Rhodes Forum - World Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations"

Michael V. Bibikov - Main scientific employee
of Institute of general history of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Rector of the State academic university of the humanities

1981 during the International Byzantine Congress in Wienna in the National Library there was held a wonderful exibition of Byzantine manuscripts entitled “Byzanz und das Abendland”, that has demonstrated many fields of direct contacts between two worlds of culture. Few years ago in Florence during celebrating of the gold Medici epoch another extremely interesting exibition of manuscripts in the Biblioteca Laurentiana has proved the similiarity, if not in some cases identity, of type, technique and style of work by scribers and illuminators in Medici scriptorium as in respect to Greek manuscript books, so to the Latin, the Western, ones.

The dichotomic view on the history of Europe has as if proved the legitimacy of disection of European civilisation into two hemispheres. In this respect the “bizantism” is often used in the sense of opposition to the Western values.

But as it is often truly noticed, this opposition, even confrontation, between Byzantium and the West was mostly spread on political level. O. Mazal has asserted, that “der Antagonismus und die Polaritat zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen, die zu einer zwangslaufigen Konfrontation fuhren mu?ten, lagen nicht sosehr darin begrundet, da? es sich um zwei von Anfang an verschiedene Welten handelte, sondern in der Konsequenz des Auseinenderlebens zweier Bereiche eines ehemals geschlossenen politishen und kulturellen Gebietes, der griechisch-romischen Mittelmeerwelt der Spatantike”.

In this respect it would be very interesting to trace the relations between Byzantium and the West in rather risking on the face of it segment of culture, namely in polemical literature reflected in the history of manuscript books on this topic, spread as in the East so in the West. The as if risking character of the study is defined by the fact that the second part of the present paper deals with polemical Greek-Latin literature, when the first one is dedicated to the spread of polemical “Questions and Answers” initially attributed by tradition to Anastasius from Sinai. The last part of the paper concerns post-Byzantine polemical collections created by Maximos Margunios.

So three diferent periods of medieval culture, the early Bizantine, the top one and the period of “Byzance apresByzance” are to be investigated from the same point of view, namely the ways and conditions of the spread of Byzantine books, especially of the polemical character, in the West.
The first topic of the study is the history of the text of the “Questions and Answers” (“Erotapokriseis”) by Anastasius Sinaites and of its variants. The special interest to this monument is dictated by the fact that one of its versions became the prototype of the earliest Slavic literature collections known as Izbornik 1073 of prince Svyatoslav.

The text of “Erotapokriseis” published 1617 by J. Gretser represents one of the versions of the monument. It contains 161 questions and answers, seven of which are “extra ordinem”. But this redaction is descendent from two other, earlier, versions.

The first, the oldest one, consisits of 103 questions and answers wothout florilegia. Just this recensio is traditionally assumed as connected with very abbas Anastasius. The earliest copy of this “authentical” wording is dated from the 90th/10th C. being Cod. Mosquens. gr. GIM 197 (Vlad.).
The second recensio was formed by adding to the original kernel of the articles, that were often borrowed from other compendia. That concerns e.c. the texts “About great rivers” and “About great mountains”. In Coisl. 120 they are preserved as marginalia on f. 113. In several copies, as in Vatic. gr. 423, f. 224, Paris. gr. 922, f. 130v, Paris gr. 1259A, f. 107—107v, Escor. gr. R. III.2, f. 101v—102, Laurent. gr. IV.7., f. 115, Marcian, gr. 493/coll. 432, f. 406 v, Athos Laura Г 37 a.o., these catalogues were incorporated into the main text of the codexes, been as if supplement to the 23rd answer of the Florilegium. Different is only the turn of the articles of the final part: in Coisl. 120 and Vatic. gr. 423 it differs from that in the other copies.

The seconf version (recensio) consists of 88 questions and answers. Its copies are known as early as from the beginning of the 10th C. As this Florilegium twice (in 2nd and 57th answers) mentions patriarch Nicephorus (806—815), it is possible to date it from the 9th C. The attribution of this version to Anastasius Sinsites can be explained, that the author of the wording had used 26 fragments of the Anastasius’ volume and therefore has as if dedicated own work to Anastasius. So Gretser’s edition reproduced 88 questions and answers with florilegia and over that, after 74th answer, the significant part of another version (66 questions and answers).

