Download PDF | (Studies in Manuscript Cultures Series, 32) Luigi Orlandi - Andronikos Kallistos_ A Byzantine Scholar and His Manuscripts in Italian Humanism-Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG (2023).
645 Pages
Introduction
The interest in the activity of Andronikos Kallistos arose at the end of the nineteenth century within the frame of Emile Legrand’s pioneering works on Byzantine scholars of the Renaissance.’ Over decades, researchers have glimpsed the depth of Kallistos’ erudite personality towards a comprehension of his role at the critical time of the translatio studiorum, i.e. the transfer of ancient Greece cultural heritage to Italy and hence all of Europe. However, it has only been possible to deepen the knowledge on this scholar after identifying a fair number of manuscripts as the work of his hands.”
Dieter Harlfinger’s studies on Greek scribes of the Renaissance’ and Ernst Gamillscheg’s investigations on the manuscripts preserved at the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria of Modena‘ first broadened the list of the books attributed to the work of Andronikos. The findings of Elpidio Mioni> with regard to Bessarion’s collaborators validated these attributions by recognising in further samples Kallistos’ hand, even though admitting to the coexistence of two writingstyles.
In this respect, Ole Langwitz Smith® had questioned many attribution proposals made by Gamillscheg, assuming that Kallistos was allegedly assisted by an anonymous collaborator (Anonymus Mutinensis) whose handwriting resembled that of Kallistos. Not long after Gamillscheg’s reply,’ Kallistos’ and Anonymus’ identity was to be confirmed by Guido Avezzu:® his intervention therefore put an end to the querelle about the existence or non-existence of this Anonymus.’
Still, the issue of the variability of Kallistos’ hand has remained unsolved for the time being. In other words: should the hypothesis of a synchronic coexistence of two graphic styles be confirmed or should one instead look at this phaenomenon as at a transformation of a handwriting through its various phases? In the first chapter of his monograph about the scribal activity of Markos Musuros, David Speranzi framed the problems modern scholars are faced with when approaching the study of fifteenth-century handwritings.’° As Speranzi evokes — quoting some remarks by Giuseppe De Gregorio —, cases of synchronic and diachronic variability are particularly thorny, namely those of ‘parallel coexistence, in the writing of a single scribe, of very different models, calligraphic and cursive’."
The examples adduced by Speranzi are well known to scholars dealing with fifteenth-century copyists’ hands: 1. the calligraphic style of the prolific Cretan scribe Iohannes Rhosos in contraposition to a less accurate writing style, which a famous letter in his hand sent to his friend Iohannes Plusiadenos clearly displays; 2. the so-called scholarly hand of Theodoros Gazes, characterized by an extremely cursive (and quite ‘nervous’) ductus, which is at first glance incompatible with his usual minuscule as well as with the ‘pseudo-majuscule’ employed in the famous Homer Laur. 32.1;” 3. the different expressions of the writing of Konstantinos and Ianos Laskaris, both active over decades in Italy. As Speranzi claimed, the distance between graphic manifestations of a same hand has meant that several scribes of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries have seen some of their products assigned to their ‘palaeographic Doppelganger’; such attributions have often been shown at a later time as devoid of historical consistency.” This was the case with Markos Musuros, to whom the authorship of some manuscripts attributed to a mysterious Mapkosg Iwavvou has been denied for a long time.”
And this has been, for many years, the case of Andronikos Kallistos too, to whom Ole Langwitz Smith insisted on attributing solely the Vat. gr. 1314 (i.e. the only witness ‘subscribed’ by him, dating 12 March 1449). One of the purposes of this book is therefore to demonstrate the diachronic nature of the graphic variability of Andronikos’ hand, thus dispelling any doubt about the coexistence of two styles.
Dieter Harlfinger and Ernst Gamillscheg are credited with most of the attributions that ended up in the entry on Kallistos in the Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten (RGK).® In more recent times, other scholars — such as Stefano Martinelli Tempesta, who is drawing up the inventory of the Greek copyists present in manuscripts now kept at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana — have consistently enriched and broadened the perspective by means of several identifications (see below Table 0.1).
Table 0.1: Manuscripts copied, restored and/or annotated by Andronikos Kallistos: Current state of research.
The research on Andronikos’ scholarly activity however remains fragmented into many isolated contributions,’* mainly concerning some specific chapters of the manuscript tradition of classical Greek and Byzantine authors. Fragmentation is indeed the hindrance to achieving a complete picture of his work as a teacher and philologist.
In this framework, by adopting a systematic and synergistic approach to historical, philological, codicological, and palaeographic data, I intend with this monograph study to accomplish the following:
1. outline an updated biography, which in essence reproduces Giuseppe
Cammelli’s account,” the short contribution by Emilio Bigi notwithstanding” (Chapter 1);
2. better define Andronikos’ scribal activity by means of a thorough examination (by autopsy) of all surviving manuscript sources which have been transcribed, restored or simply annotated by him (Chapter 2);
3. attempt to reconstruct the development of Kallistos’ book collection by tracing its growth and then following its fate after the sale (Chapters 2 and 3);
4. acknowledge Andronikos’ scholarly activity both as a teacher for Greek language and literature and as a philologist (Chapters 4 and 5);
5. make an inventory (with codicological, palaeographic, historical, and bibliographical data) of all the manuscripts which bear traces of his writing (Chapter 6);
6. publish Andronikos’ works (Appendix).
Formal matters
The identification of copyists’ handwriting, whenever it is proposed for the first time in this book, is marked by angle brackets <...> as it is usual in reference works about Greek palaeography; the same brackets are used for the first identification of dates and places. The numbering of tables and figures restarts at every chapter. Quotations in Greek and Latin, when not translated, are paraphrased; when extracted from manuscripts or archival documents, both Greek and Latin quotations follow the spelling used in the source.
Acknowledgements
This volume is a revised version of my PhD thesis (University of Hamburg, 2017). First and foremost, I would like to express special appreciation and thanks to my supervisor, Christian Brockmann, for encouraging my research on the manuscripts of Andronikos Kallistos. Undertaking a PhD experience in Hamburg has been a wonderful challenge, which would not have been possible without his constant and unconditional support. His Greek Palaeography class in 2012 kindled my interest in manuscript studies and I can never be thankful enough to him for the influence this had on my early career.
Very special thanks go to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for giving me the great opportunity to carry out my doctoral research in Germany with generous financial support.
I would like to express here my gratitude also to the institutions which hosted my research at the University of Hamburg and to their members. At the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC) I had the opportunity to give presentations at every stage on my project. For comments, enlightening suggestions, and kind support I am grateful to all of my colleagues. To Michael Friedrich, as director of CSMC, and to Oliver Huck, who coordinated the Graduate School of which I was member, go my special thanks for strongly believing in this work from the very beginning. Moreover, I would like to thank the whole staff of the Institut fiir Griechische und Lateinische Philologie, in whose library this project was mostly carried out in the years 2014-2017.
I owe a sincere debt of gratitude to distinguished scholars, colleagues, and friends for stimulating discussions and insightful comments: Michele Bandini, Giuseppe De Gregorio, Dieter Harlfinger, Klaus Lennartz, Stefano Martinelli Tempesta, Teresa Martinez Manzano, Paola Megna, David Speranzi, Giuseppe Ucciardello, Stefano Valente.
Heartfelt thanks also to Carole Bould, Caroline Macé, Simone Mucci, Stev Talarman and Paraskevi Toma who helped revise this book. Additionally, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dominika Herbst and Florian Ruppenstein (De Gruyter publishing house) regarding the improvement of coherence and content presentation of the book. Any remaining inaccuracies are entirely my responsibility.
Finally, my warm thanks go to Antonio Rollo for allowing me to grow as a researcher. His invaluable comments, suggestions, and hard questions accompanied me at every stage of this work.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق