Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (Volume 2): 1999 [2010] 9781463214074

Citation preview

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Volume 2 1999 [2010]

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute GENERAL EDITOR George Anton Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute / Gorgias Press EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Sebastian P. Brock, University of Oxford Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America Amir Harrak, University of Toronto Susan Harvey, Brown University Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Andreas Juckel, University of Münster Hubert Kaufhold, Oriens Christianus Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary Wido T Van Peursen, The Peshitta Institute of Leiden University Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University ONLINE EDITION EDITOR Thomas Joseph, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Kristian Heal, Brigham Young University PRINTED EDITION EDITOR Katie Stott, Gorgias Press

HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES (ISSN 1937-318X) Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is a publication of BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. Copyright © 2010 by GORGIAS PRESS and BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. The Syriac word hugoye, plural of hugoyo, derives from the root hg‚ ‘to think, meditate, study’; hence, hugoyo ‘study, meditation’. Recently, hugoye became to be used for ‘academic studies’; hence, hugoye suryoye ‘Syriac Studies’. SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscription requests should be addressed to Gorgias Press, 954 River Rd. Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Subscriptions may be made online at http:// www.gorgiaspress.com. Back issues are available. NOTE FOR CONTRIBUTORS Submission guidelines and instructions are found on the Hugoye web site at http://www.bethmardutho.org. NOTE TO PUBLISHERS Copies for review should be sent directly to the Book Review Editor at the following address: Mr. Kristian S. Heal, Hugoye Book Review Editor, Brigham Young University, Stadium East House - METI, Provo, UT 84604. ADVERTISEMENTS Rates: $250 full page; includes a listing in all e-mail announcements for one year. To place ads, write to the subscription address above.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

TABLE OF CONTENTS HUGOYE 2:1 Letter from the General Editor: One Year On-line.........................3 St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition............5 Sebastian Brock A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals, Attributed to Saint Ephraim................................................................27 Michel van Esbroeck, S.J. Knowledge of Ephraim’s Writings in the Merovingian and Carolingian Age...............................................................................37 David Ganz Ephrem’s Madroshe and the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo A Loose, But Fascinating, Affinity......................................................47 Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness..............................................................57 Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal The Ephremic Tradition and the Theology of the Environment...67 Robert Murray, S.J. Tʘe Influence of Ephraim the Syrian................................................83 Andrew Palmer “Making Church of England Poetical” Ephraim and the Oxford Movement................................................................111 Geoffrey Rowell Publications and Book Reviews.........................................................131 Projects and Conference Reports......................................................147 Fortʘcoming Conferences..................................................................155

v

vi

Table of Contents

HUGOYE 2:2 A Syriac Letter on Papyrus: P.Berol.Inv. 8285................................163 Sebastian Brock Deir al-Surian (Egypt): Its Wall-paintings, Wall-texts, and Manuscripts I. The Wall-paintings of Deir al-Surian: New discoveries of 1999..............................................................167 Karel C. Innemée II. Syriac Inscriptions in Deir al-Surian: Some Reflections on Their Writers and Readers.....................189 Lucas Van Rompay III. The Conservation of Manuscripts in the Library of Deir al-Surian: First Notes ............................203 Elizabeth Sobczynski An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj and His Relations with the Mongols of Persia...............................209 George Lane The Patriarchs of the Church of the East from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries....................................235 Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg Publications and Book Reviews.........................................................265 Projects and Conference Reports......................................................283

Volume 2 1999 [2010]

Number 1

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute SPECIAL ISSUE: THE INFLUENCE OF SAINT EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN – II Guest Editor Andrew Palmer

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 3–4 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

LETTER FROM THE GENERAL EDITOR: ONE YEAR ON-LINE [1]

This issue marks the first anniversary of Hugoye on-line (or as the Syriac Fathers would have said Ȩal surgodo!). I would like to take this opportunity to share with Hugoye’s readership some of our plans for the future.

Hugoye In Print [2]

[3]

I am pleased to announce that in addition to its availability on-line, Hugoye will be published in print as well. The publisher is DEO Publishing, based in The Netherlands. In my opening letter in the first issue, I touched upon the importance of archiving Hugoye in print. The printed edition will not only provide longevity for the Journal, but will also bring Hugoye to the bookshelves of our readers, especially in the Eastern hemisphere where access to the Internet is not yet ubiquitous. I would like to stress that Hugoye’s commitment to free on-line publishing remains. The Journal will continue to appear on-line in its entirety. The printed edition will be available upon subscription. Our current plan is to publish previous issues in 1999. We hope that by the year 2000, the on-line and printed editions will be published simultaneously. Email Discussion Group

[4]

A new email discussion group, hugoye-list, with archives accessible on the web, was created to be a forum for scholarly discussions on Syriac studies, including discussions on papers published in Hugoye. To ensure academic quality, the list is semi-moderated and is open to Syriac Studies scholars in academia. Currently, there are about 70 subscribers to the list. 3

4

Letter from the General Editor

Coalition of Electronic Journals [5]

In cooperation with five other electronic journals in the field of religion, Hugoye has become a founding member of the Association of Peer-Reviewed Electronic Journals in Religion. The Association has been established to promote the development of electronic journals, share ideas and solutions to technical problems, and set high standards for academic quality and longevity that all of the journals in the Association would uphold. Mirror Site

[6]

With the help of Dr. Konrad Jenner and Dr. Lucas Van Rompay, Hugoye has established a new mirror site in Leiden, The Netherlands, courtesy of the Peshitta Institute of Leiden University. While European readers will get faster access from Leiden, readers in some Middle and Far Eastern countries (where the local networks link to the Internet backbone in North America) may find accessing the home site at the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., faster than the mirror site in neighboring Europe! Staff Members

[7]

I would like to welcome on board two new members to our editorial team. Dr. Tawny Holm has assumed the position of Printed Edition Editor and will be responsible for the printed edition of the Journal. Douglas Salmon has assumed the new position of Assistant Technical Editor and will be working closely with Dr. Thomas Joseph, our Technical Editor, on the on-line edition. I would like to thank both of them for their interest in Hugoye and for their voluntary services. This Issue

[8]

This is the second special issue dedicated to St. Ephrem the Syrian. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Andrew Palmer for his assiduous efforts in editing the papers of this issue and the previous one. George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. General Editor

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 5–25 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

ST. EPHREM IN THE EYES OF LATER SYRIAC LITURGICAL TRADITION SEBASTIAN BROCK UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ORIENTAL INSTITUTE

INTRODUCTION [1]

The cover of Kathleen McVey’s excellent collection of translations of St. Ephrem’s hymns, in the Classics of Western Spirituality series, reproduces a modern icon of St. Ephrem, portraying him in monastic habit. Professor McVey was extremely aggravated when she learnt of the publisher’s intention, but was unable to persuade them to change their plans. The reason for her annoyance lay in her knowledge that this was a totally misleading and anachronistic way of portraying the saint, whose true milieu belonged to the indigenous Syrian tradition of the consecrated life, prior to the arrival in Syria and Mesopotamia of the Egyptian monastic tradition which later dominated the scene. 1 This anachronistic iconography of St. Ephrem goes back a long way, though it so happens that the earliest surviving icon portraying the saint, from St. Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, portrays the saint in a rather more appropriate way. 2 As we shall see, the later literary tradition concerning St. Ephrem also distorts the true image of the saint in a 1 For this, see (e.g.) my The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 1992). 2 Illustrated in K.A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine (Athens, 1990) 145.

5

6

Sebastian Brock

variety of different ways. In the present paper I shall confine myself to two aspects: first I shall briefly sketch out the growth of the biographical tradition as it gradually takes on purely legendary accretions; and secondly, since the liturgical tradition often acts as a good sounding board, I shall take a preliminary look at what this has to offer on St. Ephrem, in the course of the various commemorations that are made of him during the year.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION (see Table in Appendix I) [2]

Here the obvious starting point is the document entitled the “History of the holy Mar Ephrem the Teacher,” which comes down to us in several different recensions. 3 I shall refer to it simply as the “Life.”

3 There are two published forms of the Life: one, based on Vatican syr.117, was edited by P. Benedictus and J.E. Assemani, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, III (Rome, 1743) xxii–lxiii [= V] (considerable extracts had appeared earlier in J.S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis, I (Rome, 1719) 26–55); and the second, based on Paris syr. 235, in T. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, II (Malines, 1886) 3–89 [= P] (this was reprinted by P. Bedjan in Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, III (Paris/Leipzig, 1892) 621–65). A comparative edition of P, V and British Library Or. 9384 [= L], accompanied by English translation and study, is available in J. Amar’s Ph.D. dissertation, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1988). Other manuscripts containing the Life are Damascus, Syr. Orth. Patriarchate 12/17 (no. 62), Sinai (New Finds), Sparagmata Syriaka 53, British Library Or.4404. (An edition of the Life, using all the manuscripts, is in preparation by J.Amar; for the contents, see Appendix II). There are also Armenian and Georgian versions, the former (made in 1101) was edited by L. Petrossian and B. Outtier (CSCO 473–74, Arm. 14–15; 1981–5), and the latter by G. Garitte (CSCO 171–72, Iber. 5–6; 1957); both of these are closer to P than to V. An Arabic translation remains unpublished; the oldest manuscripts belong to the 10th century (Sinai ar. 457, 520).

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition [3]

7

Thanks to the work of Arthur Vööbus, 4 Bernard Outtier, 5 Sidney Griffith 6 and Joseph Amar, 7 the true character of this Life of Ephrem has become clear. Vööbus, for example, pointed out that the description of the river Daisan flowing round, and not through Edessa, indicated that the Life must belong to a time later than the flood of 525, after which the river’s course was diverted. 8 In the volume of Parole de l’Orient commemorating the 16th centenary of Ephrem’s death, Outtier gave a masterly sketch of the main extant sources upon which the compiler of the Life drew. Building upon this, Griffith and Amar have shown how the Life, which is heavily dependent on Greek sources, has given rise to a portrait of an “Ephrem byzantinus,” who is very different from the authentic “Ephrem syrus,” 9 author of the madrćshe and other genuine writings. Basically, what the Life (along with other similar sources) has done is to “update” the portrait of the saint to meet sixth-century expectations. This has affected the picture of Ephrem in three ways in particular: firstly, instead of the deacon and (probably) iʚidćyć, or single-minded celibate follower of Christ the

4 A. Vööbus, Literary Critical and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 10; Stockholm, 1958) 22–32; and his History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, II (CSCO 197, Subs. 17; 1960) 77–80. 5 B. Outtier, “S.Ephrem d’après ses biographies et ses oeuvres,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 11–33. 6 S. Griffith, “Images of Ephrem: the Syrian Holy Man and his Church,” Traditio 45 (1989–90): 7–33. 7 J. Amar, “Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 123–56. 8 Vööbus, Literary Critical and Historical Studies, 29; cp. Procopius, Buildings II. vii.2–9. (For problems concerning the alteration of the river’s course see A.N. Palmer, “King Abgar of Edessa, Eusebius and Constantine,” in H. Bakker (ed.), The Sacred Centre as a Focus of Political Interest (Groningen, 1992) 3–29. 9 Griffith’s terms, “Ephrem syrus” and “Ephrem byzantinus” might be better replaced (for the present purpose) by “authentic” and “anachronistic” Ephrem, since the latter portrait, “Ephrem Byzantinus,” is by no means confined to the Greek world, even though many of the features are first attested there.

8

[4]

Sebastian Brock

Iʚidćyć (Only-Begotten), 10 someone who worked primarily as a teacher (malpćnć) in the midst of the urban Christian community of, first Nisibis and then Edessa, the Life portrays him as an ascetic monk and hermit, living for the most part in his cell on the mountains outside Edessa (the sort of figure depicted on the cover of Kathleen McVey’s book). Secondly, this provincial from the eastern provinces of the Empire, who lacked a Greek-style education and had no direct contact with other great names of the fourth century (apart from with his local bishop, St. Jacob of Nisibis), has become, not only a rhetor to rival the Greeks, but also an international traveller, visiting St. Basil in Cappadocia, and St. Bishoi in Egypt, thus linking him with the wider Christian world. And thirdly (and perhaps the most regrettable of all), the man who wrote specifically for women’s choirs, and whose portrayal of biblical women is quite exceptionally sympathetic, 11 has been transformed into an unsmiling misogynist. Since the details of the process by which this transformation happened have been well traced out by the scholars mentioned above, it is only necessary here to indicate some of the main features, concentrating primarily on those which will prove relevant when we come to the liturgical texts. One of our earliest biographical sources is Palladius, who devoted ch. 40 of his Lausiac History (c. 420) to Ephrem, and he happens to preserve what seems to be a genuine historical detail about Ephrem’s organisation of famine relief for the poor of Edessa right at the end of his life; at the same time, however, he describes Ephrem as someone who otherwise lived in a cell, and who “was held worthy of natural knowledge, and subsequently of the divine, and of perfect beatitude”—in other words, someone who had successfully moved through the three Evagrian stages of the spiritual life. 12 Some twenty or so years later the Church historian Sozomen 13 describes Ephrem as someone who had “devoted his life to monastic 10 See S.H. Griffith, “‘Singles’ and ‘Sons of the Covenant.’ Reflections on Syriac ascetic terminology,” in E. Carr and others (eds.), Eulogema. Studies in Honor of R.Taft, S.J. (Studia Anselmiana 110; 1993) 141–60. 11 See my The Luminous Eye, 168–72. 12 Palladius, Lausiac History, ch. 40. 13 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, III.16 (cp. also VI.34). Most of the passage is translated in my St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (New York, 1990) 15–9.

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition

[5]

9

philosophy;” moreover, “contrary to all expectation” his oratorical skills surpassed those of even “the most approved writers of Greece,” and won the admiration of St. Basil, “the most eloquent man of his age.” Sozomen further informs his readers that Bardaisan’s son Harmonios, being “the first to subdue his native tongue to metres and musical laws” introduced some of his father’s heretical teachings into his poems, and it was in order to counter the influence of these that Ephrem “applied himself to the understanding of the metres of Harmonios, and composed similar poems in accordance with the doctrines of the Church.” 14 Sozomen provides us with the first hint of Ephrem the misogynist, stating that “he refrained from the very sight of women.” Sozomen’s other information, such as the episode of his feigned madness to avoid consecration as a bishop, need not detain us. Theodoret, writing in the middle of the fifth century, is the first to hint at a role played by Ephrem, alongside his bishop Jacob, in a siege of Nisibis by Shapur II. 15 Syriac translations of these Greek works were probably made in the course of the late fifth and early sixth century; that of Palladius’ Lausiac History alone survives complete, and in this the Syriac translator has sandwiched Palladius’ brief notice between two texts of very different provenance, which were to prove very influential. 16 The first of these concerns the dream of “one of the holy Fathers’ about an angel who came down from heaven with a scroll written on both sides, and asked to whom it might be entrusted; after various suggestions have been made, it turns out that “no one can be entrusted with it apart from Ephrem.” The next morning, the Father who had had the dream “heard people saying ‘Ephrem teaches as if a fountain was flowing from his For Sozomen’s chauvinistic reasons for this portrayal, see my “Syriac and Greek hymnography, problems of origins,” Studia Patristica 16 = (Texte und Untersuchungen 129; 1985) 77–81, repr. in Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot, 1992), ch. VI. 15 Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, IV.29. No hint of Ephrem’s role there is given in Theodoret’s chapter on Jacob of Nisibis in his Historia Philothea. 16 Ed. R. Draguet, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’histoire lausiaque, II (CSCO 398–9, Scr. Syri 173–4; 1978) 289–89 (text), 190–92 (tr.); an English translation is given in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise, 13–5. 14

10

[6]

Sebastian Brock

mouth’.” The second addition describes “a dream or a vision” which Ephrem saw in his youth, in which a vine sprung up from his tongue and bore abundant fruit: “the more the birds of the sky ate, the more the bunches of grapes multiplied and grew.” These two additions also turn out to be translations from Greek, for they are taken from the alphabetical series of the Apophthegmata of the Fathers, 17 and it is through the Syriac translation of Palladius (incorporated into the popular seventh-century collection of Egyptian monastic texts put together by ‘Enanisho’ under the title “The Paradise of the Fathers” 18) that these two apophthegmata entered Syriac tradition, where they proved very popular and have influenced, among other things, the modern oriental iconographical tradition. 19 Perhaps roughly contemporary with the Syriac translation of Palladius is Jacob of Serugh’s memrć on Ephrem. 20 Here and there Jacob uses phraseology that may reflect some of the Greek sources mentioned earlier/above: thus Ephrem is “a divine philosopher” (§26), and “an amazing rhetor who vanquished the Greeks in his speech” (§32), both perhaps reminiscences of Sozomen’s account of Ephrem; a possible reflection of the first of the apophthegmata in the Syriac Palladius is to be found when Jacob says that Ephrem “caused a sweet fountain of blessed water to flow in our land” (§23). But otherwise Jacob offers us a very different (and probably Ephrem 2 and 1, in Patrologia Graeca 65, 168. Book I, ch. 56, in E.A.W. Budge (ed.), The Book of Paradise (London, 1904) I, 277–9 (tr.), and II, 224–6 (text), and P. Bedjan (ed.), Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, VII (Paris/Leipzig, 1897) 175–8. The alphabetical series does not feature as such in Syriac translation. 19 The vine episode is especially favoured; it features, for example, in an icon of St. Ephrem painted by Rabban ShemȨun Can, of the Monastery of St. Mark, Jerusalem (illustrated in R. Derieva, The Meaning of Mystery: Icons of the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1998), 61; I am most grateful to Rabban Shem‘un Can for a postcard of his icon and a copy of R. Derieva’s book). The text (on a scroll which Ephrem holds) is in the first person and would seem to be derived from the Testament (whose opening features on another scroll in the icon); the text, however, has many variations from Beck’s edition (see note 21), some of which concur with the Vatican recension of the Life. 20 Ed. J. Amar, “A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh,” Patrologia Orientalis 47:1 (1995); cited here by Amar’s numbering (of the couplets). 17 18

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 11 much more accurate) impression of the man, concentrating on two specific aspects, his instruction of women and his innovative use of them in choirs; and his role as “teacher of truth” (§29), combating heresies: The blessed Ephrem saw that the women were silent from praise, so in his wisdom he decided it was right that they should sing out. Just as Moses gave timbrels to the young girls, so too the discerning man composed hymns for virgins. As he stood among the sisters, it was his delight to stir these chaste women into songs of praise.. (§§ 96–8).

[7]

[8]

Of uncertain date are a whole number of texts written in the first person which claim to be by Ephrem himself, none of which, however, is likely to be genuine. Best known amongst these is the Testament of Ephrem, which is certainly a local Edessene product, and perhaps belongs to the early sixth century. 21 Outtier has plausibly suggested 22 that the author took as his clue a passage in C.Nis. 19:15 where Ephrem mentions that the first three bishops of Nisibis did not leave testaments. Elements from this product of the imagination are used in the Life (this is particularly clear in the Vatican recension of the Life in chapter 15, on the dream of the vine). 23 It is elements of all of these texts (and other ones besides them, some now lost) that were brought together sometime in the latter half of the sixth century to form the Life of Ephrem. Perhaps 21 Ed. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones IV (CSCO 334–5, Scr. Syri 148–9; 1973) 43–69 (text), 53–80 (tr.). 22 Outtier, “Saint Ephrem d’après ses biographies,” 24. 23 P and V specifically refer to the Testament, but, whereas P’s text is largely based on the Syriac translation of Palladius, with only minor influence from the Testament (notably the added adjective, “when he was a small boy,” and the statement that the vine “reached heaven”), V introduces further phraseology manifestly taken from the Testament, e.g. “(when he was a small boy) lying on his mother’s lap.” L, which places this vision at the end, does not mention the Testament, and derives its text word for word from the Syriac translation of Palladius. The Armenian has the episode in the same place as P V, while the Georgian has it in both positions (§§15, 45).

12

Sebastian Brock

one should not be too surprised that in this Life, written some two hundred years after the time of its hero, a considerable distortion in the portrayal has taken place. Among the several elements that we meet with here for the first time the one of particular relevance for the second half of this paper concerns Ephrem’s origins. Against the evidence of Ephrem’s own hymns, where he states that he was brought up in the way of truth (H.c.Haer. 26:10; H. de Virg. 37:10), the Life depicts his parents as pagans, and his father as a priest of an idol, Abnil. 24 Conceivably it was an adjacent passage in the first of these hymns that provided the author of the Life with his starting point in this mythopoeic development: Ephrem’s own words read “I was born in the path of truth, / even though my childhood was unaware; but once I grew aware I acquired it in the furnace”—referring probably to baptism, which is not infrequently described in Syriac sources as a “furnace.”

THE LITURGICAL TRADITION [9]

[10]

In the second part of my paper I turn to the liturgical tradition. Ideally one should go back to the rich manuscript tradition, but for reasons of practicality I have confined myself to the printed editions that are available. 25 The Church of the East commemorates St. Ephrem, along with other Syriac teachers, on Friday of the fifth week after Epiphany. 26 The printed ʙudrć offers little that is very specific: Ephrem (along with Narsai) is singled out as a teacher who “interpreted and illuminated the Scripture,” and who “quenched

Life, §1; on the identity of the deity (Apollo, on the basis of the Georgian translation of the Life), see J. Tubach, “Der von Ephraem Syrus’ Vater verehrte Gott. Apoll in Nisibis,” in M. Tamcke, W. Schwaigert and E. Schlarb (eds.), Syrisches Christentum Weltweit: Studien zur syrischen Kirchengeschichte. Festschrift W. Hage (Münster, 1995) 164–79. 25 I use the following: (East Syriac) T. Darmo (ed.), ʙudrć, I–III (Trichur, 1960–2) [= H]; P. Bedjan (ed.), Breviarium iuxta ritum Syrorum Orientalium id east Chaldaeorum, I–III (repr. Rome, 1938) [= BC]; (West Syriac) Clemens Joseph David (ed.), Breviarium iuxta ritum Ecclesiae K K K Antiochenae Syrorum/ ÞØ~ äãØ~ ÚàÙ߃ ¿ÿÙå~šÊî ¿šÍߖƒ ¿ÿÙùæñ ¾ÙØĂÍèƒ ¿ÿÙÜÍÙÓå~ ¿šÊîƒ ¾éÝÒ, I–VII (Mosul, 1886–96) [= FM]; A. Konat (ed.), ¾Ùåÿæü À˜ƒÍσ ¿ÿÙùæñ, I–III (Pampakuda, 1962–3) [= FP]. 26 H I, 761–79 = BC I, 492–507. 24

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 13

[11]

[12]

and rendered ineffective the sects of the erroneous heretics;” 27 Ephrem is compared to “a skilled doctor who blended the insights of the Scriptures for the healing of the sick world’s ills,” 28 and (in phraseology which possibly reflects that of Jacob of Serugh, §23) Ephrem “became a fountain and caused life to flow for the whole world.” 29 It is evidently from the ʙudrć that cAbdisho derived the title of “prophet” for Ephrem. 30 The printed editions of the West Syrian Fenqitho provide considerably more material of interest. The Syrian Catholic edition printed in Mosul commemorates St. Ephrem on three occasions: 28th January, 31 19th February (together with St. Isaac the Teacher, of Edessa), 32 and on Saturday of the first week of Lent (together with St. Theodore). 33 This last commemoration has by far the most text, and is the only one to feature in the Syrian Orthodox edition of the Fenqitho printed in Pampakuda (Kerala); the texts, however, only partly coincide. 34 One of the first things that strikes the reader of these liturgical texts of the Syrian Orthodox tradition is the considerable use that is made of Jacob of Serugh’s memrć on Ephrem. This may be either direct quotation, or in a rephrased prose form. The direct H I, 766 = BC I, 496. H I, 767 = BC I, 497. 29 H I, 768 (cp. FP II, 67). In the corresponding passage in BC I, 498 Ambrose’s name is substituted for that of Ephrem (in BC the commemoration is of the Syriac and Latin Fathers)! 30 H I, 775. The corresponding passage in BC I, 503 omits the word “prophet.” cAbdisho, Catalogue, in J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III.1 (1725), 61. 31 FM III, 393–6. 32 FM III, 447–50. 33 FM IV, 176–99. For the various dates on which St. Ephrem is commemorated in the Calendars, see F. Nau, Martyrologes et Ménologes orientaux (Patrologia Orientalis 10; 1915) 140 (index). 34 FP II, 54–72. Overlap between the two editions is to be found on the following pages: FM IV 180 = FP II 56, 68 181 = 56, 65 188–9 = 57 190 = 59 191 = 62 195–6 = 70. 27 28

14

Sebastian Brock

quotations are quite long, and comprise couplets 21–9 35 and 148– 62 36 of Amar’s recent edition of the memrć. These include a couplet which specifically refers to Ephrem’s role in the instruction of women (§152). Further material manifestly derived from the memrć is to be found above all in the Sedro that features in the commemorations for 28th January and the Saturday of the first week of Lent. 37 This may be illustrated from the following excerpt from the Sedro, where phraseology derived from the memrć is italicised and the relevant couplet indicated (~ indicates approximate and—indicates omitted): (~§§5, 9) O diligent merchant [§9a] who brought (back) his talent 10,000 times over [§5a], and it was not snatched away on the highways [§9a] of the evil world by the bandits of sin; (~§24) O new wine, whose fragrance and colour is from Golgotha, by drinking from which men and women became inebriated and gave praise to God with a loud voice; (~§25) O fountain, from whom burst forth all kinds of sounds that were passed on in the world and with his songs he aroused the entire earth to ponder on (God); (~§26) O divine philosopher who, by action, taught his disciples in accordance with the Saviour’s command; (~§31) O astute man who uttered all his teaching in simplicity in order to assist the simple, and who was able to be both serpent and dove, as he was commanded; (~§32) O wondrous rhetor, who vanquished by his converse all the Greeks who were trained in rhetoric, in that, within a single word he was able to comprise many matters; (~§46) He who gazed diligently in his mind on the great Moses, and after the model of the Hebrew women he taught the Aramaean women to give praise with their madrćshe; (~§157) He who measured out in orderly fashion and composed all his memre, ordering his teaching in metrical form, which he set out in the world; (~§152) He who took women down to the contest of teaching, and with FM IV, 181; FP II 56 (§§24–26), 65 (§28). FM IV, 196; FP II, 70 (§§148–52, 158–62). 37 FM IV, 178. 35 36

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 15

(-)

(-)

(~§155) (-)

[13]

young girls was resplendent in battle against the doctrines of vanity; He whose memre and madrćshe are like the floods of the ocean, and of all the orators in the world none could feel out their depth or breadth; He who added glory to the Exalted One who has no need of praise, and now creation thunders with the sacred sounds of his teaching; He who became a crown for the people of the Aramaeans, (and) by him we have been brought close to spiritual beauty; He who raised up the horn of the Syrians everywhere, (and) from him henceforth we have learnt to sing to the Lord with sweet songs; ...

Not surprisingly, the influence of the Life is reflected in several passages, such as the statement that Ephrem was converted from paganism: thus God “caused Ephrem to pass from paganism and brought him to true faith;” 38 elsewhere it is specified that it was Jacob of Nisibis who converted him. 39 As one might expect, the apophthegmata concerning the scroll and the vine (Life, §§14,15) also feature, the former indirectly, when Ephrem’s experience of divine inspiration is compared to Ezekiel’s consuming of a scroll (Ezek. 3:1–3). 40 A number of passages refer to Ephrem’s ascetic life on the mountains of Edessa (based on §13 of the Life); one of these 41 speaks of “the fragrance of (Ephrem’s) life of mourning” (¿šÍàÙÁ~ƒ ¾Ðؘ), employing a phrase derived from the Life of Abraham of Qidun, 42 which was from an early date erroneously attributed to Ephrem.

38 Thus FM IV, 180, where Ephrem is being compared to Abraham who was told, “Go forth from your land and come to the land I will show you, the land of promise.” Cp. also III, 393; IV, 178, 193; FP II, 68. 39 FM III, 448. 40 FM IV, 188; FP II, 57. 41 FM III, 449. The “mountain of Edessa” also features in IV, 193 (where 30 years is specified as the length of time spent there; this is due to contamination with the Life of Jacob of Nisibis). 42 Ch. 21, ed. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri, IV, 63, = ed. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, VI, 490.

16 [14]

[15]

Sebastian Brock

A madrćshć specifically on Ephrem states that Ephrem was sent to Edessa in order to counter the heresies of “the crazy Mani, the mad dog Marcion, and the errant Armianos (= Harmonios), son of Bardaisan.” 43 The mention of Harmonios derives ultimately from Sozomen, but almost certainly reached the author of the madrćshć through the Life, the Paris recension of which uses the passage from Sozomen in §31. Although the “crazy Mani” (ultimately of Greek origin) and the “mad dog Marcion” do not feature in either the Paris or Vatican manuscripts of the Life, they are to be found in the longer form of §32 which is to be found in the Armenian translation of the Life, and are based ultimately on Ephrem’s madrćshe against the Heresies (56:9). We know from an unpublished manuscript of the Life in Damascus, 44 and from a fragment from among the New Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery, 45 that chapters 31–2 of the Life were originally in a form rather fuller than what is available in the two printed recensions (Paris, Vatican). The reference to Bardaisan’s 150 psalms 46 is likely also to derive from the Life (§31, Paris recension), rather than directly from Ephrem, H.c.Haer. 53:6 (which the Life indirectly quotes). Also from the Life are a few references to the meeting with Basil, 47 and to the woman whose sins were forgiven. 48

43 FM IV, 190; FP II, 59. In FM “son of” has been lost, so that “the wicked Bardaisan” simply stands in apposition to Armonios/Harmonios. 44 See note 3, above. 45 See my Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens, 1995), 52–54, and photographs of all the fragments on pp. 252–54. 46 FM IV, 190. 47 FM IV, 194, 195, 196; FP II, 70. For the meeting of Basil and Ephrem, see O. Rousseau, “La rencontre de saint Ephrem et de saint Basile,” L’Orient Syrien 2 (1957): 261–84; 3 (1958): 73–90. The episode will have taken its origin in Basil’s reference (Homily II.6 on the Hexaemeron) to a learned Syrian, whom later tradition (including Severus wrongly identified as Ephrem (criticized already by Moshe bar Kepha, Comm. on Hexaemeron, II.4; in fact it will have been Eusebius of Emesa: see L. van Rompay, “L’informateur syrien de Basile de Caesarée. A propos de Genèse 1,2,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 245–51). A study of the precise relationship between Ps. Amphilochius, Life of Basil and the Syriac Life of Ephrem will have to await a critical edition of the former. 48 Life, §39; FM IV, 195.

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 17 [16]

In the course of the Sedro quoted above which made considerable use of Jacob’s memrć, there is a further passage which is of some interest, sandwiched between a reference to Ephrem’s teaching of women (based on Jacob) and a reference to his following in the footsteps of Basil (probably based on the Life): 49 ...He who in proper and chaste fashion introduced virgins into the schools of his teaching; He who cunningly overcame the audacious sister of the accursed Bardaisan; He who kept vigil, standing in fasting and prayer, day and night; He who skilfully travelled in the footsteps of the great Basil; ...

[17]

The intriguing-and of course wildly anachronistic-allusion to Bardaisan’s sister can fortunately be clarified by reference to chapter 54 of the Chronicle of Seert, 50 which is devoted to Ephrem. For the most part this chapter is based on the Life, but at the end we encounter the following narrative: It is told in certain histories that Bardaisan had composed a Gospel that differed from what Christ our Lord had said in the sacred Scripture. By means of it, he misled anyone who was feeble in faith and wandering in mind. Thus he corrupted the hearts of a multitude (of people) who looked into it. Now when Bardaisan died and God relieved the Church of him and his iniquity, Mar Ephrem craftily asked his sister to let him have the book so that he could have a look at it, after which he would return it to her. Now Satan, who loves corruption, incited her to ask him to have sexual intercourse with her, (Satan’s) purpose being to disgrace him. Accordingly she asked him, and he replied, “Give me the book to look at, then I will get on with what you asked me, and sleep and have intercourse with you.” She said, “Swear by Christ that you will do this, and that you will return the book to me once you have looked at it.” He swore to her by FM IV, 194; III, 396. Ed. A. Scher (Patrologia Orientalis 5; 1910) 298. An earlier chapter, 26 (= Patrologia Orientalis 4 (1908) 293–5) is also devoted to Ephrem; this is often close to L, and like L, claims to be based on information from Ephrem’s disciple Shemcon of Samosata. 49 50

18

Sebastian Brock Christ that he would do that if she consented (to her part of the bargain). She agreed, and handed over the book to him. Once he had received it from her, he got hold of a large amount of glue and spread it over all the pages. He then closed (the book) very tightly until it was all stuck together. He returned it to her, took his cloak and set off with her. When he arrived in the midst of the market, crowded with people, he spread out his cloak on the ground and said, “Here you are, get on with what you asked for: lie down here so that I can keep my promise.” To which she replied, “Heavens above! Is there anyone in the world who would have intercourse with his wife in such a place, let alone with a strange woman?” He then said to her, “Since you cannot do this, then I have carried out my part of the agreement, and am clear of my oath, seeing that it was you who have refused.” And so she went off—and the Most High God thwarted Satan of his hopes.

[18]

This anecdote has an interesting literary ancestry, for it is based on the third of the three apophthegmata concerning Ephrem in the Alphabetical Series of Apophthegmata. 51 There it is a prostitute who approaches Ephrem, seeking either to seduce him, or, failing that, to cause him vexation. Curiously, this seems to be the only place in the later legends about Ephrem where this third apophthegma is used, in contrast to the first two, whose use is widespread. The motif of gluing together the pages of a heretical book is absent from the apophthegma, but turns up in the Greek Homily on Ephrem falsely attributed to Gregory of Nyssa: 52 there it is again a woman from whom Ephrem borrows heretical works, but the theme of a sexual advance is absent; furthermore, it is not Bardaisan’s “gospel” that Ephrem borrows, but two books by Apollinarius. Although there does not seem to be any evidence that Pseudo-Gregory’s Homily on Ephrem was ever translated into Syriac, the episode, linked to Apollinarius, is nonetheless known to

Patrologia Graeca 65, 168. Patrologia Graeca 46, 840BC (CPG 3193); Outtier, “Saint Ephrem d’après ses biographies,” 27, dates it to “vers le VIIe siècle” (in the table on p. 17 he gives 650). 51 52

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 19

[19]

[20]

and used by the compiler of a Maronite synaxarion in his entry on Ephrem (28th January), recently published by Amar. 53 Evidently what we have in the Chronicle of Seert is the combination of two originally separate floating motifs, the sexual proposition made to Ephrem (derived from the third apophthegma under Ephrem’s name), and the gluing together of the pages of a heretical book—a motif which is used independently and in a different context by Pseudo-Gregory. The sexual proposition by Bardaisan’s sister in the Chronicle of Seert is but one, though the most risqué, of a number of anecdotes about loose women and Ephrem (who always comes out well) which are to be found in the later biographical tradition. One may suppose that they took their origin in circles which sought to emphasize Ephrem’s unshakable chastity, and to nip in the bud any possible suggestion on the part of hostile parties that Ephrem’s association with the teaching of women was in the slightest way improper. A further probable allusion to the episode with Bardaisan’s sister, found elsewhere in the Fenqitho, gives rise to a comparison with the biblical Joseph: 54 God gave success and advancement to the chaste and upright Joseph, the resplendent, thus putting to shame the insolence of the Evil One who sought to impose upon him a blemish; (God) again gave success and a crown to the holy Mar Ephrem, at the hands of the crazed woman, and thus the high rank of his purity grew.

Biblical parallels of a typological nature, such as this, are in fact characteristic of the liturgical tradition, and we find further comparisons with Abraham, 55 Moses, 56 Samuel, 57 Jeremiah 58 and Ezekiel. 59 53 J. Amar, “An unpublished Karšuni Arabic Life of Ephrem,” Le Muséon 106 (1993): 119–44. 54 FM IV, 180; FP II, 56. 55 See above, note 38. A much more extended list of biblical models imitated by Ephrem is to be found in Ps. Gregory of Nyssa, Patrologia Graeca 46, 844–5 (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Paul). 56 FM IV, 180, where Ephrem being led to Jacob is compared to Moses as herdsman of Jethro. 57 FP II, 59.

20 [21]

Sebastian Brock

Two different passages in the Fenqitho introduce a word play on Ephrem’s name, comparing him with the Euphrates: 60 O Sea of wisdom and Profundity of symbols, Ephrem, the Euphrates who fructified with his teaching the K ÌæòßÍÙÁ ‹ûñ~ƒ šûñ living waters of souls (… ¾Ùâ K K ¿ÿýòåƒ ¾ÙÏ);

and: 61 He who became the mighty Euphrates with his teaching in the City of God, which is the holy Church.

[22] [23]

It so happens that the same word play also features in the later Greek tradition, in Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa’s Panegyric on Ephrem. 62 Finally, it may be noted that the Mosul edition of the Fenqitho contains one of the supposedly autobiographical texts attributed to Ephrem, a soghitha beginning “How often have I hungered...” 63 Sufficient has been said to indicate that the West Syriac liturgical tradition, at least in so far as it is represented in the printed editions of the Fenqitho, draws on a variety of different sources, prominent among which are Jacob of Serugh’s memrć on Ephrem and the Life. The result, not surprisingly, is that no consistent portrait is offered of the saint who is being commemorated.

FM IV, 188; FP II, 59. See above, note 38. 60 FM IV, 186. 61 FP II, 71. 62 Patrologia Graeca 46, 824A. 63 FM IV, 191–2. The soghitha was also published by I.E. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca I (Charfet, 1904) 12–3; it is certainly not genuine. Another soghitha attributed to Ephrem, present in Mingana syr. 190, ff. 126a–127b K (beginning “Comfort of all Mourners” / çÙàÙÁ~ á܃ ¿½ØÍÁ), was considered by Vööbus to be genuine: Literary Critical and Historical Studies, 16–8, and History of Asceticism, II, 73–4; this, however, cannot be the case K since it includes the adjectival form ¾ÙܽĆàâ , which is not otherwise attested before the sixth century. 58 59

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 21

CONCLUSION [24]

[25]

Academics who deal with the past are frequently urged to make their subject relevant to the modern day, and maybe this is how we should view the transformations that have taken place in the Syriac tradition with the portrait of St. Ephrem: perhaps all that the fifthand sixth-century biographers wanted to do was to present the saint in a modern guise, to make him relevant to their own context. We, with our benefit of hindsight, can see that in the process of “updating” St. Ephrem, they have perverted the truth. But instead of simply condemning them, we should learn a lesson from what they have done, and beware of repeating their error, that is, of not allowing St. Ephrem’s own writings speak for themselves. In other words, in order to gain a true picture of the saint, one needs to go back to the genuine texts themselves. This was still possible in the sixth century, when the Life of St. Ephrem was compiled, for manuscripts of his complete madrćshe cycles still circulated then; as the centuries advanced, however, two processes took place simultaneously: on the one hand, only a small selection of madrćshe continued to be copied, and usually this was in abbreviated form, incorporated into the medieval hymnaries, or Fenqyotho; 64 and on the other hand, an ever increasing amount of anonymous material came to claim his authorship, thus conveying a very different impression about him. A phenomenon related to the first of these processes is the pillaging of Ephrem’s genuine madrćshe for isolated stanzas and then supplementing them by new ones of an essentially moralizing character which provide the genuine stanzas with a completely different setting. 65 It has in fact only been within the last forty five odd years that it has once again become possible to go back to the real Ephrem, thanks above all to the late Dom Edmund Beck’s editions of the surviving madrćshe cycles. A glance at his introductions will indicate that it is largely sixth-century manuscripts that provide the basis for his editions. That such early manuscripts should have survived at

64 See my “The transmission of Ephrem’s madrćshe in the Syriac liturgical tradition,” in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 33 (1997) 490–505. 65 An example is given in my “The transmission,” 495–6.

22

Sebastian Brock

all is very largely due to the tenth-century bibliophile abbot Moses who, like St. Ephrem, originated in Nisibis. 66

APPENDIX I: EXTERNAL ATTESTATION CONCERNING EPHREM Summary chronological chart to mid seventh century. This table is simply intended as an aide memoire; it should be noted that many of the dates ascribed to pseudonymous works are very uncertain. (373 Death of Ephrem). c. 377 Epiphanius, Panarion 51,22,7 (Ephrem “the sage among the Syrians’ on the date of the Nativity). 392 Jerome, de viris illustribus, 115 (knows a work by Ephrem on the Holy Spirit already translated into Greek). c. 400 Anonymous, Life of Abraham of Qidun, §§24, 28 (ed. Lamy, IV, 69, 77; mention of Ephrem). c. 420 Palladius, Lausiac History, 40. c. 440 Sozomen, HE III.16. c. 450 Theodoret, HE II.30 (siege of Nisibis); IV.29 (mostly from Sozomen). Letter 145 (PG 83, 1384D; mention of Ephrem as “Lyre of the Holy Spirit’). 482/4 Philoxenos (quotes from Ephrem’s Hymn Cycles in the Florilegium at the end of his Discourses against Habib). c. 500 Gennadius, de viris illustribus, 3 (Ephrem’s disciple Paulonas), 67 (memrć on destruction of Nicomedia). c. 500 Greek Apophthegmata (Ephrem and scroll; Ephrem and vine). 500+ Syriac translation of Palladius (incorporating Apophthegmata). 500+ Testament of Ephrem (utilising second apophthegma, by way of Syriac Palladius). 519 Earliest dated manuscript of Ephrem’s madrćshe (BL Add. 14571). 519 Severus, C. Grammaticum III.2 (ch. 39, ed. Lebon, 244 end; On Moses of Nisibis, see J. Leroy, “Moise de Nisibe,” in [I] Symposium Syriacum (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197; 1974) 457–70, and M. Blanchard, “Moses of Nisibis (fl. 906–943) and the Library of Deir Suriani,” in L.S.B. MacCoull (ed.), Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boulos Ghali (Publications of the Society for Coptic Archaeology, North America, 1; 1995) 13–24. 66

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 23

pre 521 c. 550 ?6th cent. 6th cent.+ c. 600

identifies Basil’s “Syrian’ as Ephrem “because he certainly will have met him during his lifetime’). Jacob of Serugh, Memra on Ephrem. Chronicle of Edessa (records death of Ephrem on 9 June 373). Ps. Amphilochius, Life of Basil (meeting of Ephrem and Basil). Syriac Life of Ephrem (surviving in several recensions).

Barhadbeshabba, Ecclesiastical History (PO 23, 33; Ephrem’s nephew Abshlama, bishop of Edessa, at Council of Nicaea). [Another(?) nephew of Ephrem, Absimya, is said to have written a poem on the incursion of the Huns: Chron. 846, in Chronica Minora II.208; Michael Syrus, Chronicle, VIII.1 (end)]. c. 600 Barhadbeshabba, Cause of Schools (PO 4, 377, 381; Ephrem made “Exegete” at Nisibis by Jacob; founds school in Edessa). c. 650 Ps. Gregory of Nyssa, Encomium on Ephrem.

APPENDIX II: THE SYRIAC LIFE OF EPHREM (For abbreviations, see note 3. The sequence of chapters is that of P) P

V

L

Origins Expelled by father Meeting with Bp. Jacob E’s supposed child

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

= =

Council of Nicaea Siege of Nisibis

5 6

5 6

Death of Jacob Constans and Julian E leaves Nisibis Arrives at Edessa Encounter with woman Works in bath house

7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12

Ultimate source (or inspiration)

(Ephrem, C.Nisibena) (See P. Canart, Anal. Boll. 84 (1966), 309–33) cp. Theodoret, HE I.7 Theodoret, HE II.32; (Ephrem, C.Nisibena 1)

= = Sozomen, HE III.16 =

24

Sebastian Brock

Joins monks on mountain Vision of tomos

13 13 14 14

Vision as a child

15 15 at end

Comm. on Pentateuch Flees from fame, meets angel Stoned by heretics and pagans Writings against heretics Pupils Desires to see Basil (pillar of fire) Storm at sea Arrival in Egypt Meeting with Bishoi Diet and appearance 8 years in Egypt; refutes Arians Sails to Caesarea Meeting with Basil Ordained deacon by Basil

16 16 17 17

Wording of doxology Basil and Gen. 1:2 E returns Episode at Samosata Return to Edessa, deals with heretics Writes hymns to rival Harmonius Writes against “Seven” of Bardaisan Heals paralytic

18 18

= =

Apophthegmata > Palladius (Syr) Apophthegmata > Palladius (Syr) and Testament (Ephrem, Comm. Genesis)

=

19 19 19 20 20 21

(Ephrem, H.c Haereses) Sozomen, Testament Ps.Amphilochius

21 22 22 23 24 23 24 24 24

= =

25 25 25 25 25 26– 28 26 29 27 30

= = =

=

28 (29) 29 31 30 32

= =

= =

Ps.Amphilochius Ps.Amphilochius Basil, On Holy Spirit Basil, Hom. on Hexaemeron; cp. Sozomen

(Ephrem, H.c Haereses)

31 (33)

Sozomen

32 33

(Ephrem, Prose Refutations)

33 34

=

St. Ephrem in the Eyes of Later Syriac Liturgical Tradition 25 Basil’s attempt to ordain E bishop E’s friends and writings Invasion of Huns Valens’ intended persecution Poem on Edessa’s rescue Caesarean woman’s sins wiped out Death of Basil Famine at Edessa Death of Ephrem

34 35

=

35 36 36

cp. Sozomen; Ps. Amphilochius

37

(Chron. Edessa, Sel. 706 = AD 395) Socrates, HE IV.18

38 37 39 38

Ps. Amphilochius

40 39 41 40 42 41

= =

Palladius, Sozomen

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 27–36 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A BALLAD ABOUT SAINT ANDREW AND THE CANNIBALS, ATTRIBUTED TO SAINT EPHRAIM1 MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, S.J. INSTITUT FÜR SEMITISTIK LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANSUNIVERSITÄT, MÜNCHEN GERMANY [1]

[2]

The Proceedings of the Symposium Syriacum which took place at Uppsala in 1996 will contain my French translation and Syriac edition of a ballad preserved in the Vatican MS Syr. 117 and four other MSS, including the very corrupt acephalous text in British Library Add. MS 14656. Andrew Palmer has kindly translated the first seventy-six heptasyllabic couplets into English iambic pentameters for this paper. [Upper-case letters in the right margin indicate adjustments made by A. Palmer to the Syriac text presented by the author, as follows: A = add a word; E = emend a word; O = omit a word; words underlined show the influence of Ephraim’s diction (29, 31, 45), or of his “balancing” style (62); passages in italics are clumsy phrases which show an imperfect knowledge of the Syriac language; words between square brackets are added to fill out the English metre and have no authority; no attempt has been made to improve on the doggerel style of the original: Andrew Palmer] The notes of the Special Issue Editor, Dr. Andrew Palmer, appear in square paranthesis. 1

27

28 [3]

Michel van Esbroeck

TITLE IN MS: Ballad (memrć) chanted (or “spoken”) by Mor Afrem about Andrew, the Apostle, when he was sent to the Land of Kalbin [“Land of Dogs”]. E

5

10

15

Called by our Lord, his [twelve] Apostles went to every quarter [of the earth to preach]; And each of his Evangelists received his portion of the countries [in the world]. To Simon He entrusted [that of] Rome; to Mark He gave [all] Egypt with its land; For Thomas He selected India; and Ephesus He set aside for John. The country of Kalbin He chose to be the field for Andrew’s missionary work. Now God’s Apostle knew how [burdensome and] awkward his allotted journey was; Before [the Lord’s] Disciples gathered there, he groaned and then began to weep, [and said:] “My brothers, [please, I beg you,] don’t send me [to preach] among that race of cannibals! This country which has fallen to my lot— no man of justice ever entered there. I’m old [and doddering] and very weak; I do not even have the strength to walk. How can I go without an entourage, with nothing of my own—no horse, no mule; O With neither gold nor silver [in my purse]? My brothers, [please,] have pity on my age! Give me another country to convert! I’ll go there [gladly and evangelise].” “Oh no, our brother, [no]! Not on your life!” the other pupils of the Lord replied. “It’s none of us that gave to you that place. You’ve got it and there’s nothing you can do!

A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals

20

25

30

The One who gave to Thomas India, the same gave you the country of Kalbin. Accept his word and go in peace; then God will bring you quickly to your journey’s end. And when your place of exile gets you down, then God will give you succour, [if you pray].” He wept; but saw that he could not escape the tidings of his [harsh] apostleship. He wanted to convert the nations, but his place of banishment was bitter news, Considering old age, so close at hand, attended by enfeeblement [and pain]. He passed the Upper Room without delay; he passed the gateway in the city-wall; His purpose was to be alone to weep in varied sights of [all] the monuments. In every place to which he came he knelt [on bended knee] and there began to pray. He saw the structures of Jerusalem with [all] the buildings that surrounded it: “Be well, O city David built! Adieu! For who can say if I’ll come back to you?” He prayed with groaning to the Lord, and [He,] the Lord, performed the thing that he desired; And what ensued was such a miracle as never has been heard of [anywhere]: Our Lord came down, as He came down [before] and levelled out a patʘ [for us] on earth. His guise was that of one whom commerce drives abroad [on distant journeys far from home]. He painted semblances of angels there and made them seem like [ordinary] men. He carved and from combustion brought up beasts and tethered them beside the [merchants there].

29

E

A O

E

E

O

30

35

40

45

Michel van Esbroeck [On these] He placed the semblances of loads, as if He were a trading man [indeed]. All these were meant to lift depression from [his] Pupil by a stimulating sight. The Blessèd Man looked up and saw, at rest, a caravan of [animals and] men. Without delay he hurried up to see what kind of [trading] people they might be. He looked and saw that they were nothing like the native people of Jerusalem. [Rather,] to judge by their appearance, they were born among the Egyptians [by the Nile]. Approaching them without delay, he asked, “[Good] men! From whence are you? And who is he, This great, [majestic] man who [goes] with you? Reveal [your secrets]! Tell me [everything]!” They answered, “We are merchants and we go [with cargo] to the Country of Kalbin. Each year we cross the borders of [that land], the Country of Kalbin, [to sell our wares].” The Blessèd Man, delighted, heard [their words] and thanked [his] God and offered praises up. He urged the young men further, “I would like to see the man who leads you[r caravan].” Tʘe Skyborn Ones Wʘo Never Go To Sleep brought [Andrew] to their Lord and stood him there. So handsome and so fine is his attire; so noble and so splendid is his rank. Magnificent the tent put up for Him; yet in appearance He’s a Son of Earth. Our Lord called his Disciple, stretching out his hand and giving it to him, the way He stretched his hand out [once] among the waves, and put it into Simon Peter’s own,

A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals 50

55

60

65

And welcomed him with, “Peace be with you, [friend,] so elderly and humble and forlorn! Reveal to me from where you come and [please] explain to me what brings you to this place!” The Apostle spoke to our Redeemer, “[Sir,] your servant is a poor [and agèd] man. But I desire to journey to that land to which [with all this merchandise] you go.” Our Saviour did not ask him to explain the reason why he wished to travel there. Instead, He gave him comfort and made all his [further] questions seem superfluous By saying, “I’m so glad that you have come, because I see your [venerable] age. Will you become our chief, instead of me, the good adviser of our company? E Whenever I would emphasise your rank, you’ll eat with me at table very well. Take for yourself a camp-bed like my own; and I shall find a horse for you to ride, To give your seniority a rest from great exertion and vexatiousness.” At this the old and humble man arose and knelt before the “Man’ and worshipped Him; tʘat Son of Eartʘ began to bless tʘe Lord, tʘe very One wʘo modelled Adam’s frame: “Because of all your kindnesses to me you’ll see, I hope, the kindnesses of God. E I trust in God, moreover, that the way that lies before you will be blessed by Him. But now I must go back inside the walls: I’ll come to you again without delay.” Our Lord said, “Go! May all be well with you! I’ve told you my intention perfectly;

31

32

Michel van Esbroeck But if you want to journey on with us, come back to us [as] quickly [as you can], Since we shall make a start without delay, E according to the custom that we hold!” From what He said to his Disciple—“Come! Get back to us [as] quickly [as you can]!”— The Apostle learned, [as Jesus taught before,] to sever [earthly] cares of every kind. Rejoicing, the Disciple joined his friends, [where they were gathered,] in the Upper Room. He chuckled and his countenance was glad, suffused [with pleasure], totally consoled: “I’m leaving now! May all be well with you! See, brothers! I am headed Gospel-wards, As He desires. But don’t forget me, [friends!] O Remember me in [all] the prayers [you say]! When offering sweet incense up to God, [please don’t neglect] a spoonful in my name! Remember me in praying, as you would a dead man, gone to [see] the Underworld!”

70

75

INTRODUCTION [4]

Comment on couplets 1–13 and 49–50: The Apostles are artificially reduced to four, matching the four regions (West: Peter; South: Mark; East: India; North: Ephesus). Andrew refuses to go to the uncivilised land of Kalbin (the Chalybes). The List of the Apostles and their Fields of Mission is a literary genre, serving as a claim to legitimacy; the presentation in the ballad is highly original by comparison; there is no mention of Constantinople. 2 There seems to be a concern to highlight the paradox that Andrew, who was the first to be called (Greek: protokletos), was nevertheless second to Simon Peter; Christ stretches out his hand to Andrew as He had

Compare M. van Esbroeck, “Neuf listes d’apôtres orientales,” Augustinianum 34 (1994): 109–99. 2

A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals

[5]

[6]

33

done to Simon Peter when he began to sink while walking over the water towards his Lord. Summary of couplets 77–153: The Apostles send Andrew on his way with their blessing, but wonder how he could have changed his mind so quickly. Andrew embarks on a ship and goes to sleep; meanwhile the Lord orders the elements to make a storm. With an allusion to Ephesians 5:14, the Lord wakes Andrew and Andrew commands the waves in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The sea obeys and Andrew preaches to the stupefied sailors. Couplets 121 and 122, part of his sermon, contain an archaic formulation, reminiscent of Ephraim: “He entered her hearing through the ear and settled in the womb of the one who bore Him; / by his birth He levelled a path [for others?], but He did not break the maidenhead of the one who bore Him.” The captain (Jesus in disguise) blesses Andrew. They arrive in the Land of Kalbin. The captain tells Andrew to come back if any difficulty arises. Summary of couplets 154–244: Andrew reaches the street of a town and is attacked by a crowd of people barking like dogs. (Kalbin is the Syriac for “dogs.”) He runs away and comes to the beach, where he is met by the fragrance of incense and infers that the captain of the ship (which has disappeared) was Christ Himself. He prays and falls asleep. Christ appears to him in a dream and promises his help. Andrew wakes and returns to the town. With the sign of the Cross he causes the hands, the feet and the tongues of the people, men, women and children, to wither. Messengers (presumably their feet and tongues have been spared!) run and tell the king, whose name is Buz. King Buz interrogates Andrew, who responds by giving him a choice between life and death. The king asks Andrew to heal the populace, which he does with the sign of the Cross. The king declares that he and his people are converted: “We believe in your God.” Andrew takes King Buz to his temple and water pours out of the mouths of the idols, flooding the town up to knee-level. The king begs Andrew to help and he causes the water to stop pouring and the idols to be smashed to smithereens. He then stamps his foot and a cistern opens up in the ground to receive the water. He consecrates (this as?) a baptismal font and the people follow their king in receiving the grace of baptism, which changes their dog-like appearance into the beauty of the children of light. The news of their conversion and miraculous transformation spreads throughout the world. Andrew builds a church for them

34

[7]

[8]

Michel van Esbroeck

and consecrates an altar on which he offers up the Body and Blood of Christ, which which he gives Communion to the people. The ballad ends with a doxology addressed to the Holy Trinity, blessing God for choosing twelve Apostles and sending them to convert the four regions of the world. In Uppsala I spoke of the connections between this text (which continues for a total of 244 couplets) and two other versions, both unpublished, like this Syriac ballad, one in (Garshuni) Arabic and one in Armenian. The Arabic version seems to have used a lost Syriac prose-narrative, as well as the Syriac ballad. 3 The Armenian version, in prose, has whole sentences echoing the Arabic; it can be dated around the end of the seventh century. I also compared the story told in this group of texts with that told by Gregory of Tours in his résumé of the Acts of Saint Andrew. Gregory says that Andrew first mission was to rescue Matthias, or Matthew, from the clutches of the cannibals. This account was known throughout the Christian East. The Syriac version of it was published by Wright in 1871. 4 The ballad, in contrast with this more widespread version of the legend, does not even mention Matthias. The version which makes Andrew rescue Matthias implies that he is dynamic; the ballad and the related unpublished texts alone stress his advanced age and his debility. It seems to me that the original Acts of Andrew, which were quoted in the third century by the author of the Manichaean Psalms, 5 must have been longer than any of the extant texts. It would have begun with an episode like that related in the ballad, then Andrew, having discovered the power given to him by Christ, would have set out to rescue Matthias. A magnificent early sixth-century mosaic, in the chapel of Saint Andrew in Ravenna, 6 represents a very old Andrew with wild hair,

3 [The Syriac ballad may be a versification of the prose-narrative: Andrew Palmer.] 4 Reference in M. Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Turnhout, 1992) 141–3, no. 236. 5 C. Allberry (ed.), Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection, vol. II, part II (Stuttgart, 1938) 142. 6 F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna: Geschichte und Monumente (Wiesbaden, 1969) 201–6: the chapel was built by Bishop Peter II (AD 494–519).

A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals

[9]

[10]

35

contrasting with the much younger Peter. 7 This representation seems to refer to an ancient version of the legend in which the age of Andrew was stressed, as it is in the ballad. Geographical excursus: Gregory of Tours tells that Andrew started out to rescue Matthias from a place called Myrmidon. This toponym can be sited precisely. There is a plain formed by a little river called Thermodon, a little to the East of the estuary of the Iris, where that river debouches into the Black Sea. This is the place designated as Myrmidon. In the early Passion of Theodore, Tiron writes that “he was enrolled in the so-called “Marmariton” Legion which was stationed in the town of Amaseia on the Pontos Eixeinos (Black Sea)’ and that Saint Christophoros was registered “in the cohort of the Marmaritai.” 8 Now Saint Christophoros is a later transformation of the more ancient Chrystomaios, the converted kynokephalos, or “dog-headed man,” who, in the Matthias-version of the Acts of Saint Andrew helped that saint and his companions to convert the region. 9 The last piece in the jigsaw puzzle comes from the preface to the Armenian version of the Passion of Theodore the General. Speaking of Nektanebo, the narrator writes: “He descended in Pontos Polemoniakos, in the Plain of Themiskyrion, next to the river. He settled at the placed named Mamaridon, where the mountains of Pontos start.” 10 The Armenian legend mentions the Acts of Andrew in connection with the same toponym. Strabo, a native of Amaseia, says that the Amazons were formerly settled there. 11 Both the Amazons and the kynokephaloi, who were cannibals, appear in the Alexander-Romance, which began to be edited at the end of the fourth century. 12 The Syriac ballad seems to F. W. Deichmann, Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaïken von Ravenna (Baden-Baden, 1958), plates 233 and 234. 8 H. Delehaye et alii, Acta Sanctorum Novembris, vol. IV (Brussels, 1925), col. 30, with note. The Notitia Dignitatum records a cohors tertia Valeria Marmaritarum. 9 M. Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, no. 238, p. 144f.: conversio Christomaei in four languages. 10 The text first appeared in the Sop’erk’ Haykakank’ 16 (Venice, 1854) 55–8. It was published again by N. Andrikean in Pazmaveb (1905): 441–8. 11 A. Meineke, Strabonis geographica, I (Leipzig, 1903) 799. 12 J. Trumpf, Vita Alexandri (Stuttgart, 1974) 29,4 and 38,2, pp. 103 and 139. 7

36

[11]

[12]

Michel van Esbroeck

refer to these cannibals with the form of dogs, but it simply calls them “the people of Kalbin” (Syriac kalbe = “dogs”), or Kalboye. Under this name, “Kalboye,” are disguised the Chalybes. We find this name attached to an ethnic group in exactly the same region. The oldest part of the anonymous sixth-century sailing itinerary, or periplous, contains the following words: “From Polemonios up to near the River Thermodon a people called the Chalybes formerly dwelt.” 13 Xenophon encountered the Chalybes in this region. The presence of this name, or of a Syriac name evidently representing this Greek name, in our ballad suggests that the source of the ballad is older than that of the Acts of Andrew in the Matthias-version and even older that the Romance of Alexander. The attribution of the ballad to Ephraim. Assemani found it shocking that the ballad represents Jesus as becoming as it were incarnate for a second time in order to help Saint Andrew. By implication, this “incarnation’ suggests a docetic understanding of the first incarnation: He only seemed to be a human being. Nevertheless the poem contains a passage declaring that Jesus was born of a virgin womb, which is Orthodox. We have found some arguments (one from a comparison with other forms of the Acts of Andrew and one from historical geography) which might support a fourth-century date for the ballad and allow us to infer the existence of a third-century Greek original; but it has to be admitted that they are not conclusive arguments. Would Ephraim have been shocked by the idea of Christ becoming the leader of a merchant-caravan? If not, we have to find other reasons for declaring the ballad pseudo-Ephraimic. 14

13

no. 31.

A. Baschmakoff, La Synthèse des périples pontiques (Paris, 1948) 120,

14 [Having translated a part of the ballad, as well as large quantities of the genuine Ephraim, I should like to add: The Syriac language is imperfectly mastered; the metre is frequently irretrievable, even by emendation; the style is quite unlike that of Ephraim; the ballad lacks sublimity and depth and it fails to play on the similarities between Syriac words, as Ephraim does. It seems to me to be quite late, although the lost prose-version on which it may have been based could be early: Andrew Palmer.]

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 37–46 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

KNOWLEDGE OF EPHRAIM’S WRITINGS IN THE MEROVINGIAN AND CAROLINGIAN AGE DAVID GANZ DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS KING’S COLLEGE LONDON [1]

This paper is a statement of problems, rather than any attempt at their premature resolution. Fundamental questions about the reception of Ephraim’s works in the Latin West, such as when and where the Latin translation was made, or what factors determined its popularity, await investigation. Prior to such investigation the evidence of transmission is our clearest evidence for the reception of the Latin Ephraim. I shall suggest that it is unlikely that his works were widely known, but that they constituted a representative aspect of early medieval spirituality. That spirituality still awaits its historian: the writings of Ephraim do not fit readily into the history of exegesis or of theological development. Standard accounts of Carolingian thought say nothing about his influence, or his importance. Indeed to discuss Ephraim may be entirely premature; until we have an available text of the Latin Ephraim and can investigate borrowings from that text in the writings of early medieval authors, our knowledge of his influence is utterly incomplete. 1 Jerome included him in his de viris inlustribus, and had 1 For the most recent discussion of the text of the Latin Ephraim, cf. T.S. Pattie, “Ephraim the Syrian and the Latin Manuscripts of the De Paenitentia,” British Library Journal 13 (1987): 1–27. I am grateful to Dr.

37

38

[2]

[3]

[4]

David Ganz

read a Greek version of his treatise on the Holy Spirit, though he lists no other writings. 2 But the absence of explicit mention of Ephraim in Carolingian accounts of theological writings suggests that his influence was small. 3 The florilegium entitled Liber Scintillarum, the book of sparks from the words of God and of his saints, was composed by the monk Defensor of Ligugé. 4 Our evidence for the life and date of Defensor derives entirely from his preface. He tells us that he was asked and instructed in how to write it by his teacher Ursinus. “Just as sparks come from a fire so here short sentences from the many books of the scriptures will be found shining.” He emphasizes that he has identified the authors he quotes lest his work be thought apocryphal and without an author. 5 Defensor wrote between 632, the date of the death of Isidore of Seville who is the most recent author included in the text, and c. 750, the approximate date of the oldest surviving manuscript. Ursinus has been identified with the monk who wrote the life of Leodegar, the martyred bishop of Autun. Defensor’s work consists of 81 chapters. The contents include the Christian virtues, prayer and confession, penance and fasting, almsgiving, tithes, monks, judges and doctors, bribes and gifts, rich and poor, master and slave, the brevity of this life, and finally reading itself. Each section begins with quotations from the Gospel, the apostles, Solomon and then the Church Fathers, who are sometimes identified. The most frequently used source is Pattie for his generosity in sharing with me his full list of 255 manuscripts containing works of the Latin Ephraim. The clearest accounts of the Latin translation are by D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Ephrem latin,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 4 (1960): 815–22; Clavis Patrum Latinorum, pp. 1141–7 and in Patrologia Latina, Supplementum IV, cols. 604–48. None of the critical editions of Carolingian patristic writings identify Ephraim as a source. 2 E. C. Richardson (ed.), Hieronymi Liber de viris inlustribus. Gennadii Liber de viris inlustribus (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur XIV; Leipzig, 1896) Cap. CXV, p. 51. 3 E. Rauner, “Notkers des Stammlers Notatio de illustribus viris,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 21 (1986): 34–69. 4 H. Rochais (ed.), Defensoris Liber Scintillarum (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina; Turnhout, 1954). 5 Sed ne opus, quasi sine auctore, putetur apocrifum, unicuique sententiae per singula proprium scripsi auctorem.

