Philologica Byzantina Duffy, John Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1980; 21, 3; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 261 Philo logic a Byzantina John Duffy I I NA PASSAGE of the Chronographia of Theophanes, relating how the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) annulled the actions of the Eastern bishops who had excommunicated Cyril of Alex­ andria and Memnon of Ephesus in a counter synod, the editor de Boor noticed something amiss in the text and suggested that the word rcpaxOivra had been lost. 1 This certainly was a good choice in the context, but, as it turns out, the precise term employed by Theophanes was AaA1J8ivra and it came at a place in the sentence other than that proposed by de Boor. For the original is preserved for us by an anonymous treatise on church councils which occa­ sionally borrows pieces from the chronicle. 2 In this document (fol. 316V ) the corresponding passage is: Kai rovm J8 Jlwpiaaro ware ra rcapa rwv dvaroAIKwv dOiaf.1,we; Kai dKavoviarwe; eq/ iJj3pel rwv aYlw­ rdrwv uk iKKAr,aiac; rcpotbpwv KvpiAAOV Kai MtIlVOVOC; AaA'lOtvra laxvv uva f.1,1JJ' GAWe; exe1V. It could be argued that AaA1J8ivra is the conjecture of a Byzan­ tine confronted, like de Boor, with a faulty text, but its claim to originality is more or less guaranteed by the version of Anastasius the Librarian in the Chronographia Tripertita: tuncque synodus dif(inivit, quae ab Orientalibus in iniuriam sanctissimorum eccle­ siae praesulum Cyrilli et Memnonis pro lata sunt, utpote sine lege et sine canone deprompta, nul/am vim prorsus habere. 3 1 Theophanis Chronographia I (Leipzig 1883) 91.3-5. 2 This work, as yet unpublished, is to be found in Sinaiticus gr. 482 (1117), 14th cent., and two other manuscripts. In the Sinai copy (which is quoted here) the treatise takes up folios 311 r_324v and has the title: L'vvaywy~ Kai I!K(}UJlr; rwv dyiwv nauwv uvv6bwv OiKOVjJ£VIKWV re Kai romKwv, onov re Kai nore Kai bHi ri Kai Ka(}' afar; aipeuewr; eKaur'1 UVV1'/()pOIU()1!, Kai ri uvv aYlrp nverJp,an blwpluaro, eni nOlwv re paUl).twv Kai dYlwv uvve­ Kporrj8'1 narepwv, UVVOn!lKWr; uaqJ'1vi(ovua. The date of composition is not known; but it must have been in or before the thirteenth century, since one of the manuscripts, Escori­ alensis X.II.! 0, dates from that period. 3 Printed by de Boor (supra n.l) II 101.22-25. 261 262 PHILOLOGICA BYZANTINA II During his account of Emperor Justin I's reign, the chronicler George Cedrenus has occasion to describe a Constantinopolitan synod of the year 519 which was concerned with the monophysite problem and the Council of Chalcedon: bei rij~ {JaalAsia~ rourov npf.1iaba~ beiaKolw~ 'PWf.117~ KaraAa{JdJv r~v KwvaravrlvounoAlv, tif.1a nAeiarol!:; tmaKonOl~, rov~ dv81araf.1ivov~ r8 avvo&p XaA­ KYfbovo~ Ka8wev Ee{Jijpov rov :A vrlOxsiae; Kai CPIAo~evov, {JefJmw­ aavre~ r~v alJr~v auvobov, Kai nepi rwv buo qJuaewv rou Xplarou ra KvpiAAOV :AAe~avbpsia~ npoa8ivre~ prjf.1ara, "6 arar~p 6 vOYfro~, ro V0f.11af.1a ro {JaalAIKov, 6 tv evorYfTl dnA06~ xapaKr~p Xplaro~ eavrov vnep ndvrwv npOaKeK0f.11Kev ei~ andvrwv (wije; dvriAvrpov."4 The same council is also the subject of a short notice in the so­ called Synodicon Vetus: npf.1iaba~ ovv av81~ tv KwvaravrlvovnoAel 8eiav Kai tepav t~aniarelAe auvobov, Kai ra tv XaAKYfOOVl bOYf.1aTl­ a8tvra tKvpwae Kai ra nepi rwv 0130 qJvaewv rou f.1aKapiov KvpiAAov npoeK()if.1evoe; "rov vOYfrov ararijpa, ro {JaalAIKov V0f.11af.1a, cP ivevo17ro bmAou~ xapaKr~p 0 Xplaro~" bleaaqJ17ae . 5 These two pieces share enough similarities to warrant the as­ sumption that they ultimately come from the same source. As transmitted, however, each has its peculiarities. We shall confine ourselves here to the versions of the text quoted from Cyril of Alex­ andria, in which a numismatic metaphor is employed to explain the dual nature of Christ. The quotation is from a lost commentary on the Gospel of St Matthew of which a handful of fragments survive. 6 In the recent edition of the Synodicon Vetus it was suggested that the author of that work may be more accurate than Cedrenus, at least for part of the quotation. 7 It would have been truer, how­ ever, to say that neither has the full original; for it has come to light in the meantime that there is a third witness, Ephraim the Patriarch of Antioch (527-545),8 as preserved in the Bibliotheca 4 Ed. I. Bekker, vol. I (Bonn 1838) 683.7-14. 5 Ed. J. Duffy and]. Parker (Dumbarton Oaks Texts V [1979)) ch. 119.1-5. 6 Mainly in the florilegium Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi, ed. F. Diekamp (Munster 1907). 7 Supra n.5: 101 n.137. 8 Professor G. M. de Durand of Montreal graciously answered my request for informa­ tion with a complete list of sources where the text of Cyril is cited. This note could not have been written without his help. Incidentally, Fr. de Durand advises that the editor of the JOHN DUFFY 263 of Photius. 9 Here is Ephraim's version: 6 arar~p rOlyapovv 6 vO'lrOe;, rovrian ro vO/llalla ro /laazAzKov, 6 tv ivor'lrz f5znAove; xapaKT/7P, eavrav vnep navrwv we; napa navrwv npoaK8KollzK8 rile; ~1l8ripas (wile; dvriAvrpov. Clearly, then, as the third phrase Cyril wrote neither cP eV8V0'lrO c5m).ovr; xapaKr1p (Synodicon) nor () ev tv6r'lTl an),our; xapaKr1p (Cedrenus), but 6 tv evor'ln f5mAove; xapaKujp. For Cedrenus' dnAov<;; creates a doctrinal difficulty and destroys the imagery of two stamps on the one coin; moreover, it is flatly contradicted by another fragment of the Matthew commentary where the coin simile is again used: OUKOVV 6 araulP 6 dA'l81VOe; r8 Kai vO'lrOe; Kai we; ev rvnrp rep e~ VA'l<;; b'lAOVIl8VOe; auro<;; eanv 6 KVPIO<;; ~w.vv 'l'laoue; 6 Xpzaroe;, bmAOVe; xapaKrrjp.lO As for c[J tvcvo'lro in the Synodicon, its origin in a scribe's misreading is easy to imagine. More difficult to determine, from the three witnesses, are the exact words of the whole quotation. The Synodicon is of little help, its version being at once modified and curtailed, and the deci­ sion between the other two is anything but clear-cut. The problem will not be finally solved here, but a few suggestions will be of­ fered. On first consideration one might be inclined to put more trust in a sixth-century author saved by Photius than in a twelfth­ century chronicler. Still, a careful examination of the fifty extracts from Cyril cited by Ephraim reveals that, while the quoting tends to be accurate, there are not infrequent instances of small variants and slight shortening, and several cases where words have been added. Ephraim, then, need not be regarded as impeccable. Xpzaro<;; appears in Cedrenus and the Synodicon and is supported by the other passage from Cyril's Matthew commentary; it is, therefore, probably genuine. Ephraim's napa mivrwv is a problem; it may be a misplaced corruption of anavrwv which in turn brought about the addition of rije; ~J.1£ripae; in the interest of sense. The text tentatively put forward here is based on a blend of judgement and instinct; at best it might be closer to Cyril than any of his users; at worst it may be ignored: 6 araulP wlyapovv 6 vO'lro:;, ra vOJ.1zaJ.1a ro fjaalA1KOV, 6 tv ivor'lTl bmAOVe; xapaKr~p Bonn edition of Cedrenus (or the chronicler himself) definitely errs in attributing to Cyril the sentences following dvTiA.VTPOV, because they are really a kind of comment by the synod on the words of Cyril. 