Source: https://www.manuscripta.se/ms/100046
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:53:26+00:00

Document:
Note: On p. 10:3 there is a lacuna in the manuscript equalling the text from mid §15 to §20 in Wescher’s edition: καὶ ταῦτα παρεῖται [...]τῆς δὲ ὑπὸ Ἡγήτορος, etc.
Editions: Marsden (1971) pp. 66–103. Rehm (1929) .
Note: There are three minor lacunae in the manuscript text: On p. 97 the text from mid §158 to mid §159 in Schneider’s edition is missing: ὑπόκειται οἷόν ἐστιν [...]Ἄλλου κριοῦ δέσις. Οὐθὲν δὲ ἧσσον ἵνα, etc. On p. 118 the text from mid §184 and a couple of sentences into §185 is missing: καὶ ἀεὶ τοῦτο ποιοῦν [...]Συντίθενται δὲ ἀντὶ, etc. The same goes for the last paragraph of the edition, §193.
Edition: Thevenot (1693) pp. 43–48.
Note: The beginning of Belopoeica is not included in the manuscript and the text begins unannounced at page 50, line 17, in Thevenot’s edition.
Editions: Marsden (1971) pp. 106–154. Diels (1918) .
The textual transmission of Julius Africanus has long been under discussion. The so-called Apparatus Bellicus is nowadays considered a compilatory product from the late 9th or early 10th century Constantinople, a collection of earlier tactical fragments along with some minor authorial additions. The first part of it (ch. 1–30, following Thevenot’s numbering; from Περὶ ὁπλήσεως to Ἐπισφράγισμα περὶ βέλων) comes from Julius Africanus’ Kestoi, as is also stated in our manuscript. The middle part (ch. 31–59; from Πῶς δι οἴνου κτλ. to Περὶ τους πολλοὺς κτλ.) is a compilation on military technology from various authors; among them Sextus Julius Africanus, Aeneas Tacticus, and Polyaenus have been attested. The last part (ch. 60–79 in Thevenot’s numbering; from Περὶ τοξείας to Περὶ φυλακῶν in our manuscript) probably stems from Syrianus Magister ’s military compendium, with some minor authorial additions at the end. See also the discussion in Mecella (2009) ..
Edition: Thevenot (1693) pp. 275–316.
Note: The pinax is more comprehensive than the one in Vieillefond (1970) .’s edition; he lists only 34 captions as belonging to the 7th book of the Kestoi (Vieillefond I. 1–20) and the Strategica fragmenta (Vieillefond II. 1–12). In our manuscript there are 69 captions. It is thus more similar to the pinax reproduced by Thevenot (1693) pp. 275–277., except for the chapter numbering. The paragraphs on Οἴνου φάρμαξις and Ἀέρος φάρμαξις (chapters nos. γʹ and δʹ in Thevenot’s edition), which in Vieillefond’s edition are part of chapter I. 2, are announced with separate rubrics in the main text of the manuscript but are not mentioned in the manuscript pinax; the same goes for Thevenot’s chapters ιϛʹ–ιηʹ, κϛʹ–κηʹ, and ξβʹ. What corresponds to Thevenot’s chapter ιʹ has the expected rubric in the main text (Πρὸς ἵππων ὑπόσχυσιν) but wrong caption in the pinax. The pinax caption Ἤχου κλοπή is not repeated in the main text, whereas the next caption Τέχνη προγνωστικὴ τῶν μελλόντων is rubricized in the main text but omitted in the pinax.
Edition: Vieillefond (1970) pp. 103–187.
Note: Jean-René Vieillefond edited only a selection of these chapters, viz. those that he considered having emanated from Julius Africanus’ own writings. The full scope of the text is found in Thevenot (1693) .’s edition, ch. 31–59.
Note: For a comparison, see Thevenot (1693) ., ch. 60–79.
