FernMaks ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Duplicated Excerpts in Byzantine Anthologies: A Typological Study Tomás Fernández and José Maksimczuk HE OBJECTIVE of this article can be easily stated: to analyse the different possible scenarios that might account for the presence of ‘the same fragment’ in different anthologies. We consider two or more fragments in different anthologies to be the ‘same’ or ‘duplicated’ when they share, substantially, the same content.1 Usually, they will have a similar incipit and desinit, though this is not always required. The typology we offer arose from the practical need to cat- egorize the relationship between fragments present in the 9th- or 10th-century Byzantine alphabetical anthology known as Florilegium Coislinianum,2 on which both authors have worked for over a decade, and a number of Greek anthologies such as Sacra, Loci Communes, Florilegium Atheniense, and Corpus Parisinum. 1 We will not deal with a related phenomenon, that of duplicated frag- ments within one and the same anthology, as it is often the case that one fragment is cited more than once in the same anthology. Such cases must be approached differently and deserve separate discussion. 2 The Flor. Coisl. is divided into twenty-three Books or στοιχεῖα and each section represents a letter of the alphabet (Letter omega is missing from all the extant witnesses and most likely never existed). To date Books Α–Θ, Ν– Ξ, Ρ, Y, Ψ have been critically edited. See the literature on the Flor. Coisl. in the introductions to the most recently edited Letters: T. Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum Α (Turnhout 2018); J. Maksimczuk, P. Van Deun, and M. Venetskov, “La Lettre Upsilon du Florilège Coislin,” Byzantion 89 (2019) 463–499. Cf. M. Richard, “Florilèges spirituels grecs,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité 33–34 (Paris 1962) 475–512 (repr. M. Richard, Opera minora I [Turnhout 1976] no. 1). T TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 111 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 We have complemented our study with further examples in or- der to make the typology representative of a broader spectrum of anthological works. In fact, the phenomenon addressed in this article is attested in numerous florilegia and florilegic-like works irrespective of their nature, content, or format. When duplicated fragments share a number of significant errors, this can mean: 1. Anthology B depends on anthology A; 2. Anthologies A and B depend on a common source C, presently extant; 3. Anthologies A and B depend on a common source C, presently lost or unidentified. When the duplicated fragments feature different texts (that is, they follow different traditions of the source text, not sharing the same significant errors and therefore not deriving from the same hyparchetype), one may be dealing with the following scenarios: 4. Anthologies A and B have a different text due to polygenetic excerption which may be ‘accidental’ (4.a) or induced by a specific arrangement of the source text (4.b); 5. Anthologies A and B have a different text because one of them contaminated the text of a common model with a second model, either the primary source or another anthology.3 We will illustrate each type with examples, mainly from Byzantine anthologies. Our aim is not to be exhaustive, but to provide case studies that illustrate our typology. 3 Further (sub-)categories can be added to those we discuss in this paper. One may think of the following case: anthologies A and B have duplicated excerpts with different texts because B used A just as a ‘guide’ for fragments but not as its actual model. A reason for this could be that the compiler of B wanted to quote directly from the sources or somewhat mistrusted the text of A. This type of ‘guided excerpting’ may have been the standard pro- cedure for the compilation of florilegia for ecumenical councils: see A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and its Archetype (Washington 1996) 29; T. Fernández, “La tendencia compilatoria en época de controversia teo- lógica,” Maia 66 (2014) 157–171, at 164. 112 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 1. Anthology B derives (entirely or partly) from anthology A Instances of this type of relationship are documented exten- sively in the literature on the Flor. Coisl.4 A case in point is codex Athonensis, Laura K 113 (16th cent.),5 which on folios 327– 328bis contains a short compilation consisting of twenty ex- cerpts distributed over four unnumbered chapters. These excerpts are all in some way paralleled in Letters A–B of the Flor. Coisl.6 Thus: Laura K 113 cap. 1 fr. 1–2 = Flor. Coisl. A fr. 58–59 Laura K 113 cap. 2 fr. 1–3 = Flor. Coisl. A fr. 93–95 Laura K 113 cap. 2 fr. 4–11 = Flor. Coisl. B fr. 7–15 Laura K 113 cap. 2 fr. 12–13 = Flor. Coisl. B fr. 21–22 Laura K 113 cap. 3 fr. 1 = Flor. Coisl. B fr. 24 Laura K 113 cap. 4 fr. 1–4 = Flor. Coisl. B fr. 26–29 The link between the two anthologies is confirmed by the numerous readings both share against the source texts. See, for 4 See J. Maksimczuk, “A Miscellaneous Book at the Workshop of Nicholas Choniates,” Aevum 94 (2020) 250–289, at 265 n.67, with further bibliography. 