Thess ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 ISSN 2159-3159 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/ A Poem on the Fall of Thessaloniki Jacopo Cavarzeran and Ugo Mondini HE MANUSCRIPT Marcianus Graecus Z 529 (coll. 847) [diktyon 70000] has a history that is more turbulent than one might expect when casually leafing through its pages in the cosy reading room at the Marciana Library in Venice. The manuscript comes from the library of Cardinal Bes- sarion.1 It consists of two codicological units.2 The more recent one (ff. 1–129 and 491–496) was appended around the middle of the fifteenth century.3 It contains Pollux, other short lexica, and material which can be ascribed to Gemistos Plethon’s activity.4 1 No. 600, “Polydeuces de elegantia et cuiusdam monachi Ioseph epithoma in rhetoricam logicam et totam philosophiam Aristotelis et in IIII scientias mathematicas et quaedam Octuarii in papiro.” See L. Labowsky, Bessarion’s Library and the Biblioteca Marciana (Rome 1979) 224. 2 The complete description of the manuscript is in E. Mioni, Codices Graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum (Rome 1985) 415–417; see also C. Giacomelli, “Aristotele e i suoi commentatori nella biblioteca di Bes- sarione,” in A. Rigo et al. (eds.), I libri di Bessarione. Studi sui manoscritti del Cardinale a Venezia e in Europa (Turnhout 2021) 219–275, at 246–247. 3 About the watermarks in this section see see J. Cavarzeran, “Marcianus graecus Z 529 (= 847) – Xa,” in O. Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism (2024), https://atticism.eu/corpus/item/view?id=90185913-85a7-474c-bb37-3bbb811263e4. 4 As for Pollux, this witness belongs to the Ξ group according to Bethe’s categorisation: E. Bethe, Pollucis Onomasticon (Leipzig 1900) I xiii; it is a late and contaminated redaction of the Onomasticon. On Plethon, see A. Diller, “A Geographical Treatise by Georgius Gemistus Pletho,” in Studies in Greek Manu- script Tradition (Amsterdam 1983) 372–376. T JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 269 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 The earlier codicological unit (ff. 130–490 and 497–516) dates to the second half of the fourteenth century5 and contains the Encyclopedia by Ioseph Rakendytes (a miscellany of treatises by him and various authors about rhetoric, philosophy and theology, and physics), including Ioannes Zacharias Aktouarios’ letter to him on medicine. This codicological unit ends at f. 517, which was originally blank; it now contains texts added by a fifteenth-century hand who contributed elsewhere to the more recent codicological unit.6 The manuscript consisted only of this unit when another fifteenth-century hand wrote on f. 516v ἔχει τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἕως ὅδε (i.e. ὦδε) φύλλα τοζ “the present book contains 377 folios up to here,” confirming that ff. 1–129 were not yet attached. The same hand penned a poem in political verses on f. 134r ( fig. 1), filling a blank space after Rakendytes’ prose introduction (ff. 130r–131v) and the iambic summary of his own Encyclopaedia (ff. 132r–134r). This person likely owned the codex shortly after the fall of Thessaloniki in 1430; unfortunately, the scribe’s identity remains unknown. ἡ θεία βίβλος ἡ παρὸν ἣν µετὰ χεῖρας φέρεις οὖσα ποτὲ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἐκ πόλεως µεγάλης τῶν Θετταλῶν ἡ µέγιστος καὶ πανευδαίµων πόλις, ὁ δή γε ταύτης κύριος ὑπῆρχεν ὁ Ἰβάγκος 5 τῶν φιλοσόφων ἄριστος καὶ ῥήτωρ τῶν ῥητόρων. κατὰ δὲ παραχώρησιν θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτωρ οἷς οἶδε κρίµασιν αὐτὸς καὶ µόνος ὁ δεσπότης ἑάλω γὰρ ἡ Θετταλῶν ἡ πανευδαίµων πόλις παρ’ ἀµηρᾶ Μουράτ πεϊ µεγάλου τοῦ σουλτάνου 5 See Cavarzeran, in Digital Encyclopedia. 6 Scribes: A: ff. 1r‒38v, 46v.29–49r.2, 125r.11–19. B: ff. 39r‒46v.29, 128r.16–129v. C: ff. 49r.3–124v. D: ff. 125r.1–11, 125r.19–128r.15. E: ff. 130r– 328v, 362r–475v, 478r–490r, 497r–516v. F: ff. 329r–361v. G: ff. 476r, 492r– 496r. H: notes on ff. Ir, 175r, 175v, 209r, 232v, 233r, 309r, 476v, 516v, 517v. I: f. 134r and one of the two notes on f. 516v. For more information see Cavar- zeran, in Digital Encyclopedia. 270 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 10 τοὺς µὲν οἰκήτορας αὐτῆς, τοὺς εὐγενεῖς Ῥωµαίους οὓς µὲν ἀνεῖλεν µάχαιρα, τοὺς δ’ αἰχµαλώτους ἦγεν καὶ πλεῖστα λάφυρα λαβὼν †της εἰπεῖναριθµίση†. µόλις ποτὲ οἱ βασιλεῖς, οἱ παῖδες τοῦ Ἀτρείδη ὁ Ἀγαµέµνων ὁ λαπρὸς µετὰ τοῦ Μενελάου 15 καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡ πληθύς, τῶν Ἀχαιῶν τὸ κράτος, ἀνεῖλον τὴν παµµέγιστον πόλιν, τὴν Τροίαν λέγω. δεύτερον ἄλλο γέγονεν παρόµοιον εἰς τοῦτο· ὁ Βαβυλῶνος βασιλεὺς ὁ Ναβουχοδονόσωρ πoρθήσας Ἰερουσαλὴµ τὴν Ἰουδαίων πόλιν. 20 καὶ τρίτον τοῦτο γέγονεν τοῖς ἡµετέροις χρόνοις, ὡς ἄνωθεν προείρηκα, τῶν Θετταλῶν τὴν πόλιν. καὶ δόξαν ἀναπέψωµεν µόνου θεοῦ τὸ κράτος τὸ τὰ µεγάλα ἀµυδροῦν καὶ τὰ µικρὰ πλατῦνον. δι’ ἧς ἐπαναπαύεται πατήρ, υἱὸς καὶ πνεῦµα 25 µονὰς τριὰς ἀσύχυτος τὸ πὰν ἡ κυβερνοῦσα ἧς πρέπει δόξα καὶ τιµὴ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. 1 ἡ1 : η | ἡ2 : η | χείρας | φέρης ‖ 2 ποτέ γαρ : ποταὶ γαρ | ἡ : η | αὐτοὶ | µεγἅλης ‖ 3 τὸν θετταλὸν | ἡ : η | µέγυστος | πανευδαίµον | πόλης ‖ 4 ὁ δή γε : οδ’ὔγαι, postea in οδ’ἴγαι eadem manus correxit | τα’ὔτης | ηπύρχεν | ιβάνκος ‖ 5 τὸν φιλοσόφον | ρίτωρ τον ριτώρον ‖ 6 κατὰ δὲ : κατά δε | παριχόρισην | του ‖ 7 οἷς : εἲς | οἶδε : ἴδε | κρίµασην ‖ 8 εἄλω | γὰρ ἡ : γαρ ἢ | θετταλὸν | ἡ2 : η | πανευδαίµον | πόλεις ‖ 9 παραµυρὰ | πει | µεγἅλου | του ‖ 10 τοὺς µὲν : τούς µεν | οικύτορας | αὔτοις | εὐγενοῖς | ῥωµέους ‖ 11 ἀνίλεν | εχµαλότους | ὕγεν ‖ 12 πλίστα | λαβὸν | της εἰπεῖναριθµίση corruptum : possis τῆς εἶπε νὰ ῥυθµίσῃ vel τίς εἶχεν ἀριθµίσει, sed neutrum arridet, cfr. infra §1 ‖ 13 µόλης | πωταὶ | οἱ1 : η | οἱ2 : η | παίδαις | τὸν | ἀτρίδη ‖ 14 ἀγαµέµνον ‖ λαπρὸς : lege λαµπρὸς | του ‖ 15 τὸν ἐλλίνον | ἡ : η | πλυθῖς | τὸν ἀχαιὸν ‖ 16 ἀνίλον | πανµέγηστον | πόλην | την ‖ 17 δἔυτερον | ἄλλο : ἄλος ms. : aliter ἅλος temptaverim i.e. ἅλωσις vel tale quid, cfr. infra §1 | παρόµιον | ἠς | τοὖτω ‖ 18 β[.]βηλ[.]