Artamène or the Grand Cyrus

[Vince]

I was feeling left out of the working on something really long discussions, so I thought I’d tackle this. It’s over 50% longer than that slacker Proust.

The first issue is that it was published under the name of Georges de Scudery, but it is universally acknowledged to have been written by his sister, Madeleine. It’s his name on the scans, though, so I’ve gone with that for now. (Both the English and French transcriptions use his sister’s name.)

The second is that there are no chapters: each of the ten parts has three books, but each book is a single unit. I’ll use volume/part or part/division; I don’t think it makes sense to use chapter.

The third is that for some but not all of the parts there are introductory “letters” written by the publisher and/or printer to the reader. I don’t think they add anything or are particularly interesting, so I’m planning on cutting them.

There is a transcription from the University of Michigan; it appears to be from the 1653 edition, scans of which are on IA. The transcription is good in that it exists at all, but it is definitely not good from a text perspective. E.g., there are 2200+ “gaps” in the transcription (<span class=“gap”>) that range from one character to multiple pages. These are due to spots on the scan pages, missing pages from the scan, etc.

Fortunately, there is another scan, from 1691, on IA. I have used it to fill in all of those gaps (that took a couple of weeks). It’s also amazing how much spelling changed (for the better) in those 40 years, so I’m working my way through adjusting spelling (and paragraph breaks) to the later scan, and then will have another set of editorial spelling modernizations for soundalikes (perswade is one that leaps to mind).

The English version has a couple of quirks that don’t exist in the original French: it italicizes each and every occurrence of a proper name(!), and it has the period propensity for over-capitalization (a lot of over-capitalization). I’ve removed the extraneous capitalization, and will remove the italics eventually as well.

Proofreading will take … a while, not just because of the length, but because of the spelling and just plain errors in the transcription. Both scans use the old-style s’ that look like an f, which will make it all the more fun. (There’s good and bad with the transcription: the good is that, with rare exceptions, it got those s’ correct.)

Something to do when taking a break from lint tests…

[Alex Cabal]

That all sounds good, good luck!

On 4/1/24 12:12 PM, Vince wrote:
> I was feeling left out of the working on something really long
> discussions, so I thought I’d tackle this. It’s over 50% longer than
> that slacker Proust.
>
> The first issue is that it was published under the name of Georges de
> Scudery, but it is universally acknowledged to have been written by his
> sister, Madeleine. It’s his name on the scans, though, so I’ve gone with
> that for now. (Both the English and French transcriptions use his
> sister’s name.)
>
> The second is that there are no chapters: each of the ten parts has
> three books, but each book is a single unit. I’ll use volume/part or
> part/division; I don’t think it makes sense to use chapter.
>
> The third is that for some but not all of the parts there are
> introductory “letters” written by the publisher and/or printer to the
> reader. I don’t think they add anything or are particularly interesting,
> so I’m planning on cutting them.
>
> There is a transcription

> <https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A70988.0001.001> from the University of Michigan; it appears to be from the 1653 edition, scans of which are on IA <https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_artamenes-or-the-grand-c_scudery-madeleine-de_1653>. The transcription is good in that it exists at all, but it is definitely not good from a text perspective. E.g., there are 2200+ “gaps” in the transcription (<span class=“gap”>) that range from one character to multiple pages. These are due to spots on the scan pages, missing pages from the scan, etc.

>
> Fortunately, there is another scan, from 1691, on IA. I have used it to
> fill in all of those gaps (that took a couple of weeks). It’s also
> amazing how much spelling changed (for the better) in those 40 years, so
> I’m working my way through adjusting spelling (and paragraph breaks) to
> the later scan, and then will have another set of editorial spelling
> modernizations for soundalikes (perswade is one that leaps to mind).
>
> The English version has a couple of quirks that don’t exist in the
> original French: it italicizes each and every occurrence of a proper
> name(!), and it has the period propensity for over-capitalization (a

> /lot/ of over-capitalization). I’ve removed the extraneous

> capitalization, and will remove the italics eventually as well.
>
> Proofreading will take … a while, not just because of the length, but
> because of the spelling and just plain errors in the transcription. Both

> scans use the old-style /s/’ that look like an /f/, which will make it

> all the more fun. (There’s good and bad with the transcription: the good

> is that, with rare exceptions, it got those /s/’ correct.)

