Birmingham Special Collections goes over to the Dark Side (a bit)

Drat.  The Mingana library in Birmingham have had a mental breakdown of some kind.  They used to sell colour digital images of sub-publication standard for 1GBP (about $1.50) a go.  These were really very good for research purposes, although of course a journal publication would need better quality.

I asked them about copies of the Combefis book (see previous post).  I learn today that they’ve increased the charge to 2.50GBP, plus another 25% for fun; i.e. 3.10GBP, around $5 a go. 

I need 14 pages.  That would have been 14 GBP, which is a lot, when you consider it is merely pressing a shutter 14 times, but I would have paid it.  But there’s no way I would pay nearly 50 GBP for the equivalent of 14 photocopies!

This is really disappointing.  The Birmingham Special Collections people, who own the Mingana library, are people who I watch with interest, because they really do have some innovative ideas.  They’ve led the way in putting Syriac mss online, and making them freely available.  They introduced this system of £1 photographs of manuscripts, which is clearly the way to go.  They allow us to bring our cameras in and photograph, which makes them heroes in my view; we really ought to get all the Mingana mss photographed.  And they are nice, helpful people.  I approve of these guys.

And then they do something like this.

I can only imagine that need for money — a chronic need in all libraries — led some minor official at a meeting to look at this.  Probably they were selling quite a few of the £1 images.  And the same official, with the official lack of imagination, supposed that a 210% increase would generate 210% more money.  Of course it won’t; it will kill the sales dead.

No doubt they looked greedily at the charges demanded by libraries like the Bodleian, not realising that hardly anyone ever buys any of those overpriced images.  You don’t make money by charging the earth and scaring the punters away. 

How we need a public body to regulate these charges!

This may mean that I shall have to abandon the idea of using the Combefis fragment in my Eusebius book.  But if I do, there will be some pretty trenchant words in a footnote, saying who and why, for the benefit of posterity.  First against the wall, of course, will be the Bodleian.

Sad.

In the meantime, let’s see if I can find a library that (a) has a copy and (b) will sell me a reproduction at some reasonable price.

UPDATE: Durham University want £15 a photo — which is sick –, the Bodleian we know about, and the only other copy here in the UK, held in the British Library, well… their website has been redesigned and I can’t find anything.  I wonder if there are any copies in the USA?

Share

The Combefis publication containing a Eusebius fragment

I got quite cross on my Oxford visit during August, because although I located a volume of excerpts, with a fragment of Eusebius, I was unable to obtain a reproduction thanks to the greed of Bodleian staff.  A price of 29p for a black-and-white photo is not bad; but a price of £3.87 per greyscale (just a setting change on the same camera, which costs no more to take) is ridiculous, and a price of £17.20 for colour (ditto) is obscene. 

Indeed I wrote there and then an email of protest to the head of imaging services, a certain James Allan. The professionalism and customer-focus of the Bodleian and that particular bureaucrat may be judged by his failure to even acknowledge it.  As a result, I failed to note here the details of what I actually want to get; and have had to scrabble around for details of it again! 

The book is volume 1 of a two volume anthology (Graeco-Lat. patrum bibliothecae novum Auctarium) of extracts starting with works by Asterius of Amasea from various unspecified manuscripts, edited by Francois Combefis: S. Patris nostri Asterii Amaseae episcopi, aliorum plurium… Ecclesiae graecae patrum… orationes & homiliae / opera ac studio R.P.Fr. Francisci Combefis. Published: Parisiis : sumptibus Antonii Bertier, 1648.  The Bodleian shelfmark was R 6.16, 15 Jur.  There is also a copy in Birmingham ML Special Collections, shelfmark “r f BR 62”.

The portion I want consists of columns 779-791.  This is Greek text with facing Latin translation.  I noted when I saw it to emphasise that the Greek text was really important, because the binding might work against me!

I also wanted some introductory matter.  There were two title pages; then a letter Illustrissimo Franciae… covering 4 pages, and a single page headed Candido Lectori, which alone gave information about sources.  The elderly paper means that at least a grey-scale image will be necessary.

