by Onasander
The Florentinus is incomparably the best MS. for Onasander, so that the disagreements of other MSS. need be considered only in the relatively few passages where it has obviously suffered from corruption. MSS. A and B are faithful copies of the Florentinus, and Köchly collated these two MSS. himself, so that this branch of the tradition was fairly well known even before the collation of the parent MS. In view of this fact and of the rare critical acumen of Köchly it is but natural that the present edition will be found to differ in only a few places, and generally in points of minor importance (but uniformly along the line of closer adherence to the Florentinus), from the text as constituted by that great scholar.
The second family represents a markedly inferior text, but probably one of wider circulation, and so presumably the vulgate of Leo’s time. it is valuable primarily only when the Florentinus is corrupt. I have given, however, in the apparatus criticus all the important variations of the three leading MSS. of this family from the printed text, so that the material upon which a judgement must be based may not be withheld from others.
The third group, represented by the Ambrosianus, gives us a text varying so widely from that of the other lines of tradition that both K. K. Müller and the editors of the catalogue of the Ambrosian Library, Drs. Martini and Bassi, regard it as no longer a recension but as a Byzantine paraphrase. I have taken, therefore, no cognizance of it, not, of course, because I am unaware of the value which a close paraphrase like this, and even a much freer one like that of many passages in Leo’s Tactica, have in attesting the direct MS. tradition, but merely because it has been impossible in the time available, because of the delay and uncertainty of communication with Italy, to secure photographs of the Ambrosianus and present this secondary material in a form suitable for a volume of this series.35
To sum up: we have in F an excellent, old, uninterpolated, but not faultless text; in PGH and most other MSS. a Byzantine vulgate; in the Ambrosianus 139 a Byzantine paraphrase; in Leo a Byzantine plagiarism.
Symbols
I give here, in addition to the symbols for the four great MSS., those used by Köchly for the MSS. from which readings were given by his predecessors. The names Rigaltius, Schwebel, Koraes, and Köchly in the apparatus refer to the texts, or notes as the case may be, and those of Sagundinus and Camerarius, to the translations produced respectively by these scholars.
A Parisinus 2522, s. XV, a copy of F. The corrector, A m2, is derived from R, or a very closely related MS. (Köchly)
B Bernensis 97, s. XV-XVI, a copy of F, but with some emendations. (Köchly)
C Morellanus, once in the possession of F. Morellus at Paris. It seems to be descended from F but has many deviations and peculiar readings. (Rigaltius)
D An inferior seventeenth century MS. (Koraes)
E In the library at Munich in the eighteenth century; it agrees closely with the late MSS. of Rigaltius. (Schwebel)
F Florentinus LV.4, s. X, collated by Prof. Dott. Enrico Rostagno for this edition. The symbol F is used by Köchly for a very few readings from a Florentine MS. (presumably LV.4) furnished Schwebel by Dom. Mar. Manni. For these the designation F (sic) is used.
G Vaticanus Graecus 1164, s. XI. See H. Photographs of this MS. were used. Two leaves are missing (for details see apparatus on 10.27 and 35.3). Some portions, especially of fol. 11r, are illegible. For a description see Wescher, Poliorcétique grecque, pp. xxiv ff.
H Neapolitanus III C 26, s. XI. H and G agree so closely that they are certainly copies of the same archetype, probably uncial. Photographs of this MS. were used.
K A late and inferior MS. owned by Koraes. (Koraes)
M “Cod. Mediceus, ex Bibl. Reg. Catharinae”, a direct copy of G. (Rigaltius)
N A late MS. owned by Joh. Nagel, agreeing generally with the late MSS. of Rigaltius. (Schwebel)
P Parisinus 2442, s. XI, collated for Köchly by Jakob Huntziker. For a description see Wescher, Poliorcétique grecque, pp. xxvi f. (Köchly)
R A late and extensively interpolated MS. of Rigaltius, the probable source of the readings of the second hand of A. (Rigaltius)
V “Vet. Membranae” or “Vetusta Macrocola,” seldom reported upon. (Rigaltius)
v Vulgate reading of the MSS. used by Köchly and his predecessors. With this A m2 (although Köchly quotes the latter separately) nearly always agrees, and when it does so is included under that symbol. Because of its age and importance P is cited separately, even if agreeing with v, when specially reported by Köchly.
