05-07-2006, 07:38 PM
Don't feel bad, Paul. We all have off days.
The Danish scholar Aage Drachmann, whose opinion appears to have been feared rather than respected (!), certainly believed that Biton was a complete fraud, and that there was no point in trying to interpret his descriptions.
But Schramm (in collaboration with the philologist Rehm) and Marsden showed that you can make some sense out of Biton. It's a question of balancing what Biton writes with practical probability. Take the sambuca, for example: the late Otto Lendle made some very sensible corrections to Schramm and Marsden, which I have (gratefully) followed in my little Greek and Roman Siege Machinery book, and I believe that my reconstruction is probably close to what Biton envisaged.
Quote:Just out of curiosity what is you view on Marsden’s treatment of Biton?Not sure what you mean. Dating of Biton? Translation of Biton? Which particular area of Marsden's treatment?
The Danish scholar Aage Drachmann, whose opinion appears to have been feared rather than respected (!), certainly believed that Biton was a complete fraud, and that there was no point in trying to interpret his descriptions.
But Schramm (in collaboration with the philologist Rehm) and Marsden showed that you can make some sense out of Biton. It's a question of balancing what Biton writes with practical probability. Take the sambuca, for example: the late Otto Lendle made some very sensible corrections to Schramm and Marsden, which I have (gratefully) followed in my little Greek and Roman Siege Machinery book, and I believe that my reconstruction is probably close to what Biton envisaged.