ος, postea in βαβηλώνος eadem manus correxit ‖ 19 πωρθύσας | Ἰουδαίον | πόλην ‖ 20 τοῦτω | τοις | ηµετ- | χρόνης ‖ 21 πρωἦρικα | τὸν θετταλὸν | πόλην ‖ 22 ἀναπέψωµεν : αναπέψωµεν, lege ἀναπέµψωµεν ‖ 23 αµηδροῦν | πλατήνον ‖ 24 διῆς | επαναπάβεται ‖ 25 ἀσύχυτος : lege ἀσύγχυτος ‖ 26 ἧς : εἲς : possis et οἷς | τηµὴ | εις The divine book here, which you hold in your hands, once be- longed to a great city: the greatest and most blessed city of the Thessalians. The owner of this book was Ibankos, the best among philosophers and the rhetor of rhetors. By the consent of God the Almighty, according to the decisions only He, the Lord, knows, the most blessed city of the Thessalians was conquered by amir JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 271 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 Murad bey, the mighty sultan. Of its inhabitants, the noble Romans, some his sword killed, others he took as prisoners. After he gained the greatest spoils, †he said he would be ruling the city†. Just as when the kings, the sons of Atreus, the renowned Aga- memnon along with Menelaus, and the multitude of Hellenes, the might of the Achaeans, destroyed the immense city—I mean Troy. Another event comparable to this one happened: the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, who plundered Jerusalem, the city of the Jews. This third conquest happened in our times, as I said before about the city of the Thessalians. Let us raise the Glory to the power of the only God, which makes the great feeble and the little great. The unconfused single Trinity, upon which rest the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which governs everything: glory and honour befit to her forever. Figure 1: Marc.gr. Z 529, f. 134r (detail). Reproduced with permission © Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. ———— 1. Philological notes This short poem requires a significant number of ortho- graphical normalisations or corrections due to errors stemming from the writer’s evidently limited proficiency. At v. 17 ἄλος is puzzling. The best solution seems to be ἄλλο … παρόµιον (scil. e.g. τὸ γεγονός, and see also τρίτον τοῦτο at 20), 272 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 although it requires deleting the sigma. A more direct and easier emendation could be ἄλλος;7 however, correcting the text in this way creates a series of problems. First, ἄλλος would be em- bedded among a series of neuters, and παρόµοιον would require to be emended to παρόµοιος—and perhaps even εἰς τοῦτο to εἰς τοῦτον. Secondly, there is no other masculine word for ‘destruc- tion’ or ‘conquest’ in the text, nor can ἄλλος refer to a person, given that the second term of comparison is neuter (εἰς τοῦτο). Alternatively, one could wonder if it might be a clumsy invention of the author as a neuter substantive related to ἅλωσις ‘fall, cap- ture’ and ἁλίσκοµαι (v. 8 ἑάλω).8 The final part of v. 12 seems corrupted. The manuscript reads καὶ πλΐστα λάφυρα λαβὸν της εἰπεῖν αριθµίση; the straightest inter- pretation καὶ πλεῖστα λάφυρα λαβὼν τῆς εἰπεῖν ἀριθµίσῃ is very difficult to interpret syntactically, and it is against the normal rhythm of the political verse since it features a stress on the eleventh syllable (see §4 below). However, it cannot be ruled out that the verb ἀριθµίζω is correct,9 and that the sentence was in- tended to convey that the spoils were so great that no one could enumerate them in words. From this perspective, the text might be interpreted as τῆς εἶπε ἵν’ ἀριθµίσῃ (“he [Murad] said [to the city] to count [them]”) or emended to τίς εἶχε ν’ ἀριθµίσῃ; (“Who could enumerate [them]?”). However, both raise certain issues: in the first, the syntax becomes very difficult; in the second, the absence of ἄν is noteworthy, and the emendation requires a rather invasive modification, changing εἰπεῖν to εἶχε, which poses challenges both palaeographically and phonetically. It is pos- sible, on the other hand, that a question is concealed here: one 7 An emendation like ἄλλῃ is less convincing, whereas ἄλλως does not fit the meaning of the sentence. 8 Cf. e.g. the postclassical Greek τὸ νῖκος for ἡ νίκη, which is attested since the Septuagint. See E. Kriaras, Λεξικό 1100–1669 (Thessaloniki 1968) XI 251. 9 But not ἀρυθµίζω, which is only attested in Manuel Philes, V32.5 (ed. E. Miller, Manuelis Philae Carmina [Paris 1855–1857] II 290) κἂν ὡς ἀρυθµίζων σε κινῇ τεχνίτης, where it clearly means ‘to move without rhythm’. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 273 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 can boldly guess emendations such as τίς εἶπε ἵν’ ἀριθµίσῃ; (“who said to count [them]?”) or τίς εἶ, πεϊ, ν’ ἀριθµίσῃ;10 (“who are you, bey, to count [them]?”), but neither seems convincing enough. The author, however, may have struggled to convey this idea while maintaining fluent syntax and adhering to the verse, ultimately failing on both fronts. An emendation to τῆς εἶπε νὰ ῥυθµίσῃ is also proposed here, which could solve both the rhyth- mic and syntactic issues.11 The use of νὰ + subjunctive would constitute an even more distinctive marker of vernacular syntax than the features already evident in the poem (see §3). If this emendation is acceptable, the scribe’s mistake is unlikely to be phonetic, cf. /tisˈipe/ and /tisiˈpin/. 2. Language and vocabulary Old elements—such as -ττ-, the use of the dative, ancient morphology, inflected participles, perfect forms, etc.—are used alongside contemporary features of the Greek language; this marks a degree of literary refinement.12 The tension between the archaising coat and the contemporary forms is such that the latter prevail in more instances than is typically allowed in poetry aspiring to employ learned Greek. 