Ω All MSS. or all other MSS. (including FGH).
Note. — The quoted phrases “alii codd. ut vid.”, “ceteri codd. ut vid.”, etc., are taken from Köchly’s apparatus (based upon inferences from the earlier editions), unless some other authority is cited.
ENDNOTES.
1 The MSS. of Suidas give Τακτικὰ περὶ στρατηγημάτων. Bernhardi (following Küster) puts a comma after τακτικά, as though different works were referred to, but it is much more likely that only one was meant, whether we take the words περὶ στρατηγημάτων as explanatory of τακτικά, or suppose that ἤ has fallen out. In any event the title given by Suidas is inexact, for the better MSS. of Onasander give Στρατηγικός (the inferior ones Στρατηγικά or Στρατηγική), which is undoubtedly correct, and is attested also by the so-called Leo XIV.112. Suidas exemplifies late usage which applied τακτικά to any military treatise.
2 This has left no trace.
3 The evidence is collected and discussed by Erich Bethe, Rhein. Mus., 1907, LXII: 445 ff. The φίλων ἴλη of the younger Scipio (Appian, Hisp. 84) seems to have been composed rather of friends of Scipio, than of mutual friends, so that I cannot agree with Wecklein, Philol., 1876, XXXIV:413, who compares it with the ἱερὸς λόχος of Thebes. In Magna Graecia so closely connected was paederasty with war that it was even said to have been in origin a military measure. (Suidas s.v. Θάμυρις.)
4 The Pseudo-Platonic Ὅροι (which Schwebel, following a very dubious tradition, ascribes to Theophrastus) give a somewhat different definition of φθόνος, and of φθόνος only.
5 Compare the scholium to Aristophanes, Plutus, 87, where the definition of the word as given by the philosophers (παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις) is contrasted with that given by the rhetoricians. The Stoics, of course, had their definition, see Diog. Laert. VII.111.
6 This work, long ascribed to Leo VI, is now known to antedate his period, and must go back to Leo III (A.D. 711-741), commonly, but incorrectly, called the Isaurian. This conclusion was first advanced by Zachariae von Lingenthal, Byz. Zeitschr., 1894, III:437 ff., and the demonstration completed by K. Schenk, ibid., 1896, VI:298 f. Of course the Emperor is only to be regarded as the one under whose auspices the work was composed. See also R. Helbing in his review of R. Vari’s new edition of the Tactica, Budapest, 1917 (unfortunately inaccessible as yet), in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., 1919, 97.
7 It is worthy of note that the so-called Leo has the correct form of the title, while the designation in Suidas is markedly inexact.
8 See K. Krumbacher, Byzant. Literaturgesch., 2nd ed., 1897, 638, and the literature there cited.
9 The author of this work must have had a MS. of Onasander before him, because he paraphrases a large part of the present treatise, and since he worked under the encouragement of the Emperor it is to be supposed that he had the best available sources. No doubt the author of the archetype of the majority of our present codices, in the tenth century, also had good MS. material to work upon, but that was two centuries later, and besides this archetype clearly represents a seriously corrupt and interpolated vulgate. The testimony of D, a late interpolated MS., for Ὀνήσανδρος is worthless.
10 Approximately thirty-five instances have been noted, without making an exhaustive search, principally from Rhodes, Eretria, Athens, Laconia, and Ionia.
11 Ὀνόσανδρος can hardly be derived from ὄνος, whatever
one may think of the possibility of such a name among the Greeks, while the stem ὀνόσασθαι, as Bechtel observed, does not seem to appear in Greek nomenclature.
12 Earlier but baseless conjectures are mentioned by Schwebel, p. 8. The year 58 might be more appropriately taken, as it is unlikely that Onasander would have dedicated his work to Veranius after the latter had gone to Britain in this year. For Veranius see the article in Prosop. Imp. Rom. III.399 f.
