Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1.5 Million Pages of Ancient Manuscripts Online

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the play-the-historical-documents dept.

Books 79

New submitter LordWabbit2 sends this quote from an AP report: "The Vatican Library and Oxford University's Bodleian Library have put the first of 1.5 million pages of ancient manuscripts online. The two libraries in 2012 announced a four-year project to digitize some of the most important works of their collections of Hebrew manuscripts, Greek manuscripts and early printed books. Among the first up on the site Tuesday, are the two-volume Gutenberg bibles from each of the libraries and a beautiful 15th-century German bible, hand-colored and illustrated by woodcuts. ... The Vatican Library was founded in 1451 and is one of the most important research libraries in the world. The Bodleian is the largest university library in Britain."

cancel ×

79 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Written in polish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592005)

Why polish back then?

In the name of "Allah" ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592025)

The Vatican Library was founded in 1451 and is one of the most important research libraries in the world. The Bodleian is the largest university library in Britain

Theer used to be a HUGE library, but unfortunately some motherfucking camel jocky burned it down, in the name of "Allah" !

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about 8 months ago | (#45592351)

Parts of the collection at Alexandria were destroyed by "Christians."

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (5, Interesting)

swilly (24960) | about 8 months ago | (#45592543)

The Library of Alexandria caught fire several times.

The first may have been when the Romans conquered Egypt. The Romans burned their own ships and much of the city caught fire, and the library may have been partially destroyed at this time.

A branch of the library may have been burned with the destruction of pagan temples when the Roman Empire outlawed paganism, but nobody knows how many (if any) books were lost. The main building was apparently not affected. And by the time paganism was made illegal in the Roman Empire, a concerted effort had been made to have copies of important documents in other libraries, including the worlds largest library at Constantinople. These other libraries were not burned (though it's entirely possible that some books in them were destroyed).

And it was finally destroyed by the Muslim army. There is a story that the Caliph ordered the burning of books stating that if they contradicted the Quran they are heretical, and if they did not then they are redundant. There are no contemporary sources for this story, so most historians doubt it. Whether or not this burning was deliberate, the destruction was complete and library was lost to history.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 8 months ago | (#45592687)

Nope, it was finally destoyed by god himself. The library is now under water in the harbour of Alexandria following an earth quake in the 8th century.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592753)

The Library of Alexandria caught fire several times.

The first may have been when the Romans conquered Egypt. The Romans burned their own ships and much of the city caught fire, and the library may have been partially destroyed at this time.

A branch of the library may have been burned with the destruction of pagan temples when the Roman Empire outlawed paganism, but nobody knows how many (if any) books were lost. The main building was apparently not affected. And by the time paganism was made illegal in the Roman Empire, a concerted effort had been made to have copies of important documents in other libraries, including the worlds largest library at Constantinople. These other libraries were not burned (though it's entirely possible that some books in them were destroyed).

And it was finally destroyed by the Muslim army. There is a story that the Caliph ordered the burning of books stating that if they contradicted the Quran they are heretical, and if they did not then they are redundant. There are no contemporary sources for this story, so most historians doubt it. Whether or not this burning was deliberate, the destruction was complete and library was lost to history.

Now now now... why must you spoil a good atheist rant with more informed and level-headed information?

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 8 months ago | (#45593411)

Well, we lost the manual for the pyramids, anyway...

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about 8 months ago | (#45595771)

The User Guide, the construction blueprints, or the Service and Maintenance guide?

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45598281)

User guide for a pyramid?

Pg.1 Lie down in your sarcophagus.

The End.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45598751)

Well, the user guide would probably contain information about how to arm all the traps they built into it.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about 8 months ago | (#45599061)

Thats the Public General Release version. The CPUG ("Confidential Pyramid User Guide") available to paid members of the Pyramid Consortium presumably contain the chapters "Initiation of Afterlife Sequence", "Suggested Ancillary Tomb Items", "Pyramid Power Generation and Interfacing" and of course "Extraterrestrial Post-Install Customer Service".

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 8 months ago | (#45604977)

Well, which rock was the one they left the keys to the ignition under, would be under Users guide.....
We could reverse engineer the rest.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

Insightfill (554828) | about 8 months ago | (#45594561)

There are some reports that while it was finished in that last invasion, the library was already pretty much dead from budget cuts and infighting long before then. http://io9.com/the-great-library-at-alexandria-was-destroyed-by-budget-1442659066 [io9.com]

Sounds similar to some of the struggles in the US.

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

kbahey (102895) | about 8 months ago | (#45596299)

Indeed it was the Romans who destroyed it first.

