DUMBARTON OAKS TEXTS

XIIi

NICETAS DAVID

THE LIFE

OF

PATRIARCH IGNATIUS
 CORPUS FONTIUM
HISTORIAE BYZANTINAE

CONSILIO SOCIETATIS INTERNATIONALIS

STUDIIS BYZANTINIS PROVEHENDIS
DESTINATAE EDITUM

VOLUMEN LI

NICETAE DAVIDIS

VITA
IGNATII PATRIARCHAE

EDIDIT, ANGLICE VERTIT

ANDREW SMITHIES
ADNOTAVIT
John M. Duffy

SERIES WASHINGTONIENSIS,
EDIDIT JOHN M. DUFFY
In aedibus Dumbarton Oaks
Washingtoniae, D.C.
MMXIII
 NICETAS DAVID
THE LIFE OF PATRIARCH
IGNATIUS

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

by

ANDREW SMITHIES
with notes by

JOHN M. DUFFY

Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection
Washington, D.C.
2013
 © 2013 Dumbarton Oaks
Trustees for Harvard University
Washington, D.C.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Nicetas, the Paphlagonian, 10th century.

The life of Patriarch Ignatius = Vita Ignatii Patriarchae / Nicetas David;
Greek text and translation by Andrew Smithies ; with notes by John M. Duffy.
p. cm.
(Dumbarton Oaks texts ; 13) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae ; 51)
Title on page preceding title page: Vita Ignatii Patriarchae
In Greek; with English translation.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-88402-381-4 (hardcover)
1. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 797-877. 2. Photius I, Saint, Patriarch of
Constantinople, approximately 820-891. 3. Orthodox Eastern Church—Biography.
4. Constantinople (Ecumenical patriarchate)—History. 5. Church history—9th
century.     I. Smithies, Andrew. II. Duffy, John M. III. Nicetas, the Paphlagonian,
10th century. Vita Ignatii Patriarchae. IV. Nicetas, the Paphlagonian, 10th century.
Vita Ignatii Patriarchae. English. V. Title. VI. Title: Vita Ignatii Patriarchae.
BX395.I453N53 2013
270.3092--dc23
[B]
2012047642

In accordance with the rules adopted by the

International Commission
for the Edition of Sources of Byzantine History,
the text and translation of this volume have been verified
by John Duffy and Nigel Wilson.
 In memoriam

magistri eruditi et serenissimi

L. G. Westerink
 CONTENTS

Preface ix

Introduction xi

Abbreviations xxxvi

Sigla xxxvii

Text and Translation 2

Notes 134

Maps 160

Indexes
Greek Proper Names 165
Greek Terms and Vocabulary 170
Index Fontium 185
General Index 188
 Preface

In 1987 Andrew Smithies submitted a critical edition of the text of

the Vita Ignatii, along with an English translation, as a doctoral dis-
sertation to the State University of New York at Buffalo, where his
research was directed by the late L. G. Westerink. Subsequently Dr.
Smithies, an Englishman by birth, took up residence in Australia,
where he became a professional librarian in a field far removed from
Byzantine studies. He has had a very successful career in librar-
ies and until his recent retirement was in charge of the Australian
Antarctic Division Library near Hobart on the island of Tasmania.
In the intervening years his dissertation has been cited with some
frequency, but has not been easily reachable for consultation. In
view of the importance of the Vita Ignatii as a historical and cul-
tural document and given the excellent quality of Dr. Smithies’ edi-
tion and translation, there has long been a desire to see the work
fully published in the CFHB series. In 2003, during a term spent
at Dumbarton Oaks, I had the opportunity, kindly granted by the
then Director of Byzantine Studies, Alice-Mary Talbot, to make the
Smithies work the focus of a “reading group” for resident fellows and
other scholars. The scholars participating were—in addition to Dr.
Talbot—Denis Sullivan, Sofia Kotzabassi, Emmanuel Papoutsakis,
Paul Stephenson, Aaron Johnson, and Conrad Leyser. The results of
this productive exercise were a short list of minor improvements for
text and translation and a longer list of additions to the apparatus
of sources, the latter greatly facilitated by the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae, a resource not yet readily available in the 1980s.
In more recent times I was able to engage the services of a tal-
ented Harvard undergraduate, Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, who did
an expert job of converting the original typescript of Introduction,

| ix |
x | Preface

Greek text, and apparatus to electronic documents. Dr. Smithies did

the same for the translation. For my part, I have contributed the set
of notes to the text, and the Greek indices.
It remains for us to thank Nigel Wilson for verifying the qual-
ity of the text and translation, and to acknowledge the expertise
and skillful help of the Dumbarton Oaks Publications Department,
in particular Joel Kalvesmaki, Lionel Yaceczko, Noah Mlotek, and
Kathleen Sparkes.
—John M. Duffy
 Introduction

author and work

The Vita Ignatii attributed to Nicetas David the Paphlagonian is
closely linked with the so-called Anti-Photian Collection, the great-
er part of which was probably compiled in the last decade of the
ninth century.1 That collection is presented as additional material
in some manuscripts of the Greek acts of the anti-Photian eighth
synod of Constantinople (869–870), and in most cases it is accom-
panied by the Vita Ignatii.2 That fact led Assemanus to conjecture
that Nicetas was also responsible for compiling the Anti-Photian
Collection and in this he is followed by Dvornik, who admits, how-
ever, that some material must have been added after 899, probably
by another copyist.3 This assumes that Nicetas died in the 890s,
which is close to the older accepted date of ca. 890.4
Using internal evidence from the Vita Ignatii itself, however,
Jenkins has shown that a much more likely time for its composi-
tion is the period following the tetragamy scandal of 906–907.5
Jenkins argues that Nicetas found in the situation faced by Ignatius
over Bardas’s sexual laxity a close parallel with that of Leo VI’s
fourth marriage and he sees a reference to the latter in a passage
of the Vita Ignatii (PG 105:505D–508D = 28.29–32.2 in this edition),
which he believes to have been inspired by a letter of Arethas on
the same subject written in 906.6 He is less convincing, however,
as Westerink has pointed out,7 when he tries to equate this pas-
sage with the hostile tract (mentioned in the Vita Euthymii)8 which
Nicetas wrote against patriarch Euthymius and emperor Leo in
907. That tract must have been a separate and highly libellous pam-
phlet. Nevertheless, Jenkins’s thesis seems essentially correct and

| xi |
xii | Introduction

has the advantage of explaining Nicetas’s motives in writing the

Vita Ignatii: to castigate the conduct of patriarch Euthymius in the
tetragamy scandal and to calumniate Photius, master of his own
former master, Arethas, who had betrayed Nicetas with his change
of mind on the same tetragamy issue.
Following the discovery of the hostile tract mentioned in
the Vita Euthymii Nicetas was brought to trial and saved only by
Euthymius himself, who interceded with the emperor on his behalf.
Nicetas was then allowed to retire to (or was perhaps confined in)
the Euthymian monastery of Agathou, where he remained for two
years (908–910). It would seem, then, that the most likely date for
Nicetas’s composition of the Vita Ignatii would be between 910 and
920, the year in which all previous dissensions were closed by the
reunion synod held in Constantinople, at which whatever had been
written or said against Ignatius and Photius was declared forever
anathema.9
Whether Nicetas alone was responsible for the content of the
Vita Ignatii is not known. Karlin-Hayter thinks it unlikely that the
narrative of events prior to 878 was the result of Nicetas’s personal
research and suggests that Nicetas simply reedited and added ma-
terial to an already existing anti-Photian document.10 In view of
the fact that the Vita Ignatii is the only one of Nicetas’s numerous
panegyrics to contain anything of historical value,11 this interpreta-
tion may well be correct. Whatever the case, it is quite natural that
it should have been appended to the earlier body of material known
as the Anti-Photian Collection.
Further biographical details on Nicetas the Paphlagonian are
provided by Jenkins, who suggests that he was born not earlier
than ca. 885 on the basis that “if Nicetas was still Arethas’s pupil
in 906, he is not unlikely to have been much over 20; but if he was
already setting up as a teacher himself, he will not, however bril-
liant, have been less.”12 There is no indication of how long Nicetas
lived, but Jenkins accepts Vogt’s statement that he was still writing
as late as 963.13 Jenkins also reviews the many accretions which ap-
pear with Nicetas’s name in various combinations in the different
 Introduction | xiii

manuscripts, which have resulted in some modern scholars dis-

tinguishing up to three different people.14 He rightly dismisses the
title “bishop of Dadybra” either as a misinterpretation of Δᾱδ (sc.
David) or as confusion with an earlier Nicetas, bishop of Dadybra,
who signed the acts of the Seventh Council in 787, and concludes
that there is no need to assume any more than a single individual.
Westerink adds information on two of these accretions, pointing
out, in relation to the term rhetor, that in the addresses of Arethas’s
letters Nicetas is called a scholastikos, which usually means a law-
yer; and that the designation “Nicetas, also called David,” in which
David is supposed to be the monastic name, is comparatively rare
in the manuscripts, which may indicate that he took vows only later
in life.15 In connection with this latter point it is interesting to note
that in the oldest surviving manuscript of the Vita Ignatii (Venice
Marcianus gr. 167 = B) the work is attributed to “Nicetas, servant of
Jesus Christ,” and the words “who is also David, the Paphlagonian”
are added in the margin by another hand.

transmission of the text

The verdict of the reunion synod of 920, which had declared every-
thing written or said against Photius and Ignatius forever anath-
ema, was still being felt more than five hundred years later, at the
time of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). At the open-
ing of the fourth session at Ferrara, Cardinal Cesarini repeated an
earlier request for the Greeks to lend him the book containing the
Acts of the Eighth Synod (against Photius) and provoked a strongly
worded response from Mark, metropolitan of Ephesus, who point-
ed out that the acts of that synod had been annulled and reiter-
ated the declaration of anathema. It was only when the Cardinal
quickly added that he wished to consult only the Acts of the Sixth
and Seventh Synods (also contained in the book) that the metro-
politan agreed to provide a copy for him.16 Mark’s unionist oppo-
nent, Gregory Mammas, patriarch of Constantinople, also writes in
his refutation of Mark’s profession of faith17 that a book containing
the same synod material was held by Μονὴ τοῦ Προδρόμου (ἐν τῇ
xiv | Introduction

Πέτρᾳ)18 and, furthermore, that a book containing the Vita Ignatii

was held by Μονὴ (τῆς Θεοτόκου) τῆς Περιβλέπτου.19
It was another figure who played a prominent role in the
Council of Florence, Cardinal Bessarion, who was ultimately re-
sponsible for the transfer of the text of the Anti-Photian Collection
from East to West. An enthusiastic scholar and patron of scholars,
he determined after the fall of Constantinople to collect as much as
he could of extant Greek literature and in 1468 he bequeathed over
thirty cases of manuscripts to St. Mark’s in Venice. Two of these
manuscripts, numbers 193 and 194 in the inventory published by
Omont,20 correspond to Venice Marcianus gr. 167 (B) and Munich
gr. 436 (= C), the two oldest surviving manuscripts which contain
the Vita Ignatii and the Anti-Photian Collection.
After Bessarion’s death the manuscripts given to Venice were
poorly protected and part of the collection found its way into pri-
vate libraries. Despite an apostolic brief which excommunicated all
who unlawfully kept volumes in their possession, the manuscripts
were only partly restored.21 One of the casualties was Munich gr.
436 (C), which is already noted as missing from the library in the
catalogue compiled in 1545.22 It does, however, appear to have re-
mained in Venice, where it was used as a source for at least two
other copies and eventually came into the possession of Manuel
Glynzounios, a copyist and seller of books and manuscripts who
was active in Venice from about 1570 until his death in 1596.23
Although Glynzounios bequeathed all his manuscripts to the king
of Spain, there is no trace of them going to Madrid or the Escurial,
and Sicherl makes a strong case for believing that the fifty or so
Greek codices put up for sale in Venice in 1602 and bought for the
Augsburg library by Marcus Welser were in fact the manuscripts
of Glynzounios.24 They subsequently passed from Augsburg to
Munich in 1806.25
The rediscovery of the Vita Ignatii and the Anti-Photian
Collection in the West is closely associated with the Council of
Trent (1545–1563) and no fewer than seven of the extant manuscripts
were copied around this time (EFGHJMP). A key figure in that
 Introduction | xv

activity was Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza,26 Charles V’s ambas-

sador to Venice from the year 1538 or earlier and one of the Spanish
emperor’s representatives at the opening of the Council of Trent.
A learned scholar and patron of the arts, he built up a magnifi-
cent library during his stay in Venice, employing scribes whom he
sometimes sent to other parts of Italy or even outside the country
in order to acquire or copy manuscripts. Escurial gr. X-I-5 (= E)
was copied for Mendoza from the Venice codex (B) by Andronic
Nuccius, probably in 1545, and corresponds to numbers 151, 152, and
153 of Mendoza’s library.27 It was in summer 1545 that his library
was transferred from Venice to Trent and was thus made generally
available to those attending the Council.28
From 1538 to 1546, the most active period in the creation of
Mendoza’s library, his librarian was Arnold Arlenius,29 a copyist
and editor skilled in both Latin and Greek, and he was constantly
rendering services to travelers such as copying or acquiring books
and manuscripts. He may well have been instrumental in acquir-
ing a copy of the Venice codex (B) for the well-known Basle printer
Henricus Petri, to whom Basle gr. O.II.25 (= F) is known to have
belonged. This codex is made up of two manuscripts, the first of
which contains the same material as the Venice codex, and it is at
the head of the second manuscript that a later note makes the at-
tribution to Arlenius.30
Of the remaining manuscripts of this group, Madrid gr. O.29
(= G) was copied in Venice in 1557 by Cornelius of Nauplion (from
the colophon). The latter is known to have copied at least fourteen
other codices in Venice between 1551 and 1565,31 a number of them
for Francisco de Mendoza y Bobadilla, the great literary patron
and collector of manuscripts, who later became Cardinal of Coria,
then of Burgos. The manuscript under discussion does not seem
to have belonged to the Burgos collection, but strangely enough
it did closely follow the movements of the Cardinal’s library after
his death.32 Amsterdam University 68 (= H) belonged to Cardinal
Granvelle, another of Charles V’s representatives at the Council of
Trent. Ottobonianus gr. 27 (= J) and Vatican gr. 1452 (= P) both
xvi | Introduction

belonged to Cardinal Sirleto, who was scriptor and (from 1554) cus-
todian of the Vatican library and provided patristic texts from the
manuscripts of the Vatican for the Council of Trent.33 After Sirleto’s
death his manuscripts were sold to Cardinal Colonna in 158834 and
it was in Colonna’s library that Cardinal Baronius discovered the
manuscripts of the Vita Ignatii (P) and the Anti-Photian Collection
(J), of which he made extensive use in his Annales ecclesiastici, writ-
ten between 1588 and 1601.35 After Colonna’s death the library was
eventually sold to the Duc d’Altemps in 1611, but in the following
year Paul V bought back thirty-six of Sirleto’s Greek manuscripts
for the Vatican. Altemps had copies of these manuscripts made for
himself in 1619–20 and Ottobonianus gr. 138 (= Q) is the Altempsian
copy of Vatican gr. 1452 (P). Finally, the other manuscript belong-
ing to this group, Munich gr. 27 (= M), provided the exemplar from
which P was copied.
All the manuscripts so far mentioned derive directly or indi-
rectly from Venice Marcianus gr. 167 (B). However, one seventeenth-
century manuscript, Metochion Panagiou Taphou 361 (= X), seems
to represent a branch of the text independent from B. Interestingly
enough, this version of the text of the Vita Ignatii also appears to be
represented by one of the manuscripts used by M. Raderus,36 who
produced the first printed edition of the Anti-Photian Collection
(including the Vita Ignatii) in 1604.
Two other sixteenth-century manuscripts survive which con-
tain the text of the Anti-Photian Collection (incomplete at the end)
but do not include the Vita Ignatii. Both manuscripts belonged to
the great humanist and scholar Antonio Agustin, another figure
who played a prominent part at the Council of Trent.37 Vatican gr.
1183 was copied by Manuel Glynzounios38 (perhaps using as his
exemplar Munich gr. 436 = C)39 and was then offered for sale to
Agustin in an extant letter dated 6 April 1581.40 Escurial gr. X-II-8 (=
de Andrés no. 368)41 contains exactly the same material as Vatican
gr. 1183, was numbered next to it in Agustin’s library and may
well prove to be a copy of it. In 1587, the year following Agustin’s
death, his library was acquired by the Escurial, except for certain
 Introduction | xvii

items (including Vatican gr. 1183) which were appropriated by the

Vatican.42

individual manuscripts
All surviving manuscripts of the Vita Ignatii except for Metochion
Panagiou Taphou 361 (X) derive from Venice Marcianus gr. 167
(B), and the paramount importance of this manuscript was long
ago recognized by K. Schweinburg.43 Unfortunately, the copyists
of Basle O.II.25 (F), Madrid O.29 (G) and Ottobonianus gr. 27 (J)
appear to have complicated the picture somewhat by consulting a
second exemplar in addition to B. The evidence suggests that F and
G both made extensive use of Munich gr. 436 (C), while J seems to
have closely followed G for some sections. Another branch of the
tradition is represented by Metochion Panagiou Taphou 361 (X) and
by the unknown manuscript used by Raderus for his edition (= [d]).
Again the situation appears to be somewhat complicated, as X also
has clear links with Escurial gr. X-I-5 (E). The overall relationship
of the surviving manuscripts is illustrated by the following stemma:
[a]

B [d]

C
F
E
G
M J
H

P X

Q
xviii | Introduction

B  Venice Marcianus gr. 167, 14th century, folios 174.44 The manu-
script once belonged to Cardinal Bessarion, as a note of possession
written in Greek and Latin indicates (folio 1v), and it can be identi-
fied as no. 193 in the inventory of Bessarion’s manuscripts (see n.
20). Damage suffered from water and insects has made the codex
difficult to read in places, but most of the doubtful readings can be
verified by agreement among the derivative manuscripts and are
consequently not mentioned in the apparatus criticus. Mioni identi-
fies two scribes, the first writing folios 1–36, the second folios 117–73.
Another hand has made a marginal addition at folio 1r and a com-
ment at folio 23r.45 The codex contains the following material:
I. Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani IV vel Oecumenici VIII
(869–870) et additamenta cum illis connexa.
1. Nicetas David Paphlago, Vita Ignatii patr. CP. (ff. 1–36).
2. Michael Syncellus, Laudationis Ignatii patr. CP. fragmen-
tum (ff. 37–39).
3. Libellus de causa Ignatii, missus ad Nicolaum papam
Romae a Theognosto monacho (ff. 39–43v).
4. Nicolaus I, episcopus Romae, Epistolae duae (ff. 43v–46).
5. Epiphanius archiep. Cipri, Epistola ad Ignatium patr. CP.
(f. 47r–v).
6. Acta Concilii (ff. 47 v–116).
II. Acta synodi Photii Constantinopoli habitae pro unione ec-
clesiarum ann. 879–880 (ff. 117–163).
III. Photius patr. CP., Excerptum ex encyclica epistola ad archi-
episcopales thronos Orientis (ff. 163v–164v); De Spiritus Sancti
mystagogia (ff. 164v–173v).
The last item is imperfect and breaks off in mid-sentence with
the words καὶ φθοροποιῶν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπολαύνουσιν εἰ  .  .  . (= PG
102.345B11).
A detailed examination of the text of the Vita Ignatii in manu-
scripts CEFGJ shows that their copyists all used B as exemplar. The
mistakes and omissions in B, as compared with Raderus’s edition
(= v, for vulgata), are usually taken over by the rest, as these sample
readings illustrate:
 Introduction | xix

14.11 ἐξέτρεφε v: ἐξέστρεφε BEFGJ (C deficit)

30.28 ἀθεσμίαις v: ἀθεσίαις BEFGJ (C deficit)
40.3 καὶ πᾶσαν βάσανον v: om. BEFGJ (C deficit)
68.30 φυγαὶ v: φημὶ BEFGJ (om. C)
74.9 ἵν’ v: om. BCEFGJ
82.3 ἦν v: om. BCEFGJ
84.9 κατέστεψε v: καταστέψας BCEFGJ
86.9 δείλαιος v: δίκαιος BEFGJ
96.11 σπουδῆς v: παντὸς BEFGJ
106.1 ὁ ὁμολογητὴς v: om. BEFGJ
124.21 τὴν αὑτοῦ κοινωνίαν v: τὴν ἀξίαν τῆς αὐτοῦ
κοινωνίας BEFGJ

C  Munich gr. 436, 14th century, folios 104.46 The manuscript once
belonged to Cardinal Bessarion, as a note of possession in Latin
and Greek indicates (folio 1r), and it can be identified as no. 194 in
the inventory of Bessarion’s manuscripts (see n. 20). The codex con-
tains the same material as B but is damaged at the end and breaks
off in actio VI of the Photian synod (= B item II). A long section is
also missing from the text of the Vita Ignatii (8.6 τέκνων . . . 56.6
σπηλαίοις καὶ), which otherwise follows B very closely. In several
places the copyist has corrected the exemplar, e.g.,
62.29 παρὰ B: περὶ C
72.29 πρὸς B: πρὸ C
76.22 ἀλόγως B: ἄλογος C
114.20 περίεστι B: περιέστη C
116.15 προσφευγότων B: προσφευγόντων C
There are a number of small omissions (e.g., τε at 4.9; φημὶ καὶ at
68.30–31; ἐν at 70.16; ἀλλ’ at 74.6; πᾶν at 94.17; θεὸν at 102.12) and a lon-
ger one at 114.3–4 (αἱ θαυματουργίαι τοῦ ἱεράρχου προσπελάζουσιν)
caused by the copyist’s eye wandering from the immediately pre-
ceding word πελάζουσιν to the later προσπελάζουσιν. Sample mis-
takes and misinterpretations:
56.26 ταύτας B: πάντας C
58.14 χριστὸς B: κύριος C
xx | Introduction

