Slike stranica
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

THEODORE OF STUDION carried on an extensive correspondence, especially during the three periods in which he was living in banishment. After his death his letters were collected by his disciples at Studion. The total number of letters thus collected was at least 11:24, of which over 550 ille extant, in several MSS., none of which contains them all or preserves the rimo order. They have been edited partly (1) by Sirmond, whose posthumous cil. was reprinted in Migne, Pili. 99, and partly (2) by Cozza Luzi (sce Bibliography).

The Sirmond-Migne collection is derived from Vaticanus 1432 (1), it MS. of the first half of the twelfth century. The letters which it contains are divided into two Books, and the division professes to represent a chronological principle, Book I. comprising letters written before 1.1). 815, Book II. froni A.D. 815 to the writer's death. There are 54 letters in Book I. (nominally 57, but in three cases, 45-47, there are only the titles of the correspondente); ind 219 in Book II. (No. 3 consists only of it heading, but No. 183 represents parts of two distinct letters). Two additional letters were added to Book II. by Migne (ils Sos. 220, 221) from another MS., Vat. 633; so that this colition contains in all 275 letters.

The letters printed for the first time by Cozza Luzi are taken from a MS, of the fifteenth century, Coislinianus 94. This book contains 545 letters, including all but six of those contained in V. The titles of the others had been published in Migne's cil. (Index, nn. 272-518). Cozza Luzi proposed to print only the unpublished letters, but he worked so carelessly that (in his total of 284) he included 8 already printed (namely, Migne, ii. 2, 9, 21, 24, 29, 56, 1831), 211). For his text he also compared another MS., Coisliniams 269.

The relations of these various ass., and of another, Paris 894 (P)--which was consulted for Sirmond's cdition,-have been carefully investigated in a most important study by the late B. Meliorinski (sco Bibliography), of which I may summarize the chief results,

[ocr errors]

Coisl. 269 was written in the ninth century and is itself the first volume of the original collection of Theodore's Epistles made in the monilstery of Stulion. It contains 507 letters and is divided into three Sections. Soct. ? is written in a different hand from that of Sects. 1 and 3 ; and Melioranski, on the ground of a palacographical comparison with the script of a copy of the Gospels dated A.D. 835 and signed by a Studite named Nicolans, makes it probablo that the copyist is no other than Theodore's disciple Nicolans, who had been his amanucnsis and shared his persecution. Melioranski also seeks to establish thilt the writer of Sects. 1 and: . 3 was the monk Athanasios who became abbot of Studion towards the close of the ninth century. The letters of Sect. 2 l»elong entirely to the years A.1). 815-819 and include all those publishal by Cozza Luzi.

In the ninth century a copy was mule of this Studito collection, but the letters were rearranged in a new oriler. They were divided into five Books. Books 1-4 contained at least 849, and Book :5 275 letters. This MS. is not preservel, but it is undoubteilly the collection which is referred to in Michael's l'ilu Theiluri (2:46 1) as consisting of five Books. We have an incomplete copy derived from it in P, which contains a selection from Books 1-4. The importance of P lies in the circumstance that the copyist has noted the numcration of each letter in the archetypic. Thus the letter numbered 170 in P ( = ii. 146, Migne) was 7:26 in the archetype. The highest number in the archetype is 849.

1, like P, is an anthology; it differs from P not in contents but only in form ;' like P, it contains none of the letters of Book 5. The two Books into which V is divided on it chronological principle do not correspond to any of the Books of the Five-Book arrangeunicuit. But from Book II. Ep. 37 onward the letters follow in the simo order is that of the older non-chronological collection, and therefore the order in V has no chronological value; the date of each letter must be determincil, if it can be determined, by its contents. Obviously the anthologies V and P cannot be independent of cach other.

Coisl. 94 is also in anthology (non-chronological). It contiins more letters than any of the other MSS., and the last 275 tre Book 5 of the tenth-century collection.

A new edition of the Epistles of Thcolore is desirable, and it sccms cvident that it should be based on Coisl. 269.