5 Description in S. Lauriotis and S. Eustratiadis, Κατάλογος τῶν κωδίκων τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας (τῆς ἐν Ἁγίῳ Ὄρει). Ἐπλουτίσθη καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐν τέλει δύο παραρτηµάτων καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαιούντων εὑρετηρίων πινάκων. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos, with Notices from other Libraries (Cambridge [Mass.] 1925) 241. The catalogue’s description must be complemented with P. Andrist, “Trois témoins Athonites mal connus des Anastasiana Antiiudaica (et du Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae): Lavra K 113; Vatopedi 555; Karakallou 60. Essai sur la tradition des Anastasiana Antiiudaica, notam- ment du Dialogus Papisci et Philonis cum monacho,” Byzantion 76 (2006) 402–422, at 403–410. 6 Some excerpts in the Laura anthology have the same incipit and desinit as fragments in Flor. Coisl., whereas others are an abridgement of the cor- responding fragment in Flor. Coisl. The list of contents of the anthology in the Athonite manuscript and the parallels in Flor. Coisl. are given in T. Fernández and J. Maksimczuk, “On the Oldest Witnesses of the Second Recension of the Florilegium Coislinianum: Par. gr. 924 Model of the Athen., EBE 464 (with an appendix on the Athon., Laura K 113),” Byzantinoslavica 77 (2019) 61–75, at 72–74. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 113 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 example, the excerpts that open and close the anthology in the Laura codex, namely, cap. 1 fr. 1 and cap. 4 fr. 4. i) Flor. Coisl. A fr. 58 = Laura K 113 cap. 1 fr. 1 = Maximus Conf. Quaestiones ad Thalassium qu. 55.201–218.7 The Flor. Coisl. and the Laura anthology transmit the same selection of qu. 55. In addition, they yield two important variants that are not at- tested in the tradition of Maximus: Qu. 55.203: δευτέρα δὲ Max.] δευτέρα ἐστὶν ἀπάθεια Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 Qu. 55.216: µυριάδας Max.] γενικὰς ἀπαθείας Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 ii) Flor. Coisl. B fr. 29 = Laura K 113 cap. 4 fr. 4 = Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses illuminandorum 3.10.1–9).8 The Flor. Coisl. and the Laura anthology quote the same passage from Cyril’s work. They also share several readings absent from the source. Here we offer a selection of such readings: Catech. 3.10.5: καιροῖς Cyr.] καιρῷ Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 Catech. 3.10.5–6: ἐν καιροῖς διωγµῶν ἐν οἰκείοις αἵµασι βαπτισθῶσι Cyr.] ἐν αἵµατι Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 Catech. 3.10.6–7: καὶ τὸ µαρτύριον γὰρ οἶδε Cyr.] οἶδε γὰρ τὸ µαρτύριον (µαρτύρων Laura K 113) Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 Catech. 3.10.8: πίνω Cyr.] µέλλω πίνειν Flor. Coisl. Laura K 113 The analysis above proves that some link exists between Flor. Coisl. and the short anthology in Laura K 113. Further in- vestigation shows that the Flor. Coisl. does not yield any variant against the sources that is not mirrored in Laura K 113, while the latter has numerous poor readings and omissions against Flor. Coisl. and the ultimate source texts. The following lists the 7 C. Laga and C. Steel, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium I (Leuven 1980) 493.201–218. For the Flor. Coisl. fragment, Fernández, Flori- legium Coislinianum Α 105–106. 8 W. K. Reischl and J. Rupp, S. Patri Nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archi- episcopi Opera quae supersunt omnia I (Munich 1848). For Flor. Coisl. B fr. 29 see I. De Vos, E. Gielen, C. Macé, and P. Van Deun, “La lettre Β du Florilège Coislin : editio princeps,” Byzantion 80 (2010) 72–120, at 115. 114 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 most conspicuous cases: Flor. Coisl. B fr. 9.3–7: Ὁ – ἐχθρῶν Flor. Coisl. (cum fonte)9] om. Laura K 113 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 13.2–5: ἡ – ἄνθρωπον Flor. Coisl. (cum fonte)10] om. Laura K 113 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 14.3–9: Ἀψευδὴς – εἰρηκώς Flor. Coisl. (cum fonte)11] om. Laura K 113 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 15.3–20: Πολλοὺς – ἀπέθανεν Flor. Coisl. (cum fonte)12] om. Laura K 113 Accordingly, the link between the Flor. Coisl. (A) and the com- pilation in Laura K 113 (B) may be illustrated as a stemma:13 2. Anthologies A and B derive from C, which is extant. In this category, anthologies A and B, while transmitting the same excerpt, yield individual errors showing that one does not depend on the other. At the same time, the extant anthology C has a better text than that of A and B and can account for the textual errors common to A and B. The codex Vaticanus, Ottobonianus gr. 441, copied in 1477 by Patriarch Symeon I (PLP 27068; RGK III 593) contains, on folios 1–9, 20–24, 25–46, 430–544, 555–580, a long anthology 9 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 9 = Evagrius Pont. De octo spiritibus malitiae, PG 79.1148.49–1149.33. 10 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 13 = Basilius Caesar. Hom. super Psalmos, in Ps. 1, PG 29.220.22–25. 