Challenges in Editing Greek Patristic Catenary Fragments

Byzantine exegetical catenae represent a valuable, though still partially unexplored source for the reconstruction of many patristic texts preserved in fragmentary form, often known only by their title. The aim of my proposal is to examine two fragments circulating under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria from the Komnenian age onwards, in order to show how faulty and uncertain attributions, due to scribes’ neglect, may influence later editions based on a single or a limited number of manuscripts. The first specimen is to be found in the fifth exegetical fragment in the Cambridge edition published by Ch. Feltoe (1904), which consists of a series of scholia on the well-known chalice episode in the Gospel of Luke, transmitted in the Catena in Lucam compiled by Nicetas of Heraclea. Until the publication of the text of the most authoritative manuscript, Vat. gr. 1611, the only manuscript available to the first editors had been Ven. gr. Z. 494, containing an abbreviated version of the Catena, which – by wrongly inserting the lemma τοῦ αὐτοῦ next to the relevant excerpts – ascribes to Dionysius not only two scholia on Luke 22, 42 and 45-46, but also the other ten on Luke 22, 43-44 e 47-48, all of which were thus erroneously included in Feltoe’s text. On the other hand, Feltoe’s edition does not contain some texts which, on more careful analysis, might prove to be authentically Dionysian. Such is the case with an excerpt on Job 1, 1, 2-3 (fragment 2): since this scholium is absent in the few manuscripts consulted by Feltoe, it is not included in the Cambridge edition. Therefore, both examples show that a revision of Feltoe’s edition on the basis of a reconsideration of Byzantine catenae and their manuscript tradition is still a desideratum within the context of patristic studies.