9 Ed. R. Henry, vol. IV (Paris 1965) Codices 228 and 229; Cyril is quoted at 262 b41- 263 a2. 10 Cited by Ephraim in tandem with the piece we are considering, 262 b38-40. 264 PHILOLOGICA BYZANTINA XpUJTOe; eavrov vnip ncivrwv np0(JKBK0/11KBV we; dncivrwv (wije; dvriAVrpov.ll III The fundamental study of the manuscripts of Photius' Bib­ liotheca was carried out by Edgar Martini. 12 He succeeded in demonstrating that the two oldest witnesses, A and M,13 were independent of each other and were, between them, responsible for all other existing copies. He did not, however, enter into the question of the relative merits of the two. That was to be under­ taken by Albert Severyns who, in preparing to edit the Chresto­ mathia of Proclus, made a detailed comparison of A and M on the basis of the originals of some of the works reviewed by the Patriarch. 14 The conclusions reached by Severyns were that A is by far the more reliable copy, while M represents a version that fre­ quently bears the marks of an erudite, but impetuous, correcting hand. In producing the recently completed, monumental edition of the Bibliotheca, Rene Henry naturally followed the results of his teacher Severyns and his text is firmly based on Marcianus gr. 450 (A).1s By and large Henry's policy of accepting the text of A, fail­ ing a compelling reason to do otherwise, is a sound one. Neverthe­ less, there are more than a few signs that he leaned too heavily on the principle and sometimes passed over at least one means of deciding between the two manuscripts. I refer to places where Photius quotes directly from authors whose works survive apart from the Bibliotheca. In Codex 229 discussed above, an impres­ sive number of times the text of Cyril of Alexandria, or other II Ephraim does not specify the book of the Matthew commentary to which this extract or its companion belong, noting simply that one follows the other wO' erepa. The com­ panion piece, however, is included in the Doctrina Patrum p. 31 Diekamp, where it is said to come from the third book, which must also, then, be the home of the other. 12 Textgeschichte der Bibliotheke des Patriarchen Photios von Konstantinopei (Leipzig 1911). 13 A, Marcianus gr. 450 (10th cent.); M, Marcianus gr. 451 (12th cent.). 14 Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos I (Liege and Paris 1938). 15 VoL I xliv, "La confiance dans Ie manuscrit A est legitime; c'est pourquoi j'ai suivi au maximum son texte et les corrections qui proviennent du copiste lui-meme (AI). Je n'ai suivi M que Iii ou A presente un texte deficient." JOHN DUFFY 265 writers cited, supports the reading of M against A. Here are three examples: 16 (a) 261 b16 nap(}ivov M: ayias nap(}ivov A. The reading of M is backed by the text of Cyril in the Patrologia Graeca 17 and by the quotation in the Doctrina Patrum (p.20 Diekamp). That ayiac; is a pious Byzantine addition is shown also by the same Cyrillic phrase at 262 b34. (b) 261 b27 (}aripov M: (}aripa A. Here M is vindicated not only by the complete text of Gregory of Nyssa (PC 45.1216A), but also by an earlier occurrence of the citation where both manuscripts are in agreement (256 a22-24). (c) 263 a40-41 r11POVvres M: r11Povrnv A. This is a strange case. Perhaps the only possible explanation is that the form in M, sup­ ported by the original,18 is a leftover from the time before the text was mangled, as it was in several places,19 while A's version is a commonsense effort to mend the mess. If it is not an accident that there are many samples of this type in one section (Codex 229), it would mean that the reader of the Bibliotheca will have to keep a sharper eye out for the good points of Marcianus gr. 451. IV The rhetoric teacher known as George Monos20 is attested by one