The Barberini Manuscript of Georgius Syncellus ("Vat. Barb. Gr.227)" Mosshammer, Alden A Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1980; 21, 3; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 289 The Barberini Manuscript of Georgius Syncellus (Vat. Barb. Gr. 227) Alden A. Mosshammer T HE CHRONICLE of Georgius Syncellus (ca 800), covering the period from Creation to the first year of the emperor Dio­ cletian, is unique among such works of Byzantine chronog­ raphy for its detailed treatment of antiquity, with frequent and often lengthy citation of sources. Syncellus is consequently our best and sometimes our only source for significant fragments of a number of ancient works otherwise wholly or partially lost. Of the many manuscripts that attest to the work of Syncellus, most con­ tain only the latter third of the chronicle, from the time of Julius Caesar, followed by the continuation written by Theophanes. 1 This portion of Syncellus derives chiefly from Josephus and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, and is of less interest and impor­ tance than the pre-Roman sections. The only complete manuscript of the entire work hitherto known is the famous Paris manuscript (Bibliotheque Nationale gr. 1711) written in the year 1021 and discovered by Isaac Casaubon about 1600. 2 From this manuscript Joseph Scaliger in 1606 published much of the material that he believed Syncellus had derived from the then lost first book of the chronicle of Eusebius. 3 Jacob Goar based the 1652 editio princeps of Syncellus on Paris 1711, supplemented for the latter portion by Paris suppl. gr. 327 and Barberini gr. 234.4 William Dindorf's 1829 edition in the Bonn Corpus was based on Goar's text, although much improved by the collation of the fragmentary eleventh-century Paris manuscript (# 1 764) discovered by Bredow.s 1 For the manuscript tradition of Theophanes, see the edition of Karl de Boor (Leipzig 1883-85), esp. I v-viii. 2 See the correspondence with Casaubon in Scaliger's Epistolae (Frankfurt 1628), esp. 180-200. 3 Thesaurus Temporum (Leiden 1606, ed. post. Amsterdam 1658). 4 Goar's edition was published in the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae (Paris 1652, reprinted Venice 1729). His Liber Peyrezianus (Paris suppl. gr. 327) is a copy of Vat. gr. 987; and his Barberinianus (Vat. Barb. gr. 234) is a collation of Vat. gr. 154 and Vat. Pal. gr. 395. 5 G. Bredow, Epistolae Parisienses (Leipzig 1812) 154. Apart from the addition of the 289 290 THE BARBERINI MANUSCRIPT OF SYNCELLUS Paris 1711 (A) and 1764 (B) derive from a common exemplar, but B is by far the superior copy. B preserves the more nearly correct reading against A in numerous individual cases. There are also many instances in A of omission through homoeoteleuton and the like, where B carries the full text. B is also a better witness to the format of the exemplar, with clearly separated titles in a special lettering and a majuscule script distinguishing some portions of the text (e.g., the Enopa6"v sections and the lists of bishops) from the rest. Unfortunately, the manuscript is badly truncated. Leaves that contained nearly a third of the work are missing from the be­ ginning and the end, with several leaves also lost from the middle. Additional manuscript authority to supplement A, especially in the early portion of the work, would be a welcome discovery. J. T. Milik has recently announced just such a discovery in Vat. Barb. gr. 227, which he examined in connection with his work on the pseudepigraphical books of Enoch and Jubilees, from which Syncellus preserves a number of fragments. The source of this dis­ covery is apparently the list of manuscripts published by M. E. Colonna in 1956.6 The list includes Barb. 227 and seven other manuscripts in addition to Paris 1711 that Colonna puts forward as complete copies of the entire work. Albert-Marie Denis repro­ duced the list in his introduction to the Greek versions of the Jew­ ish pseudepigrapha. 7 H. J. de Jonge examined the Paris manuscripts included in the list and eliminated all but 1711.8 The remainder can be eliminated on the basis of their catalogue descriptions, with the exception of Barb. 227. J. T. Milik examined the Enochic material in the Barberini manuscript, which he found to be similar to the text of Paris 1711, but with a number of variants that he notes in dealing with these fragments. 