I The arrangement in p was loitserd (b) those of the thiril exile. T'he on two principles : (1) subject--forty. Urrangement of ľwas purely chronodogmatic egoistles, ou inace • worship, Jovical. The continentury collections were ground together and place at the from which both these anthologies were Treimui: ; (?! ırounlogy--the remain. derived was not based on chronological ing episodes were divided into two groups oriler (c) those of the first and second exiles,



[ocr errors]

Tie Chronicle of George the Monk is a world-chronicle beginning with Adam and coming down to the first year of Michael III. (842-843). Of the writer we only know that he was a monk who lived in the reign of Michael III., and that he did not put the last touch to his work till after the death of that Emperor. His interest was entirely ccclesiastical; he had the narrowest of monastic horizons; and the latter portion of his work, which concerns is, is inordinately brief and yields little to the historian. His account of the reign of Theophilus, of whom he must have been a contemporary, is contained in three and at half short piges (in do. Boor's edition), and of these more than a pago consists of it quotation from Gregory of Nazianzis. For this portion (802-813) he made 11sc of Theophanes ; Thcosteriktos, Vita Vicetue; Ignatius, l'ita Nicephori; the Epistola synodicu ad Theophilum ; works of the Patriarch Nicephorus. (Cp. his Pro- . logue, pp. 1-2, where he refers to modern histories, chronographies, and clifying works, which he laid under contribution). His account of the reigns of Lco V., Michael II., and Thcophilus has no pretensions to be at historical narrative; it is little more than the passionate outpouring of a fanatical image-worshipper’s rancour agrlitist the iconoclasts.

The text of this chronicle is preserved in a variety of forms which have cilused great perplexity. A great many MSS. aro

hilvo largely interpolatcıl, and in miny of these a Continuation has been adile, transcribed from the work of Simcon the Logothete (seo next Appendix). These MSS. are derived from an archetype in which large auditions were inserted in the margin, from the Logothete's chronicle, and the MSS. vary according as the scribes incorporated in the text various parts of these additions. From

1 The worls μετά δε θεόφιλον έβα. 27, 942, to Sept. 23, 867). But it woule σίλευσε Μιχαήλ υιός αυτού έτη κε' (ν. be wrong, I think, to infior that George 801) surely imply that Michael's reign wrote this in April 867. Ilirsch argueil

The author alles he reigned that the joint reign of Michael withi Basil for fourteen years with his mother Theo. (from May 26, S66). was not includel, dorit and was sole Erperor for eleven and that the words were written before yeitr's and three months." This wives Michael's death, but he reali' (on, where twenty-live years three nonths; it should is the (viilence of the JISS, establislie's die twenty-five years wiglit nontlıs (Jan. la črn (seedle Boor's critical note and loc.).

was over.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Lco V. forward they furnish a tradition of the Logothete's text. In several of them the “Logothcte's" authorship of the Continuation is noticed.

The later part of the composito chronicle, from A.1. 813-948, was printed by Combefis (1685) in the Paris ed. of the Scriptores post Thcophunein, and was reprinted by Bekker in the Bonn Corpus. The text was based on a depravce Paris MS., but Bekker usci Hlaso's collation of codex Coisliniams 134, which contains the Chronicle of Gcorge unadulterated by interpolations from the Logothcte, and signaliscd its variants. The whole composite work was eiited for the first time by Muralt (1859), who based his text on a Moscow JS., which, as de Boor las shown, is “ita interpolatus ut a genuino textu omnium fere plurimum abesse indicandus sit” (Gcorg. Mon. Pp. x, lviii). Muralt procurcil collations of many other MSS., including Coisliniams 310, but he did not reproduce them accurately, and he failed entirely to see their relations, or even to grasp the problem. De Boor's judgment on his edition is that "stuuliis Byzantinis non modo non profuit sed valde nocnit” (il. p. x). Nevertheless it was of some lise to Hirsch, who in his Byzantinische Suulien (1876) made it generally clear that the Coisliniani 310 and 134 preserve the genuine text of Gcorge, and that the other MSS. with which he was acquainted prosent an interpolated reaction (ep. 1. 14).

The difficult problem of determining the original text of George and explaining the interrelations of the numerous MSS. WILM attacked by C. de Boor, and his colition of the genuine Chroniclo of George Monachus appeared in 1904 (sec Bibliography, where his preliminary studies on the subject are notcl). He arrived at the conclusion that George himself wrote out his chronicle twice. The first copy was rough and perhaps incomplete, and a large number of illustrative extracts from Biblical and other literature were added in the margin. This rongh copy was not destroyed, and in the tenth century it was copied by a scribe who incorporated all the marginal additions in the text. This later copy exists to-day als Coislinianus 30:5 (the text only comes down to the reign of Constantine V.). Afterwarıls, (icorye prepared a revised copy, in which he incorporatcıl only pourts of his marginal material and treated the text of the excerpts very freely. All the other MSS. are derived from this second e lition (going back to an archetype which is most faithfully produced in the tenth-century Coislin. 310 and in Coislin. 13+), and it is this which the cdition of de Boor aims at reproducing. The hypothesis that these two distinct traditions are due to George himself explains the facts, but cannot be considered certain, as rehandling by copyists is a conceivablc alternative. See the observations of l’rächter in his revicw of de Boor's alition (B.2. xv. p. 312;.

[ocr errors]
« PrethodnaNastavi »