10 Curiously, in the manuscript, only above πει (v. 9) and εἰπειν (29) does a long line appear. While the first is clearly a trema, this could lead one to think that the second marks the same word. 11 The verb ῥυθµίζω would mean here ‘to govern, to rule’. Cf. e.g. Ecthesis Chronica 10 (M. Philippides, Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans of Constantinople, 1373–1513. An Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Sixteenth Century [Brookline 1990] 30), esp. 1–3 πορευθεὶς οὖν ὁ σουλτὰν Μουράτης κατὰ Θεσσαλονίκης ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐλεηλάτησε καὶ ἀπέκτεινε πλῆθος χριστιανῶν, οἳ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. If τῆς were to be accepted here, it should be noted that, in Greek from northern areas, the indirect object may be ex- pressed with an accusative (e.g., τὴν εἶπε); see D. Holton et al., The Cambridge Grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek (Cambridge 2019) 1949–1950. But this is far from being a strict norm. 12 Cf. M. Hinterberger, “Worlds Apart? Theodore Metochites, Manuel Philes, and Stephanos Sachlikes Compared,” in K. Kubina (ed.), Poetry in Late Byzantium (Leiden 2024) 23–64. 274 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 The scribe lacked a flawless knowledge of school orthogra- phy.13 Nasals are deleted before bilabial plosive, thus λαπρός (14) and ἀναπέψωµεν (22);14 /ŋ/ is deleted before /x/ in ἀσύχυτος (25).15 The personal name Ἰβάγκος is written as Ιβάνκος, a spell- ing which is attested in documents as it may perhaps have served to render [ŋk] of Ibankos instead of [ŋg]/[g] (= {γκ}).16 In πανµέγηστον, {νµ} is a hypercorrectism. Punctuation is almost entirely absent, apart from the teleia stigme marking the end of each verse and a single hypostigme at v. 16 to clarify {τὸν αχαιὸν. τὸ κράτος} as τῶν Ἀχαιῶν τὸ κράτος. Also, the trema is used to indicate the correct pronunciation of the loanword πεϊ, which is treated as an enclitic—a common feature in vernacular Greek.17 Progressing line by line, notable features are listed below. The poet uses well-attested epithets (9 µεγάλου τοῦ σουλτάνου) and formulaic expressions (6 κατὰ … παραχώρησιν θεοῦ). These are commented on when relevant. v. 1 θεία βίβλος ἡ παρόν is modelled after customary openings for book epigrams.18 The participle παρόν is treated as an indeclinable form as is very well attested in documents.19 Of course, the possibility of ἡ … βίβλος ἡ παρόν is eased by analo- 13 The scribe’s inconsistent use of accents and breathings posed a dilemma: whether to normalise the text according to medieval school orthography, which the scribe aimed to follow, or to publish it in monotonic Greek. We opted for the former, while reporting all manuscript readings in the ap- paratus. 14 See The Cambridge Grammar 156–159. 15 The Cambridge Grammar 159–161. 16 See P. Lemerle et al., Actes de Lavra (Paris 1977) II 169.24 Γρηγόριος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰβανκοῦ (= PLP 7981). Cf. The Cambridge Grammar 114. 17 Cf. V. Zervan et al., Die Lehnwörter im Wortschatz der spätbyzantinischen historiographischen Literatur (Berlin 2019) 121. 18 E.g. DBBE Type 34591 (9th c.), 3065 (11th–12th c.), 3800 (year 1320). 19 The Cambridge Grammar 812–813. The non-agreeing element is here on the right of the noun and follows an article, cf. The Cambridge Grammar 1973, example no. ii. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 275 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 gous τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον, which is used by our scribe in the note on Marc.gr. Z 529, f. 516v.20 v. 2 οὖσα … ἡ αὐτὴ agrees with v. 1 βίβλος, but there is no other finite verb in the clause; conversely, βίβλος has no syn- tactical role in the following clause, where deictic ταύτης (4) re- places it in genitive. Such non-coreferential constructions are common in late medieval Greek, serving as a ‘nominative abso- lute’ usually at the left of a main clause, just as here.21 However, a similar participial phrase appears later in 17–19, where πoρ- θήσας is clearly used instead of an indicative. Therefore, both participles are likely best treated as such. v. 2 γάρ is used as a placeholder, as attested in lowbrow litera- ture.22 v. 3: the noun phrase (nominative) is parenthetical. The re- sidual form µέγιστος is treated as a two-termination adjective.23 v. 6: παντοκράτωρ is used as genitive instead of παντοκράτορος. The ancient Greek declension of nouns ending in -τωρ / -τορος is residual in (late) medieval Greek; therefore, it is not infrequent to find the nominative form used for every case in the singular, even for common terms.24 This collocation appears in a com- parable metrical position in the hypermetric ἐµεῖς δὲ µόναι µὲ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτωρ, copied as v. 756 of Imberios and Margarona in Vat.pal.gr. 426 [diktyon 66158], f. 71r.25 20 In addition to that note, cf. e.g. DBBE Type 6946 τούτους τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον φέρει λόγους. 21 The Cambridge Grammar 1915–1916. Whereas ἡ αὐτὴ is here a third-person placeholder, ταύτης is a proper deictic. 22 Cf. e.g. Konstantinos Hermoniakos Metaphrasis of the Iliad 2.10–13, ed. É. Legrand, La Guerre de Troie: poème du XIVe siècle en vers octosyllabes par Constantin Hermoniacos (Paris 1890) 25. 23 The Cambridge Grammar 828. 24 The Cambridge Grammar 344 (genitive), 345–346 (accusative). The plural in -ας (cf. here v. 10 οἰκήτορας) was common as a form, see The Cambridge Grammar 352. 25 E. Kriaras, Βυζαντινὰ ἰπποτικά μυθιστορήματα (Athens 1955) 247. 276 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 v. 7 οἷς οἶδε κρίµασιν αὐτὸς is formulaic and appears in various forms across literary texts and documents; this variant with the subject to the right of κρίµασιν is also well attested.26 v. 8 ἑάλω is often used at the beginning of sentences declaring the capture of cities. The news of the capture of Thessaloniki in 1430 is announced in this manner in some of the so-called ‘short chronicles’27 and in Markos Eugenikos’ monody, in a sentence comparable to the content of these lines.28 v. 11 reports what happened to Thessaloniki after the cap- ture;29 the phrasing with two correlated relative clauses following an accusative often appears in descriptions of city falls.30 Usually, there is no subject shift, but the dative µαχαίρᾳ is metrically challenging (cf. §3 below), if we do not assume that the law of limitation was not observed here (i.e. µάχαιρᾳ). v. 12 see 272–273 above. v. 13 τοῦ Ἀτρείδη: the genitive in -η for masculine nouns ending in -ης is common in medieval Greek.31 The use of Ἀτρείδης in- stead of Ἀτρεύς could depend on an inaccuracy. Still, a genealogy is attested according to which Agamemnon and Menelaus were 26 Cf. e.g. Nikephoros Gregoras Roman History 37.43 (III 552.6 Bekker) and J. Bompaire et al., Actes de Vatopédi I (Paris 2001) 354, ms. line 24. 