The “Ambrosiana Family” in the tradition of Theocritus’ Idylls
The manuscript Ambr. C 222 inf., identified by the siglum K, belongs to the so-called “Ambrosiana family” or “series Ambrosiana” (siglum Ka), of which it is the sole witness. It represents one of the three main lines of transmission of the textual tradition of Theocritus, alongside the Vaticana and Laurentiana families. This classification primarily concerns the poetic text of the Idylls, following the reconstruction of Gallavotti (19933, 297-299), but it is also reflected – albeit in an independent manner – in the transmission of the scholia, as illustrated by Wendel (1914, VI–VIII). Regarding the scholia, K’s direct apograph is Ambr. A 155 sup. (gr. 52) [diktyon 42242], from the late fifteenth century, which in turn is the model for Vat. Barb. gr. 214 [diktyon 64760] (see Wendel 1914, VII-VIII).
Unlike the manuscripts of the Vaticana family, such as Ambr. G 32 sup., Ambr. C 222 inf. preserves (ff. 339r-362v) the following works of Theocritus, in this order: Idylls I, VII, III-VI, VIII-XIII, II, XIV, XV, XVII, XVI, XXIX, Epigrams 1-22, and the two carmina Alae and Securis. In terms of textual value, the importance of this codex lies above all in several excellent readings preserved by it alone. Frequently, in fact, K agrees with the papyrus Pa (P. Ant. + P. Ant. 207, see Gallavotti 19933) in transmitting the correct readings where other manuscripts have corrupted forms. At the same time, K also exhibits unique errors transmitted nowhere else. According to Gallavotti’s studies, some of these mistakes can be explained by the transition from a majuscule exemplar to a minuscule one, a phase in which confusions were common due to the similarity of letterforms or the different handling of spacing. On this basis, he argued that the recension of the text transmitted by codex K had already been fixed in a stable form in the 9th or 10th century, that is, precisely during this transitional stage between the two scripts.
As for the scholia, the Ambrosiana family transmits the scholia vetera (which survive only for Idylls 1-18 and 28-29), preserved in codex K and its apographs. The scholia vetera transmitted by the Ambrosiana family (in practice, essentially by K) represent the most reliable recension compared with those preserved by the other two branches of the tradition (Gow 2008², LXXXI). Not all the annotations in K, however, belong to this tradition: a number of additions and supplements indicate that the scribes – above all Konstantinos, throughout the codex – intervened during transcription to complete or correct the text by drawing on other sources (see infra).
Philological Aspects of the Theocritean Text Transmitted by Ambr. C 222 inf.
Konstantinos – the scribe, owner of the codex, and architect of the so-called “Ambrosiana collection” – belonged to the generation of scholars immediately after Eustathios. He was in direct contact with Johannes Tzetzes (ca. 1110-1180), another eminent philologist of the period and author of commentaries on epic and tragic poetry, and was active within the lively intellectual milieu of the school linked to the church of the Holy Apostles, near the monastery of the Pantokrator.
On f. 339r of Ambr. C 222 inf., Konstantinos notes: σημείωσαι ὅτι ὁ τοιοῦτος Θεόκριτος, ὠρθώθη μετὰ τοῦ βαϊούλου τοῦ Καλαβροῦ βιβλίου· τοῦ σχολάζοντος εἰς τὸν Ψελλόν («Nota che tale Teocrito fu corretto col libro del pedagogo Calabro, l’allievo di Psello »; trans. Mazzucchi 2004, 433). This annotation offers a valuable insight into the circulation of Theocritean texts in the Comnenian period and into practices of transcription and correction within prestigious scholastic settings. The reference to a pupil of Psellos suggests that the transmission of the text was not limited to the mere copying of manuscripts, but also involved interventions by masters and students who introduced corrections or additions on the basis of authoritative codices or exegetical collections.
The expression used in the note (ὠρθώθη) nevertheless introduces a fundamental ambiguity: it is unclear whether Konstantinos is claiming to have personally corrected the text on the basis of Kalabros’ book, or whether he found those corrections already incorporated in his exemplar. Similarly, the reference to the “Kalabros” – just as in other places to Trichas for the Olympians – may point to the ownership of the manuscript by the teacher, to an edition prepared by him, or to a commentary employed as a model. In any case, the note highlights the complexity of transmission: even seemingly isolated branches of the tradition, such as that represented by Ambr. C 222 inf., were already subject in the Comnenian age to precise interventions, corrections, and possible contamination (cf. Gallavotti 1993³, 298).
Konstantinos’ note shows that the recension was stabilized through an active process, as is clear from the codex’s textual value: its correct readings in agreement with papyrus Pa, together with its distinctive features. The codex reflects a balance between the preservation of ancient readings and the targeted updates introduced by scholars and scribes, who intervened both to correct possible errors and to supplement the text with material drawn from learned tradition. The significance of this dynamic is even more significant when we take into account the manuscript’s connection – and that of its scribe – to the intellectual circle of Johannes Tzetzes. In this sense, Ambr. C 222 inf. is not merely a witness to a textual “family,” but a living record of Byzantine scholarly practices.