Knowledge of Ephraim’s Writings

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

39

Isidore, then Gregory the Great, Augustine, Jerome and Basil, Ambrose and Cyprian, Caesarius of Arles, Clement, Ephraim, Hilary, Origen, and Eusebius. Ephraim is explicitly quoted by Defensor at the end of his first chapter, “On Charity,” where charity is described as the column and fortress of the holy soul. At the end of the chapter on the love of God and of neighbour, a passage attributed to Ephraim is quoted, a reference which Dom Rochais was unable to trace, where love of God frees man from the earth and God’s love enlightens like the sweetest source. Earlier passages from Ephraim quoted in that chapter are derived from Isidore, Sententiae II 3, 4–5 and are not attributed to Ephraim. In chapter six, on compunction, Ephraim says that compunction is the health and illumination of the soul which draws down the Holy Spirit and makes Christ dwell in man. Where tears abound there sordid thoughts cannot reach. When we bear one another’s burden we confound the devil and honour our Lord in heaven. The consolation of a brother when one is placed in tribulation of temptation is like a draught of water for someone thirsting in the heat of the sun. All this is excerpted from Ephraim’s homily on the day of judgment. Ephraim is also quoted against envy (Chapter XV, 28) and on clothing (Chapter XLIII) saying that rich vestments show we know only worldly things. Washing our face hands and feet excessively reveals that we are slaves of the vices. The most extensive quotations are at the end of Defensor’s long treatment of monks (Chapter 40). The soul of the monk is compared to a seed planted in good ground, or a lamp in a shady place at a time of psalmody and prayer. And the risks of sleep and envy and detraction. These passages come from the Admonitio ad Monachos. In chapter 64 on friends and enemies Dom Rochais noted an unidentified quotation on the loss of a faithful friend. 6 Sermons 72 and 77 of Caesarius of Arles, are attributed to Ephraim in the manuscripts. They both deal with prayer and idle words and Dom Morin believed that Caesarius might have read some sermons of Ephraim. 7 This would provide the earliest evidence for quotation of Ephraim in the Latin West. 6 J. Kirchmeyer, D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “S. Ephrem et le Liber Scintillarum,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 46 (1958): 545–50. 7 Cf. G. Bardy, “Le Souvenir de S. Ephrem dans le haut moyen-âge latin,” Revue du Moyen Age Latin 2 (1946): 297–300.

40 [9]

[10]

David Ganz

To explain the presence and knowledge of Ephraim in Merovingian Gaul we must examine the manuscript evidence in detail. 8 The earliest surviving manuscript, Paris B.N.F. Lat. 12634 dates from the mid-sixth century, but it was at Corbie by the later ninth century. Ephraim is incorporated into a composite collection of monastic rules and sermons, a remarkable sixth-century manuscript, which includes one of the two early medieval copies of the Regula Magistri, excerpted with extracts from other monastic rules in a collection which has been unconvincingly linked to Eugippius. 9 The monastic context is underlined by the title Admonitio ad Monachos given to the De Compunctione Cordis. The manuscript has always been regarded as Italian, though our knowledge of sixth-century manuscripts from Gaul is far from satisfactory. But that possibility is perhaps increased by the provenance of the second oldest manuscript, a set of fragments containing the De Compunctione and the Vitae Abrahae, preserved because they were used in the bindings of manuscripts from Corbie. 10 They are copied in an informal half uncial script which Bischoff suggested might originate in Southern France. Each of these earliest manuscripts is the work of an important writing centre, early instances of book production for a monastic audience. The remaining manuscripts fall into several groups. There are two distinctive collections, the Caesarius collection found in manuscripts from St. Omer, Bobbio, Metz and Southern Germany, in which sermons of Ephraim circulate with a collection of ten sermons by Caesarius of Arles which are designated Homiliae ad Monachos, and a German collection of sermons which includes

8 The material was first surveyed by A. Siegmund, Die Üeberlieferung der Griechischen Christlichen Literatur in der lateinischen Kirche bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert (Munich, 1949) 67–71. 9 H. Vanderhoven, F. Masai, P.B. Corbett, Regula Magistri Edition Diplomatique (Brussels: Scriptorium, 1953). 10 Codices Latini Antiquiores VI 708. Fragments are found in Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale, 12 and in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 10399 (fols 1–2); 13043; 12190; 13386 and Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Lat. 329; cf. B. Bischoff and V. Brown, “Addenda to Codices Latini Antiquiores,” Medieval Studies XLVII (1985): 317–66, at p. 355.

Knowledge of Ephraim’s Writings

[11]

[12]

41

sermons attributed to Boniface 11 and the sayings attributed to Ephraim. A second Caesarius collection is found in an early ninthcentury manuscript from Laon, and a second copy from Werden, now in Berlin, which may have served as its exemplar. 12 Here again the sermons may have been copied to be preached, rather than to serve as spiritual reading. But the presence of Ephraim’s De Compunctione Cordis in three collections relating to virtues and vices (Paris B.N. Lat. 18095 Brussels B. R. 15111–128 and Vat. Lat. 650) suggests that his writings served as a guide to self-knowledge. The popularity of Ephraim in Bavaria may reflect a sense that the sermons were particularly fitting in an area of more recent Christianization, or suggest the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon missionaries and so supplement the evidence for knowledge of Ephraim in Anglo-Saxon England presented by Jane Stevenson in Hugoye 1:2. Clm 6293 was copied at Freising under Bishop Atto c. 800. 13 Another manuscript from the Freising cathedral library, which contains an Old High German version of the Lord’s Prayer, was copied in Alemania at the start of the ninth century according to Bischoff. 14 A further Bavarian manuscript, Clm 14634, was copied in Bavaria and came to the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, 15 while Clm 19410 was copied in the diocese of Passau after 846. 16 In addition to these South German manuscripts there is a central German group which may well reflect the place of Ephraim among Anglo-Saxon missionary foundations. Vat. Pal. 11 I am grateful to Professor Arnold Angenendt for discussion of this collection, in connection with an unpublished leaf now in the Newberry Library in Chicago containing a sermon of Pseudo-Boniface. 12 J. Contreni, The School of Laon, 850–950: Its Manuscripts and Masters (Munich: Arbeo Gesellschaft, 1978) 52, 175. For the relationship between the Berlin and Laon manuscripts, cf. G. Morin (ed.), Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis Sermones (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, CIII; Turnhout, 1953) xxvii, xxxviii–ix. 13 B. Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit: I Die bayerischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1974) 88f. 14 ibid., 145f. 15 ibid., 239f. 16 ibid., 163f. B. Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit: II Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1980) 2.

42

[13]

[14]

[15]

David Ganz

Lat. 220 was copied somewhere on the middle or upper Rhine. 17 It contains the same collection of the sayings of Pseudo-Ephraim as Berlin, Phillipps 1716. Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum HS 7152 is a single quire, containing the Ephraim corpus, which is also from the region of the River Main, copied in Anglo-Saxon script and dated to c. 800. Vat. Pal. Lat. 186 is one of the earliest manuscripts copied at Lorsch, in the insular script first used at the abbey. 18 In addition to the surviving manuscripts Ephraim is listed in the Carolingian catalogues of Lorsch, Murbach, and St. Gall, and at Bobbio. 19 The reference to the Liber Sancti Effrem in the earliest Fulda catalogue is remarkably early and perhaps belongs with the missionary evidence discussed above. Ephraem is found in a context of monastic spirituality in the Paris manuscript with the Rules of Serapion, Augustine and the Master, and at Werden with the Rule of Basil. Pseudo-Ephraim was copied with the Rule of Benedict in the Southern French manuscript now in Verona. Paris B.N. Lat 13440, a very small format patristic collection, may have been made for use in a nunnery, since it includes the selection of patristic texts excerpted at Aachen in 816, which is prefaced by a rule for nuns. (The volume also has a sermon on the ten virgins.) The Werden manuscript also includes 816 legislation, so perhaps there is a link between the reform councils at the start of Louis the Pious and an interest in Ephraim. The tenth-century Brussels manuscript B. R. 1831–33 is in a Carolingian binding. The first page (f. 40r) of Hincmar’s treatise looks like the first page of a separate manuscript but there is no clear indication that it was an opening page. The first page of the Ephraem (f1 r) starts after the end of a sermon which is now truncated. The reason for combining Ephraim with Hincmar is far from clear, and though the binding is original it has been repaired. 20 Still less is known about the other tenth-century B. Bischoff, Lorsch im Spiegel ihrer Handschriften (1989) 57. Bischoff, Lorsch, 31. 19 Siegmund, 68f. 20 The first folio is illustrated in L. Gilissen, La Reliure occidentale antérieure à 1400 d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale Albert 1er à Bruxelles (Turnhout, 1983), plate XLIII; the structure of the volume and the anomalies of its construction are discussed on pp. 95–100. 17 18

Knowledge of Ephraim’s Writings

[16]

43

manuscripts, though Brussels B. R. 15111–128 also seems to fit a monastic context. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou found a quotation from the Latin Ephraim in the Diadema Monachorum of Smaragdus of St. Mihiel. 21 P. Fransen identified extracts in the collection of patristic materials assembled by Florus of Lyons. 22 This suggests a context of monastic spirituality comparable to that found in Defensor. The excerpts from Ephraim in Paris, B. N. Lat 18095 and a passage in Angers, B. M. 279 f. 3v show the survival of this tradition of excerpts. But Ephraim’s writings were also copied as a corpus, which survives in fifteen ninth or tenth-century manuscripts. Until further borrowings have been securely identified, speculative assertions about the influence of Ephraim on Anglo-Saxon or Old High German literature are ill-advised. We know too little about his status: the important work remains to be done.

SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LATIN EPHRAIM COPIED BEFORE C. 1030 [Abbreviations for the Ephraim Corpus com. 1 and 2 bea. iud. luct. paen. res. v.Abr.

de compunctione cordis, “on the compunction of the heart,” 1–2 de beatudine animae, “on the blessed state of the soul” de die iudicii, “on the day of judgement” in luctaminibus, “in struggles” de paenitentia, “on penitence” de resurrectione, “on the resurrection” vita Abrahae, “the life of Abraham”]

Paris, B. N. Lat. 12634 (CLA 646): Serapion regula, Evagrius sententiae, Augustinus regula, “regula Eugippii,” Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, Johannes Chrysostom de consolatione mortis, Augustinus sermo de latrone, Passio Johannis et Pauli. Italy s. VI, Corbie c. 850. Paris, B. N. Lat 10399 + Amiens 12 + Vat. Reg. Lat. 329 + fragments in B. N. Lat 12190 and B. N. Lat 13386 (CLA 106b): PL 102, 680–1. P. I. Fransen, “Les Extraits d’Ephrem Latinus dans la compilation des XII pères de Florus de Lyon,” Revue Bénédictine 87 (1977): 349–71. 21 22

44

David Ganz

Fragments of v.Abr. + com. Southern France c. 700, at Corbie by 800. Paris, B. N. Lat 13348 (CLA 656): Jerome in Genesim, Jerome de situ et nominibus, Eucherius, Ps.-Ephraim de fine mundi, Pseudo-Methodius. Corbie “en’ script s. VIII 3/4. St. Gall, 108 (CLA 905): Isidore, Ps.-Ephraim de fine mundi, Ps.-Jerome in Psalmos. West Switzerland or North Italy s. VIII ex. Vatican, Barb. Lat. 671 (CLA 64): Isidorus de fide catholica, Ephraim res., bea., pae., luct., iud., com. 2, de fine mundi, Gennadius de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus. Italy s. VIII. Bern, 289 (CLA 861): ordo romanus 1, Isidore de viris illustribus, Ephraim iud., Martin of Braga, martyrologium Hieronymianum. Metz s. VIII/IX. Karlsruhe, Reichenau Frag. 79: Augustinus Sermo, Ephraim iud. s. VIII/IX. Paris, B. N. Lat 13440 (CLA 662) “ab’-Scriptorium (cf. D. Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (Sigmaringen, 1990) 48–56): Ephraim com. 1 and 2, Pseudo-Ambrosius, Columbanus, florilegium of patristic texts from the regula sanctimonialium of 816. Northern France, c. 816; later at Corbie. The St. Omer/Turin family with ten homiliae ad monachos of Caesarius of Arles. Same collection as Turin, G v 7 and Metz, 134 and Clm 6330. Metz, B. M. 134 (CLA 788), destroyed in 1944: Ephraim homiliae III, excerpts from Isidore synonima and sententiae, Caesarius, and Gregory regula pastoralis, homiliae, grammatica, glossary. s. VIIII ex. St. Omer, 33-bis: Hieronymus in Matthaeum, Caesarius homiliae X (lacking the first), Ephraim paen., res., bea., iud., luct., “Paulinus de passionibus animarum’ (in fact Jerome de persecutionibus Christianorum) (Clavis 606). St. Bertin s. IX in. Turin, Bibl. Naz. Universitaria G v 7: Caesarius homiliae, Ephraim paen., res., bea., iud., luct. Bobbio s. IX. Munich, Clm. 6330: Ephraim bea., pae., iud. Doctrina Diversarum Patrum, including Caesarius, Isidore synonima. Alemania s. IX; later at Freising (Bischoff, Schreibschulen I, 145f.). Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum HS 7512 (CLA 1346): Ephraim com. 1 and 2. Insular scriptorium on the continent, region of the River Main c. 800.

Knowledge of Ephraim’s Writings

45

Vatican, Pal. Lat. 186: Ephraim de paen. Lorsch s. IX in. (Bischoff, Lorsch, 31). Karlsruhe, Aug. CXCVI: Isidore liber soliloquiorum, Ps.Ephraim de fine mundi, Ppoentientiale. Reichenau s. IX. Munich, Clm. 19410: Alcuinus carmina, Ephraim iud., glossae. ?Passau s. IX med. (Bischoff, Schreibschulen I, 163f.; II, 2). Vatican, Pal. Lat. 556: Augustinus homiliae XVIII, Ps.Ephraim iud. s. IX. Troyes, B. M. 898, part 1: Ephraim res., bea., luct., paen. s. IX. Montpellier, Bibl. Interuniversitaire H 404: Alcuinus de ratione animae, in psalmos poenitentiales, in canticum gradum, Ephraim com. 1, com. 2. s. IX 3/4. Copied by Manno of St. Oyan. Paris, B. N. Lat 18095: Alcuinus de virtutibus et vitiis, Fulgentius sermo, Pseudo-Cyprian de XII abusivis saeculi, excerpts from Chrysostom, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ephraim, Gregory of Nyssa, excerpta patristica de oratione, versus Colmani et Columbani, Augustinus sermones, Ephraim de munditia animae, visio Wettini, Beda visio Drycthelmi. Northern France s. IX med. Munich, Clm. 14364: Ps.-Augustinus sermo, Ephraim res., bea., paen., luct., iud., com. 1, com. 2, Caesarius vitae sanctorum. Bavaria s. IX (Bischoff, Schreibschulen I, 239f.). St. Gall, 92: Ephraim res., bea., paen., luct., iud, monita, com. 1, com. 2, admonitio. St. Gall s. IX 4/4. St. Gall, 93: Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, res., bea., paen., luct. St. Gall s. IX 4/4. Berlin, Theol. fol. 355: capitulare monasticum of 816, Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, res., bea., paen., luct., iud., Caesarius sermones XXV, Basilius regula. Northern France to Werden s. IX (same collection as Laon 121). Laon, 121: Caesarius sermones XXV, Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, res., bea., pae., luct., iud., Gregory. North-Eastern France s. IX (according to Morin, this is a copy of Berlin, Theol. fol. 355). Tenth-Century Manuscripts Brussels, B. R. 1831–33: Ephraim res., bea., paen., luct., iud., com. 1, com. 2, Hincmar contra Goteschalcum de trinitate. Rheims s. X. Brussels, B. R. 15111–128: martyrologium, glossae super regula Benedicti, Alcuin de virtutibus et vitiis, Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, Cassian. s. X.

46

David Ganz

Munich, Clm 3717: vita Eligii + Ephraim obsecro, res., bea., paen., luct., iud., com. Augsburg s. X. London, B. L. Harley 3060: Julian of Toledo, Ephraim res., bea., paen., luct., iud., com. 1, com. 2. France s. X. Ghent, 307: Smaragdus diadema monachorum, vitae sanctorum, Ephraim iud. Trier s. X. Vatican, Lat. 650: Alcuinus de trinitate, Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum, Hieronymus excerpta, Nilus de octo vitiis, Alcuinus de vitiis, Cassian collatio V, Gregorius in Cant., Origines in Cant., Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, Ps.-Basilius admonitio. s. X. Munich, Clm. 18583: Ephraim com. 1, com. 2, paen., luct., iud. Tegernsee c. 1030. Manuscripts of Pseudo-Ephraim Dicta, or “Sayings” (Clavis 1145) Munich, Clm. 6293 (CLA 1262): vitae patrum, Ephraim dicta 1 and 2, sermones. Freising before 811 (Bischoff, Schreibschulen I, 88f.). Vatican, Pal. Lat. 212 (CLA 85): Ephraim dicta 1, 2 and 3. Germany s. VIII ex. Vatican, Pal. Lat. 220: Ephraim dicta 1, 2 and 3. Middle Rhine s. IX. Berlin, Phillipps 49 (1716): sermones, Ephraim dicta, de symbolo, Ps.-Augustinus sermones, glossae. s. IX in. Text Ascribed to Ephraim Verona, Bibl. Capitolare LII (CLA 505): Augustini et Gregorii homiliae, regula Benedicti, Ephraim O admirabiles viri festinate, liber pontificalis. Burgundy s. VIIII.

REFERENCES CLA = Lowe, E. A. Codices Latini Antiquiores I–XI and Supplement (Oxford, 1934–71). Bischoff, Schreibschulen = Bischoff, B. Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken I: Die bayerischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1974); II Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1980).

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 47–56 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

EPHREM’S MADROSHE AND THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX BETH GAZO A LOOSE, BUT FASCINATING, AFFINITY GREGORIOS Y. IBRAHIM SYRIAN ORTHODOX ARCHBISHOP OF ALEPPO MARDIN-EDESSA PUBLISHING HOUSE ALEPPO, SYRIA

GEORGE A. KIRAZ BELL LABORATORIES MURRAY HILL, NEW JERSEY

INTRODUCTION [1]

[2]

St. Ephrem is probably the most celebrated saint of the Syriac Church. His hymnal literature, produced prior to the Christological controversies of the fifth century, were inherited by the Syriacspeaking church, East and West, along with a musical tradition. The extent to which Ephrem’s hymns are preserved in the hymnal literature is difficult to ascertain as a great number of the liturgical texts attributed to the saint are in fact of a later age. It is even more difficult to pass any judgment on the musical tradition that was associated with Ephrem’s hymns. Our objective in this brief outline is a modest one. We do not intend to study the poetic structure of Ephrem’s hymns nor do we intend to propose a theory of musical tradition. Such work is 47

48

[3]

[4]

Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz

beyond the knowledge of the authors and will be best evaluated by capable scholars and musicologists. What we wish to do here is to point out some of the qole “melodies” in Ephrem’s genuine madroshe which correspond to known melodies in the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo, the church’s musical resource. Further, we demonstrate, in a recorded form [all recordings are in the online edition], how such qole may be chanted according to melodies that have been in practice in the Syrian Orthodox Church for many a generation. No implication is made that the melodies recorded here are identical, or even similar, to the ones practiced by the saint himself or his pupils. The mere fact that a modern cleric can pick up a genuine piece written by St. Ephrem in the fourth century, recognize its qolo, and chant it with that qolo’s melody that is known to him with ease is fascinating in its own right. Our modest effort may indicate a link, no matter how loose, between Ephrem’s melodies and those of the Beth Gazo. We start with a brief description of the Beth Gazo system. We then point out a number of the qole employed in Ephrem’s madroshe (based on Beck’s edition in the CSCO) which correspond to qole in the Beth Gazo. Finally, we give recordings of Ephrem’s genuine texts chanted with the corresponding melodies of the Beth Gazo. It is hoped that this modest work will generate scholarly interest in Syriac sacred music.

THE BETH GAZO AND ITS SYSTEM [5]

[6]

The Beth Gazo is a liturgical book that constitutes a reference to Syrian Orthodox music, without which the cleric cannot perform any liturgical duties. The actual title of this book varies in modern editions: beth gazo dqinotho, 1 dazmirotho 2 or dneȨmotho 3 “Treasury of Melodies,” “Songs” or “Chants.” How is the Beth Gazo used? Each hymn in the entire Syrian Orthodox liturgical system is associated with what one might call a “title”, or more accurately a heading that indicates the melody with which the hymn is to be chanted. The title is usually of the form Ȩal 1 Dolabani’s first edition of 1913. See the bibliography for a complete list of editions. 2 Konat’s edition of 1986. 3 Çiçek’s republication of Dolabani’s edition, 1981, 1985 and 1995.

Ephrem’s Madroshe and the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo

[7]

[8]

49

qolo d-… “as the melody of…” and has little, if anything, to do with the subject matter of the hymn itself. The Beth Gazo contains a listing of all such qole. Under each qolo, melodies of eight different modes are given, analogous to the eight-mode Gregorian chant system. To add to the richness of this system, some modes have variants of their own called šuʚlophe—only the skilled can master them. The melodies are not documented using musical notation; rather, by texts that the cleric associates with melodies learned by tradition. Šuʚlophe, on the other hand, are not documented but are transmitted orally from malphono to talmidho. An experienced cleric, of course, need not consult the Beth Gazo. He would have already memorized the hundreds of texts it contains along with their respective melodies including shuʚlophe. Such music masters, alas, are hard to come by today! Earlier versions of the Beth Gazo contained thousands of melodies. Barsoum 4 laments the loss of a “huge and rare” manuscript of the Monastery of St. Abraham in Midyat, due to the turbulent years of the First World War during which the Syrian Orthodox faithful were under much persecution. A few manuscripts representing portions of the original Beth Gazo survive and were used in a modern edition. 5 Today, at most a thousand melodies survive. These are gathered in an abridged version initially published by Dolabani 6 in 1913. We lament the fact that some of the melodies in the abridged version are unknown and presumed lost. The abridged version of the Beth Gazo consists of the following types of hymns (the term “hymn” is used here loosely and does not indicate a madrosho): 1. Qole shahroye “vigils.” It is not clear what the term shahroye refers to. According to Barsaum, 7 either such qole were originally sung during vigil hours (shahro), or they were sung by a group of people belonging to the order of shahroye “vigilants” (the same term is used in Latin, vigiles). The first two modes are

A. Barsaum, kitaab al-lulu al-manthur, 118. Y. Çiçek, beth gazo rabo, 1992. This edition is mainly based on a manuscript which originates from Adyaman, Turkey. 6 Y. Dolabani, kthobo qpiso dbeth gazo, 1913. 7 A. Barsaum, kitaab al-lulu al-manthur, 114. 4 5

50

Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz dedicated to the Virgin, the 3rd and 4th to the saints, the 5th and 6th to penitence, and the 7th and 8th to the departed. 2. Gushmo (pl. gushme) “body” each of which consists of eight modes. These are recited during the daily offices known as šʚimo. 3. Sebeltho (pl. seblotho) dmadroshe “ladder.” It is this category that seems to have mostly inherited Ephrem’s madroshe tradition. Two of these follow the eight-mode system. The rest have one melody each. 4. Phardo (pl. Pharde) “single.” These are short hymns divided into eight collections corresponding to the eight modes. Within each collection, each hymn has its own invariant melody. 5. Qonuno yawnoyo (pl. qonune yawnoye) “Greek canon”. These are divided into eight collections corresponding to the eight modes as well. 6. Mawrbo (pl. mawrbe) “magnificat.” Dedicated to the Virgin Mary, these are divided into eight collections corresponding to the eight modes. 7. Qole ghnize “mystic hymns.” They exist in the printed edition in eight modes; the melodies of most seem to be lost, alas! 8. Takheshphotho rabuloyotho “litanies of Rabula.” Attributed to Rabula, these are divided into eight collections corresponding to the eight modes. 9. Tborto (pl. tborotho) “broken.” They fall into three categories: those attributed to St. Jacob [of Serug], St. Ephrem and of St. Balay. Each of them follows the eight-modal system. 10. Quqlion (pl. quqalya) “cycles.” These are cycles from the Psalms and follow the eight-modal system.

[9]

[10]

What makes the Beth Gazo even richer is the existence of various schools of music within the Syrian Orthodox tradition. Two main traditions are identified: East and West. The former represents the school of Tagrit and is only known to the Syrian Orthodox of modern day Iraq. The latter is practiced by the rest of the Syrian Orthodox Church and, in turn, has its own schools of music. Of the Western schools, the School of Mardin is by far the most popular and is considered the norm. This is due to the fact that for hundreds of years, the patriarchal seat was located at Deir

Ephrem’s Madroshe and the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo

[11]

51

al-Zacfaran near Mardin. The second largest school (in terms of practice) is that of Tur ȨAbdin. Presently, it is used in Tur ȨAbdin and in the Diaspora with communities originating from that region. Another tradition, which is preserved to some extent, is that of the School of Edessa. It is mainly used today among the Edessan community, presently living in Aleppo, Syria. Diarbaker (in Turkey) and Sadad (a village in Syria) have their own traditions as well; the former is not preserved well enough. The school of Harput (in Turkey) is another endangered tradition. With its inhabitants scattered in the four corners of the world with no substantial community in one particular place, it is only preserved in a recording made by the late Cor-Episcopos Abd al-Nur Samuel of Harput. India has developed its own tradition, which one might call the Malankara school of music; this tradition may have been derived from the school of Mardin. 8 Syriac music suffers from the lack of scholarly attention. H. Husmann 9 published, in musical notation, the body of šʚimo and qole shahroye based on recordings by the late archbishop Mor Cyril (Qorillos) Jacob for the former and his brother Malphono Asmar Khouri for the latter. Recently, G.Y. Ibrahim published the tradition of Mardin, also in musical notation made by Nuri Iskandar 10 of Aleppo, based on recordings made by the late Patriarch Jacob III in 1960. A similar publication of the Edessan tradition is imminent. The recordings of Jacob III were recently digitized and placed on the Internet by Syrian Orthodox Resources and the Syriac Computing Institute. (For other works, see the bibliography.)

MELODIES OF EPHREM’S MADROSHE [12]

We have examined the following cycles of Ephrem’s madroshe based on Beck’s edition: Contra Haereses (CH), Contra Julianum (CJ), Carmina Nisibena (CNis), Ecclesia (Eccl), Epiphania (Epiph), Fide, Ieiunio (Ieiuni), Nativitate (Nat), Paradiso (Par), Virginitate (Virg). We found that the following qole have corresponding counterparts, in name and poetic structure in most cases, in the Beth Gazo (qole 8 G. Kiraz, an overview of the Beth Gazo on the Syrian Orthodox Resources web site. 9 H. Husmann, Die Melodien der Jakobitischen [sic] Kirche, 1996, 1971. 10 Nuri Iskandar, beth gazo bnota, 1992.

52

Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz

marked with * are illustrated with a recording in the online edition of this paper): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. [13]

[14]

ťŶƢſ ŴƌĬ (CH, Eccl, Ieiuni)*. ŦŁƢūĥ ŦĭĬ ħǁ ťŨĥ (Epiph)*. ťƐſĪƢƘ (Ieiuni)*. ťƄƇƉ Ʀƿ (CNis, Virg). ŁƢƘĥ ƁƄƀŨŴŹ (CH, Nat, Virg)*. ò ĭĭĬ ŴƇźƟŁĥ (CH, CNis). ŧĪŴƇſ ŧǓŤŶ ƢŨ ĭĥ or ťƀŶ ƢŨ ĭĥ (Nat).

It is interesting to note that all of the above hymns fall within the madroshe category of the abridged Beth Gazo. Further, they occur almost adjacent to each other, though this might be a mere coincidence. The madroshe section of the Beth Gazo starts with the above qole in the order given, except that there is another qolo (Íø ‘ÍßÍñ) between items 2 and 3. The last item above is the 35th madrosho in the abridged Beth Gazo. The entire madroshe corpus of the abridged Beth Gazo consists of 54 madroshe. To the disappointment of the modern cleric, the vast majority of Ephrem’s qole are not present in the abridged Beth Gazo and, hence, their melodies cannot be recognized. Of the above mentioned cycles, the following qole belong to this category: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

ŧǓŤŶ ƢŨ ĭĥ (Fide). ťƍƣǓŴƘĪ ŧĪĭųſ ĭĥ (CNis). ƨƕƦƣŁ Ƨ ŦŁŴƉ ĭĥ (CNis). ò ƅƀƍŬŨ IJƢƉ ĭĥ (CNis). ò ŦƦƣŴƟĪ ťƕŴƊƣ ĭĥ (Eccl). IJűƀƊƆŁ ĭĥ (CH, Eccl, Fide). ƎſǓųƌ ƼŨĪ IJĬĿĭĥ (Ieiuni). ťſĪĬ ŧűū Įĥ (CNis, Fide). ŻƀƇƣĪ ĭĬ ķĥ ƢƉĮĥ (Epiph, Virg).

Ephrem’s Madroshe and the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

ò ò IJųŨĥĭ ò (Virg). ƁƍƙƆŴſ ƁƍŨĭ ƁŶĥ ò ƁŶĥ ò (CH). ƁƍŶĥĭ ò (Epiph). ťŷŨŴƣ ƢƉĮ ƁŶĥ įƢƉĪ Ŵƍſĥ (CH). ųŶĭĿ ŧƢƀŬƌĪ Ŵƍſĥ (Eccl, Fide). IJĬŴƊŶǔŨ Ŧųƭ (Eccl, Epiph, Ieiuni, Fide). IJųƀƌĭƦƊŶĿĪ Ŧųƭ (CNis, Eccl, Epiph, Virg). ƁƌŁĿĬŁĥ IJƢƉ ĴŁĭųƭ (CH). ò Ǝƀƙƭ ƚƭ (Nat.) ƚƠƕŁ ťſŁDŽƕĥ ķĥ (Fide). ò (Eccl). ò ťƤƌĥ ŦŁűŶ ñ ĬƦŨǁĥ IJƢƉ Ʀƌĥ (CNis, Eccl, Ieiuni). ŦƦƣŴƟ ƈƕ ƅƉƦƏĥ (CJ). ŦƦƕűſŤŨ ƁƉŴƘ įƦƘĥ (CH, CNis, Eccl, Virg). ťƖƟĥĭ ƁƇƟ ƋſĿĥ (Nat). ųŨŴŷŨ ķŁŴƆ ŦŁĥ (Eccl, Epiph). ĬĮĿŤŨ ô ŧƢſŁĥ (Virg). ƎƐƀƌ įƢſŤŨ űũƖƌ ŴƤƍƃŁĥ (Nat). ųƍƄƆŴƊŨ ĭŤƀŨ (CNis, Fide, Nat). IJƢƉ ĭĬ ƅŨ (Eccl). įƞƘƦƉ IJƢƉ ƅŨ (Nat). ò ƦƙƄƌ ŦƦƆĭƦŨ (Ieiuni) ŦƦƙƄƌ ťŷŨŴƣ ƢƉĥĪ ljDŽŶĪ (Virg). ŦƦŨǔƣĪ ťƍſĪ (CJ, Par). ƎſŤƟ ƈƀźƟĭ ƈƀŨĬ IJĬ (CNis). ťŨĥĪ ƎƀƆĬ (Epiph). ťƉŴſ ljĬ (Eccl, Epiph, Nat). ťƄſƢŨ ƎƐƀƌ ŴƌĬ (Ieiun).

53

54

Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

[15]

ĴƦƇũŶ ŦƻƢŨ ųƿ (CH, Fide). ò ƁƌƞƆĭĥĪ ťƤƍƃ (CNis). ò ò ťƀƇƕ ťƤƍƃ (Nat, Virg). ķƢƉ ƋƀƇƣĿĭƧ (Eccl). ĬŁŴƤƀŬƣ Ǝƀƣ ťƍƀƊƣ ťƄƇƉ (CNis). ĬƼƕĿŁ ĨƢŬƌ ƧĪ ŴƍƉ (Virg). ŴLjƊƊƆ ơƙƏ ŴƍƉ (CH, Fide, Nat). ŧƢƃŴŨĪ ĬűƇſ ƈƕ (Fide). ò (CH, CNis, Virg). ƻŤŬƀƍŶ ƅƍƕ ŦƦƍƣ ŦƼƉűƟ (CH, Nat). ŧĿŴƙƀƣĭ ljƢƟ (CNis). ƪſĪƢŨĪ ĬƢŷƣ (CH, Fide). ƦƇũƏĪ ƈƃ IJƢƉ Ǝƀƌĥ ŧĿĬŁ (CNis, Epiph, Fide).

It is also interesting to note that while the entire Paradiso cycle is on the qolo ¿ÿÁăüƒ ¾æ؃ (item 18 above), its poetic structure matches that of the madrosho ¾é؃ûñ of the Beth Gazo and the entire cycle can be chanted using the eight melodies of this qolo.

RECORDINGS [16]

[The online edition provides madroshe from the genuine writings of St. Ephrem chanted according to the melodies of their corresponding hymns in the Beth Gazo. For each melody, we give Ephrem’s text from Beck’s edition with a recording in the voice of Metropolitan Gregorios Y. Ibrahim of Aleppo.]

CONCLUSION [18]

We demonstrated in this brief outline a somewhat loose, but fascinating, connection between Ephrem’s madroshe and modern practice of the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo. To what extent did Ephrem’s music influence the Syriac-speaking Church and how much of that is still preserved still awaits investigation. There are numerous factors that complicate this matter. For example, the qole titles that appear in Beck’s edition may be a later addition to

Ephrem’s Madroshe and the Syrian Orthodox Beth Gazo

[19]

55

Ephrem’s composition. The manuscript tradition needs to be further investigated in this regard. In 1994, Brock (with Alison Salvesen reciting with him) demonstrated at the SEERI conference in India how Ephrem’s sugyotho may be used today by the church in religious plays. Along a similar line, the poetic structures of Ephrem’s madroshe can be compared with those of the existing hymns of the various Syriac Churches. Traditional melodies can be applied to Ephrem’s genuine work in this manner giving the Syriac-speaking Church an opportunity to taste the fruits of its forefathers. An edition of Ephrem’s work for “public consumption" that indicates to the modern cleric how to chant the hymns would be highly desirable indeed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barsoum, I. ΔϴϧΎϳήδϟ΍ Ώ΍Ωϵ΍ϭ ϡϮϠόϟ΍ ΦϳέΎΗ ϲϓ έϮΜϨϤϟ΍ ΆϟήϠϟ΍ ΏΎΘϛ (Aleppo, 19572). Dolabani, Y., ed. ťŷŨŴƣ ŁƞſĿŁ ŦƼſĿŴƏ ŦŁűƕĪ Ŧŵū ƼŨĪ ťƐƀƙƟĪ ťŨǁ (Mardin, 19131, 19252, 19603; Losser, 19814, 19855, 19956). ò ťŨĿ Ŧŵū ƼŨ (Losser: Bar Çiçek, Y., ed. ťŷŨŴƣ ŁƞſĿŁ ŦƼſĿŴƏ ŦŁűƕĪ ŦƦƍƀƟĪ Hebraeus Verlag, 1992). Dinno, N. “ΔϴϧΎϳήδϟ΍ ϥΎΤϟϷ΍ϭ ϰϘϴγϮϤϟ΍” lisaan al-mashriq, vol. 1 (1948): 24–8, 32–7, 34–8. Husmann, H. Die Melodien der Jakobitischen Kirche, transkribiert und herausgegeben. Die Melodien des Wochenbreviers (Šʚimta) (Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1969). Husmann, H. Die Melodien der Jakobitischen Kirche, transkribiert und herausgegeben. Die Qale Gaoanaie des Beith Gaza (Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1971). Ibrahim, G.Y. Syriac Music (Aleppo: Mardin Publishing, 1996). [In Arabic.] Jeannin, O.S.B. Mélodies Liturgiques, Syriannes et Chaldéennes (Paris: vol. 1, 1924; vol. 2, 1928). Kasrawani, I. Le Beth Gazo et L’Octoichos dans la Liturgie Sévérienne [sic], diss. (Universitè de la Sorbonne, 1994). [Not published.] Kiraz, G. Beth Gazo DneȨmotho, The Treasury of Chants, (Syrian Orthodox Resources web site [http://sor.cua.edu], 1997). [Contains a digitized recording of the Beth Gazo chanted by Patriarch Jacob III.] ò ŦŁǔƀƉĮĪ Ŧŵū ƼŨĪ ťŨǁ (Pampakuda: Mar Yulius Press, Konat, A. ŦƼƌŁűƕ 1986). [The organization of this Beth Gazo differs from Dolabani’s edition. It is not clear whether this is a reprint of an earlier edition.]

56

Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, George A. Kiraz

Malacrida, G. Forme del Canto Siriaco, Ph.D. Dissertation (Universita’degli Studi di Bologna, 1993). Nuri, I. ťŹŴƍŨ Ŧŵū ƼŨ (Aleppo: Al-Raha Publishing House, 1992). [In musical notations.] Raes, A. Liturgiam Orientalem, Introduction (Rome, 1947). Sowmy, I. Mardutho Dsuryoye, Evolução Cultural dos Povos Assirio-Arameos do Oriente. vol. 10, a Musica (São Paulo, 1989).

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 57–66 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

EPHREM’S IDEAS ON SINGLENESS THOMAS KATHANAR KOONAMMAKKAL ST. EPHREM ECUMENICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM INDIA

INTRODUCTION [1]

The history of Syriac Christian asceticism has sometimes been harshly criticized. The reasons for such a negative approach might be worth exploring, though this paper is not precisely about that problem. What captivated the minds of various such critics is the unpalatable “encratic’ elements, the exotic and strange forms of its development. 1 Two customary generalizations about the origins of Christian monasticism are the following: the Egyptian desert is seen as the birth-place of monasticism; secondly, hermits come before the cenobitic life. “Monasticism begins with hermits: in the third and fourth centuries in Egypt and in Syria Christians fled from their towns and villages to remote parts of the countryside, to the deserts of Pispir and Nitria, to the months of Nile and Euphrates.” 2 Such a simplistic approach fails to see the pre-fourth century, pre-monastic, proto-monastic and semi-monastic ascetic movements elsewhere among Christians and especially in the Syriac-speaking world. The traditional way of seeing Christianity as

1 Cf. P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York, 1988) 332ff. 2 K. Leyser, Hermits and the New Monasticism: A Study of Religious Communities in Western Europe 1000–1150 (London, 1984) 7.

57

58

[2]

[3]

Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal

either the Latin West or the Greek East at the expense of the Syriac Orient is also partly responsible for the above-mentioned views. 3 Practically all the ancient authors of the Syriac milieu— Orthodox as well as heterodox—before the fifth century were ascetically oriented. We find only one notable exception to this and that is Bar Daisan (154–222). The contribution of Tatian in the development of the Christian ascetical movement should not be forgotten. 4 He had never been a heretic for the Syriac Christian world of the patristic period. Indeed his theological and spiritual legacy survived through the Diatessaron until the early fifth century. Through St. Ephrem’s commentary on this harmony of the four Gospels Tatian’s legacy continued even afterwards. But above all he was considered as one of the greatest masters of asceticism. “The history of monasticism as a style of the ascetical life in Syria needs renewed scholarly attention. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the hitherto prevailing view rests, at least in part, upon mistaken assumptions from two sources about its origins. One is the traditional, monastic hagiography deriving from the Greco-Syrian milieu itself. The other is the modern scholarly mistake about the date and authorship of certain texts crucial to the case as documentary evidence.” 5 Church historians such as Theodoret of Cyrrhus (History of the Monks of Syria), Palladius (Lausiac History) and Sozomen (Church History) and the monastic hagiographies by fifth and sixth-century Syriac and Greek writers provide a picture entirely different from the history of Syriac ascetical world, as it is understood today. A. Vööbus’ History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient is a classic example of a modern version of such monastic historiography. 6 T. Koonammakkal, “Early Christian Monastic Origins: A General Introduction in the Context of the Syriac Orient,” Dialogue 18 (1991): 14– 48; J.C. O’Neill, “The Origins of Monasticism,” in R. Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989) 270–87. 4 Shafiq Abou Zayd, Ihidayutha: A Study of the Life of Singleness in the Syrian Orient: From Ignatius of Antioch to Chalcedon 451 A.D. (Oxford, 1993), 9–14; Koonammakkal, “Early Christian Monastic Origins,” 33–4. 5 S.H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in V.L. Wimbush, R. Valantasis (eds.), Asceticism, (New York, 1995) 221. 6 Ibid., 221f. 3

Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness

59

The native Syriac ascetical movement underwent a transformation in the second half of the fourth century, partly because of the institutionalization of Egyptian monasticism and partly because of the inner crisis of the Syriac ascetical movement itself. Physical withdrawal (anachoresis) from the ordinary Christian community was the characteristic feature of this new situation.

THE CONCEPT OF IHIDAYUTHA IN EPHREM’S TIME [4]

[5]

[6]

More than two decades ago Robert Murray pointed out an important aspect of the Syriac ascetical movement: “...the asceticism we know from early Syriac sources was nothing other than a continuation... of discipleship, taken by some as imitation, of the poor, homeless and celibate Jesus.” 7 This element of continuity with first-century Jewish sectarian movements has been suggested by various scholars. The Acts of Judas Thomas is “inspired by a rigorously encratite understanding of Christian discipleship...” 8 The inspiration of Syriac ascetical movements came from the idea of radical discipleship of Jesus. 9 The term iʚidćyć is crucial in understanding early Syriac asceticism. Every Syriac scholar knows the long-standing discussions of this particular term in the context of early Syriac Christianity and this paper is not going to offer any new interpretation. It is instead an attempt to point out the relation between iʚidćyuthć in Ephrem’s time and the idea of discipleship and the imitation of Christ in Ignatius of Antioch. Iʚidćyć is the title of Jesus Christ as “the only Son” of God. It translates the Greek term monogenous (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; Lk 8:42 Lk 7:12, 9:38, etc.). It means one, only one, unique, one without another, etc. Syriac iʚidćyć is the equivalent of monogenous and monachos. Alfred Adam, Edmund Beck, Gilles Quispel, Antoine Guillaumont and Robert Murray have already explored the various 7 R. Murray, “The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism,” in P. Brooks (ed.), Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp (London, 1975) 66. 8 Ibid. 9 G. Kretschmar, “Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung fruehchristliches Askese,” ZThK 61 (1964): 27–67; P. Nagel, Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Moenchtums (TuU 95; 1966); A. Adam, “Grundbegriffe des Moenchtums in sprachlicher Sicht,” ZKG 65 (1953–4): 209–39.

60

Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal

shades of meaning in this term. In the first three centuries of the Christian era textual evidence for this term is very scanty, in spite of the fact that the term developed from various biblical passages. But the Demonstrations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (died about 345) and the writings of Ephrem (c. 306–73) show that already by the first half of the fourth century iʚidćyć had become a familiar, traditional technical term denoting both Christ and the baptized ascetic disciple of Christ. Murray has clarified the three senses of iʚidćyć: 10 1. Monachos, or single from wife or family; 2. Monotropos, Monozonos, not dipsuchos, single in heart, not double-minded; 3. Monogenous, Only-Begotten, as well as united to the OnlyBegotten. [7]

[8]

Iʚidćyć was first and foremost the title of Christ the OnlyBegotten. The same term was applied to every baptized Christian in general and to the ascetic disciple in particular. The ascetic iʚidćye were living in the midst of society; they were not hermits or solitary ones at all. This is evident from Aphrahat, Ephrem and the Liber Graduum. “These ascetics (iʚidćye) were not solitary in the sense of being isolated from everybody else, but in the sense of being unmarried.” 11 The social involvement of the iʚidćye was a special feature of the Syrian ascetical movement in Ephrem’s time. Physical isolation and withdrawal from the Christian community seems not to have occurred until a later date. The term iʚidćyć meant single, celibate, single-minded, a baptized disciple or imitator of Christ the Iʚidćyć. It is in the second half of the fourth century that it was almost identified with Greek monachos, meaning monk or solitary. But the original shades of meaning survived even then. Both bthule (virgins, celibates) and qaddishe (married ones who had renounced their marital life) formed iʚidćyć who were consecrated and hence “holy.” The baptized soul as well as the Church itself became the bride of Christ the heavenly Bridegroom. So many baptized disciples who wanted to become close followers and imitators of Christ renounced marriage itself and awaited the arrival of Christ the 10 R. Murray, “The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church,” NTS 21 (1974–5): 67. 11 A. Baker, “Syriac and the Origins of Monasticism,” The Downside Review 86 (1968): 348.

Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness

[9]

61

heavenly Bridegroom. The eschatological emphasis of early Christian thought was one of the underlying reasons for this waiting. The imagery of marriage feast and bridal chamber are very common in early Christian literature in Syriac. The ideal of the ascetic life as the angelikos bios captivated the mind of many Christians. Baptism was a potential re-entry into eschatological paradise. The singleness of God, the singleness of Christ and the singleness of Adam in Paradise 12 were thought of as combined in one ideal goal. “Indeed, to a Syriac speaker, the individual iʚidćyć will be to Christ (the iʚidćyć) what the individual Christian (mšiʚćyć) is to Christ (Mšiʚć).” 13 Baptism is “putting on Christ” in the words of St Paul (Gal 3:27; Rom 13:14). In baptism the name Mšiʚć is imprinted upon the recipients who thereby become Mšiʚćye. 14 Christian baptism is the counterpart of Christ’s incarnation: The most High knew that Adam wanted to become a god, So he sent His Son who put him on in order to grant him his desire. 15 Divinity flew down and descended to raise and draw up humanity. The Son has made beautiful the servants deformity, and he has become a god, just as he desired. 16 Blessed is He who descended put Adam on and ascended. 17 He gave us divinity, we gave Him humanity. 18

[10]

The term iʚidćyć was applied specifically to the ascetically oriented baptized disciples and followers of Christ. The solemn S. Brock, Saint Ephrem: Hymns on Paradise (New York, 1990) 31–2. Ibid., 32; cf. S. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 19922) 133–41. 14 HcH 22:3–7; 23:3–10; HdV 4:8–14; HdF 46:4, 51:7, etc.; cf. T. Koonammakkal, “Christ and Christians: An Ecclesiological Theme in Ephrem,” Christian Orient 15 (1994): 163–9; repr. The Harp 8–9 (1995–6): 345–54. 15 C Nis 69:12 = Brock, Saint Ephrem. Hymns on Paradise, 73. 16 HdV 48:17–18 = Brock, Saint Ephrem. Hymns on Paradise, 73. 17 HdV 23:13 = Brock, Saint Ephrem. Hymns on Paradise, 69. 18 HdF 5:17 = Brock, Saint Ephrem. Hymns on Paradise, 74. 12 13

62

Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal

invitation and consecration to iʚidćyuthć was indeed baptism. But it was in response to a special call to discipleship. Single-minded imitation of the heavenly Iʚidćyć was the ideal of the earthly iʚidćye. It was a total commitment, the opposite of being “double-minded” (James 1:8). In the hymns on the Epiphany we read: Behold the sword of our Lord in the waters, which divides sons and fathers; for it is a living sword, which makes a division between the living and the dead. Behold, they are baptized and become virgins and consecrated ones for they went down, were baptized and put on that one Iʚidćyć. Behold, many have hated, by reason of him, even families, even offspring, even wealth. For whoever is baptized and put on the Iʚidćyć, the Lord of the many, takes (lit. fills) the place of the many, for Christ becomes his great treasure For He has become, in the desert, a table of delicacies and He has become, at the wedding-feast, the source of wines. He has become in all things the property of all, by means of good offices, healings and promises. 19

Murray has pointed out the significance of this hymn in understanding the sense of iʚidćyć. It is singleness, in that the iʚidćyć leaves his family and does not marry; it is single-mindedness; above all it is a special relationship to Christ the Iʚidćyć. At baptism the consecrated ascetics “put on” the Iʚidćyć in a special manner. 20 Ephrem speaks of the “divided heart” in HdC 8:2; HdF 20:15; 66:7; HcH 29:35; etc. Here he is alluding to 1 Cor 7:34 where St. Paul speaks of a married person as “divided.” Aphrahat took this up in Demonstrations 18:10, in a comment on Gen 2:24 (“a man shall leave his father and mother”). Gal 3:28 speaks of a state where mankind is neither male nor female.

Epiph. 8: 16–17. R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 1975) 13, 16; idem, “Exhortation,” 59–80; idem, “The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism,” 72f. 19 20

Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness [11]

[12]

63

The duality of the heart was a concept much discussed in the early centuries of the Christian era. 21 It means a heart divided between good and evil, day and night, light and darkness, life and death. A baptized ascetic is a unique disciple of the unique Master. He cannot follow Christ with a divided heart. Integrity and undividedness of heart is called for in following and imitating Christ. It is a single-minded discipleship, undivided commitment to Christ, imitation of Christ, suffering and martyrdom, perfect discipleship. This was a common theme in the Apostolic Fathers. 22 Ignatius of Antioch longs that Christians should live “with an undivided heart” (en ameristo[i] kardia[i]). 23 It is the internal unity and integrity of the soul that is understood here, as in the Shepherd of Hermas. The ascetical movements sprouted from the ideal of the whole-hearted imitation of Christ which was already espoused by a few disciples in Apostolic times. Iʚidćyć means an undivided disciple of Christ the Iʚidćyć. 24 “Iʚidćyć is a complex term in Syrian literature. Its primary meaning is not a monk, or a hermit, or a solitary; it refers rather to the unity of man with God.” 25 Following Christ with an undivided commitment was the core of iʚidćyuthć. “The iʚidćyć is a follower and imitator of Christ the Iʚidćyć par excellence; he is single-minded for Christ; his heart is single and not divided; he is single as Adam was single when he was created; he is single in the sense of celibate.” 26 Ephrem advises the ascetics who anticipate the life of Paradise here on earth: “...and let one who is divided collect himself together and become one before you.” 27 The term iʚidćyć means more than “singleness” or celibacy with a religious intention. It is singleness of purpose or monotropos. The iʚidćyć is in a special relationship with Christ the Iʚidćyć, the only and beloved Son of God (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18). According to many Syriac scholars this was the original and primary meaning of the term iʚidćyć for the Abou Zayd, Ihidayutha, 24, 28, 44, 71, etc. 1 Clem. 23; Barn. 19:2,5; Shepherd of Hermas (more than fifty times): Herm. Man. 9; Herm. Vis. 2:2,4; 3:3,4; 3:4,3; 3:7,1; 4:1,4; 4:2,6 etc. 23 Phil 6:2; T. Koonammakkal, “Ignatian Vision of Christian Life as Imitation of Christ,” Christian Orient 17 (1996): 119–27. 24 Abou Zayd, Ihidayutha, 269–80. 25 Ibid., 269. 26 Brock, The Luminous Eye, 139. 27 HdF 20:17. 21 22

64

Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal

Syriac theologians of antiquity. It was understood as a special title of Christ in the Syriac-speaking world. Aphrahat and Ephrem “seldom fail to make this connection explicitly” whenever they speak of “singles” in God’s service. 28 This connection between human iʚidćyć and divine Iʚidćyć is because of baptism. The ascetic iʚidćyć is only a representative and type of many. This representative role is compared to the divine Iʚidćyć in putting on humanity at the incarnation. It is a symbolic anticipation of the new man, re-created Adam in a Paradise restored, realized and regained. 29 The purpose of putting on the heavenly Iʚidćyć in a tangible and personal manner was to imitate Christ 30 and thereby to become a close follower, a perfect disciple of Christ. “For thus it is proper for the disciples of Christ to imitate Christ, their Lord.” 31 The ascetic iʚidćyć stood for Christ on the one hand and for the many on the other. Christ is his “great treasure” at baptism and he does not want to part with it. The Qyama of iʚidćye meant their religious covenant, voluntarily undertaken at baptism, and also their resurrection here on earth, their restored paradisiacal status. The iʚidćye “have received the likeness of angels” 32 and their virginity means a “communion with the watchers of heaven.” 33 Ephrem makes an important comment about bishop Abraham of Nisibis: Iʚidćyć in his daily life, being holy in his body, Iʚidćyć in his house, internally and externally chaste. 34

S. Griffith argues that the stand or the station in life the iʘidćye take by covenant is much more than just a pact of virginity or celibacy. “For the many they stand for Christ, and for Christ they stand for the many...” 35 The iʘidćye serve as a type for the whole Christian community. Julian Saba was such a type for his people, as we are told in the biography of him which is attributed to Ephrem: 28 S. Griffith, “Monks, ‘singles,’ and the ‘Sons of the covenant:’ Reflections on Syriac Ascetic Terminology,” Studia Anselmiana 110 (1993): 144. 29 Ibid., 144. 30 Ibid., 145. 31 Parisot, Aphrahat’s Demonstrations I, col. 276. 32 Ibid., col. 248. 33 Ibid., col. 309. 34 CNis 15:9. 35 Griffith, “Monks, ‘singles,’ and the ‘Sons of the covenant’,” 153.

Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness

65

Jesus was at all times depicted in his life-style, and because he saw the glory of the Single One (iʚidćyć), he too became a single one (iʚidćyć). He showed contempt for this dwelling which is passing away, and he scorned the beauty which is fading. He manifested the type (ʞupsć) for the sons of his own people in humility. 36

[13]

[14]

Julian the iʚidćyć imitated Jesus the Iʚidćyć. So “Jesus used to visit us in you” (Julian). 37 “Both you and your brothers are depicted in our Lord. Blessed is the one who puts you on.” 38 The typological and sacrificial dimensions of the term iʚidćyć have also been noticed. 39 With a short description of Christian life as imitation of Christ we shall conclude this paper. Ignatius was martyred during the reign of Trajan (98–117 AD). About the year 110 he wrote seven epistles in which his zeal for becoming a real and perfect disciple of Christ stands out remarkably. He claims to be an athlete of Christ, a phrase which became widespread in later ascetic and monastic circles. 40 In all his seven epistles Ignatius introduces himself as Theophoros, which means God-bearer. 41 In a third or fourth-century work called The Martyrdom of Ignatius we find an interesting elucidation of the concept of Theophoros. Ignatius was arrested for his faith and he was questioned by the emperor Trajan: “And who is Theophoros?” Ignatius replied: “He who has Christ within his heart.” “Do you then carry within you Him that was crucified?” “Truly so...” The scriptural texts cited or alluded to by Ignatius to S.H. Griffith, “Julian Saba, ‘Father of the Monks’ of Syria,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994): 204. 37 Ibid., 204. 38 Ibid., 205. 39 S.H. Griffith, “‘Singles’ in God’s Service: Thoughts on the Iʚidćye from the works of Aphrahat and Ephrem the Syrian,” The Harp 4 (1991): 155. 40 Ign. Pol. 1:3, 3:1; 2 Tim 2:5; Phil 1:27, 4:3; Heb 10:32f.; V. Saxer, “Athleta Christi,” Encyclopedia of the Early Church I, 96. 41 Ign. Eph. (Loeb Classical Library edition 24: 172), Ign. Magn. (LCL 24: 196), Ign. Trall. (LCL 24: 212), Ign. Rom. (LCL 24: 224), Ign. Phld. (LCL 24: 238), Ign. Smyrn. (LCL 24: 250), Ign. Pol. (LCL 24: 266). 36

66

[15]

Thomas Kathanar Koonammakkal

clarify his title Theophoros are 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 1 Cor. 6:19; Lev. 26:11–12; Ex. 37:27. It is unlikely that Theophoros was just a baptismal name for Ignatius, rather it was a deliberate theological title which he used to explain his whole Christian existence. The same work speaks of martyrdom as the perfect imitation of Christ, which makes one a perfect disciple of Christ. Origen (c. 185–253) identified perfect discipleship with martyrdom. 42 Christians are “imitators of God,” 43 who are described as follows: “You are fellow-travellers, then, and carry with you God, and the Temple, and Christ, and holiness, and are in all ways adorned by the commandments of Jesus Christ.” 44 This is not an exact translation of the text. In the original Greek we find theophoroi (God-bearers), naophoroi (temple-bearers), Christophoroi (Christbearers) and hagiophoroi (bearers of holy things, Holy Spirit— bearers, holiness-bearers). It is in this sense that Ignatius is Theophoros; it is in the same sense that the Christians of Ephesus are called theophoroi. Every individual Christian has to be a Theophoros or Christophoros because of his putting on Christ at baptism. Christian life is theophoric because of the divine indwelling. Christians are to be mimetai tou Kuriou (imitators of the Lord). 45 Intergrity, undividedness of heart or single-minded discipleship of Christ can be part of this imitation of Christ. It is a choice between death and life. 46 It is bearing “the stamp of God the Father in love through Jesus Christ...” 47 Christians have Christ in themselves 48 because of their discipleship and baptism. According to Ignatius, Christ’s passion is our resurrection (to pathos he estin hemon anastasis). 49 It is interesting that these ascetical themes reappear in Ephrem’s concept of iʚidćyuthć in the fourth century. It is also an indication of a link between the fourth-century Syrian ascetical movement and the early second-century concepts of Ignatius. 42 R. A. Greer, Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (New York, 1979) 48–9, 59; Rom II:1–2; Rom IV–VI. 43 Ign. Eph. 1:1 (LCL 24: 172). 44 Ign. Eph. 9:2 (LCL 24: 182). 45 Ign. Eph. 10:3 (LCL 24: 184), Ign. Trall. 1:2 (LCL 24: 212), Ign. Phld. (LCL 24: 246). 46 Cf. Ign. Magn. 5:1; Barn. 18:1–20:9; Did. 1:1–6:2. 47 Ign. Magn. 5:2. 48 Ign. Magn. 12:1. 49 Cf. Ign. Smyrn. 5:3.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 67–82 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE EPHREMIC TRADITION AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1 ROBERT MURRAY, S.J. HEYTHROP COLLEGE LONDON [1]

The ecological crisis to which western technology has brought the world poses theological problems for religious believers to a degree which did not yet confront theologians in the early ages of Christianity. Yet there are strands of thought in the church fathers, when they reflect on fundamental principles expressed in the Bible, which can prove important and fruitful for us at the end of the twentieth century. This is particularly true of the Syriac Fathers, whose language and culture stood closer to those of the Bible than did most of European, and especially Latin, Christianity. The focus of this paper is on ecology; it may surprise some that my startingpoint is the interpretation of statements about human nature in the first chapter of the Bible. But it is precisely issues of interpretation which have led to profoundly different views about how we humans relate to, and are responsible for, our whole environment. 1 This is a re-worked English version of the writer’s paper “L’Homme et la Création: responsabilité, péché et réconciliation,” in Péché et Réconciliation hier et aujourd’hui (Patrimoine Syriaque, Acts du colloque IV) (Antelias, Lebanon, 1997). I am also indebted to S. Brock’s discussion of ecological themes, in The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 19922) 164–8, and “Humanity and the natural world in the Syriac tradition,” in Sobornost (incorporating ECR) 12 (1990): 131–42.

67

68 [2]

Robert Murray

Genesis 1, though not overtly anthropomorphic, still hints at a picture of God as a supremely skilful and beneficent craftsman who creates the entire cosmos and the various beings on earth, bringing each conception to reality by a simple command. All unfolds in a wonderful order; not the order we would ever dream of, but then the account is governed by principles not of successive periods but of ordered worship, leading up to the Sabbath. The sun and the moon are said to have been created so as to make possible the annual liturgical calendar. After all other creatures have been brought into existence, God says “Let us create humankind in our image and likeness,” and (to summarize the next phrases) “let them rule over all other creatures” (Gen 1:26). The next sentence in Hebrew has a poetic structure, which I render very literally: God created humankind (adam) in his image, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them (Gen 1:27).

[3]

Then God blessed them and told them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and to rule over other creatures (1:28). (We must remember, of course, that adam here has its general and collective sense; it does not function as the proper name, “Adam” till later in the paradise story.) Now the commonest line of interpretation in western Christianity has seen the “image” (Hebrew ʜelem) in terms of the “likeness” (dmut) to God with which it is paired; and this likeness has been explained in terms of spiritual and intellectual qualities. Doubtless all Christian traditions would agree with this as a theological truth; but in the text as it stands, does “likeness” come in as an explanatory synonym for “image,” or does “image” have its own distinct meaning, explained by the phrase which immediately follows its first occurrence, “and let them rule...”? These semantic subtleties may seem very academic; yet they have led to quite different lines of thought as to where human beings stand in relation to God on the one hand and to other creatures on the other. For the western tradition, dominated by Augustine, the “image” makes human nature so much defined by spirituality and intellect that it was all too easy to view the rest of creation as mere “resources,” which humans are entitled to tame, cultivate and exploit by the power of their spiritual superiority. In contrast, the Syrian traditions which are often classed together as “Antiochene,” including writers in both Greek and Syriac, remained much closer

The Ephremic Tradition

[4]

[5]

69

to the natural sense of the original Hebrew, and their understanding of human nature remained closer to Jewish teaching, with a strong emphasis on the freedom of the will. These Antiochene and Syriac writers see the “image’’ as a metaphor which pictures the human race as standing in the position of God’s viceroys, endowed by God with authority over other creatures, but also, because of our free will, answerable to him for how we treat them. This linking of delegated authority with free will is the basis on which I will try to sketch how these themes were developed by St. Ephrem and the heirs to his teaching, even after those heirs came to be separated by christological disputes. Admittedly, we do not find in any of them an explicit doctrine of human duties relating to the environment and to fellow-creatures. The passages I shall cite from St. Ephrem are comparatively few, yet I believe that these, together with comparable passages in later Syriac authors, form the materials from which such a synthesis can be constructed without doing violence to the texts. It would be pleasant to focus this paper on Ephrem’s vision of the world and everything in it, in their beauty and symbolic potential. But my scope is a more ethical theme, that of human responsibility and duties; I shall therefore quote more from Ephrem’s prose works, regretfully drawing less on his poetry. Poets have often spoken better than theologians about our relationship to creatures; theology has a serious and long-neglected task to undertake in this area. In using the term “viceroys” with reference to humanity as bearing God’s image, I made explicit a part of what I believe is the implicit metaphor underlying Genesis 1: God is conceived of as a supremely wise, powerful and good king, who has created the world as an ordered cosmos reflecting his goodness, and finally entrusted this world to a race of creatures, humankind, which can act as his representatives. This metaphor is not pointed out by either Ephrem or his near-contemporary Eusebius of Emesa 2 in either of their commentaries on Genesis (the two earliest in the Preserved in Armenian; V. Hovhannessian (ed.), Eusèbe d’Émèse, I. Commentaire de l’Octateuque (Venice, 1980). See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, “Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School,” in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 125–41. 2

70

[6]

Robert Murray

Antiochene-Syriac tradition); but the underlying metaphor had already been recognized by Philo, in a passage to be quoted below. Ephrem does refer briefly to kingship in relation to the “image,” 3 but soon after him the metaphor was to be explicitly expounded in Greek by Diodore of Tarsus, 4 followed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and St. John Chrysostom (who says tersely “‘Image’ [eikon] refers to authority [arkhe] and nothing else”), 5 and in Syriac by Narsai and Jacob of Serug, as we shall see below. While emphasizing this link, however, it should be understood that all these fathers also recognize the spiritual qualities which are implicit in the “image.” But first let us look at Ephrem. For him, free will and authority are both essential aspects of God’s image in humankind. 6 Free will is at the same time the condition of love for God and of responsibility regarding creation. This is Ephrem’s comment on Genesis 1:26: And God said: Let us make man in our image: that is to say, endowed with authority (shallit) to the point that if it seems good to him (en neshpar leh) he will obey us. Now what it means that we are in the image of God has been explained by Moses, where he says: and let them have authority (neshltun) over the fish of the sea and the birds, the cattle and all the earth. Thus it is in the authority (shultana) that Adam received over the earth and all that is in it, that the likeness (dmuta) to God consists, to him who has authority over things above and below. 7

[7]

Here we must understand that this “authority” is not absolute power. It involves control not only of others but also of oneself. In fact, an important part of the connotation of šulʞćnć is free will, and it must sometimes be translated by this, since English hardly has Prose Refutations, Eng. tr. pp. xiv and lxxxvi, quoted below. Relevant texts of Diodore and his successors are collected in F. Petit (ed.), La Chaîne Coislinienne sur la Genèse (CCSG 15; 1986) 57–89, and in Theodoret’s Quaestiones in Genesim, PG 80, 104–12. See F. Petit, “La Chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne,” in Stimuli (Festschrift E. Dassmann) (JAC Ergänzungsband 23; 1996) 243–53. 5 CCSG 15, p. 60, excerpt 64. 6 See P. Tanios Bou Mansour, La Pensée symbolique de S. Éphrem le syrien (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit XVI; Kaslik 1988) 408–29. 7 In Gen. II, 29; CSCO 152 (Syr. 71), 23; my translation. 3 4

The Ephremic Tradition

71

one word that combines both notes. 8 In this breadth of meaning šulʞćnć corresponds closely to the Greek exousia, which in many contexts can be adequately rendered by “authority” (for example, when people were amazed at Jesus’ show of it [Mk 1:27] or challenged him on it [Mk 11:28]); but in other contexts it means personal freedom to act, as in Paul’s discussion of permitted foods in 1 Cor 8–9. 9 In his Prose Refutations Ephrem discusses human shultana in a way which demands awareness of this broader meaning: If it is by šulʞćnć that Adam was the image of God, it is a most praiseworthy thing when a person, by knowledge of the truth and acting with truth, becomes the image of God, for that šulʞćnć consists in these also. 10

Later in the same work Ephrem relates šulʞćnć clearly both to human freedom and to the image of kingship: And why does Freewill (šulʞćnć) wish to deny its power and profess to be enslaved when the yoke of lordship (mćrutć) is not placed upon it? For it is not of the race of enslaved reptiles, nor of the family of enslaved cattle, but of the race of a King and of the sons of Kings who alone among all creatures were created in the image of God. 11

[8]

In the Fourth Discourse Ephrem refers again to Gen 1:26–28 in terms of authority, discussing those animals which do not serve humans but can overpower them: 8 A word such as “entitlement” could be said to combine aspects of authority and freedom, but it would be impossibly clumsy in the contexts referred to here. 9 In all these places exousia is rendered by šulʞćnć or related words. 10 Letter to Hypatius, Syriac in Overbeck (ed.), S. Ephraemi Syri ... aliorumque opera selecta (Oxford, 1865) 22; Eng. tr. in Mitchell, Prose Refutations, I (London, 1912) iii; German tr. and commentary by E. Beck, OrChr 58 (1974): 80–1. The rendering above is my own adaptation of Mitchell’s, leaving šulʞćnć untranslated. Mitchell renders it the first time by “Freewill,” the second time by “independence;” Beck both times by “Macht.” 11 Overbeck, p. 39; Mitchell (his version with Syriac words inserted), p. xiv; Beck pp. 100–1.

72

Robert Murray [Adam] possessed this power (šulʞćnć) over them before he sinned, but they received this power (šulʞćnć) against him after he had sinned. Therefore God said, let us make man in our Image, that is in the Image of His authority (šulʞćnć), so that just as the authority of God rules over all so also the yoke of Adam’s lordship (mćrutć ) had been set over everything. 12 .

[9]

[10]

Thus Ephrem, before the Greek Antiochene fathers, seems to recognize the delegated royal authority which is implicit in Gen 1:26–8. But it was for Theodore of Mopsuestia to develop the theme most influentially, by creating an allegory which was to be repeatedly echoed by the Syriac Fathers. Theodore compares the Creator to a king who built a great and beautiful city, and finally ordered an image of himself to be set up in the centre of the city, so that the inhabitants should honour it and thereby express their gratitude. This image is man, to whom the other creatures owe homage and service on account of the divine authority symbolized by the image. All creatures, says Theodore, are bound together in a vast unity, in obedience to humankind and in service of its needs, for God has made man the bond (sundesmos) and “pledge of friendship” (philias enekhuron) in the solidarity of creation. 13 There are clear echoes of Theodore’s allegory in the Syriac fathers on both sides of the doctrinal estrangement after Chalcedon. We find the metaphor of the king and his foundation in Narsai (399–502): Like a palace for the king of kings he built the creation, and put them [sc. mankind] in it to see the beauty of his royal house. 14 Mitchell, Prose Ref. I, Syr p. 114; tr. (as in last note) p. lxxxvi. This summarizes the excerpt from Theodore’s lost commentary on Genesis in Theodoret, Quaest. in Genesim, PG 80, 109A–C and in the Coislin catena, ed. F. Petit (n. 4 above), pp. 69–70. Theoore again calls man the “pledge of friendship” for all creation in his comment on Romans 8:19, PG 66, 824C. Cf. N. El-Khoury, “Der Mensch als Gleichnis Gottes: eine Untersuchung zur Anthropologie des Theodor von Mopsuestia,” OrChr 74 (1990): 622–771. 14 P. Gignoux (ed. and tr.), Homélies sur la Création (PO 34; 1968), Hom. 2, 361–61 (pp. 578–79); the translation here is mine. The subject is actually the divine remza, the efficacious sign of God’s creative will; the 12 13

The Ephremic Tradition

73

And Jacob of Serug, in his Hexaemeron: The Maker willed, in the great palace he had built, to set up an image (ʜalmć ) to the glory of his creative power, so that through it all the beauties of his creation might be known, and through it, when he had made it, he might rest from his creating. God built a great city full of beauties; it was right that the king’s icon ( yuqna)be set up there. The city of the world had been created by God; it was his pleasure that the image (ʜlem) of God should stand in it. 15 .

.

[11]

As for Theodore’s following point, the solidarity of all creation, this is actually anticipated by Ephrem in his analysis (again in the Prose Refutations), of the network of mutual needs which binds humankind and other creatures together. He starts out from Paul’s allegory of the body in 1 Cor 12 and Rom 12, but extends it, not only to the whole human race but even to the animals: For just as in the case of the limbs of the body, their individual needs are fulfilled by one another, so too the inhabitants of the world fill in the common need from the common excess. We should rejoice in this need on the part of us all, for out of it is born harmony (awyutć) for us all; for in that people need one another, those in high position stoop to the lowly and are not ashamed, and the insignificant reach out to the powerful and are not afraid. Even in the case of the animals, seeing that we have a need for them, we take care of them. Clearly our need for everything binds us with a love for everything.16 .

term is frequently used by both Narsai and Jacob of Serug. See Kh. Alwan, “Le ‘Remzo’ selon la pensée de Jacques de Saroug,” ParOr 15 (1988–9): 91–106. 15 P. Bedjan (ed.), Homiliae selectae Mar Jacobi Sarugensis (Leipzig, 1907), Hom. “On the Creation of the World, Day 6,” in vol. 3, p. 108, 7–14, my translation. Cf. B. Sony, “Hymne sur la création de l’homme de l’hexaméron de Jacques de Saroug,” ParOr 11 (1983): 167–99 at p. 177. 16 Syriac in Overbeck (n. 10 above), p. 26; tr. Mitchell, Pr. Ref. I, pp. iv–v; Beck (same note) p. 86; the translation here is that of Brock, The Luminous Eye (see note 1 above), p. 167.

74

[12]

Robert Murray

This analysis is less majestic, more “democratized” than that of Theodore, but the latter’s phrase “pledge of friendship” actually points towards such reflections. It is in the network of needs, obligations and rights that the bearers of the divine image must use their “viceregal” authority. Many church fathers, especially in the West, in their comments on the image of God were dominated by an anthropocentrism which owed too much to Stoicism. Ephrem’s account of interrelationships offers a far better basis for a true environmental theology. Dom Edmund Beck comments on its “astonishing modernity.” 17 The authority given by God, therefore, excludes all tyranny and exploitation; this is implicit also in the biblical account of how the first human being gave all creatures their names (Gen 2:119–20). Well before either the Antiochenes or Ephrem, Philo saw this act as a display of kingly wisdom: Moses does well to ascribe the giving of names to the first man, for that is the function of wisdom and royalty, and the first man was wise with a wisdom taught by Wisdom’s own lips; he was also a king, and it belongs to a king to bestow titles on each of his subjects. It was a most high sovereignty that invested that first man, since God had formed him with such care to be worthy of the second place, making him his own viceroy and governor of all others. 18

[13] [14]

Ephrem in his Genesis commentary also notes Adam’s wisdom, but he lays more emphasis on harmony before man’s disobedience, as we shall see below. Narsai describes the naming scene thus: He subjected all that came to exist from Him to the authority of his image, Adam. “The Lord God created the cattle and the [wild] animals and made them pass before Adam so that he might name his possessions.” Beck, p. 86, n. 23: he finds it “von einer überraschenden Aktualität.” 18 Philo, On the Creation of the World, 148; Greek text and tr. in Loeb Classical Library (LCL), Philo I, pp. 116–17; this translation, slightly abbreviated, is as in R. Murray, The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical Themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (London: Sheed & Ward, 1992) 100. 17

The Ephremic Tradition

75

His Maker conferred power on him to give names as best he could, teaching him thereby that He was making him master of all that existed... All living beings, mute or able to speak, are alike bound to him, and because of their relationship to him they honour him like a king. 19

[15]

But it is Narsai’s near contemporary Jacob of Serug, the truest heir of Ephrem’s creative imagination, who enlarges the scope of the biblical narrative in the most original way. Before the animals, both domestic and wild, came the whole cosmos, including the heavenly bodies, the sea and land, sea creatures, birds and reptiles, to adore the divine image in Adam. Finally, As soon as the cosmos saw him it wholly submitted to him: every kind of cattle and even [wild] animals drew near to reverence him, and he sealed them as his own. He called out names, and by the names he subjected them, to make them his own, for the Lord had granted him to possess them. It was right, too, since he was the image of God, for him to lay his hand on everything that the Lord, his Lord, had made; he could not actually create, but he gave names and became a partner in God’s work of creation. 20

[16]

Here there is great emphasis on power and possession, but the Syriac fathers never forget the other aspect of delegated authority, responsible freedom. It is typical both of the Antiochene tradition and of its Syriac heirs to insist on free will. This is how Narsai describes human nature:

19 P. Gignoux (ed. and tr.), Homélies de Narsai sur la Création (PO 34; 1968) 614–7: Hom. 4, 86–90, 93–4, my translation. 20 Jacob of Serug, Hom. Sel. (n. 15 above), 3, p. 118, 9–17, my translation; cf. Sony (ParOr, ibid.), 187–8.

76

Robert Murray Man possesses freedom of soul in likeness to [an angel]; he can sin but also remain righteous, and is able to discern. The freedom of soul which man has cannot be forced, or led to an act to which he does not consent. The nature of man and of the spiritual beings is one; it cannot be mastered, but it masters itself. 21

[17]

[18]

If we reflect on all the passages considered so far and realize their converging implications, it becomes clear that they point towards responsibility, even though the word is not used explicitly. When a being endowed with the freedom just described is charged with authority, this necessarily entails a relationship of responsibility to the source of the authority, be it a person or an electorate. The more understanding and freedom one has, the more one is responsible for one’s actions. Therefore man is answerable to God and under obligation to exercise authority according to God’s will; that is, with wisdom, justice and gentleness, as Paul Beauchamp has shown in an important article on Gen 1–2. 22 No doubt this principle underlies those laws in the Pentateuch about care and even compassion for animals, for example the commandment to leave a newborn animal seven days with its mother, and not to slaughter mother and young on the same day (Lev 22:27–8), or to help up a donkey (even one belonging to an enemy) which has fallen under its burden (Ex 23:5). 23 The Torah has less to say about other creatures, but the laws of the sabbatical and jubilee years (Lev 25) regard the well-being of the soil (25:2–6) and hint at God’s care for wild animals (25:7). The laws about war limit the destruction of trees: “is a tree a human being, that you should treat it as a besieged enemy?” (Dt 20:19). Philo explains all these as commandments to act with mercy; his exegesis is not allegorical but ethical, praising the enlightened humanity of the

On Creation (n. 19 above), Hom. 6, pp. 686–7. “Freedom of soul” is ʚerut naphsha, a more explicit way of speaking of the free will which is implicit in shultana. 22 P. Beauchamp, “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn 1,1–2,4a,” in F. Blanquart (ed.), La Création dans l’Orient ancien (Lectio Divina 127: Paris, Cerf, 1987) 139–82. 23 Cf. Murray, The Cosmic Covenant (n. 18 above), 112–20. 21

The Ephremic Tradition

[19]

[20]

77

Torah. 24 His interpretation is quoted with approval, some eight or nine centuries later, by Isho’dad of Merv. 25 However, the Syriac fathers rarely speak of human responsibility to the Creator in the sense of having to answer to him for how we use other creatures. Aphrahat, for example, says much about how Christian “pastors” must render an account to the Supreme Pastor for the souls entrusted to them, 26 but he does not talk about the responsibility of actual shepherds to the owners of the flocks and, above them, to God. No doubt the latter was taken for granted in ordinary life, and Christian peasant farmers would understand the religious sense of the laws in the Torah about good farming and respect for animals; we simply do not know whether they reflected theologically about these things. Before the fall, all creatures and all the elements existed together in harmony, both cosmic, moral and social. 27 This is how Ephrem describes the scene of Adam with the animals: It says “He brought them to Adam” in order to indicate his wisdom, and also the peaceful state which existed between the animals and Adam prior to his transgressing the commandment. For they came to him as to a loving shepherd, passing in front of him without any fear, flock after flock according to their species and varieties. They had no fear of him, nor were they in trepidation of one another; a herd of predators passed

On the Virtues, 25–31; text and tr. in LCL, Philo VIII, pp. 238–63. C. Van den Eynde (ed. and tr.), Commentaires sur l’A.T. II (CSCO 176, Syr. 80); e.g. on Ex. 23:19: Syr. p. 42, tr. pp. 55–6: “les trois significations [sc. discussed by Philo in a passage just quoted by Isho’dad], nous enseignent la miséricorde de Dieu, dont la sollicitude s’étend même aux animaux.” 26 Demonstration 7, PS I.1, ed. J. Parisot, col. 357.8–21. 27 This link between the cosmic and moral orders is expressed in Biblical Hebrew semantics. The terms ʜedeq/ʜdaqah and mishpaʞ have a wider reference than has been generally understood. Sometimes they refer to the order of the universe or of nature (e.g. at Ps 72:3 and Isai 32:15) and not merely to the virtue of an exemplary judge or to personal integrity. Cf. H.H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung (Tübingen, 1968); Murray (n. 18 above), pp. 176–7, nn. 5, 6. 24 25

78

Robert Murray by, followed fearlessly by a group of the animals upon which they preyed. 28

And Jacob, immediately before the passage quoted above, says: All cattle, all animals and birds bent their shoulders for him to lay the yoke on them; as his possessions they came before their master, herd by herd, flock by flock, line by line, pair by pair, they came to reverence him, full of peace and love for him; and wild beasts bowed their heads in obeisance to the great image imprinted on Adam by God. 29

[21]

After the disobedience of the first human pair, the elements, seasons, animals and all nature fell into disorder, desolated by the transgression of the bearers of God’s image. Ephrem, in his hymns Against Heresies sees the “thorns and thistles” with which Adam was now to have to contend (Gen 3:18) as symbolizing the effects of the abuse of free will: The sprouting of the thorn testified to the novel sprouting of wrong actions, for thorns did not sprout as long as wrong-doing had not yet burst forth; but once there had peered out hidden wrong choices made by free will, then the visible thorns began to peer out from the earth. 30

And Narsai: The whole of Creation mourned for Adam’s fair image to which it had been united in love by a bond now undone by sin. Like strangers, the spiritual beings turned their faces away from him and were no longer willing to move the elements to sustain his life.

28 On Genesis II, 9 (CSCO 152, Syr 71, pp. 30–31), tr. S. Brock in his St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, N.Y., St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990) 203. 29 Hom. Sel. (n. 15 above), III, p. 118.2–8, my translation. 30 H.c.Haer. 28,9, tr. Brock, The Luminous Eye, 165.

The Ephremic Tradition

79

Even the animals rebelled against him, reptiles fled and hid in the earth, and all his possessions despised him since he had despised his Master’s word. Freely he became a stranger to the mastery he had been given, and things of nought, turned shameless, made nought of the precious one. 31

[22]

[23]

[24]

In these passages the vision is poetic, arising from meditation on the judgments of God on the first human pair, for whom all their relationships (with each other and with other creatures) will prove to be disturbed; the earth is to become no longer the garden of delight but a place of toil and frustration (Gen 3:14–9). Ephrem and Narsai could not have dreamed of how far this would lead, as humankind strove more and more to exploit and control rather than to live in harmony with other creatures; but we can see that these fathers had their finger on the fault: irresponsible abuse of freedom. Just one scene in Ephrem’s Genesis commentary pictures a temporary restoration of harmony, granted by God to Noah, the “man of peacefulness” (gabra danyaʚa); every kind of animals and birds converged on the ark and dwelt together in a marvellous peace. As they entered, predators and their usual prey all together, the sinners of that generation watched with amazement and yet were not moved to repentance. 32 After the flood, of course, came the sign of the cosmic covenant of peace, but the reality of broken harmony remained. Only the prophets, especially Isaiah with his joyful vision of paradise restored in the messianic age (Isaiah 11:1–9) could keep alive the hope that paradisal harmony would return to earth. But for the eyes of Christian faith, thanks to Christ’s coming to live and die in solidarity with the human race, his redeeming and reconciling sacrifice, his victory over death and evil and his breathing the breath of new life, the Holy Spirit, into human nature, the restoration of all things has begun. At the climax of Paul’s exposition of how those who respond are “justified,” that is, brought back into a healed relationship with God, his focus

31 32

Homilies on Creation 4, 280–7 (PO 34, pp. 626–9), my translation. This summarises Ephrem In Gen. (See n. 7 above), Syr. pp. 59–60.

80

[25]

Robert Murray

suddenly widens to take in the whole of creation which has been “groaning” to take part in this restoration (Rom 8:19–23). 33 In this Christian vision Christ has repaired in principle the disorder brought about by the abuse of freedom symbolized in the biblical story of “our first parents.” As antitype of the “First Adam,” Christ is the Second. This is principally a Pauline theme; but is it possible that Mark hints at it when he says that Jesus in the desert “was with the wild beasts” (Mk 1:13)? Most modern exegetes prefer another explanation, but for those of more poetic inclination the idea of this scene as the antitype of Adam’s naming the animals has a strong attraction. 34 And at least in sixth-century Syria some thought so. In a homily transmitted under the name of Ephrem we read that Jesus kept company with the (wild) animals, which knelt and worshipped him; 35

the last words echo exactly what Jacob of Serug says in connection with the first Adam: The newly anointed (mšiʚa), Adam, who became the image (ʜurta) of the Son, stood in the world, and the whole world knelt and worshipped him. 36

[26]

The sense of the renewal of creation which Christ has inaugurated by his resurrection grows strongest, of course, in the Paschal month of Nisan, which Ephrem celebrates in a series of hymns. A particularly vivid picture can be glimpsed in a stanza which is hard to translate, but the sequence of images seems clear: After the desolation of winter, the deaf and dumb, Nisan has thundered; Many exegetes have floundered here, misled by Origen’s adoption of a Stoic sense of “creation” (ktisis) as meaning only humankind, and not realizing that the Hebrew semantic field underlying Paul’s language of “righteousness” and “justification” actually extends to cosmic order. See n. 25 above, and more fully Murray, The Cosmic Covenant (n. 18 above), 129–31 and notes, pp. 203–4. 34 Cf. The Cosmic Covenant, 127–8, with notes on p. 202. 35 E. Beck (ed.), Memre for Holy Week (CSCO 412, Syr. 181) I, 93–4. Beck has argued plausibly for the author’s being a 6th-century Syrian Orthodox, perhaps a disciple of Jacob of Serug. 36 Hom. Sel. III, p. 117.12–3; my translation of both these last excerpts. 33

The Ephremic Tradition

81

it is the sound of the universe which he has calmed; he has calmed the sea by the voice of oarsmen, he has calmed the desert by the voice of flocks, the air by the voice of birds. In Nisan the desolation of Sheol is calmed, for the Living Voice has entered. 37

Such a vision of reconciliation and restored harmony cannot be left to merely imaginative enjoyment of its beauty. Ephrem’s prose passage quoted earlier, in which he extends the Pauline body image for interrelations within the Church to human relations with other creatures, expresses a challenge to put vision into practice. Yet “where there is no vision the people perish,” 38 and it is important that so many saints have exemplified the vision in their lives as a way that can be followed; witness the desert ascetics “from Syria and Egypt to Ireland and Northumbria,” 39 and the often-quoted description by the seventh-century Saint Isaac of Nineveh of the effects of true humility: The humble man approaches wild animals, and the moment they catch sight of him their ferocity is tamed. They come up and cling to him as to their Master, wagging their tails and licking his hands and feet. They scent as coming from him the same fragrance that came from Adam before the transgression, the time when they were gathered together before him and he gave them names in Paradise. This scent was taken away from us, but Christ has renewed it and given it back to us at his coming. It is this which has sweetened the fragrance of humanity. 40 Hymns on the Resurrection 5,4 (ed. E. Beck, Syr. in CSCO 248, Syr. 108; German tr. in 249/109); French tr. by G. Rouwhorst, Les Hymnes pascales d’Ephrem de Nisibe (Leiden, 1989) II, 104–5. The attempt at translation here is mine. “Calmed” renders šayyen, to pacify, tame or cultivate, a denominative verb from šaynć (a loanword from Persian), which in contrast to šlćmć (interpersonal peace), primarily connotes peace of the land. (Beck rendered šayyen by beleben, to revive, enliven.)— “oarsmen:” lit. “oars and sailors.” 38 The long-proverbial old translation of Prov 29:18. 39 Murray, The Cosmic Covenant, 144–8, at p. 146. 40 Syriac in P. Bedjan (ed.), Mar Isaacus Ninivita De Perfectione religiosa (Leipzig, 1909) 577; tr. S. Brock, in Heart of Compassion: Daily Readings with St. Isaac of Syria (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1989) 41. 37

82 [27]

Robert Murray

This is a saint talking about saints; we know all too well that the restoration of the divine image in humanity is far from completed; it must be realized in every person, and between the human race and other creatures in our shared environment. Gradually people are coming to realize how we have abused the world and its other inhabitants. Whether we are believers in God or not, there is a massive duty of repentance for the harm done, and of renewed purpose to respect and nurture our environment. Saint Isaac’s other most famous passage, about compassion for the suffering of all creatures, is so well known that I will not quote it again here; but less often quoted is its contextual framework. St. Isaac says that true compassion is a gift to be won by the practice of repentance, purity of heart and perfection. The fruit of repentance is a contrite heart; that of purity is a heart full of compassion for all creation; the fruit of perfection is depth of humility, embracing voluntary mortification. 41 Of course, this is all Christian ascetical language; but most of it can be translated into more universally understandable ethical terms and applied to the environmental task. “Perfection” is not so easy to retranslate: it can, perhaps, be understood as personal integrity, including that responsibility in use of freedom, so much emphasized by St. Ephrem, which has been a focal point in this article.

Syriac in Bedjan, p. 507; tr. S. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1987) 250–1. 41

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 83–109 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE INFLUENCE OF EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN ANDREW PALMER DEPARTMENT OF THE STUDY OF RELIGIONS SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM [1]

“The intellectual Euphrates of the Church” was augmented by many tributaries. To restrict the study of his influence to that of his undiluted, authentic works would not do justice to the impact of his example. 1 We need to analyse the vast corpus which goes under 1 I have used short paragraphs for ease of reference. For more about the speech in praise of Ephraim which was long attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, see the paper by David Taylor in Hugoye 1:2. Sebastian Brock, in the present issue, gives it a seventh-century date. The place where the unidentified author calls Ephraim “the intellectual Euphrates of the Church” is at col. 824A of vol. 46 of J.-P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. Edmund Beck, “Philoxenos und Ephräm,” Oriens Christianus 46 (1962): 61–76, at p. 61, dismisses the possibility that Ephraim the theologian (as opposed to the moralist and the ascetic) had an influence beyond the narrow world of Syriac theology, on the grounds that his theology “must have seemed underdeveloped (rückständig) in comparison with the theology of his great Greek contemporaries” and that the relevant parts of his output, such as the Teaching-Songs (or Hymns) on Faith, “are unlikely ever to have been translated into Greek” (my italics). This ignores the testimony of St Jerome, de viris illustribus 115, who read a volumen by Ephraim on the Holy Spirit in a Greek translation (most of Ephraim’s doctrine on the Holy Spirit is in the Teaching-Songs on Faith). The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was elaborated at the Council of Constantinople in 381– after Ephraim’s death in 373 and before the date at which Jerome wrote in 392—so it seems likely that this work was

83

84

Andrew Palmer

his name to be able to decide how much of it is indebted to him for at least a part of its content or an aspect of its form. 2 translated by a theologian who thought that Ephraim’s doctrine would be helpful to Greek theologians in performing this task. Beck, for all his familiarity with Ephraim, does not allow for the possibility that the “underdevelopment” of his theology was a matter of conscious choice. Besides, as David Taylor’s paper in Hugoye 1:2 shows, the possibility of Ephraim’s influence on his “great Greek contemporaries” may have been too rashly discounted; and his indirect influence on Byzantium through the Greek Ephraim and Romanos is not without theological content. 2 See Beck’s article, cited in note 1 and the paper by Sidney Griffith in Hugoye 1:2 (also published in Sobornost, incorporating Eastern Churches Review, 20:2 [1998]: 21–40). Any study of Ephraim himself should be based on his authentic works only, and even there only with caution. Francis Crawford Burkitt’s study of S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel = Texts and Studies 7:2 (Cambridge, 1901) starts by listing the manuscript sources of the Roman edition (which it criticizes very severely) and the other manuscripts in which the works edited there have been transmitted; then adds the works edited by J.J. Overbeck (S. Ephraemi Syri ... aliorumque opera selecta, Oxford, 1865) and T.J. Lamy (S. Ephraem Syri hymni et sermones, 4 vols., Louvain, 1882–1901—the last volume had not yet been published) with their manuscript sources; and lists as genuine (on p. 24f.) all those attested by at least one manuscript dating from before the Arab Conquest of the early seventh century. On p. 23 he writes: “A mechanical rule such as this no doubt excludes some genuine writings, but the list at least escapes the charge of having been constructed to suit a pre-determined critical theory.” This list, therefore, should not be represented as an attempt to tackle the problem exhaustively and systematically. Moreover, Burkitt’s method is flawed: it cannot account for interpolations, supposititious works of early date, or authentic works attested only by later MSS. His list is certainly incomplete, in that it does not include the Diatessaron Commentary, which was discovered more than half a century afterwards, in 1957; but it may be incomplete—or too inclusive—in other respects as well. Other lists have been drawn up by Louis Leloir, Évangile d’Éphrem d’après les oeuvres éditées: receuil des textes (CSCO 180, Subsidia 12; Louvain, 1958), ivf.; Arthur Vööbus, Critical and historical studies in Ephrem the Syrian (Stockholm, 1958); Edmund Beck, “Éphrem le syrien (saint),” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 26/27 (Paris, 1959) 788–800, at 790f.; Ignatius Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca (Rome, 1965), chapter 3; and Sebastian Brock, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (New York, 1990) 230–33 (Brock, presumably following Urbina and Baumstark, does not even mention the attribution to Ephraim of a long work on Joseph, on which see the following note).

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian [2]

85

What became attached to Ephraim’s name was decided by more than one factor. If something was written in “Ephraim’s metre,” a series of couplets of heptasyllables, or seven-syllable lines, it might be attributed to him, especially if the true author was not known. This happened in Syriac; 3 but it happened even more The ballad on the mission of St Andrew to the Cannibals (on which see the paper by Michel van Esbroeck in this issue) is implausibly attributed to Ephraim. The twelve-ballad epic on Handsome Joseph (edited by P. Bedjan in 1887 [corrected and augmented edition: 1891] and by T.J. Lamy, with a Latin translation, in his vol. III (1889)—in Aleppo in 1997 I saw, in a photocopy without the date of publication, a Lebanese Maronite edition with an Arabic translation by a twentieth-century Assemani and an introduction by Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, which praises the dramatic sense of Ephraim as the author) is attributed to Ephraim by all the MSS which have the complete epic; but they are all late. Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Berlin, 1922) 62f. argues that this epic belongs to Balai, and his argument appears to have been accepted by other scholars. The question has never been treated at length. Two books (originally three: fol. 154b) of the heptasyllabic epic are attributed to Balai in Br. Lib. Add. 12,166, foll. 1–154, a MS of the sixth century ( = no. 742 in W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, 3 vols. [London, 1872], vol. 2, 674–6). The pentasyllabic metre is Balai’s trademark, but he may have imitated Ephraim’s metre. There may be some mistake in this attribution; for example, Balai’s name may have appeared at the end of the exemplar from which the scribe copied, but it may have applied to a supplement on the translation of the bones of Joseph to Constantinople in the late fourth century (Br. Lib. Add. 7190, foll. 329a–32b) and been mistakenly applied to the Books extracted from the epic by the scribe of Add. 12,166. The early mediaeval Add. 14,590 includes Book Two, without any attribution, in a volume of compositions by Ephraim and Jacob of Serugh. Baumstark admits that it is one of the best poems in Syriac; if Balai was such a good poet, it is surprising that so little of his work is known. A comparison of style and content shows a great affinity with Ephraim, which seems even greater in view of the gulf between the authentic Ephraim and the ballad on Andrew. The epic on Handsome Joseph is, at the least, a very good imitation of Ephraim. I would add another argument. In the preface to his Commentary on Genesis, Ephraim says he has commented at greater length on this book of the Bible in his “ballads (mimre) and teaching-songs (madroshe).” The Teaching-Songs on Paradise answer to one part of the book; and here and there throughout his teaching-songs he returns to the subjects of the Creation and of Abraham; but if he did not write at length in the balladform on Joseph, it is difficult to see why Ephraim’s preface mentions 3

86

[3]

Andrew Palmer

in Greek, from which “Ephraim” was translated into many other languages. 4 Another factor was Ephraim’s supposed character. If something seemed “Ephraimic” by its content, regardless of the form, it might be attributed to him. 5 What is the character of Ephraim is a question which has many answers: one for each “picture’ of Ephraim which has been constructed. 6 Ephraim has ballads, or where else he might have treated of the last part of Genesis “at greater length” than in his prose commentary. Yet, on balance, perhaps, the attribution to Balai is the more credible, because it seems unlikely that such a poem would be attributed to anybody other than Ephraim, unless it was really written by Balai; whereas, if the later MS tradition depends on an exemplar or exemplars which lacked any attribution, the poem would naturally be attributed to Ephraim. 4 See Alain Desreumaux’s paper on Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic in Hugoye 1:2. Samir Khalil Samir spoke at the conference on the Arabic Ephraim; I was not able to discover if anyone is working on the Slavonic Ephraim; Bernard Outtier’s paper on Ephraim in Armenia and Georgia is published in this issue. Please note that Ephraim used a large number of different metres in his stanzaic poetry; the heptasyllablecouplet was used in his balladic mimre, such as those on Nicomedia, translated into Armenian heptasyllabic couplets. 5 Ephraim was reputed to have written commentaries on all the books of the Bible (see [Ps.-]Gregory of Nyssa, Migne, PG 46, col. 829B) and many commentaries have been attributed to him—and printed as authentic in the Roman edition—which scholars now consider to be falsely attributed (see Ignatius Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca [Rome, 1965], chapter 3). He wrote a great deal on the subject of repentance, so any anonymous homily on repentance might be attributed to him (Arthur Vööbus, Critical and historical studies in Ephrem the Syrian [Stockholm, 1958] made a concentrated, though little appreciated, effort to distinguish authentic from inauthentic ascetical and paraenetical texts attributed to Ephraim). He wrote eloquently on the symbols to be found in a pearl (e.g. Teaching-Songs on Faith 81–5), so it was easy for a tract (Roman edition, Greek vol. 2 [Rome 1743] 259–79) which annexed the symbolism of the pearl to the Chalcedonian formula to be attributed to him. (See p. 263F: “The pearl of great price partakes of the two natures so as to show that Christ, being the Word of God, was born as a human being from Mary.”) 6 For Ps.-Gregory and others Ephraim was very effective in the war of words against the heretics. For Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History 3:16) he was a solitary monk, who “refrained from the very sight of women.” For the later Greek monastic tradition he was the opponent of laughter, which, when mixed with seriousness, “easily destroys souls.” On these

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

[4]

[5]

87

been a model for many; but we have to ask which version of Ephraim each admired. There was also the process known as “interpolation.” Ephraim wrote a poem and left, we may assume, a certain amount of space on the page, which seemed to some readers an invitation to compose extra verses “in the style” of Ephraim. When the manuscript was copied at the request of someone living at a distance, these verses were inserted in the text and transmitted as Ephraim’s. 7 Besides these three factors which account for the swelling of the mainstream, there is another which means that the portion of the original river in that stream has been reduced from time to time. This is the decision of medieval copyists not to pass on works by Ephraim to future generations. In some cases this has led to the permanent loss of those works; in others, they have been recovered. 8 changing images, some of which seem designed to protect Ephraim from an anticipated imputation of too much fondness for women, or too much humour in his presentation, see the paper by Sebastian Brock in this issue and that by Sidney Griffith in Hugoye 1:2 and Sobornost 20:2 (1998): 21–40. 7 See Louis Leloir, Doctrines et méthodes de S. Éphrem d’après son Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant (Louvain, 1961) 53; Kathleen McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York, Mahwah, 1989) 298f., n. 124; and my article in Parole de l’Orient 20 (1995): 129–200: “Words, Silences, and the Silent Word: Acrostics and Empty Columns in Saint Ephraem’s Hymns on Faith.” If I am right and the acrostics in the Hymns (or Teaching-Songs) on Faith ought to be sequences of single letters, unless a meaningful pattern is created by reduplication and triplication (as in no. 49), then a number of stanzas need to be removed to restore the original text of e.g. nos. 26 and 32, including those which contain, uniquely in this book, the plural of kyono used interchangeably with the singular and that other key-word, qnumo, used adverbially (qnumoith) to mean “essentially”—two usages which figure prominently in Beck’s treatment of these terms (Die Theologie des heiligen Ephraem in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben = Studia Anselmiana 21 [Rome, 1949] 16f. and 18f.). In general, the presence in Ephraim’s genuine works of spurious interpolations means that, like Ephraim himself in 53:4, 8 and 13f., we cannot accept one witness to his genuine usage (such as the single place where Ephraim speaks of two natures in Christ: Homily on Our Lord XXXIV, a passage regarded by the editor, for other reasons, as an interpolation), but must have three at least. 8 Almost all the works edited by Beck would have been lost, had it not been for the survival of a handful of manuscripts in the Syrian

88 [6]

[7]

Andrew Palmer

The time in which we live is the best time there has been, so far, for assessing the influence of Ephraim. If we mean by that the influence of the medieval Ephraim corpus, whether in Greek and Latin, or in the languages of Oriental Christians, some progress has been made in our century with the study of the transmission of knowledge in the Middle Ages, though much remains to be done. 9 If, on the other hand, we mean the reconstruction of the authentic Ephraim and the assessment of his own original contribution and the extent to which that has lasted or been revived, our century has seen the first critical editions of his surviving Syriac works and the first unbiased attempts to decide which of the works attributed to him is authentic. Here, too, though, much remains to be done. 10

Monastery in Egypt. What is extant is evidently only a small percentage of his output, even if Sozomen (Church History III 14) exaggerates in saying that he wrote three million lines of poetry. For one thing, his commentary on the Psalms, to which his poetry refers in very many places, has not even survived in Armenian, which preserved several of his commentaries; as a liturgical poet Ephraim must have felt a special attachment to the Psalms. 9 See, for example, Ephrem Lash’s website on “Ephrem:” http://www.orthodox.org.uk/ephrem.htm 10 Petrus Benedictus on the first page of his preface to the reader in Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia, Syriac vol. 1 (Rome, 1737) made the ridiculous claim that the stamp of Ephraim’s style was so clearly on all the (Syriac?) works attributed to him that “we are forced to say” they are either all by him, or none of them are by him (dicere cogamur, aut opera omnia, quae hactenus Ephraemi praetulere nomen, Ephraemi calamo fuisse exarata, aut nulla.). Burkitt thought the criterion of manuscript tradition more objective than that of style, which is to go from one extreme to another. For Beck, who only used the more ancient MS witnesses in his editions, it was enough for a work to have a late mediaeval MS tradition to render its authenticity suspect. (The only extant MS of the probably second-century Syriac Odes of Solomon is of about the fifteenth century, which shows that this assumption is wrong.) With such flawed criteria, Burkitt’s and Beck’s selection of authentic works can hardly be accepted without further examination. Ortiz de Urbina adds the criterion of quotations from Scripture, meaning, presumably, the judgment whether the author quotes from Ephraim’s text of the Bible. No scholar, to my knowledge, has given thought to the likelihood that Ephraim’s teaching developed over time, so that he may, in two works separated by an interval, contradict himself.

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian [8]

89

The lesson from the past is that each culture constructs a picture of Ephraim according to its own lights. 11 Whatever picture we ourselves can reconstruct, it is likely to bear the stamp of our own concerns, even if we make an effort to be objective. For example, a young, secular Englishman is likely to give a greater emphasis to sexual language than a monk of Mount Athos would do. 12 11 In addition to the humourless Ephraim, the misogynistic Ephraim, the Chalcedonian Ephraim, and the Lutheran Ephraim, our century has constructed the feminist Ephraim (Farida Boulos represented Ephraim at the conference as an emancipator of women and contrasted the repressive attitude of the Syrian Orthodox Church today), the ecological Ephraim (compare the paper by Robert Murray in this issue) and the Ephraim of thinly veiled sexual references and even of teasing innuendoes (see the following note). He seems to be so ambiguous that he can be moulded to the mind of his reader. This is perhaps part of the secret of his perennial appeal: Benedictus, Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia, Syriac vol. 2 (Rome, 1740), preface to Cardinal Quirinus: Marmora, ac metalla tempus tandem consumsit [sic], S. Ephraemi lucubrationes nulla obliterabit dies (“Over the centuries, time has consumed monuments made of marble and of bronze, but the day will never dawn when the writings of Saint Ephraim are so worn away that they cannot be read”). 12 In a number of conference papers given in Cambridge, in Kottayam, in Uppsala, in London and elsewhere in recent years, I have argued that human sexual biology, male and female, provides Ephraim (whose mature commitment to chastity I do not question, though he saw no reason why this should entail the separation of the sexes: see the empathetic treatment by the Benedictine monk, Louis Leloir, “Le Témoignage monastique de S. Éphrem,” in his Doctrines et méthodes de S. Éphrem d’après son commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant [Louvain, 1961]) with a pervasive frame of reference, which he transfers in all its detail onto the spiritual plane. He is readier to name the female sexual organs explicitly than the male, to which however he alludes, indirectly, but quite unmistakably, e.g. in Teaching-Songs on Faith 25 and 75, which should be read in the original by any reader who is willing to try to see what I mean. If I have not published these papers, it is, at least in part, because I am aware that more work needs to be done on the Syriac sexual vocabulary before my argument can be made sufficiently objective. Unfortunately, the Syriac Book of Medicines published in two volumes by Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge (London, 1913), which is, in the main, the translation of some Greek lectures given by an Alexandrian disciple of Hippocrates, hardly contains any sexual vocabulary at all (perhaps it was censored by monastic scribes!). Section 12 of Ephraim’s advice to a young virgin, published in

90 [9]

[10]

Andrew Palmer

What makes the subject so worthwhile is that Ephraim can appeal both to the monk of Mount Athos and to the young secular Englishman. Ephraim, or Pseudo-Ephraim, seemed to John Wesley “the most awakening of the ancients;” 13 to Edward Pusey, whose churchmanship was so different from that of the Wesleys, the genuine Ephraim seemed the great exponent of mystical typology. 14 Some problems can be weighed, but with an uncertain result. Did Ephraim influence the Cappadocian Fathers or they him (or was there, as Beck would have it, no sharing across that particular barrier of languages and mountains)? 15 Did Ephraim give a decisive impetus to the Christian practice of singing hymns in church? 16 Did Byzantium adopt his melodies? 17 C.W. Mitchell, Prose Refutations, vol. 2 (1921) lxxxii and 174, confirms that shawpo and nqopo both have sexual connotations for Ephraim, as they do in certain other places cited in the lexica: “Let fire be an example to you, which is buried and dead in a hidden place, but which the friction (shawpo) of one piece of wood with another brings to life, leading to the destruction of both. For once she (‘fire’ is feminine in Syriac) has come to life, she turns on the individual (or substance: Syriac qnumo) which has brought her to life by his intercourse (nqopo) with her and burns him up (‘wood’ is masculine in Syriac).” This language, combined with the second person feminine singular, suggests that Ephraim was not immune to the pleasure of speaking, delicately, to a single woman about sex, or of imagining that he was doing so. In a passage of the Commentary on the Gospel preserved only in the Armenian translation (12:6) he underlines the fact that Jesus was found speaking alone and without a witness to a disreputable Samaritan woman. (When I made a similar remark to a monk on Mount Athos who thought it impossible to be saved “in the world” because of the presence there of women, he protested that Christ was God and therefore different, presumably meaning that, while He was human in every other way, He did not know desire [and therefore was not completely human?]; compare Hannah Hunt’s paper in Hugoye 1:2, n. 52.) See also the anthology attached to this article, especially the Teaching-Song on the Nativity. 13 See the paper by Gordon Wakefield in Hugoye 1:2. 14 See the paper by Geoffrey Rowell in this issue. 15 See the paper by David Taylor in Hugoye 1:2. 16 F. L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. by E.A. Livingstone (Oxford, 1997) 551 claims: “His [Ephraim’s] liturgical poetry had a great influence on the development of both Syriac and Greek hymnography.” E. Beck, “Ephraem Syrus,” in Reallexikon für Antike und

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian [11]

91

For our purposes it is not vital to assess the debt of Ephraim to Bardesanes (Bar Dayson) and his son, Harmonios, or that of these earlier Syriac poets to the Greeks. 18 Ephraim describes the poetry of Bardesanes in terms reminiscent of his own art of balancing phrases of equal length 19 and a fragment shows that Christentum V, 521–31, discusses on pp. 529–31 the influence of Ephraim on the Greek and the Latin poetry of early mediaeval Christianity: “In the field of metre Ephraim became a pathbreaker also for Greek and Latin literature [...] His contribution to this development appears to have been the stanzaic composition of responsorial songs and the isosyllabic principle. The transference of the latter into Greek poetry reveals itself in the isosyllabic works of the ‘Greek Ephraim.’ [...] A general consideration favours the Syrian as the leader here: the principle of parallelism often leads almost automatically—given the uniformity of Semitic nominal and verbal linkage—to an equal syllable-count.” 17 The fact that, e.g. Ephraim’s Syriac Ballads on the Repentance of the Ninevites were translated into identical Greek couplets of sevensyllable lines (well edited by Mercati) suggests that the Greek-speaking recipients adopted the Syriac melody, even if musicological research to date has not discovered a method by which to reconstruct, from the divergent oral traditions, the early forms of Syriac melodies and to relate these to early Byzantine melodies. William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A journey in the shadow of Byzantium (London, 1997) 177 credits to Gianmaria Malacrida the assertion that “the chants of ancient Edessa should be the oldest original chants in the Christian tradition. What we heard tonight [9 September, 1994, in the Church of St George, in the Old Syrian quarter of Aleppo] shows every sign of being the unadulterated music of late antique Edessa.” However, this book, while appearing scholarly by its bibliography, does have a tendency to sensationalise and, like Thucydides, Dalrymple writes, not what his acquaintances actually said (as I know from speaking to some of them about it), but what the author finds it appropriate that they should say in his book. 18 Sebastian Brock has studied Sozomen’s version of events critically and come to the conclusion (agreeing with Rubens Duval in his Littérature syriaque [Paris, 1899]), that he very much exaggerates the Greek influence on Syriac poetry; see his “Syriac and Greek hymnography, problems of origins,” Studia Patristica 16 (= Texte und Untersuchungen 129; 1985) 77– 81, reprinted in his Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot, 1992), ch. VI. 19 Teaching-Songs against Heresies, 53:5; the word gbal, “moulded” (as the Creator “moulded Adam” out of clay) in line 1, suggests that Ephraim may have attributed a certain originality to Bardesanes in the matter of form.

92

[12]

[13]

[14]

Andrew Palmer

Harmonios used heptasyllables, which came to be Ephraim’s mark. 20 But it was through Ephraim that the forms of Syriac poetry came to influence those of Greek poetry, not through Bardesanes and Harmonios. Whatever these may have learned from the Greeks, it was not isosyllabic metres, which were probably first used in Greek in the late fourth century. Bardesanes may have invented stanzaic poetry, but Romanos derived his models from Ephraim. 21 Translations of Ephraim into Armenian were made at the beginning of the fifth century, just after the Armenian alphabet was invented. Ephraim’s art is akin to that of the bard in an oral culture and so was well designed as a literary model for new compositions by the Armenians, who knew only an oral culture. He was indeed imitated in Armenia, as happened later in Egypt and in Ethiopia, too. 22 Ephraim was aware that literature lacks the spontaneity of word-of-mouth communication; 23 yet even when he was writing to Burkitt, “Introduction,” in C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, vol. II (Cambridge, 1921). 21 There are references in David Taylor’s article in Hugoye 1:2 to the work of Petersen, Brock and others on Ephraim’s influence on Romanos the Melode. More needs to be done on this, in particular where both poets have treated the same biblical theme, such as Noah’s Flood; here (as an exercise carried out in 1990 by students of Byzantine history in Groningen showed) a detailed comparison is instructive. There is a clear account of Romanos’s likely formal debt to Ephraim in Archimandrite Ephrem Lash’s introduction to his translation of On the Life of Christ: Kontakia in the Sacred Literature Series (San Francisco etc., s.d. [1995?]) xxx. 22 The Copts greatly revere Ephraim and so do the Ethiopians, who are constantly singing from a book of the praises of Mary (waddase Maryam), which they believe to be by him. He is represented, often with Mary, in the paintings on the walls of several Ethiopian monasteries and churches, as I have seen from photographs taken by Joachim Gregor Persoon, a PhD research student at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. 23 Ephraim, Against the false teachers, tract 1 of 5, in J.J. Overbeck (ed.), S. Ephraemi Syri ... aliorumque opera selecta (Oxford, 1865) 21; translated by C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, vol. I (1912) i: “Behold, I am writing willingly something that I did not wish to write. For I did not wish 20

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

[15]

[16]

93

be read, he maintained a lively interaction with his reader. This is the secret of his “awakening” quality. He surprises and puzzles, poses questions and riddles, gives room for more than one answer, and even appears to go too far, then to check himself. 24 This rhetorical style was more difficult to imitate than his metrical technique; but some succeeded, and Wesley found this “awakening” quality in the Greek Ephraim, as edited in Oxford, at the Sheldonian Press in 1709, by Edward Thwaites. 25 Both the metres and the lively style are transferable skills, which may be detached and used to convey ideas not entertained by Ephraim. At the time of the Italian Renaissance, Ambrose of Camaldoli had already been impressed by the Greek “Ephraim,” although the writers who go under that name are often far inferior to Ephraim himself. 26 Something of his genius still shines through the Greek corpus, so that Cosimo de’ Medici, for all his refinement, could confidently be expected to overlook the occasional barbarism. 27 that a letter should pass between us, since it cannot ask or be asked questions; but I had wished that there might pass between us a discourse from mouth to ear, asking and being asked questions. The written document is the image of the composite body, just as the free tongue is the likeness of the free mind. For the body cannot add or subtract anything from the measure of its stature, nor can a document add to or subtract from the measure of its writing, But a word-of-mouth discourse can be within the measure or without the measure.” 24 Compare Ephraim’s portrayal of God’s teaching-methods in Teaching-Songs on Faith 38:1: “The love of You makes me keen, / eager not to displease you, Lord. / It lulls, rouses, curbs and restrains; / trains, gives rein; uses all means to bring me to Life. / [Response:] Glory to Him who teaches all!” 25 It is unlikely (as emerged from a discussion at the conference) that Wesley knew any of the volumes of the Roman edition of Ephraim’s Syriac works, which began to be published in 1737. Wesley had done the greater part of his patristic reading while at Oxford before this date. See the paper by Gordon Wakefield in Hugoye 1:2. 26 See the paper by Ephrem Lash in this issue; he distinguishes three distinct “voices” from the chaotic din of the collection. 27 Ambrose of Camaldoli, edition of the Greek Ephraim (Florence 1481), prefatory letter, as edited in the Latin edition of the complete works of Ephraim, printed in two volumes at Venice in 1755 and 1756 by [Gianbattista Albrizio and] Gasparo Gerardi, Prolegomena, section 13, extracts, with the conclusion, translated from the Latin: “Lately I came upon a traveller who had come to us (they said) from Syria, an old man,

94 [17]

[18]

Andrew Palmer

Seven Latin texts attributed to Ephraim had long been in circulation in the monasteries of Europe; but although Theodore of Tarsus brought the Greek (and, conceivably, some of the Syriac) Ephraim to Canterbury in the seventh century, 28 few European scholars had been able to read him in anything but Latin. He was widely read in that language, however, as recent research shows.29 The Latin Ephraim had a certain influence on German literature in the eighth and ninth centuries; and later, it seems, on Hildegard of Bingen. 30 And something of the original Ephraim was tall of stature, though now bent with age, calm and dignified of countenance, whose own person, as well as his dress, bore the evident marks of sanctity. His eyes welled with tears, but in such a way that nothing of his dignity was removed from that face, but rather much was added to it in the way of authority and grace. In this way his face was not made dirty or squalid by that almost perpetual profusion of tears, but became thereby altogether more serene, more luminous, more composed; and elicited the affection of all those who looked upon him. [...] But why do I say so much about this guest of ours? You will take the risk of judging him most definitively for yourself and you will decide what opinion should be held about him. If he seems sometimes to adopt a rough and ready style and to omit almost entirely the cultivation of rhetoric, that is in part to be allowed him as an old man and an imitator of the simple speech of our ancestors, in part to be attributed to the matter, which is altogether not of a kind to be suited to rhetorical decoration, and in part to be laid at my own door, because I have acted with immoderate haste. For in my anxiety to send him to you as soon as possible, and so to comply with your wishes, I have let him go in a less polished state than he might perhaps have acquired, had he stayed with me for a slightly longer period of time. [...] Here he is, then; take him in your arms, apply your ear and your mind by preference to him. Now I’ll leave the two of you together. Goodbye!” 28 See the paper by Jane Stevenson in Hugoye 1:2; the earliest manuscripts of works belonging to the Latin Ephraim corpus, which is translated from the Greek, are apparently of the seventh century. 29 See the paper by David Ganz in this issue, with his tribute to Tom Pattie. 30 Nabil el-Khoury, Die Interpretation der Welt bei Ephraem dem Syrer = (Tübinger theologische Studien 6; Mainz, 1976) 23: “[the influence of Ephraim is attested] even for Old High German poetry (Muspilli, 8th/9th cent.; Otfrid, 9th cent.).” Margot Schmidt, of the University of Eichstätt in Germany, is preparing a paper on “Some Parallels Between Ephraim and Hildegard of Bingen,” which (her health allowing—it most

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

[19]

[20]

95

preserved in the Latin. For example, Ephraim’s predilection for the name of “Physician” in referring to Christ. This apparently entered Anglo-Saxon usage through Latin Ephraim-texts. 31 Ephraim is widely read in Orthodox monasteries, whether in Greek, or another language. 32 What is more, his fame was proclaimed by many wall-paintings in Eastern Orthodox churches. 33 Plethon, the Edward Gibbon of Byzantium, would have had nothing to do with the Greek Ephraim; but Ambrose of Camaldoli shows that he was not the only arbiter of taste in Renaissance Florence. Gerhard Voskens was the first of the humanists of Northern Europe to attempt an edition of Ephraim, one which was almost entirely limited to the corpus in Latin and in Greek. 34 Reading the unfortunately prevented her from attending the conference) will be published in another issue of Hugoye. 31 Patrick Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephraim the Syrian in AngloSaxon England,” in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985) 205–26. 32 When I visited Mount Athos in 1977, I heard (Pseudo-)Ephraim read aloud in the refectory to the monks at the monastery of Agiou Pavlou. Dorin Oancea gave a paper at the conference about Ephraim’s influence on Eastern Orthodox theology, an influence sweepingly denied by Edmund Beck. 33 See the beautifully illustrated paper by Zaga Gavrilovic in Hugoye 1:2. 34 The two-volume Venetian edition of Ephraim (1755/6), which reprints the Latin works attributed to Ephraim together with the Latin translations of the Greek and Syriac works, calls the roll of those who have edited Ephraimic texts as follows: Ambrose of Camaldoli, Zino of Verona, Julius Clemens, Aloysius Lipomanus, Laurentius Surius, Claude Chantelou, Franciscus Combefisius and Balthasar Corderius, Guido Fabricius Boderianus (Antwerp, 1572: two sermons from the Syriac), Gerardius Vossius [Voskens] (Rome, 1589, 1592, 1593, 1598; including, it would appear, a translation of the well-loved Syriac aloho hab yulpono l-ayno d-rohem yulpono, which is still sung by students at the Seminary in the Monastery of Mor Gabriel in Tur ’Abdin), John, Cardinal Bona and Abraham Echellensis (Rome, 1645; including two canticles on Mary and the Magi from the Syriac), Jacobus Gretserius, Jean-Baptiste Cotelerius, Patricius Junius, Edward Thwaites. All this scholarship is both inaccessible and of little use today; but even this empty roll-call attests to the interest of succeeding generations, which added to “the influence of Saint Ephraim.”

96

[21]

[22]

Andrew Palmer

result of his work, a Protestant scholar, Johannes Kohl, claimed that Ephraim understood the Lord’s Supper much as Martin Luther did. Catholic scholars were not slow to vindicate his catholicity. 35 The first (French) Catholic project to edit Ephraim came to nothing. The second succeeded in editing not only the Latin and Greek works, but also a vast number of Syriac works attributed to Ephraim, many of them genuine. 36 These had been recovered from oblivion when manuscripts were sold to representatives of Pope Clement XI. by a Coptic monastery in Egypt c. 1701. 37 Ephraim’s entire output was probably still being copied out anew up to two hundred years after his death. Fifth and sixthcentury manuscripts must have come into the possession of 35 Roman edition (see next note), vol. I (1737), Editor’s Preface, p. 3: When the Syrians read E. in this edition, they will see that “the Romans have not abandoned the Syrian Fathers, but the Syrians themselves have abandoned their own tradition.” This will lead them to submit to the See of Peter, “without which the unity of the Catholic Church cannot be held together” (siné qua Catholicae Ecclesiae unitas constare non potest). The book will be read—and the wealthy patron, the cardinal bishop of Brescia, thanked—“by the Indians of the Coast of Malabar and the Aramaeans of the Mountains of Kurdistan.” More than one of the volumes of the Roman edition contain long refutations of “Kohlius.” On the Vatican’s surprisingly recent declaration, in 1920, that Ephraim is to be regarded as a “doctor ecclesiae,” see the paper of Sidney Griffith in Hugoye 1:2 and Sobornost 20:2 (1998): 31–40. 36 Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant graece, syriace, latine, in sex tomos distributa ad MSS. Codices Vaticanos, aliosque castigata, multis aucta, interpretatione, praefationibus, notis, variantibus lectionibus illustrata nunc primum sub auspiciis Clementis XII. Pontificis Maximi e Bibliotheca Vaticana prodeunt: Syriacum textum recensuit Petrus Benedictus Societatis Jesu, notis vocalibus animavit, latine vertit, & variorum scholiis locupletavit, Syriac/Latin vols. I-III (Rome, 1737, 1740, 1743); Greek/Latin vols. I–III (Rome, 1732, 1743, 1746). 37 Roman edition (see previous note), Syriac vol. I (1737), Editor’s Preface, p. 2 (translated from the Latin): “[Those who judge the Ephraim of Voskens or of the Oxford edition,] who stammers in Greek through no fault of his own and addresses his fellow-monks, for the most part, in an undistinguished style, to be some desert-loving Greek or other from the crossroads, [are going to recognise, when they read this] most eloquent teacher putting forward his arguments in his own words and with his own inimitable voice, that the simplicity is their own.”

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

[23]

[24]

[25]

97

various Mesopotamian monasteries. In the following centuries they were excerpted for use in the Liturgy and from then on only these excerpts were transmitted by the Syriac scribes of East and West. 38 The reputation of Ephraim did not decline, although knowledge of his work declined sharply. What knowledge there was now existed only among the monks who learned the ancient language. They were not much interested in speculation. The monk Aaron washed out most of the only extant copy of the refutations of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani and wrote out other texts on the leaves. 39 Before washing the leaves, Aaron copied out the only text which did interest him: a short series of words of advice to a female virgin in poetic prose. 40 This single action sums up the whole process by which the sensitive, fanciful and ingenious wordpainter and speculative philosopher was reduced to a fanatical and humourless moralist and an ungentlemanly opponent of the heretics and the Jews. This might be seen as poetic justice. Ephraim owed his genius not to his devotion or his memory of the Bible, impressive as they undoubtedly were, but to his education in a wide-ranging speculative school and his exposure to laymen as well as clergy, women and children as well as men, the married (like his own sister, whose son ’Absamya became a poet) as well as the celibate. 41

Sebastian Brock, “The Transmission of Ephrem’s madrćshe in the Syriac liturgical tradition,” in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 33 (1997): 490–505. Individual stanzas, however, have a textual integrity of their own; in the light of the common experience of textual editors, that the most recent MSS are not necessarily the worst ones, the entire history of the transmission of each stanza of Ephraim’s work should ideally be evaluated. There are corrupt passages and small lacunae in the ancient MSS collated by Beck where the breviaries might give MS authority to otherwise purely editorial conjectures and supplements. 39 C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, vols. I and II (1912 and 1921), in the Prefaces and the Introduction by F.C. Burkitt. 40 Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, vol. II (1921) lxxxii ff. and (Syriac) 174ff. 41 See my paper in Hugoye 1:2; ’Absamya, Ephraim’s sister’s son, wrote a poem on the invasion of the Huns, as we read in the sixth-century Chronicle of Edessa, which makes use of the official archives of the diocese and the former kingdom. 38

98 [26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

Andrew Palmer

But Ephraim was insufficiently aware of how much he owed to city-life. He argued that, since it was impossible to know everything about the world, it was not worth bothering about the things one doesn’t know. 42 He praised the knowledge that one is ignorant as the greatest wisdom. Socrates, for this reason, was a radical rethinker; but for Ephraim, thinking taught only the limits of thought. Ephraim was clear on the subject of marriage, that it was one of the three ways blessed by God, and he balanced Paul’s doctrine that the most perfect way is singleness with a warning to the single not to get above themselves. 43 However, his own enthusiasm for virginity, coupled with the fact that monks transmitted his works selectively, makes him seem less even-handed than this theory. By giving his support to self-sufficiency and to uncritical belief, by branding dialectic as the devil’s work and opposing Greek philosophy to the pure simplicity of the Gospel, Ephraim undermined civic values and contributed to the dearth of scientific thought which marks the Middle Ages. He helped to form the mind of those who washed out his own most interesting work. Ephraim, “God’s lyre,” saw his name as a combination of the words “fecundate’ and “sea.” “The prophet of the Syrians”—their “greatest teacher”—did inspire lesser poets, one of whom called him “the ocean on which all the ships of poets sail’ (Jacob). But Ephraim, like an encratite attacking sex, campaigned for the abolition of the very union of cultures which gave birth to his unique genius.

Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, vol. I (1912) xvi (Syriac, ed. J.J. Overbeck, p. 41): “when we know that we cannot know, we cease to investigate.” The whole of the preceding passage is Ephraim’s answer to the accusation of anti-intellectualism evidently levelled against him. 43 See Burkitt’s Introduction to Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations; L. Leloir, Doctrines et méthodes de S. Éphrem (Louvain, 1961) 58; and the Armenian version of the Commentary on the Diatessaron, edited by Leloir, 15:5. For Ephraim, Christ was “everything to Himself’ and this was the model which the virgin sought to imitate (see the end of the text referred to in note 40). Compare the paper by Thomas Kunammakkal in this issue. 42

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian [30]

[31]

[32]

99

Lip-service was paid (as it is by many Syrians today 44) to books which were not often read and which therefore ceased to be copied. Mesopotamian monasteries in the ninth century were not reluctant to sell for cash their best manuscripts of Ephraim’s works to Moses, the abbot of the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of the Godbearer in the Nitrian Desert, a dedicated collector of books. 45 Virtually all the manuscripts in which Ephraim’s authentic works have been preserved come from the collection started by Moses. Some were sold to the Vatican, as I have mentioned. One boatload of these foundered in a sudden storm and sank in the Nile. Amongst the books which went down was a codex of Ephraim (no. 111). This “pearl,” partly obliterated, was fished up. 46 Other Nitrian codices found their way, in the early nineteenth century, to the British Museum. Overbeck, Lamy, Bickell and Kottayam (State of Kerala, India), Ma’arat Sayyidnaya (near Damascus), Aleppo, Glane/Losser (Holland) and other places boast Syrian Christian centres named after Saint Ephraim; Thomas Kunammakkal, one of whose papers appears in this issue, and Aho Shemunkasho, who is doing a doctorate at Oxford, are only two of a number of Syrian Christian scholars who are now studying Ephraim. Yet it remains true of the majority of Syrian Christians that lip-service is paid to the genius of one whose genuine works are little known. 45 J. Leroy, “Moïse de Nisibe,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (1974): 457–70. See also W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, 3 vols. (London, 1872), vol. 1, introduction. 46 The catalogue of this Vatican collection speaks of the extraction of codices e limoso Nili fluminis imo, a wonderfully expressive phrase by its very sound in Latin, meaning “from the muddy bottom of the River Nile.” See also Wright’s summary of the expeditions of Elias Assemani in 1707 and of J.S. Assemani in 1715 in his Catalogue (reference in the previous note), vol. 1, pp. vi and vii. Elias and Joseph Simon Assemani were both obliged to make a small selection from the MSS of Dayr as-Suryân for purchase. The fact that Ephraim already had a reputation in Europe, albeit one based on the Greek and Latin corpora, may have helped to ensure that Syriac works of his were included in the few MSS selected. The Assemani were Maronites, though, and the Syriac Ephraim was preserved in Maronite liturgical texts to some extent, so this may have influenced their selection, too. The reason why priority was given, back in Rome, to the publication of Ephraim’s works is surely the extent of his authority in the Oriental Orthodox Churches; if he could be shown to be Catholic in his doctrine, then the “separated brethren” in the East would have to admit that it was they who had “abandoned their own tradition” (see note 35). 44

100

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

Andrew Palmer

others edited more works; Mitchell, with great patience and the help of a chemical reagent administered by the British Museum, read the writing which the monk Aaron had washed out and overwritten; Beck and Brock edited various works, Leloir the Gospel Commentary. Lutheran and High Anglican alike have claimed Ephraim’s Eucharistic precedent. The Roman Edition was intended to show that the greatest of the Syriac Fathers had been Catholic in the sense defined by the Vatican and to persuade the “separated” Syrian churches that a union with Rome would be a return to their own roots. Today it is possible to judge him more objectively. Nevertheless, it can hardly be a coincidence that the two scholars who have gone to the greatest lengths, in the twentieth century, to show that Ephraim’s teaching on the Incarnation of Christ agrees with the two-nature formula accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 were Roman Catholics. 47 If it really does so, why has Ephraim been claimed by the opponents of that Council as a champion? There is one place in Ephraim’s works, Homily on Our Lord XXXIV, where we read that Jesus had two kyonin—the exact equivalent of the Greek phuseis (‘natures’). The passage appears to be an interpolation, as even Beck admits; in the last of the late Teaching-Songs on Faith (87:13) he clearly disagrees with those who call Christ “also a human being.” 48 Ephraim never doubted that Christ had two births, which in Latin sounds the same as saying that He had two natures (Lat. natus = ‘born’); but throughout the Teaching-Songs on Faith he uses kyono only of the divine Son, while pagro stands for the son of Mary and

Edmund Beck, Die Theologie des hl. Ephräm in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben, chapter 4; Louis Leloir, Doctrines et méthodes de S. Éphrem d’après son commentaire de l’évangile concordant (original syriaque et version arménienne) (CSCO 220 = Subsidia 18; Louvain, 1961), chapter 2. 48 Beck, in a note at the end of his German translation of section XXXIV of the Homily On Our Lord (Louvain, 1966), cannot forbear to claim that the passage must have been interpolated by a disciple of Ephraim, faithful to his own phraseology, even though this passage differs in its terminology from that in Ephraim’s works on faith. The passage containing the words “also a human being” was translated in my paper in Hugoye 1:2. 47

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

[37]

101

in 84:14 he uses the idea of the pearl as a drop of dew solidified inside an oyster as a symbol of this. 49 Ephraim’s doctrine is clearly spelled out in the passages discussed by Beck. Christ is God, the Son; that is his kyono. Jesus is God, clothed in flesh—a kyono from on high which emerged below in the form of a pagro. This “body”—never called Christ’s human kyono—bridges the gap between God and humanity. It is wrong to call Christ “human.” 50 49 The two best proofs that Beck’s interpretation of the Teaching-Songs on Faith, though excellent and clear-headed in other ways, is forced in this regard, come in the last metrical group of the collection, 81–7, which Beck, without explaining why, excludes from his study. The reason cannot be that the Roman edition printed them as a separate collection “On the Pearl,” because Beck was using the original manuscripts, in which he must have read the colophon, marking the end of the “eighty-seven madroshe of faith.” Even Wright’s Catalogue gives clarity about the status of the seven last poems in the cycle in its description of Add. 12, 176. Beck is scathing about the method of the Roman edition and, except in this regard, never omits an opportunity to point out how capricious it is; so he can hardly be excused for using its authority to exclude the most important section of the text under analysis. His edition of the madroshe, which was published six years after his study of their theology, included the last seven poems, but he does not point out in his Foreword the fact that he had erroneously left them out of consideration in his earlier study. His interpretation of the crucial passage, 87:13, in the translation accompanying his edition, is also forced: “er sei fürwahr (nur) Mensch (d-op bar noshaw).” Beck’s knowledge of Syriac and his general accuracy command such respect, that it is difficult to excuse these lapses. I suspect also that he used Latin translations of Ephraim’s words in his earlier work in order to make the fallacious transition from Ephraim’s genuine doctrine of the two births to his alleged doctrine of the two natures less noticeable. However, his integrity as an editor is proved by his judgment that Homily on Our Lord XXXIV, which had been his only explicit support in arguing that Ephraim taught that Christ possessed a human nature, in addition to his divine nature, is a later interpolation. 50 Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’évangile concordant: texte syriaque (ms Chester Beatty 709) édité et traduit (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin, 1963) 250f.: akteb hu d-law barnosho [h]wo = “he [St John] wrote that he was not a human being [but the Word of God],” translated by Leloir as: Scripsit ille non (solum) hominem fuisse illum = “he wrote that he was not (only) a human being.” Compare Beck’s unwarranted addition of the word “nur’ = “only” before “Mensch” = “a human being” in his

102 [38]

[39]

[40]

Andrew Palmer

This explains how Ephraim came to be such a hero of the antiChalcedonian Churches. It may also explain why so many in Syriacspeaking Mesopotamia were against the two-nature formula. Ephraim is the father of the Monophysites, even if the name causes offence. Philoxenos of Mabbugh found in Ephraim’s writings 106 passages supporting, to his mind, his stand against Chalcedon. 51 If this gives pause to Ecumenists who are today trying to say that there was never any substantive disagreement on this issue, so much the better. If it makes modern Chalcedonians feel less happy with Ephraim, so much the worse. Dom Beck, OSB, regards his terms as underdeveloped and tries to show that he would have accepted “two natures;” Fr Ortiz de Urbina, SJ, has a more sober assessment. Recent western Catholic voices (e.g. Dominique Cerbeleau, OP), in the spirit of “Vatican II,” do at least deplore his antisemitism, unlike the Orthodox. In no way have his writings furthered the cause of religious tolerance. It may even have been his passion for beauty and harmony which made him so intolerant of those aspects of reality which spoiled his utopian vision. He was an artist.

