an independent power, or to make something a mediator between ourselves and the Almighty. These laws are codified in the Mishneh Torah, mainly in the section called Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim (Avodah Zarah) - The Laws of Strange Worship (Idolatry). It is considered a great insult to God to worship one of His creations instead of Him or together with Him. According to the Noahide Laws, the 7 laws which Jews believe to be binding on the non-Jewish world, the non-Israelite nations are also Forbidden to worship anything other than the Absolute Creator. One can find this in Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milhhamotehem (Laws of Kings and their Wars) chapter 9 in the Mishneh Torah. Judaism holds that any beliefs or practices which significantly interferes with a Jew's relationship with God may, at some point, be deemed idolatry."
It concludes that "a Jew is not permitted an intermediary. There must be nothing between the Jew and G‑d.
Nevertheless, as previously established, it is permissible for a Jew to ask another Jew to be an intermediary between him and G‑d."
Including a tzaddik who has passed away. It doesn't mention Moses.
Chabad is a Lubavitcher website, and as someone else mentioned above, the relationship between that intriguing group and Orthodox Judaism is not alway clear to me.
God bless thrift store bargains: $2.99 each, in near fine condition!
Though I'd prefer not to... of course ;-D
With the introduction of the 'Publisher's Series' field, Loebs are no longer in the 'Series' field under common knowledge. But if you click the link to see the publisher's series for the Loeb, you get a bunch of works that aren't actually Loebs, because the CK section doesn't seem to differentiate between editions of authors.
So, for example, the Penguin Classics version of Petronius has two publisher's series entries - one for the Penguin series, the other for the Loeb series. If you change it, to remove the Loeb, the Loeb publisher's series distinction is also removed from the Loeb edition of Petronius, since LT thinks it's the same book. Does this make sense so far?
Anyway, the question is, does anybody know how to fix this? So that the Penguin version will be part of the Penguin publisher's series only, and the Loeb edition will be part of the Loeb publisher's series only? I would guess that 'disambiguation' would have something to do with it, but I'm not familiar enough with the more complex workings of the site to figure out what to do with that.
Some of the Loebs are very specific of course, but many do also have "Penguin Classics", "Everyman's Library", etc, counterparts.
Personally I think anything containg the original text(s), such as the Loebs, should be treated under the "dead language exception rule". That would help a bit - but still wouldn't avoid seeing them combined with other dead language editions of these "works" (Teubner, Reclam, whatever). Anyway, consensus seems to be only to do so with monolingual dead language texts, alas.
The problem is, it's not clear one way or the other. I have bilingual editions of Persius, Catullus and Beowulf, and I have the Loeb Homeric Hymns on my wishlist, but I don't read a drop of Latin, Old English, or Ancient Greek. I suppose once he gets inclusion worked out, we can have a work of ancient language, a work of modern languages, and a work of bilingual language that includes both.
I know. There currently simply no way to deal with this that would satisfy both. I have my personal view. But I wouldn't dream of imposing it.
The above site will lead you to downloads (primarily as pdf) of selected Loeb titles. Many of these--primarily from the early 20th cent--are free, having been replaced by more recent translations.
The lack of copyright on some? I think they were re-copyrighted when the US joined Berne.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth! They ARE free because they cost you nothing. Many books that are out of copyright are not free. Homer has been out of copyright for centuries, but try, at your local bookstore, to get a free copy of early translations because they've been updated or outdated by Lattimore or Fagles.
Somebody has taken the time to scan those Loeb works into PDF or text files. You can read them online, you can print them to hard copy, save them to other media, however you know how to manipulate them. Somebody(ies) have taken their time and effort to get them online, and Mr. Donnelly (I am not he) took time to make them easily available to us. If they are of no value to you because they're old...don't bother with them.
I just wish that here were some free Josephus there.
I think you misinterpreted. "They're not free because they've been replaced" meant "the fact that they have been replaced is not the reason they are free".
I've always assumed 'leeb' but I'm struggling to remember an instance of hearing the name spoken.
#279 - I assumed the name was German and should be pronounced as in Goethe; but I also assumed that the original Loeb was an American and the pronunciation might, hence, have become different.
#280, #282 - Having looked at Mr. messpots' profile, I'm going to assume him as an authority. 'Lobe' it is from now on.
I can remember pronouncing Loeb "as in Goethe" many
decades ago (not that Iʻm an expert on German phonetics).