>
> Something to do when taking a break from lint tests…
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/C3B65C28-CA90-472F-96E7-13273CEE2402%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/C3B65C28-CA90-472F-96E7-13273CEE2402%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Alex, as mentioned, I’m going to primarily use the later (1691) scan for proofing, because it has better spelling, better paragraph breaks, and is generally a better scan. This is in keeping with our “use the latest edition” possible policy. The transcription is from the earlier (1653) scan. As a result, there are “old” spellings that the later scan completely corrects, which can thus be changed as non-editorial, and there are spellings the later scan partially corrects, which is the subject of this question.

As one small example, “gratifie” appears in the transcription a half-dozen times (as that’s what the 1653 scan used). Most of those occurrences in the 1691 scan are the correct “gratify”, but one of them is still “gratifie.” IOW, all but one could be changed as a transcription change (non-editorial), but one would still be editorial.

But, with the volume of needed corrections (there are literally thousands of words to be changed, and each word can from one to hundreds of times), it’s not feasible to split the changes (or even investigate them all).

In short, should all of the spelling corrections be made editorial, even though some of them might technically all be correct in the later scan? Or, as in the case above, if most of the changes were corrected, is it OK to call it non-editorial, even though one/some occurrences might be editorial?

[Alex Cabal]

It just sounds like the printer or editor at the time overlooked a few
instances. You can update them all as part of the non editorial
transcription update.

On 4/2/24 5:12 PM, Vince wrote:
> Alex, as mentioned, I’m going to primarily use the later (1691) scan for
> proofing, because it has better spelling, better paragraph breaks, and
> is generally a better scan. This is in keeping with our “use the latest
> edition” possible policy. The transcription is from the earlier (1653)
> scan. As a result, there are “old” spellings that the later scan
> completely corrects, which can thus be changed as non-editorial, and

> there are spellings the later scan /partially/ corrects, which is the

> subject of this question.
>
> As one small example, “gratifie” appears in the transcription a
> half-dozen times (as that’s what the 1653 scan used). Most of those
> occurrences in the 1691 scan are the correct “gratify”, but one of them
> is still “gratifie.” IOW, all but one could be changed as a
> transcription change (non-editorial), but one would still be editorial.
>
> But, with the volume of needed corrections (there are literally
> thousands of words to be changed, and each word can from one to hundreds
> of times), it’s not feasible to split the changes (or even investigate
> them all).
>

> In short, should /all/ of the spelling corrections be made editorial,

> even though some of them might technically all be correct in the later
> scan? Or, as in the case above, if most of the changes were corrected,
> is it OK to call it non-editorial, even though one/some occurrences
> might be editorial?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/0B9B3EF9-29B6-4405-A2E0-8A5AAF06442B%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/0B9B3EF9-29B6-4405-A2E0-8A5AAF06442B%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Alex, I obviously know (and preach) we don’t normally mess with compound words, but this one has a few “space” compounds that are IMO too common (and jarring) today to be left, e.g. him/her/it self, no body, etc.

One that’s used a couple of hundred times is “mean while”. I’m asking about it specifically because you’ve had us leave “worth while” every time it’s been asked about in the past.

Is it OK to change “mean while” to meanwhile, or should I leave it? Usage is, e.g., “Mean while, over here this was going on…”

Also, there are almost no quote marks used throughout. Instead, asides are used to indicate who’s speaking.

No, sir, (replied he) for whilst …

That accusation is unlikely, (replied Mazares) that I cannot…

…for, (added he, and looked upon Mazares) do not consider…

In most/all cases, the punctuation is before the aside (as above), and I believe grammar-wise it should be after the aside, e.g.

