Bibliography and Scholarship Contacts
Kimberley Fowler “Annotating the New Testament: Codex H, Euthalian Traditions, and the Humanities”
Garrick V. Allen “Titles of the New Testament: A New Approach to Manuscripts and the History of Interpretation”
1 Megisti Lavras library,
Nigel G. Wilson, “The Libraries of the Byzantine World,” GRBS 8 (1967): 53-80, esp. 66-69;
Michael Griinbart, “Securing and Preserving Written Documents in Byzantium,” in Manuscripts and Archives: Comparative Views on Record-Keeping, ed. Alessandro Bausi et al., Studies in Manuscript Cultures 11 (De Gruyter, 2018), 319-37;
Jean Irigoin, “Centres de copie et bibliotheques,” in Byzantine Books and Bookmen, ed. Cyril A. Mango and Ihor SeWenko, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971 (Dumbarton Oaks, 1975), 17-27, esp. 23.
B. L. Fonkic, “Bibliotyeka Lavry Sv. Afanasiya na Afone vX-XIII w.” [Russian], Palestinskii Sbornik 17 (1967):
2
On the processes and material of
rebinding medieval manuscripts, see
J. A. Szirmai, The Archaeology of Medieval Bookbinding (Ashgate, 1999), esp. 62-92;
Georgios Boudalis, “Chains, Links, and Loops: Towards a Deeper Understanding of the Sewing Structure in Eastern Mediterranean Bookbinding,” in Tied and Bound: A Comparative View on Manuscript Binding, ed.
Alessandro Bausi and Michael Friedrich, Studies in Manuscript Cultures 33 (De Gruyter, 2023), 73-120.
3
The dating of Codex H to the sixth century has been questioned by
Elina Dobrynina, who argues, based on a taxonomy of diacritical marks, that it was produced in the eighth or ninth century (
“On the Dating of Codex H [Epistles of the Apostle Paul],” in Le livre manuscrit grec: Ecritures, materiaux, histoire; Actes du IXe Colloque international de paleographie grecque, Paris, 10-15 septembre 2018, ed. Marie Cronier and Brigitte Mondrain, TMCB 24.1 [Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2020], 137-49).
We are not yet convinced by this conclusion, but Dobrynina’s analysis does shed new light on Codex H’s materials and usage. Evidence for the date of Codex H—its script, materials, layout, ornamentation, reinking, and post-production annotations—point in multiple directions, making any firm claim to dating uncertain. Additionally, some versional witnesses to the Euthalian tradition may be earlier than Codex H. For example,
Carla Falluomini suggests that the Gothic Codex Carolinus was produced in the fifth century (
The Gothic Version of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles: Cultural Background, Transmission and Character, ANTF 46 [De Gruyter, 2015], 36-38).
4
Efthymios Litsas, “Palaeographical Researches in the Lavra Library on Mount Athos,” EAArjvixd 50 (2000): 217-30, here 221-22.
5
Similar notes exist in other manuscripts. The note in Coislin 8 (diktyon 49150) says that it was the “14th book on the ninth shelf,” placed there by Macarius in February 1218. Transcriptions can be found in
Bernard de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana olim Segueriana ... (Ludovicum Guerin, 1715), 43, 252. A list of all the manuscripts that preserve library locations in the Paris and Moscow collections are listed in
Fonkic, “Bibliotyeka Lavry,” 167-68 (33 in total).
6
Similar warnings are found elsewhere, for example, in Paris, BnF, Coislin 292 (dikyton 49433), a fourteenth-century manuscript once at Meteora (lv). See
Demetrios C. Agoritsas, “Western Travellers in Search of Greek Manuscripts in the Meteora Monasteries (17th-19th Centuries),” Scandinavian Journal of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6 (2020): 115-60, here 120.
7
For other examples of manuscripts reused as binding material or flyleaves at the Megisti Lavra in this period, see
Elina Dobrynina, “Some Observations on the 9th- and 10th-Century Greek Illuminated Manuscripts in Russian Collections,” in
The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting; Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium of Greek Palaeography (Madrid-Salamanca, 15-20 September 2008), ed. Antonio Bravo Garcia and Inmaculada Perez Martin, Bibliologia 31 (Brepols, 2010), 45-53. For example ...
8
On the history of manuscript production at Athonite monasteries more generally, see
Erich Lamberz, “Die Handschriftenproduktion in de Athosklostern bis 1453,” in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio: Atti del seminario di Erice (18-25 settembre 1988), ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, Giuseppe De Gregorio, and Marilena Maniaci, Biblioteca del “Centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali e umanistici nell’Universita di Perugia” (Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1991), 25-78.
9
Jean Duplacy suggested that there were over 950 New Testament manuscripts on Athos, and at least 200 others now located elsewhere that can be traced back to various monasteries (“La provenance athonite des manuscrits grecs legues par
R. Bentley a Trinity College, Cambridge et
en particulier de l’oncial 0131 du Nouveau Testament,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, SD 29 [University of Utah Press, 1967], 113-26). See also
Efthymios K. Litsas, “The Mount Athos Manuscripts in the Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments,” KXyjpovo/xla 32 (2000): 245-50.
10
Seguier first purchased the manuscripts as part of his collection through the collaboration of an agent, a Fr. Athanasios Rhetor, with the support of the French ambassador to Constantinople, Jean de La Haye. See Robert Devreesse, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, vol. 2: Le fondsCoislin (Imprimerie nationale, 1945), I-XV;
Henri Auguste Omont, who lays out the voluminous\ correspondence between actors in Fr. Athanasios’s purchases in Athos and elsewhere on behalf of Seguier (Missions archeologique franpaises en Orient aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles, 2 vols. [Imprimerie nationale, 1902], 1-26). On Athanasius Rhetor, see
Dominic J. O’Meara, “The Philosophical Writings, Sources, and Thoughts of Athanasius Rhetor (ca. 1571-1663),” PAPS 121 (1977): 483-99. On Montfaucon, see
Brigitte Mondrain, “Bernard de Montfaucon et l’etude des manuscrits grecs,” Scriptorium 66 (2012): 281-316.
Emanuele Scieri
Maxim Venetskov
https://glasgow.academia.edu/MaximVenetskov
14
Henri Auguste Omont describes the reinking undermining the “purity and elegance of the first letter forms” (une qui altera la pureté et l’élégance de leurs forms permières), noting that this hand also “sans doute” added the punctuation and accents (
Notice sur un très ancient manuscrit grec en onciales des épîtres de saint Paul [Imprimerie nationale, 1889], 10).
See also
Bernadino Peyron, who thinks that Codex H was reinked in the tenth or eleventh century and accentuated at that time (“Due frammenti greci delle epistle di San Paolo del V o VI secolo che si conservano nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Torino,”
Atti della R. Accademia delle scienze di Torino 15 [1879]: 493–98).
Henri Auguste Omont - (1857-1940)
Bernardino Peyron - (1818-1903)
Elina Dobrynina
Academia.edu is the platform to share, find, and explore 50 Million research papers. Join us to accelerate your research needs & academic interests.
www.academia.edu
On the Dating ...
26 On Torino’s Greek manuscript collection, see
Paolo Eleuteri and Erika Elia, “Per un cata-logo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino,” Medioevo greco: Rivista di storia efilologia bizantina 19 (2019): 83-92, here 84.
27 On Severos and his bibliophilia, see
Susan Pinto Madigan, “Gabriel Severos Private Library,” StVen 20 (1990): 253-71.
28
Erika Elia and Rosa Maria Piccione, “A Rediscovered Library: Gabriel Severos and His Books,” in Greeks, Books and Libraries in Renaissance Venice, ed. Rosa Maria Piccione, Transmissions 1 (De Gruyter, 2021), 35;
Agamemnon Tselikas, “Λείψανα της βιβλιοθήκης του μητροπολίτου Φιλαδέλφειας Γαβριήλ Σεβήρου στο σιναϊτικό μετόχι του Καΐρου” (“Remnants of the Library of the Metropolitan of Philadelphia Gabriel Severos in the Sinai Metochi in Cairo”), Thesaurismata 34 (2004): 473-81.
Around twenty years after the Torino folios were purchased from Severos’s estate, two folios of Codex H (fols. 60 and 63) were acquired by
Arseny Suchanov, a Russian monk, writer, and diplomat who traveled extensively in the Holy Land, Egypt, Constantinople, and Mount Athos. In 1649 he embarked from Moscow on an embassy to Jerusalem to investigate discrepancies between the Greek and Russian liturgical books. His lengthy report on this, the
Proskynetarion, was published in 1653. The following year he was sent again by the
Russian Patriarch Nikon to
acquire manuscripts for the Synod in Moscow on Athos, which he accomplished with aplomb returning with over five hundred manuscripts.33 One of these was a copy of thirty of Gregory of Nazianzus’s discourses produced in 975 (Sinod. gr. 60 [Vlad. 140], diktyon 43685) by a certain
Nicholas, Presbyter of the Monastery of the Theotokos of Pelekanos in Asia Minor.34 At some point after 975 the copy had made its way from Asia Minor to the Megisti Lavra, where folios from Codex H were used in its rebinding process, perhaps as part of
Macarius’s reorganization program.
Arseny Suchanov
Sukhanov (the normal way)
31A sixteenth-century note written upside down in the lower margin of 81 v mentions Crete, a location visited by Severos in 1581-1582 and 1586-1587, although the connection remains uncertain.
