Scriptorium

Three copies of the Madrid Skylitzes

John Burke

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Burke John. Three copies of the Madrid Skylitzes. In: Scriptorium, Tome 61 n°2, 2007. pp. 408-424;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/scrip.2007.4229

https://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_2007_num_61_2_4229

Fichier pdf généré le 18/09/2018

 john burke

THREE COPIES OF THE MADRID SKYLITZES ( ) 1

The twelfth-century manuscript now in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional Vitr. 26-2 (‘M') ( 2), is
the only illustrated manuscript among the twenty two taken into account by Thurn in pre-
paring his critical edition of Skylitzes' Synopsis Historiarum ( ). In fact, it is the only known
3

illustrated manuscript of a Byzantine Greek chronicle, and it may well be the first illustrated
history book produced in either the Greek East or the Latin West ( 4). Its 575 surviving mini-
atures, which combine Byzantine, Western and Arabic elements, are thus of unparalleled sig-
nificance for art historians. Three recent PhD theses (5), a life-size colour facsimile edition (6)
and a fully illustrated monograph (7) all testify to growing international interest in this manu-
script.

Scholarly opinion is divided about the origin of the illustrations. On the basis of inconsis-
tencies between the text and certain illustrations and/or their captions, Manoussacas inferred
that the Madrid Skylitzes had drawn on two different sources, one for the text of the
chronicle and another for the captions to the illustrations and, by implication, for the illus-
trations themselves (8). Tsamakda identified many more instances of inconsistency and
explained them by positing the existence of illustrated manuscripts of various other works
which may have been drawn upon for the illustration of Skylitzes' text, as well as a number
of intermediate copies between the Madrid Skylitzes and its archetype ( ). Both scholars were
9

inclined to assume a Constantinopolitan origin for the illustrations. In stark contrast, S ev-
cenko proposed that the Madrid Skylitzes was the first manuscript of Skylitzes to be illus-

(1) The research for this paper forms part of a wider project on the Madrid Skylitzes
involving the Univer-
sity of Melbourne and the AHRB Centre for Byzantine Cultural History centred at the Institute of Byzantine
Studies, The Queen's University Belfast, with support from the British Academy and Discovery and Linkage
International grants from the Australian Research Council. I thank my colleagues Assoc. Prof. R. D. Scott, Dr
P. Tuffin and Dr B. Bjornholt for their patience and helpful comments during preparation of this paper.
(2) For a description of Ms. Madrid BN Vitr. 26-2 ( olim
N2) and the copy Ms. Madrid BN 4594 ( olim
N1)
Gladius
see José Maria Fernández Pomar, « El Scylitzes de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid », 3, 1964, p. 15-
43.
Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum Editio princeps. Recensuit Ioannes Thurn
(3) . , Berlin, 1973 ( Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, , Series Berolinensis
V ). Thurn follows de Boor (see n. 11 below) in referring to
Vitr. 26-2 as Matritensis II and to the copy (ms. 4594) as Matritensis I.
(4) It is not until the mid-thirteenth century that anything similar appears in the West: see E. N. Boeck,
The Art of Being Byzantine: History, Structure and Visual Narrative in the Madrid Skylitzes Manuscript , PhD
Thesis, Yale 2003, p. 20-21.
(5) V. Tsamakda, Die illustrierte Chronik des Johannes Skylitzes in Madrid , Heidelberg, 2001 — published as
in note 7 below; B. K. Bjornholt, The use and portrayal of spectacle in the ‘Madrid Skylitzes (Bib.Nac.vitr.26-
'
2) , The Queen's University Belfast, 2002; E. N. Boeck (see previous note).
Joannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum: codex Matritensis graecus Vitr. 26-2: facsimile edition
(6) . Scientific
consultant Agamemnon Tselikas, Athens, 2000.
(7) V. Tsamakda, The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid, Leiden, 2002.
(8) A. Grabar and M. Manoussacas, L'Illustration du manuscrit de Skylitze` s de la Bibliothe` que Nationale de
Madrid Bibliothe` que de L'Institut Helle´nique d'Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines de Venise
, Venice, 1979 ( 10),
p. 8-9.
(9) V. Tsamakda, The Illustrated Chronicle , passim. On p. 395, for example, she concludes that the captions
« were not necessarily added for the first time in the Matritensis but possibly in the archetype and certainly in
one or more intermediate copies of Skylitzes ».

408
 notes et matériaux

trated (10). The specific arguments and counter-arguments of these three scholars deserve
closer examination, but in this paper I want to consider other evidence that has not, as yet,
been taken into consideration.

While M is the only known manuscript of Skylitzes with captioned illustrations, there are
other unillustrated Skylitzes manuscripts which preserve the captions. They are among a
group of seven characterised by C. de Boor as apographa of the Madrid Skylitzes. Four of
the seven are without the captions but reproduce poems found in the margins of M ( 11). De
Boor confessed, with some embarrassment but admirable honesty, that he could not find in
his notes any record of whether Ottobonianus 340 had the poems or the captions: « über den
Ottobonianus 340 finde ich in meinen Papieren keine Angaben » (12). In fact, it has the cap-
tions, so this group comprises:

O Ms. Vatican Ottobonianus 340, fols. 1-287, dated by its subscription to 1534 ( 13).
P Ms. Paris BNF suppl.gr 305, fols. 1-210, dated by its subscription to 1557 ( 14).
Q Ms. Madrid BN 4594, fols. 1-129, dated by watermarks to around 1567 ( 15).

It is obvious that Sevcenko's position about the origin of the illustrations in M would be
untenable if it could be shown that even one of the manuscripts with the captions does not
depend exclusively on the Madrid Skylitzes. On the other hand, evidence that they all derive
solely from the Madrid manuscript would exclude a potential source of support for the Ma-
noussacas/Tsamakda hypothesis.

De Boor was concerned to lay the groundwork for an edition of Skylitzes' text and thus
did not examine the marginal poems or the captions in any detail. Nevertheless, his charac-
terisation of these seven manuscripts as apographa of M was based on firm grounds: all seven
have gaps in the text corresponding to folios missing in M, and only M, after folios 58, 96, 126
(the whole of quire 16) 173, 177, and they all come to an end abruptly where M does, which
in Thurn's edition is about fifty pages (one tenth) short of the actual end of Skylitzes' text.
Accordingly, they have not been included as part of the Skylitzes manuscript tradition, and
Thurn did not consult them in preparing his critical edition of the text. Understandably,

(10) I. , « The Madrid manuscript of the Chronicle of Skylitzes in the light of its new dating »,
Byzanz und der Westen, ed. I.
S evcenko


Hutter, Vienna, 1984, p. 128-130.