Here is an article I wrote years ago with references on really happened. The Arabs burning it may be a myth.

Who burned the Library of Alexandria [baheyeldin.com] .

Re:In the name of "Allah" ... (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 8 months ago | (#45593567)

Yes and the US kill off Indian tribes, Germans created the holocaust and many other nations destroy and plundered land and people. We learn our lessoned and stop doing it in the present day. The article is about what is happening now and what they're doing with the manuscripts. That is what is important now.

Re:Written in polish (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#45592707)

The ancients liked to keep everything shiny too.

Ancient msnuscripts (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#45592079)

Can we get Daniel Jackson to translate them?

Re:Ancient msnuscripts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592141)

No, but you can find quite a few already translated here [earlychris...itings.com] .

Momentous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592089)

This is a pretty awesome project. I took a look at the German bible and nerdgasmed a bit upon seeing the umlauts in original form. ^_^

Re:Momentous! (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 8 months ago | (#45593713)

I think it's cool that there is a baseline that we can compare and see what changed, but i'd be more interested in books like Vitruvius' Ten Books on Architecture.

Comic Sans (3, Funny)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#45592113)

And they're all available only in Comic Sans.

Re:Comic Sans (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 months ago | (#45593517)

And they're all available only in Comic Sans.

There is a project underway to convert the documents to Papyrus in order to make it look more olde-timey.

but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592147)

what if I do not read "ancient"?

Re:but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592247)

what if I do not read "ancient"?

You can read the Greek ancient manuscripts -especially the New Testament, since it was originally written in the more simple "koini" (common) Greek form, the "lingua franca" of the time- if you can read... "modern" Greek!
Since i am a Greek i don't know for sure if you can read the Hebrew ancient manuscripts as easy as the Greek (i guess it is).

Appalling (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592181)

Absolutely no respect for copyright. If I was a descendant of the families who wrote these documents, I would be demanding compensation!

Re:Appalling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592493)

Absolutely no respect for copyright. If I was a descendant of the families who wrote these documents, I would be demanding compensation!

Given that many of them are >400 yo, you probably are. Along with most of the rest of humanity. Shall we start a class action lawsuit :)

Don't bother trying. (2)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 8 months ago | (#45592199)

No amount of Slashdottery will take the awesome out of this.

Re:Don't bother trying. (2)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about 8 months ago | (#45592363)

umm... Amen!

Copyright (3, Interesting)

Smauler (915644) | about 8 months ago | (#45592305)

The images of the ancient texts are marked "Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana".

Copyright is seriously out of control. People don't even know what it is any more.

Re:Copyright (4, Informative)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 8 months ago | (#45592439)

Here is the logic. The image is a work carrying copyright: you cannot reproduce the image without permission or staying within fair use/fair dealing provisions of relevant laws. The words on the pages in the are a public domain work: you can quote from the book with impunity. Logical in some minds, but copyright assertions by gatekeepers has a long history of abuse.

Re:Copyright (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 8 months ago | (#45592453)

The few images I have seen carry a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence.

Re:Copyright (1)

DeloFaith14 (3448133) | about 8 months ago | (#45592465)

interesting

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592545)

sorry, may not apply. The photography has to be creative, not a mechanical process, for new copyright to apply. Disclaimer, IANAL, and laws vary countrywise, and copyright claimers are often lawless.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592963)

There is no way on earth they have a copyright on the scans or images, as these are mere reproductions.

Re:Copyright (2)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | about 8 months ago | (#45593421)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp [wikipedia.org] .

If it is a straightforward photo that reproduces a 2D image such as a manuscript page that is in the public domain, then that photo is also in the public domain. I have uploaded others' photos on numerous occasions to Wikimedia Commons, which also recognizes such photos as public domain, and it has always been accepted as valid. Unfortunately many people, even museums, believe that anything and everything is under copyright, and they are uninformed about copyright as it applies to public domain works.

Re:Copyright (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 months ago | (#45593533)

Here's the thing... if there is only one document, and it is in a private library, is it in the public domain?

Re:Copyright (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45597271)

If it is a straightforward photo that reproduces a 2D image such as a manuscript page that is in the public domain, then that photo is also in the public domain.

**IN THE US**

Other countries disagree with the US Supreme Court's interpretation that simple mechanical effort is insufficient to introduce a new copyright claim. I don't know what copyright law in the Vatican or in the UK is with regards to that point, but neither the Vatican Library or the Bodleian Library is going to feel compelled to follow U.S. copyright law just because they posted something on the internet. (The Bridgeman v. Corel article you link actually talks about UK law, and how UK law is unclear on the copyright status of slavish copies.)