No, sir (replied he), for whilst …

That accusation is unlikely (replied Mazes), that I cannot…

…for (added he, and looked upon Mazares), do not consider…

I’m going to move them all in an editorial commit, unless there are any objections. (I’m going to be slightly more conscious about asking permission rather than forgiveness on this one, because like Proust there are absurd paragraph lengths in this throughout (I know there is one of 100K+), and so rebasing would be an unholy mess due to merge conflicts.)

[Vince]

The French name of the book is “Artamène ou le Grand Cyrus”. The English name, from the scans, is “Artamenes, or the Grand Cyrus”. (With a trailing s, and no diacritic.) All references internally in the book (a couple of thousand in total) to Artamenes include the trailing s, and do not have the diacritic.

I originally titled it “Artamène,” but maybe that’s not right. Do we want to use Artamène or Artamenes as the title?

I also just realized I didn’t include the translator when creating the draft. The titlepage of the 1653 scan has

I believe the “Gent.”, as it’s not italicized, is indicating “Gentleman,” not a last name. So all we have are initials, F. G. (Interestingly, LoC actually has an entry for F.G., Gent.). I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an instance of just initials in our corpus; is it OK to just pass “F. G.” to create draft, or do I need to do something different?

[Alex Cabal]

On 4/8/24 10:07 AM, Vince wrote:
> Alex, I obviously know (and preach) we don’t normally mess with compound
> words, but this one has a few “space” compounds that are IMO too common
> (and jarring) today to be left, e.g. him/her/it self, no body, etc.
> One that’s used a couple of hundred times is “mean while”. I’m asking
> about it specifically because you’ve had us leave “worth while” every
> time it’s been asked about in the past.
> Is it OK to change “mean while” to meanwhile, or should I leave it?
> Usage is, e.g., “Mean while, over here this was going on…”

Sure

>
> Also, there are almost no quote marks used throughout. Instead, asides
> are used to indicate who’s speaking.
>
> No, sir, (replied he) for whilst …
> That accusation is unlikely, (replied Mazares) that I cannot…
> …for, (added he, and looked upon Mazares) do not consider…
>
>

> In most/all cases, the punctuation is /before/ the aside (as above), and
> I believe grammar-wise it should be /after/ the aside, e.g.

>
> No, sir (replied he), for whilst …
> That accusation is unlikely (replied Mazes), that I cannot…
> …for (added he, and looked upon Mazares), do not consider…
>
>

Sounds fine. This would also be a good candidate for converting dialog
to regular quotation marks, like we did with Gil Blas. Although that
would obviously be tons of work, and even with Gil Blas I asked the list
to help divide up the work.

[Vince]

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:08 PM, Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org> wrote:
> …

>> Also, there are almost no quote marks used throughout. Instead, asides are used to indicate who’s speaking.
>> No, sir, (replied he) for whilst …
>> That accusation is unlikely, (replied Mazares) that I cannot…
>> …for, (added he, and looked upon Mazares) do not consider…
>> In most/all cases, the punctuation is /before/ the aside (as above), and I believe grammar-wise it should be /after/ the aside, e.g.
>> No, sir (replied he), for whilst …
>> That accusation is unlikely (replied Mazes), that I cannot…
>> …for (added he, and looked upon Mazares), do not consider…
>
> Sounds fine. This would also be a good candidate for converting dialog to regular quotation marks, like we did with Gil Blas. Although that would obviously be tons of work, and even with Gil Blas I asked the list to help divide up the work.

Hah, yeah, I actually thought of that, and then quickly thought better of it. “Tons” is too small a word. :)

[Alex Cabal]

I think you're right that Gent. is just Gentleman so you can credit it
as F. G. I don't think create-draft needs anything special for that.

As far as the name, I don't know. What do contemporary translations do?

On 4/8/24 12:56 PM, Vince wrote:
> The French name of the book is “Artamène ou le Grand Cyrus”. The English
> name, from the scans, is “Artamenes, or the Grand Cyrus”. (With a

> trailing /s/, and no diacritic.) All references internally in the book
> (a couple of thousand in total) to Artamenes include the trailing /s/,

> and do not have the diacritic.
>
> I originally titled it “Artamène,” but maybe that’s not right. Do we
> want to use Artamène or Artamenes as the title?
>
> I also just realized I didn’t include the translator when creating the
> draft. The titlepage of the 1653 scan has

> PastedGraphic-1.png
>
> I believe the “Gent.”, as it’s not italicized, is indicating
> “Gentleman,” not a last name. So all we have are initials, F. G.
> (Interestingly, LoC actually has an entry

> <https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85143851.html> for F.G., Gent.).

