Ambr. C 222 inf. (gr. 886) [diktyon 42485]

Physical Description. Ambr. C. 222 inf. is a monumental codex on Oriental paper, with Western paper appearing only in the humanist restoration. Carlo Maria Mazzucchi (2003, 268) has described it as a «grandiosa silloge di poesia extra-omerica: tragica, comica, giambico-drammatica; lirica, esametrica, didascalica e bucolica». The volume begins and ends with two modern flyleaves, added during the twentieth-century restoration (ff. [A]-[B] and [C]-[D]); at the beginning it also preserves a small group of earlier flyleaves, dating from the humanist restoration (ff. [a], I-II). The quire-block of the codex consists of 363 leaves, numbered in pencil in the upper margin of both recto and verso (1-6, 36bis, 37-362). The current dimensions of the manuscript are 345 × 260 mm.

This manuscript is of particular importance both as a textual witness and as evidence of its cultural context. Above all, it preserves primary witnesses to authors such as Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Lycophron, Hesiodus (Scutum and Opera et Dies), Pindarus (Olympia), Oppianus, Dionysius Periegetes, and Theocritus, together with their exegetical traditions. Alongside these core works, the volume also contains about thirty leaves filled with excerpts and miscellaneous additions, written in spaces deliberately left blank at the time of copying – probably to mark the divisions between texts or to allow for notes, glosses, and later additions. This suggests that the manuscript was designed not merely as a poetic anthology but also as a practical tool for study and scholarly use.

On the other hand, the manuscript bears witness to a specific cultural context. The codex is the product of the collaboration of two contemporary hands: 1) the main hand, responsible for the corpus and possibly identifiable as a certain Kostantinos (according to a note on f. 362v: τοῦ Κ(ω)ν(σταν)τ(ί)ν(ου)), learned owner of the manuscript; and 2) that belonging to a professional scribe, who remains anonymous, active in certain sections (ff. 48r-80v, 82r-91v, 339v-362v). The copy was executed in Constantinople towards the end of the twelfth century (ca. 1180-1186), within a milieu closely connected to Johannes Tzetzes. As Mazzucchi has repeatedly emphasized, the principal scribe was no mere copyist: a layman from Constantinople, he was a tireless student and pupil of Johannes Tzetzes and Johannes Kamateros. He belonged to a circle close to the imperial chancery and likely attended the higher school associated with the church of the Holy Apostles, near the Pantokrator Monastery, where Tzetzes resided.

The manuscript currently features a green leather binding, produced at Grottaferrata in 1961, which replaced the earlier, probably fifteenth-century cover described by Martini ―Bassi (1906, p. 990) in their catalogue «tabellis ligneis corio, nunc partim, tectis compactus».

Contents. Ambr. C 222 inf. is a rich anthology of non-Homeric Greek poetry, encompassing dramatic and lyric genres as well as didactic poetry (see “Detailed content” about excerpts and passages added to previously blank leaves). The volume opens with Aeschylus’ Septem contra Thebas, although the beginning is incomplete, with eleven quires now lost. Considering the overall structure of the manuscript and comparing it with other analogous codices, it is highly probable that the missing pages originally contained the three tragedies Agamemnon, Eumenides, and Prometheus. From this perspective, this codex serves as a valuable witness to the so-called Aeschylean “pentad” (Prometheus, Septem contra Thebas, Persae, Agamemnon, Eumenides), a collection also documented in other manuscripts copied during the first half of the fourteenth century, such as Laur. 31.8 [diktyon 16239], Neapolit. II F 31 [diktyon 46199], and Marc. gr. Z. 616 (coll. 663) [diktyon 70087], albeit with a different order of the tragedies.