27 See P. Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (Vienna 1975–1977) I 461, no. 62 §4, and 552, no. 71 §3. 28 Monody on the Conquest of Thessaloniki 1.3, ed. M. I. Pilavakis, Ἁγίου Μάρκου τοῦ Εὐγενικοῦ μητροπολίτου Ἐφέσου Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη, Θρῆνος γιὰ τὴν Ἅλωση τοῦ 1430 (Athens 1997) 24. 29 The order chosen (first the killing and the capture of the besieged, then the capture of spoils) finds numerous parallels in historical accounts, e.g. Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken I 512, no. 46 (year 1646) καὶ φόνους πολλοὺς ποιήσαντες, σκύλα τε καὶ λάφυρα πλεῖστα λαβόντες. 30 E.g. Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken I 252, no. 33 §50.6–8 (fall of the Hexamilion in 1446) ἐτράπησαν εἰς φυγὴν οἱ Ῥωµαῖοι καὶ ἐσέβησαν οἱ Τοῦρκοι καὶ ἐδίωκον αὐτούς, καὶ οὓς µὲν ἀνεῖλον, οὓς δὲ ᾐχµαλώτισαν. 31 See F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Milan 1981) I 14, and The Cambridge Grammar 355 and 363. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 277 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 sons of Pleisthenes and grandsons of Atreus; such genealogy was known across the Middle Ages.32 v. 16 ἀνεῖλον τὴν παµµέγιστον|πόλιν, τὴν Τροίαν λέγω seems somewhat unrefined, as in such cases a noun usually does not directly follow the modifier if separated by a caesura, cf. contra e.g. 3 ἡ µέγιστος|καὶ πανευδαίµων πόλις. v. 17 εἰς τοῦτο is used here instead of a simple dative. v. 22 the collocation δόξαν (vel similia) ἀναπέψωµεν is usually preceded or followed by a dative.33 The accusative τὸ κράτος is maybe used as an indirect object of ἀναπέψωµεν, a feature of Greek from northern areas.34 But µόνου θεοῦ τὸ κράτος could also be interpreted as a noun phrase, καὶ δόξαν ἀναπέψωµεν· µόνου θεοῦ τὸ κράτος / κτλ. with a strong pause corresponding to the C8. v. 26 is modelled on the ekphonesis ὅτι πρέπει σοι πᾶσα δόξα, τιµὴ καὶ προσκύνησις τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύµατι (cf. vv. 24–25 of our poem) νῦν καὶ ἀεί. Dmitrievskij consistently reports the dative,35 as do other sources, including Rakendytes’ Iambic Epitome (vv. 131–134, see §5 below) which precedes our poem in the Marcianus (see fig. 2). However, while reading οἷς πρέπει is possible but should be connected to v. 24, the manuscript read- ing εἲς can more easily be interpreted as ἧς and related to the immediately preceding τριάς (v. 25). 32 See J. Ilberg, “Pleisthenes,” Roscher III.2 (1908) 2562–2563; A. Lesky, “Pleisthenes,” RE 21 (1951) 199–205; T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth (Baltimore 1993) 552–556. 33 E.g. S. Eustratiades, Εἱρμολόγιον (Chennevières-sur-Marne 1932) 225, no. 323.1–2 ἆσµα ἀναπέµψωµεν λαοὶ / τῷ θαυµαστῷ Θεῷ ἡµῶν. 34 The Cambridge Grammar 1949–1950. The use of accusative at vv. 21 and 22–23 might seem at odds with v. 12, if the emendation τῆς εἶπε νὰ ῥυθµίσῃ is to be accepted. However, in general, this tendency to use the accusative as an indirect object is far from being a rule. 35 See e.g. A. Dmitrievskij, Описание литургических рукописей (Kyiv 1901) II 410. 278 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 Figure 2: Marc.gr. Z 529, f. 134r: Ioseph Rakendytes’ Iambic Summary vv. 134–140 (above) and the poem on Thessaloniki (below) Reproduced with permission © Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 279 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 3. The metre The poet respects isosyllaby and isometry, despite some clum- siness. The lowbrow style of the poem corresponds to the high percentage of 8pp (50%).36 The following tables describe the main metrical features of the poem.37 Pattern Stresses % Pattern Stresses % –××–×–×× I–IV–VI (1) 3.85% –××–×××– I–IV–VIII (3) 11.54% ×–×–×–×× II–IV–VI (4) 15.38% ×–×–×××– II–IV–VIII (5) 19.23% ×–×××–×× II–VI (4) 15.38% ×–×××××– II–VIII (1) 3.85% ×××–×–×× IV–VI (3) 11.54% ×××–×××– IV–VIII (4) 15.38% ×××××–×× VI (1) 3.85% TABLE 1: Rhythmical pattern before the caesura Type % Type % I–(IV)–VI (1) 3.85% I–(IV)–(VI)–VIII (3) 11.54% II–(IV)–VI (8) 30.77% II–(IV)–(VI)–VIII (6) 23.08% IV–VI (3) 11.54% IV–VIII (4) 15.38% VI (1) 3.85% TABLE 2: Rhythmical types before the caesura Pattern Stresses % –××–×–× IX–XII–XIV (2) 7.69% ×–×–×–× X–XII–XIV (1) 3.85% ×–×××–× X–XIV (11) 42.31% ×××–×–× XII–XIV (10) 38.46% ×××××–× XIV (2) 7.69% TABLE 3: Rhythmical patterns after the caesura 36 Cf. M. D. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres (Vienna 2019) II 329–330, and in U. Mondini, “Metrik,” in A. Gioffreda et al., Die metrische Psalmenmetaphrase des Manuel Philes (Berlin 2024) 60–61. 37 Given the poem’s length, the number of lines is provided in brackets before the corresponding percentage to facilitate future comparisons. Verse 12 is treated as if the stress falls on the tenth syllable (see 272 above); elsewhere, the scribe also incorrectly marks accents, e.g. 8 {εἄλω γαρ ἣ θετταλὸν}. In the manuscript, 2 ποτὲ γὰρ, 6 κατὰ δὲ, and 10 τοὺς µὲν (normalised above) are written ποταὶ γαρ, κατά δε, and τούς µεν (see fig. 1 and 2); they are treated as paroxytones in Tables 1 and 2. 