(11) C. de Boor, « Weiteres zur Chronik des Skylitzes » Byzantinische Zeitschrift

14, 1905, p. 411-416. With
respect to the four apographa with the poems, de Boor noted that several lines of one of the poems had been
replaced by a phrase to indicate their absence and concluded that one of them, Ambrosianus C 247 inf. (892),
held an intermediate position between M and the other three: Ottobonianus 361, Berolinensis 234 (Philips 1637)
and Marcianus 91, 7 (Zanetti 605). See also I. Sevcenko, « Poems on the deaths of Leo VI and Constantine VII
in the Madrid manuscript of Scylitzes », Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24, 1969, p. 185-228.
(12) De Boor, « Weiteres », p. 415.
(13) The date given in the catalogue of the Ottobonianus collection is 1526: E. Feron and F. Battaglini,
Codices manuscripti graeci ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Rome, 1893, p. 180. But Mercati's reinterpretation
of the scribal subscription is persuasive: G. Mercati, Per la storia dei manoscritti greci di Genova, di varie badie
Basiliane d'Italia e di Patmo, Vatican City, 1935 rp. 1961 ( Studi e Testi
, 68) p. 178. On the name of the scribe
see K. A. de Meyier, « Scribes grecs de la Renaissance, Additions et corrections aux répertoires de Vogel-
Gardthausen, de Patrinélis et de Canart », Scriptorium 18, 1964, p. 266.
(14) De Boor « Weiteres », p. 415-416.
(15) J.-M. Pomar, « El Scylitzes », p. 41.

409
 john burke

therefore, neither Manoussacas nor Tsamakda took them into account in preparing their edi-
tions of the captions.

The possibility remains, however, as Manoussacas suggested earlier, that the copyists of the
three apographa with the captions may have taken the text from one source and the captions
from another. Or they may have drawn on a second illustrated Skylitzes in reproducing the
captions, especially those that are missing from M. Given the significance of the issues at
stake, it is important to refine our understanding of the relationship of OPQ with M and with
each other.

In this paper I argue that O and Q are direct copies of M while P is a direct copy of O, and
I conclude that Sevcenko's view of the ad hoc
origin of the Madrid Skylitzes
is therefore still
tenable. In the process, an attempt is made to indicate some of the implications that may
follow from these relationships, particularly with respect to the question of what evidence is
required to support a conclusion that one manuscript is a direct rather than an indirect copy
of another; and also to present some observations that may be useful in explaining the origin
and history of these manuscripts. On the other hand, I do not attempt a full description and
analysis of the manuscripts, in part because it is not my purpose, and in part because I have
had to rely on microfilms rather than autopsy in the case of O and P.

In the course of discussion, reference will be made to M's twin manuscript, Neapolitanus
III.B.24 (‘N') (16). Because some of the argument rests on the precise rendering of texts on the
page, many of the transcriptions include the following conventions:
[ ] text abbreviated by suspension (i.e. the letters are simply omitted)
( ) text abbreviated using a recognized symbol standing for one or more letters
" letters following are superscripted until the end of the word or the sign !
Diacritics, and variant forms of the letters sigma ( C), stigma (q), and beta (v), are represented
as they appear in the texts except where, for convenience, they have been standardized.

The dependence of OPQ on M

In addition to the evidence already adduced by de Boor, the three manuscripts OPQ have
a range of features which, in accordance with Thurn's apparatus criticus and/or the direct
evidence of the relevant manuscripts, are unique to M in the manuscript tradition. These
features may be grouped conveniently under five headings:

(16) Salvatore Cyrillo. Codices Greci MSS. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae, ,

Naples 1832, vol. 2, p. 326-328.
Cyrillo dated the ms. to the 15th century, de Boor (410) and Thurn (p. xxvi) to the 14th century, but Nigel
Wilson has suggested that it may be from the 12th century: see « Scholarly Hands of the Middle Byzantine
Period »,La Pale´ographie grecque et byzantine,
ed. J. Glénisson, Paris, 1977, p. 238. For more on the relation-
ship between M and N see Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae,
p. xxiv ff. My particular thanks go to Dott.ssa A. M.
Garofalo of the Sezione Manoscritti e Rari at the Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli for granting access to the
manuscript, and to Professors R. Maisano and L. Tartaglia for their assistance and hospitality in Naples.

410
 notes et matériaux

1. Omissions

a. OPQ follow M in omitting about one line of text at Thurn 84.87, 93.25 and 346.61.

b. The scribe of M appears to have quickly realised his omission of a line of text at folio
228v line 2 (Thurn 436.7) and to have written it after the line it should have preceded,
modifying the word order slightly. All three manuscripts follow M in this inversion of
line sequence (O 278v, P 203r, Q 126r).

c. In M, quires 11 and 25 have spaces for miniatures that were never executed, and thus
have no captions, while the whole of quires 20 and 21 have miniatures that are without
captions; 11 other miniatures throughout the manuscript also have no caption. The
manuscripts OPQ reproduce these omissions in their entirety. They do not supplement
the gaps in M from another source.

2. Inclusions

a. The captions in OPQ are found at exactly the same point of insertion into the text as in
M. Even when the copy omits the text of a caption in M, or part of it, or where there is
no caption in M (notably quires 11, 20, 21, 25), the copy nevertheless includes a colon
and dash indicating where the miniature and its caption belong. The exceptions are neg-
ligible (17).

b. In addition to the captions, all three manuscripts include chapter titles that are unique to
M in the manuscript tradition. While the twin manuscript N usually introduces each chap-
ter with only the name of the emperor, and other manuscripts use a variety of titles, M
frequently adopts a formula commencing with aÊ rjý basileìaq. In the case of Leo VI
(Thurn 171.54), for example, M 106r has aÊ rjý basileìaq Lèontoq uiÉou˜ basileìou tou˜ basi-

lèwq, which is reproduced verbatim in OPQ — as are the other chapter titles in M.

c. M and N have a number of section titles, nearly all of which are identical. But M intro-
duces a few variations. As Tsamakda has observed, in the bottom margin of folio 28r
one of the scribes of M has added the words Kwnstantìnw
ç and tou˜ ÊArmenìou to the title
as it is found in N (18). Vestiges of words erased in M confirm that the title was origi-
nally the same as in N (except that M has Lèonti for Lèontoq) . It is M's re-phrasing of
this section title that is reproduced verbatim in OPQ.

3. Variant readings

There are many points at which OPQ follow M in spelling and related matters (page and
line numbers refer to Thurn's edition; the first reading given each time is that of Thurn, the
second is that of MOPQ): 14.60 proapohanẁn : pró aÊ pohanẃn. 14.67 :
toi˜q ty˜ q. 15.13 aÊ oìdi-

(17) Q, for example, fails to mark the insertion point of only one miniature and its caption (M 204ra); in
only three instances (M 43vb, 157rb, 211va) is the text of a caption replaced by the text of the following
caption (which, in two cases, is partly identical).
(18) V. Tsamakda, The Illustrated Chronicle , p. 14 (which presumably takes precedence over her statement
in p. 68 n. 2 that the title in N is identical); that M actually has tou˜ ÊArmèni rather than tou˜ ÊArmenìou does not
detract from her observation that the phrase is a later addition in M.