The comparative study of the matter of Byzantine and old Russian manuscript collections of various character, so historico-chronographical, juridical, literature-grammatical, theological, has proved that though often identity of principles and methods of compiling the material, the contents of the included works, articles and fragments in Byzantine and Slavic books were different. The rare example of nearly full proximity of the contents of historico-chronological Byzantine and Slavic (Serbian) collections are manuscripts Mosquens. GIM gr. 264 and Mosquens. serb. Synod. 148/885. Among the theological collections just the same example represents Izbornik of Symeon—Svyatoslav and above mentioned Greek manuscript books.
The first, as if “original”, version of the Greek collection could be connected with the activity of the Sinai monk. The search of the copies of this wording proves the limited character of its spread. Actually there is no exist any full copy of the 9th/10th C.: GIM gr. 197 has a lacune, that can be “restored” by another copy of the 10th C., Cod. Wolfenbuttel. gr. 4240. But the contents and composition of questions and answers are not identical, despite of the fact, that both manuscripts represent just the same version of the Anastasius’ work. Another copy of the original version can be probably Cod. Athos Vatoped. 38 of the 10th/11th C. and may be also Athos. Karakall. 14 and Ambros. gr. 452/I 9 sup., both of the 12th C.
The further evolution of the contents of the “Erotapokriseis” was connected just with amplification of exegetic and polemical aspects of matter. A new corrector (or correctors) has used the Anastasius; work, changing the composition and reducing the whole volume on one hand, but adding to the argumantation numerous of patristic excerpts, on the other one. Supplied with a new sections this wording of 88 questions, unlike the original one, had a vast spread over the book world, been many times copied, amplified, added with scholia. The structure of this recensio obtained such a form, if to use Gretser’s numeration: NN 1—59, 142—151, 60—70, 128, 71—74, 152—154. In some manuscripts of this version the text is in its turn abridged. An example of such a variant, that had further alterations of a epitomator, can be the copy of the 11th C. Cryptens. gr. B. ?. 7. In Vindobon. Theol. gr. 328 the text of this wording is not full for mechanical luck of leaves at the beginning and the end of the book.
The copies of the “second” version that of 88 questions, are numerous. They are Vatican. gr. 2020 (a. 933), Vatican. Palat. gr. 318 (late 10th/early 11th C.), Laurent, gr. IV.6., Vatican. gr.1582 (both of the 11th C.), Escor. gr. O. III.11 (11th/12th C.), Berolin. Phillip. 1474/gr. 70, Coisl. 115, Oxon. Bodl. gr. 17, Ambros. gr. 520/N. 57 sup., Taurin. Reg. gr. 113, Patmius 53 (all of the 12th C.), Escor. gr. O. III. 14, Brescian. Querinian. gr. A. VII. 25, Ambros. gr. 1041/H 257 inf., Taurin. Reg. gr. 196, b. III. 7 (all of the 13th C.), Athos Vatoped. 10, Athos Vatoped. 13, Vatican gr. 432, Vatican. gr. 509, Oxon. Auct. T. 5. 52/Bodl. gr. 274, Athen. 329 (all of the 14th C.), Neapol. gr. 26/ II. A. 26, Paris. gr. 1220 A, Paris gr. 1088, Vatican. Regin. gr. 46 (of the 15th and 15th/16th C.), Monacens. gr. 53, Vindobon. Theol. gr. 200, Vindobon. Theol. gr. 184, Paris. gr. 859 (all of the 16th C.).

Just on the base of the version of 88 questions was formed the collections that became the prototype of Slavic Izbornik. This prototype can be entitled according to one of its lemma in Greek tradition as Sylloge, that corresponds to some extend to Russian title of the book (Izbornik). The Sylloge was amplified with the addition of articles of first of all so called”encyclopedic” and reference character. Not all of these 22 above mentioned copies of the prototype are absolutely identical in their contents. More over, the Venetian copy Cod. Marcian. gr. 493/coll. 432 (olim Card. Bessar. 167), represents the contamination of the two different versions, so of the Sylloge and the extensive wording.

