![]() A few days later, we find him in the cozy atmosphere of his Parisian apartment. The Committee members rave over the exquisitely painted motifs and calligraphy. Four-hundred hours to create three illuminated backdrops that will adorn mother-of-pearl altar canons from Bethlehem. ![]() In some cases, we may even find a group of manuscripts where the same accidental error is copied from one to another, allowing us to establish textual relationships between manuscripts, useful for understanding the history of the transmission of a text.It’s the September 2020 meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Terra Sancta Museum, and Olivier Naude, who was invited to participate in a working session, carefully reveals the delicate sheets he has produced for the Museum. “What you see before you represent more than 400 hours of work” he humbly lets slip. Mistakes resulting from eyeskip tell us something about the process and pitfalls of copying by hand, and the role of the later corrector/reader. It’s interesting to note that word-separation is not standardised in this manuscript its probable that the exemplar from which the scribe was copying was not standardised either, which may have made mistakes of this type even more easy to make. Rather than moving on to ‘ quomodo dixit‘, the scribe’s eye jumped back to the preceding sentence and repeated the line beginning ‘ quomodo facit‘. Here the problem seems to have been provoked by the recurrence of the word quomodo (as indicated). As we can see, it was noticed by a later reader, who boxed the duplicated line half-way down the page. This manuscript, the Scholiasta Gronovianus (VLQ 130), a tenth-century copy of a collection of commentaries on Cicero’s speeches, contains an example of this type, an error termed dittography. Photo: Irene O’DalyĮyeskip could result in omission, as demonstrated, but could also result in repetition of text. Leiden UB, VLQ 130, the Scholiasta Gronovianus, f. As we can see Dungal rectified the error by scraping out the misplaced line, then replacing it with the necessary two lines of correct text. The technical name for the omission of text due to the scribe’s eye skipping from one occurrence of a phrase to the next is haplography. Reconstructing the mistake, it’s likely that the scribe omitted line 2, proceeding straight to line 3. If we look at the text of the four lines highlighted above, we can see that lines 1 and 2 are quite similar – both end in ‘ pauxillis atque minutis’. That’s because Dungal has replaced one line of poetry with two – adding something that the original scribe had missed. The change in hand is clearly visible and, moreover, the correction has a sort of squashed aspect. We can see Dungal at work on this page (f. ![]() Not only is it one of the earliest medieval copies of the text, but it has been corrected by a scribe whose identity we know – the Irish monk Dungal. This ninth-century book produced at the palace school of the famous emperor Charlemagne is one of the treasures of Leiden’s collection – a copy of the Roman poet Lucretius’ De rerum natura (VLF 30). 22rġ] ossa uidelicet e pauxillis atque minutisĢ] ossibus hic et de pauxillis atque minutisģ] uiceribus uiscus gigni sanguenque creariĤ] sanguinis inter se multis coeuentibus guttis Leiden UB, VLF 30, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, f.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |