By COPLAND 3, in 'Latin to English Translation', Feb 5, 2014.
I find myſelf unable to acceſs anything ſtored under
Most of those PDFs I posted were temporary links, for some reason it only allows me to have google document PDF at a time for online use. I haven't made any more for the interlinear glosses, I think Pacis Puella has been using the link I gave that has the whole Venice Gloss. If that works for her ok then I wont need to put them on PDF. It zooms in good. Here is the link to the Venice gloss http://www.archive.org/stream/bibliorumsacroru06strauoft#page/695/mode/1up
Let me know if that works for you, if not I will think of something.
By the way, were you able to see the PDF I messaged you with? It was an example page of some ideas I am working on for layout. I am about to send everyone another example page to everyone of some changes I made to the modern layout I plan to provide, I am really happy with it so far. After discussing some things about providing the interlinear glosses with the modern layout with limetrees, I made some changes.
No problem opening that last link.
Could non m be making reference to non mendatum novum etc. in the next line, in the same way as we have the first few words of a verse above in qui dicit se, "he who says he"? I'm not sure what the point would be, but...
It is juſt poſſible that 'q3' might be being uſed as an abbreviation for 'quibus' rather than its usual meaning of '-que'; conſidering that although it would not be good Gothic usage, 'b3 ' can appear in court hand instead of 'b’' as an abbreviation for '-bus'.
Ah. But that would not solve the mystery of non m - quibus non morimur comes to my mind, but has little chance of being what's meant, seeing the millions of things m could mean, and how would they have expected people to guess it anyway? Lol.
Thanks for the link, btw, can be useful!
on “quia non m”
I can’t see the original lik any longer but I see the Venice and the Jena copies.
I think perhaps the text you have is missing a part, supplied (in not exactly the same words) in this version:
Charissimi, non mandatum novum scribo vobis, sed mandatum vetus quod habuistis ab initio. Eadem charitas mandatum vetus est, quia ab initio commendata est eadem et mandatum novum est, quia tenebris eiectis, desiderium novae lucis infundit. (0259B) Ac si apertius diceret: Non mandatum novum scribo vobis, sed mandatum vetus, id est usitatum a iusto Abel et a sanctis Patribus, non quod ad solum veterem hominem pertineat,
Non m[andatum novum scribo vobis], et inuaditum, [sed mandatum vetus, id est] usitatum ab Abel ....
I am not writing a new commandment to you and an unheard one, but an old commandment, that is one used by Abel ...
These kinds of copied gaps are a godsend for paleographers trying to work out sources.
A page somewhere got damaged and you can tell now which ones were made after that happened, and from that one source.
But what exactly are the Venice and the Jena, and what exactly are you translating (or was it Venice you were using all the time?) just so I can get a grip on what's going on?
The Venice is much newer version than Rusch and has the same readings except that the Venice has many interpolations that were added. Migne is a version that had the interlinear glosses left out and appears to be copied from a manuscript that has less marginal glosses than Rusch. I am also using a manuscript that is older than all of them, around 1200ad. There are even less glosses than Migne, which means that as more copies were made over time the more glosses were added.
I have found where Martinus Legionesis has solved a number of these kinds of issues, as well as Nicholas of Gorran. I will take a look too and see if I can find what these abbreviations are.
Does the 1200 version have these missing bits? [If I am right that these are the bits missing from Rusch]
What is the 1200 edition (what is it usually called?) and is it available online anywhere?
I'm starting to figure this out: what you call Rusch is the copy at Jena (produced 1480): right?
How do Venice (1603 right?) and Rusch both have the same error? Is Venice a direct copy of Rusch? Or are they both copies of another faulty text?
Here is what Nicholas of Gorran has, which seems to be the gloss and the Scripture in context
Dicit ergo, charissimi. Glossa, attendenda sunt haec mandata, quia non sunt nova: unde charissimi charissima affectione mihi conjuncti.
The manuscript of 1200 is found here, and the link is on the page of question (5th line down), which I don't think its there. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426055f/f88.image.r=glossa ordinaria .langEN
Yes, Rusch is the Jena that you are referring to. I think that Venice has to be either a copy from Rusch or a copy of a copy of a copy.
So much has yet to be studied about the Gloss, there has not been much establishing any standard positions and defining and so on in the Glossa studies yet because its received little attention. But it is being started, and a few scholars have done some textual critical work, but it is in the very beginning phases.
As for the name of the manuscript from 1200, I am not sure, but here is a full record of its details
Titre : Epistolae canonicae cum glossa ordinaria
Titre : Stephanus Langton
Auteur : Stephanus Langton. Auteur du texte
Date d'édition : 1201-1300
Sujet : Reliures parchemin
Sujet : Sermons anonymes
Sujet : Vers anonymes
Type : manuscrit
Langue : Latin
Format : Initiales en couleur. Rubriques. — Sur le verso du 1. - er. - plat, ex-libris gravé aux armes des Buade. - Parchemin. - 78 ff. à longues lignes et à deux colonnes. - 205 × 150 mm. - Reliure ancienne parchemin
Droits : domaine public
Identifiant : ark:/12148/btv1b8426055f
Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 338
Description : F. 1 VII Epist. canon. F. 58 Sermones de VII epist. canon. : « Sicut quatuor sunt auctores qui quatuor evangelia composuerunt... » F. 58v « De baptismo et confirmatione. De crismate et confirmatione dicendum est... ». F. 59 « Quare fiunt rogationes. Letania grece, rogatio dicitur latine. Tres dies rogationum... » ; — « De penitentia. De duodecim gradibus remissionis peccatorum. Prima remissio est... ». — « Sermo de cruce. Aliud tempus elegit confortandis discipulis...». F. 61 STEPHANUS LANGTON, Glossa in Cantica canticorum. Cf. Lacombe, dans Arch. d'hist. doct. et litt. du M. A., V (1930), 141, et Glorieux, Maîtres en théol., I, 239. F. 77v Hildebertus Cenomanensis, Versus de decem plagis Egypti : « Prima rubens undae... — necat ultima prolem. » (Hauréau, dans Not. et extr., XXVIII, II, 374-375).
