Cullhed, The Autograph Manuscripts Containing Eustathius’ Commentary on the Odyssey

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156852511X547938

Mnemosyne 65 (2012) 445-461 brill.nl/mnem

The Autograph Manuscripts Containing Eustathius Commentary on the Odyssey*)

Eric CullhedUppsala Universitet, Institutionen fr lingvistik och filologi,

Box 635, 75126 Uppsala, [email protected]

Received: February 2010; accepted: April 2010

AbstractThis paper calls into question established views on the relationship between the two autograph MSS containing Eustathius commentary on the Odyssey, suggest-ing that we should pay attention to the stratigraphy of Marc. gr. 460 in order to better understand the way in which these manuscripts were produced.

KeywordsEustathius of Thessalonica; the Odyssey; autograph manuscripts; codicology; stratigraphy

1.Introduction

There are four medieval manuscripts generally believed to have been pro-duced by Eustathius, Archbishop of Thessalonica (c. 1115-1195): Marc. gr. 460 (coll. 330) (= M) containing Eustathius commentary on the Odyssey, Par. gr. 2702 (= P) also containing his commentary on the Odyssey, Laur. plut. LIX, 2 and 3 (= L) containing the same authors commentary on the Iliad, and finally Marc. gr. 448 (= V) containing the Suda (M in Adlers edition).1) The original basis of this attribution was by no means a certain

*)I wish to express my gratitude to Eva Nystrm, Filippomaria Pontani, Denis Searby, Nigel Wilson and the anonymous referee for valuable comments at diffferent stages of my work.1)Descriptions of M: Mioni 1985, 245-6; Formentin 1983, 20-3; Pontani 2000, 49-50. For P: Omont 1888, 27; Formentin 1983, 24-5; Pontani 2000, 45. For L: van der Valk 1971, ix-xxxi;

446 E. Cullhed / Mnemosyne 65 (2012) 445-461

one: a note written in the hand of Cardinal Bessarion in the upper margin on fol. 1r in M stating that the letters are in Eustathius own hand.2) In the eighteenth century it was discovered that L bore a striking resemblance to M and must have been produced by the same scribe. This similarity was found to support Bessarions claim of autography, since in L there are fre-quent marginal annotations in the same hand as that of the main text, for the most part containing not corrections of scribal mistakes but new addi-tions to the commentary such as only the author himself would make.3) At the beginning of the twentieth century Martini (1907, 284-5) noticed that Pearlier dated to the thirteenth century by Omont (1888, 27)seemed to have been produced by the same scribe as M and L. A few decades later Peppink (1933)a critic of the autograph hypothesisshowed in this jour-nal that the same was true of V. The shared paternity of M, P, L and V has been definitively confirmed by Formentin (1983).

Critics of the view that Eustathius himself produced these four MSS have gradually decreased in number over the twentieth century, and although some have attempted to gather sporadic indicia to discredit Bessarions tes-timony in M,4) no one has been able to face the true challenge: to prove that

Formentin 1983, 24; Bandini 1770, 488-90. For V: Mioni 1985, 222-3. I examined M and V in February and October 2009 thanks to the generous support of Fondazione Famiglia Rausing. I also had the opportunity to examine P in March and November 2009.2)See the transcription in Mioni 1985, 246. On the reliability of this note, see Martini 1907, 281-2; Peppink 1933, 424; Wilson 1992, 48. Early awareness of this note is testified in Pietro Bembos letter from 1546 to Gian Battista Ramusio in connection with the Roman edition of the commentary (ed. Travi 1993, 576). 3)See Politi 1735, iv. Bandini (1770, 490) was cautious to accept this hypothesis (cf. Andres 1822, 100-1) but it later found stronger support from Vitelli and Paoli (1884, pl. 36) and Lud-wich (1897, 15-6).4)The main arguments against the autograph hypothesis are the following: On palaeo-graphical grounds Vogel and Gardthausen 1909, 122; Adler 1938, 255-6 (who had discussed the matter with J.L. Heiberg), convincingly refuted in Wilson 1973, 226-7 and 1977, 231; For-mentin 1983. On the grounds that there are too many scribal errors Kyriakidis 1961, xvi-xix, put into question in Reinsch 1980, 635-6; Pack 1980, 459; Gamillscheg 1981, 385-90. On the grounds that an archbishop would never have time for such a laborious task Peppink 1933, 424. For this reason it has been suggested that an assistant may have produced the MSS, cf. Barbour 1981, 21; van der Valk 1981, 388; Wilson 1996, 198. (To my mind this is impossible due to the large number and precision of the marginal and interlinear notes in L, M and P.) On the grounds that the correspondences between the Suda and Eustathius are too few Presented as a potential argument in van der Valk 1971, lxvii (otherwise convinced of the autograph hypothesis). On

E. Cullhed / Mnemosyne 65 (2012) 445-461 447

the over 3,000 additions made in the main hand to the upper and lower margins in L are not authorial supplements.

