Notifications
Clear all

Opening poem in Neuburg's "Triumph of Pan" - request  

  RSS

belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
14/10/2012 1:04 pm  

If someone has the first edition of Neuburg's Triumph of Pan (1910), I'm interested in seeing a reproduction of the opening poem, "Omari tessala marax" - i.e. one of the songs he and Crowley received in the Algerian desert during the vision of the 2nd Aethyr, December 20, 1909.

Or, can you tell me if the 100th Monkey Press edition (2009) is a true facsimile?
http://www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/vneuburg/texts/triumph_of_pan/triumph_of_pan_text.pdf

I'm interested if the apparent errors in the transcription are in the original (i.e. "poleax" line 3, "adaphax" line 7), as well as the lack of translation - which he might not have wished to publish in any case - and diacriticals. The translation appeared in the Equinox I,v in March 1911, but without diacriticals/accents. It would also be interesting to know, if posssible, when and how the translation was done (as well as that for the "Infernal Adorations of OAI", which it seems is also not in the ms. of the working).

I believe this is the only evidence of the song between the time of its reception and its publication in The Equinox.


Quote
Bedazzled
(@bedazzled)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 38
14/10/2012 4:21 pm  

The 1st has poliax instead of poleax; anaphax instead of adaphax.  Other than these errors the reproduction is faithful: same formatting, no translation and no accents or diacritics.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
14/10/2012 4:32 pm  

Thank you Bedazzled!

Therefore the 100th Monkey Press edition is not a true facsimile.


ReplyQuote
Bedazzled
(@bedazzled)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 38
14/10/2012 5:23 pm  

There was an earlier facsimile by, I think, Skoob.  Would be interesting to discover if the errors first appeared in this edition.


ReplyQuote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 82
14/10/2012 5:39 pm  

I'm looking at my Skoob edition (1989) and it has "poliax" instead of poleax; "anaphax" instead of adaphax :  no translation and no accents or diacritics.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
14/10/2012 8:51 pm  

Thanks very much ZIN and Bedazzled.

If the editio princeps has "poliax" and "anaphax", and Skoob 1989 has them too, then unless there was another edition in between, it seems that 100th Monkey Press introduced these typos. Fortunately we have the transcription of the manuscript in the 1998 critical edition of The Vision and The Voice, and can be sure of the correct orthography.

I'm disappointed that what appears to be a true facsimile by 100th Monkey is really a flawed re-edition. I would imagine that the typographical errors only extend to the non-English text, but who knows? I'll have to read all the poetry and see.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1088
14/10/2012 9:18 pm  

have you tried contacting Steve at 100th Monkey Press to see if the errors were perhaps introduced during the OCR routine?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
14/10/2012 10:45 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
have you tried contacting Steve at 100th Monkey Press to see if the errors were perhaps introduced during the OCR routine?

I hadn't thought of that. I really don't know how facsimiles are done, or were done. If it is an OCR artifact, then I suppose it will show up in other places in the text as well. Although perhaps the editing was more scrupulous for the English than for the Bathyllic 🙂

But - how would a digital editor fix a badly OCR'd character?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3885
15/10/2012 2:45 am  

OCR wouldn't be used for a facsimile edition, surely?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1088
15/10/2012 7:39 am  

to be honest, I have no idea of the process 100th Monkey Press uses to produce their edition but it would seem possible that an automated process might have a few glitches - then again it might be human, all too human error. note that I didn't even begin to suggest the interference of demons!


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1743
15/10/2012 8:36 am  

93!

I don't get the impression that 100th Monkey Press is advertising "real" facsimiles. I think they are (for the sake of downloadability) OCR'ing the books (in this case it would appear to be the Skoob Books edition judging from the photos on the right of the page, with the Skoob imprint retouched) and then TRY to reset them in what looks as close as possible to the original, although many of the line breaks are different, the page numbering's position is different and so forth.

But, as I said, I don't see anywhere that they promise "real" facsimiles. And such it is indeed a fine labour of love, but as with all OCR'ed stuff it should be taken with caution.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
15/10/2012 9:17 am  

Thanks Lutz, that would seem to explain it.

I'm not criticizing their intentions - I am indebted to them for making these available. I only wanted to know if Neuburg's edition carried the same typographical errors - I'm glad to hear that it didn't. It indicates his attention to detail, which I would have expected from him, and from a disciple of Crowley in general.

... and after all, he was there when Crowley got the song!


ReplyQuote
Share: