Rylands MS French 5 is a thirteenth-century Bible picture book consisting of a single pictorial cycle depicting scenes from the Old Testament. The manuscript is remarkable for the predominance of its imagery and the erasures that selectively mar its otherwise unspoiled folios. The sites of these erasures can be categorised as evil, obscene, and divine subjects. Examining each in turn, I hope to demonstrate the importance of both the Bible picture book tradition and manuscript erasure for considerations of later medieval visuality. Where the Bible picture book encapsulates thirteenth-century confidence in the visual sense, the erasures signal the boundaries of this confidence, revealing a paradoxical mode of sight in which ocular passions merge and clash. In turn, these findings problematise attempts to theorise a homogenous thirteenth-century visuality, as different understandings of vision surfaced in the decades after the production of MS French 5 and played out in impassioned and contradictory ways on the manuscript page.
Rylands MS French 5 是一部 13 世纪的圣经图画书，由描绘《旧约圣经》场景的单幅图画组成。该手稿的显著特点是其图像的主导地位，以及有选择性地对其原本未受损伤的对开页进行的擦除。这些擦除的地点可分为邪恶、淫秽和神圣主题。通过逐一研究，我希望证明《圣经》图画书传统和手稿擦除对于中世纪后期视觉性研究的重要性。圣经图画书体现了 13 世纪对视觉感官的自信，而手稿擦除则标志着这种自信的界限，揭示了一种矛盾的视觉模式，在这种模式中，视觉激情既相互融合又相互冲突。反过来，这些发现也对试图将 13 世纪视觉性同质化的理论提出了质疑，因为不同的视觉理解在《法文版 MS 5》问世后的几十年间浮出水面，并在手稿页面上以激昂和矛盾的方式展现出来。
{"title":"Sinful, Sexual, Sacred: Locating a Thirteenth-Century Visuality through the Selective Erasures in Rylands MS French 5","authors":"Molly Lewis","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.2.1","url":null,"abstract":"Rylands MS French 5 is a thirteenth-century Bible picture book consisting of a\u0000 single pictorial cycle depicting scenes from the Old Testament. The manuscript\u0000 is remarkable for the predominance of its imagery and the erasures that\u0000 selectively mar its otherwise unspoiled folios. The sites of these erasures can\u0000 be categorised as evil, obscene, and divine subjects. Examining each in turn, I\u0000 hope to demonstrate the importance of both the Bible picture book tradition and\u0000 manuscript erasure for considerations of later medieval visuality. Where the\u0000 Bible picture book encapsulates thirteenth-century confidence in the visual\u0000 sense, the erasures signal the boundaries of this confidence, revealing a\u0000 paradoxical mode of sight in which ocular passions merge and clash. In turn,\u0000 these findings problematise attempts to theorise a homogenous thirteenth-century\u0000 visuality, as different understandings of vision surfaced in the decades after\u0000 the production of MS French 5 and played out in impassioned and contradictory\u0000 ways on the manuscript page.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"4 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138948703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is part II of a two-part article on the questions on the Sentences of the Servite Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna. This part focuses on the doctrine and sources of the work, which would become the theological guide for the Order by the end of the Middle Ages. An appendix offers a catalogue of the theses Lorenzo defended: conservative but also up to date at a time when radical ideas were spreading. His explicit citations suggest that he was well versed in fourteenth-century theology, citing ten theologians of the era by name as opposed to just five for the more famous thirteenth century. He also favoured Austin Friars over Franciscans and he completely ignored Dominicans, except for Thomas Aquinas. Upon closer inspection, however, and in common with some of his contemporaries, Lorenzo’s knowledge of some of these fifteen theologians was indirect via passages borrowed from the Augustinians Gregory of Rimini and Hugolino of Orvieto from the 1340s and the Franciscan Francis of Perugia, the Minorite regent master during the year in which Lorenzo lectured.