2.Date of L, M and P

In his monumental edition of Eustathius commentary on the Iliad, van der Valk convincingly argued that while the main text in L represents a redac-tion of the text prepared by Eustathius when still in Constantinople,5) the marginal additions were added over a long period of time after he had taken up his bishopric in Thessalonica some time between 1175-1179, some even after the sack of this city by the Normans in 1185.6) It is clear that the library at his disposal when making the additions in many ways difffered from that accessible when producing the redaction of the commentary rep-resented by the main text in L. Notably, most quotations from Athenaeus and Suetonius lexica are found in the marginal additions, while allegorical explanations and entries from the Atticist lexica are almost never found there.7)

Turning now to the commentary on the Odyssey, on f. 1r in P we find the title of the work written in the main hand: , so P must have been at least partly produced after Eustathius was appointed arch -bishop.8) Furthermore, van der Valk (1971, cxxxix) has noted that there are

the correspondences we do find, see Maas 1935, 307; 1952, 3; Gamillscheg 1981, 389-90. On the grounds that P seems to have been produced after Eustathius had taken up his bishopric in Thessalonica and not during his teaching years in Constantinople Mondrain 1997, 75. This argument is without merit since there is strong evidence that Eustathius, still an active scholar and teacher in Thessalonica, worked on MPL during the very last years of his life (see infra). For more voices against the autograph hypothesis see Mondrain 2000, 420 and Irigoin 1972-3, 200-201. For more voices in support, see Pontani 2000, 44, less hesitantly in 2005, 170; Liverani 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002; Wilson 1992, 48; Browning 1995, 84 and 1962, 186-7 n. 1; Granstrem 1980, 105; Mioni 1985, 245-6.5)See van der Valk 1971, cxxxvi-cxxxix. Eustathius philological works seem to have origi-nated simultaneously as scattered entries in notebooks in connection to his teaching activi-ties in Constantinople 1140-1160, cf. Kuhn 1889, 249-53; Kazhdan 1984, 132; Browning 1995, 85. 6)Van der Valk 1971, xiv-xvi, cf. Kazhdan 1984, 133; Browning 1995, 84-5.7)Van der Valk 1971, xvi-xvii; 1974, xlii.8)Pontani 2000, 44.


cross-references in the commentary on the Odyssey that refer to passages added in the margin of L. From this we can deduce that M and P were at least to a certain extent written after Eustathius had started making the substantial additions to L. In a study published in this journal van der Valk (1981) further argued that there are good reasons to believe that MP in turn are copies of the original Arbeitsheft containing marginal additions similar to those found in L, since quotations from Athenaeus abound in the com-mentary as it stands in MP.

3.Previous Research on the Relationship between M and P

Martini (1907, 283-6) noticed that one large text portion and several indi-vidual words had fallen out in M due to homoeoteleuton, these being found in their proper place in P. Since he could not find similar instances where text omitted in P was found in M except from what seemed to be emenda-tions, he concluded that the slightly tidier manuscript M made of parch-ment is a more luxurious copy of the slightly untidier P made of oriental paper. This view was based on very limited test collations of the MSS, but it later found almost universal support among scholars.9)

However, in a recent article Makrinos (2007, 192) suggests that Martini got the relationship between the manuscripts the wrong way round, that P is a copy of M. I will not go through the countless minor imperfections in his argument,10) yet I need to call attention to a few important misconcep-tions regarding the marginalia in M and P, forming the basis for this seem-ingly impossible conclusion. Makrinos states that the nature of the marginal notes is scribal not authorial (185), that their purpose is mechanical cor-rection of the text and not creative writing (187). This is incorrect. There are many instances where the marginalia in the main hand in these MSS

9)See e.g. Reinsch 1980, 636; van der Valk 1981; Formentin 1983, 44; Nickau 1984, 683; Pon-tani 2000, 44; Liverani 2001, 188 n. 4.10)Makrinos seems to be unaware of most previous research on the Eustathian autographs, including the following essential recent studies: Wilson 1973 and 1977; van der Valk 1981; Formentin 1983; Mondrain 2000; Pontani 2000. Emblematic for the bibliographical short-comings in this article is the peculiar reference (p. 173 n. 12) to a non-existing work of Arthur Ludwich, obviously excerpted from van der Valk 1971, xvii n. 1.


serve to add new material to the text. Makrinos comment on Eust. in Od. 1441.59-60 explains why he has failed to see this:

in M we read: [ ] ... The passage stopped in the of the word and continued later from , which was the wrong point. A marginal note was added in order to com-plete what had been omitted. (Makrinos 2007, 185)

Apart from the fact that the text between - and could impossibly have been omitted because of homoeoteleuton or the scribe skipping a complete line (which usually contains around 25 words in M, P and L), its content is a typical addition. Eustathius gives as a synonym of in the sense to waste time.11) Having later realized that is never used in Homer but spotted that is (esp. Od. 12.351, cf. Eust. in Od. 1725.10), Eustathius went back and made this addi-tion, deleting the ending - to make room for the asterisk and restoring this syllable in the beginning of the marginal addition.12) This is even more evident from the fact that P simply reads . . Makri-nos, however, suggests that if we suppose that P is a copy of M, this would account for [...] the cases where the main text of M breaks offf within a word but P1 further omits the phrasing in the immediate vicinity of the incomplete words (192). To continue using the example Eust. in Od. 1441.59-60 the idea seems to be the following: M was copied from a lost MS, for some reason omitting the text between - and . After that, P was cop-ied from M restoring the ending - but not the rest of the lost text. Finally, M was corrected against the original MS, the whole text between - and being restored, yet left uncorrected in P. This obscure model would by no means be a satisfactory alternative to Martinis hypothesis and from this point we shall leave this article out of consideration.

However, scholars in general have put too much trust in the information given by Martini (1907). It has often been declared: there is only one instance of homoeoteleuton in M and P or M and P have no additions, but neither of these statements is true. In fact Martini based his conclu-sions on very limited studies of the two MSS, and anyone who looks into it

11) Cf. Ar. V. 849 with Hsch. 1474 (s.v. ).12)See van der Valk 1971, xxiii; Formentin 1983, 40-1.


more closely will soon find thatas in L there are several additions in the upper and lower margins of both M and P. Some appear in the main text of the other MS, others do not. We will also see that scribal omissions are by no means infrequent. Some have been corrected in the margin, but there are examples of unsupplied lacunae in both MSS, proving that the analysis in Martinis otherwise paramount article cannot have been correct.

To rectify this situation we need a much more careful analysis of the contents of the marginalia and interlinear notes in M and P. It is essential that we separate those appearing integrated in the main text of the other MS from those that do not, and that we also aim to distinguish corrections from additions. Moreover we ought to make more extensive test collations of the main text where necessary. But first of all we need to explore what the material aspects of the two codices can tell us about the stages of pro-duction they went through.

4.Codicological Units in M and P

At some point before the sixteenth century P was subjected to a rather extensive restoration process in which many quires were cut up and sewn together again, the damaged margins of many folia being amplified.13) But from the quire signatures we can see that overall it was originally a regu-larly constructed manuscript consisting of 30 quaternions. Exactly in the middle of the manuscript between quires 1-15 (fff. 1-120) and 16-30 (fff. 121-240) there isusing J. P. Gumberts terminology from this point onwards14)a clear caesura. Q1-15 have a writing area of c. 345240 mm, displaying slight variations of the ruling pattern 00D1 Leroy with 43-7 lines of writing. Q16-30, however, have the slightly smaller writing area

13)Seen from the fact that we find notes in the hand of Ianos Laskaris (c. 1445-1535) and Nic-col Maiorano (c. 1491-1584) in the restored margins. See Mondrain 2000, 420 and Pontani 2000, 47-8. It has not been mentioned that at the moment the MS was foliated, in Q9 the original f. 65 was displaced within the quire between the original fff. 71 and 72. This was later corrected, giving the following order: 71=65; 65=66; 66=67; 67=68; 68=69; 69=70; 70=71; 72=72.14)See Gumbert 2004, 40-2; for a useful list of criteria for discerning codicological units rel-evant to Byzantine manuscripts, see Nystrm 2009, 59-62.


330220 mm, displaying slight variations of the ruling pattern 00C1 Leroy with a denser text in 48 lines of writing.

There are two basic alternatives when interpreting this structure. One is to regard Q1-15 and Q16-30 as two blocks within one codicological unit, i.e. the whole codex was produced in one single horizontal operation, but when preparing the quires for the latter part of the MS a more compact page format was used for some reason.15) The other alternative is to regard Q1-15 and Q16-30 as two diffferent codicological units, i.e. they were pro-duced in two diffferent operations. In this case, the first unit Q1-15 should be regarded as the kernel unit produced before the dependent unit Q16-30, since the transition between Q14 and Q15 is seamless with no empty space or compressed or elongated characters at the bottom of the last page before the caesura (f. 120v). The diffference between the two alternatives is impor-tant also on a purely philological level, since in the latter case we must con-sider the possibility that the dependent unit Q16-30 in P was copied at a diffferent time and perhaps from a diffferent MS than its kernel Q1-15.

The first quire in M had fallen out before Cardinal Bessarion acquired this MS in the fifteenth century, but originally it consisted of 33 quires + 1 singulion. Nearly all are quaternions,16) but there are two irregular quires: Q6 (fff. 33-8; ternion plus 1 leaf, minus 1 leaf) and Q27 (fff. 199-201; binion minus 1 leaf). There is no sudden change in writing area (320/330220 mm) or number of lines (47-9) as ostensible as that in the middle of P, and the ruling pattern shifts more frequently between variations on 00C1 and 00D1 Leroy.

The irregular quires suggest that the MS consists of not one but several codicological units. Q2-6 (fff. 1-38) display for the most part the ruling pat-tern P200D1 Leroy, but after the irregular Q6 (a ternion) there is a shift to 00C1 Leroy in Q7-8 (fff. 39-54). This indicates that Q1-6 constitute a depen-dent unit produced in order to be joined with a preexisting kernel unit beginning with Q7. On the last page of the second irregular quire Q27 (fff. 199-201) the characters are elongated to fill out the page, indicating that

15)The reason could be that the author for this part used blank quires originally destined to form part of another codex similar to V (also made of oriental paper with the same writing area and number of lines as Q16-30 in P, yet with a slightly diffferent ruling pattern).16)Four of these are actually quinions within which two leaves have been cut out: Q17 (fff. 119-26); Q20 (fff. 143-50); Q25 (fff. 183-90); Q28 (fff. 202-9).


we have another dependent codicological unit ending with Q27, produced in order to be joined with the preexisting kernel unit Q28-33 + 1 singulion (fff. 202-51) forming the end of the codex. This caesura moreover coincides with a text boundary: the commentary on Od. 19 begins at the top of f. 202r.17) Since there are slight variations in the mise-en-page throughout the codex it is diffficult to discern from codicological evidence only whether Q9-27 constitute one or two units.

5.The Stratigraphy of the Eustathian Autographs

Let us now proceed to examine marginal and interlinear additions as well as uncorrected scribal errors in M and P. The errors that the author did cor-rect in the margin or above the line are useless to us, proving only what we already know, that both MSS are copies and not the original composition. But since discerning corrections from additions can be rather arbitrary I record for future reference all instances of interlinear and marginal addi-tions that I have regarded as corrections of scribal errors:

Eust. in Od. 1399.1 ] - supr. lin. M2v: P9v; 1408.19 in mg. P14r: M7r (homoeoteleuton ); 1410.46 supr. lin. P15r: M8r; 1416.60 supr. lin. M11r: P17v; 1425.47-48 in mg. P21r: M15r (homoeoteleuton ); 1428.34-6 in mg. M16r: P22v (homoeoteleuton ); 1441.4 supr. lin. M21v: P27v; 1464.39-45 in mg. P36r: M31r (homoeoteleuton ); 1465.52 supr. lin. M31v: P36v; 1471.13 supr. lin. M34r: P38v; 1471.34 supr. lin. M34r: P38v; 1477.25 ] -- supr. lin. M36v: P40v; 1479.25 supr. lin. M37v: P41r; 1487.37 in mg. P44v: M41v (homoeo-teleuton ); 1494.61 supr. lin. M44v: P48r; 1513.47 supr. lin. P55r: M52v; 1518.8-9 in mg. P56v: M54r (homoeo-teleuton ); 1521.46 supr. lin. P58r: M55v; 1522.55 supr.

17)I propose a similar analysis of Q7 (fff. 51-4; binion) in the second volume of L, the only non-quaternion quire in these volumes. At the bottom of f. 54v the characters are elongated and at the top of f. 55r the commentary on Il. 13 begins. Van der Valk (1971, x) explained this in the following way: Apparet Eustathium in animo habuisse Commentarium suum in librum N Iliadis a novo fasciculo incohare. In the light of the present study it is perhaps more probable that Q1-7 (fff. 1-54) in L2 is a dependent codicological unit, produced in order to join with the pre-existing kernel unit Q8-28 (fff. 55-223).


lin. M56r: P58r; 1524.4 supr. lin. M56v: P59r; 1524.13 supr. lin. M56v: P59r; 1524.64 supr. lin. M57r: P59v; 1532.5 in mg. P62v: M60r (homoeoteleuton ); 1532.42 supr. lin. M60r: P62v; 1538.41 ] -- supr. lin. M63v: P71v; 1538.60 supr. lin. P65r: M63v; 1539.6 supr. lin. M63v: P65r; 1539.39-40 supr. lin. M64r: P65r; 1546.64 in mg. M67r: P68r (homoeoteleuton ); 1561.46 ] supr. lin. P75r: M74r; 1561.52 supr. lin. M74r: P75r; 1573.58-9 in mg. M79v: P80r (homoeoteleuton ); 1589.47-8 . supr. lin. M86r: P86r; 1604.18 supr. lin. M92r: P92r; 1606.17 supr. lin. M93r: P92v; 1609.40 supr. lin. M94v: P94r; 1609.53 supr. lin. M94v: P94r; 1656.34-7 in mg. P113r: M116r (homoeoteleuton ); 1663.51-53 in mg. P115v: M119v (homoeoteleuton ... ); 1673.48-49 ] [ in mg. P118v: M123v (homoeoteleuton --... -); 1733.57-9 in mg. P145r: M152v (homoeoteleuton ); 1818.57-8 in mg. P177v: M187r (homoeoteleuton ).