The extensive version is known by several manuscript copies, one of which served as a base for J. Gretser’s edition. Among familiar to me copies the most close to the published text seems to be Cod. Laurent. gr. VI. 35 of the 11th C. According to preliminary estimation the copies of the same version are Cod. Laurent. gr. IV 16 (a. 1062), Patm. 5 (12th C.), Vatican. Pii II 11 and Neapol. gr. 17/II. A. 17 (olim Farnes.) (both of the 14th C.), may be also Cod. Andros. Mon. Hag. 64, Athos. Dionys. 224, Uppsal. gr. 29, Vatican. gr. 1909, Roman. Centr. Vittor. Eman. gr. II N 1 (16 C.), Athos Vatoped. 15 and Athos Dionys. 225 (17th C.). It is interesting to note, that just the copies of this version entitle the Florilegium as  ???????, so identifiing it with another Anastasius’ work, his “Viae dux”.

Thus the comparative study of the nprocess of forming of Byzantine prototype of Slavic Izbornik, known as Izbornik of Svyatoslav with its 21 Slavic copies, is now based on more than 100 copies of the 9th/10th to the 18th C., twenty two of which represent the version of immediate Byzantine prototype of Slavic book.

The spread of the text of the “Erotapokriseis” can be attested with codicological study.

The indication of the wide spread of the Florilegium and its popularity as in Byzantine world so around can be defined by the localisation of the origin of the studied manuscript copies.

The earliest copies of the 10th C., which origin can be attested, testify that the main centre of the spread of the monument in the early 10th/11th C. was Constantinople, first of all the imperial scriptorium. That is attested by the fact of Constantinopolitan origin of Coisl. 120, as well as by the identified origin from the imperial scriptorium both of Ambros. gr. L. 88 sup. and Paris. gr. 922. These data are supported by the investigated transference by the late 9th/early 10th C. of the centre of the further forming of the text collection of the “Erotapokriseis” in its final shape to Byzantine capital.

In the 11th C. the collection was copied in the Prince Islands of the Marmour Sea, near Constantinople, what is attested by the scribor’s notice from 1062 in Cod. Laurent. gr. IV. 16. Another copy of the same century, Cod. Laurent. gr. VI. 35, was during the 13th—14th C. in St. George monastery in island Marmara, that is testified by the holder’s notice dated de visu.

Several manuscript notices in the analysed codexes demonstrate the popularity of the Florilegium just in Italian scriptoria in the late v10th—11th C.
Cod. Vatican. gr. 2020 was copied 993 in Capua. The Italian origin is also mostly probable for Cod. Vatican. gr. 1582 of the 11th C.: the presence of the book in Grotaferrata is at any rate testified by the notice of librarian. On the south of Italy was kept another copy of the 11th C., Cod. Escor. gr. O. III. 14, renovates according to the notice in the Saviour monastery in Messina 1285. The same notice attests the origin of the book. Judging from the external characteristics abd type of the handwriting also south-Italian by origin are Cod. Vindobon. Theol. gr. 328 (ca. 12th C.) and Cod. Coisl. 115 (12th C.). At the same time the librarian’s notice on the latter of the books attests its transference to Athos.

Athos and Thessaly was the next centre of the spread of the copies of the analysed collection judging from codicological data. Thessalian origin is fixed for Cod. Ambros. gr. 1041/H 257 inf. of the 13th C. Some notices prove if not Athonite origin, but, just as in the case of Coisl. 115, the fact of collecting these texts on the Holy Mountain. So Coisl. 258 of the 12th C., was in the library of St. Athanase Laura, the earliest copy of the “author’s” version, Mosquens. GIM gr. 197, of the 9th/10th C. was in the Pantocrator monastery, wherefrom it was brought for Moscow by Arsenij Sukhanov.
The study of the manuscript tradition of the “Erotapokriseis” has helped to find out its spread in various translations as in the West, so in the East and among Slavs.

