Urtext, Überlieferungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte im russischen Donat. Wie und ob sich Gegensätze textkritisch heranziehen lassen

The manuscript tradition of the Russian Donatus poses a significant challenge for philologists. The recensio codicum has unveiled an intriguing textual transmission, which can be broadly categorized into two primary branches: 1) Some manuscripts, albeit defective (with two of them preserving a bilingual interlinear format), exhibit a rather mechanical copying process of the text; (2) Another branch consists of a single manuscript, which presents a seemingly better text. However, this version is a clearly augmented and interpolated version, reflecting changes made in a later period. A critical comparison between these two recensions not only permits but also necessitates a new editorial approach. This approach should prioritize the legitimate goal of textual restitution while also considering the subsequent history of the text, including its indirect tradition. It is therefore advisable to blend the “classical” method of identifying errors, wherever applicable, with a thorough examination of the text’s evolution as evidenced by the interpolated version.