Prolegomenon to the Homeric Centos

Author(s): M. D. Usher
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 118, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 305-321
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561854 .
Accessed: 12/07/2014 23:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS
M. D. Usher
Homeric centos are
poems
made
up entirely
of verses lifted
verbatim,
or with
only slight
modification,
from the Iliad and
Odyssey. Only
a few
have survived
antiquity.
There exist three short Homeric centos in the
Palatine
Anthology (9.361, 381, 382;
cf.
Hunger
1978,
98-101),
a ten-line
cento about Herakles
quoted by
Irenaeus
(Wilken 1967),
and a seven-
line cento
grafitto
inscribed on the
leg
of a statue of Memnon in
Egypt,
which dates from the
reign
of Hadrian
(Bernand
1960, 111-13;
Bowie
1990,
65).
There are also several cento-like incantations from the Greek
Magical Papyri
that use lines from Homer
(Maltomini 1995).
The
only
Homeric centos we
possess
in
any quantity
are the
topic
of this
study.
These
originated
with a Christian
bishop
named Patricius in the fourth
century
C.E.,
and were later
expanded by
Eudocia
Athenai's,
wife of the
emperor
Theodosius
II,
in the
early
fifth.
Eudocia's Homeric centos have
long
been
neglected
for lack of a
complete
and authoritative text. The
responsibility
for this situation rests
with the otherwise eminent
Homerist,
Arthur
Ludwich,
whose Teubner
edition of
1897,
the
only
edition of the centos
currently
available,
is
based on a
single, partially
edited
manuscript (Par. graec. suppl
388:
"Codex
Mutinensis").1
Pessimism about
establishing
a reliable text and
aesthetic disenchantment with the
poem
itself have
hampered
further
study: according
to
Joseph Golega,
for
example,
the Homeric centos are
"weder des Druckes noch des Lesens wert"
(Golega 1960,1).
Such an assessment lacks
understanding
and
imagination.
In his
short
study
of
1979,
Kurt Smolak called for a new edition of the centos in
no uncertain
terms,
emphasizing
the
poem's great
heuristic
potential
(49):
Die Zentonen als
spezielle
Form der
spatantiken Homerrezeption
erwie-
sen sich als der
Interpretation
ihrer oft nicht anerkannten dichterischen
Moglichkeiten
durchaus
zuganglich?dann
sind sie doch wohl auch eine
ludwich
published only
490 of the
manuscript's 1,943
lines.
American Journal of
Philology
118
(1997)
305-321 ? 1997
by
The Johns
Hopkins University
Press
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
306 M. D. USHER
Edition wert! Denn die
fruhbyzantinische Bibeldichtung
kann dem Theo-
logen, Komparatisten
und sich auch dem
Philologen
ein
wenig
bebautes
Arbeitsfeld eroffnen?sofern dieser sich nicht als Zensor im Namen einer
klassizistischen Asthetik versteht.
The
present study
is offered as a
prolegomenon
to a
new,
complete
edition of Eudocia's
poem?a
first installment on the
larger interpretive
program suggested by
Smolak.2 It concerns
my
collation and
transcrip-
tion of a
manuscript
of the Homeric centos in the collection of the Iviron
monastery
on Mount
Athos, Greece,
which I
inspected
meis oculis in the
summer of 1995.3 This hitherto unaccounted-for cento
manuscript,
dat-
able on
palaeographical grounds
to the mid-fourteenth
century,
is one
of a
type
used
by
Aldus Manutius for the editio
princeps
of the
centos,
published
in Venice in 1502
(Renouard 1825, 57-62).
Ludwich all but
ig-
nored Aldus' edition and the
important
revision of it
published by
Hen-
ricus
Stephanus
in 1578. His
oversight
was
unfortunate,
for the Iviron-
Aldus-Stephanus
recension of the centos
(hereafter simply
"Iviron,"
or
"Iviron
recension")
is
completely
different from
his,
and as we shall
see,
better than his as well.
Our
investigation begins
with the Aldine
edition,
the
preface
to
which indicates that the text was transcribed and corrected for Aldus
by
Petrus
Candidus,
the son or
perhaps nephew
of Petrus Candidus De-
cembrius
(1399-1477), papal secretary
to Nicolas V. This
younger
Can?
didus
belonged
to the Benedictine order of the
Camaldunensians,
who
were housed in the Venetian
monastery
of St. Michael Murianus. Follow-
ing
the
preface
of Candidus is a six-line
elegiac poem
on the centos com?
posed by Scipio Fortiguerra,
a member of the Aldine
Academy
who fre-
quently
collaborated with Aldus in
preparing printed
editions. We can
safely
infer, therefore,
that both Candidus and
Fortiguerra
had a hand in
the
production
of the editio
princeps,
and it is
likely
that the ms or mss
they
used were
Venetian,
or at least Italian
(cf.
Harris
1898,
25-26).
That
manuscript
has
yet
to
resurface,
and
may
no
longer
exist,
though
it is
possible
that Iviron 4464 was once in Venice. The
monastery
obtained
it,
according
to its librarian Father
Theologos,
from the
personal library
of
2In a
separate study
I
argue
that the Homeric centos stand in relation to the Ho?
meric
poems
as
parole
does to
langue;
and that Eudocia's centos are
essentially
a
rhapsodic
response
to and
re-generation
of Homeric verse based
upon
intertextual associations of
ideas, words,
and sounds
by
virtue of resemblance or
contiguity.
3Iviron
4464, catalogued
and described
by
Lambros
1900,
92.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 307
Maximos
Margounios (1549-1602), bishop
of
Kythera,
who lived most of
his life in exile in Crete and Venice
(Enepekides 1970).
The Aldus edition is
very
rare,
"infiniment rare et
precieuse"
ac?
cording
to
Renouard,
and seems to have been so since its first
printing.
In the
preface
to his edition of 1578
Stephanus emphasizes
its
scarcity
and the
unavailability
of two reissues of it
by
Peter Brubach in 1541 and
1554. The truth of his statement is confirmed
by
what
appears
to be a
manuscript copy
of the
printed
Aldine text
(including prefatory
mate?
rial),
now in the Vatican and dated to the
year
1575/6
(Ottobon. gr. 301;
Feron and
Battagliani
1893,
162).
