The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

Kai,

I'm not trying to reopen our old debate but, for my own satisfaction, I want to be sure that I understand your reasoning on the Persae/personati issue. The following is what I derive from your various posts:

1. V is defective in some way such that the word in question cannot be read directly.
2. Some of the other manuscripts read personati but the majority read Persae.
3. Applying the principle of lectio difficilior, i.e., where manuscripts differ, the least obvious and, therefore, the least frequent reading is more likely to be the original, personati is to be preferred to Persae.
4. This is reflected back to supply the deficiency in V.
5. M is lost apart from a few pages and other fragments but Gelenius used it and we must rely on his version of the text, if we want to recover the form of M.
6. Gelenius made a number of errors and conjectures but his reading of Persae may be a true reading.
7. Consequently, you are reluctant to accept personati in V as being the definitive reading.

If I am mistaken in any of the above, please correct me.

This raises two questions:

1. What is the source of your information as to the defects in V and the readings in the other manuscripts?
2. Is Gelenius' version of the text taken into account on the Persae side of the equation, in making the lectio difficilior assessment?

Regards,
Michael