Two editions of Iliad with minute apparatus, that were published by T.W.Allen in 1930 and by M.L.West in 2000, give us entirely different images of Homeric vulgate (i.e. majority of manuscript readings). The first one based on ca. 200 manuscripts and the second one relying on 19 of them (and even less in most cases) vary conceptually. This paper focuses on several cases from the second half of Iliad, where differences in vulgate readings lead to diverse assessment of Aristarchean variant. For instance in 13.594 Alexandrian philologist reads with West's "Ω" ("omnes"), but against Allen's "vulg.". The opposite case is in 13.785, where Aristarchus' variant is the same as in Allen's majority and opposite to West's vulgate. In 2/3 cases the latter is in concordance with Aristarchean readings. That means that Allen's statistics showing very modest influence of Alexandrian textology on manuscript tradition needs new critical evaluation in the light of these facts. The thing of even more importance is new statistics of Aristarchean variants mentioned in scholia. This data is compared with readings which are cited in apparatus of both editions. We see that West's Aristarchus very often agrees with our vulgate and that Allen on the contrary is too pessimistic about Alexandrian influence on the extant manuscripts. I think more balanced view would be closer to provable facts. Nevertheless, the problem of Homeric vulgate and the problem of its relations to Aristarchean edition(s) remain unsolved and need further investigation.
There are 30 similies in the 3 book of “Argonautica”, and the most of them are concentrated in the last 200 verses. The article is focused on the Hellenistic reception of the classical epic tradition and problems of intertextuality between Apollonius and Homeric epos: if the use of similies is related with the peculiarity of Homeric style, what kind of relationship is between the structure and imagery of theApollonius’ similies and of the old epic similies.
Aristarchus of Samothrace had excluded some verses from his edition of the Iliad (presumably those which were poorly attested in manuscript tradition) and had athetized some others (possibly those which were widespread). We may assume that his textual variants can also be divided in two similar groups: (1) those which were present in his edition (and were well attested in papyri) and (2) those which were cited only in his commentary (and were absent from most manuscripts). If we accept this hypothesis, it might help us to solve one of the important paradoxes of Homeric manuscript tradition. On the one hand, numerus versuum in ancient manuscript tradition is identical to mediaeval Homeric vulgate and to aristarchean edition (according to the mainstream view). That shows the influence of Aristarchus, because the standardization of Egyptian Homeric papyri concurs with the time of the great philologist. On the other hand, most readings of Aristarchus are absent from Homeric vulgate (only 30% of his readings, according to disputable calculations of T. Allen, can be seen in all or most manuscripts). That means on the opposite that the great philologist had little influence on the tradition. The suggested hypothesis can be in full or partly compatible with the others, e.g. the interesting assumption of M. Finkelberg about the role of Ptolemy VIII in Homeric tradition.
Textology and history review.
The article deals with articulations of philosophical and literary dimensions in Plato. He was very early defined as the paragon of both philosopher and writer, and praised and criticized by both philosophers and philologists. A long philosophical tradition blamed him for excessive artistry and beauty. But it is obvious that we owe the perfect state of manuscripts of dialogues, as well as their vitality and viability, to their literary qualities.
The volume contains a selection of papers delivered to the first five annual conferences "Written Monuments of the East: Problems of translation and interpretation" (2011–2015) organized on the base of the permanent seminar "Textual Criticism and Source Study of the East" (Institute of Oriental Studies, Moscow) by the staff of the Department of Oriental Written Sources.
Sbornik statej (na russkom i bolgarskom jazykach) vključaet raboty specialistov po istorii slavjanskogo perevoda Apostola - ego rukopisnoj i pečatnoj tradicii. Temy rabot ochvatyvajut osnovnye napravlenija izučenija etogo pamjatnika: Redakcii teksta Apostola i ich sootnošenie meždu soboj; Jazyk otdel'nych predstavitelej tradicii teksta i ich grupp; Kompleks tekstov, soprovoždajuščich v sostave Apostola novozavetnyj tekst; Citaty iz Apostola kak istočnik izučenija ego slavjanskogo perevoda; Svoeobrazie Apostola kak knigi v kul'turnom prostranstve Slavia Orthodoxa. Knigu zaveršaet annotirovannaja bibliografija po slavjanskomu Apostolu. Izdanie vvodit v problematiku i daet predstavlenie o nynešnem sostojanii izučenija slavjanskogo perevoda Apostola. (Dieser Titel als eBook: 6024E)
In the article the author focuses on the situation with sources for the work of the German philosopher F.W.J. Schelling. The article argues for the necessity of giving up several methodological stereotypes typical for the traditional approaches to the history of the German idealism and tries to outline the main trends of the developing an interdisciplinary research strategy for studies on Schellings philosophical work. The author shows on this example the indissoluble connection between textology and hermeneutics in the history of philosophy.