DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0056
1 Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts.
830, 835, 849. But also belongs to If.R shared with H.2: 241,
293, 315, 347, 434.
(/3) A word is added that is wanting entirely in the opposing
MSS. : v. 394 om] sipe HrR. 452 om] haue. 702 om] childe.
553, 689 om] pere. 678 om] al. 907 om] pen. Less important
in the argument are the following instances: 106 om] For. 378
om] and. 801 om] for. 830 om] haue.
(-y) hISS. ApAg.D.Hg contain a word not recorded in If and R :
v. 190 J?u sek] Seek HrR. 242 his] om. 339 For men] Men (Man
Ifj). 394 swich] om. 410 ne] om. 524 Nu] om. 582 ne] om.
617 pi] om. 812 jLat] om. 840 ne] om.
To these coincidences may be added all those variations of a
trifling character, which though differing slightly, yet may represent
a common source : he is replaced by pei 833, 834; 'miht by maiste
859, 864; Nas \at by \at was 214; noht by wil no$ Hp wil not
R 312. The list is to be increased by the common readings
distinguishing the three MSS. A1.H1.R; see §§ 5, 6.
2. Differences between MSS. If and R.
Incontrovertible points of coincidence between MSS. R and
ate counterbalanced by instances of deviation, suggesting that R and
If may be ascribed to a common source rather than to a relationship
one from the other.
a. MS. If not the source of MS. R: R, the older of the two
MSS., cannot be derived from MS. H1. MS. R preserves individual
defects not shared by MS. H1. Compare lines 6, 9, 15, 34, 84, 107,
129, etc. It contains lines omitted in MS. H1; omits interpolated
passages, and makes frequent alterations of the original as follows :
lines 204—206; 403,404; 447, 448; 507, 508; 591, 592; etc.
Omissions in MS. H1, where MS. R retains the correct reading, are :
7, 8; 133; 136; 272; 479, 572; etc.; cf. chap. iii. 3.
/3. MS. R not the source of MS. If: Equally impossible is it
that MS. H1 find source in MS. R. Lines 45 and 46, transcribed by
If, are omitted in MS. R. Line 272 of R alters the original read-
ing. A multitude of minor examples confirm the testimony of these
verses. That If is not derived from R, is shown by the accom-
panying instances, where If has in general preserved the correct
reading, although at times both MSS. deviate from the original.
v. 12 to owi.] to R. 20 Ne shaltu] pou shalt not. 22 weye]
lawe. 26 ful o?n.] ful. 31 on] in. 38 liuede al in] leued wel alle.
830, 835, 849. But also belongs to If.R shared with H.2: 241,
293, 315, 347, 434.
(/3) A word is added that is wanting entirely in the opposing
MSS. : v. 394 om] sipe HrR. 452 om] haue. 702 om] childe.
553, 689 om] pere. 678 om] al. 907 om] pen. Less important
in the argument are the following instances: 106 om] For. 378
om] and. 801 om] for. 830 om] haue.
(-y) hISS. ApAg.D.Hg contain a word not recorded in If and R :
v. 190 J?u sek] Seek HrR. 242 his] om. 339 For men] Men (Man
Ifj). 394 swich] om. 410 ne] om. 524 Nu] om. 582 ne] om.
617 pi] om. 812 jLat] om. 840 ne] om.
To these coincidences may be added all those variations of a
trifling character, which though differing slightly, yet may represent
a common source : he is replaced by pei 833, 834; 'miht by maiste
859, 864; Nas \at by \at was 214; noht by wil no$ Hp wil not
R 312. The list is to be increased by the common readings
distinguishing the three MSS. A1.H1.R; see §§ 5, 6.
2. Differences between MSS. If and R.
Incontrovertible points of coincidence between MSS. R and
ate counterbalanced by instances of deviation, suggesting that R and
If may be ascribed to a common source rather than to a relationship
one from the other.
a. MS. If not the source of MS. R: R, the older of the two
MSS., cannot be derived from MS. H1. MS. R preserves individual
defects not shared by MS. H1. Compare lines 6, 9, 15, 34, 84, 107,
129, etc. It contains lines omitted in MS. H1; omits interpolated
passages, and makes frequent alterations of the original as follows :
lines 204—206; 403,404; 447, 448; 507, 508; 591, 592; etc.
Omissions in MS. H1, where MS. R retains the correct reading, are :
7, 8; 133; 136; 272; 479, 572; etc.; cf. chap. iii. 3.
/3. MS. R not the source of MS. If: Equally impossible is it
that MS. H1 find source in MS. R. Lines 45 and 46, transcribed by
If, are omitted in MS. R. Line 272 of R alters the original read-
ing. A multitude of minor examples confirm the testimony of these
verses. That If is not derived from R, is shown by the accom-
panying instances, where If has in general preserved the correct
reading, although at times both MSS. deviate from the original.
v. 12 to owi.] to R. 20 Ne shaltu] pou shalt not. 22 weye]
lawe. 26 ful o?n.] ful. 31 on] in. 38 liuede al in] leued wel alle.