Page 1 of 1

Referencing of psalm text

Posted: 20 Jul 2021 12:31
by cjshawcj
SPOILER: nothing to do with numbering. I'm not going THERE!

The evidencing of text comprising multiple psalms as the source has always been a problem but this is exacerbated by the recent posting of Maurice Greene's verse anthems. His texts comprise a multipilicty of quotation. Here, for example is ... ce_Greene) which appears to comprise (exhaustive work not done) five verses from five psalms.
[This promiscuity is unusual. I believe it to be a direct response to the popularity of Messiah (pub. 1742). Greene's works (pub. 1743) ape the magpie aspect of Jennens' compilation of a libretto from divers scriptural sources, which was a novelty many found almost blasphemous. Indeed the practice seems to have been fairly short-lived, although I am happy to accept amplified gloss on this]

How should these be dealt with?
I don't think it appropriate to link all the gobbets to the appropriate psalm pages. The receiving pages would be cluttered unnecessarily by essentially marginal information.
I would consider it best to treat each anthology as a separate work in its own right, on the work page. But I would propose that all verses are identified and labelled individually. I believe they all come from the BCP. Full and discrete identification would enable parallel translations in Latin and in living languages.
I am happy to do some of this, if it is considered the appropriate strategy. I can't currently recall whether there are many other works requiring this treatment; but there is a parallel problem to be grappled with: the use by composers of portmanteau verses from the Song of Solomon. It is beyond said Solomon's proverbial wisdom to concoct a standard set of text pages, which can act as receivers/codifiers for all idiosyncratic combinations

Re: Referencing of psalm text

Posted: 15 Aug 2021 13:15
by cjshawcj
I'll take that as a "no" than

Re: Referencing of psalm text

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 18:44
by choralia
cjshawcj wrote: 15 Aug 2021 13:15 I'll take that as a "no" than
In principle, on wiki websites authorisation to edit pages is not required, provided that the user has the necessary permissions associated to his/her user profile. So, I would take it as a "yes" instead.