Siegecraft - TerpConnect - University of Maryland
Siegecraft - TerpConnect - University of Maryland
Siegecraft - TerpConnect - University of Maryland
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Introduction<br />
extant folios, and notably contains only the two treatises <strong>of</strong> “Heron <strong>of</strong><br />
Byzantium.” Dain’s suggestion <strong>of</strong> a mid-eleventh-century date (Müller<br />
and Gianelli say only 11th century without further specification) might<br />
be questioned in light <strong>of</strong> the recent tendency to place manuscripts earlier.<br />
52 Of the origin <strong>of</strong> the manuscript and the reasons for the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
rubrication we know nothing. Later interlinear annotations 53 on folios<br />
4r–v, 6v, 7r, 53v, and 54r and their subsequent erasure have obscured<br />
some accents and the upper portion <strong>of</strong> some letters. The first folio is<br />
reproduced in fig. A.<br />
The edition, then, is based on the archetype, Vat. gr. 1605, previously<br />
not used in any edition. 54 Where I have recorded the conjectures <strong>of</strong> the<br />
previous editors, I have, for the sake <strong>of</strong> clarity, generally also included<br />
the related reading <strong>of</strong> the apograph as they report it; in some instances<br />
a negative entry appeared sufficient. In those instances where I have<br />
preferred the reading <strong>of</strong> an apograph to the Vaticanus, the reading <strong>of</strong> the<br />
apograph is also derived from the printed edition. I have not noted in<br />
the apparatus editorial conjectures or errors and omissions in the<br />
apographs for which the archetype provides correct readings. I have<br />
supplied in angle brackets and generally without further notice initial<br />
paragraph letters omitted in the Vaticanus 55 due to lack <strong>of</strong> rubrication.<br />
As the text has generally been cited from Wescher’s and Vincent’s editions,<br />
their page numbers are noted in the margin preceded by “Wes”<br />
and “Vin”; I have not attempted to retain their line breaks. I have allowed<br />
the scribe’s inconsistency in employing elision and nu movable<br />
52 For such earlier dating generally, see, e.g., Dagron, Traité, 14–15.<br />
53 On their likely nature see Gianelli (as above, note 51), 262.<br />
54 I note the following errors in Müller’s recorded readings <strong>of</strong> V, using his listing by<br />
Wescher’s and Vincent’s page and line numbers: 217, 2 §palify°nta: §palif°nta V ||<br />
252, 9 Ípemba¤nontai: Ípemba¤nonta V || 264, 15 sxãrion: sxar¤on V || 264, 17 diãmetra:<br />
diãmetroi V || 348, 17 Ùl¤gon diå grammãtvn: Ùl¤gvn (–vn per compendium)<br />
diågrammãtvn V || 350, 5 prÒw te gevdes¤an ka‹: prÒw te gevdes¤an te ka‹ V || 350, 6 te<br />
om.: te V || 350, 8 eÔ krin∞sai: eÈkrin∞sai V || 350, 10 eÈlÆptvw: eÈlÆptvn (–vn per<br />
compendium) V || 376, 14 ëper: ësper V || 378, 6 <strong>of</strong>l dÄ: ı idÄ V || 390, 6 boliboËn:<br />
moliboËn V ||. In one instance Müller has not recorded a significant difference, i.e.,<br />
Vincent 396, 8 has lbÄ (i.e., “32”); Müller makes no comment, while V has lbÄ bÄÄ (i.e.,<br />
“32 2/3”), on which see the related note in the commentary.<br />
55 Parangelmata 1, 4, 11, 13–20, 22, 24, 25, 27–29, 39 1, 17 , 42, 43, 45–50, 52, 53, 55–<br />
58 and Geodesia 1, 3–7, 8 1, 60, 85, 96, 105 , 9 1, 46 , 10 1, 19 , 11.<br />
[ 22 ]