[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Response to F. Cryer

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, fred cryer wrote:

> One obvious indication of autograph versus copy is lay-out. If a document
> is well laid out and disposes carefully of its space, itīs apt to be a
> copy, because the corrections and additions and subtractions occasioned in
> the process of actual composition of a text entail text running into
> margin, substantial interlinear additions, crossings-out and replacement,
> etc. All of these things will interfere with lay-out, so if even a fragment
> of a text shows a carefully planned attention to lay-out, itīs a copy, not
> an autograph. Admittedly, Mozart could keep a whole sonata in his head and
> write it down (almost) note-perfect; the rest of mortal men do not.
> The sort of corrections we find in the DSS are exactly as Tov has
> characterised them: editorial annotations and correction of spelling
> errors, plus the odd exegetical or harmonising addition. Even the spacing
> of the various Vorlagen is usually reflected to some extent. And this is
> true even of the documents like the pesharim, which are one-offs (i.e.,
> existing in single mss copies).

	Thanks. This is very helpful. My question, then is: do your
criterion enable you to distinguish between a "working draft" and a "fair
copy?" Let's say a "composer" has put a draft together, complete with
rub-outs, etc. and then says to an assistant, "Ok, Habakuk, write it out
real nice so that the reader can race through it!" How would you
distinguish the resulting "fair copy" (i.e., the "published" document)
from any other scribal copy? It seems to me that your criterion do not
enable such a distinction. Or do I have it wrong? I'm NOT, by the way,
invested one way or another in the presence or absence of autographs at
Qumran. But I AM interested in Jewish scribalism and am trying to
understand some of the technical aspects more clearly. Thanks. Marty