zhugin

As early as 1906, Fischer reproduces the relevant text in Cornelius Tacitus' Annales 15:44, as following: "ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt".

There has been a discussion about whether or not the first manuscript says Christianos or Chrestianos. Harald Fuchs said Chrestianos in 1950, but Richard Carrier says Christianos today (http://www.freewebs.com/lesgnats/MIICarrier.JPG).

Fuchs quotes G. Andresen (1906):

”Man bemerkt, das zwischen i und st ein Zwischenraum vorhanden ist, den eine spätere Hand durch einen Verbindungsstrich überbrückt hat. Dann erkennt man, dass das i aus ursprünglichem e korrigiert ist. Durch diese Korrektur ist eben jener leere Zwischenraum erst entstanden, den das e, weil es mit seinem oberen Teil nach rechts reichte, ausgefüllt hatte. Wer die Korrektur vorgenommen hat, ob der Schreiber oder eine spätere Hand, vermag ich mit Bestimmtheit nicht zu sagen. Doch bin ich geneigt zu glauben, dass der Schreiber, was er ursprünglich geschrieben hatte, in seiner Vorlage gefunden hat, nämlich Chrestianos, obwohl sogleich Christus folgt."

(Bad translation:
"One notices, that between i and st a gap is present, which a later hand by a connecting line has overbridged. Then one recognizes that the i is corrected from an original e. By this correction evenly that empty gap is had only developed, that the e, because it was enough to the right with its top, had filled out. Who made the correction,
whether the writer or a later hand, I am not able to say with certainty. But am I bent to believe that the writer, what he had originally written in its collecting main found, i.e. Chrestianos, although immediately Christ follows.")

The manuscript is available at http://www.freewebs.com/lesgnats/mII.png.

What do you think? Was the original letter an i or an e in this manuscript?

vid

I don't see reason why somebody would change "i" to "e" so late, but changing e to i is completely understandable. Arguing that "e" version is mistake is unlikely, considering that we have word "chrestians" attested elsewhere. Therefor, I think "e" is original.

zhugin

Indeed, but the question is if there were an e-version at all. Carrier seems to claim there were not.

spin

Umm, what's the French word for "christian" and where does it come from?


spin

zhugin

I mean in the manuscript, not in reality.
The question is: Was there an e in this manuscript or not?

andrewcriddle

FWIW I posted on this some time ago christianos or chrestianos

Unfortunately I didn't note my exact sources and I don't now remember them with confidence.

Andrew Criddle

zhugin

I only want to know what you think about the arguments regarding this particular manuscript. That the earlier post does not discuss, I think.

Is Carrier right or is Andresen, or could there be other explanations of the text?

Now there is a link to the manuscript, which I can see none in the earlier post.

Toto

Where is that quote from Richard Carrier from? A private email?

zhugin

Yes.

Roger Pearse

The manuscript clearly contains an 'e' in the body of the text, although the photograph is rubbish and doesn't display it clearly. What is interesting is that the marginal note does not look to me like a correction. It says "christiani". Above it is a note 'nero', and below it another of similar sort.

I have found in some mss marginal notes which indicate points of interest. Sometimes they are contemporary; often later. The reason is obvious; most people can't skim-read a page of Latin in the Beneventan hand, and so if you labour through it, you'd put a quick note against bits you might want to find again later.

Not sure if this has happened here, as we'd need to see more folios; but it would hardly be surprising. If it *is* christiani, this would not be a correction for chrestianos; wrong case.

Does anyone know what folio number this is? I keep toying with the idea of getting a colour photo from the Laurentian.

Thank you, by the way, for posting the image. I've taken a copy and linked to it from my Tacitus manuscripts page.