by Thomas Valentine
Douay-Rheims was the first English translation from the Latin Vulgate. It was criticised as too slavish to the Latin and fundamentally unreadable. IIRC, Douay was the monastery which trained papist priests for England. Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims to make it more readable.
Some points about the transcription (no particular order):
1. Except for the word 'O', which I have consistently capitalised even though it appeared in lower case, I have maintained capitalised words as they appear. For instance, the word 'Saints' often appeared capitalised, but sometimes not: I have maintained the inconsistency.
2. The punctuation of this edition seems haphazard. I have a good number of changes, but not nearly enough.
3. There are a LOT of words that are archaic (I've learnt quite a few new words such as 'sculptil' and 'magnifically'): don't assume that because you don't recognise the word it isn't really a word. There are *very few* places where I have transcribed the letters exactly because of being unable to determine the proper equivalent.
4. There are plenty of mistakes in the edition. I have corrected some obvious ones, but I have no doubt I have missed others. Words often seem to be missing. I have -- rarely -- added words, but not knowing whether the words were missing because of typesetting errors or because the words were missing in Latin (because not needed), I have been very reluctant to add words.
5. The text is not good English, at least by modern standards. Sometimes the Latinisations are downright funny (my favourite: 'dilate thy mouth and I will fill it'). Sometimes the text doesn't even make sense.
6. Where I was absolutely certain of the modern spelling of a name, I used it. Otherwise, I transcribed names exactly.
7. The transcription was from a microfilm of a 1635 edition. I have recently been able to borrow a hard copy reprint of a 1609 edition. I will be checking my transcription against the latter and may be making tweaks/adjustments to what I've prepared.
8. There are different words spelt the same in the text that are no longer spelt the same (e.g. 'hart' for both 'hart' and 'heart'; 'power' for both 'power' and 'pour'). I've made educated guesses, often with reference to the Challoner edition. I've updated spellings where the old spelling no longer works (e.g. for 'commeth' I've typed 'cometh'). Archaisms (e.g. 'shew') have been retained.