SOCIETAS DANICA INDAGATIONIS ANTIQVITATIS ET MEDIIAEVI CLASSICA ET MEDIAEVALIA REVUE DANOISE DE PHILOLOGIE ET D'HISTOIRE PUBLIEE AVEC LE CONCOURS DE. SIGNE ISAGER : BIRGER MUNK OLSEN JENS ERIK SKYDSGAARD - OLE L. SMITH PETER TERKELSEN : OLE THOMSEN PAR OTTO STEEN DUE UNIVERSITE D'AARHUS Tirage & part VOL.XXXIX 1988 LIBRAIRIE MUSEUM TUSCULANUM COPENHAGUE 1988SINAI, TISCHENDORF, AND THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ADD. 1879.1 BY SYSSE GUDRUN ENGBERG In the collection of Additional Greek manuscripts of the University Library at Cambridge there is a small uncial fragment of the Old Testament lec- tionary. The catalogue published by Patricia Easterling’ gives the following information about the fragment: Additional 1879.1 Fragment of Prophetologion. Thursd. of 4th week in Lent to Mon. of 5th week. (Some lessons incomplete). llth cent., uncials. Ecphonetic notation. Tischendorf, 1876. Vellum, 287 x 210 mm., 4ff., 2 cols. During a visit to Cambridge, I was able to inspect this fragment” and to identify it as belonging to a well known prophetologion® manuscript. In spite of the fact that the fragment has been accessible in the University Library since 1876, and that it is mentioned by H. B. Swete as early as 1900*, this identification has apparently been overlooked until now. ‘The fragment is bound in brown paper, and two paper fly-leaves have been added which are included in the foliation. The manuscript thus con- sists of ff. 2-5, whereas the fly-leaves bear the numbers 1 and 6. The code number »Add. 1897.1« is written in pencil on the brown cover, and the ” Hand-List of the Additional Greek Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge, Scriptorium XVI (1962) 807. * I am grateful to David Holton who helped me obtain admission to the University Library. * For a general description of this liturgical book, see: Carsten Héeg & Ginter Zuntz, ‘Remarks on the Prophetologion.” Quantulacumque. Studies presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937) 189-266; G. Zuntz, ‘Das byzantinische Septuaginta-Lektionar (sPropheto- ogions)' Classica et Mediaevalia 17 (1956) 183-198; Sysse Gudrun Engberg, ‘The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book’, Cahier de 'Tnstitut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin 54 (Copenhague 1986) 89-46. ‘ HB. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge 1900) 169. Swete only mentions Add. 1879 and does not give the subnumber, but his description of the contents shows that our fragment is intended. CLASSICA ET MEDIAEVALIA XXXIX,254 SYSSE GUDRUN ENGBERG same hand has identified the loci from the Old Testament in pencil on the margins of the fragment. On f. Ir is found the ink note »T.2«, i. ¢, Tischendorf No. 2. The University Library bought forty-four fragments from the heirs of Constan- tin Tischendorf in 1876. These are numbered 1879.1 through 1879.24, and 1880.1 through 1880.20, Easterling who in her catalogue has rearranged the manuscripts according to subject matter informs us about the first men- tioned of Tischendorf’s fragments (Add. 1879.7), that he obtained this on his third journey to the East in 1859. Whether this is true of all the Tischen- dorf fragments in Cambridge is not clear, since only the laconic statement »Tischendorf 1876« is given, as is the case with our fragment. ‘The prophetologion fragment is written on vellum of superior quality, and it is in good condition. According to my measurements, the size of each folio is 28.8 x 21.1 cm. The text is written in two columns of 18 lines each, and the size of the column is 21 x 5.5 em. ‘The ruling type is Lake ii,4a with 36 lines, so that the writing is »stretched outs between two ruling lines. The text of the lessons is written in an ogival uncial which bends slightly to the left, whereas the headings