280 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 Type % IX–(XII)–XIV (2) 7.69% X–(XII)–XIV (12) 46.15% XII–XIV (10) 38.46% XIV (2) 7.69% TABLE 4: Rhythmical types after the caesura When compared with Manuel Philes (ca. 1270–after 1332), there is a notable common prevalence of Types X–XIV (44.48% in Philes) and XII–XIV (40.22% in Philes) in the second kolon.38 4. A poem to be read The poem can be divided into four sections: S(ection) 1 vv. 1– 5 (5 lines), describing the provenance and former ownership; S2 vv. 6–12 (7 lines), narrating the capture of Thessaloniki; S3 vv. 13–21 (9 lines), situating the capture among comparable events; and S4 vv. 22–26 (5 lines), expressing glory to God. The poem is written in two columns on f. 134r, resulting in thirteen paired decapentasyllables (see fig. 1).39 Inner formal features suggest that the poem was composed to align with and take advantage of this layout. In the poem, adjuncts, modifiers, and appositions can be be- fore or after their host. But when they are long, they are usually put on the right; this construction corresponds (also in length) respectively to the first (host) and second (modifier) kolon of the verse (e.g. v. 9). At 14–15, this corresponds to two full verses which are paired: µόλις ποτὲ οἱ βασιλεῖς,|οἱ παῖδες τοῦ Ἀτρείδη / ὁ Ἀγαµέµνων ὁ λαπρὸς|µετὰ τοῦ Μενελάου. Furthermore, one- word kola are present in even verses only (at 24 as a first kolon; at 14 and 18 as a second kolon, i.e. the last of a couplet). Rhythmical analysis seems to confirm this. Table 5 illustrates stress pattern and syllabic distribution between paired lines:40 38 Cf. Mondini, in Die metrische Psalmenmetaphrase 58–73. 39 For a similar layout cf. e.g. DBBE Type 4853 from Paris.gr.suppl. 1284 [diktyon 53948], f. 11r (15th c.). 40 Legenda: × = unstressed syllable; – = stressed syllable; . = word end; | = caesura; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 = number of syllables per word; 0a = verse number. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 281 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 Stress pattern Syllabic distribution 01#×–×.–×.××–|×××–×.–×# 02#–×.×–×.××–|×–××.×–×# 3.2.3|5.2 2.3.3|4.3 03#×××–.×–××|×××–×.–×# 04#×–×.–×.–××|×–×.××–×# 4.4|5.2 3.2.3|3.4 05#×××–×.–××|×–×.××–×# 06#×–×.××–××|×–.×××–×# 6.2|3.4 3.5|2.5 07#×–×.–××.×–|×–×.××–×# 08#×–×–.×××–|×××–×.–×# 3.3.2|3.4 4.4|5.2 09#×××–.×–××|×–×.××–×# 10#–×.×–××.×–|×××–.×–×# 4.4|3.4 2.4.2|4.3 11#×–.×–×.–××|×××–×.–×# 12#×–×.–××.×–|×–×.××–×# 2.3.3|5.2 3.3.2|3.4 13#–×.×–.×××–|×–×.××–×# 14#×××–×.××–|×××××–×# 2.2.4|3.4 5.3|7 15#×××–×.××–|×××–.×–×# 16#×–×.××–××|–×.×–×.–×# 5.3|4.3 3.5|2.3.2 17#–××.–×.–××|×–××.×–×# 18#×××–×.××–|×××××–×# 3.2.3|4.3 5.3|7 19#×–×.××××–|×××–×.–×# 20#×–×.–×.–××|×××–×.–×# 3.5|5.2 3.2.3|5.2 21#×–××.×–××|×××–.×–×# 22#×–×.××–××|–×.×–.×–×# 4.4|4.3 3.5|2.2.3 23#×××–×.××–|×××–.×–×# 24#×××××–××|×–.×–.×–×# 5.3|4.3 8|2.2.3 25#×–.×–.×–××|×–.×××–×# 26#×–×.–×.××–|×–×.××–×# 2.2.4|2.5 3.2.3|3.4 TABLE 5: The poem’s rhythm In S1, vv. 1–4 share identical second kolon among the even and odd verses, respectively. Conversely, the first kola of the paired verses (1–2, 3–4) are rhythmically related and have the same stress at word ending before caesura. This sequence is closed by v. 5, which mirrors v. 3 in the first kolon and v. 4 in the second. The paired couplet 5–6 serves as a bridge to S2; they are identical in the second kolon (|×–×××–×#), while 7 and 8 are identical in the first kolon (#×–×–×××–|). Additionally, the first kola of 5, 7, 9, and 11 form a chiasm in terms of rhythmic pattern, which is closed with a change of stress at the word ending before the caesura (v. 7, 8ox; v. 11, 8pp). In contrast, 8 and 12 are identical in the first kolon (#×–×–×××–|;10 has only an inversion with stress in the first position), while 6 matches 5 and 9 (#×–×××–××|). The section is closed by the chiasm in the second kolon of vv. 9–12 (9 and 12 |×– ×××–×#; 10 and 11 |×××–×–×#). In S3, the four pairs of verses (13–14, 15–16, 17–18, 19–20) are linked by the identical second kola of 13 and 17 (|×–×××–×#), 15 and 19 (|×××–×–×#), and 14 and 18 (|×××××–×#; in both cases, a seven-syllable word cluster with a proper noun as the head). The sequence closes at 20, which should match the pattern of 16 (|–××–×–×#), but is identical to 19 (|×××–×–×#); 20 transmits this pattern to 21 and sub- sequent verses. Verse 21 marks the closure of another sequence typical to S3. From 14 onward, vv. 14–15 (8ox), 16–17 (8pp), 18–19 (8ox), and 20–21 (8pp) share the same stress at the word ending before the caesura, creating a chiasm across the paired couplets. Verse 22, however, is identical to 21 in the first kolon (#×–×××–××|), opening S4 and the glory to God. In S4, 21 and 23 are identical in the second kolon (|×××–×–×#), while only the inversion distances 22 (|–××–×–×#) from 24 (|×–×–×–×#). The poem closes with a couplet formed by 25–26, which have an identical second kolon (|×–×××–×); in the first kolon, only the stress at the word ending before the caesura differs (25, 8pp; 26, 8ox). 282 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 If we shift focus from the rhythmic cells to the overall rhythm of the poem, a harmonious and cyclic rhythm is created, line by line and across the columns, with recurring patterns throughout the poem. While we cannot determine if the poem was com- posed on the spot or written elsewhere and later copied, the features suggest it is a carefully crafted text, within the limits of the author’s capabilities. 5. Book epigram and memory The poem and the note by the anonymous scribe share the same function in the older codicological unit of Marc.gr. Z 529. They serve to delimit it. On the one hand, the note at the bottom of f. 516v acts as the sole marker indicating the contents’ con- clusion, as f. 517 was left blank.41 On the other, the placement of the poem on f. 134v is determined by the presence of two introductory paratexts by Ioseph Rakendytes for his Encyclopaedia (ff. 130r–131v and 132r–134r). In the first (in prose), Ioseph justifies the rewriting, cutting, and combining of previous works to provide the reader with a con- cise and comprehensive set of treatises for advanced learning.42 The second (in verse) outlines the contents of the Encyclopaedia as if the book were speaking.43 Since the two paratexts by Raken- dytes were already present at the beginning of the older unit of Marc.gr. Z 529 with their incipits decorated, there was no need to insert the new poem before them to seal the start of the codicological unit. Instead, the new poem is placed in the sub- sequent blank space, forming a trio of paratexts in distinct forms 41 On f. 516v, the second note is by another fifteenth-century hand (scribe H, see n.6 above), perhaps linked to the erudite circle of Bessarion, who later owned the (complete) manuscript. 