11 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 14 = Ps.-Joannes Chrysost. De corruptoribus virginum, PG 60.744.25–34. 12 Flor. Coisl. B fr. 15 = Basilius Caesar. Sermo asceticus et exhortatio de re- nuntiatione mundi, PG 31.637.20–41. 13 A more detailed analysis of the position of the Laura MS. in the overall stemma of the Flor. Coisl. is offered in Fernández and Maksimczuk, Byzan- tinoslavica 77 (2019) 74–75. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 115 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 compiled by Symeon himself.14 Some of the excerpts trans- mitted in the anthology of Symeon are paralleled in a con- temporary compilation contained in the manuscript Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Baroccianus 91 (f. 140r–289r).15 We point out one example among many: Maximus the Confessor’s Quaestiones ad Thalassium qu. 26.14–3416 (Ottob. 441 f. 491r-v and Barocc. 91 f. 161r). The arrangement and text in both anthologies suggest that they are related. In both manuscripts, the fragment from qu. 26 is preceded by the same excerpt from Gregory of Nyssa’s In xl martyres 2.17 Most importantly, the text of qu. 26 in both compilations shares poor variants against Maximus’ tradition: Qu. 26.14: διάβολος καὶ Max.] διάβολος Ottob. 441 Barocc. 91 Qu. 26.25: Τοῦτο δὲ Max.] τούτῳ δὴ Ottob. 441 Barocc. 91 14 Description in E. Feron and F. Battaglini, Codices manuscripti graeci Otto- boniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae (Rome 1893) 245–248. Identification of Symeon’s hand by S. G. Mercati, “Lo scriba del codice Ottoboniano greco 441 è il patriarca Constantinopolitano Simeone I,” ByzZeit 25 (1925) 327– 330 (repr. S. G. Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina II [Bari 1970] 11–15). The anthology of Symeon has received little scholarly attention; a preliminary analysis is in J. Maksimczuk, Books Δ–Ζ of the Florilegium Coislinianum (diss. Leuven 2018) LX–LXIV. The original arrangement of the quires in Ottob. 441 was disturbed, which is why the Anthology of Symeon is transmitted in non-consecutive folios. 15 Description in H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae I (Oxford 1853) 155–158. Coxe incorrectly dates the manuscript to the 14th century; a more complete description and a discussion of its dating is in J. Maksimczuk, “A Contaminated Version of the Florilegium Coislinianum,” Eikasmós 31 (2020) 301–329, at 305–308. 16 Incipit : Ὁ διάβολος ἐχθρὸς… desinit : συµβαινόντων ἐπαγωγήν. All the references that follow match the pagination of Laga and Steel’s edition of the Quaestiones. 17 Incipit: Σύνηθες τῷ διαβόλῳ… desinit: ἀπάτης ἐνδύσασθαι. The fragment corresponds to Gregorius Nyss. In xl martyres 2, O. Lendle, Gregorii Nysseni Sermones II (Leiden 1990) 164.18–165.1. In the context of the argument that we are developing here, it is relevant to observe that the excerpt in question is also quoted in Flor. Coisl. (Book Δ fr. 24). 116 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 Qu. 26.26: ἐπινοῶν Max.] ἐπινοεῖν Ottob. 441 Barocc. 91 Both anthologies have individual mistakes inconsistent with the possibility that one depends on another. Errors in Barocc. 91 are: Qu. 26.23: ἐξαιτῆται Max. Ottob. 441] ἐξαιτῆσαι Barocc. 91 Qu. 26.23: ἡµῶν Max. Ottob. 441] ἡµᾶς Barocc. 91 Qu. 26.27: ἐκοµίσατο Max. Ottob. 441] ἐκοµίσαντο Barocc. 91 Qu. 26.28: οὐ Max. Ottob. 441] λαβὼν Barocc. 91 Individual errors in Ottob. 441 are: Qu. 26.24: φίλον τῷ διαβόλῳ καθέστηκεν Max. Barocc. 91] τῷ διαβόλῳ καθέστηκε φίλον Ottob. 441 Qu. 26.27: ἀπηνῶς ἐπιφέρεται Max. Barocc. 91] ἐπιφέρεται ἀπηνῶς Ottob. 441 Qu. 26.31: ἀτονίαν Max. Barocc. 91] εὐτονίαν Ottob. 441 Qu. 26.33: αἰτίαν Max. Barocc. 91] αἰτίας Ottob. 441 Maximus’ excerpt is transmitted in an identical way in the Flor. Coisl., where it is the last fragment in Letter Δ (= fr. 25) and is also preceded by Gregory of Nyssa’s In xl martyres 2, p. 164.18–165.1 (= Δ fr. 24). The critical edition of that section of the Flor. Coisl. shows that all the mistakes shared by the an- thologies of Ottob. 441 and Barocc. 91 can be traced back to one specific sub-family within the third recension of the Coislin anthology, which is mainly represented by Argentoratensis, Biblio- theca nationalis et universitatis 1906 (A.D. 1285/6), Athonensis, Iviron 38 (A.D. 1281/2), and Athonensis, Koutloumousiou 9 (late 13th cent.). The conclusion that imposes itself is that both the an- thology of Symeon (A) and that in the Oxford codex (B) drew on the same source, namely the Flor. Coisl. in its third recension (C). The following stemma shows the links between the three compilations: TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 117 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 3. The ancestor C, from which A and B derive, is presently lost The fifth fragment in Book Α of the Flor. Coisl. is a long selection from Ps.-Dionysius’ De coelesti hierarchia 15.18 The same excerpt is found in the well-known iconodule florilegium of Parisinus gr. 1115 (A.D. 1276), f. 258r–261r.19 A comparative analysis of the two versions proves that they share the same sig- nificant mistakes: p. 50.14: ἑνικὰς καὶ ὑψηλὰς Ps.