本文是关于博洛尼亚的圣仆洛伦佐-奥皮莫（Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna）的《判词》问题的两部分文章中的第二部分。这一部分主要介绍了这部著作的教义和来源，这部著作在中世纪末期成为了骑士团的神学指南。附录中列出了洛伦佐为之辩护的论点：在激进思想不断传播的时代，这些论点既保守又与时俱进。他明确引用的资料表明，他精通十四世纪的神学，点名引用了十位当时的神学家，而更著名的十三世纪神学家只有五位。除了托马斯-阿奎那之外，他完全忽视了多米尼克派。不过，仔细观察后会发现，与他同时代的一些人一样，洛伦佐对这 15 位神学家中的一些人的了解也是间接的，他从 13 世纪 40 年代的里米尼的奥古斯丁的格雷戈里和奥维耶托的胡戈里诺以及方济各会的佩鲁贾的弗朗西斯（洛伦佐授课当年的小教会摄政王）那里借来了一些经文。
{"title":"Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna, Teaching Doctor of the Servites during the Reformation, and His Sentences Lectures at the University of Paris in 1370–71 (Part II)","authors":"Chris Schabel","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.2.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.2.3","url":null,"abstract":"This is part II of a two-part article on the questions on the\u0000 Sentences of the Servite Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna. This\u0000 part focuses on the doctrine and sources of the work, which would become the\u0000 theological guide for the Order by the end of the Middle Ages. An appendix\u0000 offers a catalogue of the theses Lorenzo defended: conservative but also up to\u0000 date at a time when radical ideas were spreading. His explicit citations suggest\u0000 that he was well versed in fourteenth-century theology, citing ten theologians\u0000 of the era by name as opposed to just five for the more famous thirteenth\u0000 century. He also favoured Austin Friars over Franciscans and he completely\u0000 ignored Dominicans, except for Thomas Aquinas. Upon closer inspection, however,\u0000 and in common with some of his contemporaries, Lorenzo’s knowledge of\u0000 some of these fifteen theologians was indirect via passages borrowed from the\u0000 Augustinians Gregory of Rimini and Hugolino of Orvieto from the 1340s and the\u0000 Franciscan Francis of Perugia, the Minorite regent master during the year in\u0000 which Lorenzo lectured.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"42 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138950918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Laws of Oléron are a compilation of regulations concerning sea conduct drawn up in the thirteenth century in French. Copies of the text appeared in varieties of French in England and on the Continent, but it was only in the sixteenth century that the code was translated into English. Multiple issues concerning this English text are still vague. An attempt at settling some of them, such as the relationship between different exemplars and determining their French source text, has been undertaken in two recent studies. This article tries to verify whether the conclusions reached there can be corroborated with the use of mathematical methods of analysis, and to measure the correlations between the extant copies of the English translation and a group of French texts named by different researchers as the source texts for the rendition. The analysis is conducted by means of text similarity measurements using cosine similarity.
{"title":"French and English Texts of the Laws of Oléron: Assessing Proximity between Copies and Editions by Means of Cosine Similarity","authors":"Kinga Lis, Jerzy Wójcik","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.2.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.2.5","url":null,"abstract":"The Laws of Oléron are a compilation of regulations concerning sea conduct drawn up in the thirteenth century in French. Copies of the text appeared in varieties of French in England and on the Continent, but it was only in the sixteenth century that the code was translated into English. Multiple issues concerning this English text are still vague. An attempt at settling some of them, such as the relationship between different exemplars and determining their French source text, has been undertaken in two recent studies. This article tries to verify whether the conclusions reached there can be corroborated with the use of mathematical methods of analysis, and to measure the correlations between the extant copies of the English translation and a group of French texts named by different researchers as the source texts for the rendition. The analysis is conducted by means of text similarity measurements using cosine similarity.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"21 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139166357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In March 1506, Machiavelli was in the Casentino when he received a letter from Agostino Vespucci in Florence. A few weeks earlier, Machiavelli had arranged for his Decennale primo – a verse history of Florence between 1494 and 1504 – to be printed by Bartolomeo de’ Libri, with Vespucci bearing the costs. It was the first of his works in print and had already met with some success. Much to Vespucci’s alarm, however, a rival printer, Andrea Ghirlandi da Pistoia, was now selling a pirated version, festooned with mistakes. This article explores how Vespucci tried to protect Machiavelli’s interests and his own investment. It shows how Vespucci successfully circumvented the lack of copyright protection by casting the pirated version as a form of defamation and exploiting both secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In doing so, it casts fresh light on the legal and commercial challenges of printing in sixteenth-century Florence.