Cod. Matrit. gr. 4552 of the 17th C. presents the bilingual Greek-Latin text of the Florilegium. The both texts are copied in two columns en regard (left—Greek, right – Latin). The second half of the codex, after f. 156, is the copy of Ps.-Athanasian “Erotapokriseis”. In this manuscript the order of questions and answers is different from that of the collection of 88 questions (second version). It is interesting just the fact of appearance of the bilingual collection, that has attested the existance and spread of the Latin version of the monument.

The further investigation of other translations of the collection has allowed to find the Georgian version of the text (collection of 16 questions), as well as Arab, known as a compendium of 154 questions (Jerusalem copy of 82 questions: Hierosolym. S. Sepul. ar. 113, as well as Sbath Fahris 220 in the copy of Sarfeh qr. 14/I, 18 and Sinait. ar. 481.1 and 578.6).

Some fragments of the work, as well as the other fragments attributed in the manuscript tradition to Anastasius, are known also in Syrian, Coptic and Armenian versions.

So the collection of Questions and answers by (ps.-) Anastasius Sinaites, become never less famous thanks to its Slavic version under the title of Izbornik, turns out to be the link of the chain in the system of the spread of Byzantine literature in the West and East.
The above mentioned manuscript Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 197 that contains the original version of Anastasius’ “Questions” is directly linked to the next topic of this review, namely Byzantine manuscripts dedicated to Greek-Latin polemics.

We deal with collections of anti-Arian articles, now conserved in archives of Moscow and St.-Petersburg and some other centres.
The oldest analysed manuscript with articles on Greek-Latin polemics are parchment codexes Mosquens. GIM gr. 197 of the 9th/10th C., Mosquens. GIM gr. 232 of the 12th C. and Petropol. BN (former GPB) gr. 456 (Granstr.) of the 13th C. They are interesting from the point of view of the research of the early stages of forming of anti-Latin collections. Such manuscript collections, main part of which is dated from the 16th-17th C., were the chief source of creating of Anti-Latin literature in Byzantium.

Cod. Mosquens. gr. 197 was brought to Moscow by Arsenij Sukhanov, that is testified by the notice on f. 1, from Pantocrator monastery on Athos (f. 7 has a notice ??A ?????????????). When the main contents of the codex is dedicated to the anti-iconoclast polemics, the initial part of the manuscript (ff. 1-133v) contains ?????? by Anastasius from Sinai. The “Erotapokriseis” are copied on ff. 241—298 v. On the ff. 142—241 there are articles on anti-iconoclast polemics, among which are two texts connected with the early stage of Greek-Latin controversy. That is the Synodicon of John of Jerusalem (192v – 199: HIw?nnou?MonaxoA/written with more dark ink on the rubbed text/ hIerosolAmwn?sunodiken?etc.). This article, found also in the Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 201 of the 9th C. (ff. 131v—139), is entitled as  HEpistolN?HIw?nnou?hIerosolum?tou?prev?ten?basil?a?Konstant?non??The text contains the orthodox formula of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit that was as it is well known the main point of Greek-Latin disputes at the first period of polemics. Another text connected with Greek-Latin relations is the Letter of Pope Gregory II to Byzantine emperor Leo III Isauros (199v—208: Grjgor°ou p?pa hR?mjv ?pistolN grafe?sa prev L?onta ten basil?a per± ton septon e?k?nwn???The condemnation by Pope the iconoclastic policy of Byzantine emperors was also a step of Greek-Latin confessional confrontation.
So in spite of the fact that it was just the 9th C. when the first stage of Greek-Latin controversy became obviously acute, in the studied Greek manuscripts of this period there is no any text directly connected with the discussions of the epoch: the work attributed to John of Jerusalem is not connected with Greek-Latin polemics properly, and in the epistola of Pope Gregory the concrete break up is not interpreted as a deep conflict of two church-dogmatic traditions.

