Parisinus Graecus Research Articles

Parisinus graecus suppl. 209 – Pn

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus suppl. 209, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2671 – Ps

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2671, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2647 – B

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2647, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2670 – A

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2670, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2648 – Pg

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2648, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 1868 – Pa

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 1868, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2649 – Pr

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2649, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

Parisinus graecus 2646 – F

This article provides a codicological and historical description of the manuscript Parisinus graecus 2646, containing the text of Pollux’s Onomasticon.

The Inedita Homily In transfigurationem Domini (BHGn 1980a): A compilation using Proclus of Constantinople

In his inventory of the manuscript tradition of the homilies on the Transfiguration, Maurice Sachot stated that folios 46r–55r of the codex Parisinus graecus 1611 contain the homily In transfigurationem Domini (BHGn 1980a). He also stated that this text is unedited and that it is most probably a recension of the homily In transfigurationem Domini (CPG 5807; BHG 1980) attributed to Proclus of Constantinople. To date, however, this homily has remained unpublished and unstudied. After a brief presentation of the codex Parisinus graecus 1611, this article brings to light a surprise that emerges from examining folios 46r–55r of the Parisian manuscript.Contribution: The article proves that the homily In transfigurationem Domini (BHGn 1980a) is not a recension of the homily on the Transfiguration (CPG 5807; BHG 1980), but a compilation for which the beginning of the homily on the Transfiguration attributed to Proclus of Constantinople was used.

Sobre o manuscrito Alfa da Poética de Aristóteles (Parisinus Gr. 1741)

Dos manuscritos da Poética de Aristóteles que chegaram aos nossos dias, na condição de fonte primária subsistente (codd.), temos apenas dois textos gregos (o que consta no codex Parisinus Graecus 1741 (=A), proveniente do séc. X/XI, e o que consta no codex Riccardianus 46 (=B), do séc. XII), a tradução latina de G. de Moerbeke (codices Etonensis 129 (=O), de 1300, e Toletanus bibl. Capit. 47.10 (= T), de 1280), e a tradução árabe de Abu-Bishr Matta, feita a partir da tradução siríaca desaparecida. O que pretendo, nesse artigo, é descrever o percurso do assim chamado Manuscrito Alfa da Poética de Aristóteles, ou seja, a que consta no codex Parisinus Graecus 1741 entre as páginas 184 e 199. Pretendo ainda fazer alusão à importância de um estudo sobre as condições em que se dá a apreensão do texto antigo. De fato, a leitura que fazemos hoje da Poética é composta da variação de sentido inerente ao entendimento, o que é óbvio, e da variação, muitas vezes sutil e, via de regra, determinante, do que foi efetivamente escrito, há tantos séculos, com o estilete de um ou outro escriba.

The Text of Aristotle’s Poetics in the Codex Parisinus Graecus 2038

This article analyzes the text of Aristotle’sPoeticsin Parisinus Graecus 2038. There have been recent attempts to consider that thisms, written around 1470 by Andronicos Callistos, contains primary readings. One must distinguish readings which are based on the scribe’s analysis of the context, many of which coincide with those of the Arabic translation, from other cases where Andronicos tried to improve on readings of the paradosis. In the latter case, his attempts are nothing but either inferior readings orlectiones faciliores. This paper is especially concerned with Richard Janko’s review of Tarán-Gutas’ 2012 edition of thePoetics(Brill). Centanni, Janko, and McOsker are now the main proponents of the reevaluation of Parisinus 2038 and the text of the Aldine edition of 1508. The author considers that such an approach is detrimental to the study of this difficult work.

Byzantine Art and Gospel Commentary: The Case of Luke 13:6–9, 10–17

This paper represents a conversation between two disciplines that too rarely enter into dialogue: New Testament studies and the history of Byzantine art. Two gospel passages have been chosen for analysis here: the first is a parable, the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6–9); the second, which follows immediately upon the first, is a miracle story that provokes a controversy (Luke 13:10–17). Both passages appear exclusively in the Gospel of Luke. Our joint study will start with exegetical notes on the Gospel of Luke and the history of the interpretation of these particular verses and will then turn to the miniatures that illustrate them in an eleventh-century Byzantine manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Parisinus graecus 74 (figs. 1–2). François Bovon has interpreted the Gospel of Luke in a German collection, the Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, a series attentive to the history of the reception (Wirkungsgeschichte) of the biblical text in the life of the Christian church. He will explain the two New Testament passages and follow the path of patristic and Byzantine interpretation during these periods.

A poem on the refortification of Dorylaion in 1175

<!--StartFragment--><p style="line-height: 150%" class="MsoNormal"><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:85; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:129 0 0 0 8 0;} @font-face {font-family:Gentium; panose-1:2 0 5 3 6 0 0 2 0 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:131 0 0 0 9 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Gentium; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Gentium; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:595.0pt 842.0pt; margin:62.35pt 89.85pt 62.35pt 89.85pt; mso-header-margin:25.5pt; mso-footer-margin:25.5pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --></p><p> In the summer/autumn of 1175, Manuel Komnenos (1143-1180) undertook the rebuilding of Dorylaion, one of the major <em>aplekta</em> in Asia Minor. For this occasion a poem was written. The strong acquaintance of the poet with the conventions of court literature, the occasional content of the poem and its panegyric character, suggest that the text was written for a small ceremony which took place at Dorylaion. The author is probably an anonymous professional court poet who accompanied Manuel in his expedition. The authorship is further discussed since the manuscript tradition might suggest that John Tzetzes was the author. After a close look at the language, style and metre of the poem, this identification is excluded. In 1908, Spyridon Lambros published the poem on the basis of manuscript <em>Barocci 194</em> (fifteenth century) of the Bodleian Library. This study re-edits the poem on the basis of two more manuscripts: manuscript <em>Parisinus Graecus 2644</em> (late thirteenth century) of the Bibliothèque Nationale and <em>Auctarium T.1.10</em> of the Bodleian Library (sixteenth century). The history of each manuscript is analysed and the relation between them examined. It is established that the <em>Auctarium</em> is a direct copy from the Parisian manuscript. The metrical analysis of the poem follows and special textual problems are discussed. Finally, the translation of the original text is provided. </p><p> </p><p> </p>

