Dring, a contributor to the AQC, addresses the so-called “Naimus Grecus” legend, a puzzling insertion in certain Old Charges. His article is situated within the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarly effort to establish reliable textual criticism of the manuscript tradition and clarify interpolations that appear anomalous.
Thesis and Main Contribution
Dring’s thesis is that the “Naimus Grecus” passage represents a later and erroneous intrusion into the textual transmission of the Old Charges. His main contribution lies in tracing the appearance of this figure, demonstrating its incongruity with the rest of the narrative, and thereby reinforcing the need for critical scrutiny of interpolations within the manuscript tradition.
Method and Rationale
Dring’s approach is essentially philological and textual. He collates manuscript versions in which the “Naimus Grecus” element occurs, highlights textual inconsistencies, and compares them to parallel traditions that lack the interpolation. This method enables him to isolate the anomalous element and to argue for its spurious character.
Dring refers directly to earlier AQC contributions on Grecus (e.g. Speth and Crawley), positioning his argument as both a refinement and a rebuttal of their interpretations. He disagrees with hypotheses that sought to legitimise the figure as historically grounded, instead insisting on its textual incoherence.
Main Arguments
- Identification of the anomaly : Dring underlines that “Naimus Grecus” does not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, but surfaces abruptly in later copies. Its absence from parallel streams is evidence of interpolation.
- Rebuttal of historicising readings : He rejects explanations that treated “Naimus Grecus” as a vestige of genuine historical tradition, emphasising instead its internal inconsistency and lack of corroboration.
- Demonstration of scribal corruption : By close comparison, Dring argues that the phrase likely arose from scribal misunderstanding or corruption of another term, showing how minor copying errors could crystallise into legendary insertions.
Strengths of the Approach
- Rigour/Originality : The article contributes an original clarification by eliminating the credibility of “Naimus Grecus” and tracing its textual instability with precision.
- Methodological Contribution : Dring exemplifies how careful manuscript collation can expose interpolations and prevent the solidification of spurious traditions.
- Clarity of Argumentation : His article is tightly structured, leading the reader step by step from identification of the anomaly to its dismissal, without digressions.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Limitation 1 : Dring does not pursue in depth the possible textual source or precise mechanism of the corruption, leaving the exact pathway of transmission unresolved.
- Limitation 2 : His focus is narrowly textual; contextual implications for the reception of the Old Charges or for scribal culture remain underexplored in the article itself.
- Blind spot : Although effective in rejecting the interpolation, Dring does not fully engage with why such corruptions might persist in subsequent copies, an aspect relevant for understanding manuscript authority. No codicological or dating issues are raised in the article.
Critical Conclusion
Dring’s article decisively undermines the credibility of the “Naimus Grecus” legend, consolidating the case for its status as a scribal corruption. By combining careful collation with sharp rebuttal of earlier interpretations, he strengthens the methodological framework of AQC textual criticism. Its precision and argumentative economy ensure its continuing value, even though questions of textual diffusion remain open. The study stands as an exemplar of how rigorous textual analysis can dismantle pseudo-traditions and refine the evidentiary corpus.