Talk:Summis desiderantes affectibus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Summis desiderantes affectibus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 June 2007.
Wikipedia


This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Summis desiderantes/Delete.

[edit] wikisource

This should go to Wikisource. Gentgeen 22:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

Is its proper name just Summis desiderantes? --Brand спойт 12:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kors and Peters use Summis desiderantes affectibus twice and Summis desiderantes once (not counting the TOC).[1] Burr uses Summis desiderantes once and witch-bull once.[2] Regardless, there is a redirect from Summis desiderantes. --Jtir 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Being as its not a proper title, but just an incipit, it makes sense to me to use a complete grammatical unit. Savidan 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the names at Wikisource are reversed from what they are here. --Jtir 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The text of the bull will establish its incipit. Whether the conventional incipit, usually two words, is a complete grammatical unit or or whether it appeals to Wikipedians' logic is immaterial. Though there's no firmly consistent usage in the professional articles that are called up at JSTOR by searching "Summis desiderantes" (which brings up "Summis desiderantes affectibus"), we might do well to move this article to Summis desiderantes. At least Wikipedia doesn't incorrectly capitalize it — Summis Desiderantes Affectibus — as I see in some articles. --Wetman 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the policy for article naming.
Montague Summers consistently uses Summis desiderantes affectibus, which he translates as "DESIRING with the most hearfelt anxiety".(sic)[3][4][5]
Another possible source (copied from Malleus Maleficarum):
Volume 1 is the Latin text of the first edition of 1486-7 with annotations and an introduction. Volume 2 is an English translation with explanatory notes.
"Incipits were often written in a different script or color from the rest of the work of which they were a part." This suggests looking at a manuscript.
--Jtir 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who did the English translation in Burr?

Kors and Peters reprint the English translation from Burr, but Burr doesn't seem to say who did the translation. --Jtir 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)