ANTHOLOGY [41]

Whether for good or for evil, Ephraim is one of the great names of world literature. At least, he deserves to be better known than he is. As yet there is no version of a work of his in any collection of the world’s literary classics. I believe that there ought to be. To illustrate his ability as a writer, I conclude this paper with a short anthology:

translation of Teaching-Songs on Faith 87:13, where Ephraim has another adverb, op = “also,” mistranslated by Beck as fürwahr = “actually (only)” (see the previous note). 51 Philoxenos of Mabbugh, Florilegium patristicum (Patrologia Orientalis 41.1) 58–123; quoted by Mathews Mar Severios in his contribution to the conference, entitled “Ephrem’s influence on the christological perspective of Philoxenos.” Presumably, the Church of the East, which is diophysite in its doctrine, succeeded in reconciling Ephraim’s words with the twonature formula. So far as I know, no one has investigated the christological reception of Ephraim in the Persian Church.

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

103

1. From Part One of the Commentary on the Gospel (in the Harmony made from the Four Gospels by Tatian), section 16. This book, previously known only in an Armenian translation, surfaced in 1957 and was edited by Louis Leloir. A complete and literal English translation by C. McCarthy is available in a volume supplementary to the Journal of Jewish Studies. The present translation is a little freer. Also, I have set it out in such a way as to bring out Ephraim’s love of symmetry, even in prose. When he heard the promise of John from the angel, but did not believe it, he was silent; but when he saw that John had come out of the womb he spoke. The word which came out of the angel passed by his mouth and closed it, and so came to the womb and opened it; and the same reversed these operations, closing the womb which it had opened, that it might not give birth again, and opening the mouth which it had closed, that it might not be closed again. It was right that the mouth should be closed for not believing that the barren womb could be opened; and it was right that the womb which gave birth to John should be closed and not give birth again, so that an only-begotten son should be the herald of the Only-Begotten Son. Moreover, even if Zechariah alone doubted, all the same, by doubting, he removed all doubt from people’s minds.

2. The first section of the Homily On Our Lord, which is in prose, but verges, at times, on the evenly measured lines of a ballad. The words in italics represent Syriac words on which Ephraim plays: kul/kole (every/holds back); eon/awun (aeon/ hostelry: the “blasphemy” referred to may be Gnosticism, with its language of aeons); iʚidoyo/aʚo (only-begotten/brother); ʚeble/ʚbolo (birthpangs/corruption); maynqo/qenyone (gives suck/possessions); and there are others I have not marked. Note how the section is rounded by a return to “goodness” and “every mouth.”

104

Andrew Palmer Goodness has touched the mouths which insult your divinity; your creative power makes them into lyres, sounding to the glory of your name. This is why it is true that “every mouth shall give glory” to the One who holds back from it any word of blasphemy. Yours is the glory because he migrated from one aeon and nested in another, in order that He might come to us and make us a hostelry for the One who sent Him. The Only-Begotten migrated from the sphere of Existence and nested in a uterus unopened, so that a body-birth might render the Brotherless a brother to the many. He migrated from Sheol and nested in the Kingdom, so as to open the way from the place which cheats all mortals into that which rewards each person. Our Lord gave mortals his Resurrection as a guarantee that He would remove them from Sheol, which takes in dead people without distinction, and take them to the Kingdom, which allows invited guests to enter with discrimination, so that they might go from one womb, in which the bodies of all people become indistinguishable, into another womb, in which each person is distinguished from others by the efforts they have made. This is the One who went down into Sheol and came up again, so as to take us out of a mother with fruitless pangs and a rotting brood and bring us into another full of good things, who gives suck to the community she harbours, those who have used possessions, our passing posies and our blossoms in this place, to crown and bedeck for themselves in that place thatched shelters which do not pass away.

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

105

That Firstborn who was born first according to his nature was born again in a way foreign to his nature, and all for our sake, that we might know that after our own natural birth we actually need to be born again in a way foreign to our nature; for He is spiritual and until He reached the point of body-birth He was not able to be bodily; and so it is with the bodily as well: unless they are born again they are incapable of being spiritual. So the Son, the manner of whose generation is unintelligible, was born again in a manner which is intelligible, that we might learn by the one that his greatness is limitless and recognize by the other that his goodness is immeasurable. That his greatness is immeasurably great is evident from his first birth, which cannot be conceived by any created intelligence; and that his goodness is limitless is evident from his second birth, which, as we have seen, is proclaimed by every mouth.

3. This Teaching-Song on the Nativity would have been sung from a permanent wooden platform in the centre of the nave (the bema). The performance of a teaching-song must have been a highpoint in the drama of what happened in church. It would have been a feast for the ears and for the eyes and through them, also, for the mind and for the heart. Here the singer (perhaps a woman) appears in the character of Mary. Like several of Ephraim’s songs, this composition is risqué: the theme is incest, underlined by a direct reference to the story of Tamar (there is another incestuous woman of this name in the Bible) and the myth of Myrrha, who consummated a sexual passion for her father and was changed into the bush from which myrrh is produced, as told most recently in the late Ted Hughes’s Tales from Ovid (London, 1997). Mary’s name is not unlike that of Myrrha. She was fructified by her “father,” David, with the “seed” injected into all prophecy—by which all

106

Andrew Palmer

prophecy is made fragrant—by her Son. The parallel between mouth and womb, word and child (also found in the passage quoted from the Gospel Commentary) suggests bold sexual parallels for the tongue and for the will which excites it. Ephraim seems to anticipate criticism by making Mary say: “Your praise within my mouth is strange, unheard-of, new.” The Syriac word “ʚa(d)tho” is here translated three times, to bring out all its meanings. The translation keeps the metre (isosyllabic, rather than iambic, in the original): (4 + 4 + 4) + ((4 + 4) + (4 + 4)) + (4 + 4 + 4). The response, after each stanza, was: “To You, and through You, to your Sire, we offer praise!” With You I’ll start and so, I trust, with You will end! I’ll open wide: You fill my mouth! I’ll be the earth: You drive the plough! You sowed Yourself inside my womb: sow now your Voice! Unsullied and of noble blood, the Hebrew girls are all amazed at me. Because of You, a lowborn girl is now the envy of them all. But who gave You to me? What dragged You down to us, to Joseph and to me— a needy pair? Well-born, You scorned the well-to-do, despised their wombs. Your traders bring their load of gold to us, the poor! (She sees the gifts the Magi bring and swells with songs!) Your worshippers surround me. Look! Your presents lie around me. Look! Your Mother is your sounding box; You pluck her strings! The lyre must face its Lord: my mouth is facing You. My tongue, by your volition, stirs! Your foetus stirred within my womb. Your praise within my mouth is strange, unheard-of, new! To You what’s hard is easy. If my womb conceived without the help of sex—gave birth without the help of seed—to You, what’s hard about a fruit which swells inside the mouth?

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian

107

I’m victimised. I’m wronged. And yet, I’m happy still. Though all I hear’s abuse, to endure these taunts is no great thing to me. One word from You makes all my tears evaporate! My honour’s not impugned by You, so I walk tall. I stand accused, but I have borne the truest Judge! If Tamar won with Judah’s pledge, I, all the more, shall win with yours! Your father sang a psalm to You before You came. In naked truth, he sang that men would offer gold from Sheba’s land. It’s happened: look! A pile of gold! A bowl of myrrh! One hundred psalms—and fifty more—he sang. And all are seasoned with your salt. All words of prophets need your sweetening. All insights would be tasteless, were it not for You.

4. If Ephraim did write the Epic of Joseph, he intended it for an audience of ordinary people. The style is not as demanding as that of the mimre (let alone the madroshe) on faith; but it is not unlike that of the mimre on Nicomedia or those on the repentance of the Ninevites. It may have been written while Ephraim was still developing his skills, or else by Balai after all; the syntax and the logic of its progression from one image to another are not so polished as those of Ephraim’s maturity. For example, the transition to gold in line 19 is very sudden, though implicitly prepared by the antithetical corruptibility of stone; and the change from simile to antithesis in line 24 is not accompanied by an antithetical particle, as in my translation. Lines 24 and 25, when literally rendered, are perhaps a little clumsy: “Gold gathers harms, but the just man gathers successes. / The sins of gold are many; the labours of the good are rich.” There are not so many plays on words as we are accustomed to from Ephraim’s other works, although there is one on šuro, “wall,” and šwar, “leapt.” Some usages, like the plural hawnay, “my wits,” may be foreign to Ephraim; but this would need to be shown. The following represents the preface of the epic, as preserved on fol. 103 (recto and verso) of the oldest manuscript, Add. 12,166 (sixth century), which attributes it to Balai. Let the reader judge!

108

Andrew Palmer Envy does evil things to envious men; the man who’s envied, though, is quite immune. To envy is to lower what one is; to suffer envy is to win a crown. For envy is an arrow, harshly barbed, which kills the one who causes it to fly. His arrow twists against him in his hand; his own deceitfulness will ruin him. The sower reaps the fruit of what he sows; his fields produce exactly what he gives. His seed will bring him sorrow if it’s bad, for bad will be the harvest that he gets. If weeds are what he buries in the ground, then brambles will be all the farmer’s crop; But where he broadcasts wheat that’s sifted clean, there noble sheaves will stand at harvest-time. The evil get what they deserve—a loss— from their deceits and envy-driven plots. The envied get what they deserve, as well: a gain, because their Lord stands up for them. Joseph will illustrate the truth of this; his brothers teach by their example, too. The envied one was raised up very high; the envious ones were brought down very low. The Land of Canaan saw how Jacob’s sons, with no good reason, hated Rachel’s boy. Their brother’s dreams were wings on which he soared, but they spread out their tricks to cage that bird. They buried traps to capture that gazelle, but he, light-footed, severed all their ropes. They were demeaned, diminished by their ploys; the antelope thought little of their nets. To bar the way he ran, they built a wall; he jumped that wicked fence and cleared it well. A salty moisture ate away the stones which envious men had built to trap their deer. If you have gold without impurities, you’ll not prevent its going through the fire; Neither did God protect his righteous one from undergoing terrible ordeals. By passing through the furnace gold is known to be as pure and lovely as it looks;

5

10

15

20

The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian Adverse conditions, likewise, prove the slave as true and law-abiding as he seems. But gold attracts all kinds of harm, as sure as upright character attracts success; The sins of gold are numberless, whereas the efforts of the good are very rich. Gold is acceptable to human beings, because it’s sweet; and yet, it chokes the mind. The upright man’s acceptable to God, because he teaches God’s will here on earth. Now Joseph loved his God, so who on earth would have no love for Joseph in return? Compared with one true man, how good is gold? His purity outweighs frivolity. Nobility is buried in his tale; his company is honey to the tongue. The thought of him gives pleasure to the mind; a reservoir of wealth lies buried there. O Good One! You that cherished Jacob’s son! Grant me the grace to tell his exploits now! I do believe your door is open wide because I want to approach your servant’s tale. Oh make my mouth a pathway for his songs and make my tongue a highway for his tales! Oh let my lips be clashing castanets for odes in honour of him, the champion! The house of my intelligence is yours to fill with praises of your favourite. Open my wits like pipes in which You blow, that I may celebrate your family! You stamped your character on Joseph’s own, so grant me grace to tell of his success! You found him worthy of typifying You, so let us both be enlarged by knowing You! Your justice did not cheat him of his prize, so let your goodness not let me go short! He was your friend, and intimate with You. So, for your friendship’s sake, let me be, too!

109 25

30

35

40

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1, 111–129 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

“MAKING CHURCH OF ENGLAND POETICAL” EPHRAIM AND THE OXFORD MOVEMENT GEOFFREY ROWELL BISHOP OF BASINGSTOKE BISHOPSWOOD END, KINGSWOOD RISE ENGLAND [1]

In 1966 Donald Allchin gave a paper at an Oxford symposium entitled “The theological vision of the Oxford Movement,” in which he explored the important unpublished series of lectures by Pusey dating from 1836, entitled “On Types & Prophecies.” A footnote to the published volume of the conference papers acknowledges with gratitude Robert Murray’s comment about the Semitic quality of Pusey’s thought, suggesting that it was reminiscent of the Syrian Fathers, even more than the Greek. Allchin notes there that Father R. M. Benson, a close disciple of Pusey and the founder of the The Society of St. John the Evangelist (“the Cowley Fathers”), the first religious community for men in the Church of England, was also a theologian who “was first of all a Hebraist, and then a patristic scholar.” This same footnote contains the words: “The possibility of a direct influence of St. Ephrem the Syrian on Pusey would be worth investigating.” 1 This might be regarded as the starting-point for the present paper. 1 A. M. Allchin, “The theological vision of the Oxford Movement,” in J. Coulson and A.M. Allchin (eds.), The Rediscovery of Newman: An Oxford Symposium, (London, 1967) 50–75, p. 69, note 1.

111

112 [2]

[3]

[4]

Geoffrey Rowell

The title, “Making the Church of England poetical,” is an allusion to a comment of Newman’s that Keble “did for the Church of England what none but a poet could do, he made it poetical.” Many years ago, John Coulson drew attention to the literary character and context of so much of Oxford Movement writing, and to the way in which Newman in particular continues the “fiduciary response to language” (contrasted with the analytic, Cartesian response) that had found a particularly important exponent in Coleridge—Coleridge who was himself a poet, and who had decried as one of the miseries of the present age that it knew no medium between the literal and the metaphorical. In religion, as in poetry, Coulson comments, “we are required to make a complex act of inference and assent, and we begin by taking on trust expressions which are usually in analogical, metaphorical, or symbolic form, and by acting out the claims they make: understanding religious language is a function of understanding poetic language.” 2 So one of the links between the Oxford Movement and Ephraim is the strong stress in both on the positive relationship between poetry and theology. It is no accident that Keble, Newman and Isaac Williams were all poets; or that Keble’s earliest and most famous work is The Christian Year (1827), the whole purpose of which is to set out in poetry some of the major themes of the Christian festivals and services. Later, as Professor of Poetry at Oxford, Keble made a major contribution to critical theory in his Lectures on Poetry. 3 These include significant comment on prophecy and poetry, and the relation between religion and poetry. If we turn to the more specific links between the Oxford Movement divines and the Syriac tradition, our attention must first be given to Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800–82). Pusey was appointed in 1828, at the extraordinarily young age of 28, to the Regius Chair of Hebrew at Oxford, following the early death of the Arabist, Alexander Nicoll, who had begun the catalogue (completed by Pusey) of the Arabic manuscripts in the Bodleian. Three years earlier, in 1825, Pusey had visited Germany, making the acquaintance, at Göttingen and Berlin, of a number of German 2 J. Coulson, Newman and the Common Tradition: A Study in the Language of Church and Society (Oxford, 1970) 4. 3 J. Keble, Praelectiones Academicae (Oxford, 1844); English translation by E.K. Francis: J. Keble, Lectures on Poetry, 1832–1841 (Oxford, 1912).

“Making Church of England Poetical”

[5]

113

theologians—D.J. Pott and J.G. Eichhorn at Göttingen, and at Berlin Schleiermacher, Friedrich Tholuck (who was to become a close friend and correspondent) and Ernst Hengstenberg the founder of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung). It was on this first visit that Pusey realised with horror the power of the dissolving acids of German rationalist theology. He wrote: “I can remember the room in Göttingen in which I was sitting when the real conditions of religious thought in Germany flashed upon me. “This will all come upon us in England; and how utterly unprepared for it we are!” From that time I determined to devote myself more earnestly to the Old Testament, as the field in which Rationalism seemed to be most successful. 4 The Old Testament meant Hebrew, and Hebrew scholarship required a knowledge of other Oriental languages. So Pusey returned to Germany in June 1826, having first sounded out Tholuck, through an American friend, H.E. Dwight (whom he had met on his previous visit) as to where he might find instruction in Syriac. When he reached Berlin, he stayed at Schönhausen, where his Oxford friend, R.W. Jelf, was tutor to Prince George of Hannover, and began the study of Syriac with Hengstenberg; at the same time he began work on Arabic. In September he moved north to the Baltic coast to study with Professor J.G.L. Kosegarten at Greifswald, spending most of his time on Arabic, but reading with Kosegarten the Syriac historian, Bar Hebraeus. At the end of this intensive year of study Pusey returned to England, already (in David Forrester’s words) a Semitic scholar of a very high order. The fruit of that is seen, as far as the theme of Ephraim is concerned, in the references to and quotations from Ephraim and other Syrian fathers alongside the citations of the Greek and Latin Fathers in Pusey’s more learned sermons, for example the famous “condemned sermon’ on the eucharistic presence. In that sermon Ephraim is called as a witness to speaking of the Eucharist as spiritual “fire.” He follows Ephraim in interpreting Genesis 49:11 as a type of Christ “washing the garments” of His Humanity “with” the “Wine” of His Blood. 5 Pusey appeals to Ephraim as his authority for speaking of the Eucharist as the coal of fire from the 4 H.P. Liddon, Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey, 4 vols. (London, 1893–7) vol. I, 77. 5 E.B. Pusey, The Holy Eucharist, a Comfort to the Penitent (Oxford, 1843) 22: the reference is to Jacob’s blessing of Judah, who washes his coat in wine, his cloak in the blood of the grape.

114

Geoffrey Rowell

altar which cleansed the lips of Isaiah, 6 declaring to him the 6 [The reference, both in the sermon of 1843 and in that of 1853, is to the madroshe on faith (which at that time Pusey’s colleague John Brande Morris-on whom more below-was translating from the Roman edition for the Library of the Fathers—the volume was published in 1847, with a Preface by Pusey), especially 10:7–18, which may be freely translated as follows: Lord, your robe’s the well from which our healing flows. Just behind this outer layer hides your power. Spittle from your mouth creates a miracle of light within its clay. In your bread there blows what no mouth can devour. In your wine there smoulders what no lips can drink. Gale and Blaze in bread and wine: unparalleled the miracle we taste. Coming down to earth, where human beings die, God created these anew, like Wide-eyed Ones, mingling Blaze and Gale and making these the mystic content of their dust. Did the Seraph’s fingers touch the white-hot coal? Did the Prophet’s mouth do more than touch the same? No, they grasped it not and he consumed it not. To us are granted both. Abram offered body-food to spirit-guests. Angels swallowed meat. The newest proof of power is that bodies eat and drink the Fire and Wind provided by our Lord. Fire came down in anger, eating sinful men. Fire came down, compassionate, and dwelt in bread. Not a sinner-eating, but a life-restoring Fire is what you ate. Fire came down and ate Elijah’s sacrifice; Mercy’s Fire became a sacrifice for life: offering consumed by Fire, then Fire consumed in offering by us. Who has curled his fingers tight around the wind? Solomon, look at what your father’s Lord has made: in the mould of followers’ hands a counternatural cast of Gale and Blaze!

“Making Church of England Poetical”

115

remission of sin. Pusey continues: “But by these things is moreover described and pre-typified the participation of our blessings, the remission of sins through the Body and Blood of the Lord.” This link between the eucharistic elements to the cleansing fire of Isaiah was one of the points objected to by the University authorities in their condemnation of Pusey’s sermon. In a later sermon Pusey returns to the theme, quoting extensively from Ephraim: S. Ephrem often speaks of our Lord’s Presence, under the image of “fire in the bread.” In Thy visible vesture there dwelleth hidden power.” “In Thy Bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten. In Thy Wine there dwelleth the Fire that cannot be drunk. Instead of that fire which devoured men, ye eat the fire in Bread and are quickened.” “In the Bread and the Cup are fire and the Holy Ghost.” “We have eaten Thee, we have drunken Thee, not that we shall make Thee fail, but that we might have life in Thee.” “Thy garment

Who, you asked, has netted water, using cloth? See the Wellspring hemmed in Mary’s covering! From the cup beneath the veil your female servants take the sop of life. Present in the altar’s shawl, a Power hides. Even thought has never netted such a Force. Love, to bridge the gulf, descends and hovers in the apse above the shawl. Gale and Blaze within the womb which gave you birth; Gale and Blaze within the river where you bathed; Gale and Blaze within our font; in bread and chalice Holy Gale and Blaze. Your bread crushes jaws which made of dust their bread. Your cup swallows greedy death, which gulps us down. Not to make You fail have we consumed You, but to live through You, my Lord. On this subject, see now P. Yousif, L’Eucharistie chez S. Éphrem de Nisibe (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 224; Rome, 1984): Notes between square brackets are by Andrew Palmer, to whom I am obliged, not only for editing this paper, but also for updating the references to Ephraim and for supplying his own renderings of the passages referred to.]

116

Geoffrey Rowell covered Thy feebler nature: the bread covereth the fire which dwells therein.” 7

[6]

Christ gives himself in the sacrament in such a way that—Pusey again cites Ephraim—He mingles His Body in our body, and blends His Spirit with ours. 8 In yet another University Sermon on the Eucharist, Pusey notes that the words of Institution were spoken in Syriac [Aramaic]. Referring to Nicholas Wiseman, he notes—against an earlier position maintained by George Horne—that Syriac is remarkably rich in terms meaning to signify, represent, or denote: 9 They are used in it far more frequently than in our Western languages, and in regard to this very doctrine, are used only to affirm that our Lord “said in truth, not in type, “This is my Body.” “ “If,” says Maruthas, a friend of St. Chrysostom and a framer of a Syriac Liturgy, “a perpetual participation of the Mysteries had not been given, whence should those who come after, know the redemption of Christ?—Besides, the faithful afterwards would have been defrauded of the E.B. Pusey, The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (Oxford, 1853) 40. [The references are to Madroshe on Faith 10:7, 8, 17, 18 (compare the version in note 6) and 19:3; 19:2–4 may be freely rendered as follows: Who deserves to touch the clothes, which hide your flesh? Who deserves to touch the flesh which hides his God? Double is the cloak You wear: a robe, a body—and the bread of life. Wonderful the changes in your covering! Dying is the body hidden by your clothes; dread the nature hidden by your body; fire is hidden by your bread. Mortal understanding cannot touch our Lord. Who possesses wind-made fingers, hands of fire? Thought itself is body in the eyes of Him who cannot be perceived.] 8 Pusey, The Presence of Christ, 62. 9 N.P.S. Wiseman (1802–65), the first Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, a Syriac scholar; George Home (1730–92), an old high Churchman who was President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and at the end of his life Dean of Canterbury and (briefly) Bishop of Norwich. 7

“Making Church of England Poetical”

117

Communion of the Body and Blood; but now, as often as we approach to the Body and Blood, and take It in our hands, we believe that we embrace the Body, and that we are of His Flesh and His Bones, as it is written. For Christ did not call It a type and a likeness, but that in truth, ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood’.”10

[7]

Pusey’s use of Ephraim in these eucharistic sermons is never isolated. It is always set in the context of catenae of quotations from the Fathers, and most often from the Greek Fathers, for it was to Cyril of Alexandria, above all, that Pusey looked for his eucharistic doctrine. A much lesser figure than Pusey in the history of the Oxford Movement, but significant in the context of our exploration of Ephraim’s influence on Oxford Movement theology, was John Brande Morris (1812–1880). Morris was a Fellow of Exeter College and a learned Hebraist. He and his friends were renowned in the University for “talking strong about the characteristic Oxford Movement concerns in Morris’s rooms in the gateway tower of Exeter.” Newman described Morris as “a most simple minded conscientious fellow—but as little possest of tact or common sense as he is great in other departments.” This was following a Michaelmas sermon, in which Morris, who acted as Newman’s curate at St. Mary’s and who had a monomania about fasting, had told the St Mary’s congregation in Newman’s absence, that, “it was a good thing, whereas Angels feasted on festivals, to make the brute creation fast on fast days.” Newman caustically commented: “May he (salvis ossibus suis) have a fasting horse the next time he goes steeple chasing.” 11 It is reminder of the dottier side of the Oxford Movement. The gossipy Tom Mozley, married to Newman’s sister, Jemima, wrote that Morris’s room was “a chaos of books, out of which rose three or four tall reading-stands, upon each of which were open folios in tiers, the upper resting on the lower.” 12

E.B. Pusey, This is My Body (Oxford, 1871) 18. G. Tracey (ed.), The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1978–95), vol. VII, 176; vols. 11–22 were earlier edited by C.S. Dessain (1961ff.). 12 T. Mozley, Reminiscences of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1882), vol. II, 10. 10 11

118 [8]

Geoffrey Rowell

Morris’s interest for us lies not, however, in his ideas on fasting, nor in his archetypal academic chaos, but in a long poem, which he published in 1842: Nature, a Parable, in seven books. Tom Mozley observed that “Quaint as it is, and difficult as it is occasionally, it was and is to me a very interesting book. Newman has always stood by it most resolutely, pronouncing it a beautiful poem.” 13 In the preface to his poem Morris writes that “the work was originally undertaken as a relief from engagements of a more laborious kind. It struck me that in all writers not of the very driest class, there are some things of an imaginative hue, and that I might therefore not disadvantageously employ my leisure hours in correcting and chastening whatever amount of imaginative tendencies I had in myself, by noticing things of the kind in the works of the Fathers’ (p. v). We should note Morris’s aim of correcting and chastening his imagination by reference to the Fathers. This is reminiscent of the preface to Keble’s Christian Year, which places a sober standard of feeling next to a sound rule of faith, as well as Keble’s conviction that poetry had a cathartic function (the full title of his Lectures on Poetry is De poeticae vi medica, “On the healing power of poetry”). Morris continues that he is concerned to explore typology, and has done so by almost exclusive reference to ancient rather than to modern works. Nonetheless he is clear that in treating of the typical meaning of Nature he is but continuing the argument and approach of Bishop Joseph Butler’s Analogy of Religion, a book which was greatly valued by Keble in particular and by the Oxford Movement in general, as giving philosophical and theological expression to the sacramental principle. “Assuming,” Morris writes, “that the Church system and the system of Nature proceed from the same Author, there arises, upon the principles of that great divine, an immediate probability that there will be a similarity in the two. Thus the cleansing, and refreshing, and invigorating powers of water, are analogous to correlative powers of Baptism.” (p. viii) Morris goes on: “The thing assumed in this book is that such analogies are not accidental, but

13 ibidem; J.B. Morris, Nature, a Parable: A Poem in Seven Books (London, 1842), with a quotation from Ephraim on the title-page: “Like is nature unto Scripture, / Like too are things within to things without” (= Madroshe on Faith 35:1).

“Making Church of England Poetical”

[10]

119

designed. 14 The Church system will clear up the meaning of Nature in the same way that Christianity clears up the meaning of Prophecy.” (ibid.) Morris believes that there is a given pattern, in type and antitype, which characterises the Christian imagination. But that this pattern deals entirely with truths flowing from the economy of salvation, through the Incarnation, and the other things which take place in time. Sacraments, miracles and natural symbols come under the legitimate domain of the imagination, but not truths relating to eternal and immutable things, the doctrine of the Trinity or the like. (p. xi) These are matters which in Aristotelian terms are the subjects of sophia, whereas the truths flowing from the economy of salvation come under the heading of phronesis, or moral judgement. 15 Morris’s poem explores the analogy of nature, the symbolic power of the created order, in much the same way as Keble’s poem for Septuagesima Sunday in The Christian Year (1827): There is a book who runs may read Which heavenly truth imparts And all the lore its scholars need Pure eyes and heavenly hearts. Two worlds are ours. “Tis only sin Forbids us to descry The mystic heaven and earth within Plain as the sea and sky. Thou who hast given me eyes to see And love this sight so fair, Give me a heart to find out Thee And read Thee everywhere.

It is the pure in heart who see God, and so can read the book of nature, the book of God’s creation, the world as sacrament, charged, as Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote, with the grandeur of God.

An argument that we also find in Pusey’s 1836 Lectures On Types & Prophecies. 15 Newman likewise gave an important role to phronesis in his concept of the illative sense in his exploration of faith and reason in the Grammar of Assent (cf. J.H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, ed. I.T. Ker [Oxford, 1985] 228–30). 14

120 [11]

Geoffrey Rowell

Morris speaks of first learning the language of nature from Wordsworth, and then refining and correcting it by the Fathers: Yet of a cheerful temperament possest, I learnt to foster seeds of quiet love For nature’s beauties, by good Wordsworth first Sown in me, which to water from the fount Of ancient Christian wisdom I design’d; Hoping, that what in him to disapprove I was not forward, by that sacred lore Might be amended; and with thoughts of one Whose oral teaching touch’d me deeper far With the unutterable thrill of gratitude. (I 171–80)

[12]

Morris likewise looks to discern anticipations of the Christian revelation in pagan thought and religious ceremonial—what Newman called the dispensation of paganism, for which he found support in Justin Martyr’s apologetic building on the logos spermatikos of Stoicism: Though in the heathen’s ceremonial Satanic foresight studded many a gem From Prophecy’s abundant treasury, Yet over this Another’s Foresight ruled. And turn’d these gems, on Gentile men bestow’d As meed for worship done him, to a glass Wherein, though shatter’d, shone the love of GOD To wiser hearts, expectant of a Light... (I 259–66)

[13]

Morris wished “to trace the lingering steps of Truth’ (I 273–4) in pagan thought, noting how Plato, “in each stone, / And tree, and glistening herb, and modest flower, / Beheld Eternal Thoughts” (I 382–4). “[A]re there not,” Morris asks, “on nature’s glowing page / Some things revealed for man to marvel at?” (I 439–40) In the same way as there are mysteries in the written word of Scripture (“the scroll of heavenly lore”), so, in each of nature “pages,” ‘There lies full many a root Which the small light in this estate vouchsafed May keep alive, which from the Well of Light In bright Eternity must watered be, And so unfold itself to man above,

“Making Church of England Poetical”

121

As in those courts he grows, for ever grows Towards the Infinity he cannot reach Which hides Itself the more it doth disclose The treasures of all Wisdom in Itself.” (I 443–51)

[14]

[15]

A footnote (on p. 43) refers to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., ii 28, para. 3) and to the words of Origen cited by Bishop Butler at the beginning of his Analogy of Religion (1736). 16 We might also note a link with Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of epektasis. But it is more important, in the context of this paper, to add that Morris’s note to this passage also refers to Ephraim (adv. Scrutat. iii.9) 17 where he speaks of the Angels progressing in knowledge. For Morris there is an askesis of knowledge; for him, as much as for John Keble—and both, as well as Ephraim, depend here on the Beatitudes—it is the pure in heart who shall see God. It is spiritual discipline which enables moral vision and insight; and this, in turn, enables the world to be seen as one in which “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Throughout Morris’s long poem there are numerous passages which draw on Ephraim (he is cited as often as Augustine in the notes) and we can only note a few here. In one passage, in which Morris reflects on the unity and dissonance of language, he has a reference to the Chinese philosopher, Lo-pie (itself an interesting S. Halifax (ed.), The Works of [...] Joseph Butler: The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature (London, 1828) 53. Butler comments, with emphasis (p. 53f.), that “he who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from him who is the Author of Nature, may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it, as are found in the constitution of Nature.” Butler goes on from this to argue for the analogy or likeness between that system of things and the dispensation of Providence, of which Experience together with Reason informs us, i.e. the known course of Nature. 17 [Compare Madroshe on Faith 5:3, which may be freely rendered as follows: Conceiving a desire to learn about the Son, the Angels put forward questions through their seniors. Those great ones read meanings in the way the Wind blows. Each Angel forms questions conforming to his rank. Among them all, there’s none who presumes to reach out above his own station.] 16

122

[16]

Geoffrey Rowell

indication of Morris’s range of reading), 18 who says “The voices of the beasts are everywhere the same; the song of the birds is as it was in the first ages; man then must have deviated from the oneness of his language, seeing that each kingdom has its own, each province has a peculiar way of expression. Nature is one, reason is one, the beautiful is one [to all], so strange a confusion (Unordnung) is only deducible from some still greater confusion.” Morris, following his purpose of finding anticipations of Revelation in “heathen’ writers, finds this a striking passage, and parallels with Ephraim’s comments on the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis, in which not only languages were confounded but the harmony of nature dislocated. In writing of the Trinity, he draws on Ephraim, who not only expounds the common patristic parallel of light to illustrate the relation of Father and Son, but also refers to heat as symbolic of the Spirit. Morris notes: “The mention, however, of Heat, as completing the type of the Everblessed Trinity, is less frequent, and has been adopted here from St. Ephrem, whose ascetic habits seem to have given him an accurate eye for nature’s mysteries” (p. 98) He refers to the following passage from Ephraim: “Behold the parable of the Sun, and it is the Father; of the Light, and it is the Son; and of the Heat, and it is the Holy Spirit [...] Who shall search out how and where His Ray is bounden? bounden and yet loose His Heat; though not separate, yet they are not confounded, distinct and mingled, bound and free. Mighty wonderment!” 19 I quote a section of Book Two, “The Greater Light,” to show how closely Morris follows Ephraim in his own poem: Hail, then, thou heavenly light, Who being light dost send forth light on me— light undivided from the father-light, And heat not separate from either two Therewith dost give! Oh! image wonderful, 18 Page 44: Morris knew this passage Lo-Pie in Windischman, Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte, vol. I, 224; Morris’s familiarity with Eastern religions and philosophy may be further seen in his Prize Essay for 1843 (An Essay Towards the Conversion of Learnèd and Philosophical Hindus [London, 1843]); the footnotes to this essay, dealing with the vedas and other Hindu writings, draw copiously and explicitly on Patristic Apologetic and make particular use of Ephraim (e.g. p. 201). 19 [Madroshe on Faith no. 73; cf. nos. 40, 74 and 75]

“Making Church of England Poetical”

123

That, weak and beggarly, dost still declare The Nature of the Holy Trinity Distinct in Persons, but in Nature one. The Sun gives light, is light, and giveth heat; The Sun is heat, and nothing from that heat Is hidden,—nothing by the Spirit of God Unsearch’d remains. And Christ is Light of Light; And whereso’er He cometh, with Him comes The Holy Warmth of the abiding Dove. For light and heat seem never uncombined ... (II 390–405)

[17]

Book Three of Morris’s poem, “The Stars and Light,” begins with an evocation of “The earliest light that shone upon the earth,” which “Was not the sun, the moon, or any star, / But one vast Ocean of unfetter’d light, / Created image of the Uncreate.” (III 1– 4) Again there is a reference to Ephraim (as also to the Hexaemeron of Basil): “Since, then, the primitive light was earliest created, it ministered with its brightness to three days ...” 20 There is a reference to Ephraim on Judges (modern scholarship would deny the attribution in the Roman edition of Ephraim’s works), concerning Gideon’s fleece, and the “battle with pitchers and torches” (p. 146f.), and another to his “discourse on the pearl,” where, Morris comments, Ephraim “appears to be comparing the cloud in the pearl to St. Mary.” 21 “It is,” he notes, “often very instructive to find traditions which at first sight appear questionable, confirmed by fresh evidence for them in a writer like St. Ephrem, whose language was for many centuries unknown to almost all writers in other parts of Holy Church” (p. 151).

20 21

[This is from the Commentary on Genesis] [Madroshe on Faith 81:4, which may be freely rendered as follows: I saw her now as Mary: pure, yet fertilised; as Church, with Christ inside her, like the pregnant cloud of prophecy; as heaven’s bright epiphany of coloured light.]

124 [18]

Geoffrey Rowell

Another reference, in Book Four, “The Waters and the Winds,” is to Ephraim on the sea: “The sea by the Cross was subjected to the unbelievers: for had the crucifiers not made a cross of wood, and hung upon it the sail in the likeness of the Body, the voyage would have halted. O bosom, pure type of our Redeemer’s Body, that with breath is filled! Though unbounded, yet it closed It in. By the Breath that dwelleth in the linen-cloth, live the bodies in which dwells the soul.” Morris comments: “No translation can do justice to this: in the Syriac, the word for Spirit and wind or breath is the same, and the spirit is contrasted with the soul, as in I Thessal. v. 23. The linen-cloth is so mentioned as to call to mind the powers of the Eucharist, to spiritually “preserve the body and soul unto everlasting life.” 22 In Morris’s own poem this is worked out in the following lines: Noise was none, Nor voice of crying heard from that still Voice Who was the Word, who in a manger born Amid dumb beasts, was silent in His Birth, And in His Death He open’d not His Mouth, Until upon the Cross His hallow’d Flesh Was spread as if a sail, wherein should be Collected, though unbound, the Eternal SPIRIT, Who by It moves the vessel of the Church Over the billows of this troublous world Unto the land of everlasting Life. And if its sailors use due heedfulness To things Saint Paul hath spoken, then they fight Not with the idle air, but with the spirits That walk the heaven unseen, [...] [...] for they too on the Cross Of suffering, spreading forth their fleshly limbs, In that sweet attitude expect the SPIRIT Within their bosom, blowing joyously And healing rents that lessen His abode Until they reach the port of Abraham, The haven where they would be, and the strand Whose trees with healing leaves and freshening scents 22 Page 200f. [The passage quoted is Madroshe on faith 18:9–10: Andrew Palmer.] The remaining three books of Morris’s poem are entitled: V The Trees and Green Things; VI All Beasts and Cattle; VII Man, in Soul and Body.

“Making Church of England Poetical”

125

Breathe, by that SPIRIT’S aid, a lasting might Of life immortalizing on their weary frame. (IV 911–25; 927–36)

[19]

[20]

Morris, although in some ways a curiosity—his extremism and eccentric ways earned him the nickname “Symeon Stylites” 23—was a major Syriac scholar. For a number of years he was one of Pusey’s assistant lecturers in Hebrew, and this must inevitably had led to some cross-fertilisation of ideas between them. Morris joined the Church of Rome in 1846, just before the publication of his translation of Ephraim’s “Rhythms” in the Library of the Fathers. He was ordained as a Roman Catholic in 1849 and became chaplain to various patrons. During his time at the Maryvale Seminary (Oscott) he found a fellow Syriac enthusiast in the President of the College, Nicholas Wiseman, formerly Rector of the Venerable English College in Rome, and after the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in 1851, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. Wiseman had a European reputation as a Syriac scholar from the time of the publication of his Horae Syriacae in 1827. In an article on Ephraim in the Catholic Magazine Wiseman wrote that he had at one time intended to extract from Ephraim’s anti-Gnostic writings the system of Gnostic doctrine taught by Bardesanes and Harmonius. 24 He had also corresponded with scholars such as Bunsen and Tholuck in Germany, and Bishop Thomas Burgess of Salisbury on this subject. It is to another Burgess that we must now turn, as providing further evidence of the study of Ephraim among the adherents of the Oxford Movement. Henry Burgess (1808–86)—no relation of Thomas Burgess—was a Nonconformist minister who joined the Church of England and was ordained in 1850. He held doctorates from Glasgow and Göttingen, and after a curacy in Blackburn was incumbent of parish in Buckinghamshire; for the last twenty-five years of his life he was Vicar of Whittelsea near Peterborough. I count him as an adherent of the Oxford Movement through his involvement with the translation of an ancient Syriac version of the Festal Letters of Athanasius for the Library of the Fathers, though as someone from a Nonconformist background who came into the Mozley, loc. cit., n. 12. Cardinal [N.P.S.] Wiseman, “On the Writings of St. Ephrem,” in Essays on Various Subjects, 6 vols. (New York, 1873) Vol. V, 316–24, p. 317. 23 24

126

[21]

[22]

Geoffrey Rowell

Church of England after the high-water mark of the Oxford phase of the Oxford Movement this is conceivably a misleading categorisation. His translation of selections from Ephraim won the plaudits of W.H. Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge and one of those in Cambridge who sympathised with the Oxford Movement. Mill wrote to Burgess on the publication of his translation: “I have long valued very highly the hymns of St. Ephraim, and am truly rejoiced to see that they are to be presented to the world in such a shape as to make others, besides the students of Syriac, acquainted with their singular beauty and excellence.” He added that Syriac literature was not only important for biblical philology, it also had such varied ecclesiastical treasures locked up in it. 25 In the same year,1853, Burgess published a second volume of translation: Ephraim’s metrical homily on the Mission of Jonah, The Repentance of Nineveh, with an Exhortation to Repentance, and some smaller pieces. It was published by subscription, the list of subscribers—Dr Pusey, Christopher Wordsworth, Brooke Foss Westcott and Archdeacon Wilberforce among them—being headed by Prince Albert and the King of Hanover. The book was dedicated to Prince Albert and to Austen H. Layard, as well as to the other members of the Society for Exploring the Ruins of Assyria and Babylon; “with the conviction that their labours will tend to confirm the truth of Divine Revelation.” A quotation from [Ps.-]Gregory of Nyssa is printed at the beginning: “Ephraim, the mental Euphrates of the Church, from whom the whole company of believers being watered, they produce a hundred-fold the fruit of faith—Ephraim, that fertile vine of God, putting forth the fruits of the sweet clusters of doctrine, and rejoicing the children of the church with the fulness of Divine love.” Burgess believed that Ephraim, because he was a poet, was well placed to be an introduction to the Fathers for ordinary folk. Ephraim’s writings, he suggested, “come home to the heart by their recognition of the events of every-day life, and by their constant reference to the joys and sorrows which are identified with our humanity [...] Over the whole there is spread the air of unaffected piety, caught from the divine models of the Holy Scriptures, and W.H. Mill, in H. Burgess, Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephraem Syrus (London, 1853). 25

“Making Church of England Poetical”

[23]

127

from intimate and daily communion with God.” Burgess’s introduction discusses the nature of the poem, and the sources he has used—Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis, Zingerle’s German translation, Adalbert Daniel’s Thesaurus Hymnologicus, and J.W. Etheridge’s 1846 account of The Syrian Churches, their Early History, Liturgies and Literature. Reference is also made to G.P. Badger’s The Nestorians and their Rituals. 26 Burgess’s translation indicates a continuing interest in Ephraim, and the growing availability of his works in English, but I do not propose to analyse Burgess’s notes on Ephraim’s poem. Instead, I turn in conclusion to one or two more general themes related to the way in which Ephraim’s writings, with their poetic, imaginative and symbolic character, were writings which had a particular resonance for the Oxford Movement. Alf Härdelin, in a fine study, has written that “the central doctrine of the Tractarians is undoubtedly the doctrine that the Church is to be understood as a visible society, having divinely empowered ministers, and having sacraments and rites which are the channels of life-giving grace. Underlying the sacramental system is the principle which the Tractarians usually call “the sacramental principle,” and which implies that God performs His works through the instrumentality of men and of material things which He makes the channels of grace in the economy of salvation. 27 Three elements, he suggests, determined Tractarian sacramentalism: the Romantic concept of nature; Bishop Butler’s sacramental principle; and the patristic doctrine of “Economy.” The Tractarians believed that the symbolic character of nature was no mere invention of the imaginative mind, but an objective quality inherent in creation, impressed upon it in order to give us “an index or token of the invisible.” Härdelin was the first to make use of Pusey’s unpublished “Lectures on Types & Prophecies” (1836) and he notes how Pusey says in these Lectures that nature speaks to the soul, not by reflection of the understanding, but by direct impression. Härdelin goes on: “The religious truths and meanings which nature expresses arise out of nature itself. Religious poets therefore recognize the symbolical character of nature as intimating what is true, and not only what is beautiful. It does not rest on H. Burgess, The Repentance of the Ninevites (London, 1853). A. Härdelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist (Uppsala, 1965) 60. 26 27

128

[24]

[25]

Geoffrey Rowell

subjective imagination but on objective reality.”(p. 63) As Pusey puts it: “Instances of this expressiveness of nature in conveying moral & religious truth will have been felt by every one; and they will have felt also, that these religious meanings were not arbitrarily affixed by their own minds, but that they arose out of & existed in, the things themselves.” Donald Allchin, commenting on Pusey’s Lectures in his 1966 Newman Conference paper, draws out five major themes: (1) clarity and immediate intelligibility are qualities dearly purchased in reflection on divine things; (2) God reveals himself in images which strike us forcibly almost in proportion to our inability to capture or define them fully; (3) everything in this world can be a type or symbol of heavenly realities, and the history of God’s dealings with his people foreshadows and is prophetic of his revelation of himself in Christ; (4) to try to make a rationally intelligible and complete system of God’s ways will inevitably lead to a narrowing and limiting of our apprehension of them. What we are dealing with is a theology of revelation that is at the same time a theology of mystery, a theology which is sacramental because it is incarnational. “It is not,” says Pusey, “the things which we know clearly, but the things which we know unclearly, (which) are our highest birthright.” And Newman reminds us in his Tract On the Introduction of Rationalistic Principles into Religion that to say that Christianity is a revelation is not to deny that it is also a mystery. “Pusey is sure,” comments Allchin, “that without an understanding of the essential role played by type and sacrament in the process of revelation, we shall be false to revelation itself, losing our awareness of it as gift from God, into which we are called to enter, and instead transforming it into a mere conceptual scheme of our own devising. The mystery is to be lived; in the light of God are we to see light.” 28 The imaginative, symbolic and poetic character of Ephraim’s theology thus commended itself to the Tractarians. The fusion in his writing of the Semitic and the Greek—prophecy, for the Tractarians, was closely allied to poetry—and his sacramental economy of revelation were deeply attractive. In his Tract, “On the Mysticism attributed to the Fathers,” John Keble has much to say about poetry. He suggests that Christ condescends to have a Poetry 28

A.M. Allchin, in the article referred to in note 1, p. 68.

“Making Church of England Poetical”

[26]

129

of His own, a set of holy and divine associations and meanings, wherewith it is His will to invest material things: “[T]he works of God in creation and providence, besides their immediate uses in this life, appeared to the old writers as so many intended tokens from the ALMIGHTY, to assure us of some spiritual fact or other, which it concerns us in some way to know. So far, therefore, they fulfilled at least half of the nature of sacraments [...] they were pledges to assure us of some spiritual thing, if they were not means to convey it to us. They were, in a very sufficient sense, Verba visibilia [‘visible words’].” 29 Scripture, Keble argues later in the Tract, gives a studied preference to poetical forms of thought and language as the channel of supernatural knowledge to mankind: “It was the ordained vehicle of revelation, until God Himself was made manifest in the flesh. And since the characteristic tendency of poetical minds is to make the world of sense, from beginning to end, symbolical of the absent and unseen, any instance of divine favour shewn to Poetry, any divine use of it in the training of God’s people, would seem, as far as it goes, to warrant that tendency; to set God’s seal upon it, and witness it as reasonable and true.” In 1839 Newman wrote to Pusey that he had heard that David Friedrich Strauss’s Life of Jesus was doing harm at Cambridge. “The only way to meet it is by your work on Types. I think so.” 30 The subjective, mythological reductionism of Strauss could only be met, Newman seems to suggest by a clearly worked out symbolic and sacramental theology. Pusey had attempted this in his “Lectures on Types & Prophecies.” But perhaps Ephraim had got there long before.

29 J. Keble, Tract LXXXIX “On the Mysticism attributed to the Early Fathers of the Church,” 148; the following quotation is on p. 185f. 30 Op. cit., note 11, vol. VII, p. 145 (Sept. 12, 1839).

PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS Recent Books on Syriac Topics (1997–1998) SEBASTIAN BROCK, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

[1]

The following list continues on from that provided in Hugoye 1:1. Once again, authors are listed alphabetically under each year. A few items from 1996, missing from the list in Hugoye 1:1, are also included here.

[2]

1996 Anikuzhikattil, M. Ecclesial Response to the Negativity in Human Life: Liturgy and Rite of Reconciliation among the St. Thomas Christians of India (OIRSO, Kottayam). Ducellier, A. Chrétiens d’Orient et Islam au Moyen Age, VIIe au XVe siècle (Paris: Colin). Poovanikkunnel, J. The Role of the Priest in the Celebration of the Holy Qurbana (OIRSI 187; Kottayam). Vergani, E. Efram il Siro. Le arpe del Signore (Magnano: Mond. di Bose). [H. de Virginitate 27–30].

[3]

1997 — . Die Sakramente der Heiligen Taufe und der Eheschliessung, das sakramentale Begräbnis der Toten nach der Ordnung der Syrisch-Orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochen (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). [Syriac-German]. ‘Abdmshiho Na’man Qarahbash. Dmo zliʚo: gunʚe w-sharbe maʚshone dashnay 1915–1918 (Ausburg: ADO). [ISBN 3-951358-01-1]. Aydin, H. Numan. Gedshe w-shabte d-Tur cAbdin (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). Bettiolo, P: Evagrio Pontico. Lo scrigno della sapienza: Lettera a Melania (Magnano/Biella: Mon. di Bose). [Translation from Syriac]. Brock, S.P. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho Series; Kottayam: SEERI). Cerbelaud, D. Ephrem le Syrien. Hymnes sur le jeune Spiritualité Orientale 69; Begrolles en Mauge: Abbaye de Bellefontaine). Desreumax, A. Codex Sinaiticus Zosimi Rescriptus (Histoire du texte biblique 3; Lausanne). [Christian Palestinian Aramaic texts]. Dolabani, F. Y. Shetesto 2. Herge gramatiqoye (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag).

131

132

Publications and Book Reviews

Edde, A-M., Micheau, F., Picard, C. Communautés chrétiennes en pays d’Islam du début du VIIe siècle au milieu du XIe siècle (Paris: Sedes). Glenthoj, J. Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers (4th to 6th centuries) (CSCO 567, Subsidia 95). Heinz, A. Syrer: Die unbekannten orientalischen Christen. Suryoye (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). Hoyland, R. Seeing Islam as others saw it: a survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam (Princeton: Darwin). [Including Syriac] Hunt, L.-A. The Mingana and Related Collections. A survey of illustrated Arabic, Greek, Eastern Christian, Persion, and Turkish manuscripts in the Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham (Birmingham: Selly Oak Colleges). [Including Syriac] Immerzeel, M. and Touma, A. Syrische Iconen—Syrian Icons: Collectie / Collection Antoine Touma (Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon). Mengozzi, A. Trattato di Sem e altri testi astrologici (Brescia: Paideia). Pro Oriente: Syriac Dialogue 2. Second Non-Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition (Vienna: Pro Oriente). Sabo, Hanna. Aramäische Namenslexikon. Personennamen nach Ursprung und Sinn erklärt/Mhadyono da-shmohe suryoye oromoye (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). Sader, Y. Painted Churches and Rock-Cut Chapels of Lebanon (Beirut: Dar Sader). Teule, H. and Wessels, A., eds. Oosterse christenen binnen de wereld van de Islam (Kampen: Kok). Velamparampil, C. The Celebration of the Liturgy of the Word in the SyroMalabar Qurbana. A biblico-theological analysis (OIRSI 194; Kottayam).

[4]

1998 — . Le monachisme syriaque, I. Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque V (Antelias: CERP). Aerts, W.J. and Kortekaas, G.A.A. Der Griechische und Lateinische Apocalypse des Pseudo Methodius. Die ältesten Ǫbersetzungen (CSCO 569–70, Subsidia 97–8). Alfeyev, Hilarion. Perbodobni Isaak Sirin. O bozhestvennikh tainakh I o dukhonovnoi zhizni (Moscow). [Russian translation of Part II of Isaac of Nineveh’s works]. Alfeyev, Hilarion. Mir Isaaka Sirina [The World of Isaac the Syrian] (Moscow). Brock, S.P., and Harvey, S.A. Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (updated edition with a new preface; Berkley: Univ. of California Press).

Publications and Book Reviews

133

Chaillot, C. The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East: A brief introduction to its life and spirituality (Geneva: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 1253 Vandoeuvres, Genève). Charlesworth, J.H. Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon, I (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Çiçek, Mor Julios, ed. Mor Basillios Shem’un (+ 1740), fushoq slutho d’Abun dbashmayo (Glane: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). Drijvers, H.J.W., and Healey, J.F. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Texts, translations and commentary (Leiden: Brill). Ebied, R., Van Roey, A., and Wickham, L. Petri Callinicensis Patriarche Antiocheni Tractatus Contra Damianum, III (Libri Tertii, Capita XX– XXXIV) (Corpus Christianorum, series Graeca 35; Turnhout: Brepols). Flesher, P.V.M., ed. Targum and Peshitta (Targum Studies 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press) [Review by K. Jenner in this issue]. Gordon, R.P. and Dirksen, P.B. Peshitta. The Old testament in Syriac. IV.2, Chronicles (Leiden: Brill). Lavennant, R., ed. Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256; Rome). Madey, J. The Hierarchy of the Churches of Syriac Tradition (OIRSI 204; Kottayam). Poovathanikunnel, J. The Sacraments: The Mystery Revealed (OIRSI 202; Kottayam). [Pro Oriente]: La tradition syriaque: deuxième recontre des Englises de tradition syriaque (= Istina 43; Chevetogne). [French translation of Syriac Dialogue 2; 1997]. Saley, R.J. The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in its underlying textual traditions (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 9; Leiden: Brill). Schöllgeb, G. Die Anfänge der Professioniesierung des Klerus und das kirchliche Amt in der Syrischen Didascalia (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 26: Münster). Tovey, P., ed. The Consecration of a Corespiscopa (Mar Koorilose Series 2; Kunnamkulam).

P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Peshitta. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, Number 165, Targum Studies, Volume Two, ISBN 07885044479, xx + 252 pages, Atlanta (Georgia), Scholars Press, 1998. KONRAD D. JENNER, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1] [2]

[3]

[4]

This volume was dedicated to Dr. M. Weitzman after his untimely death, in commemoration of his scholarship and friendship. In addition to the introduction, a select bibliography, and the indices, this book contains nine contributions by specialists in the field of Peshitta or Targum research. All contributions to this volume seek to investigate some kind of relationship between Peshitta and Targum, viz. how the Targum may or may not have influenced the Peshitta. The subjects are arranged in three major sections: “Explaining the Issues,” “The Pentateuch,” and “The Prophets and the Writings.” In each section the question of influence is studied from a specific viewpoint. In my opinion, the overall conclusion of the contributors is that the Peshitta is not directly dependent on the Targum, i.e. the Peshitta is not translated from a Targum. Both traditions seem to reflect the reception of the Old Testament in two different, but closely related, religious and cultural environments. As may appear from some critical remarks below, however, this might be only one side of the picture. The contributors failed to prove that, from the viewpoint of the historian, a direct relationship between the Targum and the Peshitta could never have existed. Therefore, the resulting picture is little else than a hypothesis, though an important and intriguing one. In the introduction (“Looking for Links in all the Wrong Places: Targum and Peshitta Relationships”), the editor of the volume, Paul Flesher, highlights clearly the major issues he found in each contribution. The first major section, “Explaining the Issues,” may be considered the basis of the whole book, since it presents a broad and thorough discussion of the state of affairs regarding the Peshitta from the viewpoint of textual history and criticism, as well as methodology. It would have increased the importance of this book, however, if a similar state of affairs with regard to the Targum could have been presented. The two contributions in this 134

Publications and Book Reviews

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

135

section are mutually related; though, in fact, Dirksen’s contribution presupposes that of Koster. In his search for some relationship between Peshitta and Targum, P.B. Dirksen takes as his starting point the “...comparison between the text of the Peshitta and that of the targums” (p. 4). In the same paragraph, Dirksen also refers to the “...actual Peshitta text...” Though he does not explain what he means by the terms, “Peshitta text” and “actual Peshitta text,” one might assume from his examples that he is referring to the text as given in the Leiden text edition, viz. “The Old Testament in Syriac.” Methodologically, Dirksen’s terminology gives the impression that he does not consider some aspects of the textual history and criticism, nor the reception of the Old Testament in the Syrian church, as relevant as I would prefer. The first problem is that the text of the Leiden edition is not an actual Peshitta text, let alone “the” Peshitta text. In 1974, for good reasons, the late P.A.H. de Boer, M.W. van Vliet, and this reviewer changed the editorial policy. The result of this change is that, with the exception of the first two fascicles, the text of the Leiden edition stands midway between a diplomatic and an eclectic text. The resulting text is equivalent to, but not identical with, M.D. Koster’s BTR (accepted in 1977 and in subsequent studies). Thus, due to the change in editorial policy, the running text of the Leiden edition is a reconstruction. Though mainly based on the evidence of the ancient biblical manuscripts up to and including the tenth century, this text cannot be found in any single biblical manuscript. The rules of the edition, however, enable scholars with an interest in textual criticism and textual history to reconstruct the text of the individual biblical manuscripts including those of the eleventh and twelfth century. The second problem is that the actual evidence of the running text and the BTR is usually based on no more than five complete ancient copies of the Old Testament in Syriac. Three of them are pandects, while the copies of the individual biblical books, drawn together, also result in two complete copies of the Old Testament Peshitta. For a very small number of biblical books one may add a few other individual manuscripts. This is the meagre and coincidental harvest of textual evidence as far as biblical manuscripts are concerned; it is hard to imagine that in such a vast

136

[9]

[10]

[11]

Publications and Book Reviews

area such a small number of copies would have been in use at the time in question. The third problem is that the scant textual evidence does not provide us with a uniform type of text. If Koster’s model of the development of the Peshitta text were historically indisputable, the BTR would still be only the “common denominator” of some four centuries. The fourth problem is whether or not the biblical manuscripts reflect a process of adaptation to the standards of the Syriac language (pace Koster). Indeed, all ancient Peshitta manuscripts, the fifth century ones included, give the strong impression that they are a studied reproduction of an older exemplar. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the diversity in the BTR is to be explained as a state of affairs in the period previous to that covered by the biblical manuscripts which survived only coincidentally. In the light of this observation one may question whether the BTR should be related to a historical-linguistic development of the Syriac language in a post-fifth-century period. Would it be beyond any discussion to explain this diversity as the result of the flexibility of the Peshitta text and its regional differentiation in the period before the sixth century? This would at least explain why sometimes a BTR variant already occurs in a pre-fifth-century Syriac Bible commentary. The fifth problem is that interpretation and translation techniques are a part of the broader phenomenon of the reception of the Old Testament in the Syrian church. Dirksen seems to pay too little attention to this aspect (p. 5). A good understanding of the process of reception requires a careful and extensive study of the early Syriac commentaries, as well as other theological and liturgical sources. This study might provide us with additional data and perhaps nuance the current opinions regarding the origin and status of the Peshitta. In other words, one should also focus the study of the interpretation and translation techniques on genuine Syriac sources. One may even argue that these sources may provide us with much deeper insight into the techniques of interpretation and translation as used by the Syrians than into any comparison of Targum and Peshitta. Anyhow, this comparison should be done from the broader perspective of the reception of the Old Testament. From this perspective, a study of the influence of, or interaction with, the Greek commentaries might not be lacking.

Publications and Book Reviews [12] [13]

[14]

137

In short, on the basis of the above reflections one may wonder whether it is still justifiable to speak of “the (actual) Peshitta” without any further specification. The reflections above do not imply any unappreciation of the present book, they only point to the risk of ambiguity when using terminology such as, “the Peshitta,” or “the actual Peshitta;” and in this respect, they invite caution and further precision. They also emphasize that the Leiden edition is not the final step, but only the first inevitable, and perhaps most decisive, step in the search for the origin and early establishment of the Old Testament Peshitta. The result of the present book is more or less a balanced picture of the relationship between “the Peshitta” and the Targums. This picture implies a refutation of the Old Testament Peshitta as a translated Targum. Yet, although the arguments for this refutation seem strong, they do not provide a proper explanation for the large number of terminological and exegetical similarities between the two textual traditions. The seven case studies in this book make it plausible, however, that “Peshitta” and Targums are two diverging, but nevertheless closely related Aramaic versions of an original Hebrew text. The divergences between the two, and the idiosyncrasies of each of them, are due to different editorial policies regarding exegesis, and the different religious interests of the intended audience.

Takamitsu Muraoka, Classical Syriac. A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1997, XXVI + 147 + 88* p., (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie 19), ISBN 3–44703890-X. JAN JOOSTEN, UNIVERSITE DES SCIENCES HUMAINES DE STRASBOURG

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Coming on the heels of his Classical Syriac for Hebraists (Wiesbaden 1987; reprint 1996), the present introduction, too, serves Muraoka’s objective of fostering a renewal of the study of Syriac grammar. The book contains an abstract of the grammar (pp. 1–89, with paradigms on pp. 101–17), a few pages of exercises (pp. 90–100), a bibliography prepared by S. P. Brock (pp. 124–47), a chresthomathy (pp. 3*–59*) and a glossary (pp. 62*–88*). I expect that a student who will have gone through the whole work, alone or with a teacher, will be able to take on almost any text written in Syriac. Brock’s bibliographical contribution will prove precious to advanced students and mature scholars as well. The grammatical exposition is aimed towards clarity and transparency. Words written in Syriac are often accompanied by a transcription so that the student can make sure that he pronounces the word correctly. Paragraphs are usually very short, containing only practical indications; linguistic theory is reduced to a minimum. Abundant examples, taken essentially from the Biblical versions, illustrate the exposition. The anthology contains a very nice choice of texts, each one followed by a selection of grammatical and philological notes. The texts are given in a chronological order not corresponding to their degree of difficulty. The book is nicely printed. Syriac texts are given in a very readable Estrangelo, with Nestorian vocalisation in the grammatical section. The anthology contains one text illustrating the Nestorian alphabet, and one in Serto. The following remarks, although critical, are not meant to detract from the value of Muraoka’s work. They should rather be viewed as a contribution to the ongoing research into the exciting field of Syriac grammar. First a few questions of detail may be mentioned: x

p. 62 The expression henon talmide in Mt. 14.19 does not express contrast but transition to a new subject (cf. other 138

Publications and Book Reviews

x

x x

x

[6]

139

examples of this construction in J. Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew [Leiden, 1996] 37). p. 65 1 Kg. 15.9 šadret, lit. “I have sent,” is an epistolary perfect and not a performative perfect (cf. D. Pardee, “The Epistolary Perfect in Hebrew Letters” BN 22 (1983), 34–40, with literature). p. 69 It is somewhat confusing to refer to (‚)ʚrinć “other’ as a quantifier. p. 84 The first two examples in § 105, al pagrayn šaliʞ ‚a(n)t (h)u “you are master of our bodies” and qadish ‚a(n)t (h)u “you are holy,” do not illustrate the pattern P—S—s, whatever the definition of Predicate and Subject. In these clauses the enclitic 3ms pronoun in its “focusing’ function (cf. § 110) is attached to the predicative nucleus as a whole. The clauses may be rendered “it is (true that) you are a master of our bodies (but you can’t do anything to our souls)’ etc. p. 84 The pattern S—P—s expresses contrast only when the S is a personal pronoun (as in the examples given); when the S is a noun, no contrastive function may be postulated (cf., e.g., Mt. 26.18 Sin. zabn(y) qarib (h)u “my time is near”).

