I’m still looking through the literature, trying to find leads to the last, lost manuscript of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel contradictions. I’ve been reading my photocopy of Zoepfl’s book about the Commentary on the Hexameron of ps. Eustathius of Antioch, which — according to Latino Latini — probably was the first text in this now lost manuscript.
It seems that I am not alone in being interested in Latini’s comments. On p. 10 of Zoepfl, he lists a Spanish manuscript:
cod. Matrit. gr. 124 (1), a collection-manuscript, written by Antonius Calosyna in 1563 (2), contains in first place (f. 2ff) the ps.Eust. Commentary, under the title: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν εὐσταθίου ἐπισκόπου ἀντιοχείας ὁμιλία εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα θαυμαστόν. The end of the work is missing.
(1) See J. Iriarte, Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices Graeci manuscripti, vol. I (1769), p.501 f.; J.A.Fabricius-G.Ch.Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IX (Hamburgi, 1804), 134 f.
(2) Latino Latini wrote on the 14th September 1563 to Andreas Masius (see Latinius II 116), “Cardinal Sirletus sends to tell you, there has been found in Sicily a work of Eustathius on the creation, or the six days.” This raises the question of whether there is a connection between the Matr. 124 and the manuscript mentioned by Latinius, especially when the Latin title in the manuscript is written in an Italian hand.
If Sirleto found a manuscript, he would first probably hire a scribe to make a copy for himself. Since this is made in the same year as Latini wrote saying that Sirleto had just found such an ms, containing both Eustathius and the lost work by Eusebius, is this the copy made? If so, what else is in this ms? From what was it copied?
Interesting, and leading to more questions!
UPDATE: Iriarte doesn’t seem to be online, unfortunately. Vol. 9 of Fabricius (found by doing a Google advanced search, author=Fabricius, date=1804) is here. This volume of Fabricius is a patrology, so we are in the section on Eustathius, reviewing scholarly opinion on the work and full of useful and interesting information.
It is interesting how these multi-volume Latin works of the 18th century make modern patrologies look babyish.
UPDATE2: The Pinakes database contains information on this ms., which is Madrid, BN, 04852. Eustathius is on ff.2-96v; but folios 1r-v and 97 r-v are blank, and the work is unfinished. It is then followed by 3 works by Gregory of Nyssa. I would guess, therefore, that the four parts are of different origins, and that the copy of Eustathius was not completed. Drat.