But then I was overwhelmed by the unanimous "lobe" pronunciation, which I now use.
As for the books themselves, I feel the need to point out how hard it is to find them at "bargain" prices. Even used, they still go for at least $15. I feel like the best way to pick them up for cheap is to happen upon a bunch of them at a yard sale or something. But what are the odds of that happening? :-)
Depends. How many yard sales do you go to, and in what kinds of neighborhoods? I'm thinking estate sales in a college town might be the way to go.
(Only half kidding.)
Right, Feicht. Or, in my situation, at ANY prices now that Borders has gone out of business.
The Waikele and the ward Warehouse stores here used to have small collections, all sold as brand new books; I think they had reached a price of $20 + per volume.
(the 1990s and no doubt out-dated now?) Even at that the number "500+" (#293) is higher
than I would have expected
But I'm a bit alarmed to note that my collection is now in three figures... The centenary offer of 2 for £25 has led me astray! That and some very good recent releases, in paticular Ian Storey's three volumes of Fragments of Old Comedy (don't expect fragments of Aristophanes as they are in the recent series of Loeb Aristophanes). A friend has noted (and had confirmed by the author) that it is exclusively Attic comedy that is meant. The first volume is dominated by fragments of Cratinus, the second by Eupolis ant the last by Plato (the comic poet, not the philosopher). And three volumes of Galen are due out in September or October!
Anyway, now that I actually think about it: as it's an American Loeb, "lobe" makes sense. I'll probably not try it when ordering at a local bookstore though. It would get me blank stares.
I keep waiting to see an ad like this somewhere ...
Thanks Bob for posting that link. I took what Josephus was available from the site. Somewhere above, I noted that I used some of these volumes for my term paper for the History & Historians class at UCLA a full 50 years ago--Winter semester 1962. While old, these Loebs beat the heck out of 18th Cent. Whiston.
Lotsa new Loebs for your lobes! Many of these new discoveries came from two perspicacious readers of “latin4everyone” , ZL in Croatia and Solon in Brazil. We have been collaborating on these over many months.
Torrent hash: c7e547acd11e8d029ee76b8051de0cc19080f08c
PLEASE SEED SO THAT OTHERS MAY DOWNLOAD!
LCL readers should be aware Harvard University Press has finally released all 520 Loeb volumes as digital files in September 2014. Theirs are prettier than ours and likely searchable (even in Greek!). In order to access the digital content, one must purchase a pricey subscription. However, the real downside is that the texts are not downloadable so they are not available for ready access unless, that is, you keep paying and paying and paying.
However, we believe all such works of classical knowledge, spreading understanding of the modern world through a thorough examination of our past, should be free. Roman and Greek authors, of course, are in no position to receive royalties! Nor are their far-descendants readily determined.
It may be argued that the translators of each work deserve a share of sales. However, most Loeb volumes are actually reformatted books which were originally published before the turn of the century (that’s the 20th century!). The vast majority of Loeb volumes were first published pre-war (that’s World War II!).
While this is not true of the newer translations since digitisation, many of us loyal Loeb readers liked the antiquated character of the translated texts. If the new translations have been modernised or, worse, made political correct so that, Goddess forbid, we don’t offend anybody, that does us all a great disservice. You be the judge.
It’s very hard to make an argument that any but the most recent LCL translations deserve to pay royalties to their translators (the rest are long dead!). It may come as no surprise that, of all the eminent Loeb translators, I can find only two among the living. One of them has replied to me that he received only a one-time payment and discount on LCL purchases! In fact, at least one Loeb translator, William Watts, translated St. Augustine’s Confessions in 1631! This, again, begs the question, to whom, then, is Harvard University Press paying royalties by arguing copyright.
We think the entire Loeb Classical Library catalogue should be non-profit, freely available for everyone.
The government and capitalist concept of copy”right” is far removed from reality. US copyright law “protects” a work for 90 years after the death of the creator. (For corporate authorship, 120 years!) This is, of course, risible in the case of classical knowledge. (Who pays Plutarch?!?) But even for modern works, we don’t think anyone’s grandchildren deserve profit from grandpa’s good luck!
If you want a fall-on-the-floor, laughing-out-loud experience, check out what U.S. government functionaries get paid for: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.
This intolerable situation has kept everyone in abject confusion for far too long. Essential and wonderful works which are not profitable are pulped and allowed to go out-of-print, making them unavailable to the rest of us. Online repositories are afraid to make books publicly available lest they be charged and fined.