-Dion.] ἑνικὰς ὑψηλὰς Flor. Coisl. Par. 1115 p. 51.1–21: Ἔστω – ὑφειµένως Ps.-Dion.] om. Flor. Coisl. Par. 1115 p. 53.6: καὶ ἀνθρωποµόρφους Ps.-Dion.] καὶ ὡς ἀνθρωποµόρφους Flor. Coisl. Par. 1115 p. 53.6–7: τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἄναντες Ps.-Dion.] πρὸς τὸ ἄναντες Flor. Coisl. Par. 1115 p. 57.3: ἡµῖν Ps.-Dion.] om. Flor. Coisl. Par. 1115 Accordingly, some link must exist between Flor. Coisl. A fr. 5 and its counterpart in Par. 1115. Further, our analysis shows that the two anthologies feature individual, separative errors which prove that neither derives from the other. Flor. Coisl. lacks several authentic lines attested in Par. 1115: p. 53.12–14: Ἔστι – φάσκοντας Ps.-Dion. Par. 1115] om. Flor. Coisl. p. 54.20–23: Ἀλλ’ – ἀναπτύξωµεν Ps.-Dion. Par. 1115] om. Flor. Coisl. 18 Incipit : Φέρε δὴ λοιπὸν… desinit : ταῖς τυπωτικαῖς φαντασίαις. Critical edition of the excerpt in Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum Α 8–21. The fragment corresponds to pp. 50.13–51.1 and 51.22–59.7 in G. Heil and A. M. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum II (Berlin 1991). All the references that follow match the pagination of their edition. 19 The coincidence has been pointed out in J. Maksimczuk, “Chapter E 17 of the Florilegium Coislinianum and its Relationship with Earlier Iconodule Anthologies,” Medioevo Greco 16 (2016) 165–183, at 176–177 n.38. For the iconophile compilation in Par. 1115 in general see Alexakis, Codex Parisinus, and further considerations in K.-H. Uthemann, “Neues zum Kolophon des Parisinus Graecus 1115,” RHT 29 (1999) 39–84 (repr. K.-H. Uthemann, Studien zu Anastasios Sinaites [Berlin 2017] 49–90). 118 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 p. 57.23–26: Ἀλλ’ – ὁµοιότητας Ps.-Dion. Par. 1115] om. Flor. Coisl. p. 58.4–6: Ἀρκεῖ – διασάφησιν Ps.-Dion. Par. 1115] om. Flor. Coisl. Dating to the year 1276, Par. 1115 is younger than the oldest witnesses of the Flor. Coisl., which were copied in the second half of the tenth century.20 The chronological evidence demon- strates, therefore, that Par. 1115 could not be the source of the Flor. Coisl. Most importantly, the text of Par. 1115 yields poor variants against the Coislin anthology and the source, as is shown by the following omissions: p. 54.25: εἰκόνα Ps.-Dion. Flor. Coisl.] om. Par. 1115 p. 56.8: φωτὸς Ps.-Dion. Flor. Coisl.] om. Par. 1115 p. 58.4: ἀνάγοντες Ps.-Dion. Flor. Coisl.] om. Par. 1115 p. 58.15: οἶµον Ps.-Dion. Flor. Coisl.] om. Par. 1115 p. 59.4: ἐλλάµψεων Ps.-Dion. Flor. Coisl.] om. Par. 1115 It can be concluded that both compilers must have drawn on a common ancestor. Theoretically, that ancestor could be a now-lost manuscript of Ps.-Dionysius whose text would have featured all the common mistakes of the Flor. Coisl. and Par. 1115 for pp. 50–59. However, the possibility that two com- pilers used exactly the same manuscript to excerpt a virtually identical passage with a gap of 300 or 350 years between each other is highly unlikely. A more likely scenario is that the Flor. Coisl. (A) and Par. 1115 (B) benefited from an older, uniden- tified compilation (C), which yielded the variants common to the text of the two subsequent anthologies. The hypothesis of a common anthological source for both the Flor. Coisl. and Par. 1115 is strongly supported by the fact that these two compila- tions share other excerpts besides the one from Ps.-Dionysius’ De coelesti hierarchia.21 A stemma depicting the links between the 20 These are Parisinus gr. 924 (siglum C in the tradition of the Flor. Coisl.) and Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus Q 74 sup. (siglum D). 21 Examination of all those duplicated fragments produces further evi- dence that Flor. Coisl. and Par. 1115 are independent of one another: see the analysis in Maksimczuk, Medioevo Greco 16 (2016) 168–175. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 119 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 three anthologies would be thus: 4. Polygenesis (independent excerpts from the same source) 4.a. Accidental Most of the cases in this category consist of fragments that are usually short and easy to remember, such as maxims, proverbs, and definitions. Some of the quotations may not depend directly on a written source, but presumably on the memory of the compiler. We will illustrate accidental poly- genesis through examples taken from disparate florilegia: a Latin anthology known as Florilegium Frisingense and the Greek homilies of Antiochus’ Pandectes (CPG 7843), which features an anthological structure. The Flor. Fris. is a short anthology compiled in Freising in the eighth century by the Anglo-Saxon scribe Peregrinus.22 It has 455 short excerpts distributed over 21 thematic chapters. Peregrinus quoted from various authors, such as Augustine, Cassian, Ps.-Breda, Gennadius of Marseille, Pelagius, and Vir- gilius Maro Grammaticus. The most frequently excerpted source is the Bible: more than 165 quotations were taken from the Old and New Testaments. Some of the biblical quotations in the Flor. Fris. are mirrored in the Pandectes, a work composed by the monk Antiochus in the seventh century (PG 89.1420– 1849).23 A comparison between the 455 excerpts in the Flor. 22 The Flor. Fris. is preserved only in the MS. Monacensis, Clm 6433 f. 1r– 24v: A. Lehner, Florilegia. Florilegium Frisingense (CLM 6433). Testimonia divinae Scripturae et patrum (Turnhout 1987). 