Michael FEATHERSTONE
Privatdozent Institut für Altertumswissenschaften und byzantinische Welt rue Pierre-Aeby 16 CH-1700 Fribourg Tél. : + 41(0)26 300 78 35 Fax : + 41(0)26 300 97 14
Chargé de recherche CNRS CESOR/EHESS 10, rue Monsieur le Prince F-75006 Paris Tél : + 33 (0)1 53 10 54 30
Maison française d'Oxford 2-10 Norham Road GB-Oxford OX2 6SE Tél. : +44 (0)1865 274 220 [email protected] [email protected]
Dr habil., Universität Freiburg [CH] A.B./Ph.D. Universität Harvard
Forschungsgebiet Byzantinistik
Forschungsprojekte - Dechiffrierung und Edition der Palimpsestfragmente von Vatopedi und Istanbul des De Cerimoniis, in Zusammenarbeit mit Jana Gruskova (Bratislava) und Otto Kresten (Wien) im Rahmen des im Juni 2012 begonnenen Projekts Nr. P24523-G19 'Important textual witnesses in Vienna Greek palimpsests' des Austrian Science Fund (FWF); vgl. Projekthomepage unter: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/byzantine-research/language-text- and-script/book-culture-palaeography-and-palimpsests/greek-palimpsests/project-fwf- p-24523/ - Edition des Buches VI von Theophanes Continuatus (Series Berolinensis, CFHB). - Edition der Chronographia Brevis von Nicephoros, patriarchen von Konstantinopel -in Zusammenarbeit mit Juan Signes (Valladolid).
Neuste Publikationen - Der Grosse Palast von Konstantinopel: Tradition oder Erfindung?, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106, 2013, 19-38. - De Cerimoniis : The Revival of Antiquity in the Great Palace and the 'Macedonian Renaissance', in: The Byzantine Court : Source of Power and Culture, in: N. Necipoglu— A. Ödekan—E. Akyürek (Hg.), The Byzantine Court: Source of Power and Culture [2nd International Sevgi Gonül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul 21-23 June 2010], Istanbul 2013, 137-142. - Luxury in the Palace : the buildings of Theophilus, Istanbul Arastirmalari Yilligi 2, 2013, 33-40. - Basil the Nothos as Compiler: the De Cerimoniis and Theophanes Continuatus, in: I. Perez- Martin—J. Signes-Codoner (Hg.), The Transmission of Byzantine Texts between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung [LECTIO 2], Turnhout 2014, 353-372. - Византийские иконы как маркеры култьуры, in: Современные проблемы изучения истории Церкви. Сборник докладов международной конфереции. МГУ им. Ломоносова, Moskau 2014, 355-374. - Space and Ceremony in the Great Palace of Constantinople under the Macedonian Dynasty, in: LXII Settimana di studio del CISAM—Le corti nell’alto medioevo, Spoleto 2015, 587- 610. - Icons and Cultural Identity, in: L'aniconisme dans l'art religieux byzantin. Actes du colloque de Genève, 1-4 octobre 2009, ed. M. Campagnolo—P. Magdalino—M. Martiniani-Reber— A.-L. Rey, Genf 2015, 105-113. - The Everyday Palace in the Tenth Century, in: M. Featherstone—J.-M. Spieser—G. Tanman— U. Wulf-Rheidt (Hg.), The Emperor's House: Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism [Urban Spaces], Berlin 2015, 149-158. - Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Libri I-IV recensuerunt anglice verterunt indicibus instruxerunt J. M. Featherstone et J. Signes-Codoner nuper repertis schedis Caroli de Boor adiuvantibus, [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XLII/1], Berlin 2015.
Online - ‘The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf‘ : http://lettres.unifr.ch/de/sprachen-literaturen/klassische- philologie/mitarbeiter/michael-featherstone.html
Zu erscheinen - Sakraler Raum und Prozessionen im Grossen Palast von Konstantinopel im 10. Jahrhundert, dans : M. Luchterhand—H. Röckelein (éd.), Palatium Sacrum. Sakralität am Hof des Mittelalters. Orte—Dinge—Rituale, Regensburg. - Relics of the Passion in the Church of the Pharos in the Account of the usurpation of John Komnenos 'the Fat', in: Medieval Texts on Byzantine Art and Aesthetics, vol. 3. From Alexios I Komnenos to the rise of Hesychasm (1081- ca. 1330), ed. Ph. Spingou, Cambridge. - Iterum Theophanes Continuatus VI, in: Constantinople: Queen of Cities. Festschrift for Paul Magdalino. ed. D. Smythe—Sh. Tougher, London. - Theophilus's Margarites: the 'Apsed Hall' of the Walker Trust?, in: Scritti celebrativi per Alessandra Guiglia Guidobaldi, ed. †Cl. Barsanti—A. Paribene—S. Pedone, Rome.
1*
PROLEGOMENA 2* Prolegomena 3*
1. The Texts in Vat. Gr. 167
The nature of the three separate texts comprised in the historical compilation known commonly as Theophanes Continuatus (hereafter ThCont) has been discussed recently by Cyril Mango in his introduction to Ihor Sˇevˇcenko’s edi- tion of the second text, the Vita Basilii (hereafter VBas), in this same Berlin series of the CFHB.1 We limit ourselves here to a recapitulation of the main points, with a few complementary remarks. The compilation is preserved in only one Byzantine manuscript, Vat. gr. 167 (XI c.), of which more details will be given below in section 2. The first of the three texts – let us call it Text I – a new edition of which we present here, consists of four Books numbered I–IV in the manuscript and in the previous editions by François Combéfis in the Paris corpus (1685) and Immanuel Bekker in the Bonn corpus (1838). The four Books, divided by reigns of the emperors Leo V (815–820), Michael II (820–829), Theophilus (829–842) and Michael III (842–867) respectively, are preceded by separate titles in majus- cule, but the preface intended for all four is inserted after the title of the first book, not before it, as in the previous editions.2 Following the four Books of the first text, Combéfis and Bekker numbered the second text – let us call it Text II – which continues the historical nar- rative with the reign of Basil I (867–886), as ‘Book V’. There is no such number in the manuscript, but the text is separated from the previous four books on f. 72v by an undulating line and a title in majuscule followed by an- other preface, ostensibly written by the emperor Constantine VII himself. Finally, on f. 124 begins Text III – Combéfis’s and Bekker’s Book VI – which, again, is unnumbered in the manuscript but separated by an undulat- ing line from the previous narrative. This text has no preface to inform the reader of the author or purpose, but simply brief titles announcing the reigns of Leo VI (886–912), Alexander (912–913), Constantin VII (913–920), Romanus I Lekapenos (920–944), Constantine VII as sole ruler (944–959) and Romanus II (959–963), in whose reign the text breaks off in AD 961 with the loss of a final folio (or bifolium) at the end of the manuscript.3 Despite the apparent unity of this work divided into reigns, scholars have noted that Text III is a composite of two texts. The first part (Text IIIa), treating the
1 Mango 2013; cf. Signes 1995, vii–xiii; Featherstone 2011, 115–122; Featherstone 2012, 123–125; Featherstone 2014, 359–361. 2 Infra I. Prooem, 1–36. 3 See section 2 below. 4* Prolegomena period from the reign of Leo VI to the exile and death of Romanus I (886–948), is critical of the Macedonian dynasty, whereas the second part (Text IIIb), the account of the sole rule of Constantine and his son Ro- manus II (944–963), is quite favourable to the Macedonians.4 The presentation in the Vaticanus indicates that Texts II and III were per- ceived as separate works when they were put together in the final compi- lation. Mango stresses also that Texts I and II were ‘originally … conceived as independent works’ (his italics).5 This is of course correct, but it was surely not the compiler of ThCont as we have it in the Vaticanus who first combined Texts I and II as part of his wish to provide a continuous historical narrative from 813 until the 960’s. Both these texts were clearly composed under the supervision of Constantine VII, in distinction to Text III (most particularly Text IIIa). The preface to Text II, allegedly by Constantine himself, as well as the reference to him by the author – ostensibly only an amanuensis – of the preface to Text I, states that Constantine had commissioned both works. The identification of the real authors of these texts remains a desideratum,6 but these latter were certainly parts of the same project. The references in Text I to events in the narrative of Text II7 are evidence that Text II was either composed before Text I, or that the author of Text I already knew what would be recounted in Text II. Moreover, for certain episodes the authors of Texts I and II used the same sources. In contrast, as we have said, Text III was composed in a completely different style after the death of Constantine and was only added to Texts I and II in the final compilation.
4 Text IIIa: ThCont 353.6–435.21; Text IIIb: ibid., 436.1–481.12. The best treatment of Text III remains Kazhdan 1961, 89–96; cf. Wahlgren 2006, 45*, 84*; Mango 2013, 4*. 5 Mango 2013, 4*. 6 See section 3 below. 7 Below II.28.4 !λλ# τα&τα µ'ν ) *κε-νοψ δηλ2σει 5στορ-α and IV.43.10–11 ) κατ7 α8τ9ν 5στορ-α δηλ2σει. Cf. Signes 1989; Mango 2013, 9*; Featherstone 2012, 125. The manuscripts 5*
2. The Manuscripts
As explained in the introduction to Sˇevˇcenko’s edition of the VBas, all later MSS of ThCont are descended from Vat. gr. 167 (V) (XI s.), whereas the pub- lished editions of Combéfis (Comb) and Bekker (Bekk) are based on later MSS; in the case of Text I, on Barberinianus 232 (B), a copy of V made ca 1628.8 Written in Perlschrift of the early eleventh century, V consists of 168 folia (+ 5 guard leaves of paper added at the beginning), comprising 21 complete quires, and contains exclusively Texts I, II and III of ThCont. Detailed des- criptions of V have been published in an article by Stefano Serventi and, of both V and B, in the new edition of the VBas;9 we thus dispense with repeat- ing the exercise here. We emphasise only the parenthetical remark in both descriptions that the pages have been cropped10: the evident loss of many of the later marginal remarks, as we shall see presently, indicates that the trim- ming was of considerable dimension. As noted by Mango in the introduction to the VBas, Text III breaks off at the end of f. 168v, in the year 961, during the reign of Romanus II. Mango suggests that the text may not have extended to the end of Romanus’s reign (963), citing the prophesy by Constantine VII in Text III that Romanus would have a long reign.11 Mango concedes that this may have been meant ironically, and indeed, it would seem to us that this is the case. For earlier in Text III, in the account of the reign of Alexander, son of Basil I, Nicephorus Phokas is referred to as the ‘victorious emperor’.12 However, even if Text III did extend to Romanus’s death, other evidence in V suggests that the part missing at the end was not very long. In his description of the various marginalia in V Stefano Serventi discusses the numerous scholia by what appears to be a twelfth-century owner of the manuscript.13 Written in what Herbert Hunger called Epigraphische Auszeich- nungsmajuskel, the orthography of this annotator (‘adnotator B’) is eccentric, with a predilection for replacing iota with heta, and o-mega with o-mikron. The names of the Bulgars and Rus’, Βο;λγαροι and Ρ2« in the text, are consist-
8 Sˇevˇcenko 2013, 17*–31*. 9 Serventi 2001; Sˇevˇcenko 2013, 14*–29*. 10 Sˇevˇcenko 2013, 14* 11 ThCont, 458, 6–7; Mango 2013, 3*. 12 ThCont 378, 16–17. 13 Serventi 2001, 286–299. 6* Prolegomena ently written ΒΟ?ΡΓΑΡΟΙ and ΡΟ?Ν. There is, however, no strict geographi- cal evidence for these variants. Throughout the manuscript this annotator has noted various persons and things, e.g. ΝΑΟΣ, ΠΟΛΕΜΟ(Σ), ΞΡΟΝΟΣ, and has marked series of pas- sages on various subjects – we have counted fifty – apparently for his own reference and according to personal fancy. This activity of marking passages apparently extended over a long time, as the annotator often changed his mind or forgot what he had already marked. Some of the series are associated with dates, some not. The series are marked in the upper or lower margin of the folio on which they begin by their title followed by a list of numerals indicating how many folia [Φ(?ΛΛΑ)] each passage comprises. Numerals under a horizontal stroke are used when a passage extends further than the recto and verso of one folio. Passages which are confined to two sides of one folio are indicated by a ver- tical hasta under a horizontal stroke; those which extend to no more than one side of a folio are indicated by a dot under a horizontal stroke. These indi- cations, however, are not always strictly correct. Each subsequent passage of the series is similarly indicated in the upper or lower margin of the folio on which it begins, with the word ΑΡΞ(Η), the number in the series, the title of the series, and the indication of the length of the passage. These titles in the upper or lower margins are also marked with various signs (crosses etc) which are repeated in the side margins, with or without ΑΡΞ(Η) and numeral such-and-such, on the line where the corres- ponding text begins.14 At the end of each passage there is an indication in the margin of how many folia one should skip to the next passage in the series: ?Π(ΕΡΒΑINE) Φ(?ΛΛΑ) numeral such-and-such.15 At the end of the last passage of the series there is a marginal remark ΤΕ(ΛΟC) accompanied some- times by the title of the series. In the text, the beginning of each passage is marked above the line of writ- ing by either four dots placed on a horizontal and vertical axis (···) or two dots on a vertical axis (:); and the end is marked under the line of text with two dots placed on a vertical axis followed by a hyphen (:-). In some cases parts of these series titles have been cut off by later trimming of the manuscript’s mar- gins, and many of the titles have thus disappeared altogether. Some of the titles and dates have a clear ecclesiastical connexion, as if per- haps for readings on days of saints’ feasts in a religious institution, as sug- gested by Sˇevˇcenko;16 for example the 13 March,17 concerning the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. This might also be the case of the three pas-
14 On f. 128 passages in five different series are so marked with various crosses. 15 The numeral of how many folia to skip has often been left out. 16 Sˇevˇcenko 1978, 96. 17 Containing passages on ff. 1v, 5, 8, 13v, 28. The manuscripts 7* sages marked 20 January, the day of Theophilus’s death, perhaps with a view to his final absolution, though the text here relates the story of the widow who told Theophilus that the horse he was riding had belonged to her late husband.18 Likewise, the annotator’s extraordinary interest in Theophilus’s buildings in the Palace, all of whose names he has copied out in the margins, would appear of a more secular nature.19 As an example of the confusion in these annotations we might cite the marking of a single passage, on f. 152, ThCont 434.2–24, under the title ‘5 or 6August’. The text here, however, tells of the arrival in Constantinople of the Image of Edessa on the 15 of August and the procession from the Golden Gate to St Sophia and the Palace on the following day. The confusion is worse in series of many passages. For instance, one series, concerning political conspiracies under Romanus Lekapenos and Constan- tine VII, is announced on f. 137v under the title ‘24 March’, with a list of seven passages.20 But then on f. 139 another series begins under the title ‘24 March ΠΕΡΙ ΕΠΗΒΟ?ΛΟΝ’, with a list of nine other passages.21 The marking of the passage on 137v includes also the remark in the side margin: ΤΙΜΗ Μ(Ε)Γ(ΑΛΟ?) ΡΟΜΑΝΟ? (beside ThCont 390.22); but it is only on f. 138v, after the end of the first passage and before the beginning of the second, that we discover the reason for the choice of date: Romanus Lekape- nos’s coup d’état (ThCont 393.11sq.). In the margin here we find the word ΗΜΕΡΑ, which, occurs throughout the text where any precise date is given. In other cases one can only guess why the reader has chosen a particular date. For instance, two passages are marked 24 April, on ff. 129v and 131v (ThCont 368.21–369.5 and 374.3–19). No date is mentioned in the text here, which tells the story of Eustathius Argyros. Perhaps the date was chosen be- cause Eustathius is said to have been buried in the monastery of his family in honour of St Elizabeth, whose memory is celebrated on the 24 April. Or, take the series of six passages marked with the date 12 May, with the title ΤΑ ΕΠΗ ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ ΦΗΛΟΣΟΦΟ? ΒΑΣΙΛΕMΣ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΑ, begin- ning with a passage on f. 126–126v (ThCont 359.17–360.8). We cannot find any reason for this date, unless it was meant to be the day of Leo’s death; but then it is a mistake, for Leo VI died on 11 May.22 The reader’s many interests give no easy clue to his identity. Aside from his interest in the Bulgars and the Rus’, as already noted, he also notes passages
18 Containing passages on ff. 31, 41, 47 19 Ff. 47–50. 20 Passages on ff. 137v, 140, 141, 141v, 142, 144, 146. 21 Passages on ff.139, 140, 142, 144, 145v, 146v, 148, 153, 168. About the title ΠερN *πιβοψλQν see below, 8*, n. 23. 22 Subsequent passages marked on ff. 127, 128, 129v, 130v, 131v. 8* Prolegomena concerning the Jews, the Italians (Calabrians, Lombards, Sicilians) and the Saracens. He appears to have been equally interested in ecclesiastical and secular subjects. The mixture includes such disparate subjects as the ce- lebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the drowning of Heraclius’s son in a cistern beside the sea walls, the location of the church of St Maria of τ# Μητροπολ-τοψ, or the buildings of the Palace. A careful study of these marginalia would no doubt provide an insight into reading habits in Byzantium; the passages may well have been intended to be excerpted for some sort of collection.23 However, for the purposes of our edition we shall examine only those series which occur at the very end of V, in the search for an indication of how many folia have gone missing after f. 168v, the last folio of the last (twenty-first) gathering. The series ΠΕΡΙ ΕΠΗΒΟ?ΛΟΝ is of no help because the final (ninth) pas- sage (of only four lines: ThCont 479.12–15) begins and ends on f. 168. An- other series, entitled ΑΠΡΗΛΗM, also ends before the manuscript breaks off: it contains three passages of less than one side of a folio concerning raids of the Turks. The first passage, on f. 148v-149, corresponds to ThCont 422.20–423.7, where we see the reason for this date: the first raid occurred in the month of April. The second passage is on f. 162v (ThCont 462.19–463.7), and the third begins and finishes on 168v (ThCont 480.13–17), the last pre- served folio of the text.
23 In personal correspondence, Luca Pieralli has suggested that the ecclesiastical content of much of the later marginalia as well as the remains of a red coloured book-mark pasted to- gether over the edge of the lower right margin of ff. 130/130v (originally sticking out beyond the folio, later trimmed even with the folio) might indeed confirm Sˇevˇcenko’s argument for reading aloud in a monastic context. However, Pieralli stresses that this would represent a unique example of a secular text being used in such a way. Indeed, the object of the book- mark would appear to be the fifth passage in the series mentioned in the previous note: ‘12 May on events of the reign of Leo [VI]’ (ThCont 371.20–374.2), here with an expanded title: ΑΡΞ(Η) Ε ΤΑ ΕΠΗ ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ ΚΕ Η Σ?ΚΟΦΑΝΤΗΑ ΣΑΜΟΝΑ Η ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΝ- ∆ΡΟΝΙΚΟΝ ∆Ο?ΚΑ: ΚΕ Η ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ Η∆ΗΟΝ ΕΑ?ΤΟ? ΠΑΤΕΡΑ ΚΑΚΗ ΒΟ?ΛΗ: ΚΕ Σ?ΚΟΦΑΝΤΗΑ Κ!ΝΣΤΑΝΗΝΟ?. In the same vein, it is our opinion that the confused na- ture of the marking of passages – with or without the aid of book-marks – as well as the an- notator’s obvious great interest in purely secular topics, e.g. conspiracies, foreign nations, wars, the palace, would indicate personal secular, rather than congregational religious use. Further, it is remarkable that one of the most conspicuous topics of these series, ΠερN *πι- βοψλQν, is also the title of one of the extant books of the Excerpta of Constantine VII: the De Insidiis. The manuscripts 9*
The final series is of more use. It begins on f. 146 under the title ‘18 June.’24 Eight passages are indicated: Φ(?ΛΛΑ) Α Α Ι Α Ι Ι Α Α:+, that is, two of more than one folio, one of more than one side of a folio, one of more than a folio, two of more than one side of a folio, and two of more than one folio. The first passage, which ends on f. 146v corresponds to ThCont 415.10–417.2, and the second, which begins on f. 150 and is labelled as being of one folio, ends on f. 151, corresponding to ThCont 426.3–429.6. How- ever, the third is marked on f. 155 not, as in the list at the beginning of the series (f. 146) as comprising more than one side of a folio (Ι), but more than one complete folio (Α); and indeed the passage here extends to f. 156, corre- sponding to ThCont 441.15–443.12. It would appear, then, that our reader missed out the third passage announced at the beginning of the series (f. 146), and that this passage, labelled on f. 155 as the third in the series, is in actuality the fourth, labelled accordingly on f. 146 as comprising more than one folio (Α). Thus, the series in fact contained only seven, not eight passages. The two subsequent passages, on ff. 161v and 162, marked as the fourth and fifth, are of more than one side of a folio in length (Ι), as indicated for the fifth and sixth passages in the list on f. 146. These latter, then, became the fourth and fifth in the actual series, after the original third one had been missed out. The sixth passage, on f. 168–168v (ThCont 479.15–480.12), and the seventh, beginning on 168v (ThCont 480.18), are both marked as being of more than one folio (Α). This corresponds to the last two passages – the seventh and eighth – in the series in the original title on f. 146, and suggests again that the series contained only seven passages. Thus the seventh and last passage would have extended to no more than one folio after f. 168v. Considering, then, the plethora of passages marked by the later annotator throughout V, particularly toward the end of Text III, it is highly unlikely that we should find no indication of further passages in the listings of folia in the final series, if the missing text extended beyond a single folio – or bifolium – added on after the last (twenty-first) quire of V.
24 This date was also given to an earlier series on wars with the Arabs which begins on f. 124v under the title ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟ? ΕΚ ΤΡΙΠΟΛΕΟΣ ΣΤΟΛΟ?, with six passages listed: the first two of less than one side of a folio, the third of more than a folio, and the last three of less than a folio. The first passage corresponds to ThCont 354.11–14; the third, on f. 128v-129v, to ThCont 366.11–368.20. The marking of the second and last three – all listed as being of less than one side of a folio – have been lost, apparently through the subsequent trimming of the margins. 10* Prolegomena
3. The sources of Text I
A major task for an editor of any text is the identification of the text’s sources, particularly when dealing with an historical work. If the editor is able to iden- tify the sources he can compare the text with them and determine not only the author’s working methods but also his stylistic patterns. This enables the editor to correct corrupt passages or, at least, to make a conjecture in the ap- paratus criticus. Unfortunately only very few of the multifarious texts used by the author of Text I have been preserved. For instance, the lost Greek version of the Epis- tula ad Ludovicum, preserved only in Latin, seems to be the ultimate source of some passages in ThCont II.12–14, 18–20; the verses tattooed in the fore- head of the brothers Graptoi as rendered in ThCont III.14 are taken from one of the various hagiographical sources which contain them; the report of the embassy of Petronas to the Khazars mentioned in ThCont III.28 is co- incidental in its wording with De administrando imperio 42.22–55; versions Α and Ζ of the Acta Martyrum Amoriensium edited by Vasilevsky and Nikitin were closely followed by ThCont III.35; and the Acta Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii were apparently consulted for the composition of ThCont IV.2–4, as well as the Vita Ignatii for ThCont IV.30–34, 38. In contrast, the use of the chronicle of Theophanes, the Vita Nicephori (for the beginning of ThCont I) or the chronicle of George the Monk and his continuators for various sections of all four Books is more conjectural. In consequence, only a few passages can be improved with recourse to these sources, and even then the direct use of them by the author is uncertain. We have, however, carefully noted all these hypo- thetical sources in the apparatus fontium, as explained below in section 7b. Of a very different nature are the coincidences of Text I with the so-called Basileiai of Genesius, who composed his work by order of Constantine Porphy- rogenitus at approximately the same time as our author. Though we know no- thing of Genesius except the mention in his work of other Genesioi who may have been related to him, it is clear that he and our author were contemporaries and, most important for our purpose here, wrote very similar accounts of the period, that is, the Second Iconoclasm and the Amorian dynasty.25 Not only are
25 On Genesius, see Kaldellis 1998 and Markopoulos 2009a with previous bibliography. The only evidence for him being the author of the Histories is the mention of him in the Leipzig manuscript of the De Cerimoniis, see Kolovou 2010. On the Genesioi, see Markopoulos 1986, though the interpretation of Genesius as a family name is erroneous, as will be shown below in Section 4. The sources of Text I 11* the historical episodes recorded essentially the same and depend on the same sources, but also the structure of the sentences, even if not the actual wording, is to a great extent identical. This cannot be a coincidence and raises the ques- tion of the exact nature of the relationship of the two works.26 Rejecting the easily disproved argument that Text I was used as a source by Genesius,27 scholars have taken one of two positions: either that Genesius was the source of Text I, or that both went back to a common source (henceforth *CS). It was Ferdinand Hirsch who first studied the question systematically and argued that Text I was dependent on Genesius. To explain the many pas- sages in Text I which have no correspondence in Genesius, Hirsch suggested that these were ‘additions’ made from oral sources. There is however little basis for this supposition, for the wording of certain of these same passages is very close to the sources of Text I listed above. Nevertheless, Hirsch was followed by the majority of scholars in the last century28 and his position taken over in the handbooks, though defenders of Genesius’s primacy were obliged to admit that the author of Text I also occasionally used Genesius’s sources.29 This admission paved the way for the theory of a common source. Alex- ander Kazhdan and Patricia Karlin-Hayter, on the basis of a thorough analy- sis of the sources for the reigns of Basil I and Michael III respectively, laid the foundations of this approach.30 Finally, Jakob Ljubarskij proved without any doubt that both Text I and Genesius depended on the *CS. Leaving aside the major additions in Text I, taken from other sources, Ljubarskij centred his analysis on the episodes shared by both authors, where he noticed small de- tails recorded in Text I but omitted by Genesius and vice versa. As neither of them could have added these bits of information perfectly embedded in the narrative from complementary sources, this could only mean that both used the same source. After Ljubarskij no one questioned the dependence of Genesius and Text I on the *CS, though some problems remained concerning the exact nature of this latter. In 1995 Juan Signes Codoñer published a study of the sources for the history of three iconoclast emperors in Text I, reinforcing with further arguments Ljubarskij’s theory of the *CS. Signes further suggested that the *CS was not a chronicle, as argued by Ljubarskij and others before him, but
26 Signes 1995, xiii-xxi. 27 Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1889a, 27–28 and 1889b, 24–26. 28 Amongst others mainly by Bariˇsi´c 1959. 29 E.g. Bury 1912, 460–461, who wrote that ‘it can be proved … from a number of compari- sons, that the Continuators of Theophanes used, along with Genesius, the source of Gene- sius’; and Bariˇsi´c 1961, 267, ‘en partant de Génésios, le Continuateur complète ses textes sur Michel et sur Thomas … par des extraits provenant des mêmes sources dont s’est servi égale- ment Génésios.’ 30 Kazhdan 1962; Karlin-Hayter 1971. 12* Prolegomena rather a dossier of manuscript quires with excerpts compiled from various sources for the composition of a chronicle.31 This dossier of sources would have been used first by Genesius and then by the author of Text I, who ex- panded it with new material, mostly of hagiographical provenance. The fact that Genesius in his preface boasts of being first to treat the period in ques- tion makes sense only if we assume that the *CS was not a chronicle or any finished work but a preparatory dossier of sources which was lost after use on the intended work.32 Further, Signes argued that the author of Text I created a chronological sequence and coherent narrative out of the disparate excerpts in the *CS – often distributing the material related to each emperor according to leitmo- tifs33 – whereas Genesius was in general more respectful of the ‘autonomy’ of the original excerpts and was not much bothered about chronology. This characterisation of the two works should suffice to show that the *CS could not have been a chronicle. Signes further observes that, whereas Genesius attempted to re-write his sources in ‘Attic’ style, substituting new words, the author of Text I was more conservative. He may have upgraded the Greek of his sources, but avoided Genesius’s exagerated preciosity. Varona Codeso accepted Signes’s assessment of the *CS on several points; however, she argued that it never existed as a text on its own, but that both Genesius and the author of Text I worked directly from complete manu- scripts of the sources, on the basis of marginal remarks.34 Most recently, Paul Magdalino has also argued for a dossier of source ma- terial (UποVωσει«): ‘sequential but unconnected excerpts and abridgements resembling his [Constantine VII’s] historical encyclopedia, except that the texts were much more diverse and probably included saints’ lives in addition to shorter secular narratives’.35
31 Signes 1995 passim; Signes 1994. Ljubarskij 1996 equated this dossier with that advanced by Paul Speck, e.g. Speck 1988. However, though Signes uses the word ‘dossier’ for the *CS, he rejects Speck’s concept of corrupt papyrus cards (‘Zetteln’) collected in folders (‘Mappen’). 32 The fact that no dossier of sources for the composition of any historical work has been pre- served, or better, identified as such, does not rule out the existence of such a compilation. In his preface Theophanes clearly refers to a dossier of sources collected by Synkellos as the basis of his chronicle, and Signes 2015 has argued that the so-called Chronographia Brevis attributed to Nikephoros was Synkellos’s draft for arranging his material. For another dossier of sources collected for the composition of an historical work, see Odorico 2014. 33 For instance, the narrative of Theophilos’ reign is structured in four main sections: justice, iconoclasm, wars and buildings. 34 Varona Codeso 2010, esp. 314–317. This does not, however, sufficiently explain why Gene- sius and the author of Text I present the excerpta in the same order. Moreover, it is clear (e.g. in the case of most of the hagiographical sources) that the *CS contained summaries of the sources, not word-for-word excerpts. 35 Magdalino 2013b, 200–206, esp. 201 The sources of Text I 13*
Amongst other questions which still remain unanswered are those con- cerning the physical transmission of the *CS from Genesius to the author of Text I, and the nature of the oral sources mentioned in the preface to this latter.36
36 For some reflections on oral epic tradition in our text see Signes 2014, 95–99. 14* Prolegomena
4. The Authorship of Texts I–III and the subsequent compilation of Theophanes Continuatus
Texts I and II of ThCont were produced in the literary circle of Constan- tine VII during the latter’s sole rule (944–959) with the purpose of exalting the Macedonian dynasty and its founder, Basil I, at the expense of the four emperors who preceded him. As we have seen, these two texts and Genesius were all based on the earlier *CS. In answer to why Genesius and the author of Text I wrote on the same subject, beside the usual explanation that Gene- sius did not sufficiently pursue the political programme of Constantine VII we might also consider literary aesthetics. All three texts, Genesius and Texts I and II, represent a revival, or better, a reinvention, of the genre of History which had given way to that of the chronicle in the ‘Dark Age’ of the seventh and eighth centuries. Genesius, who seems to have adhered closely to the *CS, was apparently deemed too pedantic in the profusion of Classical citations and unusual verbal forms, e.g. the ubiquitous pluperfects. The more elegant style of Texts I and II eschews these latter and alters details of the nar- rative not simply for political purposes but also to obtain a more entertaining, sometimes gossipy style which might have appealed to members of the im- perial court.37 Seeing that the author of Text I used the same dossier of sources as Gene- sius, it would follow that he belonged to the same literary circle under Cons- tantine VII. His identity remains unknown, but because the later historian Skylitzes made extensive use of both Text I and Genesius,38 we should expect to find the author of Text I in the list of sources cited by Skylitzes in the pre- face to his work. If our Genesius and that mentioned by Skylitzes were indeed the same person, it is likely that the author of Text I also figures amongst the Constantinopolitan historians whom Skylitzes names as his predecessors: 7ΙXσYZ, Γενωσιο« καN ΜανοψYλ, ο5 Βψζ\ντιοι Joseph, Genesius and Manuel, the Byzantines
37 Featherstone 2012, 125–133. 38 For the alternating use of Genesius and Text I by Skylitzes see Kiapidou 2010, 65–76 and 153–218. The Authorship of Texts I–III 15*
Most scholars, including the editor of Skylitzes in the CFHB39 and recent translators,40 have seen here a reference to just two historians, Joseph Gene- sius and Manuel. But since Skylitzes never omits the article before a family name, Genesius must in fact be a first name.41 We have here, then, not two, but three historians working in the Capital; and one of them was probably the author of Text I. Unfortunately, we have no further clue to the identity of this Joseph or Manuel.42 Stylistic parallels, for instance between Text I and Arethas of Patras (who may have lived well into the 950’s) are perhaps strik- ing, but may simply reflect a common cultural background.43 ThCont is interspersed with word-for-word citations from antique Greek historians which are not to be found in Genesius. Taken out of context, these citations are intended to convey general ideas or enhance the style of the nar- rative.44 It is doubtful that the author had them from direct reading of the sources. Rather, one might suspect that they come from the historical Ex- cerpta Constantiniana. Could our author, then, have been involved in the com- pilation of these latter?
39 Thurn (Genesius 3.28) punctuated the text without a comma before Genesius: 7ΙXσ]Z Γενωσιο«, καN Μανοψ]λ ο5 Βψζ!ντιοι. 40 Flusin–Cheynet 2003, 2: ‘Joseph Génésios et Manuel, qui étaient Byzantins’. 41 Signes 1995, xxviii–xxxii. Markopoulos 2009a and 2009b does not answer this argument. Cheynet 2015 traces the history of the Genesioi on the premiss that Genesios was a family name. This, however, is not attested until the eleventh century. The first three members of the family in Cheynet’s list are Constantine Maniakes and the two brothers Thomas and Genesios. The fourth is the Phantomgestalt Joseph Genesios. 42 The identification of this Joseph with Joseph Bringas in Signes 1995 was purely speculative and has been rejected by Markopoulos 2009a, 137 n. 3 and 2009b, 698 n. 5. As for Manuel, it has now been shown that this was the protospatharios and judge who wrote eight books on the deeds of John Kourkouas mentioned in ThCont VI.40, 427.20–428.2; see, e.g., Markopoulos 2009b, 703. However, this identification does not exclude Manuel from being the author of Texts I, II or even III. Though Skylitzes (230.33–37) takes information about him from ThCont, his mention of him in the preface may also have been derived from other sources. 43 ThCont and Arethas share many proverbs and phrases, e.g. ThCont I.5.22 κεν$ν % &χηλαν = Arethas Opus 76.124 κεν+ν σο- Zασι χ,λλειν περιγωγονε το;τοι«; ThCont I.11.24 πνε/µατι Π/23νο« = Arethas Opus 21.202 τ]ν κατ# Π/23νο« πνε5µα χψξ]ν το`« !νοYτοι« Zοιβ\ζοψσαν; ThCont I.13.25–26 πψρ89ρον % διασX2;ναι = Arethas Opus 47.316 a« µηδ' πψρ89ρον, τ9 το& λbγοψ, τc παρεµβολc διατηρη2;ναι; ThCont I.21.12–13 a« dν δι\ τινο« πορ2µε<οψ διαβιβ,ζοιντο λ9γοι ο5 α8το& = Arethas, Schol. in Arist. schol. 214, ln. 3939 δε`ται οebν τινο« πορ2µε<οψ το& λ9γοψ, f τ# !γ2γιµα τg« διανο-α« !λλYλοι« διαβιβ,σοµεν; ThCont II.15.12–13 εA« π<2ον τετρηµωνον, τC το5 λ9γοψ, το;τοψ« *ναπορρ\να« τοh« λbγοψ« = Arethas Opus 3 29 εA« τετρηµωνον π<2ον, τC το5 λ9γοψ, !ντλQν. But such parallels are certainly not conclusive. 44 E.g. Dionysius Halicarnassus in I.7.4–5, Plutarch in I.9.2–4 and Polybius in I.11.5–8. 16* Prolegomena
Text II, though its preface is written in the first person, as if by Constantine himself, is surely the work of a ghost-writer, whom Sˇevˇcenko identified with the author of the anonymous De imagine Edessena.45 Text III is also anonymous, but for our purposes here we are not so con- cerned with its composition as with the circumstances of its addition to Texts I and II by the compiler of ThCont As has been suggested elsewhere, this compiler might be identified with Basil the Nothos (d. 985), bastard son Constantine VII’s father-in-law and co-emperor, Romanus I Lekapenos (920–944).46 Head of the civil service as parakoimonenos, or chamberlain under Constantine, Basil is known to have commissioned manuscripts and was in all likelihood an habitué of the literary circle in which Texts I and II had been produced. Indeed, the addition of Text III in the final compilation fits with the intention expressed in the preface to Text II, where Constan- tine – or rather, his ghost-writer – states that he originally wanted to relate the history of all the Roman emperors who had ruled at Constantinople, that is, since Constantine the Great, down to his own day. Since, however, there is not enough time to do all this, he has begun with the reign of his illustrious grandfather, Basil I; and if possible, he will write up the subsequent history later.47 This, then, was done by the final compiler: Text III brings the nar- rative down to the reign of Constantine VII’s son, Romanus II (959–963). A composite of two texts, Text III is written, in stark contrast to Texts I and II, in the simpler style of the chronicle. There was apparently neither the perceived necessity nor enough time for the composition of a text in high, classicising style. The compiler added Text III with the purpose of filling the gap between the death of Basil I and the reigning emperor of the time, Nice- phorus Phokas (963–969). In so doing, he has followed Constantine VII’s original wish of bringing the narrative down to the present.48 But, if we are right in the identification of Basil the Nothos as the compiler, the reason for adding Text III and ‘publishing’ ThCont was hardly compliance with the wish of Constantine. For, perhaps because of a lingering suspicion of the entire family of Romanus I Lekapenos, Constantine, on his death-bed in 959, had passed over Basil and appointed his rival Joseph Bringas as parakoimomenos and regent for his young son Romanus II. Basil bided his time for four years until Romanus’s death in 963, but then colluded in the coup d’état of Nice-
45 See Mango 2013, 13*; parallels with De imagine Edessena,Sˇevˇcenko 2013, Index locorum, 484–485. 46 On Basil the Nothos, see most recently Wander 2012, 93–132; for the identification of him with the compiler of ThCont, see Featherstone 2014. 47 VBas, 8.1–10.22. 48 Featherstone 2012, 133–135; Featherstone 2014, 359–360. The identification of Basil as the final compiler is of course dependent on the dating of Version B of the Logothete Chronicle, which is closely related to Text III. The only certain date is that of the earliest dated manu- script of Version A, Par. gr. 1711: AD 1013. See Wahlgren 2006, 3*–8*. The Authorship of Texts I–III 17* phorus Phokas against Bringas, whom Romanus II, following his father’s example, had left as regent of his two sons, Basil II and Constantine VIII. In return for Basil the Nothos’s help, Phokas restored him to the office of para- koimomenos and also created a new dignity for him, that of proedros, or president of the Senate.49 Just as Texts I and II had been intended to bring the historiography down to the reign of Basil I, Constantine VII’s grandfather and founder of the dyn- asty, so did the addition of Text III bring the story down to the accession of Phokas, Basil the Nothos’s protector. Because the new compilation could not contain a chapter on Phokas, since his reign had apparently only just begun, Basil contrived to include Phokas in a new compilation – prepared, we be- lieve, in tandem with ThCont – of another work begun earlier in Constan- tine VII’s circle, the De Cerimoniis. Again, as in the case of ThCont, Basil must have been involved from the beginning in the composition of the De Cerimoniis and would have been ac- quainted with the dossier of texts that had been gathered for work on it under Constantine VII. It was surely Basil who, in his later compilation, appended the account of Phokas’s coup and accession at the end of Book I of the De Cerimoniis, working it in for good effect with excerpts from Peter the Patrician on the accession of the emperors from Leo I down to Justinian. Then, placing also himself in the spotlight, Basil ended Book I with a description of the ce- remonies for his promotion as proedros of the Senate.50 After these additions to Book I, Basil relegated to the end of Book II various other texts which, like Peter the Patrician, would have been in the original dossier for work on the De Cerimoniis. Amongst these was a list of emperors who reigned in Constanti- nople (II 41), and another on the emperors’ tombs (II 42). Tellingly, both of these texts have been brought down to Romanus II.51 We are reminded here of the intention of writing up the reigns of all emperors who reigned in Con- stantinople in the preface to the Vita Basili.52 Indeed, one might ask whether
49 The contemporary Leo the Deacon describes Basil’s special relation to Phocas: … Βασ-λειο« i ΝbVο«, ’ΡXµανο& το& π\λαι α8τοκρ\τορο« *κ ΣκψV-δο« ψ5b«, τj το& προωδροψ *κ- διαπρωπXν !kι2µατι. ΝικηZbρο« δω, µbνο« τQν λοιπQν σεβαστQν, *« γωρα« τj !νδρN τα;την *καινοτbµησε τ]ν τιµYν· (Leo Diaconus, 94.3–6). 50 Phokas’s coup: De Cer. Reiske I 96 [105], about which more below; promotion of proedros: De Cer. Reiske I ‘97’ (not numbered in the Lipsiensis), 441.12–443.22. 51 The folia containing II 41were cut out of the Lipsiensis I, 17 before any edition of the text. The end of the list is preserved in the Istanbul fragment of the second manuscript of the De Cerimoniis, the palimpsest Chalcensis S. Trinitatis (125) 133, f. 126, where Romanus II is the last emperor metioned: Mango–Sˇevˇcenko 1962, 62. Further on the palimpsest: Featherstone– Gruskova–Kresten 2005. In the list of tombs in II 42, the last emperor is Constantine VII, De Cer. Reiske, 643.7. 52 We might also note that sarcophagus of Michael II in the list of tombs corresponds literally with that in Book II of ThCont: De Cer. Reiske 645.17–18 and below II.28.20–21, see above 16*. Further, the Life of Alexander the Great added by the compiler at the end of Book II of 18* Prolegomena the original working dossiers for the De Cerimoniis and ThCont could not have been related. But however it may be with the dossiers, we observe similarities of method in the final compilation of the two works. Just as the compiler borrowed from the text of Peter the Patrician for his account of Phokas’s accession in 963 and added this and other excerpts from Peter at the end of Book I of the De Ceri- moniis, so did he use Version B of the Logothete Chronicle to bring ThCont down to the reign of Romanus II.53 The dating of Version B is disputed, the only certain date – terminus ante quem – being that of the earliest dated manuscript of Version A, Par. gr. 1711: AD 1013.54 We must await the decision of Staffan Walgren in his forthcoming edition. But the case can be made that the work dates from the reign of Phokas, just after his succession to Romanus II, with whose reign Version B in Vat. gr. 163 and in Text III of ThCont ends. Text IIIb, which begins with the sole reign of Constantine VII and is full of his praise, is thought by some to be the work of Theodore Daphnopates. Interestingly, Basil the Nothos is very much in evidence here; however the author’s assessment of him is ambiguous, and there is outright praise for his hated rival Bringas.55 The choice of Text IIIa, with its anti-Macedonian bias, could be explained by Basil’s displeasure with Constantine VII for having favoured Bringas over him as regent for Romanus II. The inclusion of Text IIIb, with its ambiguous treatment of Basil and praise for Bringas, is certainly surprising. But again, Basil’s use of the Logothete Chronicle appears to have been an expediency: he was in a hurry and needed a ready text to bring ThCont down to the time of his new protector, Phokas, the ‘victorious emperor’.56 The descriptions of Basil’s part in the ceremonies for Constantine’s funeral, with literal corres- pondence to protocols in the De Cerimoniis, would have pleased Basil.57 Still, one might well ask why the praise of Bringas and apparent criticism of Basil
the De Cerimoniis fits well with ThCont where, in the VBas, Basil I is compared with Alex- ander (VBas, 18.26–27). The Vita has been lost with the end of the Leipzig manuscript, but it mentioned in the Pinax, or list of contents of Book II, see Featherstone 2004, 115. 53 One might wonder whether Basil could not have commissioned Version B, which displays a penchant for decription of the Palace and ceremonial that is wholly absent in Version A, see Featherstone 2012, 133. Against this is the apparent criticism of Basil which was allowed to stand in the new version. But for another example of Basil’s seeming indifference, see below and n. 59. 54 See Wahlgren 2006, 4*–8*. 55 Kazhdan 2006, 152–153; Featherstone 2014, 360, n. 20 and Appendix 1.2, 1.3, 1.4. 56 ThCont 378.16–17. 57 Description of funeral: ThCont 466.11–468.14; cf. Featherstone 2014, 360 and Appendix 1.1. The Authorship of Texts I–III 19* were allowed to stand.58 But perhaps Basil was not particularly bothered about details of the text, for there is a similar case in the De Cerimoniis, Book II 55–56 [55], which is also a composite of two very different texts, the second containing praise of a praipositos Joseph, presumably Bringas.59
58 For instance, Angelidi 2012, 24, doubts Basil’s active participation in the redaction of Text III. But even if he was not connected with Version B of the Logothete Chronicle, he could still have commissioned the final compilation of ThCont. Whoever was responsible, it is obviously a hasty, careless job of combining two contradictory texts. 59 De Cer. Reiske II, 798–808; cf. Featherstone 2004, 117–120. A much more polished job is Book I 96 of the De Cerimoniis, mentioned above, concerning the accession of Phokas. Here we posit that the scissors-and-pasting crosses over from one of Basil’s compilations to the other. Since ThCont could not properly include a chapter on Phokas, in as much as he was still alive, Basil has created a sort of hybrid chapter in the De Cerimoniis by grafting on there a text which begins as a chapter on the reign of an emperor might have done in Text III of ThCont, with a detailed account of the circumstances of Phokas’s advent to power. Then, with the description of the accession ceremonies, the chapter finishes in keeping with the preceding chapters in the De Cerimoniis, excerpted from Peter the Patrician, on imperial accessions, including the acclamations copied from those for Leo I: De Cer. Reiske, I 96 [105], 439.7–17 and I 91 [100], 410.11–411.3; cf. Featherstone 2014, 361 and Appendices 2.3 and 2.4. 20* Prolegomena
5. Reception: John Skylitzes (and Ps-Symeon)
5.1. John Skylitzes made extensive use of the first four books of ThCont for his Historical Synopsis, as we have already noted. In the end Skylitzes’s work re- placed our history and became a text of reference in later times for the history of the ninth century, as attested by the large number of manuscripts; and Sky- litzes was in turn used by later historians such as George Cedrenus and John Zonaras, whose chronicles were to have an even greater diffusion. In conse- quence, the text we call Theophanes Continuatus lost interest for generations of scholars and readers, which explains its preservation in only one manuscript, Vat. gr. 167. The obvious errors and many lacunae in the Vaticanus make Skylitzes of ut- most importance for the present edition, in so far as the text can be recon- structed from his usually close paraphrase. However, although contemporary with Skylitzes, Vat. gr. 167 does not belong to the same family as the manu- script used by him, but represents, as we shall see, another branch of the tex- tual tradition. The editor of ThCont is faced with a difficult problem when using the vari- ants in Skylitzes for the constitutio textus, for Skylitzes follows no set pattern in his rewriting of ThCont. Sometimes he reproduces it literally, though most often he changes words and syntax, depending on his own stylistic percep- tion of the original and also, apparently, on difficulties in certain passages of the manuscript he had. It is therefore often very likely that a better reading in Skylitzes is due to an improvement by him of the original text based on other sources or even his own wit. However there are reasons to suppose that Sky- litzes had a better text of ThCont than that preserved in the Vaticanus, so that his reading may be accepted in the edition as the correct one.
5.2. In certain corrupt passages in Vat. gr. 167 Skylitzes appears to have preserved the correct original reading, for his text makes perfect sense and cannot have been taken from other sources. Thus, the manuscript which Sky- litzes had must have been better than the Vaticanus, and in these cases we have used Skylitzes to emend the text. I.21.42 !πεZο-ασωται V: !πεZο-βασω τε edd e Scyl 20.59 II.7.9 πρ\ττει V edd: προστ\ττει Boor, cf. Scyl 26.55 *ναποτ\ττει:– the text of Scyl pro- vides the clue for correcting πρ\ττει into τ\ττει, the scribe of V has missed out three letters (οστ). II.8.39–40 τοσο&τον γ#ρ lρρει πρ9« τ]ν µ`kιν τQν γραµµ\τXν V: τοσο&τον γ#ρ mργει πρ9« τ]ν µ`kιν τQν γραµµ\τXν edd Boor e Scyl 28.13–14 Reception: John Skylitzes (and Ps-Symeon) 21*
II.18.10 a« lοικε *γκρατ]« V: a« lοικε <δαιµbνXν> *γκρατ]« edd e Scyl 38.7–9 i δ7 !ποστ\τη« *« το&το !Z`κτο µαν-α« παρ# τQν σψµµαξο;ντον, a« lοικεν, α8τj δαιµbνXν, καN τ]ν τg« βασιλε-α« εnσωτι oνειροπbλει κατ\σξεσιν, pτι: post lοικε scripsit Vαροψ« (sic) παρ# τQν α8τj σψµµαξο;ν et postea cancelavit V: post lοικε lacunam postulavit Boor II.20bis.1–4 ο8κ lµελλε δ' qξρι το;τXν ) Zορ\ πX« οebν τινο« κεZαλg« καN ο8ρ»«, εn καN µ] σψν-εσαν, παιδεψVωντXν Zbνοι«, *µπρησµο`«, σεισµο`« V: ο8κ lµελλε δ' qξρι το;τXν ) Zορ\ πX« <στYσεσVαι τQν κακQν, !λλ# τQν δ;ο rπε-ρXν, 7Ασ-α« Zαµ'ν καN Ε8ρ2πη«>, οebν τινο« κεZαλg« καN ο8ρ»« etc. nos e Scyl. 41.2–3, om. V propter homoeoteleuton inter Zορ\ πX« et Ε8ρ2πη«: <στYσεσVαι – Ε8ρ2πη«, *ν Vψµj κψρ-οψ> add. edd Boor itidem e Scyl. 41.2–3, sed verba *ν Vψµj κψρ-οψ additionem Scylitzae putamus – the lacuna in V does not occur in Skylitzes II.25.15 !ντωστρεχωX« V B: !ντωστρεχεν τελωX« Boor e Scyl 45.13 !νωτρεχε (!νωστρεχε ms. B) τελωX«: !ντωστρεχεν a« in marg. B Comb: !νωστρεχεν a« Bekk III.32.20–21 τj δ’ !µεραµνοψνc !κηκοbτι ν-κη« ο8 µικρ»« καN κατ# το& 7Αµορ-οψ καταδ- ροµY V: τj δ’ !µεραµνοψνc !κηκοbτι ν-κη« ο8 µικρ»« καN κατ# το& 7Αµορ-οψ καταδροµg« nos, sed lacunam post µικρ»« coni. Boor, cf. Scyl 77.92–94 τj δ’ !µερµοψµνc !κηκοbτι τ]ν ν-κην lδοkε µ] µωλλειν, !λλ7 !πιωναι πρ9« τ9 7Αµbριον IV.16.21–22 πbλει« τε κτ-ζειν *πιξειρο&σιν α8το`«, τ]ν οsτX καλοψµωνην 7Αργαο&ν V: πbλει« τε κτ-ζειν *πιξειρο&σιν α8το`«, τ]ν τ]ν οsτX καλοψµωνην 7Αργαο&ν <καN τ]ν 5Αµα- ραν> nos e Scyl 93, 26 ( 7Αµ\ραν edd e Cedreno) – ThCont refers to cities in the plural, but V has only one; Skylitzes can only have found the name of the second city in his manuscript of ThCont, for this episode does not appear in any other source. IV.20.15–18 pπερ *κε-νη καταZXρ\σασα καN γ#ρ tν nδε`ν Zbνοψ« τε !νVρ2πXν καN iµοZ;λXν βλ\βα« *κZε;γοψσα V: pπερ *κε-νη καταZXρ\σασα – καN γ#ρ tν nδε`ν <καN στο- ξ\σασVαι δψνατY – !ντιπρ\ττειν ο8κ uετο δε`ν>, Zbνοψ« τε !νVρ2πXν καN iµοZ;λXν βλ\βα« *κZε;γοψσα edd Boor e Scyl 95.13–96.1 – clearly an omission in V through homeotele- uton (nδε`ν – δε`ν). IV.28.5–6 a« v V\νατον κατεπε-γεσVαι V: a« <τοh« *νοικο&ντα« v µεταν\στα« γενωσVαι *λπ-ζειν> v V\νατον κατεπε-γεσVαι coni. Kamb, cf. Scyl 104.76–77 καN π\ντε« v µεταν\σται γενωσVαι τg« πατρ-δο«, v λιµj καN *νδε-w τQν !ναγκα-Xν διαZVαρYσεσVαι mλπιζον: lac. statuit Boor
5.3. When a variant reading in Skylitzes is found in both Genesius and Ps- Symeon, it can only be the original text; it would be too much of a coinci- dence that an error in the manuscript tradition of the text used by Skylitzes and Ps-Symeon occurs also in Genesius. In any case, these variants are few.
I.8.1 7Εkαβο;λλιον + ΙΙ.19 7Εkαβο;λλοιον V: 7Εkαβο;λιο« Gen 4.46, 5.54, 15.61, 68, 22.54, 31.57 et Scyl 7.43, 47 (AVMN), 19.32, 40.64, cf. ’Εkαβο;λη« PsSym 613.16 I.15.9 Σψµβ\τιο« V: Σαββ\τιο« nos e Gen 10.24, PsSym 604.23 et Scyl 14.61 – One might be puzzled how the corrupt reading also found its way into the marginal notes of V, which would ap- pear to have been taken over from the prototype (and perhaps go back to the archetype). Presumably, the scribe of V – or of the prototype – reproduced the name in the notes as it was in the text. III.27.16–17 µYτε τ9ν 7Ιανν]ν Uπερορ-α« τψξε`ν µYτε V: µετ# τ9ν Ψαψτο& V\νατον fort. ante µYτε inserendum, cf. µετ# τ9ν Ψαψτο& V\νατον µYτε Scyl 74.64 et etiam µετ# τ]ν α8το& τελεψτ]ν Gen 50.11 et µετ# V\νατον α8το& PsSym f. 242v III.27.21 ΤριZ;λιον V edd: ΤριZ;λλιον Boor e Gen 49.88 ΤριZ;λλιο« et Scyl 73.69 ΤριZψλλ-οψ«, cf. PsSym f 242v ΤριZιλλ-X
5.4. If a variant reading in Skylitzes is confirmed only by Genesius, this is in itself no proof of genuineness, for Skylitzes may have simply used Genesius 22* Prolegomena to emend the text he found in his own manuscript of ThCont. However, we accept such a reading if it offers the solution to a textual problem. Again, such cases are few and occur only in the first two books of ThCont. Thereafter Skylitzes appears to have ceased collating the text with Genesius. I.1.16 γεννα`ον !ν\στηµα lξοντα V edd: γεννα`ον κατ\στηµα lξοντα Boor in app. e Gen 6.10 et Scyl 9.7 I.3.20–21 τ]ν κbµητο« !ρξ]ν V: τ]ν κbµητο« <κbρτη«> !ρξ]ν Boor e Gen 8.54 et Scyl 11.60 – the recurrence of the syllable κο – would appear to have led to the omission of κbρτη«, though Skylitzes may have found the correct reading in Genesius. I.10.2 τ9 το& Vεοτbκοψ τεµωνισµα V: Vεοτbκοψ Boor in app. e Gen 6.90 et Scyl 8.82: Vψ V: Vεο& edd – Skylitzes may have known that the temple was dedicated to the Theotokos, not just to God, and therefore his reading here need not have come from Genesius. I.20.37–38 σ;νε« p τοι Zησ-ν V: p τι <λωγει>,” Zησ-ν Bekk Boor e Gen 13.5 et Scyl 17.65 σ;νε« το`« λεγοµωνοι«: p τι Comb – λωγει was missed out in V through proximity to Zησιν, but it is to be inserted on account of the agreement of Skylitzes and Genesius. II.10.11–12 lτο« γ\ρ ποψ διην;ετο το;τ8 πωµπτον καN εnκοστ9ν V: lτο« γ\ρ – εnκοστ9ν: add. verba *ν τc πρ9« *κε-νοψ« διατριβc Scyl 29.33, quae Boor suspicitur excidisse, cf. Gen 25.59–60 σψξν9ν ξρbνον *ν α8το`« διατρ-χα« aσεN ε2 καN κ22 παρελκψσVgναι *νιαψτοh« II.12.17 7Ιακ2β V edd: 7Ι2β Boor e Gen 24.17 et Scyl 31.9 – the correct name of the patriarch of Antioch is given by both Genesius and Skylitzes, but the scribe of V probably mistook the accent as a sign of abbreviation for a longer name. We cannot rule out the possibility that Sky- litzes found the correct reading in Genesius. II.19.27–28 τι« 7ΙX\ννη« !ν]ρ V: τι« 7ΙX\ννη« !ν]ρ <πατρ-κιο«> add. Boor e Gen 31.57 7ΙX\ννη« !ν]ρ *π-κλησιν 7Εkαβο;λιο«, *ν πατρικ-οι« τελQν et Scyl 40.63–64 i πατρ-κιο« 7ΙX\ννη«: τι« !ν]ρ 7ΙX\ννη« edd
5.5. There are also cases where Skylitzes and Ps-Symeon have a common reading at variance with V for which the explanation is unclear. It could be that both Skylitzes and the Ps-Symeon emended the original text in the same way, independently of each other, or – more important for us here – that their manuscripts of ThCont had the same reading. Moreover, Ps-Symeon’s manu- script of ThCont may not have belonged to the same family as V, but to an- other which was closer to Genesius. Ps-Symeon would then have used this common source to supplement the text of the Logothete, on which he mainly depends. I.24.3–4 ΜιξαYλ τινα *k yνbµατο« διακο&σαι *πιπηδYσαντα προτρεποµωνοψ V: διακο&- σαι <καλωσαντο« καN> Boor e Scyl 21.85–86 καλε`ν *k yνbµατο« et PsSym 611.21 mκοψσε … *k yνbµατο« καλωσαι – despite the probability that the common reading of Skylitzes and Ps-Syme- on is the original, the sentence in V makes sense as it stands. III.5.25 *ρρXµωνα« V: *ρρXµωνX« edd e Scyl 52.88 et PsSym 628.17 III.6.11 διαβ\ντο« V: διαβ\ντα Scyl 53.14 et PsSym 629.14 – the subject of the genitive ab- solute is not explicit, and the version of Skylitzes and Ps-Symeon substitutes an accusative for clarity. IV.7.29 Uπειπzν V: *πειπzν Boor e Scyl 85.24 et PsSym 650.11 IV.7.34 pλην το& σκην2µατο« *ναπωτεµεν V: pλην το& σ2µατο« !πωτεµεν, post quae verba add τ]ν κεZαλYν edd e Scyl 86.28–29 sed cf. PsSym 651.14 σκην2µατο« *ναπωτεµεν – here Ps-Symeon indicates an addition by Skylitzes. IV.11.17 καN τα&τα … ) Uπbσξεσι« V: αsτη … ) Uπbσξεσι« Scyl 89.29: α{ται PsSym 653.21 Reception: John Skylitzes (and Ps-Symeon) 23*
IV.21.7 πεντYκοντα, δ' καN τεσσαρ\κοντα, καN τ9 *λ\ξιστον Ψκ\στ8 τρι\κοντα V: Ψκατ9ν καN yγδοYκοντα, καN το8λ\ξιστον πεντYκοντα Scyl 96.34–35, cf. PsSym 659.7 ρ2 v τ9 *λ\ξιστον ν22 – the difference between 50 in V and 100 in Skylitzes and Ps-Symeon might be ex- plained by confusion of the minuscule numeral 50 (ν) for 100 (ρ) in the first sum. It is more dif- ficult to explain the change from 40 (µ) to 80 (π), but again, the minuscule forms 30 (λ) and 50 (ν) are similar. Skylitzes apparently chose 80 as a number in the middle, whereas Ps-Symeon simply abridged the text.
5.6. Likewise, the testimony of Ps-Symeon alone is insufficient against V. To cite just one instance: IV.3.18 κατ# τ9 προ\στειον α8το& τ9 οsτX λεγbµενον περιορισVεN« τ# Χιξ\ V: κατ\ τινα µον]ν *ν τj Κλειδ-8 περιορ-ζεται. *ν — 4γ-Xν εnκbνα« kωσα«, το&τον ) βασ-λισσα µ\στιkι διακοσ-αι« παιδε;ει, καN κατD τ9 προ\στειον α8το&, } λωγεται Χιξ\, !ποστωλλεται (!π9 στωλλοηται f 245v) PsSym 649.2–5 – it could be that the scribe of V has missed out the sentence concerning the monastery in Kleidion by homoioteleuton; but as the text in V makes perfect sense, we cannot be sure that Ps-Symeon has not, as he often does, added to his source.
5.7. Skylitzes sometimes appears to use other sources to correct a faulty pas- sage in the text of ThCont as it stands in V. Here, however, we cannot be sure that he did not have an annotated or interpolated manuscript of ThCont II.8.7–8 ~καστο« ον α8τj ποιε-τX καN *Zετbν V: ~καστο« ον <τ9 δοκο&ν> α8τj ποιε-τX καN *Zετbν edd e Scyl 27.77 et Vita Nicephori 209 – Skylitzes may have improved the text on the basis of the Vita Nicephori, though this seems unlikely. III.14.33 lστησαν εn« σ;στηµα τg« οnκοψµωνη« V B in marg. Acta Davidis 239.7 Scyl 62.79 (AEV) Comb in marg. Bekk: σ;στασιν B Vita Michaelis Syncelli 86.8 Vita Theodori Grapti 673D PsSym 641.22 Scyl 62.79 (CBMN), Comb – preserved in a number of historical sources, these verses have come down in two versions in different branches of the tradition of Skylitzes. IV.8.20 καN *κ β\VρXν ) το& 4γ-οψ µεγαλοµ\ρτψρο« !νιδρ;Vη µονY V: post µεγα- λοµ\ρτψρο« fortasse <ΦXκ»> addendum, cf. Scyl 86.47–48 εn« µον]ν κατεσκεψ\σVη *π7 yνbµατι ΦXκ» το& µεγαλοµ\ρτψρο« – we cannot know whether Skylitzes found the monas- tery’s name in his manuscript of ThCont or in another source. IV.16.6–7 i το& 7Αργψρο& καN i το& ∆οψκ9« καN i Σοψδ\λη« ο5 !ποσταλωντε« *λωγοντο V: cf. Scyl 92.11 i το& 7Αργψρο& δ' tν ΛωXν καN i το& ∆οψκ9« 7Ανδρbνικο« καN i Σοψδ\λη« – Sky- litzes gives the first names of two of the three persons mentioned, whereas V gives none. If this is an addition by Skylitzes, one asks from which source. Perhaps there were marginal notes in Skylitzes’s manuscript of ThCont IV.22.22–27 !δελZαN δ' τρε`«, τε ε8ZYµ8 οsτX καλοψµωνη yνbµατι Καλοµαρ-α καN ΣοZ-α καN ) <ΕnρYνη>. !λλ7 ) µ'ν ΣοZ-α εn« κο-την *δ-δοτο ΚXνσταντ-ν8 τj κατ# τ9ν Βα- βο;τζικον, ) δ' Καλοµαρ-α 7Αρσαβ]ρ τj τηνικα&τα µ'ν πατρικ-8 lπειτα δ' καN µαγ-στρ8, †τj ΕnρYν竆 τg« µητρ9« το& µετ# τα&τα τ9ν πατριαρξικ9ν Vρbνον !ντιλαβοµωνοψ ΦXτ-οψ !δελZj nos: ΕnρYνη suppl. taciter edd, cf. Scyl 98.72: spatium ca. duodecim litterarum praebet V: lacunam statuit Boor, suspiciens Scylitzae fictionem // τj ΕnρYνη« V Boor: fortasse <) δ'> ΕnρYνη Σ<εργ-8> τj vel simile scribendum cf. Scyl 98.73 ΕnρYνη δ' Σεργ-8: <) δ' ΕnρYνη> τj ΕnρYνη« edd – for a discussion of this passage, see Mango 1977. IV.34.10–11 Ν-κην *γκαVιδρψµωνην κατ# τ]ν 4γ-αν 5Ανναν στερρQ« 5σταµωνα« *γκα- τασε-σαντε« V: post *γκαVιδρψµωνην add. καN τ#« *ν τj ∆εψτωρ8 Boor e Scyl 107.55–56
5.8. The reasons for some of the corrupt passages in V are obvious, either on account of syntactical or morphological error, or imprecision of reference. 24* Prolegomena
Thus, even when Skylitzes provides a reading of the passage which can be accepted in the edition, we cannot be sure whether he emended the text ope ingenii or simply found the correct reading in his manuscript. I.3.19 τ]ν Φοιδερ\τXν V: τ]ν !ρξ]ν τQν Φοιδερ\τXν Boor in app. e Scyl 30.56 – Skylitzes easily supplies the obvious substantive. I.22.4–6 β-βλ8 … καN µορZ#« καN σξYµατα lξοντι V edd: *ξο;σ Boor e Scyl 20.63–64 βιβλ-8 … lξοντι: lξοψσα V edd – Skylitzes substitutes lξοντι for lξοψσα for the syntax. This procedure is very common and we note here further examples without comment. I.26.1–2 κατ# τ9ν µgνα V: ∆εκωµβριον add. edd e Scyl 23.56 – it is evident in the previous narrative that Leo the Armenian died in December; thus Skylitzes could easily have made this ad- dition. II.2.20 τQν )µετωρXν ~νεκεν λ;τρXν 4µαρτιQν V: λ;τρον edd e Scyl 25.93 II.4.1–2 τ# δ' tν σψQν µ'ν τQν !ρτιτbκXν προλωγειν pσοι τε lσονται *ντραZε`« V: ε8τραZε`« edd Boor e Scyl 25.19, Ptolemaeus, Apotelesmatica 2.2.4.8 σ2µατα µεγ\λοι καN ε8τραZε`« το`« µεγωVεσι II.11.1 6Ατερο« δ' το&τον εναι τ9ν ΥXµ»ν V: post εναι add. Zησι Boor e Scyl 30.53 – Sky- litzes supplies the main verb. II.14bis.25 v τοσα;τη δψν\µει V: ) τοσα;τη δ;ναµι« edd e Scyl 35.96 II.20.2–3 τ# το& τψρ\ννοψ Zρονgσαι V edd Boor: Zρονο&σαι nos e Scyl 40.78 II.21.17 lξον V: lξXν edd Boor e Scyl 42.19 II.22.7–8 δ;ναµ-ν τινα … τ]ν *κε`Vεν !ποσοβYσοψσαν τοh« !γροh« V: 7Αγαρηνοh« coni. Boor: *ξVρο;« edd e Scyl 43.57 – the correct reading would appear to be 7Αγαρηνο;«, of which !γροh« would be an abbreviation; *ξVροh« is probably a conjecture ad sensum. III.3.8 ~καστον V Bekk in app. Boor: <περN> Ψκ\στοψ nos e Scyl 51.39: Ψκ\στοψ edd III.4.29 lκ τε V: lκτοτε edd e Scyl 51.66 III.9.30 πρ9« τ9 !ναπα;σεX« καταγ2γιον V: <τg«> post τ9 suppl. Boor e Scyl 57.12 III.13.26 *κε-νοψ δ' τ9 µ`σο« καN τ]ν Uπερβ\λλοψσαν µαν-αν V: *κε-νοψ δ' τ9 µ`σο« <προτιµgσαι> καN τ]ν Uπερβ\λλοψσαν µαν-αν Boor e Scyl 61.44: καN τ]ν Uπερβ\λλοψσαν µαν-αν καN προτιµgσαι. !λλ# τα&τα µ'ν sστερον edd, fortasse recte addentes ultimam senten- tiam e Scyl 61.45 III.18.4 τ]ν πασQν *σξ\την Μαρ-αν rγαπηµωνην οσαν τQν qλλXν V: add. Uπερ- βαλλbντX« ante rγαπηµωνην edd e Scyl 64.21–22 – Skylitzes adds UπερβαλλbντX«, apparently to heighten the comparison. III.22.21 i περN α8τQν πbλεµο« V: α8τ9ν edd Boor e Scyl 68.29 III.24.16 τοh« περN α8τQν !ναVαρρ;να« V: α8τ9ν edd Boor e Scyl 70.87 IV.18.10–11 κατ# τ9ν οκον α8το& κ\τεισι κατ# τ]ν 5Ασπαρον ντα V: κ\τεισι εn« τ9ν οκον α8το& κατ# τ]ν κιστωρναν το& (τ]ν Scyl) 5Ασπαρο« (5Ασπαρον Scyl M) edd e Scyl 94.58–5 – κιστωρναν added ad sensum. IV.21.31 !λµ\ντοψ« V: !λψµ\ντοψ« !νεκαλωσατο καN edd e Scyl 97.55 IV.21.32 µ'ν την\ρια V: µ'ν <κεν>τYναρια Boor e Scyl 97.56: κεντην\ρια edd IV.22.10 βασιλε&σιν !ο-διµο« V: <Βασ-λειο« i *ν> βασιλε&σιν !ο-διµο« nos: βασιλεh« i !ο-διµο« Βασ-λειο« edd: βασιλε;σα« Βασ-λειο« i !ο-διµο« coni. Boor, cf. Scyl 97.68 – Skylitzes either found the correct reading in his manuscript, or he supposed the reference to Βασ-λειο« to have gone missing, since the play on his name is frequent in the text. IV.40.18 οsτX κατονοµ\σα« V: τ9ν βασιλωα add. post οsτX edd e Scyl 111.71
5.9. More problematic are passages in which the text of ThCont presents no apparent problem, but Skylitzes provides either supplementary information or a more appealing variant. The editor is tempted to reject Skylitzes’s reading as revision or embellishment of the original; but considering the numerous Reception: John Skylitzes (and Ps-Symeon) 25* errors and, more importantly, omissions in V, it is always possible that Sky- litzes preserves readings that have disappeared without trace from V. How- ever, we have rarely accepted these variants or additions in the text, unlike Combéfis, who tacitly followed Skylitzes (or rather, Cedrenus) and Bekker who, in his ‘reprint’ of the edition of Combéfis, perpetuated these additions. In contrast, our edition relegates most of them to the apparatus.
I.11.28 λωγει τQν γενοµωνXν ο8δων V edd Boor: *γνXσµωνXν coni. Boor in app. e Scyl 12.89–90 !πYγγειλε τQν *γνXσµωνXν ο8δ'ν – *γνXσµωνXν is perhaps more elegant, but not necessarily the original reading. I.24.11–13 καN <α8>το& τ9ν κατ\κριτον *ν σκ-µποδι τj το& παπ-οψ περιδεk-X«, τ9ν δ' παπ-αν *π’ *δ\Zοψ« κοιµ2µενον εsρισκεν nos (καN <α8>το& τ9ν Boor: καN το& τ9ν V): Vωαµα iρ εn« lκπληkιν ο8 τ]ν τψξο&σαν qγον α8τbν· εδεν γ#ρ τ9ν µ'ν κατ\κριτον κλπ. edd e Scyl 21.94–95 – the sentence in Skylitzes is a dramatic amplification. I.25.35–36 πα-ει κατ# ξειρ9« V: post πα-ει add. διαντα-αν edd e Scyl 23.53 – the adverb in Skylitzes is superfluous, as in most of the following examples. II.7.1 τ]ν το& 7ΑVιγγ\νοψ µ\ντεX« πρbρρησιν V: post µ\ντεX« add. ZXν]ν a« Vε-αν τιν# edd e Scyl 26.48 II.11.7 τ#« περN α8το& προρρYσει« V: τ]ν (τ#« Comb) περN α8το& το& *ν τj Φιλοµηλ-8 µοναξο& πρbρρησιν edd e Scyl 30.59–60 II.13.3 *κπωµπει στρατ9ν V: *κπωµπει στρατι#ν καN στρατηγ9ν dubitanter e Scyl 32.18 (ACVN) restituit Boor in app., sed Scyl (M) στρατι#ν καN om. II.14.19–20 τ9ν κατ# V\λατταν δ' στbλον α8τj γενbµενον ε8τρεπισ\µενο« V: post ε8τρεπισ\µενο« add. καN ~τερον α8τj *πιστYσα« στρατηγ9ν edd e Scyl 33.57–58 II.14bis.19–20 πετροβbλοι« V: post πετροβbλοι« add. πανταξbVεν ξρ2µενο« edd e Scyl 34.92–93 II.15.10 καVψπισξνο;µενο« V: Uπισξνο;µενο« δ2σειν !γαV# πολλ\ edd e Scyl 35.21 II.18.4 σκεδανν;µενο- πX«: σκεδανν;µενοι *σκbποψν πQ« edd e Scyl 38.3 II.19.24 *πN κοντο& τε Vεατρ-ζει V, cf. Gen 31.53: *πN νοψ edd, cf. Scyl 40.60 ν8 II.21.51–52 !ποδοξg« κρ-ναντε« τ# λεγbµενα V: post !ποδοξg« add. qkια edd e Scyl 43.49 II.27.3 τ9 µοναξικ9ν *κ π\λαι !ναλαβο;ση« σξgµα V: *κ παιδ9« Scyl 46.37 – perhaps a change in interpretation, or simply an error by Skylitzes. II.27.29 προσερξbµενον V: µεµονXµωνον in app. coni. e Scyl 47.59 Boor, qui putavit ut libra- rii oculus ad sequens προσωρξονται aberravit III.3.5–6 τ# α8τQν *κτραγ8δε`ν !εN V: τ# α8τQν *κτραγ8δε`ν !δικYµατα edd e Scyl 50.37 III.4.13–14 i το;τοψ pρµο« V: i το& πλο-οψ pρµο« edd e Scyl 51.53 – explanatory substi- tution. III.4.18–19 σ-τοψ m τινο« qλλοψ V Boor: σ-τοψ
III.12.9–10 !λλ# καN το&τον ο8 το`« σοZιστικο`« V: !λλ# καN το&τον i γεννα`ο« !γXνιστ]« ο8 τα`« σοZιστικα`« καN διαλεκτικα`« !ποδε-kεσι edd e Scyl 60.14–15 III.15.6–7 κατ# π\ντα δ' τ9ν Ψαψτο& ξρbνον τg« ζXg« V: post ζXg« add. *κ\κοψ καN !νηκωστοι« Uπεβ\λλετο σψµZορα`« edd e Scyl 63.3–4 III.22.33 περN τ9ν ΥεbZοβον V: περN τ9ν ΥεbZοβον *γωραιρεν edd e Scyl 68.40 III.30.3 *κ Παλαιστ-νη« τε καN τg« κ\τX Λιβ;η« V: *κ Παλαιστ-νη« τε καN τg« κ\τX Λιβ;η« V Boor, cf. Gen 47.5 *k Αnγψπτ-οψ καN Παλαιστ-νη«: lκ τε ΒαβψλXν-α« καN Φοιν-κη« καN Κο-λη« Σψρ-α« Παλαιστ-νη« τε (τε, Comb) καN τg« κ\τX Λιβ;η« edd e Scyl 74.26–27 – clearly amplification by Skylitzes, to include all regions of the Caliphate as providers of soldiers for the Muslim army. III.31.16 τ9 τQν ΣαρακηνQν V: τ9 τQν ΣαρακηνQν πλgVο« edd e Scyl 76.69 III.32.19–20 γωγονεν αnτ-α καN !Zορµ] V: post !Zορµ] add. εϊκαιρο« εn« διαβολYν edd e Scyl 77.92 IV.7.32–33 καN ο5 µ'ν δ;ο τ#« δ;ο το& !νδρι\ντο« κεZαλ#« !πωκοχαν i δ7 ~τερο« µικρ9ν µ'ν κατωκλινεν V: post δ;ο add nσξψροτ\ται« ξρησ\µενοι καταZορα`« edd e Scyl 86.26 // post ~τερο« add µαλακ2τερον ποιYσα« τ]ν πληγ]ν edd e Scyl 86.27 IV.15.5–6 µοναξbν τινα τQν καV7 )µ»« ’ΡXµα-Xν ζXγρ\Zον V: ’ΡXµα`ον coni. Boor in app. e Scyl 91.74–75 ’ΡXµα`ον τ9 γωνο«, ζXγρ\Zον τ]ν τωξνην IV.19.34–35 κατ# γαστωρα βληVεN« V: κατ# γαστωρα πληγεN« edd e Scyl 95.93 IV.30.1–3 καN το`« το& 5πποδρbµοψ δ' σψνεξQ« Ψαψτ9ν i Β\ρδα« *δ-δοψ κριτηρ-οι« καN <τc ZιλοπρXτε-w>, *ραστ]« νοµ-ζεσVαι τα;τη« Zιλοτιµο;µενο« nos: post κριτηρ-οι« lacunam statuit Boor, coniciens quaedam veluti e Scyl 105.10 τ]ν τQν νbµXν !κρ-βειαν !νηβ»ν ποιQν // τc ZιλοπρXτε-w add. Kamb, cf. Scyl 106.13 i τg« ZιλοπρXτε-α« lρX« et 107.43 τg« ZιλοπρXτε-α« τ# νεαν-σµατα IV.34.6 ο5 σψνεξε`« τQν σεισµQν *κψµα-νοντb V: post σεισµQν add. <κλbνοι> Boor e Scyl 107.51 IV.37.8 µψστικ# !νδρ\ρια V: πορνικ# !νδρ\ρια Scyl 109.12– again, a change (µψσ- τικ#/πορνικ#) for greater effect.
5.10. Finally there are instances in which Skylitzes clearly has a reading at variance with V which is obviously incorrect, either because his manuscript of ThCont was corrupt or – more probably – because he misinterpreted the text. I.21.12–13 a« dν δι\ τινο« πορVµε-οψ διαβιβ\ζοιντο λbγοι ο5 α8το& V: cf. Scyl 19.31 προV;µX«, qui fortasse facilius reddidit I.22.2–3 τg« Ξριστο& το& Vεο& )µQν κ\τX τα;τη« γεννYσεX« V: κατ# σ\ρκα edd e Scyl 20.61 I.23.7 πολψετg ξρε-αν nos: πολψετYξρειαν V: πολψετg ξηρε-αν edd Boor e Scyl 21.78: πολhν *τ-αν PsSym f. 236v (πολψετ-αν 611.12) III.1.1–2 *πτ# lτεσι πρ9« µησNν yκτz V Boor: *ννωα Comb in marg. Bekk, cf. supra II.28.5–6 µgνα« yκτz καN lτη … *ννωα, quod pro lapso calami Continuatoris habemus, cui Scyl 47.72 (VBMN) *πN µgνα« yκτz καN lτη *ννωα itidem secutus est, sed apud Gen 35.78–79 et Scyl 47.72 (ACE) tempus regni ut 8 annorum et 9 mensium recte constat III.10.2 a« β\ρβαρb« τι« καN α8στηρ9« V: βαρ;« Scyl 58.51 III.14.18 *κε-νην lλεγε προστεVgναι πρ9« α8τ9ν nos (προτεVgναι Kamb): cf. Scyl 62.61–62 lλεγε προτιVεN« nωναι: lλεγε προστιVεN« lλεγε V: lλεγε προστιVεN« τ]ν β-βλον nωναι edd e Scyl: lλεγε προστιVεN« κοµισVgναι Scyl 62.61–62 (B): lλεγε προστιVεN«
6. Proposed stemma, including sources and adaptations
By the principles of Textual Criticism a stemma of the manuscript tradition of ThCont would appear impossible, for we have only one manuscript, the Vaticanus, and a later direct copy, the Barberinianus, with relevance only to the editorial history of the text. However, as we have used many other sources, older, contemporary and also later, for the edition, it is easiest for us to sum- marise our conclusions by means of a stemma combining references to manu- scripts (in grey boxes) with the textual tradition of the corresponding works (in white boxes). It is hoped that the resulting table, which combines Quellenfor- schung and Textkritik, will serve as a summary of the history of the text and the editorial principles outlined in the previous sections.
As is shown, the transmission of the Logothete texts and that of ThCont I–VI is connected in at least three points: 1) the original sources used by the Logothete were also used by the compiler of the original dossier of sources for Constantine Porphyrogenitus; 2) the author of Redaction ‘B’ and/or of ThCont VI used the dossier prepared by Basil the Nothos, who had been a close collaborator of Constantine Porphyrogenitus; 3) Ps-Symeon used the final dossier of ThCont I–VI to supplement the text of Redaction A of the Logothete Chronicle. Through these points of connexion it is clear that the tradi- tion of Genesius + ThCont (left side of the stemma) and the Logothete texts (right side) are much closer to each other than generally assumed, despite their pro- or anti-Macedonian bias. Any definitive solution of the problem must wait until the text of Redaction B is properly edited. Only then will we be able to appreciate the network of relations linking court historians record- ing the events of the ninth and tenth centuries. 28* Prolegomena The present edition 29*
7. The present edition a) Principles
As noted in Sˇevˇcenko’s edition of the VBas, Carl de Boor in his unpublished edition of ThCont mainly followed V; and for his edition of the VBas, Sˇev- cenkoˇ used V and de Boor. Whilst we, too, have noted de Boor’s emendations and conjectures in the present edition of Books I–IV,60 we have followed Vat. gr. 167 as closely as possible, correcting/emending on the basis of sources and later authors who clearly had better manuscripts of the text. We have had recourse to B only for a few folia at the beginning of V where the original text was apparently more legible at the time B was copied. Otherwise we use B solely to explain the text of the editions. Following Sˇevˇcenko’s edition of the VBas, we have indicated the folia of V and the page numbers in Bekker’s edition in the margins. Likewise, we have maintained Bekker’s chapter divisions, though they do not always correspond to the divisions in V; and references are given to the line number within each chapter, not pages. We have followed the text and orthographic practice of the original text in so far as it can be determined from V and the MSS of the sources and related texts. We have kept the ν ephelkystikon as it appears in V, where it is for the most part consistently used before vowels or syntactic pause.61 However, because we do not always follow the punctuation of the manuscript, some of these pauses will not be evident. Enclitics have been treated according to ‘classical’ rules, because there is no consistency in V of later Byzantine usage.62 The one exception to this is in compounds of the particle περ (e.g. σπωρ τινα), where we have retained the consistent accentuation of V.
60 Our work is based on photocopies made in the 1970’s of de Boor’s manuscript (ca 1900) for a new edition. The manuscript was amongst de Boor’s Nachlass brought by A. Heisenberg from Breslau to Munich and deposited in the library of the Byzantine Institute. It was lent in 1975 by H.-G. Beck to Sˇevˇcenko for work on a new edition of ThCont at Harvard. Later sent back to Munich by Sˇevˇcenko at the request of A. Hohlweg, it has gone missing. Concerning de Boor and other would-be editors subsequent to Bekker, see Sˇevˇcenko 1978, 104–105. 61 For the diverse usage of this ny in Classical times and its later standarisation, see Hämmig 2013, esp. 14–18 for the Byzantine period. 62 On Byzantine accentuation of enclitics, see most recently Noret 2014, 121–145. 30* Prolegomena
Another exception to the standard orthography is that of separating the components of µ] δω (µ] δ7 before vowels); again, this is the consistant usage in V. We have however standardised the orthography of the word ο8ξ before rough vowels, instead of ο8ξ7. The latter indeed occurs often in V, but not consistently. We have retained what appears to have been standard orthography for titles at court, as the accute accentuation of α8γο;στα, κα-σαρ, and the re- tention of omega in the oblique cases of Latinate words, e.g. πρXτοστρ\τXρ (-Xρο«), also found in Lipsiensis II 17 (X s.) of the De Cerimoniis. We have followed the consistent usage in V of writing σ2ζX without the iota-subscript. We have not maintained the punctuation of the text in V, but have changed it according to the sense of the text as we understand it. We have used capitals only at the beginning of paragraphs, not individual sentences. b) Explanation of the apparatus
The apparatus consists of three parts: (1) an apparatus historicus, (2) an ap- paratus fontium and (3) an apparatus criticus.
1. Apparatus historicus Here we simply give dates whenever possible. When there is uncertainty, ref- erence is made to the relevant bibliography.
2. Apparatus fontium In the apparatus fontium we have distributed the texts in three different ca- tegories: 1) First come what we can properly call ‘sources’, that is, works that were used or consulted either directly or, more frequently, through excerpts from the original texts collected in the *CS of ThCont and Genesius. In this ca- tegory we also include works which made use of the same sources as ThCont, such as Genesius or the Logothete Chronicle (A), because the loss of many of the original texts used by ThCont – above all the *CS – renders these later texts, written by contemporary authors, the only extant witnesses, indispensable for the constitutio textus. 2) Second, divided by a single vertical bar, come works which copied di- rectly from ThCont and in many cases have preserved the original wording, in particular the so-called Ps-Symeon and Skylitzes. As in the case of Genesius and the Logothete Chronicle (A), who copied from the sources of ThCont, the importance of the authors in this second category to the constitutio textus is enormous, for the MSS they used were older and better than Vat. gr. 167. The present edition 31*
3) Third, after a double vertical bar we have identified, in so far as pos- sible, Biblical and Classical citations, as well as parallel passages. We have been extremely conservative in this section and have admitted only texts which the author of ThCont is sure to have had in his mind when writing. Ob- viously, the exact source of a proverb or a commonplace or phrase cannot be established with certainty, and thus the problem frequently arises of identify- ing a given expression with either a classical text or a later anthology, gnomo- logium or collection of proverbs. In such cases we have given preference to both coincidence of form and presentation of the passage in the correspond- ing work (e.g. a quotation or proverb), referring to the ultimate source with the customary ‘cf.’, to indicate that the author did not cite it directly but only through intermediaries. Finally, we have considered it pointless to be exhaus- tive in the recording of common phrases, such as Biblical citations or prov- erbs, found often in literary works.
3. Apparatus criticus The apparatus is negative. We have reported variants in spelling even when not relevant to the constitutio textus. We have noted the marginal remarks in semi-uncials in Book I, which appear to have been taken over from the proto- type, but not the ubiquitous later annotations described in section 2 above. References are made to recent editions of Genesius, Skylitzes and the Logo- thete Chronicle (A), insofar as they contribute to the constitutio textus in difficult or corrupt passages in Vat. gr. 167. For Skylitzes, we have noted the readings of individual manuscripts when relevant. Although Combéfis did not read Skylitzes directly but only through Cedrenus (ed. A. Fabrot, Paris 1647), we refer to Skylitzes for Combéfis’s emendations; as Thurn states in the prole- gomena to his edition: ‘Aus Kedren ist kaum die Emendation einer Stelle im Skylitzes’ text zu erwarten’.63 For Ps-Symeon we have noted the readings of Par. gr. 1712 when at variance with Bekker’s edition of 1838. References to other texts, such as George the Monk, are seldom. c) Indices
There are four indices: (1) Index nominum propriorum, (2) Index verborum ad res Byzantinas spectantium, (3) Index grammaticus and (4) Index locorum.
1) Index nominum proriorum Here are listed the names of people and places and of particular things: for in- stance, Σξολα- for the buildings so-named in the Palace, whereas σξολα- in
63 Skylitzes, xxvii. 32* Prolegomena the sense of divisions of the guards on campaign is to be found in the Index verborum ad res byzantinas spectantium; and σξολY in the Classical sense of ‘school’ is not listed in either index.
2) Index rerum byzantinarum Here are included only the occurences of words with reference to specific By- zantine reality, for instance, β-βλο« for a physical book; εnκ2ν for an icon; V\λασσα for a tunic with a sea pattern; Vρbνο« for an episcopal see; λωXν (and γρ;χ) for automata; ργανον for a musical instrument; στρατηγb« and cognates for the head of a theme, etc.
3) Index grammaticus The relevant linguistic data have been classfied by the traditional partes orationis of Greek grammar, as the most impartial manner of presenting the evidence collected. Note is taken of morphologic and orthographic devi- ations from standard Attic forms, but special attention is given to the syntac- tic use of the partes, inasmuch as syntax, though often neglected, is of utmost importance in the analysis of the author’s style and the evolution of the lan- guage.
4) Index locorum Here are listed citations identified in the text, as well as cases of µ-µησι« where the author clearly draws his vocabulary from a particular classical text, sometimes directly, sometimes – as we suspect but are not able to prove – through such collections as the Excerpta historica of Constantine VII. The few (mostly historical) sources used by the author in writing his history are not in- cluded here on account of the complexity of their use, as explained above in sections 3–5 of these Prolegomena. The same applies to parallel texts. Refer- ence to both, however, is made in the apparatus fontium. Bibliography 33*
8. Bibliography
Angelidi 2012: Angelidi, Ch., Basile Lecapène. “Deux ou trois choses que je sais de lui”, in: Gastgeber, Ch. – Messis, Ch. – Muresan, D. – Ronconi, F. (eds.), Pour l’amour de Byzance. Hommage à Paolo Odorico. Eastern and Central European Studies 3, Frankfurt-am-Main, 11–26. Bariˇsi´c 1959: Bariˇsi´c P., Génésios et le continuateur de Théophane, Byzantion 28, 119–133. Bariˇsi´c 1961: Bariˇsi´c P., Les sources de Génésios et du Continuateur de Théophane pour l’histoire du Règne de Michel II, Byzantion 31, 257–271. Bury 1912: Bury, J. B., A History of the Later Roman Empire from the Fall of Eirene to the Accession of Basil I (802–867), London. Cheynet 2015: Cheynet, J. Cl., “Les Génésioi”, in Antonopoulou Th. – Kot- zabassi, S. – Loukaki, M. (eds.), Myriobiblos. Essays in Byzantine Literature and Culture, Berlin, 71–83. Featherstone 2004: Featherstone, J.M., Further Remarks on the De Cerimoniis, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 97, 113–121. Featherstone 2011: Featherstone, J.M., Theophanes Continuatus VI and De Cerimoniis I,96, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 104, 109–116. Featherstone 2012: Featherstone, J. M., Theophanes Continuatus: A History for the Palace, in: Odorico, P. (ed.), La face cachée de la littérature byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 5–6–7 juin 2008. Dossiers Byzantins 11, Paris, 123–135 Featherstone 2014: Featherstone, J.M., Basileios Nothos as Compiler: the De Cerimoniis and Theophanes Continuatus, in: Signes Codoñer, J. – Pérez Martín, I. (eds.), The Transmission of Byzantine Texts between Textual Criticism and Quel- lenforschung, Turnhout, 353–372. Featherstone–Gruskova–Kresten 2005: Featherstone, J.M – Gruskova, J. – Kresten, O., Studien zu den Palimpsestenfragmenten des Sogenannten “Zeremonienbuchs”. I. Prolegomena, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 98, 423–430 Flusin–Cheynet 2003: Flusin, B. – Cheynet, J.-Cl., Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de Constantinople. Réalités byzantines 8, Paris. Hämmig 2013: Hämmig, A.E., Ν5 F8ελκψστικ9ν. Untersuchung zur Verbereitung und Herkunft des beweglichen Nasals im Griechischen, Hamburg. Hirsch 1876: Hirsch, F., Byzantinische Studien, Leipzig (reprint Amsterdam 1965). Kaldellis 1998: Kaldellis, A., Genesios on the reigns of the emperors, Canberra. Karlin-Hayter 1971: Karlin-Hayter, P., Études sur les deux histoires du règne de Michel III, Byzantion 41, 452–496. 34* Prolegomena
Kazhdan 1961: Kazhdan, A.P., Iz istorii vizantijskoj xronografii X v. 1. O sos- tave tak nazyvaemoj ‘Xroniki prodolz’atelja Feofana’, Vizantijskij Vremen- nik 19 (1961) 76–96. Kazhdan 1962: Kazhdan, A.P., Iz istorii vizantijskoj chronografii X v. 3. Kniga Tsarej i Zhizneopisanie Vasilija, Vizantijskij Vremennik 21, 95–117. Kiapidou 2010: Kiapidou E.-S., Η Σ;νοχη Ιστορι2ν τοψ Ι3,ννη Σκψλ<τζη και οι πηγω« τη« (811–1057): σψµβολ+ στη βψζαντιν+ ιστοριογρα8<α κατ, τον ΙΑ2 αι2να, Athens. Kolovou 2010: Kolovou, Ph., Die griechischen Handschriften der Universi- tätsbibliothek Leipzig, in: Bravo García, A. – Pérez Martín, I., with the as- sistence of Signes Codoñer, J., The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting, Turnhout, 377–393. Ljubarskij 1987: Ljubarskij, J., Theophanes Continuatus und Genesios. Das Problem einer gemeinsamen Quelle, Byzantinoslavica 48, 12–27. Ljubarskij 1996: Ljubarskij, J. review of Signes 1995, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 90, 162–163. Magdalino 2013a: Magdalino, P., Constantine VII and the Historical Geography of Empire, in: Bazzaz, S. – Batsaki, Y. – Angelov, D. (eds.), Im- perial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space, Washington, 23–42. Magdalino 2013b: Magdalino, P., Knowledge in Authority and Authorised History: The Imperial Intellectual Programme of Leo VI and Con- stantine VII, in: Armstrong, P. (ed.), Authority in Byzantium, Ashgate, 187–209. Mango 1977: Mango, C., The liquidation of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch Photios, in: Bryer, A. - Herrin, J. (eds.), Iconoclasm, Birmingham, 133–140. Mango 2013: Mango, C., Introduction, in: Sˇevˇcenko 2013, 3*–13*. Mango–Sˇevˇcenko 1962: Mango, C. – Sˇevˇcenko, I., Additional Note on the Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors, DOP 16, 61–63. Markopoulos 1986: Markopoulos, A., Quelques remarques sur la famille des Genesioi aux IXe–Xe siècles, Zbornik radova vizantoloˇskog instituta 24–25, 103–108. Markopoulos 2003: Markopoulos, A., Byzantine history writing at the end of the first millenium, in: Magdalino, P. (ed.), Byzantium in the year 1000, Leiden-Boston, 183–197. Markopoulos 2009a: Markopoulos, A., Genesios: a study, in Kotzabassi, S. – Mavromatis, G. (eds.), Realia Byantina, Berlin-New York, 137–150. Markopoulos 2009b: Markopoulos, A., From narrative historiography to his- torical biography. New trends in Byzantine historical writing in the 10th-11th centuries, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102, 697–715 Markopoulos 2013: Markopoulos, A., Οι µεταµορZ2σει« τη« “µψVολογ-α«” τοψ Βασιλε-οψ Α2, in: Leontaritou, V. A. – Bourdara, K. A. – Papagianni (eds.), ANTECESSOR. Festschrift für Spyros N. Troianos zum 80. Geburtstag, Athens, 945–970. Bibliography 35*
Noret 2014: Noret, J., L’accentuation byzantine: en quoi et pourquoi elle dif- fère de l’accentuation “savante” actuelle, parfois absurde, in Hinterberger, M. (ed.), The language of Byzantine learned literature. Byzantios: Studies in Byzan- tine History and Civilization 9, Turnhout, 96–146. Odorico 2014: Odorico, P., Dans le cahier des chroniqueurs. Le cas d’Eus- tathe d’Antioche, in: Signes Codoñer, J. – Pérez Martín, I. (eds.), Textual Transmission in Byzantium: between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung, Turn- hout, 373–389. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1899a: Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., Χεψδονι- κYτα« i ΠαZλαγzν καN i νbVο« β-ο« το& πατρι\ρξοψ 7Ιγνατ-οψ, Vizan- tijskij Vremennik 9, 13–38. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1899b: Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., ’Η χεψδ3- νψµ<α καK νο2ε<α το5 8εροµωνοψ FπL Mν9µατι Νικ+τα Πα8λαγ9νο« β<οψ το5 πατρι,ρξοψ LΙγνατ<οψ, Trieste. Serventi 2001: Serventi, St., Il Vat. Gr. 167, Testimone della Continuatio Theophanis e i marginalia di un anonimo lettore bizantino, Aevum 75, 267–302. Sˇevˇcenko 1978: Sˇevˇcenko, I., Storia Letteraria. La civiltà bizantina dal IX all’ XI secolo. Università degli Studi di Bari, Centro di Studi Bizantini, Corsi di Studi – II, 1977, Bari, 91–127. Reprint: La Biographie de l’empereur Basile Ier. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Offprint Series no. 26. Cambridge (Massachu- setts), 1978. Sˇevˇcenko 1992: Sˇevˇcenko, I., Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus. in: Shepard, J. – Franklin, S., (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty- fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot, 167–195. Sˇevˇcenko 1998: Sˇevˇcenko, Ι., The Title of and Preface to Theophanes Con- tinuatus. in: Lucà, S. – Perria, L.: LΟπPρα. Studi in onore di Mgr Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, N.S. 52, 77–93 Sˇevˇcenko 2013: Sˇevˇcenko, I., Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur (Corpus Fontium Historiae By- zantinae 42), Berlin. Signes 1989: Signes Codoñer, J., Algunas consideraciones sobre la autoría del Theophanes Continuatus, Erytheia 10, 17–28. Signes 1994: Signes Codoñer, J., Constantino Porfirogéneto y la fuente común de Genesio y Theophanes Continuatus I–IV, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86/87, 319–341. Signes 1995: Signes Codoñer, J., El periodo del segundo iconoclasmo en Theophanes Continuatus, Amsterdam. Signes 2013: Signes Codoñer, J., Dead or alive? Manuel the Armenian’s (after)life after 838, in: Gastgeber, Ch. – Messis, Ch. – Muresan D.I. – Ron- coni, F. (eds.), Pour l’amour de Byzance. Hommage à Paolo Odorico (Eastern and Central European Studies 3), Frankfurt am Main, 231–242. 36* Prolegomena
Signes 2014: Signes Codoñer, J., The Emperor Theophilos and the East (829-842). Court and Frontier in Byzantium during the last phase of Iconoclasm (Birmingham By- zantine and Ottoman Studies 13), Aldershot. Signes 2015: Signes Codoñer, J., Theophanes at the time of Leo VI, in: Tra- vaux et Mémoires 19. Speck 1988: Speck, P., Das geteilte Dossier. Ποικ<λα Βψζαντιν, 9, Bonn. Varona Codeso 2010: Varona Codeso, P., Miguel III (842–867): Construcción his- tórica y literaria de un reinado. Nueva Roma 33, Madrid. Wahlgren 2006: Wahlgren, St., Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae chronicon (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 44.1), Berlin. Wander 2012: Wander, St., The Joshua Roll, Wiesbaden. Featherstone_000_a_Titelei.pod III 15-09-25 12:15:44 -dsl- dsl
III CHRONOGRAPHIAE QUAE THEOPHANIS CONTINUATI NOMINE FERTUR LIBRI I–IV
RECENSUERUNT ANGLICE VERTERUNT INDICIBUS INSTRUXERUNT MICHAEL FEATHERSTONE ET JUAN SIGNES CODOÑER
NUPER REPERTIS SCHEDIS CAROLI DE BOOR ADIUVANTIBUS
DE GRUYTER Featherstone_000_a_Titelei.pod IV 15-09-25 12:15:44 -dsl- dsl
IV
ISBN 978-1-61451-598-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-504-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-61451-959-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
© 2015 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Satz: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ÜGedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Featherstone_000_a_Titelei.pod V 15-09-25 12:15:44 -dsl- dsl
CYRILLO MANGO
HONORE PROVOCAT MAGISTERIO DOCET INVITAT EXEMPLO Featherstone_000_a_Titelei.pod VI 15-09-25 12:15:44 -dsl- dsl
VI Featherstone_000_b_TOC.pod VII 15-09-25 12:16:40 -dsl- dsl
VII
FOREWORD
In the late winter of 1975 Ihor Sˇevˇcenko came to the weekly meeting of his Byzantine Seminar at Harvard University carrying a parcel wrapped in brown paper. On the table before all members of the seminar he opened the parcel revealing an unbound book composed of yellowed sheets folded in half, with cut-out printed pages pasted in the upper half and notes in purple ink written in the side and lower margins. After recognition of the pasted pages as Im- manuel Bekker’s edition of Theophanes Continuatus – excised from two original copies of Bonn! – everyone guessed that Carl de Boor’s unpublished edition, sought after for many months by Sˇevˇcenko without success, had been found. ‘But how did you get hold of it?’, exclaimed Peggy Thorne with her infecti- ous enthusiasm; to which the answer was: ‘Proof of the generous friendship of Hans-Georg Beck’. Then professor and director of the Byzantine Institute in Munich, Beck came that year to Harvard with his wife Erni, and he re- counted how de Boor’s papers had been recovered from the place where they had been kept for safety during the War. It was at once clear to all that this discovery would insure the realisation of Sˇevˇcenko’s project for a new edition of Theophanes Continuatus. After the se- minar, Peggy Thorne, who had worked in decoding secret documents during the War, insisted on photocopying the entire manuscript straightway in the basement of Widener Library – her fingers are to be seen in the copies. It was with these copies of de Boor and others from a microfilm of the Vaticanus graecus 167 that Sˇevˇcenko followed the text as members of the seminar read aloud from Bekker’s edition of the Vita Basilii; and it was on the copies of de Boor’s manuscript that he made his original notes for the new edition of the text which would appear thirty-six years later in the same series as the present volume. Nearly a decade before the publication of the Vita Basilii, in the spring of 2003, Sˇevˇcenko and Michael Featherstone met in Paris after some twenty years. Reminiscing on the old seminar at Harvard, Sˇevˇcenko suggested that Featherstone should take over the re-edition of the remaining parts of Theophanes Continuatus, Books I–IV and ‘VI’. Athanasios Kambylis, general editor of the Berlin Series of the CFHB, agreed, and Featherstone set to work. Three years later, in the summer of 2006, at Sˇevˇcenko’s request for help in fin- ishing the edition of the Vita Basilii, Featherstone returned to Harvard. The work consisted mainly of bibliographical researches; text, translation and in- dices had long been typeset by the publisher. Unfortunately, the introduction would remain unwritten until Sˇevˇcenko’s death three years later. Featherstone_000_b_TOC.pod VIII 15-09-25 12:16:40 -dsl- dsl
VIII Foreword
To Featherstone’s request for copies of de Boor’s papers, Sˇevˇcenko re- counted that, at the demand of Armin Hohlweg, the original manuscript had been sent back to Munich, though he had been informed by Albrecht Ber- ger that it had somehow gone missing. Fortunately, Sˇevˇcenko still had Peggy Thorne’s photocopies, assuring de Boor’s appearance in the present edition. Later that same summer, in Bedford Square Gardens during the Byzantine Congress in London, through the good offices of a mutual friend, Otto Kresten, Featherstone made the acquaintace of Juan Signes Codoñer. Signes had also worked intensively on Theophanes Continuatus, in Paul Speck’s seminar in Berlin in the late1980’s, and in the early 1990’s with Antonio Bravo García in Madrid. That afternoon in Bedford Square was the beginning of the friend- ship and fruitful collaboration – supported throughout by the benevolent Kambylis and the excellent staff of de Gruyter – which has led to the present volume. We are grateful for the grant FFI2012-37908-C02 from the Spanish Min- istry of Economy and Competitiveness in support of work on the edition.
Michael Featherstone and Juan Signes Codoñer Michaelmas 2014 Featherstone_000_b_TOC.pod IX 15-09-28 10:38:43 -dsl- dsl
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ...... VII
PROLEGOMENA
1. The texts in Vat. gr. 167 ...... 3* 2. The manuscripts ...... 5* 3. The sources of Text I ...... 10* 4. Authorship of Texts I–III and subsequent compilation of Theophanes Continuatus ...... 14* 5. Reception: John Skylitzes (and Ps-Symeon) ...... 20* 6. Proposed stemma, including sources and adaptations ...... 27* 7. The present edition ...... 29* a) Principles ...... 29* b) Explanation of the apparatus ...... 30* c) Indices ...... 31* 8. Bibliography ...... 33*
ΞΡΟΝΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ Σ*ΓΓΡΑΦΕΙΣΑ ΕΚ ΠΡΟΣΤΑ/Ε!Σ Κ!ΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟ* ΤΟ* ΒΑΣΙΛΕ!Σ
Tabula notarum in apparatibus adhibitarum ...... 3 Textus et versio anglica ...... 7 Titulus generalis totius operis ...... 8 Λ2γο« α2. Περ8 Λωοντο« το< => ?ρµεν@α« ...... 10 Λ2γο« β2. Περ8 ΜιξαEλ το< => ?µορ@οψ ...... 64 Λ2γο« γ2. Περ8 Υεοφ@λοψ ψJο< ΜιξαKλ ...... 124 Λ2γο« δ2. Περ8 ΜιξαEλ ψJο< Υεοφ@λοψ ...... 212
INDICES
1. Index nominum propriorum ...... 305 2. Index verborum ad res Byzantinas spectantium ...... 329 3. Index grammaticus ...... 341 4. Index locorum ...... 356
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf - J.M. Featherstone
Though much has been written on the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by Konstantin Tischendorf (1815-1874),1 little use has yet been made of Tischendorf’s personal letters to his fiancée/wife Angelika and brother Julius. Not only of interest for the Sinaiticus, this voluminous correspondence provides a highly entertaining view of Tischendorf’s travels throughout Europe and the Near East, his hobnobbing with royalty and equal joy in collecting books and personal distinctions. It is hoped that the following summary, with the barest annotation, will prompt a complete edition and study of the letters. The page numbers are those in the transcription of the letters typed by Tischendorf’s daughter, in the family’s possession, photocopies of which have been deposited in the library of St Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai. ______
1 Most recently D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus – The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible, London 2010 ; Chr. Böttrich, Der Jahrhundertfund. Entdeckung und Geschichte des Codex Sinaiticus, Leipzig (Evangelische Verlagsanstalt) 2011, with extensive bibliography.
LETTERS
Cairo, 1 May 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 71 : He plans to stay 14 days on Sinai.
St Catherine’s, Sinai, 26 May-1 June 1844 : p. 78 : The monks, who change very often, give him a very different impression from that of Schubert [Gotthilf Heinrich v. Schubert, Reise in den Orient in den Jahren 1832 und 1833, 1840]. If he had soldiers under his command, he would believe it a holy task to throw this rabble over the walls. How sad it is when one sees man bring his meanness, his wretchedness straightway into the wonderful sublimity of Nature ! How splendid Sinai and all that surrounds it is ! He had never experienced a more imposing impression than he did a few hours before arriving at the monastery.
Cairo, 15 June 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 81 He took only two letters of recommendation with him to Sinai ; one of them, from the superior of the Sinai monastery in Cairo, was of no use because this perfidious Greek
1 wrote to his monastery that they might put everything at his disposal, but they should be careful with him with regard to manuscripts. p. 83-84 Results of his researches : He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitz gelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of the very oldest preserved in Europe. He believes they are from the mid-fourth century, and they are remarkable not only for their age but also other reasons. He also possesses 24 palimpsest folia with Arabic writing of the 12th century and Greek of the 8-9th century ; further, 4 similer palimpsest folia ; and finally, amongst other less significant things, 4 mutilated folia of a Greek New Testament of the 7-8th century. He has reported this to the head court preacher v. Ammon and expects to receive more money. He must cut his trip short : he wants to go to the patriarch in Constantinople in order to obtain the rest of the folia (beside the 43 he has) which remained at Sinai [=um noch den von jenen 43 Blättern auf dem Sinai verbliebenen Rest zu erhalten] ; thus he has suspended making a public announcement of his find. That his trip to Sinai was of interest to him in thousands of other ways his brother will certainly understand.
Constantinople, 4 September 1844 p. 95 He has been received by the present patriarch and by two dismissed patriarchs on the Princes Islands.
Constantinople, 4 September 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 97 His brother had not received the news of the find of the oldest parchment document in Europe, which he is bringing to Saxony. His trip to the East has exceeded all hopes. He does not know yet whether he will give all his MSS to the [Saxon] government, in order, perhaps, to receive a higher salary than usual for a professor. He has also acquired a MS in Constantinople : a Greek palimpsest of 200 folia from the 12th century, whose older text is from the 8th century, thus the oldest preserved Gospels for church use.
Cairo, 14 February 1853
2 p. 198 He visits the Patriarch and head of the Sinai Monastery [Constantine, former patriarch of Constantinople, later archbishop of Sinai] together with the Russian minister and general consul and finds the best reception ; he hopes to find the same reception at Sinai itself ; his dear old friend Cyril the librarian is still there ; he believes he has God’s blessing for his new journey.
Cairo, 19 March 1853 p. 206 Despite the failure of his main goal, he has been rewarded beyond his expectations : he is bringing back more than ten very old palimpsests, of which two are particularly valuable, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament. The first, from the 5th –as well as the 2d— century forms a pendant to the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, and he has thought to call it, in honour of Prince Johann, the Codex Johanneus, provided that the Government fulfils his wishes for the future. He hopes to God that he and his wife will prevail in future in their material struggle. Besides these palimpsests, his greatest treasures are three uncial MSS from the 9th century, two of which contain the Gospels, the other Genesis. Whereas the palimpsests are very short, the latter MSS are much longer and belong to the most significant witnesses of the Biblical text. God grant that these discoveries will be to the honour of His name. Falkenstein has been made minister of culture and will certainly help.
Leipzig, 22 July 1857 p. 271 The minister [Falkenstein] has come back, but Tischendorf has not yet seen him. Tischendorf’s friend from Oxford Max Müller is in Leipzig and has news about the English expedition to Greek monasteries. The government is taking part, but luckily the expedition was only for the purpose of observation. There are plans for further action, including all acquisitions. So Tischendorf hopes, if the Russian minister is true to his word, to set out in the coming winter to that place where the dearest thing to his heart lies. This goal is so isolated that it will also be able to take it away in isolation. A way will be found. ‘The world belongs to the bold.’ He must not fail where there is a great, splendid purpose to achieve.
Leipzig, 26 July 1857
3 p. 273 Tischendorf is awaiting any day the decision of the Russian government in the matter which makes his heart burn with zeal.
Dresden (1858 ?), Tuesday p. 275 He is invited to dine with the Russian ambassador.
Dresden (1858 ?), Wednesday p. 276 He dined with Prince Volkonskij. Beust was also there, Falkenstein as well.
Trieste, 10 January 1859 p. 278 He departs for the East amidst preparations for war.
Alexandria, 17 January 1859 p. 281 The Prussian consul and Russian consul [from Cairo] are old acquaintances of Tischendorf. The Russian vice-consul in Alexandria tells Tischendorf that during the past year the Russian consulate has done much in favour of the Sinai monastery : Good preparation ! All correspondence from the Synod in Petersburg goes through the Russian vice-consulate, and there is nothing to arouse suspicion. The goal of his journey is known at least here in Alexandria, but there is no connexion here with the monastery. He has heard again of the stories told by Simonides. He is in a hurry to go to Cairo and then further on to his goal.
Cairo, 21 January 1859 p. 285 He will leave in two days for Sinai. He could almost have lost hope of success, for the Sinai monks here [in Cairo] have remained true to their former character. But he is none the more stupid ; and to his great joy, he has learnt that his Cyril is still alive. He is very eager to see what will be possible. God grant His blessing to the journey ! The Russian general consul is an excellent man, if rather young and not completely experienced. When Tischendorf comes home he will certainly have Sinai sausages in
4 his suitcase, and let us hope they will be packed with other treasures, so that he may bring his children – and also the emperor – something fitting.
Cairo, 15 February 1859 (received 25 February, at 6 :00 PM) p. 287 The Lord has given victory and given His blessing to his researches. He was received in the monastery in the most excellent way, although he had not brought the letter of introduction, but only the official letter of the Russian general consul. The oikonomos himself came personally straigthway to greet him and took him through the garden into the monastery. Very soon Cyril, his old friend, came to him from the superior, who was ill. Cyril was very warm ; just a few days ago he had spoken with the superior, who had wanted to meet Tischendorf in Constantinople, where he was supposed to have been with his wife. As Cyril accompanied him to the superior, Tischendorf was treated like a good spirit sent from Above. They spoke of his great work for the Church as if it was something they knew with precision. They wished only that the Lord should help him find that what he sought, for the good of the Church. p. 288 He was very surprised by this reception ; but he happily went along with it. Cyril told him that he asked most of the visitors who had come since 1853 for news of him ; and most of them had something to tell him. The report was that he was now in one place, now in another. There were also reports about his wife. When Cyril had heard that Tischendorf had come without his wife, he told the superior at once that something must have happened to her. The library was at his disposal. He was able to take in his hands and look through almost every MS, in order to see which ones he wanted to study afterwards. Already this was a great blessing, and he thought his trip was a success, even if nothing else came out of it. He announced openly his intention to make acquisitions with the name and the gold of the emperor, though the direct, official way did not lead to the goal, so it was considered a private agreement. He comported himself more like a Russian prince than a Saxon professor. He gave gifts at every opportunity. His favour and mediation in Petersburg were much sought after. And imagine what happened ! The oikonomos and he saw the golden MS and others in the room of [=bei] the old skeuophylax ; and then the oikonomos had in his room [=in seiner Stube] and showed to Tischendorf the MS of which the Codex Friderico-Augustanus is undoubtedly a part and of which
5 Tischendorf had seen another fragment containing Isaiah and other parts of the Old Testament on his first trip to Sinai. But the MS was no longer the fragment of 70-80 folia, but 346. Tischendorf was beyond himself with joy as he rushed with it into his cell. There he saw that the whole New Testament was in it : the only such MS in the world ! Neither the Codex Vaticanus nor the London Alexandrinus has all the New Testament, and the Sinai Codex is certainly older than both of them. This find is an event for all Christian scholarship. Of course, no one in the monastery knew what the MS contained. And now more surprises : At the end of the book there is the entire Epistle of Barnabas, one of the disciples of the Apostles, of which a considerable part has until now been considered to be lost in the Greek original, and for which the extant parts are transmitted only in later, unreliable MSS. He had tears in his eyes, and his heart had never been so moved. When he recovered he thought how there might also be the Shepherd of Hermas text here ; and then he took a folio and read : ‘The Shepherd’ ! He lost all control. He thought that it could only have been the Lord’s calling that led him to this discovery. The whole MS, such as it is, is an incomparable treasure for scholarship and the Church. The Hermas is not complete like the Barnabas, with about a third of the text, the first part, preserved. What a sensation this will make everywhere, especially in Leipzig ! His views on Hermas were wrong, but in one thing he was right : the Athos text is not only much inferior than the Sinai one, but is also certainly corrupted from the Latin. What was to be done now ? One thing was certain : Not one letter was to remain uncopied by his own hand. He attempted to acquire it, but this failed. Then he requested to have the MS taken to Cairo. But the old Vitalios [=Skeuophylax in the Praktika =Sinai Archive 2207, Arith. 20, 28 December 1862, p. 299] could in no way be convinced, though the whole monastery became very cross with this old stubborn ox. He left on the condition of coming back for 5-6 weeks, or else the MS was to be sent in care of the monastery in Cairo. Unfortunately, the excellent superior Dionysios had left for Cairo the day before the discovery, upon news of the death of the archbishop partiarch Constantios. Yesterday Tischendorf has achieved what he wanted : A messenger has been dispatched from the Cairo monastery p. 290 who is to bring the MS here (Cairo) by next Wednesday, in order that Tischendorf can copy it with ease. Perhaps he will succeed in more. He would offer 10.000 thalers outright, if it was for sale, though only as a gift—with a gift in return, of course. But even if he does not possess the original MS, the discovery has been made. It will be
6 the most important and greatest of his works. His plan to edit it in the name of the emperor is already fixed. He will write with the next ship to the emperor and the grand duke Constantine. Also to his minister : he will leave it to Falkenstein to give the news to the Saxon newspapers. He asks his wife not to say anything about it to anyone except best friends. He has already copied Barnabas and Hermas in the monastery. He will need a good six weeks in Cairo to finish the work of copying. He describes his departure from Sinai : it was a affair of state. The Russian imperial flag was raised over the monastery ; three rifle shots were fired ; and the oikonomos, Cyril and other brothers accompanied him on his way out.
Cairo, 16 February 1853 p. 296 He had to give all the copies of his edition of the New Testament to the Sinai monks. It is a good sign for them that they had so great a desire for such a thing. After the success he has had, he would like to go home at once ; but should it, contrary to all expectation, prove possible to acquire as a gift the precious Sinai Bible which he wishes to copy immediately letter-for-letter, he will have to change his plans. In that case he would not dare carry the MS about nor to send it off, but he would have to take it to Petersburg himself and put it in the emperor’s hands. He has also acquired all the Arabic Pauline Epistles amongst which was the fragment of the Epistle to the Hebrews which Prof Delitzsch was so delighted with.
Cairo, 15 March 1859 p. 301 Contrary to his wish, he has not dared wait any longer in announcing his find, because even the English have stuck their noses and eyes into the monastery here, so that word must have gone through all Europe. He has written to Falkenstein in the most official manner and asked him to have the news printed in the Leipzig newspaper. Whatever impression the find makes—probably a mixed one – it is a splendid success, which will make his trip unforgettable in the annals of Christian literature, and this is mort imporatnt to him than anything Hinz and Kunz [ho polloi] might say. He has found a doctor med. L’Orange from Königsberg and a pharmacist from Leipzig to help with the copying of the MS, though he must revise everything himself. By Reminiscere-Sunday all the New Testament will be finished ; then all the rest, God willing, in the Laetare-week in April. There is still a glimmer of hope of
7 acquiring the splendid, inestimable original ; this would make him exceedingly happy. He is making three photographic facsimiles, which he hopes will turn out well.
Cairo, 30 March 1859 p. 307 There is great interest in Alexandria and Cairo concerning the discovery, and in German and English circles etc. it is much talked about. People come to him to see it. p. 308 The copying is advancing. Yesterday he collected the last 125 folia from the monastery. His doctor and pharmacist (named Voss, from Leipzig, who calls the bookseller in Leipzig his uncle) write about fifty folia per week. But he tells his wife that he still has hope of taking away the precious MS as a gift for their imperial Majesties. Just yesterday both of the monastery superiors fully confirmed him in this hope. But the matter must be presented to the others —the subordinates, so Tischendorf understands, of the superior in Cairo, Agathangelos– who are coming (probably next week) from Constantinople and Wallachia for the election of a new archbishop. In hope of this, Tischendorf has stopped with the revision, since he could revise the remaining folia on the return trip. He is not sure how to proceed after receiving the treasure. The best way seems to be to complete the trip as quickly as possible, as he has promised the imperial minister. It is probable that he will be charged by Petersberg with bringing the emperor’s gift in recompense to the monastery, so that he will have to come back to Cairo, if not to Sinai ; but this latter only of other MSS can also be acquired together with the gift. As a minimum he would ask for 25.000 franks=6.000 thalers ; but 10.000 or 20.000 thalers would be an ‘imperial’ sum. With what great joy will he receive the MS ! In this case he will telegraph Prince Volkonskij immediately.
Cairo, 14 April 1859 p. 312 There is still no definitive solution in the matter of the Bible treasure from Sinai ; for rien n’est fait que ce qui est fait. But it is very close to the desired decision. The monastery and almost all its – many – superiors, who have come together from various lands have expressed to him, in a decided and definitive way, their intention of giving the precious MS through him as a gift to the emperor Alexander. In the
8 week of Easter the election of the archbishop will take place in the Cairo monastery ; it may take longer, but in all probability it is already decided. Immediately afterwards the formalities concerning the MS are to be observed, which may take two weeks. One of the monks, perhaps the superior of the monastery here, a very learned man who is already personally acquainted with the emperor, will probably be given to him as an escort. As soon as this is done, he will leave immediately for Europe by way of Trieste, Vienna, Dresden and Leipzig, to Petersburg. For he has understood that he must not leave here until the treasure comes with him. This is a case like that of the merchant in Scripture who p. 313 finds the costly pearl. He would have preferred things to go more simply, but there is no changing the situation now. It will all be a great triumphal procession for him. Everything is the Lord’s doing. In the meantime, the copying is finished, but he must now revise everything.
Alexandria, 1 May 1859 p. 316 The bishop has been elected in the monastery in Cairo during Easter Week. But for his formal installation he must be consecrated by the partriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople. This will take two months. Tischendorf has spoken with the new archbishop, who told him decidedly that the MS would be given to the emperor as a gift through Tischendorf as intermediary. Indeed, the first man after the archbishop, the superior of the monastery in Cairo, told the Russian general consul that even if Tischendorf wanted to return to Leipzig, the MS would still be given to the emperor through him as intermediary. This is a sign of their recognition that without him the monks would not have known the worth of their treasure. Tischendorf has thus decided to travel to Jerusalem and Mar Saba, and to return to Cairo in July to receive the MS. He knows that they wanted to send a delegation from the monastery with him, not so much for the MS as for the purpose of informing the Holy Synod in Petersburg of the election of the archbishop ; and Tischendorf declared himself ready to take such a delegation with him at his, that is, imperial expense, desiring the protosyncellus [the superior of the monastery in Cairo] as his escort. This gave great pleasure. The general consul repeatedly told Tischendorf with what ‘enchantment’ they spoke of him in the monastery.
9 Jerusalem 14 May 1859 p. 328 He goes to Mar Saba with the grand duke Constantine. The patrairch and other clergy received the grand duke, who then introduced Tischendorf to the patriarch and told him of his mission and recommended it. At table Tischendorf sat near the grand duke, and Cyril was at Tischendorf’s side. Across the table he spoke with the patriarch, through Cyril’s translation. After the meal, as they talked about library researches, Mansurov implied that it would be very good if Tischendorf made a discovery in the presence of the grand duke. Taking the hint, Tischendorf went with Cyril into one of the three libraries. After a half-hour’s effort he had two palimpsests in his hands, one of which had already been named by Coxe. With it he hurried P. 329 to the grand duke. His joy was great. He took the MS straightway as a loan to Jerusalem ; the grand duke informed Cyril in Tischendorf’s name that he desired to give for it 100 Napoleons d’or as a gift from the emperor ; but the time was too short to come to an agreement with the patriarch. The agreement has still not been concluded. On the 17th they visited the famous Omar Mosque which is rarely open, and hundreds of other persons took the opportunity to see it.
Jerusalem, 7 June 1859 p. 337 He will have many things to discuss with his Sinai friends concerning the relations of Russia with the Eastern Church ; perhaps he will be able to finalise the gift of the MS without having to wait for all the formalities and difficulties of the consecration of the archbishop. He has had intimate talks with the Russian bishop in Jerusalem. He is a fine, clever, imposing man : the Russian Synod could not have sent a better representative of Russian interests in the face of the countless intrigues of these Greek clerics. He will soon go for talks with the government in Petersburg. Tischendorf will meet him there, and he will be able to help him with the Synod.
Cairo, 28 July 1859 p. 352 He was received very warmly in the Sinai monastery in Cairo. As soon as the archbishop caught sight of him, he came to greet him with the friendliest face. Then they talked. Their agreement had come into difficulty because the patriarch of
10 Jerusalem hesitated to complete the consecration of the archbishop, ostensibly because the new Sinai archbishop belonged to the Russian ‘party’. But no one told Tischendorf that he had to wait for the consecration. He told the archbishop that he wanted to arrive in Petersburg in August, and also that the grand duke Constantine was expecting him then. He also mentioned the earlier agreement that the protosyncellus would accompany him ; but Cyril seemed not to want to hear about this, perhaps out of envy, or so it seemed to Tischendorf. He left in the hope that all would be settled soon ; but it is not yet settled. It is good that he will see the grand duke, who knows everything and will have told the emperor. Tischendorf then took the first three Gospels from the MS back to his lodgings since he still had to revise the copy.
Alexandria, 10 August 1859 p. 357 See here : how the matter has turned out contrary to all expectation and desire. The archbishop of Sinai has explained to him in all friendship that the consecration must be done before he can leave with the precious Sinai Bible. And under the circumstances Tischendorf can find no proof of unfriendliness, for this was the earlier agreement. The consecration is still opposed by the patriarch of Jerusalem. For this reason five deputees of the monastery have been in Constantinople for nearly three months ; their latest reports say that there are very good prospects for a solution. Therefore Tischendorf has decided to go to Constantinople, in order to further the cause of the monastery together with the Russian ambassador, Prince Lobanov. He also hopes to find something for his purposes in the library of the Seraglio.
Constantinople, 31 August 1859 p. 363 He spent the 20th to 26th with Prince Lobanov and had the opportunity to hasten the official tractations with the Porte. Fuad pasha, the minister for foreign affairs, agreed with Lobanov on the 25th to bring the matter to a good end. The patrairch of Jerusalem persists in his opposition, and the oecumenical patriarch of Constantinople has also taken his side. Under these circumstances, Tischendorf thinks the Sinai monks would have lost if he had not come together with the Russian embassy. To get round the two patriarchs, the Ottoman government will recognise the newly elected
11 Cyril as superior of the Sinai Brotherhood, without requiring the consecration of the same as archbishop by the patriarchs. But with this recognition, Tischendorf’s goal will be achieved : As superior Cyril can validly have disposal of the MS. Tischendorf hopes in the course of this week to hear that the decree has been issued, then he will leave for Alexandria as foreseen ; if not, he must change his plans : he cannot leave the MS in peril. The Sinai delegation considers him their best friend, their helper and deliverer : ‘God and also St Catherine have sent him,’ they say.
Constantinople, 5 September 1859 (received 16 September) p. 366 Despite earlier hopes of success, Tischendorf is troubled by the news that the partraich of Jerusalem has written to Lobanov in an unfriendly way against the archbishop elect of Sinai, and that he will not recognise any decree of the Porte ; and he will issue a sort of ban, a bitter circular to all Orthodox churches against the Sinaite pretender, whom he labels a ‘renegade’, that is, one who was originally a Mohammedan, one circumcised. He also said unfriendly things about Tischendorf in his letter : that he had come to Constantinople to foment an intrigue. Tischendorf was shaken ; the prince also had fear, for he told himself, firstly, that no one can force the patriarch to do something when he was within his rights ; and secondly, what would they say of him, if he intervened with the Porte for someone under a ban ? Lobanov does not give up, but he wants to gather precise information p. 367 on Cyril. Tischendorf comes back a few days later and is relieved : Lobanov sent a dragoman to the patriarch to give him a written document saying that his right to decide in the matter of consecration was fully recognised, but that the reason for his refusal, renegadism, was unfounded ; and should there really be grounds for this refusal, it is completely against his holy duty to make such misuse of a secret allegedly told in confession by the deceased patriarch Constantios. (The prince believed the story as little as Tischendorf, for there was even a letter of recommendation for Cyril from Constantios written shortly before his death.) Further, the prince’s document stated that the Sinaites were determined to maintain the result of their election, even if it meant waiting 1,2 3 years for the consecration. Likewise, the Porte was determined to draw up its decree. The patrairch would therefore only cause scandal and would have to bear the blame for it. Thus would the threatened circular bring shame upon him. This is supposed to have made a strong
12 impression on the patriarch, and the prince expects that he will give in. Tischendorf hurried to the Sinai delegation to tell them what had happened , and they were relieved. Furthermore, news has come to-day that the viceroy of p. 368 Egypt has recognised the elected Sinai archbishop in so far as he can, and has recommended that the Porte also recognise him. After the first bad news from the prince, Tischendorf had thought it might be necessary to revise the MS again in Cairo, for his edition of it, if he should have to leave Cairo without it. Not that he thought that the earlier promise would be broken, but only that the original MS would follow later. He also thought about a provisional loan to take it to Petersburg. His heart was heavy ; but in the worst case, what else could he do against such a patriarch ? Tischendorf’s achievement stands forever, his triumph is great, even if he can only put his copy in print. But he takes new courage. The Lord is watching over this matter ; Tischendorf sees and feels this, together with his Sinaite friends. He is only sorry that his return home to his family will be delayed.
Constantinople (Pera), 14 September 1859 p. 372 On Saturday – to-day is Wednesday—Tischendorf was told that the decree would come from the Sultan’s cabinet, and that it was already paid for (15.000 Piasters). He told the Sinai deputation to present their thanks to Prince Lobanov, and he was full of joy. But yesterday he learnt that on the same Saturday the tirelessly intriguing patriarch of Jerusalem again expressed his opposition to the grand vizier, saying that the election of the Sinai monks was not conducted properly. This change of tactic shows that the patriarch did not believe that he would succeed with his earlier objections. He has now requested several days delay in order to bring evidence. This he hopes to gain through bribes he has sent with a Greek to Egypt. Tischendorf went to the first dragoman [of the Russian embassy] Argyropoulo and to Prince Lobanov and urged both to take urgent measures. In support of these measures, the Sinaites have found a document from 1670 which states that the patriarch of Jerusalem has the duty of consecration, but can in no way oppose the election of the bishop. And Lobanov seemed disposed to act to-day through Argyropoulo at the Porte.
Constantinople (Pera), 16 September 1859 p. 375
13 Lobanov, who is wholeheartedly for the cause of the Sinaites, thought that Tischendorf should go together with the embassy’s dragoman to Fuad Pasha, the foreign minister, and to the grand vizier. But the dragoman Argyropoulo was against this, because Tischendorf might present the matter in too eager a manner, which would not be helpful ; so Argyropoulo went alone. As matters stand, Tischendorf does not expect a quick decision according to his wishes. The patriarch has stopped the issue of the decree, and now time will be necessary for him to produce his undoubtedly false objections. But the prince will deal with the patriarch again, and the end result can only be the one desired by Tischendorf. In view of this Tischendorf has had a thought : that the prince in his official capacity should draw up a paper in roughly the following wise : ‘Mr Tischendorf has informed me that the Sinai monks have the intention of giving the old Bible MS to the emperor through his mediation. But because this cannot be carried out officially until the newly elected head of the Sinai brotherhood is officially recognised, Tischendorf has desired in the meantime to take the said MS to Petersburg as a loan for the purpose of checking the transcription during priniting. Whilst the undersigned imperial ambassador supports this wish of Mr Tischendorf, he declares expressly that, when the said MS is taken as a loan to Petersburg, it nevertheless remains the property of of the Sinaites, until the superior, p. 376 in the name of the brotherhood, formally, in writing or through delegation, finalises the presentation to the emperor.‘ Lobanov was completely in agreement ; like Tischendorf, he also has few doubts that in this way Tischendorf will be able to take the original with him. In this way the actual presentation to the emperor is also completely decided ; perhaps this will still be done before Tischendorf reaches Petersburg—in this case the ambassador will immediately send a telegraph — or at least during the time he is in Petersburg. From this procedure it will be clear how great Tischendorf’s devotion to the matter is, whereas the obstacle to its completion comes from the malevolent patriarch. Further, this gives the superior the guarantee that the imperial embassy will do everything to bring about his confirmation. When all goes well in Cairo, then Tischendorf will leave on the 4 or 5 October, so that he will be in Trieste on the 11th, and then Vienna in the evening of the 12th ; then in Dresden in the evening of the 14th.
Dresden 30 October 1859
14 p. 381 The Sinai Bible and other MSS are put on exhibition before the king and queen of Saxony and various officials. p. 381 He is given the title of court councilor [Hofrat].
Petersburg 17 November 1859 p. 389 Tischendorf hopes for no little success ; the discovery has aroused much attention ; there is much envy, jealousy and intrigue, as well as narrow-minded Orthodoxy, which is perhaps the greatest danger. p. 390 Lobanov writes from Constantinople that the Sinai affair is ‘au même point’. But Tischendorf sees from all the details that the situation has not deteriorated. Here in Petersburg matters will also take time. Nothing is organised yet for the edition, the photographing etc. p. 395 Letter from Lobanov in Constantinople : Still no satisfaction in the Sinai affair. p. 396 Tischendorf speaks to Grimm [who has reported to the empress] about his plans for the edition of the Codex Sinaiticus ; Tischendorf is willing to associate the entire collection of MSS he has brought back with the name of the empress. Nöltingt reports that Muralt is surprised that Tischendorf has still not delivered the MS to the imperial library. Könneritz tells of the opposition of the Russian clergy to the Codex (Was it written before the First Nicaean Council ?), and stresses the point that the empress is now extremely Greek-Orthodox. Zunk tells Tischendorf at table that Grimm will speak personally to the empress about him ; he has no fears that anyone will bring opposition to Tischendorf to the ears of the empress. p. 397 Zunk tells how happy Korff was with the idea that the whole collection of MS should be named for the empress and thus find its way into the library. Two months ago in England Dorn had heard much about the Codex Sinaiticus : that Tischendorf had not managed to buy it ; instead, the monastery wanted to send it
15 with a large delegation to Russia, but this was rejected by the emperor because of the great cost ; and after this the MS remained unobtainable. Dorn was surprised that Tischendorf had it in his hands.
Petersburg 20 November 1859 p. 398 He received a telegraph that he should come to Tsarskoe Selo to see the emperor and empress. He takes all his collection and is accompanied by Grimm. He was received most graciously ; their Majesties were very interested in the Sinai Bible [the empress had read the article in the Augsburger Zeitung]. The emperor was especially happy about the attitude of the Sinai monks and Tischendorf’s report on this in the Allgemeine Zietung, directed against the Times (The monks wanted no English money, but wanted to lay the precious MS at the feet of Emperor Alexander, the refuge and defence of the Orthodox Church.). The empress was interested more in the literary aspect, in the relation of this MS to the Slavonic and Russian Bible. Tischendorf also spoke of the great importance of the Septuagint as the text used by the Apostles ; they also discussed Barnabas. Tischendorf told their Majesties the whole story, from the discovery of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus on ; the famous basket evoked shock and amazement. The emperor has little time, but listened for twenty minutes ; then he left, but said he would see the rest of the collection on Monday at 12 :00. The empress stayed twenty minutes longer ; she also wanted to hear about his earlier trip. p. 399 Tischendorf finally visits Kovalevskij, who is officially the most important person and who treated him very well, saying that Tischendorf’s name was immortal. Fourteen days earlier Kovalevskij had read a report concerning Tischendorf to the emperor. He now told Tischendorf what is to be done. He is in full agreement that Tischendorf should do the edition in Leipzig ; Tischendorf is to inform the emperor of this to-morrow and cite the approval of the minister [Kovalevskij]. Tischendorf should give Kovalevskij a report of all expenses ; everything is to be brought to the noblest and quickest conclusion. He will come himself to Tischendorf on Wednesday. Tischendorf was surprised by Kovalevskij’s conduct ; he had been told he was an indifferent bureaucrat. Preparations were also to be made quickly for a grand exhibition,
16 probably in the ministry of Culture. Tischendorf was also to ask the emperor the next day whether in this should be in the ministry or the library. In the afternoon Tischendorf was received – as graciously as in Jerusalem – by the grand duke Constantine and his wife. Tischedorf will be seeing the grand duke again in the next days and is happy for this. All is well. But on point he and the the grand duke are not in agreement. The duke said that : Since it is not certain that we have the Sinai Bible, we must begin at once with the photographing, for which we have here in the Admiralty the most excellent facilities. Tischendorf said at once that this did not fit with his plans [to return to Leipzig]. But he will have to arrange things further with him. Everything will work out.
Petersburg 22 November 1859 p.402 In the empress’s salon Tischendorf diplays all his palimpsests and MSS on 5 or 6 tables, arranged in order, that is, the palimpsests on one table, the thousand-year-old Greek Bible MS on another, the Egyptian atiquities on another etc. The emperor and empress spent a hour viewing them. They seemed very pleased. The emperor asked how long he was staying, and the empress said pointedly ‘Auf wiedersehen’ ; then came the heir to the throne, who was also very interested. p.404 The grand duke Constantine tells Tischendorf he should come to Petersburg for two to three years. The duke’s national feeling is too great. Tischendorf explains to him that he has given his word expressly to the king and minister [of Saxony]. The duke insists he should devote several years to Russia. After all, it is only right, since everything is being done at the expense of the emperor—or rather, empress – that the work should appear in Russia, instead of the MS and all the money and honour going to Leipzig ; – of course, all on the condition that the Saxon government agrees. Tischendorf tells his wife that they should prepare themselves for this possibility ; but nothing is certain. He speaks of Providence and the need to follow it and the Lord. p. 405 This evening he has written his big report for Kovalevskij. When Tischendorf was visiting the grand duke, Kovalevskij came to see him [he found his card afterwards]. Tischendorf wonders why he was there (emperor’s orders ?) and is excited.
17 Petersburg 28 November 1859 p. 406 All is going well, but it will take time. He thinks he might be able to leave around the 12 December. His MS exhibition will open in the imperial library on the coming Wednesday. Kovalevskij will deliver his decisive report on Tischendorf to the emperor on Friday or Saturday. Then all will probably go quickly. This week Tischendorf has been busy making arrangements for the edition of the Codex. Kovalevskij is on Tischendorf’s side about doing most of the work in Leipzig, and he imagines the difference in cost will be decisive for the emperor : 40.000 instead of 85.000-90.000. In an hour he goes with Tolstoj, the representative of the emperor in the Synod, to present the Sinai MS to the high clerics before the exhibition. Tolstoj told him that he had been opposed to him, but the empress had convinced him otherwise. Now he seems to be devoted to Tischendorf.
Petersburg 8 December 1859 p. 408 He expects the emperor’s decision to be taken to-morrow or the day after. He does not expect that the emperor will require him to move to Russia ; and his talk to-day with the minister [Kovalevskij] has convinced him of this. p. 409 Tischendorf notes that in the last ten days he has heard little from court, that is, the imperial family, probably because of the delay in the ministerial report to the emperor ; only after this does he expect to be summoned to the emperor himself. His exhibition in the imperial library draws numerous illustrious and other visitors. p. 410 The newspapers are full of reports on the exhibit ; the Sinaiticus is the object of marvel from every side. Of course, there is also jealousy. His visit to the Holy Synod was less edifying : surrounded by these Greek Church leaders one might have been afraid, as though one was in a Medieval court of the Inquisition. But there were also several more pleasant figures, and Prince Urusov who accompanied him was very respectful. Honoris causa he called Tischendorf ‘Excellency’.
Petersburg : TELEGRAMME 15 December 1859 p. 411
18 Gift from the emperor five thousand thalers. Departure hopefully Sunday.
Berlin 23 March 1860 p. 412 His arrival had aroused extraordinary interest : the highest circles were full of talk about him and the Sinai MS. In the Academy the comportment was tolerable. Mommsen and Haupt were there. He also had an audience with Prince Friedrich Wilhelm and the English Princess Victoria ; then with the prince regent and his wife.
Petersburg 2 April 1860 p. 415 He learns that after his departure last year hostile rumours against him have been circulating (a real comité against him, led purely by Germans !) ; but after he is received by Kovalevskij and the grand duke Constantine in the same gracious way as before, these rumours have been silenced. Yesterday he was with Kovalevskij and his head of chancellery Kisselovskij, and presented his mémoire on the subject of the edition. The association of the work with the Jubilee of the Russian state met with their approval. The minister will probably present everything to the emperor on the 4 April. Then there will also be an article in the court journal about his presence and thereby an indirect statement against all slander – the main accusation being that he had taken away the Sinaiticus. The minister officially declared in the library that this had been done with the emperor’s express agreement. Tischendorf remarks that despite all the evil lies, he had never lost his good humour. p. 416 The Lord has always allowed him to triumph as His true servant.
On the subject of the coming to Petersburg of the Sinai monks Tolstoj had still heard nothing. But Kovalevskij had heard from from his brother, who is in the Eastern section of the foreign ministry, that the archbishop of Sinai himself wants to come. Tischendorf can well understand this. He will make enquiries about this in the coming days. He believes that Cyril will arrive in good time, that is, at the beginning of May. Tolstoj, who also told Tischendorf about the slander against him, has received Tischendorf very warmly.
19 Petersburg 9 April 1860 p. 418 The details of the edition have not yet been settled. Firstly, Tischendorfs presentation had to be translated [into Russian] during the past week ; and now there are the Easter holidays, during which he cannot be received by the emperor ; nor does he want to be received before the details of the edition are settled. What is more, Kovalevskij has informed him that Prince Gortschakov, the prime minister, has expressed concern over the undertaking of the edition, ‘since we do not yet possess the original, and the Sinaites might reclaim it during the work of edition.’ Kovalevskij did not allow himself to be swayed and explained to the prince that this matter concerned only the ministry of education ; he would however like to have information on the matter, in so far as the other really had something to say. Tischendorf believes that Gortchakov p. 419 limited himself to saying that the ambassador in Constantinople had written that the MS was by no means to be considered as already presented to the emperor – stupidly the Russian and French Journal in Petersburg had written in imprecise, that is, incorrect terms on the subject – ; rather, it had only been loaned to Tischendorf. This is certainly nothing new, but the very same that Tischendorf has always exactly told the emperor, the minister and everyone interested. Gortchakov’s concern appears also to come from incomplete knowledge of the affair ; unless there is some other underlying cause, such as national vanity, etc. For there is much national opposition. Tischendorf shares all his important pièces, in particular the document from the superior of the monastery which allowed the MS to be given to him. There, the edition is precisely the purpose for the immediate delivery of the MS to him. He hopes that all will go according to their wishes. Kovalevskij is naturally deeply affected. He cannot let himself be deterred from something which has essentially been decided by the emperor. But one sees anew how bad the terrain in Petersburg is, and what significance is given to Tischendorf’s affairs in higher circles. But all the greater will be the satisfaction of success : nothing significant can be achieved without such struggles ! He awaits eagerly the letter from the Russian general consul in Egypt who is supposed to inform him of the intentions of the Sinai monastery in connexion with the delegation. No request for permission to travel here to Petersburg has yet been
20 made by the monastery. Tischendorf therefore doubts that the matter can be concluded during his present stay. From the imperial court he has heard nothing ; no one has required his presence. But this is to be expected in this time of prayer. p. 420 He has had a quarrel with Norov, who believes that he had no right to take the Sinai New Testament away from Petersburg ; but he has otherwise defended him as a friend. From a patriotic standpoint is he completely against the publication in Leipzig. But he shows Tischendorf kindness and talks of accompanying him on a new trip to the East. Tischendorf remarks that it is better to make such people warm, enthusiastic—if wholly unreliable—friends, rather than enemies. Tischendorf feels keenly the sacrifice all this extraordinary action demands of himself and his wife. May the Lord give His blessing. The harder it is, the greater the worth it will have.
Petersburg 18 April 1860 p. 423 The details of the edition must wait until after the Easter holidays ; but all appears to be going well. He has not spoken with Prince Gortchakov personally, but he cannot imagine that he will put up any opposition. Tischendorf has given Kovalevskij a short sketch of his efforts on the Sinai Bible together with important pièces from his correspondence. This will give evidence of his personal contribution in this matter. It has also been given to Gortchakov. The Russian general consul in Egypt has written that the archbishop of the Sinaites has gone to Sinai (probably for Easter), and that Tischendorf’s chosen deputy for Petersburg has gone to Tiflis as superior of the Sinai monastery there. Thus he could give him no news in the matter of the delegation. Tischendorf has understood that the monastery is not at all in a hurry to send the delegation. He cannot conclude from this that the whole matter of the donation [of the MS] will remain unaccomplished, for in this case the general consul would have had some news. This situation and his talks with Kovalevskij have convinced him of the need to write a long, important letter to the archbishop. He advises him, aside from the question of the delegation, to write an official letter to Kovalevskij concerning the donation through Tischendorf’s mediation. He gives good reasons for doing this. It would be in the interest of the monastery itself and, understandably, it is greatly desired by Tischendorf. He made allusion to the favour that would be
21 shown to the monastery by the emperor ; and he advises Cyril to suggest that the MS be named for the empress. Concerning when this letter should be sent, he advises to wait until the Spring of the next year, when he must come in person to Petersburg ; and he also advises the archbishop to arrange the presentation in connexion with the 1000-year Jubilee. In a postscript he inserts an historical sketch of the discovery, wherein he relates exactly how the beginning of it goes back to his find in a basket of the library in 1844, etc. It seemed to him desirable that the archbishop should know all of this from him with precision. He has composed the account in such a way as to mention the Russian archimandrite Porfirij, but that he himself had priority in the discovery. Because he has now given up on the delegation coming during his present stay, and unless Gortchakov foments some intrigue, he plans to leave around Cantate-Sunday, the 6 May.
Petersburg 21 APril 1860 p. 427 Gortchakov will cause no problems. The foreign ministry has arranged everything and has rejected the doubts expressed by the clergy as to whether Tischendorf should be charged with the edition of the Sinai MS. All 300 of the facsilimes de luxe are to be reserved for the emperor ; and since the work will be printed abroad, the censure of the Holy Synod does not apply.
Petersburg 25 April 1860 p. 429 Tischendorf has proof again that he is doing the Lord's work. All his plans for the edition had been accepted by the minister Kovalevskij, and yesterday they received the sanction of the emperor. He must take great attention in travelling, for he has the MS with him; he will probably have an entire carriage to himself. p. 430 Success is behind him, the future winks more favourably than it does upon most mortals. The Lord has put the Sinai MS in Tischendorf's weak, unworthy hands.
Petersburg 5 May 1860 p. 432
22 Tischendorf has an audience with the emperor, during which they spoke of the connexion of the work with the Jubliee; p. 433 The emperor seemed to be pleased with this, if the work can be finished before then. Tischendorf was also told by the minister's representative that the emperor had received the idea 'avec une particulière bienveillance'.
Petersburg 17 May 1861 p. 438 He has bad news of Kovalevskij; he has seen him and he is very ill; he will go to Germany for a cure and will certainly leave his post in the ministry. But his successor will probably be the library director Korff, who has received Tischendorf in a most friendly way.
Petersburg 21 May 1861 p. 440 He sees the emperor and shows him proofs of the printed edition and his corrections; the emperor seems pleased with the prospect that the book will be ready for the Jubilee. It will be a 'true monument,' he says. The emperor asked when he thought it would be ready. Tischendorf hopes to be finished by the end of July 1862. p. 441 There is excitement over who will follow Kovalevskij, who leaves soon for a cure in Germany.
Petersburg 27 May 1861 p. 445 He has seen the grand duke and duchess. All is well. Yesterday he saw Gortchakov. When he told him about the difficulties of finishing in time for the Jubilee, the other replied: 'But a Hercules like you!'
Petersburg 1 June 1861 p. 446 He wants to leave soon, even though the photo-lithographic facsimile is not coming along well. He has arranged with a commercial friend that only half of the folia will be done here, and the other half in Leipzig; a good solution.
23 p. 447 The Petersburg newspaper (the 'friend' of Tischendorf's academic enemies) has brought out, at Norov's instigation, Tischendorf's reply to the latest Dutch attack on his dating of the Sinai Bible.
Warsaw 8 October 1862 p. 449 The grand duke was pleased to receive the German foreword to the edition. Tischendorf gave him a copy of his report to the minister. The duke told him that the news from the Sinai monastery which he had had before leaving Petersburg at the beginning of June was very discouraging p. 450 with regard to the original of the Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was unpleasantly surprised, but he still does not believe that it will be given back ; he freely told the duke of the authorisation for the title which he had concluded from the archbishop's silence: Petropolitanus.
Warsaw 11 October 1861 p. 453 The grand duke presented Tischendorf to the Catholic archbishop and Polish nobility at an exhibition of the original MS, which he described – following Tischendorf's supposition – as one of the fifty copies made by Eusebius for Constantine. The edition was the object of admiration.
Petersburg 16 October 1862 p. 459 Yesterday he visited Golovnin, who was waiting eagerly for the arrival of the boxes of exemplars. Tischendorf had not received any telegraph concerning their arrival at the Russian border ; Golovnin wanted to telegraph himself. He told Tischendorf he would present him to the emperor, empress and heir; and he was to present the objects to them. This seemed a good sign to Tischendorf. p. 460 Tischendorf was to give his report and bills etc. to the assistant-director of chancellery, Peters.
24 The boxes of exemplars are to be unpacked in Tischendorf's presence in two rooms of the foreign ministry. Because the imperial family is in Gatchina, it will probably be mid-November before Tischendorf can be received by them. Everyone in the imperial library considers the publication of the edition as a great event. Golovnin invites 461 him to dinner the next day, 6 October. Tischendorf gives him the Foreword, which he says he will read. Golovnin also asks him to bring a copy of the edition.
Petersburg 19 October 1862 p. 462 Tischendorf has had the boxes of exemplars sent to the ministry. At dinner the minister Golovnin said he had read the German Prolegomena and spoke much of the printing of the Codex, though his other guests were hardly interested in this. As Tischendorf was leaving, Golovnin told him that he would invite him next time with the English ambassador Lord Napier, who was very pleased about this. Tischendorf is happy that requests for the exemplar are coming in from everywhere, for example, from Vienna, with signatures of the entire theological faculty. Golovnin tells him that his report was good, and that he will give it, together with his bills of expenses, which he has had from Peters, to the emperor. With the bills, too, is he in agreement. p. 463 The boxes have arrived at the ministry; on Tuesday they will be unpacked; Tischendorf will be there. He hopes the bookbinder has not made any errors! Yesterday Tischendorf saw Norov. Whereas it was believed in the ministry that they would have to give back the original MS – to which Tischendorf immediately and decidedly, in so far as he could, declared his opposition –, Norov has received very comforting news from the archbishop's own mouth. For this reason Tischendorf now believes that he will make another journey to Sinai, this time with his wife.
Petersburg 25 October 1862 p. 464
25 The waiting will soon be over : the emperor comes back from Gatchina to-day, Saturday, and the minister intends to present Tischendorf to him in Tsarskoe Selo on Monday. p. 465 It was only the day before yesterday that some of the boxes of exemplars were unpacked in the foreign ministry ; and it was only yesterday that Tischendorf saw Golovnin again. He has all the friendly ways that go with a 'First Personage' [Golovnin's sobriquet], though it is difficult to discern the real feelings of such a man's heart. He told Tischendorf yesterday that the emperor was above all concerned that the original MS should be in fireproof safekeeping. A fire in the ministry of home affairs had destroyed many precious documents, including the entire correspondence with the pope. Therefore the emperor is very worried also for the Sinai Bible. Neither the emperor nor the minister think of giving up the MS ; they only want to gain time. 'Time the wonderworking God!' According to what Golovnin said, they wanted first to bury the MS in fireproof repose in the foreign ministry, and thereby perhaps to escape the opposition from the side of the Eastern patriarch. Now, if this is indeed the intention and will of the emperor and the government, there will be no new Sinai trip for the present. Tischendorf is curious to speak about this with the emperor and Gortchakov, who has evidently again become involved. Tischendorf is pleased with the very stately manner in which his visit to Tsarskoe Selo has been arranged. Golovnin said he would send a court carriage to collect him at the station ; and Tischenedorf was to have a room in the palace. The ministerial currier will see to the transport of the exemplars to be presented to the emperor; and Golovnin told him: 'Perhaps I shall send you with a councilor who speaks German.' Golovnin could not have been more attentive. He also said again that he would invite Tischendorf to dine together with the English ambassador, Lord Napier. But before he actually sees the emperor, Tischendorf can have no assurance of anything; still, he has no reason to doubt the realisation of his hopes. Norov has been very kind to him, and p. 466 he has spoken on his behalf to the empress. He had brought her a very old and beautiful Gospel Book as a gift from the patriarch of Alexandria. When the empress asked about the text in it, he said 'Ah, your majesty knows that only Master Tischendorf understands this; I could only make a fool of myself by expressing an
26 opinion.' In a similarly childlike way he is happy that I have made note of one of his own old MSS in my books. During the unpacking of the boxes of exemplars Tischendorf has found no problems with the bookbinding.
Petersburg 1 November 1862 p. 469 Yesterday in the ministry of education Mansurov told Tischendorf of the dogmatic fears in Petersburg. He must prepare himself in order to give correct answers to the empress and emperor, for they will no doubt speak about this. After examination, Tischendorf is happy that all the apparent 'heretical' pages of the MS (because of readings which disagree with the usual text) are outweighed completely by several passages of great importance. Tischendorf went to dinner yesterday with Gortchakov, who had read about the exhibition of the MS in Warsaw. At dinner there was also the Greek ambassador. The conversation moved between the Codex and the Greek Revolution. The first councilor of the Russian embassy in Constantinople, with whom Tischendorf had had much contact earlier concerning the original of the Codex, was also there. p. 470 Gortchakov also spoke about the dogmatic questions of the Codex. Tischendorf had to explain in detail the passage at the end of the Gospel of Mark. He seemed to want Tischendorf to go to Moscow, to speak with the all-worthy metropolitan, the old Philaret, and referred in this connexion to Prince Urusov; but Tischendorf says to his wife that he would only do this if he is told expressly to do so by a higher authority. Tischendorf spoke much with Gortchakov about the original of the Codex. He seemed less keen on waiting for a long time, especially since the patriarch of Jerusalem had now been decorated with the Alexander-Urovskij [medal] and there would thus be no more harm to fear from his side; for it was only on account of him that the emperor was hesitant. Tischendorf became all the more curious to speak with the emperor himself. There may also be some jealousy against Tischendorf at play, at least on the part of Mansurov and the like. But this latter saw correctly that the publication was the main thing for the world ; one would consider the original MS with more indifference, if one did not rightly fear that England would immediately seek to get hold of it out of rivalry. Tischendorf has already written his wife that he has decided to give the original MS back into the hands of the emperor.
27 A box, which he has had made as an envelope, cost no less than 5rh. All such things here are incredibly expensive. For this reason the Leipzig binding of the Codex is justified, even if it is in many ways deficient. This is to be distributed as an interim binding: each person will have to replace it with his own good binding. So was it understood in the ministry as well, and no one had thought to pay attention to any imperfections.
Petersburg 5 November 1862 p. 473 Meyendorf, the president of the emperor's cabinet, told Tischendorf that the grand duke had praised his exhibtion of the MS in Warsaw; and he assumed that the duke had written to Golovnin about his rapport ; Tischendorf concludes that this can only help his cause. p. 474 At a dinner given by the English ambassador Lord Napier, Tischendorf speaks with Golovnin, Prince Gagarin, Revertera from the Austrian embassy, the Saxon envoy Könneritz, and others. Napier said that England was full of talk about the Sinaiticus. Könneritz took him home in his carriage ; he spoke of Tischendorf's epoch-making publication which, like that of Luther, belonged to Saxony. It was his opinion that in the course of time the Sinaiticus would have a similar effect on the Church as that of Luther. On Sunday Tischendorf received the visit of Prince Urusov, the representative of the emperor to the Holy Synod, who had accompanied Tischendorf to the Synod in '59. p. 475 Urusov was full of praise for Tischendorf, of whose work on the Sinaiticus he said: 'Toute l'Europe en parle ; elle s'agenouille devant vous.' As Tischendorf expressed joy and told him that the ministry had also recognised his work, the other replied: 'Mais nous ne sommes pas toute à fait des Ostrogothes, des barbares.' Urusov seemed very devoted to Golovnin. (Meyendorf is hostile to him, as is also the grand duke.) p. 476 Tischendorf has just this morning been to see Golovnin. He seems to have already read his report to the emperor, though he said nothing to Tischendorf concerning the donation [of the MS]. Golovnin spoke to him about the emperor's views on the distribution [of the exemplars]. He wishes that Russia be considered first, so the list
28 of these gifts should be drawn up at once. Then comes Europe, that is, its scholarly institutions. And only afterwards the European rulers. This will take time; but the emperor appears to see himself as sovereign in this matter. The gift list will be sent to Tischendorf as soon as it is ready. But the minister does not believe that the gifts for Europe will go out before February, because the Russian ambassadors abroad must be consulted. Tischendorf's own exemplars need not wait; he can do with them as he wishes. Tischendorf remarked to Golovin the resultant problem that these exemplars would go out to certain people months earlier than the imperial gifts ; he grand duke will receive the first exemplars. To this Golovnin tells him: 'I have already written to the grand duke about this.' From this, Tischendorf concludes that the grand duke has already been informed concerning him, and perhaps has also been asked for his opinion. God give His blessing! The others seem to understand the significance of the matter. Tischendorf wishes only that he could have seen the emperor himself.