Re:Copyright (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 8 months ago | (#45601451)

Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not." (Copyright Act 1968 Sect 10). Whether it is a slavish copy of a public domain work or not is irrelevant in determining the rights pertaining to the image of the object. Other provisions covering databases of works would also come into play under Australian law if you tried to harvest a substantial portion of the image library.

As for Wikimedia Commons, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis and reformat mine) Assuming there is some validity to the copyright claims over the images from the Vatican under Vatican law then you could not post them to the Commons. Similarly, "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either", which would preclude many (all) the images created of the Bodleian's collection which carry a Creative Common Non-commercial licence.

I am not saying Australian law applies to this specific case, just reinforcing that the United States is not the World no matter how much they assert it is. I am also not saying that Australian copyright law is not an arse.

Re:Copyright (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 8 months ago | (#45616043)

Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not."

That's shitty... UK law requires a little artistic merit. All other European law does too AFAIK. Most of the world holds that simple reproductions do not hold copyright in themselves.

Are telephone directories copyrighted in Australia?

Re:Copyright (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 8 months ago | (#45616237)

Phone books, yes, maybe, no, sometimes: Goodbye to copyright for databases? Federal Court finds no copyright in phone directories [claytonutz.com.au] . TV guides too: The High Court Decision in IceTV and Nine Network [bartier.com.au] . Both cases resolved against the purported copyright holder but not as a result of unambiguous law and not setting a clear precedent either. The copyright law in this country regarding compilations (there isn't database-specific law) is such an unmitigated morass that it takes thousands of dollars just to get a worthless opinion, and millions to go to court because you will end up arguing all the way to the High Court. The big players are now lobbying for compilation specific laws, but only if the laws enshrine their "rights". For the smaller player (myself included) the legal costs of fighting for what I consider right utterly dwarf the (still) ludicrous licensing fees some parties charge for simple lists of facts; a not dissimilar situation to patent troll demand letters.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592447)

The images of the ancient texts are marked "Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana".

Copyright is seriously out of control. People don't even know what it is any more.

Only the images (for the work of digitizing the manuscripts) - not the texts (as long as i don't steal their work -e.g., the digitized images of the manuscripts they own- i, as a Greek, know that i can reproduce the work of my ancestors without the permission of "Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana").
Copyright is under control and works as it is supposed!

Re:Copyright (1)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45592473)

The images of the ancient texts are marked "Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana".

Copyright is seriously out of control. People don't even know what it is any more.

Only the images (for the work of digitizing the manuscripts) - not the texts

That's correct. They own copyrights on the photos, but no one owns the texts.

Copyright is under control and works as it is supposed!

Hold your horses there, that doesn't necessarily follow. Just because there's nothing egregiously screwy in this case doesn't mean copyright isn't pretty badly broken. It is.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592813)

Copyright is under control and works as it is supposed!

Hold your horses there, that doesn't necessarily follow. Just because there's nothing egregiously screwy in this case doesn't mean copyright isn't pretty badly broken. It is.

The strong statement "Copyright is seriously out of control" from the wrong (as you also state) understanding of the situation of my "parent post" that i tryied to answer with some diplomacy (by making my -strong- statement without specifying if it was for this case only or in general) is becoming stronger by your two final words (until then i could agree with your post) - well, without any diplomacy... it's not ("pretty badly broken" - but i agree that it's not "pretty" either)!
* Your Greek "parent post" - and sorry for my English...

Re:Copyright (2)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45594547)

It is very badly broken. The goal of proper copyright law is to increase the flow of material into the public domain. The social contract underlying it is basically "We'll all agree to arbitrarily limit what we can do for a short period of time in order to encourage the creation and publication of works". But in what twisted universe does it encourage creation and publication to restrict copying long after the creator has died? Do you seriously believe that authors, for example, might think "Well, if copyright doesn't last at least until my great grandchildren are born, there's just no point in writing." Not to mention the egregious way it's been extended to control not just expressions but ideas (e.g. plot), and the way that Fair Use has been hammered almost out of existence.