Thayer’s Note: The Prosopographia is not online, so we should content ourselves with Arthur E. Gordon’s Quintus Veranius consul A.D. 49, A study based upon his recently identified sepulchral inscription (University of California Press, 1952) — but that’s not online either; we’ll have to make do with a review of it, which in picking apart Prof. Gordon’s book, gives us Veranius’ career as a sort of by-product: AJP:75.206-210.
13 Some slight general confirmation of this approximate dating is supplied by von Rohden (see Bibliography), who finds approximately the same technique regarding the avoidance of hiatus in Onasander and in Ps.-Longinus, for the latter, it is now agreed, belongs to the period of the early empire. Von Rohden’s results may, however, need modification, because they are based upon Köchly’s text which departs at many places from the best MS. tradition in the matter of elision.
14 It seems unduly severe for Köchly and Rüstow: 1855, 84 and Max Jähns, 92, to denounce Onasander for lack of originality when he disclaims it himself.
15 Guilliman writing in 1583, as quoted by Zur-Lauben, preface, .
16 The Prince de Ligne, as quoted by Jähns, 94. One’s respect for the prince’s judgement is seriously qualified, however, by the circumstance that he has the highest admiration for the so-called Leo (ibid. 120), ranging him beside Napoleon, and far above a mere Caesar or Frederick the Great, whereas the Tactics of Leo are in part a watered paraphrase of Onasander himself, together with extensive extracts from the Strategica ascribed to Mauricius, and from other sources.
17 Köchly and Rüstow: 1855, 85.
18 Thus it has been noted that in Ch. 10.25 ff. the Greek inspection of victims before battle is mentioned, not the Roman augury with the sacred chickens. But the Romans also took auspices before battle, no less than the Greeks, at least during the Republic. In the same chapter (10.4) exercises for soldiers are mentioned, which are drawn from Xenophon (Cyrop. II.3.17 f.). But similar exercises were employed by the Romans (see the article “Exercitus” in Pauly-Wissowa, 1654), and although exercise in throwing clods is not recorded for the Romans, so far as I am aware, Vegetius (II.23) especially recommends that soldiers be trained to throw stones, and in a sham battle what better substitute for these could be desired than clods? It is true that the Roman legion is not specifically mentioned, but neither is the Greek, for that matter. The word φάλαγξ could be used of either, but Onasander is writing of armies in general and not of particular forms of organization.
19 He was especially indebted to the Cyropaedia and the Anabasis. He drew also from Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius among extant authors, but is in no case slavishly dependent upon any particular source that has come down to us.
20 Köchly and Rüstow: 1855, 85, note 198.
21 Max Jähns, Gesch. der Kriegswiss. I.9, note, who mentions an edition of the Scriptores (i.e., the Rei Militaris Scriptore, Rome, 1487, and frequently thereafter), Rome, 1499, in which the collection is enlarged by the addition of Onasander’s treatise, which, however, was again omitted in the edition of Bologna and the subsequent reprints, had no doubt in mind the Latin translation of Sagundinus, q.v., which meets his description in every detail except that it appeared in the edition of Rome, 1494, only, not 1499.
22 The copy in the Brit. Mus. is described thus: “Another edition) [i.e., of Rigaltius]. Accessit Urbici inventum, Graece et Latine; interprete N. Rigaltio, cujus item adjiciuntur notae: ut item J. Gruteri discursus varii. . . . In Bibliopolio Commeliniano: 1604, 1600-05.”
23 There seems to have been some doubt as to the correct spelling of the name. The editio princeps and the Paris reprint have Sagundinus, the Basel reprints and editors use the form Saguntinus. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. IV.337, and Haase, 1835, 99 give some references where the form Secundinus appears.
24 So Haase, 1835, 98; Köchly in his edition, p. vii; and the catalogues of the Brit. Museum and the Bibl. Nat. and Hain* 15915. Fabricius, loc. cit., gives 1493.
25 A Latin translation in MS. exists in the Escurial library, iii. S. 11; also at London, 12 C. XIII, the latter under the name Nicolao Secundino, so that the Escurial translation is probably the same work; see Haase, 1835, 99.
26 It is more than doubtful if the work of Dominicus Syllenius Graecus, described by Fabricius, op. cit., 339, under the heading Versiones, as being “de vetere et recentiore scientia militari, omnium bellorum genera terrestria perinde ac naualia, nec non tormentorum rationes complectente. Venet. 1599”, contains a translation of Onasander.
