Apart from the very fragmentary 6th-century Alexandrian World Chronicle , it is the only surviving illustrated manuscript of a Greek chronicle, and includes miniatures. It is unclear whether these illustrations are copies of earlier Byzantine images or were newly created specifically for this copy. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Illustrated illuminated manuscript of the Synopsis of Histories by John Skylitzes. Categories : Illuminated histories 12th-century books 12th-century illuminated manuscripts Byzantine literature Byzantine illuminated manuscripts Manuscript stubs. Hidden categories: Articles with short description Articles containing Greek-language text Articles containing Latin-language text All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from July Commons category link is on Wikidata All stub articles.

Author:Tojalar Kigazilkree
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):26 November 2004
PDF File Size:10.68 Mb
ePub File Size:1.5 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Burke John. Three copies of the Madrid Skylitzes. In fact , it is the only known paring manuscript of a Byzantine Greek chronicle , and it may well be the first illustrated illustrated opinion is divided about the origin of the illustrations. Tsamakda identified many more instances of inconsistency and trations them by positing the existence of illustrated manuscripts of various other works explained may have been drawn upon for the illustration of Skylitzes '' text , as well as a number which intermediate copies between the Madrid Skylitzes and its archetype 9.

Both scholars were of to assume a Constantinopolitan origin for the illustrations. In stark contrast , Sevcenko inclined proposed that the Madrid Skylitzes was the first manuscript of Skylitzes to be illus-. Its surviving miniatures history , which combine Byzantine , Western and Arabic elements , are thus of unparalleled sig-for art historians. Three recent PhD theses 5 , a life-size colour facsimile edition 6 nificance a fully illustrated monograph 7 all testify to growing international interest in this manu-and script.

The specific arguments and counter-arguments of these three scholars deserve trated examination , but in this paper I want to consider other evidence that has not , as yet , closer M is the only known manuscript of Skylitzes with captioned illustrations , there are While unillustrated Skylitzes manuscripts which preserve the captions.

They are among a other of seven characterised by C. Four of group seven are without the captions but reproduce poems found in the margins of M In fact , it has the captions Ottobonianus , so this group comprises : Ms.

Vatican Ottobonianus , fols. Paris BNF suppl. P is obvious that Sevcenko '' s position about the origin of the illustrations in M would be It if it could be shown that even one of the manuscripts with the captions does not untenable Boor was concerned to lay the groundwork for an edition of Skylitzes '' text and thus De not examine the marginal poems or the captions in any detail.

Nevertheless , his charac-did of these seven manuscripts as apographa of M was based on firm grounds : all seven terisation gaps in the text corresponding to folios missing in M , and only M , after folios 58 , 96 , have the whole of quire 16 , , and they all come to an end abruptly where M does , which Thurn '' s edition is about fifty pages one tenth short of the actual end of Skylitzes '' text.

Understandably , Thurn. Madrid BN , fols. Or they may have drawn on a second illustrated Skylitzes in reproducing the from , especially those that are missing from M. Given the significance of the issues at captions , it is important to refine our understanding of the relationship of OPQ with M and with stake other.

In the process , an attempt is made to indicate some of the implications that may tenable from these relationships , particularly with respect to the question of what evidence is follow to support a conclusion that one manuscript is a direct rather than an indirect copy required another ; and also to present some observations that may be useful in explaining the origin of history of these manuscripts.

On the other hand , I do not attempt a full description and and of the manuscripts , in part because it is not my purpose , and in part because I have analysis the course of discussion , reference will be made to M '' s twin manuscript , Neapolitanus In. Because some of the argument rests on the precise rendering of texts on the III , many of the transcriptions include the following conventions : page ] text abbreviated by suspension i.

These evidence may be grouped conveniently under five headings : features. The dependence of OPQ on M. All three manuscripts follow M in this inversion of modifying sequence O v , P r , Q r. The captions OPQ reproduce these omissions in their entirety.

They do not supplement manuscripts captions in OPQ are found at exactly the same point of insertion into the text as in The. Even when the copy omits the text of a caption in M , or part of it , or where there is M addition to the captions , all three manuscripts include chapter titles that are unique to In in the manuscript tradition. In the case of Leo VI frequently Thurn But M introduces M a few variations.

It is M '' s re-phrasing of nally section title that is reproduced verbatim in OPQ. Omissions a. OPQ follow M in omitting about one line of text at Thurn Inclusions a. The exceptions are neg-and ligible Variant readings second is that of MOPQ : But spelling is not moq. The real test of dependence involves readings that are , according to Thurn , manuscripts to M : unique. The following eleven examples occur in and three pages of Thurn '' s edition , which correspond to M folios again , just first reading given is Thurn '' s and the second is MOPQ : Again , they meet the criterion of indicating unique to M among the primary manuscripts and common to OPQ : 6.

OPQ reproduce these readings , which are otherwise unique to M in the manu-Skylitzes tradition : 6. Three examples All from the first page fol. Later additions a. In the title of the work fol.

Thurn The Q 79r leaves a short gap after the initial , reading T O , P and Q all leave corresponding gaps in their texts. O r and P still v leave gaps for the letters given below in square brackets text from Thurn. It also demonstrates that deficiencies in M such as missing captions have not derive supplemented in the copies from another source. This evidence is further corroborated been many of the observations that will be discussed in the next stage of the argument , and by by those that relate to particularities of the Madrid manuscript , such as its page especially purpose of this second stage of the argument is to demonstrate that O and P are The related to each other and that Q is independent of them.

The closeness of O and P, and Q's independence of them. Scribal subscriptions. Q also marks each of the gaps in leaving folios and P folios have the following marginalia , which are not found O the corresponding margins of M folios or Q folios : in. Q includes captions from M , or segments of captions , that are omitted in OP : 16va , a , 26rb , 28va , 62v , 64va , 67va , 69r , 70va , 71v , 72v , 80vb , 82v the list could be 26ra.

OP omit scripts numbers entirely but Q reproduces the last of them , which happens to be the only these. Additions to M. Inclusions and omissions. Q line of text originally omitted at M r line 7 Thurn Page layout. Most of them As found in the zone reserved for a miniature and hence also serve as a caption or are are with an existing caption. Some , however , are found in the margins of the associated. Two in the top margin 18r , 21r are preceded by a miniature at the end manuscript the previous page and clearly introduce the episode that starts , with a large rubricated of initial letter , immediately after them , and thus they are easily associated with a point in the text.

This convenient positioning is disrupted by the title in the particular margin of M 22r , however , which neither follows a miniature nor precedes a rubri-top initial.

On the evidence of N , and the content of the text , the appropriate insertiocated point would be eight lines earlier at M folio 21v line 3 , just after the miniature M , which is the point at which section 3 of the chapter on Leo V commences.

The 21vb seem to have been a little uncertain about how to deal with this situation. O copyists to keep the title in the top margin of his next page , 13v , thus moving it even decided away from the start of the section.

In this particular instance , P and Q seem to further the same logic and preserve the association of title with caption , inserting the follow immediately before the next caption , which is eleven lines further down in the text title M. However , the closeness of O and P and the independence of Q is apparent in their in of subsequent titles : handling M 22v has a title in the top margin and a miniature with caption three lines below. P happens this process one step further and appends the title to the caption.

In Q , how-takes ever , the title displaces the caption , which ends up the bottom margin of his page. OP append the section title found in the lower margin of M 28r to the caption that , in l ,.

OP replace the caption of M 28va with the section title that is found in the top margin l. Q 16r also locates the title in the right mar-, next to the corresponding text. O defers the title for a couple of lines and positiongin it in the top margin of his next page 33v , which starts with the text to M 39r line P too positions the title in the top margin of his page corresponding 17v , but by so doing he alters the relationship between the title and the text , for his.

As will be apparent from the references to Thurn '' s edition , the instances that here are taken from a few randomly-selected pages of the text ; their number could given multiplied significantly : Thurn 8. Many are due to incorrect expansion OP abbreviations. Q avoids these errors , sometimes by simply omitting the caption or a of.

Q correctly reads the text of caption M 86vb in columns :. Variant readings. See also 45rb , 46ra , 46rb , 46v , 52v. O also L. Despite his strategy of reproducing abbreviations rather than running the risk of P them inaccurately , Q is quite capable of producing his own errors. In the expanding that follow , OP generally agree with each other and often also with M while instances produces his own variant.

Only the last of these can be regarded as an improvement : Q 9. On its own , of course , any single variation from M that is common to O and cannot determine the issue. But as the number of common variants multiplies , a certain P applies : the probability of independence decreases as the number of common variants calculus , and even more so when the variants in question are not shared by other manuscripts increases.

The sheer number of common variations from M that has been noted above subscrip-, readings , misreadings , errors , omissions , additions , marginalia makes it highly improbabltions that the scribes of O and P may have produced them independently of each other. Any possibility is further discounted by the fact that almost none of the variations cited remaining was arrived at by Q , which is clearly also dependent on M.

Conversely , in preparing the evidence peri. The hypothesis , therefore , is that P is dependent on O. In accordance with this from , variations common to O and P can be re-interpreted as P '' s replication of O '' s readings hypothesis. It remains to be seen whether the hypothesis survives , or is indeed supported by , a inevitably , a copy will introduce a new layer of variants that are not found in its Almost source.

This expectation would appear to be fulfilled : the following variants can be immediate to P with greater confidence because they differ not only from O but also MQ line assigned page references are to Thurn '' s edition while captions are referenced by folio in M : But while P makes the usual scribal slips of inadvertence , not ignorance , in diacritics , spelling , word separation , etc. P departs stitution , but not very far , from his source.

The relationship between O and P. M On the captions : has.


Category:Madrid Skylitzes

Burke John. Three copies of the Madrid Skylitzes. In fact , it is the only known paring manuscript of a Byzantine Greek chronicle , and it may well be the first illustrated illustrated opinion is divided about the origin of the illustrations. Tsamakda identified many more instances of inconsistency and trations them by positing the existence of illustrated manuscripts of various other works explained may have been drawn upon for the illustration of Skylitzes '' text , as well as a number which intermediate copies between the Madrid Skylitzes and its archetype 9.


Madrid Skylitzes


Related Articles