The Rediscovery of Shenoute: Studies in Honor of Stephen Emmel (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 310) 9042948302, 9789042948303

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA The Rediscovery of Shenoute Studies in Honor of Stephen Emmel

edited by $11(%28'·+256 with the assistance of '$9,'%5$..($1'5(:&5,6/,3 and 6$08(/02$:$'

P E E T ERS

THE REDISCOVERY OF SHENOUTE

13th February 2019, 9th International Symposium of Coptic Studies, organized by the St. Mark Foundation for Coptic History Studies. Logos Center at the Monastery of St. Bishoi in the Wadi Natrun. © St. Mark Foundation.

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 310 —————

THE REDISCOVERY OF SHENOUTE Studies in Honor of Stephen Emmel

edited by

ANNE BOUD’HORS with the assistance of

DAVID BRAKKE, ANDREW CRISLIP and SAMUEL MOAWAD

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-4830-3 eISBN 978-90-429-4831-0 D/2022/0602/60

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STEPHEN EMMEL .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XIII

ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XXI

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Elizabeth S. BOLMAN Shenoute’s Great House: Imagining the White Monastery Church

1

Diliana ATANASSOVA Die Predigten Schenutes in den liturgischen Typika des Weißen Klosters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Sydney AUFRÈRE & Nathalie BOSSON Le vieux pied de vigne (la Synagogue des Juifs) versus le sarment provigné (l’Église des Nations) dans le discours de Chénouté, Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice. . . . . . . . . .

77

Sina BECKER Shenoute’s Rise to Power: Mythologization and Ritual in Canon 1 . 101 Heike BEHLMER Paul de Lagarde, Agapius Bsciai and the History of Coptic Bible Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Anne BOUD’HORS L’image de la lèpre dans le Canon 8 de Chénouté .

.

.

.

.

. 137

David BRAKKE The Form and Function of the Vienna Incipit List: Shenoute among the Christian Authors of Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . 153 Paola BUZI Codices Coptici Rescripti: A Preliminary Census of the Palimpsests from the White Monastery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Andrew CRISLIP Shenoute’s Illness

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 207

Stephen DAVIS The Arabic Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute: Introduction, Text, and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paul C. DILLEY Shenoute’s Polemic against Non-Canonical Texts in Canon 3 .

. 285

David FRANKFURTER Shenoute and Magic .

. 299

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

James GOEHRING Palamon, Pachomius, and the Rule of the Angel: The Development of “Rules” in Early Upper Egyptian Monasticism . . . . . . 309 Rebecca KRAWIEC Besa and the Women of the White Monastery: The Sequel .

.

. 321

Bentley LAYTON Termites in the Church of Shenoute .

.

. 347

Hugo LUNDHAUG Shenoute the Burglar: Reconsidering the Conflict with Gesios .

. 351

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Anastasia MARAVELA and Sofía TORALLAS TOVAR Impossible Anatomies: Shenoute’s Curse and the Death of Gessios . 367 Samuel MOAWAD Bemerkungen zur Vita Sinuthii .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 393

Tito ORLANDI Shenoute and Victor at the Council of Ephesus .

.

.

.

.

.

. 405

Tonio Sebastian RICHTER BnF Copte 132.5 f. 9, an Astrological Leaflet, among Other Coptic Technical Writings from the White Monastery . . . . . . . 423 Gesa SCHENKE The Cult of Shenoute: From Holy Man to Healing Saint .

.

.

. 443

Ariel SHISHA-HALEVY Shenoute’s Generics: An Overview .

.

.

. 457

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Janet TIMBIE Rhetoric by Proxy from Paul to Shenoute: Public Letter-Reading in a Christian Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Frederik WISSE Shenoute and the Bible .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 493

Wolf-Peter FUNK Twin Verboids: ‘Be Different’ with One Syllable Too Many and ‘Be Alike’ with One Too Few . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 INDICES .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 531

PREFACE

Consulting the list of Stephen Emmel’s works makes clear that the studies collected in this volume are far from honoring the variety and richness of his contributions to Coptic studies. Gnostic texts, literature, codicology, and the history of the discipline are all noteworthy fields to which he has made important contributions, not to mention his unfailing dedication to the International Association for Coptic Studies. But it is in the study of Shenoute that his impact is clearest. In making a considerable methodological leap toward achieving the edition and study of Shenoute’s works, he broadened the horizon for new research, inspiring numerous studies, some of which he supervised directly, others which he influenced and collaborated on. The four editors of this volume themselves have been the beneficiaries in a variety of circumstances of his knowledge, generosity, and openness, and are happy to present him with this anthology of tributes centering on the study of Shenoute, while the other aspects of his work will be honored elsewhere. Let us go back and attempt briefly to retrace the major stages of this scholarly venture. Stephen Emmel was born on June 27, 1952, in Rochester, New York. In 1973, he obtained his B.A. in Religion from Syracuse University, and then began his advanced studies at Claremont Graduate University with James M. Robinson, who appointed him as his research assistant on the international project publishing the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi in Cairo. Over three years (1974–1977), he worked on conserving the Nag Hammadi papyri at the Coptic Museum, and participated in publishing the Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, and an edition and translation of the texts preserved in the manuscripts. Over the course of these years, he made several trips to Jerusalem to meet with the Egyptologist and linguist Hans Jakob Polotsky, and his several articles on the Coptic language witness to the fruitfulness of these meetings. His first major publication was an edition of a text from Nag Hammadi titled “The Dialogue of the Savior” (1984). In 1978, Stephen Emmel resumed his studies, from that time on under the direction of Bentley Layton at Yale University. He obtained his doctorate from Yale in 1993 from the Department of Religious Studies Program in Ancient Christianity. His dissertation, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus (published in 2004), established the foundation for the primary focus of his scholarly research, an international collaborative project seeking to publish the works of the Coptic monastic superior Shenoute the Archimandrite (ca. 347–465). In 1996 he was named Professor of Coptology at the Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie at Wilhelms-Westfälische Universität Münster, a position which he held until

VIII

PREFACE

2019, during which time he also held the inaugural Egyptian Chair in Coptic Heritage at the American University in Cairo for 2010–2011. A founding member of the International Association for Coptic Studies, whose first International Congress he helped organize (Cairo, December 1976), Stephen Emmel became President of the IACS from 1996 to 2000, and has been its tireless Secretary since 2000. He also was one of the founders of the Journal of Coptic Studies and its editor with Gerald M. Browne from 1988 to 2001. The history of the study of Shenoute is linked foundationally and inseparably to the manuscripts of the so-called “White Monastery,” also called “The Monastery of Shenoute,” a monastery founded by the end of the fourth century in Upper Egypt by Pgol, Shenoute’s uncle, and of which the latter took over leadership until his death, probably in 465. This is not the place to discuss in detail the history of the discovery of this library, the principle source for our knowledge about the famous archimandrite, who was also the greatest Coptic writer, yet remained largely unknown outside Egypt. The reader wanting to know more about it can refer to the first chapters of Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. But it is nonetheless necessary to mark certain landmarks as evidence for the role of Stephen Emmel’s works and his place in the company of great names who mark the history of research. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before the discovery of the massive remains of the library, the Danish scholar Georg Zoëga had been able, in some hundreds of leaves derived from a then unknown source, to recognize and classify the remains of several manuscripts attributable to Shenoute, based on both their content and their style. After that, in 1885, the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero had discovered the bulk of the library in a concealed room in the church, and the manuscripts, by that time stripped from their bindings and dismembered, were dispersed among the great public and private collections of the western world, which seriously harmed – and still harms – research on Coptic literature. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Emile Amélineau published an edition and French translation of a great number of texts attributed to Shenoute, taken from various manuscripts, but without classification or reference system of the manuscripts. At the same time the German scholar Johannes Leipoldt, edited two volumes of largely fragmentary texts attributed to Shenoute, sometimes preserved in multiple manuscripts, which, with help from W.E. Crum, made some progress toward classifying the manuscripts preserving Shenoute’s works. These still serve as a base for much research on Shenoute’s life and literary works. Further progress in publishing the works of Shenoute was made by Ariel ShishaHalevy, Tito Orlandi, and Dwight Young, among others, aided by the system of classification for Coptic manuscripts and corresponding bibliographical databases by Orlandi’s Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (CMCL).

PREFACE

IX

In this context, the decisive progress made by Stephen Emmel coheres around three points, the consideration of which will make it possible to orient oneself in this volume. 1) Based on a cluster of textual and paratextual criteria drawn from the manuscripts (incipit lists, signatures, etc.), Stephen Emmel brought to the fore the structure of Shenoute’s literary corpus, establishing the existence of nine volumes of Canons (tractates on monastic discipline, composed as “letters” to the community), eight volumes of Discourses (homilies on moral, pastoral, and theological matters), most attested by several manuscript witnesses, along with some volumes of Varia. 2) The number of manuscripts containing the works of Shenoute (Canons, Discourses, Varia, lectionaries) now exceeds a hundred, thanks to the enormous work of reconstructing the manuscripts which come, apart from very rare exceptions, from the White Monastery, labeled with the CMCL siglum “MONB” (Monasterio Bianco), followed by two letters chosen arbitrarily. This system serves as a reference, obligatory for unedited texts, and an optional complement for texts already edited. 3) Based on the list preserved on a leaf held in Vienna, which contains the incipits of the tractates in several volumes of the Discourses, Stephen Emmel has chosen, in place of the Latin titles proposed by Leipoldt, to designate the different works by their incipit, a system which has the advantage of not prejudging their contents and allowing them to be rendered in all languages, in Coptic or in translation. Relying on this magnificent tool, Stephen Emmel was able to launch in 2000, with support from Yale and in collaboration with Bentley Layton, the project of the critical edition of the works of Shenoute, beginning with the Canons, of which the nine volumes were entrusted to the responsibility of various colleagues, Emmel himself being in charge of editing Canons 1 and 2, as well as the Florilegium Sinuthianum (codex XL), and supervising the whole process. The project expanded to include the Discourses in 2005, the team enriched with new members. Between 2005 and 2016 the team members reunited for one week each year in various places in the world, under the direction of Stephen Emmel, for updates and discussions on various aspects of the work. As with any large-scale endeavor, the results appear long overdue. It should not be overlooked that Coptology is a relatively young discipline, and the Coptic language far less well known than Greek and Latin, for example. The establishment of criteria for normalizing orthographic variants is a very complex question, and all the more crucial since such standardization could be used in the future by all editors of Coptic texts. In addition, the impetus provided by the project is noticeable in many publications by editorial team members

X

PREFACE

Meeting of the Shenoute project members. Münster, June 2014.

between 2010 and 2020, which could be characterized as “subsidiary products,” whether editions, translations into various languages, and studies based on textual materials still in process of critical editing. In Stephen Emmel’s mind, the editorial task was imperative for his generation of researchers, leaving to future generations the privilege of reaping the fruits for contextual or synthetic studies on this or that aspect of Shenoute’s works. But any pioneer is liable to attract followers, eager to charge ahead and to build on the new achievements. If the contributions gathered in this volume are illustrative, it pleases us that they correspond for the most part to the directions already anticipated and explored by the dedicatee himself. The difficult question of Shenoute’s place in history, as well as the historical importance of certain episodes evoked in his works and in his Life, have always been at the heart of his research (e.g., Emmel 1998, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2017). Here such problems of context and biography are treated in contributions by H. Lundhaug, A. Maravela/S. Torallas, and S. Moawad, while the historical and liturgical memories of Shenoute are addressed by D. Atanassova, S. Becker and G. Schenke. Shenoute’s use of the Bible and the utility of Shenoute’s writings for establishing the Coptic biblical translations are treated here in the articles of

PREFACE

XI

A. Boud’hors, J. Timbie, and F. Wisse, along with the contribution of P. Dilley, which addresses Shenoute’s position vis-à-vis non-canonical texts, a focus which resonates with Emmel 2018, whereas H. Behlmer offers a glimpse in the beginnings of the research on the Coptic Bible. Comparing the situation and work of Shenoute with those of certain Greek and Coptic Fathers, which is linked to the previous areas of historical context and biblical exegesis, is central to the contributions of D. Brakke, A. Crislip, and J. Goehring. Shenoute’s rhetoric of authority is addressed by S. Becker and R. Krawiec, while the witness of Shenoute’s works for the persistence of late antique magic is revisited by A. Maravela/S. Torallas and D. Frankfurter. The work on the reputedly difficult language of Shenoute is represented by A. Shisha-Halevy’s study on the Generics, whereas S. Aufrère and Nathalie Bosson explore the realities of the wine cultivation used by Shenoute as metaphors. Sadly, Wolf-Peter Funk, whose Concordance of the Canons is so helpful, has been prevented by a fatal illness to submit the tribute he wanted to offer to Stephen Emmel.1 The contributions of P. Buzi, B. Layton, T. Orlandi, and S. Richter explore what was in a way Shenoute’s legacy, the wider corpus of manuscripts from the White Monastery’s library, the primary repository of Shenoute’s works and much of Sahidic literature. S. Davis’ edition of an Arabic text attributed to Shenoute is illustrative of the delicate question of the transmission of his works outside his monastery and in other languages than Coptic. And E. Bolman’s beautifully evocative walk through the monastery seemed to us the ideal introduction to the volume, an invitation to the world of Shenoute accessible for researchers not yet familiar with the Coptic language sources. Stephen Emmel’s colleagues and students know his exacting standards. Despite its imperfections, which he cannot fail to notice, we hope that this volume expresses to him our debt and gratitude for his decades of scholarly breakthroughs and leadership.

1 Nevertheless, in February 2022, Régine Charron found in the papers of Wolf-Peter the almost finished draft of his contribution, which happens to be the updated version of a presentation he made in 2015, at the meeting of the project in Columbus (Ohio). We decided to put it at the end of the volume, as it was too late to include it at the right place.

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

Monographs Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vols. 599–600 (Subsidia, vols. 111–112). Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Nag Hammadi Codex III,5: The Dialogue of the Savior. The Coptic Gnostic Library Edited with English Translation, Introduction and Notes; Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 26. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984. [With an introductory chapter by Helmut Koester and Elaine Pagels.] Reprinted in: James M. Robinson, ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 3. Leiden etc.: Brill, 2000.

Edited volumes Time and History in Africa / Tempo e storia in Africa [with Alessandro Bausi and Alberto Camplani]. Africana Ambrosiana, vol. 4. Milan: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Centro Ambrosiano, 2019. From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton [with David Brakke and Stephen J. Davis]. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 263. Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2017. From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity [with Johannes Hahn and Ulrich Gotter]. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, vol. 163. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year [with Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Karen L. King, and Imke Schletterer]. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, vol. 54. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996 [with Martin Krause, Siegfried G. Richter, and Sofia Schaten], vol. 1, Materielle Kultur, Kunst und Religiöses Leben, vol. 2, Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt. Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, vol. 6. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1999. Journal of Coptic Studies 1–3 [with Gerald M. Browne]. Leuven: Peeters, 1990–2001.

Articles Measuring Time in Christian Egypt: On the Origin and Nature of the “Easter Computus” and Its History among the Copts. In: Time and History in Africa / Tempo e storia in Africa, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Alberto Camplani, and Stephen Emmel, 53–66. Africana Ambrosiana, vol. 4. Milan: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Centro Ambrosiano, 2019. Shenoute the Archimandrite: The Extraordinary Scope (and Difficulties) of His Writings. Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies 10 (2018): 9–36.

XIV

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

A Crux in the Versional Transmission of the Hebrew Bible? Shenoute and the Coptic Attestation for the Prophet Micah 4:8a. In: Ägypten und der Christliche Orient. Peter Nagel zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Heike Behlmer, Ute Pietruschka, and Frank Feder, with assistance from Theresa Kohl, 59–75. Texte und Studien zur Koptischen Bibel, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018. Looking at Coptic Literature as Written Sources about Africa. In: Written Sources about Africa and Their Study / Le fonti scritte sull’Africa e i loro studi, edited by Mena Lafkioui and Vermondo Brugnatelli, 47–58. Africana Ambrosiana, vol. 3. Milan: Biblioteca Ambrosiana and ITL, 2018. Shenoute for Historians: The Pneueit Incident (A Monastic Leader and Anti-Pagan Violence in Late Antique Southern Egypt). In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by David Brakke, Stephen J. Davis, and Stephen Emmel, 369–407. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 263. Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2017. Rescuing Triadon 460.4 from Unnecessary Emendation: Coptic ⲧⲟⲛⲑⲓⲟⲛ = Ethiopic ṭəntyon and Greek τῶν θεῶν, Arabic (‫ابقطي )الشمس‬. In: Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy, edited by Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors, and Sydney H. Aufrère, 111–132. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 256. Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2017. Not Really Non-Existent? A Suggestion for Interpreting and Restoring Zostrianos (Nag Hammadi Codex VIII, 1) 117,11–15. In: Gnose et manichéisme. Entre les oasis d’Égypte et la Route de la Soie. Hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois, edited by Anna van den Kerchove and Luciana Gabriela Soares Santoprete, 35–50. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses, vol. 176; Histoire et prosopographie, vol. 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Editing Shenoute, Old Problems, New Prospects: The Date of Shenoute’s Death. In: Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22th, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th–19th, 2008, edited by Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani, and Federico Contardi, 2:937–944. 2 vols. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 247. Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2016. Pshoi and the Early History of the Red Monastery [with Bentley Layton]. In: The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt, edited by Elizabeth S. Bolman, 11–15, 325–326 (with bibliography on pp. 350–376, passim). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016. Coptic Codicology [with Paola Buzi]. In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 137–153 (with bibliography on pp. 583–654, passim). Hamburg: Tredition, 2015. “Foxes Flee before Lions”: The All-Important ⲁⲛ Is Missing in Leipoldt’s Text because It Was Erased. In: Florilegium Aegyptiacum – Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013, edited by Julia Budka, Roman Gundacker, and Gabriele Pieke, 75–78. Göttinger Miszellen Beiheft 14. Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 2013. On Using ‘Proportional Extension of Text’ as a Criterion for Placing Fragments in a Dismembered Codex. In: Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, edited by Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani, 257–278. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2011. The “Coptic Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi” and the Faw Qibli Excavations. In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 2, Nag Hammadi—Esna, edited

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

XV

by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 33–43 (with bibliography on pp. 295–343, passim). Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2010. Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality. In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 161–201. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, vol. 163. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. “From Temple to Church”: Analysing a Late Antique Phenomenon of Transformation [with Ulrich Gotter and Johannes Hahn]. In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 1–22. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, vol. 163. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas. In: The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, edited by Madeleine Scopello, 33–39. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, vol. 62. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. Shenoute’s Place in the History of Monasticism. In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 1, Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 31–46 (with bibliography on pp. 321–350, passim). Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2008. The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Witnesses to the Production and Transmission of Gnostic (and Other) Traditions. In: Das Thomasevangelium. Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie, edited by Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Jens Schröter, with the collaboration of Christine Jacobi, 33–49 (with bibliography on pp. 461–503, passim). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, vol. 157. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Coptic Literature in Byzantine and Early Islamic Egypt. In: Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700, edited by Roger S. Bagnall, 83–102. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Al-᾿anbā Shinūda ra᾿īs al-mutawaḥhidīn: Ḥayātuhu wa-ta῾ālīmuhu [Apa Shenoute the Archimandrite: His Life and His Teachings]. Dirāsāt ābā᾿iyyah walāhūtiyyah [Patristic and Theological Studies; Orthodox Patristic Centre, Cairo] 18 (July 2006): 45–50; 19 (January 2007): 40–46. [Translated by Noss-ḥy Abdel-Shahid Botros.] Coptic Grammatical Terminology before and after Polotsky: Transitivity and Case (with sōtm “Hear” for an Example). Lingua Aegyptia 14 (2006 [= “After Polotsky”: New Research and Trends in Egyptian and Coptic Linguistics, edited by Verena M. Lepper in cooperation with Peter Nagel and Wolfgang Schenkel; Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 2006]): 31–54. A Report on Progress in the Study of Coptic Literature, 1996–2004. In: Huitième congrès international d’études coptes (Paris 2004), vol. 1, Bilans et perspectives 2000–2004, edited by Anne Boud’hors and Denyse Vaillancourt, 173–204. Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, vol. 15. Paris: De Boccard, 2006. Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel taucht in Fragmenten aus Ägypten und Nubien auf. Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005): 85–99. The Library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael at Phantoou (al-Hamuli). In: Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis: Essays from the 2004 International Symposium of the Saint Mark Foundation and the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Honor of Martin Krause, edited by Gawdat

XVI

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

Gabra, 63–70 (with bibliography on pp. 297–322, passim). Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2005. Die Kopten zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft. In: Geschichte und Geist der koptischen Kirche, edited by Wolfgang Boochs, 193–203. Langwaden: BernardusVerlag, 2004. [Arabic translation by Nāṣir al-Bardanūhī, Al-aqbāṭ bayna al-māḍī wa-l-mustaqbal (Cairo 2005).] Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite. In: Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture. Atti del simposio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano” per il 50o anniversario dell’Istituto Monastico di Sant’Anselmo, Roma, 28 maggio – 1o giugno 2002, edited by Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, 151–174. Studia Anselmiana, vol. 140 (Analecta Monastica, vol. 8). Rome: Centro Studi Sant’Anselmo, 2004. Coptic Studies before Kircher. In: Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000, edited by Mat Immerzeel and Jacques van der Vliet, 1:1–11. 2 vols. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 133. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies, 2004. The Mystery of FR-BN Copte 13 and the “Codex St.-Louis”: When Was a Coptic Manuscript First Brought to Europe in “Modern” Times? Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004): 5–23. Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Savior: New Light on the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel and the Stauros-Text from Nubia. Apocrypha 14 (2003): 9–53. Exploring the Pathway That Leads from Paul to Gnosticism: What Is the Genre of The Interpretation of Knowledge (NHC XI, 1)? In: Die Weisheit – Ursprünge und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Löning zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Martin Fassnacht, Andreas Leinhäupl-Wilke, and Stefan Lücking, 257–276. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, n.s., vol. 44. Münster: Aschendorff, 2003. A Question of Codicological Terminology: Revisiting GB-BL Or. 7594 to Find the Meaning of “Papyrus Fiber Pattern”. In: Sprache und Geist. Peter Nagel zum 65. Geburtstag (= Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 35 [2003]), edited by Walter Beltz, Ute Pietruschka, and Jürgen Tubach, 83–111. Halle (Saale): Druckerei der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 2003. Immer erst das Kleingedruckte lesen. “Die Pointe verstehen” in dem koptischen Panegyrikos auf Makarios von Tkōou. In: Ägypten – Münster. Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ägypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten, donum natalicium viro doctissimo Erharto Graefe sexagenario ab amicis collegis discipulis ex aedibus Schlaunstraße 2/Rosentraße 9 oblatum, edited by Anke Ilona Blöbaum, Jochem Kahl, and Simon D. Schweitzer, 91–104. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003. The Gnostic Tradition in Relation to Greek Philosophy. In: The Nag Hammadi Texts in the History of Religions: Proceedings of the International Conference at the Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters in Copenhagen, September 19–24, 1995, on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Nag Hammadi Discovery, edited by Søren Giversen, Tage Petersen, and Jørgen Podemann Sørensen, 125–136. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter, vol. 26. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2002. Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel: Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Strasbourg Fragments. In: For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year, edited by Hans-

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

XVII

Gebhard Bethge, Stephen Emmel, Karen L. King, and Imke Schletterer, 353–374. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, vol. 54. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. From the Other Side of the Nile: Shenute and Panopolis. In: Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest: Acts from an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17 and 18 December 1998, edited by A. Egberts, B.P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, 95–113. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, vol. 31. Leiden etc.: Brill, 2002. The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (“Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium”): Righting the Order of Pages and Events. Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002): 45–72. The End of Shenute’s Sermon Du salut de l’âme humaine [Appendix to René-Georges Coquin, “Le traité de Šenoute ‘Du salut de l’âme humaine’”]. Journal of Coptic Studies 3 (2001): 40–42. Tradiţia gnostică în raport cu filozofia greacă [The Gnostic Tradition in Relation to Greek Philosophy]. România km 0: Revistă de cultură 3.1–2 (4) (May 2001): 190–197. [Translated by Cornelia Leş and Ştefan Marinca.] Recent Progress in Coptic Codicology and Paleography (1992–1996). In: Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996, edited by Stephen Emmel et al., vol. 2, Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt, 65–78. Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, vol. 6.2. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1999. Editing Shenute: Problems and Prospects. In: Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit. Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996, edited by Stephen Emmel et al., vol. 2, Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt, 109–113. Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, vol. 6.2. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1999. The Historical Circumstances of Shenute’s Sermon God Is Blessed. In: ΘΕΜΕΛΙΑ. Spätantike und koptologische Studien, Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Martin Krause and Sofia Schaten, 81–96. Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, vol. 3. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1998. The Christian Book in Egypt: Innovation and the Coptic Tradition. In: The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition, edited by John L. Sharpe III and Kimberly Van Kampen, 35–43. London: British Library; New Castle: Oak Knoll Press; in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 1998. A Mirror Text of Thucydides VII 33–35 [with Robert G. Babcock]. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 43 (1997): 239–245, pls. 1–2. Religious Tradition, Textual Transmission, and the Nag Hammadi Codices. In: The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire, 34–43. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, vol. 44. Leiden etc.: Brill, 1997. Isaac of Antinoopolis, Encomium on Colluthus for 24 Pašons (19 May): A Newly Identified Coptic Witness (British Library Or. 7558[40] = Layton, Cat. BLC, No. 146) [with Kristin Hacken South]. Analecta Bollandiana 114 (1996): 5–9 (with bibliography on pp. 23–24). Greek Biblical Papyri in the Beinecke Library. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112 (1996): 289–294, pls. 2–3. Theophilus’s Festal Letter of 401 as Quoted by Shenute. In: Divitiae Aegypti: Koptologische und verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause, edited by Cäcilia Fluck et al., 93–98. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1995. The Coptic Manuscript Collection of Alexander Lindsay, 25th Earl of Crawford. In: Coptology—Past, Present and Future, edited by Søren Giversen, Martin Krause,

XVIII

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

and Peter Nagel, 317–325. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 61. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. On the Restoration of Two Passages in A Valentinian Exposition (Nag Hammadi Codex XI,2). Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 31 (1994): 5–10. Previously Unpublished Coptic Texts of Ritual Power in the Beinecke Library, Yale University. In: Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith, 343–356 (with translations on pp. 104 [no. 58], 158–159 [no. 74], 215–217 [nos. 106–107], 246–248 [no. 122], and notes, glossary, and bibliography on pp. 357–407, passim). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. [Repr. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999, with slightly altered pagination: pp. 104, 158–159, 215–217, 246–248, 345–409.] Ithyphallic Gods and Undetected Ligatures: Pan Is Not “Ours,” He Is Min (Rectification of a Misreading in a Work of Shenute). Göttinger Miszellen 141 (1994): 43–46. Recent Progress in Coptic Codicology and Paleography (1988–1992). In: Acts of the Fifth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Washington, 12–15 August 1992, vol. 1, Reports on Recent Research, edited by Tito Orlandi, 33–49. Rome: Centro Italiano Microfiches, 1993. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus: A Codicological Reconstruction. In: Acts of the Fifth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Washington, 12–15 August 1992, vol. 2, Papers from the Sections, edited by David W. Johnson, 153–162. Rome: Centro Italiano Microfiches, 1993. Robert Curzon’s Acquisition of White Monastery Manuscripts. In: Actes du IVe congrès copte: Louvain-la-Neuve, 5–10 septembre 1988, vol. 2, De la linguistique au gnosticisme, edited by Marguerite Rassart-Debergh and Julien Ries, 224–231. Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain, vol. 41. Louvain-la-Neuve etc.: Institut orientaliste de l’Université catholique de Louvain and Peeters Press, 1992. Reconstructing a Dismembered Coptic Library. In: Gnosticism and the Early Christian World: In Honor of James M. Robinson, edited by James E. Goehring et al., 145–161 (with bibliography on pp. 162–184, passim). Forum Fascicles, vol. 2. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990. Coptic Biblical Texts in the Beinecke Library. Journal of Coptic Studies 1 (1990): 13–28, pls. 1–4. Antiquity in Fragments: A Hundred Years of Collecting Papyri at Yale. Yale University Library Gazette 64 (1989): 38–58. Robert Curzon’s “Very Large Folio” Coptic-Arabic Gospel of Matthew, and MS Coptic 1 in the Beinecke Library: A Question of Identity. Yale University Library Gazette 63 (1988): 158–163. Specimens of Coptic Type from the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Rome. Yale University Library Gazette 61 (1986): 96–104. [Report concerning codicological research on the manuscripts of Shenoute]. Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari, Bollettino d’informazione, no. 5 (1984): 16–18. Proclitic Forms of the Verb ϯ in Coptic. In: Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky, edited by Dwight W. Young, 131–146. East Gloucester: Pirtle and Polson, 1981. A Fragment of Nag Hammadi Codex III in the Beinecke Library: Yale Inv. 1784. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980): 53–60. Unique Photographic Evidence for Nag Hammadi Texts. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 14 (1977): 109–121; 15 (1978): 195–205, 251–261; 16 (1979): 179–191, 263–275; 17 (1980): 143–144. [See also Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 31 (1994): 10.]

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

XIX

The Nag Hammadi Codices Editing Project: A Final Report. American Research Center in Egypt, Inc., Newsletter, no. 104 (1978): 10–32. [Research note on the codicology of Nag Hammadi Codex I (the Jung Codex)]. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 14 (1977): 56–57.

Notes, encyclopedia entries, catalog entries, obituaries, etc. Sohag [with Peter Grossmann and Elizabeth S. Bolman]. In: The Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Early Christian Art and Archaeology, edited by Paul Corby Finney, 2: 521–526, 3: pls. 134–135. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017. Coptic Manuscripts. In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 44–46 (with bibliography on pp. 583–654, passim). Hamburg: Tredition, 2015. Papyrus. In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 71–72 (with bibliography on pp. 583–654, passim). Hamburg: Tredition, 2015. Shenoute of Atripe, Saint. In: Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion 11:681. Leiden etc.: Brill, 2012. Preface. In: Becoming Fire: Through the Year with the Desert Fathers and Mothers, by Tim Vivian, 13–14. Cistercian Studies Series, vol. 225. Collegeville: Cistercian Publications and Liturgical Press, 2008. The Library of the White Monastery in Upper Egypt / Die Bibliothek des Weißen Klosters in Oberägypten [with Cornelia Eva Römer]. In: Spätantike Bibliotheken. Leben und Lesen in den frühen Klöstern Ägyptens, edited by Harald Froschauer and Cornelia Eva Römer, 5–24. Nilus. Studien zur Kultur Ägyptens und des Vorderen Orients, vol. 14. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag, 2008. L’Évangile de Judas, de la tombe au musée. L’épopée rocambolesque du manuscrit damné. Religions & Histoire 11 (November–December 2006): 24–29. [Translated by Vincent Basset.] Shenoute. In: Encyclopedia of Religion 12:8318–8320. 2nd ed. 15 vols. Detroit etc.: Thomson Gale, 2005. Sarah J. Clackson, 1965–2003. Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004): 1–3. Rufus von Schotep. In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 8:664. 4th ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2004. Schenûte von Atripe. In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 8:881. 4th ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2004. Le mystère du manuscrit Copte 13. In: Pages chrétiennes d’Égypte: les manuscrits des Coptes, edited by Anne Boud’hors, 16–19 (with bibliography on pp. 79–82, passim). [Paris]: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2004. [Translated by Anne Boud’hors.] The “Gospel of the Savior”: A New Witness to the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel. Bulletin de l’Association pour l’étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne 12 (2002): 9–12. Rufus v[on] Schotep. In: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 8:1351. 3rd ed. Freiburg etc.: Verlag Herder, 1999. Blatt einer Incipit-Liste der Werke des Archimandriten Schenute; 142 Blätter aus verschiedenen Handschriften mit Werken Schenutes und Besas; Blatt einer Handschrift mit Werken des Archimandriten Schenute (7. Kanon). In: Ägypten: Schätze

XX

STEPHEN EMMEL’S PUBLICATIONS

aus dem Wüstensand: Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nile: Katalog zur Ausstellung, edited by Martin von Falck et al., 253–254 (nos. 271–273). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1996. Coptic Language. In: The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:180–188. New York etc.: Doubleday, 1992. Nag Hammadi Library. In: The Coptic Encyclopedia 6:1771–1773. New York etc.: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991. More Fragments of White Monastery Manuscripts Acquired by the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Yale University). International Association for Coptic Studies, Newsletter, no. 27 (1990): 3; no. 28 (1990): 9 (corrigendum). [Note on the Beinecke Library’s acquisition of three Coptic manuscript fragments from the White Monastery]. Yale University Library Gazette 64 (1989): 174–175. Fragments of White Monastery Manuscripts Acquired by the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Yale University). International Association for Coptic Studies, Newsletter, no. 26 (1989): 3–4. Directions [letter to the Editor]. Galaxy Magazine 33.3 (November–December 1972): 4.

Reference tools The Yale Papyrus Collection (P.CtYBR inv.), Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, 1993. [An electronic database, comprising an introduction to and a catalog of the collection, available on-line at the Beinecke Library and on the Internet, at the following address: https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/ research-teaching/doing-research-beinecke/introduction-yale-papyrus-collection/ guide-yale-papyrus. Updated since 1996 by Ruth Duttenhöfer et al.] An International Directory of Institutions Holding Collections of Coptic Antiquities outside of Egypt. Rome: Centro Italiano Microfiches, 1990. Indexes of Words, Catalogues of Grammatical Forms. In: Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655, edited by Bentley Layton, 1:261–336, 2:207–281. 2 vols. The Coptic Gnostic Library Edited with English Translation, Introduction and Notes; Nag Hammadi Studies, vols. 20–21. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989. Reprinted in: James M. Robinson, ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 2. Leiden etc.: Brill, 2000. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, published under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities of the Arab Republic of Egypt in conjunction with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 12 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972–1984. [Various contributions to the following volumes: Introduction (1984), Codex I (1977), Codex III (1976), Codex IV (1975), Codex VIII (1976), and Codices IX and X (1977).]

Online publications The Codicology of the New Coptic (Lycopolitan) Gospel of John Fragment (and Its Relevance for Assessing the Genuineness of the Recently Published Coptic “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Fragment). 2014-06-22; slightly revised 4th version, 2015-0326. https://www.uni-muenster.de/IAEK/forschen/onlinepublikationen.html (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie).

ABBREVIATIONS

Each serial publication is identified only by the most current form of its title. Not repeated here are the abbreviations of papyrological publications established by John F. Oates et al., Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (the 5th printed edition of this Checklist – BASP Suppl. n° 9 – was closed on 15 March 2001); for the most up-todate version of this Checklist, consult now the Web Edition (http://papyri.info/ docs/checklist).

AnBoll ANTF APF BASP BCNH BEC BICS BSAC CoptEnc CSCO HTR JCoptS JEA JECS JSNT JTS MIFAO MMAF MPER NRSV OCP OLA OLP PIOL PSBA Recueil de Travaux SDAIK SEA

Analecta Bollandiana Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi Bibliothèque d’études coptes Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte Aziz S. Atiya (ed.). The Coptic Encyclopedia. New York 1991, 8 vol. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Harvard Theological Review Journal of Coptic Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Mémoires de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) Orientalia Christiana Periodica Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptienne et assyrienne Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum

XXII

SourcChr STAC TUGACL ZAC ZÄS ZPE

ABBREVIATIONS

Sources chrétiennes Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE: IMAGINING THE WHITE MONASTERY CHURCH ELIZABETH S. BOLMAN [Without God’s blessing,] “… how would we have been able to build this great house in this way, and these other buildings that we have built along with it, and also this lavatory?”1 “Just as the measure, dimensions, and sides of the places of God are beautiful, so too is it fitting for ‘the measures of people’s hearts, the dimensions of their souls, and the uprightness of their living within them’ to be beautiful.”2

The well-traveled monk approached Shenoute’s monastery with great interest.3 He had heard about the abbot’s new church (built ca. 450 CE), and, as a member of the urban elite, he had an educated interest in architecture. Therefore, he expected great things. Nothing had prepared him, however, for the massive structure rising above the horizon (fig. 1). The blindingly white, gently sloping walls and cavetto cornice directly quoted ancient Egyptian temple architecture found up and down the Nile.4 In the strong, clear light of the desert escarpment in Upper Egypt, the church appeared as a source of radiance (fig. 2). Its design proclaimed the importance of Egypt in Shenoute’s reshaping of monastic asceticism and community. Its prominent size formed the architectural pivot for his

1 This Great House (Canon 7.3), in XL 274. Emmel 1998: 83. Nipterion is translated by Emmel 2008: 31 as “washing area,” and by López 2013: 47, 50 as “latrine.” For brief remarks about latrines in monasteries, see Blanke 2019: 26–27. 2 God is Holy (Canon 7.1), in XU 78-79. Schroeder 2007: 106. 3 I have wonderful memories of spending time at the White and Red Monasteries with Stephen and Barbara Emmel, and have written this essay to express my thanks to Stephen for his transformative work on Shenoutean studies, his meticulous, wise and dedicated support to the IACS, and his friendship. This essay is an imaginative exercise in what an embodied first response to the White Monastery church might have been. This project would not be possible without the extensive publications on Shenoute that have appeared in recent years and I am grateful to my colleagues in religious studies and history. I have attempted to restrict myself to contemporary or earlier material and visual evidence, and, of course, largely to Shenoute’s own writings, although I have also relied on evidence from the Red Monastery church that is about 50-100 years later than Shenoute’s church. When the visual evidence survives in the White Monastery church I have usually illustrated it. 4 The type of temple architecture that inspired the exterior of the White Monastery church dates primarily between the New Kingdom to the Ptolemaic period (ca. 1550–30 BCE). Many of these buildings were eventually used for Christian ritual purposes. Bowman 1986: 193.

2

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 1: White Monastery Church, Distant View, Looking West. Photograph and Copyright: Stephen Emmel.

Fig. 2: White Monastery Church Looking East. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

3

powerful reconfiguration of the social landscape of late antiquity, moving the “center” from cities to his monastery. Approaching the monastery more closely, our visitor encountered extensive boundary walls and a large and impressive gatehouse. He had heard that guests – as well as monks who transgressed the rules – were accommodated at this entrance-hostel.5 While the enclosing walls marked an extremely important dividing line between the exterior world and the monastery’s built environment, the gateway had an especially potent liminal charge as the principal point of communication between these two realms. Indeed, the fact that disobedient monks had to move into the gatehouse served as a clear reminder that they were at risk of ending up on the outside. In this topography, the interior of the community was a site of desire, offering the potential for salvation, and access demanded proper adherence to the monastery’s rules. In addition to those possibly moving out, those wishing to enter went to the same place. Aspiring monks applied at the gatehouse, and once a decision had been made to allow them into the community, they renounced their worldly clothing (and eventually all property) and donned a monastic habit (fig. 3).6 They swore in front of the altar in the church that they would abide by the rules, or risk expulsion.7 In Shenoute’s monastery, all things visual were carefully calculated and imbued with meaning that worked with rituals and routines to help shape monastic reality and codes of behavior within the compound.8 Feeling relief in the shade cast by the portal, our monk introduced himself as Apa Philotheos, and explained his affiliation and business at the White Monastery to a guard leaning out of a window, validated by a letter of introduction from the office of the patriarch in Alexandria. The keeper thus immediately opened a small door that formed part of the huge portal, and gave him ingress and an escort. Upon passing beyond the hostel, a large complex of buildings and numerous, identically dressed men of various statures and ages drew his attention, along with the intense greenery of fruit and olive trees, and date palms. As they walked further into the compound, he found himself surprised that the smells of so many humans living in close quarters on a hot day were not particularly noticeable; much less so than in the streets of his hometown of Alexandria. When he passed near the enormous well, the extensive network of ceramic pipes (fig. 4), and the substantial lavatory, he understood that serious attention had been paid not just to erecting a large and impressive church but also to ensuring the health and cleanliness of the monastic community.9 5

Layton 2014: 53, 78. Layton 2014: 78. 7 Layton 2014: 78. 8 Layton 2014: 78–85. 9 Numerous people have excavated at the White Monastery. The concession is now held by the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project South, under Executive Director Stephen Davis and Field 6

4

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 3: Shenoute, Third-Phase of Painting, North Lobe, Red Monastery Church, ca. 6th c., secco. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

5

Fig. 4: Well and ceramic pipes, White Monastery. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Our monk’s escort led him to a senior member of the ascetic hierarchy, Apa Anoup, and after the guest had refreshed himself, this father took him to see the church. Its sheer size proclaimed it as the heart of the monastery; it was not only large by Egyptian standards, it was one of the most significant churches anywhere in the empire in the fifth century.10 Constructing a monumental edifice cost an incredible amount in time and resources – financial, material and human. Apa Anoup told Apa Philotheos that he had been part of the community for well over a decade, and had seen them demolish the old church and construct this one. Shading his eyes, he looked up and pointed to the escarpment above the monastery, and said that many of the limestone blocks had been quarried there.11 Shenoute believed that such an extraordinary church was not only desirable, but absolutely essential. The father promised to discuss Shenoute’s motivations further after the tour. Director Gillian Pyke. See Blanke 2019 for an extensive discussion of the archaeological and textual sources for daily life in the White Monastery. Blanke 2019: 3–4, 48–57, 60–61. 10 Kinney 2016: 46. 11 Evidence of chisel marks at the entrance overhang to what is now a kind of sculpture park in a cave in the hills above the monastery suggests that this was originally a quarrying site for many of the White Monastery church building stones.

6

E.S. BOLMAN

As they neared the church, our monk could see that the appearance of perfectly regular ashlar masonry was created by carefully painted, absolutely straight black lines on white plaster. The dressed limestone blocks of the church were thus covered with a sharper and brighter imitation of themselves.12 The effect was simple, austere and powerful. He and his escort entered the building from the west, walking through a monumental portal (fig. 5), which opened into a gracefully proportioned, barrel-vaulted narthex. Niches within painted architectural frameworks articulated the walls (fig. 6). A second monumental portal (fig. 7), in line with the western entrance, led them into the huge nave of the church, the scale of which awed our visitor (fig. 8). It reminded him of the grand episcopal basilica recently constructed at the city of Hermopolis Magna, 170 miles to the north, and of patriarchal churches in Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. In his experience, such extraordinary monuments belonged in cities, and were paid for by bishops and other wealthy urban citizens, not monastic abbots.13 He had heard that Shenoute reconfigured traditional conventions, and realized that the church building was a powerful embodiment of status and authority in a major, brilliantly organized ascetic community. In the nave, our visitor instantly had an impression of a cool, orderly forest of monumental columns, which, all by themselves, expressed magnificence (fig. 9). Late antique aesthetics prized large numbers of columns, and people would enumerate them in descriptions of buildings.14 The trabeated colonnade divided the interior into a central nave flanked by two side aisles, each of which had a generously sized, columned gallery above them. High above floor level, massive wooden beams spanned the nave, supporting the roof. Father Anoup said that they had come from outside of Egypt, because of the great size needed. Shenoute commented with pride on these enormous wooden elements specifically in his sermons, attesting to the difficulty and cost of obtaining them.15 Apa Philotheos saw large inscriptions in Greek painted on the beams, and Apa Anoup told him that they were passages from the Psalms. Looking further up, Apa Pilotheos could discern a pitched wooden roof above the beams, in shadow.

12 Remnants of the black lines on white plaster can be seen on the south exterior wall, at the eastern end. It is not possible to say with certainty that they are original, or that the entirety of the exterior was originally painted in this manner. Bolman et al. 2007. The sanctuary façade wall of the Red Monastery church was painted with imitation masonry, masking actual stone blocks, in the late fifth or early sixth century. De Cesaris, Sucato and Ricchi 2016: 265. The practice of creating the impression of dressed stone with stucco and paint can be seen earlier, at the necropolis of Hermopolis Magna (Tuna el-Gebel), e.g. House 21. Gabra and Drioton 1954: 13, 15. 13 Bolman 2016b: 17–19. 14 Kinney 2011. 15 Shenoute in his sermon God is Holy (Canon 7.1) described “the church of bricks or stones or beams,” and mentioned “the ornamentation of the house and the writings that are inscribed on its edifications and its beams.” Schroeder 2007: 109–110.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

Fig. 5: Western Portal Leading into the Narthex of the White Monastery Church. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Fig. 6: Eastern Wall, Northern End, Narthex, White Monastery Church. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

7

8

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 7: Nave Looking West with Portal from the Narthex Visible at the Back. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Fig. 8: Nave Looking East with Medieval Façade Wall Blocking the Eastern End. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Fig. 9: Reconstruction of the Red Monastery Church. This gives a general sense of the original appearance of the larger and more complex White Monastery Church. Key: 1. Sanctuary; 2. Nave; 3. South Longitudinal Room; 4. Southwest Stairwell; 5. Medieval Keep. Drawing: Nicholas Warner. Copyright: American Research Center in Egypt.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

9

10

E.S. BOLMAN

Its great height helped keep the interior temperature down, in the heat of the Egyptian summer. Two zones of windows on either side admitted light into the nave: one piercing the lower walls of the aisles, and the other in the upper galleries. Strong contrasts of light and shadow enhanced the drama of the scene. Slowly moving spotlights of sun focused attention on specific features, causing them to blaze with radiance within what was otherwise a cool and dim interior. Colored paint adorned the limestone cornices and columns, and some of the shafts mimicked more expensive stones. The bases and capitals, painted a golden yellow coated with wax, shone as if they were gilded.16 The complex lighting conditions inside of the building made it difficult to recognize these features as trompe l’oeil without close viewing. As our visitor turned around, he noticed a kind of rippling effect along the walls. Concave niches made the walls dynamic, and this effect was increased by varied sculptures in the niche heads (fig. 10). He walked over to the north wall and observed that they represented subjects that symbolized resurrection and rebirth: shells (fig. 11), eagles, peacocks and clusters of grapes on the vine, sometimes combined with crosses.17 Bright colors caused them to stand out, while black paint in the crevices powerfully exaggerated the shadows.18 The rich colors on painted architectural features (fig. 12), monumental inscriptions on the roof beams, along with textiles and other furnishings made the interior visually entrancing and jewel-like.19 The aroma of incense gave the space a beautiful and expensive scent, and made our monk think about magnificence again, and about prayers ascending to heaven. Looking up, he smiled when he saw Psalm 141: “Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee,” and he paused to read it aloud.20

16 Yellow orpiment covered with wax to appear gold-like was applied to walls in the secondphase paintings at the Red Monastery church (late fifth-early sixth century). In Alberto Sucato’s recreation of the second-phase eastern lobe at the Red Monastery, he has shown the capitals and bases as yellow-gold in appearance. See figure 21. 17 For line drawings of the White Monastery sculpture, see Akermann 1976. 18 This practice was also employed at the Red Monastery church, where during second phase (ca. 6th century) the carved acanthus leaves and volutes of the stone capitals were painted red, yellow and green, and the excised areas were accented in black. De Cesaris, Sucato and Ricchi 2016: 266–267. 19 Two Constantinian inscriptions in mosaic, at St. Peter’s, were surely monumental due to their placement in the apse. Another fourth-century inscription in Rome, again in the apse, was in Santa Maria in Trastevere. Gem 2013: 39–41. The fifth-century Orthodox Baptistery in Ravenna and the Justinianic church at the Monastery of St. Katherine on Mount Sinai both have monumental inscriptions (inlaid in stone at Ravenna, and carved into roof beams at Sinai). Of course, ancient Egyptian religious buildings had a long tradition of displaying large-scale texts. 20 See Harvey 2006: 14, on the frequent Christian use of Psalm 141.1, and Harvey 2006: 92, on prayer as incense. In the sermon A26, Shenoute exhorts, “Let your entire house be incense for Christ” (Brakke and Crislip 2015: 252), but he refers not to the church building but to a private house.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

11

Fig. 10: North Nave Wall, White Monastery Church, Showing Niches, Northern Portal, Windows, and Post Holes from Ceiling Beams. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Fig. 11: Confronted Peacocks Framing a Bunch of Grapes Above a Chalice (Back) and Spiraling Vines (Hood). Niche Head, Western Nave Wall, Southern End, White Monastery Church. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman. Akermann did not document this niche because a building blocked it when he conducted his study of the sculpture at the White Monastery in 1974. Akermann 1976.

12

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 12: Architectural Polychromy, Northern Lobe Level II, Sanctuary, Phase-Two Secco Paintings, Red Monastery Church. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

A series of moderately-sized wall paintings on either side of the nave showing Old Testament subjects, bordered by illusory frames, attracted Apa Philotheos’ attention.21 Apa Anoup said that they were organized in narrative sequence from west to east, and conveyed a typological message about the divine plan, 21

In Rome, S. Paolo fuori le Mura had narrative scenes in the nave as part of a 5th c. renovation. Krautheimer 1980 and 2000: 43. Old Testament scenes in the nave of Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome date to 432–440 CE, thus before Shenoute’s church. Krautheimer 1980 and 2000: 46–49. The Orthodox Baptistery in Ravenna, as part of a mid-fifth century remodeling, showed Old Testament figures and scenes in stucco, below apostles. A Baptism is in the center of the dome. Ousterhout 2019: 44–46.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

13

according to which earlier Biblical events foreshadowed those in the New Testament. Depictions of Old Testament figures served as exemplars of ascetic behavior, on which the monks of the White Monastery could model themselves.22 Apa Anoup pointed out the figure of Elijah (fig. 13) to his guest. This prophet reminded the monastic guide of his community’s own Elijah, Shenoute himself. Both men knew from extensive personal experience that the monastic congregation heard sermons and biblical readings that made reference to the subjects depicted in the images. These drew the listeners’ attention to related parts of the visual narrative cycle. Sight, as a more powerful sense even than hearing, helped make the experience a multisensory one. Father Anoup quoted Shenoute: “What the eye sees, it appropriates,” a saying which underscored the need to provide the right kinds of things to look at, especially inside of a church.23 Wall paintings were far from passive decorations or simple illustrations of texts. They were power objects that told stories of their own, and that engaged dynamically with the monks and whatever lessons, rules or rituals were being recited and performed.24 The images not only modeled and inspired correct behavior, but also caused sinners to fear damnation after death. As they moved further into the nave, murmurings caught Apa Philotheos’ attention, emanating from a door in the south aisle that led into a long room (fig. 14). The two men could also hear shirring and whisking noises from palm fronds that were being woven into baskets. They walked over and looked in to see a large number of men sitting on the floor and praying, while doing their handiwork. Apa Anoup explained the day’s schedule, with prayer and handiwork all morning and again later in the day. The carefully planned routine and the engagement of the monks with tasks that occupied the hands and audible meditation that precluded idle speech or gossip confirmed to our guest that this was a well-run institution.25 Returning to the center of the nave and facing east, the columns and cornices of the nave led their eyes directly to a massive façade wall (fig. 15) on a raised platform that separated the sanctuary from the congregational space. Our monk and his escort approached the monumental chancel arch in the center of the wall, which loomed above them. Looking over a low dividing screen, or templon, Apa Philotheos could make out a multicolored apse (fig. 16), oriented directly east, in line with the length of the nave. This positioning of the sanctuary at the

22 For examples of 6th-century paintings of Biblical figures in the Red Monastery church serving as exemplars of ascetic behavior, see Bolman and Szymańska 2016. 23 This quotation appears in the discourse On Christian Behavior (50.7) attributed to Shenoute (Kuhn 1960, 1:59). Kuhn and most scholars do not accept Shenoute’s authorship of this work, but it has been accepted by Kosack 2013: 8–12. For a discussion of the ancient theories of vision that explain this quotation, see Frank 2000: 131. 24 Bolman and Szymańska 2016. 25 Layton 2014: 81–84.

14

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 13: Elijah the Tishbite, Northern Semidome, Far Western End, Sanctuary, Phase-Three Secco Paintings, ca. 6th c. Photograph: Alberto Sucato. Copyright: American Research Center in Egypt.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

15

Fig. 14: Longitudinal Room on the South Side of the Nave, with Coptic Women Pilgrims. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

eastern end of the nave was, of course, a standard feature in churches. He immediately realized that the curved shape of the apse wall and especially the alternating square and rounded niches on two levels were unusual for a church and that they quoted fountain buildings (fig. 17).26 Such monuments, built for public refreshment, were often semicircular in shape, with rows of niches framed by columns and finished with a semidome, all either of colored stone or painted plaster. Water issued from them into large basins accessible to passers by.27 These associations between the architecture of water and the sanctuary caused him to think about the Garden of Eden and paradise, and his hopes for salvation after death. As our visitor was a privileged male ascetic visitor within a rigidly hierarchical social system, Apa Anoup allowed him to step up onto the platform and enter the restricted sanctuary. As the most intensely charged place in the monastery, where bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ and where 26 The flamboyant architectural arrangement of multiple levels of alternating half-round and square backed niches, flanked by freestanding columns, was often set within an apse surmounted by a semidome. This niche format is sometimes referred to as a “tabernacle façade,” and it was characteristic of public architecture of the eastern empire. See Kinney 2016: 45–46, 47; Bolman 2016: 129. 27 The curved model of fountain building dates to the 2nd c. CE and had a long life. Richard 2012: 41, 43, 134, 141, 164, 201.

16

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 15: Façade Wall Looking South, Red Monastery Church. Photograph: Arnaldo Vescovo. Copyright: American Research Center in Egypt.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

Fig. 16: Laser Scan Drawing with a View from the Nave, Looking East, with the Façade Wall Erased. Drawing: Pietro Gasparri. Copyright: American Research Center in Egypt.

17

18

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 17: Fountain Building, Gerasa, 2nd c. CE with Late Antique Renovations. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

new monks swore their allegiance, this space was the culmination of the tour.28 The father led him through the templon screen and beyond chancel arch and stood back to observe his reaction. Apa Philotheos gasped, and looked around in awe. Not until moving past the massive archway could one see that the exclusive area of the sanctuary behind the façade wall exploded into a trilobed (fig. 18), not the expected and ubiquitous unilobed space of most churches. What he had mistaken for a single curved wall and semidome were in fact three. The massive rectangular exterior of the church gave no hint as to the spatial layout inside the monument, heightening the surprise. Dynamic repetitions of half circles led his eyes between the three lobes and above to the huge apses. The two rows of concave niches in the eastern lobe were repeated to the north and south. The discourse of magnificence created by the columns in the nave continued here with yet more of them (fig. 19), amplified by freestanding columns, attached pilasters and half-columns framing the niches. The columns, niche heads and horizontal cornices (fig. 20) were sculpted and colored to represent paradisiacal subjects, as they had been in the nave. 28 Shenoute underscored the necessity of consuming the Eucharist, and the dangers of failing to do so. Brakke and Crislip 2015: 40.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

19

Fig. 18: General View of North and South Lobes, Levels II-V, Red Monastery Church Sanctuary. Photograph: E. Bolman; Copyright: American Research Center in Egypt.

Fig. 19: Southern Lobe, White Monastery Church Sanctuary. The sculpture would originally have been painted. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

20

E.S. BOLMAN

Fig. 20: Grapevines, Cornice, Southern Lobe, White Monastery Church Sanctuary. Photograph and Copyright: E. Bolman.

Painted red and white latticework and multicolored checkerboard patterns enlivened the areas of wall around the niches (fig. 21). A special late antique aesthetic preference for more color, pattern, shape and design than the eye could grasp informed the creation of the multicolored and beautifully articulated walls.29 This visual intensity made it intentionally difficult or impossible to rest the gaze on one feature. One author describing this system advised those wishing something plain and unadorned to exit the building and look at the outside.30 In the case of Shenoute’s church, the austere white blocks could not have contrasted more sharply with the interior – vast expanses of flat surfaces, uniformly rectilinear lines, and the absence of color. Illusory painted curtains in the eastern lobe reminded our visitor of the Tabernacle of Moses, a cloth tent made according to specific instructions from God (Exodus 25–31). Through a chain of associations, he then thought of the church, which supplanted the tabernacle just as the New Testament replaced the Old Testament. Thinking of the church as the body of Christ brought Apa Philotheos back to textiles. He thought about Mary weaving the flesh of Christ in her 29

Roberts 1989. Chorikios of Gaza on the churchs of St. Stephen and St. Sergios in Gaza. Chorikios LM II.23 and 49; Mango 1972: 61, 71–72. 30

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

Fig. 21: Hypothetical Reconstruction of the Eastern Lobe, Red Monastery Church Sanctuary, with Phase Two Paintings. Drawing and Copyright: Alberto Sucato.

21

22

E.S. BOLMAN

womb. The painted curtains pointed back to Moses and also to the incarnation and promise of salvation. Important figures in the monastic hierarchy, shown frontally and bust length, such as Antony, Pachomios, Pcol, Apollo and Makarios, inhabited the northern and southern lobes. Martyrs and ecclesiastical leaders had a place here too, including Stephen the Protomartyr, Mark, founder of the Christian church in Egypt, the Alexandrian patriarch Peter I (d. 311 CE), and Basil of Caesarea (d. 379).31 These portraits interested our monk, who could identify them by their inscriptions and dress, and who immediately began making genealogical associations, most prominently with a line from Mark to Peter I, both popes of Alexandria and martyrs. The very authority of Christianity in Egypt resided in them. A second led him from Stephen to Pachomios and then Pcol. Monks styled themselves as descendants of the martyrs, and Pcol, Shenoute’s uncle, had founded the White Monastery on the basic model created by Pachomios. Apa Philotheos understood these narratives very well, and could see an expanding web of infinite possibilities.32 Apa Philotheos then turned his attention to the three enormous semidomes. To the north, he identified the Nativity, with the Magi approaching from the west, as he just had. Mary sat on a resplendent throne, and the child was in a box filled with straw next to her. Associating this manger with the altar in front of him through a basic similarity of form, he reflected on Christ’s destiny as a sacrifice. The altar reminded him forcefully of the experience of Communion: the touch and texture of the loaf on his tongue, and the wine that he took from a liturgical spoon.33 Father Philotheos glanced for a moment at the sculpted and painted grape vines along the cornices and could taste the rich flavor of the wine. Turning to the his right, he saw that the southern apse depicted the Baptism, with fish in the water along with a personification of the river Jordan.34 Our visitor remembered with delighted intensity the chill of the water in his own baptismal ceremony, with his full immersion into a local version of the Jordan. His eyes moved to the eastern lobe, where he saw Christ ascending into the sky and looking down on him, above rows of apostles and angels. After pondering the matter for a few moments, Apa Philotheos realized that the images mapped out the Economy of Salvation, according to which 31 These are for the large part, based on later (ca. early 6th c.) extant images in the Red Monastery church. Antony, Pachomios, Apollo and Makarios are found at other sites, for example Bawit and Saqqara, but not at the Red Monastery. Most or all post-date the construction of the White Monastery church by at least fifty years if not much longer. 32 Bolman and Szymańska 2016. 33 The use of a liturgical spoon to administer the Eucharist may be later in date. A paten with a chalice, liturgical spoon and kursi (throne) were painted at the Red Monastery in the second phase, so circa 500. Bolman 2016c: 137 and fig. 10,12. 34 Both the Arian and Orthodox Baptisteries at Ravenna have fifth-century depictions of the Baptism at the apex of the interior dome.

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

23

Christ took on human flesh, was filled by the Holy Spirit, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.35 He thereby created a pathway for humans to follow him into everlasting life. The paintings and the Eucharistic ritual told the same story in different ways, with different emphases. Fathers Anoup and Philotheos knew that the images reminded the celebrant of the significance of his words and movements, as he and his brothers physically assimilated to the flesh and blood of Christ. The ritual actions, in turn, brought various painted subjects to the fore, creating a dynamic interplay. The two men sat down on the floor and leaned against the cool wall. Father Anoup then instructed his guest in the value and specific symbolism with which Shenoute had imbued his Great Church, and the important links between humans, the building, Christ, and the cosmos. Shenoute noted that they had spent “everything they had” on the enormous monument, which indicates its extraordinary importance to the monastic endeavor.36 The bodily labor that the monks undertook to build the church, and the daily work that they perform in it also connected them to it.37 Shenoute emphasized the “magnitude” of his church, and charged it with carefully chosen overlapping metaphors. The walls shaped an immaterial space that was both triple and single at the same time – three lobed but continuous – and that evoked the trinity, meshing with the message of the semidome paintings.38 He described the universe as a church, and thus we can see the building as a reference to or model for the cosmos.39 He also called his monastery and church the Heavenly Jerusalem, and additionally praised them as being a garden (monastery), which enclosed more exclusive gardens (church and church sanctuary).40 The trilobed physical representation of an elaborate fountain gave material form to the notion of the church as the Garden of Eden, flowing with the rivers of Paradise, and multicolored painted surfaces enhanced these associations. The church also metaphorically represented the individual monk, the corporate body of the community, and the body of Christ.41 Father Anoup continued his lesson. Shenoute “constituted [the church] as much by theology and a discourse of ascetic discipline as … by wood, brick and stone.”42 The abbot built the church as the house of God and Christ, 35

Bolman 2016c: 139–149. Shenoute, This Great House (Canon 7.3), YH, fragment 1. López 2013: 47. 37 “Labor and work on the part of the monks produce an ascetic perfection that parallels the perfection of the ‘house’” or in other words the perfection of the church. Schroeder 2007: 106–107. 38 For the triconch as a possible reference to the Trinity, see Kinney 2016: 47. 39 Shenoute said in his sermon, God Is Blessed: “for He created the universe in order for us to glorify Him in it like a church, and to praise Him.” Emmel 1998: 83. 40 Copeland 2004; Schroeder 2007: 25; Emmel 2004: 166. Johnson 2010: 62–63. 41 Schroeder 2007: 92, 100–101, 105. 42 Schroeder 2007: 91. 36

24

E.S. BOLMAN

exemplifying his community and its relationship to the deity.43 Its scale, design, proportions, wood, stone, walls, beams, inscriptions and colors made it beautiful.44 Nevertheless, it should not distract from the main focus of the monks, which must be sought in spiritual things, and beyond the material plane.45 In Shenoute’s system, the beauty of the monument served to inspire the monks to attain holiness within their own houses, in other words not just the monastery and church but also their bodies.46 The great abbot also warned about the dangers of sin, and of causing God to withdraw from their beautiful temple.47 Our guest expressed awe and looked forward to joining Apa Anoup and his fellow monks in services, within Shenoute’s Great Church. He thought about Shenoute’s impressive model of monasticism and its legacy, and planned to tell his fellow monks in Alexandria about his extraordinary experiences in this remote location in Upper Egypt, in paradisiacal gardens at the foot of the desert cliffs. * *

*

Post Script Our imaginary monastic visitor represents the large numbers of people, both those practicing asceticism and others, who traveled from the Nile Valley to experience the phenomenon that was Shenoute’s version of the “angelic life” – communal monasticism. While many writings about this carefully constructed mode of living emphasize its otherworldliness, in fact successfully managing a group of hundreds and possibly thousands of people living together in one place required exceptional practical and materially-focused organizational abilities. The amount of effort required to house, feed and occupy them all would have been massive, as would the fundamental need for water and sewage systems, as the archaeological record indicates.48 While the monumental church attracts most of our attention on site today, we should keep in mind that the community could not have survived, much less flourished, without an entire, elaborate physical infrastructure, explaining why Shenoute thought that his new lavatory was worth celebrating in quite literally the same breath as his Great 43

Schroeder 2007: 91, 93. Shenoute, God is Holy (Canon 7.1), XU 79, 104–105. Schroeder 2007: 109–111; López 2013: 47–48. 45 Schroeder 2007: 91–92. 46 Schroeder 2007: 94, 106, 110–111. 47 Schroeder 2007: 105–106. 48 A massive building constructed in the early 2000s at the White Monastery reminds us that human needs for sanitation are the same now as they were then. The edifice includes toilets for men on one side and women on the other, with a second floor for accommodations, all decorated with colored stone and gold angels. 44

SHENOUTE’S GREAT HOUSE

25

House. Although the embodied experience of the church is the focus of this essay, the structure was only the culmination of an extensive and very earthly environment for a heavenly-focused way of life. Bibliography Akermann, Philippe 1976. Le décor sculpté du Couvent Blanc: niches et frises. BEC 14. Cairo. Blanke, Louise 2019. The Archaeology of Egyptian Monasticism: Settlement, Economy, and Daily Life of the White Monastery Federation. New Haven. Bolman, Elizabeth S. 2016a. The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. New Haven. ——. 2016b. “‘The Possessions of Our Poverty’: Beauty, Wealth, and Asceticism in the Shenoutean Federation.” In: Bolman 2016a, 16–35. ——. 2016c. “The Iconography of Salvation.” In: Bolman 2016a, 128–149. Bolman, Elizabeth S., and Szymańska, Agnieszka 2016. “Ascetic Ancestors: Identity and Genealogy.” In: Bolman 2016a, 165–173. Bolman, Elizabeth S., Blanke, Louise, Brooks Hedstrom, Darlene, Khalifa, Mohammed, Meurice, Cédric, Mohammed, Saad, Pyke, Gillian, and Sheehan, Peter 2007. “Late Antique and Medieval Painted Decoration at the White Monastery (Dayr al-Abiad), Sohag,” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 192, 5–11. Bowman, Alan K. 1986. Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 BC–AD 642, from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. London. Brakke, David and Crislip, Andrew (eds.) 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Copeland, Kirsti 2004. “The Earthly Monastery and the Transformation of the Heavenly City in Late Antique Egypt.” In: Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, edited by Raʻanan S. Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 142–158. Cambridge. De Cesaris, Luigi, Sucato, Alberto, and Ricchi, Emiliano 2016. “Wall Painting Conservation at the Red Monastery Church.” In: Bolman 2016a, 260–279. Emmel, Stephen 1998. “The Historical Circumstances of Shenoute’s Sermon God Is Blessed.” In: Θεμελια [Themelia]: Spätantike und koptologische Studien: Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Martin Krause and Sofia Schaten, 82–96. Wiesbaden. ——. 2004. “Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In: Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture, edited by Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, 151–174. Rome. ——. 2008. “Shenoute’s Place in the History of Monasticism.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Vol. 1, Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany Takla, 31–46. Cairo Frank, Georgia 2000. The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Gabra, Sami, and Drioton, Étienne 1954. Peintures à fresques et scènes peintes à Hermoupolis-Ouest. Cairo. Gem, Richard 2013. “The Chronology of the Construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica.” In: Old Saint Peter’s, Rome, edited by Rosamond McKitterick, John Osborne, Carol M. Richardson and Joanna Story, 35–64. Cambridge.

26

E.S. BOLMAN

Harvey, Susan 2006. Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination. Berkeley. Johnson, David 2010. “As I Sat on a Mountain: Shenoute’s Theology of the Church.” Coptica 9, 59–66. Kinney, Dale 2011. “The Discourse of Columns.” In: Rome across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, c. 500–1400, edited by Claudia Bolgia, Rosamond McKitterick, and John Osborne, 182–199. Cambridge. ——. 2016. “The Type of the Triconch Basilica.” In: Bolman 2016a, 36–47. Kosack, Wolfgang (trans.) 2013. Shenoute of Atripe: De vita christiana. Berlin. Kuhn, Karl Heinz 1960. Pseudo-Shenoute on Christian behavior. 2 vols. CSCO 206– 207. Louvain. Krautheimer, Richard 1980, 2000. Rome: Profile of a City 312–1308. Princeton. Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. López, Ariel G. 2013. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty: Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt. Berkeley. Mango, Cyril 1972. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Ousterhout, Robert 2019. Eastern Medieval Architecture. Oxford. Richard, Julian 2012. Water for the City, Fountains for the People: Monumental Fountains in the Roman Near East. Turnhout. Roberts, Michael 1989. The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity. Ithaca. Schroeder, Caroline T. 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia. van Loon, Gertrud J. M. 1999. The Gate of Heaven: Wall Paintings with Old Testament Scenes in the Altar Room and the Hurus of Coptic Churches. Istanbul.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA DES WEISSEN KLOSTERS DILIANA ATANASSOVA

Stephen Emmel verdanke ich zahlreiche Fachgespräche und anregende Korrespondenz in Bezug auf die koptischen Handschriften und insbesondere die liturgischen Typika des Weißen Klosters. In Hochachtung und Dankbarkeit widme ich ihm die folgenden Zeilen. Bislang habe ich 18 liturgische Kodizes mit Typika aus der Bibliothek des Weißen Klosters zusammengestellt.1 Solche Kodizes bestehen aus mehreren Libelli, die Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorien meistens mit Kalenderangaben sowie verschiedenen Verzeichnissen von Initien ohne heortologische Überschriften darstellen. Im Großen und Ganzen laufen die verschiedenen Typen von Libelli in den Kodizes mit Typika parallel zueinander.2 Unter diesen Kodizes gibt es nur drei, die in ihren Perikopendirektorien und Listen ohne heortologische Angaben auch die Initien der Predigten (= Reden)3 des Schenute beinhalten. Im Folgenden werde ich diese drei Kodizes, MONB.NP, MONB. WD und MONB.WE,4 einzeln darstellen, um mich danach mit dem Platz von Schenutes Werken darin kurz zu befassen. Der Beitrag wird von zwei Anhängen abgeschlossen. Im Anhang 1 werden die Signaturen der Seiten mit Schenute-Initien nach dem Kodexsigel alphabetisch aufgelistet. Anhang 2 beinhaltet die Initien der Werke Schenutes aus den drei Kodizes, die nach der Kalenderabfolge geordnet sind.

1 Vgl. unter anderem Atanassova, „Das verschollene Typikon-Fragment“; Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“; Atanassova „Prinzipien und Kriterien“. In vorliegendem Aufsatz verzichte ich aus Platzgründen auf die Forschungsgeschichte der einzelnen Fragmente, wenn das für die Argumentation nicht notwendig ist. Die Erstherausgeber und andere frühere Erwähnungen werden in meiner in Vorbereitung befindlichen Monographie „Die Perikopen und Hymnendirektorien des Schenuteklosters in Oberägypten. Bd. I: Die Überlieferung“ ausführlich dargelegt. Sowohl diese Studie als auch der vorliegende Beitrag wurden durch das DFG-Projekt AT 193/1–1, „Die Hymnen in der koptischen Liturgie des Weißen Klosters in Oberägypten“ gefördert. 2 Zu den diversen Libelli vgl. Atanassova, „Das verschollene Typikon-Fragment“ 111–112. 3 In diesem Beitrag werden die sog. „Logoi“ Schenutes, die in der Literatur in der Regel als „Reden“ (bzw. „Discourses“) übersetzt wären, zumeist als „Predigten“ bezeichnet, um die Funktion dieser Texte in der Liturgie zu betonen. Die beiden Begriffe „Reden“ und „Predigten“ werden also synonym verwendet. 4 Zu den Siglen vgl. Atanassova, „Das verschollene Typikon-Fragment“ 111–112.

28

D. ATANASSOVA

1. DER KODEX MONB.NP Dem Kodex MONB.NP habe ich bereits mehrere Seiten gewidmet,5 so dass ich hier nur eine Zusammenfassung anbieten werde, die durch zusätzliche Argumente und neue Fragmente ergänzt wird. Der Kodex MONB.NP besteht aus 42 Fragmenten, die zusammen 36 Blätter des einstigen Kodex darstellen.6 Der Aufbau dieses liturgischen Kodex ist vielschichtig und komplex und hat folgende Libelli: 1. Verzeichnisse mit Initien der Reden und Briefe Schenutes (1 Bl.: ÖNB, K 9634); 2. Perikopendirektorium mit griechischen „Hymnos“-Gesängen, koptischen Psalmstichwörtern für die Hermeneiai für die Entlassung der Feste sowie die Initien der Reden des Schenute für die Sonntagsvigilien (6 Bl.: London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 27; f. 26 + f. 29; Wien, ÖNB, K 9741; Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 24, fasc. 108, f. 2; cass. 23, fasc. 97, f. 2; Ann Arbor, UML, Mich. Ms. 110 + Kairo, IFAO, Copte 225A); 3. Lektionar mit alttestamentlichen Perikopen (erste Hälfte des Blattes Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 5, fasc. 12, f. 1r, Zl. 1–3; f. 1v, Zl. 1–10); 4. Verzeichnis mit Initien von Hermeneiai nach ihrer Reihenfolge im Psalter (zweite Hälfte des Blattes Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 5, fasc. 12, f. 1v, Zl. 11–30); 5. Verzeichnis mit Initien von Hermeneiai, die in Einheiten verteilt und nach der Psalterreihenfolge untereinander und innerhalb der Einheiten geordnet sind (1 Bl.: Paris, BnF, Copte 131.5, f. 131);7 6. Hymnendirektorium mit Hermeneiai und ihren Antworten (1 Bl.: Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 170 + f. 173r); 7. Verzeichnis mit Hermeneiai, die nach einem Stichwort gruppiert sind (6 Bl.: Leiden, RMO, AES 40–51 [Ms. 80; Ins. 37]; Paris, BnF, Copte 132.2, f. 4; Kairo, IFAO, Copte 241B; Paris, Louvre, R 115; Wien, ÖNB, P. Vindob. K 9175; Kairo, KM, Nr. 2649.376 [G 530]); 8. Griechische Psalmpassagen (1 Bl: Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 152);

5

Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“. Die Zahl der Blätter bzw. der Libelli, die dem Kodex MONB.NP zugehören, ist im Vergleich zu meiner Publikation von 2011 um ein fragmentarisches Blatt gewachsen, vgl. Paris, BnF, Copte 131.5, f. 131. Eine Synopsis aller Blätter fehlt hier, da sie in Atanassova „Der kodikologische Kontext“ 76–80 zu finden ist. 7 Die Zugehörigkeit des Pariser Fragmentes BnF, Copte 131.5, f. 131 habe ich erst nach der Fertigstellung meines Aufsatzes von 2011 festgestellt, und daher konnte dieses nur im Postskriptum erwähnt und nicht zusammen mit den anderen Libelli mitgezählt werden. Deshalb gibt es jetzt einen Unterschied in der Nummerierung der einzelnen Libelli hier und in Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“. Diese Nummerierung hat keine wissenschaftliche Relevanz und kann sich mit dem Auffinden neuer Fragmente immer wieder ändern. 6

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

29

9. Hymnendirektorium mit Poiekon- und Trisagion-Gesängen (3 Bl.: London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 20 [A.15]; Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 24, fasc. 108, f. 3; Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. G 39789 [K 9740]); 10. Diakonikon (3 Bl.: Kairo, IFAO, Copte 241A; London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 28; New York, MLM, M 664B, f. 11); 11. Auswahlevangeliar mit griechisch-sahidischen Perikopen aus den vier Evangelien und vorausgehenden Zwischengesängen aus dem Psalter (5 Bl.: London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 22; Paris, BnF, Copte 129.19, f. 73 + 129.20, f. 153; Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 23, fasc. 97, f. 1; Berlin, SMB, P.Berol. 8771; London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 24 + Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 14b + f. 14e; Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 151)8; Nicht identifizierte Fragmente gehören auch zu der Liste von Libelli, aber können keine Nummer tragen (Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 12, f. 14, f. 14c, f. 14d, f. 14f, f. 14g, f. 14h, f. 14i). Die Reihenfolge der Libelli gilt mit Ausnahme des 1., 7., und 8. Libellus als sicher auf Grund der erhaltenen Paginierung und den Übereinstimmungen in anderen Parallelkodizes mit Typika. Da die Zuweisung mancher Blätter zum Kodex MONB.NP zuletzt aus paläographischen Gründen in Zweifel gezogen wurde,9 möchte ich hier zusätzliche Überlegungen für ihre Richtigkeit bringen. Die Zuweisung bestimmter Fragmente zu einem Kodex ist ein komplexes Unterfangen, das verschiedene Methoden vereinigt, die sich im Großen und Ganzen auf drei Beobachtungsebenen verteilen lassen. Die erste betrifft immer die Schrift und ihre paläographischen Besonderheiten. Die zweite hat mit den kodikologischen Parametern eines Kodex zu tun und betrifft unter anderem die Zeilenzahl pro Seite bzw. Kolumne, die Buchstabenzahl pro Zeile oder die Breite und Länge des jeweiligen Blattes. Die dritte Ebene betrifft den Inhalt, der für von derselben Hand geschriebenen Kodizes mit den gleichen Kodexmaßstäben ganz unterschiedlich ausfallen kann. Wenn die Angaben aller drei Beobachtungsebenen zusammenpassen, dann können wir relativ sicher sein, dass unsere Zuweisungen richtig sind. Aus Platzgründen möchte ich hier nur auf zwei paläographische Besonderheiten ergänzend zu meinen früheren Beobachtungen Stellung nehmen. Die erste paläographische Besonderheit betrifft die Schlaufengröße des Buchstabens Rho. Das Blatt K 9634 mit dem für die Schenuteforschung besonders wichtigen Wiener Verzeichnis mit den Reden von Apa Schenute hat ein

8

Zur Benennung dieses Libellus, vgl. Brakmann, „Fragmenta“ 151. Mein 2011 publizierter Aufsatz Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“ über die zugehörigen Blätter zum Kodex MONB.NP veranlasste Matthias O. Schulz über einige Gegenargumente nachzudenken, die er mir freundlicherweise vor der Veröffentlichung seiner Doktorarbeit mitteilte. Schulz’ Beobachtungen an sich sind korrekt, jedoch widersprechen sie meinen Zuweisungen nicht, wie ich an den zwei paläographischen Beobachtungen veranschauliche. 9

30

D. ATANASSOVA

Rho mit einer kleinen Schlaufe. Im Lektionarteil dieses Kodex hat der Buchstabe Rho eine größere Schlaufe, obwohl die Form des Rho ähnlich oder dieselbe ist wie im Wiener Blatt. Deutet diese Besonderheit auf zwei verschiedene Kodizes hin oder variiert die Schlaufe von Rho innerhalb desselben Kodex? Der ultimative Hinweis darauf befindet sich im vatikanischen Blatt Borg. copto 109, cass. 5, fasc. 12. f. 1, das zwei Libelli in sich vereint. Dieses Blatt präsentiert auf dem Rekto und den ersten neun Zeilen vom Verso die alttestamentliche Perikope Josua 24,29–31.31a.32–33.33a–b mit den typischen Septuaginta-Ergänzungen von Josua 24,31a und 24,33a–b. Mit der zehnten Zeile auf dem Verso beginnt ein neuer Libellus (Nr. 4), der ein von koptischen Psalminitien nach den Psalterkapiteln geordnetes Verzeichnis ohne heortologische Angaben darstellt. Auf dem Verso ist deutlich sichtbar, dass die Buchstaben im Perikopentext im Vergleich zu den Buchstaben im Verzeichnis vergrößert erscheinen. Dasselbe gilt ebenso für die Schlaufe von Rho, was bedeutet, dass der Schreiber dieses Kodex die Buchstaben leicht vergrößerte, wenn es um Texte ging, die vollständig ausgeschrieben wurden, um leichter verlesen werden zu können. Die Analyse dieser Seite deutet eindeutig darauf hin, dass die Buchstabengröße innerhalb des Kodex variiert und von dem Typus des jeweiligen Libellus abhängt. Die zweite paläographische Besonderheit betrifft die Form und die Dekoration des Supralinearstriches im Kodex MONB.NP. Wiederum im Wiener Blatt K 9634 sind zwei Supralinearstriche zu beobachten: der erste ist ein einfacher kurzer Strich, während der zweite einen längeren Strich mit einem knotenartigen Punkt in der Mitte hat, der sich manchmal auch am Beginn und am Ende des Striches befindet. Entscheidend für die Zugehörigkeit eines Blattes zum Kodex MONB.NP ist das Vorhandensein der beiden Arten von Supralinearstrichen. Besonders problematisch ist der 7. Libellus, der die ausgeschriebenen koptischen Psalmpassagen (= Hermeneiai), die nach einem Stichwort aus dem Psalter gruppiert sind, beinhaltet. Dieser Libellus ist nur aus dem Kodex MONB.NP, ohne Parallelen in anderen Kodizes mit Typika, bekannt. Allerdings besteht inhaltlich kein Zweifel, dass die Kodizes mit Typika so ein Libellus haben mussten. Viele der Perikopendirektorien beenden die Angaben zu einem Fest mit einem Satz über die Entlassung des jeweiligen Festes. Darin werden stets die Stichwörter aus dem Psalter angegeben, welche in den Psalmversen vorhanden sein sollen, mit denen das jeweilige Fest entlassen werden sollte. Der 7. Libellus enthält solche ausgeschriebenen Psalmpassagen, die direkt mit dem Perikopendirektorium im Kodex MONB.NP korrespondieren.10 Die Zugehörigkeit dieses Libellus, der stets 30 Zeilen per Seite aufweist, zum Kodex MONB.NP ist m.E. nicht zu bezweifeln, obwohl auf einigen der Blätter, wie z.B. Wien, ÖNB, K 9175 oder Kairo, IFAO, 241B nur selten (jeweils ein oder zweimal pro Seite) knotenartige Supralinearstriche vorkommen. 10

Vgl. z.B. Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9741v, Zl. 17.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

31

Das Leidener Blatt AES 40–51 (olim Copte 80, Ins. 37), das inhaltlich und kodikologisch zu den anderen fünf Blättern eindeutig mitzuzählen ist, ist mit knotenartigen Supralinearstrichen versehen. Also sollte man ein Blatt wegen der Frequenz eines knotenartigen Supralinearstriches darauf aus dem Kodex nicht ausschließen. Die paläographischen Einzelheiten einer Handschrift sorgfältig zu studieren ist begrüßenswert und kann einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Erforschung der verschiedensten Skriptoria und Schreiberschulen in Ägypten liefern. Allerdings können wir nicht erwarten, dass absolut jeder Schnörkel, jede Zierlinie usw. in einer Handschrift haargenau übereinstimmen werden. Wenn wir das täten, bestünde die Gefahr, dass wir vor lauter Bäumen, Blättern und Zweigen nicht in der Lage sein werden, den Wald zu sehen. 2. DER KODEX MONB.WD Heute sind aus dem zweiten Kodex mit Initien der Predigten des Schenute, MONB.WD, nur noch fünf Blätter erhalten. Sie gehören zu einem Libellus, der Initien sowohl von Perikopen als auch von Hymnen sowie von Predigten Schenutes und anderer Kirchenväter für die Vigilien enthält. Die Hermeneiai mit ihren Antworten am Beginn der Vigilien sowie die Stichwörter für die koptischen Psalmverse und die Initien für die griechischen „Hymnos“-Gesänge für die Entlassung der Vigilien sind auch in diesem Libellus vorhanden. Nach den erhaltenen Seitenzahlen ⲒⲈ/ⲒⲊ, ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (15/16, 33/34) befand sich der Libellus am Beginn des Kodex. Es ist fraglich, ob dieser Libellus bereits auf der ersten Kodexseite begonnen hat. Könnte etwa ein anderer Libellus davorgestanden haben? Auf dem ersten erhaltenen Blatt mit Pag. [ⲒⲄ] ([13]) steht die Messfeier für den 20. Paope (17. Okt. jul.) geschrieben. Das bedeutet, dass auf den vorhergehenden 12 Seiten bei einem Quaternionenmuster ohne Vorsatzblätter die Angaben zum Monat Thout und den ersten 19 Tagen des Paope zu suchen wären. In der Regel sind 12 Seiten für die Feste eines Monats und weiterer 19 Tage eines zweiten Monats relativ viel. Allerdings beinhaltet der in Frage stehende Libellus sowohl die Perikopen- und Hymneninitien und die Stichwörter für die Entlassung aus den jeweiligen Vigilien als auch die Homilieninitien für diese Vigilien. Wie aus den fünf Blättern des Kodex MONB.WD ersichtlich ist, nehmen die Homilieninitien viel mehr Platz ein als die Initien für die Schriftlesungen. M.E. wäre es plausibel zu vermuten, dass der Kodex MONB. WD bereits mit diesem Libellus begonnen hat. Dennoch ist es gut vorstellbar, dass davor ein Verzeichnis vorhanden war. Dabei denke man zum Beispiel an das Wiener Verzeichnis mit Initien der Reden des Schenute aus dem Kodex MONB.NP. Im Folgenden werden die fünf Blätter einzeln besprochen, bevor ich einen Versuch unternehme, den ursprünglichen Kodexaufbau zu rekonstruieren. Die

32

D. ATANASSOVA

Kalenderabfolge der Feste lässt die fünf Blätter untereinander folgendermaßen ordnen: – Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9738 – Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 1 – London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1 – Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 162 – Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 2 2.1. Das Wiener Blatt P.Vindob. K 9738 Das Wiener Blatt K 9738 beginnt mit den Initien für die Samstagsmesse und die Sonntagsvigil auf ein unbekanntes Fest für die Aussaat. Dieses Fest hat vor dem 20. Paope (17. Okt. jul.) stattgefunden. Die Sonntagsvigil umfasst 15 Zeilen, da sie die Initien für die Predigten Schenutes und die Messe am Sonntagmorgen beinhaltet. Danach kam das Fest des Apa Kyprianos am 20. Paope (17. Okt. jul.), das außer den biblischen Initien für die Messe auch die Hermeneiai mitsamt ihren Antworten und die Psalmen-Stichwörter für die Entlassung des Festes beinhaltet. Auf dem Verso folgt das Fest des Apa Isaak am 22. Paope (19. Okt. jul.), das offensichtlich als Fest höheren Ranges galt und deshalb eine Vorfeier in Form einer Sabbato-kyriakai unmittelbar vor dem eigentlichen Fest hatte. Bei dieser Vorfeier hat man die Schenute-Reden während der Samstagsvigil vorgetragen. Die Messe für das Apa-Isaak-Fest war wie üblich für ein Fest höheren Ranges nach einem ordo maior gestaltet. Das Wiener Blatt endet mit den Hermeneiai mitsamt ihren Antworten und einer Rede Schenutes für die Vigil des Festes des Apa Apollo und Apa Phib am 25. Paope (22. Okt. jul.). Die Initien für diese Vigil werden auf dem Leidener Blatt AES 40–52, f. 1 fortgesetzt. Die zwei Blätter aus Wien und Leiden sind ohne Zweifel sukzessiv. Dafür spricht an erster Stelle das Londoner Parallelblatt Or. 6954, f. 27 aus dem Kodex MONB.NP. Das Rekto des Londoner Blattes Or. 6954, f. 27 stimmt mit dem Verso des Wiener Blattes überein, während das Verso des Londoner Parallelblattes dem folgenden Leidener Blatt entspricht. Die Beschaffenheit des Pergaments der zwei Blätter aus Wien und Leiden bestätigt nochmals, dass sie sukzessiv sein können. Da die Seitenzahlen ⲒⲈ/ⲒⲊ (15/16) auf dem Leidener Blatt heute erhalten sind, ist es plausibel, die Seitenzahlen des vorherstehenden Wiener Blattes als [ⲒⲄ]/[ⲒⲆ] ([13]/[14]) zu rekonstruieren. Fazit: Sowohl die Parallelangaben aus dem Kodex MONB.NP als auch die Beschaffenheit des Pergaments und nicht zuletzt die Kalenderabfolge der Feste weisen eindeutig darauf hin, dass das Wiener Blatt K 9738 unmittelbar vor dem Leidener Blatt AES 40–52, f. 1 gestanden hat. Die rekonstruierten Seitenzahlen des Wiener Blattes lauten [ⲒⲄ]/[ⲒⲆ] ([13]/[14]).

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

33

2.2. Das Leidener Blatt AES 40–52, f. 1 Das erste Leidener Folio trägt die Seitenzahlen ⲒⲈ/ⲒⲊ (15/16) und hat auf dem Verso die schlecht erhaltene Lagenzahl Ⲁ (1). Die Lagenzahl wird nur mit UVLicht sichtbar. Die einfachen Striche über und unter dem Alpha sind mit bloßem Auge erkennbar. Die Pergamentbeschaffenheit des Leidener Blattes Haar-/Fleischseite (im folgenden H/F) bestätigt ebenfalls, dass das Blatt am Ende einer Lage gestanden haben konnte. Die Konstellation der Seiten- und Lagenzahlen auf diesem Blatt deutet auf einen Quaternionenaufbau des Kodex ohne Vorsatzblätter hin. Das Rekto dieses Blattes beginnt mit der Fortsetzung der Texte für die Vigil und die Messe des Festes des Apa Apollo und Apa Phib. Es folgt das Fest des Archimandriten Apa Harisios (scil. Horsiese) am 28. Paope (25. Okt. jul.), mit welchen der Monat Paope endet. Daraufhin folgen die Feierlichkeiten zum Fest des Erzengels Michael am 12. Hathor (8. Nov. jul.), die so umfangreich sind, dass sie über das Leidener Blatt hinaus gehen. Als eines der wichtigsten Feste des Kirchenkalenders geht dem Michaelsfest eine große Vorfeier (Sabbatokyriakai) vor. Die Vigil zum eigenen Fest beginnt mit mindestens vier Hermeneiai und ihren Antworten sowie den Kathismata. Die letzteren stellen Psalmen dar, während deren Rezitation man sitzt. Weitere Texte zu diesem Fest und aus dem Monat Hathor sind in diesem Kodex nicht mehr erhalten. Fazit: Durch die erhaltenen Seiten- und Lagenzahlen wird das erste Leidener Blatt als das letzte Blatt der ersten Lage bestimmt. Der Kodex MONB.WD wurde also nach einem Quaternionenmuster ohne Vorsatzblätter aufgebaut. 2.3. Das Londoner Blatt Or. 3580A, f. 1 Auf dem Londoner Blatt sind heute weder Seiten- noch Lagenzahlen erhalten. Die Beschaffenheit des Pergamentes lautet F/H. In der editio princeps wurden Rekto und Verso vertauscht.11 Das Rekto des Londoner Blattes beginnt mit den Hermeneiai und den biblischen Perikopeninitien für das Fest des Apa Moses am 22. Koiahk (18. Dez. jul.). Darauf folgen die vorweihnachtlichen Feierlichkeiten, die vier Wochen vor Weihnachten beginnen. Die Vorfeiern bestehen wie bei den Kopten üblich aus den Texten für die Samstags- und Sonntagsvigilien und die Messfeier. Auf dem Londoner Blatt sind die Texte für die Samstage und Sonntage vier, drei und zwei Wochen vor dem Weihnachtsfest notiert. Diese Texte werden unmittelbar auf dem Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 162 fortgesetzt. Sowohl die Kalenderabfolge als auch das Parallelblatt K 9732 im Kodex MONB.AW zeigen eindeutig, dass das Pariser Blatt unmittelbar an das 11

Vgl. Crum, Catalogue 30–31, Nr. 144.

34

D. ATANASSOVA

Londoner Blatt angeschlossen war. Die Rekonstruktion der Seitenzahlen dieses Londoner Blattes hängt vom folgenden Pariser Blatt ab, von dem wir mit Sicherheit wissen, dass es das letzte Blatt der zweiten Lage war. Folglich ist das Londoner Folio das vorletzte Blatt der 2. Lage. Fazit: Das Londoner Blatt steht unmittelbar vor dem Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 162. Auf Grund dessen kann seine Position im Kodex als das vorletzte Blatt der zweiten Lage bestimmt werden. Für seine Seitenzahlrekonstruktion [25]/[26] siehe unten 2.6. 2.4. Das Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 162 Auf dem Pariser Blatt sind heute keine Seitenzahlen erhalten, jedoch steht auf dem Verso in roter Tinte die Lagenzahl Ⲃ (2) geschrieben und zeigt, dass dieses Folio das letzte Blatt der 2. Lage war. Die Pergamentbeschaffenheit des Blattes ist wie üblich für das Ende einer Lage – H/F. Die Rekonstruktion der Seitenzahlen hängt gänzlich von dem folgenden Leidener Blatt ab und kann nicht auf Grund der Blattposition innerhalb der Lage bestimmt werden. Auf dem Pariser Blatt werden die großen Vorfeiern zu Weihnachten aus dem Londoner Blatt fortgesetzt, wobei die Woche unmittelbar vor Weihnachten ausgesprochen reich an Texten ist. Das Blatt endet mit den ersten Hermeneiai am Fest des großen Bischofs Apa Psote am 27. Koiahk (23. Dez. jul.). Von dem Apa-Psote-Fest sind heute nur noch wenige Initien erhalten, aber sogar sie zeigen, dass einst viel mehr Texte Apa Psote gewidmet waren. Fazit: Das Pariser Blatt stellt das letzte Blatt der zweiten Lage dar und endet mit dem Beginn des Apa-Psote-Festes am 27. Koiahk (23. Dez. jul.). Für seine Seitenzahlrekonstruktion [27]/[28] siehe unten 2.6. 2.5. Das Leidener Blatt AES 40–52, f. 2 Auf dem zweiten Leidener Blatt sind die Seitenzahlen ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (33/34) erhalten. Eine Lagenzahl fehlt und es scheint, dass es sie nie auf dem Blatt gegeben hat. Die Pergamentbeschaffenheit des Blattes lautet F/H. Das Blatt beinhaltet die Homilieninitien für den zweiten Weihnachtstag sowie die Texte für den 30. Koiahk (26. Dez. jul.) und 1. Tobe (27. Dez. jul.). Da der 1. Tobe (27. Dez. jul.) der Festtag für Apa Dioskoros und Asklepios war, hat er eine an Texten reiche Vigil sowie Messe. Von großer Wichtigkeit für die Rekonstruktion des Kodex ist die Beantwortung zweier Fragen bezüglich des zweiten Leidener Blattes: Folgt das zweite Leidener Blatt unmittelbar dem Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 162? Aus inhaltlichen Gründen muss diese Frage verneint werden, da sowohl auf dem Pariser als auch auf dem Leidener Blatt die Texte für die beiden

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

35

Weihnachtstage am 28. Koiahk (24. Dez. jul.) und 29. Koiahk (25. Dez. jul.) fehlen. Mit Ausnahme des Osterfestes sind diese zwei Tage die bedeutendsten Feste im Jahreszyklus. Wie viele Blätter dazwischen sind heute nicht mehr erhalten? M.E. sollte man mit zwei fehlenden Blättern rechnen. Anzunehmen, dass nur ein Blatt fehlt, wäre wegen der Pergamentbeschaffenheit der beiden Blätter aus Paris (H/F) und Leiden (F/H) nicht möglich. Damit die „Gregory-Regel“ intakt bleibt, sollte man mindestens zwei fehlende Blätter in Kauf nehmen. Mehr als zwei Blätter anzunehmen, wäre andererseits nicht wirklich plausibel, da zwei Blätter sogar für solche wichtigen Feste wie die zwei Weihnachtstage Platz genug bieten. Fazit: Das zweite Leidener Blatt trägt die Seitenzahlen ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (33/34). Zwischen ihm und dem vorherigen Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 162 fehlen heute mindestens zwei Blätter, die höchstwahrscheinlich die Initien für die zwei Weihnachtstage und den 1. Tobe (27. Dez. jul.) beinhaltet haben. 2.6. Quaternionenmuster des Kodex MONB.WD Da die koptischen Pergamentkodizes in der Regel aus Quaternionen bestehen, wird auch hier dieses Muster vorausgesetzt. Die Kohärenz zwischen den Seiten- und Lagenzahlen, der Pergamentbeschaffenheit und dem Inhalt bei den fünf Blättern aus dem Kodex MONB.WD ist die Voraussetzung für die folgende Arbeitshypothese. Der Kodex MONB.WD wurde zuerst nach einem Quaternionenmuster ohne Vorsatzblätter aufgebaut. Dafür spricht eindeutig das erste Leidener Blatt, da die Lagenzahl Ⲁ (1) auf einem Blatt mit Pag. ⲒⲈ/ⲒⲊ (15/16) steht. Allerdings hat sich bereits in der 2. Lage oder ganz am Beginn der 3. Lage etwas verändert. Man könnte dabei an einen Doppelungsfehler bei der Paginierung oder aber an einen Wechsel von Quaternio zu Trinio in der 2. Lage denken. Der Grund für die Annahme eines Trinio (oder eines Paginierungsfehlers) liegt an der Tatsache, dass das Pariser Blatt die Lagenzahl Ⲃ (2) trägt und dass das zweite Leidener Blatt mit Pag. ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (33/34) keine Lagenzahl aufweist. Falls sich das Quaternionenmuster ohne Veränderung (ohne Fehler bei den Seitenzahlen) von der ersten Lage bis zur dritten Lage erhalten hätte, hätte es die Lagenzahl Ⲅ (3) auf dem Leidener Blatt mit Pag. ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (33/34) gegeben. Noch viel wichtiger als das ist die Tatsache, dass es zwischen dem letzten Blatt der 2. Lage und dem Leidener Blatt mit Pag. ⲖⲄ/ⲖⲆ (33/34) einst mindestens zwei Blätter gegeben hat. Auf Grund dessen rekonstruiere mit Vorsicht ich die Seitenzahl des Pariser Blattes Copte 129.20, f. 162 mit [27]/[28] und die Paginierung des unmittelbar vorherstehenden Londoner Blattes Or. 3580A, f. 1 mit [25]/[26]. Da Paginierungsfehler schwierig einzuschätzen sind, versehe ich die beiden Seitenrekonstruktionen mit Fragezeichen.

36

D. ATANASSOVA

Fazit: Aus dem Kodex MONB.WD sind heute nur fünf Blätter erhalten, die allesamt aus einem Libellus am Kodexbeginn stammen. Dieser Libellus stellt ein Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorium dar, der auch Homilieninitien von Schenute und anderen Kirchenvätern beinhaltet. Ursprünglich wurde MONB. WD in einem Quaternionenmuster ohne Vorsatzblätter gebaut, welches aus unbekannten Gründen sich im Laufe der zweiten oder dritten Lage zu einem Quaternionenmuster mit zwei Vorsatzblättern verändert hat. Mit einer tabellarischen Übersicht der erhaltenen Blätter runde ich die Beschreibung des Kodex MONB.WD ab. 2.7. Tabellarische Inhaltsübersicht des Kodex MONB.WD H/F Aufbewahrungsort, od. F/H Inventarnummer 1. Libellus: Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorium mit Homilieninitien für die Vigilien und mit den Stichwörtern für die koptischen Hermeneia-Gesänge und den Initien der griechischen „Hymnos“-Gesänge für die Entlassung der Vigilien 1. Thout 2. Paope [13]/[14] F/H Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9738 Paope E1 15/16 H/F Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 1r, Zl. 1–19 3. Hathor Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 1r, Zl. 20–v, Zl. 32 Inhalt

4. Koiahk Koiahk

Koiahk 5. Tobe 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Emschir Paremhotep Parmute Paschons Paone Epep Mesore Epagomenen

Lage

E2

Pag.

[25?]/[26?] [27?]/[28?]

F/H H/F

London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1 Paris, BnF, Copte AES 129.20, f. 162

33/34

F/H

Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 2r, Zl. 1–26 Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 2r, Zl. 27–v, Zl. 32

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

37

3. DER KODEX MONB.WE Die Handschrift MONB.WE ist der dritte Kodex mit Initien der Predigten Schenutes. Mit seiner komplexen Kodexstruktur ähnelt diese Handschrift dem Kodex MONB.NP. Der Kodex MONB.WE umfasst heute nur noch 27 Fragmente, die zusammen 25 Blätter wiedergeben und sich in den folgenden drei Libelli verteilen lassen: – Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorium für das ganze Kirchenjahr mit den Predigten des Schenute; – Hymnendirektorium ohne heortologische Angaben mit ausgeschriebenen griechischen Gesängen mit oder ohne ihre koptischen Übersetzungen; – Diakonikon. Da das erste erhaltene Blatt die Seitenzahlen 43/44 trägt und die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F hat, kann man einen Kodexaufbau aus Quaternionen mit vier Vorsatzblättern vermuten. Da wir heute keine Blätter aus den ersten drei Lagen besitzen, ist diese Hypothese unsicher, um so mehr, weil dieses Quaternionenmuster seltener bei den koptischen Handschriften vorkommt. Obwohl ein Kopistenfehler nicht auszuschließen ist, zähle ich als Arbeitshypothese den Kodex MONB.WE zu den Quaternionenkodizes mit vier Vorsatzblättern. Alle Folgeblätter mit erhaltenen Seiten- und Lagenzahlen und mit ihrer Pergamentbeschaffenheit fügen sich gut in dieses Muster.12 3.1. Libellus: Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorium für das ganze Kirchenjahr mit den Predigten des Schenute M.E. hat Kodex MONB.WE einst nicht mit dem 1. Libellus begonnen. Es wäre plausibel zu vermuten, dass davor noch allerlei Verzeichnisse, so ähnlich wie das Wiener Verzeichnis mit Werken Schenutes gestanden haben. Für diese Hypothese sprechen die folgenden Indizien: – Die Kodizes MONB.WE, MONB.NP und MONB.WD stellen die drei Kodizes mit den Initien der Predigten Schenutes. – Die Texte im MONB.WE verlaufen im Großen und Ganzen parallel zu dem einzigen Kodex MONB.NP, der ein Verzeichnis dieser Art beinhaltet. – Der Kodex mit Typika MONB.AW ist ein weiteres Beispiel, in dem zwei Verzeichnisse einem Perikopendirektorium vorangehen.13

12 Das sind solche Blätter wie z.B. Blatt 4 mit Pag. 55/56, Ende der 4. Lage, H/F oder Blatt 5, Pag. 57/58, Anfang der 5. Lage, F/H oder Blatt 7, Pag. 87/88, Ende der 6. Lage, H/F u.a. 13 Vgl. MONB.AW, Berlin, SBB, Ms.or.fol. 1609, Bl. 3, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 163, Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 211r, Zl. 1–9.

38

D. ATANASSOVA

– Die 21 heute nicht mehr erhaltenen Blätter (= 42 Seiten) beinhalteten einst die Feste der fünf koptischen Monate Thout, Paope, Hathor, Koiahk und Tobe. Die Feste eines Monats umfassten wahrscheinlich 4 bis 5 Seiten pro Monat. Das bedeutet, dass ca. 30 Seiten (aus heute fehlenden 42 Seiten) genügen würden, um die Feste für die fehlenden fünf Monate auszufüllen. Trotz der Plausibilität dieser Hypothese bleibt sie dennoch spekulativ. Vom ersten Libellus sind heute nur noch 12 Blätter erhalten, die aus 14 Fragmenten bestehen. Dabei wurden sowohl Perikopen- als auch Hymneninitien zu jedem einzelnen Fest des Kirchenjahres angegeben. Man findet darin zuerst den Wechselgesang, der aus den koptischen Psalmversen genannten Hermeneiai und ihren Antworten besteht. Dann folgen die Perikopeninitien für den Wortgottesdienst. Ein spezieller Platz wurde den Vigilien überlassen, während derer man die Predigten des Apa Schenute las.14 Für die Entlassung des Gottesdienstes werden noch die zum Fest passenden Stichwörter aus dem koptischen Psalter15 aufgelistet. Die Angaben zu einem Fest enden mit Initien der griechischen Gesänge (meistens aus dem Psalter) genannt „Hymnos“. Dieser Libellus ist eine Mischung aus vielen Initien, die notwendig für die Durchführung der Liturgie sind. Jeder der aufgelisteten Initien könnte alleine einen Libellus bilden, so wie aus den anderen Kodizes bekannt ist. Im Folgenden wird der Libellus, der die Initien für die Predigten Schenutes beinhaltet, detaillierter analysiert, während die zwei anderen Libelli nur konzis dargestellt werden. 3.1.1. Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 161 Das erste erhaltene Blatt des Kodex MONB.WE mit Signatur Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 161 trägt die Seitenzahl ⲘⲄ/ⲘⲆ (43/44). Seine Pergamentbeschaffenheit ist H/F.16 Auf dem gut erhaltenen Blatt befinden sich die Hymnen- und Perikopeninitien für den 6. Monat Emschir (Februar) und die Wochen der Vorfastenzeit (sog. Nineve-Fasten), das zur Vorbereitung auf das große vierzigtägige Fasten (sog. „die 40 Tage“) dient. Das Blatt beginnt mit den Hymnen- und Perikopeninitien am 14. Emschir (8. Feb. jul.), das Fest des Apa Severos des

14 Während der Vigilien wurden nicht nur die Reden und Briefe Apa Schenutes vorgetragen, obwohl sie ohne Zweifel zahlreiche waren. Vgl. z.B. im Kodex MONB.WE den Hinweis auf die Auferstehungsexegesis des Apa Kyrillos in Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164v, Zl. 5. 15 Die einzelnen Psalmen, die das entsprechende Stichwort beinhalten, wurden sicherlich an einer anderen Stelle im Kodex in einem Verzeichnis so ähnlich wie der 7. Libellus in MONB.NP (siehe oben) zusammengestellt. 16 Dafür sprechen einerseits die Schriftfarbe auf dem Rekto, die viel dunkler als auf dem Verso ist, und andererseits die Rastrierung auf dem Verso, die viel deutlicher als auf dem Rekto zu sehen ist. Das Letztere ist typisch für die Fleischseite eines Pergamentblattes.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

39

Erzbischofs.17 Danach folgen Perikopen- und Hymneninitien sowie Initien für die Reden Schenutes für die Sabbato-Kyriakai-Feiern in der Vorfastenzeit, die mehrere Wochen vor dem Beginn des Großen Fastens umfassen. Für die 3. Woche vor dem Großen Fasten wird der terminus technicus Kerygma „Verkündigung“ verwendet, der auf die Verkündigung der vierzigtägigen Fastenzeit hindeutet.18 Es folgen weitere Sabbato-Kyriakai Feiern, die Teil der Vorfastenzeit sind, jedoch können sie zur Zeit nicht so genau bestimmt werden. Die Feste des Monats Emschir zusammen mit der Vorfastenzeit werden auf den folgenden Blättern weitergeführt. Die kodikologische Analyse aller Blätter zeigt, dass, vorausgesetzt es liegen keine Paginierungsfehler vor, der Kodex MONB.WE nach einem Quaternionenmuster mit vier Vorsatzblättern gebaut wurde. Die Beschaffenheit des Pergaments des ersten Blattes (H/F) in Kombination mit der Seitenzahl Pag. 43/44 bestätigt diese Annahme. 3.1.2. Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 168 Von dem nächsten Pariser Blatt Copte 129.20, f. 168 ist heute nur ein Drittel von der Breite des ursprünglichen Blattes erhalten. Seine Zugehörigkeit zum MONB.WE und die Existenz eines weiteren Blattes mit Initien der Reden Schenutes sind erst seit 2011 bekannt.19 Obwohl die ganze Länge mit Resten des oberen und unteren Randes erhalten ist, ist es schwierig oder unmöglich die einzelnen Zeilen zu identifizieren. Man kann nur sicher gehen, dass die Feste für den Monat Emschir und die Sabbato-Kyriakai-Feiern während der Vorfastenzeit von dem vorherigen Pariser Folio 161 fortgesetzt werden. Höchstwahrscheinlich liefern die Vorderseite und die ersten 8 Zeilen der Rückseite die Angaben zum Fest des Apa Pgol, dem Gründer des Weißen Klosters, das

17

Die liturgische Rubrik war auf dem vorherigen Blatt geschrieben, das heute nicht erhalten ist. Trotzdem besteht kein Zweifel, dass die aufgelisteten Hymnen für den 14. Emschir vorgesehen wurden, vgl. dazu das Parallelblatt MONB.NP, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 170 + f. 173v, Zl. 14–18. 18 Das Kerygma („Verkündigung“) ist „von Herold ausgerufene Bekanntmachung; die Verkündigung gottgesandter Herolde“, Bauer, Wörterbuch 876, vgl. noch Liddell und Scott, Dictionary 432; Förster, Wörterbuch 412. Das ist ein terminus technicus für die Sabbato-kyriakai-Feier ursprünglich am Beginn des Nineve-Fastens, auch das kleine Fasten genannt, das zwei Wochen vor dem Beginn des 40-tägigen Fastens, stattfindet. Eine arabische Glosse in Oxforder Lektionar Huntington 3 gibt den Grund für diesen terminus technicus, nämlich die Verkündigung des heiligen Fastens, vgl. Zanetti, „Six Typika“ 290. Als das große Fasten seine Dauer von sechs auf acht Wochen ausdehnt, fällt die Feier für die Verkündigung zu Beginn des Großen Fastens, vgl. Zanetti, „Six Typika“ 271, Anm. 100 und 289–290. 19 Bereits bei meinem Forschungsaufenthalt in Paris 2011 habe ich dies festgestellt und interessierte Kollegen und Kolleginnen informiert. Erwähnt wurde dies auch in Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“ 43 sowie Atanassova, „Prinzipien und Kriterien“ 25, Anm. 60.

40

D. ATANASSOVA

am 29. Emschir (23. Feb. jul.) gefeiert wurde.20 Es ist zu beachten, dass der Name Apa Pgol in zwei liturgischen Rubriken erwähnt wird, wobei das eine Mal die Erwähnung neben dem Wort „Nacht“ steht. Das Fest des Klostergründers hatte offensichtlich eine Vigil, worauf auch die darauffolgenden Predigten Schenutes hindeuten, die regelmäßig für die Nachtwachen vorgesehen sind. Nach dem Apa-Pgol-Fest folgen die diversen Angaben zu dem Karnevalsamstag und -sonntag, die für die Vorfastenwoche unmittelbar vor dem Großen Fasten vorgesehen sind.21 Das Pariser Folio 168 folgt nicht unmittelbar dem Pariser Folio 161, worauf sowohl kodikologische als auch inhaltliche Hinweise deuten. Beide Pariser Folios haben die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F. Nach der „Gregory-Regel“ sollte man mindestens ein Blatt dazwischen vermuten. Das Pariser Folio endet mit Perikopeninitien, bei denen das Ev-Initium fehlt. Es scheint, dass das zweite Pariser Folio mit Hymnen beginnt. Die Frage hier ist, wie viele Blätter zwischen den zwei Pariser Folios heute fehlen: eins oder drei? Auf Grund des Inhaltes können keine Schlüsse gezogen werden, da die wenigen Parallelquellen für die zweite Hälfte des Monats Emschir nicht genügend Angaben liefern. Auch der Parallelkodex MONB.NP bietet Angaben erst zur zweiten Rückseitenhälfte des Pariser Folios 168. Die folgenden sahidischen Liturgica liefern Angaben für den Monat Emschir in Kombination mit den Sabbato-KyriakaiFeiern der Vorfastenzeit. a) Im Kodex MONB.WL22 sind fast alle unbeweglichen Festtage vom 5. bis zum 25. Emschir in den liturgischen Rubriken angegeben. Unmittelbar nach dem 25. Emschir folgen die Initien der Sabbato-Kyriakai-Feier der Verkündigung, dieselbe, die auf dem Pariser Folio 161 vorkommt. MONB.WL zeigt, dass nach dem 14. Emschir als wichtige Feiertage, die Feste am 19. und 20. Emschir angesehen werden können. Hätte man die Initien zu diesen zwei Festen auf dem fehlenden Blatt finden können? Oder dürfte man sie nach der Verkündigungsfeier nicht mehr erwarten, da die Reihenfolge der unbeweglichen und beweglichen Feste in einer liturgischen Handschrift verbindlich ist? Es gibt keine zufriedenstellenden Antworten auf diese Fragen. b) Das Blatt Huntington 3, typ.frg. 223 bietet ebenso die Feste vom 14. bis 30. Emschir, wobei darunter die Verkündigungsfeier fehlt. Allerdings wird unmittelbar nach dem 30. Emschir die Karnevalwoche erwähnt, die im Kodex 20 Das ist vorerst noch eine Vermutung, da die Identifizierung aller Initien noch nicht abgeschlossen und einiges noch unbekannt ist. 21 Im orthodoxen Kalender ist diese Woche bekannt als Milchwoche, Butterwoche, Tyrophagia, Masleniza, Siropustna, Sirni zagovezni, vgl. Onasch, Kunst und Liturgie 68. 22 Vgl. MONB.WL, Leiden, RMO, AES 40–54, f. 2–3 (Ms. 82B–C; Ins. 38c–d). 23 Die Oxforder Handschrift Huntington 3 stellt ein Sabbato-Kyriakai-Lektionar dar und trägt die Sigla sa 291L, vgl. Schmitz und Mink, Liste 2.2, 737–739 oder sa 636L, vgl. Schüssler, BC 4.2, 81–93. Unter dieser Signatur in the Bodleian Library stehen noch zwei Typikon-Blätter aus einer anderen Hs., die ich mit der Bezeichnung „typ.frg. 1–2“ von dem Lektionar unterscheide.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

41

MONB.WE auf dem Folio 168 nach dem Apa-Pgol-Fest (29. Emschir [23. Feb. jul.]) vorkommt. Weitere Kodizes mit Typika bieten keine brauchbaren Angaben für die Feste der zweiten Hälfte des Monats Emschir.24 Die Erwähnung der Karnevalwoche in den zwei sahidischen Jahreslektionaren sa 14L aus dem Weißen Kloster und sa 15L aus dem Michaelskloster in Hamuli unterstreicht nochmals ihre heortologische Wichtigkeit.25 Auf Grund dieser unsicheren Paralleltextlage musste man lange Zeit raten, welche die plausibelsten Seitenzahlen für das Pariser Folio 168 sind. Nach der Entdeckung des dritten Blattes (vgl. unten 3.1.3) im Jahre 2011 unter den Pariser Bruchstücken des Volumens Copte 133.2 können die Seitenzahlen für das Folio 168 als [47]/[48] sicher rekonstruiert werden, da durch diesen Fund die inhaltliche Abfolge der erhaltenen Blätter innerhalb der vierten Lage im Kodex MONB.WD eindeutig bestimmt werden konnte. Diese Rekonstruktion ist möglich dank der folgenden kodikologischen Gründe: Aus der vierten Lage des Kodex MONB.WE sind heute auf uns vier Blätter gekommen. All diese Blätter haben die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F. In einer Quaternionen-Lage gibt es nur vier H/F-Blätter und von zwei davon kennen wir die genauen Seitenzahlen: 43/44 und 55/56 sowie die Lagenzahl 4 auf Pag. 56. Es bleiben also noch die Seitenzahlen 47/48 und 51/52, die mit einem Blatt korrespondieren sollten. Das Pariser Folio 168 positioniert sich wegen seines Inhaltes nach dem Blatt mit Pag. 43/44 und kann daher nur die Seitenzahlen [47]/[48] gehabt haben. 3.1.3. Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 18a Das neu gefundene Bruchstück Copte 133.2, f. 18a aus dem oberen Teil des Blattes folgt inhaltlich dem Folio 168 und kann nur die Seitenzahlen [51]/[52] getragen haben, da auch seine Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F ist. Der obere Rand ist nur in der Mitte erhalten, daher fehlen jegliche Lagen- und Seitenzahlen. Mit Hilfe des Parallelkodex MONB.NP ist man in der Lage, die Einteilung von Rekto und Verso zu bestimmen und den Inhalt jeder Zeile zu rekonstruieren und zu identifizieren. Das Pariser Bruchstück beinhaltet Angaben für den Sonntag der ersten (Rekto) und den Sonntag der zweiten Woche (Verso) der 40-tägigen Fastenzeit. Dank dieses Bruchstückes war es möglich die Abfolge zweier Blätter, von denen eins nicht paginiert ist, im Parallelkodex MONB.NP zu bestimmen. Der Parallelkodex MONB.NP seinerseits hilft die Frage zu klären, wie viele Blätter zwischen dem Pariser Folio 168 und dem 24 Z.B. liefern die Kodizes MONB.NP und MONB.WO keine Angaben zu den Feiern der Verkündigungs- und der Karnevalwoche aus der Vorfastenzeit unter ihren Emschir-Festtagen. Einzelne Emschir-Festtage aus der ersten Monatshälfte kommen auch in den Kodizes MONB.AW und MONB.WJ vor. 25 Schüssler, BC 3.2, 65–66, sa 530L und BC 3.4, 60, sa 570L.

42

D. ATANASSOVA

Pariser Bruchstück heute vermisst werden. Der Inhalt der Pag. 60 (24 Zeilen), Pag. 61 (30 Zeilen) und Pag. 62 (23 Zeilen) aus dem MONB.NP26 fehlt im Kodex MONB.WE. Also fehlen insgesamt im MONB.WE max. 77 Zeilen Text. Die Zeilen im Kodex MONB.WE variieren von 30 bis 36, oft sind sie 34–36. Diese Rechnung zeigt eindeutig, dass nach dem Pariser Folio 168 mit Pag. [47]/[48] heute nur ein Blatt fehlt. Demzufolge sollten die Seitenzahlen des Pariser Bruchstückes als Pag. [51]/[52] rekonstruiert werden. Diese Seitenzahlenrekonstruktion ist sowohl inhaltlich als auch kodikologisch untermauert, vgl. zusätzlich noch die kodikologischen Überlegungen unter 3.1.2. 3.1.4. Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 1 + Paris, BnF, Copte 132.2, f. 30 + Kairo, IFAO, Copte 225B Das vierte Blatt dieses Libellus besteht heute aus drei Fragmenten, deren Zusammenführung zu einem Blatt hier zum ersten Mal geschieht.27 Das neugewonnene Blatt setzt sich aus einem oberen Teil (Leiden), einem mittleren dünnen Streifen (Paris) und aus einem unteren Teil (Kairo) vollständig zusammen. Die Initien für die Predigten des Schenute, Perikopen und griechische Hymnen wurden am Palmsonntag,28 Karsamstag29 und am Beginn der 26 Die gesamte Zahl der fehlenden Zeilen im Parallelkodex MONB.NP zeigt, dass man im Kodex MONB.WE mit zwei Seiten (= 1 Blatt) mit jeweils ca. 38,5 Zeilen rechnen sollte. Zwei Handschriften sind niemals identisch und können diverse Abkürzungen und andere Besonderheiten haben. Daher ist Zeilenzahl per Seite ca. 38,5 anstelle von erwarteten 36 plausibel genug. 27 Emmel, SLC 77, typ. frg. G kennt nur den Leidener Teil; Louis, Catalogue 173–174, no. 26 (Inv. no. 225B) kennt nur das Kairo-Fragment und identifiziert den Inhalt vage als für die Paschaoder Fastenzeit. 28 Indem ich den Platz innerhalb des Blattes berücksichtige und das heortologisch-kontextuelle (thematische) Prinzip anwende, identifiziere ich das unbekannte Fest, an dem Schenute-Predigten vorgetragen wurden, als Palmsonntag. Die liturgische Rubrik zusammen mit dem Initium der ersten Predigt standen auf dem heute nicht erhaltenen Blatt 53/54. Wie üblich für die Typika des Weißen Klosters gehen die Initien der Predigten Schenutes dem Wortgottesdienst voraus, von dem die liturgische Rubrik erhalten ist, vgl. ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲉ ⲚϣⲱⲣⲠ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏⲋ. Aus dieser Rubrik wird klar, dass es sich um ein Fest am Sonntag handelt. Dieser Sonntag befindet sich vor dem „kleinen Samstag“, dessen terminus technicus ich als Karsamstag interpretiere, vgl. hier Anm. 29. Die Joh-Perikope mit Initium Joh 12,1, die beim unbekannten Fest gelesen werden sollte, handelt von der Salbung in Bethanien. Darin steht, dass Jesus sechs Tage vor dem Passafest nach Bethanien kam, was eindeutig auf den Palmsonntag hinweist. Vgl. zum heortologischkontextuellen (thematischen) Prinzip Atanassova, „Prinzipien und Kriterien“ 28–29. 29 Ich interpretiere den terminus technicus „kleiner Samstag“ als Karsamstag, da er nach dem Palmsonntag (vgl. Anm. 28) und unmittelbar vor den Feierlichkeiten am Ostersonntag steht, vgl. auf Pag. 55, Zl. 22: ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲉ Ⲙⲡⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ϣⲏⲙ. Den Ausdruck „ⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ϣⲏⲙ“ zitiert bereits Crum, Dictionary 563b, der ihn als „Saturday before Passion Week“ wiedergibt. Die Interpretation Crums ist m.E. falsch. Der „kleine Samstag“ befindet sich zwischen zwei konkreten Sonntagen, die zu identifizieren sind. Den ersten Sonntag kann man nur als Palmsonntag interpretieren, siehe dazu Anm. 28. Den zweiten Sonntag muss man als den Ostersonntag verstehen, wofür mehrere Gründe sprechen, vgl. z.B. die liturgische Rubrik auf Pag. 55, Zl. 15 ⲉⲛⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲙⲡⲁⲥⲭⲁ „Wir werden zur Großen Pascha übergehen“ sowie die enorme Zahl an Lesungen, die zuerst von 7, danach noch von 9 Vorlesern rezitiert werden müssen. Diese

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

43

Ostersonntagsfeier verlesen. Ähnlich wie beim Weihnachtsfest haben auch für das Osterfest sieben Lektoren (ⲡⲥⲁϣϤ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ) Psalmverse mit Evangelienperikopen verlesen. Das vierte erhaltene Blatt ist das letzte Blatt der vierten Lage dieses Kodex. Es trägt die Seitenzahlen ⲚⲈ/ⲚⲊ̄ (55/56), die Lagenzahl Ⲇ (4) auf dem Verso und hat die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F. 3.1.5. Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 f. 2 Das fünfte Blatt mit Signatur Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 2 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34) ist gut erhalten und macht das erste Blatt der fünften Lage des Kodex aus. Es trägt die Lagenzahl Ⲉ (5) auf dem Rekto und die Seitenzahlen ⲚⲌ/ⲚⲎ (57/58). Die Pergamentbeschaffenheit ist wie zu erwarten für den Beginn einer Lage F/H. Dieses Leidener Blatt beinhaltet die Initien für den 7. Lektor und die Incipit und Explicit der Psalmverse und Evangelienperikopen für neun weitere Lektoren (ⲡⲉⲯⲓⲥ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ) für die Ostersonntagsfeier. 3.1.6. Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164 Das sechste Blatt mit der Signatur Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164 ist ohne Seiten- und Lagenzahlen erhalten und hat die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F. Die Einteilung von Rekto und Verso ist trotz des fehlenden Oberrandes sicher, da sie aufgrund des Parallelblattes London, VAM, 434B–1888 im Kodex MONB.AW erfolgt. Ich denke, dass man die Seitenzahlen dieses Blattes aus kodikologischen und inhaltlichen Gründen als Pag. [ⲜⲄ]/[ⲜⲆ] ([63]/[64]) rekonstruieren kann. Folgende Hinweise sollen meine Hypothese erläutern. Das Verso des vorangehenden Leidener Blattes trägt die Seitenzahl 58 und ist die Haarseite des Pergamentes. Der „Gregory-Regel“ folgend sollte man danach ein Blatt mit Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F erwarten. Das Pariser Folio 164 ist ein solches Blatt. Also im Hinblick auf die „Gregory-Regel“ muss man die Frage beantworten, ob das Pariser Blatt unmittelbar dem Leidener Blatt folgte oder ob dazwischen zwei heute nicht mehr erhaltene Blätter mit der Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F–F/H standen. Ich denke, dass die zweite Möglichkeit die Wahrscheinliche ist. Die letzten vier Zeilen der Rückseite des Leidener Blattes scheinen einer unbekannten Kathegesis zu gehören und können zurzeit nicht identifiziert werden. Es ist allerdings festzuhalten, dass die Buchstabenreste der letzten Zeile nicht in Rot ausgeführt wurden, was bedeuten würde, dass sie höchstwahrscheinlich nicht zu einer liturgischen Rubrik gehört haben. Diese Beobachtung ist wichtig, da das Pariser Folio 164 mit einer roten liturgischen erfolgen nach der liturgischen Rubrik ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϣⲁⲩⲙⲉⲗⲉⲧⲁ ⲉⲛⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲩ:— „Die Sonntagnacht, wenn man die Kreuzigungs(lesungen) rezitiert“. Solche zahlreichen Lesungen zu einem Fest sind mir nur vom Weihnachts- oder Oster-Fest bekannt.

44

D. ATANASSOVA

Rubrik beginnt. Diese rote liturgische Rubrik musste nicht unbedingt in Beziehung mit dem vorherigen Blatt stehen, jedoch stimmt das in diesem Fall doch, wie man durch das Londoner Parallelblatt VAM, 434B–1888 im Kodex MONB. AW sehen kann. Laut dieser Parallele gehört die erste Zeile auf dem Pariser Folio zu einer sehr langen liturgischen Rubrik. Auch die ersten 22 Zeilen auf dem Rekto des Londoner Parallelblattes sind in keinem der Blätter von MONB. WE zu finden. Also kann man mit Sicherheit vermuten, dass das Pariser Folio 164 nicht unmittelbar dem Leidener Blatt folgt. Aus inhaltlichen Gründen ist ebenso zu erwarten, dass mindestens zwei Blätter zwischen dem Leidener und dem Pariser Blatt gestanden hätten. Das Leidener Blatt endet mit Initien für das Osterfest und das Pariser Blatt beginnt mit Initien für die Sonntagnacht eine Woche nach Ostern (die Osteroktav). Der Inhalt der vorherigen Blätter im Kodex MONB.WE deuten darauf hin, dass nach einem Samstag immer ein Sonntag folgt und umgekehrt. Also müssen wir erwarten, dass auch Initien für den Samstag eine Woche nach Ostern ursprünglich im MONB.WE vorhanden waren. Man fragt sich auch, ob es nicht sehr wahrscheinlich ist, dass auch Initien zum Ostermontag auf diesen heute fehlenden Blättern zu finden waren. Also rekonstruiere ich die Seitenzahlen des Pariser Folio 164 mit Vorsicht als Pag. [ⲜⲄ]/[ⲜⲆ] ([63]/[64]). Das Pariser Folio 164 bietet Incipits und Explicits der Psalmverse und Evangelienperikopen, welche sechs Lektoren in der Nacht der Osteroktav rezitieren sollen. Initien für Hymnen und Schenutes Reden sowie die Exegesis über die Auferstehung von Kyrill von Jerusalem für die Osteroktavnacht sind auch da. Ebenso angegeben sind die Perikopeninitien für die Versammlungsstunde (Wortgottesdienst) am Sonntag nach Ostern (Osteroktav). 3.1.7. Paris, BnF, Copte 161.6, f. 44 Das siebte erhaltene Blatt Paris, BnF, Copte 161.6, f. 44 ist höchstwahrscheinlich das letzte Blatt der [6]. Lage mit Seitenzahlen Pag. 87/88. Obwohl die Lagenzahl 6 heute nicht erhalten ist, unterstützen die folgenden Indizien diese Vermutung: a) es gibt Dekorationsreste oben rechts auf dem Verso; b) die Pergamentbeschaffenheit ist H/F, die typisch für das letzte Blatt einer Lage ist; c) das letzte Blatt der 6. Lage eines Kodex, der wie MONB.WE mit vier Vorsatzblättern aufgebaut ist, würde die Seitenzahlen 87/88 tragen. Das Blatt beinhaltet die Initien der Perikopen und Predigten des Schenute für die Versammlungsstunde und die Sonntagsvigilien. Es beginnt mit dem Johannes-Initium für den Samstag nach dem Apa-Schenute-Fest, unmittelbar vor dem 8. Epep (2. Juli jul.) und endet mit zahlreichen Predigten des Schenute für die Sonntagsvigil zur Weintraubenzeit und zur Weinlese. Außerdem findet man Angaben für solche Feste wie z.B. 8. Epep (2. Juli jul.), 16. Epep (10. Juli jul.), 20. Epep (16. Juli jul.), 25. Epep (19. Juli jul.) und andere Feiern ohne festes Datum.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

45

Nach dem Pariser Folio Copte 161.6, f. 44 fehlt heute ein Blatt, das am Beginn der 7. Lage stand und höchstwahrscheinlich die Angaben zu solchen Festen wie 26. Epep (20. Juli jul.), 1. Mesore (25. Juli jul.), das Sabbato-KyriakaiVorfest auf Apa Besa, 4. Mesore (28. Juli jul.) und das Sabbato-Kyriakai-Fest auf den süßen Wein gehabt hat.30 3.1.8. Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9729 und Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 3–5 Aus der 7. Lage sind heute die vier Blätter – das Wiener Blatt P.Vindob. K 9729 und die drei Leidener Blätter AES 40–48, f. 3–5 – mit den sukzessiven Seitenzahlen 91/92–97/98 bestens erhalten. Ihre Pergamentbeschaffenheit lautet H/F–F/H–H/F–F/H. Darauf finden sich Angaben zu Sabbato-Kyriakai-Festen, die den frischen Datteln, dem Aufstieg des Flusswassers und dem Kommen des Wassers in das Kloster, aber auch dem Pfingstsonntag gewidmet sind. Es werden die Initien für die Versammlungsstunden und Vigilien für besondere Anlässe angegeben, wie z.B. bei Naturkatastrophen, wenn das Nilwasser nicht aufsteigt oder Hungersnöte und die Pest kommt, aber auch zur Weihe einer Kirche, oder zum Besuch von Würdenträgern31 wie Dux, Statthalter (Hegemon) und Magistrate (Archon), reiche Männer, Priester, Väter der Gemeinschaften, Klostervorsteher und sein Stellvertreter. 3.1.9. Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 174 Das letzte erhaltene Pariser Blatt, Copte 129.20, f. 174, aus dem 1. Libellus des Kodex MONB.WE stammt aus der Blattmitte und besteht heute nur aus 12 Zeilen. Die Pergamentbeschaffenheit des Fragmentes ist H/F. Theoretisch könnte es das Folgeblatt nach der Pag. 98 sein. Das wage ich allerdings nicht zu behaupten, da vieles im Pariser Folio 174 unsicher ist. Wahrscheinlich ist das Rekto die Seite, die mit den Resten einer roten liturgischen Rubrik beginnt. Daraus erfahren wir nur, dass Perikopen aus dem Apostolos, d.h. aus den Paulinischen Briefen, folgen werden. In der Tat haben wir auf den nächsten 7 Zeilen Perikopeninitien aus den Paulinischen Briefen. Es sind mir keine Versammlungsstunden bekannt, bei denen so viele Perikopen aus den Paulinischen Briefen vorzulesen wären. Außerdem stehen sie zwischen zwei liturgischen Rubriken und es fehlen die Perikopeninitien aus den anderen neutestamentlichen Büchern. Diese Aufzählung von Perikopeninitien stellt offensichtlich nicht die Messe eines Festes dar, sondern ist eine Gruppierung von Perikopen aus den Paulinischen Briefen für besondere Anlässe. Gleich danach kommt die zweite rote liturgische Rubrik auf dieser Seite, nämlich …

30 31

Vgl. den Parallelkodex MONB.WM, Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9727. Vgl. Behlmer, „Visitors“ 346–351, Anm. 59.

46

D. ATANASSOVA

ⲓⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲕⲛⲁ... Diese erinnert an eine andere Rubrik, die in diesem Kodex bereits zwei Mal, auf Pag. 94 und Pag. 98, vorkommt, nämlich ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ „wenn der 50. Tag ist“, und die mit Pfingsten assoziiert wird. Kann es sein, dass Pfingsten zum dritten Mal in demselben Kodex erwähnt ist? Gab es andere 50 Tage, die mitgezählt werden mussten? Die andere Seite beginnt mit den Perikopeninitien aus den Evangelien und nach der 5. Zeile folgt eine verzierte Trennlinie, die am Ende eines Libellus oder einer Untergruppierung vorkommen kann.32 Darauf folgt eine vierzeilige stark beschädigte kursive Subskription in Schwarz. Eigentlich ist es nicht klar, ob das eine Subskription ist, in der alle Arten von Initien aufgezählt werden, oder eine liturgische Rubrik, die Anweisungen gibt. Dieser Text erwähnt ⲁⲛⲁⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ und [ϩⲉⲣ]ⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ, welche in den vorherigen Blättern in der Tat angegeben sind. Gleichzeitig aber werden die Konjunktionen ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ und ⲧⲟⲧⲉ zusammen mit ⲗⲟⲓⲡⲟⲛ sowie der Konditionalis verwendet, die eher in die Richtung einer Anweisung deuten. Vielleicht folgen Hermeneiai wie die Reste des Wortes auf der letzten Zeile zeigen. Allerdings wurden Hermeneiai bereits vorher angegeben. Leider ist es wegen zerstörter Buchstaben nicht klar, welche Art von Texten dann kommen sollen. Dieses Pariser Fragment birgt in sich noch viele unbeantwortete Fragen. Jedoch zeigen alle oben aufgezählten Indizien, dass dieses Fragment am Ende des 1. Libellus zu platzieren ist. 3.2. Libellus: Hymnendirektorium mit ausgeschriebenen griechischen Gesängen ohne heortologische Angaben Die griechischen Gesänge werden in den Typika mit dem terminus technicus „Hymnos“ betitelt. Bislang sind vier solche Arten bekannt: a) die Psalmverse auf Griechisch ohne koptische Übersetzung, b) die sog. Poiekon-Gesänge die immer auf Griechisch sind und denen meistens eine koptische Übersetzung folgt, c) Trisagion-Gesänge, die selten eine koptische Übersetzung bieten, sowie d) alphabetische Akrosticha von Alpha bis Omega ohne ihre koptischen Entsprechungen. Die Besonderheit dieses Libellus ist es, dass darin die heortologischen Angaben meistens fehlen und dass die Texte vollständig ausgeschrieben sind, um so rezitiert zu werden. Aus dem Kodex MONB.WE sind keine Akrosticha bekannt. Die Abfolge der Gesänge innerhalb des Libellus ist ähnlich wie im Parallelkodex MONB.NP: a) griechische Psalmverse, danach b) Poiekon-Gesänge und abschließend c) Trisagion-Gesänge. Im Kodex MONB.WE werden die verschiedenen „Hymnos“-Arten in Gruppen durch eine dekorative Trennlinie unterteilt.

32 Vgl. z.B. im MONB.WE, London BL, Or. 3580A, f. 21r, Zl. 13–14 oder Leiden, RMO, AES 40–40 (Copte 74; Ins. 31)r, Zl. 7.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

47

Aus dem 2. Libellus des Kodex MONB.WE sind heute 6 Blätter erhalten. Das erste Blatt, Berlin, SBB, Ms.or.fol. 1609 Bl. 5, trägt die Pag. ⲢⲠⲌ/ⲢⲠⲎ (187/188)33 und hat die Pergamentbeschaffenheit H/F. Das Rekto beginnt mit dem Ps 39,10 (griech.) und das Verso endet mit Ps 84,13 (griech.). Das nächste erhaltene Blatt, London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 21 hat die Pergamentbeschaffenheit F/H und ist auf uns ohne die Seitenzahlen gekommen. Seine Seitenzahlen können jedoch als Pag. [193]/[194] mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit aus inhaltlichen und kodikologischen Gründen rekonstruiert werden. Das Rekto dieses Blattes beginnt mit drei griechischen Zeilen, von denen nur vier bis fünf Buchstaben erhalten sind. Mit großer Unsicherheit können diese als die Fortsetzung aus der vorhergehenden Seite von Ps 125,234 identifiziert werden. Allerdings ist es sicher, dass die drei griechischen Zeilen aus einem Psalm zwischen Kapitel 125 und Kapitel 131 stammen müssen. Für die Zwecke der Seitenzahlrekonstruktion genügt diese Schlussfolgerung. Das Berliner Blatt endet mit Ps 84,13a–b (griech.) und das Londoner Blatt beginnt mit Ps 125,2a–b oder einem Psalmvers vor Ps 131,9a–b.10a. Die Frage ist, wie viele griechische Psalmverse dazwischen fehlen und wieviel Platz sie im Kodex MONB.WE einnehmen würden. Die Parallelkodizes MONB.AW, NP, WA, WL, WM, WQ bezeugen 3435 fehlende Psalmabschnitte. Kodex MONB.WE braucht für einen griechischen Psalmabschnitt36 durchschnittlich ungefähr 4 Zeilen.37 Das bedeutet, dass zwischen dem Berliner und dem Londoner Blatt ungefähr 136 Zeilen (34 Abschnitte × 4 Zeilen) fehlen. Die Zeilen im Kodex MONB.WE variieren zwischen 30 und 36 Zeilen pro Seite, meistens sind es 34–36. Die 136 Zeilen verteilen sich auf vier Seiten mit jeweils 34 Zeilen, wobei die Zahl der Zeilen leicht variieren kann. Nach der „Gregory-Regel“ kann das Londoner Blatt entweder direkt dem Berliner Blatt folgen oder es müssen zwischen den beiden noch zwei Blätter gewesen sein, um der Pergament-Abfolge H/F–F/H–H/F–F/H gerecht zu werden. Die Parallelkodizes weisen eindeutig auf die zweite Option

33 Am Original sind Rho und Zeta von der Paginierung auf dem Rekto gut zu sehen. Der Buchstabe Pi ist etwas undeutlicher, allerdings ist es mit UV-Licht auch gut sichtbar. Auf dem Verso sind die Seitenzahlen nur mit UV-Licht zu erkennen, da die Zahlen von der Vorderseite durchscheinen. Allerdings bleibt Pi auf dem Verso sogar mit UV-Licht undeutlich. 34 Im Kodex MONB.WA gibt es das „Hymnos“-Initium Ps 125,2a. Es ist plausibel zu vermuten, dass Vers 2 bereits auf der vorherliegenden Seite begonnen hat und auf dem Londoner Blatt fortgesetzt wird. Einige Buchstabenkombinationen von den ersten drei Zeilen findet man im Ps 125,2. Dennoch gilt die Identifizierung als unsicher, bis es in einem Parallelkodex auftaucht. 35 Momentan zählt Ps 125,2 als der 34. Abschnitt. Falls die Identifizierung der ersten drei Zeilen des Londoner Blattes sich als richtig erweist, dann zählt dieser Abschnitt nur halbwegs, da davon nur zwei Zeilen mitzuzählen wären. 36 Die Psalmabschnitte können bestehen entweder a) aus einem ganzen Psalmvers, oder b) einem Halbvers oder c) einem ganzen Psalmvers zusammen mit einem Halbvers eines anderen Psalms. 37 Manche Verse brauchen mehr, andere weniger als vier Zeilen.

48

D. ATANASSOVA

hin und daher rekonstruiere ich aus kodikologischen und inhaltlichen Gründen die Seitenzahlen des Londoner Blattes mit Pag. [193]/[194]. Auf diesen 2,5 Seiten befindet sich die erste Untergruppe des 2. Libellus. Sie beinhaltet die ausgeschriebenen griechischen Psalmverse, die in aufsteigender Reihenfolge aufgelistet sind. Die einzelnen Abschnitte wurden während der Entlassung der Feste vorgetragen und ihre griechischen Initien können in vielen Perikopendirektorien in den Typika des Weißen Klosters gefunden werden. Jeder griechische Abschnitt ist durch die ersten Worte des jeweiligen Psalmverses auf Koptisch betitelt, die immer eingerückt, sehr kurz und in Rot geschrieben sind. Offensichtlich dienten diese koptischen Initien als Titel zum schnellen und leichteren Auffinden des jeweiligen griechischen Abschnitts, der zur Entlassung der Feste vorgetragen wurde. Die ausgeschriebenen griechischen Psalmverse nehmen von einer bis drei (1 Mal fünf) Zeilen ein, beginnen immer mit einer ausgerückten, großen und farbig verzierten Initiale. Sonst ist der griechische Text immer in schwarzer Tinte geschrieben. Der letzte griechische Psalmvers aus dieser Untergruppe lautet Ps 149,5b und befindet sich auf der Vorderseite des Londoner Blattes, Zl. 12. Danach gibt es eine dekorative Trennlinie auf zwei Zeilen, bevor die zweite Untergruppe dieses Libellus beginnt. Diese zweite Untergruppe besteht aus den griechischen Gesängen, die mit dem immer noch nicht identifizierten terminus technicus ⲡⲟⲓⲏⲕⲟⲛ „Poiekon“ in Rot betitelt werden und die fast immer von seiner koptischen Übersetzung mit der Überschrift ⲡⲉϥⲃⲱⲗ „seine Übersetzung“ gefolgt sind. Diese Gesänge wurden genauso wie die griechischen Psalmabschnitte bei der Entlassung der Feste vorgetragen, was viele Perikopendirektorien in den Typika des Weißen Klosters bezeugen. Die zweite Untergruppe beginnt auf der Vorderseite des Londoner Blattes Or. 3580A, f. 21 mit Zeile 13 und wird weiter fortgesetzt auf den Blättern Kairo, IFAO, Copte 162 und Leiden, RMO, AES 40–64 sowie dem Pariser Bruchstück BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 16. Sie endet auf der Vorderseite des zweiten Berliner Blattes SBB, Ms.or.fol. 1609, Bl. 6 mit Zeile 12. An dieser Stelle werde ich keine weiteren Details mitteilen oder schwierige Fragen stellen. Die dritte Untergruppe beinhaltet Trisagion-Gesänge, die wahrscheinlich vor der Perikope aus der Apostelgeschichte im Wortgottesdienst vorgetragen wurden. Sie beginnt auf dem Rekto des Berliner Blattes SBB, Ms.or. fol. 1609 Bl. 6 mit Pag. 209/210 mit Zeile 13 mit der Überschrift ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲧⲣⲓⲥⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ:– „Das sind die Trisagion-(Gesänge)“ und läuft parallel zu MONB.NP. Weitere Blätter aus dieser Untergruppe im Kodex MONB.WE sind nicht bekannt. 3.3. Libellus: Diakonikon Der letzte Libellus des Kodex MONB.WE stellt ein Diakonikon dar. Ein solcher Libellus mit den Texten des Diakons ist noch aus anderen Kodizes mit

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

49

Typika bekannt wie MONB.NP, WA, WE, WL. Zu diesem Libellus gehören das Blatt Leiden, RMO, AES 40–40 sowie die Fragmente London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 18a (A.11 frg. 2), Or. 3580A, f. 17 (A.11 frg. 1), Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9743 und Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 176, Copte 133.2, f. 14a, f. 16a. Alle Blätter dieses Libellus sind sehr fragmentarisch erhalten und daher fehlt jegliche Seiten- oder Lagenzahl. Da in den Parallelkodizes das Diakonikon immer nach den vollständig ausgeschriebenen griechischen Gesängen steht, platziere auch ich diesen Libellus am Ende des Kodex MONB.WE. 3.4. Tabellarische Inhaltsübersicht des Kodex MONB.WE

Inhalt

Lage

Pag.

H/F od. F/H

Aufbewahrungsort, Inventarnummer

1. Libellus: Perikopen- und Hymnendirektorium für das ganze Jahr mit Responsorium und Perikopeninitien für die Messe sowie mit den koptischen Stichwörtern aus dem Psalter und den Initien der griechischen „Hymnos“-Gesänge für die Entlassung aus der Messe 1. Thout 2. Paope 3. Hathor 4. Koiahk 5. Tobe 6. Emschir 43/44 H/F Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, Vorfastenzeit f. 161 Fastenzeit [47]/[48] H/F Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 168 7. Paremhotep [51]/[52] H/F Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 18a Fastenzeit 8. Parmute Paschawoche E 4 55/56 H/F Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34), f. 1 + Paris, BnF, Copte 132.2, f. 30 + Kairo, IFAO, Copte 225B A 5 57/58 F/H Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34), f. 2 Osterwoche [63]/[64] H/F Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164 9. Paschons 10. Paone 11. Epep E [6] 87/88 H/F Paris, BnF, Copte 161.6, f. 44

50

12. Mesore

13. Epagomenen Besondere Anlässe Unbekannt

D. ATANASSOVA

91/92 93/94

H/F F/H

95/96

H/F

97/98

F/H

–/–

H/F

Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9729 Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34), f. 3 Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34), f. 4 Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34), f. 5 Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 174

2. Libellus: Hymnendirektiorium mit ausgeschriebenen griechischen Gesängen ohne heortologische Angaben Griechische Psalmverse 187/188 H/F Berlin, SBB, Ms.or.fol. 1609, f. 5 Poiekon-Gesänge auf [193]/ F/H London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 21 Griechisch und Koptisch [194] (A.16) (Untergruppe beginnt am Rekto, Zl. 13) –/– H/F Kairo, IFAO, Copte 162 –/– H/F Leiden, RMO, AES 40–64 (Ms. 93, Ins. 48) –/– ?/? Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 16 Trisagion-Gesänge auf 209/210 F/H Berlin, SBB, Ms.or.fol. 1609, Griechisch und manchmal f. 6 Koptisch (Untergruppe beginnt am Rekto, Zl. 13) 3. Libellus: Diakonikon –/– –/–

H/F H/F

–/–

H/F

–/–

?/?

–/– –/– –/–

?/? ?/? ?/?

Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9743 London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 18a (A.11 frg. 2) Leiden, RMO, AES 40–40 (Ms. 74, Ins. 31) London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 17 (A.11 frg. 1) Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 14a Paris, BnF, Copte 133.2, f. 16a Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 176

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

51

4. DIE INITIEN DER PREDIGTEN DES SCHENUTE KODIZES MIT TYPIKA

IN DEN DREI LITURGISCHEN

Die Initien der Predigten des Schenute sowie weiterer Kirchenväter finden sich in den drei bereits dargestellten Kodizes – MONB.NP, MONB.WD und MONB. WE. Die Predigten wurden während der Sonntagsvigilien38 diverser Feste verlesen. Erwartungsgemäß weisen die Typika des Weißen Klosters überwiegend Homilien des berühmtesten Abtes dieses Klosters, Apa Schenute von Atripe, auf.39 Heute haben wir von 81 Initien aus Schenutes Predigten Kenntnis. Nur 4 davon haben Parallelen in zwei der Kodizes.40 Da der Fokus dieses Artikels auf Apa Schenute fällt, werden die Predigten anderer Kirchenväter hier nicht behandelt. Bereits 1968 erklärte Hans Quecke, wie die „Schenutelesungen“, wie er sie nannte, in den Typika dargestellt und gekennzeichnet wurden: „Auf die allgemeine Angabe ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑ(ⲓⲟⲩ) ⲗⲟⲅ(ⲟⲥ) folgt das Initium des zu lesenden Abschnitts. Bildet dieser Abschnitt zugleich den Anfang eines Sermo, so folgt keine weitere Angabe. Andernfalls folgt auf das Initium des zu lesenden Abschnitts noch das Initium des Sermo, dem der Abschnitt entnommen ist. In diesem Fall ist das Initium des ganzen Sermo dann durch ⲉϥϩⲘ ⲡⲁⲓ eingeführt was etwa mit „findet sich in folgendem Sermo“ zu paraphrasieren wäre.“41

In den Typika werden die Predigten Schenutes mit dem terminus technicus „Logos“, oft in griechischem Genetiv, bezeichnet. Bislang gibt es nur eine Ausnahme,42 bei der die Bezeichnung „Kathegesis“ bevorzugt wurde. Wahrscheinlich wurden die beiden Termini synonym verwendet. Allerdings betitelt der Terminus Kathegesis in den Typika regelmäßig die Homilien anderer Kirchenväter.43 Die in Stephen Emmels grundlegender Studie aufgelisteten 10 Typikon-Fragmente verteilen sich auf die drei dargestellten Kodizes wie folgt: typ.frg. C, I und J gehören zum MONB.NP; typ.frg. B, F und H gehören zum MONB.WD und typ.frg. A, D, E und G gehören zum MONB.WE.44 Meine Untersuchung an den Typika in den vergangenen Jahren förderte noch sechs

38

Wenige Ausnahmen davon sind bekannt, vgl. hier Anhang 2, Nr. 6, 7, 8 sowie 35, 36. Predigten weiterer Kirchenväter sind selten bezeugt, vgl. z.B. MONB.NP, Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9741r, Zl.12–13, MONB.WD, London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1v, Zl. 10, MONB.WE, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164v, Zl. 5. 40 Vgl. hier Anhang 2, Nr. 7, 8, 33 und 34. 41 Quecke, „Ein Pachomiuszitat“ 162, vgl. auch noch Emmel, SLC 75, Anm. 122. 42 MONB.WD, Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9738r, Zl. 6. 43 Vgl. z.B. ⲧⲕⲁⲑⲩⲅⲏ[ⲥⲓⲥ] Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲣⲭ ⲥⲉⲩⲏⲣⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲉⲓϣⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉϭⲱϣⲦ ⲉϩⲞⲨ[ⲛ] [...]ⲉ Ⲙⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ· in MONB.WD, London, BL, Or. 3580A f. 1v, Zl. 18–20. 44 Emmel bezeichnet die Blätter bzw. Fragmente als „typ.frg. A–J“, vgl. Emmel, SLC 77 und spricht von 10 Fragmenten. Allerdings ist diese Zahl irreführend, da sich unter den 10 Buchstaben eigentlich 15 Blätter befinden, wobei nicht jede Seite davon ein Schenute-Initium beinhaltet. Die Seiten mit Predigten Schenutes können jetzt im Anhang 1 nachgeschlagen werden. 39

52

D. ATANASSOVA

weitere Fragmente mit Schenutes Predigten ans Licht, die sich folgendermaßen in den drei Kodizes verteilen: London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 26; Or. 6954, f. 27 und Or. 6954, f. 29 zum Kodex MONB.NP; Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 162 45 zum MONB.WD und Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164 und Copte 129.20, f. 168 zum MONB.WE. Zurzeit sind insgesamt 30 Typikon-Seiten mit Predigten Schenutes bekannt, vgl. Anhang 1. Die Analyse der Typika des Weißen Klosters bestätigt das Ergebnis in Emmels Studie, dass die „Canons“ (9 Volumen) niemals für die Liturgie des Weißen Klosters benutzt wurden,46 sondern nur die Predigten (nach Emmel „Discourses“, 8 Volumen). Man ist versucht, den Schenutologen47 vorzuschlagen, alle noch nicht identifizierten „Additional Works“ unter Schenutes Texten in den Typika als in noch nicht identifizierte „Discourses“ umzubenennen. Das kann ich leider nicht tun, da die Situation viel komplizierter ist, als es scheint. Es gibt sowohl Hinweise als auch Indizien, dass nicht nur die „Discourses“ sondern auch die „Letters“ Schenutes für liturgische Zwecke benutzt wurden. Man denke hier an die Subskription in dem Wiener Verzeichnis K 9634, die bereits von S. Emmel, dessen Hypothese ich uneingeschränkt zustimme, als Titel eines weiteren Verzeichnisses gesehen wurde, zumal das Wiener Blatt K 9634 zu dem liturgischen Kodex MONB.NP gehört, der auch das Vortragen eines Briefes des Apa Horsiese an dessen Festtag am 28. Paope (25. Okt. jul.) enthält.48 Mit der Darstellung der zwei Anhänge beende ich diesen Beitrag in der Hoffnung, dass ich dadurch weitere Impulse sowohl für die Schenuteforschung als auch für die Liturgie des Weißen Klosters setzen kann. Im Anhang 1 werden die Signaturen zu den einzelnen Seiten mit Schenutes Predigten aufgeführt, sowie die Bezeichnung dieser in der Monographie von S. Emmel „Shenoute’s Literary Corpus“ (= SLC). Im Anhang 2 findet man eine Tabelle mit den Angaben zu Schenutes Werken aus den Typika, die nach der Kalenderreihenfolge aufgelistet sind. – Die erste Spalte enthält die Kalenderangaben, die in den meisten Fällen selbsterklärend sind, manchmal jedoch zusätzlich Interpretation brauchen. – In der zweiten Spalte steht eine Durchnummerierung der einzelnen TypikonEinträge, welche keine wissenschaftliche Bedeutung hat, erleichtert jedoch die statistischen Angaben. – In der dritten Spalte gebe ich die Eintragsnummer nach dem Wiener Verzeichnis K 9634 aus dem Kodex MONB.NP an. 45

Bereits Zanetti, „Six Typika“ 240, Anm. 29 erwähnt Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 162 als Typikon-Blatt, ohne auf seinen Inhalt einzugehen. 46 Emmel, SLC 84, 238. 47 Vgl. die Bezeichnung der Spezialisten für die Schenutes Werke von Zanetti, „Liturgy in the White Monastery“ 208 („Shenoutologists“). 48 Vgl. mehr Details in Atanassova, „Der kodikologische Kontext“ 39–40.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

53

– In der vierten Spalte werden die Titel aus dem Emmel Buch „Shenoute’s Literary Corpus“ (= SLC) zitiert. Allerdings sind die deutschen Entsprechungen dieser Titel einer noch nicht veröffentlichen Liste „Multilingual List of Shenoute’s Works“ aus dem Jahr 2007, die kollegialerweise von ihrem Autor an Fachleute vor der Publikation ausgehändigt wurde, entnommen worden. – In der fünften Spalte werden die koptischen Verweise (meistens in Rot) auf Schenutes Predigten (ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲩ·, ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑ, ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ·) und auf die Werke (ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ), denen sie entnommen wurden, angegeben. Die Übersetzung einzelner Verweise ist überflüssig, da sie sich in den Handschriften wiederholen. – In der sechsten Spalte werden die koptischen Titel sowohl der Werke als auch von daraus entnommenen Predigten Schenutes auf Deutsch wiedergegeben. Die Werke werden, so wie in der vierten Spalte erklärt, angegeben. Da die Titel der Werke aus Emmels Monographie übernommen sind, gibt es eine Diskrepanz zwischen dem koptischen Text und seiner deutschen Übersetzung. Dies ist beabsichtigt, da die Titel der Werke durch die Arbeiten Emmels und weiterer Fachleute standardisiert werden und eine genaue Übersetzung des koptischen Incipits überflüssig erscheint. Nur dort, wo das Initium aus dem jeweiligen Werk zitiert ist, habe ich die Sätze, soweit ohne Kontext möglich, ins Deutsche übersetzt. – In der siebten Spalte gebe ich die MONB-Sigel der drei Kodizes mit der jeweiligen Seitenzahl und der Zeile, wo die in Frage kommenden Initien aus der vorherigen Spalte vorkommen. Im Anhang 1 können die Signaturen der jeweiligen Seiten nachgeschlagen werden. – Die letzte Spalte beinhaltet Angaben zu Emmels Monographie „Shenoute’s Literary Corpus“ (= SLC). Bibliographie Atanassova, Diliana. „Das verschollene koptisch-sahidische Typikon-Fragment aus Venedig. Ein liturgisches Dokument aus dem Schenute-Kloster in Oberägypten“. Oriens Christianus 94 (2010), 105–122. ——. „Der kodikologische Kontext des »Wiener Verzeichnisses« mit Werken des Schenute: die komplexe Struktur eines koptischen liturgischen Kodex aus dem Weißen Kloster“. Oriens Christianus 95 (2011), 32–80. ——. „Prinzipien und Kriterien für die Erforschung der koptischen liturgischen Typika des Schenuteklosters“. In: ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ. Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsg. von D. Atanassova und T. Chronz, 13–38. orientalia – patristica – oecumenica 6,1–2. Münster u.a. 2014. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, hrsg. von K. und B. Aland, Berlin 61988. Behlmer, Heike. „Visitors to Shenoute’s monastery“. In: Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, hrsg. von D. Frankfurter, 341–371. Leiden 1998.

54

D. ATANASSOVA

Brakmann, Heinzgerd. „Fragmenta Graeco-Copto-Thebaica. Zu Jutta Henners Veröffentlichung alter und neuer Dokumente südägyptischer Liturgie“. Oriens Christianus 88 (2004), 117–172. Crum, Walter E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum. London 1905. ——. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford 1939 (Nachdruck 1962, 2000, 2005). Emmel, Stephen. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. Bd. 1–2. CSCO 599–600, Subs. 111– 112. Leuven 2004. Förster, Hans. Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. TUGACL 148. Berlin/New York 2002. Liddell, Henry G. und Scott, Robert. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford 1997. Louis, Catherine. Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la Bibliothèque du monastère Blanc. Bd. 1–2. Dissertation, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 2005. Onasch, Konrad. Kunst und Liturgie der Ostkirche in Stichworten unter Berücksichtigung der Alten Kirche, Wien/Köln/Graz 1981. Quecke, Hans. „Ein Pachomiuszitat bei Schenute“. In: Probleme der koptischen Literatur, hrsg. von Peter Nagel, 155–172. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der MartinLuther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 1. Halle 1968. Schüssler, Karlheinz. Biblia Coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte. Das sahidische Alte und Neue Testament, Bd. 3.2; 3.4; 4.2. Wiesbaden 2003, 2006, 2009. Schmitz, Franz-Jürgen, und Mink, Gerd. Liste der Koptischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Die sahidischen Handschriften der Evangelien. 2. Teil, 2. Halbband. ANTF 15. Berlin/New York 1991. Zanetti, Ugo. „Leçons liturgiques au Monastère Blanc: Six Typika“. BSAC 46 (2007), 231–304. ——. „Liturgy in the White Monastery“. In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Bd. 1: Akhmim and Sohag, hrsg. von Gawdat Gabra und Hany N. Takla, 201–210. Cairo/New York 2007.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

55

Anhang 1: Seiten mit Initien der Predigten des Schenute

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

MONBKodex, Paginierung WD [13] WD [14] WD 15 WD 16 WD [25] WD [26] WD [27] WD 33 WD 34 WE 43 WE 44 WE [48] WE 55

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

WE [63] WE [64] WE 87 WE 88 WE 91 WE 92 WE 93 WE 94 WE 95 WE 96 WE 97 WE 98 NP [–/–]49 NP 59 NP 61 NP 62 NP [64]

Nr.

49

Aufbewahrungsort, Handschriftensignatur Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9738r Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9738v Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 1 (Ms. 81, Ins. 38a)r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 1 (Ms. 81, Ins. 38a)v London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1r London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1v Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20 f. 162r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 2 (Ms. 81, Ins. 38a)r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–52, f. 2 (Ms. 81, Ins. 38a)v Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 161r Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 161v Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 168r (true v) Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 1 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34) + Paris, BnF, Copte 132.2 f. 30 + Kairo, IFAO, Copte 225Br Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164r Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 164v Paris, BnF, Copte 161.6, f. 44r Paris, BnF, Copte 161.6, f. 44v Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9729r Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9729v Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 3 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 3 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)v Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 4 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 4 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)v Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 5 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)r Leiden, RMO, AES 40–48, f. 5 (Ms. 77, Ins. 34)v London, BL, Or. 6954 (27)r London, BL, Or. 6954 (26) + (29)r Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9741r Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9741v Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 24, fasc. 108, f. 2v

Wahrscheinlich ein Blatt aus der 2. Lage des Kodex.

Emmel, SLC typ. frg. B typ. frg. B typ. frg. H typ. frg. H typ. frg. F typ. frg. F — typ. frg. H typ. frg. H typ. frg. D typ. frg. D — typ. frg. G

— — typ. frg. E typ. frg. E typ. frg. A typ. frg. A typ. frg. G typ. frg. G typ. frg. G typ. frg. G typ. frg. G typ. frg. G — — typ. frg. C typ. frg. C typ. frg. J

—

3.

—

W40

2.

4.

—

1.

unbekannt51

„Additional Work“ 16

Logos 5, Werk 1

„Additional Work“ 4

Titel der Schenute-Werke nach Emmel, SLC

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ·

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ ⲧⲕⲁⲑ⳽

Verweise auf Schenute-Predigten

Predigt: „Wer wird nicht sagen: Wenn der Mensch die Zeit der Aussaat erfüllt“ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ϫⲉⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲟⲩϩ Ⲙⲡⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡϫⲟ·

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 5, typ. frg. B), 628

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 23, typ. frg. B), 674

WD [13]:11–12

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 31, typ. frg. B), 677

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. WD [13]:10 inc. 41, typ. frg. B), 679, 682

WD [13]:7

WD [13]:6

TypikaEmmel, Shenoute’s Kodizes Literary Corpus MONB. NP, (= SLC) WD, WE

Predigt: „Und manche sagen über diese Gottlosigkeit: ein anderer Körper ist es, der hervorkommt. WD [13]:8–9 ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲩϫⲱ ⲚⲧⲉⲓⲙⲚⲧⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ϫⲉⲕⲉⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲡⲉ ϣⲁϥϯⲟⲩⲱ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϢϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ·

„Ich sehe euren Eifer“ ⲉⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲚⲟⲩⲣⲟⲧ·

„Die Tage der Aussaat betreffend“ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲚⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲕⲁⲧⲁⲥⲡⲟⲣⲁ·

Typika-Initien der Schenute-Werke oder seine Predigt, die daraus entnommen wird.

50 Diese Sonntagnacht steht unmittelbar vor dem 20. Paope und fällt daher auf den 3. Sonntag dieses Monats, vgl. Sabbato-kyriakai-Lektionar sa 293L, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.19, f. 49, Schmitz und Mink, Liste 2,2, 743–775 51 Das ist wahrscheinlich das Initium einer Lesung, deren Werktitel nicht notiert wurde, vgl. Emmel, SLC 81, 677.

WD [13]:5 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϫⲘⲡϫⲟ·

Die Sonntagnacht auf die Aussaat (= 3. Sonntag des Monats Paope)50

Kalenderangaben

Wiener Nr. Incipits Nr.

Anhang 2: Tabelle mit den Initien von den Reden Schenutes geordnet nach dem liturgischen Kalender

56 D. ATANASSOVA

—

—

—

—

„Additional Work“ 7

Logos 1, 2, oder 3?, Werk 3

„Additional Work“ 15 WD [14]:7

WD [14]:9

ⲏ ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲗⲟⲅ· Ⲙⲡⲉⲣϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛϩⲁϩ Ⲛⲥⲁϩ—

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 26, typ. frg. B), 674

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. NP [–/–]52r:1 inc. 32, typ. frg. B), 611–612 WD [14]:8 NP [–/–]r:2

ⲚⲛⲉϥⲱϫⲚ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛϭⲓⲋ

„Ein Priester hört nie auf“ [Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲱϫ]ⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ[ⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛϭⲓ]

Predigt: „Hat unser Vater Abraham nicht seine Söhne gezeugt?“ [ⲁ]ⲣⲁ Ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ WD [14]:6 ϫⲡⲉⲛⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ·

„An dieselben Frauen“ ⲡⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲥ·

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 40, typ. frg. B), 678

WD [13]:26 Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 29, typ. frg. B), 676

Predigt: „Die guten Bäume werden vom Landmann nicht verschmäht“ ⲉⲣⲉⲚϣⲏⲛ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲥⲟϣϤ ⲁⲛ WD [13]:24–25 ⲚⲛⲁϩⲣⲘⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲉ·

ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲚϯⲣⲭⲣⲤ⳽ „Welcher Mensch wird sagen“

„Werdet nicht zu“ [ⲏ ⲧⲁⲣ]ⲭⲏ ⲙ[ⲡⲉⲓⲗⲟ] [Ⲙⲡⲉⲣϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛϩⲁϩ Ⲛⲥⲁϩ]

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ⳽

[ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ⳽]

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲩ·

[ⲉ]ϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ·

ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑ

„Additional Work“ 10 ⲉϥϩⲙⲡⲁⲓ

Wahrscheinlich ein Blatt aus der 2. Lage des Kodex.

8.

WD [14]:5 [ⲉϫ]Ⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ·

52

7.

6.

5.

(= Samstagsnachtvorfeier auf Apa-Isaak-Fest am 22. Paope [19. Okt.])

Auf das Fest des Apa Isaak

WD [13]:21 ⲫⲁⲱⲫⲓ Ⲕ ⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲕⲩⲡⲣⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ—

20. Paope (17. Okt.) Das Fest des Apa Kyprianos

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

57

jul.).

53

12.

11.

10.

9.

—

—

—

W79

„Additional Work“ 19

„Additional Work“ 9

„Additional Work“ 8

Logos 8, Werk 24

WD 15:27

Predigt: „Die, die solche Brüder nicht kennen“ ⲛⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ Ⲛϯⲙⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲟⲛ· WD 15:28

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ·

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

Predigt: „Hört nicht auf den Herrn, wenn er in Gleichnissen sagt“ ⲘⲡⲢⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉϥϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ WD 15:26 ϩⲚϩⲚⲡⲁⲣⲁⲃⲟⲗⲏ·

„Die Heiligen Schriften sagen“ ⲛⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ ϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲘⲡⲢϣⲱⲡⲉ·

Emmel, SLC 81–82 (typ. inc. 37, typ. frg. H), 679

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 28, typ. frg. H), 675

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 27, typ. frg. B), WD [14]:34 675

WD [14]:21 Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 13, typ. frg. B), 666

„Das Gesetzt Gottes ist heilig“ (= „Vor der gleichen Rede“) ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉϥⲕⲧⲟ WD 15:29

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲩ ⲗⲟⲅ—

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓ ⲗⲟⲅ·

„Es ist die rechte Zeit, um ein Boot zum Segeln auslaufen zu lassen“ ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲕⲁⲡϫⲟⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ·

„Wahrhaftig, wenn ich denke“ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲗⲟⲅⲩ· ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲱⲥ ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛ ⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

Im Parallelkodex MONB.WA, Wien, ÖNB, P.Vindob. K 9733r, steht der Sonntag auf den Winter (Sprosszeit) unmittelbar vor dem 6. Hathor (2. Nov.

WD 15:25 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϫⲚⲧⲉⲡⲣⲱ·

Die Sonntagnacht auf den Winter (= 1. Sonntag des Monats Hathor)53

WD [14]:29 ⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲗⲱ ⲙⲚⲁⲡⲁ ⲫⲓⲃ· ⲫⲀⲰⲫⲓ· ⲕⲉ—

25. Paope (22. Okt.) Apa Apollo und Apa Phib

WD [14]:18 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ· ⲫⲁⲱⲫⲓ· ⲕⲃ—

Ebenso 22. Paope (19. Okt.) Das Fest des Apa Isaak

58 D. ATANASSOVA

WD 16:4 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲁⲣⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲋ

Die Sonntagnacht auf den Erzengel (= 2. Sonntag des Monats Hathor, Vorfeier auf das Erzengel-Michael-Fest am 12. Hathor [8. Nov.])

15.

14.

13.

W56

—

—

Logos 8, Werk 1

„Additional Work“ 16

„Additional Work“ 13

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ·

[ⲉϥϩⲘ]ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ·

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ WD 16:8

WD 16:9

WD 16:10

Predigt: „O Selig wahrhaftig die, die vorangestellt sind“ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲉⲓⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲱⲥ ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲡⲣⲟϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ

WD 16:11

„Ich lese die heiligen Evangelien“ ϯⲱϣ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‹ WD 16:12

Predigt: „Nun ziemt es sich wiederum für einige zu schweigen“ ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉϣϣⲉ ⲉϣⲧⲘⲣⲱⲟⲩ·

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϢϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ·

Predigt: „Gibt es etwa einen anderen König über dem Herrn Jesus und dennoch hat er sich erniedrigt und dem Vater gehorcht bis in den Tod, einen Kreuzestod, und gibt es etwa einen anderen Anführer (Archon) über Michael“ ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲚϭⲉⲢⲢⲟ ⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲒⲤ ⲁⲩⲱ WD 16:5–7 ϩⲟⲙⲱⲥ ⲁϥⲑⲂⲃⲓⲟϥ ⲁϥⲥⲱⲧⲘ Ⲛⲥⲁⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲤⳁⲞⲤ· ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲚϭⲉⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ⲉⲙⲓⲭⲁⲏⲗ·—

„Der Prophet hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ Ⲛϭⲓⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ·

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 10, typ. frg. H), 651

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 35, typ. frg. H), 678

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 35, typ. frg. H), 678 DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

59

55

54

W37

—

18.

19.

W52 W67 W75

17.

Logos 4, Werk 9

„Additional Work“ 18

Logos 8, Werk 19

Logos 8, Werk 12 oder

Logos 7, Werk 3 oder

W[33] Logos 4, Werk 7

„der Anfang dieses Logos“55

ⲏ ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲗⲟⲅ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ ⲗⲟⲅ⳽‹

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ ⲗⲟⲅⲩ⳽

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

WD [26]:10–11

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 43, typ. frg. F), WD [26]:12 679

WD [25]:21

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. WD [25]:22 inc. 34, typ. frg. F), 645, 658–659, 662

WD [25]:19

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. WD [25]:20 inc. 1, typ. frg. F), 623

„Wohl denen, die das Recht einhalten“ Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. ⲛ[ⲁⲉⲓ]ⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉⲧϩⲁⲣⲉϩ ⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ· WD [26]:13 inc. 4, typ. frg. F), 625

Predigt: „Achtet aber darauf, wie die Heiligen uns über den Baum mitgeteilt haben, der seine Früchte ... gibt“ ϯϩⲧⲏⲧⲚ ϩⲱⲱϥ ⲉⲑⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲁⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡϣⲏⲛ ⲉⲧϯ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲉϥ

„Ich muss ein schmerzendes Wort sagen“ ϯⲛⲁϫⲱ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛⲗⲩⲡⲏ·

Predigt: „Über die ...“ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲧⲉⲱ [...]

Eine Unterweisung ⲟⲩⲉⲝⲏⲅⲏ[ⲥⲓⲥ]54

Predigt: „Die Engel aber, welche zuerst verkündet haben“ Ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲚⲧⲁⲩϣⲢⲡⲧⲁϣⲉ[ⲟⲉⲓϣ]

„Als wir zu predigen begannen“ ϩⲙⲡⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ ⲛⲥⲱⲣ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡϣⲁϫⲉ]

Vgl. die darauf folgenden Zeilen in Rot WD [25]:23–24: ⲙⲟⲩϣⲦ ϩⲘⲡϫⲱⲱⲙ[ⲉ ... Ⲛⲕⲁ]ⲑⲏⲅⲏⲥⲓⲥ, „Suche im Buch ... des Kathegesis“. Ein gutes Beispiel für eine Predigt, dessen Anfang mit dem Beginn des Werkes übereinstimmt.

WD [26]:9 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ·

Ebenso Sonntagnacht (= 2. Sonntag drei Wochen vor Christi Geburt)

WD [25]:9, 15 ϩⲁⲑⲏ⳿ ⲛϤⲧⲟ⳿ Ⲛϩⲉⲃⲇⲟⲙⲁⲥ ⲉⲡϩⲟⲩⲙⲓⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ

Vier Wochen vor der Geburt unseres Herrn; die Sonntagnacht

16.

60 D. ATANASSOVA

W80

W80

22.

23.

W54

21.

Logos 8, Werk 25

Logos 8, Werk 25

Logos 7, Werk 5

„Additional Work“ 16

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϣϩ[ⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ]

WD [27]:8 WD [27]:10

WD [27]:9

„Die Heilige Schrift hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ Ⲛϭⲓⲧⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ ϫⲉⲘⲡⲢ[...] Predigt: „Du hast Söhne“ ⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁⲕ Ⲙⲙⲁⲩ Ⲛϩⲉⲛϣⲏⲣ[ⲉ]

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

Predigt: „Höret und ich sage es durch“ ⲥⲱⲧⲘ Ⲛⲧⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲧⲚ

WD [27]:10

WD [27]:5–6

WD [27]:7

„Die Heilige Schrift hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ Ⲛϭⲓⲧⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ ϫⲉⲘⲡⲢ[...]

Predigt: „Er ist kein Hirte ... wohnt im Haus, das ...“ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲱⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲚ[... ⲟⲩ]ⲱϩ ϩⲘⲡⲏⲓ Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲕ[...]

„Ich wundere mich“ ϯⲣⲙⲟ[ⲉⲓϩ]ⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧϣⲉⲉⲓ ϩ[Ⲛⲛⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ϫⲉⲁ]

WD [27]:4

Emmel, SLC 666

Emmel, SLC 666

Emmel, SLC 646

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. WD [27]:2–3 inc. 41), 679, 682

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ·

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

Predigt: „[...] : Johannes …“ ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ· ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ· [...] ϫⲉⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲥⲟⲟ[...] ⲗⲟⲅ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ‹

56 Obwohl eine liturgische Rubrik zu diesem Fest heute fehlt, ist seine Identifizierung wegen der Platzierung der Schenute-Initien sicher. Die Initien stehen nämlich nach dem 3. Samstag des Monats Koiahk, der der Streitfrage (Zanetti, „Six Typika“ 240, Anm. 30, 289) gewidmet ist, und vor dem 4. Samstag dieses Monats. Vgl. die koptischen Überschriften in MONB.WD, London, BL, Or. 3580A, f. 1v, Zl. 18 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲡⲙⲉϩϣⲟⲙⲚⲧ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ· und Zl. 23 [ⲡⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟ]ⲛ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲍⲏⲧⲏⲙⲁ sowie MONB.WD, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 162r, Zl. 15 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲡⲙⲉϩϥⲧⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛⲋ. Auf den Sonntag weist noch die erhaltene Rubrik für den Wortgottesdienst, der nach der Vigil kommt, hin, vgl. MONB.WD, Paris, BnF, Copte 129.20, f. 162r, Zl. 11 ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ· ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅ[ⲉ].

[Die 3. Sonntagnacht des Monats Koiahk, zwei Wochen vor Christi Geburt]56

—

20.

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

61

W85

—

27.

28.

57

Vgl. hier Anm. 18.

WE 43:27 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲕⲩⲣⲏⲅⲋ

Die Sonntagnacht auf die Verkündigung (des Großen Fastens)57

WD 34:13 ⲧⲩⲃⲓ· ⲁ⳽ ⲛⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲱϣ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ·

W83

26. 1. Tobe (27. Dez.) Die einzelnen Lesungen der Nacht

W51

W56

24.

25.

WD 33:1 ⲟⲙⲁⲓⲱⲥ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲥⲁⲃⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ·

Die Nachtliturgie am 30. Koiahk (26. Dez.) Apa Sabinos der Märtyrer

„Additional Work“ 6

Logos 8, Werk 30

Logos 8, Werk 28

Logos 8, Werk 1

Logos 7, Werk 2

„Schenute schreibt an die Priester“ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ ⲡⲉⲧⲥϩⲁⲓ Ⲛⲛⲉⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ

WD 34:17

„Ich lese die heiligen Evangelien“ ϯⲱ[ϣ ϩ]ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ WD 33:4

Predigt: „Höret das Urteil meines Tadels und …“ ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ Ⲙⲡⲁϫⲡⲓⲟ ⲙⲚⲡⲱⲧ⳽ WD 33:2

„Es gibt noch eine weitere Dummheit“ WD 33:3 ⲟⲩⲚ[ⲕⲉ]ⲙⲚⲧⲁⲑⲏⲧ ⲟⲛ·

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

Predigt: „Die, die Gewalt anwenden und die, die sich verstellen“ ⲡⲉⲧϫⲓⲛϭⲟⲛⲤ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲟⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ

„Wenn es Gott war, der“ ⲉϣϫⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲱⲙⲚ

WE 43:28

WE 43:27

„Wer Böses tut“ ⲟⲙⲟⲓⲱⲥ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲛⲉⲧⲉ[ⲓⲣ]ⲉ ⲛⲘⲡⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲧϩⲩ WD 34:18

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲟⲙⲁⲓⲱⲥ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩ

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲗⲟⲅⲩ·

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ:—

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 25, typ. frg. D), 674

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 16, typ. frg. H), 669

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 14, typ. frg. H), 669

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 10, typ. frg. H), 651

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 8, typ. frg. H), 645

62 D. ATANASSOVA

58

—

W36

30.

31.

W40

Logos 4, Werk 8 („Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“)58

„Additional Work“ 10

Logos 5, Werk 1

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

WE 44:24

WE 44:9–10

WE 44:11

Predigt: „Ich werde noch dieses andere sagen, wobei es ein Freund ist, der es mir gesagt hat, als wir uns anschickten, uns für die 40 Tage zu gürten“ ϯⲛⲁϫⲉⲡⲉⲓⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲟⲩϣⲃⲏⲣ WE 44:25–26 ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϫⲟⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩⲣ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲙⲉ ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ

„Ich denke, dass ihr erkannt habt, dass ich (euch mein Herz als Freund) offenbare“ WE 44:27 ϯⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲉⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱⲛϨ Ⲙ

„Welcher Mensch kann sagen“ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲚϯⲢⲭⲣⲓⲁ ⲁⲛ

Predigt: „Es gibt Dinge, die geschehen, wenn der Mensch sie verspricht, oder wenn er sie nicht verspricht, die ihm zu tun obliegen“ ⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲩϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲣⲏⲧ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ, Ⲏ ⲉϥⲧⲘⲉⲣⲏⲧ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲁⲁⲩ

„Ich sehe euren Eifer“ ⲉⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲚⲟⲩⲣⲟⲧ·

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 3, typ. frg. D)

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 29, typ. frg. D), 676

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 5, typ. frg. D), 628

Laut Emmel, SLC 238, Anm. 293 ist dieses Werk nur ein Teil des 8. Werkes aus dem Logos 4 „Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“.

W44:23 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲁⲩⲱϣ Ⲙⲡⲕⲩⲣⲏⲅⲙⲁ

Die Sonntagnacht, wenn man die Verkündigung (des Großen Fastens) nicht vorträgt

WE 44:7–8 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ϩⲁⲑⲏ Ⲛϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲃⲇⲟⲙⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲱϣ Ⲙⲡⲕⲩⲣⲏⲅⲙⲁ

29. Die Sonntagnacht vor der 3. Woche, damit man die Verkündigung (des Großen Fastens) vorträgt

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

63

NP 61:8 ⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲱϣ Ⲙⲙⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲘⲡϣⲟⲣⲠ ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁ

Das sind ebenfalls die einzelnen Lesungen zu Mittag der ersten (Fasten)woche

WE [47]:35 [...ⲡϣ]ⲁ Ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲡϭⲱⲗ·

NP 59:1 [Ⲛ̄ⲧ]ⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲟⲛ⳿ In jener Nacht auf ihn wieder

Die Vigil am 29. Emschir (23. Feb.), Apa-Pgol-Fest

W44:28 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲟⲛ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲉϩⲙⲉ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ

Ebenso wieder (Sonntagnacht) auf die 40. Tage (das Große Fasten)

—

—

36.

W56

W62

—

35.

34.

33.

32.

ⲟⲙⲟ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗ

ⲟⲙⲟ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲧ ⲑ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

„Additional Werk“ 5 ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

„Eine Lebensweise betreffend“ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲟⲩⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲣⲟⲫⲏ ⲉⲚ

„Das Gesetz Gottes ist heilig“ ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

[ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲟ Ⲛⲛⲟϭ ⲉⲡⲟⲩⲉϩⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]

Predigt: „Was ist das, was größer ist als das Gebot Gottes“ ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲟ Ⲛⲛⲟϭ ⲉⲡⲟⲩⲉϩⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ

„Ich lese die heiligen Evangelien“ ϯⲱϣ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ [ϯⲱϣ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ]

[ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ]

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟ

NP 61:11

NP 61:10

WE [48]:7

NP 59:3

NP 59:5 WE [48]:8

WE [48]:6

NP 59:2

ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

„Es ist gut zu jeder Zeit“ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ

WE 44:29

Predigt: „Und manche in ihrem Unglauben“ ϩⲟⲓⲛⲉ ⲇⲉ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲩⲙⲚⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ

ⲥⲓ[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲑⲋ

WE 44:31

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϢϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ·

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

„Additional Work“ 19 („Vor der gleichen ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲟ Rede“)

Logos 8, Werk 1

Logos 8, Werk 7

„Additional Work“ 16

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 24, typ. frg. C), 674

Emmel, SLC 81–82 (typ. inc. 37, typ. frg. C)

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 10), 651

Emmel, SLC 655

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 41, typ. frg. D), 679, 682

64 D. ATANASSOVA

59

40.

39.

38.

37.

—

W43

—

—

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲟ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

„Additional Work“ 10

Logos 5, Werk 4

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲟ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

„Additional Werk“ 19 („Vor der gleichen Rede“) ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

„Additional Werk“ 18

NP [64]:6

Predigt: „Die guten Bäume“ ⲉⲣⲉⲛϣⲏⲛ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ

„Welcher Mensch wird sagen“ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲟ

NP [64]:7

NP [64]:6

Predigt: „Der Reiche in der Weisheit war/hatte“ ⲁⲡⲣⲘⲙⲁⲟ ϩⲚⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ NP [64]:5

„Du bist gerecht, o Herr“ ⲚⲧⲔⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓ⳿

NP 62:24–25

NP 61:24

Predigt: „Das Gesetz Gottes ist heilig“ ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲁ

„Das Gesetz Gottes ist heilig gemäß dem, das wir gesagt haben in“ ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲛϫⲟⲟϥ ϩⲚ

NP 61:25

„Vor der gleichen Rede“ ϩⲓⲑⲏ Ⲙⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ϫⲉⲟⲩ

Die Seite beinhaltet keine Initien des Schenute und hat die Signatur Rom, BAV, Borgia copto 109, cass. 24, fasc. 108, f. 2r.

NP [64]:4 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲱϣ ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ

NP [63]:2359 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲙⲡⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲋ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲙⲉ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ

Die Sonntagnacht der 2. Woche des 40-tägigen Fastens

NP 62:13 ⲟⲙⲞⲋ· ⲡϣⲟⲣⲠ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲙⲉ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲣ

Eben(so) die 1. Woche des 40-tägigen Fastens, wenn man nicht gegürtet war (keinen Mönchshabit trug)

NP 61:23 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕ¿ ⲘⲡϣⲟⲣⲠ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲋ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲙⲋ

Die Sonntagnacht der 1. Woche des 40-(tägigen Fastens)

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 29), 676

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 7, typ. frg. J), 635

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 38, typ. frg. C)

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 44, typ. frg. C)

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

65

61

60

44.

43.

42.

„Additional Work“ 13

W41

W50

Logos 5, Werk 2

Logos 7, Werk 1

W[33] Logos 4, Werk 7

—

WE 55:4

WE 55:1

Predigt: „Wenn Gott die Dinge wählt“ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲥⲉⲧⲠⲛⲉϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲛ. WE [64]:3

ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

WE [64]:4

WE [63]:29

„Bestimmte Leute sieben Dreck“ ⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛⲙⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ‹

„Ich erinnere mich“61 ϯ{ⲉⲓ}ⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ [Ⲙⲡⲓ] Ⲣⲡⲱⲋ

Predigt: „Ist Christus nicht das Leben und das Licht, wobei er zwischen zwei Dieben war“ ⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲱⲛϨ ⲁⲛ’ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲡⲉ WE 55:2–3 ⲡⲉⲭⲤ ⲉϥϩⲚⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ Ⲛⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲥⲛⲁⲩ

„Als wir zu predigen begannen“ ϩⲘⲡⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁⲣⲭⲉⲒ Ⲛⲥⲱⲣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

Predigt: nicht erhalten

„Der Prophet hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ Ⲛϭⲓⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥⲋ

[ⲉϥϩⲘ]ⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

Ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 6), 632

Emmel, SLC 644

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 1, typ. frg. G), 623

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 35, typ. frg. G), 678

Siehe hier Anm. 28. Bislang war dieses Werk nur aus dem „Wiener Verzeichnis“ als W50 bekannt, vgl. Emmel, SLC 239, 644–645 (XE), Anm. 579, 835.

WE [63]:1 [Ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁ] ⲕⲏ ⲘⲡⲥⲁϣϤ Ⲙ[ⲡϣⲁ]

Sonntagnacht eine Woche nach Ostern (die Osteroktav)

[Palmsonntag]

60

41.

66 D. ATANASSOVA

63

62

47.

46.

45.

—

W41

W36

Logos 8, Werk 22

Logos 5, Werk 2

(„Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“)63

Logos 4, Werk 8

NP 92:4–5

NP 92:6

„Bestimmte Leute sieben Dreck“ ⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛⲙⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲩϣⲟⲗϣⲖ WE 87:13

Predigt: „Ein guter und weiser Vater hat in seinen Briefen gesagt“ ⲁⲩ{ⲟⲩ}ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲁⲅⲁⲑⲋ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲚⲛⲉϥⲥϩⲁⲓ

„Ich denke, dass ihr erkannt habt“ ϯⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ϫⲉⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓⲙⲉ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓⲋ

„Als ich heute in den Proverbien las“ ⲉⲓⲱϣ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚⲘⲡⲁⲣⲣⲟⲓⲙⲓⲁ·

WE 87:14

Predigt: „Glaubt, Brüder, an das, was ich sagen werde“ ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅ· ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩⲉ ⲡⲉϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟϥ WE 87:12

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 19, typ. frg. E), 664

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 6, typ. frg. E), 632

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 3, typ. frg. I)

Diese Seite beinhaltet keine Initien des Schenute, vgl. Ann Arbor, UML, Mich. Ms. 110 + Kairo, IFAO, Copte 225Ar. Laut Emmel, SLC 238, Anm. 293 ist dieses Werk nur ein Teil des 8. Werk aus dem Logos 4 „Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“.

WE 87:7 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉⲡⲏⲡ· ⲏ· ⲡϣⲁ Ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲕⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲛⲁⲭⲱⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ

Ebenso 8. Epep (2. Juli) Das Fest Apa Kyros des Anachoreten

NP 92:3 ⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲱϣ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲉⲡⲉⲩⲟⲣ⳿

NP 91:1662 ⲡⲁⲬⲰⲚ ⲓⲆ ⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲡⲁϩⲱⲙⲟ ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲙⲁⲛⲇⲋ

Die Nacht am 14. Paschons (9. Mai), das Fest des Archimandriten Apa Pachom

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

67

50.

49.

48.

—

—

—

„Additional Work“ 10

„Additional Work“ 16

Logos 1, 2, oder 3?, Werk 5

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

WE 88:25

WE 87:25–26

WE 87:27

WE 88:27

Predigt: „Als unsere Väter viele Trauben ernteten“ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲉⲩϫⲱⲱⲗⲉ ⲥⲙⲁϩ ⲥⲙⲁϩ WE 88:26

„Welcher Mensch wird sagen“ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲚϯⲣⲗ

Predigt: „Und über den Weingarten des Herrn Sabaoth“ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ WE 88:24 ⲥⲁⲃⲁⲱⲑ·

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϢϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ·

Predigt: „Es gibt aber Fliegen, manchmal pflegen sie auf dem Brot zu leben“ ⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛⲁϥ ⲅⲁⲣ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲉⲛⲥⲟⲡ ⲙⲉⲛ ϣⲁⲩⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ·

„Als ich auf einem Berg saß“ ⲉⲓϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲓϫⲚⲟⲩⲧⲟⲟⲩ

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 29, typ. frg. E), 676

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 41, typ. frg. E), 679, 682

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 21), 613

64 Die Sabbato-Kyriakai-Feier, die der Fruchtbarkeit bringenden Nilüberflutung gewidmet ist, steht zwischen dem 16. Epep (10. Juli jul.) und dem Fest des hl. Theodoros des Stratelates am 20. Epep (16. Juli jul.). 65 Vgl. zur Präzisierung der Sonntagsbezeichnung die liturgische Rubrik zum vorhergehenden Samstag in Zl. 19: ⲡⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ.

WE 88:23 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏⲋ

Ebenso die Sonntagnacht (auf die Zeit der Weintraube)65

WE 87:24 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲙⲟⲟⲩ

Die Sonntagnacht auf das Wasser64

68 D. ATANASSOVA

66

W43

—

53.

54.

W84

52.

W56

Logos 5, Werk 4

„Additional Work“ 17

Logos 8, Werk 29

Logos 8, Werk 1

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲋ ⲗⲟⲅ·

ⲉϥϩⲚ66

WE 88:31

WE 88:35

Predigt: „Seht über die Datteln“ ⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲚⲃⲚⲛⲉⲋ

WE 91:18

„Du bist gerecht, Herr“ Ⲛⲧⲕⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲁⲓ WE 91:19 ϯ

Predigt: „Wir haben unsere Türe für die Worte Gottes geöffnet“ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛ Ⲛⲣⲱⲛ ⲉⲛϣⲁϫⲉ WE 88:34 Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ·

„Die Unterweisung über das Sakrament“ ⲧⲇⲓⲇⲁⲥⲕⲁⲗ⟦ⲁ⟧ⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ·

WE 88:32

Predigt: „Ich werde euch auch dieses sagen, als ein Bischof mich gefragt hat“ ϯⲛⲁϫⲉⲡⲉⲓⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ WE 88:29–30 ⲉⲛϩⲟⲥⲟⲛ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲟⲩⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲋ ϫⲛⲟⲩⲓ

„Ich lese die heiligen Evangelien“ ϯⲱϣ ϩⲚⲚⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

„Da man den Teufel verfolgen muss“ ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓⲋ ⲉⲡⲓⲇⲏ ϩⲁⲡⲤ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲡⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲑⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ· („Über die Traubenmenge“)

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

Der Schreiber hat die Überschrift und das Initium nicht voneinander getrennt und alles in Rot geschrieben.

WE 91:17 ⲉϫⲘⲡⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ ⲚⲚⲃⲚⲛⲉ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛϯ ⲉⲡⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ

Auf die Zeit der Datteln, wenn man (sie) an die Versammlung verteilt

WE 88:33 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲘⲡϫⲱⲱⲗⲉⲋ

Ebenso auf die Weinlese

WE 88:28 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲘⲡϫⲱⲱⲗⲉ

Ebenso auf die Weinlese

51.

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 7, typ. frg. A), 635

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 42, typ. frg. E), 679

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 15, typ. frg. E), 669

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 10, typ. frg. E), 651

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

69

68

67

57.

56.

W67

W53

W51

Logos 8, Werk 12 („Wer sind die denn, die so etwas sagen“)

Logos 7, Werk 4

Logos 7, Werk 2

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

Ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

WE 92:7–8

„Eine Unterweisung angesichts derjenigen, die die Mönche (verbatim: die, die gegürtet sind) schmähen“ ⲟⲩⲉⲝⲏⲅⲏⲥⲓⲥ ⲚⲛⲁϩⲣⲚⲛⲉⲧⲛⲟϭⲛⲉϭ WE 92:11 ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲙⲏⲣ ⲋⲘⲠⲈⲤⲬⲎⲘⲀ

Predigt: „Wir sollen aber lesen, was für uns geschrieben steht: »Der die Quellen durch die sendet«68“ ⲉⲛⲱϣ ⲅⲁⲣ Ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲚⲘⲡⲩⲅⲏ ϩⲚⲚⲉⲓⲁ

„Gut, dass ihr gekommen seid“ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲛ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ WE 92:9

Predigt: „Wer bereitet sich nicht auf alles vor, wenn er in die Fremde gehen wird“ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲙⲉϥⲥⲂⲧⲱⲧϤ ⲕⲁⲧⲁϩⲱⲃ WE 92:4–5 ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϥⲛⲁ ⲉⲡϣⲘⲙⲟ·

„Es gibt noch eine weitere Dummheit“ WE 92:6 ⲟⲩⲚⲕⲉⲙⲚⲧⲁⲑⲏⲧ

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 11, typ. frg. A), 81, 658

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 9, typ. frg. A), 645

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 8, typ. frg. A), 645

Vgl. die liturgische Rubrik zu dem vorhergehenden Samstag in Zl. 29: ⲡⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ· ⲉϫⲚⲧⲁⲛⲁⲃⲁⲥⲓⲥ Ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲉⲣⲟ· Vgl. Ps 103,10.

WE 92:10 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲁⲧⲣⲉⲡⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲱⲕ ϩⲚⲚⲉⲓⲟⲟⲣ·

Ebenso nachdem das Wasser in die Flüsse geflossen ist

WE 91:34 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ ⲟⲛ ⲉϫⲱϥ

Ebenso der Sonntag wieder darauf (auf den Aufstieg des Flusswassers)67

55.

70 D. ATANASSOVA

WE 93:18 Ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏⲋ

70

69

61.

60.

59.

58.

—

—

—

—

„Additional Work“ 18

„Additional Work“ 16

„Additional Work“ 3

„Additional Work“ 6

Ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

WE 92:13–14

WE 92:15

Predigt: „Wenn die Schrift sagt: »Sie sind abgewichen«70“ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲁⲩⲣⲓⲕⲉⲋ

WE 93:21

WE 93:22

WE 93:19

Predigt: „Als andere aber wieder bestürzt waren“ ϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲢ ⲙ „Ich muss ein schmerzendes Wort sagen“ ϯⲛⲁϫⲱ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛⲗⲩⲡⲏ

WE 93:20

„Der Herr ist langmütig“ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲁⲣϢϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉⲋ

Predigt: „Nachdem der gute Gott uns züchtigte“ WE 92:17–18 ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ Ⲛⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲁⲧⲣⲉϥⲡⲁⲓⲇⲉⲩⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲛ

„Wenn der, der spricht, sagt“ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲉⲧϣⲁϫⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ Ⲛ WE 92:19

Predigt: „Sind wir etwa nicht angewiesen, die Lehre anzunehmen, obwohl sie mühevoll ist“ ⲙⲏ ⲚⲧⲚⲏⲡ ⲁⲛ ⲉϣⲱⲡ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲃⲱ ⲕⲁⲛ ⲉⲥϩⲟⲥⲉ›

„Wenn es Gott war, der“ ⲉϣϫⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲱⲙⲛ·

Vgl. die liturgische Rubrik des vorherstehenden Samstags ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲉ Ⲙⲡⲥⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲉϫⲚⲚϩⲁⲉⲉⲩⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ— Vgl. Ps 13,3 oder Ps 52,3 u.a.

WE 93:12 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏⲋ

Sonntagnacht (auf die letzten Tage des Jahres)69

WE 92:16 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲚⲧⲗⲓⲯⲓⲇⲣⲓⲁ ⲁⲛⲁⲃⲁⲥⲓⲥⲋ

Ebenso auf den Wasseraufstieg

WE 92:12 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲁϫⲚⲧⲗⲓⲯⲓⲇⲣⲩⲁ ⲁⲛⲁⲃⲁⲥⲓⲥ

Ebenso ohne den Wasseraufstieg

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 43, typ. frg. G), 679

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 41), 679, 682

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 22, typ. frg. A), 673

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 25, typ. frg. A), 674

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

71

71

66.

W41

Logos 5, Werk 2

„Additional Work“ 1

Logos 8, Werk 14

„Additional Work“ 12

„Additional Work“ 14

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥⲋ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

WE 93:31

Predigt: „Es ziemt sich aber wahrhaftig sich zu fürchten und“ ϣϣⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲱⲥ ⲉⲢϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ WE 94:30

„Bestimmte Leute sieben Dreck“ ⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛⲙⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲩϣⲟⲗϣⲖ WE 94:31

„Seht, wie viele Lampen wir angezündet haben“ ⲁⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉⲁⲛϫⲉⲣⲉⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲚϩⲏⲃⲤ WE 94:11 Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲟⲩϣⲏ ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲡⲙⲁ Ⲣⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲋ

„Wir wollen nun auch zurechtweisen“ ⲙⲁⲣⲚϫⲡⲓⲟ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲧⲏϩ ϩⲚ WE 93:33

„Was bedeutet es für uns“ ⲞⲨ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲓϩⲓⲥⲉ` ⲁⲩⲱ

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 6, typ. frg. G), 632

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 17, typ. frg. G), 673

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 12, typ. frg. G), 659–660

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 33, typ. frg. G), 678

„Gott, der wahre Richter“ Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ Ⲙⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲚⲀ WE 93:29–30 inc. 39, typ. frg. G), ⲚⲚⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧϫⲏⲩ ⲚϭⲟⲛⲤ› 678

Vgl. die liturgische Überschrift in Zl. 3: ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲩ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ›.

WE 94:25 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉϫⲘⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲁⲥⲙⲟⲥ Ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ

Die Nachtwache (Vollvigil) auf die Weihe einer Kirche

WE 94:8 ⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ Ⲛⲧⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ·

—

W69

—

63.

64.

—

62.

Die Sonntagnacht 65. (wenn der 50. Tag ist)71

WE 93:32 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲚⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩ Ⲛⲗⲟⲓⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲉ ⲅⲉⲛⲉⲧⲟ

Ebenso auf einen Pesttod. Was nicht geschehen möge!

WE 93:28 ⲉϫⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲉⲃⲉⲱⲛ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲉ ⲅⲉⲛⲉⲧⲟⲋ

Auf die Hungersnöte, wenn sie geschehen werden Was nicht geschehen möge!

72 D. ATANASSOVA

73

72

69.

—

—

—

„Additional Work“ 3

(wie Nr. 67)

„Additional Work“ 13

Vgl. Ex 19,6; 23,22, 1 Pt 2,9. Vgl. Jes 41,15.

WE 95:16–17 ⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲱϣ ⲉⲧⲧⲟⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲟϣⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϣⲁⲣⲉⲡⲇⲟⲩⲝ ⲉⲓ›

Das sind ebenfalls die einzelnen Lesungen, die angemessen sind, vorzutragen am Tag, 68. an dem der Dux kommt

67. WE 95:19

WE 95:23

WE 95:22

Predigt: „Die Räder mit gezacktem Rand“73 Ⲛⲕⲟⲧ ⲚⲣⲁⲚⲃⲁϣⲟⲩⲣ

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

WE 95:20–21

„Wenn der, der spricht, sagt“ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲉⲧϣⲁϫⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲥ

Predigt: „Gott hat Königtum und Priestertum vereinigt so wie geschrieben steht“72 ⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲧⲢ ⲚⲧⲘⲚⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲙⲚⲧⲘⲚⲦⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ·

(wie Nr. 67)

Predigt: „Dem Besitztümer anvertraut sind, um sie zu bewahren“ ⲡⲉⲧⲟ Ⲛϩⲟⲧ ⲉϩⲉⲛⲭⲣⲏⲙⲁ ⲉϩⲁⲣⲉϩ WE 95:18 ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ

„Der Prophet hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ Ⲛϭⲓⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϫⲉ·

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓ›

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 22, typ. frg. G), 673

Emmel, SLC 79, 81 (typ. inc. 18, typ. inc. 35, typ. frg. G), 678

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 35, typ. frg. G), 678

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

73

„Additional Work“ 3

W37

—

74.

W36

„Additional Work“ 13

Logos 4, Werk 9

Logos 4, Werk 8 („Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“)75

W[34] Logos 4, Werk 8

—

73.

72.

71.

70.

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 2, typ. frg. G), 624

Emmel, SLC 80, Anm. 126 (typ. inc. 22, typ. frg. G), 673

Predigt: „Gott hat Königtum und Priestertum vereinigt“ ⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲧⲢ ⲚⲧⲙⲚⲦⲉⲣⲟ ⲙⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ

„Der Prophet hat gesagt“ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ Ⲛϭⲓⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ

WE 96:16–17

WE 96:18

„Wohl denen, die das Recht einhalten“ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲟⲩ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧϩⲁⲣⲉϩ ⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ WE 96:14

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 35; typ. frg. G), 678

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 4, typ. frg. G), 625

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. „Ich denke, dass ihr erkannt habt, dass inc. 3, typ. frg. G), ich euch mein Herz als (Freund) 238, Anm. 293; 624 offenbare“ ϯⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ϫⲉⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓⲙⲉ WE 96:12–13 Quecke, „Ein Pachomiuszitat“ ϫⲉⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱⲛϨ Ⲙⲡⲁϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲚ 159, 163. ϩⲱⲥⲋ

WE 96:11

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅ ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

WE 96:9

Predigt: „Einerseits viele Worte und viele“74 ϩⲁϩ ⲙⲉⲛ Ⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲁϩ „Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“ ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲧⲉⲕⲘⲚⲧⲣⲘⲚϩⲏⲧ

WE 96:10

„Wenn der, der spricht, sagt“ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲉⲧϣⲁϫⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲥ

ⲉϥϩⲘⲡⲁⲓⲋ

74 Obwohl das Initium identisch mit typ. inc. [32] ist, gehört diese Predigt nicht zu diesem Werk, sondern zum typ. inc. 22, vgl. Emmel, SLC 80 (T22 frg. c), Anm. 126. 75 Laut Emmel, SLC 238, Anm. 293 ist dieses Werk nur ein Teil des 8. Werkes aus dem Logos 4 „Ich habe von deiner Weisheit erfahren“.

WE 96:15 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲚϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲙⲚϩⲉⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲟⲩⲥⲟⲡⲋ

Ebenso auf Priester und Würdenträger gemeinsam

WE 96:8 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ Ⲛⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲱϣ ⲉⲧⲧⲟⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲟϣⲟⲩ

WE 96:1–2 ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ϩⲉⲛⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲙⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲧⲁⲩⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ

Und wenn Magistrate (Archon) und Statthalter (Hegemon) zu uns gekommen sind, sollten sie das Folgende auf sie vortragen.

74 D. ATANASSOVA

—

—

80.

81.

—

W56

78.

79.

W79

W40

—

77.

76.

75.

„Additional Work“ 11

„Additional Work“ 17

[vielleicht Logos 5, Werk 2]76

Logos 8, Werk 1

Logos 8, Werk 24

Logos 5, Werk 1

„Additional Work“ 2

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅ

ⲉϥϩⲚ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲏ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲩⲑⲋ ⲗⲟⲅⲋ

WE 97:14

WE 97:13

WE 97:12

WE 96:34

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 10, typ. frg. G), 651

Emmel, SLC 79 (typ. inc. 13, typ. frg. G), 666

Emmel, SLC 78 (typ. inc. 5, typ. frg. G), 628

Emmel, SLC 80 (typ. inc. 20, typ. frg. G), 673

WE 98:5

„Welcher körperlich Kranke“ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲟⲩⲚⲟⲩϣⲱⲛⲉ WE 98:7–8 ϩⲘⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣ

Predigt: „Selig sind wir, wenn wir die Stimme hören“ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲚ ⲉⲛϣⲁⲛⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲧⲉⲥⲙⲏ

„Die Unterweisung über das Sakrament“ ⲧⲇⲓⲇⲁⲥⲕⲁⲗⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛⲋ WE 98:6

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. inc. 30, typ. frg. G), 677

Emmel, SLC 82 (typ. inc. 42, typ. frg. G), 679

Emmel, SLC 81 (typ. „Glaubt, Brüder, was ich sagen werde: inc. 36, typ. frg. G) es ist nicht in meinen Sinn gekommen“ ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲡⲉϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟϥ WE 97:15–16 ϫⲉⲘⲡⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲁϩⲏⲧ

„Ich lese die heiligen Evangelien“ ϯⲱϣ ϩⲚⲚⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

„Wahrhaftig, wenn ich denke“ ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲱⲥ ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ

„Ich sehe euren Eifer“ ⲉⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲚⲟⲩⲣⲟⲧ

„Wenn ich sage, dass ihr mich liebt“ ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚⲟⲩⲁϣⲦ› Ⲏ ϫⲉϯⲟⲩ

76 Es scheint, dass ein Teil von Logos 5, Werk 2 als selbständiges Werk überliefert wurde. Hier haben wir vier Predigten (Nr. 76–79), deren Beginn mit dem Anfang des Werkes übereinstimmt. Es besteht auch die Möglichkeit, dass der Schreiber vergessen hat, den Werktitel zu notieren.

WE 97:27 ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲧⲁⲩⲉⲧⲁⲓⲋ

Und wenn es wiederum Priester alleine sind, sollst du vortragen die folgende

WE 97:5 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲚϩⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ Ⲛⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲋ ⲉⲁⲩⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲋ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲩⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲋ

Ebenso auf Väter der Gemeinschaft (Äbte), die zu uns mit ihren Mönchen gekommen sind

WE 96:26 ⲟⲙⲟⲋ ⲉϫⲚϩⲉⲛⲣⲘⲙⲁⲟ ⲉⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉϭⲙⲡⲉⲛϣⲓⲛⲉ

Ebenso auf Reiche, die kommen, uns zu besuchen

DIE PREDIGTEN SCHENUTES IN DEN LITURGISCHEN TYPIKA

75

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE (LA SYNAGOGUE DES JUIFS) VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ (L’ÉGLISE DES NATIONS) DANS LE DISCOURS DE CHÉNOUTÉ, BLESSED ARE THEY WHO OBSERVE JUSTICE SYDNEY H. AUFRÈRE et NATHALIE BOSSON

En 2018, Stephen Emmel rappelait la portée extraordinaire et les difficultés des écrits de l’archimandrite Chénouté1. L’œuvre, intitulée Discours en présence d’Héraclammon d’après le ms. copte 1 de l’Ifao (fol. 59v–73r) publié par Émile Chassinat en édition diplomatique2 ou, selon la désignation par incipit établie en langue anglaise, Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice (ci-après abrégé Blessed Are They), ne saurait démentir le contenu de cette synthèse. Le passage qui nous intéresse ici est tiré du neuvième discours du livre 4 des Discours de Chénouté3. Si le texte est connu dans sa version complète, il en existe d’autres fragments plus ou moins longs4, dont un publié par Johannes Leipoldt sous le titre De modestia clericorum et magistratuum5. Dans sa version intégrale du ms. 1 de l’Ifao, le texte court sur vingt-sept pages. L’incipit ⲛⲁⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉⲧϩⲁⲣⲉϩ ⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ ⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲧⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ’ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ « Bienheureux ceux qui veillent au jugement, qui pratiquent la justice en tout temps », est une citation du Psaume 105:36. En travaillant sur Blessed Are They7, discours scindé en deux parties qui comprend, dans la seconde, une violente diatribe contre la Synagogue des Juifs, laquelle repose le problème d’un antijudaïsme chrétien au début du Ve siècle – Michael Foat à qui l’on doit une traduction en anglais va jusqu’à parler d’une attaque au vitriol contre cette Synagogue des Juifs8 –, nous avons repéré un passage nécessitant un éclairage spécifique et y avons vu une opportunité de

1

Emmel 2018. Voir Chassinat 1911: 126–153 ; Emmel 2004: 625 (13.2.9), 818–819 table 111. 3 Sur le livre 4 des Discours, cf. Emmel 2004: 243–254 (7.3). Nous remercions vivement Zlatko Pleše qui nous a réorientés concernant des points de nomenclature des Discours de Chénouté. 4 Cf. note 3. 5 Leipoldt 1908: 33–37 (no 15). 6 La justice telle que l’entend Chénouté est considérée au prisme du paradigme biblique. Voir notamment Amélineau 1889: 193–198. Il envisage jusqu’à la corruption pour convaincre un juge intègre. 7 Aufrère et Bosson, à paraître. 8 Ms. Ifao copte 1, f. 69r58–69v51 = p. 145–146. Voir Foat 1993: 116. Cette longue charge contre la Synagogue des Juifs reste difficile à contextualiser. 2

78

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

reconsidérer certains détails en vue de témoigner de notre amical respect à l’égard du dédicataire de ce volume. Les recherches effectuées ces dernières années ont montré, s’il en était besoin, que les images empruntées à l’environnement nilotique de Chénouté ne sont interprétables, dans cette Égypte traditionnelle, que sous réserve de comprendre des observations naturalistes ou des pratiques culturales dont les habitants du pays – population éminemment rurale – étaient familiers. Ainsi, il nous a déjà été donné de mettre en lumière le caractère exceptionnel de certaines descriptions de Chénouté, en l’occurrence sur le cobra cracheur et la falaque9, dont les exemples se multiplient à l’envi pour qui se penche avec acribie sur ses écrits. Toutes ces descriptions détaillées, qui s’inscrivent toujours dans une perspective édifiante, moralisante, sont autant de témoignages précieux sur la vie quotidienne d’alors, ses us et coutumes. C’est cet aspect concret que nous avons souhaité mettre en lumière dans cet article, en nous attachant exclusivement à décrypter la technique viticole décrite avec des termes fort courants, et partant difficile à déceler, et non le message sous-jacent. Il ne sera pas non plus question du produit de la vigne, à savoir le vin, ses différents crus, ses emplois, le traitement parfois exceptionnel qu’en fait Chénouté10. Précisons brièvement le contexte. Dans la seconde partie de Blessed Are They, Chénouté enchaîne douze figures d’accumulation rhétoriques sous forme de paraboles dépréciatives au détriment de la Synagogue des Juifs et en faveur de l’Église des Nations. Le caractère a posteriori détestable de cette parabole ne peut être compris que sous le prisme de l’explication du procédé cultural qui n’apparaît qu’en filigrane en première instance, puis s’impose pleinement à l’esprit en seconde instance avec une force accrue, véhiculée par des termes précis, bien que ceux-ci ne relèvent nullement d’un vocabulaire technique dévolu à la pratique de la viticulture mais du vocabulaire usuel. Afin de mieux percevoir comment est utilisé cet extrait dans l’économie générale du texte de Chénouté, il n’est pas inutile de détailler l’articulation de cette seconde partie : 1. L’Église versus le paganisme, les faux Chrétiens et les Juifs 2. Le dessèchement des Juifs 9

Voir respectivement Aufrère 2008, et Aufrère, sous presse ; Aufrère et Bosson 2009. Sur le vin, devenu un produit de base dans l’Égypte de l’Antiquité tardive, et son usage au sein des communautés monastiques, voir les trois articles fondamentaux de Dzierzbicka 2005, 2010 et 2016. Voir également la très belle étude de Freu 2015. L’un des passages parmi les plus remarquables sur l’emploi métaphorique du vin chez Chénouté – qui le réservait pour les malades (voir entre autres Crislip 2005: 28–29, 74) –, est sans nulle doute la liste des vins produits à l’époque, qui servent à décrire différents types de personnes. Ce catalogue d’analogies, parmi les plus détaillés, figure dans You, O Lord, quatrième discours du Discours 5 : voir Emmel 2004: 636–638 (13.3.4) et 830–832 (table 115) ; et l’étude de Dana Robinson (2016), plus spécialement 146–147 et 156–158. Voir également le traitement du vin frelaté chez Chénouté dans López 2013: 90–94. 10

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

79

3. Les îles 4. Le vêtement resplendissant 5. La ville privée de remparts 6. L’Église est un rempart 7. Les seins-tours de la fiancée 8. Le plat gaspillé 9. Le pied de vigne 10. Le Christ Roi et l’Église Reine 11. Les trois bagues 12. La Synagogue et l’Église I. TEXTE, TRADUCTION ET DESCRIPTION C’est au neuvième rang qu’est abordée cette parabole exploitant une antithèse exacerbée entre l’image d’un vieux pied de vigne et celle d’un sarment issu de lui, respectivement promis à la destruction et à un brillant avenir, opposition dans laquelle on décèle l’expression sous-jacente de pratiques de la viticulture qui ne concernent aujourd’hui plus que de rares régions épargnées par le phylloxéra ou ne pouvant être atteintes par cet insecte ravageur en raison de la nature sablonneuse du sol. Par souci de clarté et pour mieux percevoir le génie rhétorique de Chénouté, le texte copte, suivi de sa traduction littérale dénuée de tout élément interprétatif, a été séquencé de la manière suivante : ⲛⲑⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲟⲛ’ ⲛⲟⲩⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲥ’ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ, ⲉⲁⲩⲥⲉⲕ ⲟⲩϣⲗϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲥ ⲉⲁϥⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ’ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϥϣⲓⲏ’, ⲁⲩϫⲟϥ’ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ, ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲣ’ ⲛⲟϭ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥϫⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ’ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, ⲁϥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ’ ⲃⲣⲣⲉ ⲙⲙⲏⲛⲉ, ⲁϥⲡⲱⲣϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁϥⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ’ ⲛⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ’ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲉⲥϣⲗϩ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲥϩⲁⲃⲉⲥ’ ⲁⲥⲣ ϩⲟⲩⲟ, ⲧⲃⲱ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲥ ⲁⲥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ ϩⲗⲗⲱ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲕⲁ ϭⲟⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲣ ⲁⲧⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ’ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲣ ⲁⲥ’, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ, ⲁⲩϣⲁⲁⲧⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡϣⲗϩ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ ⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲃⲱ,

80

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲃⲗⲃⲱⲗⲥ ⲁⲩϥⲓⲧⲥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲱϥ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲁⲁⲥ’ ⲛϣⲙⲙⲟ’ ⲉⲣⲟϥ, ⲧⲁ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ’ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲇⲁ, ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ’ ⲛⲛϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲁⲥϯ ⲉⲑⲏ’, ⲧⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲥϯ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲥⲣ’ ⲁⲥ’ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ’ ⲁⲥⲣ’ ϩⲟⲩⲉ’ϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ’ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ, ⲁⲩϣⲁⲁⲧⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ’ ⲛⲧⲕⲁⲑⲟⲗⲓⲕⲏ’ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ’, DE MÊME QU’UN TRÈS BEAU PIED DE VIGNE DONT ON A TIRÉ UN SARMENT qui, ayant augmenté en longueur, fut enfoncé en terre et qui, une fois qu’il eût forci et se fût enraciné, s’est mis à croître jour après jour, s’est épanoui, est devenu un très grand pied de vigne aux multiples sarments et dont l’ombre s’est accrue, tandis que le pied en question s’est mis à vieillir, à s’affaiblir, à être infructueux, à être âgé, et à s’approcher de l’état de dépérissement, (en sorte qu’)on l’a retranché du sarment devenu un grand pied (de vigne), puis qu’on l’a arraché et écarté de lui, et rendu étranger à lui, AINSI EN VA-T-IL DE LA SYNAGOGUE DES JUIFS : l’Église des Nations a progressé, tandis que cette dernière a régressé et est vraiment devenue vieille, s’est à tel point approchée de l’état de dépérissement qu’on l’a retranchée de l’Église universelle. Dans cette parabole, on s’aperçoit qu’à l’aide de termes triés sur le volet, Chénouté peint une image formidable enchâssée dans une phrase que ne renierait pas René Descartes. Dans la traduction, nous avons pris soin de respecter la structure de la première sentence, formant une très longue période rythmée par les deux éléments introduisant une figure rhétorique de similitude, « de même que… » (ⲛⲑⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲟⲛ’) … « ainsi en va-t-il de » (ⲧⲁ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ), centrée sur le rapport ⲟⲩⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ / ⲧⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ’ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲇⲁ, qui englobe toute la problématique de l’opposition de deux éléments : le TRÈS BEAU PIED DE VIGNE et le SARMENT détaché dudit pied (ⲧⲃⲱ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲥ), qui sert de sujet de rappel. La stratégie rhétorique de Chénouté consiste, par cette longue phrase, à mettre en relief une pratique spécifique de la viticulture antique, avant de décocher la flèche du Parthe, en assimilant le vieux plant à la Synagogue des Juifs, puis en explicitant cette comparaison entre le pied de vigne devenu improductif et le sarment devenu un jeune plant fructifère, afin d’opposer violemment SYNAGOGUE DES JUIFS et ÉGLISE DES NATIONS. Il nous a semblé nécessaire de revenir sur cette allégorie ampélographique, dans la mesure où elle n’a fait l’objet d’aucune tentative d’interprétation, ni de la part de Michael Foat dans sa traduction et son commentaire de Blessed Are They, ni de tout autre chercheur.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

81

Pour recadrer le développement de cette figure de rhétorique, détaillons le texte en insistant sur les termes choisis à dessein par Chénouté dans les dix étapes du processus décrit, lequel consiste en des observations sur les phases de croissance et des opérations culturales. À ces dix étapes s’ajoute la conclusion que l’on assimilera, pour les besoins de la démonstration, à une onzième étape (voir infra) : Première étape (observation) : repérage d’un TRÈS BEAU PIED DE VIGNE (ⲟⲩⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲥ’ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ). Deuxième étape (opération humaine) : on réserve (sous la plume de Chénouté on « tire, recueille » ⲥⲱⲕ) un SARMENT (ⲉⲁⲩⲥⲉⲕ ⲟⲩϣⲗϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲥ) ayant suffisamment poussé (ⲉⲁϥⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ’ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϥϣⲓⲏ). Troisième étape (opération humaine) : on enfonce ce SARMENT en terre (ⲁⲩϫⲟϥ’ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ). Quatrième étape (processus naturel) : ce SARMENT forcit (ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲣ’ ⲛⲟϭ), s’enracine (ⲁϥϫⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ’ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) et croît (ⲁϥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ’ ⲃⲣⲣⲉ ⲙⲙⲏⲛⲉ). Cinquième étape (processus naturel) : le SARMENT s’épanouit (ⲁϥⲡⲱⲣϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) en tant que provin (ou marcotte ?) et devient un TRÈS GRAND PIED DE VIGNE (ⲁϥⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ’ ⲛⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ) doté de nombreux sarments (ⲉⲛⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲉⲥϣⲗϩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲥϩⲁⲃⲉⲥ’ ⲁⲥⲣ ϩⲟⲩⲟ). Sixième étape (constatation) : dans l’intervalle, le PIED en question (ⲧⲃⲱ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲥ) s’est mis à vieillir (ⲁⲥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ ϩⲗⲗⲱ), à être fatigué (ⲛⲕⲁ ϭⲟⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ), à être infructueux (ⲛⲣ ⲁⲧⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ) et âgé (ⲛⲣ ⲁⲥ), au point de s’approcher du stade du dépérissement (ⲛϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ). Septième étape (opération humaine) : on le sépare alors du SARMENT devenu lui-même un GRAND PIED (ⲁⲩϣⲁⲁⲧⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡϣⲗϩ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ ⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲃⲱ). Huitième étape (opération humaine) : on arrache (ⲁⲩⲃⲗⲃⲱⲗⲥ) la souche mère. Neuvième étape (opération humaine) : on écarte la souche mère du pied vif (ⲁⲩϥⲓⲧⲥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲱϥ). Dixième étape (constatation conclusive tirée du processus cultural) : désocialisée, rejetée à l’extérieur de la vigne pour être éliminée, la souche mère est ainsi devenue étrangère au nouveau pied vif (ⲁⲩⲁⲁⲥ’ ⲛϣⲙⲙⲟ’ ⲉⲣⲟϥ). Onzième étape (conclusion et enseignement de la parabole). II. DESCRIPTION ET ANALYSE DU PROCESSUS Le lectorat de Chénouté Cette description s’avère spectaculaire par sa minutie. Elle permet d’étudier précisément des pratiques culturales de la vigne attestées durant la basse antiquité, puisque de l’Égypte ancienne rien, à notre connaissance, ne permet de

82

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

percer les techniques de propagation de la vigne qui est conduite, en règle générale, sur treille ou pergolas11. Or, la vigne a connu une extension à ce point phénoménale à l’époque romaine12 en sorte que, selon Christel Freu, « à l’époque byzantine le vin avait fini par remplacer la bière traditionnelle comme boisson courante : vins de qualité, vins de consommation ordinaire, voire piquette tournant rapidement au vinaigre, toute la gamme de la production viticole se retrouvait en Égypte et tous les nomes, quoique de façon très inégale, étaient lieux de production viticole »13. La situation n’avait pas changé du temps de Chénouté, qui s’adressait à des gens pour qui les pratiques viticoles étaient une seconde nature ; ainsi comprenaient-ils à demi-mot14. D’ailleurs, pour faire écho aux propos de Christel Freu15, l’archimandrite, dans le souci d’une œnophobie antidionysiaque, n’hésita pas à dévaster avec ses moines les vignobles des propriétaires terriens de la région d’Akhmîm qui recouraient à des vignerons chrétiens et leur payaient des gages misérables16. Il alla même jusqu’à incendier les vignes d’un lieu-dit ⲡⲓⲓⲁϩⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ (« Le vignoble »), dont les villageois buvaient manifestement plus de vin que de raison17. Reprenons donc ces étapes sous l’éclairage de deux pratiques culturales conjointement employées : le marcottage par couchage simple (aussi dit « en archet ») ou par enfouissement complet – il n’est pas question ici de bouturage ou de greffage, deux autres modes de multiplication possible. Ces deux techniques, attestées pour différentes espèces de plantes dans l’Antiquité tardive, sont également observables à partir des fouilles archéologiques des vignes romaines en France et ailleurs. Il faut préciser qu’elles font l’objet de traditions qui, de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne, sont exposées avec des divergences notables, de sorte qu’il est difficile d’avoir une vision claire de la succession des opérations. Les terminologies variant d’un auteur à l’autre nous retiendrons ici le terme de marcottage en archet pour désigner la technique consistant à enterrer la partie médiane d’un sarment dans un trou et de laisser dépasser

11

Sur la viticulture en Égypte ancienne, voir Murray 2000 ; Tallet 1998 ; Tallet 2008 ; Durand 2016 ; Redon et al. 2017 ; Redon 2019. 12 Sur la question de la viticulture en Égypte romaine, voir l’ouvrage de Ruffing 1999. Pour ce qui nous intéresse, on verra notamment le chapitre consacré à la viticulture (170–226). 13 Freu 2015: 65. On précisera que cet article est très bien documenté sur la viticulture en Égypte romaine et sur les contrats de μίσθωσις τῶν ἔργων, relatifs aux travaux sur vignoble, au salariat viticole. 14 Rappelons que Chénouté, à en croire Bésa (Vita § 3), était un natif d’un village appelé Shenalolet, « Plant de vigne », possiblement un epoikion. Ainsi ne pouvait-il qu’être familier de tout ce qui touchait à la viticulture et à la viniculture. Sur Shenalolet, dont l’identification à Šandawīl reste problématique, voir Timm 1991: 2282–2284. 15 Freu 2015, évoque les « besoins des propriétaires non exploitants désirant contrôler, à moindre frais, le travail sur des terres hautement rentables » (74), et les salaires relativement bas alloués aux vignerons sous contrat (77). 16 Amélineau 1889: 313 ; Anagnostakis 2016: § 29. 17 Amélineau 1889: 317 ; Anagnostakis 2016: § 29.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

83

l’extrémité hors de terre ; et de provignage – terme exclusivement dévolu à la vigne –, pour désigner un autre type de marcottage consistant en l’enfouissement total du sarment (voire de plusieurs sarments ou de la souche tout entière)18. Le meilleur ouvrage écrit sur la viticulture au XIXe siècle, bien que parfois un peu confus, est sans doute le Traité de la vigne de Ludovic Portes et F. Ruyssen, paru à Paris en 1889. Les auteurs abordent tous les sujets avec une précision d’orfèvres, en recueillant les traditions auprès de spécialistes. Cependant, pour la vigne telle que Chénouté l’envisage, il faut avoir présents à l’esprit les ouvrages des auteurs anciens : en premier lieu celui de Columelle (1re moitié du Ier siècle), mais aussi de Caton l’Ancien (234–149 av. J.-C.) et de Pline l’Ancien (23–79 apr. J.-C.)19 ; de même l’ouvrage de Raymond Billiard, La vigne dans l’Antiquité qui, bien que publié en 1913, reste d’une immense richesse et un guide général précieux des techniques de l’Antiquité, et les trois études fondatrices de Jean-Pierre Brun (2003 et 2004) où l’auteur, dans une approche interdisciplinaire, s’appuie aussi bien sur l’archéologie que la littérature, l’épigraphie, l’art, l’ethnographie et la science20. Première et deuxième étapes (observation et opération humaine) Choix du pied et élection du sarment D’emblée, il faut remarquer que la vigne nécessite un entretien assidu pour éviter sa dégénérescence et son dépérissement, point auquel aboutit notre auteur 18 Ces deux techniques de marcottage, dont « Columelle précise les avantages et les inconvénients », se concurrençaient : voir Toupet et Lemaître 2003: 216, qui emploient les terminologies de « provignage aérien » pour le marcottage en archet, et de « provignage souterrain » pour le provignage proprement dit (cf. § 12). La définition de Landry 2019: § 9, reste sommaire : « Le marcottage consiste à reproduire un végétal en faisant prendre racine à l’une de ses ramifications, que l’on désolidarise par la suite du plant-mère. » La définition de marcottage par le cntrl (centre national de ressources textuelles et lexicales) n’est pas plus précise : « Procédé de reproduction asexué des végétaux consistant généralement à faire développer des racines à une tige, une branche ou une tige à des racines, puis à les séparer de la plante mère afin d’obtenir une plante autonome » ; de même pour le provignage, considéré comme un synonyme de marcottage. Le Littré distingue, quant à lui, le marcottage de tous les sarments ou de plusieurs d’entre eux, qu’il nomme provignage, du marcottage d’un seul sarment qu’est la sautelle. Chez Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 98, le provignage désigne l’enfouissement complet de la souche tout entière et non un seul ou plusieurs sarments. Etc. 19 Le De re rustica en douze livres de Columelle, seul ouvrage qui nous soit parvenu de cet auteur, est connu pour être la source d’information la plus importante sur l’agriculture romaine, dont un quart est consacré à la viticulture. Columelle s’est inspiré du De agricultura de Caton, œuvre pionnière mais moins systématique que celle de son successeur. Pline l’Ancien, pour sa part, a consacré un livre entier (Naturalis historia XIV) à la viticulture et la viniculture. 20 On consultera avec profit la récente monographie de Dodd 2020, riche source d’informations sur la production de vin et la technologie des pressoirs dans la Méditerranée romaine tardive, antique tardive et byzantine, et tout particulièrement les parties 1.3 et 1.4 (7–21), résumant respectivement l’histoire de la recherche et la littérature des auteurs anciens.

84

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

à la sixième étape ; et même, la croissance de la vigne doit être modérée, afin de ne pas périr elle-même de sa propre surproduction21. Dans l’une ou l’autre des deux pratiques qui nous intéressent ici, les viticulteurs doivent repérer au préalable dans une vigne un pied plus vigoureux que les autres. Ce repérage n’est pas chose aisée si l’on en croit Columelle : ce doit être le pied d’une vigne féconde, en vertu de critères spécifiques22. Sur cette base, on choisit un sarment – Chénouté : « dont on a tiré un sarment » (ⲉⲁⲩⲥⲉⲕ ⲟⲩϣⲗϩ  ⲛϩⲏⲧⲥ) – qui s’est étendu en longueur – Chénouté : « ayant augmenté en longueur » (ⲉⲁϥⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ’ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϥϣⲓⲏ). En effet, ce n’est que sous réserve d’être suffisamment long et souple, et manipulé dans des conditions particulières (climatiques notamment), que le sarment peut se plier à l’étape suivante. Troisième étape (opération humaine) : marcottage en archet ou provignage ? La marcotte Une fois le sarment élu, plusieurs techniques peuvent être employées dans la reproduction de la vigne. Comme nous l’avons souligné ci-dessus, deux d’entre elles nous concerne plus particulièrement : le marcottage en archet, utilisé pour toute plante à rameaux souples, mais qui présente le désavantage d’épuiser la souche mère ; le provignage, technique exclusive à la viticulture, plus rentable mais plus coûteux23. De la marcotte simple, faite d’un seul sarment, l’agronome Louis Liger (1658–1717) précise : Rien n’est plus aisé que de marcotter la vigne. Pour y réüssir, il faut choisir une branche de vigne qui sorte directement de la souche, avant que la vigne commence à pousser : on fait en terre un trou profond de treize à quatorze pouces dans lequel on couche doucement cette branche sans l’éclater, de maniere que la plus grande partie étant enterrée l’extremité d’en haut en sorte de la longueur de quatre ou cinq pouces seulement. La partie qui est enterrée est celle qui prend racine, & lorsqu’on est assuré que la marcotte est enracinée, on la sépare de la souche, ce qui se fait au mois de Mars de l’année suivante. On se sert des marcottes pour planter ailleurs & garnir quelques places vuides, & on marcotte ordinairement les muscats, les chasselas & autres raisins curieux 24.

Cette technique du marcottage, plus minutieusement décrite par Columelle, nécessite de redresser avec précaution l’extrémité du sarment pour ne pas le 21

Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, livre 4, 3. Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, livre 3, 6, en particulier : « On ne doit avoir aucun doute sur la fécondité d’une vigne dont les sarments ont justifié de leur bonne nature par plusieurs années consécutives d’excellente production. » 23 Voir à ce sujet Le Mené 1971: 81. 24 Liger 1715: 384–385. 22

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

85

briser ou l’éclater. Il s’agit d’une opération délicate, qui n’a rien d’aisé contrairement à ce que pense Liger : La seule bonne méthode de plantation est celle que nous avons donnée dans le livre précédent, et qui consiste à coucher les marcottes dans une fosse pratiquée dans un terrain bien labouré à la houe, vers le milieu de la tranchée, de manière à dresser le plant depuis ce point jusqu’au sommet de l’excavation, pour l’attacher ensuite à un roseau. On aura soin surtout de ne pas rendre cette tranchée semblable à une auge, mais de la tailler perpendiculairement et de lui donner des angles bien droits. En effet, un plant étendu et comme couché sur les parois d’une auge, est exposé à des blessures quand on vient à le déchausser ; car, lorsque le fossoyeur s’applique à creuser profondément dans le cercle qu’il trace pour le déchaussement, il atteint souvent cette vigne inclinée, et quelquefois même la coupe entièrement. N’oublions donc pas de tenir droit depuis le fond de la fosse le sarment bien soutenu, et de le conduire ainsi jusqu’en haut25.

Le vocabulaire de Chénouté, comme toujours, est d’une grande précision : ainsi dit-il « planter en terre » (ϫⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ), la technique requérant de « coucher en terre » ou d’« enfoncer en terre » le sarment marcotté26. Pour ce faire, il est impératif que celui-ci soit d’une longueur suffisante et bien placé, ni trop haut sur le cep ni au bout d’un bras27. Au cours de cette opération où le sarment doit être courbé avec précaution, on le place dans la fosse, que l’on recouvre de terre de surface bien tassée, puis on y ajoute si possible une corbeille de fumier, et l’on recouvre le tout de terre de surface ameublie et fortement tassée28. L’ensemble du dispositif ainsi marcotté prend le nom de sautelle.

25

Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, Livre 4, 4. Columelle (De l’agriculture, I, Livre 3, 6) explique longuement comment doit être choisi le sarment : « Il y a deux choses à considérer dans le choix du plant : il ne suffit pas que la mère à laquelle on emprunte la race soit féconde, on doit être guidé par un motif plus délicat qui fera prendre sur les parties du cep les rameaux producteurs, et parmi ceux-là les plus fertiles. Or, on ne doit pas considérer comme féconde la vigne dont on recherche la progéniture, par cela seul qu’elle produit beaucoup de grappes : car cette abondance peut provenir, ou de l’étendue du cep ou de la multiplicité de ses sarments ; on ne pourra pas dire néanmoins qu’une vigne est fertile lorsqu’elle ne présente qu’une grappe sur chacun de ses rameaux : mais si chacun d’eux est chargé de plusieurs raisins, si sur le bois nombreux chaque bourgeon fructifie, si enfin il sort du tronc des sarments qui donnent quelques fruits, et si les rejetons des pampres eux-mêmes produisent beaucoup, on peut sans hésiter préférer cette vigne pour y cueillir des marcottes. La marcotte est un jeune sarment né sur un scion de l’année précédente : on la nomme mailleton, parce que la partie du vieux bois qu’on laisse de chaque côté lorsqu’on l’en détache, présente l’apparence d’un petit maillet. Nous pensons que, sur une vigne très féconde, il faut choisir les marcottes à toutes les époques où on la taille ; on les enfoncera soigneusement en terre médiocrement humide, mais non marécageuse, de manière que trois ou quatre de leurs bourgeons s’élèvent au-dessus du sol. Il est, au reste, bien entendu que la vigne mère ne doit pas être sujette à perdre sa fleur, ni produire des grains qui ne se développent qu’avec peine et qui mûrissent avant ou après l’époque convenable : car, dans le premier cas, ils sont dévorés par les oiseaux ; dans le second, ils ont à souffrir des intempéries de l’arrière-saison ». 27 Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 94. 28 Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 95. 26

86

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

Fig. 1. Toupet et Lemaître 2003: 216, fig. 5a.

Le provignage Néanmoins, on peut penser que les moines d’Atripé ne dédaignaient pas un second processus cultural, à savoir le marcottage par enterrement complet d’un sarment, procédé connu sous le nom de « provignage souterrain » en fosses (ou logettes), de deux pieds et demi de profondeur, remplies de fumier comme le précise Columelle, avec une terre soigneusement ameublie29. Christel Freu 29 Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, Livre 4, 1. Le sol compact étouffe les radicelles : Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, Livre 4, 4.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

87

rappelle que « les vignobles étaient souvent, mais non toujours, sur terres inondées irrégulièrement : ainsi les lots de terre appelés χωρίον »30. Il fallait donc régulièrement défoncer la terre. La technique même du provignage est parfaitement attestée d’après les papyrus : elle y est désignée par le terme d’ἀπωρυγισμός, un travail qui réclamait le recours à des spécialistes, au même titre que la plantation et la taille des plants31. Cette technique de creusement de fosses, difficile à reconnaître dans un contexte archéologique, se présente de la manière suivante : « la forme de ces fosses [qui devaient accueillir des arbres ou des arbustes] peut concorder avec le provignage de pieds de vigne : cette technique de marcottage souterrain consiste à coucher un cep de vigne dans une fosse et à faire pousser plusieurs de ses sarments pour en faire de nouveaux pieds »32. Ces tranchées de provignage souterrain sont encore très visibles dans des plantations de vignes du Haut-Empire à Béziers, Lunel-Viel33 et ailleurs en France34. La souche couchée donne des drageons ou gourmands35 que l’on recueille pour les replanter. Toutefois, ce procédé peut aussi résider dans le couchage d’un sarment bas de la souche mère dans une rigole jusqu’à ce que celui-ci prenne racine36, tel que le précise Billiard : « Il consiste, en principe, à faire enraciner un sarment qui est encore attenant à la souche, et qu’on destine à devenir un cep nouveau, soit qu’il reste attaché au pied mère, soit qu’on le rende autonome en l’en retranchant »37. Selon lui, cette technique est employée soit pour densifier un vignoble fait, soit pour renouveler des vignes trop vieilles. Dans tous les cas, le provignage était extrêmement efficace : « les vignes se continuaient ainsi sans solution de continuité pendant un nombre considérable d’années »38. Quelle technique  ? Dans la parabole, il faut se rendre à l’évidence que le provignage d’un seul sarment ou le marcottage en archet peuvent se confondre. En effet, Chénouté évoque la plantation en terre (ϫⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ) du sarment, mais enchaîne directement sur le processus d’enracinement et de croissance de celui-ci, sans préciser s’il y a eu relèvement de son extrémité ou si ce dernier était entièrement couché en terre. Le sachant attaché à décrire minutieusement les us et 30

Freu 2015: 67, n. 6. Freu 2015: 76. 32 Landry 2019: § 8. 33 Ferdière et al. 2000: 247, fig. 2. 34 Landry 2019. 35 Toupet et Lemaître 2003: 216. On parle aussi de « cabus ». 36 https://multimedia.inrap.fr/archeologie-preventive/Ressources-multimedias/Dossiers-multimedias/Archeologie-de-la-vigne-et-du-vin/C-est-quoi-le-vin-/Culture-de-la-vigne/p-13243-Latechnique-du-provinage.htm#.YE Xyqi17Qjc. 37 Billiard 1913: 271. 38 Billiard 1913: 272. 31

88

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

coutumes qu’il invoque, celle du provin vient davantage à l’esprit, nous semble-t-il, que celle de la sautelle, car l’on ne saurait prétendre que les Égyptiens eussent confondu ces techniques culturales, quand bien même les calendriers égyptiens du Moyen Âge en arabe expliquent à propos de la vigne qu’on plante les sarments (quḍbān) à partir du 23 octobre39, sans autre explication. La question a cependant peu d’importance, les fouilles sur d’anciennes zones viticoles montrant clairement que le marcottage et le provignage étaient employés concurremment40. Ainsi Chénouté, pour faire image, emploie-t-il l’idée du provignage, ou du marcottage en archet, car dans les deux cas la césure d’avec le plant mère s’impose à l’esprit des connaisseurs de la viticulture, outre que les nouvelles pousses, dans un système comme dans l’autre, « sont strictement identiques au pied maternel »41, point important dans le cas de la figure de rhétorique de notre auteur. Sans le dire explicitement, cela lui permet de réaffirmer l’unité de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. Or, l’obsolescence du plant mère, en viticulture, n’est pas irrémédiablement programmée. Dans la parabole au contraire, le plant mère, la Synagogue des Juifs, se condamne elle-même par son refus de reconnaître le Christ, et doit être par conséquent retranchée afin d’éviter la perte du plant fils, l’Église des Nations. Cette idée force sera explicitement formulée à la dixième étape (cf. infra), avant de conclure sur la leçon de la parabole, à savoir la préséance du christianisme, qui s’est substitué au judaïsme selon le dessein de Dieu. Quatrième et cinquième étapes (processus naturels) : l’enracinement de la marcotte En écrivant ⲁϥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ’ ⲃⲣⲣⲉ ⲙⲙⲏⲛⲉ, « il en est venu à se ranimer42 jour après jour », Chénouté décrit le prochain stade de l’opération lorsque les radicelles du plant ont poussé, lui évitant ainsi d’être dépendant de la souche mère, processus de croissance du provin (ou de la sautelle) dont les effets sont visibles au quotidien (ⲙⲙⲏⲛⲉ). Puis le vigneron voit le provin ou la sautelle grandir jusqu’à devenir un pied de vigne semblable à la souche mère. Chénouté disposait-il d’un terme spécifique pour désigner le provin ou la sautelle, qui lui aurait permis d’être encore plus explicite ? Cette différence de technique lui importait-elle réellement dans cette parabole ? Toujours est-il que pour croître, le 39 Pellat 1986: 16. Dans son explication, Pellat (n. 11) indique : « Peut-être faut-il comprendre : “les tuteurs” ». Mais il est logique, à cette époque-là de l’année, d’y voir des marcottes ou des provins. 40 Garcia 2014: 70, fig. 5. Voir aussi Toupet et Lemaître 2003: 216, fig. 5. 41 Toupet et Lemaître 2003: 216. 42 On pourrait traduire ⲣ’ ⲃⲣⲣⲉ (ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι) par « s’animer », car l’idée est que le plant de vigne marcotté se ranime dès qu’il fait ses radicelles.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

89

sarment demande des soins très particuliers afin qu’il ne fasse justement pas trop de bois et ne soit pas trop luxuriant, sans pour autant être coupé à ras de terre, car les plants n’y survivraient pas43. Dans ces deux étapes, Chénouté décrit simplement mais précisément l’évolution du sarment provigné (ou marcotté) au moment où, le processus cultural ayant réussi, il est devenu un pied de vigne doté à son tour de nombreux sarments, indice d’une vigne fructueuse, pourvue de pampre prodiguant une ombre généreuse protégeant les grappes du soleil et à l’abri de laquelle les hommes peuvent vendanger. Sixième et septième étapes (constatation et opération humaine) : le dépérissement de la souche mère Le dépérissement du vieux plant La vigne, non entretenue comme il convient, vieillit et dépérit. Certaines pratiques culturales entraînent l’épuisement de la vigne (au cas où elle serait mal taillée) et provoquent l’attaque des pathogènes ; d’où il résulte le dépérissement du pied. La pratique du provignage elle-même n’est pas sans risque pour la mère et la fille. En croissant, le provin, devenu autonome en ayant ses propres racines, n’a plus besoin d’être associé à la souche mère. Il doit en être séparé (Chénouté emploie l’expression verbale ϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, « couper, trancher, séparer »44) au moment opportun par le viticulteur à l’aide d’un outil tranchant en fer, une sorte de serpe spécifique, qu’on appelle la falx vinitoria (ou δρέπανον ἀμπελουργόν)45.

Fig. 2. Falx vinitoria.

43

Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, livre 4, 11. Chénouté joue peut-être, sinon sans doute aussi sur l’un des sens de ϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ qui, selon les contextes, peut exprimer l’excommunication. 45 de Saint-Denis 1953 ; Amouretti 1988: 11–12 ; Daremberg et Saglio 1896, s.v. « Falx » 969b : « Columelle a décrit avec détail la falx vinitoria, dont on trouve la représentation dans plusieurs manuscrits de son livre (fig. 2865). Dans la serpe du vigneron, la partie la plus voisine du manche s’appelle culter  ; celle qui est recourbée s’appelle sinus  ; celle qui descend de la courbure, scalprum  ; celle qui la suit et qui est crochue, rostrum, celle qui surmonte cette dernière en forme de demi-lune, securis, enfin celle qui forme pointe sur le devant, mucro. Chacune de ces parties a ses fonctions particulières : pour couper, on se sert du culter, pour tirer à soi, du sinus, pour unir la plaie, du scalprum. » En copte, le δρέπανον est rendu par les termes ⲥⲏϥⲉ, ⲟϩⲥ ou ϫⲉⲗⲕⲟⲩ, et sert notamment à vendanger les grappes de la vigne en Apocalypse 14:18. 44

90

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

C’est le moment du sevrage. Le magnifique passage de Portes et Ruyssen, portant sur la sautelle, facilite mutatis mutandis l’accès à la pensée de Chénouté : La sautelle vit d’abord exclusivement, puis partiellement de la mère, le supplément étant fourni par les ressources qu’elle parvient à se créer elle-même, aux dépens du sol, une fois ses racines formées. Le grand, et à peu près le seul avantage de cette pratique, c’est que la sautelle, bien soignée, donne, la même saison, de 2 à 4 raisins, ce qui a fait dire qu’« elle paye son maître dès la première année. » Le malheur est qu’elle le paye le plus souvent aux frais de la mère, ce qui, par exemple, « dans des terrains secs et peu fertiles, et avec des souches âgées, les fatigue tellement qu’elles dépérissent et meurent. La sautelle reste elle-même chétive, d’où il résulte une double perte, au lieu d’une place regarnie. » L’inconvénient est moindre avec des vignes jeunes et luxuriantes, qui ont de la force pour deux : mais il n’est point établi qu’il soit nul46.

Les auteurs montrent qu’il faut choisir le bon moment pour séparer la sautelle de la souche mère. Ni trop tôt, ni trop tard. Tout est question de contingence et de flair vigneron. Ils s’accordent pour dire qu’une « union trop prolongée affaiblit à la fois la mère et la fille, ou que, l’une, tout au moins, des deux, se trouve sacrifiée »47. Chez Chénouté, si on considère le problème avec les yeux du viticulteur, le risque de chétivité du plant neuf a été écarté, car le sarment est devenu un très beau plant possédant génétiquement toutes les qualités originelles de la souche mère. Or, dans la pensée de l’auteur, ce n’est pas le plant fils qui a provoqué l’épuisement de la souche mère, comme on l’a vu, mais bien la souche mère qui, par sa posture, s’est épuisée, condamnée elle-même. Huitième et neuvième étapes (opération humaine) : l’arrachage de la souche morte Ainsi, l’archimandrite subvertit en partie le processus du provignage pour le plier à sa figure de rhétorique, bien que Columelle conseille d’enlever les marcottes des rangs de vigne pour ne pas épuiser ces derniers : On ne laissera pas trop longtemps les marcottes dans les vignes, de peur qu’elles n’en épuisent les forces et ne nuisent aux ceps des lignes. Plus tôt les vignes sont délivrées de la société des marcottes enracinées, plus facilement elles prospèrent48.

Car si les marcottes, dès qu’elles sont enracinées, mettent certes en danger la vitalité des pieds de vigne dont elles ne sont pas séparées – cela vaut aussi pour 46

Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 96. Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 96. 48 Columelle, De l’agriculture, I, livre 4, 16. Portes et Ruyssen 1889: 96, précisent toutefois que certains estimaient qu’il valait mieux laisser en l’état les choses et faire la nature, l’un rendant à l’autre ce qu’il lui avait donné, sans dépérir pour autant. 47

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

91

les provins –, leur dépérissement n’est pas irrémédiable, contrairement à l’arrachage irrémissible de la Synagogue des Juifs. Le vignoble en foule Le caractère définitif de l’arrachage de la souche mère induit dans le discours de Chénouté une nouvelle notion, dans la mesure où de la pratique traditionnelle du provignage ou du marcottage on peut déduire l’existence d’un vignoble en quinconce, c’est-à-dire d’un « vignoble en foule ». Il s’agit là d’une vigne

Fig. 3. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viticulture_en_Égypte#/media/Fichier: Palmeraie,_fruitier_et_vigne_dans_l’oasis_d’Al-Bagawat.jpg

92

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

qui se propage de façon anarchique, telle que mise en évidence par les traces archéologiques, où l’on reconnaît sur le terrain des « traces complexes avec des fosses en U, en T, en H, en étoile, etc. »49 De fait, les densités de plantation de la vigne s’expliquent par suite du marcottage, en association avec un échalassage (moyen de palissage simple50 ou double) qui est une des méthodes de conduite de la vigne51. Une tombe-chapelle de la nécropole chrétienne de Bagawat – le mausolée dit de l’Exode –, dans l’Oasis de Kharga, contemporaine du IVe siècle, montre, dans une scène où apparaissent Adam et Ève, un pied de vigne haut et noueux qui semble échalassé sur le côté droit52 ou éventuellement un pied de vigne haut anciennement échalassé, suffisamment solide pour n’avoir plus besoin de support53. Dans cette iconographie, évoquant le jardin d’Éden, la vigne est représentée par un seul pied, de la même façon que la palmeraie est évoquée par un seul palmier. La tradition égyptienne médiévale est encore parlante. Les calendriers arabes égyptiens indiquent que le 6 janvier, « jour du Baptême, on échalasse les vignes »54. Cette technique est donc toujours pratiquée au Moyen Âge. Mais les treilles ne sont pas exclues du décor de ces chapelles chrétiennes, et peut-être faut-il penser, dans le discours de Chénouté, à des vignes échalassées55. Chénouté dépeindrait ainsi une pratique viticole où les vieux pieds de la « vigne en foule », qui n’exclut pas les tentatives d’alignement, doivent être déchaussés, déracinés et enlevés pour laisser la place aux marcottes devenues des plants robustes. Le plant neuf, nourri de la souche mère qu’il épuise, chasse peu à peu cette dernière. Les pratiques culturales n’ont probablement pas changé depuis l’époque pharaonique en sorte que la description de Chénouté pourrait correspondre à une pratique de l’Antiquité tardive56. Cependant, si les 49

Garcia 2014: 75. Des traces vivantes de ce « vignoble en foule » sont encore attestées dans la région de Tokaj (Tokay), en Hongrie ; des vignobles archaïques comme avant le phylloxera ont été reconstitués de façon expérimentale dans les domaines Moët et Chandon. 50 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Échalas_(botanique)#/media/Fichier:Echalas_seyssuel.jpg. 51 Amouretti 1988: 12–13. 52 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viticulture_en_Égypte#/media/Fichier:Nécropole_chrétienne_ de_l’oasis_d’Al-Bagawat.jpg ; https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viticulture_en_Égypte#/media/ Fichier:Palmeraie,_fruitier_et_vigne _dans_l’oasis_d’Al-Bagawat.jpg. 53 Selon Pline (Hist., XVII, 35, 25) : les vignes échalassées « ne doivent pas dépasser la taille ordinaire d’un homme ». 54 Pellat 1986: 156. 55 Cela n’empêche pas Pline (Hist. XVII, 34, 26) d’évoquer des vignes rampantes en Égypte, en sorte qu’on vendange sur le sol. 56 La vigne égyptienne était appréciée à Rome, comme le montre la réputation des vignobles mareotica, mareotida, mareotis. En 1955, il existait six cépages en Égypte : binaouti, belledy, fayoumi, habachi, mahallaoui et shittaoui (Müller 1955: 9). Mais seuls le belledy et fayoumi seraient apparemment des survivances des cépages anciens (Müller 1955: 10). Les vieilles vignes du Fayoum montraient encore les traces de pratiques culturelles traditionnelles : « à cause de sa très faible productivité, le fayoumi est relégué à l’arrière-plan des cépages indigènes ; il ne survit que dans les vieilles vignes du Fayoum où les façons culturales n’ont guère évolué depuis l’ère pharaonique » (Müller 1955: 10). On n’ira pas jusqu’à prétendre que celle-ci remonte à l’époque

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

93

pratiques de foulage sont bien connues, qui restent traditionnelles encore à l’époque gréco-romaine57, les pratiques culturales égyptiennes de la basse Antiquité demeurent totalement opaques, d’un point de vue archéologique s’entend. Cependant, au vu de la description de Chénouté, l’influence culturale grecque semble ici prépondérante58. La substitution Le procédé cultural évoqué traduit la substitution du pied vif à la souche mère épuisée. Chénouté simplifie naturellement le procédé sans le rendre dans son intégralité, seules les opérations principales servant sa démonstration, car d’autres sont nécessaires pour que le provignage/marcottage soit assuré sans risque pour la souche mère. Ainsi, l’ajout indispensable de fumure favorise l’enracinement et la croissance du provin (ou de la marcotte) et empêche que le plant neuf tire uniquement ses forces de la souche mère. Dans la réalité, la mère ne dépérit que sous l’effet néfaste de provignages/marcottages successifs et mal conduits. Dans le cas du « vignoble en foule », dès que le viticulteur constate qu’une souche mère a dépéri, celle-ci doit être arrachée et écartée pour ne pas gêner la croissance des autres plants. Dixième étape (constatation conclusive) : par arrachage, la souche mère (Synagogue des Juifs) est rendue étrangère au pied de vigne (Église des Nations) Dernière étape Cette étape, la plus violente, traduit l’exclusion de la Synagogue. La métaphore est complétée dans la dernière figure où, ayant été extraite et rejetée aux abords de la vigne, la souche mère (la Synagogue des Juifs) est rendue étrangère au pied de vigne (l’Église des Nations). Cette idée d’étrangeté de la vigne intervient plusieurs autres fois chez Chénouté, notamment vers la fin de Blessed Are They, toujours à propos de la Synagogue des Juifs contre laquelle Chénouté en appelle à Jérémie 2:21 où Israël, fait d’un cépage de choix, abandonne Dieu pour devenir une vigne étrangère : « Tout homme à tous égards pieux au début, s’il finit par devenir impie, la Parole s’indigne contre cette âme (en disant) : Comment as-tu pu te changer en amertume, ô pied de vigne devenu étranger  !59 pharaonique, car la pratique culturale attestée en Égypte ancienne est d’ordinaire la treille ou la pergola. Sur les pratiques connues, on renverra à Tallet 1998. 57 Sur les opérations traditionnelles de foulage du raisin, voir Dzierzbicka 2005 ; Redon et al. 2017. 58 Sur les techniques vinicoles grecques, voir Boulay 2012. 59 Jr 2:21.

94

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

– cela étant60 surtout accompli pour la Synagogue des Juifs qui n’a pas eu foi en son roi, Jésus »61. Le sentiment d’amertume, conséquence du rejet du Christ par la Synagogue des Juifs, fait figure d’expression littéraire, accentuée par Chénouté lorsqu’il poursuit en disant : « Celle qui était douceur est devenue amertume. Celle qui était vivante est morte »62. Symétrie de la figure de rhétorique Il est important de relever, en une symétrie rhétorique, l’opposition entre les deux descriptions du sarment devenu provin puis un beau pied de vigne aux nombreux sarments, et la souche mère devenue infructueuse et dépérissante : entre ⲁϥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ’ ⲃⲣⲣⲉ ⲙⲙⲏⲛⲉ et ⲁⲥⲉⲓ’ ⲛⲣ ϩⲗⲗⲱ. Tandis que le jeune sarment en est venu à se ranimer (ⲃⲣⲣⲉ) jour après jour, la souche mère en est venue à vieillir (ϩⲗⲗⲱ). Onzième étape : enseignement de la parabole Retrancher la souche mère versus retrancher le provin Le dernier paragraphe de la parabole, en passant de la métaphore ampélographique à la démonstration sophistique, conclut en résumant la situation sous la forme d’une structure chiasmatique, – quod erat demonstrandum –, à savoir le progrès de l’Église des Nations (ⲁⲥϯ ⲉⲑⲏ’) et la régression de la Synagogue des Juifs (ⲁⲥϯ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ). Cette opposition est soutenue par une reprise appuyée : Dixième étape ⲧⲃⲱ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲥ

Onzième étape ⲧⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ’ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲇⲁ

ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲥⲣ’ ⲁⲥ’ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ’ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲣ ⲁⲥ’, ⲁⲥⲣ’ ϩⲟⲩⲉ’ϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ’ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ, […] ⲁⲩϣⲁⲁⲧⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡϣⲗϩ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ ⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲃⲱ ⲁⲩϣⲁⲁⲧⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ’ ⲛⲧⲕⲁⲑⲟⲗⲓⲕⲏ’ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ’ et à être âgé, et à s’approcher de l’état de dépérissement […] qu’on l’a retranché du SARMENT devenu UN GRAND PIED (DE VIGNE)

et est vraiment devenue vieille, s’est à tel point approchée de l’état de dépérissement qu’on l’a retranchée de l’ÉGLISE UNIVERSELLE

En accord avec Ariel Shisha-Halevy, nous interprétons ⲉϥϫⲏⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ comme une forme circonstancielle plutôt que focalisée. 61 Voir le passage copte dans Chassinat 1911: 151–152 (= f. 72r43–72v5). La citation, tirée de Jérémie 2:21 (ⲧⲃⲱ ⲛⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲥⲣ ϣⲙⲙⲱ), est abordée dans un article d’Anne Boud’hors paru en 2015 (24–25), qui a analysé cette citation dans l’œuvre de Chénouté. 62 Voir le passage copte dans Chassinat 1911: 152 (= f. 72v24–27). 60

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

95

Chénouté inverse volontairement la procédure, car d’ordinaire c’est le plant neuf qu’on retranche de la souche mère à l’aide d’un outil en fer pour le planter ailleurs, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’une pépinière. Mais là, bien au contraire – sophisme ! –, c’est la souche que l’on retranche du plant, qui occupe dès lors le rang principal dans l’opposition. La parabole du chant de la vigne d’Isaïe et la parabole du vrai cep de Jean La parabole de Chénouté renvoie apparemment à deux autres paraboles. La première est le Chant de la vigne d’Isaïe (5:1–7), à caractère prophétique, où le vigneron se plaint que, malgré tout le travail qu’il y a investi, la vigne produit de mauvais raisins, en sorte qu’il la détruit par tous les moyens. Car cette vigne du Seigneur, c’est la maison d’Israël, et les gens de Juda le plant qu’il chérissait. La deuxième, qui rappelle celle d’Isaïe, rejoint la parabole du vrai cep (ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή) dans l’évangile de Jean 15:1–8, vrai cep qui symbolise le Christ : « Je suis le vrai cep, et mon Père est le vigneron. Tout sarment qui est en moi et qui ne porte pas de fruit, il le retranche ; et tout sarment qui porte du fruit, il l’émonde, afin qu’il porte encore plus de fruit. » Ainsi, de même que la Synagogue des Juifs (= la souche mère de vigne) a été retranchée de l’Église des Nations (le sarment provigné), le sarment du vrai cep (le Christ) qui ne porte pas de fruit en est retranché par le Père (le vigneron), tandis que celui qui fructifie fait l’objet de ses soins. Si on ne peut nier la convergence entre ces deux paraboles ampélographiques, et y déceler l’origine même des propos de Chénouté, on arrêtera là la comparaison pour rester sur le terrain spécifique de l’ampélographie égyptienne et de l’antithèse Synagogue des Juifs versus Église des Nations. Naturellement, ce n’est pas par hasard que Chénouté propose cette image, qui est en quelque sorte une subversion du provignage (ou marcottage en archet). Dans une vigne en foule, le plant vif reste, et la souche mère est éliminée. Chénouté qui, selon la Vita Sinuthii, est originaire du village de Chenalolet (« La vigne, le Cépage ») dans le district d’Akhmîm63, est prédisposé à connaître dans les moindres détails les principes de la viticulture, sans oublier que les fouilles récentes des annexes du Couvent Blanc ont révélé l’existence de pratiques viticoles attachées à la communauté. Lorsque tombe la conclusion comme un couperet, instillant insidieusement dans les esprits ladite théorie de la substitution (ou supersessionisme64, faisant de « l’Église universelle » le 63

Timm 1991: 2282–2284, s.v. « Šandawīl » ; Peust 2010: 81–82. Voir Foat 1993: 116–117, qui tente d’amoindrir cette position supersessioniste de Chénouté, somme toute extrême. 64

96

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

« nouveau peuple de Dieu »), on ne peut manquer d’avoir présente à l’esprit l’idée d’une justification a posteriori de l’exclusion des Juifs d’Alexandrie au temps de Cyrille. Chénouté s’y montre même étonnamment péremptoire, affiche une position extrême, en concluant sa vindicte par l’idée de « retranchement » irrémissible de la Synagogue des Juifs d’avec l’Église des Nations ; son auditoire ne pouvait en effet ignorer l’un des autres sens de l’expression verbale ϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ qui peut traduire le principe de l’excommunication.

Bibliographie Amélineau, Émile 1889. Les moines égyptiens. Vie de Schnoudi. Annales du musée Guimet 1. Paris. ——. 1895. Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe et Ve siècles, t. 4, fasc. 2. Paris. Amouretti, Marie-Claire 1988. « La viticulture antique : contraintes et choix techniques ». Revue des Études Anciennes 90/1–2, 5–17. Anagnostakis, Ilias 2016. « Trois raisins de Dionysos byzantin ». In : Le saint, le moine et le paysan. Mélanges d’histoire byzantine offerts à Michel Kaplan, édité par Olivier Delouis, Sophie Métivier, Paule Pagès, 1–27. Byzantina Sorbonensia 29. Paris. En ligne : https://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/37612?lang=fr#ftn95 Aufrère, Sydney H. 2008. « Une description naturaliste de Naja nigricollis nigricollis (Naja à col noir) chez Chénouté (ms. Ifao copte I, 10v21–11v44) ». In : Études coptes 10. Douzièmes journées d’études (Lyon, 19–21 mai 2005), édité par A. Boud’hors et C. Louis, 215–228. Cahiers de la Bibliothèque copte 16. Paris. ——. à paraître. « Retour sur le cobra cracheur Naja nubiae Wüster & Broadley, 2003. Une observation d’aujourd’hui au regard de plusieurs descriptions de la littérature égyptienne et copte d’hier ». Aufrère, Sydney H., et Bosson, Nathalie 2009. « Moniales récalcitrantes et violence éducative (falaque) au Deir el-Abyad d’après un passage du Canon 4 de Chénouté (Paris, Bnf 1301) ». In : Clémence et Châtiment, édité par S.H. Aufrère et M. Mazoyer, 31–48. Coll. Kubaba, Série Actes. Paris. ——. à paraître. « Relire Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice de Chénouté d’Atripé. Discours 4 (ms. Ifao copte 1, f. 59v–73r4 = p. 126–153) : du concile d’Éphèse (431) à la diatribe contre la Synagogue ». Bagnall, Roger 1999. « The Date of P.Kell. I G. 62 and the Meaning of χωρίον ». Chronique d’Égypte 74, 329–333. Bell, David N. 1983. The Life of Shenoute by Besa. Introduction, Translation, and Notes by David N. Bell. Cistercian Publications 73. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Billiard, Raymond 1913. La vigne dans l’Antiquité. Lyon. Boud’hors, Anne 2015. « Le rôle des sermons dans l’histoire du texte de Jérémie en copte-sahidique ». In: Digitale Edition der koptisch-sahidischen Septuaginta (I). Fragestellungen und Herausforderungen (Beiträge zur internationalen Tagung vom 26./27. April 2013 im Koptischen Kloster der Jungfrau Maria und des Heiligen Mauritius in Höxter-Brenkhausen), édité par Heike Behlmer, Frank Feder, Ute Pietruschka, 19–26. Édition digitale : http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/ menalib/content/titleinfo/1448479.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

97

Boulay, Thibaut 2012. « Les techniques vinicoles grecques, des vendanges aux Anthestéries : nouvelles perspectives ». Dialogues d’histoire ancienne. Supplément 7, 95–115. En ligne : hal-01263943. Brun, Jean-Pierre 2003. Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Viticulture, oléiculture et procédés de fabrication. Paris. ——. 2004. Archéologie du vin et de l’huile. Tomes 1 et 2. Paris. Chassinat, Émile 1911. Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti. MIFAO 23. Le Caire. Columelle. De l’agriculture (De re rustica), tome 1. En ligne : http://remacle.org/ bloodwolf/erudits/columelle (trad. nouvelle par M. Louis Du Bois. Bibliothèque latine-française. Seconde série. C.L.F. Panckoucke : Paris 1844). Crislip, Andrew 2005. From Monastery to Hospital: Christian Monasticism and the Transformation of Health Care in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor. Daremberg, Charles Victor, et Saglio, Edmond 1896. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines. Tome 2.2. Paris. de Saint-Denis, Eugène 1953. « Falx vinitoria. Archéologie et philologie ». Revue Archéologique, 6e série, t. 41, 163–176. Dodd, Emlyn K. 2020. Roman and Late Antique Wine Production in the Eastern Mediterranean: A Comparative Archaeological Study at Antiochia ad Cragum (Turkey) and Delos (Greece). Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 63. Oxford. Durand, Benjamin 2016. « Du vin de paille à l’époque pharaonique ? ». ENiM 9, 37–45. Dzierzbicka, Dorota 2005. « Wineries and their Elements in Graeco-Roman Egypt ». The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 35, 9–91. ——. 2010. « Wineries of the Mareotic Region ». In: Lake Mareotis: Reconstructing the Past. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Archaeology of the Mareotic Region held at Alexandria University, Egypt, 5th–6th April 2008, édité par Lucy Blue, 127–133. BAR International Series 2113. Oxford. ——. 2016. « Wine Consumption and Usage in Egypt’s Monastic Communities (6th– 8th Century) ». In: Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana. The Włodzimierz Godlewski Jubilee on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, édité par A. Łajtar, A. Obłuski, I. Zych, 99–111. Varsovie. Emmel, Stephen 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. CSCO 599–600, Subsidia 111– 112. Louvain. ——. 2018. « Shenoute the Archimandrite. The Extraordinary Scope (and Difficulties) of His Writings ». Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies 10, 9–36. Ferdière, Alain, Luberne, Alexis, et Ruffier, Olivier 2000. « Du nouveau sur la viticulture biturige ? Réinterprétation d’une découverte / New Improvments in Vinegrowing in Berry? New Interpretation of a Discovery ». Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 39, 245–249. Foat, Michael 1993. « Shenute: Discourse in the Presence of Eraklammon ». OLP 24, 113–131. Freu, Christel 2015. « Vignes d’Égypte : extension et exploitation des vignobles sous l’Empire romain. Retour sur les contrats de μίσθωσις τῶν ἔργων ». The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 45, 65–91. Garcia, Jean-Pierre 2014. « Sur les traces laissées par les vignobles anciens : la vigne gallo-romaine de Gevrey-Chambertin et quelques autres vignobles disparus ». In: Les journées Pontus de Tyard  : “entre vignes et vergers”  : biodiversité et patrimoine, Juin 2013, 67–76. Bissy-sur-Fley (France). En ligne : halshs-01143062.

98

S.H. AUFRÈRE ET N. BOSSON

Hanson, Victor 1992. « Practical Aspects of Grape-growing and the Ideology of Greek Viticulture ». In: Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 May, 1990, édité par Berit Wells, 161–166. Stockholm. Hickey, Todd M. 2012. « The Workers and the Vineyard (P.Lond. inv. 2238) ». APF 58/2, 302–307. Huetz de Lemps, Alain 2001. « L’évolution des paysages viticoles dans le bassin du Duero espagnol ». DOURO – Estudos & Documentos VI/11, 97–109. En ligne : https://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/9518.pdf. Landry, Christophe 2019. « Du vin antique sur un versant haut-savoyard ? Le vignoble et le pressoir de Versoie à Thonon-les-Bains ». In : Des ressources et des hommes en montagne. Circulations montagnardes, circulations européennes, Actes du 142e congrès du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Pau, 24–28 avril 2017, dirigé par J. Duma. Paris. En ligne : https://books.openedition. org/cths/5646. Leipoldt, Johannes 1908. Sinuthii archimandritae Vita et Opera omnia III. CSCO 42, Scriptores Coptici 2. Paris. Le Mené, Michel 1971. « Le vignoble angevin à la fin du Moyen Âge : étude de rentabilité ». In : Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’enseignement supérieur public 2 (= Le vin au moyen âge  : production et producteurs), 81–99. Liger, Louis 1715. Dictionnaire pratique du bon menager de campagne et de ville. 2 vols. Paris. López, Ariel G. 2013. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty: Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict, and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 50. Berkeley. Meeks, Dimitri 1993. « Oléiculture et viticulture dans l’Égypte pharaonique ». Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Supplément 26, 3–38. Müller, Edward 1955. « Note sur l’ampélographie égyptienne ». Bulletin de l’Office international du vin et de la vigne 291 (mai 1955), 9–15. Murray, Mary Anne 2000. « Viticulture and Wine Production ». In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, édité par Paul T. Nicholson et Ian Shaw, 577–608. Cambridge. Pellat, Charles 1986. Cinq calendriers égyptiens. Textes arabes et études islamiques 26. Le Caire. Peust, Carsten 2010. Die Toponyme vorarabischen Ursprungs im modernen Ägypten. Ein Katalog. Göttinger Miszellen, Beiheft 8. Göttingen. Portes, Ludovic, et Ruyssen, F. 1889. Traité de la vigne et de ses produits comprenant  : l’histoire de la vigne et du vin dans tous les pays  ; l’étude botanique et pratique des différents cépages  ; les facteurs du vin  ; le vin au point de vue chimique  ; ses altérations  ; ses falsifications et la manière de les reconnaître  ; les eaux-de-vie  ; les vinaigres  ; etc. Les ennemis de la vigne et les moyens de les combattre  ; la viticulture pratique  ; etc. Tome troisième. Paris. Redon, Bérangère 2019. « An Egyptian Grand Cru : Wine Production at Plinthine ». Egyptian Archaeology 55, 28–33. Redon, Bérangère, Vanpeene, Matthieu, et Pesenti, Mikaël 2017. « ‘La vigne a été inventée dans la ville égyptienne de Plinthine.’ À propos de la découverte d’un fouloir saïte à Kôm el-Nogous (Maréotide) ». Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 116, 303–324.

LE VIEUX PIED DE VIGNE VERSUS LE SARMENT PROVIGNÉ

99

Robinson, Dana 2016. Food and Lay Piety in Late Antiquity. PhD, Catholic University of America, Washington DC. Ruffing, Kai 1999. Weinbau im römischen Ägypten. Pharos. Studien zur griechischrömischen Antike 12. St. Katharinen. Tallet, Pierre 1998. Le vin en Égypte ancienne à l’époque pharaonique. Thèse Paris IV-Sorbonne. ——. 2008. « Une boisson destinée aux élites : le vin en Égypte ancienne ». In : Pratiques et discours alimentaires en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance. Actes du 18ème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 4, 5 et 6 octobre 2007, 39–51. Cahiers de la Villa Kérylos 19. Paris. Timm, Stefan 1991. Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in arabischer Zeit. Teil 5 (Q–S). Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients. Reihe B Nr. 41/5. Wiesbaden. Toupet, Christophe, et Lemaître, Pascal 2003. « Vignobles et modes d’exploitation viticoles antiques dans le Nord de la Gaule. L’exemple de Bruyères-sur-Oise (Val-d’Oise) : une relecture ». Revue archéologique de Picardie 1-2 (= Cultivateurs, éleveurs et artisans dans les campagnes de Gaule romaine), 209–226.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER: MYTHOLOGIZATION AND RITUAL IN CANON 1* SINA BECKER

“I will not bother you anymore but withdraw and never eat bread in community again. … What is it for me to meddle in issues, which are not mine?”1 This remarkable quote belongs to a no less remarkable passage, which preserves the crucial moment of confrontation between the two major players of a power struggle taking place within a monastic community at the end of the 4th century. It becomes all the more striking if one bears in mind the difference in status between the two parties involved: For it was the monk Shenoute hurling these words during a fierce argument at Ebonh, father superior of the monastery he lived in and his elder. Yet it is through Shenoute’s works – A27 and A28, together known as Canon 12 – that we even know about the events leading up to the altercation and beyond it, thus already suggesting the final outcome of a conflict which had been triggered in the first place by Shenoute’s accusations of grave sin happening within the monastery. A27 is the account of this conflict and its development given from Shenoute’s perspective: compelled by a divine revelation concerning presumable sexual abominations among members of the community Shenoute comes forward to inform the father about the grievances and discloses the perpetrators. But the accused are powerful monks of high rank close to Ebonh and denying all accusations they turn the tables on Shenoute accusing him instead of lusting for power and insubordination. Despite two futile attempts and although he has become ostracized within the community Shenoute continues to pressure Ebonh finally causing the conflict to escalate in a heated argument. And it is actually

* I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. S. Richter and Prof. A. Crislip for their kind help and advice and to my colleague N. Speransky for all her challenging questions. 1 A27, §15.3. This paragraph belongs to the so-called ‘original letter’ (§§15.2–6), which is part of A27 as we know the text today but set-off by the change of addressee. It comprises only few pages (MONB.YW 77–82), which are distinct because they are addressed to someone grammatically referred to in second person singular masculine, whereas the rest of the text addresses the community, referred to grammatically as second person plural feminine, for detailed analysis see my forthcoming dissertation (Becker forthcoming). For the sigla see Emmel 2004, the system of paragraph division is in accordance with the text of Stephen Emmel’s forthcoming edition of Canon 1. Translations given are my own, unless otherwise indicated. 2 For a short summary of the events in Canon 1 see Emmel 2004, as well as Emmel 2004a and Schroeder 2007.

102

S. BECKER

the narration of this incident at the height of the controversy – given in form of a letter nominally addressed to Ebonh, but written clearly with the whole community as broader audience in mind – that is the heart of A27.3 It is distinct for the Shenoute’s obvious change of attitude towards Ebonh and marks a turning point in the balance of power of their relationship, which has now shifted in Shenoute’s favor. How this shift has impacted the community as a whole becomes obvious in A28 when the monks ask Shenoute to become the new father superior of the monastic federation. Yet, while Shenoute claimed all his actions had been motivated by the divine revelation due to which he felt obliged to bring the continually worsening conditions to the father’s attention in order to ensure the community’s integrity, I will argue, that he nonetheless pursued his own agenda, utilizing already existing unrest and discontent among members to foment the conflict. Due to these unique circumstances described above Shenoute’s writings grant us rare insights into the dynamics of a society in microcosm gripped by conflict and infighting, into a community plunged into chaos and an existential crisis. For its members were torn between two possible solutions represented by two very different leaders: Either to follow Ebonh, representing the established order or to trust Shenoute, the charismatic leader offering a radical new approach. The texts prove furthermore to be excellent case studies for analyzing power dynamics: As they not only mark the very beginning of Shenoute’s tenure, which was to last almost a century, but actually show the pivotal situation preceding his rise to power, they allow us to examine how Shenoute was able to gain his fellow-monks trust and convince them that he was indeed more apt to lead them to salvation in order to retain their loyal followership over this long period of time. Yet, aside from opportunity of studying the techniques of seizing power, the texts also provide for analyzing Shenoute’s strategy of consolidating power, which is a much longer and more complicated process. PLEDGE OR PUTSCH? It is therefore essential to determine which role Shenoute played in the events and how he used the unfolding situation to advance his own agenda. Concerning the latter question of consolidating one’s power base the point at issue in Shenoute’s case is clearly that of presence or absence: Did he withdraw from the monastery at once and for good, true to his pledge? Or rather: Did he really withdraw from a community in turmoil, leaving in his wake a power vacuum for anyone to fill after having set events in motion eventually leading up to

3

See short description in n. 1.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

103

Ebonh’s ultimate downfall? Yet again – would he not prove his words untrue by staying? I will now discuss both options, relying on Shenoute’s own writings – mostly those in Canon 1 – for information or to base my conclusions on, as we lack any other sources apart from his works for this conflict. Still, the necessity to take some of the later works of his œuvre into consideration as well illustrates how power consolidation is a lengthy process, which essentially requires time for habituation to be successful. Key element of the two options given above is the different notion of intent: While the first case implies a rather passive participation, the second one in contrary presumes Shenoute actively taking part in shaping events ensuring them to work out in his favor. This dichotomy of passive versus active role will come up again in the context of Shenoute’s construction of ethos, which can oscillate between two diametrically opposed attitudes: The “suffering servant”, i.e. representing the passive part, and the primus inter pares, i.e. representing the active part.4 At first though the analysis seeks to examine how Shenoute’s actions are motivated before and during the crisis: Is he acting or reacting? 1. Pledge: Immediate withdrawal Through Shenoute’s later works we know that he indeed lived an anchoretic life for long periods, albeit his cave in the desert was located in close proximity to the main monastery. It has therefore been the opinio communis for quite some time to take Shenoute up on his word, i.e. to assume that he left the monastery right after announcing to do so. A withdrawal at this point in time would have been a powerful maneuver also boldly emphasizing his self-claimed status as prophet, as Caroline Schroeder has argued. For by retreating into the desert Shenoute would have acquired a characteristic trait commonly associated with the true prophet: He would have become the “lone voice crying out in the wilderness”.5 According to Schroeder Shenoute’s physical distance served also to stress his intention of setting himself morally apart from a leadership, which he considered not only ineffective, but corrupt and failed.6 In this regard, Schroeder follows Stephen Emmel, to whom we owe the reconstruction of the Corpus of Shenoute’s writings. In a first preliminary analyses of the events in Canon 1 Emmel had as well tentatively suggested this course of events.7

4 5 6 7

See further remarks later in this paper in section 2.2. Schroeder 2001: 147. Supporting this argumentation is Layton 2014: 23. Schroeder 2006: 87. Emmel 2004: 560 and Emmel 2004a: 163.

104

S. BECKER

In addition to the aforementioned reasons, others may plausibly be argued in favor of a direct retreat from the community. By adapting an anchoretic life, Shenoute would on the one hand follow a well-established tradition, which others had chosen before him, either honored saints who had lived their whole life as hermits – like Antony for example – or those who had dedicated only part of their life to this endeavor, like Pachomius, who, according to hagiography, had spent three years in the desert before establishing his koinonia. On the other hand, Shenoute could have used his ‘conspicuous absence’ as an advantage. Already Tacitus had described the effect of a heightened interest in absent persons (or things) – provided that they were expected to appear.8 So Shenoute’s absence would have surely worked in this way and gained him even more attention than his presence. Yet above all an immediate withdrawal from the community would have increased Shenoute’s credibility and therefore strengthened his ethos, which relied heavily on his self-fashioned image as honest arbitrator among liars. 2. Putsch: Deliberate temporal withdrawal Despite all sensible arguments given above, I am not convinced that Shenoute left the monastery for good after his confrontation with Ebonh and the public announcement in his letter. I rather believe that his withdrawal was at this point only temporarily, being part of a scheme designed to set events in motion, which would ultimately enable him to assume power in the monastic federation. Therefore, I will now present my own hypothesis of events, which is based on my assumption that Shenoute intentionally sought to gain leadership and actively worked towards achieving this goal, rather than being overcome by the divine revelation and only reluctantly following this calling – although this is surely the picture he tries very hard to convey to his audience. This impression has been formed during my intensive work with the text over the past years and rests basically on the analysis of the rhetorical strategies Shenoute employs, which are often intended to convey the opposite of what his true intentions are.9

8 Tac. ann. III,76: Viginti clarissimarum familiarum imagines antelatae sunt, Manlii, Quinctii aliaque eiusdem nobilitatis nomina. Sed praefulgebant Cassius atque Brutus, eo ipso quod effigies eorum non visebantur (on the occasion of the funeral procession for Iunia Tertia, sister of Brutus, widow of Cassius) “Twenty ancestral busts of the most distinguished families were carried ahead of the procession – the Manlii, the Quinctii, and others with equally aristocratic names. But conspicuous above all were Cassius and Brutus, precisely because their portraits were not on view” (Yardley 2008: 135). For the analysis of the concept of “conspicuous absence” in Tacitus’ works see especially Fraser 2005. 9 He makes extensive use of irony, sarcasm, and other techniques, which need to be decoded by the audience and really mean the opposite of what is said.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

105

But in order to gain a comprehensive picture of Shenoute’s elaborated maneuver, it is important to consider the circumstances forming the backdrop against which his actions took place. Thus, I will examine those first using Max Weber’s theory of the three types of authority.10 In the monastery Shenoute and all the others lived under a so called ‘traditional’ or ‘patriarchal regime’, incorporating some elements from the ‘bureaucratic regime’ as well. According to Weber a traditional regime is defined as a system – based on strong and long-established rules, which have become tradition, – based on morality, thus is ‘wertrational’, – basing its legitimacy on successes of the past. All of the above makes for a strongly institutionalized and predictable system, which can guarantee its inhabitants resp. participants material and political security. I see one variant differing in regard to the monastery, for the legitimacy of the leadership system here relies on the past – that is on the founding father’s authority – as well as on a promise for the future – namely the promise to guide the members to salvation through the way of living, which is imparted. Legitimation through the promise of future achievements is usually a characteristic ascribed to ‘bureaucratic systems’, but hybrid forms are of course regularly encountered in reality.11 While Pcol had been the founder of the monastery, it becomes clear in A27 that he is deceased and Ebonh has succeeded him as abbot and second father superior of what has since its foundation become a federation of three monasteries: “Your first just father who has already died, this one, who gave us into the hand of God and into the hand of your father who lives with us now…”12 One may assume that Ebonh has already spent some years in this leadership position, because had Pcol only recently died it would have been more plausible for Shenoute to refer in his text to a certain point or period of time instead of not giving any information thereof whatsoever. That makes Ebonh leader in an already firmly established system, which is based on tradition and although guaranteeing stability and security it sets certain limits to his possibilities in leading the community as well.13 As he has taken over a precast and working monastic system his authority is not rooted as firmly in his own personality or personal characteristics as it would have been had he himself established the community. In this case, one may also 10

For Weber’s description of the three types of authority, see Weber 1978: 226–231. Today a combination of both forms of legitimation are found in nation states, Terlouw 2010: 341. 12 §15.1, MONB.XB 88 (unpublished) with a parallel on MONB.XC 60. 13 Terlouw 2010: 337. 11

106

S. BECKER

speak of a ‘constructed charisma’. This designates a cultivated rather than acquired image, which is rigid and “dependent mostly on the community’s acceptance and recognition rather than any individual quality present in the leader”.14 During crises this type of leader is dependent on proving himself by heroic or extraordinary action lest he loses his authority. For a failure in such a case would result in a perceived loss of his charisma and likewise his authority in the eyes of the community, which he presides over – and a former savior will potentially turn into a scapegoat.15 If we keep this in mind while reading A27, it becomes clear that this is exactly what happens to Ebonh: failing to solve a crisis in the monastic community he does not only loses his authority, but in the end also his leadership position. The true opposite of ‘constructed charisma’ is ‘pure charisma’, that is a ‘charismatic leader’, in the framework of Max Weber’s sociological work. In his study on charisma he characterizes it or a leader endowed by it as – being a revolutionary-renovating force, – coming from outside of the sphere controlled by the current leader, – being motivated by the urge to rise, but held back by the current system thus becoming the impetus of the downfall of the old order, – basing his innovations on revelations or personal will, – requiring unquestioning and absolute obedience of his followers.16 Along with a charismatic leader then goes the ‘charismatic system’, which flourishes best during a crisis in the established system, because – the need for order is great, – the inherent anomy of a crisis increases the willingness and acceptance of the community for a new order or a new (charismatic) leader as deus ex machina and – uncertain circumstances create a mobilization within community, which is needed to create this new order.17

14

Murariu 2017: 175. Murariu 2017: 175: “A leader which completely loses his personal appeal, or the aura which makes him seem extraordinary to his followers, can no longer be considered charismatic. Therefore, his status as well as his mission may lose their legitimacy”. 16 Weber 1978: 244: “Within the sphere of its claims, charismatic authority repudiated the past, and is in this sense a specifically revolutionary force. It recognizes no appropriation of positions of power by virtue of the possession of property, either on the part of a chief or of socially privileged groups. The only basis for legitimacy for it is personal charisma so long as it is proved, that is as long as it receives recognition and as long as the followers and disciples prove their usefulness charismatically”. 17 For Weber’s description of the concept of charisma, charismatic authority, its routinization, and transformation see Weber 1978: 241–254, but esp. 241–249 and 1111–1156, but esp. 1111– 1119. See also Terlouw 2010: 337. 15

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

107

When we now go back to Shenoute’s account of the basic facts, but, with these preconditions in mind, change our previous perception his of intent and try to see assess the situation from a different perspective it will allow for a different understanding of the events in Canon 1 and Shenoute’s role in setting them in motion. The crisis within the monastery ignites when Shenoute receives knowledge – allegedly through divine revelation – of a series of grave supposedly carnal sins among members of the congregation, involving even high-ranking monks. He alerts the father superior, Ebonh, of these wrong-doings, claiming that he is obliged to do so due to the divine origin of his knowledge and his fear that the whole community’s salvation is threatened (A27, §10.6). The abbot however disbelieves the accusations: “He [Ebonh] did not believe him [Shenoute] as he said: ‘Where does such an idea come from?’”18 And the accused themselves deny all allegations,19 accusing Shenoute in turn of sowing divisiveness and of lust for power: “Was it not really because of these things that you have looked for a way to sow enmity now between that one and his father?”20 While each party of course accuses the other of lying, the accusations of Shenoute’s enemies are not completely wrong. For one consequence of his approach is the creation of dissent in the congregation – as with each disputed question there will be three groups, namely proponents, opponents and those remaining undecided or neutral. Therefore, by voicing his accusations Shenoute has actively created unrest within the monastic community and caused a split over an issue, which has the potential to transcend the specific incident and evolve into a full-blown leadership-crisis, for Ebonh as father superior and highest authority within the monastery has seemingly chosen to remain passive in the face of this challenge to his power. With the community in uproar one of the key requirements for the successful rise of a charismatic leader is given: Chaos.21 The actual ‘open letter’ (A27, §15.2–6)22 is set at the height of the controversy which has been smoldering since Shenoute first brought forth his accusations. In his letter Shenoute repeats his accusations, now also including Ebonh, and holds the abbot accountable for his credulity and passivity considering the looming crisis. 18

A27, §10.6, MONB.XB 44 (unpublished). A27, §10.6: “… because you encounter him hypocritically and when he inquires about your sin you lie in his presence and say: ‘I am innocent!’” MONB.XB 44 (unpublished) also A27, §14.3: “Wretched are those who say to him: ‘Who among us would even be able to commit those atrocities?’ while it is them, completing all wickedness” MONB.XB 84–85 (unpublished). 20 A27, §14.3, MONB.XB 84 (unpublished). 21 Murariu 2017: 181: “The basic pattern uniting different political, economic or psychological factors at work in apparition and rise of a charismatic saviour-figure are: 1) a profound legitimacy crisis, 2) a state of heightened expectation and 3) the existence of a highly traumatic event or series of events”. 22 See n. 1 for a short description. 19

108

S. BECKER

It starts with Shenoute’s stunning announcement to withdraw from the community (A27, §15.3), leading into a narration how events unfolded after his initial conversation with the father superior: As he alone was trying to help members of the community Shenoute sought another encounter with Ebonh (A27, §15.2) who on his part wanted to evade a conversation and another conflict, still trusting his advisors.23 However, when finally cornered by Shenoute Ebonh reacts unwillingly, indignantly and angrily – “So, you asked me in a tone, which does not become a father speaking fondly with his son, but rather belongs to a person, speaking spitefully with his neighbor”24 – still doubting Shenoute and challenging his allegations.25 After this harsh treatment, Shenoute claims to react in kind: He discards his former pretense of humility and aims now intentionally on destroying Ebonh’s authority as prophet and leader by speaking ‘hard like hell’ and employing sophisticated rhetorical strategies in his argumentation like an elaborate enthymeme which is interlaced with different types of topoi. He then concludes his letter with an elaborate metaphor graphically illustrating the extent of the crisis. Thereby he does not focus any longer on Ebonh, but primarily targets the members of the community as audience, stoking their fears. True to his word Shenoute then withdraws from the monastery, leaving it in turmoil, his fellow monks split over the question of whether to believe in his accusations or not, Ebonh’s authority severely shaken. I think one can easily imagine a tense atmosphere of suspense, suspicion, and mistrust as well as heightened alertness – perfect chaos, perfect breeding ground for a revolutionary overthrow. Does Shenoute now prove himself as a true charismatic leader? After his withdrawal he can justly be regarded an outsider, even in a twofold sense: On the one hand, there is the spatial distance, which one could argue has been caused by others, who have driven him to this drastic move. On the other hand, there is the social distance, which Shenoute has chosen for himself. For after he brought forth the accusations, that is, revealed his divinely imparted knowledge, he is now an outcast from the society of which he was once not only a member, but presumably even a high-ranking member.26 23 A27, §15.5: “If you will flee before me and not confront me, my father, so that I can tell you what is on my mind, like a son … then you should flee all the more before this one, who lurks maliciously, sits at your feet and flatters you so that you will act according to his wish for he is one who loves his own comfort and does not care about the comfort of his neighbor.” MONB.YW 79–80 (unpublished). 24 A27, §15.6, MONB.YW 80 (unpublished). 25 A27, §15.6: “You have said to me … : ‘Do you really know for sure who it is who has committed sin?’” MONB.YW 80–81 (unpublished). 26 Murariu 2017: 182: “Regardless of the nature of factors leading to a feeling or situation of crisis, a charismatic saviour-figure may appear either from within the masses affected by it or at

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

109

The assumption concerning Shenoute’s rank is based on conclusions drawn from Canon 1: – Shenoute had seemingly easier access to the father superior than lowranking monks were granted (at least two conversations are reported A27, §10.6 and §15.2–6), – he had the knowledge to conceive of such a letter and also the means to write and in some form publish it and – most importantly, had he been merely a low ranking monk neither would have his accusations caused such a scandal (maybe they would have never even been reported and then transmitted to us today) nor would his withdrawal have been of any importance. The second work of Canon 1, A28 accounts for the final stages of the conflict. From the text we can conclude that after Shenoute has left the community there has been another incident, again of sexual nature probably involving same sex activities (A28, §10–11). The discovery and disclosure of this repeated occurrence of sinful misbehavior has proven Shenoute’s warnings to be true. The majority of the monks clearly believes in him now, rehabilitating him. Beyond rehabilitation however the proven truth of Shenoute’s claims also legitimates his charismatic authority in the eyes of the congregation, securing their acceptance as they apparently offer him the leadership of the federation: “Perhaps this one wants to rule over us?”27 Disgusted and in a pretense of self-deprecation Shenoute turns the offer down, but is belied by his ensuing œuvre, which proves that he relented in the end and became father superior of the monastic federation for more than 90 years. I contend that Shenoute used this second incident and his rehabilitation as pretext to return to the monastery in style of a true charismatic leader. Ebonh and his advisors are discredited, and Shenoute, perceived as coming from the ‘outside’ after taking upon himself the enormous sacrifice to rather leave the community than staying, bending to pressure and disavowing his claims, can be a revolutionary force, bringing about renewal to a community ripe with willingness to accept just that. As we unfortunately do not know very much about the organization of the monastery before Shenoute’s time, it is really impossible to name specific modernizations he undertook. Yet the numerous rules which can with some certainty be attributed to him are at least an indicator that he did not simply rely on existing tradition to establish his authority.28 times from within the ranks of the elite, as a result of chance or concerted action on his behalf or that of the elites themselves”. 27 A28, §20, MONB.YG 215 (unpublished). Shenoute employs here the rhetorical device of interrogatio, i.e. a question already presupposing the intended answer, Lausberg 42008: 379 (§§766–767). As he uses the question marker μήτι a negative answer is expected, which fits the context as Shenoute derides the monks’ suggestion at first. 28 Layton 2009: 172–174.

110

S. BECKER

2.1 Power-consolidation and Charismatic Routinization Yet, each revolution has to end; each revolutionary force needs to consolidate its authority by establishing its own system in order to transform short-term successes into long-term accomplishments.29 But in order to achieve this, the method of legitimation needs to change: Now tradition has to prevail over revolution, in accordance with the new objective of establishing rather than overthrowing a leadership. And it is this process of transformation which charismatic authority has to undergo – Weber’s ‘charismatic routinization’30 – that is fraught with the biggest risk for failure. For charisma has an inherent revolutionary nature.31 A person gifted with it will flourish particularly in times of chaos when the leader’s appeal will rest on his ‘specific extraordinariness’ (Außeralltäglichkeit), thus marking a stark contrast to the ‘ordinary everydayness’ (Alltäglichkeit) of the ‘patriarchal’ and ‘bureaucratic’ regime, usually encountered under more steady circumstances.32 This ‘specific extraordinariness’ is foremost dependent on the person of the leader himself, on his character and personal qualifications, which enable him to hold sway over his followers, but simultaneously garner him their recognition, upon which he relies. Therefore, the transformation of authority bears a twofold risk. One the one hand methods used in the effort to stabilize the newly established system, e.g. – codification, e.g. setting new rules, – reorganization, e.g. filling ranks with loyal people, imposing completely new organizational structures can create a resemblance too close with the vanquished system. Followers might perceive this as an erosion of the original revolutionary approach, and it can result in weakened support.33 The process of depersonalization on the other hand poses a second serious challenge. The power of the charismatic authority initially resting solely with the leader needs to be transferred from the individual and incorporated into social structures to guarantee the continuity of the system and the succession of leadership. Losing his status of ‘specific extraordinariness’ to a certain degree especially during this transitional period, the charismatic leader becomes again vulnerable to attacks on his authority. And it is this stage, the end of the revolutionary phase and the beginning of the transitional period, which I think Shenoute has reached by the end of 29 Murariu 2017: 174–175: “Nevertheless, once a charismatic leader has achieved control over the community, the process will tend to contribute to the short-term intensity of sermons, speeches and rallies with the use of rules, regulations and conduct. Usually, the charismatic power and its principles will be codified into law”. 30 Weber 1978: 1121–1123. 31 Weber 1978: 1115–1117. 32 Adair-Toteff 2005: 190. 33 Weber 1978: 1122–1123; Terlouw 2010: 338–339.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

111

Canon 1: The monks offering him the position of the father superior (A28, §20) is the clearest indication that the old authorities have effectively been removed from power. However, it is now Shenoute’s turn to prove his leadership qualities and to live up to expectations he himself has previously raised. ~ Case Study: Shenoute’s Authority and the Women ~ Before returning to the question of the timing of Shenoute’s withdrawal from the community, it is worthwhile to consider the events of Canon 2. The texts in this volume provide an insight into the interaction between Shenoute and the female members of the monastic federation living in a nunnery a short distance away in the village. And while their relationship is tense throughout his whole tenure as abbot, it is especially during the early stages of his leadership that the women present a persistent opposition to Shenoute and a challenge to his authority, finally even inflicting a crushing defeat on him. Thus, concerning the process of power-consolidation Canon 2 picks up where Canon 1 has left off. Of course, circumstances for the nuns are slightly different: As they live apart from the men, they have not been as closely involved in the events, which led to the changes and are therefore probably not so heavily influenced by either party’s rhetoric. Nevertheless, by tradition, they are dependent on the leader of the men’s monastery, who for example administers the Eucharist to them. Still, for analyzing Shenoute’s methods of establishing his authority, the situation of both communities is comparable. Yet the very aspect of distance distinguishing one community from the other is just the one which makes one of them a perfect case study for a society with an indeed formally established leader, who is absent from the day-today routine, albeit informally his authority is clearly not consolidated. This of course describes the reality within the nunnery, where Shenoute was at first not personally present at all. However, accepting the suggestion that Shenoute left the men’s monastery for good right after his announcement to do so, the description would also apply to this community. Moreover, a similar development in both congregations would be very likely under these conditions, yet we only know about contentions between Shenoute and the women – predominantly during those early years. For Shenoute had to assert his authority over the nuns during numerous crises, of which one in particular did not end favorably for him and enabled the female leadership to retain a certain degree of independence. Unlike his predecessors, who had communicated with the female leadership via letter, carried back and forth by an elderly member of the men’s community, Shenoute decided to visit the nunnery in person after the women had repeatedly refused to carry out instructions he had sent them and failed to

112

S. BECKER

change their behavior according to his directions.34 It was surely an attempt to tighten his control over their community by minimizing the distance and bringing his charismatic appearance of a prophet as well as his forceful rhetoric to bear. Unsurprisingly, his visits were not well received, and the women saw them as interference in their own matters. Quite soon Shenoute’s new approach came to an abrupt end after an unfortunate incident during one of his visits: While preaching to the women Shenoute tore his clothes, employing this wellknown pious gesture from the Old Testament to illustrate his grief and despair over the nun’s sinful behavior – only to find himself shortly later accused by them of indecent exposure.35 Even though he adamantly challenged the accusations, those were effective in ending his visits to the nunnery and the system of written communication was re-established. This shows that the true power to defy Shenoute’s claim for absolute authority lay in the spatial distance, which, even if not very large, created a multilayered boundary and deprived Shenoute of the immediate influence and control over the women. As already Rebecca Krawiec noted: “What sources of power might they [the nuns] have had outside the authority structures that rendered them subservient to Shenoute? The answer lies in the physical makeup of the monastery. The concept of the monastery as one united body was in conflict with the physical separation of the men’s and women’s communities. … The space between them awarded power to the women, despite Shenoute’s attempts to the contrary”.36

Relying now on letters again to communicate was less than satisfying regarding the purpose of power-consolidation on Shenoute’s side, because after his attempt to bridge the spatial distance had failed he was really forced to rely on the women’s cooperation in implementing his demands.37 Later works reveal that Shenoute never fully gained control over the women. For continuous disputes about minor issues, e.g. about measurements of a tunic, only hide the ongoing power-struggle at their heart.38 The events in connection with the nunnery clearly illustrate the problems any new yet not fully established authority will encounter if it lacks the sufficient means to exert the necessary power to either convince or oppress its opponents. But as Canon 2 conveys at length problems and crises Shenoute faced in his early years as father superior with the female members of the monastic federation 34 For a detailed description of Shenoute’s relationship with the nuns see Rebecca Krawiec’s study, for the conflict described here especially her analysis of the “initial crisis” (Krawiec 2002: 32–38). 35 Krawiec 2002: 56–59. 36 Krawiec 2002: 72. 37 Krawiec 2002: 72: “The reality of his power rested on the women’s cooperation”. 38 The episode of the tunic is found in the second work of Canon 8, My Heart is Crushed. For an analysis of the garment metaphors in Shenoute’s writings see Krawiec 2009.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

113

there seems to be nothing comparable regarding the male communities. And while Shenoute’s writings certainly do not lack evidence for conflicts within those congregations, they appear to have occurred later in his tenure.39 Therefore, I do not see a parallel development between both monasteries expected under the presumption that Shenoute’s withdrawal from the men’s community happened shortly after the publication of his letter and would thus like to suggest a different concept and a different timing. 2.2 Power-Consolidation and Charismatic Mythicization So, was Shenoute fated to lose his charismatic power in the treadmill of routinization – as any other charismatic leader, aiming for long-term change? Or as Max Weber put it, writing about charismatic authority: “Every charisma is on the road from a turbulently emotional life that knows no economic rationality to a slow death by suffocation under the weight of material interests: Every hour of its existence brings it nearer to this end.”40

Given that Shenoute held the position of abbot for the rest of his life – about 90 years – as well as the reverence he received after his death from contemporaries like his successor Besa and still does up until today, as he is still venerated in the Coptic Church, proves that he successfully managed the transformation of his authority without forfeiting the force of his charisma. And while withdrawal from the community did play an essential role, it could only be effective with the right timing. It is my hypothesis that although Shenoute finally turned his back on coenobitic life he did so not until his power was firmly established within the federation and therefore not right after the leadership crisis and his ascend to the position of father superior. But he still withdrew early enough to prevent his status from waning and the extraordinariness of his charismatic leadership from being absorbed by routinization. And it is after his final withdrawal from the community then that his absence from everyday life becomes part of a ritual which facilitates the mythicization of his person, a ‘charismatic mythicization’. The concept of ‘Charismatic Mythicization’ put forward by Raphael Falco as an alternative to Weber’s inevitable process of routinization will now be the basis for my following analysis of Shenoute’s strategy of power consolidation.41 39 See for example Canon 6, in which we learn about a crisis sparked by the death of a male monk, who had died after receiving a disciplinary beating by Shenoute, Krawiec 2002: 43–46. Two texts found in this canon – He Who Sits upon His Throne and Remember, O Brethren – illustrate how Shenoute defends himself against accusations of overbearance, abuse of power and homicide, succeeding in calming the situation down, also relying on his ethos, whose foundation are already laid here in this very text. 40 Weber 1978: 1120. 41 Falco 2010.

114

S. BECKER

In a nutshell Falco claims that charismatic authority needs a myth to survive the process of routinization,42 because mythicization will account for the loss of extraordinariness, which accompanies the inherent depersonalization, necessary for the process of routinization.43 In his definition of myth Falco follows Wendy Doniger, describing it as “a narrative in which a group finds, over an extended period of time, a shared meaning in certain questions about human life, to which the various proposed answers are usually unsatisfactory in one way or another”.44 In this context of charismatic authority he places his emphasis on the “shared meaning [which] affects a group”45 therefore calling myth “a shared experience of charismatically sustained discourse [whereas] ‘discourse’ encompasses both conventional verbal narrative and also other forms of fictio (making, or manufacture) from the linguistic to the visual”.46 Myth-creation now is the domain of the system’s leader, whom it is to support, in this case therefore of the charismatic leader. And myths based on personal charisma, which are to support systems emerging from upheaval or revolutions center commonly around “their beginnings, their leaders, their signal achievements and their goals”.47 Yet, once a myth has been established, it needs to be managed. A myth serves essentially to transfer the charismatic qualities of the original leader into social structures, because only this process of depersonalization opens up a chance for the charismatic mission to sustain continuity – beyond the first leader, beyond his successor and ideally for generations. To successfully do so, it must adapt to changes in the circumstances to which it refers, that is, if needed it has to be re-mythicized. For only “myths that stop changing become meaningless”.48 And while the newly fashioned myth now builds the foundation of the charismatic mission, older traditions can be incorporated by re-inventing them in a form aligned with the new system. Including traditional sources of legitimization can enhance credibility and authority of the newly established myth and balancing both types of legitimizing means is again a charismatic skill.49

42 Falco 2010: 14: “Neither traditional nor charismatic authority could survive without the support of myths”. 43 Falco 2010: 62: “Myth systems seem to ride into the breach left by the fading force of an original charisma”. 44 Doniger 1996: 112. 45 Falco 2010: 5. 46 Falco 2010: 4 (emphasis in original). 47 Falco 2010: 61. 48 Falco 2010: 26. 49 Falco 2010: 20: “The management of transformed status-values is a charismatic skill, and large myth systems thrive only when the charismatic managers … successfully manipulate the remote legitimizing sources in conjunction with the transformation of present-day values”.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

115

Already Weber noted that a charismatic leader’s power is wholly dependent on the acceptance by his followers50 and the myth now serves to strengthen the bond among those by creating a ‘charismatic group’. Still, it is not the content of the myth per se, but rather the shared experience of charismatic endowment as administered by the charismatic leader which appeals to members. So, charisma really and not belief enables a charismatic group to “experience the myths as personal, charismatic, and authoritative … [creating] an emotional bond that is absolutely inaccessible to those outside the group”.51 Charisma therefore also has to be defined as an experience much rather than a quality, i.e. a charismatic person is experienced to possess and transmit a certain extraordinary force.52 A myth now is reflected in ritual through which it can be experienced by members of the charismatic group.53 Falco defines ritual by its most important function: “Continu[ing] to assure its participants that they belong to an exclusive group and that they are tied, through shared repetitive practices, to some form of supernatural force or unique secular mission[,] ritual punctuates and also reflects the mythic narrative that tells the story of a group’s connection to other-worldly authority, while at the same time confirming their this-worldly bond to each other.”54

Ritual as well as myth is a group experience, and group membership is essential for its effectiveness. For only members believe, that partaking in the ritual can provide them with a share in the charismatic endowment shown by the leader. Also practices and rationales of rituals are usually only plausible to believers, whose behaviors might seem strange, non-sensical or even repulsive to outsiders. Those in turn are dismissed as irrational by group insiders or even perceived as a threat and eventually demonized.55 Analogous to its function in creating and re-creating the mythical narrative, charisma has a vital role concerning rituals as well. Contrary to the widely held belief, rituals as practices or even performances do not exist as petrified, everunchanging repetitions. Quite the contrary for “in order to survive, and to retain value as relatively rational behavior, they must change, shift, and adjust in concert with environmental development, or in order to make a difference in that environment”.56 So, as the heterogenous needs of practitioners change, rituals have to be adapted as well. Recognizing the need for and realizing these 50 Weber 1978: 1112: “Important is that … those ‘heroes’ and ‘magicians’ proved their charisma in the eyes of their adherents”. 51 Falco 2010: 29–30. 52 Falco 2010: 9. 53 Falco 2010: 62, 151. 54 Falco 2010: 151. 55 Falco 2010: 158–159. 56 Falco 2010: 168.

116

S. BECKER

changes is also a charismatic element, which Falco calls ‘processural charisma’.57 After these short remarks summarizing Falco’s concept of ‘charismatic mythologization’ I will now show how it can be applied to Shenoute’s strategy of power consolidation. The first of two key elements – myth and ritual – are the texts of Canon 1. Given Falco’s definition of myth as ‘a shared experience of charismatically sustained discourse’ A27 and A28 clearly comply with these criteria. For with Canon 1 Shenoute has codified his own version of events as the only valid version and thus transforming it into a mythical narrative. Recalling now the genesis and function of myth it is easy to find these concepts reflected in the texts as well: After having successfully emerged as charismatic leader from the upheaval within the monastery, Shenoute seeks to implement the changes he has put forth as solution during the time of crisis – effectively realizing his own vision of conduct appropriate for a monastic community. The myth supporting his claim to power therefore can only be based on his personal charisma and needs to legitimize this, for at this point he is still wholly dependent on the loyalty of his followers. Thus, Shenoute resorts to some of the motives very commonly employed in these circumstances: The beginning of the new system, i.e. the defeat of its enemies; the new leader, i.e. Shenoute himself and the foundations of his authority; and his signal achievement, i.e. ridding the monastery of corrupt members and thereby saving the rest of the community. As Canon 1 serves Shenoute as mythical narrative upon which he bases his claim for power and loyalty it is also well in accordance with another, broader definition of myth, now especially focusing on the function of myth as a “discursive instrument … [whose] protean nature affords figures of authority – or figures seeking authority – an instrument at once ripe for manipulation and simultaneously tailored to produce a shared experience in a ready-made collective”.58

The rules at the beginning of Canon 1 provide furthermore an example for the re-invention of old traditions, adapted to the new – that is current – circumstances. Especially rules 8 and 9 are striking in this regard, as they are based upon the Pachomian praec. 97 and 96 respectively.59 But while there are rules in the corpus of the White Monastery which already seem to match the Pachomian ones quite closely – rules 91 respectively 92 – the rules in Canon 1 differ in one very specific detail: Only rules 8 and 9 specifically 57 Falco 2010: 169: “Charisma enhances the performance, while at the same time changing the process to meet the ever-changing needs”. 58 Falco 2010: 22. 59 In my numbering of the rules I follow Bentley Layton’s 2014 edition, the numbers are not part of the original text.

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

117

mention novices.60 This suggests that these have been adapted to very specific events while the original form is still very much discernible and thus imbuing the new version with its legitimacy. The texts of Canon 1 also have what Falco calls a “dissipative structure”, i.e. a certain perpetual instability which ensues from the ongoing adaption process.61 At least they had during Shenoute’s lifetime. A27 makes it clear: While the ‘original letter’, formally addressed to Ebonh, is only a couple pages long, the whole work of A27 is much longer, indicating a growth and adaption process during which parts were gradually added to the text over time.62 The intrinsic connection between myth and ritual is also evident in this case because the narrative establishing the myth in the first place, contains at the same time instructions for the ritual in form of certain remarks in the post scriptum: “So let this book [Canon 1], in which everything written bears witness to all the other words and deeds that are written in the books that bear witness to all the words and deeds in this book, be with the father or leader of these communities at all times, so that he might rely on it and not forget it or neglect to read Its words four times a year, as is appointed for us. Let the brethren in the villages send them to him each time they finish reading them, and also let him send them to them each time, so that he might understand that it is good to read them all, not to leave any of them out. Also, if it happens for them to read them in the houses, there is no hindrance. And also if it happens for them to read them when they want to on some days when they are all assembled in the assembly, in accordance with our canons, there is no hindrance. Only these four times a year, even if someone hates hearing them, because also he hates his own soul, they will be compelled to read them all”.63

This passage allows several important observations: 1. The text(s) considered to be Canon 1 at that time were available and accessible in a compiled form, which Shenoute calls ‘book’ (ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ). 2. The father superior has several duties concerning the book: a. he must always keep it close by to use it as guidebook in times of need, b. he must read it to the community four times a year and c. it is his duty to send it to the nunnery and ensure its return. 60 The Coptic expression ϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ used in rule 8 and 9 is ambiguous and can be understood as technical term denoting a ‘novice’ in a monastery or taken literally as ‘little boy or child’. And while Layton uses the literal meaning in his translation of the rules, I have chosen to follow Emmel 2004a: 164 and Schroeder 2009: 341 who argue for the expression to be taken as technical term in this context. I base my decision on my observation that Shenoute clearly distinguished throughout the text of A27 between his use of the expression ϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ and simply the word ϣⲏⲣⲉ/ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ. And although there are exceptions ϣⲏⲣⲉ/ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ mostly appears in narrative passages which do not suggest a technical meaning. ϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ however is used mainly in rather technical context like the rules, see Becker forthcoming. 61 Falco 2010: 24: “Instability of a mild sort is the hallmark of ongoing charismatic myths”. 62 For a detailed analysis see my forthcoming dissertation (Becker forthcoming). 63 MONB.YW 209–211. Translation Emmel 2004: 562–563.

118

S. BECKER

3. The book must be accessible to anyone at any time to read, in the individual houses or in the assembly. 4. Four times a year the whole book must be read to the community, regardless. These instructions are designed to ensure that neither texts nor events are set aside as pertaining to the past but remain a rather central part within the community’s routine and the individual member’s awareness. An important aspect is furthermore the comprehensive outreach emphasized in the text: Exemplified both by the specific reference to the women’s community and the expressed accessibility of the texts at almost any time and occasion. The ritual described here is the mandatory quarterly reading of Canon 1. Shenoute mentions it twice in respect of the participant’s different capacities, the father being tasked with reading and thus playing an active role, in contrast to the individual monks, who listen and have hence the passive role. Nevertheless, I think these written instructions represent only one part of the ritual, which in fact is twofold – just like the myth, which as well serves two purposes: Re-mythicizing the foundational narrative of the monastery to comply with Shenoute’s vision for the newly established system and consolidating Shenoute’s position as charismatic leader. Therefore, each of these objectives needs a corresponding ritualistic element, which are however interdependent and only in combination do they create the ritual itself. The quarterly reading of ‘Canon 1’ – mandatory in occurrence and attendance – is one part. It is clearly designed to establish an official (i.e. Shenoute’s) version of events within the community. The notably high frequency of repetition suggests an attempt to supplant supposedly dissenting individual memories by creating authorized ones shared by all members to replace them. Altogether it illustrates the urgency of the efforts to strengthen the new foundational narrative. The second part of the ritual is to enforce Shenoute’s carefully devised selfrepresentation with the monastic community. This ‘public image’ he intends to establish with the monks consists of two main characteristics, which he frequently emphasizes and through which he promises to lead the community onto the way to salvation: 1. Being a prophet with a special connection to God and 2. being an ascetic and living pious life of privation. In order to corroborate this self-fashioned image, Shenoute draws on the two sources of utmost authority, which in turn correspond to the respective characteristics: The Bible (vide 1) and the tradition of the monastic forefathers e.g. monastic rules (vide 2).64 64 In Shenoute’s later works these two characteristics have evolved into his elaborated yet ambivalent concept of ethos for Shenoute portrays himself as ‘suffering servant’ (fulfilling God’s

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

119

To successfully shape or reshape how one is perceived by others it is necessary to control one’s public appearances. I think we can safely assume that Shenoute – unlike his writings – was in person much less directly available to the community’s members: Before the conflict probably due to his higher rank65; during the crisis of course at first due to his becoming a pariah within the community because of his perceived misbehavior and then due to his temporary withdrawal; and after his return, after becoming this savior-figure of the charismatic leader and designated abbot it was in Shenoute’s very own interest to remain personally aloof. For his increasingly rarer presence allows Shenoute to strictly control his public appearance and turn his attendances into highly stylized, thoroughly planned ‘performances’ – particularly at important events like the quarterly reading of Canon 1. And as controlling one’s own appearance means in return controlling as well the way one is perceived by others, Shenoute can construct an ideal image of himself, substantiating his status as charismatic leader and therefore legitimizing his claim to the position of father superior. Hence, the absence from the daily routine in the monastery is itself an integral element of this part of the ritual, and its importance therefore grows according to the stages of withdrawal as Shenoute prepares his second retreat into the desert, which will then be for good. Both elements described above form one ritual and can only conjointly be effective, because underlying is a circular scheme: The perpetual reading of Canon 1 re-mythicizes the foundational narrative, but as the new system originated from a time of upheaval it still depends heavily on the charismatic authority of the leader until his personal charisma has been depersonalized and transformed into a lasting form (e.g. a social or institutional structure) to consolidate the power base of the new system. The charismatic leader however is wholly dependent on the loyalty of his followers which he is in danger of losing as his extraordinariness decreases during the process of depersonalization. Shenoute seeks to prevent this loss of status by withdrawing from the community and mythicizing his person in a certain sense by constructing an ideal image of himself for the public view. And while his absence probably fosters the notion of a leader larger than life among the monks, Shenoute must also prove this in order to sustain it – the quarterly mandatory reading providing the stage. Thus, we have come full circle. How long this ritual existed is impossible to say. The instructions in the post scriptum most likely became an intrinsic part of the text and were copied irrespective of their relevance. I surmise that the significance of the ritual decreased as time passed and events became more and more distant. For passing time also meant changes among the members: Some gradual owing to age, others more orders) – hence as prophet – as well as primus inter pares, i.e. an ordinary monk and member of the community – hence as ascetic. 65 For my considerations regarding Shenoute’s rank see section 2.

120

S. BECKER

rapid, as the community grew considerably during Shenoute’s tenure. In consequence at there must have been a point at which monks who had still personally experienced the period of disorder were outnumbered by those who had only ever known the official version of events. Therefore, the newcomers would have had no rationale for participating in the ritual, because they lacked the experience necessary to link ritual and foundational narrative. And as the ritual does not meet their needs, it has therefore become ‘empty’.66 Once this imbalance between ‘old’ and ‘new’ members has been reached the ritual has to be adapted to the new circumstances, at the latest. It seems to me that the structure of A27 indicates adaptions of this kind. As mentioned above is the real letter only a couple pages long, embedded in the middle of the long text we today have come to know as Shenoute’s first letter. Certain parts have clearly been added later, like the rules right at the beginning of the text,67 for others it seems at least highly likely that they are later additions, e.g. the passages following the actual letter addressed to Ebonh, which contain only explanatory similes. It is my impression, that these additional passages illustrate the attempt to relate to precisely those monks, who had joined sometime after the events, especially because of their explanatory nature. But as Shenoute’s tenure was exceptionally long, it is very well possible, that the ritual was given up completely and replaced at a certain point. The final step in the mythicization of an individual person endowed with charismatic authority happens after their death through “charismatic depersonalization” as Falco termed it.68 It occurs most often in the course of canonization, when glorification transfigures the remembrance of the actual person’s character and life and creates a new mythical narrative, elevating the individual into new roles by ascribing almost superhuman abilities, like heroes or saints. And indeed are hagiographical accounts regarded among the best examples for such “transformation[s] of charismatic individuals into depersonalized figures with quasi-permanent status”.69 The reflection of this process in a literary genre now addresses the important aspect of reception of this newly created narrative – of the need of an audience. As the public perception is essential for a successful canonization, this in turn concludes the charismatic depersonalization. For canonization removes a once local charismatic figure from its original environment and broadens its appeal to a larger group of worshippers by transforming its 66

Falco 2010: 166. As mentioned above it is discernible that certain rules have been adopted specifically to the events concerning Canon 1. Yet I assume that Shenoute did not have the power to enact new rules before he had claimed power, which happened only sometime after his original letter. Therefore, these rules must be a later addition. 68 Falco 2010: 80. 69 Falco 2010: 80. 67

SHENOUTE’S RISE TO POWER

121

life into public property through the newly created narrative. This expansion is only possible by depersonalization and “the holier the figure becomes, the less of his or her personal charisma remains”.70 The above described process can very well be applied to Shenoute, who became a highly revered Saint in the Coptic Church after his death and still is as of today, his feast day being July, 14th.71 There is also a rich hagiographical tradition concerning Shenoute, so far his vita is known in three languages besides Coptic – Arabic, Ethiopic and Syriac – and two Coptic dialects, even though manuscripts are fragmented and it has not been possible to reconstruct a complete version so far.72 Despite the damaged condition of the texts it is obvious that Shenoute’s portrayal meets the expectations of hagiographic writing: Any conflicts of which we know through his own writings have been glossed over or completely left out and miraculous deeds dominate the narrative. According to his vita Shenoute entered the monastery in the age of nine and directly succeeded his uncle Pcol as father superior.73 This re-created narrative eradicates the real circumstances of his ascension to power, for marred by his participation in a situation of upheaval and unrest they are unbefitting for a saint. However, this also takes away the very foundation upon which Shenoute’s charismatic authority is based. Without this existential crisis in the monastery at this time – manufactured or not – Shenoute could have neither legitimized his claim for power nor attracted any loyal followers. The revolution would have failed. Yet these events are no longer important, because the narrative of the vita is subject to other methods of legitimatization largely independent of Shenoute as individual or of his life. Thus, the depersonalization is complete, his charismatic authority has finally waned. Bibliography Adair-Toteff, Christoffer 2005. “Max Weber’s Charisma.” Journal of Classical Sociology 5, 189–204. Becker, Sina forthcoming. Macht der Offenbarung – Offenbarung der Macht: Übersetzung, Analyse und Textkommentar zu A27, dem ersten Werk in Schenutes Kanon 1. Doniger, Wendy 1996. “Minimyths and Maximyths and Political Points of View.” In: Myth and Method, edited by Laurie L. Patton and W. Doniger, 109–127. Charlottesville.

70

Falco 2010: 81. Lubomierski 2007: 138. 72 For the most recent and relevant study of sources and tradition concerning the hagiographical texts about Shenoute see Lubomierksi 2007. Also, Samuel Moawad (University of Münster) is currently preparing a new edition of the Arabic texts of the vita Sinuthii. 73 See Lubomierski 2007, esp. E 3/3: Die Aufnahme ins Mönchtum, 42, 149. 71

122

S. BECKER

Emmel, Stephen 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600 (Subs. 111–112). Louvain. ——. 2004a. “Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In: Il Monachesimo tra Eredità e Aperture. Atti del simposio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano” per il 50 anniversario dell’Istituto Monastico di Sant’ Anselmo. Roma, 28 maggio – 1 giugno 2002, edited by Maciej Bielwaski and Danièl Hombergen, 151–174. Studia Anselmiana 140. Rome. Falco, Raphael 2010. Charisma and Myth. Continuum Studies in Religion. London. Fraser, Cora 2005. Conspicuous by Its Absence? Perception and Visual Description in the Historical Works of Tacitus. Newcastle upon Tyne. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery: Egyptian Monasticism in Late Antiquity. New York/Oxford. ——. 2009. “Garments of Salvation: Representations of Monastic Clothing in Late Antiquity.” JECS 17, 125–150. Lausberg, Heinrich 2008. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 4th ed. Stuttgart. Layton, Bentley 2009. “The Monastic Rules of Shenoute.” In: Monastic Estates in Late Antique and Early Islamic Egypt: Ostraca, Papyri, and Essays in Memory of Sarah Clackson, edited by Anne Boud’hors et al., 170–176. American Studies in Papyrology 46. Cincinnati. ——. 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii: Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute denn Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. Murariu, Mihai 2017. Totality, Charisma, Authority: The Origins and Transformations of Totalist Movements. Wiesbaden. Schroeder, Caroline 2001. “Purity and Pollution in the Asceticism of Shenute of Atripe.” In: Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1999, edited by Maurice F. Wiles and Edward J. Yarnold, 142–147. Studia Patristica 35. Leuven. ——. 2006. “Prophecy and Porneia in Shenoute’s Letters: The Rhetoric of Sexuality in Late Antique Egyptian Monastery.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65, 81–97. ——. 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia. ——. 2009. “Queer Eye for the Ascetic Guy? Homoeroticism, Children, and the Making of Monks in Late Antique Egypt.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 77: 333–347. Terlouw, Kees 2010. “Charisma and Space.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 10, 335–348. Weber, Max 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley. ——. 2019. Economy and Society. A New Translation. Edited and translated by Keith Tribe. Cambridge. Yardley, John C. 2008. Tacitus. The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero. With an Introduction and Notes by Anthony A. Barrett. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford.

PAUL DE LAGARDE, AGAPIUS BSCIAI AND THE HISTORY OF COPTIC BIBLE RESEARCH* HEIKE BEHLMER

Paul de Lagarde, Professor of Oriental Philology at Göttingen University from 1869–1891, is most widely remembered as a more than controversial political writer.1 His cultural criticism and the virulent anti-Semitism of his writings and their reception under National Socialism have recently found renewed interest among specialists.2 His main scholarly legacy lies in the project to which he dedicated most of his working life: a critical edition of the entire Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). Lagarde’s ambitious plan was impossible to complete in his lifetime; it was left to his student and biographer Alfred Rahlfs3 to establish this edition in 1908 as a long-term project at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences.4 While Lagarde’s political writings and his work on the LXX have often been examined,5 his contribution to Oriental Philology and Coptic Studies in particular still leaves room for further research. In the past I have tried to show how influential the teacher and philologist Lagarde was in the formative years of Egyptology as an independent discipline in the second half of the 19th century and the positivist turn within the field.6 Here I would like to look more in detail at Lagarde’s relationship with one of the early Coptic Copticists, Agapius Bsciai (1831–1887),7 and their role in the history of research

* I wish to dedicate this brief overview, in heartfelt gratitude for his friendship and support over many years, to Stephen Emmel, whose manifold and wide-ranging interests include the history of scholarship and the Coptic Bible. I am indebted to Frank Feder, Thomas Gertzen, and Theresa Kohl for their comments and corrections. 1 The most recent biography of Lagarde is Sieg 2007. 2 See, recently, various contributions in Behlmer, Gertzen, and Witthuhn 2020, with further bibliography. Other recent publications include Ulrich Sieg’s biography of Lagarde (see previous note), which focuses on his political ideology, and Lattke 2014. 3 Rahlfs 1928. 4 Until 1942, the Academy was named “Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen” (originally: Königliche Gesellschaft). For the Septuagint edition see: https://adw-goe.de/forschung/ abgeschlossene-forschungsprojekte/akademienprogramm/septuaginta-unternehmen/. The project initiated by Rahlfs ended in 2015, but a new project started in 2020 will be dedicated to the Editio critica maior of the Septuagint Psalter: https://adw-goe.de/forschung/forschungsprojekte-akademienprogramm/die-editio-critica-maior-des-griechischen-psalters/. 5 The most recent and informed discussion of Lagarde’s work on the Septuagint is Neuschäfer 2013: 235–264. 6 Behlmer 2020: 69–80; Behlmer 2012: 249–258. 7 I am building on a previous short study (Behlmer 2009: 17–24). I had occasion to present part of the present remarks in the framework of a panel on the Coptic Bible at the

124

H. BEHLMER

into the Coptic Bible. I will start with a few remarks on Lagarde’s scholarly biography and then discuss the exchange between Lagarde and Bsciai as documented by the archive of the Göttingen State and University Library.8 Born on November 2, 1827 in Berlin as the son of Wilhelm Bötticher, a teacher from a family of Protestant ministers, Lagarde started studying theology in 1844 at the Friedrich Wilhelm Universität, now Humboldt University. Among his teachers in Berlin were Wilhelm Hengstenberg (Old Testament), Friedrich Rückert (Oriental languages), and Moritz Gotthilf Schwartze (Coptic). After obtaining a PhD in 1849 with a dissertation Initia chromatologiae arabicae and a habilitation in Halle in 1851, research stays took him to Paris and London in 1851–1852. Unable to obtain a university appointment, he taught high school from 1854–1866. A royal scholarship enabled him to focus on his scholarly work until in 1869 he succeeded Heinrich Ewald to the chair of Oriental Philology in Göttingen, which he occupied until his death on December 22, 1891.9 One of Lagarde’s first large-scale plans involving the Bible was to publish the New Testament according to the Oriental version, and editions of Coptic New Testament texts were among his first publications (s. the list below). However, when he was in London, he found that the Orientalist William Cureton (1808–1864) had the publication rights for all Syriac manuscripts, and his plan had to be abandoned.10 From 1861 Lagarde switched his focus to the LXX, and from 1866 first his scholarship and then his appointment to Ewald’s chair relieved him from the necessity to earn a living outside Academia and enabled him to focus on his editorial work. Collation travel to the major European collections (Paris, London, Turin, and Rome) in 1874/1881/1882 was made possible by – private, but also government – grants. In the framework of both projects – New and Old Testament – Lagarde edited numerous Coptic, especially Biblical texts: • Acta Apostolorum coptice, Halle 1852. • Epistulae Novi Testamenti coptice edidit Paulus Boetticher, Halle 1852. • Der Pentateuch koptisch, ed. Paul de Lagarde, Leipzig 1867.

XIth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Claremont, CA, July 25–30, 2016, and I wish to thank the organisers of the congress and the panel for this opportunity. 8 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Abteilung Handschriften und Seltene Drucke, Cod. Ms. Lagarde 175. I am indebted to the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Prints and its Director at the time, Dr. Johannes Mangei, for supporting and facilitating my research. The correspondence of Paul de Lagarde has been catalogued by Bärbel Mund, for whose help I am equally grateful. The results are searchable on KALLIOPE (https://kalliope-verbund.info/ de/index.html, last accessed on Mar 15, 2021). See Mund and Mangei 2020: 33–42. 9 For Lagarde’s career in Göttingen cf. Rahlfs 1928: 62–86. 10 Rahlfs 1928: 43 gives more details about this change of plans.

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

125

• Bruchstücke der koptischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments, in: AGGW (Abhandlungen der Göttingischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften) 24 (1879), 63–104 (= Lagarde, Orientalia I, 1879, 63–96). • Psalterii Versio Memphitica e recognitione Pauli de Lagarde. Accedunt Psalterii thebani fragmenta Parhamiana, Proverbium memphiticorum fragmenta Berolinensia, Göttingen 1875. • Die Koptischen Handschriften der Göttinger Bibliothek, in: AGGW 24 (1879), 3–62 (= Lagarde, Orientalia I, 1879, 3–62). • Aegyptiaca Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita, Göttingen 1883. • Catenae in Evangelia aegyptiace quae supersunt Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita, Göttingen 1886. The list of his publications of Biblical texts introduces us to a peculiar feature of Lagarde’s publication strategy. Very early on he started publishing his works and those of others using his own money. This made him independent of dealing with publishers, but if the books did not sell as well as hoped, he incurred a financial loss. The books he printed between the years 1881 and 1884 alone (including the first LXX-related edition11 and Aegyptiaca) are reported to have made the huge loss of 9000 Marks.12 Lagarde’s early Coptic editions found a ferocious critic in his contemporary Heinrich Brugsch, from 1867 Professor of Egyptology in Göttingen. The criticism was mostly unjustified, as his biographer Rahlfs underlines, who characterises Brugsch’ criticism as completely irresponsible and points out that Lagarde’s work had been fully rehabilitated in Horner’s New Testament edition.13 Most likely due to this dispute, Lagarde was to return to the Coptic New Testament only in the last phase of his life, first to refute in detail – more than 25 years afterwards – Brugsch’ review, and subsequently to edit the New Testament Catenae from Robert Curzon’s collection.14 After being disappointed in his plans regarding the New Testament, in 1861 Lagarde’s focus had moved to the Old Testament. He very early on established that since there were very few Greek uncial manuscripts for the individual books in existence, it was absolutely necessary to include the ancient translations, among which Coptic, alongside with later Greek manuscripts. In 1866 he drew up a project plan, which covered 40 years, certain that he would die before its completion. It comprises 3 stages: the edition of non-hexaplaric and 11 Lagarde 1883. For Lagarde’s reconstruction of the – assumed – Lucianic recension of the historical books see Rahlfs 1928: 75–79 and Neuschäfer 2013: 259. 12 Rahlfs 1928: 16. To assess the size of the loss it might be useful to consider that the average basic salary for professors in Göttingen from the 1870s was 5100 Marks (6000 in Berlin): Maus 2013: 79; 83. Only professors of Law were able to draw on much higher salaries, and many, but not Lagarde, had some private means. 13 Rahlfs 1928: 37–38. 14 The reference to this publication can be found in the list above. For Lagarde’s connections with the British collector Robert Curzon (1810–1873) see Behlmer 2003: 231–238. On the significance of the catena see most recently Downer 2016: 19–31.

126

H. BEHLMER

hexaplaric texts, for which he allowed 10 years respectively, and building upon this, a critical edition.15 Lagarde’s edition plan included, as an integral part of his method,16 the documentation of the Oriental tradition. He aimed at obtaining an original LXX text purified of later additions, whose superiority over the codified Hebrew biblical text of Judaism, the Masoretic text, would emerge. This endeavour was fed by a fundamental anti-Semitic preconception,17 and it should result unsuccessful, as Bernhard Neuschäfer emphasises.18 Thus, Lagarde’s preconceptions and editorial principles as well as his strictly philological orientation come together to force him to edit all the sources not properly published, including the translations of the Bible or the church fathers even if they are only to be used as quarries for the LXX text. It is his conviction of the value of the ancient translations and the necessity to edit them that was to bring him in contact with Agapius Bsciai.19 Bsciai, who had become Coptic-Catholic titular bishop (of Chariopolis, Thrace) and apostolic vicar in 1866, had represented his church at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870. Due to conflict with his community in Egypt, Bsciai resigned after 12 years in office. As Henri Hyvernat puts it, “owing to regrettable differences with his flock, this bishop, more learned and pious than tactful, was recalled to Rome in, or soon after, 1878, and did not return to Egypt until 1887, forty days before his death”.20 Lagarde, in a letter to the famous Orientalist William Wright (1830–1889)21 dated May 31, 1881, suggests that he was “deposited for dealing badly in money matters”.22 With a neo-Bohairic letter dated July 4, 1879, Bsciai initiates the contact, asking for Lagarde’s publications of Coptic Biblical texts, which he had been unable to acquire in Rome.23 Lagarde’s publications must have reached Bsciai, because in a letter dated September 3, 1879 the latter expresses his disappointment that Lagarde had not printed the Psalms in Coptic types. Bsciai’s neoBohairic letter was to be the beginning of a correspondence which spans the 15

Rahlfs 1928: 68–69. For an assessment of Lagarde’s editorial principles, which are rooted in the scholarly tradition of the late 19th century which upholds that history can be studied only through the careful edition of religious and cultural (textual) traditions – cf. Neuschäfer 2009: 91–112 at p. 107 and id. 2013 passim. 17 Lange 2020: 147–166; Neuschäfer 2013: 244–245. 18 Neuschäfer 2013: 259–260. 19 In the Coptic letter edited here he signs himself ⲁⲅⲁⲡⲓⲟⲥ ⲡϣⲱⲓ, while in European languages his first and last names are variously rendered as Agapios/Agapius/Aghapius/Agabio and Bsciai/Bishai/Bshai/Pshoi. 20 Hyvernat 1909. 21 Maier 2011. 22 The extensive correspondence between Lagarde and Wright is kept under the signature Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 1313. 23 For further information see my edition (Behlmer 2009). 16

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

127

years 1879–1884. A total of 14 letters by Bsciai to Lagarde are preserved in Göttingen,24 together with one copy of a letter by Lagarde.25 They are written mostly in Latin, with a few Italian and Coptic (see supra) exceptions. During his extended stays in Rome Bsciai had access to and copied Sahidic Old Testament manuscripts from the extensive collection of Coptic manuscripts collected by Cardinal Stefano Borgia. Borgia’s collection had been divided up not long after his death in 1804 with the non-Biblical manuscripts being taken to Naples (now in the Biblioteca Nazionale), and the Biblical manuscripts being given to the Congregatio De Propaganda Fide (now in the Vatican Library).26 The contact between Lagarde and Bsciai can be divided roughly into four main phases: • After the initial contact there is a short phase of negotiations about the acquisition of Bsciai’s transcriptions of Coptica from the Borgia collection. • After Bsciai was unable to sell his transcriptions, he must have offered them for free, first to the Egyptologist Adolf Erman, who passed the offer on to Lagarde and then, in a third phase, again to Lagarde by mediation of the Italian Orientalist Ignazio Guidi. • The last phase then concerns the failure of the entire project, with the Borgia Biblical manuscripts being entrusted for publication to Father (later Cardinal) Agostino Ciasca. Lagarde was in Rome from February 16 to May 26, 1881, supported by a donation of £100 collected by William Wright, to collate the LXX manuscripts 19, 108 and 248.27 During his stay he entered into negotiations with Bsciai for the latter’s copy of the Borgia Coptic Biblical manuscripts. Four letters from Bsciai fall into this phase: three dated March 6, May 11 and May 17, 1881, and a fourth letter without date (but, from its contents, written just after Lagarde’s departure).28 The first three of these are concerned with the acquisition of Bsciai‘s copies. Bsciai politely leaves the estimation of their value to Lagarde’s “indulgentia et clara in hisce rebus scientia” (“forebearance and clear knowledge of these matters”) and hopes that Lagarde will be able to see the codices

24

The correspondence is kept under the signature Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175. I have tried to trace the fate of the counterpart letters by Lagarde, so far unsuccessfully. My gratitude is due to those scholars and institutions helping me in this search, in particular Prof. Paola Buzi, Università “La Sapienza”, Rome, Dr Marco Grilli of the Archivum Secretum Vaticanum and Msgr Luis M. Cuña Ramos, Archivist of the Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelisatione, the successor organisation of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Julien Delhez, M.A., in transcribing and translating the part of the correspondence in Latin. 26 Cf. the introduction to Buzi 2009. 27 Lagarde 1883: Lagarde’s reconstruction of the Lucianic text from Genesis to Esther. 28 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175 p. 7, 9, 11 and 15. 25

128

H. BEHLMER

“cum maior pars illorum ob temporis diuturnitatem detrita”29 (“with a large part of these deteriorated because of age”), a fact which obviously is intended to underline how demanding his work had been. Bsciai’s compensation is to be paid out of a collection raised in England, however, the financial support will never be finalised. There are delays in the payment, and on April 16, 1881 Lagarde writes to Wright that having nearly bought Bsciai’s autographs, he will now decline to accept the money – an action which seems typical of Lagarde who was very easily feeling slighted.30 Thus, when Bsciai finally names his price, 2000 Lira,31 the opportunity has passed by. The second phase involves Adolf Erman to whom Bsciai seems to have offered his transcriptions of Proverbs for printing (at Erman’s costs, but without asking for payment). Erman informs Lagarde, in a letter dated July 18, 1881 and asks if the Göttingen Academy could finance the publication. The Copt Bsciai (ⲡϣⲱⲓ), bishop in Rome (Via Avignonesi 32), who two years ago published an Arabic-Coptic grammar for the ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟⲩ ⲛϣⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧⲥ asks me to publish at my cost the edition of Sahidic Proverbs prepared by him […] maybe the Göttingen Society32 which has done so much for Coptic already is better able to help the valiant man […] Or maybe you own a copy of the Proverbs – then please turn down the Copt and give it us yourself. Because you would give us an edition, he only a replica!33

Lagarde informs Erman about his previous contacts with Bsciai, and Erman passes on Lagarde’s conditions for printing the copies of Proverbs, one being that 29 Both quotations from the letter dated March 6, 1881: Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 7. All translations from Lagarde’s correspondence are mine. 30 Lagarde gives the same version of this exchange to Ignazio Guidi in a letter dated December 12, 1882 (Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 454, p. 3). Guidi must have enquired about Bsciai’s copies (the original enquiry is not in the correspondence), and Lagarde answers: “Als ich 1881 nach Rom reiste, hatte mir ein Englischer Geistlicher Perry hundert Pfund Sterling zur Verfügung gestellt. Von diesen würde ich des Bischofs Bsciai Abschriften haben bezahlen können. Aber Bsciai war so närrisch keinen Preis zu sagen, und seine Manuskripte mir erst zwölf Stunden vor meiner Abreise zur Einsicht mitzutheilen. Ich habe Herrn Perry geschrieben, daß ich auf sein Geld verzichte.” However, a different version of the events is given by Lagarde in his justification for the failure to publish the Borgia Sahidic manuscripts from Bsciai’s copies which is described in more detail below. In: Lagarde 1884: 200–201, he states, that on April 11, 1881, the British sponsor had written to inform him that he would be unable to provide the sum, as had been previously agreed upon, in October 1881. 31 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 11 dated May 17, 1881. 32 See above n. 4. 33 “Der Kopte Bsciai (ⲡϣⲱⲓ), Bischof in Rom (Via Avignonesi 32), der vor zwei Jahren eine arabisch-koptische Grammatik für die ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟⲩ ⲛϣⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧⲥ herausgegeben hat, bittet mich die Ausgabe der sahidischen Proverbien, die er vorbereitet hat, auf meine Kosten drucken zu lassen. […] vielleicht ist die Göttinger Gesellschaft die für das Koptische schon so viel gethan hat eher in der Lage dem wackern Mann zu helfen”. […] Oder besitzen Sie selbst eine Abschrift der Proverbien – dann bitte weisen Sie den Kopten ab und geben Sie uns lieber diese selbst. Von Ihnen bekämen wir ja eine Ausgabe, von jenem nur einen Abdruck!” — The extensive correspondence between Erman and Lagarde is kept under the signature Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 321. On the relationship between both scholars see also Behlmer 2006: 276–293.

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

129

the work was supposed to be submitted before October 20, 1881, and the other that the text was to be printed without Bsciai’s introduction.34 In a letter dated December 14, 1881 Bsciai then offers other transcriptions to Lagarde for print: “The Fragments of the five Books of Moses, or Pentateuch, almost complete”.35 This is not what Lagarde was expecting: in his reply he complains bitterly that Bsciai had offered the Pentateuch but does not mention Proverbs or Job.36 Also he is complaining that Bsciai dated his letter October 14, but it only reached Lagarde in December. This complaint seems to be based on a misreading or misinterpretation, though, because Bsciai’s letter is clearly dated December 14, and it must have been Lagarde who – not quite understandably – made this mistake, a mistake that is also found in the following letter where Lagarde transcribes Bsciai’s “December 22” as “October 22”.37 Bsciai rejects the complaints, saying that an edition of Proverbs without introduction would be useless and that he had been in touch with Erman all the time.38 However, Bsciai may indeed have not been quite straightforward in his dealings with Erman or Lagarde, maybe to hedge his bets, because in the meantime he seems to have submitted his transcriptions of Proverbs elsewhere for publication.39 This enrages Lagarde even more when he discovers it. In his 1884 justification of the fact that he had not – as he had previously announced – published the Borgia Coptic Bible manuscripts, he accuses Bsciai of doubledealing. [I did not know …] that dating from February 1880, Bishop Bsciai had edited […] the fragments of the South Egyptian translation of Proverbs. So in the spring of 1881 the prelate was negotiating with me […] without signalling that already in February 1880 he had sent an important part of these transcriptions to be printed in Paris.40

34 I have been able to find the original letter of July 11, 1881, written in Latin, from Bsciai to Erman among the latter’s papers in the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen. It is incorrectly identified as a “Brief von Unbekannt [A. Epsch] an Adolf Erman”: https://nbn-resolving.de/ urn:nbn:de:gbv:46:1-72475. 35 “Frag. V Moysis librorum, seu Pentateuchi, quasi integrum”: Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 19. 36 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 23: “Nunc tacens de Proverbiis et Iobeide Pentateuchum offers”. 37 Note in Lagarde’s hand on Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 27. Bsciai’s first letter is dated “14 X.bris 1881” and his second “22 X.bris 1881”. 38 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 27. 39 The edition is dated February 1880 (Bsciai 1881: 368). 40 Lagarde 1884: 201: “[…] daß, vom Februar 1880 datierend, der Bischof Bsciai […] die Bruchstücke der süd-ägyptischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien herausgegeben hatte. Also im Frühjahre 1881 verhandelte dieser Praelat mit mir wegen des Verkaufs seiner Abschriften, ohne zu melden, daß er bereits im Februar 1880 ein wichtiges Stück dieser Abschriften zum Abdrucke nach Paris gesandt hatte.” On p. 203–205 he reprints a short notice, by Bsciai, of the Sahidic Job in the Borgia collection in the Moniteur de Rome (“Une découverte biblique importante”; the date given by Lagarde is October 26, 1883).

130

H. BEHLMER

But in 1882 Lagarde was not yet aware of this. Before December 6, 1882 the Italian Orientalist Ignazio Guidi (1844–1935) must have written to Lagarde informing him that Bsciai was now ready to give – not sell – his transcriptions to Lagarde to be printed in exchange for just five free copies. Lagarde answers that he would only do it if Guidi were to collate the transcriptions against the originals (again for five free copies of the printed edition). All three would appear in the title of the book which was to be named “Bibliorum aegyptiacorum fragmenta borgiana”.41 The relationship between Bsciai and Lagarde then deteriorates fast, upon the former complaining about Lagarde’s word separation practices, using “ⲟⲩ ⲡ ⲉⲧ Ⲣ ⲁⲛⲁⲕ” (Sap 9:9) as example, and complaining that he tears apart the parts of the Coptic language.42 Lagarde’s handwritten note on the letter calls his criticism “impertinent” and Bsciai himself “an ignorant parson”. That in December 1883, Bsciai urges Lagarde not to waste time in printing his transcriptions43 is a foreboding of the new difficulties on the horizon. In fact, Bsciai would have known by then that Agostino Ciasca had taken home the Borgiana Biblica and that he had been put in charge, by the Propaganda, of the publication. Lagarde, on January 21, 1884, asks Ignazio Guidi, who was supposed to collate Bsciai’s copies against the originals, for verification and guarantees for their project44 and is informed by return post (January 30) that the Vatican has entrusted the publication to Ciasca and has published this in, among others, the Osservatore Romano. No one is allowed to collate the manuscripts, which are at Ciasca’s home.45 On January 31, 1884 Bsciai blames the failure on Lagarde’s publicity for the edition and the involvement of Guidi.46 So great was the publicity you gave to the printing of the Borgian Biblical Fragments that it annoyed your friend Father Ciasca, who claimed to be the master of the Borgian Museum, having kept the codices in question with him for several years. This was not enough for you, and you commissioned Sig(no)r I. Guidi to 41

Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 454, p. 3 (December 6, 1882, copy by Anna de Lagarde). I have not been able to find Guidi’s original postcard dating to November 1882, which is mentioned in Lagarde’s letter, in the correspondence between both scholars in the SUB Göttingen. 42 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 31 43 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 35: “and to courageously continue the work undertaken” (“magno animo in inceptum opus perge”). 44 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 454, p. 5–6. 45 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 454, p. 7–8. 46 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 41: Tanta fù la pubblicità, ch’Ella ha dato sulla stampa dei Frammenti Biblici Borgiani, ch’urtò sui nervi il suo amico P. Ciasca, il quale pretese d’esserne lui il padrone del Museo Borgiano, tenendo presso di se i detti Codici per vari anni. Non Le bastò ciò, commise al Sig(no)r I. Guidi di confrontare sui predetti Codici le stampe che andava facendo, sicuro d’ottenere questo favore. Ora dietro di questa notizia, non solo non diedero i Codici al Sig(no)r Guidi, ma dissero di stamparli per mezzo del P. Ciasca con tipi nuovi etc. quod in votis. E questa notizia non solo la posero nel giornale “L’Osservatore” ma anche in quello detto la “Voce” del 31 Gen. 84.

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

131

compare the typesets you were making with the codices, certain of obtaining this favour. Now, having been informed of this, not only did they not give the codices to Sig(no)r Guidi, but they said that they would publish them through P. Ciasca with new types etc. quod in votis. And this announcement was not only published in the newspaper “L’Osservatore” but also in that called “Voce” of 31 January 84.

He pronounces Ciasca incapable of completing the task to proper standards (“because of his ignorance of the Coptic language”) and urges Lagarde to proceed with the printing in any case.47 Lagarde replies to Guidi on February 2, 1884: It would serve no purpose to print what has been typeset, as it has not been compared to the originals, in addition, printing would only mean for me to incur further useless costs. I will therefore ask for the typesetting to be undone. The Bishop Bsciai could very well have known about Ciasca and the Propaganda; I will keep his copies, which I have had neatly bound, at his disposal. For the sake of the LXX, I regret very much, that the edition will not happen, it is unlikely that we both will see Ciasca’s publication.48

Bsciai’s letter, on the other hand, was never answered, it seems. Ten months later, Bsciai asks for his transcriptions back, which are returned without comment.49 Shortly afterwards, Bsciai’s copies must have been acquired by the French Copticist Émile Amélineau. This fact was omitted in Amélineau’s edition of Sahidic Old Testament texts,50 but somewhat obliquely alluded to in his introduction to an edition of New Testament materials51 and included in his 1912 overview of research on the Coptic Bible,

47

Ibid.: “pell’ignoranza in cui versa della lingua Copta”. Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 454, Nr. 5: “Das Gesetzte abziehen zu lassen, würde keinen Zweck haben, da es nach den Originalen nicht verglichen ist, auch erwüchsen mir nur durch den Abdruck weitere nutzlose Kosten. Ich lasse den Satz also auseinandernehmen. Der Bischof Bsciai konnte wohl über Ciasca und die Propagandapläne Bescheid wissen: ich halte seine Abschriften, welche ich sauber habe binden lassen, zu seiner Verfügung. Um der LXX willen ist mir sehr schmerzlich, daß aus der Ausgabe nichts wird: einen Druck Ciascas werden wir Beide schwerlich erleben”. Here Lagarde should be proved wrong: the first two volumes of Ciasca’s edition appeared in his (and Ciasca’s) lifetime: Ciasca 1885–1889. The third volume was completed posthumously by Giuseppe Balestri and appeared in 1904. 49 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 45. 50 Amélineau 1886a: 198. Amélineau’s publications of Biblical texts, like many others, can be accessed (with links, if freely available) from the Digital Edition of the Sahidic-Coptic Old Testament at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences: http://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/bibliography. 51 Amélineau 1886b: 42 n. 2: “Je dois faire observer ici que je n’ai pu avoir entre mains les manuscrits de la bibliothèque de la Propagande. Ils étaient absents; cependant j’en possède une excellente copie. J’offre des remerciements tout particuliers à celui qui me l’a procurée.” (I must remark here that I have been unable to have the manuscripts of the Propaganda library at hand. There were not in place, however, I have an excellent copy. I offer special thanks to the man who has obtained it for me). 48

132

H. BEHLMER

I myself, in 1885, published a large number of Sahidic Old Testament fragments from a copy I had bought from the Coptic bishop Bsciai, unaware that an edition was being prepared in Rome and to appear shortly. I had no other aim than to be useful to scholarship by providing new material for study, but my intention was misunderstood. One pretended to expect from me a critical edition which I did not want to provide, for the valid reason that I was completely incapable of doing so.52

In his handwritten note on Bsciai’s letter of November 12, 1884, Lagarde refers to his lengthy explanation of the whole story from his point of view.53 This is the last letter in the dossier, however it is not the last time it is mentioned in Lagarde’s correspondence. Why research all these anecdotes and details, apart from the fact that they shed quite a fascinating light on the history of Coptic Biblical Studies and its protagonists? In addition to obtaining valuable information about history and condition of manuscripts and artefacts, information often lost today, we gain insight into Orientalist practice in the 19th century. Orientalist practice, as Suzanne Marchand defines it,54 is not only the methods of philological research, but the experiences, motives and world views connected to being a learned Orientalist in the 19th century,55 for example questions such as • Access to manuscripts (no formalised process, before photography) • Assertion of the philological-historical school in Egyptology (Lagarde, Erman, Lagarde’s student Georg Steindorff)56 • Increasing importance of the versions for the study of the Bible, in particular the Septuagint • Importance of non-institutional sponsors and scholarly networks • Anti-Catholic sentiment transferred to other non-Protestant scholars57 or outright Anti-Semitism Considering his controversial contribution to Biblical Studies in general it is difficult to evaluate the legacy of Lagarde’s work on the Coptic Bible. Not long after his death, in 1897, Henri Hyvernat credits him with the newly flourishing interest in the subject,

52 “Moi-même, en 1885, je publiai, d’après la copie que j’avais achetée à l’évêque copte Bsciai, un grand nombre de fragments sa‘idiques de l’Ancien Testament, ignorant que l’on en préparait, à Rome, une édition qui devait paraître à bref délai; je n’avais d’autre vue que d’être utile à la science en procurant de nouveaux matériaux à l’étude, et ma pensée ne fut pas comprise, car on feignit de me demander une édition critique que je ne voulais pas fournir, pour la bonne raison que j’en étais complètement incapable” (Amélineau 1912: 265). 53 Cod. Ms. Lagarde 150: 175, p. 45. He refers to Lagarde 1884: 200. 54 Marchand, German Orientalism XX. 55 Mangold 2011. 56 See Gertzen 2016, with further bibliography. 57 The importance of the “Kulturkampf” for Lagarde’s religious politics is underlined, e.g., by Gräfe 2007.

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

133

Indefatigably … [Lagarde] both through his works … or worked on transmitting to others the sacred fire burning in him; it is only just to say that we owe to him at least in large part this new bloom of Coptic Bible studies.58

From another viewpoint, Lagarde’s pupil Alfred Rahlfs sees in his Syriac, Coptic and other studies distractions from his LXX plans and ultimately, the cause of his failure to complete his edition.59 This opinion, however, has also undergone a re-evaluation. As Bernhard Neuschäfer underlines, documenting (and in the 19th century this means in most cases editing) the oriental versions was on the contrary an integral part of Lagarde’s editorial philosophy.60 For this goal, Lagarde was willing to go to great length, working incessantly, travelling if he could, gaining access to the manuscripts and getting them printed even if it meant he had to pay out of his own pocket. Lagarde`s position as an expert for Coptic and other Near Eastern philologies, his motivations, the organisation of his research, and his networks, have not been completely studied, also because the sources – such as the correspondence between Lagarde and Bsciai – so far have only been partially examined and made available. A digital edition and analysis of the “Orientalist” correspondence, other archival materials (i.e. annotated printed editions) and Lagarde’s works themselves would shed new light on the history of research not just on the Coptic Bible, but also on the other areas for which he played an important role (e.g. Iranian Studies and Semitic languages). More research on the Lagarde archive will also deliver a contribution to the complex relationship between scholarship, Orientalism, and Anti-Semitism in the second half of the 19th century.61 Bibliography Amélineau, Émile 1886a. “Fragments de la version thébaine de l’Écriture (Ancien Testament) [1].” Recueil de travaux 7, 197–217. ——. 1886b. “Fragments thébains inédits du Nouveau Testament [1].” ZÄS 24, 41–56, 103–114. ——. 1912. “Les travaux relatifs à l’édition de la version copte de la Bible.” Journal des savants, 10ᵉ année (Juin), 259–271. Behlmer, Heike 2003. “As Safe as in the British Museum: Paul de Lagarde and his Borrowing of Manuscripts from the Collection of Robert Curzon.” JEA 89, 231– 238.

58

“Sans relâche […] tantôt par ses écrits […] et tantôt de vive voix, il travailla à communiquer aux autres le feu sacré qui était en lui; ce n’est que justice de dire qu’on lui doit, en grande partie au moins, cette nouvelle efflorescence des études scripturaires coptes […].” (Hyvernat 1897: 58). 59 Rahlfs 1928: 75; 86–87. 60 Neuschäfer 2013: 254. 61 See above with n. 2; 17.

134

H. BEHLMER

——. 2006. “Adolf Erman und Paul de Lagarde.” In: Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft. Adolf Erman (1854–1937) in seiner Zeit, edited by Bernd U. Schipper, 276–293. Berlin. ——. 2009. “A Neo-Bohairic Letter from the Correspondence of Paul de Lagarde in Göttingen University Library.” In: Liber amicorum. Jürgen Horn zum Dank, edited by Antonia Giewekemeyer, Gerald Moers, and Kai Widmaier, 17–24. Göttinger Miszellen Beiheft 5. Göttingen. ——. 2012. “Ägyptologie und Koptologie in Göttingen – zur Geschichte einer (nicht immer) wunderbaren Freundschaft.” Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 249–258. ——. 2020. “Paul de Lagarde und die Geschichte der (Göttinger) Ägyptologie.” In: Der Nachlass Paul de Lagarde. Orientalistische Netzwerke und antisemitische Verflechtungen, edited by Heike Behlmer, Thomas L. Gertzen, and Orell Witthuhn, 69–80. Europäisch-jüdische Studien – Beiträge 46. Berlin. Behlmer, Heike, Gertzen, Thomas L., and Witthuhn, Orell (eds.) 2020. Der Nachlass Paul de Lagarde. Orientalistische Netzwerke und antisemitische Verflechtungen. Europäisch-jüdische Studien – Beiträge 46. Berlin. Bsciai, Agapius 1881. “Liber Proverbiorum Coptice.” Revue Égyptologique 2, 356– 381. Buzi, Paola 2009. Catalogo dei manoscritti copti borgiani conservati presso la Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III” di Napoli. Accademia dei Lincei – Memorie, Ser. IX, 25/1. Rome. Ciasca, Agostino 1885–1889. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani. 2 vols. Rome. Downer, Carol 2016. “The Role of Coptic Translators in the Transmission of Patristic Biblical Commentary in the First Millennium AD.” In: Studies in Coptic Culture: Transmission and Interaction, edited by Mariam F. Ayad, 19–31. Cairo/ New York. Gertzen, Thomas L. 2016. “‘In Deutschland steht Ihnen Ihre Abstammung entgegen’ – Zur Bedeutung von Judentum und Konfessionalismus für die wissenschaftliche Laufbahn Georg Steindorffs und seine Rolle innerhalb der École de Berlin.” In: Georg Steindorff und die deutsche Ägyptologie im 20. Jahrhundert. Wissenshintergründe und Forschungstransfers, edited by Susanne Voss and Dietrich Raue, 333–400. ZÄS – Beiheft 5. Berlin/Boston. Gräfe, Thomas 2007. “Anmerkungen zu: Ulrich Sieg, Deutschlands Prophet. Paul de Lagarde und die Ursprünge des modernen Antisemitismus, München 2007.” In: Zukunft braucht Erinnerung. Das Online-Portal zu den historischen Themen unserer Zeit, 3. Oktober 2007: https://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung.de/ deutschlands-prophet-von-ulrich-sieg/ Hyvernat, Henri 1897. “Études sur les versions coptes de la Bible.” Revue Biblique 6, 48–71. ——. 1909. “Egypt.” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, New York: http://newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm Lagarde, Paul A. de 1883. Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum pars prior graece. Göttingen. ——. 1884. “Nachtrag zur Vorrede der Librorum Veteris Testamenti pars prior graece Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita.” In: Mittheilungen, vol. 1, no. 21, 200–205. Göttingen Lange, Armin 2020. “Antisemitismus und biblische Textkritik bei Paul de Lagarde et al.” In: Der Nachlass Paul de Lagarde. Orientalistische Netzwerke und anti-

PAUL DE LAGARDE AND AGAPIUS BSCIAI

135

semitische Verflechtungen, edited by Heike Behlmer, Thomas L. Gertzen, and Orell Witthuhn, 147–166. Europäisch-jüdische Studien – Beiträge 46. Berlin. Lattke, Michael 2014. Paul Anton de Lagarde und das Judentum. The University of Queensland: https://www.academia.edu/6851085/Paul_Anton_de_Lagarde_und_ das_Judentum Maier, Bernhard 2011. Semitic Studies in Victorian Britain. A portrait of William Wright and his world through his letters. Würzburg. Mangold, Sabine 2011. “Review of S. Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire”: https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/rezbuecher-15331 Marchand, Suzanne 2009. German Orientalism in the Age of Empire. Religion, Race, and Scholarship. Publications of the German Historical Institute. Cambridge. Maus, Christian 2013. Der Ordentliche Professor und sein Gehalt. Die Rechtsstellung der juristischen Ordinarien an den Universitäten Berlin und Bonn zwischen 1810 und 1945 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Einkommensverhältnisse. Bonner Schriften zur Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 4. Bonn. Mund, Bärbel, and Mangei, Johannes 2020. “Der Nachlass Paul de Lagarde in den Spezialsammlungen der Niedersächsischen Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen.” In: Der Nachlass Paul de Lagarde. Orientalistische Netzwerke und antisemitische Verflechtungen, edited by H. Behlmer, T. L. Gertzen, and O. Witthuhn, 33–42. Europäisch-jüdische Studien – Beiträge 46. Berlin. Neuschäfer, Bernhard 2009. “Rez. zu U. Sieg, Deutschlands Prophet. Paul de Lagarde und die Ursprünge des modernen Antisemitismus. München 2007.” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 261, 91–112. ——. 2013. “Alteri saeculo. Paul Anton de Lagardes ‘Lebensarbeit’ an der Septuaginta.” In: Die Göttinger Septuaginta: Ein editorisches Jahrhundertprojekt. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XXX, edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernhard Neuschäfer, 235–264. Berlin. Rahlfs, Alfred 1928. Paul de Lagardes wissenschaftliches Lebenswerk im Rahmen einer Geschichte seines Lebens dargestellt. Göttingen. Sieg, Ulrich 2007. Deutschlands Prophet. Paul de Lagarde und die Ursprünge des modernen Antisemitismus. Stuttgart.

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ ANNE BOUD’HORS

S’il est vrai que les rencontres annuelles du projet « Editing Shenoute », dirigé par Stephen Emmel, qui ont eu lieu de 2000 à 2015 environ, ont eu plus souvent pour objet des questions codicologiques, linguistiques ou éditoriales que le contenu même des œuvres, leur caractère stimulant a aidé plusieurs membres du projet à étudier tel ou tel aspect des sermons du célèbre archimandrite. Je leur suis, pour ma part, redevable d’une progression régulière dans mon édition du Canon 81. En signe de reconnaissance pour le rôle décisif de Stephen Emmel dans les études chénoutiennes et pour son amitié constante, j’aimerais revenir sur les deux très longues citations du Lévitique présentes dans le Canon 8. L’obsession de la pureté, présente dans la plupart des sermons chénoutiens de discipline ecclésiastique, semble portée à l’extrême dans ce volume des Canons, et ces deux citations ont un caractère programmatique, que j’ai évoqué brièvement dans l’introduction à l’édition2, et dont je voudrais étudier ici plus en détail la mise en œuvre3. La particularité du Canon 8, outre le fait qu’il est la mieux conservée des œuvres de Chénouté, grâce à l’existence d’un témoin presque complet, est de devoir sa cohérence au traitement de deux thèmes, hautement symboliques et étroitement associés : la maladie et le vêtement. Le deuxième et le troisième des sept sermons du recueil4 commencent sur une allusion à des vêtements qu’aurait dû porter l’abbé et qui se révèlent mités et inutilisables, objets de rebut et de dégoût. On sait que la fabrication des vêtements était à la charge des moniales, et c’est clairement à des femmes que Chénouté s’adresse au début du deuxième sermon, puisqu’il en interpelle deux précisément5. Cependant, si le point de départ des différents sermons du Canon 8 semble le plus souvent être un incident précis survenu dans l’une ou l’autre des trois communautés qui forment la congrégation de Chénouté, il semble aussi qu’il généralise

1

Boud’hors 2013. Boud’hors 2013: 71. 3 Sur la base d’une conférence (« L’image de la lèpre dans un sermon de Chénouté ») prononcée devant la Société suisse pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien, à Berne, le 2 juin 2007. Je remercie Matthieu Cassin, patristicien (IRHT), pour sa relecture et ses commentaires. 4 Les deux derniers sont en fait davantage des lettres, assez brèves. 5 Sur les relations entre Chénouté et le monastère de femmes dépendant de sa congrégation, voir Krawiec 2002. 2

138

A. BOUD’HORS

assez rapidement son propos et que l’ensemble de la population monastique pouvait être concerné par ses harangues. On comprend sans difficulté tout le profit symbolique qu’un supérieur monastique pouvait tirer du motif du vêtement : sur le plan individuel, l’habit monastique est la marque de la condition du moine, il convient qu’il soit fait et porté selon certaines règles. Des vêtements mal faits, en mauvais état ou sales sont le signe d’une négligence et d’une corruption intérieures. La communauté monastique d’autre part, conçue comme un corps dont tous les moines sont les membres, doit également porter un vêtement irréprochable, qui soit la fierté de son supérieur – et de Dieu. Si ce n’est pas le cas, si le vêtement est souillé ou usagé, c’est la collectivité tout entière qui est en danger6. Il est toujours très difficile de détecter, dans les sermons de Chénouté, et particulièrement dans le Canon 8, la ligne de départ entre l’ancrage factuel et l’interprétation symbolique, car le passage de l’un à l’autre n’est pas signalé par des marques de discours, alors même que le va-etvient entre les deux est constant. Entretenir ce flou fait évidemment partie de la stratégie rhétorique de l’auteur. La Bible abonde en récits et paroles exprimant le caractère symbolique des vêtements, et Chénouté a abondamment puisé dans ces passages pour appuyer, ou plutôt amplifier son propos. Ces citations sont volontiers accumulées et donnent parfois l’impression d’un catalogue, où aucun passage n’est réellement exploité dans un commentaire détaillé. Il est cependant une exception notable, au début du troisième sermon du Canon 8, où sont cités deux longs passages du Lévitique (13,47–58 et 14,33–48)7 concernant respectivement la lèpre des vêtements et la lèpre des maisons, extraits donc des deux chapitres 13 et 14 consacrés à la lèpre sous toutes ses formes. Il convient de s’interroger d’une part sur la raison d’être de ces citations, d’autre part sur leur longueur. Sur leur raison d’être, car le Lévitique est généralement peu cité dans la littérature chrétienne, comme le montre un passage extrait de l’homélie XXVII d’Origène sur les Nombres : « Quand donc, à ceux-là, on lit un extrait des Livres divins où n’apparaît aucune obscurité, ils le reçoivent de plein gré, par exemple quand il s’agit du petit livre d’Esther ou de Judith, ou encore de Tobie, ou des préceptes de la Sagesse ; mais qu’on lise le livre du Lévitique, et voici qu’aussitôt l’esprit de notre homme est choqué et qu’il récuse cette nourriture comme n’étant pas la sienne. Car il est venu 6

Sur l’ensemble de ces questions, voir Schroeder 2007. Le texte copte de ces passages a été publié à part dans Boud’hors 2003. J’y ai relevé l’importance de la deuxième citation comme témoin textuel unique de ce passage du Lévitique en copte sahidique, puisque le seul témoin complet de ce texte, le manuscrit de New York, Pierpont Morgan 566, a sauté, à la suite d’un homoioteleuton (« Et le Seigneur parla à Moïse… »), tout le passage de Lv 14,33 à 15,33, passant directement de 14,32 à 16,1. J’y ai également étudié en détail les divergences du texte copte par rapport au texte biblique grec. L’édition de ce manuscrit a fait l’objet d’une thèse récente de l’université Macquarie de Sydney : Antonia St Demiana, « Sahidic Coptic Leviticus. Its Manuscript Witnesses and Its Text » (2019). 7

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

139

pour apprendre à honorer Dieu, pour recevoir ses préceptes de justice et de piété, il n’entend que préceptes sacrificiels et qu’observances rituelles d’immolation : comment ne se détournerait-il pas et ne refuserait-il pas cette nourriture comme ne lui convenant pas ? »8.

Il est vrai qu’Origène lui-même a largement commenté le thème de la lèpre dans son homélie VIII sur le Lévitique9, mais il s’est attaché à la lèpre humaine, laissant de côté la lèpre du vêtement et de la maison. Les passages sur la lèpre du vêtement et de la maison sont cités dans d’autres œuvres d’Origène (Homélies sur la Genèse, Commentaire sur les Romains), ainsi que chez quelques autres auteurs (Grégoire de Nazianze, Didyme d’Alexandrie), mais c’est toujours en passant, et avec d’autres passages. Seul Philon d’Alexandrie a commenté un peu plus précisément, dans une perspective symbolique, la lèpre de la maison10. Dans l’ensemble, il y a peu à tirer de la comparaison avec ces auteurs, car Chénouté ne se place pas dans une perspective individuelle, mais collective. Il convient aussi de s’interroger sur la longueur de ces citations, qui est très inhabituelle. Quelle pouvait être leur fonction et quel pouvait être l’effet recherché ? LES CITATIONS ET LEUR CONTEXTE Il est nécessaire de citer largement le contexte et de s’intéresser à une période oratoire assez longue11, pour mettre en perspective ces extraits, et tenter de repérer comment ils sont introduits, adaptés et commentés. Nous prenons donc le troisième sermon, qui occupe cent dix pages sur les trois cent vingt du manuscrit, à son début12 : « 1. Qui, sinon Dieu, est témoin de ce qu’il (= Chénouté) a dit à quelqu’un : ‘As-tu vu de nouveau la mite qui est entrée dans les ouvrages (skeuos) de tissu à l’endroit où ils sont entreposés, et qui a détruit non seulement leurs bordures, mais aussi leur milieu ? Peut-on encore les sortir à la lumière ? Peut-on encore les déplier et les secouer ?’ 8 Homélie XXVII 1, 2 ; éd. Doutreleau 2001: 272–273. D’après l’index de la CPG (vol. V), il n’y a aucune homélie sur le Lévitique conservée en grec (celles d’Origène n’ont été transmises qu’en latin). 9 Ed. Borret 1981: II, 8–69. 10 Dans Quod deterius… § 16 (éd. Feuer 1965: 32–33 ; voir plus loin pour une comparaison avec l’exégèse de Chénouté), et dans Quod Deus sit immutabilis § 131 (éd. Mosès 1963: 126– 129). De manière générale l’image de la lèpre du Lévitique sert à Philon à explorer les relations entre innocence et corruption dans l’âme. 11 Les pages 125–136 du manuscrit ; voir Boud’hors 2013: 175–186 (texte) et 423–427 (traduction). 12 Je marque en gras les termes-clés qui balisent le chemin vers la citation, en encadrant ceux qui se retrouveront dans le texte biblique.

140

A. BOUD’HORS

2. C’est pourquoi je vous avertis, vous qui vous occupez de mes vêtements : mieux vaut un ou deux ou trois de bonne façon parmi les vêtements que vous me confectionnez, plutôt que cette masse qui est une honte pour celui qui doit les porter. Ne vous donnez donc pas la peine de me faire demander leur taille ou leur couleur : je ne les porterai pas tous. Et ce n’est pas là – car c’est une affliction – ce que Dieu a pu vous inspirer : ‘si certains ne lui vont pas parmi tous les vêtements que nous avons fabriqués, certains lui iront’. Je m’étais certes déterminé à ne porter absolument aucun de tous ces vêtements-là. Mais vos sollicitudes ne me l’ont pas permis, et je n’ai pas pu faire cela jusqu’à maintenant. 3. N’est-il pas nécessaire que je vous informe, frères, que j’ai eu honte en donnant des mesures pour ces vêtements, ou en les faisant couper, ou en donnant des consignes pour leur façon ? J’ai été rempli de honte, expérimentant cette maladie par tous les traitements qui sont mis à son compte. Et s’il arrivait que j’en guérisse à partir d’aujourd’hui, j’agirais en cachette de ceux dont je ne veux pas qu’ils comprennent. Et s’il arrive que je porte certains de ces vêtements, je les porterai en cachette de ceux dont je ne veux pas qu’ils les voient sur moi. 4. Vous voyez combien grande est la détresse de celui qui a les aiguillons de cette maladie à l’œuvre dans son corps, parce qu’il n’a pas trouvé le moyen de s’exprimer franchement sur les vêtements et les manteaux que ses frères lui ont confectionnés de toute leur bonne volonté. Et aussi parce qu’il n’a pas trouvé le moyen de goûter aux pains nombreux que vous vous êtes fabriqués, frères, – d’autant plus qu’ils sont destinés à la bouche des foules et qu’une foule en mange, et que celui que vous appelez ‘frère’ et ‘père’ n’impose pas de limite. Est-ce que la règle n’a pas été jusqu’à présent qu’il en mange avec vous ? Est-il indigne, lui, parmi toute cette foule, d’en manger ? 5. Puisque c’est à cause des méfaits accomplis par nous depuis le début au sein de ces communautés qu’une division s’est produite, de sorte que l’homme, c’est-àdire celui qui te parle, ne mange pas de pain avec ceux qui sont à ses côtés, c’està-dire toi, la communauté13 ; puisque c’est à cause des méfaits que nous accomplissons maintenant encore en ton sein qu’il décidera de ne pas porter de vêtement venant de toi, de ces vêtements-là dont l’infamie et la flétrissure sont évidentes, ou dont la chaîne et la trame laissent voir l’infamie ; alors Dieu jugera au milieu de ceux qui provoquent une séparation par leurs actions funestes, entre un homme et ses frères ou ses compagnons. 6. N’est-ce pas au sujet de la flétrissure et de l’infamie, et d’ouvrages (skeuos) abjects – leur abjection se manifestant par le fait qu’il y a honte à les mettre ou à les conserver dans un coffre – que l’Écriture a parlé ainsi14 : 47 Au cas où, pour un vêtement, il y survient une atteinte de lèpre, que ce soit un vêtement de laine ou un vêtement de lin (grec : de laine) ou de chanvre, 48 que ce soit sur un tissu chaîne ou trame, que ce soit sur du lin (grec : des lins) ou de la laine (grec : des laines), que ce soit sur un cuir ou sur tout cuir travaillé, 49 et si l’atteinte devient verdâtre ou rougeâtre sur le vêtement ou sur le cuir, sur le tissu chaîne ou trame, ou sur tout ouvrage (skeuos) fait en cuir, c’est une atteinte de lèpre et on le montrera au prêtre. 50 Et le prêtre regardera l’atteinte et le prêtre mettra l’atteinte 13 Sur les circonstances de cette rupture et du retrait de Chénouté de la vie communautaire, voir l’article de Sina Becker dans ce volume. 14 J’adopte la traduction française du texte grec de la Septante (base de la version copte) publiée par Harlé et Pralon 1988. Sont marquées en caractères gras les variantes du texte donné par Chénouté.

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

141

à part pendant sept jours. 51 Et le prêtre regardera l’atteinte le septième jour  ; si l’atteinte s’étend sur le manteau (ⲣϣⲱⲛ / grec : vêtement), ou sur le tissu chaîne ou trame, ou sur le cuir sous toutes les formes d’ouvrages qu’on fait en cuir, l’atteinte est une lèpre persistante, il est impur. 52 On brûlera ce vêtement, le tissu chaîne ou trame, que ce soit laines ou lins, ou tout objet (skeuos) de cuir où se trouve l’atteinte de lèpre persistante, ce sera brûlé au feu. 53 Au cas où le prêtre regarde et où la lèpre ne s’étend pas sur le vêtement, ou sur le tissu chaîne ou trame, ou sur tout objet (skeuos) en cuir, 54 le prêtre ordonnera de laver l’endroit où se trouve l’atteinte, et le prêtre mettra à part l’atteinte pendant sept jours une deuxième fois  ; 55 et le prêtre regardera après que l’atteinte en aura été lavée, et voici que l’atteinte n’a pas changé d’aspect et que l’atteinte ne s’étend pas, c’est impur, ce sera brûlé au feu  : l’atteinte est restée stationnaire sur le vêtement ou sur le tissu chaîne ou trame. 56 Et au cas où le prêtre voit que l’atteinte est terne après qu’elle aura été lavée, il l’arrachera et l’enlèvera (ⲛϥϥⲓⲧϥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ = addition) du vêtement ou du cuir ou du tissu chaîne ou trame. 57 Mais au cas où c’est encore visible sur le vêtement, ou sur le tissu chaîne ou trame, ou sur tout objet (skeuos) de cuir, c’est une lèpre bourgeonnante  ; sera brûlé au feu l’endroit où est l’atteinte. 58 Et le manteau, ou le tissu chaîne ou trame, ou tout objet (skeuos) de cuir qui aura été lavé et dont l’atteinte aura été enlevée, seront lavés une deuxième fois et seront purs. »

L’annonce de la citation est progressive : elle passe, au premier paragraphe, par le thème de la mite, qui était déjà présent au début du sermon précédent15 et sera repris ensuite. Ce motif s’appuie sur plusieurs passages bibliques, notamment Is 51,816 et Prov 25,20A17. La mite, insecte rongeur, est d’une certaine manière un analogue de la lèpre des tissus, qui est une sorte de moisissure18. En plus de cette analogie, il faut prêter attention au mot skeuos, « objet, ouvrage », qu’emploie Chénouté dans ce début de sermon, et qui est déjà peutêtre une « pierre d’attente » de la citation du Lévitique, relayée quelques paragraphes plus bas par « la chaîne et la trame ». Les deux paragraphes suivants, assez obscurs parce que très allusifs, introduisent néanmoins le thème de la honte. La honte à son tour a un effet séparateur, qui est évoqué au quatrième paragraphe et développé au cinquième. Cette notion de séparation (ⲡⲱⲣϫ est le mot employé ici et c’est aussi le mot de la citation du Lévitique pour « mettre à part ») est fondamentale dans la perspective de Chénouté. Elle comprend deux aspects réunis dans un même mot : d’une part la « division » que cherchent

15 « En effet le manteau spécial que je vous avais commandé pour m’en envelopper ou m’en couvrir au moment où j’en aurais besoin […], la mite l’a dévoré, exploré, complètement troué » (pages 63–64 du manuscrit ; Boud’hors 2013: 113–114 [texte], 386 [traduction]). 16 « Car la teigne les rongera comme un vêtement, et les mites les dévoreront comme de la laine ». 17 « Comme la mite pour le manteau et le ver pour le bois, ainsi la tristesse afflige le cœur de l’homme ». 18 « L’hébreu du TM désigne par çāra’at, non à proprement parler la lèpre, mais une desquamation de la peau qui, par assimilation ou métaphore, peut signaler la moisissure des tissus ou celle des murs d’une maison » (Harlé et Pralon 1988: 45).

