Mon Jun 10 15:33:04 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 15:33:04 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA25964; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:31:14 -0400
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:30:09 -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: 3567
At 12:37 PM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote:
>>At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>>>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.
>
>I think it's a bit more complicated than that. By that argument,
>survival rates for uncials and minuscules should be the same for
>the centuries they overlap (IX and X).
>
>I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed,
>since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century
>minuscules and uncials. I may have missed one or two (this was
>obviously a very quick scan), *but*
>
>Of 15 minuscules from the ninth century, *all* are significant (50+
>folios). Most are complete.
>
>Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more
>or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20
>folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than
>minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios.
>
>Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be
>more likely to have been damaged.
You're right --that is interesting (although we still have to separate out
the age affect: cf your reference to papyri above).
A couple of things come to mind. First, I wonder if there was any
significant correlation between Uncial/Minscule scripy and book material
during this period?
If not, it would be useful to know what (if any) patterns of damage the
Uncials exhibit. If so, could we infer that was there something about the
larger characters that tended to make the books more prone to damage?
For example, is the binding the culprit here? The larger size of the
characters would tend to put the binding under greater stress because books
would need to be thicker for an equal amount of text (e.g. it's all I can
do to keep my 20's vintage Liddel-Scott together, but I have even older
magazines that are perfectly happy with a couple of staples). There's also
the minor affect that fewer characters per page means proportionally more
page turning. A damaged or broken binding will clearly put the leaves at
greater risk.
More generally would a physically smaller book be more or less likely to
survive (i.e. is it safer because it presents a smaller "target")?
Nichael
nichael@sover.net __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC
Back