Now to find someone who will sell me copies at a reasonable price!

Share

Typesetting and other evils

Sooner or later I’m going to receive the final versions of the translations that I have commissioned of Eusebius Quaestiones and Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel.  I want to sell some copies of these to libraries.  Firstly, that will get them into the hands of the academic constituency, who still turn their noses up at online resources.  Secondly it will give them a better chance of survival; websites can be ephemeral.  And thirdly, it should help recoup some of the costs — not a small issue, since I looked today at the total bill and it is not small.

I’ve never published a thing, so it’s all a bit new to me.  What I want is to use print-on-demand if possible, but not produce anything rubbish; the libraries will not want to buy rubbish, and all the purchasers will be able to evaluate, really, is the quality of book making.

So probably it should be hardback, a sewn binding, on good quality paper.  That says I ought to use traditional publishing, if I could find it.  But I don’t really want 50 or 100 copies on my floor, which points to print-on-demand and sites like Lulu.com and blurb.com.  Trouble is, the books these produce are not conspicuous for quality.

I certainly need to get it typeset, or look unbearably amateurish.  I don’t know anything about typesetting, or how one does this or gets it done.

Does anyone have any ideas?  Say it’s 100 pages, about the size of A5, a Loeb, or a Sources Chretiennes edition?

Share

British Library FoI: how much do they make from reproduction of mss images?

I’m still trying to find out just how much money the British Library make from charging for the reproduction of manuscript items online. I raised an FoI request here, and got an answer for all items (not manuscripts alone).  Click the tag “British Library” to see all the posts on this.

I note that the British library charges a fee to websites that use digital images of pages from manuscripts from the BL collection.  Please would you let me know, for each of the past 5 years (either calendar or financial, whichever is more convenient):

How many requests were made for use of BL collection images of these items on third party websites?

How much income was received by the BL in consideration of the use of BL collection images of these items on third party websites?

The reply: 

The table below indicates the number of requests for rights to reproduce BL collection images of manuscript items, for which a charge was made, and the income derived from those transactions for the five years in question.

  2004/2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 2007 / 2008 2008 / 2009
Number 772 845 959 527 664
Income 138,277 GBP 121,162 GBP 105,592 GBP 95,175 GBP 122,578 GBP

These figures are interesting, but still don’t indicate what proportion of this was on websites, as opposed to in printed books (which I suspect make up most of it).  I’m not quite sure how to find this out, tho.

UPDATE: I queried this, and got back the reply that they don’t hold that information on their systems!  That is, they levy charges but have no idea how many people are paying them, or if anyone is.  How very, very British Library.

I wonder if I complain to the Information Commissioner, whether they will get told to “go and find out”.  If there are 600 a year, it would hardly be a great task to look through the lot.

Share

More people translating the Fathers

Maureen has left a note to tell me of another site where bits of the fathers are being translated.  It’s here.  The author is John Litteral, who appears to be translating extracts from ancient biblical commentaries.  If so, this is very welcome!  I’ve not managed to find my way around the site yet to be sure.

There is also a collection of links to the fathers.  Among the links is one to a site by Gary Anderson and a translation of portions of Ambrose’s De paradiso, here.  As far as I knew this was untranslated.

Share

The lost part of John Chrysostom’s second sermon against the Jews

Another forgotten paper has emerged from my pile during scanning of articles, and reminds me that I need a translator; someone who can handle Chrysostom.

John Chrysostom preached eight sermons against the Jews during his time at Antioch.  The second of these is markedly shorter than the others; about 30% of the size.  This led researcher Wendy Pradels to wonder whether the text was damaged, and to search for manuscripts.  Her article on the search is here, and in 1999 her persistence was rewarded by the discovery of an unknown manuscript in Lesbos which contained the full version of the sermon. In 2001 she published the extra text, with a German translation, and I have just come across my copy of it.

But as far as I know, no English version of this exists.  I wonder whether a scholar would be interested in making me a translation!