411
 john burke

moq : aÊ oìdymoq. 15.15 Proikònnyson : Prikònnyson. 15.89 biotýn : biwtýn. But spelling is not
recorded in Thurn's apparatus criticus and thus the same spelling may occur in other primary
manuscripts. The real test of dependence involves readings that are, according to Thurn,
unique to M:
a. The first set of examples indicates the frequency with which unique readings occur in M
and the degree to which OPQ reproduce them. The following eleven examples occur in
just three pages (13-15) of Thurn's edition, which correspond to M folios 19-21 (again,
the first reading given is Thurn's and the second is MOPQ): 14.52 neùonta : kàtw neù-

onta. 14.56 eÊp Ê auÊ tw

ç˜ : eÊp Ê auÊ tón. 14.60 monajóq : om. 14.63 dw˜ ra : om. 14.69 katwnòma-

zen : katonomàzein. 14.81 (19) dé : té. 15.83 tð˜ : om. 15.5 krùptwn aÊ xìwma : aÊ xìwma

krùptwn. 15.14 eiÊkònwn : om. 15.17 tá ty˜ q : táq. 15.20 aÊ pagomènw
ç : aÊ pagomènou.

b. The second set is taken from lines randomly sampled throughout the entire work, thus
indicating the distribution of M's unique readings. Again, they meet the criterion of
being unique to M among the primary manuscripts and common to OPQ: 6.5 sàlpigxi:

sàlpixi. 129.68 Sumbàtioq: Sambàtioq. 181.21 yÉ ny˜ soq Ly˜ mnoq: yÉ Ly˜ mnoq ny˜ soq.

204.23 Patzinàkai: Patzinàkioi. 204.28 tw˜ n plwiÎmwn: ty˜ q bìglaq mwn. 239.60
Boulosoudy˜ q: Bolosody˜ q. 382.54 aÊ gahw˜ n pantoìwn : pantoìwn aÊ gahw˜ n. 383.81 Menìkou :
om. 383.94 aÊ podexàmenoq : uÉ podexàmenoq.

c. Whereas the first two sets of examples may be attributed to M's misreading or inadver-
tence, most of the examples in the third set reveal M's marked tendency (or that of his
source) to substitute synonymous expressions for those found in other manuscripts of
Skylitzes. OPQ reproduce these readings, which are otherwise unique to M in the manu-
script tradition: 6.12 stratóq : laóq. 7.51 auÊ tokràtoroq : basilèwq. 37.85 aÊ postàtyn :
tùrannon. 45.2 Sarakynw˜ n : ÊAgarynw˜ n. 61.29 heìaq morfàq : eiÊkònaq. 94.51 eÊntugjà-

nousi : hèlousi. 119.73 eÊrgazomènouq uÉ postrofỳ : pai˜daq aÊ postrofỳ. 150.9 e²kgona :

tèkna. 181.39 aÊ panainomènou : oÊ rgizomènou. 280.22 palatìou : basilèwq. 289.37 labòme-

noq : draxàmenoq. 327.38 Sklyrón : aÊ postàtyn. 339.76 peìsaq : poiỳsaq kaí peìsaq.

354.69 aÊ rjiepiskòpou : a² rjontoq eÊpiskòpou. 428.90 Gewrgìou : Maniàkou.

4. Later additions

All three manuscripts reproduce corrections that are due in M to a later hand. Three exam-
ples from the first page (fol. 9r) of Skylitzes' text in M are sufficient to illustrate this point.
The page is very faded and a later hand has attempted a reconstruction, in places over-writ-
ing the original text:

a. In the first line beneath the miniature, the later hand has overwritten some letters of the
word palaioùs and then written the word more clearly above the line, except that it
there looks like palagoùs , which OP represent as panagioús and Q as panàgnous.

b. In the next line, the later hand has (wrongly) superscripted pará before Tarasìou ,
which all three manuscripts reproduce.

(19) Thurn incorrectly reports that M has toùtw

ç for tou˜ to at 14.80.

412
 notes et matériaux

c. In the same line M appears to have written the genitive p(at)riàrjy , above the ending
of which the later hand has written ou : OP write patriàrjou while Q judiciously avoids
the issue and abbreviates to p(at)riar "j.

5. Physical condition of M

All three copies reflect the physical condition of M, omitting or changing words where M
must have been nearly as difficult to read in the sixteenth century as it is today:

a. In the title of the work (fol. 9), the word drouggarìou has a blot on the first gamma,
which makes it seem something like a sigma. OP have drousgarìou ; the blot also caused
a problem for Q, who has drougarìou.

b. The first few words of M 154v line 11, after a rubricated large T, are very faded. Thurn
(276.3) has Tou˜ tou dé genomènou tón nou˜ n. Q (79r) leaves a short gap after the initial
letter, reading T ... megàlou tón nou˜ n. O and P leave no gap, but O (175r) has Ty˜ tou˜

dé ginẁskou, tón nou˜ n while P (121v) has Ty˜ tou˜ dé ginẁskou, tou˜ nou˜ .

c. The words at the end of lines M 217v.12-15 are faded and blurred; a later hand has
traced over some of them in an attempt at reconstruction but the ends of the lines are
still obscure. O, P and Q all leave corresponding gaps in their texts. O (256r) and P
(191v) leave gaps for the letters given below in square brackets (text from Thurn
414.41-44):

... oÉ ÊIbàtzyq dèma xùlinon kataskeuàsaq [ katá tón]

Prìlapon w
ç² eto ... n katè]
kaí tá e²ndo[

jein. aÊ ll Ê oÉ basileúq ... tò te xùlinon tei˜joq dièrryx[ e kaí tó sù]
styma tw˜ n Boulgàrwn dieskèdase ...

Q (120r) omits all but the first letter (k) of the first omission, omits the whole of the
word katèjein , and fills the third gap with a guess: dièrryxe katá sùstyma.

The evidence above is based on features that are unique to M, some of which reflect its con-
dition long after it was first produced. It confirms de Boor's contention that O, P and Q all
derive from M. It also demonstrates that deficiencies in M (such as missing captions) have not
been supplemented in the copies from another source. This evidence is further corroborated
by many of the observations that will be discussed in the next stage of the argument, and
especially by those that relate to particularities of the Madrid manuscript, such as its page
layout and marginalia.

The closeness of O and P, and Q's independence of them

The purpose of this second stage of the argument is to demonstrate that O and P are
closely related to each other and that Q is independent of them.

1. Scribal subscriptions

O and P have a scribal subscription which, as Treu has shown, includes some verses that
can be found in a large number of manuscripts (but not in M or Q):

413
 john burke

à Wsper xènoi jaìrontai iÊdei˜n týn patrìda

kaí oiÉ halatteùonteq tó eu² dion limèna

ouÌ twq kaí oiÉ gràvanteq tó tèloq tou˜ biblìou...

But as Treu documents, the specific variant of these verses employed in both O and P is
unique to them in the tradition of these verses (20).

