Неподцензурные редакции как подтекст: К литературной истории послания Пушкина 'К. А. Тимашевой'
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.
It is known that Old Rusian chronicles were not only extended, but also inetnsively edited by the newcoming generations of bookmen. Usually the reasons for editing of text are searched amongst the political circumstances of the time. However, changing approaches to actual theological questions could also be the cause of text evolution. One of such was the question of the nature of suffering, on which there existed at least two views — the one of the author of so-called Načalnyj Svod of the 1090ies, and the outher of the author of Pověst Vremennykh Lět.
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.
Reconstruction of the 11th century Rusian chronicles is a classic problem of russian history soucre studies. It can't be solved with traditional methods of source analysis such as manuscript comparison, palaeographic or codicological studies as no chronicle manuscripts of 11th century remain nowadays. There are some alternative approaches proposed in special literature, eg. analysis of contradictions in chronicle texts and chronological systems analysis, but these also aren't effective enough. However, lexicological and stylistic studies of the chronicle text allow us to make some non-trivial conclusions. Apparently our knowledge of Primary Chronicle textual history may be extended only if we use the interdisciplinary approach combining methods of history with methods of philology and liguistics.
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.
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.