1506年3月，马基雅维利在卡森提诺收到了来自佛罗伦萨的阿戈斯蒂诺-韦斯普奇的一封信。几周前，马基雅维利安排巴托洛梅奥-德-利布里（Bartolomeo de' Libri）印刷他的《十年》（Decennale primo）--1494年至1504年间的佛罗伦萨诗史，费用由韦斯普奇承担。这是他的第一部印刷作品，已经取得了一定的成功。然而，让韦斯普奇大吃一惊的是，竞争对手 Andrea Ghirlandi da Pistoia 印刷商现在却在销售错误百出的盗版书。本文探讨了韦斯普奇如何努力保护马基雅弗利的利益和自己的投资。文章展示了韦斯普奇如何通过将盗版说成是一种诽谤，并利用世俗和教会当局，成功地规避了版权保护的缺失。在此过程中，该书为 16 世纪佛罗伦萨印刷业面临的法律和商业挑战提供了新的视角。
{"title":"Machiavelli and the Florentine Book Trade","authors":"Alexander Lee","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.2.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.2.4","url":null,"abstract":"In March 1506, Machiavelli was in the Casentino when he received a letter from\u0000 Agostino Vespucci in Florence. A few weeks earlier, Machiavelli had arranged for\u0000 his Decennale primo – a verse history of Florence\u0000 between 1494 and 1504 – to be printed by Bartolomeo de’ Libri,\u0000 with Vespucci bearing the costs. It was the first of his works in print and had\u0000 already met with some success. Much to Vespucci’s alarm, however, a rival\u0000 printer, Andrea Ghirlandi da Pistoia, was now selling a pirated version,\u0000 festooned with mistakes. This article explores how Vespucci tried to protect\u0000 Machiavelli’s interests and his own investment. It shows how Vespucci\u0000 successfully circumvented the lack of copyright protection by casting the\u0000 pirated version as a form of defamation and exploiting both secular and\u0000 ecclesiastical authorities. In doing so, it casts fresh light on the legal and\u0000 commercial challenges of printing in sixteenth-century Florence.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"45 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138952920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The abbey of Holy Trinity, Caen, was founded by Mathilda of Flanders, Duchess of Normandy and Queen of England, in June 1066. The abbesses of Holy Trinity are the focus of this study, especially their judicial role and their power to imprison. These rarely discussed aspects of women’s authority are revealed in Manchester, John Rylands Library, GB 133 BMC/66. Produced in 1292 at the meeting of the Exchequer at Rouen, the modest parchment reveals the existence of a prison in Ouistreham, France, under the authority of the abbesses of Holy Trinity. This article engages heretofore unexamined elements of female abbatial authority, jurisdiction and the mechanisms of justice. The preservation of BMC/66 also reflects the documentary imperatives of the women who governed Holy Trinity and fits into a broader context of memory and documentary culture.
{"title":"Abbess, Judge, Jailor: Authority and Imprisonment at Holy Trinity, Caen","authors":"Laura L. Gathagan","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.2.2","url":null,"abstract":"The abbey of Holy Trinity, Caen, was founded by Mathilda of Flanders, Duchess of\u0000 Normandy and Queen of England, in June 1066. The abbesses of Holy Trinity are\u0000 the focus of this study, especially their judicial role and their power to\u0000 imprison. These rarely discussed aspects of women’s authority are\u0000 revealed in Manchester, John Rylands Library, GB 133 BMC/66. Produced in 1292 at\u0000 the meeting of the Exchequer at Rouen, the modest parchment reveals the\u0000 existence of a prison in Ouistreham, France, under the authority of the abbesses\u0000 of Holy Trinity. This article engages heretofore unexamined elements of female\u0000 abbatial authority, jurisdiction and the mechanisms of justice. The preservation\u0000 of BMC/66 also reflects the documentary imperatives of the women who governed\u0000 Holy Trinity and fits into a broader context of memory and documentary\u0000 culture.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"60 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138949081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Aldine edition of the Greek epistolographers has been thoroughly studied in the light of its sources and its genesis, whereas comparatively little is known about how it could be read and used by its contemporaries. An analysis of the marginal notes which Scipione Forteguerri wrote into a copy now in the Vatican Library (Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Inc. IV. 149) allows us first insights into these questions, on the basis of the example of his annotations to the highly esteemed Epistles of Phalaris: it soon emerges that Forteguerri, by correction ope codicum and addition of reading aids as folio numbering and running titles, tried to raise the text and the book as a whole to a higher editorial level. As a close collaborator of Aldus Manutius, he thus mirrored then-current ideas of book editing as well as contributing to them, and so proved himself surely to be an exceptional reader of the Aldine Greek epistolographers.
