Page 683 [683]
OCR
THE COPENHAGEN MANUSCRIPT 633 which consist of slight polishings of phrase and also of substitutions of periphrases for proper names, publication of which would be likely to cause offence. But it is noticeable that two of the corrections made have been further altered before printing in H. In another, f. 196, a secretary has copied into the text a word written by Erasmus in the margin. Butin the third, f. 180, the treatment is more thorough. There are a few corrections, mostly marginal, by Erasmus, which are probably of the time of first writing. But another hand, working with a finer pen, has improved the writing throughout the page to make it more legible ; not introducing any changes, however, except in the alteration of -e to -ae by addition of the cedilla. It is hardly possible from its character that this should be the work of Erasmus. It is probably, however, contemporary, and may therefore be attributed to a secretary preparing the document for copying. The most interesting case of revision is in ff. 207-220, which contain the letters of the years 1530-1. These have been clearly and definitely revised by Erasmus, with a finer pen and darker ink which is easily distinguishable. Beyond f. 220, though the letters are still of the same period and are printed in the same volume, J, the revision ceases. Of one of these letters, f. 217, the letter actually sent still survives ; and by comparison of the texts it is clear that Erasmus’ corrections were not made for reproduction in the letter sent. There can therefore be no doubt that the corrections in the whole series were made somewhat later, with a view to the publication of the letters in J. It is to be noticed, however, that, as with H, the corrections made by Erasmus on these leaves are by no means all those that appear in J. Besides Erasmus’ revision there are also two cases, ff. 209-10, where improvement of the writing like that noticed on f. 180 has taken place. Except in one case there is no sign that any part of the manuscript was ever used for printing. The exception is the first letter in the collection (f. 160), which is the final one in the De puritate (M). It is not, however, really a letter, but is of the nature of a preface ; so that no fair copy of it would be needed for dispatch. It is moreover well and clearly written; and so it is not surprising that it should exhibit the familiar red chalk marks with which printers used to record on copy the divisions and numbers of pages—in this case those of M. But the chalk marks occur nowhere else, either among the compositions or the letters; and the manuscript as a whole is clean and free from folds or marks of use. It is clear therefore that it was not used for the press. The improvement noted above in various letters may accordingly be attributed to a preparation of the text for copying with a view to use in the press; and was perhaps done by one secretary for the guidance of another. The work of secretaries is also shown in the names of persons addressed which are prefixed by them to some of the letters ; by the entries ‘ Transcripta ’ (ff. 181 and 232) and ‘ Transcriptae sunt omnes’ (f. 201); and by vertical lines drawn down the page in some cases, clearly conveying the same signification. In a few places too they have underlined words which they found difficult to read ; and on one page (f. 218) an underlining pen seems to have drawn Erasmus’ attention to two cases of repetition, which he subsequently corrected.