It is indefensible for even public repositories with agreements to scan major libraries such as Google Books and others to restrict public access.
“Hoc opus, hic labor est.” Loeb III is a salvo across the bows of the USS Copyright. FREE THE LOEBS!
More Loebs, please! We’re still not satisfied!
If the new translations have been modernised or, worse, made political correct so that, Goddess forbid, we don’t offend anybody, that does us all a great disservice.
A number of the original Loebs left text untranslated when it was considered inappropriate for students, text that the new translations have translated; that is, the original Loebs were censored so they didn't offend anybody. More controversially, many new translators are listening with an ear to homosexual undertones; the debates on how accurate that may be in various cases may rage, but in some cases they're certainly hearing things the earlier translators were deaf to.
US copyright law “protects” a work for 90 years after the death of the creator.
No. US law is 70 years after death, and at the current time that only applies to works first published after 2002.
check out what U.S. government functionaries get paid for: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.
That has nothing to do with government functionaries. That was designed by politicians; it was mostly grown from a 28 year + 28 year renewal system to a system conformant with international copyright law of life+70. Pretty much every exception in those lists is based on an idea of fairness, of trying to change things without ripping out the rug from under people who were depending on the old rules.
It's a slippery slope to transition from arguing for a free translated source to arguing that, say, the heirs of Charles Dickens don't deserve to continue to receive income from Great Expectations because of its value as literature. (NOTE: I don't actually know who receives royalties from Dickens' works, I'm using this as an example)
No one. With a few twisted exceptions, works published before 1923 by authors who died more than 100 years ago are in the public domain world-wide. The heirs of Dickens did nothing to produce Great Expectations, and nobody writes to make royalties for descendants 100 years down the road.
On the flip side, there is clearly value to you to have an English language version of Panarion, and thus we give copyright to translators. If there was no copyright, it's unlikely there would be that translation. The original text of Panarion is still in the public domain, and you are free to make your own translation, hire someone to do it, or feed it into an automatic translator.
Dickens was English. 1923 has nothing to do with him, but I take your point.
On the flip side, there is clearly value to you to have an English language version of Panarion, and thus we give copyright to translators. If there was no copyright, it's unlikely there would be that translation. The original text of Panarion is still in the public domain, and you are free to make your own translation, hire someone to do it, or feed it into an automatic translator.
The value to me might be as high as $50. It certainly isn't $500. However I'm not worried about me but grad students who might need it as a reference but their school library decided not to buy it because of the price.
Doesn't matter. In the US, the US copyright laws rule, which means that books published before 1923 are PD in the US, no matter when their authors died. (For example, The Secret Adversary, by an author who died in 1976, is PD in the US and can be found online from sites offering US PD works.)
The value to me might be as high as $50. It certainly isn't $500.
You're not out anything, though. You're not worse off then if they had never translated it at all.
Nope. Dickens published his books in England. I forget the precise treaty (Berne Convention?) and it isn't important enough for me to hunt it down, but the US signed it agreeing to recognize copyright law in other countries, including the UK.
IF Dickens stuff was PD in England then 1923 would start to matter - maybe, there's a lot of case law about specifics - but the US does not ignore all laws of all other countries, including those related to copyright. We may be arrogant but we aren't quite that arrogant.
The Berne Convention requires the US to treat foreign authors the same way that it treats US authors. British authors get the same terms in the US they would get if they were US authors, not the same terms they do at home. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm for all the details about how long copyright lasts in the US; note that it's basically the same for foreign authors and US authors, with the exceptions being that foreign authors got some bureaucratic rules retroactively waived for them.
Sure does - whether Dickens was British or American the copyright laws of the nation where his stuff was first published would apply. Ergo, UK copyright applies.
British authors get the same terms in the US they would get if they were US authors, not the same terms they do at home.
Technically true but irrelevant to what we're talking about as one of the core provisions of Berne is that copyright from the country of origin (where a work was first published) applies. Dickens' stuff was first published in the UK. Terms in the US are largely irrelevant (except it's very possible most or all of it was already PD).
One of the core provisions of the agreement was that signatories agreed to recognize the copyright laws of other signatories based on country of origin. If an author's work was first published in the UK, UK copyright applies.
Of course as with a lot of agreements, case law impacting interpretation has been ongoing.