and the rubrics are written in a »half-unciale, rather the »Alexandrinische Auszeich- nungsmajuskel« as defined by H. Hunger’. The ink used for the text has a dark greyish-brown colour, while a purplish red has been used for initials, neumes, headings of lessons and ornaments. As a rule, the text of the Psalms and the troparia in the rubrics is written with the brown ink of the main text, whereas the initials of the rubrics text, and also the »headingse within the rubrics, as the words »prokeimenon« or »troparione, the indication of the mode of these, and the number of the Psalm used for prokeimenon, are written in red. This cor- responds to the later usage in the printed books of e. g. the Triodion, but it is by no means universal in prophetologion manuscripts. ‘There are no marginal notes, except for the modern pencil notes men- tioned above. The fragment contains on ff. 2-3: Gen. 10.4-9 (= L 28b 24-55), incipit taxg t05 odpavos Prov. 13.19-14.6 (=L 28c) The heading and the beginning of the rubrics for L 24a, explicit rs dxpdvcrouge ® Herbert Hunger, ‘Minuskel und Auszeichnungsschriften im 10-12, Jahrhundert’, La Paléographie grecque et byzantine, Paris 21-25 octobre 1974 (Paris 1977) 204 ff.‘MS. CAMBRIDGE UNIV. LIBR. ADD. 1879.1 255 and on ff. 4-5: Prov. 14.26 (= L 24c 47-50), incipit é&nis ioxso Js. 27.38-28.8 (= L 25a) The first line of the rubrics following this lesson® ‘These texts are printed in the edition of the Prophetologion published by the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae’, and I have referred to the lessons according to the system used in this edition. On the first folio (vf. 2r«) there is the quire mark »I@< in the upper right margin, identifying the fragment as the four outer leaves of the 19th gather- ing of a larger manuscript. The lacuna between ff, 3 and 4, i.e. L 24a ~ 24c 46, corresponds to the four middle leaves of the original gathering. This text missing from Add. 1879.1 is contained in the four folios of the manuscript Leningrad, Publ. Libr. Gr. 52, a fragment acquired by Tischen- dorf, probably in 1859°, and belonging to a manuscript of the monastery of S. Catherine at Mount Sinai. And in fact, the Cambridge fragment is no other than the last missing fragment of Sinai Gr. 8, a fine prophetologion of such importance that it has been used for the establishment of the text of the latter part of the MMB edition, viz. Holy Saturday, the Pentecostarion period and the feasts of the fixed year’, The only reason why it has not been used in the first four fascicules of this edition is that a microfilm was not available to the editors at the time. However, Sinai 8 has been collated for the rest of the text (Christmas, Epiphany and the Triodion period) in the Appendix to the edition’®. Sinai 8 has quire marks throughout, and is it consequently easy to as- certain that the first and the 19th gatherings are missing. The Russian © Swete, op. cit. 169, correctly identifies the first two lessons, but overlooks the third, L 24c, Strangely enough, he refers to L 25a as »Sir. XXXVII.13-XXXVIIL.6«, probably a misreading of his own notes. ” Carsten Hoeg, Giinther Zuntz & Gudrun Engberg, Prophetologium (Hauniac 1939-1981), Pars I, 256-259, and 279-281 (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Lectionaria Vol. 1). * A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Berlin 1914) 285. (= Nachrichten d. Kén. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, Ph.