Научный архив: статьи

A comparative analysis of the chapter titles and text of the first book of the late antique military treatise Strategikon allows to put forward the hypothesis that its text was constituted in several stages. Of particular importance here are the wording of the titles and the peculiar beginnings or introductions to most of the chapters, which summarise the content of the preceding sections. A comparison of the passages clearly shows the sequence of formation within each chapter. We should assume at least 5 consecutive phases of text development: author and 4 editors. At first (phase 1a–1b), on the basis of the extant sources, the author of the book created as part of the treatise a text in four sections, organised by the beginnings according to the scheme of genetivus absolutus (primary chapters *1, *2 + 3, *4, *5 + 9). Then another editor (Leg, phase 2) inserted into this codex in the middle of the text *5 + 9 two bifolia with the text of military laws organised by μετὰ-constructions (*6 + 7, *8), resulting in the actual division of the text *5 + 9 into two sections *5 and 9. The next editor (phases 3a–3b) then rewrote the entire text into a new codex, providing it with headings (following the πῶς… scheme), what consolidated the division of the text into seven chapters (1, 2 + 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 + 8, 9), but he could not, however, fully understand the system of incipits of the original text. The new editor (Optim) made a series of additions in the form of glosses and inserted leaves (phase 4). The main development of the text was completed in the next phase (5a–5b–5c), when two new headings (3 and 8), structured in a different scheme (περὶ…), an introduction to chapter 8, and a general table of contents for Book 1 were inserted into this codex. The text was then rewritten into a new, third codex, which fixed the position of interpolations in the text.

A series of interconnected conjectures to the text of Ps.-Maur. VII B 17. 2,12 (8, 9–10, 33– 34 Dennis) is proposed, which makes the text more understandable: ἤτοι τὰ βά<θη> τῶν ἀκιῶν <ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίαςin mg>… ἀπὸ παλαιῶν [δὲ] καὶ νέων <ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους>…. τὸν λεγόμενον ἰλάρχην [ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας]. To explain this, author proposes the hypothesis of a transcription error in the archetype (ἤτοι τὰ βάθη > ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα), of compensatory asterisk and of the later marginal gloss (ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας), as well as of the transmission of the passage ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας from § 2 to § 12. The proposed hypothesis assumes a multiple processing (glosses, added leafs) of the codex of the archetype ξ, its active use and subsequent rewriting into a new codex (α), which is the precursor of both uncial families (λ and β). The five phases of the development of the discussed passages are proposed: (1a) the Urtext with the books I–III, V, VII A und VII B 1–15; (1b) creation of the text VII B 16–17 (4952 characters) on the three bifolia with a reading error (βάθη > βάνδα), the source for the § 12 being the passage II 20/19, 1 (4–7 Dennis), where are no parallels for the words “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας”; (1c) the appearance of marginalia — “ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” to the words “ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα τῶν ἀκιῶν”, as well as asteriskos to § 12 and § 2 after παλαιῶν; (2) moving the text “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” from § 2 to § 12, replacement of the asteriskos with δὲ in § 2; (3) division of the tradition between λ (without marginalia) and β (integration of marginalia)