One of the core provisions of the agreement was that signatories agreed to recognize the copyright laws of other signatories based on country of origin. If an author's work was first published in the UK, UK copyright applies.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886, ... and amended on September 28, 1979, Article 5 says
"(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.
(2) ... Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.
(3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. However, when the author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which he is protected under this Convention, he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors."
Note that Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 holds that UK copyright does not apply and that Bridgeman held or did not hold copyright in its photographs in the US by US law alone.
Sure did and it was about US copyright law which only applies to works first published in the US, not to Charles Dickens who first published his stuff in the UK (technically England then but UK law applies today).
Thank you for providing a quote which states exactly what I said in my previous post - that based on Berne, the law of the country of origin is in effect. If something was not first published in the US, but in another signatory country, US copyright law does not apply.
I'm going to sum this up because I doubt there's anything more to be gained by this:
I said, in post 318, Dickens was English. 1923 has nothing to do with him. You took issue with this.
My reasoning was technically flawed as the reason 1923 has nothing to do with Dickens is that his books and other works were first published in England however that date still has nothing to do with him. British copyright law does and the US recognizes this as a signatory of Berne (though your link did say that a US citizen whose work was published prior to 1923 in a foreign country is in US public domain but this still doesn't apply to Dickens who was English).
Doesn't mean Dickens' stuff isn't PD. It probably is, but based on England/UK law, not because of 1923. The exception to this would be if something of his was registered in the US prior to 1923. To be honest, I have no idea if anything was. It's certainly possible but I'm not going to dig around to find out.
That makes sense, because I always label sections "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals" when I'm only talking about things first published in the US.
that based on Berne, the law of the country of origin is in effect
That's not what "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals" says.
Look, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I've done this for a decade; I'm familiar with every major case on the subject, I've read through Title 17, I know the history of US copyright law.
You want to tell Project Gutenberg the rule they've been using for twenty years is wrong (cf. their FAQ.) How about the US Copyright Office, who publishes a Circular 38b that says "A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U. S. copyright would have come into existence)."
But, seriously, Harvard's individual subscription ($150 first year, $65 every succeeding year) is excellent value. If I didn't own getting on for half the library in paper already (I didn't know I owned so many volumes) I'd definitely get a sub ($65 is, I'm sure, less than the cost of the new paper volumes published each year). I'd be interested to know how much a public library and school sub is. The sad thing, though, is that this electronic library probably knells the impending death of the paper books (which I very much prefer).
('1. 1KὍτι μὲν οὐ τὴν κοινὴν μόνον ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων φύσιν, ὦ Γλαύκων, ἐπίστασθαι χρὴ τὸν ἰατρόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου, πάλαι τε πρὸς Ἱπποκράτους ὀρθῶς εἴρηται καὶ ἡμῖν δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, ὡς οἶσθα, τῶν ἔργων τῆς τέχνης ἱκανῶς ἐσπούδασται. ': cut and paste from Galen's Method of Medicine, Jan. 2016).
I'm using a university connection, while I still have it (I expect to lose that next week, sadly). Many younger people will have alumnus access, I suppose.
Cicero De Officiis (2 copies); De Finibus; De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divitiatione; Lucretius De Rerum Natura; Suetonius II; Horace Satires Epistles Ars Poetica; Odes and Epodes; Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium Veneris; Ovid Heroides, Amores; Martial Epigrams I, II. $5 per volume.
Contact Diann at email@example.com.
As for me, I don't exactly collect them, but I do have about 250 in my classics library. They're good value for single work authors but problematic for more prolific authors. For example, Hippocrates, represented for decades by three-odd volumes, now has nine or so with more to come (it's actually now complete at eleven volumes, I find). Galen, the most prolific surviving author of antiquity, used to be represented by a single volume to which a three-Loeb-volume work has recently been added. But the cost of publishing and buying everything Galen wrote in Loeb would be astronomic. The French Belles Lettres edition was projected (I think) at something like 37 volumes, which would translate to fifty or sixty Loebs.
I find that I only buy works like Livy's history (14 volumes) or Plutarch's Moralia (18 volumes) in Loeb when I can track down cheap ex-lib sets, where Procopius' history (5 volumes) I could just justify when I was working on the author.
What's your favourite Loeb so far, Ironjaw?
Although all of mine are recent prints (the original owner acquired them new in the mid to late 2000s), there are a few I'd like to replace with the new translations. So that will be my project over the next few years: filling in the few I'm missing and substituting a select few for the newer translations.