> I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an instance of just initials in our
> corpus; is it OK to just pass “F. G.” to create draft, or do I need to
> do something different?
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/B8B7207F-AF35-44E1-B5FD-5AC625760DD7%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/B8B7207F-AF35-44E1-B5FD-5AC625760DD7%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

I haven’t found any in English. I’ve seen leather-bound French editions, but have so far not been able to find any English ones newer than the scans.

[Alex Cabal]

Then I don't know, that's something to research further and just make
your best decision.

[Vince]

And, while we’re here, let’s talk about the author. As I said, it’s Georges’ name on the scans, but it is universally, and I do mean universally, acknowledged and stated that it was his sister Madeleine that wrote it. She is attributed on both the English and French transcriptions online, she is attributed in the two keys to the roman à clef of the book I’ve found, she’s attributed on WorldCat. Literally no one thinks Georges wrote it. Do we still want to stick with his name since it’s on the scans, or use hers?

[Alex Cabal]

You can use her name, add George as a MARC contributor somehow so his
name can be found in the metadata

On 4/9/24 3:28 PM, Vince wrote:
> And, while we’re here, let’s talk about the author. As I said, it’s
> Georges’ name on the scans, but it is universally, and I do mean
> universally, acknowledged and stated that it was his sister Madeleine
> that wrote it. She is attributed on both the English and French

> transcriptions online, she is attributed in the two keys to the /roman à
> clef/ of the book I’ve found, she’s attributed on WorldCat. Literally no

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/3DF4A446-1381-42EE-86BF-2FDD515ABBE9%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/3DF4A446-1381-42EE-86BF-2FDD515ABBE9%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Proposed cover, PD proof here. Pictured are Cyrus and Araspas.

[Alex Cabal]

Great, can you add it to the DB?

On 4/9/24 4:08 PM, Vince wrote:
> Proposed cover, PD proof here
> <https://www.artic.edu/artworks/111418/panthea-cyrus-and-araspas>.

> Pictured are Cyrus and Araspas.
>

> PastedGraphic-1.png

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/5F91FD7B-4299-43EC-9B90-FF74B26960DA%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/5F91FD7B-4299-43EC-9B90-FF74B26960DA%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Yep, done.

[Vince]

There are a thousand or more unique names in this, and predictably there are many instances of misspellings in the transcription. I’m trying to go through and cleaning up the transcription errors, but in the process I’m discovering translation issues as well.

As one example: the French original has “Artambare,” but that is translated as Artambaces, Artambares, and Artambases. I want to (editorially) combine them back to a single spelling since they are all referring to the same person; the question is which one.

I personally would prefer the one most like the original, in this case Artambares. However, the one that occurs most often in the translation by a large margin is Artambaces.

This is just one example; there are, I think, going to be hundreds of instances that need correcting. Is it OK to go with the “most similar to the original,” or would you prefer “the one most used in the translation”?

[Alex Cabal]

Most similar I think is fine. If the printer was that sloppy then who
knows what the translator originally meant.

On 5/28/24 3:12 PM, Vince wrote:
> There are a thousand or more unique names in this, and predictably there

> are /many/ instances of misspellings in the transcription. I’m trying to

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/BF21E67F-33C1-476B-A598-1EEA7EB3111A%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/BF21E67F-33C1-476B-A598-1EEA7EB3111A%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

There are over a hundred letters in this. Almost all of them have a header that is something like: "X unto Y,” “X, to Y,” “X to the fair Y," etc., where X is the sender and Y the recipient.

