I’ve just discovered this link:
It includes masses of Greek, including Adamantius; plus the Syriac New Testament, and much else. Thanks to Evangelical Textual Criticism for this one.
Tag: Information access
Placing stuff online – how much the British Library make from charging people for this
My Freedom of Information request to the British Library got a reply a couple of days ago. I asked:
I note that the BL 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.
Looking into the finances of one of our public research libraries can only be interesting and illuminating! I got back an interesting reply that didn’t quite answer the question, as regards manuscripts, and instead gave figures for all items in the collection. I think someone read my question a bit too quickly, perhaps!! So I’ve asked them to review it.
They sent the reply in a non-searchable PDF, unfortunately. (Curiously they stick a copyright notice on the information – habit, I suppose). Here’s the reply.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – REQUEST 0929
We have considered your request and provide answers to your questions in turn below.
‘How much income was received by the BL in consideration of the use of BL collection images on third party websites.’
The revenue generated by charging for rights to reproduce images of items in the British Library collections for the previous five financial years (April to March) was as follows:
£ 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 Total revenue 296,889 273,528 274,496 278,287 352,748 The number of requests for rights to reproduce images for which a charge was made was as follows:
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 Requests 1952 2090 2270 2770 1728 In certain cases, we waive the charge for rights for reproduction of images. Our records do no enable us to produce precise figures for this period but the approximate number of these is in the region of 800 per year.
This is very helpful, and quite interesting, all by itself. Only a handful of requests each year, to one of the world’s richest libraries? That feels wrong. But who is doing the paying? The sum is not really that high, for a major government institution, and probably can be broken down further. We need more info, that’s for sure.
I will keep you updated!
Indexes of ROC now online
The volume of indexes of the Revue de l’Orient Chrétien has now appeared online here. Thanks to Albocicade for the tip.
Digest of Roman Law online in English; and Hadrian on castrating your slaves
I’d like to highlight that an out-of-copyright translation of the Pandects, otherwise known as the Digest of Roman Law by Justinian, is actually online here as part of the Corpus Juris Civilis, under the misleading title of “The Civil Law”. Few people seem to know about this.
I thought that I would look at the comments on the Lex Cornelia, in 48.8, which I was discussing earlier in connection with legislation against magic. The law is mainly concerned with assassination and poisonings, and so are the comments. But there were clearly further provisions:
4. Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. …
(2) The Divine Hadrian also stated the following in a Rescript: “It is forbidden by the Imperial Constitutions that eunuchs should be made, and they provide that persons who are convicted of this crime are liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law, and that their property shall with good reason be confiscated by the Treasury.
“But with reference to slaves who have made eunuchs, they should be punished capitally, and those who are liable to this public crime and do not appear, shall, even when absent, be sentenced under the Cornelian Law. It is clear that if persons who have suffered this injury demand justice, the Governor of the province should hear those who have lost their virility; for no one has a right to castrate a freeman or a slave, either against his consent or with it, and no one can voluntarily offer himself to be castrated. If anyone should violate my Edict, the physician who performed the operation shall be punished with death, as well as anyone who willingly offered himself for emasculation.”
All this is interesting, considering that the priests of the state cult of Magna Mater (Cybele) were eunuchs!
A further interesting provision appears further down:
11. Modestinus, Rules, Book VI.
By a Rescript of the Divine Pius, Jews are permitted to circumcise only their own children, and anyone who performs this operation upon persons of a different religion will incur the penalty for castration.
This rescript of Antoninus Pius is second century, so cannot relate to Paul and Christianity; but if a similar attitude was around, it may explain why circumcision was not favoured by gentile converts.
Finally we get to something related to magic:
By a decree of the Senate it is ordered that anyone who offers sacrifices for the purpose of causing misfortune shall be subjected to the penalty of this law.
But the whole discussion relates to murder, rather than magic; clearly the latter was a minority concern.
Searching further for comments by Ulpian, I find this: 2. Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. This is in 48.22, concerning associations, but again may relate to Christians.
Anyone who becomes a member of an unlawful association is liable to the same penalty to which those are subject who have been convicted of having seized public places or temples by means of armed men.
More books in and about Syriac online at BYU
Kristian Heal has announced 35 additions to the Syriac books online here. Nothing wildly exciting, but all very useful, solid stuff!