The anti-Latin polemics became spread in Byzantine literature in the form of special manuscript thematic collections. The earliest examples of that sort are anti-Latin copies of the 14th C.Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 239, 240 and 242: but some articles of Byzantine anti-Latin polemists can be found in the earlier manuscript collections of different content: that are Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 232 and Petropol. Bnat. gr. 456.

The polemical collection Mosquens. GIM gr. 232 of the 12th C. on the f. 1 and 104v has two similar notes of possessor: toA tote bibl°on ?sti kuroA Kall°stou toA Staur?? On the 104v askance there is a notice, testifiing the renovation of the book in the Vatoped monastery: @Anekain°sqj d? ?ka±? Asteron par? ?moA L?ontov ?eromon?xou tOv ?g°av ka±?basilikOv?meg?ljv?monOv?Batopaid°ou??The note on f. 1 ton?@Ib?rwn?notifies that this codex was also brought up by Arsenij Sukhanov from Iberian monastery on Athos: as the fields of the codex were cut of it is impossible now to see the usual signature of Arsenij, found in most of the manuscript brought by him from the Holy Mountain. Besides including some antiheretical works the manuscript is a copy of a part of the Viae dux by Anastasius Sinaites (ff. 112v – 146).

The manuscript contains some anti-Latin articles copied one after another. They are the text on azymes by Nicetas of Nicea (f. 59v toA timiwt?tou xartofAlakov ka± protosugk?llou kuroA Nik?tou toA Nik?wv per± ton ?zAmwn), polemical text on the azymes (f. 62) ????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ???????, the epistle of Peter of Antiochy to Venetian archbishop Dominic (f. 66 –  ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? /sic!/ ?????? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??????????????three polemical letters of Leo Bulgarian (f. 73v – ??????? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ?????????????? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????????.
Concerning two first articles it is necessary to point out, that just the same texts and in the same order are to be found in one of the Russian polemical manuscript collection of the 15th C., Cod. Mosquens. Undolsk. fol. 312: the Russian collections were created mostly on the base of the Greek ones.
The parchment Cod. Petropol. gr. 208/BNat. gr. 456 of the 13th C. (f. 15v-EC and 195v—196 – the cursive of the 14th C.) is the copy of the Nomokanon with explanations by Alexios Aristenos. The book was acquired 1882 from N.K. Nikolaides. It is one of the most ancient copy of Aristenos’ Synopsis. The anti-Latin texts are following: the epistle of Peter of Antiochy (f. 167, inc. ??????? ?????????), the fragment of the First letter of Leo Bulgarian (f. 167v – ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ?????????, and the anonymous treatise, earlier attributed to Photius, ???? ???? ???????? ?? ? ?????? ?????? ?????? (f. 168). So in the both cases there is if not large, but just the same circle of authors and topics, whose texts were copied in the definite order.
In this connection an important observation can be made, that these very texts and just the same order can be found in the early Slavic Nomokanons: though in the oldest Russian Nomokanons, Mosquens. Synod. rus. 227 and Mosquens. Rumiancev. Mus. rus. 320 (not earlier, than late 13th C.), there are no anti-Latin articles, the texts of Peter of Antiochy, Leo Bulgarian, Nicetas Stethatos and “About Francs” are found in the Nomokanon translated 1262.
Besides these articles in the earliest Greek special anti-Latin manuscript collections there are some syntagmatic passages, as e.c. the anti-Latin titles of the Panoplia by Euthymios Zegabenos. But in the analused Moscow codexes these titles appear only in the manuscripts of the 14th/15th C. (Mosquens. GIM gr. 225, 226, 227), when in the early parchment codex of the 12th/13th C. (N 224) there are capied only chapters, not connected with Latin anti-arian polemics.
So the appearance of anti-Latin works in the manuscript collections of the 9th—12th C. was rather sporadic. Only beginning with the 14th C., but especially from the 16th—17th C., there are preserved the special collections directly dedicated to anti-Latin polemics including plenty of texts on this topic.
The oldest Greek polemical collections in the Historical Museum in Moscow are codexes Mosquens. GIM gr. 239 and 240, dated from the 14th C. They are appeared in Moscow 1962 among eighteen manuscripts of polemical contents sent by patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus. In the Central State Archive of ancient acts (CGADA) there is conserved the Index “of eighteen manuscript books, that has sent for the Great Lord to Moscow the Saintest patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus in order to publish them in hellenic language”, which was made in the Foreign office by the transferring the manuscripts to the Patriarch’s library in Moscow. The studi ed anti-Latin codices had in this Index Nos 6 and 16. The codex Mosquens. GIM gr. 239 has also a lable-notice of the same contents, made 1693, on the top of the cover. Only four other Dositheus’ books have now such lables.
The oldest collection GIM gr. 239 dated from the 1330s contains 47 works attributed to twenty authors; last 42 folia occupy the articles entitled as ???????? ??????????? and attributed in lemmata to Gregory Theologus, John Chrysostomos, Dionysios Areopagites, John Damascenus a.o. Of main importance for the history of Greek-Latin polemics are such works as on the Holy Spirit, sometimes attributed to patriarch Photius, the epistle about azymes by Leo, metropolite “of Peristhlaba in Russia”, the treatise on Easter, attributed to the name of Nicetas David Paphlagon (so in the manuscript), or Nicetas Byzantinus, or John Philoponus a.o. There is also copied an article “Against Francs” in 17 chapters(“faults”), descendant from the polemical work by Michaiel Keroularios. The version represented by this manuscript is attested as the earliest revision of the text. A.S. Pavlov informed refering to the manuscript collection of the 15th C. from the Trinity Laura near Moscow about the existing of the Slavic translation of this text. Ten works in Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 239 are attributed to Eustratios Nicenus: four preaches on the Holy Spirit, three works on the polemics with Petro Grosolano 1112, two about icons and one work on the christological debates, famous in the 12th C. The discussion with Petro Grosolano is also reflected in two articles of the studied book. That are debates of the Pope’s legate with John Phournes. There are also attested in the manuscript ten polemical works of Nicolas of Menthone, whrn A. Demetracopoulos knew only six works by him. Nicholas was famous for the ideas of the unity of two churches.