X and Y can be:

1. A name, e.g. Artamenes.
2. A title of nobility and name, e.g. Princess Mandana.
3. Just a title of nobility, e.g. “the King of Cappadocia and Galatia.”
4. A name followed by a title of nobility, e.g. Ciaxeres King of Cappadocia.”
5. A title of nobility and description, e.g. “… to the King of Cappadocia and Galatia her father.”
6. An epithet, e.g. “… the Illustrious Pirate”

I think those are most if not all of the possibilities. The question is for tagging the sender and receipient.

• In the case of 1-3, I’m tagging the name and/or title, e.g. “Artamenes,” “Princess Mandana,” and “King of Cappadocia and Galatia” (excluding the “the” from the tag).
• In the case of 5, I’m just tagging the title (“King of Cappadocia”), not the descriptive (her father).

• In the case of 6, it’s neither a name nor title, but the epithet is a name stand-in, so I’m tagging it (“Illustrious Pirate”).

Does all that sound reasonable?

• In the case of 4, this feels different to me than 2 for some reason, and I am inclined to just tag the name. But I suspect it shouldn’t be treated differently, and I should tag the name and the title here as well. Question: tag name and title (“Ciaxeres King of Cappadocia”), or just name (“Ciaxeres”) for example 4 above?

The next question is formatting. Our standard formatting is small-caps for recipients and senders, so the formatting of the headers would be something like:

• The PRINCE ARTAMAS unto the incomparable ELSIMENA.
• The PRINCESS MANDANA, unto CYRUS.
• The PRINCESS MANDANA, to the KING OF CAPPADOCIA AND GALATIA her father.

Is that OK, or is it preferable to small-cap the entire header, so that the “The”s and “to/unto”s and other phrases are small-capped as well?

And, last question for this email, do we care about the inconsistent use of commas, i.e. "X unto Y" in the first example, and "X, unto Y” in the second.

[Alex Cabal]

On 6/4/24 11:24 PM, Vince wrote:
> There are over a hundred letters in this. Almost all of them have a
> header that is something like: "X unto Y,” “X, to Y,” “X to the fair Y,"
> etc., where X is the sender and Y the recipient.
> X and Y can be:
>

> 1. A name, e.g. Artamenes.
> 2. A title of nobility and name, e.g. Princess Mandana.
> 3. Just a title of nobility, e.g. “the King of Cappadocia and Galatia.”
> 4. A name followed by a title of nobility, e.g. Ciaxeres King of
> Cappadocia.”
> 5. A title of nobility and description, e.g. “… to the King of

> Cappadocia and Galatia her father.”

> 6. An epithet, e.g. “… the Illustrious Pirate”

>
>
> I think those are most if not all of the possibilities. The question is
> for tagging the sender and receipient.
>

> * In the case of 1-3, I’m tagging the name and/or title, e.g.

> “Artamenes,” “Princess Mandana,” and “King of Cappadocia and
> Galatia” (excluding the “the” from the tag).

> * In the case of 5, I’m just tagging the title (“King of Cappadocia”),

> not the descriptive (her father).
>

> * In the case of 6, it’s neither a name nor title, but the epithet is

> a name stand-in, so I’m tagging it (“Illustrious Pirate”).
>
>
> Does all that sound reasonable?

Yes, sounds fine.

> * In the case of 4, this feels different to me than 2 for some reason,

> and I am inclined to just tag the name. But I suspect it shouldn’t
> be treated differently, and I should tag the name and the title here
> as well. Question: tag name and title (“Ciaxeres King of
> Cappadocia”), or just name (“Ciaxeres”) for example 4 above?

I guess it could go either way. I would lean towards tagging the
complete phrase including the title.

> The next question is formatting. Our standard formatting is small-caps
> for recipients and senders, so the formatting of the headers would be
> something like:
>

> * The PRINCE ARTAMAS unto the incomparable ELSIMENA.
> * The PRINCESS MANDANA, unto CYRUS.
> * The PRINCESS MANDANA, to the KING OF CAPPADOCIA ANDGALATIA her father.

I don't think that looks good. We should either small caps the whole
line, or leave the whole line as plain roman. Since it looks like the
lines can get quite long with some of those titles, I'd leave it as roman.