23 For an up-to-date description of the Pandectes see S. G. Americano, “Ignazio di Antiochia nel Pandette della sacra scrittura di Antioco di San Saba (CPG 7842–7844). Tradizione manoscritta,” Augustinianum 57 (2017) 191– 208, with further bibliographical references. 120 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 Fris. and the approximately 450 biblical passages cited in Homilies 1–30 of the Pandectes (PG 89.1431–1535) produces the following matches: Fontes Flor. Fris. Pandectes Exodus 16:8 fr. 107 PG 89.1528 Proverbia 29:11 fr. 405 PG 89.1508 Isaias 5:11 fr. 280 PG 89.1448 Lucas 21:19 fr. 332 PG 89.1449 I ad Corinthios 6:13 fr. 316 PG 89.1444 I ad Corinthios 10:31 fr. 276 PG 89.1440 Ad Ephesios 4:31 fr. 418 PG 89.1505 Epistula Iacobi 1:26 fr. 354 PG 89.1501/1533 I Iohannis 3:17 fr. 55/156 PG 89.1465 The case with the Flor. Fris. and the Pandectes constitutes an example of polygenesis, as it is certain that, while having some common excerpts, the Latin Flor. Fris. (C) and the Greek Pandectes (D) are not related. This can be illustrated with the following stemma, where A represents the Latin and B the Greek biblical tradition: Several of the excerpts which Flor. Fris. and the Pandectes have in common are quoted in sections of those works that deal with similar subjects. Let us illustrate this with Is 5:11 and Lk 21:19. The Flor. Fris. quotes Is 5:11 in the chapter De patientia (fr. 326– 347), and Antiochus in the sixth homily of the Pandectes whose title is Περὶ ἐγκρατείας (PG 89.1449–1452); Lk 21:19 is cited in the chapter De ebrietatibus of Flor. Fris. (fr. 252–297) and in the fifth homily of the Pandectes which bears the title Περὶ µέθης (PG 89.1445–1449). Logic dictates (and experience confirms) that it is likely that duplicated excerpts occur in unrelated compila- tions prepared by anthologists who share similar excerpting TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 121 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 habits, a strong core of beliefs, and, of course, an easily quotable sacred text. That is the case especially when the compilers tackle the same topics, as we see for Flor. Fris. and the Pandectes. Beyond the cultural and religious justification for the duplications, the case remains, nevertheless, strictly poly- genetical. 4.b. Induced polygenesis Certain literary genres consist of a series of more or less independent micro-units embedded in a larger macro-unit to lend the micro-units a homogeneous frame. Examples of such structures are collections of questions-and-answers, definitions, and apophthegmata.24 Such works are designed to be read sequentially or selectively.25 The selective reading, i.e., that in which a reader ‘jumps’ from one micro-unit to another without necessarily following the original arrangement of the work, is usually facilitated by the manuscripts’ formatting, as manu- scripts are often designed to allow the readers to identify readily the beginning and the end of each micro-unit and its topic.26 The fact that the micro-units are clearly delineated in manuscripts makes it more likely that different compilers could quote the same portion of the macro-unit independently. Let us 24 Florilegia also belong to this category, cf. Maksimczuk, Aevum 94 (2020) 259–260. See also the related notion of ‘Mikrotext’, employed by J. Gerlach, “ ‘Der gedankenlose Excerptor’? Anmerkungen zur Praxis byzan- tinischer Gnomologen und ihrer philologischen Erfassung,” in R. M. Piccione et al. (eds.), Selecta colligere I. Akten des Kolloquiums “Sammeln, Neuordnen, Neues Schaffen. Methoden der Überlieferung von Texten in der Spätantike und in Byzanz” (Alessandria 2003) 69–93, at 73 and n.6. 25 See Y. Papadogiannakis, “ ‘Encyclopedism’ in the Byzantine Question- and-Answer Literature: The Case of Pseudo-Kaisarios,” in P. Van Deun et al. (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? (Leuven 2011) 29–41, at 32. 26 For a discussion on how the formatting of manuscripts guides the reading see G. Cavallo, “Iniziali, scritture distintive, fregi. Morfologie e funzioni,” in C. Scalon (ed.), Libri e documenti d'Italia. Dai Longobardi alla rinascita delle città (Udine 1996) 15–35. 122 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 illustrate our point with the quotation of one such micro-unit, a short question from Maximus the Confessor’s Quaestiones et dubia27 (selection I), in two unrelated compilations. Fragment 28 of Letter E of Flor. Coisl. quotes the short qu. I.27 of Maximus’ Quaestiones et dubia, which offers a reflection on Prov 25:21 (Ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου κτλ.). The same section of Maximus’ work is cited in the Catena in Epistolam ad Romanos transmitted in Monacensis gr. 412 (13th cent.; f. 289r).28 The compiler of Cat. Rom. employed qu. I.27 to comment on Rom 12:20, which quotes Prov 25:21–22. Examination of the text of qu. I.27 in Flor. Coisl. and Cat. Rom. proves that the compilers quoted it