the_cave

Fascinating.

Once again, I have to ask how is that we just happen to have the manuscript where this change was made? (i.e. how many manuscripts of Annals 15 could there have been, if the one where this correction was made is the earliest one we have)

A related question is whether this correction was made during the writing, or afterwards. And if made during the writing, was this a correction from the earlier transcript, or (as Carrier has suggested) a scribal error that was corrected by the very same scribe? (And if the latter, why did he make it? I have suggested he may have been French, and was writing on auto-pilot, as though writing "Chretien")

spin

Post #4 in this thread.

Roger Pearse

Well done. This is the sort of thing we need; fresh photos of the primary source.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

But I assume "Chretien" comes from popular usage of "Chrestianus" in late Roman times, as attested by Tertullian and others--not from widespread knowledge of Annals 15.44!

Richard Carrier

Awesome. As I noted to you in private email, good work on getting that image. It's conclusive--even more visible, IMO, when not enlarged, since the blurriness interferes with the clarity: the image you sent me is even clearer when viewed at a lower magnification.

This is also a really good teaching example of the problems with photo prints vs. actual photographs (and, by extension, inspection in person). I'll be filing these examples away for that very use someday.

Roger Pearse

I don't suppose that an email to the Laurentian would get them to put it online? It is a really interesting photo, of wide interest. Zhugin, would you like to ask your contact there if they'd consider it?

I'd be willing to write and second that, if it would help.

spin

Does this contradict any presupposition in post #4?

spin

Thirded.


spin

the_cave

Then if we all agree on that, great--now how do we decide if it was just a mistake, or a reproduction from an earlier copy? Unfortunately I'm not sure that we can. (The question of who made the correction is a little beside the point, I guess.) But then I'm not sure it matters, either, though it is interesting.

Roger Pearse

One possible approach would be to go through the Ms. and look for other errors and corrections. We need more data before we could decide, I suggest.

All the best,

Roger Pearse