Rubric: Ἀνδρονίκου τοῦ Καλλίστου εἰς τὸν μεγαλοπρεπῆ ἄνδρα κύριον Γεώργιον Παλαιολόγον τὸν δυσύπατον

Incipit: ⟨Μ⟩εγαλοπρεπὲς ἄνερ εἴης μοι ὑγιαίνων Θ⟨εο⟩ῦ βοηθεία ὑγιαινοντι καὶ αὐτῷ

Explicit: ποιήσαι τὴν μεγαλοπρεπείαν σοῦ εὐδαίμονα. ἐν Λουδονία μουνυχιῶνος γ´ ἱσταμένου.

Note:

In PG the letter is dated A.D. Martii mensis 1476.

There are two notes in Latin in the upper margin of p. 1, partly trimmed. On the left: ‘... cod. fol. ...’. The longer note on the right gives more information: ‘exstat haec epistula in ... 2211, ipsius credo Hermonym... descripta eoque suspecta. (verba sunt domini Boivinii). Extat item in codice Colbertino 3028, pag. 1.’ These two mss (with the present shelfmarks Paris. gr. 2966, and Paris. gr. 3043, respectively) do have the Andronicus letter as their first text. It is catalogued as 16th cent. but could well be 17th.

Paris. gr. 2966, , i.e. Medic.-Reg. 2211, , has the same indent for the initial in the first paragraph also without filling it in. Cf. also Monacensis gr. 265, , fol. 33v–36r, 16th cent.

Protograph: Parisinus gr. 2966,

Edition: PG, vol. 161, cols. 1017–1020.

Rubric: none

Incipit: Θεόδωρος Δημητρίω εὖ πράττειν. δεινὰ πάλιν ἀπαγγέλεις,

Explicit: χαλεπωτέραν καθίστησιν. ἔρρωσο ἀπὸ Ῥώμης ἰου⟨νίου⟩ ιηʹ.

Note:

Probably copied from Paris. gr. 2966, fol. 1v–2v.

For the additional information on who the addressée is, see Leone’s edition. He also gives a fuller dating of the letter, namely 18. June 1473. In PG the adressée is interpreted as Demetrios Chalkondyles.

Protograph: Parisinus gr. 2966,

Editions: PG, vol. 161, cols. 1005–1008; Leone (1990), no. 21.

Rubric: Γεώργιος ὁ Ἀμιρούττης Βησσαρίωνι

Incipit: Αἴδεσιμώτατε καὶ σεβασμώτατε ἐν Χριστῷ

Explicit: ἐκείνην πρὸς σὲ ἔδραμεν· ἔρρωσο

Note: Probably copied from Paris. gr. 2966, fol. 2v–4r. This means that the first three epistles of our manuscript are identical with, and come in the same order, in this Paris ms. The same is true with Paris. gr. 3043, , but since the following two texts are present only in the aforementioned, it increases the likelihood that Paris. gr. 2966 is the protograph of our ms. Furthermore, the wording of the marginal note on p. 1in our ms seems to strengthen this surmise. Another clue pointing in the same direction is the marginal note on the first page of Paris. gr. 2966, where Paris. gr. 2131, is mentioned. That is namely in all likelihood the protograph to another text in our ms (pp. 15–21); more on this below. (Note that these conclusions are based mainly on internal evidence in the mss – we have not collated the texts in detail.)

Protograph: Parisinus gr. 2966,

Rubric: Δημήτριος τῶ Μουσούρα

Incipit: Ἥν ἔπεμψας ἐπιστολὴν πρὸς με

Explicit: φιλεῖν ἤδη καὶ οὗτος ἄρχεται. ἔρρωσο.

Rubric: Πλήθωνος πρὸς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Βησσαρίωνος κατ᾽αὐτοῦ ἀντιλείψεις

Incipit: Πρὸς τ᾽ἄλλα σου οὐδὲν ἐμὲ δεῖ λέγειν

Explicit: σὺν ἔγωγε χάριν σιωπῶ

Note: The text was copied from Paris. gr. 2966, fol. 5r (14 ll.). A note in the lower marg. of p. 14 describes the contents of Par. gr. 2966: ‘Ex regia Parisiensi Bibliotheca. cod. mss. graec. 2211. annotatio domini du Cange in frontispiciis haec est: Andronici Callisti, Theodori Gazae, Georgii Amiratzae, Demetrii et Plethonis epistolae aliquot, post tempora concilii florentini scriptae.’ The note is still there in the Paris ms.

Rubric: Epistola Theodori [Gazae fortasse ad Demetr. Chalkondylam]

Incipit: Ἐκομίσθη μοὶ ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, ἥν τὰ μὲν μενφόμενος

Explicit: καὶ σὲ φιλεῖν ἤδη καὶ οὗτος ἄρχεται. ἔρρωσο.

Note:

In the left of the upper marg. at p. 15, a note says ‘vid. cod. Reg. 2211. fol. 1.’. The same reference is present in Paris. gr. 2131, fol. 173v (i.e., on the page opposing the Theodorus letter, which starts on fol. 174r ‘vide cod. 2211. fol.^o 1.^o. v.^o ’); it seems likely that our scribe took it more or less verbatim directly from Paris. 2131 (olim Paris. 3516, ). The reference points to the aforementioned letter from Theodorus to Demetrius – the one we have on pp. 3–6. On fol. 1v in Paris. 2211, there is a corresponding cross reference to ‘Codicem 3516. fol.^o 174’.

On p. 21there is another note: ‘NB Epistola haec, quemadmodum totus fere codex 2211 Reg. Par. Biblioteca, exarata est manu Marci Musuri cuius fuit codex, ille ipse, adquem in superioribus Demetrii epistola fuit scripta. vid. pag. 12.’ The current shelfmark of codex 2211 is Par. gr. 2966, the scribe of which ms was Georgius Hermonymus, as is also the opinion of our scribe in the marginal note on p. 1. Thus, it is not quite clear what our scribe means with the wording ‘quemadmodum totus fere codex 2211’, since that codex does not include the letter at issue here. Paris. gr. 2131, fol. 174v–183v, are in the hand of Marcus Musurus. The note on p. 21 makes this clear; it also gives the cross reference to Marcus Musurus being the adressée on p. 12.

The small lacuna on p. 15 (‘τῶν λεγομένων ⟨τε καὶ ὑπονοουμένων⟩ εὑρίσκῃ’) is present also in Paris. 2131.

Pietro Luigi M. Leone does not itemize the addressée as Demetrios Chalkondyles, but he does give a date and place for the letter: ‘Demetrio, Ferrariam Romae, m. Mart. 1450 ’.

Protograph: Paris. gr. 2131,

Editions: PG, vol. 161, cols. 1008–1014.

Rubric: Βησσαρίων καρδινάλις ὁ κύριος Νικαίας, Μιχαήλῳ τῷ Ἀποστόλῃ Βυζαντίῳ χαίρειν

Incipit: Ἀφίκετο ὡς ἡμᾶς, βραδύτερον

Explicit: ἡγησάμενος ἕποιο τῇ συμβουλῇ

Note: This letter is transmitted in many mss, among which see also Upsal. gr. 8, , fol. 163v–167v. A note next to the title indicates: ‘Spar. no. 49 p. 163’, thus referring to that ms, which belonged to Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeldt.

Edition: Mohler (1942), pp. 511–513.