57. There is another curious circumstance about the MSS. of this type,
viz., that they clearly divide into two distinct recensions, of which both
have so many peculiarities and errors in common that they must necessarily
have been both derived from one modification of the original text,
whilst at the same time there are such differences between the two as
cannot be set down to the accidents of transcription. Pauthier's MSS. A
and B (Nos. 16 and 15 of the List in App. F) form one of these
subdivisions: his C (No. 17 of List), Bern (No. 56), and Oxford (No. 6),
the other. Between A and B the differences are only such as seem
constantly to have arisen from the whims of transcribers or their
dialectic peculiarities. But between A and B on the one side, and C on the
other, the differences are much greater. The readings of proper names in C
are often superior, sometimes worse; but in the latter half of the work
especially it contains a number of substantial passages[7] which are to be
found in the G. T., but are altogether absent from the MSS. A and B;
whilst in one case at least (the history of the Siege of Saianfu, vol. ii.
p. 159) it diverges considerably from the G. T. as well as from A and
B.[8]
I gather from the facts that the MS. C represents an older form of the
work than A and B. I should judge that the latter had been derived from
that older form, but intentionally modified from it.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 298 of 1256
Words from 81167 to 81445
of 342071