The similar contents represents another Greek anti-Latin collection, Mosquens. GIM gr. 240, dated from the second half of the 13th C. The manuscript has as marginalia the notices of Demetrios Cydones, the of patriarch Dosytheus and archimandrites Chrysanthes. The collection is descenden from Constantinople.

So, one can see rather a limited character of the spread of anti-Latin literature in Byzantium. It became more popular after the Lyon Union and especially after the Concile of Florence. The similar, relatively late, spread of this polemical literature can be noticed in respect to Slavic, esp. Russian, manuscript collections.

The above studied anti-Latin manuscripts are directly linked with the third topic of this paper, namely the authographs of famous literary figure of post-Byzantine epoch Maximus Margounios (1549—1602).

Among four autographs manuscripts of Maximus Margounios in Moscow State Historical Museum three are collections of the texts on Greek-Latin polemics, namely Mosquens. GIM gr. 244, 245, 252. The fourth one, Mosquens. GIM gr. 441, been also collection of articles, includes only few polemical texts, so by Demetrios Cydones and Manuel Chrysolorus. These manuscripts were sent to Moscow 1693 with other anti-Latin codexes by patriarch of Jerusalem Dosytheus. Dosytheus has received them 1674 grom the widow of great dragomane of Ottoman empire Panagiotes Nikousios, who possessed the manuscripts up to his death 1673. Before that all the collections were in Crete, as well three studied manuscripts have the notices of the 17th C. made in Cretan monastery of St. Antonius ??? ??????????. After the capture of Crete by Turke 1660 the books were transmitted to Constantinople. In Crete the manuscripts were in possession of Manuel Moschiotes, with whom Margounios spent his last years in Italy and to whom he has bequeathed own autographs after the death happened 1602.