-Hist. Kl. Betheft).. Rahlfs refers back to A. F. C. Tischendorf, Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum Sinaitici (Lipsiae 1860) 56, ms. no. 18, at the end: »Adiacent autem huic fragmento folia alia quat- tuor form. mai. quibus similes lectiones e Veteri Testamento collectae leguntur, saeculo fere X. scriptace, ° MMB, Prophetologium, Pars I, fase. 5-6, and Pars I. '" ibid., Pars I, fasc. 6, 527-697.256 SYSSE GUDRUN ENGBERG Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin who visited Sinai in 1870, and V. Gardt- hhausen who was there in 1880, both state the absence of the first gathering of Sinai 8, but neither has discovered that quire 19 was also missing, even though Gardthausen does mention the quire marks going from 2 to 40". ‘There can be no doubt, however, that the 19th gathering was taken in 1859 at the latest when Tischendorf brought the inner leaves of this quire to Leningrad, while for some reason he himself kept the outer bifolia, the Cambridge fragment, to his death”. ‘The first gathering of Sinai 8 still exists. The six leaves that used to be ff. 2-7 of the original manuscript are now Berlin Ms. graec. fol. 30", and the original £, 8 became Leningrad, Publ. Libr. Gr. 324. The larger fragment came to Berlin in 1866 through the egyptologist Heinrich Karl Brugsch, who traveled in Egypt in 1853-1854 and in 1858-1859, and who was consul in Cairo 1864-1866, each time returning to Berlin from Egypt. He probably got the fragment during his visit to Sinai in 1865, when he for Berlin procured 17 Greek manuscripts among which were seven, mainly uncial, fragments from »a monastery at Sinai«'*. Theoretically, he might have obtained the Berlin fragment earlier, during any of his stays in Egypt since, as he himself tells us, manuscripts were relatively easy to buy in Cairo, if one could afford this, even if extremely difficult to get out of monasteries’®. The single leaf, Leningrad gr. 824, was taken by the »infamouse Porfirij Uspenskij, who in this context can hardly be said to be more infamous than either Brugsch or Tischendorf. Uspenskij was at Sinai in 1845, 1850, and 1 V, Benelevit, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum qui in monasterio S. Catha- tinae in monte Sina asservantur, T. 1 (Petropoli 1911) 110. 12 Gf. above, note 8. If indeed the ms. Leningrad gr. 52 is identical with the one mentioned by Tischendorf, it was part of the collection assembled on the travel he undertook in 1859 with the support of the Russian Czar, mainly in order to find the remaining part of Codex Sinaiticus. This collection was later given to the Imperial Library and the Academy, ef. Notitia 47. It is certainly strange, that Tischendorf should have separated the two halves of the 19th gathering of Sinai 8. Could it be that he had found the outer part of the gathering during one of his earlier travels, maybe in the famous »basket full of fragments« in 1844? 3 After the war, they were deposited in Tibingen, University Library, but they returned to Berlin in 1978. ™ , de Boor, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften der Kéniglichen Bibliothek zu Ber- {in TI (1897) 139: »Die Blatter sind im Mai 1866 durch Vermittelung des damaligen Consuls Brugsch in Cairo aus einem Kloster des Sinai in die Bibliothek gekommen«. 15H. K, Brugsch, Wanderung nach den Natronkléstern in Agypten. Vorlesung gehalten am 10. Marz im Wissenschaftlichen Verein in der Singakademie zu Berlin (Berlin 1855) 31, and especially note 28: »In Kairo besitzen cinzelne Privatpersonen gute, altere Handschriften. Sie kennen aber sehr wobl ihren Werth und fordern hohe Summen. DerMS. CAMBRIDGE UNIV. LIBR. ADD. 1879.1 257 again in 1860. Benedevit, who edited Uspenskyij’s catalogue of the Greek manuscripts at Sinai in 1911, has given Uspenskij an »Ehrenrettung« as opposed to Tischendorf in his interesting, almost passionate, essay on the attitude of the learned world to the monastery at Sinail®, The prophetologion text of Sinai 8 begins on what was originally f. 2r, now f. Ir of the Berlin fragment. This means that the first folio of the manuscript either was a blank »feuillet de garde«, or that it carried a colophon, or even some kind of ornamentation or picture that may have tempted a Sinai traveller in the middle of the 19th century. It is reasonable to assume that the first folio was missing when Uspenskij saw it, so that £. 