> Is that OK, or is it preferable to small-cap the entire header, so that
> the “The”s and “to/unto”s and other phrases are small-capped as well?
> And, last question for this email, do we care about the inconsistent use
> of commas, i.e. "X unto Y" in the first example, and "X, unto Y” in the
> second.
>

You can leave it as-is in print.

[Vince]

A number of the books have stories (“The History of …”) set off within the book, that are the majority of the book’s contents. I’m creating separate sections for these, and they all have h# headers, so the spacing at the start of the history is handled via core. However, when the history ends, there is no header for the rest of that book, and so there is no visual indication (in the scans, or in SE without additional CSS), of when the history ends.

1. I’’ve added CSS to add a margin at the end of a section, but do you want it to be 3em to match the top, or the “normal” 1em, or …?
2. The books are epub:type of division; do the subsections need an epub:type? Neither chapter nor subchapter sound right to me given the epub:type of the top-level section.

Format

<section data-parent="part-1" id="book-1-2" epub:type="division">

<h3>

<span epub:type="label">Book</span>

<span epub:type="ordinal z3998:roman">II</span>

</h3>

<section id="book-1-2-1”> /* does these need an epub:type? */

<p>…</p>

⋮

</section>

<section id=“book-1-2-2”>

<h4>The History of Artamenes</h4>

<p>…</p>

⋮

</section>

<section id=“book-1-2-3”>

<p>…</p>

⋮

</section>

</section>

CSS

section{

margin-bottom: 3em; /* or 1em or 2em or …? */

}

[Alex Cabal]

I think that looks fine, presuming that the section with the history is
interrupting the previous section. However if each section is a
self-contained thing then instead I would call them "chapters".

On 6/24/24 1:50 PM, Vince wrote:
> A number of the books have stories (“The History of …”) set off within
> the book, that are the majority of the book’s contents. I’m creating
> separate sections for these, and they all have h# headers, so the
> spacing at the start of the history is handled via core. However, when
> the history ends, there is no header for the rest of that book, and so
> there is no visual indication (in the scans, or in SE without additional
> CSS), of when the history ends.
>

> 1. I’’ve added CSS to add a margin at the end of a section, but do you

> want it to be 3em to match the top, or the “normal” 1em, or …?

> 2. The books are epub:type of division; do the subsections need an

> epub:type? Neither chapter nor subchapter sound right to me given
> the epub:type of the top-level section.
>
>
> Format
> <section data-parent="part-1" id="book-1-2" epub:type="division">
> <h3>
> <span epub:type="label">Book</span>
> <span epub:type="ordinal z3998:roman">II</span>
> </h3>
> <section id="book-1-2-1”> /* does these need an epub:type? */
> <p>…</p>
> ⋮
> </section>
> <section id=“book-1-2-2”>
> <h4>The History of Artamenes</h4>
> <p>…</p>
> ⋮
> </section>
> <section id=“book-1-2-3”>
> <p>…</p>
> ⋮
> </section>
> </section>
>
> CSS
> section{
> margin-bottom: 3em; /* or 1em or 2em or …? */
> }
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/F722E043-3769-4CFF-A557-BFA7048347D4%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/F722E043-3769-4CFF-A557-BFA7048347D4%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Alex, the sentence below (“As for …”) refers to “his losty Humour.” It is definitely a long-s (compare to “spects" directly above it, vs. the f in “for” on the first line). So, the choices are:

1. It’s losty, with an unknown meaning (I couldn’t turn up anything in web searches).
2. It’s losty, and it’s an ancient (late 1600’s) spelling of “lusty.”
3. It’s a typo and should be “lofty."

I think #2 is most likely (the long-s and f occasionally get confused in transcription, but I haven’t seen any of it in the text itself), but #3 is a slight possibility.

What do you think? Would you leave it as “losty,” or change it to one of the others? (I don’t know that “losty” and “lusty” are enough of a soundalike to allow a change?)

[Alex Cabal]

Probably a typo for Lusty, since in context it looks like he's trying to
behave himself regally but his lusty humor is making it difficult.

