Richard Carrier

I saw the original Rostagno photo (that is, the published print) of folio 38r (vol. 7:2, 1902, of the Codices Graeci et Latini Photgraphice Depicti). It is much larger than in Fuchs, but I must say it's an awful photograph, grainy or washed out, overall badly printed (although the Fuchs cut is blurry and shrunk, so is actually worse even though it looks better). I suspect the problem in Rostagno is the printer's, not the photo, since the facing page is a much better print (although still not sufficient to discern the kind of details we need, but certain items would have been much clearer on the folio of our interest had that photo printed as well as the facing one did).

BTW, I wouldn't discount a scan from microfilm. That could be worse (I've seen plenty of mss. whose microfilms are just deplorable), or it could contain visible data not available on the published print (esp. if it's color microfilm).

From what I can tell from the published print:

(1) What I thought was a ligature across the bottom from /i/ to /s/ is not a ligature at all but a stray mark or defect in the parchment. It does not have any form that would make sense even as a "later inserted" ligature (because it doesn't ligature anything and is at a slight angle, almost as if it were a slip of the pen--or not in fact even ink). That eliminates (as far as I'm concerned) my previous argument concerning that.

(2) There is a darkness on the parchment under the /i/ in a pattern that could be an erased /e/ complete with an erased ligature to the middle of the /s/ exactly where an /e/ would thus attach, but I honestly can't say whether that's really there because it's there or it just seems to be there because I'm trying hard to see it there. It's so faint, and there are many even darker discolorations all across the print, I can't say this with any confidence.

(3) There is an acute accent mark above the /i/ just as there are above many (but by no means all) /i/'s in the ms. (which accent mark does not appear above any /e/'s I could find on a quick scan of both folios 38r and 38v), yet this mark is slightly further to the right than I would expect (as if it were once above an /i/ further to the right that was erased) and yet also higher than I expect (conveniently just above the darkened area that would be the erased /e/) so I don't know what we can conclude from this.

(4) I checked many other folios and almost all the marginalia are bookmarks. I conclude these are as well. In fact, further above on the same folio (in a section not included in Fuch's photo, which is a crop of the whole folio) is a complete marginal note explaining that this is the section where the Christians are executed for burning the city (hence Christiani appears twice in the margin on folio 38r, the case we see and again above it).

(5) I suspect the marginalia were added by a different hand (though writing in a very similar style), or else the scribe deliberately used somewhat different lettering for the notes.

(6) There is no doubt that Christus has not been altered in any way (i.e. there was never any /e/ in that word).

(7) One thing I can see more clearly on this enlarged print is that the "new" /i/ is without doubt almost identical in form to other /i/'s on the same page (so much so it's hard to imagine another scribe wrote it, although the form is simple enough no certainty can be had on that). Whether this just happens by chance to match part of an /e/ with the rest erased is possible but indiscernible.

Though this is a dissatisfyingly awful print (I would have preferred more certainty in my findings), it's enough to persuade me to reverse my position and conclude that the ms. did say something else (quite possibly /e/) and was corrected by erasure, and that this was probably done after the word was completed (if not the whole ms.). I'd measure my certainty of all this at around 60% (which is weak, but good enough).

That still doesn't resolve whether the original letter was a mistake (or, if so, who made the mistake). As I've seen mistakes like this constantly in mss. (even in places where I would normally imagine such a mistake to be unthinkable), arguments from prior probability don't really weigh much here. The most that can be said is that the ms. now says Christianos whether that was an emendation or an informed correction, and it always said Christus, never Chrestus.

Roger Pearse

Microfilms can be terrible. There is one instance of a published text where there was a hole in the parchment. The hole was invisible in the microfilm, leading scholars to puzzle over these extra letters.

Most interesting. Drat the man for chopping that bit.

I felt the hand was a little different, but haven't analysed it.

Good to have that clarified.

We clearly need a much better photograph of this page before we can say more.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

zhugin

See, about a new examination of the manuscript this article.

Roger Pearse

... not found.

Toto

The link used to work.

zhugin

It should work now.

If someone wants to refer to the article, I think it's better to wait until it's published in the JHC.

Toto

Thanks - it is pertinent information for this discussion. I have saved a copy this time.

the_cave

What are the chances that the earliest surviving manuscript of this passage just happens to contain the correction from "Chrestian" to "Christian"?

One explanation: this scribe was a French scribe, knew "Chretien," and began to write it accidentally. He corrected his mistake.

Another explanation: There are only one or two links in the transcription chain from the interpolation to the Second Medicean manuscript. Perhaps it was even made from whichever copy originally had "Chrestians" (whether Tacitean or an interpolation). One consideration to keep in mind is that the First Medicean manuscript dates to the 9th century. It would be odd if the missing portion of the First Medicean did not contain "Chrestian", unless the passage were an interpolation, and the First Medicean represents a separate transmission history.

zhugin

I have now gotten, from the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, the ultraviolet photo of the manuscript folio, and the erased e in Chrestianos is clearly visible:

spin

Who'da guessed?


spin