I stand by my statement that copyright is very badly broken. Big content owners have pushed for extensions of the duration and scope to the point that the social contract is gone. If modern copyright law were evaluated under the rules applied in contract law, it would be ruled inequitable and therefore invalid.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45595571)

It is very badly broken

No, it's not!
I agree with most things you write but if you think it better you may agree with me (you already do!).
Excluding your objection about extending it not only to expressions but ideas also because it's basicaly a misinterpretation of the law that happens rarely and usually -at least in Greece/Europe- the mistake is corected in higher courts, your most serious objection is the lenght of the "protection" period (i agree that it's tooooo long...); thank God you understand the need for copyright (many people don't - or just pretend they don't because they are thiefs), so you could be one of those who would be taken serious from the lawmakers in a discution about shortening that "protection" period IF IT WASN'T FOR THOSE THIEFS that demand "data to be free" (translation: it's my "human right" to steal the latest Hollywood movie and let everyone involved in making it starve to death...) and by not respecting ANY copyright they force (to us respecting some logical copyright) the extending period that makes posible some profiting for the creators.
It's a social contract as you rightly write, but the first to break it was the consumers (some/most of them) not the creators - so... it's not "very badly broken" (copyright is nice - i understand you agree), just a little bit broken (life of creator plus 70 years - o.k.... that's tooooo long...)!

Re:Copyright (1)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45597217)

I completely disagree that it was "consumers" who first broke the contract. Oh, there were always small numbers of infringements, but copyright has become so one-sided that hardly any average people even understand what the social contract is. Given that it appears to most people to be a completely one-sided grant, with no significant harm caused by infringement, why not infringe? The content owners have done it to themselves. Reduce copyright to a reasonable duration (say, 10 years for most works) so that people can see that copyright actually does end and stuff does flow into the public domain, and I argue that most people will have greatly-increased respect for it. They'll actually be in a position to think "Well, I could pirate this now, but if I wait a few years I'll be able to obtain it legally". I also think a shortened copyright term would result in an explosion of mashup-based creativity -- which big media would hate but would enrich the public tremendously.

As for extending beyond expressions, both US copyright law and the Berne Convention see elements such as plot and characters as protectible. So if Greek courts fight that, good for them. But I'm not sure they do, because Greece is a Berne signatory.

Re:Copyright (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 8 months ago | (#45616075)

Consumers were never the problem copyright was intended to deal with - rival (especially larger, more competitive) publishers were. It's been warped into a law which punishes consumers, and is not helping small publishers as much.

Re:Copyright (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 8 months ago | (#45592783)

The IMAGES are copyrighted... The images are fairly new. The text in the images not so much. But you are right, people don't even what it is anymore.

Re:Copyright (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 8 months ago | (#45616081)

The images are _not_ copyrighted. They are representations, they are _not_ original works.

Re:Copyright (1)

Picardo85 (1408929) | about 8 months ago | (#45593251)

The way copyright works right now with Life+70 years is quite out of control too.

Hours until Sony sends a takedown notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592315)

...

Plundered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592333)

Of course most of the Vatican Hebrew docs are surely either plundered from European Jews or possibly though not likely survive the Roman plunder of the Jewish temple and and ethnic cleansing of the previous state of Israel. This area was renamed Syria Palestina or Palestine to take the Jewish name from the land creating the eternal (until the 40's) European Jewish refugee problem in the first place.
Nice to see them sharing online while retaining possession, not unlike how they retain possession to this day of synagogues in Spain and Portugal that were confiscated and turned into churches by holy mandate.

Re:Plundered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592559)

Poor you.

"Remember the holocaust! Remember the holocaust!"

DREADED YELLOW FINGERS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45592469)

Once upon a time there was a wise and kindly King. In order to protect his subjects, he built a large wall completely around the palace and the town. Surrounding the wall was a deep moat with but one gate through the wall and a single bridge over the moat. Many years passed and the Kingdom and it's people prospered.

One day, however, there came to live under the bridge, the DREADED YELLOW FINGERS. This was an evil monster that would pluck unsuspecting persons from the bridge, and pull them below the waters of the moat never to be seen again.

A great fear came over the people, and the King ordered his knights to slay the DREADED YELLOW FINGERS. One by one they attempted to rid the kingdom of the menace, and one by one they were defeated. Soon the fields were overgrown, the flocks were running wild, and the food supply in the town had dwindled to almost nothing. In desperation the King offered the hand of his daughter to the one who could rid the town of the DREADED YELLOW FINGERS. More tried, and more were lost.

One day, a young Page boy came to the King and said that he would like to try. The King thought the boy foolish, and attempted to dissuade him, but the boy persisted. Finally the King gave in, and the boy walked out the gate. He crossed the bridge without a sign of the monster. He crossed back and forth several more times with the same result.

He presented himself to the King, and asked for the hand of the King's daughter. Overjoyed, the King assented but asked, "How were you able to do what many older and more experienced knights were not able to do? It was easy, the boy replied,

"JUST LET YOUR PAGES DO THE WALKING THROUGH THE YELLOW FINGERS."

