Dove e quando

Seminari curricolari di Scienze dell’antichità «Bisanzio e noi», a cura della prof.ssa Pia Carolla (DIRAAS).

Webinar di PD Dr. Fabian Schulz (Università di Tubinga, DFG-Projekt): How reliable was the chronicle of John Malalas? New findings from the deciphering of a palimpsest (Codex Cryptoferratensis gr. 54, f. 65b).

Nell’ambito di un progetto di ricerca DFG, Fabian Schulz sta curando un’edizione critica completamente nuova del palinsesto dei Fragmenta Tusculana di Angelo Mai (1839). Grazie a una nuova campagna di riproduzioni multispettrali ha potuto esaminare il palinsesto come mai prima: nel seminario presenta un esempio di visibilità recuperata e ne trae conclusioni sul testo della cronaca in greco di Giovanni Malalas (VI secolo d.C.). Il seminario può interessare in particolare dottorande e dottorandi di papirologia, letteratura greca e bizantina, storia greca e romana, letteratura latina tardoantica e archeologia.

Abstract

The chronicle of John Malalas (6th century) has a poor reputation because it contains many idiosyncrasies and errors. In part, however, this does not seem to be the fault of the chronicler, but a consequence of the transmission process. The standard text of the chronicle is based on a single manuscript, which apparently offers an abridged version. The long version survives in the so-called Fragmenta Tusculana, which were discovered in a palimpsest by Angelo Mai in the mid-19th century. Scholars are divided over the exact value of the Tusculan fragments because the fragments not only contain more detailed information, but also errors. A much-discussed example is the dating of Narses’ second departure for Italy. The abbreviated version of the Chronicle (Malalas XVIII 110) implicitly dates the event to the thirteenth indiction (549/50), while the editio princeps of the fragments does so explicitly. This dating, however, is suspicious, since it disrupts Malalas’ internal chronology and because other authors such as Procopius and Theophanes place Narses’ departure in the fourteenth indiction (550/51) or in the year 551, which fits the historical record better. This talk will examine Malalas’ indiction date by re-inspecting the palimpsest. It will become clear that the fragment does not read ‘thirteenth’ but ‘fourteenth’. The original version of the chronicle therefore had a date that fit into the internal chronology and was historically accurate. This discovery challenges longstanding doubts about the accuracy of Malalas and the Fragmenta Tusculana; it provides important insights into the practices of the epitomator and Angelo Mai; and it clarifies the chronicle’s relationship to dependent texts (especially Theophanes).

Partecipazione online (Zoom): il link è disponibile su richiesta scrivendo a pia.carolla@unige.it.

Contatti