42 Published in Walz, Rhet.Gr. III 467–472, and M. Treu, “Der Philosoph Ioseph,” ByzZeit 8 (1899) 1–64, at 34–38. On the textual transmission of Rakendytes’ Encyclopaedia see R. Criscuolo, “Note sull’Enciclopedia del filosofo Giuseppe,” Byzantion 44 (1974) 255–281, at 259–263 and 265–281. 43 Walz III 473–477, and Treu, ByzZeit 8 (1899) 39–42 and 45. Treu’s verse numbering is used here. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 283 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 (prose, prosodic dodecasyllables, and decapentasyllables) and layouts (full line, single column, and two columns; see fig. 2). Rakendytes’ paratexts both contain a common ekphonesis to the Holy Trinity.44 Our anonymous poem (22–26) echoes the one in Rakendytes’ verse paratext (vv. 115, 130–134),45 which stems from the summary of the themes in the excerpta on the Trinity by Cyril of Alexandria. These verses appear on ff. 133v–134r of Marc.gr. Z 529 just before our poem: … καὶ σκόπει µετὰ δέους […] τριῶν ἀπείρων ἄπλετον συµφυΐαν. Πατὴρ, Λόγος καὶ Πνεῦµα, ταῦτα τὰ τρία, ἐν τρισὶ µία φύσις, ἓν δὲ τὰ τρία. ᾧ δόξα, τιµὴ καὶ κράτος πρέπει µόνῳ ἀεί τε καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον. … Consider with reverence […] the boundless oneness of the nature of three infinite beings—the Father, the Logos, and the Spirit, these are the three; in three, a single nature, and one are the three. Glory, honour, and power beseem Him [i.e., God] alone: always, now, and forever. However, while the liminal paratexts (Rakendytes’ prose and the anonymous poem) conclude with the ekphonesis, Rakendytes’ verses place it before the final remarks on the Encyclopaedia’s worth (vv. 135–138) and the authorial sphragis (vv. 139–140). In the first paratext, the author is speaking; in the second, the codex; in the third, a reader who knows its history. Our poem concludes the preliminary information about the codex and situates it in space and time. It declares that the manuscript was from Thessaloniki and was owned by the great rhetor and philosopher Ibankos. By the unfathomable will of God, the city was captured by the amir Murad bey on 29 March 1430. The fall is ranked as the third most significant after those of Troy and Jerusalem (vv. 13–21). 44 For the prose paratext see Walz III 472.24–26. 45 Walz III 476.17 and 32–34, 477.1–2 = Treu, ByzZeit 8 (1899) 42. 284 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 If broader chronicles are excluded,46 the poem is one of the few surviving texts reporting solely on the fall of Thessaloniki in 1430. Among other works on earlier captures of the city, Vat.gr. 172 [diktyon 66803] contains a narration and a monody attrib- uted to Ioannes Anagnostes, an eyewitness to the events of 1430.47 The two brothers Markos and Ioannes Eugenikos wrote one monody each.48 Only two monodies in verse, both in hexameters, are known, one from a codex in Cairo, the other from a codex in Naples.49 They can be considered as learned threnoi.50 But is our anonymous poem a threnos? The poem states that the fall of Thessaloniki is to be understood as a major event decreed by God.51 By underscoring the city’s exceptional nature in the first lines and through its recurring epithets,52 the monu- 46 For a list see Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken II 440–441. The Ἱέρακος Χρονικὸν περὶ τῆς τῶν Τούρκων βασιλείας reports the fall at vv. 330– 388; ed. K. Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ βιβλιοθήκη (Venice 1872) I 243–268. 47 Gh. Tsaras, Ἰωάννου Ἀναγνώστου διήγησις περὶ τῆς τελευταῖας ἁλώσεως τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης. Μονῳδία ἐπὶ τῇ ἁλώσει τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης (Thessaloniki 1958) 2–68 and 70–76; for Tsaras’ doubts on the authenticity of the monody see pp. ιθʹ–κβʹ. 48 Published in Pilavakis, Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη 24–64 and 70–82. Part of the monody by Ioannes Eugenikos was published from Paris.gr. 2005 [diktyon 51632] by Sp. Lambros, “Τρεῖς ἀνέκδοτοι µονῳδίαι εἰς τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Τούρκων ἅλωσιν τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης,” Νεὸς Ἑλληνομνήμων 5 (1908) 369–391, at 390– 391. 49 Published in Lambros, Νεὸς Ἑλληνομνήμων 5 (1908) 372–390. 50 M. Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge 1974) 87. 51 There is no explicit mention of human sins as a cause, contra e.g. Ioannes Eugenikos, Monody 1.37–51 (Pilavakis, Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη 72–74), and Dou- kas 29.5 (ed. V. Grecu, Ducas. Istoria Turcobizantina, 1341–1462 [Bucharest 1958] 251.8–10). 52 Cf. Threnos on Thessaloniki 1.1–3 (Lambros, Νεὸς Ἑλληνομνήμων 5 [1908] 372), which opens in a similar manner, highlighting the challenge of crafting an appropriate lament for the city; Threnos on Thessaloniki 2.1–29 (Lambros 382–383) also describes the city before starting the lament. Markos Eugeni- JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 285 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 mental significance of its fall is emphasised. The poet’s con- temporaries witnessed in their lifetimes (τοῖς ἡµετέροις χρόνοις) what is narrated only in the Iliadic saga and in the Bible.53 Still, there is no explicit lamentation in the poem, nor are there the exclamations typical of threnoi.54 The poet was more interested in preserving the memory of such an event and placing it within God’s inscrutable designs than in elevating a lament for what had happened. The content is arranged to first describe the event and then outline its role in world history. The two references to past history are not chosen only for their fame. Both Troy and Jerusalem were destroyed, just as was Thessaloniki. After the fall of their cities, Trojans and Jews were captured, forcefully dis- placed, and enslaved, like many Thessalonians.55 The poem is a trace, a statement on recent history. Roughly twenty years before 1430, Manuel II Palaiologos described Thessaloniki as the mother of rhetoricians and the source of literature; its citizens transmitted the love of knowledge and the striving for cultural excellence from antiquity, generation after generation.56 The content and the former owner of the earlier codicological unit of Marc.gr. Z 529 provide evidence for this flourishing culture. The chain was considered broken as Thess- kos, Monody 11 (Pilavakis, Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη 52–58) describes the magnifi- cence of Thessaloniki before bitterly stating “This was Thessaloniki” (τοῦτο ἦν ἡ Θεσσαλονίκη), thus opening his reflection on the mistakes that led to its fall. 53 Cf. Threnos on Thessaloniki 2.1 (Lambros, Νεὸς Ἑλληνομνήμων 5 [1908] 382) ὢ πόποι, ἦ θαῦµα µέγα οἷς ὀφθαλµοῖσιν ὀρῶµαι. 