Neat! (1)

zmollusc (763634) | about 8 months ago | (#45592477)

We can crowdsource all the Dan Brown clues-hidden-by-the-ancients malarky and discover thousands of Holy Grails, Atlantises, Lemurias, El Dorados, Alien Saucers etc.

Re:Neat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45593497)

Nah, sadly the required segments for those details will be covered up by the goddamned colour correction patches they used.

heh, captcha: Monastic

Bibles? (-1, Flamebait)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 8 months ago | (#45592645)

Goodness me, don't tell me they could not find more important works to save than bibles. These subversive books should not be lightly discarded, they should be carefully disposed of in toxic waste incinerators.

Re:Bibles? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 8 months ago | (#45592793)

You don't think the VERY first book that was EVER printed is worth saving? No matter whether you agree with the content, the book itself is part of our history (the content has also done a ton to shape our history as well)

Re:Bibles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45593577)

???
I had thought the Chinese were the ones who invented the printing press. Gutenberg "independently" invented (or more likely stole) it later. So the first ever printed book was the Chinese version of the bible?
Printing press [wikipedia.org]
Looks like the Chinese beat Gutenberg by 400 years with moveable type, and with fixed type by about 2000 years.

I find it funny how Europeans/Americans pretend China didn't exist until about 1960. My "public education" history classes in the USA didn't even mention China was a country until after WW2.

Re:Bibles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45594507)

Story of their lives, knowledge is a great thing, isn't it? ;>

Re:Bibles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45600009)

Fuck you, troll.

Quick translation results (3, Funny)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about 8 months ago | (#45592779)

Hmmm, if I've got this correct, the item I just read says: "Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma."

Re:Quick translation results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45593209)

Read the blueprint!
Read the blueprint!

Re:Quick translation results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45596175)

Hmmm, if I've got this correct, the item I just read says: "Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma."

But...his wife's name was 'Betty'!

Easier to find (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 8 months ago | (#45592809)

Wish it was a bit easier to find the actual text. It would have also been cool to see the pages side by side. But still this is way cool.

Missing first page... (0)

Loki_666 (824073) | about 8 months ago | (#45593543)

Does it have the missing first page from the bible that reads:

"Dedicated to my loving wife Sarah.

The stories contained herein are fictional, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

Re:Missing first page... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45594533)

Why would it have that? Your delusions seem interesting though.

Re:Missing first page... (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | about 7 months ago | (#45695237)

Well, i thought it was funny.

English Translation of Mahabharata is free! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#45594173)

Well, that site seems to be very Judeo/Christian centric. Hope there is a similar effort to get the Hindu and Buddhist texts/manuscripts on line.

The one and only line-by-line English translation of Mahabharata, by Ganguli, a three decade effort stretching from 1860 to 1890, is on the public domain and can be downloaded for free. Very difficult to read, extremely voluminous. But there things some mind boggling stuff there.

For example, while describing the reign of Emperor Dushyant, it says, "In his days there were no farmers, there were no miners". Is it the folk memory of the days of hunter/gatherers/herders as remembered by later generations of farmers? Does "no miners" means it was a neolithic stone age culture? I have seen scholarly articles arguing that "the story of Cain and Abel is clearly the folk memory of the conflict between herders and farmers". But there is not much of work done on Mahabharata.

Re:English Translation of Mahabharata is free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45601361)

WOW, you suggest the Vatican library may have a Judeo/Christian bias, who would've expected that!

Re:English Translation of Mahabharata is free! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#45602711)

It was vatican library? Did not realize that. Gee! I feel like a total idiot now. Thanks. Obama.

Changes everything (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#45594879)

I had no idea that ancient Hebrews had document scanners.

Still withholding the Necronomicon, we see. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45595053)

We'll summon the Old Ones yet!

.

Missing Bible Page Found! (2)

coinreturn (617535) | about 8 months ago | (#45595925)

It says: "Any similarity to persons dead or alive is purely coincidental."

Not a Research Library (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45596631)

The Vatican Library is not for "research," it is for brainwashing.

Not all the Bodlean, one hopes (1)

whitroth (9367) | about 8 months ago | (#45597503)

I mean, there's one of the eight copies of that manuscript by Abdul Alhazrad there....

                  mark

Link to the Gutenberg Bible (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | about 8 months ago | (#45598335)

The Gutenberg Bible can be viewed here [vatlib.it] .

The beautiful colour woodcuts in Stamp.Ross.283 can be viewed here [vatlib.it] .

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>