Turning to the textual phenomena that do interest us it will immediately be evident that they shift according to the codicological units in M dis-cerned in the previous section. The first unit Q2-6 (. 1-38), hereafter unit a, clearly represents a later stage of the text than P. There is one interlinear addition in P integrated into the main text in M (Eust. in Od. 1410.44 supr. lin. P15r: M8r) and several instances where scribal errors in P are also present in M but corrected supra lineam:

1418.59 supr. lin. M12r: deest P18r; 1419.4 supr. lin. M12r: deest P18r; 1440.23 ] -- supr. lin. M21r: deest P27r; 1448.57-8 supr. lin. M24v: deest P30r; 1448.62 supr. lin. M24v: deest P30v; 1470.11 supr. lin. M33v: deest P38r; 1476.23 supr. lin. M36r: deest P40r.

But these omissions do not necessarily prove that unit a of M was copied from P, since theoretically they could have been present also in the manu-script from which P, and perhaps also M, were copied (hereafter ). There are instances where M has small interlinear notes that seem to be addi-tions, which are found in their proper place in the main text in P:

1396.1 supr. lin. M1r: P8r; 1411, 24 supr. lin. M8v: suo loco P15r; 1441.12 supr. lin. M21v: P27v.


One possible explanation is that M and P were copied from and that these were marginal and interlinear additions in this MS, mistakenly omitted in M but integrated in P and finally restored in M. It could also be that Eus-tathius voluntarily omitted these words inter scribendum when copying M from either or P. But despite quite extensive test collations I have not been able to find uncorrected scribal errors from which this could be defi-nitely verified, since at this point both MSS were carefully revised and cor-rected by the author. In unit a of M this revision process occurred during a time when the author either was unable or did not bother to add the same material to P, as seen from the following additions in unit a not found in P:

1396.35 ] supr. lin. M1r: deest P8v; 1400.15 supr. lin. M3r: deest P10r; 1405.19-20 supr. lin. M5r: deest P12v; 1414.3-9 in mg. M9v: deest P16v; 1419.39 supr. lin. M12r: deest P18r; 1420.5 supr. lin. M12v: deest P18v; 1421.10 supr. lin. M13r: deest P19r; 1423.22 supr. lin. M14r: deest P20r; 1427.30 supr. lin. M15v: deest P22r; 1428.38-9 in mg. M16r: deest P22v; 1434.28-9 in mg. M18v: deest P24v; 1434.57 supr. lin. M19r: deest P25r; 1440.48 supr. lin. M21v: deest P27r; 1441.25 in mg. M21v: deest P27v; 1441.35 in mg. M21v: deest P27v; 1441.59-60 in mg. M22r: deest P27v; 1442.41 supr. lin. M22r: deest P28r; 1442.62 supr. lin. M22r: deest P28r; 1444.61 supr. lin. M23r: deest P28v; 1445.13-16 in mg. M23r: deest P29r; 1450.25 supr. lin. M25v: deest P31r; 1455.30 supr. lin. M27v: deest P32v; 1458.10 supr. lin. M28v: deest P33v; 1458.44 in mg. M28v: deest P34r; 1461.54-5 supr. lin. M30r: deest P35r; 1462.18-20 in mg. M30r: deest P35r; 1464.60 supr. lin. M31r: deest P36r; 1465.35-9 in mg. M31v: deest P36r; 1468.27-8 in mg. M33r: deest P37r; 1471.34 supr. lin. M34r: deest P38v; 1473.5-8 in mg. M35r: deest P39r; 1473.46-7 in mg. M35r: deest P39v; 1474.34-7 in mg. M35v: deest P39v; 1474.46-7 in mg. M35v: deest P39v; 1474.48 supr. lin. M35v: deest P39v; 1475.9-11 in mg. M35v: deest P39v; 1478.8-10 in mg. M37r: deest P41r.

In the previous section we discerned that unit a was a dependent unit pro-duced in order to join with a preexisting kernel unit beginning in Q7. In the


light of the philological data it is clear that this second unit consists of Q7-9 (. 39-62), hereafter unit b. For this part of M the author clearly used quires predating P. In unit b there are many marginal and interlinear additions to the text integrated into the main text in P:

1484.6-7 in mg. M39v: P43r; 1487.18-19 in mg. M41r: P44v; 1489.9 in mg. M42r: P45v; 1490.39 ] - supr. lin. M42v: P46r; 1491.13 supr. lin. M43r: P46v; 1493.40-2 in mg. M44r: P47r; 1497.4-5 in mg. M46v: P48v; 1506.48-9 supr. lin. M49v: P52r; 1509.52-3 in mg. M51r: P53v; 1512.41-2 in mg. M52r: P54v; 1514.22-4 in mg. M52v: P55r; 1516.24 supr. lin. M53v: P56r; 1517.25 supr. lin. M54r: P56r; 1518.5962 in mg. M54v: P57r; 1519.16-18 in mg. M54v: P57r; 1523.50 supr. lin. M56v: P58v; 1524.53 supr. lin. M57r: P59v; 1524.53 supr. lin. M57r: P59v; 1528.10 supr. lin. M58v: P60v; 1528.10 supr. lin. M58v: P60v; 1530.19-20 supr. lin. M59v: P61v; 1531.62-3 in mg. M60r: P62rv; 1533.23 supr. lin. M60v: P63r; 1534.2 supr. lin. M61r: P63v; 1534.12 supr. lin. M61r: P63v; 1534.16 ] - supr. lin. M61r: P63v; 1534.20 supr. lin. M61r: P63v; 1534.63 supr. lin. M61v: P64r; 1535.12 supr. lin. M61v: P64r; 1538.1 supr. lin. M63r: P71v; 1538.33 supr. lin. M63v: P71v.