work, a set of notes from his lectures on part of the Hermoge- 16 The rest, I discover, have already been pointed out by G. Chr. Hansen, Gnomon 39 (1967) 689-94. To an objection that M may present a text corrected with the aid of the originals, the research of Severyns (supra n.14) 82 gives the answer that" ... les variantes dans M ant pour origine une inspiration personnelle de celui qui les y a introduites: en d'autres termes, ces variantes sont des conjectures d'un savant lecteur de Photius, mais n'appartiennent pas a la tradition des auteurs resumes par celui-ci." 17 Migne, PG 74.1005A. In this case, it should be admitted, the text in PG is a collection of fragments; still, the evidence is independent. 18 Cyril of Alexandria, Schol. inc., Migne, PG 75.1385c (Schwartz, ACO 1.5 p.222.31- 33); cf. Doctrina Patrum p.53 Diekamp. 19 Among other mishaps, eir; (J.v(}pW7tOV has fallen out before iblKWr;l (line 38); &1 rppow;"v has replaced dVaI (line 39); rpalJEv is out of position (line 39f). 20 The most recent account of George is in Herbert Hunger's Die hochsprachliche pro­ fane Literatur der Byzantiner I (Munich 1978) 82. In the past he was sometimes called Georgius Diaereta, the name used by Leo Allatius in his Diatriba de Georgiis, reprinted in 266 PHILOLOGICA BYZANTINA nic corpus, the second half of IlBpi (JUi(JBWV, traditionally called AzaipB(JU;.21 George taught at Alexandria, probably in the fifth centurY,22 but beyond that we are in the dark. His surname has long been a puzzle for the few scholars who have had anything to do with him; some have tried to tease from it the Greek word for monk, but this attempt has been rightly rejected. 23 The purpose of this note is to explain Monos as something quite different. The title of George's lectures in the Paris manuscript is: EXaAla (Jvv BecfJ de; T11v t5zaipe(Jlv dno rpwvije; rou aVTou yewpyiov rou flavov (JOrpl(JTOU dAB~avt5peiae;. 24 All along flavOe; has been understood as part of the teacher's name and accordingly, when printed, it has been given a capital letter. 2S Its real connection, however, is with (JOrpl(JTOU; in other words, George is being described as 6 flavOe; (JOrpl(JT1je;, and flavOe; is a laudatory epithet meaning 'the one and only', in the sense of 'the great' or the like. Such adjectives expressing respect or admiration for teachers are common in lecture notes of the fifth and sixth centuries. I cite some examples from the many available: EX6Aza O'vv Beep eir; rov Fopyiav ano ({Jwviir; 'OAVf.in:lor5wpov rov f.ieydAov ({J1AOO'O({JOV;26 0 r5e iipwr; 'Af.if.iWVIOr; 0 flPOKAOV f.ieV ye­ yovwr; oxpO a njr; , ef.iov r5i 'AO'KAl1niov r51r5dO'KaAOr; ;27 0 rpuJevr5ai­ f.iwv O'o({Jlurr,r; FiO'lor;;28 triseudemon maximus noster sofista;29 Fabricius-Harless, Bibliotheca Graeca 12 (Hamburg 1809) 21, and by C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci VI (Stuttgart and Tiibingen 1834) 505. 21 George's fifty-four lectures have never been printed, aside from the single one pub­ lished by L. Schilling in his dissertation Quaestiones Rhetoricae Selectae (Leipzig 1903), the most complete study of George and his surviving product. The whole work is extant in two manuscripts, the earlier of which is the parchment Parisinus gr. 2919 (10th cent.). 22 As plausibly argued by Schilling (supra n.21) 692-93. 23 By H. Rabe, "Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften," RhM 63 (1908) 517-18, against Walz (following Allatius). 24 Fol. 1 r. The rov UVTOV almost certainly speaks for a time when the lectures on A luipeatr; were preceded in the manuscript tradition by those on MiOot5or;, the first half of Ilepi O'taO'ewv. George's commentary on MiOot5or; has vanished without trace, but is often re­ called to the students attending the lessons on Azaipeatr;; e.g., wO'1Cep Kui tv tij Me06&p tAiyo#ev (13') and to & TOlOvro 1C).,urvrepov elprjKu#8v tv ru MeOot5cp (25'). 