Following Septem contra Thebas (ff. 1r-12v) and Persae by Aeschylus (ff. 20r-39v), the manuscript continues with Aristophanes’ Plutus (ff. 45r-61r), Nubes (ff. 61v-78v), and Ranae (ff. 82r-105v), followed by Lycophron’s Alexandra (ff. 110r-175v). It then proceeds with a Hesiodic section, comprising the Scutum (ff. 176r-180r) and Opera et Dies (ff. 222v-252v), interposed with Pindarus’ Olympia (ff. 181v-206v). The volume concludes with Oppianus’ Halieutica (ff. 258v-298v), Dionysius Periegetes’ Orbis Descriptio (ff. 300r-339v), and the Idyllia of Theocritus (ff. 340r-360v) following the so-called “Ambrosiana family”, complete with scholia and interlinear glosses, and closes with a brief selection of epigrams (ff. 360v-362r).

History of the manuscript. The earlier history of Ambr. C 222 inf. remains unknown. It is, however, established that the manuscript was produced in Constantinople and was likely still in the East during the 1420s. At that time, an instaurator, probably acting to facilitate the work of a Western binder, renumbered the manuscript’s folios using an ingenious cross-referencing system to ensure the correct order of the leaves once the volume was disbound (about the system, see Bianconi 2018, 90). He is also responsible for inserting the flyleaves with the pinax – that is, the index of the entire manuscript – written in carmine ink (f. IIr). He also added the first two folios (ff. 1r-2v), partially restoring the missing text of Aeschylus’ Septem contra Thebas, the work that now opens the codex. This anonymous instaurator has been identified with the scribe known as “Anonymous 11 Harlfinger,” whom recent scholarship has recognized as magistros Johannes Kanaboutzes – a historian and grammarian known for his commentary on Dionysius of Halicarnassus –, a pupil of the Byzantine theologian Georgios Scholarios (1405-ca. 1473), also mentioned in the correspondence of the humanist Ciriaco d’Ancona (1391-1452) (see Giacomelli ― Maksimczuk 2023, and Giacomelli 2024).

About forty years after Kanaboutzes’ intervention, by which time Constantinople had already fallen (1453), the Ambrosianus came into the hands of a scholar connected with the Genoese communities of Pera, Lesbos, and Phocaea. This is evidenced by the scribe responsible for copying the codex unicus of Michael Doukas’ Historia Turco-Byzantina (Par. gr. 1310 [diktyon 50919]) – a richly compiled miscellany in which Hesiodus’ Opera et Dies was copied directly from Ambr. C 222 inf. According to a recent hypothesis (Giacomelli 2024), this scribe may even be identified as the author of the work himself, Michael Doukas. Contrary to Carlo Maria Mazzucchi’s view, which placed the activity of the “Doukas scribe” at the monastery of San Domenico in Pera-Constantinople, Ciro Giacomelli has gathered a series of elements attesting with certainty the scribe’s close ties to the Greek-speaking culture of the Genoese colonies. In this light, one can also move beyond the plausible assumption that these peripheral territories were entirely devoid of classical and Byzantine codices. It is therefore more likely that Ambr. C 222 inf., along with a substantial number of manuscripts consulted by Doukas, was kept precisely within the Genoese colonies of the Aegean, between Phocaea and Lesbos.

Not long after Kanaboutzes’ intervention, the codex arrived in Italy, although it remains uncertain whether it travelled via Venice or Genoa. According to Mazzucchi (2007), it may have followed a Genoese route: evidence comes from Par. gr. 2678 [diktyon 52314], a copy of Ambr. C 222 inf. (for the Scutum section) produced on paper manufactured in the Pavia and Milan area between the late 1460s and early 1470s. Since Pera – where, according to Mazzucchi, the codex may have been located – was under Genoese influence, it is plausible that the manuscript travelled from there to Chios, then to Genoa, and ultimately reached the northern Italy through the book trade networks linking the University with the maritime city.

An alternative hypothesis, proposed by Giacomelli ― Maksimczuk (2023), favours a Venetian route. In this case, the evidence comes from copies produced in Venetian territory, such as Ambr. L 38 sup. [diktyon 42948] (for Oppianus’ section), restored by Johannes Kanaboutzes himself and once held in the library of the Padovan patrician Giovanni Battista da Lion (d. 1528), or Ambr. A 155 sup. (gr. 52) [diktyon 42242], written in Venice by Georgios Tribizias (1423-1485).