On 12/18/24 11:57 PM, Vince wrote:
> Alex, the sentence below (“As for …”) refers to “his losty Humour.” It
> is definitely a long-s (compare to “spects" directly above it, vs. the

> /f/ in “for” on the first line). So, the choices are:
>
> 1. It’s losty, with an unknown meaning (I couldn’t turn up anything in
> web searches).
> 2. It’s losty, and it’s an ancient (late 1600’s) spelling of “lusty.”
> 3. It’s a typo and should be “lofty."
>
>
> I think #2 is most likely (the long-/s/ and /f/ occasionally get
> confused in /transcription/, but I haven’t seen any of it in the text

> itself), but #3 is a slight possibility.
>
> What do you think? Would you leave it as “losty,” or change it to one of
> the others? (I don’t know that “losty” and “lusty” are enough of a
> soundalike to allow a change?)
>

> PastedGraphic-1.png

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/009BF3F8-CF71-4ECB-9C80-4459DD7E5BB7%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/009BF3F8-CF71-4ECB-9C80-4459DD7E5BB7%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Brendan Fattig]

In the other edition scans, it looks like they corrected it to “lofty”.

https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_artamenes-or-the-grand-c_scudery-madeleine-de_1653/page/n275/mode/1up?q="with+the+prince+of”

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/9e6f4307-1a87-495f-bf85-36ffa0dd6f1e%40standardebooks.org.

[bre...@fattig.net]

In the other edition scans, it looks like they corrected it to “lofty”.

correction: *originally had it as "lofty"* 

[Vince]

No, that’s a long-s just like the later one I’m using. I have both scans.

On Dec 19, 2024, at 3:17 PM, bre...@fattig.net <bre...@fattig.net> wrote:

In the other edition scans, it looks like they corrected it to “lofty”.

https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_artamenes-or-the-grand-c_scudery-madeleine-de_1653/page/n275/mode/1up?q="with+the+prince+of”

[bre...@fattig.net]

I can see what you're saying. No two long s's or f's in that scan look the same.

To me, though, I think both of these are "ft" for a couple (potentially irrelevant?) reasons:
- it appears the crossbar extends all the way across on the character in question in both scans (or at least shows up on the right side of the vertical stroke; its a little hard to tell because of t's crossbar)

- comparing to the 'ſt's (long-s t) that appear throughout both scans, both editions used ligatures for 'ſt', neither of these "lo[f|ſ]ty" do [1] [2]

- and if it is an "f", the alternative glyph that they seem to have used in this word, would that be due to kerning for "ft"?

I'm not *that* familiar with long-s texts; feel free to call me out. :)

[1] https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_artamenes-or-the-grand-c_scudery-madeleine-de_1653/page/n261/mode/1up?q=%22%C5%BFt%22

[2] https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_artamenes-of-the-grand-c_scudry-madeleine-de_1691/page/n548/mode/1up?q=%22%C5%BFt%22

PS. sorry, I didn't mean to butt in. I just thought it was an interesting puzzle.

[Vince]

Except the crossbar doesn’t extend all the way across in the long-s in losty. Look at the long-s in losty vs. the actual f’s in “for feare” in the first line. Nowhere near the same. Look at the long-s in losty vs the other long-s, and they look the same.

If our eyes disagree on that, then we’re not going to come to any resolution. :)

[bre...@fattig.net]

Touché :)

(2 million words is insane and sounds like a lot of fun; good luck!)

—brendan

[Vince]

An actual lofty, from book 1:

The losty in question:

Note the curve of the top of the f, the extended crossbar, and the vertical height of the crossbar (compared to the t’s), vs the bottom one.

The bottom one is a long-s. :)

[bre...@fattig.net]

Hmmm... spot the long s...

I'm unconvinced, but I can't find any "st"s as counter-examples because they're all ligatures :)

Would you take the following as "lofty"?

[bre...@fattig.net]

I should have sent this earlier instead of drawing it out ... :( Alas.

Essentially my argument is that the scans are not good enough nor the f-glyphs across the work (even in book 1) consistent enough to conclude that it *isn't* an "f".