Codex Mosquens. GIM gr. 252, dated by watermarks from late 1570s/80s, is to be compared with other anti-Latin collections, namely Mosquens. GIM gr. 213 of the early 16th C. GIM gr. 241 of the 14th C. On ff. 1—95v in Mosquens. GIM gr. 252 there are just the same texts and in the same order, as in N 213. The peculiarities of the copiing style of Maximus Margounios, who repeated fully all the details of his protographs, as in this case, he repeated all the notes on the fields, the mean of abbreviations in all lemmata and notes without excerption, common features in the drawing of initials of fly-leaves etc., all that lets with enough degree of probability to take codex Mosquens. GIM gr. 213 as the photograph for Margounios’ N 252. The dating of the N 213 by watermarks from 1533—44 (Briquet 590, 591; cf. 494) does not contradict this conclusion.

On the ff. 96—251v Margounios has placed nearly all the texts, that can be found in Mosquens. GIM gr. 241 (96—235v of N 252 = 51—347v of N 241; 236—521v = 1-28). But comparison of the styles of copiing of the both manuscripts does not allow to attribute N 241 as the photograph for Margounios’ collection, though some features, as e.c. common for the both books omission of the same passages on f. 106 of N 252 and on f. 70 of N 241, testify near connection of the texts of these manuscripts. According to watermarks N 241 is dated from the 1360s.
The codicological study helps to precise the history of creation of Cod. Mosquens. GIM gr. 252.

Maximus Margounios dealt with Greek-Latin polemics for the first time in Padua about 1572, when after 1591 he had practically no more touch to these problems at all. The period of mostlyactive studies of Margounios on the polemics between East and West, was between 1583 and 1588: in 1583 he has written three books about the proceeding of the Holy Spirit. The main idea of these and other works of the author was the tendency to the unity of the both churches. But the development of church-historical events of that time could hardly help to incorporate the ideas of Margounios. As it is known, the patriarch of Constantinople Jeremy II Tranos has rejected 1583 the idea of unity with Lutherans; at the same time the groop of Jesuits was established in Constantinople. Since 1585 the state of Greek clergy as a whole in Italy has radically changed: according to the order of Pope Gregory XIII from the 16th August it was set up there the Latin rite of Service.

There was supposed earlier a visit of Maximus Margounios to Rome 1583, later on despaired by E. Legrand. Papadopoulos Comnenos, who was Margounios’ enemy, described this journey, taking its purpose the acquaintance by Maximus Margounios, who seemed to have to flee from Rome, if of course this fact had place. At any rate already in Constantinople 1584 Margounios was appointed initially as bishop of Cyrene, but had not received approval from the Venetian authorities. All his last years Maximus Margounios spent in Venice.

So Margounios’ situation was to extent part ambiguous. In a spear that the unity of Rome and Constantinople could lead to weakening of Turkish power, Maximus tried to elaborate the ambivalent formules of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit: a Patre per Filium. That is testified by a letter of Martinus Crusius 1586. But Margounios was as suspected from the side of Rome, so was attacked by the orthodoxes in Constantinople, so that he had to make an apology-letter addressed to patriarch with confirming his loyalty and strictness of own dogmatic opinions. The Pope Clemens VIII has even proposed in early 90s to organise the inquiry of Margounios’ activity, though this suggestion was not adopted by Venetians. Maximus Margounios had also an active correspondence with Lutherans in Tubingen and Augsburg, as with Jacob Andrea and David Hoeschel.

It seems, that just in this critical time was created the above mentioned manuscript collection Mosquens. GIM gr. 252. It is markable that the to be appointed bishop of Cythere has adduced in his books as Greek so Latin dogmatic clauses, Margounios included also many texts on the hesychast polemics (ff. 252-306v) and of ascetic character. It had not be an accident, that just these problems were in centre of Margounios’ attention during the next period of his activity, in 1580-90s.

The collection of Maximus Margounios in its turnbecame the protograph for Cod. Mosquens. GIM fr. 238, so that his NN 244 and 245 for Mosquens. GIM gr. 250.

The history of the spread of manuscript books demonstrate much more than different in the both cultural hemispheares of medieval Europe.