As attested by an autograph note, once it reached northern Italy, Ambr. C 222 inf. came into the possession of Giorgio Merula (d. 1494), historian to Ludovico il Moro (1452-1508). Upon entering his library, the codex was rebound under his supervision, although this binding no longer survives due to a twentieth-century restoration carried out at Grottaferrata. After Merula’s death, his Greek library passed to Bartolomeo Calco (1434-1508), then to his son Girolamo, and eventually to the Collegio dei Calchi, as recorded in a seventeenth-century note on the front flyleaf: «fuit ex libris Georgii Merulae et Collegii Chalcorum».

Selected Bibliography. Studemund 1886, 211-256 (edition of the metrical opuscula on ff. 78v-80v); Martini ― Bassi 1906, II, 984-990 nr. 886 (description of the manuscript); Wendel 1914, X, XIII (scholia to Theocritus; siglum K); Gallavotti 1940 (about the identification of the so-called “familia Perusina” and its connection with the Ambrosianus); Irigoin 1952; Irigoin 1958; Russo 1965, 39-40 (siglum D); Ferrari 1970, 158 n. 1 (concerning Giorgio Merula’s autograph note); Magdalino 1984, 233 n. 20 (on the Λόγος παραινετικός in the manuscript); Palmieri 1988, 235-236 (for the edition of the text De aetatum cognitione; siglum A); Mund-Dopchie 1992, 323 n. 7 (by mistake the manuscript was assigned the wrong shelfmark, “C 22 inf.”); Gallavotti 1993³ (edition of Idilli by Theocritos; siglum K); Corrales Pérez 1994 (for the examination of the textual tradition of Hesiod’s Scutum); Pérez Martín 1996, 80-82, 108, 113, 125 (concerning the “Ambrosiana family” to which the Ambrosianus belongs for the Theocritus section, and regarding the tradition of Aristophanes’ Ranae and Oppian); Agati 2002, 312 (about the ligature epsilon-iota, typical of the main copyist of the codex); Berra 2000, 269 (for an initial dating of the codex’s script to the late twelfth century); Mazzucchi 2000, 203-205 (about the palaeographical analysis of the ligature epsilon-iota, typical of the main copyist of the codex); Martano 2002 (for a study of the codex in relation to the scholia and glosses on the Hesiodic Scutum (ff. 176r‑180r) and their edition); Kotzabassi 2003, 680 n. 4 (about the identity of the so-called “copyist of Doukas”); Mazzucchi 2003, 411-440 (for a codicological and content-based examination of the codex); Cavarra 2004 (about a medical-content annotation transmitted on f. 40r); Mazzucchi 2004, 263-275 (about the identity of the main copyist, owner of the manuscript); Villani 2004 (for the edition of the polysemantic lexicon transmitted on ff. 210v-212r); Mazzucchi 2005 (for some ink recipes in the codex on ff. 105v, 218r); Mazzucchi 2007, 419-431 (concerning the codex’s history during the Humanistic period); Pérez Martín 2006, 448; Pasini 2007, 339-340; Villani 2007 (for the edition of the etymological lexicon on f. 209v); Gow 2008²; Bianconi 2010, 91 (on the palaeographic features of the manuscript in comparison with other late twelfth-century witnesses); Marcotte 2010, 643 n. 11, 644-645, 650 n. 43; Martinelli Tempesta 2010, 179 n. 33, 180 nn. 37 and 40 (brief mention of the stemmatic relationship between the Ambrosianus and Ambr. B 75 sup.; siglum K); Mazzucchi 2010, 134-135; Pontani 2011, 250 n. 564; Schreiner ― Oltrogge 2011; Villani 2011 (analysis on the Ἀντίχειρ Lexicon on ff. 207r-208v); Bianchi 2012 (for a study of the colometry of Pindar’s Second Olympia); Galán Vioque 2012, 298 (about Isaac Vossius and