Tag Archives: Cyril’s Lexicon

Around Cyril: The Final Conference of PatriarX in Messina (2026)

Cyril's Lexicon, Final conference, Scientific event, , ,

On 19–20 January 2026, the Villa Pace (Messina) hosted the final scholarly event of the project PatriarX, the international conference:

Around Cyril.
Paths and Problems of Lexicography between the Hellenistic Age and the Middle Ages

 

The conference brought together specialists in Greek philology, lexicography, and manuscript studies to reassess the transmission, transformation, and reuse of Greek lexical knowledge from the Hellenistic period to the Byzantine Middle Ages, with particular emphasis on the Lexicon attributed to Cyril and its wider textual constellation.

See the full programme here!

 

Villa Pace, Messina
The view from Villa Pace. Messina

 

First day: 19 January

Opening Session and Methodological Frameworks

After the institutional greetings, the conference was opened by Giuseppe Ucciardello (University of Messina), Elena Esposito (University of Basilicata), and Paolo Scattolin (University of Verona), who introduced the aims and methodological premises of the PatriarX project and outlined the scientific achievements of the three research units (Messina, Basilicata, and Verona). Their remarks stressed the need to approach Greek lexicography not as a closed corpus of fixed texts, but as a fluid tradition shaped by practices of excerpting, glossing, and pedagogical reuse across different historical contexts.

Chaired by Maria Cannatà Fera (University of Messina), the first keynote lecture, Lexicography and the History of Language: General Considerations, was delivered by Emanuele Dettori (University of Rome “Tor Vergata”), who outlined the theoretical tensions between linguistic change and the conservative nature of lexicographical writing. This contribution provided an essential conceptual framework for understanding lexicography as both a linguistic and a cultural phenomenon.

Lexical Traditions and Intertextuality

The morning focused on specific lexicographical traditions and their intertextual dimensions. In this frame, Lucio Del Corso (University of Salerno) presented A New Hellenistic Glossary in the Bodleian Library, offering a detailed analysis of previously understudied lexicon transmitted in papyrus fragment and highlighting its relevance for reconstructing early stages of the tradition of Greek lexical material linked with Cyril.

In the afternoon session, chaired by Claudio Meliadò (University of Messina), Raffaella Cantore (University of Ferrara) presented Complex Glosses in the Lexicon of Aelius Dionysius, examining layered glossing practices and their implications for the interpretation of lexical entries in Aelius Dionysius’ Lexicon—a text transmitted only by indirect witnesses.

This was followed by Reinhart Ceulemans (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), who explored the relationship between Cyril’s lexicographical material and biblical exegesis in Cyril and the Lexeis of the Psalms, showing the intertextual relation between these two lexica, at the intersection of philology and theology.

Manuscripts, Glosses, and Attribution Problems in Western Lexicographical Traditions

The second part of the day, chaired by Aldo Corcella (University of Basilicata), shifted the focus to manuscript evidence and problems of attribution in lexicographical tradition originated in the medieval West. The paper Links between the Glossaries Abavus and Pseudo-Philoxenus: New Hypotheses, was delivered by Frank Cinato (CNRS, Paris), who proposed a reassessment of the interdependence between the traditions of Pseudo-Philoxenus bilingual glossary (Latin-Greek) and the Latin glossary so-called Abavus (from its first entry), likely produced in French scholarly milieus in the early Middle Ages.

Subsequently, Alessandro De Angelis and Roberta Durante (University of Messina) presented Greco-Romance Glosses in Italo-Greek Manuscripts of Grammatical and Lexicographical Content, shedding light on manuscript witnesses useful to better understand linguistic contact phenomena and the permeability between Greek and Romance lexical cultures in southern Italy.

 

Second day: 20 January

A Closer Look into Cyrillean Manuscrits

The second day, chaired by Elena Esposito (University of Basilicata), focused more closely on the manuscript tradition of Cyril’s Lexicon . The first contribution was the paper Some Newly Investigated Manuscripts from Greece (Un)Attributed to Cyril’s Lexicon, by Stamatis Bousses and Maria Konstantinidou (Democritus University of Thrace), which introduced new manuscript evidence and addressed methodological challenges in assigning lexicographical manuscripts to Cyril.

