Textus Originalis
PRAEFATIO.
multis locis sint dissimiles, ad unum exemplar omnes redire facillime intellegitur ex mendis, quae omnibus codicibus sunt communia, veluti XI 33, 1 χάριτι δουλεύσαντες] χαριτίδου κελεύσαντες 33, 4 πρὸς Πέρσας] προτέρας 50, 3 Σπάρτην] σπουδήν 68, 1 Τύκην] Ἰτύκην 85, 2 πλήν] πλησίον XII 3, 4 πεζῆς sine πεζικῆς] Περσικῆς 27, 1 περὶ Πριήνης] περὶ εἰρήνης 79, 1 Ἄργος] αὐτούς. Alia id genus facile ipse tibi ex apparatu critico colliges. Digniora autem, quae oculos nostros in se convertant, sunt ea exempla, ubi vitiosae scripturae ortae sunt ex litteris simili forma inter se mutatis: XII 24, 4 ΑΛγίδῳ] ΛΑγαδίῳ 79, 6 Λογάσι] Αρκάσι XIV 35, 3 ΓΛοῦ] ΓΑου (et sic semper, cf. XV 3, 2. 6 9, 3. 4 18, 1 19, 1) XV 19, 3 ΦΛιουντίους] ΦΑιουντίους = XV 69, 1 XVI 11, 3 πΛΕιν] πΑCιν XI 48, 2 ἈρχίΔαμος] ἈρχέΛαος XIV 49, 2 καταΔύσας] καταΛύσας (XI 27, 2 κατέΔυσε P, κατέΛυσε cet.) XIV 83, 4 Λώρυμα] Δώρυμα XV 8, 4 ΚαΔουσίους] ΚαΛουσίους XIII 69, 2 ἐν Αἷς ᾗ] ἐν Δ’ ἴσῃ XII 40, 6 ΤεΤραμέτροις] ΓεΓραμμένοις 78, 1 ΜουΓιλανόν] ΜουΤιλανόν XII 68, 2 ἌΓΝωνος] ἌΠΙωνος XIII 11, 2 ὀγδοήκοντα i. e. Π] τῖ P, τριακοσίων δέκα cet.
Traduzione
English — scholarly
ARETHE Knowledge Engineering DivisionPREFACE.
they are dissimilar in many places, that they all go back to one exemplar is most easily understood from the errors common to all manuscripts, such as XI 33, 1 χάριτι δουλεύσαντες] χαριτίδου κελεύσαντες 33, 4 πρὸς Πέρσας] προτέρας 50, 3 Σπάρτην] σπουδήν 68, 1 Τύκην] Ἰτύκην 85, 2 πλήν] πλησίον XII 3, 4 πεζῆς sine πεζικῆς] Περσικῆς 27, 1 περὶ Πριήνης] περὶ εἰρήνης 79, 1 Ἄργος] αὐτούς. Other instances of this kind you can easily gather for yourself from the critical apparatus. More worthy, however, of attracting our attention are those examples where corrupt readings arose from letters confused with each other due to similar form: XII 24, 4 ΑΛγίδῳ] ΛΑγαδίῳ 79, 6 Λογάσι] Αρκάσι XIV 35, 3 ΓΛοῦ] ΓΑου (and so always, cf. XV 3, 2. 6 9, 3. 4 18, 1 19, 1) XV 19, 3 ΦΛιουντίους] ΦΑιουντίους = XV 69, 1 XVI 11, 3 πΛΕιν] πΑCιν XI 48, 2 ἈρχίΔαμος] ἈρχέΛαος XIV 49, 2 καταΔύσας] καταΛύσας (XI 27, 2 κατέΔυσε P, κατέΛυσε cet.) XIV 83, 4 Λώρυμα] Δώρυμα XV 8, 4 ΚαΔουσίους] ΚαΛουσίους XIII 69, 2 ἐν Αἷς ᾗ] ἐν Δ’ ἴσῃ XII 40, 6 ΤεΤραμέτροις] ΓεΓραμμένοις 78, 1 ΜουΓιλανόν] ΜουΤιλανόν XII 68, 2 ἌΓΝωνος] ἌΠΙωνος XIII 11, 2 ὀγδοήκοντα i. e. Π] τῖ P, τριακοσίων δέκα cet.
Commentario Arethe
Common errors prove single archetype — uncial letter confusions
Vogel demonstrates that ALL extant manuscripts derive from a single archetype through errors that only make sense if the archetype was written in uncial (majuscule) letters. The confusions he catalogs — Α/Λ (alpha/lambda), Γ/Τ (gamma/tau), Δ/Λ (delta/lambda), Π/ΤΙ (pi/tau-iota), Θ/Ο (theta/omicron with sigma), Μ/ΛΛ — are diagnostic of uncial script where these letter pairs look nearly identical. This pushes the archetype back to before the transition from uncial to minuscule (generally 9th century), meaning all our manuscripts ultimately derive from a single copy that survived the 'great transcription' of the 9th century.