In
preparing
his edition of the
centos,
Stephanus (1578)
claims to have reedited and in
places
to have emended
the
imperfect
text of his
predecessors,
Aldus and Brubach. As he ex-
plains
in his
preface:
I noticed that the text was more
corrupt
than I had
thought,
and to emend
it would
require
a lot of time. In
fact,
the text was
corrupt
to the extent
that I
suspected
that some classicists had advised the
typesetters,
who
were otherwise
prepared
to
print it,
to hold off awhile and see if
they
could
publish
if not a corrected
text,
at least a less
corrupt
one.4
This statement seems to refer
primarily
to two
problems
with the Aldine
edition.
First,
the centos do not
appear
in the order in which
they
are
listed on the title
page,
but are
relegated
to the end of the second volume
following
a verse
biography
of St. Nicholas. This
suggests
that there was
either a
delay
in
obtaining
the Greek text or in
completing
the
accompa-
nying
Latin translation
(Harris
1898,
20).
Second,
the cento text as set in
this volume is
interrupted by
extraneous
prose
material in
praise
of the
Virgin Mary (Harris 1898, 19-23;
Renouard
1825,
60-61). Stephanus
remedied both
problems by resetting
and in
places emending
the Aldine
text. "Readers who will
compare my
edition with the
others,"
he
boasts,
"will
plainly
see that
many
verses?both those
obviously
unmetrical or
otherwise
defective,
and those
suffering
from less obvious faults?have
been restored to their
proper
condition."5
4Sed
magis quam putarem depravatum
esse et
longum tempus
emendationem illius
requirere
animadverti: adeo ut etaim
suspicatus
sim viros
quospiam doctos,
typographis, qui
alioqui
excudere illum
parati erant,
consilium dedisse ut
expectarent
donec si non emenda-
tum at minus
depravatum
edere illum
possent.
All translations are
my
own.
5Quicumque
hanc meam editionem cum aliis
conferent,
multos enim versus non
solum ex Us
qui aperte claudicabant,
vel alio modo mendosi
erant,
sed ex Us etiam
qui
oc-
cultis vitiis laborabant
integritati
suae restituisse
comperient.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
308 M. D. USHER
I have transcribed the
Stephanus
edition from a
copy
in the Uni?
versity
of
Chicago Library's Department
of
Special
Collections,
and
have collated the Iviron
manuscript against
it. The two are in near
per-
fect
agreement.
Leaves
totalling
about 900 lines have fallen off the end
of the
manuscript.
However,
based on
my
collation of the
1,500
lines that
both texts have in common it is clear that
they belong
to the same recen?
sion;
and what the
manuscript
lacks
Stephanus supplies, bringing
the to?
tal to
2,348
lines.6 The Iviron recension is far and
away
the best
text,
be?
ing
much closer in its
readings
than Ludwich's to the textus
receptus
of
Homer;
as I will
presently
show,
it also
represents
Eudocia's corrected
and
expanded
edition of the
poem.
What is
equally important,
and what
perhaps
is the most
compelling
reason for a new edition based on Ivi-
ron-Stephanus,
is the fact that all
printed
editions before Ludwich's are
based on this recension
(Delepierre 1875,96-105).
If the centos have had
any
influence
upon
Western literature?and there is evidence that
they
were known to and
perhaps
used
by
Milton and
Joyce7?it
has been
through
the Iviron recension.
For evidence on the
date,
authorship,
and recensions of the cento
text we
possess
at least seventeen
manuscripts,8
several
testimonia,
and a
prologue
to the
poem
written
by
Eudocia herself. From these three
sources of information three
things
are certain:
(1)
the centos are the
work of at least two
authors,
a
bishop
named
Patricius,
who
composed
the
poem
but left it
unfinished,
and the
empress
Eudocia,
who later ex-
6Barb.
gr.
83
(Capocci 1958,103-4)
looks as if it is
long enough
to
belong
to the Ivi-
ron recension. I have not seen this
manuscript; however,
whether it
belongs
to the Iviron
recension or not has no
bearing
on the
argument
here.
7For Milton see Harris
1898, 27-33;
for
Joyce
see
Faj 1968,
48-72.
8Par.
gr. suppl.
388
(saec. X),
Omont
1883, 45;
Par.
gr. suppl
1167
(saec. XIV),
Astruc
and
Concasty 1960, 331;
Par.
gr.
2867
(Copied
in 1560
by Ange Vergece),
Omont
1886-1898,
111.52;
Par.
gr.
3047
(Copied
in 1420
by George Chrysococces),
Omont
1886-1898, 111.99;
Par.
gr.
2755
(saec. XV; copied
in
part by
Michael Souliardos and Michael
Apostolios),
Omont
1886-1898,111.36;
Par.
gr.
992
(saec. XV),
Omont
1886-1898,1.198;
Schembra
1993,
280;
Par.
gr.
1087
(saec. XIV),
Omont
1886-1898, 1.216;
Par.
gr.
2144
(saec. XV),
Omont
1886-1898, 111.32;
Par.
gr.
2707
(Copied
in 1301
by
Michael 6
Zuvadnvog),
Omont 1886-
1898, 111:28;
Scorial 110
[previously
Scorial
2.III.11] (saec. XV),
Revilla
1936, 364-66;
Schembra
1993, 279; Neap.
II C 37
(saec. XV),
Pierleoni
1962, 309;
Mioni
1992, 261;
Schem?
bra
1993, 279;
Ottobon.
gr.
301
(1575-1576 c.E.),
Feron and
Battagliani
1893, 162;
Vat.
pal
326
(saec. XV-XVI);
Stevenson
1885, 189;
Schembra
1993, 279;
Barb.
gr.
83
(saec. XV),
Capocci 1958, 103-4;
Iviron 4464
(saec. XIV),
Lambros
1990, 92;
Vat.
gr. 915,
Schreiner
1988,125;
Vat.
gr.
1879
(saec. XIV),
Canart
1970,
460.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 309
panded
and revised his
work;
(2)
"Codex
Mutinensis,"
the text edited
by
Ludwich,
cannot be Eudocia's revision of
Patricius,
but is
rather,
as Lud-
wich himself
recognized (1897, 87),
"an
eclogue
of various Homeric cen?
tos assembled
by
an
anonymous
editor";
(3)
of all the
manuscripts
of the
Homeric centos I have been able to
locate,
only
the Iviron recension
represents
the text used
by
Aldus.
Building
on these certain
facts,
I offer
here a scenario of the
poem's development
in
antiquity
and its textual
condition
today,
a
proper understanding
of which is crucial to
any
fur?
ther
study.
Codex Mutinensis is
readily dispensed
with. The title of that ms
reads:
cO|o,tiqox?vtqcdv IlaTQixiou
emoxojtou xai
'Ojttijxou 4)iAoo6(()ou
xai
Eu5oxiag Avyovoxr\(;
xai
Koo|i& TepoooXuimou
tcbv jrdvtcov
eig
evog ow0f||i,atog 8xXoyr|.
It has been
suggested
that the
Optimus
and
Cosmas mentioned here are
contemporaries
of Eudocia and that
they
can be identified with members of the court of Theodosius
II,
who later
formed
part
of the
empress'
coterie
during
her exile in
Jerusalem,
where
she
composed
the centos some time after the
year
443
(Holum 1982,
220).
Ludwich, however,
rightly
believed that these
persons
were cento
composers
of a later
period, possibly
the redactors of the Mutinensis
eclogue.
The
identity
of
Optimus
is uncertain. Cosmas of Jerusalem is
identified
by
Ludwich
(1897, 85)
with the famous
eighth-century hym-
nist and
poet
of the same name.
Though
no Homeric centos are ascribed
to this
Cosmas,
this identification is
probably
correct,
since in her
pro-
logue
Eudocia does not mention
any
co-authors other than her
prede-
cessor,
Patricius.
A
comparison
of the Iviron recension and Mutinensis confirms that
the latter contains
interpolated
material from a
different,
that
is,
non-
Eudocian,
source. Iviron has 353 lines in common with Ludwich's edi?
tion of 490 lines. The differences between the two texts within those 353
lines are
mostly
confined to variants in
orthography
or the use of
parti-
cles.
However,
the
striking
and irreconcilable difference between the
two is the 137 verses
(and surely
more if Ludwich had
published
a com?
plete
text of
Mutinensis)
not found in
Iviron,
some of which are not rec-
ognizably
Homeric
(e.g.,
Ludwich lines
160,263
and
365).9
What is
more,
9Using
Ludwich's
text,
A. M. Alfieri
(1988, 147-53) analysed
sixteen such lines
whose source in Homer eluded G. Sattler 1904. Of those sixteen
lines, eight
are not in the
Iviron
recension;
five others
are,
but match
(or nearly do)
the Homeric
wording.
Of the
other three
(lines 144, 295,
371 of
Iviron), only
144 and 295 are not from Homer.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
310 M. D. USHER
dozens of the
corresponding
353 verses in Ludwich's edition have been
transposed
from their
original (i.e., Eudocian)
context,
a function of his
text's
being
an
eclogue
or
adaptation
of Eudocia's
expanded
version of
Patricius'
poem.
We turn now to the
question
of
authorship
and the
significance
of
the Iviron recension. The date and
identity
of Patricius and Eudocia's
role in the
composition
of the
poem
are
particularly
vexed
questions.
John Zonaras
(Annal.
13.23 in Dindorf
1868-75,
3:244) reports
that Eu-
docia
"brought
to
completion
and
'organized'
the work Patricius had left
unfinished"
(dteXeg
5e
X(XTtt?air6vT0S [sc. Patricius]
amo...
pig tpAos
fjyayp
xai
cbpydvcooev,
Ludwich
1897, 80;
Schembra
1993,
280).
Zonaras'
phrasing
here echoes Eudocia's own
description
of the
poem's
condition
as she found
it,
and this is
probably
his source
(prologue 9-14):
aXk'
eyob r\\LiT.EkEcnov dycxx^eeg (bg
eldov
epyov
IIcxtqixiou, oeki&ac, lepag fxexd x&QaS Axxpouaa,
oooa
[X8V
ev
pipknaiv
eitn nekev ov xaxd
xoajxov,
jidvx'
dfxudig
xeivoio
aoc|>fjg e^eiQuaa pipknr
oaaa 6'
exetvog f!A.f.ijtrv,
eycb
JtdX.iv ev oehibeooi
YQdipa
xai
dQ[xovir]v teQfjv
eiteeaaiv eScoxa.
But when I saw the
glorious
work of Patricius
half-finished,
I took
holy
pages
in hand and drew out en masse from his clever book all the verses
that were not in
order;
what he
left
out I reinscribed on his
pages
and con-
ferred a
holy harmony
on the verses.
Iviron
prefixes
to this
prologue
a
copyist's epigraph
that tells us
that centos were
'composed' (ovvexeQr\) by
Patricius,
and
subsequently
'corrected'
(5icoQ0a)0ri) by
Eudocia.10
Neap.
II 37
C,
a
manuscript
in-
spected recently by
Rocco Schembra
(1993, 280),
uses similar
language:
E?6oxiag Xa|i,jtQotdtrig tfjg
xai tov
jtapovta 6|iriQox8VTQcbva
tov ouv-
TpBFVTa ijjto
natQixiOD tivog
ejtioxojtoi)
fti-ooBfonoL[j.FVY]g.
The use of
the verb
5loq06co
to describe Eudocia's
activity suggests
an editorial
role, analogous
to the roles of the Hellenistic critics of Homer who
pro-
duced
6iOQ0cboeig,
'corrected
copies',
of the Iliad and
Odyssey.
This is
essentially
how Alan Cameron
(1982, 284)
understands Eudocia's state-
10John
Tzetzes,
who claims to have read the
centos,
knows
nothing
of
Patricius,
but
attributes the
poem entirely
to Eudocia: xai
df|
td
eO|ir|Q6x?VTQa
ta
tcajtrj [sc. Eudocia]
crnvTeOevta
(Hist.
var. chil. 10.306 in Ludwich
1897,16;
Schembra
1993, 281).
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 311
ments in the
prologue. According
to
Cameron,
the
empress'
contribu-
tion was
"well-meaning
but
unimaginative pedantry."
Her claim to have
found Patricius' work
"half-finished,"
he
asserts,
"is a
literary judge-
ment rather than a statement of fact.
Patricius,
she
says,
deserves the
highest praise
for his
idea,
but he did not 'tell the whole truth or
keep
the
full
harmony
of the verses or use
only
lines from Homer.' She claims to
have struck out what was 'not in order.'
Apparently
Patricius had been
too
free,
adding
words and lines of his own to link his Homeric
tags
to?
gether-Eudocia
went
through
Patricius' book
'harmonizing'
his
tags
without the
help
of
superfluities."
This is an
inadequate
assessment of the
scope
and nature of her
contribution,
consistent
only
with the
purpose
of Cameron's
study,
which is to refute the notion that "Hellenism"
played
a role in Eudocia's
fall from
grace
at the court of Theodosius II. I take no
position
whatso-
ever on that
question.
