Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Library, Gg.i.2

Notes

Hardwick & Luard no. 1397 (vol. 3, pp. 8-14). (Not in Halliwell, who treats only of Dd-Ee.)
Iter Psellianum nos. 55, 443, 1018.

232v  Pagina incipit, «...τακτικὸν ποιοῦσα· τούτου χάριν ἐξέλυπον [οὕτω] τὰ ὑποτακτικά:
ὁ ζευγνὺς· τοῦ ζευ
νύντος·
ἡ ζευνύσα
τῆς ζευγνύσης·
τὸ ζευγνὺν·
τοῦ ζευγνύντος
Same for ζευγνύμενος, showing that even Greeks had problems with –μι verbs, then a graph of Τὰ τρία μέρη τῆς ῥητορικῆς, leading down to tablets defining the συμβουλευτικόν, δικανικὸν καὶ πανηγυρικόν.  

232v/233r are numbered at the bottom, respectively, κ’ and κα’, and the latter also has, in the far upper-right corner, in Indian numerals, “465”. Neither of these features carries on to further pages.

233r  Περὶ συντάξεως λόγου (TLG 4092.003), a guard against solœcisms and barbarisms, here mistakenly attributed to Constantine (“Michael”) Psellus. See subsection 12 in Hardwick & Luard entry (p. 11), where they transcribe the title as «Τοῦ περιτίμου ἐν φιλοσόφοις κυρίου Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Ψέλλου [sic] σύντομος ἐξήγησις περὶ συντάξεως...» and say that “[t]his work of Psellus appears to be unnoticed by Fabricius, and to be unedited.” The transcription, however, (besides the British accentuation) gives a wrong impression of authorship. The heading in fact reads, «Τοῦ περιτίμου ἐν φιλοσόφοις κυρίου Μιχαὴλ σύντομος ἐξήγησις περὶ συντάξεως...» Such a title is also found in some of the many other mss. of this work (see Donnet’s edition, pp. 23-131 and 367-372, where the list of his mss. alone takes up five and a half pages, though he didn’t use this one); but, both those mss. which do mention a Michael and those that don’t, refer to the work specifically as being by Gregory (né George) Pardus, Metropolitan of Corinth (author also of the influential Περὶ Διαλέκτων· see digitized image Mus. Bret. Add.ms. 8230, fol. 7r, in online resources for a typical example). But in Cantab. Gg.i.2, uniquely as far as we are aware, there is a marginal gloss on Michael, reading «τοῦ Ψελλοῦ». Though this gloss is slightly more upright than the main text, it seems to our undertrained eyes to be probably in the same, or at least in a contemporary, hand; however, even if this was added at or near the time of copying, the fact that it is (apparently) unique to this manuscript leads us to believe that it simply a rationalization, an attribution, in the absence of an explicit one to Pardus, to that Michael most famous for his prolific output and authoritative treatments. (And the fact that it wasn’t listed as being by Pardus is probably why Donnet did not include it in his edition.) But, this and the following titles and marginal notes may shed valuable light on the users’ understanding of grammar, or their needs.

233r  In this ms. he work begins, «Ὀκτὼ εἰσὶ πάντα τὰ μέρη τοῦ λόγου: ὄνομα, ῥῆμα, μετοχή, ἄρθρον, ἀντωνυμία, πρόθεσις, ἐπίρρημα, σύνδεσμος...»  In their (generally invaluable) catalogue, Hardwick & Luard correct this slightly and give, “Begins (fol. 233): Ὀκτώ εἰσι (sic) πάντα τὰ μέρη τοῦ λόγου.” Since the ms. does not in fact give this (more correct) accentuation, one can only assume that their addition of “sic” is a comment on his use (ad melius intellegendum) of εἰσί, rather than ἐστί, with a neuter plural.

233v  (Corresponding roughly to §§2-5 of Donnet’s edition.) Note at the bottom of the page:
Τὸ ποιοῦν τὸ ῥῆμα ἐστὶ τὸ ὄνομα· οἷον, «ὁ Ἰωάννης. Τί ποιεῖ: γράφει.»
Τὸ δὲ ὑποκείμενον τοῦ ῥήματος ἔνι τὸ ὄνομα· οἷον, «Γράφει τις: ὁ Ἰωάννης» [ms. τίς, and so perhaps meant as a question].

234r  At the end of the main text begins Donnet’s §8, starting with a capital. A largeish (later?) marginal note in a different color gives it the title «Περὶ προόπων» and a smaller one, in the same color as the text, reminds the reader that the lesson hasn’t ended:  «ἔτι περὶ συντάξεως».

235r  At point corresp. to Donnet’s §13, marginal note, «ἔτι περὶ συντάξεως».  (In the same section, the scribe wrote «τῷ ῥήματι» just a bit too crowded, and added a discreet «τῷ» in the margin.)

235v  At Donnet’s §15, which begins with a large capital on a new line, marginal note, «ἔτι περὶ συντάξεως».

236r  Donnet’s §17 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand from 234r gives it the title «Περὶ πλαγίας συντάξεως».

236v  Donnet’s §21 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand gives it the title «Περὶ προσώπων». (From the same section, the scribe omits «ὡς καὶ τὸ περιπατῶν...ἀναγιγνώσκων προκόψει», which he adds in a footnote.)

237r  Donnet’s §26 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand gives it the title «Περὶ τοῦ μὲν συνδέσμου». Where just Donnet (§27) has, «...προβαίνοντα, σύ, τὸν δὲ ζήτει καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ποιοῦ τὴν ἀπόδοσιν τῆς συντάξεως.», our scribe has (as the last line of the page, his last two words running into an extra part-line), «...προβαίνοντα, σὺ τὸν δὲ ζήτει καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ποιοῦν τὴν σύνταξιν [slightly larger space, as if catching a mistake midway] ἤγουν τὴν ἀπόδοσιν τῆς συντάξεως.» The next page starts (Donnet’s) next section.

237v  At Donnet’s §28, at the line «οἷον· ὁ δεῖνα λόγιός τε ὡς μανθάνων [sic] καὶ ἀναγνοὺς πο[λλὰς]», a marginal note «ὁδὶς» (obsc., but cf. 238v below).

237v  Donnet’s §32 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand gives it the title «Περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀριθμῶν».

238r  At the end of Donnet’s §33 and beginning of §34, on the margin an η’ in a large, lunate sigma.

238r  Donnet’s §35 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand gives it the title «Περὶ τῶν τριῶν γενῶν».

238v  Donnet’s §37 begins on a new line with large capital; the second hand gives it the title «Περὶ τῶν πέντε πτώσεων».  On the last line of the page («[ὅ]τι φίλος τοῦ δεῖνος ὁ δεῖνα, ἢ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ δεῖνα μεγάλη») is a marginal gloss that appears to read «οδῖνος» (without breathing-mark), but might be «·δ[ε]ῖνος» vel sim., alerting the reader to the genitive of δεῖνα.

240r  Donnet’s §45 begins with large capital; the second hand has titled it, «Περὶ κλίσεων καὶ ἐπικλίσεων».

240v/241r  Numbered at the bottom, respectively κα’ and κβ’.

240v  After the end of what corresponds to Donnet’s §45 (desinit «...ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὰς ἰδίας.»), there begins, on the next line with a large capital, a section corresponding to Donnet’s §67 (incipit «Φέρε καὶ περὶ συνταξεως ῥημάτων εἴπωμεν· χρήσιμα γὰρ καὶ τὰ περὶ τούτων εἰς τὸ μὴ σολοικίζειν...») and titled, in the margin by the second hand, «Περὶ συντάξεως ῥημάτων». The lemmata that follow begin with “capitals” and the head-letter for alphabetizing is in the margin (α’, β’, γ’, δ’, ε’).

242v  In a list of ways to despise or ridicule (Donnet §83), for «διαπαίζω σε» the scribe has written «διὰ πέζωσε· διὰ παίζωσε» and then scratched out... the latter!  He continues with «καὶ προσπέζωσοι· καταπέζωσου...»

243r  Donnet’s §87 begins with large capital; the second hand has titled it, «Περὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ».

244v  Continues Donnet’s §98 and skips his §99, beginning with a new title, «Περὶ μετοχῶν, ἄρθρου καὶ ἀντωνυμίας». Donnet’s §102 begins with large capital; the second hand has titled it, «Περὶ προθέσεων».

245r  Donnet’s §103 begins with large capital; the second hand has titled it, «Περὶ ἐπιρρημάτων».

245v  Donnet’s final section begins with large capital (not title).  Desinit «...τὴν μέντοι διαίρεσιν καὶ τὰ εἴδη τούτων ἐν τῇ τελείᾳ μάθῃς γραμματικῇ.» There seems to be writing below this line, faint or in a color that does not come through microfilm well.  Donnet’s edition has «Ἐνταῦθα τέλος τοῦ περὶ σολοικισμοῦ καὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ.»




256r  A page on aphæresis, apocope, &c. (πάθη λέξεων).

256v  The top half of the page is an abbreviated run-through of nominal morphology.  The second half has the following poem, not elsewhere published to our knowledge:

Ὁ Λάζαρος τέθνηκε φύσεως νόμῳ·
τοῦτον δὲ Χριστὸς ἐξανίστα τοῦ τάφου
ἄψυχον ὄντα καὶ νέκυν ὀδωδότα:
ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ οὗτος ὁ ζωῆς χορηγέτης, ζωῆς
ὁ κρατῶν καὶ θανάτου δεσπόζων, ὁ καὶ θα-
-νατῶν ζωοποιῶν τε ξένως, ὑμᾶς ἀνα-
στήσειε προσφιλῆ τέκνα, τῆς ἀμαθίας
ὥσπερ νεκρὸν ἐκ τάφου.

Most of the words are marked (presumably numbered) with a superscription in another color, in a way we can derive no meaning from:  Α (Λάζαρος), Β (τέθνηκε), Γ (φύσεως), Δ (νόμῳ), Η (τοῦτον), Ε (Χριστὸς), Ζ (ἐξανίστα), ΣΤ (τοῦ τάφου), Θ (ἄψυχον), ΙΒ (ὄντα), Ι (νέκυν), ΙΑ (ὀδωδότα), Α (αὐτὸς), Β (ζωῆς), [there may be a faint marking over χορηγέτης, but we can’t be sure], Δ (ζωῆς), Γ (κρατῶν), Ε (καὶ θανάτου), ΣΤ (δεσπόζων), Ζ (καὶ θανατῶν), Η (ζωοποιῶν), Θ (ξένως), ΙΣΤ (ὑμᾶς), ΙΕ (ἀναστήσειε), ΙΑ (προσφιλῆ), Ι (τέκνα), ΙΔ (ἀμαθίας), ΙΒ (ὥσπερ), ΙΓ (τάφου).

257r  This page is taken up by another poem, a prayer for a young writer, with similar markings which we won’t reproduce here but with some verbal interlineal annotations as well.  The poem itself, in fairly large letters, runs:

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ ἀσπόρως
εὐδοκήσας τεχθῆναι ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας
θετόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας
ταῖς πρεσβείαις αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ   (4)
χρυσορρήμονος Ἰωσήφ, φώτισον τὸν νοῦν τοῦ νέου
τοῦ νῦν ἀρξαμένου τοῦ σχεδογραφεῖν
καὶ τὴν καταρχὴν εὐλόγησον τοῦ σχέδους ~
Τρὶς ἤδη γράφεις, ὦ παῖ, καὶ γένοιτό σοι  (8)
ἡ ζωαρχικὴ τριὰς βοηθός, ἵν’ αὐτῆς
τυχὼν βοηθούσης σοι τῷ ταύτης στι-
χεῖν ἐπαίνῳ καὶ ἐγκωμίῳ.

If we include the smaller, interlinear writing as well, we find the following (with the main text here in capitals to aid in distinguishing the two):  ΚΥΡΙΕ (ὦ ἐξουσιαστά) ΙΗΣΟΥ (ὦ θεραπευτά), Ο ΘΕΟΣ (τίς: ποιητά), ΗΜΩΝ (τίνων), Ο ΑΣΠΟΡΩΣ (ὁ ἄνευ σπέρματος), ΕΥΔΟΚΗΣΑΣ (τί ποιήσας καὶ θελήσας) ΤΕΧΘΗΝΑΙ (καὶ γεννηθῆναι) ΕΚ ΤΗΣ (ἐκ τίνος) ΑΓΙΑΣ (καὶ σεβασμίας) ΘΕΟΤΟΚΟΥ (τῆς τὸν θεὸν γεννησάσης) ΚΑΙ ΑΙΕΙΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΥ (καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ πάντοτε παρθενευούσης) ΜΑΡΙΑΣ (τίνος) ΤΑΙΣ ΠΡΕΣΒΕΙΑΙΣ (ταῖς ἱκεσίαις καὶ παρακλήσεσιν) ΑΥΤΗΣ (τίνος) ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ (καὶ ἄλλου τινός) ΧΡΥΣΟΡΡΗΜΟΝΟΣ (τοῦ χρυσολόγου, ἤγουν καὶ τοῦ χρυσὰ ῥήματα φθεγγομένου) ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ, ΦΩΤΙΣΟΝ (κάθαρον, λάμπρυνον) ΤΟΝ ΝΟΥΝ (τίνα) ΤΟΥ (τίνος) ΝΕΟΥ (ἤγουν παιδὸς) ΤΟΥ ΝΥΝ (ἀρτίως) ΑΡΞΑΜΕΝΟΥ (ἀρχὴν λαβόντος) ΤΟΥ (τί) ΣΧΕΔΟΓΡΑΦΕΙΝ (ἤγουν τοῦ σχεδογραφεῖν· ἄλλο τί) ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΚΑΤΑΡΧΗΝ (τὴν ἔναρξιν) ΕΥΛΟΓΗΣΟΝ (ἐν λόγοις εὔλογον) ΤΟΥ ΣΧΕΔΟΥΣ (τίνα). ΤΡΙΣ (τί ποιῶν· ἐκ τρίτου) ΗΔΗ (ἀπάρτι) ΓΡΑΦΕΙΣ (τί ποιῶν), Ω ΠΑΙ (ὦ παιδίον), ΚΑΙ ΓΕΝΟΙΤΟ ΣΟΙ (καὶ γενηθήτω σοι, καὶ ὑπάρξειε) Η ΖΩΑΡΧΙΚΗ (τίς: ἡ ἄρχουσα τῆς ζωῆς) ΤΡΙΑΣ (ἡ τίς) ΒΟΗΘΟΣ (ποδαπός) ΙΝ’ (καὶ ὅπως) ΑΥΤΗΣ (τίνος: ἤγουν τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος) ΤΥΧΩΝ (ἐπιτυχών), ΒΟΗΘΟΥΣΗΣ (καὶ συνεργούσης) ΣΟΙ (τίνι), ΤΩ (τίνος) ΣΤΙΧΕΙΝ (ἤγουν ἐμμένειν) ΕΠΑΙΝΩ (τιμῇ καὶ δόξῃ) ΚΑΙ (καὶ ἄλλο τι) ΕΓΚΩΜΙΩ (ἐπαίνῳ).

Although we, as a 21st-century skeptic, are certainly less familiar with orthodox teaching than was this poem’s author, we wonder if he, or perhaps she, has somehow in confusion given to Mary an attribute of the latter’s cousin (Luke ch. 1) or even of the great patriarch’s wife (Gen. ch. 18). Likewise, we would expect not Mary & John but Mary & Joseph. (The nomen sacrum here is ἸΩου’. An additional confusion, or influence, may be from the epithet’s being ordinarily used, as far as we know, as a synonym of Chrysostom.) The transcription of σχεδογραφεῖν as its own gloss is correct, as is στιχεῖν for στ(ε)ίχειν. One should very much like to know more about the author (or authoress) of the poem and its addressee.