Talk:Historia von D. Johann Fausten (chapbook)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editText is an uncited translation: After I made two minor editing changes, I noticed that most of the content on this page has been translated from a German website on the Faustbuch, found here: Über das Faustbuch. I don't know if this raises copyright issues, but I thought I would mention it here, since there is no citation directly evident on the page itself.(Infinity9 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Faustbuch
editThe "uncited translation" is from a website which expressly rejects copyright: http://lettersfromthedustbowl.com/copyright.html. Jwwprof 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Npov
editPro Satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.167.30 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Link dead
edithttp://lettersfromthedustbowl.com/Fbk1.html 2001:8003:3020:1C00:E818:ED60:4352:7235 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
lettersfromthedustbowl now links to scam websites
editI have removed the links for now, but they need to be replaced. w.i.k.i.w.a.r.r.i.o.r9919 21:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Roscoe translation
editJonathan Cook's Inscrutable Malice (2012) says that Thomas Roscoe's 1826 translation was "based on the oldest surviving Faust chapbook", which was the same source as Marlowe's play. If so it would be good to have a public domain translation linked to from this article, but haven't been able to check Roscoe's translation against the original chapbook. Can anyone confirm whether or not it is based on the Historia? --YodinT 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Have just found another source that goes into a bit more detail, also saying Roscoe's version was a translation of the Historia: "Melville's Notes from Thomas Roscoe's The German Novelists" by Scott Norsworthy in Leviathan: A Journal of Melville Studies (2008). Unless anyone objects, I'll use these two as references and add Roscoe to the article. --YodinT 18:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do either of them cite anyone on this claim? I don't know that it makes much sense to cite Melville scholars on a text from 16th-century Germany. -- asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like Cook is using Norsworthy as his source, and Norsworthy analyses Roscoe's translation, to show that the Historia was his source, rather than citing another authority. It might seem odd to include Melville research in an article on a 16th century text, but they aren't commenting on the text itself, but on the source of a 19th century translation – and as 19th century literature is their specialty, they seem to be reliable sources for this. The journal Leviathan is published by Johns Hopkins University Press, and Norsworthy's article in it is available through Wiley: doi:10.1111/j.1750-1849.2008.01309.x --YodinT 13:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looking at fn 21 in the Norsworthy article, I'm not sure we can say the Historia was his source; it doesn't agree at all with the sentence it's placed on, and it doesn't provide any evidence. (Just "is discernable", no argument at all.) But we certainly can say it may have been, which is good enough to link Roscoe's translation imo, since as you point out, it's worth having a public domain translation handy. -- asilvering (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I've added a paragraph (also mentioning the 1592 English Faust Book) and an external link. Please edit if it can be improved. --YodinT 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good! -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I've added a paragraph (also mentioning the 1592 English Faust Book) and an external link. Please edit if it can be improved. --YodinT 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looking at fn 21 in the Norsworthy article, I'm not sure we can say the Historia was his source; it doesn't agree at all with the sentence it's placed on, and it doesn't provide any evidence. (Just "is discernable", no argument at all.) But we certainly can say it may have been, which is good enough to link Roscoe's translation imo, since as you point out, it's worth having a public domain translation handy. -- asilvering (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like Cook is using Norsworthy as his source, and Norsworthy analyses Roscoe's translation, to show that the Historia was his source, rather than citing another authority. It might seem odd to include Melville research in an article on a 16th century text, but they aren't commenting on the text itself, but on the source of a 19th century translation – and as 19th century literature is their specialty, they seem to be reliable sources for this. The journal Leviathan is published by Johns Hopkins University Press, and Norsworthy's article in it is available through Wiley: doi:10.1111/j.1750-1849.2008.01309.x --YodinT 13:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do either of them cite anyone on this claim? I don't know that it makes much sense to cite Melville scholars on a text from 16th-century Germany. -- asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)