Then, in his paper Cyrillus Bremensis and the Monastery of Stoudios, Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto (University of Basilicata) explored the cultural contexts of the production of ms. Bremensis C 11, emphasizing the role of Constantinopolitan monastic networks—particularly the monastery of Stoudios—in shaping scholarly practices of edition of lexica. Showing the trajectory that linked Stoudios, as an iconodule enclave in eighth- and ninth-century Constantinople, to monastic circles of the Syrian-Palestinian Middle East, the paper showed the importance of the Bremensis as cultural product of this erudite milieu.

The final session, chaired by Paola Megna (University of Messina), focused on later reuse of Cyril’s Lexicon. In her paper From the Recension g of Cyril’s Lexicon to the Synagoge: A Reassessment in Light of the Discoveries of Mark Naoumides, Paola Carmela La Barbera (University of Verona), demonstrated that Mark Naoumides (1931-1977) brought to light five new witnesses of the Synagoge, the famous lexicon produced in the eighth century on the basis of that of Cyril. By reconsidering the Synagoge in light of these new manuscripts and by demonstrating their contribution to the establishment of the text, she proposed to reanalyse the origins of the Synagoge.

The conference concluded with Federica Scognamiglio (University of Messina), whose paper In Cyrilli Lexico Excerpendo: Three Case Studies offered concrete examples of excerpting practices from Cyril’s Lexicon. Focusing on the case studies Vat. Urb. gr. 157, Ambr. L 35 sup., and Laur. S. Marci 318, she illustrated how these lexica, drawing from Cyril, were continuously reshaped through selective transmission.

 

Conclusions

In the concluding remarks, our PI Giuseppe Ucciardello synthesised the main outcomes of the conference, reaffirming the central objective: to reconstruct the paths of transmission through which Greek lexicographical knowledge was preserved, transformed, and refunctionalized from antiquity to the Middle Ages.

 

 

By integrating philology, codicology, and the history of scholarship, the conference highlighted lexicography as a living and adaptive tradition, deeply embedded in the intellectual history of the Mediterranean world.

The PatriarX Team

 

Cyril and the Others: Glimpses from the April Workshop in Messina (2025)

Uncategorized, , , ,
The fancy stationery,
the Aula Magna,
and the bookmarks!

Last April, we (the organizers of the Messina Research Unit!) held our bilingual mid-term workshop at the University of Messina — an opportunity not only to present the current status of our research, but also to engage in dialogue with fellow scholars. The workshop was in fact specifically focused on comparison with other lexicographical material, as reflected in its title:

Cyril and the Others.
Comparison and Connection in Greek Lexicography

See the full programme here!

Having a break looking at the Stretto di Messina, between Scilla and Cariddi...
Stairway to the Department (DICAM), which welcomed us to the two-day workshop

As we stated in our call for papers, the study of Cyril’s Lexicon…

… involves preliminary stages of defining and understanding the material, especially by way of comparison with other lexicographical tools: the Greek “Etymologica”, well-known lexica (such as that of Hesychius, the “Suda” or the “Lexicon” by Photius) together with extracts and reworkings of other compilations, with inclusion of scholarly material of other typology (such as scholia, paratexts, epimerisms or lexicographic marginalia, etc.). This material span from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine period, and it is transmitted in several ways (from papyrus rolls to medieval manuscripts). Therefore, are we entitled to speak of specific features of the “Lexicon” attributed to Cyril, as for the content and the way in which the material is arranged? To what extent does Cyril shift from other lexicographic tools?

In response to our call for papers, many of the proposals not only met our objective of fostering lexicographical comparison, but also offered new or revisited perspectives on well-known historical and philological issues concerning the materials under examination.

During the two days of the workshop, and with a focus on comparing lexicographical sources, a variety of approaches were explored:

  • the content: analysis of a lexicographical collection as a whole or analysis of some lexeis according to their typology, i.e. synonymic and/or exegetical material; study of the interpretamenta sometimes fleshed out by quotations and reworking of classical “loci”;
  • the linguistic facies: linguistic analysis of lexeis;
  • selection and arrangement: the ordering criteria of the lexicographic material (e.g. the alphabetical order for the first, first two or first three letters of the lemmata), or other ways of setting the material (thematic groupings, by word roots, etc.);
  • palaeography and codicology: the layout (in papyri or Byzantine copies) or on handwritings of manuscripts of scholarly/lexicographic material;
  • editorial practice: methodological remarks on the practice of critical edition of lexicographic materials;
  • cultural and historical context: the socio-cultural contexts of lexicographic manuscripts (not only of the Cyril’s Lexicon) used as teaching tools or scholarly books between East and West.

