Talk:Paraphrase of Erasmus
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | A fact from Paraphrase of Erasmus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
- Yep we knew and thus the importance of commenting upon this work. 24.60.167.163 (talk)
New article
Bible Bill, could you please identify the topic of this article? Please look at an example of an article about a book, such as Labyrinth of the World and Paradise of the Heart. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Its hard to identify the topic of a Bible, but I added some additional commentary that this was a combined work that interleaved the English translation of Henry VIII with the English translation of Erasmus' Commentary. Any feedback would be appreciated BibleBill talk 03:03, 16th of the 10th, 2009
- The topic of the bible isn't the issue--there are unclarities in the article about the topic of the article (which is a book, not 'the bible', of course). Could you please furnish a more clear description, and explain what the fourth paragraph is? Is that from the title page? Also, Herbert--who is that? I looked and couldn't find out precisely what the status is of his catalog. Wikilinks would help. Most of all, though, this article needs references from reliable sources, and a better description of the book's importance and history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Herbert is the standard catalog used by collectors of English Bibles. D&M cover Bibles in other languages besides English. The Herbert numbering scheme is standard for reference to a given Bible by collectors of English Biblles. D&M are not co-authors, but that is a side issue. Herbert takes the English Bibles from D&M and does a "Revised and Expanded from the Edition of T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, 1903" I own a copy of D&M. The commentary on Edward VI is that this was now to supplement the Greate Bible as a standard church Bibles throughout England. Henry VIII had ordered a copy of the Greate to be available in every church and so it was therefore an official commentary on the New Testament of the Bible of the Episcopal Church of his time. A bit odd though, since Edward was a rabid Protestant prior to his death and Erasmus was of course a Catholic. The quotations are from my two personal original copies of this work and its description in Herbert BibleBill talk 05:52, 16th of the 10th, 2009
- I found Herbert. His book might deserve a WP article as well. Darlow and Moule are listed as co-authors because that's what the template calls it so--it usually covers a lot of things, including translators. I've added the hyperlink to an entry for the book in Google Books. Thanks for the explanation. BTW, you'll see that I've removed your claim to ownership to the book from the article--WP articles are not supposed to contain that sort of information. I've also added some categories, and placed a link to the book in a few other articles (click on "What links here", to the left of the article). BTW, if you type four tildes (~~~~), your name and the date and time are automatically added. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me to remove the claim to ownership, that was more for your consumption than anything I thought would stick, but it sort of complicates the self-referential quotes. It is hard to give a reference for a quote from a book unless you can state that you have seen a copy. How do you suggest I get around that? Sorry, but as a Quaker, I do not use the same dating as the normal. I will use it in generalized consumption, but I do not use it for my own stuff. I will do a Wiki on Herbert at some point. I have to clean up my other opus from this evening on the "Exposition of the Crede" before I launch off into anything further. Btw, I am not personally convinced that Udall was the editor here. Herbert just lists him as the first of the several translators. To be continued on the morrow, thanks for the tutelage. BibleBill talk 05:16, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- Hi Friend, date 'em any way you like--I was just trying to save you some time. In the case of books, for instance, such things as unreferenced brief plot summaries are generally accepted, and something similar would apply here, so there is no need to get around anything. Listen, you should have a look at the reference I just added (Google Books is a great invention)--it is a goldmine, and supremely authoritative. Nice working with you. This article can look even better with a little bit of work (table of contents, sections, etc.--if I have time tomorrow I might play around a bit, so you can see what could be done). And then I'll propose it for Wikipedia:Did you know, and you'll see your article listed on the front page. Oh! If you can make a scan or a photo of the book, or the title page, a real nice and clear one, then we're really in business here. Take care, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reformat on the status of the commentary, I think that is what I was trying to get at. Title pages are about the hardest thing to find in the world. I might, if the gods that be smile on me, they may prevail on Harvard to give me a copy if their physical has one. Alas, my copies are missing the title page. Frequently the last couple of pages of a book this age are missing too. You would be amazed at the condition that you get these things in. I do restoration/bookbinding and you get these leafpiles to work with. I almost made a second edition first issue KJV out of two piles but decided it was going to just be too much work. Many thanks for all the input. You have been a very good mentor for me. BibleBill talk 06:22, 16th of the 10th, 2009
- Herbert is mentioned in [2] if you care to correctly modify things, I would be appreciative. I do not think he needs a separate entry given a reference to this page. The Googlebooks reference is incorrect, The American Bible Society, New York co-published this work BibleBill talk 14:22, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- I would welcome comments on my entry for the Exposition of the Crede. I think it needs better citations and you apparently seem to be one of the resident Erasmus scholars. I am but a PhD from MIT in EE that finds the Reformation period an interesting crucible for the understanding of human behavior. None the less I love Erasmus. Julius Exclusis and In Praise of Folly are some of my all time favorite works. BibleBill talk 13:22, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- O.k. you got your table of contents from one of my copies, I will try and hunt up my second copy and see if I missed anything. BibleBill talk 13:45, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- Sorry Bill, that is not what I was looking for--a scan or photo, to illustrate, that was what I wanted. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bibles at that time did not generally have an index or TOC. You got what you got when you got it. In the later 16th century you might get a concordance at the end if you were real, real lucky on the volume. Concordances in the early 16th century were few and far between. Remember that Machiavelli's dad got a copy of Livy for the work of doing an index. If you want a TOC on these things, you go through the volume and make one up. To make the cheese more binding, there are multiple versions of this work that differ internally on small items because there were multiple presses operating to produce enough volumes all at once to satisfy Edward. The Greate was produced over a period from 1539 to 1543 to make enough copies for the demand. I can reference the pagination on the copy I have, but that does not mean that you can pick up one from another press and find the same page in the same place. In so many words, there isn't a TOC page in existence. I can scan Herbert's description, but it would be a breach of copyright to include it outright. Thus my independent compilation by going through the copy I have. I will try and go by Harvard and see if I can get a copy of the Title page and perhaps the missing part of the dedication so I can complete my copy in facsimile. I do not know the state of their copy though or how I will go about it. There is a guy in Harvard square that owes me a batch of favors though, so I may cash in some chips with him.BibleBill talk 18:42, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- I am in the process of acquiring a copy of vol 1 of the second printing. The bookseller involved is of the opinion that volume 2 was also printed, but there are no known copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BibleBill (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cleanup. It does a lot for the page. The contents are actually fairly irrelevant except for those who go and distinguish various editions by where they start and end. Page looks much better now. I would love your input on the Exposition of the Creed entry. There does not seem to be a lot you can say about it except that it does represent what Erasmus believed to be the Catholic creed 3 years prior to his death. I can get you a scan of the title page of the second edition, dedication, etc. since my second edition copy is intact. I have figured that if I configure my date display with all numerics, it gets around my problem with using month names but other people can have it the way they want BibleBill (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have found an attribution by the bookseller who is selling me vol 1 of the second printing that Mary Tudor may have been assisted in her translation by Francis Malet since I do not have a good source for this I have not included it. But it may be the case that he assisted Mary Tudor in the translation. BibleBill (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Friend, date 'em any way you like--I was just trying to save you some time. In the case of books, for instance, such things as unreferenced brief plot summaries are generally accepted, and something similar would apply here, so there is no need to get around anything. Listen, you should have a look at the reference I just added (Google Books is a great invention)--it is a goldmine, and supremely authoritative. Nice working with you. This article can look even better with a little bit of work (table of contents, sections, etc.--if I have time tomorrow I might play around a bit, so you can see what could be done). And then I'll propose it for Wikipedia:Did you know, and you'll see your article listed on the front page. Oh! If you can make a scan or a photo of the book, or the title page, a real nice and clear one, then we're really in business here. Take care, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me to remove the claim to ownership, that was more for your consumption than anything I thought would stick, but it sort of complicates the self-referential quotes. It is hard to give a reference for a quote from a book unless you can state that you have seen a copy. How do you suggest I get around that? Sorry, but as a Quaker, I do not use the same dating as the normal. I will use it in generalized consumption, but I do not use it for my own stuff. I will do a Wiki on Herbert at some point. I have to clean up my other opus from this evening on the "Exposition of the Crede" before I launch off into anything further. Btw, I am not personally convinced that Udall was the editor here. Herbert just lists him as the first of the several translators. To be continued on the morrow, thanks for the tutelage. BibleBill talk 05:16, 16th of the 10th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