Jean Duplacy assumes that these folios of Codex H also derived at some point from
the Megisti Lavra (“Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament emigres de la Grande Laure de l’Athos,” in Studia Codtcologica, ed. Kurt Treu, TUGAL 124 [Akademie-Verlag, 1977], 159-78, here 175), but he apparently did not have access to the folios or their transcription to observe the
post-production annotations.
Jean Duplacy (1916-1983)
32
Giuseppe Pasini, Codices Manuscripti Bibliothecae Regii Taurinensis Athenaei (Ex Typographia Regia, 1749), 70.
Elia and Piccione suggest that B. I. 05 and B. I. 23 were rebound after the fire in 1904, resulting in the separation of these notes (“Rediscovered Library,” 60-61).
33 See
Archimandrite Vladimir, Systematic Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Synod in Moscow (Moscow, 1894), preface (Russian), cited in
Aubrey Dillard, “The Manuscripts of Pausanias,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 88
(1957): 169-88, here 182;
Lora Gerd, “Russian Research Work in the Archives of Mount Athos,” in Lire les Archives de I’Athos: Actes du colloque reuni a Athenes du 18 au 20 novembre 2015 a Voccasion des 70 ans de la collection refonde par Paul Lemerle, ed. Olivier Delouis and Kostis
The Coislin manuscripts were originally the collection of Seguier, which he purchased through another Orthodox intermediary, the Cypriot-born priest and scholar
Athanasius Rhetor. After a failed trip to Mount Athos in 1646, Athanasius accessed the enclave the following year with diplomatic help from Ottoman authorities. He returned with around 150 manuscripts, which were divided between his
34 See
Kurt Treu, Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments in der UDSSR: Eine systematische Auswertung der Texthandschriften in Leningrad, Moskau, Kiev, Odessa, Tblisi und Everan, TUGAL 91 (Akademie-Verlag, 1966), 31;
Elina Dobrynina, “Colophons and Running Titles: On New Terminology in Describing Greek Manuscripts of the Ninth-Tenth Centuries,” in Greek Manuscript Cataloguing: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Paola Degni, Paolo Eleuteri, and Marilena Maniaci, Bibliologia 48 (Brepols, 2018), 239-51. The scribe is identified as Νικόλαος πρεσβύτερος τής μονής τής Θεοτόκου Πελεκάνου (287ν).
35 See Devreesse, Le Fonds Coislin, 2-9; and Omont, Missions archiologiques, 20-21.
36 For the Greek text and translation, see Agoritsas, “Western Travellers,” 122-23.
37
(Demitris) (Demitrios) C. Agoritsas, “Western Travellers,” 123-24.
https://www.academia.edu/57230699/W..._the_Meteora_monasteries_17th_19th_centuries_
THEFTS FROM ATHOS BY USPENSKY NOTED BY KALLINIKOS !
Likely the first public notice
Uspensky’s own correspondence, preserved in Saint Petersburg, includes multiple letters from Athonite monks asking for the return of stolen
items.42 Lora Gerd, writing on Russian travelers to Athos, notes Uspensky’s “bad reputation of a thief among the Athonites,” but ultimately justifies his actions as laudable, saving the valuable material from the inept clutches of uneducated monks.
One should not forget ... that in the 19th century it was common practice for
European scholars, who saw the precious codices kept in bad condition or mis-
used (for example, to roll cigarettes, fill holes, wrap bread or glue windows) to
expropriate them from their uneducated owners in order to save them.43
Uspensky himself made a similar claim: that his acquisition, “safely preserved in
the dry rooms of a Russian library, could be studied by everybody ‘in our common
Orthodox home.”’44
These claims by both Uspensky and Gerd are notably unevidenced, part of
the stock colonial language justifying unscrupulous methods. Unsubstantiated
claims of monastic ineptitude, undergirded by nationalistic sentiments, justified
Uspensky’s problematic practices, making him a savior that the monasteries did
not know they needed. Jennifer Wright Knust has referred to this practice as “colo-
nial aphasia,” whereby Western scholars and others “regard persons, territories, and
things as possessions designated for those with the technology to save’ them,” a
practice that usually tends to victimize those it purports to save.45 In the case of
Codex H, the Megisti Lavra was relieved of portions of their oldest manuscript (and
its host manuscripts) in unclear circumstances, even though they had preserved it
for centuries and had maintained a substantial library as part of a broader monas-
tic book network.
Uspensky’s own dubious justifications notwithstanding, the only information
on his acquisition of the Codex H folio comes from his own explanation of his
“saving” activity. But the fact that he reports it came from Vatopedi, not the Megisti
Lavra, suggests dissembling on his part. Scholarly perspectives on Uspensky’s
acquisition of this folio are divided, but it would not be surprising if some form of
unscrupulous dealing contributed to his acquisition.46
Barlaam and Josaphat (diktyon 37437).47
Kapoustin brought these pages to
Ukraine, having likely acquired the host manuscript from the Megisti Lavra
during one of his trips described in periodicals published in Kyiv from 1861.48
Again, the details of acquisition are notably absent. At some point before his death
in 1894 he donated the folios to the Kyiv Theological Academy, an Orthodox edu-
cational institute established in 1819 by the Brotherhood Monastery. From there
the leaves of Codex H were given to the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, a museum of eccle-
siastical artifacts within Kyiv’s Monastery of the Caves. The Vernadsky Library
opened in 1918, receiving manuscripts from what had been Kapoustin’s collection
during the 1920s and 1930s, including the folios from Codex H 49
KAPUSTIN!
SO KAPOUSTIN THE INVESTIGATOR WAS LIKELY A THIEF
38Duplacy, “Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament,” 164-65; Treu, Handschriften, 31.
39See Gerd, “Russian Research Work,” 530-34.
40 “Treu, Die griechischen Handschriften, 31.
4'Louis Duchesne and Charles Bayet, “Mission au Mont Athos,” Archives des missions sci-
entifiques et litteraires 3/3 (1876): 201-444, here 420. On Uspensky’s thefts from Athos, see also
Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, Mount Athos: The Garden of the Panaghia (De Gruyter, 2022),
249; Duplacy, “Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament,” 165.
42 Gerd, “Russian Research Work,” 533-34.
43 Gerd, “Russian Research Work,” 534.
44 Quoted in Gerd, “Russian Research Work,” 534.
45 Jennifer Wright Knust, “Papyrology as an Art of Destruction,” in Allen et al., Chester
Beatty Biblical Papyri at Ninety, 97-106, here 103.
46 Casper Rene Gregory notes that Uspensky had “cut, snatched, and stolen” (schnitt, riss,
and stahl) many valuable manuscripts from large eastern libraries (Einleitung in das Neue Testa-
ment [Hinrichs, 1909], 490-91). Treu disagrees with the characterization, suggesting that a man
of such high standing as Uspensky must have had approval of monastery superiors (Diegriechischen
Handschriften, 16).
47See Duplacy, “Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament,” 164; B. L. Fonkic, “Un ‘Barlaam
et Joasaph’ grec date 1021,” AnBoll 91 (1973): 13-20.
48 On Kapoustin’s rather extensive writing career, as well as his broader travels, see Lucien J.
Frary, “Russian Missions to the Orthodox East: Antonin Kapustin (1817-1894) and His World,”
Russian History 40 (2013): 141-49.
49See Duplacy, “Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament,” 164.
50See Duplacy, “Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament,” 165-66.
5‘On Sevastyanov’s trips to Athos and the numerous photographs he took there, see Lora
Gerd, “Petr Sevast’anov and His Expeditions to Mount Athos (1850s): Two Cartons from the
French Photographic Society,” Scrinium 16 (2020): 105-23, here 110-11.
52 Gerd, “Petr Sevast’anov and His Expeditions,” 113. On the political interconnectedness
of science and colonial aspirations, see Gerd, “Russian Research Work,” 535-38.
Emmanuel Miller (1812-1886), a French philologist, in 1886.53 j
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Miller
https://de-wikipedia-org.translate....tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
53 On his biography, see Emmanuel Miller, Le Mont Athos, Vatopedi, Vile de Thasos (Leroux,
1889), III-XXIV.
54Omont discusses the Codex H fragments in the context of the fragments in Supplement
grec 1155 (Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, latins, frangais et espagnols et des portulans recueillis
par feu Emmanuel Miller [Leroux, 1897], 2). On Millers travels, see Emmanuel Miller, “Missions
scientifique de E. Miller, de l’lnstitut, en Orient (ler et 2e rapports),” Nouvelles annales des voyages
188/4 (1865): 193-217,285-307.
59Emmanuel Miller, “Souvenirs du Mont Athos,” Correspondant 67 (1866): 982-1023, here
1011. Tellingly, he reports that he was not allowed to take manuscripts to his room at Vatopedi
(1012).
61 Miller, “Mission au Mont Athos,” 200; see also 207, where he asserts that monks tried to
surreptitiously sell manuscripts.
64 See
Litsas, “Palaeographical Researches,” 220-21.
The story of Codex H is obscured by what
Katerina Seraidari calls the Western “imaginary” of the Athonite libraries, which combines
narratives about great men and their beneficence, like Seguier; imperial patronage
and European states; and adventures to save antiquities from barbarous lands.65
65 Katerina Sera'idari, “Imaginaries autour des bibliotheques du mont Athos (19e-debout du 20e siecle),” La revue de la BNU 28 (2023): 8-17.
66
Knust, “Papyrology as an Art of Destruction,” 97-106.