Secondly, a more serious remark. It is deplorable that Muraoka has not seen fit to exploit a whole series of recent studies of Syriac syntax, in spite of the fact that most of them are listed in Brock’s bibliographical contribution (p. 126–30). In the following instances, at least, the information in Classical Syriac is less exact than what is contained in these studies: x x x

p. 65 For lć hwć to be translated as a Present in a negative clause, cf. J. Joosten, JAOS 112 (1992): 584–8. p. 68 The syntagm hwć qćʞel “indicates a wish, advice or obligation;” but the syntagm may also be used to refer to repeated action in the past, cf. J. Joosten, ZAH 5 (1992): 9–12. p. 77 The infinitive may mark its pronominal object either with a genitive or an accusative suffix; but in early texts accusative suffixes are vastly more common, cf. I. Avineri, Leshonenu 38 (1973/4): 223–4.

140 x x

[7]

[8]

Publications and Book Reviews p. 81 The tautological infinitive reinforces the verb or indicates the tone of insistence; for a superior analysis, cf. G. Goldenberg, IOS 1 (1971): 47–9, 54–7. p. 83–6 The theory of the so-called nominal clause falls short of what has been developed in G. Goldenberg, “On Syriac Sentence Structure,” in M. Sokoloff (ed.), Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition (Ramat Gan, 1983), 97–140 (for an abstract of Goldenberg, cf. Joosten, JAOS 112, 584–6).

Thirdly, throughout the grammar, Muraoka treats Syriac as a homogeneous whole. No effort is made to distinguish between what is regular and what is rare, between what is early and what is late, between what is genuine Syriac and what is calqued on Hebrew or Greek. Since so many of his examples are taken from Bible versions that are both early and translated, this seems a bit problematic. Thus on p. 81, Mt. 16.1 is referred to as an example of an asyndetic participle expressing an accompanying circumstance. It would have been more cautious to state that the construction is exceptional (for discussion, cf. Joosten, The Syriac Language, 132–3). Also, the epistolary perfect in 1 Kg. 15.9 mentioned above (with ref. to p. 65) may be due to literal translation from the Hebrew. As these reflections may show, Syriac grammar is not an open book. It is an exciting field of research where much remains to be done. Students wishing to participate in the debate, or even simply to follow it, will do well to choose the guidance of the present work in preparing themselves. As to one merely desirous to acquire a working knowledge of the language with a view to reading texts, likewise.

Der Ktaba d-Durrasa (Ktaba d-Ma’wata) des Elija von Anbar. Memra IIII. Edited and translated by Andreas Juckel, Leuven 1996 (=Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 226/227), LX and 414, LXXIV and 340 pages. HUBERT KAUFHOLD, LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN TRANSLATED BY: TAWNY HOLM, DEPAUW UNIVERSITY

[1]

[2]

Andreas Juckel has devoted himself for many years to a remarkable East Syriac theological didactic poem from the tenth century. With the two thick volumes indicated, he publishes the first three of ten Memre in Syriac text along with German translation, and presents the author and the work in detailed introductions. The “Book of the Study” of Elias of Anbar gained little attention in western scholarship until now. cAbdisho bar Brika mentions it in his catalogue of authors, and so it appears in Band III/1 of J.S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis (1725). The relevant histories of literature also take it into consideration. In Baumstark’s contribution (unfinished by him and carried on by Ruecker), “Die syrische Literatur,” in “Handbuch der Orientalistik” (Erste Abteilung, 3. Band: Semitistik, Leiden 1954), Ruecker mentions Elias only briefly on p. 190. In Baumstark’s hand-copied manuscript, which is no longer in print and is among his posthumous works (cf. R. Baumstark/H. Kaufhold, Anton Baumstarks wissenschaftliches Testament, in: Oriens Christianus 82, 1998, 1–52; here: 6f., 44 Ms. 30), Baumstark does not exceed that which he wrote already in his “Geschichte der syrischen Literatur,” which appeared in 1922. Since the publication has been discontinued, the passage should be quoted here: “‘Poetic’ form was used...above all by Bishop Elias of Anbar (§38a), and a certain Emmanuel, the ‘Vigilant’ [Syr. shaʘara] (§38b), first around 922/3 and 963 respectively, whose two large didactic poems, the ‘Book of the Study’ authored by the former while yet a deacon, and ‘the Centuries’ having a total inventory of 40,000 rhymed and quite varied heptameters, were in a position to unite secular learning of a realized theological content with the elaborate form of a structure from ten hundreds in a range of eight, to a range of 40 verses of ascending strophes.” The negligible interest in the work is explained not least by the fact that one has relied on the manuscripts, or, as the case may be, on the descriptions in manuscript catalogues, and only a few 141

142

[3]

[4]

Publications and Book Reviews

quotations appearing in print. (The passages named in Baumstark’s history of literature are to be completed with J.E. Manna, Morceaux choisis, Mosul 1901, Volume 2, 124–42.) Juckel corrected that for the first time with his Bonn Ph. D. dissertation of 1983 and produced a pioneering work, in which he critically edited the first Memra with translation and introduction. He gave a general overview in a paper at the 4th Symposium Syriacum in 1984 in Oosterhesselen; at the 5th Symposium Syriacum in Leuven in 1988, he reported on the “typology and angelology” (published in Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229 and 236 respectively). He dedicated a contribution on the angelology to his teacher C. Detlef G. Mueller, in connection with whose Festscrift (P.O. Scholz and R. Stempel [eds.], Nubien und Oriens Christianus, Koeln, 115–59), he also edited and translated the portion devoted to the angelic teaching (Memra 9, 1–20). That Juckel took up a good deal of his dissertation again in the present edition is no shortcoming, because the dissertation is only of limited access. The author otherwise in many respects exceeds his earlier work. As is customary in the volumes of the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, the introduction to the edition is about the basic text (pp. XI–LX), while the introduction to the translation tells us about the author and the content of the work (pp. XXII–LXXXIV). Both parts are distinguished by a thoroughness which is exemplary and which one seldom meets elsewhere. The author could have drawn on more manuscripts for his edition-especially one important one from Jerusalem-as they were available at the time of his dissertation. Since he himself travelled in the Orient, he was in the position to consider almost all known text witnesses. With the unknown it is scarcely possible to reckon. All available 19 manuscripts go back to an archetype, the most recent dating to the thirteenth century, and fall into two groups. Six manuscripts belong to an “older group,” among which is the bestnamely the Ms. Syr. 8 of the Greek-Orthodox patriarchy in Jerusalem from the year 1554, which previously belonged to the East Syrian monastery there. The majority of the manuscripts compose a “younger group,” and can be traced back to the copyist school of Alqosh. Two show a non-uniform text character. Excerpts are to be found in some additional manuscripts.

Publications and Book Reviews [5]

[6]

[7]

143

The author describes the manuscripts thoroughly, renders the essential passages of the scribal notes in text and translation, and bases his arrangement in the aforesaid groups and their possible dependences. Also considered are the excerpts that have appeared in print. Juckel then summarizes the transmission situation. The text of the edition is essentially based on the Jerusalem manuscript; the variants are of course noted, in so far as they go beyond orthography. Since the editions in CSCO are printed in estrangela, vocalization is lacking. The editor of the series should consider whether one ought to depart from this principle for texts of later Syriac authors, and use rather the West or East Syriac script. The reviewer can only say, that he finds nothing to find fault with in the introduction to the edition and also has nothing considerable to add! J.-M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, Beirut 1965, mentions on p. 366 an individual folio from the work in Tell Keph, written in 1699 by Yalda bar Daniel from Alqosh. On the town of Shak (cf. p. XXII), one could refer to J.-M. Fiey, Nisibe, Leuven 1977, 217f. or now to J.C.J. Sanders, Assyro-chaldese christenen in oostTurkije en Iran, Hernen 1997, 58 and map 1. The Metropolitan Joseph, the writer of the manuscript in question (1825), lived there, as it follows from Ms. Berlin or. fol. 3124 (cf. J. Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften, Wiesbaden 1963, No. 1, p. 2). He was evidently the East Syrian Bishop of Gazarta (cf. also J.-M. Fiey, Oriens Christianus Novus, Beirut 1993, 76; as evidenced by 1835, 1846), and is probably the same who was named as restorer for 1808 in an additional Berlin manuscript (E. Sachau, Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften, Berlin 1899, No. 31). I would interpret the name Lwys “Lewis” of the writer who copied 1956 (p. XXXII), rather as French “Louis.” The name Kaushaba (p. XL), I would transcribe as îausaba, because it comes from Hadbeshabba. The name Kaushaba there is probably to be written Karamles (Karmeles has not yet been used). In his second introduction Juckel compiles the scanty accounts of the life of Elias of Anbar. It is striking that Elias had to retract a false doctrine in 922/3, and yet was chosen as Patriarch in 937 (which he all the same could not become then on other grounds). Since we have no unbroken lists of the bishops of Anbar, it is probably not to be entirely excluded that the Elias of 922/3 was a predecessor of the same name as our author, especially since his work, which, according to the colophon of the Jerusalem

144

[8]

[9]

Publications and Book Reviews

manuscript, he wrote as bishop, offers no hint of the contested doctrine. Juckel next elucidates the perplexing external literary forms of the century. It is divided, or, as the case may be, subdivided, into 3 parts (pelgutć), 10 Memre, 30 centuries (ma‚utć), 3000 strophes (rešć), 10,000 sections (tarȨa) and 40,000 verses (petgćmć), whereupon the number of the centuries of memrć 1 to 10 were decreased and for that reason the number of sections were increased. Juckel is of the opinion that the organization into 10 Memre imitated the nine angel choruses extending around the chorus of the souls in the “Heavenly Hierarchy” of Dionysios Areopagite. I cannot conceal my skepticism with regard to whether Juckel can show throughout an influence from the Areopagite. At any rate, I have not found explicit indications for such a model in the three published Memre. Also, with regard to the contents I take this assumption—without knowledge of the complete work at any rate—not to be compelling. It could also be a matter therefore of an elaborately devised, purely external arrangement without symbolical meaning, yet Juckel himself writes on p. XXXV of the translation volume: “...neither the individual themes of angel choruses in the Memre, nor the century, are content-related organizational elements of the Memrć or the Pelguta. The transparent form is confronted with a disparate content, the individual strophe alone possesses a completeness of theme and content.” With the form so wellproportioned, especially also in consideration of the hundred-fold number of the centuries, an arrangement in 10 Memre appears entirely obvious. As for the rest of the “Heavenly Hierarchy,” it is treated especially with the ninth Memre as previously edited by the author, without any recognizable reference back to the whole. With regard to the contents, from Memrć to Memrć the text consists of steadily longer wisdom sayings and admonitions that are, for the most part, ordered without any particular relation to content. It probably revolves primarily around monks. This milieu becomes very clear, not least in those sayings contradictory to the political correctness of today, such as: “If you see on the way a lion who has taken a woman as prey, entreat that you might find such a prey of the lion every day.” (I/1/75; one finds several similar to it.) Yet the text is also ordered in lays involving pronouncements on wives and hereditary rights of children. Overall, the material appears to me to be disparate. Much is based on the Bible,

Publications and Book Reviews

[10]

145

nevertheless it is difficult to demonstrate that Elias did not make use of older sayings-collections. The scope of the work speaks against the idea that everything occurred to him on his own; admittedly, I am unable to name any particular source. The understanding of the text is not always so simple. Juckel gives some explanations and refers to biblical and other quotations in the footnotes to the translation. As far as one goes by them, they are surely matters of opinion. Thus, for example, in the passage: “The name ‘Abraham’ through its letters teaches us the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Faith and the Holy Baptism” (I/10/58), I would note that the beginning letters of these Syriac terms yield the name Abraham. Without any further information, however, the sentence is certainly not understandable to those who know no Syriac. In spite of the reminder, “The superficial reading is the same as a rotten doorpost, and it resembles an ear of grain, which gives no flour” (II/5/95/2), the reviewer cannot claim to have compared text and translation well enough. He is limited to a few spot checks. In some few places I understand the text somewhat differently. I/2/57: “Distribute among the sons the inheritance during one’s lifetime and before death, that they are not, instead of brothers and friends, become enemies and adversaries.” I would translate it more clearly with a certain nuance: “..., thereupon they not...become enemies and adversaries” (because they could not come to terms over the dividing of the estate after the death of the testator). II/1/68/1: “Place your account in the town before the time of the journey, so that, if your cargo falls on the way, the (business)partner not steal it from you” makes no proper sense. It is also not the question of a business partner (shawtćpć), but of shuptć “division/sharing.” In my opinion, it means: “..., thereupon, if your cargo (or participle: your bearer, your beast of burden?) falls on the way, no division meets you (because the beast can carry only a portion).” III/3/67/1 must allude to the parable of the entrusted talents (Matthew 25, 14ff. and parallels), so that it ought to be translated: “Hide not erudition for a convenient and advantageous time, that you perhaps not hear the creditor (here may be better literally: the lord of the debt), that he judge you on account of (unkept) tax (rebbitć).” (Juckel: “... the one who judges you on account of

146

[11]

[12]

Publications and Book Reviews

usury.”) In fact, the word “tax” (Syr. Rebbitć) appears in Mt. 25, 27 and/or Lk. 19, 23—this passage is conspicuously intended. The well-planned indices are extremely useful. Both volumes contain indices to their respective introductions. The text volume offers further indices of the Greek foreign and loan words (pp. 349–52) as well as Syriac terms (pp. 353–412!). They are as indispensible for the development of the contents as the index of Bible passages (pp. 276–84), Syriac and Greek writings (pp. 285f.), important topics (pp. 287–326), Old Testament topics and subjects (pp. 327–34) as well as the personal and geographical names (pp. 335–7) in the translation volume. All in all, both of the volumes leave no desire wanting. They offer a sure foundation for using the contents of the work, yet also the form of the centuries borrowed from Greek literature, whose last important and independent Syriac representative was Elias of Anbar. It is pleasing that this extensive work, which certainly even in the future will not stand in the center of scholarly interest, found such a thorough, careful, and well-informed editor. Hopefully, Juckel can soon produce the remaining two thirds of the work. In view of its great scope, one could well reiterate the entreaty representative of Elias in the “Book of the Study” at the close of several centuries: “Lord, guide me to the completion of the book.”

PROJECTS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS The Third Woodbrooke-Mingana Symposium on Arab Christianity and Islam Woodbrooke, Birmingham, UK, 7–9 September 1998 SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH, INSTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN ORIENTAL RESEARCH

[1]

[2]

The Third Woodbrooke-Mingana Symposium on Arab Christianity and Islam met at Woodbrooke, The Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, UK, from 7–9 September 1998. The convener of the symposium was Dr David Thomas of Selly Oak’s Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. The theme was “Arab Christianity in Bilad al-Sham in the pre-Ottoman Period.” A highlight of the event was a tour conducted by Mrs Meline Nielsen of the Mingana Room, in Selly Oak’s new Orchard Learning Resources Centre, where the important collection of Syriac and Arab Christian manuscripts are now stored. In the course of the scholarly sessions, the following papers were presented and discussed: Barbara Roggema, “A Christian Reading of the Qur’an: ththe Arabic Version of the Legend of Sergius-Bahira and its Use of Qur’an and Sira;” Samir K. Samir, “Muhammad as Seen by Timothy I (781–824) and some other Arab Christians;” Seta B. Dadoyan, “The Armenian Intermezzo in Bilad al-Sham: 10th to 12th Centuries;” Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, “The Caliph al-Ma’mun and the Christians according to Michael the Syrian;” Sidney H. Griffith, “‘Melkites,’ ‘Jacobites’ and the Christological Controversy in Arabic in Ninth Century Arabia: the Disputes of Theodore Abu Qurra and Habib ibn Khidma Abu Ra’ita;” Mark Swanson, “The Martyrdome of Abd al-Masih of Mount Sinai (Qays al-Ghassani).” Presentations were also made by Dr Lawrence I. Conrad of the Wellcome Institute, London, Professor Lucy-Anne Hunt of Manchester Metropolitan University, and Mr. Peter Starr of Cambridge University.

147

IVth World Syriac Conference St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI) Kottayam, Kerala, India, 6–12 September 1998. DAVID G.K. TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

[1]

[2]

[3]

Since the First World Syriac Conference in 1987 the Syriac conferences hosted by SEERI have rapidly established themselves as important and influential gatherings for syriacisants from around the world, and have gained a well deserved reputation not only for the quality both of the papers given and of the ensuing discussion, but also for the warm and generous welcome given to the participants. In all of these respects the Fourth World Syriac Conference managed to surpass the very high standards set in previous years. The growing importance of SEERI’s academic role both locally and internationally was clearly demonstrated in the opening session on the 6th of September when the conference participants were addressed by senior representatives of the main churches of Syriac origin in Kerala, by several international scholars, and by Professor V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai, the Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University. As many readers of Hugoye will know, the Mahatma Gandhi University now validates both the Ph.D. and MA degree programmes in Syriac provided by SEERI. Another sign of development and progress was the inauguration of SEERI’s new web site (http://www.keralaonline.com/seeri/) during the opening session. The serious work of the conference began on the Monday morning, with a truly stakhanovite timetable. On most days there were as many as seven papers before lunch, and six afterwards. By the end of the week seventy formal papers had been presented, of which approximately half were given by Indian scholars and half by scholars from abroad. (Many other scholars were present who did not formally present papers, but chaired sessions or were active in debate.) With twenty minutes allocated for the papers and ten minutes for discussion it will come as no surprise to hear that many of us overshot these limits. One positive consequence of this was that many passionate debates about matters Syriac took place over meals and glasses of tea. Indeed, this was often where one was asked the truly searching and revealing questions. 148

Projects and Conference Reports [4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

149

It would be impossible here to give a summary of each of the papers, and invidious to make a selection from them, so I will simply provide a survey of the topics covered. (Details of the participants and of the titles of their papers can be found on the SEERI web page mentioned above, although this has not yet been updated to reflect changes in the programme. The papers themselves are to be published in the next edition of The Harp.) Few areas of Syriac-related study were neglected, although papers dealing with liturgy and theology tended to dominate. Amongst the former were papers on the office and function of Readers; the liturgical commentary of George of Arbel; the East Syrian Malabar Breviary of 1862; Baptism in the Church of the East; “Mercy” in West Syrian liturgy; the feast of the Assumption in the Syriac tradition; the East Syrian liturgy of the Hours; the Great Lent; the development of the Melkite rite; iconographic inscriptions; the musical traditions of the East and West Syrian churches of Kerala; and many others. The theological sessions included papers on Theodosius of Alexandria; John of Mosul; Philoxenus of Mabbug; the Christology of Timothy I; the biography of Bar Hebraeus and his understanding of incarnation; Salvation in Jacob of Serugh; the polemics of Dionysios Bar Salibi; the Syriac versions of PseudoDenys the Areopagite and of Gregory Nazianzen; Trinitarian terminology in the Diatessaron commentary; and, of course, several papers on Ephrem, examining his poetry, his exegesis of the parables, his biblical hermeneutics, his idea of revelation as divine pedagogy, his interpretation of Christ as the second Adam, and his understanding of salvation history as a healing process. Amongst the historical papers were accounts of the Assyrian church in the twentieth century, and of the Assyro-Chaldean communities in Persia from the nineteenth century to the first world war; papers dealing with the engagement with Nestorian theology in the thirteenth century German court and later by Luther; the life and cult of Mar Qardagh; Shubhalmaran’s practical advice for monks; Mission in Central Asia; and the chronicle of Elias Bar Shinaya. There was also a good crop of papers dealing with the Syriac versions of the Scriptures. These included an examination of the Old Testament citations in the memre of Jacob of Serugh, and studies of the Peshitta Old Testament and its rivals; the Psalm

150

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Projects and Conference Reports

Commentary of Daniel of Salah; Jacob of Edessa’s exegesis of Genesis; symbols of authority in the Old Testament; and the New Testament canon. Several papers addressed ecumenical issues, and others engaged with linguistic matters such as the influence of Syriac on the vocabulary of the languages of South India, the revival of Classical Syriac as a living language, the future of Syriac lexicography, and the technical terminology of the Syriac Pharmacopoeia. Particular mention should, however, be made of a longer illustrated presentation given by Françoise Briquel Chatonnet and Jacob Thekeparampil concerning Syriac manuscripts and inscriptions in Kerala. This presentation drew upon several years of active research, which is to be fully published elsewhere, and emphasised, amongst other serious matters, the importance of Syriac inscriptions and manuscript colophons for our knowledge of the history of the Syrian churches in Kerala. It also provided the first serious discussion of the development of Syriac palaeography in Kerala, a subject that hitherto has been much neglected. (Incidentally, it might also be noticed that this research provides an excellent example of the fruits to be gained from academic collaboration between Indian scholars and their counterparts from abroad.) I have no doubt that in this crude summary of papers I will have forgotten to refer to several important contributions, and for this I ask pardon, but I hope that it provides at least some impression of the extraordinary range of topics discussed and of the breadth of expertise present at the conference. Harder to communicate is the overwhelmingly cheerful and friendly atmosphere of the conference. This was partly generated by the simple process of enthusiasts for Syriac culture coming together from all over the world and sharing their passionate enthusiasm with one another, but above all else it was due to the outstanding generosity and efficient organisation of Jacob Thekeparampil and his many colleagues. We wanted for nothing. By day we were fed wonderfully by the sisters, and by night we were entertained sumptuously by churches and Christian communities in the Kottayam region. After the conference the hospitality continued, with clergy and churches further afield, in Pampakuda, Trichur, Thozhiyur, Cochin, and elsewhere, inviting us

Projects and Conference Reports

[13]

[14]

151

into their homes and entertaining us regally. An abiding memory for all the participants in these evenings will be the sound of singing, for at times it seemed that at the drop of a hat both hosts and guests would burst into song! During these occasions we all learnt a great deal about the history and current concerns of our hosts, and many new friends were made. It is to be hoped that this too will lead to future co-operation and collaboration. One practical way of fostering this collaboration (if I may take this opportunity to advertise!) is membership of the Association of the Friends of SEERI: $29 supports their important work and gains substantial discounts off their publications, whereas $115 a year entitles the member to free copies of their publications and hospitality in India. For further details contact F. Briquel Chatonnet, 14, Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France. In summary, this was a highly stimulating conference that encouraged participants to work hard and then allowed them to play hard! All scholars interested in Syriac studies are strongly encouraged to take part in the next conference in four years time.

Second Symposium Syro-Arabicum HERMAN TEULE, UNIVERSITY OF NIJMEGEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

The second Symposium Syro-Arabicum (17–19 September 1998), successor of the first symposium held in Kaslik in September 1995, was organised by the CEDRAC, the formerly independent research institute in Christian Arabic Studies (Director: Fr. Samir Khalil Samir), which, now, has established more institutional links with the Université St. Joseph in Beirut. Father Selim Abou, rector of the USJ, opened the symposium, stressing the importance of Christian Arabic Studies especially from the point of view of their relevance for the present situation of the Christians in the Middle East. All sessions took place in the nice and quiet monastery of Sayyidat al-Bi’r, not far from the Lebanese capital. As a matter of fact, only a limited part of this congress was devoted to Syriac Studies, starting the first day with three contributions in the field of exegesis: A. Juckel, on the Harklean Version of the New Testament; M. Accad, about the Islamic context of the later Syriac Fathers when reinterpreting the New Testament, and A. Chahwan (already in the field of Christian Arabic Studies), with a study about the concept of Judaism in the Psalm Commentary of b. al-Tayyib. Funeral practices of the Maronites were discussed by R. Jabre Mouawad; H. Teule dealt with the ascetical work of John Nâqar (Edessa, 8th cent.), whereas P. Sfeir presented some of the Syriac mss. in the collection of the Library of Bkerké. L. Van Rompay discussed the Syriac inscriptions of the recently discovered wall-paintings in Dayr as-Suryân. And finally, the influence of Al-Ghazâlî on Bar Hebraeus’ Ethicon was the subject matter of Hanna Khadra’s contribution. The remaining conferences were devoted to Art (Wall paintings in Dayr as-Suryân by K. Innemee; Medieval frescos by N. Helou and the Melkite Iconographical School of Jerusalem by L. Hosri) and to many different aspects of Christian Arabic Literature. Of special interest for Syriac scholars are probably the contributions by S.M. Edris (Comparative Study between Johannes b. al-Macdani and Avicenna), S. Khalil Samir (the influence of al-Qiftî on the Mukhtasar Tarîkh ad-Duwal of Ibn al-cIbri) and S. Cabrol (The Anbârîs-s, a family of Nestorian kuttâb under the first Abbasids) 152

Projects and Conference Reports [4]

[5]

[6]

153

Among the other CA authors discussed during this conference, one should mention especially the Maronite Patriarch Estephan Duwayhî (1630–1704), with contributions about his theology, and his historiographical and theological writings. The interest in the work of Duwayhi resulted in the creation of a research group around the work of the Maronite Patriarch; Ray Jabre Mouawad will act as the first coordinator. One of the reasons for organizing a “Symposium SyroArabicum” in Lebanon, in addition to the already classical “Symposia Syriaca” followed, since 1980, by the “Conferences on Christian Arabic Studies” which took place in European countries, was the absence—for various reasons (financial, political...)—of Middle Eastern Scholars. This 2nd Symposium Syriacum was indeed an excellent occasion to meet Lebanese scholars working in various domains of CA and whose publications are not always easily accessible or known to western readers. Unfortunately, this time, the participation of western scholars was rather limited which made that this conference was almost the opposite of the Symposium Syriacum. Apparently, most western scholars preferred Birmingham or Kerala or were, who knows, somewhat tired of the increasing number of congresses. Our thanks are due to Father Samir Khalil Samir and his collaborators for the perfect organization of the congress and to Ray Moawad Jabre for the pleasant and interesting excursion to the Qaddisha Valley and the old Maronite Patriarchal See of Qannubin. The papers will be published in Parole de l’Orient. The next symposium will take place in in the year 2001.

FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES The New English Annotated Translation of the Syriac Bible (NEATSB) KONRAD D. JENNER, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

On the 4th and 5th February, 1999 a seminar on the preparation of the edition of the English translation and annotation of the Old Testament Peshitta will be hosted by the Peshitta Institute, Leiden. This edition in preparation will be authorized by the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT). The chairman of the seminar will be Dr. D.J. Lane. The seminar will begin on 4th February with an introduction by Drs. K.D. Jenner and A. van der Kooij. Papers on several aspects will be read by Drs. J. Joosten, D. Phillips, A. Salvesen, and M. Zipor. These papers will be reviewed by Drs. J. Dyk, P.S.F. van Keulen, D.J. Lane and T. Muraoka. Papers and reviews will be discussed informally. The aim of the seminar is to gain a clear insight into the kinds of problems that have to be tackled in this undertaking and to set out some basic guidelines for the general editorial policy. On 5th February, some drafts of translations and annotations will be discussed.

155

Redefining Christian Identity Christian Cultural Strategies since the Rise of Islam Groningen, The Netherlands, 7–11 April 1999 HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

From April 7 to 11, 1999, a symposium will take place at Groningen University (Groningen, The Netherlands). Its main theme concerns the ways in which the various Christian communities of the Middle East through the ages defined their identity in an predominantly Muslim environment. The symposium is jointly organized by the Universities of Leiden and Groningen. Please visit http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vginkel/ for more details.

156

Syriac Symposium III “Aramaic Heritage of Syria” Notre Dame, Indiana, 17–20 June 1999 JOSEPH P. AMAR, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

[1]

Syriac Symposium III will be held at the University of Notre Dame between June 17–20, 1999. For registration and housing reservations, please contact: Syriac Symposium III “Aramaic Heritage of Syria” Center for Continuing Education University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA Phone: (219) 631–7005 e-mail: [email protected]

[2]

Further information on the Symposium can be found on http://www.nd.edu:80/~col/syriac.html.

157

SyrCOM–99 Third International Forum on Syriac Computing Notre Dame, Indiana, 18 June 1999 GEORGE A. KIRAZ, MURRAY HILL, NEW JERSEY

[1]

[2]

[3]

The first forum in this series was held (in association with Syriac Symposium II) in 1995 at the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. The second forum was held (in association with VIIum SYMPOSIUM SYRIACUM) in 1996 at Uppsala University, Sweden. SyrCOM-99 will be held in association with SYRIAC SYMPOSIUM III at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. The aim of this series of forums is two-fold: firstly, to give academics and professionals who work on computational projects related to Syriac studies an opportunity to meet and share their work and experience; secondly, to provide scholars and computer users with presentations and talks which may be of help in practical applications such as word processing, fonts and other user-related software. Although the dead-line for submissions is over due, late submission may be entertained depending on time availability and the quality of submissions.

[4]

Reviewing Committee: Dr. Gary Anderson, Harvard University. Dr. James Coakley, Harvard University. Dr. George A. Kiraz, Bell-Labs, Lucent Technologies. Dr. Bonnie G. Stalls, ISI, University of Southern California.

[5]

Registration: SyrCOM–99 is part of Syriac Symposium III. All matters regarding registration and accomodation should be addressed to Syriac Symposium III. For all matters regarding SyrCOM–99, please contact (preferably by e-mail): Dr. George A. Kiraz (SyrCOM-99) Language Modeling Research Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Room 2D-446, 700 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Fax. +1 908 582 3306 (Attn. G. Kiraz) E-mail: [email protected]

158

Mar Michael the Syrian and the Historiography of the Medieval Near East 1–8 October 1999, Aleppo, Syria. GREGORIUS Y. IBRAHIM, SYRIAN ORTHODOX ARCHBISHOP OF ALEPPO

[1]

[2]

[3]

The Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aleppo is holding a series of events to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the death of Michael the Syrian (the Great), Patriarch of Antioch (1166–99), and the 100th anniversary of the beginning of J.B. Chabot’s Syriac edition and French translation of Michael’s Chronicle. The archdiocese’s Dar Mardin Publications has published an Arabic translation of the Chronicle and will be publishing in 1999 a facsimile edition of the unique Aleppo manuscript, brought by immigrants from Edessa in the 1920s. In conjunction with the launch of this publication, the archdiocese will convene an international symposium on “Mar Michael the Syrian and the Historiography of the Medieval Near East», to be held in Aleppo at St. Ephrem’s Cathedral on 1–8 October 1999. This is intended to provide a venue for in-depth consideration of the subject. Papers are allocated 50 minutes each. Contributions will be presented in English and should represent new original research that has not appeared elsewhere. A number of tours and visits to major historical and cultural sites relevant to the symposium theme will be organized. For more information, please contact: Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, P. O. Box 4194, Aleppo, Syria. Fax. 4642260.

159

Volume 2 1999 [2010]

Number 2

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.2, 163–16 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A SYRIAC LETTER ON PAPYRUS: P.BEROL.INV.8285 SEBASTIAN BROCK UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ORIENTAL INSTITUTE GREAT BRITAIN [1]

[2]

In a recent number of Archiv für Papyrusforschung, W.M. Brashear published an article entitled “Syriaca” (44, 1998, pp. 86–127, with plate XIII), in which among other things he provided a useful survey of Syriac papyri so far known; as the centre piece of his article, however, he provided the first publication of P.Berol. Inv. 8285, containing a private letter in Syriac, probably dating from the seventh century (pp. 96–100). In a number of places the transcription and partial translation that he gives can be improved upon, thanks to the provision of a photograph of the papyrus; accordingly, I offer here a new and more complete reading of the text, accompanied by a translation. Since it is probable that some further readings could in due course be extracted from the photograph and (above all) from a close examination of the papyrus itself, the present reading is simply intended as a preliminary aid to further work.

163

164

Sebastian Brock

TRANSCRIPTION [3]

(cross)

COMMENTS ON READINGS [4]

The script (upon which it is impracticable to comment further upon here) is a cursive ancestor of the literary serʞo. Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4

: : : :

Line 5–8 : Line 9 : Line 10 : Line 11 :

The first third of the line is broken off. hw: h is very unclear. hn‚: only alaph is certain. mʚ‚: only the left half of m and the first half of ʚ are visible. hkn‚: only the left half of h is visible (thus the letter could also be w); the k is rather flat, and so could also be read as b (thus ʞwbn‚ might be a possible reading, although there are no traces of ʞ). most of lines 5–8 are broken off. the right half of this line is broken off. Apart from a few letters in the middle of the line, only traces are visible. The suggested readings are very uncertain. lʚm’: only the left side of m is visible; the preceding two letters have only traces left.

A Syriac Letter on Papyrus

165

Line 12 : hwyt: it is insufficiently clear from the context whether this is intended as 1st or 2nd sing. (see translation). tnn: Brashear read lk, but while l and k are possible, there is a clear n between them. Line 14 : ʚws[rn]‚: ʚ (also read by Brashear) is far from clear.

TRANSLATION [5] ] to him love of brothers, it is a wall [ ] this is invincible armour: the arrow of the enemy [does not] strike it, and the lance of envy does not penetrate it. [The pro]phet thus praises it in the spirit, saying, 5 [How good and how fair for brothers wh]en they dwell together (Ps 133:1). (only the illegible ends of lines 6–8 are preserved) [ ] going to [ ] 10 [ ] but [ ] not their commandment, nor it is possible even to eat bread; *but you did not come and see* here [ ] you have authority to go to wherever you want, and not only at the [ti]me you did not come here, but (there was) not even a written (message). I have heard that there was [l]oss 15 to you. It is not in pride that I say this to you, for had he come here there would have been no loss to you. Now through him who comes inform me concerning your health. Our brother Papa greets you, and John son of Hormizd the priest, and Dositheos and the rest of the boys whom I have in the house. Be well, and pray for me.

*—* (lines 11–12): this could equally well be translated “otherwise I would have come and seen,” but the “here” in line 12 suggests that the verbs are 2nd person, not first.

CONCLUDING REMARK [6]

Owing to a misreading of À˜½Ä as Àƒ½î (“feast”), Brashear suggested a context for the letter in the conflict between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in Egypt. On the basis of the reading of the text suggested above, it would seem that instead we are dealing with some sort of community, where the writer of

166

Sebastian Brock

the letter is in a position of authority, and the addressee has failed to do something (or go somewhere) as bidden. If ¾ÙàÒ in line 18 is to be taken literally as “boys,” then perhaps the writer was in charge of a church (or monastery) school; but the term may well be just a colloquialism, “chaps.” Papa is best taken as a name of Persian origin, along with Hormizd; Egypt was of course in Persian hands for a period, during the third decade of the seventh century.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.2, 167–207 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

DEIR AL-SURIAN (EGYPT): ITS WALL-PAINTINGS, WALL-TEXTS, AND MANUSCRIPTS To the memory of Paul van Moorsel (d. 1 July 1999), our guide to the Wadi al-Natrun. In January 1999, an international team working under the auspices of Leiden University and the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo continued its work in Deir al-Surian in the Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). In the Church of the Virgin, work was resumed on the wall-paintings, while in the library, conservation work was carried out on the manuscripts. In this article, three of the people involved in this project give an account of recent developments and new insights.

I. THE WALL-PAINTINGS OF DEIR AL-SURIAN: NEW DISCOVERIES OF 1999 KAREL C. INNEMÉE UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS [1]

In 1991, during restoration work after a fire that severely damaged a painting in the western semi-dome of the church of the Virgin in Deir al-Surian (Egypt), an older painting, representing the Annunciation, was discovered. This discovery triggered off a lively 167

168

[2]

[3]

Karel C. Innemée

discussion among art historians concerning the date of the painting and the background of its maker. The number of questions surrounding this painting was one of the reasons to continue the investigations into its context, since there were indications that elsewhere in the church other paintings were present under the unpainted eighteenth century plaster and under the other paintings in the northern and southern semi-domes in the khurus of the church. Since 1995, when a first trial campaign was launched, not only have a number of paintings come to light, several inscriptions have also been found. These finds have indeed shed a new light on the history of the monastery and its church. Reports of previous campaigns have appeared in Hugoye vol. 1, nos. 1 and 2. During January 1999, work was continued in the southern part of the khurus and in the dome over this part of the building. 1 The present article is intended to be a preliminary report of this campaign. During the 1999 campaign a number of (fragments of) paintings discovered on the upper south wall of the khurus in the previous season were consolidated. In addition to this, most of the remaining eighteenth century plaster on the southern wall was removed, revealing a number of other paintings (Ill. 1) The removal of plaster also enabled the author to make a number of observations on the architecture of the church in its relation to the painted decoration.

1. STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PAINTINGS [4]

In the previous report one section was dedicated to the stratigraphy of the subsequent layers of painting [cf. Innemée 1998b, 2.]. The paintings discovered in the khurus are all on layers 1 and 2 and more details concerning these two layers have now emerged, allowing us to confirm a number of earlier preliminary conclusions. One of these conclusions was that the first two layers of painting were executed within a short span of time, that is between the middle of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century. The 1 The conservation team consisted of Ms. Ewa Parandowska, Mr. Cristobal Calaforra, Mr. Ashraf Nageh, Ms. Hanan Nairouz (restorers), Ms. Mariana Abd al-Shehid, Ms. Hoda Dahab and Mr. Ashraf Bushra Kamel (students at the Restoration Department of Minia University), and Dr. Karel Innemée (field-director).

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

[5]

169

paintings found on the first layer until January 1999 were of a very simple character, mainly crosses painted in orange-red ochre. During the last campaign other, more elaborate paintings were discovered on the same layer. One characteristic they share with the paintings previously discovered is that they are mainly ornamental in character. But it has now been established that the first layer also contains polychrome paintings. The arch that opens into the southern semi-dome was initially surrounded by an ornamental border, surmounted by a cross. This design of this border was painted in ochre and then finished in red, green, and yellow. Crosses higher on the wall were painted only in red ochre, suggesting that they were also intended to be finished in more than one color. Crosses that have been found on the second layer were of a similar design as those on the first layer. The design was painted in orange-red ochre and then elaborated in more colors. In the upper parts of the khurus, the first layer of painting was plastered over with a thin lime-plaster; on the lower walls only a very thin layer of limewash was applied before the second layer of painting was executed. In some places it looks as if the second layer of painting was done directly on the limewash of the first layer of plaster. This gives the impression that the first layer of painting was not yet finished when the plan for the decoration of the church was changed. In the higher parts of the khurus the paintings, both the finished and the unfinished, were plastered over. In the lower parts, the work had not yet proceeded far enough and whitewashing was apparently sufficient. In some parts it seems it was not even necessary to whitewash before the new decoration could be begun. The fact that the ornamental crosses on the second layer are so much similar to crosses on the first layer suggests that the decision for a change in plan was taken soon after the beginning of the first decoration. No paint samples have been analyzed so far, but it seems that the pigments and the medium in both layers are also the same. The second layer of painting must have been covered by Layer 4. This must have been done around the year 1200. The windows in the square zone under the dome were furnished with new tracings in gypsum and glass. Remains of these windows and the surrounding plaster are still in situ and in some other places patches of the plaster of Layer 4 have been found. Nothing can be said about paintings on this layer of plaster, since it was apparently

170

Karel C. Innemée

all removed before the replastering of the interior of the church in 1781/2.

2. NEWLY DISCOVERED PAINTINGS

Plan 1. Plan of the khurus. Numbers mark locations of paintings referred to in the following discussion. 2.1. Paintings on Layer 1 [6]

Around the arch that opens into the southern semi-dome, remains of an ornamental border were found. The first remains had already been found in 1998, but at that time it was not yet quite clear to which layer they belonged. After the complete removal of the eighteenth century plaster from the southern wall, it was revealed that they were part of the first layer of decoration. On either side of the arch the remains of a peacock and a cross encircled by a wreath were found (Ill. 2). Higher up on the wall only crosses in orangered ochre have been found where the plaster of Layer 2 was missing. These crosses were covered with the paintings of the Eunuch of Candace and the illustrations of the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Matthew [cf. Innemée 1998b, 3.5].

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

171

2.2. Paintings on Layer 2 2.2.1 The Dome

[7]

[8]

It has now been established beyond any doubt that the inside of the dome over the khurus was decorated with paintings. Of these paintings, however, very little remains as far as it is possible to judge so far. Only at the lower edges and around the windows are fragments recognizable. In the north-eastern part of the dome the composition contained two thrones, of which parts of the legs and armrests can be distinguished. On either side of each throne there were standing figures, of which only the feet, wearing sandals, remain. These figures were probably placed in a landscape, since we can see an undulating green and yellow background. These scanty remains have so far not permitted any interpretation. Less than half of the surface of the dome has been investigated and conserved and at the moment there is still the possibility that during a next campaign remains which will give us a clue towards an identification of the scene will be found. Below this representation, most probably running around the whole dome, there is Coptic text between two ornamental borders. The previous season a fragment of this text was found in the southern part of the dome and now another fragment in the northeastern part has been uncovered (Ill. 3, Ill. 4). The most recently discovered fragment mentions the names of Father (3$3$) Moses, higoumenos and oikonomos (of the monastery) and Father Aaron, 2 while the earlier fragments reads:»...This is in truth what the Lord has...” It is tempting to think that Moses and Aaron might be the same as “Moses and Aaron, priests and directors of the monastery,” mentioned in an undated colophon of a Syriac manuscript from Deir al-Surian. 3 However, these fragments still await more detailed study and the parts still covered by plaster need to be uncovered.

2 Dr. Jacques van der Vliet (Leiden) kindly helped us with the deciphering of the Coptic text. 3 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, 3 vols. (London, 1871) 2:668a.

172

Karel C. Innemée

2.2.2. Scenes in the Square under the Dome

[9]

[10]

During the previous season a number of scenes, depicting the conversion and the baptism of the eunuch of Candace and scenes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Matthew were discovered on the southern wall, to be exact in the square zone under the dome. In January 1999 remains of a number of paintings were found on the opposite (i.e., the northern) wall. Much less was preserved here and the state of preservation was problematical. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that these paintings fitted into the same iconographical program. Like those on the southern wall, the paintings on the northern wall were divided in two zones, one over the other. The wall at this level has two windows that are still kept as aperture, one in the middle and one in the east. A third window, the westernmost one has been walled up, like that on the southern wall. So far the remains of two scenes have been found, over and between the two open windows (Ill. 5). Over the middle window we see half a circle, which looks as if it is suspended from the upper border of the painting. Within this circle there is a schematic representation of a town against the background of a starry sky. Such half-circles in the upper parts of paintings are most often meant to represent the spheres of heaven, from which a hand of God or other divine interventions appear. A town within such a circle might therefore be intended as a representation of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Right of this there are the remains of a standing man with a halo around his head. No remains of inscriptions have been found which could help us identify this scene. The second scene, painted under the first one between the two open windows, has almost completely disappeared, except for a piece of bluish-grey background, on which we see the shoulder and part of the halo of a figure. Most fortunately an inscription left of this figure has been entirely preserved. It reads *5+*25,26 3,(50(1,26, St. Gregory the Armenian, i.e., St. Gregory the Illuminator. Since he is well-known for his preaching of Christianity in Armenia, we can consider (the remains of) this scene a counterpart to those on the opposite wall, where the theme is also conversion and baptism. If this is the iconographical theme for the decoration of this part of the church, the unidentified scene with the town in the half-circle should also fit within this

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

173

framework, but since we have scarcely any known parallel for an iconographical program like this, a solution is not yet available. 2.2.3. A Fragment on the Upper Eastern Wall

[11]

The wall separating the khurus from the haikal has only been superficially investigated. Nevertheless, one fragment, uncovered on the far right part of this wall, gives us an indication that a large composition was or still is present on this wall. The fragment reveals a group of men, six in number, looking up at something or someone. Future investigations will have to reveal the subject of this composition, but a representation of Pentecost or the Ascension is not to be excluded. 2.2.4. The Lower Eastern Wall: Two Mounted Saints

[12]

[13]

Almost the complete southern part of the haikal has now been stripped of its eighteenth century plaster. Only the lowest part, the decorative zone with the painted imitation of columns and an architrave is still covered. The paintings at ground level show us a number of saints, painted on the eastern and the southern walls. The state of preservation of these paintings ranges from mediocre to bad. A difference with the paintings higher up on the walls is that here almost the entire compositions have been preserved, but that the surface has suffered many small pieces of damage, which adds up to at least a 50% loss of the painted surface. On the eastern wall of the southern khurus, two saints on horseback have been found, represented with the heads of their horses facing each other (Ill. 6). Both saints wear a blue tunic and a red chlamys, a military cape. The right one holds a spear in his raised right hand, but at what kind of animal or human being this spear is aimed is no longer distinguishable. The lower part of both paintings is missing because the doorway between the khurus and the southern haikal has been cut through the painting. 2.2.5. The Lower Southern Wall: St. Victor

[14]

The southern wall contained two windows, which were walled up later. The windows used to divide the surface up into three more or less equal parts. The small cavalcade of saints continues on the southern wall, left of the left window. Here we find a painting of St. Victor Stratelates, identified by an inscription, this time in

174

Karel C. Innemée

Greek: 2$*,26.7:5 (Ill. 7). He is represented riding towards the right and wearing a bluish-grey tunic. In his raised right hand he holds a spear ending in a cross. This spear is directed towards a small kneeling figure in front of his horse. This man is dressed in a red chlamys and wears a crown on his head. No inscription reveals the identity of this man. His costume would suggest that he could either be the emperor Diocletian or Romanus, the pagan father of the saint and governor of Antioch, but according to the legends neither of the two has ever been confronted by Victor in a way as represented here. 4 Behind the kneeling man, the remaining space under a window, now walled up, has been filled with an ornamental cross, surrounded by a garland of flowers. 2.2.6. The Lower Southern Wall: A Doctor Treating Patients

[15]

A remarkable painting was uncovered in the middle of the wall, between both windows (Ill. 8). On a small but neatly decorated stool, a saint is seated, turned towards the right. He wears a red tunic with a grey pallium. His hair and half long beard are grey. Much of the painting has been lost, including the face, but his right hand is clearly recognizable. In this he grasps a spoon, scalpel or similar instrument, which he holds close to the eyes of a much smaller person standing in front of him. His left arm is dropped around the shoulder of the man. The latter is dressed in a red tunic with a greenish cloak over it. In his left hand he holds a staff. In the background stands a third person, his chest bare and the lower part of his body dressed in a red garment. Between the head of the saint and the third person there is a small open cupboard in which there are six red and green bottles. It is evident that we are dealing with a representation of a doctor treating patients. The cupboard can be nothing other than a medicine chest. The next question is of course which saint is represented here. Several holy doctors are known, but there is not a trace of an inscription to be found on this painting. It is most usual to find an inscription next to the head of a saint, but even though the background has been damaged, it seems as if there has never been any inscription here. The prominent place he takes in the decoration of the church suggests that it should be an important saint, maybe even so well-known Cf. De Lacy O’Leary, The Saints of Egypt (repr. Amsterdam, 1974) 278–9. 4

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

175

and recognizable that the painter did not find an inscription necessary. This could mean that we here have a representation of St. Luke. Of course this interpretation is highly speculative. If a counterpart of this painting were to be found on the opposite wall, it might help us to give a more trustworthy identification. 2.2.7. The Lower Southern Wall: Saints Cosmas and Damian

[16]

It is evident that the saints in this part of the church have been grouped according to their profession. Right of the painting of the seated doctor two holy physicians are represented standing, Cosmas and Damian (Ill. 9). The inscription left and right of the heads, again in Greek, reads: 2$*,26.26$0, Cosmas wears a yellow-brown tunic and a grey pallium, Damian is dressed in a grey tunic with a brown pallium. In their right hands they hold a spoon, scalpel or spatula. In the left hand of Cosmas we see an object that is not immediately recognizable. It consists of two cylinders, connected by an angular middle section. Two intertwining black lines emerge from the cylinders. Most probably it is a portable medicine chest, a common attribute for doctorsaints. Because of damage of the painting, the object that Damian was holding in his left hand has disappeared. 2.2.8. The South-Western Half-Column: A Standing Monk

[17]

Opposite the half-column that carries the painting of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, on the wall separating the khurus from the haikal [cf. Innemée 1998b, 3.3.; Innemée 1998c, 87] there is another painted half-column on which parts of a painting have been uncovered in previous seasons [cf. Innemée 1998b, 3.6]. In January 1999, the total half-column was stripped of the remains of its thirteenth century plaster and a thick layer of eighteenth century plaster, 5 revealing not only its total profile with a pedestal, attic base, and capital, but also a painting of a standing monk with raised hands (Ill. 10). The man, whose face has been heavily damaged, has grey hair and beard and is dressed in a brown tunic with clavi, over which he wears a black-and-white striped cape. Around his head there is a yellow halo. At the left side of his head there is the word 5 In the upper and lower left parts of the column cross-sections of the thirteenth and eighteenth century replastering were left as a testimony to its presence.

176

[18]

Karel C. Innemée

ABBA, faintly legible. At the right side of his head only faint traces of an inscription were found, doubtlessly the last letters of his name. But since only ,26 could be read, there is absolutely no certainty about the identity of the saint. The pedestal and the base of the column have a classic appearance, similar and almost identical to the opposite halfcolumn [cf. Innemée 1998c, fig. 14]. In its original shape, the capital had a lower part with a stucco decoration consisting of small arches. The spaces under these arches were painted alternately in red and green. One level higher there is a conical part which carries a painted decoration of a cross between four flowers. It looks as if this is one of the best preserved capitals in the church, belonging doubtlessly to the first phase of the building, i.e., the middle of the seventh century. The damaging of the delicate stucco arches must have been done before the thirteenth century replastering of the church. Both the base and the capital were covered by a thick layer of plaster, giving it a new profile and obscuring its original shape. The eighteenth century replastering added another layer, sometimes several centimeters thick, giving the column a rather shapeless appearance.

3. THE WAY OF WORKING AND PAINTING TECHNIQUE [19]

After an examination of the paintings and the stratigraphy of the plaster and paint, a number of preliminary observations could be made concerning the way the church was decorated. As has been mentioned above, the first layer of decoration was probably never finished. The plan was changed and work was resumed on the second layer. The painters worked in a similar way on both layers: first the outlines of the paintings were indicated in orange-red ochre, after which the final decoration was added, leaving the ochre partially visible. On the second layer the frames of the figurative scenes were indicated in ochre. After that, a number of painters started working within these outlines, probably simultaneously. The paintings of the equestrian saints, the seated and the standing doctors and the standing monk all betray a different style of painting. Possibly three or even four different hands can be distinguished here. Nevertheless, they were part of one iconographical program. The two crosses under the windows have the same basic design, but the final execution was different.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) [20]

[21]

177

In spite of stylistic differences in their way of working, the painters used a similar technique. They started with a first layer of paint in tempera technique al secco. No details are yet known about the pigments and the medium, but the mat surface of this layer is clearly distinguishable from the following layers. These have a mat gloss and saturated colors. After cleaning the surface of this paint layer with a rotating cotton brush it took on a wax-like gloss. Also considering the structure of the surface of the paint, it seems almost certain that the final layers of paint in the first and second layer of decoration have been done in the encaustic technique. This way of working can be found almost everywhere in the paintings in the khurus, although some parts have been executed in tempera only. This is certainly true of the Coptic inscription around the dome, the decorative lower zone and some of the borderdecorations. There is a remarkable similarity between these observations and those of Michel Wuttmann, the restorer of the IFAO in Cairo, who treated the painting of the Annunciation in the same church in 1991. He also concluded that the medium of the painting was very likely to be wax, while the border was executed in tempera. In addition to this, he remarked that in some places a black layer of primer could be seen under the painting. 6 Such a black layer has also been found as a primer in the painting of the military saint, next to the painting of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa. This would mean that several painters have been simultaneously at work in several parts of the church using the same technique, but in slightly different styles, and that the Annunciation, also painted on the second layer of plaster, was done in more or less the same period as the paintings in the khurus.

4. OBSERVATION CONCERNING THE ARCHITECTURE [22]

As has been mentioned, two walled-up windows were found in the southern wall of the khurus. The reason that these windows were done away with was the construction of the defensive wall around the monastery, directly against the southern wall of the church. At the time that the paintings of the second layer were made, this wall 6 Cf. M. Wuttmann, “Circonstances de la découverte de la peinture de l’Annonciation dans la conque ouest de l’église de la Vierge au Deir AlSouriani et observations techniques,” Cahiers archéologiques 43 (1995): 128.

178

[23]

[24]

Karel C. Innemée

did not yet exist and the windows were still open. This can be deduced from the fact that the red frames of the paintings have been carefully drawn around the windows. The complete blocking and overplastering of the windows belongs to the thirteenth century phase of the remodeling and redecoration of the church. The date of the construction of the wall would therefore provide us with a terminus ante quem for the paintings of the second layer in the khurus. A recently discovered Syriac inscription in the church mentions that a certain Mattay and Yacqub have “built and constructed” the monastery in the year 818/19 [Innemée-Van Rompay 1998, C.5.1.]. This building campaign must have taken place very soon after one of the most destructive Berber raids on the Wadi al-Natrun. In the course of the ninth and tenth century the monasteries of the region were fortified out of necessity and it is very well possible that the activities of Mattay and Yacqub included the building of the defensive wall. This would mean that the paintings of the second layer date from before 818/19. Some observations could be made concerning the construction of the semi-domes in the khurus as well. In the far right corner of the southern wall, remains of the first wooden beam that supported the southern semi-dome were found. This beam had almost completely disintegrated, only the hole in the wall where it used to be, containing its decayed remains, was found. But it is clear that the plaster of the second layer and the border of the painting of St. Cosmas and Damian were both done around the already existing beam. This is in accordance with the fact that traces of an earlier layer of painting, also belonging to the second layer of plaster, have been found in the southern semi-dome. In other words, the construction of the semi-domes in the khurus, and most probably the western semi-dome as well, dates from before the paintings of the second layer. If the hypothesis formulated above is right, this would mean that the semi-domes should be dated somewhere in the eighth century. Before the church was replastered as a preparation for the paintings of the thirteenth century, a number of windows were blocked with stone with an extremely hard mortar, resembling modern Portland cement. Such blockings were found in the western windows of the northern and southern walls under the dome and at ground level in the nave and the khurus. Wooden beams supporting the dome and the semi-domes were added.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

179

5. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS [25]

More evidence has come to light which can help us build up a more precise chronology for the subsequent phases of decoration of the church. As it appears now, there are good reasons to assume that in the eighth or ninth century the eastern part of the church was decorated with a coherent iconographical program which contained a number of themes rare in Christian iconography. The use of the encaustic technique is one argument to plea for a relatively early date. If we assume that the Syrian presence in the monastery dates back to the beginning of the ninth century [cf. Innemée-Van Rompay 1998], and that the inscription of Mattay and Yacqub concerns also the building of a defensive wall, it would mean that these paintings, in which the inscriptions are in Greek and Coptic, date from before 818/19, that is from the time that the monastery was still purely Coptic. As it appears now, there are also good reasons to assume that the famous painting of the Annunciation, discovered in 1991, can be linked to the paintings in the khurus.

REFERENCES Innemée 1998b : Karel Innemée, “Recent Discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Deir Al-Surian,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 1:2 (July 1998). Innemée 1998c : Karel C. Innemée, “New Wall-Paintings,” in Karel C. Innemée—Peter Grossmann—Konrad D. Jenner—Lucas Van Rompay, “New Discoveries in the cAdra’ Church of Dayr alSuryan in the Wâdi al-Natrûn,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie 4 (1998): 79–90. Innemée—Van Rompay 1998 : Karel Innemée & Lucas Van Rompay, “La présence des Syriens dans le Wadi al-Natrun (Égypte). À propos des découvertes récentes de peintures et de textes muraux dans l’Église de la Vierge du Couvent des Syriens,” Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998): 167–202.

180

Karel C. Innemée

ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: General view of the southern part of the khurus.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

181

Illustration 2: Peacock and cross, decoration left of the arch surrounding the southern semi-dome.

182

Karel C. Innemée Illustration 3: First part of the Coptic text surrounding the dome.

Illustration 4: Second part of the Coptic text surrounding the dome.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) Illustration 5: Fragment with St. Gregory the Illuminator.

183

184

Karel C. Innemée Illustration 6: Two unidentified saints on horseback, eastern wall of the southern khurus.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) Illustration 7: Saint Victor on horseback, southern wall of the khurus.

185

186

Karel C. Innemée Illustration 8: A holy doctor treating patients, southern wall of the khurus.

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) Illustration 9: St. Cosmas and Damian, southern wall of the khurus.

187

188

Karel C. Innemée Illustration 10: Painted half-column on the western wall.

II. SYRIAC INSCRIPTIONS IN DEIR ALSURIAN: SOME REFLECTIONS ON THEIR WRITERS AND READERS LUCAS VAN ROMPAY DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (TCNO) UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS [26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

In recent years, a number of Syriac texts have been uncovered in the Church of the Virgin of the Monastery of the Syrians (Egypt). They are written on the walls of the church and were covered by later layers of plaster. Their discovery took place in the framework of an Egyptian-Dutch project, headed since 1995 by Karel Innemée (University of Leiden). Adding these to the texts previously known, we now have a fairly important collection of Syriac writings preserved in this church, which for about eight centuries (c. 800 – c. 1600) was the heart of a lively center of Syriac Christian culture in the Egyptian desert. Here it is my aim to give a general overview of the texts and to reflect on the purposes which they fulfilled as well as on their wider cultural contexts. The texts are diverse in time, technique and function. A further distinction may be made according to their status, either as conveyers of independent messages or as explanatory notes on paintings. Finally, in many cases Syriac writing is accompanied by writing in other languages, Greek, Coptic, and (rarely) Arabic. This aspect may also shed light on the conditions under which the texts were written and read. In the following survey, I shall start with the texts which have been known already for a long time and then proceed to the discoveries of the past ten years. A plan of the church (Plan 2 below) locates the texts and the paintings (with their relevant number and letter of the alphabet).

189

190

Lucas Van Rompay Plan 2. Full Plan of the Church of the Virgin of the Monastery of the Syrians (Egypt).

1. SYRIAC INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE TIME OF MOSES OF NISIBIS [30]

Up to the present day two impressive wooden doors, going back to the early tenth century, are in use in the church. One [1.a] closes the haikal (i.e., the sanctuary or altar room), the other [1.b] stands between the khurus (i.e., the space between the haikal and the nave of the church) and the nave. In both cases, the jambs and the lintel on top of them carry Syriac inscriptions [cf. Leroy 1982, 63–4]. a.

In the oldest inscription, incised in the wood (running from the right end of the lintel to the left end and continuing on the left jamb from top to bottom), the building of the altar (madbho) is attributed to Moses, head of the monastery (rish dayro), and is dated to “the days of Mar Gabriel and Mar Yuhannan, patriarchs, in the year 1225 of the Greeks, the fifth of the month Iyor” [cf. Strzygowski 1901, 365; Evelyn White 1933, Plate LXIV; Leroy 1974, 154–5]. b. The second inscription, in a different hand, again starts at the right end of the lintel (on which it is written in bas-relief) and continues on the left jamb (now as an incised text), from top to bottom, and then on the right jamb, again from top to bottom. It dates the erection of “this door" to the year 1238 “in the days of the blessed patriarchs Mar Cosmas and Mar Basil" and states that “Moses, the head of the monastery, from the city of Nisibis" had taken care of it and had paid for it [cf. Strzygowski 1901, 367; Evelyn White 1933, Plates LVIII–LIX; Leroy 1974, 154–5 and 159].

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) [31]

[32]

[33]

191

The two dates, 1225 and 1238 of the Greek, i.e., the Seleucid era, correspond to the years AD 913/14 and 926/27 (the month of Iyor of the former date is May 914). This must have been a period of intensive building activities, which in all probability were not limited to the “altar” (which may stand for the haikal) and “the door,” but also included other parts of the church. It may not be without significance that in both instances the Coptic patriarch (respectively Gabriel and Cosmas) is named before his Syrian counterpart (respectively Yohannan and Basil). The two long inscriptions, nicely shaped and clearly written, kept alive the memory of Moses of Nisibis, one of the most illustrious archimandrites of the monastery. They could not fail to attract the eye of the visitors and of all those who attended liturgical services, as far as such people knew Syriac. For those ignorant of that language Moses had something else to offer: the doors themselves have a number of carved panels, inlaid with pieces of ivory. The oldest door has six vertical rows of seven panels, the later door four rows of six panels. Most of the panels have geometric motifs; only the top layer has, for both doors, representations of saints, accompanied with their Greek names, written in inlaid ivory. The oldest door has, from right to left: Severus, Ignatius, Mary, Emmanuel, Mark, and Dioscorus. All names, except that of Emmanuel, are preceded by 2$*,26 or +$*,$. The other door has: Mark, Emmanuel, Mary, and Peter. Here also, three names are accompanied with $*,26 or $*,$; the article, however, is not Greek, but Bohairic Coptic, i.e., 3, and † (for Mark only the I remains). One wonders whether the choice of Coptic was a deliberate (albeit symbolic) one. Was this the language with which most of the people who filled the nave were familiar? Whatever the answer to this question may be, Moses’ doors already confront us with three languages, which in his day must have existed side by side in the monastery: Syriac, Greek, and Coptic. This is an appropriate point to mention a wooden reliquary, which is now stored in the museum of the monastery but which in earlier days must have had a place in the church. Its decoration is very similar to that of the two wooden doors and must date back to the time of Moses. It has seven figures of saints with ivory inlay. All of them have the relevant name in Greek, including in most cases the Greek article [cf. Evelyn White 1933, 195–6 and Plate LXIII].

192

Lucas Van Rompay

2. INSCRIPTIONS ON THE WALL-PAINTINGS IN THE THREE SEMI-DOMES [34]

Until ten years ago, only three wall-paintings were known to exist in the church. They decorated the two semi-domes at either end of the khurus as well as one semi-dome at the west end of the nave. Although no exact dates can be provided, most scholars assume that these paintings belong to the same decoration program, which must have been carried out around the year 1200 or at the beginning of the thirteenth century [cf. Leroy 1982, 65–74 and Plates 107–46]. a.

The southern semi-dome of the khurus has a double painting, representing in the left half the Annunciation to the Virgin, in the right half the Nativity. In the painting of the Annunciation, Mary and the Archangel are identified by their Greek names ($*,$0$5,$ and $5&+$**(/26*$%5,+/). The words of the Archangel (Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you”) are quoted in Greek as well as in Syriac (Estrangela). The latter text, however, written horizontally in four lines, includes the addition “blessed among women,” which is part of the Peshitta reading of Luke 1:28. The Nativity scene has the name of Joseph in Greek and Syriac, that of Mary only in Syriac (Maryam yoldat ‘Aloho “Mary the Mother of God”—the latter word written as “lwh!”). In the upper part of the painting, the following Syriac text is written horizontally in two lines: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and good hope to men,” again exactly corresponding to the Peshitta text of Luke 2:14. b. The northern semi-dome of the khurus has the Dormition of the Virgin. There is only one inscription, viz., the Syriac name of Jesus Christ, written horizontally above Jesus’ head in the center of the painting. c. The semi-dome at the west end of the nave, in its pre-1988 situation, had the Ascension. In the lower half of the painting, the apostles are represented with Mary. Over the head of each of them, the Syriac names are written from right to left: Matthias, Simon the Cananaean, Lebbaeus called Thaddaeus, Jacob son of Alphaeus, Matthew the tax collector, Andrew, Mary the Mother of God, Simon Cephas, John, Jacob, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas. This list is very close to the Peshitta

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

193

list of Matthew 10:2–4 (except for the name of Mary, which has been added, and the name of Matthias, which replaces that of Judas Iscariot, cf. Acts 1:26). The upper half of the painting shows Christ enthroned. To the right of his head the Greek letters &6 are visible (the left part, which was damaged, must once have had ,6), and a bit lower, near his elbow the Syriac ¾ÐÙýâ is written vertically from top to bottom, most probably corresponding to the Syriac name “ÍýØ on the other side, which must have disappeared. In the left and right corners of the painting, the sun and the moon are represented. Both celestial bodies have their Syriac and Coptic names, each of them written vertically, to be read from top to bottom (the Syriac “moon” and the Coptic “sun”) or from bottom to top (the Syriac “sun” and the Coptic “moon”). [35]

Considering the paintings in the three semi-domes, we may conclude that Syriac is the predominant language. Whereas in the painting of the southern semi-dome [2a] an attempt has been made to achieve some balance between Syriac and Greek, the latter language is completely [2b] or nearly completely [2c] absent from the other paintings. Only the third painting [2c] had two isolated Coptic words.