{"title":"Scipione Forteguerri (il Carteromaco) as Reader of the Aldine Greek Epistolographers: the Epistles of Phalaris","authors":"Vinko Hinz","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.1.8","url":null,"abstract":"The Aldine edition of the Greek epistolographers has been thoroughly studied in the light of its sources and its genesis, whereas comparatively little is known about how it could be read and used by its contemporaries. An analysis of the marginal notes which Scipione Forteguerri wrote into a copy now in the Vatican Library (Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Inc. IV. 149) allows us first insights into these questions, on the basis of the example of his annotations to the highly esteemed Epistles of Phalaris: it soon emerges that Forteguerri, by correction ope codicum and addition of reading aids as folio numbering and running titles, tried to raise the text and the book as a whole to a higher editorial level. As a close collaborator of Aldus Manutius, he thus mirrored then-current ideas of book editing as well as contributing to them, and so proved himself surely to be an exceptional reader of the Aldine Greek epistolographers.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139372172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I analyse the manuscript sources used by Marcus Musurus for the letters of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta, examining in both cases the organisation of the letters, the reasons for what may be disturbances in their order, the possible Druckvorlage, and the variants in the Aldine edition traceable to attempts by Musurus to improve the text. Although it is quite difficult to recover the original shape of the works of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta, the modern reader still confronts numerous questions: did the Aldine editor combine and reorganise letters found in different manuscripts, or did he reproduce one or more manuscripts that contained precisely these letters and in this particular order? How does the editio princeps differ from modern editions in the organisation of the two authors’ letters? And how does this organisation affect how we interpret the letters of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta today?
在这篇文章中，我分析了马库斯-穆苏鲁斯为阿尔西普隆和西奥菲拉克特-西莫卡塔的书信所使用的手稿资料，研究了这两份书信的组织结构、书信顺序可能被打乱的原因、可能的Druckvorlage，以及阿尔丁版本中可追溯到穆苏鲁斯试图改进文本的变体。虽然要恢复阿尔西普隆和西摩卡塔 Theophylact Simocatta 作品的原貌相当困难，但现代读者仍然面临着许多问题：阿尔丁版本的编辑是将不同手稿中的信件进行了合并和重组，还是复制了一份或多份手稿，而这些手稿正是包含这些信件并按照特定顺序排列的？在组织两位作者的信件方面，editio princeps 与现代版本有何不同？这种编排方式对我们今天如何解读阿尔西普隆和西奥菲拉克特-西莫卡塔的书信有何影响？
{"title":"The Letters of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta","authors":"Anna Tiziana Drago","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.1.4","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I analyse the manuscript sources used by Marcus Musurus for the letters of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta, examining in both cases the organisation of the letters, the reasons for what may be disturbances in their order, the possible Druckvorlage, and the variants in the Aldine edition traceable to attempts by Musurus to improve the text. Although it is quite difficult to recover the original shape of the works of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta, the modern reader still confronts numerous questions: did the Aldine editor combine and reorganise letters found in different manuscripts, or did he reproduce one or more manuscripts that contained precisely these letters and in this particular order? How does the editio princeps differ from modern editions in the organisation of the two authors’ letters? And how does this organisation affect how we interpret the letters of Alciphron and Theophylact Simocatta today?","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139372279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the principles of selection and arrangement of the letters of Basil the Great in the Aldine edition and in the major manuscript families. It argues that the ordering of Basil’s letters in them was mainly based on the content of the letters, whether thematical or by addressee. The article concludes that the ancient and medieval thematical orderings of the letters are helpful for our understanding of the contents of a large collection such as that of Basil, compared to the modern reconstructed chronological order presented in the editions.