However,
as to the condition of the cento text as
Eudocia found
it,
her
"literary judgement"
about his
poem being
half-
finished
seems,
with the benefit of
hindsight,
to be a statement of fact as
well,
for of the extant
manuscripts
of the Homeric centos besides Iviron
and
excepting
the Mutinensis
eclogue
the
longest
contains
only
691
lines,11
less than one-third of the
2,348
lines of the Iviron recension. If
the Iviron recension can be identified with Eudocia's redaction of Patri?
cius,
as I will now
demonstrate,
then what she added in
"rewriting"
his
poem (jtdXtv
ev oeXibeooi I
ypd^a)
was substantial.
The
great
classical
bibliographer
J. Albert Fabricius
(1790, 554)
in-
spected
three of the shorter cento
manuscripts
in the
Bibliotheque
Na-
tionale
(Reg.
codd.
graec.
2891
[now
=
Par.
gr. 992],
2977
[now
=
1087],
and 3260
[now
=
2755])
and
having compared
them to Aldus' edition
suggested
the
following development
of the text in
antiquity. Originally,
Patricius' centos were short and covered
only topics singled
out in the
Nicene Creed. Eudocia
augmented
this short
poem
with narrative mate?
rial.
Specifically,
she added accounts of Christ's
miracles,
making
the
work three times as
long.
In a third
stage, corresponding
to the manu?
scripts)
used
by
Aldus and
Stephanus,
someone added four Old Testa-
ment
episodes:
the
Creation,
a
description
of
Paradise,
the
temptation
of
the
Serpent,
and the Fall of Man. This third
editor,
thought
Fabricius,
also enhanced the second redaction so as to
quadruple
the amount of
material,
bringing
the total to about
2,400
lines. The last
redactor,
he
11
Schembra
1993,
279-80.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
312 M. D. USHER
says,
"inserted whole verses and
poetic episodes
with such license that in
many places
the text
departs
from the truth of the
Gospels."12
Fabricius' conclusions were a reasonable
guess
based on the
length
and contents of the
manuscripts
he
inspected.
The
problem
with his the?
ory
of three
stages culminating
in the Aldus
edition, however,
is that an
early
witness,
a hexameter
hypothesis
to the Homeric centos in the Pala?
tine
Anthology (1.119),
summarizes the contents of the
poem
without
mentioning
Eudocia. This
twenty-eight-line poem
ascribes the work en-
tirely
to
Patricius,
including
Christ's miracles. The four
episodes
of Fa?
bricius' third redaction
(Creation,
Paradise,
Temptation, Fall),
however,
are not alluded to in the
hypothesis;
nor are several other
episodes
found
in
Iviron,
for
example
the
Healing
of the
Demoniac,
the Samaritan
Woman at the
Weil,
the
Feeding
of the Five
Thousand,
the Death of Ju-
das,
the scene with
Doubting
Thomas,
the
Ascension,
and others.
If the
hypothesis
in the Palatine
Anthology
were a
complete precis
of the contents of Patricius'
poem,
it would be a
simple
matter of at-
tributing
to Eudocia
everything
it does not mention.
This, however,
is
not a sound
assumption,
as we shall see in a moment. Suffice it to
say
here that if Patricius did in fact cover all the material the
hypothesis says
he
did,
I doubt whether he could have done so in fewer than 600 lines.
Anything substantially
shorter,
like the
manuscript
of 203 lines attrib-
uted to him
by
Fabricius,
would not warrant a
twenty-eight-line hypoth?
esis.
By way
of
comparison,
the
Vergilian
cento of
Proba,
which also has
a
twenty-line hypothesis/epigram
attached to
it,
covers Old Testament
events from the Creation
up
to the
Nativity
of Christ in 345
lines,
and
Gospel episodes
in
349,
giving
a total of 694 lines.13
^Here is his assessment in full: Codex 2891 Bibl.
Reg.
Paris exhibet Homerocento-
nes, quales
a Patricio
primum
collecti
sunt,
idque opus
tantum constat versibus 203. Porro
codex 2977 et 3260 eundem centonem exhibet ab Eudocia concinnatum et
auctum,
qui
constat versibus 615. Sed in codice 2977 illud carmen non Eudociae Theodosii
coniugi,
sed
alii Eudociae sorori
nempe Cyrzoes
Monomachi uxoris tribuitur. Praeterea alius codex
Homerocentones
exhibet, quales
Aldus
primum
deinde H.
Stephanus
et alii
ediderunt,
quadruplo ampliores quam qui
Cod. 2977 Eudociae adscribuntur. Prima
collectio,
quae
Pa-
tricium auctorem habet...
quamquam
est
brevior,
ea tamen omnia
adtingit, quae
de
Christo in
Symbolo Apostolorum
et Nicaeno continentur. Secunda
collectio, quae
Eudo?
ciae
est, praeter
illa
quae adtingerat Patricius,
varias continet de Christi miraculis narra-
tiones,
suis
quasque
locis
insertas,
et
supremi
iudicii
peculiarem
habet in fine
descriptio-
nem. Tertiae collectionis auctor
praeficit operi
suo
capita quatuor
de mundi
creatione,
de
paradiso,
de astu
serpentis,
et de violata a
primis parentibus lege
divina. Ad haec non so-
lum
integros passim versus,
sed et
episodia poetica
et
descriptiones
frivolas adtexuit tanta
licentia,
ut
saepe
ab
evangelica
veritate
discrepet.
^Text in Schenkl 1888 and Clark and Hatch 1981.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 313
It
is,
I
think,
significant
that the
length
of Proba's cento is
roughly
the
length
of the two Homeric cento mss
inspected by
Fabricius
(Par. gr.
1087 and
2755),
and of two other mss
inspected by
Schembra
(Scorial.
110
=
691
lines; Neap.
II C 37
=
652
lines).
Furthermore,
Par.
gr.
992,
the
203-line ms
inspected by
Fabricius,
is
damaged
and contains a
large
la?
cuna;
a fourth
ms,
Vat.
pal. gr. 326,
also
lacunose,
in its
present
condition
contains 444 lines
(Schembra
1993,
279-80).
Without their
respective
lacunae, however,
all four cento mss
appear
to have
originally
been
roughly
the same
length,
between 650 and 700 lines. These
manuscripts
and various others of similar
length,
I
suggest (somewhat following
Schembra)14 represent
Patricius' "half-finished"
poem,
which Eudocia
expanded
and corrected. That the Iviron recension can be identified with
this
expanded
version of the
poem
is
supported by
Eudocia's own state?
ments in the
prologue,
to which we now turn.
As
part
of her
"rewriting"
Eudocia
says
that she
brought
Patricius'
verses into
harmony
with Homeric diction
(dQ|ioviriv \eqt\v
eneeooiv
edcoxa),
and that her
expanded poem necessarily
contained 'doubles'
(6oid6eg).
Both claims are true of the Iviron text. The decisive criterion
are the doubles. In her
prologue
Eudocia writes
ei de
Tig aitioqrco
xai
r^eag eg ajjoyov
eXxoi,
doiddeg
oftvexa noXkai
dQi^nXov
xatd
p(,pXov
eiaiv
e0^ir|QeL(ov
ejieoov
ojiep
ov
Be^iig
eoriv,
iotoo
Toi39\
otl
Jidvteg ujiodonaTfjoeg dvdyxrig.
"If someone should blame me because there are
many 5oid5eg
of Ho?
meric verses in this excellent
book,
which is not
allowed,
let him know
that we all are slaves of
necessity."
The
meaning
of the word
6oid6eg
here has confounded all
previous
scholars. It has been understood
by
Ludwich
(1897, 84),
Salvaneschi
(1981, 128-29),
Alfieri
(1988, 154-55),
and Schembra
(1994, 328-31)
to refer to
ambiguities,
or "double mean-
ings" involving
the misuse of a Homeric word to
express
a biblical con-
cept.
Double
meanings
are indeed
integral
to cento semiotics and
poet-
ics.
This, however,
is not what Eudocia means here.
Aoid6eg
are lines taken over from Homer in
sequences
of two or
more. The full text of the
epigraph
to Eudocia's
apology
in
Neap.
II C 37
makes this
perfectly
clear:
14Schembra
(1993, 280)
uses the
designation
"fourth
recension,"
to describe Patri?
cius'
original poem,
"ma il numero non ha valore
cronologico!"
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314 M. D. USHER
ajroXoyia Eudoxiag \a\mooxaxr\t; tfjg
xai tov
jkxqovto: o^iriQOxevTQCbva,
tov auvTeOevTa
jtaQa naTQiXLOU Tivog
emaxojro'u
diOQOwaa^eVrig, vtieq
te xov atJtov
xavxr\v diogOcoaai,
xai
vjieq
xov ev
^ev
tco
6n,TiQoxevTQtt>vi,
ovTatiavog
ex toIj
e0^ir|QOV
td
\ie& "O^irigov eyQai^e
ftno
ariyavg efopffijg
xfj.|if,voi?g 6tiT]Qixoi;g jif) F/ftQiaxeffOar
ev touto) de nolv xo toioutov
eivai.
(Pierleoni
1962, 309;
Mioni
1992,261)
This is the
apology
of
Eudocia,
the
splendid
woman who corrected the
present
Homeric cento
composed by
a certain
bishop, Patricius;
the
apol?
ogy
is about her
editing
him,
and about the
fact
that two successive Ho?
meric lines are never
found
next to each other in the Homeric cento which
Tatian
composed
on a
post-Homeric
theme
using
verses taken from
Homer;
whereas in this
poem
of hers
[she says]
there is much of this sort of
thing.
This
anonymous
comment is of
great importance
for
placing
Eudo?
cia's Homeric centos in the
larger
centonic tradition.
Significantly,
the
author
recognizes
two versions of the
poem,
and his
wording suggests
that he identifies the 652-line
poem
in front of him with Patricius' ver?
sion. The Tatian referred to here is the
pagan
Flavius Eutolmius Ta-
tianus,
Praetorian Prefect of the East under Theodosius I
(PLRE
1:876-
78;
Holum
1982, 14, 221).
He is mentioned
by
Eudocia in the
prologue
(19-27)
as a
predecessor
in the art of
composing
Homeric centos. Tatian
had written a centonic verse
sequel
to the
Iliad,
which we know Libanius
held in
very high regard.
He describes it as a work which "takes Homer
as a
point
of
departure, [expressed]
in the
very [verses]
of Homer"
(tccxq'
eO|ir|Qou
6i' auxcov xcav
eO|ir|Qou).
Tatian's
poem
went
through
at least
three editions in his lifetime and was
widely
read in the schools
(Liban.
Ep.
173 with Norman
1992,
373-77).
Tatian's work is not known to have
survived,
but as Eudocia's own
apologetic prologue suggests,
it
may
have contained a
preface
in which
he
explained
his methods of cento
composition.
The
principles
of cento
composition expressed
in the
Naples epigraph agree
with those of Auso-
nius as stated in his
methodological prologue
to his Cento
nuptialis,
a
Vergil
cento about sexual intercourse
composed
in 369. To
appropriate
two successive lines from a source text
(duos
iunctim
locare), according
to
Ausonius,
is
ineptum;
three or more in a row are merae
nugae (Green
1991,
133).
Tatian it seems avoided such faults
by interspersing
lines of
his own
composition.
Yet in the Homeric centos of the Iviron recension 35
percent
of the
lines
(821/2348)
come in blocks
ranging
from two to six in
succession,
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 315
sometimes
coming together
in
groups
of as
many
as twelve lines made
up
of blocks of two or three lines from different
places
in Homer. So
many 6oid6eg
are in
open
violation of the "rules" of cento
composition
laid down
by
Ausonius and followed
(if
somewhat
fudged) by
Tatian,
and this no doubt is
why
Eudocia
apologizes
for them in her
prologue.
The
presence
of
6oid6eg
in the Iviron text
distinguishes
Eudocia's work
from that of
Proba, Ausonius,
and
Tatian,
each of whom
intentionally
avoids doubles of the kind described above. More
importantly,
however,
the
presence of
these doubles
clearly points
to the conclusion that the Ivi?
ron recension must be Eudocia's
poem.
Admittedly,
these
arguments
for
attributing
the Iviron recension to
Eudocia do not rule out the
possibility
of later additions
by
another
hand. On the
positive
side, however,
I do not see
why
she cannot be re-
sponsible
for the Old Testament
episodes
attributed
by
Fabricius to a
third redactor. It has been
suggested by
Cameron
(1982, 266)
and others
(Ermini 1909, 29;
Clark and Hatch
1981, 103;
Green
1995,
562)
that Eu?
docia's
impetus
to
compose
a Homeric cento came from the
presenta-
tion of a
calligraphic copy
of Proba's cento to Theodosius II in the mid-
to late-430s.
Thus,
the
empress may
have included the Old Testament
material in imitation of Proba.
It is also
possible
that the author of the
hypothesis
in the Palatine
Anthology unknowingly
or
deliberately
attributed to Patricius what was
actually
Eudocia's final
redaction,
and?as is to be
expected
from the
paraphrastic
nature of a metrical
hypothesis?did
not
provide
an ex-
haustive list of the
poem's
contents. Eudocia herself
says
that Patricius
deserves all the credit:
though
their labor on the
poem
is shared
(^v-
vog
...
jcovog),
she
insists,
he alone "is
worthy
of eternal
praise (eoxi |iev
dOavdxoio
6ia|iTC?Q8g d^iog cavou),
because he was the
very
first
(jcd|i-
jtQcoxog)
to
ply
this trade_He alone has
gained great glory among
men"
(xetvog
6'
fJQaxo |io13vog
ev
dvOQomoig |ieya xu6og, prologue
3-4,
35).
The
Naples epigraph goes
so far as to
suggest
that the
hypothesis
was
composed by
Eudocia herself
(tcqcdxt)
6e
f] xfjg djcoXoyiag
xai xo13
i)JCO|ivr||iaxog vJtoOeoig
xexaxxca
(ng
cma
xfjg ftiooBroott{iPvr|g jrQog xoiig
qyaymhanoyxag),
another distinct
possibility.15
But who was Patricius? The ancient and medieval witnesses
clearly
151 find it
unlikely
that the
hypothesis
was written
by
Patricius himself
(pace
Lud?
wich
1882,
213 and Harris
1898, 37).
A similar
hypothesis
is attached to the Cento
Probae,
which was written
by
an
imperial
slave
(famulus).
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
316 M. D. USHER
do not know
(note ng
in Zonaras and the
Naples epigraph).
Ludwich be-
lieved that our Patricius was the father of the famous
Neoplatonist
philosopher
Proclus
Lycius,
Eudocia's
younger contemporary (Ludwich
1897,
87).
This
Patricius,
according
to
Ludwich,
was later confused with
one
neAxxyiog jcaxQixiog,
a Christian
patrician
noted for his
epic poetry
(xov 0au|iaox6v
xai
keqI jcoitioiv
ejcarv
d^ioXoyov av6Qa George
Ce-
drenus;
Theophanes Chronograph.,
as cited in Ludwich
1897,
80),
who
was executed
during
the
reign
of the
Emperor
Zeno
(c.e. 474-91) (Bury
1958,
402).
On this
view,
confusion in the later sources arose because
jcaxQixiog, already
a common
proper
name in late
antiquity,16
had been
since the time of Constantine an honorific title for
imperial
officials
(Krumbacher
1958,237;
Barnes
1975).
This title was then later taken as a
proper
name for
emoxojcog xig, perhaps
because Patricius is called an
&qt|xtiq ("man
of
prayer")
in the Palatine
Anthology hypothesis.
I find this
explanation unsatisfactory,
first that Proclus' father had
Christian
interests,
for which there is
absolutely
no
evidence;
second that
a familiar title could
generate
such confusion in the later sources. I offer
here what I think is a more
likely
alternative.
In a famous letter to Paulinus of Nola written in
395,
Jerome claims
to have read both Homeric and
Vergilian
centos on biblical themes
(Ep.
53.7 with Labourt
1953, 15-16, 235):
"Skill in the
scriptures
is the
only
thing
the entire
population arrogates
to
itself,"
he writes with
sarcasm,
"We learned and unlearned alike
just
can't
stop writing poems" [Horace
Ep. 2.1.117].
The
babbling
old
woman,
the
drivelling
old
man,
the
person
who waxes
eloquent
with solecisms?one and all
they
claim this skill as
their
own,
tear the
scriptures
to
shreds,
and teach before
they
learn.
Some,
furrowing
their brow and
"weighing
their
pompous
words"
[cf.
Pers.
3.82],
philosophize
on themes from the
holy scriptures
before an audience of
women;
others?for shame!?learn from females what
they
should teach
to men
and,
as if that were not
enough, they glibly?nay brazenly?ex-
plain
to others what
they
themselves do not understand. I
say nothing
of
people
like
me,
who
happen
to have come to the
holy scriptures
after
studying
secular literature and sooth the common
person's
ear
by
their
polished speech?they
reckon whatever
they say
is the law of God and
they
do not see fit to find out what the
prophets
and
apostles thought,
but
rather fit to their own
private meaning passages
that have
nothing
to do
with that
meaning,
as if it were some
great
feat
(and
not a
depraved
16There are
twenty
entries in volumes 1 and 2 of the PLRE.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 317
method of
exposition)
to have an author's intention
violated,
and to make
scripture
conform to their own
will,
though
in fact that same
scripture
flies
in their face. As if we haven't read the Homeric and
Vergilian
centos?
though
there is no
way
we can claim that
Vergil
was a Christian without
Christ, just
because he wrote
Now the
virgin returns,
returns as weil the Saturnian
reign.
Now a new
generation
descends from heaven on
high
(Ecl. 4.6-7)
or claim that it is the Father
speaking
to the Son in this line:
Son, my strength, you
alone are
my great power (Aen. 1.664)
or,
a little
later,
that these are the words of the Savior on the cross:
He
endured,
speaking
such
things,
and stood there transfixed
(Aen. 2.650)
These
things
are childish?like a
game
for
busy-bodies?teaching
what
you
know
nothing
about,
or rather
(to really
vent
my spleen)
not even
knowing your ignorance.17
This
scathing passage
has been used
convincingly
to date Proba to
the last third of the fourth
century (PLRE
"Proba
2"),
most
recently by
R. P. H. Green
1995, 551-54,
as it is
generally agreed
that she is the
gar-
rula anus referred to
here,
since Jerome
actually
cites two lines
(Aen.
17Sola
scripturarum
ars
est, quam
sibi omnes
passim
vindicent: scribimus indocti
doctique poemata passim;
hanc
garrula anus,
hanc delirus
senex,
hanc soloecista
verbosus,
hanc universi
praesument, lacerant, docent, antequam
discant. Alii adducto
supercilio
grandia
verba trutinantes inter mulierculas de sacris litteris
philosophantur,
alii discunt?
pro pudor!?a feminis, quod
viros
doceant, et,
ne
parum
hoc
sit, quadam
facilitate verbo-
rum,
immo audacia disserunt
aliis,
quod ipsi
non
intellegunt.
Taceo de meis
similibus,
qui
forte ad
scripturas
sanctas
post
saeculares litteras venerint et sermone
composito
aurem
populi mulserint,
quicquid
dixerint,
hoc
legem
Dei
putant,
nec scire
dignantur quid pro-
phetae, quid apostoli senerint,
sed ad sensum suum
incongrua aptant testimonia, quasi
grande
sit et non vitiosissimum docendi
genus, depravare sententias,
et ad voluntatem
suam
Scripturam
habere re
pugnantem.
Quasi
non
legerimus
Homerocentonas et
Vergiliocentonas,
ac non sie etiam Maro-
nem sine Christo
possimus
dicere
Christianum,
quia scripserit:
iam redit et
virgo,
redeunt
Satrunia
regna
/ iam nova
progenies
caelo demittitur alto et Patrem
loquentem
ad Filium:
nate,
meae
vires,
mea
magna potentia solus,
et
post
verba Salvatoris in cruce: talia
perstabat
memorans
fixusque
manebat.
puerilia
sunt haec et circulatorum ludo
similia,
docere
quod
ignores,
immo,
ut cum stomacho
loquar,
nec hoc
quidem
scire
quod
nescias.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
318 M. D. USHER
1.664 and
2.650)
found in her
Vergilian
cento
(Springer
1993, 96-105;
Green
1995,
553). Green,
following
A. G.
Amatucci,
argues
that Proba's
cento was a Christian aristocrat's
response
to the
emperor
Julian's edict
of 362
barring
Christians from
teaching
the Classics in the schools
(Green 1995,555-58).
There is a hint of the use of her
poem
as a "school
text" for Christians in what Jerome took to be cento
poets' pretensions
to
scriptural exegesis
and instruction
(docent, antequam
discant
[...]
de
sacris litteris
philosophantur [...]
docere
quod ignores), especially
in his
chief
complaint?the
fact that such
poets
included women
(pro pudor
a
feminis!),
in violation of several New Testament
injunctions against
women teachers
(cf. Springer
1993,
99-104).
Jerome's letter has never been used to
identify
and date
Patricius,
yet
it
proves
that Homeric centos on biblical themes were in circulation
during
the author's life
time,
specifically
before 395.18 If we can believe
Eudocia when she
says
that Patricius was "the
very
first"
(jcd|iJCQ(oxog)
to
compose
such a
poem,
then Jerome must be
referring
to the Patrician
recension of the Homeric centos. Could he be 'the
drivelling
old man'
(delirus senex)
mentioned in the
letter,
author of the Homeric centos
Jerome himself had read?
We cannot be
sure,
but we do know that in
response
to Julian's
edict another
Greek-speaking bishop, Apollinaris
of Laodicea
(in
Syria),
with his father recast the
Gospels
as Platonic
dialogues,
and
para-
phrased
the Psalms with Homeric hexameters for use in Christian
schools.19 Patricius' efforts
may
have been
part
of a similar
program,
and
perhaps
that is the context in which Jerome had read the centos. We
have
already
seen that Tatian's cento was used as a school text in the
East,
and it has been
suggested
that Proba's cento was so used in the
West
(Clark
and Hatch
1981,100,106).
One last
piece
of
(circumstantial)
evidence for the date of Patricius
is a hexameter tomb
inscription
found in
Gulushlu,
Turkey (ancient
Phrygia)
and dated
by
its editor to 362 c.e.
(Calder
1928,
no.
412).
The in?
scription
honors a Christian
priest (aQxiSQfjog)
named Patricius who is
described,
like the Patricius in the Palatine
Anthology hypothesis,
with
18Harris
(1898, 44-67) argued
for a date in the mid-fourth
century
on different
grounds, seeing
structural
parallels
between the centos and the
apocryphal
Acts
of
Pilate
(also
known as the
Gospel ofNicodemus).
19Sozomen,
Hist. eccl.
5.18;
Lietzmann
1904,
43-44.
However,
there are
problems
with
attributing
the hexameter Psalter to
Apollinaris.
See
Golega 1960,169-72.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 319
the
epic epithet 'god-fearing' (0eou5eog).
This Patricius
"occupied
the
holy
office held
by
the divine fathers for
forty-eight years" (Sg ^leOejioov
oxxcoi xe
oaQdxovxa
5'
exr]
/ Oeojteoioov
jraxeQcov iepov x^eog e'X,X,a[x8v
a]uxig), making
him an older
contemporary
of Proba. Whether he is our
Patricius or not
is,
of
course,
impossible
to
prove,
but
certainly
on the
strength
of Jerome's letter alone we can conclude that Eudocia's
prede-
cessor lived at least a
generation,
if not
two,
before the
empress.
We
may
therefore draw the
following
conclusions: Patricius wrote
some time in the last third of the fourth
century.
The shorter cento
manuscripts represent
his work. Eudocia
greatly expanded
and edited
this
poem during
her exile in Jerusalem. Her version is
represented by
the Iviron recension. So much historical reconstruction has been neces?
sary
in order to clear
up
the inherited confusion about
authorship
and
the state of the cento text. Once Eudocia's
complete poem
is made avail?
able,
it can receive the full attention it deserves.
Classicists, medievalists,
theologians,
and
literary
critics
will,
I
expect,
find much of interest in the
Homeric centos.
hector, intende,
laetaberis.20
M. D. Usher
University of Chicago
e-mail:
mdusher@midway.uchicago.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfieri,
A. M. 1988. "La tecnica
compositiva
nel centone di Eudocia
Augusta."
Sileno 14:137-56.
Astruc,
C. and M.-L.
Concasty.
1960.
Catalogue
des manuscrits
grecs:
le
supple-
ment
grec.
Vol. III. Paris:
Bibliotheque
Nationale.
Barnes,
T. D. 1975. "Patricii under Valentinian III." Phoenix 29:155-70.
20It is a
pleasure
to
acknowledge
the
following persons
and institutions for their
part
in the
writing
and
researching
of this
paper:
Laura
Slatkin,
Robert
Kaster,
Chris
Faraone,
Elizabeth
Asmis,
the editor and
anonymous
referee for AJP
(for helpful
com?
ments on earlier
drafts);
the Blanche B.
Boyer Fellowship
Fund
(for
financial
support
to
travel to
Greece);
Father Nikitas Loulias of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of
Chicago,
Robert Allison of Bates
College,
and the Patriarchal Institute of Thessaloniki
(for
assis-
tance in
obtaining
access to the Mount Athos
collections). Special
thanks
go
out to the Fa-
thers of Moni
Iviron, especially
to Fathers Iakovos and
Theologos,
for their
generous
hos-
pitality
and
scholarly
acumen.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
320 M. D. USHER
Bernand,
Andre and Etienne. 1960. Les
inscriptions grecques
et latines du Co-
losse de Memnon. Cairo: Institut
fran^ais d'archeologie
orientale.
Bowie,
E. L. 1990. "Greek
Poetry
in the Antonine
Age."
In Antonine
Literature,
edited
by
D. A.
Russell,
53-90. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Bury,
J. B. 1958.
History ofthe
Later Roman
Empire.
Vol. I. New York: Dover.
Calder,
W. M. 1928. Monumenta Asiae Minoris
antiqua.
Vol. I. Manchester: Man-
chester
University
Press.
Cameron,
Alan. 1982. "The
Empress
and the Poet." YCS 27:217-89.
Canart,
Paul. 1970. Codices Vaticani
graeci,
codices 1745-1962. Vol. I. Rome: Vat-
ican.
Capocci,
Valentino. 1958. Codices Barberiniani Graeci. Vatican
City:
Bibliotheca
Vaticana.
Clark,
Elizabeth A. and Diane Hatch. 1981. The Golden
Bough,
The Oaken
Cross.
Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press.
Delepierre,
Octave. 1875. Tableau de la litterature du centon chez les anciens et
chez les modernes. Vol. I. London: Trubner.
Dindorf, L.,
ed. 1868-75.
Epitome
historiarum. 6 vols.
Leipzig:
Teubner.
Enepekides,
P. K. 1970. Der
Briefwechsel
des Maximos
Margunios, Bischof
von
Kythera.
Athens: B. A.
Papazese.
Ermini,
Filippo.
1909. // centone di Proba e la
poesia
centonaria latina. Rome:
Loescher.
Fabricius,
J. A. 1790. Bibliotheca Graeca. Vol. I.
Hamburg:
K. Bohn.
Faj,
Atila. 1968. "Probable
Byzantine
and
Hungarian
Models of
Ulysses
and
Finnegans
Wake." Arcadia:
Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende
Literaturwissen-
schaft
3.1:48-72.
Feron,
Ernest and Fabiano
Battaglini.
1893. Codices
manuscripti graeci
ottobo-
niani. Bibliothecae Vaticanae. Rome: Vatican.
Golega, Joseph.
1960. Der Homerische Psalter: Studien iiber die dem
Apollinarios
von Laodikeia
zugeschriebene Psalmenparaphrase. [Ettal]:
Buch-Kunst-
verlag
Ettal.
Green,
R. P. H. 1991. Ausonius:
Opera
Omnia. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
-. 1995. "Proba's Cento: Its
Date,
Purpose,
and
Reception." CQ
45:551-63.
Harris,
James Rendell. 1898. The Homeric Centos and theActs
ofPilate.
London:
J. S.
Clay.
Holum,
Kenneth G. 1982. Theodosian
Empresses:
Women and
Imperial
Domina-
tion in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley
and Los
Angeles: University
of California
Press.
Hunger,
Herbert. 1978. Der
Hochsprachliche Profane
Literatur der
Byzantiner.
Vol. II. Munich: Beck.
Krumbacher,
Karl. 1958. Geschichte der
byzantinische
Literatur. New York: B.
Franklin.
Labourt,
Jerome. 1953. Saint
Jerome,
Lettres. Vol. III. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Lambros,
S. P. 1900.
Catalogue ofthe
Greek
Manuscripts
on Mount Athos. Vol. II.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROLEGOMENON TO THE HOMERIC CENTOS 321
Lietzmann,
Hans. 1904.
Apollinaris
und seine Schule.
Ttibingen:
J. C. B. Mohr.
Ludwich,
Arthur. 1882.
"Eudocia,
die Gattin des Kaisers Theodosius II als Dich-
terin."#M 37:206-25.
-. 1897. Eudociae
Augustae,
Procli
Lycii,
Claudiani carminum
graecorum
reliquae. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Maltomini,
Franco. 1995. "P Lond. 121
(=
PGM
VII),
1-221: Homeromanteion."
ZPE 106:107-22.
Manutius,
Aldus. 1501-1504. Poetae Christiani veteres. Venice: Aldina.
Mioni,
Elpido.
1992.
Catalogus
codicum
graecorum
Bibliothecae Nationalis
Neapolitanae. Naples:
Istituto
poligrafico
dello
Stato,
Libreria dello Stato.
Norman,
A. F. 1992. Libanius:
Autobiography
and Selected Letters. Vol. II. Cam?
bridge,
Mass.: Harvard
University
Press.
Omont,
Henri
Auguste.
1883. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits de
supplement
grec
de la
Bibliotheque
Nationale. Paris: A. Picard.
-. 1886-1898. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits
grecs
de la
Bibliotheque
Nationale. Paris: E. Leroux.
Pierleoni,
Gina. 1962.
Catalogus
codicum
graecorum
Bibliothecae Nationalis
Neapolitanae.
Vol. I.
Naples:
Istituto
poligrafico
dello
Stato,
Libreria dello
Stato.
Renouard,
Antoine
Augustin.
1825. Annales de
Vimprimerie
des Alde. Vol. I.
Paris: Renouard.
Revilla,
P. A. 1936.
Catdlogo
de los codices
griegos
de la biblioteca de El Escorial
Madrid:
Imprenta
Helenica.
Salvaneschi,
Enrica. 1981.
"'El;
ak\ov aXko: Antico e tardo-antico nelle
opere
di
Eudocia." In
Aeojuog xoivcoviag:
scritti di
filologia
e
filosophia,
edited
by
Gianfranco Fabiano and Enrica Salvaneschi. Genova:
Melangolo.
Sattler,
Gustav. 1904. De Eudociae
Augustae
centonibus.
Bayreuth:
L.
Ellwanger.
Schembra,
Rocco. 1993. "La
'Quarta'
Redazione
degli
Homerocentones." Sileno
19:277-95.
-. 1994. "L'Omero 'Christiano': Varianti di christianizzazione e
SoidSeg
nella
'quarta'
redazione
degli
Homerocentones." Sileno 20:317-32.
Schenkl,
Karl. 1888. Poetae Christiani Minores. Vindobonae: F.
Tempsky.
Schreiner,
Peter. 1988. Codices vaticani
graeci,
codices 867-932. Rome: Vatican.
Smolak,
Kurt. 1979.
"Beobachtungen
zur
Darstellungsweise
in den Homerzento-
nen." Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen
Byzantistik
28:29-49.
Springer,
C. P E. 1993. "Jerome and the Cento of Proba." Studia Patristica
2:96-105.
Stephanus,
Henricus. 1578. Homerici centones a veteribus vocati
'Ojuygoxevrga.
Paris:
Stephanus.
Stevenson, Henry.
1885. Codices
manuscripti palatini graeci
Bibliothecae Vati-
canae. Rome: Vatican.
Wilken,
R. L. 1967. "The Homeric Cento in
Irenaeus,
Adversus Haereses
I, 9,4."
VigChr
21:25-33.
This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:09:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions