zhugin

Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r. Why do you say that the manuscript clearly contains an 'e' (in Chr*stianos)?

spin

Close observation favours Andresen.

First, the indication of the space between the "i" and the /st/ is notable, though not compelling, but, second, one should observe that the /ri/ combination is written as a digraph -- here the /i/ is done in two movements: a strong short downward and rightward movement and then a long flick back downward and leftward. You can observe this in the /ri/ of "Christus", of "Tiberio" and so on down the page, "originem", "crimine", "ludibria", "interirent" and "aurigae", with the only apparent exception of "primum", which is a scribal error -- the /r/ was omitted and later added above. The "i" in Christianos" is fishy, but how such a correction, ie /e/ -> /i/, could have happened seems difficult: all corrections we can see have been through addition, usually above the line; subtraction, ie ink or even surface removal, doesn't seem to fit, though it would be the best explanation of the evidence.

ETA: Carrier's comment that the scribe "goofed" regarding the /ri/ is interesting.


spin

Roger Pearse

Spacing. The letter space is too wide for an i, and just right for an e. There is evidence of letters fading, or not being reproduced by the photo. The bit visible is a bit like the left of an e.

But ... I'm having nagging doubts, on reexamining the (wretched) photograph. Comparing the letter with the word 'nominis' at the end, tho, I'm not sure. It looks very like those 'i's...

Has there been an erasure here, I wonder? Has 'e' been scraped off and 'i' inserted? Or is it simply that the photograph doesn't pick up the rest of the letter?

zhugin

Could the word have looked something like this - http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chrestll8.png (the "bulb" of the e inserted from "appellabat")?

zhugin

I don't understand this. Anyone who does?

La "e" scritta in origine, della quale nella rasura sono ancora visibli le tracce, è stata mutata in "i" sopprimendone l'occhiello superiore e la linea orizzontale, mentre la parte superstite è stata ritoccata, a mio parere con lo stresso inchiostro e della stessa mano, in modo da farne una "i". Un'altra mano ha aggiunto il segno sulla "i" e il tratto d'unione tra "i" ed s. (Teresa Lodi, director of Biblioteca Laurenziana Medicea, quoted in Fuchs, Tacitus über die Christen, 1950, p. 70)

Roger Pearse

Yuk. How does this grab you? (for my Italian is rather ropey)

The "e" written originally, of which in the erased area the traces are still visible, has been changed into an "i" [not quite sure about the next bit] by removing the top loop and the horizontal line, while the part remaining has been overwritten, in my opinion, in heavier ink and by the same hand, so as to create an "i". Another hand has added the mark over the "i" and linked the "i" and the "s".

Roger Pearse

I suspect so. Thanks for the image (you can embed them in the page here, you know).

zhugin

I got this from an Italian:

The "e", written in the beginning, of which there are still signs left in the erased area, was changed in "i" taking out the upper circle and the and the horizontal line, while the remaining part was corrected, according to me with the same ink and the same hand, towards an "i". an other hand added a sign on the "i" and the connecting line between "i" and "s".

zhugin

Does this mean Carrier didn't refute Fuchs, because he didn't read what Fuchs based his opinion on?

andrewcriddle

What is particularly interesting here is the suggestion that although "e" was original it was corrected to "i" by the first hand ie by the orignal copyist (with tidying up by a later corrector).


This scenario, original "chrestianos" corrected almost immediately to "christianos", might mean that "chrestianos" was simply a mistake by the original copyist which he immediately sought to remedy.

Andrew Criddle