Provenance : bnf.fr
Date de mise en ligne : 21/02/2011
In fact I'm finding the image rather bad, and hard, even sometimes impossible, to read the small letters. For the last page I translated, I just looked at this to see which lines were a. b. or c. etc., to see where the page ended, and to check some possible differences when I found things I wasn't sure of (like for the non m), but for the major part I used the manuscript here, because I really can't read everything on this link.
a. And unheard. One used by Abel and the Holy Fathers, not because it concerns the old man. (This resembles what Limetrees posted in post #28, except that what Limetrees posted could mean "which does not concern only the old man" - which would make more sense, unless this be an incomplete sentence again.)
a. Of your faith. b. This and that word that you have heard from me and from other preachers; it is that old commandment, old because you have heard it.
a. And you must keep this commandment, which I do not proclaim and recommend only once, but, because I see that it is very useful, I repeat it again and again as if it were a new one. b. Because it innovates. (Perhaps the printed book has something slightly different here, because I can distinguish the abbreviation Q which you said the other day abbreviated quasi, where the manuscript has quod - unless Q be for quod and not quasi after all. But there seems to be one more letter... Quite hard to see correctly the small letters, as I said!) c. Not idle. (I am not 100% sure of the best translation for the word umbratile here, but I'm almost sure this is the idea. "True, not idle", it makes sense, no? Or is there a better word than "idle" for this?)
In this it appears to be new and also true because. (Understand " because darkness is passed", remember this thread. This makes me believe more and more that the non m of the last page might merely refer to non mandatum novum in the bible text... Though the "incomplete gloss" hypothesis is still possible.) a. The night has passed, and the day has approached. (Hey, your signature, Abbatissæ Scriptor ! Can you tell me which verse of the scripture this is? So that I get the official translation rather than mine.) b. Truth speaks clearly to all but not all hear clearly.
a. That of Christian faith or of good work. b. While God enjoins that he be loved.
a. That is, destined to the darkness of hell. Having a beam in his eye. In the sins that he was born in. Even after he came to god through baptism. b. But.
a. That of good works: because then good works and the light of faith are of benefit to him. b. By which the eye is perturbed.
Of ignorance. a. From vice to vice. b. Because he does not understand his guilt.
a. Anger pertubs his eye, hatred blinds him. (Here you had written ita, "thus", but it really seems to me it's ira, "anger".) b. The invisible ones, with which one sees God. c. Obeying their father, or recently born. Little not in age but in knowledge.
My ſignature, hmm, that is one of the minor canticles from the Cantica Horarum, apparently taken from Romans 13:12.
Ok, thanks AS! So where I wrote "The night has passed and the day has approached", Douay-Rheims has "The night is passed, and the day is at hand."
It’s the following bit of Nichaolaus that clarifies the « quia non m » I think.
Non mandatum novum, idest incognitum et inauditum, scribo vobis, scilicet mandatum de charitate. Sed mandatum vetus idest ab antiquo editum, quia in corde primi hominis scriptum et ab omnibus sanctis patribus observatum, non quia pertinebat ad veterem hominem, quod habuistis ab initio, conditionis sive legis naturae.
Martin of Leon’s text (died 1203), which I give above, seems the closer match, and the more likely source for the Rusch.
a. Not Paul's, not Donatus's. (So the mysterious li here should have been Pauli.)
a. Not in age, but in wisdom. Venerable old men in whom the love of the world must already be cooling off. To whom it devolves to know the things of antiquity and to explain them to younger people. b. You know that Christ has always been with the Father and the Holy Spirit and you announce this to others.
Humble in spirit.
a. He recommands, and repeats: "Remember that you are fathers, and if you forget the one who has been from the beginning, you lose fathership."
a. You who, in the virtue of your spirit and in the love of the word of God, have overcome the incentives of the flesh, and have courageously resisted the devil. b. Not by yourself, but because it is the word of God. c. The son of God, the preaching of the son of God.
a. And it would be shameful to be overcome by the one whom you have overcome. b. I write this to all of you. c. The abondance of the world or its beauty.
a. Like gold and silver and all flow of riches. b. Because. As through hatred of the neighbour, so through love of the world is the love of God extinguished. (The printed book has "etc" here... Not the manuscript.)
I was wondering, how old exactly is this manuscript?
That is a book printed with a 'Roman' type font. I would say Renascence period.
Ah, I would have thought it was older (I thought Renaissance hands were more convoluted stuff and harder to read than that, lol). Thanks. In any case it's really a nice handwriting.
Only the initials are hand drawn, the reſt is printed. It is early in the evolution of Roman type, though, as the upper caſe letters ſtill appear eſſentialy Gothic. I would gueſs it were printed in Italy, at leaſt a generation after Gutenberg, but probably not much later.
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.