Mon Jun 10 12:19:57 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 12:19:57 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA25039; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:18:10 -0400
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:17:12 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1431

At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>TCers --
>
>Just wondering aloud here....
>
>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are
>generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are
>fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check
>of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of
>minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not
>of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of
>single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal.
>
>Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered
>from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually
>kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might
>help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's
>ancestors?

Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in
general).  Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?)
miniscules after.

Also, there may be a "false resonance" here.  Presumably the total number
of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until
the introduction of printing.  Viewed in this way it would make sense that
there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than
older(=Uncial) manuscripts.

Nichael
nichael@sover.net                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

Back