La chronique familiale du Parisinus gr. 1601 et l'identité de son rédacteur

Abstract Codex Parisinus graecus 1601 preserves an anonymous family chronicle covering the years 1446–1458 which records in some detail the dates of its author's marriage and the birth of his children. Apart from restoring some readings from its previous recent edition, this article proposes an identification of the anonymous author with Ioannes Kanaboutzes. A scholar with historiographical interests, he is documented as a native of Phocaea and close associate of the Gattelusio, the Genoese rulers of the adjacent island of Lesbos. He is mostly known for his Commentary on Dionysios of Halicarnassus which he dedicated to Palamede Gattilusio, lord of Ainos and of Samothrace.

The exegetical initials of codex Parisinus graecus 41: Word and image in a twelfth-century Byzantine psalter

The aim of the present paper is to introduce to the scholarly community a practically unknown illustrated Byzantine psalter, codex Parisinus graecus 41. The following discussion will focus on the meaning and function of some of its illustrated initials, with particular attention to historiated letters which work as visual comments to the psalms they introduce. It is hoped that the material presented will inspire further study of the codex itself and will contribute to our understanding of the role of illustrated initials in Byzantine manuscripts.

The Parisinus Graecus 2293 as a Document of Scientific Activity in Swabian Sicily

The production of manuscripts can be an indication for the scientific, linguistic or medical interests of a community. In this paper the author argues that Parisinus Graecus 2293, a bilingual Greek-Arabic manuscript, containing parts of the first three books of Paul of Aegina's medical encyclopaedia, was produced in Sicily or Southern Italy, probably in Palermo during the reign of the Hohenstaufen. It is thus a testimony to the fervent scientific and medical interest of the Swabian court which promoted cultural exchange between the East and the West. The purpose of the manuscript was not so much to help medical practice but rather to further bilingualism by giving the reader a tool with which he could improve his knowledge of either language.

More Emendations in the Text of Maximus of Tyre

These notes continue the sequence begun in ‘Some Emendations in the Text of Maximus of Tyre, Dialexeis 1–21 (Hobein)’, published in CQ 41 (1991), 566–71. References to the text are by number, page and line in Hobein's Teubner edition; R is the principal MS., Parisinus graecus 1962, U is Vaticanus graecus 1390, I is Laurentianus Conventi Soppressi 4; U and I, being descendants of R (as are all other surviving MSS. of Maximus), offer conjectures not alternative readings. My thanks go again to Donald Russell and David Sedley for salutary comments on earlier and rasher drafts.

Some Emendations in the Text of Maximus of Tyre, Dialexeis 1–21 (Hobein)

All surviving manuscripts of the Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre descend from the oldest, Parisinus Graecus 1962 (given the siglum R in Hobein's Teubner text of 1910). Where they diverge, they do so as a result either of error or of attempts at correction. The history of the conjectural emendation of the Dialexeis thus begins with the second oldest manuscript, Vaticanus Graecus 1390 (Hobein's U), which dates from the third quarter of the thirteenth century. Since that time, the most significant contributions have come from two scholars, one of the fifteenth century and one of the eighteenth: Zanobi Acciaiuoli, librarian at the monastery of San Marco in Florence, many of whose corrections found their way anonymously into the editio princeps of 1557 via the manuscript used by Stephanus; and Jeremiah Markland, whose ideas are recorded as an appendix to the second, posthumous edition of John Davies's Maximus, published in 1740. J. J. Reiske's edition of 1774–5 and Friedrich Duebner's of 1840 (rev. 1877) also contain valuable material. But the field is by no means yet picked clean: witness most recently the useful articles of Professors Koniaris and Renehan. I offer the following gleanings of my own.

The place of Parisinus graecus 1813 in the tradition of the Phaedo

Le manuscrit Parisinus graecus 1813, du ΧΙΙIe siecle, contient un melange de dialogues de Platon, tires de manuscrits de differentes traditions. Pour le Phedon ce manuscrit est une source independante, et ne derive d'aucun autre manuscrit conserve. ; Le Paris, gr. 1813 appartient a la famille δ, et il est plus proche de l'un des deux rameaux, celui de Ρ (Palatinus 1 73) et de S (Paris, suppl. gr. 668), bien que son texte soit contamine par l'autre rameau, et par les deux autres familles. Des corrections contemporaines indiquent elles aussi la contamination. ; Le texte du Phedon dans ce manuscrit a subi des corrections conjecturales, a la fois erudites et temeraires. ; Dans le dernier quart du Phedon, le manuscrit sert de source pour le Coislinianus 155, utilise a son tour par un correcteur de V (Vaticanus gr. 225) d'une epoque plus recente.

An Unnoticed ms of Orphic Hymns 76–7

Because of an incomplete description of its contents, it has escaped notice that the fifteenth-century vellum MS Parisinus graecus 2833 contains Orphic Hymns 76 and 77 on folio 91 verso. The Hymns are copied, without indication of title or authorship, after Musaeus' Hero and Leander (lines 1–245), and before the collected (Proclan and other) Prolegomena to Hesiod A a, b, c, BEF a, b Pertusi, which are followed by Hesiod's Works and Days, Shield and Theogony. These are all in the same hand.