{"title":"The Principles of Selection and Arrangement of the Letters of Basil the Great in the Aldine Edition of the Ancient Greek Epistolographers","authors":"Antonia Sarri","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.1.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.1.7","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the principles of selection and arrangement of the letters of Basil the Great in the Aldine edition and in the major manuscript families. It argues that the ordering of Basil’s letters in them was mainly based on the content of the letters, whether thematical or by addressee. The article concludes that the ancient and medieval thematical orderings of the letters are helpful for our understanding of the contents of a large collection such as that of Basil, compared to the modern reconstructed chronological order presented in the editions.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139372395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article deals with the letters of Phalaris, a large corpus of 148 letters contained in the second volume of the Aldine edition of the Greek epistolographers. It explores the role of the Aldine edition in the transmission of these letters and mainly focuses on its sources. Building on the works of Lauri Tudeer and Martin Sicherl, it determines the text on which the Aldine edition is based and its position within the manuscript tradition, while stressing the remaining uncertainties: the Aldine is an editorial construction, conflating the text of two different classes of manuscripts with the text of the editio princeps from 1498; its main sources are a close parent to the now-lost London, British Library, Harley MS 5610 and a copy of the manuscript Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Pal. graec. 356 (and not necessarily the antigraph of Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. gr. 134 as Sicherl thought); Marcus Musurus might have used another corrective manuscript.
本文论述的是《法拉里斯书信》，这是一部由 148 封书信组成的大型书信集，收录在希腊书信集阿尔丁版第二卷中。文章探讨了阿尔丁版本在这些书信的传播过程中所起的作用，并主要关注其来源。在劳里-图德（Lauri Tudeer）和马丁-西谢尔（Martin Sicherl）著作的基础上，它确定了阿尔丁版本所依据的文本及其在手稿传统中的地位，同时强调了其余的不确定性：阿尔丁版本是一种编辑结构，将两类不同手稿的文本与 1498 年 editio princeps 的文本混为一谈；其主要来源是与现已失传的伦敦大英图书馆哈雷 MS 5610 号手稿的近亲，以及海德堡大学手稿副本，Cod.Pal.356（而不一定是西歇尔认为的梵蒂冈，梵蒂冈使徒图书馆，Pal.gr.134 的反书）；马库斯-穆苏鲁斯可能使用了另一份校正手稿。
{"title":"The Letters of Phalaris, between Manuscripts and Editio Princeps","authors":"Émeline Marquis","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the letters of Phalaris, a large corpus of 148 letters contained in the second volume of the Aldine edition of the Greek epistolographers. It explores the role of the Aldine edition in the transmission of these letters and mainly focuses on its sources. Building on the works of Lauri Tudeer and Martin Sicherl, it determines the text on which the Aldine edition is based and its position within the manuscript tradition, while stressing the remaining uncertainties: the Aldine is an editorial construction, conflating the text of two different classes of manuscripts with the text of the editio princeps from 1498; its main sources are a close parent to the now-lost London, British Library, Harley MS 5610 and a copy of the manuscript Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Pal. graec. 356 (and not necessarily the antigraph of Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. gr. 134 as Sicherl thought); Marcus Musurus might have used another corrective manuscript.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139372380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on the studies by Dimitrios K. Raios and Martin Sicherl, this article reviews some of the main hypotheses proposed concerning the genesis of Philostratus’s collected letters before and during the process of their inclusion in the Aldine edition by the scholar Marcus Musurus. This very preliminary analysis of the relationships between the codices most directly involved in the production of the Aldine edition suggests some initial conclusions which, although not definitive, call these hypotheses into question.
本文以 Dimitrios K. Raios 和 Martin Sicherl 的研究为基础，回顾了学者 Marcus Musurus 在将 Philostratus 收集的书信收入阿尔丁版本之前和期间提出的一些主要假设。本文对最直接参与阿尔丁版本制作的手抄本之间的关系进行了非常初步的分析，得出了一些初步结论，尽管这些结论并不确定，但却对这些假设提出了质疑。
{"title":"Philostratus in the Aldine Edition of the Ancient Greek Epistolographers","authors":"Rafael J. Gallé Cejudo","doi":"10.7227/bjrl.99.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.99.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"Based on the studies by Dimitrios K. Raios and Martin Sicherl, this article reviews some of the main hypotheses proposed concerning the genesis of Philostratus’s collected letters before and during the process of their inclusion in the Aldine edition by the scholar Marcus Musurus. This very preliminary analysis of the relationships between the codices most directly involved in the production of the Aldine edition suggests some initial conclusions which, although not definitive, call these hypotheses into question.","PeriodicalId":43675,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the John Rylands Library","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139372129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：