independently, as both works have errors of their own, suggesting that neither was the source of the other. The Flor. Coisl. yields these faulty readings: Qu. I.27.8: καὶ ἐγκρατείας Max. Cat. Rom.] ἐγκρατείας Flor. Coisl. Qu. I.27.11: πνευµατικοὶ Max. Cat. Rom.] φηµί add. Flor. Coisl. For its part, Cat. Rom. has the following poor variants: Qu. I.27.5: ἡµᾶς Max. Flor. Coisl.] ἡµῖν Cat. Rom. Qu. I.27.7: ὀρέγηται Max. Flor. Coisl.] ὀρέγεται Cat. Rom. Qu. I.27.7–8: θείαν γνῶσιν Max. Flor. Coisl.] θείας γνώσεως Cat. Rom. Qu. I.27.10: ἐπὶ τὸν νῦν Max. Flor. Coisl.] τὸν νῦν Cat. Rom. Importantly, the reading φηµί after πνευµατικοί, present in all the witnesses of Flor. Coisl., is found in one particular manu- script of the Quaestiones et dubia, Vaticanus gr. 2020 (A.D. 994; 27 J. H. Declerck, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia (Turnhout 1982) 146. The references that follow match this edition. 28 For this Catena see G. Karo and I. Lietzmann, “Catenarum grae- carum catalogus III,” GöttNachr (1902) 559–620, at 600–601. The Cat. Rom. was edited by Cramer (on the basis of Monac. 412): J. A. Cramer, Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum IV (Oxford 1844) 163–529 (455 for qu. I.27). An analysis of the formatting of Monac. 412 is offered in A. Lorrain, “Autour du Vaticanus gr. 762 : Notes pour l’étude des chaînes à présen- tation alternante,” Byzantion 90 (2020) 67–95. The citation of qu. I.27 in the Cat. Rom. was first pointed out by Declerck, Quaestiones et dubia CCI. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 123 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 siglum Z in the tradition of Maximus). Accordingly, it is likely that the version of qu. I.27 in Flor. Coisl. relates to a manuscript textually close to Vat. 2020.29 In turn, the version in Cat. Rom., which does not yield φηµί, must go back to a different manuscript of the Quaestiones et dubia. The following stemma illustrates the links between the Flor. Coisl. (C), Cat. Rom. (D), and the two manuscripts of the Quaestiones et dubia that were their models for qu. I.27 (A and B): Now, as suggested above, the polygenesis in this case was most likely induced by the formatting of the manuscripts containing the source text. One may presume that the compilers of the Flor. Coisl. and the Cat. Rom. used manuscripts in which the quaestiones (i.e., the micro-units) were well defined in terms of incipit and desinit, as this is the usual formatting of the Quaestiones et dubia manuscripts. Indeed, Declerck asserted that “à l’in- térieur de chaque recension, le passage d’une question à une autre est la plupart du temps évident: la pensée saute d’un sujet a un autre et les manuscrits marquent une césure nette.”30 We will exemplify this codicological characteristic with one concrete case, Vat. 2020 ( fig. 1). A collation of that manuscript 29 Further textual coincidences between Flor. Coisl. and Vat. 2020 are documented in the apparatus of Letter Α fr. 36: Fernádez, Florilegium Coislinianum Α 79. 30 Declerck, Quaestiones et dubia XI. 124 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 Figure 1: Vaticanus gr. 2020 f. 71v © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana ——— shows that it presents qu. I.27 as a distinct section in the collection, whose boundaries are clearly delineated and easily identifiable even at first sight. In Vat. 2020, Τί δηλοῖ τὸ τῶν Παροιµιῶν αἴνιγµα, τὸ Ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου κτλ. is written as a TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 125 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 title that heads the core text of qu. I.27.31 It is preceded by the word Ἐρώτησις (added by a later hand?) and starts with a majuscule. The layout of the title allows any reader to i) spot it immediately in the folio and ii) distinguish it from the core text that follows. In turn, the core text is introduced by the word Ἀπό(κρισις) (a later addition?) and also opens with a majuscule. A punctuation mark is used to indicate that qu. I.27 reaches its end: the scribe wrote four points (⁘) after the last word in the core text. Thus, the formatting of qu. I.27 in Vat. 2020 makes that whole quaestio an entity easily detachable from the rest of the collection of quaestiones. This type of formatting, which is common in the manuscripts of the Quaestiones et dubia, would arguably guide the excerpting of any compiler interested in a discussion on Prov 25:21. 5. Anthologies A and B have a different text because of contamination of a common model (C) In this section we offer two examples of contaminated excerpts, each with a different type of contamination. Before starting our analysis, it will be useful to note a feature of the first case, for it is slightly different from other instances ad- dressed in this paper. We will discuss an example of con- tamination that occurs in one specific manuscript vis-à-vis other witnesses of the same compilation, rather than the case of two anthologies, one of which contaminated the text of an older anthology that was the model common to both. Aware of this issue, we still decided to include the case in question, as it constitutes an instructive example of how anthologies may be 31 We borrow from Manuscriptology the term ‘core text’ (or ‘core con- tent’) to refer to the portion of qu. I.27 that follows the title Τί δηλοῖ τὸ τῶν Παροιµιῶν αἴνιγµα, τὸ Ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου κτλ. (which constitutes the ‘para-content’). See the discussion on para-content and core content in G. Ciotti, M. Kohs, E. Wilden, and H. Wimmer, “Definition of Paracontent,” CSMC Occasional Paper 6 (www.manuscript-cultures.uni-hamburg.de/ papers_e.html#paracontent; last accessed 20 June 2021). 