Further, that last picture I sent (which I personally think is pretty clearly *not* a long-s (there is no left nub but there is a right nub)) is the word in question from the 1650s edition.

And last, all other cases of "st" in the work are a ligature. So, if it indeed *is* an "st", it is almost definitely an unintentional "st" (maybe they meant "ft" perhaps? :) ... which seems a much more probable mistake than misspelling "lusty")

—brendan

Good luck!

[David]

I vote for "losty" :)

The "long s" is a very inviting rabbit-hole to go down: here's one good entry point. It looks tricky to our eyes, but once you know the "rules" and see the ligatures (and know the "dialects"), it's usually (<- key word!) unambiguous.

FWIW! David / Fife, UK

[Vince]

Interesting. I didn’t know OED allowed free searches.

Since it is the only occurrence, and there are a couple of “lusty”s, I think I’ll standardize it to lusty.

Thanks!

On Dec 20, 2024, at 2:57 AM, David <djre...@gmail.com> wrote:

I vote for "losty" :)

[Brendan Fattig]

> I vote for "losty" :)

Noted :)

> The "long s" is a very inviting rabbit-hole to go down: here's one good entry point[https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431200010X]. It looks tricky to our eyes, but once you know the "rules" and see the ligatures (and know the "dialects"), it's usually (<- key word!) unambiguous.

Ooh, thanks for the source David.

Is the absence of ligature here (in both editions) in this case something that occurred normally? I (naively) assumed that any such case of "s,t" would use a ligature "ſt" and thought it suspect that both editions would not use one on the same word (especially since Mode/sty/ had one). 

I occasionally proof long s texts for pgdp and definitely would have proofed this as lofty if only because there was no ligature used: which is not a mistake I'd want to make there because it only makes our lives harder ;)

—brendan

[Vince]

While browsing looking for something for Parisians in the Country, I noticed that the below didn’t show as being in use. I tried to add the book URL to it (https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/madeleine-de-scudery/artamenes/f-g), but it says invalid URL.

On Apr 9, 2024, at 4:48 PM, Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org> wrote:

[Alex Cabal]

That URL doesn't exist, what's the URL for this ebook? Did we release
it? I don't have a copy of it and it's not on the website.

On 5/31/25 4:35 PM, Vince wrote:
> While browsing looking for something for /Parisians in the Country/, I
> noticed that the below <https://standardebooks.org/artworks/laurent-de-
> la-hire/panthea-cyrus-and-araspas> didn’t show as being in use. I tried

> to add the book URL to it (https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/madeleine-
> de-scudery/artamenes/f-g), but it says invalid URL.
>
>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 4:48 PM, Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yep, done.
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 4:35 PM, Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great, can you add it to the DB?
>>>
>>> On 4/9/24 4:08 PM, Vince wrote:
>>>> Proposed cover, PD proof here <https://www.artic.edu/
>>>> artworks/111418/panthea-cyrus-and-araspas>. Pictured are Cyrus and
>>>> Araspas.
>>>> PastedGraphic-1.png
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/EFA8A805-A2C4-4609-9D98-EB17E1B44CEC%40letterboxes.org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/EFA8A805-
> A2C4-4609-9D98-EB17E1B44CEC%40letterboxes.org?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince Rice]

That is the url for this book, that’s why I don’t understand why it doesn’t accept it. We put in URL’s for unreleased books all the time.

No, of course we didn’t release it; it’s almost 2m words, I’ll be working on it until I’m old. Wait…

> On Jun 1, 2025, at 7:33 PM, Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org> wrote:
>
> That URL doesn't exist, what's the URL for this ebook? Did we release it? I don't have a copy of it and it's not on the website.

[Alex Cabal]

OK, in that case this one was not put in the projects system which is
why there's no URL for it. I'll create a project and assign the artwork.

[Vince Rice]

Oh, definitely, it predates projects by many months if not more.

> On Jun 1, 2025, at 7:58 PM, Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org> wrote:
>
> OK, in that case this one was not put in the projects system which is why there's no URL for it. I'll create a project and assign the artwork.