Carmen de martyrio Maccabaeorum is duplicated

[PonteIneptique]

Both texts urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0292a.stoa004.opp-lat1 and urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0149p.stoa001.opp-lat1 are actually the same text but in two different textgroups.

According to http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/carmen-de-martyrio-maccabaeorum-e227210 , they have been attributed to both over the time and I am wondering if it could be a mistake from CSEL over the time.

[PonteIneptique]

They seem to be the same, but I did not check the whole thing

[AlisonBabeu]

First question @PonteIneptique I think you mean urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0149p.stoa002.opp-lat1 "De Martyrio Maccabeorum" by Pseudo-Hiarlius not urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0149p.stoa001.opp-lat1 "De Evangelio." From looking at the two texts Pseudo Hilarius-"De Martyrio Maccabeorum" and Marius Victorinus "De Machabeis" in the repository, they do appear to quite possibly be two versions of the same work (although they are not exact by any means).

I'm not sure if I would approach cataloging/dividing these texts any differently because there is no certain authority attribution and by having them in two places, under two author attributions (Pseudo Hilarius and Marius Victorinus) it seems to reflect the current state of scholarship. Any thoughts @sonofmun ?

[PonteIneptique]

So, my two cents on this : I have read somewhere after posting the issue that the two texts might have a small variant in CSEL, because in the middle ages, people started to attribute both to two different authors, while it was clearly anonymous, and they were drawn from two (very close but) different families. If only I kept my source...

[sonofmun]

If we think the two are close enough, we could use extended metadata to term one a version of the other: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isVersionOf
Although it also appears that isVersionOf implied a directed relationship, i.e., it says that one work comes from another work as opposed to a more general relationship.