Pagination in pencil by a modern hand, starting on p. 3. On pp. 3–23 there is also an alternative pagination in ink: 1–21.
horizontal, in the lower right margin of the last verso, except for pp. 264–344 (Q18–Q22), where there are none.
According to Charles-Moïse Briquet, this kind of watermark (croix latine dans un écu, acompagnée de lettres alphabétiques) usually originates from Genoese paper mills. See Briquet vol. 1, p. 332.
f. SL1r and pp. 1, 3–4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 81, 191, 345 Scattered Greek marginal glosses in brownish black ink and brief comments in Latin, possibly by the same cursive minusculehand. Deletion of notes and title information on pp. 1, 81, 345.
pp. 3–379 Andreas Darmarios. For a description of the well-known minuscule hand of this professional scribe, see RGK vol. 1, no. 13.. pp. 13–14, 19, 23, 43, 47, 54, 65, 84, 92, 97, 350, 358, 369, 374 Nicholas de la Torre, who uses a right-sloping, ornate minuscule. Letters and spiritus often connected with the accents; extended, upright grave and acute accents; Iota subscriptum. Only the captions and illustrations are in de la Torre’s hand. These appear in the first five texts in the manuscript (Athenaeus, Biton, Heron’s Cheiroballista, Heron’s Belopoeica, and Apollodorus) and in the last text (Heron’s Belopoeica). See further under Illustrations. pp. 93, 127–129, 139, 141, 191, 235, 348 Marginal notes in pencil in a modern hand, with references to Thevenot’s edition.
Rubrics and initials in red ink throughout. On (p. 1), a headpiece in black ink with a vegetal pattern consisting of convolute hairlines, buds and curlicues. Similar design in red on larger initials.
Pen-drawn illustrations in black ink, showing war machinery and technical details: pp. 13–14, 17, 19–20, 23, 26, 29, 33, 41, 43, 45, 47, 54, 59, 61, 64–65, 67, 69, 73, 76, 79–80, 84, 86–90, 92–93, 96–99, 101, 104–107, 110, 114–115, 117, 119, 121–122, 124, 126, 128, 267, 269–270, 350, 355, 358, 360, 362, 364, 369, 374, 378–379.
In the anonymous text Κατασκευὴ ἐλεπόλεως κόρακος λεγομένης there are blank spaces saved for illustrations but none executed ( pp. 142, 144, 164, 166, 180, 186).
Most of the illustrations seem to have been sketched by Nicholas de la Torre. At least the captions are in his hand and the same ink was used for the drawings. The exception to this are the geometrical figures on pp. 267, 269–270, which were probably sketched by the main scribe, Andreas Darmarios.
Light yellow parchment case binding over pasteboard created from manuscript waste paper with Spanish text on it. Sewn on four supports; only the endband slips are laced through the cover and turn-ins. Endbands in pink and green with front bead; Two pairs of ties at foredge. Red mottled edges.
Pastedown and one flyleaf to the left; no endleaves to the right, where, instead, the last leaf of the gathering has been used as pastedown. A stub is visible after the first and before the last gathering. On the left flyleaf there is a watermark.
Condition: Left pastedown (LCI) is partly torn out. The parchment cover is now worn and darkened, but the original bright yellow staining is still visible on turn-ins.
The codex was written by Andreas Darmarios, probably in Venice around 1565–1570, on the basis of Scorialensis Phi. II. 22.
In the mid-1570s, Darmarios probably brought the codex to Spain in order to sell it to Antonio Agustín, bishop of Tarragona. The lost Escorial codex, Scorialensis Epsilon. II. 20, which used to belong to Agustín, may be identical with our codex (Agustín no. 226), but there is no hard evidence to prove it, except that the contents match up. Agustín’s numbering is usually placed in the left lower margin of the first page, which happens to be heavily damaged and restored in our codex.
Together with Ups. Gr. 30 it was bought in 1718 from S. Wallman. The total amount paid for the two volumes was 84 Daler kopparmynt.

References: §15
 §20
 §158
 §159
 §184
 §185
 §193