[ntmss-svn] r448 - trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610

[Rachel at crosswire.org]

Author: Rachel
Date: 2013-07-03 03:14:41 -0700 (Wed, 03 Jul 2013)
New Revision: 448

Added:
   trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/2561 Correctors-DCP.docx
   trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/325610_queries_DCP_comments-acm
   trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/Correctors 2561 - ACM.docx
Log:
Documents relating to the correctors of 325610 added.

Added: trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/2561 Correctors-DCP.docx
===================================================================
(Binary files differ)


Property changes on: trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/2561 Correctors-DCP.docx
___________________________________________________________________
Added: svn:mime-type
   + application/octet-stream

Added: trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/325610_queries_DCP_comments-acm
===================================================================
--- trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/325610_queries_DCP_comments-acm	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/325610_queries_DCP_comments-acm	2013-07-03 10:14:41 UTC (rev 448)
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+	*** My comments are flagged by indented text and *** - acm.
+
+
+
+
+C1 group is scriptorium and may include C* = cf. 21.3 [app][*]ηλθον[\*][C1]εξηλθον[\C1][\app]
+Corrections are in similar hand to p.m. and neatly made in dark ink. Includes mostly textual changes.
+
+
+	*** C1 may include some C2 corrections too.  eg. I am not sure that 243r line 2 is C1, but may be C2.  The same goes with the corrections on 244r of itacisms.  I haven't looked at all the C1 corrections as they are the most numerous - this is just a first impression.  
+
+
+
+
+C2 is a yellow less tidy set of hands, mostly concerned with spelling and esp. itacism. I have included here a series of word order changes mostly in the later chapters marked with Α Β Γ Δ , but not confidently. There are also some similar neater changes of order, probably C1, but I picked up on this late and may have been inconsistent.
+
+	*** C2 I am unsure of.  These at first seem to be corrections above the line of text, rather than made to the letters themselves.  However, in the long addition 	at the bottom of 247r we have a separate hand correcting an itacism within the correction.  This is ascribed to C2 because C1 made the correction, and has the right ink colour.  However, it is made within the line of text not above it so does not conform to the other corrections so far.  There is also some doubt about C1/C2 order on 256v?  
+
+
+
+There is a hand which notes changes in the margin with a iota with a diaeresis which may be another C1 hand, I don't know.
+
+	*** This caret is similar to others I have seen in the Cb hands in Sinaiticus.  The wave to the stroke shows it is a caret rather than an iota. e.g. on f264r.  This could well be a separate hand as I would have expected a C2 hand to simply add a couple of letters over the text line, rather than using a caret and placing them in the margin.  Ink colour is very similar to C2 though, as is letter shape.  
+
+
+
+C3 is a few slightly shaky thin-stroked corrections.
+
+	*** I am happy with this as a distinct hand.
+
+
+
+C4 is a few corrections in thick strokes and black ink. 
+
+	*** Not sure about 280r επεσον - a bit too orange! The first one on 266r may also 	just appear darker as it is over an erasure and ink can act oddly when the parchment is roughed up.  Funny how the rest are bunched together on 269v.
+
+
+
+One may be able to associate the different deletions with hands - erasure may be C1, crossing out C2 ??
+
+	*** See esp. f245v for examples of deletions including horizontal crossing out (και), dots around words (ναι and δε). I have also seen neat double strokes to cross out letters (e.g. 254v), and double deletion points (e.g. 261v C2 correction [app][*]συνετηθεντο[\*][C2]συνετεθηντο[\C2][\app]). Not to mention erasures!  
+
+
+
+
+4.53: does it have a correction οτι?
+
+	*** Yes - directly over the omicron is the sign for οτι (see Thompson, Handbook of 	Gk and Latin Pal., p96). A correction by C* is likely as the ink matches so closely.  This is a correction though, as * rarely writes above the line of text.
+
+
+
+6.14: traces of ει in erased text
+
+	*** The shape of the erasure could certainly indicate the presence of ει, but 		without actual ink evidence it will have to remain underdotted.
+
+
+
+6.34, 8.28 αλλα : C4? Go with C2 for the moment
+
+	*** Not sure.
+
+
+7.22, 23: has the upsilon been put back in?
+
