In investigating the manuscript tradition of the Exegesis in canonem iambicum pentecostalem, two features emerge with a high degree of likelihood: (a) the relationship of the work with the monastery of Prodromos Petra at Constantinople; (b) the relationship of Eustathios himself with that same monastery during his tenure as professor in the Polis. The article shows the manuscript tradition of Eustathius’ Exegesis: 5 manuscripts are described in detail, including their provenance along with their possessors: Vaticanus graecus 1409, Alexandrinus Patriarchalis 62 (107), Basileensis A.VII.1 (gr. 34), Vallicellianus F 44 (gr. 94), Vindobonensis Theol. Graec. 208 Nessel (298 Lambecius). Along with a thorough autoptical study, the reader finds here some improvements in Byzantine palaeography and philology. Then the author sheds light on the deperditus ms. Scorialensis Λ.II.11, once owned by Diego Hurtado de Mendoza and disappeared after the fire of Escorial in 1671. The codex is likely to have come from the Constantinopolitan monastery of Prodromos Petra, as well as the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus. Positive clues of a provenance from Prodromos Petra are detected in the fragmentary tradition of the text and in further evidence: textual criticism has definitely revealed a sub-archetype Beta (β), most likely written before the Latin occupation of Constantinople in 1204. The dating and content of Beta seem to coincide with those of the deperditus ms. Scorialensis mentioned above, where codicological and philological data attest to a highest quality of the text, including its title. Thus the second section of the article deals with the so-called didaskaleion of Prodromos Petra, its cultivated readers, mouseion and scriptorium, up to Georgius Baiophorus and his interventions in the ms of Basilea in 15th century. The first known official mention of the katholikon mouseion of Prodromos Petra is that of Francesco Filelfo; on his part, Eustathios writes he was asked to compose the Exegesis by an anonymous colleague, and that it was intended for advanced rhetorical and ecclesiastical instruction. Moreover, Eustathios’ reference to the name of Moses as related to the word “mouseion” provides us with a demonstration about lessons in 12th-century Constantinople, along with ironically equating himself with God teaching Moses on the mount Sinai. The very same identification is made by Michael Choniates about Eustathios in the funeral monody dedicated to him: hardly a coincidence. Eustathios’ presence at the monastery is not documented at Prodromos Petra in the course of the 12th century. However, his acquaintance with that monastic milieu is apparent in a famous passage of the De emendanda vita monachica, where he lampoons the abundance of caviar for the emperor. Hardly a coincidence, again, that this is the absolutely first mention of Prodromos Petra found in literary sources.
Silvia, R. (2017). Eustathios at Prodromos Petra? Some Remarks on the Manuscript Tradition of the Exegesis in Canonem Iambicum Pentecostalem. TRENDS IN CLASSICS, 46, 181-197.
|Titolo:||Eustathios at Prodromos Petra? Some Remarks on the Manuscript Tradition of the Exegesis in Canonem Iambicum Pentecostalem|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2017|
|Citazione:||Silvia, R. (2017). Eustathios at Prodromos Petra? Some Remarks on the Manuscript Tradition of the Exegesis in Canonem Iambicum Pentecostalem. TRENDS IN CLASSICS, 46, 181-197.|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|