Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 07:11 CDT

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
wrote, om part:

>(1) the same graph shows a continuing growth from the 9th - 13th centuries,
>but a decline in extant MSS from the 14th - 16th centuries.  Certain
>historical occurrences as well as a saturation of MSS to available
>churches may serve to explain this particular phenomenon;

I would imagine that this has been previously studied, but I would
mention three possible explanations for the decline in numbers starting
in century XIII:

* The decline of the Byzantine Empire. Although the Ottomans, like most
  of Islam, were tolerant of Christianity, toleration is not the same
  as encouragement. The monasteries must have been much poorer.

* The Black Death. Not only did this cut the population by a third
  in the latter part of this period, but it also severely damaged
  the economy. A weak economy would have less surplus to support
  such luxuries as manuscripts and the scribes that copied them.

* The transition to paper, which was taking place during this period.
  Although early paper, being made of cloth, was far sturdier than this
  cheap stuff we use nowadays, it was not as robust as parchment.
  Might not paper manuscripts have been destroyed far more easily?

>(2) this assumption still does not account adequately for the total number
>of extant MSS dropping from a very large number in the 10th - 9th
>centuries to a mere trickle in the 8th - 4th centuries.  A massive and
>systematic destruction of the uncial exemplars must have taken place to
>produce such a lopsided preservation of documents.

That sixth to eight century manuscripts were destroyed is evident from
the figures already cited. But were the manuscripts destroyed because
they were uncials? How, then, does one explain the large number of
ninth and tenth century uncials which survive largely intact (e.g.
Fe Fp Ge Gp He Ke Kap Lap M S U V X Y Gamma Delta Pi etc.)?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:22:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> I would mention three possible explanations for the decline in numbers 
> starting in century XIII:

>   as encouragement. The monasteries must have been much poorer.

This does not explain the continuing growth in numbers during centuries 
9-12, which levels off in century 13.  The same historical situation 
existed in the preceding as well as the following centuries, and in 
itself should not have affected the number of MSS.
 
>   such luxuries as manuscripts and the scribes that copied them.

Did the Black Death really affect the Balkans and Turkey as much as it did
Western Europe?  Also a bad analogy, since it does not seem that the Latin
manuscript trade in western Europe suffered.  Certainly the number of
extant MSS declines in centuries 14-15, but not by anywhere near a third; 
in fact even with the decline, the total number of extant MSS from either 
century 14 or 15 exceeds that available in centuries 9 and 10 combined.  
We are talking only of a small decline -- not matters turning back to a 
trickle, as the pre-9th century uncial situation happens to be.

>   Might not paper manuscripts have been destroyed far more easily?

This has more merit, and may explain some of the decline, but I would not 
think it explains all of it.  I still think that basically a saturation 
point had been reached, and MSS simply were not continuing to be copied 
in an increasing manner, but primarily to replace those which were lost 
or destroyed.  Given the accidents of history, the slight decline in 
number over the 14th and 15th centuries is not really very significant.

> Fe Fp Ge Gp He Ke Kap Lap M S U V X Y Gamma Delta Pi etc.)?

I would ask why do any uncials survive, if Lake were totally correct?  
Even with a systematic destruction of uncials after a minuscule exemplar 
was made, some of those uncials might (and did) escape such destruction), 
for all kinds of varying reasons, whether a MS had been used in a great 
church, or was the special property of a favored abbot, etc.  

It even may be the case that those 9th and 10th century uncials you
mentioned simply never were copied into minuscule form, and hence were not
subject to destruction (which is more likely than not, since no one is yet
claiming any minuscules to be genealogically descended from those specific
uncials). 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~