3. THE NEW PAINTING OF THE ANNUNCIATION [36]

In 1988, a fire broke out in the church and caused damage to the painting in the western semi-dome [2c]. After the removal of the remaining parts, a new painting revealed itself, representing the Annunciation [cf. Van Moorsel 1995]. The Virgin Mary and the Archangel Gabriel, standing in the center, are accompanied by four prophets, Moses and Isaiah on the left, Ezekiel and Daniel on the right. With the exception of the Virgin, the names of the figures are written below them, in Greek characters and with the Greek article (... 2352)+7+6). Between the Archangel and the Virgin, the words spoken by the former to Mary are written in Greek (“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you”). A more prominent place, however, is taken by the texts written on the open book rolls carried by each of the prophets. These passages, taken from the prophets’ biblical books (and seen as referring to the Virgin and to Christ’s birth), amounting to nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen lines of text, are in Bohairic Coptic. Not only do they give the whole

194

Lucas Van Rompay

representation an entirely Coptic outlook, they also add to its didactic character, which is more outspoken here than in the paintings discussed above. The people who regularly saw this painting and these texts must have been Coptic Christians. As for the date, discussions are still going on among art-historians. Although, it can be ascertained only that this painting is older than the one on the upper layer (and thus must be prior to c. 1200), a date as early as the eighth century cannot be excluded. It must have been visible until c. 1200, when this Coptic painting was replaced with the painting of the Ascension which has so much Syriac on it.

4. THE NEW DISCOVERIES: WALL-PAINTINGS [37]

Since 1995, a number of new paintings have been uncovered [cf. Innemée 1998a, 1998b, 1998c]. Some of them fit into the general pattern described above, others present us with an entirely different situation. a.

Some of the newly discovered paintings are much older than those previously known. The Virgin Galaktotrophousa [4a1] may in all likelihood be dated to the seventh century, and the military saint, probably Sergius [4a2], is perhaps only slightly later. The names of both are exclusively written in Greek. Other paintings applied on the same layer of plaster— elsewhere in the church—likewise show figures that are identified by their Greek names only, such as Joseph (the Old Testament son of Jacob?) [4a3] and Simeon Stylites [4a4]. The most recent discoveries, made in January 1999 in the khurus, include saints having their name in Greek (Victor, Cosmas and Damianus) or in Coptic (Gregory the Armenian) [see Karel Innemée’s contribution to the present issue]. b. The impressive painting of the Three Patriarchs (eleventh century?) has no text at all. c. There are paintings which—as far as the languages are concerned—may be compared with the painting of the Annunciation in the western semi-dome [3]. This is particularly true of the representation of the story of the eunuch of Candace, on the south wall of the khurus. In both scenes, figures are identified by their Coptic names: “the black (man) of Candace” and “the eunuch.” More importantly, however, the eunuch holds a tablet in his hand, which is inscribed with a

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

195

Coptic text, taken from the book of Isaiah (as referred to in Acts 8:32–3). Unlike the bare identifications or short explanations found in most other paintings, the tablet of the eunuch, as well as the open book rolls of the prophets in the Annunciation serve to integrate the text fully into the painting. Here again, didactic purposes are obvious. These have Coptic as their vehicle and, therefore, Coptic Christians must have been the people to whom they were addressed. d. Some remnants of paintings have been identified which go back to the same thirteenth-century program to which the paintings of the three semi-domes belong. On the easternmost column in the northern part of the nave, parts of a representation of Dioscorus the patriarch (of Alexandria) can be seen, with his name written in Greek and Syriac. e. Finally, the lower part of the dome covering the khurus has a long Coptic inscription probably running all around the inner part of the perimeter of the dome. Unfortunately, only isolated words and names have been read so far. Irrespective of the representations shown on the inner side of the dome (which have not yet been identified), this impressive text, which the faithful standing in the khurus would have experienced no difficulty in reading, must have given this part of the church an entirely Coptic outlook. [38]

In conclusion, most of the newly discovered paintings applied on the second layer of plaster (which received its decoration between the seventh and the end of the twelfth century), have Greek or Coptic names and additional texts in Coptic [3 and 4c]. It is only the later, probably thirteenth-century, layer which has provided us with at least one additional Syriac name [4d].

5. THE NEW DISCOVERIES: COMMEMORATIVE TEXTS [39]

Fortunately, a number of independent Syriac texts have been discovered which largely compensate for the poor harvest of Syriac writing found on the paintings themselves [cf. Jenner & Van Rompay 1998, Innemée & Van Rompay 1998]. Some of them are applied on the second layer of plaster and must have co-existed with the paintings for a long time. These texts are either painted or written on the walls. It seems possible to draw a rough distinction between the major texts, which are fairly long, have literary

196

[40]

Lucas Van Rompay

qualities and are executed with care (apparently by experienced writers), on the one hand, and short, more informal graffiti-like texts, which mention only a name, followed by some sort of supplication (“Pray for me”), on the other. The major texts commemorate one or more persons, the visit of a person, or building activities. They contain names and in some cases a date. The way some of these texts have been carried out proves that they served—in addition to, and independently from, the paintings—as integral parts of the decoration of the walls. The main texts are listed here in chronological order. Ǯ.

The shortest and at the same time most remarkable text is the one mentioning “Saintly Cyriacus, patriarch of Antioch.” It is found in the front part of the nave, left of the door leading into the khurus. Written on a vertical line, from top to bottom, it is reflected, as in a mirror, on the right side of the same line. Its ornamental aspect certainly struck the visitor, who must, however, have had a more than superficial knowledge of the Syriac alphabet to decipher the artfully shaped message. Since Cyriacus was patriarch between 793 and 817, the text must have been written in that period or shortly thereafter. This patriarch may have contributed to establishing or consolidating the Syrian presence in the monastery. b. A beautiful text, written in big Estrangela characters, left of the painting of the Three Patriarchs, commemorates “Maruta, son of [...] of Tagrit, and Papa his son.” A date around the year 800 would appear plausible. There seems to be no relationship between this text and the adjacent painting, which is, however, on the same layer of plaster (and must be later than the text). c. The north wall of the nave has a number of inscriptions, written on various layers of plaster. The great number of texts may be due to the fact that a relic shrine was placed here (perhaps the one briefly mentioned above, sub 1). The oldest of the Syriac inscriptions seems to be the one that commemorates building activities in the monastery carried out jointly by “... Ma[ttay] and Jacob ... in the year [thousand and hun]dred and thirty of the Gree[ks], in the days of our blessed and Godclad patriarchs [Mar Jac]ob and M[ar] Dionysius of Syr[ia ...],” i.e., the year AD 818/19, the first year of Patriarch Dionysius of Tel-Mahre (818–45), whose name is written after that of Jacob, Patriarch of Alexandria (819–30).

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

197

d. The other inscriptions on this part of the north wall are badly damaged. In addition to the one just mentioned [5c], two other Syriac texts have been identified, together with two short Coptic texts and a few lines in Arabic (the latter apparently belonging to a later period). e. The south wall of the nave has an inscription commemorating the visit to the monastery of “Peter son of Isaak [ ... ], from Mosul ... in the year [th]ree hundred and twenty and [ ... ] of the Arabs,” which is between AD 932 and 940. f. To the right of the painting of the Three Patriarchs, there is a Bohairic Coptic pious text, in beautiful handwriting, distributed over nine lines of text. There is no date and the writer does not reveal his identity, except for the fact that he is a “sinner». g. To the left of the door leading from the nave into the khurus, in the same corner where the Cyriacus inscription is found [5a], a long Syriac text has been uncovered, applied on a partial overplastering. It begins with a date: 1477 (or 1467) according to the Greek era, which is AD 1165/66 (or 1155/56). Unfortunately, the text is difficult to read, because of damage. Problems in the monastery are mentioned, including the absence of any Syrian priest for ten years, and the danger of destruction. A patriarch is mentioned and it is said that “with the grace of God everything came to completion», which may refer to building activities.

6. THE NEW DISCOVERIES: GRAFFITI [41]

[42]

Syriac graffiti have been found on various places on the walls of the church. They are much shorter than the major texts discussed above. Mostly a proper name is mentioned and the reader is entreated to pray for that person. The writers of the graffiti may have been visitors who had traveled all the way from Syria and Mesopotamia or perhaps members of the Syrian community in Cairo or elsewhere in Egypt. It is difficult to date these texts, especially since paleographic criteria can hardly be used for less experienced handwriting, such as that found in most graffiti. Some of them, however, are old. As a matter of fact, the last lines of the Peter inscription [5e: between 932 and 940] are much shorter than the preceding ones, obviously in order not to overwrite an older graffito, which reads: “I, Athanas[ius], sinner, pray for me.” To the left of the painting of the

198

[43]

Lucas Van Rompay

Three Patriarchs, there are two graffiti (written in the same hand or by two very similar hands), respectively for Habbib and for Yohannan, son of Habbib. Another, more expanded text is found to the right of the same painting. The name of its writer, however, cannot be read. The genre of the graffiti had already been known in the church for a long time. Firstly, the wooden doors of the early tenth century, especially the one between the khurus and the nave, have a number of Syriac graffiti, written in ink on the frames around the decorated panels. One was incised in the wood by a certain Abraham, who also noted the date, namely the year 1780 (A.Gr.), i.e., AD 1468/69. [cf. Evelyn White 1933, 188]. Secondly, a number of Karshuni graffiti (some of them amounting to several lines and therefore to be regarded rather as real inscriptions) were seen by Evelyn White on a consecration cross, preserved as part of the filling of a lateral doorway leading to the north haikal [cf. Evelyn White 1933, 203–4 and Plate LXXII]. To date, these Karshuni texts no longer seem to be visible. To my knowledge, none of them have been deciphered.

7. SURVEY Date

Independent Syriac Text

Representation with Text

Language on Representation

7th cent.

Virgin [4a1]

Greek name

c. 700

Sergius [4a2]

Greek name

700–1200

Annunciation [3]

Greek + Coptic

700–1200

Eunuch of Candace Coptic [4c]

c. 800

Cyriacus inscription [5a]

c. 800

Maruta inscription [5b]

818/19

Building activities [5c]

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

Date

Independent Syriac Text

199

Representation with Text

Language on Representation

913/14

Inscription on Saints on wooden Greek names door [1a] panels

926/27

Inscription on Saints on wooden Greek/Coptic door [1b] panels names Reliquary

932–940

Peter inscription [5e]

1165/66

Destruction + building [5g]

Greek names

13th cent.

Annunciation Nativity [2a]

13th cent.

Dormition [2b]

Syriac

Ascension [2c]

Greek + Coptic + Syriac

Dioscorus [4d]

Greek + Syriac

13th cent. 13th cent.

+

Greek + Syriac

[N.B. When for the same representation more than one language is mentioned, the underlined one is the most prominent.]

8. SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS [44]

[45]

As far as the names and short explanatory notes on the paintings are concerned, it may be concluded that Syriac only appears in the thirteenth century. The earliest paintings only have Greek; in the next phase we find mainly Coptic [3 and 4c]. The absence of Syriac from the paintings prior to the thirteenth century is not a great problem. As a matter of fact, there is a perfect parallel in the wall-paintings of the monastery of Mar Musa, near Nebek, in Syria. Here, it is only on the paintings of the third layer, datable to c. 1200, that Syriac names and explanatory notes appear, whereas the paintings of the earlier period (second half of the eleventh century) have only Greek for that purpose [cf.

200

[46]

[47]

[48]

Lucas Van Rompay

Dall’Oglio 1998, 14–6]. The conservative rules of the genre—as in the case of icons—may explain the persistence of Greek for many centuries, even when this language was no longer understood by the majority of the people. The paintings that have Coptic as the most prominent language, i.e., the Annunciation [3] and the scene of the eunuch of Candace [4c], seem to suppose the use of the church for liturgical services in Coptic, for a (predominantly) Coptic congregation. The same conclusion may be drawn from the presence of the long Coptic inscription in the lower part of the dome which covers the khurus. It cannot be ruled out that these paintings belong to the eighth century and therefore antedate the Syrian presence in the monastery. However, whatever the date of their origin may have been, these paintings must have remained visible for a long time, well into the Syrian period, probably even until the twelfth century. This may suggest that even in this period the church was used as a Coptic church. It is only around the year 1200 that a new decorative program was planned which had Syriac as its main language. In the same period, however—roughly between 800 and 1200– a number of Syriac texts were written on the walls to commemorate important persons, on the occasion of certain visits, and when building activities were completed. With the exception of a few Coptic pious texts (which have no historical data), all these texts are in Syriac. Syriac must, therefore, have been the official language of the monastery. The picture which seems to emerge from this description is that from c. 800 onwards, the monastery was mainly a Syrian monastery—as indicated by its name—but that at the same time the church played a certain role for the local population. Syriac was the official language, used in writing by the monks and by the visitors from the Syro-Mesopotamian homeland, who saw the monastery as a stronghold of their culture in the Egyptian desert. Coptic, on the other hand, was the language of those who regularly came to the monastery to attend liturgical services and find spiritual nourishment. The absence of Arabic in this period is noteworthy, the more so since three major Arabic inscriptions have been found in the Monastery of Mar Musa in Syria, already referred to above, to be dated to the eleventh and twelfth centuries [cf. Dall’Oglio 1998, 15–6; Muwazzin 1998, 71–3].

Deir al-Surian (Egypt) [49]

[50]

201

These first observations and reflections are based on the limited amount of data known so far. We certainly have to take into account the possibility that the situation may have been fluctuating and that the balance between Syriac, Greek and Coptic may have been changing in the course of the period under discussion. However, the idea that Deir al-Surian was a monastery which united within its walls (and literally on its walls) different cultural traditions deserves to be further pursued. Moreover, the study of the languages found on the walls and on the paintings of Deir al-Surian in Egypt may benefit from a comparison with other wall-paintings in the Syrian area, especially in Syria and Lebanon, which bear witness to a similar linguistic complexity (Greek, Syriac, Arabic) [for the Lebanese wall-paintings, see most recently Sader 1997].

REFERENCES Dall’Oglio 1998 : Paolo dall’Oglio, “Storia del Monastero di San Mose’ l’Abissino e descrizione degli affreschi della sua Chiesa,” in Il restauro del Monastero di San Mose’ l’Abissino, Nebek, Siria (Damascus, 1998) 11–22 (= 11–23 of the Arabic section). Evelyn White 1933 : Hugh G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wâdi ‘n Natrûn, Pt. III. The Architecture and Archaeology (New York, 1933). Innemée 1998a Karel Innemée, “The Iconographical Program of Paintings in the Church of al-cAdra in Deir al-Sourian: Some preliminary observations,” in Martin Krause & Sofia Schaten (eds.), 4(0(/,$. Spätantike und koptologische Studien Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 3; Wiesbaden, 1998) 143–53. Innemée 1998b : Karel Innemée, “Recent Discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Deir Al-Surian,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 1:2 (July 1998). Innemée 1998c : Karel C. Innemée, “New Wall-Paintings,” in Karel C. Innemée, Peter Grossmann, Konrad D. Jenner and Lucas Van Rompay, “New Discoveries in the al-cAdra’ Church of Dayr alSuryan in the Wâdi al-Natrûn,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie 4 (1998): 79–90. Innemée—Van Rompay 1998 : Karel Innemée & Lucas Van Rompay, “La présence des Syriens dans le Wadi al-Natrun (Égypte). À propos des découvertes récentes de peintures et de textes muraux dans l’Église de la Vierge du Couvent des Syriens,” Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998): 167–202.

202

Lucas Van Rompay

Jenner—Van Rompay 1998 : Konrad D. Jenner & Lucas Van Rompay, “New Syriac Texts on the Walls of the al-cAdra’ Church of Dayr al-Suryân,” in Karel C. Innemée, Peter Grossmann, Konrad D. Jenner and Lucas Van Rompay, “New Discoveries in the alc Adra’ Church of Dayr al-Suryan in the Wâdi al-Natrûn,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie 4 (1998): 96–103. Leroy 1974 : Jules Leroy, “Le décor de l’église du couvent des Syriens au Ouady Natroun,” in Cahiers archéologiques 23 (1974): 151–67. Leroy 1982 : Jules Leroy, Les peintures des couvents du Ouadi Natroun (= La peinture murale chez les Coptes, II. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 101; Cairo, 1982). Muwazzin 1998 : Muna Muwazzin, “Alcune iscrizioni arabe nella Chiesa del Monastero di San Mose’ l’Abissino,” in Il restauro del Monastero di San Mose’ l’Abissino, Nebek, Siria (Damascus, 1998) 71–3 (= 81–4 of the Arabic section). Sader 1997 : Youhanna Sader, Painted Churches and Rock-cut Chapels of Lebanon (Beirut, 1997). van Moorsel 1995 : Paul van Moorsel, “La grande annonciation de Deir es-Sourian,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 95 (1995): 517–37. Strzygowski 1901 : Josef Strzygowski, “Der Schmuck der Dzlteren elHadrakirche im syrischen Kloster der sketischen WȊste,” Oriens Christianus 1 (1901): 356–72.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mat Immerzeel is responsible for the drawing of the plan of the church (in sections I and II). Rosemary Robson-McKillop improved the English language and style of the two sections. Both of them are gratefully acknowledged.

III. THE CONSERVATION OF MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF DEIR AL-SURIAN: FIRST NOTES ELIZABETH SOBCZYNSKI PROJECT DIRECTOR CONSERVATOR OF WORKS OF ART ON PAPER LONDON [51]

[52]

[53]

Whilst working on the excavation and conservation of frescos and wall-texts in the Church of al-cAdra’, art-historians and conservators were approached with a request for assistance and expertise in conserving and preserving a collection of ancient manuscripts housed in the library of Deir al-Surian. In 1997, I was presented with an opportunity to carry out the first inspection of the manuscripts. The collection consists of approximately 900 manuscripts and all but some one hundred are being stored on wooden shelves in modern glass-fronted book cases. Thirty six manuscripts from the “Syriac collection” together with an unidentified number of manuscripts of unknown origin are housed in an area undisclosed to me.71Environmental conditions in the Library are very unsatisfactory, with temperature and relative humidity fluctuating from very low to extremely high levels. The main collection consists of manuscripts written in Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic on cotton paper, parchment and vellum. Centuries of mistreatment and bad handling together with adverse environmental conditions have contributed greatly to the poor condition of the manuscripts. The substrates suffer from embrittlement, discoloration and mechanical damage. Pages are stuck together and have become pitifully distorted. The use of irongall ink has also caused damage to the substrate, and there are many instances of ink suffering from flaking and lifting. Exposure to moisture has resulted in corrosive activity and caused very serious perforations and damage to the parchment and paper substrate. Carbon ink, which is the predominant writing medium, is 71 All facts in this article have been based on a preliminary survey and information supplied by a third party, and will be confirmed at a later date.

203

204

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

Elizabeth Sobczynski

also showing signs of ageing and deterioration. Lead-based pigments have blackened and assumed a dark grey appearance. Light and UV radiation has weakened the paper and faded the writing and painting media. In addition to this, silverfish, mice and other pests have made their harmful contributions. Father Bigoul, the monk who has been caring for the manuscripts as best he can, has been working in a state of isolation from methods and techniques which are common knowledge amongst the international fraternity of conservators. Education is then of primary importance in maintaining the collection. Although the process of sharing knowledge with Father Bigoul was started in 1997, there is still much that needs to be taught to him so that he can personally take care of these works which the monks revere so solemnly. In January 1999, I visited the Monastery for the second time. On this occasion my attention was focussed on what is known as the “Syriac Collection” and a list describing in some detail the physical condition was compiled in order to identify the scale of the conservation problem. With the exception of a few Syriac pieces and isolated folios kept in the main library, the “Syriac collection” is stored in a separate room. Executed predominantly on parchment, the majority of the manuscripts are in a very poor condition. The damage to the parchment is both mechanical and physico-chemical in nature. With only few remaining leather bindings and wooden boards the most obvious damages are mechanical, the face of the surviving leather being worn away due to dryness and flaking. However, there is in existence an unprecedented amount of original structural evidence of the sewing of the block, with only very few repairs carried out by a monk in the nineteenth century. Chemical damage and changes are mostly evident on the writing ink, with some pages where the text has been almost entirely destroyed. A tentative description of the Syriac manuscripts was made some time ago by Murad Kamil. Typed in the Arabic and English languages (Catalogue of the Syrian Manuscripts Newly Found in the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert, no date), this catalogue is still in existence and has remained in circulation among Syriac scholars as the main source of reference for the collection. As a result of the technical examination in January, five manuscripts from the Syriac Collection were selected for

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

205

immediate attention, on the basis of their physical condition. In addition, three manuscripts from the main collection were also prioritised on the same basis. The selected Syriac manuscripts include library number 2, 12, 15, 17 and 18 of Murad Kamil’s inventory, spanning a period from the sixth to the eighth centuries. A conservation plan was drawn up for their treatment, and a selection was made of conservation products and further investigative methods into the techniques and the technology used in making these manuscripts. The historical significance and the unique value of this collection necessitates a very careful and considered approach to the decisions to be taken concerning their conservation. The objectives will be to conserve the collection, to ensure its survival with the minimum physical intervention, and to retain and preserve its structural and artistic integrity. Measures to be taken will also include the encasing of unbound volumes in conservation boxes to limit further damage and to create proper storage conditions, especially with respect to the highly damaging levels of humidity. As an intermediate measure all the examined manuscripts were wrapped in an acid-free tissue paper. Leaves suffering from ink and pigment transfer were interleaved with acid-free tissue. A method of making acid-free manila phase boxes was shown to Father Bigoul in order to provide a secure temporary housing for the most vulnerable manuscripts. The material used came from donations given towards this project by conservation materials suppliers in England.82Some eight phase-boxes were made during my stay in the Monastery and manuscripts placed inside. Father Bigoul has been instructed to continue this task during my absence. Decaying leather binding on one of the manuscripts was surface cleaned and consolidated. A broken wooden board was cleaned and secured with a suitable Japanese tissue to prevent further damage. Preliminary tests on individual manuscripts were carried out and methods of treatment considered and discussed. 82Conservation

by Design Ltd. Time Works, 60 Park Road, West Bedford MK41 7SL; Falkiner Fine Papers, 76 Southampton Row, London WC1B 4AR; General Scientific, Unit2, 72–86 Garlands Rd, Redhill, Surrey RH1 6NT. Chris Laver-Gibbs of Griffen Mill, The Old Mill, Croscombe Nr. Wells, Somerset BA5 3QN, has offered to donate specially made paper for the repairs of the manuscripts.

206 [63]

[64]

[65]

Elizabeth Sobczynski

Inks and pigments were carefully examined and where appropriate samples taken for analysis and identification, to be carried out in London. Stabilising of the powdering ink and painting areas and arresting the deterioration is of a paramount importance. Samples of paper and parchment were taken for research purposes and to enable purchase of the most suitable repair material. To help with future selection of a method and materials for parchment and paper repair, and the choice of adhesive, an endurance evaluation test has been set up. Father Bigoul is to monitor and record changes in strength, flexibility, any dimensional changes, discoloration and reversibility over the next six months. It should be noted that the mission of the conservators is quite separate from any academic understanding of the texts. After centuries of unfortunate experiences with Western visitors, the bishop and the monks are reluctant to share information about their treasures with the scholarly world. Indeed, understanding and close co-operation is needed to rebuild confidence and trust. In the meantime, it is the conservators’ responsibility to preserve this priceless legacy of the past irrespective of any other considerations and to protect it for future generations as a living testimony of Christian culture in the Wadi al-Natrun. The monks of Deir al-Surian can expect no financial help from the Egyptian Government, whose financial resources are hard pressed. In order to ensure the survival of the manuscript collection funding is now being sought. Offers of support— whether in terms of equipment, human help or financial donations—would be gratefully received and should be directed to the address below. Elizabeth Sobczynski Project Director Conservator of Works of Art on Paper c/o Voitek Conservation of Works of Art 9 Whitehorse Mews Westminster Bridge Rd. London SEI – 7QD Tel & Fax +44 171 9286094 e-mail [email protected]

Deir al-Surian (Egypt)

207

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Dr. Joyce Townsend, Prof. Luk Van Rompay and Tom Munro for help and advice in preparing this report. Special thanks to my son Christopher for technical help.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.2, 209–233 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

AN ACCOUNT OF GREGORY BAR HEBRAEUS ABU AL-FARAJ AND HIS RELATIONS WITH THE MONGOLS OF PERSIA GEORGE LANE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

1. INVADERS FROM THE EAST [1]

Writing not long after the reign of the Saljuq Sultan Malik-Shah, the Armenian chronicler Matthew of Edessa, who was certainly no champion of Islam, was to write, “The reign of Malik-Shah was favoured by God; his rule extended to all lands and he brought peace to Armenia.” 1 After his death he eulogised over the Turkish Sultan, “In this same year (1092 CE) died the great Sultan MalikShah the Conqueror who was father and parent to all (his subjects) and a benevolent, merciful, and kind man towards all (people).” 2 Though arguably more sympathetic to the Christians than to others among their subjects, the early Il-Khan rulers, especially the founder of the dynasty, Hulegu Khan, were similarly eulogised by their contemporary Christian historians and, as in the case of Matthew writing of his Saljuq king, this praise would appear to have been, in part at least, quite sincere. Bar Hebraeus mourned his King of Kings’ passing with these words: 1 Armenia and the Crusades. The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. Tr. A.E. Dostourian (New York: University Press of America, 1993) 137. 2 Ibid., 153.

209

210

George Lane The wisdom of this man, and his greatness of soul, and his wonderful actions are incomparable. And in the days of summer Tokuz Khatun, the believing queen, departed, and great sorrow came to all Christians throughout the world because of the departure of these two great lights, who made the Christian religion triumphant. 3

[2]

The connection between these two great rulers, the Saljuq MalikShah and the founder of the Il-Khanid dynasty, Hulegu Khan, was that both were from the lands of Turan or beyond and both were all powerful and had been successful in subduing to a relative extent the anarchy that was so often the norm in northern Mesopotamia with its patchwork of atabegates and sultanates playing their tireless game of musical thrones. Bar Hebraeus (1226–86) did not shrink from cataloguing and describing the horrors endured by all sections of the population of eastern Anatolia, Kurdistan and the march lands of Syria at the hands of the Mongol invaders. Yet he was ultimately able to place such atrocities into context and to perceive a reward for those years of hardship in the guise of the comparative equity evident in the reign of the early Mongol Il-Khans and their eastern overlords. The kingdom remained the peculiar possession of Kublai Khan, the just and wise king, and lover (or, friend) of the Christians; and he honoured the men of books, and the learned men, and the physicians of all nations. 4

[3]

This was in sharp contrast to other historians of his time who were quick to lay the blame for the people’s calamities on their past sins and on a vengeful God. Vardan was one such who wrote, All were given into their [Mongols’] hands in a short time, without labor or effort, so that we might know that it is the hand of the Lord that has given our land as provider for foreigners before our own eyes. 5

3 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Abu’l-Faraj Bar Hebraeus, tr. Ernest Wallis Budge (Oxford, 1932) 444. 4 Ibid., 439. 5 Vardan, The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc’i, tr. R.W. Thomson, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989): 125–226, chapter 85.

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

211

and Grigor of Akanc` was another claiming that “the Lord roused them [the Mongols] in his anger as a lesson to us, because we had not kept his commandments.” 6 Bar Hebraeus rarely passed judgement on the Mongols’ raids and often explained their deeds as just rewards for the victim’s personal behaviour. And from there the King of Kings [Hulegu] went against Harim, and he asked [the citizens] to surrender, and [said that] he would swear to them that he would not harm them. And the fools replied, “Though thou art king thy religion is not known. By what are we to make thee swear? But if Fakhr ad-Din, the governor of the fortress of Aleppo, will swear to us that he will not harm us, we will come down.” And the King of Kings commanded Fakhr ad-Din, who went down and swore to them. And they opened the gates of the fortress and came down. And the King of Kings commanded, and they were all killed, men and women, and sons, and daughters, also sucking children; 7

[4]

The inability of any group or state to sustain effective opposition to the Mongols added to the belief by most, enemies and allies alike, that the Mongols’ ascendancy was inevitable but that in their harsh rule and unassailable power God’s clemency must somehow be secretly manifest. “The throne of God is established through righteous judgement.” 8 So concluded the Armenian cleric Vardan in his address to “the powerful, valiant, and victorious Hulawu.” 9 However, the Muslim Juwayni saw his masters’ destruction of a detested rival, the Isma’ili Imam of Alamut, follower of a “false” Prophet of Islam as proof of the ultimate justice of God’s mysterious ways. “the truth of God’s secret intent by the rise of Chingiz Khan has become clear.” 10 6 Grigor of Akanc` History of the Nation of Archers, tr. R. P. Blake & R. Frye (Harvard University Press, 1954) 291. 7 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 436. 8 Vardan, The Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43, 1989. Harvard University. p. 96 (157). 9 Vardan, The Historical Compilation, 97. 10 J.A. Boyle (tr. & ed.), Ata Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan: The History of the World-Conqueror (Manchester University Press, 1997) 638; ‘Ala al-Din Ata Malik Juwayni (ed.), Mirza Mohammed Qazvini, Tarikh-I Jahangusha, 3 vols. (London, 1912, 1937) 138.

212 [5]

George Lane

The periodic raiding and looting of the Arab Bedouin had been a part of the life of many of the settled communities of these regions for centuries. Writing as early as the sixth century the chronicler, Joshua the Stylite, laments the curse of the nomad Arabs who under the banner of their Persian or Byzantine masters would launch continual raids on the cities and villages of northern Mesopotamia. The Bedouin Arabs, crossed the Tigris, and plundered and took captive and destroyed all that they found ... to the Tayyaye on both sides the war was a source of much profit, and they wrought their will on both kingdoms. 11

[6]

In Abu al-Faraj’s time these Arabs and Kurds had been supplemented by equally ferocious bands of Turkomans. And at that time [c. 1242 CE] the Turkomans of the country of Ablastayn invaded our glorious monastery ... and they killed therein fifteen monks, the greater number of them being doctors, together with deacons and other subordinate clergy. 12

[7]

[8]

In the twelfth and the thirteenth century these marauding gangs were often in the pay of one or other of the various warlords who dotted and terrorised the whole region. Brutal the Mongols might well have been but it was their might, cruel discipline and military prowess which differentiated the Chingizid hordes from the rude rabble armies and armed elements which had for so long preyed on these march lands. Massacres, looting and destruction had long been the norm and the expected behaviour of all armed bands and so often these elements appeared answerable to no one. The arrival of an army however rapacious and ruthless which operated under a perceivable command structure would have to have held the potential for hope. Systematic oppression can better be countered than wanton depredation. Bar Hebraeus early in his reportage of the Mongols, catalogues their laws and the strictures governing their behaviour. First among those rules of conduct, to be observed during initial contacts with 11 J.B. Segal, 21. “Syriac Chronicles as source material for the history of the Middle-East,” cited in Bernard Lewis & P.M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle-East (London: Oxford University Press) 249. 12 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 408.

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

213

their enemies, was the necessity of forewarning the victims of the consequences of resistance. When [the Mongols] have need to write any letter to the rebels, and they must send an envoy, let them not threaten them with the great size of their army and their numbers, but let them say only, If ye will submit yourselves obediently ye shall find good treatment and rest, but if ye resist-as for us what do we know ? [But] the everlasting God knoweth what will happen to you. And in such behaviour as this the Mongols’ confidence in the Lord showeth itself. And by that they have conquered and will conquer. 13

[9]

In fact the icy pronouncement of these famous words: Va agar digar kunad [kunid] ma chi danim khudai danad! 14 (and if he [you] should do otherwise, what do we know [of the consequences], God knows!)

did little to quell people’s fears upon encountering their fearsome foes from the east.

2. THE EARLIER YEARS [10]

[11]

Certainly this awful greeting caused panic in Bar Hebraeus’ home town of Malatya and the result was a general exodus of the population to Aleppo. But for an accident with their pack-mules whilst preparing to leave, the family of Aaron, a distinguished physician of Jewish descent, would also have joined the popular flight from Malatya c. 1243 CE. The mishap was to prove fortunate for when in the following year the Mongol general Shawer Noyen camped in the town after falling sick, Aaron was summoned to his side in order to minister to his medical needs. As a result of his services Aaron was retained by the Mongol though eventually along with his family he was able to move to Antioch. 15 This early contact with the Mongol elite bode well for Aaron’s son Gregory, an avid scholar from an early age, who was later able Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 354. See Ata Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan, 26, n. 4, & 716 ; ‘Ala al-Din Ata Malik Juwayni, Tarikh-i Jahangusha, I, 18 & III, 265. 15 Ernest Wallis Budge, introduction in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xvii. 13 14

214

[12]

[13]

[14]

George Lane

to display his erudite knowledge of his eastern rulers’ background, traditions and culture and fully exploit his access to the libraries and court circles of Hulegu’s capital, Maragha. Though their stay in Antioch was only short, it coincided with a time when relations between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Franks were at their best. Antioch was then under the command of Prince Bohemond V whom the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius II had greatly impressed with his theological discussions with Dominican monks in Jerusalem. So cordial were relations that it is said that Bohemond allowed the construction of an official residence and church with cells for the patriarch in the higher, more select area of the city. 16 Yohannan [John] Ibn al-’Ibri, Bar ‘Ebhraya, Abu al-Faraj, Bar Hebraeus (1225–86 CE) was born into a prosperous region watered from the Euphrates, rich in a wide variety of crops and resplendent in fruits, with a climate said to be most salubrious, centred on the city of Malatya. “It is a large town, with an excellent climate, and running waters, and extensive pastures; its crops being corn, cotton, grapes and much fruit.” 17 Malatya had been a centre for the Syrian Orthodox Church since the tenth century when the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus Phocas had encouraged these Christian Syrians to rejuvenate what was then a decimated war front, and to establish their patriarchal seat in the region. By the eleventh century the Syrian Orthodox Church had instituted bishoprics throughout the east and southeastern lands of Anatolia as far north as Erzindjan and were active in trade and commerce and had gained a reputation for their physicians. 18 On his tombstone in the Church of the Monastery of Mar Mattai near Mosul, is inscribed in Karshuni (Arabic written in the Syriac alphabet) the following: “This is the grave of Mar

16 B. Abbeloos & Th. I. Lamy (eds.), (Chron. Eccl.) Gregorii Bar Hebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, 3 vols. (Louvain, 1872, 1877) Vol. 1, 653 & 667. cited in H. Teule, “Bar Hebraeus’ Syriac & Arabic Secular Chronicles,” in East & West in the Crusader States (Leuven, 1996) 40. 17 Hamdallah Mustawfi, Nuzhat al-Qulub, tr. G. Le Strange (London: Luzac & Co., 1919) 98–9. Persian text, London, 1915, p. 99. 18 Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971) 51–2.

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

215

Gregory John, and of Mar Sawma his brother, the children of the Hebrew on Mount Elpeph.” 19 Wallis Budge has suggested that he may have adopted the name Gregory after he was consecrated a bishop twenty years after his father christened him John. Wallis Budge further suggests that the Arabic epithet, Abu al-Faraj, “Father of what is pleasing (?)” which Bar Hebraeus himself adopted might indicate that whereas his father is commonly assumed to have been a Jewish physician it could be that his mother had been an Arab. The meaning behind the epithet is a mystery and whether it refers to the Bab al-Faraj of Aleppo, a city where the cleric dwelt or to his good works, or to his extensive writing remains open to conjecture. Since at least 1927 doubts have been thrown on the assumption that Bar Ebroyo’s father was Jewish, with suggestions that his descent is more likely to have been from a noble Christian family. The confusion, it is claimed, was caused by the commonly Jewish name of Aaron which, being of biblical origin, was not uncommonly found among Christians. “Bar Ebroyo” so often rendered as “Bar Hebraeus” should rather be interpreted as “Son of Ebra” which would indicate either that one of his ancestors was born while crossing the Euphrates or that the ancestor hailed from the village of Ebra, a village on the banks of the Euphrates. These views were first raised by Afram Barsaum in 1927 in a paper in Arabic, “Bar Hebraeus: was he of the Jewish Race?.” 20 In the Encyclopaedia Iranica, Herman Teule states quite unequivocally that Bar Hebraeus was not born of Jewish origin. 21 For another source for these doubts the Syrian Orthodox scholar, the Rev. Joseph Tarzi, cites a poem attributed to the cleric, Ibn al-Ȩebri himself. If the Lord called Himself Samaritan, do not be ashamed if they call you Bar Ebroyo. For this name’s

19 Cited in by Ernest Wallis Budge, introduction in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xvi. see Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. I, 97. 20 For bibliographical details of Barsaum’s work (p. 282, under 1927) and a survey of works related to Bar Hebraeus see, Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Esquisse d’une Bibliographie de Bar Hebraeus (+1286),” Parole de l’Orient XIII (1986): 279–312. 21 See “Ebn al-’Ebri,” in H.G.B. Teule, Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 7 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1997).

216

George Lane origin is of the river Euphrates and not of a disgraceful faith or a language. 22

[19]

[20]

During his youth, attached to the Il-Khan general, Shawer Noyen’s court through his father’s duties as a physician, Bar Hebraeus was enabled to continue his scholastic life which brought him under the influence of the Syrian Orthodox Church. While based in Antakya (Antioch) he received a visit from the Patriarch David Ignatius Saba, which is indicative of the social status the family had attained through their position with the Mongols. Shortly afterwards, at the age of seventeen, the son of Aaron the Mongols’ physician, became a monk and entered the life of a hermit. Mysticism and the life of the ascetic were to remain central to the spirit of this “love-sick seeker of the Beloved” 23 throughout his life though as he recounts in his Book of the Dove, a spiritual guide for the solitary monk, he travelled this troubled path without the guidance of a master. 24 However his meditations were interrupted and the worldly affairs of the Syrian Orthodox Church 25 soon came to dominate his earthly life. Leaving Antakya he travelled south with Salibah bar Ya’qub Wagih, to the coastal city of Tripoli where they studied rhetoric and medicine under Ya’qub of the Church of the East. From Tripoli they were summoned by the Patriarch Ignatius II to be consecrated as bishops of Akko and of Gubos near Malatya. Bar Hebraeus was ordained as Bishop of Gubos on the Festival of the Joseph Tarzi, “Maphryono Mar Gregorious Youhanon Bar Ebroyo.” [http://www.netadventure.com/~soc/Biogr/BarHeb/TarziBar.html] 23 “All those who are burning from love and sick from affection reveal their secrets to her [the beloved] and she slakes their thirst.” Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, tr. A.J. Wensinck, E.J. Brill (Leyden, 1919), Introduction, p. 4. 24 His book was intended as “psychic medicine, to give instructions concerning the behaviour of those patients [mystic monks] who are without or far from a leader; especially in this our age, in which the Syriac world is bereft of an Initiated, who has personally experienced the straightness of the way leading to the kingdom and the narrowness of the gate giving entrance to it. It is therefore our aim to give this sort of clear and simple instruction.” ibid., 3. 25 See Wright, A Short History, 265–8; Wallis Budge, introduction in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xvii–xxviii. 22

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

217

Day of the Redeeming Cross, 14 September 1246 CE at the age of twenty. Many years later, approaching death, the then ageing Maphrian, saw great astrological significance in this date which along with his birth in 1226 CE, his appointment as Maphrian and his expected and actual death in 1286CE he had found reflected in the stars. In that year in which Kronos and Zeus were in conjunction in the Zodiacal Sign of Aquarius I was born. And twenty years after, when they were in conjunction in the Zodiacal Sign of Libra, I was ordained bishop. And twenty years after, when they were in conjunction in the Zodiacal Sign of Gemini, I undertook the office of Maphrian. And after another twenty years, when they will be again in conjunction in the Zodiacal Sign of Aquarius, I think that I shall go out of this world. 26

[21]

Before Bar Hebraeus had succeeded to Maphrian of the East there had been a bitter schism within the Church between Dionysius (Aaron Angur) and John bar Macdani both of whom wished to take on the local leadership of their church following the death of the Patriarch Ignatius II. After Dionysius whom Bar Hebraeus had backed was installed, the Maphrian Salibha, 27 the onetime friend from Tripoli, arrived in Aleppo and began spreading gold and influencing people not only amongst the faithful but in the circles of the then government of al-Malik al-Nasir Yusuf in Damascus. And he [Salibha] made himself ready and went to Damascus, and he undertook to pay as much gold as Dionysius had undertaken to pay, and he obtained a patent (i.e. authority from the government) for the deposition of Dionysius and for the proclamation of Mar John bar Macdani. 28

Cited in Wallis Budge, introduction in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xx, from Bar Hebraeus’ Chronicum Ecclesiasticum, II, cols. 432f. 27 From Akko he had been transferred to Aleppo where he took the name Basil, before being made Maphrian Ignatius in December 1252 by the Patriarch John bar MaȨdani. He died in 1258. see Wright, A Short History, 267. 28 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xviii. 26

218 [22]

George Lane

However later still, an envoy from the Mongols, Amin al-Din Mubarak of the Church of the East, tried to prevail on Malik Nasir in Damascus to reverse his ruling in favour of Dionysius’ rival which though unsuccessful caused John bar Macdani to retreat to the Cilician court of the Armenian King Hatoum out of fear of the approaching long arm of the Mongols. Eventually Gregory Abu alFaraj representing Dionysius succeeded in Damascus where the Mongols’ envoy had failed and a new patent of authority was delivered to Dionysius. Hearing of the matter Maphrian Ignatius [Salibha] retired to Tripoli where he expressed his disillusionment with his ministry and his intention of devoting the rest of his life to the service of the sick. He died in 1258 CE, a time of great turmoil for the people of the whole region, and it would be six years before a successor was proclaimed. The wasted Church of the East remained a widow for the space of six years. Moreover, for three years before the death of Salibha the Maphrian, the Church had been deprived of a Father-General. Therefore the Synod of the pious bishops having assembled in Cilicia, they appointed to be Patriarch Mar Ignatius or Rabban Isho, the Archimandrite of Gawikhath, and they also proceeded to the election of the Maphrian. And a few days after the consecration of the Patriarch the pious bishops and the Patriarch assembled in Sis of Cilicia, and they summoned Gregory, that is Abu al-Farag, the son of Aaron. And on the first day of the week, on the 19th day of the month of the Later Kanon (i.e. January) 1264 CE ... they proclaimed him Maphrian of Tagrith and the East. 29

[23]

This time the Church leaders did not turn southward toward Damascus to obtain endorsement for their appointments but instead immediately sought out the court of the new King of Kings, Hulegu Khan, and it so happened that the appointment of Bar Hebraeus as Maphrian coincided with the establishment of a new order in the lands of Persia, Rum and upper Mesopotamia and an era of relative stability for many of the people of those regions. And the Patriarch with the Maphrian and the rest of the bishops made ready and went to tender homage to the 29

Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xx.

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

219

king of kings [Hulegu], and (one) Patent was written for the Patriarch, and another for the Maphrian. 30

From Bar Hebraeus’ own words it would appear that the next year was a time of general rejoicing as the new Maphrian, basing himself in Mosul and Baghdad, travelled throughout his diocese ordaining new monks, bishops and deacons, and blessing and reassuring his congregation.

3. BAR HEBRAEUS THE WRITER [24]

Bar Hebraeus rose not only to be a giant of the intellectual world of the mediaeval Middle East but has maintained his stature to the present day. His prodigious output of learned books, his very active life as a high ranking ecclesiastic, the universal reverence expressed toward him and his remarkable aptitude for languages and erudition have ensured his memory a fame far beyond the confines of the Eastern churches. His Chronography alone should have put lie to the oft repeated claim that the literature of Syria is ... not an attractive one. ... the characteristic of the Syrians is a certain mediocrity. They shone neither in war, nor in the arts, nor in science. ... There was no al-Farabi, no Ibn Sina, no Ibn Rushd, in the cloisters of Edessa, Ken-neshre, or Nisibis. 31

[25]

[26]

He was brought up in Syriac and Arabic and presumably Hebrew but he was to acquire mastery of many more languages later in life. In his introduction to his Chronography, Bar Hebraeus relates that he was able to access the works of Syrians, Saracens and Persians in the Il-Khans’ libraries. “I, having entered the library of the city of Maragha of Adhorbijan, have loaded up this my little book with narratives which are worthy of remembrance.” 32 He readily acknowledges his indebtedness to Ala ad-Din Ata Malik Juwayni in his Chronography and it must be inferred that he was fluent enough in Persian to appreciate and understand the governor of Baghdad’s often flowery hand. Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xxi. William Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894) 1–2. 32 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography. 30 31

220

George Lane [Juwayni] was exceedingly skilled in doctrines (or, learned subjects), and had an adequate knowledge of the poetic art. And he composed a marvellous work in Persian on the chronology of the kingdoms of the Saljuqs, and the Khwarazmians, and the Ishmaelites, and the Mongols; what we have introduced into our work on these matters we have derived from his book. 33

[27]

[28]

[29]

He had direct contact with the Mongol court from an early age and would likely have become at least conversant in Mongolian, and his easy knowledge of their history, traditions and laws suggests an access to documentary material which would require conversancy in Uighur. In many of his more learned treatises he quotes extensively from Greek writers. Though many of these classical works had been translated into Syriac and Aramaic it is widely thought that Bar Hebraeus would have been acquainted with them in the original Greek. 34 In his book “The Laughable Stories” written toward the end of his life are collected stories from a wide variety of sources with quotes from Persian, Indian, Arab, and Greek sages the works with which he could have had familiarity though it has been suggested that in fact Bar Hebraeus relied on translated Arabic sources for many of these tales. 35 Wallis Budge concluded that in addition to the above Abu al-Faraj was conversant with Chinese, had a working knowledge of Armenian and was acquainted with the dialects of Turkestan, Mongolia, and western China. However there is no real evidence that he knew any Chinese at all since even the Yüan rulers are thought to have only acquired even a rudimentary knowledge of their subjects’ language later in the 14th century. Bar Hebraeus’ great erudition and considerable intellectual output is evidenced by even a cursory glance at the list of the written works which bear his name. His brother Bar Sawma listed some 32 books from a variety of genres in the biography of his sibling. The subjects Abu al-Faraj tackled included books on theology, philosophy, history, medicine, mathematics, grammar, astrology, fables, stories and legends. In his Hewath Hekmetha, or “Book of the Butter of Wisdom” he elucidates the works of Aristotle; in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 473. See W. Budge’s introduction in Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xlv. 35 See U. Marzolph, Oriens Christianus 69 (1985): 81–125. 33 34

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

221

1279 CE he wrote his treatise on cosmology and astronomy, “Book of the Ascension of the Intellect” 36 which was to be used in conjunction with the tables of his Astronomical Almanac; “The Book of Indications and Prognostications” is a Syriac translation of Ibn Sina’s Theoremata et Exercitationes, a study of logic, physics and metaphysics; “The Lamp of the Sanctuary” details the twelve basic principles on which his church was established; “The Book of the Dove” is a text book for hermits and ascetics; and “Ethicon” composed in 1279 in the Il-Khanid capital, Maragha, 37 contains sections on exercising the body and the spirit, purification and adornment of the soul, and the merits of fasting, manual labour, prayer and study. In addition to composing these weighty tomes, Bar Hebraeus also gained great admiration among his fellow Syrian Orthodox believers for his poetry, and his marvellous collection of humorous tales compiled and written up in his later years. These works reflect a more human, less serious side to his complex personality. In justifying the variety of the material to be found in his “Book of Laughable Stories” Bar Hebraeus could have been justifying his life’s work. in the tabernacle of wisdom every kind of thing is necessary, nothing whatsoever that in a natural way sharpeneth the intelligence, and enlighteneth the understanding, and comforteth and rejoiceth the mind which is sorrowful and suffering, should ever be rejected. 38

[30]

His Chronography had achieved such fame in his lifetime that he was entreated to translate the work into Arabic for the benefit of his many Arabic speaking devotees. This so-called Arabic translation of his history Ta’rikh al-Mukhtasar al-Duwal, was completed but for three leaves just before his death and contains details of Muslim writers and figures not mentioned in his earlier Syriac history. For these reasons the later Arabic version cannot be dismissed as an abridged or glossed version of the Syriac chronicle. Much has been made of the differences between these two versions F. Nau (ed. & tr.), Le Livre de l’Ascension de l’Esprit sur la Forme du ciel et de la Terre, 2 vols. (Bibl. De l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences philologiques et historiques 121; Paris, 1899–1900). 37 See H. Teule, introduction in Gregory Bar Hebraeus’ Ethicon, Memra I (Lovanii in Aedibus E. Peeters, 1993) ix–x. 38 Bar Hebraeus, The Laughable Stories, tr. E.A. Wallis Budge (London: Luzac & Co., 1897; reprint New York: AMS Press, 1976) 186. 36

222

George Lane

of his history and significance interpreted from the divergences found in the stories related within them. The Arabic version cannot be regarded as a translation from the earlier Syriac version nor can the Arabic title, Mukhtasar, which translates as “summary” be accepted as an accurate description of the work since this later version contains much detail missing in the former. One explanation for the differences in these two versions put forward by Anneliese Lüders in a doctoral thesis supervised by the eminent Bertold Spuler, 39 was that the two histories were consciously composed for two religiously and politically distinct audiences, one Arabic speaking and presumably Muslim and the other Syriac speaking and therefore Christian. In contrast to this explanation L. Conrad 40 advanced the theory that the Arabic version was written from a Christian point of view and that it was composed for the Christians of the time the majority of whom were unable to read liturgical Syriac and used Arabic for their everyday needs. “There can be no doubt that Bar Hebraeus continued to write with Christian concerns and with a Christian audience in mind.” 41 Rejecting both these theories Herman Teule has advanced a far simpler and far more plausible explanation for the divergences in Bar Hebraeus’ histories. After careful analysis of the texts in particular with regard to those relating to the Crusades, Teule has shown that the two histories relied on different source materials and that the differences and omissions reflect these differing sources. For significant parts of his Syriac chronology Bar Hebraeus relied heavily on the histories of Michael the Syrian 42

A. Lüders, Die Kreuzzüge im Urteil syrischer und armenische Quellen (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 29; Berlin, 1964), cited in H. Teule, “Bar Hebraeus’ Syriac & Arabic Secular Chronicles,” in D. Ciggaar, H. Teule (eds.), East & West in the Crusader States, (Leuven, 1996) 43. 40 L. Conrad “On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus: His aims and audience,” papers read at the IVth Conference on Christian Arabic Studies, Cambridge, Sept. 1992; published in Parole de l’Orient XIX (Université Saint Esprit, Kaslik, Lebanon, 1994) 320–78. 41 Conrad, “On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus,” 337. 42 J.B. Chabot (ed. & tr.), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d’Antioche, 4 vols. (Paris, 1900–10). 39

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

[31]

223

whereas in his Arabic version his source was the al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh of al-Athir. 43 Other sources were of course used and consulted but in essence the differences in Bar Hebraeus’ two versions of history were due simply to the fact that he used new original source material in the later version rather than attempt to translate his own work directly from Syriac to Arabic. What does become clear is that the facts were not presented in a manner presumed pleasing to an anticipated audience but were reflective of the words and attitude of the original source. 44

4. THE RELUCTANT CLERIC [32]

Unlike other Christian historians of this time, Bar Hebraeus does not revel in any perceived bias that Hulegu might have held for Christians as against Muslims. It was well known that the King of King’s wife, Doquz Khatun, 45 was a Kerayit princess of the Church of the East and was able to prevail upon her Buddhist husband to treat Christians well. It was even claimed that she was descended from the Biblical three wise men and that she had had many new churches built and “the temples of the Sarasens to be beton downe. (sic)” 46 The contemporary Armenian historian, Stephannos Orbelian, even portrayed Hulegu and Doquz Khatun as the Constantine and Helen of the age. 47 Bar Hebraeus was aware of her tribe’s long Christian roots 48 and of her attachment to his faith, C.J. Tornberg (ed.), Ibn el-Athiri Chronicum quod perfectissimum inscribitur, 12 vols. (Leiden, 1853–67, and reprinted Beirut, 1965–6). 44 H. Teule, “Bar Hebraeus’ Syriac & Arabic Secular Chronicles.” 45 On Dokux Khatun see Charles Melville, Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 6 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1997). 46 Hetoum, A Lytell Cronycle, tr. Richard Pynson (University of Toronto, 1988) 176. 47 Stephannos Orbelian, Histoire de la Sioune, tr. Marie Brosset (St. Petersbourg, 1864) 234–5. See also J.M. Fiey, “Iconographie Syriaque Hulagu, Doquz Khatun … et Six Ambons,” Le Muséon (1975): 59–64. 48 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 184. “And in this year [1007] the people of one of the tribes of the Inner Turkaye in the East, which is called Kirith, believed in Christ, and they became disciples and were baptised through the miracle which was wrought in connection with their king.” See Erica Hunter, “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in 1007,” Zentral-Asiatische Studien 22 (1989–91). 43

224

[33]

[34]

George Lane

“Tokuz Khatun, the believing queen and lover of Christ’ 49 but in his Chronography he does not dwell either on the favoured treatment he himself received nor of any obvious partiality that the Mongols might have shown to the Christians, indeed he objectively catalogues the fatally harsh treatment the Christians on occasion received. 50 It is Bar Hebraeus’ comparative objectivity and simplicity of style which distinguishes him from other Christian chroniclers of the time such as Vardan, Hetoum, Grigor, Orbelian and Kirakos. His great tolerance of others, reflective of his introspective and mystical character, earned him friends and respect from all communities so much so that it was his Arab neighbours who beseeched him to translate his Syriac political history into Arabic for their appreciation. His life as Maphrian of the East forced upon him reluctant involvement in the various political and confessional intrigues of his church, as he recounts in his Chronicum Ecclesiasticum, 51 but writing in his mystical treatise “The Book of the Dove’ where the man rather than the cleric speaks he makes plain his aversion to such a life. I hated other sorts of knowledge [other than his study of Greek wisdom and mysticism], though I had to occupy my thoughts superficially with some of them, not for my own sake, but for the sake of others who wished to profit by me. During this space of time, many offenses made me miserable and caused me to stumble. 52

[35]

In this treatise written for others who like him found themselves embarking on the mystical quest without an initiated guide, can be heard the voice of humility and compassion as well as the rapture of the “lover” and of one who has felt the “divine impulse moving in the mind of man.” 53 He explains that early in his training as a cleric he was able to discern the fundamental unity of Christian belief and perceived the perpetual doctrinal disputes Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 435. Ibid., 433. 51 Ibid., xx–xxviii. 52 Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, tr. A. J. Wensinck, E. J. Brill (Leyden, 1919), Introduction, p. 61. 53 Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, 5. 49 50

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

225

and disquisition he was forced to engage in, as not only tiresome but insidiously detracting from the true expression of his church, divine love. I became convinced, that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of facts but of words and denominations. ... And I wholly eradicated the root of hatred from the depth of my heart and I absolutely forsook disputation with anyone concerning confession. 54

[36]

He did not put great store in those who put recitation and knowledge of the scriptures above direct experience. As hunger is not satisfied by water, nor thirst by bread, so the Initiated, who wishes to look within the Sinaitic cloud [the Divine], gains small profit by hearing the Scriptures being read. 55

and he cautioned that mere “reciting of the scriptures and steady labour” do not the true Initiate make. For many have laboured strenuously, but because they have not laboured with intelligence, they have not attained the way of truth, nor reached the harbour of life. 56

[37]

Though not explicitly stated, this sense of profound tolerance which pervades Bar Hebraeus’ “Book of the Dove.” was probably extended not only to the adherents of the schisms within his own church but to the disciples of other faiths that he would have become intimately connected with. In his introduction to his translation of the “Book of the Dove,” A.J. Wensinck demonstrates at length Bar Hebraeus’ indebtedness to the Muslim mystics and in particular to al-Ghazzali not only in the organisation of his material 57 but also in the aims particularly of his book Ethicon. 58 The mystic system expounded by Abu al-Faraj reveals clear links with his Syriac predecessors but the influence of Ghazzali and Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, 60. Ibid., 63. 56 Ibid., 65. 57 Ibid., introduction, pp. xvii–xviii, cxi–cxxxvi. 58 Gregory Bar Hebraeus, Ethicon, tr. Herman Teule (Lovanii In Aedibus E. Peeters, 1993). 54 55

226

[38]

George Lane

other Muslims seekers is so marked as to suggest his intimacy with the teachings of these masters, and the resulting “eastern syncretism,” a term Wensinck employs to describe the spiritual attitude of the times. Bar Hebraeus goes some way to acknowledging this indebtedness when he states, “if [the Lord] had not led me to look in the writings of the Initiated ... occidental and oriental ... I would ere long have despaired of psychical, if not of bodily life.” 59 In Ethicon he demonstrates not only the unmistakable pervasive influence of al-Ghazzali but of his own tolerance and balanced attitude to views not in accordance with his own. Discussing the merits of music and dance for the pious life 60 he sets out clearly the three prevailing views on the subject though admittedly he leaves the student in no doubt of his own “true view” which take the middle ground between those would have a total prohibition and those such as the followers of the Maulana of Konya who believe that music and dance are intrinsic to the mystical life. Bar Hebraeus spent the last years of his life in Maragha, the IlKhanid capital. Maragha had already established connections with the Syrian Orthodox Church when Rabban Simeon first entered Hulegu’s service. Part of his annual 5000 dinar income was provided for by Maragha. 61 Bar Hebraeus had visited the city from Tabriz as early as 1268 in which year he had first been exposed to the books of Euclid and again in 1273 when he studied the thirteen astronomical volumes of the Almegest of Ptolemy. 62 He had early begun planning a programme of church construction in West Azerbijan. In 1279, the year of Abu al-Faraj’s return to Maragha, Qutai Khatun, the mother of Tegudar Ahmad (Il-Khan 1282–4), had revived the Christian procession of the Epiphany which involved the blessing of the waters of the river Safi. The annual procession had ceased to be held because of conflicts between the Muslims and Christians but the presence of one the royal family in person ensured the success of the revived festival. [Qutai Khatun] came in person to the city of Maragha, and commanded the Christians to go forth according Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, Introduction, p. 61. Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, 118–122. 61 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 437. 62 J.M. Fiey, Chrétiens Syriaques sous les Mongols (Louvain, 1975) 99. 59 60

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

227

to their custom with crosses suspended from the heads of their spears. And having gone forth the Divine Grace visited them, and the strength of the cold diminished, and the grass prospered, and the winter possessed the characteristics [favourable] for herbage. And the Mongols had joy in keeping their horses in condition, and the Christians in the triumph of their faith. 63

[39]

[40]

According to Assemani, in 1282 Ahmad Tegudar had granted Abu al-Faraj a licence to build churches in Azerbijan, Assyria and Mesopotamia, 64 and both Tabriz and Maragha benefited from his industry. He had been reluctant to leave Mosul for the Mongol capital knowing that the move might be his last. However, his brother who feared lest the Maphrian’s own prophecies foreseeing his death in his sixtieth year should come about at the hands of “thieves and robbers” had insisted that he should abandon the lawless march lands of “Syria” and seek the safety of the Il-Khanid metropolis where he could find sanctuary in his own church and monastery. So tranquil and conducive to intellectual activity was the Il-Khanid capital that the ageing cleric was able to complete not only his great work, the Ethicon, but also a scientific work inspired and helped no doubt by the proximity of the Rasad-e Khan of Nasir al-Din Tusi, the Book of the Ascension of the Intellect. 65 It is claimed that the remains of his church and monastery can still be seen today on the outskirts of the leafy town of Maragha. This church on the western face of a hill overlooking the city would have been ideal for the ageing cleric whose great interest in the stars has already been noted. The entrance to the caves which formed the body of this church lay only thirty or forty metres beneath the famous observatory of Maragha, the Rasad-e Khan, which Hulegu had had constructed for his greatly respected advisor

Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 460. Cf. Fiey, Chrétiens Syriaques sous les Mongols, 38. 64 Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. II, 258. Cited in John Bowman & J.A. Thompson, “The Monastery-Church of Bar Hebraeus at Maragheh in West Azerbijan,” Abr-Nahrain, vol. V (1964–5), E.J. Brill (Leiden, 1966) 38. 65 Nau, Le Livre de l’Ascension de l’Esprit sur la Forme du ciel et de la Terre. 63

228

George Lane

and friend of Bar Hebraeus, Nasir al-Din Tusi. 66 That a “new monastery” and a “new church” existed at this time in Maragha is attested to in Bar Hebraeus’ Chronicum Ecclesiasticum. 67 Well aware that his time had come for he had seen it in the night sky, the dying Abu al-Faraj “never ceased from telling stories with laughter and a cheerful face. [Suddenly] he went out like a lamp.” 68 The Uighur Catholicos of the Church of the East ordered the bazaars of Maragha closed and there was great mourning in all the communities when the news of the death became known.

5. THE LAST LAUGH [41]

It was in the last years of his life that he composed his “Laughable Stories” which can perhaps be seen as the link between the tireless erudite scholar and the humble mystic and witness to the conceits of his too human nature. It was a book written as a “consolation to those who are sad, and a binding up (of spirit) to those who are broken, and an instructive teacher to those who love instruction, and a wonderful companion to those who love amusement,” 69 not just for his Syrian Orthodox followers but for all the people of the world as is evinced in the Prologue. And let this book be a religious friend to the reader, whether he be Muslim, or Hebrew, or Aramean, or a man belonging to a foreign country. And let the man who is learned ...and the man that babbleth conceitedly ... and every other man chose what is best for himself ... for in this way the book will succeed in bringing together the things which are alike, each to the other.70

For a description and explanation of this “church” see Bowman & Thompson, “The Monastery-Church of Bar Hebraeus,” 35–61. For an alternative view as to the nature of these caves see W. Ball, “Two aspects of Iranian Buddhism,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi University 1–4 (1976): 103–63; “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum at Vardjovi. A rock-cut IlKhanid complex near Maragheh,” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 12 (1979) 329–40. 67 Chronicum Ecclesiasticum, III, 443; cited in H. Teule, introduction in Gregory Bar Hebraeus’ Ethicon, xi, n. 12. 68 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, xxix. 69 Bar Hebraeus, The Laughable Stories, iii. 70 Ibid., iii–iv. 66

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj [42]

[43]

229

The themes include women’s rights as in story 515 which recounts two women explaining the injustice of men having free access to young prostitutes, something denied them, being due to the fact that “the kings, and the judges, and the lawgivers are all men; and they have therefore acted the parts of advocates of their own causes and have oppressed the women,” 71 dreams and divination, the powers of which the Maphrian certainly believed, to wisdom as in the story of the gazelle who explained why the pursuant dog would never catch her “because I run for my life, but thou for thy master.” 72 Sometimes cynical, sometimes lewd, often amusing, the stories pillory kings, beggars, tradesmen, priests, philosophers and fools and in the tradition of other medieval collections of tales, the “Laughable Stories” provide a kaleidoscopic vision of Bar Hebraeus’ medieval world. It also provides a view of the Maphrian’s essential compassion, empathy with his fellow man and pleasure in the life he saw around him. Bar Hebraeus has survived not only because of the irreplaceable value of his histories, their detail and the evidence of events witnessed first hand but because his accounts are uncommonly objective and that the honesty expressed in his more esoteric writings has been allowed to permeate his historical work. Bar Hebraeus’ main vocation in life was his spiritual quest and all else was secondary. His moral convictions were binding on all aspects of his life. He had learnt humility early in his search for enlightenment. “I resembled a man who is immersed in the ocean and stretches forth his hands towards all sides in order to be saved.” 73 He did not rate his success in the transient world so highly. He judged himself so severely that he must have been hesitant about judging others. “I teach but I do not learn; I write but I have neglected; I preach but I do not practice; I admonish but I have sinned.” 74 In the “Book of the Dove.” he clearly expresses his attitude toward flattery, sycophancy and lies in a chapter devoted to “Offences of the Tongue.” Speech which is indirectly sinful consists of tales concerning the glory, the prevalence and the opulency Bar Hebraeus, The Laughable Stories, 136. Ibid., 92. 73 Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, 61. 74 Ibid., 30. 71 72

230

George Lane of wicked people ... The end of the wicked shall be destruction, in this world and in the world to come ... Flattery. The flatterer falls into four evils ... He who is flattered falls into two damages. 75

[44]

His praise of his Mongol masters is measured and in no way excessive. The Syrian Orthodox Church undoubtedly prospered and experienced a period of stability under Hulegu and Abaqa, “And the Church acquired stability and protection in every place.” 76 Bar Hebraeus’ claim that Abaqa “was beloved by all the peoples who were under his dominion” (where it should be noted that he speaks of the “peoples’ in the plural and not of just his own people) is an assertion that can be accepted at face value. Whereas the Persian court historians such as Juwayni, Wassaf and Rashid alDin might have expected that their works would be studied and read by their Mongol overlords there was not the same likelihood that the Syriac tomes would have found as wide an audience. Bar Hebraeus was writing for posterity in order to keep the Syriac language alive and for the education of future generations and not for the glory of any one king, leader, sect or group. He had attended the Diwan of the Il-Khans but he was not of the court. He had access to their libraries, a privilege he could not have failed to greatly appreciate, and must have met while in Maragha many of the great figures of the time who were attracted to the capital in Azerbaijan including the philosopher and astronomer Nasir al-Din Tusi 77 to whom he devoted a warm and laudatory paragraph in his Chronography. 78 Bar Hebraeus could not have approved of all the actions of his earthly masters but neither did he approve of the striving of anyone after the transitory treasures of the material world. The brutality of the Mongols was only worse than that of other conquerors, warlords and bandits in that it was carried out more thoroughly and systematically and conducted on a larger scale and, it would appear, more cold-bloodedly than that of other armies and armed elements. But Bar Hebraeus must have felt that Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Dove, 12–4. Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 437. 77 See J.A. Boyle, “The Longer Introduction to the Zij-I-Ilkhani of Nasir al-Din Tusi,” Journal of Semitic Studies VIII (1963): 253; reprinted in The Mongol World Empire 1206–1370 (Varorium Reprints;, London, 1977), ch. xxvii, p. 253. 78 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, 451. 75 76

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

231

some justice shone through the ruthlessness and that there did now exist the possibility of some form of recourse to legitimacy. He was certainly able to lead a full and very spiritually and intellectually active life and the comparative stability which allowed that to happen must have been due to the iron-like presence of the Mongols and the rigorous order that they imposed upon the lands of their turbulent charges. Just as his Christian predecessor, Matthew of Edessa, had mourned the passing of Malik-Shah and could foresee the period of instability which would invariably follow, so too must the Maphrian have looked wistfully to the years of the early Il-Khanate when the King of Kings had mightily wielded such reassuring power.

