Poliorcetics

Venice, 1565–1570

paper

i, 191 leaves

285 × 195 mm

Greek

1 (pp.3–24) Athenaeus Mechanicus, De machinis

Rubric: Ἀθηναίου περὶ μηχανημάτων

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.

Edition: Schneider (1912).

2 (pp.24–40) Biton Mechanicus, De constructione bellicarum machinarum et catapultarum (Κατασκευαὶ πολεμικῶν ὀργάνων καὶ καταπαλτικῶν) (TLG1226.001)

Rubric: Βίτωνος κατασκευαὶ πολεμικῶν ὀργάνων καὶ καταπελτιστῶν

Final rubric: Βίτωνος κατασκευαὶ πολεμικῶν ὀργάνων καὶ καταπελτικῶν

Editions: Marsden (1971), pp. 66–103; Rehm (1929).

3 (pp.40–48) Heron Alexandrinus, Cheiroballista

Rubric: Ἥρωνος χειροβαλλίστρας κατασκευὴ καὶ συμμετρία

Edition: Prou (1877).

4 (pp.48–80) Heron Alexandrinus, Belopoeica

Rubric: Ἥρωνος Κτησιβίου βελοποιϊκά

Edition: Diels (1918).

5 (pp.81–128) Apollodorus Damascenus, Poliorcetica

Rubric: Ἐκ τῶν Ἀπολοδώρου πολιορκητικά

Explicit: μίαν ἔχουσι, κατὰ τὸ ὑπογεγραμμένον πρῶτον σχῆμα [mut.]

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: Schneider (1908).

6 (pp.129–139:3) Κατασκευὴ ἑλεπόλεως κόρακος ὀνομαζομένου

Rubric: Κατασκευὴ ἐλεπόλεως κόρακος λεγομένης

Incipit: Ἡ ἐλέπολις αὕτη ἐκ τριῶν μερῶν τῶν μεγίστων σύγκειται

Explicit: ῥώστακα μὴ ἐμποδίζειν ἐν ταῖς ἐπικλήσεσιν

Edition: Thevenot (1693), pp. 43–48.

7 (pp.139:3–191) Philo Byzantius, Belopoeica (Mechanicae syntaxis, liber IV) (Ἐκ τῶν Φίλωνος Βελοποιικῶν λογος Δ)

Incipit: ὅταν εἰς ἔλασσον συναιρῶν

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).

8 (pp.191–235) Philo Byzantius, Parasceuastica et poliorcetica (Mechanicae syntaxis, liber VII-VIII) (Ἐκ τῶν Φίλωνος Βελοποιικῶν λογος Ε)

Rubric: ~~ἐπληρώθη τὸ τέταρτον~~ \Βίτωνος Μηχανικά/

Edition: Diels (1919).

9 (pp.236–339) Sextus Julius Africanus, Apparatus Bellicus (Cesti (fragmenta))

Rubric: Ἰουλίου Ἀφρικανοῦ κεστοί

Note:

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).

pp. 340–344 are blank.

Edition: Thevenot (1693), pp. 275–316.

9.1 (pp.236–239) Pinax

Rubric: Πίναξ

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.

9.2 (pp.239–289) Cestorum libri VII fragmenta (TLG2956.002)

Final rubric: Ἰουλίου Ἀφρικανοῦ κεστοί

Edition: Vieillefond (1970), pp. 103–187.

9.3 (pp.289–306) Strategica fragmenta

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.

9.4 (pp.306–339) Alia fragmenta

Note: For a comparison, see Thevenot (1693), ch. 60–79.

10 (pp.345–379) Heron Alexandrinus, Belopoeica

Rubric: Ἥρωνος Ἀλεξανδρέως βελοποιητικά

Final rubric: Τέλος τῶν βελοποιητικῶν Ἥρωνος

Note:

pp. 380–382 are blank.

Edition: Diels (1918).

Physical Description

Support

Binding/Endleaves

Locus: ff. LCI, SL1r–SL1v

Support: Western paper

Leaf dimensions: 285 × 195 mm

Folding: Folio

Watermark 4

Locus: ff. SL1r/SL1v,

Motif: Cross in upside-down drop shape; B; EA

Watermark dimensions: 49 × 29 mm

Chainlines: 22 mm

Chainlines: 25 mm

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 18 lines

Note: 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

Textblock

Locus: pp. 1–382

Support: Western paper

Leaf dimensions: 285 × 195 mm

Folding: Folio

Watermark 1a

Locus: pp. 1–2/15–16, 5–6/11–12, 7–8/9–10, 19–20/29–30, 37–38/43–44, 39–40/41–42, 49–50/63–64, 51–52/61–62, 53–54/59–60, 67–68/77–78, 81–82/95–96, 83–84/93–94, 87–88/89–90, 97–98/111–112, 99–100/109–110, 101–102/107–108, 113–114/127–128, 117–118/123–124, 119–120/121–122, 129–130/143–144, 133–134/139–140, 149–150/155–156, 163–164/173–174, 165–166/171–172, 179–180/189–190, 183–184/185–186, 199–200/201–202, 345–346/359–360, 347–348/357–358, 349–350/355–356, 361–362/375–376, 379–380/381–382,