8 was loose and thus easy to take away. Alternatively, Uspenskij may have cut out f. 8, so that f, 1 became disconnected and disappeared. Brugsch, or his dealer, removed the remains of the first gathering, and Tischendorf took care of the 19th gathering. On the microfilm Sinai 8 appears to have no binding, and the manuscript is disconnected between gatherings 18 and 20. If it was in the same state in the 19th century, the disappearance of the first quires of each half of Sinai 8 becomes, if not excusable, then at least understandable, Apart form the first, blank(?) folio, Sinai 8 is now complete!”, It consists of 40 gatherings of each 8 folios, apart from no. 18, which has only 7 folios (no lacuna in the text). The beginning of the manuscript is contained in Ber- Jin gr. fol. 80", and Leningrad, Publ. Libr. gr. 324. Then follows Sinai 8 ff. 1-203'*. The Cambridge fragment and Leningrad, Publ. Libr. gr. 52° fill the lacuna between ff. 135 and 186 in Sinai 8, The later additon on f. 203r ‘englische Missionar Rev. Lieder in Kairo kann den Fremden die beste Auskunft ber derar- tige Manuscripte im Privatbesitz gewahrene. Even though he refers to Coptic manuscripts here, one may infer that this holds true for Greek manuscripts as well. His description of the visit to a Coptic monastery from the above mentioned lecture was reprinted in his book, Aus dem Orient (Berlin 1864), but without the telling footnote. \° VN, Bénéchévitch, ‘Les manuscrits grecs du Mont Sinai et le monde savant de l'Europe depuis le XVHle sigcle jusq' 1927", Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbticher, Beiheft Nr. 21 (Athen 1987). *” ‘The first to point out that Berlin gr. fol. 80, Leningrad 52 and $24 were fragments of Sinai 8 was V. Benedevit, Catalogus 111 and 617-618. ™* Kleine Handschriftenausstellung am Rande des II. Internationalen Kolloquiums »Griechi- sche Paléographie und Kodikologiee, Berlin und Wolfenbiittel, 17.-21. Okt. 1983 (Berlin 1988), with a facsimile of »p. 7«, that is, f. 4v. 19 A facsimile of Sinai 8, f. 279r is found in the MMB edition of the Prophetologium, Pars 1, fasc. 6, pl. 6. ® V. Benelevit, Catalogus 110, has a facsimile of f. 4v. In Sobolevsky & Cereteti, Exempla codicum graecorum litteris uncialibus scriptorum (Petrograd 1918) Taf. XVI, there is a facsimile of f. 4r.258 SYSSE GUDRUN ENGBERG with the extremely important list of ekphonetic neumes provided with the »melody« written in musical notation has been discussed at lenght by Carsten Héeg in his book on ekphonetic notation, which also brings a transcription and a facsimile of this neume list*', The only part of Sinai 8 that has not been collated is the text of the now identified Cambridge fragment, which was recorded as a lacuna in the MMB edition of the Prophetologium, Pars I, 586f. In order to fill this lacuna, I bring the variant readings of Cambridge Add. 1879.1, as collated against the MMB edition, fasc. 8 and 4, pp. 256- 259, 264, and 279-281. app. text. app. rubr. app. text. app. rubr. app. rubr. app. text. 1 28 b 24-55 27 mposwmov 36 notaro 40 xa om. 43 cmv guvny 52 exerBev] exer 1 my-mdB’] 1.8" Lc 2 nBuvoveny 32 yevaysevn (ut Sinai 7) 498 om. ante L 24 a, lin. 1-5 S]pekcoa>n 6 post aopatag des., ad L 28a ref., i. e. troparium quod p. 258, lin. 6-8 expressimus hic habet: Zeornptav erpyace ... axpav, et expl. pagina L 24.c 47 ~ post L 25a 8-9 hab. (7 om.) 5 emBadn] Body (ut Sinai 7) 26 avtov] aviw 29 parxanpa (ut Sinai 7) *" Carsten Heeg, La notation ekphonétique (Copenhague 1985) 26-82, and pl. IIT (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae Subsidia Vol. I, fasc. 2).