126 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 collated against manuscripts of the source texts they quote. One of the most interesting ‘descendants’ of the Flor. Coisl. is a miscellaneous book of theological content (Misc.), which has come down to us in five manuscripts copied between ca. 1562/3 and 1573: Vaticanus, Ottobonianus gr. 221 (ca. 1562/3), Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Canonicianus gr. 56 (ca. 1563), Salmanticensis, BU 2711 (ca. 1563), Vaticanus gr. 728 (ca. 1567), and Salman- ticensis, BU 75 (ca. 1570–1573).32 The Misc. consists of three sections, the last of which is a long anthology that depends heavily on the Flor. Coisl.33 In 1567 Ottob. 221 was in Rome, where the Cretan scribe Emmanuel Provataris used it as his model for Vat. 728. Im- mediately after Provataris finished his work, Mateo Devaris corrected Vat. 728. His corrections are found in the margins of the manuscript and reveal that Devaris improved the text mainly in three distinct ways: i) by comparing it with the model, Ottob. 221, which he was able to access and to which he in his marginal annotations referred as the ‘originalis’; ii) by providing conjectures based on his own (deep) knowledge of the Greek language (this type of correction is introduced by the letters MT, which stand for Mateo, followed by the Latin word “puto”); iii) by collating Provataris’ text with manuscripts of the ultimate sources of fragments quoted in Misc. Here, we are interested in the last category. Misc. transmits the long excerpt from Ps.-Dionysius’ De coelesti hierarchia discussed above (117–119), which the anonymous compiler took from the Flor. Coisl. The text of Misc. is charac- terized by a number of poor variants. Here we quote the faulty readings shared by the five witnesses of Misc. for the first lines 32 For further information about the content, history, and manuscript tradition of the Misc. see Maksimczuk, Aevum 94 (2020) 250–289. 33 More exactly, the Coislin sections in Misc. go back to Atheniensis, EBE 329 (late 13th cent.; siglum F in the tradition of the Flor. Coisl.). See Mak- simczuk, Aevum 94 (2020) 264–267. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 127 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 Figure 2: Vaticanus gr. 728 f. 272v © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana ——— 128 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 of Ps.-Dionysius’ excerpt:34 p. 50.13: τῆς περὶ Ps.-Dion.] τῇ περὶ Misc. p. 50.13: διαιρετὸν Ps.-Dion.] αἱρετὸν Misc. p. 51.1–21: Ἔστω – ὑφειµένως Ps.-Dion.] om. Misc. p. 51.22: πρώτῃ Ps.-Dion.] πρώτοις Misc. In Vat. 728 ( fig. 2) most of these cases (and many more) were corrected in margine by Devaris, who collated the text of Vat. 728 with a manuscript of Ps.-Dionysius. That he proceeded in this way is revealed by the fact that next to the corrections he wrote “in Dion. cod.” or “Dion. cod.”35 The case of Ps.-Dionysius’ fragment in Vat. 728 is an example of a contaminated excerpt in a particular witness of an anthology. Textual divergences between Vat. 728 (E), its model Ottob. 221 (A), and the other manuscripts of Misc. (B, C, D) can be easily explained by the fact that Vat. 728 was corrected against a witness of the source text. A stemma to illustrate the links between the five Misc. manuscripts would be thus: The way the contamination was carried out in Vat. 728 falls in the category M. Reeve called ‘collation’ (as opposed to ‘conflation’).36 As Reeve remarks (214), “ ‘collation’ is not prob- 34 All references match the pagination in Heil and Ritter’s edition. 35 A further example of this type of contamination in Vat. 728 is discussed in Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A LXXXIII–LXXXIV. 36 M. D. Reeve, “A Man on a Horse,” in Manuscripts and Methods. Essays on Editing and Transmission (Rome 2011) 211–219, at 213–214. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 129 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 lematic, since it never entails ‘irreversible mixing’.” Here in- deed, the variants imported from the source-text manuscript were annotated in the margin (by a second hand) once the core text of Vat. 728 was finished, which makes it easy to distinguish the text of Misc. from the alien readings. The process of ‘conflation’ more often than not results in a physically untraceable contamination, which may produce an ‘irreversible mixing’ of the models of a given manuscript. In certain cases, however, the readings provided by each model can be differentiated. A fine example of this in anthologies occurs in the middle of an excerpt from the Adversus Iudaeos by the practically unknown Stephanos of Bostra,37 which is trans- mitted in two related iconophile compilations, in the above- mentioned Par. 1115 and Marcianus gr. Z 573 (9th–10th cent.).38 These both offer the excerpt with identical incipit and text up to p. 158.9. After that point, their text differs. The explanation for their divergence is not simple, although it seems clear that the compilers of each anthology com- plemented (specifically, contaminated) the text of their com- mon model with that of a second, after p. 158.9. The version of Par. 1115 after p. 158.9 is infested with Latinisms, and a textual analysis indicates that its second model was the florilegium that accompanies the Acts of the Council of Nicaea II, which quotes excerpts in a Greek retroversion of Latin translations included in the epistle that Pope Hadrian I sent to Constantine VI and his mother Irene in 785.39 In turn, Marc. Z 573, which was also 37 A. Alexakis, “Stephen of Bostra: Fragmenta contra Iudaeos (CPG 7790). A New Edition”, JÖB 43 (1993) 45–60, at 51–55; and E. Lamberz, Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum. Concilii actiones I–III (AOC SER. II III.1: Berlin 2008) 152–159. The references that follow match the pagination in Lamberz’s edition. 38 The two compilations partly depend upon a common model: see Alexakis, Codex Parisinus, esp. 106–108; Uthemann, RHT 29 (1999) 54–74. 39 For the whole problem see K.-H. Uthemann, “Nochmals zu Stephan von Bostra (CPG 7790) im Parisinus gr. 1115. Ein Testimonium – zwei 130 DUPLICATED EXCERPTS IN BYZANTINE ANTHOLOGIES ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 contaminated after p. 158.9, used another, unidentified source. In short, the differences between the texts in the anthologies in Par. 1115 and Marc. Z 573 stem from the fact that, apart from a common source, both anthologies have drawn upon second models. As Lamberz argued, it is most likely that around p. 158.9 the common model both anthologies used was in some way damaged.40 The following stemma depicts the links between the common source (A), Par. 1115 (B), Marc. Z 573 (C), the latter manuscript’s second source (D), and the Acts: Final remarks This article demonstrates that there are many types of duplicated excerpts in anthologies. Since such duplications may occur in unrelated anthologies, one should ascertain if the coincidence belongs to categories 1, 2, or 3 as detailed above before postulating some link between anthologies. Coinci- dences falling into categories 4 and 5 may lead to erroneous conclusions if they are not carefully evaluated. The textual study of duplicated excerpts as a way to under- stand links between anthologies must be complemented, when- ever possible, with analysis of the overall structure of the anthologies that contain them. Coincidences in more than one ___ Quellen,” JÖB 50 (2000) 101–137 (repr. in Studien 106–137). Edition of the Acts in E. Lamberz, Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum. Concilii actiones I– III, IV–V, VI–VII (AOC SER. II III 1–3: Berlin 2008–2016). On the link between Hadrian’s epistle and the Acts see E. Lamberz, “Studien zur Über- lieferung der Akten des VII. ökumenischen Konzils: Der Brief Hadrians I. an Konstantin VI. und Irene (JE 2448),” in Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 53 (1997) 1–43. 40 Lamberz, Concilii actiones IV–V XVI n.45. TOMÁS FERNÁNDEZ AND JOSÉ MAKSIMCZUK 131 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 110–131 fragment, the position occupied by the fragment in question, and the way it is presented (by chapter titles, attributions, etc.) may help to clarify the exact type of duplicated excerpt one is dealing with, as in the examples of categories 1–3 treated above.41 The typology put forward in this paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of textual criticism applied to Byzantine anthological literature, and still needs further development. At a practical level, we hope that the described tools contribute to mapping out the vast field of Medieval Greek anthological works.42 November, 2021 Universidad de Buenos Aires – Conicet tomas.fernandez@conicet.gov.ar Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures Cluster of Excellence ‘Understanding Written Artefacts’ Universität Hamburg jose.maksimczuk@uni-hamburg.de 41 These criteria play a decisive role in the analysis of the so-called sacro- profane florilegia, as Jens Gerlach has kindly pointed out to us. 42 The authors thank Christian Brockmann, Reinhart Ceulemans, Jens Gerlach, Basile Markesinis, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful and insightful remarks. This research was carried out at the Cluster of Excellence ‘Understanding Written Artefacts: Material, Interaction and Transmission in Manuscript Cultures’, funded by the Deutsche Forschungs- gemeinschaft (DFG), and within the scope of the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC) at Universität Hamburg ( J.M.); and in the framework of a research project financed by Universidad de Buenos Aires – Conicet ( T.F.). Images of Vaticanus gr. 728 and Vaticanus gr. 2020 are repro- duced by the persmission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.