Technopaegnia); Mazzucchi 2012, 427 n. 61 (for the identification of the main hand with the scribe of Patmos II, nr. 56, dated 1195); Delle Donne 2013, 52 n. 50, 54 (about Tractatus Ambrosianus and Tractatus Chisianus); Mazzucchi 2013, 259 n. 1; Speranzi 2013, 162 n. 62; Benedetti 2014 (for the edition of the three ink recipes preserved on f. 218v); Ferreri 2014, 51 and n. 100; Giannachi 2014, 100; Villani 2014 (edition of Ἀντίχειρ Lexicon on ff. 207r-208v); Cariou 2014, 309 (for the occurrence of John Tzetzes’ name in the scholia on Oppian’s Halieutica preserved in the codex); Cariou 2015a (analysis of the Epitome by Aristophanes of Byzantium included in the scholia on Oppian’s Halieutica on f. 258r); Cariou 2015b, 243, 256; Martinelli Tempesta 2015, 429 n. 21 (about Giorgio Merula’s bindings); Speranzi 2015, 291 n. 1 (on the restoration from humanist period); Giacomelli 2016, 99 nn. 215 and 217, 100 and n. 221 (especially concerning the relationship of the codex with Ambr. L 38 sup.); Martinelli Tempesta 2016, 237 n. 30 (about the type of paper used for Ambr. B 7 inf. (gr. 837), similar to that of Ambr. C 222 inf.); Martínez Manzano 2016, 379 and n. 58 (on the connection of the codex with Giorgio Merula); Vendruscolo 2016, 180, 182 (on the copies by George Tribizias and the so-called “Perusina family” of the Carmina figurata); Fries 2017, 748 (about the textual transmission of Pindar; siglum A); Mastronarde 2017, 78, 85 n. 65, 86, 205 n. 18; Bianconi 2018, 90 (on the restoration from humanist period); Wilson 2018, I-II (new edition of Aristophanes’ Comoediae; siglum K); Giacomelli 2019, 367, 397 (about the relationship between the codex and the Macigni family); Giacomelli ― Speranzi 2019, 136 (list of the manuscripts annotated by the “Anonymous 11 Harlfinger”); González Torroba 2019, 94 (siglum K [Ranae]; but the codex is erroneously dated to 13th century); Mazzucchi 2019, 443 n. 10, 444; Muttini 2019a (about Ranae [recensio Tzetziana]; siglum K); Cuomo 2020, 416 n. 67; Giacomelli 2020, 116 n. 50 (about the “Anonymous 11 Harlfinger”); Lehnus ― Frazer 2020, 363 (on Wilamowitz’s visit to the Ambrosiana library and his edition of Theocritus); Mazzucchi 2020, 294 n. 22; Sandri 2020, 67, 116, 179, 191-193 (for the study of the tradition and the edition of the so-called Treatise [9] Περὶ σολοικισμοῦ; siglum λ); Ucciardello 2020, 617 (brief note on the main scribe of the codex, Konstantinos); Vendruscolo 2020, 72 (on the copies by George Tribizias and the so-called “Perusina family” of the Carmina figurata); Fincati 2021, 238 n. 8, 288 (about Johannes Kamateros); Giacomelli 2021a, 332 n. 90; Giacomelli 2021b; Bianchi 2022, 100-101 (on the possible working methods of Tzetzes, as suggested by the evidence preserved in the codex); Braccini 2022 (about vv. 1-147 of Tzetzes’ Historiarum variarum chiliades preserved in the codex on f. 13rv; siglum A); Nuovo 2022, 427, 429; Zorzi ― Giacomelli 2022, 149; Giacomelli ― Maksimczuk 2023, 79, 90, 93 n. 64, 111-113 (on the identification of “Anonymous 11 Harlfinger” with Joannes Kanaboutzes); Orlandi 2023, 227 (on the hypothesis that the codex was used by Andronicus Callistus in connection with Theocritus’ section); Agati 2024, 68 (for a brief note on the arrangement of paratextual material in the codex); Nesseris 2024, 319 n. 8; Martinelli Tempesta 2024; Pizzone 2024 (edition of some verses attributed to John Tzetzes); Nuovo 2024 (edition of De soloecismo et barbarismo preserved on f. 212v).