REFERENCES Badger, G.P. The Nestorians and their Rituals, with the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coodistan in 1842–1844, 2 vols. London, 1852. Ball, W. “Two aspects of Iranian Buddhism.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi University. 1–4, pp. 103–63, 1976. Ball, W. “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum at Vardjovi. A rock-cut Il-Khanid complex near Maragheh.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 12, pp. 329–40, 1979. Bar Hebraeus, tr. Ernest Wallis Budge. The Chronography of Abu’l-Faraj Bar Hebraeus. Oxford University Press, 1932; reprint APA—Philo Press, Amsterdam, 1976. Bar Hebraeus, ed. B. Abbeloos & Th. I. Lamy. (Chron. Eccl). Gregorii Bar Hebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum. 3 vols. Louvain, 1872, 1877. Bar Hebraeus, tr. A. J. Wensinck. Bar Hebraeus’s Book of the Dove. E. J. Brill, Leyden, 1919. Bar Hebraeus, tr. H. Teule. Gregory Bar Hebraeus’ Ethicon, Memra I. Lovanii in Aedibus E. Peeters, 1993. Bar Hebraeus, tr. E.A. Wallis Budge, The Laughable Stories. Luzac & Co., London 1897; reprint AMS Press, New York, 1976. Bowman, John, & J.A. Thompson. “The Monastery-Church of Bar Hebraeus at Maragheh in West Azerbaijan.” Abr-Nahrain, vol. V, 1964–5. E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1966. Boyle, J.A. “The Longer Introduction to the Zij-I-Ilkhani of Nasir al-Din Tusi.” Journal of Semitic Studies, VIII. Manchester, 1963; reprint in The Mongol World Empire 1206–1370. Varorium Reprints, ch. xxvii, London, 1977. Conrad, L. “On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus: His aims and audience,” papers read at the IVth Conference on Christian

232

George Lane

Arabic Studies, Cambridge, Sept., 1992, published Parole de l’Orient, vol. XIX, Université Saint Esprit, Kaslik, Lebanon, 1994. Fiey, Jean-Maurice. “Esquisse d’une Bibliographie de Bar Hebraeus (+1286).” Parole de l’Orient XIII, pp. 279–312, 1986. Fiey, Jean-Maurice. Chrétiens Syriaques sous les Mongols. Louvain, 1975. ——. “Iconographie Syriaque Hulagu, Doquz Khatun … et Six Ambons.” Le Muséon, pp. 59–64, 1975. Grigor of Akanc,” tr. R. Blake & R. Frye. History of the Nation of Archers. Harvard University Press, 1954. Hunter, Erica. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in 1007.” Zentral-Asiatische Studien, 22. 1989–91. Hetoum, tr. Richard Pynson. A Lytell Cronycle, University of Toronto, 1988. Ibn al-Athir, ed. C.J. Tornberg. Ibn el-Athiri Chronicum quod perfectissimum inscribitur, 12 vols. Leiden, 1853–67 and reprinted Beirut, 1965–6. Juvaini, Ala al-Din “Ata Malik, tr. J.A. Boyle. Genghis Khan: The History of the World-Conqueror, Manchester University Press, 1997. Juvaini, ‘Ata Malik, ed. Mirza Mohammed Qazvini, Tarikh-i Jahangusha, 3 vols. London, 1912, 1937. Lüders, A. Die Kreuzzüge im Urteil syrischer und armenische Quellen. Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten, 29. Berlin, 1964. Marzolph, U. “Sources of the Laughable Stories.” Oriens Christianus 69, pp. 81–125, 1985. Matthew of Edessa, tr. A.E. Dostourian. Armenia and the Crusades. The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. New York: University Press of America, 1993. Melville, Charles, “Dokux Khatun,” Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 6. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1997. Michel the Syrian, tr. J.B. Chabot. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d’Antioche, 4 vols. Paris, 1900–10. Mustawfi, Hamdallah tr. G. Le Strange, Nuzhat al-Qulub. Luzac & Co., London, 1919. Persian text. London, 1915. Stephannos Orbelian, tr. Marie Brosset. Histoire de la Sioune. St. Petersbourg, 1864. Segal, J.B. “Syriac Chronicles as source material for the history of the Middle-East,” in Lewis, Bernard & Holt, P.M. eds., Historians of the Middle-East, London: Oxford Uiniversity Press. Tarzi, Joseph, “Maphryono Mar Gregorious Youhanon Bar Ebroyo" [http://www.netadventure.com/~soc/Biogr/BarHeb/TarziBar. html] Teule, H. “Bar Hebraeus’ Syriac & Arabic Secular Chronicles.” in Ciggaar, Davids, Teule, eds. East & West in the Crusader States. Leuven, 1996.

An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj

233

Teule, H. “Ebn al-’Ebri,” Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 7. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1997. Tusi, Nasir al-Din, ed. & tr. by F. Nau, Le Livre de l’Ascension de l’Esprit sur la Forme du ciel et de la Terre, Bibl. De l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences philoologiques et historiques 121, 2 vols. Paris, 1899– 1900. Vardan, tr. R.W. Thomson. “The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc’i,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 43 pp. 125–226. Washington, 1989. Vryonis, Speros, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971. Wright, William, A Short History of Syriac Literature. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.2, 235–264 © 1999 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE PATRIARCHS OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST FROM THE FIFTEENTH TO EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES1 HELEEN H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (TCNO) UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN THE NETHERLANDS

1. INTRODUCTION [1]

Whoever starts working on the history of the Church of the East in the fifteenth to early nineteenth century encounters considerable difficulties in gaining insight into the developments of the various patriarchal lines. Around 1700, three different patriarchal lines existed alongside each other. One of these was officially recognized by Rome, whereas the two others had some loose connection to the See of Peter but had not obtained official recognition. In the present contribution, I make an attempt to give a critical evaluation of the various lists that are available to modern scholars. In addition, I have amended these lists at a few points. The lists that were composed by Tisserant (1931: 261–3), Fiey (1993: 21–41), The research for this article was made possible by a subvention from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). However, this article would not have appeared in the present form if the editor of Hugoye, Dr. George Kiraz, had not encouraged me to publish this list that was originally intended as a mere appendix to another work, and if my husband Jan Murre had not helped in making full use of the new possibilities of internet publishing. 1

235

236

[2]

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Tfinkdji (1914), and Lampart (1966: 63–4) have formed the basis of the present list. 2 Apart from these lists of patriarchs, the main sources for reconstructing the patriarchal succession are the references to patriarchs, natar kursis (designated successors), and bishops in manuscript colophons, as well as a few Syriac historical writings, archival material concerning relationships between Rome and the Church of the East, and, rather important, Vosté’s edition of the burial inscriptions from the monastery of Rabban Hormizd near Alqosh (Vosté 1930a). In this monastery, the patriarchs of the Church of the East had their see from around 1437 to 1804. 3 A recent Oxford dissertation, David Wilmshurst’s “The Ecclesiastical Organization of the Church of the East, 1318–1913,” supplied some important additions, based as it is on a large number of manuscript colophons from the period under discussion. 4 It should be noted that within the Assyrian Church of the East other lists of patriarchal succession circulate, which, at least for the period under discussion, differ in many points from the list as presented in this contribution. For a discussion of these lists, see J.F. Coakley’s forthcoming article, “The patriarchal list of the Church of the East.” In his article, a traditional list and a slightly different version of it are compared and evaluated in light of their possible sources. Coakley’s article also refers to a third traditional list, which, like the two earlier ones, was composed in the first half 2 Unfortunately, the important work of Samuel Giamil, Genuinae Relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam nunc majori ex parte primum editae historicisque adnotationibus illustratae (Rome 1902) was not at my disposal. Many of the later lists base themselves on this work. Although this means that most of Giamil’s data probably are incorporated in the present work through his successors, I was not able to check them myself. Note further that Giamil’s work again is not a primary source, but a compilation of earlier sources, most of which are not readily accessible either. 3 References to published lists of patriarchs are by name of author. References to manuscripts in published catalogues are by catalogue (for abbreviations, see bibliography) and catalogue number, to which the place and date of copying are added between brackets. A list of the catalogues referred to in this contribution is part of the bibliography. 4 I thank Dr. David Wilmshurst for his readiness to let me use his unpublished dissertation. His work yielded important information both regarding the history of patriarchal succession and the geography of the area.

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

[3]

237

of this century. This list is found in an unpublished manuscript called, History of the Patriarchs of the Aboona Family, by bishop Eliya of Alqosh (1863–1956). This manuscript is in the possession of Mr. Sargoon Aboona. Coakley’s work on the latter list is not published. So far, his research suggests that in general these lists are not based on independent historical sources and that in case they differ from the list in the present article, their data usually are less likely to be correct, especially since its composers tried, in different ways, to combine the two “Assyrian” patriarchal lines, that of the Abuna family (the Rabban Hormizd patriarchate) and of the successors of Sulaqa (the patriarchate of Mar Yaqub Khbhisha, Khosrowa, and Qodshanis), into one smooth succession. In a few instances, however, when no sound historical data support either of the lists, the dates or names in the traditional lists may be as good a guess as any other. In those cases I will make a reference to these lists. 5 Before turning to the lists, a concise presentation of the history of these patriarchal lines is appropriate. After the Mongol devastation of the fourteenth century, we find the patriarchate of the East in the monastery of Rabban Hormizd, near Alqosh in northern Iraq. We do not know much about this patriarchate, only that in 1497, Shimun IV Basidi was the first to be buried in Rabban Hormizd and that he presumably started the hereditary succession in his family, which later was to become known as the Bar Mama or Abuna family. In the middle of the sixteenth century, opposition to the patriarchate of Rabban Hormizd resulted in the counterpatriarchate of Yukhannan Sulaqa, who acquired papal recognition in 1553. Up till Shimun IX (1579–1600), this line was officially in union with Rome, but Shimun IX’s successors were less successful in acquiring this recognition. Around 1700, this line seems to have disconnected itself from Rome completely. By that time, missionary influence had led to a new Uniat line in Diyarbakir (Amida). Its first patriarch took the name of Yosep (1681–96). The patriarchs of Rabban Hormizd repeatedly tried to establish closer links with Rome, but only in the early nineteenth century did this lead to Roman Catholic recognition of its last patriarch, Yukhannan Hormizd. In 1830, after Yosep V Augustin Hindi of Diyarbakir had died, this Yukhannan Hormizd became the sole 5 I am greatly obliged to Dr. J.F. Coakley for his willingness to share this information with me, as well as for his constructive remarks concerning other aspects of the present article.

238

[4]

[5]

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Uniate, i.e. Chaldean, patriarch “of Babylon.” 6 Here lies the origin of the present Chaldean patriarchate of Babylon, which now has its see in Baghdad. The late successors of Sulaqa, who around 1600 discontinued their connection with Rome, re-introduced hereditary succession in the Shimun-line. The patriarchate of the present-day Assyrian Church of the East, with its see in Chicago (Illinois, USA), forms the continuation of this line. Upon the election of the present patriarch, Mar Dinkha IV, in 1976, hereditary succession was abandoned once again. For completeness’ sake, I have added the names and dates of the patriarchs up to the present day, without further critical evaluation or references to manuscripts. An important aspect of the history of these various patriarchal lines is formed by the geographical distribution of the areas of their jurisdiction in the course of time. I have added three maps displaying the changing regions of jurisdiction of the two or three patriarchates: Map A: 1553–90, Map B: 1590–1660, and Map C: 1660–1800. Anyone studying the present contribution will understand that an exact description of these patriarchal regions is impossible to make. I, therefore, assigned two shades of the same color to every patriarchate: the darker one for the area (usually a single location) for which sound manuscript evidence exists (referred to in the text), the lighter shade for the surrounding areas that can be assumed, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, to have formed part of the region of that particular patriarchate. Note further that from 1760 onwards, Catholicism is making its way into the region of the patriarchs of the Abuna family. This is not indicated in map C, since usually these “Catholic” mss. claim adherence to the Abuna family. 7 All entries, if possible, contain the following items: x

Name and “number” of the patriarch, followed by the dates of his patriarchate. My enumeration follows that of Lampart 1966, and differs from Tisserant and Fiey as to the numbering of the Eliya line. The latter assume two different Eliyas during the reign of Eliya VI (1558–91). Note that this numbering differs in a

For the designation “patriarchate of Babylon,” see De Vries 1960: 46 and Lampart 1966: 48–9. Both argue that in this period “Babylon” does not necessarily refer to a patriarchal see in the city of Baghdad. 7 Fiey 1965 and 1977, Sanders 1978 and 1997, as well as the maps in Wilmshurst’s unpublished thesis (1998), helped me in locating most of the towns and villages mentioned in the manuscript colophons. 6

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

x

x

x x

x

[6]

[7]

239

number of cases from the traditional numbering within the Assyrian Church of the East (cf. Coakley, “patriarchal list”). Place of residence: in many cases only a single reference is found. A name here indicates that the patriarch lived there for at least a certain period. This does not exclude the possibility of other places of residence. Roman Catholic connections: indications concerning correspondence with Rome, contacts with RC missionaries, or an official recognition by the Pope. For further information on this subject, see Giamil 1902, Tisserant 1931, Beltrami 1933, and Lampart 1966. Burial place, mainly based on Vosté 1930a. Natar kursi (designated successor). Note that the name of the natar kursi is not always identical to the name of the following patriarch. There are various reasons for this: the patriarch might have designated another natar kursi after the first one died or fell out of grace, or the natar kursi is known only by the traditional name of his episcopal see, a name which usually was not kept on becoming patriarch. Usually the natar kursi was a nephew of the patriarch, sometimes a younger brother. Manuscript attestations: references to ms. colophons in which a patriarch is mentioned are given here. The number of attestations is rather uneven. During the time of some patriarchs many mss. were written and have been preserved, whereas other periods have yielded almost nothing. Note further that most references in colophons are to a patriarch “Eliya” or “Shimun,” without further designations. Such attestations can be linked to a certain patriarch only by the date of the manuscript.

In case of scholarly disagreements concerning the history of certain patriarchs, the present discussion will be summarized in a smaller type. References to a few relevant studies on individual patriarchs can be found here as well, but a full bibliography on patriarchal succession in this period is beyond the scope of the present article. As to the transcription of Syriac names: a purely scholarly transcription is almost impossible due to the constraints of internet type founding, and also would do no justice to the considerable differences between the scholarly transcription of Classical Syriac and the pronunciation of Syriac (both Classical and Modern) in the period under discussion. On the other hand, a purely phonetic rendering would make some names hardly recognizable to the scholar used to traditional transcriptions. Therefore I adopted a

240

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

middle road between these two extremes, using Anglicized renderings of modern Syriac pronunciation, making use as much as possible of traditional transcription standards.

2. PATRIARCHATE OF RABBAN HORMIZD (BAR MAMA OR ABUNA FAMILY) [8]

Shimun IV Basidi, [1437] – 20 Feb. 1497 Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd? Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd (Vosté 1930a: 283–5). natar kursi: Eliya, metropolitan of Mosul, nephew of Shimun Basidi. Ms. attestations: a.o., Seert 119 (Athel, June 6, 1437), Mardin 1 (Mar Augin 1486), Mardin 13 (Gazarta 1488), Berlin 38 (n.p., 1496). Kawerau (1955: 119), referring to Graf 1949 (3): 62, gives 1437–77 as the period of his reign, and mentions a decree of this patriarch issued in 1450 by which he supposedly started hereditary succession within the Bar Mama / Abuna family. Tisserant (1931: 228) and Lampart (1966: 51–2) also mention this decree, the latter basing himself on Giamil (1902: 544). However, none of these authors seems to have a written source for this assumption. Wilmshurst (1998: 165) notes that the date of Shimun’s rise to the patriarchate is uncertain, and that he might have been in office as early as in 1429/30, when a patriarch Shimun is referred to in Paris 184. This would make for an exceptionally long reign of sixty-eight years. Shimun’s epitaph (Vosté 1930a: 283–4) suggests that it was written by a Mar Khnanishu. This Khnanishu might have succeeded Eliya as natar kursi before Shimun IV died, and subsequently have become Shimun V, but he might also have been installed as natar kursi after Shimun IV’s death. Then he should be considered as Simun V’s natar kursi (so Wilmshurst 1998: 87).

[9]

Shimun V, 1497 – Sept. 1502 Place of residence: Gazarta d-Bet Zabday (Jezira). Burial place: No tombstone. He was buried in the monastery of Mar Augin, near Gazarta. natar kursi: Khnanishu? (cf. above). Ms. attestations: Vat. 204 (no colophon, but containing a note of 1532), Paris 25 (Malabar 1503/4), Diar. 102 (Mar Augin, 1500/1).

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

241

The existence of Shimun V, who appears in all patriarchal lists (e.g., Tisserant and Fiey), seems to be contradicted by one of our main sources for the history of this period, The History of the Christians of Malabar (Assemani BO iii,1(a): 589–599, Vat. 204; for an English translation, see Mingana 1926: 468ff. Another ms. containing this story is Berlin 59, which Sachau thinks originates in the Urmia region, first half 18th c.). This source tells us that Syrians from India came to visit Mar Shimun in 1489/90 in Gazarta, that Mar Shimun consecrated bishops for the Indian dioceses, that bishop Mar Thoma on a second visit witnessed Shimun’s death and burial in 1501/02 in Mar Augin, and further dealt with Mar Shimun’s successor Eliya in 1502/3. The latter died “a year later,” thus in 1503/4, after a letter had been written from India about the arrival of the Portuguese. A second attestation to the succession by Eliya is found in Paris 25 (1504), fo. 7 [transl. Mingana 1926: 473]: “Let it be known also that in the year 1813, at the beginning of the month September (thus Sept. 1502), our common Father, Mar Simon, the Catholicos of the East, left this world of miseries” (Mingana here bases himself on Nau 1912: 82–3, who edited the colophon of Paris 25. This colophon is not in Zotenberg’s catalogue). While these two references both testify to the fact that a patriarch Shimun died in 1502 in the Gazarta area and was succeeded by Eliya, the first source creates ambiguity as to the length of his predecessor’s reign. The story suggests that the patriarch whom the Syrians of India met in 1489/90 was the same as the one who died in 1501/2. However, the death of Shimun IV in 1497 is attested to by a funeral inscription in Rabban Hormizd, and therefore he cannot have been the Shimun the Indian Syrians met in 1501/2. Although one might consider the possibility that an otherwise unattested counter-patriarchate existed in Gazarta, which opposed the patriarchate in Rabban Hormizd, I propose another solution. The History tells that the second visit took place only a “short time” (zabna qallil) after the first. When one takes into account the time needed for travel in these days, “a short time” might perhaps refer to a few years, but is unlikely to denote the more than ten years that elapsed between the first and second visit. I suggest therefore that the date of the first visit needs emendation. The easiest solution might be to read “1811” (1499/1500), rather than “1801.”

[10]

Eliya V, 1502–4 Place of residence: Gazarta, monastery of Mar Yukhannan the Egyptian. Burial place: No tombstone. Attested to in The History of the Christians of Malabar (cf. above); according to this account he was buried in the church of Miskinta in Mosul.

242

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg Ms. attestations: Vat. 204, Paris 25 (cf. above).

We do not know the precise date of Eliya’s death, but the above mentioned colophon of Paris 25 (Nau 1912) states that Eliya consecrated metropolitans and bishops for India, in the monastery of Mar Yukhannan the Egyptian near Gazarta Zabdayta, on April 8, 1504.

[11]

Shimun VI, 1504 – 5 August 1538 Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd, written by Qasha (priest) Israel (Vosté 1930a: 286). natar kursi: Ishuyau, probably metropolitan of Mosul, brother of Shimun VI. Ms. attestations: Diar. 5 (Mar Akha 1528), Vat. 91 (Mar Augin 1530), Mardin 12 (Gazarta 1536). Wilmshurst (1998: 87, 165), suggests that Ishuyau succeeded his brother late in 1538 or early in 1539, because he is referred to as natar kursi in a ms. of October 1538.

Map A: Two patriarchates (1553–90)

[12]

Shimun VII Ishuyau bar Mama, 1538/39 – 1 Nov. 1558 {MAP A} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd. Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd (Vosté 1930a: 286–7).

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

243

natar kursi: Khnanishu, nephew of Shimun VII, who was succeeded as natar kursi by his brother Eliya in 1550 (Wilmshurst 1998: 87). Ms. attestations: Among many, Diar. 15 (Mar Akha 1540), Mardin 14 (Gazarta 1543), Diar. 53 (Mar Augin 1552), Diar. 50 (Mar Augin 1553), Mardin 38 (Mar Augin 1554), C-Add 1988 (Rabban Hormizd and Mar Augin, Oct. 1558). Tisserant, Tfinkdji, and Fiey postulate another Shimun (VIII Denkha) to have succeeded Shimun VII in 1551/2, in order to understand Sulaqa’s opposition as a discussion over succession after Shimun bar Mama’s death rather than as revolt against a patriarch in office. The arguments put forward in Habbi 1966 and Lampart 1966: 50–5 convincingly prove that no “Shimun VIII” succeeded Shimun bar Mama in 1551/2. Beltrami (1933: 81) mentions that Shimun VII traditionally is called qatul, “murderer,” but this is not reflected in the mss. Wilmshurst (1998: 87), on the basis of further mss, notes that Khnanishu was the son of priest Giwargis, and was metropolitan of Mosul till he became metropolitan of Gazarta sometime between 1542 and 1545. The consecration of his brother Eliya as natar kursi in 1545 might be due to Khnanishu’s death.

[13]

Eliya VI bar Giwargis, 1558/9 – 26 May 1591 {MAP A} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd. Roman Catholic connections: Chronicle 1939: 390 mentions a letter of 1586 to Rome. Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd. He died after having been metropolitan for fifteen years and patriarch for thirty-two years (Vosté 1930a: 271, 288–90). natar kursi: Khnanishu, brother of Eliya VI, and Ishuyau. Ms. attestations: a.o., Seert 53 (Gazarta 1566), Mosul 55 (Gazarta 1567/68), Berlin 35 (Gazarta Zabdayta 1561), Berlin 82 (Rabban Hormizd 1562), Diar. 84 (Nisibis 1575), C-Add 1975 (Wasta 1586). Tisserant and Fiey list two Eliyas in this period, the first of whom died in 1576 (probably basing themselves on Giamil). Their reasons for this are unclear, whereas the funeral inscription in Rabban Hormizd is unambiguous as to Eliya VI’s time of reign.

244

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Bishop Yosep of Urmi dedicated a funeral hymn to this patriarch; see BNF 371.VII (no place or date) and Mosul 40 (Mar Quriaqos in Dure 1599/1600). Wilmshurst (1998: 87) mentions a second natar kursi, referred to in 1588, by name of Ishuyau. It is unclear whether either of these two is identical to Eliya VII.

Map B: Shifting allegiances (1590–1660)

[14]

Eliya VII, 1591 – 26 May 1617 {MAP B} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd. Roman Catholic connections: Eliya VII sent emissaries to Rome in 1606 and 1607, and sent his archdeacon Adam in 1611. Eliya further convened an “Unionssynode” in 1616, which, however, did not result in a real union (Lampart 1966: 66–7). Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd (Vosté 1930a: 290–91). natar kursi: Shimun, Khnanishu. Ms. attestations: a.o., Mardin 90 (Gazarta, Nov. 1591, Arabic), Alqosh 22 (Gazarta 1599), Diar. 75 (Wasta 1609), Seert 34 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha, April 1611), Seert 90 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha 1612). Note that the colophon of Seert 34 actually mentions two patriarchs: Mar Eliya and Mar Shimun. Wilmshurst (1998: 88) points to a second natar kursi, named Khnanishu, who is mentioned in a list of clergy of

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

245

1610, and further in 1614 and 1617, basing himself on Giamil 1902. The use of the name Shimun for Eliya VIII suggests that he is traditionally identified with the first natar kursi.

[15]

Eliya VIII Shimun, 1617 – 18 June 1660 {MAP B} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd, Telkepe in times of Kurdish unrest (Chronicle 1939: 391). Roman Catholic connections: Contacts with RC missionaries in 1619, 1629, 1638 and 1653, but no union. Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd, died after forty-three years in office (Vosté 1930a: 291–2). natar kursi: Khnanishu. Ms. attestations: a.o., Seert 6 (n.p., 1625), Mardin 86 (Hassan Kepa 1628, Arabic), Diar. 90 (Mardin 1635), Assfalg 34 (Rabban Hormizd 1649). No ms. attestations of a natar kursi have been encountered. According to Coakley (private correspondence) Giamil (1902: 186) mentions the name of Khnanishu.

Map C: A third patriarchate (1660–1830)

246 [16]

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Eliya IX Yukhannan Maraugin, 1660 – 17 May 1700 {MAP C} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd. Roman Catholic connections: Attempts at union between 1666 and 1670, and from 1692– 1694, but no union resulted from this. Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd, died after forty years in office (Vosté 1930a: 292–4). natar kursi: Ishuyau. Ms. attestations: among many others: C-Or 1145 (Gazarta Zabdayta 1661), L-Or 8678 (Rabban Hormizd 1669), Mingana 489 (Alqosh 1674), Alqosh 325 (Bassuri on the Tigris 1680), Alqosh 17 (Araden 1683), C-Or 1295 (Gazarta d-Zabdayta 1685), C-Add 2045 (Mawana and Mar Zaya in Gugtapa, 1685/6), C-Add 2020 (Alqosh 1697), BNF 424–425 (Alqosh 1900 > Alqosh 1699). Wilmshurst (1998: 88) refers to two other natar kursis: Shimun in 1669 (cf. Giamil 1902: 540, no ms. attestations) and David, in a colophon of 1679. Ishuyau, the future patriarch, is attested to from 1693 onwards.

[17]

Eliya X Maraugin, 1700 – 14 December 1722 {MAP C} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd, Telkepe. Roman Catholic connections: uncertain, probably none (cf. Lampart 1966: 213). Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd, was in office for twenty-three years (Vosté 1930a: 294–6). natar kursi: Ishuyau and Khnanishu. Ms. attestations: a.o., Mosul 2 (Alqosh, 1700/01), Seert 47 (Seert 1702), Aqra 52 (Alqosh, Nov. 1700), Mingana 595 (Telkepe 1717), L-Or 4416 (Telkepe 1720), L-Or 4069 (Alqosh 1721/22). Ishuyau is mentioned as natar kursi in Mosul 2, and, according to Wilmshurst (1998: 88), in a ms. of 1712. Khnanishu is mentioned as natar kursi in L-Or 4416.

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East [18]

247

Eliya XI Denkha, 1722 – April 1778 {MAP C} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd, later Alqosh and perhaps Mosul. Roman Catholic connections: letters, some with confession of faith, to Rome in 1735, 1749, 1750, 1756, and 1771, but no formal recognition resulted. Burial place: No tombstone in Rabban Hormizd, Eliya XI is said to have died of the plague (Vosté 1930a: 296). According to Fiey (1965: 546), Rabban Hormizd was destroyed by the troops of Nadir Shah in 1743 and remained in ruins for sixty-five years. Whether the two patriarchs that were buried here during this period actually lived in the monastery therefore is uncertain. natar kursi: Ishuyau. Ms. attestations: a.o., C-Add 1980 (Alqosh 1722/23), C-Add 2889 (Mosul 1730), Mingana 567 (Zawitha d-Tiari 1744), Mingana 568 (Khardes 1757), Aqra 54 (Alqosh 1766), Aqra 45 (Alqosh 1777). Three different days in April are mentioned as the date of Eliya’s death: April 12 (Tisserant and Lampart 1966: 64) April 20 (Tfinkdji, Vosté), April 29 (Yukhannan Hormizd in Badger 1852, 1:151). The modern authors do not refer to a contemporary source, and therefore Badger’s translation of Yukhannan Hormizd’s autobiography, nephew and natar kursi of the deceased, might well be most reliable. Wilmshurst (1998: 88) mentions a natar kursi Ishuyau as early as 1726. Since natar kursi Ishuyau who was to became Eliya XII was consecrated metropolitan c. 1744 (cf. below), Wilmshurst suggests that two different Ishuyaus existed. The second natar kursi Ishuyau was replaced in 1776 by his younger cousin Yukhannan Hormizd, after Ishuyau fell out of grace (so Yukhannan’s autobiography in Badger 1852, 1:151). However, a manuscript dated to the last year of Eliya XI’s reign, Aqra 45 (Alqosh 1777) mentions Ishuyau as metropolitan. This does not necessarily mean that Yukhannan Hormizd was not consecrated metropolitan in 1776, but it does indicate that at least this one scribe in Alqosh thought Ishuyau more important than Yukhannan Hormizd.

248 [19]

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg Eliya XII Ishuyau, 1778–1804 {MAP C} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd? (see under Eliya XI). Roman Catholic connections: Eliya XII had joined in one of his predecessor’s confessions (1749?), and he himself wrote to Rome in 1779. No formal union resulted from either one of these attempts. Burial place: Tombstone in Rabban Hormizd (Vosté 1930a: 296–8). According to this tombstone, Eliya XII served as metropolitan Ishuyau for thirty-four years before his rise to patriarchate. natar kursi: Ishuyau and Khnanishu. Ms. attestations: so far none dating to the period of his patriarchate. Ishuyau is known as a copyist in the years preceding his patriarchate, so Mosul 10 (Alqosh 1752/3) and C-Add 2021 (Alqosh? 1776).

Not much is known about Eliya XII, but cf. Tfinkdji 1914: 462 and Tisserant 1931: 256. Most important is the fact that his reign was vehemently opposed to by Yukhannan Hormizd, his cousin, who apparently was consecrated by Eliya XI as well. Most of their quarrels concerned their respective connections to Roman Catholicism. Wilmshurst (1998: 88) adds to this information that Eliya XII was the son of priest Auraham, who was the son of priest Khadbshabba. In line with Tisserant (1931: 256), I take the two letters that were edited by Babakhan (Babakhan 1900), as letters by Eliya XII, rather than by Eliya XI, as Babakhan’s introduction seems to suggest. The main difficulty for my suggestion is the fact that in the second letter, to Mar Shimun [XV] of Qodshanis, a synod is mentioned that was convened by the author, the patriarch of the East, and attended to, a.o., by his natar kursi Ishuyau. This would imply that Eliya XII Ishuyau installed a natar kursi Ishuyau immediately after his rise to the patriarchate. Other elements of these letters, such as the date of October 1779 and a reference to his predecessor who wrote to Rome in 1756, strongly suggest that the author is indeed Eliya XII. When written by Eliya XII, both letters testify to his wish to re-establish contact with Rome, perhaps in reaction to Yukhannan Hormizd’s conversion to Catholicism following the death of Eliya XI. Wilmshurst (1998: 88) mentions a natar kursi Khnanishu, a nephew of Eliya XII, in 1784.

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East [20]

249

Yukhannan VIII [Eliya] Hormizd, 5 July 1830 – 16 August 1838 {MAP C} Place of residence: Rabban Hormizd, Mosul and Baghdad. Roman Catholic connections: Yukhannan Hormizd considered himself a Roman Catholic from 1778 onwards (Badger 1852, 1:151), but he had difficulties in being accepted by Rome as a suitable candidate for the patriarchate. It was only in 1830, after Augustin Hindi (Yosep V) had died, that he was officially recognized by Rome (Tfinkdji 1914: 462–3). Burial place: No tombstone in Rabban Hormizd. Ms. attestations: Ming 94 (Alqosh, Sept. 1803) refers to Mar Yukhannan patr. of the East, the head (rumrama) of the Catholics. A later ms. (CAdd 2812, Alqosh 1806) refers to Mar Yukhannan only with the title of metropolitan, whereas Aqra 21 (Alqosh 1809) refers to him as patriarch. Aqra 10 (Barzane 1813) and Strasb. 4118 (n.p. 1824) mention a patriarch Eliya, which in all likelihood refers to Yukhannan Hormizd as well. Yukhannan Hormizd wrote his autobiography in Classical Syriac (Cambridge Add. 2919, c. 1830, incomplete), and this text was translated by the Anglican missionary George Percy Badger and published in Badger 1852, 1:150–60. Interesting as this account is, it is also a highly polemical account, the data of which need to be treated with care. This part of his autobiography (Badger’s translation is incomplete) covers the period up to 1795, when Yukhannan’s main opponent was Eliya XII. In later years, after Gabriel Danbo had re-established a monastic order in Rabban Hormizd, Yukhannan Hormizd had to face opposition from this side, especially since the monks accepted the Chaldean Yosep V in Diyarbakir as their patriarch (cf. Bello 1939). The rest of Yukhannan Hormizd’s story is told by Badger himself, and it is somewhat difficult to reconcile his elaborate version with the data in other sources, especially since he hardly gives any dates. He mentions Yukhannan’s official recognition by Rome “as supreme head over all the Chaldeans” (Badger 1852, 1:164), which event perhaps should be equated to the recognition dated to 1830 by Tfinkdji and others, but Badger also refers to Yukhannan receiving the pallium in Baghdad, “little more than a year before his death, which took place in that city, A.D. 1841” (Badger 1852, 1:167). According to all other

250

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

sources (which seem to base themselves on Giamil), Yukhannan Hormizd died in 1838. Kawerau (1955–6: 128–9) tentatively suggests the existence of a later patriarch Eliya (Eliya XIV, in his counting), who is attested to in writings of American missionaries around 1831. However, De Vries (1960) convincingly shows that it is rather unlikely that such a patriarch existed. The missionaries might have met with a metropolitan Eliya, whereas other information on “Patriarch Eliya” might in fact refer to Yukhannan Hormizd, who apparently used the name Eliya (cf. Badger 1852, 1:150, and the ms. colophons mentioned above).

3. PATRIARCHATE OF MAR YAQUB KHBHISHA, KHOSROWA, AND QODSHANIS [21]

Yukhannan Sulaqa, 28 April 1553 – January 1555 {MAP A} Place of residence: Diyarbakir (Amida). Roman Catholic connections: early in 1552, Sulaqa, monk of Rabban Hormizd since c. 1510 and abbot since c. 1540, was elected patriarch by part of the East Syrians. Sulaqa traveled to Rome for consecration and papal recognition. He made his profession of faith on 15 February 1553, which was recognized on 20 February 1553. He was confirmed as patriarch on 28 April 1553 (Habbi 1966: 108–9, Lampart 1966: 50–6). Burial place: Sulaqa died in prison. Ms. attestations: so far, none. Whether Sulaqa did indeed use the name Yukhannan is not certain. It is found in Audishu IV’s poem on Sulaqa and in an unclear reference by Eliya Asmar Habib (Vosté 1931, Habbi 1966: 104–5). In the same source, Audishu refers to Bet Qoqa (Baquqa) as Sulaqa’s monastery. All other sources mention Rabban Hormizd (cf. Fiey 1965: 156). Note further that in Arabic, Sulaqa’s name is rendered as Sucud, whereas after his consecration in Rome Sulaqa was officially called Shimun VIII, patriarch of Mosul (Habbi 1966: 104–5, Lampart 1966: 55).

[22]

Audishu IV Yukhannan, 1555 – 11 Sept. 1570 {MAP A} Place of residence: Mar Yaqub Khbhisha near Seert. Roman Catholic connections: Audishu, a former monk of the twin monasteries of Mar

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

251

Akha and Mar Yukhannan (Baumstark 1922: 333, Beltrami 1933: 59–66), was one of the bishops that were consecrated by Yukhannan Sulaqa, in an attempt to secure Catholic succession. Audishu traveled to Rome to obtain papal recognition, in which he succeeded in 1562. Tfinkdji (1914: 457) suggests that Audishu attended the Council of Trent on 4 Dec. 1563, but no other sources confirm this. Beltrami (1933: 62–3) notes that Audishu’s confession of faith was discussed at this Council in September 1562. Burial place: Mar Yaqub Khbhisha? Ms. attestations: a.o., Diar. 111 (Amida 1563), Seert 15 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha, Oct. 20, 1569), Diar. 60 (Mar Petyon 1571). Note further that Audishu was a prolific author whose poems appear in many later mss. (Baumstark 1922: 333). There is some uncertainty as to the date of Audishu’s death. Lampart (1966: 57–8) suggests that Audishu died in 1567. He bases himself on Beltrami (1933: 66, 199–203), who quotes a letter by Eliya [Asmar Habib] of 1581, telling us that Audishu died after reigning for twelve years, “al fine di dodici anni del suo patriarchato morse nel monasterio di S. Giacomo in Scerte.” Tisserant (1931: 263) sets his death “early 1571,” probably basing himself on Diar. 60 (Mar Petyon 1571), whose copyist refers to patriarch Audisho, “qui vient de mourir” when he completed the ms. 11 May 1571 (1882). Baumstark (1922: 333) gives a precise date of Audishu’s death: 11 September 1570. The source for his date must be Mosul 63. This otherwise undated ms. contains a note stating that Audishu died 11 Sept. 1881 AG, thus 1570 AD. Given the fact that Audishu himself completed a manuscript October 20, 1569 (Seert 15, Mar Yaqub Khbhisha) and that therefore Lampart’s interpretation of the twelve years of Audishu’s reign does not hold, the precise date of Mosul 63 seems most likely. This date suggests that Eliya, in the letter as quoted in Beltrami perhaps counted Audishu’s reign from a starting point somewhere in 1558. This covers the early period of Audishu’s visit to Rome searching for papal recognition (1559–62), but not his formal recognition that took place only in 1562 (Lampart 1966: 57). Assuming that Audishu’s death in 1570 is sufficiently established, another ms. from this period presents a problem: Mardin 37 (Mar Petyon, Oct. 1568), was written during the time of a patriarch Shimun with a natar kursi Mar Eliya and a Mar Eliya metropolitan of Amida. No Mar Shimun with a natar kursi Eliya is known to have been in office in 1568 (Shimun

252

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

VII Bar Mama died in 1558). The copyist of this ms, Mar Khnanishu, metropolitan of Mardin, in most of his other mss. (1565–72) does not acknowledge any patriarch, whereas in a ms. of 1564 he acknowledges Mar Audishu, with rather elaborate praises. Wilmshurst (1998: 35), suggests that this bishop converted to Roman Catholicism in the early days of his career and remained loyal to Audishu and his successor YauAlaha Shimun.

[23]

Shimun [Yau-Alaha?], 1572–76 {MAP} Place of residence: Mar Yaqub Khbhisha. Ms. attestations: Vat. 472 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha 1572), Diar. 88 (Amida 1574). In current patriarchal lists, the patriarchal see is said to have been vacant after Audishu. Yau-Alaha, who had been consecrated bishop by Audishu, supposedly acted as administrator ad interim until his consecration as patriarch in 1572 (Lampart 1966: 58). However, two mss. refer to a Mar Shimun being in office in 1572 and 1574 (see above), whereas Wilmshurst ascribes two further mss. to a patriarch Shimun in this period (Wilmshurst 1998: 14). The second of these (Karam 331, in the Ashurbanipal Library, Chicago) is dated to 1576. This Shimun might either be a patriarch who never officially was recognized among a larger part of the Chaldeans, or might in fact be Yau-Alaha himself, who seemed to have used the name Shimun (cf. Beltrami 1933: 200, referring to a letter of 1581: “patriarcha Mar Aath Alla Simone,” and also Wilmshurst 1998: 14). A third possibility is that these mss. refer to Shimun IX, who succeeded Yau-Alaha in 1579, and perhaps, although there is no further evidence for this, opposed Yau-Alaha during his interim years. The traditional list L2 in Coakley’s “Patriarchal list” refers to a patriarch Shimun Yau-Alaha, in office from 1558 to 1580. This reference, although the dates are obviously wrong, might support the identification of Shimun with Yau-Alaha.

[24]

Yau-Alaha Shimun (Aath Alla), 1577–79/80 {MAP A} Place of residence: Mar Yaqub Khbhisha. Roman Catholic connections: Yau-Alaha was consecrated bishop of Gazarta by Audishu. He was probably elected patriarch only around the year 1577, and due to his advanced years was not able to go to Rome. He never obtained official papal recognition. Ms. attestations: no mss. refer to Yau-Alaha. Perhaps the mss. mentioned under Shimun (1572–

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

253

1576, cf. above) should be considered as referring to Yau-Alaha. It is noteworthy that two other mss. that were written in Mar Yaqub Khbhisha in 1573 (Seert 116 and BNF 371.I), thus after Audishu’s death, do not refer to any patriarch at all, as far as can be deduced from the descriptions in the catalogues. Not much is known about this patriarch, and the various sources contradict each other at some points. Tfinkdji (1914: 457), basing himself on Giamil, mentions that Yau-Alaha was consecrated bishop in 1556 (a date not found in any other source), and that he was elected patriarch right after Audishu’s death in 1567. As Audishu probably died only in 1570, it is likely that Tfinkdji and Giamil did not have any independent sources for this date. Lampart (1966: 58) and Beltrami (1933: 64–8) think that he was elected in 1577, after having served as administrator ad interim. Tisserant (1933: 230) gives 1578 as the date of his election and 1580 as the date of this death, whereas Lampart and Beltrami place his death in 1579. Wilmshurst (1998: 14) places his death in 1580.

[25]

Shimun IX Denkha, 1580–1600 {MAP B} Place of residence: monastery of Mar Yukhannan the Martyr near Salmas. Roman Catholic connections: Shimun Denkha was bishop of Jelu when he converted to Roman Catholicism. He was elected patriarch shortly after Yau-Alaha’s death. His metropolitan, Eliya Asmar Habib, traveled to Rome and secured papal recognition for him in 1581. Due to Eliya’s death in 1582 and difficulties on the way, official recognition reached Shimun Denkha only in 1585 (Tfinkdji, Tisserant 1930: 232, Lampart 1966: 58). natar kursi: there is no mentioning of a natar kursi, but Tisserant suggests that after Shimun IX’s death, hereditary succession was taken up again. It is uncertain whether Shimun IX himself had consecrated a suitable nephew, or that a family member was chosen after his death (Tisserant 1933: 230). Ms. attestations: so far only L-Or 6719 (Khosrowa 1598). For a discussion of the exact location of the monastery of Mar Yukhannan the Martyr, see Beltrami 1933: 243 and Lampart 1966: 59. See also Wilmshurst 1998: 152. The location of the monastery in my map is no more than a rough guess. It is interesting to note that the copyist of

254

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

L-Or 6719 calls Shimun the patriarch of the East and “of all the earth” (wa-d-kullah tibhel).

[26]

Shimun X, 1600–38 {MAP B} Place of residence: Khananis and/or Qodshanis. Roman Catholic connections: correspondence with Rome and contacts with Latin missionaries, which in 1619 led Shimun X to sign a profession of faith. This did not result in official recognition (Tisserant 1931: 230–1, Lampart 1966: 61, 229). natar kursi: Mar Ishuyau (Seert 46). Ms. attestations: a.o., Seert 46 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha 1604), Seert 54–55 (Sdukh 1610), Seert 34 (Mar Yaqub Khbhisha 1611). A letter by Shimun X to the Pope (Doc. I, July 1619, Lampart 1966: 229), mentions as his place of residence: “Cananes terra di Zacharia Abach Prencipe de Curdi.” Lampart (1966: 61) identifies “Cananes” with Qodshanis, but a nineteenth-century quotation in Coakley (1992: 258) makes clear that Khananis is a different village, about 10 kilometers south of Qodshanis (see also his map, p. 8–9). This is confirmed by the spelling Xananis in Mingana 148 (Nerwa 1613). Unfortunately no patriarch is mentioned in this colophon. Note that so far Seert 34 is the only ms. mentioning a natar kursi in the Shimun line. All following Shimuns must have consecrated natar kursis, but these are not mentioned in the mss. The colophon of this ms. mentions two patriarchs: Mar Shimun and Mar Eliya, which perhaps reflects a period of good relationships between the two lines. According to Wilmshurst (1998: 168) it was this patriarch that reverted to the “old faith.” Wilmshurst (1998: 131) further mentions that this patriarch at some times is “associated with” the monastery of Mar Yukhannan in Salmas, alongside his usual residence in Qodshanis. Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh,” has different dates for the patriarchs of this line. For Shimun X, the dates are 1600–1639. As we have hardly any independent evidence for the dates in the lists of Tisserant, Tfinkdji, and Fiey, Eliya’s list might be as reliable as any other.

[27]

Shimun XI, 1638–56 {MAP B} Place of residence: Qodshanis, from 1649/50: Khosrau Abad (Khosrowa). Roman Catholic connections: Shimun XI sent professions to Rome in 1648 and 1653, but this did not

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

255

result in official recognition (Lampart 1966: 233, n. 1, Baumstark 1922: 324). natar kursi: unknown. Ms. attestations: Diar. 32 (Amida, 2 June 1638), Diar. 47 (Amida 1651), Diar. 6 (Amida 1652), Berlin 30 (n.p., 1655). These four mss. all mention Mar Shimun, metropolitan of Amida, and of the first three we know that they were written in Amida. This might indicate that Diar. 32 was indeed written during the time of Shimun XI, rather than Shimun X, but since we do not know when the latter died, there is no absolute certainty. This Shimun of Amida played an important role in Shimun’s connections to Rome, but in 1649 his conversion to Catholicism was no longer thought sincere (Lampart 1966: 231–2). Whether this is the same person as the one mentioned in BNF 381 (Beirut 1636) as having made a profession of faith already in 1627 (‘Prete Simeoni di Amit’) is uncertain. As to Shimun XI’s places of residence, cf. Lampart (1966: 61) and Chronicle (1939: 383). Note further that in Diar. 32 an interesting, but historically unlikely description of Shimun’s area of jurisdiction is given, including “Persia, Hamadan, Khelat [Khelaft?], Van and Wastan [Wasta?].” A letter of 1664 suggests that Shimun XI was removed from office because of his attempts at a union; so Chronicle (1939: 389). No further evidence for this assumption has been found so far. Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh’: 1639–53.

[28]

Shimun XII, 1656–62 {MAP B} Place of residence: Khosrau Abad (Khosrowa). Roman Catholic connections: some correspondence, among which a letter from Pope Alexander VII in 1661 (Lampart 1966: 62, 233). No official recognition. natar kursi: unknown. Ms. attestations: none. Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh’: 1653–92.

[29]

Shimun XIII Denkha, 1662–1700 {MAP C} Place of residence: Khosrowa, from 1672: Qodshanis. Roman Catholic connections: letter to and from Rome in 1670 (Lampart 62, 244–5, Doc. XI, unclear reference), but after move to Qodshanis no further connections. natar kursi: unknown.

256

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg Ms. attestations: C-Or 1293 (Arqe 1666), 8 Oxford d. 36 (Darband 1680), BNF 393 (Darband [Tergawar] 1695).

Note that C-Add 2045, copied in 1686 partly in Mawana in Tergawar and partly in Mar Zayya in Gugtapa in the region of Urmi, suggests that these areas were under the jurisdiction of Eliya [IX].

According to Mar Eliya of Alqosh, Shimun XIII was related to the Abuna family. However, the relationship between the two branches was not a good one, as Shimun Denkha supposedly murdered Mar Khnanishu, Shimun’s cousin and brother of patriarch Eliya IX Yukhannan Maraugin. According to Eliya of Alqosh, this earned him the name Qatola, “murderer.” He was in office 1692–1700 (Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh”). No independent evidence affirms either the family relationship between the patriarchates of Rabban Hormizd and Qodshanis or the murder of Mar Khnanishu. [30]

Shimun XIV Shlimun, 1700–40 {MAP C} Place of residence: Qodshanis. natar kursi: unknown. Ms. attestations: Alqosh 132 (Qodshanis 1731), Oxford f. 9 (place erased, 1727), C-Add 2047 (Khbashakobe [unidentified] in Tergawar, 1728). Cf. also Urmia 109 (1724), written by the scribe Abdalahad of Qodshanis, but without mentioning a patriarch. Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh:” 1700–17.

[31]

Shimun XV Michael Muktes, 1740–80 {MAP C} Place of residence: Qodshanis. Roman Catholic connections: Shimun XV wrote a letter to Rome in 1770 (Tisserant 1931: 242, basing himself on Giamil, cf. also Kawerau 1955: 120–1, who gives 1771). No union resulted from this. Ms. attestations: Berlin 48 (Kartinis in Gawar [unidentified], 1743), Berlin 42 (Jalam [unidentified],

8 I assume that Arqe is identical to Argen, as located by Fiey (1965: 313) and Wilmshurst (1997: map no. 4) in the Talana district, northwest of Aqra.

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

257

Church of Mar Zaya, 1756), Berlin 50 (Dazgiri in Pelgawar, 9 1761). [32]

Shimun XVI Yukhannan, 1780–1820 {MAP C} Place of residence: Qodshanis.

natar kursi: unknown.

Ms. attestations: a.o., C-Add 1978 (Gessa of Mar Bar Sabbace, 10 1785), Aqra 40 (Bet Daywe in Shapat, 1786), LOr 14407 (Tulu in Tergawar, 1790/91), Alqosh 134 (Gessa in Tkhuma, 1791), C-Add 2037 (Tergawar 1803), Alqosh 135 (Menyanesh 1815), Oxford d. 34 (Balulan in Tergawar unidentified], 1824). [33]

Church of the East Patriarchate Shimun XVII Auraham Shimun XVIII Ruben Shimun XIX Benjamin Shimun XX Paulus Shimun XXI Eshay Denkha IV

1820–60 (Qodshanis) 1860–1903 Qodshanis) 1903–18 Qodshanis) 1918–20 11 1920–75 1976 – present (Chicago)

4. PATRIARCHATE OF MAR YAQUB KHBHISHA, KHOSROWA, AND QODSHANIS [34]

Yosep I, 1681–96 {MAP C} Place of residence: Diyarbakir. Roman Catholic connections: Yosep converted to Roman obedience c. 1667/8, when he was consecrated bishop. He arrived in Rome in at the end of 1673, returned to Diyarbakir, and received the Papal pallium in 1681. He returned to Rome in 1694 and abdicated in 1696 (Kawerau 1955/56, wrongly 1693). He died Nov. 10, 1707.

I assume Dazgiri to be identical to Dizgari, located by Wilmshurst (1997: map no. 11) in Mergawar. The district “Pelgawar’ is not in Wilmshurst’s map. 10 Fiey (1965: 194) assumes that Gessa of Mar Bar Sabbace is identical to Gessa in Tkhuma, which is on the map. 11 For the continuation of the Qodshanis patriarchate in the twentieth century, see Coakley 1996. 9

258

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg Ms. attestations: Some manuscripts of this period were copied by Qasha Yosep of Bet Macruf who was to succeed Yosep I: Assfalg 2 (Telkepe 1691) and Berlin 53 (Amida 1692). The latter ms. was ordered by Yosep I. L-Eg 703 (Amida 1683) was copied by Yosep I himself.

On Yosep I, see Lampart 1966 (with many original documents), and the Life of Yosep by Abdalahad (Chabot 1896).

[35]

Yosep II Sliba Bet Macruf, 1696 – June 2, 1712 {MAP C} Place of residence: Diyarbakir. Roman Catholic connections: Yosep was born in Telkepe in 1667, where he received first orders at fourteen, and was consecrated as Yosep I’s successor in 1694. Papal recognition followed May 21, 1696. He died of the plague in 1712. Yosep II was a prolific writer, both in Classical Syriac and Arabic, and translated many Roman Catholic works into these languages. Ms. attestations: Mardin 15 (Ayn Tannur 1702). Cf. further Lampart 1966: 194–6 and 199–200, who bases himself at least partly on autobiographical materials: a letter by Yosep II dated to July 1696 as well as a note in his hand dated to 1703. Coakley: cholera?

[36]

Yosep III Timotheos Maraugin, March 18, 1714–57 {MAP C} Place of residence: Diyarbakir, but with long periods of absence between 1729/30 and 1741. Roman Catholic connections: He was born either in Kirkuk or in Diyarbakir, raised with the Capuchins in Diyarbakir (Da Seggiano 1962: 391), was consecrated bishop of Mardin in 1696, elected patriarch in 1712, (according to Yosep II’s wishes), and received the papal pallium in 1714. Ms. attestations: Diar. 140 (nt. by Yosep III of 1714), Seert 36 (n.p. [the ms. was ordered in the monastery of Mar Yaqub Khbhisha], 1716), Vat. 606 (Ayn Tannur 1717), C-Add 3218 (Amida 1725). Two other mss. of this period contain work by Yosep II, and therefore may be considered to confirm adherence to the Yosep line: Mardin 97 (Mardin 1715) and Seert 93 (Mosul 1717).

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

259

Kawerau (1955/6: 131) gives as the full name of Yosep III: Yosep Moses Timotheus. For further information on the patriarchs of the Yosep line, see Tfinkdji 1914: 458–60 and Tisserant 1931: 238–43.

[37]

Yosep IV Lazare Hindi, 1759–81 {MAP C} Place of residence: Diyarbakir. After Yosep III’s death in 1757, Lazar Hindi, former pupil of the Propaganda in Rome, was elected patriarch. Confirmation followed in 1759. He abdicated in 1781, appointed his nephew Augustin Hindi as his administrator and possible successor, returned to Rome and died in 1791. Ms. attestations: Borgia 32 (Ayn Tannur, 1765), Diar. 155 (Ayn Tannur 1766, by Thérèse, daughter of priest Khadjo, 15 years old). Kawerau 1955/6: 131 has Yosep Timotheus Lazar Hindi as his full name.

[38]

Yosep V Augustin Hindi, 1781 – April 6, 1828 {MAP C} Place of residence: Diyarbakir. Ms. attestations: Ming. 267 (Alqosh 1824), C-Add 1966 (Mosul 1826), Vat. 620 (Mosul 1826). Note further a Rabban Hormizd inscription of 1820, where Yosep is referred to as patriarch qatholiqos (Vosté 1930a: 272–3). He was appointed administrator in 1781, at that time having received only priestly orders. He became bishop of Diyarbakir in 1804, functioned as patriarch of the Chaldeans, especially of those of the more western areas, but was never fully recognized by Rome, due to the strong opposition by Yukhannan Hormizd. He was recognized, however, by the monks of Rabban Hormizd. Yosep V died in 1828 (Kawerau 1955: 122–7 and Bello 1939: 8–26).

[39]

Chaldean Patriarchate Yukhannan Hormizd Nikolas Eshaya Yosep VI Audo Eliya XIV [XIII] Abulyonan Audishu V Khayyat Yosep VI Emmanuel II Thoma Yosep VII Ghanima Paul II Cheykho Rhaphael I Bidawid

1830–38 1838–47 1848–78 1879–94 1895–99 1900–47 1947–58 1958–89 1989 – present

260

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

REFERENCES Manuscript Catalogues Alqosh: J.-M. Vosté O.P., Catalogue de la Bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne du couvent de Notre-Dame des semences près d’AlqoȖ (Iraq), Rome/Paris 1929. Aqra: J.-M. Vosté O.P., “Catalogue des manuscrits syro-chaldéens conservés dans la Bibliothèque Épiscopale de cAqra (Iraq),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica V (1939): 368–406. Assfalg: Julius Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften; Syrische, KarȖunische, ChristlichPalästinische, Neusyrische und Mandäische Handschriften, Wiesbaden 1963. Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Band V. BNF: Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356–435, entrés depuis 1911), de la bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provence, de la bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg. Catalogue, Paris 1997. Berlin: Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der Syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 2 vols. Berlin 1899. Die HandschriftenVerzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Dreiundzwantigster Band. Borgia: Addai Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques du Musée Borgia aujourd’hui à la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” Journal Asiatique 13 (1909): 249–87. C[ambridge] Oo/Add: William Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 2 vols. Cambridge 1901. C[ambridge] Or: A.E. Goodman, “The Jenks Collection of Syriac Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1939): 595–6. [C-Or 1292–1344]. Diar[bakir]: Addai Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés à l’archevêché chaldéen de Diarbékir,” Journal Asiatique X (1907): 331–61, 385–431. L[ondon] Add/Or/Eg: William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, acquired since the year 1838, 3 vols. London 1870–2. L[ondon] Or: G. Margouliouth, Descriptive List of Syriac and Karshuni mss. in the British Museum, acquired since 1873, London 1899 [L-Or 1240– 5463]. Higher numbers of L-Or are not described in published sources, but a typescript list with concise title descriptions is available [L-Or 5604 to L-Or 12073]. Numbers higher than L-Or 12073 refer to the handwritten catalogues in the library. These contain acquisitions since 1959.

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

261

Mardin: Addai Scher, “Notice des mss. syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothèque de l’évêché chaldéen de Mardin,” Revue des bibliothèques 18 (1908): 64–95. Ming[ana]: A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, now in the possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham, Vol 1: Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts. Cambridge 1933. Mosul: Addar Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat chaldéen de Mossoul,” Revue des Bibliothèques 17 (1907): 227–60. Oxford: Syriac mss. in the Bodleian library, Oxford, in handwritten catalogue (Ms. Syr). Paris: H. Zotenberg, Manuscrit Orientaux, Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la bibliothèque nationale. Paris 1874. Seert: Addai Scher, Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibiothèque épiscopale de Séert (Kurdistan) avec notes bibliographiques. Mossoul 1905. Strasb[ourg]: cf. BNF. Urmia: Oshana Saru, Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College (Qodiqos d-ktabe suryaya d-gau bebliytiqi d-Collijiya d-Urmi). Oroomiah, Persia, 1898. Vat[ican]: S.E. Assemanus & and J.S. Assemanus, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum. Catalogus in tres partes distributus. Partis Primae, Tomus secundus, complectens codices chaldaicos sive syriacos. Rome 1758. Partis Primae, Tomus tertius complectens reliquos codices chaldaicos sive syriacos. Rome 1759. Vat[ican]: Arn. Van Lantschoot, Inventaire des manuscrits Syriaques des fonds Vatican (460–631), Barberini Oriental et Neofiti. Studi e testi 243. Vatican City, 1965.

Secondary Literature Assemani BO iii,1: Joseph Simonius Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Tomi tertii, pars prima: De scriptoribus Syris Nestorianus (iii, 1.2). Rome 1725/1728. Babakhan 1900: J. Babakhan, “Deux lettres d’Élie XI, patriarche de Babylone, texte syriaque et traduction française,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, V (1900): 481–91. Badger 1852: George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals: With the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842–1844, and of a Late Visit to Those Countries in 1850, etc., 2 vols. London 1852. Baumstark 1922: Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur. Bonn 1922.

262

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Beltrami 1933: Mons. Giuseppe Beltrami, La Chiesa Caldea nel secolo dell’Unione. Orientalia Christiana 29. Rome 1933. Bello 1939: P. Stéphane Bello, La congrégation de S. Hormisdas et l’église chaldéenne dans la première moité du XIXe siècle. Rome 1939. Brown 1982: Leslie Brown, The Indian Christians of St Thomas. An Account of the Ancient Syrian Church of Malabar. Cambridge 1982 [second, enlarged edition]. Chabot 1896: J.-B. Chabot, “Les origines du patriarcat chaldéen. Vie de Mar Youssef Ier, premier patriarche des Chaldéens (1681–1695), écrite par Abdoulahad, archevêque chaldéen d’Amid, et traduite de l’arabe sur l’autographe de l’auteur,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 1 (1896): 66–90. Chronicle 1939: Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, A, 2 vols. London, 1939. Coakley 1992: J.F. Coakley, The Church of the East and the Church of England, A History of The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission. Oxford, 1992. Coakley 1996: J.F. Coakley, “The Church of the East since 1914,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library (Manchester) 78 (1996): 179– 98. Coakley, “patriarchal list’: J.F. Coakley, “The patriarchal list of the Church of the East,” to appear in the Drijvers Festschrift. Coakley, “Eliya of Alqosh’: J.F. Coakley, unpublished article on the “History of the Patriarchs of the Aboona Family,” by bishop Eliya of Alqosh. Da Seggiano 1962: P. Ignazio Da Seggiano O.F.M. Cap., L’Opera dei Cappuccini per l’unione dei cristiani nel vicino oriente durante il secolo XVII. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 163. Rome, 1962. Fiey 1965: Jean Maurice Fiey, O.P., Assyrie Chrétienne. Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire et de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l’Iraq, volume I and II. Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de lettres Orientales de Beyrouth 22, 34. Beirut, 1965. Fiey 1977: Jean Maurice Fiey, Nisibe, Métropole syriaque orientale et ses suffragants des rigines Ǯ nos jours. CSCO 388, Subsidia 54. Louvain, 1977. Fiey 1993: Jean Maurice Fiey, O.P., Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus. Répertoire des diocèses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux. Beiruter Texte und Studien 49. Beirut, 1993. Fiey: Fiey 1993: 21–41. Graf 1949, 1951: Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 3 and 4: Die Schriftsteller von der Mitte des 15. bis zum ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. [Studi e Testi 146, 147. Città del Vaticano, 1949 (3), 1951 (4).