68.6 πορθοῦντες B: ποθοῦντες C

76.30 κεχειροτόνητο B: κεχειροτόνητε C
80.1 ἰδιόχ(ει)ρα B: ἰδιότερα C
92.7 ἀπροσπαθῶς B: ἀπροπαθῶς C
94.13 ἀνίστασθαι B: ἐνίστασθαι C
106.13 ἐπύθετο B: ἐπίθετον C

E  Escurial gr. X-I-5 (de Andrés no. 347), 16th century, folios 245.47
The manuscript was copied by Andronic Nuccius for Diego Hurtado
de Mendoza, who is recorded in a surviving part of the Marciana
loan register as having borrowed the Venice codex (B) on 29 March
1545, and as having returned it on 26 September of the same year.48
Nuccius is known to have copied at least four other codices in Venice
for Mendoza between 1541 and 1543 and it seems highly likely that
his copy of the Venice codex was made in 1545.49 The manuscript
contains the same material as B, breaking off in mid-sentence at the
same point, but the whole is preceded by Hierocles’ commentary on
the Pythagorean Carmen aureum (ff. 1–47). De Andrés mentions
two watermarks, which he compares with Briquet no. 761 (Udine
1533; var. ident. Laibach 1534) and no. 493 (Udine 1524–30; var. simil.
Arnoldstein 1529). The copyist follows B’s text of the Vita Ignatii
very closely but has also corrected the exemplar in many places, e.g.,
20.11 τέρας B: κέρας E
52.12 πλεῖα B: πλείω E
60.28 τού<τω> B: τούτω E
62.29 παρὰ B: περὶ E
66.12 νότον B: νῶτον E
72.29 πρὸς B: πρὸ E
102.13 παράφυσιν B: παρὰ φύσιν E
118.22 τί γὰρ εἰ B: τί γὰρ ἢ E
There are a number of small omissions (e.g., καὶ at 6.2; φασὶ at
6.26; καὶ at 10.22; δὲ at 22.15; οὓς at 24.16; τὴν πονηρὰν at 24.27; etc.)
and two longer ones at 52.5–6 (καὶ τήξεως . . . σταυροῦντες αὐτὸν)
and at 126.28–29 (κατεδεῖτο . . . ἠσφαλίζετο), which were apparently
caused by the copyist’s eye wandering down to another occurrence
 Introduction | xxi

of the same word (in the first case) or word ending (in the second
case) in the line below. Sample mistakes and misinterpretations:
10.2 ἐπανηρημένος B: ἀνηρημένος E
16.21 ἀντείχοντο B: ἀντείχοντες E
22.6 πνεύματος B: πεύματος E
26.22 μετεωριζόμενον B: –ομένη E
30.5 καὶ τῶ B: καὶ τὸ E
74.3 θαμβούμενος B: θορυβούμενος E
122.24 λόγον B: λόγου E
124.24 ἀνατεθεματισμένω B: ἀναθεματισμένω E

F  Basle gr. O.II.25 (Bibliothèque de l’Université 28), 16th century,

folios 172 and 130.50 The codex comprises two manuscripts, the first
containing the same material as B and breaking off at the same
point, the second containing Hermias’s commentaries on Plato’s
Phaedrus. It once belonged to the well-known Basle printer Henricus
Petri, as a note at the head of the first manuscript indicates: “Hic
liber est D. Henricopetri quem ab eo Car. Utenhovius commodato
accepit.” Nothing is known about Car(olus?) Utenhovius, but the
loan of the codex to him may have had something to do with one
of the copies made from it (see H and M below). At the begin-
ning of the second manuscript is a note by R. Faesch dated 1632:
“Huncce codicem a. circiter 1530, una cum aliis comment. graecis
in Platonem accepit Henricus Petri typographus celebris Basiliensis
ab Arnoldo Paraxylo Arlenio, qui in contubernio vixit Don Diego
Hurtadi a Mendozza, Caroli V. imp. ad Venetos legati.” Faesch’s
source was apparently Marcus Hopperus in the dedicatory letter to
his edited works of Plato in Greek printed by Henricus Petri in 1556,
but the approximate date 1530 can hardly be right, as Arlenius was
Mendoza’s librarian from 1538 to 1546.51 The attribution to Arlenius
may well be correct, but it is not clear whether the first manuscript
as well as the second is covered by the statement. The codex has a
watermark which closely resembles Briquet no. 3086 (Laibach 1543).52
For his text of the Vita Ignatii the copyist appears to have con-
sulted B and C simultaneously, since the peculiarities of each are
xxii | Introduction

exhibited throughout. F repeats B’s marginal addition at 2.4–5, takes

over the mistakes of B at 62.29 (παρὰ) and 72.29 (πρὸς), and follows
B in all places mentioned above where words have been omitted in
C. On the other hand, F frequently takes over the idiosyncrasies of
C, e.g.,
56.10 θήρας B: θύρας, et η supra υ, CF
58.14 χριστὸς B: κύριος CF
80.1 ἰδιόχ(ει)ρα B: ἰδιότερα CF
82.27 φραγγίας B: σφραγγίας C σφαγίας F
88.4–5 πάντες λιβέλλους μετανοίας B: πάντες [space]
μετανοίας C πάντες [space] καὶ μετ. F
92.7 ἀπροσπαθῶς B: ἀπροπαθῶς CF
94.13 ἀνίστασθαι B: ἐνίστασθαι CF
118.25 παιδίων B: παίδων CF
Finally, F also exhibits some mistakes and misinterpretations
of its own, which are generally also found in the derivative manu-
scripts HMP, e.g.,
6.10 εἰρήνην BC: εἰρημένην FHMP
8.1 παντέφορον BC: παντάφορον FHMP
56.24 ἐξωνεῖτο BC: ἐξανεῖτο FHMP
60.8 ἐκείνας BC: ἐκεῖνον FHMP
66.6 μετατεθεὶς BC: μετατιθεὶς FHMP
72.12 σολέας B: [space]λέας C πολέας FHM, P a. corr.
80.17 ἐνεγέγραπτο BC: ἐνεδέγναπισι FHMP
116.8 νεφρικῶ B: νεφριτικῶ C νεφ[space]κᾶν FHMP
At the end of the Vita Ignatii manuscripts FMP add the phrase:
τέλος τῆς πρώτης ὁμιλίας.

G  Madrid gr. O.29, 16th century, folios 300.53 The manuscript was
copied by Cornelius of Nauplion in Venice in 1557, as the colophon
indicates, and it contains the same material as B, breaking off at
the same point. As with F, the copyist appears to have consulted B
and C simultaneously for his text of the Vita Ignatii. In addition to
taking over the mistakes of B mentioned above (under B), G also
follows B in many of the places where words have been omitted in
 Introduction | xxiii

C (e.g., τε at 4.9; φημὶ καὶ at 68.30–31; ἐν at 70.16; ἀλλ’ at 74.6; πᾶν

at 94.17), and the idiosyncrasies at 70.19 (ἐγγγάγγραις) and at 114.8
(συμβαλλεῖν) appear in BG alone. On the other hand, a number of
C’s idiosyncrasies appear only in CG, e.g.,
70.1 σαυτὸν B: αὐτὸν CG
76.30 κεχειροτόνητο B: κεχειροτόνητε CG
88.21 ἀπολογίαν B: ἀπολογία CG
94.11 πεσὸν B: πεσὼν C, a. corr. G
102.12 θεὸν B: om. CG
Furthermore, in the long section missing from C (8.6–56.6), G
often follows the F group against B, which suggests that at the time
of copying the section was present in C, e.g.,
8.9 καταπιέζων B: καὶ ἀπιέζων FGHMP
12.15 φιλοπ(ό)νως B: φιλόπυρος FGHMP
18.10 καταγχομένων B: καταυχομένων FGHMP
24.6 προῆγε B: προῆδε FG
26.12 ὑπεποιεῖτο B: ἐπεποιεῖτο FGHMP
There are a number of small omissions in G (e.g., ὢν at 6.23, καὶ
καταπαυθεῖσαν at 8.17, etc.) and a longer one from 40.15 (αὐτοῖς1) to
42.33 (μυτιλήνη). The copyist has also introduced a whole host of his
own mistakes (samples under J, below).

H  Amsterdam University 68, 16th century, folios 319.54 The codex

has the distinctive Turkish leather binding of Cardinal Granvelle
and includes an ex-libris of Nicolaus Joseph Foucault (d. 1721). It
contains the same material as B, breaking off at the same point (ff.
1–189), but this is followed by another work of Photius (Diatriba de
voluntatibus in Christo gnomicis) and letters of Clement of Rome
and Basil the Great. Da Costa distinguishes three separate hands,
two of which were involved in copying folios 1–189.55 For the text
of the Vita Ignatii the copyist follows F very closely (sample con-
junctive errors under F above) except that additions above the line
and corrections found in F are generally ignored by H. There are
a number of small omissions (e.g., ἀρετῆς at 42.10; ἦν ὁρᾶν .  .  .
xxiv | Introduction

θαυματουργίαν at 108.18; ἔνστασιν at 126.4) and the copyist has

introduced some peculiarities of his own, e.g.,
8.29 μετεσχηκότα F: μεσχηκότα H
16.15 προσηγάγετο F: προσηγάτε H
40.10 αὐτοῦ τοῖς F: αὐτοῖς H
58.18–19 κατατακέντες F: κατακέντες H
76.15 ψευδοσύλλογον F: ψευδοσύλλον H

J  Ottobonianus gr. 27, 16th century, folios 402.56 The codex be-
longed to Cardinal Sirleto and can be identified as number 41 among
his Greek theological manuscripts.57 In addition to the anti-Photian
material, the manuscript also contains the Acts of the Second Synod
of Nicaea (ff. 1–219). Folios 221 to 401 contain the same material as
B, breaking off at the same point, except that the Vita Ignatii (ff.
292–315v) appears out of order, following B item I.6 and preceding
B item II. Canart distinguishes a number of copyists and correc-
tors, one of whom was responsible only for copying the Vita Ignatii.
Folios 292 to 315 have a distinctive watermark, but Canart can find
no parallel in Briquet.
For his text of the Vita Ignatii the copyist appears to have
followed B for the most part (sample conjunctive errors under B
above), but also to have made occasional use of G. The errors of G
are found scattered throughout J, but in at least one small section
(on page 64) J appears to have been using G exclusively. Sample
conjunctive errors:
24.9 σκληρότατα B: κληρότητος G σκληρότητος J
64.16 ἐξέτασις B: ἐξέτασε GJ
64.20 ἐχειροδότησεν B: ἐχειροδότεεν G ἐχειροδότε J
64.22 τιν’ ἄλλον B: τ’ ἤελλον GJ
64.30 γίνεται B: γίαν GJ
66.1 τις B: τε GJ
78.13 μάμαντος B: μάμαρτος GJ
80.26 δεσμούμενον B: θεσμούμενον GJ
92.18 καταδοχῆς B: καταδοκῆς GJ
120.5 σύγγραμμα B: σύγγραμα GJ
 Introduction | xxv

The copyist has also corrected B in several places, e.g.,

2.17 διεστὼς B: διεστὸς J
20.11 τέρας B: κέρας J (following G)
62.29 παρὰ B: περὶ J (following G)
78.12 τῶ B: τὸ J
94.7 μόλιβον B: μόλιβδον J
There are a number of small omissions (e.g., τὸν τῶν at 10.30;
οὖν at 18.22; χαλεπὸν at 56.14; καὶ τοῦ τῆς ἁμαρτίας at 100.3; καὶ
προφητικώτατον at 122.7) and a longer one at 104.14–15 (ὁ θεῖος
ἰγνάτιος τοιαύταις νουθεσίαις καὶ διδασκαλίαις). The copyist has
also introduced some peculiar errors of his own, e.g.,
4.24 ὑπῆρχε B: ὑπῆσχε J
8.2 φυγάδων B: φυγάδα J
8.11 ἐντεῦθεν B: ἠταθεν (sic) J
10.2 ἐπανηρημένος B: ἀνηρημένος J, etc.

M  Munich gr. 27, 15th and 16th centuries, various hands, folios
499.58 In addition to the anti-Photian material, the codex contains
writings of Bessarion and others on the procession of the Holy
Spirit, material relating to the synod of Ephesus and a treatise on
the heretical writings of Acindinus and Barlaam (incomplete at the
end, where the manuscript is damaged). Folios 284 to 463 contain
the same material as B, breaking off at the same point. The copyist
follows F’s text of the Vita Ignatii very closely (sample conjunctive
errors under F above), but a whole series of marginal corrections
have been added by what looks like a different hand. Almost all of
these have been faithfully repeated by P, which clearly used M as
exemplar. Sample marginal corrections:
8.9 καὶ ἀπιέζων FMP: ἴσως καταπιέζων add. mg. MP
12.26 παιδοτριβούνιος FMP: ἴσ. παιδοτριβούμενος add.
mg. MP
26.9 ἐναποθέμεθα FMP: ἴσ. ἐναποθέμενος add. mg. MP
34.29 τὰ FMP: ἴσως τε add. mg. MP
40.23 παρεδίδου FMP: ἴσως παρεδίδουν add. mg. MP
60.28 καυχασμὸν FMP: ἴσως καγχασμὸν add. mg. MP
xxvi | Introduction

78.9 φιλία FMP: ἴσως φιλίαν add. mg. MP

94.7 μόλιβον FMP: ἴσως μόλιβδον add. mg. MP
There are a number of small omissions (e.g., τε at 4.9; δὲ at 8.23;
καὶ1 at 36.16; δὲ at 38.10, etc.) and the copyist has introduced some
peculiar errors of his own, which are generally also found in P, e.g.,
4.9 ἀγνοοῦσιν F: ἀγνοῦσιν MP
4.24 ἄνω μεταχωρήσαντος F: ἄνωθεν χωρήσαντος MP
10.21 οὔτε F: ὅτε MP
18.11 ἄφθονον F: ἄφονον MP
32.8 ἐπιδαψιλεύεται F: ἐπιδαψιλεύετε MP
46.23–24 ἐνδυσάμενος F: ἐνδησάμενος MP
48.10 χειροτονηθεὶς F: χειροτονησθεὶς MP
54.19 ἀνειλημμένος F: ἀνειλημένος MP, etc.

P  Vatican gr. 1452, 16th century, folios 62.59 The codex belonged
to Cardinal Sirleto and can be identified as number 128 among his
Greek theological manuscripts.60 It has a watermark which closely
resembles Briquet no. 518 (Verona 1545). The manuscript contains
only the Vita Ignatii and is clearly a copy of M (sample conjunc-
tive errors and identical marginal corrections under M above). The
copyist has also introduced some peculiar errors of his own, e.g.,
12.7 νικήτας M: νικήσας P
34.29 προσεπέλασε M: προσέλασε P
38.31 ἔρευναν M: εὔρευναν P
56.7 ἀποστολικῶς M: ἀποστολιστῶς P, etc.

Q  Ottobonianus gr. 138, 17th century, folios 100.61 As mentioned

above, this codex is the copy of P made for the Duc d’Altemps in
1619–20 after Paul V had bought back thirty-six of Sirleto’s Greek
manuscripts (including Vatican gr. 1452) for the Vatican.62

X  Metochion Panagiou Taphou 361, 17th century, folios 132.63 The

codex contains six miscellaneous items followed by an acepha-
lous text of the Vita Ignatii (ff. 92–132). The colophon has a note
of possession written in Greek by a certain Gregory of Crete, but
 Introduction | xxvii

unfortunately it is not possible to decipher what appears to be a

family name. In addition to the section missing at the beginning
(2.1–24.15), the text of the Vita Ignatii has several lacunas (92.28–
94.11; 98.1–104.15; 106.7–114.7; 114.15–116.7) and another section (44.17
τῶν γνωσιωτέρων . . . 52.28 εἰσελθεῖν), omitted in its proper place,
has been included at a later point (after ἐβλασφημεῖτο at 60.30). The
large number of instances in which X and the text of Raderus’s edi-
tion are in agreement against the other manuscripts indicates that
the version in X derives, at least in part, from [d] (the unknown
manuscript used by Raderus), and corresponding readings have
been reported in the apparatus criticus (Xv). Elsewhere, however, X
joins the tradition found in B and its derivatives against the edition,
and it has not been thought necessary to report these readings in
the apparatus, e.g.,
24.31 ἀποτρίψασθαι BX: ἀπορρύψασθαι v
26.3 κρίνει BX: κρίνων v
26.24 προσχωρεῖ BX: προχωρεῖ v
26.27 ἀποκείρας BX: ἀπόκειραι v
26.30 κατὰ BX: om. v, etc.
Furthermore, in a number of places X follows the peculiar er-
rors of E, which seems to indicate that the latter or one of its de-
rivatives provided the B group exemplar for X’s version. Sample
conjunctive errors:
26.22 μετεωριζόμενον v: μετεωριζομένη EX
30.5 καὶ τῷ v: καὶ τὸ EX
52.5–6 καὶ πήξεως . . . σταυροῦντες v: om. EX
122.24 λόγον v: λόγου EX
124.24 ἀνατεθεματισμένῳ v: ἀναθεματισμένω EX
126.28–29 κατεδεῖτο . . . ἠσφαλίζετο v: om. EX
X provides few worthwhile readings in its own right and only
the following corrections (made by X or its exemplar?) have been
retained:
56.12 ἐξεσπασμένον X: ἐξηπτασμένον Bv
56.14 δρόμωσι X: δρομεῦσιν B δρομεῦσι v
82.15 προφερόμενα X: προσφερόμενα Bv
xxviii | Introduction

In general, the copyist displays an indifference to textual accu-

racy and is frequently responsible for arbitrary rewriting, tenden-
tious changes, and transpositions of the text, e.g.,
24.21–22 οὐκ ἀγαθὸς δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν πικρὸς Bv: οὐκ ἀγαθὸς
μέν, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ λίαν πονηρὸς καὶ πικρὸς X
58.25 ἐπισυστάσεως ληστρικῆς Bv: ληστ. ἐπιστάσεως X
70.15–16 οὐδὲ τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλείου τῶν λόγων κατακούων
ηὐλαβήθης Bv: οὐδὲ τῶν λόγων τοῦ ἁγίου βασιλείου
ηὐλαβήθη ἀκούων X
78.16 κεκρατηκὼς Bv: βεβασιλευκὼς X
84.21–22 τῆ εἰσόδω συμπεσοῦσαν Bv: εἰσόδοις ἐμπεσοῦσαν X
104.23 θεοῦ νόμον Bv: θεοῦ φόβον X
116.14 ἁλύσεως πᾶσαν Bv: ἁλύσεως ἧς τοὺς ἱεροὺς πόδας
πρῶτον ἄνδρες κατέκλεισαν ἀσεβεῖς πᾶσαν X
124.17 τις αὐτῶν αὐτῶ μετὰ ταῦτα κοινωνεῖν ἀνωμο­
λόγησεν Bv: τινα αὐτῶν κοινωνεῖν αὐτῶ εὗρεν
ἀνομολογοῦντα μετὰ ταῦτα X
All such idiosyncracies and inaccuracies have been left out of
the apparatus.
The copyist has also added numerous marginal comments,
sometimes to make brief mention of some of Nicetas’s main points,
sometimes to indulge in anti-Photian exclamations. “Just look at
Photius’s virtue!” appears several times, always sarcastically, and
ὥραιον is found more than once in praise of anti-Photian rhetoric.
Furthermore, at the point where Nicetas mentions Photius excom-
municating the Pope (76.15–16), the copyist exclaims: “Just see what
the new devil is perpetrating!”

Editions, translations
1. Editio princeps of the Vita Ignatii by M. Raderus, Acta sac-
rosancti concilii octavi (Ingolstadt, 1604), 78–193. Raderus
edited the whole of the Anti-Photian Collection, but it is
not clear which manuscripts he used. Assemanus states
that he collated the Munich manuscripts (CM) with codi-
ces of the Vatican and Antonio Agustin (J and Vatican gr.
 Introduction | xxix

1183).64 However, this cannot be the full picture, as it does

not account for the unknown manuscript (= [d]) used by
Raderus. The readings of the edition are recorded in the
apparatus as v (= vulgata) and where Raderus mentioned a
variant, the readings are recorded as v1 and v2 (e.g., at 24.20
etc.) Raderus also provided a translation into Latin, which
was published with the text.
2. Raderus’s text and translation were then republished with
additional annotations in the various collections of church
councils:
Concilia generalia ecclesiae catholicae (Rome, 1608–1612),
3.2:302–47.
P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrosancta concilia (Paris,
1671–1672), 8:1179–1260.
I. Hardouin, Acta conciliorum (Paris, 1715), 5:943–1009.
I.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collectio (Venice, 1769–1798), 16:209–92.
Their final republication was in PG 105:488–574. PG col-
umn numbers are given in the inner margin of the text in
this edition.
3. The Vita Ignatii was translated into vernacular Greek
in 1640 by Neophytus Rhodinus and presented to the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. It survives
today in the Vatican library as Borgianus gr. 17.65

Editorial conventions
In establishing the text the readings of B have been preferred ex-
cept where an alternative in the edition seems obviously correct or
where words appear to have been omitted from B (e.g., καὶ πᾶσαν
βάσανον at 40.3; ἵν’ at 74.9). Whenever B and v are at variance, the
difference is highlighted in a positive apparatus, in which all read-
ings that make any kind of sense by themselves are recorded. The
readings of all manuscripts deriving from B have been eliminated,
except for the small number of cases where they have corrected the
text by a successful conjecture (e.g., 20.11 κέρας EGJ: τέρας B πέρας
xxx | Introduction

v). This also applies to X, which otherwise appears in the apparatus

only when it has readings in common with v, in order to illustrate
what might have been the reading of [d].
Spelling errors in B and v have generally been corrected silently
unless they are of some special interest. Cases such as the following
have not been mentioned:
2.25 ἀπηλλαγμένοις B: ἀπηλαγμένοις v
4.6 παρακολουθήσασαν B: παρακαλουθήσασαν v
8.17 μυσαρὸς v: μισαρὸς B
10.11 συνωμοτῶν v: συνομωτῶν B
24.16 παρρησιάσαιτο v: παρρησιάσετο B
28.17 ἀμυνεῖσθαι Xv: ἀμηνῦσθαι B
40.21 μιτυλήνην Xv: μυτιλήνην B
62.16 συνετέτατο Xv: συνετέταττο B
70.19 ἐν γάγγραις Xv: ἐγγγάγγραις B
114.8 συμβαλεῖν Xv: συμβαλλεῖν B
B seems to prefer -γγ- to -γκ- (see also 114.17 ἐγκυμονοῦσα v:
ἐγγυμονοῦσα B, etc.).
Numerous cases of iotacism, particularly in B, have also been
passed over in silence, e.g.,
6.3 διιθύνας v: διηθύνας B
6.11 πριγκιπίους B: Πριγκιπείους v
8.6 ἀπηνῆ v: ἀπεινῆ B
20.9 λεκανομάντιν v: λεκανομάντην B
20.14 ὑπομεμενηκὼς v: ὑπομεμενικὼς B
With regard to movable nu the text follows B’s practice, which
is generally correct in using it only before vowels (though it often
applies the same principle at the end of sentences too). There are,
however, a few exceptions in B to the general rule (e.g., ἐξέκοψεν at
28.16; δρομεῦσιν at 56.14; πάθεσιν at 98.32; πίστεσιν at 100.14).
In matters of elision too the text follows B’s practice, which
again seems reasonably consistent. Prepositions with final vowels
are generally elided before a following vowel (exceptions with ὑπὸ at
8.8; 28.8; 124.23), as are ἀλλὰ and other commonly elided words. The
particles δέ and τε are generally not elided, except when combined
 Introduction | xxxi

with the negative (i.e. οὐδ’, μητ’). There are a few exceptions to this,
however (e.g., δ’ ἂν at 2.20; τ’ ἐγεγόνει at 38.9; δ’ ἄρ’ ἦν at 76.5; δ’
ἀληθὲς at 116.26). Crasis is used by B when appropriate.

Notes to the Introduction

1 For a detailed account of this material see F. Dvornik, The Photian
Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948), 216–78.
2 Two known exceptions are Vatican gr. 1183 and Escurial gr. X-II-8,
which are discussed in more detail on p. xvi.
3 G. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca iuris orientalis canonici et civilis, vol. 1,
Codex canonum ecclesiae Graecae (Rome, 1762), 322–25. Dvornik, Photian
Schism, 274–75.
4 K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich,
1897), 167.
5 R. J. H. Jenkins, “A Note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the Vita
Ignatii,” DOP 19 (1965): 244–47.
6 R. J. H. Jenkins and B. Laourdas, “Eight Letters of Arethas on the
Fourth Marriage of Leo the Wise,” Hellenika 14 (1956): 298–303.
7 L. G. Westerink, “Nicetas the Paphlagonian on the End of the World,”
in Essays in Memory of Basil Laourdas (Thessalonike, 1975), 181.
8 P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii (Brussels, 1970), 106, 9–10. For a de-
tailed reconstruction of Nicetas’s part in the tetragamy affair based on the
evidence of Vita Euthymii, Arethas’s letters to Nicetas, and Nicetas’s letters to
Arethas and others, see Westerink, “Nicetas the Paphlagonian,” 178–82.
9 [The date at which the VI was written has long been the subject of
scholarly debate and disagreement, mainly due to the lack of indisputable data
either within the Life itself or available from other sources. In modern times
the issue seemed to have been more or less settled by an important short ar-
ticle that Romilly Jenkins published under the title, “A Note on Nicetas David
Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii” (above, n. 5). Jenkins argued that the docu-
ment reflected Nicetas David’s emotional preoccupation with the Tetragamy
struggle of 906–907, was partly composed in that period, and probably com-
pleted in the years 908–910. That timeframe has generally been accepted and
A. Smithies, as we see, went a step further and posited the reasonable terminus
ante quem of 920, based on the promulgation of the Tome of Union in that
year. In recent times, however, a Russian scholar, Irina Tamarkina, has re-
opened the discussion. Her careful study, “The Date of the Life of the Patriarch
Ignatius Reconsidered,” BZ 99, no. 2 (2006): 615–30, not only subjects each of
the traditional arguments to minute scrutiny, but also brings into the picture
some passages from lesser-known writings of Nicetas David and other relevant
texts. She does succeed in highlighting the precariousness of the evidence cited
xxxii | Introduction

by Jenkins and makes a plausible case for distancing the composition of the
VI from the context of the Tetragamy affair. Her own suggested time frame is
between 886 (after the death of Emperor Basil I) and 901–902 (the beginning
of the patriarchate of Nicolaus Mysticus, the third successor of Photius).
It seems to me that, after everything has been taken into account, the
most secure estimate of the time of composition would be the first or second
decade of the tenth century. JMD.]
10 Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii, 218.
11 As Krumbacher, Geschichte, 168, points out.
12 “Note on Nicetas David Paphlago” (see n. 5), 243–44. The quoted text is
on 243, n. 18; the passage that refers to him setting up as a teacher is in Vita
Euthymii (see n. 8), 104, 19.
13 A. Vogt, “Deux discours inédits de Nicétas de Paphlagonie,” Orientalia
Christiana 23 (1931): 6.
14 “Note on Nicetas David Paphlago,” 241–43.
15 Westerink, “Nicetas the Paphlagonian,” 178, 182.
16 J. Gill, Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, pt. 1, Res
Ferrariae gestae, Concilium Florentinum: documenta et scriptores, series B
(Rome, 1953), 5:89–91.
17 Apologia contra Ephesii confessionem, PG 160:89B–C.
18 On this monastery see R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire
byzantin, Première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumé-
nique, vol. 3, Les églises et les monastères, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), 421–29 (no. 26).
19 On this monastery see ibid., 218–22 (no. 96).
20 H. Omont, “Inventaire des manuscrits grecs et latins donnés à Saint-
Marc de Venise par le Cardinal Bessarion (1468),” Revue des bibliothèques
(1894): 156.
21 C. Graux, Essai sur les origines du fonds grec de l’Escurial (Paris, 1880),
183.
22 C. Castellani, “Il prestito dei codici manoscritti della Biblioteca di San
Marco in Venezia ne’ suoi primi tempi e le conseguenti perdite de’ codici stes­
si,” Atti del Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 55 (1896–97): 321, n. 3.
23 On Glynzounios see M. Sicherl, “Manuel Glynzounios als Schreiber
griechischer Handschriften,” BZ 49 (1956): 34–54; P. Canart, “Nouveaux manu-
scrits copiés par Emmanuel Glynzounios,” Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν
Σπουδῶν 39–40 (1972–73): 527–44. Sicherl discusses Munich gr. 436 in 51 n. 90.
24 Sicherl, “Manuel Glynzounios,” 43ff. See also n. 46 below under manu-
script C.
25 W. Hörmann, “Das Supplement der griechischen Handschriften der
Bayerischen Stadtbibliothek” in ΧΑΛΙΚΕΣ: Festgabe für die Teilnehmer am
XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongress, München, 15–20 September 1958
(Freising, 1958), 42.
 Introduction | xxxiii

26 On Mendoza see H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent (London,

1961), 2:280–82, etc.; Graux, Essai sur les origines, 165ff.
27 Graux, Essai sur les origines, 372 n. 1. For the date see discussion below
under manuscript E.
28 Jedin, History, 474.
29 On Arlenius see Graux, Essai sur les origines, 185–89.
30 Discussed in more detail below under manuscript F.
31 M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters
und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1909), 233–34.
32 See Graux, Essai sur les origines, 47–56, 71, 78 n. 1.
33 Jedin, History, 471, etc.
34 Canart, “Nouveaux manuscrits,” 530, n. 2, describes what happened to
Sirleto’s manuscripts from the time of his death down to their acquisition by
the Vatican.
35 C. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, una cum critica historico-chronologica
P. Antonii Pagi (Lucca, 1738–59). On Baronius see Dvornik, Photian Schism,
371–75, etc.
36 I have been unable to identify this manuscript or to locate a copy of
Raderus’s original edition. See discussion at p. xxvii.
37 On Agustin see Graux, Essai sur les origines, 280ff.
38 Canart, “Nouveaux manuscrits,” 530–31. He also gives a detailed de-
scription of this manuscript (no. 161 of Agustin’s library), 534–35.
39 Suggested by Sicherl, “Manuel Glynzounios,” 51 n. 90. This can be ascer-
tained only by a full collation of all the manuscripts containing the text of the
Anti-Photian Collection.
40 Quoted by Graux, Essai sur les origines, appendix no. 17, and discussed
at 297–98. Also discussed by Canart and Sicherl (see nn. 38–39 above).
41 G. de Andrés, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El
Escurial (Madrid, 1965), 2:273. It was no. 162 of Agustin’s library.
42 Canart, “Nouveaux manuscrits,” 531 and n. 3.
43 See Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Epistolarum tomus VII (Karolini
aevi V) (Berlin, 1928), 371. [N. G. Wilson has raised the possibility that X may
in fact be derived from Rader’s edition; due to the loss of the Smithies collation
materials in a fire, the testing of this hypothesis has not been feasible. JMD.]
44 See E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manu-
scripti: Thesaurus antiquus, vol. 1 (Rome, 1981).
45 [N. G. Wilson, who has examined the manuscript, thinks that there
might be three scribes at work, although he would not be completely confident
about this, because of the considerable variation in the script. JMD.]
46 See I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum
Bibliothecae Regiae Bavaricae (Munich, 1810), 4:352–54. Prior to 1806 the
manuscript was in Augsburg and is recorded as “Inferioris Bibliothecae,
xxxiv | Introduction

armario primo, num. 13” in the catalogues of E. Ehinger (Catalogus biblio-

thecae amplissimae rei publicae Augustanae, Augsburg, 1633) and A. Reiserus
(Index manuscriptorum bibliothecae Augustanae, Augsburg, 1675). It is not
found in the earlier catalogues of M. Mangerus (1575), D. Hoeschelius (1595),
and V. Schonigk (1600).
47 See E. Miller, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque de
l’Escurial (Paris, 1848), 293; de Andrés, Catálogo de los codices, 245–46.
48 Castellani, “Il prestito dei codici,” 327–28. See also Graux, Essai sur les
origines, 372 n. 1.
49 See Vogel and Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber, 31.
50 See H. Omont, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs des bibliothèques de
Suisse (Leipzig, 1886), 15.
51 On Arlenius see above, p. xv and n. 29.
52 For this information I am grateful to Dr. Martin Steinman, Assistant
Keeper of Manuscripts, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität Basel (letter
dated 29 May 1975).
53 See E. Miller, “Bibliothèque royale de Madrid: Catalogue des manuscrits
grecs,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale et autres
bibliothèques, 31, no. 2 (1886): 75.
54 See H. Omont, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs des bibliothèques des
Pays-Bas (Leipzig, 1887), 12–13 (Amsterdam, Bibliothèque de l’Université,
5[14]); M. B. Mendes da Costa, Bibliotheek der Universiteit van Amsterdam:
Catalogus der Handschriften, vol. 2, De Handschriften der Stedelijke Bibliotheek
(Amsterdam, 1902), 14.
55 It is interesting to speculate that Georgios Tryphon, who copied
Amsterdam University 69 (containing the Bibliotheca of Photius and dated
May 1548) for Cardinal Granvelle, may have been connected with the copy-
ing of this codex. According to a surviving part of the Marciana loan register
he borrowed a manuscript containing letters of Gregory of Nazianzus and
of Basil on 21 August 1547 and returned it on 26 October of the same year
(Castellani, “Il prestito dei codici,” 338). On the latter date he borrowed (among
others) Venice gr. 167 (B) and a codex containing Bibliotheca Photii (ibid., 340).
For this line of inquiry to fit what is already known about the manuscripts of
the Vita Ignatii, we would have to assume that this was the occasion for the
copying of F and that the latter was then used (by Tryphon and associates?) as
exemplar for copying the first part of H.
56 See A. Capecelatro, Codices manuscripti graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae
Vaticanae descripti, rev. E. Feron and F. Battaglini (Rome, 1893), 25.
57 The inventory drawn up on the Cardinal’s death is preserved in Vatican
lat. 6163. For this identification and other details about the manuscript I am
indebted to P. Canart (letter dated 9 July 1975).
 Introduction | xxxv

58 See I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum, vol. 1 (Munich, 1806),

140–56. The manuscript was recorded as no. 115 in the catalogue of 1602 (A.
Sartorius, Catalogus graecorum manuscriptorum codicum qui asservantur in
inclyta serenissimi utriusque Bavariae Ducis . . . bibliotheca, Ingolstadt, 1602,
45–48).
59 See Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum Bibliothecae
Vaticanae, ed. Hagiographi Bollandiani and P. F. de’ Cavalieri, Subsidia hagio-
graphica 7 (Brussels, 1899), 126.
60 For this identification and other details about the manuscript I am
indebted to P. Canart (letters dated 27 January and 9 July 1975).
61 See Capecelatro, Codices manuscripti graeci, 78.
62 See G. Mercati, Codici latini Pico Grimani Pio e di altra biblioteca ignota
del secolo XVI esistenti nell’ Ottoboniana, vol. 4, I codici Altempsiani acquistati
da Paolo V (Vatican City, 1938), 121.
63 See A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Κατάλογος κωδίκων εὑρισκομένων
ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Μετοχίου τοῦ Παναγίου Τάφου,”
Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη ἤτοι κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ
ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειμένων ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων, vol. 4
(St. Petersburg, 1899), 335.
64 Assemanus, Bibliotheca iuris orientalis, 259.
65 See P. F. de’ Cavalieri, Codices graeci Chisiani et Borgiani Bibliothecae
Apostolicae Vaticanae (Rome, 1927), 130.
 Abbreviations

BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
DACL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
Mansi J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplis-
sima collectio (Paris–Leipzig, 1901–27)
ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.
Kazhdan et al. (New York–Oxford, 1991)
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed.
J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857–66)
PmbZ Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit
(Berlin, 1998–), compiled by R.-J. Lilie, C. Ludwig,
T. Pratsch, I. Rochow, et al., based on preliminary
work by F. Winkelmann
SV Synodicon Vetus

| xxxvi |
 Sigla

B* Venice Marcianus gr. 167, s. XIV

C Munich gr. 436, s. XIV
E Escurial gr. X-I-5, s. XVI
G Madrid gr. O.29, s. XVI
J Ottobonianus gr. 27, s. XVI
X Metochion Panagiou Taphou 361, s. XVII
v Editio M. Raderi, Ingolstadii, 1604
Westerink L. G. Westerink
< > addenda
[ ] supplenda in lacuna codicis
( ) compendia soluta
†† corrupta

*The folio divisions of B are given in the inner margins of the text.

| xxxvii |
 The Life
of
Patriarch Ignatius