Писменото наследство и информационните технологии: El’Manuscript–2014: материали от V международна научна конференция
The collection includes proceedings of the conference concerned with modern means of preservation, catalogization, analysis and publication of manuscripts, incunabulae and other primary sources. Information resources of humanities and their usage in research and pedagogics is discussed as well.
A.A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis of the so-called Načalnyj Svod is one of the most important achievements in the study of Old Rus’ chronicles. However, it remains a challenging task to reconstruct the text of this Svod, and—in particular—to determine where it ended. This article discusses the evidence demonstrating and disproving that the Načalnyj Svod ended with the story on the blinding of prince Vasilko of Terebovl’.
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.
This note discusses one of the largely super uous conjectures unearthed by J. Diggle and given an honourable place in his otherwise very succinct and e cient apparatus criticus. Reported by none of the recent editors, and earlier by Prinz–Wecklein and Verrall, Herwerden’s μελανόσπλαγχνος in Euripides’ Medea 109 is an undesirable change of the sound, if idiosyncratic, mss. reading μεγαλόσπλαγχνος. Diggle, however, having (independently) conjectured the same word, patched together arguments for it. An additional attraction this conjecture gained in his eyes was due to his misreading of the remark (quoted in the heading) Wilamowitz made proofreading the rst volume of Murray’s OCT in 1901. While Wilamowitz discouraged Murray from reporting this conjecture with his usual “besser fort”, Diggle, on passing acquaintance with the letters, took it to mean “Herw. besser fort[asse]”, thus corroborating his point.
An article describes one of the earliest prose texts (never published or even known about) of Vsevolod Nekrasov, Russian concretist and conceptualist: it adds some significant information on "second avant-garde" notions of "classical literature".
The paper argues that we should rethink the relation between facts and scholarship in the humanities. This thesis should not be misunderstood as an argument for unreflective positivism. But new technological developments in the 'digital humanities' suggest that the collection of facts in machine-readable form (e. g. as 'nanopublications') facilitates new strategies for interpreting, visualizing or archiving information in the humanities. The paper discusses a concrete application of these insights in the history of philosophy, namely the use of nanopublications as an instrument in 'collective doxography'.
The book is a publication of a full text of M.Kh. Aleshkovskiy’s candidate of sciences (PhD) thesis defended in 1967 and previously available only in a shortened popular edition.
The article is devoted to a previously unknown translator, Vassily Grinkov (the middle of the XVIII century). His translation, made from German in 1745, of Lodovico Guicciardini’s compilation, is not widely known, but the circumstances of its appearance and the reconstruction of the environment in which it appears are extremely important to understand the mechanisms of European culture reception in Russia.