{"title":"A Chalkokondyles fragment from the Vaticanus Graecus 1890","authors":"T. Mészáros","doi":"10.2298/zrvi1855249m","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In collating the Chalkokondyles manuscripts, one must account for the fragment extant in the Vaticanus Graecus 1890 (Vb) manuscript, which exceeds three folia (131r–134r) and runs to 152 lines.1 This fragment is all the more remarkable since, according to current state of research, the pages carrying the text are directly copied from the Monacensis 307a (M1) manuscript, one of the most important codices in the tradition, which has doubtlessly the most interesting history as well.2 The significance of the fragment is further increased by the fact that Jenő Darkó, who published the authoritative text edition, did not know the Vatican manuscript in question.","PeriodicalId":53859,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","volume":"42 1","pages":"249-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/zrvi1855249m","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In collating the Chalkokondyles manuscripts, one must account for the fragment extant in the Vaticanus Graecus 1890 (Vb) manuscript, which exceeds three folia (131r–134r) and runs to 152 lines.1 This fragment is all the more remarkable since, according to current state of research, the pages carrying the text are directly copied from the Monacensis 307a (M1) manuscript, one of the most important codices in the tradition, which has doubtlessly the most interesting history as well.2 The significance of the fragment is further increased by the fact that Jenő Darkó, who published the authoritative text edition, did not know the Vatican manuscript in question.