9 Seymour di Ricci's inventory of the Barberini collection, pre­ sumably Colonna's source, contains neither codicological descrip­ tion nor date for the manuscript, although Colonna dates it to the readings of Paris 1764, Dindorf's text is little more than a redaction of Goar's. I am presently at work on a new edition for the Bibliotheca Teubneriana. 6 M. E. Colonna, Gli storici byzantini dal IVai XV secolo I: Storici profani (Naples 1956) 54-55. The list is unreliable. Most ofthe MSS. listed as complete in fact belong to the family of Theophanes MSS. that contain Syncellus only from 566.11 Dindorf. Some are not manuscripts of Syncellus at all. 7 Albert-Marie Denis, Introduction aux Pseudepigraphes grecs (Leiden 1970) 18. B H. J. de Jonge in Albert-Marie Denis, ed., Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae super­ sunt Graeca (Leiden 1970). 9 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford 1976) 73; "Recherches sur la version grecque du livre des Jubiles," RBibl78 (1971) 548. ALDEN A. MOSSHAMMER 291 fifteenth century. 10 Marcel Richard dated the manuscript at Milik's request to the sixteenth century.11 It would be remarkable indeed if such a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century exemplar of Syncellus were among the Barberini collection, when both Leo Allacci and Jacob Goar, who had access to the Cardinal's library, could state un­ equivocally that they knew of no complete manuscript of Syncellus other than that in Paris.12 In fact, Barb. 227 is a direct copy of Paris 1711, written in the seventeenth century, perhaps by or at the behest of just such a scholar as Allacci or Goar. Close exami­ nation of the manuscript in its entirety provides ample evidence for such a conclusion, disappointing as it may be. Vat. Barb. gr. 227 consists of 358 leaves, measuring approxi­ mately 280 mm. high and 185 mm. broad, written twenty-one or twenty-two lines to the side, each side containing approximately as much text as one page of the Dindorf edition. The title is the same as that carried in Paris 1711, with one word omitted: 'EKAOy~ Xpovoyparpzae; uno Tewpyzov j1ovaxov ..[vYKeAAov yeyovoroe; (om. Barb.) Tapaazov narplapxov KwvaraVTlVOnOAewe; dna :Abup j1eXPI AI01d'lTlavov. The text ends on f. 358 r with the subscription A6~a (ge0. No such note appears in A or in any of the many manuscripts that contain the end of the work, and the exclamation may there­ fore be attributed to the copyist. There are two sets of marginalia in the manuscript. The first set were written at the time of copying, in the same hand as the text. In these notes, the copyist sometimes corrects errors in transcription, although not all such errors are so corrected; and sometimes he makes conjectural emendations. These conjectures he introduces by yp. or i'awe;, rather than leg. or fort. 13 Such Grecisms notwithstanding, the hand is of an occi­ dental appearance, resembling printed texts of the early and middle seventeenth century. Letter forms are regular and evenly spaced, tilting slightly to the right. Although the common ligature for el that one finds in both handwritten and printed texts of the period does not appear once, the ligatures for ev, ov, ar, and the abbrevia­ tion for be are exactly as one finds in seventeenth-century printed 10 Seymour di Ricci, "Liste sommaire des mss grecs de la Bibliotheca Barberina," Revue des Bibliotheques 17 (1907) 81-125. For #227 he notes only: "Georgii Syncelli chronicon cum variis lectionibus" (98). 11 RBibl78 (1971) 548. 12 See Goar's preface, reprinted vol. II of Dindorf's edition, esp. 68-69; Leo Allacci, Diatriba de Georgiis, reprinted Fabricius-Harless, Bibliotheca Graeca 12 (Hamburg 1809) 28, first published as an appendix of Allacci's edition of Georgius Acropolites (Paris 1651). 13 See infra for discussion of the marginalia of both hands. 292 THE BARBERINI MANUSCRIPT OF SYNCELLUS texts, more fixed and formal than their Renaissance predecessors. Accents, breathing marks, and iota-subscript are meticulously en­ tered, as are long-vowel marks, even over diphthongs. The bottom right of the verso invariably contains the first word or phrase of the next page. No parallel for this hand can be found among the pub­ lished handbooks of mediaeval and Renaissance Greek palaeog­ raphy. Similar research materials for seventeenth- and eighteenth­ century hands are not presently available. The type of material used for the copy, however, confirms the conclusion that Barb. 227 is a western product no earlier than the seventeenth century. Msgr Paul Canart has been kind enough to examine the manu­ script. He reports that the paper bears a watermark not attested before the seventeenth century and that the material is probably of French origin. 