+	*** In 7.19 (first line of f254v) there is a possibility (but not likely!) that the erasure has been written over to reinsert the upsilon into μωυσης.  It is more 	likely an ineffective erasure.  In 7.22 I think there are two crossing out lines, and that the upsilon is not reinserted (both occurrences).  The same goes for 7.23 - two crossing out marks and no reinsertion.
+
+
+7.33: check ουν correction
+
+	*** It is definitely there, complete with accent, just over the line of text 		between the ειπεν and the ο.  A very thick nib or watery ink though, to make the strokes so fat!
+
+
+256v addition - text erased opposite entry mark - by scribe of second addition to fit in addition? Is it some of εν αρχαιοις αντιγραφοις ?
+
+	*** I'm struggling to see where the erased text is.  I am also wondering which hand came first?  The smaller hand at the top would make sense in that you would start a long addition at the top of the page not knowing exactly how much space would be needed.  The text may then have been enlarged for ease of use across the bottom of this page and the next.  This means though that C1 was done after C2 (check the first few letters of C1 and C2 to check which is which as one has επορευθη and the other απηλθεν.)?  Or, did the smaller hand at the top come second, and fitted in exactly?
+
+
+
+9.30, check abbreviation for γαρ. Also I'm sceptical about a correction having been made - didn't it always read υ?
+
+	*** I agree that the υμεις was never ημεις.  The crossing on the upsilon (immediately erased) and the double deletion points must have distracted me! If anything the scribe was going to change υμεις to ημεις but stopped halfway through.  As for the γαρ correction over the line above - it still looks like a lower case gamma with a cross bar to me!  Compare the first and second examples in 	Thompson's Gk and Lat. Pal, p95.  It's remarkably similar.  Unless you have a better suggestion?!
+
+
+
+10.18 is this a double correction? - η - ι - ει ?
+
+	*** [app][*]θηναι[\*][C2]θειναι[\C2][\app] I suspect these two letters were penned 	at the same time, along with the nice caret to mark them.  I can't see anything to suggest otherwise.
+
+
+
+15.2 another double correction, this time the same twice, one over and one above the epsilon?
+
+	*** I assume we are looking at the correction of ερει to αιρει. If I'm honest, I'm 	struggling to turn the marks on the epsilon into an alpha-iota shape in my mind!  I can see two crossing out marks again though (both nearly vertical) - double 	crossing out marks seem to be a feature.  As for the correction over the line of text, I think there is more chance that this has been written over or reinforced (so maybe that's what you meant).  There is a possibility that the first αι was done in the more yellowy ink and was smaller and rounder.  This was reinforced by a darker ink, which squared off the alpha, and extended the iota.  A bit tenuous though.
+
+16.7 reading πεμπω dubious and therefore correction ditto
+
+	*** There is definitely evidence of ink loss after the omega.  As most punctuation 	in this area appears to be small and round, the loss of an iota adscript is a likely possibility.  The shape is consistent with the adscript on the end of the line above.  However, this could just be ink loss, rather than a purposeful correction, as there is evidence of this loss in the surrounding letters.
+
+
+18.36: is ην η a correction or p.m.?
+
+	*** I think the first large eta is p.m. so the text originally ran η |L|βασιλεια η 	εμη.  I then think a corrector added in an orange-coloured ink the nu at the end of the line to form ην, and the η at the left of the line below.  Apart from the change in ink, this is evidenced by the corrector's eta now being placed into 	the margin, where the enlarged capitals are.  The nu lacks the flow of the  original hand, being very straight, and the eta is more upright than the p.m. which has a tendency to lean to the right.
+[app][*]η[\*][C]ην η[\C][\app] is correct.
+
+
+
+19.17 [app][*]εβραιστηι[\*][C]εβραιστι[\C][\app] Is there a correction?
+
+	*** I think the eta has double deletion points over the top of it in an orange-coloured ink.  These would not be an original diaeresis as we already have one of 	those earlier in the word (over the iota), which has longer strokes in a matching ink to the p.m..
+
+

Added: trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/Correctors 2561 - ACM.docx
===================================================================
(Binary files differ)


Property changes on: trunk/Level 1 In Progress/04_325610/Correctors 2561 - ACM.docx
___________________________________________________________________
Added: svn:mime-type
   + application/octet-stream