We were not surprised to see how the contributions, though divided across two days, showed a strong internal coherence within each session — and more broadly, the two days themselves formed two coherent, yet distinct, moments in terms of approach. The first day, composed of longer presentations, was marked by a series of statements, methodological approaches, and preliminary or in-depth observations on case studies unrelated to Cyril. The second day, structured around a thematic session specifically dedicated to Cyril, was characterized by a series of questions, inquiries, and exploratory approaches to the lexicographical material — material that is, by its very nature, diverse and difficult to define.

The first day…

…devoted to research on lexicographical material other than Cyril’s Lexicon, was divided into four sessions. The inaugural lecture given by Augusto Guida showed us some case studies, especially on linguistic peculiarities (of Sicilian dialect) included in the Lexicon.

The first session, with contributions by Georgios Gousgouriotis and Andrea Rossi, focused on the relationship between the material found in Cyril’s Lexicon and that related to the poetry of Gregory of Nazianzus and the accompanying exegetical traditions. Their presentations clearly showed that such material may have been one of the sources for several glosses incorporated into Cyril’s Lexicon—mainly explanatory or synonymous in nature.

The second session explored Greek comedy fragments as a possible source for certain lemmas in Cyril’s Lexicon and the Etymologica (with Simone Fiori). It also featured two distinct approaches to the study of the manuscript tradition of ancient lexica: one on the Lexicon of Meridas (with Jacopo Cavarzeran), and another on Pollux’s Lexicon (with S. Douglas Olson).

The third session focused more on material aspects—codicological and palaeographical features—or on the specific characteristics of individual manuscripts as unique transmitters of certain lexicon versions. Topics included the Etymologicum Gudianum and its reception of Cyril in southern Italy (with Eva Wöckener-Gade and Alessandro Musino); a distinctive manuscript of the Suda from southern Italy (with Claudia Nuovo); and an expanded and contaminated version of Cyril’s Lexicon found in a Vatican manuscript (with Maria Giovanna Sandri).

In the fourth and final session, the linguistic focus of the papers was especially evident—just as we had hoped when drafting our call for papers. On one side, we saw an analysis of ancient Macedonian in both Cyril and Hesychius, and the strong connections between them (with Wojciech Sowa); on the other, a study of how the use of certain adverbs can serve as “signals” of linguistic identity (with Giulia Gerbi).

The second day…

…was entirely dedicated to the thematic session, chaired by Paolo Scattolin. As previously mentioned, this session focused exclusively on work related to Cyril’s Lexicon. Members of our PatriarX Team presented some of their first results and methodological approaches to studying the Lexicon.

The thematic session touched on some aspects of the research on Cyril’s Lexicon: an analysis of the oldest and most complex witnesses—namely, the papyri (with Elena Esposito and Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto) and the Codex Bremensis (with Aldo Corcella); a linguistic study of the material preserved in the Bremensis (with Giorgia Scomparin); the problematic incipit of Cyril’s Lexicon and its comparison with that of the Etymologicum Gudianum (with Stefano Valente); preliminary proposals for a stemma and the identification of Leitfehler within this type of manuscript tradition, specifically in the tradition of Cyril (with Federica Scognamiglio and Paola Carmela La Barbera); and finally, a study of some additional glosses found in a specific witness (with Simone Marcazzan).

For the especially curious (or the most zealous readers!), several participants in the workshop have contributed to this post, offering more detailed reflections on their own presentations:

Simone Fiori
(University of Genoa)

Comic Fragments in the Age of Lexica. ‘Cyril’ and the Etymologica

In Greek lexica comic quotations are frequent, but fluctuations can be considerable. In my paper I tried to contrast two lexicographical traditions that are distinct but have several points of contact: that of ‘Cyril’ and that of Byzantine etymologica. Although this comparison is hampered by the absence of critical editions, the PCG allow a first tentative census of the comic fragments found in the two traditions.

The result is an interesting and seemingly contradictory scenario: while in the etymologica the older redaction (that of the Genuinum) is richer in explicit comic quotations than the more recent redaction of the Gudianum, which can be traced back to 11th cent.-Southern Italy, in the case of ‘Cyril’ it is the ‘innovative’ redactions from the Italo- Greek area (10th-11th cent.) that are relatively richer in comic fragments (some of which are not otherwise known). Comparison suggests that high-level secular erudition also circulated in Southern Italy, used differently according to needs and contexts.

