No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Although the existence of 12 Armenian manuscripts in the Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies has been known to scholars for some time and partial listings of their contents have appeared, they have not as yet been the subject of any more detailed publication. The collection features only one gospelbook which, in consequence of losing its original binding, also lacks its final colophon which would inform us precisely on such matters as date, provenance and, where appropriate, patron.
From other data the copyist can be identified as Movsēs. Moreover, since he describes himself simply as scribe (grič‘), we may deduce that he occupied only one of the minor clerical orders. He refers to assistance he received in lining the manuscript, which probably explains the awkwardness of the openings of two of the gospels where, despite the page being arranged as usual for two columns of writing, the scribe has elected to ignore the divisions and treat it as one. Similarly, his reference to his teacher confirms the impression left by his employment of the diminutive grč‘ak at one point that he was still under instruction in the art at a monastery. This is further compatible with the comparatively low level of technical excellence exhibited by the illuminations. Paleographically, the codex might be assigned to the seventeenth century, a date supported by some of the later grammatical forms which appear in the surviving colophons.
1 They will however be part of the major Union Catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in the United Kingdom libraries and institutions currently being prepared by Dr. Vrej Nersessian, to be published by the British Library with the assistance of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
2 A paper triangle on the front cover bears an ink inscription ‘Homilies in the Armenian language & character, with illuminated figures’, indicating the work's initial classification. Later this designation was deleted and replaced by ‘The Four Gospels’ in pencil.
3 As this was a fairly common Armenian clerical name (see Ačaryan, H., Hayoc' anjnanunneri baṙaran [Armenian Prosopographical Dictionary] (Beirut: Sevan: 1972), III, 419–49)Google Scholar it is hardly possible to trace the copyist more precisely.
4 See the discussion on p. 364.
5 f.217v. See further p. 364.
6 At the foot of f.lr is a note in pencil ‘Marsden Collect. 802’. Subsequently the number was deleted and the present number 11521 inserted below. The current binding seems to have been commissioned by SOAS since a stamp inscribed ‘School of Oriental Studies’ appears on the spine.
7 With the recognition that f.250 belongs to the fourth quire the anomalous twenty-third fascicle (ff.243–55) reverts to this norm.
8 ‘Stand at prayer before your Father in secret and the Father…;’.
9 Not vi:7 as noted in pencil in the lower left margin of f.14v.
10 ‘Your (Father) wo sees in secret.’
11 ‘For where your treasure is, there…’.
12 ‘Also your hearts will be.’
13 ‘Until now in the king-.‘ Cf. the form ark'ayutiwn in the printed text (ed. Zohrapean, V., Astuacašunč‘ matean hin ew nor ktakaranac’ [Sacred scriptures of the Old and New Testaments], Venice: St. Lazar's Press, 1805, 655Google Scholar) and the Greek **⋯ βασιλεῖα τ⋯v οὐραv⋯v βι⋯ξεται.
14 Square brackets are employed throughout to resolve scribal abbreviations.
15 ‘-dom of heaven.’
16 ‘And he sent and decapitated Jo-.’
17 ‘-hn in prison.’
18 (Not 15: 3 as stated in the lower margin of f.15v). ‘When they eat bread.’
19 ‘He replied.’
20 ‘They said to him.’
21 ‘Why did Moses command?’
22 ‘And you will love your brother as yourself.’
23 See ff.81r and 133r for the parallel information regarding Matthew and Mark and cf. f.133v for the data on Luke. The manuscript is hybrid in this regard since it incorporates two different kinds of material. It appends a t'eladrut'iwn (biographical sketch) to the first two gospels while opening the third with a naxadrut'iwn (introduction). The one on Matthew may be compared with MS M214 and that on Mark with M257. For details see (ed.) Eganyan, O., et al. , Mayr C'uc'ak hayerēn jeṙagrac’ Maštoc'i anuan Matenadarani [Grand Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts at the Maštoc’ Matenadaran], I (Erevan: Armenian Academy, 1984)Google Scholar, cols. 969 and 1094 respectively.
24 See esp. f.3r.
25 ‘Book of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David…I am with you all the days until the end of the world.’
26 ‘Gospel according to Matthew. The evangelist Matthew, seven years after the Saviour's ascension…which contains 355 sections and 68 main gospel lections.’
27 ‘Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God…and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.’
28 ‘Gospel according to Mark. Mark wrote his gospel at the behest of Peter the rock…Mark (means) high rampart or protection over the roof.’
29 Introduction to the gospel of Luke. Luke, the disciple of Peter wrote the gospel according to Luke…it relates the baptism by John and his (Jesus's) being on the mountain.
30 For an overview of the textual problems relating to the conclusion of St. Mark's gospel see Metzger, B. M., The text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 226–8Google Scholar.
31 The use of the term or as a conjunction is post-classical and an indication of the manuscript's later date. See Karst, J., Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen (Strassburg: Trübner, 1901), §449, 405Google Scholar.
32 ‘Read at Ascension and note that it was written later. Arising on the morning, Jesus…and they established the word with all signs which followed them.’ According to earlier practice in continuity with Hagiopolite tradition Luke 24:41–53 was read at the Ascension (Renoux, A., Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121, Patrologia Orientalis, XXXVI, 2, Turnhout: Brepols, 1971, 339Google Scholar). The above rubric reflects the contemporary situation (Čašoc’ Girk’ hayastaneayc’ aṙak'elakan surb ekekc'woy [Lectionary of the Holy, Apostolic Armenian Church] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1967)Google Scholar, kanon srboy hambarjman [Canon of the Holy Ascension], 3).
33 ‘Since many have been disposed to set in order once more the account…and they were constantly in the temple, praising and blessing God.’
34 Round brackets here denote characters not clearly legible.
35 ‘In the beginning was the Word…I think that not even the world would be sufficient to hold all the books which might be written.’
36 Here the scribe has neglected to mark the abbreviation: the full form is aw[e]t[a]r[a]nč‘i.
37 The scribe has also been careless in other respects. One indication of this is the amount of corrections he was forced to make in order to rectify textual omissions by parablepsis (ff.l lr, 20v, 23v, 61v, 88r, 113v, 220v, 221r, 252v, 258r). On the significance of this type of error in Armenian textual transmission see Cowe, S. P., ‘The Armenian version of the Epistle of Jeremiah: parent text and translation technique’, in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leuven 1989, (ed.) Cox, C. E. (Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 374Google Scholar.
38 In the case of the fourth gospel it is Prochorus who is seated (f.218v).
39 The author of the brief description on paper attached to the first flyleaf at the front has oodly interpreted the figure as a self-portrait: ‘Four portraits of the evangelists’: the one of John, presumably blessing ‘Moses, the stupid scribe’. (The citation alludes to the colophon on f.217v.)