2. Additions to M

a. In M, quires 11 and 25 have no miniatures but spaces in the text corresponding to about
eleven lines each have been reserved for them. OP mark each of the eighteen gaps left
for miniatures in quire 11 of M with the expression Ì de ou
w Ê dé ei²jon sjỳmata or a minor
variation of it, plus the standard colon-dash. In addition, they mark the first gap left for
a miniature in quire 25 of M with the linguistically intriguing expression nón èìi fiou˜ ra,

leaving the remaining gaps with only a colon and dash. Q also marks each of the gaps in
these two quires but with only a colon-dash.

b. O (folios 32-36) and P (folios 17-19) have the following marginalia, which are not found
in the corresponding margins of M (folios 38-42) or Q (folios 15-17):

O 32v oiÉ autoí sarakyny˜ eiÊq Krỳtyn : P Krìtyn

O 33r oiÉ Sarakynoí táq auÊ tw˜ n nỳaq eÊn Krỳtð eÊmprỳsousi

O 35v EuÊ fỳmioq eÊk tou˜ aÊ skytyrìou parhènon aÊ rpàzei

O 35v EuÊ fỳmioq aÊ podidràskei eiÊq týn ÊAfrikýn

O 35 v EuÊ fỳmioq toúq eÊk ty˜ q ÊAfriky˜ q aÊ garynoúq eiÊq Sikelìan eiÊsàgei

O 36r EuÊ fỳmioq aÊ nairei˜tai

3. Inclusions and omissions

a. Q includes captions from M, or segments of captions, that are omitted in OP: 16va,
26ra, 26rb, 28va, 62v, 64va, 67va, 69r, 70va, 71v, 72v, 80vb, 82v (the list could be
extended). Conversely, OP include many captions that are omitted in Q: 14va, 15v,
17r, 20vb, 28r, 29v, 31rb, 34r, 34va, 34vb, 35r, 35va, 36, 36va, 36vb, 37, 37v, 38a, 39,
49b, 58v, 66a, 66vb, 67vb, 86va, 96, 97a, 134va (the list could again be extended).

b. Q incorporates certain marginalia from M that are not found in OP: aÊ talèa trìpolis (M
111r), Sikelìa Surakoùsa (M 100v), i²strou (M 108r). Similarly, Q appends lines of the
poem found in the adjacent margin of M to the caption of M 159rb.

c. The margins of M have a broken series of Greek numerals that could be construed as
remnants of a paragraph/section numbering system in one of M's antecedent manu-
scripts. The numbers in M range from nd ` (54) to slh ` (239), with many gaps. OP omit
these numbers entirely but Q reproduces the last of them, which happens to be the only
one to be written in M in red ink.

(20) K. , « Der Schreiber am Ziel. Zu den Versen xènoi jaìrousin ... und änlichen », Studia
Codicologica, Berlin, 1977, p. 479. That P actually has
Treu à Wsper

tón eurather than tó eu²dion does not affect Treu's

² dion

argument. Treu felt that the evidence of this subscription was sufficient to confirm P's dependance on O.

414
 notes et matériaux

d. M splits the word du / nàmewn across the page break between 230r and 230v; a minia-
ture follows immediately, making it easy not to notice the second part of the word. Q
omits the second part of the word but OP do not.

e. A line of text originally omitted at M 195r line 7 (Thurn 366.23) was supplied in a differ-
ent hand in the right margin — except for the last three syllables of the last word ( aiÊ /

fnidìwq ), which are squeezed in at the start of the next line. OP omit the whole of the
restored line but Q reports the part-word fnidìwq.

4. Page layout

The following points may seem rather obscure and laboured but they are important in that
they show how dependent OPQ are on the page layout of M and, at the same time, that Q is
independent of OP.

a. As already mentioned, the Madrid Skylitzes has a number of section titles. Most of them
are found in the zone reserved for a miniature and hence also serve as a caption or are
associated with an existing caption. Some, however, are found in the margins of the
manuscript. Two in the top margin (18r, 21r) are preceded by a miniature at the end
of the previous page and clearly introduce the episode that starts, with a large rubri-
cated initial letter, immediately after them, and thus they are easily associated with a
particular point in the text. This convenient positioning is disrupted by the title in the
top margin of M 22r, however, which neither follows a miniature nor precedes a rubri-
cated initial. On the evidence of N, and the content of the text, the appropriate inser-
tion point would be eight lines earlier at M folio 21v line 3, just after the miniature M
21vb, which is the point at which section 3 of the chapter on Leo V commences. The
copyists seem to have been a little uncertain about how to deal with this situation. O
decided to keep the title in the top margin of his next page, 13v, thus moving it even
further away from the start of the section. In this particular instance, P and Q seem to
follow the same logic and preserve the association of title with caption, inserting the
title immediately before the next caption, which is eleven lines further down in the text
in M. However, the closeness of O and P and the independence of Q is apparent in their
handling of subsequent titles:

l M 22v has a title in the top margin and a miniature with caption three lines below. O
copies the title into the top margin of his own next page (folio 14r); as the caption
happens to span the page break, the title thus becomes associated with the caption. P
takes this process one step further and appends the title to the caption. In Q, how-
ever, the title displaces the caption, which ends up the bottom margin of his page.

l On M 27r are two section titles, the first of which occupies a line within the text area
after line 7 while the second is in the outer margin and starts adjacent to line 17. All
three copies position the first title at the appropriate insertion point in the text; but
while OP append the second title to the first (thus dissociating it from the relevant
part of the text), Q omits the second title altogether.

l OP append the section title found in the lower margin of M 28r to the caption that, in
M, occurs in the middle of the page; Q, omitting the caption, positions the title adja-
cent to the text corresponding to the last line of M 28r.

415
 john burke

l OP replace the caption of M 28va with the section title that is found in the top mar-
gin of M, three lines above the miniature; Q includes the caption but omits the section
title.

l A section title in the right margin of M 39r (perí tou˜ aÊ postàtou eiÊq Krỳtyn ) com-
mences just above line 11 of the page. Q (16r) also locates the title in the right mar-
gin, next to the corresponding text. O defers the title for a couple of lines and posi-
tions it in the top margin of his next page (33v), which starts with the text
corresponding to M 39r line 13. P too positions the title in the top margin of his page
(17v), but by so doing he alters the relationship between the title and the text, for his
page starts with text corresponding to M 39r line 5.

b. Q (correctly) reads the text of caption M 86vb in columns:

oÉ Ba Cìlei "o[q] oÉ va Ci yÉ m(ỳt)yr auÊ tou˜

l "e[úq] Mi "j[ayl]

while OP read the text horizontally as oÉ Vasìleios. oÉ vasi "l yÉ m(yt)yr auÊ t "ou. lègei

Mijaýl (see below for OP's expansion of l "e[úq] as lègei ).

5. Variant readings

a. In the text there are many instances where the reading in OP, but not Q, differs from
that of M. As will be apparent from the references (to Thurn's edition), the instances
given here are taken from a few randomly-selected pages of the text; their number could
be multiplied significantly: Thurn 8.61 MQ tá basìleia : OP ty˜ basìleia. 8.66 Bàrkan :
Bàrkar. 8.75 toíq : om. 8.81 mikráq : mykráq. 9.89 ty˜ de. ²Axion : ty˜ déxion. 14.59 komi-

zomènwn : komizomènon. 14.60 auÊ tou˜ : oÉ auÊ tou˜ . 14.61 aiÉrèsewq : aÊ raìsewq. 14.61 eiÊkono-

màjwn : oiÉkonomàjwn. 14.73 oÉ auÊ tokràtwr : ouâ n tó kràtwr. 14.73 o:

É dé. 15.13 tw
ç˜ : tw˜ n.

15.16 tìhysi : tìhysin. 15.17 kukỳsoi : kukỳsei. 15.3 à twq

ou : à toq.
ou 15.95 basilikón :
basilikw˜ n. 15.95 proegnwkẃq : pró eÊgnwkw˜ q. 18.84-5 basileúq : basileoúq . 18.7 oÌ te :
oÌ ti . 18.8 torwtèra
ç : twrwtèra
ç . 19.15 probaìnwn : probaìnon . 19.21 kahaìresin : kahère-

sin . 91.8 politikoúq : polikoúq. 262.31 yÊ nàgkase : yÉ nỳgkasen . 266.41 eÉàlwsan : a² lwsan .
381.43 kindùnw
ç : kindùnwn . 382.71 Pinzaráj : Pinzaràji. 383.73 aÊ postaty˜ sai :
aÊ potaty˜ sai. 383.85 susjeheíq : aÊ sjeheíq. 388.16 eÊpètreve : eÊpèstreve. 388.23 oÌ mwq :
Ì mwq.
w 388.28 pàlin : pòlin. 388.28 eÉtaireiàrjð : eÉtereiàrjð˜ . 389.48 ÊAldý : ÊAlwndý.

b. OP have a large number of errors in the captions. Many are due to incorrect expansion
of abbreviations. Q avoids these errors, sometimes by simply omitting the caption or a
segment of it, but mostly by reproducing M's abbreviation:

19vb M aÊ reianì "t[ou] OP aÊ reianì

21ra M oÊ mology "t[ýq] : OP oÉ mologìa

24r M pè "d[aiq] : OP pèdeq

24vb M uÉ pnẁttousa (kaí) oÉ rw˜ a c kah' ù "pn[ouq] OP uÉ pnẁptousan (kaí) wÊ rẃ a c

kahuýn

25a M oÊ neìr(oiq) : OP oÊ neirán

27v M (
t oi˜q ): OP tó .

416
 notes et matériaux

27v M t "ou ( ) [ ] [
˜ qr " a t y g ou˜ ]: OP tou˜ stratylàtou

31a M (
t oi˜q ): OP taíq . See also 38v, 47va, 60va
40r M martur(w˜ n) : OP marturw˜

42v M H(e)òfi "l[oq] : OP Heofìlou. See also 45rb, 46ra, 46rb, 46v, 52v.
44ra M oÉ Ckàfoq t(y˜ q) ba Cilìss(yq) : OP oÉ skàfwq ty basileùsyq

62ra M t(ýn) kefal(ýn) : OP ty˜ q kefal

67va M H[e]ofàn(ouq) : OP Heofànyq

77r M ÊArgai˜os : OP ÊArgàgios

Further sampling indicates that this list could be considerably extended and would
include (among other captions) M 81r, 82ra, 83v, 85r, 85va, 86va, 87r; 98v, 102rb,
107a, 110va, 113vb, 115r; 127ra; 135ra, 135va, 136rc, 139v, 142va, 142vb; 200r, 200v,
203v, 205ra, 206va; 234rb.

c. In a number of captions OP interpret M's abbreviation for Lèwn as lègei : M 81r

L "è(wn) OP lègei ; similarly, 86va, 105vb, 114va, 115vb, 116ra, 116rb, 116va. O also
has difficulty when the abbreviation is preceded by the abbreviation v "a[sileúq], seeing
the first word of the phrase either as something else:

22r M o v "a[sileuq] L "è(wn) : O oÉ arà von L "e: P oÉ aÊ ràbon Lèon

— or the second word as part of the first word, omitting the word Leo:
23ra M v "a[sileuq] L "è(wn) oÉ ÊAr "m[è]n[yq] : O vasilè(wq) oÊ armènys : P basilèos

oÉ aÊ rmènys ( P's incorrect expansion of O's abbreviation for wq as os recurs in 60vb).

24vb M yÉ m(yt)yr t "ou˜ v "a[silewq] L "è[ontoq] OP yÉ mri tou˜ basilèwq.

In all of these cases, Q avoids the misinterpretation (mostly by reproducing the abbre-
viation).

d. The examples given above do not necessarily prove that Q is a better scribe than O or
P. Despite his strategy of reproducing abbreviations rather than running the risk of
expanding them inaccurately, Q is quite capable of producing his own errors. In the
instances that follow, OP generally agree with each other (and often also with M) while
Q produces his own variant. Only the last of these can be regarded as an improvement:
Thurn 9.7-8 M dé, oÉ oÉ mologyty˜ s : OP deí oÉ oÉ molo kaí ty˜ s : Q dé, oÉ oÉ mioi C kaí ty. 14vb
(caption) M pró C t(ýn) eÊn : OP próefen : Q pr "ó tó eÊn. 43ra (caption) M foneùon "t[ai] :
O foneùon "t : P foneuòntwn : Q foneùont "o. 146v.10 M a n after the eta has been over-
written by the j in aÊ myjanw˜ n : OP aÊ mygjanw˜ n : Q aÊ mynjanw˜ n. 202r.10 M gaùrou tou˜

fronỳmatoq : OP gaùron tou˜ klonỳmatoq : Q auÊ gàrou tou˜ fronỳmatoq. 382.50 MOP
pòtouq : Q tòpouq. 382.51 MOP pàsð : Q pàsa
ç. 382.66 MOP eÉlepòleiq : Q eÉlaipòleiq.

382.70 MOP stratygón : Q stratigón . 383.73 MOP pròskrousma : Q pròsjrousma.

383.80 MOP tw
ç˜ : Q tw . 383.82. MOP
˜ n Pinzaráj : Q Pizaráj. 383.90 MOP ÊAláj : Q
ÊAláji . 383.92. MOP dwruforoùmenoq : Q doruforoùmenoq.

The evidence examined above leaves little room for doubt that O and P are closely related
to each other while Q is independent of them. The independence of Q is further reinforced in
many of the instances cited below.

417
 john burke

The relationship between O and P

The obvious question is whether O and P are independent of each other or is one depend-
ent on the other. On its own, of course, any single variation from M that is common to O and
P cannot determine the issue. But as the number of common variants multiplies, a certain
calculus applies: the probability of independence decreases as the number of common variants
increases, and even more so when the variants in question are not shared by other manu-
scripts. The sheer number of common variations from M that has been noted above (subscrip-
tions, readings, misreadings, errors, omissions, additions, marginalia) makes it highly improb-
able that the scribes of O and P may have produced them independently of each other. Any
remaining possibility is further discounted by the fact that almost none of the variations cited
above was arrived at by Q, which is clearly also dependent on M.

That O might be dependent on P is excluded by its dating to 1534, which is 23 years ear-
lier than the date of P. It is also excluded by the fact that O contains captions, or segments
of captions, that are not found in P: 39va MO Krỳtai, 49a MO eÊlègxanteq, 63va MO
perí (21), 82v MO oÉ aÊ etòq (the list could be extended). Conversely, in preparing the evidence
for this paper, I did not find anything in P's text, titles or captions that could not have come
from O. The hypothesis, therefore, is that P is dependent on O. In accordance with this
hypothesis, variations common to O and P can be re-interpreted as P's replication of O's read-
ings. It remains to be seen whether the hypothesis survives, or is indeed supported by, a
closer examination of the differences between the two manuscripts.

