Physical description of Ambr. C 222 inf. (Constantinople, ca. 1180-1186)

Dating and Origin. For a long time, Ambr. C 222 inf. had been dated to the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. Only in the past twenty years studies by Carlo Maria Mazzucchi have allowed this chronology to be revised, placing the production of this significant codex more than a century earlier, at the end of the twelfth century (ca. 1180-1186). Mazzucchi transcribed and interpreted the annotations written by the main scribe, combining this analysis with a study of the manuscript’s material and graphic features. From this, the profile of the scribe–owner of the codex emerged: a learned and tireless scholar named Konstantinos, as suggested by an autograph note above the final epigram, Πέλεκυς (f. 362v). He was a pupil of Johannes Tzetzes and Johannes Kamateros, connected to the imperial chancery, and probably active at the school of the Holy Apostles near the Pantokrator Monastery. Thanks to the identification of his hand in the document concerning the σέκρετον τῆς θαλάσσης (dating to 1195), it is also known that he served as an official in the Department of the Sea (Patmos II, no. 56; Mazzucchi 2012, 427 n. 61; Mazzucchi 2019, 444). The result is a coherent and well-defined picture that situates the manuscript within its authentic context: the flourishing Constantinople of the late twelfth century.

Physical description. The manuscript consists of 45 quires, the first of which is a restored ternion, as indicated by the different nature of the paper and the later hand. This initial quire is defective, lacking its final leaf, and is made of paper that differs from the rest of the codex. On f. 3r it bears the quire signature ιβ (= “12”), thus revealing the loss of the first eleven quires.

The volume opens with Aeschylus’ Septem contra Thebas, though the beginning is missing. On the basis of the manuscript’s structure and comparison with similar codices, it is highly probable that the missing portion once contained the Agamemnon, Eumenides, and Prometheus. If so, the Ambrosianus would represent an important witness to the so-called Aeschylean “pentad” (Prometheus, Septem contra Thebas, Persae, Agamemnon, Eumenides). The predominant quire type is the quaternion, with some exceptions: a ternion in quire 3, quinions in quires 6, 8, 9, 17, and 35, and a senion in quire 7. As will be seen, the choice of quire type often reflects the activity of the two scribes, with the second showing a preference for formats other than the quaternion.

All quires are signed with Greek numbers by the first hand, from ιβ (f. 3r) to νε (f. 355r), placed at the centre of the lower margin of the first recto leaf. Some irregularities are due to the loss of bifolios or to accidental omissions: in quire 4, for example, the first leaf was already missing at the time of numbering, so the signature was entered on the following leaf.

The layout of the text, written in brown ink, follows essentially two patterns. The first, more frequent in the hand of the main scribe – Konstantinos – consists of passages arranged in two or three columns of varying size and shape, often irregular and not always proportionate, with intercolumns of uneven width; these sections are followed by large blocks of commentary copied across the full page. Since the manuscript was not ruled, and given the height of the page, the writing tends to slope downward in the first lines and rise again in the latter half of the final ones – likely due to the scribe’s uncomfortable position, probably working with the folio resting on his knees, as suggested by Mazzucchi (2003, 266). The second pattern, typical of the professional scribe, is a single-column layout, usually shifted toward the inner margin, with scholia arranged as a frame and enriched with interlinear glosses. In this section, the handwriting is generally more regular, giving the manuscript a tidier appearance and greater legibility.

The codex is, therefore, the product of collaboration between two contemporary scribes. The main hand, more cursive in style, is that of the compiler of the collection, Konstantinos, and is responsible for the transcription and annotation of most folios, including minor works and excerpta of a grammatical, lexicographical, and rhetorical nature, added on leaves originally left blank (ff. 13rv, 16r-18v, 40r-42v, 81v, 105v, 108v, 180v, 206v-212v, 215r-217v, 218rv, 253r-257v, 334v-339r). This scribe generally worked with quaternions, though he occasionally introduced ternions to close specific sections, such as the conclusion of Aeschylus’ Septem contra Thebas (ff. 118-123) or Pindarus’ Olympia (ff. 204-209), followed by quires filled with various excerpts (ff. 210-217). His brown ink varies in intensity, and his writing adapts to the available space: on some folios the script is small and tightly compressed, while on others the letters are larger and more spaciously arranged.

The second hand, more regular and precise, belongs to a professional scribe. He is responsible for copying Aristophanes with the commentary of Johannes Tzetzes (ff. 43r-91v), written on quinions with an initial sexternion (ff. 52-63), as well as other texts, including Theocritus and the Carmina figurata, for which he again used quaternions. This scribe uses a brown ink similar to that of the preceding hand, though varying in intensity, while purple ink is employed for titles, initials, interlinear glosses, and to mark the beginning of each scholium. The use of purple is confined to ff. 43r-70v, 77r-82v, and 339v-362v, with only a few shorter passages highlighted in red.

Both scribes adopted the practice of leaving blank leaves to separate textual units, whether within a quire or at the start of new sections; the same logic applies to the minimal decoration, limited to the use of distinctive inks.

In addition to these two twelfth-century hands, a third one – attributed to magistros Johannes Kanaboutzes (Anonymous 11 Harlfinger) – wrote the front flyleaves containing the pinax in carmine ink (f. IIr), and partially completed the first two folios (ff. 1r-2v) by restoring the missing opening of Aeschylus’ Septem contra Thebas.

The manuscript is now bound in green leather, in a cover made at Grottaferrata in 1961 to replace the earlier cover, most likely a fifteenth-century binding, whose restoration is attributed to Giorgio Merula. The latter was described by Martini ― Bassi (1906, 990) as «tabellis ligneis corio, nunc partim, tectis compactus».