27 Max Jähns, Gesch. der Kriegswiss., 93.
28 Fabricius, loc. cit., gives 1531. This translation is said to contain a chapter, otherwise unknown, upon the Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians. See Zur-Lauben, quoted by Fabricius, loc. cit.; Jähns, op. cit., 93. It can hardly fail to be spurious, since any such details would be alien to the general tenor of the work, as well as opposed to the express statement of the prooemium.
29 Jähns, op. cit., 94, gives the place of publication as Frankfurt and the date as 1779 (on , Frankenthal and München). This may have been a different edition but it is more likely that we have here only a different title-page.
30 The catalogue of the Bibl. Nat. indicates that there were other editions of this translation, but the volume which would contain them has not yet appeared. The Brit. Mus. possesses only this edition of 1546.
31 Max Jähns, op. cit., speaks of 1500 pages, but the Brit. Mus. cat. records only 734. The book is a quarto.
32 Thus Haase: 1835, 98, and the catalogues of the Brit. Mus. and the Bibl. Nat.: Guischard, Fabricius, op. cit., 399, Brunet, Graesse; Guischart, Jähns, op. cit., 93.
33 Haase, ibid., and the catalogues of the Brit. Mus. and the Bibl. Nat. give 1758.
34 Most of them are listed by Zur-Lauben in the preface to his translation (from Montfaucon, Bibl. Bibl.); Haase, De milit. script. Gr.; and K. K. Müller, Festgabe zur dritten Säcularfeier. Add to those mentioned in these works one at Perugia (Blume, Bibliotheca librorum MSS. Italica, in Supplementum itineris Italici, Göttingen, 1834, 122), and another at Turin (Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, IV (1795), 337).
35 Similarly, in the case of Leo, it has been impossible to secure from Hungary the new critical edition of the Tactica prepared by Dr. R. Vari, and published by the Budapest Academy as long ago as 1917, while any extensive use of this work in the old editions would be unprofitable. It should be noted, however, that Leo agrees occasionally with F against all other MSS., which would suggest that the tradition represented by F and not the vulgate was the basis of his paraphrase, a condition apparently somewhat different from that which Wescher, Poliorcétique grecque, p. xxxix, presupposes for the tradition of the military technicians.
CONTENTS
The Delphi Classics Catalogue
We are proud to present a listing of our complete catalogue of English titles, with new titles being added every month. Buying direct from our website means you can make great savings and take advantage of our instant Updates service. You can even purchase an entire series (Super Set) at a special discounted price.
Only from our website can readers purchase a complete Parts Edition of our titles. When you buy a Parts Edition, you will receive a folder of your chosen author’s works, with each novel, play, poetry collection, non-fiction book and more divided into its own special volume. This allows you to read individual novels etc. and to know precisely where you are in an eBook. For more information, please visit our Parts Edition page.
Series Contents
Series One
Anton Chekhov
Charles Dick
ens
D.H. Lawrence
Dickensiana Volume I
Edgar Allan Poe
Elizabeth Gaskell
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
George Eliot
H. G. Wells
Henry James
Ivan Turgenev
Jack London
James Joyce
Jane Austen
Joseph Conrad
Leo Tolstoy
Louisa May Alcott
Mark Twain
Oscar Wilde
Robert Louis Stevenson
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Sir Walter Scott
The Brontës
Thomas Hardy
Virginia Woolf
Wilkie Collins
William Makepeace Thackeray
Series Two
Alexander Pushkin
Alexandre Dumas (English)
Andrew Lang
Anthony Trollope
Bram Stoker
Christopher Marlowe
Daniel Defoe
Edith Wharton
F. Scott Fitzgerald
G. K. Chesterton
Gustave Flaubert (English)
H. Rider Haggard
Herman Melville
Honoré de Balzac (English)
J. W. von Goethe (English)
Jules Verne
L. Frank Baum
Lewis Carroll
Marcel Proust (English)
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Nikolai Gogol
O. Henry
Rudyard Kipling
Tobias Smollett
Victor Hugo
William Shakespeare
Series Three
Ambrose Bierce
Ann Radcliffe