Almost inevitably, a copy will introduce a new layer of variants that are not found in its
immediate source. This expectation would appear to be fulfilled: the following variants can be
assigned to P with greater confidence because they differ not only from O but also MQ (line
and page references are to Thurn's edition while captions are referenced by folio in M): 13.50
MOQ Boulgàrwn : P Boulgàron. 14.53 MOQ katalabẃn : P katalambw˜ n. 14.54 MOQ ei²jeto :
P ei²je tó. 14.56 MOQ aÊ meìvashai : P aÊ mỳvashai. 14.56 MOQ dẁroiq : P dòroiq. 14.62 MOQ
eÊq : P eiÊq. 14.62 MOQ w² n : P wâ n. 14.70 MOQ basileìaq : P basileìq. 14.73 MOQ mahẁn : P
mahón. 14.81 MOQ poiy˜ sai : P poiỳsaq. 15.83 MOQ nuktí : P nukty˜ . 15.86 MOQ aiÉroi˜to : P
wroi˜tw. 15.88 MOQ eÊpaggeìlashaì te : P eÊpaggeilashè te. 15.88 MOQ eÊxorìsai : P eÊxorìsaq.

15.2 MOQ eÊpikalùpteiq : P eÊpí kaleìpteiq. 15.4 MOQ plèon : P plèwn. 15.15 MOQ aÊ ná : P
aÊ nná. 15.15 MOQ peiharjỳsanta : P pyharjỳsanta. 23ra (caption) MOQ vàl "t[ai] : P
vàlteq. 40vb (caption) MOQ foneùou Ci : P fèrousi . 382.68 MOQ diakònwn : P diakònws.

383.76 MOQ kahairèsei : P kahairèsi 383.81 MOQ aÊ pelhẃn : P pelhẃn.

That the first eighteen of these instances occur in just two pages of Thurn's edition indi-
cates the frequency of P's variants. But while P makes the usual scribal slips of inadvertence,
if not ignorance, in diacritics, spelling, word separation, etc., it is also significant that his
variants are restricted to differences of this order and do not include, for example, the sub-
stitution of synonymous expressions, such as was noted above in the case of M. P departs
often, but not very far, from his source.

(21) This word is also omitted in the transcriptions of the captions by Grabar & Manoussacas and Tsamakda
(see n. 3 above).

418
 notes et matériaux

The basic pattern in the relationship of P to O is very pronounced: P replicates most of O's
errors and introduces new errors, many of them made while expanding O's abbreviations; but
at times he tries to make better sense of what is found in O:

a. On M folio 11r, two full-width miniatures occur with no intervening passage of text. M
has the captions:

11ra Krou˜ mo[q] oÉ a² r "j[wn] Boul "g(àrwn) Cunahroìz "w[n] tón l "a[on] auÊ "t[ou˜ ]

11rb oÉ vasi "l[eúq] Mi "j[aýl] oÉ Ragga vè - É Rwmai˜oi - yÉ ÊAdrianoù "p[o]l[iq]

O reproduces abbreviated forms or omits/expands them incorrectly, and diacritics are

omitted or incorrect on several words, while Hadrianoupolis is read as two words with
the preceding article omitted and a n is inserted before the delta:

Krou˜ moq oÉ aÊ rjy˜ boulgàron, sunahroìzw tón láon auÊ tou.

oÊ vasil mij oÊ ragga ve. rwmaìoi. aÊ ndriànou pol

P follows O closely, reproducing most of his errors while altering several diacritics (not
always for the better). In 11rb he expands two abbreviations correctly but misspells
Rangabe; his third expansion, aÊ ndriànou pòlewq, is incorrect but might not have been
so if O had accented correctly and not omitted the preceding article:

Kroumóq oÉ aÊ rjý bou˜ lgaron, sunahroìzw tón láon auÊ tou˜ .

o basileúq mijay˜ l oÉ ranggabè. rÉ wmai˜oi aÊ ndriànou pòlewq

b. A similar pattern occurs in caption 195r. M has:

t "á!o Cìrmion - oiÉ trei˜ C douleu "t[aí] ... Cèrm "w[n]· ... - oiÉ trei˜ C douleu "t[aí] auÊ "t[ou˜ ] ...

- oÉ potamò C

O omits the first segment, omits the first letter of the name Sermon, incorrectly expands
auÊ "t[ou˜ ] , and misreads the last word:

OiÊ trei˜q douleu "t ... eÊrm "w ... oiÉ trei˜q douleu "t auÊ t(on) ... oÉ potam "oì

In addition to replicating O's errors, P expands O's abbreviations but introduces a new
spelling error:

OiÉ trei˜q douleutaí ... e²rmw ... oiÉ trei˜q douleuté auÊ ton ... oÉ potamoì

c. In the following two titles, some of P's variation from O represent an improvement:

M 28v paraklỳ Cew C tou˜ : O parakrỳsewq tou˜ s : P paraklỳsewq toúq

M 198v ÊArgurou˜ : O ÊArgirìou : P ÊArgurìou

d. Because of the size of the script, which is often cursive, and the frequent use of ligatures
and abbreviations, the captions in M are often harder to read than is the text. As a
consequence, there is a higher error rate in copying them. But the underlying pattern
is the same: P replicates O's errors, or sometimes corrects them, and also introduces
new errors (abbreviations by suppression in the copies are not expanded; some forms of
beta and sigma, and some diacritics, have been standardized for convenience):

M 12ra ìr "(a)t[w
ç˜ ] : O ìr "(a)t : P ìratw˜ n

M 22ra pr "ó[q] tó ouÍ s : O pro tó aÉ lous : P pro "t a² lous

M 22vr oÉ eÊgkal "w

˜ [n] týn aÊ rpagýn :O oÊ egkalw tin aÊ rpagin :P oÉ egkàlwn tin arpagýn.

419
 john burke

M 27v t(áq) hug "at(èraq) : O táq hugat "o!rí : P táq hugatróq

M 27v t(oi˜q) xèn(oiq) oÉ ìr "at[y]g[óq] : O to xèno oÉ straty "lt : P tó xèno stratylàti

M 28vb makarì "t[yq] ... Sardèwn pròedr "o[q] hnð̀skei : O makàrios ... Sardaìwn

proèdròs ahneìskei : P makàrioq ... Sardaìwn pró eÊdróq ahneìskei

M 38ra Gazaryn "ó[q] oiÉ aÊ po Ctà "t[ai] ... Cullyfhènte C: O gazaryn "o oi aÊ poìàty ...

sullyfhèntes : P gazarinón oiÊ apoìàty ... syllyfènteq

M 43ra H(e)ofì "l[ou] ... ÊArmèni : O Heofi "l ... a² rmenoi : P Heofìlon ... aÊ rmènoi

M 43va oÉ b "a[sileuq] H(e)ofi "l[oq] : O oÉ vasileús Heofìlou : P Heofìlou oÉ basileúq

M 44rb kaiòm(en)(on) - oiÉ nau˜ "t[ai] : O k(ai)òm(en) "oi - oiÉnauÊ tw˜ : P kaiòmenoi - yÌ n

autw˜ .