The Patriarchs of the Church of the East

263

Giamil 1902: Samuel Giamil, Genuinae Relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam nunc majori ex parte primum editae historicisque adnotationibus illustratae. Rome 1902. Habbi 1966: Joseph Habbi, “Signification de l’union chaldéenne de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553,” L’Orient Syrien 11 (1966): 99–132, 199–230. Kawerau 1955/6: Peter Kawerau, “Die nestorianischer Patriarchate in der neueren Zeit,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 67 (1955/6): 119–31. Lampart 1966: Albert Lampart, Ein Märtyrer der Union mit Rom. Joseph I., 1681–1696, Patriarch der Chaldäer. Einsiedeln, 1966. Lampart: Lampart 1966: 63–4. Lemmens 1926a: P. Leonardus O.F.M. Lemmens, “Relationes nationem Chaldaeorum inter et Custodiam Terrae Sanctae (1551–1629),” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum XIX (1926): 17–28. Lemmens 1926b: P. Leonardus O.F.M. Lemmens, “Notae criticae ad initia unionis Chaldaeorum (a. 1551–1629),” Antonianum I (1926): 205–18. Mingana 1926: A. Mingana, D.D., “The Early Spread of Christianity in India,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (Manchester), 10 (1926): 435–510. Nau 1912: F. Nau, “Deux notices relatives au Malabar, et trois petits calendriers, d’après les manuscrits Bodl. Or. 667, et Paris Syr. 25,195 et suppl. Grec. 292,” Revue de L’Orient Chrétien, 2nd series VII/XVII (1912): 74–99. Sanders 1978: J. Sanders, “Het klooster van Mar Awgen,” Phoenix 24,1 (1978): 39–46. Sanders 1997: J.C.J. Sanders, Assyro-chaldese christenen in oost-Turkije en Iran. Hun laatste vaderland opnieuw in kaart gebracht. Hernen 1997. Tfinkdji: J. Tfinkdji, “L’Église chaldéene catholique autrefois et aujourd’hui,” Annuaire Pontifical Catholique 1914 (1913): 449–525. Tfinkdji: Tfinkdji 1914: 471–75. Tisserant 1931: Eugène Tisserant, “L’Église nestorienne,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique XI,1 (1931): 158–323. Tisserant: Tisserant 1931: 261–3. De Vries, 1960: Wilhem de Vries, “Elias XIV., letzter netorianischer Patriarch von AlqoȖ?”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 26 (1960): 141–8. Vosté 1930a: J.-M Vosté, O.P., “Les inscriptions de Rabban Hormizd et de N.-D. des Semences près d’AlqoȖ (Iraq),” Le Muséon 43 (1930): 263–316. Vosté 1930b: J.-M Vosté, O.P. , “Catholiques ou nestoriens?”, Angelicum 7 (1930): 515–23.

264

Heleen H.L. Murre-van den Berg

Vosté 1931: J.-M Vosté, O.P., “Mar Iohannan Soulaqa. Premier patriarche des chaldéens, martyr de l’union avec Rome [†1555],” Angelicum 8 (1931): 187–234. Vosté 1927: J.-M. Vosté, O.P., “Kas Kheder Maqdassi à Élie XII, patriarche nestorien d’AlqoȖ,” Orientalia 50 (1937): 353–65. Wilmshurst 1998: David Wilmshurst, “The Ecclesiastical Organization of the Church of the East, 1318–1913,” D.Phil Thesis, Worcester College, Oxford, June 1998 [the work is submitted to CSCO for publication].

PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997). 483 pp.; photographs. Cloth $30.00; paper $16.95. SUSAN A. HARVEY, BROWN UNIVERSITY

[1]

[2]

William Dalrymple has written an extraordinary book about an extraordinary journey through the Christian Middle East. A travel writer with a rich interest in history, art, religion and culture, Dalrymple has succeeded in capturing the complex textures of Christianity in the Middle East past and present with a surprisingly astute understanding. It is not often that one encounters a work as discerning, appreciative, and probing as this from the pen of one outside the traditions or the scholarship of the regions involved. The feat is a remarkable one. The results are a book that matters for all who are interested in eastern Christianity, scholar and lay person alike. Dalrymple undertook his trip from a dual perspective. His starting point was John Moschus’ seventh century monastic travel record, The Spiritual Meadow. Much enarmored of Moschus’ adventures and descriptions from his journey through the monasteries of the eastern Roman Empire, Dalrymple decided to replicate that journey in 1994, retracing Moschus’ route as closely as possible. At the same time, he was interested in the particular historical circumstances of the two parallel journeys. Moschus, travelling with his younger friend and disciple Sophronius, witnessed the crumbling of the eastern empire in its final years of Byzantine rule as war with Persia raged throughout the eastern territories. Moschus himself died in 619, but Sophronius was subsequently consecrated patriarch of Jerusalem; as such, he witnessed the Muslim conquest and indeed, would himself hand over the keys of the city in 638 to the conquering Caliph Omar at the end of a long and brutal siege. Dalrymple presents his own journey as a witness to the completion of the fierce tragedy whose beginning is recorded in The Spiritual Meadow: the destruction of Christianity as an indigenous and historical presence in the Middle East, as its small numbers of remaining adherents steadily emigrate to the politically safer territories of the western world. 265

266 [3]

[4]

[5]

Publications and Book Reviews

The book is spellbinding. It begins on Mt. Athos, where Dalrymple was allowed to consult the oldest surviving manuscript of The Spiritual Meadow. From there, Dalrymple travelled to Istanbul, then to eastern Turkey and Tur ‘Abdin, to Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt. Wherever he went, he sought to retrace Moschus’ route, to visit the remains of Moschus’ era, to stay in the same monasteries and visit the same shrines as Moschus had done many centuries before. At the same time, Dalrymple is a man deeply concerned about the current historical situation. With an informed and sensitive eye, he records the situations, experiences, conditions, memories, and perspectives of the peoples he encounters, whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim. He writes with wit and grace, hilarious in his depiction of the practicalities of travel in the Middle East, and always delightfully enthralled by the endearing idiosyncracies of the people he meets. Indeed, a gentle reverence attends his treatment of the people who serve as guides, hosts, instructors, and helpers on his way. In no sense a scholar of ancient Christianity, Dalrymple has yet read widely in the history and culture of the regions he visits. The book constantly moves between antiquity and the present, and looks at the people through the lens of profoundly long traditions. Scholars will wince at the inaccuracies of historical details for the ancient church, yet Dalrymple succeeds in capturing the turbulent flavor of life in the ancient cities and countryside of the eastern Roman Empire with a genuine feel for the vitality of it all. And if his discussions lack theological sophistication, they yet manage to convey real substance in the religious sensibilities he meets. Above all, his respect and appreciation for the monastic life—albeit, with a delicious sense of its humorous possibilities—shine through every encounter. Dalrymple himself reflects at the end of his trip on what was most instructive for him. This was the discovery that throughout the Middle East, the problems faced by Christians stem from quite different circumstances rather than, as he had expected, a consistent hostility from Islamic fundamentalism. In eastern Turkey the complexities of the Kurdish problem dominate the situation; in Lebanon, the difficult aftermath of the civil war; in Syria, the fragile pragmatic alliance with the current government (allowing Syria alone to offer, at the moment, a place where Christianity can actually flourish); in Israel, the Palestinian situation;

Publications and Book Reviews

[6]

267

so that in Egypt alone, and even there only in certain areas, could fundamentalism be held up as a primary factor. The flip side to this grim picture is the degree of religious interaction Dalrymple repeatedly encountered at shrines and pilgrimage sites throughout his trip: Muslims and Christians side by side in their devotions at the holy sites, seeking intercession, praying for miracles, offering their wholehearted veneration of the saints. Time and again, he is struck by the interwoven life of the two religions at the level of ordinary people—this despite the overarching frame of unbroken political hostilities. This is a book to cherish for its rich descriptions, its gorgeous evocation of people and their lives, its celebration of history as a living experience, and its profound affection for its subjects. It is also a book that breaks the heart. No one who has been part of eastern Christianity will be surprised by what is recorded here. Yet the story is told, with scathing honesty, in terms which say plainly the tragic loss that now seems irreparable. We can be grateful to William Dalrymple for the service he has thus rendered, bearing public witness to a situation generally ignored. Indeed, we can be grateful to him for more than this, for he has brought alive for western readers a history that matters tremendously, and no less in its current agony than in the full glory of its past. Read this book, and pass it on to everyone you know.

R.P. Gordon in collaboration with P.B. Dirksen, Chronicles, Vol. IV, 2 of The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version, general editors K.D. Jenner and A. van der Kooij. The Peshitta Institute, Leiden/New York/Köln, 1998. ANDREAS JUCKEL, UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER

[1]

[2]

This is one more of the splendid OT-Peshitta volumes prepared by the Peshitta Institute at Leiden and one of the final steps towards the completion of the edition which started to appear in 1972. 1 In 1997 a first volume of the Concordance (the Pentateuch) based on this OT-Peshitta text was published. 2 The Introduction starts with general remarks (I.) followed by a description of the five oldest manuscripts (II.); next, a list of posttwelfth century manuscripts is given (III.), an index nominum (IV.) and a list of section devision (chapters) of the Syriac text (V.). The number of manuscripts used for the edition is twenty-nine, only four of them are from the first millennium. According to the general principles of the edition, the text is based on Ms B 21 Inferiore of the Ambrosian Library (siglum: 7a1), but “emended" in many instances and in the missing portions (I xii:18–xvii:25; II xiii:11–xx:3) replaced by Ms syr. 341 of the National Library at Paris (siglum: 8a1). Not only clerical errors of the Ambrosian manuscript are emended (and recorded in the first apparatus) but also its readings not supported by at least two other manuscripts up to and including the tenth century. This is the improved editorial policy which is in effect since 1976 when the Book of Kings was published (vol. II, 4). But with regard to the small number of manuscripts from the first millennium in Chronicles, here the For general information about the editorial policy see P.B. Dirksen, The Leiden Peshitta edition, in: R. Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236; Rome, 1990) 31–8, and the Peshitta progress report by A. van der Kooij in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds.), The Peshitta as a Translation (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 8; Leiden 1995) 219–20.—In the same volume on pp. 17–23 P.B. Dirksen writes about Some Aspects of the Translation Technique in P-Chronicles. 2 The Old Testament according to the Peshitta version, Part V: Concordance, vol. 1: The Pentateuch, prepared by P.G. Borbone, J. Cook, K.D. Jenner, D.M. Walter in collaboration with J.A. Lund, M.P. Weitzmann (Leiden/ New York/Köln, 1997). See my review in Hugoye vol. 1, no. 2. 1

268

Publications and Book Reviews

[3]

[4]

269

required support for the Ambrosian readings is reduced to one manuscript up to the tenth century. There is a detailed list on page xiii with all places where the readings of the Ambrosian manuscript are not retained ("rejected though possible readings" and “obvious clerical errors»). This formal procedure of emending the Ambrosianus derives from the editorial policy to avoid as much as possible any textual idiosyncresies but to present “the majority text of the ancient manuscripts which together preserve the relevant textual material” (P.B. Dirksen in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, vol. 236, p. 35). The edition has no claim to give the original text of the Peshitta, “but in general the new edition does make it possible to reconstruct the text which underlies the ancient MSS” (P.B. Dirksen, ibidem, p. 37)—this probably means to reconstruct their Archetype. The theory behind this edition surely is to offer a “majority text», a text established by the majority of the manuscripts and thus representing a text current and dominant in the time of the 5/6th to 10th century. But it is not quite clear if the editors hope to offer a supposed “historical” text or a mechanically constructed one which is suitable for avoiding a much too extended critical apparatus but is nothing more than an arbitrary presentation of the textual material. This editorial policy is open to criticism and the editors themselves (especially P.B. Dirksen in his paper presented to the 5th Symposium Syriacum) are well aware of its advantages and disadvantages. In principle there is no reason to abstain from printing a “historical” majority text of the first millennium, as the impressive conformity of the OT-Peshitta text cannot put in doubt the historical view of this compactness. The variations within this compactness primarily are appropriate for tracing the history of this majority text (and the Archetype) rather than for tracing the “original” Peshitta text. It is difficult to believe that the Archetype behind this text will be substantially different than the one printed in the Leiden edition. The term “majority text” depends on its obvious conformity which does not need any improvement by preferring one or another variant reading. Especially in Chronicles—due to the small number of old manuscripts—no real improvement is possible and no danger of textual idiosyncrasies is evident. The general impression (also with regard to the preceeding volumes) is that the editors give too much priority to the avoiding

270

[5]

[6] [7]

Publications and Book Reviews

of textual idiosyncrasies. The result is a “better” text not preserved in a single manuscript and which is not the Archetype. The deeper problem behind this editorial policy is to put the main text (preferred readings) on a different level than the critical apparatus (rejected readings). But in practice scholars will put both on the same level to look for the text of the Archetype. The variations of the proper names are listed in a separate Index nominum (p. xxiii–xlv). This is a praiseworthy method to manage the vast material. The twenty-two pages of this Index (printed in two columns) make clear that especially in Chronicles it would have been impossible to present these variations in the second apparatus of the edition. A remarkable feature of Chronicles in the OT-Peshitta is the substitution of II xi:1—xii:12 by I Reg xii:21–30; xiii:34; xiv:1–9. Comparing I xxviii–xxix of S. Lee’s editon (1823) with the Leiden edition, thirty variations can be found, nearly all of them present in the apparatus of the latter and mainly supported by 9a1fam and 12a1fam. Chapter xxviii: variants are in vers 1. 4. 7 (twice). 9 (twice). 10. 11. 15. 17. 20. 21 (three times).—Chapter xxix: variants are in vers 1. 2 (twice). 4. 9. 11. 16. 17. 18. 21 (twice). 24. 26. 30 (three times).

Yona Sabar, The Book of Numbers in Neo-Aramaic in the Dialect of the Jewish Community of Zakho. The Hebrew University Language Traditions Project XVI. The Hebrew University, Institute of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 1993, pp. xxii + 147 (Hebrew). ISBN: 965-350004-0. GEOFFREY KHAN, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

[1]

[2]

[3]

This is the fourth in a series of volumes by Yona Sabar containing the edition and analysis of a Jewish neo-Aramaic version of the Pentateuch. Previously published volumes contain the books of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus. The Jewish communities in Kurdistan (Northern Iraq and North-West Iran) spoke a variety of neo-Aramaic dialects, most of which have not been described. All these communities have now left their original places of residence and have settled elsewhere, mainly in Israel. The version of the Pentateuch presented in these volumes is in the dialect of the Jews of Zakho (Northern Iraq), which is the native language of the editor, Yona Sabar. This has been transmitted orally for several centuries. The text that is published here is a transcription made from a recording of an oral recitation by a hakham of the Zakho community. The apparatus at the foot of each page contains comparisons with a neo-Aramaic version in the dialect of the town of Dahok, which is close to Zakho. In addition to the full text of the book of Numbers, Sabar also supplies an introduction that examines the structure and background of the Zakho neo-Aramaic version, appendices containing extracts from versions of Numbers in the neo-Aramaic dialects of the Jews and Christians of Urmia (Iranian Kurdistan) and finally a comparative and etymological glossary. The comparative glossary shows clearly that the Christian Urmia dialect has preserved a greater proportion of the early Aramaic lexicon than the Jewish dialects. As in many areas of Kurdistan, there are substantial differences between the Armaic speech of the Jews and that of the Christians in Urmia. The orally transmitted neo-Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch are not invariably literal renderings of the text. Additions are occasionally made to clarify the meaning of a word. In cases where the translator is uncertain of the meaning of a word, two translations are sometimes offered side by side. Most deviations from the literal rendering, however, are interpretative translations. 271

272

[4]

Publications and Book Reviews

Many of these are dependent on the interpretations found in Targum Onqelos and the medieval commentators. Some, however, are independent traditions of interpretation which existed orally in the local Jewish community. Parallels to these local traditions of neo-Aramaic versions are sometimes found in the post-medieval Judaeo-Arabic Bible versions of the Iraqi Jewish communities. A number of Hebrew words, mainly technical religious terms, are left untranslated. There is still no full grammatical description of the neoAramaic dialect of the Jews of Zakho, either of the language of the traditional oral literature or of the vernacular language spoken by survivors of the community today, which differs from the language of the oral Bible versions in some respects. This volume, together with the earlier ones in the same series, provide an important source for future scholarship in neo-Aramaic.

Richard J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa: A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden, Number 9, ISBN 90-04-11214-6, xii+138 pages. Leiden/Boston/Köln/Brill, 1998. DAVID J. LANE, LARK RISE, MICKLEY VIA RIPON

[1]

[2]

The object of this work is to determine whether Jacob of Edessa’s Syriac version of the books of Samuel is a combination of Peshitta and Syrohexapla or a revision of Peshitta on the basis of Greek Lucianic text tradition with minimal Syrohexapla influence (p. 9). The method adopted is to take soundings from selected extracts throughout the Samuel manuscript rather than to present a complete analysis of a short section (p. 17). Successive chapters give a comparative discussion of selected phrases to demonstrate the relationship of text traditions to Jacob’s work: of Peshitta, Syrohexapla and Greek versions (chapter 2); the major Greek text families (chapter 3); Lucianic additions or substitutions (chapter 4); matter neither hexaplaric nor Greek nor Peshitta (chapter 5). The conclusion (p. 121) is that Jacob varied his methods in different biblical books and even within them, but that the evidence selected shows him to have revised Peshitta more in the light of a Lucianic Greek text than of Syrohexapla. As Saley deals only with extracts, reference needs to be made to Alison Salvesen’s forthcoming edition of the text, from British Library Additional Manuscript 14,429, together with translation. This is shortly to appear as a companion volume in the Peshitta Institute Monograph series. Such a brief summary of this well-planned and executed study does not do justice to the complexity of the subject and the important issues that it raises. The brief comments on Jacob of Edessa which the author gives reveal something of these matters. Jacob flourished in the late seventh and early eighth century, and drew on Syriac and Greek sources and culture at a time when the western part of the Syriac church regarded Greek culture as that most significant for it. This trend is seen in the pattern of a Syriac New Testament which was brought into closer conformity with Greek text tradition, and of the Philoxenian and Harklean revisions of Syriac biblical text. On p. 6, our author quotes from the manuscript’s colophon at the end of 1 Sam, to the effect that the book had been laboriously corrected from Syrian and Greek traditions. Hence it reflects a variety of readings and interpretations 273

274

[3]

Publications and Book Reviews

suggesting that both the Greek bible and Syriac were normative for elucidation. Jacob’s education and his developed skill as a grammarian and translator stood him in good stead for the work he undertook: as well as matters of substance and of style, his own predilections all play a part. This volume plays an important part in testifying to the importance and skill of Jacob: we see laid out both raw materials and the reviser’s method. It is a salutary reminder that the work of a translator is an art rather than a science: imagination and flair are as necessary as formal technique. For example, at 1 Sam 1:3, Jacob combines the Syriac formal equivalent of the Hebrew “Lord of Hosts” with the dynamic Greek equivalent “Creator of All,” and at 1 Sam 4:6 modifies a Peshitta “What is this sound of jubilation” with elements from three Greek renderings of apparently the same Hebrew Vorlage so as to provide between them “almost as many possible ways of saying essentially the same thing as one could imagine,” p. 58. A note on this passage does indicate a single word omission in one Syriac manuscript. A second large contribution of Saley’s work is to display the complexity of the world of biblical revision in the Syriac world, although there is one area where the complexity is underestimated. The discussion of Peshitta is less perceptive than that of Greek and Hebrew material. Reference is made to “the Peshitta,” and sensibly the text taken is that of the Leiden edition. Footnote 65 on p. 14 acknowledges the assumption that Jacob had a text of Peshitta comparable to the Leiden Peshitta, and a comment by Michael Weitzman that Jacob’s text showed some inner-Syriac corruption: but there is more to it than that. The Leiden Peshitta however presents an eclectic text with first and second apparatus. The pieces of text which Saley quotes are short, and represent the Leiden text: there is not a sustained reference to the significance of variants quoted in either apparatus. It needs to be noted that one can no more talk of “the Peshitta” than one can of “the LXX” or “the MT.” Peshitta is a term which refers to a textual tradition which is broadly homogeneous; it is a term which is generic rather than specific. The author has taken the point explicitly with reference to the Greek traditions, less so with those of the MT. It will be useful to see Salvesen’s full text of the manuscript, and consider whether Jacob’s “Peshitta” corresponds with a text types which may be identified from the variants given in the Leiden apparatus: that is, whether Jacob’s (presumably the text familiar to his Monastery of

Publications and Book Reviews

[4]

[5]

275

Tell Adda) can be aligned with that of another monastery. This point can be seen, for example, in Appendix A, which lists Jacob’s partial departures from Peshitta: each of the categories quoted (e.g., presence or absence of particle, conjunction or preposition, use of synonym, syntax, orthography), is as likely to reflect scribal variants as much as Jacob’s preferences. Saley’s discussion of Greek and Hebrew traditions hits the mark well. In the Greek two influences were at work: one is that of local attempts at translation being brought into a later unified pattern either by revisions or by an authoritative declaration, however reluctantly accepted. The second, a revision of text to take into account theories of inspired text: that is, one which by method of translation or cognisance of available Hebrew texts took a Hebrew base as normative. If that were all, the matter would be simple. The seventh and eighth centuries saw a similar process taking place with the Hebrew bible: the MT was still in a state of flux, and Qumran material is useful (and quoted by our author) as evidence of earlier stages in text transmission. The Greek versions of Samuel and Kings are themselves adequate testimony to this state of affairs. It is to be noted that the Leiden Peshitta is evidence for a similar state of affairs in the Syriac church: on the basis of currently surviving manuscripts it seems a normative bible text appears only in the ninth or tenth century. A similar pattern appears in New testament and liturgical material. This volume is a model of clear thought and presentation: the author, and the Monograph editors are to be congratulated. The means of Jacob’s revision are made clear, as is the broad base of its ground. It gives further and valuable impetus to understanding of a Syriac translator’s art, and shows the way for further work on the relation between the history of text and that of understanding of text. It shows also the dangers as well as possibilities of using patristic material in the study of the history and transmission of text. It is an important testimony to the workings of a translator’s mind in its context. In conclusion, it shows that close and technical argument can be presented clearly and written attractively.

The Publications of the St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI). Baker Hill, Kottayam—686 001, Kerala, India. DAVID G.K. TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

[1]

Although the name of SEERI [http://www.keralaonline.com/ seeri/] has become familiar to Syriac scholars internationally because of the successful series of Syriac Conferences that it organises and hosts [see the report in Hugoye Vol. 2, No. 1 (January 1999)], its numerous publications are less well known. This is indeed a pity, because they include some important Syriac materials and resources that are not available elsewhere.

SECTION I [2]

[3]

The first publication to be mentioned is the Institute’s own journal, The Harp: A Review of Syriac and Oriental Studies. The first volume, I.1, is dated September 1987, and volumes have been steadily appearing ever since, although there is occasionally a time-lag (as with so many journals) between the published date and the time of appearance (the most recent copy in my possession is vol. X.2, dated July 1997). I think that it is fair to say that the early issues of the journal were not very impressive, and I can imagine that many readers (and libraries) would have been put off by what they saw. There are some important academic papers in these early issues, but there are also many transcripts of congratulatory speeches made by senior clergy and politicians wishing SEERI well. After this initial hiccup, however, the quality of the articles has steadily improved. Not only have the papers delivered at the various World Syriac Conferences been published in the journal, and the quality of these is in general equal to that of conference proceedings published anywhere else, but increasing numbers of articles by Syriac scholars of international repute, both from overseas and from India, have been published in the nonconference issues. Most of the articles address issues of Syriac theology, literature, history, and liturgy, although there are also papers on ecumenical matters and on the churches in India. Papers on linguistics are printed, but these are much rarer. It is perhaps some indicator of the quality of these articles that references to them are to be found more and more frequently in the footnotes and bibliographies of other academic publications. There is also a 276

Publications and Book Reviews

[4]

277

book review section in each volume. (The great majority of the articles are written in English, but several have also been successfully published in German, French, and Italian. Syriac, Greek, Hebrew and the various Indian languages are normally transcribed in Roman script, but Syriac type is occasionally used.) The Harp, like many Indian publications, is published on slightly cheaper paper than would be normal in Europe or North America and has glossy paper covers, but my copies have shown no signs of deterioration, despite heavy usage. The cheap paper also translates into low purchase costs—indeed the whole series could be bought from SEERI for a very modest sum. This is a journal of genuine academic importance, and will be particularly valued by universities and colleges teaching programs in Syriac theology or church history where knowledge of Syriac is not a requirement.

SECTION II [5]

The second set of publications to be mentioned is the Moran ‘Eth’o series. This is SEERI’s main collection of monographs (published in a format similar to that of The Harp), in which ten volumes have so far appeared. As will be seen from the descriptions which follow these are all serious contributions to Syriac scholarship. 1. Wolfgang Hage, Syriac Christianity in the East (1988; viii + 93 pp.). The seven papers in this volume were given as lectures by this renowned church historian at SEERI in March 1986. They are all English translations of slightly modified versions of papers published elsewhere in German. One of the papers deals with the relations between Christianity in the Roman and Persian empires, and one is a biographical essay on Gregory Bar Ebraya, but the remaining five focus on Hage’s specialisation, Christianity in Central Asia. Few volumes in English deal seriously with Christianity in this region, and so this volume is a definite asset for a college library. 2. Sebastian P. Brock, Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition (1989; viii + 120 pp.). This volume was originally produced as a correspondence course for SEERI (see Section III below), and I believe its publication as a monograph came as something of a surprise to its author! Despite the fact that

278

Publications and Book Reviews the author was thus not able to check the proofs or make any changes to the book’s structure, the text is a valuable introduction to the subject. Brock provides an overview of Syriac spirituality, an introduction to the main texts and writers (mostly focusing on those prior to the ninth century), discusses the proto-monastic tradition, as well as baptism and eucharist, before identifying a number of the most prominent themes in the different periods. The volume ends with a small selection of passages from key writers in English translation. 3. J.P.M. van der Ploeg, O.P., The Book of Judith (Daughter of Merari), (1991; 56 + 38 pp.). This volume contains the facsimile reproduction, and English translation, of the text of the book of Judith preserved in Syriac ms. 278 (dated AD 1734) of the Syro-Malankara Archbishopric of Trivandrum. This text is rather unusual in that it is partly identical with known Syriac texts of the book, but also frequently deviates from them and more closely follows the Greek text. There are few notes and the editor refuses to make any pronouncements on the character of the text until the Leiden Peshitta edition of Judith appears. Intriguing! 4. Sebastian P. Brock, Burial Service for Nuns (1992; viii + 67 pp.). This is an edition of the Syriac text of a West Syrian burial service for nuns with a facing page English translation. The text is taken from the only known manuscript to contain this text, which was written in Tur c Abdin. The service is not only of interest to liturgists, for the elaborate prayers, poems, and hymns provide a rare insight into the monastic spirituality of Syrian Orthodox women. 5. Paul S. Russell, St. Ephraem the Syrian and St. Gregory the Theologian Confront the Arians (1994; viii + 192 pp.). This significant study examines the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus and Ephraem’s hymns On Faith and compares the different concerns and reactions of their authors to the threat posed by Arianism. It focuses on their choice and use of scripture, their technical vocabulary, theological methodology, and christological

Publications and Book Reviews

6.

7.

8.

9.

279

teaching, and draws out a number of interesting differences in emphasis and approach. Sebastian Brock, Bride of Light: Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches (1994; viii + 171 pp.). This volume contains a short introduction followed by the English translation of 47 hymns (40 madrćshe, 4 soghyatha or dialogue poems, and 3 memre) on Mary. Most are anonymous texts from the fifth or sixth centuries, but 5 are attributed to St. Ephrem and 9 to Simeon the Potter. All of the fine translations are by Brock, and few of these have appeared in English elsewhere. There is a very useful set of indexes. All in all, a very impressive volume. Sidney H. Griffith, Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam (1995; vi + 52 pp.). Although only slender, this volume provides a useful introduction to the early Syriac literature on Islam. It begins with a survey of the available material, and then focuses on two texts, the “Disputation against the Arabs by a monk of Bet Hale,” and the Syriac Bahira legend. In all of this Sidney Griffith brings his unsurpassed knowledge to bear, and he concludes by suggesting ways in which this literature might provide insights and pointers for modern Christian theological engagement with Islam. Alison Salvesen, The Exodus Commentary of St. Ephrem (1995; vi + 67 pp.). This volume contains the first annotated English translation of Ephrem’s Commentary on the book of Exodus. The translation is both elegant and accurate, and the notes draw attention to textual cruxes and to exegetical parallels in Rabbinic and other Jewish literature. An important volume for any library. Sebastian Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (1997; 312 pp.). Although written as an introductory outline for students and scholars, this is a work that specialists will also find useful. Brock begins by providing an overview of Syriac literature from the first to the twentieth century, although the focus is clearly on the first fourteen centuries. Each major writer is provided with brief biographical details, followed by a list of the author’s most significant writings (the existence of translations into European languages is also indicated). Certain particular topics in

280

Publications and Book Reviews Syriac literature are given separate sections (Bible, exegesis, liturgy, canon law, monastic literature, chronicles, secular literature, and translations into Syriac). The desire to avoid footnotes means that brief bibliographical notes—and they are brief—are provided in an appendix at the end of the section. This outline is no replacement for Baumstark or for Brock’s own Syriac bibliographies, nor does it intend to be, but it does reflect Brock’s own extraordinarily wide learning and reading and so provides much up-to-date information that is not so easily found elsewhere. Perhaps the volume’s most unusual and valuable feature, however, is that the second half of the work (pp. 144–291) consists of English translations of sample passages taken by Brock from all the key writers mentioned. This alone makes the volume a useful addition to any library. 10. Baby Varghese, Dionysius Bar Salibi: Commentary on the Eucharist (1998; xxiv + 103 pp.). This excellent volume, produced whilst the author was on an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship in Berlin, contains the first translation into a modern European language of the twelfth-century Commentary on the Eucharist by Bar Salibi. The detailed footnotes indicate the sources used by Bar Salibi, and provide further elucidatory comments and bibliographical references. A very scholarly work.

The series Moran ‘Eth’o, then, has produced volumes of a consistently high academic quality and at an affordable price. Don’t judge, or allow librarians to judge, these books by their covers— their contents make fascinating reading!

SECTION III [6]

The following series, the SEERI Correspondence Course on the Syrian Christian Heritage (SCC), is mentioned only in brief. It is intended for students studying through SEERI (and so there are essay questions at the end of each volume), and is produced on even cheaper paper than before (without glossy covers!). The quality varies from volume to volume, and is not intended for an academic audience, but I at least have learnt much of interest from this series.

Publications and Book Reviews

281

1. Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (1988; vi + 102 pp.). 2. Sebastian P. Brock, Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition (1989; iv + 120 pp.). (Identical contents to Moran ‘Eth’o, vol. 2). 3. Geevarghese Panicker, An Historical Introduction to the Syriac Liturgy (1989; 60 pp.). 4. (Supplement). Jacob Vellian, An Historical Introduction to the Syriac Liturgy: Syro-Malabar Liturgy—Encounter of the West with the East in Malabar (1990; 47 pp.). 5. Samuel Thykootam, The Mother of God in the Syriac Tradition (1990; 44 pp.). 6. Dr. Mar Aprem, Mar Aprem Theologian and Poet (1990; 136 pp.). 7. Geevarghese Panicker, The Church in the Syriac Tradition (1990; 70 pp.). 8. Georg Günter Blum, Mysticism in the Syriac Tradition (1990; 44 pp.). 9. Baby Varghese, Baptism and Chrismation in the Syriac Tradition (1990; iv + 76 pp.). 10. Sebastian Brock, M.A. Mathai Remban, et alii, Philoxenus of Mabbug (1990/91?; 70 pp.).

SECTION IV [7]

[8]

In collaboration with Johannes Madey and the Ostkirchendienst in Paderborn, Germany, SEERI also publishes a series of Germanlanguage liturgical studies, focusing on the Syro-Antiochian rite. I am ashamed to say that I have not got access to any of the published volumes in this series, but perhaps someone who has would like to volunteer a short review for Hugoye? With this impressive collection of publications SEERI has made an impressive contribution to the study of Syriac literature and theology, both in India and abroad. With the advent of computer software facilitating desktop publishing in Syriac and Greek (and Malayalam!) as well as in Roman script it is to be hoped that the range and number of their publications will continue to expand whilst building upon their present high standards. Indeed, academics and research students in Europe and North America should also be encouraged to submit manuscripts of their work to SEERI so that they may be considered for publication there. They are not yet one of the world’s great publishing houses, and neither

282

Publications and Book Reviews

do they produce the world’s prettiest books, but at least they can guarantee their authors that their books will be affordable, so that other scholars and students will actually be able to buy and read them! Other publishing houses should take note.

PROJECTS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS Syriac Symposium III: The Aramaic Heritage of Syria The Summer Syriac Institute, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, 17–20 June 1999. SyrCOM-99: The Third International Forum on Syriac Computing (in association with Syriac Symposium III) University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 18 June 1999. MONICA J. BLANCHARD, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA AMY E. AGNEW, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

[1]

[2]

The Syriac Symposium III (SSIII) met at the University of Notre Dame, IN, 17–20 June 1999. 1 Dr. Joseph P. Amar, Director of the Summer Syriac Institute and Chair, Department of Classics at the University of Notre Dame was the principal organizer. SSIII was presented by The University of Notre Dame’s Summer Syriac Institute with the support of a Henkels Lecture series grant. The theme of the Symposium was “The Aramaic Heritage of Syria.” A highlight of the Symposium was Dr. Lucas Van Rompay’s slide presentation and report on the paintings and Syriac inscriptions recently discovered at Dayr al-Suryan in Egypt. SSIII and SyrCom– 99 met in Notre Dame’s Center for Continuing Education, McKenna Hall. The convenience of the conference facilities, and the organizational skills and warm hospitality of Dr. Amar and his local program committee deserve special mention. SSIII and SyrCom–99 were well attended, with some one hundred registrants from the United States, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, The Netherlands, and Syria. Booksellers and distributors included Peeters Publishers and The Scholars Choice. Participants were also invited to visit the new Hammes Notre Dame Bookstore in the Eck Center on campus. Twelve SSIII panels were scheduled: Aphrahat; Apocalypse; Spirituality; Ephrem; Language; Armenian; Crises in the Syrian 1 The Syriac Symposium is a quadrennial meeting of Syriacists in the United States. SSI was held at Brown University in June 1991. Dr. Susan Ashbrook Harvey was the principal organizer. SSII was held at The Catholic University of America in June 1995. Rev. Sidney H. Griffith and Dr. Robin Darling Young were the principal organizers.

283

284

[3]

Projects and Conference Reports

Churches of India; Musical Tradition of the Syrian Christians of India; Exegesis; The Cave of Treasures; Historical Writing; Syriac Bible. The Exegesis panel showcased the work of Notre Dame graduate students. The program list of forty-two panel papers is appended at the end of this report. 2 Eight keynote addresses were presented in addition to the panel papers: “Past and Present Perceptions of Syriac Literary Tradition,” by Lucas Van Rompay, Chair of Aramaic Language and Literature, University of Leiden, The Netherlands. “Syriac Lexicography: The State of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project,” Stephen Kaufman, Editor, Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Disputing with Islam in Syriac: The Case of the Monk of Bet Hale and a Muslim Emir,” by Sidney H. Griffith, Institute of Christian Oriental Research (ICOR), The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. “Why the Perfume Mattered: The Sinful Woman in Syriac Exegetical Tradition,” Susan Ashbrook Harvey. Religious Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI. “The ‘Chronicle’ of Eusebius: Its Continuation and Type in Syriac Historiography,” by Witold Witakowski, University of Uppsala, Sweden, Department of History. “Les Maronites à travers les sources syriaques du VIIe au XIIIe siècle; Encyclopédie Maronite—Progress and Development,” by Karam Rizk, Directeur de l’Institut d’Histoire Université Saint-Esprit, al-Kaslik, Jounieh, Lebanon. “Sin, Death, Satan and Christ: the Drama of Salvation in Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena,” Gary Anderson, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Harvard Divinity School. “Patriarch Athanasius I Gamala and Paul of Edessa—The Patron and his Protégé: Contemporary Motifs and Promotion of the Syriac Translation of Gregory of Nazianzenus’ Homilies (7th c.),” by Andrea Barbara Schmidt, Institut Orientaliste, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. There were last-minute changes to the formal SSIII program. It has not been possible to verify all of them. Avril M. Makhlouf, Petra Heldt, and Victoria Erhart were unable to attend and present their papers. Joseph J. Palackal’s paper was read in his absence. The panel Musical Tradition of the Syrian Christians of India was expanded to include a demonstration of web pages on Syriac chants at the Syrian Orthodox Resources web site by George Kiraz. 2

Projects and Conference Reports

[4]

[5]

285

Two of the keynote addressers gave progress reports on important Syriac reference tools. Dr. Stephen Kaufman made an emphatic plea for support of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) by Syriacists. (See the CAL Webpage at: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ index.html) He reminded the audience that CAL can use computer files of Syriac texts in preparation or already prepared by individual scholars. In return CAL can generate concordances, bibliographies and other tools from these donated computer files to assist the work of the donors. He invited Syriac scholars to submit lexicographically relevant entries in Syriac texts even beyond the time frame defined for the Syriac material in CAL. Dr. Karam Rizk, editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie Maronite, asked for volunteers to contribute entries to the encyclopedia. It is being published in ten volumes by the Université Saint-Esprit in Kaslik, Lebanon. The first volume ‘A–A appeared in 1992. SyrCom-99, The Third International Forum on Syriac Computing met in association with the Syriac Symposium III on Friday, 18 June 1999. SyrCom-99 was divided into three parts: Wordprocessing and Fonts, Education and the Internet, and Projects on Neo-Syriac. The closing session included an overview of ongoing projects of the Syriac Computing Institute. Dr. George A. Kiraz, Bell Laboratories, was the principal organizer of this and two earlier forums: The Second International Forum on Syriac Computing at Uppsala University, Sweden in 1996 in conjunction with the VIIum Symposium Syriacum; the First International Forum on Syriac Computing at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.in 1995 in association with the Syriac Symposium II. He has been instrumental in bringing together computational projects related to Syriac studies and in assisting Syriac scholars with computer applications. The Forum papers are listed at: http://syrcom.cua.edu/ SCForum/FSC3Sched.html. They already have been published in print form by the Syriac Computing Institute: SyrCom-99 Proceedings of the Third International Forum on Syriac Computing (In Association with Syriac Symposium III): June 18, 1999, University of Notre Dame, Indiana. Edited by George Anton Kiraz. [New Jersey]: Syriac Computing Institute, © June 1999. SSIII papers will appear in one or more formats (electronic and print) and languages (English and Arabic) in one or more publications: Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/], a refereed electronic journal

286

[6]

Projects and Conference Reports

(soon to be available also in a print edition), and the printed journal Karmo (The Vine) [http://www.aas.net/karmo/]. The Syriac Symposium IV (SSIV) will meet in 2003 at Princeton Theological Seminary. The principal organizer will be Dr. Kathleen E. McVey. Syriac Symposium III Panel Papers Aphrahat (chair: Robin D. Young): “Aphrahat on the Temptation of Joseph at the Waters of Meribah,” Stephen Ryan; “Aphrahat the Sage: A Study of his Anthropology,” Stephanie Skoyles; “The Embodiment of a Christian Vocation: Aphrahat’s Conceptualization of Virginity,” Naomi Koltun-Fromm. Apocalypse (chair: Paul S. Russell): “The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel (Harvard Ms Syriac 42, fols. 117a–122b),” Matthias Henze; “Two Late Fifth-Century, Syrian Christian Responses to the Merkabah Tradition: Jacob of Serug’s Homily, “On the Chariot that Ezekiel the Prophet Saw,” and the Corpus Dionysiacum,” Alexander Golitzin. Spirituality (chair: Blake Lyerle): “Christ as Physician in the Early Syriac Tradition,” Ute Possekel; “The Plerophoriae of John Rufus and Spiritual Authority Based on Discipleship,” Jennifer Hevelone-Harper; “In Search of Lost Apophthegmata in John the Solitary of Apamea,” Robert A. Kitchen. Ephrem (chair: Alexander Golitzin): “St. Ephraem on the Duality of Christ and the Duality of the Creation,” Paul S. Russell; “Claiming Christianity: Early Syriac Christianity and the AntiManichaean Rhetoric of Ephrem’s Prose Refutations,” Tina Shepardson; “Syrian Ephrem and Middle English Pearl,” Zacharias P. Thundy. Language (chair: Abdul Massih Saadi): “Tawldotho II/Syriac Neologisms. Principles: Criteria and Examples, Part II,” Abrohom Nuro; “Burhan: Study of a Word on a Journey from the Heart to the Mind and Back,” Avril M. Makhlouf. Armenian (chair: Richard Taylor): “Eznik of Kolb and Ephrem the Syrian Against Heresies,” Monica J. Blanchard; “Syriac Christian Influence on Early Armenian Monasticism and the Evidence of the Collected Homilies Ascribed to Gregory the Illuminator,” Robin Darling Young; “The Ephod and the Pelican: An Analysis of Christology and Atonement in Early Syro-Armenian Iconography,” Erin Roberts. Crises in the Syrian Churches of India (chair: Victor Z. Narively): “Conflicts in the Indian Syrian Church: a Historical Overview,” Cyriac Pullapilly; “Chaldeanize or Dechaldeanize? Current Liturgical Controversies in the Indian Syrian church,” Jose Kuriedeth; “Mar Thoma Sliva or Manichean Cross?,” Jose Kuriedeth. Musical Tradition of the Syrian Christians of India (chair: Kuriakose Athapilly): “Melodies of the Indian Syriac Liturgy and the Divine Office,” Victor Z. Narively & Zacharias P. Thundy; “Problems and Issues in the Study of Syriac Chants in India,” Joseph J. Palackal;

Projects and Conference Reports

287

“Melodies of St. Ephrem and Other Syrian Masters in the Syrian Church of India.” Exegesis (chair: Gregory Sterling): “Ode 19 and the Textual History of John 1:13,” Basil S. Davis; “The Pledge of the Spirit in the Liber Graduum,” Amy Donaldson; “Exegetical Techniques in Ephrem’s Homily on Our Lord,” Angela Kim; “Jewish Exegetical Themes in Two Memre Attributed to Mar Ephrem,” Walter Ray. Cave of Treasures (chair: Monica J. Blanchard): “Anti-Judaism in the Syriac Cave of Treasures,” Clemens Leonhard; “Exegetical Concepts in the Oriental Syriac Cave of Treasures,” Petra Heldt; “Swearing by Abel’s Blood and Expulsion from Paradise: Two Exegetical Motifs of the Cave of Treasures in Context,” Serge Ruzer. Historical Writing (chair: John Cavadini): “Syriac Historiography in the Thirteenth Century: The Histories of Bar Hebraeus,” Hayat Bualuan; “Facts, History and Historiography. The Correspondence between Jacob of Edessa and John of Litarba.” Jan Van Ginkel; “Two Historical Homilies by Isaac (of Antioch?) On the Arab Destruction of Beth Hur,” Victoria Erhart; “Beth Abhe: An Economic Case-Study,” Cynthia Villagomez; “Textuality and Intertextuality: Moshe bar Kepha’s Use of Earlier Syriac Sources in his Commentary on Luke,” Abdul Massih Saadi; “Dair al-Suryan (Egypt), A Center of Syriac Culture in the Early Islamic Period,” Lucas Van Rompay. Syriac Bible (chair: James VanderKam): “Non-Canonical Syriac Psalms,” Shane Kirkpatrick; “Exegetical Readings in the Peshitta Text of 1 Samuel,” Craig E. Morrison; “Melchizedek in Judeo-Christian Tradition,” Edward Mathews; “Converse Translation in Peshitta Ezekiel,” Jerome Lund; “2 Baruch,” Mark Whitters; “The Syriac Old Testament in Recent Research,” Richard A. Taylor.

Redefining Christian Identity. Christian Cultural Strategies since the Rise of Islam. Groningen, The Netherlands, 7–11 April 1999 JAN J. VAN GINKEL, UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

[1]

[2]

The symposium “Redefining Christian Identity” was jointly organised by scholars from the Universities of Leiden and Groningen as part of the research project “Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam,” funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). At the symposium the participants focused on the various ways in which the Christians of the Middle East defined and re-defined their identity from the early Islamic period until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The topic was presented and discussed as part of one of the following four sub-themes: (I) Christian Apologetics vis-à-vis Islam; (II) Christian Perception of History; (III) Common Elements in Christian and Islamic Literature and Art; (IV) Language, Literature and Identity. In the course of the scholarly sessions, the following papers were presented: S.H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret: Christian Apologetics in the World of Islam” (I); Barbara Roggema, “Making sense of a vision. The Christian legend of Sergius-Bahira and messianic movements in early Islam” (I); David Thomas, “Explanations of the Incarnation in early “Abbasid Islam” (I); Gerrit Reinink, “East Syrian Historiography in Response to the Rise of Islam: the Case of John bar Penkaye’s Ktâbâ d-rêš mellê” (II); Jan J. van Ginkel, “History and Community. Jacob of Edessa and the West Syrian Identity” (II); Michael G. Morony, “History and Identity in the Syrian Churches’ (II); Amir Harrak, “‘Ah! The Assyrian is the rod of my hand!’: Syriac View of History after the Advent of Islam” (II); Robert W. Thomson, “Christian Perception of History—The Armenian Perspective” (II); Luk Van Rompay “Dair al-Suryan: A Christian Center in the Early Islamic Period. Short report on the recent discoveries;” John Watt, “The Strategy of the Baghdad Philosophers: The Aristotelian Tradition as a Common Motif in Christian and Islamic Thought” (III); Theo M. van Lint, “Sayat Nova (1712–1795) and the Persian Poetical Tradition: the Fruits of a Millennium of Nutrition” (III); Seta B. Dadoyan, “The Nasiri Futuwwa Literature and the Brotherhood Poetry of Hovhannes and Costantin of Yerzenka—Texts and 288

Projects and Conference Reports

[3]

289

Contexts” (III); S.P. Cowe, “Islamic influence on Armenian verse” (III); James Russell, “The Doxological Poem of St. Nerses the Graceful” (III); Alessandro Mengozzi, “Readings in Early NeoSyriac Literature: the Poem ‘On Revealed Truth’ by Joseph of Telkepe (17th century)” (IV); H.L. Murre-van den Berg, “The Church of the East in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: World Church or Ethnic Community?” (IV); H. Teule, “Barhebraeus’ Syriac Translation of b. Sina’s Kitab al-isharat watanbihat’ (IV); F.A. Pennacchietti, “The Christian and Islamic legend of the skull restored to life” (IV); J.J.S. Weitenberg, “The Armenian Language as a Witness to the Encounter with the Islamic East” (IV); Lawrence I. Conrad, “Homer in Syriac” (IV). The papers read at this Symposium (together with some additional papers) will be published soon. Any new information regarding the papers will be published on http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vginkel/

The Assyrian Experience: Sources for the Study of the 19th and 20th Centuries Harvard College Library, March-April 1999. MICHAEL HOPPER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

The Widener Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, was the site of an exhibit entitled “The Assyrian Experience: Sources for the Study of the 19th and 20th Centuries” from March to April 1999. This was the second exhibit at Harvard University devoted to an aspect of the history and culture of modern Assyrians, the first having been Eden Naby’s photo exhibit, “Assyrian Christian Architecture of Iran,” mounted at the Center for the Study of World Religions in the fall of 1998. Organized by Eden Naby and Michael Hopper, Head, Middle Eastern Division, Harvard College Library, the exhibit included some 200 items chosen to illustrate the great variety of materials that are available at the Harvard Library for research on the Assyrians. The Harvard Library’s collection of material on the Assyrians is probably the largest in the United States. The collection includes material in the Syriac language (both classical and modern) and in numerous other languages as well as material in a variety of formats, including books, periodicals, newspapers, pamphlets, photographs, posters, sound recordings, videotapes, and cd-roms. Materials selected for the exhibition exemplified the range and depth of the collection and provided an overview of the major aspects of Assyrian life during the 19th and 20th centuries. The collecting of Assyrian materials, their preservation, and the publications emanating from Harvard University are all made possible largely through income from the David B. Perley Memorial Assyrian Fund established in 1979 by Dr. and Mrs. Richard Redvanly and the Assyrian community. To accompany the exhibition Ms. Naby and Mr. Hopper prepared an exhibition catalog published under the same title as the exhibit. The 176-page exhibition catalog includes an introduction to the exhibit, a case-by-case description of the exhibit cases each accompanied by a brief introduction and a selected reading relating to the case, and a selected bibliography on the Assyrians and the Syriac language in the Harvard Library. (For information on obtaining copies of the catalog please contact Michael Hopper at [email protected]). 290

Projects and Conference Reports [5]

[6]

[7]

291

In conjunction with the opening of the exhibit on March 7, 1999, Professor James F. Coakley, Houghton Library and the Department of Near East Languages and Civilizations, presented the inaugural lecture of The Mishael and Lillie Naby Assyrian Lecture Fund. The Mishael and Lillie Naby Assyrian Lecture Fund was established in 1997 by the daughter and son of Reverend Mishael Naby (1898–1980) and Rabi Lillie Yohannan Naby (1906– 91), two Assyrians from the Urmia region of Iran whose lives were disrupted but not destroyed by the massacre of the Assyrians during World War I. The fund provides for the hosting of one or more lectures, on an annual basis, at Harvard University, on a topic related to Assyrian culture and history during the medieval and modern periods. Professor Coakley’s lecture entitled, “Syriac from Script to Print, 1539–1954,” illustrated with numerous color slides, traced the evolution of Syriac script from manuscript to printed page while comparing and contrasting various hands and typefaces. Professor Coakley plans to publish his lecture complete with illustrations at a future date. Despite a New England snowstorm and the resulting icy highways the same day, the inaugural lecture and the opening of the exhibit were well attended by more than 60 Assyrians and other interested individuals traveling from as far away as New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. A special highlight of the evening was a Chai-Kada reception hosted by the local Bet Nahrain Assyrian Association.

Semitic Linguistic: The State of the Art at the Turn of the TwentyFirst Century Tel Aviv University, 11–13 January 1999. SHLOMO IZRE’EL, TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Between the 11th and the 13th of January, 1999, Tel Aviv University hosted a sympoium entitled “Semitic Linguistic: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” (Symposium web page: http://spinoza.tau.ac.il/hci/dep/semitic/ symposium.html) The symposium was conceived and organized by the editor of Israel Oriental Studies, an Annual of The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities at Tel Aviv University. Israel Oriental Studies (IOS) is an annual devoted to the study of the Near East in various disciplines. Appearing under the auspices of the Faculty of Humanities at Tel Aviv University, it began publication in 1971, and quickly earned a reputation for its contribution to scholarship, with major concentrations in the study of Near Eastern languages, philology, history and religions. For the year 2000, the editorial board of IOS have planned an ambitious project, and volume 20 of this annual will be devoted to the state of the art of Semitic linguistics at the turn of the 21st century. The editorial board hopes to convey the achievements, the drawbacks and the desiderata in the wide and diverse field of Semitic linguistics, i.e., to emphasize progress, conservatism and current gaps in research. The symposium held in January was designed to serve as a preparatory meeting for the publication of this volume. The symposium provided an opportunity for contributors to the volume, many of whom are involved in large research projects, to offer oral presentations in the investigated areas and to discuss matters of mutual interest. Special emphasis was placed on identifying desiderata and on raising suggestions for future research. This symposium was convened to help make the outcome of our joint effort a coherent statement. Semitic linguistics has always been associated with philology rather than with linguistics, with the deciphering of dead languages rather than with the study of modern living languages, and with diachronic and comparative linguistics rather than with synchronic analyses of languages. Volume 20 of IOS has been designed in 292

Projects and Conference Reports

[6]

[7]

293

order to step out of this traditional view, and to present a different look at Semitic Linguistics. The organization of the symposium, which will eventually be reflected in the resulting publication, was designed in a way which reflects this new look at Semitic Linguistics. The opening lecture has addressed the overall interest of this meeting, viz., the relationship between Semitic Linguistics and the general study of language. Then followed issues which have been the concern of Semitic Linguistics since its debut in the Middle Ages, issues which have been to various degrees the concern of scholars in this century, and issues which have become topics of research only recently and with the last lecture issues regarding the future of Semitic Linguistics. Thus, the symposium discussed research in ancient languages and comparative issues, different schools in the study of Semitic languages, various domains within the study of linguistic structure, the study of geographical linguistics, the relationship between linguistic study and other human capacities and the relationship of linguistic study to machines. The three day symposium concluded with a general discussion which tried to raise some questions with regard to Linguistics and Semitic Linguistics, some which had been raised in the individual lectures, some in the discussions which followed specific presentations. The following presentations were given: x x x x x x x x

Gideon Goldenberg (Jerusalem): Semitic Linguistics and the General Study of Language Jo Ann Hackett (Cambridge, MA): The Study of Partially Documented Languages Michael Patrick O’Connor (Washington, DC): The Study of Extinct Languages Baruch Podolsky (Tel Aviv): The Study of Rare, Dying Out and Extinct Semitic Dialects in the Modern World Peter T. Daniels (New York): Writing and Scripts in the Semitic World John Huehnergard (Cambridge, MA): Comparative Semitic Linguistics Helmut Satzinger (Vienna): The Egyptian Connection: Egyptian and the Semitic Languages Rainer M. Voigt (Berlin): The Hamitic Connection: Semitic and Hamito-Semitic

294

Projects and Conference Reports x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x

x

[8]

Anna G. Belova and Victor Ja. Porkhomovsky (Moscow): The Russian School of Semitic Linguistics Joseph L. Malone (New York) ‹ in absentia: The Chomskian School and Semitic Linguistics Geoffrey Khan (Cambridge, UK): Syntax Uri Horesh (Tel Aviv): TMA (Tense-Mood-Aspect) Baruch Podolsky (Tel Aviv): Lexicography Otto Jastrow (Erlangen): Dialectology: Arabic Otto Jastrow (Erlangen): Dialectology: Aramaic Olga Kapeliuk (Jerusalem): Languages in Contact: The Contemporary Semitic World Stephen A. Kaufman (Cincinnati): Languages in Contact: The Ancient Near East Bruce Zuckerman (Rolling Hills Estates, CA): New Finds in the 20th Century: The Semitic Languages of the Ancient World David L. Appleyard (London): New Finds in the 20th Century: The South Semitic Languages Edward L. Greenstein (Tel Aviv): Advances in Linguistic Study as an Aid for Other Disciplines: The Ancient World Victor Ja. Porkhomovsky (Moscow): Advances in Linguistic Study as an Aid for Other Disciplines: The Ethiopian and South Arabian Languages and Cultures Ruth A. Berman and Dorit D. Ravid (Tel Aviv): Insights into Semitics from Research on the Acquisition of Israeli Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic Yaacov Choueka (Ramat Gan): Computational Linguistics and Semitic Linguistics: Achievements and Desiderata

In addition, the volume will include a paper that was not presented at the symposium: x

Marie-Claude Simeonne-Senelle (Meudon, France): New Finds in the 20th century: The Modern South Arabian Languages.

The New English Annotated Translation of the Syriac Bible Peshitta Institute, Leiden, 4–5 February 1999. KONRAD D. JENNER, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

In July 1998 the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) authorized the Peshitta Institute Leiden to prepare an edition of a new and annotated translation of the Syriac Bible into English. The aim of this edition is to facilitate the use of the Peshitta and access to the Syriac theological literature, especially that of the commentaries on the Bible and of liturgy. Three general editors were appointed: K.D. Jenner (Peshitta Institute, Leiden), J. Joosten (University of Strasbourg), and A. Salvesen (Oriental Institute, Oxford). In order to start preparations for this edition officially a seminar at the Peshitta Institute Leiden was held on 4 and 5 February 1999. The invited participants had a two-fold aim: 1. The formulation of a set of basic rules that may underlay the editorial philosophy and policy as well as the official sample. 2. The evaluation of some preliminary samples prepared by specialists in the field of Peshitta research. Thanks to the chairmanship of D.J. Lane (Leeds University) the above two aims were completely realized. Consequently, a common opinion was reached, on the basis of which A. Salvesen will prepare the draft of the official sample(s). The following is a very brief report of the issues discussed. On February, the 4th, four papers were read and discussed first: x

x

K.D. Jenner and A. van der Kooij gave a general introduction to the seminar. They sketched the preparations of the project, prior to the authorization by IOSOT, and evaluated the editorial policy of the annotated English (Toronto) and French (Paris) translation of the Septuagint. M. Zipor argumented, on the base of texts from Leviticus 19 and 21, the “why” and “how” of the annotated English translation. Scholars lacking in knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and classical Syriac should get access to the Peshitta because of: 1. its homiletic nature; 2. its slavish translation from the Hebrew. 295

296 x

x

x

Projects and Conference Reports In cases where the Peshitta differed from the Massoretic Text (=MT), the translators either had a homiletic goal, or had used a Hebrew text different from MT or did not have a correct understanding of their Hebrew original. His opponent, D.J. Lane, did not dispute that the Peshitta was closely related to the MT, but he had quite a different opinion as to the conclusions that could be drawn from this relationship. He drew much attention to the fact that the translation of the Hebrew text had been much more complicated than one would expect from the biblical Peshitta MSS. Lane’s main thesis was that biblical and classical Syriac in some respects is essentially different from Hebrew. Moreover, classical Syriac had quite a few linguistic possibilities to avoid apparent ambiguities in Hebrew. Thus, as Lane concluded, one should make a fresh translation from the Syriac and not make use of Modern English translations of the Old Testament. The Peshitta, he objected to Zipor, though being a translation, should be evaluated on its own merits, its own audience and social as well as cultural environment. A. Salvesen made a brief sketch of the aspects of translation techniques. With the help of passages from the books of Samuel she highlighted some features in this field. She emphasized that one should consider the Syriac of the Peshitta from two different points of view: on the one hand as a target language with its special problems against the source language; on the other hand as a source language for a new target language of a different nature. One should opt for a translation that is in balance with both viewpoints and that meets the needs of the modern audience or reader. These two conditions would require that the English translation be as close as possible to the Syriac, but not be a slavish one. The referent, J.W. Dyk, supported the conclusions of Salvesen. She emphasized that to meet Salvesen’s conditions it was necessary to have a much better insight into the macrosyntactical structures of biblical and classical Syriac. J. Joosten sketched a typology for the language of the Old Testament Peshitta. He emphasized that the language of the Old Testament Peshitta was but a relative unity, because of its linguistic diversity, due to the several phases in the development of the Syriac language. He presented a tentative

Projects and Conference Reports

x

[5]

297

framework for solving problems to be expected in the translation of the Old Testament Peshitta into English. He drew special attention to the quality of idiom and the use of Greek words in the Peshitta as compared with that found in other Syriac sources. Another issue he gave much attention was that of traces of early Syriac and of Aramaic elements in the Peshitta of the Old Testament. His referent, T. Muraoka, emphasized that a better linguistic knowledge of the Syriac language was still a desideratum. In his opinion the following three parameters would need much more attention: the idiomatic nature, the problem of continuity and discontinuity, and the problem of orthography. D. Phillips read a report in respect with his experiences and practical problems in translating and annotating the books of Chronicles: “Englishing the Peshitta to Chronicles.” He formulated four major categories of problems he had met: the style of English to be used, how and to what extent divergences from the Massoretic text should be indicated, the comparison with the parallel texts and the other versions, and the structure of the notes. P.S.F. van Keulen, as his opponent, made some critical remarks and suggestions about the structure of the notes as well as to use of the parallel texts and other versions.

At the end of the day D.J. Lane presented a balanced survey of a number of general and important issues that arose during the discussions and required resolution. The broad discussion of these issues was closed on February, the 5th, and resulted in a common opinion with reference to the basic rules for the editorial policy. With the help of these rules the large samples on Leviticus, Job, Kings, and Chronicles were evaluated.

ARAM Fourteenth Conference Antioch and Edessa Rhodes House, University of Oxford, 12–14 July 1999 BAS TER HAAR ROMENY, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian studies held its fourteenth conference at Oxford University on 12–14 July 1999. The convener was Dr. Shafiq AbouZayd, who must be congratulated on the great success of this conference. He succeeded not only in securing a magnificent venue, Rhodes House, but also in gathering a diverse and interesting group of scholars at a moment that other important conferences (the American Syriac Symposium and the Oxford Patristic Conference) were likely to take the wind out of his sails. I am sure that I speak for all participants if I say that this was a truly wonderful occasion. The conference started with a paper by Dr. Daphna V. Arbel entitled “Junction of Tradition in Edessa: Possible Interaction between Mesopotamian Mythological and Jewish Mystical Traditions in the First Centuries CE.” This fascinating theme was followed by a paper on Antioch in South Arabian Tradition by Dr. Serguei A. Frantsouzoff, read in his absence by Dr. Nikolaj Serikoff. After the coffee break, Dr. Hans Erbes showed us how variants in the Peshitta tradition could be presented in relation to the readings of the Syro-Hexapla and other versions, using examples from the first five chapters of the book of Joshua. In the following paper, Prof. Catherine Saliou brought us back to Antioch; she discussed the myths and stories regarding its foundation. The last session of 12 July was devoted to results of archeological work: Dr. Grégoire Poccardi and Mr. Jacques Leblanc reported on the retrieval of the location of the Olympic stadium of Daphne, and Mr. Alain Desreumaux presented a number of unpublished inscriptions that were found by a TurkishFrench expedition to sites on the Euphrates near the Syrian border. One of them, a cave-tomb inscription from Apamea (opposite Zeugma), should be considered the westernmost inscription in Old Syriac found so far. It is dated 503 (of the Seleucid era; 191 CE) [Drijvers-Healey Add 1]. Next to this inscription a more recent text refers to the restoration of the tomb. Its date, 155, is ambiguous, Desreumaux explained: should we read this as (1)155 of the 298

Projects and Conference Reports

[4]

[5]

[6]

299

Seleucid era, 155 of the Hijra, or perhaps 155 of the era of Edessa Antoniana Colonia? The last option is also a possibility, he suggested, in the case of another unpublished inscription, which is dated 37. The conventional solution is to understand this as (5)37 of the Seleucid era. The first two lectures in the morning of 13 July were devoted to Syriac chronicles. Dr. Muriel Debié discussed the role of city archives in the formation of the various chronicles. Quite a lot is known about the practice of record keeping in Edessa, we have some indications with regard to Amida, but the situation in Nisibis remains unclear. The different forms in which we find material that may stem from the Edessa city archives in chronicles, point to the fact that each chronicler, though following a predecessor, still made his own work, using documents from archives in the way he considered most useful. Dr. Witold Witakowski spoke about “The Chronicle of Eusebius, its Genre and Continuations in Syriac.” He stressed the importance of Eusebiusಫ Chronicon for Syriac chronicle writing. In establishing whether a chronicle follows this example, one should look both at its form and at its content, he explained while giving a survey of Syriac chronicles. The convener himself had chosen the topic “The Untamed Violence of Syrian Ascetics: a Study of the Problem of Violence and Killing in the Liber Graduum.” It seems that ascetics could act violently towards pagans, but were not always peaceful among themselves either. Even more trouble was brought to us in the next paper, in which Dr. Ephrem Yousif told us how Edessa and Antioch were struck by locusts, famine, pestilence, war, and earthquakes according to Syriac chronicles. Recording of these sad events kept the memory of them alive, but may have had a moral purpose as well, he explained. Dr. Yousif also told us some of his own recollections from his childhood, making clear that locusts and other disasters happened not only in the period covered by the chronicles he discussed. After lunch, Dr. Sebastian Brock dealt with the impact of Hellenism on Syriac, taking material from two authors from Edessa, Ephrem and Narsai. He warned us that Ephrem should not be seen as “purely Semitic,” as the influence of Hellenism had already spread beyond Edessa before his time. After Ephrem, however, an increase of Greek influence can be seen, culminating in the seventh century. An indication of the scale of Hellenising

300

[7]

[8]

[9]

Projects and Conference Reports

can be found in the use of loan-words (as opposed to temporary borrowings) in the poetry of the two authors just mentioned. Some phenomena should simply be attributed to differences in taste, but that does not alter the fact that a diachronic development can indeed be discerned. The scholarly programme of the day was closed by Prof. Michel van Esbroeck with an eminent discourse on Peter the Fuller and Cyrus of Edessa. After this, all participants were invited to the conference banquet offered by the sponsors Mr. and Mrs. Arbela. The last day of the conference started with Dr. Erica Hunter’s lecture on an example of the transmission of Greek scientific knowledge. In Cambridge ms. Mm. 6.29 the more original (vis-à-vis the copies in the British Library) Syriac version of Zosimus is found. Book 6 deals with the chemical problem of making alloys. The only known recipe for making Corinthian bronze is found in this text. Together with metallurgical specialists, Dr. Hunter had been able to find the right understanding of several instances where the specialized content and vocabulary (full of Greek scientific terms) had made interpretation impossible until now. The first editor, Berthelot, had been unable to translate the whole text for this reason. Equally ground-breaking was Dr. Klaus-Peter Todt’s paper on “Antioch and Edessa in the so-called Treaty of Deabolis/Devol (September 1108):” an area that seems to have been neglected by Syriacists. Prof. Nicola Ziadeh then discussed “Dawood al-Antaki (David of Antioch) in Arab History” and Dr. Carsten-Michael Walbiner informed us on “The City of Antioch in the Writings of Macarius ibn Azza’im (17th century).” The last paper of the conference was given by Dr. Nikolaj Serikoff on “Patriarch Gregory al-Haddad and his Gift to Nicholas II, the Emperor of Russia,” about the Christian Arabic manuscripts preserved in the St. Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies. The papers will be published in the ARAM periodical.