Eva Wöckener-Gade
(Akademievorhaben ‘Etymologika’, Hamburg)

Different ways of using Cyril’s Lexicon as a source: the Etymologicum Gudianum and an anonymous composite lexicon transmitted in a group of Southern Italian manuscripts

The extraordinary layout of the Vat. Barb. gr. 70 (11th c., Southern Italy), the original manuscript of the Etymologicum Gudianum, allows us to trace the usage Cyril’s lexicon as a source in different stages of the composition. Basically, two scenarios can be distinguished:

a) Interpretamenta on the given meaning of a lemma have been added in entries from other sources (e.g. Epimerismi Homerici, Etymologicum Genuinum): apart from fam. n, also the v(g)-recension was used for this; some interpretamenta only occurred in the A-recension

b) Whole entries have been adopted from Cyril’s lexicon, mainly from the so-called family n.

Contrary to previous assumptions, both types of usage can be traced throughout all stages of composition. Further research is needed to narrow down how many manuscripts / which version(s) of Cyril’s Lexicon have been consulted, especially by examining whether the entries assigned to recensio A can possibly also be found in certain manuscripts of the v-recension.

Claudia Nuovo
(University of Republic of San Marino)

The Wanderings of a Manuscript of the Suda Lexicon

Among the extant witnesses of the Suda lexicon, one of the most remarkable is the enigmatic Vat. gr. 1296. Completed in 1205, this manuscript has long divided scholars: is it of Byzantine origin, or might its roots lie in the culturally dynamic regions of Southern Italy? Although a definitive answer remains elusive, the codex’s transmission history is rich in historical and intellectual significance. It was copied from Voss. gr. F. 2, a manuscript that ultimately reached England and served as the basis for Robert Grosseteste’s Latin translation of several entries from the Suda. By contrast, Vat. gr. 1296 soon arrived in Italy, where it entered the intellectual circles of prominent figures such as Constantinus Lascaris and Fulvio Orsini.

Reconstructing the manuscript’s journey gives rise to a – somewhat bold – hypothesis: while its script may suggest a Constantinopolitan origin, its production context may reflect a broader ‘Mediterranean’ milieu,shaped by the distinctive cultural hybridity of Southern Italy. Supporting this view is the manuscript’s peculiar blend of Byzantine features with elements characteristic of Southern Italian scribal practices. Although its provenance remains unresolved, Vat. gr. 1296 raises important questions about Greek-Latin cultural interactions in the medieval Mediterranean. For now, it continues to guard many of its secrets – some of which may be unveiled through future research, while others may well remain a compelling enigma for generations of scholars to come.

Maria Giovanna Sandri
(Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa)

The Lexicon of the ms. Vat. gr. 869

Ms. Vat. gr. 869 (early 14th cent.) transmits a particular version of Cyril’s lexicon (ff. 1-68). This manuscript was known by A. B. Drachmann, who noted that it contains the v-version of this lexicon but in a heavily reworked form: some glosses are omitted, others epitomized and/or rewritten, others added from other sources. A more detailed analysis of the sources has shown that the letter α is mostly made up of glosses from Photius’ lexicon (no other manuscript containing Cyril is known to have been interpolated so pervasively with glosses from this lexicon). This finding is interesting not only for Cyril’s textual transmission, but also for Photius’, given the limited extent of its manuscript tradition: only three manuscripts survive up to date, one of which heavily mutilated in its letter α.

A preliminary collation has shown that the Vatican codex cannot be the apograph of any of the three surviving manuscripts of Photius, not even the Zavordas one, which transmits both Cyril’s and Photius’ lexicon. Contrarily, the Vatican codex may have some conjunctive errors with the Berlin codex of Photius. Deeper investigations must be carried out to draw definitive conclusions on the position of this codex in the traditions of Cyril’s and Photius’ lexica.

Elena Esposito – Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto
(University of Basilicata)

The most ancient phases of the tradition of the Lexicon of Cyril: the papyrus of Nessana II 8 and the codex Bremensis C 11

The paper focused on two of the oldest witnesses of Cyril’s Lexicon: P. Ness. II 8, the largest of the surviving papyrus fragments, and the Bremensis C 11, the oldest of the “complete” manuscripts currently known. Starting from an analysis of the two artefacts, they proposed some reflections on aspects that still seem to require further investigation, more specifically: the purpose for which the monumental lexicon was composed, its original form, the initial phases of circulation, but also, more generally, the contexts of use, as well as the persistence and diffusion of Greek culture in the Middle Eastern area, after the Arab conquest. On the one hand, in fact, P. Ness. II 8 seems to be configured as an excerptum that records lemmas mainly attested in the work of Cyril of Alexandria himself, and in the main writers of Greek literature, from the classical age to the imperial age, as well as in the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament), in Philo of Alexandria and in the Fathers of the Church and is useful to show the use and perhaps the re-adaptation – as a working tool – of the lexicographical nucleus that was presumably at its basis in the context of 7th century Palestine. On the otherhand, the codex Bremensis C 11 appears as an “expanded” or “expanded” Cyril.

The origin of additional glosses has been only partially identified and their re-examination can lead to some further considerations on the internal stratification of the manuscript itself and on its productivity in the Constantinopolitan monastery of Stoudios, an iconophile enclave linked to monastic
environments of the Syro-Palestinian Middle East. The integrated examination of the two witnesses seems to confirm that the “Lexicon of Cyril”, produced by Christian cultural elites of late-ancient Alexandria, possibly had an original nucleus composed by Cyril’s works and other theological texts; this proto-lexicon, following the Arab conquest, served as a working tool in the contexts of the persistence of Greek culture in the Middle Eastern area, notoriously linked to
monastic-religious milieux, thus arriving into ninth-century Byzantium; furthermore, the Nessana papyrus and the Bremensis codex represent two very different versions of the same text: on the one hand an excerptum, on the other a version that has incorporated extremely heterogeneous materials that finds no parallels in otherwise known branches of the tradition. Most likely, therefore, in the 7th and 8th centuries, one can find a fluid text that is interesting to observe not only for the reconstruction of the history of the text, but also because it provides precious information about the cultural contexts in which Cyril’s Lexicon was, from time to time, used, expanded, reworked, readapted and, ultimately, transformed.

Stefano Valente
(University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’)

In the Beginning Was Cyril?
Notes on the Incipit of the Etymologicum Gudianum

The Etymologicum Gudianum (mid-11th century, produced in Terra d’Otranto) has suffered from the loss of its initial leaves in the original manuscript (Vat. Barb. gr. 70), complicating the reconstruction of its beginning and title. Many manuscript copies also lack these initial leaves, making the task even more difficult. The last editor, Edoardo Luigi De Stefani (1909), used the ms. Vind. phil. gr. 23 (12th/13th c.) to reconstruct the missing text, following a suggestion by Richard Reitzenstein (1897). A thorough study of the textual transmission of the Etymologicum Gudianum within the Etymologika project has provided a better methodological foundation for reconsidering these issues. The study of the text of the main witnesses that still preserve the beginning of the lexicon has revealed the presence of blocks of entries transmitted in the same order, albeit dislocated in different ways.

In particular, the Vind. phil. gr. 23 stands out as because it is the only manuscript that transmits materials from Cyril and other lexica such as the lexicon Athanasii. It follows that these blocks of entries were introduced only in the Vindobonensis (if not already in its ancestor, the Par. gr. 2630). These supplements do not belong to the original text of the Etymologicum Gudianum, but only to its transmission. They should therefore be edited separately. Furthermore, based on preserved manuscripts, a possible title f the Etymologicum Gudianum may have been Ἀρχὴ σὺν θεῷ τῆς ἐτυμολογίας τῶν κδ΄ στοιχείων, “Beginning in God’s name of the etymology of the twenty-four letters”.

Federica Scognamiglio
(University of Messina)

Conjunctive and Separative Phenomena (I). Stratigraphy of Glosses in the recensio a of Cyril’s Lexicon (i.e., Leitfehler?)

The recensio a of Cyril’s Lexicon is essentially based on two manuscripts (A = Vall. E 11; S = Laur. Plut. 57.39), both likely of Eastern provenance, thereby shifting the epicenter of this Cyrillian recension far from Southern Italy. The textual facies of A and S shows distinctive features that diverge, to varying degrees, from the text of recensiones g and v. In addition to textual divergences in shared glosses, what stands out in particular is a kind of “stratigraphy of glosses”—that is, two or more glosses with the same lemma but different interpretamenta, “significant duplicates” of a that tend instead to conflate (or differentiate) in a non-univocal way in the other recensiones, and which should be assessed as Leitfehler. Far from being merely a temporal feature (i.e., roughly indicative of a historical stage for recensio a), the stratigraphy of lemmata is a structural feature that will shed light both on the availability of material for recensio a and on the processes of selection or differentiation in the other two recensiones.

Taking the word ζιβύνη and its variation as an example , the four different versions in ms. A and their conflation in other recensiones can prove to us, on one side, the presence of more glosses of the same word at the (alleged) origin of the medieval transmission then transformed step by step, and on the other side the richer availability of material at the origin of recensio a, and of the whole manuscript tradition. Therefore, the stratigraphy of glosses could be considered as a significant feature to be evaluated throughout the manuscript tradition— that is, as Leitfehler. Defining Leitfehler in such a tradition proves to be a challenging task, and in this matter the changing and mixing different (even unconscious!) arrangements of two or more glosses may say more than meets the eye.

Paola Carmela La Barbera
(University of Verona)

Conjunctive and Separative Phenomena (II). The g-recension according to Mark Naoumides: ‘Additional’ Lemmas, thus ‘Separative’?

The archives of Mark Naoumides [read more!]—one of the most dedicated specialists on Cyril’s Lexicon—preserve several of his unpublished papers on the various recensions (or versions) the Lexicon underwent over the centuries. My paper focuses specifically on his work concerning the so-called g-recension, one of the most widely circulated versions of the Lexicon, as evidenced by the number of surviving manuscripts. Naoumides held clear views on the transmission of the g-recension, distinguishing between two branches: one representing a more ‘synthetic’ version of the Lexicon, and the other an ‘expanded’ one. But what exactly do ‘synthetic’ and ‘expanded’ mean in this context? Compared to what are these labels applied?

Is it accurate—as Naoumides suggests—to consider the ‘expanded’ version a reworked form, enriched with some extra material? My research suggests the opposite: the synthetic version is better understood as an abridged form of the original material preserved in the expanded version. Basing on Naoumides’ findings, my paper aims to show how crucial his work is as a starting point for improving and refining our understanding of the Lexicon’s textual tradition.

Simone Marcazzan
(University of Verona)

‘New’ hesychian glosses in Cyril? The case of the ms. Madrid, Biblioteca Universitaria Complutense, 30.

The paper concerned 30 glosses belonging to some sections of a Cyril Lexicon’s version transmitted by a codex copied in the South of Italy (Madrid, Biblioteca Universitaria Complutense 30; 10th c. AD): this manuscript was formerly studied by M.N. Naoumides, who assigned it to the recensio g, in particular to the subgroup g7. The glosses may consist – as Naoumides suggested – of some additional
entries not originally present in g, but penetrated into g7 «from a fuller or unabridged version of
Hesychius’ lexicon»: some (but not all) of these are also contained in the other two mss. of the
subgroup (København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1968 4°, 12th c.; Messina, BRU «Giacomo
Longo», S. Salv. 167, 13th c.).

These glosses (which are absent from all the other Cyril witnesses I have consulted so far) could be further examples of an interpolation that occurred no later than the 10th century and bear witness to the circulation of a Hesychius ‘auctus’ more complete than the one preserved in the ms. Venice, BNM, gr. Z. 622. At any rate, the ghost of Diogenian hovers over this issue, and someone might speculate that a manuscript of his lost Lexicon, circulating at that time in the South of Italy, could represent the source of the interpolation in g7.

The oldest witness of Cyril’s Lexicon: the Nessana papyrus!
Entering the workshop…

The closing remarks were delivered by one of the workshop organizers and the principal investigator of the project, Giuseppe Ucciardello. In his concluding thoughts, he highlighted the many points of contact between the various materials and methodological approaches discussed throughout the sessions. Most importantly, he pointed out to us in the PatriarX Team which aspects may prove most significant for our ongoing research on Cyril’s Lexicon — and for future philologists who might choose to take up this line of inquiry.

By the end of the two days, something was pretty clear: much work remains to be done on the Lexicon of Cyril, across a number of areas. On the philological side, this includes partial editions and collations of selected stoicheia (i.e., groups of letters); on the other side, concerning the structure and the sources, the analysis of possible sources and later influences through targeted sampling of identifiable lexical “blocks”; and from a historical-linguistic perspective, the study of word groups by dialect (e.g., Attic dialect forms).

Work on the Lexicon of Cyril must proceed through approximations and “gradual refinements” — through evolving perspectives and analytical paradigms applied to the material. A partial collation, for instance, is necessary to understand how to approach a complete one. And yet, once the complete collation is done, the partial one is already outdated. Nevertheless, it was essential to get there in the first place. With such a multifarious corpus, the scholar’s greatest virtue is perseverance.

And providentially, philologists tend to be a tenacious sort.

Federica Scognamiglio, Giuseppe Ucciardello

Networking in Villa Vigoni. Current research perspectives and new methodologies of investigation on the so-called ‘Cyril’s Lexicon’

Uncategorized, , , ,

The purpose of the Italo-German bilateral meeting held at Villa Vigoni – featuring contributions from scholars across various European countries – was to present the current state of research on the so-called ‘Cyril’s Lexicon’ and to explore new research directions. This lexicon, probably compiled in the 5th or 6th century AD and attributed in numerous manuscripts to the famous Patriarch of Alexandria, is one of the most widely transmitted and influential Greek language dictionaries from Late Antiquity through to the Renaissance.

Die heutige Forschung an diesem ‘greulichsten aller Wörterbücher’: Das sogenannte Kyrill-Lexikon und neue Forschungswege / Attuali prospettive di ricerca e nuove metodologie di indagine sul ‘più ostico dei dizionari’, il cosiddetto ‘Lessico di Cirillo’, October 21st-22nd, 2024, Villa Vigoni (Italy)

The exact number of surviving manuscripts transmitting Cyril’s lexicon remains to be determined, with over a hundred known so far. The history of transmission is still not fully clarified, particularly given the different textual versions and the high number of surviving manuscripts. Therefore, the lexicon in its entirety is neither fully explored nor accessible in a modern critical edition. The rediscovery of new manuscripts of the lexicon in recent years has provided decisive impulses for future research. Key areas include not only manuscript studies and investigations into the history of transmission aimed at producing the first critical edition of the lexicon, but also research into its cultural history, dissemination, and use within various scholarly circles, as well as linguistic analyses of its content.

In light of this, the Italo-German conference aimed to foster an interdisciplinary dialogue among scholars focusing on Greek lexicography, examining Cyril’s lexicon from various material, transmission, and content perspectives, alongside its relations to other lexicographical works.

The contributions from participants focused on several key research questions:

1) History of Research
On one hand, Renzo Tosi critically examined the historical context and the history of lexicographical studies since the late 19th century. On the other hand, the contributions of individual scholars who have deeply engaged with Cyril’s lexicon were assessed: Paola Carmela La Barbera’s contribution presented the preliminary results of her firsthand study of part of the extensive collection of the Greek philologist Mark Naoumides at the University of Urbana (Illinois). Reinhart Ceulemans highlighted important aspects of earlier research concerning Cyril’s lexicon in relation to biblical glossaries, emphasizing the lasting influence of British scholar Edward Bernard (1638–1697) on research into the lexicons of Cyril and Hesychius as they relate to biblical texts.

2) History of Transmission and Manuscript Studies
Several presentations focused on specific manuscripts. Maria Giovanna Sandri illustrated the complexity of transmission showing some manuscripts that have been rarely or inadequately studied so far. These manuscripts are particularly significant because learned scribes often integrated and modified the text of the lexicon of Cyril with additional materials from other lexicographical traditions. Further, Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto and Stamatis Bussès presented individual manuscripts as case studies. Both presentations reinforced the necessity of considering each manuscript both individually and within the broader context of the entire transmission to determine its ‘place in life’ and reveal its cultural importance.

3) Other lexica
The discussions extended beyond Cyril’s lexicon itself to include shorter lexica, frequently found as appendices to it in medieval manuscripts. Besides Reinhart Ceulemans’ contribution on biblical glossaries, often transmitted alongside the lexicon of Cyril, the historical connections in transmission with the so-called lexicon of Zonaras were examined by Peter Isépy.

4) Cultural History
On one hand, the question of the origin of the lexicon in Alexandria (Egypt) in the 5th/6th century and its subsequent spread in the Byzantine world based on existing transmission was raised by Dimitrios Papanikolaou. On the other hand, the study of manuscripts of the lexicon of Cyril confirmed the role and significance this widely circulated lexicon had in Byzantine teaching and learning contexts. In this sense, Luigi Orlandi’s contribution was particularly relevant, as it outlined a detailed panorama of the dissemination and study of lexicographical texts in the early Renaissance, with particular emphasis on scholars such as Andronikos Kallistos, Demetros Kastrenos, Georgios Hermonimos, and Konstantinos Laskaris.

5) Research on Sources
Contributions considered not only the sources of Cyril’s Lexicon but also its vital role as a source for Byzantine lexicographical collections. Notably, Alessandro Musino and Peter Isépy introduced new and promising research directions.

5) Linguistic Research
The application of modern linguistic research principles has revealed promising new avenues for further study in the coming years. Giuseppina Di Bartolo’s presentation focused on several representative case studies, contextualizing the transmitted text of selected entries from Cyril’s lexicon within the complexities of post-classical Greek. A key aspect of her work was the development of a linguistic analysis model that aims to reveal the diachronic and synchronic variety of the Greek language, making the data accessible for historical-comparative and typological analyses.

5) Editorial Practice
Given the intricate transmission history, the limitations of traditional historical-critical editions have become evident. It is essential to leverage the potential of Digital Humanities approaches for a future edition of Cyril’s Lexicon – or rather, its various versions. The Hamburg Academy’s long-term project ‘Etymologika’ serves as an exemplary case with its digital critical edition of the Etymologicum Gudianum.

These key points were further explored during a ‘Round Table’ moderated and introduced by Franco Montanari: Aldo Corcella discussed the presence of Patriarch Cyril’s writings in the lexicon, Federica Scognamiglio presented an interesting lexicographical excerpt from a manuscript of Cyril’s lexicon, and Elena Esposito discussed papyri containing parts of the lexicon; Stefano Valente examined interactions between Cyril’s lexicon and the Etymologicum Gudianum; Giuseppe Ucciardello introduced a previously unknown palimpsested manuscript, potentially one of the earliest copies of Cyril’s lexicon; Claudio Meliadò and Stamatis Bussès showcased ongoing digital projects related to Cyril’s lexicon and affiliated topics, while Franco Montanari addressed the goal of producing a new complete edition of the Scholia to the Iliad at the Universities of Genoa and Pavia.

In conclusion, it became evident that the “Cyril-Universe” – a term coined by Peter Isépy during the conference – requires fresh investigations into manuscripts, history, and linguistics. This does not entail disregarding previous findings but rather critically interrogating and validating them to provide a comprehensive overview of the history of transmission. Ultimately, the goal is to produce a complete edition – likely digital and collaborative – for the scholarly community in the foreseeable future. This ambitious objective can only be realised through the collective efforts and collaboration of scholars at the European level, a foundation that was laid during the meeting at Villa Vigoni.

Stefano Valente, Giuseppe Ucciardello

Conference Program

Monday, 21.10.2024

14:50–15:30 Introduction (Giuseppe Ucciardello, Stefano Valente)
15:30–16:00 Mark Naoumides e il Lessico di Cirillo tra pubblicazioni e carte inedite (Paola Carmela La Barbera)
16:00–16:30 Eine synchrone und diachrone Analyse des Kyrill-Lexikons (Giuseppina Di Bartolo)
16:30–17:00 The Documentation of Biblical Glossaries in the Printed Edition of the Lexicon(s) of Hesychius (and Cyril) (Reinhart Ceulemans)
17:15–17:45 Lessici bizantini nelle biblioteche di dotti e maestri dell’Umanesimo (Luigi Orlandi)
17:45–18:45 Discussion (Giuseppe Ucciardello, Stefano Valente)

Tuesday, 22.10.2024

9:00–9:45 Metodologie a confronto: le istanze delle scuole tedesco-danese ed italiana negli studi lessicografici greci (Renzo Tosi)
9:45–10:15 Alcuni codici meno studiati del lessico di Cirillo (Maria Giovanna Sandri)
10:15–10:45 Il manoscritto Oxford, Bodleian Library, Gr. class. f. 114 (Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto)
11:15–11:45 Il ‘Lessico di Cirillo’ nel manoscritto Haghios Gerasimos 1 (Stamatis Bussès)
11:45–12:15 Cyrillus Alexandrinus vel Byzantius? Possible directions for a Future Edition of the Lexicon Cyrilli according to Recensions (Dimitrios Papanikolaou)
12:15–13:00 Discussion (Giuseppe Ucciardello, Stefano Valente)
15:00–15:30 Die Rezension ‘n’ des Kyrill-Lexicons: Die Quellen (Alessandro Musino)
15:30–16:00 Das Kyrill-Glossar als Quelle des ‚Lexicon Zonarae‘ (Peter Isépy)
16:00–16:30 Discussion (Giuseppe Ucciardello, Stefano Valente)
17:00–19:00 Round Table, led by Franco Montanari, with contributions by Aldo Corcella, Federica Scognamiglio, Elena Esposito, Giuseppe Ucciardello, Claudio Meliadò, Stamatis Bussès, Franco Montanari
19:00–19:30 Final Discussion (Stefano Valente, Giuseppe Ucciardello)