142

A. BOUD’HORS

à provoquer certains fauteurs de trouble et qui compromet l’unité de la communauté, de même que la lèpre fragilise la cohésion du vêtement ou de la maison ; d’autre part la « mise à part », qui est nécessaire pour le traitement, et qui risque de devenir définitive en cas d’échec du traitement, pour aboutir à l’exclusion ou à la destruction (« Dieu jugera »). Ainsi ce mot ⲡⲱⲣϫ appelle, pourrait-on dire, de manière à la fois forte et subtile, la citation. Dans ce même paragraphe, les mots « flétrissure » et « infamie », qui seront repris ensuite et associés à l’« abjection », annoncent déjà dans quel sens le passage sera utilisé. Ces mots associent en effet la notion de souillure physique ou morale et celle d’exclusion sociale19. Des deux aspects de la sainteté présents dans le Lévitique20, on comprend déjà que c’est le premier, la discrimination, qui sera privilégié par Chenouté. L’accent est mis d’emblée sur l’impureté qui semble déjà considérée comme une « qualification essentielle »21, en tous cas un état dont la guérison n’est pas annoncée. Mais sans prendre le temps de commenter le long passage qu’il vient de citer, Chenouté enchaîne sur le second22 : « D’autre part, n’est-ce pas parce que Dieu connaissait à l’avance les souillures qui se produiraient dans des maisons au pays des Cananéens, semence de Cham le fils de Noé, que 33 Le Seigneur dit à Moïse et Aaron  : 34 Je donnerai – ou je rendrai apparentes – des atteintes de lèpre dans les maisons de ce pays, 35 et celui à qui est la maison viendra et annoncera au prêtre en ces termes  : J’ai vu comme une atteinte de lèpre dans ma maison. 36 Et le prêtre enjoindra de débarrasser la maison, avant que lui, le prêtre, y entre pour regarder la maison, ceci pour que les choses de la maison ne soient pas impures, et après cela le prêtre [entrera pour examiner la maison. 37 Et il] regardera l’atteinte de lèpre sur les murs de la maison, cavités verdâtres ou rougeâtres, et leur aspect fait quelque dépression sur les murs de la maison, 38 et le prêtre étant sorti de la maison sur le seuil de la maison, le prêtre mettra à part la maison pendant sept jours. 39 Et le prêtre reviendra le septième jour et il regardera la maison, et voici que l’atteinte de lèpre s’est étendue sur les murs de la maison, 40 et le prêtre enjoindra et on arrachera 19 J’ai choisi de traduire ici par « flétrissure » le copte ⲧϭⲁⲉⲓⲟ et par « infamie » le copte ⲥⲱϣϥ. Quant au terme « abjection », il rend ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧϣⲁⲩ. 20 « Il y a, d’abord, un aspect discriminatoire qui met en jeu la notion d’interdit […] Mais l’autre aspect de la sainteté est celui qui souligne la communication et la communion d’alliance entre le Seigneur et son peuple » (Harlé et Pralon 1988: 30). 21 Alors que, dans le Lévitique, « L’impureté est alors non une qualification essentielle, mais l’indication d’un état transitoire dont un rite, sous la responsabilité du prêtre, peut amener la cessation » (Harlé et Pralon 1988: 31). 22 Comme il a été dit plus haut, nous n’avons, pour ce deuxième passage, d’autre témoin copte que la citation de Chénouté. Il est donc difficile de savoir dans quelle mesure il s’éloigne du texte de la version copte. Se trouvent en caractères gras les variations par rapport au texte biblique grec. Certaines peuvent être dues au fait que la citation est faite de mémoire, d’autres sont significatives pour l’exégèse de Chénouté. Le début du verset 34 (Quand vous serez entrés dans le pays des Cananéens, que je vous donne en possession, et quand) est omis puisqu’il est glosé dans l’introduction de la citation

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

143

les pierres sur lesquelles est l’atteinte de lèpre et on les jettera dehors hors de la ville dans un lieu impur. 41 Et on grattera l’intérieur de la maison tout autour et on déversera la terre grattée en dehors de la ville dans un lieu impur. 42 Et on prendra d’autres pierres grattées et on les mettra à la place des pierres enlevées, et on prendra une terre nouvelle et on en enduira la maison. 43 Mais si l’atteinte de lèpre revient à nouveau et pousse dans la maison après qu’on a arraché les pierres, qu’on a gratté la maison et qu’on l’a enduite une autre fois, 44 alors le prêtre entrera et regardera  ; si l’atteinte de lèpre s’est étendue dans la maison, c’est une lèpre persistante dans la maison, cette maison qui est impure, 45 [et] on la démolira, et on portera ses poutres, ses pierres et toute sa terre hors de la ville dans un lieu impur. 46 Et celui qui entre dans la maison pendant tous les jours où elle a été mise à part sera impur jusqu’au soir  ; 47 et celui qui dort dans la maison lavera ses vêtements et sera impur jusqu’au soir  ; et celui qui mange dans la maison lavera ses vêtements et sera impur jusqu’au soir. 48 Mais au cas où le prêtre se présentant entre et regarde, et voici que l’atteinte de lèpre n’a pas vraiment pris d’extension dans la maison après qu’elle a été enduite, alors le prêtre purifiera la maison parce que ce signe a disparu.  »

Notons d’emblée que, dans ce passage, le copte a systématiquement « l’atteinte de lèpre » là où le grec a seulement « l’atteinte » (ce n’était pas le cas dans le premier extrait). Quelques autres variantes par rapport au texte grec peuvent être significatives : v. 34 : « ou je rendrai apparentes » n’est pas dans le grec. Ce peut être un souci de précision de la part de Chénouté, qui met aussi en relief son rôle de veilleur. v. 35 : « J’ai vu comme une atteinte de lèpre » / grec « comme une atteinte a été vue » : la première personne met de nouveau l’accent sur l’intervention du veilleur. v. 39 : « s’est étendue » est la leçon retenue par l’édition Wevers (1986), alors que celle de Rahlfs (1950) donne καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐ διεχύθη ἡ ἁφή, « et voici que l’atteinte ne s’est pas étendue », conformément au texte du codex Alexandrinus (A) et du codex Vaticanus (B). Il est probable que Chénouté ne faisait ici que suivre la version copte23, mais on peut noter que la phrase affirmative va dans le sens de son pessimisme. v. 44–45 : « c’est une lèpre persistante dans la maison, cette maison qui est impure, 45 [et] on la démolira » / grec « c’est une lèpre persistante dans la maison, elle est impure. Et on démolira la maison » : peut-être une simple variation stylistique, qui peut être aussi une actualisation (« cette maison »). v. 48 : « ce signe a disparu » / grec « l’atteinte a été guérie » ; la modification ici est importante, car ⲙⲁⲉⲓⲛ « signe », renvoie à la glose « je rendrai apparentes » du début ; Chénouté joue ici sur le sens de ⲗⲟ ϩⲓⲱⲱ//, qui signifie aussi bien « cesser, quitter », que « guérir » en contexte médical. Cette interprétation de la citation est à mettre en rapport avec l’idée, récurrente dans 23

La version bohaïrique n’a pas la négation.

144

A. BOUD’HORS

le Canon 8, que la corruption des moines vicieux est visible, malgré tous leurs efforts pour la dissimuler (cf. plus haut, dans l’introduction au premier extrait : de ces vêtements-là dont la flétrissure et l’infamie sont évidentes, ou dont la chaîne et la trame laissent voir l’infamie). Chénouté clôt ensuite cette période en commentant brièvement la pertinence des deux extraits pour la situation de sa communauté monastique, avant de revenir à la mite : « Peut-on encore laver ceux sur qui cette atteinte de lèpre est persistante et n’a pas changé ? – Ou encore elle a changé sans changer en eux tous, soit qu’ils ne se soient pas tous purifiés, soit qu’ils se soient tous purifiés. Peut-on encore arracher des murs de la maison les pierres sur lesquelles se trouve cette atteinte de lèpre persistante ? Peut-on encore les jeter dehors hors de la ville dans un lieu impur ? L’intérieur de la maison, ne l’a-t-on pas gratté tout autour, n’a-t-on pas déversé la terre qu’on en avait grattée en dehors de la ville dans un lieu impur ? Et elle n’a pas changé, l’atteinte de lèpre persistante sur les murs de la maison et les pierres de cet endroit, ces maisons impures destinées à être démolies très vite, et leurs pierres et leurs poutres et toute leur terre portées hors de la ville dans un lieu impur. Après tout cet effort accompli par le prêtre, après qu’il a arraché la lèpre ternie et l’a enlevée avec tout son contour du vêtement ou du tissu chaîne et trame, après qu’il a mis à part la maison pendant sept jours, après qu’il a pris d’autres pierres grattées pour les mettre à la place des pierres qui ont été enlevées, après qu’il a pris une autre terre nouvelle pour enduire la maison, je vous l’ai dit de nombreuses fois et sous de nombreuses formes, vous n’avez pas pris soin, frères, de vous détourner de ces actions mauvaises qui causent notre affliction. Je suis accablé, parce que vous (le) regretterez, non seulement en ce lieu de séjour, mais dans le lieu où vous irez. Aucun homme ne recevra jamais repos ni bonheur quand les Écritures s’opposent à lui sous la forme de ces paroles et de toutes celles qui leur ressemblent, que les saints ont prononcées par le souffle de la colère de Dieu qui parle en elles : Vous tous vous vous userez comme un vêtement, et vous serez dévorés comme (par) une mite24. Et encore : Comme une tunique ils s’useront avec le temps, et comme de la laine ils seront dévorés par une mite25 ».

INTERPRÉTATION DU RÉCIT

BIBLIQUE

Le commentaire de Chénouté est rapide et assez allusif. On comprend cependant sans trop de difficulté comment il applique ses passages à son propos, grâce à un procédé d’actualisation que les portions de phrase marquées en gras dans le paragraphe précédent soulignent : malgré les tentatives de purification et de correction effectuées par « le prêtre », les moines – vêtements ou maisons irrémédiablement impurs – sont voués à la destruction lors du jugement dernier.

24 25

Is 50,9 et 51,8. Ps 101,27.

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

145

C’est véritablement une sorte de programme que Chénouté expose ici de manière à peine voilée. Nous pouvons examiner comment les correspondances se font. 1. Purification de la lèpre du vêtement Mise à part (13,50) : le prêtre mettra l’atteinte à part pendant sept jours 1.1. extension (v. 51) si l’atteinte s’étend sur le manteau (…) l’atteinte est une lèpre persistante, il est impur ldestruction (v. 52) : on brûlera ce vêtement (…) ce sera brûlé au feu. 1.2. pas d’extension (v. 53) : la lèpre ne s’étend pas sur le vêtement l 1er lavage et nouvelle mise à part (v. 54) 1.2.1 pas d’évolution ni d’extension (v. 55) l destruction (totale ou partielle ?) : c’est impur, ce sera brûlé au feu 1.2.2. évolution (v. 56) : l’atteinte est terne après qu’elle aura été lavée l extraction de la partie lépreuse : il l’arrachera du vêtement. l2e lavage l purification (v. 58) Le v. 57 (le cas de « lèpre bourgeonnante ») n’est pas tout à fait clair : est-il une répétition du v. 55 ? Dans ce cas, au v. 55, seule l’atteinte est-elle brûlée et le vêtement susceptible de subir un deuxième lavage ? Ou bien faut-il considérer qu’il y a au v. 55 destruction totale de l’objet, tandis que le cas de la lèpre bourgeonnante est un autre cas d’évolution (1.2.3. ?), susceptible d’être stoppé par le feu, et permettant aussi un deuxième lavage et la purification ? L’ambiguïté n’est-elle pas ici au service de Chénouté ? Il peut ainsi, par un commentaire rapide, interpréter le texte dans un sens nettement menaçant : d’une part il réunit 1.1 et 1.2.1 dans un destin commun, en escamotant 1.2 : « Peut-on encore laver ceux sur qui cette atteinte de lèpre est persistante et n’a pas changé ? ». La question est évidemment rhétorique et il faut entendre : on ne peut plus corriger ceux qui se sont endurcis dans leur vice (donc, il faut les exclure). D’autre part il ajoute un cas : « Ou encore elle a changé sans changer en eux tous, soit qu’ils ne soient pas tous purifiés, soit qu’ils se soient tous purifiés ») : la contagion, toujours possible, compromet la purification. Il faut entendre : la mauvaise influence de ceux qui sont endurcis dans leurs vices est toujours à l’œuvre. Quant à l’opération de purification (1.2.2), elle n’est pas menée jusqu’au bout, mais s’arrête à l’extraction (« après qu’il a arraché la lèpre ternie et l’a enlevée avec tout son contour … »). Il faut entendre : malgré les exclusions pratiquées contre les vicieux et leurs sympathisants, le germe de la corruption n’est pas détruit et les mauvaises actions continuent.

146

A. BOUD’HORS

2. Purification de la lèpre de la maison Comme le vêtement, et de manière peut-être encore plus claire, la maison est doublement symbolique26, d’une part sur le plan individuel (« La porte n’estelle pas la bouche de la maison ? Mettons que j’appelle l’homme une maison »27), d’autre part sur le plan de la communauté, qui est une grande maison, une demeure (un topos, selon la terminologie des Canons). On observera que, dans le cas de la maison, les alternatives sont moins nombreuses (pas d’équivalent de 1.2), mais la procédure plus compliquée : A. Préliminaires (14,36) : la maison est débarrassée avant d’être examinée28. B. Mise à part (v. 38) : le prêtre mettra à part la maison pendant sept jours. 2.1. Extension (v. 39) : et voici que l’atteinte de lèpre s’est étendue sur les murs l arracher les pierres atteintes et les jeter dehors (v. 40) lgratter l’intérieur de la maison tout autour ( = gratter l’enduit) (v. 41) lmettre de nouvelles pierres et réenduire (v. 42) 2.1.1. Retour de l’atteinte (v. 43) : mais si l’atteinte de lèpre revient à nouveau et pousse dans la maison ldémolition totale (v. 45) 2.1.2. Pas de nouvelle manifestation (v. 48) : voici que l’atteinte de lèpre n’a pas vraiment pris d’extension lpurification Arracher les pierres, c’est bien entendu exclure les membres corrompus et « fauteurs de trouble ». Gratter l’intérieur de la maison, c’est s’assurer qu’il ne reste aucune mauvaise influence, aucun germe de dissension, au besoin en procédant à des châtiments moins définitifs que l’exclusion. Mettre de nouvelles pierres, c’est recruter de nouveaux moines, et réenduire, c’est faire en sorte que la cohésion entre les anciens et les nouveaux venus s’installe, notamment par l’enseignement et la prédication : « Certains d’entre nous, hommes et femmes, en vérité quand ils verront leurs frères qui craignent Dieu s’accorder ensemble dans le dessein du Seigneur d’un seul cœur, et rejeter d’entre nous à n’importe quel moment ceux qu’ils trouveront en train d’accomplir ces actions funestes, ne vont-ils pas dire : ‘Cette parole et cette action ne sont pas justes’ ? Mais on leur retournera le reproche : ‘Votre 26

On peut aussi penser à l’organisation en « maisons » des monastères pachômiens, qui semble aussi être en vigueur dans les monastères de Chénouté : voir Layton 2014: 52–53. 27 Page 263bis du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 323 [texte], 459 [traduction]). Le jeu est souvent présent dans la littérature monastique en copte, car le même mot ⲣⲟ signifie « bouche » et « porte ». 28 Ce point a retenu l’attention de Philon, qui le commente dans Quod Deus § 131–135.

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

147

parole à vous n’est pas juste ! Si vous ne disposez pas votre cœur à marcher dans la pureté et la liberté, vous les rejoindrez et vous serez rejetés de ces demeures’. À plus forte raison alors, que ceux qui sont sur le point d’entrer dans ces nouvelles communautés à tout moment disent dans leur cœur : Si, à ceux qui ont passé toutes ces années dans ces demeures, on n’a pas épargné l’exclusion à cause de leurs mauvaises actions, est-ce qu’on nous épargnera, à nous, d’en être bannis, si nous faisons ce qui ne convient pas ? »29.

En cas de retour de l’atteinte, c’est-à-dire de récidive, il y a démolition totale de la maison. Sur le plan individuel, cela signifie encore une fois l’exclusion des mauvais éléments et la damnation finale. Mais il y a plus grave : la maison est en effet aussi la communauté monastique, qui risque, par la faute de certains, d’être tout entière entraînée dans cette damnation. Ce sentiment aigu de responsabilité collective est souvent présent chez Chénouté : « J’ai prêté serment au Christ pour la paix de la congrégation, sa dignité et sa pureté, pour la perfection desquelles je lutte : même si dix s’en vont à cause d’un, même si vingt s’en vont à cause d’une, je ne tolérerai pas dans ces lieux les convaincus de malfaisance »30. On touche ici au rôle que tient Chénouté dans sa communauté. À aucun moment il ne s’identifie explicitement comme étant le prêtre qui examine et procède au rite de purification. Son commentaire des passages reste vague sur ce point : « Après tout cet effort accompli par le prêtre, après qu’il a arraché la lèpre ternie et l’a enlevée avec tout son contour du vêtement ou du tissu chaîne et trame, après qu’il a mis à part la maison pendant sept jours, après qu’il a pris d’autres pierres grattées pour les mettre à la place des pierres qui ont été enlevées, après qu’il a pris une autre terre nouvelle pour enduire la maison, je vous l’ai dit de nombreuses fois et sous de nombreuses formes, vous n’avez pas pris soin, frères, de vous détourner de ces actions mauvaises qui causent notre affliction ».

29 Page 190 du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 240 [texte], 428–429 [traduction]). Si l’on se place sur le plan individuel, on n’est pas très loin du commentaire de Philon dans Quod Deterius § 16 (éd. Feuer 1965: 32–33) : « C’est pourquoi la loi sur la lèpre enjoint, lorsque des creux verdâtres ou rougeâtres apparaissent dans une maison, d’enlever les pierres où ils se sont produits, et de les remplacer par d’autres ; c’est-à-dire, lorsque diverses qualités, qui sont l’œuvre des plaisirs, des désirs et des passions, leurs sœurs, ont écrasé sous leur poids l’âme tout entière et l’ont rendue plus creuse et plus basse qu’elle-même, il nous est enjoint de rejeter les principes responsables de la maladie et de leur substituer des principes sains en nous laissant guider par la Loi ou encore en recevant une bonne éducation » (c’est moi qui souligne). 30 Pages 238–239 du manuscrit, dans le quatrième sermon (Boud’hors 2013: 288–289 [texte], 446 [traduction]). Cette pratique de l’expulsion n’est pas propre à Chénouté. On la trouve exposée de manière énergique et justifiée par la même nécessité d’éviter la contagion dans le chapitre 107 de la Vie bohaïrique de Pachôme : « car quand les hommes mauvais croissent en nombre les uns à côté des autres, en ce cas la colère de Dieu descend également sur les autres qui sont bons, et tous tombent sous la malédiction » (Lefort 1943: 180–181). Une fois de plus l’Ancien Testament est sous-jacent, avec l’épisode du marchandage d’Abraham avec Dieu pour le nombre de justes nécessaire au salut de la ville de Sodome (Gn 18, 16–33).

148

A. BOUD’HORS

C’est qu’en réalité il ne se considère que comme l’instrument de Dieu. C’est Dieu qui voit, y compris ce qui est caché aux hommes, c’est Dieu qui exclut les membres corrompus, Chénouté ne fait qu’accomplir sa volonté. Il sait bien que le grand prêtre par excellence, selon l’exégèse développée dans l’Épître aux Hébreux, est le Christ. Quant à lui, il se considère comme un intermédiaire entre le Christ et ses communautés. En ce sens, c’est à Moïse qu’il s’identifie, humble et tragique pasteur qui porte les fautes de sa congrégation. FONCTION ET EFFICACITÉ DES

CITATIONS

Il faut pour finir s’interroger sur la fonction et l’efficacité de ces deux longs extraits. Dans la suite immédiate du sermon s’enchaînent en série des citations concernant les « beaux » vêtements, dont l’accumulation semble tirée d’une concordance, et dont je ne cite ici que les premières, à titre d’échantillon31 : Lv 21,10–11 : Ses vêtements, il ne les déchirera pas pour une âme morte. Mt 22,11–13 : On liera les mains et les pieds de celui qui sera trouvé sans vêtement de noce et on le jettera dans les ténèbres extérieures. Ps 44,9 : La myrrhe et l’huile parfumée (coulent) de tes vêtements. Ps 44,10 : La reine s’est tenue à ta droite dans une robe faite d’or, enveloppante, de toutes les couleurs. Ps 44,14 : Toute la gloire de la fille du roi paraît au-dehors  ; elle est enveloppée de franges d’or de toutes les couleurs. Prov 31,22–24 : Elle a confectionné deux manteaux pour son mari […] elle s’est confectionné pour elle-même des vêtements dans le lin et la pourpre […] elle a fabriqué des étoffes de lin et les a vendues, ainsi que des ceintures, aux Phéniciens. Cant 4,10–11 : Le parfum de tes vêtements surpasse tous les arômes ou encore Le parfum de tes vêtements est comme le parfum du Liban. Allusion à Gn 37,3 : « Est-ce qu’Israël lui-même n’a pas confectionné pour Joseph un vêtement bariolé ? » Gen 28,20–22 : Si tu me donnes du pain à manger et une tunique pour me vêtir, toute chose que tu me donneras, je t’en rendrai la dîme. Quant au thème de la lèpre exposé dans les extraits cités du Lévitique, on le retrouve de loin en loin : il est repris une première fois immédiatement après le passage analysé ici : « Car c’est une vaine parure pour l’homme de porter des vêtements dont il s’enorgueillisse, si leur infamie, leur flétrissure et leur lèpre ternie s’y trouvent ». Il est rappelé un peu plus loin, après plusieurs pages dans lesquelles le vêtement souillé de sang a pris le relais du vêtement lépreux : « Malheur à vous, car vous ne pouvez plus mettre à part la teinture de sang 31

Pages 139–144 du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 410–412 [traduction]).

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

149

dans laquelle vous avez trempé vos vêtements32 et l’en enlever, à partir de ce moment ; et Dieu non plus, pour qui ce n’est rien de l’en enlever, vous ne l’avez pas laissé (faire) »33. Il revient ensuite, à peu près au milieu du sermon dans un développement où est traité le motif de la maladie (motif associé à celui du vêtement dans tout le Canon 8), de nouveau à partir du Lévitique : « L’homme ou la femme atteints de la lèpre, l’Écriture les humilie ainsi : Que ses vêtements soient défaits et que sa tête soit non voilée, qu’il soit couvert autour de la bouche, il sera appelé ‘impur, impur’. Pendant tous les jours qu’il vivra, il demeurera souillé, résidant à part, sa demeure sera hors du campement  »34. Enfin il est repris, à la fin du sermon, de manière plus vague, et dans une perspective résolument pessimiste où est mise en relief l’absence de cohésion : « Si Celui qui est témoin (= Dieu) de la destruction à l’œuvre dans ces vêtements et ces manteaux s’était détourné du souffle de sa colère depuis le début, il (= Chenouté) ne continuerait pas, au moment actuel et ces jours-ci, […] à tenir ce discours en présence de celui qui le voit, honteux des vêtements qui sont sur lui et des manteaux qui l’enveloppent […] : Ce sont des objets à brûler au feu. Ne vois-tu pas, toi, comme leur trame s’est dissociée de leur chaîne, et leur chaîne de leur trame, et que celle-ci est d’un côté et celle-là de l’autre, si bien qu’ils apparaissent comme des fantômes de vêtements ou de manteaux, et qu’ils sont inutilisables pour celui qui voudrait les coudre ensemble, – c’est impossible puisque leur chaîne et leur trame ne sont pas tissées l’une avec l’autre »35.

À l’évidence, ce sermon ne constitue pas un commentaire des deux extraits du Lévitique cités à son début. Il ne contient aucune explication suivie, on n’y relève aucun lien avec les interprétations patristiques conservées. Il s’agit d’une rhétorique circulaire, le point d’arrivée n’est autre que le point de départ. Le but d’un tel sermon n’est pas de démontrer ni d’expliquer, mais de répéter, sous des formes diverses, des principes et des idées déjà connus des auditeurs. Une comparaison avec les autres sermons de l’ensemble des Canons invite à supposer que les moines étaient habitués à ce style véhément, à ces périodes constituées d’une suite incessante de citations. Quant à l’interprétation qui se dégage d’une lecture en contexte des deux extraits du Lévitique, soit elle était déjà connue des moines – car Chénouté n’explique rien –, qui sentaient alors une fois de plus planer la menace, soit elle leur échappait plus ou moins. Alors pourquoi citer intégralement ces deux passages ? Justement parce que le Lévitique était un livre mal connu ? Cela ne me paraît pas constituer une explication

32

Peut-être une allusion à la tunique de Joseph trempée dans le sang d’un bouc (Gn 37,31). Page 150 du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 200 [texte], 414 [traduction]). 34 Citation de Lv 13,45–46 ; page 173 du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 223 [texte], 423 [traduction]). 35 Pages 232–233 du manuscrit (Boud’hors 2013: 282–283 [texte], 443 [traduction]). 33

150

A. BOUD’HORS

suffisante. Il faut probablement prendre en compte aussi l’aspect stylistique36. Le « style sacerdotal »37 qui caractérise le Lévitique s’adapte bien, d’un côté, à celui de Chénouté, en ce qu’il est plein de répétitions dans les mots et dans les thèmes, de formules récurrentes (« impur », « c’est impur » étant la plus frappante), qui produisent un effet incantatoire. D’autre part, l’aspect prescriptif et systématique du Lévitique, qui a pu, dans une certaine mesure et dans certaines parties, servir de modèle à Chénouté, se mêle, dans les Canons, au style prophétique, constitué d’allusions, de reproches, de malédictions38. On peut donc voir aussi (surtout ?) comme un artifice littéraire l’intégration de cette longue et dense pièce biblique au début d’un tissu rhétorique d’ensemble plus lâche. Il est à peu près certain en effet que, si les sermons de Chénouté ont souvent la couleur, le mouvement, les registres de la langue parlée, ils ont été conçus pour constituer un véritable corpus littéraire destiné à être transmis fidèlement de manuscrit en manuscrit. Distinguer ce qui relève de cette intention littéraire et ce qui vise l’éducation des communautés monastiques n’est pas toujours aisé pour un lecteur moderne. Bibliographie Borret, Marcel (ed.) 1981. Origène. Homélies sur le Lévitique I et II. SourcChr 286 et 287. Paris. Boud’hors, Anne 2003. « Nouvelle page de la version copte du Lévitique (14,33-48) dans un sermon de Chenouté ». In : Sprache und Geist. Peter Nagel zum 65. Geburtstag, édité par W. Beltz, M. Mode & J. Tubach, 46–63. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 35. Halle (Saale). ——. 2013. Le Canon 8 de Chénouté. 1. Introduction, édition critique. 2. Traduction, index, planches. BEC 21.1–2. Le Caire. Doutreleau, Louis (ed.) 2001. Origène. Homélies sur les Nombres. SourcChr 461. Paris. Feuer, Irène (ed.) 1965. Philon d’Alexandrie. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat. Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 5. Paris. Harlé, Paul et Pralon, Didier 1988. La Bible d’Alexandrie LXX. 3. Le Lévitique. Paris. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery. Egyptian Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford.

36

Pour une étude détaillée des procédés stylistiques de Chénouté, voir Shisha-Halevy 2011. Cf. Harlé et Pralon 1988: 17. Un exemple de ce style, fait de répétitions, de formules récurrentes, se trouve dans le chiasme de Lv 13,52 : « On brûlera le vêtement, le tissu chaîne ou trame…, parce que c’est une lèpre persistante, ce sera brûlé au feu ». Or le chiasme est un procédé très employé dans la rhétorique de Chénouté. 38 Comme le remarque Bentley Layton dans son introduction au corpus de règles qu’il a dégagé de la lecture suivie des neuf tomes de Canons : « The legislative nature of these rules stands in noticeable contrast to Shenoute’s usual rhetoric, at least in those rules that are typified by established forms » (Layton 2014: 46). Chénouté s’identifie d’ailleurs souvent à un prophète, les citations prophétique, notamment celles du livre de Jérémie, sont très nombreuses dans ses œuvres, et la postérité lui conférera, très tôt après sa mort, le titre de prophète. 37

L’IMAGE DE LA LÈPRE DANS LE CANON 8 DE CHÉNOUTÉ

151

Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1943. Les Vies coptes de Saint Pachôme et de ses premiers successeurs. Bibliothèque du Muséon 16. Louvain. Mosès, André (ed.) 1963. Philon d’Alexandrie. De Gigantibus. Quod Deus sit immutabilis. Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 7–8. Paris. Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.) 1950. Septuaginta. Stuttgart. Schroeder, Caroline T. 2007. Monastic Bodies. Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphie. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel 2011. « Rhetorical Narratives: Notes on Narrative Poetics in Shenoutean Sahidic Coptic ». In : Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches, édité par Fr. Hagen et al., 451–498. OLA 189. Leuven. Wevers John W. (ed.) 1986. Leviticus. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis II.2. Göttingen.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST: SHENOUTE AMONG THE CHRISTIAN AUTHORS OF LATE ANTIQUITY DAVID BRAKKE

For hundreds of years, and even until very recently, Shenoute was not a Christian author. He was not included in collections of early Christian literature, nor did volumes containing his works sit on the shelves of historians and theologians next to those of Augustine of Hippo or Jerome. This was true even in Egypt, and perhaps more so: as Paul Dilley writes, “Shenoute’s legacy in Egypt as a saint has arguably been of greater significance than as an author.”1 To be sure, Shenoute wrote a lot, and his works survive in many manuscripts, but writing does not make someone an author, that is, a human being whose recognized identity includes the production of written works of lasting significance. Authors are products of discourse.2 Thanks to Stephen Emmel, however, Shenoute has become a Christian author, even if not yet for everyone and in every place. His effort to make Shenoute an author did not start from nothing. Although Amélineau’s Shenoute appears to have left behind merely a multitude of manuscript fragments,3 Leipoldt and Crum’s Shenoute composed (sometimes fragmentary) works (opera omnia) bearing Latin titles and sometimes preserved in multiple manuscripts: the abbot began to look something like a Coptic Augustine.4 But Emmel’s magisterial Shenoute’s Literary Corpus uncovered a more complete and impressive literary legacy of works with distinctive titles in Coptic and organized into multi-volume collections.5 He revealed the late ancient effort to make Shenoute not only a monk or archimandrite, but also an author. Or rather, Emmel revealed two such late ancient efforts, for the Canons and the Discourses represent two distinct projects of creating an author. Shenoute himself organized his monastic writings into the Canons during his lifetime, 1 Dilley 2017: 103. I have presented earlier versions of this material to helpful audiences at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, University of South Africa, Boston University, and Williams College. I am particularly grateful for the responses offered by participants in the meeting of the Critical Edition of Shenoute project in Göttingen in May 2016, led by Stephen Emmel, who has generously fostered and improved my scholarship for over thirty years. 2 Foucault 1998. 3 Amélineau 1907–1914. 4 Leipoldt and Crum 1906–1913. 5 Emmel 2004.

154

D. BRAKKE

probably over decades. As Emmel writes, “Shenoute literally ‘canonized’ his own writings.”6 Paul Dilley and Daniel Schriever have produced penetrating studies of the Canons in terms of ritualizing monastic texts and creating monastic authorship.7 In the wake of the canonization of the New Testament, Shenoute fashioned himself as a quasi-biblical author, as the use of the term “canon” implies. At the end of the first volume of the Canons, he announced that “we copied into this book (ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ) all the things that were written on the papyrus sheets (ⲭⲁⲣⲧⲏⲥ) existing this entire time.” He commanded that, like the Scriptures, the book should be read in a ritual context, at an assembly of all three monasteries to be held four times each year for common worship and repentance; “this book” belongs among “the other books written for us,” a collection that likely included both received monastic literature and the Scriptures.8 Even the physical format into which Shenoute transferred his Canons, from “papyrus sheets” into a “book,” that is, into a codex, contributed to their authority: as Dilley writes, “Regardless of the original media on which Shenoute’s letters were circulated, it was transcription to the codex, a literary format preferred by Christians, which invested them with lasting ‘canonicity.’”9 Scripture provided the frame of reference within which Shenoute constructed himself as an author and his writings as normative works. Like the Canons, the Discourses were carefully planned and constructed, but not by Shenoute. Most likely one or more White Monastery monks assembled them after his death. A key piece of evidence for that project is the so-called Vienna incipit list, a partially preserved list of the works in the Discourses, which also proved crucial to Emmel’s modern reconstruction. Compiling a list of someone’s works may seem like an obvious thing to do, but it is rarer among early Christians than one might think. In this paper I compare the incipit list to similar lists of Christian authors and works created during the fourth and fifth centuries. By listing Shenoute’s works, the monks of the White Monastery participated in a wider trend of creating Christian authors in the wake of the listing of the books in the New Testament. The most famous list of New Testament books from the period is found in Athanasius of Alexandria’s 39th Festal Letter of 367, which Shenoute knew. Athanasius presented his followers with three lists of books: those that belong to the Old Testament, those that belong to the New Testament, and finally some books that he said were not “canonized” but were useful for the instruction of converts. This letter and its lists represent, as far as we know, the first time that 6

Emmel 2008: 38. Dilley 2017; Schriever 2016. 8 Shenoute, Canons 1, YW 209–211 (Munier 1916: 115–117). Schriever identifies “the other books written for us” as the Scriptures (2016: 238), while Dilley suggests that they included received monastic literature, including writings from the Pachomian federation (2017: 90–91). 9 Dilley 2017: 75–76. 7

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

155

someone listed precisely the 27 books that today make up the Christian canon of the New Testament. Moreover, here for the first time a Christian author uses terms like “canonized” and “canonical” to refer to the Christian Bible.10 Although the criteria and context (both social and theological) for Athanasius’s canonical lists are crucial topics for analysis,11 the activity of list-making itself is noteworthy, as is the generation of a list of useful books supplemental to those in the canon. The list or category of “New Testament” immediately generated the list or category of what we might call “early Christian literature.” This was an important moment in the ongoing invention of Christian literature and thus of the Christian author. From the period before the year 350 we have only one certain attempt to list comprehensively the books of the New Testament – that of the Christian scholar Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, probably composed between 313 and 325 – but Eusebius still does not claim finality or closure, for some of the books he lists are “disputed.”12 There may be another list from the late second or early third century, the so-called Muratorian Fragment. Its dating is disputed, however, and in fact it is not really a list.13 The list is notoriously difficult to define, but its essential characteristic is enumeration or sequence: it is “a catalogue of items which are not connected to each other except by means of the order and possibly the unifying idea behind its creation.” The list features “a lack of syntax”: individual items are juxtaposed in a way that “both links and separates them.”14 The author of the Muratorian fragment, however, makes a continuous argument, in which he discusses in turn various works and considers whether or not they are read in the Christian assembly.15 Even if one does consider it a list, one can understand why some scholars argue that the Muratorian fragment probably comes from the late fourth century: it looks anomalous assigned to around 200, but after the year 350 lists multiply in a development that Cyril of Jerusalem appears to have initiated in his Catechetical Lectures of about that year. Between 350 and, say, 450 there are at least 15 that

10

Athanasius of Alexandria, Ep. fest. 39.16–21 (Brakke 2010: 60–61). See Brakke 1994; Junod 2005; Löhr 2005: 216–221; Brakke 2010. 12 Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–7. On the date of the work see Schott 2019: 26. I do not include the lists that Eusebius creates and attributes to earlier figures based on his reading of their works (e.g., Irenaeus at Hist. eccl. 5.8.2–8). Scholars debate the authenticity of a list that appears in Origen’s Homilies on Joshua 7.1 as translated by Rufinus, but even a recent proponent of its authenticity admits that the list “does not represent Origen’s attempt to produce an exclusive canon list” (Gallagher 2016: 475). 13 Markschies 2015: 203; cf. Kaestli 1994. Rothschild 2018 argues that the fragment is a forgery, an attempt by an author of the fourth century to create a document that appears to come from the second. 14 Doležalová 2009: 5; cf. Belknap 2004: 15. 15 Compare Riggsby’s discussion of the difference between a table of contents (list) and a summary of contents in the works of Frontius (2019: 22–24). 11

156

D. BRAKKE

survive.16 Something of a lull follows, until the 500s, when four more appear, above all, the list to end all lists, the Decretum falsely attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492–496) from the early sixth century.17 When it comes to Christian scripture, the two centuries between 350 and 550 – or perhaps 600 – was the age of lists. Just 25 years after Athanasius made his list, the scholar Jerome created an even more comprehensive list. In his work On Famous Men – or, better, On Writers of the Church – he catalogued 135 Christian authors, starting with the apostles and ending with himself.18 In most cases Jerome makes brief biographical remarks, but within the framework of a list of authors and their significant works. Jerome states that no one else has done this before him, although he says that Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History was of great help. He extracted many of the authors and their works that Eusebius mentions in his historical narrative and reassembled them in a list without any connective syntax other than an implied roughly chronological sequence. Jerome self-consciously created an enlarged canon of “ecclesiastical writers,” a body of works to rival that of the people he calls “men of Gentile letters,” divided into “Greeks” and “Latins.”19 Jerome’s creation of Christian literature included the creation of himself as a Christian author: he is the 135th author. Jerome’s project did not reflect an interest or sensibility peculiar to him. Augustine praised On Writers of the Church as useful, and subsequent authors revised and updated the book – Gennadius of Marseilles almost exactly one hundred years later, in the 490s, and then Isidore of Seville around 600, at the end of the age of lists.20 Moreover, Augustine created his own list – not of authors, but of his own works. Augustine of Hippo composed Revisions in the 420s, during the same period in which Shenoute compiled his Canons. Augustine proposed to list all his post-conversion works with comments about their occasions and his current thoughts about them. He usually gives the incipit of each work, and he divides

16 In addition to Athanasius, Codex Claromontanus (300s); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4.36 (ca. 350); Cheltenham List (Mommsen Catalogue) (ca. 360–365); Epiphanius, Pan. 76.22.5 (ca. 376); Apostolic Canons 85 (ca. 380); Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. 1.1.12 (ca. 390); African Canons (Brevarium Hipponense) (393); Jerome, Ep. 53 (395); Augustine, De doct. Chr. 2.8.12– 13 (397); Amphilochius, Iambi ad Seleucum 251–320 (ca. 380); Rufinus, Comm. symb. apost. 63 (ca. 404); Innocent of Rome, Ad Exsuper. Tol. (405); Syrian Catalogue of St. Catherine’s (ca. 400); Council of Laodicea, Canon 60 (ca. 367–400); Synod of Carthage, Canon 39 (397); Eucherius, Instr. (ca. 424–455). I rely on McDonald 2017: 363–366, and Gallagher and Meade 2017. 17 In addition to the Decretum, Junilius, Inst. reg. div. leg. I (ca. 551); Cassiodorus, Inst. div. saec. litt. (ca. 551–562); Isidore of Seville, In libros veteris ac novi testamenti prohoemia (ca. 600); see McDonald 2017: 367. 18 Vessey 2012: 242–243. 19 Jerome, Vir. ill. pref.1–3 (Halton 2010: 1). 20 Augustine, ep. 40.2; on Gennadius’s and Isidore’s expansions, see Wood 2012.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

157

his writings into three genres: “books or letters or sermons.”21 Revisions represents Augustine’s attempt to construct his literary legacy and determine how later people will read and understand it. He wanted his works to be read biographically, that is, in chronological order and in reference to their specific theological and pastoral circumstances, and not, for example, thematically. As he puts it, “Whoever reads my works in the order in which they were written will perhaps discover how I have made progress over the course of my writing.”22 Still, although he sometimes makes comments about the situation of a work, he did not embed the titles of his works within an account of his progress; rather, the juxtaposition of the works in a chronologically ordered list without any narrative syntax invites the reader to infer his or her own narrative of Augustine’s progress, unless he or she uses the list simply to extract information about a single work. This lack of narrative may be one reason why Augustine has not always gotten his way on this point: it became traditional to group his writings into thematic categories, such as “anti-Donatist” or “exegetical.” But the biographical mode of reading appears, for example, in Peter Brown’s classic biography of Augustine, in which tables of Augustine’s works in chronological order provide a visual framework for the book.23 At one point in Revisions, Augustine refers to a “list” or “index” (indiculus) of his works, and it seems that this list, which is now lost, provided the basis for the Indiculus that survives under the name of Possidius, Augustine’s biographer.24 The extant Indiculus lists works of Augustine grouped confusingly by two different categories: one is generic (the books, letters, and sermons that Augustine mentioned), and the other is polemical (“in answer to” or “against” pagans, mathematicians, Jews, Arians, and so on). François Dolbeau has persuasively argued that Augustine requested the creation of the lost original list, which was organized by the three genres, and that Revisions, which discusses only books, was meant to be the first of three volumes of lists, with expanded commentary, based on the catalogue.25 Possidius updated the index after Augustine’s death, primarily by adding late works not on it, and appended it to his biography of the bishop. In this way he followed the example of Porphyry of Tyre, who listed the works of Plotinus at the end of his narrative of the great philosopher’s life.26 It is impossible to tell whether it was Possidius or some subsequent redactor who added the polemical categorization to the original generic one. The Indiculus played a crucial role in the orderly collection and 21

Augustine, Retr. prol.1 (Ramsey 2010: 21). Augustine, Retr. prol.3 (Ramsey 2010: 23). 23 Brown 2000. 24 Augustine, Retr. 2.41(68) (Ramsey 2010: 147). Text of the Indiculus: Wilmart 1931: 161– 208; translation: Ramsey 2010: 169–202. 25 Dolbeau 2005: esp. 484–486. 26 Porphyry, V. Plot. 24–26. 22

158

D. BRAKKE

transmission of Augustine’s works throughout the medieval era, but its origins are late ancient. A list facilitated the construction of Augustine as an author, both when Augustine was doing the construction and when his followers did so after his death. In Writers of the Church, Jerome constructed his authorial identity by placing himself last in a list of 135 Christian authors, starting with Simon Peter. In the cases of authors whom Eusebius of Caesarea has discussed in his Ecclesiastical History, Jerome often merely paraphrases or summarizes what Eusebius wrote, but it was his innovation to remove these authors from a history and place them in a list. Mark Vessey suggests that “the presiding genre” for Jerome’s book was “serial encomiastic biography,” which traditionally listed military commanders or emperors.27 Yet none of these, as far as I know, culminated in the work’s author as a member of the list. The first part of the entry on Jerome is written in the third person, appearing no different from an entry for any other author, but then he transitions to the first person. Jerome is the final writer of the church, the ultimate Christian author. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome’s great biographer, wrote that “perhaps the most vivid impression it [Writers of the Church] leaves is of his conceit and vanity.”28 Some thirty years later Megan Williams more charitably and insightfully called it “an act of self-fashioning.”29 The existence of a biblical canon shaped Jerome’s self-fashioning as an author. He recognizes Scripture, especially the New Testament, as a privileged category, even as the literature not in the New Testament takes on scriptural characteristics. On the one hand, Jerome defines his authors as men who have written memorably about the Bible: their works, although memorable, are not biblical, but supplemental to the Bible. On the other hand, the list violates the distinction between scripture and not scripture, even between Christian and not Christian, by placing all its authors in the same list, arranged roughly chronologically, from the origin of the faith until the present. The first dozen or so entries intersperse canonical (5. Paul, 7. Luke) and non-canonical authors (6. Barnabas) as well as people whom we would call Jewish (11. Philo, 13. Josephus) or pagan (12. Seneca) as well as Christian (1. Peter, 2. James, 10. Hermas). The New Testament list provides the seed from which the larger list grows or, better, it initiates the trajectory that Jerome extends through time to himself. To be sure, in his entries Jerome can note the non-canonical status of, for instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, which he calls both “valuable for the edification of the church” and “apocryphal.”30 Nonetheless, his interest in

27 28 29 30

Vessey 2012: 242. Kelly 1975: 178. Williams 2006: 160. For a balanced recent assessment, see Whiting 2015. Jerome, Vir. ill. 6 (Halton 2010: 15).

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

159

creating a substantial body of Christian literature and a distinguished literary pedigree for himself eclipses the privileged status of the New Testament works, even as that privileged, indeed sacred, status undergirds the authority of all the other works. Because a list tends to homogenize elements, granting each item the same status in a notional line, Jerome’s list lends the sanctity of the New Testament authors to its other entries. Studying the functions of lists in grammatical works of late antiquity, Catherine Chin argues that the list “promotes the redirection of fragments into new kinds of linearity” and “thereby begins to articulate a new conceptual category, the relation of auctoritas and antiquitas to ‘us’ (nos).” The list extracts items from other contexts into a new linear relationship: “The list, as an extreme technique of fragmentation and juxtaposition, both reinforces the homogenization necessary to the creation of auctoritas and antiquitas and relocates textual fragments into yet another homogenous context.”31 In Writers of the Church, the canonical status of the listed New Testament authors strains against the homogenization of the list, and yet the list creates a linearity that leads from them to “us,” that is, to Jerome and his contemporaries whom he considers authors. As Jerome presents his literary works, they are not scripture, but they are not completely not scripture either; he is surely no Peter or Paul, but he belongs on a list with them, as an analogous point on the single linearity that he has created. Lists of the New Testament enacted their sacred character: so too listing additional authors and works bestowed on them a somewhat sacred character. Jerome probably did not recognize that his list carried such implications. He included in it not only non-Christians like Philo and Seneca, but also Christian authors whom he explicitly criticizes as teaching heretical doctrines, including Tatian (29), Bardesanes (37), and Eunomius (120), and others whose orthodox character was at least dubious, including Novatian (70), Priscillian (121), and above all, Origen (54). Augustine, however, did see the problem. He worried about the inclusion of Origen and opined that, if Jerome insisted on including known heretics, he should have made explicit “the points on which they are to be avoided.” And why did Jerome leave out other heretics? It would be better, Augustine ventured to suggest, if Jerome were to write a second book, similarly brief and to the point, devoted to heretics. That is, Jerome should produce a separate list of bad authors.32 And indeed, Augustine appears to have followed his own suggestion: his On Heresies of 427 is little more than a list.33 Augustine intuited that inclusion of a writer in a list that begins with the authors

31 32 33

Chin 2008: 25. Augustine, ep. 40.9 (Teske 2001: 151–152). Berzon 2016: 222–226.

160

D. BRAKKE

of the New Testament and ends with Jerome suggested that the writer was authoritative in a way similar to, if not equal to, the authors of scripture. The Vienna incipit list survives on a single leaf preserved, as its name suggests, in the Austrian National Library in Vienna (K 9634 [fig. 1–2]). Diliana Atanassova has assigned the leaf to White Monastery manuscript NP, of which she has identified a total of 41 fragments representing 35 leaves, scattered in libraries in London, Ann Arbor, Leiden, Cairo, Berlin, and Paris, as well as Vienna. According to her reconstruction, NP contained, in addition to the list of Shenoute’s works, four works of a liturgical nature, including a lectionary and a directory of hymns.34 Whether the original context of creating the list was liturgical, eventually it came to have that function: NP was probably copied sometime during the peak period of manuscript production at the White Monastery, the ninth through eleventh centuries. The list presents the works of the Discourses in order by giving their incipits, their opening words, just as Augustine did in his Revisions.35 Augustine also gave his works titles, but in Shenoute’s case the incipits serve as the titles. The works are numbered – the surviving fragment begins with a work numbered 36 and concludes with 91 – suggesting that the order of the works matters. In fact, the preserved list enumerates works belonging to volumes 4–8 of the Discourses in the order in which they appear in the codices known to contain those volumes. It is possible that the list of works in the Discourses was preceded by one of the works in the Canons,36 and a cryptic note on the bottom of the verso suggests that the missing leaf that followed might have contained a list of what the note calls “the letters that our holy father Apa Shenoute wrote to our holy fathers the archbishops, and priests, and…”37 In any event, the Vienna incipit list and its correspondence with the surviving manuscripts indicate that the order of the works in the eight volumes of Discourses became fixed at some point. Given the lack of any manuscripts of the Discourses that provide the works in different orders, it is most likely that the order – and thus, the list, whether in actual form or notionally – originated when one or more unknown monks first compiled the Discourses in the years immediately following Shenoute’s death. Those monks were Shenoute’s Possidius. We saw that the lists of Augustine’s works in Revisions and the Indiculus reflected at least three organizing principles – chronological, generic, and polemical – and thus presented Augustine the author in different ways, for example, as a man who made progress in writing, or as a defender of Christian truth against diverse heresies. Was there any rationale behind the order given

34 35 36 37

Atanassova 2011: 38–42. For transcription, translation, and full discussion see Emmel 2004: 71–75, 235–243. Emmel made the suggestion (2004: 237), but Atanassova doubts it (2011: 40). Emmel 2004: 236–237.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

161

to the works of the Discourses? Does it reflect a distinctive conception of Shenoute as an author and of his works as literature? There are two kinds of evidence for answering these questions: the content of the individual works, on the one hand, and material that is external to the works but present them, on the other. By external material I mean the arrangements of treatises on the pages, how they are set off by ornamentation and the like, but even more the prefaces that precede some but not all of the works. Many scholars now follow Gérard Genette by using the term “paratexts” for such elements, which grew in popularity in late antiquity.38 The fragmentary survival of the Discourses makes it difficult to use either of these forms of evidence, but the best opportunity to do so is provided by the fourth volume because more than half of one of the two codices containing it (XH) survives (102 of 192 leaves) in Cairo.39 A colophon explains, “We have copied all the words written in the fourth ancient book of discourses of our holy prophetic father, Apa Shenoute, into this book, which we have written anew.”40 Emmel suggests that “ancient” in this statement “cannot be taken to mean that the copyist’s Vorlage was an ‘original,’ dating from the time of Shenoute himself, although it is conceivable that it means something like ‘of the set of volumes as originally organized.’”41 A later scribe emphasized the organization of the volume by providing a table of contents, which lists even sub-sections of some works, and by indicating the beginnings and ends of works with ornamentation and setting off headings. It is a carefully constructed artifact (see fig. 3–4). The following presents the organization of the works in Discourses, Volume 4, as found in codex XH (and its parallel, DU). The numbers indicate order within the volume; they are not the numbers that the Vienna incipit list assigns the works. Organization of Shenoute’s “Discourses,” Volume 4 [The opening pages of the codex are lost, and so too any heading at the beginning of the volume.] 1. The Lord Thundered 2. Since It Is Necessary to Pursue the Devil 3. A Beloved Asked Me Years Ago

38 Genette 1987; on paratextuality in early Christian literature, see, among others, Crawford 2019: 21–55. 39 Codex XH was published by Chassinat 1911; for description see Emmel 2004: 244–249; it is “the second-best preserved White Monastery codex” (Emmel 2018: 13). The other manuscript of Discourses Volume 4, Codex DU, survives in fragments now held by the Italian National Library in Naples (Emmel 2004: 250–254). 40 Chassinat 1911: 210. 41 Emmel 2004: 249 n. 325.

162

D. BRAKKE

4. Because of You Too, O Prince of Evil 5. Not because a Fox Barks Heading: “Epistle of Shenoute” [This work is addressed to Flavius Aelius Gessius (Gesios), former governor of the Thebaid, and “those like you,” whom Shenoute accuses of worshiping and serving Kronos, i.e. Satan.] Heading: “Discourses in the presence of some dignitaries who came to him with their retinues” 6. Now Many Words and Things I Said [There is no additional heading, but in the opening words Shenoute describes the situation in which he delivered the oration.] 7. As We Began to Preach Heading: “In the presence of Jovinus, who became comes at Alexandria and also in Thebais, with Chossoroas also present with him, and their retinues that were with them” 8. I Have Heard About Your Wisdom Heading: “Likewise in the presence of Flavianus the governor, when he came to us with his retinue” 9. Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice Heading: “Likewise in the presence of Heraklammon the governor” 10. God is Blessed Heading: “A discourse showing that we should involve ourselves with useful things and remove ourselves from inappropriate things” [This work mentions the death of the wicked Gesios, whom Shenoute contrasts with the (also deceased) righteous Athanasius.] Subscription: “4(th Volume): Ten Epistles” The first four works in the volume share the same theme: Satan, either as the source and object of pagan idolatry or as the evil force against which Christians must struggle in their spiritual lives. Numbers 6 through 9 form another clear set. Just before the sixth work, Now Many Words and Things I Said, we find a heading that reads: “Discourses in the presence of some dignitaries who came to him with their retinues.” In fact, the four works that follow vary in their content, but they are all speeches or sermons that Shenoute delivered when important political or military officials (all Christians) visited the monastery and sometimes asked him a question.42 In each case either Shenoute or a heading (or both) identifies the visiting dignitaries and explains the situation that prompted Shenoute’s remarks. Most of these cases portray Shenoute as repeating

42 Presumably Shenoute spoke with his high-ranking visitors in Greek, although this is never stated. For a study (and list) of such visits, see Behlmer 1998.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

163

what he said in a private audience to a later public gathering of monks, lay people, and even visiting pagan “barbarians.” Works 5 and 10 each represent a kind of culmination to the four works that precede them, and they have a special relationship to one another. The fifth work, Not because a Fox Barks, is an open letter that Shenoute addressed to a prominent local landowner and former provincial governor named Flavius Aelius Gessius or Gesios.43 Most historians are now familiar with Shenoute’s lengthy campaign to expose Gesios as a crypto-pagan, a secret worshiper of the pagan gods, and to shame him for his treatment of the poorer classes.44 During this campaign Shenoute posted accusatory flyers on Gesios’s house, shattered storage jars filled with wine (or urine), and broke into his house looking for idols. In Not because a Fox Barks Shenoute accuses Gesios of secretly worshiping the pagan god Kronos, whom Shenoute identifies with Satan, and he charges Gesios and other wealthy men of mistreating and oppressing their workers and other poor people. In other words, Gesios appears as the ultimate worshiper of Satan, the subject of the preceding four works. Because this work addresses a former provincial governor, it provides an appropriate segue to the following set of four works, all of which address virtuous Christian highranking officials, including a current governor. Work 10, God is Blessed, also has a heading, which simply announces its theme: “A discourse showing that we should involve ourselves with useful things and remove ourselves from inappropriate things.”45 But this heading hardly captures the drama of this sermon. Shenoute preached God is Blessed at some time in the 440s, when thousands of refugees had taken shelter at the White Monastery during attacks from barbarian tribes. Shenoute estimated that 20,000 people camped out on the monastery grounds, surely a great exaggeration, but it still must have been a lot of people.46 In another work Shenoute details the huge expenses the monastery incurred as it provided food, health care, and other services to thousands of people. In God is Blessed Shenoute exhorts the crowd to repent of their sins and to prepare for the coming judgment, fairly traditional themes, but he concludes with an extended comparison between two dead men, inspired by verses from the Psalms: “Precious before the Lord is the death of the righteous one” (Ps 115:6 [116:15]) but “the death of sinners is wretched” (Ps 33:22 [34:21]). The paradigmatic dead sinner, whose death is wretched, is Gesios, the former governor whom Shenoute had addressed in the fifth work. He was a wicked rich man, who cared only for his own wealth and oppressed the poor. The paradigmatic dead righteous man, 43 The essential studies are Emmel 2002, Emmel 2008a, and López 2013. A dossier of the primary sources can be found in Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193–297. 44 See Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193–199. 45 Translation in Brakke and Crislip 2015: 278–297. 46 Emmel 1998.

164

D. BRAKKE

whose death is precious before the Lord, is Athanasius of Alexandria. He was a loving shepherd, who cared nothing for himself but nurtured and cared for the poor. Here are two models of leadership to which the gathered refugees could look – the pagan governor who abused the poor and the Christian shepherd who cared for them. Could there be any doubt which sort of leader Shenoute was? It is a fitting conclusion to the entire volume: after a series of works concerned with Satan and/or addressed to political and military leaders, it describes, even celebrates the death of Gesios, a former governor and the ultimate worshiper of Satan, and it presents a Christian pastor, Athanasius (and by implication, Shenoute), as the model of the worthy leader. By requiring that the Canons to be read at regular meetings, by claiming that they transmit the wisdom of earlier monastic leaders and revelations from God, and simply by calling them “canons,” Shenoute constructed himself as a quasibiblical author of authoritative monastic literature. In contrast, the editor or editors of the Discourses made Shenoute into an author who was not exclusively monastic, that is, into a Christian authority for everybody. Like other great Christian writers, he wrote treatises and orations on central themes of Christian theology and spirituality, like Satan and demonology. He met with, instructed, and corrected prominent officials in government and the military. Volume 4 frames all of this with Shenoute’s sustained conflict with Gesios, the monk’s rival for the allegiance of the lower classes in his region. Here Shenoute is a Christian leader and authoritative author, whose biography and actions on the public stage provide the contexts for his writings on significant Christian themes, sometimes in opposition to pagans. This fabrication of Shenoute the author resembles how Augustine and Possidius presented Augustine and his works in the Revisions and Indiculus. Lists of books and authors were part of a wider list-making trend in the late fourth and fifth centuries. For example, this period saw also rapid growth in the use of liturgical diptychs, that is, lists of “the names and categories of persons proclaimed by the deacon for remembrance” during the eucharist. The people and categories listed could include “saints, bishops, rulers, clergy, widows, orphans, whatever.”47 The liturgical diptych was a cousin of the consular diptych, which became popular among politicians. During the late fourth century Roman consuls began to commission the creation of special diptychs whose interiors featured lists of consuls culminating in themselves.48 The consular diptych of Boethius from 487 had this function, but Christians later revised its interior to list Christian saints, not consuls. Kim Bowes argues that these lists of consuls promoted an ideology of time as political, marked by the terms of consuls, and including the present consul. Christians, in turn, pointedly 47 48

Taft 1991: 6. Bowes 2001.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

165

created their own sacred time by making lists of their own, but of saints, bishops, and the like. When a church included or removed a name from its diptych, it was registering a judgment about the person’s sanctity or orthodoxy, for “nothing liturgical was of greater political import in the world of Late-Antique and Medieval ecclesiastical relations than the Byzantine diptychs.”49 The list enacted sanctity. It could also enact the demonic. In the 390s Evagrius of Pontus developed his list of seven primary demons and then created a handbook that listed 498 scriptural passages to respond to the evil thoughts that those demons inspired.50 Evagrius composed many of his works in short “chapters” that were precisely numbered, and he wanted even the text’s visual appearance on the page to resemble a list, complete with the numbers. He noted in his Praktikos: “I pray the brothers who come upon this book and wish to copy it not to join one chapter to another, nor to place on the same line the end of the chapter just written and the beginning of the one about to be written, but to have each chapter begin with its own beginning according to the divisions which we have marked also by numbers. In this way the ordering of the chapters can be preserved and what is said will be clear.”51 Here the literary and visual aesthetic of the list served an intellectual and spiritual program that sought to facilitate a monk’s ascent from more practical realms of knowledge (monastic customs, the tactics of the demons, how to resist demonic thoughts, and the like) to a comprehensive knowledge (gnōsis) of the natural world and of God. On the copied page the listed chapters would resemble a ladder: “The ladder to heaven (Gen 28:12) is the revelation of God’s mysteries, by which the intellect ascends by degrees and is elevated toward God.”52 The proliferation of lists (and paratexts) may be part of a general revolution in information technology in late antiquity.53 During the late fourth century, however, Christian writers in particular began to adopt encyclopedic modes of scholarship and organization of knowledge.54 The encyclopedic style of knowing was nothing new, of course. Non-Christian Roman authors had been making lists and catalogues since the early days of the empire, but it was only in this period that Christians embraced this trend broadly and enthusiastically. As increasing numbers of Christian intellectuals came of age in a Christian Empire, they assumed an imperial vantage point for their scholarly work and sought to bring all of history and culture under a gaze that was both Christian and imperial. The liturgical diptychs and Evagrius’s lists of demonic thoughts exemplify 49 50 51 52 53 54

Taft 1991: xxvii. Brakke 2009. Evagrius, Praktikos (Sinkewicz 2003: 97). Chapters of the Disciples of Evagrius 192 (SC 514: 252). See the preliminary but intriguing remarks of Riggsby 2019: 216–222. König and Whitmarsh 2007, König and Woolf 2013.

166

D. BRAKKE

this pattern. Heresiology participated in encyclopedic trends The early heresiologies typically began with the New Testament character Simon Magus and limited themselves to Christian teachers and schools and the pagan philosophical movements to which these heresies were indebted. By the late fourth century, however, we have heresiologies that start with Adam and Eve and attempt to include every religious or philosophical error that human beings have ever made. The goal was to be absolutely inclusive.55 As we have seen, in writing his On Heresies Augustine fully embraced the list form and so “attempted to fashion an ordered world of heresy from his catholic vantage point.”56 Jerome may have intended Writers of the Church to function as an encyclopedic counterpart to the heresiology, that is, as a reference list of orthodox or reliable Christian authors, in opposition to lists of heretical and dangerous authors.57 Listing and the comprehensive knowledge to which it gestures appeared in a variety of other ways. A bishop like Epiphanius of Salamis could write comprehensive treatments of topics like weights and measures and gems, drawing on the Bible to display an encyclopedic, antiquarian, and all-encompassing mastery of even the most arcane matters.58 Both pagan and Christian authors began to write collective biographies, works in which numerous holy and wise people were depicted serially in short vignettes.59 These were quasi-lists of holy lives similar to our lists of holy books. In the words of Andrew Jacobs, authors were eager to “demonstrate the power of Christian culture to perfectly contain and display, in tiny bits and morsels, all the knowledge of the world.”60 So too lists of authors and works displayed in a pleasing format the power of Christian scholarship and the place of the Christian writer in the Roman Empire. These lists partook of the same aesthetic that we find in much of the visual art of the period as well. The famous Junius Bassus sarcophagus of 359 features a serialized presentation of small scenes to produce a comprehensive theological view. Closer to Shenoute is the recently conserved church of the Red Monastery, one of the three monasteries in Shenoute’s federation: it displays important figures, such as archimandrites, bishops, and the like, in small niches next to one another, creating a visual genealogy of the monastic community.61 Like visual lists, they create a linearity of “auctoritas and antiquitas to ‘us’ (nos).”62 Like contemporary literary works, these visual works emphasize the parts as making up the whole, the pleasing arrangement of small gems to convey

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Maldonado Rivera 2017; Berzon 2016. Berzon 2016: 225. Whiting 2015. Jacobs 2013. Cox Miller 2000. Jacobs 2016: 175. Bolman 2016. Chin 2008: 25.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

167

totality and comprehensiveness. Michael Roberts dubbed this aesthetic “the jeweled style” of late antiquity.63 So too lists of authors and books identified Christian knowledge as imperial, universal, comprehensive knowledge. Indeed, the visual layout of the Vienna list belongs with these material artifacts, even if it comes from a later medieval manuscript. Evidence from the late ancient and medieval periods suggests that the editors of the Discourses found only limited success in transforming Shenoute the monk into Shenoute the author. On the one hand, numerous texts, especially on ostraca, indicate that monks in the region of Thebes used works of Shenoute in worship and instruction; the evidence includes references in letters to sending and receiving books of Shenoute, excerpts from various Shenoutean works, inclusion of works of Shenoute in catalogues of monastic libraries, and even manuscripts.64 For example, an ostracon in the Louvre preserves a monk requesting, “Be kind and send me a big book and an instructional book of Apa Shenoute, and we will keep vigil with it. [You know] that [they are] mine.”65 This monk pairs two books, the Bible (“big book”) and a work of Shenoute, and plans to use the latter ritually. In this case, ritual rather than a list’s linearity creates the sacred quality that the Bible and the work of Shenoute share. The monk refers to “an instructional book” of Shenoute, which almost certainly means one of the Discourses. Liturgical typika prescribe what texts should be read at Christian worship on which days; they do not quote the entire passage to be read, but cite it in some abbreviated fashion. A leaf from a typikon preserved at the Austrian National Library (K 9729) directs that excerpts from Shenoute’s Discourses should be read on certain days of the annual calendar. For example: “For the time of the date palms, when they are given to the assembly: discourse of Shenoute: ‘Consider the date palms…’ in this (work): Righteous Art Thou, O Lord.” Readings from Shenoute sit next to ones from the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. Another typikon takes its cue from our volume of Discourses and prescribes that a work should be read on “the day when the dux comes to visit us” and another “if governors or urban magistrates have come to us.”66 In manuscripts of the Discourses, marginal annotations likewise indicate passages that are appropriate to read on certain feast days and occasions: for example, “For Michael,” “4. The teacher Paul,” “12. For the wine.”67 Like the Canons, the Discourses gained a quasibiblical status and functioned in ritual contexts alongside canonical texts.

63

Roberts 1989. Garel 2016. 65 Louvre 7522, no. 317 in Crum 1921: 85. 66 Behlmer 1998: 351. 67 From White Monastery manuscripts GF 307, GL 54, and GL 190, all witnesses to Discourses Volume 5. The meaning of the numbers is not certain. 64

168

D. BRAKKE

Even visual iconography of Shenoute suggests his transformation from monk to author. The earliest surviving images of Shenoute depict him clearly as a monk. For example, his portrait in the tomb chapel of the White Monastery shows him “clothed in a belted tunic and a mantle”; “the distinctive Pachomian and Shenoutian leather apron, looking like a purse or bag with a shoulder strap, hangs across his chest on the right side.”68 Likewise, in his depiction in the church of the Red Monastery, probably dating to the sixth century, he wears the leather apron and holds his walking stick.69 A stone stele from the same period or perhaps earlier, now in Berlin, features the same iconography (walking stick, apron), but with an added feature: in his left hand Shenoute holds a closed scroll.70 A few centuries later he appears on a manuscript page, where he has become the generic Christian author. He holds a cross, not a walking stick, and he is dressed like any bishop, in vaguely liturgical clothing. So typical of church fathers is this Shenoute that the figure could just as easily be Pope Liberius or Bishop Athanasius, the (pseudonymous) author and subject of the treatise that starts in the right-hand column.71 On the other hand, Shenoute the author came to have little impact beyond the White Monastery and such admiring monks as our ostracon writer. The liturgical typika appear in White Monastery manuscripts, and, although the monastic influence on the wider church in medieval Egypt was great, it is difficult to say whether they reflect practice beyond its walls. Only a few manuscripts of Shenoute’s works survive apart from the monastery’s own library. Few Coptic authors, other than Shenoute’s successors as leaders of his monastery, cite him or emulate his literary style. As the centuries passed, Shenoute became an icon of Coptic orthodoxy and monastic spirituality, but at some point he ceased to be a Christian author. Nonetheless, the late ancient invention of Shenoute as an author was part of a crucial moment in the ongoing invention of the category “Christian literature” – in this case, a moment characterized by a proliferation of lists, catalogues, and other paratextual elements as means of the literary fashioning of self and others. The specific characteristics that were attributed to Shenoute as author reflected key values of the period – the positioning of Christian authors and works as quasi-biblical, that is, as both different from and similar to the authors and works of the New Testament; the promotion of such authors as important actors in the empire’s social and political life; and the organization of an expansive Christian knowledge around significant themes. Shenoute may 68

Bolman, Davis, and Pyke 2010: 457. Bolman 2016: 169. 70 Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Ident.Nr. 4475: http://www. smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=1442543 &viewType=detailView (last accessed 22 April 2020). 71 GM 330; see Bolman 2016: 204, fig. 16.3; on the identification, Emmel 2004: 323. 69

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

169

have lost his identity as an author sometime after late antiquity, but Stephen Emmel has returned it to him. Bibliography Amélineau, Emile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi: texte copte et traduction française. 2 vols. Paris. Atanassova, Diliana 2011. “Der kodikologische Kontext des ‘Wiener Verzeichnisses’ mit Werken des Schenute: Die komplexe Struktur eines koptischen liturgischen Kodex aus dem Weißen Kloster.” OrChr 95, 32–80. Behlmer, Heike 1998. “Visitors to Shenoute’s Monastery.” In: Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, edited by David Frankfurter, 341–371. RGRW 34. Leiden. Belknap, Robert 2004. The List: The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing. New Haven/ London. Berzon, Todd S. 2016. Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of Knowledge in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, CA. Bolman, Elizabeth S. 2016. The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. New Haven/London. Bolman, Elizabeth, Davis, Stephen J., and Pyke, Gillian 2010. “Shenoute and a Recently Discovered Tomb Chapel at the White Monastery.” JECS 18, 453–462. Bowes, Kim 2001. “Ivory Lists: Consular Diptychs, Christian Appropriation and Polemics of Time in Late Antiquity.” Art History 24, 338–357. Brakke, David 1994. “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter.” HTR 87, 395–419. ——. 2009. Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons. Cistercian Studies 229. Collegeville, MN. ——. 2010. “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon.” HTR 103, 47–66. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge, UK. Brown, Peter 2000. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. New ed. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles. Chassinat, Emile 1911. Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti. MIFAO 23. Cairo. Chin, Catherine 2008. Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia. Cox Miller, Patricia 2000. “Strategies of Representation in Collective Biography: Constructing the Subject as Holy.” In: Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, edited by Thomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau, 209–254. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 31. Berkeley, CA. Crawford, Matthew R. 2019. The Eusebian Canon Tables: Ordering Textual Knowledge in Late Antiquity. OECS. Oxford. Crum, Walter E. 1921. Short Texts from Coptic Ostraca and Papyri. London. Dilley, Paul 2017. “From Textual to Ritual Practice: Written Media and Authority in Shenoute’s Canons.” In: Writing and Communication in Early Egyptian Monasticism, edited by Malcolm Choat and Maria Chiara Giorda, 73–107. Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 9. Leiden.

170

D. BRAKKE

Dolbeau, François 2005. “La survie des œuvres d’Augustin. Remarques sur l’Indiculum attribué à Possidius et sur la bibliothèque d’Anségise.” In: Augustin et la prédiction en Afrique. Recherches sur divers sermons authentiques, apocryphes ou anonymes, 475–494. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 179. Paris. Doležalová, Lucie 2009. “The Potential and Limitations of Studying Lists.” In: The Charm of a List: From the Sumerians to Computerised Data Processing, edited by Lucie Doležalová, 1–8. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Emmel, Stephen 1998. “The Historical Circumstances of Shenute’s Sermon ‘God is Blessed.’” In: ΘΕΜΕΛΙΑ: Spätantike und koptologische Studien; Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by M. Krause and S. Schaten, 81–95. Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 3. Wiesbaden. ——. 2002. “From the Other Side of the Nile: Shenute and Panopolis.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Acts of an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17, and 18 December 1998, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, 95–113. Leiden. ——. 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 600–601. Leuven. ——. 2008a. “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 161–201. RGRW 163. Leiden. ——. 2008b. “Shenoute’s Place in the History of Monasticism.” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Vol. 1, Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 31–46. Cairo/New York. ——. 2018. “Shenoute the Archimandrite: The Extraordinary Scope (and Difficulties) of His Writings.” JCSCS 10, 9–36. Foucault, Michel 1998. “What Is an Author?” In: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, 205–222. Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, 2. New York. Gallagher, Edmon L. 2016. “Origen via Rufinus on the New Testament Canon.” NTS 62, 461–476. Gallagher, Edmon L., and Meade, John D. 2017. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis. Oxford. Garel, Esther 2016. “Lire Chénouté dans la région thébaine aux VIIe–VIIIe siècles.” In Études coptes XIV. Seizième journée d’études (Genève, 19–21 juin 2013), edited by A. Boud’hors and C. Louis, 183–192. Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte 21. Paris. Genette, Gérard 1987. Seuils. Paris. Halton, Thomas P. 2010. Jerome: On Illustrious Men. FC 100. Washington. Jacobs, Andrew S. 2013. “Epiphanius of Salamis and the Antiquarian’s Bible.” JECS 21, 437–464. ——. 2016. Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity. Christianity in Late Antiquity 2. Berkeley, CA. Junod, Eric 2005. “D’Eusèbe de Césarée à Athanase d’Alexandrie en passant par Cyrille de Jérusalem. De la construction savante du Nouveau Testament à la clôture ecclésiastique du canon.” In: Le canon du Nouveau Testament. Regards nouveaux sur l’histoire de sa formation, edited by Gabriella Aragione, Eric Junod, and Enrico Norelli, 169–195. Le Monde de la Bible 54. Geneva. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel 1994. “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon: À propos de la thèse de Sundberg et Hahneman.” Cristianesimo nella storie 15, 609–634.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

171

Kelly, John N. D. 1975. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. New York. König, Jason and Whitmarsh, Tim 2007. Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge, UK. König, Jason and Woolf, Greg 2013. Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Cambridge, UK. Leipoldt, Johannes, and Crum, Walter E. 1906–1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. 3 vols. CSCO 41, 42, 73. Paris. Löhr, Winrich 2005. “Norm und Kontext—Kanonslisten in der Spätantike.” BTZ 22, 202–229. López, Ariel 2013. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 50. Berkeley, CA. Maldonado Rivera, David 2017. “Encyclopedic Trends and the Making of Heresy in Late Ancient Christianity.” Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Markschies, Christoph 2015. Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology. Wayne Coppins (tr.). Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Waco, TX. McDonald, Lee Martin 2017. The New Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity. Vol. 2 of The Formation of the Biblical Canon. London. Munier, Henri 1916. Manuscrits coptes. CGC Nos. 9201–9304. Cairo. Ramsey, Boniface 2010. Revisions. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part 1, Volume 2. Hyde Park, NY. Riggsby, Andrew M. 2019. Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World. Classical Culture and Society. Oxford. Roberts, Michael 1989. The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity. Cornell, NY. Rothschild, Clare K. 2018. “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake.” NovT 60, 55–82. Schott, Jeremy 2019. The History of the Church: A New Translation. Oakland, CA. Schriever, Daniel Hsu 2016. “The Invention of Authorship in Late Ancient Monasticism: A Cultural History of Shenoute’s Literary Corpus.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Sinkewicz, Robert E. 2003. Evagrius of Pontus: The Greek Ascetic Corpus. OECS. Oxford. Taft, Robert F., S.J. 1991. The Diptychs. Vol. 4 of A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. OCA 238. Rome. Teske, Ronald 2001. Letters 1–99. The Works of Saint Augustine II/1. Hyde Park, NY. Vessey, Mark 2012. “Augustine among the Writers of the Church.” In: A Companion to Augustine, edited by Mark Vessey, 241–254. Oxford. Whiting, Colin 2015. “Jerome’s De viris illustribus and New Genres for Christian Disputation in Late Antiquity.” In: Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, edited by Geoffrey Greatrex and Hugh Elton, 41–51. Farnham, Surrey. Williams, Megan Hale 2006. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. Chicago. Wilmart, A. 1931. Miscellanea Agostiniana 2. Rome. Wood, Jamie 2012. “Playing the Fame Game: Bibliography, Celebrity, and Primacy in Late Antique Spain.” JECS 20, 613–640.

172

D. BRAKKE

Fig. 1. The “Vienna Incipit List”. Vienna, ÖNB, K 9634 recto. © ÖNB.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

Fig. 2. The “Vienna Incipit List”. Vienna, ÖNB, K 9634 verso. © ÖNB.

173

174

D. BRAKKE

Fig. 3. Codex XH p. 375. Cairo, Ifao, Copte 1 f. 101 recto. © IFAO.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE VIENNA INCIPIT LIST

Fig. 4. Codex XH . Cairo, Ifao, Copte 1 f. 101 verso. © IFAO

175

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI A PRELIMINARY CENSUS OF THE PALIMPSESTS FROM THE WHITE MONASTERY* PAOLA BUZI

When, about ten years ago, the networking project “Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies”,1 funded by the European Science Foundation, took shape, creating an effective dialogue among the specialists of a wide range of oriental2 disciplines, Coptic codicology was perceived as one of the sub-disciplines of Coptic Studies that still required to be properly developed. This does not mean of course that at that time there were not already important studies dedicated to the material aspects of Coptic manuscripts,3 but there lacked a systematic reflection, especially from a comparative perspective. In the volume that represents the main scientific outcome of that collaborative “adventure” – Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction – 4 Coptic manuscript tradition had an important role, but writing the sub-chapter on Coptic codicology – a task that was entrusted to Stephen Emmel and me – was a challenge, like any enterprise that requires a process of synthesis and abstraction. As far as I am concerned, working with Stephen was of course a very formative opportunity, since I could benefit from his profound and long-standing experience in dealing with the materiality of manuscripts, and much more besides.5 As is obvious, manuscripts from the White Monastery played a great part in that sub-chapter. Therefore, in offering my modest contribution to the extraordinary career of an outstanding scholar, I thought it would be appropriate to * I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these pages with Alessandro Bausi and Alberto Camplani and for their valuable suggestions. 1 https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/en/comst/history.html (last accessed September 2021). 2 “Oriental” in the meaning of “related to the manuscript traditions of Near East and Middle East”. 3 For a general status quaestionis of the studies on Coptic Codicology until 2012, see above all Torallas Tovar 2016. Moreover, in the last twenty years editions of texts have been increasingly provided with detailed and accurate codicological description of the manuscripts bearing the edited text. 4 Bausi et al. 2015 (https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/en/comst/publications/handbook.html). For the other related publications, see: https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/en/comst/publications. html (last accessed September 2021). 5 I still have a vivid memory of the operative meeting during which we planned how to proceed in our task of writing the single sections of the sub-chapter on Coptic codicology, a meeting that took place in an unusual and inspiring place: the Planten un Blomen Park, in Hamburg.

178

P. BUZI

start from one of the points where we had to stop in that pioneering enterprise, examining an aspect that, thus far, had only been dealt with briefly: palimpsests,6 and in particular palimpsests from the White Monastery. PALIMPSESTS IN THE COPTIC MANUSCRIPT TRADITION7 “With specific regard to Coptic codices, it has been observed that coloured parchment is very rare (Crum 1905b: xiii and 24 no. 112, two bifolia of a Gospel manuscript ‘dyed a bright saffron’). Less rare but still rather uncommon are Coptic palimpsests, and those that exist have not been studied systematically as such.”8

This is what one can read from the above-mentioned sub-chapter on Coptic codicology concerning palimpsests. Although there are not precise figures on the percentage of palimpsests in other oriental manuscript traditions9 – including the Greek one – ,10 and a systematic study of the Coptic palimpsests is still 6 On the concept of palimpsest, see Agati 2009: 75–79; Escobar 2006. On classical sources mentioning the re-use of writing supports see Cavallo 2001. 7 The following abbreviations and IDs are used in this article: CC = Clavis Coptica or Clavis Patrum Copticorum (the complete census of all Coptic literary works available online at www. cmcl.it/~cmcl/chiam_clavis.html, and at atlas.paths-erc.eu/works); CLM = Coptic Literary Manuscript (unique identifier of Coptic literary manuscripts attributed within the framework of the ‘PAThs’ project and freely available online, https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts); LDAB = Leuven Database of Ancient Books (available online at www.trismegistos.org/ldab); TM = Trismegistos (available online at www.trismegistos.org); LCBM = List of Coptic Biblical Manuscripts (IDs attributed by the project “Coptic Sahidic Old Testament”, Göttingen). It is important to stress that the introduction and systematic use of a CLM ID has become necessary because ‘PAThs’ is so far the most exhaustive database of literary codicological units. All the other existing ones, including those of the CMCL, are of course extremely useful, but refer to a more limited time span or focus on categories of manuscripts. In any case they are always mentioned, when available. 8 Emmel 2015: 138. 9 “The reuse of already written parchment – due not only to the high cost of writing materials, but apparently also to a widespread ‘recycling attitude’ – is widely attested in oriental manuscript traditions: such palimpsest manuscripts seem to be rare in the Islamic world, as well as in Ethiopia and in the Coptic and Slavonic regions, but they abound in the Greek, Armenian, Georgian and Syriac traditions, and they are the only surviving witnesses to the Caucasian Albanian written culture prior to the ninth century. Palimpsests also document the movement of books between neighbouring cultures: manuscripts with a first, underlying text in one language, written over with a text in a different language, are not infrequent. Given the lack of oriental sources (only a single Latin description of the making of a palimpsest survives, in fact), techniques of erasure and strategies of reuse have to be deduced from a direct analysis of the extant examples”. Maniaci 2015a: 73. See also, the description of the single manuscripts cultures (Armenian, Aramaic, Georgian, Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Slavonic) in the same volume. As for the Ethiopic manuscripts some previously unknown palimpsests have been recently identified, by means of multi-spectral imaging, in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, within the framework of the DFG-project Textkritische Ausgabe und Übersetzung des 1 Henoch, directed by Loren Stuckenbruck (personal communication of Alessandro Bausi, 1 September 2020). 10 “Although a census of Greek palimpsests in European libraries was launched some years ago and the digital techniques for “restoring” the underlying texts (see General introduction § 2.3)

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

179

missing, today that sentence should probably be re-written in a slightly different way: Coptic palimpsests are not so numerous, although they are certainly not uncommon, and embrace a wide range of possible strategies of re-use, from the point of view of the technique, content and endurance of their life before being recycled. At the moment more than 40 Coptic palimpsests are known to us, but their census is in continuous progress,11 due to the well-known complexity of the reconstruction of the Coptic codicological units, which we will not go into here. Among them, standing out for interest is the famous codex containing five books of the Old Testament published by Herbert Thompson in 1911, which was later re-used to host a Syriac text.12 Acquired by the British Museum in 1847, it is a striking example of the complex fate a codex may undergo. When it was re-used for writing a Syriac text – consisting of excerpta from John Chrysostom, Evagrius and others – the original order of its leaves was mixed up. Moreover, as already observed by Crum, the Syriac scribe did not have enough material to fill all of the leaves of the original Coptic codex and therefore 42 folios are missing, because they were discarded.13 The new codicological unit is composed of 187 leaves, one of which (f. 52) bears Syriac writing, but has no traces of Coptic text or even only of the page number. We may therefore deduce that it was probably one of the fly-leaves of the original codicological unit.14 If the scriptio superior is precisely dated to 913, the scriptio inferior is much harder to date, although the mid-6th century would appear to

have progressed significantly in the last few years, we are still far from a global understanding of the historical, technical and cultural significance of manuscript erasing and rewriting”. Maniaci 2015b: 189. For general considerations on the byzantine Greek palimpsests see Crisci 1990. For the Greek palimpsests of the Vatican Library, see for instance Canart 2004, Canart 2008. Of particular note is the project Rinascimento Virtuale, devoted to the rediscovery and dissemination of Greek palimpsests (coordinated by the Universität Hamburg, 2001–2004), http://www.rinascimentovirtuale.eu/. 11 It is important to stress that the 72 palimpsests that appear in the “saved query” for “Palimpsests” in the ‘PAThs’ database (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/search/manuscripts/saved?q= palimpsest_ms) correspond in fact to 44 physical manuscripts, since the database records and classifies separately, whenever possible, the scriptio inferior and scriptio superior as single codicological units (that is two or more codicological units may correspond to one palimpsest codex). When the scriptio superior or the scriptio inferior is in Greek or in Arabic or non-literary, however, this is not fully described in the Archaeological Atlas of Coptic Literature, but just mentioned in the “Notes on palimpsest” record. I owe my sincere thanks to Annunziata Di Rienzo and above all to Francesco Valerio for their careful work in compiling most of the records of the ‘PAThs’ database related to the palimpsests. 12 British Library Add. 17183 = CLM 769 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/769) = TM/ LDAB 107762. Schüssler 1995: 97–98 (sa 19); Thompson 1911, with bibliography. Crum 1905: 4–7 (no. 12). 13 See Thompson 1911: vi, for what exactly is missing of the original Coptic texts. 14 Thompson 1911: viii: “Thus 186 plus 52 missing folios gives us 228 (= 456 pages) as the number of the original written leaves”.

180

P. BUZI

be a plausible date.15 Moreover, even if there is no doubt about the place where the “second life” of the codex was initiated (the Monastery of the Syrians), we still have no clue to determine the origin of its “first life.” Other interesting examples of Coptic palimpsests are two manuscripts from the Monastery of St. Thomas, in Wadi Sarga, both originally containing the Gospel of John. The first of them was later re-written as to host the Acts16 – and during that operation was reduced in size – , while the second was reused to write again another Gospel of John.17 Unfortunately, sometimes both the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior are difficult to date, as is the case with the two pairs of conjugate leaves preserved at the Morgan Library and Museum, in which the Pauline Epistle, in Coptic, overlaps to the earlier layer of the Gospel of Mark, in Greek and Coptic, which is barely legible.18 These leaves are part of a lot purchased ca. 1920 from the Cairo dealer Maurice Nahman by Francis Willey Kelsey, later brought to Rome to be restored and there acquired by Henry Hyvernat on behalf of J.P. Morgan, Jr.19 The provenance is also uncertain.20 In other cases, it is a Greek text that covers a Coptic one. This happens, for instance, with PSI XIII 1296, found in Antinoupolis, in 1937, by Evaristo Breccia. The fragmentary parchment leaves contain the Apocalypse, but also calculations on the duration of nights and days in the Egyptian months and a dialogue of saint Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus (7th–8th centuries). The underlying Coptic text is unfortunately not identifiable.21 Similarly, in P.Vindob. G 31487 (90) the first Epistle to Corinthians (6th century), in Sahidic, is covered by a hymn on Palm Sunday, in Greek (7th century?).22

15

On the dating of the Coptic text there are however different opinions. See Orsini 2008: 138–139. 16 British Library Or. 9035(11) = CLM 832 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/832) = TM/ LDAB 108069 (scriptio inferior), and CLM 6606 = TM/LDAB 108070 (scriptio superior). Layton 1987: 37 (no. 33) and 46 (no. 44). 17 British Library Or. 9035(1)–(2) = CLM 831 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/831) and CLM 6607 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/6607) = TM/LDAB 108068. Layton 1987: 39 (no. 35) and 43 (no. 40). 18 New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M660 = CLM 2230 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/ manuscripts/2230) + 2538 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/2538). Depuydt 1993: 64–65 (no. 46), and 455–456 (no. 263). 19 See the unpublished “Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library” at the Morgan Library and Museum. 20 Depuydt 1993: 64–65, 455–456. 21 Turner 1977: 163. According to G. Cavallo, the first text would be datable to the 3rd century AD. See Cavallo 1967: 120–121, Tav. 110. See also J. van Haelst 1976: 564 (nos. 567 and 629); Naldini 1965: 20 (no. 23, Tav. XVI) 25 (no. 30, Tav. XIX); Pintaudi 1983; Cavallo and Maehler 1987: 64, Tav. 28b; Manfredi 1998: 113–114 (no. 125). 22 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek – Papyrussammlung, G. 31487 = CLM 6610 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/6610) = TM 88394 for the Coptic text; TM 64806 for the Greek text. Grassien 1999. See Crisci 2003: 78.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

181

The last case that is worth mentioning in this selected survey of Coptic palimpsests outside the White Monastery is a particularly interesting one. The British Library preserves a re-written parchment codex whose eight extant leaves contain Isaiah and Hosea.23 According to Crum, this was part of the Graf Collection, which “was declared by the native sellers to come from the Fayyum and Akhmim; but it was bought in Cairo”.24 The uncertain provenance – personally, I would be inclined to speculate a Fayyumic origin – does not diminish the interest of the palimpsest that sees the above mentioned Old Testament books, in Coptic, covering a Gospel Lectionary, in Greek (ff. 4a–b) and, what is more interesting, also juridical texts, in Latin (ff. 1, 3, 7).25 The few cases briefly described here reveal how the ways of re-using a manuscript might differ, crossing time, languages, book cultures, and, more importantly, functional areas and textual dignity. In this respect it is significant that the biblical manuscript preserved in the Beinecke Library was re-used for a Coptic magical text.26 There are of course also cases of re-use of classical texts, in Greek, to host documentary texts, in Coptic, but their analysis is beyond the purposes of this article.27 Cost and availability of parchment certainly played a big part in the phenomenon of re-using older writing supports, but, as Marilena Maniaci observes for the Greek tradition, “the economic reasons are not enough to justify the frequency of the phenomenon, which is better understood as part of a more general mediaeval tendency to ‘recycle’”,28 a tendency that certainly also regarded Egypt. As for the Coptic tradition, however, unlike the Greek one, there are no elements to state that there was a meaningful difference between “centre” and “periphery” in applying this practice, since the palimpsests known so far are from very different contexts, although no palimpsests are known to date to come from the Monastery of Macarius or from Edfu, while at least one case is known from the Monastery of the Syrians and several from the White Monastery. 23 London, British Library Or. 4717.5 = CLM 1384 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/1384) = TM/LDAB 108187 = LCBM 2154. 24 Crum 1905: xxiii, n. 1. 25 Ammirati 2017. The study of this codex is a collaborative enterprise between the ‘REDHIS’ project (P.I.: Dario Mantovani), in the person of Serena Ammirati, and ‘PAThs’, mainly in the person of Francesco Valerio, for the Coptic text. For the details of this Coptic codicological unit see: https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/1384. 26 New Haven (CT), Beineke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, P.CtYBR inv. 846, f. 1 = CLM 6339 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/6339) = TM/LDAB 108028; 111279. Emmel 1990. 27 P. Duke inv. G 5 is one of the most interesting cases. It is a parchment leaf of a codex whose scriptio inferior transmits Parmenides, 152 b-d (5th century CE), while its scriptio superior contains a private letter in Coptic. Willis 1971; Willis 1974. 28 Maniaci 2015b: 189.

182

P. BUZI

PALIMPSESTS FROM

THE

WHITE MONASTERY

What follows is a preliminary census of the palimpsests from the library of the White Monastery, a census that is certainly destined to increase in the near future, since, as we know, this incredible mine of bibliological information continues to surprise us by providing more and more valuable data and in all possible research domains.29 The cases of palimpsests listed in this paragraph will only be described roughly from the codicological point of view, especially when they have already been the object of a careful analysis by others. What interests us the most here is trying to draw some considerations on the phenomenon of recycling writing material, within the White Monastery, in its intrinsic cultural, economic and technical aspects. For each palimpsest, information concerning the scriptio superior, the scriptio inferior and their related content and date are provided, followed by a short comment aimed at showing the characteristics of that specific palimpsest case. At the moment 11 palimpsests from the library of the White Monastery can be listed. These originally belonged to at least 24 codicological units and are the following:30 No. 1 CLM scriptio superior 323 (= MONB.CP)31

Shelf marks – Paris, BnF, Copte 1314 f. 162 sup. (pp. 17–18) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1311 f. 67 sup. (pp. ) – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 172 + 212A sup. (pp. [57]–58) – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 174 sup. (pp. [59–60]) – London, BL, Or. 3581A sup. + Cairo, IFAO, Copte 301 sup.

Content

Date

This is a multiple-text 12th/13th century codex, containing works (or part of works) by (or attributed to) several authors, among whom John Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, Athanasius of Alexandria, Severian of Gabala, Basil of Caesaraea, Gregory of

29 See for instance Suciu 2020: 383–388 concerning some palaeographic aspects of White Monastery manuscripts. 30 For a matter of synthesis, clarity and completeness the Coptic Literary Manuscript ID is used here as the main reference to identify a codicological unit (see footnote 6), always providing the corresponding CMCL sigla (when available) and the shelf mark of the complementary leaves. 31 The reconstruction of MONB.CP is extremely complex. The list of shelf marks provided here, as well as their sequence, is provisional and based on the researches carried out by Catherine Louis, Louis forthcoming: 433–437 (with bibliography), and the CMCL and PAThs projects. See https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/323. On this manuscript see also Suciu 2017: 65–66; Schneider 2017: 100–101; see also Suciu 2011a.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

CLM

32

Shelf marks

Content

– Cairo, IFAO, Copte 173 sup. ([75]–76) – Manchester, University Library, Crawford 25.4 sup. – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 171 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324 f. 346 sup. – Oxford, Bodleian Library, Clarendon Press B.25.1 sup. – Oxford, Bodleian Library, Clarendon Press B.25.2 sup. – Strasbourg, BNU, Copte 100/B sup. (fragment located in the lower part of the glass)32 – Manchester, University Library, Crawford 25.1 sup. – Manchester, University Library, Crawford 25.2 sup. – Manchester, University Library, Crawford 25.3 sup. – Manchester, University Library, Crawford 25.5–6 sup. – London, BL, Or. 8802, ff. 1–6 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1311 f. 37 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1314 f. 163 sup. – Wien, ÖNB, K 9170 sup. – Genève, Bibliothèque de Genève, P.Gen., inv. 372 sup.

Nyssa and Constantine of Siout.33 The codex also contains fragments of works that are not yet identified.

183 Date

Bouvarel-Boud’hors 1987: pl. 123–124. For reasons of space, we cannot discuss here the single identifications of this codicological unit. For them, see https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/323. 33

184

P. BUZI

CLM

Shelf marks

– Ann Arbor (MI), University Library, Ms. 0120 sup. – Wien, ÖNB, K 8673 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 132(3), f. 252 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 132(3), f. 269 sup. – New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M664B(40/2) sup. scriptio inferior As far as it is possible to surmise, CLM 323/MONB. 3928, 5198, 5220 CP was manufactured using and others, in part several earlier codicological still to be units, in part still to be identified identified and classified. In general, however, the scriptio inferior is arranged in two columns, while the scriptio superior in one column.

34 35

Orlandi 2008: 18. Crum 1909: 24–27.

Content

Date

The content of many leaves has not yet been identified, partly due to the poor conditions of the scriptio inferior and its ink, which are frequently barely legible. However, in the Manchester leaves Crum could recognize a legend on the building of Solomon’s temple, a work by Severus of Antioch, Homilia cathedralis 14: In Mariam Virginem (CC 0345),34 and a text narrated by Dionysius the Areopagite concerning Paul’s visit to Athens,35 later identified as De Conversione Urbis Athenarum. Dionysii Areopagitae vita (CC 0132, CPG 6633, BHO 0255). Other identifications of the underlying texts are to be found in Crum 1909 and Layton 1987.

Different codicological units have different dates, mostly yet to be established, but as far as it is possible to deduce, they are datable more or less to the 10th century.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

185

From the perspective of the codicological reconstruction, CLM 323/MONB.CP is the most complex extant palimpsest to reconstruct, and its structural composition is certainly destined to undergo future integrations and revisions. Aesthetically speaking, it is a very peculiar codex, characterized by a small inelegant right sloping handwriting, on one column, that apparently does not make use of any ruling system. Margins are small and irregular. Even from the point of view of the content this is an intriguing case, since the upper layer of writing consists of a long series of homilies, in part in the form of full texts, and in part as excerpta or abbreviated versions of the works. Although there is still much work to be done on this palimpsest – and under several respects – , when analyzing its extant leaves it becomes very clear that the parchment sheets (re-)used for the making of MONB.CP do not come from a unique codex. In the same way, the means of re-use changes from case to case. The work attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite – that represents the scriptio inferior of Manchester, University Library Crawford 25, ff. 4 and 6 – , for instance, has as one of its complementary fragments Manchester, University Library suppl. 15,36 which however has not been re-used for the manufacture of MONB.CP. The scriptio inferior of Paris, BnF, Copte 1314 f. 162,37 that is one of the more visible underlying scripts, has more or less the same dimension as the superior (Gregory of Nyssa, In Stephanum, CC 0913), but is rotated 90 degrees. The underlying handwriting of Paris, BnF, Copte 1314 f. 163 is different from the scriptio inferior of the just mentioned Paris, BnF, Copte 1314 f. 162,38 being much bigger compared to the respective scriptio superior; moreover, in this case the sheet has been turned upside down before being re-used. In the case of Paris, BnF, Copte 1311 f. 67, the underlying text is not visible. As for London, BL, Or. 8802, ff. 1–6,39 already in 1928 Arnold van Lantschoot wrote that “pour lire les textes sous-jacents des foll. 2, 3, 4 et 5, il faut tourner le ms. de bas en haut : les versos deviennent ainsi les rectos et vice-versa”.40 This means that the scribe of CLM 323 turned the old sheets upside down before re-writing on them. An upright majuscule with terminal thickenings and enlarged initials, of larger size compared to the glyphs of the scriptio superior, also characterizes the fragments preserved at the IFAO, but this script has the same orientation as the later layer. This is clear in Copte 172v and 174r; in this last case the leaf is particularly anesthetic, because the rim of the leaf shows clear traces of the edge of the original skin (fig. 1: Cairo, IFAO Copte 174r) 36

CLM 1697. Crum 1909: 24–27. CLM 5218. 38 CLM 5198. 39 CLM 3928. 40 van Lantschoot 1928 (see in particular 225). For the scriptio inferior see Layton 1987: 215–216, pl. 23.5–6 (no. 174); for the scriptio superior 216–218, pl. 23.5–6 (no. 175). 37

186

P. BUZI

All these elements suggest that: 1) The parchment used to create MONB.CP does not come from one and the same original codicological unit, but from several different manuscripts, with different scripts and probably even of different periods. We cannot say if these original codicological units were all already available to the White Monastery, although this seems to be likely; 2) As for the practical operation of writing there was no standard way to recycle a parchment leaf, that could be re-used in the same direction as the original or turned 90 degrees or even be reversed upside down. No. 2 CLM scriptio superior CLM 508 (= MONB.LT)

scriptio inferior not classified

Shelf marks

Content

– London, BL, Or. 3579B. Gospel of John sup. – London, Victoria and Albert Museum 1 63 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1299 f. 86 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 ff. 152–153 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 158 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 162 sup. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 167 sup. – Strasbourg, BNU, Copte 100/A sup. (fragment located in the upper part of the glass). Not identified – London, BL, Or. 3579B.63 inf. – London, Victoria and Albert Museum 1 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1299 f. 86 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 ff. 152–153 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 158 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 162 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 12910 f. 167 inf. – Strasbourg, BNU, Copte 100/A inf. (fragment located in the upper part of the glass).

Date 10th/11th century

9th century? The scriptio inferior does not seem to be much older than the superior.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

187

Not much can be said about this palimpsest of biblical content,41 apart from the fact that, at least for the fragments where the scriptio inferior is visible, the underlying text is turned upside down and it does not look much older than that of the scriptio superior. Anne Boud’hors hypothesizes that also the underlying text might be biblical, but more analyses, also by means of the new technologies, would be necessary to confirm it. What is interesting is that it was not considered inappropriate to make use of a codex that had already been written upon to copy a biblical work, at least at the White Monastery. One would probably expect more caution with the Scriptures, but it is known that this not was always the case. Anne Marie Luijendijk has pointed out, for instance, that “at Oxyrhynchus in antiquity entire manuscripts with biblical writings were deliberately discarded by Christians themselves, unrelated to persecution and issues of canonicity”.42 No. 3 CLM

Shelf marks

scriptio superior – Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, IB 16, ff. 20–23 CLM 581 sup. (pp. 95–102) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1315, (= MONB.OT; f. 87 sup. (pp. [107]–108) Zoëga CCCXI)43 – Paris, BnF, Copte 1321, f. 88 sup. (pp. 115–116) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1317, f. 68 sup. (pages unknown) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324 f. 285 sup. (pages unknown) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324 f. 287 sup. (pages unknown) – Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, University Library MS 541, f. 8 inf. (pages unknown) – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 226 (pp. ..5–..6)44

41

Content

Date

The content of the 9th/10th century scriptio superior has been identified by Sever Voicu as part of John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hebrews.45

Bouvarel-Boud’hors 1987: 47, pl. 123–124. Luijendijk 2010: 217. 43 For complementary leaves see Suciu 2011b: 299–325. 44 This fragment has been identified as part of the codicological unit by Catherine Louis. Louis forthcoming: 439. 45 Voicu 2012: 575–610: 589. For the scriptio superior of BnF 1315, f. 87 (pp. [107]–108), see Bouriant 1889: 407–408; Lucchesi 1981: 80. 42

188 CLM scriptio inferior 1859

P. BUZI

Shelf marks

Content

– Biblioteca Nazionale di Serapion of Thmuis, De Napoli, IB 16.20–23 inf. translatione Iohannis – Paris, BnF, Copte 1315, Baptistae (CC 0326). f. 87 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1321, f. 88 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1317, f. 68 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324 f. 285 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324 f. 287 inf. – Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, University Library MS 541, f. 8 inf. – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 226 inf.

Date 11th/12th century?

The general appearance of the second phase of the codex (MONB.OT) corresponds to the later esthetic canons of the White Monastery library, when the one-column layout becomes more frequent. In this case, however, the writing is somewhat archaizing, if we compare it with other late scripts of the White Monastery. The underlying text is still very visible, and this allows us to deduce that the original leaves have been trimmed before being re-used, because the first line of text of the two columns is extremely close to the actual upper margin, at least in some cases. The re-sizing of the original leaves is quite a common phenomenon in palimpsests, and can be easily explained by the deterioration of the margins. Moreover, this palimpsest shows the persisting practice of (re)using a skin even when this was not of high quality: IB.16.21 and 22 for instance have large holes (fig. 2: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, IB.16). No. 4 CLM scriptio superior 676 (= MONB.WC / MONB.WK)

Shelf marks

Content

See below the description of Later additions to a the scriptio inferior and the Typikon commentary.

Date Difficult to establish (13th century?)

189

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

CLM scriptio inferior 676 (= MONB.WC / MONB.WK)

Shelf marks – Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Typikon Oudheden, 82a (pp. 13–14) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1332, f. 21 (pp. 13–14) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1322, f. 15c (pp. 13–14) – Nani Collection, Mingarelli fragment XIX (pp. 15–16)46 – London, BL, Or. 3580, f. 4 (pp. 31–32) – London, BL, Or. 3580, f. 5 (pp. ??) – Wien, ÖNB, K 9725 (pp. 41–42) – Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 78 (pp. 47–48) – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 224 (pp. 51–52) – London, BL Or. 3580, f. 3 (pp. ??)

Content

Date 10th/11th century?

This codex is the object of the researches carried out by Diliana Atanassova on the liturgical manuscripts from the White Monastery. It is not a proper palimpsest, since the scriptio superior is limited to few interventions/additions to the scriptio inferior, in order to correct or integrate the previous “layer”. Technically speaking, however, there was an action of erasing and re-writing and this is the reason why this codicological unit is included in the present list. More specifically, BL, Or. 3580.5v “has been scraped and other tables of lessons in another hand have been written upon it”,47 while Österreichische Nationalbibliothek – Papyrussammlung 9725 shows entire lines re-written by a later and less elegant hand: l. 14 of the recto and ll. 19 and 27 of the verso have been erased and re-traced by a later hand.48 46 “Nani collection” is a conventional denomination attributed by the ‘PAThs’ project to those leaves that once belonged to Giacomo Nani (Venice) but were, unfortunately, lost. This is the case with this fragment, whose edition however was prepared by Giovanni Luigi Mingarelli (1722–1793). The edition remained unpublished because of the death of the Bolognese scholar (Mingarelli 1790: l–lv). 47 Crum 1905: 34 (no. 146). 48 Quecke 1983: 196.

190

P. BUZI

Diliana Atanassova49 has identified in its content two libelli, composed respectively of 1) Leiden 82A + BnF, Copte 133.2.21 + BnF, Copte 133.2.15C; Mingarelli XIX; BL, Or. 3580.4; BL, Or. 3580.5 that contain the directories of pericopae; 2) Wien, K. 9725; Leiden 78; IFAO 224; BL, Or. 3580.3 that contain the directories of hymns (hermeneiai and responsories). The codex is written in an elegant Alexandrian majuscule, although the kephalaia numbers of the first libellus have been added by a later hand. As for the layout, the sections of the first libellus (directories of pericopae) are arranged in 3 columns, containing respectively the title of the scriptural book, the number of the section/chapter and the beginning of the lection; the sections of the second libellus (directories of hymns) are arranged in two columns, containing respectively the label ϩⲉⲣ or ⲡⲟⲩⲱ/ⲛⲟⲩⲱ (i.e. ϩⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲉⲓⲁ and ⲡⲟⲩⲱϩⲙ/ ⲛⲟⲩⲱϩⲙ, the hermeneiai and the responsories) and the beginning of the lection. Each section is introduced by a liturgical rubric.50 No. 5 CLM scriptio superior 743

scriptio inferior 1 3873

Shelf mark

Content

– Cairo, Coptic Museum 389051 – Paris, BnF, Copte 12916, f. 94

Passio Jiane (CC 0517)

– Cairo, Coptic Museum 3890 (CGC 9239) – London, BL, Or. 5707 (Crum 1905, no. 504)52

Gospel of John (Greek and Fayyumic)53

Date

Notes

9th century?

The scriptio superior of CLM 743 is similar to the scriptio superior of the leaves included in CLM 744 (see below the next palimpsest taken int account) Second half BL, Or. 5707 is of the 6th not re-used for the century composition of CLM 743. Its scriptio superior contains calculations

49 Atanassova 2010: 116, 120; Atanassova 2014: 76–77 (§ 3.7.2). See also Pleyte and Boeser 1897: 164–168 (Ms. Insinger no. 35), 189–192 (Ms. Insinger no. 38b); Mingarelli 1790, l–lv (no. XIX); Crum 1905: 33–34 (no. 146); Louis forthcoming: 169–170 (no. 24); Lucchesi 2002: 262 and n. 9; Quecke 1983: 194–200 (n° 10) [Tafel 13–14 (= Wien, K. 9725)]. 50 For a detailed description of the layout see Atanassova 2010 and the record compiled by Francesco Valerio in the ‘PAThs’ database: https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/676. 51 Originally preserved in the Egyptian Museum as CG 9239 (JdE 44835). 52 Crum 1905, 241–242 (no. 504). For the dialect features see Crum 1917: 68. 53 Askeland 2012: 156 and 159, n. 364.

191

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

CLM scriptio inferior 2 6609

Shelf mark – Paris, BnF, Copte 12916, f. 94

Content Gospel of Mark (Greek and Fayyumic)54

Date

Notes

Second half Because of the of the 6th coherence of century content and palaeographic features, it cannot be excluded that CLM 3873 and 6609, together with CLM 4103 (see the next palimpsest), constituted two volumes of Gospels all later re-used, although for different purposes.

This palimpsest shows how complex the life(s) of a codex can be, reminding us that when a codicological unit, for any reason, ceased to be considered useful or interesting, its leaves could undergo very different fates. Produced in Touton, as the typical paragraph marks clearly show, the codicological unit identifiable as CLM 74355 contains passages of the Passio Jiane (CC 0517), that can be classified as part of the phenomenon of the late (pseudoepigraphical) hagiographic cycles. The Cairo fragment,56 the better preserved among the extant leaves of CLM 743, reveals faded traces of the previous level of writing, which is a marvelous upright uncial, whose glyphs are bigger than the later ones. It conveys John 1, 23-26, in Greek and Fayyumic (CLM 3873).57 The Greek text occupies the first column, while the Coptic one the second. This text is most likely datable to the 6th century or slightly later, because of its similarity to Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. graec. 2125 (or Codex Marchelianus),58 as Crum had already noticed. CLM 3873 originally also included BL, Or. 5707 (= P.Lond. Copt I 504), consisting of twelve conjunct leaves, plus a single leaf59 which, however, later had a different fate from the Cairo leaf, since its scriptio superior contains, in 54 Only the Greek text of Mark 3:25 can be read in the left column of the verso. See also Askeland 2012: 158–159. 55 https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/743. van Haelst 1976 (no. 427). 56 Munier 1916: 44–46 and pl. VII. 57 https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/3873. 58 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.2125. 59 Crum 1905: 241-242, no. 504.

192

P. BUZI

part, arithmetical tables and, in part, calculations of various measures of area and capacity (TM 100201 / LDAB 10826 = P. Lond. Cop. I 528).60 The Parisian fragment, on the other hand, is very badly preserved and only in its upper part.61 Its scriptio inferior might correspond to a different codicological unit (CLM 6609),62 although strictly related to CLM 3873. It contains the Gospel of Mark, again in Greek and Fayyumic. It is worth stressing that CLM 743 as well as CLM 3873 and 6609 all originate from the Fayyum,63 where the codex, later acquired by the White Monastery, was manufactured, reflecting a cultural and economic link that is no surprise. It remains to be clarified to which library the re-used CLM 3873 and 6609 originally belonged. No. 6 CLM

Shelf mark

Content

Date

Notes

scriptio superior

– Cairo, IFAO, Copte 159–160 + 302–304 sup.

Cyril of Jerusalem, In Mariam Virginem (CC 0019)64

850/900

744 scriptio inferior 1

– Cairo, IFAO, Copte 159–160 inf.

Gospel of Luke (Greek and Fayyumic)

second half The writing is of the 6th very similar to century CLM 3873 and 6609. As observed by A. Boud’hors, it might belong to the same codex as CLM 1444 / TM 61812 containing the Gospel of Matthew in Greek and Fayyumic

4103 (= TM/ LDAB 135938)

The writing is very similar to CLM 743

60 Crum 1905: 256–260, no. 528. For images of this palimpsest see Coppen and Jacobs 2009: 148–155. 61 Boud’hors 2006: 84, and footnote 12. 62 https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/6609. 63 Crum, in commenting on the supposed provenance of these leaves from Shmun, asked himself: “was that an error or was the original Gospel MS. early divided and scattered?”. Crum 1917: 68. See also Crum and Kenyon 1899–1900: 415. 64 Nakano 2012. See also Boud’hors 2006: 84 and n. 13; Orlandi 2008: 25.

193

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

CLM scriptio inferior 2

Shelf mark – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 302–304 inf.65

Content Not identified66

Date

Notes

?

6615 (= TM/ LDAB 135938)

As already observed, the scriptio superior of this palimpsest (CLM 744) is very similar to CLM 743, while the scriptio inferior (CLM 4103) is very similar to those of CLM 3873 and 6609,67 and also to that of CLM 1444, which however is not a palimpsest.68 Even if the scriptio inferior did not originally belong to the same codicological unit – it should be remembered that there are few doubts that in CLM 3873 the Gospel of John was at the beginning of the codex, although this does not exclude that it could be followed by Luke – it is highly like that the original codices were produced in the same place and probably by the same copyist (or circle of copyists). This strengthens the hypothesis of production and re-use in the Fayyum region and a later transport to the White Monastery. What is certain is that all contain a bilingual version of the gospels. To summarize, the leaves now included in CLM 743 and 744 were very likely part of a single codicological unit (a hagiographic and homiletic collection, containing at least CC0019 and CC0517), which had been written on a set of palimpsest leaves obtained from an earlier codicological unit, containing the Gospels in Greek and Fayyumic (in one or two volumes).

65 One bifolium (incomplete) reconstructed from 3 fragments: IFAO 302 and 303 are part of one leaf, IFAO 304 of its conjugate. 66 According to Nakano 2012: 2, “le texte et l’écriture sous-jacents [i.e. CLM 6615] ne sont pas les mêmes [i.e. CLM 4103].” 67 “… eux aussi palimpsestes, présentent une écriture supérieure et inférieure similaires, mais il n’est pas certain qu’ils soient du même codex.” Louis forthcoming: 401. 68 Boud’hors 2006: 84.

194

P. BUZI

No. 7 CLM scriptio superior not classified, in Greek

scriptio inferior 4171

Shelf marks

Content

– Paris, BnF, Copte 1324, fol. 354 sup. (pp. 154– 155) – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 305–308 sup. (pp. 246–253) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1332, f. 195 sup. (pp. 38[2]– 383) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1332, f. 195a sup. (pages unknown) – Paris, BnF, Copte 1324, fol. 354 inf. – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 305-308 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1332, f. 195 inf. – Paris, BnF, Copte 1332, f. 195a inf.

Date

Psalms 70,11b–72,4b (Greek)

12th/13th century

Gospel of Matthew69

9th/10th century?

The scriptio superior, again in one column, is characterized by the usual untidy and inelegant late unimodular uncial slightly right-sloping (more rarely leftsloping).70 It covers the Coptic text, arranged in two columns, whose orientation is rotated 90 degrees compared to the upper level. If we consider the dimensions of the glyphs of the underlying text, we can deduce that the leaves of the original codex were much bigger than those of the current codex (ca. 205 × 140 mm). In this case, therefore, the leaves have not just been trimmed, but considerably cut. No. 8 CLM scriptio superior 1477

Shelf marks – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 152 sup. – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 153 sup.

Content Lectionary of the Old Testament

Date 12th century?

69 For a very detailed description of the variants attested by this codicological unit see Louis forthcoming, 115, n. 265. For the Paris fragments see Bouvarel-Boud’hors 1987: 26–27. 70 See Louis forthcoming, pl. 8.

195

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

CLM scriptio inferior 1731

Shelf marks

Content

– Cairo, IFAO, Copte 152 inf. – Cairo, IFAO, Copte 153 inf.

Date

11th century? Responsa biblica ad Theodorum (CC 0180)71

Although probable, the discovery of this codex in the White Monastery is not completely certain. Once more, it appears evident that the original leaves were significantly reduced in size, since the first lines of writing of the underlying text are extremely close to the upper margin.72 Considering the aspect of the scriptio superior and the scriptio inferior, it would appear that not much time passed between the two phases of use of the codex.73 No. 9 CLM scriptio superior 2395

Shelf marks

Content

– Biblioteca Apostolica Gospel of John Vaticana, Borg. copt. 109 cass. XIX fasc. 73 sup.

(= Zoega LXXIII) scriptio inferior 1 – Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borg. copt. 109 1695 cass. XIX fasc. 73. ff. 2, 5 and 6 inf. scriptio inferior 2 – Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borg. copt. 109 6586 cass. XIX fasc. 73 ff. 1, 3 and 4 inf.

Miracula Philothei (CC 0234) or Passio Philothei (CC 0296) Not identified

Date 13th/14th century?

10th century

?

This palimpsest from the White Monastery represents another complex case.74 The text of the scriptio superior makes use of (at least) two older codicological units, a fact that once more sheds light on the itinera through which a new codex might be manufactured.

71 Louis, forthcoming: 163 writes: “Je ne suis pas parvenue à identifier le texte sous-jacent avec exactitude, n’ayant travaillé que sur photographie. D’après une note laissée par R.-G. Coquin sur l’enveloppe contenant à l’origine les fragments, ceux-ci contiendraient : au folio 153 v° : question 15 ; folio 152 r° : question 17.” 72 Louis forthcoming: pl. 29. 73 Of the same opinion is Catherine Louis forthcoming: 164, n. 373: “L’écriture utilisée pour copier le texte sous-jacent semble assez peu antérieure à celle du texte récent.” See also Schüssler 2015, 134–135 (246L). 74 Sauget 1972: 43 (no. XXIII*); Schüssler 2006: 24–27 (sa 564); Balestri: xxxviii–xliii.

196

P. BUZI

In this case, the codicological unit of the scriptio superior consists of six damaged leaves,75 – that Zoëga describes as solito minora – whose text, distributed on two columns, bears John 12:36–13:2; 19:38–21:23. The first leaf (corresponding to pages 59–60) is detached from the others, which in turn are consequential (pages 99–108). It has been calculated that about 19 leaves between folio 1 and 2 are missing.76 All the margins are very damaged, in particular those of the first leaf, whose outer column is partially lost. The handwriting is inelegant, irregular, and right sloping. These irregularities, however, do not seem to be due to different hands, but rather to the inaccuracy of the same copyist, whose action is dated by Balestri to the 13th/14th century.77 The scriptio superior of ff. 1 and 4 has been written by turning the leaves upside down compared to the first phase of production of the manuscript. One of the earlier codicological units that have been re-used (CLM 1695), consisting of three damaged and not conjugate leaves,78 bears the Miracula Philothei (CC 0234) or, more probably, the Passio Philothei (CC 0296).79 The general content was identified by Balestri while he was working on the Borgian fragments of the New Testament. At that time the scriptio inferior 1 was certainly more readable than it is today, to the point that he could state: “Questa, di color flavo, in buona parte è di facile lettura; altrove poi la membrana è così stata raschiata che non mi è riescito [sic] decifrare cosa alcuna”.80 The writing, an Alexandrian majuscule, might date back to the 10th century. The erased text of ff. 1, 3 and 4 (CLM 6586) cannot be identified. It is written in two columns and, although the script – an inelegant Alexandrine majuscule – is very similar in the three leaves, only hypothetically can we say that we are dealing with a unique codicological unit.

The 6 extant leaves belong to quires ⲉ, ⲍ, ⲏ. Quire ⲋ is missing. f. 1 is the first leaf of quire five (ⲉ) (following leaves lost); ff. 2-5 are the last four leaves of quire seven (quire six and first four leaves of quire seven are lost), f. 6 is the first folio of quire eight (ⲏ). 76 For the hypothetical reconstruction of the codex, based on autoptical analysis and Schüssler 2006: 24 see https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/2395. 77 Balestri 1903: 61–69. 78 f. 2 = pp. ⲓⲑ-[ⲕ]; f. 5 = ⲕⲑ-ⲗ; f. 6 = ?? 79 Balestri 1903: 61–69: 61; Balestri 1904: xxxviii–xliii. On the relationship between this text and that transmitted by P. Berlin 9755, see Vergote 1935. 80 Balestri 1903: 61. “This, blond in color, is largely easy to read; elsewhere the parchment has been so scratched that I have not been able to decipher anything.” 75

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

197

No. 10 CLM scriptio superior 2503 (= Zoega LIII) scriptio inferior 6574

Shelf marks

Content

Date

– Biblioteca Apostolica Gospel of Luke Vaticana, Borg. copt. 109. cass. XV fasc. 53 sup.

13th century?

– Biblioteca Apostolica Not identified. Vaticana, Borg. copt. 109. Hagiographic content. cass. XV fasc. 53 inf.

9th/10th century?

This is a single folio, whose margins are severely damaged and whose upper text contains the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (1:1–15), in two columns. It is written upside-down compared to the scriptio inferior, with an inelegant, right sloping bimodular writing that very likely dates from the 13th century.81 The same handwriting is used for the title, distributed above the two columns of the recto: ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲗⲟⲩⲕⲁⲥ. The title is preceded by a very rough geometric band, in red ink, that is only a distant memory of the original models that inspired it. On the top margin of verso, a red phytomorphic cross is followed by the abbreviation ⲭⲥ, whose first part ⲓⲥ is lost. The end of the text is marked by four horizontal red (very imprecise) lines.82 On the original folder that dates back to the arrangement of Stefano Borgia’s collection, the hand of Georg Zoëga writes: “Folium unicum. Initium Evang. Lucae usq. ad v. 15 cap. I – N° 53.”83 The lower text dates to the 10th or 11th century and includes a hagiographical text, again in two columns. The content of the text of the scriptio inferior is unfortunately unknown and even an autoptic analysis does not help to identify it, but the script is clearly recognizable as an Alexandrian majuscule. If multispectral imaging techniques were applied to this fragment, reading the original text would be possible.

81 “Characteres classi IX” according to G. Zoëga 1810: 182. See also https://spotlight.vatlib. it/palimpsests/feature/coptic. 82 Balestri 1904: 136–137 (no. liii); Hebbelynck 1912: 318; Sauget 1972: 43; Schmitz and Mink 1986: 623–625; Schüssler 2011: 122–123 (sa 767ex, Tafel 14). 83 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Borg.copt.109.cass.XV.fasc.53.

198

P. BUZI

No. 11 CLM scriptio superior not classified, in Greek scriptio inferior 3116

Shelf marks

Content

London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 91 Psalter (in Greek) sup. London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 92 sup. London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 95 London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 91 Hymn inf. London, BL, Or. 6954, f. 92 inf.

Date 13th/14thcentury?

10th century?

The last palimpsest from the White Monastery so far known consists of three fragmentary leaves84 of a Greek codex (scriptio superior), that contain the Psalter, which originally hosted a Coptic text (scriptio inferior), although only on the first two leaves, the third being without any traces of text. This codicological unit, which was found at the White Monastery in 1898 during the course of restoration work, is a remnant of earlier finds by Budge. GENERAL REFLECTIONS IN GUISE OF CONCLUSION The practice of re-using a writing support, by means of washing or scraping the manuscript, in order to prepare it to receive another text, is a common practice in the Mediterranean Late Antiquity and Middle Ages. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Paris, National Library of France, Gr. 9), datable to the 5th century and re-used for works of Ephraem the Syrian in the 12th century, and the Archimedes Palimpsest (The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore), produced in the 10th century and overwritten by a liturgical text in the 12th century,85 both in Greek, can be mentioned as being among the most famous palimpsests. If this modus operandi spread particularly in mediaeval ecclesiastical and monastic circles, however, its first attestations go back to Classical times.86 At the end of this excursus it is possible to state that Egypt was not an exception in the practice of re-using manuscripts. It was probably a common practice, every now and then, to make a census of the books that, for different reasons (use, mechanical damage, disinterest in the content; etc.), could be sacrificed to create new books.

84 85 86

Layton 1987: 76 (no. 72). Wilson 2004: 61–68; Shell-Gellasch 2012: 20–21. Brief consideration on palimpsesting in the Graeco-Roman Egypt offers Turner 1968: 5–6.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

199

Re-writing, however, was not always down to the need to recover a writing support. It may have been due to other practical reasons, such as the need to correct the errors of the copyist or to destroy what the author did not consider worthy of being “published”.87 In his Life of Augustus, for instance, Suetonius, in describing the attitude of the first emperor to write tragedies says “Though he began a tragedy with much enthusiasm, he destroyed it because his style did not satisfy him, and when some of his friends asked him what in the world had become of Ajax, he answered that his Ajax had fallen on his sponge” (Suetonius, Augustus, 85). What Augustus erases was probably written on papyrus,88 but, despite the existence of Coptic papyrus palimpsests, not one seems to belong to the category of correcting/deleting.89 Orsolina Montevecchi pointed out that the limited number of papyrus palimpsests depends on the fact that “il materiale non sempre si presta a tale procedimento”.90 On the other hand, papyrus could undergo another form of re-use, consisting of sticking together the written side of two papyrus rolls or sheets, thus obtaining a blank bifolio.91 At the end of his analysis of the Greek palimpsests, including the famous codices found in the Monastery of Arsenius in Tura, located about halfway between modern Cairo and Helwan, Edoardo Crisci comments:92

87

An interesting case of non-correction, despite the meaningful mistake made by the scribe, is represented by Cambridge, University Library, Or. 1699. In the text, in Coptic, there is “an intrusion of a section of Titus in Greek” that clearly is an error, which, however, the copyist decides not to correct, thus not producing a palimpsest. See Elliott 1994: 183–195. 88 Edoardo Crisci points out that texts on papyrus could be removed also by using a mixture described in a recipe transmitted by the so-called Papyrus Holmiensis, preserved in Stockholm. See Crisci 2003: 64 and the most recent edition of the papyrus, Halleux 1981: 114. Edoardo Crisci (Crisci 2003: 57) reminds us that, although more rarely, ostraca could also be palimpsests. Indeed in the Coptic traditions we have at least two cases: CLM 1588 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/ manuscripts/1588) and 3474 (https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/manuscripts/3474). 89 For the papyrus palimpsests and the technique used to erase or wash them (for instance with a solution of water and natron), see Schmidt 2007 and Schmidt 2005. 90 Montevecchi 1988: 21. 91 Crisci 2003: 61. This is the case, for instance, of P.Bouriant 3 + P.Achmim 1. 92 Crisci 2003: 74–75. “The papyrus palimpsest codex, despite the scarce extant documentation, seems to confirm, in the various panorama of late antique and proto-Byzantine graphic-book production, its modest dislocation, totally functional to practical, individual and contingent uses of the product/book: texts of study or work, or for individual reading, or for spiritual edification, but all resolved in the private sphere. […] A fact can be considered by now acquired: the essentially marginal nature of the palimpsest codex, meaning by marginality both its predominantly ‘provincial’ geographic location, compared to the most active graphic-book production centres of the Greek-Byzantine world, and its location in peripheral areas – and therefore also (areas) of confrontation, clash, overlapping – between cultural experiences, religious traditions, very different graphic legacies, and lastly, its book status in some way ‘disqualified’ in the system of textual, graphic and codicological hierarchies, of a specific epoch and a specific historical-cultural context.”

200

P. BUZI

“Il codice palinsesto su papiro, pur alla luce della scarsa documentazione superstite, sembra in fondo confermare, nel vario panorama della produzione graficolibraria tardoantica e protobizantina, una sua dislocazione modesta, tutta funzionale a usi pratici, individuali e contingenti del prodotto/libro: testi di studio, o di lavoro, o di lettura individuale, o di edificazione spirituale, ma tutta risolta nella sfera del privato. […] un dato può ritenersi ormai acquisito: la natura essenzialmente marginale del codice palinsesto, intendendo per marginalità sia la sua dislocazione geografica prevalentemente ‘provinciale’ rispetto ai più attivi centri di produzione grafico-libraria del mondo greco-bizantino, sia la sua collocazione in zone di confine – e quindi anche di confronto, di scontro, di sovrapposizione – tra esperienze culturali, tradizioni religiose, eredità grafiche molto diverse, sia infine, il suo status librario in qualche modo ‘dequalificato’ nel sistema di gerarchie testuali, grafiche, codicologiche di una determinata epoca e di uno specifico contesto storico-culturale.”

The analysis of Coptic palimpsests, on the one hand confirms Edoardo Crisci’s first statement – only two papyrus palimpsests are known about so far and, in both cases, they are not accurately manufactured books – ;93 on the other hand, however, it contradicts his second observation, since the parchment palimpsests produced in Egypt are not related to marginal and “provincial” contexts, do not belong to conflicting situations and do not correspond to “de-qualified” textual and graphic hierarchies. Moreover, although a systematic study of the technical aspects of palimpsests is still lacking, Coptic palimpsests seem to be the product of a re-use obtained not by erasing the previous text and therefore the superficial surface of the manuscript, but simply by washing it (milk and oat bran are common ingredients for this operation in the Mediterranean world). The first method would have made illegible the scriptio inferior, because it would have removed it physically. Lastly, it can be stated with certainty that a good number of the palimpsests from the White Monastery – and from elsewhere – implies a reduction of the original dimensions of the re-used codex. Such a phenomenon can be easily explained, above all when a long time elapsed between the first and the second use. In this case, the margins are often worn down and need to be trimmed. It is by no means unreasonable to think that we will be able to deduce a great deal more in the near future, also thanks to multispectral analysis. 94 For the moment, we can observe that not one of the manuscripts that contains works by Shenoute is a palimpsest. This may be no coincidence.

93 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 5733 (CLM 6571 scriptio superior: hymnologium?; CLM 6570 scriptio inferior: text not identified) and London, BL, Or. 7558.106–108–109 (CLM 6608: Psalm 90: 1–13 written on an Arabic protocol). 94 Easton and Kelbe 2014; Faraggiana di Sarzana 2007. See also Lucà 2008.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

201

Bibliography Agati, Maria Luisa 2009. Il libro manoscritto da Oriente a Occidente. Per una codicologia comparata. Studia archaeologica 166. Roma. Ammirati, Serena 2017. “Frammenti inediti di giurisprudenza latina da un palinsesto copto. Per un’edizione delle scripturae inferiores del ms. London, British Library, Oriental 4717 (5).” Athenaeum 105, 736–741. Askeland, Christian 2012. John’s Gospel. The Coptic Translations of its Greek Text. ANTF 44. Berlin. Atanassova, Diliana 2010. “Das verschollene koptisch-sahidische Typikon-Fragment aus Venedig. Ein liturgisches Dokument aus dem Schenute-Kloster in Oberägypten.” Oriens Christianus 94, 105–122. ——. 2014. “The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy: Retrospect and Prospect.” In: Rites and Rituals of the Christian East. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy (Lebanon, 10-15 July 2012), edited by Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle, 47–96. Leuven/Paris/Walpole. Balestri, Giuseppe 1903. “Di un frammento palinsesto Copto Sahidico del Museo Borgiano.” Bessarione 4, 61–69. ——. 1904. Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani, III. Novum Testamentum. Romae. Bausi, Alessandro et al. 2015, Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction. Hamburg. Boud’hors, Anne 2006. “Réflexions supplémentaires sur les principaux témoins fayoumiques de la Bible.” In: Coptica – Gnostica – Manichaica. Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk, edited by Louis Painchaud and Paul-Hubert Poirier, 81–108. BCNH, Section Études 7. Laval/Louvain/Paris. Bouriant, Urbain 1889. “Rapport au ministère de l’instruction publique sur une mission dans la Haute-Égypte (1884-1885).” MMAF 1/3, 407–408. Bouvarel-Boud’hors, Anne 1987. Catalogue des fragments coptes. I. Fragments bibliques nouvellement identifiés. Paris. Canart, Paul 2004. “Les palimpsestes des fonds grecs de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Une liste sommaire et quelques précisions.” In: Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday – Études de patristique grecque et textes byzantins offerts à Jacques Noret à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans, edited by Bart Janssens, Bram Roosen and Peter Van Deun, 45–55. OLA 137. Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA. ——. 2008. “Les palimpsestes en écriture majuscule des fonds grecs de la Bibliothèque Vaticane.” In: Libri palinsesti greci: conservazione, restauro digitale, studio. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Villa Mondragone-Monte Porzio CatoneUniversità di Roma «Tor Vergata» - Biblioteca del Monumento Nazionale di Grottaferrata, 21-24 aprile 2004, edited by Santo Lucà, 71–84. Roma. Cavallo, Guglielmo 1967. Ricerche sulla maiuscola Biblica. Firenze. ——. 2001. “L’immagine ritrovata: in margine ai palinsesti.” Quinio 3, 5–16. Cavallo, Guglielmo and Maehler, Herwig 1987. Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300–800. BICS, Suppl. 47. London. Coppen, Jackie, and Jacobs, David 2009. “The Conservation of Five Greek Palimpsest Manuscripts as Part of the Rinascimento Virtuale Project.” In: Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvainla-Neuve (septembre 2003), edited by Véronique Somers, 123–160. PIOL 56. Louvain-la-Neuve.

202

P. BUZI

Crisci, Edoardo 1990. I palinsesti di Grottaferrata. Studio codicologico e paleografico. 2 vols. Napoli. ——. 2003. “‘Ratio delendi’. Pratiche di riscrittura nel mondo antico.” Aegyptus 83, 53–80. Crum, Walter E. 1905. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum. London. ——. 1909. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library Manchester. Manchester/London. ——. 1917. “Notices of recent publications.” JEA 4, 67–70. Crum, Walter E., and Kenyon, Frederic G. 1899–1900. “Two chapters of John in Greek and Middle Egyptian.”, JTS 1, 415–433. Depuydt, Leo 1993. Catalogue of Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library. Leuven. Easton, Roger L., and Kelbe, David 2014. “Statistical Processing of Spectral Imagery to Recover Writings from Erased or Damaged Manuscripts.” Manuscript Cultures 7, 35–46. Elliott, J. Keith 1994. “A Greek-Coptic (Sahidic) Fragment of Titus-Philemon (0205).” Novum Testamentum 36.2, 183–195. Emmel, Stephen 1990. “Coptic Biblical Texts in the Beinecke Library.” JCoptS 1, 13–28, pls. 1–2. ——. 2015. “(Coptic) Parchment.” In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 138. Hamburg. Escobar, Ángel 2006. El palimpsesto grecolatino como fenómeno librario y textual. Zaragoza. Faraggiana di Sarzana, Chiara 2007. “Leggere manoscritti palinsesti nell’era digitale: nuove prospettive di ricerca e vecchi problemi.” In: From Manuscript to Digital Text. Problems of interpretation and markup. Proceedings of the Colloquium, Bologna, 12th June 2003, edited by Francesco Citti and Tommaso Del Vecchio, 35–60. Roma. Grassien, Céline 1999. “Ὅτε φθείρουσιν οἱ χριστιανοὶ τὰς βίβλους τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, γράφοντες τροπάρια: l’exemple du P. Vindob. G 31487.” Tyche 14, 87–92. Halleux, Robert 1981. Les alchimistes grecs, I. Papyrus de Leyde. Papyrus de Stockholm. Fragments de recettes. Paris. Hebbelynck, Adolphe 1912. “Les manuscrits coptes-sahidiques du Monastère Blanc. Recherches sur les fragments complémentaires de la collection Borgia.” Le Muséon 13, 275–362. Layton, Bentley 1987. Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906. London. Louis, Catherine forthcoming. Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque du Monastère Blanc (PhD. Diss., Paris, EPHE, 2005). Lucà, Santo (ed.) 2008. Libri palinsesti greci: conservazione, restauro digitale, studio. Atti del Convegno internazionale 2004. Roma. Lucchesi, Enzo 1981. Répertoire des manuscrits coptes (sahidiques) publiés de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris. Cahiers d’Orientalisme 1. Genève. ——. 2002. “Feuillets édités non identifiés du Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Matthieu attribué à Rufus de Chotep.” Le Muséon 116, 261–278. Luijendijk, Anne Marie 2010. “Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus.” Vigiliae Christianae 63.3, 217–254.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

203

Manfredi, Manfredo 1998. “Salmo ed esempio di scrittura araba.” In: Antinoe cent’anni dopo. Catalogo della Mostra, Firenze Palazzo Medici Riccardi, 10 luglio – 1° novembre 1998, edited by Loretta Del Francia Barocas, 113–114. Firenze. Maniaci, Marilena 2015a. “Introduction” In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 69–88. Hamburg. ——. 2015b. “Greek Codicology – Parchment.” In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 187–190. Hamburg. Mingarelli, Giuseppe Luigi 1790. Aegyptiorum Codicum Reliquiae Venetiis in bibliotheca Naniana asseruatae. Fasciculus tertius. Bononiae. Montevecchi, Orsolina 19882. La papirologia. Milano. Munier, Henri 1916. Manuscrits coptes. Catalogue général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, no. 9201–9304. Cairo. Nakano, Chiemi 2012. “Fragments d’une homélie copte sur la Vierge Marie attribuée à Cyrille de Jérusalem [CPG 3603]. Le Caire, Ifao Copte 159-160, 302-304.” JCoptS 14, 1–26. Naldini, Mario 1965. Documenti dell’Antichità cristiana. Papiri e pergamene grecoegizie della Raccolta Fiorentina. Firenze. Orlandi, Tito 2008. Coptic Texts Relating to the Virgin Mary. An Overview. Roma. Orsini, Pasquale 2008. “La maiuscola biblica copta.” Segno e testo 6, 121–150 and pl. 1–8. Pintaudi, Rosario (ed.) 1983. Papiri greci e latini a Firenze. Secoli III a.C. – VIII d.C. Pap.Flor. XII suppl. Firenze. Pleyte, Willem and Boeser, Pieter A. A. 1897. Manuscrits coptes du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide. Leiden. Quecke, Hans 1983. “Zwei Blätter aus koptischen Hermeneia-Typika in der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (P.Vindob. K 9725 und 9734).” In: Festschrift zum 100-Jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P.Rainer cent.), 194–206. Wien. Sauget, Joseph-Marie 1972. “Introduction historique et notices bibliographiques au Catalogue de Zoega.” Le Muséon 85, 25–63. Schmidt, Thomas 2005. “Les palimpsestes littéraires grecs sur papyrus.” In: Palimpsestes et édition de textes, edited by Véronique Somers, 83–99. PIOL 56. Louvainla-Neuve. ——. 2007. “Greek Palimpsest Papyri: Some Open Questions.” In: Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki 1-7 August 2004, edited by Jaakko Frösén, Tiina Purola, Erja Salmenkivi, vol. 2, 979–990. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 122. Helsinki. Schmitz, Franz-Jürgen, and Mink, Gerd 1986. Liste der koptischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Die Sahidischen Handschriften der Evangelien. ANTF 8. Berlin/New York. Schneider, Carolyn 2017. The Text of a Coptic Monastic Discourse “On Love and Self-Control”. Its Story from the Fourth Century to the Twenty-First. Collegeville. Schüssler, Karl-Heinz 1995. Biblia Coptica. Das sahidische Alte und Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten, I.1 (sa 1-20). Wiesbaden. ——. 2006. Biblia Coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte. Das sahidische Alte und Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten, III.4 (sa 561-585). Wiesbaden. ——. 2011. Biblia Coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte. Das sahidische Alte und Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten, IV.4 (sa 721-780). Wiesbaden.

204

P. BUZI

——. 2015. Biblia Coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte. Das sahidische Alte und Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten, II.2 (sa 185-260). Wiesbaden. Shell-Gellasch, Amy 2012. “The Archimedes Palimpsest Comes to Light.” Math Horizons 19.3 (February), 20–21. Suciu, Alin 2011a. “À propos de la datation du manuscrit contenant le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc.” Vigiliae Christianae 65, 189–198. ——. 2011b. “The Borgia Coptic Manuscripts in Naples: Supplementary Identifications and Notes to a Recently Published Catalogue.” OCP 77, 299–325. ——. 2017. “The Coptic Versions of De ascetica disciplina attributed to Basil of Caesarea (CPG 2890). With an Appendix Containing the Armenian Version.” Revue des Études Byzantines 75, 65–100. ——. 2020. “The Sahidic Tripartite Isaiah: Origins and Transmission within the Coptic Manuscript Culture.” APF 66/2, 377–406. Thompson, Herbert 1911. A Coptic Palimpsest Containing Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith and Esther in the Sahidic Dialect. London/Edinburgh/New York/Toronto/ Melbourne. Torallas Tovar, Sofía 2016. “Progress in Coptic Palaeography and Codicology.” In: Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th-22nd, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September, 15th-19th, 2008, edited by Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani and Federico Contardi, vol. 1, 431–456. OLA 247. Leuven. Turner, Eric G. 1977. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia, PA. van Haelst, Joseph 1976. Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens. Paris. van Lantschoot, Arnold 1928. “Les textes palimpsestes de B.M. Or. 8802.” Le Muséon 41, 225–247. Vergote, Jozef 1935. “Le texte sous-jacent du palimpseste Berlin n° 9755. S. Colluthus – S. Philothée.” Le Muséon 48, 275–296. Voicu, Sever 2011. “Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto sotto il nome di Giovanni Crisostomo.” In: Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, edited by Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani, 575–610. SEA 125. Rome. Willis, William H. 1971. “A New Fragment of Plato’s Parmenides on Parchment.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 12, 539–552. ——. 1974. “A Parchment Palimpsest of Plato at Duke University and the Ilias Ambrosiana.” In: Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Marburg-Lhan, 2.-6. August 1971, edited by Emil von Kiessling and Hans-Albert Rupprecht, 461–467. München. Wilson, Nigel 2004. “The Archimedes Palimpsest: A Progress Report.” The Journal of the Walters Art Museum 62 = A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum and Essays in Honor of Gary Vikan, 61–68. Zoëga, Georg 1810. Catalogus codicum copticorum manu scriptorum qui in museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur. Romae.

CODICES COPTICI RESCRIPTI

Fig. 1: 1. Cairo, Ifao, Copte 174 recto. © IFAO.

205

Fig. 2. Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, IB.16, ff. 21v–22r. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III”, Naples.

206 P. BUZI

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS ANDREW CRISLIP

Shenoute writes of his illnesses primarily in Canons 6 and 8, in letters written to his community from his desert retreat, and it is only through his letters that we know of his illness. Given how centrally his illness figures in some volumes of his Canons it is striking that his Life attributed to Besa never mentions his suffering, apart from his death. Yet even his own writings, replete as they are with references to his sickness, give only partial glimpses of his experience. His descriptions are fleeting, and he never gives a full “patient history.”1 What has posed the most significant issues for interpreting Shenoute’s illness is that the archimandrite roots all discussion of his own illness in his pervasive moral exhortation of his community for their own pestilent illness of sin.2 His seamless discussion of illness within the extended laments and denunciations of his community raises questions about the ontological status of his illness: is it “real”? In her groundbreaking early discussion of Shenoute’s illness, Rebecca Krawiec reserves space for some skepticism about Shenoute’s veracity, referring to Shenoute’s sickness as “apparently real.”3 Caroline Schroeder expresses skepticism more directly in her wide-ranging discussion of embodiment and discipline in the White Monastery. She contrasts her own approach to understanding Shenoute’s discourse on embodiment and health with some others, who interpret “Shenoute’s discussions of illness … as references to an actual disease which afflicted Shenoute for several decades.”4 In Schroeder’s reading, Shenoute’s illness is something else, not “an actual disease.” But if Shenoute does not speak of an actual disease, neither does he speak of it as metaphor. Schroeder writes, “Disease is not a literary metaphor for Shenoute – it is the physical manifestation of sin… His disease is the manifestation of the spiritual

1 In many ways this is typical of ancient sources on illness, which focus on the perspective of doctors to the neglect of the patients’ own voices. Historians of ancient medicine are now recognizing this bias, and attempting to recover the voices of patients, for which see Petridou and Thumiger 2015. 2 Essential context for interpreting Shenoute’s illness, especially for his pervasive concerns about befouled clothing and his intentional estrangement from the community, is provided by Boud’hors 2008, 2011a, and 2011b. Canon 8, one of the main sources for Shenoute’s discussion of his illness, is published by Boud’hors 2013. See also briefer discussions in Krawiec 2002: 66–71, and Schroeder 2007: 85–86. Rule and homiletic sources for Shenoute’s attitudes toward monastic illness may be pursued through Crislip 2005 and 2008. 3 Krawiec 2002: 68. 4 Schroeder 2007: 186n.

208

A. CRISLIP

corruption in the community.” She continues, emphasizing a point central to her understanding of the distinctive individual and collective subjectivity fostered by the archimandrite, “Sin is an illness that literally consumes an entire body, eventually afflicting even its undiseased members.”5 Schroeder’s interpretation is an attractive one, given how slippery and vague Shenoute’s descriptions of his illness can be and how inseparable his illness is from moral exhortation. Now that much of the evidence for Shenoute’s illness is critically edited, the time is opportune to reread Shenoute’s illness, both with an eye toward previous discussions, as well as in light of other late ancient monastic depictions of illness and health, since by the time Shenoute was writing his letters in Canons 6 and 8, surely well into the fifth century, the illness of monks both ordinary and holy had become a common and, in fact, contested part of monastic literature.6 In revisiting Shenoute’s often cryptic remarks as well as remarks by another rough contemporary, who like Shenoute describes his illness in letters, I suggest that Shenoute’s description of his illness is very much in line with Christian discourse outside the White Monastery, and in the broader Mediterranean world. Shenoute suffered from a “real” illness, by which I mean an illness that an ancient doctor would be expected to be able to treat. This persistent bodily experience, qua bodily experience, provided Shenoute with a powerful metaphor for thinking about community, sin, and salvation. I first compare Shenoute’s illness letters to the letters of Basil the Great, who also reflected on his bodily suffering as part of his program of moral exhortation and church discipline. I then return to Shenoute’s illness, taking into account the connections between these two letter collections. Basil of Caesarea was well known as sickly, and he made much of his persistent ill health in his correspondence. Of his 366 letters, 46 refer to his own maladies, twelve and a half percent of the corpus, and his references to his own illness occur over a twenty-three year period, from 357 to 379.7 Basil was, as Benoît Gain puts it, “continuellement malade,” which makes him an apt target of comparison with Shenoute’s less familiar letters.8 I note four important aspects of Basil’s presentation of his illness that strike me as relevant for situating Shenoute’s illness: his symptoms, his disinterest in distinguishing between body and soul, his concern with the church, and his discussion of sin.

5

Schroeder 2007: 85–86, 87 (emphasis Schroeder’s). See Crislip 2013. 7 I follow the numeration of Gain 1985: 397–398, who lists Basil’s many maladies by date in an appendix. 8 Gain 1985: 50–53. He notes that that Basil was not at all unique among late antique church leaders who present themselves as chronically ill, citing Jerome, and Augustine as parallels, 51n. The situation bears directly on Shenoute’s illness. 6

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS

209

First, Basil generally declines to describe his symptoms with any specificity. He describes himself tossing in bed in several letters (Epp. 30, 138, 139). Once he gives his symptoms as fever, diarrhea, and intestinal disturbance (Ep. 162). He mentions that his teeth are worn down by “time and ill health.”9 Though Basil was brought up in traditions of late ancient paideia, in which some education in medicine was expected, only once does he give a description of his symptoms that rises to a more professional level, but this is to a doctor (or chief physician, ἀρχιάτρος) named Meletius. Here he mentions his quartan fevers that “have lasted for more than twenty cycles.”10 But in general he describes his symptoms only vaguely (e.g., Ep. 141). But his reluctance to give symptoms is not to downplay the severity of the illness. Rather, his illness is so “varied and complex” that neither he nor others could possible describe it adequately.11 Second, Basil does not recognize a mind/body distinction: afflictions of the body and the soul are intertwined without concern. So he speaks of his brother’s presence as “consolation both for the ills of the body and for the afflictions of the soul as well.”12 He contracts a severe illness from bad weather and anxieties (Ep. 216; also 30); he writes elsewhere of the somatic effects of emotional pain, complaining to Eusebius of Samosata “[M]y recovery is being hindered for the most part by my discouragement, since all the symptoms of my disease continually recur as the result of my exceeding grief.”13 The quartan fever of which he complains to the chief physician Meletius may also reflect the intertwining of emotional and bodily affliction typical of ancient humoral physiology. While quartan fever is associated with malaria in western biomedicine, in the Galenic tradition of humoral medicine it was considered symptomatic of disorders of black bile (melancholia), especially typical of middle aged men.14 Third, Basil’s embodied sorrow and anxiety point to his tendency to read his sufferings into the conflicts and distress of the social body, the church.15 He draws on biblical narrative models of suffering, especially the Psalms, to frame his illness.16 In a number of letters he juxtaposes his illness with the divisions and heresies of the church (Epp. 136, 141, 237). In others he blames his illness 9 τοῦ χρόνου καὶ τῆς ἀρρωστίας, Ep. 232. All translations of Basil’s letters unless otherwise noted follow that of Deferrari 1962. 10 Ep. 193. On Basil’s education, compare Sterk 2004: 37–39; Rousseau 1994: 27–60; and on Basil’s moral and theological use of Hippocratic medicine, see Temkin 1991: 176–177. 11 Ep. 162; also cf. Ep. 194. 12 τῶν τοῦ σώματος ἀρρωστημάτων … τῶν ἄλλων ἀλγεινῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, Ep. 60. 13 Ep. 141. Discouragement (or depression) = ἀθυμία; grief (or sadness or distress) = λύπη. The emotional semantics of λύπη are explored by Mattern 2015, who also characterizes some of Galen’s descriptions of the πάθος as a form of anxiety. 14 Various cyclic fevers are discussed in a lengthy note by Mattern 2008: 230. 15 Rousseau (1994: 156) describes this with characteristic acuity: “Rather more sinister was the way he wove his illness into his sense of church history.” 16 E.g., Ep. 140, which draws on Ps. 54:7 (55:6). In Ep. 139 Basil laments that is stuck in bed while his enemies stalk him like wolves, which evokes Ps. 21:17–22 (22:16–21). Garrett 1995

210

A. CRISLIP

on his anxieties for the church (Epp. 141, 267). Elsewhere he writes to the Antiochene Church, conflating his illness with the scourge of Arianism (Ep. 140). When speaking of his sorrow (κατηφεία) at the troubles of the church, he once compares his own dental problems to the pernicious spread of heresy: he has trouble chewing while his brother is afflicted by heretical bites (Ep. 232). In another letter he directly equates his bodily suffering to the suffering of the church: “My ill-health has now returned again, and again I lie on my bed, tossing about on the anchorage of my little remaining strength and ready at almost every hour to accept the inevitable end of life. The churches exhibit a condition almost like that of my body” (Ep. 30). His body and his illness form a powerful metaphorical complex for Basil to think about church order and theology. And finally, Basil’s presentation of his illness is notable for its recurrent talk of sin. In one telling letter, Basil laments that other clergy come visit him in his sickness, and respect him in his presence, only to turn back to their old opinions when they leave. “In all this,” he laments, “I am a sufferer, like the rest, for the Lord has clearly abandoned us, whose love has grown cold because iniquity abounds.”17 He blames the death of his mother on his own sin, perhaps in hyperbole (Ep. 30). Basil describes his bodily and emotional suffering as weighted down by sin, his own and the church’s, and despairs that he must look only to God for cure, the God who scourges and heals (Ep. 136). Basil’s correspondence sheds considerable light on Shenoute’s. No one suggests that Basil did not suffer from actual illnesses. He may be inclined to luxuriate in his sufferings, but this is in line with elite conventions going back to the second sophistic, as in the correspondence of Marcus Aurelius and Fronto, or Aelius Aristides’ writings.18 And while he characterizes his illnesses as due to sin and as scourges of God, and homologizes his bodily suffering to that of the church, as well as linking his suffering causally to the social strife around him, I would not describe his disease as literally the manifestation of the sin of the church. Illness and healing simply form a powerful metaphorical complex: not a literary metaphor, as Schroeder points out, but rather, metaphor in its cognitive and embodied aspect, as described by Mark Johnson, “a pervasive mode of understanding by which we project patterns from one domain of experience in order to structure another domain of a different kind.”19 People use metaphor to take more “concrete” “physical domains of experience” to

has identified some of the important biblical models by which early Christians made sense of illness (and suffering). 17 Ep. 141, for which I follow the NPNF translation of Blomfield Jackson, clearer in my opinion. The word translated ‘iniquity’ is ἀνομία, one of Shenoute’s favorites. 18 Perkins 1995: 142–199. 19 Johnson 1987: xiv–xv.

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS

211

structure more abstract fields or domains.20 In his fragmentary illness narrative, Basil projects patterns from his history of bodily suffering to structure the way he perceives the more abstract domains of theology and church order; he also sees the sin and disorder of the ecclesial body as manifesting in his own body, not explicitly through contagion, but because of his emotional pain, which causes him very real bodily affliction. Basil’s illness letters offer a profitable context in which to read Shenoute’s laments of affliction. First, it is at least plausible that Shenoute could have been ill for several decades, with the caveat that the chronology of Shenoute’s life is still shadowy, and it is not clear yet where precisely the various works of the Canons fit into it.21 At any rate, one need not posit that Shenoute was ill for several decades continuously to accept as plausible that he could have been sick over a long period. Basil’s letters document his real (even if conceivably exaggerated) bodily sufferings over twenty-three years, and it is hard to imagine much skepticism about the reality of his illness, or the need to posit a uniquely embodied subjectivity on his part. And Shenoute’s affliction need not have been one actual disease (if an ancient would even conceive of illness in such a way); he like Basil could have suffered more than one affliction in his body, afflictions which flow in retrospect into a continuous flux of suffering. Basil’s illness letters intersect with Shenoute’s works in other ways. For the most part, Shenoute, like Basil, describes his symptoms with only vague or elliptical hints towards anything that could be used to “diagnose” it from a biomedical perspective. Instead, he adorns his symptoms in biblically or religiously resonant imagery. Like Basil, he tosses and turns at night unable to sleep.22 His insides burn and boil, yet he is cold.23 The disease is like Hades, or worse than Hades (XO 106). In Canon 8 he notes that he lacks visible wounds, ulcers, or bruises (XO 92). His frequent references to worms in the wounds or pain like snake venom also make his illness sound less like Hippocrates and more like an apocalypse.24 He makes it clear that this disease is not for humans to heal (XO 92), or God does not want him to recover (XO 65). God is chastising him for his sins.25 All this can reasonably lead one to diagnose this disease as “sin,” rather than as a sort of humoral or biomedical 20

Johnson 1987: xv. Clear overviews of Shenoute’s biography and which periods the volumes of Canons likely reflect are provided by Emmel 2008 and 2004. 22 Canon 8, XO 237 (ed. Boud’hors); Canon 6, XV 75 (ed. Amélineau [Am.] 1907–1914: 2:322). 23 Boiling: XO 100, burning: XO 100, 104, 114–115, freezing: XO 100, 104. 24 Snake venom, Canon 8, XO 101; worms: Canon 6 XF 156 (ed. Munier 1916: 112), [Ņĩ] ĻġŃ̓ͩŇ; XM 190 (ed. Leipoldt 1908: 195). 25 Canon 8, XO 114–115; Canon 6, XF 265 [Am. 2:81]. Garrett 1995: 91–94 describes this Christian discourse about illness as the paideia model of affliction, emphasizing the disciplinary and self-improving functions of illness. 21

212

A. CRISLIP

pathology. Yet is important to note that this is not unique among elite Christians of late antiquity, as Basil uses very similar language when describing his own illnesses. Although sin pervades Shenoute’s letters, he nonetheless occasionally describes his illness in ways that do not match a diagnosis of “sin,” even in very theologically loaded descriptions. While God tests him and chastises him with burning illness his heart and belly (bodily imagery that evokes bad conscience, and which Shenoute explicitly connects to his sin), the fire also has spread through both his sides, his back, and even his feet, body parts that lack the ethical or sinful associations of the heart and guts.26 Shenoute’s complaints about pain in his ears certainly befit the community’s sins of loose talk and secrecy.27 Yet the same burning flux and ulcer afflict his nose and nostril.28 It is harder for me to make sense of the community’s contagious sin (qua sin) afflicting his back, his feet, or his nose. Elsewhere, late in Canon 8, Shenoute claims with a typical lack of specificity that he is recovering from the illness, at least a bit.29 Recovery is slow: he apparently took food “before [he] was accustomed to it,” and vomited.30 Such fleeting comments suggest to me that this is a disease that an ancient doctor would feel prepared to treat, as Shenoute himself does, as he once mentions that he is “testing this illness with all the medicines that are appropriate to it.”31 Shenoute’s presentation of his illness shares another important aspect with Basil’s: he elides his emotional suffering with his bodily illness, so thoroughly that it is not always possible to separate them – and it would be a mistake to attempt to. Throughout Shenoute’s discussion of his bodily suffering, his emotional suffering is never far removed: grief, sadness, bitterness, distress, and anxiety. In a number of passages he equates his illness with sorrow, ķʼnŁį and Ĺĵġƙേ ͩƙįŇ. Sorrow lies heavy upon those suffer this disease, and those who suffer this disease are not only the sinners, but the saints, who are “sick in sorrow” because of those wounded by the disease of sin.32 Shenoute equates 26 ŁġƙįŇേĹͩƙįŇേĹĩƙേͩĵőƙ͵¨േ͝േġʼnĹĿʼnƙേͩĵőƙ͵േƙijŇͩıͧĹĩേĩŇƟേĩƙĿʼnĻേĩŃĿĿʼnേĩģĿķേƙijŇͩŁĩƙĹĿĹേ ͧŁĩыƓőĻĩേĩŇͧĹġʼnേĩŇƙĿĿʼnേĩŇƛĩŃĿേƙͧŁġŅŁijŃേŅĻġʼn¨േŁġы¨േĹͩĻġы¨േĹͩŇġĵĩƛijŅĩേġʼnőേĿĻേĻġĿʼnĩŃįŇĩ¨, XO 114–115. 27 The sin of secrecy is discussed in Schroeder 2007: 86. 28 ŁĩŇĵġŅേĥġŃേĹŁĹġġƛĩേįേĹĹġġƛĩേĹĻŁĩƙĹĿĹേĹŁĩƙŃĩʼnĹġേįേŇĹĩƛŁőĻĩേĩŇƙĹŁƓġേįേĻƝőģĩേ ĻƓġ˜— േCanon 6, XM 308 (Am. 1:104–105). 29 “As for me, how am I like you? I sleep in this illness, this very illness that is in the members of my body. I say with certainty that a change has come. I am recovered a bit, but truly I am not able to endure it in this way,” ġĻĿĵേħĩേġĻ͓ĿʼnĵġŇġŃőŇͩേƙͩĿͷേ¨േĩijͩĵĿŇͣേƙͧŁĩыƓőĻĩ¨ ŁĩыƓőĻĩ¨േ ŁĩыƓőĻĩേĿĻേͩĿʼnőŇേĩŇƙͩͧĹĩķĿŅേͧŁġŅőĹġ¨േĩijƛőേͧĹĿŅേŃőേƛĩġʼnƓijģĩേƓőŁĩ¨േġыͧŇĿĻേͩĿʼnĵĿʼnы, XO 260. 30 ġʼnƟƙĻġʼnേĻġыേƙͧŁġƓőĻĩ¨േġыĵġģĿķേĩŇģįįŇƕ¨േͧŁġƟŇĿŁ̓േŃő, XO 264. 31 ĩijƛőĻ͵േĹŁĩыƓőĻĩേƙͩͧŁġƙŃĩേŇįŃĿʼnേĩŇįŁേĩŃĿƕ¨, XO 126. 32 XO 108; “How will one say that the prophets are not sick in sorrow,” ͩġƓേ ͩƙĩേ ĩŃĩĿʼnġĻġƛĿĿŅേƛĩŅĩƓőĻĩേġĻേͩƝijĻĩŁŃĿŋįŇįŅേƙͧŁĩĹĵġƙേͩƙįŇ, Xľ 110.

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS

213

his illness with the illness of the prophets, who bear “the sickness of their sorrow.”33 When Jeremiah laments, “My heart is crushed,” a cry that Shenoute makes his own, he speaks in the illness of his sorrow, a grievous illness of sadness and reproach, an illness that he shares with the prophets and the righteous. Even Christ took on this illness: in his incarnation he “[became] sick in the way that all the righteous were sick in sorrow because of our sins, through the disease into which we all have entered.” He took “all our illnesses and all our evils” … “upon himself, as the scripture testifies, It is he who bore our sins and our illnesses.”34 Shenoute’s inclusion of emotional experiences with his bodily ones, like Basil, reveals much about the meaning of this illness for Shenoute, socially and theologically.35 Stress hurts the body, as does sadness and grief and depression. In the twentieth century such phenomena would have been called psychosomatic symptoms, but ancients needed no such term, since the health of the soul and the health of the body were inextricably linked, as Galen’s treatises describe in great detail.36 Shenoute’s painful emotions, like Basil’s, do not only reflect the social experience of illness for Shenoute and his community: they point to important aspects of his bodily experience, a subjectivity of a “suffering self” which seems not as unique to Shenoute as previous work has proposed.37 Laurence Kirmayer’s anthropological work on illness narratives in the psychiatric clinical setting of western biomedicine demonstrates how similar the somatic experiences of sadness, depression, and shame described by a contemporary informant are to those vague complaints of Shenoute, himself weighed down with enduring shame and sadness. Kirmayer’s modern patient – representative of many more – complains of unbearable burning in the stomach and chest, acidic bitterness, her body burning like a “lit fireplace,” and a pain and sadness “deep inside,” all of which no medical ministrations have helped.38 The more I read, the more familiar Shenoute’s bodily experiences seem, expressed in ways similar to Basil’s experience, and even our own. One last observation relates to Shenoute’s interest in illness and healing generally, and specifically with his approach to moral exhortation. Shenoute draws on a metaphor deeply rooted in human cognition, cognition that is itself 33

ͩŇġʼnƛĿĿŅേͩƝijĻĩŁŃĿŋįŇįŅേƙͧŁƓőĻĩേͧŁĩʼnͧĵġƙേͩƙįŇ, XO 112. The full passage reads, ġķķġേ ŁŅőŇįŃേ ĿĻേ ŁƛĿĩijŅേ ͧŁŇįŃ̓േ ƙͧŁŇŃĩƕͱŃőĹĩേ ĩŇģĩŁĿʼnƛġыേ ͩͩŃőĹĩ¨േͩŇġƕƓőĻĩേĻŇĿƕേġĻേĵġŇġıĩേͩŇġͩħijĵġijĿŅേŇįŃĿʼnേƓőĻĩേƙͩĿʼnͧĵġƙേͩƙįŇേĩŇģĩĻĩĻĻĿģĩേ ƙijŇͧŁƓőĻĩേͩŇġĻĩijേĩƙŃġыേĩŃĿƕേŇįŃͩ¨േġķķġേĻĩĻƓőĻĩേŇįŃĿʼn¨േ͝േĻĩĻ9Łĩ;ıĿĿʼnേͩŇġʼnĩijേĩƙŃġыേĩƛőĻേ ͩŇġƕŅĿĵĿʼnേ ĩƛőƕേ ͧĹijĻേ ͧĹĿƕ¨േ ͩıĩേ ĩŇĩŃĩŇĩĥŃġŋįേ ͱĹͩŇŃĩേ ƛĩͩŇĿƕേ ŁĩĻŇġƕƕijേ ƙġĻĩĻĻĿģĩേ ĹͩĻĩĻķĿƛķĩƛേŇįŃĿʼn¨േ(Mt 8:17, citing Is 53:4), XO 113. 35 See in Canon 8, e.g., Shenoute’s sorrow (XO 110, 117, 126), anxiety (100, 115), shame (126) and distress (60). Shenoute’s ķʼnŁį and ĹĵġƙേͩƙįŇ also pervade his letters in Canon 6. 36 E.g., The soul’s dependence on the body (Kühn 1819–1833: 4:767–821). 37 Cf. Schroeder 2007: 67. 38 Kirmayer 2000: 162 and passim. 34

214

A. CRISLIP

inextricable from our embodiment. The linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson describe “morality as health” as “a basic metaphor” in embodied cognition.39 “One crucial consequence of this metaphor,” they note, “is that immorality, as moral disease, is a plague that, if left unchecked, can spread throughout society, infecting everyone. This requires strong measures of moral hygiene, such as quarantine and strict observance of measures to ensure moral purity. Since diseases can spread through contact, it follows that immoral people must be kept away from moral people, lest they become immoral, too.”40 Shenoute builds on this nearly universal and viscerally powerful metaphor of immorality as disease in distinctive ways. In 2009 I wrote an essay on Shenoute’s use of medical imagery in his sermon A priest will never cease, in which he compares the experience of going to church and taking the Eucharist to the experience of going to the doctor.41 While the tradition of comparing Christ to a physician and the Eucharist to medicine pervades Christian literature from the gospels on, I still have not found a parallel to the specific kinds of details on which Shenoute draws in this sermon. Shenoute’s embrace of the metaphor of the doctor’s office (ŁĹġേ ĻƟŁġƙŃĩ േ ŁĹġേ ĻŃŁġƙŃĩ) strikes me as more distinctive now than it did then. Shenoute shows the same kind of interest in medical healing in the Canons as a metaphor for sin and sanctity, including imagery that parallels his public sermon from the Discourses. Shenoute knows something about healing, more than one might expect from your average monastic leader, which recalls for me the way that Basil’s medical education is sometimes apparent in his writings. Shenoute draws on descriptions of illness and healing especially when describing moral healing, much more so than in describing his own illness. It is not clear to me where Shenoute learned of medicine, but he has clearly observed its effects. For all his talk of sin, he is being treated with medicines (ŁġƙŃĩ േXO 126, discussed above). He speaks metaphorically of a medicine compounded perfectly in its mixtures.42 He knows how to treat wounds, especially with vinegar and salt, both effective at penetrating sores.43 And he speaks of different types of medicine, such as a burning or caustic medicine that digs down after the root of the wounds, and which generates humors or liquids in the wounds and uproots them, which then fill in and are purified of the disease.44 In Canon 6 he speaks of a cooling medicine that is appropriate to some wounds, 39 Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 308. They identify twelve such basic metaphors for morality as grounded in the human experience of embodiment at 292–311. 40 Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 308–309. 41 Crislip 2009: 261–270. 42 ͩıĩേĩŇĩĻġĻĿʼnŁŁġƙŃĩേͧĹĿŅേĩƕŅĿŇͯേͩĻĩƕĹijĥĹġേŇįŃĿʼn, XO 169. 43 ͩŇġŇĩŇͩƟേ ĻĿʼn͇͉ͧ¨േ ĹͩĿʼnƙĹĿʼn¨േ ĹͩĻĩŇĩыĻĩേ ͧĹĿĿʼnേ ĩƙŃġыേ ĩƛͩĻĩŁķįĥįേ ƓġĻŇĿʼnƙĩŇƙőŇĿʼnേ ͩŇĩƙĩĻŅĻőőƕേĹͩƙĩĻͧĿĿʼnേĩ͡Áേ ĩģĿķേͩƙįŇĿʼnേƙijŇͩŇġƓįേͩͧŁőķ͇േĹͩĻĩƓƝġ¨, XO 154. 44 Ĺįേ ĩģĿķേ ġĻേ ƛĩĹġŇĩŇͩĵġŁŁġƙŃĩേ ĩŇƛįƕ¨േ ͝േ ĩŇĿʼnőĹേ ƙijƛőĿʼn¨േ Ļ̓ĵġıġŃijĭĩേ ͩͩķőĹĩ¨േ Ĺͩ9ͩ; ġĵġıġŃŅijġേĻijŨേĩƕģĿķģͥേĩƙŃġыേͩŅġേͩĻĿʼnĻĩേĩŇĹĩŅĹĿĿʼnേƙͩĻĩŁķįĥįേĻ̓ŁĿŃĵĿʼnേͩŅĩĩijേĩƙĿʼnĻേĩʼnĵőŇĩേ ͩŅĩĹĿʼnƙേĩƙŃġыേĩʼnĿʼnĿĻ͇േĩģĿķേƛĩġʼnŇ͑ģĿേĩģĿķേƙͧŁĩыƓőĻĩേͩķĿijĹĿŅ¨, XO 151–152.

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS

215

and a penetrating and consuming medicine appropriate to others, which a doctor would then follow with a cooling medicine.45 The imagery he uses does not point to a specific school or tradition of healing, nor does it necessarily reflect any medical training on Shenoute’s part – his descriptions here, as in his description of going to the doctor’s office in A priest will never cease, strike me as idiosyncratic, and we have precious little to compare them with in Coptic.46 They nonetheless reveal Shenoute as someone who has thought a great deal about medicine, at least through his own bodily experience and in observing others, and applies it to other areas of experience, sometimes in ways that are familiar from other late ancient writings, sometimes in ways that appear quite his own. I have suggested here that Shenoute’s illness can be seen in a clearer light by comparing it with other depictions of illness in late ancient monastic sources, and I have found Basil’s illness letters to be especially illuminating. Like Basil, Shenoute suffers from “real” illness, by which I mean illness that one might reasonably expect an ancient doctor to treat. This need not be a continuous bout with a discrete disease, but rather a long struggle with a variety of illnesses and conditions, flowing together for Shenoute as a chronic experience of ƓőĻĩ. Like Basil, Shenoute does not set his emotional suffering off from his bodily illness. They are intertwined and to a large degree indistinguishable: his illness is in his body and his heart or mind. Elements of his illness experience can be seen in the embodied experience of emotional pain cross-culturally. Also like Basil, Shenoute is far more interested in matters beyond his own body, the moral state of the community and the pernicious threat of heresy, concerns that affect their own bodies, not from the contagion of sin moving between overlapping bodies, but from the interplay of emotional pain and bodily illness. Further, the fact that they might treat their illnesses with medicines or bandages (or in the case of Basil, by soaking in hot springs), does not prevent either of them from characterizing their suffering as God’s scourge for their sins, or as beyond any hope of human treatment. Finally, also like Basil, Shenoute shows a distinctive medical knowledge of some sort which allows him to play out the metaphorical power of illness and healing, a realm of experience that he and his audience share by the fact of their embodiment, to make sense of more abstract areas of human experience, such as sin, salvation, and liturgy. 45 ƟƙŇįേƛĩĩŃƓġĻŁŅġĩijĻേƟേĹŁŁġƙŃĩേĻĵģĿേįേĩŇĵįģേĩƛĻŇĩŁķį9ĥįേĹ;ŁŅĿŁേ9įേŁĻġʼn;േĩŇŅŃōŃ9ĩijġ;േ ĹŁĩŇĹ9Ĺġʼn;േ ĩƕ9Ň;ġĵĿേ ĹĹĿ9Ņ;േ ġʼnőേ ĩƕ9Ņ;őĿʼnƙേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ĩŃĿ9Ņ;േ ĻƙĩĻġƓįേ ĻƕĻŇ േ ĩƓőŁĩേ ħĩേ ĻŇĿƕേ ĩƕƓġĻƟŁĩŇƙĿŇƙŇേįേŁĩŇĿʼnőĹേĩƛőŅേ ĹŁŅĿŁേįേŁĻġʼnേĩŇƕŃōŃĩijġേ ĹĹĿƕേġʼnőേĻƕƟേĹŁĩŇĵįģേĩƛőŅേ ĹŁŅĿŁേ ĩŇŅŃōŃĩijġേ ĹĹĿƕ േ ƓġŃĩŁŃőŇേ ĿʼnőĻƙേ ĩģĿķേ ĻŇĩŁĩŇĻġʼnേ ĩŃĿƕേ ŃġƓĩേ ƛĩġŇĩŁķįĥįേ ĩijേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ƓįĹേƓįĹേ9—; േXM 190 (ed. Leipoldt 3:195). 46 A high percentage of Shenoute’s medicalizing statements are cited by Crum 1939, but without translations, a responsible choice given their obscurity. These passages are very important witnesses to the Coptic medical and body lexicon, but it is still not entirely clear how one should translate them, either into a modern language or into ancient Greek terminology.

216

A. CRISLIP

This study of Shenoute’s illness suggests that Shenoute’s approach to illness and embodiment, and his subjectivity, has much in common with late antique elite culture more broadly construed. Here I have focused on Basil of Caesarea, but there are surely other profitable sources of comparison among Christian ecclesiastics, and even beyond. Even with such parallels in Christian elite discourse, Shenoute remains an astoundingly original writer and personality, whose influence in Egyptian Christianity is still to be fully assessed. While I have noted the curious absence of Shenoute’s distinctive concerns with illness in his Life, the influence of Shenoute’s illness discourse might be traced elsewhere. The seventh-century monk Frange, for example, left behind a large corpus of short letters on ostraca. These letters frequently refer to his illnesses, and he embraces a language of emotional suffering that sounds much like Shenoute’s, not surprisingly, since Frange cites Shenoute as a spiritual guide, and quotes a work of Shenoute in one of his potsherd missives.47 Since we still await proper editions of the rest of Shenoute’s Canons, it will be necessary to revisit and revise these reflections on Shenoute’s illness, his engagement in late antique discourse, and his influence in later periods of Egyptian monastic culture. Bibliography Amélineau, Émile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi. 2 vols. Paris. Boud’hors, Anne 2008. “Some Aspects of Volume 8 of Shenoute’s Canons.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Volume I: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 13–20. Cairo. ——. 2011a. “Vêtements lacérés et piétinés dans un sermon de Chénouté.” In: Pensée grecque et sagesse d’orient (Hommage à Michel Tardieu), edited by M.A. AmirMoezzi, J.-D. Dubois, C. Jullien, and F. Jullien, 109–115. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 142. Turnhout. ——. 2011b. “Aspects du monachisme égyptien: les figures comparées de Chénouté et Frangé.” In: Monachismes d’orient: Images, échanges, influences (Hommage à Antoine Guillaumont), edited by Florence Julien and Marie-Joseph Pierre, 217–225. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 148. Turnhout. ——. 2013. Le Canon 8 de Chénouté. 2 vols. BEC 21.1–2. Cairo. Boud’hors, Anne, and Heurtel, Chantal 2010 Les ostraca copte de la TT 29. 2 vols. Études d’archéologie thébaine 3. Brussels. Crislip, Andrew 2005. From Monastery to Hospital: Christian Monasticism and the Transformation of Healthcare in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor, MI. ——. 2013. Thorns in the Flesh: Illness and Sanctity in Late Ancient Christianity. Philadelphia, PA. 47 Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010, e.g., nos. 65.9, ŁġƙįŇേ ƓőĻĩേ ĩĹġŇĩേ ĩĹġŇĩ; 100.11–12, ƟƓőĻĩേĩĹġŇĩേĩĹġŇĩേĩŁġƙįŇ; 254.11, ƟƓőĻĩേŁġƙįŇേƓőĻĩേƙġŃĿĵ; 342.17-18, ƟƓőĻĩേŁġƙįŇ ; 566.3, 9Łġ;ƙįŇേƓőĻĩേĩŃĿĩы. Frange cites Saint Shenoute by name (and a passage as yet unidentified) in no. 216. I thank Anne Boud’hors for drawing Frange’s letters to my attention.

SHENOUTE’S ILLNESS

217

——. 2008. “Care for the Sick in Shenoute’s Monasteries.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Volume I: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 21–30. Cairo. ——. 2009. “Shenoute of Atripe on Christ the Physician and the Cure of Souls.” Le Muséon 122, 247–277. Crum, Walter E. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford. Deferrari, Roy J. 1962. Saint Basil: The Letters. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Emmel, Stephen 2004. “Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In: Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture, edited by Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, 151–174. Rome. ——. 2008. “Shenoute’s Place in the History of Monasticism.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Volume I: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 321–350. Cairo. Gain, Benoît 1985. L’Église de Cappadoce au IVe siècle d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée (330-379). Orientalia Christiana Analecta 225. Rome. Garrett, Susan R. 1995. “Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Models of Affliction.” In: The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, edited by O. Larry Yarbrough and L. Michael White, 82–99. Minneapolis, MN. Johnson, Mark 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL. Kirmayer, Laurence J. 2000. “Broken Narratives: Clinical Encounters and the Poetics of Illness Experience.” In: Narrative and the Cultural Construction of Illness and Healing, edited by Cheryl Mattingly and Linda C. Garro, 153–180. Berkeley, CA. Kühn, Carl G. 1819–1833. Galeni Opera Omnia. 20 vols. Leipzig. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery: Egyptian Monasticism in Late Antiquity. New York. Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York. Leipoldt, Johannes 1908. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. CSCO 42. Paris. Mattern, Susan P. 2015. “Galen’s Anxious Patients: Lypê as Anxiety Disorder.” In: Homo Patiens: Approaches to the Patient in the Ancient World, edited by Georgia Petridou and Chiara Thumiger, 203–233. Studies in Ancient Medicine 45. Leiden. Mattern, Susan P. 2008. Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing. Baltimore, MD. Munier, Henri 1916. Manuscrits coptes. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, nos 9201–9304. Cairo. Perkins, Judith 1995. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era. London. Petridou, Georgia, and Thumiger, Chiara (eds.) 2015. Homo Patiens: Approaches to the Patient in the Ancient World. Studies in Ancient Medicine 45. Leiden. Rousseau, Philip 1994. Basil of Caesarea. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 20. Berkeley, CA. Schroeder, Caroline 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia, PA. Sterk, Andrea 2004. Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA. Temkin, Owsei 1991. Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians. Baltimore, MD.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE: INTRODUCTION, TEXT, AND TRANSLATION STEPHEN DAVIS

1. INTRODUCTION This article constitutes the first critical edition and translation of a newly discovered Arabic text transmitted under the title, The Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute (Qawānīn al-ab al-qiddīs Anbā Shinūdah). It is my hope that this work will honor Stephen Emmel’s illustrious legacy as an editor of Coptic texts and as the scholar most responsible for guiding Shenoutean studies into the twenty-first century.1 My contribution will consist of four parts: an introduction, an Arabic text edition, an English translation, and an appendix. First, in my introduction, I will address questions related to the text’s structure, contents, composition, and transmission, as well as presenting a synopsis of my editorial methods. Second, my edition of the Arabic text will include a critical apparatus documenting variant readings in the two known manuscripts that preserved the text, as well as commentary on scribal practice. Third, my translation will be accompanied by extensive notes on textual sources (biblical, early Christian, and medieval Islamic) that help elucidate the composition of the Arabic text. Fourth and finally, in the Appendix, I will provide a full table of contexts for one of the two manuscripts used in producing this edition.

1 I want to express my thanks to Anne Boud’hors, David Brakke, Ramy Nair Marcos, Ramez Mikhail, Mark Swanson, and Father Ugo Zanetti for their invaluable help and feedback as I edited and corrected this edition and translation. I am also deeply grateful for the ongoing support I have received from Bishop Matteos, the abbot of Dayr al-Suryān, and from the monastery’s librarians, Father Bigoul, Father Amoun, and Father Azer. My work on this text simply would not have been possible without their kind collegiality and the warm hospitality extended to me by the entire monastic community. Finally, my sincere thanks and appreciation are extended as well to Father Bertie, the librarian at the Monastery of St. Macarius, for providing me with a digital file containing the copy of the Arabic Canons preserved in Dayr Abū Maqār Hom. 41. All these forms of generosity have felicitiously left their tangible traces in the final product of this edition.

220

S. DAVIS

1.1. The Context for the Discovery and Publication of the Arabic Canons I begin with some historical context. Since December 2013, a team under my direction has been engaged in a project to catalogue the Coptic and Arabic manuscripts at Dayr al-Suryān, a project sponsored by Yale University and the William K. and Marilyn M. Simpson Endowment for Egyptology. The corpus of Coptic and Arabic manuscripts at Dayr al-Suryān contains over a thousand manuscripts, divided up into different genre classifications. The number of manuscripts in this corpus will necessitate eight catalogue volumes, to be published by Peeters as part of the series, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO). The first two of these volumes have been published, and volumes three and four are currently in press and forthcoming in 2022. Volume one is devoted to Coptic and Arabic Biblical Texts (kutub muqaddasah), as well as Coptic Language Resources (esp. grammars and lexica). Volume two focuses on Commentaries (tafāsīr) and Canons (qawānīn). Volume three will be devoted to Theology (lāhūt), which principally comprises works related to the medieval Christian Arabic heritage (al-turāth al-‘arabī al-masīḥī). Volume four will contain entries for the Ascetic Discourses section (nusukiyyāt). Volumes five and six will be dedicated to Saints’ Lives, Sermons, and Collections of Monastic Sayings, which are classified together under the Arabic genre category of mayāmir. Volumes seven and eight will document the manuscripts in the collection categorized under Liturgy (ṭuqūs). In June 2017, in the process of cataloguing the Ascetic Discourses section of the library, I discovered the Arabic text entitled the Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute (Qawānīn al-ab al-qiddīs Anbā Shinūdah), preserved in Dayr al-Suryān MS 185. This manuscript will serve as the primary textual witness for my edition.2 1.2. A First Textual Witness: Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 The contents of Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 consist of various letters, canons, teachings, and writings on ascetic matters – twenty-two individual works in total, beginning with a letter by Joseph Philoxenos (Yūsif Fīluksīnūs) on the three grades of the monastic life (ff. 1b–122a; = pp. 1–120) and ending with a maymar by Mār Jacob, bishop of Sarug (ff. 268b–289b; = pp. 403–445). The Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute takes up nine folia (ff. 217b–226a) or eighteen pages (pp. 301–318), and is the twelfth work in the sequence, appearing immediately after a copy of Evagrius Ponticus’ Book written to Eulogius and immediately before a collection of monastic sayings.3 2 For the purposes of our catalogue, MS 185 will be assigned a catalogue number, DS Arabic Ascetic 32. For bibliography on the catalogue volumes, see Davis 2020; Davis et al. 2021; Davis and Swanson forthcoming 2022a; Davis and Swanson forthcoming 2022b. 3 See the Appendix to this article for a full record of the manuscript’s contents. The original scribal foliation system is numbered in Coptic cursive numerals, written in black ink in the upper

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

221

Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 has recently undergone intensive physical conservation under the direction of Elizabeth Sobczynski and the Levantine Foundation.4 As part of that process, the volume was rebound with a new brown leather cover, tooled with lines in the form of an X framed by a double-lined rectangular border, with four cruciform medallion stamps at the corners and five additional stamps forming an X in the center. The covers were designed with two leather buttons and matching leather loops for closing the volume. Inside the front and back cover, the earlier cover has been preserved: it was of dark brown leather featuring the same tooled and stamped pattern. In rebinding the volume, the conservators sought to replicate the format and design of the old cover as closely as possible. As part of its conservation, the manuscript was also bound with new front- and backmatter consisting of textured modern paper with no watermarks (pp. i–ii, v–viii, 446–449, 452–453) and clear plastic insertions (pp. iii–iv, pp. 450–451). The original manuscript leaves of Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 consist of fairly thick or heavy-stock Middle Eastern paper with no watermarks. The folia measure 22.5 cm in height and 15 cm in width, with a writing area of 18 × 12 cm and 16 lines of text per page. The scribe of the manuscript wrote in black ink, with red ink for headings and dots, which appear frequently throughout. The scribal hand is small-to-medium in scale, rendered in bold, short letter strokes and closely spaced words. The manuscript was originally organized in ten-leaf quires, although the first quire is an eight-leaf quaternion. While the manuscript lacks a date, the paper used by the scribe would typically indicate a time of production prior to the end of the seventeenth century CE. Dated examples of Arabic manuscripts on this kind of paper are attested in the collection as early as the first half of the thirteenth century, and the vast majority of definitively dated examples (33 out of 42, or 78.6%) were produced before the year 1680.5 In my discussion of source material for the Arabic left corner of each recto. The pagination system was applied later in Arabic language numerals written in pencil in the upper margin of each page. 4 For more information on the Levantine Foundation and its founding director, Elizabeth Sobczynski, see https://acefoundation.org.uk/home/projects/project-example/the-levantinefoundation/. 5 This conclusion is based on the demographics of the other genre divisions already catalogued. Out of the 11 Arabic Biblical manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper and dated in a scribal colophon, 8 were copied prior to the year 1650. Out of 10 dated Arabic Commentary manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper, 9 were copied before the year 1675 CE, and one other manuscript on Middle Eastern paper is known to have been copied between 1433 and 1659 CE. Out of 5 dated Arabic Canons manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper, all 5 were copied in or before the year 1580 CE. Out of 7 dated Arabic Theology manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper, 4 were copied before the year 1680 CE, and one other manuscript on Middle Eastern paper is known to have been copied before August 29, 1671. Out of 9 dated Arabic Ascetic Discourses manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper, 7 were copied before the year 1462 CE, and two other manuscripts on Middle Eastern paper is known to have been copied before 1485 CE. Altogether, when the Arabic Biblical, Commentary, Canons, and Theology sections are aggregated, it means that 33 out of 42 manuscripts were copied before the year 1680 CE,

222

S. DAVIS

Canons, I will revisit the issue of dating, raising questions about whether patterns of textual dependence give further clues as to when this text might have been composed and/or copied, but any conclusions drawn there will likewise necessarily be tentative and provisional. 1.3. A Second Textual Witness: Dayr Abū Maqār MS Hom. 41 My research on the Arabic Canons led to the discovery of a second manuscript witness for the text. This work is found is under the same title in a nineteenthcentury manuscript catalogued as a collection of homilies and preserved in the library at the Monastery of St. Macarius: Dayr Abū Maqār MS Hom. 41, Copt. ff. 140b–156b (= Ar. pp. 284–316).6 I have not had the opportunity to study the manuscript in person, but Father Bertie, the librarian at the Monastery of St. Macarius, kindly provided me with a digital copy of the folia containing the text, as well as the folio containing the colophon for the volume. In the preparation of this edition, I have used it to check the contents of Dayr al-Suryān MS 185, and it sometimes offers clarifying readings. The volume in which this second copy of the Arabic Canons is contained was completed on 4 Bābah, AM 1585 (= 1868 CE), and it seems to have been commissioned by Jirjis al-Abnūbī, a monk at the Monastery of St. Macarius.7 The leaves of the manuscript appear to consist of modern European paper, and the scribe responsible for copying the text was al-qummuṣ Mikhā’īl al-Jāwlī, a monk affiliated with the Monastery of al-Muḥarraq in Upper Egypt.8 The scribe principally used black ink, with red ink for headings and dots/punctuation. The ink strokes are thick, and the hand is blocky and angular. The original

with four others also known to have been copied before that same year. This accounting leaves out the corpus of 8 dated Coptic Biblical manuscripts written on Middle Eastern paper, of which all 8 were copied before the year 1559 CE, with the earliest dating to 1220 CE. 6 Wādī al-Naṭrūn, Dayr Abū Maqār, MS Hom. 41, ff. 140b–156b (= pp. 284–316). This manuscript is included in the catalogue list published by Ugo Zanetti, although he does not itemize its contents: see Zanetti 1986: 52 (cat. no. 362). 7 Wādī al-Naṭrūn, Dayr Abū Maqār, MS Hom. 41, f. 307a (= p. 617). In addition to providing the date of the volume’s completion, the colophon on this page identifies Jirjis al-Abnūbī as its muhtamm. In Egyptian monastic contexts, the muhtamm of a manuscript is typically the person who commissions its production and endows it to the monastic library. 8 According to Ugo Zanetti (per litt. May 4, 2020), al-qummuṣ Mīkhā’īl al-Jāwlī is identified as the scribe at several points in the manuscript: for three examples of this attestation, see Wādī al-Naṭrūn, Dayr Abū Maqār, MS Hom. 41, ff. 65b, 125a, and 238b (= pp. 134, 253, and 480). My thanks to Father Zanetti for providing this information. With regard to the scribe Mīkhā’īl al-Jāwlī himself, an Arabic-language webpage managed by Dayr al-Muḥarraq, entitled Shumū‘ aḍā’at bi-ldayr fī al-qarnayn 19, 20 [“Candles that Illuminated the Monastery in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries”], credits him with copying eleven manuscripts in that monastery’s library collection, including commentaries on the Psalms, lives of saints, and doctrinal works, as well as an unspecified number of liturgical volumes (see http://www.almuharraqmonastery.com/candles.html).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

223

scribal folio numbers in this volume are indicated in Coptic cursive numerals written in black ink in the upper lefthand corner of each recto. The page numbers are more recent: they are rendered in large European numerals written in pencil in the center of the top margin on each page. My path to finding this second manuscript witness was somewhat circuitous. In looking for textual sources for the Canons, I initially stumbled upon a variant version on a Coptic Orthodox online forum and then traced that version back to an uncritical edition of the text published in a three-volume monastic anthology entitled, Firdaws al-abā’ (Bustān al-ruhbān al-muwassa‘) [The Paradise of the Fathers (The Expanded Garden of the Monks)].9 The version of the Canons found therein appears under the heading, Min ta‘ālīm al-qiddīs Anbā Shinūdah (From the Teachings of the Holy Anbā Shenoute). In the footnotes, the anonymous editor, an unidentified monk from Wādī al-Naṭrūn (“the desert of Scetis”), confirms that he based the text on “MS 41” in the Dayr Abū Maqār library and gives footnoted page references. I was later able to identify this “MS 41” as Dayr Abū Maqār Hom. 41. Close study of the manuscript shows that the page references given in the Firdaws al-abā’ version do not match the extant foliation and pagination systems in the manuscript itself. Indeed, the text published in Firdaws al-abā’ has proven to be quite paraphrastic: there are numerous places of divergence from the Dayr Abū Maqār manuscript at the level not only of word forms but also of whole sections. In fact, the printed text completely lacks the material corresponding to chapters 1–2, 8, 13, and 19 in my edition of the Arabic Canons.10 It also contains numerous variant readings and sometimes leaves out material and abridges chapters. Finally, at intervals throughout the text, the editor has inserted the phrase, wa qāla ayḍan (“And he also said…”), seemingly to emphasize Shenoute’s continuous role as voice of the teachings. This phrase appears in neither of the two extant manuscripts.11 1.4. The Structure of the Text and Its Sources For the purposes of my edition, therefore, I rely on both Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 and Dayr Abū Maqār Hom. 41, with the former, earlier copy functioning as the principal witness. While both manuscript copies lack any indentations or

9 Firdaws al-abā’, vol. 2, 456–463. The online version of this text was based on the Firdaws al-abā’ publication and appears in an Arabic-language web forum called Muntadā al-faraḥ al-masīḥī [“Forum of Christian Joy”]: https://www.chjoy.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57295&page=4. 10 It should be noted that both Dayr Abū Maqār Hom. 41 and the Firdaws al-ābā’ version also lack chapter 44, which only appears in Dayr al-Suryān MS 185. 11 In the footnotes to my edition below, I document the divergences found in the Firdaws al-ābā’ version, although I refrain from making reference to the frequently repeated insertion of the phrase. wa qāla ayḍan (“And he also said…”).

224

S. DAVIS

paragraph divisions, for ease of reference I have divided and organized the text into numbered parts and chapters, and I have given each part a thematic heading, indicated between square brackets. These editorial decisions were based on my interpretation of work’s internal organization, as well as on my analysis of patterns of source relationships that informed that organization. As I will demonstrate, the Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute is something of a bricolage or pastiche – a patchwork collection of fragments and excerpts drawing on biblical and early Christian sources and even interacting in complex ways with medieval Arabic sapiential literature. Yet, in the midst of that intertextual assemblage, one in fact finds selected rules and teachings that trace their origins directly back to the Canons composed in Coptic by Shenoute. As such, the Arabic Canons, in fact, represents our first documented evidence, however piecemeal, for the premodern translation and transmission of authentic Shenoutean Canons out of the Coptic language and into Arabic.12 The following table of contents provides an overview of the text’s structure, which consists of a prologue, four main parts, and an epilogue: Prologue (ch. 1–2) Part One: Teachings on the Two Ways, from the Didache 1–5 (ch. 3–7) Part Two: Wisdom Teachings, related to various Islamic aḥādīth and tafāsīr (ch. 8–20) Part Three: Teachings and Biblical Interpretations on Virtues and Vices (ch. 21–34) Part Four: Teachings on Monastic Rules, from Shenoute’s Canons (ch. 35–43) Epilogue (ch. 44–45) In what follows, I will use this organization to frame my discussion of the different identifiable source materials and intertexts that have informed the composition of the Arabic Canons.

12 Previous attempts to examine Arabic writings attributed to Shenoute have found no definitive evidence for the translation and/or transmission of his Coptic writings: see Ghica 2001, Swanson 2005, Swanson 2008, Swanson 2010a. It should be noted here that there is some evidence (albeit quite limited) for the translation of Shenoute’s Discourses into Arabic: see, e.g., Shenoute’s sermon, “Good is the Time for Launching the Boat to Sail” (CC 0351), preserved in both Coptic and Arabic as part of the rite for a liturgical procession associated with the White Monastery: see Paris, BN Copte 68, ff. 50r–64v; Emmel 2004: vol. 2, 675–676 (no. 14.1.8), 862–863. An edition of this text has been prepared under the title, The Feast of the Desert of Apa Shenoute: A Liturgical Procession from the White Monastery in Upper Egypt (Davis et al. 2020). For previous studies of the manuscript in which the sermon is preserved, see Timbie 1995, Timbie 1998, Grossmann 2004, Timbie 2008, Davis 2008: 114–125, Zanetti and Davis 2016: 31–32.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

225

The Prologue and Epilogue frame the Canons with material taken directly from the Bohairic Life of Shenoute, a collection of hagiographical stories that took shape in the context of medieval liturgical practice.13 The title heading (ch. 1) – “The canons of the holy father Anbā Shenoute, who composed them for his children, the monks. May his prayers be with us, amen.” – is followed by a biographical introduction (ch. 2) consisting of material derived from the Life of Shenoute, chapters 10–12. This section of text describes how the eponymous saint assumed the monastic habit, entered into a life of rigorous asceticism after the model of Elijah, and produced “many discourses, sermons, and commandments.”14 The Epilogue (ch. 45) concludes the text with a repeated reference to the Life of Shenoute 11, where Shenoute is said not to speak of his own volition but rather that it is “Christ who spoke from his mouth.”15 The wording of these passages diverges from extant Arabic versions of the Life. As a result, it is evident that the writer/translator of the Arabic Canons was dependent upon a Bohairic Vorlage closely resembling the text edited and published in the early twentieth century by Leipoldt and Crum.16 It should be noted here, that the Prologue and Epilogue are not the only two places in the Arabic Canons that show a dependence upon the Bohairic Life of Shenoute. In chapter 8, the writer/translator introduces Part Two of the work with a paraphrased portion from the Life. In this case, however, he borrows from material found near the end of the vita (Life, ch. 180), where Shenoute gives final instructions to his disciples to show love to the brothers, and to demonstrate mercy and hospitality to the poor and to strangers.17 According to my analysis, the main body of the Arabic Canons is divided into four main parts, each of which shows reliance on a distinctive set of source material. Part One of the Arabic Canons, corresponding to chapters 3–7 in my edition, consists of a series of teachings on the Two Ways. This material, en toto, provides a word-for-word match with the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (1.1–2, 2.2–5.1), also known as the Didache, an early Christian church 13 Life of Shenoute: Bohairic Coptic text edited by Leipoldt and Crum 1906; Eng. trans. Bell 1983. Surviving Sahidic fragments edited by Amélineau 1888–1895: vol. 1, 237–246; and by Bouriant 1883: 1–4, 152–156. Arabic text edited by Amélineau 1888–1895: 289–478 (“Vie de Schnoudi”); Eng. trans. in Wissa 2015. On liturgical practice as a context for the transmission of the text, see Lubomierski 2007. 14 Chapter 2 of the Arabic Canons draws on the Life of Shenoute 10–12: ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 12–14; trans. Bell 1983: 45–46. 15 Life of Shenoute 11: ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 13; trans. Bell 1983: 45 (ĿʼnĿƙേƗĩĻĻġijേ ŇįŃĿʼnേĻġƕƛőേĹĹĿŅേƗĩĻŁĩƕŃőƕേĩŇĩĹĹĿĻേĹĩıĻĿʼnƛേĻƗįŇƕേƛĩĹŁijƛĩĿʼnŅġƛijേĩģĿķേƙijŇĿŇേĹĹġʼnġŇേ ĹŁĩŁ‫رع‬േŇįijƕേĩƗĿʼnĻേĩŃőij; “And of everything which came from his mouth (in which there is no guile) [cf. Rev. 14:5], he said: ‘No word that I utter comes from myself alone; there is none which Christ does not deliver me.’”) 16 See the two previous footnotes. 17 Chapter 8 of the Arabic Canons draws on Life of Shenoute 180: ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 74; trans. Bell 1983: 90.

226

S. DAVIS

order originally written in Greek in the early second century CE.18 The text was later translated into Coptic, although only selected fragments of the text survive in that language.19 In Syriac and Arabic (as well as several other languages), these sections of the Didache – from the beginning of chapter 1, and from chapter 2 through the beginning of chapter 5 – were transmitted as part of a church manual for right conduct called the Apostolic Church Order, or the Ecclesiastical Canons of the [Holy] Apostles, where the Two Ways teachings are placed in the mouths of the apostles.20 These same chapters from the Didache, albeit in a somewhat more prolix form, also eventually found their way into Arabic Life of Shenoute, where they are placed in the saint’s mouth in the opening section of his vita.21 It is possible the writer/translator of the Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute adopted and adapted this material from one or both of these latter two sources, although the close verbal match to the Greek text of the Didache leaves open the possibility that this section of the Arabic Canons was translated directly from a Coptic version of that early Christian text.22 Whatever the lines of transmission, in the Arabic Canons the teaching of the Two Ways from the Didache is imparted by Shenoute himself, who serves as its privileged voice. In chapter 3, he begins by introducing “the two ways of life” as summed up in the great pair of commandments given by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, and then extends his admonitions to cover a range of specific vices, supplementing biblical prohibitions against murder, fornication, covetousness, false testimony, theft, and taking the wages of laborers with other prohibitions against the defilement of a pregnant woman’s womb, abortion, evil

18 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Didache (CPG 1735). The Greek text has been edited by Audet 1958, and by Rordorf and Tuilier 1978. For a collection of studies on the Didache and its reception, see Jefford (ed.) 1995. 19 The Coptic fragments have been edited and translated in French by Lefort 1952: 1:32–34 (text), 2:25–28 (translation). The Didache was also translated into Ethiopic and Georgian: see CPG 1735. 20 Apostolic Church Order, or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles (CPG 1739). The Arabic text has been edited by Périer and Périer 1912: 573–590 (Book 1, Chapters/Canons 1–20); see also Graf 1944: 572–577, esp. 573–574, where he discusses the Egyptian recension of the text containing 127 canons, the first twenty canons of which draw from “the so-called Apostolic Church Order as a source, which was composed in the first half of the fourth century partly on the basis of the Didache (on moral teaching)” (“die sogenannte ‘Apostolische Kirchenordnung’ zur Quelle, die in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jahrh. in Aegypten z. Tl. auf der Grundlage der Didache [in der Sittenlehre] entstanden ist”). 21 Arabic Life of Shenoute: ed. Amélineau 1888: 289–296. On the “separate circulation of the Two Ways material” in both the Arabic Life of Shenoute and the aforementioned Apostolic Church Order, see Kraft 1965: 9–11. 22 Unfortunately, the surviving Coptic fragments do not overlap with the sections in the first five chapters translated in the Arabic Canons, but here in the introduction, as well as in my translation, I provide parallels in the Greek text.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

227

or vile talk, double-hearted thoughts, exaltation of the heart, and hatred.23 In chapter 4, he elaborates on these admonitions with instructions for guiding members of the community who have fallen into sin, and warning against certain sins (anger, enviousness, censoriousness, disputatiousness, leering looks, desire) that lead to even greater sins (murder, sexual immorality, etc.).24 In chapters 5 and 6, he gives further moral instructions, invoking Jesus’ teachings in the Gospel of Matthew.25 Finally, in chapter 7, he briefly summarizes the contrasting “way of death” as “that which is deceitful, lethal, and rapacious, and whatever resembles these things.”26 Part Two of the Arabic Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute comprises the next twelve chapters (ch. 8–20). As mentioned above, it is introduced in chapter 8 by a paraphrased excerpt from the Life of Shenoute, in which Shenoute is portrayed conveying instructions to his monastic disciples.27 The final chapter of Part Two, chapter 20, also contains instructions attributed to two other Christian patristic luminaries, Ephrem the Syrian and Gregory.28 As of yet, I have not been able to identify specific source material for these attributions (and thus it is unclear whether this Gregory is the bishop of Nazianzus or Nyssa), but the content of these instructions provides insight into matters of spiritual reflection and moral piety. The former (Ephrem) presents a teaching on the comforts and ornamentations of the world in reminding his listeners about the more lasting comforts and ornamentations of the hereafter. The latter (Gregory) then highlights thought/contemplation (on the one hand) and anger/ desire (on the other) as causes of righteousness and wickedness, respectively. The framing of Part Two with these teachings attributed to well-known Christian saints, however, belies the nature of the source materials that inform the content of the chapters in between. Chapters 9–19 contain a long series of wisdom teachings all placed in the mouth of Shenoute, but a careful search has revealed that the preponderance of them are gnomic instructions shared in common with medieval Islamic literature, including interpretations (tafāsīr) of the Qur’ān and Islamic sayings (aḥādīth) associated with Muḥammad, his early companions, and the biblical prophets. Presented in rapid succession, one after another, these pithy sayings and instructions form an intricate tapestry of teaching that makes Shenoute’s voice take on a subtly ecumenical resonance, one 23 Chapter 3 corresponds to Didache 1.1–2 and 2.2–7a: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 344–347. A fragment of the text (= Didache 10.3b–12.1b) survives on a Coptic papyrus fragment: London, British Library, Or. 9271; ed. Horner 1924; ed. Schmidt 1925; for a discussion, see Audet 1958: 28–34; Jefford and Patterson 1989/90; and Kraft 1965: 57ff. 24 Chapter 4 corresponds to Didache 2.7b–3.6: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 346–349. 25 Chapters 5 and 6 correspond to Didache 3.7–4.8: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 348–351. 26 Chapter 7 corresponds to Didache 5.1: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 352–353. 27 Life of Shenoute 180: ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 74; trans. Bell 1983: 90. 28 The only other citation of a patristic authority is a short teaching attributed to St. Antony in part four of the work: see Arabic Canons 39.

228

S. DAVIS

imbued with both philosophical and prophetic authority. What is remarkable is the range and diversity of the sapiential material that the Christian Arabic author/editor of the Canons used to weave such a tapestry of teachings – a kilim of kalām, as it were.29 Chapter 9 features a prophetic saying also reported by Abū Ṭāhir Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā in his fourteenth-century work, Qanāṭir al-khayrāt, followed by another teaching attributed to Luqmān the Wise and preserved in an eleventh-century work by Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī, entitled Kitāb al-Bayāḍ wa-l-Sawād.30 Both of these teachings touch on the theme of contemplation in relation to hunger and the satiation of appetite. Chapter 10 begins with a teaching on asceticism as the requisite preparation for the life in paradise. This corresponds to a Qur’ānic tafsīr tradition related to Sūrah 101: in particular, a saying attributed to Jesus preserved in Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s late fifteenth-century commentary entitled, al-Durr al-manthūr.31 The second half of chapter 10, on God’s gaze and divine knowledge of the human subject, is also found in the Ṣūfī treatise, Ṭabaqāt al-ṣufiyyah, by Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ibn al-Husayn al-Sulamī (937–1021 CE).32 While definitive intertexts for chapters 11 and 12 – including teachings on the value of time, religion, and one’s word, the virtues of renunciation, obedience, performing noble deeds, and exhibiting patience – have yet to be determined, the rhyme schemes in chapter 12 would indicate that the text was composed in Arabic, and indeed the language found there resonates closely with that of a fourteenth-century Ṣūfī work by ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī Shaybānī (ca. 1333/34–1394/95 CE), entitled al-Durrah al-muḍiyyah fī-l-waṣāyā alḥikamiyyah.33 Chapter 13, a short passage concerning the faithfulness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, again bears a relationship to Islamic tafsīr tradition, this time related to Sūrah 37:102–111. A markedly similar syntax is found in a section of commentary transmitted by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (ca. 1445–1505 CE) in

29 For an important study of early wisdom traditions in Arabic, see Gutas 1981. The contents of the Arabic Canons seem to correspond to the eclectic mix of source types that Gutas highlights: wisdom teachings associated with Luqmān the Wise (see below); a range of Arabic poetry (shi‘r) or rhymed prose (saj‘), proverbs (amthāl), biographical literature (siyar), and adab literature (including sayings from Shi‘ī and Ṣūfī traditions, as well as philosophical maxims); and “foreign sources” drawn principally from Greek gnomic material. 30 Abū Ṭāhir Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā (d. 1349 CE), Qanāṭir al-khayrāt, 400; Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī: Kitāb al-Bayāḍ wa-l-Sawād § 316, 149. On Arabic wisdom traditions associated with Luqmān, see Gutas 1981: esp. 51–58; Ghica 2001: 150; and Swanson 2005: 38–42. 31 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (ca. 1445–1505 CE), al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 8 (Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī), 554; see also al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 15 (Markaz hajr li-l-buḥūth wa-l-dirāsāt al‘arabiyyah wa-l-islāmiyyah), 614. 32 Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ibn al-Husayn al-Sulamī, Ṭabaqāt al-sūfiyyah, 90 33 ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī Shaybānī (ca. 1333/34–1394/95 CE), al-Durrah al-muḍiyyah, 49

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

229

his al-Durr al-manthūr, which I also cited above as a source for material in chapter 10.34 Chapter 14 begins with a phrase also found in an Islamic ḥadīth attributed to the prophet Muḥammad and preserved in the collection edited by Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-‘Ālūsī (1802–1854 CE), entitled Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm wa-l-sab‘ al-mathānī.35 I should note that some of the language in this chapter also resonates with certain themes found in Shenoute’s writings, including instructions to “renounce the things belonging to this world” and warnings against “deceitful deeds,” but there is no indication of any direct dependence. (I will have more to say about the relation of the Arabic Canons to Shenoute’s own writings in Part Four below.) Again, as in chapter 12, the rhyme scheme of words in Arabic would suggest that this section was either composed in Arabic or based upon an Arabic source. Chapter 15 begins with two sentences related to the proper treatment of others and ends with two sentences on managing the surpluses of money and of speech. This framing material has parallels in an Islamic ḥadīth attributed to ‘Alī (the fourth caliph and cousin and son-in-law of Muḥammad) and in an early twelfth-century work by Abū-l-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhsharī, entitled Rabī‘ al-abrār wa nuṣūṣ al-akhbār.36 While no definitive sources have been identified yet for Chapter 16, which opens with a teaching on renunciation and the remembrance of God and concludes with affirmations of God’s provisions for human sustenance, the three chapters that follow share material in common with a range of Islamic sources. Chapter 17 begins by emphasizing the need to take refuge in God, to obey God, and to persevere through God’s power. The second and third sentences counsel the reader to respond to adverse circumstances with requests for forgiveness and to respond to divine grace with acts of praise rendered to God. This twofold teaching matches a recently documented ḥadīth attributed to Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn (also known as Abū Ja‘far or al-Bāqir; 677–733 CE), great-great grandson of the prophet Muḥammad and the fifth Shī‘ī imam.37 The fourth sentence in the chapter begins with the “if”-clause (“If an illness afflicts you…”), a conditional construction found in the writings of both Abū Sa‘īd Aḥmad al-Kharrāz al-Baghdādī (ninth century CE) and Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240 CE).38 The fifth and final sentence – on the conditions for 34 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 7 (Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al‘arabī), 94–95; see also al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 7 (Dār al-Fikr, 2015), 76. 35 Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-Alūsī (1802–1854 CE), Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, 257. 36 On the tradition related to ‘Alī, see Jūrj Jurdāq, al-Imām ‘Alī, 75; for the other source, see Abū-l-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhsharī (1075–1144 CE), Rabī‘ al-abrār, 132. 37 Mu’min ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shablanjī, Nūr al-abṣār, 221; see also ‘Alī Sa‘d ‘Alī Ḥijāzī, Durar, 457. 38 Abū Sa‘īd Aḥmad al-Kharrāz al-Baghdādī (Aḥmad ibn ‘Isā), Kitāb al-ṣidq, 36; and Ibn ‘Arabī, al-Waṣāyā, 156–157.

230

S. DAVIS

works of generosity, piety, and truth – closely matches a passage in a History of the City of Damascus (Tārīkh madīnat Damashq), written by Abū-l-Qāsim ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibatallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Shāfi‘ī, also known as Ibn ‘Asākir, in the twelfth century.39 Chapter 18 represents a pastiche of teachings also attested in Islamic ḥadīth and wisdom traditions. The third sentence, which instructs people to forge ties with and forgive those who ostracize and oppress, corresponds to a sentence in Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Shā‘ātī’s al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī (commonly known as Musnad Aḥmad).40 The fourth sentence, on resisting the influence of both anger and contentment, agrees with an early Islamic wisdom tradition recorded in Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abdallah ibn Ḥumayyid Sālimī’s book, Tuḥfat al-a‘yān fī sīrat ahl ‘Umān.41 Finally, the end of chapter 17, which concludes with an instruction on the right treatment of others, also bears a relationship to material transmitted in Islamic aḥādīth, insofar as two recently edited collections present variations on the same teachings.42 Finally, chapter 19 places wisdom in the mouth of Shenoute that likewise echoes the contents of known ḥadīth traditions. The first, on monitoring one’s speech, finds correspondence to a teaching included in a seventeenth-century collection by Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad Māzandarānī.43 The second, on the danger of teaching without knowledge, accords with a ḥadīth reported by Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Husayn (994–1066 CE) in his collection, al-Jāmi‘ li-shu‘ab al-īmān.44 This litany of gnomic correspondences raises a host of questions. At this stage, what remains uncertain is the nature of the source relationships involved. Is this an example of authoritative Islamic sources being adopted and repurposed by an Arabic-speaking Christian author/editor/translator? If so, what kind of Coptic Orthodox writer would have had the knowledge and/or the library to facilitate this remarkable bricolage? If the author was a monk, as we might expect, did he enter the ascetic life already steeped in an education informed by Islamic philosophy and interpretation? Or, could it be that the Islamic sources cited above were already drawing on sapiential literature produced and circulated by Christians? In such a case, did Muslim and Christian 39 Abū-l-Qāsim ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibatallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Shāfi‘ī (Ibn ‘Asākir; 1105– 1175 CE), Tārīkh madīnat Damashq, 411. 40 Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Shā‘ātī, al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī, 185. 41 Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abdallah ibn Ḥumayyid Sālimī, Tuḥfat al-a‘yān, 143. 42 Muḥammad Abū-l-Hudā, Rāḥat al-arwāḥ, 44; Muḥammad al-Amīn ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Urmī al-‘Alawī al-Harirī al-Shāfi‘ī, Tafsīr ḥadā’iq al-rūḥ, vol. 10, 247. 43 Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad Māzandarānī (ca. 1675/76 CE), Sharḥ usūl al-Kāfī, 339; and Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, Nuzhat al-afkār, 5. 44 Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Husayn (994–1066 CE), al-Jāmi‘ li-shu‘ab al-īmān, 71; see also Ja‘far al-Khalīlī, Mawsū‘at al-‘atabāt al-muqaddasah, 63 (available online at http://www.masaha.

org/book/view/3057-‫المقدسة‬-‫العتبات‬-‫)موسوعة‬.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

231

writers, including the author of the Arabic Canons, find themselves drawing on a common reservoir of wisdom collections?45 If so, here we might see the cultural product of such a shared practice – namely, an emergent ecumenical literary heritage. Further research will be required to answer these questions and to begin to explore possible stemmata. But given the frequently verbatim correspondence, it makes one wonder what kind of library or collection the author of the Arabic Canons had access to that would have featured this kind of gnomic literature. At this stage of research, unfortunately, my questions outstrip the answers I have to offer. Another question to raise would be: what might such correspondences tell us about the date of the work’s composition? Can they suggest a terminus post quem, a date after which the Arabic Canons must have been written? As noted above, any attempt to draw hard-and-fast conclusions is limited by the uncertainty surrounding source dependence. The sapiential teachings discussed above were transmitted across the centuries in various collections, and the fact that a transmitted teaching is only known via a relatively recent compilation does not obviate the possibility of an earlier point of origin. If we were to presume, for argument’s sake, that the Christian Arabic author of the Canons was in fact drawing on source materials that included Islamic tafāsīr and aḥādīth, one clue, however, might be suggestive. While the author seems to spread his bibliographical attentions far and wide, there is one tafsīr collection that conspicuously makes two appearances: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s al-Durr al-manthūr, which dates to the late fifteenth century or to the first five years of the sixteenth century (since the author died in 1505 CE). If some source dependence was involved, this might indicate that the Arabic Canons could have been composed or collected – or at least took its final form – sometime after that date, but perhaps not too long after, given the type of paper used by the scribe (a non-watermarked paper probably produced in Egypt). An educated guess, informed by the codicology of the collection, might be that the editing of the work, in its current form, took place sometime in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. As noted above, it is also likely that the Dayr al-Suryān manuscript containing the text was copied during the same period. But again, these questions remain open for further study. Part Three of the Arabic Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute does not demonstrate the same intricate intertextuality as does Part Two (ch. 21–34), apart from a series of biblical citations and allusions. Indeed, thus far, I have not been able to identify any blocks of text that definitively draw on other

45 For two examples of such medieval Arabic sapiential collections, see Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Anṣārī, Ādāb al-falsafah; and Abū-l-Wafā’ al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik, Mukhtār al-ḥikam. My thanks to Mark Swanson for calling my attention to this gnomic literature. For an important study of this corpus, see Gutas 1981.

232

S. DAVIS

sources, although there are a couple of places that resonate with prominent themes found in Shenoute’s own writings. Chapter 21 begins by explicitly attributing the contents of what follows to the saint: “Father Abū Shenoute also said to his children…,” and indeed the focus of that chapter – a close connection between sin, falsehood, and the role of Satan – echoes the words of both Shenoute and Besa, his immediate successor as head of the White Monastery (and the one to whom authorship of the Life of Shenoute was often attributed). In Shenoute’s Discourses, Book 8, he exhorts his readers/listeners to “hate sin and trample on it, along with the one who activates it, the devil.”46 In Besa’s treatise On Repentance and in his letter To Mary, Sister of Matai, he twice speaks of Satan or the devil as “one who speaks nothing of truth.” These relatively generic thematic connections are by no means sufficient to demonstrate any direct knowledge of Shenoute’s writings, but given the strong evidence for direct dependence in Part Four (see the discussion to follow), we must leave open the possibility that the author/editor/translator of the Arabic Canons had considerable familiarity with Shenoute’s writings in Coptic. Other resonances follow in chapter 22, where the Arabic Canons has Shenoute highlight the problem of monks who have “fallen into sin by stealthily eating something from the brothers” and the response of “those who have discernment” (i.e. monastic leaders) who celebrate it when monks, by contrast, eat their “bread in a way visible to the entire gathering.” Such concerns with eating – from the problems associated with stealth and the stealing of food to forms of surveillance designed to ensure that the monastic rules were being followed – pervade the surviving fragments of Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic.47 Injunctions not to eat, drink, give, or receive stealthily (ĻƛijĿʼnĩ), secretly (ƙĻĿʼnƙőŁ), or deceitfully (ƙĻĿʼnĵŃĿƕ) are quite common in his rules discourse.48 One especially noteworthy example comes from Shenoute’s Canons, Book 5, where he writes, “But it is a serious and shameful matter when people among us exceed the ordinances (ĻŇőƓ) that are laid down for us and eat and drink stealthily (ĻƛijĿʼnĩ, whether they are sick or have labored in ascetic practices.”49 The rest of Part Three (ch. 25–34) contains admonitions drawing on biblical sources and themes, applied to the cultivation of monastic virtues. In chapter 25, Shenoute urges monks not to walk in the paths of wickedness (Proverbs 4:14; cf. Psalm 1:1). In chapters 26–28, he draws on examples from the Gospel of Luke 18:9–14 to excoriate pride as characterized by the Pharisee and to laud 46 Shenoute, Discourses, Book 8, I Have Been Reading the Holy Gospels (= W56): ed. Leipoldt III: 222.15–16. Besa, On Repentance I.1: ed. and trans. Kuhn 1956 I: 9, 66 and II: 9, 64. 47 On visibility in relation to monastic systems of surveillance, see Sala 2011. 48 See, e.g., Rules 12–18, 74, 89–90, 156, 204, 444, 476, 483: Layton 2014: 94–97, 116–117, 124–125, 152–153, 172–173, 280–284, 296–297, 300–301. 49 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 6, ed. Amélineau 2: 497; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 150–151 (#151).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

233

humility as embodied in the tax collector. In chapter 29, he discusses those who are righteous, but also condemns self-righteousness by quoting Ecclesiastes 7:16a, “Do not be extremely [i.e. overly] righteous.” In chapter 30, he cites Philippians 2:8 in exhorting the righteous to emulate Jesus Christ, “who was humble unto death – I mean, the death of the cross.” Chapter 31 is dedicated to encouragement of virtue and the discouragement of vice. It begins with an allusion to Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 5:16 for his disciples to let other people observe their good deeds so that they glorify the Father. Chapter 32 takes its cues from the Psalms and the Gospels, invoking the image of dogs and lions that surround the faithful on all sides (Psalms 22:13, 16, 20–21),50 and urging them to continue to perform good deeds “in secret” (cf. Matthew 6:4). In chapter 33, Shenoute insists that “there is no righteous person without sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20 and Romans 3:10) and proclaims that anyone who claims to be without sin “has made God into a liar” (1 John 1:10). Finally, chapter 34 again alludes to the Johannine epistles in portraying the “discerning man” as “the person who walks in the truth” (cf. 3 John 4). Thus, throughout Part Three, the moral instructions hinge on a series of oppositions: truth/falsehood, visibility/stealthiness, openness/secrecy, pride/ humility, virtue/vice. As such, they build on the binary presentation of the Way of Life and the Way of Death in Part One, as well as the final chapter of Part Two, where the teachings of Ephrem and Gregory juxtapose two pairs of contrasting contexts or values: this world and the hereafter, wickedness and righteousness (ch. 20).51 Finally, Part Four (ch. 35–43) presents a series of rule-like monastic teachings, and it is this material that proves to be of most direct interest to those researching the writings of Shenoute of Atripe and their historical reception. Indeed, each chapter in Part Four contains material with specific correspondence in Shenoute’s fifth-century Coptic Canons, whether by way of direct translation, paraphrase, or thematic derivation. Chapter 35 contains instructions on fasting and the sustenance and conduct of monks who are sick. This material is translated directly from Shenoute’s Canons, Book Five.52 What is of special note for the project of editing of Shenoute’s works in Coptic is that the second sentence of chapter 35 – “The one who fasts, let him fast with strength from the Lord and let him do this for 50 In Shenoute’s writings, those who would threaten the integrity of his community are also characterized as dogs and lions with “mouths that do violence” (Shenoute, Canons, Book 4; GI 95.21–31, ed. Wessely 1: 174). 51 In chapter 20, the three things identified as the causes of righteousness and wickedness may also be analyzed as a binary, with thought (i.e. contemplation) aligned with righteousness, and anger/desire aligned with wickedness. 52 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 61, ed. Leipoldt IV: 78, 16–17; XS 61, ed. Leipoldt IV: 78.16–20 and 79.1. The sections in Leipoldt IV: 78.18–20 and 79.1 are reedited and translated by Layton 2014: 150–151 (#153 and 154).

234

S. DAVIS

God publicly, without corruption” – is only partially preserved in the original language. Furthermore, prior to this partially preserved sentence, there is a complete lacuna in the surviving Coptic manuscript leaves. Given the context, it is therefore very possible that the first sentence in chapter 35 of the Arabic Canons – “The one who eats, let him eat of the will of God, thanking him” – fills in the final portion of that lacuna and serves as a further aid in the reconstruction of Shenoute’s original Canons. After chapter 35 ends with teachings on the responsibilities of the one who attends to the sick brothers, the first sentence of chapter 36 skips ahead seven lines in the original Coptic source and provides a direct translation of Shenoute’s pronouncement that those who feign sickness are “despicable before God.”53 The second sentence in the chapter skips ahead again another seven lines and presents a paraphrased version of Shenoute’s teaching on the necessity that a sick person be willing to request things one or two times in a submissive manner.54 The chapter wraps up with an affirmation that God will strengthen the sick by giving them “spiritual thoughts that lead to eternal life.” The next four chapters (ch. 37–40) do not give evidence of direct translations from Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic, but they do demonstrate how the Arabic author/editor of the Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute adapted and reapplied distinctive themes, concerns, and admonitions characteristic of that authoritative source. Chapter 37 continues on the theme of care for the sick within the monastery, praising the monk who is genuinely sick (‫)المريض المحق‬ and yet who remains thankful for the care provided by the one who attends his needs (i.e. “the server”; ‫)الخادم‬. Indeed, the category and care of the “truly sick” (ĩʼnƓőĻĩേĻġĹĩ) is the focus of at least three of the rules preserved in Shenoute’s Canons.55 This is followed by pointed criticism of servers who neglect the sick or speak harshly to them, as well as sick persons who are ungrateful or who think or speak ill of the servers assigned to them. Similar instructions regarding monks who “scorn people in their time of sickness,” and sick brothers who “despise and curse their servers” are likewise paired in Shenoute’s Canons, Books 4.56 Chapter 38 primarily concerns male and female monastics who eat food (including everything from bread to legumes and radishes) or who drink water stealthily, whether in sickness or in health. The text’s admonitions against such surreptitious practices, as well as the method of listing dietary examples, echoes 53 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 62, ed. Leipoldt IV: 79.8–10; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 152–153 (#156). 54 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 62, ed. Leipoldt IV: 79.17–20; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 152–153 (#158). 55 Layton 2014: 164–165, 244–245, 298–299 (#189, 368, 478). 56 Shenoute, see Canons, Book 4; BZ 27–28, ed. Leipoldt III: 127.20–25; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 140–141 (#127–128).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

235

commands found in Shenoute, Canons, Book 3, where he curses “any male or female among us who stealthily eats any article outside of the edifying rule that is laid down for us, whether pickled fish, baked fish, garum, egg, halōm-cheese, trouan-cheese, milk, or any other dish outside of the edifying rule,” and in Book 5, where he declares it “a serious and shameful matter when people among us exceed the ordinances that are laid down for us and eat and drink stealthily, whether they are sick or have labored in ascetic practices.”57 The chapter concludes with a statement reaffirming the monastic rule laid down by Shenoute’s predecessors (“the law of the ancient fathers”) that “food should be [eaten] one time a day,” a rule invoked by Shenoute himself (with a different wording) in his Canons, Book 5.58 Chapters 39 and 40 address the problem of monks (those who wear “the habit”) who “wander about from place to place” instead of remaining in the monastery, as well as those who would congregate or eat with laypersons. The same sorts of concerns come to expression in Shenoute’s Canons, Books 4 and 5. In the former, Shenoute pronounces woe upon “those who are clothed in the uniform” (ĻĩŇƝĿĿķĩേĹŁĩŅōįĹġ) who “do their heart’s desire wherever they have gone.”59 In the latter, Shenoute calls it “a crooked thing for a monk to dwell with a civilian (ŁĵĿŅĹijĵĿĻ) … [and] for monks to bring civilians (ƙĩĻĵĿŅĹijĵĿĻ) into their congregations.”60 Finally, Part Four concludes with two chapters that combine translated and paraphrased sections. Chapter 41 includes teachings forbidding female monastics from going to the gate of the monastery or from exiting the ground to visit the men’s monastery or a female relative, and forbidding male monastics from visiting female relatives as well. The instructions directed to women may derive from Shenoute’s Canons, Book 5: “No woman at any time in your (women’s) domain shall come to us (men) to visit those who belong to them according to the flesh, neither when they get sick nor when they die. They shall not be permitted to come and visit them and go to their family… Nor shall any woman in your (women’s) domain go outside the gate of the congregation.”61 An analogous injunction against male monastics visiting with female members of their biological family is found in Shenoute, Canons, Book 9, where the same applies 57

Shenoute, Canons, Book 3; YA 304, ed. Leipoldt III: 119.9–15; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 116–117 (#74); and Canons, Book 5; XS 6, ed. Amélineau 2: 497; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 150–151 (#151). 58 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 276, ed. Young 1993: 120; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 154–155 (#160); see also Layton 2002: 35, 46–47. 59 Shenoute, Canons, Book 4 (“Why, O Lord”): BZ 24, ed. Leipoldt III: 126.3–14; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 138–139 (#125). 60 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5: XL 139, ed. Emmel in preparation; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 200–201 (#264). 61 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5: XS 354–355, ed. Leipoldt IV: 61; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 174–177 (#212, 215).

236

S. DAVIS

“even if she is the daughter of one of them or his sister or his mother or any other female relative of theirs at all.”62 Chapter 42 focuses on the role of the monastic superior, enjoining the reader not to disregard, fight, oppose, or argue with him in his role, but instead to consult with him on any matter, whether big or small. In Canons, Book 9, and in a Shenoutean “Rule of uncertain attribution,” one finds notably similar teachings addressed to monastic “servers” (ĻĩŇħijġĵĿĻĩij) and anyone “caring for the sick” (ĩƕƕijേ ĹŁŃĿ‫ڠ‬9ʼnƓ;േ ĻĻŃőĹĩേ ĩŇ9Ɠő;Ļĩ), who are warned not to be disobedient or quarrelsome with the superior of the monastery.63 In the end, the pervasiveness of these textual parallels to authentic Shenoutiana, including substantial portions that indicate a one-to-one correspondence of translated material, proves a convincing basis for arguing that in the Arabic Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute we have our first known example of unambiguous (albeit piecemeal) transmission of material from Shenoute’s Canons into the Arabic language. This discovery should prompt, I hope, a more concerted search in Arabic ascetic literature for other borrowings and adaptations, which might further expand this body of evidence. In the Arabic Canons, teachings that are translated, paraphrased, and adapted from Shenoute’s own writings are juxtaposed with material taken from his hagiographical Vita, from an early Christian church order (the Didache), and from various Arabic wisdom traditions (including Islamic tafāsīr and aḥādīth), all placed in the mouth of this fifth-century Egyptian saint. Thus, when the Epilogue to the Arabic Canons concludes with a series of exhortations advocating for the practices of repentance, prostration, and the eschewal of evil, and extolling the goal of pursuing “divine thoughts” and attaining “the salvation of our thoughts and bodies” (ch. 43), it succinctly gathers together the virtues that are thought to comprise Shenoute’s saintly person, just as the text itself gathers together and assembles “what has been collected, in an abridged form, from the canons of the holy father Anbā Shenoute” (ch. 44). Indeed, in the penultimate chapter, when the Shenoute of the text calls for the monk “not [to] speak any human word” (ch. 43), it is a call to imitate the saint himself who was celebrated in his Life as “the one who said that he did not speak anything from himself but rather that it was Christ who spoke from his mouth” (ch. 44).64 Thus, in the end, the Shenoute of these Arabic Canons and the monastic reader who would follow these instructions are mutually informed by an ethic

62

Shenoute, Canons, Book 9: DF 190, ed. Leipoldt IV: 108; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 272–273 (#425). 63 Shenoute, Canons, Book 6: XM 483, ed. Leipoldt IV: 50–51; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 208–209 (#279); “Rule of uncertain attribution,” ZF 435, ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 334–335 (#576). 64 Life of Shenoute 11. Coptic text, ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 13; trans. Bell 1983: 45.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

237

of imitatio sancti (and, by extension, imitatio Christi).65 Textually speaking, the saint and his devotee are effectively co-produced through a complex editorial process of literary pastiche. 1.5. Editorial Methodology My edition of the Arabic text of the Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute is based on the two above-mentioned manuscripts, Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 and Dayr Abū Maqār Hom. 41. Given the type of paper, the former is almost surely the older of the two copies, and I use the Dayr al-Suryān manuscript as the principal basis for the edition published here. Nonetheless, I also consistently draw on the Dayr Abū Maqār text to clarify readings where the earlier scribe’s hand is not clear or where he seems to have committed inadvertent errors. Typically, I try to retain the syntax and the spelling of words, including grammatical infelicities and lexical irregularities, as they appear on the page, without wholesale attempts at correction or standardization. Exceptions to this include my regularization of pointing (or the lack thereof) in letters such as ‫ب\ت\ث‬, ‫ع\غ‬, ‫ط\ظ‬, ‫ص\ض‬, ‫س\ش‬, ‫ر\ز‬, ‫د\ذ‬, ‫ج\ح\خ‬, and ‫ف\ق‬, as well as my decision to supply hamzas, at both the middle and end of words, which I do for the purpose of clarity and the avoidance of confusion over ambiguous forms. The footnotes to the edition include references to the variant readings found in Dayr Abū Maqār MS Hom. 41, which are in fact relatively infrequent. I also give much more extensive references to the variants found in the rather paraphrastic edition of the Dayr Abū Maqār printed as part of Firdaws al-abā’ (The Paradise of the Fathers). On occasion, I use the footnotes to suggest standard word forms when the non-standard spellings in the manuscript have the potential to resist interpretation, or to give alternative readings of certain constructions. As I observe in my introduction, the division of the text (both the edition and translation) into parts marked by themes and into numbered chapters was an interpretive decision on my part as editor, motivated by the goal of making the text more legible to the reader. As my analysis above bears out, the structure of the text that I have identified and highlighted is partly informed by the material’s organization according to discrete source groupings. The Prologue and Epilogue are structured around quotations from the Life of Shenoute. Part One shows direct dependence on the Didache. Part Two, framed by teachings attributed to Shenoute and two other early Christian saints, draws extensively on medieval Arabic wisdom traditions, including Islamic tafāsīr and aḥādīth. Part Three lacks a single identifiable source or set of sources, aside from the author’s

65 On the ethic of imitatio sancti (“the imitation of the saints”) and its integral relation to imitatio Christi (“the imitation of Christ”) in Egyptian devotional contexts, see Davis 2008.

238

S. DAVIS

consistent practice of biblical citation and allusion. Part Four relies on material translated, paraphrased, or adapted from Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic. For both my edition and translation, I provide keys to indicate sigla for manuscript names and numbers, folio and page, and recto and verso, in both Arabic and English. I use these sigla within the text when I supply folio and page references, which are placed in square brackets. Additionally, in the translation I use square brackets to indicate any other editorial insertions. In my footnotes to the translation, along with citing biblical sources by chapter and verse, I provide references to other ancient and medieval primary sources, including not only bibliography for published editions and translations, but also the relevant textual excerpts both in their original language (Greek, Coptic, and/ or Arabic) and in English translation. Finally, in the Appendix, I provide a table of contents for manuscript Dayr al-Suryān MS 185, listing all twenty-two works contained therein and providing folio references according to both the Coptic cursive and Arabic systems of enumeration. A full documentation of the manuscript (under catalogue number DS Arabic Ascetic 32) will appear in Volume 4 of the Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts at Dayr al-Suryān, currently being edited for publication in the CSCO. 2. CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE: ARABIC TEXT66 Key: Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 = S185 = ١٨٥‫س‬ Dayr Abū Maqār MS Hom. 41 = M41 = ٤١‫م‬ Firdaws al-abā’ = F Folio/folia = f./ff. = ‫ف‬ Page/pages = p./pp. = ‫ص‬ Recto = a = ‫أ‬ Verso = b = ‫ب‬

[‫]المقدمة‬ ‫[ قوانين الآب القديس أنبا‬٢٨٤ ‫ب \ ص‬١٤٠ ‫ ف‬:٤١‫[ ]م‬٣٠١ ‫ب \ ص‬٢١٧ ‫ ف‬:١٨٥‫ ]س‬.١ .‫شنودي الذي وضعها لأولاده الرهبان صلواته معنا أمين‬ 66 Dayr al-Suryān MS 185, ff. 217b–226a (= pp. 301–318); Dayr Abū Maqār, MS Hom. 41, ff. 140b–156b (= pp. 284–316).

‫‪239‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫‪ .٢‬لما اتخذ الإسكيم‪ 67‬دفع نفسه للتفرد والتعب السهر في الليالي والصوم الذي ليس له حساب‬ ‫وما كان يفطر حتى تغيب الشمس ولا يأكل حتى يشبع إلى ان يبس والتصق جلده بعظمة‬ ‫وكانت سيرته على سيرة إيلياس الناسك في إسرائيل وقال ميامر كثيرة ومواعظ ووصايا للرهبان‬ ‫وكان مع ذلك يقول‪ 68‬ليس أقول كلمة من ذاتي بل المسيح يجعلها في فمي وكان يصلي اثنى‬ ‫عشر دفعة في كل يوم ويطوب‪ 69‬أربعة وعشرين مطانية‪ 70‬في كل صلاة ولا كان ينام الليل البتة‬ ‫حتى يظهر النور ما خلا نعاس يسير ودفعات كثيرة ما يأكل إلا من السبت إلى السبت ]م‪:٤١‬‬ ‫ف ‪١٤١‬أ \ ص ‪ [٢٨٥‬وفي الأربعين المقدسة لا يأكل خبزا إلا شيئا يسير من حبوب مبلولة‬ ‫حلوا عنده كالعسل والشهد حتى تحفرت آماق عينيه‬ ‫حتى ظهرت عظام جسده وكان البكا‬ ‫ً‬ ‫من كثر البكاء‪.‬‬

‫]الجزء الأول‪ :‬تعاليم في الطريقين[‬ ‫‪ .٣‬وكان‪ 71‬يعلم أولاده‪ 72‬ويقول طريقين هي كائنة للحياة هي الواحدة‪ 73‬وهي هذه ]س‪:١٨٥‬‬ ‫ف ‪٢١٨‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣٠٢‬أن تحب الرب إلاهك‪ 74‬من كل قلبك فتحب قريبك كنفسك والذي‬ ‫لا تشتهي أن يفعل بك‪ 75‬لا تفعله أنت بأحد لا تقتل لا تفسق لا تفسد بطن امرأة‪ 76‬حبلى لا‬ ‫تقتل جني ًنا‪ 77‬لا تشتهي شيء صاحبك لا تشهد بالزور لا ُ‬ ‫تقل شر عن أحد من الناس لا يكن‬ ‫كلامك كاذب ولا باطل ولا تكن بقلبين في أفكارك كلها‪ 78‬البتة لا تأخذ أجرة الأجير لا تعظم‬ ‫كلاما رد ًيا لا تبغض أحد من ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤١‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٨٦‬الناس‪.‬‬ ‫قلبك لا تقل‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪ (“monastic habit”) comes from the Greek term σχῆμα.‬الاسكيم ‪The word‬‬

‫‪67‬‬

‫‪ is written above the line.‬يقول ‪In S185 (f. 217b; = p. 301), the word‬‬

‫‪68‬‬

‫‪.‬يغرب ‪M41 (f. 140b; = p. 284) has‬‬

‫‪69‬‬

‫‪.‬مطانة ‪M41, f. 140b (= p. 284). S185 (f. 217b; = p. 301) has‬‬

‫‪70‬‬

‫‪, without the final nūn.‬كا ‪M41, f. 141a (= p. 285). S185 (f. 217b; = p. 301) simply has‬‬

‫‪71‬‬

‫‪.‬كان أنبا شنودة يعلم أولاده قائلا ‪The version published in F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪72‬‬

‫‪.‬يوجد طريق واحد للحياة ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪73‬‬

‫‪.‬إلاهك ‪M41, f. 141a (= p. 285). S185 (f. 217b; = p. 301) has‬‬

‫‪74‬‬

‫‪.‬يفعله بك أحد ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪75‬‬

‫‪.‬إمرااة ‪M41 (f. 141a; = p. 285) has‬‬

‫‪76‬‬

‫‪.‬لا تفسد بطن امرأة حبلى لا تقتل جني ًنا ‪F (p. 456) omits‬‬

‫‪77‬‬

‫‪.‬كلها ‪F (p. 456) omits‬‬

‫‪78‬‬

‫‪240‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫‪ .٤‬إذا سقط أحدا في خطية بكته وحدك‪ 79‬وصلي عليه‪ 80‬ووجهه‪ 81‬مثل نفسك‪ .‬اهرب من كل‬ ‫شر لا تكن غضابا‪ 82‬لأن الغضب يسوق‪ 83‬إلى القتل لا تكن حسودا ولا ل ّو ًاما ولا ممار ًيا لأن‬ ‫‪84‬‬ ‫مشتهيا لأن الشهوة تؤدي إلى الزنا لا تتكلم‬ ‫هذا يولد القتل لا تكن طمحا‬ ‫كلاما باط ًلا‪ 85‬لا‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫تكن وقح العين لأن بهذه‪ 86‬تكون‪ 87‬شهادة الزور لا تأخذ بالفألات والزجر وهذه تودي إلى الزنا‬ ‫‪88‬‬ ‫راقيا ولا‬ ‫معزما ولا تقرب منهم‪ 89‬فإن هؤلاء يجعلون الإنسان يبعد من‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وعبادة الاوثان لا تكن ً‬ ‫محب‬ ‫الله لا تكن كاذبا فإن الكذب باب القتل‪] 90‬س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢١٨‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٣‬لا تكن‬ ‫ّ‬

‫الفضة لأنها تودي إلى الكفر لا يصغر قلبك‪ 91‬ولا تفكر ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٢‬أ \ ص ‪ [٢٨٧‬بالشر‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٥‬كن‬ ‫وديعا لأن الودعاء يرثون الأرض‪ 92‬أرض الحياة كن ذا‪ 93‬أناة ساذج القلب‪ 94‬صالحا خائفً ا‬ ‫ً‬ ‫من الله في كل وقت مرتعدً ا من كلام الله لا ترفع نفسك ولا تتكل على الغد لكن امش‬

‫‪95‬‬

‫‪96‬‬ ‫شرا ظننته أم‬ ‫خيرا‪ 97‬اتلو الكلام المبارك‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مع الأبرار والصق بالمتواضعين والذي ينزل بك اقبله ً‬ ‫في الليل والنهار واذكر كلام الله سيل‪ 98‬عن طريق القديسين وابتهج بكلامهم لا تعمل فرقة‬

‫لأحد لكن‪ 99‬اجمع المنفرقين‬

‫‪100‬‬

‫بالصلح والسلامة‬

‫‪101‬‬

‫احكم بالحق ولا توبخ أحدً ا على خطية‬

‫لا تكن مبسوط اليد عند الأخذ قابضها عند العطاء‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬وحدك ‪ instead of‬بينك وبينه ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫‪.‬صل لأجله ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪79‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬

‫‪.‬وجههم ‪S185 (f. 218a; = p. 302) has‬‬

‫‪81‬‬

‫‪.‬غضو ًبا ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬يقود ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪82‬‬ ‫‪83‬‬

‫‪.‬طموحا ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪84‬‬

‫‪.‬لا تتفوه بكلام باطل ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪85‬‬

‫‪.‬بهذا ‪M41 (f. 141b; = p. 286) has‬‬

‫‪86‬‬

‫‪.‬لأن ذلك يؤدي إلى ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪87‬‬

‫‪.‬لا تأخذ بالقالات والزجر وهذه تودي إلى الزنا وعبادة الاوثان ‪F (p. 456) omits‬‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا تقترب من هذه الأفعال ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪89‬‬

‫‪.‬فإن الكذب بال القتل ‪F (p. 456) omits‬‬

‫‪90‬‬

‫‪.‬نفسك ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪91‬‬

‫‪.‬الأرض ‪F (p. 456) omits‬‬

‫‪92‬‬

‫‪.‬ذو ‪M41 (f. 142a; = p. 287) has‬‬

‫‪93‬‬

‫‪.‬كن طويل الأناة بسيط القلب ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪94‬‬

‫‪.‬اسلك ‪. F (p. 456) has‬امشي ‪M41 (f. 142a; = p. 287) has‬‬

‫‪95‬‬

‫‪.‬التصق ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪96‬‬

‫ّ‬ ‫خيرا ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬ ‫شرا أو‬ ‫‪.‬وما‬ ‫ً‬ ‫يحل بك اقبله سواء ظننته ً‬ ‫‪.‬اسأل ‪F (p. 456) has‬‬

‫‪97‬‬

‫‪.‬لأحد لكن ‪ instead of‬بين إنسان وآخر بل ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪98‬‬ ‫‪99‬‬

‫‪.‬المتفرقين ‪M41, f. 142a (= p. 287). S185 (f. 218b; = p. 303) has‬‬

‫‪100‬‬

‫‪.‬بالمصلحة والسلام ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪101‬‬

‫‪241‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫‪ .٦‬اعط‪ 102‬الفقراء لتمسح خطيتك لا تكن بقلبين إذا دفعت ولا تتقمقم‪ 103‬عند الدفع إذا كنت‬ ‫رحوما‪ 104‬واعلم‪ 105‬أن الله ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٢‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٨٨‬يعطيك الأجر الحسن لا ترد وجهك‬ ‫ً‬ ‫عن سائل كقدر قوتك كن مبارك‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الفانية كنت‬ ‫مشاركا‪ 108‬في الأخرة الباقية‪.‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬

‫لكل أحد يحتاج إليك لأنك إذا شاركت‬

‫‪107‬‬

‫في الدنيا‬

‫‪ .٧‬وهذه هي طريق الموت اللعاب والقاتول ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢١٩‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣٠٤‬والخاطف والذي‬ ‫يشبه الباقية من هذه‪.‬‬

‫‪109‬‬

‫]الجزء الثاني‪ :‬تعاليم حكمية[‬ ‫‪ .٨‬وأوصى أبو شنوده أولاده أن يحبوا الغرباء وأن لا يخرجوا من ديرهم إلى الانقضاء وأن يحبوا‬ ‫الإخوة ويرحموا الفقراء والغرباء وأن يقبلوا إليهم كل أحد لأجل محبة الله لكي تأوي‪ 110‬عندهم‬ ‫الملائكة‪.‬‬

‫‪111‬‬

‫أيضا التفكر‪ 112‬نصف العبادة والجوع العبادة كلها‪ 113‬أقرب الناس إلى الله المتفكر في‬ ‫‪ .٩‬وقال ً‬ ‫الخير والجائع‬

‫‪114‬‬

‫قامت‬

‫‪116‬‬

‫كما قال بعض المعلمين إذا امتلأت‬

‫الفكرة وخرست‬

‫‪117‬‬

‫الحكمة وقعدت‬

‫‪118‬‬

‫‪115‬‬

‫]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٣‬أ \ ص ‪ [٢٨٩‬المعدة‬

‫الأعضاء عن العبادة‪.‬‬

‫‪.‬اعطي ‪M41 (f. 142a; = p. 287) has‬‬

‫‪102‬‬

‫‪.‬تتذمر ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪103‬‬

‫‪.‬رحيما ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪104‬‬

‫‪.‬فاعلم ‪M41 (f. 142a; = p. 287) has‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪.‬مشاركا ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪105‬‬

‫‪.‬شاركت الآخرين ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مشاركا للأبرار ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬تكون‬ ‫‪F (p. 457) omits chapter 7.‬‬

‫‪106‬‬ ‫‪107‬‬ ‫‪108‬‬ ‫‪109‬‬

‫‪ (“to come”) as in the Arabic Life of Shenoute:‬تأتي ‪It is possible that this verb was originally‬‬ ‫‪see Émile Amélineau, ed., Mémoires publiés par les members de la Mission archéologique fran‬‬‫‪çaise au Caire, volume 1 (Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe et‬‬ ‫‪Ve siècles 4.1; Paris: Ernes Leroux, 1888), 471.‬‬ ‫‪111‬‬ ‫‪F (p. 457) omits chapter 8.‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬

‫أيضا ‪F (p. 457) omits‬‬ ‫‪.‬التفكر ‪ instead of‬التأمل ‪ and has‬وقال ً‬

‫‪112‬‬

‫‪.‬والجوع يجب أن يرافق العبادة ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪113‬‬

‫‪.‬وفي الجائع ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪114‬‬

‫‪ (S185, f. 219a [= p. 304]; M41, f. 142b [= p. 288]).‬امتلت ‪Both manuscripts have‬‬

‫‪115‬‬

‫‪.‬ثارت ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪116‬‬

‫‪.‬صمتت ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪117‬‬

‫‪.‬ارتخت ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪118‬‬

‫‪242‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫‪ .١٠‬وقال خبز الشعير والماء والنوم على المزابل كثير لمن يشاء أن يسكن الجنة‪ 119‬اعد المسيرة‬ ‫العقل والرضا‪ 120‬وسر التدبير وثمرة المعرفة الحكم‪ 121‬وحسن التدبير كمال غيره العلوم والكنوز‬ ‫المكنوز من‬ ‫فيك‬

‫‪123‬‬

‫‪122‬‬

‫أقوال الصالحين إذا علمت فاذكر نظر الله لك وإذا سكنت فاذكر علم الله‬

‫وإذا تكلمت فاذكر سمع الله لك‪.‬‬

‫‪124‬‬

‫‪ .١١‬شح على ساعاتك لا تذهب منك بالغفلة‬

‫‪125‬‬

‫وعلى دينك لا‬

‫‪126‬‬

‫تبيعه بالثمن البخس‬

‫‪127‬‬

‫وعلى كلامك لا تتكلم بما‪ 128‬لا يعينك اهجر الدنيا ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢١٩‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٥‬بالآخرة‬ ‫والناس بالسلامة‪ 129‬ونفسك إذا‪ 130‬لم تساعدك على الطاعة والخوف من الله‪ 131‬والشكر أفضل‬

‫‪132‬‬

‫]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٣‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٩٠‬الطاعة الخوف‬ ‫والحرد‬

‫‪134‬‬

‫‪133‬‬

‫والرجاء والشكر وأصل المعصية الكبرياء‬

‫والحسد‪.‬‬

‫نائما متى‪ 135‬تقوم نحو من هو يأمرك قائم‪ 136‬إذا كنت بالنهار‬ ‫‪ .١٢‬إذا كنت بالنهار هائما بالليل ً‬

‫‪.‬المزابل يوافق من يشاء أن يسكن الفردوس ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪119‬‬

‫‪.‬من أعداء المسيرة الرهبانية التفكير العقلاني والرضا عن الذات ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪120‬‬

‫‪ instead‬هو الحكمة ‪; F (p. 457) has‬ممن ‪M41, f. 143a [= p. 289]. S185 (f. 219a; = p. 304) has‬‬

‫‪121‬‬

‫‪.‬الحكم ‪of‬‬ ‫‪.‬هو في كمال غيرة المعرفة والكنوز المذخرة في ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪122‬‬

‫‪.‬إذا علمت فاذكر أن الله ينظر إليك وإذا تمسكنت فاذكر معرفة الله فيك ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪123‬‬

‫‪.‬أن الله يسمعك ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪124‬‬

‫‪.‬راقب ساعات حياتك لئلا تفلت منك بالتغافل ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪125‬‬

‫‪.‬وإيمانك لئلا ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪126‬‬

‫‪.‬وإيمانك لئلا تبيع بثمن بخس ‪. F (p. 457) has‬نجس ‪M41 (f. 143a; = p. 289) has‬‬

‫‪127‬‬

‫‪.‬وكلامك لئلا تتكلم فيما ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪128‬‬

‫‪.‬بالملامة ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪129‬‬

‫‪.‬إذ ‪M41, f. 143a (= p. 289). S185 (f. 219b; = p. 305) has‬‬

‫‪130‬‬

‫‪.‬محافة الله ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪131‬‬

‫‪.‬أفضل ‪ instead of‬فتمم ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪132‬‬

‫‪.‬أفضل الطاعة الخوف ‪ instead of‬فتمم الطاعة بمخافة ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪133‬‬

‫‪.‬الغضب ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬

‫‪134‬‬

‫‪ is written twice‬متى ‪There is an error of dittography in M41 (f. 143b; = p. 290): the word‬‬ ‫‪(once at the end of line 3 and again at the beginning of line 4).‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬

‫‪.‬قائما ‪Read:‬‬ ‫‪.‬فمتى تتجه نحو من يأمرك وهو قائم ‪F (p. 457) has‬‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪136‬‬

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

243

‫ العقبة تنال النعمة السمائية بفعل المكارم واجتناب‬139‫ متى تقوم تطلع‬138‫ وبالليل خشبة‬137‫جلبة‬

140

‫مع الدموع ولسانه مع الثناء والمجد وقلبه مع‬

141

‫المحارم والصبر على المغارم العارف عينيه‬ .‫ والرجاء‬142‫الخوف‬

‫ أكرم الله إبراهيم لأنه لم يعادل بالله شيء بل اختاره على كل شيء واسحق لأنه جاد له‬.١٣ 143

‫ ف‬:٤١‫دار الغرور وهو ]م‬

.‫بنفسه وهو بما سواها أجود ويعقوب لأنه أحب العبادة لله‬

‫ إذا دخل النور الإلهي القلب انشرح وعلامته التجافي عن‬.١٤

144

‫للموت قبل الموت باكتساب‬

146

‫إلى دار الخلود والاستعداد‬

145

‫[ الهروب‬٢٩١ ‫أ \ ص‬١٤٤

‫الفضائل وترك الرذائل والتخلي عن هذا المجد الزائل العبادة أن تجري عليك ضرورة ولا تتغير‬ 147

148

.‫لها‬

‫[ من يغضبك ولا تأثم‬٣٠٦ ‫أ \ ص‬٢٢٠ ‫ ف‬:١٨٥‫ ولا تحقد على من يبغضك ولا ]س‬.١٥

149

‫تحب وأن تصبر على من ضربك ولطمك وظلمك لا تصح الإخوة إلا بالأشغال‬ ‫فيمن‬ ّ

137

M41 (f. 143b; = p. 290) has ‫خلية‬. In S185 (f. 219b; = p. 305), the pointing of the

word ‫“( جلبة‬clamor”) is not clear: the jīm lacks a dot and thus looks like ḥā’; the bā’ has a dot and a short horizontal line next to it that could be taken for a second dot in the letter yā’. But given the rhyme scheme, this is most likely the correct reading. My thanks to Mark Swanson for his help in resolving this question. The scribe of M41 may to have tried to resolve a similar ambiguity of pointing in copying his text by reading the word in question as ‫“( خلية‬carefree”), which betrays the rhyme scheme but serves semantically as an approximate synonym for ‫ هائما‬in the preceding sentence. 138

S185 (f. 219b; = p. 305) has ‫حشبة‬.

139

F (p. 457) has ‫ لكي تتجاوز‬instead of ‫تطلع‬.

140

F (p. 457) has ‫تجنب‬.

141

M41 (f. 143b; = p. 290) has ‫الفارغ عينيه‬. F (p. 457) has ‫مع امتلاء العينين‬.

142

F (p. 457) has ‫بالدموع واللسان بالثناء والتمجيد والقلب بمخافة الله‬.

143

M41, f. 143b (= p. 290). S185 (f. 219b; = p. 305) reads ‫للله‬: the scribe seems to have writ-

ten ‫ الله‬and then tried to correct it by converting the initial alif to lām, but the result was three consecutive lāms when only two were required. Chapter 13 is omitted in F, p. 457. 144

F (p. 457) has ‫ هي مخافاة‬instead of ‫التجافي عن‬.

145

F (p. 457) has ‫والهروب‬.

146

M41, f. 144a (= p. 291). S185 (f. 219b; = p. 305) has ‫استعد‬.

147

M41 (f. 144a; = p. 291) has ‫ولا تغير لها‬. F (p. 457) omits ‫العبادة أن تجري عليها ضرورة ولا تتغير‬

148

F (p. 458) has ‫تخطئ‬.

149

F (p. 458) has ‫بالأشغال‬.

‫لها‬.

‫‪244‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫وتقريب الآجال ونفي‬ ‫والدموع أنفق الفضل‬

‫الآمال دلائل‬

‫‪150‬‬

‫‪153‬‬

‫من مالك وامسك الفضل من لسانك‪.‬‬

‫‪ .١٦‬غاية الزهد هو الاشتغال‬

‫‪154‬‬

‫بذكر الله عنما سواه والعلم بأنه إن أعطاك لم يقدر أحدا‬

‫يحرمك وإن منعك لم يقدر أحد‬

‫‪155‬‬

‫بالرزق‬

‫‪156‬‬

‫لما ُضمنه منه‬

‫‪151‬‬

‫المحب السكوت والتذلل والإطراق‬

‫‪152‬‬

‫والخجل‬

‫‪157‬‬

‫يعطيك وترك ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٤‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٩٢‬الاهتمام‬

‫إذا قست عملك إلى قسمك وحدت‬

‫‪158‬‬

‫قوتك فوق حقك‪.‬‬

‫‪159‬‬

‫‪ .١٧‬حقيقة الإيمان الالتجاء إلى رحمة الله ولزوم طاعته ومداومة بقواه‪ 160‬إذا أبطأ عليك الرزق‬ ‫والإجابة‬

‫‪161‬‬

‫فأكثر من الاستغفار‬

‫‪162‬‬

‫وإذا أتتك‬

‫‪163‬‬

‫بالرب أشد الأعمال الجود من قلة الورع‬

‫‪165‬‬

‫‪ .١٨‬صل على من قد قطعك‬

‫‪167‬‬

‫نعمة فسبح الله وإذا أصابتك مصيبة‬

‫‪164‬‬

‫تقوي‬

‫في الخلوة وكلمة حق عند من يخاف ويرجى‪.‬‬

‫واعط من أحرمك‬

‫‪168‬‬

‫واغفر لمن ظلمك اياك أن يخرجك‬

‫غضبك عن الحق ولا رضاك ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٠‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٧‬إلى الباطل ولا تتناول ما‬ ‫ليس لك إذ لم ينفع‬

‫‪170‬‬

‫يضرهم‬ ‫الناس فلا‬ ‫ّ‬

‫‪171‬‬

‫‪166‬‬

‫‪169‬‬

‫وإذا لم تسرهم فلا تغمهم وإذا لم تمدحهم فلا‬

‫تذمهم‪.‬‬

‫‪.‬تنقية ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪150‬‬

‫‪.‬من أدلة ‪. F (p. 458) has‬دلاليل ‪M41 (f. 144a; = p. 291) has‬‬

‫‪151‬‬

‫‪ at the end of line 3 and then‬والإطاق ‪The scribe of S185 (f. 220a; = p. 306) originally wrote‬‬ ‫‪crossed it out with red ink replaced it with the correct spelling at the beginning of line 4.‬‬ ‫‪152‬‬

‫‪.‬ما فضل ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪153‬‬

‫‪.‬الانشغال ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪154‬‬

‫‪.‬أحدً ا ‪M41 (f. 144a; = p. 291) has‬‬

‫‪155‬‬

‫‪.‬اترك الاهتمام برزقك ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪156‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي ضمنه لك ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪157‬‬

‫‪.‬وجدت ‪M41 (f. 144b; = p. 292) has‬‬

‫‪158‬‬

‫‪.‬إذا قست عملك إلى قسمك وحدت قوتك فوق حقك ‪F (p. 458) omits‬‬

‫‪159‬‬

‫‪.‬والالتزام بطاعته والمداومة على تقواه ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪160‬‬

‫‪.‬الاستجابة ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪161‬‬

‫‪.‬فاكنز من طلب المغفرة ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪162‬‬

‫‪.‬جاءتك ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪163‬‬

‫‪.‬وإذا حلت بك مصيبة ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪164‬‬

‫‪.‬من قلة والورع ‪Read‬‬

‫‪165‬‬

‫‪.‬أشد الأعمال الجود من قلة الورع في الخلوة وكلمة حق عند من يخاف ويرجى ‪F (p. 458) omits‬‬

‫‪166‬‬

‫‪.‬صل من أجل من قطعك عنه ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪167‬‬

‫‪.‬حرمك ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪168‬‬

‫‪.‬تأخذ مما ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪169‬‬

‫‪.‬إذا كنت لا تنفع ‪. F (p. 458) has‬تنفع ‪M41 (f. 144b; = p. 292) has‬‬

‫‪170‬‬

‫‪.‬تضرهم ‪M41 (f. 144b; = p. 292) has‬‬

‫‪171‬‬

‫‪245‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫‪] .١٩‬م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٥‬أ \ ص ‪ [٢٩٣‬شره القلب يتولد من كثرة الأكل وكثرة النوم وكثرة الضحك‬ ‫أيضا من لم يحسب كلامه من عمله كثرت ذنوبه‪ 172‬ومن علم‪ 173‬من غير علم كان ما‬ ‫منه ً‬

‫‪174‬‬

‫‪175‬‬ ‫غرضا للحكومات كثر اشتغاله‪ 176‬الذي يثق بالله‬ ‫يفسد أكثر مما يصلح ومن نصب أذنيه‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪177‬‬

‫في كل شيء فيستعين بالله على كل شيء ويغتفر إلى الله في كل شيء احفظ أن تحتمل إذا‬ ‫أذاك‬

‫‪178‬‬

‫الجار وأن تكف عنه‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٢٠‬قال أنبا إفرام‬

‫‪180‬‬

‫‪179‬‬

‫السرياني كلما ترى من نعيم الدنيا وتزخرفها فاذكر به‬

‫‪181‬‬

‫ما تحابسه من‬

‫نعيم الآخرة وعذابها فأنك تشكر الله تعالى وقال اغرغوريوس إن الثلث قوى التي فينا هي‬ ‫أسباب الصلاح والطلاح وهي الفكرة والغضب والشهوة‪.‬‬

‫‪182‬‬

‫]الجزء الثالث‪ :‬تعاليم في الفضائل والرذائل[‬ ‫أيضا الأب أبو شنوده لأولاده‪ 183‬أصل جميع الخطايا‬ ‫‪] .٢١‬م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٥‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٩٤‬وقال ً‬ ‫الكذب فاجتنبوه ولا تفكروا فيه فإنه‬

‫‪184‬‬

‫هو الشيطان الكبير وأصل جميع الخيرات الحق فإذا‬

‫]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢١‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣٠٨‬اعتمدتم عليه فما تخيبوا ومن اعتمد عليه في كل طريقه‬

‫‪185‬‬

‫يقويه الله‪.‬‬ ‫الضحك ويتولد ‪, F (p. 458) has‬الضحك … ذنوبه ‪. In place of‬ذينوبه ‪M41 (f. 145a; = p. 293) has‬‬

‫‪172‬‬

‫‪.‬أيضا من عدم الاحتراس في الكلام وكثرة الذنوب‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪173‬‬ ‫‪Based on the parallels in ḥadīth literature cited in the footnotes to the translation of this‬‬ ‫عمل ‪ (“knowledge”) here probably derives from a misreading of the word‬علم ‪text, the reading of‬‬ ‫;‪ (al-ta‘līm‬التعليم ‪(‘amal; “work”) in the transmission of this saying. F (p. 458) has‬‬ ‫‪“teaching”).‬‬ ‫‪.‬من غير علم كان ما ‪ instead of‬بدون علم لأنه ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪174‬‬

‫‪.‬دينه ‪M41, f. 145a (= p. 293). S185 (f. 220b; = p. 307) has‬‬

‫‪175‬‬

‫‪.‬انتقاله ‪M41, f. 145a (= p. 293). S185 (f. 220b; = p. 307) has‬‬

‫‪176‬‬

‫‪.‬باالله ‪M41 (f. 145a; = p. 293) has‬‬

‫‪177‬‬

‫‪.‬أتاك ‪M41 (f. 145a; = p. 293) has‬‬

‫‪178‬‬

‫‪), F (p. 458) has the‬ومن نصب … تكف عنه( ‪In place of the second half of this chapter‬‬ ‫‪following:‬‬ ‫‪179‬‬

‫ومن جعل أذنيه هدفًا لسماع ما يحكم به على الآخرين يكثر انشغال الإنسان بالله إذا اتقاه في كل شيء‬ ‫واستعان به في كل شيء وافتقر إليه في كل شيء احتمل كل ما يأتي عليك‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬إفراام ‪M41 (f. 145a; = p. 293) has‬‬

‫‪180‬‬

‫‪.‬فاذكره ‪M41 (f. 145a; = p. 293) has‬‬ ‫‪F (p. 458) omits chapter 20.‬‬

‫‪181‬‬

‫أيضا الأب أبو شنوده لأولاده ‪F (p. 458) omits‬‬ ‫‪.‬وقال ً‬

‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪183‬‬

‫‪.‬فتجنبوه لأنه ‪. F (p. 458) has‬فاجتنبوه ولا تفكروا فإنه ‪M41 (f. 145b; = p. 294) has‬‬

‫‪184‬‬

‫‪.‬طرقه ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪185‬‬

‫‪246‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫‪ .٢٢‬لا تتفكروا الأفكار الرديئة‪ 186‬ولا تطلبوا اكل شيء من الإخوة سرقة‪ 187‬انظروا الفهمين إذا‬ ‫رأوا واحدا وقنع في‬

‫‪188‬‬

‫خطيته اكل شيء سرقة‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫من الإخوة ان يطلب راحته كيف يحزنون‬

‫ظاهرا للمجمع كله لأن ليس يفرح بالردي إلا الشيطان‪.‬‬ ‫أيضا يفرحون بمن يأكل خبزه‬ ‫وكيف ً‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪190‬‬

‫‪ .٢٣‬الرجل الحكيم إذا أبصر واحد قد وقع‪ 191‬يجتهد في إنقاذه من ذلك ويتعب من جهته‬

‫‪192‬‬

‫حتى يخلصه كذلك‪ 193‬الله إذا أبصر إنسانًا في الخطية لم يسر‪ 194‬بذلك ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٦‬أ \ ص‬ ‫‪ [٢٩٥‬بل يسر في الذي يمشي في الطريق المستقيمة الإلهية‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٢٤‬يا ابني تدبر على ما‬

‫‪195‬‬

‫في الكتب ولا تعمل غير ذلك‬

‫‪196‬‬

‫لأن الروح المتكلم في الأنبياء‬

‫هو المتكلم في الصديقين إلى الأبد وغاية المستقيم أن يكون‪ 197‬كما قال سيدنا يسوع المسيح‬ ‫أبونا الذي في السموات لأن غاية الصديقين التشبه بالله على قدر الطاقة والطبع البشري لأنه‬ ‫ليس يكون الإنسان مستقيم إلى الحد الأكبر ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢١‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٩‬وكذلك لا‬ ‫محب الراحة‪.‬‬ ‫يجب لنا أن نخطي بالجملة وأكثر من ذلك في‬ ‫ّ‬

‫‪198‬‬

‫‪ .٢٥‬يا إخوة يجب أن نجتهد في تكميل ما جاءت به الكتب المقدسة ويكون الإنسان بار‬ ‫وصديق غير عاجز شيئا متجنبا الأشياء الرديئة‬

‫‪199‬‬

‫فإذا فعل ذلك كان كالشمس ينور ضياء‬

‫‪200‬‬

‫في الملكوت كما هو ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٦‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٩٦‬مكتوب ولا يمشي في شيء‪ 201‬من طرق‬

‫‪.‬لا تتفكروا في الأمور الرديئ ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪186‬‬

‫أن تأكلوا شيئًا من ‪. F (p. 458) has‬شرقه ‪M41, f. 145b (= p. 294). S185 (f. 221a; = p. 308) has‬‬

‫‪187‬‬

‫‪.‬الإخوة بالسرقة‬ ‫‪.‬من ‪M41 (f. 145b; = p. 294) has‬‬

‫‪188‬‬

‫‪.‬شرقه ‪M41, f. 145b (= p. 294). S185 (f. 221a; = p. 308) has‬‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫لأنه لا ‪), F (p. 458) has‬انظروا الفهمين … إلا الشيطان( ‪In place of the remainder of chapter 22‬‬

‫‪190‬‬

‫‪.‬يفرح بالسيئات إلا الشيطان‬ ‫‪.‬أن تأكلوا شيئًا من الإخوة بالسرقة ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪191‬‬

‫‪.‬من جهته ‪. F (p. 458) lacks‬جيهته ‪M41 (f. 145b; = p. 294) has‬‬

‫‪192‬‬

‫‪.‬كما أن ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬

‫‪193‬‬

‫ً‬ ‫ساقطا في حطيئة لا يسر ‪F (p. 458) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬إنسانًا‬

‫‪194‬‬

‫‪.‬تدبر يا بيى بما ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪195‬‬

‫‪.‬بغيره ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪196‬‬

‫‪.‬أن يكون … أبونا الذي في السموات ‪ instead of‬هي أبونا السماوي … المسيح ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪197‬‬

‫‪.‬والطبع… ‪F (p. 459) omits the end of the chapter beginning with‬‬

‫‪198‬‬

‫ومتجنبا للأمور الرديئة ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬غير عاجز شيئا متجنبا الأشياء الرديئة ‪instead of‬‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪199‬‬

‫‪.‬يكون كالشمس مضيئًا ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪200‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا يسلك في أي شيء ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪201‬‬

‫‪247‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫السوء والصديق يحزن على من‬

‫‪202‬‬

‫القديسين وطلبتهم‬

‫‪204‬‬

‫يمشي‬

‫‪203‬‬

‫فيها قال الرب لا تحب السوء وانظر إلى أفعال‬

‫الخير بكل قلوبهم لكل أحد‪ 205‬يسقط منهم‪.‬‬

‫‪206‬‬

‫‪ .٢٦‬لا تفتخر والآن‪ 207‬القديس إذا افتخر سقط من أعين الناس لتعظم‪ 208‬قلبه وافتخاره‪ 209‬بمجد‬ ‫بحكمته‬

‫فارغ ويغضب الله أيضا بتعظم قلبه وإدلاله‬

‫‪211‬‬

‫‪210‬‬

‫ليس يقدر أحد‬

‫‪212‬‬

‫يقف على أسرار‬

‫الله التي‪ 213‬في الكتب إلا أن ينور‪ 214‬الله عليه واما بحكمته فليس يقدر على ذلك فإن توكل‬ ‫في ذلك على حكمته فقد عظمت سقطت‬ ‫فتكون وقعتك كبيرة فليس‬

‫‪219‬‬

‫‪216‬‬

‫لا تقول‬

‫‪217‬‬

‫في نفسك إنني قد علمت‬

‫‪218‬‬

‫‪215‬‬

‫شيئًا‬

‫صديق على الأرض وليس بار ما له بين ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٧‬أ \ ص‬

‫‪ [٢٩٧‬أيدي الله خطية ولو كان مقامة‪ 220‬على الأرض يوما واحدا‪.‬‬ ‫‪] .٢٧‬س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٢‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣١٠‬وأقول لكم إن كلمن افتخر بالذي يصنعه‬

‫‪221‬‬

‫ويتعظم‬

‫‪222‬‬

‫به فقد صار كالفريسي وعدم الخير بافتخاره‪ 223‬من قتل نفسه بالجوع والعطش ودفع‪ 224‬جميع‬

‫‪.‬من ‪M41, f. 146b (= p. 296). S185 (f. 221b; = p. 309) omits‬‬

‫‪202‬‬

‫‪.‬يسلك ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪203‬‬

‫‪.‬لأنهم يطلبون ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪204‬‬

‫‪.‬أحدا ‪M41, f. 146b (= p. 296). S185 (f. 221b; = p. 309) has‬‬

‫‪205‬‬

‫‪.‬لكل من يسقط ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪206‬‬

‫‪.‬والآن ‪ instead of‬لأن ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪207‬‬

‫‪.‬بسبب تعظم ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪208‬‬

‫‪.‬وافتخر ‪M41, f. 146b (= p. 296). S185 (f. 221b; = p. 309) has‬‬

‫‪209‬‬

‫‪.‬إذلاله ‪M41 (f. 146b; = p. 296) has‬‬

‫‪210‬‬

‫‪.‬كما أنه يغضب الله بتعظم قلبه ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪211‬‬

‫‪.‬أحدا ‪M41 (f. 146b; = p. 296) has‬‬

‫‪212‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي ‪M41 (f. 146b; = p. 296) has‬‬

‫‪213‬‬

‫‪.‬أنار ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪214‬‬

‫‪.‬وإذا اتكل ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪215‬‬

‫‪.‬سقطته ‪M41 (f. 146b; = p. 296) has‬‬

‫‪216‬‬

‫‪.‬لا تقل ‪S185 (f. 221b; = p. 309) has‬‬

‫‪217‬‬

‫‪,‬علمت ‪. The scribe initially wrote the verb‬إنني ما قد علمت عملت ‪M41 (f. 146b; = p. 296) has‬‬

‫‪218‬‬

‫‪ immediately afterward.‬عملت ‪then crossed it out and wrote‬‬ ‫‪.‬إنني لم أفعل شيئًا فتكون سقطتك كبيرة فلا يوجد ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪219‬‬

‫‪.‬حياته ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪220‬‬

‫‪.‬يفعله ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪221‬‬

‫‪.‬يعظم ‪M41 (f. 147a; = p. 297) has‬‬

‫‪222‬‬

‫وانعدم فيه الخير ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪223‬‬

‫‪.‬وأنفق ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪224‬‬

‫‪248‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫ما له‪ 225‬وليس فيه محبة فليس له نصيب معي والرب‪ 226‬يرذله ويضعه ومن اتضع وعدل‪ 227‬على‬ ‫الله في كل أفعاله وأهان نفسه وأسلم إلى الله أموره‪ 228‬استحق أن ينيره الله بنور مسيحه كالعشار‬ ‫لأنه لتأديب‬

‫‪229‬‬

‫طرفي‬

‫‪232‬‬

‫نفسه واتضاعه وأنه ضرب‬

‫‪230‬‬

‫على صدره وقال يا رب ليس استحق‬

‫إلى السماء لكثرة خطاياي وذنوبي فلأجل ذلك‬

‫‪233‬‬

‫‪231‬‬

‫أن أرفع‬

‫مضى إلى بيته بالأنوار المضيئة‬

‫الإلهية‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٢٨‬ومن افتخر مثل الفريسي وظن أنه فاعل خير ورفع عينيه إلى السماء بافتخار ]م‪ :٤١‬ف‬ ‫‪١٤٧‬ب \ ص ‪ [٢٩٨‬فيخزى مثله ويضيع أجره لأنه مضى بالخزي والخيبة الصديق الذي يعمل‬ ‫الحسنان ويفتخر بعلمه يكون مرذول أمام الله أكثر من الخطأة نعم‪ 234‬والمتضع فاعل الحسنات‬ ‫القليلة ويعظم غيره ذلك يكون عند الله في المنزلة الجليلة‬

‫‪235‬‬

‫والموضع الرفيع الذي ليس‬

‫‪236‬‬

‫مثله والمفتخر بالسوء ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٢‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣١١‬المفتري على الصالحين ويفعل الخير‬ ‫يكون عند الله أشر من الخطأة الأنجاس لأجل‬ ‫فاقتن الاتضاع فهو‬

‫‪238‬‬

‫‪237‬‬

‫افتخاره وتكون حسناته مرذولة أمام الرب‬

‫غاية البر وتكون حسناته‪ 239‬القليلة كثيرة عند الله‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٢٩‬الذي يرذل الصديقين فهو يفعل الخطية العظيمة‬

‫‪240‬‬

‫أمام الرب لأنهم مصطفين وجليلين‬

‫قدام جماعة الملائكة كلمن يخاف‪ 241‬الرب ويصنع الخير ولا يفكر في ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٨‬أ \ ص‬ ‫‪ [٢٩٩‬الشر يكون مكرم أمام الرب أكثر من الملائكة الذين يخطئون ولا يعرفون الرب يسوع‬ ‫المسيح ولا ملائكته ولا كلامه فالويل لي ولجميعهم‬

‫‪242‬‬

‫قدامه والذين يعرفون الرب يسوع‬

‫‪.‬ماله ‪Or alternatively,‬‬

‫‪225‬‬

‫‪.‬نصيب مع الرب وهو ‪. F (p. 459) has‬و ‪M41, f. 147a (= p. 297). S185 (f. 221b; = p. 309) lacks‬‬

‫‪226‬‬

‫‪.‬اعتمد ‪. F (p. 459) has‬عول ‪M41 (f. 147a; = p. 297) has‬‬

‫‪227‬‬

‫‪.‬وسلم أموره لله ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪228‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي بسبب تأدب ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪229‬‬

‫‪.‬وقرعه ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬قال للرب لست مستحقً ا ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪230‬‬

‫‪.‬عيني ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫‪.‬لذلك ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪231‬‬ ‫‪232‬‬ ‫‪233‬‬

‫‪.‬نعم ‪F (p. 459) omits‬‬

‫‪234‬‬

‫‪.‬منزلة جليلة ‪F (p. 459) has‬‬

‫‪235‬‬

‫‪.‬لا يوجد ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪236‬‬

‫‪.‬النجسين بسبب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪237‬‬

‫‪.‬لأنه هو ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪238‬‬

‫‪.‬فتعتبر حسناتك ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪239‬‬

‫‪.‬تكون خطيئته عظيمة ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪240‬‬

‫‪.‬يخف ‪S185 (f. 222b; = p. 311) has‬‬

‫‪241‬‬

‫جميعا ‪. F (p. 460) has‬فالويل لجميعهم ‪M41 (f. 148a; = p. 299) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬فالويل لهم‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪242‬‬

‫‪249‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫المسيح ويغضبوه بأعمال الشر ولا يفعلوا الخير بالجملة‬

‫‪243‬‬

‫يفعلون الخير على قدر قوتهم‪ 244‬لأن القديس‬

‫فالويل لهم لأن الرب يحب الذين‬

‫‪245‬‬

‫يقول لا تكونوا صديقين بالغاية‪ 246‬وهو يحب‬

‫أن لا يفتخر الأديب بحكمته لأنه القائل أليس‬

‫أحد أديب ولا عالم غيري بل يحب من‬

‫‪247‬‬

‫يتضع ولا يتعظم ولا يفتخر ولا يكذب‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٣٠‬ومن يرجع إلى كلام العلماء وأرباب‪ 248‬الأعمال الصالحة الذين ليس فيهم غش ]س‪:١٨٥‬‬ ‫ف ‪٢٢٣‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣١٢‬ولا كذب أولائك الذين يحبهم الرب من أجل‪ 249‬صلاح قلوبهم ومحبتهم‬ ‫للرب‬ ‫بل‬

‫‪250‬‬

‫‪252‬‬

‫واجتنابهم فعل الشر ومحبتهم للإخوة وجميع البشر‬

‫‪251‬‬

‫الصديق لا يفتخر بالحسنات‬

‫يكثر منها ويتضع ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٨‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٠‬مثل الرب يسوع المسيح الصديق‬

‫الحقيقي الذي اتضع إلى‬

‫‪253‬‬

‫الموت أعني‬

‫الأديب بحكمته بل يسلم لأنه وحده‬

‫‪256‬‬

‫‪254‬‬

‫موت الصليب إن الرب لا يحب‬

‫‪255‬‬

‫أن يفتخر‬

‫رب كل أدب وحكمة وهو القائل لا أديب غيري‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣١‬قال الرب اجعلوا الناس يروا أعمالكم الحسنة التي ليس فيها غش ولا رياء فيمجدون الله‬ ‫أبيكم ولا يسمعوا منكم كلام العلم الذي أساسه الافتخار كثيرون صنعوا‬ ‫بعدوا‬

‫‪258‬‬

‫من الله من أجل‬

‫يصنعوها مع فعلهم‬

‫‪260‬‬

‫‪259‬‬

‫‪257‬‬

‫خيرات كثيرة ثم‬

‫الكذب والنجاسة والسرقة وقلة السمع والأفكار الرديئة التي‬

‫الخير ليس‬

‫‪261‬‬

‫خطية أعظم ممن يكذب ولا‬

‫‪262‬‬

‫فضيلة أفضل ممن يقول‬

‫‪.‬إطلا ًقا ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪243‬‬

‫‪.‬طاقتهم ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪244‬‬

‫‪; see also F, p. 460.‬الحكيم ‪M41 (f. 148a; = p. 299) has‬‬

‫‪245‬‬

‫‪.‬لا تكن با ّرا كثيرا ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪246‬‬

‫‪.‬إنه ليس ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪247‬‬

‫‪.‬كلام ذوي المعرفة وذوي ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪248‬‬

‫‪.‬بسبب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪249‬‬

‫‪.‬وحبهم له ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪250‬‬

‫‪.‬وجميع البشر ‪F (p. 460) omits‬‬

‫‪251‬‬

‫‪.‬و ‪, but then crossed out‬ويكثر ‪The scribe of M41 (f. 148a; = p. 299) initially wrote‬‬

‫‪252‬‬

‫‪.‬حتى ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪253‬‬

‫‪.‬أعني ‪F (p. 460) omits‬‬

‫‪254‬‬

‫‪.‬إن الرب يحب ‪, instead of‬فلا يجب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪255‬‬

‫‪.‬بل يسلم لأنه وحده ‪, instead of‬لأنه إلهنا هو ‪ F (p. 460) has‬لأنه وجد ‪M41 (f. 148b; = p. 300) has‬‬

‫‪256‬‬

‫‪.‬عملوا ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪257‬‬

‫‪.‬ابتدعوا ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪258‬‬

‫‪.‬بسبب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪259‬‬

‫‪.‬يقبلونها مع فعل ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪260‬‬

‫‪.‬لا يوجد ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪261‬‬

‫‪.‬من الكذب ولا توجد )‪F (p. 460‬‬

‫‪262‬‬

‫‪250‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫مستقيما ومن الاعوجاج الغش السوء‬ ‫الحق‪ 263‬والصدق هو الذي يوقف الإنسان قدام‪ 264‬الرب‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والسرقة والقتل والزنا الذي هو نظير القتل واللغب‪ 265‬والحسد ومن الفضائل ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٩‬أ \‬ ‫ص ‪ [٣٠١‬المحبة السلامة والسمع ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٣‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣١٣‬والتحنن ومن الاعوجاج‬ ‫أفكار النجاسة والكبرياء والكسل وقلة السمع وقلة الأدب والجهل والغضب وقلة المخافة ومن‬ ‫الفضائل اجتناب جميع الفعل الردي والأفكار السوء وجميع الناموس كله حتى لا يخلي منه‬ ‫صغيره فإنه من فعل جميع الناموس وخلا منه صغيره شيأ‬

‫‪266‬‬

‫‪ .٣٢‬رايته‬

‫‪268‬‬

‫بروح الله وفهمته عندما احاطوا‬

‫‪269‬‬

‫سباع تزير خاطفه‬ ‫شرا قلي ًلا فإنه يفرق‬ ‫فعل ً‬ ‫‪271‬‬

‫لأنني رأيت أني‬ ‫‪273‬‬

‫‪272‬‬

‫بروحي ونفسي مثل جماعة كلاب‬

‫وصرت صديقًا‬

‫‪270‬‬

‫ومثل‬

‫أخطيت كثيرا لأن الإنسان إذا فعل الخير الكثير ثم‬

‫ذلك الخير ويبعد‬

‫‪274‬‬

‫من الله بعد القرب‬

‫‪275‬‬

‫السوء القليل في زمان كنت أصنع فيه الخير الكثير‬ ‫‪278‬‬

‫جميع ذلك‪.‬‬

‫‪267‬‬

‫‪276‬‬

‫وقلت إنني قد تقربت‬

‫‪277‬‬

‫له فبعدت عنه لما فعلت من الشر قليلًا‬

‫‪279‬‬

‫فلذلك يجب على الخاطئ أن يفعل الخير من غير‬

‫‪280‬‬

‫منه بحكم ما عمله من‬ ‫من المسيح‬

‫]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٤٩‬ب \ ص ‪[٣٠٢‬‬

‫افتخار ولا يتكلم به بل يخفيه ويظهر‬

‫‪.‬من قول الحق ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪263‬‬

‫‪.‬أمام ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪264‬‬

‫‪ (“amusement”), but‬اللعب ‪S185 (f. 223a; = p. 312) and M41 (f. 148b; = p. 300) both have‬‬ ‫‪it is likely that both lack the dot that would distinguish the letter ghayn from ‘ayn and that the‬‬ ‫‪265‬‬

‫‪ (“foul speech”).‬اللغب ‪original reading was‬‬ ‫‪.‬يشا ‪. M41 (f. 149a; = p. 301) has‬شاء ‪Read‬‬

‫‪266‬‬

‫‪, F (p. 460) has the following:‬ومن الاعوجاج والسمع… سيا جميع ذلك ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪267‬‬

‫من عمل بالناموس كله ماعدا وصية صغيرة قيل عنه من حفظ كل الناموس وإنما عثر في واحدة فقد صار‬ ‫‪.‬مجرما في الكل‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪.‬وأنا رأيت كل ذلك ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪268‬‬

‫‪.‬أحاط الأعداء ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪269‬‬

‫‪.‬بروحي مثل الكلاب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪270‬‬

‫‪.‬تزأر لتخطف ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪271‬‬

‫‪.‬إنني ‪M41 (f. 149a; = p. 301) has‬‬

‫‪272‬‬

‫‪.‬يلاشي ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪273‬‬

‫‪.‬يبعده ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪274‬‬

‫‪.‬الاقتراب ‪F (p. 460) has‬‬

‫‪275‬‬

‫)‪, F (pp. 460–461‬يحكم ما عمله من السوء القليل في زمان كنت أصنع فيه الخير الكثير ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪276‬‬

‫حيرا كثيا ًرا ‪has the following:‬‬ ‫‪.‬بسبب السيئات القليلة التي ارتكبها لقد كنت في زماني أفعل‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪277‬‬ ‫‪.‬اقتربت ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬صديق ‪M41, f. 149a (= p. 301). S185 (f. 223b; = p. 313) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬صديقً ا فابتعدت عنه بسبب الشر القليل الذي ارتكبته ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬بدون ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪278‬‬ ‫‪279‬‬ ‫‪280‬‬

‫‪251‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫للناس خطاياه التي لا يعرفونها فإن‪ 281‬الرب يسوع المسيح وملائكته يعظمونه عند توبته وعودته‬ ‫إلى الصلاح وخاصة‬

‫‪282‬‬

‫إذا أخفى ما عمله من الخير‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣٣‬من يفكر في ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٤‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣١٤‬السوء وهو كمن يفعله إذا حذرنا‬ ‫الأفكار الرديئة ونتكلم‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫كذب الله ومعاذ الله من ذلك لأن الله قال‬ ‫‪284‬‬

‫بالسوء فقد عملنا‬

‫من‬

‫‪283‬‬

‫جميع الخطايا ومن قال إنه ليس له خطية فقد‬

‫‪285‬‬

‫‪286‬‬

‫على ألسن أنبـيائه‬

‫‪287‬‬

‫ليس يوجد صديق بلا‬

‫خطية ولو أقام على الأرض يوم واحد الذي يصنع الزنا فهذا هو الخاطئ قدام الله‬

‫‪288‬‬

‫والمتقمقم‬

‫والغضاب والمتكبر النفس والآكل لحم الناس بالغيبة وهو المتكلم ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥٠‬أ \ ص ‪[٣٠٣‬‬ ‫في أخيه كلمن يعمل هولاي فهو‬ ‫‪ .٣٤‬الرجل الفهم‬

‫‪290‬‬

‫‪289‬‬

‫مرذول جدا قدام الله وملائكته‪.‬‬

‫هو الذي ليس فيه غش الماشي في‬

‫‪291‬‬

‫الحق ولا يغضب الخائف من‬

‫الله هو المتحنن الرؤوف الذي يحزن على من يعمل الشر ويفرح بالله ويعمل الصلاح‬ ‫يفتري على من يعمل الخطية‬

‫‪294‬‬

‫‪293‬‬

‫ولا‬

‫بل يبكي على أخيه وبالخاصة على من يعمل السوء ذلك‬

‫يظهر بره أمام الله والناس وخاصة إذ لم يتفكر‬

‫‪296‬‬

‫أن الله راضي عنه بل يتفكر‬

‫‪297‬‬

‫‪292‬‬

‫‪295‬‬

‫أنه خاطي‪.‬‬

‫‪.‬وبذلك فإن ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪281‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا سيما ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪282‬‬

‫‪.‬احترست ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪283‬‬

‫‪.‬تكلمنا ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪284‬‬

‫‪.‬نكون قد فعلنا ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪285‬‬

‫‪.‬ليست له خطية فقد كذب الله لأنه قال ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪286‬‬

‫‪.‬أنبايه ‪M41, f. 149b (= p. 302). S185 (f. 224a; = p. 314) has‬‬

‫‪287‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي يصنع الزنا فهذا هو الخاطئ قدام الله ‪F (p. 461) omits‬‬

‫‪288‬‬

‫والمتقمقم والغصاب والمتكبر النفس والآكل لحم الناس بالغيبة وهو المتكلم في أخيه كل من ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪289‬‬

‫‪, F (p. 461) has the following:‬يعمل هولاي فهو‬ ‫المتذمر والغضوب والمتكبر والذي يأكل لحم الناس بالاغتياب أي الذي يتكلم في حق أخيه كل من يرتكب‬ ‫تلك الأمور‬ ‫‪.‬الفهيم ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪290‬‬

‫‪.‬حسب ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪291‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي يخاف ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪292‬‬

‫‪.‬بالصلاح ‪M41 (f. 150a; = p. 303) has‬‬

‫‪293‬‬

‫‪.‬من يحطئ ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪294‬‬

‫‪.‬الذي يفعل السوء هذا الإنسان ‪, F (p. 461) has‬وبالخاصة على من يعمل السوء ذلك ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪295‬‬

‫‪.‬وحصوصا إذا لم يظن ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬ ‫ً‬

‫‪296‬‬

‫‪.‬يعتقد ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪297‬‬

‫‪252‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫]الجزء الأربع‪ :‬تعاليم في القوانين الرهبانية[‬ ‫‪ .٣٥‬الذي يأكل فليأكل من شأن‬

‫‪298‬‬

‫الله ويشكره والذي يصوم فليصوم بقوة من جهة‬

‫ويصنع ذلك لله علانية ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٤‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣١٥‬بغير غش‬

‫‪300‬‬

‫‪299‬‬

‫الرب‬

‫والمريض الذي له قوة‬

‫إن يحتمل‪ 301‬فليحتمل والذي لا يقدر يحتمل فليطلب بخوف من الله‪ 302‬خادم الإخوة المرضى‬ ‫فليهتم بهم في كل مكان بخوف الله في جميع ما‬

‫‪303‬‬

‫]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥٠‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٤‬يأمرهم‬

‫به الأرشيمنريدس‪ 304‬ولا يصنعوا‪ 305‬شيئًا إلا بأمره‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٣٦‬الذي يتمارض وليس هو مريض بل حتى يطلب‪ 306‬شهواته يكون هذا مرذول أمام الله تعالى‬ ‫المريض إذا اشتهى شيئًا فليطلبه‬

‫‪307‬‬

‫دفعة واثنين‬

‫‪308‬‬

‫بخضوع وسذاجة‬

‫‪309‬‬

‫بغير‬

‫‪310‬‬

‫غش وهو‬

‫متضرع‪ 311‬إلى الله أن يصرف عنه الشهوات الجسدانية لأنها موت حينئذا‪ 312‬يقوي‪ 313‬فيهم‬

‫‪314‬‬

‫الأفكار الروحانية التي بها‪ 315‬الحياة الأبدية‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٣٧‬المريض المحق في مرضه الشاكر لكلما يصنعه معه‬ ‫السيد‬

‫‪317‬‬

‫‪316‬‬

‫الخادم يكون منير بين يدي‬

‫المسيح ربنا الخادم المتهاون بالمريض الذي يؤخر عنه شهواته وطلبته يكون شرير‬

‫بين يدي السيد المسيح وكمثل من يهرق دماء الناس وكذلك المريض القليل الشكر‬ ‫‪.‬من يأكل فليأكل من أجل ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪298‬‬

‫‪.‬جيهة ‪M41 (f. 150a; = p. 303) has‬‬

‫‪299‬‬

‫‪, F (p. 461) has the following:‬والذي يصوم … بغير غش ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪300‬‬

‫‪.‬قوة احتمال ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪301‬‬

‫‪.‬فليطلب قوة الاحتمال من الله بمخافة ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪302‬‬

‫بمخافة ‪. F (p. 461) has‬في ‪. M41 (f. 150a; = p. 303) omits‬ما ‪S185 (f. 224b; = p. 315) omits‬‬

‫‪303‬‬

‫ومن يصوم فليصم بقوة من عند الرب ويفعل ذلك بدون غش‬

‫‪.‬الله بكل ما‬ ‫‪.‬الأرشيمندريت ‪. F (p. 461) has‬الأرشيمنتريدس ‪M41 (f. 150b; = p. 304) has‬‬

‫‪304‬‬

‫‪.‬يفعلون ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪305‬‬

‫‪.‬ولكن يطلب ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪306‬‬

‫‪.‬وليطلبه ‪M41 (f. 150b; = p. 304) has‬‬

‫‪307‬‬

‫‪.‬مرة أو اثنين ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪308‬‬

‫‪.‬بسداجة ‪M41 (f. 150b; = p. 304) has‬‬

‫‪309‬‬

‫‪.‬وبساطة وبدون ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪310‬‬

‫متضرعا ‪M41 (p. 159) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬بينما يكون‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪.‬حينئذ ‪Read:‬‬

‫‪311‬‬ ‫‪312‬‬

‫‪.‬تقوى ‪M41 (f. 150b; = p. 304) has‬‬

‫‪313‬‬

‫‪.‬وبذلك تقوى فيه ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪314‬‬

‫‪.‬التي تؤدي إلى ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪315‬‬

‫‪.‬له ‪F (p. 461) has‬‬

‫‪316‬‬

‫‪. A later hand marked the word with a‬سيد ‪The scribe of M41 (f. 150b; = p. 304) wrote‬‬

‫‪317‬‬

‫منيرا بين يدي ‪, in the margin. F (p. 461) has‬السيد ‪small cross and wrote the corrected form,‬‬ ‫‪ً (the‬‬

‫‪ is omitted).‬السيد ‪word‬‬

‫‪253‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫والمتفكر‬

‫‪318‬‬

‫في قلبه بالرديء للخادم يكون مرذول وكذلك ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥١‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣٠٥‬إن‬

‫تكلم الخادم المريض كلام صعب أو بغيض‪.‬‬

‫‪319‬‬

‫‪ .٣٨‬جميع الشعوب ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٥‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣١٦‬رجل كان أو امرأة صغيرا كان أو كبيرا‬

‫‪320‬‬

‫لا يأكل شيئًا سرقة‪ 321‬ولا‪ 322‬عود بقل ولا عود لبسان ولا خبز ولا غيره‪ 323‬إلا مع الإخوة ومن‬ ‫فعل غير ذلك كان غير مضيء‬ ‫في صحتهم‬

‫‪326‬‬

‫‪324‬‬

‫أيضا ماء سرقة‬ ‫قدام الله ولا يشرب ً‬

‫‪325‬‬

‫ولا في برد ولا في حر ولا ضرورة ولا غير ذلك‬

‫المتقدمين أن يكون الأكل دفعة‬ ‫‪ .٣٩‬كل واحد ممن يلبس‬

‫‪329‬‬

‫‪328‬‬

‫‪327‬‬

‫لا في مرضهم ولا‬

‫مكتوب في ناموس الآباء‬

‫واحدة في اليوم‪.‬‬

‫الإسكيم فلا‬

‫‪330‬‬

‫يمش من موضع إلى موضع‬

‫‪331‬‬

‫وهذه طريقة‬

‫‪333‬‬ ‫الرعاية‪ 332‬كذلك قال الأب أنطونيوس لا تنتقل من مكان إلى مكان‬ ‫سريعا بل الرهبنة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الحقانية‪ 334‬أن يثبت كل واحد في الموضع الذي يسكن فيه ويلزم الصبر في موضعه ويثبت‬

‫ولا ينتقل ويقاتل ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥١‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٦‬أركنة‬ ‫الأدب‬

‫‪336‬‬

‫الذين ينتقلوا من موضع إلى موضع‬

‫‪337‬‬

‫‪335‬‬

‫الشياطين ولا تتشبهوا أنتم بالقليلي‬

‫مقارنة الراهب واتفاقها‬

‫‪338‬‬

‫على عبادة الله‪.‬‬

‫‪339‬‬

‫‪.‬والذي يتفكر ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪318‬‬

‫‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬وكذلك إن تكلم الخادم المريض كلام صعب أو بغيض ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪319‬‬

‫‪.‬كما أن الخادم إذا تفوه بكلام صعب أو بغيض للمريض يكون مرذو ًلا‬ ‫‪320‬‬ ‫كبيرا رج ًلا أو امرأة ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬ ‫صغيرا كان أو‬ ‫‪.‬أي واحد من الإخوة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪321‬‬ ‫‪.‬مسرو ًقا ‪. F (p. 462) has‬شرقة ‪M41, f. 151ba (= p. 305). S185 (f. 225a; = p. 316) has‬‬ ‫‪.‬ولا حتى ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪322‬‬

‫‪.‬أو خبز ‪, F (p. 462) has‬ولا عود لبسان ولا خبز ولا غيره ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪323‬‬

‫مظلما ‪, F (p. 462) has‬كان غير مضيء ‪In place of‬‬ ‫‪.‬يكون‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ولا يشرب أحد شيئًا ‪. F (p. 462) has‬شرقة ‪M41, f. 151a (= p. 305). S185 (f. 225a; = p. 316) has‬‬

‫‪324‬‬ ‫‪325‬‬

‫ً‬ ‫‪.‬مسروق‬ ‫لا في مرضه ولا ‪. F (p. 462) has‬صحهم ‪M41, f. 151a (= p. 305). S185 (f. 225a; = p. 316) has‬‬

‫‪326‬‬

‫‪.‬في صحته‬ ‫‪.‬ولا لأي ضرورة ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪327‬‬

‫‪.‬مرة ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪328‬‬

‫‪.‬وذلك بالنسبة لكل من يلبس ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪329‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا ‪M41 (f. 151a; = p. 305) has‬‬

‫‪330‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا ينتقل أحد من موضع إلى آخر ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪331‬‬

‫‪.‬وهذه طريقة الرعاية ‪F (p. 462) omits‬‬

‫‪332‬‬

‫‪.‬آخر ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪333‬‬

‫‪.‬الحقيقية هي ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪334‬‬

‫‪.‬أراخنة ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪335‬‬

‫‪.‬بغير المؤدبين ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪336‬‬

‫‪.‬آخر ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪337‬‬

‫‪.‬واتفاقه ‪Read:‬‬

‫‪338‬‬

‫حيث أن ذلك لا ‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬مقارنة الراهب واتفاقها على عبادة الله ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪339‬‬

‫‪.‬يتفق مع عبادة الله‬

‫‪254‬‬

‫‪S. DAVIS‬‬

‫‪ .٤٠‬ولا يقاوم أحد‬

‫‪340‬‬

‫صاحبه في شيء من الأشياء‬

‫علماني ولا هو جايز أن يقبلوا‬ ‫مجمعهم بل يجعلوهم‬

‫‪344‬‬

‫‪343‬‬

‫‪341‬‬

‫يسكن راهب مع‬

‫ليس يجب أن‬

‫‪342‬‬

‫الرهبان العلمانيين ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٥‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣١٧‬في‬

‫خارج عن المجمع ولا يأكلوا خب ًزا قدامهم نعم ولا يشربوا ماء‬

‫‪345‬‬

‫المترهب لا يصل إلى باب الدير جملة‪.‬‬

‫‪346‬‬

‫‪ .٤١‬ولا يكلم أحدً ا من الناس من بعد ضرب الناقوس آخر النهار إلى أن يدق ناقوس سحر ما‬ ‫خلا المنفردين‬

‫‪347‬‬

‫لا تمضي راهبة جملة من النساء إلى باب الدير ولا إلى دير الرجال لا في‬

‫نهار ولا في ليل البتة‪ 348‬ومن مضيت‪ 349‬منهم لتكلم قرابة من غير مشاورة أو راهب إلى مخاطبة‬ ‫قريبته فقد سجسا القلوب التي ترعاهم ]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥٢‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣٠٧‬وخالفا وصية الله إنما‬ ‫يحضر الراهب إلى الدير ليخضع لناموس الرب‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٤٢‬وكذلك يجب علينا أن لا‬

‫‪351‬‬

‫نتكلم معه أو وراه إلا بما يشاء‬

‫‪353‬‬

‫والمكلف لنجاة‬

‫‪355‬‬

‫‪350‬‬

‫نكون قليلي السمع لكبير الدير ولا نقاتله‬

‫‪352‬‬

‫لأنه المختار من الله تعالى لرعية‬

‫‪354‬‬

‫نفوسهم والمجاوب لله‬

‫‪356‬‬

‫ولا نقاومه ولا‬

‫المقيمين في ذلك المكان‬

‫عنهم والذي يهتم‬

‫‪357‬‬

‫بأمورهم وبجميع‬

‫‪.‬أحدا ‪M41 (f. 151b; = p. 306) has‬‬

‫‪340‬‬

‫‪.‬من الأشياء ‪F (p. 462) omits‬‬ ‫‪.‬يجب أ ّلا ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪341‬‬

‫‪358‬‬

‫‪342‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا يجوز أن يقبل ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪343‬‬

‫‪.‬يجعلونهم ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪344‬‬

‫‪ .‬ولا يأكلوا ولا يشربوا قدامهم ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪345‬‬

‫لا يخرج راهب أو ‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬المترهب لا يصل إلى باب الدير جملة ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪346‬‬

‫‪.‬راهبة من باب الدير‬ ‫وبعد أن يضرب ‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬ولا يكلم أحدً ا … ما خلا المنفردين ‪In place of‬‬ ‫‪.‬الناقوس في آخر النهار لا يتحدث الراهب مع أحد حتى يدق ناقوس السحر‬ ‫‪347‬‬

‫لا تذهب أية راهبة ‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬لا تمضي راهبة … ولا في ليل البتة ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪348‬‬

‫‪.‬قط إلى دير رجال‬ ‫‪.‬مضت ‪M41 (f. 151b; = p. 306) has‬‬

‫‪349‬‬

‫‪, F (p. 462) has the following:‬ومن مضيت منهم لتكلم قرابة … لناموس الرب ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪350‬‬

‫وإذا ذهبت راهبة أو راهب لمقابلة الأقرباء بدون مشورة فإنه يسجس قلوب الذين يرعونه ويخالف الوصايا‬ ‫الإلهية فالراهب يجب أن يخضع لناموس الرب في الدير‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬ألا ‪Read‬‬

‫‪351‬‬

‫فعلينا ‪, F (p. 462) has‬وكذلك يجب علينا أن لا نكون قليلي السمع لكبير الدير ولا نقاتله ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪352‬‬

‫‪.‬أن نطيع كبير الدير‬ ‫‪.‬أو من ورائه إلا بما يشاء هو ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪353‬‬

‫‪.‬لرعاية ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪354‬‬

‫‪.‬في هذا المكان وهو مكلف بالاهتمام بنجاة ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪355‬‬

‫‪.‬وسيجاوب الله ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪356‬‬

‫‪.‬وهو المهتم ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪357‬‬

‫‪.‬وكل ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪358‬‬

‫‪255‬‬

‫‪THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE‬‬

‫مصالحهم فلذلك يجب أن لا يعملوا صغيرة ولا كبيرة‬

‫‪359‬‬

‫إلا بمشورته وبخاصة من يريد أن‬

‫يمضي إلى باب الدير ليكلم أحد هناك ]س‪ :١٨٥‬ف ‪٢٢٦‬أ \ ص ‪ [٣١٨‬من الناس‪.‬‬

‫‪360‬‬

‫]الخاتمة[‬ ‫‪ .٤٣‬الراهب يهتم بالتوبة وملازمة الأفكار الإلهية ولا يفكر في الشر ولا يعمل‪ 361‬شيئًا منه ولا‬ ‫يتكلم بشي من كلام البشرية‬

‫‪362‬‬

‫خطاياه ويندم عليها وأن يتفرد‬ ‫عمله‬

‫‪365‬‬

‫ولا يهتم بالخلطة الفارغة‬

‫‪364‬‬

‫‪363‬‬

‫والأفكار الجسدانية بل يذكر‬

‫]م‪ :٤١‬ف ‪١٥٢‬ب \ ص ‪ [٣٠٨‬ويحزن على الشر الذي‬

‫ويجتهد في البعد عن عمل‬

‫‪366‬‬

‫مثله‬

‫‪367‬‬

‫ويبكي على من يعمله‬

‫على خلاص أفكارنا وأجسادنا من جميع ذلك كمثل من‬

‫‪370‬‬

‫‪368‬‬

‫ولا يوبخه ويقوي‬

‫‪369‬‬

‫يريد يدير سفينة في ريح عاصف‬

‫حتى تسلم وتصل إلى الميناء ونلازم المطانيات‪ 371‬قدام الله من أجل التوبة عن ذنوبنا ومن أجل‬ ‫الأنسان‬

‫‪372‬‬

‫الذي يندم من أجلها‬

‫‪373‬‬

‫والرب جل اسمه يعيننا وأياكم‬

‫‪374‬‬

‫على العمل بمرضاته‬

‫‪375‬‬

‫أمين‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .٤٤‬كمل ما جمع باختصار من قوانين الأب القديس أنبا شنوده المشرق بحال الأنبياء القائل‬ ‫إنه ما يتكلم من عنده بل المسيح المتكلم من فمه‪.‬‬

‫‪376‬‬

‫صغيرا ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬ ‫كبيرا أو‬ ‫‪.‬شيئًا‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪.‬وبخاصة من يريد أن يمضي إلى باب الدير ليكلم أحد هناك من الناس و ‪F (p. 462) omits‬‬

‫‪359‬‬ ‫‪360‬‬

‫‪.‬أو يتمم ‪, F (p. 462) has‬ولا يعمل ‪In place of‬‬

‫‪361‬‬

‫‪.‬ولا يتفوه بكلام بشري ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪362‬‬

‫‪.‬بالاختلاط الفارغ بالناس ‪F (p. 462) has‬‬

‫‪363‬‬

‫‪.‬ويختلي ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪364‬‬

‫‪.‬على أعماله الشريرة ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪365‬‬

‫‪.‬عمله ‪M41 (f. 152b; = p. 308) has‬‬

‫‪366‬‬

‫‪.‬في الابتعاد عما يماثلها ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪367‬‬

‫يبكي من أجل من ‪. F (p. 463) has‬من ‪M41, f. 152b (= p. 308). S185, f. 226a (= p. 317) omits‬‬

‫‪368‬‬

‫شرا‬ ‫‪.‬يعمل ً‬

‫‪.‬ويتقوى بالرب الذي يعمل ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪369‬‬

‫‪.‬من هذه كلها وذلك كمن ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪370‬‬

‫‪.‬وعلينا أن نلازم ضرب المطانيات ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪371‬‬

‫‪.‬الإنسان ‪F (p. 463) omits‬‬

‫‪372‬‬

‫‪.‬عليها ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬

‫‪373‬‬

‫‪.‬وياكم ‪M41 (f. 152b; = p. 308) has‬‬

‫‪374‬‬

‫‪.‬بما يرضيه ‪F (p. 463) has‬‬ ‫‪M41 (f. 152b; = p. 308) and F (p. 463) both omit chapter 45.‬‬

‫‪375‬‬ ‫‪376‬‬

256

S. DAVIS

3. CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE: ENGLISH TRANSLATION Key: Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 = S185 Dayr Abū Maqār MS Hom. 41 = M41 Firdaws al-abā’ = F Folio/folia = f./ff. Page/pages = p./pp. Recto = a Verso = b

[Prologue] 1. [S185, f. 217b/p. 301] [M41, f. 140b/p. 284] The canons of the holy father Anbā Shenoute, who composed them for his children, the monks. May his prayers be with us, amen. 2. When he put on the monastic habit, he urged himself toward withdrawal, labor, vigil during the nights, and fasting that has no limit. He would not break his fast until the sun went down, and he would not eat until he was satiated such that he became dried up and his skin clung to his bones. His way of life was modeled on the way of life of Elijah the ascetic in Israel.377 He spoke many 377 Life of Shenoute 10. Coptic text, ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 12; trans. Bell 1983: 45. (ŋįേ ĩıĿʼnġģേ ħĩേ ġŁġേ ƓĩĻĿʼnƟijേ ĩŇġƕƝijേ ĹŁijŅōįĹġേ ĻġĥĥĩķijĵĿĻേ ĩŇġƕijേ Ļġƕേ ĩģĿķേ ƗĩĻŇŋĩേ ġƕŇįijƕേ ĩƟġĻġōőŃįŅijŅേ ƗĩĻƙġĻĻijƓƟേ ĻƗijŅijേ ĩʼnĿƓേ ĻĩĹƙġĻĩƛőŃƙേ ĻƓŃőijŅേ ĩʼnĿƓേ ĻĩĹƙġĻĻįŅŇijġേ ĹĹĿĻേ įŁijേ ŇĿijേĩŃőĿʼn േĵĩേĥġŃേĻĩĹŁġƕĿʼnőĹേĹĹįĻijŁĩേƓġŃĿʼnƙijേĻŇĩŋŃįേƙőŇŁേĿʼnĿƙേĿĻേĻĩĹŁġƕĿʼnőĹേƓġŇĩƕŅijേ ġķķġേĿʼnőijĵേĻĩĹĿʼnƙĹĿʼnŁĩേŇĩƕŇŃĿŋį േƗĩĻĻġijേġŁĩƕŅőĹġേƓőĿʼnijേĿʼnĿƙേġŁĩƕƓġŃേŇőĹijേĩĻĩƕĵġŅേ ĩġƕƓĹġേĩĹġƓőേĿʼnĿƙേŁĩƕģijĿŅേŇįŃƕേĻĩĹŁĩƕŅĵĿŁĿŅേĻġƕŇĩĻıőĻŇേĩįķijġŅേŁijıĩŅģʼnŇįŅേŁijĩĻijőōĿŅേ ĻŇĩŁ‫“ أر؟‬When the holy Apa Shenoute had received the angelic garment which came to him from heaven, he gave himself up to the anchoretic life with many great labours, many nocturnal vigils, and fasts without number. Nor would he eat each day until the sun had set at evening, and then he would not eat his fill; instead, his food was bread and salt. Because of these things, his body was dried up, and his skin was very fine and stuck to his bones. The whole of his life and his intention were like [those of] Elijah the Tishbite, the charioteer of Israel”). Cf. the Arabic text edited by Amélineau (1888: 311):

‫لما سمع ابي انبا شنوده هذا الصوت اسلم نفسه للعبادة بقلب مستبشر وجهاد شديد وسهر كثير وصوم مستمر‬ ‫باحسن نظام ولا يفطر كل يوم الا الى الغروب ولم يكن يشبع نفسه من الطعام تضعف لذلك جسده أيضا ولصق‬ .‫لحمه بعظمه وكان طعامه خبزا وملحا وماء فقط مشبه في جميع أيامه بايليا المراكبي‬ (“When my father Anbā Shenoute heard this voice, he submitted himself to worship [i.e. the monastic life] with a happy heart, strenuous struggle, many vigils, and continuous fasting in the most orderly way. He would not break his fast every day until the setting [of the sun], and he

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

257

discourses, sermons, and commandments to the monks. Despite this fact, he would say: I do not speak a word of my own, except that Christ puts it in my mouth.378 He would pray twelve times during each day and would perform twenty-four prostrations during each prayer. He would not sleep at night at all until the light appeared, apart from becoming a little drowsy. Many times, he would not eat except on Saturdays. [M41, f. 141a/p. 285] During the holy forty days, he would not eat bread except for a little something made from moistened grains, until the bones of his body showed. Weeping was sweet to him like honey and honeycomb, until the corners of his eyes were dredged up from an abundance of weeping.379 would not satiate himself with food. Thus, his body became week and his flesh stuck to his bones. His food was bread, salt, and water alone. Throughout all his days he resembled Elijah the charioteer.”) The beginning of this passage in the Arabic Life of Shenoute diverges from the Bohairic text, to which the Arabic Canons of Shenoute more closely adheres. As a result, it would seem that chapter 2 of the Arabic Canons of Shenoute was translated directly from the Bohairic Coptic version rather than derived from the expanded Arabic Life (at least as it is preserved in the manuscript edited by Amélineau). For an English translation of the Arabic Life, see Wissa 2015. Note, however, that Abba Wissa’s translation, despite being based primarily on Amélineau’s edition, sometimes gravitates to Bell’s rendition of the Bohairic in places where the Arabic diverges from the Coptic text. This is the case at the beginning of this passage (Wissa 2015: 25), where he replaces the first temporal clause in Arabic (“When my father Anbā Shenouda heard this voice…”, Amélineau: 311) with the opening lines from Bell’s translation (“When the holy father St. Shenouda had received the angelic garment which came to him from heaven…”, Bell: 45). 378 Life of Shenoute 11. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 13; Bell 1983: 45 (ĿʼnĿƙേĻġƕƛőŁĩേĻƙġĻĹįƓേ ĻĩĽįĥįŅijŅേ ĻĩĹƙġĻķĿĥĿŅേ ĩʼnĹĩƙേ ĻĩĻŇĿķįേ ĩʼnĿʼnġģേ ĿʼnĿƙേ ġƕŅĩĹĻijേ ĻƙġĻĵġĻőĻേ ĻĻijĹĿʼnĻġōĿŅേ ĻĩĹƙġĻĩŁijŅŇĿķįേ ĩʼnƛĿĵĩŃേ ĿʼnĿƙേ ĩʼnĿijേ ĻƙĿƟേ ĻĩĹŅĿķŅĩķേ ĻĻijŏʼnōįേ ĻŇĩĻijŃőĹijേ ĿʼnĿƙേ ƗĩĻĻġijേ ŇįŃĿʼnേ ĻġƕƛőേĹĹĿŅേƗĩĻŁĩƕŃőƕേĩŇĩĹĹĿĻേĹĩıĻĿʼnƛേĻƗįŇƕേƛĩĹŁijƛĩĿʼnŅġƛijേĩģĿķേƙijŇĿŇേĹĹġʼnġŇേĹŁĩŁ‫رع‬േ ŇįijƕേĩƗĿʼnĻേĩŃőij “He would deliver many expositions and discourses full of holy precepts; he established rules for the monks and [wrote] salty letters, and brought both fear and comfort to the souls of men. And of everything which came from his mouth (in which there was no guile), he said: ‘No word that I utter comes from myself alone; there is none which Christ does not deliver me’.”). Cf. the Arabic text edited by Amélineau (1888: 311–312, trans. Wissa 2015: 27), which differs from the Bohairic: ‫ومعلوم ان ابي الطاهر انبا شنوده قد وضع تعاليم كثيرة مملوة من الكلام المحي ووصايا مقدسة ووضع قوانين‬ ‫لاولاده الرهبان ولغير أولاده من سائر الرهبان القديسين وعلى الجملة كان يقول بفاه الطاهر الذي لا كذب فيه‬ .‫اني لم انطق بكلمة واحدة من تلقا نفسه سوا ما قاله الروح القدس على فمي‬ (“It is known that my pure father, Anbā Shenoute, presented many teachings full of live-giving speech and holy commandments, and he presented canons to his children the monks and to those who were not his children among the rest of the holy monks. In short, with his pure mouth (in which there was no falsehood), he would say, ‘I have not uttered a single word of my own accord, apart from whatever the Holy Spirit has said through my mouth.’”) The Arabic Life again diverges from the Bohairic version, and the Canons of Shenoute seems to bear a much closer relationship to the Bohairic Coptic text. 379 Cf. Life of Shenoute 12. Leipoldt and Crum: 13–14; Bell: 45–46 (ĻġƕƓķįķേĥġŃേĻ‫͑؟‬േĻŅĿŁേ ĹŁijĩƙĿĿʼnേĩƕƟേĻ‫ؓء‬േĹĹĩŇġĻĿijġേĵġŇġŅĿŁ േƗĩĻŁijĩƛőŃƙേħĩേĹŁġƕĻĵĿŇേĩŁŇįŃƕേƓġŇĩŁijĿʼnőijĻijേƓġij േ ĹĩĻĩĻŅőŅേ ĻŇĩƕƝijേ ĻĿʼnĵĿʼnƛijേ ĻŅŃĿĹേ ĩıģĩŁijŅőĹġേ ƛĩĻĻĩƕĹĿʼnĻĵേ ĻōőķĩĹ േ ĿʼnĹįƓേ ĥġŃേ ĻŅĿŁേ ĹŁġƕĿʼnőĹേ ijŅƛĩĻŁŅġģģġŇĿĻേ ƓġŁŅġģģġŇĿĻ േ ĿʼnĿƙേ ĿĻേ ƓġƕĩŃŁijͧേ ĻĩƙĿĿʼnേ ĻŇĩŁijŁġŅōġേ ĩıĿʼnġģേ

258

S. DAVIS

[Part One: Teaching on the Two Ways] 3. He would teach his children and say that there are two ways of life [and that] they are in fact one [and the same]. They are as follows: [S185, f. 218a/p. 302] You should love the Lord your God with all your heart, and you should love your neighbor as yourself.380 The thing you desire not to be done to you, you should not do to anyone else. Do not murder. Do not fornicate.381 Do not defile the womb of a pregnant woman. Do not kill a fetus. Do not covet something belonging to your friend. Do not testify falsely.382 Do not speak evil of any person. Let your word not be lying or untrue.383 Do not be double-hearted at ĻġıĿʼnĩĹőijĵ േġķķġേŇĩƕŇŃĿŋįേĿʼnĿʼnĿƟേĻĿʼnőĹŇĩേĻĩĹĿʼnƓģijĻേĩŇƙĿŃŁേƙőŅħĩേŁġijŃįƟേĻŇĩŇĩƕŅġŃĽേ ĹĿʼnĻĵേĩŃĿƕേĩĹġƓőേĿʼnĿƙേġŁijŃijĹijേƓőŁijേĩƕƙĿķƛേĻġƙŃġƕേĹŋŃįƟേĻĿʼnĩģijőേƙőŅŇĩേĿʼnĻേĻŇĩĻĩƕģġķേ ƓőĵേĩŁĩŅįŇേĹŋŃįƟേĻƙġĻōĿķേĻŇĩƙġĻƛĿijേĿʼnĿƙേĻŅĩƓőŁijേĻōġĹĩേĩĹġƓőേĩıģĩŁijƙĿʼnĿേƓĿʼnĿേĩŁĩŅįŇേ ĻŇĩĻijĩŃĹĿőĿʼnijേĻġijേĩŇƗġŇേĻĻġʼnേĻijģĩĻേƗĩĻĻĩƕģġķേĹŋŃįƟേĻĿʼnĹőĿʼn “… he would pray twelve times a day, making twenty-four prostrations (metanoia, “[acts of] repentance”) each time. At night he would not sleep at all until day-break; afterwards, for the sake of his body, he would sleep just a little so that it would not perish [too] quickly. There were many times when he did not eat from Saturday to Saturday, and again, for the forty days of holy easter, he would not eat bread; his food instead was edible vegetables and moistened grain, and as a result of this, there was hardly any flesh upon him. Tears to him were sweet as honey, so that his eyes were deeply sunken, like holes in walls, and because of the great flow of tears continually streaming from his eyes like water, they had become very black.”) Cf. the Arabic text edited by Amélineau (1888: 314–315): ‫وكان يصلي اثنى عشر صلاة ويضرب في كل صلاة أربعة وعشرون مطانوه في كل حين وكان لا ينام الليل‬ ‫البتة الا وقت الصباح يجيه نعاس قليل ودفوع كثيرة لا يأكل الا من السبت الى السبت الثاني وكان يصوم‬ ‫ ذبل[ جسده وكان يستلذ‬:‫الأربيعين يوم المقدسة لا يأكل خبزا سوى بقل وحبوب وان عظمه رق وددبل ]لازم‬ ‫بالبكا وصار عنده حلوا كالعسل والشهد حتى ان عينه غاصت وتفجرت كمثل جدول من كثرة الدموع الغزيرة‬ .‫الجارية من عينيه‬ (“He would pray twelve prayers and make twenty-four prostrations (maṭānūh, ‘[acts of] repentance’) each time. At night he would not sleep at all except at morning time. A little drowsiness would come to him, and many times he would not eat except [once] from one Saturday to the next. He would fast for the forty holy days. He would not eat bread/nourishment apart from legumes and grains. His bone(s) became thin and his body dried up. He used to take pleasure in weeping: it became for him like honey and honeycomb, such that his eyes became sunken and gushed forth like a stream from [his] many, copious tears that flowed from his eyes” [my translation; cf. Abba Wissa, 29]). The Arabic Life here bears a close relationship to the Bohairic text, and the wording in the Arabic Canons of Shenoute accordingly corresponds fairly closely to both versions. This accounting of prayers and prostrations in the Life of Shenoute diverges somewhat from the evidence gleaned from Shenoute’s Canons, where the structure of the divine office is described in terms of “six rounds” of prayer (repeated in three, four, or five cycles): see Layton 2014: 70–72, 156–157 (Rules 166–168); Zanetti 2014: 176–180; and Zanetti 2016. 380 Luke 10:27; cf. Matthew 22:37, 39; Mark 12:30–31. 381 Exodus 20:13–14; cf. Matthew 19:18. 382 Cf. Exodus 20:17, 16; cf. Matthew 19:18. 383 For a similar admonition against fornication, defilement, lying, and other sins in the writings of Shenoute, see Canons, Book 4: BZ 23–24, ed. Leipoldt III: 3.126; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 138–139 (#124): ĿʼnĿijേ ĻĿʼnĿĻേ ĻijĹേ ƙŃġijേ ĻƙįŇĻേ ĩŇĻġĩijŃĩേ ĻƙĩĻŁĿŃĻĩijġേ ĹĻƙĩĻƛőƙĹേ ĹĻƙĩĻŅőőƕേ ĹĻƙĩĻƛijĿʼnĩേ ĹĻƙĩĻƝĿķേ ĹĻƙĩĻĹĻŇġŇŅőŇĹേ ĹĻƙőģേ ĻijĹേ ĹŁĿĻįŃĿĻ (“Woe to all

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

259

all in any of your thoughts. Do not take the wages of the laborer.384 Do not exalt your heart. Do not speak vile word. Do not hate any [M41, f. 141b/p. 286] person.385 4. If someone has fallen into sin, censure him on your own.386 Pray for him and guide them (sic) as if he were your own soul. Flee from all evil. Do not be angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not be envious, nor censorious, nor disputatious, for this gives birth to murder. Do not leer with longing, for desire leads to sexual immorality. Do not speak an untrue word. Do not be immodest of eye, for in this way there is false testimony. Do not take up with auspices and auguries: this leads to sexual immorality and the worship of idols. Do not be a magician or an enchanter, and do not associate with them, for these cause a person to become distant from God. Do not be a liar, for indeed lying is the door to murder. [S185, f. 218b/p. 303] Do not be a lover of money, for it leads to unbelief. May your heart not become small. Do not think about [M41, f. 142a/p. 287] evil.387 among us who do deeds of fornication, pollution, defilement, theft, lying, disobedience and any evil deed”). 384 Cf. Leviticus 19:13. 385 Chapter 3 corresponds to Didache 1.1–2 and 2.2–7a, ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 344–347 (Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί… Ἡ μὲν οὖν ὀδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὓτη· πρῶτον, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε· δεύτερον, τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν· πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσης μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει… Οὐ φονεύεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις, οὐ πορνεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ μαγεύσεις, οὐ φαρμακεύσις, οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὰ τοῦ πλησίον· οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, οὐ κακολογήσεις, οὐ μνησικακήσεις. οὐκ ἔσῃ διγνώμων οὐδὲ δίγλωσσος, παγὶς γὰρ θανάτου ἡ διγλωσσία. οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει. οὐκ ἔσῃ πλεονέκτης οὐδὲ ἅρπαξ οὐδὲ ὑποκριτὴς οὐδὲ κακοήθης οὐδὲ ὑπερήφανος· οὐ λἠψῃ βουγὴν πονηρὰν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον… “There are two ways… Now this is the way of life: First, you shall love God, who made you. Second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself; but whatever you do not wish to happen to you, do not do to another… You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt children; you shall not be sexually immoral; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. You shall not covet your neighbor’s possessions; you shall not commit perjury; you shall not give false testimony; you shall not speak evil; you shall not hold a grudge. You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, for the double tongue is a deadly snare. Your word must not be false or meaningless, but confirmed by action. You shall not be greedy or avaricious, or a hypocrite or malicious or arrogant. You shall not hatch evil plots against your neighbor. You shall not hate anyone…”). The Didache was translated into Coptic, which was probably the version from which this Arabic text was translated. See above n. 23. 386 Matthew 18:15. 387 Chapter 4 corresponds to Didache 2.7b–3.6: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 346–349 (… ἀλλὰ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. Τέκνον μου, φεῦγε ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ παντὸς ὁμοίου αὐτοῦ. μὴ γίνου ὀργίλος, ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον· μηδὲ ζηλωτὴς μηδὲ ἐριστικὸς μηδὲ θυμικός, ἐκ γὰρ τοῦτων ἁπάντων φόνοι γεννῶνται. τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου ἐπιθυμητής, ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐπιθυμία πρὸς τὴν πορνείαν· μηδὲ αἰσχρολόγος μηδὲ ὑψηλόφθαλμος, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων μοιχεῖαι γεννῶνται.

260

S. DAVIS

5. Be meek, for the meek will inherit the earth,388 [which is] the earth of life. Be possessed of perseverance, innocent of heart, righteous, fearing God at all times, trembling at the word of God. Do not raise yourself up. Do not put your trust in the morrow,389 but walk with the righteous and hold close to the humble. And as for whatever happens to you, accept it, whether you think it is evil or good. Recite the blessed word by night and by day. Remember the word of God. Inquire after the way of the saints and be gladdened by their speech. Do not cause a division for anyone but gather together those who are divided through [your] reconciliation and integrity. Judge with truth and do not chide anyone [in an excessively harsh way] for their sin. Do not stretch out your hand to receive, while holding back from giving.390 τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου οἰωνοσκόπος, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν εἰδωλολατρίαν· μηδὲ ἐπαοιδὸς μηδὲ μαθηματικὸς μηδὲ περικαθαίρων μηδὲ θέλε αὐτὰ βλέπειν, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων εἰδωλολατρία γεννᾶται. τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου ψεύστης, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ τὸ ψεῦσμα εἰς τὴν κλοπήν· μηδὲ φιλάργυρος μηδὲ κενόδοξος, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων κλοπαὶ γεννῶνται. τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου γόγγυσος, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασφημίαν μηδὲ αὐθάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι γεννῶνται “… instead you shall reprove some, and pray for some, and some you shall love more than your own life. My child, flee from evil of every kind and from everything resembling it. Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not be jealous or quarrelsome or hot-tempered, for all these things breed murders. My child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to sexual immorality. Do not be foulmouthed or let your eyes roam, for all these things breed adultery. My child, do not be an augur, since it leads to idolatry. Do not be an enchanter or an astrologer or a magician, or even desire to see them, for all these things breed idolatry. My child, do not be a liar, since lying leads to theft. Do not be avaricious or conceited, for all these things breed thefts. My child, do not be a grumbler, since it leads to blasphemy. Do not be arrogant or evil-minded, for all these things breed blasphemies.”). 388 Matthew 5:5. 389 Matthew 6:34. 390 Chapter 5 corresponds to Didache 3.7–4.5: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 348–351 (Ἴσθι δὲ πραΰς, ἐπεὶ οἱ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν. γίνου μακρόθυμος καὶ ἐλεήμων καὶ ἄκακος καὶ ἡσύχιος καὶ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τρέμων τοὺς λόγους διὰ παντός οὓς ἤκουσας. οὐχ ὑψώσεις σεαυτὸν οὐδὲ δώσεις τῇ ψηχῇ σου θράσος, οὐ κολληθήσεται ἡ ψηχή σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ δικαίων καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀναστραφήσῃ. τὰ συμβαίωοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ὡς ἀγαθὰ προσδέξῃ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄτερ θεοῦ οὐδὲν γίνεται. Τέκνον μου, τοῦ λαλοῦντὸς σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ μνησθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον· ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν. ἐκζητήσεις δὲ ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἵνα ἐπαναπαῇς τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν. οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσμα, εἰρηνεύσεις δὲ μαχομένους. κρινεῖς δικαίως, οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν. οὐ διψυχήσεις, πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ. Μὴ γίνου πρὸς μὲν τὸ λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας, πρὸς τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν “Instead, be humble for the humble shall inherit the earth. Be patient and merciful and innocent and quiet and good, and revere always the words that you have heard. Do not exalt yourself or permit your soul to become arrogant. Your soul shall not associate with the lofty, but live with the righteous and the humble. Accept as good the things that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God. My child, remember night and day the one who preaches God’s word to you, and honor him as though he were the Lord. For wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is. Moreover, you shall seek out daily the presence of the saints, so that you may find support in their words. You shall not cause division, but shall make peace between those who quarrel. You shall judge righteously; you shall not show partiality when reproving transgressions. You shall not waver with regard to your decisions. Do not be the one who stretches out the hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving.”).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

261

6. Give to the poor to erase your sin. Do not be of two hearts, if you have made a payment. Do not complain when paying, if you have been merciful. Know then that God [M41, f. 142b/p. 288] will give you the good wage. Do not turn your face away from a beggar, in accordance with your ability. Bless everyone who stands in need of your help, for if you share in the mortal world that passes away, you will have a share in the everlasting hereafter.391 7. This is the way of death: that which is deceitful, lethal, [S185, f. 219a/ p. 304] and rapacious, and whatever resembles these things.392 [Part Two: Wisdom Teachings] 8. Abū Shenoute commanded his children to love strangers, not to go out from their monasteries until death, to love the brothers and have mercy on poor people and strangers, and to welcome everyone on account of God’s love, so that the angels might find shelter among them.393 391 Chapter 6 corresponds to Didache 4.6–8: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 350–351 (ἐὰν ἔχῃς διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου, δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου. οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις· γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης. οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς θνητοῖς “If you earn something by working with your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, nor shall you grumble when giving, for you will know who is the good paymaster of the reward. You shall not turn away from someone in need, but shall share everything with your brother or sister, and do not claim that anything is your own. For if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more so in perishable things!”). At the end of this chapter, F (p. 457) has the following: “If you share with others (al-ākharīn) in the mortal world that passes away, you will have a share with the righteous (al-abrār) in the everlasting hereafter.” 392 Chapter 7 corresponds to Didache 5.1: ed. and trans. Holmes 2007: 352–353 (Ἡ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη· πρῶτον πάντων πονηρά ἑστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή· φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, ἐπιθυμίαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, εἰδωλολατρίαι, μαγεῖαι, φαρμακίαι, ἁρπαγαί, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, διπλοκαρδία, δόλος, ὑπερηφανία, κακία, αὐθάδεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολογία, ζηλοτυπία, θρασύτης, ὕψος, ἀλαζονεία “But the way of death is this: first of all, it is evil and completely cursed; murders, adulteries, lusts, sexual immoralities, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, pride, malice, stubbornness, greed, abusive language, jealousy, audacity, arrogance, boastfulness.”). 393 Life of Shenoute 180. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 74; Bell 1983: 90 (ġĻġʼnേĹŁĩŃōőേĻŅőŇĩĻേ ĻĻijĿʼnġƙŅġƙĻijേĩŇġijŇŅġģőŇĩĻേĩŃőĿʼnേĩģĿķേƙijŇĩĻŁƝŅേƢļĬŊļĤĶňłľƢļĬŊľĤIJŊƢļĬŊņĬƘĬņĤńĤľŊĤľ ľľĶƜIJĸĶľĬļľĶƖĬļļŔłŌേĻġijേĹŁĩĻıŃĿʼnĹĿʼnĻĵേĩģĿķേƗĩĻĻijĹĿĻġŅŇįŃijĿĻേĩıĿʼnġģേƓĩŁĿʼnĿĻേĻijģĩĻേ ĩŃőŇĩĻേĩıģĩŇġĥġŁįേĹŁ‫رع‬േƙijĻġേĻŇĿʼnijേƙőĿʼnേľƞĬľĶĤĨĨĬĺłňľŊĬŎƢľňĬƞŔĶĺĶĬņŔŊĬľ, “See that you do not neglect the ordinances which I taught you from the Lord: brotherly love, mercy, hospitality to the needy and to strangers. As for these, do not let them leave the holy monasteries; accept them one and all for the love of Christ, so that the angels of God may also come to you and dwell with you.”) Here, I have highlighted the relevant sections in bold, and I have modified Bell’s translation slightly by providing a corrected translation of the italicized phrase. Bell translates it as “Do not let these come to an end in the holy monasteries,” interpreting the third-person plural pronoun suffix in Coptic (Ŀʼn) as referring to the “ordinances” that Shenoute taught. Instead, it should be taken as a reference to “the needy” and the “strangers” who should be received with hospitality in the monasteries.

262

S. DAVIS

9. He also said, Contemplation is half of worship, and hunger is worship in total.394 The person who is the closest to God is the one who contemplates the good and who hungers. As some of the teachers have said: If the stomach is full, [M41, f. 143a/p. 289] thoughts arise, wisdom is silenced, and the [bodily] members spurn worship.395 10. He said: There is bread of barley, water, and sleep on many dung heaps for whoever wants to dwell in paradise.396 Consider the path: the intellect, the contentment, the mystery of the [divine] dispensation. The fruit of knowledge

The Arabic text edited by Amélineau (1888: 471), reads as follows: ‫ثم قال احفظوا وصاياي الذي اوصيتكم بها ولا ترفضوا تعليمي فبقوة الاله اعبروا السور وحبوا الأخوة واعطوا‬ ‫الصدقات للمساكين والغربا ولا تقطعوهم من أديرتنا المقدسة اقبلوا كل احد لاجل المحبة الإلهية لتاتي اليكم‬ ‫ملائكة الرب‬ (“Then he said: Keep my commandments, which I commanded you [to do]. Do not reject my teaching, and by the power of God, cross over the wall. Love the brothers. Give alms to the poor and strangers. Do not cut them off from the holy monasteries. Receive everyone with divine love, so that the angels of the Lord may come to you” [my translation; cf. Wissa 2015: 197]). Again, I have highlighted the relevant sections in bold. Here, the Arabic Canons of Shenoute seems to make a selective translation from the Coptic and/or the Arabic. 394 For a similar gnomic teaching, see Abū Ṭāhir Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā (d. 1349 CE), Qanāṭir al-khayrāt, 400: ‫ التفكر نصف العبادة والجوع العبادة‬:‫وروي عن النبي … أنه قال‬ (“It was narrated about the prophet … that he said: Contemplation is half of worship, and hunger is worship.”). On this early fourteenth-century author from Jabal Nafusa in northwest Libya, see Hoffman 2012: 22–23. Variant versions of this prophetic saying also circulated in other sources, such as Abū-l-Fayḍ Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Itḥāf al-sādah al-muttaqīn, 9. ‫ ال ف ك ر ن ص ف ال ع ب ادة وق ل ة ال ط ع ام ه ي ال ع ب ادة‬:…‫ق ال ال ن ب ي‬ (“The prophet said… Contemplation is half of worship, and the lack of nourishment is worship.”). The author al-Zabīdi (1732–1791 CE) was born in northwest India, but his travels led him to Cairo, where he established residence for the final four decades of his life, and his work Itḥāf was a commentary on al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn (Brockelmann, “Muḥammad Murtaḍā”). 395 This teaching is attributed to Luqmān the Wise (Luqmān al-ḥakīm) in a work by the eleventh-century author Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī, Kitāb al-Bayāḍ wa-l-Sawād § 316, 149; see also Muḥammad al-Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍāwī, Mawsū‘at hikam wa mawā‘iẓ, 622. ‫ يا بني إذا امتلأت المعدة نامت الفكرة وخرست الحكمة وقعدت الأعضاء عن العبادة‬:‫قال لقمان لابنه‬ (“Luqmān the Wise said to his son, O son, if the stomach has become full, [contemplative] thought goes to sleep, wisdom is silenced, and the [bodily] members spurn worship.”) 396 The beginning of chapter 10 resembles material found in Islamic tafsīr tradition, especially related to commentary on Sūrah 101 in the Qur’ān: see, for example, the similar phrasing of a saying attributed to Jesus in the commentary written by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (ca. 1445–1505 CE), al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 8 (Dār aḥyā’ al-turāth al‘arabī), 554; see also al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 15 (Markaz hajr li-l-buḥūth wa-l-dirāsāt al-‘arabiyyah wa-l-islāmiyyah), 614.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

263

is wisdom. The goodness of the [divine] dispensation is the fulfillment of all knowledge. The stored-up treasures are from the sayings of the righteous ones. When you have such knowledge, remember God’s gaze on you. When you are still, remember God’s knowledge of you. When you speak, remember God’s [act of] hearing you.397 11. Be economical with your hours: let them not get away from you through inattention. With regard to your religion, do not sell it for a reduced price. With regard to your word, do not speak about things that are not helpful to you. Renounce the world [S185, f. 219b/p. 305] for the hereafter, [renounce] people for the sake of blamelessness, and [renounce] your soul when it does not assist you in obedience, the fear of God, and thanksgiving. The most excellent [M41, f. 143b/p. 290] obedience is fear [of God], hope, and thanksgiving. The root of disobedience is pride, anger, and envy. 12. If you are aimless (hā’iman) during the day and sleep (nā’iman) during the night, when will you arise? When will you arise, standing (qā’iman), before the one who commands you? If you are in a clamor (jalabatan) during the day and [sleep like] a plank (khashabatan) during the night, when will you arise to ascend the steep path (‘aqabatan). You should obtain heavenly grace by doing noble things (al-makārim), by avoiding forbidden things (al-maḥārim), and being patient regarding losses (al-maghārim).398 As for the one who has ‫ بحق أقول لكم لأكل خبز الشعير وشرب ماء القراح والنوم على المزابل مع الكلاب كثير مع‬:‫فقال عيسى‬ .‫عافية الدنيا والآخرة‬ (“Jesus said, Truly I say to you, with regard to eating barley bread, drinking pure water, and sleeping on dung heaps with dogs, it has much to do with the well-being of the world and the hereafter.”) For a variant version of this saying, see also Abū-l-Fayḍ Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Itḥāf al-sādah al-muttaqīn, 554. ‫ لأكل خبز بالملح الجريش ولبس الممسوح والنوم على المزابل كثير مع عافية الدنيا‬:‫فقال المسيح للحواريين‬ .‫والآخرة‬ (“Christ said to his disciples, With regard to eating barley bread with ground salt, drinking pure water, wearing worn clothes, and sleeping on dung heaps with dogs, it has much to do with the well-being of the world and the hereafter.”) 397 The second half of chapter 10 echoes a Ṣūfī source by Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ibn al-Husayn al-Sulamī (937–1021 CE), Ṭabaqāt al-sūfiyyah, 90. .‫إذا علمت فاذكر نظر الله إليك وإذا تكلمت فاذكر سمع الله إليك وإذا سكنت فاذكر علم الله فيك‬ (“When you have knowledge, remember God’s gaze on you. When you speak, remember God’s [act of] hearing you. When you are still, remember God’s knowledge of you.”) On al-Sulamī, see S. Sh. Kh. Hussaini, “Abū ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān Solamī,” Encyclopedia Iranica 1.3 (1983), 249–250 (a version updated in 2011 is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/ articles/abu-abd-al-rahman-solami-mohammad-b; accessed 19 March 2020). 398 Chapter 12 features three strings of three successive rhymed words: (1) hā’iman (“being aimless”), nā’iman (“sleeping”), and qā’iman (“standing”); (2) jalabatan (“in a clamor”),

264

S. DAVIS

knowledge, may his eyes be [filled] with tears, his tongue with praise and glory, and his heart with fear and hope.399 13. God honored Abraham, because he did not equate anything with God but chose him over everything [else]; Isaac, because he offered his soul to him and it was better than any other [soul]; and Jacob, because he loved worshiping God.400 14. When the divine light enters the heart, it is gladdened. Its mark is the withdrawal from the house of deception: this is [M41, f. 144a/p. 291] the flight to the house of eternity, the preparation for death before death401 by acquiring virtues (al-faḍā’il) and abandoning vices (al-radhā’il), and the renunciation of khashabatan (“like a plank”), and ‘aqabatan (“steep path”); and (3) al-makārim (“noble things”), al-maḥārim (“forbidden things”), and al-maghārim (“losses”). As noted in a footnote to the edition above, the scribe of M41 seems to have mistaken the word ‫( جلبة‬jalabatan, “in a clamor”) for the word ‫( خلية‬khaliyyatan; “carefree”), which interrupts the rhyme scheme but functions as something of a synonym for ‫( هائما‬hā’iman; “aimless”) in the preceding sentence. These rhyming rhetorical flourishes indicate that this chapter was probably composed in Arabic. Indeed, the language resonates with that of a fourteenth-century Ṣūfī work by ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī Shaybānī (ca. 1333/34–1394/95 CE), al-Durrah al-muḍiyyah, 49. …‫إنقاء المحارم واستعمال المكارم واحتمال المغارم واجتناب المآثم‬ (“The purification of forbidden things, the use of noble things, the possibility of unfair fines, the avoidance of misdeeds…”) 399 F (p. 457) has the following: ‫مع امتلاء العينين بالدموع واللسان بالثناء والتمجيد والقلب بمخافة الله والرجاء‬ (“… along with the filling of the eyes with tears, the tongue with commendation and praise, and the heart with the fear of God and hope.”) 400 Chapter 13 shares much in common with material found in Islamic tafsīr tradition, especially related to commentary on Sūrah 37:102–111 in the Qur’ān. See, for example, the similar phrasing in the commentary written by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (ca. 1445–1505 CE), al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 7 (Dār aḥyā’ al-turāth al‘arabī), 94–95; see also al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 7 (Dār al-Fikr), 76. The relevant sentence related to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is indicated in bold: ‫وأخرج ابن أبي شيبة وعبد بن حميد وابن جرير والبيهقي في شعب ال ِإيمان عن عبيد بن عمير رضي الله عنه‬ ‫ لأن‬:‫ لأي شيء يقولون ذلك؟ قال‬،‫ ويعقوب‬،‫ يا رب يقولون يا رب إبراهيم وإسحاق‬:‫ قال موسى عليه السلام‬:‫قال‬ ‫ وأما يعقوب فما‬،‫ وإن إسحاق جاد لي بنفسه فهو على ما سواه أجود‬،‫إبراهيم لم يعدل بي شيئًا إلا اختارني عليه‬ .‫ابتليت ببلاء إلا ازداد بي حسن الظن‬ Jalāl al-Dīn was an Egyptian scholar who was born in Asyūṭ and who was appointed to a position of responsibility at the Mosque of Baybars in Cairo in the year 1486 CE. My thanks to Ramy Nair Marcos for initially identifying this textual correspondence. 401 The language in the initial phrase of chapter 14 closely corresponds to an Islamic ḥadīth attributed to the prophet Muḥammad: see Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-Alūsī (1802–1854 CE), Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, 257. ‫ وما علامة ذلك يا رسول الله؟ فقال الانابة إلى دار الخلود‬.‫إذا دخل النور القلب انشرح وانفسح قبل نزوله‬ ‫ واستشكل ذلك بأن ظاهر الآية ترتب دخول النور على‬.‫والتجافي عن دار الغرور والتأهب للموت قبل نزوله‬ … ‫الانشرح لأنه الاستعداد لقبوله‬

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

265

this [world’s] glory, which is ephemeral (al-zā’il).402 As for worship, it should be obligatory for you, and you should not be changeable with respect to it. 15. Do not hold animosity against whoever hates you or [S185, f. 220a/p. 306] angers you. Do not sin against whomever you love.403 You should endure whoever strikes you, hits you, and oppresses you.404 The brotherhood is only validated by labors, by the approach of their appointed times [i.e. their deaths], and by the repudiation of their hopes. The signs of the lover are silence, self-abasement, lowering of the eyes, shyness, and tears. Sell the surplus of your money. Control the surplus of your tongue.405 16. The purpose of renunciation is to be occupied [first] with the remembrance of God over anything else; [second] with the knowledge that if [God] has given [something] to you it is not possible for anyone to deprive you [of it] and that if he has forbidden you [something] it is not possible for anyone to give [it] to you; and [third] with the abandonment [M41, f. 144b/p. 292] of [any] concern for sustenance, since it has been guaranteed by him [i.e. God] if you have pursued your work for your portion and you have checked your power above and beyond what is necessary.406 (“When the divine light enters the heart, it is gladdened and expands. What is the mark of this, O prophet of God? He said, [One’s] appointment to the house of eternity, escape from the house of deception, and preparation for death before death before its arrival.) It is noteworthy as well that, in the next sentence, the commentator goes on to substitute the word ‫“( الاستعداد‬preparation”) as a synonym for ‫“( التأهب‬preparation”). The first sentence of this hadith is also commented on in ‘Alī Ḥasan ‘Alī, Ibrāhīm al-Qaysī, and Ḥamdī Muḥammad Murād, Mawsū‘at al-aḥādīth, 477 (#1443); Muḥammad al-Amīn ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Uramī al-‘Alawī al-Hararī al-Shāfi‘ī, Tafsīr ḥadā’iq al-rūḥ, vol. 32, 108. 402 This section of chapter 14 resonates with certain themes found in Shenoute, Canons, Book 9 (“God Who Alone Is True”), ed. Leipoldt IV: 82.7–9, where he instructs his readers to “renounce the things belonging to the world” (ĵġĻġŁĵĿŅĹĿŅ), warns again “deceitful deeds” (ĻĩijƙįģʼnĩേĻġŁġŇį), and comments on “the house of gladness” (ŁįijേĹŁĿʼnĻĿƕ) and on “the house of mourning” (Łįijേ ĹŁƙįģĩ). Note, however, that the passage’s rhyming structure (e.g. faḍā’il, “virtues”; radhā’il, “vices”; al-zā’il; “ephemeral”) indicate that it was more likely composed in Arabic or based on an Arabic source. 403 The first two sentences of chapter 15 may derive from an Islamic saying attributed to ‘Alī: see Jūrj Jurdāq, al-Imām ‘Alī, 75. ‫وألا تخيف على من تبغض ولا تأثم في من تحب‬ (“Do not cause the one you hate to fear. Do not sin against whomever you love.”) 404 Cf. Matthew 5:39b; Luke 6:29a. 405 The last two sentences of chapter 15 parallels a teaching found in a work by Abū-l-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhsharī (1075–1144 CE), entitled Rabī‘ al-abrār wa nuṣūṣ al-akhbār, ed. ‘Abd al-Amīr Mihnā, vol. 2 (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-a‘lamī li-l-maṭbū‘āt, 1992), 132. ‫طوبا لمن أمسك الفضل من قوله وأنفق الفضل من ماله‬ (“Blessed is the one who has controlled the surplus of his tongue and sold the surplus of his money.”) 406 Lit. “above and beyond your right.”

266

S. DAVIS

17. The truth of faith is taking refuge in the mercy of God, the necessity of obeying him, and perseverance through his power. If he delays your sustenance and recompense, then increase your requests for forgiveness.407 If grace comes to you, then praise God.408 If an illness afflicts you,409 be powerful in the Lord. The strongest works involve generosity from a lack [of resources], piety in solitude, and a word of truth from whoever fears [God] and is silent.410 18. Pray for whoever has cut you off, give to whoever has forbidden you, and forgive whoever has oppressed you.411 Do not let your anger bring you out of the truth, nor let your contentment [S185, f. 220b/p. 307] bring you to naught.412 407 F (p. 458) has: “then he has stored up (‫[ )أكنز‬the requests of] whoever has requested forgiveness.” 408 The first two sentences of chapter 17 correspond to a ḥadīth attributed to Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn (also known as Abū Ja‘far or al-Bāqir; 677–733 CE), great-great grandson of the prophet Muḥammad and the fifth Shī‘ī imam: see Mu’min ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shablanjī, Nūr al-abṣār, 221; see also ‘Alī Sa‘d ‘Alī Ḥijāzī, Durar min āl bayt khayr al-mursalīn, 457.

‫ يا بني إذا أنعم الله عليك نعمة فقل الحمد لله وإذا أحزنك أمر فقل لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي‬:‫قال لابنه‬ ‫العظيم وإذا أبطأ عليك الرزق فقل أستغفر الله‬ (“He said to his son, O son, If God gives grace to you, say, ‘Praise be to God.’ If he delays your sustenance, say, ‘I ask God for forgiveness.’”) 409 The opening protasis (“if”-clause) in this conditional sentence at the beginning of chapter 17 is used to frame exhortation in Islamic ḥadīth and philosophy: see Abū Sa‘īd Aḥmad al-Kharrāz al-Baghdādī (Aḥmad ibn ‘Isā; ninth century CE), Kitāb al-ṣidq, 36; and Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240 CE), al-Waṣāyā, 156–157. 410 The final sentence in chapter 17 matches almost verbatim a ḥadīth tradition preserved in Abū-l-Qāsim ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibatallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Shāfi‘ī (Ibn ‘Asākir; 1105–1175 CE), Tārīkh madīnat Damashq, 411. ‫ الجود من ق ّلة والورع في خلوة وكلمة الحق عند من يرجى ويخاف‬:‫أشد الأعمال ثلاثة‬ (“The strongest works involve generosity from a lack [of resources], piety in solitude, and a word of truth from whoever is silent and fears [God].”) 411 The first sentence of chapter 18 closely corresponds to an Islamic ḥadīth preserved in the Musnad Aḥmad: Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Shā‘ātī, al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī, 185. ‫صل من قطعك واعط من حرمك واعف لمن ظلمك‬ (“Join ties with whoever has cut you off, give to whoever has forbidden you, and pardon whoever has oppressed you.”) If this context is indicative, the verb ‫“( قطع‬cut off”) may properly be understood in a relational context (i.e. to sever a relationship). It is important to note that in Arabic, the imperative form of the verbs ‫“( ص ّلى‬to pray”) and ‫“( وصل‬to join ties, connect”) look identical when not written with vowel pointing (‫)صل‬. In this case, the Arabic scribe of S185 understood the former rather than the latter: this is indicated by the addition of the preposition ‘alā after the verb (‫)صل على‬. Otherwise, the wording varies only in the final verb (‫اعف‬, “pardon”), but see also ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Ḥifnī, al-Mawsū‘ah al-ṣūfiyyah, 17, which preserves an identical phrasing to what is found in the Canons of Shenoute, with the verb ‫“( اغفر‬forgive”) used instead of ‫“( اعف‬pardon”). The editor of F (p. 458) read the initial imperative verb similarly, as indicated by his addition of the prepositional phrase min ajl after the verb (‫)صل من أجل‬, but he retained the form of the final verb as found in the Islamic ḥadīth tradition (‫)اغفر‬ 412 This teaching accords with an Islamic wisdom tradition preserved in Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abdallah ibn Ḥumayyid Sālimī, Tuḥfat al-a‘yān fī sīrat ahl ‘Umān, vol. 1 (n.p.: n.p., 1913), 143.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

267

Do not take what is not yours. When [something] does not benefit people, then [at least] let it not do them harm. If you have not made them happy, then [at least] do not cause them grief. If you have not praised them, then [at least] do not criticize them.413 19. [M41, f. 145a/p. 293] Gluttony of the heart is bred from an abundance of eating. An abundance of sleep and an abundance of laughter comes from it as well. Whoever does not take account of his speech as one of his deed(s), his sins multiply.414 Whoever teaches without knowledge corrupts more than he provides benefit.415 Whoever pricks up his ears purposely toward governments, his busyness increases.416 The one who has put his trust in God in all things seeks God’s help in all things and seeks forgiveness from God in all things.

‫لا تخرجك غضبك من الحق ولا يدخلك رضاك في الباطل‬ (“Do not let your anger bring you out of the truth, nor let your contentment bring you to naught.”) 413 For a similar teaching in an Islamic ḥadīth collection, see Muḥammad Abū-l-Hudā, Rāḥat al-arwāḥ, 44. ‫إن لم تنفع المرء فلا تضره وإن لم تسره فلا تغمه وإن لم تمدحه فلا تذمه‬ (“If you have not benefitted a person, then [at least] do not harm him. If you have not made them happy, then [at least] do not cause them grief. If you have not praised them, then [at least] you do not rebuke them.”) A variation on the first sentence is also recorded in Muḥammad al-Amīn ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Urmī al-‘Alawī al-Harirī al-Shāfi‘ī, Tafsīr ḥadā’iq al-rūḥ, vol. 10, 247. ‫وما ينفع الناس يتغلب على ما يضرهم‬ (“Whatever benefits people outweighs what harms them.”) 414 This first sentence in chapter 19 closely resembles a teaching found in Islamic ḥadīth collections, see Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad Māzandarānī (ca. 1675/76 CE), Sharḥ usūl al-Kāfī li-l-Māzandarānī: al-ma‘rūf Kitāb al-Kāfī fī-l-usūl wa-l-rawḍah li-thiqat al-Islām Abī Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī ma‘ sharḥ al-Kāfī al-jāmi‘, vol. 8 (Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 2000), 339; and Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, Nuzhat al-afkār fī rawḍ al-aḥādīth wa-l-akhbār (Damascus: Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, 1993), 5. ‫من لم يحسب كلامه من عمله كثرت خطاياه‬ (“Whoever does not take account of his speech as one of his deeds, his sins multiply.”) 415 The second sentence of chapter 19 provides a close match to a ḥadīth reported by Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Husayn (994–1066 CE), al-Jāmi‘ li-shu‘ab al-īmān, 71; see also Ja‘far al-Khalīlī, Mawsū‘at al-‘atabāt al-muqaddasah, 63 (available online at http://www.masaha.org/ book/view/3057-‫المقدسة‬-‫العتبات‬-‫)موسوعة‬. Note that the initial verb differs, the result of a confusion between the ‫“( علم‬teaches”) and ‫“( عمل‬acts”). ‫ومن عمل بغير علم ما يفسد أكثر مما يصلح‬ (“Whoever acts without knowledge corrupts more than he provides benefit.”) 416 The implication here is that “busyness” comes with distraction from putting one’s full trust in God.

268

S. DAVIS

Take care to endure [it] when a neighbor causes you harm: restrain yourself from him.417 20. Father Ephrem the Syrian said, As for whatever you see with respect to the comfort(s) and ornamentation(s) of the world, by means of it remember whatever it has obstructed with respect to the comfort(s) and pleasantries of the hereafter, and thus thanks be to God (may he be exalted). Gregory said, The three powers within us are the causes of righteousness and wickedness: they are thought [i.e. contemplation], anger, and desire. [Part Three: Teachings on Virtues and Vices] 21. [M41, f. 145b/p. 294] Father Abū Shenoute also said to his children: The root of all sins is falsehood. Avoid it and do not think on it. It is the great Satan.418 The root of all good things is the truth. If [S185, f. 221a/p. 308] you have relied on it, do not be disappointed: whoever has relied on it along his entire path, God will strengthen him. 22. Do not think vile thoughts. Do not request any food from the brothers stealthily. Observe those who have discernment when they see someone, content with his sin, stealthily eating something [taken] from the brothers:419 if that 417

In place of the final three sentences, F (p. 458) has the following: ‫ومن جعل أذنيه هدفًا لسماع ما يحكم به على الآخرين يكثر انشغال الإنسان بالله إذا اتقاه في كل شيء‬ .‫واستعان به في كل شيء وافتقر إليه في كل شيء احتمل كل ما يأتي عليك‬

(“Whoever gives his ears cause to hear what he judges others with, that person’s preoccupation with God increases. If he fears him in everything, seeks his assistance in everything, and requires him in everything, then he is able to endure everything that comes upon him.”) 418 For a similar comment on the devil’s role as the cause of sin, see Shenoute, Discourses, Book 8, I Have Been Reading the Holy Gospels (= W56), ed. Leipoldt III: 222.15–16 (ĹġŃĻĹĩŅ ŇĩŁĻĿģĩേĻŇĻƙőĹേĩƛőƕേĹĻŁĩŇĩĻĩĻĩŃƕĩijേĻ9ƙĥ;Ňƕ േŁħijġģĿķĿŅ, “Let us hate sin and trample on it, along with the one who activates it, the devil.”). Leipoldt edits the beginning of the sermon and labels it, De Iudicio finali (#47, 218–224). On this work, see Emmel 2004: 2:651–662, 836–840, 919. In the writings of Shenoute’s successor, Besa, one observes similar turns of phrase in the treatises On Repentance I.1, ed. and trans. Kuhn 1956 I: 9 and II: 9 (ĿʼnŃőĹĩേĩĻ̓ƛĩķġġʼnേ ġĻേͧĹĩേĩŇĩŁŅġŇġĻġŅേŁĩ, “one who speaks nothing of truth, namely Satan”; To Mary, Sister of Matai V.6: ed and trans. Kuhn 1956 I: 66 and II: 64 (ĿʼnŃőĹĩേĩĻ̓ƛĩķġġʼnേġĻേͧĹĩേĩŇĩŁħijġģĿķĿŅേ Łĩ, “one who speaks nothing of truth, namely the devil”); and On Transgressing the Laws of God and the Precepts of the Fathers II.5: ed. and trans. Kuhn 1956 I: 75 and II: 72 (ĿʼnŃőĹĩേ ĩĻ̓ƛĩķġġʼnേġĻേͧĹĩേĩŇĩŁħijġģĿķĿŅേŁĩ, “one who speaks nothing of truth, namely the devil”). I have modified Kuhn’s translations slightly. 419 For a similar teaching in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see Canons, Book 5; XS 6, ed. Amélineau 2: 497; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 150–151 (#151): ġķķġേĿʼnĻĿƝേĻŇĿƕേġʼnőേĿʼnƓijŁĩേ Łĩേ ĩŃƓġĻƙĩĻŃőĹĩേ ƙŃġijേ ĻƙįŇĻേ ŃŁģĿķേ ĻĻŇőƓേ ĩŇĵįേ ĻġĻേ ĩƙŃġijേ ĻŅĩĿʼnőĹേ ĻŅĩŅőേ ĻƛijĿʼnĩേ ĩijŇĩേ ĩʼnƓőĻĩേĩijŇĩേĩġʼnƙijŅĩേƙĻƙĩĻŁĿķijŇĩijġ (“But it is a serious and shameful matter when people among us exceed the ordinances that are laid down for us and eat and drink stealthily, whether they are sick or have labored in ascetic practices.”). Injunctions not to eat or drink, or to give or receive,

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

269

someone requests relief, [observe] how sorrowful they [i.e. those who have discernment] will be, but also how joyful they will be with whoever eats his bread in a way visible to the entire gathering, for no one takes joy from a vile thing except Satan. 23. As for the wise man, if he has observed one who has fallen [into sin], he makes a great effort to bring about his deliverance from that situation, and he tires himself out from his effort until he saves him. So too, when God sees a person in sin, he is not pleased with this, [M41, f. 146a/p. 295] but rather he is pleased with the one who walks on the righteous divine path. 24. O my son, be regulated according to what is in the scriptures, and do not do anything else, for the Spirit who spoke among the prophets is the one who speaks among the righteous unto eternity. The goal of the upright person is just as our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Our Father who is in heaven…”420 Indeed, the goal of the righteous ones is to resemble God in accordance with [their] ability and human nature, for human beings [on their own] are not upright to the utmost extent. [S185, f. 221b/p. 309] So too, we should not sin in general, but even more than that in the case of the one who loves repose.421 25. O brothers, we should make a great effort at fulfilling what the holy scriptures set forth. May a person be reverent, righteous, and not incapable of avoiding vile things. If he does that, then he, like the sun, shines in the kingdom, just as it is [M41, f. 146b/p. 296] written, May he not walk in the paths of wickedness.422 The righteous person grieves me when he walks in it. The Lord has said, Do not love wickedness. Look to the deeds of the saints and their request for goodness with all of their hearts, [that is,] for everyone who falls among them. 26. Do not be proud. Now, as for the saint, if he is proud, he falls in the eyes of the people on account of the haughtiness of his heart and his pride in vainglory. God becomes angry also at his haughtiness of heart and his conceitedness in his wisdom. No one is able to comprehend the mysteries of God that are in the scriptures, unless God illuminates him, or [unless it is] through [God’s] wisdom. He himself is not capable of it. If in that matter he relies on stealthily (ĻƛijĿʼnĩ), secretly (ƙĻĿʼnƙőŁ), or deceitfully (ƙĻĿʼnĵŃĿƕ) are quite common in the rules discourse of Shenoute: see, for example, Rules 12–18, 74, 89–90, 156, 204, 444, 476, 483 (Layton 2014: 94–97, 116–117, 124–125, 152–153, 172–173, 280–284, 296–297, 300–301). 420 Matthew 6:9ff.; Luke 11:2ff. 421 Here, the Arabic word rāḥah (“repose”) may have been used to translate the Greek ἡσυχία (“stillness”). My thanks to Ramez Mikhail for this suggestion. 422 Proverbs 4:14; cf. Psalm 1:1.

270

S. DAVIS

his [own] wisdom, he becomes haughty and falls. Do not say in your soul, I have learned something, for your fall will be great.423 There is no righteous person on earth, nor is there a reverent person in [M41, f. 147a/p. 297] God’s hands who does not have sin, even if he were to reside on earth for [only] one day.424 27. [S185, f. 222a/p. 310] I say to you that everyone who takes pride in what he does and becomes haughty about it has become like the Pharisee and lacks goodness because of his pride. Whoever has killed his own soul with hunger and thirst and has gotten rid of everything he has but does not have love has no share with me. The Lord repudiates and humiliates him. But whoever is humble and acts equitably toward God in all his deeds, [whoever] abases his soul and subjects his affairs to God, [that one] has been deemed worthy that God may illuminate him with the light of his Christ, just like the tax collector.425 For on account of the disciplining of his soul and his humility, and on account of the fact that he has beaten upon his breast and has said, O Lord, I am not worthy to raise my eye[s] to heaven because of the multitude of my sins and transgressions,426 on account of [all] this, he has gone to his house through the divine illuminating lights. 28. Whoever is proud like the Pharisee, thinks that he does good, and proudly raises his eyes to heaven427 [M41, f. 147b/p. 298] becomes shameful like him and squanders his wage, for he walks in his shame and his failure. The righteous person who does good things and takes pride in what he does is despicable before God [even] more than sinners. Yes, and as for the humble person, the one who does a few good things while extolling someone else, with God he will be in a lofty rank and a high position. But the one who is not like him, the one who takes pride in wickedness, [S185, f. 222b/p. 311], the one who slanders upright persons while doing good, in God’s eyes he is more evil than the defiled sinners, on account of his pride. His good deeds are despicable before the Lord. So, acquire humility, for it is the goal of righteousness, and its few good deeds are many in God’s eyes. 29. The one who despises the righteous commits the great sin before the Lord, because they are chosen and exalted before the angelic host. Whoever fears the Lord, does the good, and refrains from thinking about [M41, f. 148a/p. 299] 423

Cf. Matthew 7:27. My thanks to Ramez Mikhail for identifying this possible allusion.

The turn of phrase, ‫“( ولو كان‬even if…”), also occurs in the Coptic Litany for the Departed: see https://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/1834. 425 Luke 18:9–14. 426 Cf. Luke 18:13. 427 Cf. Luke 18:11–12. 424

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

271

evil is honored before the Lord more than the angels. As for those who sin and do not know the Lord Jesus Christ, nor his angels, nor his word, woe is me and woe to every one of them before him. As for those who know the Lord Jesus Christ, but who anger him through deeds of evil and do not do good in general, woe to them, because the Lord loves those who do the good according to their ability, for the holy one says, “Do not be extremely [i.e. overly] righteous.”428 He loves it that the educated person429 does not take pride in his own wisdom, for he is the one who says, “Is there no one who is educated and learned apart from me?” But rather, he loves whoever is humble, does not become exalted or proud, and does not lie. 30. Whoever returns to the word of the learned and those possessed of righteous deeds, those in whom there is no corruption [S185, f. 223a/p. 312] and no lying, these are the ones whom the Lord loves, on account of the righteousness of their hearts, their love for the Lord, their avoidance of doing evil, and their love for the brothers and for all people. The righteous one does not take pride in good deeds, but rather he does them constantly and is humble [M41, f. 148b/ p. 300] like the Lord Jesus Christ, the truly righteous one who was humble unto death – I mean, the death of the cross.430 Indeed, the Lord does not love it when the educated person takes pride in his own wisdom, but rather when he subjects himself, for he alone is the Lord of all education and wisdom. He is the one who says, “There is no one who is educated apart from me.” 31. The Lord said, “Let the people see your good deeds in which there is no corruption and no hypocrisy, so that they glorify God your Father,”431 and not hear from you the word of knowledge, whose foundation is pride. Many people have done many good deeds and then have grown distant from God on account of lying, impurity, theft, a lack of listening, and vile thoughts that they commit along with their good action[s]. There is no sin greater than [that which belongs to] whoever lies. There is no virtue more excellent than [that which belongs to] whoever tells the truth. It is sincerity that establishes a person as upright before the Lord. From crookedness comes wicked corruption, along with theft, murder, sexual immorality (which is just like murder), foul speech, and envy. From the virtues [M41, f. 149a/p. 301] comes love, along with well-being, listening, [S185, f. 223b/p. 313], and compassion. From crookedness comes impure thoughts, arrogance, laziness, lack of listening, lack of education, ignorance,

428

Ecclesiastes 7:16a.

The word ‫ أديب‬in Arabic – translated here and throughout as “educated” – may also mean “disciplined, cultured, polite.” 430 Philippians 2:8. 431 Cf. Matthew 5:16. 429

272

S. DAVIS

anger, and lack of fear [of God]. From the virtues comes the avoidance of every vile action and wicked thoughts, along with all of the law in its entirety, such that not even the smallest thing is omitted. Indeed, whoever does all of the law and yet omits even the smallest thing spoils all of it. 32. I have seen it through the Spirit of God, and I have understood it when they surrounded my spirit and my soul like a pack of dogs and like lions [i.e. beasts of prey] that roar ravenously.432 For I have seen that I have sinned a great deal. Indeed, if a human being does much good and then does a little bit of evil, he becomes separated from that good and grows distant from God afterward due to the little bit of wickedness that he has done. In a time when I was doing much good and said that I had grown close to Christ and had become a friend to him, I became distant from him when I acted in an evil way to some small extent. [M41, f. 149b/p. 302] For this reason, it is necessary that the sinner do what is good without pride and without speaking about it, but rather he should keep it [i.e. his good deed] hidden433 and he should reveal to people his sins about which they are not aware. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ and his angels will exalt him upon his repentance and his return to piety, and especially if he has kept hidden the good he has done. 33. Whoever thinks about [S185, f. 224a/p. 314] wickedness is like someone who does it. If we are wary of wicked thoughts and yet we speak in a wicked way, we have committed all of the sins. Whoever says that he does not have sin has made God into a liar.434 God forbid this to be the case, for God has said on the tongues of his prophets, “There is no righteous person without sin,”435 even if he lives on the earth for [only] one day.436 As for the one who commits fornication, he is the sinner before God, the grumbler, the angry person,437 the one who is prideful of soul, the one who eats people’s flesh through slander.

432 Cf. Psalms 22:13, 16, 20–21 (“They open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion… For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion!” [NRSV]). For an example of similar rhetoric in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see his Canons, Book 4; GI 95.21–31, ed. Wessely 1909: 174 (ƛĿĿŅേŇĩĻĿʼnേőേĻĩŇŃƙĿŇĩേƙįŇƕേĹŁĻĿʼnŇĩ േƛĩĿʼnĿĻേ ĻijĹേ ĩŇĿേ ĻŇĩijĹijĻĩ േ ĹĻĻĩŇŇĻŇőĻേ ĩŃĿĿʼnേ ĩʼnĿേ Ļıĩേ ĹŁĹĿʼnыേ ĹĻŇġŃĽേ ĹĻŁĩħŃġĵőĻ േ ĹĻĻĿʼnĿĿƙĩ േ ĹĻĻĩʼnƙĿĿŃ േ ĹĻĻĩıįŃijĿĻേ ĹĻĻĵĿĿʼnĩേ ŇįŃĿʼnേ ĩıĿĿʼn േ ĩŇĩĻġijേ Ļĩേ ĻĩŃőĿʼn േ ŇįŃĿʼnേ ĻŃĩƕƛijĻƝĿĻŅ— “Now, O ones who fear God, everyone who is of this sort and those resemble them are like the lion, the bear, the dragon, scorpions, dogs, wild beasts, and all other evil things, which are all mouths that do violence…”). 433 Cf. Matthew 6:4. 434 1 John 1:10. 435 Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10. 436 The turn of phrase, ‫“( ولو كان‬even if…”), also occurs in the Coptic Litany for the Departed: see https://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/1834. 437 Lit. “the angry people.”

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

273

He is the one who speaks [ill] [M41, f. 150a/p. 303] about his brother. Everyone who does these things is very despicable before God and his angels. 34. The discerning man is the one in whom there is no corruption: [he is] the person who walks in the truth,438 and who does not become angry, the one who fears God. He is the one who is compassionate, the merciful one who sorrows over whoever commits evil, rejoicing in God and acting piously. He does not slander whoever commits sin but rather weeps over his brother, and especially over whoever commits [acts of] wickedness. That person makes manifest his reverence before God and [other] people, especially when he does not think that God is content with him, but instead thinks that he is a sinner. [Part Four: Teachings on Monastic Practice]439 35. The one who eats, let him eat of the will of God, thanking him. The one who fasts, let him fast with strength from the Lord and let him do this for God publicly, [S185, f. 224b/p. 315] without corruption.440 The sick person who has strength, if he endures, let him endure. The one who is not able to endure, let him petition with fear from God. As for the server of the sick brothers, let him care for them in every place with the fear of God in everything that [M41, f. 150b/p. 304] the archimandrite commands them, and let them do nothing apart from his command.441 36. As for the one who feigns sickness and is not [really] sick, but merely requests things he desires, he is despicable before God (may he be exalted).442 438

Cf. 3 John 4. The chapters in Part Four seem to draw material from Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic, sometimes paraphrasing teachings and other times translating commands almost verbatim (see footnotes below). 440 Cf. Romans 14:6. The second sentence in chapter 35 seems to correspond to a section of Shenoute’s Canons only partially preserved in Coptic: see Canons, Book 5; XS 61, ed. Leipoldt IV: 78.16–17 ([. . .;ĩ9 േ േ േ േ േ േ ;ʼnő9 േ ;ġĻേĩŇ9 േ േ ;ijĿʼnőĹേġĻേ9Ĺ;ŁƛĿĩijŅ േġʼnőേƕƓŁƙĹĿŇേĻŇĹŁĻĿʼnŇĩേ “[As for the one who does] not ea[t… let him] not eat for the Lord, and give thanks to God.”). Given this correspondence, it is likely that the first sentence originally came from the lacuna preceding this partially preserved text. 441 The final three sentences of chapter 35 represent a direct translation from Shenoute’s, Canons in Coptic: see Canons, Book 5; XS 61, ed. Leipoldt IV: 78.18–20 and 79.1; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 150–151 (#153 and 154) (ŁĩŇƓőĻĩേĩĿʼnĻƝĿĹേĹĹĿƕേĩƕijേĹġŃĩƕƕij¨േŁĩŇĩĹĻƝĿĹേħĩേ ĹĹĿƕേ ĩƕijേ ĹġŃĩƕġijŇĩijേ ƙĻĿʼnĹĩേ ĻŇĩŁĻĿʼnŇĩ¨േ ġʼnőേ ĻĩŇħijġĵĿĻĩijേ ĻĻĩŅĻįʼnേ ĩŇƓőĻĩേ ƙġƙŇįĻേ ġʼnőേ ƙġƙŇĻŇįʼnŇĻേĹġŃĿʼnƕijŃĿĿʼnƓേƙĻĿʼnƙĿŇĩേĻŇĩŁĻĿʼnŇĩേƙĻƙőģേĻijĹേĩŇĿʼnĻġĿʼnĩƙŅġƙĻĩേĹĹĿĿʼnേĻġʼnേĩģĿķേ ƙijŇĹŁƙķķĿേ ƙġƙŇįĻേ ġʼnőേ ƙijŇĻ9ıķķőേ ƙġƙŇĻŇįʼnŇĻ; “Whoever is sick, if he can endure let him endure. Whoever cannot endure, let him ask in God’s truth. As for the servers of the siblings who are sick in our (men’s) domain and your (women’s) domain, let them take care in the fear of God in all tasks that they are directed to do by the father superior in our (men’s) domain and by the [mother superior in your (women’s) domain].”). 442 The first sentence in chapter 36 represents a direct translation from Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic: see Canons, Book 5; XS 62, ed. Leipoldt IV: 79.8–10; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 439

274

S. DAVIS

If the sick person craves something, let him request it once or twice submissively and innocently, without corruption, imploring God to avert him from bodily desires, for they are death.443 At that time, [God] will strengthen in them the spiritual thoughts that lead to eternal life. 37. As for the one who is truly sick444 and thankful for everything the server [of the sick] does for him, he is luminous in the hands of Christ the Lord, our Lord.445 As for the server who neglects the sick person [and] who puts off that person’s desires and whatever he requests, he is evil in the hands of Christ the Lord, just like whoever sheds people’s blood.446 So too, the sick person who is deficient in thankfulness and thinks vilely in his heart about the server is despicable.447 The same is the case [M41, f. 151a/p. 305] if the server speaks to the sick person with any harsh or hateful word at all.448 38. All the people, [S185, f. 225a/p. 316] whether a man or a woman, whether a child or an adult, should not eat anything stealthily, neither a legume stem,

152–153 (#156) (ŅĩŅĿƓƕേĻĻġƙŃĻijįŅĿʼnŅേĻƝijĿʼnĿĻേĻijĹേƙŃġijേĻƙįŇĻേĩijŇĩേƙĿĿʼnŇേĩijŇĩേŅƙijĹĩേĩʼnġijŇĩijേ ĻķġġʼnേĻƙĻġġʼnേƙĻĿʼnĹĻŇĻĿʼnƛേƙőŅേĩƓƛĩĩʼnƓőĻĩേĩĻŅĩƓőĻĩേġĻ “Despised in the eyes of Jesus be all among us, whether male or female, who ask for any dish deceitfully as though they were sick, when they are not.”). 443 The second sentence in chapter 36 seems to represent a paraphrastic translation from Shenoute’s Canons in Coptic: see Canons, Book 5; XS 62, ed. Leipoldt IV: 79.17–20; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 152–153 (#158) (ƙĩĻġĥġıĿŅേĻĻġƙŃĹŁĩĻŅőŇįŃേijįŅĿʼnŅേĻĩേĻĩŇġijŇĩijേĻĿʼnŅĿŁേ ġʼnőേ ŅĻġʼnേ ĹŁĩƙĿʼnĿേ ĩĻġijേ ĩŇŃĩʼnĿʼnĿĹƕേ ƙĻĿʼnĹĻŇġŁķĿʼn‫ڦ‬േ ĩĻŅĩƓőĻĩേ ġĻേ ġʼnőേ ĩʼnŅĿŁŅേ ĹŁƛĿĩij‫ڦ‬േ ĩŇŃĩƕƟıĩേĻġʼnേĩŁőŇേĩģĿ‫ژ‬േĻĩŁijı9ʼn;ĹijġേĻijĹേ9േƹേ ƹേ ƹ; “Good in the eyes of our savior Jesus be those who ask, in simplicity, once or twice, to eat more than these without being sick, and who entreat the Lord to give them a way to flee all desires […]”). 444 Lit. “the one who is truly sick in his sickness.” 445 The category and treatment of the “truly sick” (ĩʼnƓőĻĩേĻġĹĩ) is the focus of at least three of the rules preserved in Shenoute’s Canons: see Rules 189, 368, 478 (ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 164–165, 244–245, 298–299). 446 For another example in the Coptic writings of Shenoute where he outlines the responsibilities of the monastic servers who were commissioned to take care of the sick, see Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 326, ed. Leipoldt IV: 56; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 164–165 (#190) (ĻŇġĻĩĻĩijĿŇĩേŅʼnĻōőŃĩijേĻġĻേƙĻŇĩʼnĹĻŇġĥġıĿŅേĩŇŃĩʼnƟേĻġĻേĻƙĩĻĵĿʼnijേĻĿĩijĵേĹŁģĿķേĹŁĹġĻĿʼnőĹ “And the servers in that place (infirmary) shall do appropriately in whichever measure the father superior commands them to administer to each, according to each kind of sickness.”). 447 For a similar teaching in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see Canons, Book 4; BZ 27–28, ed. Leipoldt III: 127.23–25, ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 140–141 (#128) (ġʼnőേĿʼnĻĿƝേĻġĻĿĹijġേ Ňĩേ ĩƙŃġijേ ĩƛĻƙĩĻŃőĹĩേ ĩʼnĿേ ĻŃĩƕĵġŇġŋŃĿĻĩijേ ƙĹŁĩʼnƓőĻĩേ ġʼnőേ ĩʼnŅġƙĿʼnേ ĻĻĩŇħijġĵĿĻĩijേ Ļġʼnേ ĩŇƕijേ ĹŁĩʼnŃĿĿʼnƓ “And there is great lawlessness about people who, in their time of sickness, despise and curse their servers who care for them.”). 448 For a similar teaching in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see Canons, Book 4: BZ 27, ed. Leipoldt III: 127.20–23; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 140–141 (#127) (ŁġķijĻേħĩേĿĻേƟƙĿĹĿķĿĥĩijേ ĻįŇĻേ ƛĩĹĻĵĩĹĻŇġŇĻĿʼnŇĩേ ĩŇŃĩƙĿĩijĻĩേ ŅőƓƕേ ĻƙĩĻŃőĹĩേ ƙĹŁĩʼnƓőĻĩേ ĵġŇġķġġʼnേ ĻŅĹĿŇ “And also, I again confess to you (plur.) that there is nothing more ungodly than for some to scorn people in their time of sickness in any way.”).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

275

nor a radish stem, nor bread, nor anything else, except with the brothers.449 Whoever does something other than this is not luminous before the Lord. Let no one drink water stealthily, neither in their sickness nor their health, neither in cold weather nor in hot weather, neither out of necessity nor for any other reason.450 It is written in the law of the ancient fathers that food should be [eaten] one time a day.451 39. Everyone who wears the habit, let him not walk from one place to another.452 This is the way of keeping attentive. So too, Father Antony said, Do not wander about from place to place quickly. Instead, the true monasticism is such that everyone be established in the place where he dwells. He should persevere in his place and establish himself there. He should not wander about and battle [M41, f. 151b/p. 306] the principalities453 of the demons. Do not imitate those 449 Compare Shenoute, Canons, Book 3; YA 304, ed. Leipoldt IV: 119.9–15; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 116–117 (#74) (ƕŅƙĿʼnĿŃŇേĻƝijĿʼnƙĿĿʼnŇേįേĿʼnŅƙijĹĩേƙŃġijേĻƙįŇĻേĩƕĻġĿʼnĩĹķġġʼnേĻĻĵġേ ĻƛijĿʼnĩേ ĹŁģĿķേ ĹŁĵőŇേ ĩŇĵįേ ĻġĻേ ĩƙŃġijേ ĩijŇĩേ ĿʼnƛijŃേ ĻŇģŇേ ĩƕŁĿŅĩേ ĩijŇĩേ ĿʼnŇġŃijōijĿĻേ įേ ĿʼnŅĿĿʼnƙĩേ įേ ĿʼnƙġķıĹേ įേ ĿʼnŇŃĿʼnġĻേ įേ ĿʼnĩŃőŇĩേ ĩijŇĩേ ĵĩķġġʼnേ ĻƙĻġġʼnേ ĹŁģĿķേ ĹŁĵőŇ “Cursed be any male or female among us who stealthily eats any article outside of the edifying rule that is laid down for us, whether pickled fish, baked fish, garum, egg, halōm-cheese, trouan-cheese, milk, or any other dish outside of the edifying rule”). 450 Compare Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 6, ed. Amélineau 2: 497; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 150–151 (#151) (ġķķġേ ĿʼnĻĿƝേ ĻŇĿƕേ ġʼnőേ ĿʼnƓijŁĩേ Łĩേ ĩŃƓġĻƙĩĻŃőĹĩേ ƙŃġijേ ĻƙįŇĻേ ŃŁģĿķേ ĻĻŇőƓേĩŇĵįേĻġĻേĩƙŃġijേĻŅĩĿʼnőĹേĻŅĩŅőേĻƛijĿʼnĩേĩijŇĩേĩʼnƓőĻĩേĩijŇĩേĩġʼnƙijŅĩേƙĻƙĩĻŁĿķijŇĩijġ “But it is a serious and shameful matter when people among us exceed the ordinances that are laid down for us and eat and drink stealthily, whether they are sick or have labored in ascetic practices.”). 451 For an admonition against eating a second time during the day, see Shenoute, Canons, Book 5; XS 276, ed. Young 1993: 120; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 154–155 (#160) (ĻĻĩķġġʼnേ ĻŃőĹĩേƙŃġijേĻƙįŇĻേĩijŇĩേƙĿĿʼnŇേĩijŇĩേŅƙijĹĩേĿʼnőേĩƕĿʼnőĹേĻƕģőĵേĩŁĹġĻĻŃőĹĩേĩŇƓőĻĩേĻƕĿʼnőĹേ ĹĹġʼnേ ĻĵĩŅĿŁേ įേ ĻŇĿƕേ ĻƕĿʼnőേ ĩƕĿʼnőĹേ ƙĹŁĹġĻĻŃőĹĩേ ĩŇƓőĻĩേ Ļƕģőĵേ ĩŁĹġĻĿʼnőĹേ ĻƕĿʼnőĹേ ĹĹġʼnേ ĻĵĩŅĿŁ “No person among us whether male or female shall finish eating and (then) go to the infirmary and eat there for a second time; or finish eating in the infirmary and (then) go to the refectory and eat there for a second time.”). 452 For a similar teaching in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see Canons, Book 4 (“Why, O Lord”): BZ 24, ed. Leipoldt III: 126.3–14; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 138–139 (#125) (ĿʼnĿijേ ĻĻĩŇĻġĵőേ ĻŅőĿʼnേ ĻŇĩʼnġŃōįേ ġʼnőേ ĻŅĩġŃĻġേ ĻŇĩʼnƙʼnŁĿĹĿĻįേ ĩŇģĩŇĩʼnĹĻŇġŇŅģőേ ĹĻŇĩʼnĹĻŇŅġģĩേ Ĺġʼnġġʼnേ ĩŇŃĩʼnĩijŃĩേ ĻĻĩʼnĿʼnőƓേ ĻƙįŇേ ƙĻĹĹġേ ĩĻŇġʼnģőĵേ ĩŃĿĿʼnേ ĩijŇĩേ ĻĩŇƝĿĿķĩേ ĹŁĩŅōįĹġേ ĻŇĹĻŇĹĿĻġōĿŅേĩʼnĩijŃĩേĻĻĩʼnĿʼnőƓേĻƙįŇേƙĻĹĹġേĩŇĿʼnĻƙįŇĿʼnേĹĻĻŅġŇŃĩʼnģőĵേĩģĿķേƙijŇĿĿŇĻേĩijŇĩേ ĻĩĻŇġʼnĻĿʼnƛĩേ ĩģĿķേ ĹĹĿĿʼnേ ĹŁĩŅōįĹġേ ĻŇĹĻŇĹĿĻġōĿŅേ ĩʼnĩijŃĩേ ĻƙĩĻģĿŇĩേ ĩĻġƓőĿʼnേ ƙĻĹĹġേ ĩĻŇġʼnģőĵേ ĩĹġʼnേĹĻĻŅġŇŃĩʼnģőĵേ ĩģĿķേƙĻĻŅʼnĻġĥőĥįേĹŁƛĿĩijŅ േ ĩʼnŁįŇേĩĹĻŁĩŇŁįŇേĻŅőĿʼn േĩģĿķേ ƛĩġŁĻĿʼnŇĩേŅġƙőƕേĩģĿķേĹĹĿĿʼnേĩŇģĩĻĩʼnƙģįʼnĩേĩıĿĿʼn “Woe to whoever renounce their fundamental principle and also repudiate their endurance because of their ignorance and their self-importance so that they do their heart’s desire wherever they have gone – whether those who are clothed in the uniform [skhēma; “habit”] of monasticism, doing their wishes wherever they are after they have left us, or those who have been expelled from the uniform [skhēma; “habit”] of monasticism doing many abominations wherever they have gone after they have departed from the congregations of the Lord.”). 453 The word used here (arkanāh) is a variant spelling on the plural form arākhinah (sing. arkhun; from the Greek, ἄρχων), meaning “authorities, principalities.” Among the Copts in medieval and early modern Egypt, this word was also used to refer to wealthy and influential laity

276

S. DAVIS

who have little education, who wander about from place to place, in comparison with the monk and his conformity to the worship of God. 40. Let no one argue with his compatriot in any matter. A monk should not dwell with a layperson, nor is it permitted for the monks to receive laypersons [S185, f. 225b/p. 317] in their congregation, but rather they should cause them to be outside of their congregation.454 Let them not eat bread in front of them. Yes, and let them not drink water [in front of them either]. Let the one who has become a monk not approach the gate of the monastery in general. 41. Let [a monk] not speak from the striking of the semantron at the end of the day until the semantron is knocked at dawn, except for the solitaries.455 Let no female monastic in general among the women go to the gate of the monastery,456 or to the monastery of the men, either during the day or at night whatsoever. As for whoever among them who goes to speak with a female relative without consultation,457 or a monk [who does so] for the purpose of conversation with his female relative, they have upset the hearts that care for them [M41, f. 152a/

in the church (“notables”): see the discussions in Swanson 2010, esp. chs. 3–6; and Guirguis and van Doorn-Harder 2011, esp. ch. 2. Given the context of teachings about monastic relations with the laity in chapter 40 to follow, however, it is possible that this word may convey a not-so-subtle critique of the temptations associated with civic forms of life and authority. The phrase, “principalities of the demons,” may also allude to John 14:30, where Jesus warns his disciples about the coming of “the prince of the world” (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων). 454 For a similar teaching in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see his Canons, Book 5: XL 139, ed. Emmel in preparation; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 200–201 (#264) (ŇġijേĿĻേŇĩേıĩേĻĿʼnƙőģേ ĩƕŅĿʼnŇőĻേġĻേŁĩേĩŇŃĩĹĿĻġōĿŅേĿʼnőƙേĹĻŁĵĿŅĹijĵĿĻേĩʼnƓĹƓĩേĹŁĻĿʼnŇĩേƙĹŁijĹġേĻĿʼnőŇേĹĻĻĩʼnĩŃįʼnേ ƙijĿʼnŅĿŁ¨േ Ŀʼnħĩേ ĻĿʼnƙőģേ ĩƕŁŃĩŁĩijേ ġĻേ Łĩേ ĩŇŃĩƙĩĻĹĿĻġōĿŅേ ƛijƙĩĻĵĿŅĹijĵĿĻേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ĩĻĩʼnŅʼnĻġĥőĥ‫ڐ‬േ 9—; “And so it is a crooked thing for a monk to dwell with a civilian, both serving God in the same place together with one another. And it is an unseemly thing for monks to bring civilians into their congregations […]”). 455 A semantron is a percussive instrument used to call monastics to prayer or to meals. While it can take the form of a metal bell or a gong, in Egyptian monasteries it is often a wooden plank or board that resonates when struck and thereby marks the hour. Numerous rules cited by Shenoute pertain to the knocking of the semantron and the expected response of the community to that signal: see Rules 165, 200, 209, 234–235, 255, 328, 411, 421, 497 (ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 156–157, 168–169, 174–175, 184–185, 196–197, 228–229, 264–265, 268–269, 304–305). Rules 209, 421, 497 pertain to the knocking of the semantron at dawn, while Rules 200, 209, and 328 pertain to its use in the evening. 456 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5: XS 355, ed. Leipoldt IV: 61; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 176–177 (#215) (ĿʼnŇĩേĻĻĩķġġʼnേĻŅƙijĹĩേƙġƙŇĻŇįʼnŇĻേŃŁģĿķേĹŁŃĿേĻŇŅʼnĻġĥőĥį— “Nor shall any woman in your (women’s) domain go outside the gate of the congregation…”). 457 Shenoute, Canons, Book 5: XS 354, ed. Leipoldt IV: 61; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 174–175 (#212) (ĻĻĩķġġʼnേ ĻŅƙijĹĩേ ƙġƙŇĻŇįʼnŇĻേ ĻĿʼnĿĩijƓേ ĻijĹേ ĩijേ ƓġŃĿĻേ ĩŇŃĩʼnƝĹŁƓijĻĩേ ĻĻĩŇįŁേ ĩŃĿĿʼnേ ĵġŇġŅġŃĽേ ĿʼnŇĩേ ĩʼnƓġĻƓőĻĩേ Ŀʼnħĩേ ĩʼnƓġĻĹĿʼn¨േ ĻĻĩʼnĩƓĩijേ ƓġŃĿĿʼnേ ĩŇŃĩʼnƝĹŁĩʼnƓijĻĩേ įേ ĩģőĵേĩŇĩʼnĹĻŇŃőĹĩ—േ“No woman at any time in your (women’s) domain shall come to us (men) to visit those who belong to them according to the flesh, neither when they get sick nor when they die. They shall not be permitted to come and visit them and go to their family…”).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

277

p. 307] and they have broken the commandment of God.458 But instead the monk should go to the monastery to subject himself to the law of the Lord. 42. Likewise, it is necessary for us not to be deficient in listening to the superior of the monastery, nor should we fight him, oppose him, or speak [argumentatively] with him or behind his back, except for what is his will,459 for he is the one chosen by God (may he be exalted) for the care of those who live in that place, the one entrusted with the deliverance of their souls, the one who contends with God for their sake, the one who concerns himself with their affairs and with everything that benefits them. On account of this, it is necessary that they not do anything big or small without consulting with him, and especially in the case of whoever wants to go to the gate of the monastery to speak with someone there [S185, f. 226a/p. 318] from the people.

458 See also Shenoute, Canons, Book 9: DF 190, ed. Leipoldt IV: 108: ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 272–273 (#425) (ĻĿʼnĿĩijƓേ ĻijĹേ ƙŃġijേ ƙĻĻĩijŅʼnĻġĥőĥįേ ĩŃƓġĻŇġĻġĥĵįേ ƓőŁĩേ ĩŇŃĩĻŃőĹĩേ ĩŇŇįƓേĩŁĹġĹŁŃĿേĻŇŅʼnĻġĥőĥįേĩŇƙĹŁƟĹĩേƓġƛĩേĹĻĻĩŇƙĹŁĹġേĩŇĹĹġʼn—േĻĻĩĻġijേƓġƛĩേĹġʼnġġʼnേ ĹĻŇĩŇĹŁĹġĹŁŃĿേĿʼnħĩേĻŇĿŅേƙőőŅേĻĻĩŅƓġƛĩേĻĹĹġʼnേƓġƙŃġijേĩʼnĩķġōijŅŇĿĻേĻƙőģേĵġĻേĩŇƓĩĩŃĩേ ĻĿʼnġേ ĻƙįŇĿʼnേ Ňĩേ įേ ŇĩƕŅőĻĩേ įേ ŇĩƕĹġġʼnേ įേ ĵĩĿʼnĩijേ ƙĿķőŅേ ĩŅįŁേ ĩŃĿĿʼn—േ ĩʼnƓġĻƝĻĿʼnŃőĹĩേ ƙŃġijേ ĻƙįŇĻേ įേ ĿʼnŅƙijĹĩേ ĩʼnĵġŇġŋŃĿĻĩijേ ĹŁĩijĿʼnĩƙŅġƙĻĩേ ĩʼnĻġƓőŁĩേ ĩʼnŅƙĿʼnĿŃŇേ ĻĻġƙŃĹŁĩĻŇġƕŅĿĿʼnƙĻേ ĩĻĩĻĩŃįʼnേijįŅĿʼnŅ— “At all times, in these congregations, if an emergency makes it necessary for the men assigned to the gatehouse of the congregation in the village (the nunnery) to speak with those who are in that place, … these shall not speak alone with the woman in the gatehouse nor shall she for her part speak with them, even about the least matter, even if she is the daughter of one of them or his sister or his mother or any other female relative of theirs at all… If a man or a woman among us is found to be despising this directive, they shall be under a curse in the eyes of the One who has gathered us to one another, namely Jesus…”). 459 In the Coptic writings of Shenoute, similar instructions are directed to “servers” assigned by the superior to work at various tasks in the monastery, including the infirmary. One example comes from Shenoute, Canons, Book 6: XM 483, ed. Leipoldt IV: 50–51; ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 208–209 (#279) (ĩʼnƓġĻƝĻĿʼnŃőĹĩേƙŃġijേĻƙįŇĻേƙĻĻĩŇħijġĵĿĻĩijേįേĻŇĿƕേĵĩĿʼnġേĻıĩേĩŇƕŇįƓേ ĹĹĿŅേĩƕĿേĻġŇŅőŇĹേįേĩƕƟŇőĻേĿʼnģĩŁĩijőŇേĻĻĩŇĿʼnįƙേƙĹŁĩijĹġേĻĿʼnĿĩijƓേĻijĹേĩĻƙĻġƕേġĻേĩŅőŇĹേ ĩģőĵേ ĹŁƙőģേ įേ Ļĩƙģįʼnĩേ ĹŁĩƙĿĿʼnേ įേ ŁĻġʼnേ ĩŇĿʼnĻġƛĿĿʼnƕേ ġʼnőേ ĩĻƙĻġƕേ ġĻേ ĿĻേ ĩŅőŇĹേ ĩŅƝŃġƙŇേ ƙĻŇŅʼnĻġĥőĥįേįേƙĹŁįijേĹŁĻġʼnേįേŁĩƙĿĿʼnേĩŇĿʼnĻġƛĿĿŅേĻġƕേĩʼnĻġƕijŇƕേĹĹġʼnേƙĻĻĩijŇőƓേĻŇĩijƙĩേġʼnőേ ƙĹŁĩƕĿŃħijĻĿĻേĻƕőŁĩേĻıĩേĻĻĩŅĻįʼnേŇįŃĿʼn “If any person among us from the servers or any other, however he may be appointed, is found to be disobedient or quarreling with the father of those who reside in this place at any time because he is unwilling to obey and go to the task or tasks of the day or of the hour when he is sent, and also if he is unwilling to obediently rest in the congregation or in the house at the time or on the day told to him, he shall be removed from these assignments of this kind and from his rank, and become like all the siblings.”). Another example is a Shenoutean rule of uncertain attribution, ZF 435, ed. and trans. Layton 2014: 334–335 (#576) (ĻĻĩķġġʼnേ ĻŃ‫ڲ‬9Ĺĩ;േ ĩƕƕijേ ĹŁŃĿ‫ڠ‬9ʼnƓ;േ ĻĻŃőĹĩേ ĩŇ9Ɠő;Ļĩേ ƙġƙŇįĻേ įേ ƙ9ġƙ; ŇĻŇįʼnŇĻേ ‫ڜ‬Ň9ő;ŇĻേ ĩƓƟŇőĻേ 9ĩ;ƙĿʼnĻേ ĩƙŃĹ‫ڢ‬ƙ‫ژ‬ķĿേ ƙġƙŇįĻേ įേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ĩƙŃĻıķķőേ ƙġƙŇĻŇįʼnŇĻേ ƙőŇŇįʼnŇĻേĩŇŃĩʼnŃġŇŅőŇĹേĻŅőĿʼnേƙĻĻĩŇĿʼnĻġĿʼnĩƙŅ‫ڂ‬ƙĻĩേĹĹĿĿʼn— “No person who is caring for the sick in our (men’s) domain or in your (women’s) domain shall be permitted to quarrel with the father superior in our (men’s) domain or with the mother superior in your (women’s) domain so as to disobey them in whatever they direct them…”).

278

S. DAVIS

[Epilogue] 43. The monk should be concerned with repentance and the pursuit of divine thoughts. He should not think about evil, nor should he do anything associated with it. He should not speak any human word, nor should he concern himself with idle company and bodily thoughts, but rather he should remember his sins and regret them. And he should withdraw [M41, f. 152b/p. 308] and be sorrowful over the evil that he has done, and he should struggle to avoid any deed similar to it. He should weep over what he does but not scold himself harshly. Let us have sufficient strength for the salvation of our thoughts and bodies from all of this, just like whoever wants to steer a ship in a violent wind until it is safe and arrives into the port.460 Let us perform prostrations persistently before God, for the sake of repentance for our transgressions and for the person who repents on account of them. May the Lord (exalted be his name) designate us and you for doing things that please him. Amen. 44. Thus concludes what has been collected, in an abridged form, from the canons of the holy father Anbā Shenoute, the one who is radiant after the condition of the prophets, the one who said that he did not speak anything from himself but rather that it was Christ who spoke from his mouth.461 4. APPENDIX: THE CONTENTS OF DAYR AL-SURYĀN MS 185 (= DS ARABIC ASCETIC 32) Note: Dayr al-Suryān MS 185 has two numbering systems in evidence: a foliation system with Coptic cursive numerals (f./ff.), and a pagination system

460 For similar uses of metaphors pertaining to the piloting of ships or boats in the Coptic writings of Shenoute, see his Canons, Book 9 (“I Have Been Considering”), ed. Leipoldt IV: 172.10–12: ŅĩĻġŃıĩേ ĻĿʼnƛĿij േ ĩƕĿേ ĻƝőŇƙേ ƝőŇƙ േ ĩĻĥĻġƓĻƙĩŇŁĩƕŅƝįŃേ ġĻേ ƛijĻŁijĵŃĿേ ĩŁĩijĵŃĿേ ĻıġķġŅŅġേ(“They will be like a boat that has holes, and you will not be able to sail it from shore to shore of the sea…”); and Discourses 5, Work 1 (“I See Your Eagerness”), ed. Amélineau 2: 48–49; trans. Brakke and Crislip 2015: 94–95, where he compares “sailors” (ƙĩĻĻĩĩƕ) to “those who pilot in God’s places” (ĻĩŇŃƙĹĹĩേ ƙĻĻŇĿŁĿŅേ ĹŁĻĿʼnŇĩ) and compares the human being to a “boat” (ŁƛĿĩij) over which “the pilot of the boat” (ŁŃĩƕŃƙĹĹĩേĻĿʼnƛĿĩij) guards carefully, just as we human beings should “guard our heart … from every evil thing that splashes or drips evil thoughts into it, (thoughts) that corrupt the heart and soul of the people…” (ĩĻĻġƙġŃĩƙേĩŁĩĻƙįҘ—േ ĩģĿķേ ƙĻƙőģേ ĻijĹേ ĹŁĿĻįŃĿĻേ ĩŇƕőƝĩേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ĩŃĿƕേ įേ ĩŇŇķŇķേ Ļġƕേ ĻƙĩĻŃŁĹĩĩʼnĩേ ĩʼnŇġĵĿേ ĹŁƙįŇേ ĹĻŇĩŏʼnōįേĻĻŃőĹĩ—). 461 Life of Shenoute 11. Coptic text: ed. Leipoldt and Crum 1906: 13; trans. Bell 1983: 45 (ĿʼnĿƙേƗĩĻĻġijേŇįŃĿʼnേĻġƕƛőേĹĹĿŅേƗĩĻŁĩƕŃőƕേĩŇĩĹĹĿĻേĹĩıĻĿʼnƛേĻƗįŇƕേƛĩĹŁijƛĩĿʼnŅġƛijേĩģĿķേ ƙijŇĿŇേ ĹĹġʼnġŇേ ĹŁĩŁ‫رع‬േ Ňįijƕേ ĩƗĿʼnĻേ ĩŃőij “And of everything which came from his mouth (in which there is no guile) [cf. Rev. 14:5], he said: ‘No word that I utter comes from myself alone; there is none which Christ does not deliver me.’”).

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

279

marked with Arabic numerals (p./pp.). Both are documented here, as well as in my edition and translation above. 1. Letter of Joseph Philoxenos (Yūsif Fīluksīnūs) on the three grades of the monastic life: ff. 1b–122a; = pp. 1–120. ‫رسالت الاب انبا يوسف فيلكسينوس الذي كتبها البعض تلاميذه منجل رتب الرهبنة الثلثة‬ ‫الجسدانية والنفسانية والرحانية‬ 2. The Canons of St. Anthony, which he established for the monks at the Monastery of Naqlūn: ff. 122b–124b; = pp. 121–125. ‫القوانين التي وضعها القديس انطونيوس لاولاده الرهبان بدير النقلون‬ 3. Teaching(s) of Saint Pachomius, father of the [monastic] communities: ff. 124b–134b; = pp. 125–143. ‫تعليم القديس اب المجامع انبا بخوم‬ 4. The Canons of Clement (Iklīmādūs), for those entering the monastic life: ff. 135a–137a; = pp. 144–148. ‫القوانين التي قالها اكليمادوس للداخلين في الرهبنة‬ 5. Letter of Saint John of the Thebaid (al-Tabā’isī): ff. 137a–142a; = pp. 148–158. ‫صحيفة القديس يوحنا التبايسي‬ 6. A few chapters from the teachings of the powerful father Isaiah: ff. 142a–149b; = pp. 158–173. ‫اشعيا‬

‫رؤوس قلايل من تعاليم الاب القدير‬

7. Unidentified ascetic discourse: ff. 151a–174a; = pp. 174–194. The first folio with the title is missing, but the text has headings in red on topics such as repentance, taking account of one’s soul, sin, and guarding one’s tongue. 8. Letter from Father Theodore, the disciple of St. Pachomius: ff. 174a–175a; = pp. 194–196. ‫رسالة من الاب تادرس تلميذ القديس بخوميوس‬

280

S. DAVIS

9. From the sayings of the holy fathers: ff. 165b–191a; = pp. 197–248. ‫من اقوال الابا القديسين‬ 10. Teachings of Saint Isaiah, commandments to the monks: ff. 191b–206a; = pp. 249–278. ‫من تعاليم القديس انبا اشعيا وصايا للرهبان‬ 11. Evagrius Ponticus, Book written to Eulogius: ff. 206b–217a; = pp. 279– 300. ‫من كتاب انبا وغري المتوحد الذي كتبه الى انبا اولاجيوس عندما كتب اليه يسأله ان يكتب‬ ‫له‬ 12. Canons of the Holy Father Anbā Shenoute: ff. 217b–226a; = pp. 301– 318. ‫قوانين الاب القديس انبا شنودي الذي وضعها لاولاده الرهبان‬ 13. Saying(s) of some monks: ff. 226b–230a; = pp. 319–326. ‫من قول بعض الرهبان‬ 14. Teachings of Saint Isaiah: ff. 230a–243b; = pp. 326–353. ‫تعاليم القديس انبا )ا(شعيا‬ 15. John Cassian, Book of detachment/isolation: ff. 244a–253b; = pp. 354– 373. ‫كتب اقوا القديس انبا قيسان … كتاب الافراز‬ 16. From the saying(s) of Anba Isaiah: ff. 254a–255a; = pp. 374–376. ‫من قول انبا اشعيا ايضا‬ 17. Sayings of Father Anthony the Great: ff. 255a–261a; = pp. 376–388. ‫من أقوال العظيم الاب انطونيوس‬ 18. John Chrysostom, on envy: ff. 261a–263a; = pp. 388–392. ‫للقديس يوحنا الذهب على الحسد‬

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

281

19. Writing by Saint Stephen of the Thebaid: ff. 263b–264a; = pp. 393–394. ‫للقديس استافنوس التبايسي‬ 20. Writing by Saint Pachomius the Great: f. 264a–b; = pp. 394–395. ‫للقديس انبا بخوم الكبير‬ 21. Saying(s) of the Elder Fathers on detachment/isolation for the benefit of the soul: ff. 264b–268a; = pp. 395–402. ‫من قول الابا الشيوخ على الافراز لمنفعة النفس‬ 22. Maymar from the saying(s) of Mar Jacob, bishop of Sarug: ff. 268b–289b; = pp. 403–445. ‫ميمر من قول الاب مار يعقوب اسقف سروج‬ Bibliography Arabic sources ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Ḥifnī, al-Mawsū‘ah al-ṣūfiyyah. Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī al-ṣaghīr, 2003. ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī Shaybānī, al-Durrah al-muḍiyyah fī-l-waṣāyā al-ḥikamiyyah. n.p.: Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl al-Shaybānī al-Mawṣilī, 1986. Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ibn al-Husayn al-Sulamī, Ṭabaqāt al-sūfiyyah, ed. Muṣṭafā ‘Abd al-Qādir Ra‘ṭā. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d. Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Husayn, al-Jāmi‘ li-shu‘ab al-īmān. Nāshrūn: Maktabat al-rushd, 2003. Abū Sa‘īd Aḥmad al-Kharrāz al-Baghdādī (Aḥmad ibn ‘Isā), Kitāb al-ṣidq aw al-ṭarīq al-sālimah, ed. ‘Abd al-Man‘am Khalīl Ibrāhīm. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d. Abū Ṭāhir Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā, Qanāṭir al-khayrāt, ed. Kasruwī Ḥasan and Khallāf Maḥmūd ‘Abd al-Samī‘, vol. 3. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2018. Abū-l-Fayḍ Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Itḥāf al-sādah al-muttaqīn bi-sharḥ iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn. Beirut: Dār al-kitāb al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d. Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī: Kitāb al-Bayāḍ wa-l-Sawād, ed. Bilal Orfali and Nada Saab, Sufism, Black and White: A Critical Edition of Kitāb al-Bayāḍ wa-l-Sawād by Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī (d. ca. 1077). Leiden: Brill, 2012. Abū-l-Qāsim ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibatallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Shāfi‘ī (Ibn ‘Asākir), Tārīkh madīnat Damashq, ed. ‘Umar ibn Gharāmat al-‘Amrawī. Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1997. Abū-l-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhsharī, Rabī‘ al-abrār wa nuṣūṣ al-akhbār, ed. ‘Abd al-Amīr Mihnā, vol. 2. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-a‘lamī li-l-maṭbū‘āt, 1992. Abū-l-Wafā’ al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik, Mukhtār al-ḥikam, ed. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Badawī. Madrid: al-Ma‘had al-miṣrī li-l-dirāsāt al-islāmiyyah, 1958.

282

S. DAVIS

Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Shā‘ātī, al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī li-tartīb Masnad al-imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal al-Shībānī, vol. 1. Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, n.d. ‘Alī Ḥasan ‘Alī, Ibrāhīm al-Qaysī, and Ḥamdī Muḥammad Murād, eds., Mawsū‘at al-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār al-ḍa‘īfah wa-l-mawḍū‘ah, vol. 1. [Beirut]: Maktabat al-ma‘ārif li-l-nashr wa-l-tawzī‘ah, 1999. ‘Alī Sa‘d ‘Alī Ḥijāzī, Durar min āl bayt khayr al-mursalīn Muḥammad. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2009. Firdaws al-abā’ (Bustān al-ruhbān al-muwassa‘) [The Paradise of the Fathers (The Expanded Garden of the Monks)], 3 volumes, edited by an anonymous monk from the desert of Scetis. Alexandria, 2007. Ibn ‘Arabī, al-Waṣāyā. Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 2018. Ja‘far al-Khalīlī, Mawsū‘at al-‘atabāt al-muqaddasah: Qism al-kāẓimīn (1), volume 9. Beirut: Muassasat al-A‘lamī li-l-Maṭbū‘āt, 1987. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 7. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr, 2015. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī al-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr, ed. al-Shaykh Najdat Najīb, vols. 7 and 8. Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al‘arabī, n.d. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 15. Cairo: Markaz hajr li-l-buḥūth wa-l-dirāsāt al-‘arabiyyah wa-l-islāmiyyah, 2003. Jūrj Jurdāq, al-Imām ‘Alī: ṣawt al-‘adālah al-insāniyyah, vol. 1. Beirut: Dār maktabat al-ḥayāh, 1970. Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-Alūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm wa-l-sab‘ al-mathānī. Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1970. Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, Nuzhat al-afkār fī rawḍ al-aḥādīth wa-l-akhbār. Damascus: Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, 1993. Muḥammad Abū al-Hudā, Rāḥat al-arwāḥ. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2005. Muḥammad al-Amīn ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Urmī al-‘Alawī al-Harirī al-Shāfi‘ī, Tafsīr ḥadā’iq al-rūḥ wa-l-rīḥān, ed. Hashim Muḥammad ‘Alī Ḥusayn Mahdī, 33 vols. Beirut: Dār ṭūq al-najāh, 2001. Muḥammad al-Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍāwī, Mawsū‘at hikam wa mawā‘iẓ al-imām al-Ghazālī fī Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d. Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Anṣārī, Ādāb al-falsafah, ed. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Badawī (Manshūrāt ma‘had al-makhṭūṭāta al-‘arabiyyah). Kuwait: al-Munaẓẓamah al-‘arabiyyah al-tarbiyah wa-l-thaqāfah wa-l‘ulūm, 1985. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad Māzandarānī, Sharḥ usūl al-Kāfī li-l-Māzandarānī: al-ma‘rūf Kitāb al-Kāfī fī-l-usūl wa-l-rawḍah li-thiqat al-Islām Abī Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī ma‘ sharḥ al-Kāfī al-jāmi‘, vol. 8. Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 2000. Mu’min ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shablanjī, Nūr al-abṣār fī manāqib āl bayt al-nabī al-mukhtār, ed. ‘Abd al-Wārith Muḥammad ‘Alī. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2003. Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abdallah ibn Ḥumayyid Sālimī, Tuḥfat al-a‘yān fī sīrat ahl ‘Umān, vol. 1. n.p.: n.p., 1913.

Other sources and literature Amélineau, Émile 1888. Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe et Ve siècles. MMAF 4. Paris. ——. Œuvres de Schenoudi. 2 vols. Paris. Audet, Jean-Paul 1958. La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres. Paris. Bell, David N. 1983. The Life of Shenoute by Besa. Kalamazoo, MI.

THE ARABIC CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHER ANBĀ SHENOUTE

283

Bouriant, Urbain 1883. “Fragments de manuscrits thébains du Musée de Boulaq.” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes 4, 1–4, 152–156. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Brockelmann, Carl. “Muḥammad Murtaḍā.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition, edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs (consulted online on 19 March 2020), . Davis, Stephen J. 2008. Coptic Christology in Practice: Incarnation and Divine Participation in Late Antique and Medieval Egypt. Oxford. ——. 2020. Catalogue of Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in Dayr al-Suryān. Volume 1: Coptic and Biblical Texts; Coptic Language Resources, including Biblical Lexica. CSCO 677, Subsidia 139. Leuven. ——. (with contributions by R. N. Marcos, S. Moawad, T. C. Schmidt, and Cyril V. Uy II) 2021. Catalogue of Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in Dayr al-Suryān. Volume 2: Arabic Commentaries and Canons. CSCO 678, Subsidia 140. Leuven. Davis, Stephen J., Schriever, Daniel, and Farag, Mary, with contributions by Samuel Moawad 2020. The Feast of the Desert of Apa Shenoute: A Liturgical Procession from the White Monastery in Upper Egypt. CSCO 681. Leuven. Davis, Stephen J. and Swanson, Mark N. forthcoming 2022a. Catalogue of Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in Dayr al-Suryān. Volume 3: Arabic Theology. CSCO 694, Subsidia 143. Leuven. ——. forthcoming 2022b. Catalogue of Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in Dayr al-Suryān. Volume 4: Arabic Ascetic Discourses. CSCO 697, Subsidia 145. Leuven. Emmel, Stephen 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600. Leuven. Ghica, Victor 2001. “Sermon arabe pour le troisième dimanche du Carême, attribué à Chenouté (ms. Par. 4761).” Annales islamologiques 35, 143–161. Graf, Georg 1944. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1. Studi e Testi 118. Vatican City. Grossmann, Peter 2004. “Zum Grab des Schenute” JCoptS 6, 83–103. Guirguis, Magdi, and van Doorn-Harder, Nelly 2011. The Emergence of the Modern Coptic Papacy: The Egyptian Church and Its Leadership from the Ottoman Period to the Present. Cairo. Gutas, Dimitri 1981. “Classical Arabic Wisdom Literature: Nature and Scope.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 101.1, 49–86. Hoffman, Valerie 2012. The Essentials of Ibāḍī Islam. Syracuse, NY. Holmes, Michael W. 2007. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids. Horner, George 1924. “A New Papyrus Fragment of the Didaché in Coptic.” JTS 25, 225–231. Jefford, Clayton N. (ed.) 1995. The Didache in Context: Esssays on Its Text, History & Transmission. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 77. Leiden. Jefford, Clayton N., and Patterson, Stephen J. 1989/1990. “A Note on Did. 12.2a (Coptic).” Second Century 7, 65–75. Kraft, Robert A. 1965. Barnabas and the Didache. In: The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Robert M. Grant, vol. 3, 9–11. New York.462 Kuhn, Karl-Heinz 1956. Letters and Sermons of Besa. 2 vols. CSCO 157–158. Louvain. 462 A revised and updated version of this book is available online at the University of Pennsylvania website: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//publics/barn/barndidintro.htm#2waysint

284

S. DAVIS

Layton, Bentley 2002. “Social Structure and Food Consumption in an Early Christian Monastery: The Evidence of Shenoute’s Canons and the White Monastery Federation A.D. 385–465.” Le Muséon 115, 25–55. ——. 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1952. Les Pères Apostoliques en copte. 2 vols. CSCO 135– 136. Louvain. Leipoldt III = Leipoldt, Johannes 1908. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, III. CSCO 42. Paris. Leipoldt IV = Leipoldt, Johannes 1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, IV. CSCO 73. Paris. Leipoldt, Johannes, and Crum, Walter E. 1906. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. CSCO 41. Paris. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii: Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. Périer, Jean, and Périer, Augustin 1912. Les “127 canons des Apôtres”: Texte arabe en partie inédit publié et traduit en français d’après les manuscrits de Paris, de Rome et de Londres. PatrOr 8. Paris (repr. Turnhout 1971). Rordorf, Willy, and Tuilier, André 1978. La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè). SourcChr 248. Paris. Sala, Tudor A. 2011. “Dismantling Surveillance in Late Antique Corporate Monasticism” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University). Schmidt, Carl 1925. “Das koptische Didache-Fragment des British Museum.” ZNTW 24, 81–99. Swanson, Mark N. 2005. “St. Shenoute in Seventeenth-Century Dress: Arabic Christian Preaching in Paris, B.N. ar. 4761.” Coptica 4, 27–42. ——. 2008. “Searching for Shenoute: A Copto-Arabic Homiliary in Paris, BN Arabe 4796.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Volume 1: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 143–153. Cairo. ——. 2010a. “‘He Often Rejected Sinners and Cast Them into Hell’? On the Image of St. Shenoute in Copto-Arabic Literature: The Relevance of a Sermon in MS Paris B.N. ar. 244.” Coptica 9, 67–81. ——. 2010b. The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt (641–1517). Cairo. Timbie, Janet 1995. “The Relics of Apa Shenoute and the Use of thalassa in BN Copte 68.” In: Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boutros Ghali, edited by Leslie S. B. MacCoull, 89–93. Publications of the Society for Coptic Archaeology 1. Washington, DC. ——. 1998. “A Liturgical Procession in the Desert of Apa Shenoute.” In: Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, edited by David Frankfurter, 415–441. Leiden. ——. 2008. “Once More into the Desert of Apa Shenoute: Further Thoughts on BN 68.” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Volume 1: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 169–178. Cairo. Wessely, Carl 1909–1917. Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts. 5 vols. SPP 9, 11, 12, 15, 18. Leipzig. Wissa (Abba) 2015. The Life of St. Shenouda: Translation of the Arabic Life. Sydney, St. Shenouda’s Monastery. Young, Dwight W. 1993. Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery: Works of Shenute. MPER 22. Vienna. Zanetti, Ugo 1986. Les manuscrits de Dair Abū Maqār. Geneva. ——. 2014. “La liturgie dans les monastères de Shenoute.” BSAC 53, 167–224. ——. 2016. “Questions liturgiques dans les ‘Canons de Shenoute’.” OCP 82, 67–99. Zanetti, Ugo, and Davis, Stephen J. 2016. “Liturgy and Ritual Practice in the Shenoutean Federation.” In: The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt, edited by Elisabeth S. Bolman, 27–35. New Haven/London.

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3 PAUL C. DILLEY

As a monastic scribe and author, Shenoute was well versed in a variety of Christian texts, including biblical literature, of course, but also texts that did not fall within the traditional 27-book canon that was first enumerated in Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 of 367 CE. As director of the White Monastery federation, and noted person of influence in the late Roman Thebaid, Shenoute could draw on his authority to critique these non-canonical works. For example, in I Am Amazed (Discourses 1, 2, 3, 7), he associates “apocrypha” with the Origenists, attacking their heretical doctrine; and he was the recipient of a letter from archbishop Dioscorus of Alexandria accusing certain monasteries in the area of Panopolis for holding apocrypha.1 On the other hand, Shenoute quotes texts such as the Didache in his own writings, alongside biblical works.2 Further evidence for his complex approach to non-canonical literature is found in an unedited section from Canon 3, in which Shenoute addresses his own monastic disciples, urging them to repent for their sins, while condemning those who reject his call for collective grief, and in particular the non-canonical work they quote in support of their position. In this chapter I analyze Shenoute’s discussion of canonical and non-canonical texts in Canon 3, showing how it draws on Festal Letter 39, while adapting it to various monastic practices, from memorization to group repentance. An edition of the Coptic text of the passage, and an English translation, are provided at the conclusion.3 The following is a synopsis of Shenoute’s discussion of canonical and noncanonical texts in Canon 3:

1 Edited first in Orlandi 1985, without the concluding section and letter; see now the more complete edition of Cristea 2011. The Festal Letter of Theophilus was first published in Emmel 1995. For the manuscript attestation of Discourses 4, see Emmel 2004: 1:243–254. For several leaves discovered subsequent to Cristea’s edition, see Lundhaug 2011: 1371, n. 139. The Coptic text of Dioscorus’s letter to Shenoute is published in Thompson 1922. 2 Timbie 2007. 3 I first met Professor Emmel at the Westfälische-Wilhelms-Universität Münster in the summer of 1999, while I was conducting research for my senior thesis at Harvard. I remember well reading the editio princeps of the Gospel of the Savior together, and his discernment of the correct order of the leaves. This contribution is dedicated to these enduring lessons in Coptic codicology and philology. My thanks to Anne Boud’hors and Hugo Lundhaug for reading and commenting on a draft of this chapter.

286

P.C. DILLEY

1. Shenoute complains that some monks in his monastic congregation are rejoicing, rather than feeling grief over their sins. 2. Shenoute notes that they are appealing to “to words written in places which are not counted among the Catholic scriptures of the Catholic Church, but exist that they may be read sometimes in such a way that the things which are profitable in them can be determined and done; but the other things, which are not profitable, are ceased from as they are.” 3. Shenoute quotes the non-canonical passage his opponents refer to: “As for grief, let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all.” He notes that the reading of the “laws and the prophets and the apostles and the writings of all the saints” must be constant, in contrast to the reading of noncanonical texts, which need only be read “from time to time.” He alludes to biblical passages displaying the grief of prophets and apostles. 4. Shenoute introduces another category of non-canonical text, “apocrypha,” which are not to be read at all, including by teachers of scripture. 5. Shenoute notes that the Bible should be read alongside the writings of archbishop Athanasius of Alexandria and others who are “similar” to him. 6. Shenoute affirms that some canonical passages of the Bible are against grief, but asserts that these do not apply to the current situation of the monastic federation. He again urges his congregation to repent, and again rejects the saying “as for grief let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all” as non-canonical. Stephen Emmel divides Canon 3 into two works: the incomplete “Acephalous Work A22,” which includes a number of passages that “almost certainly belong to more than one work,” and a letter, “Abraham, Our Father,” addressed to the women’s community.4 This excerpt is from one of possibly several texts encompassed by “Acephalous Work A22.” The preceding section, which I have not edited here, alludes to a controversy in the White Monastery federation, to which Shenoute responds, as usual, with a call for collective repentance. The Canons as a corpus consist largely of speeches or letters by Shenoute to his congregations, as well as individuals within them, which he composed over decades as its leader. They are highly emotive, emphasizing Shenoute’s grief because of the sins occurring within the community, while asserting group responsibility for them, and warning the audience of divine punishment, thus provoking the fear of God.5 The Canons were read aloud at four regularly scheduled meetings each year, and some were likely delivered at the same ritual

4

See Emmel 2004: 2:570–573. For Shenoute’s “rhetoric of ekpathy,” see Dilley 2017b: 127–133. On the fear of God as a cognitive discipline, see Dilley 2017b: 148–185. 5

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

287

gathering: the goal was to provoke tears of collective repentance.6 Thus the unidentified passage quoted by Shenoute’s opponents, “As for grief, let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all,” strikes at the very heart of the archimandrite’s Canons, which he was likely at an advanced stage of organizing and incorporating into the community’s ritual at the time he wrote this section.7 Shenoute warns that this critique of grief will be harmful to his monastic community, urging: “let them not lead astray some among us so that they rejoice falsely in their iniquities” (2; cf. 1). This charge echoes Athanasius’ association of apocrypha with false teachers who deceive unsuspecting Christians (Festal Letter 39.15),8 and indeed Shenoute follows by asserting that the quote against grief consists of “words written in places which are not counted among the Catholic scriptures of the Catholic Church…” (2), calling attention to its non-canonical status as a means to discredit it. Janet Timbie has noted that, in the passages collected by her, Shenoute does not make use of the tripartite division of “canonical,” “read,” and “apocryphal” texts found in Festal Letter 39, but simply distinguishes between “canonical” and “apocryphal.”9 But the passage in Canon 3 does make the same three-fold distinction: Shenoute rejects the passage against grief not because it was apocryphal, but because it belongs to the second category, “read” texts, which “exist that they may be read sometimes in such a way that the things which are profitable in them can be determined and done; but the other things, which are not profitable, are ceased from as they are” (2). This description recalls Athanasius’s second category of works, offered as a postscript to his list of the canonical books: “There are other books, in addition to the preceding, which have not been canonized, but have been appointed by the ancestors to be read to those who newly join us and want to be instructed in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the book called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd” (Festal Letter 39.20).10 While Shenoute does not explicitly mention these or any other “to be read” books, he gives them a further 6 On the relationship of the Canons to the White Monastery federation’s four annual meetings, see Dilley 2017a: 95–102. For the rituals of collective repentance, see Dilley 2017b: 282–290. 7 Drawing on internal evidence, Emmel suggest that “At least a part of Canon 3, then, can be dated to the 460s, that is, near the end of Shenoute’s life” (Emmel 2004: 2:571). It is thus written relatively close in time to I Am Amazed, probably composed between 431 and 451 (see Lundhaug 2012b: 261–262, n. 11, for a lucid discussion of the dating), with which it shares a condemnation of apocryphal literature; see below for the many connections between our passage in Canon 3 and I Am Amazed. 8 For the Coptic text, see Lefort 1955: 16–22, 58–62; Coquin 1984; Elanskaya 1994: 379– 380, identified in Lucchesi 2001. For an Italian translation and commentary see Camplani 2003: 498–518. For an English translation see Brakke 2010. I use David Brakke’s translation and paragraph numbering system in the references below. 9 Timbie 2007: 62. 10 Brakke 2010: 61.

288

P.C. DILLEY

qualification to distinguish them from scripture, namely the need to discern what is useful and what is harmful in them: “that they may be read sometimes in such a way that the things which are profitable in them can be determined and done; but the other things, which are not profitable, are ceased from as they are” (2). Although this stipulation of discernment is not present in Festal Letter 39,11 it echoes some contemporary descriptions, not of the “to be read” group, but of “apocrypha.”12 For example, Jerome in his Epistle 107 to Laeta recommends that she keep her daughter Paula away from apocryphal texts: “Let her beware all apocrypha, and, even when she wants to read them not for doctrinal truth but out of reverence for their miracles, let her be aware that they are not by those who are noted in the title, that many sinful things are mixed in with these [the miracles], and that it takes much prudence to seek for the gold in the mud.”13 Similarly, Augustine notes that “But even if some truth is to be found in these apocrypha, nevertheless on account of their many false sayings there is no canonical authority in them.”14 Augustine and Jerome argue that the difficulty of sifting the profitable from the harmful in apocryphal texts is cause for rejection. Shenoute too condemns apocrypha in I Am Amazed, despite any valuable sections they might contain: “Even if the name of God is proclaimed in them, or established words are spoken in them, all the evil that is written in them destroys also the good.”15 But, in Canon 3, he stipulates that, for noncanonical texts “to be read,” the useful material must be distinguished from the harmful, and followed. This strategy of using discernment, so familiar in the monastic context of evaluating thoughts and temptations, is here transferred to an entire class of non-canonical literature. Although Shenoute does not explicitly claim authority for himself to determine which passages are appropriate, he implicitly does so in his rejection of the anti-grief passage, which he finally cites next: “As

11

Though Shenoute attributes this practice to the archbishop himself later in the passage from Canon 3 (5). 12 There is potential for confusion here, since certain books which Jerome calls apocrypha, such as Sirach, are placed by Athanasius in the “to be read” category. But Jerome is referring here to apocryphal acts of the apostles, which presumably would have been placed by Athanasius in the “apocrypha” category. 13 Jerome, Epistle 107.12.3, CSEL 55, ed. Isidore Hilberg (Vienna 1912), p. 303, 5–19. Jerome goes on to recommend that she read Cyprian, Athanasius, and Hilary instead, just as Shenoute recommends Athanasius and others “like” him in Canon 3, as discussed below. The possibility of successfully discovering “the gold in the mud” is argued by Priscillian: see, e.g., Lundhaug and Jenott 2015. 14 Augustine, City of God 15.23, CSEL 40.2, p. 113, 14–16. 15 I Am Amazed 384 = HB 39 ii.20–27, Cristea 2011: 164. Cf. I Am Amazed 1036, at the conclusion of the work, when, asking his audience to condemn Origen and reject apocryphal works, he notes the importance, when listening to speeches, to discern (ħĿĵijĹġĭĩ) between “the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error.” (DS 221 i.28–ii.6, Cristea 2011: 228).

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

289

for grief, let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all” (3). And indeed, the closest parallel to this statement comes not from “heretical” or “apocryphal” works, but rather the Wisdom of Sirach, which was included in Athanasius’ second group of texts: those which are not canonical, but still read. In particular, chapter 38:16–23, about mourning the death of a loved one, recommends one or two days of intense grief, after which all grief should be abandoned. The Coptic text of the Wisdom of Sirach has been edited from a manuscript in Turin. The closest parallel to Shenoute’s quote is 38:22: “Do not give your heart to grief.”16 While this is not an exact correspondence, it is possible that the opponents or Shenoute were paraphrasing; Shenoute may have even modified or expanded the quote in order to discredit it.17 To challenge the authority of this unidentified passage rejecting grief, he builds on Athanasius’s distinctions between canonical and non-canonical scripture, adapting them to a monastic context. Festal Letter 39 specifies that the second category of books “have been appointed by the ancestors to be read to those who newly join us and want to be instructed in the word of piety” (39.20).18 Shenoute, by contrast, does not assign non-canonical books “to be read” exclusively to neophytes, but assumes that they are part of normal monastic reading material (he does not specify whether liturgical or private), but emphasizes that non-canonical books are not read “by necessity” (3) only “from time to time” (3, 4), and are not to be memorized (4).19 On the other hand, the study of the Bible, including memorization, was a constant feature of life in coenobitic monasticism, and was facilitated through instruction in literacy, dedicated study, attentive listening, and group discussion.20 Shenoute thus contrasts the optional and occasional usage of non-canonical works with the obligation to meditate upon scripture at all times (4). Shenoute next discusses Athanasius’s third category, apocrypha, which he glosses here as “books that are hidden.”21 This third group, in contrast to the 16 Coptic text in Lagarde 1883: 175. This passage is missing from the other nearly complete Coptic version of Sirach preserved in a Sahidic manuscript from the British Library (Or. 5984), edited by Thompson 1908. 17 The quote from an apocryphal text in I Am Amazed 102 = DQ 14 ii.8–15 i.12 (Cristea 2011: 138) also remains unidentified, as does the title “The Gospel of Jesus Son of God, the Generation of the Angels” (I Am Amazed 309 = HB 19 i.15–18, Cristea 2011: 141). 18 Brakke 2010: 61. 19 In I Am Amazed Shenoute polemicizes against those who memorize apocrypha: “Thus the one who says ‘I know’ because he reads some apocrypha is all the more uneducated; and he who thinks he is a teacher (ŃĩƕƟŅģő) because he memorizes is even more uneducated.”) (I Am Amazed 317 = HB 21 ii.13–25, Cristea 2011: 144). 20 On the study of scripture in cenobitic monasticism, see Dilley 2017b: 110–147. 21 In his discussion of I Am Amazed, noting that “apocrypha” frequently denotes “false” in Late Antique Christianity, Hugo Lundhaug observes “it is not entirely clear whether he sometimes also intends to refer to such texts as esoteric” (Lundhaug 2012a: 261). In personal communication Lundhaug notes that “secret” is another possible translation for Coptic ƙįŁ. Both translations fall within the semantic range of apocrypha.

290

P.C. DILLEY

second one, is not to be read at all: “but only we do not read apocryphal books at all, just as they have commanded us, namely those who have determined the things which are profitable” (4).22 Although Shenoute does not directly quote Athanasius in Canon 3, he does in I Am Amazed, in particular Festal Letter 39.32, which demands a complete rejection of apocryphal works as the fabrication of vain and seditious heretics.23 He adds an interesting warning against instructions which contain passages taken from apocryphal literature – whether authoritatively quoting them, or declining to cite them to avoid controversy, is not specified (4). Shenoute mentions “Epistle-Books” as examples of such instructions, and may have in mind letter collections of ascetic teachers, such as Ammonas, Paul of Tamma, or Stephen the Theban, which all quote various non-canonical texts.24 Indeed, the Ascension of Isaiah, quoted in Ammonas Letter 10, is perhaps alluded to in Festal Letter 39 by Athanasius, who specifically mentions books attributed to Enoch, Isaiah, and Moses in his condemnation of apocryphal works.25 Of course, monastic authors such as these also make frequent use of canonical texts, which Shenoute tacitly acknowledges by urging that “regarding these other things [i.e. apocryphal works and/ or quotations from them], it is not fitting that they read them at all, namely those who have taught (ĻĩĻŇġʼnŁġijħĩʼnĩ) the holy scriptures” (4).26 In contrast to these anonymous biblical instructors, who are put on warning, Shenoute accords great prestige and authority to Athanasius and his works. This favorable monastic reception for the archbishop reflects the account of the promulgation of Festal Letter 39 by Theodore in the Bohairic Life of Pachomius, according to which the head of the Koinonia approved of Athanasius’s establishment of the canon.27 The archimandrite repeats Athanasius’s condemnation of the apocrypha, decrying their double blasphemy against both

22 In addition to Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39, archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria forbids the reading of apocrypha in his Festal Letter 16 of 401, which is also quoted by Shenoute at the end of I Am Amazed 890–896 (Cristea 2011: 231–240); see discussion in Lundhaug 2012b: 239. For connections between the Nag Hammadi codices and fourth-century monasticism, see Lundhaug and Jenott 2015. 23 I Am Amazed 319 = HB 22 i.20–ii.6, Cristea 2011: 144–145. Earlier Shenoute states that “All the holy fathers, and all the more our father Athanasius the archbishop, he of true knowledge, did not accept (apocrypha)” (I Am Amazed 308 = HB 19 i.5–11, Cristea 2011: 141). 24 Suciu 2019: 62, with further references. 25 Festal Letter 39.21; cf. I Am Amazed 306, a complaint against those who attribute heretical doctrines to “the saints” (HB 18 i.23–29, Cristea 2011: 140). 26 Cf. Festal Letter 39.28. This lends support to Brakke’s hypothesis that Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 was intended to curtail the authority of teachers, as opposed to bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy (Brakke 1994). In I Am Amazed 320–324 (Cristea 2011: 145–146), Shenoute himself polemicizes against teachers who use apocryphal works. See further Lundhaug 2012a: 264–265. 27 Bohairic Life of Pachomius 189: Coptic text in Lefort 1953: 177–178. See also Lefort 1910, and Dilley 2012a: 86.

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

291

the saints they impersonate and the people they deceive.28 Finally, Theodore praises the archbishop as a “perfect teacher” in the manner of the apostles, and orders the letter to be translated and “placed in the monastery as a law for them.” In Canon 3, Shenoute comes even closer to equating Athanasius’ authority with the canonical books of the Bible: “and they are sufficient for us, namely the books of our father Athanasius, the holy archbishop, that we read from them every hour; and they are also sufficient for us that we read from them, namely the books of all the others who are similar to our father Athanasius, the man of God, the ones who have first assessed all their words, which I have copied for us in truth, in the light of the scriptures, that we might be saved in their sound teachings” (5). Just as the Bible, Athanasius’s works are to be read “every hour,” although he does not suggest that they be learned by heart. Shenoute gives the same authority to the writings of “others who are similar to our father Athanasius,” presumably patriarchs of Alexandria such as Theophilus, Cyril, and Dioscorus, and perhaps other ecclesiastic writers. 29 These authors are apparently distinguished by their ability to “assess” (ħĿĵijĹġĭĩ) their own writings, using the same word for determining profitable material in the “read books,” and thus to teach in a manner consistent with the Bible; and, if using non-canonical texts, to select appropriate passages from them.30 Shenoute gives final approval to the writings of Athanasius and “others like him” by presenting himself as a dutiful scribe, copying their works for the benefit of the monastery (5), just as Theodore had ordered others to translate and establish (possibly as inscriptions) Festal Letter 39 within the Pachomian Koinonia. Shenoute’s claim in Canon 3 to have copied the letters of the patriarchs, whether he did so in Greek or a Coptic version, further supports Alberto Camplani’s hypothesis that Shenoute was involved in the translation of Athanasius’s Festal Letters into Coptic, which were subsequently transmitted in manuscripts copied at the White Monastery.31 Indeed, Shenoute’s literary 28 Though, in this account, it should be noted that Theodore skips over the “to be read” category. 29 Shenoute also connects ecclesiastic authors to a chain of biblical authorities in I Am Amazed: “The prophets and the apostles and the faithful and truly learned fathers of the church” (I Am Amazed 360 = HB 33 ii.2–7, Cristea 2011: 156); and more generally, to the “saints”: “The holy apostles and all the prophets and all the saints from the beginning until now” (I Am Amazed 364 = HB 34 :i.17–23, Cristea 2011: 156). 30 In I Am Amazed, shortly after quoting Theophilus’s Festal Letter 16 of 401, Shenoute emphasizes the necessity of discernment between truth and error: see above, note 14. 31 Camplani has argued that the Coptic translation of Athanasius’s Festal Letters took place at the White Monastery, under Shenoute’s influence, and that Shenoute himself had no access to a Coptic version (Camplani 2003: 71 and 49); Cristea presents additional arguments that Shenoute’s quotation of Festal Letter 39 in I Am Amazed is a reworking of the Greek text (Cristea 2011: 72–74). Note also Shenoute’s translation of Theophilus’s Festal Letter of 401 at the end of the same work.

292

P.C. DILLEY

activity most likely extended far beyond his original compositions such as the Canons and Discourses, to encompass a variety of translation efforts from Greek into Coptic. In so doing he carved out a space for the writings of Athanasius and others “similar” to him that approached the authority of the canonical Bible. CONCLUSION Shenoute’s discussion of non-canonical literature in Canon 3 follows Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 closely, adapting it to a monastic context, while retaining his three-fold typology of canonical; non-canonical, to be read; and apocryphal, to be rejected. In his final arguments against some monks’ rejection of grief by appealing to a non-canonical passage, Shenoute laments the threat of their error spreading throughout the congregation: “But let them not lead us astray with deceptions, namely the demonic enemies who are evil, so that we rejoice falsely…” (6). This recalls his claim in I Am Amazed that the devil deceives “the multitude” through heretics and their apocryphal books, putting a demonic embellishment behind Athanasius’ accusations in Festal Letter 39.32 In Canon 3, Shenoute does not identify the non-canonical quote as apocryphal, but in the category of books “to be read,” arguing for significant limitations on books such as the Wisdom of Sirach for monastic reading, teaching, and debate. Rather than decrying heretical doctrine or cosmological speculation, Shenoute rejects their authority with regard to proper emotional practice, understood as grief leading to collective repentance, a ritual practice at the very center of Shenoute’s evolving personal and institutional authority as leader of the White Monastery federation. Shenoute appeals to canonical scripture multiple times to demonstrate the importance of grief, tears, and repentance. He reminds his congregation that both prophets and apostles wept vigorously, and in doing so provide an example for the White Monastery’s own present situation of conflict: “On account of this it is fitting for us that we read and that we meditate every hour and at all times upon the words of the Catholic scriptures of the Catholic church, so that we might understand how the eyes of the prophets and the apostles were destroyed with tears; and we might perceive and repent of our sins” (3). The weeping prophet is likely a reference to Jeremiah’s tearful oracle against the Kingdom of Judah and the people of Jerusalem, in which God proclaims his coming punishment for apostasy and failure to repent (Jeremiah 9:1). Indeed, Shenoute’s many exhortations in the Canons for his community are deeply 32 Cf. Shenoute’s claim in I Am Amazed 384 that “spirits of error” inhabit “every book which is outside the scriptures” (HB 39 ii.8–17, Cristea 2011: 164).

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

293

intertextual, frequently citing and alluding to biblical prophets, whose critique of Israel he adapts to his own monastic community.33 The weeping apostle is likely a reference to Paul’s invocation of his own tears in recounting his preaching of repentance to the Ephesians (Acts 20:19). Like these biblical models, Shenoute himself weeps regularly, in the fear of God and his own awesome responsibility to lead his disciples away from sin.34 Shenoute contrasts these canonical models of repentance, which must be read and meditated upon “every hour and at all times,” with the non-canonical passage against grief, the reading of which is simply optional. In drawing his argument to a close, he notes that he is aware of biblical passages warning against worldly grief and promoting joy by alluding to 2 Corinthians 7:10 and Philippians 4:4. But he immediately qualifies this by emphasizing that these are not relevant because the monks’ grief is godly, even claiming that God feels grief because of their sin: “… and God is angry at us and pours out his rage upon us because we rejoiced while he (God) was pained in heart. For this reason, let us repent and let us cry over our iniquities, with grief and groans, and greatly pained hearts, because we know (the saying) ‘For godly grief according to the word works for us a repentance without regret, for a salvation of our soul and our body’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10)” (6). Shenoute thus discerns that the joy expressed by his opponents is demonic, just as their non-canonical quote is to be rejected. Collective repentance, then, which he calls for in Canon 3 as in all nine volumes of Canons, is as canonical as the scripture which invokes it. APPENDIX: EDITION OF SHENOUTE, CANON 3, YB 90–95 The passage edited here is based on digital images of the manuscript, Vat. Copt. 111, made available online by the Vatican Library.35 This is a composite manuscript; folios 54-60 are part of White Monastery codex YB 83–96, which contains Canon 3.36 Emmel divides Canon 3 into two works: the incomplete “Acephalous Work A22,” which includes a number of passages that “almost certainly belong to more than one work,” and a letter, “Abraham, Our Father,” addressed to the women’s community.37 This passage falls within Acephalous Work A22. It has no parallels in other extant manuscripts.38 The following is 33 See e.g. Schroeder 2006, which highlights the importance of porneia in the construction of Shenoute’s prophetic authority. 34 On Shenoute’s weeping see Dilley 2017b: 129–133. 35 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.copt.111. Note also that Emmel’s full designation for this manuscript is VA-V Vat.copt. 111 (Emmel 2004: 1:45). 36 See description in Emmel 2004: 1:153–154. 37 See Emmel 2004: 2:570–573. 38 The codices for Canon 3 are discussed in Emmel 2004: 1:145–155; codex YB in particular on 1:153–154; and the tables for Canon 3 are found in Emmel 2004: 2:711–718.

294

P.C. DILLEY

the first edition, with the exception of a short excerpt in Proverbio 2001.39 Each page is made of parchment and consists of two columns of 28 lines. I have marked every fifth column line with a vertical line; and the end of a column with a double vertical line. I have included punctuation marks by using their nearest approximation in the IFAO Copte font, except for abbreviations at the end of lines, which are marked by parentheses. Vat. Copt. 111 57 verso = YB 90 1. ĩƓƛĩĿʼnͩƙĿĩijĻĩേħĩേƙŃġыേͩƙįՉֲേĩʼnŃġƓĩേͩĻĿʼnƛേĩʼnͩƙŃġыേԛֲZĻĩʼnԻĻǞǟŇǟƓġƕŇĩ¨േ ĩŃĩŁƛĿĩijŅേ‫ر؟‬േԻֲĻĩƕġĥĥĩķĿŅേĹĿԷ֐േͩƙįŇേĩƙŃġыേͩƙįŇേĩƙŃġыZZ Vat. Copt. 111 58 recto = YB 91 ĩƛőĿʼnേ ĩʼnƓĿĿŁേ ԛֲĻĩʼnŁġŃġģġŅijŅ¨േ ĩыĩേ Ļġыേ ĻġĹĩേ Ļĩേ ͩŃĩƕͱŁĻĿZģĩേ ĩŇŃĿĿʼnŇേ ĩʼnƝĿĿķĩേ ͧŁĩʼnƛijĻƝĿԽּേ ԻֲŇĩʼnԻԽǟ‫־‬ƓġƕŇĩ˜ Zേ 2.˜ ĩŇģĩŁġыേ ͧŁőŃേ ĩŇŃĩʼnġŁġŇġേ ͩƙĿĩijĻĩേ ƙŃġыേ ͩƙįՉֲേ ĩŇŃĩʼnŃĩƓĩ40േ ƙͩĿʼnZԻԽǟ‫־‬ĻĿʼnƛേ ƙŃġыേ ƙͩĻĩʼnԻԽǟ‫־‬ƓġƕŇĩ෕ ĩʼnŅőՉְേ ĩƙĩĻƓġƛĩേ ĩʼnŅįƙേ ԛֲƙĩĻZĹġേ ĩʼnįŁേ ĩƙĿʼnĻേ ġĻƏേ ĩĻĩĥŃġŋįേ ͩĵġıĿķijĵĿĻേ ͩŇĵġıĿķijĵįേ ĩĵĵķįŅijġ¨േ ġķZķġേ ĩʼnƓĿĿŁേ ĩŇŃĩʼnĿƓĿʼnേ ͩŇĩыƙĩേ ͩƙĩĻZZĿʼnĿĩijƓേ ĩŇŃĩʼnħĿĵijĹġĭĩേ ͩZĻĩŇͱĻĿƕŃĩേ ͩƙįŇĿʼnേ ͩŅĩġġʼnേ ͩĵĿĿʼnĩേ ħĩേ ĩŇĩͩŅĩͱĻĿƕŃĩേ ġĻേ ͩZŅĩķĿേ ƙġŃĿĿʼnേ ͩıĩേ ĩŇĿʼn˸േ ͧĹĿŅ¨േ 3. ĩŇģĩŁġыേ ͧŁőŃേ ĩŇŃĩʼnġŁġŇġേ ͩƙĿĩijZĻĩേ ƙŃġыേ ͩƙįՉֲേĩŇŃĩʼnŃĩƓĩ41േԛֲĿʼnԻԽǟ‫־‬ĻĿʼnƛേƙŃġыേԛֲĻĩʼnĻĿģĩേĩʼnZŅőՉְേĩƙĩĻƓġƛĩേĩʼnŅįƙേ ԛֲƙĩĻĹġേĩʼnƛ̊േͧĹĿŅ෕േƛĩേŇķʼnŁįേͧՃֺZŇŃĩŅԟְĹġേƙŃġыേͩƙįŇŇįʼnՉֲേĩŇŃĩՉֲķʼnŁĩijേ ĩŁŇįՅ֌േĩŇģĩŁġыZേԽּĩŃĿĻേġĻZZേ Vat. Copt. 111 58 verso = YB 92 ĩŇŃĩĻĿƓĿʼnേ ԛֲĿʼnƙŇĿŃേ ĩijĹįŇijേ ŇĩĻŁŃĿƙġijŃĩŅijŅZേ ĹġʼnġġĻേ ĩŇŃĩĻĿƓĿʼn෕േ ġʼnőേ ͩՉֲŅőՉְേ ĩŃĿĿʼnേ ͩƙĩĻŅĿŁേ ŅĿŁ෕േ ġķZķġേ ŅĩŃĿĻേ ͩŇĿƕേ ͩƙĿʼn˸േ ԛֲĿʼnƙŇĿŃേ ĩĻġƓőƕƏേ ĩĹġŇĩേ ĩĹġŇĩZേ ĩŇŃĩĻőƓേ ͩͩĻĿĹĿŅേ ŇįŃĿʼnേ ԻֲĻĩŁŃĿŋįŇįŅ෕േ ԻֲͩġŁĿŅŇĿZķĿŅേ ԻֲĻĩĥŃġŋįേ ͩĻĩŇĿʼnġġģേ ŇįŃĿʼn෕േ ġʼnőേ ŅĩŃĿĻേ ĩŇŃĩĻĹĩķĩZŇġേ ͧĹĿĿʼnേ ͧŁĩƙĿĿʼnേ ԻֲZŇĩʼnƓįേͩĿʼnĿZĩijƓേĻijĹ෕േġʼnőZZേͩĻġʼnേĻijĹƏേġʼnőZേͧĹįĻĩേͧĹįĻĩ෕േĩģĿķേƛĩŁƛőĵേ ŇįՅ֌േͩŇԻԽǟ‫־‬ĻĿʼnŇĩേƙŃġыേͩƙįŇĿʼnZേĩƕƛįĵേĩģĿķ෕േĩŇģĩŁġыേƓƓĩേĩŃĿĻേĩŇŃĩĻZőƓ¨േ ġʼnőേĩŇŃĩĻĹĩķĩŇġZേͩĻġʼnേĻijĹƏേġʼnőേͩĿʼnĿĩijƓേĻijĹേͩͩƓġƛĩേͩĻĩĥŃġŋįേͩĵġıĿķijĵĿĻേ ͩZŇĵġıĿķijĵįേ ĩĵĵķįŅijġ¨േ ƛĩĵġŅേ ĩĻĩĩijĹĩേ ͩıĩേ ĩĻŇġͩģġķേ ͩĻĩZŁŃĿŋįŇįŅേ ԻֲͩġŁĿŅŇĿķĿŅേőԝֲേԛֲƙĩĻՅְĩijĿĿʼnĩേġʼnőേͩՉֲġijŅıġĻĩZേͩՉֲĹĩŇġĻĿZZ

39 40 41

Proverbio 2001: 413–414 (selections from YB 92b–94a). Read ŃġƓĩ. Read ŃġƓĩ.

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

295

Vat. Copt. 111 59 recto = YB 93 ĩˬേĩƙŃġыേĩԝֲĻĩĻĻĿģĩേ4. ͩƛőőĹĩേħĩേ ͩŇĿƕേĩŇĿZേͩƙĿʼnĿ෕േĻġыേĩŇįŁേġĻേĩƙĿʼnĻ ĩĻĩĥŃġŋįേĩŇŃĩĻƛijŇĿʼnേġĻേͩġŁĿŅŇįZıĿʼnŅേĩŇŃĩĻĹĩķĩŇġേͧĹĿĿʼnേͩĻġʼnേĻijĹ෕േġķķġേ ĩŇŃĩĻĿƓĿʼnേ ͩƙĩĻZŅĿŁേ ŅĿŁേ ĩƓőŁĩേ ĩƙĻġĻ෕ ġķķġേ ĹĿĻĿĻേ ĩĻőƓേ ƛőőĹĩേ ġĻേ ͩġŁĿZĵŃʼnŋĿĻേ ĩŁŇįՅƕ¨േ ĵġŇġıĩേ ĩĻŇġʼnƙőĻേ ĩŇĿĿՉֲേ ͩƝijĻĩĻŇġʼnZħĿĵijĹġĭĩേ ͩĻĩŇͱĻĿƕŃĩേĩŇģĩŁġыേĿʼnĹĿĻĿĻേƛĩേƓƓĩZZേġĻേĩőƓേĩŁŇįZՅ֌േͩƙĩĻƛőőĹĩേĩʼnƙįŁ෕ ġķķġേ Ŀʼnħĩേ ĿĻേ ƙĩĻƛőőĹĩേ ĩġƙĩĻĵĿĿʼnĩZേ ŅġƙĿʼnേ ƙőŅേ ĵġıįĥįŅijŅ෕േ ġʼnőേ ĩʼnͩƙŃġыേ ͩƙįŇĿʼnേ ͩƝijƙĩĻƓġƛĩേ ĩZġʼnƕijŇĿʼnേ ƙŃġыേ ԛֲƙĩĻƛőőĹĩേ ĩʼnƙįŁേ ĩġʼnŅġƙĿʼnേ ĩƙŃġыേ ĩƙĩĻĩŁijŅŇĿZķįേͩƛőőĹĩേƙőŅേĵġıįĵĩijേġʼnőേĻĩыĵĿĿʼnĩേĿĻേͩƓƓĩേġĻേĩŇŃĩʼnĿƓĿʼnZേ ĩŁŇįՅ֌േͩƝijĻĩĻŇġʼnŁġijħĩʼnĩേƙŃġыേԛֲĻĩĥŃġŋįേĩŇĿʼnġġģേ5. ĩŇģĩZേŁġыേŅĩŃőƓĩേĩŃĿĻേ ͩƝijĻĩZZ Vat. Copt. 111 59 verso = YB 94

ĥŃġŋįേ ͩĵġıĿķijĵĿĻ േ ĩŇŃĩĻőƓേ ƙŃġыZേ ͩƙįŇĿʼn෕േ ĩŇŃĩĻĩijĹĩേ ĩĻĩŇͱĻĿƕŃĩ¨േ ġʼnőേ ŅĩŃőƓĩേ ĩŃĿĻേ ͩƝijͩƛőőĹĩേ ͧŁĩĻĩijőŇേ ġıġĻġŅijĿŅേ ŁġŃōijĩŁijŅĵĿŁĿŅേ ĩŇĿʼnġġģ෕ ĩZŇŃĩĻőƓേƙŃġыേͩƙįŇĿʼnേͩĻġʼnേĻijŨേġʼnőേŅĩŃőƓĩേĿĻേĩŃĿĻേĩŇŃĩĻőƓZേƙŃġыേͩƙįŇĿʼnേ ͩƝijͩƛőőĹĩേͩͩĵĿĿʼnĩേŇįŃĿʼnേĩŇĩijĻĩേͧŁĩĻĩijőŇZേġıġĻġŅijĿŅേŁŃőĹĩേͧŁĻĿʼnŇĩേ ĻġыേĻŇġʼnħĿĵijĹġĭĩേͩƓĿŃAŁേͩĻĩʼnZZƓġƛĩേŇįŃĿʼnേĩĻŇġыŅƙġыŅĿʼnേĻġĻേԛֲĿʼnԻԽǟ‫־‬Ĺĩേ ԛְŁĿʼnĿĩijĻZേ ͩĻĩĥŃġŋįേ ĩŇŃĩĻĿʼnƛġыേ ƙŃġыേ ԛֲŇĩʼnŅģőേ ĩŇĿʼnĿƛ 6. ŁķįĻേ ƟŅĿĿʼnĻZേ ƙőőŇ േƛĩേƓƓĩേĩŃġƓĩേԛְŁƛĿĩijŅേͩĿʼnĿĩijƓേĻijĹേĵġŇġıĩേĩŇŅįƙേƟŅĿZĿʼnĻേħĩേĿĻേ ƛĩŇķʼnŁįേĵġŇġŁĵĿŅĹĿŅƏേĩŅͱƙőģേĩŁĹĿʼnേĵġŇġĻĩĥŃġZŋį¨േġķķġേͧŁőŃേĩŇŃĩʼnġŁġŇġേ ͧĹĿĻേԛֲĿʼnĵŃĿƕേͩƝijͩƛġƛĩേͩħġijĹőĻZേĩŇƙĿĿʼnേͩՉֲŃġƓĩേƙͩĿʼnĹͩŇĻĿʼnƛZZ Vat. Copt. 111 59 60 recto = YB 95 Ƙ‫ڤ‬9ġijേ ƙ;‫ڜ‬ĻĩĻġ‫ڜ‬9ĿĹ;‫ڔ‬ġ42േ ŇįZŃĿ‫ڪ‬േ ࡹŇĩŁĻĿʼnŇĩേ ƝőԽŇǟേ ĩŃĿĻേ ĻǞƕǟŁőƙǞŇǟേ ͩŇĩƕĿŃĥįേ ĩƙŃġы േĩZƛőĻേƛĩġĻŃġƓĩേĩƕĹĿԷ֐േͩƙįҨേĩŇģĩŁġыേĹġŃͩĹĩŇġĻĿĩijZേġʼnőേͩՉֲŃijĹĩേ ĩƙŃġыേ ĩԝֲĻĩĻԻԽǟ‫־‬ƓġƕŇĩേ ԛֲƙĩĻķʼnŁį෕േ ԻֲƙĩĻZġƓġƙĿŨേ ԻֲƙĩĻͧĵġƙേ ͩƙįŇേ ĩĻġƓőĿʼn෕േ ĩĻŅĿĿʼnĻേ ƛĩŇķʼnŁįേ ĥġŃZേ ĵġŇġŁĻĿʼnŇĩേ ĩŅͱƙőģേ ĻġĻേ ĩʼnĹĩŇġĻĿijġേ ͩġՉֺƙŇįŅേ ĩʼnĿʼnZƛġыേ ͩŇĩĻŏʼnZZōįേ ԻֲŁĩĻŅőĹġ෕േ ͧĹĿĻേ ĩƕŅįƙേ ŇőĻേ ԛֲĻĩĥŃġŋįZേ ͩĻĩŁŃĿŋįŇįŅേ ԻֲͩġŁĿŅŇĿķĿŅേ ĩʼnƛőേ ͧĹĿŅേ ƛĩŇķʼnŁįേ ͧՃֺZŇŃĩŅԟְĹġേ ƙŃġыേ ͩƙįŇŇįʼnՉֲ േ Ŀʼnħĩേ ͧՃֺķʼnŁĩijƏേ ĩŁZŇįŃǞƕ¨േ ͩġƓേ Ɲĩേ ͩƙĩ෕േ ĩʼnĻġƛĿĿŅേ ͩƝijĻĩĻĩijĿŇĩേ ĩŇĿʼnġġģേ ƛĩͧŁǞŃǟķʼnŁĩij¨േ ͩŇĿĿʼnേ ƙőĿʼnേ ĩġʼnĵĩŃġേ ͧŁĩŇĿʼnĻġŅĿĿƕേ ƙijŃǞĹĩijįേ ĵġŇġĻĩĥŃġŋį¨ 1. If there are some among us who rejoice falsely, being in the midst of their iniquity, while the Lord Jesus and his angels are troubled in heart over them because they are in the midst of their transgressions, then these truly are the 42

I thank Anne Boud’hors for suggesting this restoration of the lacuna.

296

P.C. DILLEY

sinners who are rejoicing while they are clothed in their violence and their iniquity (Cf. Zechariah 3:4). 2. Therefore let them not lead astray some among us so that they rejoice falsely in their iniquities, as they listen to words written in places which are not counted among the Catholic scriptures of the Catholic Church, but exist that they may be read sometimes in such a way that the things which are profitable in them can be determined and done; but the other things, which are not profitable, are ceased from as they are. 3. Therefore let them not lead astray some among us so that they rejoice falsely in their sins, listening to words written in places that say: “As for grief, let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all.” Therefore, it is not incumbent on us that we read them by necessity, unless we read them, and we listen to them, from time to time, by our choice alone; but on the other hand it is incumbent on us, by a very great necessity, that we read all the laws and the prophets and the apostles and the writings of all the saints; and it is incumbent on us that we meditate upon them, day and night, at all times, every hour, day by day, because it is in them that the entire perfection of divinity is completed. Therefore it is fitting for us that we read and that we meditate every hour and at all times upon the words of the Catholic scriptures of the Catholic church, so that we might understand how the eyes of the prophets and the apostles were destroyed with tears (cf. Jeremiah 9:1; Acts 20:19); and we might perceive and repent of our sins. 4. But as for additional books, those which are not counted among the scriptures, (it is fitting) that we do not learn them by memory, that we might meditate upon them every hour, but rather (it is fitting) that we read them from time to time, if we want; but only we do not read apocryphal books at all, just as they have commanded us, namely those who have determined the things which are profitable. Therefore not only is it not at all fitting to read books that are hidden; but neither also books which others have written as instruction, while words that have been taken from hidden books are in them, and they have written them in some epistolary books. as if it is appropriate; and also regarding these other things [i.e. apocryphal works and/or quotations from them], it is not fitting that they read them at all, namely those who have taught the holy scriptures. 5. Therefore they suffice for us, namely the Catholic scriptures, that we read from them, that we understand the things which are profitable; and they are sufficient for us, namely the books of our father Athanasius, the holy archbishop, that we read from them every hour; and they are also sufficient for us that we read from them, namely the books of all the others who are similar to our father Athanasius, the man of God, the ones who have first assessed all their words, which I have copied for us in truth, in the light of the scriptures, that we might be saved in their sound teachings.

SHENOUTE’S POLEMIC AGAINST NON-CANONICAL TEXTS IN CANON 3

297

6. Except that I myself know that it is fitting to rejoice in the Lord always, as it is written (Philippians 4:4); and I know also that worldly grief works unto death (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10), according to the scriptures. But let them not lead us astray with deceptions, namely the demonic enemies who are evil, so that we rejoice falsely [in] all our [lawlessness] and God is angry at us and pours out his rage upon us because we rejoiced while he [God] was pained in heart. For this reason, let us repent and let us cry over our iniquities, with grief and groans, and greatly pained hearts, because we know (the saying) “For godly grief according to the word works for us a repentance without regret, for a salvation of our soul and our body” (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10); otherwise where is it written in the writings of the prophets and the apostles, saying “as for grief let it not find a place among you, that you grieve at all?” How will our holy fathers say “do not grieve,” they who have mixed their drink with tears, according to the scriptures (cf. Psalm 102:9)? Bibliography Bovon, François 2012. “Beyond the Canonical and Apocryphal Books, the Presence of a Third Category: The Books Useful for the Soul.” HTR 105, 125–137. Brakke, David 1994. “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth ‘Festal Letter’.” HTR 87, 395–419. ——. 2010. “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon.” HTR 103, 47–66. Camplani, Alberto 2003. Atanasio di Alessandria, Lettere Festali; Anonimo, Indice delle Lettere Festale. Milan. Coquin, René-Georges 1984. “Les lettres festales d’Athanase (CPG 2102). Un nouveau complément: Le manuscrit IFAO, copte 25.” OLP 15, 133–158. Cristea, Hans-Joachim 2011. Schenute von Atripe: Contra Origenistas. Edition des koptischen Textes mit annotierter Übersetzung des 16. Osterfestbriefs des Theophilus in der Fassung des Hieronymus (ep. 96). Tübingen. Dilley, Paul 2017a. “From Textual to Ritual Practice: Written Media and Authority in Shenoute’s Canons.” In: Writing and Communication in Early Egyptian Monasticism, edited by Malcolm Choat and Mariachiara Giorda, 73–107. Leiden. ——. 2017b. Monasteries and the Care of Souls in Late Antique Christianity: Cognition and Discipline. Cambridge. Elanskaya, Alla 1994. The Literary Coptic Manuscripts in the Pushkin State Fine Arts Museum in Moscow. Leiden. Emmel, Stephen 1995. “Theophilus’s Festal Letter of 401 as Quoted by Shenoute.” In: Divitiae Aegypti. Koptologische und verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause, edited by Cäcilia Fluck, 93–98. Wiesbaden. ——. 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. CSCO 599–600. 2 vols. Leuven. ——. 2008. “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Stephen Emmel, Johannes Hahn, and Ulrich Gotter, 161–201. Leiden. Gallagher, Edmon L., and John D. Meade 2017. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis. Oxford.

298

P.C. DILLEY

Lagarde, Paul de 1883. Aegyptiaca. Göttingen. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1910. “Théodore de Tabennese et la lettre de S. Athanase sur le canon de la Bible.” Le Muséon 29, 205–216. ——. 1953. Pachomii vita bohairice scripta. CSCO 89. Louvain. ——. 1955. S. Athanase. Lettres festales et pastorales en copte. CSCO 150. Louvain. Lucchesi, Enzo 2001. “Un nouveau complément aux Lettres festales d’Athanase.” AnBoll 119, 255–260. Lundhaug, Hugo 2011. “Baptism in the Monasteries of Upper Egypt: The Pachomian Corpus and the Writings of Shenoute.” In: Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism in Early Judaism, Graeco-Roman Religion, and Early Christianity, edited by David Hellholm et al., 1347–1380. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 176. Berlin. ——. 2012a. “Mystery and Authority in the Writings of Shenoute.” In: Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty, edited by Christian Bull, Liv Ingeborg Lied, and John Turner, 259–285. Leiden. ——. 2012b. “Shenoute’s Heresiological Polemics and its Context(s).” In: Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, edited by Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke, 239–261. Frankfurt. Lundhaug, Hugo, and Jenott, Lance 2015. The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices. STAC 97. Tübingen. Orlandi, Tito 1982. “A Catechesis Against Apocryphal Texts by Shenute and the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi.” HTR 75, 85–95. ——. 1985. Shenute Contra Origenistas: Testo con Introduzione e Traduzione. Rome. Proverbio, Delio 2001. “Nuovi frammenti dal Monastero Bianco in un codice copto della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.” Rendiconti della reale Accademia Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, 9th ser., 12, 409–417. Schroeder, Caroline T. 2006. “Prophecy and Porneia in Shenoute’s Letters.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65, 81–97. Suciu, Alin 2019. “A Quotation from 6 Ezra in the Sermo Asceticus of Stephen the Theban.” Apocrypha 29 (2018, publ. 2019), 59–67. Thompson, Herbert 1908. The Coptic (Sahidic) Version of Certain Books of the Old Testament: From a Papyrus in the British Museum. London. ——. 1922. “Dioscorus and Shenoute.” In: Recueil d’études égyptologiques dédiées à la mémoire de Jean-François Champollion, 367–376. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 234. Paris. Timbie, Janet 2007. “Non-Canonical Scriptural Citation in Shenoute.” In: Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes: Paris, 28 juin-3 juillet 2004, edited by Nathalie Bosson and Anne Boud’hors, 625–634. OLA 163. 2 vols. Leuven. Veilleux, Armand 1980. Pachomian Koinonia, vol. 1: The Life of Saint Pachomius. Kalamazoo.

SHENOUTE AND MAGIC DAVID FRANKFURTER

I have always been grateful to Stephen Emmel’s guidance and encouragement in the use of Shenoute’s works, even if my own interests went in other directions from codicology. Once released from the shadow of Johannes Leipoldt, the Shenoute corpus becomes for the historian of religions a sort of tidepool of strange references and surprising images. But like a tidepool, it’s often unclear whether the thing you’re looking at through the seawater is a crab or a snail or a simple rock.1 I will be discussing two such oddities in this paper, both of which bear in a broad sense on the concept of magic. But let me be clear that I am not addressing Shenoute’s own use of the categories pharmakia, hik, or magia, nor a theoretical concept (or criminal act) pursued in literature of the time, whether grimoires or law-codes.2 I use the term as a sort of evocative shorthand for various material constructions of communicable power, extending from amulets (scriptural and otherwise) to liquids imbued with liturgical incantations, to figurines, to even stranger assemblages, such as “the snake’s head tied on someone’s hand, (…) the crocodile’s tooth tied to [the] arm, and (…) fox claws tied to [the] legs,” all of which remedies Shenoute knew about in his area (and in once case dispensed by a “great monk”).3 In this sense it is important to remember that, for better or worse, “magic” is my word, not Shenoute’s or that of Coptic literature. I The first case is one I highlighted in 1998 and whose significance I now wish to clarify: the legend of Shenoute and the buried magical charms that appears in the abbot’s lively Vita.4 I will treat it now (more than in 1998!) as a hagiographical tale of Shenoute’s powers of charismatic discernment, but also as a reflection of how a fifth- or sixth-century Egyptian audience might have 1

Abbreviations: ACM = Meyer and Smith 1994. My profound thanks to David Brakke for discussion and advice. 2 On which see van der Vliet 2019: 240–276. 3 Acephalous Work A14, secs. 255–259, ed. Orlandi 1985. See more generally Frankfurter 2017: 92–100. On this use of the term “magic” see Frankfurter 2019a. 4 Frankfurter 1998: 68–69, 209.

300

D. FRANKFURTER

envisioned “binding magic” as plausible. I am delighted now to have Emmel’s own brief edition of and commentary on this text.5 But where he calls it simply a “pious fiction,” irrelevant for historical purposes,6 I will take the position that any hagiographical narrative is more than pious fiction but reveals something about the world – culture, habitus, landscapes, liturgical practices, etc. – in which it was developed and read aloud.7 In this case, Lubomierski’s reconstruction of the Vita as a collation of encomium legends brings details like the buried magical charms into more, not less, engagement with the imaginative world of late antique audiences.8 It is not a question of social history (what did people actually do?) but rather of religious or imaginative history: how did people imagine, in this case, the ritual materialization of power? 1 Another time, our holy father Apa Shenoute arose to go to the village Pneueit in order to throw down the idols that were there. 2 And when the heathens9 there learned of it, they went and dug in the road into the village and buried some pharmagia10 in accordance with their books, wanting to block the road. 3 Our father Apa Shenoute mounted his donkey. 4 And as he began to ride along the road, 5 whenever he came to a place where the pharmagia had been buried, the donkey would stand still and dig with his hoof. 6 Immediately the pharmagia would become exposed, 7 and my father would speak with his helper, saying, 8 “Bring them along and hang them from their necks.” 10 Many times the helper who was going with him would strike the donkey, saying, “Get going!” 11 But my father would speak with him, saying, 12 “Let him be! For he knows what he’s doing.” 14 And again he would say to the helper, 15 “Take the vessels [skeuos] and keep them in your hands until we enter the village and hang them from their necks.” 16 And when he entered the village, the heathens saw him and the vessels in the hands of the helper. 17 Immediately they fled and disappeared.11

The story draws first and foremost on the biblical story of Balaam and the Ass, from the Pentateuch (Numbers 22). In that story a prophet begins a ride south to help the Israelites, but an angel of God, only visible to his donkey, obstructs the road. Unaware of the angel, Balaam tries to make the donkey move, abusing him repeatedly. Then suddenly the donkey speaks to him, observing the injustice of whipping a loyal helper, and just then the angel becomes visible to

5

Emmel 2017: 399–401. Note that §§ 9 and 13 appear only in the Ethiopic version. Emmel 2017: 380. 7 See, e.g., Rose 2009; Bovon 2012; Nicklas 2016. 8 Lubomierski 2006; Lubomierski 2007; Lubomierski 2008. 9 I prefer the explicitly derisive, caricaturing term “heathen” to represent the hagiographical or ecclesiastical perspective on non-Christian religious folk and to avoid any semblance of historical/ ethnographic objectivity in the documents. “Pagan” is often (incorrectly) used as an historical category for non-Christian religious entities. Cf. Jones 2012; Frankfurter 2017: 7–9. 10 I have replaced the translations with the original words in transliteration, since these words preserve the intrinsic uncertainty and caricature suggested in the legend. 11 V. Sinuthii [Bohairic], secs. 83–84, ed. Leipoldt 1951: 41, trans. (with emendations) Emmel 2017: 400. 6

SHENOUTE AND MAGIC

301

Balaam as well. The story ends with Balaam able to continue, though under God’s strict control. In the Shenoute story, a scribe has drawn on the idea of the uniquely prescient donkey, but not much else: Shenoute himself emerges more intuitive than Balaam, and it is instead his helper who keeps trying to abuse the donkey (10). The donkey’s immobility in the presence of the pharmagia (rather than an angel) may be a comment on the stupidity of people who fear such ritual materials. In any event, scripture offers only the most general inspiration for a legend of the abbot’s charismatic discernment of evil in his path. The real interest in the story lies in Shenoute’s fearless reversal of the pharmagia. The narrative purpose in the villagers’ effort to bind Shenoute magically was to protect their shrines. (As Emmel himself has observed, any historical basis for the abbot’s solitary crusade on a village called Pneueit is entirely uncertain).12 But the story depends on the conceivability of placing binding (or protective) spells on a boundary across which the intended victim might pass. Even more, the story proposes a textual basis for such spells (“according to their books”). Such practices are, in fact, enjoined in a number of Coptic binding texts: an erotic charm begins, “just as I take you [the vellum charm] and put you at the door and the pathway of [the victim], (so also) you must take his heart and his mind.”13 Another text, meant to destroy a man and his family, instructs the placement of a metal defixio as well as a wax poppet: “bury them at the door.”14 Boundaries are also the sites of protective charms (and one might plausibly read the Pneueit villagers’ efforts as indeed protective). An extensive invocation in a papyrus codex in the University of Michigan collection recommends the following “For the safety of your house and the walkways by your door. Recite [the invocation] over some torrential water [ĹĿʼn ĻŅőŃĹ] and sprinkle your house and the walkways by your door, and it will guard you from every pharmakia and (will) heal every disease, and (guard you from) every demon…”15 These binding charms, amulets, and ritual instructions from the fourth through seventh centuries demonstrate the very conceivability of the villagers’ acts: the use of boundaries for the placement of “magic,” the variety of materials that might be placed, buried, or sprinkled on such boundaries to afflict victims or protect inhabitants, and the general culture in which people actually engaged magic to address crisis. But can we then take this interpretation to Shenoute’s “reversal” of the pharmagia? Shenoute and his helper collect the charms and hang them (ġƓĿʼn) around the necks of the villagers (8 & 15). In

12 13 14 15

Emmel 2017. Ashmolean Museum 1981.940 = ACM 84. Heidelberg kopt. 679 = ACM 110. Michigan 593 = ACM 133, application #30, cf. #22.

302

D. FRANKFURTER

this way the pharmagia implicitly falls back on them. But what kinds of magical things does one hang around necks? In fact, this is the practice surrounding healing amulets, which instruct the “wearing (Greek phoro-)” of the inscribed slip: e.g., “Heal her who wears this divine amulet of the disease afflicting her”;16 “This is the amulet that you bind (ĹĿŃƕ) upon your right forearm.”17 The drama of Shenoute’s act of reversal here involves his putting the binding spells back on the villagers like amulets meant to cure. True to its origin in a festival encomium, the story is entertaining in the way that any contestation of super-powers could be, but it also reveals much about the world of ritual practices and about Shenoute’s own legendary mastery of that world. Again, we cannot claim anything historical here beyond devotees’ posthumous appreciation of Shenoute’s charisma, discernment, and skills, as these virtues extended into the world and techniques of magical substances. Emmel noticed an intriguing shift in the terminology for the magical “stuff” buried on the road: from pharmagia (2–6) to skeuos (15–16).18 While pharmagia – likely a combination of pharmaka and magia – suggests some mysterious binding materials (such as books might instruct) that could be buried, we are deliberately left wondering: papyrus or metal-inscribed curses? Wax poppets? Animal parts? In some ways the vagueness (and inventiveness) of the category means to be a parody of the real magical assemblages used during this period (like the wax poppet and metal lamella prescribed for a Coptic curse procedure mentioned above [ACM 110]). But what Shenoute and his assistant collect are “vessels (ĻijŅĵĩʼnĿŅ)” – indeed, vessels of ƙijĵ, using the original Egyptian word for cosmic and ritual power.19 The shift clarifies the material form of the substances buried, suggesting clay vessels filled with some kind of liquid. Is this important? The detail reflects an interesting feature of magical practice in late antique Egypt: the ritual use of vessels. The use of vessels – from small, portable bottles to larger containers – in the ritual control and transmission of dangerous powers is well known in the history of religions. Folk sorceries in both modern England and Haitian Voudoun have their specific traditions of containing nefarious powers in bottles.20 One speaks not only of the spirits trapped within bottles but also of the “affordance” of the bottle itself, as a thing that contains substances from which nefarious or apotropaic agencies might emerge. To return to the story in Shenoute’s Vita: the skeuē function ambiguously, between defixiones – “binding” Shenoute – and apotropaia – protecting the village from Shenoute. Apotropaic vessels on

16 17 18 19 20

PGM P18 = ACM 13; cf. ACM 11, 14. London Or. Ms. 5987 = ACM 70. Emmel 2017: 401n ad loc. Ritner 1993: 235–249; van der Vliet 2019: 242–244. See, e.g., McAlister 1995; Hoggard 2016; Iafrate 2019: 60–79.

SHENOUTE AND MAGIC

303

a much larger, painted scale are actually attested from late antique Egypt, but what about aggressive or binding vessels?21 II This topic of magical vessels brings me to the second context for Shenoute and magical practices in late antique Egypt: in this case a claim by the abbot, in his sermon “Not Because a Fox Barks,” to have smashed vessels of urine on the steps of his nemesis Gesios’s house: 1 For just as there is no “robbery” for those who truly have Jesus – with respect to what you have said about me 2 because I took your gods secretly 3 and because I caused your disgrace and shame to be attached to the doorposts of your house, written on sheets of papyrus, 4 after your jars of urine, bottled as if it were wine, were broken upon the steps of your house and into your doorway … 5 -- (so too) there is no “freedom” for those who put their trust in Kronos, namely you, …22

To make sense of section 4 it is first important to appreciate the broader verbal context of Shenoute’s aggression here. As David Brakke has recently argued, the totality of this sermon functions as a curse: that is, an illocutionary condemnation and reduction of a victim by means of verbal acts.23 (They are illocutionary rather than “rhetorical” acts insofar as they accomplish this reduction of the target/victim through the saying itself, rather than by convincing an audience through argument and flourish).24 In describing “Not Because a Fox Barks” in this way, Brakke classifies it with Shenoute’s Sermon against the Devil, a strange speech that both reifies the threat of the Devil in the experience of the audience and vilifies, even ridicules, the Devil as a force through verbal declarations and similes.25 Shenoute is clearly no stranger to the verbal genre of curse – to the kind of linguistic magic that effects transformation in the context of performance. Nor is he unaccustomed to the material expression of curse magic, as section 3 describes. Here the “disgrace” and “shame” – that is, the declarations of cursedness and vilification that Shenoute lays upon his 21

Cf. Xanthopoulou 2010. Shenoute of Atripe, “Not Because a Fox Barks,” tr. Brakke and Crislip 2015: 201. For text see Leipoldt and Crum 1908: 79, #24. 23 Brakke 2021. 24 See Frankfurter 2019b. 25 See van der Vliet 1992; Brakke 2006: 97–113. See also Frankfurter 1993: 127–140. 22

304

D. FRANKFURTER

enemy Gesios – are delivered in material, inscribed form, on papyrus sheets that convey the quasi-divine agency of the prophet Shenoute himself.26 Brakke aptly compares the abbot’s act of wielding curses against an individual in this fashion to the ca. sixth-century curse in the University of Michigan collection that the monk Apa Victor wrote against Alo daughter of Aese.27 That is to say, Shenoute’s material curse participates in a broader late antique culture in which monks assumed the authority, capability, and even responsibility to chant and inscribe curses as much as blessings.28 Like protective blessings, such as those the Theban monk Frange regularly inscribed for homes and animals, curses were often affixed to points of their victim’s property, and it is important to witness the adoption of this intentional material placement also in the world of monks.29. Of course, Shenoute may well have intended the “binding to doorposts (ĹĿʼnŃ … ĩƙĿʼnĻ ĩĻĿʼnĩƝŃĿ ĹŁĩĵįij)” to recall the apotropaic instructions of the biblical shma’ (Dt 6: 9; cf. Ex 12:7), indicating paradoxically that he had affixed curses to Gesios’s doorposts exactly as the protective shma’ prayer should be. But in any case, he claims the authority both to curse and to place inscribed version of his curses on his victim’s property. So what of the jars or pots of urine – “your urine (ĻĩĵĹįĹĿĿʼn), in some bottles/pots like wine (ĩŇƙĻƙĩĻƓĿƓĿʼn ƙőŅ įŃŁ)”? One immediately wonders why Gesios would have pots of urine outside his house such that Shenoute could smash them. Brakke and Crislip interpret the passage as referring indeed to Gesios’s wine, which Shenoute here would be analogizing to urine along the lines of his previous attacks on the patron’s “foul wine.”30 They also refer to the historical use of urine for cleaning clothes, in which case Gesios might actually have had pots of urine stored outside his house to pass on to the local fullers.31 But given the broader ritualized context in which Shenoute has acted toward Gesios – the verbal cursing, the affixing of written curses on his property – there is reason at least to consider more symbolic meanings than just vandalism. For one thing, a particular “affordance” of the ritual vessel (besides holding magical substances) was its dramatic capacity to be smashed in a strategically directed way (as vividly recalled in Jeremiah 19). Could this context underlie the smashing of the jars of urine on Gesios’s doorstep (jars albeit attributed to Gesios’s possession)? As Robert Ritner has shown, this sort of performative act with pots (whether as aggression or sacrifice) is documented 26 Compare Naqlun N.45/95, which sends “shame, degradation, and disgrace” on another person by the power of the solar angels: van der Vliet 2000; Brakke 2021. 27 Michigan 3565 = ACM #104. See Brakke 2021. 28 See Frankfurter 2005; Brakke 2021. 29 Compare ACM #90, invoking God’s judgment onto several people, with a final curse against whoever opens the papyrus, and ACM #28, folded evidently to insert somewhere on the property. On Apa Frange’s material blessings see Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010. 30 Brakke and Crislip 2015: 201n2. 31 Flohr 2011.

SHENOUTE AND MAGIC

305

in deposits and burials from early Egypt – and still possibly recalled as a paradigmatic prophetic act in a second-century CE papyrus of the Potter’s Oracle.32 But Shenoute’s act also caused urine to flow from the threshold (ŁĻĻį) of the house “into your door.” Is this detail of chaotic seepage supposed to conjure the intrinsic disgust of urine entering the house?33 Here it is worth noting a detail in the Coptic Martyrdom of Phoibammon, in which a “pot of urine (ĿʼnƓĿƓĿʼn ĹĹį)” is brought out, along with pork-meat, to disempower the martyr: “so that he would not be able to perform magic from thence on.”34 The same method of neutralizing a martyr’s power against a magos (in this case with a skeuos of urine) appears in the Coptic Martyrdom of Macarios of Antioch.35 Thus, if Shenoute’s aggressive spreading of urine was not meant to convey the intrinsic defilement that it would in modern cultures, could it be that the abbot meant something more particular in this scene, such as the disempowerment of Gesios’s “magic” (as it were) by means of a substance culturally associated with this sort of agency?36 This passage from “Not Because a Fox Barks” is challenging to make sense of historically, while martyrologies are themselves notoriously difficult either to date or to utilize for such specific purposes as this one. At the very least, we can say that Shenoute was self-consciously engaged in acts of cursing against Gesios and that, apparently as an expression of that cursing, he deliberately broke jars or pots of some liquid on Gesios’s front steps. All I have been able to do in elaborating this act of vandalism is to offer possible ritualized contexts in which it might have made sense to his monastic audience (if not Gesios himself). And in that suggestive vein, let me offer one more observation about Shenoute’s own verbal curse acts. As Brakke and Crislip argue, the grammatical superstructure of this passage is a sentence of correlated comparison: “Just as there is no ‘robbery’ for those who have Christ … (so too) there is no ‘freedom’ (ĹĻŇŃĹƙĩ) for those who put their trust in Kronos.”37 But why “freedom”? Gesios’s freedom from being robbed, perhaps, or from harassment by “those

32 Ritner 1993: 144–153. On P. Graf G.29787 = Potter’s Oracle papyrus P1, see Koenen 1968: 195–197; Kerkeslager 1998: 70–71; and compare Ritner 1993: 152n688. 33 Cf. Miller 1997. 34 Martyrdom of Phoibammon, Pierpont Morgan ms. M582, fol. 14r, §196; cf. fol. 16r, §228, where a room in a bath-house is covered in urine during a contest of Phoibammon and a wizard; in Müller and Uljas 2019: 104, 109. 35 Hyvernat 1886: 59. 36 I am grateful to Phillip Levine for his exhaustive work in November 2019, confirming that urine did not have magical functions in the Greek and Roman traditions. 37 Brakke and Crislip 2015: 201. See Leipoldt and Crum 1908: 79. On the correlated comparison in Coptic see Layton 2011: sec. 506, although in this case the “so too” (Ňġij Ňĩ ıĩ) is missing.

306

D. FRANKFURTER

who have Christ”?38 Both make sense. But one also notes that inside this superstructure, as an elaboration of (Gesios’s accusation of) “robbery,” Shenoute describes two different performative curse acts: the affixing of the cursepapers and the breaking of the pots on Gesios’s property. In this context I would propose that mntrmhe be read more as “release,” the opposite of “binding”: release, that is, from the curses that Shenoute is levelling on his victim through multiple media, including their binding to the doorposts. “There is no release from the curses, the binding words, that I have laid on you!” CONCLUSIONS The argument of this paper has not been that Shenoute practiced magic or combatted magic but that he and his devotees participated fully in a culture of binding and cursing by means of speech acts, material assemblages (from vessels to inscribed media), and performative acts like smashing pots and digging up suspected pharmakeia. The second part of the paper extended a well-known aspect of the abbot: his strong sense of his prophetic role and of the power of his speech in that role. His prophetic condemnations, curses, functioned in an illocutionary mode, not describing or arguing but declaring, bringing a state into being. In “Not Because a Fox Barks” we see his further extension of this ritual language into physical curse media and even into dramatic action, smashing pots before Gesios’s house. Part I examined a more explicit, if much later and purely legendary vignette of Shenoute combatting the pharmagia of heathen villagers and even reversing the curses, hanging them on the necks of the miscreants as if they were protective amulets. The point in using this legend was not to argue that this really happened but rather that such actions – the villagers’ protective efforts and Shenoute’s dramatic reversal of the spells – were conceivable means of controlling dangerous powers in the region and era of the posthumous cult of Shenoute. Bibliography Boud’hors, Anne, and Heurtel, Chantal 2010. Les Ostraca coptes de la TT 29: Autour du moine Frangé. Études d’archéologie thébaine 3. Brussels. Bovon, François 2012. “Beyond the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books, the Presence of a Third Category: The Books Useful for the Soul.” HTR 105/2, 125–137. Brakke, David 2006. Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity. Cambridge. ——. 2021. “Cursing Monks: The Early Monastic Context of Two Christian Prayers for Justice from Egypt.” Studia Patristica 124, 139–156. 38

Brakke, personal communication, 5/2020.

SHENOUTE AND MAGIC

307

Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Emmel, Stephen 2017. “Shenoute for Historians: The Pneueit Incident (A Monastic Leader and Anti-Pagan Violence in Late Antique Southern Egypt).” In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by David Brakke, Stephen J. Davis, and Stephen Emmel, 369–407. OLA 263. Leuven. Flohr, Miko 2011. “The Uses and Value of Urine.” In: Roman Toilets: Their Archaeology and Cultural History, edited by Gemma C. M. Jansen, Ann Olga KoloskiOstrow, and Eric M. Moormann, 148–154. Leuven. Frankfurter, David 1993. Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis. ——. 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton. ——. 2005. “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 5, no. 1, 157–185. ——. 2017. Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. Princeton/Oxford. ——. 2019a. “Magic and the Forces of Materiality.” In: Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, edited by David Frankfurter, 659–677. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 189. Leiden. ——. 2019b. “Spell and Speech Act: The Magic of the Spoken Word.” In: Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, edited by David Frankfurter, 608–625. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 189. Leiden. Hoggard, Brian 2016. “Witch Bottles: Their Contents, Contexts and Uses.” In: Physical Evidence for Ritual Acts, Sorcery and Witchcraft in Christian Britain, edited by Ronald Hutton, 91–105. New York. Hyvernat, Henri 1886. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte, tirés des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque Vaticane et du Musée Borgia. Texte copte et traduction française avec introduction et commentaires. Paris. Iafrate, Allegra 2019. The Long Life of Magical Objects: A Study in the Solomonic Tradition, Magic in History. University Park, PA. Jones, Christopher P. 2012. “The Fuzziness of ‘Paganism’.” Common Knowledge 18, no. 2, 249–254. Kerkeslager, Allen 1998. “The Apology of the Potter: A Translation of the Potter’s Oracle.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology, edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach, 67–79. Ägypten und Altes Testament 40. Wiesbaden. Koenen, Ludwig 1968. “Die Prophezeiungen des ‘Töpfers’.” ZPE 2, 178–209. Layton, Bentley 2011. A Coptic Grammar, 3rd edition. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s. 20. Wiesbaden. Leipoldt, Johannes 1951. Sinuthii Vita Bohairice. CSCO 41, Script. Copt. 1. Leuven. Leipoldt, Johannes, and Crum, Walter E. 1908. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, vol. 3. CSCO 42, Script. Copt. 2. Leuven. Lubomierski, Nina 2006. “The Vita Sinuthii (The Life of Shenoute): Panegyric or Biography?” Studia Patristica 39, 417–421. ——. 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii. Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. ——. 2008. “The Coptic Life of Shenoute.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Volume 1: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 91–98. Cairo/New York.

308

D. FRANKFURTER

McAlister, Elizabeth 1995. “A Sorcerer’s Bottle: The Visual Art of Magic in Haiti.” In: Sacred Arts of Haitian Vodou, edited by Donald Cosentino, 304–321. Los Angeles. Meyer, Marvin W., and Smith, Richard (eds.) 1994. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. San Francisco. Miller, William Ian 1997. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge/London. Müller, Matthias, and Uljas, Sami 2019. Martyrs and Archangels: Coptic Literary Texts from the Pierpont Morgan Library. STAC 116. Tübingen. Nicklas, Tobias 2016. “New Testament Canon and Ancient Christian ‘Landscapes of Memory’.” Early Christianity 7, 5–23. Orlandi, Tito 1985. Shenute: Contra Origenistas. Rome. Ritner, Robert K. 1993. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54. Chicago. Rose, Els 2009. Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500-1215). Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 40. Leiden. van der Vliet, Jacques 1992. “Chenouté et les démons.” In: Actes du IVe congrès copte, edited by M. Rassart-Debergh and J. Ries, vol. 2, 41–49. Louvain-la-Neuve. ——. 2000. “Les Anges du Soleil: À propos d’un texte magique copte récemment découvert à Deir-En-Naqloun (N. 45/95).” In: Études coptes VII: Neuvième journée d’études, Montpellier, 3-4 Juin 1999, edited by N. Bosson, 319–327. Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte 12. Leuven. ——. 2019. “Roman and Byzantine Egypt.” In: Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, edited by David Frankfurter, 240–276. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 189. Leiden. Xanthopoulou, Maria 2010. “Martyrs, Monks, and Musicians: Two Enigmatic Coptic Vases in the Benaki Museum and Their Parallels.” Mouseio Mpenakē 10, 19–51.

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL: THE DEVELOPMENT OF “RULES” IN EARLY UPPER EGYPTIAN MONASTICISM JAMES E. GOEHRING

Palladius, writing about Pachomius in his Historia Lausiaca (H.L.) circa 419– 420 CE, began by describing the anchorite’s call to inaugurate coenobitic or communal monasticism. An angel appears to Pachomius and instructs him to leave his cave, gather young monks together to live with him, and set down rules (νομοθέτησον) for them according to the model (τύπον) the angel would give him on an engraved bronze tablet (δέλτον χαλκῆν). Palladius follows this introduction with a series of rules presumably drawn from the tablet, including instructions on eating and drinking, work assignments, sleeping arrangements, clothing, visiting monks, meals, and prayers.1 Writing close to one hundred years after Pachomius founded his first community at Tabennisi (323 CE), Palladius fashions a literary story that captures the nature of the Pachomian movement of his day. By then, the federation consisted of some fifteen monasteries, twelve for men and three for women, extending some 650 kilometers as the crow flies along the Nile from Latopolis in Upper Egypt to the Alexandrian coastal suburb of Canopus.2 Common cause and polity required a uniform rule shared by the individual communities. By this date it existed in written form, a fact established by the Jerome’s Latin translation of a Greek copy he obtained from the federation’s monastery of Metanoia at Canopus in 404 CE.3 When one returns to the earliest stages of the Pachomian movement and the emergence of the Pachomian Rule, however, which Palladius purports to describe, his account falls short. It collapses the rule’s origin, the forces behind it, and its subsequent development into

1 Palladius, Historia Lausiaca 32.1–6; Butler 1898: 2:88–92; Veilleux 1980–1982: 2:125– 127; Meyer 1964: 92–93. It is a pleasure to offer this essay in honor of Stephen Emmel, whom I first met in my graduate student years in Claremont, California, and with whom I enjoyed a number of seasons in Egypt on the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity’s Nag Hammadi excavations. The topic of this essay explores the ideas hinted at briefly in an early paper. Goehring 2020: 49–50. 2 Goehring 2017a: 51–52; Goehring 2020: 38–39; for the women’s monasteries, see the first Greek Life of Pachomius (G1) 32, 134; Bohairic Life of Pachomius (completed by Sahidic texts = SBo) 27. 3 Boon 1932; Veilleux 1980–1982: 2:7–11, 141–195.

310

J.E. GOEHRING

a purposeful fiction.4 It conceals the actual origin of the rule behind a curtain of hagiography. It is the origin and early development of a rule within the Pachomian movement that I wish to explore in the following pages. My intent is not to deny Pachomian innovation, but rather to rethink it both within the broader context of Egyptian monasticism in general, and the early developmental stages of Pachomian monasticism in particular. In this context, I want also to raise the issue of the interface between a written collection of rules, once in place, and the oral performance of those rules by monastic leaders and monks. It is necessary initially, however, to underscore the impact of Palladius’s account on the understanding of the Pachomian movement over time. It continues, in fact, to inform modern accounts of the movement and thereby the more general history of Egyptian monasticism. The power of Palladius’s story lies in its creative presentation of Pachomius as a new Moses, albeit a bit lower on the spiritual rung. As Moses received a written text of commandments on stone tablets from God, Pachomius received a written text (δέλτον χαλκῆν ἐν ᾗ ἐγέγραπτο ταῦτα) of rules on a bronze tablet from an angel.5 The story’s expanding impact is seen in its quick embrace and promulgation by the church historian Sozomen, and more slowly through its gradual infiltration into the Pachomian sources themselves. Sozomen, who completed his Historia ecclesiastica ca. 445 CE, follows Palladius’s account closely. He enhances its impact, however, by asserting that bronze tablet given to Pachomius “is still carefully preserved.”6 While he does not inform his readers where they might see it, the assertion of its continued physical existence undergirds it claim to reality. For the ancient historian and his readers, a written rule book formed the basis of Pachomius’s monastic innovation and came thereby to define more generally coenobitic or communal monasticism. When one turns to the Pachomian dossier itself, there is no clear evidence of direct, immediate influence. While the Coptic vita tradition preserves a reference to “rules appointed for you from heaven (Ⲛⲛⲓⲕⲁⲛⲱⲛ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲡⲉ),”7 the assertion is too generic to equate to Palladius’s account. It suggests simply the author’s association of the community’s practices and 4

The difficulty inherent in the interpretation of the various elements in the rule as it has come down to us should, however, give one pause in terms of its projection back to the beginning of the movement. For an effort to unravel the development with discussion of the research, see Joest 2016; Joest 2009. 5 Butler 1898: 2:88. 6 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 3.14.9; translation by Hartranft 1890: 292. 7 The passage survives in Lefort’s Fourth and Fifth Sahidic Life of Pachomius (S4 and S5) and the Bohairic Life (Bo) 50. The text given here is from S5 as found in Lefort 1965: 144; the translation is from Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:72. Veilleux’s translation, which he designates SBo, depends on the Bohairic text, supplemented where it is missing from Sahidic parallels; the opening section (SBo 1) depends on an Arabic text; cf. Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:1–4.

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL

311

rules with the angelic life.8 When one turns to the Greek Life and its manuscript tradition, however, Palladius’s impact becomes clear. As the Life was developed and copied over time, the major non-vita Pachomian sources (Rules, Letter of Ammon, Ascetica, and Historia Lausiaca) slowly insinuated themselves into the tradition.9 The first or primary Greek Life (G1), for example, survives in three tenth to eleventh century manuscripts.10 The oldest manuscript (Florence XI,9) includes G1, the Letter of Ammon, the Ascetica, and excerpts from the Rules. A later eleventh century codex preserves G1, the Letter of Ammon, the Ascetica, and the excerpt from the Historia Lausiaca discussed above.11 Readers who picked up these manuscripts and read them as a whole would necessarily meld the accounts of the various individual sources in their understanding of Pachomian monasticism and its origins. Later editions of the Greek Life carried the process even further by incorporating the non-vita texts into the vita itself. The second Greek Life (G2), for example, inserts elements from the Ascetica into its text,12 while the compiler of the third Greek Life incorporates in addition passages from the Pachomian Apophthegmata and Palladius’s Historia Lausiaca, including the account of the angelic rule.13 As the stories contained in these sources blended into and with the vita tradition, they informed the reader’s interpretation of the stories contained in the original Life itself. Through this process, the angelic rule, a fifth century creation, integrates itself into the story of Pachomian origins. When one turns to the early Coptic and Greek vita traditions themselves, however, the origin, nature, and development of the Pachomian rule is less clear. Moreover, the interpreter must proceed with caution since the versions of the lives we have include the deaths of Pachomius (346) and Theodore (368). The monks who composed or compiled them did so from a perspective years removed from the federation’s origin, a perspective colored by the movement’s success. Furthermore, the fact that such lives functioned not only to laud the movement’s founders but also to promote the monastic lifestyle of the author’s day meant that the portrayal of the past must necessarily be pulled into the present so as to conform its behaviors and practices to the ideals being taught.

8

Frank 1964. Goehring 2020: 48–50. 10 Laurentiana XI,9 (a 10th–11th century codex housed in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurentiana in Florence), Athens 1015 (an 11th c. manuscript at National Library in Athens), and Ambrosiana D69 suppl. (a 14th c. manuscript (incomplete) at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Halkin 1932 supplies texts of the various Greek lives. He was not, however, aware of the Athens manuscript of G1 at the time of publication. On the three manuscripts mentioned, see Goehring 1986: 34–59. 11 Athens 1015. The surviving pages of the Milan manuscript indicate its inclusion of the Ascetica. Other texts likely existed on the lost pages. Goehring 1986: 40–59. 12 Halkin 1932: 56–62; Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:12. 13 Halkin 1932: 65; Halkin 1930; Veilleux 1968: 33–34; Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:14–15. 9

312

J.E. GOEHRING

As such it is extremely difficult to unweave the movement’s historical origins from their later portrayal.14 It is worth beginning consideration of the early Pachomian rule against the backdrop of Pachomius’s entry into the monastic life as an anchorite under the old ascetic Palamon who served as a father to many in the area.15 Life in this ascetic community included instruction on food and drink, meals, clothing, work, sleep, and prayers; the Coptic text mentions living arrangements (individual cells) as well. While not set forth explicitly as a rule in the Greek Life, the Bohairic text introduces a series of expected practices as the rule of the monastic life (ⲡⲓⲕⲁⲛⲱⲛ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉϯⲙⲉⲧⲙⲟⲩⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ) that had been handed down from earlier ascetics.16 While there is no question of a written text here, it would seem that Palamon, functioning as the spiritual father of a group of ascetics, imposed expectations on them that conform to the notion of a rule. It is interesting in this regard to reflect on the traditional tri-partition of the monastic life in Egypt into anchoritic, lavritic, and coenobitic lifestyles, corresponding to the literary portrayal of monks in Life of Antony, the Apophthegmata Patrum, and the Life of Pachomius. I would not only challenge the sharp division that associates the origin of a monastic rule with coenobitic monasticism, but the tri-partite division of the monastic life itself. In the case of monasticism in Upper Egypt, for example, we know from the Pachomian sources that various monasteries existed at the time Pachomius entered into the ascetic life. In addition to Palamon’s community, three of the original nine monasteries in the Pachomian system had existed as independent foundations prior to joining the federation.17 The monasteries of Šeneset, Thmoušons, and Thbew, led respectively by Ebonh, Jonas, and Petronius, petitioned to join the federation.18 In addition, we learn that Theodore resided in a monastery in the diocese of Sne (Latopolis) before joining Pachomius.19 While each of the three monasteries that joined the federation is reported to have conformed to the rules of the federation, one assumes, given the evidence of Palamon’s group, that each had its own system of expectations or rules prior to joining the federation. Given the usual tripartite division of monasticism and a definition of coenobitism based on the Pachomian federation, there is little wonder that the earlier monasteries described in the Pachomian sources are classified at lavra or semi-eremitic clusters of monks. As one recent study asserts, coenobitic monasteries are 14 On the complexity of interpreting the lives, see Goehring 2017b; Goehring 2017c: 1021–1022. 15 SBo 10–16 = G1 6–13; SBo 10 reports that he was “a model and father for many in his vicinity” (Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:30), and G1 8 reports about a boastful monk who had come to stay with them. 16 SBo 10; Lefort 1925: 9. 17 Goehring 1992: 245. 18 SBo 50, 51, and 56 = G1 54, 80. 19 SBo 31 = G1 33.

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL

313

relatively large, administratively organized, have communal hours of prayer, a written rule book, and a bureaucratic style of relationship. Eremitic or semi-eremitic groups, on the other hand, are relatively small, have no complex administrative structure, employ self-regulated private prayer, an orally transmitted rule of life, and a charismatic style of relationship.20 While such distinctions reflect the differences between semi-eremitic and coenobitic monasticism in the completed forms we have come to known, they do not describe Pachomius’s initial effort. I would argue, in fact, that reliance on the tripartite system on monastic organization precludes consideration of outliers, communities that may for example bridge the divide between semi-eremitic and coenobitic monasteries. The monasteries of Ebonh, Jonas, and Petronius, for example, are neatly tucked away as semi-eremitic communities, precluding in the process any possibility that their organizational structure or use of rules might have influenced Pachomius. My point is only that while the evidence does not permit one to claim that Upper Egyptian pre-Pachomian monasteries had begun to move in a coenobitic direction, neither does it preclude that possibility. To assume that coenobitism and organizational rules arose directly when Pachomius struck out on his own, without any transitional stages and apart from the recognition of its development over time, offers but a modern rendition of Palladius’s fictionalized account.21 The evidence suggests that when Pachomius struck out on his own, he began, as one would expect, by emulating his teacher Palamon. The Bohairic Life reports that once established at Tabennisi and following Palamon’s death, Pachomius “gave himself still more to great and numerous ascetic practices,” a regimen reminiscent of his “practicing a hard and exhausting asceticism” with Palamon.22 An initial period of difficulty followed when his brother joined him,23 after which he gathered his first disciples, clothed them in monks’ habits and introduced them to the ascetic life. Both the Coptic and the Greek tradition assert that he established rules for them that he took from scripture.24 The “rules” here should be understood as the ascetic guidelines imparted by a father to his disciples in accordance with the demands of scripture. So too the Coptic tradition records that Palamon instructed the novice Pachomius that “Scripture commands us to do so, adjuring us to labor in fastings, in vigils, and in numerous

20

Layton 2014: 5–9. The distinction between oral rules (Palamon) and a written rule (Pachomius) is worth noting, the question here is when and why the latter form arose, and how, once in hand, a written rule impacted its oral performance and/or actually defined coenobitic monasticism. 22 SBo 18 and 10; Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:41 and 32. 23 SBo 19–20 = G1 14–15; the Coptic tradition alone reports his brother’s death. 24 SBo 23 (ⲁϥⲑⲱϣ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲁⲛⲟⲩⲛ) and G1 25 (ἐκανόνισεν αὐτοῖς); G2 and G3 replace the simple list of practices given here with the Angelic Rule as found in Palladius; see Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:271. 21

314

J.E. GOEHRING

prayers.”25 Rather than organizing a coenobitic community managed through a written rule, Pachomius began at Tabennisi, as one would expect, by emulating his teacher. After his initial efforts in establishing his own community, the vita tradition proceeds to indicate the almost immediate introduction of written rules. When Pachomius’s sister arrives and seeks to embrace the ascetic life, he builds a separate monastery for her. As more and more women joined this new community, Pachomius appointed an elder monk, Peter, to oversee it, and “wrote down in a book the rules of the brothers and sent them to them through [Peter], so that they might learn them.”26 One might suspect that the need arose due to the gendered separation of the two monasteries, a fact that removed Pachomius’s direct personal authority over the women’s community. Be that as it may, the existence of a written rule book at this point in the Life informs the interpretation of the references to rules in the establishment of the following eight men’s monasteries in Pachomius’s lifetime.27 Almost every account in both the Coptic and the Greek tradition affirms that each new monastery in the federation, whether newly founded or pre-existing, was organized according to the rules in place in the federation.28 While none of these later accounts mention written rules, the reference to such in the women’s monastery fosters that interpretation. Given this evidence, shaped as it is by the concerns of its later authors, one can in truth only theorize as to the forces that led Pachomius to create a more definitive set of rules, let alone the chronology of their development. One suspects, however, that Pachomius’s pre-monastic background and the appeal of his emerging organization played a much greater role in production of the rule than the crafted accounts of his life suggest. When one reads the early vita tradition by itself for evidence of guiding principles that set his movement apart, one is struck by the emphasis on education and literacy that they promote. While the desire of the authors to conform Pachomius to the ideals 25

SBo 10; Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:30. Ⲛⲓⲕⲱⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲥϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲟⲩϫⲱⲙ; Lefort 1925: 27; SBo 27; translation from Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:50; cf. G1 32, which likewise refers to written rules (τοὺς κανόνας). 27 Veilleux (1980–1982: 1:272) argues that the account confirms the existence of a set of rules at this point. 28 For Pbau, SBo 49; G1 54; Šeneset, SBo 50; G1 54; Thmoušons, SBo 51; G1 54; Tse, SBo 52; G1 83; Šmin, SBo 54; G1 81; Thbeu, SBo 56; G1 83; Tsmine, SBo 57; G1 83; Phnoum, SBo 58; G1 83. The only exceptions to the common form occur in the Coptic tradition: Šeneset is organized according to rules appointed from heaven; Šmin which, while not referencing rules per se, notes the setting up housemasters and seconds as in the other monasteries; and Tsmine, which mentions no rules or organizational structure. It is worth noting that the Coptic and Greek traditions employ a variety of terms that modern translators invariably translate as “rules.” The Coptic tradition uses ⲧⲱϣ and ⲕⲱⲧ, while the Greek employs θεσμός, κανών, and ὄρος. The Coptic ⲧⲱϣ can be translated as fashion or manner as well as ordinance or rule. Crum 1939, s.v. 26

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL

315

espoused in Athanasius’s Antony is clear, one cannot help but marvel at the role education played over time in the federation’s development.29 Setting aside the fanciful accounts of his childhood,30 later episodes indicate that Pachomius could read and write when he entered the monastic life,31 and learned Greek so as to be able to better communicate with the Greek-speaking brothers.32 His own surviving letters and instructions underscore his learning.33 While the evidence from the rules concerning the requirement of literacy and prevalence of books is difficult to date precisely, the fact of its emphasis, even if dated in its surviving form after Pachomius’s death, suggests the end product of an orientation that shaped the movement from its inception.34 The impression is furthered when one turns to the draw of the federation from Lower Egypt and the nature of its emerging leaders. The Pachomian movement appears to be unique in its creation of a house of foreigners, designed for the influx of recruits coming from Alexandria and Lower Egypt. The Alexandrian Theodore, who first lead the house, and Ammon, who had been educated in Alexandria before joining the Pachomians, indicate the federation’s draw among educated classes in the Alexandrian church. One suspects that members of the house of foreigners, while not all educated, included a fair number who were.35 So too the leadership of federation drew from and promoted learned individuals. While one hears little of most of the individual monasteries’ heads, it is clear that Theodore and Petronius came from prominent families, where one would expect education.36 The tradition confirms it in the case of Theodore, whose secular schooling surely aided his advance. His surviving writings confirm his abilities in this regard.37 While less is known of Horsiesius’s origins, his correspondence with the Alexandrian archbishop and his own impressive writings again confirm his education.38 One suspects that if one had data on the other monastic heads within the federation they would fit into this mold. As Samuel Rubenson established in the case of Antony, the origins of Pachomian monasticism resides among the educated. As in Antony’s case, this need not mean that he was trained at higher levels of rhetoric and philosophy, but

29

Goehring 2018: 161–66; Goehring 2020: 41–43. SBo 3–6; G1 3. 31 SBo 15; G1 9. 32 SBo 89; G1 95. 33 Two instructions and eleven letters have been attributed to Pachomius. Veilleux 1980–1982: 3:1–89; Joest 2010. 34 For the evidence books and learning, see G1 59; Praecepta 25, 100–101, 139–140; Praecepta et Instituta 2. 35 Goehring 2020: 37–38; Goehring 2017a: 51–52. 36 Theodore: SBo 31; G1 33. Petronius: SBo 56; G1 80. 37 Veilleux 1980–1982: 3:91–134. 38 Veilleux 1980–1982: 3:135–224; Bacht 1972. 30

316

J.E. GOEHRING

certainly literate with an awareness of basic philosophical or theological issues.39 Pachomius should be understood in a similar way.40 Petronius’s background and gifts to the federation suggests business acumen as well.41 The point here is not that the federation consisted solely of the educated. Clearly it did not, since it established a process or school, if you will, to teach uneducated monks to read. Rather, the tendency to downplay the import of education in the origins of Pachomius and his movement simply represents the general literary pattern imposed on the understanding of monasticism by Athanasius’s Life of Antony.42 Returning to the question of the federation’s production of a written monastic rule, its origin and development must be understood within the framework of the movement’s orientation towards education, its promotion of leaders from the educated class, and its organization and function as a monastic school. While we cannot know Pachomius’s plans when he set out from Palamon to establish his first community at Tabennisi, the account of his vision suggests an orientation towards community. His initial difficulties in this regard, detailed in a unique account of the conflicts with his first disciples and their eventual expulsion, offer an explanation for his interest in rules. A fragment from this source records Pachomius imposing regulations (ⲧⲱϣ) on the obstinate disciples together with an ultimatum to abide by them or leave, which leads in short order to his driving them out of the monastery.43 Nothing is said about the rules being written at this point. One assumes that Pachomius, as founder and father of the community, served like Palamon before him, as a walking rule book so to speak.44 He set forth the rules and served as the ever ready source of their recall and/or confirmation for members of the community. A written code emerges only when the human source, Pachomius, is not directly available to the ascetics within the community. This occurs with the founding of a second, affiliated monastery, in this case a community of women. As Pachomius was no longer directly available, the rules were written down so that the new community might have access to them. As noted above, the process continued as the federation expanded. While the vita tradition does not explicitly state that the rules used to organize the newly added monasteries along the

39 Rubenson 1990: 185–187; reprinted with a translation of the Letters in Rubenson 1995: 185–187. 40 Goehring 2018: 165. 41 Bo 56; G1 80. According to the Bohairic text, he brought with him to the federation “sheep, goats, cattle, camels, donkeys, carts, and all he possessed, including boats.” Translation from Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:77. 42 The ascetic tradition embodies the biblical message found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2.1–4) 43 Goehring 2000; Veilleux 1980–1982: 1:425–443. 44 Rousseau 1985: 105–106.

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL

317

federation’s guidelines were written, one assumes that they were, particularly as the expansion proceeded further and further up and down the Nile. I would thus argue that the development of a written rule within the Pachomian federation arose from multiple pressures unique to Pachomius and his expanding vision.45 First, while rules were a given aspect of monastic life, whether lived alone or under a father, one suspect’s that Pachomius’s initial struggles in founding his own community emphasized for him the importance of rules and their enforcement. Second, whether from the start or quickly realized, Pachomius’s vision of community involved expansion beyond a single monastery. While history emphasizes Pachomius as the author of the first monastic rule, it was in fact his creative venture in establishing a system of affiliated monasteries that generated the need for such a rule. While necessitated originally perhaps by the creation of a separate women’s monastery, once in place, it naturally repeated itself every time a new monastery was added to the federation. In the process the rule book expanded as the community evolved, a fact in evidence in the complex surviving texts of the rules themselves. As a result, over time it became a distinguishing characteristic of the movement. In the process, the rule embedded itself within the evolving literary tradition as a defining feature of Pachomian monasticism. I would argue further that the unique elements behind the origin and development of a written rule in the Pachomian movement remained unique to the Pachomian movement. One should not assume that the emergence and use of a written rule in the Pachomian federation resulted in the rapid emulation of the practice in other monastic communities, whether those with a looser organization like Palamon’s or those with a more structured federation like that of Shenoute. The power of the ascetic father or community head to regulate the practice of those in his charge had long been exerted through oral means, which allowed the master to mold and shape expectations in response to individual situations and needs.46 The system clearly worked prior to Pachomius’s innovation, and one suspects that it continued to work in many if not most monastic communities in Egypt afterwards. Where the requirements of an expanding, centralized federation did not create the need of a written rule, one need not assume its immediate embrace. The practice in Shenoute’s federation offers a case in point. While a recent study has generated a “Rule” by extracting rules from Shenoute’s use of them 45 Earlier scholarship found the impetus for Pachomius’s monastic organization in his stint as a forced recruit in the army. Chitty 1966: 22. I am doubtful. In his detailed reconstruction of Pachomian chronology, Joest finds no room for Pachomius’s military service. Joest 1994: 132– 144, especially 144. 46 One suspects that the master’s ability to mold and shape expectations continued in the Pachomian community as well. The rule served as a basis which could in various situations be bent according to the needs of the individual monk and/or situation.

318

J.E. GOEHRING

in his Canons,47 there is in fact no hard evidence that a written document or rulebook containing these rules existed. No fragment of such a rulebook has emerged among the extensive remains of the White Monastery library. Rather than imagine the existence of a rulebook on the Pachomian model, the evidence in the Canons can be explained as a written embodiment of Shenoute’s oral regulation of his community. Shenoute’s writings offer unique, detailed access into the organization and running of his federation, the issues he faced, and his efforts to deal with them. It seems only natural that the Canons, as such, would incorporate specific rules to exhort his readers in proper behavior. One need not imagine a separate written rulebook to explain such usage. Shenoute’s writings reveal a person of considerable intellect with a passion for control. He surely drew from those who went before him and was capable of continuing to develop and use rules to further his goals. I would simply argue that he continued to do that within the oral tradition of ascetic rule making and use.48 It is certainly possible that the existence of the Pachomian Rules and Regulations of Horsiesius, copies of which became part of the White Monastery’s library at some point,49 may have influenced Shenoute and his successors. That need not, however, have resulted in a desire to produce their own version. They could simply have used it as another source in formulating their oral commands and to enhance their authority. In the end, the close geographical proximity of the three monasteries in Shenoute’s federation distinguished it from the expansive distances involved in the Pachomian system, a fact that precluded the need of a written rule. Shenoute could be quickly consulted when needed, and as such control remained centralized in his person. The central leadership of the Pachomian movement, on the other hand, housed at its central monastery of Pbow, could not be accessed so readily given the rapid expansion of the federation and the distances involved. Here a written rule became essential, a vehicle that allowed centralized leadership and control to extend over the greater distances involved. The more parochial nature50 of Shenoute’s federation fostered different needs. While one might argue that the existence of a women’s monastery within the federation would have resulted in the need of a written rule book as it did in the Pachomius’s case, there is no reason that it must other than the argument 47

Layton 2014; see my review in Journal of Coptic Studies 18 (2016), 202–207. It may well be that the preservation of his writings, particularly the Canons, represents the federation’s effort at a rulebook of sorts, the preservation of the power of Shenoute’s presence and oral expression in written form. I would add that should hard evidence emerge of the existence of a White Monastery rulebook, I would be happy to change my argument, at least with respect to the White Monastery. 49 Most surviving Pachomian sources stem from the White Monastery library. How and when they were acquired remains uncertain. Goehring 2017b. 50 There is, for example, no indication of a house of foreigners in Shenoute’s federation. It appears unique to the Pachomians. Goehring 2017a: 52–53. 48

PALAMON, PACHOMIUS, AND THE RULE OF THE ANGEL

319

that after Pachomius coenobitic organizations followed the Pachomian model.51 Without evidence of the existence of a White Monastery rulebook, however, the assertion of such simply fosters the literary tradition, ancient and modern, that Pachomius’s innovation of a written rule came to define coenobitic monasticism in Egypt and beyond. It rests, I would argue, in large part on scholarship’s fascination with Pachomius and his legal innovation, a fascination built in part on Palladius’s legend of a written angelic rule. Bibliography Bacht, Heinrich 1972. Das Vermächtnis des Ursprungs. Studien zum frühen Mönchtum 1. Würzburg. Boon, Amand 1932. Pachomiana Latina: Règle et Épitre de S. Pachome, Épitre de S. Théodore et “Liber” de S. Orsiesius. Texte latin de S. Jérôme. Leuven. Butler, Cuthert 1898. The Lausiac History of Palladius: A Critical Discussion Together with Notes on Early Egyptian Monasticism. 2 vols. Cambridge. Repr. ed. Hildesheim 1967. Chitty, Derwas 1966. The Desert a City. Oxford. Crum, W. E. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford. Frank, P. Suso 1964. ΑΓΓΕΛΙΚΟΣ ΒΙΟΣ: Begriffsanalytische und Begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum “Engelgleichen Leben” im frühen Mönchtum. Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 26. Münster. Goehring, James E. 1986. The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism. Patristische Texte und Studien 27. Berlin/New York. ——. 1992. “The Origins of Monasticism.” In: Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, edited by Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, 235–255. Detroit. ——. 2000. “The First Sahidic Life of Pachomius.” In: Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice, edited by R. Valantasis, 19–33. Princeton Readings in Religions. Princeton/ Oxford. ——. 2017a. “The Pachomian Federation and Lower Egypt: The Ties that Bind.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Northern Egypt: Beni Suef, Giza, Cairo, and the Nile Delta, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 49–60. Cairo. ——. 2017b. “Pachomius and His Successors in the Library of Deir Anba Shenouda.” In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by David Brakke, Stephen J. Davis, and Stephen Emmel, 409–427. OLA 263. Leuven. ——. 2017c. “Pachomius the Great.” In: The Early Christian World, 2nd ed., edited by Philip F. Esler, 1021–1035. London. ——. 2018. “The Persistence of Crafted Memories: The Nag Hammadi Cartonnage, Upper Egyptian Monasticism, and the Literary Sources.” In: Envisioning God in the Humanities: Essays on Christianity, Judaism, and Ancient Religion in Honor of Melissa Harl Sellew, edited by Courtney J. P. Friesen, 153–172. Eugene, OR. 51 It is clear from Shenoute’s writings that he had difficulties with the women’s monastery, which could be used to argue for the need of a written rule. As there is no evidence of such a text, however, one must conclude that Shenoute dealt with the situation in a different manner. One suspects that the issues involved his leadership style, a factor that a written rule would not necessarily fix. Krawiec 2002.

320

J.E. GOEHRING

——. 2020. “Producing Pachomius: The Role of Lower Egypt in the Creation, Reception, and Adaptation of the Pachomian Vita Tradition.” In: Wisdom on the Move: Late Antique Traditions in Multicultural Conversation. Essays in Honor of Samuel Rubenson, edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey et al., 35–53. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 161. Leiden. Halkin, François 1930. “L’Histoire Lausiaque et les vies grecques de S. Pachome.” AnBoll 48, 257–301. ——. 1932. Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae. Bruxelles. Hartranft, Chester D. 1890. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicenen Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Repr. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan 1976. Joest, Christoph 1994. “Ein Versuch zur Chronologie Pachoms und Theodoros.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 85, 132–144. ——. 2009. “Die Praecepta Pachoms: Untersuchung zu dem grössen Abschnitt der Pachom-Regeln.” ZAC 13, 430–451. ——. 2010. Über den geistlichen Kampf: Katechesen des Mönchvaters Pachom. Weisungen der Väter 9. Beuron. ——. 2016. Die Mönchsregeln der Pachomianer. CSCO 660, Subsidia 134. Leuven. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery. Oxford. Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1925. S. Pachomii Vita Bohairice Scripta, CSCO 89, Script. Copt. 7. Paris. ——. 1965. S. Pachomii Vitae Sahidice Scriptae, CSCO 99–100, Script. Copt. 9–10. Louvain. Meyer, Robert T. 1964. Palladius: The Lausiac History. Ancient Christian Writers 34. New York. Rousseau, Philip 1985. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt. Berkeley. Rubenson, Samuel 1990. The Letters of St. Antony: Origenist Theology, Monastic Tradition and the Making of a Saint. Lund. ——. 1995. The Letters of St. Antony: Monasticism and the Making of a Saint. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Minneapolis. Veilleux, Armand 1968. La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien au quatrième siècle. Studia Anselmiana 57. Rome. ——. 1980–1982. Pachomian Koinonia: The Lives, Rules, and Other Writings of Saint Pachomius and His Disciples, 3 vols. Cistercian Studies Series 45–47. Kalamazoo.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY: THE SEQUEL REBECCA KRAWIEC

INTRODUCTION The subject of this article seems particularly fitting for the scholar and colleague who suggested my dissertation topic on the lives of women in the White Monastery under Besa’s predecessor, Shenoute. My project was only possible because of Stephen Emmel’s own extraordinary reconstruction of Shenoute’s literary corpus and his generosity in sharing with me what he had seen in terms of correspondence with female monks.1 My dissertation included a short epilogue on Besa, which I did not include in the later book.2 My purpose here is to examine evidence of institutional changes for the women in this monastic system in those texts which Besa directly addresses the female community, either collectively or to individuals within it.3 The nature of the evidence, namely, Besa’s attempts at guidance and intervention, creates an emphasis on moments of conflict and even crisis – not unlike the evidence for women’s lives under Shenoute. Further, the women’s community continues to exist in a state of tension between physical separation and institutional cohesion, a cohesion

1 Stephen Emmel suggested that I study the texts Shenoute wrote to women as the basis of a study of female monasticism in Spring 1993, as he finished his dissertation which was later published as Emmel (2004). I am forever grateful to him for this suggestion and his guidance throughout the dissertation process. This article is based on a conference paper delivered at the 2018 annual meeting of the North American Patristic Society. I wish to thank Stephen Davis and Candace Buckner for conversation at that conference which help me formulate some of my ideas about the use of monastic terminology for the female community. I also thank David Brakke and Camille Angelo for reading a draft and making suggestions for improvement. Last, but nowhere least: my heartfelt gratitude to my colleagues at Canisius College, Drs. Nancy Rourke and Sarah Woodside, for their unwavering support and encouragement in our writing group. 2 Krawiec 1996 and Krawiec 2002. 3 Unlike the texts of Shenoute, Besa’s texts are not collected into Canons but they were meant to provide instruction, guidance, and at times correction for erroneous behavior. They also were part of the monastic tradition through scribal copying. For a discussion of Besa as an example of a letter collection, see Choat 2013b: 74. An overview of Besa as a monastic leader and Christian theologian is in Kuhn 1954a, 1954b, 1955. Since I follow Emmel’s identification of certain Besa fragments as by Shenoute, they are not included in this investigation (whereas they were included in Kuhn’s study).

322

R. KRAWIEC

that exists on a rhetorical level.4 I will argue that a subset of letters in which women are threatening to leave reveals the women’s agency in defining correct institutional behavior, even as the head of the monastery continues to assert the traditional norms over and against their claims. I will examine specific monastic terminology, ƙĩĻĩĩŇį, in these women’s threats to leave in the overall context of the range of terms Besa uses for the monastery. I then shift my attention to the debates within these same texts about whether or not the women who are complaining have been ill-treated within their community and how these debates reveal institutional development under Besa’s leadership. Finally, I examine evidence for any particularly gendered language within these debates to ask questions about women’s monasticism in Besa’s White Monastery. Collectively, Besa’s sources show a development in institutional rhetoric. While both Shenoute and Besa use the metaphor of a “heavenly Jerusalem” for the monastic community, Shenoute often threatened expulsion as a means to protect its purity. Besa more emphasizes a need to remain within the community since it is superior to life outside the walls.5 Two intersecting points of analysis create the basis for my approach. The first pertains to genre: Besa’s texts are part of a genre of monastic letter writing, which Malcolm Choat has argued is “one of the most important … literary phenomenon of the monastic movement.”6 Choat’s work has shown both the expanse of the genre of monastic letter and the varying registers for letters as sources, including original audience and their role in later letter collections, such as Shenoute’s Canons.7 Choat has further noted that Shenoute’s letters often lack elements associated with ancient epistolary practice, but that they are “letters” in the “function and description.”8 Besa, like Shenoute, wrote letters to address particular circumstances but constructed them with an awareness of both biblical and monastic literary traditions of sacred authority. Likewise, whatever their original purpose, or audience, the letters were subsequently chosen to be copied and made part of the manuscript tradition of the White Monastery. His letters too were necessary to connect the physically distant

4 While examination of Besa as successor of Shenoute carries with it an implied comparison, or contrast, with Shenoute’s rhetoric and structures, I will not be exploring the two in relationship to each other in depth in this article, but keeping a focus on Besa with the Shenoutean system as the background. 5 Schroeder 2007 for the purity of the monastic body. Krawiec 2002 also discusses symbolic body language and the use of expulsion. Behlmer 2002 examines the use of “heavenly Jerusalem” language in the works of both Shenoute and Besa. 6 Choat 2013a: 228. 7 Choat 2013b examines the latter point, while his earlier article (Choat 2013a) puts the letters of both the papyri and manuscript traditions in conversation with each other, rather than separate. 8 Choat 2013b: 80. I here note that in my dissertation I refer to both Shenoute and Besa’s texts as “documentary evidence” but this is not my position now.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

323

communities of the overall federation, particularly the women’s community.9 Yet the letters themselves often refer to the several male authorities who were present to share the teachings, perhaps simply through reading the letter, and to enact Besa’s decisions. In other words, Besa could possibly have used these men as a means of oral communication of his positions. Choat argues that the “impulse to write,” even when verbal communication was possible, lay in the fact that letters “provided a record, and proof of authority.”10 Besa wrote letters that create an intersection of rhetoric and physicality, where the male bodies of the letter-bearers implied the physical presence of the letter-writer as his words were read. This intersection also shapes the formation of the monastery as an institution. The second point of analysis stems from the first: that rhetorical texts are the sources for analysis of an institution. Ryan Skinnell has argued that, “Rhetoric and institutions are, and have always been, intimately intertwined. Rhetoric and institutions may or may not need each other to exist, of course, but the relationship is often – maybe always – symbiotic.”11 At the same time, he points out that the concept of an “institution” is itself often taken for granted, even as it is the subject of study. Theories about institutional development, and the use of rhetoric to understand institutions, will guide my analysis of Besa’s language about the female community on its own and its relationship to the larger system – what modern scholars call “the White Monastery Federation.” Besa’s need for cohesion among disparate subsets in the monastery, including the female community, exists in tension with ways in which women functioned as – and in the case of some letters, were treated as – separate from it.12 The moments of resistance do not lead to institutional change of the authority structures, but they do catalyze new aspects of an institutional rhetoric rooted in the language of continuity of tradition of the “fathers.” Besa uses various rhetorical devices to appeal to the women’s allegiance to the monastery. In terms of maintaining the authority structures, Besa calls on an emotional cohesion to navigate this tension, but in so doing grants agency to the women in participating in that cohesion. He also repeatedly argues that the benefit of remaining in the monastery, the “profit” (ƙįʼn) of salvation, overrides any reason to leave it.

9 See Krawiec 2002 for the role of letters and the female community under Shenoute. See Layton 2014 for a description of the federation and the hierarchy of the communities. See Davis 2020 for a description of the work done in the area identified as the women’s community, including evidence that “marked Shenoute as the patron saint of the monastery” (278), as well as descriptions of the women’s own writing. 10 Choat 2013a: 234. 11 Skinnell 2019: 72. 12 This is equally true of Shenoute’s leadership, which I have already explored, and which is why I term this contribution the “sequel,” as Besa is continuing structures set by Shenoute.

324

R. KRAWIEC

NAMING THE MONASTERY: INSTITUTIONAL RHETORIC AND DEVELOPMENT

Institutions are pliable, even as they also tend to have resiliency.13 Likewise, as Ewa Wipszycka has examined, we need to recognize that distinctions among the ancient words for “monastery” are not always sharp, even as scholars seek to determine the respective significance in their usage.14 Similarly, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom calls attention to the range of Coptic and Greek terms in monastic texts that all tend to be collapsed into one translation, “monastery,” which means “the nuance is lost.” Instead she provides a detailed explanation for the “subtle connotations” in their variance.15 Both the language for the institution, and the institution itself, shift in meaning, leading to the rather obvious question of what we mean when we use the word “monastery”: the rules? The various spaces that monks inhabit? The collection of people themselves in relationship to each other? What is the gender of the monastery, given the complex relationship between male and female communities within it? The idea that the word “institution” is a “floating signifier” whose meaning is determined from context equally characterizes the term “monastery.”16 In the texts by Besa, he generally uses the terms ŇĿŁĿŅ, ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį, and Ĺġ, along with one use of ĹĿĻġŅŇįŃijĿĻ, as institutional terminology but, in agreement with Wipszycka, it is not always clear why Besa has chosen one term versus another, or what groups he means in using them, namely, just the male community (or communities), just the female, and/or the federation as a whole.17 In addition, the terms at times seem to indicate physical locations, at others membership in a group, and at yet others a combination of these. Within this general range, however, Besa uses one term in a more circumscribed way: in certain texts to various specifically named women, all of whom are threatening to leave, Besa uses the word ƙĩĻĩĩŇį, which does not appear in any of the rest of the surviving fragments.18 I will suggest that Besa uses this 13 Skinnell 2019: 75 discusses the pliability of institutions. But see also Pierson 2004: 123– 124, who argues that the “assumption of institutional plasticity” is a “crucial flaw” in the scholarship on institutions he surveys. This question seems open to debate in this field of study. 14 Wipszycka 2009: 281. See also Albarran Martínez 2015: 17. 15 Brooks Hedstrom 2017: 121 has a survey of the range of terms, including those used in this article on 121–125. She examines how there is a “rhetorical development of monastic spatial language” that transformed regular space into monastic space. My focus is narrower, on the specific institutional language in Besa’s letters. 16 Skinnell 2019: 72. 17 For Coptic text and English translation, see Kuhn 1956a, 1956b. All references are to the text numbers and versification used in both volumes. Translations are Kuhn’s, with occasional modifications. I call attention to issues of translation when they are particularly relevant. 18 A necessary caveat is that we are missing portions of Besa’s works and this term certainly could have been used elsewhere. My analysis is limited to trends in terminology in what texts have survived.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

325

word to refer to the female community as a particular subset of the overall institution, though still connected with it. That is, it is a term that marks the particular tension of the institutionalization of the female community. Further, these sources, along with others written to the female community collectively, also contain rhetorical appeals that allow “macrostructural analysis.” This examines “how institutions impose continuity, conformity, and constraint,” here specifically making the female community emotionally cohesive to the larger monastery.19 Institutions that focus on education – and late antique monasteries were intimately related to paideia – are “both material and discursive formations.”20 We see this intersection in the terminology that signifies the monastery in its various elements. The term ŇĿŁĿŅ appears primarily in Besa’s texts that the editor, Kuhn, identifies as to either men or to the monastic community as a whole. Kuhn almost always translates it as “monastery,” except when he uses “convent,” suggesting that it is a term that can refer to the collective whole, the men’s community, or the women’s community – and the particular reference depends on context.21 Besa uses this term, among the three generic ones, most often when he refers to the monastery in relationship to its rules, that is, as an institution that “regulate[s] behavior through providing norms that reward ‘acceptable’ conduct, sanction[s] the ‘inappropriate’, and order[s] expectations of exchange.”22 The clearest example of ŇĿŁĿŅ meaning this type of institution comes from a fragment that focuses on the establishment of commandments and laws from the fathers as the basis for the “monasteries.”23 The institution itself depends on the renunciation of material goods, which the monks renounce (in 19

Skinnell 2019 differentiates between the analysis that “classical theories” were geared towards (77–78) and more recent developments in the scholarship on institutional studies he draws on. While he is interested in moving beyond the classical theories, they provide useful language for thinking about the dynamics of the monastery. 20 Skinnell 2019: 73, quoting the 1996 first edition of Keywords in Compositional Studies. There is an abundance of scholarship on the relationship between monasticism and paideia; see as an example Larsen and Rubenson 2018. 21 Fragment 20.II.4 is the main example of a translation as “convent” for ŇĿŁĿŅ in a letter addressed to two women. This term as “monastery” stands in contrast to Layton 2014, examining Shenoute’s texts, where he translates it consistently as “abodes,” that is as units of living space within the larger monastery (52–53) but different (larger) than the houses. It may well be that Shenoute and Besa use the term “topos” differently, as another example of development of institutional terminology. This requires further separate examination, as does whether there is a systemic differentiation amongst these terms. See Brooks Hedstrom 2017: 122–123 for a broader discussion of the term in monastic literature more generally. 22 Skinnell 2019: 70–71, quoting G. Thomas Goodright. 23 Fragment 31.I.1: “Our holy fathers since the day when they gathered together these monasteries”; I.4: “our fathers who established the foundation (ŅĹĻŅĻŇĩ) of these monasteries.” It is interesting that the verb for “establish” can also mean “compose a book” (Coptic-dictionary.org), given that Besa is describing ways members of the monastery have made written agreements, and that the monastery’s ‘foundations’ are written rules.

326

R. KRAWIEC

writing) so that their material possessions can be used for “the fellowship of God and the support of the poor.”24 This general letter addressing people who have left the monastery re-iterates the same point that appears in letters written to individual monks: having joined the monastery, and given over their goods, people cannot ask for them back if they later choose to leave.25 Moreover, it is this same fragment that has the unique use of the term ĹĿĻġŅŇįŃijĿĻ, when Besa juxtaposes “the laws of the churches and the laws of the monasteries,” calling both “quite inflexible, especially for the common life (ĵĿijĻĿģijĿŅ).”26 Here the ĹĿĻġŅŇįŃijĿĻ stands alongside the ĩĵĵķĩŅijġ as equivalent institutions of Christianity, both run by laws (ĻĿĹĿŅ) that need to be followed for membership. Using this term suggests the overall topic, including the use of ŇĿŁĿŅ, discusses an institution based on rules and serving as a part of general society. The second term, ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį, complicates this picture. Besa at times uses ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį in reference to something associated with the fathers, as with ŇĿŁĿŅ above;27 but he also at times suggests the ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį is connected to the existence of walls, that is, it indicates a defined space.28 He can also suggest some kind of distinction between ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį and ŇĿŁĿŅ, even if that difference is not clear from context. For example, in a very short fragment, Besa prays that, “Christ should permit his blessing to remain in his communities (ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį) and not permit his monasteries (ŇĿŁĿŅ) to lack anything.”29 It is possible then that this word refers to the actual space of the group, but overall the variance of usage shows how challenging it is to create a distinctive meaning for either of these two Coptic words, assuming there was one for Besa. Much the same can be said for the word Ĺġ, which at times appears on its own and at times is connected with “holy.”30 This word can refer to a collective space, at times

24

Fragment 31.I.3. Layton 2014: 78 includes as stages of joining the monastery both oral renunciation of ownership or property and then, within 2–3 months of joining, written legal transfer of “property to the Diakonia.” Layton’s focus is on formation of monastic identity and does not address the process of expulsion from, or renunciation of, the monastery. 26 Fragment. 31.I.7. Likewise, the term ĹĿĻġŅŇįŃijĿĻ appears only once in Funk’s concordance for Shenoute’s Canons. 27 Fragment 28.II.7: a male monk named Matthew has “renounced the community of your fathers.” Shenoute used this term frequently in reference to the monastic communities, including the title “father of these congregations.” Kuhn primarily translates this word as “community” versus congregation or monastery. 28 Fragment 4.I.2: “The angel of the covenant shall take them and remove them outside the wall of the community (ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį)”; also Fragment 12.I.2–3: monks are giving material items “to their relatives who have left these communities, or have been expelled” and “are found, too, secretly outside the wall talking to people related to them or unrelated to them, who have departed from amongst us.” 29 Fragment 15.I.2. 30 Of course, this word can mean place and be modified with activities of the place. Using “monastery” for this term is clearest if modified with “holy” but as always shows some interpretation in translation. 25

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

327

explicitly including both men and women, but at other times more specifically indicating the separate female spaces.31 In a letter to a male monk who is debating leaving the monastery, it seems to refer to his individual location, more like “cell” than monastery.32 These, then, are the more generic words that Besa uses to refer to the people, spaces, and membership that are the various ways to refer to the monastery or monasticism. Besa’s five uses of the term ƙĩĻĩĩŇį are, in contrast to this survey, are more stable because all five occur in three sources written to address specific women who are in crisis in terms of their relationship to the institution.33 Further, four of the five appear in Besa’s reports of the women’s own statements. Together, they suggest this term specifically refers to the women’s community as sub-set of the larger monastery. Twice Besa reports the women’s reference to their community, while he uses the more generic Ĺġ elsewhere. For example, when he writes to Herai, who has left the monastery, he chastises her near the beginning of the letter, saying, “For the monastery (Ĺġ) into which you were accepted and where they gave you glory, you despised, saying, ‘Your (pl.) ƙĩĻĩĩŇį is the heavenly Jerusalem.’” While this may not sound like an insult, it seems that Herai (again, in Besa’s telling of her statement) is being sarcastic since he counters, “Truly (ĻġĹĩ) it is the heavenly Jerusalem,” blessed by God.34 Similarly, another fragment, which includes a direct address to Mary, identified as “mother of John,” and to Talou, “mother of Macarius,” describes 31

A partial list shows this range of meaning: Fragment 12.III.5 is explicitly inclusive, referencing those who will be removed from “his holy monasteries, whether man or woman;” Fragment 23.II.2 seems to mean the federation as a whole but without being explicit, referring to outsiders who “despise the name of our holy monastery;” Fragment 25.I.1 Kuhn translates as a female specific space, but only because it is in a letter to “thieving nuns” who allow Satan to “pollute the holy convents of God;” likewise in Fragment 21.I.2 and 5, also addressed to the female community, there are two uses of Ĺġ to refer to the institution that the women have “come to” and that “we are gathered together in” – the first could be just the female community but the second seems to refer to the federation as a whole. These examples point to the ambiguity of how Besa seems to conceive of the various places that comprise the federation; the translations more reflect Kuhn’s understanding of the female space as a “convent” apart from the “monastery.” 32 Fragment 28, addressed to a male monk named Matthew who has “forsaken the community (ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį)”, contains two appeals for him to return to his Ĺġ (IV.3, V.8) and one to “not obey those who advise you to renounce your Ĺġ.” My thanks to Stephen Davis for his conversation and suggestions about the term in this text. For discussion of the problems of defining monastic residences and spaces, see Brooks Hedstrom 2009: 758; for the range of terminology for houses, cells, and other elements of monastic settlements, see Brooks Hedstrom 2017: 125–128, where she also includes the problem of the “applicability to archaeological sites” (127). 33 This term appears once in Funk 2007. In that reference, Shenoute uses it to refer to the “monastery” as a space that monks are outside of during their agricultural labor; whether they “come in” to eat depends on their distance from the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį (Layton 2014: 278–279 for Coptic and English translation). For a fuller list of places where this term appears in Shenoute’s works and in Coptic literature more generally, see Crum 1939: 692a (accessed digitally at https://coptot. manuscriptroom.com/crum-coptic-dictionary/?docID=800000&pageID=692a&tla=C6720). See also n. 36 below for more discussion of this term and its import in Coptic monastic literature. 34 Fragment 32.1.5.

328

R. KRAWIEC

these women as “needlessly disturbing the monastery (Ĺġ)”with dramatic actions surrounding threats to leave: they are “running up to the walls and to the gate” – an image of the women trying to physically escape an enclosed and guarded place. However, when Besa reports what they say, he claims they are crying out, “Indeed, indeed, we shall not stay in this ƙĩĻĩĩŇį which is full of iniquity.”35 In both texts, the women’s reported statements use language that seems to refer to their own community, not the larger federation, from which they are alienated.36 This community, however, is still related to the larger group. For example, Talou is reported to have said, “By him who founded this ƙĩĻĩĩŇį, I will not remain.”37 This phrasing suggests the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį is still associated with a male founder, presumably as part of the “monastery” as a whole, but at the same time shows the pliability of the terminology and the institution. The last two references show this same tension as evident in the statements ascribed to Talou. In a fragment that addresses a female monk, named Apthonia, Besa chastises her for despising the monastery and complaining about her treatment. As with the above examples, Besa claims she, having broken a “commandment of God” and given “perfume and nard to a young girl with you in the house,” has threatened to go to “another (ĵĩ) ƙĩĻĩĩŇį.”38 However, earlier in the letter, Besa asks how Aphthonia’s non-monastic parents “outside in the world (ͩģĿķ ƙͧŁĵĿŅĹĿŅ)” have heard her complaints (Ɠġƛĩ) uttered “in this place (ͩƙĿʼnĻ ƙͧŁĩij̈Ĺġ),” while “we in the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį” do not know them.39 The use of “we” 35 Fragment 20.I.4. Here Kuhn translates Ĺġ as “place,” even though it is a place with walls and gates, and seems more clearly to refer to a monastic space. He then translates ƙĩĻĩĩŇį as “convent.” 36 The etymology of the term also supports this view, since Roquet demonstrates its relationship to an earlier Egyptian word that referred to enclose sacred spaces; Roquet 1972: 111. As Anne Boud’hors pointed out to me, when she provided this reference, since the women’s community was located in a former temple of Athribis, this term might also indicate the precise location of the women’s community within the larger monastic federation. Brooks Hedstrom 2017 also notes that Shenoute and Besa use ƙĩĻĻĩŇĩ, a “uniquely Egyptian, and thereby Coptic, expression for a monastic settlement” to “refer to monastic built environments” (124). She also points to the widespread use of the term in other monastic authors. See references on 108 and 274 for instances of ƙĩĻĩĩŇĩ as “monastery,” suggesting Besa’s use is particular to his institution. Camille Angelo’s paper, “From Periphery to Center: Reviewing the Place of the Holy Man in the Late Antique Ritual Landscape” (Tracing Christians in Global Late Antiquity conference, June 2021), argued persuasively that scholars need to consider how space shaped the monks (rather than vice versa). Here the historic sacredness, and enclosure, of the women’s space may have contributed to the formulation of a separate women’s community. 37 Fragment 20.I.5. 38 Fragment 13.II.4–5. Besa here uses ķĩķĿʼn to refer to the recipient, not a term to refer to a more junior monk. This action, according to Besa, threatens to become a “stumbling block” (ŅĵġĻħġķĿĻ) for both women. 39 Fragment 13.II.1. See also 13.I.4 for a reference to Aphthonia’s attempt to inform her parents how she is doing “in your Ĺġ” which could be a parallel usage to the term in Fragment 28 to Matthew (see n. 32 above).

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

329

to refer to those who do not know Apthonia’s complaints is unclear. As a firstperson plural, it could include the writer, Besa; yet at the same time Besa does seem to know the complaints since he chastises her for them, including specific comments (that is, specific Ɠġƛĩ) attributed to her. Further, Besa at times addresses the women in their separate community but will use a plural, “let us,” to draw them under his leadership.40 It seems possible that in this instance, the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį still refers to the female community, but that Besa includes himself as overseer of it. Apthonia is alienated from that community, leading her to complain to outsiders rather than working within the authority structures of the female community, to the point that now Besa has had to step in to re-establish the boundary of the community around the women. This use of this particular term is also significant because Besa does not refer to the female community as “those in the village,” which is a frequent phrase in Shenoute’s texts.41 Without putting too much weight on fragmentary evidence, it is seems likely that Besa’s usage reflects a development of institutional rhetoric in where the female community is a clearer sub-set of the collective spaces that make up the “monastery.”42 The women’s space now has a term, rather than referenced with a phrase that emphasizes distance and separation. This is institutional development, rather than change, because the essential relationship between the male head of the larger group and the female community remains unchanged.43 Just as the term ƙĩĻĩĩŇį seems to refer to the women’s community as apart from, yet within, the overall monastic structures, so too Besa uses leadership terms that echo this tension.44 His descriptions give several indications that the women functioned as a semi-autonomous institution, with their own internal

40

See Fragment 18 for examples. Besa at times uses “among us and among you,” which is characteristic of Shenoute’s texts. See Fragment 18.V.9 as an example, where the women, as in Shenoute’s letters, are being asked not to hide any deeds committed “among you” from the visiting male envoys. Fragment 41 includes an address to “people that live in the villages” but it means people not from the monastic federation. 42 Alexander 2005 examines levels of institutional design, which can also help consider stages of institutional development, including the formation of monastic institutions more generally. Besa’s leadership aligns with the lowest level of design (215), largely because he has inherited the institution, and that level is more focused on organizing the sub-units of the institution. 43 Pierson 2004 differentiates between these phrases in his work and discusses constraints on institutional development from earlier institutional design (133–134). Sjöstedt 2015 gives a summary of the different explanations for how institutional change happens from a range of scholarship (23). Since Egyptian monasticism presents itself as consistent with earlier traditions, both monastic and biblical, developments tend to be obscured as the authors create a sense of changeless stability outside of time. 44 Layton 2014: 67 describes this same hierarchy in Shenoute, citing rule 423 for gender as the basis for the separation of the female community but also describing the subordination of the male “northern community.” See Fragment 27 for Besa’s instructions to leaders at different levels of authority. 41

330

R. KRAWIEC

authority structures, even as he kept the community subordinate to his overall leadership, expressed through written texts and male representatives of his authority.45 Besa functions as a leader in a system he has inherited from his predecessor, but which also shows elements of transformation, a topic I will explore in the next section. While Shenoute, according to Layton, has a structured hierarchy, with a range of titles, upheld in the rules, Besa relies primarily on the more ambiguous term ĩijĿŇĩ, which can mean either “parents” or “fathers.”46 At times, Besa indicates he means ĩijĿŇĩ who dwell among the women. For example, he writes in one case that if the women fail to “fear God and put away from you these follies and this hardness of heart and obey your parents (ĩijĿŇĩ) and elders (ƙķķĿĩij) who look after you, I will cause you to go around seeking each one of you.”47 Similarly, in the midst of a letter addressing generic correct and incorrect behavior in the female community, Besa writes, “And you all together let each woman (ŇĿʼnĩij ŇĿʼnĩij) obey your ĩijĿŇĩ in everything so that their hearts might be at rest and that you yourselves may be filled with contentment.”48 It seems most likely in this context that these ĩijĿŇĩ at least include women who held positions of leadership in the female community, but the term might also indicate the men who live at the gatehouse, since Besa uses the gender inclusive ĩijĿŇĩ and not “mothers.”49 Besa’s gender ambiguous terminology when describing behavior within the female community suggests that his audience (women living in the institution) assumed and understood its overall hierarchy, including the relationship of the women to the dominant male community. These generic terms were sufficient to call for overall obedience to those in charge. Within this gender ambiguity, Besa also occasionally explicitly refers to two groups of men whose authority the women, individually and collectively, should respect: male visitors who apparently bring Besa’s texts to the women and, as noted, the men at gatehouse. First, in his appeals to the women to address whatever problems led Besa to write, Besa calls attention rhetorically to the men who are associated with the letter; “here,” he says in one fragment, are these men, “our fathers (parents) and our brethren (siblings) that have come

45

See Kuhn 1954b: 179 for his description of Besa’s “supreme authority” including the “daughter houses” of both men and women that comprised the “White Monastery.” 46 Layton 2014: 64 explains ĩijĿŇĩ as terminology but also a range of other terms (female elder and house mother, for example) which seem less prevalent in Besa’s texts to women. 47 Fragment 21.I.1. Kuhn adds a note suggesting that this is “possibly a reference to the nuns’ fate after a threatened expulsion from the convent” (Kuhn 1956a: 56, n. 1). 48 Fragment 18.II.1. 49 There do not seem to be many occasions when Besa appeals to the female monks to obey their mothers. A notable exception is Fragment 13.II.2 where Besa urges Apthonia to share her grievances with “the mother who is there with you,” as opposed to what Apthonia has done, which is contact her father and mother outside the monastery (I.5).

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

331

to you in the love of God.”50 On other occasions, Besa has a wider range of references, using elders, fathers, brothers, and even once specifically naming Apa Isaac as the person who is tasked with examining the female monastic’s complaints. Besa also suggests that continued lack of obedience will lead him to visit the women himself: if the women “do not remove yourselves from the things which God hates, you will not know the time when I shall come to you and do to each one of you according to her worth.”51 These examples again show the intersection of the institution as both discursive and material: Besa’s written word transfers his authority to the men he references and it simultaneously reinforces the authority structures that connect the physical spaces. Second, in one text, Besa’s (fragmentary) references to the interactions among female leaders with each other and with the men at the gatehouse show the inherited nature of the institution and its rhetoric, as well as the complexity of female authority apart from, and subject to, male oversight. Besa, unusually for him, uses the rhetorical appeal of claiming that these instructions have been sent and said “many times.” He also describes the leaders in charge: a woman who has been “appointed with you (ŇįƓ ĻĹĹĩ),” the (male) elder at the gate, and the elders who have been appointed “among you (ŇįƓ ƙġŇįŇĻ),” all a clear echo of Shenoute to the point that Besa seems to paraphrase, or perhaps reference, commandments that appear in Shenoute’s works.52 Besa’s rhetoric creates a sense of violation in the community because these regulations should be known due to having been written and then also repeatedly “sent” and/or told. Again, what holds the physically diverse White Monastery together as an institution are these letters which reveal the structures Shenoute built and Besa maintains: a united monastery with separate male (ours) and female (yours) communities but with male authorities seemingly occasionally present to provide oversight for the women, should they not be able to resolve the problem on their own.53 Besa’s rhetoric throughout his appeals to the women develops another layer of the institutional structure. Besa connects language of the women’s compliance and obedience with the emotional stability of the monastery as a whole and in so doing creates for it a higher level of spiritual existence. The women’s 50

Fragment 18.V.9. See also Fragment 13.III.3 and 5; Fragment 21.IV.1; Fragment 22.II.6. Fragment 21.II.4. This is a threat that repeats elsewhere in Besa’s texts and carries an echo of Shenoute’s tone. 52 Fragment 39. See Layton 2014: 176–177 (Rule 215), and 272–273 (Rules 425 and 426) for the similarities with this text; Layton does not include these quotations from Besa in his book with other “rule” material from Besa (336–341), because these passages are not referencing “our father(s)” explicitly. 53 This argument differs from some claims in my dissertation, specifically that in Besa’s texts “women appear as a subset of a male run monastery; tolerated due to concern for their salvation but relegated to a lesser role and position” (Krawiec 1996: 252). As noted above, Kuhn 1954b: 179 suggests Besa had “supreme authority” over all communities of the monastery. 51

332

R. KRAWIEC

obedience, or resistance, affects the ability for Besa, and/or the male lettercarrier(s), to be at peace, or content, versus being sorrowful or grieving, continuing the institutional design of Shenoute’s earlier appeals.54 Besa extends this emotional impact to include previous fathers. He commands the women to “guard us against every evil thing” so that God will not be angry “with us” and the “curses which our father spoke” will not come upon the monastery. If the curses did fall it would cause that father to be “grieved concerning us in the place where he is.” This is an apparent reference to either Pcol, the monastery’s founder, or Shenoute being sad as they witness, from the supernatural realm, the wrong doing in the monastery.55 But if all the monks are “zealous together” the opposite will occur: God and Christ will “rejoice,” and the “heart of our fathers (now plural) may be at rest.” So too Besa’s heart will be at rest now “in this place” but also when he too goes to another place, that is, the afterlife.56 Here first Besa and then the collective fathers stand in for the monastery.57 But this relationship has a shared agency: the fathers are the source of commandments and curses, but the women’s cooperation determines their emotional state. Besa broadens the description of the monastery beyond the physical federation of separate gender communities, obedient to God, whose actions create emotional bonds among those communities to one that connects the physical with the spiritual realm. This is the “heavenly Jerusalem” that he has affirmed versus Herai’s attacks, a community whose identity depends on its separation from the non-monastic world and on the cooperation and affirmation of those within it.

54 Fragment 18.V.1: “Now once more, sisters (ŅĻįʼn), be watchful and prepare yourselves in every good thing and we shall find the way to meet our companions in contentment. And lest, instead of seeing our companions in a valuable way in satisfaction, we, on the other hand, come to you in grief, sorrow, and sighing.” See also Fragment 13.III.4; Fragment 18.III.3; Fragment 18.V.9; Fragment 22.II.6; Fragment 25.II.2 for similar appeals for the women to comply and so lead to male contentment. For my arguments about Shenoute’s use of this rhetoric as part of what I termed his surveillance of the women see Krawiec 2002: 86–87. Andrew Crislip has explored the role of emotion in some of Shenoute’s works to create both bonds and divisions; in those texts, ‘Shenoute’s emotional suffering does not set him apart from the community; it binds the community together” (Crislip 2017: 344) and the “emotional norms modeled and encouraged by Shenoute set the cloister off from the elite culture outside” (349). 55 Fragment 20.IV.6. See also Fragment 12.II.8 for another example of describing a deceased father being grieved in the “place where he is” based on the actions of the monks, in this case not just women. 56 Fragment 20.IV.7. Shenoute uses these same emotional distinctions but to describe those in heaven versus those in hell; see Crislip 2017: 337–338. 57 This alignment between person(s) and institution recalls Skinnell 2019: 73–74, where he asks the question of who is speaking when “institutions” speak.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

333

MONASTIC CONFLICT AND RENUNCIATION: AGENCY AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

These various references to the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį do not just outline the relationship between the women’s community and Besa’s physical and metaphysical “monastery;” they also all pertain to a shared issue: women having agency over their participation in the monastery by declaring their desire to leave the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį, which in at least one case led to a woman’s departure. In several of these situations, the women made claims of unjust treatment as justification for their desire to leave and the woman who has left the monastery, Herai, has demanded the return of the goods she brought with her. As a result, Besa and these women are engaged in a debate about whether the monastery is aligned with its institutional values. The women’s actions show that they are agents in the formation of the monastery as an institution, even as much of their activity is lost in the historical record.58 That is, it allows an expansion beyond “fathers” and “rules” to examine institutional development in this setting. These moments of resistance do not, as far as we know, lead to institutional change. Instead, Besa reiterates the institutional norms and structures as necessary to its goals. Besa uses (unknowingly, to be sure) “actor-centered functionalism,” “that is, the claim that a certain institution exists because it is expected to serve the interests of those who created it.”59 The creation of the White Monastery is a rhetorical claim, associated with the “fathers,” with whom Besa seeks to maintain continuity. Within that tradition, Besa uses a consistent rhetoric of profit to shape institutional identity. While Shenoute, in forming the institution, focused on the obligations of the actors to maintain purity, Besa shifts emphasis to the rewards of monasticism, of living correctly in a “heavenly Jerusalem,” to persuade these women to remain true to the monastery. Several of the women who receive directives from Besa about correcting and improving their behavior were experiencing crises in their relationship with the monastic leaders. Apthonia, who has reported her situation to her parents and threatened to go to another female community, apparently has complained about abuse. Besa claims she has sent to her parents saying “they have opposed (ĹijƓĩ) me” or “they abused me (ƙĿĿʼnƓ ĩŃĿij).”60 Three other women – Mary, mother of John, and Talou, mother of Macarius (who are addressed together) and Mary, sister of Matai – also, according to Besa’s accounts, make statements that could be seen as claims of injustice. Mary and Talou, in addition to calling the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį “full of unrighteousness (ƛij ĻƝĿĻͳ),” also complained, “Our case 58 Myers 2019: 10–11 makes this argument for focusing on children in institutions as agents, and not just subjects. 59 Pierson 2005: 105. 60 Fragment 13.I.5.

334

R. KRAWIEC

has not been judged.” As a result, as described above, they seem to have been trying to escape the physical confines of the community, as Besa describes them “running up to the walls and to the gate” and crying to leave.61 The other Mary wants to leave the community because she has received a judgement for some wrong doing: “I am not going to the gate to receive my punishment.”62 Another possible example is Antinoe who receives advice from Besa as “from a brother” because Antinoe has “despised” her sister.63 While less clearly some sort of injustice, and lacking any explicit threat to leave, this situation is one of conflict between two women, one named and one anonymous, with the named one seemingly, in Besa’s view, at fault.64 These women’s actions combine to show a resistance to aspects of institutionalization as unjust. So too the actions Besa describes elsewhere, such as acts of theft and expressions of love between women, as well as his worries that the rebellious actions of some women will spread more generally, are all consistent with power relations in an institution that is striving to maintain norms of one class, here the “fathers,” on the population of the institution as a whole.65 However, the actions by the women show their ability to resist those norms in a way that questions the institution and its self-definition. Besa’s responses reflect a debate between the women’s claims and his defense of the institution itself, rather than his own particular authority within it. Apthonia, for example, has, in Besa’s view, violated the community by 61

Fragment 20.I.4. The women could also be complaining that the community is full of violence, particularly since Besa, as discussed below, responds to this description by demanding to know who has ƛij ͩƝĿĻͳ them. That is, the women could be saying this ƙĩĻĩĩŇį is full of violence and Besa wants to know who has been violent towards them. 62 Fragment 22.I.5. This seems possibly to refer to corporal punishment, though ĩŁijŇijĹijġcan mean verbal rebuke (https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9024). Cf. Kuhn’s argument that corporal punishment is “doubtfully attested” for Besa’s leadership, versus its “prominent role” for Shenoute (Kuhn 1954b: 180). 63 Fragment 29.I.4–5. 64 While this fragment, which begins with Besa saying he has written more than once about this matter, does not include a threat to leave, another fragment addressed to Antinoe has an ending that, just before breaking off in mid-sentence, might be indicating this possibility. See Fragment 14.I.4. The ending is focused on how much “all the blessed fathers who have gone to God” and also “we” (presumably Besa and other male leaders) want Antinoe to attain salvation and that “you may not” (text breaks off). If she is putting her monastic goal in jeopardy, it could be from her not following the commandments, the theme of this short fragment, or from leaving the monastery. Further in the first fragment, Besa reminds Antinoe that she has promised her goods to God (see below). 65 Myers 2019 examines an institution, a welfare home for boys, in terms of those who were enforcing standards to have it align with the “emerging Canadian norms” (4) and those within the institution who resisted it. She describes an organized resistance (11–12) and later argues that despite the focus on one boy as leading rebellion, actions like thefts and escape show more widespread dissatisfaction with the institution (19–21). While the White Monastery is obviously in a completely different historical and cultural context, her analysis of the power relations in institutional enforcement and resistance were helpful for my examination of the evidence between Besa and the women he oversaw.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

335

contacting her parents “outside in the world (ͩģĿķ ƙͧŁĵĿŅĹĿŅ)” and complaining to them, rather than her supervisors in the monastery.66 Besa’s first response is that Apthonia is “lying.” He then redefines her claims of opposition and abuse as instead “they” (whoever she is accusing) having “given wisdom to you when you transgressed the commandment and received something from your parents without asking.”67 This is not so much a sense of “lying” as in having made something up, as it is different views of the rules, the actions of teaching, and their function for the institution. Besa’s response to Mary and Talou’s claim of ill-treatment is similar, saying, “who ill-treats (ƛij ͩƝĿĻͳ) you except you yourselves?”68 The women’s claims of suffering become themselves the problem for Besa, since the women are not staying in their place in terms of authority structures. Besa also argues that if Apthonia were “ill-treated (ƛijŇĩ ͩƝĿĻͳ) or ill-used or grieved,” she should have reported it to Besa so he could assess its truthfulness or “tell your mother who is in the place/monastery (Ĺġ) with you.” Otherwise, Besa suggests, Apthonia is only calling her mother “with your mouth but your heart is far from her.”69 In other words, in this case, Besa suggests either the local female supervisor or presumably Besa would be a suitable judge of Apthonia’s situation. This relationship appears again at the end of the letter. Besa expresses his concern, that he is “troubled at heart,” for Apthonia “and you all,” that is, the larger female community. He lays out a path for his heart to be “at ease:” Let me hear that you (s.f) have set at ease your (s.f) parents (ĩijĿŇĩ) who are in the place with you, and that you (s.f.) have obeyed them in everything … moreover if you (s.f.) have anything to say, here are the elders (ƙķķĿij) – our parents (ĩijĿŇĩ), and our brethren (ŅĻįʼn) – they have come to you (pl.).70

While Shenoute often uses the feminine singular to refer to the monastery as a whole, the “congregation” (ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį), I suggest that Besa is asking the specific monk, Apthonia, to obey the authorities in the female community, starting with the “mother.” But if these women cannot settle their disagreement, or perhaps also if someone else has a yet unspoken complaint, new male authorities, representing Besa and his authority, are present. In both these examples, Besa appeals to the monastic authority structures as themselves the counter to the claims of injustice by the women – the women’s agency in 66

Fragment 13.II.1. Fragment 13.I.5. The phrase “Ɵ ĿʼnĩŁijŅŇįĹį” Kuhn translates as “instilled sense” which does not quite reflect the idea that there is some sort of information or teaching taking place, which perhaps counters Besa’s description of Apthonia as “senseless and ignorant (ġŇŅģő) one, who is without knowledge (ĩŁijŅŇįĹį)” (Fragment 13.I.4). 68 Fragment 20.I.5. See n. 61 above for the possible implications of accusations of violence. 69 Fragment 13.II.2. 70 Fragment 13.III.4–5. 67

336

R. KRAWIEC

evaluating the efficacy of the institution in relationship to its goals gives way to Besa’s insistence on the authority structures as established by Shenoute and maintained by Besa.71 Besa sees this institutional design as inherently good, since it confers salvation, and so the institution acts for the good. He calls attention to this goal in his responses to Mary and Talou, as well as Mary, sister of Matai. For Mary and Talou, he creates a view of the monastery itself, as an institution, as more just than the people who might inhabit it: “For indeed we have never heard that places/monasteries (ŇĿŁĿŅ) treat people badly (ƛij ͩƝĿĻͳ), but rather it is the foolish who disturb the places/monasteries(ŇĿŁĿŅ) of God.”72 The monastery itself is a thing that can stand apart from people, and so has its own agency. Similarly, in his letter to Apthonia, Besa asks, “How has this place/monastery (Ĺġ) ill-treated you (ƛijŇĩ ͩƝĿĻͳ)?”73 The monastery exists not just as a place, but as a structure which acts. When Mary threatens to “go to the place (Ĺġ) of my children,” Besa responds by suggesting that in doing so she, like other wrong doers, will end up in “perdition (ŇġĵĿ).”74 By leaving the institution, Mary will sacrifice her salvation and end up being destroyed. Mary’s salvation specifically depends on accepting her punishment rather than refusing “stubbornly” and with a “hardness of heart.” Besa’s frames his insistence on her punishment in institutional rhetoric, as acceptance of authority structures. He does not, in what survives, mention the reason for the punishment; rather Besa emphasizes the need to accept the “injunction (Ɠġƛĩ)” of the punishment he has ordered to gain the forgiveness of God.75 The women’s community, as a subset of the overall monastery, needs to be aligned with the norms of the larger institution, particularly when there is resistance to them. Besa must make these rhetoric appeals for the women to have a sense of being a “citizen” within a larger community which, given the physical separation, was largely “illusory.”76 Besa calls upon the institution as an active agent, rather than his 71 Krawiec 2002 discusses the structures of communication and surveillance between Shenoute and the female community. I include suggestions of female autonomy, specifically in using space and secrecy, in resistance to Shenoute’s leadership. Female agency itself is not new in the White Monastery, nor are women’s complaints about treatment. See Pierson 2004: 133–134 for a discussion of constraints on institutional development from earlier institutional design. 72 Fragment 20.II.4. 73 Fragment 13.II.5. 74 Fragment 22.1.5 and 7. It is perhaps noteworthy, in comparison to Besa’s appeals to Apthonia, that Besa suggests Mary has made this threat to go to her children “in the midst of the sisters” because she is “without understanding (ĩŁijŅŇįĹį).” 75 Fragment 22.I.6. 76 Myers 2019: 4 gives an overview of theories of state formation, which is variously termed an “illusory community” (Marx), “imagined political community” (Benedict Anderson), and the “fictive community in which we are all citizens” (Phillip Corrigan and Derek Sayer). As such, “The nation, the latter argue, was in many ways a territory of the mind with no essential form; it was a device, a collection of ideas that the state defined and regulated, typically reflecting the interests of the bourgeoisie.” Myers’ argument for how one Canadian province formed its

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

337

own leadership, to counter the women’s own agency in evaluating their experiences. Besa uses a consistent rhetoric of profit (ƙįʼn) to characterize the benefit that monks, female and male, gain from their institutional membership. He occasionally mentions suffering, but it seems less central than in the rhetoric of Shenoute, whose construction of monasticism and its goals rests on a model of correct ƙijŅĩ.77 This economic metaphor shifts the focus from the actions required of monks to the goal they will achieve.78 It persuades people to continue their membership in the institution by focusing on its eventual result, rather than its current struggles. Besa frequently makes a biblical allusion in chastising monks who might leave as being willing “to destroy your soul which the whole world is not worth.”79 In nearly every surviving text addressed to women, Besa suggests that monks, specifically their souls, profit (ƙįʼn) from correct actions or will not profit if they become transgressors.80 Attitudes that endanger one’s “profit” include petulance, hardness of heart, and pride. In his address to Mary and Talou, Besa includes a criticism for violating the boundary of the institution, in an echo of his language to Apthonia: “those outside” and “in the world” are aware of the women’s actions and words “in your dwelling (or monastery) (Ĺġ).” These and other actions are “not profitable.”81 He also justifies the other Mary’s punishment at the gatehouse as being done for her “profit.”82 This language appeals to the women’s benefit from the institution itself, based on overall rules and commandments, rather than from Besa’s leadership particularly. Once again, it is the institution which has agency in relationship to the women. The development of the institutional rhetoric of its ‘profit’ also seems to counter a resistance to the requirement that, since people renounce their possessions to the monastery upon entering, they cannot reclaim them if they institution for boys to adhere to larger national norms was a useful analogy for thinking about how the women’s community existed in relationship to the larger norms and interests of the monastery. 77 For discussions of ƙijŅĩ in Shenoute, see Krawiec 2002: 69–71 and Brakke 2006: 121. 78 This rhetoric of profit is not limited to the texts addressed to women or the female community; see Fragment 28, a letter to Matthew which creates parallels as he has also left the monastery and which contains an abundance of references to profit. There are, however, more examples of women threatening to leave the monastery than men in the surviving texts, perhaps because Besa needed to communicate regularly in writing with the female community. Of course, correct actions by the male and female monks are still needed, as attested throughout the letters. 79 Fragment 13.I.1; Fragment 20.III.1; Fragment 20.V.4 are the examples from the texts written to women. 80 Most of these examples appear in the notes which follow. Only Fragments 25 and 35 lack a reference to profit as part of Besa’s guidance. 81 Fragment 20.II.6. Besa says this violation is not valuable (ŃƓġʼn) for the women, but shortly thereafter (III.1) makes an appeal to not destroy one’s soul (n. 79 above) for “the sake of deeds which yield you no profit (ƙįʼn) but only condemnation and forfeit (ĿŅĩ).” 82 Fragment 22.I.6.

338

R. KRAWIEC

leave. Besa reminds Antinoe about the fact that goods that have been promised to God are no longer hers, but God’s – a point that appears again in his lengthy denunciation of Herai after her departure.83 Herai had earlier received a long appeal to stay committed to her monasticism and “not go back on your promise,”84 a letter which echoes in many ways a similar letter to a monk named Matthew. Like his, Herai’s letter includes the biblical allusion to losing her soul which Besa expands upon by arguing that her good behavior” has been “destroyed” by unprofitable (ĹĻƙįʼn) words.85 Herai, however, apparently ignored this appeal, leading Besa to write a blistering attack, which Heike Behlmer has shown contains “gendered abuse” missing in the correspondence with Matthew.86 How Herai has departed remains somewhat ambiguous. Besa describes her removal in terms of God’s actions against her, specifically saying “he has removed you from your dwelling/monastery (Ĺġ).”87 This has happened, however, because Herai has “broken the pledge (ŁijŅŇijŅ) of your constancy.”88 Further, Besa says that God has “hated you and cast you (ĻĿƛĩ) out of his holy monastery (Ĺġ)” because Herai “insulted” it.89 Herai, then, has been expelled (by God) but as a result of her actions, at least some of which Besa had earlier appealed to her to resist. Besa’s guidance focuses on the rules and structure of the institution, not his own leadership; when Herai violates them nevertheless, Besa’s rage is about her actions and their effect on that institution. Besa argues that Herai has a made a promise regarding not only her possessions but also “words and intentions,” which Herai has abandoned.90 She has now demanded “that which you had given to the Lord God, having promised it for your soul,” language that recalls Besa’s link between the institution and the benefit it confers on the soul.91 Herai cannot recover the goods she gave to the institution without becoming like those who “rob the temple of the Lord.”92 He then recalls the lesson of Ananias and Sapphira, laying out explicitly his version of their sin: they “promised the price of property but stole some of 83 Fragment 14.I.3 and Fragment 32.VII.5. The claim in both cases is the same, but the first is general about all monks, “we” have promised, whereas the second is specifically “you,” Herai. 84 Fragment 20.VI.4. For a discussion of the role of the same term in a sermon by Shenoute, I See Your Eagerness, see Krawiec and Schroeder 2021. 85 Fragment 30.V.4. 86 Behlmer 2002: 25. For a fuller comparison of the two letters see also p. 26. 87 Fragment 32.II.3. 88 Fragment 32, in the salutation. Fragment 31 is a general address to monks who have “renounced their constancy” and the institutional repercussions for it. See n. 24 above. 89 Fragment 32.II.2. The insult seems to be her claim that the ƙĩĻĩĩŇį is a heavenly Jerusalem, since Besa follows the report of that claim with his characterization that she has insulted the monastery, though then with a different term (Fragment 32.I.6). 90 Fragment 32.VII.5–6. 91 Fragment 32.VII.3. 92 Fragment 32.VII.6.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

339

what they had promised” and so suffered an “evil death.”93 Besa’s presentation of this story makes the promise as important as the lies and hiding of money from the community.94 Likewise it is Herai’s “promise” that makes her request, and indeed her leaving the monastery, a sin that will be “hard for God to forgive.”95 In case the point has been missed that this sin is connected to Herai’s material goods, Besa then quotes Matthew 19:24: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” He suggests, in effect, that in asking for her possessions, Herai is looking for monetary profit rather than the “profit’ the monastery provides. Besa concludes by arguing that Herai has turned her back on the “covenant” (ħijġıįĵį) with analogies to other covenants, such as a woman’s to her husband.96 Herai’s actions are like those of the women described in the other texts whom Besa regards as having misunderstood teaching and correction as abuse and opposition; that is, these actions undermine the institution itself rather than valuing its benefits. Collectively, these women’s behavior reveals what happens when their monastic experience has effects other than the ones anticipated by the “fathers” in having created the monastery. These effects strain the institutional design when the members assert their own agency – Besa is outraged that Herai “impertinently stood up (ġƙĩŃġŇĩ ƙͩĿʼnĹͩŇġŇģġķ)” to ask for her property – in defining what institutional membership entails.97 Ultimately, the evidence in these texts boils down to a simple conflict: there are monks, mostly women, who want to leave the monastery and Besa, who wants them to stay. They want to leave because they experience life in the institution as unjust. He claims he wants them to stay for their own profit, namely, salvation, but it seems equally plausible that he needs to maintain control over their material goods for the economic survival of the monastery. This emphasis shifts from Shenoute’s earlier focus on expulsion to keep the monastery pure or to protect the community as a whole. When Besa does use pollution language, it seems connected to the women’s ignorance of the curses of “our father;” Besa himself then chastises them for inciting God’s anger and causing grief to “her who nursed you, Jerusalem, that is to say the community

93

Fragment 32.VIII.1. Acts 5:1–11 where Ananias and Sapphira sell a piece of property and do not give all the proceeds to the community. Both die when they lie and say they have given over everything. It is worth noting that in these specific verses of the Acts of the Apostles there is no explicit mention of a promise. Likewise, in Acts 4:32, which describes believers as sharing all possessions (the expectation which the couple violates), no promise appears in the description of the community. 95 Fragment 32.VIII.2. 96 Fragment 32.VIII.3. 97 For the tension between the founders’ goals of an institution and the later effects, see Pierson 2005: 106. For the Besa reference, see Fragment 32.VII.3. 94

340

R. KRAWIEC

(ŅʼnĻġĥőĥį).”98 This appeal is in keeping with Besa’s view of the monastery as a separate polity. As a result, these women, if not all the women, seem to have gained institutional agency in terms of their declarations to leave, their disruption, and even in receiving these pleading appeals, rather than thundering condemnation. Having inherited a particular institutional design, Besa is constrained to a role of persuading monks to adhere to it. That, in turn, leads to a shift in the power relations of the institution itself, where agency in belonging to the institution lies more with its members, who are judging and renouncing, than its leader. CONCLUSION:

GENDER, RHETORIC,

AND MONASTICISM

The women’s experience of monasticism under Besa continued to be necessarily affected by their physical separation, which was at least in part due to their gender.99 This status was equally true during the leadership of Besa’s predecessor, Shenoute, who sought to canonize regulations, both those he inherited and those he created, along with his written teachings as the basis of institutionalization. Besa, as we have seen, inherited both the structure and the means of communication among a complex set of communities, yet he also had to contend with developments of both these during his own leadership of the White Monastery federation. One last area of institutional rhetoric that shows this overall tension between separation and cohesion pertains to gendered rhetoric, that is, a construction of monastic language that might be particular to the women and so create another layer of “female monasticism.” Behlmer, as noted above, has characterized the letters to women in general as containing “gendered abuse” based on the female sexualized aspects of city metaphors, negative female biblical exemplars, and use of “apostolic threats” of violence.100 I agree with this characterization, and want to conclude by exploring how this rhetoric, although within the often more generic approaches in Besa’s

98

Fragment 25.I.2 and 6. Layton 2014: 67–68 describes the subordination of the male community to the north to the main male community, as well as the women’s community, so gender is not the only factor in these structures. Krawiec 2002 gives an analysis of the use of space as a form of female resistance to Shenoute’s authority and Shenoute’s efforts to overcome that space (82–86). 100 Behlmer 2002: 25; she also notes my dissertation where I had argued that Besa “frequently uses Biblical references to remind the women of their gender, and of the cultural expectations their gender carried” (Krawiec 1996: 251). My exploration here places that gendered rhetoric within the overall institutionalization that characterizes the status of the female community to the larger monastery. 99

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

341

writing, institutionalizes violence – or, for Besa, continues the patterns of institutionalized violence he inherited, particularly against monastic women.101 Besa’s texts at times include both men and women in his appeals, suggesting a general shared monastic expectation.102 In addressing conflicts among the women he uses a blend of generic appeals and gendered rhetoric that aligns with the overall tension of the place of women in the institution: both part of the whole and a separate group marked by their gender.103 Generic teachings about disruptions in the community are largely the same whether written to the women specifically or “the monastery.” Even the two separate letters to Herai and to Matthew urging them not to “renounce their constancy” begin with the same biblical allusion to Paul’s opening of Galatians. Similarly, even in letters written to specific women, Besa will quote from male monastic fathers, such as Apa Antonius, even when those quotations are addressed to “sons” as the object of instruction.104 Since Besa quotes these same figures, and in all letters refers to “our father” and the generic fathers as a shared tradition, it is clear that Besa largely regards the monastic tradition as equally applicable to female monks as to male. At the same time, the letters to women do have gendered rhetoric lacking in letters to men or the community as a whole. Besa occasionally uses womenspecific biblical references to chastise the women, though even these have some ambiguity. For example, his references to Eve are quotations from Paul, where Paul claims that he was ready to present the Corinthian community as a “pure virgin” to Christ, only to have the community corrupted once they are “beguiled” as the serpent beguiled Eve. Besa clearly is likening the female community as a whole to tropes of pure virginity versus fallen femininity, but his biblical source was referencing a mixed gender community. On the other hand, on three occasions Besa references the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, among other biblical references, to correct the women.105 One of these 101 I want to thank Caroline T. Schroeder and Camille Angelo for pushing my thinking on this particular point. 102 Besa refers male or female monks as distinct groups occasionally throughout his letters. As illustrative examples, see Fragment 3.IX.2 for “brethren, whether man or woman;” Fragment 10.I.5 for “any woman among you or any man among us;” and Fragment 12.III.5 for a threat that God will take “every deceitful, godless one away from his holy monasteries (Ĺġ), whether man or woman.” The generic term to refer to monks remains ŅĻįʼn (see Krawiec 1996: 251, n. 47 for discussion of Kuhn’s translation of this as “sisters”). Behlmer 2002: 26 focuses on the moments of gender violence in these letters, even as she also places that in the context of this same shared monasticism, stating Shenoute and Besa thought women “could be equal heirs to the kingdom of God.” In examining this tension, I want to emphasize that this should in no way be read as an acceptance of Besa’s violence. 103 This paragraph in general revisits the material I used for the epilogue of my dissertation. In this article, I nuance some of the positions I took then. 104 Fragment 30.I.3 and 30.II.1. See also Fragment 29.III.1. 105 These examples are all from Krawiec 1996: 252, n. 49 (Fragment 18.II.4–5; Fragment 20.II.1; Fragment 25.I.4); I would here add Besa’s use of a Proverb defining a “wise woman” (Fragment 29.II.3).

342

R. KRAWIEC

is followed by a reference from Amos to the “virgin of Israel” who stumbles and will not rise.106 These examples suggest that at times Besa characterized the women’s errors in gendered terms; yet these references are often accompanied by a range of Biblical citations that are applicable to all monks, male or female. As a last example of this tension of gendered rhetoric, Besa at one point in his appeals to Herai refers to Lot’s wife specifically, but then applies her exemplar to “all people.”107 In sum, Besa uses some gendered biblical citations to address women specifically, but these do not generally equate to creating a separate “female” monasticism against a male “norm.”108 His rhetoric with regards to female monks in particular, then, generally aligns with his overall attempts to make the female community participate in the traditions of the “fathers” even as it existed as a separate community. Against this nuanced gendered rhetoric stand Besa’s moments of anger at the women, including those who have been the center of this investigation, the ones who threaten to leave. These moments echo the tensions of being a subset of the larger whole that I have argued so far, such that gender largely leads to inclusion, as above, but at other times shapes the women’s monasticism as women. First, several of the few examples of gendered biblical references occur in the appeals to women leaving the monastery, again suggesting that their agency in trying to leave is a gendered issue.109 Second, a few of the descriptions Besa gives of the women’s resistance are also gendered: Besa describes Mary, the sister of Matai, as “roaring,” an animalistic description, at her superiors.110 Apthonia is accused of improper gift-giving with a junior female monk.111 The description of Mary and Talou “crying out” and “running to the walls” could be drawing on the trope of the hysterical female.112 The most detailed example, however, is once again the denunciation of Herai for having broken her promises to the monastery and then demanded her possessions back. Besa calls her the daughter of Judas; he describes her as fornicating with demons; the destruction that Besa prophecies for her is “widowhood and childlessness … in your witchcraft.”113 The women’s gender becomes a focus in

106 Fragment 25.I.6. Besa uses this same passage from Amos in Fragment 32.VII.1, the second letter to Herai. 107 Fragment 30.III.3. See Behlmer 2002 for Besa’s use of biblical allusions in his letter to Herai, particularly references to the heavenly Jerusalem. 108 As I suggested in my dissertation. 109 Note that in an example of gender inclusion, Fragment 12.III.5, above, Besa makes an allusion to expulsion, versus his appeals to have the women not leave the community. 110 Fragment 22.I.4: ƙĹƙĹ ĩƛͩĻĩŇͩĩijĿŇĩ. See Behlmer 2002: 24 for a reference to women “neighing” as an example of Besa “depriving them of their humanity.” 111 Fragment 13.II.5. 112 Fragment 20.I.4. 113 Fragment 32.II.1. for the quotation; 32.V.2 for Judas; and 32.II.6 for fornicating with demons. These examples are in addition to Behlmer’s examination of this letter.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

343

Besa’s invective when their words and actions disrupt the institution, as Behlmer has also argued.114 The White Monastery as an institution depended on creating the idea of a “monasticism” that can largely be followed by men and women with a shared result, as long as everyone stays in their place and follows the rules. When the women violate that, they are abused, often violently, as women, rather than as ŅĻįʼn – Herai most of all since her violation is the most extreme. In sum, women’s life in Besa’s White Monastery continued the experience of women in Shenoute’s White Monastery but at a later stage of institutional development.115 The shifts that are part of an increased institutionalization are subtle but important in understanding monasticism as a late antique institution. For Besa, it means that some systems are already set and at times seem to determine his responses to crises; yet simultaneously the institution remains dynamic, shaped by the monks’ actions as much as the monks are themselves formed by the institution. The development of institutional language in Besa’s texts lays the foundation for the idea of a women’s monastery as a separate female space. The women’s moments of alienation from their community suggest that they have a sense of membership to their own female group within the large collective – and that independent relationship is now part of the institutional design since Besa himself invokes it. I would still not translate ƙĩĻĩĩŇį as convent (as Kuhn mostly does) since that term could suggest a completely separate, autonomous institution, rather than a sub-group within the larger institution.116 However, the term ƙĩĻĩĩŇį along with discoveries of dipinti in the women’s community117 together show that despite the attempts to establish the monastery through written rules and commandments, the lived reality fluctuates. Institutions develop for numerous reasons, as institutional theory has argued. Besa’s letters to women reveal the development of the institution as its own entity, whose purpose remains a topic of debate between those who live within it and the man who served as its administrator.

114

Behlmer 2002: 27 argues that the level of gendered abuse in this letter stems from the anxiety that Herai’s economic threats and resistance to authority have engendered in Besa. 115 Layton 2014: 41 argues that as a third-generation leader, Shenoute leads an institution that has a decreased emphasis on charisma and an increased reliance on bureaucracy. Elsewhere, however, he describes Shenoute as an “expert charismatic leader of enormous personal authority” (78). Nevertheless, Shenoute is overseeing a “system” that has created “overwhelming inertia” because everything has been set into place (83). I would argue that Besa, more than Shenoute, exists at this stage of development. 116 Likewise, the women in Besa’s texts are referred to as ŅĻįʼn, a term I would not translate as “nun,” a position I explain in Krawiec 2002: 177, n. 22. 117 Davis 2020.

344

R. KRAWIEC

Bibliography Albarran Martínez, María Jesus 2015. “Female Asceticism and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt According to Papyrological Sources.” JCoptS 17, 1–31. Alexander, E. R. 2005. “Institutional Transformation and Planning: From Institutionalization Theory to Institutional Design.” Planning Theory 4.3, 209–223. Behlmer, Heike 2002. “The City as Metaphor in the Works of Two Panopolitans: Shenoute and Besa.” In Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, 13–27. Leiden. Brakke, David 2006. Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity. Cambdrige, MA. Brooks Hedstrom, Darlene 2009. “The Geography of the Monastic Cell in Early Egyptian Monastic Literature.” Church History 78.4, 756–791. ——. 2017. The Monastic Landscape of Late Antique Egypt: An Archaeological Reconstruction. Cambridge. Choat, Malcolm 2013a. “The Epistolary Culture of Monasticism between Literature and Papyri.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 48.2, 227–237. ——. 2013b. “Monastic Letter Collections in Late Antique Egypt: Structure, Purpose, and Transmission.” In: Cultures in Contact: Transfer of Knowledge in the Mediterranean Context, edited by S. Torallas Tovar and J. P. Monferra-Sala, 73–90. Cordoba. Crislip, Andrew 2017. “Emotional Communities and Emotional Suffering in Shenoute’s White Monastery Federation: Sadness, Anger, and Fear in Select Works of Shenoute.” In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by D. Brakke, S. Davis, and S. Emmel, 331–357. Leuven. Davis, Stephen, with contributions by G. Pyke, L. Blanke, W. Dolling, and A. Urcia 2020. “Anastasia, Thecla, and Friends: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence from the Shenoutean Women’s Monastery at Atripe.” Le Muséon 133, 259–287. Emmel, Stephen 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus: Volumes 1-2. CSCO 599–600. Louvain. Funk, Wolf-Peter 2007. A Work Concordance to Shenoute’s Canons. Unpublished. Krawiec Rebecca 1996. “Women’s Life in Shenute’s White Monastery: A Study in Late Antique Egyptian Monasticism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. ——. 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery: Female Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt. New York. Krawiec, Rebecca, and Schroeder, Caroline T. 2021. “Digital Approaches to Studying Authorial Style and Monastic Subjectivity in Early Christian Egypt.” In: Digital Humanities and Research Methods in Religious Studies. An Introduction, edited by K. Petersen and C. Cantwell, 71–96. Berlin. Kuhn, Karl H. 1954a. “A Fifth-Century Egyptian Abbot: I. Besa and His Background.” JTS n.s. 5, 36–48. ——. 1954b. “A Fifth-Century Egyptian Abbot: II. Monastic Life in Besa’s Day.” JTS n.s. 5, 174–187. ——. 1955. A Fifth-Century Egyptian Abbot: III. Besa’s Christianity.” JTS n.s. 6, 35–48. ——. 1956a. Letters and Sermons of Besa (text). CSCO 157, Script. Copt. 21. Louvain. ——. 1956b. Letters and Sermons of Besa (translation). CSCO 158, Script. Copt. 22. Louvain.

BESA AND THE WOMEN OF THE WHITE MONASTERY

345

Larsen, Lilian I., and Rubenson, Samuel (eds.) 2018. Monastic Education in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of Classical Paideia. Cambridge. Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Myers, Sharon 2019. “‘Suffering from a sense of injustice’: Children’s Activism in Liberal State Formation at the Saint John Boys Industrial Home, 1927–1932.” Histoire sociale/Social History 52, 1–30. Pierson, Paul 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton. Roquet, Gérard 1971. “Sur l’origine d’un hapax en vieux nubien; [tohondje].” BIFAO 71, 97–118. Schroeder, Caroline 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia. Sjöstedt, Martin 2015. “Resilience Revisited: Taking Institutional Theory Seriously.” Ecology and Society 20 (4), article 23 (online). Skinnell, Ryan 2019. “Toward a Working Theory of Institutional Rhetorics.” In: Reinventing (with) Theory in Rhetoric and Writing Studies: Essays in Honor of Sharon Crowley, edited by A. Alden et al., 69–82. Logan, Utah. Wipszycka, Ewa 2009. Moines et communautés monastiques en Égypte (IVeVIIIe siècles). Warsaw.

TERMITES IN THE CHURCH OF SHENOUTE BENTLEY LAYTON

The fascinating text under discussion here was published by Walter E. Crum in (1904).1 The text (Crum’s inscription A6, pp. 559–560) marks the completion of repairs to the sanctuary of the church of Shenoute (also known as the “White Monastery”). It is a dipinto that was painted on the small wall between the north apse and the door to the north pastophorion of the church. The text mentions en passant two Coptic patriarchs and a ruling dynasty making it possible to date the text – and the repairs – to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The text is badly damaged. An adjacent inscription (Crum’s A5) gives a precise date: “This good-work was done … in this year AM 953” (= AD 1237). From the surviving passages of the dipinto text it is hard to understand which parts of the church needed to be repaired. Much of the surviving text consists of ecclesiastical name-dropping: the patriarch of Alexandria, the bishop of Achmim, the archimandrite (the leader of the congregation), the fathers, the brethren. Woven into this roster of supporters are two fragmentary references to the repair work that was done. I give Crum’s translations. They are: “… the archimandrite … he it was, in his zeal, did provide these four columns (?), finishing the canopies (or ceilings) in the two tabernacles and the chambers that are beside them.”

And then: “And after that the earthquake (Crum thus translates ouam-kah) devoured the buildings (or rooms or dwellings) and [the] …, they found the place uncovered; and he and the fathers and the brethren did [make] them again.”2

Crum sent a draft of his article to Charles R. Peers, a distinguished architectural historian who was just then writing an article on the church of Shenoute.3 Crum printed Peers’s reply as an appendix to his article in JTS. Here is an excerpt from Peers’s reply:

1

Walter E. Crum, “Inscriptions from Shenoute’s Monastery.” JTS 5 (1904), 552–559. Crum’s translation contains a grammatical error. Correct is “while the ouam-kah was devouring the building.” Cf. Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, Wiesbaden 2000, par. 363 (pp. 289–290). 3 Charles R. Peers, “The White Monastery near Sohag, Upper Egypt.” Archaeological Journal 61 (1904), 131–150. 2

348

B. LAYTON

“The work is clearly something fairly large. An earthquake shook down the roof of the church – not the canopy of an altar – and a new roof had to be provided. Timber of sufficient size was probably unattainable; but bricks were always plentiful. So the new roof took the form of brick domes – the ‘canopies’ or ‘ceilings’ of the texts. In order to lessen the diameter of the domes they were made to spring from piers and arches of brick.”

Crum’s conjecture (adopted by Peers), that it was an earthquake that brought down the roof of the sanctuary, is based on written references elsewhere to a great earthquake of 1112 – not 1257. The compound word ouam-kah – literally, “dirt-eater” – which Crum here translates “earthquake”4 is a hapax legomenon as Crum tells us in his 1904 article, page 560 n. 10. By the time that Crum’s Coptic Dictionary was published (1939) Crum had improved his definition in the dictionary (p. 131b). He gave up the idea of earthquake and vaguely proposed instead that ouam-kah means “a corroding process or agent”; reference is made to “dilapidated buildings” and to JTS 5, p. 559 (i.e., to the church of Shenoute). In other words, the church and buildings like it become “dilapidated” if attacked by this “corroding process or agent.” What might that corroding process or agent be? Following Crum’s analysis we can look for an agent or process that expresses devour (ouam-) + dirt (kah) + to engage in ruinous behavior causing dilapidation. A likely meaning of ouam-kah is “termite” (also called “white ant”) which famously are capable of devouring even an entire monastery.5 The most notorious activity of termites is eating – devouring cellulose found in palm trees and buildings: hence ouam-kah. A sign of termite infestation is tubes and runways constructed of dirt, thus ouam-kah. The local species at the site of the church of Shenoute is the “sand termite” (Psammotermes hypostoma Desneux). “This termite lives in arid zones and builds its colonies in sandy areas … The species feeds on wood, dead and sometimes living plant parts, on almost anything that contains cellulose. They excavate galleries through their food as they consume it, and thus damage wood-built houses. Subterranean termites construct aboveground earthen runways (or tubes) for protection against natural enemies and desiccation.”6 4

Sahidic Coptic has another, much used word for earthquake: kmto (Bohairic monmen). When fourteenth-century patriarch Benjamin II “had seen that which had happened to the monastery of the holy Anba Bishoi [in the Wadi ‘n Natrun] … that is to say the ravages of the white ants [termites] which had destroyed its woodwork and destroyed its screens and windows – much more when he had seen that his church was on the point of falling, his community of dispersing, his foundation of disappearing from the holy desert and his name of being forgotten – he resolved to … repair what had been consumed by these creatures, and to destroy these latter from heaven and earth.” Hugh G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wādi ‘n Natrũn. Part 3, The Architecture and Archaeology, New York 1933, 135, quoting from the Book of the Chrism (BnF, fonds Arabe no. 100, f. 46b). 6 Uri Gerson and Shalom Applebaum, Plant Pests of the Middle East, http://www.agri.huji. ac.il/mepests/pest/Psammotermes_hypostoma/ 5

TERMITES IN THE CHURCH OF SHENOUTE

349

In 1935 – twenty-five years after the Comité had finished its restoration of the church – Mahmud Ahmad, now designated Director of Monuments and in charge of the church, reported that the church was in a deplorable state with a large part of the stonework dilapidated and most of the woodwork infested by … termites!

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR: RECONSIDERING THE CONFLICT WITH GESIOS HUGO LUNDHAUG

“There is no robbery for those who truly have Jesus”.1 Shenoute of Atripe, the powerful abbot of the White Monastery federation, was not a man who shied away from conflict. Those, both within and outside his monastic federation, whom he for some reason regarded as sinners, heretics, or pagans were regularly targets of his ire. And he seems to have had an especially strained relationship with the people of the city of Panopolis (Shmin) on the other side of the Nile from his monasteries, a city he once refers to with a play on words as Panomospolis, “the city of lawlessness” (ŇŁĿķijŅ ŁġĻĿĹĿŅ, rather than ŇŁĿķijŅ ŁġĻĿŅ “the city of Pan”) (Shenoute, Let Our Eyes, WW 29; Emmel 2008: 191), although, as we shall see, his own actions on that side of the Nile were themselves not always in conformity with the law. While older studies of Shenoute’s anti-paganism are to a large extent colored by the hagiographical Life of Shenoute,2 we have in recent years gained considerable clarity and additional information, in no small part thanks to Stephen Emmel’s impressive and groundbreaking reconstruction of Shenoute’s own literary corpus (Emmel 1993; 2004a) and his ceaseless efforts to edit and interpret Shenoute’s works (e.g., Emmel 1994; 1995; 1998; 2002; 2004b; 2008; 2013; 2016). At the end of his article “From the Other Side of the Nile: Shenute and Panopolis” (2002), Emmel points out that “There is still much work to be done with regard to the details and chronology of Shenute’s antipagan activities” (Emmel 2002: 113). Six years later he repeated this statement in the important follow-up article “Shenoute and the Destruction of Temples in Egypt” (Emmel 2008: 162). As this is arguably still the case today, I intend in this modest contribution to pay tribute to Emmel’s outstanding work by looking closer at one aspect of Shenoute’s anti-pagan activities, namely his conflict with the Panopolitan landowner Gesios, “Shenoute’s favourite enemy” (Behlmer 1993: 11), and especially the sequence of events leading up to and following Shenoute’s raid – or raids – on Gesios’ house.3

1 Shenoute, Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 168; Leipoldt 3:79. All translations from Coptic in this article are my own. 2 On the Life of Shenoute, see Leipoldt 1; Bell 1983; Lubomierski 2007. 3 It is a pleasure to present this contribution in honor of such a great scholar and friend, whose research on Coptic manuscripts and literature has had such a profound influence on not only my

352

H. LUNDHAUG

Shenoute’s writings are frequently polemical, and in his conflicts with those he accused of being pagans he sometimes did not limit himself to polemics, but also engaged in what can only be characterized as acts of religious violence, most famously in the burning down of a major temple in Atripe, the village that also housed his federation’s female monastic community,4 and in breaking into the home of the rich Panopolitan landowner Gesios. Emmel’s research has significantly advanced our knowledge of Shenoute’s conflict with Gesios, through the reconstruction and publication of Shenoute’s writing Let Our Eyes (Emmel 2008), as well as through painstaking historical analysis (Emmel 2002; 2008). An important insight of this work has been to somewhat deflate the previously popular image of Shenoute as a rampant and persistent destroyer of pagan cult, arguing that his anti-pagan activities were more limited (Emmel 2008). Inspired by Emmel’s work, I will here revisit Shenoutes’ conflict with Gesios, looking closer at the sequence of events and the nature of Gesios’ alleged paganism, and argue that Shenoute’s anti-pagan activities might well have been more limited than what appears even from Emmel’s reconstruction. SHENOUTE’S CONFLICT WITH GESIOS There are several sources for our knowledge of Shenoute’s relationship with Gesios, comprising a number of Shenoute’s own writings as well as the Life of Shenoute. Due to the fact that Shenoute never actually refers to Gesios by name, except in the incipit of an otherwise unattested text, Gesios Writes, which appears in the Vienna incipit list (Emmel 2004a: 642), there is some uncertainty regarding some of the episodes referred to in his writings. It nevertheless seems clear that the rich landowner in Panopolis, into whose private house Shenoute refers to having entered during the dead of night, is to be identified with the man named Gesios in the Life of Shenoute, and who has been identified by Emmel (2002) as Flavius Aelius Gessius, the former provincial governor of the Thebaid.5 In the Life of Shenoute (125–127; Leipoldt 1:57; cf. Bell 1983: 77–78), we are given a short description of a nightly raid by Shenoute on Gesios’ house. We are told that Shenoute took with him two other monks (who according to the Arabic version of the Life was named Jusab and Akhnoukh; see Bell 1983: 4) riding on donkeys. They crossed the Nile miraculously without using a boat, entered the city of Panopolis, and broke into Gesios’ house. Indeed, according own scholarship, but on Coptology in general, and whose enthusiasm for all things Coptological continues to be a great inspiration. 4 On the women’s monastery and its relationship with Shenoute, see esp. Krawiec 2002. 5 Cf. also Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193. I do not find López’ (2013: 133) arguments to the contrary convincing.

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

353

to this story they did not even need to break in, since the doors miraculously opened by themselves, all the way to the room where the pagan idols were kept. Having laid their hands on Gesios’ idols, the three monks took them down to the riverbank where they broke them to pieces and threw them into the Nile, before crossing back over the river, again miraculously without the use of a boat, and returning to the monastery to great jubilation. During the entire proceedings, not even the donkeys made a sound, and no one in Panopolis noticed anything. While the Life of Shenoute can hardly be characterized as a trustworthy source for historical details,6 it is still worth keeping this version of the story in mind when we consider how Shenoute describes the same event in his own writings, as it seems to a certain degree to reflect what Shenoute himself wrote about it. Two of Shenoute’s works are especially important in this regard, namely Not Because a Fox Barks,7 and Let Our Eyes,8 but we must also take into consideration an excerpt of an unidentified text by Shenoute found in the lectionary manuscript MONB.DD, which contains what Emmel (2008: 162) has described as “a kind of curriculum vitae pertaining to his most violent acts outside the monastery.” Here Shenoute lists several anti-pagan actions while arguing that he has never, in any of these instances, acted “undisciplined” (ĻġŇġĽijġ) or “with tumult” (ƙĻĿʼnƓŇĿŃŇŃ), including the time when he “burned the temple of the idol-worshippers in Atripe,” and, referring to the burglary at Gesios’ house, when he “took the idols from the bedroom of that man,” stating that he took only seven monks with him on the latter occasion (DD 224; Leipoldt 3:91–92; cf. Emmel 2002: 105 n. 49). As Emmel (2002: 112) has shown, Shenoute seems in this text to be defending himself against accusations of having acted against what is expressly stated in the Theodosian Code, namely that temples should be destroyed “without disturbance or tumult” (16.10.16; Pharr 1952: 474). Apparently, there were people who, quite understandably, felt that Shenoute’s actions were not acceptable and even downright illegal. With regard to the the burglary at Gesios’ house, despite the fact that Shenoute insists on having acted in an orderly manner, even his own description of the event gives the impression of a relatively major operation. While he defends himself against accusations of gathering bands of people (probably monks), he does admit that the raid on Gesios’ house was conducted with a rather more sizeable raiding party than just himself and a couple of monks, as later described in the Life of Shenoute.

6 For a stimulating discussion of what such hagiographical texts may still be used as sources for, see Rubenson 2013. 7 Coptic text in Leipoldt 3:79–84; English translation in Barns 1964. 8 Coptic text and English translation in Emmel 2008.

354

H. LUNDHAUG

That people in Panopolis were angry at Shenoute after his raid on Gesios’ house is quite clear from the text known as Let Our Eyes, the extant remains of which Emmel published as an appendix to his 2008-article on Shenoute’s antipagan activities (Emmel 2008). Shenoute here expresses disappointment at the fact that people in Panopolis are angry with him, rather than Gesios, and complains that they have not shown him any respect, but rather despised him for what he has done (Let Our Eyes, ZJ 28; Emmel 2008: 197). Shenoute defends his actions by arguing that Gesios’ house was akin to a pagan temple, since what he found there were exactly the same kind of items he says he had previously found, and destroyed, in the temple he had burned down in Atripe. So, Shenoute argues, if breaking into and destroying the things found in pagan temples were lawful actions, then why should it not likewise be acceptable to break into the house of a pagan and steal those same items from there? Shenoute knows, of course, that there is a difference (and he certainly didn’t go so far as to try to torch Gesios’ house), and if one is not inclined to simply take Shenoute’s word for it, one may indeed ask whether the things he found at Gesios’ place were in fact the same kind of things that he found in the temple. Indeed, as we shall see, it is not unreasonable to doubt that these items were distinctive enough to be regarded by many as proof of ongoing pagan practices. It also seems clear from Let Our Eyes that insiders connected to Gesios’ estate were accused of helping Shenoute break in, for he says that the doors were opened for him and his raiding party by Jesus, and not by any local helpers, a claim that may well have inspired the description in the Life of Shenoute that the doors opened by themselves. It is clear, however, that people countered this claim by accusing Shenoute of being a liar (Let Our Eyes, WW 32–33; ZJ 27; Emmel 2008: 193–194; 196), and one would think that his explanation is only likely to have been accepted by his supporters. What was accomplished by breaking into Gesios’ house and stealing his things? According to Shenoute, he and his fellow monks revealed Gesios’ idols “openly” (ԛֲĿʼnŁġŃŃįŅijġ) “in order for everyone to realize his disgrace and his shame in order for them to know that he is a liar, like when he said, ‘there are no idols in my house,’ when I asked him” (Let Our Eyes, WW 33; Emmel 2008: 194). He thus highlights the importance of the items he alleges to have found in Gesios’s house, which he claims as evidence of pagan practices. In Not Because a Fox Barks, on the other hand, Shenoute not only responds to angry Panopolitans, but apparently also to direct threats from Gesios, asking rhetorically if the lion (i.e. Shenoute) should be afraid when a fox (i.e. Gesios) barks (Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 167; Leipoldt 3:79). Aligning himself with Jesus, Shenoute argues here that attacks on himself should also be regarded as attacks on Jesus, while simultaneously identifying Gesios as the son of Satan. Gesios for his part must have accused Shenoute of robbery, for Shenoute

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

355

replies that “there is no robbery for those who truly have Jesus” (Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 168; Leipoldt 3:79). Somewhat surprisingly, however, and contrary to what he does in Let Our Eyes, Shenoute does not in this text emphasize Gesios’ possession of idols. Indeed, he refers to having recently been invited by Gesios to search his house looking for idols, an invitation Shenoute apparently accepted, and he admits to not having found any such items on that occasion. Shenoute responds to this rather embarrassing failure to identify any pagan cult images in Gesios’ house by, on the one hand, claiming that he had already removed all such images at the time when he had earlier broken into his house, and, on the other, that such cult images were not really needed in order to engage in pagan cult practices (Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 172; Leipoldt 3:81–82). SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS SUGGESTED BY EMMEL How can we reconcile the evidence provided in Let Our Eyes and Not Because a Fox Barks? In what sequence were the two texts written, and how do they relate to the historical realities? Emmel has presented two slightly different suggestions as to the sequence of events (Emmel 2002; 2008). In his 2002 article, he suggests the following chronology: Gesios visits Shenoute’s monastery and promises to become Christian (Let Our Eyes, WW 34; Emmel 2008: 195). This leads Shenoute to break into Gesios’ house, since he suspects that Gesios has lied about his conversion and secretly remained a pagan. What Shenoute found in this burglary did not, however, convince the people of Panopolis that Gesios was a pagan, and the latter’s response was to invite Shenoute to his house to see for himself a second time (probably together with independent witnesses) that he was not in fact in the possession of pagan idols. Shenoute accepts this invitation, inspects the house without finding anything, and writes Not Because a Fox Barks as a response to this failure. However, since he is still not convinced that Gesios does not have pagan artifacts, Shenoute decides to raid Gesios’ house a second time. This time Shenoute finally finds the incriminating evidence he is looking for and writes Let Our Eyes, which focuses on Gesios’ possession of such items. In his 2008 article, Emmel adjusts his suggested chronology slightly, arguing that Gesios’ visit to Shenoute’s monastery, which is only described in Let Our Eyes, actually took place after Shenoute had written Not Because a Fox Barks, and thus after Shenoute’s first break-in and subsequent invitation to inspect Gesios’ house. Importantly, in this revised sequence of events, Gesios’ promise to become Christian is given after Shenoute has already broken into his house once and later inspected it by invitation.

356

H. LUNDHAUG

A NEW SUGGESTION FOR

THE

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

While it is certainly possible to reconcile both of these suggested timelines with the available evidence, I would like to suggest an alternative, simpler sequence of events. In both of his suggested chronologies, Emmel prefers to place Not Because a Fox Barks before Let Our Eyes. In both texts Shenoute makes reference to a burglary at Gesios’ house. The fact that Shenoute downplays the presence of idols in the former while highlighting it in the latter, Emmel explains by postulating two burglaries by Shenoute and his monks, one that took place before the writing of Not Because a Fox Barks, in which Shenoute did not find any idols, and yet another break-in that took place after Not Because a Fox Barks had been written, but before Let Our Eyes, when Shenoute finally found the incriminating evidence he was looking for.9 This sequence of events thus explains why Shenoute downplays the presence of idols at Gesios’ house in the former text, while focusing on it in the latter. But did Shenoute really break into Gesios’ house twice, as Emmel suggests? Do we really have compelling evidence to this effect? Nowhere in his writings does Shenoute himself state that he broke into Gesios’ house twice, and neither does the Life of Shenoute. The texts Let Our Eyes, Not Because a Fox Barks, and the unidentified text excerpted in the lectionary MONB.DD all make reference to one break-in. As long as we reverse the sequence of our two main texts, and consider the possibility that Let Our Eyes was written prior to Not Because a Fox Barks, there is no need to postulate more than one raid, as the references in both texts may be interpreted as different ways of justifying the same burglary, responding to an increasing backlash against Shenoute’s actions. I would therefore suggest that Shenoute probably only broke into Gesios’ house once. The way Shenoute downplays the importance of Gesios’ alleged cult images in Not Because a Fox Barks is, I think, most easily explained by people in Panopolis not being convinced by Shenoute’s claims to having found pagan cult images in Gesios’ house in the first place, while being outraged by how he and his fellow monks broke into a private home. Indeed, in this text Shenoute admits to the fact that he did not find any idols when he inspected Gesios’ house when later invited to do so. Shenoute’s response to this failure is twofold: On the one hand he claims that there were no cult images left after he had himself broken in and taken them, and on the other hand he simply argues that it doesn’t really matter if Gesios had such images, since they were not needed anyway: Gesios could still worship his gods without any cult artifacts or distinctive paraphernalia. As Shenoute puts it, “Even if I take away the idols that are in your house, will I be able to hide the sun in the sky and the moon and 9

This chronology is accepted by Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193–199.

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

357

the stars, which you worship? Or shall I build enclosures to hinder you from praying towards the west? Or shall I watch over the river and over your canals to hinder you from pouring libations to Kronos into the waters?” (Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 172; Leipoldt 3:81–82). This line of argument feels quite forced when juxtaposed with the strong focus on pagan items that we find in Let Our Eyes. So how do we explain this change in Shenoute’s argument, if we place Let Our Eyes prior to Not Because a Fox Barks? We have seen that in Let Our Eyes he focuses on the presence of pagan idols in Gesios’ house, which he says he found in Gesios’ bedroom. He mentions among them an image of Zeus (Let Our Eyes, ZJ 28; Emmel 2008: 197) as well as images of Kronos, Hecate, “the other demons,” effeminate men, indecent women, and priests with shaven heads and altars in their hands (Let Our Eyes, WW 27, 30; Emmel 2008: 190, 192).10 He does so for two reasons: Firstly, they serve as his main proof that Gesios is still a pagan, even though he reportedly promised to convert to Christianity. Secondly, they are the items on which Shenoute bases his defense against those who accuse him of wrongfully breaking into a private house. Such a robbery was naturally regarded as a crime, not only by Gesios, but apparently also by people in Panopolis, to judge from Shenoute’s own remarks. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that such behavior on the part of the monks from across the river would be looked upon favorably by most citizens, despite Shenoute’s protestations. Shenoute therefore uses the presence of idols to argue that Gesios’ house should in effect be regarded as equivalent to a pagan temple, as it housed the same type of cult items, and would be used similarly in pagan worship. According to Shenoute, since the destruction of temples and the removal of their idols were not only allowed, but actively encouraged, why should it be wrong to break into a private house and remove idols of the same kind as those used in a temple? This line of reasoning fits well a situation where Shenoute has broken into Gesios’ home and stolen various objects, but where he feels the need to defend himself against accusations of wrongdoing. It also fits a situation where Shenoute hopes the items he found will serve as sufficient proof of pagan practices. Gesios’ visit to Shenoute’s monastery, described in Let Our Eyes, likely took place before Shenoute broke into his house, but after Shenoute had used reports of pagan activities against him and accused him of being a pagan. According to Shenoute, Gesios claims during this visit that his paganism is now in the past, and he promises to become a Christian. Admitting to having performed acts of pagan worship in the past, he refers back to an earlier event, used against him by Shenoute, and says in his defense that he was young back then, to which Shenoute answers that he was hardly very young, since by that time 10

For an example of the latter, see Emmel 2008: 200–201.

358

H. LUNDHAUG

he was already a provincial governor (Let Our Eyes, WW 34; Emmel 2008: 194). It is impossible to know exactly which event is being referred to, but it may conceivably be the incident described by Shenoute in A26,11 where he claims to have caught a rich man, who may plausibly be identified as Gesios (Behlmer 1993; 1996), worshipping in the former temple in Atripe, which Shenoute had recently destroyed. In any case, whether this particular event is the one referred to or not, Gesios concedes that he once was a practicing pagan, but that this is no longer the case. Later, doubting the sincerity of Gesios’ promise to become a Christian, Shenoute decides to break into his house, wishing to expose him as a pagan still. This burglary seems to have backfired on Shenoute, drawing criticism not only from Gesios, but from the people of Panopolis, who did not appreciate this type of activity on the part of Shenoute and his monks. Shenoute writes Let Our Eyes as a kind of open letter to the people of Panopolis, defending his actions by arguing that the items he and his monks found in Gesios’ house was the same kind of objects he had previously found in the temple he destroyed in Atripe, thus proving Gesios’ paganism and providing him with a justification for breaking into his house. While our only source is Shenoute himself, his arguments in defense of his actions were evidently not accepted by the people of Panopolis, and if we regard Not Because a Fox Barks to have been written later than Let Our Eyes, Gesios seems to have contended that Shenoute did not have any incontrovertible material evidence from his nightly raid, and that he had never had any pagan idols at home. Indeed, whatever Shenoute may have found when he broke into his house does not seem to have been accepted as sufficiently convincing evidence. It is also rather obvious that Shenoute did not possess any such incriminating evidence, either because he did not actually find any in the first place (remember, we only have Shenoute’s word for it), or because he may have destroyed the evidence (as the Life of Shenoute indicates that he did), or because the items he found were open to interpretation (Bagnall 2008; Emmel 2008; Brakke and Crislip 2015: 195). Indeed, Shenoute even admits himself that what he found might not necessarily be easily identified as pagan cult items, as he points out in Let Our Eyes (ZJ 28; Emmel 2008: 197) that he might not even have been able to recognize them as such himself had it not been for the fact that he had destroyed just such items in the temple he burned down in Atripe. Moreover, Shenoute accepts Gesios’ invitation to search his house again, which he probably wouldn’t have done if he had actually been in possession of sufficient evidence already, or if he had not been pressured into doing so. Unsurprisingly he does not find anything during this authorized inspection. Frustrated, he then writes Not Because a Fox Barks, with a significantly different kind of argument than in Let Our Eyes. Where he previously 11

For an edition and German translation of A26, see Behlmer 1996.

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

359

argued on the basis of the idols he claimed to have found in Gesios’ house, he now claims that whether or not Gesios was in the possession of idols was in fact of no consequence, since such items were in any case unnecessary for Gesios’ pagan cult practices. He also adds that the reason he did not find anything during the authorized inspection was because he had already removed all the incriminating items himself. This kind of argument is consistent with a situation where people in Panopolis doubt his claims, as stated in Let Our Eyes, of having found decisive evidence of pagan cult practices when he and his fellow monks broke into Gesios’ house, and Shenoute therefore has to change his argument. There is no compelling reason to suppose that Shenoute broke into Gesios’ house more than once and that he had more success the second time. It is easier to make sense of the evidence at hand if we assume that Shenoute wrote Let Our Eyes first and Not Because a Fox Barks later and that both refer to the same burglary. Only if we switch the sequence of these two texts around do we need to postulate more than one break-in. My suggested alternative sequence of events is thus as follows: 1. Gesios visits Shenoute’s monastery church and promises to convert to Christianity. 2. Shenoute breaks into Gesios’ house because he suspects his conversion to be fake and wants to expose him as a pagan. 3. Shenoute writes Let Our Eyes shortly after the burglary, arguing that the things he found exposes Gesios as a pagan and justifies his break-in. 4. People of Panopolis are not convinced by the items Shenoute alleges to have found during his raid on Gesios’ house. 5. Gesios denies having idols and being a pagan, and invites Shenoute to search his house. 6. Shenoute searches Gesios’ house on his inviation, but finds nothing. 7. Shenoute writes Not Because a Fox Barks as a response, arguing that the presence of idols is not important, as Gesios could engage in pagan practices without them. THE NATURE OF GESIOS’ PAGANISM The evidence that emerges from both Let Our Eyes and Not Because a Fox Barks thus indicates that Shenoute had a difficult time convincing people in Panopolis that Gesios was in fact a practicing pagan, rather than a Christian. But what was the actual nature of Gesios’ paganism? There was indeed for a long time a consensus among scholars that Gesios was an outspoken defender and practitioner of pagan cult (Leipoldt 1903; Frankfurter 1998: 80–81; van

360

H. LUNDHAUG

der Vliet 1993: 102; López 2013; cf. Crislip 2016),12 but as Emmel (2002; 2008) has persuasively argued, our available evidence points towards Gesios being a person who, at least by the time Shenoute wrote Let Our Eyes and Not Because a Fox Barks, no longer practiced paganism openly and was outwardly a Christian.13 While Shenoute asserts that Gesios was still covertly a practicing pagan, even after promising to convert, should we simply take Shenoute’s word for it? Before we accept his picture of Gesios as a crypto-pagan, I suggest that we need to ask why it was so important for Shenoute to expose him as a pagan in the first place. Was it really Gesios’ paganism that made him dangerous to Shenoute (as López 2013: 112 argues), or was Shenoute trying to expose or portray him as a pagan because he was a threat for other reasons?14 While Shenoute may have been right to claim that Gesios was really a pagan at heart, we need at least to consider the possibility that he was only a pagan in Shenoute’s rhetoric, and that he was in fact to all intents and purposes a Christian.15 I would argue that Shenoute’s great animosity toward him makes most sense if there was a widespread belief, or even a consensus, that Gesios was now a Christian. Indeed, if Gesios was a Christian, but a Christian who opposed the presence, influence, and actions of what he and many others may have regarded as rather fanatical and overly powerful monks, it would have been especially important for Shenoute to portray him as a pagan and claim to have exposed him as such, thus taking the moral high-ground. One may suppose that opposition from moderate Christians would have posed a far more serious threat to Shenoute’s influence, and indeed income,16 than outspoken adherents to traditional religion might have done. Shenoute may thus have felt the need to polarize the conflict and make it one between Christianity and paganism, rather than a conflict between moderate and radical Christianity. We may thus be witnessing more

12

López (2013: 105) calls him “an Egyptian Libanius.” Cf. also Frankfurter 2000: 279; 2008: 152. 14 López (2013: 125) argues that the way Shenoute describes Gesios, “seems to me to be a realistic description of contemporary pagan practices and cannot be explained away simply as accusations invented to disparage one’s rivals; otherwise Shenoute would have mentioned sacrifices, the worst possible crime associated with paganism.” To me this argument is dubious, as one may argue that accusations that Gesios practiced pagan sacrifice would be far more outrageous and much less believable than the accusations Shenoute brings to the table. I would rather suggest that we would have been more likely to see accusations of pagan sacrifice if Gesios had in fact been such a clearly identifiable pagan as Shenoute argues. 15 This presupposes that Gesios’ negative statements regarding Jesus’ divinity, e.g., comparing him to Appolonius of Tyana, and his reported acts of worship in the ruins of the temple at Atripe, as reported in A26, were all in the past at the time of the events discussed in Let Our Eyes and Not Because a Fox Barks. That is, if the rich man thus described in A26 is in fact to be identified with Gesios in the first place, which we cannot know for certain. 16 Cf. Shenoute, Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 169; Leipoldt 3:80. 13

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

361

a case of a conflict with a close enemy, an enemy within, rather than with the far, and clearly delineated, enemy. If the main problem Shenoute had with Gesios was economic, or a question of influence, I would argue that he would be a greater problem to Shenoute as a Christian than as a pagan. Accusations of paganism, on the other hand, was what Shenoute could use as a way of confronting the power of Gesios, as it gave Shenoute the upper hand as a spokesman of official religion. Having the conflict appear as a struggle between Christianity and paganism would obviously be far better to Shenoute than having it appear as a conflict between radical and moderate Christians. I would thus suggest that it was not Gesios’ paganism that was a problem for Shenoute, but his professed Christianity. Emmel (2008: 174) suggests that Gesios converted to Christianity only reluctantly, submitting to Shenoute’s pressure to do so, describing Gesios’ promise at Shenoute’s monastery church to become Christian in the following way: “I myself see Gesios’ shoulders sagging as he says the words. His head sinks toward his breast. He is giving in, and giving up.” But is it not just as likely that Gesios’ statement was made rather more defiantly, and in order to remove a major justification for Shenoute’s opposition to him? As López (2013: 112) points out, “it was a fact well known to late antique bishops that landowners had a powerful and potentially dangerous influence on the spiritual life of the rural population.” One would think that a loss of income, influence, and hence power, would be Shenoute’s greatest concern, and what would represent a greater threat than moderate Christians not respecting or donating money to the monasteries, and even hindering others from doing so? López (2013: 112) speculates that “Gesios’s public prominence threatened Shenoute’s spiritual authority among the Christian elite of Panopolis.” This might well have been the case, but surely the public prominence of a hostile Christian would be a greater threat to Shenoute than that of an outspoken pagan? Shenoute states that Gesios did not like the fact that people who were working for him brought tribute to Shenoute or donated money to the church (Not Because a Fox Barks, DU 169; Leipoldt 3:80). Brakke and Crislip (2015: 194) suggest that Shenoute may have targeted Gesios due to the latter’s “combination of political prominence, great wealth, and ambiguous religious affiliation.” The underlying cause of the conflict between Shenoute and Gesios may thus have been a struggle for influence with economic implications. Brakke and Crislip (2015: 195) rightly point out that the conflict “was not simply religious,” and that “Christian churches and monasteries and their leaders like Shenoute represented a new social and economic power within late ancient society, unsettling traditional patterns of patronage and economic life.” As Brakke and Crislip (2015: 193) put it, the conflict between Gesios and Shenoute “illustrates the tensions that accompanied the rise of Christian monasticism in

362

H. LUNDHAUG

eastern areas of the Roman Empire, tensions that were simultaneously religious, social, and economic.” But the real nature of the religious tensions underlying this particular conflict may not necessarily have been how Shenoute wants to present it, namely as one between Christianity and paganism. How ambiguous Gesios’ religious affiliation was at the time when Shenoute broke into his house is open to interpretation. Emmel (2008: 175) chooses to believe Shenoute’s presentation of Gesios as a crypto-pagan, and resists the suggestion that Gesios may not only have been a Christian outwardly, arguing that if he was not engaging in “his pagan practices in secret” we have to “dismiss much of what Shenoute wrote about Gesios as pure fiction.” I do not think we need to go that far. It is enough to postulate that Shenoute thought that Gesios was a pagan at heart, and found it useful to present him as such. That such rhetorical accusations of paganism, in the service of a polemic relating to a conflict with far broader implications, could turn out to be less than verifiable, and even untrue, seems far from unlikely to me. The suggestion that Gesios may in fact have been a Christian has already been made by Roger Bagnall, who has suggested that Gesios may in fact never have been a pagan at all, but simply an Arian Christian (Bagnall 2008). According to Bagnall, Shenoute may have regarded Gesios as a heretic, but decided to treat him rhetorically like a pagan. However, contrary to Bagnall, Gesios’ alleged former denial of Jesus’ divinity does not strike me as something that could plausibly be explained by him being an Arian (Bagnall 2008: 28–32; Emmel 2008: 173–174; cf. Emmel 2002: 109). Moreover, it is worth noting that Shenoute never accuses Gesios of heresy, whether Arian or otherwise. And we know from other writings that Shenoute does not shirk from branding his opponents as Arians or other kinds of heretics (see, e.g., his anti-heretical writing I Am Amazed; Cristea 2011; Lundhaug 2012) when he has a chance to do so. If Gesios was in fact an Arian, it would be very uncharacteristic of Shenoute not to mention that fact. It makes more sense of the available evidence, I think, to suppose that Gesios was a former pagan who had converted to Christianity before Shenoute broke into his house. Was this conversion insincere, as Shenoute claims, and Gesios thus a crypto-pagan, as Emmel has argued? This is of course impossible for us to know, but it is important, I think, that we recognize that the possibility that Gesios had in fact become a Christian to all intents and purposes,17 and that he did no longer practice paganism when Shenoute decided to break into his house, is just as much in line with our available evidence as what Shenoute wants us to believe, namely that he was a crypto-pagan.

17 Recognizing, of course, the complex nature of an individual’s religious identity (cf., e.g., Rebillard 2012).

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

363

CONCLUSION As Emmel (2002: 111) notes, “For historians, when something falls too far short of reasonable certainty, it is always a matter of determining what is both possible and probable.” While Emmel’s suggested chronology of events in Shenoute’s conflict with Gesios, with two break-ins, one unsuccessful and one successful, is certainly possible, I would argue, using Occam’s razor, that a simpler scenario, with only one burglary, is the more probable historical reconstruction. It is also quite possible that Gesios at that time was a moderate Christian, albeit a recently converted one, and that Shenoute’s claims that he was a crypto-pagan were simply not true. Bibliography Bagnall, Roger S. 2008. “Models and Evidence in the Study of Religion in Late Roman Egypt.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel and Ulrich Gotter, 23–41. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 163. Leiden. Barns, John W. B. 1964. “Shenoute as a Historical Source.” In: Actes du Xe congrès international de papyrologues, Varsovie-Cracovie, 3–9 Septembre 1961, 151– 159. Wrocław. Behlmer, Heike 1993. “Historical Evidence from Shenoute’s De extremo iudicio.” In: Sesto congresso internazionale di egittologia: Atti. Edited by G. M. Zaccone and T. R. di Netro, 2:11–19. 2 vols. Turin. ——. 1996. Schenute von Atripe, De Iudicio (Torino, Museo Egizio, Cat. 63000, Cod. IV). Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino, Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi 8. Torino. Bell, David N. 1983. Besa: The Life of Shenoute. Cistercian Studies Series 73. Kalamazoo, MI. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Crislip, Andrew 2016. “Shenoute Studies,” In: Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th–19th, 2008, edited by Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani, and Federico Contardi, 1:335–364. 2 vols. OLA 247. Leuven. Cristea, Hans-Joachim 2011. Schenute von Atripe: Contra Origenistas: Edition des koptischen Textes mit annotierter Übersetzung und Indizes einschließlich einer Übersetzung des 16. Osterfestbriefs des Theophilus in der Fassung des Hieronymus (ep. 96). STAC 60. Tübingen. Dijkstra, Jitse 2015. “Religious Violence in Late Antique Egypt Reconsidered: The Cases of Alexandria, Panopolis and Philae,” Journal of Early Christian History 5.2, 24–48. Emmel, Stephen 1993. “Shenoute’s Literary Corpus.” PhD diss. Yale University. ——. 1994. “Ithyphallic Gods and Undetected Ligatures: Pan is not ‘Ours,’ He is Min (Rectification of a Misreading in a Work of Shenoute).” Göttinger Miszellen 141, 43–46.

364

H. LUNDHAUG

——. 1995. “Theophilus’s Festal Letter of 401 as Quoted by Shenoute.” In: Divitiae Aegypti: Koptologische und verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause, edited by Cäcilia Fluck, Lucia Langener, and Siegfried Richter, 93–98. Wiesbaden. ——. 1998. “The Historical Circumstances of Shenute’s Sermon God Is Blessed.” In: ΘΕΜΕΛΙΑ: Spätantike und koptologische Studien Peter Grossman zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Martin Krause and Sofia Schaten, 81–96. Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 3. Wiesbaden. ——. 2002. “From the Other Side of the Nile: Shenute and Panopolis.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Acts from an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17 and 18 December 1998, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, 95–113. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 31. Leiden. ——. 2004a. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600, Subsidia 111–112. Leuven. ——. 2004b. “Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In: Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture. Atti del simposio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano” per il 50° anniversario dell’Instituto Monastico di Sant’Anselmo, Roma, 28 maggio – 1° giugno 2002, edited by Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, 151–174. Studia Anselmiana 140, Analecta Monastica 8. Rome. ——. 2008. “Shenoute and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 161–201. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 163. Leiden. ——. 2013. “‘Foxes Flee before Lions’: The All-Important ġĻ Is Missing in Leipoldt’s Text because It Was Erased.” In: Florilegium Aegyptiacum: Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013, edited by Julia Budka, Roman Gundacker, and Gabriele Pieke, 75–78. Göttinger Miszellen Beiheft 14. Göttingen. ——. 2016. “Editing Shenoute, Old Problems, New Prospects: The Date of Shenoute’s Death.” In: Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th–19th, 2008, edited by Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani, and Federico Contardi, 2:937–944. OLA 247. 2 vols. Leuven. Frankfurter, David 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton. ——. 2000. “‘Things Unbefitting Christians’: Violence and Christianization in Fifth-Century Panopolis.” JECS 8.2, 273–295. ——. 2008. “Iconoclasm and Christianization in Late Antique Egypt: Christian Treatments of Space and Image.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 135–159. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 163. Leiden. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute & the Women of the White Monastery: Egyptian Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Leipoldt, Johannes 1903. Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national ägyptischen Christentums. TUGACL 25. Leipzig.

SHENOUTE THE BURGLAR

365

——. 1906–1913 (= Leipoldt 1, 3, 4). Sinuthii Archimandritae: Vita et Opera Omnia. 3 vols. (numbered 1, 3 and 4). CSCO 41, 42, 73, Script. Copt. 1, 2, 5. Paris. López, Ariel G. 2013. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty: Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict, and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 50. Berkeley. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii: Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. Lundhaug, Hugo 2012. “Shenoute’s Heresiological Polemics and Its Context(s).” In: Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights Over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, edited by Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke, 239–261. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11. Frankfurt. Pharr, Clyde 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography. Corpus Juris Romani 1. Princeton. Rebillard, Éric 2012. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity: North Africa, 200-450 CE. Ithaca. Rubenson, Samuel 2013. “To Tell the Truth: Fact and Fiction in Early Monastic Sources.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 48.3, 317–324. van der Vliet, Jacques 1993. “Spätantikes Heidentum in Ägypten im Spiegel der koptischen Literatur.” In: Begegnung von Heidentum und Christentum im spätantiken Ägypten, 99–130. Riggisberger Berichte 1. Riggisberg.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES: SHENOUTE’S CURSE AND THE DEATH OF GESSIOS ANASTASIA MARAVELA and SOFÍA TORALLAS TOVAR

Among Shenoute’s anti-pagan activities described in sections 81–88 of Besa’s so-called Life of Shenoute, we find a fascinating scene of the torments of the Beyond, formulated as a curse and at the same time as a prophetic vision. The torment described in this episode is moreover interesting in that it describes an eternal punishment for the sinner in Hell, in which his body has been forced into a quite uncomfortable anatomical position. In this paper, we will analyze the episode against the background of the hagiographic and biblical topoi for the punishment in Hell, the identity of the person cursed, and Egyptian and magical ideas1 of the cursed human body in Hell.2 SHENOUTE AND THE

PAGANS

Shenoute of Atripe was one of the most important agents of the emergence of monasticism in Egypt in late antiquity.3 In his role as abbot of a large congregation, he insisted on punishing disobedience or evil behavior within the monastery. Beyond the walls of the monastery, Shenoute presents himself as a representative of God and Christ in the local community. With recent imperial anti-pagan legislation in hand,4 he felt authorized in his attacks against those he viewed as pagans or paganizing, including local imperial administrators who were (or at least represented themselves as) Christian.5 It is in the context of Shenoute’s anti-pagan activities, in the midst of furious and inflammatory debates, that we find his personal feud with Gessios.6 1

Aufrère 2005 has already explored the Egyptian and magical background to the episode of the miracle of the cucumber field in the Life of Shenoute by Besa. See also Brakke 2021 on Shenoute and the culture of cursing in the White Monastery, and in this volume, Frankfurter. 2 We are grateful to Margaret Mitchell, Christopher Faraone, and Korshi Dosoo for their input and comments. Translations are ours unless otherwise stated. 3 Emmel 2002: 95–98. 4 Gaudemet 1972. 5 Emmel 2008a: 188; Emmel 2004a: vol. 2, 672; Emmel in Brakke and Crislip 2015: 207. 6 For the identification of this historical character, see below. On this conflict see Emmel 2002 and 2008a; Miguélez Cavero 2008: 198–210 (on religious conflict in Panopolis in general). See also Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193–199; López 2013: 102–126; and Torallas Tovar 2015. We do

368

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

Shenoute’s declared enemy was most likely a provincial governor (praeses) of the Thebaid (from 376 to 378 CE)7 who later, instead of following his cursus honorum, moving to another part of the empire, stayed on in Panopolis, where he owned rich latifundia. This governor, who perhaps was originally a Christian, perhaps even an Arian, or who converted to Christianity in order to satisfy the requirements for his political post, is accused by Shenoute of continuing to worship idols in secret. One of the most noteworthy episodes is that of Shenoute’s invasion of Gessios’ house, tearing up the pagan idols and breaking them outside the house and in the sight of the everyone.8 In this paper we will discuss a noteworthy episode in Shenoute’s feud with Gessios, namely his vision of Gessios in Hell with his tongue tied to his big toe. GESSIOS IN HELL The scene of Gessios in Hell appears in two, perhaps three works by Shenoute and Besa. In two of them, the torment applied to him has the form of a “binding,” the tongue is tied to his toe. In the other one, his tongue is being cut (probably in Hell), a scene in line with what we generally find in biblical and hagiographical descriptions of Hell and its torments, for which see below. One of the episodes is in the work known as Life of Shenoute,9 traditionally attributed to his disciple and successor Besa.10 The Life is fully preserved in Bohairic, with some fragments surviving in Sahidic.11 The episode in question (E 42 or §88) is only preserved in Bohairic, and belongs to a series of events or narratives on Shenoute’s conflict with the pagans (E 39–42/§§81–88): ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲏⲟⲩ ⲛϫⲉⲟⲩϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲕⲉⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲫⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲟⲩⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲡⲓϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲁϥⲉⲣⲃⲗⲁⲥⲫⲏⲙⲓⲛ ⲉⲡⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲉϥϫⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϧⲉⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲧⲥⲟϫ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲧⲡⲁⲛⲟⲩⲣⲅⲓⲁ ⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ. not intend to elaborate any further on the reason for Shenoute to focus on Gessios for his antipagan campaign. In the works of Shenoute this conflict appears in Discourses Not Because a Fox Barks, And the Lord Thundered, Let Our Eyes, God is Blessed and sermon A26. 7 Emmel 2002: 99–102. Perhaps his term ends at the end of Valens’ reign, which would suggest Gessios was Arian, see Bagnall 2008: 30–32, rather than pagan. 8 The “idols” ravaged by Shenoute from the house of Gessios can be explained as material culture connected to the appreciation for a Hellenizing tradition of a cultivated Panopolitan society, see Torallas Tovar 2015. 9 Leipoldt 1906; translation into Latin Wiesmann 1951; Bell 1983; Lubomierski 2007 and 2008. On the nature of this work as a collection of miracles, rather than a biography or lifenarrative, and the late date of composition, see Emmel 2008b: 35–37. Perhaps the nature of the text explains the awkward episode. 10 Kuhn 1954: 36–48. 11 See Lubomierski 2008: 91–92 for details and bibliographical reference to the editions. Twenty-six leaves survive at the BnF and the BN in Naples, Coptic Museum, Cairo, BL and the ÖNB. This episode is also attested in the Arabic (45) and Ethiopic (27), see the Synopse in Lubomierski 2007: 46–47.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

369

ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲇⲓⲕⲉⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲉⲙⲓ ⲉⲛⲉϥⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉϥϫⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲁϥⲥϩⲟⲩⲱⲣϥ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲙⲟⲩⲣ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲗⲁⲥ ⲉϯⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲉϥϭⲁⲗⲟϫ ⲉϧⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲛϯ. ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲙⲟⲩ ⲫⲁⲓⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲣⲏϯ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲁⲓⲥ ⲛⲁϥ. Ⲁϥⲉⲣⲙⲉⲑⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ ϫⲉ ⲁⲓⲉⲣⲑⲉⲱⲣⲓⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛϦⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲛⲧ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉϥⲗⲁⲥ ⲙⲏⲣ ⲉϯⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲉϥϭⲁⲗⲟϫ ⲉⲩⲉⲣⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲓⲍⲓⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧϯⲁⲥⲟ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲧⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ And again it happened that there was a pagan, whose name was Kesios. He was very impious and used to blaspheme against Christ, saying blasphemous words about him in his foolishness and his wickedness. When our just father Shenoute knew about his acts of blasphemy, he cursed him saying “His tongue shall be tied to the big toe of his foot down in Hell.” And when he died this is the way in which it happened to him. My father gave witness to us and said “I saw him down in Hell, with his tongue tied to the big toe of his foot, tormented without forgiveness for his impiety.” (Vita Sinuthii E 42/§88).

In this episode, Shenoute appears endowed with prophetic power, in a scene where he is at the same time “curser” and visionary.12 The structure is simple: the curse is uttered by Shenoute, using a third future, which is typical of Coptic curse texts.13 The fulfilment is announced and appears in his vision. The literary context in which we find this revelation or vision about the fulfilment of the curse fits perfectly well in the representation of Shenoute. One of the features in the general characterization of Shenoute is that he is a visionary,14 he has foreknowledge of things to come and also sees into the souls and hearts of men, and reveals their secrets. Shenoute, moreover, found some consolation in seeing the unpunished sinners on earth, sinners whose sins had gone unnoticed, receiving torments in Hell. In Shenoute’s sermon known as The Lord Thundered (Discourses 4),15 we find a similar vision and punishment in Hell:

12

Similar comparable scenes in the Bible have been also interpreted as “curses” with their fulfilment following. They stand halfway between prophecy and curse: e.g. Acts 5:9–11 “Peter said to her, ‘How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.’ 10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” Cf. Kent 2017. 13 See below examples for this construction on p. 384. However, see below the same episode in Shenoute, where he uses the jussive. 14 On Shenoute visionary Emmel 2004b; Schroeder 2007: 49; Brakke 2007. A similar pattern is found in the presentation of Pachomius: Pachomius also appears as visionary in his visit to Hell, where he sees the punishments of sinners, including monks who were pure in their body, but slandered and lied (Bohairic Life 88, in Lefort 1953: 148–150 and Veilleux 1980: 113–117). The torments are in line with those in Christian and Egyptian Hell. 15 Discourses 4 is attested by two mss. See Emmel 2004a: vol. 1, 243–254 for a description. For a commentary and bibliography and editions, see Emmel, 2004a: vol. 2, 613–626. On this

370

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

ⲡⲉⲧϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ Ⲓ⳱Ⲥ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲗⲟⲓⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲣ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲗⲁⲥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲛⲧⲏⲏⲃⲉ ⲛⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ϩⲙ ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲁⲛⲁⲅⲕⲏ ⲛⲥⲉⲛⲟϫϥ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲡϣⲓⲕ ⲛⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲛ ⲟⲙⲕϥ. ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲟ ⲙⲙⲛⲧⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲧϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲏ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ ⲏ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲱⲧⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲏ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲛϭⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲕⲧⲓⲥⲙⲁ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓϫⲙ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲛ ⲙⲙⲟⲩ. But the one saying Jesus the son of God is not a god, just like this son of pestilence said, may his tongue be bound to the toes of his feet on the day of his distress, and he be cast into the depth of Hell and may the abyss swallow him, says the one who is witness to what he says, and the one who observed him. Curse the one who worships or pours forth libation or offers sacrifice to any other creatures whether those in Heaven or those on earth or those in the waters. (The Lord Thundered, Discourses 4)

This passage appears to be the source of inspiration for the episode in the Life of Shenoute. In it there is more evident causal effect of blasphemy – connected to the tongue – and the punishment in Hell, expressed in similar terms as in the Life of Shenoute by Besa. Perhaps there is less emphasis here on the eternality of the punishment itself. Nor is there any reference to the prophetic disposition of Shenoute, who in the other text knew about the punishment, because he had seen it. It is interesting to note that the final sentence has the structure of what has been identified as Rules of the monastic community of Shenoute, formulated as a curse.16 Let Our Eyes,17 a letter addressed to the city of Panopolis, earlier than the previous texts presented here, defends Shenoute’s actions against the alleged pagan activities of Gessios, namely raids in the house of the “pagan” to uncover and reveal his presumed worship of the idols. In his clash with Gessios, Shenoute violently confronts him and refers to his tongue, as the source of sin and blasphemy. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲁⲓϩⲓⲟⲩⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲚⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲥⲑⲏⲧ ⲉⲓϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ ϣⲁⲛ|ⲧⲟⲩϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲦⲁⲕϫⲓⲟⲩⲁ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ· ϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲤ And also when I gave him a thump on the chest and said to him, “Until they cut out your tongue, with which you uttered blasphemy, doubting that Jesus was God”.18 (Let Our Eyes, fr. 1.27) particular discourse, vol. 2, 618–619. For this precise text, DU 46–47, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:379, translation Timbie and Zaborowski 2006: 113–114. 16 For the rules in the form of a curse, see Layton 2014: 42–44 and Brakke 2021: 146–150. This one of course not a rule, and not addressed at a monastic community, is still modelled on Deuteronomy language, cf. Deut 27:11–26. See also Brakke 2021: 147–148. 17 For a translation by Emmel, see Brakke and Crislip 2015: 206–211. The text is part of Shenoute’s Varia, and is contained in mss WW, ZJ and XZ, described by Emmel 2004a: vol. 1, 331. 18 In Brakke and Crislip 2015: 209; Emmel 2008a: 174. Coptic text in Emmel 2008a: 194.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

371

It is not clear whether this is a threat or a curse. Although not plainly mentioned, it could as well envisage a punishment of the tongue in Hell. This kind of punishment, by cutting, seems to be in line with the types of tortures that we find in Christian and pre-Christian visions of the Beyond. It is a punishment clearly connected to a part of the body considered to be the source of the sin, and with methods that resemble the tortures inflicted to prisoners and criminals. In the present paper we would like to analyze the scene described in the first two sources, for which we will try to provide a number of parallels and explanations. Tying a toe to the tongue is not a typical punishment in Christian literature containing visions of Hell, nor in Classical or Near Eastern traditions, though as an eternal punishment it seems very fitting for a penalty against blasphemy. Before we discuss the tying of Gessios’ tongue, we will turn to the tongue as a source of sin, and the tortures of the tongue in Hell. THE TORMENTS OF THE TONGUE: WHY CURSING THE TONGUE? The tongue appears already in the Bible as a source of sins related to speech, including blasphemy, slander, falsehood and deceit, and we find the punishment of these sins in Christian descriptions of Hell through the cutting, extraction or burning of the tongue. It is not a surprise then that both Shenoute and Besa offer in their works a number of references to the tongue in connection to biblical texts in their invectives against the pagan, or the sinners in general, in line with general trends in Christian texts. The danger of the tongue is a widespread topic in Jewish wisdom tradition, with multiple examples.19 The punishments for the tongue, both the cutting or the burning in Hell appear already in the Bible. See for example, in Prov. 10:31: “But the perverse tongue will be cut out,” or in Luke 16:23–24: “cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”20 Chapter 3 of the Epistle of James is an extended discussion about the dangers of the tongue, an unruly and poisonous evil, including a reference to punishment:21

19

See Prov. e.g. 6:2, 17; 10:18–19, etc. Wisdom 1:11 (“Beware then of useless grumbling, / and keep your tongue from slander; / because no secret word is without result, / and a lying mouth destroys the soul”); Sirach 5:13; 19:16, etc. 20 See below on this passage in Luke p. 376. 21 Bauckham 1998: 119–131. See also Psalm of Solomon 12. Against the tongue of transgressors, esp. l. 5 “In flaming fire perish the slanderous tongue (far) away from the pious!”.

372

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

5 Οὕτως καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν καὶ μεγάλα αὐχεῖ ἰδοὺ ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει 6 καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ φλογίζουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it boasts of great things. Consider how small a spark sets a great forest ablaze. And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell.

Shenoute and Besa reflect partly this presentation of the tongue as a symbol of iniquity. A text by Shenoute admonishing against different sins (first published as De Lingua, with an incipit title “Reading today from the Proverbs”)22 opens with a comparison of the tongue of silver and the tongue of the impious. In the text of Let our eyes (fr. 1.21), Shenoute cites Jer. 9:3 “And also all kinds of evil will be uttered against them, just as they bent their tongue like a bow” (ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲦⲁⲩϫⲱⲗⲔ ⲘⲡⲉⲩⲗⲁⲤ ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲡⲓⲧⲉ) when they lied about me in the house of a blasphemer against Jesus.” Besa clearly shows his dependence on biblical sources, when citing Ps. 72:8–9, “The tongue has come forth from the earth, in an invective against those who speak iniquity” (On the Punishment of Sinners IV 2, Kuhn 1956: 6) and Prov. 16:26 “He who is perverted carries the destruction in his mouth” (On the Punishment of Sinners V 3, Kuhn 1956: 6).23 THE

PUNISHMENT OF THE TONGUE IN IN

CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

HELL

The “visit” of Shenoute to Hell in the present episode is a prophetic vision that can be compared to earlier and contemporary witnessing of the punishments of the Beyond in Classical katabaseis,24 where the subject of the vision witnesses the Beyond as a visitor, without suffering in his or her own body the said torments. Some Christian texts present a similar situation, like the Acts

22

Discourses 8, 22: Reading Today from the Proverbs (not in the incipit list, but included by Emmel 2004a: vol. 1, 80 and vol. 2, 664). This work is represented in a single manuscript witness: in the leaves of the codex GP (204:i.9-[241]) preserved at Paris, BnF (FR-BN) Copte 1303 ff. 34–49 (204–208) (ed. Leipoldt 1908–1913: 113–116) and Vienna, ÖNB, (AT-NB) K9628 B/A (231–234). 23 For other references to the tongue in Besa, see On Sins of the Tongue (Kuhn 1956: 19–20 [text] and 18–19 [transl.]); Admonitions to Sinners IV 2 (Kuhn 1956: 47 and 45) and On Sins of the Tongue II 3 (Kuhn 1956: 18). 24 An indispensable ingredient of epic, the Descent to the Underworld is one of the most powerful scenes of the Odyssey (books X–XI) and the Aeneid (book VI), although there are plenty of examples in Classical and Near Eastern Literature. See Edmonds 2004.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

373

of Paul,25 the Acts of Thomas,26 or in the Coptic tradition, the Life of Pachomius.27 In most Christian texts28 these visions, most often witnessing or narratives of the tormented themselves, have an exemplarizing purpose. The visions sometimes assign specific punishments to sins, but most often just present general torments applied to the unfaithful, pagans and heretics, who end up drowning in the river of fire. In some of these visions, the souls of the dead, after their narrative and expression of contrition, obtain retroactive forgiveness of their sins, and the whole scene becomes a live confession.29 They are even retroactively baptized, like in the Apocalypse of Peter.30 These testimonies can have different literary shapes: in some kind of necromantic scene, the witness is a soul of the dead, who is raised to give a description of his or her sufferings, like the case of King Arsanis,31 or Pisentius and the mummy,32 the Martyrdom of Saint George,33 the Martyrdom of Macarius of Antioch,34 or Macarius and the skull, which seems to be the earliest example of the scene, and model for the other cases.35 As for the punishment, descriptions of Hell in Coptic literature offer a rich repertory of gruesome torments inflicted upon the sinners. They are depicted immersed in a river or in pits of fire, attacked and torn to pieces by animalfaced demons or fed to a sleepless worm with iron claws and teeth. Some descriptions are short and sparing in details but the two more extensive descriptions of Hell in Coptic, contained in the Martyrdom of St. Philotheus of Antioch, in the Apocalypse of Paul, and in the Apocalypse of Peter, have something to say specifically about the sufferings inflicted on the sinners’ tongues.

25

See Bremmer and Czachesz 2007. Budge 1915: 556–559, 537–548, trans. in 1043–1047, 1057–1069. 26 Acts of Thomas: The Greek text is in Bonnet 1883. See esp. Act 6 (51–61), where a woman killed by a man, is raised from death by Thomas and she narrates the horrors of hell. In 56 she describes a “chasm”, where people were tortured in a specific part of their body, depending on their sins. The souls hung up by the tongue were those of slanderers and liars. She is not subject to these torments and she has the devil himself as her “Vergil”. 27 Already mentioned above, Visio Pachomii, text in Lefort 1953: 148–149, translation in Veilleux 1980: 113–117. See also Grypeou 2013: 5–6. 28 For further study see Himmelfarb 1983; Grypeou 2016; Rogozhina 2016. 29 It is interesting to note here that the Life of Shenoute has a similar episode, where Shenoute talks to a dead man in the desert, revived by the intervention of Christ, so that he might tell Shenoute about his experience in Hell. It has a similar effect in the plot as the episode at stake in this paper, since it bolsters his authority as a visionary, but it adapts better to the Christian traditions. It might have been modeled on the tradition of Macarius and the skull. 30 Copeland 2003. 31 De rege Arsanio (ed. and trans. Hall 1890). 32 Amélineau 1887: 401–403. 33 Budge 1888: 219–220. 34 Hyvernat 1886: 55–57. 35 Apoph. Patrum, series alphab. Macarius 38.

374

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

In the Martyrdom of St. Philotheus the description of the torments in Hell is put in the mouth of Philotheus’ pagan parents. They testified that during the first stage of their punishment they were delivered to executioners whose “claws tore out our eyes and tongues.”36 At a later stage their tongues – miraculously in place – become once again the target of torture: “And they did not give us any possibility at all to cry out to God, for even if the name of God would come to our heart so that we might utter it, they would hasten to tear out our tongue with a three-pronged tool.”37 In the Apocalypse of Paul, the homonymous narrator witnesses the suffering of a church reader (anagnostes) who acted in contravention to the instruction he gave to the congregation: “[the angels of wrath] … dragged him along, and they immersed him in the river of fire up to his lips. And a pitiless angel came with a red-hot | instrument, and he burned away his tongue and his lips little by little.”38 The Apocalypse of Peter describes in a vision of Hell, sinners who were instead hanged from their tongues, with a specification of their sins: “22 And some there were there hanging by their tongues; and these were they that blasphemed the way of righteousness, and under them was laid fire flaming and tormenting them. (…) 29 And over against these were yet others, men and women, gnawing their tongues and having flaming fire in their mouths. And these were the false witnesses.”39 The extraction of the tongue by means of an instrument of torture was probably also included among the snapshots from Hell on the walls of the middleByzantine Christian building (in all likelihood a church) at Tebtunis.40 The paintings have been dated to the mid-10th century. The rich iconography of the building includes depictions of the punishment of sinners with captions. The huge winged creature with the hanging tongue and a serpent around his waist who presides over the punishments gets the legend: “Lord Abbaton, the angel of death, who respects not persons.” To his left we see a sinner described as “the man who takes the wage of the laborers.” He has his hands tied on the back and his feet manacled, while a demon with long ears and crocodile jaws attacks him with a pointed instrument. As the face of the victim is partially wiped out, the nature of the punishment cannot be determined with certainty.

36

Martyrdom of St. Philotheus of Antioch, f. 82v cols. i–ii, ed. Rogozhina 2015. Martyrdom of St. Philotheus of Antioch, f. 83r col. i, Rogozhina 2015: 331. 38 Budge 1915: 1061. 39 Akhmim fragment, Klostermann 1908: 8–13. 40 The ruins of this structure – now presumably lost – were documented by Grenfell and Hunt in the excavation season of 1899 but the find was published by Colin Walters on the basis of Grenfell and Hunt’s expedition diary and a set of b/w photos, see Walters 1979 and 1989. For some more photographs and an interpretation of one of the depictions, see Zellmann-Rohrer 2019. 37

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

375

However, the textual parallels adduced above suggest that the demon either attacks the victim’s tongue or draws out his intestines through his mouth. The “tours of Hell” document that the cutting or burning of the tongues of sinners in afterlife was part of the imaginary of Hell of Egyptian Christianity. On the other hand, no torment of this organ described in them is remotely close to the punishment envisaged in Gessios’ case. This may suggest that the torture of the tongue in Shenoute’s curse is specific to the person targeted or shaped with other ideas in mind. The earlier Egyptian traditions do not help much more in understanding this scene. Sinners in the Egyptian afterlife are generally punished by being cut with knives and swords, and other instruments of torture. They are stabbed, beheaded, their limbs are cut, as well as burnt with fire.41 The idea is that once an essential body part is mutilated, the deceased is totally destroyed and ceases to exist. Binding is also used as an infernal punishment: the hands of the sinners are tied to their backs in the same way, as the conquered enemies of the King are represented; or, they are tied to a pole to be tortured in multiple ways.42 There are specific spells in Egyptian funerary texts which are used to “undo” the interruption of bodily functions that death and these tortures mentioned above bring to the body.43 Among these functions is speech. There is a spell in the Book of the Dead (90), directed against demons who muzzle the mouth of the deceased to prevent them from speaking and uttering spells. The torments of the Beyond in Egyptian traditions seem to have the purpose of annihilating the dead with some kind of a “second death,” that can be countered with spells. The binding of the tongue or muzzling of the mouth prevent the deceased from pronouncing protective spells against the tortures and annihilation. While some features of the Egyptian afterlife might be present in later representation of the dead in Hell, new dynamics and trends are present in Christian texts that are common to the Christian world, and have a clear influence of Jewish and Christian apocalyptics.44 WHY THE TOE? Since the torments inflicted upon the tongue of sinners in Hell do not include tying it to a toe, we consider below some possible interpretations of this unique cursing episode and of the sources of inspiration, historical background and ideas that may have contributed in giving Shenoute’s curse its unprecedented shape. 41

Zandee 1960: 16–18, using Book of Gates, B5. Zandee 1960: 21: Book of Gates I lower register Pl. IV 18–19. On Setne, and punishments in Hell, see Smith 2009: 27–28. 43 Zandee 1960: 60–65. 44 Bauckham 1998. 42

376

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

A

HELL NEW TESTAMENT?

PUNISHMENT IN

INSPIRED BY THE

A possible source of inspiration for Shenoute’s afterlife vision for the rich landowner of Panopolis is a very popular New Testament scene, the depiction of the rich man burning in Hell (Luke 16:23–24). καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων ἐν βασάνοις ὁρᾷ Ἀβραὰμ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν καὶ Λάζαρον ἐν τοῖς κόλποις αὐτοῦ. 24 Καὶ αὐτὸς φωνήσας εἶπεν Πάτερ Ἀβραάμ ἐλέησόν με καὶ πέμψον Λάζαρον ἵνα βάψῃ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου αὐτοῦ ὕδατος καὶ καταψύξῃ τὴν γλῶσσάν μου ὅτι ὀδυνῶμαι ἐν τῇ φλογὶ ταύτῃ 23

In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus in his bossom. So he called to him, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

Gessios’ punishment in Hell with his tongue permanently tied to his toe represents quite the opposite of the temporary relief that the tip of Lazarus’ finger would bring to the suffering rich man’s tongue. The ambiguity of the Greek when the noun δάκτυλος/δάκτυλον (meaning both ‘finger’ and ‘toe’)45 is combined with the qualifier ἄκρος/ἄκρον may have made the Luke passage open to re-interpretation, since this epithet-noun combination can designate either ‘the extremity, i.e. the tip, of the finger (or the toe)’ or ‘the outermost finger (or toe), i.e. the thumb (or the big toe)’.46 In devising this unusual punishment for his own rich enemy Shenoute may be modifying and elaborating the rich man’s punishment in Luke. IMPAIRING THE TONGUE OF A

LIMPING BLASPHEMER?

Alternatively, Shenoute’s curse might be endowed with an extra layer of malicious irony and abuse, if the punishment envisaged nods at a bodily impairment of the person cursed. This hypothesis works if the individual targeted by Shenoute is identical with a Gessios who is the subject of a group of derisory sepulchral epigrams attributed to Palladas “of Alexandria”, Anthologia Palatina VII 681-688.47 The Gessios whose death provides the occasion for The Coptic version of Luke has ⲧⲏⲏⲃⲉ, which means both ‘finger’ and ‘toe’. For example, John Chrysostom, a very popular author in Egypt, cites the text several times in his homilies (e.g. De Laz., PG 48:1039.58; In Jo., PG 59:152.26; Ep. ad ii Cor., PG 61:472.23, etc.) He presents a slightly different text than Luke’s τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου “the tip of his finger,” paraphrasing it into ἄκρῳ τῷ δακτύλῳ, which could also mean ‘the thumb or big toe’. 47 On Palladas see PLRE I, 657–658 s.v. and Kaster 1988: 327–329 no. 113. The chronology of Palladas has been the subject of intensive scholarly debate in the wake of a series of articles 45 46

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

377

these vituperative epigrams is mocked for his swift transition to Hades despite being χωλός (‘lame’, ‘limping’). The epigrams AP VII 681–682 ‘praise’ Gessios as an athlete who, despite his physical disability, outran the notoriously swift Fate(s) and reached Hades first. AP VII 68148 οὐκ ἀπεδήμησας τιμῆς χάριν ἀλλὰ τελευτῆς καὶ χωλός περ ἐὼν ἔδραμες εἰς Ἀίδην Γέσσιε Μοιράων τροχαλώτερε. ἐκ προκοπῆς γὰρ ἧς εἶχες κατὰ νοῦν ἐξεκόπης βιότου. You left us not to achieve honors but for the end of death, and though lame you rushed to Hades, Gessios, a runner swifter than the Fates. The advancement you had in mind cut you off from life/livelihood.

AP VII 682 Γέσσιος οὐ τέθνηκεν ἐπειγόμενος παρὰ Μοίρης. αὐτὸς τὴν Μοῖραν προὔλαβεν εἰς Ἀίδην. Gessius did not hurry to death pressed by Fate. He reached Hades himself ahead of Fate.

In the longer of the two epigrams, AP VI 681, the image of the limping athlete who proves swifter than the fate of death merges with the metaphor of the departing traveler (ἀπεδήμησας) whose progress plan results in loss of his life as it overlaps with political ambition.49 In AP VII 686 we are offered a glimpse of Gessios’ entrance into Hades focalized through a person by the name of Baukalos, in our view first and foremost a personification of Gessios’ ultimately pernicious ambition that ‘lulled’ him to his death.50 Baukalos spots Gessios as the latter enters Hades “limping more than ever”, presumably due to a violent death, alluded to also by Kevin Wilkinson (chiefly Wilkinson 2009 and Wilkinson 2015) arguing for backdating the poet from the Theodosian to the Constantinian age. As Wilkinson’s attempts have been met with some serious criticism (see Cameron 2016a: 91–112; Cameron 2016b; Benelli 2016), the present discussion takes as its starting point the traditional chronology of the poet. In our view Palladas’ Gessios epigrams reflect events of the turbulent 390s as do several other epigrams attributed to Palladas in the AP. 48 The text printed follows Waltz 1941 and Beckby 21965. The translations are ours. 49 The entire epigram relies on double meanings of key-words, the most striking being that of προκοπή that designates both progression in space and military or political advancement (“promotion”), see LSJ s.v. The word play ἐκ προκοπῆς - ἐξεκόπης βιότου in the second couplet is foreshadowed by the pair τιμῆς - τελευτῆς (l. 1). 50 The name echoes the word family of βαυκαλάω/βαυκαλίζω (meaning ‘lull to sleep’, ‘nurse’), and thus sounds like an ad hoc invention. Earlier scholarship has assumed that this was a real person, an accomplice or companion who died before Gessios (Waltz 1941: 144 n. 4; Bowra 1960: 94) or a mere acquaintance (Cameron 1964: 290). The name Βαυκαλᾶς (TM Name ID 29784) is weakly attested in Egypt with five attestations for three different individuals from

378

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

elsewhere in these mock funerary epigrams (AP VII 683.8, 687.2), and enquires what manner of death got him to Hades in this terrible state. Gessios blames his fate on στρῆνος, to be understood as ‘eager striving’ or ‘strenuous ambition’.51 Γέσσιον ὡς ἐνόησεν ὁ Βαύκαλος ἄρτι θανόντα χωλεύοντα πλέον τοῖον ἔλεξεν ἔπος· Γέσσιε, πῶς τί παθὼν κατέβης δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω γυμνός, ἀκήδεστος, σχήματι καινοτάφῳ; τὸν δὲ μέγ’ ὀχθήσας προσέφη καὶ Γέσσιος εὐθύς· Βαύκαλε, τὸ στρῆνος καὶ θάνατον παρέχει. When Baukalos saw Gessios shortly after his death, lamer than ever, he spoke thus: “Gessios, how, what happened to you that you descended into Hades, naked, without funeral rites and in a newfangled shape of death?” Greatly vexed Gessios replied to him straight away: “Baukalos, the strenuous ambition can also bring death [i.e. as well as promotion]”.

The identification of Shenoute’s enemy with Palladas’ Gessios is uncertain but not impossible. None of the writings of Shenoute that have come to light so far gives the name of the wealthy landowner with whom this monastic leader was locked in a bitter strife over a period of time. However, as one of Shenoute’s lost writings began with “Gessios writes to his estate managers …” (SPP IX 50a, 25–26 ⲅⲉⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧⲥϩⲁ Ⲛ|ⲛⲉϥⲡⲣⲟ(ⲛⲟⲏⲧⲏⲥ)), it seems highly likely that the attribution of this name to Shenoute’s enemy in Vita Sinuthii (with the spellings ⲅⲉⲥⲓⲟⲥ and ⲕⲉⲥⲓⲟⲥ) is historically accurate.52 Moreover, as Stephen Emmel has shown, the section in Let Our Eyes in which Shenoute refers to Gessios’ blasphemous statement concerning Jesus’ divinity (Let Our Eyes 26-33, partly cited above in p. 370) placing it chronologically “after his having received a governorship” (Let Our Eyes 28 … ⲘⲚⲦϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ) indicates that the landowner and resident of Panopolis who Shenoute is at daggers with should be identified with a Flavius Aelius Gessius who served as praeses Thebaidos under Valens (376–378 CE).53 Following the end of his service in this post the ex-provincial governor settled in Panopolis where his path crossed with that of Shenoute and his earlier declarations about Jesus caught up with him.54 the Arsinoite nome from the late second/early third century CE, and has no attestations from the rest of the Greek world. See n. 54 below on connections of the name with Arianism. 51 The noun, which is not so common in Greek (LSJ s.v. ‘insolence’, ‘arrogance’, ‘wantonness’; Cameron 1964: 290 ‘overweening pride’), may hide a pun comprehensible to speakers of Latin only. Some Greek-Latin glossaries explain στρηνιάω with among others the Latin verb gestio ‘desire eagerly’ (Gloss. II 438). As Γέστιος/Gestius is a variant of Γέσσιος/Gessius (see Wilkinson 2012: 151–152 in n. to P.CtYBR inv. 4000 fol. 9, 24), this could be another example of Palladas’ verbal plays with Latin (on which see Wilkinson 2010: 295–302). 52 Leipoldt 1903: 180–181 (and nn. 5 and 6); Emmel 2002: 99–100. 53 Lallemand 1964: 253 (no. 14) and PLRE I, 395 ‘Flavius Aelius Gessius 2’. 54 For full discussion see Emmel 2002: 102–108; Emmel 2008a: 166–181. Bagnall (2008, 30–32) has suggested that Gessios must have declared allegiance to Arianism since he was

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

379

Could this former provincial governor and later landowner in Panopolis be identical with Palladas’ Gessios? Some scholars (Seeck, Bowra, Irmscher and Thissen) have entertained this possibility.55 Others (Cameron, van der Vliet)56 reject the connection explicitly or implicitly, while others – including the laudandus – remain sceptical.57 The case is indeed complicated as the name Gessios belongs to one or two individuals in the circle of Libanius of Antioch, who addresses two letters to a certain Gessios (Ep. 892 and 1042) and mentions another, perhaps different, Gessios in three other letters (Ep. 436, 948 and 1524).58 We will not enter here into the discussion about whether all the references to Gessios in Libanius’ epistolography concern one and the same person. Interesting from the present point of view are the letters in which Libanius describes Gessios as an Egyptian or locates him in Egypt.59 Also interesting is the information gleaned from Libanius’ Ep. 1524 that Gessios’ name had been put forward (presumably by his native city) for curial duties.60 With regard to possible lines of connection, the available evidence does not allow us to draw a direct line between Libanius’ correspondent and Flavius Aelius Gessius/ appointed governor under Valens and has re-interpreted Gessios’ infamous statement about Jesus as Arian. In this respect it might be intriguing to note a possible Arian connection for the figure of Baukalos in AP VII 686: the ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius (I, 4 ap. Phot. cod. 40 = GCS 21, 6 Bidez/Winkelmann) reports that the second in rank of the Arian church, a certain priest Alexander, was nicknamed Baukalis because the shape of his overgrown body resembled the jar designated as βαυκάλη in Egypt. Philostorgius is the only among the early sources that mention this Arian leader though. Epiphanius of Salamis gives the name Baukalis to Arius’ parish church in Alexandria (Adv. Haer. 68 4.2 and 69 2.4 (GCS 37, Vol. III, 152–153 Holl) located somewhere in the suburbs of the city. 55 Seeck 1906: 165; Irmscher 1956–1957: 168 (and n. 92); Bowra 1960; Thissen 1992–1993: 159–163. 56 Cameron (1964: 286) considers the identification “far from certain” and it cannot be easily accommodated in his reconstruction of Gessios’ life and the hypothesis that he was one of the Christians crucified by pagans in Alexandria in 391 CE. Van der Vliet (1993: 102–106) views Gessios as a native of Panopolis and dates the conflict with Shenoute in the years around 430/1 CE. 57 Emmel (2002: 100–102, esp. p. 102) dates the conflict in the (middle to late) 390s, but finds the evidence for a connection of the Panopolitan to the Alexandrian Gessios “not compelling”. 58 Seeck 1906: 164–165; PLRE I 394–395 ‘Gessius 1’; Cribiore 2007: 79 and 271 (including translation of Lib. Ep. 892). 59 Egyptian: Ep. 1042.2 σὺ δὲ οἶσθα μὲν αὐτὸν ἀγαθός τε ἀγαθὸν καὶ Αἰγύπτιος Αἰγύπτιον (“you know him [sc. Chryses] both as a noble person knows another noble person and an Egyptian knows another Egyptian”). In Egypt: Ep. 892.1 Αἴγυπτον τὴν ἱερὰν καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο φιλῶ ὅτι μοι καὶ πέμπει σὰς ἐπιστολὰς (“I love the holy land of Egypt also for the reason that it sends me your letters”), and Ep. 1524.1 θορύβου γὰρ ἥκοντος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου … (“clamour has come from Egypt”) and 1524.4 πρόσθες τῷ θείῳ τὸν Γέσσιον ἵν’ ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνον ἀπήλλαξας τῆς Θρᾴκης οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον τῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κλαγγῆς (“attach Gessios to the divine so that, as you delivered that man from Thrace, you deliver also him from the clamour in Egypt”). Differently Cameron (1964: 281–284), who considers Gessios an Antiochene who resided in Egypt temporarily. 60 Ep. 1524.1 … βοᾷ γὰρ ὁ δῆμος ὅτι δεῖ βουλεύειν τὸν στρατιώτην καὶ γράμματα ὡς βασιλέα τοῦτο αἰτοῦντα ἥκει (“the people call for the soldier to undertake curial duties, and letters reach the king with this request”).

380

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

Shenoute’s enemy. On the other hand, Palladas could well have known Libanius’ disciple. Egypt, as well as the cultural and intellectual milieu in which the latter apparently operated,61 provide a possible frame for acquaintance between the men. It is, however, worth noting that Libanius’ Egyptian disciple is nowhere explicitly situated in Alexandria where Palladas resided. He could as well have been based elsewhere in Egypt.62 Palladas’ depiction of Gessios neither confirms nor contradicts the information gleaned from Libanius, with the exception of the political ambition and involvement that his Gessios shares with Libanius’ former disciple. This does not necessarily speak against the identification of Libanius’ and Palladas’ Gessios, as Palladas is preoccupied exclusively with Gessios’ end which Libanius may not have lived to know (he was dead by 393 CE). However matters may stand regarding this side of the connection, we would like to point out that the last of Shenoute’s attacks against Gessios may offer a link between this monastic leader’s archenemy and Palladas’ Gessios to be added to their common Egyptian background and involvement in state/imperial administration. Both men seem to have suffered terrible and utterly degrading deaths. As we have seen, the Gessios mocked in Palladas’ epigrams paid for his professional ambition with an extraordinarily cruel end – in Bowra’s interpretation of the epigrams, death by crucifixion. Even Cameron, who contested Bowra’s crucifixion theory on the grounds that this form of punishment had been abolished by Constantine, directs attention to the formulation τοῦ ξενικοῦ θανάτου ἐγγύθεν ἐρχόμενος (AP VII 687.2) which he explains as “the sort of death suffered by foreigners” and concedes that Gessius was “put to death in some violent and unpleasant manner that involved his being stripped of his clothes and having his legs broken.”63 In God is Blessed (Discourses 4, Work 10),64 a sermon thought to have been delivered in the 440s, thus some 40–50 years later than the supposed death of Gessios, Shenoute uses the death of the ‘hostile man in Panopolis’ as an exemplum to warn all blasphemers of the destiny that awaits them and their associates.65

61 The quasi-surprised question from Libanius’ Antiochene circle in Ep. 892.1 τίς ἂν ἦν ὁ Γέσσιος ἀνάγκην ἔχων τὸ μὴ πλουτεῖν εἰς τὸ διδάσκειν; (“who would Gessios have been, had he needed not to be rich in order to teach?”) is presumably a response to a statement in Gessios’ letter to Libanius concerning teaching. AP VI 683.3 καὶ λόγιός περ ἐὼν … indicates intellectual pursuits, perhaps also teaching activities. 62 PLRE I, 294–295 (“… not a native of Alexandria”). 63 Cameron 1964: 282–292. The expression ξένος θάνατος in Wisdom of Solomon 19, 5 refers to the death of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, as an unexpected and terrible death. 64 Ed. Chassinat 1911: 153–209 from XH 318–375. Translation by David Brakke in Brakke 1989 and revised in Brakke and Crislip 2015: 278–297. 65 Athanasius, the model of the good death in the sermon, had died in 373 CE, even earlier than Gessios.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

381

(a) ⲛⲓⲙ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲚ ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲛϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲧϩⲚⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲡⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲚⲧⲁⲒ⳱Ⲥⲥⲣⲟϥⲣⲉϥ ⲚⲧⲉϥⲘⲚⲧⲣⲘⲙⲁⲟ Ⲛⲛⲁϩⲣⲁϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲥⲣⲉϥⲣⲱϥϤ Ⲛⲛⲁϩⲣⲁⲥ, ⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲡⲓϣⲟⲩⲧⲘⲧⲁⲩⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲛ ϩⲘⲡⲓⲙⲁ. Who among us doesn’t know that hostile man in Panopolis and his goods, how Jesus scattered his wealth before him and scattered him before it [sc. the city of Panopolis]? I mean that man whose name does not deserve to be spoken here (…) (Chassinat 1911: 188–189; Brakke and Crislip 2015: 290) (b) ⲟⲛⲧⲱⲥ ϯⲢⲙⲟⲓϩⲉ ϫⲉ Ⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲟ ⲉⲛⲕⲟⲓⲛⲱⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ ϩⲚⲛⲉϥⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲁⲟⲩⲟⲣⲅⲏⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ. ⲡⲁⲓ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲧⲘⲧⲣⲉⲩⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲢⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ, ⲛⲓⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩϭⲉϫϭⲱϫⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲟⲩⲉϭⲠ ⲛⲉⲩⲕⲉⲉⲥ Ⲛⲥⲉⲣⲟⲕϩⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲟⲚϩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟϭⲚϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲁⲓ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲩϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. Truly I’m astonished that wrath has come upon the other people who share with him in his lawless acts. It came upon him so that his memory might not be heard, but it came upon others so that they might be slaughtered and their bones might be broken and they might be burned alive because of the haughty words that they said against him (Jesus), just like their master. (Chassinat 1911: 189; Brakke and Crislip 2015: 290) (c) ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩⲣⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ Ⲛϯⲟⲣⲅⲏ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥⲉⲓ ⲉϫⲚ ⲛⲓϩⲘϩⲁⲗ Ⲙⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲏⲡ ⲉⲡⲓⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ Ⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲓϭⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲙⲟⲥⲧⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩϫⲓⲛϭⲟ ⲚⲥⲘⲚⲛⲉⲩ ⲘⲚⲦⲙⲁⲗⲁⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϯⲥⲟⲉⲓⲧ Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲩϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ⲚⲚⲇⲁⲓⲙⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ ϩⲚⲃⲟⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ. ⲡⲣⲉϥⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲟⲟⲩⲧ Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ ⲡⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲁⲧⲟⲟⲧⲟⲩ Ⲛⲥⲱϥ. (…) Let them remember the wrath that came upon those evil servants belonging to that lawless one, who slander and lie against him who hates their acts of abuse and their effeminate acts. (These acts) made them notorious along with their master, the servant of the demons in every abomination, the genuine and zealous sinner, as it is written, the genuinely impious one who has been renounced (Chassinat 1911: 191; Brakke and Crislip 2015: 291) (d) ϫⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧⲏⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲏⲓ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉϥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟⲛ, ⲘⲚⲛⲉϥⲉϫⲏⲩ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉϥϣⲛⲏ, ⲘⲚ ⲛⲉϥϭⲟⲟⲙ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉϥⲥⲓⲟⲟⲩⲛ, ⲘⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲕⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩⲘⲙⲟⲟⲩ, ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲓϫⲘⲡⲓⲉⲣⲟ, ⲏ ⲛⲉϥⲕⲣⲱⲟⲩ, ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲓⲡⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛⲣⲟ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲙⲉⲗⲱⲧ. ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉⲉⲧ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ, ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲉϥⲡⲣⲏϣ ⲘⲚⲛⲉϥⲡⲓⲛⲁⲝ, ⲛⲉⲩϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲁϥ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲉϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲟⲣⲅⲏ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲱⲙⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲥⲧⲱⲙⲦ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲡⲤ ⲡⲉ. For as numerous were his houses, storehouses, boats, gardens, fields, baths, pools on the river or its banks or behind the doors of his houses and his ceilings, and the many other possessions, including his rugs and platters too, just as numerous were all the works of the curse of the wrath with which he met. And the wrath came upon him because it was necessary. (Chassinat 1911: 191–192; Brakke and Crislip 2015: 291)

The description passes over in silence the precise manner of Gessios’ death that is only summed up in the expressions “the works of the curse of the wrath with which he met” or “the wrath that came upon him” (excerpt d). The deaths of

382

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

his associates, described in more detail, are also presented as results of a “wrath that befell them” (excerpt b). The expressions are cryptic, and one cannot help wondering with David Brakke and Andrew Crislip “whether these sentences are overblown descriptions of ordinary natural deaths or indications of extraordinary financial ruin and violence.”66 Without wishing to exclude the first alternative altogether, we consider the second option more plausible in view of the recurrent emphasis on the loss of Gessios’ property (excerpts a and d), the suggestion that his ruin was witnessed by the city of Panopolis (excerpt a), the emphasis on the obliteration of his memory (excerpt b) and, not least, the graphic description of the violent deaths of his associates in lawlessness. It is not unlikely that their manner of death indirectly also describes his manner of death since the same noun (“wrath”) is used both for their and his death. The reference to the breaking of their bones in particular (excerpt b) recalls that Palladas’ Gessios enters Hades “more lame than ever” (AP VII 686.2 χωλεύοντα πλέον). In our view, all this suggests memorable and publicly witnessed deaths, confiscation of property and damnatio memoriae – events that the population of the area could recall long after Gessios’ downfall. Undoubtedly, Shenoute had his share in the perpetuation of the memory of Gessios’ fate since he developed the man into the paradigmatic figure of blasphemer. Thus, even if the descriptions of Gessios’ death in Palladas and Shenoute are rather cryptic and offer no conclusive evidence that we are faced with the same event, it seems too great a coincidence and altogether rather incredible that two individuals of the same name who lived in Egypt at about the same time and held positions in the ranks of administration both met violent and degrading deaths. Identification is, to our mind, the preferable option. It is legitimate to wonder whether Palladas, an “Alexandrian” according to the sources, would have known or written poetry about the fate of a man who all available historical information connects with the Thebaid and the city of Panopolis. The publication in 2012 of the codex of epigrams P.CtYBR inv. 4000 with epigrams – some or all by Palladas – that display strong connections with Upper Egypt has opened up the possibility that this poet too came from Upper Egypt and grew up there before he moved to Alexandria.67 In the light of this important, even if extremely challenging, source and as a result of the intensive research and new textual finds that have shed light on Panopolis as a cultural hub in Upper Egypt in the late Roman period, acquaintance between Palladas and a member of the Panopolitan elite no longer seems implausible.68 In this context it seems also appropriate to recall the mobility of the members 66

Brakke and Crislip 2015: 198. The ed.pr. of the epigram anthology P.CtYBR inv. 4000 is Wilkinson 2012. For Palladas’ connection with Upper Egypt see Cameron 2016a: 3–4 and 93. 68 On the Greek literary culture in Upper Egypt see Cameron 2016a: 1–35 (updating Cameron 1965); on Panopolis see Miguélez Cavero 2008: 198–263. 67

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

383

of the Panopolitan elite within their native land and the empire.69 This is exemplified by the easy circulation of the contemporary scholastikos of Panopolis Ammon son of Petearbeschinis between his native city and Alexandria and by the career of his brother Harpocration who resided in Alexandria for a period and then moved around in the empire as imperial panegyrist and financial inspector. To the extent that their lives and activities can be gleaned from the papyri belonging to their archive, the members of Ammon’s family, whose nephew Apollon was a poet, combine ownership of landed property and service for the state with intellectual-cultural pursuits.70 Gessios’ profile would be rather similar, albeit at a more modest scale, if Palladas’ and Shenoute’s depictions of the man were to be brought together. To return to our topic, Shenoute’s unusual curse: assuming that the target of the curse had an anatomical defect that caused him to limp when walking, the content of the curse – tying his tongue to the extremity of his lame member – would make this a curse ad hominem cruelly drawing attention to the man’s defect. It would at the same time insinuate the intention of aligning the condition of his tongue to that of his foot, i.e. impairing and laming it too. BINDING TO RENDER

POWERLESS

As we discussed above, against the background of Christian views of punishments in Hell, Gessios’ tongue has not been punished regularly or canonically by extraction or burning. It has been given a rather special treatment that marks this curse not as a regular punishment in Hell, but as a means to render the tongue and in consequence, the person of Gessios, powerless or overturned. The curse against Gessios can be viewed as an “anatomical curse” in the sense defined by Versnel, i.e. cursing of specific parts of the body, either in anatomical detail or as a whole, in order to render the victim powerless.71 Taking a step further, we could interpret the connection of the two extremes of the body, head and toe, as a way of including the whole intervening body in the curse, and thus consider the victim’s entire body as the target of the curse.72 Tongue restraining curses are known from early Greek practice, for example in DTA 96, 8–13 (Piraeus, 5th to 3rd cent. BCE) καὶ ε[ἴ] τι μέλ|λει ὑπὲρ 69 On mobility as a staple of the life and activities of the Egyptian professional poets see Cameron 2016a: 15–21. 70 On Ammon see van Minnen 2002. On Ammon and Harpocration, see Miguélez Cavero 2008: 225–226. 71 Versnel 1998: 217 (“People curse the tongue and the soul of an adversary in a lawsuit, or the hands and feet of a rival athlete or gladiator, or various other combinations of these convenient physical tools”). 72 See Versnel’s limb lists (1998: 222–227).

384

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

Φίλω|νος φθέγγεσθαι | ῥῆμα πονηρόν,| ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ αὐτοῦ | μόλυβδος γένοι|το (“and if he intends to pronounce an evil word against Philo, may his tongue become lead.”)73 Among Coptic magical texts we find some examples of applied curses that attest to the continuation in time and across cultures of the idea of the restraining of the mouth or the tongue in order to render the victim powerless.74 A silencing curse, P.Würzb. inv. 42,75 targets Semne daughter of Koron whose mouth the commissioner, Victor son of Koheu, apparently had reasons to dread. Hence the request, ll. 6–8 ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϯ ⲉⲣⲱⲥ ⲙⲛϣⲁⲛⲧⲥ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲧⲱ | ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲱϥ ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲭⲁⲙⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲭⲁⲗⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲟⲩϩⲩ| ⲡⲟⲧⲓⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲧⲉⲙⲡⲟ ⲉⲣⲱⲥ (“you shall give her mouth and her nose a closing and a silence and a weariness and a bridle and a shackle and a dumbness to her mouth”).76 The binding terminology that is absent from this curse is applied specifically to the tongue in the bilingual Arabic-Coptic curse from Cairo Genizah Cambridge UL T.S. 12, 20777 that seeks “to bind the mouth and tongue” (l. 8 ⲉϥⲉⲙⲟⲩⲣ ⲫⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲉⲙⲫⲗⲁⲥ) of Garib son of Sitt al-Kull so “that he may not be able to speak an evil word against Thijar daughter of the woman NN.”78 As in the previous examples, the context may be a judicial litigation in which case the curse may be intended to bind the tongue of an opponent or witness in a trial. Alternatively, the aim may be to silence a slanderous or threatening tongue. INVERSION, FOR RETRIBUTION OR TO RENDER POWERLESS None of these examples involve the tying of the tongue to the foot or the toe, nor any kind of binding which connects both extremes of the body as a means to block the individual and render him or her powerless. Rather they seek to address the problem of the tongue as source of slander, sin, insult and more generally harm, thus in a similar way as punishment of the tongue in Hell in Christian literature. Our case needs to be explained further in the light of cases involving connection of the extremes of the body. Perhaps we can interpret the

73 See also the closely related curse tablet DTA 97 (Gager 1992: no. 66) and other examples in Versnel 1998: 220–221. 74 Observe that in both cited cases, the third future is used in the curse, as in the Vita Sinuthii. See above, p. 369. 75 Ed.pr. Brunsch 1978. Meyer and Smith 1999: no. 102. 76 Compare P.Bad. V 140, 8–11 (= P.Heid. Inv. Kopt. 683) where a powerful being is requested to impose silence, and a similar list of silencing devices is mentioned in ll. 8–11. 77 Ed.pr. Crum 1902 and Crum 1903. See also Kropp 1931: II 242–243, no. 74; Meyer and Smith 1999: no. 94. 78 The request occurs first in the Arabic part of the curse written with Coptic characters (ll. 1–2 and 4) and twice in the Coptic part (ll. 8 and 18). For the person see nos. 1 and 2 in Bohak and Saar 2015: 90.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

385

punishment envisaged for Gessios as a symbolic inversion through the connection of the two extremities of the body (head and feet). This explanation is in keeping with the ancient idea of the Beyond as a mundus inversus or a topsyturvy place, an idea not exclusive of Egypt, but very characteristic of the conception of Hell in that region.79 We find a possible parallel in a restraining procedure from the so-called London Hay “cookbook” (London BM EA 10391),80 an eighth or ninth century formulary81 containing procedures and recipes for a variety of purposes. The last procedure in the formulary, ll. 109–118, is a “sexual” restraining procedure inflicting a curse on a man’s phallus. A powerful being82 who controls the cosmic extremes (heaven – earth, sun/east – moon/west) and the cosmic middle is invoked (ll. 145–153 ~ Kropp 110–113) and is asked to restrain the targeted victim, turn his head to the place of his foot and diminish his male organ: (145) ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲥⲱϣⲧ ⲛⲧⲡⲉ ⲁϥⲥⲱϣⲧ | ⲛⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲁϥⲥⲱϣⲧ ⲛⲡⲣⲏ ⲛⲡⲉⲉⲃⲧ | ⲁϥⲥⲱϩⲧ ⲛⲡⲟϩ ⲛⲡⲉⲙⲛⲧ ⲁϥ⟨ⲥⲱ⟩ϣⲧ | ⲛⲡⲉⲑⲉⲥⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲥⲓ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ ⲛ̣ⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ | ⲛⲧⲡⲉ ⲉⲕⲁⲥⲱϣⲧ ⲛⲇ̣ⲇ̣ ⲛⲅⲧⲣⲉ ϫⲱϥ || (150) ⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲣⲁⲧϥ ⲛⲅ[ⲧ]ⲣ̣ⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲙⲁ ⲛϩⲟ|ⲟⲩⲧ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲕⲁϫⲓϥ ⲉⲥⲁⲕϥ | ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲱ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲥⲁⲕⲃ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲡ[ⲏ]|ⲕⲏ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟ ⲁⲓⲟ ⲁⲓⲟ ⲧⲁⲭⲏ | ⲧⲁⲭⲏ Ⲍ ⲛⲥⲟⲡ + (145) The one who impeded heaven, impeded earth, impeded the sun in the east, impeded the moon in the west, impeded the store-rooms of stars in the midst of heaven, you should impede NN and cause his head (150) to go to the place of his foot and cause his male member to be like an ant that is frozen in the winter, which is thin and frozen, like a spring of water in the winter, yes, yes, quickly, quickly seven times.

Meyer and Smith understand the formulation ⲛⲅⲧⲣⲉ ϫⲱϥ | ⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲙⲁ ⲛⲣⲁⲧϥ as a request to “overturn him [sc. the male target of the curse]”,83 and it may well be the case that at a first level the curse envisages that the target trips over and comes tumbling down on his head. It is, however, difficult to see how the request, if thus interpreted, is connected to the ensuing and central 79

See above. Kropp 1931: I 55–62 & II 40–53; Meyer and Smith 1999: 263–269 (no. 127). Forthcoming edition and commentary by Zellmann-Rohrer forthcoming a. We are very grateful to the author for allowing us to use his work before publication. 81 Zellmann-Rohrer (forthcoming b): “Walter Crum, who edited five of the texts and assisted in a sixth published by Angelicus Kropp, tentatively proposed a dating for the assemblage in the sixth or seventh century A.D. While this remains palaeographically possible, preliminary results from radio-carbon dating undertaken for the new project on two of the manuscripts suggest a later range in the eighth or ninth century, which can also be reconciled with the palaeography.” See Zellmann-Rohrer forthcoming a, for the edition and general study, and forthcoming b for an introduction to the Hay manuscripts. 82 Who may even be God, cf. e.g. Joshua 10.12–13, Sirach 48.3, or the prophets as in Rev. 11.6. 83 Meyer and Smith 1999: 380. 80

386

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

request that targets the victim’s male organ. As the invocation is addressed to demonic powers that control the cosmic extremes and the cosmic middle, it seems more appropriate to consider the two requests as closely connected too and paralleling the invocations. The first request aims at disempowering the entire body of the targeted male by envisaging approximation of his extremes (head to foot), while the second one targets a specific organ midway in the body (phallus). A practice that connects both parts of the body, albeit with a protective aim, appears in PGM LXX, 9–10 (GEMF 56), a procedure to avert Ereschigal in case of a potentially dangerous encounter: ἐὰν δ’ ἐγγὺς ἐπέλθῃ σοι, ἐπιλαβόμενος τῆς δεξιᾶς πτέρ|νης λέγων· “Ἐρεσχιγὰλ παρθένε, κύων, δράκαινα, στέμμα, κλείς, κηρύκειον, [τ]ῆς ταρταρούχου χρύσεον τὸ σάνδαλον,” καὶ παραιτήσῃ. If she comes close to you, take hold of your right heel and saying: ‘O virgin Ereschigal, bitch, serpent, wreath, key, herald’s wand, golden sandal of Lady Tartaros’ and you will (i.e. successfully) entreat (her).

In Faraone’s interpretation, the holding of the right heel, probably with the left hand, as a neutralizing posture, would be projected back to Ereschigal and was a way of disabling her of harming or threatening the user of the procedure.84 The above procedures suggest that the approximation of the extremes of the body, envisaged in Shenoute’s curse against Gessios, is a symbolic gesture of subjecting the entire body to the harmful (or protective) effect of a magical ritual and enable us to contextualize Shenoute’s unusual curse as a powerful speech act of symbolic inversion to restrain and harm Gessios’ entire body. CONCLUSION Many characteristics of the episode of Gessios in Hell as sketched by Shenoute and reshaped by the author of the Vita Sinuthii, fit in the Christian tradition of the punishment of the sinning tongue. Gessios, a blasphemer, perhaps even an Arian, who denies the divinity of Christ, deserves to be punished through a torment that involves his tongue, source of his sin of blasphemy. Shenoute has a vision of the Beyond that can be explained as part of his characterization as a charismatic and powerful leader who has a prophetic endowment. Up to this point, the scene fits perfectly into the tours of Hell attested in early Christian sources. The shape and details of the punishment, however, cause some perplexity. Such a binding of the tongue is unattested elsewhere. To explain this intensely uncomfortable, if at all possible, anatomical position, we have

84

Faraone 2019: 208–210.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

387

had recourse to other possible backgrounds, in Coptic magic and in the identification of Gessios. Binding and cursing appear in Egyptian, Greek and Coptic magic, with the purpose of blocking volition or anatomical abilities. Although not exactly in the shape presented in Gessios’ curse, there are some parallels in the connection of the extremes of the body and the inversion that this may cause in Coptic magic. Shenoute is cast as practitioner of powerful speech acts, such as binding and cursing, the fulfilment of which is confirmed through his visionary power. Finally, some striking coincidence in the manner of death of our Gessios and a contemporary namesake in the epigrams of Palladas provides interesting new views and raises the possibility of an ad hominem curse. Bibliography Amélineau, Émile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi: Texte copte et traduction française. 2 vols. Paris. ——. 1887. “Un évêque de Keft au VIIe siècle.” Mémoires de l’Institut égyptien 2, 261–423. Aufrère, Sydney 2005. “Chénouté et le miracle de la concombreraie. Un magicien et sa baguette en stipe de palmier.” In: Encyclopédie religieuse de l’Univers végétal: Croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne (ERUV) III, 61–75. Orientalia Monspeliensia XV. Montpellier. Bagnall, Roger S. 2008. “Models and Evidence in the Study of Religion in Late Roman Egypt.” In: From Temple to Church. Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel and U. Gotter, 23–41. Leiden/Boston. Bauckham, Richard 1998. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden/Boston. Beckby, Hermann (ed.) 1965. Anthologia Graeca, Buch VII-VIII, Griechisch – Deutsch, 2. verbesserte Auflage. München. Bell, David N. 1983. The Life of Shenoute by Besa. Introduction, translation, and notes. Cistercian Publications. Kalamazoo, MI. Behlmer, Heike 1993. “Historical Evidence from Shenoute’s De extremo iudicio.” In: VI Congresso lnternazionale di Egittologia. Atti, vol. 2, 11–19. Torino. Bohak, Gideon, and Saar, Ortal Paz 2015. “Genizah Magical Texts Prepared for or against Named Individuals.” Revue des études juives 174, 77–110. Benelli, Luca 2016. “The Age of Palladas.” Mnemosyne 69, 978–1007. Bonnet, Max ed. 1883. Acta Thomae graece partim cum novis codicibus contulit partim primus edidit, latine recensuit. Supplementum Codicis Apocryphi 1. Lipsiae. Bowra, Cecil M. 1960. “The Fate of Gessius.” The Classical Review 10.2, 91–95. Brakke, David 1989. “Shenoute: On Cleaving to Profitable Things.” OLP 20, 115– 141. ——. 2007. “Shenoute, Weber and the Monastic prophet: Ancient and Modern Articulations of Ascetic Authority.” In: Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism (Proceedings of the International Seminar Turin, December 2-4, 2004), edited by A. Camplani and G. Filoramo, 47–74. OLA 157. Leuven.

388

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

——. 2021. “Cursing Monks: The Early Monastic Context of Two Christian Prayers for Justice from Egypt.” Studia Patristica 124, 139–156. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great. Community, Theology and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Bremmer, Jan N., and Czachesz, István (eds.), 2007, The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul. Leuven. Brunsch, Wolfgang 1978. “Ein koptischer Bindezauber.” Enchoria 8, 151–157. Budge, E. A. Wallis 1888. The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cappadocia: The Coptic Texts. London. ——. 1915. Miscellaneous Coptic texts in the dialect of Upper Egypt. London. Cameron, Alan 1964. “Palladas and the Fate of Gessius.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 57, 279–292. ——. 1965. “Wandering poets. A literary movement in Byzantine Egypt.” Historia 14, 470–509. ——. 2016a. Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy. Oxford. ——. 2016b. “The Date of Palladas.” ZPE 198, 49–52. Chassinat, Émile 1911. Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti. MIFAO 23. Cairo. Copeland, Kristi B. 2003. “Sinners and Post-Mortem ‘Baptism’ in the Acherusian Lake.” In: The Apocalypse of Peter, edited by J. N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz, 91–107. Leuven. Cribiore, Raffaella 2007. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton. Crum, Walter E. 1902. “A Bilingual Charm.” PSBA 24, 329–331. ——. 1903. “A Bilingual Charm.” PSBA 25, 89. Czachesz, István 2003. “The Grotesque Body in the Apocalypse of Peter.” In: The Apocalypse of Peter, edited by J. N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz, 108–126. Leuven. ——. 2012. The Grotesque Body in Early Christian Discourse. Hell, Scatology, and Metamorphosis. Sheffield. DTA = Wünsch, Richard 1897. Defixionum Tabellae Atticae, Appendix to Inscriptiones Graecae III. Berlin. Edmonds, Radcliffe G. 2004. Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets. Cambridge. Emmel, Stephen 2002. “From the other side of the Nile: Shenute and Panopolis.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, J. van der Vliet, 95–113. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava XXXI. Leiden. ——. 2004a. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600. Leuven. ——. 2004b. “Shenoute the Monk: The Early Monastic Career of Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture, edited by M. Bielawski and D. Hombergen, 151–174. Roma. ——. 2008a. “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality.” In: From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, edited by Johannes Hahn, Stephen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter, 161–199. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 163. Leiden/Boston. ——. 2008b. “Shenoute’s Place in the History of Monasticism.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Volume I, Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 31–46. Cairo/New York.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

389

Faraone, Christopher A. 2019. “Protection against Fear of Punishment from Hecate Ereschigal: Another Look at a Magical Recipe in Michigan (PGM LXX 4-19).” BASP 56, 205–224. Gager, John G. 1992. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. Oxford. Gaudemet, Jean 1972. “La condamnation des pratiques païennes en 391.” In: Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, 597–602. Paris. GEMF = Faraone, Christopher, and Torallas Tovar, Sofía (eds.) forthcoming. Greek and Egyptian Magical Formularies: edition, translation and commentary, California Classical Studies. University of California Press. Grypeou, Emmanuela 2013. “Höllenreisen und engelgleiches Leben: Die Rezeption von apokalyptischen Traditionen in der koptisch-monastischen Literatur.” In: Christliches Ägypten in der spätantiken Zeit. Akten der 2. Tübinger Tagung zum Christlichen Orient (7.-8. Dezember 2007), 1–12. Tübingen. ——. 2016. “Talking Skulls: On Some Personal Accounts of Hell and Their Place in Apocalyptic Literature.” ZAC 20, 109–126. Hall, Isaac H. 1890. “The Story of Arsanis.” Hebraica 6, 81–88. Himmelfarb, Martha 1983. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian literature. Philadelphia. Hyvernat, Henri 1986. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte. Paris. Irmscher, Johannes 1956–1957. “Palladas.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe VI.3, 162–175. Kaster, Robert A. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Kent, Benedict H. M. 2017. “Curses in Acts: Hearing the Apostles’ Words of Judgment Alongside ‘Magical’ Spell Texts.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39.4, 412–440. Klostermann, Erich 1908. Apocrypha I. Reste des Petrusevangeliums, der Petrusapokalypse und des Kerygmata Petri. Bonn. Kropp, Angelicus M. 1931. Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte, Bd. I Textpublikation & Bd. II Überzetzungen und Anmerkungen. Bruxelles. Kuhn, Karl H. 1954. “A Fifth-Century Egyptian Abbot: I. Besa and His Background.” JTS 5/1, 36–48. ——. 1956. Letters and Sermons of Besa. CSCO 157–158, Script. Copt. 21–22. Louvain. Lallemand, Jacques 1964. L’administration civile de l’Égypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse. Mémoires de l’Académie royale de Belgique, classe des lettres, 2e sér., 57.2. Bruxelles. Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of our Fathers. Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1953. Pachomii vita bohairice scripta. CSCO 89, Script. Copt. 7. Paris. Leipoldt, Johannes 1903. Schenute von Atripe und die Enstehung des national ägyptischen Christentums. TUGACL 25. Leipzig. ——. 1906. Sinuthii Vita (Bohairice). CSCO 41, Script. Copt. 1. Paris (réimpr. Louvain 1951) ; translation into Latin by H. Wiesmann in CSCO 129, Script. Copt. 16. Louvain 1951. ——. 1908–1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia III-IV. CSCO 42 & 73, Script. Copt. 2 & 5. Paris (réimpr. Louvain 1954–1955).

390

A. MARAVELA AND S. TORALLAS TOVAR

López, Ariel G. 2013. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty. Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt. Berkeley. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii. Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiograghischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. ——. 2008. “The Coptic Life of Shenoute.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Volume I, Akhmim and Sohag, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 91–98. Cairo/New York. Meyer, Marvin W., and Smith, Richard 1999. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. Princeton. Miguélez Cavero, Laura 2008. Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid, 200–600 AD. Berlin/New York. PGM = Preisendanz, Karl 1928–1931. Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2 vols. Leipzig. PLRE I = Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R., and J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. I: A.D. 260–395. Cambridge 1971. Rogozhina, Anna 2016. “A ‘Tour of Hell’ in the Martyrdom of St Philoteus of Antioch.” In: Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th–19th, 2008, edited by P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 1129–1136. OLA 247. 2 vols. Leuven/Paris/ Bristol, CT. Sadek, Ashraf I. 1987. Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom. Hildesheim. Schroeder, Caroline T. 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia. Seeck, Otto 1906. Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet. TUGACL 30.1–2. Leipzig. Smith, Mark 2009. Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Oxford. Thissen, Heinz Josef. 1992–1993. “Zur Begegnung von Christentum und ‘Heidentum’. Schenute und Gessios.” Enchoria 19–20, 155–164. Timbie, Janet, and Zaborowski, Jason 2006. “Shenoute’s Sermon The Lord Thundered: An Introduction and Translation.” Oriens Christianus 90, 91–123. Torallas Tovar, Sofía 2015. “Una casa llena de oscuridad: Shenoute y los paganos (con una traducción de ‘No porque un zorro ladre’).” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 12, 249–278. van Minnen, Peter 2002. “The Letter (and Other Papers) of Ammon: Panopolis in the Fourth Century A.D.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, J. van der Vliet, 177–199. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava XXXI. Leiden. van der Vliet, Jacques 1993. “Spätantikes Heidentum in Ägypten im Spiegel der koptischen Literatur.” In: Begegnung von Heidentum und Christentum im spätantiken Ägypten, 102–109. Riggisberger Berichte I. Riggisberg. Veilleux, Armand, trans. 1980. Pachomian Koinonia I. The Life of Saint Pachomius and His Disciples. Cistercian Studies Series 45. Kalamazoo, MI. Versnel, Henk S. 1998. “… and any other part of the entire body may be… An Essay on Anatomical Curses.” In: Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert, edited by F. Graf, 217–267. Leipzig. Waltz, Pierre (ed.) 1941. Anthologie grecque. Première partie: Anthologie Palatine. Tome V (Livre VII, Épigr. 364-748). Paris.

IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMIES

391

Walters, Colin C. 1979. “A Vision of Hell from Tebtunis.” In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt, edited by J. Rufflex, G. Gaballa, and K. A. Kitchen, 190–195.Warminster. ——. 1989. “Christian Paintings from Tebtunis.” JEA 75, 191–208. Wiesmann, Hermann (transl.) 1931–1936. Sinuthii Vita et opera Omina. 2 vols. CSCO 96 & 108, Script. Copt. 8 & 12. Paris (réimpr. Louvain 1952–1953). Wilkinson, Kevin W. 2009. “Palladas and the Age of Constantine.” Journal of Roman Studies 99, 36–60. ——. 2010. “Some Neologisms in the Epigrams of Palladas.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50, 295–308. ——. 2012. New Epigrams of Palladas. A Fragmentary Papyrus Codex (P.CtYBR inv. 4000). American Studies in Papyrology 52. Durham. ——. 2015. “More Evidence for the Date of Palladas.” ZPE 196, 67–71. Wortley, John 2001. “Death, Judgement and Hell in Byzantine ‘Beneficial Tales’.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55, 53–69. Zandee, Jan 1960. Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions. Leiden. Zellmann-Rohrer, Michael 2019. “The Woman Who Gave Her Breast For Hire. Notes on a Christian Wall-Painting from Tebtunis.” JEA 105.2, 297–303. ——. Forthcoming a. “P.Brit.Mus. inv. no. EA 10391, text edition and translation.” In: The Hay Cookbook and Associated Coptic Spells on Leather: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Materiality of Magical Practice, edited by E. R. O’Connell, B. Wills, R. Stacey, L.-A. Skinner, and M. Zellmann-Rohrer. London. ——. Forthcoming b. “An Assemblage of Coptic Magical Texts on Leather and Their Traditional Context (P.Brit.Mus. inv. no. EA 10122, 10376, 10391, 10434, 10414).” In: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of Papyrology, edited by M. Capasso and P. Davoli. Lecce.

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII SAMUEL MOAWAD

Die Lebensbeschreibung des Schenute von Atripe (ca. 347–465) ist dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass sie in mehreren Sprachen (Koptisch [Sahidisch1 und Bohairisch2], Arabisch3, Syrisch4 und Äthiopisch5) überliefert ist. Eine griechische oder lateinische Version der Vita Sinuthii ist bis jetzt nicht bekannt und existiert vermutlich gar nicht, weshalb Schenute in der westlichen Welt ungenannt blieb, bis die Forschung in der modernen Zeit ihn vorgestellt hat. Von den sahidischen Versionen sind bloß Fragmente vorhanden, deren Anzahl in den vergangenen Jahren durch neue Identifikationen gestiegen ist.6 Dagegen sind die übrigen Versionen in vollständigen Fassungen erhalten und bereits ediert. Jedoch ist die arabische Edition, die gleichzeitig die längste Fassung der Vita Sinuthii ist, keinesfalls eine kritische Ausgabe, eine Bemerkung, die in der Wissenschaft mehrmals geäußert wurde.7 Im Moment bereite ich eine kritische Ausgabe der arabischen Vita Sinuthii mit einer annotierten deutschen Übersetzung vor.8 Im vorliegenden Aufsatz beschränke ich mich auf die „ägyptischen“ Versionen. Die syrische und die äthiopische Version bleiben hier außer Betracht. Für die entsprechenden Stellen in den verschiedenen Versionen der Vita Sinuthii werde ich mich an die Aufteilung und Absatznummern von Nina Lubomierski halten (E + Nummer).9 I. DAS VERHÄLTNIS ZWISCHEN DEN ÄGYPTISCHEN VERSIONEN Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen den verschiedenen Versionen der Vita Sinuthii beschäftigte bereits mehrere Wissenschaftler, ohne dass sie sich einig 1

Für die sahidischen Fragmente siehe Lubomierski 2007: 52–113, 221–267; Suciu 2013. Amélineau 1888–1895: 1–99; Leipoldt 1906–1913, Bd. 1; Evelyn-White 1926–1933: 1:163; Lucchesi 2007: 16. 3 Amélineau 1888–1895: 289–478; Galtier 1905. 4 Guidi 1889; Nau 1900. 5 Colin 1982. 6 Siehe Anm. 1. 7 Crum 1904: 130 Anm. 3; Leipoldt 1964: 53; Lubomierski 2007: 29. 8 Dieses Forschungsprojekt wird von der DFG gefördert und am Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie in Münster durchgeführt. 9 Lubomierski 2007: 42–51. 2

394

S. MOAWAD

geworden sind.10 Ein Vergleich zwischen den sahidischen Fragmenten, der bohairischen Version und der arabischen Fassung lässt nämlich kein klares Verhältnis zwischen ihnen feststellen. Dafür nenne ich hier folgende Beispiele: 1. Zum großen Teil stimmt die Reihenfolge der Episoden der bohairischen Version mit der arabischen Fassung überein. Manchmal weicht die Reihenfolge des Bohairischen jedoch vom Arabischen ab und folgt stattdessen der sahidischen Version.11 Während die Aussage über die Lebensdauer Schenutes (E 80: Ar 39, Boh 174, Sah MONB.FR 58–59)12 ungefähr in der Mitte der arabischen Version vorkommt, findet sich dieselbe Episode im Bohairischen – in Übereinstimmung mit der sahidischen Fassung – direkt vor der Todeskrankheit Schenutes. Ferner stimmen beide Versionen, bohairisch und sahidisch, wieder in E 27/3 „Schenutes Treffen mit Theodosius“ (Ar 27/3; Boh § 58; Sah GB-BM EA 10820 f. 1v)13 miteinander gegenüber der arabischen Fassung darin überein, dass das Gebet Schenutes in dieser Episode in beiden Versionen fehlt, doch in der arabischen Fassung zu finden ist. 2. Es kommt gelegentlich vor, dass die Reihenfolge der Ereignisse zwischen dem Arabischen und dem Bohairischen innerhalb derselben Episode abweicht. Ein Beispiel dafür findet sich ebenfalls in E 27/3 „Schenutes Treffen mit Theodosius“ (Ar 27/3; Boh § 61).14 Laut der bohairischen Version bittet Kaiser Theodosius Schenute darum, einige Tage im kaiserlichen Palast in Konstantinopel zu verbringen. Darauf bittet Schenute den Kaiser, einen Brief an den kaiserlichen Boten zu schreiben. In der arabischen Version wird zwar auch von beiden Ereignissen berichtet, allerdings ist dort die Reihenfolge vertauscht. 3. Bohairisch und Arabisch bieten manchmal einen kürzeren und übereinstimmenden Text gegenüber dem Sahidischen. In E 51/2 „Der Kampf des Dux gegen Barbaren“ (Ar 54/2, Boh §§ 106–108, Sah MONB.FR 45–47)15 bittet der Dux im Bohairischen und Arabischen Schenute um einen Ledergürtel als Schutzobjekt im Krieg. Dort wird der Dux beim ersten Kampf besiegt, weil er den Gürtel Schenutes nicht anhatte. Dagegen geht es im sahidischen Text nicht 10

Eine gute Zusammenfassung dieser Diskussion in Lubomierski 2007: 8–22. Mit der „sahidischen Version“ sind hier die sahidischen Fragmente im Allgemeinen gemeint. In der Tat kann man nicht von einer sahidischen Version sprechen, sondern von mehreren, da die Parallelstellen im Sahidischen voneinander abweichen. Darüber hinaus ist die Textgattung dieser sahidischen Zeugnisse wegen ihres fragmentarischen Zustandes unsicher: Ob es sich nämlich um eine Vita oder einen Panegyrikus etc. handelt. 12 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 388; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:73; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 240. 13 Arabischer Text Amélineau 1888–1895: 367; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:31; sahidischer Text in Shore 1979: 137; Lubomierski 2007: 91. 14 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 369–370; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:33. 15 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 411–412; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:51–52; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 642–643. 11

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII

395

um einen Gürtel, sondern um ein Holzkreuz, mit dessen Hilfe er den ersten Kampf gewinnt. Eine weitere Übereinstimmung zwischen dem Bohairischen und dem Arabischen gegenüber dem Sahidischen findet sich in E 40 „Das Versenken der Insel“ (Ar 43, Boh §§ 85–86, Sah MONB.FR 48),16 wo nur im Sahidischen der Name des Gesius auftaucht. Dagegen fehlt dort der Name der Insel, der in den beiden anderen Versionen (Boh: ⲡⲁⲛⲉϩⲏⲟⲩ, Sah: ǧazīrat as-sawāqī) vorhanden ist. 4. Obwohl die bohairische Version im Allgemeinen kürzer ist als die arabische, kommt es vor, dass die bohairische Version detaillierter ist. In E 24/1 „Die Rückgabe des gestohlenen Besitzes“ (Ar 24/1, Boh § 43, Sah VA-V Borg. copt. 134 f. 3v)17 besucht ein reicher Kaufmann aus Aḫmīm (Panopolis) Schenute und bittet ihn, ihm dabei zu helfen, seine gestohlenen Gegenstände zurück zu bekommen. Schenute schickt diesen in die Stadt Asyūṭ (Lykopolis) und sagt ihm im Voraus, wo er den Dieb findet und welches Gespräch geführt wird. Während die bohairische Version die Begegnung des Kaufmannes mit dem Dieb ausführlich berichtet, begnügen sich der sahidische Text und die arabische Fassung mit der Aussage, dass alles geschah, wie Schenute gesagt hatte, ohne von dieser Begegnung und diesem Gespräch zu berichten. Darüber hinaus macht die bohairische Version in der folgenden Episode (E 24/2: Ar 24/2, Boh § 48, Sah VA-V Borg.copt. 134 f. 3r)18 eine präzisere Angabe, wo der Kaufmann den Tisch zum ersten Mal fand, nämlich in der Stadt ⲭⲉⲣⲉⲩ, als er unterwegs nach Alexandrien war. Danach fand die zweite Begegnung in Alexandrien statt. Dagegen geben die sahidische und die arabische Version an, dass beide Begegnungen in Alexandrien stattfanden. In einem ähnlichen Fall in E 51/1 (Ar 54/1, Boh §§ 102–105)19 ist die bohairische Version länger und detaillierter als die arabische: Während die bohairische Version (§ 104) angibt, dass der Dux drei Tage im Kloster verbrachte, fehlt diese Angabe im Arabischen. 5. In anderen Fällen verfügen der sahidische und der arabische Text über mehr Ereignisse als die bohairische Version. In E 31 „Der Bischof von Šmin“ (Ar 30, Boh § 72, Sah VA-V Borg.copt. 134 ff. 6r–7r)20 endet die Erzählung im Bohairischen mit dem Abschied des Bischofs, während der sahidische Text 16 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 394–395; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:41–42; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 643–644. 17 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 358; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:26; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 223. 18 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 359; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:27; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 224. 19 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 410–411; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:50–51. 20 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 375–376; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:36; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 230–231.

396

S. MOAWAD

und die arabische Fassung eine erweiterte Version bieten, die mit dem Tod des Bischofs in Asyūṭ endet. II. DIE IDENTITÄT DES VERFASSERS DER VITA SINUTHII In ihrer Untersuchung hat Nina Lubomierski bewiesen, dass der Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii nicht Besa, Schenutes Jünger, sein kann.21 Wenn der Name des Verfassers jedoch anonym bleibt, kann seine Identität, nämlich ob er Laie, Kleriker oder Mönch ist, aus dem Inhalt der Vita geschlossen werden? In den meisten Episoden der Vita handelt es sich bei den vorkommenden Personen entweder um Laien, Kleriker (Erzbischöfe, Bischöfe und Priester) oder einfache Mönche, insbesondere die Mönche Schenutes. Wenn man die entsprechenden Episoden, in denen es um Gutes und Böses bzw. Umkehr und Sünde geht, aus der Vita zusammenzählt, kommt man auf ca. 21 Episoden, in denen Kleriker oder Mönche, die sich versündigt haben, verwickelt sind: E 16, 20, 32, 34, 36/2, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53/, 53/3, 62, 67, 67/1–2, 70, 73 und 80 (nur Sahidisch).22 Nur in drei Episoden (48, 53/1 und 70) geht es um tugendhafte Mönche. Nur in E 52 werden ein fleißiger Mönch und ein fauler Mönch einander gegenüber dargestellt. In den meisten übrigen Fällen werden die Mönche Schenutes negativ dargestellt, insbesondere in E 20, 32, 44, 46 und 48. Selbst Besa wird in zwei Episoden entweder als ungehorsam (E 16 [arabische Version]) oder unachtsam (E 53/3) beschrieben. Priester werden in der Vita noch böser vorgestellt, wie in E 41, 67, 67/1–2 und 73. Ferner gibt es ca. 11 Episoden, in denen die Hauptfiguren Laien sind: E 7, 8, 21 [arabische Version), 22, 23, 24/2, 26, 36/4, 37, 75 und 76. In fünf Episoden handelt es sich um böse und ungerechte Laien. Wenn man jedoch den Inhalt dieser Episoden genau betrachtet, finden man heraus, dass es in diesen fünf Episoden immer um wohlhabende oder machthabende Laien geht, die nicht zu den Anhängern Schenutes gehören. In den übrigen sechs Episoden geht es um tugendhafte und lobenswerte (E 21, 26 und 76) bzw. bußfertige Laien, die Schenute in Allem gehorsam waren (E 7, 8 und 23). Darüber hinaus wird in der Vita das Verhältnis Schenutes zu seiner profanen Gesellschaft besonders hervorgehoben. Obwohl diese Bemerkung auf keinen Fall als Beweis angesehen werden kann, möchte ich nicht ausschließen, dass der Verfasser der „Urform“ der Vita Sinuthii ein Laie sein könnte, der mit dem Kloster Schenutes und seinen Mönchen in enger Verbindung stand. 21

Lubomierski 2007: 156–170. Für die Episoden und ihre Synopsen in den verschiedenen Versionen siehe Lubomierski 2007: 42–51. 22

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII

397

III. DIE VITA SINUTHII UND DIE VITA ANTONII 23 In der Wissenschaft der christlichen Hagiographie herrscht der Konsens, dass die Vita Antonii einen starken Einfluss auf spätere hagiographische Werke hat und als Prototyp dieser Textgattung angesehen wird. Die Vita Sinuthii ist keine Ausnahme. Denn dort (E 28: Ar 28; Boh §§ 68–69; Sah MONB.WU 49–50, VA-V Borg.copt. 134 f. 5v)24 wird Antonius als idealer und unvergleichlicher Mönch vorgestellt. Jedoch neigt der anonyme Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii dazu, Schenute über alle anderen Mönche zu erheben. Schon am Anfang seines mönchischen Lebens wird Schenute zum Archimandriten der ganzen Welt ernannt (E 3/4: Ar 3/4; Boh § 9).25 Niemand wird ihn übertreffen (E 3/3: Ar 3/3; Boh § 8).26 Antonius, Makarius und Pachomius übergeben Schenute ihre eigenen Mönche, damit er sie alle richtet (E 87: Ar 85).27 Davon könnte man den Eindruck gewinnen, dass der Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii Antonius durch Schenute ersetzen oder beide Mönchsväter gleichsetzen will. Es scheint also, dass der anonyme Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii mit der Vita Antonii (und der Vita Pachomii)28 vertraut war. Parallelen oder ähnliche Episoden sind nicht zu übersehen. Sowohl Schenute (E 4/1: Ar 4/1; Boh § 10; Sah EG-C C.G. 9251v)29 als auch Antonius (§ 7,6, 12–13) fasteten jeden Tag bis zum Sonnenuntergang, ernährten sich von Brot, Salz und Wasser und folgten dem Beispiel Elijas. Sowohl Schenute (E 67/3: Ar 40/3)30 als auch Antonius (§ 46,2) wünschten sich den Märtyrertod. Ferner geboten Schenute (E 82: Ar

23

Die Absatznummern der Vita Antonii folgen der griechischen Edition in Bartelink 1994. Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 372–373; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:35; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 638; Lubomierski 2007: 228. 25 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 310–311; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:11–12. 26 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 310; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:11. 27 Amélineau 1888–1895: 475–476. 28 Mindestens an zwei Stellen kann man beide Vitae miteinander vergleichen. In der griechischen Version der Vita Pachomii § 10 (ed. Halkin 1932: 10) wird berichtet, dass Pachom die ganze Nacht beim Beten und Weinen verbrachte, so dass die Erde unter seinen Füßen zu Schlamm wurde. Das Gleiche wird ebenfalls von Schenute berichtet, jedoch nur in der arabischen Version der Vita Sinuthii E 14 (Amélineau 1888–1895: 334). Darüber hinaus beauftragten beide Mönchsväter ihren jeweiligen Jünger, Theodorus und Besa, ihren Leichnam nach der Beerdigung zu überführen und den Ort ihres Grabes geheim zu halten. Es verdient Erwähnung, dass in beiden Fällen der Jünger bei der Überführung des Leichnams seines Meisters von drei anderen Mönchen begleitet wurde. Siehe Vita Pachomii, griechische Version § 116 (ed. Halkin 1932: 75); sahidische Version (ed. Lefort 1933–1934: 93–96 = SBo §§ 122–123); Vita Sinuthii E 80, E 84 (ed. Amélineau 1888–1895: 470, 474). 29 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 311; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:12; sahidischer Text in Munier 1916: 64–65. 30 Amélineau 1888–1895: 391. 24

398

S. MOAWAD

80; E 86: Ar 84)31 und Antonius (§§ 91,6 und 92,2) kurz vor ihrem Tod ihren Jüngern, den Ort ihres jeweiligen Grabes geheim zu halten. In zwei Episoden der Vita Sinuthii (E 11: Ar 11, Sah MONB.WV frg. 2r; E 56: Ar 59)32 geht es um die Nilflut in Verbindung mit dem Teufel. In beiden Episoden versucht der Teufel, Schenute zu provozieren und teilt ihm mit, dass der Nil nicht flutet. Es ist erstaunlich, dass es in der Vita Antonii auch an zwei Stellen (§§ 32,1, 39,2) um die Nilflut in Verbindung mit dem Teufel geht. Antonius warnt seine Zuhörer davor, auf den Teufel zu hören, wenn er die Nilflut voraussagt. Er selbst, genau wie Schenute, hat diese Erfahrung mit dem Teufel gemacht. Ferner versuchen beide Verfasser, Athanasius von Alexandrien und der anonyme Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii, die Überlegenheit der kirchlichen Hierarchie gegenüber der mönchischen Institution hervorzuheben. Während dies in der Vita Antonii (§ 67,1) bloß durch die Bestätigung des Athanasius betont wird, wird diese Überlegenheit in der Vita Sinuthii (E 31: Ar 30, Boh §§ 70–72, Sah VA-V Borg.copt. 134 ff. 6v/r–7r, MONB.WU 50, GB-BM EA 10820 f. 2r)33 durch eine lange Episode bekräftigt. Während Schenute ein Gespräch mit Christus führt, erhält er die Nachricht, dass der Bischof von Panopolis (Aḫmīm) angekommen ist und sich mit ihm treffen will. Schenute ignoriert die Bitte des Bischofs. Jedoch ist Christus mit dem Verhalten Schenutes nicht zufrieden und erinnert ihn an die Macht, die er Petrus und somit allen Bischöfen verlieh, zu lösen und binden (Mt 16,19). In der bohairischen Version und einer der beiden sahidischen Fassungen (GB-BM EA 10820 f. 2r) endet die Episode mit der Versöhnung Schenutes mit dem Bischof, während die arabische Version und die andere sahidische Fassung (VA-V Borg.copt. 134 ff. 6v/r–7r) mit dem Tod des Bischofs aufhören.34 Im Gegensatz zu Antonius (§ 8) wird Schenute immer als Sieger im Kampf gegen den Teufel dargestellt (E 5: Ar 5; E 11: Ar 11, Sah MONB.WV frg. 2r; E 18/1: Ar 18/1; E 33: Ar 32).35 Darüber hinaus wird Schenute in seiner Vita (E 21: Ar 21, Boh §§ 30–32, Sah MONB.WU 32)36 vom Herrn beauftragt, eine Kirche zu errichten. Der Herr teilt Schenute mit, dass er das Geld, das für den Bau benötigt wird, auf dem Weg zu seiner Höhle finden wird. Dabei gibt er 31

Amélineau 1888–1895: 470–471, 475. Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 329–330, 423–425; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 252. 33 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 374–376; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:35–36; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 229–231; Amélineau 1888–1895: 638– 639; Shore 1979: 138. 34 Für die Beziehung zwischen Kirche und Mönchtum siehe Martin 2007; Moawad 2007. 35 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 315–316, 329–330, 339, 378; sahidischer Text in Lubomierski 2007: 252 36 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 353–354; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:21–22; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 637. 32

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII

399

ihm den Hinweis, dass das Geld in der Wüste kein Betrug des Teufels sei. Wenn man mit der Vita Antonii vertraut ist, denkt man an die eine Episode (§ 12,1–2), in der Antonius zerstreutes Gold in der Wüste findet, das er aber für eine Prüfung des Herrn bzw. eine Versuchung des Teufels hält und deswegen ignoriert. Nicht nur Antonius (§ 81) wurde vom christlichen Kaiser bewundert und geehrt, sondern auch Schenute (E 27/1–4: Ar 27/1–4, Boh §§ 53–67, Sah GB-BM EA 10820 f. 1, GB-BL Or. 3581B f. 72, VA-V Borg.copt. 134 f. 5, MONB.WU 49).37 Während Antonius jedoch einen Brief von Kaiser Konstantin erhält, der sich bloß eine schriftliche Antwort von Antonius wünscht, wird Schenute zum kaiserlichen Palast eingeladen. Von dieser Einladung berichtet die Vita Sinuthii ausführlich. Die Anwesenheit Schenutes in Konstantinopel ist so stark erwünscht, dass der kaiserliche Bote bereit ist, Schenute mit Gewalt gegen seinen Willen in die Hauptstadt des byzantinischen Reiches mitzunehmen. Die Episode in der Vita Sinuthii erreicht ihren Höhepunkt, wenn Schenute von zwei Engeln entrückt wird und seine Reise zum kaiserlichen Palast auf einer Wolke macht. Es verdient hier Erwähnung, dass eine arabische Version der Vita Antonii, die wahrscheinlich im 13. Jh. auf Arabisch verfasst und Serapion von Thmuis († nach 362) fälschlicherweise zugeschrieben wurde, dem Antonius eine ähnliche Wolkenreise zum Kaiser zuschreibt.38 Der Einfluss der Vita Sinuthii auf die mittelalterliche Vita Antonii ist nicht zu übersehen. IV. DIE QUELLEN DER VITA SINUTHII In der Vita Sinuthii werden zwei Schriften Schenutes namentlich genannt: „Da donnerte der Herr“ aus Rede 4 und „Kanon 9“.39 Darüber hinaus hat Lubomierski im Kapitel „Der Vergleich mit den Schriften Schenutes“ einige Episoden der Vita Sinuthii mit den Schriften Schenutes verknüpft.40 Hier möchte ich weitere Belege aus den Schriften Schenutes zu einer dieser Episoden der Vita nennen und die Quellen anderer Episoden auflisten.41 1. In der Episode „Das Versenken der Insel“ (E 40: Ar. 43; Bo §§ 85–86; Sah. MONB.FR 47–48)42 geht es in der Vita Sinuthii um arme Bauern, die von 37 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 365–372; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:29–35; sahidischer Text in Shore 1979: 136–137 (Kollation in Lubomierski 2007: 91); Crum 1905: 165b; Lubomierski 2007: 227–228; Amélineau 1888–1895: 638. 38 Agaiby 2018: 200, 212. 39 Amélineau 1888–1895: 239–240, 388, 416; Lubomierski 2007: 198–201. 40 Lubomierski 2007: 184–204. 41 Weitere Quellen der Vita Sinuthii in Leipoldt 1903: 192–194; Simpson 1985: 32–34; van der Vliet 1992: 44–47; Brakke und Crislip 2015: 158. 42 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 394–395; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906– 1913: 1:41–42; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 643–644.

400

S. MOAWAD

ihren ungerechten und gewaltsamen Arbeitgebern mit schlechtem Wein bezahlt und dazu gezwungen werden, diesen schlechten Wein zu kaufen. Dafür nennt Lubomierski zwei Belege aus den Schriften Schenutes: „Akephales Werk A8“ und „Akephales Werk A26“.43 Von diesem Akt berichten aber auch andere Werke Schenutes, nämlich „Akephales Werk A40“ (MONB.DS 273),44 „Akephales Werk A37“ (MONB.TY 77)45 und „Akephales Werk A7“ (MONB.TY frg. 3r)46. 2. Ein Besuch Schenutes in Konstantinopel wird in der Episode der Vita Sinuthii „Schenutes Aufenthalt in Konstantinopel“ (E 36: Ar 34, Boh. 76–80, Sah MONB.FR 26)47 ausführlich beschrieben. Die Vita nennt auch den Anlass zu diesem Besuch, nämlich um Anklage gegen die ungerechte Behandlung der Armen durch die Reichen zu erheben. Von diesem Besuch berichtet Schenute selbst in seiner Schrift „Akephales Werk A6“, in der er dies ebenfalls als Grund für seinen Besuch angibt: „Habe ich sie nicht gesehen, als ich fort ging und ins Ausland verreiste, als ich zu den Kaisern bezüglich derer ging, die Unrecht tun?“48 Dass das ungenannte Ziel seiner Reise als Konstantinopel zu identifizieren ist, ist selbstverständlich. 3. Die Episode „Der schändliche Gefängniswärter“ (E 35: Ar 35; Sah MONB.WX frg. 2–3, MONB.FR 37–38)49 gehört zu den wenigen Episoden der Vita Sinuthii, die Parallelen in zwei verschiedenen sahidischen Versionen aufweist. An einer Stelle dieser Episode bieten die beiden sahidischen Texte, die hier kaum voneinander abweichen, einen längeren Text als im Arabischen. Was uns hier aber interessiert, ist ein in der arabischen Version fehlendes Zitat aus einem ungenannten Werk Schenutes, das ich hier nach den beiden sahidischen Versionen in deutscher Übersetzung wiedergebe: „Wahrlich hat unser prophetischer Vater in seinen Homilien gut gesprochen: In jeder Gruppe werden viele vor vielen beschämt, seien sie Männer, seien sie Frauen.“50 bzw. „Wahrhaftig hat unser heiliger Vater in seinen Homilien gut gesprochen: Viele werden vor jeder Klasse beschämt werden, seien sie Männer, seien sie Frauen.“51 In einem hagiographischen Text wie der Vita Sinuthii erwartet man kein wörtliches Zitat, sondern eine Wiedergabe, die eher sinngemäß ist. In der Schrift Schenutes „Akephales Werk A26“ gibt es eine Stelle, die vom Inhalt her zu diesem Zitat 43

Lubomierski 2007: 187–188 und Anm. 21–22. Ed. Cristea 2011: 16. 45 Ed. Amélineau 1907–1914: 2:132. 46 Ed. Crum 1905: 80b. 47 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 380; bohairischer Text in Leipoldt 1906–1913: 1:38; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 635. 48 Handschrift MONB.TY 18=AT-NB K 9291v:i.6–13 (unpubliziert). 49 Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 382–385; sahidischer Text in Amélineau 1888– 1895: 639–640, 244–247. 50 Handschrift MONB.WX frg. 3r, ed. Amélineau 1888–1895: 245. 51 Handschrift MONB.FR 37, ed. Amélineau 1888–1895: 639. 44

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII

401

passt und sehr wahrscheinlich dem Verfasser der Vita Sinuthii als Quelle diente: „An jenem Ort, an jenem Tag werden viele sündige Reiche vor vielen gerechten Reichen beschämt werden. Viele sündige [Beamte] werden vor vielen gläubigen Beamten beschämt werden. [Viele] sündige Könige werden vor vielen gerechten Königen beschämt werden. Viele sündige Soldaten werden vor vielen gerechten Soldaten [beschämt] werden. Viele sündige Priester werden vor vielen gerechten Priestern beschämt werden. Viele sündige Mönche werden vor vielen reinen Mönchen beschämt werden. Viele sündige Laien werden vor vielen frommen Laien beschämt werden. Viele sündige Arme werden vor vielen gerechten Armen beschämt werden. Viele sündige Jünglinge werden vor vielen rechtschaffenen Jünglingen beschämt werden. Viele Heiden, die in ihrer […] Gott und seinen Sohn Jesus verharren, werden vor vielen Heiden beschämt werden, die an den Herrn geglaubt haben und fromm geworden sind. Viele gottlose und sündige Juden, die in ihrem Unglauben und ihrer Lästerung gegenüber dem Herrn Jesus verharren, werden vor vielen tugendhaften Juden beschämt werden. Viele Christen, viele Häretiker, kurz gesagt, alle sündige Menschen, jeder einzelne nach seiner Art, werden an dem Tag, an dem der Herr Jesus die ganze Welt richten wird, vor allen gerechten Menschen beschämt werden, die die Gerechtigkeit geübt haben.“52

4. Die arabische Version der Vita Sinuthii enthält eine Episode (E 1/2),53 die in allen anderen Versionen fehlt. In dieser Episode geht es um Athanasius von Alexandrien, der nach Oberägypten geflohen war, bis er Aḫmīm (Panopolis) erreichte, wo er sich versteckte. Laut der Vita Sinuthii erscheint ihm dort der Erzengel Michael und zerstört den Tempel des Mithras. Danach verkündet Michael dem Erzbischof seine Rückkehr nach Alexandrien und die Geburt Schenutes. Von dieser Flucht berichtet auch eine arabische Vita des Athanasius (§§ 95–147), die allerdings nur fragmentarisch in koptischer Sprache erhalten ist.54 Laut dieser Vita floh Athanasius nach Aḫmīm, wo er sich bei einem Färber für drei Jahre aufhielt und seine Identität verheimlichte (§§ 96–109). Darüber hinaus berichtet dieselbe Vita von der Zerstörung des Tempels (§§ 110– 124), jedoch ohne Michaels Hilfe. Von der Rückkehr des Athanasius nach Alexandrien berichtet die Vita ebenfalls (§§ 125–147). Von einer Prophezeiung über die Geburt Schenutes ist aber keine Rede. Es ist jedoch offensichtlich, dass der anonyme Verfasser der arabischen Vita Sinuthii die in der Vita des Athanasius vorhandene Nachricht über seinen Aufenthalt in Aḫmīm, die sehr wahrscheinlich zu seiner Zeit weit verbreitet und glaubwürdig war, zugunsten Schenutes nutzte, um die angebliche Prophezeiung über die Geburt Schenutes

52

Behlmer 1996: 68–70 (koptischer Text), 236–237 (deutsche Übersetzung). Arabischer Text in Amélineau 1888–1895: 298–302. 54 Die arabische Version der Vita des Athanasius in Wadi 2018. Die koptische Version findet sich in Orlandi 1968 (eine online-Ausgabe unter http://www.cmcl.it/~cmcl/testi/encata/encata_5. pdf). 53

402

S. MOAWAD

in diese Szene einzuschieben. Somit darf diese Vita des Athanasius die Quelle dieser Episode (E 1/2) der Vita Sinuthii sein. Bibliographie Agaiby, Elizabeth 2018. The Arabic Life of Antony Attributed to Serapion of Thmuis. Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 14. Leiden/Boston. Amélineau, Émile 1888–1895. Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe, Ve, VIe et VIIe siècles. MMAF 4. Paris. Bartelink, G.J.M. 1994. Athanase d’Alexandrie: Vie d’Antoine. SourcChr 400. Paris. Behlmer, Heike 1996. Schenute von Atripe: De iudicio (Torino, Museo Egizio, Cat. 63000, Cod. IV). Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino, Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi, vol. 8. Turin. Brakke, David, und Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Colin, Gérard 1982. La version éthiopienne de la vie de Schenoudi. CSCO 444–445, Script. Aeth. 75–76. Leuven. Cristea, Hans-Joachim 2011. “Verdorbener Wein für die Armen. Edition von Paris BNF copte 1302 f. 109 + P.Vind. K 9066–9069.” JCoptS 13, 1–57. Crum, Walter Ewing 1904. “A Study in the History of Egyptian Monasticism.” JTS 5, 129–133. ——. 1905. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum. London. Evelyn-White, Hugh Gerard 1926–1933. The Monasteries of the Wâdi ’N Natrûn, 3 Bde. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 2, 7, 8. New York. Galtier, Émile 1905. “Contribution à l’étude de la littérature arabe-copte I. Fragment de la vie arabe de Schnoudi.” BIFAO 4, 105–112. Guidi, Ignazio 1889. “Le traduzione dal copto.” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen 3, 49–56. Halkin, Francisci 1932. Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae. Subsidia Hagiographica 19. Brüssel. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1933–1934. S. Pachomii vitae sahidice scriptae. CSCO 99–100, Script. Copt. 9–10 [= III.8.T]. Paris. Leipoldt, Johannes 1903. Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national ägyptischen Christentums. TUGACL 25.1. Leipzig. ——. 1906–1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. Unter Mitarbeit von W.E. Crum. 3 Bde. [Nr. 1, 3 und 4]. CSCO 41, 42, 73, Script. Copt. 1, 2, 5. Paris. ——. 1964. “Ein Kloster lindert Kriegsnot. Schenûtes Bericht über die Tätigkeit des Weißen Klosters bei Sohag während eines Einfalls der Kuschiten.” In: … und fragten nach Jesus. Beiträge aus Theologie, Kirche und Geschichte. Festschrift für Ernst Barnikol zum 70. Geburtstag, herausgegeben von U. Meckert et al., 52–56. Berlin. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii. Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. STAC 45. Tübingen. Lucchesi, Enzo 2007. “L’homélie cathédrale II de Sévère d’Antioche en copte.” AnBoll 125, 7–16. Martin, Annick 2007. “Les relations entre le monachisme égyptien et l’institution ecclésiastique au IVème siècle.” In: Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR VITA SINUTHII

403

Late-Antique Monasticism, herausgegeben von A. Camplani und G. Firolamo, 13–46. OLA 157. Leuven. Moawad, Samuel 2007. “Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alexandrinischen Patriarchat und dem koptischen Mönchtum im 4. Jahrhundert.” In: Stabilisierung und Profilierung der koptischen Kirche im 4. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zur X. Internationalen Halleschen Koptologentagung 2006, herausgegeben von J. Tubach und S. Vashalomidze, 129–145. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 44. Halle (Saale). Munier, Henri 1916. Manuscrits coptes (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos. 9201–9304). Kairo. Nau, François 1900. Une version syriaque inédite de la Vie de Schenoudi. Paris. Orlandi, Tito 1968. Testi Copti. 1. Encomio di Atanasio, 2. Vita di Atanasio. Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 21. Mailand. Shore, A.F. 1979. “Extracts of Besa’s Life of Shenoute in Sahidic.” JEA 65, 134–143. Simpson, Robert 1985. The Lives of Shenoute. Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford. Suciu, Alin 2013. “More Sahidic Fragments from the Life of Shenoute Attributed to Besa.” ZAC 17, 424–427. van der Vliet, Jacques 1992. “Chenouté et les démons.” In: Acts du IVe congrès copte: Louvain-la-Neuve, 5–10 septembre 1988, herausgegeben von M. Rassart-Debergh und J. Ries, 2:41–49. 2 Bde. PIOL 40–41. Louvain-la-Neuve. Wadi, Awad 2018. “Sīrat al-qiddīs Aṯanāsiyūs al-῾arabiyya al-mutarǧama ῾an alqibṭiyya.” Ṣadīq al-Kāhin [Kairo] 58.3, 40–48.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS TITO ORLANDI

One Coptic text of what are generally called the Acts (Ⲛϩⲩⲡⲟⲙⲛⲏⲙⲁ) of the Council of Ephesus is copied in one of the best preserved codicological units (codex) among those once belonging to the bibliological unit (library) of the Monastery of St. Shenoute in the mountain of Atripe, of which we have 51 folios from the original, in my opinion, ca. 100. Some related texts are found in much less preserved codicological units, listed below. On the other hand, the Acts themselves in their more authoritative versions, Greek and Latin, are rather problematic, not so much for their origin, but for their (non) official nature (discussed below); therefore, the confidence that we can have in reconstructing the facts, but especially the development of their different surviving collections, is dubious. And the history of the modern editions of those Acts (cf. Devreesse 1929) makes things even worse, just as the history of the studies on the general Coptic tradition of the council of Ephesus. Before declaring the main goals of the present study, it must be said that I assume that the reader is already familiar with the particular conditions of the codicological units coming (for us) from the bibliological unit known to the Copts as the library of the monastery of St. Shenoute at Atripe, and to the modern scholar as the library of the White Monastery.1 This explains the reason why the units have come to us in such fragmentary conditions; and also allows for the possibility that other fragments, besides those utilized here, will be identified in the future. The goals of the present study are: the clear exposition of the Coptic fragments until now recognized as containing texts relating to the council of Ephesus; to discuss the problems of their mutual relation, and of the relation with the Greek and Latin collections; some observations on the historical reliability of their narrations and documents, with special attention to the very interesting personalities of Victor and Shenoute and to the development of the Coptic tradition on their involvement in the council of Ephesus. 1

“This monastery, led during the 4th and 5th century by the authoritarian figure of the archimandrite Shenoute, possessed once a rich library with numerous Patristic works in Coptic. The thousands of fragments preserved today bear testimony to its bygone greatness. Unfortunately, after the library fell into decay, the surviving codices emerged from their cache as dismembered pieces which arrived in different locations, this situation seriously inhibiting the endeavor to reconstruct them.” Suciu 2012: 284–285.

406

T. ORLANDI

1. CODICOLOGICAL UNITS ON THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS: RECONSTRUCTION The reconstruction of the codicological units is very awkward because the sequence of the narrative sections and of the documents is different from one to the other, and from the Greek and Latin collections. When the original page numbers are not preserved, the reconstruction is only a matter of conjecture. And of course, it is always possible that new fragments will be identified in the future.2 Three units contain texts which are at least partly parallel: MONB.EP (the most extended testimony), MONB.FG, MONB.MN. MONB.EP3 PN.129.14.001–003 PN.129.14.004–027 PN.129.14.028–045 IB.16.02 RV.B109.cass29.163.1–2

= pp. = = = =

3–8 11–58 61–96 97–98 101–104

MONB.FG4 PN.129.14.046–051 RV.B109.cass29.164.1 PN.129.14.137 RV.B109.cass29.164.2–3 LR.120

= pp. = = = =

35–46 49–50 [53–54 or 55–56] 103–106 111–112

MONB.MN5 WK.09423 PN.078.14

= pp. 225–226 = 249–250

2 For the interpretation of the shelfmarks cf. CMCL or Paths. CMCL (Corpus dei manoscritti copti letterari, http://www.cmcl.it) and Paths (An Archaeological Atlas of Coptic Literature, http://paths.uniroma1.it) are two related sites where the Clavis Patrum Copticorum (cc….) and a list of Coptic manuscripts are found. For the works mentioned by Clavis number one should consult also the bibliography in CMCL. 3 For the content cf. the table below. Only the Paris fragments were published by Bouriant 1892. The publication by Maspero 1886: 93–94 is negligible, because he ignored the two Borgia fragments, IB and RV. The two commentaries of Kraatz (1904) and Schwartz (1928) are based on Bouriant’s edition. Likewise Bouriant added a parallel fragment from MONB.FG (pp. 35–46), ignoring other fragments of the same codicological unit; and the later studies did not go deep into the important differences between the two texts. 4 Lucchesi and Devos 1981. For the content cf. the table below. 5 Cf. Lucchesi 2005. For the content cf. the table below. In all evidence this unit contained one or more works before the Acts of Ephesus, which according to the parallels with MONB.FG began around p. 175.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

WK.09422 WK.00381 CF.165

407

= 277–278 = 297–300 = page number in lacune

Two codicological units seem to be only loosely connected with the council of Ephesus: MONB.CV and MONB.GY. MONB.CV6 PN.131.1.26 = p. 13-14: end of unidentified homily, then cc0320 Proclus On the Theotokos, which was part of the Acts of Ephesus (cf. MONB.MN p. 278), but in this unit it was simply an extract, like cc0101 in the following fragments.7 BL.OR06807.11–12 (cc0101 Cyril Epilysis) CC.9271 (cc0101 Cyril Epilysis) PN.129.14.142–143 (Agathonicus of Tarsus) BL.OR06954.04 (Agathonicus of Tarsus) MONB.GY PN.129.14.054–056 = pp. 3–8 CF.097 = 9–10 PN.129.14.057 = 11–12 PN.129.14.058 = 15–16 BL.OR03581B.49 (page number in lacune) It may be that also PN.129.14.059 = p. 33–34 and PN.129.14.060 = p. 35–36 were part of this unit;8 in any case their content concerns the council of Nicea. Content: (p. 3) end of a letter passed secretly to Cyril, reporting the heretical theories of Nestorius. He found that it proves the accusations against Nestorius. Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, sent through the deacon Alexander (p. 7). Nestorius does not receive Alexander. At last Nestorius reads the letter and writes a confutation. – Here is a sentence that should prove that the text belonged to the literary genre “homily”: ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲛ ⲉϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ ⲣⲱⲛ ⲉⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲕⲣⲱⲁⲧⲏⲥ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲛ (= we do not want to report these things now with our mouth at all, to protect the faithful listeners who are with us). – Cyril reads and cries. (p. 8) Third letter to 6 Particularly difficult to reconstruct, because the sheets listed below are surely recognized after the peculiarities of the layout; but all page numbers are lost, except p. 13–14. Therefore the reconstruction is based only on the content. 7 Cf. Orlandi 2016. It is evident that this unit contained documents extracted from canonical collections, but was not itself properly a canonical collection, therefore it will not enter in our discussion. 8 Cf. Louis 2005: 355.

408

T. ORLANDI

Nestorius. He writes an ⲁⲛⲧⲓⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲛ against C.; C. writes an excommunication, giving the reasons. Nestorius worse than Iudas. (p. 9) Errors of N.; N. a traitor. (p. 10) N. can still repent. Other exhortations. (p. 11) Complaint of C. (p. 12) N. reads the letter, Satanas enters in him. Theodosius writes to C. to come for his coronation. (lacune 1 folio; then p. 15) C. Felix and Theodosius at Constantinople. Letter to Victor, calls him. The bishops of Egypt (lacune) (p. 16) Victor and the bishops go to Alexandria (lacune) BL.OR03581B.49 excommunication of Nestorius at Ephesus, his exile and death. MONB.CV and MONB.GY, though containing texts relating to the council of Ephesus, cannot be classified as collections of its acts. The first contained the homily of Proclus on the Virgin9 and the Epilysis of Cyril (cc0101), together with one collection of Agathonicus;10 the second, as we have seen, a narration, probably a homily11 on Cyril and Victor. 2. PARALLELS IN THE COPTIC CODICOLOGICAL UNITS MONB.EP, MONB.FG, and MONB.MN contain parallel texts, according to the following table, which also lists the subjects treated: MONB.EP

MONB.FG

MONB.MN

1–2 lacuna p. 3–8

lacuna

lacuna

end of letter of Cyril to Victor Victor goes to Alexandria, then to Constantinople hupomnestikon of Cyril to Victor Victor and Theodosius

p. 9–10 lacuna p. 11–58 Cyril and Nestorius arrive at Ephesus p. 16 hupomnestikon of the council for Theodosius p. 19 Theodosius and Victor p. 23 Sacra for the synodus p. 25 anaphora of the synodus p. 31 kathairesis of Nestorius

9

Mansi p. 578 = Coll. Vat. Schwartz ACO n. 19. Cf. Orlandi 2016. 11 Cf. the quotation in Coptic above. 10

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

MONB.EP

MONB.FG

409

MONB.MN

p. 32 letter for the clergy of Constantinople. Letter of Cyril p. 36 disorder at Constantinople p. 38 Victor, Theodosius, and the excommunication of Nestorius p. 41 again disorder. Kathairesis. Sacra

p. 35–46 end of the Sacra p. 47 Acts of Paone 28 idem, different redaction p. 51 intervention of Peter > omits … primicerius and Juvenal. >… > until here < p. 54 interventions of Firmus, idem, but very different Memnon, Cyril p. 55 interventions of idem, very abridged Theodotus, Hermogenes, Peter of Parembole, etc. p. 56 paragnostikon. Intervention of Peter primicerius. Report on the mission to Nestorius. Proposal of Flavianus. Third mission to Nestorius. Paragnostikon

p. 59–60 lacuna

p. 61–98

p. 46 report of the third mission to Nestorius. Intervention of Juvenal

p. 47–48 lacuna

end of intervention of Juvenal Nicaean declaration. [beginning of the anathemata Letter of Cyril to Nestorius. to Nestorius] Letter of Cyril continues

p. 49–50 end of the anathemata to Nestorius. Beginning of the letter of Capreolus

Letter of Cyril continues

lacuna ——— PN.129.14.137 p. ca. 53–56: deposition of Nestorius

p. 66 declaration of approval of all those present p. 95 intervention of Palladius. Letter of Nestorius

lacuna

p. 225–226 end of the letter of Capreolus. Deposition of Nestorius

lacuna

410

T. ORLANDI

MONB.EP

MONB.FG

MONB.MN

lacuna p. 99–100 p. 101–104 end of the letter of Nestorius p. 102 declaration of the bishops

lacuna

p. 249–250 letter of Celestine, ACO V11

lacuna p. 277–278

p. 103–106 unidentified. Letter of Cyril ACO V24

lacuna

p. 111–112

idem end of letter of Cyril p. 278 homily of Proclus cc0320 [cf. MONB.CV p. 13-14]

lacuna

letter of Celestine ACO V106

lacuna

p. 297–300 three documents relating to the condemnation of John of Antioch and named supporters at the meeting of the pro-Cyrillian council on 17 July.

lacuna CF.165 numb. in lac. testimonia from Ambrosius and Gregory of Nazianzon [cf. Lucchesi 2005]

lacuna

From the comparison shown in the table above, it is evident that the three units contained three differently shaped collections of what we call the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, but we do not know what the title was in Coptic: no beginning is preserved. In spite of the parallel texts found in the three units, there were certainly remarkable differences. I point especially to: • the very different treatment of the same material in MONB.EP p. 47–58 and MONB.FG p. 35–46; • the different documents in MONB.EP p. 66–104 and MONB.FG p. 49–60; • the different documents in MONB.FG p. 111–112 and MONB.MN p. 278– 300. One would like to understand the relationship between the three Coptic redactions and the collections that are preserved in the Greek and Latin tradition, but this is almost impossible in the present state of the studies, because their

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

411

conditions (origin and construction) are themselves ambiguous. I need only to recall the eloquent remarks of Devreesse, Halleux, and Price.12 Devreesse shows very well how the history of the editions before Schwartz, with a growing disorder until Labbé and Mansi,13 prevented the appreciation of the sparse steps through which they have come to us in different collections; in fact only the edition of Schwartz (ACO) presents separately the individual collections.14 Halleux notes that “… l’élaboration d’un «procès-verbal (ὑπομνήματα)» conciliaire représentait, dans l’antiquité, un processus complexe … ce qui entraînait nécessairement une cascade d’inadéquations et d’adaptations mineures. Dans le cas de la première session éphésienne, cette déficience inévitable se double d’une circonstance aggravante: l’absence de toute vérification impartiale et de toute authentification officielle.”15 And very clearly Price states that “the first council of Ephesus … was attended by numerous bishops … but they never met together, and the council split up into two rival assemblies − the Cyrillian council … and council of the Easterners … Consequently, there was nothing for the government to publish, and the two rival camps made and circulated their own Acts, consisting of the minutes of the sessions of their part of the council, together with supportive documents. In the 6th century, editors produced large document collections for the council … some in Greek, some in Latin.”16 Therefore, the remarks that one often reads about this or that fragment belonging to the Coptic version of the Acts of Ephesus have no real meaning. In the patriarchal archives surely many documents pertaining to Ephesus were deposited; but we cannot know whether Cyril produced an official Alexandrian text of Acts of the council, similar to the collections in Greek and Latin as we read them in the edition of Schwartz. On the other hand it is likely that a number of unofficial Acts were produced, based on the documents kept in the Patriarchate, as we find, e.g., in the composition of the History of the Church written, as I am convinced, under the supervision of Timotheus (Aelurus, patriarch 457–477), from which the Coptic text called Histories of the Church (cc0200) was produced in Coptic.17 It is reasonable to suppose that at the origin of the extant Coptic fragmentary works (MONB.EP, MONB.FG, MONB.MN) were one or more Greek collections, all of them having originated in the chancery of Cyril at Alexandria, and different from each of the Greek and Latin collections that are now at our disposal. 12 13 14 15 16 17

Devreesse 1929, Halleux 1993, Price 2016. Devreesse 1929: 225. Devreesse 1929: 228. Halleux 1993: 50. Price 2016: 11. Cf. Orlandi 2007.

412

T. ORLANDI

ON

3. THE COPTIC TRADITION VICTOR AND SHENOUTE AT EPHESUS

We pass now to the time after the council of Chalcedon, i.e. the second half of the 5th century. It is to this period, not only of the Coptic ecclesiastical vicissitudes, but especially of the Coptic literature, that we should direct our attention in order to understand the circumstances which led to the composition of the surviving Coptic Ephesian texts. The struggle of the two ecclesiastical parties competing for power resulted in the production of texts apt to prove their doctrinal and canonical orthodoxy. The anti-Chalcedonians were particularly keen on the literary genre of the plerophoriae, collections of anecdotes (also circulating individually) of biographical and hagiographical character. Besides the polemical bias characterizing the literary production, we add that in the Egyptian anti-Chalcedonian milieu bilingualism was the rule, preventing us from establishing whether a given text was written originally in Greek or Coptic; the Greek versions were immediately translated, just as, e.g., the patriarchal Festal Letters were translated in the Alexandrian chancery for distribution in the bishoprics of the Chora. Also we add that in this period the habit of false attributions becomes common, possibly after the example of the hagiographical production, which assumed a distinctively Coptic character, but pretended to diffuse texts written by authors contemporaneous to the martyrs, be they Decian, or Diocletianean, or Julianean, or later from the Antiochian see of the Byzantine empire (cycle of Basilides).18 It is by now well established that the official hierarchy of the Pachomians remained faithful to the Chalcedonian party of the Alexandrian bishopric, imposed by the emperor, while the monastery of Shenoute became the main reference point of the monks who were against the Chalcedonian conclusions. These monks constituted the backbone of the Egyptian anti-Chalcedonian Church, which we may call Coptic, because much of its culture was linguistically Coptic, after the example of the linguistic choice of Shenoute, who produced homilies and letters only in Coptic (the case of the homily cc0367 is debatable), and was – we add – for this reason totally ignored by the Byzantine cultural establishment. From this point of view we note that not one Coptic text from the period of the plerophories (5th–6th century; but for that matter also later) was produced by a pro-Chalcedonian author. For what concerns the tradition pertaining to the archimandrites Victor and Shenoute and their participation in the council of Ephesus, the texts to be taken into consideration are: (1) The version of the Acts of Ephesus (cc0004) in MONB.EP. It is comparable to the plerophoric texts which illustrate the relationship between the 18

Cf. Orlandi 1991.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

413

Patriarchate and monks, especially of the Pachomian cluster, from the point of view of the monastic organization. I refer to the Historia Horsiesi (cc0203),19 where the archimandrite is summoned to Alexandria in order to help Theophilus; or the erotapokriseis of Cyril and Anthimus (cc0106);20 or the Vita Aphou (cc0407),21 where a monk goes to Alexandria and corrects a dogmatic mistake of Theophilus. As we have seen,22 the text of this version of the Acts of Ephesus speaks diffusely and introduces important documents (be they authentic or not) of the presence of Victor at the council, with no mention of Shenoute. This points to a Pachomian (Tabennesian) origin also of cc0004. (2) The Encomium of Macarius (cc0134). It is a very complicated text, because, as it seems, it grew in many stages before being shaped in the form of a homily (enkomion, attributed to Dioscorus himself!) in the last period of the Coptic literature, which I call “the synaxarial systematization.” Most of the episodes are dedicated to the council of Chalcedon, but other narrations have been brought in, concerning the aftermath of Chalcedon, and also the council of Ephesus. I shall try to give an idea of which separate episodes were put together, and of their relationship in the mind of the redactors. I shall not respect the actual sequence of the text, in order to better distinguish the different origins of the episodes: (a) summons of Macarius (monk and bishop of Tkoou) to Alexandria, the journey to Constantinople [here a miracle of Shenoute acting agains the demon Gothos], [interruption with the episodes b, c, e, f], the events in Constantinople, the return of Macarius in Egypt when the council is held at Chalcedon. This part, together with “d,” possibly constituted the original text of an enkomion of Macarius produced in the milieu of the monastery of Shenoute. Mutatis mutandis the content of this section seems inspired by the similar narratives in MONB.GY concerning Cyril and Victor. In cc0134 Shenoute (with Besa!) has an important part: cf. the miracle of the temple of the god Gothos, to be compared with the episode of Gesius (Vita attributed to Besa cc0461, and Shenoute Logoi);23 the message to Dioscorus and Macarius; and the death of Nestorius (to be compared with the episode in cc0200 Histories of the Church, interview of Nestorius and Shenoute before the death of Nestorius). Later, when the work was attributed to Dioscorus, the parts b, c and e were added. 19 20 21 22 23

Cf. below. Cf. Ehrhard in Crum 1915: 152. Cf. below. Cf. table above. Cf. Emmel 2002, 2008.

414

T. ORLANDI

(b) Disorders at Jerusalem when Juvenal comes back from Chalcedon. In the circumstance the presbyter Silas recalls how Celestine of Rome and Shenoute wanted to excommunicate Juvenal at Ephesus, but Cyril prevented this. (c) The visit of the monk Papnute at Gangra, where Dioscorus is exiled. First version of the death of Macarius, where again Shenoute is mentioned. (d) The martyrdom of Macarius (second version), told by the Pachomian archimandrite Papnoute. (e) The story of Longinus of the Ennaton: it is found in another Coptic texts (cc0418 = Vita Longini Archimandritae; also in Ethiopic), but here it is placed in Licia (where in fact Longinus lived before going to the Ennaton). Andragathes is introduced as decurion (cf. episode f). (f) The strange story of Andragathes called also Nestorius, strator. Victor at Constantinople with Cyril, but no narration on him: he is mentioned twice here, and nowhere else in the enkomion. We note the insistence on the role of Shenoute, and also of Besa; the bad presentation of the Egyptian bishops, all traitors of Dioscorus, called to Constantinople, and signatories of the tomos of Leon; and the insistence of the question of the languages: Macarius speaks only Egyptian (i.e. Coptic), and needs a translator in his dialogues with Dioscorus and in other circumstances. The complicated and often contradictory structure of this work, derived from its tormented composition, is still to be studied carefully in all its aspects − by the way, the two principal manuscripts give two slightly different versions. In my opinion the minor episodes b, c, e, f, themselves originally parts of other works, were inserted in an originally independent work (enkomion) praising the bishop-monk Macarius, one of the friends of Shenoute, as it seems. The first step of this enlargement was at the beginning the introduction of the narration of the disorders in Jerusalem when Juvenal came back from Chalcedon (b); the story of Longinus (e) apparently followed, in the same text, and then the very strange story of Nestorius-Andragathes (f). The tortured history of the composition does not directly concerns us here, if not for the fact that, as we have seen, Shenoute is a significant figure in most of the episodes. I think that the Shenoutean community, in opposition to the Pachomian one, is behind the composition of this work. (3) The Vita Dioscori attributed to Theopistus (cc0400)24 begins with the events leading to the council of Chalcedon. Then Dioscorus is summoned to Constantinople where he takes Macarius of Tkoou. After some dialogues with Marcianus and the bishops present, the emperor sends an embassy to John of Lykopolis (who historically was already dead). The council is transferred to Chalcedon, and after an intervention of Pulcheria, Dioscorus is exiled. Strange 24

Ed. Nau 1903 (Syriac), Moawad 2011 (Arabic). Cf. Luisier 2009: 259–264.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

415

episode of Pamprepius; Dioscorus at Gangra; visit of Papnoute of Tabennesi; death of Dioscorus. This is again a kind of patchwork from episodes (plerophoriai) already circulating in independent works, and it was also probably subjected to alterations in the course of its transmission. This began probably in Greek (no manuscript extant), had also a Coptic stage, attested only in sparse fragments,25 and a Syriac stage, extant in two complete manuscripts. The redactor of the model of the Syriac and Arabic translations composed a life on the example of those circulating in his time, e.g., as Life of Peter the Iberian or the several Lives of Severus of Antioch or the Lives of the Oriental Saints of John of Ephesus, and it is only in his “introduction” that Victor and Shenoute are mentioned; Shenoute is mentioned also in the final episode of the visit of Papnoute at Gangra, but in any case he has no real part in the narration. (4) The homily on the church of Pbow (cc0401)26 is also composed of various plerophorical episodes, and only late it assumed the form of a homily. We have an Arabic version, and one Coptic fragment which comes from a corresponding work; given the “fluidity” of the text, it is not correct to affirm that it was part of “the” homily attributed in Arabic to Timotheus. I give an idea of the content: (a) Theodosius grants the construction of a church at Pbow to Victor. Introduction. Praise of Pachomius. History of Victor of Tabennese, Cyril of Alexandria, and Shenoute of Atripe at the Council of Ephesus. A Pachomian nun reveals to Victor that he is the son of the emperor Theodosius. Victor visits Shenoute and they travel together with Cyril. – This part is obviously an enlargement of the first part of MONB.EP. – Theodosius recognizes Victor, pays him much honor at Constantinople, and grants him the subsidy to build a church for the monastery. Victor returns to his monastery. (b) Construction of the church. Theodosius dies. Marcianus is elected. After Chalcedon Dioscorus is exiled. – Here the Coptic fragment: Victor is dead. His successor Papnute visits Dioscorus at Gangra. – Victor dies. Martyrius succeeds Victor (read Papnute). Leo succeeds Marcianus. Timotheus succeeds Dioscorus. Martyrius achieves the construction of the church, and goes to Alexandria to notify Timotheus, then to Constantinople, asking the emperor to assemble the patriarches for the consecration. Leo organizes the consecration. Timotheus, the patriarches, and the bishops from all the world visit Pbow. Details on the ceremonies etc. Timotheus also consecrates a church dedicated to Michael, built with material left from the construction of the main church.

25 26

Crum 1903, Winstedt 1906–1907. van Lantschoot 1934.

416

T. ORLANDI

(c) The consecration. Jesus appears and himself consecrates the church. The church seems dedicated to Mary (the 11th of Hathor was the commemoration day of her birth), but this is not stated in the homily. Conclusion. The common athmosphere with the vita Dioscori is easily recognizable. Here also Shenoute is added at the beginning but has no significant part in the narration. (5) The Life of Shenoute (cc0461, attributed to Besa only in certain versions)27 is another example of “fluid text,” well characterized in the detailed and documented enquiry of Nina Lubomierski; and it will suffice to quote her general assessment of the text in its various redactions (Sahidic, Bohairic, Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic, each with remarkable differences from the others): “Die Texte [note the plural] der sog. Vita Sinuthii sind demnach als Überreste einer breiten mündlichen und schriftlichen Überlieferungstradition über Schenutes Leben zu verstehen.” The episodes (according to Lubomierski’s list) which may be of interest to us are: (a) ep. 5 (Boairic 17–21) The famous episode of the cloud transporting Shenoute from Ephesus. Beside Cyril, Victor also is mentioned, without any special role. (b) ep. 34 (Boairic 74–75) Martyrius of Pbow visits Shenoute on the way to Constantinople. It is just an occasion to illustrate the gift of prophecy of Shenoute. (c) ep. 45 (Boairic 93) Another visit of Martyrius to the monastery of Shenoute. (6) The homily cc0097 de hora mortis attributed to Cyril, as we have it, is written much later (period of the cycles), but was composed using episodes originated in the same period (6th century) of those in the texts listed above. After the introduction, Cyril speaks of his sojourn in Constantinople, before the council of Ephesus, with Shenoute and Victor. In this text both have part in the narration, including the cloud taking Shenoute to Egypt, but the main character is a certain eunuch, Sisinnios. In the second part of the homily is included the struggle between Theophilus and John Chrysostom, and their invented reconciliation. * *

27

Cf. Lubomierski 2007: 205.

*

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

417

The present state of the studies does not permit us to establish which kind of relationship we may recognize between the two or three versions of the Coptic collections contained in MONB.EP, MONB.FG, MONB.MN, and the more or less official Greek and Latin collections in Schwartz’s ACO. That both Victor, the superior of Tabennese, therefore of the Pachomian organization, and Shenoute, the superior of the monastic organization of Atripe, were present in Constantinople and Ephesus together with Cyril during the events of 431 should be accepted as a historical fact. For Shenoute we have at least three testimonies in his homilies: (1) The famous cc0365 inc. “I have been reading the holy Gospels”, in which Shenoute says: “… in this year, after we went to Ephesus…”28 (2) The homily cc0359 (Logoi 4.9, inc. “Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice”), in which Shenoute, in a very remarkable passage where he illustrates his refusal to become bishop, says: “… as we truly learned when we went to the great assembly of the holy ecumenical synhodos and the revered archbishop testified to the other archbishops … saying these and other things: When I summoned him for this reason [i.e. to be nominated bishop!], he did not come; but when I wrote to him that he come with us to the synhodos, without any hesitation he hurried [? the coptic expression is not clear to me, but the context is evident] to this city, preceding the other bishops, and arrived before we had taken any decision.”29 (3) The homily cc0629 inc. “Those Who Work Evil” in which Shenoute says: “… as we saw with our eyes in the comitaton in Ephesus that the sanctuaries of the martyrs where I myself and the brothers went…”30 The autobiographical passages of Shenoute cannot be a lie or a forgery; the part of MONB.EP mentioning the role of Victor is certainly based on reality, although adjusted with hagiographical inventions. In order to understand the composition and development of the narrations (occasionally legends) concerning Victor and Shenoute at Ephesus, we should bear in mind: (a) the strict relation between Ephesus and Chalcedon – one is the direct consequence of the other, I would say, as the second world war was the consequence of the first – in the mind of the contemporaries; (b) the irreparable division that Chalcedon provoked inside the Egyptian monastic milieu, ultimately causing the

28

Ed. Leipoldt 1908: 219 n. 47. For this work see Emmel 2004: 2:651–652. Ed. Leipoldt 1908: 35. For this work see Emmel 2004: 2:625. 30 Ed. Amélineau 1907: 1:215 with my corrections because the text is evidently corrupted. Read: “ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲣⲧⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲛ ⲛⲉⲛⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲙ ⲡⲕⲟⲙⲓⲧⲁⲧⲟⲛ [[ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲣⲧⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲛ ⲛⲉⲛⲃⲁⲗ]] ϩⲛ ⲉⲫⲉⲥⲟⲥ [[ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲣⲧⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲛ ⲛⲉⲛⲃⲁⲗ]] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱⲱⲧ …” The sentences between brackets are evidently a repetition due to an accident in the copy. 29

418

T. ORLANDI

disappearance of the Pachomian organization, which had accepted the tomos of Leon.31 In our opinion the circumstances in which we can place the origin of the amplification and exaltation of the deeds of Victor and Shenoute at Ephesus are the same in which the plerophoric compositions were conceived and used as polemical instruments – that is, in the fifty years following the council of Chalcedon, i.e. the last half of the 5th century. As it seems, those compositions circulated as individual pieces, often without the name of an author, because the real authors were considered to be the heroes of the episodes, who uttered significant sentences or were actors in miraculous deeds. In some cases an author, assembling a number of pieces, would produce a work, which assumed a more traditional or conventional form, like a bios or homily; but especially later (6th century) works of this kind were composed and attributed to important persons of the past. The texts placing Victor and Shenoute together at Ephesus (and also at Constantinople, but this is irrelevant here) are rather concerned with the situation after Chalcedon, which in turn is the result of an evolution, both historical and literary, beginning just after the council of Ephesus. This evolution has much to do with the importance of the monastic element in the life and organization of the Church in Egypt (and elsewhere). We do not have hints that the monks played any role in the Council of Nicaea. On the contrary, during the following decades monastic groups, organized or not, acquired great importance also in the dogmatic controversies, and I only refer, as the best example, to the struggle between Theophilus, the Tall Brothers, and John Chrysostom in the occasion of the Origenistic controversy around 399–400. It is especially interesting, in a Coptological enquiry, to draw the attention on two typically Egyptian documents, the so-called Historia Horsiesi (cc0203) and the Vita Aphou (cc0407). In the Historia Horsiesi there is a representation of the relationship between Theophilus and the superior of the Pachomian koinonia surely conceived by the Pachomians as propaganda for their position in the Church. These (and other) words of Theophilus in the text are revealing: “Theophilus said: I wanted to come to you many times, but the care of the episopate prevented it. Now God has led you to me: if I had come, only I should have been blessed, while our Lord led you here that you bless the whole city.” And also the general attitude of the narration represents Horsiesi as spiritually superior to Theophilus. The Vita Aphou contains a remarkable interview between Theophilus and Aphou, in which the monk persuades the archbishop of his error in the Origenist/anthropomorphite dispute. And these are the final words of Theophilus: 31

Cf. below.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

419

“When the blessed archbishop heard the words [of Aphou], he raised, prostrated himself, and said: Really it is a fact that the doctrine comes from those who are alone and spend their life in silence. The lucubrations of our intelligence are harmful and we may be wrong out of ignorance.” The person of Victor as he appears in the first part (and possibly of course in the now lost part) of MONB.EP (= cc0004) and in MONB.CV is comparable with Horsiesi and Aphou, as a production of the Pachomian propaganda on the role of the organization in the council of Ephesus. He was inserted by the redactor in a compilation of narrations and documents of the council, inspired by the official compilation(s) which one assumes circulated under the authority of Cyril. Shenoute is not mentioned, because the Atripe community was not implied in that propaganda. We may add that our Victor is also mentioned, in a completely different role, when he was younger, in an important but very mysterious Pachomian text, the Apocalypsis of Carur (cc0092). All this happened in the period preceding the council of Chalcedon, which provoked the well known division in Christianity, much more decisive than the previous ones, and the Egyptian Church was particularly affected. For some decades there existed two or more parties, supporting or opposing the imperialChalcedonian decrees, and they took part very vividly in the struggle. For our enquiry two points are especially relevant: (a) the establishment of the Pachomian congregation remained faithful to the archbishop of Alexandria nominated by the imperial court,32 but many monks embraced the other party and were compelled to go away, often founding their own congregations. This is particularly apparent in the series of Coptic texts discussed by Campagnano and recently by Goehring.33 (b) The Atripe Shenoutean congregation not only stood for the anti-Chalcedonians, but as it seems became the reference point of that party. In this context new propagandist literary works (plerophoriai) were necessary, as we have already mentioned above; what is significant here is that they were composed on the example of the older ones (e.g. Historia Horsiesi, Vita Aphou, also the Lives of Pachomius) and of course the old heroes, who in any case belonged to the heritage of both parties, were not forgotten. It is probable that the fame of Victor was more spread in Egypt than that of Shenoute; but Shenoute’s participation at Ephesus was certainly celebrated in his congregation. Another peculiarity of this period is that no Egyptian plerophoric work of the Chalcedonian party, if ever one has existed, has been preserved; and the anti-Chalcedonian ones have come to us in late Coptic redactions, which had different purposes, a result of a complicated tradition that is very difficult to reconstruct. 32 33

Cf. Ladeuze 1898: 203–204, van Cauwenbergh 1914: 153–154, Goehring 2008: 51–53. Campagnano 1978, Goehring 2005.

420

T. ORLANDI

For this reason we find the memory of Victor and Shenoute at Ephesus in works dedicated to, or presupposing, the Council of Chalcedon and its consequences until very late in time, and of course acquiring the customary enlargements of hagiographical style – the most characteristic being the episode of Shenoute brought inside a cloud from Constantinople to his monastery. It is awkward to establish chronological and compositional priorities between the episodes, real or forged, utilized in the literary works listed above. It is possible however to delineate the character of a general development, according to the historical and literary events of the period; and this is what we are trying to do as a conclusion of this study. From the historical point of view, we start in the moment of triumph of the Alexandrian patriarchate against Nestorius and the bishops allied with him. The Egyptian monks, especially the Pachomians, were engaged with the patriarchate, and wanted to exploit their role through propaganda in order to gain importance in the Church. Victor, who had accompanied Cyril to Ephesus, became the pivotal figure in this effort, while Shenoute, who also was present, could not aspire to a similar consideration, given the respective weight of their congregations vis-a-vis the patriarchate. Chalcedon brought a great change. Not only was Dioscorus isolated in the official, imperial Church, but in Alexandria for some decades (until Theodosius) the two parties alternated themselves on the throne. Two persons were chosen to replace the role of Victor, but one of them, the Pachomian Papnoute, could only claim to have assisted Dioscorus in exile, and the other, the bishop Macarius of Tkoou (Antaeopolis, between Asiut and Achmim), was not directly connected with the Pachomians. In any case his role at Chalcedon was constructed on the example of Victor. In the meantime, the Pachomian congregation lost the favour of the Egyptian Christian people who were becoming “the Copts,” and the congregation of the recently dead Shenoute began to assume for them the leading position. From the literary point of view, we rather start when, after Chalcedon, the party refusing to comply with the imperial commands, led by the Atripe monastery, needed some kind of propaganda information comparable to the one produced by the Pachomians after Ephesus. We can have an idea of the texts, which were composed for that scope, from the various single episodes that we find in the much later texts listed above. These plerophories were of course subject to a number of manipulations in their literary life, before being fixed (for us) in the now available manuscripts. This is why, though we can suppose with some reliability the origin and development of them, it is an idle exercise trying to establish on their basis some precise event like the date of the death of Shenoute or the function of Macarius of Tkoou in the entourage of Dioscorus, or the travel of Papnute of Tabennesi to Gangra.

SHENOUTE AND VICTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

421

This is not to say that our sources are without any value. They simply should be taken for what they are, the remnants of a long literary development, and as such conditioned testimonies of tortured historical vicissitudes. We may feel uncomfortable for this situation, but after all we also must assume that often the description of the mental attitudes of the actors and the general course of the events may be as important as the precise facts of their life, and the Coptic sources are valuable for this side of the historical and literary research. Bibliography Abbreviations ACO cc CMCL Paths

Acta Conciliorum Oecomenicorum … edidit E. Schwartz, … Concilium Universale Ephesenum, I 1, Berlin 1927. Coptic text listed with documents information in Clavis Coptica, http:// www.cmcl.it. Corpus dei manoscritti copti letterari, http://www.cmcl.it. An Archaeological Atlas of Coptic Literature, https://atlas.paths-erc.eu/

Amélineau, Émile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi. 2 vols. Paris. Bouriant, Urbain 1892. Actes du Concile d’Ephèse. Texte copte publié et traduit. MMAF 8. Paris. Campagnano, Antonella 1978. “Monaci egiziani fra V e VI secolo.” Vetera Christianorum 15, 223–246. Crum, W.E. 1903. “Coptic Texts Relating to Dioscorus of Alexandria.” PSBA 25, 267–276. ——. 1915. Der Papyruscodex Saec. VI-VII der Phillipps-Bibliothek in Cheltenham. Schriften der Wiss. Gesellsch. in Straßburg 18. Strasbourg. Devreesse, Robert 1929. “Les actes du concile d’Éphèse.” Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques 18, 223–242. Emmel, Stephen 2002. “From the Other Side of the Nile: Shenoute and Panopolis.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis, edited by A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, J. van der Vliet, 95–114. Leiden/Boston/Köln. ——. 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600, Subsidia 111–112. Leuven. ——. 2008. “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt.” In: From Temple to Church, edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, U. Gotter, 161–202. Leiden/Boston. Goehring, James 2006. “2005 NPAPS Presidential Address: Remembering Abraham of Farshut: History, Historiography, and the Fate of the Pachomian Tradition.” JECS 14, 1–26. ——. 2008. “Pachomius and the White Monastery.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, edited by G. Gabra, H.N. Takla, 47–57. Cairo/New York. Halleux, André de 1993. “La première session du Concile d’Ephèse.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 69, 425–458. Kraatz, Wilhelm 1904. Koptische Akten zum Ephesinischen Konzil vom Jahre 431. TUGACL 26.2. Leipzig.

422

T. ORLANDI

Ladeuze, Paulin 1898. Étude sur le cénobitisme pakhomien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve. Leuven. Leipoldt, Johannes 1908. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, III. With the assistance of W.E. Crum. CSCO 42. Paris. Louis, Catherine 2005. Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du Caire, Dissertation École pratique des Hautes Études, 24/11/2005, 2 vols. Lubomierski, Nina 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii. STAC 45. Tübingen. Lucchesi, Enzo 2005. “Un fragment de codex copte relatif aux Actes du Concile d’Éphèse: Citation du De Fide d’Ambroise de Milan et de la Lettre 101 de Grégoire de Nazianze.” Le Muséon 118, 43–50. Lucchesi, Enzo, and Devos, Paul 1981. “Un corpus basilien en copte (+ appendices I-IV).” AnBoll 99, 75–94. Luisier, Philippe 2009. “Chénouté, Victor, Jean de Lycopolis et Nestorius. Quand l’archimandrite d’Atripé en Haute-Égypte est-il mort?” Orientalia 78, 258–281. Maspero, Gaston 1886. “Fragments coptes.” Recueil de Travaux 7, 46–48, 142–144. Moawad, Samuel 2011. “Die arabische Version der Vita Dioscori.” Le Muséon 124, 149–180. Nau, F.N. 1903. “Histoire de Dioscore patriarche d’Alexandrie écrite par son disciple Théopiste.” Journal Asiatique 10/1, 5–108, 241–310. Orlandi, Tito 1991. “Hagiography.” In: CoptEnc 5, 1181–1197. ——. 2007. “The Coptic Ecclesiastical History: A Survey.” In: The World of Early Egyptian Christianity. Essays in Honor of David W. Johnson, edited by J.E. Goehring and J.A. Timbie, 3–24. Washington, DC. ——. 2016. Coptic Texts Relating to the Church Canons. An Overview. Rome. Price, Richard 2016. “The Coptic Acts of Ephesus.” In: Studies in Coptic Culture, edited by M.F. Ayad, 11–18. Cairo/New York. Schwartz, Eduard 1928. Cyrill und der Monch Viktor. Sitzungsber. Akad. Wien 208.4. Vienna/Leipzig. Suciu, Alin 2012. “A Coptic Fragment from John Chrysostom, quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso (CPG 4400; BHG 488d).” AnBoll 130, 283–293. van Cauwenbergh, Paul 1914. Étude sur les moines d’Égypte depuis le Concile de Chalcédoine (451) jusqu’à l’invasion arabe (640). Paris. van Lantschoot, Arnold 1934. “Allocution de Timothée d’Alexandrie prononcée à l’occasion de la dédicace de l’église de Pachôme à Pboou.” Le Muséon 47, 13–56. Winstedt, Eric O. 1906–1907. “Some Munich Coptic Fragments.” PSBA 28, 137–142, 229–237; 29, 315–322.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET, AMONG OTHER COPTIC TECHNICAL WRITINGS FROM THE WHITE MONASTERY TONIO SEBASTIAN RICHTER

1. The manuscript BnF Copte 132.5 f. 9, its acquisition and provenance BnF Copte 132.5 f. 9 is a leaf of rag paper, measuring 16.1 cm (max.) in height by 11.5 cm (max.) in width (pl. 1–2).1 It is written on both pages in black ink. Although its margins are abraded, there is almost no loss or damage of letters. The folium bears a registration note in black ink on the left margin of its recto side: “Don 2581.” It indicates that BnF 132.5 f. 9 entered the Bibliothèque nationale de France as part of a donation which, inter alia, contained two leaves (132.5 ff. 6 and 7+8) of the paper codex of the Coptic Alexander romance and the fragment 132.5 f. 1 of a parchment leaf with medical recipes (on which see below, 8.).2 This medical fragment,3 another tiny, unidentified parchment fragment (132.5 f. 2), and altogether five leaves of the Alexander romance (132.5 ff. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7+8)4 were assembled together with the astrological leaf (132.5 f. 9) 1 The metadata of BnF 132.5 f. 9 were kindly communicated to me by Vanessa Desclaux, Chargée de la collection des Manuscrits Égypte antique et Proche-Orient chrétien, Bibliothèque nationale de France. I am profoundly grateful to her for answering all my questions relating to the manuscript. 2 The number refers to the handwritten inventory “Inventaire – registre des entrées du département des Manuscrits [7]: dons: manuscrits et imprimés documentaires, 1848-1895, n° 1 à 3306.” See here on f. 85r where it says: “n° 2581, 17 septembre 1888, la mission archéologique française du Caire, Suppl. arabe 2714 à 2784, Copte 136-144 ; Hébreux 1353-1355 & Suppl. arabe 2788, quatre-vingt-neuf articles, savoir : 79 mss. Arabes, dont 49 ne sont pas reliés, 5 mss coptes, dont 1 seul est relié, 1 rouleau de cuir en hébreu (pentateuque), 2 petites enveloppes cylindriques, contenant des textes hébreux, 2 doubles verres contenant des textes coptes (4 fragments sur papier & parchemin).” It is quite likely that the latter four paned Coptic parchment and paper fragments are identical with the medical parchment fragment 132.5 f. 1, the two leaves of the paper codex containing the Coptic Alexander romance belonging to Don 2581 (132.5 foll. 6 and 7+8), and our leaf 132.5 f. 9. The available inventory information was kindly provided and explained to me by Vanessa Desclaux. 3 Ed. by Bouriant 1887c; its reedition by Anne Grons (Marburg) is under way. 4 A year before 132.5 ff. 6 and 7+8 of “Don 2581” entered the Bibliothèque and were published by Bouriant 1887b, three folia of the same codex – 132.5 foll. 3, 4 and 5 – had already arrived as part of the large purchase R.C. 7892 from the White Monastery (= handwritten “Inventaire - registre des entrées du département des Manuscrits [3; formerly “Registre C” = “R.C.”]: acquisitions: manuscrits et imprimés documentaires, 1848-1893, n° 4668 à 8877”, see here on f. 95v: “n° 7892, 15 février 1887, M. G. Maspero, 24 avenue de l’Observatoire, Huit-cent vingthuit feuillets de manuscrits coptes thébains dont trois font partie d’une version du Roman d’Alexandre & les autres appartiennent à des manuscrits de l’Ancien & du Nouveau Testament,

424

T.S. RICHTER

in the modern binding of BnF 132.5.5 The reported provenance of Don 2581 and R.C. 7892 is the White Monastery, and this is essentially confirmed by the bible manuscripts which form part of R.C. 7892. This finding place is specifically reported about BnF 132.5 f. 9 by Pierre Bouriant who quotes a note left by his father Urbain Bouriant on the back side of a photograph of the manuscript, assertaining that it was “trouvé au couvent d’Amba Schnoudi, près de Sohag.”6 If 132.5 f. 9 was purchased, and possibly found together, with paper leaves of the Alexander romance, one may wonder if the two manuscripts have something more in common. In fact the leaves of both are roughly equal in size.7 However the deterioration pattern of the leaves of the Alexander romance is quite different from that of 132.5 f. 9, and their handwriting, though typologically a sloping majuscule as well, is profoundly distinct from that of 132.5 f. 9. It can therefore be excluded that 132.5 f. 9 was at some point, for some reason, part of the paper codex containing the Alexander romance. 2. Editio princeps and previous research It was Urbain’s son Pierre Bouriant who provided the first edition of BnF 132.5 f. 9.8 His reading was based on the aforesaid photograph from his father’s bequested papers, not on the original manuscript. Pierre Bouriant gave a paraphrase, rather than translation, of the texts and highlighted, as a surprising discovery (p. 123), “que les moines coptes eurent aussi la préoccupation de s’intruire de ce qu’ils ne savaient qu’imparfaitement, voire de sciences arides et n’ayant pas une destination essentiellement pratique.” Still before the 4220 fr.”) and were published by Bouriant 1887a. A fragment of a sixth leaf of the Paris share of the Alexander romance (= von Lemm’s fragment 8) which was edited by Bouriant 1887b together with foll. 6 and 7+8 is not (and was not at von Lemm’s time) part of 132.5. The six leaves resp. leaf fragments from the Bibliothèque nationale, two leaves from Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Or. oct. 409.29-30, and one further leaf from London, British Library Or. 3367(2) of the same codex (= paths.manuscripts.378 = path.works.468) were published by von Lemm 1903; on the Coptic Alexander romance see also Sidarus 2013, Pietruschka 2015: 87, and Buzi 2018: 37–42. 5 According to the front page of BnF 132.5 these nine folia were compiled as “Fragments divers: Roman d’Alexandre, Médecine, Astronomie” on 17 November 1894; see also Chabot 1906: 366 (“1325. – fragmenta varii argumenti: Historia fabulosa Alexandri, Medicina, Astronomia, etc. (ff. 9)),” and Lucchesi 1981: 90. 6 Bouriant 1904: 117. 7 Von Lemm 1903: p. v states: “[D]ie Größe der am vollständigsten erhaltenen Blätter beträgt 16 × 11 cm.” Crum (P.Lond.Copt. I 319) gives the dimensions of Or. 3367(2) as “7 × 47/8 in.[ches]” which is slightly larger; the PATHs database (paths.manuscripts.378) provides figures generated from Crum’s measurement in inches converted into millimetres: 178 × 124 mm; Buzi 2014: 184 gives for the Berlin leaves Or. oct. 409.29-30 the width of the writing frame (150 × 100 mms) only; Petra Figeac (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Orientabteilung) kindly ascertained for me the (fairly intact) max. width of Ms. or. oct. 409 f. 30 which is 11,6 cm. Such formats are quite common for Coptic paper manuscripts. 8 Bouriant 1904.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

425

appearance of Bouriant’s edition, Oskar von Lemm dealt with the Arabic loanwords from BnF 132.5 f. 9,9 providing for some of them better readings than Bouriant would propose, though disimproving the reading of others. Eventually the text was selected by Wolfgang Kosack to be printed in the quirky chrestomathy of his Lehrbuch des Koptischen.10 None of the existing editions of BnF 132.5 f. 9 and quotations therefrom is free of mistakes – a first reason why its reedition may seem worthwhile. A more particular reason is that the manuscript has been fading into oblivion and deserves revision and reassessment. The most specific reason is that the addressee of this Festschrift may find some interest in this leaflet and its White Monastery context. 3. Script and language of BnF 132.5 f. 9 Taking the U-shaped My (‘flat μ’, like ⳙ) and the asymmetric Ypsilon (like y) as indicators, the type of script of 132.5 f. 9 may be called a sloping majuscule,11 though certainly not a professional performance of it. Other peculiar, thus potentially diagnostic letter shapes are displayed by ϭ (in ⲡⲁⲗϭⲓϮ vo10) with a long, horizontal ascender continuing from the end of the loop after a sharp bend to the right,12 and ϯ (in the same word ⲡⲁⲗϭⲓϮ vo10) with its decender swinging back to the left.13 As Ágnes Mihálykó has recently argued, the development of the peculiar shape of ‘flat μ’ in the matrix of sloping majuscule is a criterion for a date not earlier than the 10th century.14 The language of the text is basically Sahidic, with a consistently employed variant form ⲛⲉⲩ for the qualitative ⲛⲏⲩ.15 The spellings of month names (ⲡⲁⲱⲛⲉ ro4; ⲉⲡⲉⲡ ro4.5.8; ⲙⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲣ ro9 / ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲩⲣⲓ ro13; ⲑⲱⲑ ro13.17; 9

Von Lemm 1903: 35–36. Lehrbuch des Koptischen, Graz 1975, p. 426–427, nº 231: “Astronomische Sternaufgänge”. 11 For this type see Boud’hors 1997, Richter 2018b: 300–301, Richter 2018c: 290–291, and recently Mihálykó 2019: 85–91. 12 For similar shapes in a matrix of (Sahidic and Bohairic) sloping majuscule compare Layton 1987, paper ms. nº 101, pl. 10.4; parchment ms. nº 175, pl. 23.6 (although Curzon reportedly obtained this manuscript and nº 174 from monks of the Syrian Monastery in the Wadi ’n-Natrūn, Layton gives evidence that both must have come from the White Monastery); Depuydt 1993, M574 (897 CE) = nº 59, pl. 211; Depuydt 1993, M588 (842 CE) = nº 126, pl. 238; Bohairic mss. Vat. 69 (933 CE), Hyvernat 1888, nº XXIV and Vat. 68 (957 CE), Hyvernat 1888, nº XXVII; the same shape of ϭ is also used by the professional hands of P.Teshlot 7 and 8 (ed. Richter 2000, both 1062 CE) which employ sloping majuscule, a typical script choice in late Coptic documents. 13 For similar shapes in a matrix script of (Sahidic and Bohairic) sloping majuscule compare e.g., Depuydt 1993, M588 (842 CE) = nº 126, pl. 238; Bohairic mss. Vat. 69 (933 CE) = Hyvernat 1888, nº XXIV; Vat. 68 (957 CE) = Hyvernat 1888, nº XXVII and Vat. 61 (962 CE) = Hyvernat 1888, n° XXVIII; P.Teshlot 8 (ed. Richter 2000, 1062 CE). 14 Mihálykó 2019: 16–17. 15 An M and a Svl instance of the spelling ⲛⲉ(ⲟ)ⲩ, both from Deir el-Bala’izah, are recorded by Kasser, Compléments au dictionnaire copte de Crum, 36b. 10

426

T.S. RICHTER

ⲡⲁⲱⲡⲉ ro18.vo4; ϩⲁⲑⲟⲣ vo4–5.8–9 / ⲁⲑⲟⲣ vo5; ⲭⲓⲁϩⲉ⟦ⲭ⟧ⲕ vo9 / ⲭⲁⲁϩⲉⲕ vo12; ⲧⲱⲃⲉ vo13.16; ⲉⲙϣⲓⲣ vo17) keep within the usual range of variation, and the amount of Coptic-internal variants makes it difficult to assess whether spellings such as ⲙⲉⲥ(ⲥ)ⲟⲩⲣⲓ or ⲭⲓⲁϩⲉ⟦ⲭ⟧ⲕ are due to interference with their Arabic forms. The vocabulary of BnF 132.5 f. 9 is loaded with an enormous share of Arabic words: All zodiac signs and – with the exception of sun and moon – all planets are rendered by Arabic names. The spelling of one of them (vo2–3), ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲣⲣⲏϧ (‫ المريخ‬al-mirrīḫ ‘Mars’), is conspicuous for the use of the Bohairic letter Ḫai. This letter can be encountered in a couple of late Sahidic texts of clearly Upper Egyptian provenance, such as the unedited alchemical P.Chassinat 1 and 2 which use Bohairic variant spellings of some Coptic words (P.Chass. 1 ⲧⲱⲣϧ, ⲧⲱϧ; P.Chass. 2: ⲡⲁϧⲣⲉ, ⲛϧⲏⲧϥ). An even closer parallel is provided by the list of colour pigments Catalogue Général 8028 = NMEC 3761 from the White Monaystery (see below, 8.).16 Here the letter ϧ serves to transcribe Arabic ‫خ‬/ḫ in the Arabic loanword ⲁⲥⲥⲉⲣⲛⲏϧ < ‫ الزرنيخ‬al-zirnīḫ ‘orpiment’, 17 thus in exactly the same function as in BnF 132.5 f. 9. And the protective dipinto in the ‘secret chamber’ of the White Monastery18 employs ϧ to render ‫خ‬/ḫ in one of a handful known examples of Copto-Arabic allography (ⲁϧⲣⲟϭ ⲙⲛ ϩⲉⲧⲉ ⲉⲗⲙⲛⲍⲉⲗ ‫ اخرج من هذا المنزل‬aḫruǧ min haḏā al-manzil), which was already highlighted as remarkable by Crum.19 These observations indicate an Upper Egyptian text community of writers and readers who were familiar with Bohairic20 to a degree so as to substitute Sahidic word forms by Bohairic variant spellings within basically Sahidic texts, and to employ the Bohairic letter ϧ in Arabic loanword spellings as a means to avoid the two conventional, but ambiguous Sahidic transcriptions of Arabic ‫خ‬/ḫ: (1) Arabic {h, ḥ, ḫ} = Coptic ϩ; (2) Arabic {ḫ, k} = Coptic ⲭ, in favor of a third, unambiguous one: (3) Arabic {h, ḥ} = Coptic ϩ; Arabic {k} = Coptic ⲭ; Arabic {ḫ} = Coptic ϧ. 16

Crum 1902; von Lemm 1903: xvii, reedited Richter 2020. Richter 2017: 517–518. 18 Crum 1904: 567–569. 19 Crum 1904: 568: “… including noticeably the Bohairic ḫ.” Further evidence for this practice comes from the alchemical P.Chassinat 2 (to appear in Richter [forthcoming]), if ϧⲗⲟⲩⲁ / ϧⲣⲟⲩⲁ (l. 22.24) stands for ‫ خروع‬ḫirwac (‘castor’). 20 Reputed “Bohairic” features of the Alexander romance, currently stated in the data of paths. manuscripts.378, seem however to be an invention by MacCoull 2012: 256. The linguistic analysis by von Lemm 1903: vi-xii has shown that the Sahidic of the text is coloured by middle Egyptian variants and displays the linguistic profile we are familiar with from other late Sahidic compositions from Middle Egypt, such as the verse of Erman’s Coptic “Volkslitteratur” resp. Junker’s “Koptische Poesie des 10. Jahrhunderts”, or the Alchemical recipes of BL Or. 3669(1). This linguistic stature is, in my mind, a serious challenge of the communis opinio of a rather early date of the extant Coptic version of the romance (as early as the 6th century: von Lemm 1903, Müller 1991, MacCoull 2012, paths.works.468), given that it is exclusively encountered in late compositions, whereas the linguistic features of late copies of older Coptic literary texts seem to be of different kind. 17

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

427

4. The date of BnF 132.5 f. 9 A terminus post quem for the date of BnF 132.5 f. 9 is given by its writing support, rag paper, which in Egypt points to a date certainly after 900,21 and most likely after the mid-10th century.22 This rough period of time – the 10th or 11th c. – is likewise indicated by the palaeographical comparanda (see above, 3., with footnotes 12–14), though the unprofessional scribal performance makes palaeographical comparison even more precarious than usual. On the other hand, the Sahidic language is no longer found, outside literary copies23 and short epigraphic records,24 after the second half of the 11th century,25 and especially late Sahidic idioms with substantial shares of Arabic words are typically found in 10th- and 11th-century documentary and ‘sub-literary’ manuscripts. The later 10th to 11th century is therefore the date to be proposed for BnF 132.5 f. 9 as well.26 An astronomical terminus post quem is discussed below, 7. 5. Text and translation of BnF 132.5 f. 9 Recto ¶1

1

5

21

–––––––––––––––––––––––– [:] Ⲇ : ⲡ⟦.⟧ⲉ ⲡⲁⲥⲥⲁⲣⲁⲧⲁⲁⲛ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ϩⲣⲁⲓsic ⲙ⳰ⲛ ⲠⲞⲞϨ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⟦.⟧ ⲔⲈ ⲙⲡⲀⲰⲚⲈ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲛⲉⲠⲈⲠ ⲛⲉⲡⲉⲡ

Verso –––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 ¶5 : Ⲏ : ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲗⲀⲁⲕⲣⲁⲡ ⲉϥ ⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁⲗⲙⲁⲣ ⲣⲏϧ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲙⲡⲁⲰⲠⲈ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ Ⲛϩⲁ 5 ⲑⲟⲣ ⲁⲑⲟⲣ ⲡⲉ

Depuydt 1993: L; Buzi & Emmel 2015: 137–139. See Grob 2010: 11–14, who studied this issue on the basis of dated Arabic letters. It seems that paper entered the field of Coptic documentary writing first, to expand from here to the sphere of book production. 23 The latest securely datable Sahidic manuscript, the Treatise on the mysteries of the Greek characters (MS Bodl.Hunt. 393, ed. Hebbelynck 1900/01, see also Bandt 2007), is dated to 1393 CE; it displays a number of subtle Bohairicisms which indicate that its scribe (if not its translator) was not accustomed to Sahidic any more. 24 Among the latest dated inscriptions are wall inscriptions from the Esna monasteries Deir el-Schuhada’ and Deir el-Fakhuri (ranging through 1368/69 CE, see Coquin 1975b), from the Red Sea monasteries (Coquin & Laferrière 1978), from the Red and White Monastery (up to the early 14th century: Crum 1904: 554, see also Dilley 2008 & 2016) and from Deir Anba Hadra (with a dozen of Coptic inscriptions from the early 14th (see Krastel 2020) and a few ones from the later 14th century, up until the latest dated Sahidic text so far known, a – nowadays lost – inscription (ed. Clédat 1915: 45, III–IVb, see Dekker 2013: 111 and 114) dated to Paône 1120 of the era of martyrs = May/June 1404 CE. 25 The latest datable testimonies of late Sahidic non-literary writing, i.e., of the productive use of a still living idiom, are P.Teshlot 7, 8 and 9 (Richter 2000, 1062 resp. 1063 CE) and P.Gascou 60 (Richter 2016, 1063 CE). 26 The 11th century is also the date proposed by von Lemm 1903: xiv–xv and by others after him for the manuscript of the Coptic Alexander romance. 22

428

T.S. RICHTER

¶2

10

¶3

¶4

15

–––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲉ : ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲗⲁⲁⲥⲁⲁⲧ ⲉϥ ⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲚ Ⲡ⳱Ⲣ⳱Ⲏ ⲉϥ ⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ ⲛⲉⲡⲉⲡ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ Ⲙⲙⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲣ –––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲋ : ⲡⲉ ⲧⲁⲥⲥⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲗⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲁⲣⲓⲑ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ Ⲙ ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲩⲣⲓ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ sicⲐⲰⲐ –––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲍ : ⲡⲉ ⲧⲁⲗⲙⲓⲥ⟦.⟧ⲁⲛ ⲧⲁⲗⲙⲓⲥⲚ ⲧⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ ⲧⲁⲥ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲣⲉ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟ[ⲩ] Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ ⲛⲐⲰⲐ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ [ⲙ] ⲡⲁⲱⲡⲉ

¶6

10

¶7

¶8

15

–––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲑ : ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲗⲕⲁ⟦ⲩ⟧ⲁⲩⲥ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲁⲗⲙⲟⲩϣⲑⲁⲣⲓ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ Ⲛϩⲁ ⲑⲟⲣ ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ Ⲛⲭⲓⲁϩⲉ⟦ⲭ⟧ⲕ –––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲓ : ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲗϭⲓϮ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲚ ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲁⲗ ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕ⳱Ⲉ ⲛⲬⲀⲀϨⲈⲔsic ϣⲁ ⲥⲟⲩ Ⲕⲉ Ⲛⲧⲱⲃⲉ –––––––––––––––––––––––– : Ⲓ⳱Ⲁ : ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲧⲧⲁⲗⲟⲩ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲁⲗ ⲉϥⲁⲣ ⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲛⲧⲱⲃⲉ [ϣⲁ] ⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲛⲉⲙϣⲓⲣ .

Recto 1 [:] Ⲇ : All numeral letters are not just marked by supralinear strokes and framed by colons to the left and right, but properly encircled by dots which cannot adequately be rendered in the printed edition | ⲡ⟦.⟧ⲉ probably ⲡ corrected into ⲉ | ⲁⲥⲥⲁⲣⲁⲧⲁⲁⲛ (‫ السرطان‬al-saraṭān) so also von Lemm; ed. princ. read ⲁⲥⲥⲁⲣⲁⲧⲁⲛ || 2 ϩⲣⲁⲓ for ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ (as ed. princ. wrongly read), two dots between hori and rho are not of (the same) ink || 3 ἄρχω | ⟦.⟧ⲕⲉ probably ⲩ deleted || 5 ⲛⲉⲡⲉⲡ missing in ed. princ. || 6 ‫ الاسد‬al-asad || 8 ἄρχω || 9 ⲙⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲣ not quite clear whether the dots above iota are of the same ink || 10 ‫ السنبلة‬al-sunbula || 11 ⲟⲩⲧⲁⲣⲓⲑ (‫῾عطارد‬uṭarid) so also von Lemm, ed. princ. read ⲟⲩⲑⲁⲣⲓⲑ || 12 ἄρχω || 14 ⲁⲗⲙⲓⲥ⟦.⟧ⲁⲛ (‫ الميزان‬al-mīzān) probably ⲛ corrected into ⲁ | ⲧⲁⲗⲙⲓⲥⲛ (‫ الميزان‬al-mīzān) – traces of the last letter rather from ⲛ than ⲁ, so also ed. princ.; von Lemm divided the word into ⲧⲁⲗⲙⲓ + ⲥⲛⲧⲉ and translated ‘(constellation) Two Ostrichs’; the scribe repeated the word after having misspelled it and ran scarce of space (as he repeated ⲛⲉⲡⲉⲡ on ro5 after having squeezed the same word at the margin of ro4, and as he added ⲁⲑⲟⲣ ⲡⲉ on ro5 after a line break in the middle of the word on vo4-5) || 15–16 ‫ الزهره‬al-zuhara || 15 ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ looks like ⲉϩⲓⲁⲓ due to a crease in the paper recognizable by autopsy but hardly on the photograph || 16 ἄρχω, ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ looks like ⲉⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏ due to a crease in the paper. Verso 1 ‫ العقرب‬al-῾aqrab || 2–3 ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲣⲣⲏϧ (‫ المريخ‬al-mirrīḫ) von Lemm read ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲓⲣⲏϧ || 3 ἄρχω || 6 ⲁⲗⲕⲁ⟦ⲩ⟧ⲁⲩⲥ (‫ القوس‬al-qaus): apparently ⲩ corrected into ⲁ, thus ⲁⲗⲕⲁⲁⲩⲥ, rather than second ⲁ deleted || 7 ‫ المشتري‬al-muštary || 8 ἄρχω || 9 ⲭⲓⲁϩⲉ⟦.⟧ ⲕ: Kappa probably corrected from ⲭ (although two dots above the line seem to indicate iota) || 10 ⲁⲗϭⲓϯ (‫ الجدي‬al-ǧady): so also von Lemm; ed. princ. read ⲁⲗϭⲓϯⲓ || 11 ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲁⲗ (‫ زحل‬zuḥal): so also von Lemm, ed. princ. read ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲗ || ἄρχω 12 ϫⲓⲛⲥⲟⲩ: wrong line break ϫⲓⲛ|ⲥⲟⲩ in ed. princ. || 14 ‫ الدلو‬al-dalw || 15 ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲁⲗ (‫ زحل‬zuḥal) ed. princ. read ⲥⲟⲩϩⲁⲗⲗ || 15–16 ἄρχω || 16 ϫⲓⲛ two dots above iota probably not of (the same) ink || ⲥⲟⲩ looks like ⲥⲓⲩ due to a crease in the paper recognizable by autopsy but hardly on the photograph || 17 ⲛⲉⲙϣⲓⲣ: ed. princ. read ⲛⲙϣⲓⲣ.

(Constellation nº) 4 is the Cancer. It comes up with the moon, it rules from day 25 of Paône until day 25 of Epêp (repeated:) of Epêp. (Constellation nº) 5 is the Lion. It comes up with the sun, it rules from day 25 of Epêp until day 25 of Mesorê.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

429

(Constellation nº) 6 is the Ear. It comes up with Mercury, it rules from day 25 of Mesorê until day 25 of Thôth. (Constellation nº) 7 is the Scales; it is the Scales. It comes up with Venus, it rules from day 25 of Thôth until day 25 of Paope. (Constellation nº) 8 is the Scorpion. It comes up with Mars, it rules from day 25 of Paope until day 25 of Hathor; it is Athor. (Constellation nº) 9 is the Bow. It comes up with Jupiter, it rules from day 25 of Hathor until day 25 of Khoiak. (Constellation nº) 10 is the Capricorn. It comes up with Saturn, it rules from day 25 of Khoiak until day 25 of Tôbe. (Constellation nº) 11 is the Bucket. It comes up with Saturn, it rules from day 25 of Tôbe until day 25 of Mechir. 6. Structure and content of the text of BnF 132.5 f. 9 The text of BnF 132.5 f. 9 is subdivided into short paragraphs by horizontal strokes, as usually applied to separate text units such as recipes, stanzas of poetry, entries of hermeneiai, sections of liturgical compositions, and the like. Each paragraph of BnF 132.5 f. 9 starts with the number of one of the zodiac signs, running in astronomical order from the fourth (Cancer) to the eleventh (Aquarius). The lack of entries of the first three (Aries, Taurus, Gemini) and the twelfth (Pisces) indicates that at least one previous and one subsequent page are missing. The preserved eight paragraphs follow exactly the same pattern: (numeral) … ⲡⲉ ⲡ-/ⲧ-… ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ-… ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ϫⲓⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲛ-… ϣⲁⲥⲟⲩ ⲔⲈ ⲛ-…

(zodiac sign) (nº) a is the b (name of zodiac sign) it comes up with (planet) c it rules from day 25 of (month) x until day 25 of (following month) y

What the paragraph-initial numerals count are clearly the twelve zodiac signs. The nominal clause27 #(numeral) ⲡⲉ ⲡ-/ⲧ-…# ‘(Number) a is the (zodiac sign) b’ implies a generic term meaning ‘zodiac sign’ (which may or may not have been spelled out in a header preceding the first entry), and this term seems also to be implied in the suffix ⸗ϥ in ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ‘it comes’ and ⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ ‘it rules’: 27 Polotsky’s type A–c–Z, with the rhematic noun in final position and ⲡⲉ – rather than ⲧⲉ or ⲛⲉ – underway to freeze into a particle and functionally degraded to mere copula. Bouriant’s ed. princ., without much care for grammar, translated “4° le signe du…” etc.; von Lemm 1903 took ⲡⲉ as a duplicated(!) Coptic article, thus reading ⲡⲉⲡⲁⲥⲥⲁⲣⲁⲧⲁⲁⲛ and so forth (von Lemm 1903: 36): “Zu beachten ist hier die Eigenthümlichkeit, dass ausser dem arabischen Artikel noch der koptische bei fast allen Namen zweimal gesetzt ist, in einigen Fällen zuerst der weibliche Artikel, wenn das Wort im Arabischen weiblichen Geschlechts ist, vor welchem dann noch der männliche Artikel tritt, offenbar weil ⲥⲓⲟⲩ «Stern» männlich ist.”

430

T.S. RICHTER

Since two of the zodiac signs (ⲧ-ⲁⲥⲥⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲗⲉ ¶3, ⲧ-ⲁⲗⲙⲓⲥⲁⲛ ¶4) and one of the planets (ⲧ-ⲁⲥⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲣⲉ ¶4) are feminine, neither the particular zodiac sign nor the planet can be referred to by the third sg. masc. pronoun. No Coptic word meaning ‘zodiac sign’ is known to us, but we may think of a Greek or Arabic term, such as ζώδιον28 or ‫ برج‬burǧ ‘zodiac sign’, both masculine words in terms of the usual Coptic gender assignment to loaned nouns. While all constellations and five of the heavenly bodies are named by Arabic terms, the two repetedly occurring verbal phrases employ a Coptic and a Greek lexeme: ⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ‘to come up’ (ⲙⲛ- ‘together with’)29 is a verbal idiom attested already in the Old-Coptic horoscope, and so still in Coptic when the rise of the sun or of stars is talked about.30 ⲁⲣⲭⲏ (< ἀρχεῖν) has certainly the (in our context, see below, 7.) technical meaning ‘to rule’31 (rather than ‘to begin’).32 The Coptic paragraphs of BnF 132.5 f. 9 thus essentially provide a list of (eight of) the twelve Zodiac signs in their astronomical order on the ecliptic (the four missing ones can therefore easily be reconstructed),33 the name of a planet attached to each of them by a relation called their “rising together with …” (ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ-), and a one-month period, from day 25 of a month (according to the Coptic calender) until day 25 of the following month, during which they are “ruling” (ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ):

28 The word ζώδιον is frequently attested in Coptic magical texts, there meaning the ‘picture’ or ‘statue’ of an invoked power, as well as in hagiographical narratives, there as a term for ‘idol’. The only unmistakeable instance of the astrological usage is Marsanes, NHC X, [41],30–[42],7: ⲏ ⲉϥ.ϭⲱϣⲧ ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲉⲥⲛⲉⲩ ⲏ ⲉϥϭⲱϣⲧ ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲥⲁϣϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲗⲁⲛⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲏ ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛⲁⲩⲥ ⲛ̄ⲍⲱⲇⲓⲟⲛ · ⲏ ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲙⲁⲁⲃ[ⲉⲥ]ⲉ ⲛ̄ϩⲱⲣⲟ|ⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟ[ⲥ …] “or he observes the two, or observes the seven planets, or the twelve signs of the zodiac, or the thirty-six decans” (transl. by Dylan Burns, DDGLC Attestation ID 68584). 29 Ed. princ. translated (p. 121) ‘en conjontion avec’. 30 See Crum, Dict., 221a: “come up … ἀναβαίν. … P(istis) S(ophia) 9 S ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲣⲏ ⲛ. ⲉϩ. in east, Hor 82 O ⲛ. ⲁϩ. of star;” see also 72b s.v. ⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ. The Greek technical term ἀνατέλλω, ἀνατολή in such contexts is rendered into Coptic by other words such as ⲡⲉⲓⲣⲉ ‘to come forth, rise, shine’ and ϣⲁ ‘to appear, rise, shine’. 31 This meaning is widely attested in Coptic for the loaned form ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ derived from the Greek active stem (without object: DDGLC, Coptic Usage ID 5063) and also (though much less frequently) for ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲥⲑⲁⲓ based on the (Greek) medium stem. 32 Ed. princ. rendered it (p. 121): “commencant au 25 … [et allant] jusqu’au 25;” the parenthesis “[en allant]” points to the inherent difficulty of the reading “it starts from … to …” 33 For the ratio underlying the reconstruction of the planets relating to the four missing zodiac signs in table 1, see below, 7.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

431

Table 1: The order of zodiac signs according to ecliptic longitude and their relation to planets and dates in BnF 132.5 f. 9 Ecliptic longitude

Nº

Zodiac sign

Related celestial body

Period of ruling

0° to 30° 30° to 60° 60° to 90° 90° to 120° 120° to 150° 150° to 180° 180° to 210° 210° to 240° 240° to 270° 270° to 300° 300° to 330° 330° to 360°

[1] [2] [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]

[Aries] [Taurus] [Gemini] Cancer Leo Virgo (Arabic “Ear”) Libra Scorpion Sagittarius (Arabic: “Bow”) Capricorn Aquarius (Arabic: “Bucket”) [Pisces]

[Mars] [Venus] [Mercury] Moon Sun Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn Saturn [Jupiter]

[25 Parmhotp – 25 Parmouthe] [25 Parmouthe – 25 Pashons] [25 Pashons – 25 Paône] 25 Paône – 25 Epêp 25 Epêp – 25 Mesorê 25 Mesorê – 25 Thoth 25 Thoth – 25 Paope 25 Paope – 25 Hathor 25 Hathor – 25 Khoiak 25 Khoiak – 25 Tôbe 25 Tôbe – 25 Mechir [25 Mechir – 25 Parmhotp]

7. Significance and context of BnF 132.5 f. 9 Bouriant 1904 apostrophized the content of BnF 132.5 f. 9 as (p. 117) “ayant contenu les principes astronomiques des Arabes”, and the Arabic astronomical terminology employed in BnF 132.5 f. 9 points indeed to a step from Arabic to Coptic in the transmission of its content. Yet a broader view on the paths of knowledge behind BnF 132.5 f. 9 reveals a more complex scenario of Greek thought delivered via Arabic to Coptic,34 because the notion underlying the relations of Cancer with the moon, Leo with the sun, Virgo with Mercury, Libra with Venus, Scorpion with Mars, Sagittarius with Jupiter, and Capricorn as well as Aquarius with Saturn as stated in BnF 132.5 f. 9, is unmistakeably the astrological concept of “houses” of the planets as outlined by Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos I.17:35 Of the Houses of the Several Planets. The planets also have familiarity with the parts of the zodiac, through what are called their houses, triangles, exaltations, terms, the like. The system of houses is of the following nature. Since of the 34 For the following paragraphs I rely on elucidation generously granted to me by experts in Ancient Oriental, Egyptian, and Arabic astronomy Prof. Mathieu Ossendrijver, Dr Micah Ross, and Dr Johannes Thomann via e-mail correspondence. 35 English translation by Frank Egleston Robbins (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press 1940), p. 79–83.

432

T.S. RICHTER

twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries, as houses, Leo, which is masculine, to the sun and Cancer, feminine, to the moon. In keeping with this they assumed the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar and that from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar, so that in each of the semicircles one sign might be assigned to each of the five planets as its own, one bearing aspect to the sun and the other to the moon, consistently with the spheres of their motion and the peculiarities of their natures. For to Saturn, in whose nature cold prevails, as opposed to heat, and which occupies the orbit highest and farthest from the luminaries, were assigned the signs opposite Cancer and Leo, namely Capricorn and Aquarius, with the additional reason that these signs are cold and wintry, and further that their diametral aspect is not consistent with beneficence. To Jupiter, which is moderate and below Saturn’s sphere, were assigned the two signs next to the foregoing, windy and fecund, Sagittarius and Pisces, in triangular aspect to the luminaries, which is a harmonious and beneficent configuration. Next, to Mars, which is dry in nature and occupies a sphere under that of Jupiter, there were assigned again the two signs, contiguous to the former, Scorpio and Aries, having a similar nature, and, agreeably to Mars’ destructive and inharmonious quality, in quartile aspect to the luminaries. To Venus, which is temperate and beneath Mars, were given the next two signs, which are extremely fertile, Libra and Taurus. These preserve the harmony of the sextile aspect; another reason is that this planet at most is never more than two signs removed from the sun in either direction. Finally, there were given to Mercury, which never is farther removed from the sun than one sign in either direction and is beneath the others and closer in a way to both of the luminaries, the remaining signs, Gemini and Virgo, which are next to the houses of the luminaries.

The Tetrabiblos was translated into Arabic by the 9th century, to become “by far the most influential source of medieval Islamic astrology”.36 Allowing for an integration of the semantics (and powers) of the seven planets with those of the zodiac signs, and, via the latter, for their connection to equal parts of the year, this concept was (and still is) crucial for deducing astrological birth charts, which would thus be a potential purpose of our document as well. If the correspondence between the zodiac signs and the planets in BnF 132.5 f. 9 is exactly that between the planets and their “houses” according to Ptolemy, it can on the other hand not be overlooked that other terms applied in the Coptic text do not exactly fit this concept. According to this concept, the stars, not the zodiac signs as in BnF 132.5 f. 9, are “ruling” during their periods (although they are linked to the calendar by virtue of those). Moreover, the zodiac signs do not normally (let alone regularly) “rise together with” their planets (i.e., owners of houses).37 The closest parallel I was able to find so far is the Arabic

36

Saliba 1994: 67. This very expression puzzled all three of my astronomical advisors. Johannes Thomann wondered whether ⲉϥⲛⲉⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ‘it comes up’ could relate to the concept of ascendents. 37

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

433

paper leaf P.Vindob. ACh 11218 = PERF Nr. 1052,38 roughly contemporary to BnF 132.5 f. 9,39 where the twelve zodiac signs, arranged in two columns per six, are related in accordance with the “houses” concept to their planets by the recurrent phrase “its ascending (planet) is…”.40 The recurrent reference to “day 25 of month so-and-so” may provide an astronomical anchor point in chronology.41 If, as one may assume, this date refers to the entrance of the sun into the respective zodiac sign, the corresponding Julian calendar dates, e.g., for the entrance of the sun into cancer (¶1, ro1–5), shifted between 700 and 1000 CE from 20 to 17 June, with the 19th of June corresponding to day 25 of Paône. As an astronomical reality, the (entrance) date of 25 Paône (and so the other instances of “day 25” stated in BnF 132.5 f. 9) held thus true for a century, or so, in early Abbâside times (table 2): Table 2: Entrance date of the sun into cancer from 700 to 1000 CE (dates by courtesy of Johannes Thomann, Zurich) Year 700 CE 750 CE 800 CE 850 CE 900 CE 950 CE 1000 CE

Entrance date of the sun into cancer 20 June 19 June 19 June 19/18 June 18 June 18 June 17 June

Corresponding date 26 Paône 25 Paône 25 Paône 25/24 Paône 24 Paône 24 Paône 23 Paône

As Johannes Thomann expounded to me, ancient astrological traditions whose practical application was no longer depending on actual astronomical observation could easily stick with the astronomical realities and calculations from which they originally derived, even though their empirical basis was obsolete for centuries. The aforesaid chronological anchor point thus provides us with a terminus post quem only.

38 Thomann in Zdiarsky 2015: 146 (Kat.-Nr. 72: “Blatt aus einer astrologischen Abhandlung”) writes: “In der unteren Hälfte der einen Seite ist eine zweispaltige Aufstellung enthalten, in denen die Domizilien der Planeten in den Tierkreiszeichen aufgeführt sind. Diese Korrespondenzen dienen dazu, den Herrn des Horoskops zu bestimmen, je nachdem, welches Tierkreiszeichen am Aszendenten steht.” 39 Thomann, ibid. 146, suggests, with question mark, the 10th century. 40 Thomann, ibid. 146: “Der Widder: sein aufsteigendes [Gestirn] ist der Mars” etc. 41 As Johannes Thomann kindly explained to me.

434

T.S. RICHTER

While calendrical knowledge and timekeeping records were far from alien to Coptophone institutions,42 a piece of Graeco-Arabic astrological tradition such as BnF 132.5 f. 9 is still exceptional in the realm of Coptic written culture, as already Pierre Bouriant (1904: 123) felt: “mais on n’avait pas encore, à ma connaissance, du moins, signalé d’écrits présentant un caractère purement scientifique.” By the 10th century, when Coptic started to be used as a language of science, the great Graeco-Arabic translation movement was at its peak.43 Several of the pieces of Coptic ‘scientific’ literature from the White Monastery (see below, 8.) and elsewhere (see fn. 44) point to this very process in so far as their terminology depends on contemporary Arabic sciences. Certainly, however, they are not “purement scientifique … n’ayant pas une destination essentiellement pratique”, as Bouriant (1904: 123) put it. On the contrary, all hitherto known Coptic texts of this kind testify to ‘applied sciences’ occupied with practical scopes while lacking merely theoretical reflection: Instead of nosological, alchemical, or astrological treatise,44 we have medical and alchemical recipes and horoscopes. This characteristic trait seems to hold true for the astrological record of BnF 132.5 f. 9 as well, even though its particular purpose can only be guessed. 8. ‘Scientific’ writings from the White Monastery Given the overall scarcity of, broadly speaking, ‘scientific’ topics in the Coptic written tradition, it is striking to realize that not just one but half a dozen such manuscripts have the White Monastery as (reported or deducible) provenance:45 42 The liturgical practice had of course a great deal of calendrical implications, see generally Chaîne 1925; on the Easter Computus see most recently Emmel 2017 and 2019; epigraphic instances of computus tables from the Red Monastery and Deir Anba Hadra are dealt with by Renate Dekker in her unpublished M.A. thesis (Dekker 2006: 46). Coptic shadow tables, a timekeeping device for counting the hours of the day, are extant in the monastic epigraphic record as well as in manuscripts (SBKopt. IV 2129–2131), see Bouriant and Ventre 1898, and Delattre 2010. A relatively well attested genre of calendrical literature in Coptic are compilations of month-andday entries, specifying favourable or ill-starred days for different kinds of business (Tagwählerei), see Theis’ list of ten specimens of such texts (Theis 2018: 63–65), among them most prominently the so-called ‘Bauernpraktik’ (PERF nº. 132, ed. Till 1936, see also Hasitzka in Zdiarsky 2015: 88–97), a quire of 15 extant parchment leaves written by a deacon Chael in a neat, professional script (bimodular and sloping majuscule), kept in the Vienna papyrus collection (http://data.onb. ac.at/rec/RZ00005278). On Coptic horoscopes see also Heilen 2015: vol. 1, 326. 43 Gutas 1998: 1: “From about the middle of the eighth century to the end of the tenth, almost all non-literary and non-historical secular Greek books that were available throughout the Eastern Byzantine Empire and the Near East were translated into Arabic.” 44 In fact, Stern’s term ‘Tractat’, ‘treatise’, for BL Or. 3669(1), gives the undue impression of some theoretical discourse where there is but a sequence of recipes. 45 Further parts of the small corpus of Coptic ‘scientific’ writings come from the Fayyum, such as the 8th-century dye recipe P.Berlin P.8316 (Richter 2020b), the 9th/10th-century calculation manual BL Or. MS. 5707 (= P.Lond.Copt. I 528; Drescher, BSAC 13, 1948/9), the 11th-century treatise on the useful properties of animals P.Berlin P8116+8117 (= BKU I 26, identified, and in preparation for reedition by Anne Grons, Marburg). The medico-alchemical assemblage

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

435

1) Paris, BnF 132.5 f. 1 (ed. Bouriant 1888), a fragment of a parchment leaf (pag. 214–215) containing pharmaceutical recipes for gynaecological diseases, belongs (as BnF 132.5 f. 9) to the assemblage of “Don 2581” and is therefore likely to come from the White Monastery. 2) Napoli, BN IB.14.06-07 (ed. Zoëga 1810, nº 278), a parchment manuscript of two bifolia (pag. 241–244) containing pharmaceutical recipes against skin diseases, whose provenance from the White Monastery, indicated by its provenience – the ex-Borgia collection – is corroborated by palaeographical features representing the Touton style.46 3) Paris, BnF 129.20 f. 178 (ed. Preininger fc.), a parchment leaf (paginated ⲕⲃ/ⲕⲅ) from a book containing iatro-magical recipes (Preininger edited the fumigation, prayer and potion for a woman in labours on the recto), was acquired by Amélineau in 1886/7. The fragment is written in an elegant, certainly professional sloping majuscule whose supralinear system points to its original provenance from Touton. 4) London, BL Or. 3669(1), a parchment quire containing alchemical recipes,47 was purchased “near Sohag”.48 Its 20 pages of 12.5 by 16.2 cm are made of larger codex pages, cut into pieces. The original text of the palimpsest, written in a bimodular majuscule still visible on some pages, indicates some homiletic genre.49 The script as well as the ascertainable original format of ca. 32 by 24 cm fit very well with codices from the library of the White Monastery, and the linguistic features of the alchemical treatise hint to the Touton material therein.50 comprising the P.Méd.IFAO (Chassinat 1921), P.Louvre AF 12530 (Richter 2014), the unpublished P.Bodl.MSS Copt. (P) a. 1, 2, and 3 (Richter 2009 & 2015) and the unpublished P.Chass. 1 and 2 (Richter 2021) has its reported provenance in Nag‘ el-Meshaikh (Lepidotonpolis). We do not know the provenance of the beautiful ca. 6th-century miniature codex P.Carlsberg 500, a Coptic herbal (parts ed. by Erichsen 1963 and Richter 2014, a complete edition is under preparation by Anne Grons), given that Erichsen’s linguistic argument for Saqqara is by no means conclusive. 46 As comparanda see, e.g., M575 and M574 of the Pierpont Morgan library, Depuydt 1993, nº 58 and 59, pl. 210 and 211. As I have argued elsewhere (Richter 2018a: 154–156), it is this kind of manuscript that under the name of ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲁⲧⲣⲟⲥ or ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛ (‘doctors’ book’) may have formed part of the small section of secular literature in Coptic monastic libraries. In O.IFAO 13315 (ed. Coquin 1975a), there is e.g. a ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛ ‘doctor’s book’ (vo36) catalogued among more than 60 ‘holy books’ of the monastic library. Manuscripts such as Napoli BN IB.14.06-07 support the assumption that such books could be produced in monastic scriptoria. The pagination of BN IB.14.06-07 and BnF 132.5 f. 1 gives us an idea of their considerable size. 47 Ed. Stern 1885; see Richter 2009: 25–26; 2015: 164–165; 2021: 208–211; re-edition in Richter (forthcoming). 48 See Crum 1905, 175 (P.Lond.Copt. I 374). 49 I deciphered some Biblical reminiscences from the OT and NT such as the creation of Adam, the “daughter of Aminadab”, Aron’s wife according to Exodus 6:23, or the mission of Gabriel to the virgin Mary. 50 This manuscript is the only Coptic alchemical manuscript with a traceable link to a monastic institution and raises the issue whether Coptic monasteries were possible places of alchemical occupation: see Richter 2021: 210–211.

436

T.S. RICHTER

5) Kairo, National Museum of Egyptian Civilization inv. 3761 (ed. Crum 1902, nº 8028; reedited by Richter 2020a), a leaf of paper containing a list of substances in Arabic transcription, is said to have come from Akhmim together with literary manuscripts of an undoubtable White Monastery provenance. Crum suggested a list of “alchemistic terms”, but as I have recently argued, the function of mineral substances listed here may rather be understood as colour pigments (which were needed, e.g., for the illumination of books).51 6) Paris, BnF 132.5 f. 9, the astrological leaflet dealt with in this article. These six manuscripts vary conspicuously regarding their different kinds of scientific content (pharmaceutical, iatro-magical and alchemical prescriptions, records of substances and of astrological relations) and in terms of formality of their making, ranging from entirely informal record (NMEC 3761) to relatively informal copies with (BnF 129.20 f. 178 and BnF 132.5 f. 1) or without (BL Or. 3669[1] and BnF 132.5 f. 9) pagination up to neat manuscripts with all features of professional book layout, such as BN IB.14.06-07. All of them however share the script choice of sloping majuscule, and all of them are datable to the 10th or 11th centuries, this is to say, to a period of the commencing language shift of the Coptophone élite to Arabic, but also a time when many of the extant literary manuscripts from the White Monastery might have been produced. If already the astrological leaflet BnF 132.5 f. 9 gave rise to Pierre Bouriant’s surprise about (Bouriant 1904: 123) “les moines coptes eurent aussi la préoccupation de s’intruire de ce qu’ils ne savaient qu’imparfaitement, voire de sciences arides”, the testimony of now six manuscripts (and other ones may still be unidentified, or may have been overlooked by the author), even though statistically insignificant in comparison to the estimated 1.000 manuscripts belonging to the White Monastery library in the middle ages,52 goes possibly beyond the notion of an entirely random, entirely exceptional occupation. It indicates that secular knowledge, partly informed by contemporary achievements in the Arabic sciences, was accessible (and actually accessed) through Coptic copies in Upper Egypt and formed part of the intellectual life of the White Monastery in Fatimide times. This observation may be relevant when it comes to trace the historical background of encyclopedic intellectual statures such as the 12th- (to 14th-) century protagonists of the “golden age” of CopticArabic scholarship.

51 52

Richter 2020a: 258. Orlandi 2002; Emmel 2008: 9f.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

437

Bibliography Bandt, Cordula 2007. Der Traktat „Vom Mysterium der Buchstaben“. Kritischer Text mit Einführung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. TUGACL 162. Berlin. Boud’hors, Anne 1997. “L’onciale penchée en copte et sa survie jusqu’au XVe siècle en Haute-Égypte.” In: Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, edited by François Déroche and Francis Richard, 117–133. Paris. Bouriant, Urbain 1887a. “Fragments d’un roman d’Alexandre en dialecte thébain.” Journal Asiatique 9, 1–38. ——. 1887b. “Fragments d’un roman d’Alexandre en dialecte thébain.” Journal Asiatique 10, 340–349. ——. 1887c. “Fragment d’un livre de médecin en copte thébain.” CRAIBL ser. 4/15, 319–320; 374–379. Bouriant, Pierre 1904. “Fragment d’un manuscrit copte de basse époque ayant contenu les principes astronomiques des Arabes.” Journal Asiatique 10, 117–123. Bouriant, Urbain, and Ventre-Bey, A.F. 1900. “Sur trois tables horaires coptes.” Mémoires de l’Institut Égyptien 3, fasc. 7, 575–604. Buzi, Paola 2014. Coptic Manuscripts 7. The Manuscripts of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Part 4. Homiletic and Liturgical Manuscripts from the White Monastery. With Two documents From Thebes and Two OldNubian Manuscripts. VOHD XXI.7. Stuttgart. Buzi, Paola, and Emmel, Stephen 2015. “Coptic Codicology.” In: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al., 137– 153. Hamburg. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste 1906. Manuscrits coptes de la bibliothèque nationale. Paris. Chaîne, Marius 1925. La chronologie des temps chrétiens de l’Égypte et de l’Éthiopie. Paris. Clédat, Jean 1915. “Les inscriptions de Saint-Siméon.” Recueil de Travaux 37, 41–57. Coquin, René-Georges 1975a. “Le catalogue de la bibliothèque du couvent de saint Élie «du rocher».” BIFAO 75, 207–239. ——.1975b. “Inscriptions pariétales des monastères d’Esna.” BIFAO 75, 241–281. Coquin, René-Georges, and Laferrière, Pierre-Henry 1978. “Les inscriptions pariétales de l’ancienne église du monastère de Saint-Antoine, dans le désert oriental.” BIFAO 78, 267–321. Crum, Walter E. 1902. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, nos 8001-8741: Coptic Monuments. Cairo. ——. 1904. “Inscriptions From Shenoute’s Monastery.” JTS 5, 552–569. Dekker, Renate 2006. Monasticism in the First Cataract Region. Dayr Anbā Hadrā, Dayr Qubbat al-Hawā and Dayr al-Kubāniyya and their relations with the world outside the walls. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Leiden. ——. 2013. “The Development of the Church at Dayr Anba Hadra: a Study of the Plasterwork and Dated Inscriptions.” In: Christianity and Monasticism in Aswan and Nubia, edited by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, 105–115. Cairo/New York. Delattre, Alain 2010. “Une curieuse table d’ombre au monastère de Baouît.” Le Muséon 123, 273–286. Depuydt, Leo 1993. Catalogue of Coptic Manuscripts In the Pierpont Morgan Library. 2 vols. Leuven. Dilley, Paul 2008. “Dipinti in Late Antiquity and Shenoute’s Monastic Federation: Text and Image in the Paintings of the Red Monastery.” ZPE 165, 111–128.

438

T.S. RICHTER

——. 2016. “Inscribed Identities. Prosopography of the Red and White Monasteries in the Early Byzantine and medieval periods.” In: The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt, edited by Elizabeth Bolman, 217–230 (with Appendix 1: The Greek and Coptic Inscriptions in the Red Monastery Church, 288–300). New Haven. Emmel, Stephen, and & Römer, Cornelia 2008. “The Library of the White Monastery in Upper Egypt.” In: Spätantike Bibliotheken. Leben und Lesen in den frühen Klöstern Ägyptens, edited by Harald Froschauer and C. E. Römer, 5–14. Nilus 14. Wien. Emmel, Stephen 2017. “Rescuing Triadon 460.4 from Unnecessary Emendation: Coptic ⲧⲟⲛⲑⲓⲟⲛ = Ethiopic ṭəntyon and Greek τῶν θεῶν, Arabic (‫”ابقطي )الشمس‬. In: Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy, edited by Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors, and Sydney H. Aufrère, 111–132. OLA 256. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. ——. 2019. “Measuring Time in Christian Egypt: On the Origin and Nature of the ‘Easter Computus’ and Its History among the Copts.” In: Time and History in Africa / Tempo e storia in Africa, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Alberto Camplani, and Stephen Emmel, 53–66. Africa Ambrosiana 4. Milan. Erichsen, Wolja 1963. “Aus einem koptischen Arzneibuch.” Acta Orientalia 27.1–2, 23–51 Grob, Eva M. 2010. Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus. Form and Function, Content and Context. APF Beiheft 29. Berlin/New York. Gutas, Dimitri 1998. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbasid Society. (2nd-4th / 8th-10th centuries). London/New York. Hebbelynck, Adolphe 1900–1901. “Les mystères des lettres grecques d’après un manuscrit copte-arabe de la bibliothèque bodléienne d’Oxford. Texte copte, traduction, notes.” Le Muséon 19, 5–36; 105–136; 269–300; Le Muséon 20 (1901), 5–33; 369–414. Heilen, Stephan 2015. Hadriani genitura. Die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos von Nikaia. Texte und Kommentare 43. Berlin/Boston. Krastel, Lena S. 2020. “Words for the Living and the Dead. The Coptic Inscriptions of Deir Anba Hadra.” In: Epigraphy through Five Millennia: Texts and Images in Context, edited by S. C. Dirksen and L. S. Krastel, 169–193. SDAIK 43. Wiesbaden. Layton, Bentley 1987. Catalogue of Coptic Literary manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906. London. von Lemm, Oskar 1903. Der Alexanderroman bei den Kopten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Alexandersage im Orient. St Petersburg. Lucchesi, Enzo 1981. Répertoire des manuscrits coptes (Sahidiques) publiés de la bibliothèque nationale de Paris. Cahiers d’orientalisme 1. Genève. MacCoull, Leslie S. B. 2012. “Aspects of Alexander in Coptic Egypt.” In: The Alexander Romance in Persia and the East, edited by Richard Stoneman, Kyle Erickson, and Ian Netton, 255–260. Groningen. Maspero, Gaston 1889. Les contes populaires de l’Égypte ancienne. Paris. Mihálykó, Ágnes T. 2019. The Christian Liturgical Papyri, an Introduction. Tübingen. Müller, C. Detlef G. 1991. “Romances.” In: CoptEnc 7, 2059–2061. Orlandi, Tito 2002. “The Library of the Monastery of Saint Shenute at Atripe.” In: Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, edited by Arne Egberts, Brian P. Muhs & Jacques van der Vliet, 211–231. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 31. Leiden/Boston.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

439

Pietschmann, R. 1903. “Zu den Überbleibseln des koptischen Alexanderbuches.” In: Beiträge zur Bücherkunde und Philologie, August Wilmanns zum 25. März 1903 gewidmet, 304–312. Leipzig. Preininger, Marketa forthcoming. “A Coptic Fumigation Prescription in Context.” APF. Richter, T. Sebastian 2000. “Spätkoptische Rechtsurkunden neu bearbeitet (II): Die Rechtsurkunden des Teschlot-Archivs.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 30, 95–148. ——. 2009. “What Kind of Alchemy is Attested by Tenth-Century Coptic Manuscripts?” Ambix. Journal of the Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 56.1, 23–35. ——. 2014. “Neue koptische medizinische Rezepte.” ZÄS 141, 155–195. ——. 2015. “The master spoke: ‘Take one of the ‘sun’ and one unit of almulgam.’ Hitherto Unnoticed Coptic Papyrological Evidence for Early Arabic Alchemy.” In: Documents and the History of the Early Islamic World. 3rd Conference of the International Society for Arabic Papyrology, Alexandria, 23–26 March 2006, edited by Alexander T. Schubert and Petra Sijpesteijn, 158–194. Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts 111. Leiden. ——. 2016. “[P.Gascou] 60. Ein fatimidenzeitliches koptisches Rechnungsheft aus den Papieren Noël Girons.” In: Mélanges Gascou. Textes et études papyrologiques (P.Gascou), edited by Jean-Luc Fournet and Arietta Papaconstantinou, 381–402. Travaux et mémoires 20.1. Paris. ——. 2017. “Borrowing into Coptic, the other story: Arabic words in Coptic texts.” In: Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic. Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language. DDGLC Working Papers 1, edited by Peter Dils, Eitan Grossman, T. Sebastian Richter, and Wolfgang Schenkel, 513–533. Lingua Aegyptia, Studia Monographica 17. Hamburg. ——. 2018a. “Medical care on the Theban Westbank in Late Antiquity.” JCoptS 19, 151–163. ——. 2018b. “A Scribe, His Bag of Tricks, What It Was For, and Where He Got It. Scribal Registers and Techniques in the Bodl.Mss.Copt.(P) a.2 & 3.” In: Scribal Repertoires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents, edited by Jenny Cromwell and Eitan Grossman, 296–313. Oxford. ——. 2018c. “Review on Bausi, Alessandro et al. (eds.), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction. Hamburg 2015.” Lingua Aegyptia 26, 289–292. ——. 2020a. “Die kopto-arabische Chemikalienliste National Museum of Egyptian Civilization (NMEC) 3761 = Catalogue Général (CG) 8028.” In: Ein Kundiger, der in die Gottesworte eingedrungen ist. Festschrift für den Ägyptologen Karl Jansen-Winkeln zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Shih-Wei Hsu, Vincent PierreMichel Laisney, and Jan Moje, 253–261. Ägypten und Altes Testament 99. Münster. ——. 2020b. “P.Berlin P.8316 (= BKU I, 21), ein koptisches Rezept zur PurpurImitation durch Krapp-Färbung auf gebeizter Wolle.” JCoptS 22, 151–186. ——. 2021. “Koptische Alchemisten und ihre Rezeptsammlungen.” In: Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftler im Alten Ägypten. Gedenkschrift für Walter Friedrich Reineke, edited by Peter Dils, Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Ingelore Hafemann, and Tonio Sebastian Richter, 203–240. ZÄS Beiheft 9. Berlin/New York. ——. forthcoming. Coptic Alchemical Texts. Sources of Alchemy and Chemistry. Sir Robert Mond Studies in the History of Early Chemistry. Ambix Supplements. Leeds.

440

T.S. RICHTER

Selden, Daniel L. 2011. “The Alexander Romance.” In: A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages, edited by Z. David Zuwiyya, 133–155. Leiden. ——. 2012. “Mapping the Alexander Romance.” In: The Alexander Romance in Persia and the East, edited by Richard Stoneman, Kyle Erickson, and Ian Netton, 17–48. Groningen. Saliba, George 1994. A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam. New York. Sidarus, Adel 2012a. “Alexandre le Grand chez les Coptes (recherches récentes et perspectives nouvelles).” JCoptS 14, 441–448. ——. 2012b. “Nouvelles recherches sur Alexandre le Grand dans la littérature arabe chrétienne et connexes.” Parole de l’Orient 37, 137–176. ——. 2013. “Alexandre le Grand chez les Coptes (recherches récentes et perspectives nouvelles).” In: Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Bruns and Heinz O. Luthe, 477–495. Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 3. Wiesbaden. Stern, Ludwig 1885. “Fragment eines koptischen Tractates über Alchimie.” ZÄS 23, 102–119. Till, Walter C. 1936. “Eine koptische Bauernpraktik.” MDAIK 6, 108–149. Theis, Christoffer 2018. “6. Fragment einer Tagwählerei.” In: Coptica Palatina. Koptische Texte aus der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung (P.Heid.Kopt.), bearbeitet auf der Vierten Internationalen Sommerschule für Koptische Papyrologie, Heidelberg, 26. August - 9. September 2012, edited by Anne Boud’hors, Alain Delattre, T. Sebastian Richter, G. Schenke, and G. Schmelz, 56–65. Studien und Texte aus der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung 1. Heidelberg. Zdiarsky, Angelika 2015. Orakelsprüche, Magie und Horoskope. Wie Ägypten in die Zukunft sah. Nilus 22. Wien.

BNF COPTE 132.5 F. 9, AN ASTROLOGICAL LEAFLET

Paris, BnF Copte 132.5, f. 9 recto. © BNF.

441

442

T.S. RICHTER

Paris, BnF Copte 132.5, f. 9 verso. © BNF.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT GESA SCHENKE

Cult around Shenoute seems to have developed – as cult tends to do – much after the physical presence of this celebrated monastic figure1 whose preserved oeuvre has long been a research focus within the larger field of Coptology. With Stephen Emmel’s dedicated decades of research centre stage, this focus on Shenoute has given rise to a new academic discipline perhaps best termed Shenoutology. The historic Shenoute, however, still remains far hazier than his candid canons and discourses would indicate. Even the most common parameters of his life, such as date of birth and death, can currently only be given as ca. 347–465.2 We know virtually nothing about his parents, siblings or upbringing.3 Shenoute’s own written records keep peculiarly quiet on this front offering very little background information on how he grew up and became a young monk, before ascending through the ranks of the White Monastery and establishing himself as its famous abbot. Instead, what one gains through the study of his corpus is the impression of a man mostly at odds with his surroundings, combative and judgemental, constantly arguing for what he believed to be proper personal conduct, the right religion, and his own superior relationship with the divine.4 THE LITERARY AND VISUAL EVIDENCE The void left in Shenoute’s biography was soon filled by hagiography. A colourful tale relating over fifty miracles and wonders occurring to or through 1 Research for this article was undertaken as part of the ERC project The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity (University of Oxford, http://cultofsaints.history.ox.ac.uk/). A version of part of this article was first presented at the 28th International Congress of Papyrology at Barcelona, August 1–6, 2016, “Reconstructing the Origins of the Cult of Saints in Egypt: Documentary Evidence for Healing Miracles.” 2 So e.g. in Brakke and Crislip 2015: 1. 3 Brakke and Crislip 2015: 18, place the story of Shenoute as a shepherd boy into the realm of fiction. 4 Or as O’Leary 1937: 255 put it rather bluntly: “Shenoute’s literary style is turbulent, agitated, and impetuous, by no means a lofty model, neither lucid in argument nor powerful in rhetoric, but possesses nevertheless a note of sincerity which convinces the reader that he was an earnest, though perhaps sometimes a tactless, reformer and was animated by lofty and pure ideals.”

444

G. SCHENKE

Shenoute during the course of his life was ascribed to his disciple and successor Besa and thereby presented as a reliable record of events taking place during parts of the 5th century.5 This extensive account professes to offer merely a fraction of the miracles wrought through Shenoute, namely only those either directly witnessed by Besa himself, or related to him by Shenoute in person, thus claiming to be an eyewitness report portraying absolute accuracy and authenticity. For lack of a proper vita, this miracle account, commonly referred to as the Life of Shenoute, was presumably compiled from a series of encomiastic accounts produced over a much longer period of time.6 In typical encomiastic fashion, such accounts focus on the unusual, superhuman and divinely induced deeds of a holy man in an attempt to establish his status as a saint. They serve as liturgical texts presented during feast day celebrations emphasizing his sanctity. For Shenoute, miracles presented on such occasions include divine visits paid to him as an abbot, power over the natural world, such as over seeds, plants, water and animals, air-travel by light cloud (ϭⲏⲡⲓ ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ) from Alexandria to Panopolis, as well as a round trip by cloud to Constantinople for a consultation with the emperor Theodosius II. In addition, various healing and punishing miracles were attributed to his supernatural power manifested most prominently in his clairvoyance which gained him the title ‘prophet’. Christ himself, it is asserted, was one of his regular visitors, along with the prophets, Mary, and the apostle Paul. At his deathbed, major monastic figures, such as Antony, Pachomios, and Pshoi are claimed to have gathered, accompanied by the saints.7 In such holy company, one finds Shenoute depicted in a 6th century wall painting on the north lobe of the triconch apse in the church of the Red Monastery. According to the caption, he has not yet received the title ⲫⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ‘saint’, but is shown simply as a holy man and abbot: + ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲟⲩ ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣ(ⲓⲧⲟⲩ), “archimandrite Abba Shenoute.”8 The same caption is found above an image of Shenoute at the White Monastery, on the Northern wall of a decorated underground burial vault located under a triconch chapel, datable possibly even a century earlier. The burial chamber itself is decorated with four enlarged gemmed crosses, each flanked by animals. One such cross, held by a hand, is depicted on the narrow wall across the entrance of the 5 For citations and a short summary see Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla. history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01093. 6 See already Lubomierski 2007. 7 See Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid= E01093. 8 See images in Bolman 2016 and https://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/current-expeditions/ yale-monastic-archaeology-project-south-sohag/red-monastery. The small commemorative limestone stele portraying a bearded man in monastic attire and the simple inscription ⲁⲡⲁ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, dated to the 5th/6th century, displays various similarities, see e.g. https://www.metmuseum.org/ art/collection/search/479063.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

445

burial chamber. Two larger crosses are decorating the wall on the right, while a matching fourth cross is found on the left wall. Next to it, instead of a fifth cross, one finds a representation of three figures, one of them being Shenoute depicted standing between two other figures, each with their own caption. Shenoute is clearly identified as: ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣⲓⲧⲟⲩ.9 An angel is standing to his right, while another figure, now largely missing, joins him on his left. The angel is presumably Michael with a caption similar to the one identifying his image in the church of the Red Monastery, a wall painting dated to ca. 550–600: + ⲙⲓⲭⲁⲏ ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ, “the archangel Michael.”10 All that is now left of the archangel’s caption are the two final letters of the word ⲁⲣⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗ]ⲟⲥ. Shenoute standing next to him is shown with a square halo and brown hair, identifying the young and living Shenoute, presumably receiving his angelic garment marking the beginning of his ascetic existence and monastic leadership.11 In contrast, his image on the wall of the Red Monastery church shows Shenoute with white hair, a long white beard, and the round halo, portraying the aged and deceased former abbot. The burial chamber with its triconch chapel above is situated in the vicinity of the former cemetery. The triconch chapel seems to be intended as a cult site associated with the burial below which is currently claimed to be that of Shenoute himself, built immediately after his death in ca. 465.12 If that were indeed the case, and a burial shrine of Shenoute was constructed for the purpose of regular cult activity relating to the former abbot, one would most likely expect this to have been mentioned towards the end of his compiled 9 Images and panorama view available at https://www.360cities.net/image/tomb-of-st-shenoute-white-monastery-sohag-egypt#164.60,0.00,75.7. See also a short critical discussion by Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E02872 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E02872. 10 See Bolman 2016: 139. 11 The scene might refer to the common theme of receiving a vision in which an angel instructs the recipient concerning the future course of life. Shenoute is said to have had many such visions. The foundation myth in the encomiastic miracle account of Shenoute states that the first night the young Shenoute stayed in the monastery, abbot Apa Pjol had a vision of an angel guarding the sleeping boy. The angel instructed Apa Pjol to put the mantle which he would find in the morning onto the boy Shenoute, as it was the mantle of Elijah the Tishbite, which Jesus intended to hand over to Shenoute, since he would be the chosen one to build a monastery and be a strong protector of his community and everyone in need. Apa Pjol follows these instructions and makes Shenoute a monk, see Leipoldt 1906: 8. For the short summary see Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01093. 12 See Bolman, Davis and Pyke 2010; repeated by Brakke and Crislip 2015: 17–19. The identification as the tomb of Shenoute rests entirely on the reconstruction of the word ‘tomb’ preceding the name Shenoute. Bolman, Davis and Pyke 2010: 460–461 read: [ὁ τόπ]ος ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩⲑⲓⲟⲩ ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣⲓⲧⲟⲩ, “[the tomb] of Abba Shenoute the Archimandrite.” Whereas the omicron and sigma preceding the name of Shenoute clearly form part of the caption above the angel standing next to Shenoute, such a phrase would in and of itself be rather peculiar on a decorated inside wall depicting a row of figures. Moreover, the word ὁ τόπος ‘place’ can stand for any holy place, ‘church’, ‘monastery’, or ‘shrine’, but not for ‘burial’ or ‘tomb’ itself for which one would expect the word ὁ τάφος.

446

G. SCHENKE

encomiastic miracle account. The text is, however, absolutely mute on any particulars concerning Shenoute’s burial or a post mortem cult associated with his remains. A description of this death is preserved in the complete Bohairic version of his miracle account where it says: Ed. Leipoldt 1906: 189: ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲛⲥⲟⲑⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲓⲱⲥ ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲁⲛⲉⲣⲥⲕⲉⲡⲁⲍⲓⲛ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲁⲛϩⲓⲧϥ ⲉϧⲣⲏⲓ ⲉⲟⲩⲕⲁⲯⲁ ⲉⲥⲟⲓ ⲛⲭⲟⲗⲭⲟⲗ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁⲛⲑⲟⲙⲥϥ ⲁⲛϩⲉⲙⲥⲓ ⲉⲛⲣⲓⲙⲓ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲛⲟⲓ ⲛⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧϥ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲉⲣϧⲁⲓⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲓϣϯ ⲛⲣⲉϥϯⲥⲃⲱ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲉϥ, “Hearing these things, we made haste. We kissed [reading ⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉⲥⲑⲉ with witness D] his holy body and wrapped it in a burial cloak [cappa]. We buried him and sat around weeping and being distressed over it, because we now lacked a great good teacher.”13 Neither the construction of a special burial shrine, nor a cult associated with the deceased abbot is mentioned anywhere. This is, of course, fully in line with rejections from Athanasius and other influential figures, like Antony and Pachomius, who dismissed cult activity centered around the physical remains of the deceased. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Shenoute’s compliant successor Besa, who is well known through his own letters and sermons as someone actively preserving the memory and rule of his predecessor,14 would turn around and undermine his former abbot’s authority by building an elaborate burial complex to promote a cult of Shenoute about which his hagiography in turn keeps entirely quiet.15 What still remains puzzling, however, is the question, when exactly Shenoute became a figure of cult. When did his commemoration make the transition from a revered holy man in life to an eternal saint whose holy name could be invoked by generations of future Egyptian Christians desiring help, guidance and intercession? A look at the sketchy documentary evidence available from other parts of Egypt might prove useful in sketching a possible timeline for such a development.

13 Cf. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid= E01093. 14 See Kuhn 1956. 15 Cf. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E02872 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid= E02872. The burial complex is most likely that of an affluent 5th-century donor who desired a final resting place in close proximity to the White monastery where the living Shenoute promoted angelic life on earth (burial ad sanctos). Unless, in view of the scene with the young Shenoute, one wants to consider whether the figure now largely lost was that of Apa Pjol, the original founder of the monastery, who might have once been buried here.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

447

THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON SHENOUTE AS A SAINT On the whole, documentary sources remain equally silent on the figure of Shenoute, suggesting that he was indeed a largely local Panopolite celebrity. So far there are only seven documents making any reference to Shenoute and none of them are datable much before the 7th century.16 The earliest is a terracotta disc of unknown Egyptian provenance depicting a praying figure carved in low relief with a nimbus standing in the gesture of an orant.17 The object housed in the Musée du Louvre in Paris was dated roughly to the 6th/7th century. It shows an inscription in mirror writing (SB 1.2072) which would indicate that it was once part of a mould or stamp, but lack of context hampers a proper evaluation as to whether the item was intended for liturgical or private use. The inscription itself, however, is undoubtedly a tribute to Shenoute as a saint. It reads: ὁ ἅγιος Σινοῦθι[ς] ‘Saint Shenoute’. A clear invocation to Shenoute as a saint is found on the wall of chapel 19 at the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit near Hermopolis in Middle Egypt. The graffito, datable to the 7th/8th century, invokes the power of Shenoute together with that of Apollo and the other ‘holy fathers’. IBaouit Clédat,18 p. 120, no 2 reads: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲟ ⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲗⲱ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲛⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, “God of our holy fathers, saint Shenoute together with Apa Apollo and all our holy fathers”!19 A papyrus fragment likewise from Hermopolis and dated to the same period mentions the abbot saint Shenoute in connection with this location. Though the context is not clear, in view of the aforementioned graffito at Bawit, this might well hint at a cult of Shenoute at Hermopolis during the 7th/8th century, possibly even in connection with the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit. The document CPR 2 172, line 1–2 reads: [ -ca.?- ⲁⲣ]ⲭⲓⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲫⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ϣⲉⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ -ca.?- ] | [ -ca.?- ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⲧⲓⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲧⲁⲓ ϣⲙⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲓ[ -ca.?- ], “[…] archimandrite, saint She[enoute, …] | […] … city of Shmoun … […].”20 Two early 8th-century papyrus documents from Aphrodito mention a monastery of saint Shenoute in the Panopolite nome. One of the documents, P.Lond 4 1460, is a fragment from a Greek fiscal codex offering a list of fugitives around the year 709, seven of which are stated to come from “the 16 See the very short list in Papaconstantinou 2001: 185–186. This seems to be in line with a recent critical discussion by Bagnall 2020 of the available documentary evidence concerning the occurrence of Shenoute as a personal name which seems not to have gained any popularity before the late 6th/early 7th century. 17 Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01090 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01090. 18 Clédat 1904. 19 Clackson 2000: 6; Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00948 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/ record.php?recid=E00948. 20 Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00949 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00949.

448

G. SCHENKE

monastery of saint Shenoute in the pagarchy of Panopolis.” In line 173, for example, it reads: [Πέ]τρο(ς) Γεωργίο\υ/ ἀπὸ μονα(στηρίου) Ἁγί(ου) Σενο(υθίου) παγα(ρ)χ(ίας) Παν(ός), “Petros, son of Georgios, from the monastery of saint Shenoute in the pagarchy of Panopolis.”21 The other document, P.Lond 4 1471, is a fiscal account recording payments made by the same monastery during the 8th century. In line 15 it reads: … δ(ιὰ) (τοῦ) μον(αστηρίου) ἁγίου Σενο[υ]θ(ίου) Πανὸ(ς) π(αγαρχίας) …, “… through the monastery of saint Shenoute of the Panopolite pagarchy, ….”22 What is nowadays referred to as ‘the White monastery’ seems, at least in 8th century Aphrodito, to have been commonly known as “the monastery of saint Shenoute.” Monasteries in other parts of Egypt, however, were likewise known by this name, presumably named in dedication to the memory of the Panopolite abbot Shenoute rather than a local namesake. One example is the monastery of Shenoute on the mountain of Pachme mentioned in P.KRU 75 as the residence of a witnesses to the will of Apa Jakob and Apa Elias, heads of the Theban monastery of Epiphanios. The document is dated to the middle of the 7th century. In lines 146–147 it reads: + ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⲡⲉⲉⲗⲁⲭ(ⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ) ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲟⲭⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃ(ⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ) ⲙⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁⲭⲙⲉ, “I, Isaak, the least monk and priest of the holy topos of Apa Shenoute on the mountain of Pachme, …”23 Evidence that by the 7th century Shenoute had become a celebrated figure also outside of Panopolis is provided through a limestone ostracon datable to the 7th/8th century, SBKopt.1.12. The document offers a list of books belonging to the monastery of Apa Elijah, presumably at Aphroditopolis/Atfih in Middle Egypt. The heading reads: [ⲡⲗ]ⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲚⲚϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ Ⲙⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ Ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ϩⲏⲗⲓⲁⲥ Ⲛⲧⲡⲉ[ⲧⲣⲁ], “[The] list of holy books at the topos of Apa Elijah on the mountain.” The list is 115 lines long and written in two columns. It begins with books from the Old Testament, followed by the gospels and various other manuscripts, including encomia, lives, and martyrdoms. Even the material of the books is specified as either papyrus (ⲭⲁⲣⲧⲏⲥ) or parchment (ⲙⲉⲃⲣⲁⲛⲟⲛ), and a mention is made whether these manuscripts are old or new. In lines 95–96 one finds the entry of a new papyrus manuscript with an enkomion on Apa Shenoute by Apa Konstantinos: ⲟⲩⲉⲅⲕⲱⲙⲓⲟ(ⲛ) Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲕⲱⲥⲧⲁⲛⲧⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲁⲡⲁ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲅⲉⲛⲟⲩⲣ(ⲅⲓⲟⲥ) ⲭⲁⲣ(ⲧⲏⲥ), “An Enkomion by Apa Konstantinos on Apa Shenoute, new (καινούργιος) papyrus (χάρτης).”24 21

For the other examples see Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01091 - http://csla.history.ox.ac. uk/record.php?recid=E01091. 22 See Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01092 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid= E01092. 23 For an introduction and German translation see Till 1954: 198–204. 24 Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01740 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01740.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

449

Other celebratory texts pointing to a wide spread cult of Shenoute by the 7th century are the Sermon on Shenoute attributed to Benjamin, bishop of Alexandria (626–665),25 and the Coptic enkomion on Apa Moyses/Moses of Abydos, relating not only Moyses’s visions, clairvoyance and healing powers, but mentioning a celebration of the feast day of Shenoute prior to Moyses’s death. IFAO Copte 28v–29r, p. 142–143 reads: ⲁⲥϣⲰⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲥⲁϣϤ Ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲉⲡⲎⲡ ⲉϥⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ ⲉϥϣⲗⲎⲗ, “It then happened on day seven of the month of Epeiph (1 July, feast day of Shenoute), as he stood praying” … ϣⲰⲣⲠ ⲇⲉ ⲚⲧⲕⲨⲣⲓⲁⲕⲎ ⲁϥⲥⲩⲛⲀⲅⲉ ⲘⲡⲗⲀⲟⲥ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥϭⲓϫ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲁϥⲕⲁⲑⲎⲅⲉⲓ ⲙⲙⲟⲞⲩ ϩⲘ ⲡⲢⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲘⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲎⲧⲎⲥ ⲁⲡⲀ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲘⲡⲧⲟⲞⲩ ⲛⲁⲧⲣⲡⲉ, “On Sunday morning, he personally gave communion to the people and the brothers, and he instructed them at the commemoration for the prophet Apa Shenoute of the monastery/mountain at Atripe.”26 SHENOUTE AS A

HEALING SAINT

By the 7th century, Shenoute clearly had become a widely known and celebrated Egyptian saint. Further documentary evidence even suggests that Shenoute was at that point not just considered a saint commemorated and invoked, but considered also a powerful healing saint. A Greek letter of the 7th century found in the Fayum, P.Paramone 14, mentions a piece of cloth from the garment of Shenoute intended for the purpose of healing.27 The letter was written by a scribe named Petros on behalf of the head of a female monastery of Apa Shenoute in the Fayum (ἡ μεγάλη τῶν αββα Σινούθου, “the great woman of those of Abba Shenoute”), possibly a branch of the well-known monastery of Dayr Anba Shinudah located in the South-west of what is today Madinat el-Fayum. It is addressed to a woman named Theodosia referred to as “my God-protected mistress” (ἡ θεοφύλακτος μου κυρᾶ) and deals primarily with an enquiry for and the delivery of goods, mostly textiles, dyes, and parchment, before mentioning a piece of Shenoute’s garment having been sent to a woman suffering from a daemon. Since the emphasis of the letter lies on the transfer of various commodities, it illustrates first and foremost the economic interactions between the female

25

Emmel 2007: 96. See Uljas 2011. For a short summary and discussion see Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E02450 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E02450. The fact that this Coptic manuscript belonged to the White Monastery might, however, have played a role in mentioning Shenoute’s feast day. 27 Jördens 2004. 26

450

G. SCHENKE

monastery of Apa Shenoute in the Fayum and its surrounding elite.28 In addition, the head of the monastery announces, via her scribe, that she has sent a small piece of the garment of the prophet Abba Shenoute through a man named Epimachos, since she heard that a certain Theodote was suffering from a daemon. This relic is to be put upon the patient, presumably to drive the daemon out of her body. P.Paramone 14, line 6–8 reads: Ἔμαθον δὲ ὅτι Θεοδότη ἐδαιμονίσθη, καὶ λαβοῦσα μικρὸν ἐκ τοῦ στιχαρίου τοῦ προφήτου αββα Σινουθίου ἔπεμψα διὰ Ἐπιμάχου, ἵνα τοῦτο βάλητε αὐτῇ, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ὑγιάνῃ, πέμψον μοι αὐτήν, “I have heard that Theodote is suffering from a daemon, and I have taken a small piece of the garment (sticharion) of the prophet Abba Shenoute. I have sent it through Epimachos, so that you may throw it onto her. And if she is not healed, send her to me.” On the assumption that only the White Monastery at Sohag would be in possession of its former abbot’s garments, it was postulated that this letter illustrates interaction between two nunneries of Apa Shenoute, one at Sohag, the other located in the Fayum. There is, however, no reason to suppose that a monastery in the Fayum could not have possessed small fragments of Shenoute’s garments by the 7th century. The subdivision of relics, contact relics and bodily relics alike, practiced in the belief that even the smallest part carried the full power of the saint, was a common phenomenon already in the 4th to 7th century.29 Moreover, due to the lack of any monastic titles for the addressee of the Fayum letter, there is no evidence that the recipient, the woman named Theodosia, was herself connected to a monastery. She was most likely rather an important local Fayum figure with whom the female monastery interacted. This would also explain the use of a Greek scribe, unlikely to be needed for the correspondence between two Coptic monasteries. The woman mentioned as suffering from a daemon, Theodote, could be a family member of the addressee, one of her employees, or servants, as well as simply a mere acquaintance of either one of the two women corresponding. Whatever the case, it would be a person too ill to make her way to the monastery for treatment herself. For this reason, a small piece from what was once a garment of Shenoute was entrusted with the special courier Epimachos to be brought directly to the patient. Epimachos was most likely one of numerous faithful go-betweens who frequently delivered goods from the monastic sender to the non-monastic addressee and vice versa. What makes this setting particularly interesting, is that this is the earliest and the only documentary evidence of a contact relic associated with Shenoute. This small piece of a sticharion, presumably an undergarment, was considered 28 See the discussion by Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01057 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/ record.php?recid=E01057. 29 See Rapp 2007: 559. For the development of this practice see now Wisniewski 2019.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

451

a remedy to cure a demonic disease. Only in the unlikely event of failure to obtain healing through this relic, is the patient to be brought to the monastery, presumably for other, stronger treatment performed within its enclosures. Whether this would indicate some kind of healing cult practised at the monastic Arsinoite location, or would suggest a public healing shrine connected to the monastery, possibly even involving medical treatment by a trained physician working at an associated infirmary under the name of Shenoute, remains a matter of speculation. Shenoute’s garments, however, play an important role already in his hagiography.30 Looking back at his encomiastic miracle account, his ascetic career begins with an angel entrusting him with the mantle of Elijah the Tishbite.31 In his own writings, Shenoute styled himself as a prophetic “voice crying in the wilderness” when addressing his monastic community. This self-promotion as a tool of God who was receiving “revelations and disclosures from the Lord” brought him the epithet ‘the prophet’32 which he freely used to emphasize his authority.33 The title of his Bohairic miracle account thus refers to him as ⲡⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲁⲡⲁ ϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϯ “the prophet Apa Shenoute.”34 In line with many other hagiographical dossiers of martyr saints emphasizing their healing powers, Shenoute’s hagiography credits him with the ability to cure others during his lifetime.35 It also relates instances when contact relics of Shenoute were sought by high officials, like the dux and the comes, to benefit them in their battle against barbarians. The dux visiting the abbot not only asks for advice and a blessing from Shenoute, but also for one of his leather girdles (ⲙⲟϫϧ ⲛϣⲁⲣ) as protection. The comes likewise requests Shenoute’s belt (ⲡⲉϥϧⲱⲕ), before going into battle; and both officials return victorious.36 Shenoute himself, in one of his many letters, bequeathed his garments, partly ripped in desperation, to his fellow monks to keep for future generations as proof of his struggle in life.37 This frequent practice of transferring social responsibility through the handover of worn garments is a fairly common theme

30 For a recent discussion of Shenoute’s personal attire reoccurring in his depictions from the 5th/6th century onwards see Fluck 2020. For a collection and evaluation of the terms and expressions used by Shenoute himself when discussing clothing regulations and monastic textile production see Cromwell 2020. 31 See note 11. 32 Brakke and Crislip 2015: 3–4 and 13. 33 So Krawiec 2002: 55–56. 34 See Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid= E01093. 35 Leipoldt 1906: 40–41. See Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla.history.ox.ac. uk/record.php?recid=E01093. 36 Leipoldt 1906: 103–108, 135–137. See Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 - http://csla. history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01093. 37 See Leipoldt 1903: 55.

452

G. SCHENKE

in the life of holy men, well known, for example, from the Life of Antony.38 In effect, it produces contact relics, here of Shenoute whose strength, willpower and authority preserved by his garments might still be considered sufficient to frighten and drive out daemons by their mere touch. Parts of Shenoute’s wardrobe were most likely in the possession of monasteries bearing his name. Moreover, the Fayum letter never claims possession of a complete garment from which a piece is sent. Most likely the medical delivery mentioned here concerned a piece of a mere textile fragment housed at this monastic location. After all, the piece sent (μικρὸν ἐκ τοῦ στιχαρίου) might refer to only a few threads of fabric; similar to threads taken from the garments of Martin of Tours, likewise famous for their healing powers.39 The Fayum document relates to the strength of an object that had been in very close contact with a living saint, a piece of his sticharion, extending such healing powers from the martyrs, who were the first to attract cult, to ascetics and monastic founders. Other monasteries went down a similar route with respect to the power of their patron saint, creating and defining new powerful healing substances at their saint’s shrine. Among the numerous documents of the 6th–8th century associated with the monastery of Phoibammon on the mountain of Jeme, is a self-donation document, known as P.KRU 104.40 The document was presumably found at the site of the monastery and dates to the year 771–772. It deals with the donation of a man named Petronios, son of Georgios, most probably from the town or the region of Jeme, who donates himself as a servant to the monastery’s patron saint.41 He reports that after he had fallen ill and was nearly dying, he received healing only through water from the holy basin (louter) located in front of the altar in the topos of the saint Phoibammon. The water was handed out by the steward (oikonomos) of that sanctuary (lines 18–27) and delivered to the patient’s bedside, since he was too ill to be transported to the shrine. The fibres from a piece of Shenoute’s former garment brought from a monastery dedicated to the holy man’s name were expected to have the same healing effect on the afflicted Theodote as the water taken from the monastic sanctuary of Phoibammon had on Petronios. Both are contact relics sent from a monastic location associated with a particular saint, transporting the saint’s

38 Athanasius, Life of Antony 91.8–9, see discussion by Rapp 2007: 559–560. See now also the extensive discussion on the importance of monastic garments and the handover of a himation marking the transfer of authority in Thomas 2019, with reference to Rollason 2016: 129–169. 39 Sulpicius Severus, Life of Martin 18.4–5. For a longer discussion on bishop-saints like Martin, see Rapp 2007: 553. 40 For a summary, text and translation see most recently Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00205 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00205. 41 For a longer discussion and translation of this and other donation documents from the healing shrine of saint Phoibammon on the mountain of Jeme, see Schenke 2016.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

453

power to the patient. Petronios, overjoyed by his miraculous recovery, decided in return to donate himself as a life-long servant to the healing saint Phoibammon. One can only speculate whether similar procedures were in place also at other monastic institutions facilitating healing of monastic members and laypeople alike.42 The protective power of Shenoute’s wardrobe in direct confrontation with an enemy – may they be barbarians or daemons – seems to have formed part of a well-established set of believes by the 7th century. Institutions founded by, or dedicated to the memory of the famous abbot appear to have made full use of these properties, should the need for a miracle arise. The transition of Shenoute from a revered Panopolite abbot to a trusted healing saint was presumably not a speedy affair. Two centuries after his death, however, Shenoute clearly had joined the ranks of national Egyptian saints expected to perform miracles and provide cures whenever their names were invoked by faithful members of the public. Bibliography Bagnall, Roger S. 2020. “Shenoute’s Name”. ISAW Papers 19. URI: http://hdl.handle. net/2333.1/05qfv49m Bolman, Elizabeth S. 2016. The Red Monastery Church. Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. New Haven. Bolman, Elizabeth S., Davis, Stephen J., and Pyke, Gillian 2010. “Shenoute and a Recently Discovered Tomb Chapel at the White Monastery.” JECS 18, 453– 462. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge. Clackson, Sarah J. 2000. Coptic and Greek Texts relating to the Hermopolite Monastery of Apa Apollo. Oxford. Clédat, Jean 1904. Le monastère et la nécropole de Baouît. MIFAO 12. Cairo. Cromwell, Jennifer A. 2020. “Textiles in Shenoute’s writings.” In: The Textile Centre Akhmim-Panopolis (Egypt) in Late Antiquity. Material Evidence for Continuity and Change in Society, Religion, Industry and Trade, edited by R. El-Sayed and C. Fluck, 95–103. Studia Panopolitana Occasional Paper 4. Wiesbaden. Emmel, Stephen 2007. “Coptic literature in the Byzantine and early Islamic world.” In: Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700, edited by R. S. Bagnall, 83–102. Cambridge. Fluck, Cäcilia 2020. “Apa Schenutes Kleider – Zur Mönchskleidung im Panopolites.” In: The Textile Centre Akhmim-Panopolis (Egypt) in Late Antiquity. Material Evidence for Continuity and Change in Society, Religion, Industry and Trade, edited by R. El-Sayed and C. Fluck, 105–119. Studia Panopolitana Occasional Paper 4. Wiesbaden.

42 At the healing shrine of Phoibammon on the mountain of Jeme, this possibility seems open only to former male patients, as the shrine formed part of a male monastery.

454

G. SCHENKE

Jördens, Andrea 2004. “Reliquien des Schenute im Frauenkonvent.” In: Paramone: Editionen und Aufsätze von Mitgliedern des Heidelberger Instituts für Papyrologie zwischen 1982 und 2004, edited by J. M. S. Cowey and B. Kramer, 142–156. APF Beiheft 16. Munich/Leipzig. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery. Oxford. Kuhn, K. H. 1956. Letters and Sermons of Besa. CSCO 157 (text) and 158 (trans.). Leuven. Leipoldt, Johannes 1903. Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national ägyptischen Christentums. Leipzig. ——. 1906. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. CSCO 41, Script. Copt. 1. Paris. Lubomierski, Nina 2006. “The Vita Sinuthii (The Life of Shenoute): Panegyric or biography?” Studia Patristica 39, 417–421. ——. 2007. Die Vita Sinuthii: Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten. Tübingen. ——. 2008. “The Coptic Life of Shenoute.” In: Christianity and monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 1: Akhmim and Sohag, edited by G. Gabra and H. Takla, 91–98. Cairo/New York. O’Leary, De Lacy 1937. The Saints of Egypt. London. Papaconstantinou, Arietta 2001. Le Culte des Saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbassides. Paris. Rapp, Claudia 2007. “Saints and Holy Men.” In: The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600, edited by A. Casiday and F.W. Norris, 548– 566. Cambridge. Rollason, Nikki K. 2016. Gifts of Clothing in Late Antique Literature. Abingdon. Schenke, Gesa 2016. “The Healing Shrines of St Phoibammon. Evidence of Cult Activity in Coptic Legal Documents.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 20.3, 496– 523. ——. 2019. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00205 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00205. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00948 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00948. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E00949 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00949. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01057 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01057. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01090 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01090. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01091 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01091. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01092 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01092. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01093 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01093. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E01740 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01740. Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E02450 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E02450.

THE CULT OF SHENOUTE: FROM HOLY MAN TO HEALING SAINT

455

Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, E02872 http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E02872. Thomas, Thelma K. 2019. “The Honorific Mantle as Furnishing for the Household Memory Theater in Late Antiquity: A Case Study from the Monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit.” In: Catalogue of the Textiles in the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection, edited by Gudrun Bühl and Elizabeth Dospěl Williams. Washington, DC. https://www.doaks.org/resources/textiles/essays/thomas. Till, Walter C. 1954. Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der koptischen Urkunden. Wien. Uljas, Sami 2011. “The IFAO Leaves of the Life of Moses of Abydos.” Orientalia 80.4, 373–422. Wisniewski, Robert 2019. The Beginnings of the Cult of Relics. Oxford.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW ARIEL SHISHA-HALEVY

Generalities and generalizations are among the most powerful of Shenoute’s rhetorical tools. Generic encoding, the quintessence of generalization, an intricate web of linguistic signs, is the subject matter of this paper, which scans and illustrates the main generic forms. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Genericity: Preliminaries Generic persons in a world of generic discourse Zero article, lexeme, nil (“bare lexeme”) Existence, non-existence The Definite Article ⲛⲓⲙ The Affective or Rhetorical Article: generic deixis {ⲡⲁ-}: the relator pronoun The Indefinite Article. Incidental (instantial) genericity. (Catalogic) Caseraising ⲉϥ- (Circumstantial) “anyone who”: generic Temporal generics Generic narratives Distinction generics Eventive converb: non-generic Neuter genericity ϣⲁϥ-, ⲙⲉϥ-: habitative, ensuing event, gnomics Hermeneia: metaphrastic generics. Allegory

1. Genericity: preliminaries1 (a) Genericity is a relational property of grammatical elements. “Generic” is usually taken narrowly, to mean “not specific”, “not particular”, “not individually identificatory”, “of general reference”, and/or “referring to kind”. However, this may imply scalarity (reduction or increase of specificity, high or low quantity of generality, of specifying details supplied, fuzziness and vagueness), and/or different formal and environmental types. The opposition “generic 1 Cf. Guillaume 1964; Carlson and Pelletier 1995: 1–124, 427–449; Shisha-Halevy 2007: 701 s.v.; Marmorstein 2017.

458

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

vs. specific” is by no means binary, or straightforward: rather, we face a spectrum of types and points on a continuum. I conceive here of genericity broadly, as a complex set of grammatical phenomena and properties, in a structural approach. The negative approach to genericity (“not specific”) may be matched by a positive one (“of general applicability” and “referring to kind”, “abstract” and “alienated”),2 which I consider preferable and attempt to apply here. (b) All articles in Coptic may be read as generic in some contexts; this means that it is the syntactic environment, the context, not the article alone, that encodes genericity. It will be seen below that the disturbance or disabling of the person or determination system is the basis for generic reading. (c) The rhetorical application of genericity is deep and far-reaching. From the mystically pregnant, transcendent in a parallel reality, to the metaphrastichermeneutic and exegetic, through the persuasive power higher authority, to the power of alienation in generalities – the generic signals are a formidable component of Shenoute’s poetics. This is a double-edged rhetorical device: double-edged because it has the guise of a flat, innocent, truistic generalization, while it hides (if I may mix my metaphors) a hurtful sting. (d) In the following pages, I mean to present something like a checklist of Shenoutean constructions – nominal, pronominal and verbal3 – that are readable as generic, along with questions and implications.4 The major problems that must be addressed on this basis are: – What is the formal/functional difference between types on the spectrum of genericity? – How is one to determine grading on the continuum or scale of genericity? – What is the significance of the difference between grammatical zero and nil? – How is one to conceive of the syntactic interface of the generic, the notion name and the proper name, the abstract and the alienated? – Most profound, most difficult: the association of genericity and thematicity, givenness and “existing-ness”. None of these queries is really answered in this paper; still, I would argue for the justification of raising them. I admit to far-reaching subjectivity in the following judgements of genericity, excusing myself by the need for a basis for tackling this vexed issue. To detect the rich array of generic types, one must resort to close reading – a veritable lectura Sinuthii.

2

See Marmorstein 2017: 493ff. in an outstanding general and particular study of genericity in Arabic. 3 Adverbials and pronominals (ⲗⲁⲁⲩ, ϩⲱⲃ, ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ etc.) may signal general application; I have not included lexical and phraseological signals in the discussion. 4 Genericity is marked in Bohairic much more sharply: see Shisha-Halevy 2007: 701 s.v. “generics” etc.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

459

2. Generic persons in a world of interpersonal discourse5 The rich variety of generic persons in Shenoute’s usage is striking: (a) “Freezing” or disabling of pronominal slots – always delocutive (3rd sgl. masc.): (1) (Amél. II 72) ⲙⲛⲧϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ “mercifulness”. (2) (XO 51 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 101) ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲉⲧ ⲛⲁⲕ “The womb of the women pregnant with your child”. (b) “on” (French), “man” (German): ⲣⲱⲙⲉ – pronominal “(some) one”. (3) (Chass. 166) ⲙⲏ ϣⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲁϥⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲙⲥϥ ⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ “Does someone who died and was buried sin?”. (c) 3rd plural: a difficult feature. Discontinuously with agentive (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) ϩⲓⲧⲛ-, this forms a passive equivalent. Otherwise, impersonal “they”, “on” (French). (4) (Leip. III 46) ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲉϣⲡⲁϥⲉⲛⲉⲃⲓⲱ ⲥⲉϯ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲥⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ … ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ⲉⲩϥⲓⲡⲣⲱⲟⲩϣ ϩⲁⲡⲁϥⲉⲛⲃⲉⲓⲱ ϩⲓⲧⲛⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲧ ⲛⲛⲕⲉⲍⲱⲟⲛ ⲉⲧϯ ⲟⲩⲃⲏϥ … “It’s proper that the honey-bee is loved; the fruit of its toil is given to kings … it’s proper that the honey-bee is taken care of by the people, who watch over it and kill the animals which attack it”. (5) (Chass. 82) ⲥⲉⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉϫⲛⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲉⲁϥⲙⲉⲧⲁⲛⲟⲉⲓ “For they rejoice [in heaven?] over a sinner who has repented”. The indefinite article encodes here an instantial generic (see below, §9). Compare Lk 15:7 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϫⲛⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲉϥϣⲁⲛⲙⲉⲧⲁⲛⲟⲓ̈ . (6) (Amél. II 305) ⲙⲏ ⲉϣⲁⲩⲕⲉⲧⲡⲏⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲏⲧϥ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁϥ ⲏ ⲉϣⲁⲩϫⲉⲣⲉⲡϩⲏⲃⲥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲣⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲙⲙⲓⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ “Do they build a house for its own sake? Or do they light a lamp to illuminate itself?”. (d) 2nd singular masculine, formally only: colloquial “dialogic monologue”? (7) (Leip. III 66) ⲟⲩⲙⲛⲧⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ϯ ⲙⲡϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲛϥⲧⲙϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲏ ⲉⲁⲕϫⲓ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲅϩⲱ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲧϣⲃⲉⲓⲱ ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲕⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϥ “It is blessedness to give to the poor, and not take from him; or, if you do take, that it suffices for you the return of what you gave him”. (8) (Chass. 104) ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲙⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲅⲧⲙⲣⲡⲉϥϩⲱⲃ “It is a sin to eat a man’s bread and not do his work”

5 The short comments that accompany the examples below are minimal, hence inadequate and frankly superficial. The translations do not necessarily reflect the Coptic generic turn of phrase; the descriptive statements apply only to the Shenoutean usage.

460

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(e) 1st plural: inclusive “dialogic monologue’ – “I and you”: (9) (Amél. I 37) ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲧⲁⲣⲛϭⲓⲛⲉ “It is good to search, and that we should find”. (10) (Chass. 166) ⲉϣϫⲉ-ⲁⲛⲙⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲁⲛⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲭⲥ “If we have died with Christ, we have arisen with Christ”. Cf. Ro 6:8. (f) Generic 2nd Plural and 2nd singular feminine “ye”, “thou” (Shenoute addressing his congregation, e.g. Leip. IV 49, 6 and passim).6 3. Zero article, lexeme, nil (“bare lexeme”) (a) The iconic signification of zero article / bare lexeme, with the noun syntagm “mirroring” or simulating the bare lexeme, beyond the morphemic operativeness of paradigmatic absence, is relevant to the expression of genericity. Here we encounter syntaxic tension between zero and nil, as well as between zero and indefinite (ⲟⲩ-). (b) However, the bare lexeme arguably encodes a proper name, including the notion name.7 This is the idea itself: Guillaume’s “nom en puissance”, Glinz’s (1973) “Nennform”, Pottier’s (1962) “la notion en soi”, all subtly distinct from the generic; and yet, the generic is arguably affiliated to the abstract, the epigrammatic and even the alienated, and so, counter-intuitively and somewhat paradoxically, the proper name is generic, or can be generic, in the appropriate co(n)text. John is at the same time highly specific and generic: (11) (Shisha-Halevy 1984: 179f.) ⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲣⲁⲛ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ “Our name is Sin, not Man”. (12) (Leip. III 46) ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧϩⲁⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲛⲧⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩϫⲡⲟ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲥⲉⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲉ-ⲣⲱⲙⲉ “All people under heaven, born unto the world, are called ‘Man’”. (13) (Leip. III 161–162) … ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ … ϫⲉ-ϩⲣⲁⲃⲃⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ϫⲉ-ⲣⲉϥϯⲥⲃⲱ … ⲏ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲉ-ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲏ ⲙⲁⲁⲩ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ “… that they should call them ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Teacher’, … or address them as ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’, honorifically”. (14) (Amél. I 77) ⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ-ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ϩⲓⲗⲩⲡⲏ ϩⲓⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ ϩⲓⲛⲟϭⲛⲉϭ ϩⲓⲟⲩⲱⲗⲥ ⲛϩⲏⲧ “Call him ‘he of heartache and pain and sighing and reproach and disheartening’”. An interesting construction: bracketing by the definite article, which also has a “name” status following ⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϫⲉ-. The proper name is signaled as such, not by itself, but by its naming environment. (15) (Leip. III 51) ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ “Your name is ‘the Lord’”. 6 7

The 2nd fem. address creates a Biblical rhetorical prophetical “Daughter of Zion” effect. Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1989: §§ 0.4b, 1.1b, c; 2007: §3.5.2, p. 405–407, 434.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

461

(c) The zero articled nominal constituent of compound verbs (denominal derivates) may be topicalized, in which case it is not generic:8 (16) (Leip. III 18) ⲁⲛⲁϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲉ “Swear they did not”. (d) The zero article is paramount for encoding a generic noun: (17) (XO 84 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 134) ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲙⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉϣⲏⲣⲉ ϩⲓϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲓⲥⲟⲛ ϩⲓⲥⲱⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϩⲓⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ “You love Him more than son and daughter and brother and sister and father and mother, more than the world and all in it”. (18) (Leip. IV 107) ⲁϩⲣⲟϥ ϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲙⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲉⲣⲉⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲟ ⲛⲟⲩ ⲙⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ “What has a male to do with a female? What has a female to do with a male?” (19) (Leip. IV 3) ⲙⲛⲣⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲥⲭⲏⲙⲁ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ “Name or habit cannot help us”. (20) (Leip. IV 28) ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ “either man or woman”. (e) Nominal-Sentence rheme and theme: zero article generic. Note the concord of zero generic constituents: (21) (Leip. IV 23) ϯⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ-ⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲛⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ “I know that it is heartache to listen to these words”. (22) (Chass. 84) ⲛⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ ⲛⲛϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ϩⲉⲛϩⲁⲧ ⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϩⲉⲛϣⲉ ⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲱⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲣⲏ ϩⲓⲟⲟϩ ϩⲓⲥⲓⲟⲩ “The idols of the heathen are [made] of silver and gold, of wood and stone, and [are] Sun and Moon and Stars”. Note the different constructions for mass nouns and proper names. (23) (Amél. II 395) ⲏ ⲟⲣⲅⲏ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ-ϥϩⲓⲱⲱϥ ⲛⲟⲩϫⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲗⲁⲕⲟⲥ “Isn’t it infuriating (or: Doesn’t it provoke wrath) to say that He (i.e. Christ) descends on an effeminate enemy?” Note here the Greek loan lexeme, the non-infinitival lexeme and the thetic pattern with the situational theme ⲡⲉ, not concording with the rheme. (24) (Amél. I 228) ϣⲗⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϣⲓⲡⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ “It is disgraceful to say (these things), it is shameful to listen to them”. Infinitival and non-infinitival rheme. Note the “‘adjectival’ paraphrase reading” of the generic rhemes. (25) (De Iudicio f. LVIIIro ed. Behlmer 1996: 123) ⲙⲏ ϭⲉⲣⲱⲃ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ϣⲉ “Is not a stick wood?” A copular Nominal Sentence, with distinctive macrosyntactic properties of theme and the rheme. (f) ⲛ-zero – attributive generic: a zero-articled generic noun is the normal adnominal attribute in Coptic: (26) (Leip. III 45) ⲛⲉⲓⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲛⲍⲱⲟⲛ “Those tiny animals” 8

It is generally difficult to be certain about the nominal element of compounds; counterintuitively, it may be lexemic, and not a zero-article noun syntagma (and cf. Polotsky 1959: 459 n. 3).

462

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(27) (Chass. 34) ⲟⲩⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ “An angelic sword” (28) (Leip. IV 186) ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲛⲣⲉϥϯⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ “The fruit-giving land” (29) (Chass. 56) ⲡⲁⲧⲛⲁ ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲟⲓ “The pityless soldier” (g) In complementary distribution, adverbal ⲛ-zero – rhematic (predicative) generic: (30) (De Iudicio f. XVvo ed. Behlmer 1996: 42) ⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛⲏⲓ “Hell, that has become your home” (h) Generic zero occurs in Shenoute’s catalogic lists, with internal ϩⲓ- coordinated subgroupings. Note that the indefinite article is also used for list entries (below, § 9), perhaps for eschatological prophetic listing, whereas zero characterizes items in an inventory: (31) (Leip. III 71) ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲟⲙⲛⲧ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲁⲧ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲟⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϩⲓⲡⲣⲏϣ ϩⲓⲣϣⲱⲛ ϩⲓϩⲃⲟⲥ ⲛⲕⲱⲱⲥ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲥⲟⲩⲟ ϩⲓⲟⲉⲓⲕ ϩⲓⲉⲕⲉⲧ ϩⲓⲉⲃⲣⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲏⲣⲡ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲙϫ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲉ ϩⲓϩⲁⲗⲱⲙ ϩⲓϭⲣⲟⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲉⲓⲧ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϩⲙⲉ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲟⲡⲱⲣⲁ ϩⲓⲭⲣⲉⲓⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉϥϣⲱⲛⲉ “… or copper, or gold, or silver, or clothes and shoes and cloaks and coats and burial coverings, or corn and bread and barley and any grain, or wine or vinegar or eggs and cheese and pigeons, or meal or oil or grapes or fruit and any/every need of a sick person.” (i) In cases of bracketing (typically by the plural indefinite articles), the zero inside the brackets does not encode a generic meaning: (32) (Amél. I 38) ϩⲉⲛⲱⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ “Some of stone-and-clay”. (33) (Amél. I 65) ϩⲉⲛⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ϩⲓϩⲁⲧ “A bit of gold-andsilver”. (j) Anaphora to zero generic implies zero valency: (34) (Leip. III 18) ⲁⲛⲁϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲉ “Swear they did not, …” (35) (Leip. III 165) ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ “He who wishes to disobey, let him disobey”. (k) Reiterated zero: iconic modifier generic:9 (36) (Leip. III 106) ⲕⲁⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛ ϣⲁⲁⲧⲕ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ “Even if they tear you limb by limb”. 4. Existence, non-existence: ⲟⲩⲛ-, (ⲙ̅)ⲙⲛ-10 (a) Affirmation of existence differs sharply from affirmation of non-existence. Historically kindred, the non-existant is as a rule generic – zero-articled: 9 10

Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: §1.3.3. Polotsky 1987: 68–72.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

463

(37) (Leip. IV 50) ϫⲉ-ⲙⲛⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲉ ⲉϥϫⲏⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ “for there is no perfect love in thee”. (38) (Amél. II 483) ⲛⲁϣ ⲛϩⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲃⲃⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϥⲣⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ “How will men and women be in purity and be virgins?” Note here the 3rd masculine neutric resumption of the zero article. (b) Non-existence, the possession verboid built on non-existence, and rhetorical equivalents of non-existence reveal several syntactic points of interest: (39) (Chass. 110) ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲙⲛⲧⲁⲩ “They who have not”. Zero possessed, zero generic object, zero non-existant. (40) (Chass. 95) ⲙⲙⲛϯϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉϫⲱ “I have no word to say”. Zero object, zero anaphora. (41) (GO 395 ed. Crum 1909: 31) ⲙⲛϭⲉⲡⲁⲣⲁⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲙⲡϥⲁⲁⲩ “There is no perversion he did not indulge in”. An almost exclusively Shenoutean focusing construction, in which non-existence is amplified by the bound quantifier -ϭⲉ- “another” and a second negation. The subordinator ϫⲉ- is here a “that” subordinator, in adnominal status. A kindred construction, where nonexistence is expressed by “rhetorical” interrogatives ⲙⲏ or ⲏ, and affirmative existence ⲟⲩⲛ-, is discussed by Anne Boud’hors11; here there is no double negation, the non-existant is mostly an infinitive, and possibility modality is expressed: (42) (XL 295 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 77) ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲛϭⲉϯϣⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ “Is it possible to measure them?”. (c) Affirmative existence is used for case generics (below, § 9): (43) (Leip. III 204) … ⲉⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲏ ϫⲉⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛⲡⲉⲧⲛⲏⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱ “… to see whether someone sees you, or whether someone comes upon you”. Remarkably, the existent indefinite article contrasts with zero as instantial generic vs. case-raising: (44) (Amél. I 178) ⲉϣϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ ϭⲉ ⲉϩⲉⲛⲥⲟⲃⲧ ϣⲏⲙ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲙⲟⲥ … ⲉϣϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉϩⲉⲛⲡⲣⲁⲝⲓⲥ ϣⲏⲙ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϥϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ… “If there is a city whose walls are small … If there are people whose works give small gains…”. Or ⲛⲉⲧ- generic existent, with affirmation of (non-) existence: (45) (De Iudicio f. LVro ed. Behlmer 1996) ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲉⲧⲙⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲙⲙⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ “There are those that love God at all times, in all places”.

11

Boud’hors 2013: 42f.

464

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(46) (Leip. III 50) ⲟⲩⲣⲣⲟ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ “A king who says: ‘There is none that can stand up against me’”. (d) The indefinite existent (affirmative only?) encodes a reduction in genericity: (47) (Chass. 110) ⲙⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉϥⲕⲏ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙⲁ ⲉⲛϥⲟⲩⲟⲛϩ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲁⲙⲉⲗⲉⲓ “But truly, there is a god somewhere, not visible to those that will be obtuse”. (e) There are clear indications that the clause-forms of (non-) existence and the verboids of possession ⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁ⸗/ⲙⲛⲧⲁ⸗ are time-indifferent or atemporal, rather than Present tense; and yet, existential clauses are often (perhaps intrinsically) of general reference, non-specifically and: (48) (Leip. III 123) ϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ “Is there knowledge in the Highest?” (49) (Leip. III 96) ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁϥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲥⲛⲧⲉ “This is – he said – about a man who had a son and two daughters”. (50) (Leip. III 81) ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲕⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲕⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲣⲱ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲥⲁϩⲉⲛⲛⲟⲃⲉ “Did your father Kronos ever have anything at all but sins?” (51) (Leip. III 85) ⲉϣϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲧϥⲟⲩϭⲟⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁϥⲥ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲙⲁ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ “For if he had any power, it is in those who allow him a place in themselves that he had”. (52) (Leip. III 120) ⲙⲙⲛⲧⲣⲟⲫⲏ ⲣⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲑⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ “Nourishment does not avail the stupid”. (53) (Leip. IV 14f.) ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ-ⲙⲙⲛϭⲟⲙ ⲛϥⲓ ϩⲁⲛⲁⲕⲧⲓⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ “For it is impossible to endure [the Sword’s] rays”. 5. The Definite Article (a) Unlike Bohairic, which differentiates between a phoric-non-generic (ⲡⲓ-) and a non-phoric-generic (ⲡ-) article forms12, in Sahidic we encounter at least three ⲡ- homonyms, syntactically (environmentally) distinct, one of which is phoric (ana-/cata-phoric), one non-phoric (generic), one non-generic and highly specifying, (“properizing”, e.g. ⲧⲡⲉ, ⲡⲕⲁϩ, ⲡⲣⲏ). (b) The definite article read as generic. Note the typical pairing or listing, gnomic and proverbial context – the generic environment: (54) (Chass.72) ⲕⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲩⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ “Leave wolves and they will follow wolves”. 12

Shisha-Halevy 2007. For a comparable situation in German dialects, see Hartmann 1982.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

465

(55) (Chass. 54) ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ “It is for walking that legs are in the body”. (56) (Chass. 52) … ⲉϥⲣϭⲣⲱϩ ⲙⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲙⲛⲑⲃⲥⲱ “… in need of bread and clothing”. (57) (Leip. IV 59) ⲡⲃⲗⲗⲉ ⲏ ⲡⲥⲱϩ ⲏ ⲡⲛⲟⲩϫ ⲏ ⲡⲗⲁⲕϣϣⲁ ⲏ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲥ ⲏ ⲡⲡⲟⲧⲏⲥ ⲏ ⲡⲉⲙⲡⲟ ⲏ ⲡϭⲁⲗⲉ ⲏ ⲡϭⲁⲛⲁϩ ⲏ ⲡϭⲁⲩⲗⲉ ⲏ ⲡϭⲁⲩⲟⲛ ⲏ ⲡⲕⲁⲥⲉ ⲏ ⲡϩⲁⲕ ⲏ ϭⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲣⲁⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ ⲉⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ “Blind, or deaf, or liar, or sneerer, or wiseacre, or drunkard,13 or dumb, or lame, or crooked, or …, or slave, or shoemaker, or cobbler, or any other name at all”. List of invective names; this may be the address definiteness (see below), or the properized form of nouns. In either case, these are pragmatically generic terms. (58) (GL 177 ed. Young 2003: 241–242) ϫⲉ-ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲛⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ “For you were killed by the sword”. Compare with ⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ – non-phoric, nongeneric, mystical, symbolic, spiritual, at the interface of the generic and the proper name: (59) (Leip. IV 11ff. “De malis operibus sive de gladio prophetico”) ⲉⲛⲉⲙⲡⲉⲛⲉⲛⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲕⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ ⲙⲛⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲥⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲥ ⲏ ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲟⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲕⲙ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲥⲥⲃⲧⲱⲧ ⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱϣ … “If our sins and our lawless deeds had not moved heaven and earth, why should the Sword stand erect or appear drawn and ready to do according to its will? …” (60) (Chass. 134) ⲛⲧⲁⲩϯⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ⲏ ⲡⲙⲁⲧⲟⲓ ϫⲉ-ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲱϭⲉ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲥ “It is not in order to wound with it that the sword has been given to the ruler and the soldier”. (61) (Chass. 77) ⲡⲗⲏⲥⲧⲏⲥ ϭⲱⲧϩ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟ “The robber bores into the treasure-house”. An instructive generic sentence, with generic subject, predicate and object. (c) [not in the Shenoutean corpus?] The entry gloss form in certain glossaries: possibly generic, but probably formally conditioned by the Greek lemma: (62) (Hasznos 2011: 82–83) ⲏ ⲉⲩⲇⲟⲕⲓⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲟ ⲁⲛⲁⲗⲗⲟⲓⲱⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲧϣⲓⲃⲉ ⲧⲟ ⲍⲱⲟⲡⲟⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲣⲉϥⲧⲁⲛϩⲟ and so on.14 (d) The article ⲛ-: class generic: plural definite: ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ, ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ, ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ, ⲛⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ, ⲛⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ “the Prophets”, “the angels”, “the Apostles”, “the Scriptures” “the kings”. These 13

The only Greek abusive name in the long list. The definite articles (masculine, feminine, plural) occur with the generic entries in catalogic lists, cf. for instance the edible/inedible animals in Lev. 11, Deut. 14:3–21. 14

466

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

are plurals denoting “a class discrete from other classes” express a lower-rank generic reference due to the plurality seme, albeit they are a type of proper name. (e) The verbal noun (infinitives, abstracts) is generic. The infinitive, a special kind of lexeme, may even be considered hyper-generic; it is substantival, with its own distinct determination system; it often has distinct rection morphology (“construct /pronominal states”), which – when activated – reduces the genericity grading of the infinitive. All three main determinators are compatible with the infinitive, but have different values from their syntagma with non-infinitival noun lexemes: the definite article is not phoric or deictic, but enhances the genericity and substantivity of the infinitive. (For the indefinite see below, § 9). Zero seems to be a basic, default determination; ⲉ- prefixation cancels the substantivity): (63) (Chass. 121–122) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲟⲩϩⲧⲟ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥϯⲥⲟⲉⲓⲧ ϩⲛⲧⲉϥϭⲓⲛⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉϥϭⲓⲛⲡⲱⲧ ⲉϥϩⲉ ⲛϩⲁϩ ⲛⲥⲟⲡ ⲛⲥⲁⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ ϩⲓⲧⲙⲡⲕⲱ ⲛⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲙⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲣⲱϩⲧ ⲉϫⲙⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲛϩⲁϩ ⲛⲥⲟⲡ ϩⲓⲧⲙⲡⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲛⲉϥⲡⲁⲧ ⲛⲑⲏ “Like a horse beautiful and famous for his trot and his gallop, often falling backwards by setting down his back legs, and often hitting the ground by the weakening of his front knees”. The verbal abstract (ϭⲓⲛ-) is low in genericity because of the possessive article ⲧⲉϥ-. (64) (Chass. 54) ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ “It is for walking that the leg is in the body”. (65) (Chass. 125) ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲟⲩⲉϣⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ “You wish to go”. (66) (Amél. II 368) ⲡⲙⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉⲣⲏⲩ “[the concept of] loving one another”. (67) (Leip. III 105) ⲏ ⲁⲣⲛⲁ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ϫⲱ ⲙⲡϭⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲙⲉ “Or is it not denying, saying falsehood instead of the truth?” Both theme and rheme are here zero-articled, but although the value of zero in this environment differs from a zero with non-infinitival nominals, I would say both theme and rheme are here generic. (68) (Chass. 110) ϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲙⲛϩⲉⲛⲥⲱ “Victuals and beverages”. The plural indefinite article concretizes the infinitive. (f) ⲡⲉⲧ-/ⲛⲉⲧ-: case generic,15 stereotyping. The definite articles in this difficult case, usually topicalized, are “unmeaning”, i.e. not meaningfully commutable with other determinators; on the other hand, they are not compatible with other articles (in syntagmes like ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, ϩⲉⲛⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ, ⲡⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ). This implies the existence of at least three homonyms prefixed to the relative, viz. (a) the fully paradigmatic, deictic definite article, 15

See Jolles 1968: 171–194 (“Kasus”).

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

467

(b) the non-commutable determination-basis lexemizing ⲡ-ⲉⲧ-), (c) our caseraising ⲡⲉⲧ(ⲛⲁ)-/ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁ-. The latter, with unmistakable affinity with legalistic textemes or genres, is ubiquitous in Shenoute’s precepts and instructions, Leipoldt’s Vita Monachorum texts, and Layton’s Canons (2014). (69) (XO 85 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 135) ⲡⲉⲧϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲩϩⲏⲡ ϭⲟⲗⲡ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉϥϫⲓⲟⲩⲁ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲙⲉ “Whoever says he knows hidden things, it is against the truth that he blasphemes”. (70) (Leip. III 62) ⲡⲉⲧⲱϣ ⲉⲧⲛⲟⲉⲓ ϥⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ “The reader who has a mind will know them all”. (71) (Amél. II 302) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩ “Like [one] who is dying”. (72) (Layton 2014: 139) ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲱⲡ ⲉϫⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲩⲟ ⲛϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲉⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ … “Those who conceal men who are befriended with each other …”. (73) (Layton 2014, 153) ⲡⲉⲧϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲟⲩⲛϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉϥⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥϥⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲙⲛϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉϥⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲁⲓⲧⲉⲓ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ “Whoever is sick, if he can endure, let him endure; whoever cannot endure, let him ask, in God’s truth” (editor’s translation). (74) (De Iudicio f. VIvo ed. Behlmer 1996: 12) ⲡⲉⲧϭⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲡϩⲁⲡ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ “He who perverts justice for a bribe”. Note the three different generic forms. Other generic case-raising signals are (usually in topical or protatic status) ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ, ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ, ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ, ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ. (g) A somewhat paradoxical case is that of the addressed definite article: (75) (Leip. IV 37) ⲱ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ “O men!” (76) (Leip. IV 25) ⲱ ⲙⲙⲉⲣⲁⲧⲉ ⲛⲥⲛⲏⲩ “O beloved brothers!” On the one hand, here is a most-specific, proper-name-grade noun; on the other, the article is here conditioned, hence “unmeaning”, indifferent to determination and specificity, thus arguably generic. 6. ⲛⲓⲙ This homonym pair16 expresses totality; ⲛⲓⲙ1 “all” is a determinator, ⲛⲓⲙ2 “every, any” a quantifier; this has little to do with genericity.17

16

Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: 143f., 146ff. A moot point is the correlation of either ⲛⲓⲙ with (respectively) Relative or Circumstantial expansion, as well as coordination syntax: ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲥⲁⲛϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲉϩ ⲛϫⲱϩⲙ ϩⲓⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ “Your inside is full of pollution and every (kind) of lawlessness” (Leip. III 165): ϩⲓ- with zero combines with the quantifier ⲛⲓⲙ. 17

468

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

7. The Affective or Rhetorical Article: generic deixis (a) {ⲡⲓ-}, the affective (expressive) or rhetorical article, is in Sahidic exophoric, non-referential – that is, it does not encode textual cohesion, and, by the same token, does not specify. In that sense it is metaphorically distal and generic. (77) (Leip. III 200) ϯⲛⲁϫⲱ ⲛⲉ ⲙⲡⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲥⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓϫⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ “I shall tell you (fem.) that bitter word from God”. (78) (Chass. 188) ⲡⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛϫⲁϫⲉ “That enemy of a man”.18 (b) ⲛⲓ- generic, following ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛ- “like, as”:19 neither plural, nor deictic, nor affective. Uncommon in Shenoute’s usage, it is well-attested in Scripture Sahidic (it even seems to belong to Shenoute’s Scriptures subsystem).20 The number category is here neutralized (“plural” ⲛⲓ-, even when the Greek has the singular), and no expressivity encoded (and indeed, this construction may be taken to corroborate the essential genericity of this non-referential article). I find this to be a clear and striking case of genericity. Note that ⲛⲉⲓ- after ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛ- is an allograph of ⲛⲓ-; ⲡⲉⲧ-/ⲛⲉⲧ- seem to be the verbal generic counterpart of ⲛⲓ-: (79) (De Iudicio f. LXXXIVvo ed. Behlmer 1996: 166) ϯⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϩⲣⲉ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲛϣ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲧⲟⲓ ⲙⲙⲟⲩⲓ “I see my food stinking like the stench of lions”. An especially remarkable instance, since ⲥⲧⲟⲓ “stench” is non-countable. (80) (Leip. IV 20) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲓⲙⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲟϥ “Like snake’s venom” (Leipoldt “sic”); again, a non-countable instance. (81) (XM 153 ed. Young 2000: 92–93) ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲉ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲓϩⲟϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁⲕⲉⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲓϭⲣⲟⲟⲙⲡⲉ “Be wise like snakes, and harmless like doves”. Shenoute quoting Mt. 10:16. (82) (Leip. IV 36) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲓϩⲙϩⲁⲗ “Like servants”. Clearly an instance of generic ⲛⲓ-, since no “this” deixis is present. Similarly: (83) (DF 365, unpublished [Oxford, Bodl. Clar.Press b.4 f. 20r (olim 23r)]) ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲣⲉϥϫⲓⲟⲩⲉ “They fled in the night like thieves”. 18 The affective deixis is often associated with the rhetorical order adjective + substantive; see Shisha-Halevy 1986: § 4.2.2 ⲡⲓⲁⲕⲁⲑⲁⲣⲧⲟⲥ ⲛⲇⲓⲕⲁⲥⲧⲏⲥ “That impure judge” (Leip. III 26), sim. Chass. 122. 19 The syntax of the post-ⲛⲑⲉ slots merits special study, in view of the exclusion of zero determination and proleptic constructions following ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛ-. Consider the following passage (Leip. III 203) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲣⲓⲣ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲉⲙⲁⲕⲁⲑⲁⲣⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲥⲧⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ “Just as the swine, who eat impurities, are hated by those who see them”; we observe here nicely the opposition between the attributive relative (ⲉⲧ-) and adnexal (rhematic, “circumstantial”). 20 Polotsky 1957: 230 (4).

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

469

(84) (Amél. II 304) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲓⲧⲃⲛⲟⲟⲩⲉ “Like domestic animals”. In this case, the article is commutable with ⲡⲉⲧ-/ⲛⲉⲧ-, also generic: (85) (Leip. III 187) ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲧϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ “Thus also the braggarts”. (86) (Chass. 103) ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲧⲁⲕϫⲉϩⲉⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲥⲱⲃⲉ “For you, you have said things as one who is joking”. 8. {ⲡⲁ-}: the relator pronoun (a) This element, usually referred to as “genitive pronoun” or “possessive pronoun” (neither is satisfactory), is unique in that it is the nucleus of the noun syntagm (or of the article, including the zero article), and does not adjoin the lexeme; this, I believe, implies that it is indifferent to determination. I suggest this be considered a formal relation generic: (87) (YZ 213, ed. Young 1998, 287–293) ⲛⲁⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉⲓϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ … ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ “These things are not Man’s… but God’s”. (b) And yet, the relator has phoricity power (it is often anaphoric, in which case it may be specified), and, remarkably and rarely in Shenoute, may itself expand an article, as if it were a constituent of a composite lexeme: (88) (XO 69 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 119) ⲡϣⲓ ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉϣⲧⲏⲛ “The measure I gave you, like that of the coat”. (89) (Leip. III 47) ⲡⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲁⲛⲉⲑⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲁⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲡⲉ “The sheep is not the beasts’, but the shepherd’s”. (90) (Leip. III 47) ϣⲁϥⲣⲡⲱⲟⲩ “It [the sheep] becomes theirs [the wolves’]”. The pronominal relator, specificity-indifferent, in the zero-article slot. (91) (Leip. IV 46) ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲧⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟⲛⲓⲁ “a deacon”. (92) (Leip. IV 45) ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛϭⲛⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲛⲙⲡⲁⲧⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟⲛⲓⲁ “Should one of the deacon rank be found”. 9. The Indefinite Article.21 Incidental (instantial) genericity. (Catalogic) Case-raising (a) One notes a reduced genericity grading of representative instance genericity or incidental genericity.22 (93) (De Iudicio f. XLIXvo ed. Behlmer 1996: 106) ϯⲛⲁⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ “I shall judge between one sheep and another”.

21 22

The plural ϩⲉⲛ-, a further reduction in genericity grading, is not treated here. Compare “Never tease a cat”, “Can a sitting president be indicted?”

470

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(94) (Leip. III 75) ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϥⲓ ϩⲁϩⲉⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲛϩⲉⲛϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲕⲁⲑⲁⲣⲧⲟⲥ “A father and a mother who tolerate impure sons and daughters”. (b) Entries in catalogic listing are generic: (95) (De Iudicio f. XXIvo–XXIIro ed. Behlmer 1996: 46–47) ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲟⲩϫⲁϥ ⲟⲩϩⲕⲟ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲃⲉ ⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲧ ⲉⲙⲉϥⲱϣⲙ … ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ ⲟⲩϫⲱϩⲙ ⲟⲩϭⲟⲗ ⲟⲩⲁⲇⲓⲕⲓⲁ ⲟⲩⲟⲣⲅⲏ ⲟⲩϭⲱⲛⲧ ⲙⲛⲛⲕⲉⲡⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ “Darkness, frost, thirst, unquenchable fire … prostitution, pollution, falsehood, wrongdoing, wrath, anger and all other evils”. (c) A remarkable, well-known passage consists of a lengthy series of Delocutive Nominal Sentences, in the template # ⲟⲩ[lexeme] ⲧⲉ #, with the theme pronoun referring to the Church as Bride. This passage, applying and commenting on the Song of Songs is known to grammarians for Jernstedt’s insight regarding the “of (“partitive”)”-relation between the indefinite article and the noun lexeme, and, structurally even more importantly, the nuclear status of the articles (Jernstedt 1949): (96) (Leip. III 57–61) … ⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲙⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲕⲏⲡⲟⲥ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲡⲩⲅⲏ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲥϯ ⲙⲡⲉ[ϥ]ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ23 … ⲟⲩⲟⲟϩⲉ ⲛⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩⲥⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩϣⲱⲥ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲥⲃⲟⲩⲓ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲉ ⲏ ⲟⲩⲣⲣⲱ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩⲥⲟⲃⲧ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩⲥⲱⲛⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲥⲟⲛ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲉⲩⲧⲏⲥ ⲧⲉ … ⲟⲩϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲏⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲧⲉ, and so on, “She [the Church] is One and She is a great Multitude; She is a Virgin and She is a Bride; She is a Garden and She is a Fountain; She is a fruit-giving Land; She is a Sheep-fold; She is a Teacher and She is a Shepherd; She is a Disciple; She is a Master or a Queen; She is a Gate; She is a Wall; She is a Sister and She is a Brother; She is a Child and She is a an Ambassador; She is a Daughter and She is a Mother; She is a House and She is a Town”. While it is evident that the rheme (predicate) in these sentences is the article ⲟⲩ-, with the noun lexeme its expansion or satellite, let me suggest that their meaning – in the context of a mystical commentary on the Song of Songs – cannot be, or cannot only be, simply a metaphorical attribute; “She is a King”, “She is a Brother”, “She is a Son”, “She is a Garden”, “She is a Fruit-Giving Land” so on, lead us to a deeply mystical, transcendent generic interpretation and theology.

23 So Leipoldt; his reason for deciding to fill the lacuna (?) with the masculine pronoun is not clear to me, and would be significant for the analysis and interpretation of the text.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

471

(f) The so-called Tautological Infinitive.24 The determination system of the infinitive is very different from that of the non-infinitival noun lexeme. The Tautological Infinitive, a signature focalizing construction of Old Testament Scripture Sahidic, is uncommon in Shenoute’s usage, and belongs to his subsystem of rhetorical devices: (97) (Leip. III 183) ϩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲁⲕⲟ ⲧⲛⲛⲁⲧⲁⲕⲟ “Perish we shall”. (98) (Amél. II 380) ϩⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲕⲛⲏⲩ “Come you will”. It is the reiteration of the verb that effects the focusing, with the preposition and indefinite article the operative framework, and it is a moot question whether such adverbial phrases such as ϩⲛⲟⲩϩⲱⲡ “stealthily, in hiding” (Amél. II 107), or ϩⲛⲟⲩⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲛ “rightly, properly” (Amél. II 90) apply an instantial generic “indefinite” article,25 whereas the Tautological Infinitive is a case of instantial generic formal frame for a focus construction. (g) Note five cases of zero/indefinite tension – exclusion of the zero article, where the opposition indefinite vs. zero is neutralized in favour of the indefinite, and a generic reading is possible: (α) the rheme of the interlocutive Nominal Sentence, (β) the ⲛϭⲓ-marked post-posed theme, (γ) the mediate (ⲛmarked) direct object construction, (δ) the “Egyptian” morphemic plural noun,26 (ε) the slot immediately following ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛ- “like …, as …”: (99) (Chass. 36) ⲛⲧⲕ-ⲟⲩϣⲟⲛⲧⲉ ⲙⲛⲟⲩⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩⲉ “You are a thorn and a briar”. (100) (Amél. II 62) ⲁⲛⲅ-ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ “I am a virgin”. (101) (Amél. II 330) ϥⲛⲏⲩ ⲛϭⲓ-ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ… “A time will come…”. (102) (Leip. III 155) ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲱ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲁϫⲉ ⲏ ⲟⲩϩⲱⲃ ⲉϥϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟϥ… “They that do not tell bad words or thing they know about…”. (103) (Leip. III 198) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲧ “Like fire”.

24

Cf. Goldenberg 1971; Shisha-Halevy 1990. Consider also Leip. IV 120, 123; ϩⲛⲟⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ ϩⲛⲟⲩϭⲱⲛⲧ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲟⲣⲅⲏ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱϩⲧ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲛⲁϣⲧ… “In disturbance, in anger, in wrath, in prostrations of obdurate men…” (Amél. I 41). 26 A phenomenon hardly studied so far. A superficial survey of these forms in Shenoute, on the basis of Funk’s Concordance (2007) reveals some interesting features. (1) These forms are rare. Of about 35 items in the Canons, many, indeed most, have a sparse documentation; almost all are of concrete-semantics roots (ⲥⲃⲱ/ⲥⲃⲟⲟⲩⲉ is a rare abstract pair). (2) The forms are incompatible with zero article slots (as in ⲛ- attribution, ⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϫⲉ- naming, ϩⲓ- coordination etc.). This may point to the “Egyptian” forms being syntagms rather than lexemes. (3) The nontrivial distribution of {sgl} and {unmarked} – syntactic Form, {plur} – morphemic form. In other words, plurality is encoded by the morphemic forms only. Thus, there is hardly any opposition between the syntactic and morphemic plurals (ϫⲁϫⲉ/ϫⲓϫⲉⲩⲉ is a rare exception). (4) Instances of plurale tantum, like ⲥⲛⲁⲩϩ, ⲥⲡⲟⲧⲟⲩ, ϭⲗⲟⲟⲧⲉ. (5) The unique Greek-loan case of ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ (sgl., plur.)/ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ (plur). (6) ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ/ϩⲓⲙⲉ/ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ has a ternary opposition. 25

472

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(104) (Leip. III 164) ϩⲛϩⲉⲛⲁⲣⲓⲕⲉ ⲙⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲙⲉⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ “In many a reproach and tears”. 10. ⲉϥ- (Circumstantial) “(any)one who”: generic [not in the Shenoutean corpus?]27 – arguably participial generic: (105) (Judith 12:3 ed. Thompson) ⲉⲛⲛⲁⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ “Whence shall we bring similar to them?”. (106) (Heb. 12:16) ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲟⲥ ⲏ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲟϥ “A fornicator or one who is defiled”. 11. Temporal genericity (a) The generic (non-actual, non-durative) Present28 may be all but extinct in Shenoutean Coptic,29 but seems well established in pre-Coptic Egyptian. (This tense corresponds to a degree to the English Present Simple, often given as the generic verbal clause par excellence.) (b) A grammaticalized, formalized case of the generic Present is the disabling of durativity (as revealed in the infinitive of verbs of movement), following the periphrastic perfect30 auxiliary ⲟⲩⲱ “have (already) done”: (107) (Leip. III 105) … ⲁⲡⲧⲁⲕⲟ ⲟⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ “Perdition has already come upon them”. A possible instance of the Circumstantial generic Present: (108) (Chass. 61) … ⲉϥⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲁϣ ⲛϩⲉ ⲉϥⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ϩⲙⲡⲉⲓⲉⲃⲧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ϩⲓⲡⲉⲙⲛⲧ… “… how [the sun] turns when it rises in the east and sets in the west…”. (c) Regarding the generic Present, I find the following passage of special interest: (109) (Chass. 21) (addressed to Kronos-Satan) ⲛⲅⲣϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲛⲅⲣⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲅⲣⲙⲁⲥⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲧⲟ ϩⲓⲉⲓⲱ ϩⲓϭⲁⲙⲟⲩⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲃⲛⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲛⲅⲣϩⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲛ ϩⲓⲟⲩⲟⲟϩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϫⲁⲧϥⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ, ⲛⲅⲣⲃⲁⲣⲃⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲥ ⲙⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲅⲣⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲥ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ, ⲛⲅⲣϣⲏⲓ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲙⲁ ⲉϥϣⲟⲕϩ, ⲛⲅⲣⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲕⲁϩ, ⲛⲅⲣⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲃϩ ⲕϫⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ 27

See Shisha-Halevy 2016: § 14. Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: §3.1.2.1.1; diachronically Simpson 1996: 141–156; ShishaHalevy 1998: §2.2.7; Shisha-Halevy 2007: 706 s.v. 29 It may be argued that the Egyptian form lives on in the Coptic Present when this occurs with an immediate zero-determined direct object: ⲥⲉⲟⲩⲉϩ-ⲃⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱϥ ⲉϫⲙⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ “But they lay burden on the man” (ZJ 10 [unpublished]), ⲉⲛϫⲉ-ⲙⲉ (Leip. III 20). Moreover, there may be attestations of converted forms: ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲙⲟⲩ “because of mortal people” (Leip. III 41). 30 Cf. Grossman 2009. 28

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

473

ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲅⲏⲡ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ “You are neither man nor are you woman; you are neither calf nor horse or ass or camel or domestic animal; you are neither snake nor scorpion nor any reptile; you are neither barbarian nor company of bad people; you are neither sea nor accumulation of water; you are neither well nor excavated place; you are neither mountain nor land; you are neither wealthy man nor beggar. For you assume the likeness of these and many more than these, but you are not considered as one of them”. Noteworthy here are the generic noun lexemes – rhemes (predicates) – following the copular ⲣ- in the Present, where we would expect the copular ⲟ ⲛ-. A plausible explanation would be that this is not the durative, but the generic non-durative Present.31 (d) The Historical Present: temporal generic? The Present in compatibility with past-time adverbials: (110) (Leip. IV 113) ϩⲁⲑⲏ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ ϯϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲛⲛⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲣϩⲱⲃ ⲁϫⲙⲡϩⲗⲗⲟ “For I have been saying long ago: let no one do work without the elder’s permission”. (e) The so-called “Perfect” in generic cases is either ahistorical (see the narratives in §12), or non-preterital but Present State: (111) (Chass. 152) ⲧⲉⲧⲟ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲥⲣⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲧⲉⲧϩⲟⲗϭ ⲁⲥⲥⲓϣⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲱⲛϩ ⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁⲥ-ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲥⲣⲁⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ “She who was alight has become dark; she who was sweet has become bitter; she who was alive has died; she who had God has become godless”. Note here the rhythmic prosody of short, terse topicalized clauses. (f) Affirmative and negative existence and possession forms (ⲟⲩⲛ/ⲙⲙⲛ-, ⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁ⸗/ⲙⲛⲧⲁ⸗, etc.) occur (albeit rarely) in atemporal or time-neutral contexts: see above, § 4 (d). (g) Genericity in word-formation: the verbal and nominal elements of various compounds: ⲙⲁⲥⲧ-ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, ⲣⲉϥ-ϩⲉⲧⲃ-ⲣⲱⲙⲉ, ⲁⲧ-ⲉⲓⲱⲧ, ⲣ-ⲁⲛⲁϣ, ϫⲓⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲙⲁ, ϥⲓ-ⲣⲟⲟⲩϣ, ⲛϣⲟⲩ-ⲙⲉⲥⲧⲱⲟⲩ (probably reduced genericity). (h) Nominal-Sentence patterns present various problems of temporal semantics; see § 17 (a) below, for the copular Nominal Sentence and hermeneutical generics. Another pattern set, which I see as essentially generic, is thetic,32 endophoric,33 so to speak self-contained:

31 I have translated the nouns by zero-articled generics, which may occasionally be ungrammatical in English. 32 See Sasse 1987. 33 See Shisha-Halevy 1987; 2007: 256ff.

474

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(112) (Chass. 23) (the way you often shout) ⲑⲁⲏ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ “‘It is the end!’ – which it isn’t”. 12. Generic Narratives Well-attested in Shenoute’s works and important in his rhetoric are short,welldefined didactic narratives, cases of fabulosa narratio34 often signaled by Greek loan-terms as ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲉⲓⲅⲙⲁ, ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲃⲟⲗⲏ or ⲁⲓⲛⲓⲅⲙⲁ, ⲉⲓⲥ and ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛ-, ⲙⲡⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ ⲛ-;35 I suggest that these textemes be seen as an instance of a special type of genericity, in view of the paucity of specifying details this minimal (and miniature), embryonic narrative fragment provides, as well as the terse style, the situational presentational opening, the pronouns and the tenses used (consider the underlined elements and sections in the following example). This is neither historical nor literary narrative, not anchored in any tangible reality: (113) (GL 179 ed. Young 2003: 243) (ⲁⲓⲛⲓⲅⲙⲁ “Riddle”)36 ⲟⲩⲧⲁⲗ ⲛⲕⲁϩ ⲉϥϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲙⲟⲕϩ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲡⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲉⲁⲟⲩⲁ ⲣϩⲛⲁϥ ⲉⲧⲥⲟϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϫⲟ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ. ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲉϥⲛⲁⲁⲁϥ ⲁϥϭⲣⲏ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥϭⲱϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲣϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲙⲟⲧⲛ ⲉⲧⲥⲟϥ “This is about a tall hillock of soil, difficult for water to reach. Someone wished to water and sow it. What should he do? He dug and cut out the excess, and so it became easy to irrigate”. (114) (Leip. III 96–97) (ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲉⲓⲅⲙⲁ) ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ … ⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁϥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲥⲛⲧⲉ ⲉⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲏⲓ ⲉⲛⲅⲛⲁϣⲧⲟⲛⲧⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲡⲉ ϩⲙⲡⲉⲩⲥⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲩⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲩϯⲙⲏ. ⲡⲁⲓ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁϥ ⲙⲡⲱϥ ⲛⲓⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲥ ⲙⲡⲱⲥ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲡ ⲉϫⲓⲧϥ ϩⲛⲧⲉϥⲕⲗⲩⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ. ϩⲛⲟⲩϣⲥⲛⲉ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲥ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲡⲱϣⲥ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲡⲱϣⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲛⲧⲁϥϯ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲏⲓ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲙⲙⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁϥⲥⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ ⲛϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲁⲥϯⲡⲱⲥ ϩⲱⲱⲥ ⲟⲛ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲥϫⲓⲧϥ ⲛⲧⲙⲡⲉⲥⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲥⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ ⲧⲕⲉⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲁⲥϯⲡⲱⲥ ϩⲁⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ “This is about a man who has a son and two daughters, for whom he built houses, which one cannot compare to any under heaven in their construction, their adornment and their value. [The son] he gave his, and the others, each he gave hers, along with what they were meant to receive in his inheritance. All at once it was as if they went mad – and indeed, go mad they did: the man, it is to a stranger that he gave his house,

34 35 36

Cf. Haug 1979; von Moos 1988: esp. 39ff., 81ff. Cf. Shisha-Halevy 2011. For the riddle texteme, see Jolles 1968: 126–149; Koch 1994: 242–254; Kallen 1981.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

475

along with all that he had; and the daughters, one gave hers too, along with what she received from her father; the other gave hers for a single loaf”. (115) (YK 199, unpublished [Oxford, Bodl. Clar.Press b.4 f. 58r (olim 75)]) ⲉⲓⲥ-ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉⲣⲟ ⲉϥⲥⲱⲕ ⲏ ⲉϥϩⲁⲧⲉ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ ⲉⲁⲟⲩⲍⲱⲟⲛ ϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲓⲥ-ⲟⲩϣⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲟⲃⲕ ⲏ ⲣⲱ ⲉⲥⲃⲉⲉⲃⲉ ⲛϫⲛⲁϩ ⲁϩⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱ ⲙⲛϩⲉⲛϭⲁⲙⲟⲩⲗ ⲙⲛϩⲉⲛⲕⲉⲍⲱⲟⲛ ⲉⲩⲟϣ ⲉⲁⲩⲙⲟⲩ ϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ “Here is a flowing river whose water is plentiful, and an animal fell into it. Here is a well, whose water is scant or hardly coming forth, and asses, camels and many other dead animals fell into it”. (116) (Leip. III 42) ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲣⲣⲟ ⲉⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁϥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲉⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲙⲡⲥⲏⲩ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲛⲁⲣϩⲛⲁϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲟⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁϩⲉⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲛⲟⲩϭⲉⲡⲏ ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲛ ⲁϥϩⲱⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲣⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ϩⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ ϫⲉ-ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲁⲑⲉⲧⲉⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲛⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ϥⲛⲁⲧϭⲁⲓⲟⲟⲩ “Like a kingly man who had servants in some country, whom he would summon when he liked; some he would summon after many days, others he would summon in a hurry; he had decreed a law, that they who will do his will in that country, shall receive honours from him; but they who will refuse his words and his wish, he will dishonor”. A clear instance of atemporality (see §11 above).37 13. Distinction generics Important among Shenoute’s rhetorical devices are figures predicting and making a rhetorical point of comparison, disparateness, differentiation, contrast and distinction: ⲁⲗⲗⲟ… ⲁⲗⲗⲟ…; ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-… ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-…; ⲧⲱⲉⲧⲱ ⲛ-… ⲙⲛ-…; ⲉⲓⲥ-… ⲉⲓⲥ-… I propose a generic reading for the contrasted and the comparata, which are taken for granted as existing (occasionally resembling generic narratives): (117) (Amél. II 296–297) ⲉⲓⲥ-ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉϥⲡⲁⲓⲇⲉⲩⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲧϩⲓⲧⲟⲩⲱϥ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲟⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲧⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲛⲓⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲉⲩⲉⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲉⲓⲥ-ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲱϥ ⲉⲧⲡⲱϩⲧ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲟⲣⲅⲏ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲧⲡⲉ “Here is a man who teaches his neighbour in evident trials for the love of Jesus, that they may be saved; here is God too, who pours his wrath from heaven”. (118) (Leip. IV 156) ⲏ ⲟⲩⲉⲧϩⲉⲛⲙⲁⲥⲡⲟⲣⲉⲕ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲉⲧϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲩⲣϩⲟⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ “Aren’t mules one thing, men who fear God another?” 37 The translation cannot convey the essence of Coptic atemporality, and indeed reflect the Coptic tense system. Even an “epic” Preterite distorts the Coptic genericity of this paradeigma.

476

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(119) (Amél. II 52) ⲁⲗⲗⲟ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲧϩⲙⲡⲏⲓ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲙⲟⲕϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧϭⲛⲁⲣⲓⲕⲉ ⲉⲛⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲛ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲱⲥⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲟⲩⲟⲡⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲉⲛϫⲁϫⲉ ⲁⲗⲗⲟ ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲩϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲉϩ ⲛⲕⲁⲕⲓⲁ ϩⲓⲙⲛⲧϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ ⲉⲡϫⲓⲛϫⲏ “One thing are the pure in the house of God, who grieve and reproach those who do evil amongst them so as to be considered enemies; another thing are those whose heart is full of badness and hostility towards each other for no reason”. 14. Eventive converb: non-generics Of all Coptic verb-forms the pattern subsystem that most fits the “classic” converb38 is the eventive, emically structured as [preposition + infinitive/ ‘that’ form]: ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁ-, ϩⲙⲡ-, ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉ-.39 Unlike the infinitive, and the inflecting causative infinitive ⲧⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ, this converb is non-generic: (120) (Leip. III 31–32) ⲁⲓϫⲉ-ⲡⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲁⲣⲕⲉⲗⲗⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⲡϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲭⲣⲩⲥⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ ⲡⲅⲟⲙⲉⲥ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲙⲛⲛⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲙⲙⲁⲩ ϩⲙⲡⲧⲣⲉⲩⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲛ “I said this very thing also to M. the Hegemon and to Chr. the Comes, he and his children, with their entourage, when they came to us”. (121) (Leip. III 17) ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲡⲁⲣⲁⲃⲁ ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁⲧⲣⲉⲩⲣⲁⲛⲁϣ ⲛⲁⲕ… “Had they transgressed, after having sworn to you…”. (122) (Leip. III 13) ⲁⲓⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲓϫⲓ ⲛⲛⲉⲕⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛⲧⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ… “I rejoiced greatly after receiving the writing of your holy fatherhood”. 15. Neuter gender: gender genericity (a) The pronominal reference to zero article creates a slot of gender-indifference: formal masculine, feminine (uncommon), plural;40 this may be considered gender generic: (123) (Leip. IV 50) … ϫⲉ-ⲙⲛⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲉ ⲉϥϫⲏⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ “… for there is no perfect love in thee”. (124) (Amél. I 215) ⲉϣϫⲉ-ⲟⲩⲛⲕⲉⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲁⲩⲣⲡⲁⲓ “If there exists any church that has done this thing?”. (125) (XO 82 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 132 and passim) ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ “according to what is written”.

38 Cf. Shisha-Halevy 2009; coined in 1902 by G. J. Ramstedt for Kharkha Mongolian, to replace ‘gerundium’, and used (mainly in Altai and Turkic linguistics) currently alongside ‘gerund’ for adverbial verb-forms. 39 ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ has a much deeper diachrony, but similar structure, and is converbial. 40 Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: Chapter Five. Like Magritte’s pipe, the masculine in these constructions is – and is not – masculine: it is a constituent of the neuter complex.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

477

16. ϣⲁϥ-, ⲙⲉϥ-: habitatives, ensuing events, gnomics (a) The so-called Aorist tenses are not generic by any criterion, but habitative modalities, with apodotic “ensuing” syntaxic propensity. In fact, the two forms are so different as to raise the very question of their pairing as affirmative/ negative (their person-sensitivity is an argument against their being generic, although they have a diachronic association with the generic Present). (126) (Leip. III 47) … ⲉϥϣⲁⲛⲙⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ (the sheep) ϣⲁϥⲣⲡⲱⲟⲩ (the wolves) ϣⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲛϩⲣⲉ ϩⲙⲡⲧⲣⲉϥⲧⲁⲁϥ (the shepherd) ⲛⲁⲩ “… but should it die, it becomes theirs, for it becomes food for them, he giving it to them.” (127) (Leip. III 36) ⲙⲏ ⲙⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲡⲉϥϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ⲣⲃⲗⲗⲉ ⲏ ⲛⲧⲉⲕⲉϩⲱⲃ ⲉϥⲟ ⲛϭⲁⲉⲓⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲙⲉϥⲕⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲉⲓ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲙⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ “Does one, if his slave is blinded, or some other disfigurement happens to him, let him come into his presence?”. (b) The Aorist in gnomic maxims:41 (128) (Chass. 76–77) ⲧⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲁⲥⲱ ϣⲁⲥϫⲡⲟ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲁϥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϣⲁϥⲙⲓⲥⲉ ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲩ “Lust, having conceived, begets sin; and sin, having been consummated, gives birth to death”. (129) (Leip. IV 41) ⲙⲡⲣⲕⲣⲙⲣⲙ ϩⲛⲟⲩϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϩⲟⲥⲉ ϫⲉ-ϣⲁⲣⲉⲧⲇⲟⲕⲓⲙⲏ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟϩⲁⲓⲣⲉⲥⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙⲡϩⲓⲥⲉ “Do not grumble on a hard day, for the proof of one’s choice is revealed in hardship”. (130) (Leip. IV 7) ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲉⲡϭⲟⲗ ⲛⲁϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉϣⲁϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲛⲉ “When Falsehood speaks, it is through his own that it speaks”. (131) (Chass. 166) ϣⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲁϥⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲙⲥϥ ⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ “Does someone who has died and was buried sin?”. (132) (DD 238 ed. Kuhn 1983: 190–191) ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙⲡⲣⲣⲟ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲁⲩⲟⲡⲟⲩ ⲛⲣⲙϩⲉ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲛϫⲁⲓⲉ ϣⲁⲩϩⲩⲡⲟⲡⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲉⲥⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛ ⲁⲛ “Those who travel on the king’s road are taken to be freemen; those who walk in desert roads are suspected of being dishonest”. 17. Hermeneia: etymology; metaphrastic generics. Allegory (a) The copular Nominal Sentence. The pattern [Theme – ⲡⲉ – Rheme] is special in several respects, mainly in its information structure; its theme coheres typically with the preceding cotext or its context, and is of higher specificity, from which ensues its distinct prosodic contour (copular {ⲡⲉ} proclitic to Rheme): 41

Cf. Jolles 1968: 164ff.; Koch 1994: 227f.

478

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

(133) (Chass. 65) ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ-ϩⲉⲛⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲛⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲁⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲩⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲟⲩⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲁⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ ⲡⲥⲁⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥ “If we are sheep, the nature of sheep is to follow the true shepherd, Christ, and it is not their nature to follow the wolf, Satan”. Note the juxtaposition of three distinct Nominal Sentence patterns, different in juncture and information structure. (b) Metaphrastic par excellence is the exclusively Shenoutean, formalized and formulaic ⲉⲓϫⲱ ⲙⲡⲁⲓ ϫⲉ- “by which I mean to say”, which I suggest is a zeroed Circumstantial Focalizing Conversion (second-power conversion):42 (134) (Chass. 102) ⲕⲁⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲃⲁⲗ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲓϫⲱ ⲙⲡⲁⲓ ϫⲉⲛⲉⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲣⲏⲩⲉ ϣⲏⲙ ⲙⲙⲛⲧϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲛⲉⲧⲏⲡ ⲉⲣⲛⲏⲥⲧⲏⲉⲓⲁ ϫⲛⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲥⲉ … “For it is for seeing that the eye exists, and the ear for hearing, by which I mean to say, that is it the true monks, who live on a little food of poverty, that are supposed to fast – or is it you, who eat calves…?”. (c) Allegory – metaphors, exempla and other forms of didactic narrative (see above, §12) – is generic almost by definition: (135) (Chass. 38) ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛⲧⲃⲁϣⲟⲣ ⲁϣⲕⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ⲙⲡⲙⲁⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲥ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲟϣ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲙⲟⲩⲓ ⲧⲣⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ⲙⲡⲉⲭⲥ “It is not when a fox howls in many voices – which is you, servant of Mammonas – that a lion trembles – which is me, servant of Christ”. (136) (Chass. 72) ⲕⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲩⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ ⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲭⲥ ϫⲉ-ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲇⲁⲓⲙⲱⲛ ϫⲉ-ⲛⲑⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ “Leave the wolves and they will follow the wolves; I refer to everyone who does not know Christ as ‘the wolves’ and to the demon as ‘those beasts’”. (d) Etymology plays a role in Shenoute’s rhetoric, mainly in his punning,43 where (usually) two words (often alliterating) are presented as putative relatives or cognates, cohering by a single “root”: this common element is generic: (137) (Chass. 23) ⲛⲥⲙⲟⲧ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲧⲉϣⲁⲕⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϣⲁⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲕ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲩⲣⲏⲥ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲉⲧⲉϣⲁⲕⲉⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲁⲥⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉϩⲧⲏⲩ ⲕⲏ ⲉⲓⲥ “The shapes in which you enter those that are yours when they are awake, are not those in which you come in dreams to those whose hearts rely on Jesus”. 42 43

Cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: 67 (2). Shisha-Halevy 2019.

SHENOUTE’S GENERICS: AN OVERVIEW

479

(138) (Chass. 24) ⲉⲕϣⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲛϩⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲕⲥⲙⲟⲧ ⲉⲛⲉⲧⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲃⲏⲕ ⲉⲩⲣⲏⲥ ⲕⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ-ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ “If you appear in your shapes to those that guard against you when they are awake, you know they will recognize you”. (139) (XO 55 ed. Boud’hors 2013: 105) ⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲛⲟϭⲛⲉϭ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲧⲛ “O that great reproach that will come upon you!”. Bibliography Amél. = Amélineau, Émile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi. 2 vols. Paris. Behlmer, Heike 1996. Schenute von Atripe: De Iudicio. Torino. Boud’hors, Anne 2013. Le Canon 8 de Chénouté. I. Introduction, Édition critique. BEC 21.1. Cairo. Carlson, Gregory M., and Pelletier, Frank J. 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago. Chass. = Chassinat, Émile 1911. Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti. MIFAO 23. Cairo. Crum, Walter E. 1909. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library. Manchester. Funk, Wolf-Peter 2007. A Work Concordance of Shenoute’s Canons. Quebec City (private use). Glinz, Hans 1973. Die innere Form des Deutschen. Bern/Munich. Guillaume, Gustave 1964. “Particularisation et généralisation dans le système des articles français.” In: Guillaume G., Langage et science du langage, 143–156. Paris. Goldenberg, Gideon 1971. “Tautological Infinitive.” Israel Oriental Studies 1, 35–85. Grossman, Eitan 2009. “Periphrastic Perfects in the Coptic Dialects.” Lingua Aegyptia 17, 85–118. Hartmann, Dietrich 1982. “Deixis and Anaphora in German Dialects: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Two Definite Articles in Dialectal Varieties.” In: Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, edited by Jürgen Weissenborn and Wolfgang Klein, 187–207. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Hasznos, Andrea 2011. “A Greek-Coptic Glossary Found at TT 65.” In: From Illahun to Djeme: Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, edited by Eszter Bechtold et al., 81–85. BAR International Series 2311. Oxford. Haug, Walter (ed.) 1979. Formen und Funktionen der Allegorie, Stuttgart. Jernstedt, P. V. 1949. “K determinacii v koptskom jazyke.” Sovetskoe Vostokovedenije 6, 42–52, translated by Peter Nagel as: “Zur Determination im Koptischen.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Halle 27.3 (1978), 95–106. Jolles, André 1968 (4th ed.). Einfache Formen. Tübingen. Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1981. Linguistics and Oral Tradition: The Structural Study of the Riddle. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Papers, 2. Dublin. Koch, Walter A. (ed.) 1994. Simple Forms: An Encyclopaedia of Simple Text-Types in Lore and Literature. Bochum. Kuhn, Karlheinz 1983. “Two Shenoute Texts.” In: Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, 187–193. 2 vols. Vienna. Layton, Bentley 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford.

480

A. SHISHA-HALEVY

Leip. = Leipoldt, Johannes 1908–1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, III–IV. CSCO 42, 73. Paris. Marmorstein, Michal 2017. “On Verbal Generic Sentences in Classical Arabic.” In: Labor omnia vicit improbus: Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy, edited by Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors, and Sydney H. Aufrère, 493–518. OLA 256. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. von Moos, Peter 1988. Geschichte als Topik: das rhetorische Exemplum von der Antike zur Neuzeit und die historiae im “Policraticus” Johanns von Salisbury. Hildesheim. Polotsky, Hans-Jakob 1957. Review of W. C. Till, Koptische Grammatik 1955. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 52, 219–233. ——. 1959 “Zur Neugestaltung der koptischen Grammatik” (review article of A. Mallon & M. Malinine, Grammaire copte). Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 56, 453–460. Pottier, Bernard 1962. “L’absence d’article en français et sa motivation.” Revue de linguistique romane 26, 158–162. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1987 “The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited.” Linguistics 25, 511–580. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel 1984. “On Some Coptic Nominal Sentence Patterns.” In: Studien zur Sprache und Religion Ägyptens zu Ehren W. Westendorf, I, 175–189. Göttingen. ——. 1986. Coptic Grammatical Categories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic. Analecta Orientalia 53. Rome. ——. 1987. “Grammatical Discovery Procedure and the Egyptian-Coptic Nominal Sentence.” Orientalia 56, 147–175. ——. 1990. “The ‘Tautological Infinitive’ in Coptic.” JCoptS 1, 99–127. ——. 1998. “A First Structural Grammar of Demotic” (review article of Robert S. Simpson, Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees, Oxford 1996). Bibliotheca Orientalis 55.5–6, 587–600. ——. 2007. Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. OLA 160. Leuven. ——. 2009. “A Note on Converbs in Egyptian and Coptic.” In: Afroasiatic Studies in Memory of Robert Hetzron, edited by Ch. C. Haberl, 95–105. Newcastle-UponTyne. ——. 2011. “Rhetorical Narratives, Tableaux and Scenarios: Work-Notes on Narrative Poetics in Shenoute’s Sahidic.” In: Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East, edited by F. Hagen et al., 451–498. OLA 189. Leuven. ——. 2016. “The Circumstantial Conversion in Coptic: Materials Towards a Syntactic Profile.” In: Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus, edited by Ph. Collombert, D. Lefevre, S. Polis, and J. Winand, 709–739. OLA 242. Leuven/Paris, Bristol, CT. ——. 2019. “Notes de voyage: Shenoute’s Puns, Alliteration, Paronomasia and Disiunctio.” JCoptS 21, 209–223. Simpson, Robert S., 1996. Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees. Oxford. Young, Dwight W. 1998. “Two Leaves from a Copy of Shenute’s Ninth Canon.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88, 281–301. ——. 2000. “With Respect to the Fourth Work of Shenute’s Sixth Canon.” Göttinger Miszellen 179, 85–106. ——. 2003 “Portions of a Coptic Discourse by Shenute (Vienna Incipit List No. 44).” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 33, 231–271.

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE: PUBLIC LETTER-READING IN A CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY JANET TIMBIE

In Canons Book 6, in a work known as Then Am I Not Obliged, Shenoute of Atripe describes the reaction to a letter that he had previously sent to the women’s monastery in the White Monastery Federation: “Just as you (the women’s community) struggled … with great effort until you quenched the great fire that was kindled due to the envy of the one you call your enemy (Satan),1 do not cease keeping watch lest little sparks … cause a great fire … and it triumphs over you just as it did previously, before God visited us through the plan of His goodness … . Isn’t it those who went to see the flame of the fire that burns among you who said, ‘In the morning we will judge,’ just as I said earlier in this letter? … . (This is) just what the one who speaks with you (Shenoute) wrote in the first letter that was read among you before our senior father died … Some of those who came to listen (to the letter) as it was read were weeping. But others were laughing or sneering or mocking.”2 Later in this work he pleads, “Jesus, take this sickness from my body.”3 First, note the reference to a point made earlier in this work, Then Am I Not Obliged. That earlier portion does not survive.4 Second, Shenoute mentions a different, earlier letter that was read to the assembled community of women, probably by a male elder. Stephen Emmel has identified that letter as one included in Canons Book 1.5 Shenoute describes the varied reactions of the women to the public reading of that letter: weeping, laughing, sneering, and mocking. That earlier letter certainly expressed strong criticism of behavior in the community, just as this one does. In the letter quoted here the problem is compared to a wildfire that was extinguished, only to flare up again. But a secondary problem addressed in Then Am I Not Obliged seems to arise from the fact that women have expressed grief or anger over the expulsion or departure of fellow monastics from the community. Bad behavior is like a wild fire and, in order to quench it, some women may have to leave. Those expulsions

1

“Satan” is implied by the language; see Wisdom 2:24, “through envy of the devil, death came into the world.” 2 Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:150–152. 3 Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:154. 4 Emmel 2004a: 2:581 has an inventory of manuscripts that include Then Am I Not Obliged. 5 Emmel 2004a: 2:561, 578.

482

J. TIMBIE

were the initial attempt to quench the fire. But it flares up again when some react negatively to these measures. Finally, Shenoute addresses a personal appeal to Jesus to relieve the painful symptoms of his illness. INTRODUCTION: ROLE MODELS If one is looking for precedents or role models among Christian writers for this practice of writing a disciplinary letter to a group, while knowing that the letter would be read to the group in public by another person, Paul is the obvious example. But during the very long history of Pauline scholarship, only a modest amount of attention has been paid to this aspect of Paul’s letters. Paul writes to a community that he has evangelized and refers to a previous letter, then sends the new letter through one of his helpers, and someone (his aide or messenger?) reads the letter to the assembly. Later, like Shenoute, Paul may receive reports about the reaction to his letter. And Paul also openly expresses his feelings with those who read or listen to the reading of his letter, mentioning his mysterious ailment (the “thorn in the flesh” 2Cor 12:7) and his prayer for relief. An example of the letter within a letter is Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 2:1–4: “I decided not to come to you again in painful circumstances…. Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears.” In his latest letter, therefore, Paul refers to another letter, but the tears are his, not his listeners’. He also mentions Titus (2Cor 8:16–24) and certain “brothers” who will visit the community to collect donations, and perhaps one of them will read Paul’s latest letter in public. While there has been much study of the rhetoric of Paul – whether he had formal rhetorical training, where did he receive it, what are the rhetorical patterns in his work – much less study has focused on the rhetoric of the epistle, whether Paul’s or those of classical writers in Greek and Latin.6 Meanwhile, the study of the rhetoric of Shenoute in either the Canons or Discourses is in the early stages, but his letters to the women also raise another question.7 If both Paul and Shenoute rely on others to effectively – or ineffectively – deliver their message in public reading, does Shenoute model his letter-writing practice on that of Paul when he, Shenoute, refers to previous letters, to letter carriers, to a listener’s reaction, to illness, and to very strong emotions? Or does his imitation of Paul operate less intentionally, due to a deep familiarity with Paul’s letters that leads him to use Pauline patterns to express himself?8 6

Among many, see Schellenburg 2013 and Porter and Olbricht 1993. Davidson 2014, Brakke and Crislip 2015: 84–86 offer some ideas about the use of standard rhetorical models in the work of Shenoute. 8 In this case it would be similar to the way Shenoute presents himself as “akin to the prophets of ancient Israel,” see Brakke 2007: 53. 7

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE

483

RHETORIC AS PERFORMANCE IN PAUL In a study of the performance aspect of Paul’s letters, Lee A. Johnson began by citing the influential work of Hans Dieter Betz, who argued that Galatians is a rhetorical composition that follows Aristotle’s outline of judicial rhetoric.9 Johnson then identified two major problems with analyzing Paul’s letters through the “lens of rhetorical criticism”: first, letters are not rhetorical compositions in ancient theory, and second, Paul’s letters are not a record of speeches already given or meant to be given by him in the future.10 While proper epistolary practice is a topic for Greco-Roman writers, they only connect it with their rhetorical systems in a limited way, as demonstrated by Abraham Malherbe.11 Instruction on letter writing seems to proceed on two tracks in antiquity. First, papyrus evidence from Egypt shows that basic letter writing was taught at an early stage in schools.12 Later, training for professional letter writers relied in part on handbooks illustrating various types of letters, and took place either at the grammaticus level or at the next level, rhetorical training.13 Some handbooks describe a rather bewildering number of types: twenty-one in the handbook falsely attributed to Demetrius of Phaleron, forty-one in the handbook falsely attributed to Libanius.14 These large numbers suggest that the types overlapped, whereas Cicero kept it simple with a five-type system.15 As Jeffrey Reed notes, the letter types then overlap the rhetorical types, which were judicial, deliberative, and epideictic, but “the similarities are probably due to common communicative practices in the culture… Argumentation is universal as well as culture-specific.”16 But Reed also points out that some ancient writers separate letters from oratory due to the fact that foot stamping, arm waving, and raising the voice belong to the orator and not to the letter-writer.17 The writer does not expect to declaim his letter in person with the necessary gestures. This inventory of oratorical gestures calls attention to their absence. Paul writes letters that use standard rhetorical devices to shape their argument, but their delivery as oral performance does not depend on Paul’s skills. And “delivery” occupied the top three places in factors producing effective rhetoric,

9

Johnson 2017: 60–61, discussing Betz 1979. Johnson 2017: 61, citing Porter 1999: 222–248. 11 Malherbe 1988: 1–3. 12 Cribiore 1999: 280, on letter-writing practice in Greek and Coptic. 13 Malherbe 1988: 7. 14 Reed 1993: 299. 15 Reed 1993: 299. The types are informative, domestic, commendation, solace, and promise of assistance letters. 16 Reed 1993: 299. 17 Reed 1993: 299, 313. 10

484

J. TIMBIE

according to Demosthenes, as noted by Johnson.18 Paul relies on his letter carriers to read the letter to the community that is addressed because he cannot assume that any of the recipients are sufficiently literate or practiced in such tasks. Johnson notes how many of Paul’s letters are written in a time of crisis and therefore need effective presentation; thus, “the only person who would have known the content, the appropriate emotions, and issues of the community and would have been able to present the message promptly would have been Paul’s messenger, Titus,” referring to the messenger who is commended by Paul in 2 Corinthians 7:6 (and elsewhere).19 The “letter of tears,” sometimes identified as 2 Corinthians 10–13, is Johnson’s primary example of a letter that needed an effective messenger.20 The community is in crisis, Paul asks for loyalty and monetary contributions, but must entrust the written and oral delivery of his message to another person. Elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, Paul shows that he has received a report about the response to the “letter of tears” and he is pleased: “Now I rejoice not because you were grieved but because your grief led to repentance” (2Cor 7:9). Johnson then applies insights drawn from performance criticism to Paul’s letters in order to offer a hypothetical description of Titus’ performance as Paul’s messenger.21 SHENOUTE DELIVERS HIS OWN MESSAGE OR USES A MESSENGER Turning from Paul to Shenoute, from a first century apostle to a fifth century abbot who leads a large monastic federation made up of separate communities of men and women, as well as hermits, is a major step.22 But the interesting parallels – references in one letter to another, description of reaction to a letter, designation of a letter carrier, and above all the strong emotions on display – justify the effort. And there is some evidence that Shenoute models his behavior on that of biblical figures at key moments during his monastic life. The nine volumes of Canons seem to be grouped topically around a key theme (for example, Canon 2, discipline in the women’s monastery, Canons 6 and 8, illness of Shenoute, Canon 7, construction of the great church) and each volume contains multiple works, though due to the fragmentary state of the

18

Johnson 2017: 62. Johnson 2017: 70. 20 Johnson 2017: 67 n. 34, relies on Watson 1984 and others for the identification of 2Cor 10–13 as the letter of tears. There is, however, no scholarly consensus on this point; see the recent commentary by Wire 2019: lvi where she argues that 2Cor is a single letter reacting to 1Cor, which is the “letters of tears.” 21 Johnson 2017: 73–76. 22 Layton 2014: 11–14 on groups that made up the federation. 19

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE

485

manuscripts it is sometimes difficult to mark the end of one text and the beginning of another.23 Five works have been identified as belonging to Canon 6, including Then Am I Not Obliged which opened this essay, but due to the poor state of the manuscripts, it is possible that more than five works were assembled in Canon 6.24 In spite of the manuscript problems, certain Canon texts enable us to track the changes in Shenoute’s method of communication with the women’s community, from personal visits and preaching to written communications carried and read by the “elder.”25 While Canon 1 offers an account of problems in the monastery that Shenoute observed before he became leader, Canon 2 includes letters that Shenoute sent to the women after he became leader, when he tried to guide them in a manner that was different from that of his predecessors.26 Pcol, the first abbot, never visited the women and Ebonh, the second abbot, visited only to consecrate the Eucharist. Shenoute immediately took a different approach. As he tells it, in texts from Canon 2, there is dissension in the women’s community over distribution of clothing, food, and other items, with some complaining that those with biological relatives in the monastery are receiving more than their fair share. Shenoute visits the women three times in an effort to get the problem under control; during one of those visits, he tears his cloak in a gesture of grief and refers to his action in a letter: “Why shouldn’t we rend our clothes for our sins, since we were not able to rend our hearts?”27 In the letters that Shenoute writes after these visits, as he and the women are still grappling with the boundaries of this new relationship between male abbot and female monastics, he states that some women “misunderstood” the gesture and apparently gave it a sexual interpretation: “One of you said to me, ‘What’s wrong with you, that you tear your clothes!’”28 However, as Shenoute describes it in the letter written after the fact, he made a conventional gesture of grief (tearing his clothes) but described the moment in biblical language taken from Old Testament prophets. Joel 2:13, “Rend your hearts and not your garments,” has the same vocabulary in Coptic (Akhmimic) translation as Shenoute uses in his paraphrase: ⲡⲱϩ, rend/tear, and ϩⲟⲓⲧⲉ, clothes.29 Whatever Shenoute intended when he visited the women and made the gesture, he describes his action in biblical terms when writing to the women. Another biblical passage may be relevant. In Jeremiah 36:21–24, after the prophet has dictated a book/scroll 23

Emmel 2004a: 2:552 on Shenoute as organizer of nine volumes of Canons. Emmel 2004a: 1:172. 25 Emmel 2004a: 2:557. Choat 2013: 78–85 places the letters of Shenoute in the context of monastic letter collections (Antony, Evagrius, Pachomius, and others) and discusses how they fit or do not fit the typical letter formats. 26 Emmel 2004b: 151–174 and Krawiec 2002: 32–37. 27 Shenoute, Canon 2, XC 219:i.3–9, discussed in Krawiec 2002: 33. 28 Shenoute, Canon 2, XC 219:i.12–16, see Krawiec 2002: 33. 29 Till 1927. 24

486

J. TIMBIE

containing the Lord’s message, Jehudi reads it to the king. “Each time Jehudi finished reading three or four columns, the king would cut off a piece … and cast it into the fire. Hearing all these words did not frighten the king and his ministers or cause them to rend their garments (Jer 36:23).” The written communication from the prophet is meant to prompt one response (repentance, demonstrated by rending/ⲡⲱϩ the garments/ϩⲟⲓⲧⲉ), but a different response (contempt, indifference) is recorded.30 Also in Canon 2, in another letter written after his visits, Shenoute quotes 2 Corinthians 13:2: “If I come to you in anger, I will not spare you as before, according to the word of the apostle … I do not regard myself as an apostle, being weak in my procrastination. Far from it!”31 He may not “regard himself as an apostle,” but at the beginning of his letterwriting career, Shenoute already demonstrates reliance on biblical models, whether prophets or apostles, for the way he presents his message. The texts in Canon 1 make it clear that Shenoute would not live in the large men’s monastery any longer, but in a hermitage that was part of the White Monastery Federation’s territory. When he writes to the then-abbot about sinful behavior in the monastery that is not being acknowledged or corrected, he goes on to say that he intends to withdraw: “I declare that if the Lord shows me the way I charge myself not to eat in company until I go unto God.”32 This means that he will not eat in the refectory or live in a cell in the monastery, but live in a hermitage near the valley wall. Soon after this crisis, Shenoute becomes abbot, but continues to live in the hermitage. After an early period of personal visits to the women, he directs both men and women by means of written communication, and disciplines the men in person on occasion.33 Of course, he also has a public life: regular sermons in the monastery church in the presence of monks and laity, raids on local temples and on private homes that harbored pagan artifacts, and so on.34 But communication with the women’s community takes place by means of works written by Shenoute, then carried and read aloud by “the elder.”35 Some additional examples from the Canons will illustrate Shenoute’s use of a representative or proxy to deliver his written message and also to carry out other tasks, such as administering corporal punishment. Just as Paul expresses 30

Feder 2002 assembles the text of Jeremiah in Sahidic from surviving biblical manuscripts and patristic citations. 31 Text in Kuhn 1956: 1:131 (my translation). Kuhn incorrectly attributes the text to Besa. 32 Emmel 2004b: 163. 33 Crislip 2017. 34 See Schroeder 2007: 101–118 on This Great House, a sermon preached by Shenoute at the dedication of the monastery church; also Robinson 2017: 581–604 on Continuing to Glorify the Lord and other public sermons delivered by Shenoute when the monastery sheltered refugees; see Brakke and Crislip 2015: 193–294 for translations of sermons related to his conflict with Gesios. 35 Johnson 2017: 66–72 reviews the skills needed to read a long text, whether roll or codex, in public.

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE

487

confidence in Titus and gratitude for his effort in 2 Corinthians 7:6–7 (“God … encouraged us by the arrival of Titus … as he told us of your yearning, your lament, your zeal for me.”), Shenoute expresses confidence in the elder and uses him to send and receive messages. In the work known as Abraham Our Father, in Canons Book 3, Shenoute deals with the case of a woman who has refused an assignment in her community, and he wants to know exactly why she has refused: is it because she believes that she cannot do the job or because she refuses to make the effort? “See, I have sent the elder to you so that you will remember God and have mercy … on us and tell us about all these disturbances in your community.”36 The elder gathers information so that Shenoute will know who is at fault: the woman who refused a job or other women who made it impossible for her to do the job. In Abraham Our Father Shenoute makes a strong argument for women in the community to follow the example of biblical women and serve in the way God wants, citing many biblical examples. Biblical women served as mothers, judges, or prophets, while monastic women serve by guiding other women in the community.37 Along the way he criticizes the exegesis of Isaiah 56:4–5 (“The Lord will give eunuchs and virgins a … better report than sons and daughters.”) that has been circulating in the monastery. Contrary to the interpretation that some have offered, salvation requires strenuous effort on behalf of others, not simply celibacy.38 Parts of the text of Abraham Our Father apply to both male and female ascetics, especially the dispute over exegesis of Isaiah 56, but the specific problem disclosed at the end of the letter (the nun who refuses an assignment) and the warning that “I have sent the elder” place this letter in the context of Shenoute’s interaction with the women’s community. Canons Book 4 shows that the elder is a letter carrier and more: he is Shenoute’s representative, who has the authority to make judgments on the spot. The elder had visited the women “in the summer,” was unhappy with their behavior, but did not punish them at that time. “Wasn’t it because he did not want to do anything without our permission? Not because he’s our servant … it’s because he knows a lot.”39 He “knows a lot” about humility, so he wants to consult Shenoute. After listing all the nuns who have sinned and prescribing specific punishments for each one (such as, “Tsansno, the sister of Apa Hllo, who says, ‘I teach others’ 40 blows of the rod.”), Shenoute gives the elder great latitude: “If he wants to add to these blows, he is in charge. … If he wants to reduce them, it is he who knows best. … If he wants to expel 36

Young 2000: 280. Abraham Our Father, Leipoldt 1913: 4:26, 29. Sarah and others make great efforts to bear children, while Deborah (Judges 4–5) served as judge and prophet and Odolla (2Ki 22:14) counseled Josiah. 38 Abraham Our Father, Leipoldt 1913: 4:30. 39 Layton 2011: 339–340. 37

488

J. TIMBIE

someone … or forgive someone … he is in charge. He is wise in all his conduct.”40 Shenoute does not go to the women’s community himself to punish them, though he certainly did so in the case of male monks, since one of them died after being beaten and Shenoute must defend the way he enforces the rules.41 I began with an excerpt from Then Am I Not Obliged that contained a reference to a previous letter read publicly to the women, a description of their reaction, and evidence of a new attempt by Shenoute to guide and control the women in the White Monastery Federation. Emmel states that the previous letter, to which the women reacted when it was read to them in a group setting, was the first letter in Canon 1, written before Shenoute became leader of the Federation.42 Since that letter denounced misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, in the communities, the women’s reactions (weeping, mocking, etc.) would be an indicator of whether they accepted Shenoute’s criticism as valid and whether they thought it was right for him to intervene, which are two separate matters. The extended metaphor of the wild fire that was quenched but threatens to flare up again unless everyone keeps watch suggests that when Shenoute first became leader he worked to improve behavior in the women’s community by means of personal visits that included instruction and the forced expulsion of some women. On the one hand, he exhorts them to keep watch constantly: “Do not now cease keeping watch lest little sparks or embers cause a great fire.”43 Yet, on the other hand, the fire is largely under control (“quenched”) because of “those he expels or will expel from time to time because of their … thievery and disobedience.”44 To be clear (insofar as possible) on the sequence: in this letter, Then Am I Not Obliged, Shenoute states that the fire is under control, but everyone must be on guard against flare-ups. The earlier disciplinary letter from Shenoute, written before he became abbot, had provoked a strong reaction. Some were sad (“weeping”) because they recognized that there was a problem; others thought he was wrong and did not accept the criticism (“mocking, laughing”). The fire now seems to be out because some have been expelled for stealing and other acts of disobedience.

40 Canon 4, Why O Lord, in Young 1993: 106. See also Layton 2011 for detailed reconstruction of the sequence of letters, now fragmented, in Canon 4. Layton argues that the “mother superior” had written to Shenoute with lists of sinners and proposed punishments, intending to administer the punishment by herself, but Shenoute asserts control by giving the visiting elder final authority. 41 Krawiec 2002: 44–45 discusses the Canon 6 account of the death of a monk after he was beaten as punishment. Crislip 2017: 339–349 discusses two works in Canon 6 that describe physical punishment administered by Shenoute on a sinful monk, who was then expelled and later returned, creating a disturbance. 42 Emmel 2004a: 2:578. 43 Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:544. 44 Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:549.

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE

489

The present letter (Then Am I Not Obliged) is delivered and read by the elder because Shenoute no longer visits the women, but tries to guide them from a distance. He warns them against excessive grief or anger over the expulsions, citing a biblical role model, King David. “What did King David do? He forgot … the grief caused by the blow that the Lord God brought down upon Oza, when he stretched out his hand to the ark of God to grasp it … and David sang and danced in joy when he … took the ark into his city.”45 Shenoute and others grieve over sinners who have been expelled from the monastery, just as David did over the death of Oza. But soon they should rejoice over those who do good in the community, as David did when he brought the ark into the city. Another analogy is offered by the birth of twins when one dies and one survives. It is not appropriate for a believer to continue to mourn what has been lost.46 This is his advice to the women’s community; yet in a similar situation of sin and punishment in the men’s community, Shenoute and the monks publicly expressed grief and anger over sin without any mention of appropriate limits.47 In the middle of this complicated grief metaphor, Shenoute asks Jesus for healing from physical sickness: “Jesus, Son of God, take this sickness from my body … so those whom I disturb will rest, (namely) those who … watch over me at night when I am disturbed by pain.”48 Shenoute repeats this strategy of bemoaning his illness in the midst of disciplinary instructions in several works in Canons Book 8.49 The same overall pattern is evident: references to a personal visit, to an earlier letter, to Shenoute’s representative who will carry his letters, to disciplinary matters, along with a highly personal description of illness. “I said to you … in the house of God, in front of the altar on the day we did some bitter deeds, ‘That’s enough weeping,’ … whether you wept or did not weep.”50 Shenoute describes a meeting in the church, where he personally expelled some from the community, which must come from an early phase in his career, before he stopped visiting the women.51 Disobedience continues because “they did not believe what was said in another letter.”52 In another work in Canon 8, known as Many Times, he warns the women about bothering the elder, his messenger, with appeals: “Let me not hear that one (of you women) ran to the elders that I sent to you. Remain calm, each one in the church, and they will read (the letter) from the holy altar and they will speak

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:549, see 2Sam 6:6–15. Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:546. Crislip 2017: 339–349. Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:548. Emmel 2004a: 2:593–594; Boud’hors 2013. My Heart is Crushed, Boud’hors 2013: 1:140. Boud’hors 2013: 2:395 n. 219. My Heart is Crushed, Boud’hors 2013: 1:167.

490

J. TIMBIE

with you at various times.”53 In the same letter Shenoute complains about “male and female thieves” in the Federation, “Woe to me since I did not separate them from these places.”54 In several works in Canon 8, Shenoute interrupts criticism of behavior in the community with descriptions of his illness: “What is it that pours forth from them (members of community) except … lies … lack of faith, cruelty? If you knew what I go through because of this sickness in my members and if you saw the wounds on them, you would be astonished that I endure these pains.”55 CONCLUSION: SHENOUTE GUIDED BY PAUL? Johnson, in the article “Paul’s Letters Reheard,” questioned some of the focus on the rhetoric of Paul since scholars seemed to ignore the fact that Paul did not write his letters as speeches that he would deliver in person.56 The delivery or performance depended on someone else. Shenoute began his term as abbot of the White Monastery Federation with personal visits to the women’s community that included dramatic gestures such as tearing his clothes, thereby performing his own message. But he ended these visits and, from then on, tried to guide and discipline the women through long letters that are read by his messenger, a male elder, to the assembled women. Shenoute seems to imitate the general plan of a Pauline letter – reference to previous letters, acknowledgement of the messenger, appeal for sympathy – when he composes works such as Then Am I Not Obliged and sends them to the women in the Federation. When he visited the women early in his career and tried to lay down the law, he seemed to be modeling his behavior on that of a biblical prophet who tears his clothes in grief. When the visits ceased, perhaps he turned to Paul for another model. In every way, Shenoute does more of what Paul does in his letters: longer denunciation of bad behavior, more frequent reference to previous letters, and stronger bids for sympathy. Paul’s manipulation of pathos has been studied as an example of a rhetorical tool by which the speaker shifts the anger of his audience to sympathy.57 In 2 Corinthians, Paul lists all the forms of affliction he has endured, including physical illness, and describes how he asked God to free him from this ailment: “Three times I begged the Lord.”58 When Shenoute interrupts his disciplinary critique 53

Many Times, Boud’hors 2013: 1:307. Many Times, Boud’hors 2013: 1:243–244. 55 Many Times, Boud’hors 2013: 1:334. For further discussion of the role of the symptoms of disease in Shenoute’s teaching, see Timbie forthcoming. 56 Johnson 2017. 57 Sumney 2001: 151. 58 2Cor 12:8; see also 2Cor 6:4–5; 11:23–27. 54

RHETORIC BY PROXY FROM PAUL TO SHENOUTE

491

with a disjointed yet detailed (especially in Canon 8) description of his ailments, it is possible to see this as an attempt to arouse the sympathy or compassion of his audience and defuse their anger at his critique. This may explain the way that a work such as Then Am I Not Obliged moves from criticism of some women as “leaders of sin” (Micah 1:13) to a description of the “fire” in the community to “O this great sickness! Jesus, Jesus … take this sickness from my body!”59 Imitation of Paul as a letter-writer who acts as a disciplinarian and manipulator of emotions becomes an attractive option for Shenoute when he has to rely on a messenger, the elder, to read his letters to the women’s community in an act of rhetoric by proxy. Bibliography Amélineau, Émile 1907–1914. Œuvres de Schenoudi. 2 vols. Paris. Betz, Hans Dieter 1979. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia. Boud’hors, Anne 2013. Le Canon 8 de Chénouté. 2 vols. BEC 21. Cairo. Brakke, David 2007. “Shenoute, Weber, and the monastic prophet: ancient and modern articulations of ascetic authority.” In: Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism, edited by A. Campani and G. Filoramo, 47–73. OLA 157. Leuven. Brakke, David, and Crislip, Andrew 2015. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great. Cambridge. Choat, Malcolm 2013. “Monastic letter collections in Late Antique Egypt: Structure, Purpose, and Transmission.” In: Cultures in Contact: Transfer of Knowledge in the Mediterranean Context, edited by Sofia Torallas Tovar and Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, 73–90. Cordoba. Cribiore, Raffaella 1999. “Greek and Coptic Education in Late Antique Egypt.” In: Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit, edited by S. Emmel et al., 2:279–286. 2 vols. Wiesbaden. Crislip, Andrew 2017. “Emotional Communities and Emotional Suffering in Shenoute’s White Monastery Federation: Sadness, Anger, and Fear in Select Works of Shenoute.” In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by D. Brakke et al., 331–357. OLA 263. Leuven. Davidson, Elizabeth 2014. “Those Who Listen: Shenoute’s Sermons at the White Monastery.” PhD diss., Yale University. Emmel, Stephen 2004a. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600, Subsidia 111–112. Leuven. ——. 2004b. “Shenoute the monk: the early monastic career of Shenoute the archimandrite.” In: Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture: Atti del simposio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano” per il 500 anniversario dell’ istituto monastic di Sant’Anselmo, edited by M. Bielawski and D. Hombergen, 151–174. Rome.

59

Then Am I Not Obliged, Amélineau 1907–1914: 1:548.

492

J. TIMBIE

Feder, Frank 2002. Biblia Sahidica: Ieremias, Lamentationes (Threni), Epistula Ieremias et Baruch. Berlin. Johnson, Lee A. 2017. “Paul’s Letters Reheard: A Performance-Critical Examination of the Preparation, Transportation, and Delivery of Paul’s Correspondence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79, 60–76. Krawiec, Rebecca 2002. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery. Oxford. Kuhn, Karl H. 1956. Letters and Sermons of Besa. CSCO 157–158. Louvain. Layton, Bentley 2011. “Punishing the Nuns: A Reading of Shenoute’s Letters to the Nuns in Canons Book Four.” In: Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, edited by Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani, 325–345. SEA 125. Rome. ——. 2014. The Canons of Our Fathers: Monastic Rules of Shenoute. Oxford. Leipoldt, Johannes 1908–1913. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, III–IV. CSCO 42, 73. Paris. Malherbe, Abraham 1988. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta. Porter, Stanley E. 1999. “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?” In: The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture, edited by S. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, 222– 248. JSNTSup 180. Sheffield. Porter, Stanley, and Olbricht, Thomas 1993. Rhetoric and the New Testament. JSNT 90. Sheffield. Reed, Jeffrey 1993. “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Paul’s Letters.” In: Rhetoric and the New Testament, edited by S. E. Porter and T. Olbricht, 292– 324. Sheffield. Robinson, Dana 2017. “Shenoute’s Feast: Monastic Ideology, Lay Piety, and the Discourse of Food in Late Antiquity.” JECS 25, 581–604. Schellenberg, Ryan 2013. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13. Early Christianity and Its Literature 10. Atlanta. Schroeder, Caroline 2007. Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe. Philadelphia. Sumney, Jerry 2001. “Paul’s Use of πάθος in His Argument against the Opponents of 2 Corinthians.” In: Paul and Pathos, edited by T. Olbricht and J. Sumney, 147– 160. Atlanta. Till, W. C. 1927. Die achmimische Version der zwölf kleinen Propheten. Coptica 4. Copenhagen. Timbie, Janet forthcoming. “Symptoms as Signs: The Interpretation of Illness in Shenoute, Canon 8.” In: Two Millennia of Coptic Culture. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Claremont Graduate University, California, USA, July 25–30, 2016, edited by L. Agaiby, T. Vivian, and H. Takla. Leuven. Watson, Francis 1984. “2Cor X-XIII and Paul’s Painful Letter to the Corinthians.” JTS 35, 324–346. Wire, Antoinette Clark 2019. 2 Corinthians. Wisdom Commentary Series 48. Collegeville. Young, Dwight W. 1993. Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery: Works of Shenoute. 2 vols. MPER XXII. Vienna. ——. 2000. “Five Leaves from a Copy of Shenute’s Third Canon.” Le Muséon 113, 263–294.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE FREDERIK WISSE

Shenoute’s witness to, and use of, the Bible is a major topic and only a preliminary overview will be presented here since much of the basic data is not yet available. On the basis of the complete evidence for the biblical citations in Canon 7 of Shenoute’s literary corpus1 it is clear that Shenoute is a major witness to the text of the Sahidic Septuagint and New Testament, and his rhetorical use of Scripture in his sermons and speeches rivals that of the Greek Church Fathers. Canon 7 is one of seventeen volumes into which the works of Shenoute were collected and transmitted and for which a critical edition is in the final stages of preparation under the general editorship of Stephen Emmel. Though not all volumes of the corpus may have contained a similar amount of text as Canon 7, this volume can provide a general idea. The text of Canon 7 would have covered about 250 pages of a modern printed edition of Coptic text such as that of Johannes Leipoldt in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium series. Due to the fragmentary nature of the eleven manuscript witnesses to part or all of Canon 7 only a little more than half of the text of the canon survives. Yet in the surviving text there are 91 substantial citations from the Sahidic Septuagint of which a third are not extant in the published Sahidic biblical manuscripts. There are also about 37 larger citations from the Sahidic New Testament. Canon 7 consists mainly of exhortations to the monks for which one would expect a more extensive use of scripture than in some of the works in other volumes of Shenoute’s literary corpus. Still it can be estimated that the surviving part of Shenoute’s literary corpus will provide us with up to 2000 citations. Two factors make Shenoute’s witness to the Sahidic Bible especially valuable. The first is that the Sahidic Septuagint is very poorly preserved and, as a consequence, Shenoute’s citations are often our only witness. Secondly Shenoute’s citations may well be among our earliest witnesses to the Sahidic Bible dating to the late fourth and first half of the fifth centuries. Many of the surviving Sahidic biblical manuscripts are from after the ninth century. It is even possible that Shenoute’s citations get us back to the origin of the standardized edition of the Sahidic Bible, for the White Monastery which he headed is a likely place for the standardization to have happened probably in the second half of the fourth century. 1

Emmel 2004.

494

F. WISSE

There is a very high level of agreement between Shenoute’s citations and the Sahidic Bible as known from later manuscripts. In only a few cases has Shenoute modified a citation to make it fit better in the context. It is likely that all the citations were checked against biblical manuscripts at the time Shenoute edited the Canons sometime before the middle of the 5th century, and this was probably also done for the eight volumes of the Discourses. The surviving copies of the Canons and Discourses are at least three centuries later than the originals. It is of course possible that during the intervening transmission history scribes changed some citations to make them conform to the biblical text as known to them, but that would have happened only rarely and inadvertantly. In view of the value of the biblical citations in Shenoute’s literary corpus for the textual criticism of the Septuagint it will be useful to collect all of them and make them available in digital or printed form. This has been done for Canon 7 below by listing them together with the Greek text and parallels from Sahidic biblical manuscripts if different, and brief text-critical comments. The Sahidic translation of the Bible is generally a fairly literal one and in the great majority of cases it is clear which variants in the Greek transmission history are supported by the Sahidic version. Shenoute’s knowledge of the Bible was amazingly comprehensive and profound. It is difficult for us moderns to appreciate what it was to be a biblical scholar in Shenoute’s time. Shenoute’s bible would have been in the form of a many large, cumbersome, volumes. The text was undivided with only some paragraphing, punctuation and articulation marks to help the reader’s eye. The aids for locating passages we take for granted and on which we depend were absent. If there were aids, Patristic scholars had to construct them themselves, and they probably did. We can imagine Shenoute in his isolated monk’s cell, alone with the multivolumed Sahidic bible and sheets of papyrus for notes. Much of his day would have been spent reading scripture. He almost certainly had an excellent memory and may well have memorized significant parts of the bible. Much of his reading would likely have been a “searching of the scriptures,” to use the biblical phrase (John 5:39), that is a reading with the goal of finding passages relevant to a certain topic. The results may have been put in notes to be used in the planning for speeches and sermons. A striking example of this is found in the fourth work in Canon 7, titled: Is Ecclesiastes not Wise?2 It contains a catena of more than 34 verses all introduced by Ⲙⲡⲉⲙⲁ which is the equivalent of the Greek ὧδε, meaning ‘here,’ 2 The numbering of the works and appendices in Canon 7 used here differs from the list in Emmel 2004: 178–195. Due to the fragmentary nature and differences among the eleven witnesses the list cannot be established with any certainty. On the basis of the surviving incipits and exits, the excerpts from incipits that survive in the Florilegium, the apparent chronological order of the works in the Canon and references in them to two major historical events, the critical edition I submitted to the Stephen Emmel, the general editor, assumes 17 works and appendices.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

495

that is “at this place in the scriptures it says.” The introduction to this long chain of citations is in a lacuna but all the citations speak of the severe divine judgment on the iniquities and immoralities on Israel in the past and by extension also on whoever is guilty of the same acts among the monks. The citations were chosen mainly from the Minor Prophets but there are also some from the Major Prophets, the Psalms, Baruch, and the New Testament. They are the product of Shenoute’s search of the Scriptures. There are also instances of a kind of expository preaching probably after a reading of the relevant passage. For example, the third work in Discourses 4, A Beloved Asked Me Years Ago, contains an inspired interpretation of the description of Leviathan in Job 40 and 41 as referring to Satan and developed by Shenoute as a guide on how to fight against the devil . Shenoute does not shy away from difficult passages. In the thirteenth work in Canon 7, If Everyone Errs, he comments at length on the enigmatic address to the sword of divine vengeance in Ezekiel 21. He chose this passage most likely because of the reference in verse 36 to God delivering the evil doers into the hands of the Barbarians. It is clear from the tenth work in Canon 7 that the Nubians, referred to as the Barbarians, had recently invaded southern Egypt and caused much destruction and death in the area of the White Monastery. So, according to Shenoute, the prophecy in Ezekiel 21 has been fulfilled, or rather has been fulfilled again in recent happenings. But Shenoute does not stop there. He links the sword of Ezekiel 21 to the two-edged sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6. Its two edges are vengeance on the one hand and mercy and blessing on the other. For Shenoute the sword is much more that a metaphor but a personification of God’s acting in the world in the past and the present. Most citations in Shenoute’s works are an integral part of his exhortations. They are generally well chosen and apt, and thus a major tool in his rhetoric. The whole Sahidic bible appears to be at his fingertips and he used it with great effect, if need be, as a sledge hammer. It is likely that the Sahidic bible had a strong influence on Shenoute’s language and style. The influence of major versions of the Bible on the language of the liturgy, such as hymns and prayers, and on preaching is a well-known phenomenon. The 17th-century King James Version of the English bible set the norm for protestant church language for at least three centuries. This language tended to be rich in biblical clichés and archaism. It was a solemn, elevated form of speech (‘eine erhebende Sprache’) which was thought appropriate to and expected in a religious setting. Closer in time and more directly relevant to Shenoute is the case of the last book in the NT, the Apocalypse of John. It has been argued that the unusual Koine Greek of the Apocalypse was a kind of Jewish Greek, or the Greek of someone whose native language was Semitic, but this lacks corroborating evidence. Rather, John the Seer, the author of the Apocalypse, has adopted from the Septuagint the voice of a prophet. The unusual features in the Greek of the Apocalypse are not Semitism but Septuagintalisms. John never quoted from

496

F. WISSE

the Old Testament prophets, but he was able to sound like one. The adopted style intended to authenticate his vision and so become an authoritative voice. This strategy was obviously successful. For Shenoute we do not have contemporary Sahidic secular literature to compare his style and vocabulary. But, much like the author of the Apocalypse, Shenoute considered himself a prophet and a seer. Like John he also had a vision of four ζῷα, four living creatures, as recorded in Revelation 4 and echoing Ezekiel 1. In I Myself Have Seen, the twelfth work in Canon 7, Shenoute describes his vision and he interprets the ζῷα as referring to humans who have fallen, or are falling, into the hands of Satan by committing impieties and abominations. It is likely that not just by means of biblical allusions but also in his style Shenoute wanted to show himself to stand with the prophets of old and to speak with a similar authority. Shenoute refers to Scripture at times as ϯⲥⲙⲏ, “this Voice.” He appears to have shaped his own voice to share in the biblical authority. No wonder that his writings took on a semicanonical status in the White Monastery. * *

*

The following list presents the biblical citations found in the surviving pages of Canon 7. Not infrequently Shenoute incorporated a recognizable piece of biblical text into his sentence. Only if these involve a substantial part of a verse, and were not significantly altered to fit the context, have they been included in the list, since they could be of significance for establishing the Coptic biblical text. The many brief biblical allusions involving only a couple of words have not been included.3 Since the Coptic version of the Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint and not of the Masoretic Text, biblical references follow chapter and verse of A. Ralph’s Septuaginta (LXX). Shenoute normally omits introductory phrases and conjunctives (i.e. the equivalents of καί, ὅτι or γάρ) that link a citation to a previous verse. These have also been omitted from the Greek and Coptic Septuagint text supplied with the citations.4 Any significant variants with published manuscripts of the Coptic Septuagint and the Coptic New Testament have been noted. The references to Shenoute’s citations are in terms of the number of the work, the paragraph and section of the forthcoming critical edition of Canon 7 with the codex page and line of a manuscript witness added in brackets. As for the editions of Coptic biblical texts, they are all quoted, except when there is a critical edition. 3 The citations in the interpolations in codex YR have not been included since it is not clear that they were taken from a text written by Shenoute. 4 I am greatly indebted to Sina Isabell Becker for supplying the relevant pages and bibliography of the published Coptic biblical manuscripts.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

497

THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX)

Gen 1:31a: ⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲚⲕⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲛ[ⲧ]ⲁϥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟⲟⲩ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ· C7.9 §1.2 (XU 425: i.27–ii.4) Εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἐποίησεν, καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν. Not extant in published mss. Gen 7:1b: Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ Ⲛⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲘⲡⲁⲘⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ· C7.5 §3.3 (XG 176: ii.16–19) σὲ θεὸς εἶδον δίκαιον ἐναντίον μου ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ. Ciasca 1885: 4: Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ Ⲛⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ ⲘⲡⲁⲘⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ· Shenoute agrees with LXX against Ciasca by not including ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ. Gen 49:12: ⲥⲉⲙⲟⲣϢ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥⲃⲁⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲏⲣⲠ· … ⲛⲉϥⲟⲃϩⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲃϢ Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲉⲡⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: i.28–ii.1; ii.5–8) χαροποὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ οἴνου, καὶ λευκοὶ οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτοῦ ἢ γάλα. Wessely 1914: 51: ⲥⲉⲱⲣϢ (copying’s mistake?) Ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥⲃⲁⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲏⲣⲠ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲛⲟⲃϩⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲃϣ ⲉϩⲟⲩ[ⲉ]ⲡⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ. Shenoute cites the two phrases separately and reverses the biblical order leaving out the connecting ⲁⲩⲱ. Deut 32:1: ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲛⲁϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲛϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ· C7.5 §10.3 (AV frg. 4bV: ii.2–6) Πρόσεχε, οὐρανέ, καὶ λαλήσω, καὶ ἀκουέτω γῆ ῥήματα ἐκ στόματός μου. Agrees with Budge 1912: 100 (see now Nagel 2020: 149). 1 Kgs 2:24b: ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲒϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲉϯⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ· C7.5 §4 (XG 177: ii.19–21) οὐκ ἀγαθαὶ αἱ ἀκοαὶ, ἅς ἐγὼ ἀκούω: Agrees with Drescher 1970: 6. 4 Kgs 2:12: ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱ[ⲧ] ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϩⲉⲛⲟⲭⲟⲥ ⲘⲡⲒ⳱ⲎⲖ ⳱ ⲁⲩ[ⲱ ⲡ]ⲉϥϩⲓⲡⲡ[ⲉⲩⲥ·] C7.1 §6.3 (GO frg. 3R: i.26–29) Πάτηρ πάτηρ, ἅρμα Ισραηλ καὶ ἱππεῦς αὐτοῦ· Browne 1978: 205: ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲟⲭⲟⲥ ⲘⲡⲒ⳱Ⲏ⳱Ⲗ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉϥϩⲒⲡⲡⲉⲩⲤ· Shenoute’s text is closer to LXX than Browne’s, where “our chariot” appears to be an interpretive variant.

498

F. WISSE

4 Kgs 4:43c: ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ Ⲛⲥⲉⲕⲱ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ· C7.16 §2.2 (DG 426: i.11–13) φάγονται καὶ καταλείψουσιν. Not extant in published mss. Ps 5:13a: Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲕⲛⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ· C7.13 §3.4 (GN 406: i.24–26) σὺ εὐλογήσεις δίκαιον· Agrees with Budge 1898: 5; Burmester 1965–66: 27 reads ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ. Ps 7:13: ⲉⲧ[ⲉ]ⲧⲚⲧⲘⲕⲉⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ϥⲛⲁϫⲱⲣ Ⲛⲧⲉϥⲥⲏϥⲉ· C7.13 §3.2 (GN 404: ii.31–405: i.2) ἐὰν μὴ ᾿πιστραφῆτε, τὴν ῥομφαίαν αὐτοῦ στιλβώσει· Agrees with Budge 1898: 7; Rahlfs 1901: 50; Wessely 1914: 87–88. Ps 9:35b–36a: ⲉⲣⲉⲡϩⲏⲕⲉϭⲉ ⲛⲁⲛⲟϫϤ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ· Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲟⲣⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲚⲧⲉⲭⲏⲣⲁ· ⲟⲩⲱϣϤ ⲘⲡⲉϭⲃⲟⲒ ⲘⲡⲣⲉϥⲢⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲙⲚⲡⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ· C7.13 §3.3 (GN 406: i.2–6; 405: ii.29–32 (ⲡⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲛ) / XG 346: i.24–29 (ⲉⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ). 19–22 / GO 385: i.10–15, 4–7 (ⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ). σοὶ οὖν ἐγκαταλέλειπται ὁ πτωχός, ὀρφανῷ σὺ ἦσθα βοηθῶν. σύντριψον τὸν βραχίονα τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ· Budge 1898: 11: ⲉⲣⲉⲡϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲛⲁⲛⲟϫϤ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ· Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲓ ⲉⲡⲟⲣⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ· ⲟⲩⲱϣϤ ⲘⲡⲉϭⲃⲟⲒ ⲘⲡⲣⲉϥⲢⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲙⲚⲡⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ Schleifer 1914: 67 agrees with Shenoute in reading ⲡⲉⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ. Worrell 1923: 6 includes ϭⲉ but reads ⲡⲉⲉⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ. Shenoute adds ‘and the widow’ perhaps under influence of Jas 1:27. He cites the two phrases separate, and 36 before 35b. Ps 17:8b: ⲁⲛⲥⲚⲧⲉ ⲚⲚⲧⲟⲟⲩ ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲢ ⲁⲩⲕⲓⲙ ϫⲉⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϭⲤ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ· C7.5 §10.3 (AV frg. 4bV: i.22–26) τὰ θεμέλια τῶν ὀρέων ἐταράχθησαν καὶ ἐσαλεύθησαν, ὅτι ὠργίσθη αὐτοῖς ὁ θεός. Agrees with Budge 1898: 17. Ps 26:12a: ⲁⲡϫⲓⲛϭⲟⲛⲤ ϫⲓϭⲟⲗ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁϥ· C7.7 §10.1 (XU 309: i.14–16) ἐψεύσατο ἡ ἀδικία ἑαυτῇ. Budge 1898: 28, Ciasca 1889: 83, Ernstedt 1959: 132, and Worrell 1923: 46 read: ⲁⲡϫⲓⲛϭⲟⲛⲤ ϫⲓϭⲟⲗ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲁⲁϥ·

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

499

Ps 43:6: ϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲔ ⲧⲚⲛⲁⲕⲱⲛⲤ Ⲛⲛⲉⲛϫⲁϫⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲘⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ [ⲧⲚⲛ] ⲁⲥⲱϣϤ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϫⲱⲛ· C7.13 §2.6 (GN 403: ii.29–404: i.2) ἐν σοὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἡμῶν κερατιοῦμεν καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐξουθενώσομεν τοὺς ἐπανιστανομένους ἡμῖν. Agrees with Budge 1898: 48. Ps 45:6a: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲥⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲤⲛⲁⲕⲓⲙ ⲁⲛ· C7.7 §11.3 (XU 313: ii.23–26) ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς, οὐ σαλευθήσεται· Budge 1898: 50, Maspero 1883: 274, Worrell 1923: 97 read in agreement with LXX: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲥⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲤⲛⲁⲕⲓⲙ ⲁⲛ·, Ps 62:11a: ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉⲛϭⲓϫ Ⲛⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ· C7.13 §1.2 (GN 398: i.14–16) παραδοθήσεται εἰς χεῖρας ῥομφαίας. Agrees with Budge 1898: 65. Ps 64:13–14: Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲏⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲣⲟⲧ· ⲚⲧⲉⲚⲥⲓⲃⲦ ⲙⲟⲣⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ· ⲁⲛⲟⲉⲓⲗⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲣⲱⲧ ⲚⲧⲉⲚⲉⲓⲁ ⲧⲁϣⲉⲡⲉⲩⲥⲟⲩⲟ· ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓϣⲕⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ· C7.5 §10.2 (AV frg. 4bR: ii.18–20. 23–25. 27–29; 4bV: i.2–6) πιανθήσονται τὰ ὅρη τῆς ἐρήμου, καὶ ἀγαλλίασιν οἱ βουνοὶ περιζώσονται. ἐνεδύσαντο οἱ κριοὶ τῶν προβάτων, καὶ αἱ κοιλάδες πληθυνοῦσι σῖτον· κεκράξονται, καὶ γὰρ ὑμνήσουσιν. Budge 1898: 66 reads Ⲛⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ. Shenoute cited the verses separately and the there phrases in v. 14 in the order acb. Ps 80:10: ⲙⲚⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲚⲃⲢⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲔ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲚⲛⲉⲕⲟⲩⲱϣⲦ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲚϣⲘⲙⲟ· C7.4 §1.2 (DG 105: ii.7–12) οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ θεὸς πρόσφατος, οὐδὲ προσκυνήσεις θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ. Budge 1898: 88 reads ⲘⲙⲚⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Ps 92:5b: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲟⲩⲟⲡ ⲡⲣⲉⲡⲉⲓ ⲘⲡⲉⲕⲏⲒ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉϩⲉⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲏⲩ· C7.14 §1.2 (GO 390: i.29–ii.2) τῷ οἴκῳ σου πρέπει ἁγίασμα, κύριε, εἰς μακρότητα ἡμερῶν. Budge 1898: 101, Wessely 1909: 45 read: ϣⲁϩⲉⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ. Ps 105:26: ⲁϥϥⲓ Ⲛⲧⲉϥϭⲓϫ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲁϩⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲣⲏⲙⲟⲥ· C7.4 §24.24 (YH frg. 7R: ii.26–30)

500

F. WISSE

ἐπῆρεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ αὐτοῖς τοῦ καταβαλεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ. Budge 1898: 115 and Wessely 1908: 139 read ϩⲣⲁ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲣⲏⲙⲟⲥ·. Ps 131:13–14: ⲁⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲥⲉⲧⲠⲥⲓⲱⲛ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲁϣⲤ ⲛⲁϥ ⲉⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲡⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲙⲁ Ⲛϣⲱⲡⲉ ϣⲁⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲉⲒⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ ϫⲁⲟⲩⲁϣⲤ· C7.3 §4.1 (XU 92: ii.9–19) ἐξελέξατο κύριος τὴν Σιων, ᾑρετίσατο αὐτὴν εἰς κατοικίαν ἑαυτῷ. Αὕτη ἡ κατάπαυσίς μου εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος, ὧδε κατοικήσω, ὅτι ᾑρετισάμην αὐτήν· Budge 1898: 139–140 reads ϣⲁⲉⲛⲉϩ Ⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ. Prov 10:6a: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲓϫⲚⲧⲁⲡⲉ ⲚⲚⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ· C7.13 §3.4 (GN 406: i.21–24) εὐλογία κυρίου ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν δικαίου. Agrees with Sobhy 1927: 213, Worrell 1931: 31. Prov 13:25b: ⲛⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲚⲚⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ⲛⲁⲢϭⲣⲱϩ· C7.4 §20.1 (DG 154: i.25–27) ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀσεβῶν ἐνδεεῖς. Agrees with Sobhy 1927: 236, Worrell 1931: 43. Prov 21:10: ⲙⲚⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲛⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ Ⲙⲡ[ⲁⲥⲉ]ⲃⲏⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ [ⲉⲣⲟⲥ] C7.4 §20.1 (DG 154: i.28–[31]) ψυχὴ ἀσεβοῦς οὐκ ἐλεηθήσεται ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Agrees with Ciasca 1889: 170, Sobhy 1927: 286, Worrell 1931: 67 (ⲘⲙⲚⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲛⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ Ⲙⲡⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ). Eccl 3:19c: ⲟⲨ ⲡⲉ ⲡϩⲱⲃ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲣϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲧⲂⲛⲏ· C7.4 §1.1 (DG 105: i.21–25) τί ἐπερίσσευσεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος παρὰ τὸ κτῆνος; Ciasca 1889: 201: ⲟⲨ ⲡⲉ ⲡϩⲱⲃ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲣϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲧⲂⲛⲏ· (ⲗⲁⲁⲩ “at all” strengthens the question) Eccl 12:6b: ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲑⲩⲇⲣⲓⲁ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱϭⲠ ϩⲓϫⲚⲧⲡⲏⲅⲏ Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲭⲟⲥ ϩⲓ ϩⲓⲡϣⲏⲉⲓ· C7.4 §12.1 (AV frg. 5V: i.3–7) συντριβῇ ὑδρία ἐπὶ τὴν πηγήν, καὶ συντροχάσῃ ὁ τροχὸς ἐπὶ τὸν λάκκον. Ciasca 1889: 213: Ⲛⲧⲉⲑⲩⲇⲣⲓⲁ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱϭⲠ ϩⲓϫⲚⲧⲡⲏⲅⲏ Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲭⲟⲥ ϩⲓ ϩⲓⲡϣⲏⲉⲓ· Cant 1:5a: ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲁⲛⲄⲟⲩⲕⲁⲙⲏ· ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲱⲒ Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: i.13–17)

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

501

Μέλαινά εἰμι καὶ καλή. Maspero 1897: 198 reads ⲉⲛⲉⲥⲱⲒ. Cant 1:6a: ⲘⲡⲢϭⲱϣⲦ ⲉⲣⲟⲒ ϫⲉⲁⲛⲄⲟⲩⲕⲁⲙⲏ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: i.18–21) μὴ βλέψητε με, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι μεμελανωμένη. Agrees with Maspero 1897: 198. Shier 1942: 126 reads ⲁⲛⲟⲕ after ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲙⲏ. Cant 4:3a; (4:9b): ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲡⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲟ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩϩⲱⲥ Ⲛⲕⲟⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲧⲁⲥⲱⲛⲉ ⲧⲁϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: ii.19–24) ὡς σπαρτίον τὸ κόκκινον χείλη σου … ἀδελφή μου νύμφη. Maspero 1897: 201 lacks ⲧⲁⲥⲱⲛⲉ. The vocatives ⲧⲁⲥⲱⲛⲉ ⲧⲁϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ are not present in the LXX text of 4,3a but are found in Cant 4:9.10; 5:1. Cant 5:10: ⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲧ Ⲙⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲒ ⲉϥⲧⲣⲉϣⲣⲱϣ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲟⲃϢ ⲉϥⲣⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲟⲨⲧⲃⲁ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: ii.9–16) Ἀδελφιδός μου λευκὸς καὶ πυρρός, ἐκλελοχισμένος ἀπὸ μυριάδων. Maspero 1897: 203: … ⲉϥⲟⲩⲟⲃϢ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲧⲣⲉϣⲣⲱϣ ⲉϥⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ… Thompson 1908: 52: ⲡⲁⲒ ⲡⲉ· ⲉϥⲟⲩⲟⲃϢ [ⲉ]ϥⲧⲣⲉϣⲣⲱϣ ⲉϥⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲧⲏⲣϤ [ⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲟⲨⲧⲃⲁ· Mingarelli, p. cxxxix (according to Maspero) reads: ⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲧ Ⲙⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲒ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲟⲃϢ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲙⲟⲣϢ ⲉϥⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲟⲨⲧⲃⲁ· Shenoute’s text contains the same elements as Maspero’s but transposes several words. Crum, Dict., 311a wondered whether ἐκλελοχισμένος (“distinguished”) was mistaken by the Coptic translator for ἐκλελουμένος (“washed”). Cant 5:11b: ⲡⲉϥϥⲱ ⲉϥⲥⲏⲕ ⲉϥⲕⲏⲙ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲁⲃⲟⲟⲕⲉ· C7.3 §11 (XU 105: i.23–26) βόστρυχοι αὐτοῦ ἐλάται, μέλανες ὡς κόραξ. Maspero 1897: 203: ⲛⲉϥϥⲱ ⲉⲧⲟⲗⲘ ⲉⲩⲥⲏⲕ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲏⲙ Ⲛ[ⲑⲉ] Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲁⲃⲟⲟⲕⲉ· Mingarelli (according to Maspero) agrees with Shenoute except reading ⲛⲉϥϥⲱ. Thompson 1908: 52: ⲡⲉϥ[ϥⲱ ⲉⲧ]ⲱⲗⲘ ⲥⲉⲥⲉ(!)ⲕⲏⲙ [Ⲛ]ⲑⲉ Ⲛⲙⲉϩⲉ Ⲛⲁⲃⲟⲟⲕⲉ. Is 1:2a: ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲧⲡⲉ ϫⲓⲥⲙⲏ ⲡⲕⲁϩ· ϫⲉⲁⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϣⲁϫⲉ· C7.5 §10.3 (AV frg. 4bV: ii.7–9) Ἄκουε, οὐρανέ, καὶ ἐνωτίζου, γῆ, ὅτι κύριος ἐλάλησεν· Amélineau 1887: 15, Ciasca 1889: 219, Erman 1880: 22 read ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ. Shenoute reflects the vocative γῆ in the LXX against the Coptic versions.

502

F. WISSE

Is 1:3: ⲁⲩⲉϩⲉ ⲥⲟⲩⲚⲡⲉⲥϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲱ ⲥⲟⲩⲚⲡⲟⲩⲟⲙϤ Ⲙⲡⲉϥϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲡⲒ⳱Ⲏ⳱Ⲗ ⲇⲉ ⲘⲡϤⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛⲦ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲘⲡϤϭⲛⲁⲛⲄ ⲛⲓⲙ· C7.4 §1.2 (DG 106: i.3–12) ἔγνω βοῦς τὸν κτησάμενον καὶ ὄνος τὴν φάτνην τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ, Ισραηλ δέ με οὐκ ἔγνω, καὶ ὁ λαός με οὐ συνήκεν. Agrees with Amélineau 1887: 116, Ciasca 1889: 219, Erman 1880: 22 with minor spelling differences. Is 9:17a: ⲧⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲁϫⲉⲣⲟ Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲚⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲦ· C7.5 §9.1 (AV frg.4aR: i.22–24); ⲧⲁⲛⲟⲙ[ⲓ]ⲁ ϫⲉⲣⲟ Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲚⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲦ· (YH frg. 3aV: i.27–29) Καυθήσεται ὡς πῦρ ἡ ἀνομία. AV agrees with LXX in having the future tense. Not extant in published mss. Is 26:5: ⲁⲕⲉⲒⲛⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏϩ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲁⲕⲑⲂⲃⲓⲟⲟⲩ· ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲁⲩⲟ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲚⲘⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲣϪ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲕⲛⲁⲚⲧⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ϣⲁⲡⲕⲁϩ· C7.3 §3 (XU 92: i.2–14) ὃς ταπεινώσας κατήγαγες τούς ἐνοικοῦντας ἐν ὑψηλοῖς· πόλεις ὀχυρὰς καταβαλεῖς καὶ κατάξεις ἕως ἐδάφους. Lacau 1901: 106 reads ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ for the first ⲉϩⲣⲁ and omits ⲉⲧⲟⲣϪ ⲁⲩⲱ. The first two verbs are reversed in Coptic. The equivalent of ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ is not in LXX. Is 27:3b–4a: ⲉⲛⲁⲧⲥⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲡϫⲓⲛϫⲏ· ⲥⲛⲁⲧⲁⲕⲟ ⲅⲁⲣ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲟⲛ ϩⲘⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ· ⲙⲚⲥⲟⲃⲦ ϣⲟⲩ[. . . . ⲧ]Ⲙⲁ[ⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟ]ⲥ· C7.4 §24.25 (YH frg. 7V: i.26–ii.2) μάτην ποτιῶ αὐτήν· ἁλώσεται γὰρ νυκτός, ἡμέρας δὲ πεσεῖται τὸ τεῖχος. οὐκ ἔστιν ἣ οὐκ ἐπελάβετο αὐτῆς· Not extant in published mss. Is 27:11b: ⲟⲩ[ⲗⲁⲟⲥ] ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ [ⲉⲟⲩ]ⲚⲧϤ ⲧⲙⲚⲧ[ⲣⲘ]ⲛϩⲏⲧ· ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁ Ⲛⲛⲉⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟⲩ ϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ· ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲗⲁⲥⲥⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ· C7.4 §24.26 (YH frg. 7V: ii.3–13) οὐ γὰρ λαός ἐστιν ἔχων σύνεσιν, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μὴ οἰκτιρήσῃ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτούς, οὐδὲ ὁ πλάσας αὐτοὺς οὐ μὴ ἐλεήσῃ. Not extant in published mss. Is 40:29b: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲗⲩⲡⲉⲓ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲉⲚⲥⲉⲙⲱⲕϨ ⲁⲛ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ· C7.12 §3.5 (DG 342: ii.26–29)

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

503

καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὀδυνωμένοις λύπην. Agrees with Ciasca 1889: 239, Schleifer 1909: 10, Winstedt 1909: 244. Is 50:1: ⲁϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲘⲡⲧⲟⲩⲉⲒⲟ ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲚⲧⲁⲛⲟϫⲤ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ· Ⲏ ⲚⲧⲁϯⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲉⲟⲩⲱ· ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ⲁϯⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲧⲚⲛⲟⲃⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲧⲚⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲙⲁⲁⲩ: C7.8 §20 (XU 424: i.18–ii.5 (Ⲛⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) / XG probably reads Ⲛⲧⲁ[]ϯ) Ποῖον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ ἀποστασίου τῆς μητρὸς ὑμῶν, ᾧ ἐξαπέστειλα αὐτὴν; ἢ τίνι ὑπόχρεῳ πέπρακα ὑμᾶς; ἰδοὺ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐπράθητε, καὶ ταῖς ἀνομίαις ὑμῶν ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν μητέρα ὑμῶν. Kasser 1965: 66 reads the 2nd perfect Ⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓϯ against the conjunctive in XU (which probably is a mistake). Is 57:21: ⲘⲙⲚⲣⲁϣⲉ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲚⲚⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ· C7.17 §2 (DG 429: i.13–16) οὐκ ἔστιν χαίρειν τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν, εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός. Agrees with Kasser 1965: 116. Is 61:2b–4: ⲉⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗⲉⲓ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲢϩⲏⲃⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ· ⲉϯ Ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲚⲟⲩⲱⲕⲘ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲢϩⲏⲃⲉ ⲉϫⲚⲥⲓⲱⲛ· ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲚⲟⲩⲕⲢⲙⲉⲥ· ⲟⲩⲥⲟϭⲚ Ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲢϩⲏⲃⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ Ⲛⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲚⲟⲩⲠⲚⲀ ⲚⲘⲕⲁϩ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ· ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲱⲥ ϫⲉⲚⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ Ⲛⲧⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ· ⲡⲧⲱϭⲉ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ· ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕⲱⲧ ⲚⲘⲙⲁ Ⲛϫⲁⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩϣⲱϥ ⲚϣⲟⲣⲠ· Ⲙⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟ Ⲛϫⲁⲓⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁⲁⲩ ⲚⲃⲢⲣⲉ ϣⲁⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲁⲩⲱ ϣⲁϩⲉⲛϫⲱⲙ· C7.12 §3.4 and §4.1 (DG 342: i.18–24, 30–ii.6; 343: i.27–ii.2, ii.10–18) παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενϑοῦντας, δοϑῆναι τοῖς πενϑοῦσιν Σιων δόξαν ἀντὶ σποδοῦ, ἄλειμμα εὐϕροσύνης τοῖς πενϑοῦσιν, καταστολὴν δόξης ἀντὶ πνεύματος ἀκηδίας· καὶ κληϑήσονται γενεαὶ δικαιοσύνης, ϕύτευμα κυρίου εἰς δόξαν. καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσιν ἐρήμους αἰωνίας, ἐξηρημωμένας πρότερον ἐξαναστήσουσιν καὶ καινιοῦσιν πόλεις ἐρήμους ἐξηρημωμένας εἰς γενεάς. Ciasca 1889: 247, Amélineau 1887: 128 (ⲥⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲱⲧ for ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕⲱⲧ), Kasser 1965: 144 read ⲚⲟⲩⲥⲟϭⲚ. Ciasca, Amélineau and Hebbelynck 1913: 226 lack ⲚⲟⲩⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ. Hebbelynck agrees with Shenoute reading ⲟⲩⲥⲟϭⲚ, and Kasser includes ⲚⲟⲩⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ. Is 64:5b: ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ ⲧⲏⲣⲤ ⲟ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲛⲓⲧⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲚϣⲣⲰ· C7.10 §5.2 (GN 369: ii.5–8) ὡς ῥάκος ἀποκαϑημένης πᾶσα ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν· Kasser 1965: 166 reads Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲟⲉⲓⲥ.

504

F. WISSE

Jer 2:7: ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲥⲱⲱϥ Ⲙⲡⲁ{ⲡ}ⲕⲁϩ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲕⲁⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲟⲩⲃⲟⲧⲉ· C7.1 §20 (GO 43: i.14–20) εἰσήλϑατε καὶ ἐμιάνατε τὴν γῆν μου καὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἔϑεσϑε εἰς βδέλυγμα. Not extant in published mss. Emendation based on LXX. Jer 2:29: [ⲉⲧ]ⲃⲉⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲧⲚϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲒ· ⲚⲧⲱⲧⲚ ⲧⲏⲣ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲢϣⲁϥⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲒ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁⲛⲟⲙⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲒ ⲡⲉϫⲉⲡϫⲟⲒⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. C7.5 §3.1 (XG 176: i.1–2.4–9) ἵνα τί λαλεῖτε πρός με; πάντες ὑμεῖς ἠσεβήσατε καὶ πάντες ὑμεῖς ἠνομήσατε εἰς ἐμέ, λέγει κύριος. Not extant in published mss. Jer 4:11b: ⲁϥ[ⲡⲗ]ⲁⲛⲁ Ⲙⲙⲟ[ⲟ]ⲩ ϩⲚⲟⲩϫⲁⲉ· ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ Ⲛⲧϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲛⲤϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲩ[ⲥ]ⲟⲟⲩⲧⲚ ⲟⲩ[ⲇ]ⲉ ⲉⲩⲧⲂⲃⲟ· C7.5 §8.2 (YH frg. 3aR: i.17–26) Πνεῦμα πλανήσεως ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὁδὸς τῆς ϑυγατρὸς τοῦ λαοῦ μου οὐκ εἰς καϑαρὸν οὐδ’ εἰς ἅγιον. The first part may not be a citation but an interpretive comment on a part of the verse. Agrees with Feder 2002: 117 (quotation by Besa, Shenoute’s successor). ⲉⲩ[ⲥ]ⲟⲟⲩⲧⲚ is not reflected in the Greek εἰς καϑαρὸν: perhaps the Coptic translator read it εἰς κάθορτον. Jer 6:7: ⲧⲕⲁⲕⲓⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲉⲥⲟ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲉⲓ ⲉⲁϥⲉϭⲂ ⲡⲉϥⲙⲟⲟⲩ· C7.5 §9.1 (AV frg. 4aR: i.25–28) ὡς ψύχει λάκκος ὕδωρ, οὕτως ψύχει κακία αὐτῆς· Not extant in published mss. The Coptic reads “The wickedness of the soul is like a cistern of which the water is frozen.” The Greek reads: “As a cistern keeps its water cold, so she (i.e. Jerusalem) keeps cold her wickedness.” Jer 9:11: ϯⲛⲁϯ ⲚⲑⲒ⳱Ⲗ⳱Ⲏ⳱Ⲙ ⲉⲩⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲇⲣⲁⲕⲱⲛ· C7.4 §24.31 and C7.7 §9.4 (YH frg. 6R: ii.23–28) δώσω τὴν Ιερουσαλημ εἰς μετοικίαν καὶ εἰς κατοικητήριον δρακόντων· Feder 2002: 124 reads Ⲙⲡⲉⲇⲣⲁⲕⲱⲛ. Jer 12:9b: ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛⲛⲉⲑⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲥⲱϣⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲟⲩⲟⲙⲤ· C7.7 §11.4 (XU 314: ii.23–28)

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

505

συναγάγετε πάντα τὰ ϑηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ, καὶ ἐλϑέτωσαν τοῦ ϕαγεῖν αὐτήν. Agrees with Feder 2002: 128. Jer 19:4b: ⲁⲩⲢⲡⲓⲙⲁ ⲚϣⲘⲙⲟ ⲉⲣⲟ: C7.14 §1.1 (GO 390: i.12–13) ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν τὸν τόπον τοῦτον. Agrees with Feder 2002: 141 (ⲡⲉⲒⲙⲁ). Jer 22:5b: ⲁⲱⲣⲔ Ⲙⲙⲟ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ· ϫⲉⲡⲉⲏ ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲡϣⲱϥ· C7.7 §10.2 (XU 309: ii.16–20) κατ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα, λέγει κύριος, ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται ὁ οἶκος οὗτος. Not extant in published mss. Jer 23:14b: ⲁⲩⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ ⲚⲚϭⲓϫ Ⲛϩⲉ(ⲛ)ⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲘⲧⲣⲉⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲕⲧⲟϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲉϥϩⲓⲏ· Ⲙⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲛ: C7.7 §14.5 (XU 330: i.7–15) ἀντιλαμβανομένους χειρῶν πονηρῶν τοῦ μὴ ἀποστραϕῆναι ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς.· Not extant in published mss. Jer 31:6b: ϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓⲱ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ϩⲓⲡϫⲁⲉ C7.7 §9.4 (XU 308: i.12–15) ἔσεσϑε ὥσπερ ὄνος ἄγριος ἐν ἐρήμῳ. Not extant in published mss. Bar 3:10–11: ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲨ ⲕϣⲟⲟⲡ [ϩ]Ⲙⲡⲕⲁϩ Ⲛⲛⲉⲕϫⲁϫ[ⲉ· ⲁ]ⲕⲢⲁⲥ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲚϣⲘⲙⲟ ⲁⲕϫⲱϩⲘ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲁⲩⲟⲡⲔ ⲙⲚⲛⲉ[ⲧ] ϩⲚⲁⲙⲚⲧⲉ· C7.4 §24.32 (YH frg. 6R: ii,29–6V: i.5) τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ τῶν ἐχϑρῶν εἶ, ἐπαλαιώϑης ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ, συνεμιάνϑης τοῖς νεκροῖς, προσελογίσϑης μετὰ τῶν εἰς ᾅδου; Feder 2002: 232: ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲨ ⲣⲱ ⲕϨⲘ ⲡⲕⲁϩ [Ⲛ]ⲛⲉⲕϫⲓϫⲉⲟⲩⲉ· ⲁⲕⲢⲁⲥ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ [Ⲛ]ϣⲘⲙⲟ ⲁⲕⲥⲱⲱϥ·ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ [ⲁ]ⲩⲟⲡⲔ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲧⲃⲏⲕ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲉⲁⲙⲚⲧⲉ·(var. ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲧϩⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲛⲧⲉ, as in Shenoute’s quotation). Lam 1:3a: ⲁⲩⲡⲉⲉⲛⲉ ϯⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲁ ⲘⲡⲉⲥⲑⲂⲃⲟ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲁ ⲚⲧⲉⲥⲙⲛⲦϩⲘϩⲁⲗ ⲁⲥϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲚⲚϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲘⲡⲤϩⲉ ⲉⲘⲧⲟⲛ· C7.4 §24.28 (YH frg. 6R: i.10–18) Μετῳκίσϑη ἡ Ιουδαία ἀπὸ ταπεινώσεως αὐτῆς καὶ ἀπὸ πλήϑους δουλείας αὐτῆς· ἐκάϑισεν ἐν ἔϑνεσιν, οὐχ εὗρεν ἀνάπαυσιν· Agrees substantially with Feder 2002: 198 (ⲁⲩⲡⲉⲛⲉ and ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲘⲡⲁϣⲁ.

506

F. WISSE

Lam 4:2a: Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲥⲓⲱⲛ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲏⲩ ⲛⲉⲧϫⲓⲥⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲘⲡⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ· Ⲛⲁϣ Ⲛϩⲉ ⲁⲩⲧⲚⲧⲱⲛⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲉⲛϩⲛⲁⲁⲩ ⲚⲃⲖϫⲉ· C7.4 §24.29 (YH frg. 6R: i.19–28) Υἱοὶ Σιων οἱ τίμιοι οἱ ἐπηρμένοι ἐν χρυσίῳ πῶς ἐλογίσϑησαν εἰς ἀγγεῖα ὀστράκινα. Feder 2002: 212, and LXX lack ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ. It may be an interpretive addition by Shenoute. Lam 4:3b–5: Ⲛϣⲉⲉ[ⲣⲉ Ⲙ]ⲡⲁⲗⲁⲟⲥ [ⲁⲩ]ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲙⲚⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩϫⲁϫ ϩⲓⲡϫⲁⲉ· ⲁϥⲧⲱϭⲉ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲗⲁⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧϫⲓ ⲉⲕⲓⲃⲉ ⲉⲧⲉϥϣⲟⲩⲱⲃⲉ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲉⲓ[ⲃⲉ·] ⲁⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ [ⲕⲟⲩⲒ ⲁⲓⲧ]ⲉⲓ [Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓ]ⲕ ⲛϤϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲛ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲱϣ ⲛⲁⲩ· ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲱⲙ Ⲛⲛⲉϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲕⲟ ϩⲚⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩϩⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲓϫⲚ Ⲛⲕⲟⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲁⲩϭⲟⲟⲗⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡϣⲟⲉⲓϣ· C7.4 §24.30 (YH frg. 6R: i.29–ii.22) ϑυγατέρες λαοῦ μου εἰς ἀνίατον ὡς στρουϑίον ἐν ἐρήμῳ. ᾽Εκολλήϑη ἡ γλῶσσα ϑηλάζοντος πρὸς τὸν ϕάρυγγα αὐτοῦ ἐν δίψει· νήπια ᾔτησαν ἄρτον, ὁ διακλῶν οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς. Οἱ ἔσϑοντες τὰς τρυϕὰς ἠϕανίσϑησαν ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις, οἱ τιϑηνούμενοι ἐπὶ κόκκων περιεβάλοντο κοπρίας. Agrees with Feder 2002: 212 (the oldest witness omits ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲕⲟ ϩⲚⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ and reads ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲟϣϤ), except that ⲘⲡⲓⲧⲚ is used instead of its synonym ϣⲟⲉⲓϣ. Lam 5:15a: ⲁϥⲱϫⲚ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛϩⲏⲧ· C7.11 §6.4 (XU 472: i.11–13) κατέλυσεν χαρὰ καρδίας ἡμῶν· Agrees with Feder 2002: 216. Ezek 1:20b: ⲟⲩⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ ⲚⲱⲛϨ ⲡⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ· C7.13 §2.4 (XG 342: i.7–9) πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἦν ἐν τοῖς τροχοῖς. Not extant in published mss. Ezek 5:8b: ⲉⲓⲥ[ϩⲏ]ⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲟ[ⲕ ϯ]ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲟⲩⲃⲏ· ⲕⲁ ϯⲛⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲁⲡ ϩⲚⲧⲟⲩⲙⲏⲧⲉ· C7.4 §24.2 (YH frg. 5R: ii.11–16) ᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ ποιήσω ἐν μέσῳ σου κρίμα Ciasca 1889: 261 reads Ⲛⲟⲩϩⲁⲡ in agreement with the LXX. Ezek 5:11b: ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲁϫⲱϩⲘ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϩⲚⲛⲟⲩⲃⲟⲧⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ· ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯⲛⲁⲛⲟϫⲉ Ⲏ ϩⲟϥⲧⲉ ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲘⲡⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϯⲥⲟ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛϯⲛⲁⲛⲁ ⲛⲉ ⲁⲛ· C7.4 §24.3 (YH frg. 5R: ii.17–27)

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

507

ἀνϑ’ ὧν τὰ ἅγιά μου ἐμίανας ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς βδελύγμασίν σου, κἀγὼ ἀπώσομαί σε, οὐ ϕείσεταί μου ὁ ὀϕϑαλμός, κἀγὼ οὐκ ἐλεήσω. Ciasca 1889: 261 reads ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ, and lacks Ⲏ ϩⲟϥⲧⲉ which appears to be an interpretive comment added by Shenoute. Ezek 7:5: ϯⲛⲁⲡⲱϩⲦ Ⲛⲧⲁⲟⲣⲅⲏ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉϫⲱⲕ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁϭⲱⲛⲦ ϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲕϤ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲣⲁ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲔ Ⲛⲧⲁϯ ϩⲁⲡ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲕϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲕⲃⲟⲧⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁ [ⲉ]ϫⲱⲕ[·] C7.4 §24.34 (YH frg. 6V: i.20–32) ἐκχεῶ τὴν ὀργήν μου ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ συντελέσω τὸν ϑυμόν μου ἐν σοὶ καὶ κρινῶ σε ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου καὶ δώσω ἐπὶ σὲ πάντα τὰ βδελύγματά σου· Ciasca 1889: 262 reads ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲣⲁ, and adds ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ after ϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ. Ezek 9:10: ⲡⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛⲁ[ϯⲥⲟ] ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ [Ⲛϯ]ⲛⲁⲛⲁ ⲛ[ⲉⲩ]ϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϯ] ⲛⲁⲚⲧⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲚⲧⲉⲩⲁⲡⲉ· C7.4 §24.13 (YH frg. 4R: i.25–30) οὐ ϕείσεταί μου ὁ ὀϕϑαλμός, οὐδὲ μὴ ἐλεήσω· τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν εἰς κεϕαλὰς αὐτῶν δέδωκα. Νot extant in published mss. Ezek 13:10b–11a: ⲡⲁ ϥⲕⲱⲧ Ⲛⲟⲩϫⲟ Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲥⲉϫⲱϩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ· ⲥⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ· ⲁϫⲓⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧϫⲱϩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲥⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁ· C7.7 §12.4 (XU 318: i.14–17; ii.8–12) οὗτος οἰκοδομεῖ τοῖχον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀλείϕουσιν αὐτόν, εἰ πεσεῖται, εἰπὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἀλείϕοντας Πεσεῖται. Maspero 1897: 257 reads ⲁϫⲓⲥ ⲚⲛⲁϩⲣⲘⲛⲉⲧϫⲱϩ. Ezek 13:14a: ϯⲛⲁϣⲟⲣϣⲢ Ⲛ(ⲧ)ϫⲟ ⲚⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚϫⲁϩⲤ· ⲚⲧⲁⲣⲁϩⲧⲤ ⲉϫⲘⲡⲕⲁϩ· ⲚⲥⲉϭⲱⲗⲠ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲉⲥⲥⲚⲧⲉ Ⲛⲥⲉϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁ· C7.7 §12.5 (XU 318: ii.17–25) κατασκάψω τὸν τοῖχον, ὃν ἠλείψατε, καὶ πεσεῖται· καὶ ϑήσω αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἀποκαλυϕϑήσεται τὰ ϑεμέλια αὐτοῦ, καὶ πεσεῖται. Agrees with Maspero 1897: 258. καὶ ϑήσω is omitted in the Coptic version. Ezek 13:15: ϯⲛⲁϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲘⲡⲁϭⲱⲛⲦ ⲉϫⲚⲧⲉϫⲟ ⲛⲤϩⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ϩⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲣⲟⲥ Ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲁⲛ· ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉϫⲚⲚⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲧϫⲱϩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ· C7.7 §12.5 (XU 319: i.4–12) συντελέσω τὸν ϑυμόν μου ἐπὶ τὸν τοῖχον καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀλείϕοντας αὐτόν, καὶ πεσεῖται. Maspero 1897: 258: … ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉϫⲚⲡⲉⲧϫⲱϩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ· The part after ⲉϩⲣⲁ may be Shenoute’s comment.

508

F. WISSE

Ezek 13:22: ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲡⲱϣⲤ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡϩⲏⲧ Ⲙⲡⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ· ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲁⲡⲟϣϥⲤ⳱Ϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚϯϭⲟⲙ ⲚⲚϭⲓϫ Ⲙⲡⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲘⲧⲣⲉϥⲕⲧⲟϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲧⲏⲣϤ ϩⲚⲧⲉϥϩⲓⲏ ⲉⲧϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛϤⲱⲛϨ· C7.7 §14.5 (XU 329: ii.22–330: i.6) διεστρέϕετε καρδίαν δικαίου ἀδίκως καὶ ἐγὼ οὐ διέστρεϕον αὐτὸν καὶ τοῦ κατισχῦσαι χεῖρας ἀνόμου τὸ καϑόλου μὴ ἀποστρέψαι ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς καὶ ζῆσαι αὐτόν. Not extant in published mss. Ezek 16:44b–45a: ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ Ⲛⲧⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲁⲒ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲕⲉϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ· ⲧϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲥⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲉ· C7.17 §3 (DG 430: i.7–13) Καϑὼς ἡ μήτηρ, καὶ ἡ ϑυγάτηρ. ϑυγάτηρ τῆς μητρός σου σὺ εἶ. Maspero 1897: 262 reads ⲟⲛ after ⲧⲁⲒ. Ezek 21:10: ⲁⲒⲧⲱⲕⲘ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲉⲥⲕⲟⲉⲓϩ ⲛⲤⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲤ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲓⲛⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ· C7.13 §2.1 (XU 490: i.26–ii.2) ἐξέσπασα τὸ ἐγχειρίδιόν μου ἐκ τοῦ κολεοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέψει οὐκέτι. Ciasca 1889: 274 reads ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲛ. Ezek 21:14b–15,16b: ⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ϫⲱⲣ ⲚⲧⲉϭⲱⲛⲦ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲣⲉϣⲱⲱⲧ Ⲛϩⲉⲛϣⲱⲱⲧ· ϫⲱⲣ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲁⲁⲧⲉ ⲥⲂⲧⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ· ⲕⲱⲛⲤ· ⲥⲱϣϤ· Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛϣⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ· ⲁⲩϫⲟⲣⲤ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲥⲥⲂⲧⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲧϭⲓϫ ⲘⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲕⲱⲛⲤ· C7.13 §1.2 (XG 337:i.1–11, 16–20) ῾Ρομϕαία ῥομϕαία, ὀξύνου καὶ ϑυμώϑητι, ὅπως σϕάξῃς σϕάγια, ὀξύνου ὅπως γένῃ εἰς στίλβωσιν, ἑτοίμη εἰς παράλυσιν σϕάζε, ἐξουδένει ἀπωϑοῦ πᾶν ξύλον. (καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν ἑτοίμην τοῦ κρατεῖν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ·) ἐξηκονήϑη ῥομϕαία, ἔστιν ἑτοίμη τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτὴν εἰς χεῖρα ἀποκεντοῦντος. Ciasca 1889: 274 reads the synonym ⲧⲱⲙ for ϫⲱⲣ in both cases, and reads v. 16 as ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲥⲥⲃⲧⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲧⲉϥϭⲓϫ ⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ. Ezek 21:20–21: ⲁⲩⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉⲧⲟⲟⲧⲤ Ⲛⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ· ⲉⲕⲟⲛⲥⲟⲩ ϩⲓⲣⲘⲡⲩⲗⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲁⲥⲥⲟⲃⲧⲉ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲥⲕⲱⲛⲤ· ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ· ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲥⲧⲁⲁⲧⲉ· ⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉϫⲱⲣ Ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲥⲁϩⲃⲟⲩⲣ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲟⲩϩⲟ ⲛⲁϭⲱϣⲦ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· C7.13 §2.1 (GN 399: ii.19–400: i.1 / XU 490: ii.2–21 / XG 399: ii.12–27) παραδέδονται εἰς σφάγια ῥομφαίας, εὖ γέγονεν εἰς σφαγήν, εὖ γέγονεν εἰς στίλβωσιν. διαπορεύου ὀξύνου ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων, οὗ ἂν τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐξεγείρηται.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

509

Ciasca 1889: 275 reads ⲉⲥⲕⲟⲛⲤ (instead of ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲥⲕⲱⲛⲤ) and Ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲱⲙ for Ⲛⲧⲉϫⲱⲣ. Ezek 21:33b: ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲕⲘ ⲉⲩⲥⲩⲛⲧⲉⲗⲉⲓⲁ· C7.13 §2.1 (XU 490: i.23–25) ἐσπασμένη εἰς συντέλειαν. Not extant in published mss. Ezek 21:35–37: ⲕⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲘⲡⲢϭⲱ ϩⲘⲡⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩϫⲡⲟ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ· ⲉⲓⲛⲁϯϩⲁⲡ ⲉⲣⲟ ϩⲣⲁⲒ ϩⲘⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ· ϯⲛⲁⲡⲱϩⲦ ⲘⲡⲁϭⲱⲛⲦ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉϫⲱ· ⲚⲧⲁⲧⲘϩⲉⲟⲩⲥⲁⲧⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉϫⲱ ϩⲚⲧⲁⲟⲣⲅⲏ· Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ Ⲙⲙⲟ ⲉⲧϭⲓϫ Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲛⲃⲁⲣⲃⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲩϫⲡⲟ Ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲁⲕⲟ· Ⲛⲧⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛϩⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲥⲁⲧⲉ· Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲟⲩⲥⲛⲟϥ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲚⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ· ⲚⲛⲉⲢⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲉ· C7.13 §1.3, 2.1, 3.2 (XG 338: i.20–24; ii.3–20 (ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ; Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ for Ⲙⲙⲟ). ἀπόστρεφε, μὴ καταλύσῃς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ, ᾧ γεγέννησαι· ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἰδίᾳ σου κρινῶ σε καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ σὲ ὀργήν μου, ἐν πυρὶ ὀργῆς μου ἐμφυσήσω ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ παραδώσω σε εἰς χεῖρας ἀνδρῶν βαρβάρων τεκταινόντων διαφθοράν. ἐν πυρὶ ἔσῃ κατάβρωμα, τὸ αἷμά σου ἔσται ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς σου· οὐ μὴ γένηταί σου μνεία. Not extant in published mss. Coptic read ἐμφυσήσω as ‘kindling a fire’. Ezek 34:28: ⲚⲥⲉⲧⲘ[ϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ ϫⲓⲛⲡⲉ[ⲛ]ⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲱⲗⲤ ⲚⲚϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲑⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ Ⲙⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲚⲥⲉⲧⲘⲟⲩⲱⲙ Ⲛϫⲱⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛⲡⲉ̣ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲩⲱϩ ϩⲚⲟⲩ[ϩ]ⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ Ⲛⲧⲉ[ⲧ]Ⲙⲗⲁⲁⲩ ϭⲉ ϯϩⲟ[ⲧ]ⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ· C7.1 §4 (GO 4: ii.17–27) Καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται ἔτι ἐν προνομῇ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καὶ τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς οὐκέτι μὴ φάγωσιν αὐτούς· καὶ κατοικήσουσιν ἐν ἐλπίδι, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἐκφοβῶν αὐτούς. Not extant in published manuscripts. Hos 2:5: ϯⲛⲁⲁⲁⲥ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩϫⲁⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛ[ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ Ⲛⲁⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲛⲁⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲤ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲉⲓⲃⲉ·] C7.4 §24.15 (YH frg. 4R: ii.29–4V: i.[?]) θήσομαι αὐτὴν ὡς ἔρημον καὶ τάξω αὐτὴν ὡς γῆν ἄνυδρον καὶ ἀποκτενῶ αὐτὴν ἐν δίψει· Not extant in published mss.5 5 The reconstruction of the text of this verse and other fragementary ones from the Minor Prophets is based on the Akmimic version (which was based on the Sahidic version) as published by Walter C. Till, Die achmimische Version der zwölf kleinen Propheten (Codex Rainerianus, Wien). Coptica IV. Copenhagen 1927.

510

F. WISSE

Hos 2:11b–[12a]: ϯⲛⲁϥⲓ ⲚⲧⲟⲟⲧⲤ ⲚⲛⲁϩⲟⲒⲧⲉ ⲙⲚⲛⲁϩⲃⲱⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲘ[ϩ] ⲱⲃⲤ Ⲙ[ⲡⲉⲥϣⲓⲡⲉ] C7.4 §24.4 (YH frg. 5R: ii.28–5V: i.[1–?]) ἀφελοῦμαι τὰ ἱμάτιά μου καὶ τὰ ὀθόνιά μου τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς. Grossouw 1934: 190 omits ⲚⲧⲟⲟⲧⲤ. Hos 4:4a: ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ϫⲡⲓⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ· C7.1 §21.4 (DG frg. 6R: i.13–14) ὅπως μηδεὶς (μήτε δικάζηται μήτε) ἐλέγχῃ μηδείς· Agrees with Ciasca 1889: 325 and Grossouw 1934: 196. Hos 4:18b–19a: ⲁⲩⲙⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲥⲱϣ ⲉⲃ[ⲟ]ⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲉϥϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ· ⲟⲩⲚⲟⲩϩⲁⲧⲏⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲥⲧⲏϩ· C7.4 §24.17 (YH frg. 4V: i.15–21) ἠγάπησαν ἀτιμίαν ἐκ φρυάγματος αὐτῶν. συστροφὴ πνεύματος σὺ εἶ ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτῆς. Not extant in published mss. Hos 5:4: [ⲟⲩⲛⲡⲚⲀ Ⲛⲧⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓ]ⲁ [Ⲛϩⲣ]ⲁ̣ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ· ⲡϫ[ⲟ]ⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲘⲡⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϤ· C7.4 §24.16 (YH frg. 4V: i.[10]–14) πνεῦμα πορνείας ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, τὸν δὲ κύριον οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν. Not extant in published mss. Hos 6:5a: ⲁⲱϩⲤ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲘⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏ[ⲥ·] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲓⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲚⲚϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ· C7.4 §24.21 (YH frg. 4V: ii.12–17) ἀπεθέρισα τοὺς προφήτας ὑμῶν, ἀπέκτεινα αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥήμασιν στόματός μου. Not extant in published mss. Hos 7:13: ⲟⲩⲟ ⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉⲁⲩⲣⲁⲕⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲙⲟ· ⲟⲩⲚⲟⲩⲙⲚⲧⲉⲃⲓⲏⲛ ⲛⲁⲧⲁϩⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲉⲁⲩⲢϣⲁϥⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ· C7.4 §24.18 (YH frg. 4V: i.22–28) οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἀπεπήδησαν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ· δείλαιοί εἰσιν, ὅτι ἠσέβησαν εἰς ἐμέ· Amélineau 1888: 96, Ciasca 1889: 326 read ϫⲉⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ (instead of ϫⲉⲁⲩⲣⲁⲕⲧⲟⲩ) which has a similar meaning. Hos 10:13a: ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚϫⲟ ⲚⲟⲩⲙⲚⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ· ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲱϩⲤ Ⲛⲟⲩⲁ[ⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ·] C7.4 §24.19 (YH frg. 4V: i.29–ii.[1])

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

511

παρεσιωπήσατε ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας αὐτῆς ἐτρυγήσατε. Not extant in published mss. Hos 12:1a: ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲒ ϩⲚⲟⲩϭⲟⲗ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲉⲫⲣⲁⲓⲙ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲏⲒ ⲘⲡⲒ⳱Ⲏ⳱Ⲗ ϩⲚϩⲉⲛⲙⲚⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ· C7.4 §24.6 (YH frg.5V: i.14–20) Ἐκύκλωσέν με ἐν ψεύδει Εφραιμ καὶ ἐν ἀσεβείαις οἶκος Ισραηλ. Not extant in published mss. Hos 12:3: ⲉⲣⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉϫⲚ Ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁ ⲉⲧⲣⲉϥϫⲓⲕⲃⲁ ⲚⲒⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲛⲉϥϩⲟⲟⲩⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲧϤⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϥⲛⲁⲧⲱⲱⲃⲉ ⲛⲁϥ· C7.4 §24.7 (YH frg.5V: i.21–30) καὶ κρίσις τῷ κυρίῳ πρὸς Ιουδαν τοῦ ἐκδικῆσαι τὸν Ιακωβ κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτοῦ ἀνταποδώσει αὐτῷ. Not extant in published mss. Mic 6:1–2a: ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲡϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲡⲉϫⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϫⲉⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛⲄ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲚⲚⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲏ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲛϭⲓ Ⲛⲃⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲡⲉⲕϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ· Ⲛⲃⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥ ⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲡϩⲁⲡ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲉⲓⲁ ⲚⲧⲥⲚⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲕⲁϩ· C7.5 §10.1 (AV frg. 4bR: i.20–ii.1) Ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου· κύριος εἶπεν Ἀνάστηθι κρίθητι πρὸς τὰ ὄρη, καὶ ἀκουσάτωσαν οἱ βουνοὶ φωνήν σου. ἀκούσατε, βουνοί, τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ αἱ φάραγγες θεμέλια τῆς γῆς. Not extant in published mss. The difficult reading κρίθητι πρός has been resolved in Coptic by ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ. Mic 6:13–14a: […]Ⲧ ⲉⲡⲁ[ⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ Ⲙ]ⲙⲟⲕ [ϯⲛⲁⲧ]ⲁⲕⲟⲕ ⲉ[ϫⲚ]ⲛⲉⲕⲛⲟⲃⲉ· [Ⲛ]ⲧⲟⲕ ⲕⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛⲄⲛⲁⲥⲉⲓ ⲁⲛ· ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲛⲁⲛⲟϫⲔ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲁϩⲟⲕ· C7.4 §24.20 (YH frg. 4V: ii.2–11) ἐγὼ ἄρξομαι τοῦ πατάξαι σε, ἀφανιῶ σε ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις σου. σὺ φάγεσαι καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῇς· Not extant in published mss. Note that the final part, “I will cast you out and you will be caught” is not in Mic 6:14 LXX and does not appear to be elsewhere in the Prophets. Joel 1:5c: ⲁⲩϥⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ ⲙⲚⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ: C7.11 §6.4 (XU 472: i.15–18) ἐξῆρται ἐκ στόματος ὑμῶν εὐφροσύνη καὶ χαρά. Not extant in published mss.

512

F. WISSE

Hab 3:13b–14: ⲁⲕⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲚⲧⲁⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ· ⲁⲕⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲥⲛⲁⲩϩ ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲕϨ ϣⲁⲃⲟⲗ· ⲁⲕϣⲱⲱⲧ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲚⲚⲇⲩⲛⲁⲥⲧⲏⲥ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲩⲙⲚⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ· C7.13 §3.4 (XG 346: ii.2–12) ἔβαλες εἰς κεφαλὰς ἀνόμων θάνατον, ἐξήγειρας δεσμοὺς ἕως τραχήλου. διέκοψας ἐν ἐκστάσει κεφαλὰς δυναστῶν. Not extant in published mss. Hag 1:9c: ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ ⲡⲏⲧ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲏⲒ C7.3 §6.2 (XU 95: ii.29–96: i.2) ὑμεῖς δὲ διώκετε ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. Not extant in published mss. Zech 7:10b.11b–12a: [ⲘⲡⲢ]ⲕⲧⲉ[ⲧⲕⲁⲕⲓⲁ ⲉⲡⲁ]ϩⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲥ[ⲟⲛ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲕ]ϩⲏⲧ· ⲁⲩϩⲱ[ⲃⲤ] Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϫ[ⲉ] ⲉⲧⲘⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲩϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲘⲥⲱⲧⲘ {ⲉⲧⲘⲥⲱⲧⲘ }Ⲛⲥⲁⲡⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ· C7.4 §24.11 (YH frg. 4R: i.3–13) κακίαν ἕκαστος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ μὴ μνησικακείτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. … τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν ἐβάρυναν τοῦ μὴ εἰσακούειν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν ἔταξαν ἀπειθῆ τοῦ μὴ εἰσακούειν τοῦ νόμου μου. Not extant in published mss. Zech 7:13: ⲥⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲧ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲘⲡⲟⲩⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· ⲧⲁ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲁϫⲓϣⲕⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚⲧⲁⲧⲘⲥⲱⲧⲘⲉⲣⲟⲟ[Ⲩ·] C7.4 §24.12 (YH frg. 4R: i.14–23) καὶ ἔσται ὃν τρόπον εἶπεν καὶ οὐκ εἰσήκουσαν αὐτοῦ, οὕτως κεκράξονται καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσακούσω. Not extant in published mss. Mal 2:2–3: ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲧ[ⲚⲧⲘⲥⲱ]ⲧⲘ ⲉ[ⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ] ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚ[ϣⲁⲛ]ⲧⲘⲕⲁⲥ ⲉ[ⲛⲉ] ⲧⲚϩⲏⲧ ⲉϯⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁⲛ· ⲡⲉϫⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ· ϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲚ Ⲙⲡⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲚⲧⲁⲥϩⲟⲩⲢⲡⲉⲧⲚⲥⲙⲟⲩ· Ⲛⲧⲁϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲙ ⲘⲡⲉⲧⲚⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲛϤⲧⲘϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲏⲧⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲚⲧⲱⲧⲚ ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲕⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ϩⲚⲛⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧ· ϯⲛⲁⲡⲱⲣϪ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲘⲡϣⲱⲡϢ· ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲛⲁϫⲱⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲣⲚⲛⲉⲧⲚϩⲟ ⲘⲡⲙⲁϩⲦ ⲡⲙⲁϩⲦ ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲚϣⲁ· C7.4 §24.22 (YH frg. 7R: i.1–33) ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ θῆσθε εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν τοῦ δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ, καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς τὴν κατάραν καὶ ἐπικαταράσομαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν καὶ καταράσομαι αὐτήν· καὶ διασκεδάσω τὴν εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς οὐ τίθεσθε εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν. ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀφορίζω ὑμῖν τὸν ὦμον καὶ σκορπιῶ ἤνυστρον ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα ὑμῶν, ἤνυστρον ἑορτῶν ὑμῶν.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

513

Not extant in published mss. The Coptic omits the repetitive καὶ καταράσομαι αὐτήν. Mal 2:17b: ϩⲘⲡⲧⲣⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲚⲘⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲟⲛ ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ Ⲙⲡⲉⲙⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ϣⲟⲟⲡ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ· C7.7 §14.5 (XU 330: i.17–27) ἐν τῷ λέγειν ὑμᾶς Πᾶς ποιῶν πονηρόν, καλὸν ἐνώπιον κυρίου, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς αὐτὸς εὐδόκησεν· Not extant in published mss.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matt 13:30a: ⲁⲗⲱⲧⲚ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲥⲉⲁⲁ ϩⲓⲟⲩⲥⲟⲡ· C7.7 §13.1 (XU 319: ii.18–21) Ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα. Aranda Perez 1984: 174: ϩⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ instead of ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ. Matt 24:40: ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲚⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲚⲧ(ⲥ)ⲱϣⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲟⲩⲁ Ⲛⲥⲉⲗⲟ ϩⲁⲟⲩⲁ: C7.10 §7.2 (YR 289: i.16–19) Τότε δύο ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται. Aranda Perez 1984: 251: some Coptic witnesses have ⲛⲥⲉϫⲓⲟⲩⲁ instead of ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓⲟⲩⲁ; there is also a variation between Ⲛⲥⲉⲗⲟ ϩⲁⲟⲩⲁ and Ⲛⲥⲉⲕⲁⲟⲩⲁ. Luke 2:10b–12: ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ⲧⲚⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ Ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲡⲁⲒ ⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲙⲡⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϫⲉ ⲁⲩϫⲡⲟ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲒ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲚ ⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ Ⲛⲇⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲁⲉⲓⲛ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲒ· ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ ⲉϥϭⲟⲟⲗⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉϥⲕⲏ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲟⲩⲟⲙϤ· C7.15 §5.4 (GO 404: ii.16–405: i.5) ἰδοὺ γάρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην, ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτήρ, ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος, ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. Καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον: εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ. Horner, II, 30, Quecke 1977: 108 read ϯⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ. Luke 6:37: ⲘⲡⲢⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ· ϫⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ· ⲘⲡⲢⲧϭⲁⲉⲓⲟ· ϫⲉⲚⲛⲉⲩⲧϭⲁⲉⲓⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ C7.7 §13.1 (XU 320: i.11–16)

514

F. WISSE

Καὶ μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε. (Καὶ) μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε. Agrees with Horner, II, 110 and all published versions. Luke 6:46: ⲁϩⲣⲱⲧⲚ ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ ϫⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲉⲛⲧⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓⲣⲉ {Ⲛ}ⲛ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧϯϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ C7.5 §3.1 (XG 176: i.10–15) Τί δέ με καλεῖτε, Κύριε, κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; Horner, II, 114 reads ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ once and Ⲛⲛⲉϯϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ; Quecke 1977: 143 and Wessely 1912: 71 read ⲙⲡⲉϯϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟϥ. Luke 19:42–44: ⲉⲛⲉⲚⲧⲁⲉⲓⲙⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲧⲉ ϩⲘⲡⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ· ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲩϩⲱⲡ ⲉⲛⲟⲩⲃⲁⲗ· ϫⲉⲟⲩⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉϫⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩϫⲁϫⲉ ⲕⲧⲉ ⲟⲩϣⲱⲗϨ ⲉⲣⲟ· Ⲛⲥⲉⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ· Ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲧⲡⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛⲥⲁⲥⲁⲛⲓⲙ· Ⲛⲥⲉⲣⲁϩⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲟⲩ[ϣⲏⲣ]ⲉ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲉ ⲚⲥⲉⲧⲘⲕⲁ ⲟⲩⲱⲛⲉ ⲉϫⲚⲟⲩⲱⲛⲉ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲘⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩⲚⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲘⲡⲟⲩϭⲘⲡϣⲓⲛⲉ· C7.4 §24.27 (YH frg. 7V: ii.14–frg. 6R: i.9) Εἰ ἔγνως ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ καὶ σὺ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην: νῦν δὲ ἐκρύβη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου. Ὅτι ἥξουσιν ἡμέραι ἐπὶ σέ καὶ παρεμβαλοῦσιν οἱ ἐχθροί σου χάρακά σοι καὶ περικυκλώσουσίν σε, καὶ συνέξουσίν σε πάντοθεν, καὶ ἐδαφιοῦσίν σε καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοί, καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσουσιν λίθον ἐπὶ λίθον ἐν σοί, ἀνθ’ ὧν οὐκ ἔγνως τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου. Quecke 1977: 239 lacks Ⲛⲥⲉⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ, as some witness in Horner. Agrees with Horner, II, 368 & 370 (Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ) and Wessely 1912: 98. Luke 21:22a: ⲛⲁⲒ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡϫⲓⲕⲃⲁ· C7.13 §2.2 (XG 341: i.30–32) ὅτι ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως αὗταί εἰσιν. Agrees with Horner, II, and other published mss. John 3:3: ⲉⲩⲧⲘϫⲡⲉⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲙⲚⲧⲉⲣⲟ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ· C7 Unplaced Fragments GO fragment 13 §1. ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Horner, III, 30 and other published editions read ⲉⲩⲧⲘϫⲡⲉⲟⲩⲁ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ ⲘⲛⲚϣϭⲟⲙ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲛⲁⲩ … (Shenoute may have adapted the citation). John 8:44a: ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚϩⲉⲛⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲉⲧⲚⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ· C7.4 §3.1 (DG 107: i.14–17) Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ. Agrees with Horner, III, 142 and the other published mss.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

515

John 10:27a: ⲛⲁⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϣⲁⲩⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲧⲁⲥⲙⲏ· C7.11 §7.2 (DG 334: i.2–4) Τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν. Agrees with Horner, III, 174 and other published mss. John 20:17: ⲘⲡⲢϫⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲒ· Ⲙⲡⲁϯⲃⲱⲕ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲒ ϣⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ· C7.15 §5.2 (GO 402: ii.15–18) Μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου· Agrees with Horner, III, 316 and the other published mss. John 21:17 (15): ⲥⲓⲙⲱⲛ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲱϩⲁⲛⲛ[ⲏⲥ] ⲕⲙⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟ … [ⲙⲟⲟ] ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲛⲁⲉⲥⲟ[ⲟⲩ ⲁⲩ]ⲱ ⲛⲁϩⲓⲉⲓⲃ· C7.1 §15.2 (GO 29: ii.18–23) Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με … Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου. Shenoute added ‘my lambs’ from v. 15 to his citation from v. 17. Otherwise agrees with Horner, III, 330 and the other published mss. Acts 7:47–48a: ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ ⲛⲁϥ ⲚⲟⲩⲏⲒ … ⲙⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲟⲩⲱϩ ϩⲚⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ Ⲛϭⲓϫ· C7.3 §6.3 (XU 96: ii.12–26) Σολομῶν δὲ οἰκοδόμησεν αὐτῷ οἶκον. Ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ. Agrees with Horner, VI, 150 and the other published mss. Acts 7:49d–50 (Cf. Is 66:1d–2): ⲁϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲏⲒ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧϤ ⲛⲁⲒ· ⲙⲏ Ⲛⲧⲁϭⲓϫ ⲁⲛ ⲧⲉⲛⲧⲁⲥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲛⲁⲒ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ· C7.3 §6.3 (XU 96: ii.20–26) ποῖον οἶκον οἰκοδομήσετέ μοι; (λέγει κύριος: ἢ τίς τόπος τῆς καταπαύσεώς μου;) Οὐχὶ ἡ χείρ μου ἐποίησεν ταῦτα πάντα; Horner, VI, 330, Thompson 1932: 20 read ⲁϣ ⲚⲏⲒ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧϤ. Acts 9:31: ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϭⲉ ⲉⲧϩⲚϯⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲁ ⲧⲏⲣⲤ ⲙⲚⲧⲅⲁⲗⲓⲗⲁⲓⲁ ⲙⲚⲧⲥⲁⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲉⲩⲕⲱⲧ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲚⲑⲟⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ· ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲘⲡⲥⲟⲡⲤ ⲘⲡⲉⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. C7.1 §21.2 (XU 79:ii.22–30) Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Horner, VI, 204, Thompson 1932: 27 (ⲇⲉ for ϭⲉ) add, in accordance with the Greek text, ⲛⲉⲥⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ (Horner ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲥⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ) after Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ, and ⲛⲉⲥⲁϣⲁⲓ (ἐπληθύνετο) after ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. Shenoute appears to have abbreviated the citation.

516

F. WISSE

Rom 2:7a: ⲛⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲩⲡⲟⲙⲟⲛⲏ Ⲙⲡϩⲱⲃ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ· C7.7 §8.3 (YR 194: i.1–4) τοῖς μὲν καθ’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ Agrees with Horner, IV, 16, Wessely 1912: 158, and Thompson 1932: 91. Rom 11:8a (based on Is 29:10): ⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϯ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲚⲟⲩⲠ⳱ⲚⲀ ⳱ ⲚⲘⲕⲁϩ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ C7.12 §3.5 (DG 342: ii.31–343: i.3 ) Ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως. Agrees with Horner, IV, 114 and Thompson 1932: 108. Rom 12:5: ⲟⲩⲥⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲘ ⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ· ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ Ⲙⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲉⲣⲏⲩ· C7.1 §23.1 (GO 52: i.14–17, 23–25) ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν χριστῷ, τὸ δὲ καθ’ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη. Agrees with Horner, IV, 128 and Thompson 1932: 111 (both read ⲇⲉ after the first ⲡⲟⲩⲁ), except that ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ has been supplied by Shenoute since it is needed in his argument. Rom 14:10a: ⲁϩⲣⲟⲕ ⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲥⲟⲛ· Ⲏ ⲁϩⲣⲟⲕ ϩⲱⲱⲕ ⲕⲥⲱϣ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲥⲟⲛ· C7.7 §13.1 (XU 320: i.17–22) Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; Agrees with Thompson 1932: 114 and Horner, IV, 140 (ⲉⲕⲟϣϤ). 1 Cor 5:1a: ⲥⲉⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲣⲱ ⲉⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ· ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲥⲉϩⲚⲚⲕⲉϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ· C7.4 §24.33 (YH frg. 6V: i.12–19) Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Horner, IV, 198 reads ⲛⲉⲥϩⲛ and Thompson 1932: 125 reads ⲉⲛⲤϩⲛ. Shenoute’s reading may need to be emended. 1 Cor 5:6: Ⲛⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲚϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ [ⲁⲛ·] ϣⲁ[ⲣⲉⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩ]̣ Ⲛⲑⲁⲃ ⲧⲣⲉ[ⲡⲟⲩⲱ]ϣⲘ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϥⲓ. C7.4 §24.33 (YH frg. 6V: i.6–11) Οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν. Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ; Agrees with Horner, IV, 198 & 200, Kahle 1954: 353, Thompson 1932: 125. 1 Cor 6:19b–20a: ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛⲡⲱⲧⲚ ⲁⲛ· ⲁⲩϣⲉⲡⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲅⲁⲣ ϩⲁⲟⲩⲁⲥⲟⲩ· C7.4 §12.4 (DG 132: i.18–21) οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν; ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

517

Agrees with Thompson 1932: 127 against Horner, IV, 208 who reads ϩⲁⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ instead of ϩⲁⲟⲩⲁⲥⲟⲩ. The latter is the more appropriate translation of τιμῆς. 1 Cor 10:5: Ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲱⲕⲘ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲚⲡⲉⲩϩⲟⲩⲟ· ⲁⲩⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϩⲓⲡϫⲁⲒⲉ· C7.10 §7.3 (YR 290: i.2–6) οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός. κατεστρώθησαν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Agrees with Horner, IV, 209 and other published mss. 1 Cor 13:2b: ⲉⲙⲚⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲁⲛⲄⲟⲨⲗⲁⲁⲩ C7.1 §2.1 (XU 2: ii.11–14) ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι. Horner, IV, 278 (ⲉⲙⲙⲚ), Lefort 1940: 90, Thompson 1932: 139: read ⲇⲉ after ⲉⲙⲚⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ. It is unlikely that Shenoute’s biblical text lacked ⲇⲉ. 2 Cor 3:17b: ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⲉⲥⲘⲙⲁⲩ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲧⲙⲚⲧⲣⲘϩⲉ· C7.1 §1.2 (XU 1: ii.12–17) οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐκεῖ ἐλευθερία. Agrees with Thompson 1932: 151 against Horner, IV, 330 who reads ⲧⲣⲘϩⲉ. 2 Cor 6:16b (Cf. Lev 26:12): ϯⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱϩ ϩⲣⲁⲒ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲧⲁⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ· C7.4 §12.7 (DG 134: i.1–4) Ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω. Agrees with Horner, IV, 344 and Thompson 1932: 155, Shenoute recites from 2 Cor and not Lev since the latter reads ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν. Eph 6:12b: ⲟⲩⲃⲉⲚⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲚⲚⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ· ⲙⲚⲚⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ Ⲙⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ· ⲟⲩⲃⲉⲛⲉⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲓⲕⲟⲛ Ⲛⲧⲡⲟⲛⲓⲣⲓⲁ· C7.8 §18.3 (XU 420: i.23–30) πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας. Thompson 1932: 206: ⲟⲩⲃⲉⲚⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲚⲧⲉⲡⲉⲉⲒⲕⲁⲕⲉ; Horner, V, 256: ⲟⲩⲃⲉⲚⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲚⲧⲉⲡⲉⲒⲕⲁⲕⲉ. Eph 6:17: ϫⲓ Ⲛⲧⲡⲉⲣⲓⲕⲉⲫⲁⲗⲁⲓⲁ ⲘⲡⲟⲩϫⲁⲒ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲘⲡⲉⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲡⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ· C7.13 §2.6 (XG 343: ii.21–26) τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασθε καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ. Horner, V, 258 and Thompson 1932: 207 read ⲉⲧⲉⲡⲁⲒ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ.

518

F. WISSE

1 Thess 4:7: Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲧⲁϩⲙⲚ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲩϫⲱϩⲘ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲧⲂⲃⲟ· C7 Unplaced Fragments (XG frg. 3V: i.23–26) Οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. Agrees with Horner, V, 394 and Thompson 1932: 225. 2 Tim 2:20a: ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲚⲏⲒ … Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲥⲕⲉⲩⲏ ⲁⲛ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ϩⲓϩⲁⲧ Ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧϤ· ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲟⲩⲚϣⲉ ⲟⲛ ϩⲓⲃⲖϫⲉ C7.4 §21.4 (DG frg. 5V: ii.4.10–15) Ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα… Horner, V, 508, Thompson 1932: 241 (lacks ⲙⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲁⲧ): Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲥⲕⲉⲩⲏ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲁⲛ Ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧϩⲚⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲚⲏⲒ ⲙⲚϩⲉⲛϩⲁⲧ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲟⲩⲚϣⲉ ⲟⲛ ϩⲓ ⲃⲖϫⲉ… The verse has been adapted to the context but basically supports the text of Horner. 2 Tim 2:21b: ϥⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲕⲉⲩⲟⲥ ⲉⲩⲧⲓⲙⲏ ⲉϥⲧⲂⲃⲏⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲢⲁⲛⲁϥ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. C7.4 §21.5 (DG frg. 2R: i.25–30) ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ. Agrees with Horner, V, 508 and Thompson 1932: 241. Heb 4:12a: ϥⲟⲛϨ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϥⲉⲛⲉⲣⲅⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ϥϣⲱⲱⲧ Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛϩⲟ ⲥⲛⲁⲩ· C7.13 §2.6 (GO 381: ii.27–382: i.3) Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνεργής, καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον. Horner, V, 30 and Thompson 1932: 171 read ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲥⲏϥⲉ. Heb 12:8: ⲉϣ[ϫⲉⲧⲉⲧ]Ⲛϣⲁⲁⲧ [Ⲛⲧⲉ]ⲥⲃⲱ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙⲉⲧⲉⲭⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ· ⲉⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛϩⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϫ ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚϩⲉⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲛ· C7.1 §6.1 (XG frg 4R:ii.23–31) Εἰ δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, ἧς μέτοχοι γεγόνασιν πάντες, ἄρα νόθοι καὶ οὐχ υἱοί ἐστε. Agrees with Horner, V, 110, and Thompson 1932: 184–185. Heb 12:23–24: [ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲚⲚϢ⳱Ⲣ⳱ⲠⲘⲙⲓⲥⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ ϩⲚⲘ]ⲡ[ⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉ]ⲡⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ]ⲕⲣⲓⲧⲏ[ⲥ Ⲛ]ⲟ[ⲩ]ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ· ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲠ⳱Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ ⲚⲚⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϫⲏⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲙⲉⲥⲓⲧⲏⲥ Ⲛⲧⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲛⲃⲢⲣⲉ ⲒⲤ· ⲙⲚⲡⲉⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲘⲡϭⲟϣϭϢ ⲉⲧϣⲁϫⲉ Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲡⲁⲁⲃⲉⲗ· C7 Unplaced Fragments (DG frg. 1V:i.[?]–ii.14)

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

519

ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασιν δικαίων τετελειωμένων, καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἄβελ. Horner, V, 118 (ⲉⲡⲙⲉⲥⲓⲧⲏⲥ … ⲉϥϣⲁϫⲉ), and Thompson 1932: 186 read ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲡⲁⲁⲃⲉⲗ. 1 Pet 1:16 (Cf. Lev 11:44): ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ· C7.8 §16.3 (XU 411: ii.17–20) Ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος. Agrees with Horner, VII, 10. 1 Pet 2:5: ⲕⲱⲧ ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ ϩⲱⲥ ⲱⲛⲉ ⲉϥⲟⲛϨ Ⲛⲟⲩⲏ ⲘⲠ⳱ⲚⲒ⳱ ⲕⲟⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲘϣⲉ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ C7.1 §21.2 (XU 79: ii.14–20) αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον. Agrees with Horner 1969, VII, 18 and Schüssler 1969: 258. Lefort 1940: 99 reads ⲛⲛⲏⲒ. 1 John 3:8: ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ· ϫⲉϫⲓⲛⲧⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ Ⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ· C7.6 §5 (YR 177: i.13–18) ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. Agrees with Horner 1969, VII, 136 (reads ⲁⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ Ⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ, var. ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲢⲛⲟⲃⲉ). Bibliography Amélineau, Emile 1887; 1888. “Fragments de la version thébaine de l’Écriture (Ancien Testament).” Recueil de Travaux 9, 101–130; 10, 67–96. Aranda Perez, Gonzalo 1984. El Evangelio de san Mateo en Copto Sahidico (Texto de M 569, estudio preliminar y aparato critico). Textos y Estudios “Cardinal Cisneros” 35. Madrid. Browne, Gerald M. 1978. “The Sahidic Version of Kingdoms IV.” Illinois Classical Studies 3, 196–206. Budge, E. A. Wallis 1898. The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter. London. ——. 1912. Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. London. Burmester, Oswald 1965–1966. “Fragments of a Sacîdic-Bohairic Horologion from Scetis.” BSAC 18, 23–46. Ciasca, Agostino 1885. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani I. Rome. ——. 1889. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani II. Rome.

520

F. WISSE

Drescher, James 1970. The Coptic (Sahidic) Version of Kingdoms I, II (Samuel I, II). CSCO 313–314. Louvain. Emmel, Stephen 2004. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. 2 vols. CSCO 599–600. Leuven. Erman, Adolf 1880. “Bruchstücke der oberägyptischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments.” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg August Universität zu Göttingen 12, 401–440. Ernstedt, P. 1959. Coptic Texts from the State Hermitage (in Russian). Moscow/ Leningrad. Feder, Frank 2002. Biblia Sahidica. Ieremias, Lamentationes (Threni), Epistula Ieremiae et Baruch. TUGACL 147. Berlin. Grossouw, Willem. “Un fragment sahidique d’Osée II,9-V,1 (B.M. Or. 4717(5).” Le Muséon 47, 185–204. Hebbelynck, Adolphe 1913. “Fragments inédits de la version copte sahidique d’Isaïe.” Le Muséon 14, 177–227. Horner, George W. 1911–1924. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dilact Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, With Critical Apparatus, Literate English Translation, Register of Fragments and Estimate of the Version. 7 vols. Oxford. Repr. Osnabrück 1969. Kahle, Paul E. 1954. Bala’izah. Coptic Texts from Deir El-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt. 2 vols. Oxford. Kasser, Rodolphe 1965. Papyrus Bodmer XXIII. Esaie XLVII,1-LXVI,24 en sahidique. Cologny/Genève. Lacau, Pierre 1901. “Textes de l’Ancien Testament en copte sahidique.” Recueil de Travaux 23, 103–124. Lefort, Louis-Théophile 1940. Les manuscrits coptes de l’université de Louvain. Louvain. Maspero, Gaston 1883. “Quelques fragments inédits de la version thébaine des Livres Saints.” In: Maspero, G., Études égyptiennes I.3. Paris. ——. 1892. Fragments de la version thébaine de l’Ancien Testament. MMAF VI. Le Caire/Paris. Mingarelli, Giovanni 1785. Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatae. 2 vols. Bologna. Nagel, Peter 2020. Das Deuteronomium sahidisch, nach Ms. BL Or. 7594 der British Library mit dem ergänzenden Text und den Textvarianten des Papyrus Bodmer XVIII und der Handschrift M 566 der Morgan Library & Museum New York. Wiesbaden. Quecke, Hans 1977. Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch: Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569. Papyrologica Castroctaviana 1. Barcelone. Rahlfs, Alfred 1901. Die Berliner Handschrift des sahidischen Psalters. Berlin. Schleifer, Johannes 1909; 1914. Sahidische Bibelfragmente aus dem British Museum zu London I; III. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 162; 173. Wien. Schüssler, Karlheinz 1969. “Eine griechisch-koptische Handschrift des Apostolos (l 1575 und 0129, 0203).” In: Materialen zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde, edited by K. Aland, 218–265. ANTF 3. Berlin. Shier, Louise A. 1942. “Old Testament Texts on Vellum.” In: Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection, edited by W. H. Worrell, 23–167. Ann Arbor. Sobhy, George P. 1927. The Book of the Proverbs of Solomon in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. Cairo.

SHENOUTE AND THE BIBLE

521

Thompson, Herbert 1908. The Coptic (Sahidic) Version of Certain Books of the Old Testament From a Papyrus in the British Museum. London. ——. 1932. The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect. Cambridge. Wessely, Carl 1908. Sahidisch-griechische Psalmenfragmente. Wien. ——. 1912. Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts III. SPP XII. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1966). ——. 1914. Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts IV. SPP XV. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1967). Winstedt, Eric O. 1909. “Some Unpublished Sahidic Fragments of the Old Testament.” JTS 10, 233-254. Worrell, William H. 1923. The Coptic Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. New York/ London. ——. 1931. The Proverbs of Solomon in Sahidic Coptic According to the Chicago Manuscript. Chicago.

TWIN VERBOIDS: ‘BE DIFFERENT’ WITH ONE SYLLABLE TOO MANY AND ‘BE ALIKE’ WITH ONE TOO FEW WOLF-PETER FUNK* The verboid ⲟⲩⲱⲧ- ‘be different’, in S and B normally found with the reducedform spelling ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-, can be used in two different ways: either as a stand-alone predicate with a subject noun phrase that denotes a plurality of things (which are said to “be different”) or as twin predication (Crum 496a top) meaning ‘one (thing) is …, another is …’ (locus classicus: Jn 4:37 ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-ⲡⲉⲧϫⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-ⲡⲉⲧⲱϩⲥ). In the L dialects, only the twin usage of this verboid is attested so far, and its spelling does not reflect the vowel reduction (thus ⲟⲩⲱⲧ- bis Jn 4:37 L5 Thompson), although it is a construct nonetheless. It is found only once in the published part of the Manichean Psalm-Book (dialect L4):1 (1)

PsB II 135:19 L4 [ⲟ]ⲩⲱⲧ ⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩ Ⲛⲑⲁⲧⲉ· ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲡⲧⲏⲩ ⲉⲧⲛⲓϥⲉ [Ⲛ] ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ (Alberry) “One is the thought from minute to minute, another the wind that blows from hour to hour.”

The same construction also occurs twice in the Manichaean Kephalaia (1Keph 197:29f.; 250:23). In the unpublished parts of the Psalm-Book, there is a strophe that (notwithstanding some lacunas) clearly makes use of this construction in a quadruple way. The first half of the quartet is expressed in the usual form (the addressee is feminine, presumably the soul): (2)

PsB I Facs. pl. 317:11 L4 ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲧⲉϣⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ· ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲛⲉ . . [. . . . . . . .] “One thing is what you search for, another is your …” (plural noun, apparently not relative).

* [En juin 2015, lors de la réunion du projet «  Editing Shenoute  » à l’université de Columbus, Ohio, Wolf-Peter Funk avait présenté une première version de cette étude. Par la suite, il m’avait fait part de son intention de la soumettre, sous une forme plus élaborée, pour les Mélanges en l’honneur de Stephen Emmel, mais la maladie qui l’a emporté en février 2021 ne lui en a pas laissé le temps. La version que Régine Charron a retrouvée fin février 2022 nous a cependant paru assez achevée pour prendre place dans le volume sans modification. A.B.] 1 For greater clarity, but avoiding the use of hyphens in quotations, I will here maintain the conventional word-division (as found, for instance, in Lagarde’s and Alberry’s editions), even though of course all these forms must be construct (cf. also the position of ⲅⲁⲣ after ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-ⲣⲟⲑⲁⲓ in ex. 5).

524

W.-P. FUNK

But this sentence is immediately followed by another one of a similar structure, except for an intervening element -ⲣⲁ : (3)

PsB I Facs. pl. 317:12 L4 ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲣⲁ ⲧⲉϭⲓⲛⲙⲁϩⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲣⲁ ⲛⲉϣⲁ ⲣ[… “One thing is your behaviour, another your …” (“your fortunes”? ϣⲁ followed by the particle ⲣⲱ? not clear).

The question is: What is -ⲣⲁ- (structurally, semantically, etymologically)? This unexpected occurrence in the Manichaean Psalm-Book cannot fail to bring to mind the old problem posed by the occurrence of a similar infixed -ⲣⲟ- in the Bohairic Curzon Catena (ed. Lagarde 1886): (4)

Cat. 141:2 B5 ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲙⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲟⲩⲟⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲫⲁⲓ· “For, one matter is that law-expert there, another is this one (here)” (ad Lk 10:25).

(5)

Cat. 209:28 B5 ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲑⲁⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ· “One is this (Mary), another matter is those (other Marys)” (ad John 12:3, in contrast to Matthew’s and Luke’s Marys).

(6)

Cat. 215:6 B5 ⲧⲓ ⲟⲩⲛ· ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲫⲛⲁϩϯ ⲙⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲣⲟ ⲫⲛⲁϩϯ ⲙⲡⲓϣⲏⲣⲓ· ⲛⲛⲉⲥϣⲱⲡⲓ· « So what? One thing is the faith in the Father, another the faith in the Son? By no means!” (ad Jn 14:1).

Note that the -ⲟ- vocalization (as found he in both ⲟⲩⲟⲧ- and -ⲣⲟ-) is a frequent variant spelling (instead of -ⲉ-) in construct verb forms in Bohairic;2 as such it corresponds perfectly to the -ⲣⲁ- of dialect L4. It may also be noted that the three sentences of exx. 4–6 represent the only occurrences of the ⲟⲩⲟⲧ- (ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-) construction in the Bohairic Catena (perhaps even the only cases known of the verboid in twin usage for Bohairic, apart from 1Cor 15:39). Crum (290a) listed this form ⲣⲟ simply as a variant spelling, special for Catenae, of the particle ⲣⲱ, and then quoted (290b, mid-column) the above ex. 5 as if it were just another occurrence of the postpositive particle (which, however, would need to be preceded by a full-stress form). The etymology of the particle appears to be well established by now (Westendorf, Nachträge 533 and Vycichl 171f.), with its ancestor (m)rꜢ-῾ being known as a particle in Demotic as well. At least from a syntactic point of view, of course, an infixed element -ⲣⲟ- belongs in a different category from any particle ⲣⲱ. However, the puzzle does not end here. The verboid that covers the opposite meaning: ϭⲓⲣⲟ (ϭⲓⲣⲁ, ϭⲓⲣⲉ-, ϭⲓⲣⲓ-, etc.) ‘similar is …’ (in non-literary Sahidic also spelled ⲅⲓⲣⲟ or ⲕⲓⲣⲟ, etc.), and which seems to be found exclusively in twin usage, happens to contain 2 Crum (496a) also quotes a spelling with the /t/ aspirated (as may be expected in close juncture before /r/, even if that syllable does not carry the main stress): ⲟⲩⲟⲑ-ⲣⲟ from one of the Scalae of the extensive paper volume BL Or. 8775 (in Layton’s Catalogue, no. 254).

TWIN VERBOIDS

525

such an element -ⲣⲟ- (etc.) in all its appearances so far. Etymologists have always found it necessary to break the ready-made Coptic verboid up into two constituents, the first of which may go back to a noun of ‘manner’ (of which there are not many other traces in Coptic, except for the prefix ϭⲓⲛ-). For the second constituent, the suffixed one, again some form of ᾿ıry appears to be a good candidate (see Westendorf 464 with reference to Böhlig 1936). Nonetheless, one may also think of the preposition {r-}. Among the Manichaean manuscripts, this verboid has been so far attested mainly in the first volume of Kephalaia, where its pattern of usage is invariably ϭⲓⲣⲁ ϭⲓⲣⲟ- (or ϭⲓⲣⲉ-), where the suffix of the first form either resumes a noun phrase in anteposition or refers to a personal interlocutor, directly followed by the pre-nominal form for the second item of comparison.3 The same pattern is also found in the (unpublished) second volume of Kephalaia,4 and very fortunately, this other manuscript also adds a twice pre-nominal case to the repertoire: (7)

2Keph 431:11f. L4 ϭⲓⲣⲟ ⲧⲕⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ϩⲱⲱⲕ ϭⲓⲣⲟ ⲛⲓⲙⲟⲩⲉⲟⲩ[. . . . . . . .] ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ “Your wisdom is like (or: comparable to) the waters [of] all [(seas, rivers, or sim.)]”.5

While this twin usage of a form ϭⲓⲣⲟ- is entirely what one would expect, the same cannot be said when -ⲣⲟ- is missing. In the earlier parts of the PsalmBook6 we fⲓnd a rather unexpected form of ‘be alike’: (8)

PsB I 177:28f. L4 ϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥϣⲃⲉⲣ ϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥϫⲁϫⲉ ϩⲚⲧⲟⲩⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ ⲚⲧⲉϥⲙⲚⲧⲃⲟⲟⲛⲉ “Its friends are like its enemies in the hour of its evil” (it = presumably the human body).

Now, to put two and two together, I find it hard to think that the -ⲣⲟ- (or-ⲣⲁ-) that can be dropped from ϭⲓⲣⲟ (ϭⲓⲣⲁ) and the one that can be added to ⲟⲩⲱⲧ- should not be (at least, historically) “the same”. This raises anew the question of possible etymologies, but it is also of considerable interest in terms of the proper affiliation of the form within the Coptic inventory. If the plus/minus elements in both cases are to be “the same,” then the particle ⲣⲱ can no longer be of any relevance, since we are dealing not only with the prenominal forms ⲣⲁ- and ⲣⲟ- after ⲟⲩⲱⲧ, but also with the suffixed 3 1Keph 32:22; 151:27; 153:14; 172:19; 201:14; 217:32; 229:18; 237:29; 281:16; 359:2; 366:27. 4 2Keph 288:25; 395:8; 431:10; 441:18. 5 Page 431 of the 2nd volume of the Manichaean Kephalaia can be read in Giversen’s Facsimile Edition (vol. I, 1986) as plate 291. 6 Ed. Richter 2021. Codex page 177 can be read in Giversen’s Facsimile Edition (vol. III, 1988) as plate 123.

526

W.-P. FUNK

-ⲣⲁ in ϭⲓⲣⲁ. This option, though suggested by Crum, had already been rather doubtful on account of the structural incompatibility between infix and particle and must definitely be discarded. Looking for other monosyllables of a form /ra/ or /ro/ in the Coptic lexicon, one might also think of the noun ⲣⲁ ‘state, condition’,7 which is sometimes used pre-nominally to create compound nouns (see Crum 287a). But this noun does not seem to have ever developed a status pronominalis. If the elements in question might be based on some earlier construct forms of ᾿ıry (as has been suggested for those in ϭⲓⲣⲟ- / ϭⲓⲣⲁ), would this case be in any way comparable to the variation, in the L (and other) dialects, between long and short pre-nominal forms in the conjugation system, such as ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉvar. ⲉⲧⲉ- for the Relative Present, ⲉⲣⲉ- var. ⲉ- for the Circumstantial Present, or ϣⲁⲣⲉ- var. ϣⲁ- for the Aorist? But the well-attested Bohairic /CV/ variant form of ⲓⲣⲓ is vocalized (for good reason, etymologically) as ⲣⲁ, not ⲣⲟ. Personally, I have always been inclined to seek the solution somewhere else, namely, if there is any chance to bring the preposition {r-}, that is, Coptic ⲉ-/ ⲉⲣⲟ B, ⲁ-/ⲁⲣⲁ L4, into play. Since one of the dialectal points of departure for this problem is situated in the Bohairic domain, it may be appropriate to draw attention to the fact that this dialect, in its genuine early medieval “Nitrian”8 variety, attests to the formation of a lesser known9 status nominalis ⲉⲣⲟ-, first of all to be used in a debt formula: (9)

Cat. 160:30 (29–31) B5 ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲧⲉⲕⲭⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲛⲓⲭⲣⲉⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲁⲕ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲟⲛⲓϩⲏⲕⲓ “(But you, if you do so) and forgive the debts that the poor owe to you, (you will boast about yourself, because you have truly acted in a wise manner).”

As long as this occurrence appeared to be quite exceptional, one could have the impression that such an allomorph was perhaps specially created as an “augmented” form for use as a predicate in the Bipartite Pattern (here with the Present Relative ⲉⲧ- [casus rectus]. But the allomorph certainly had a somewhat broader usage. As far as literary sources go, there is at least one other occurrence — and this one (from Vat. copt. 59 [2]) is found in a post-verbal (normal-valency) context that seems trivial for use of the preposition ⲉ-: 7

Suggested to me as a possible alternative (with question-mark) by Bentley Layton during the Shenoute Editorial Meeting in Columbus (Ohio) in June 2015. 8 This misnomer is still very much in use; what I mean to specify is of course the variety (or varieties) of Bohairic attested by the good-quality 9th-10th century manuscripts from the Wadi Natrûn (not from historical “Nitria”), notably, the Curzon Catena, the “Synaxar” volumes of the Vatican [Assemani collection], and a greater number of fragmentary remains of codices in Cairo, Leipzig, and elsewhere. As these manuscripts constitute virtually all we have for medieval Bohairic from the first millennium (with the one exception of Vat. copt. 1, the Pentateuch manuscript), the term “Nitrian” practically stands for non-biblical Bohairic. 9 As far as I can see, this form is not mentioned in any of the dictionaries or grammatical manuals we have.

TWIN VERBOIDS

(10)

527

De Vis, Homélies coptes II, 260:10f. B5 ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲙⲡⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲓⲧⲉⲭⲛⲓⲧⲏⲥ· ⲙⲟⲩⲣ ⲛⲛⲓⲙⲁⲛⲅⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲡⲓⲥⲧⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲥⲟⲡ· “And he saw him again when the workers tied the pulleys to each particular column (and the archangel himself stretched out the crossstaff he had in his hand and positioned it above the column).”

In view of the rarity of the form, one may also take into account a passage from the second colophon in the manuscript Vat. copt. 62 (8) (ff. 166r–188r), which after the scribe’s original colophon of AD 933 was added by another hand in AD 993 and contains the following clause: (11)

De Vis, Homélies coptes II, 202:4–6 B* ϩⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲁⲗⲑ ⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲑⲉϣⲟⲩⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲟ⸌ⲧ⸍ⲟⲩⲯ{ⲉ}ⲩⲭⲏ ⲧⲉϥⲣⲟⲧⲃⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛⲕⲉⲛϥ “so that Christ, our true God, may bestow an act of mercy upon their soul and10 let them rest in his bosom.”

Notwithstanding the less than perfect orthography of this colophon, I find its wording trustworthy. If so, it provides a precious third piece of evidence for a pre-nominal form ⲉⲣⲟ- in Bohairic.11 The existence and occasional usage of such a form, in my opinion, considerably enhances the probability that the “infix” element at issue here (-ⲣⲟ- etc.) is indeed to be seen in connection with the preposition. And now a heaven-sent new attestation: To my great surprise, Anne Boud’hors has kindly informed me that there is a personal letter (Inv. Sorb. 2517)12 in which the phrase ⲟⲩⲉⲧⲣⲟ ⲟⲩⲉⲧⲣⲟϥ occurs: (12)

Inv. Sorb. 2517, ll. 8–9 S* ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲕⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲕⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲧ|ⲣⲟ ⲟⲩⲉⲧⲣⲟϥ, to be translated either as indicated in the

10 Note that Conjunctive forms without the initial ⲛ-, virtually unknown in the standard literary variety, are fairly common in non-literary Bohairic (except for the 3rd plural). 11 At the level of Coptic morphology, this phenomenon ought to be seen in the wider perspective of status pronominalis forms taking the place of the status constructus, fairly common among verbal infinitives in Bohairic (see Polotsky 1930: 875 “bei dieser für das Boh. noch nicht gebührend gewürdigten Erscheinung”) but here extended to the domain of prepositions. Note that ⲉ-/ ⲉⲣⲟ is not the only preposition that is subject to such an evolution (perhaps somewhat “substandard” but by no means erroneous); analogous cases are found, for instance, with ϩⲓ-/ϩⲓⲱⲧ. Cf. the remarkable use of ϩⲓⲱⲧ- in Vat. copt. 66 (12), f. 313a [= p. 51:8 of the MS] (edited, with numerous errors, by Guy Lafontaine, Le Muséon 93 [1980], 236, ll. 1–3), MS collated: ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲧⲟⲙⲧⲉⲛ ⲉⲡⲬ⳱Ⲥ· ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲧⲉⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉϥϩⲟⲕⲉⲣ· ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛϯ ϩⲓⲱⲧⲡⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲉϥⲃⲏϣ· ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛϫⲉⲙⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲙⲡⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲉϥϣⲱⲛⲓ “Let us attend on Christ and feed him when he is hungry; let us clothe Christ when he is naked, let us visit him when he is sick,” approximately rendering Gregory of Nazianzus’ Χριστὸν ἐπισκεψώμεθα, Χριστὸν θεραπεύσωμεν, Χριστὸν θρέψωμεν, Χριστὸν ἐνδύσωμεν, etc. (Migne PG 35, 909) shortly before the end of his famous sermon On Love of the Poor. 12 Edition in Albarrán Martínez and Boud’hors 2015.

528

W.-P. FUNK

edition13 or perhaps: “Now, (given that) you know everything, you (also) know that my (statement) is one thing and his – another.”

The phrase may have more than one interpretation, but it appears entirely wellformed, and the general make-up of the document, though not impeccably orthographic in every respect, is fairly good for a personal letter. Thus there can be no doubt that we have a twin occurrence of a form ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-ⲣⲟ, variable according to the category of person. This shows that the element -ⲣⲟ-after ⲟⲩⲉⲧ- is likewise capable of suffixation: ⲣⲟ, by which token it appears all but certain that it represents the abbreviated “linkage form” of the preposition ⲉ-/ⲉⲣⲟ (similar to ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲣⲟ etc.).14 What emerges from these comparisons is the hypothetical existence, in several varieties of Coptic, of a rare allomorph of ⲉⲣⲟ which is used as “infix” in the two verboids of ‘be different’ and ‘be alike’. This infix form lacks the initial vowel (just as the variant ⲣⲟ that can be found from time to time anyway) but preserves the crucial /r/ consonant – not only for (pronominal) suffix forms but also in the status nominalis, where it appears as -ⲣⲟ- B L4, -ⲣⲁ-, -ⲣⲉ- L4. Thus, for the time being: Bohairic Sahidic (non-lit.)

pre-nominal (ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-)ⲣⲟ- (Catenae) (ϭⲓ-)ⲣⲉ- (passim)

Dialect L4

(ϭⲓ-)ⲣⲟ- / ⲣⲉ- (passim) (ⲟⲩⲱⲧ-)ⲣⲁ- (PsB)

pre-suffixal (ⲟⲩⲉⲧ-)ⲣⲟ (Inv. Sorb. 2517) (ϭⲓ-)ⲣⲟ (passim) (ϭⲓ-)ⲣⲁ (passim)

That the current pre-nominal forms of the verboid ϭⲓⲣⲁ in the Manichaean dialect L4 turn out to be ϭⲓⲣⲟ- and ϭⲓⲣⲉ- (and not *ϭⲓⲣⲁ- as might be expected on the basis of these analogies) may well be due to the analogy of verbal infinitives such as the t-causativa, whose status constructus regularly ends in ⲟ- or 13 The editors construe the differential phrase as directly referring to the matter of the debt, which doubtless is at issue in this letter: “Or maintenant tu sais tout, tu sais qu’une chose est ce qui m’incombe, une autre ce qui lui incombe.” The context is fairly clear, with the preceding sentence stating the content of the recipient’s “omniscience” in the form of another ⲟⲩⲉⲧ- / ⲟⲩⲉⲧ- phrase: “car c’est toi qui sais tout: vraiment une chose est la parole quand nous sommes sortis de chez toi, une autre chose ce qu’ils me disent.” I find it most likely that the sentence quoted above refers to the disagreement in the same general way, but switching the focus from “them” to the single person (“him”) – either that of the adversary (“the man of Antinoou”) or, less likely, that of the writer’s brother, whom to consult he had urged the recipient in the preceding lines. 14 The editors, perhaps under the influence of their “debt” interpretation (see preceding note), even suggested an emendation “lire ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ ⲟⲩⲉⲧ ⲉⲣⲟϥ” in their critical apparatus, which I find unnecessary.

TWIN VERBOIDS

529

ⲉ- in this dialect. In spite of all the observable variation between presence and absence of the element -ⲣⲟ- / -ⲣⲁ- , it is clear that the complex verboid ϭⲓⲣⲟas a whole, which is always found in twin usage, has reached a high degree of lexicalization (as “normal”), which in the case of ⲟⲩⲱⲧ- only forms without -ⲣⲟ- or -ⲣⲁ- can possibly claim. Bibliography Albarrán Martínez, María Jesús, and Boud’hors, Anne 2015. “Lettre copte des archives d’Apa Sabinos (P. Sorb. Inv. 2517).” Chronique d’Égypte 90, 183–190. Alberry, Charles R. C. 1938. A Manichaean Psalm-Book: Part II. Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection 2. Stuttgart. Böhlig, Alexander 1936. “Ein neuer Ausdruck für „sein wie, gleichen“ im Koptischen.” ZÄS 72, 141–143. Böhlig, Alexander, and Funk, Wolf-Peter in process. Kephalaia, zweite Hälfte. Lieferung 11/12 (Böhlig), 1966. Lieferung 13/14 (Funk), 1999. Lieferung 15/16 (Funk), 2000. Lieferung 17/18 (Funk), 2016. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen Berlin 1[b]. Stuttgart. Crum, Walter E. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford. De Vis, Henri 1929. Homélies coptes de la Vaticane. Vol. II. Copenhagen. (Repr. in Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte 6. Leuven/Paris 1990). Giversen, Søren 1986. The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library. Vol. I. Kephalaia: Facsimile Edition. Cahiers d’orientalisme 14. Geneva. ——. 1988. The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library. Vol. III. Psalm Book Part I: Facsimile Edition. Cahiers d’orientalisme 16. Geneva. Lagarde, Paul de 1886. Catenae in Evangelia aegyptiacae qui supersunt. Göttingen. (Repr. Osnabrück 1971). Layton, Bentley 1987. Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906. London. Polotsky, Hans Jakob 1930. Review of: H. De Vis, Homélies coptes de la Vaticane, vol. II. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 33, 871–881. Richter, Siegfried G., unter Mitwirkung von W.-P. Funk 2021. Psalmengruppe 1. Die Sonnenhymnen des Herakleides. Die Synaxis-Psalmen (The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library. Psalm Book, Part 1, Fasc. 1). Corpus fontium manichaeorum. Series coptica 1. Liber psalmorum, part 1, fasc. 1. Turnhout. Thompson, Herbert 1924. The Gospel of St. John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. London. Vycichl, Werner 1983. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven. Westendorf, Wolfhart 1977. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg.

INDEX OF SHENOUTE’S WORKS AND VITA

Pages in manuscripts from the White Monastery are identified by the conventional two-letter designations (e.g., XB). See Preface, p. IX. A. CANONS Canon 1: 101–120, 481, 485, 486, 488 XB 44: 107nn18–19 XB 84: 107n20 XB 84–85: 107n19 XB 88: 105n12 XC 17 (Leip. III 198): 471 XC 19–20 (Leip. III 200): 468 XC 25 (Leip. III 204): 463 XC 60: 105n12 YG 215: 109n27 YW 77–82: 101n1 YW 79–80: 108n23 YW 80: 108n24 YW 80–81: 108n25 YW 209–211: 154n8 Canon 2: 484, 485–486 XC 219: 485nn27–28 Canon 3: 285–293 1. Acephalous work A22: 286, 293–294 YA 304: 235n57, 275n449 YB 83–96: 293 YB 90–95: 293–297 2. Abraham, Our Father: 286, 293, 487 YA 526 (Leip. IV 28): 461 YA 539 (Leip. IV 36): 468 Canon 4 1. Why, O Lord: 235n59, 275n452, 487– 488 BZ 11 (Leip. III 120): 464 BZ 17 (Leip. III 123): 464 BZ 23–24: 258n383 BZ 27: 274n448 BZ 27–28: 234n56, 274n447 GI 95: 233n50 GI 115 (Leip. III 155): 471

GI 124 (Leip. III 161–162): 460 GI 128 (Leip. III 164): 472 GI 129 (Leip. III 165): 462 GI 152 (Leip. III 183): 471 GI 158 (Leip. III 187): 469 Canon 5 1. You, God the Eternal XL 139: 235n60, 276n454 XS 6: 232n49, 235n57, 268n419, 275n450 XS 61: 233n52, 273nn440–441 XS 62: 234nn53–54, 273–274nn442– 443 XS 276: 235n58, 275n451 XS 326: 274n446 XS 352 (Leip. IV 59): 465 XS 354: 276n457 XS 354–355: 235n61 XS 355: 276n456 Canon 6: 207, 213n35, 484, 488n41 1. He Who Sits upon His Throne: 113n39 XF 14 (Amél. II 296–297): 475 XF 21 (Amél. II 302): 467 XF 24 (Amél. II 304): 469 2. Remember, O Brethren: 113n39 XV 75: 211n22 3. Is It Not Written XF 156: 211n24 XF 204 (Amél. I 37): 460 XF 256: 211n25 XM 153: 468 XM 190: 211n24, 215n45 4. Then Am I Not Obliged: 481, 485, 488– 489, 490, 491 XF 260 (Amél. I 77): 460 XM 308: 212n28

532

INDICES

XM 483: 236n63, 277n459 XM 467 (Leip. IV 45): 469 XM 469 (Leip. IV 46): 469 Canon 7: 484, 493 AV frg. 4a: 502, 504 AV frg. 4b: 497, 498, 499, 501, 511 AF frg. 5: 500 DG frg. 1: 518–519 DG frg. 2: 518 DG frg. 5: 518 DG frg. 6: 510 GO frg.: 497 GO frg. 13: 514 XG frg. 3: 518 XG frg. 4: 518 XG 399: 508 YH frg. 3a: 504 YH frg. 4: 507, 509, 510–511 YH frg. 4r: 512 YH frg. 5: 506–507, 510, 511 YH frg. 6: 504, 505–506, 507, 516 YH frg. 7: 499–500, 502, 512 YH frg. 7v: 514 YR 177: 519 YR 194: 516 YR 289: 513 YR 290: 517 1. God Is Holy: 1n2, 6n15, 24n44, 64, 65 DG 105: 499, 500 DG 106: 502 DG 107: 514 DG 132: 516–517 DG 134: 517 DG 154: 500 GO 4: 509 GO 29: 515 GO 43: 504 GO 52: 516 XG 176: 497, 504, 514 XG 177: 497 XU 1: 517 XU 2: 517 XU 79: 515, 519 XU 92: 500, 502 XU 95: 512 XU 96: 515 XU 105: 497, 500–501 3. This Great House: 1n1, 23n36, 486n34 DG 334: 515

GN 369: 503 XU 308: 505 XU 309: 498, 505 XU 313: 499 XU 314: 504–505 XU 318: 507 XU 319: 507, 513 XU 320: 513–514, 516 XU 329: 508 XU 330: 505, 513 XU 411: 519 XU 420: 517 XU 424: 503 XU 425: 497 XU 472: 506, 511 4. I Myself Have Seen: 496 DG 342: 502–503, 516 5. If Everyone Errs: 495 GN 398: 499 GN 399: 508 GN 403: 499 GN 404: 498 GN 406: 498, 500 GO 381: 518 GO 390: 499, 505 XG 337: 508 XG 338: 508 XG 341: 514 XG 342: 506 XG 343: 517 XG 346: 512 XU 490: 508, 509 Leip. IV 11ff.: 465 Leip. IV 14f.: 464 Leip. IV 20: 468 Leip. IV 25: 467 6. The Rest of the Words GO 395: 463 GO 402: 515 GO 404: 513 YR 290 (Amél. II 483): 463 7. Continuing to Glorify the Lord: 486n34 DG 423 (Leip. III 71): 462 DG 426: 498 8. It Is Obvious DG 429: 503 DG 430: 508 GN 429 (Leip. III 75): 470 See also Is Ecclesiastes Not Wise under “Additional Works with Titles”

INDEX OF SHENOUTE’S WORKS AND VITA

Canon 8: 137–150, 207, 484, 489 1. So Listen XO 51: 459 XO 55: 479 XO 60: 213n35 2. My Heart Is Crushed: 489nn50–52 XO 65: 211 XO 69: 469 XO 82: 476 XO 84: 461 XO 85: 467 XO 92: 211 XO 100: 211n23, 213n35 XO 101: 211n24 XO 104: 211n23 XO 106: 211 XO 108: 212n32 XO 110: 212n32, 213n35 XO 112: 213n33 XO 113: 213n34 XO 114–115: 211n23, 211n25, 212 XO 115: 213n35 XO 117: 213n35 3. Who But God Is the Witness XO 126: 212n31, 213n35, 214 XO 151–152: 214n44 XO 154: 214n43 XO 169: 214n42 4. Many Times I Have Said: 489–490 XO 237: 211n22 XO 260: 212n29 XO 264: 212n30 Canon 9: 399 1. God Who Alone Is True: 265n402 DF 188 (Leip. IV 107): 461 DF 190: 236n62, 277n458 FM 113 (Leip. IV 113): 473 FM 181 (Leip. IV 156): 475 YZ 213: 469

2. Now Since this Matter Weighs upon Your Heart XL 389 (Leip. III 17): 476 XL 390 (Leip. III 18): 461, 462 6. I Have Been Considering: 278n460 7. Thou Art Blessed, God DF 365: 468 Rules (ed. B. Layton, The Canons of Our Fathers, 2014) 8: 116–117 9: 116–117 12–18: 232n48, 269n419 74: 232n48, 269n419 89–90: 232n48, 269n419 139: 467 153: 467 156: 232n48, 269n419 165: 276n455 166–168: 258n379 189: 274n445 200: 276n455 204: 232n48, 269n419 209: 276n455 215: 331n52 234–235: 276n455 255: 276n455 328: 276n455 368: 274n445 411: 276n455 421: 276n455 423: 329n44 425: 331n52 426: 331n52 444: 232n48, 269n419 476: 232n48, 269n419 478: 274n445 483: 232n48, 269n419 497: 276n455 576: 236, 277n459

B. DISCOURSES Discourses 1–3 (?) 1. I Am Amazed: 61, 285, 287n7, 290n22, 290n26, 362 DS 221: 288n15 DQ 14: 289n17 HB 18: 290n25

533

HB HB HB HB HB HB

19: 19: 21: 22: 33: 34:

290n23 289n17 289n19 290n23 291n29 291n29

534

INDICES

HB 39: 288n15, 292n32 2. The Spirit of God; A Priest Will Never Cease: 57, 215 4. As I Sat on a Mountain: 68 XN 227 (Leip. III 47): 469, 477 XN 232 (Leip. III 50): 464 XN 233 (Leip. III 51): 460 XN 262–270 (Leip. III 57–61): 470 XN 264 (Leip. III 45): 461 XN 264–265 (Leip. III 46): 460 XN 265 (Leip. III 46): 459 XN 270 (Leip. III 62): 467 Discourses 4 DU: 161 XH: 161 1. The Lord Thundered: 161, 368n6, 369– 370, 399 DU 46–47: 370n15 GG 1 (Leip. III 85): 464 2. Since It Is Necessary to Pursue the Devil: 69, 161 3. A Beloved Asked Me Years Ago: 161, 495 4. Because of You Too, O Prince of Evil: 162, 303 XH 187 (Chass. 21): 472 XH 189 (Chass. 23): 474, 478 XH 190 (Chass. 24): 479 XH 200 (Chass. 34): 462 XH 202 (Chass. 36): 471 5. Not because a Fox Barks: 162, 163, 303–306, 353–359, 368n6 DU 167: 354 DU 168: 351n1, 355 DU 169: 360n16, 361 DU 170 (Leip. III 81): 464 DU 172: 355, 357 XH 204 (Chass. 38): 478 6. Now Many Words and Things I Said: 162 XH 218 (Chass. 52): 465 XH 220 (Chass. 54): 465, 466 XH 222 (Chass. 56): 462 XH 227 (Chass. 61): 472 7. As We Began to Preach: 60, 66, 162 XH 231 (Chass. 65): 478 XH 238 (Chass. 72): 464, 478 XH 242–243 (Chass. 76–77): 477 XH 243 (Chass. 77): 465

XH 250 (Chass. 84): 461 8. I Have Heard about Your Wisdom: 63, 67, 74, 162 XH 261 (Chass. 95): 463 XH 268 (Chass. 102): 478 XH 269 (Chass. 103): 469 XH 270 (Chass. 104): 459 XH 276 (Chass. 110): 463, 464, 466 XH 287–288 (Chass. 121–122): 466 XH 291 (Chass. 125): 466 9. Blessed Are They Who Observe Justice: 60, 74, 77–96, 162, 417 XH 300 (Chass. 134): 465 XH 318 (Chass. 152): 473 YS 202 (Leip. III 36): 477 10. God Is Blessed: 23n39, 162, 163–164, 368n6, 380–382 XH 332 (Chass. 166): 459, 460, 477 XH 354 (Chass. 188): 468 Discourses 5 1. I See Your Eagerness: 56, 63, 75, 278n460 GL 54: 167n67 XJ 53 (Amél. II 52): 476 XJ 71 (Amél. II 62): 471 XJ 84 (Amél. II 72): 459 2–3. Some Kinds of People Sift Dirt; Whoever Seeks God Will Find: 66, 67, 72 GF 117 (Amél. I 228): 461 4. Righteous Art Thou, O Lord: 65, 69 5. You, O Lord: 78n10 GL 177: 465 GL 179: 474 GL 190: 167n67 6. God Says through Those Who Are His (and other works?) GF 307: 167n67 Discourses 7 1. I Remember: 66 2. There Is Another Foolishness: 62, 70 XE 55 (Amél. II 368): 466 XE 82 (Amél. II 395): 461 4. Well Did You Come: 70 Discourses 8 HD 242 (Amél. I 215): 476

INDEX OF SHENOUTE’S WORKS AND VITA

1. I Have Been Reading the Holy Gospels: 59, 62, 64, 69, 75, 232n46, 268n418, 417 7. It is Good at any Time: 64 9. The Idolatrous Pagans HD 100 (Leip. IV 3): 461 12. And Who Are They Who Say these Things: 70 13. It Is Good, O People GP 177 (Leip. IV 37): 467 14. And Let Us Also Reprove: 72

535

GP 184–85 (Leip. III 42): 475 20. And after a Few Days GP 199 (Leip. III 31–32): 476 22. Reading Today from the Proverbs: 67 GP 204: 372n22 24. Truly, When I Think: 58, 75 HD 172 (Leip. IV 23): 461 25. Scripture Has Said: 61 28. Shenoute Writes to the Priests: 62 30. Those Who Work Evil: 62, 417

C. ADDITIONAL WORKS WITH TITLES Before the Same Discourse: 58, 65 Concerning a Way of Life: 64 Concerning the Days of Sowing: 56 Do Not Become: 57 God the True Judge: 72 Good Is the Time for Launching a Boat to Sail: 58, 224n12 Leip. IV 186: 462 I Will Say a Sad Word: 60, 71 If I Say that You Love Me: 75 If It Is God Who Has: 62, 71 If the One Speaking Says: 71, 73, 74 Is Ecclesiastes Not Wise: 494 Let Our Eyes: 353–359, 368n6, 370–371, 372, 378 WW 27: 357 WW 29: 351 WW 30: 357

WW 32–33: 354 WW 33: 354 WW 34: 355, 358 ZJ 27: 354 ZJ 28: 354, 357, 358 The Lord is Long-Suffering: 56, 59, 61, 64, 68, 71 The Prophet Has Said: 59, 66, 73, 74 The Scriptures Say: 58 See How Many Lamps We Have Lit: 72 The Teaching Concerning the Mystery: 69, 75 To the Same Women: 57 What Is It to Us: 72 What Person Would Say: 57, 63, 65, 68 Who with a Sickness in His Body: 75 Who Would Not Say (?): 56

D. ADDITIONAL ACEPHALOUS WORKS Acephalous work A5 DR 121 (Leip. III 105): 472 DR 122 (Leip. III 105): 466 DR 123 (Leip. III 106): 462 Acephalous work A6 DD 245 (Leip. III 96): 464 TY 18: 400 Acephalous work A7 TY frg. 3r: 400 Acephalous work A8: 400 Acephalous work A14 255–259: 299n3

Acephalous work A15 XW 26 (Leip. III 66): 459 Acephalous work A26 (De iudicio): 358, 360n15, 368n6, 400, 469 VIv: 467 XVv: 462 XLIXv: 469 LVr: 463 LVIIIr: 461 Acephalous work A37 TY 77: 400 Acephalous work A40 DS 273: 400

536

INDICES

E. LETTER To Archbishop Timothy HD 302 (Leip. III 13): 476 F. ADDITIONAL CODICES DD: 356 DD 224: 353 DD 238: 477

XL 295: 463 YK 199: 475 ZJ 10: 472n29 G. VITA OF SHENOUTE

Vita Sinuthii: 82n14, 95, 121, 207, 225– 226, 227n27, 236n64, 256n377, 257n378–379, 261n393, 278n461,

300n11, 301–302, 351–354, 358, 367– 369, 373, 393–402, 416, 444

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT (LXX) Genesis 1:31a 497 7:1b 497 18:16–33 147n30 28:12 165 28:20–22 148 37:3 148 37:31 149n32 49:12 497

Judges 4–5 487n37 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 2:24b 497 4 Kingdoms (2 Kings) 2:12 497 4:43c 498 22:14 487n37

Exodus 6:23 435n49 20:13–14 258n381 20:16 258n382 20:17 258n382 25–31 20

Esther 138, 287 Job 40 495 41 495

Leviticus 11 465n14 11:44 519 13:45–46 149n34 13:47–58 138 13:50–58 145 13:52 150n37 14:33–48 138, 142–144 14:36–48 146–147 19:13 259n384 21:10–11 148 26:12 517 Numbers 22 300 Deuteronomy 14:3–21 465n14 27:11–26 370n16 32:1 497 Joshua 10:12–13 385n82 24:29–31.31a.32–33.33a–b

30

Psalms 495 1:1 232, 269n422 5:13a 498 7:13 498 9:35b–36a 498 17:8b 498 21:17–22 209n16 22:13 (21:14) 233, 272n432 22:16 (21:17) 233, 272n432 22:20–21 (21:21–22) 233, 272n432 26:12 498 33:22 163 39:10 47 43:6 499 44:9 148 44:10 148 44:14 148 45:6a 499 54:7 209n16 62:11a 499 64:13–14 499 70:11b–72:4b 194 72:8–9 372 80:10 499

538

INDICES

84:13a–b 47 92:5b 499 101:27 144n25 102:9 (101:10) 297 105:3 77 105:26 499–500 115:6 163 125:2 47 131:9a–b.10a 47 131:13–14 500 141:1 (140:2) 10 149:5b 48

27:11b 502 29:10 516 40:29b 502–503 50:1 503 50:9 144n24 51:8 141, 144n24 53:4 213n34 56:4–5 487 57:21 503 61:2–4 503 64:5b 503 66:1d–2 515

Proverbs 4:14 232, 269n422 6:2 371n19 6:17 371n19 10:6a 500 10:18–19 371n19 10:31 371 13:25b 500 16:26 372 21:10 500 25:20a 141 31:22–24 148

Jeremiah 213 2:7 504 2:21 93 2:29 504 4:11b 504 6:7 504 9:1 292, 296 9:3 372 9:11 504 12:9b 504–505 19:4b 505 22:5b 505 23:14 505 31:6b 505 36:21–24 (43:21–24) 36:23 (43:23) 486

Ecclesiastes 3:19c 500 7:16a 233, 271n428 7:20 233, 272n435 12:6b 500 Song of Songs 1:5a 500–501 1:6a 501 4:3a 501 4:9–10 501 4:9b 501 4:10–11 148 5:1 501 5:10 501 5:11b 501 Isaiah 181 1:2a 501 1:3 502 5:1–7 95 9:17a 502 26:5 502 27:3b–4a 502

Lamentations 1:3a 505 4:2a 506 4:3b–5 506 5:15a 506 Ezekiel 1 496 1:20b 506 5:8b 506 5:11b 506–507 7:5 507 9:10 507 13:10b–11a 507 13:14a 507 13:15 507 13:22 508 16:44b–45a 508 21 495 21:10 508

485

539

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

21:14b–15:16b 508 21:20–21 508–509 21:33b 509 21:35–37 509 34:28 509 Hosea 181 2:5 509 2:11b–[12a] 510 4:4a 510 4:18b–19a 510 5:4 510 6:5a 510 7:13 510 10:13a 510–511 12:1a 511 12:3 511 Joel 1:5c 511 2:13 485

Amos 341–342 Micah 1:13 491 6:1–2a 511 6:13–14a 511 Habakkuk 3:13b–14 512 Haggai 1:9c 512 Zechariah 3:4 296 7:10b.11b–12a 7:13 512

512

Malachi 2:2–3 512–513 2:17b 513 DEUTEROCANONICAL WORKS AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Baruch 495 3:10–11 505 Judith 138, 287 12:3 471

19:16 371n19 38:16–23 289 38:22 289 48:3 385n82 Tobit

Psalms of Solomon 1:5 371n21 12 371n21 Sirach 287 5:13 371n19

138, 287

Wisdom of Solomon 1:11 371n19 2:24 481n1 19:5 380n63

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 192, 194, 227 5:5 260n388 5:16 233, 271n431 5:39b 265n404 6:4 233, 272n433 6:9ff 269n420 6:34 260n389 7:27 270n423 8:17 213n34

10:16 468 13:30a 513 16:19 398 18:15 259n386 19:18 258nn381–382 19:24 339 22:11–13 148 22:37 258n380 22:39 258n380

138, 287

540 24:40

INDICES

513

Mark 180, 191, 192 12:30–31 258n380 Luke 192, 193, 197 1:1–15 197 2:10b–12 513 6:29a 265n404 6:37 513–514 6:46 514 10:27 258n380 11:2ff 269n420 15:7 459 16:23–24 371, 376 18:9–14 232, 270n425 18:11–12 270n427 18:13 270n426 19:42–44 514 21:22a 514 John 180, 186, 190, 193, 195 1:1 42n28 1:23–26 191 3:3 514 5:39 494 8:44a 514 10:27a 515 12:36–13:2 196 14:30 276n453 15:1–8 95 19:38–21:23 196 20:17 515 21:15 515 21:17 515 Acts 4:32 339n94 5:1–11 339n94 5:9–11 369n12 7:47–48a 515 7:49d–50 515 9:31 515 20:19 293, 296 Romans 2:7a 516 3:10 233, 272n435 6:8 460 11:8a 516

12:5 516 14:6 273n440 14:10a 516 1 Corinthians 180 2:1–4 316n42 5:1a 516 5:6 516 6:19b–20a 516–517 10:5 517 13:2b 517 2 Corinthians 2:1–4 482 3:17b 517 6:4–5 490n58 6:16b 517 7:6 484 7:6–7 487 7:9 484 7:10 293, 297 8:16–24 482 10–13 484 11:23–27 490n58 12:7 482 12:8 490n58 13:2 486 Galatians 341, 483 Ephesians 6:12b 517 6:17 517 Philippians 2:8 233, 271n430 4:4 293, 297 1 Thessalonians 4:7 518 2 Timothy 2:20a 518 2:21b 518 Hebrews 4:12a 518 12:8 518 12:16 471 12:23–24 518–519

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

James 1:27 498 3:5–6 371–372 1 Peter 1:16 519 2:5 519 1 John 1:10 233, 272n434 3:8 519

3 John 4 233, 273n438 Revelation 180, 495–496 4 496 11:6 385n82 14:5 225n15, 278n461 14:18 89n45

541

INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL NAMES

Aaron (biblical figure), 435n49 ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Ḥifnī, 266n411 ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī Shaybānī, 228, 264n398 Abraham (patriarch), 147n30, 228, 264, 376 Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ibn alHusayn al-Sulamī, 228, 263n397 Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Husayn, 230, 267n415 Abū Sa‘īd Aḥmad al-Kharrāz al-Baghdādī (Aḥmad ibn ‘Isā), 229, 266n409 Abū Ṭāhir Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā, 228, 262n394 Abū-l-Fayḍ Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, 262n394, 263n396 Abū-l-Ḥasan al-Sīrjānī, 228, 262n395 Abū-l-Qāsim ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibatallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Shāfi‘ī (Ibn ‘Asākir), 230, 266n410 Abū-l-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhsharī, 229, 265n405 Abū-l-Wafā’ al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik, 231n45 Adam and Eve, 92, 166, 341, 435n49 Aelius Aristides, 210 Agathonicus of Tarsus, 407, 408 Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Shā‘ātī, 230, 266n411 Akhmim, 95, 181 Akhnoukh (monk), 352–353 Alexandria, 6, 382, 383, 395, 408, 413, 415, 420, 444 ‘Alī, 229, 265n403 ‘Alī Ḥasan ‘Alī, Ibrāhīm al-Qaysī, 265n401 Ammon of Panopolis, 383 Ammonas, 290, 315 Amphilochius of Iconium, 156n16 Andragathes, 414 Antinoe (female monk), 334, 338 Antioch, 6 Antony, 22, 104, 227n28, 279, 280, 315– 316, 341, 397–399, 444, 446, 452, 485n25 Aphou, 418–419

Aphrodito, 447–448 Apollo, 22, 447 Apollonius of Tyana, 360n15 Aphthonia (female monk), 328–329, 333, 334–335, 337, 342 Aristotle, 483 Arsanis, King of Egypt, 373 Athanasius of Alexandria, 154–155, 162, 164, 182, 285, 286, 287, 288nn12–13, 289–292, 315, 316, 401–402, 446 Augustine of Hippo, 153, 156–158, 159– 160, 166, 208n8, 288 Augustus, Roman Emperor, 199 Bagawat (Kharga Oasis), 92 Bardesanes, 159 Barnabas, 158 Basil of Caesarea, 22, 180, 182, 208–212, 215 Baukalos, 377–378 Bawit Monastery of Apa Apollo, 22n31, 447 Benjamin I of Alexandria, 449 Benjamin II of Alexandria, 348n5 Besa, 82n14, 113, 232, 321–323, 368, 370, 371, 372, 397n28, 413, 416, 444, 446 Boethius, 164 Cairo, 181 Cassian, John, 280 Cassiodorus, 156n17 Celestine of Rome, 414 Chalcedon, 412, 413–415, 417–418, 419– 420 Chossoroas, 162 Christ, 20–23, 148, 225, 227, 228, 237, 262–263n396, 373n29, 416, 444, 445n11, 489 Cicero, 483 Columelle, 83–86, 89n43, 89n45, 90 Constantine, Roman Emperor, 399 Constantine of Siout, 183 Constantinople, 6, 399, 400, 408, 409, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 444 Cyprian of Carthage, 288n13

544

INDICES

Cyril of Alexandria, 291, 407–409, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 420 Cyril of Jerusalem, 155, 156n16, 192 David, King of Israel, 489 Dayr Abū Maqār (Monastery of St. Macarius), 181, 222 Dayr al-Suryān (Monastery of the Syrians), 181, 220 Deborah (biblical figure), 487n37 Deir Anba Hadra, 427n24, 434n42 Deir el-Fakhuri, 427n24 Deir el-Schuhada’, 427n24 Demetrius of Phaleron, 483 Didymus of Alexandria, 139 Dionysius the Areopagite, 184, 185 Dioscorus of Alexandria, 285, 291, 413, 414–415, 420 Ebonh, 101–103, 105–106, 107–108, 109, 312, 485 Edfu, 181 Elias (monk), 448 Elijah (prophet), 13, 14, 256n377, 397, 445n11, 451 Enoch (patriarch), 290 Ephesus, 405–418, 420 Ephrem the Syrian, 198, 227, 268 Epiphanius of Salamis, 156n16, 166, 379n54 Eunomius, 159 Eusebius of Caesarea, 155, 156, 158 Eusebius of Samosata, 209 Evagrius of Pontus, 165, 179, 220, 280, 485n25 Eve and Adam, 92, 166, 341, 435n49 Fayyum, 181, 192, 193, 434n45, 449–450 Firmus of Caesarea, 409 Flavianus (governor), 162 Flavianus of Philippi, 409 Frange, 216, 304 Fronto, 210 Gabriel (archangel), 435n49 Gaza Church of St. Sergios, 20n30 Church of St. Stephen, 20n30 Gelasius I, Pope, 156

Gennadius of Marseilles, 156 George, Saint, 373 Gerasa, 18 Gesios (Flavius Aelius Gessius), 162, 163–164, 305–306, 351–363, 367–371, 376–382, 413 al-Ghazālī, 262n394 Gregory of Nazianzus, 139, 156n16, 180, 227, 268 Gregory of Nyssa, 182–183, 185, 227, 268 Ḥamdī Muḥammad Murād, 265n401 Harpocration of Panopolis, 383 Herai (female monk), 327, 333, 338–339, 342–343 Heraklammon (governor), 162 Hermas, 158 Hermogenes, 409 Hermopolis, 6, 447 Hilary of Poitiers, 288n13 Horsiesi, 315, 418 Ibn ‘Arabī, 229, 266n409 Innocent of Rome, 156n16 Isaac (monk, White Monastery), 331 Isaac (patriarch), 228, 264 Isaak (monk, monastery of Shenoute), 448 Isaiah (prophet), 279, 280, 290 Isidore of Seville, 156 Jacob (patriarch), 228, 264 Jacob, Bishop of Sarug, 220, 280 Ja‘far al-Khalīlī, 267n415 Jakob (monk), 448 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, 228–229, 231, 262n396, 264n400 James the Apostle, 158 Jerome, 153, 156, 158–160, 166, 208n8, 288, 309 Jerusalem, 414 Jesus. See Christ Jirjis al-Abnūbī, 222 John Chrysostom, 179, 182, 187, 280, 376n46, 416, 418 John of Ephesus, 415 John of Lykopolis, 414 John of the Thebaid, 279 Jonas (monk), 312 Joseph (biblical figure), 148, 149n32

INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL NAMES

Joseph Philoxenos, 220, 279 Josephus, 158 Jovinus (comes), 162 Junilius Africanus, 156n17 Jūrj Jurdāq, 265n403 Jusab (monk), 352–353 Juvenal of Jerusalem, 409, 414 Konstantinos (monk), 448 Lazarus (biblical figure), 376 Leo I, Roman Emperor, 415 Libanius of Antioch, 379–380, 483 Longinus of the Ennaton, 414 Lot’s wife, 342 Luke (evangelist), 158 Luqmān the Wise, 228, 262n395 Lykopolis, 395 Macarius of Antioch, 373 Macarius of Egypt, 22, 373, 397 Macarius of Tkoou, 413, 414, 420 Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-Alūsī, 264n401 Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abdallah al-‘Ālūsī, 229 Maḥmūd Ṣāliḥ, 267n414 Marcianus, Roman Emperor, 414, 415 Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 210 Mark (evangelist), 22 Martin of Tours, 452 Martyrius of Pbow, 415, 416 Mary (monk; mother of John), 327–328, 333–334, 335, 336, 337, 342 Mary (monk; sister of Matai), 333, 334, 336, 342 Mary, Virgin, 20–22, 416, 435n49, 444 Matthew (monk), 326n37, 327n32, 337n78, 338 Meletius (physician), 209 Memnon of Ephesus, 409 Michael (archangel), 401, 415, 445 Mikhā’īl al-Jāwlī, 222 Monastery of Apa Elijah, 448 Monastery of al-Muḥarraq, 222 Monastery of Phoibammon, 452–453 Monastery of Shenoute (Fayum), 449 Monastery of St. Katherine, 10n19 Monastery of St. Macarius (Dayr Abū Maqār), 181, 222 Monastery of St. Thomas, 180

545

Monastery of the Syrians (Dayr al-Suryān), 181, 220 Moses (biblical figure), 20, 22, 148, 290, 310 Moyses (monk), 449 Muḥammad (prophet), 227, 229, 264n401 Muḥammad Abū-l-Hudā, 267n413 Muḥammad al-Amīn ibn ‘Abdallāh al-Uramī al-‘Alawī al-Hararī al-Shāfi‘ī, 265n401, 266n413 Muḥammad al-Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍāwī, 262n395 Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn (Abū Ja‘far/al-Bāqir), 229, 266n408 Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Anṣārī, 231n45 Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad Māzandarānī, 230, 267n414 Mu’min ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shablanjī, 266n408 Nestorius, 407–410, 413 Nicaea, 418 Novatian, 159 Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abdallah ibn Ḥumayyid Sālimī, 230, 266n412 Odolla (biblical figure), 487n37 Origen, 138–139, 155n12, 159 Pachme (Topos of Shenoute), 448 Pachomius, 22, 104, 279, 280, 309–319, 369n14, 397, 415, 444, 446, 485n25 Palamon, 312, 313–314, 316 Palladas, 376–380, 382 Palladius of Amasea, 409 Palladius of Galatia, 309–311 Pamprepius, 415 Panopolis (Aḫmīm/Shmin), 95, 351, 370, 382–383, 395, 401, 444, 447–48 Papnoute of Tabennisi, 414, 415, 420 Paul the Apostle, 158, 293, 341, 444, 482–484, 486–487, 490 Paul of Tamma, 290 Pbow (monastery), 318, 415 Pcol, 22, 105, 121, 332, 445n11, 446n15, 485 Peter (monk), 314 Peter (primicerius), 409

546

INDICES

Peter the Apostle, 158 Peter I of Alexandria, 22 Peter of Parembole, 409 Petronius, 312, 315, 316 Philo of Alexandria, 139, 146n28, 147n29, 158, 159 Philostorgius, 379n54 Philotheus of Antioch, 373, 374 Phoibammon, 452–453 Pisentius, 373 Pjol. See Pcol Pliny the Elder, 83n19, 92n53, 92n55 Pneueit, 300, 301 Porphyry of Tyre, 157 Possidius, 157 Priscillian, 159 Proclus, 408 Pshoi, 444 Ptolemy, 432 Pulcheria, 414 Ravenna Arian Baptistery, 22n34 Orthodox Baptistery, 10n19, 12n21, 22n34 Red Monastery, 4, 6n12, 9, 10n16, 10n18, 12, 13n22, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22n33, 166, 168, 427n24, 434n42, 444, 445 Rome San Paolo fuori le Mura, 12n21 Santa Maria in Trastevere, 10n19 Santa Maria Maggiore, 12n21 St. Peter’s Basilica, 10n19 Rufinus, 155n12, 156n16 Saqqara, 22n31 Sarah (biblical figure), 487n37 Seneca, 158, 159 Šeneset (monastery), 312–313, 314n28 Serapion of Thmuis, 188, 399

Severian of Gabala, 182 Severus of Antioch, 182, 184 Silas (presbyter), 414 Simon Magus, 166 Sisinnios (eunuch), 416 Šmin (monastery), 314n28 Sozomen, 310 Stephen the Protomartyr, 22 Stephen of the Thebaid, 281, 290 Suetonius, 199 Tabennisi, 309, 313, 316 Tacitus, 104 Tall Brothers, 418 Talou (female monk), 327–328, 333–334, 335, 336, 337, 342 Tatian, 159 Tebtunis, 374 Thbew (monastery), 312–313 Thebaid, 285, 352, 368, 382 Thebes, 167 Monastery of Epiphanios, 448 Theodore of Tabennisi, 279, 290–291, 311, 312, 315, 397n28, 418 Theodosius II, Roman Emperor, 408–409, 414, 415, 444 Theophilus of Alexandria, 290n22, 291, 413, 416, 418–419 Theopistus of Alexandria, 414 Thmoušons (monastery), 312–313 Thomas the Apostle, 373n26 Timotheus Aelurus, 411, 415 Titus, 482, 484, 487 Tsmine (monastery), 314n28 Tura Monastery of Arsenius, 199 Victor of Tabennisi, 304, 408–409, 412– 413, 414, 415, 416, 417–418, 419–420

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA 1. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. 2. J. QUAEGEBEUR, Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. 3. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia. 4. W.M. CALLEWAERT, The Sarvangī of the Dadupanthī Rajab. 5. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I. 6. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. 7. M.-C. DE GRAEVE, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000-500 B.C.). 8. W.M. CALLEWAERT (ed.), Early Hindī Devotional Literature in Current Research. 9. F.L. DAMEN, Crisis and Religious Renewal in the Brahmo Samaj Movement (1860-1884). 10. R.Y. EBIED, A. VAN ROEY, L.R. WICKHAM, Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier. 11. A. RAMMANT-PEETERS, Les pyramidions égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. 12. S. SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua. 13. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua. 14. E. PLATTI, Yahya ibn ῾Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe. 15. E. GUBEL, E. LIPIŃSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Studia Phoenicia I-II. 16. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies. 17. M. VAN MOL, Handboek Modern Arabisch. 18. C. LAGA, J.A. MUNITIZ, L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. 19. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. 20. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. 21. K. VAN LERBERGHE, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. 22. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. 23. M. HELTZER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C.). 24. M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. 25. G. POLLET (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. 26. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Carthago. 27. E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. 28. R. ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. 29. W. CALLEWAERT, M. LATH, The Hindī Songs of Namdev. 30. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. 31. N. BAUM, Arbres et arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne. 32. J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIe-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes relatifs à l’initation des prêtres d’Amon. 33. H. DEVIJVER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Punic Wars. 34. E. VASSILIKA, Ptolemaic Philae. 35. A. GHAITH, La Pensée Religieuse chez Gubrân Halil Gubrân et Mihâ᾿îl Nu῾ayma. 36. N. BEAUX, Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. 37. G. POLLET, P. EGGERMONT, G. VAN DAMME, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae. Part II: Archaeological Sites. 38. S.-A. NAGUIB, Le Clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21e dynastie. 39. U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. 40. A.R. GEORGE, Babylonian Topographical Texts. 41. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qohelet. Part I: Grammatical Features.

42. G. REININK, H.E.J. VAN STIPHOUT (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 43. C. TRAUNECKER, Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. 44. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible. 45. L. ISEBAERT (ed.), Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens dicata. 46. F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. 47. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. 48. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Medioiranica. 49. L. LAUWERS, Igor’-Severjanin, His Life and Work — The Formal Aspects of His Poetry. 50. R.L. VOS, The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. 51. F. LABRIQUE, Stylistique et Théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition. 52. F. DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. 53. G. BREYER, Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluß des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. 54. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaign in Southern Punjab. 55. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. 56. A. VAN ROEY, P. ALLEN, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. 57. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. 58. F.R. HERBIN, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. 59. K. GEUS, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. 60. A. SCHOORS, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii. 61. M. KRAUSE, S. GIVERSEN, P. NAGEL (eds.), Coptology. Past, Present and Future. Studies in Honour of R. Kasser. 62. C. LEITZ, Altägyptische Sternuhren. 63. J.J. CLÈRE, Les Chauves d’Hathor. 64. E. LIPIŃSKI, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. 65. K. VAN LERBERGHE, A. SCHOORS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. 66. G. POLLET (ed.), Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its impact. 67. D. DE SMET, La quiétude de l’Intellect. Néoplatonisme et gnose ismaélienne dans l’œuvre de Hamîd ad-Dîn al-Kirmânî (Xe-XIe s.). 68. M.L. FOLMER, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation. 69. S. IKRAM, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. 70. H. WILLEMS, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. 71. C. EDER, Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. 72. J. THIRY, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du Nord médiévale. 73. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras I. 74. P. ARÈNES, La déesse sGrol-Ma (Tara). Recherches sur la nature et le statut d’une divinité du bouddhisme tibétain. 75. K. CIGGAAR, A. DAVIDS, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations I. 76. M. BROZE, Mythe et Roman en Égypte ancienne. Les Aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. 77. L. DEPUYDT, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. 78. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu.

79. A. HASNAWI, A. ELAMRANI, M. JAMAL, M. AOUAD (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. 80. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 81. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara I. Traduction. 82. C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. 83. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II. 84-85. W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. 86. U. VERMEULEN, J.M. VAN REETH (eds.), Law, Christianity and Modernism in Islamic Society. 87. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Philosophy and Arts in the Islamic World. 88. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara II. Traduction. 89. G.J. REININK, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers. 90. C.R. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. 91. M. TAHTAH, Entre pragmatisme, réformisme et modernisme. Le rôle politicoreligieux des Khattabi dans le Rif (Maroc) jusqu’à 1926. 92. K. CIGGAAR, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations II. 93. A.C.J. VERHEIJ, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim. A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. 94. W.M. CALLEWAERT, D. TAILLIEU, F. LALEMAN, A Descriptive Bibliography of Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). 95. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara III. Traduction. 96. K. VAN LERBERGHE, G. VOET (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. 97. A. CABROL, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. 98. J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Monastic Life, Liturgy, Theology, Literature, Art, Archaeology. 99. U.VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift. 100. E. LIPIŃSKI, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. 101. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara IV. Traduction. 102. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III. 103. H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. 104. K. GEUS, K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. 105. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les fêtes d’Hathor. 106. R. PREYS, Les complexes de la demeure du sistre et du trône de Rê. Théologie et décoration dans le temple d’Hathor à Dendera. 107. A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. 108. S. LEDER (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. 109. A. GODDEERIS, Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). 110. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band I. 111. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band II. 112. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band III. 113. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band IV. 114. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band V. 115. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VI. 116. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VII. 117. M. VAN MOL, Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts.

118. M.F.J. BAASTEN, W.T. VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 119. O.E. KAPER, The Egyptian God Tutu. A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. 120. E. WARDINI, Lebanese Place-Names (Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon). 121. J. VAN DER VLIET, Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.). 122. A. ŁAJTAR, Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek). 123. H. NIEHR, Ba῾alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. 124. H. WILLEMS, F. COPPENS, M. DE MEYER, P. DILS, The Temple of Shanhûr. Volume I: The Sanctuary, The Wabet, and the Gates of the Central Hall and the Great Vestibule (1-98). 125. K. CIGGAAR, H.G.B. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations III. 126. T. SOLDATJENKOVA, E. WAEGEMANS (eds.), For East is East. Liber Amicorum Wojciech Skalmowski. 127. E. LIPIŃSKI, Itineraria Phoenicia. 128. D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechischrömischen Zeit. Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des Interkulturellen Kontakts. 129. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VIII. 130. E.J. VAN DER STEEN, Tribes and Territories in Transition. 131. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Traduction. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 132. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Index phraséologique. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 133. M. IMMERZEEL, J. VAN DER VLIET, M. KERSTEN, C. VAN ZOEST (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. 134. J.J. VAN GINKEL, H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, T.M. VAN LINT (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. 135. J. MONTGOMERY (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6-10 July 2002. 136. T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. 137. B. JANSSENS, B. ROOSEN, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 138. S. HENDRICKX, R.F. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIAŁOWICZ, M. CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. 139. R. ARNZEN, J. THIELMANN (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science. 140. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IV. 141. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume I: Arabic text. 142. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène. 143. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II: Vocabulary. 144. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 1. 145. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 2.

146. M. CACOUROS, M.-H. CONGOURDEAU (eds.), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission. 147. K. CIGGAAR, M. METCALF (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean I. 148. B. MICHALAK-PIKULSKA, A. PIKULSKI (eds.), Authority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam. 149. E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. 150. J.-Cl. GOYON, C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues. Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004. 151. S. SANDRI, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. 152. J.E. MONTGOMERY (ed.), Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. 153. E. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches. 154. M. MINAS-NERPEL, Der Gott Chepri. Untersuchungen zu Schriftzeugnissen und ikonographischen Quellen vom Alten Reich bis in griechisch-römische Zeit. 155. H. WILLEMS, Dayr al-Barsha Volume I. The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3). With an Essay on the History and Nature of Nomarchal Rule in the Early Middle Kingdom. 156. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. 157. A. CAMPLANI, G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism. 158. J. TAVERNIER, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. 159. P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean. 160. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. 161. B. LURSON, Osiris, Ramsès, Thot et le Nil. Les chapelles secondaires des temples de Derr et Ouadi es-Seboua. 162. G. DEL OLMO LETE (ed.), Mythologie et Religion des Sémites occidentaux. 163. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS (eds.), Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin - 3 juillet 2004. 164. A. BERLEJUNG, P. VAN HECKE (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 165. A.G.C. SAVVIDES, Byzantino-Normannica. The Norman Capture of Italy and the First Two Invasions in Byzantium. 166. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded (Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf). Volume II: English translation, introduction and notes. 167. S. ARGUILLÈRE, Profusion de la vaste sphère. Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet, 1308-1364). Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine. 168. D. DE SMET, Les Épîtres sacrées des Druzes. Rasa᾿il al-Hikma. Volumes 1 et 2. 169. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V. 170. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, J.W. DRIJVERS, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. 171. K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam. Studies in Honour of Professor Urbain Vermeulen. 172. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2.

173. J.H.F. DIJKSTRA, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE). 174. I. UYTTERHOEVEN, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. 175. P. KOUSOULIS (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. 176. A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora Church. 177. J. NAWAS (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Leuven, 28 June - 1 July 2004. 178. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume I: Traduction. 179. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume II: Analyse à la lumière du temple d’Hathor. 180. M. ZITMAN, The Necropolis of Assiut. 181. E. LIPIŃSKI, Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. 182. C. KARLSHAUSEN, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. 183. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI. 184. M. IMMERZEEL, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. 185. D. MAGEE, J. BOURRIAU, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Sitting Beside Lepsius. Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. 186. A. STEVENSON, The Predynastic Egyptian Cemetery of el-Gerzeh. 187. D. BUMAZHNOV, E. GRYPEOU, T.B. SAILORS, A. TOEPEL (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag. 188. J. ELAYI, A.G. ELAYI, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Century BCE). 189. F. HAGEN, J. JOHNSTON, W. MONKHOUSE, K. PIQUETTE, J. TAIT, M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Literary and Linguistic Approaches. 190. V. VAN DER STEDE, Les pratiques de stockage au Proche-Orient ancien du Natoufien à la première moitié du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. 191. W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. 192. M. MARÉE (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects. 193. I. JACOBS, Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The ‘Classical’ City from the 4th to the 7th c. AD. 194. H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen. 195. I. REGULSKI, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. 196. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIII. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Façade et colonnes. 197. M. KUHN, Koptische liturgische Melodien. Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia. 198. B. SNELDERS, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. 199. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean II. 200. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics III. 201. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Parois intérieures. 202. K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. 203. F.S. JONES, Pseudoclementina Elchasaiticaque inter Judaeochristiana. Collected Studies.

204. D. ASTON, B. BADER, C. GALLORINI, P. NICHOLSON, S. BUCKINGHAM (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. 205. R.F. FRIEDMAN, P.N. FISKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. 206. S. DORPMUELLER (ed.), Fictionalizing the Past: Historical Characters in Arabic Popular Epic. 207. G. CONTU (ed.), Centre and Periphery within the Borders of Islam. 208. B. MAHIEU, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition. 209. M.M. BAR-ASHER, A. KOFSKY, Kitab al-Ma῾arif by Abu Sa῾īd Maymun b. Qasim al-Tabaranī. Critical Edition with an Introduction. 210. M. DE MEYER, Dayr al-Barsha Volume II. First Intermediate Period Restoration of Old Kingdom Tombs. 211. R. EL-SAYED, Afrikanischstämmiger Lehnwortschatz im älteren Ägyptisch. 212. P. VAN DEUN, C. MACÉ (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? 213. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Plafond et parois extérieures. 214. L. EVANS (ed.), Ancient Memphis, “Enduring is the Perfection”. 215. V. KLEMM, N. AL-SHA῾AR (eds.), Sources and Approaches across Disciplines in Near Eastern Studies. 216. A.M. BAGG, Die Assyrer und das Westland. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. 217. B. BADER, M.F. OWNBY (eds.), Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. 218. F. HAGEN, An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of Ptahhotep. 219. I. REGULSKI, K. DUISTERMAAT, P. VERKINDEREN (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. 220. T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe. 221. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor : Analyse de la décoration. 222. N. TACKE, Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. 223. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. 224. J. YOYOTTE, Histoire, géographie et religion de l’Égypte ancienne. Opera selecta. Textes édités et indexés par Ivan Guermeur. 225. H. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume III: A Lexicon of 17th-century Egyptian Arabic. 226. A. CILARDO (ed.), Islam and Globalisation. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 227. S. BROCK, L. VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). 228. G. POLLET, G. VAN DAMME, F. DEPUYDT, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae III: Indian Toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts. 229. M. DEPAUW, S. COUSSEMENT (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. 230. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. 231. M. DEPAUW, Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies. 232. S.H. AUFRÈRE, P.S. ALEXANDER, Z. PLEŠE (eds.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. 233. C. WAERZEGGERS, Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. 234. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 235. M. SOKOLOFF, Texts of Various Contents in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

236. R.A. FAZZINI, J. VAN DIJK (eds.), The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions. 237. E. LIPIŃSKI, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. 238. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Harsomtous. 239. A.S. LA LOGGIA, Engineering and Construction in Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period. 240. A.H. PRIES (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. 241. P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22-29 May 2008. 242. P. COLLOMBERT, D. LEFÈVRE, S. POLIS, J. WINAND (eds.), Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus. 243. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 244. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VIII. 245. B. BADER, C.M. KNOBLAUCH, E.C. KÖHLER (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. 246. J. VAN DIJK (ed.), Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin. 247. P. BUZI, A. CAMPLANI, F. CONTARDI (eds.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. 248. M. REINKOWSKI, M. WINET (eds.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Europe and Beyond. Études arabes et islamiques en Europe et au-delà. 249. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 250. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV. 251. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 252. M.D. ADAMS, B. MIDANT-REYNES, E.M. RYAN, Y. TRISTANT (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 4. 253. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 3. 254. J. HÄMEEN-ANTTILA, P. KOSKIKALLIO, I. LINDSTEDT (eds.), Contacts and Interaction. 255. J. STAUDER-PORCHET, Les autobiographies de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. 256. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS, S. AUFRÈRE (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy. 257. S. BICKEL, L. DÍAZ-IGLESIAS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Literature. 258. L. MUEHLETHALER, G. SCHWARB, S. SCHMIDTKE (eds.), Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam. 259. M. IMMERZEEL, The Narrow Way to Heaven. Identity and Identities in the Art of Middle Eastern Christianity. 260. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, E.M. RYAN (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 5. 261. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 262. G. MINIACI, M. BETRÒ, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). 263. D. BRAKKE, S.J. DAVIS, S. EMMEL (eds.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton. 264. R. DEKKER, Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt. Bishops of the Theban Region at Work. 265. C. JURMAN, B. BADER, D. ASTON (eds.), A True Scribe of Abydos. Essays on First Millennium Egypt in Honour of Anthony Leahy. 266. M. WISSA (ed.), Scribal Practices and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Medieval Islam. 267. E. LIPIŃSKI, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire.

268. A. BATMAZ, G. BEDIANASHVILI, A. MICHALEWICZ, A. ROBINSON (eds.), Context and Connection. Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. 269. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean III. 270. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 273. M. HONEGGER (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. 274. M. ABOU-ABDALLAH, L’histoire du royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080-333. 275. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Israel. 276. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. 277. C. WAERZEGGERS, M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. 278. K. D’HULSTER, G. SCHALLENBERGH, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IX. 279. M.-J. ROCHE, Inscriptions nabatéennes datées de la fin du IIe siècle avant notre ère au milieu du IVe siècle. 280. W. CLARYSSE, A.I. BLASCO TORRES (eds.), Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur. 281. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, G. JANS (eds.), About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape. 282. J. LEEMANS, G. ROSKAM, J. SEGERS (eds.), John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala: Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians. 283. A. PELLITTERI, M.G. SCIORTINO, D. SICARI, N. ELSAKAAN (eds.), Re-defining a Space of Encounter. Islam and Mediterranean: Identity, Alterity and Interactions. 284. E. DESPOTAKIS, John Plousiadenos (1423?-1500). A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career. 285. J.-M. DAHMS, Die Särge des Karenen. Untersuchungen zu Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten. 286. A. BUCOSSI, A. CALIA (eds.), Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos. The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. 287. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah. 288. M. CONTERNO, M. MAZZOLA (eds.), Intercultural Exchange in Late Antique Historiography. 289. A.R. WARFE, J.C.R. GILL, C.R. HAMILTON, A.J. PETTMAN, D.A. STEWART (eds.), Dust, Demons and Pots. Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope. 290. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Catalogue des dieux et des offrandes. 291. D. OLTEAN, Devenir moine à Byzance. Coutumes sociales, règles monastiques et rituels liturgiques. 292. M.M. GROß, At the Heart of an Empire: The Royal Household in the Neo-Assyrian Period. 293. Å. ENGSHEDEN, Ancient Place-Names in the Governorate of Kafr el-Sheikh. 294. M.L. AGATI, Il De tragoedia “barocciano”. Una rivisitazione cinquant’anni dopo. 295. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Hymnes à Hathor et à Isis. 296. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les structures décoratives du temple d’Hathor. 297. S.H. AUFRÈRE, C. SPIESER (eds.), Le microcosme animal en Égypte ancienne. De l’effroi à la vénération. 298. A. RIGO, Gregorio Palamas, Tomo aghioritico. La storia, il testo e la dottrina. 299. V.W.J. VAN GERVEN OEI, A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian. 300. A. MASSON-BERGHOFF, Le quartier des prêtres dans le temple d’Amon à Karnak. 301. R. AST, M. CHOAT, J. CROMWELL, J. LOUGOVAYA, R. YUEN-COLLINGRIDGE (eds.), Observing the Scribe at Work: Scribal Practice in the Ancient World. 302. V. BOSCHLOOS, B. OVERLAET, I.M. SWINNEN, V. VAN DER STEDE (eds.), Travels through the Orient and the Mediterranean World. Essays Presented to Eric Gubel.

303. E.C. KÖHLER, N. KUCH, F. JUNGE, A.-K. JESKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 6. 304. N. BUCHEZ, Y. TRISTANT, O. ROCHECOUSTE (eds.), Égypte antérieure. Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis. 305. W. CLAES, M. DE MEYER, M. EYCKERMAN, D. HUYGE (eds.), Remove that Pyramid! Studies on the Archaeology and History of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt in Honour of Stan Hendrickx. 306. M. CACOUROS, J.-H. SAUTEL (eds.), Des cahiers à l’histoire de la culture à Byzance. Hommages à Paul Canart, codicologue (1927-2017). 307. E. LIPIŃSKI, Études d’histoire biblique. 308. T. MURAOKA, The Community Rule 1QS, 1QSa and 1QSb. A Philological Commentary. 309. V. DUCA, ‘Exploring Finitude’: Weakness and Integrity in Isaac of Nineveh. 310. A. BOUD’HORS (ed.), The Rediscovery of Shenoute. Studies in Honor of Stephen Emmel. 311. R.T. RIDLEY, The Birth of History: From the Third Millennium to Herodotos.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME SUR

PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706