Talk:Moral letters to Lucilius

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copies can be found on Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3. They're Loeb Classical Library editions, so they're bilingual. Also, Loeb editions of this era were frequently bowdlerized; if this one has been, then it would be nice if locations were so noted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of Bowdlerization, Seneca is relatively prudish, so he doesn't usually need to be censored. I know of one instance where Gummere does this (which he admits to), and that's in Epistle 122.7. Singinglemon (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a (very minor) bit of bowdlerizing in Epistle 66. I've stuck in my own footnote on that page (footnote 16). But I don't know if my own footnotes should be placed among Gummere's like that. Singinglemon (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I--User:Prosfilaes--have done a check on Gummere, Seneca, and Loeb in the Gutenberg transcriptions and feel confident in the conclusion that the third volume (the only one published after 1922) was not renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can be confident that Volume 3 is out-of-copyright. None of the pre-war Loebs ever had their copyright renewed. Whereas modern Loeb translations (such as Aelian's Varia Historia, published 1997) have a formal copyright notice on the front page, reprints of their old translations, including Volume 3 of Seneca's Epistles (I have a 2006 reprint in front of me) have no copyright notice. In other words, Harvard University Press know that they never renewed the copyright, (something they probably regret now). Singinglemon (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It's indicative, but post-1989 printings don't have to have a copyright notice, so it's not probative. The renewals should still be checked, which I'm willing and happy to do, to make sure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I had a search for "Seneca" on the Stanford and Rutgers databases, and nothing came up concerning his letters. Are those databases comprehensive enough? Singinglemon (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
They only include the book reviews, which is good enough for the Loebs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)