Motif: Gothic letter P (askew); shield

Watermark dimensions: 71 × 24 mm

Chainlines: 34 mm

Chainlines: 32 mm

Chainlines:

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 20 lines

Watermark 1b

Locus: pp. 3–4/13–14, 17–18/31–32, 21–22/27–28, 23–24/25–26, 33–34/47–48, 35–36/45–46, 55–56/57–58, 65–66/79–80, 69–70/75–76, 71–72/73–74, 85–86/91–92, 103–104/105–106, 115–116/125–126, 131–132/141–142, 135–136/137–138, 145–146/159–160, 147–148/157–158, 151–152/153–154, 161–162/175–176, 167–168/169–170, 177–178/191–192, 181–182/187–188, 193–194/207–208, 195–196/205–206, 197–198/203–204, 225–226/231–232, 351–352/353–354, 363–364/373–374, 365–366/371–372, 367–368/369–370, 377–378/RCI,

Motif: Gothic letter P (straight); shield

very similar to Wasserzeichen Informationssystem, Piccard Buchstabe P 114971 Prague 1569

Watermark dimensions: 71 × 23 mm

Chainlines: 32 mm

Chainlines: 33 mm

Chainlines:

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 20 lines

Watermark 2a

Locus: pp. 211–212/221–222, 215–216/217–218, 227–228/229–230,

Motif: Shield; snake’s head; (shield divided per fesse, lower part lozengy)

similar to Briquet, Armoiries, Tête 2235 Prague 1563–1568

Watermark dimensions: 47 × 43 mm

Chainlines: 31 mm

Chainlines: 34 mm

Chainlines:

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 24 lines

Watermark 2b

Locus: pp. 209–210/223–224, 213–214/219–220,

Motif: Shield; snake’s head; (shield divided per fesse, lower part lozengy)

Watermark dimensions: 50 × 44 mm

Chainlines: 32 mm

Chainlines: 31 mm

Chainlines:

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 24 lines

Watermark 3a

Locus: pp. 251–252/261–262, 265–266/279–280, 269–270/275–276, 271–272/273–274, 281–282/295–296, 283–284/293–294, 285–286/291–292, 287–288/289–290, 297–298/311–312, 299–300/309–310, 313–314/327–328, 319–320/321–322, 329–330/343–344,

Motif: Pot with one handle; PO; quatrefoil

similar to Gravell Watermark Archive, Gravell Pot.159.1 1543

Watermark dimensions: 65 × 24 mm

Chainlines: 22 mm

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 16 lines

Watermark 3b

Locus: pp. 249–250/263–264, 253–254/259–260, 255–256/257–258, 267–268/277–278, 301–302/307–308, 303–304/305–306, 315–316/325–326, 317–318/323–324, 331–332/341–342, 333–334/339–340,

Motif: Pot with one handle; PO; quatrefoil

Watermark dimensions: 66 × 29 mm

Chainlines: 21 mm

Laid-lines in 20 mm: 16 lines

Foliation

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.

Collation

Textblock

Formula: _Q1–1414.IV^p.224 + _Q15II^p.232 + _Q16–249.IV^p.376 + _Q25II^{(p.382 + pastedown)}

Signatures: None

Catchwords: horizontal, in the lower right margin of the last verso, except for pp. 264–344 (Q18–Q22), where there are none.

Layout

Locus: pp. 3–379

Columns: 1

Written lines: 24

Written area: 185 × 105 mm

Script

Binding/Endleaves

Hand 1

(f. SL1r) and (pp. 1, 3–4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 81, 191, 345–345) 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, 345–345).

Textblock

Hand 2

(pp.3–379) ⟨Andreas Darmarios⟩. For a description of the well-known minuscule hand of this professional scribe, see RGK, vol. 1, no. 13.

Hand 3

(pp. 13–14, 19, 23, 43, 47, 54, 65, 84, 92, 97, 350, 358, 369, 374–374) ⟨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.

Hand 4

(pp. 93, 127–129, 139, 141, 191, 235, 348–348) Marginal notes in pencil in a modern hand, with references to Thevenot’s edition.

Additions

Binding/Endleaves

(ff. LCI, SL1r–SL1v) Blank endleaves

Decorations

Textblock

Description:

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.

Binding

Description:

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.

Numbers and former shelfmarks: ‘N 7’ on spine; ‘Benz 11’ on LCI; ‘104’ on f. SL1r

Binding dimensions: 290 × 205 × 45 mm

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.

History

Origin

The codex was written by ⟨Andreas Darmarios⟩, probably in Venice around 1565–1570, on the basis of Scorialensis Phi. II. 22, .

Provenance

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.