Mon Jun 10 16:16:07 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 16:16:07 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA26319; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:13:52 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 15:10 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3833

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote,
in part:

>>>>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are
>>>>generally complete or nearly?

[...]

>>
>>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?

There shouldn't be. By the ninth century, papyrus had ceased to
be used for manuscript copying but paper had not yet come into use.

>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.

I wouldn't think this would have much effect. Yes, a large book would
be more subject to damage -- but a minuscule which contained nearly the
whole Bible (e.g. 33, which dates from this century) would presumably
be more fragile than an uncial of only one part of scripture.

>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")?

A few ideas that occur to me.

* The obvious: That minuscules were better cared for (presumably because
  they used the writing style that people in later centuries were used
  to).

* Different rates of adoption: Perhaps minuscules were adopted sooner
  in areas that took better care of books, or where the climate was
  more conducive to preservation of books.

* The data is defective. Maybe paleography is not as accurate as assumed.
  (This is not an attack on anyone; just an attempt to list all possible
  explanations.) A few misdated manuscripts could completely alter these
  results.
  In assessing this explanation, it might also be worth remembering that
  the period prior to the ninth century was very hard on manuscripts. As
  I recall, there are no more than two substantial manuscripts from the
  eighth century (L and possibly Psi), and *none* from the seventh. In the
  sixth we find some fairly long manuscripts (e.g. N), but again, nothing
  complete. If, perhaps, the "ninth century" uncials are in fact a little
  older than the "ninth century" minuscules, it might explain the
  discrepancy.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back