14 ' The date alone would lead one to suspect that the Barberini manuscript is a copy of the well known Paris exemplar. The textual evidence is decisive, consisting of shared errors in individual read­ ings, numerous omissions where B supplies the missing text, and several instances of material imperfection in A with a correspond­ ing peculiarity in the Barberini manuscript. In the following ex­ amples, references are to page and line of Dindorf's 1829 edition, with the siglum R representing Barb. 227. 110.171l0A1TWV AR: AIO(J'1l0A1TWV B II 123.11lponi./;el AR: (J'vvui/;el B II 148.4 TO OV AR: up OV'l"l B II 149.5 EVTVXIOC; AR: EVrjXlOC; B II 177.3 1lopeve(J'()al AR: 1l0pev()t/Val B II 203.1 ei&v AR: Kai l&iJv B II 229.19 (J'vv()aA1l0Vm AR: (J'vv()aAAovm B II 248.19 Kai eKKpival AR: fJ,~ eKKAival B II 270.20 T~V 'It/v Tt/C; '/eplXw Kai Tt/C; rai AR: T~V rai Kai T~V '/eplXw B II 309.6 arpalpe()t/val AR: arpe()t/val B II 334.12 ZevC;11l1l0C; AR: Ai/;11l1loc; B II 393.12Evioav Bapoxilb AR: EvelAilb Mapobdx B II 398.4 'PWfJ,OC; AR: VOfJ,OVC; B II 448.5 eyiypa1lTO AR: yiypanTal B II 505.3 el1l0VTWV AR: elc; [Jovrov B II 533.11 '/w­ (J'rJ1lnov AR: '/wnnrJv B II 585.18 avalpi(J'ewc; AR: avavew(J'ewc; B II 622.18 (J'Ol TOV na()ovc; AR: (J'ov TO 1la()oc; B. 14 Msgr Canart, by letter of 22 October 1979, compares the watermark (crowned horn) with numbers 2655-57 in Edward Heawood, Watermarks Mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (Monumenta Chartae Papyraceae Historiam IIlustrantia I [Hilversum 1950]). Nigel Wilson, by letter of 15 August 1979, agrees in dating the hand to the 17th century. I am most grateful for their attention to my inquiries. ALDEN A. MOSSHAMMER 293 There are more than twenty places where Paris 1764 supplies a portion of text that the copyist of Paris 1711 omitted when his eye skipped from one similar word or phrase to another. In each case Barb. 227 also omits that portion of text: 113.9, 123.10, 162.15, 172.5-6,179.20-180.1,194.15,239.14-16, 242.10-11, 284.6- 8,285.10,287.16-18,290.17-18,311.14,342.4-5,350.3-4, 391.10, 397.7, 399.7-8, 409.10-12, 429.6-7, 606.8, 640.18. Barb. 227 omits 458.19 to 459.3. Paris 1711 also omits these lines, the copyist supplying 459.1 to 459.3 in the margin. Barb. 227 has neither this nor any other of the myriad marginalia in Paris 1711. Hence Barb. 227 omits not only the many marginal comments that Paris 1711 and 1764 share, but also a number of titles and headings that B exhibits in the text and A in the margin (e.g., 232.12, 280.9, 286.5, 301.14). Finally, there are several instances in which the copyist of the Barberini manuscript has indicated that a lacuna or other imper­ fection existed in his exemplar. In each case Paris 1711 exhibits the corresponding flaw. At 55.18 (f.27V) Barb. reads BTl j1ipoc; Tl ..... tv roir; KopKvpaiwv 0PUJl. In Paris 1711 (p.20) the dots correspond to a space left empty in the middle of the line where the parchment was too rough for writing. At 131.19 (f.62r) Barb. has eKii aurov. The double line is the copyist's usual mark of cross­ reference for corrections or emendations noted in the margin. In this case he substitutes avrwv so as to read e~ aurwv avyypaj1j1arwv. Breads eK rwv aurov avyypaj1j1arwv. In A at this point there is a hole in the parchment between eK and aurov. Barb. f.96r reads at 211.21-22 nis (w~r; aurov .......... ovrw npO(UelA1Jj1j1eVwv. A leaves a wide space corresponding to the dots (p.65), where there was a flaw in the parchment. The same phenomenon occurs on f.308\" where Barb. reads at 627.17 llavAov Kai EiAa, the line corresponding to an imperfection in the parchment on page 98 of Paris 1711. On f.352 r the text breaks off at 716.19 rrjv re NIKO xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and resumes at 723.3 rcjJ y' Brei IIpopov. A p.226 ends with rrjv re NIKO, and p.227 begins with rcjJ y' eUI II popov. An entire leaf is missing from Paris 1711. B is not extant for this portion of the work, but the Theophanes-Syncellus family of manuscripts carries the missing text. There can be no doubt but that Barb. 227 is a seventeenth­ century copy of Paris 1711. It would be tedious to enumerate all the notes carried in the margin. A few examples will suffice to illus­ trate their character. The marginalia of both hands consist almost 294 THE BARBERINI MANUSCRIPT OF SYNCELLUS exclusively of editorial corrections and conjectures based on the text of Paris 1711, rather than variant readings derived from some other