M 46ra foneuhèn "t[oq] : O faneushèntos : P faneuhèntoq

M 51r H(e)òfi "l[oq] - H "e[o]!f "à[nyq] (kaí) Heò "d(wroq) : O kaí Heofàn "ous k(aí)

Heodẁr "(aq) Heòfi "l : P Heodẁra, Heof[il..], kaí Heofànous

M 58v yÉ Zapè "t(ra) : O xapèstei "l : P xapèsteile

M 60vb tw
ç˜ aÊ mermoumnð˜ aÊ pokrisiarì(ouq) : O oÉ aÊ mermou˜ mny aÊ pokrisiàri(ws) : P oÉ

aÊ mermou˜ mny aÊ pokrisiàrios

M 67va "t[á] prò Cw "p[a] ... H[e]ofàn(ouq) : O "t prwsw "p ... Heofànys : P tó

pròswpon ... Heofànyq

M 67vb mynù[wn] tð˜ vasilì "d[i]: O mynù(wn) toús vasilì "d: P muný toúq basilìdi

M 76va eÊpiìỳs(aq) ... fùla "k[aq] : O eÊpeìisas ... filàk(on) : P eÊpèìisas ... filàkon

M 80va basileú C oÉ u(iÉó) C H(e)ofì "l[ou] : O basileùs sou˜ sin H(e)ofi "l : P basukeús

su˜ sin Heòfilos

M 80vb Cfàtte "t[ai]: O sfàtte "t : P sfàttete

M 82rb Ba Cì "l[eion] ... auÊ tw

ç˜ : O vasi "l ... au "t : P basilèa ... auÊ tón

M 82v eiÊ C "t[ó] hèr "o[q] : O eis "t hèr "o : P eiq heòdwron

M 233ra eÊlèfan "t[eq] : O eÊlèfan "t : P eÊlèfanti

A more complete list would include, among others, captions 82v, 86ra, 87va, 97ra,
104va, 114r, 119ra, 134a, 134vb, 135vb, 137rb, 199r, 202v, 204rb, 204v, 207r, 233rb.

It is a characteristic of P in the captions that abbreviated forms of the ending wn are repeat-
edly expanded to on :

M 12ra feùg(wn) : O feùg(wn) : P feùgon

M 23ra vàll "w[n] : O vàll "w : P vàllon .

In 13va O expands M's L "è[wn] as Lèon , which seems to encourage P to continue rendering
this name incorrectly:

M 13vb L "e(wn) : O Lè(wn) : P Lèon .

M 27v lè "g(wn) : O l "e(wn) : P lèon

A similar expansion by P of O's abbreviation Lè(wn) is found in captions 14ra, 14rb, 15v,
19vb, 20r, 22r, 22v, 23v, 116vb (some of these involve oblique cases of the name Lèwn ).

The last example above, from caption 27v, is of particular interest. The transition from M's
lè "g(wn) to P's lèon involves two changes: dropping of a gamma and a change from (wn) to

420
 notes et matériaux

on . Each change is characteristic of one copyist: the first of O, who here shows the obverse
side of his tendency to render L "è(wn) as lègei ( see 5c above), and the second of P, as seen
in the previous paragraph. O can thus be seen as a bridge, or half-way house, between M and
P. Taking O into account makes it very much easier to understand how P arrived at his
variation from M — a finding that supports the hypothesis that P is derived from O. The
same observation can be extended to most of the instances where P differs from O.

Analysis of M folios 202v, 203r, and 205v using a crude and simplistic application of clad-
istic methodology (22) adds a raw quantitative dimension. If diacritics, punctuation and the
introduction or expansion of abbreviations are ignored, O has 18 variations from M and P
replicates 14 of these, corrects (or attempts to correct) the other 4, and introduces a further
14 variations of his own. Q has 23 variations from M, but one is a correction of M and five
are shared with O. Another way of looking at these results is that OPQ have 18, 18 and 23
variations respectively from their sources while P has 32 variations from M. It was also
observed that the distribution of the variations across the sample pages was roughly even.
These pilot results can have little statistical validity, of course, for the sample is less than
one percent of the total (23). Nevertheless, the fact that P's rate of variation from M is nearly
one order of magnitude higher than that of O and Q is consistent with the proposition that O
and Q are copies of M and P is a copy of O.

Direct copies

Close examination of the manuscripts has yielded no indication that any of the copyists
had access to more than a single source. Allowing for variant readings, there is nothing in
the copies (text, chapter and section titles, captions) that could not have come from their
respective exemplars. The closeness of the copies to their sources has been extensively docu-
mented above. In almost every instance, the variant readings in the copies involve a single
generally obvious and frequently characteristic change from the source, and this degree of
affinity is underscored by the sequence MOP, where two changes are involved. The probabil-
ity calculus outlined above, to show the dependence of P on O, can be extended to the rela-
tionship between OQ and M and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to qualify the
dependence as comprehensive and unmediated. There is simply no reason to think that O are
Q are not direct copies of M or that P is not a direct copy of O.

This proposition seems to be reinforced by a number of instances where somewhat odd

readings in P can be related to the physical layout of the page in M and O:

(22) See, for example, Peter M. W. Robinson & Robert J. O'Hara, « Cladistic analysis of an Old Norse
Research in Humanities Computing
manuscript tradition » 4, 1996, p. 115-137.
(23) They are obviously based on certain unproved assumptions and there are any number of problems with
the model (see, for example, Steven N. Evans, Don Ringe, and Tandy Warnow, « Inference of Divergence
Times as a Statistical Inverse Problem »,Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages , Cambridge,
2004. On the other hand, the number of variations that characterize each manuscript is quite high and the
mechanisms by which variations are produced are fairly clear.

421
 john burke

a. In miniature M 115va, the dome of a church separates the middle phrase of the caption
from the first and third phrases:

oÉ ba Ci "l[eúq] eiÊsel "h(ẃn) eiÊ C "t[ó] mitatẁrion eu² xas "h[ai] k(aí)

tón jàr "t[yn] iÊdẃn

O (but not Q) reads the caption as though it were written in columns: oÉ basileúq

eiÊselhẃn tón jar "t iÉdw˜ n eiÊs "t mitatẁrion eu²xas "h k(aí). P reproduces this misreading,
except that he incorrectly expands jar "t as jartìon and improves on O by omitting the
word kaí , which O had left dangling rather meaninglessly at the end of his caption.

b. In caption 122r, M superscripts the end of two words that are written closely together,
with the last written letter of the second word rising to a third level:

m[aìwn]

p[y˜ ] w

tro ÉR

Q reads this correctly as tropý É Rwmaìwn. O, reading across and then down, offers p ˜ "mi
tro r "w. P tries, without real success, to make some sense of O's reading: pap mitropo-

lìtyq, rÉ wmai˜oi. P's variation becomes less inexplicable when O is taken into account.

c. In the title of the work, P puzzlingly represents the final phrase as toús kullìtzy

instead of tou˜ Skullìtzy. Again, O provides an explanation: writing the phrase across
two lines, O (but not M) violates the rules of syllabification by splitting the words thus:
tou˜ s / kullìtzy — a word division that P retains even while writing the whole phrase
on a single line.

d. A similar instance occurs at Thurn 15.92, where O breaks the phrase tón basilèa n /

uktóq over two lines and P reads tón basilèan nuktóq.