Furthermore there is a marginal addition in P not found at the correspond-ing place within unit b (1536.47-50 in mg. P71r: deest M62v), suggesting that P at some point served as the authors master copy, but that Eustathius did not check the predating kernel unit b against P when putting together M. In fact he seems not to have subjected unit b to any revisions at all at the stage when it was merged into the codex M, since there are no marginal or interlinear additions or corrections that do not appear in P.

Next in M we have the dependent unit Q10-27 (. 63-201), hereafter unit c, produced in order to join at the beginning with unit b and at the end with Q28. Similarly to a, unit c seems to present a text produced after P. Since the marginal and interlinear notes break offf on f. 95v this is only instantly verifiable for Q10-14. We have a few instances where interlinear notes cor-rect scribal errors also committed but left uncorrected in P:


1554.26 ] -- supr. lin. M70v: deest P72r; 1563.8 supr. lin. M74v: deest P75v; 1584, 23 supr. lin. M83v: deest P84r.

Also, Ludwich (1897, 19) reports an uncorrected scribal omission in Q11 of M (1573.13 deest M 78v: P79v), proving at least that P was not cop-ied from M at this point. In Q10-14 we also find the characteristic marginal and interlinear additions in M not found in P at all:

1541.5 supr. lin. M64v: P66r; 1548.7-9 in mg. M68r: P68v; 1549.20-1 supr. lin. M68r: P69r; 1554.38 supr. lin. M70v: P72r; 1554.50 supr. lin. M70v: P72r; 1556.63 in mg. M71v: P73r; 1557.60 in mg. M72r: P73v; 1558.54 supr. lin. M72v: P73v; 1558.6 supr. lin. M72r: P73v; 1558.6 supr. lin. M72r: P73v; 1561.48 supr. lin. M74r: P75r; 1562.11 ] o- supr. lin. M74r: P75r; 1562.22 supr. lin. M74r: P75r; 1566.24 in mg. M75v: P76v; 1567.42 supr. lin. M76r: P77r; 1567.61-2 supr. lin. M76v: P77r; 1572.54-5 in mg. M78v: P79r; 1575.37-38 in mg. M80r: P80v; 1586.43-4 in mg. M84v: P85r; 1586.48 in mg. M84v: P85r; 1593.56 supr. lin. M86r: P86r; 1605.32-5 in mg. M93r: P92v; 1606.7 supr. lin. M93r: P92v; 1611.18 supr. lin. M95v: P95r.

From Q14 onwards we have to rely on the more sporadic but secure data from test collations. Martinis (1907, 284) omission in M occurs in Q17 (1665.52-3 deest M120r: P116r (homoeoteleuton )). He also reports two minor omissions in Q27, the last quire of the unit:

1848.46 deest M200r: P189r; 1849.16 deest M200r: P189v.

We also find a marginal addition in P integrated into the main text of M within Q21 (1736.14 in. mg. P146r: M153v). This suggests that P predates unit c, but since the addition could have been made both in and P it does not prove that unit c was copied from P. In fact this is impos-sible in the light of the following uncorrected omissions which I have found in P corresponding to Q15 and Q17 in M:

1630.10 deest P103r: M104r; 1630.31-2 deest P103r: M104r (homoeoteleuton ); 1686.37-8 deest P124r: M129v.


We should also note the fact that the uncorrected scribal omissions in M and P span both sides of the caesura between Q1-15 and Q16-30 in P. Moreover the additions in Q10-14 of M correspond to the first part of P where they are not integrated into the text, while the marginal additions in P integrated into the main text in M occur in the latter part of P. This suggests that despite the clear boundary in the middle of P the manuscript was produced in one single operation.

Unit c was produced in order to join with the kernel unit Q28-33 + 1 singulion (. 202-51), hereafter unit d, forming the end of the codex. As such we expect that it should be similar to unit b, and as a matter of fact we do find uncorrected scribal omissions in P, proving that M was not copied from P at this point. Sample collations in Q28, 29 and 32 reveal these four instances:

1863.25 deest P195v: M206v; 1877.32 deest P201v: M212v (homoeoteleuton ); 1897.62 deest P209v: M221r; 1933.17-22 deest P224v: M235v (homoeoteleuton ).

To the same efffect there is also a marginal addition in P not found in M within Q32 (1946.35-6 in mg. P230r: deest M241r).

But we also find uncorrected scribal omissions in M, proving that unit d did not form part of the MS that P was copied from:

1892.11-12 deest M218v: P207v (homoeoteleuton ); 1910.53-4 deest M226v: P215v (homoeoteleuton ... ).

Therefore both unit d and P must have been copied from the archetype .It should also be mentioned that on fff. 184r-228r in M there are several

instances where part of a word has been erased:

1809.33 () 184r; 1809.44 () 184r; 1809.57 () 184r; 1818.56 () 187r; 1851.33 () 201r; 1859.31 () 204v; 1877.63 () 213r; 1880.59 () 214r; 1885.5 () 216r; 1885.46 () 216r; 1887.59 () 217r; 1900.26 () 222r; 1901.2 ( ) 222v; 1910.43 () 226v; 1914.57 () 228r.

The empty space created (10-25 mm) corresponds to that usually made in L, M and P in order to make room for the asterisk, suggesting that Eustathius


probably intended to make additions to the commentary in these instances. Since this phenomenon spans the caesura between units c and d it seems to have happened late, after the units in M had been merged.

6.Conclusion

The relationship between the two surviving autograph manuscripts M and P containing Eustathius commentary on Homers Odyssey is not a simple matter of the one being a copy of the other. In M we can distinguish four codicological units, each displaying a diffferent textual relationship with P:

a Q2-6 (fff. 1-38) produced after P. Either M was copied from P or both from .

b Q7-9 (fff. 39-62) produced before P. Either P was copied from M or both from .

c Q10-27 (fff. 63-201) produced after P. Both M and P were copied from .d Q28-33 (fff. 202-51) produced before P. Both M and P were copied from .

The reason for this structure of the codex may relate to how the text was used. We know that parents sent their children from Constantinople to Thessalonica in order to be educated by Eustathius (de capt. Thess. 66.26-7). If he put his commentaries to use in this context it is probable that his stu-dents read only smaller parts of these extensive works at a time. This would explain the autonomy of unit d: at some point Eustathius copied out his commentary on Od. 19-24 for a student reading the final books of the epic. Unit b, however, which begins in the middle of Book 4 and ends in the mid-dle of Book 5 calls for a more intricate explanation. Counting backwards, supposing that the quires preceding this unit in the original codex were quaternions and that the folia on average had same amount of text as fff. 39-62 (140 lines in Stallbaums edition per folium), we have to go back all the way to the beginning of the commentary to find a coincidence of quire and text boundary. Accordingly, it seems as if unit b formed part of a codex containing the commentary from the beginning up to some point beyond Od. 5. It is unlikely that the original Q1-6 fell out by accident, but it is pos-sible that Eustathius disassembled a manuscript for teaching purposes, giv-ing Q1-6 to a student studying Od. 1-3, and any number of quires from Q10 onwards to one or several students studying parts beginning with Od. 6. In


this case he would have ended up with three quires that may have lain in his cupboard for some time. P was copied either from this manuscript when still intact of directly from . At a later time, Eustathius assembled M, incor-porating loose quires (unit b and d) and merging them by producing units a and c. It is likely that both of these were copied from , yet I have only been able to prove this of unit c. Finally, he started reading through M mak-ing interlinear and marginal corrections and additions.

Of what consequence will this be for the editor aiming at producing an Ausgabe letzter Hand of this text? Since M was subjected to a careful revision while still in the authors possession it clearly reflects the final redaction of the author. This process, however, was interrupted and after f. 95v the choice will not always be as unproblematic. Hereafter M and P represent equal copies of , and in unit d M even seems to be an earlier product than P. Since they are autograph MSS Eustathius will sometimes have improved on the text while copying, occasionally with diffferent results.18)

In his review on van der Valks edition of the commentary on the Iliad Nickau (1984, 683) speculated, In M freilich fehlen die fr L charakteristi-schen Additamente; vielleicht kam der Tod des Verfassers ihrer Anferti-gung zuvor. We know now that the first assertion is not correct, but the latter part may still hold true. It is not impossible that the interrupted revi-sion process in M marks, if not the end of Eustathius life, then perhaps at least the great Comnenian scholars last contribution to Homeric studies.

Bibliography

Adler, A. 1938. Suidae Lexicon, vol. V (Leipzig)Andres, G. 1822. De commentarj dEustazio sopra Omero, e de traduttori di essi, Memorie della

Regia Accademia Ercolanese di Archeologia 1, 97-128

18)Take for instance within unit d Eust. in Od. 1868.24. P reads , . This probably reflects what Eustathius originally wrote when composing this entry. Having later elaborated on this using sources giving the more common reading he added further down: , (1868.33-4). He noticed this discontinuity when copying M and instead wrote: o but omitted . The edition combines the two, but does the omission in M reflect an involuntary mistake or a conscious decision not to include in the lemma?


Bandini, A.M. 1770. Catalogus codicum graecorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, vol. 2 (Florence)

Barbour, R. 1981. Greek Literary Hands A. D. 400-1600 (Oxford)Browning, R. 1962. The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century, Byzantion

32, 167-931995. Eustathios of Thessalonike Revisited, BICS 40, 83-90Formentin, M. 1983. La grafia di Eustazio di Tessalonica, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grot-

taferrata 37, 19-50Gamillscheg, E. 1981. Autoren und Kopisten, JByz 31, 379-94Granstrem, E.E. 1980. Zur byzantinischen Minuskel, in: Harlfinger, H. (ed.) Griechische

Kodikologie und Textberlieferung (Darmstadt), 76-119Gumbert, J.P. 2004. Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of the

Non-Homogeneous Codex, S&T 2, 17-42Irigoin, J. 1972-3. Philologie grecque, Annuaire de lcole pratique des hautes tudes,

197-207Kambylis, A. 1991. Prooimion zum Pindarkommentar (Gttingen)Kazhdan, A. 1984. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cam-

bridge/Paris)Kuhn, F. 1889. Quo ordine et quibus temporibus Eustathius commentarios suos composuit, in:

Commentationes in honorem G. Studemund (Strasbourg), 247-57Kyriakides, S. 1971. La Espugnazione di Tessalonica (Palermo)Leroy, J. 1976. Les types de rglure des manuscrits grecs (Paris)Liverani, A.I. 1999. L accentuazione di in Eustazio di Tessalonica, RSBN 36, 117-202000. In margine agli autografi eustaziani: a proposito della grafia /, MEG

0, 131-42001. Sul sistema di interpunzione in Eustazio di Tessalonica, MEG 1, 187-972002. Leditio princeps dei Commentarii allOdissea di Eustazio di Tessalonica, MEG

2, 81-100Ludwich, A. 1897. Kritische Miscellen I-XI (Knigsberg)Maas, P. 1935. Eustathios als Konjekturalkritiker I, BZ 35, 299-3071936. Eustathios als Konjekturalkritiker II, BZ 36, 27-311952. Verschiedenes zu Eustathios, BZ 45, 1-3Makrinos, A. 2007. Eustathius Archbishop of Thessalonica Commentary on the Odyssey: Codex

Marcianus 460 and Parisinus 2702 Revisited, BICS 50, 171-92Martini, E. 1907. Eustathianum, RhM 62, 273-94Mioni, E. 1985. Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti. Thesaurus anti-

quus, vol. 2 (Rome)Mondrain, B. 1997. Rapports sur les confrences 1995-1996Brigitte MONDRAIN, Livret de

lcole pratique des Hautes Etudes 11 (Paris), 74-62000. Janus Lascaris copiste et ses livres, in: Prato, G. (ed.) I manoscritti greci tra ri-

flessione e dibattito (Florence), 417-26Nickau, K. 1984. Review of: van der Valk 1971, 1976 and 1979, Gnomon 56, 681-92Nystrm, E. 2009. Containing Multitudes: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective

(Uppsala).


Omont, H. 1888. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothque Nationale et des autres bibliothques de Paris et des dpartements, vol. 4 (Paris)

Pack, R.A. 1980. Scribal Errors in an Autograph Manuscript, AJPh 101, 459-61Peppink, S.P. 1933. De autographis Eustathianis cum codice Suidae comparatis, Mnemosyne

60, 423-4Politus, A. 1735. Eustathii Diaconi a supplicibus libellis, et oratorum magistri, postea archiepis-

copi Thessalonicensis, commentarii in Homeri Iliadem, vol. 3 (Florence)Pontani, F. 2000. Il proemio al Commento allOdissea di Eustazio di Tessalonica (con appunti

sulla tradizione del testo), BollClass 21, 5-582005. Sguardi su Ulisse: La tradizione esegetica greca allOdissea (Rome) Reinsch, D. 1980. Bemerkungen zu byzantinischen Autorenhandschriften, in: Harlfinger,

H. (ed.) Griechische Kodikologie und Textberlieferung (Darmstadt), 629-44Travi, E. 1993. Pietro Bembo, Lettere, vol. 4 (Bologna)van der Valk, M. 1971. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Ilia-

dem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, vol. 1 (Leiden)1976. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem perti-

nentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, vol. 2 (Leiden)1979. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem perti-

nentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, vol. 3 (Leiden)1981. Zum Odysseekommentar des Eustathius, Mnemosyne 34, 385-8Vitelli, G., Paoli, C. 1884. Collezione Fiorentina di Facsimili Paleografici greci e latini

(Florence)Vogel, M., Gardthausen, V. 1909. Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renais-

sance (Leipzig)Wilson, N.G. 1973. Three Byzantine Scribes, GRBS 14, 223-81977. Scholarly hands of the middle Byzantine period, in La palographie grecque et

byzantine (Paris), 221-391992. From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (London)1996. Scholars of Byzantium (rev.ed.; London/Cambridge, MA)

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 550 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 2400 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /PDFX1a:2001 ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError false /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (GWG_GenericCMYK) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Date post:	20-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aristarchos76
View:	31 times
Download:	4 times

Cullhed, The Autograph Manuscripts Containing Eustathius’ Commentary on the Odyssey

Documents