Housekeeping journal articles; from my diary 2
It’s hot and humid here; so much so, that I can’t think straight. So I’ve been looking at the piles of photocopied articles and running them through my scanner and throwing away the photocopy. That’s a mindless activity I can do.
Not sure I’m quite there yet, tho. The PDF’s are OK, but they aren’t OCR’d. The scanner software has OCR, but it’s not good enough. Nor is the built-in OCR in Acrobat. The best still seems to be Finereader 9; but the PDF’s don’t go through FR9 unchanged. The images can look strange.
Not sure what to do about that. But I am gradually freeing up storage space.
Jerome, Letter to Hedibia, complete online
James Snapp Jr. has kindly run the old French translation of Jerome’s Letter to Hedibia (ep. 130) through Google translate, smartened it up a bit, and made it freely available in the public domain. It’s here. Many thanks, James!
As machine translators improve, there will be real public benefit in efforts like this. Yes, we should translate from the original. But the fact is that vast amounts of stuff exists in French which few anglophones can read, and which won’t get a translation directly. Particularly for amateurs and enthusiasts, making a translation and placing it online really increases public interest in texts.
Cambridge University Library manuscripts department are idiots
Apparently Cambridge University Library has appointed someone new to be in charge of the manuscripts room. That man is a jerk. He wants to make his mark, so has “increased security.” Yes, I know; we all wince when librarians do this.
This I found out today when I tried to look at the catalogue of manuscripts in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. As a manuscripts-related book, access to it is through the manuscripts room, to which I have access (which required a special letter of introduction).
I arrive at the door of the reading room, with my special clear plastic bag containing my wallet, notebook, assorted pencils, etc. First I have to sign my name and card number in a paper register. Then I am denied access. I am handed a key and told to leave my bag in a locker outside, and hold in my hands whatever I need. I do so.
Then I come back; and they still won’t let me in. I have to give them the key to the locker; and they give me a tag for it. Then they let me in.
Then I go to where the book should be. It isn’t there. Indeed there is no sign of a whole range of books in that shelfmark. I go to the desk; they don’t know where it is either. After messing me about for 10 minutes I just want to leave this creepy, horrible place.
And then, of course, I have to go through the rigamarole again in order to leave. Remember, not a single person in that room has got there without already passing a vetting, before they were even given a library card.
Possibly I could have ordered the book at the desk, gone away, and come back again, going through this “security” nonsense FOUR TIMES. Frankly I couldn’t face it, and went without.
Finally… CUL has no mechanism for complaints. Very angry and frustrated. They have the book. I want to look at it. I’m authorised to look at it. And I can’t.
How much does the BL make by charging websites to display images of mss?
If I buy an image of a page of a manuscript from the BL, I can’t put it here without paying the BL some huge fee a year. So of course I don’t. So I don’t commission the photograph either.
Imagine if it cost nothing. Wouldn’t we all tend to use these images? Wouldn’t we all buy more images? We would, wouldn’t we?
So all this access is being stifled. Well, I wondered how much the BL make from this. After all, if they don’t make any money, they shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve just placed a Freedom of Information request here. Let’s see what they made over the last five years. How many licenses they sold.
I bet it’s very few.
UK Freedom of Information requests
I have just discovered a website that allows UK citizens to make Freedom of Information requests. Apparently it’s being used to query why the National Portrait Gallery is picking a fight with Wikipedia. Useful to know, however. I wonder if there are interesting questions that might be asked of the British Library and its high-price low-quality policy on manuscript reproductions.
But I have just stumbled on the result of one, addressed to the National Portrait Gallery (also posted here). It’s about the way they stop people using images, so they can charge for licenses.
2008/9 235 licences granted
2007/8 413 licences granted
2006/7 295 licences granted
2005/6 est. 205 licences granted
2004/5 est. 305 licences granted2008/9 £11,291
2007/8 £18,812
2006/7 £16,573
2005/6 £10,021
2004/5 £14,915The Gallery has not calculated the cost of specifically administering the online rights programme exclusive of other Picture Library activities and therefore it does not hold the information you have requested.
Imagine if they said “do what you like.” The images would be freely available online and used wherever you like. The lost revenue would be… £10k a year.
So they have prevented us all from using the images on our websites (not that I particularly want to, but in general); in order to make a gross sum of ca. £10k a year. And they claim they have no idea whether they even cover costs!
Precious, precious information this.