source. The first set of notes belongs to the copyist. Many of these are simply corrections of some of the copyist's numerous errors in transcription. At 147.11 he restores Karapc,aaOaz for brapc,aaOaz; similarly, 228.12 emAeA,oYlaraz for emAoyi(eraz; 300.8 KaOelAe for dVelAe; 417.20 iawc; for iaovc;; 540.18 arparo1CeJa for arparevJ1.a; 727.4 'AAec,avJpefav for 'AAec,avJpov. In other cases the copyist offers emendations of apparently corrupt readings, usually indicating their conjectural status with iawc; or ypaqJere. At 160.15 he corrects ,ppc,y' to ,ypc,y'. At 176.12 he offers &1 for J1j; similarly, 499.8 ovrwc; for oVroc;; 578.7 AemJov for 'EA1CiJIOV. The marginalia of the second hand are far more numerous. On folios 356 V and 357r there are references to the readings of "Vat" and "Pal"-that is, Vatican gr. 154 and Palatine gr. 395. These readings may be drawn from Barb. 234, which was Goar's im­ mediate source for these manuscripts, rather than from the docu­ ments themselves. Why these variants (e.g., yoytfC; for YOtfC; in the Palatine manuscript at 731.4 and the omission of Vewrepovc; Kai in Vat. 154 at 731.6) are noted only here and not for the entire por­ tion of the work included in those manuscripts is puzzling. Never­ theless, the remainder of the second set of notes are all based on recollation with Paris 1711. On 53 v and 54r the annotator marks the text and writes AEIIIEI at precisely the points (113.9 and 114.8) where AEIIIEI appears in A (p.38). In the first case B sup­ plies a line of text; in the second (not noted by Dindorf) there is neither additional text nor indication of a lacuna in B. In the places noted above where the copyist has marked a lacuna corre­ sponding to some imperfection in Paris 1711, the second hand writes nihil deest or nonnulla desunt, as the case may be, with a detailed explanatory note on f.308 v : nihil deest. quod in mem­ branea est uacuum relictum est ex vitia pergamenti non defectis scripti. In other instances the commentator clarifies confusion on the part of the copyist by precise reference to an ambivalent read­ ing exactly as it can be found in Paris 1711. At 188.20 (8Y) the copyist has written Jzarpexovra in the text and JlarpeqJovra in the margin. The second hand notes: in textu JzarpeqJovra et supra eadem manu correctum Jzarpixovra. Paris 1711 p.58 in fact reads Jzarpi~ovra. Similarly at 281.1 (136 r ) where Barb. reads Kara, the second hand writes: J1.era et supra correctum eadem manu Kara, which is in fact the reading of A p. 91. Elsewhere, the commentator corrects transcriptional errors of the copyist, often with the note ALDEN A. MOSSHAMMER 29S ita R (i.e., Regius Parisiensis), or he offers a conjectural emenda­ tion, or he does both. At 93.11 Barb. reads 'Exia. The commen­ tator restores the ~xia of A, then emends to ~xara. At 200.21 Barb. reads bei, corrected in the margin to craw. The second hand restores the reading of A: immo eydJ ita u.c. [ut codex]. At 361.8 A and B have the corruption 'HAir;. TV €I-UiT8POr:; for TV NOJ1hwpor:;. Barb. reads 'H Alary! Bflirepor;,. The commentator notes (175 "): lege Kai 'HAir;. Tlj NOflljroPOr;,. He strikes out the copyist's correction (578.7) of 'EA71iJlOv to Ai711Jov and notes: ita R. The Greek letter forms of the second hand are markedly similar to those of the first, but not identical. The two hands are probably nearly contemporaneous. In the absence of research materials ap­ propriate to the task, it is not possible to establish the identity of either writer. It does seem likely that the copy was executed ex­ pressly for the use of one of the several scholars of the early to middle seventeenth century, from Scaliger to Allacci and Goar, who were interested in the text of Syncellus and in active search of manuscript authorities. The fact that the manuscript found its way into the Barberini collection suggests the possibility that the copy belonged to Jacob Goar, for whom it would have served as a portable transcript of Paris 1711 while he was at work on his edi­ tion. He might then have donated the manuscript to the Cardinal in exchange for the assistance that he acknowledges in his preface. All such speculation aside, it is clear that Barb. 227 is a direct seventeenth-century copy of Paris 1711. Its variant readings, both in the text and in the margins, derive from transcriptional error or editorial conjecture. The manuscript can not provide the indepen­ dent witness to the text of Syncellus that we should like to have. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO May, I980