Share

Eusebius, Eclogae Propheticae – Gaisford edition now online

I’m still going through piles of photocopies, turning them into PDF’s and throwing the paper copies out.  Occasionally I’m finding treasures.  I had forgotten that I paid the rare books room at Cambridge University Library 16.51 GBP — about $25 — to make a copy of the latest (1842!) edition of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Eclogae Propheticae

This curious work is three books of a now lost work, the General Elementary Introduction to Christianity, originally in 10 books.  The eclogae is books 6-9, found in a Vienna manuscript, and consisting mainly of extracts from the Septuagint Old Testament prophesying Christ, and for some reason always known as Eclogae Propheticae.  A few other scraps of the General Elementary Introduction exist; I suspect these will be fragments from catenas.

Gaisford’s edition is a little book, with a Latin introduction and no translation (drat the man).  I’ve created a PDF, and uploaded it to the web at Archive.org, here.  It’s about 28mb in size, although not searchable — I don’t have ancient Greek OCR capabilities! 

There has never been a translation of this work into English.  I am advised, tho, that such a translation would be very easy to make.  I know of at least one person working on Porphyry who has translated a large chunk of it for his own purposes, and may complete the work.  I seem to recall that someone else also has a projected translation.

If nothing emerges in a year or two, I may commission one.

Share

French National Library to work with Google books

This story here.  Apparently the BNF have realised the futility of trying to build a rival system, and good for them.  This can only be good news for access to French language books, which the BNF has already had a good go at digitising.

Mind you, what it will mean is that lots of people in the USA will be able to look at books in French from France which French copyright laws prevent French people from seeing…

Share

Look again at Google Books; you will find more than you did last time

On this hot summer’s day, I was idly searching in Google books for “library of the fathers” review “cyril of alexandria”, as I have done before in the hope of finding the review which caused Phillip Pusey to abandon work on the translation of the Commentary on John after only publishing one volume.

To my surprise, this time there was far more material.  We tend to forget that Google books is not a static collection, but is being continually enriched with more books and journals.  And although I have not yet found the article in question, I did find several reviews of Phillip Pusey’s work.  The Church Quarterly Review 23, p.32 contains a review of the second volume, published posthumously, which explains how Pusey tended to translate:

THE first-named of these volumes, which will apparently close the series inaugurated in 1838 under the name of ‘The Library of the Fathers,’ enjoys the advantage of a preface by Dr. Liddon, explaining the circumstances which have caused its appearance. In 1874 Mr. P. E. Pusey published the first volume of a translation of this Commentary, which, extending to S. John ix. 1, ‘was reviewed,’ we are told, ‘by an English critic in terms which rendered its humble and too self-distrusting author unwilling to resume it.’ We fear that these words may produce an impression which would hardly do justice to the case; the reader might infer that the critic was captious and inequitable. Now, we never met with the review in question ; but we are constrained to say, as we said on a former occasion (Church Quarterly Review, xv. 287), when reviewing another volume of Mr. Pusey’s translations from S. Cyril, that ‘ translation was not his forte’, and that when he attempted it, he seldom rose above the baldest ‘ construing,” very often so strangely worded as to associate his author’s name with mere grotesqueness. The fact is undeniable, however we may account for it; our own supposition is, that Mr. Pusey was debarred from success in this line by the very narrow range of literary interest to which he perforce restricted himself, when ‘ in his uniform filial love,’ in obedience to his father’s wish, he ‘ took as the central work of his life to make the text of S. Cyril’s works as exact as it could be made.”

The dreadful English of the first volume is indeed fully as bad as this gentle description suggests.

Share

British Library don’t know what “manuscript” means?

From the BL, a request for clarification of my FoI query, “how many images of manuscripts did you license for online use last year?” How did I define ‘manuscript’, they asked?  I responded as courteously as possible by referring them to their own catalogue of manuscripts.  I suspect that I am dealing with a department that doesn’t get asked much about these!  Still, they’re turning it around promptly which is good, and better than I expected.

Share