25 Schilling, for example, writes Fewpyiov TOV Movov, O'o,/)/O'tOV 'A).,e~uvt5peiur; (supra n.21,667). 26 The title of Olympiodorus' lectures on the Gorgias of Plato, ed. L. G. Westerink (Leipzig 1970). 27 Asclepius on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Comm. in Arist. Graeca VI.2 92.29-30. 28 Stephan us of Athens on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, ed. F. R. Dietz, Vol. II (Konigs­ berg 1834) 343 n.4. 29 John of Alexandria on Epidemics VI of Hippocrates, ed. C. D. Pritchet (Leiden 1975) JOHN DUFFY 267 Even flOVO~ used in this way is not unattested, if the evidence be trusted. For one of the fifth-century law teachers in Beirut is re­ ferred to in a scholion on the Basilica as follows: ovrw; yap Kai IlarpiKlO( 6 flOVO( c5u5aaKaAO( i(1Jy~aaro r~v rcapovaav c5lara(lv. 31 Because it did not immediately make sense, this 6 flOVO; has been judged to be a mistake for 6 eflO; or 6 KOlVO~. 32 But it is the read­ ing of the manuscripts and should not be dislodged without a better argument. Less secure, though worth considering, is the case of the medical teacher John of Alexandria, whose lectures on Epidemics VI of Hippocrates have come down to us complete only in a mediaeval Latin version. 33 One of the witnesses begins thus: Incipiunt epi­ dimie divi Ypocratis et commentaria Johannis Alexandrini solius medici et sophiste super epidimias easdem. 34 The word solius here can scarcely be anything but the translation of flOVOV. But is the title itself genuine? That cannot be shown conclusively; how­ ever, there may be good support for it in the fact that at the end of the commentary four of the six witnesses have Expliciunt com­ menta . .. a voce Johannis Alexandrini magni medici et sophiste. And while it is conceivable that the title might have been fabri­ cated from the ending, it would be difficult, in the present instance, to accept that solius replaced magni. 35 146a 1. The editor presents triseudemon as a proper name, but this is an error set straight long ago by Valentin Rose, "Ion's Reisebilder und Ioannes Alexandrinus der Arzt," Hermes 5 (1871) 205-15. 30 Basilicorum Libri LX, SER. B VII, ed. H. J. Scheltema and D. Holwerda (Groningen 1965) 2775.4-5. 31 Supra n.30: 2774.31-32. 32 By Heimbach and Zachariae von Lingenthal respectively; see P. Collinet, Histoire de l'Ecole de Droit de Beyrouth (Paris 1925) 133 n.6. Scheltema and Holwerda accept the transmitted text. 33 Pritchet (supra n.29). There are extant a considerable number of Greek fragments which I am preparing for publication; the title is not among them. 34 This witness is the so-called Articella, a collection of medical treatises printed in Venice in 1483. Of the five codices preserving John's work, one leaves out the phrase solius medici et sophiste and the rest omit the titular opening altogether. 35 It may be of interest to append that Galen was once praised by Marcus Aurelius as Hav J1iv iarpwv np(Jnov elva!, rwv & rplAoaorpwv j.jovov: so the doctor himself innlipi rov npoYlVCvaKlilv, ed. Y. Nutton, CMG y'8.1 (Berlin 1979) 128.28. But this, as a referee has observed, is a variation on the ancient formula npwror; Kai j.jovor; (Aeschin. 3.77; M. N. Tod, CQ 43 [1949]111-12). 268 PHILOLOGICA BYZANTINA The evidence accumulated should be enough to prove that the rhetoric teacher George has not deserved his solitary sobriquet. If he is to be distinguished from his namesakes, he might be called George of Alexandria. DUMBARTON OAKS AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND July, I9Bo