54 See H.-G. Beck, Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich 1971) 163–167; Alexiou, The Ritual Lament 83–101; Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry II 98–100, with further bibliography. 55 Troy and Jerusalem are mentioned also by Markos Eugenikos, Monody 2.50–54 (Pilavakis, Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη 28). 56 Manuel II Palaiologos Ep. 45.82–96 (ed. G. T. Dennis, The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus [Washington 1977] 127). 286 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 aloniki had fallen into the hands of the Ottoman Turks.57 The centripetal force it once generated for Greek culture was also lost.58 The products of its cultural activities survive, preserved in manuscripts and accessible to future readers, wherever they may be. The anonymous poem forges an indelible bond with the city and its ultimate destiny. This operation resembles the brief prose annotations on recent events found in late medieval Greek manuscripts and their margins. Some stand alone in their manuscripts, marking a single event significant to their owner or reader.59 They travel with their carriers and are read by new readers, perpetuating the memory of what happened. 6. Rakendytes and Ibankos The memory of the lost Thessaloniki also has an internal function. At the beginning of the poem, the author addresses the reader. The divine book60 they are holding comes from Thessa- loniki, the “great city of Thessalians,”61 a helpful detail for placing the manuscript’s production in this city during the third 57 Interestingly, the poem omits any reference to Venetian rule over Thes- saloniki (1423–1430), a topic mentioned—and often harshly criticised—by other sources, such as Markos Eugenikos. 58 Cf. Ioannes Eugenikos, Monody 1.61–64 (Pilavakis, Ἑάλω Θεσσαλονίκη 74). 59 Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken II 618–619, nos. 73–76, in particular no. 76. 60 This is rather a formulaic expression, commonly found in several book epigrams; see for instance DBBE Types 3214, 3910, 4060, etc. The mention of hands holding the book also appears elsewhere in this genre of com- position, for example in an epigram to Pollux (DBBE Type 2512). 61 Consistently in Atticising orthography: v. 3 τῶν Θετταλῶν ἡ µέγιστος καὶ πανευδαίµων πόλις; 8 ἡ Θετταλῶν ἡ πανευδαίµων πόλις; 21 τῶν Θετταλῶν τὴν πόλιν. Such a periphrasis is widely employed in Byzantine literature, see for example Anna Komnena Alexiad 1.7.2, 2.8.3 (ed. Reinsch/Kambylis, Annae Comnenae Alexias [Berlin 2001] I 28 and 76); Eustathios of Thessaloniki Oration 14 (ed. Wirth, Eustathii Thessalonicensis Opera minora [Berlin 2000] 233.12); Manuel Philes, Ε270.1 (ed. Miller, I 134); Niketas Choniates, History 319.7 (ed. van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae Historia [Berlin 1975]). JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 287 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 quarter of the fourteenth century. Therefore, it is not far in time or space from the work of Ioseph Rakendytes;62 this volume is one of the few surviving witnesses to his entire Encyclopedia.63 In doing so, the anonymous poem has yet another function as a book epigram, which is to praise the former owner by relating his intellectual activities to the content of the manuscript. At v. 4 the author of the poem mentions a certain Ἰβάγκος, who is described as the best of philosophers and the rhetor of rhetors (5 τῶν φιλοσόφων ἄριστος καὶ ῥήτωρ τῶν ῥητόρων).64 In other words, Ibankos is described as a master of the same arts to which the Encyclopaedia was meant to provide a comprehensive and prag- matic introduction, as highlighted by Rakendytes himself in his paratexts. If we consider this information trustworthy, along with the dating of both the manuscript and the poem, it is plausible that 62 On his life and work see PLP 9078 and A.-M. Talbot, ODB (1991) II 1074, and also Treu, ByzZeit 8 (1899) 1–64. Joseph was born in Ithaca around 1280 and died in Thessaloniki in 1330, where he was monk before going to Athos and then to Constantinople. Among his friends and acquaintances were Nikephoros Choumnos, Nikephoros Gregoras, and Theodoros Meto- chites; Ioannes Aktouarios, whose letter on medicine is also in Marc.gr. Z 529, was one of his pupils. 63 Criscuolo, Byzantion 44 (1974) 255–281. 64 As shown above (275), the demonstrative ταύτης does not refer to the city of Thessaloniki. This is further supported by the fact that it seems unlikely that Ibankos would be referred to as its κύριος. By the time of the fall, Ibankos was apparently no longer active; if we exclude a case of extreme emphasis, there is no evidence to suggest he held any significant positions that would justify such a title. He is not mentioned in any documents from the city’s gov- ernment after 1423, nor in the Venetian embassy records during Venetian rule; cf. the documents in M. Jones, Venice and Thessalonica 1423–1430: The Venetian Documents (Padua 2002). He was surely not the bishop of Thessaloniki, as also implicitly evidenced by the use of κύριος instead of ποιµήν, which would be expected in that case. The last bishop before the fall was Symeon, who died in September 1429 according to Anagnostes: see Tsaras, Ιωάννου Ἀναγνώστου 22.4–5; cf. D. Balfour, Ἁγίου Συμεὼν Θεσσαλονίκης (1416/1417– 1429) Ἔργα θεολογικά (Thessaloniki 1981) 29–76, and G. Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclestica Orientalis I (Padua 1988) I 427. 288 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 this Ἰβάγκος is to be identified as Konstantinos Ibankos, a notable of Thessaloniki in the early fifteenth century.65 The praise by the anonymous poet, while undoubtedly emphatic, can easily be applied to what we know of this Ibankos.66 At the time, Konstantinos Ibankos must have been a relatively important figure in the city: he held the office of judge (κριτής) from 1402 to 1420 and also ran a school of grammar and rhetoric (and possibly philosophy?) during roughly the same period.67 He was undoubtedly part of the circle surrounding Manuel II, and he must have been his rhetoric teacher between 1369 and 1372. Additionally, a letter from the emperor to him is preserved (Ep. 45: 122–135 Dennis), written around 1404– 1408. In this letter, Manuel commends, just as our poem does, Ibankos’ great skill as a rhetorician and how he achieved signifi- cant accomplishments in this regard in Thessaloniki.68 Despite Ibankos’ activity as a teacher of rhetoric and Manuel’s praise, only two works by him are known: a monody for Isidoros Glabas (dated to 1396)69 and a letter to the hieromonk Simon (written between 1402 and 1420).70 While the poem in Marc.gr. Z 529 speaks highly of Ibankos as a philosopher, we are unaware of 65 See PLP 7973. 66 About him see Dennis, The Letters of Manuel II XLVI; G. Gousgouriotis, “The Life and Works of Constantine Ivankos,” Νέα Ῥώμη 20 (2023) 299–306; I. Taxidis, “Between Thessalonike and Constantinople: The Intellectual Life of Thessalonike in the Epistolography of the Palaeologan Era,” in F. Pontani (ed.), Education and Learning in Byzantine Thessalonike (Berlin 2024) 51–60. 67 See S. Mergiali, L’enseignement et les lettrés pendant l’époque des Paléologues, 1261–1453 (Athens 1996) 187–188, and C. A. Agoritsas, “Eruditi Thessaloni- censes in the Entourage of Manuel II Palaiologos: Education and Learning in the Second City of the Empire,” in Education and Learning 141–165, esp. 151– 162. 68 See for instance Ep. 45 at 56–61, 82–96, 111–115 Dennis. 69 É. Legrand, Lettres de l’empereur Manuel Paléologue (Paris 1893) 105–108. Glabas was archbishop of Thessaloniki (PLP 4223). 70 Legrand, Lettres 109–112. This Simon (PLP 25382) was protos of Mt. Athos and judge in Thessaloniki with Ibankos. On him see also D. Papa- chryssanthou, Actes de Protaton (Paris 1975) 141. JACOPO CAVARZERAN AND UGO MONDINI 289 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 any specific contributions he may have made in this field. However, the very Marcianus, given its content, could serve as evidence of his interests. Unfortunately, there is no trace in the manuscript to further prove Ibankos’ ownership, nor are there any marginal notes that can be attributed to him. Nonetheless, based on the poem, it is reasonable to assume that the book belonged to Ibankos’ library. From the poem and the preserved sources, it is unclear whether Ibankos was still alive at the time of the Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki; but it seems likely that he had passed away by the time the poem was composed. The poem confirms that the manuscript originated from Thessaloniki, from where it was taken around the time of the Ottoman conquest in 1430. We cannot definitively say whether the owner-scribe took the manuscript with them from Thes- saloniki or purchased it from someone else; in any case, the first verses of the epigram suggest they knew the origin of the volume. It should be noted that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 is not mentioned in the poem. Since the poem wants to position the fall of Thessaloniki in world history, it would indeed be strange if Constantinople were not included as the fourth city in the list outlined by vv. 13–21, had it already occurred. While this cannot be considered definitive proof, it suggests that the poem was composed after 1430 and before 1453. It is worth noting that Laonikos Chalkokondyles, born in 1430, shares the poem’s view that this was the greatest calamity suffered by the Greeks since then.71 The proposed dating is also consistent with the watermarks of the more recent codicological unit, which date to between 1448 and 1457. 71 Laonikos Chalkokondyles Histories 5.22 (ed. E. Darkó, Laonici Chalco- candylae Historiarum demonstrations [Budapest 1923] II 14.16–25): 16–17 ἐγένετο µὲν οὖν αὕτη µεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ οὐδεµιᾶς τῶν πρόσθεν γενοµένων αὐτοῖς συµφορῶν λειποµένη. 290 A POEM ON THE FALL OF THESSALONIKI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 268–290 7. Conclusion The poem here published can be dated to the years im- mediately following 1430. The identity of its author and the name of the owner-scribe, if they were not the same person, remain unknown and cannot be determined at this time. The scribe was not a professional copyist and had limited orthographic proficiency. The poem, however, demands a cer- tain level of compositional skill. This complicates attempts to imagine the poem’s genesis. One might infer that the scribe was writing under dictation or copying, with a more skilled—though clearly not a talented—person composing the verses. The mention of Konstantinos Ibankos suggests that the vol- ume belonged to him or his circle and perhaps was even written on his commission. The watermarks in the manuscript date from the period when Ibankos was active in Thessaloniki, possibly making this the first manuscript identified as belonging to the rhetorician.72 January, 2025 Ca’ Foscari University of Venice jacopo.cavarzeran@unive.it University of Oxford ugo.mondini@mod-langs.ox.ac.uk 72 This article results from a collaboration that began when Jacopo Cavarzeran discovered the poem during his research on Pollux for the ERC CoG Project PURA: Purism in Antiquity. Cavarzeran authored the intro- duction, the critical edition, the English translation, sections 1 and 6, while Mondini authored sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. The two authors worked in close dialogue and jointly revised the article.