- I found Herbert. His book might deserve a WP article as well. Darlow and Moule are listed as co-authors because that's what the template calls it so--it usually covers a lot of things, including translators. I've added the hyperlink to an entry for the book in Google Books. Thanks for the explanation. BTW, you'll see that I've removed your claim to ownership to the book from the article--WP articles are not supposed to contain that sort of information. I've also added some categories, and placed a link to the book in a few other articles (click on "What links here", to the left of the article). BTW, if you type four tildes (~~~~), your name and the date and time are automatically added. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Herbert is the standard catalog used by collectors of English Bibles. D&M cover Bibles in other languages besides English. The Herbert numbering scheme is standard for reference to a given Bible by collectors of English Biblles. D&M are not co-authors, but that is a side issue. Herbert takes the English Bibles from D&M and does a "Revised and Expanded from the Edition of T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, 1903" I own a copy of D&M. The commentary on Edward VI is that this was now to supplement the Greate Bible as a standard church Bibles throughout England. Henry VIII had ordered a copy of the Greate to be available in every church and so it was therefore an official commentary on the New Testament of the Bible of the Episcopal Church of his time. A bit odd though, since Edward was a rabid Protestant prior to his death and Erasmus was of course a Catholic. The quotations are from my two personal original copies of this work and its description in Herbert BibleBill talk 05:52, 16th of the 10th, 2009
- The topic of the bible isn't the issue--there are unclarities in the article about the topic of the article (which is a book, not 'the bible', of course). Could you please furnish a more clear description, and explain what the fourth paragraph is? Is that from the title page? Also, Herbert--who is that? I looked and couldn't find out precisely what the status is of his catalog. Wikilinks would help. Most of all, though, this article needs references from reliable sources, and a better description of the book's importance and history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(<-) See Talk:Exposition of the Creed. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, any help is greatly appreciated. I do not hold forth as a scholar on the topic, I am but a lowly PhD in EE from MIT who loves this guy. I forget the latest census, but I have a large number of copies of "In Praise" from the 17th and 18th century. A most masterful mind. I wonder how many people understand that the British attitude toward slavery was driven in some part by Thomas Moore's "Utopia". As you must undoubtedly know, you could be a slave in Utopia if your were sentenced to death someplace else. The local African chieftains made a regular biz of hauling people up on the charge of witchcraft and sentencing them to death so that they could be sold to the English. Not unlike the fodder for the arena in the first couple of centuries CE. BibleBill (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I picked up my first volume of the second edition yesterday and was pleasantly surprised with its condition. It has a table in the back that may serve as a TOC or concordance. Once I get the time to look the whole thing over, I may scan it and put it up on wikimedia with a link from here. Its been a busy weekend. I will probably scan in the second printing of the Exposition first though. Work is the curse of the drinking classes, and I do not even drink. BibleBill (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- If folks will forgive me, I will be making hay while the sun shines, or really rather finishing up my solar panel installation before it starts to rain/snow/otherwise on me. If I am stuck in doors I will do the scanning I have promised, Otherwise, please feel free to help me on the top of the second story ladder. I have one more bank of panels to wire in before I am done for the season. The rest of the work is on the ground, so wind/cold is not as big a factor. Wet is something else though. 100V DC through you makes you stand up and take notice even though it is not usually fatal. I promise to continue to add such source material as I have to these pages as time allows BibleBill (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Minor digging into my reprint of D&M to clarify certain issues. Vol 2 is uniform. etc. Nothing of substance changed. Perhaps somebody can move stuff around to make things a bit more coherent. BibleBill (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
TOC--for future reference
Contents of vol 1:
Title page - Called for by Herbert. Missing in copy examined.
Unto the Kynges Maiestie - A dedication to Edward VI by Nicholas Udall - copy examined only contains the final page of this section. Udall's 25 page dedication to Edward is called for in Herbert
Preface - To the lentel christian reader Nicholas Udall
To the most vertuouts Ladie Quene Katherine - Dedication to Queen Catherine Parr, author denoted by initials C.b.
The Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the Gospell of saint Mathew - contains the text of the
The Gospell of St. Mathew - Greate Bible Translation [1] distributed through the commentary as appopriate
To the most excellent and virtuous princesse quene Catherine - Dedication to Queen Catherine by Thomas Key differs from the dedication at the start of the commentary of St. Mathew
To the most christian prince Francis the frenche kinge - The Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the Gospell of saint Marke - contains the text of
The Gospell of S. Marke - Greate Bible Translation distributed through the commentary as appropriate
To the most vertuous ladie/and most gracious Quene Katherine Nicholas Udall - differs from other dedications
The paraphrase of Erasmus upon Luke - continues uninterupted from Udall's dedication to Katherine - contains the the text of the Greate Bible Translation distributed though the commentary as appropriate
To the most vertuous Ladie and most gracious Quene Katherine - Another dedication, again different, unattributed
To the moste renouned Prynce Fernando Archeduke of Ausriege and brother of Charles the fift - Erasmus' Dedication
The paraphrease of Erasmus upon the Gospel of S. John - contains the text from the Greate Bible distributed through the commentary as appropriate
To the moste vertous Ladie Quene Katherine Nicholas Udall - differs from other dedications
The Actes of the Apostles - Erasmus' Paraphrase on the Acts - contains the text from the Greate Bible distributed through the commentary as appropriate
Note, at least one appearance is known where the Gospel of St. John and Acts have been instead been bound into Volume 2. The normal balance of Volume 2 followed these in the set examined.