These four instances are particularly compelling. Firstly, they allow a reasonable and suffi-
cient explanation of otherwise largely inexplicable phenomena in the copies. Secondly, the
actual physical or spatial positioning of the letters relative to each other on the page is, in
each case, unique to the source manuscript. The copies do not replicate their source's layout,
as in a photograph, though they do reflect it in their readings. These considerations support
the conclusion that the scribes of O and P worked directly from their respective sources, M
and O, rather than from a copy of them. The same can be said of instances cited earlier,
where the copies (including Q) reflect (but do not replicate the appearance of) such particu-
larities of the source manuscripts as their physical condition and state of preservation, correc-
tions in a later hand, the positioning of titles, and other aspects of page layout.

Physical access

The possibility must exist, of course, that the copyists had physical access to their respec-
tive sources. Although it is dated by its watermarks to around 1567, Q (Matritensis 4594) can
be positively associated with M and Messina from at least 1679, when the Messina cathedral

422
 notes et matériaux

library was confiscated by the Duke of Uceda and removed to Palermo. The association is
evident from the similar binding and ornate title pages that M and Q received in Palermo.
M seems to be the only manuscript from the monastery of S. Salvatore to have ended up in
the fondo of the Duke of Uceda ( ), and Pomar thought it likely that M was in the cathedral
24

library of Messina from some time in the sixteenth century ( 25). If this was indeed the case, it
is equally likely that Q was produced, and partly corrected, in the same library, perhaps
because the libary authorities wished to retain a copy of Skylitzes' text after M itself had
been returned to the monastery to which it belonged — an eventuality which did not occur
but which they may have anticipated following the inclusion of M in the inventory of the
monastery's books that was drawn up in 1563 and in the second inventory that followed soon
after (see below). That Q was produced by three or four different hands using different ink ( 26)
seems more consistent with this sort of in-house library production than with a commission to
a specific scribe, as seems to have been the case with respect to O and P.

In the case of P we are almost completely in the dark. From the subscription we know the
scribe's name — John Damaskenos of Corone — but we do not know where he worked or for
whom (27). His source, Ottobonianus 340, belonged later to the library of Giovanni Angelo
Altemps (1577-1620; nephew of Cardinal Marco Sittico Altemps, 1533-1595), as we read on
the title page of the manuscript (« ex codicibus Ioannis Angeli Ducis ab Altaemps »), but we
have no idea where it might have been in 1557, when P made his copy (according to his
subscription, over a period of twenty seven days). Further research may identify P's hand in
other manuscripts, or perhaps the hand responsible for the marginalia in O that P copied into
his own margin, but at this time we can say no more than that direct access by the scribe of
P to O has not been excluded.

There is firmer evidence in the case of O, whose scribe, like M itself, can be associated with
Messina at around the same time (O is dated by its subscription to 1534). M is mentioned in
two sixteenth-century inventories of the Greek manuscripts in the library of Messina's S. Sal-
vatore monastery, one of them drawn up in 1563 at the instigation of Pope Pius IV (Giovanni
Angelo Medici, 1499-1565) and at the direction of the Duke of Medina, Viceroy of Sicily ( 28),
and the other between 1565 and 1580 (29). Ioachim Toumbouta, the scribe of O, declares in
his inscription that he was from Itala, which is about 20 km from Messina ( 30). But he can be
associated with Messina through another manuscript. Mercati identified him as the scribe of
Vat.gr. 1426 (31), which was copied from a now lost manuscript (of 1213) and was listed in the

(24) G. Mercati, Per la storia, p. 291.

(25) José Maria Fernández Pomar, « La colección de Uceda y los manuscritos griegos de Constantino Las-
caris »,Emerita 34, 1966, p. 263, 264 n. 1, 265f.
(26) J.-M. Pomar, « El Skylitzes », p. 42.
(27) The family possibly acquired the name after it left Corone, which surrendered to the Turks in 1500.
Greeks from Corone are likely to have moved, in the first instance, to Venice, Zakynthos and Crete.
(28) G. Mercati, Per la storia, p. 232.
(29) G. Mercati, Per la storia, p. 280.
(30) Julian Leroy, « Le Parisinus gr. 1477 et la détermination de l'origine des manuscrits italo-grecs d'après
Scriptorium
la forme des initiales », 38, 1978, p. 211n; Leroy ignores Mercati's revised dating of the manuscript.
(31) G. Mercati, Per la storia, p. 178 and plate V.

423
 john burke

1563 inventory of Greek manuscripts in the S. Salvatore library ( 32). The same lost manu-
script was also copied « in the city of Messina » in 1547 and 1548 by George of Constantino-
ple (33). Mercati inferred that the scribe of O was probably a monk in the monastery of S.
Salvatore; and he expressed the view that, in all probability, O was one of the direct copies
of M (34). Whatever the validity of this supposition, it is clear that O may well have had
direct access to M.

The marginalia in O are particularly extensive and number around one hundred. They are
quite independent of M and thus it may be inferred that they were composed by a reader of
O. That only six of them are found in P suggests that the vast majority of them should be
dated to after 1557. Their Greek is scholarly, concise and more correct than O's version of
Skylitzes' text, though the marginalia have a few « modern » elements such as use of final
sigma and declinable forms of proper names such as Manouỳlou (146v) and Samouỳlou

(188v). Their brevity and formality (e.g. folio 140v: É Rwmanóq gìnetai basileúq) suggest that
they may have served as the sort of section heading encountered in early modern editions of
historical texts. Yet they do not seem to constitute a routine « marking up » of the para-
graphs of the text (regime change, holy relics, the capture or liberation of various parts of
the Byzantine empire). The bulk of them occur in concentrated blocks and suggest particular
interest in certain passages of Skylitzes' narrative. The first large block occurs in folios 97-
105, corresponding to chapters 26-38 of Skylitzes' account of the reign of Basil I, which focus
on events in Sicily and southern Italy. Another block, folios 118-122, covers Skylitzes Leo VI
chapters 12-24, but these focus on Leo rather than any particular geographical region. The
third block, folios 165-169 (Nikephoros Phokas 3-9), is concerned mainly with the failed
attempt to recapture Sicily from the Saracens of Africa. The fourth block (folios 182-200,
Tsimiskes 5-19) recounts the wars to expel the Ros from Bulgaria and secure the latter as
an ally. The last block is in two parts, folios 243-260 and 270-273 (Romanos III Argyros 6
— Constantine IX Monomachos 3), which gives it a focus on the career, insurrection and fall
of Georgos Maniakes. While the predominant interest of the marginalia would appear to be
Italy and particularly Sicily, the second and fourth blocks indicate that the issue may be
more complicated. It should also be noted that the later marginalia in the manuscript are in
a different hand from the earlier. Further palaeographical and codicological evidence might
shed light on the author(s) and date(s) of O's marginalia and the particular interests of those
who composed them when reading the manuscript.

The University of Melbourne John Burke

(32) G. Mercati, Per la storia

, p. 64.
(33) G. Mercati, Per la storia
, p. 66. See also S. Caruso, « Una pergamena graeca del tempo di Federico II.
Nota su una famiglia arabo-greca di Messina » Byzantion46, 1976, p. 326; Gregorio De Andrés, « Les copistes
grecs du cardinal de Burgos, Francisco de Mendoza » JÖB 32/4, 1982, p. 102; D. Lucà, « Antonio di Messina
(Alias Antonio Carissimo) »,Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata
n.s. 40, 1986, p. 162.
(34) G. Mercati, Per la storia
, p. 178 n. 1.

424