Month: January 2010

On Wednesday I wrote to Hubert Kaufhold, editor of Oriens Christianus, which published the Syriac text of the fragments of Eusebius back in 1926 (OC 3).  I can’t find any evidence that the editor of that article, Gerhard Beyer, ever published anything else.  So … presumably the text is out of copyright, even under the daft and oppressive German copyright laws.  (If not, I shall have to waste time and money on getting a microfilm of the Vatican ms. and editing a text again from that – not what I want to do).

But… no reply.  Today I’ve emailed a colleague of his with the same query.

I’ve also  heard again from Brepols about the 500 words of Jerome and 580 words of Ambrose.  One awkward addition to the problem; if I include a translation of those two fragments based on the text they printed, they want control of my translation.  This would mean that I have to pay them not merely for the hardback, text and translation, but also for any popular paperback versions or magazine versions I might do of the translation only. 

That might be liveable with, although undesirable; but after the books are done with,  it would effectively prevent me placing the translation of the whole thing online under some kind of Creative Commons license, which is what I have in mind.  And that would destroy the point of the whole thing.

Perhaps instead I should have two different translations; one for book form, based on the critical text, and the other for online based on Mai.  That would allow me to give away the latter one.  The minor differences wouldn’t matter to 99% of those who read it, and the rest could consult the book form.

Fortunately I didn’t know the critical texts existed when the translation was made, so I already have the latter.  When I found out about the Jerome I passed a copy to the translator to collate, and I have his notes on the differences.  So effectively I do have the two versions of this already.  The Anastasius of Sinai has yet to reach me, but with luck that won’t be more difficult.

But all this is extra buggeration, which adds no value to anyone’s life and puts no money in anyone’s pocket.  It’s enough to drive a man to drink.

I have no urge to be a publisher.  What we want is English translation of patristic texts online where the world can use them.  If I were a rich man, I would simply hire the staff and churn them out.  Because I am poor, it is necessary for me to sell some copies to fund the next round. 

But all this crap does drain away my time and energy, I must say.  That may limit what I do.  Once everything just makes you feel tired, why do it?

One thing I need to do for the Eusebius book is to get the extracts from Cramer’s catena transcribed into electronic form.  I’ve agreed with someone for this, and emailed him the details of the first couple tonight.  Let’s see how it goes!

Meanwhile I have written back to Brepols.  They claim that they own the text of Jerome and Anastasius that they publish, as an original creative text.  Of course this is absurd, but commonplace.  But an interesting issue; they may be claiming that they own any translation made from that text.  If so, that would mean I cannot use their text.  After all, the idea is to produce a translation that can circulate freely.  In fact it would probably rule out the use of any modern text, unless I started thinking about lawyers. 

But … most of the texts that I am interested in, I am interested in precisely because they are neglected.  They are texts which have never received an English translation, and are unlikely to any time soon.  Mostly they don’t have critical editions.  Indeed most of the Eusebius material has never been edited critically.  So it is possible that even a demand that extreme would not really inconvenience me. 

I don’t believe that the text of ancient literature can be in copyright.  Publishers claim otherwise, but as far as I know these claims have not been tested in court. The idea is a shameful abuse of copyright law; like claiming copyright of Shakespear.  Unfortunately once money is involved, it seems more prudent for a little chap like me to pay them than pay lawyers.

My remaining copyright issue concerns the fragments from Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, and those from Anastasius of Sinai, Quaestiones et responsiones.

The critical edition of the Jerome is Hieronymus, Commentariorum in Matheum libri IV. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 77 Turnhout, Brepols, 1969.  The extracts printed by Mai are about 500 words in total.

The critical edition of the Anastasius is Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et responsiones, Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 59. Ed. Marcel Richard; Joseph A Munitiz. Turnhout : Brepols, 2006.  There are three extracts, two from Q.153 and one from Q.148, in total 581 words.

Both are owned by Brepols, the big Belgian publisher.  It is a great pity that the founder of the Corpus Christianorum, Dom Dekkers, is no longer with us.  But I will write to them and see if they will agree not to sue me if I use their version of the original text for these extracts. 

If not, or if they want more than a nominal sum, I will print Mai’s text with an apparatus of the differences and a note as to why.  But … who knows?  I have had very good experiences with publishers so far.

Printing a Greek and Latin text opposite the English translation involves me in the murky world of copyright.  One difficulty is that a work extant in fragments is liable to have bits copyright by all sorts of people.  If they all get greedy, this can render it impossible.

The major chunks and their owners are:

• The Greek text of the epitome, edited by Claudio Zamagni, published by Sources Chretiennes, owned by Editions du Cerf.  This is the largest single chunk, and thanks to Dominique Gonnet, Bernard Muenier and co, I have permission to use this at a fee which won’t wreck the project.  So… be thankful that I didn’t give you the Migne text!
• The Greek text of the fragments.  Mostly by Mai, or Cramer, or Migne; all out of copyright.
• The Greek text of some extracts from Anastasius of Sinai.  There’s a critical edition of this, and it will belong to someone.  If they get all difficult I’ll reprint Mai.
• The Latin extracts from Ambrose of Milan’s Commentary on Luke.  This I thought belonged to the SC; but in fact they reprint the CSEL 32.4 text of 1902, edited by Karl and Heinrich Schenkl (father and son).
• The Latin extracts from Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew.  This I also thought belonged to the SC but is in fact from the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, owned by Brepols, a massive Belgian publishing firm.  Collywobbles time!  The SC text says they got permission from Dom Dekkers, who edited that series and whose articles got me into much of my Tertullian stuff.  Sadly he died in 1997.  So I need to find a human being associated with the CCSL.  But it’s only a page; I can certainly use Mai if I need to, and just footnote the (few) differences.
• The Syriac fragments, published by Gerhard Beyer in Oriens Christianus in 1925-6.  I can’t find anything else that Beyer ever wrote, so I have no idea when he died.  I have written to the editor of OC asking if they claim a copyright.  I can’t see how, tho.

So… what about the Ambrose?  When did the Schenkl’s die?  For that is copyright in the Euroland; life plus 70 years.  In the USA it is all public domain before 1923.

The Ambrose CSEL is online here, although only for Americans.  A google search reveals that Karl Schenkl was 1827-1900.  As for Heinrich, Wikipedia says he died in 1919.

So … another step forward.  The CSEL text is mine to use as I choose.  All I have to do is get an electronic text.  Likewise I need to get some of the Greek stuff entered; material from Cramer’s catena, etc.  I’ll have to hire someone who knows polytonic Greek to do that — anyone interested?  Likewise with typing up the extracts from the CSEL text?  Anyone?  I can’t pay much, but can pay something.  Both of these are a few pages.