Petersburg, Saturday, 8 November 1862 p. 478 Early on Wednesday Tischendorf saw Golovnin, who talked of nothing except the distribution of the exemplars, the intention of the emperor concerning the original MS (that they would soon write to the monastery, and so also every year until the goal is reached), and Tischendorf's reception in Tsarskoe Selo. Therefore Tischendorf was was very surprised on Thursday when a large envelope arrived from the ministry which contained the star [medal] and ribbon of the Order of St Stanislaus, with a note written by Golovnin himself : 'Sa Majesté l'Empereur désirant témoigner Sa haute satisfaction etc.' Furthermore, Golovnin has given him his own star and ribbon (he has other, higher awards). Tischendorf notes that awards of this importance are given in Saxony almost only to ministers; he notes also that his friend, the state councilor Dorn reveived the same medal a few months ago; but none of the envious urchins of the library have anything of the sort. The fact that this award arrived before the audience with the emperor p. 480 and the fact that Golovnin has sint his own medal, heightens the honour in Tischendorf's perception. It is the first case of such an award to a foreign professor. Tischendorf notes Golovnin's use now of the particle 'de' (Constantin de Tischendorf), denoting that he now belongs to the Russian nobility.
29 Petersburg 14 November 1862 p. 481 Tischendorf, in Saxon court uniform and the Stanislaus star round his neck, has an audience with the emperor and empress in Tsarskoe Selo. Three parchment and three paper exemplars had been delivered to his room there. The emperor had trouble with his eyes and could not look carefully at the exemplar. Tischendorf went through the contents of the German Prolegomena; the empress was very interested. They spoke much about the original MS. The emperor was very unclear on the matter and referred to the oppositon of the patriarch of Jerusalem. Tischendorf tried to present the conclusion in a much easier way, invoked the tacitly conceded title 'Petropolitanus' (which he had to translate and explain to the empress), stressed that that patriarch had nothing to say in the matter, and placed himself at the emperor's disposal for the conclusion by indicating that he would also like to take part in it, even as he had earlier taken the matter in hand alone. The emperor did not express his intention for the original MS in any decided way. This latter, in which Tischendorf had shown the emperor the passages which had been rewritten in the 8th century and also the end of Mark, remained in the emperor's hands (a painful parting for Tischendorf). Tischendorf also showed them the facsimiles, in particular that of a palimpsest passage, since the empress had asked if he now called it (the Sinaiticus MS!) a palimpsest ; this, he remarks, was not very amusing. On the subject of the end of Mark, Tischendorf himself began talking about the dogmatic side of the MS. The empress seemed to have already been reassured in the matter. Concerning the distribution, for which the emperor had plans differing from those of Tischendorf, this latter asked if he could make an exception and give one to the king of Saxony immediately on his return. 'Yes, for your king,' was the reply.
Petersburg 18 November 1862 p. 485 He explains the problems of the financement of the project. The ministry of education is in a bad way, though the project does not really depend on the ministry, but on the emperor personally. It is however under the supervision of the ministry. Prompted by Golovnin, Tischendorf has enlisted the help of the excellent Meyendorf, the initimate friend of the emperor and empress. Meyendorf will see Golovnin before he leaves with the emperor and empress leave for Moscow, in order to settle the the
30 question of Tischendorf's imperial honorarium. This latter has not been arranged exactly as Tischendorf would have liked; but he must be grateful all the same to have achieved the highest distinction a German professor can aspire to: Russian heriditary nobility etc.
Petersburg 23 November 1862 p. 487 He learnt to-day that his honorarium consists of 100 exemplars of the Codex, including the 12 already agreed upon. These will be sent back to Leipzig, to his address, at the expense of the ministry. He will earn some 12-15.000 thalers from this. p. 488 He has visited Porfirij in the Nevskij monastery, and the latter showed him the things he had collected on his travels through monasteries—much of which reminded Tischendorf of his own collection. He was very friendly and let Tischendorf take things home to copy for publication, including two small pieces of the Sinaiticus, whose lost parts may have been long before destroyed. He also has several bits of Pauline epistles on papyrus. Little of it remains, and it is no older than about the 5th century; but it is unique of its sort. Tischendorf has also copied this. On a second visit Porfirij gave Tischendorf copies of his publications, amongst them many illustrations of the Sinai monastery. To-day Tischendorf went again to him. And he is coming to visit Tischendorf the day after to-morrow. He knows how to conduct himself properly, unike the miserable simpletons of the library and the academy.
Petersburg 28 November 1862 p. 491 Dinner with the heir to the throne. Golovnin also there. Tischendorf is given 300 rubles for the trasport of the boxes of exemplars back to Leipzig, instead of the 150 he had reckoned on.
Baden-Baden 4 February 1864 p. 492 The grand duke and duchess are here, but the duchess is very ill and Tischendorf has not been able to see her.
31
Berlin 24 October 1864 p. 494 Count Hohenthal has not arrived; the king is in Schloss Babelsberg. Yesterday Tischendorf dined with the Grimms. In Brussels the king will be absent (Tischendorf has read that he is in Switzerland). He thinks to go to Paris at the beginning of November. But before writing to him there, his wife is to send a parcel to his cousin Julius Herold Makelaar in Amsterdam (she will find it in the cupboard, wrapped in grey paper, labelled Apokrypha, vol. 3). She should also include in the packet the pages of the edition of the New Testament from the Sinaiticus which he left lying on the desk. [His cousin is then to send this to the Saxon embassy in Paris (see next letter below.) – Tischendorf often makes such requests in the later letters.]
3 November 1864 p. 496 He has told his cousin Harold in Amsterdam to forward the parcel, when it arrives, to the Saxon legation in Paris. He reports that he did nothing important in Berlin; he will return there after England. In Hanover he saw the king, who devoted a whole hour to him, despite the visit the day before of the prince and princess of Wales. The king, though blind was very keen on the Sinaiticus. The queen reminded Tischendorf that he knew nearly her whole family, including the grand duke of Oldenburg, whom Tischendorf had almost forgotten. They spoke also about the grand duke [Constantine]. The queen told him he should tell the grand duke about the minister of cults Golovnin. Of course Tischendorf told her that the grand duke knew well what he thought of the man. p. 497 The queen knew about the Wohltat Christi, of which Tischendorf was editor. The king thought he had received an exemplar of the Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf knew from the royal librarian was not the case; he later wrote to the queen recommending its purchase. In Holland he saw old and new friends. In Amsterdam the 84-year-old Samuel Müller cried for joy and said all Europe can be proud of him. Whilst he was in Leiden, Cobet, who had gone to Utrecht, came back just to see him. In the Hague his old friend the royal librarian was absent, but Tischendorf was well received.
32 In Brussels he visited the royal librarian (the son ; the father was perhaps just now in Leipzig at Tischendorf's office). The new Saxon envoy has not yet got fully organised (his wife, the princess was in Italy) ; but Tischendorf thinks he will be able to achieve something for [the sale of exemplars of] the Codex in Brussels. He repeats the request for the Apocrypha, vol. 3, this time to be sent to Paris; his letter from Berlin must not have arrived.
Paris 9 November 1864 p. 502 He visits Mme Seguin, who translated his Reise in den Orient. She is related to leading families in Petersburg and is close to the grand duchess Helene. He works in the library which is open from 10 to 4. There Tischendorf met an academician from Munich, Thomas, whom he thought he would not like because of the man's intimate relations with Fallmerayer. But he turned out to be quite nice. He spoke of Tischendorf's lecture in Augsburg as an 'event.' Always surprises!
Paris 13-14 November 1864 p. 505 He was at a session of the Institut. The famous Greek philologist, Prof. Egger told him that his name had been proposed as a corresponding member, and that it would certainly come through in time ; but there were many candidates and few places. He was received by the archbishop of Paris, Darboy, who declared 'Votre nom est d'une réputation européenne.' When Tischendorf spoke about the exemplar of the Codex, the other complained that his library was in a bad way with finances.
Paris 22 November 1865 p. 510 Baron Seebach [the Saxon envoy] received him. They spoke about the emperor [Napoleon III] and the exemplar of the Codex. Seebach's wife (née Countess Nesselrode) is well known in the Tuilleries, also her sister, the countess Kreptowitsch, whom Tischendorf knows from Warsaw; thus these two daughters of the once all-mighty Russian minister will help him in Paris.
Paris 8 December 1864 p.516
33 He visited Guizot who said that his works were some of the most important of the century. p. 517 His cousin Harold will send Tischendorf's wife 128 rh as payment for one exemplar of the Codex.
Paris 15 December 1864 p. 518 He thinks to leave on Monday; but if Napoleon III will receive him on Monday, he will stay another day. The day before yesterday (Tuesday) he went with Seebach to see the minister of education; and with Seebach's help it appears that the minister will buy 5 exemplars of the Codex at 600 frcs. each.
Paris 16 December 1864 p. 521 The minister of education has told him he will buy four exemplars for his ministry and one for the imperial home ministry. What a Christmas gift! (as compared to the nasty business of the Leipzig bookdealer). From the minister's son (who followed behind his papa), Tischendorf learnt that the minister had not had the opportunity to arrange his audience with the emperor. So he leaves on Monday.
London 2 February 1865 p. 523 He has been to the British Museum, where he was well received by Sir Frederick Madden who is still in charge; Tischendorf worked till around 4. He made mention of the exhibit of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus; everyone was pleased, but wanted to know how difficult it was to gain entry. To-morrow he will bring the MSS he wants to offer for sale to the British Musuem. All has gone according to wish. Thanks be to God who always protects him, whether under the beautiful sky of Egypt or in the London fog.
London 9 February 1865 p. 526
34 The Codex Frederico-Augustanus has arroused great interest in the British Museum: on the first day there was a great crowd of officials and scholars; there is much talk of him and the Codex. He has agreed to give a public lecture on the Codex Sinaiticus in the Royal Society [of Literature, see next letter below] , in the presence of London élite society.
London 12 February 1865 p. 528 The Trustees of the British Museum have allocated 85 pounds (about 570 rh) for the purchase of the old parchment MSS which Tischendorf has (rather contemptuously) kept at home in a drawer. He is pleased. He gives his wife 10 rh as a gift, for her recovery from her nursing [of their son Immanuel]. p. 529 The Codex Friederico-Augustanus and the old pieces from the Codex of Porfirij have become the object of great interest. He will give his lecture in the Royal Society of Literature next Wednesday at 8:00. He has more than fifty invitations to Oxford and Cambridge. If only he succeeds in this lecture attended by archbishops, bishops, high lords and other nobles! He will speak in French, but there will be a summary in English.
17 February 1865 p. 532 His MS collection has arrived safely; from the payment for it he will send 500 rh in English notes. The lecture was not so well attended as expected (because of the cold). But the applause was great. p. 533 He was invited to dinner by the Lord Bishop of Lonndon, whose wife received him graciously and immediately introduced him to Mrs Gladstone, the PM's wife. There were over 100 people invited. The bishop introduced him to some 30-40 persons, including the minister Gladstone. Tischendorf wore his star and smaller medals, which drew attention, especially from the ladies.
London 19 February 1865 p. 536
35 His lecture at the Royal Society has been printed for the members of the Society (some 200). But the sale of the Sinaiticus exemplars is not progressing. Fleischer has done harm by selling three exemplars to an unknown acquaintance for 100 rh. These have evidently reached London and have been sold for 20 pounds, which has affected Tischendorf's pricing. p. 537 He will be going in the evening to the dean of Westminster, D. Stanley; and then to the Gladstones (Mrs Gladstone had invited him when they were at dinner with the bishop of London). To his great sadness Tischendorf has learnt that the grand duchess [Constantine] is deathly ill in Goslar.
London 28 February 1865 p. 538 He went to dinner in the country estate of Williams ( head of Williams and Norgate and a good friend of Tauchnitz). Williams will send a prospectus on the Sinaiticus to some 2-300 important addresses; and he hopes with Tischendorf for good results. For this reason Tischendorf has made a special price 'for a few copies,' namely 21 pounds, about 143 rh, of which he receives 18 pounds, or about 120 rh. This is the most promising way to proceed in England, and Tischendorf expects that it will proove successful. The parchment exemplar will be bought by the British museum for 220 rh. He plans to make short trip to Cambridge at the end of the week.
London 4 March 1865 p. 542 At the dinner with Gladstone, Tischendorf met the Russian ambassador Brumov, who invited him for the celebrations for the anniversary of the reign of the emperor. Prince Bariatinskij will also be there. The sale of the Codex is going well. The parchment exemplar brought 33 pounds; and another to-day for 18 pounds netto.
London 10 March 1865 p. 543
36 In Cambridge he was guest at various colleges: Every meal was richer than the last. He and the Codex were always at the centre of attention. In the Senate Hall he was given an honorary doctorate. p. 544 The 'orator publicus' proclaimed that he had performed many promotions to the doctorate, but none so happily as this one. He spoke of Tischendorf's many works, in particular the Sinaiticus, which shone forth, despite all intrigues – Simonides was referred to under the term 'Grecia mendax.' p. 545 Later that evening the father-in-law of the vice-chancellor, also a master (of Pembroke) since 1828 and doctor of Divinity, Ainsley, said to his friends he would rather have the Sinaiticus than the Kohinoor (the diamond). The Times reported everything the day after, even if it rather cooly (so it seemed to Tischendorf) referring to the 'well known editor of the Greek text of the Bible.' Now he is back in London, to rest a bit before going to Oxford.
Oxford 17 March 1865 p. 548 Yesterday he was given an honorary doctorate in Oxford. Pusey, the famous catholicising Oxford theologian made the proposal for the doctorate in the Oxford Senate Council; he wrote a note to Max Müller [Tischendorf's old friend in Oxford] : 'only one opinion was expressed about it' ; even one of the council members whose latest book Tischendorf had criticised voted in his favour. So, he was now Legum Dr Honorarius of Cambridge and Juris civilis Dr Honorarius of Oxford; probably no other Saxon had received such distinctions. Especially now, with the usual disfavour of Germany in England, p. 549 Tischendorf's experiences in London, Cambridge and Oxford are doubly significant.
Oxford 26 March 1865 p. 551 He is sure that the honours received in Oxford and Cambridge will have an echo in Saxony. It is very unusual that these universities have given to him alone their highest honour at this time (instead of on a certain day in July, when several persons are given such honours at once). In the Athenaeum of 25 March was it said (probably
37 by someone from Oxford) that 'the emperor of Russia must without doubt feel himself flattered by these English distinctions, he who has become the proud possessor of the Codex Sinaiticus.' p. 552 On Sunday evening he was at the house of Prince Bariatinskij for dinner. And to-day he was invited by Sir Charles Nicholson who in a letter called him the 'most illustrious scholar of the age' [cited in English] who had purchased the Codex Sinaiticus together with the Codex Friederico-Augustanus. The head of the British Museum gave Tischendorf the photographic facsimile of the Epistle of Clement from the Alexandrinus as a gift (he had wanted to buy it for 3 pounds). Lagard, with whom he ate in the Athenaeum Club (with good champagne) wanted to arrange for Murray to translate Tischendorf's Reise in den Orient, but it did not come off. He was also invited twice by the archbishop of Canterbury, the highest dignitary in England after the queen; and he poured the coffee for Tischendorf personally. He also saw the archbishop of York. Also the minister of education and Keeper of the Seal (Duke Argyle) and other statesmen treated him with respect. p. 553 The senior Russian diplomat Brunerov wanted to hear his entire life's story ; and told Tischendorf that he could proclaim: 'Non omnis moriar'.
Paris 6 April 1865 p. 559 Again it appears there will be no audience with the emperor [Napoleon III], who is ill. Tischendorf also could not see the minister of education, Duruy, but simply left a letter expressing his wish for an audience.
Ferrara 12 February 1866 p. 561 During his stop in Vienna, he was very well received by the undersecretary in the imperial foreign ministry Baron Meysenbug, as also by two scholars, v. Karajan and Miklosicz, the latter member of the education council and the state council, who said he was willing to help arrange the purchase of several exemplars of the Codex [Sinaiticus].
38 In Venice they told him in the Biblioteca Marciana that they regretted not having got an exemplar of the Codex [Sinaiticus]. They took steps to obtain one through Prince Gagarin– whom Tischendorf knows— but Dekanov told them that there were no exemplars left ; he indicated however that Tischendorf still had a few. To-day in the library in Ferrara he was occupied with the palimpsest which he has had in mind for the past 23 years. It was a disappointment. The good cardinal Mai had also studied the MS with the former librarian, and he had spread the rumour that the underlying text contained, amongst other things, the Epistle of Clement of Rome. After examination, Tischendorf indeed read 'of Clement, bishop of Rome'; but the cardinal had missed what went before: 'Life and Martyrium.' Thus, it was only a Life of Clement, not his Epistle. Next he is going to Florence, to see a member of the cathedral chapter, the former librarian, who is in close touch with the pope (and who believes that the letters which Tischendorf has received from the pope were all his doing ; Tischendorf doubts this, because the letters show a genuine interest and knowledge of the subject).
Rome 22 February 1866 p. 565 From the Austrian ambassador he has received a note of recommedation to Antonelli, the secretary of state [of the Vatican]. From the head librarian of the Vatican he learns that his earlier letter to the pope has not been kept secret and that the present affair cannot be settled simply by taking the pope by surprise. Therefore Tischendorf has chosen the direct way: to attempt to win over the secretary of state, on whom certainly most depends. Yesterday Tischendorf visited him and was very well received. Tischendorf learnt that this cardinal has very close relations with Princess Luise; and Tischendorf of course mentioned his own relation with her. There was also a mutual connexion with the Saxon royal family. Tischendorf then expressed his request, which the cardinal received without any grimace; but he said there would be need of further consultation. Tischendorf also visited the padre D. Vercellone, who is important here, though he is on the side of those who believe that the edition [of the Codex Vaticanus] should be done in Rome, to Rome's honour. But Vercellone seemed to have such esteem for Tischendorf that he promised not to put up any opposition [to Tischendorf's project]—at least he promised this. Tischendorf told Antonelli this straightway; and the latter said he
39 would speak at once himself to the pope about an audience for Tischendorf, although Tischendorf wanted to go to the chief steward Bartolomeo Pacca. Since Tischendorf could not find the latter, he wrote to him according to Antonelli's instructions. Straightway Tischendorf sent Antonelli an exposé, expressing himself as forcefully as possible, together with an exemplar of the Porphirij palimpsest, that is, vol. V of the Monumenta and the French Gospel text. Now he must wait. But since the matter is so critical, he has the best hope. Rien n'est fait que ce qui est fait.
Rome 25 February 1866 p. 567 Yesterday he was received by the pope, very respectfully. Evidently the view already indicated to him previously – some 2 to 3 years ago – still remains unchanged : They are ashamed to replace the bad work of Cardinal Mai, which is dedicated to the pope and is to appear under his protection, by a masterpiece of Tischendorf. He will describe the audience further in another letter. He spoke as carefully as he could, and as indulgently as possible for Mai's work. But Pius first expressed the opinion: 'But then we need no new edition.' And later : 'Potremo fare anche noi.' Then Tischendorf said: 'But it will senza dubbio be possible for me to examine the Codex precisely?' Answer:' Si, si.' This p. 568 is what Tischendorf always considered as the surest way: that he should at least be able to clear up the matter in a scholarly way, even if the beautiful publication was not allowed. If this is now fully achieved, it will be enough for him. For whether the Roman Curia, which always answers vital questions with their non possumus, would go along with his wish, was doubtful in the highest degree. Still, he hopes that Cardinal Pitra, who seems to esteem him greatly, will take action to help.
Rome 2 March 1866 p. 569 As he said in his last letter, the audience with Pio Nono left him discouraged; but now, thanks to the help of the excellent French Benedictine cardinal Pitra (whose scholarly work, as earlier in the case of Mai, has raised him to the dignity of cardinal), Tischendorf's main business in the Eternal City is on the right path. He went to the Vatican Library and was very well received by Pitra, who told him that although the refusal, already expressed by the pope's mouth, of a 'Sinaite'
40 edition of the Codex [Vaticanus] [i.e. an edition of the Vaticanus after the manner of Tischendorf's edition of the Sinaiticus] or of the New Testament therein – since such an edition is alreay to appear under the auspices of the Holy See –, Tischendorf is to be allowed to study the Codex [Vaticanus] freely, with longer than usual working hours in the library. Pitra then took him directly to the Codex Vaticanus and they started comparing passages in it with the facsimile of the Sinaiticus. p. 570 He visited Antonelli again and thanked him for his help. He told Tischendorf that when he had presented Tischendorf's demand for another edition to the pope, this latter said: Vergogna! Tischendorf then told Antonelli that he would do all he could to help the Holy See to complete the work as he thinks it should be done, in order to preserve the honour of the Holy See. (Pitra had also told Tischendorf that Antonelli had exclaimed: 'The Sinaiticus has appeared under the auspices of the emperor of Russia, the Alexandrinus under those of the king of England, and so must the Vaticanus appear under the auspices of the pope' ; the fact that Mai has already done the work is thus fully ignored.) Antonelli confirmed what Pitra had told him. After leaving Antonelli, Tischendorf began his study of the Vaticanus at once, though it turned out that he could work only during the usual hours from 9 to 12. But in fact this limitation of time was justified, for this is when the many foreigners, namely Englishmen, who always come to see the Codex [Vaticanus], are allowed to look at it under glass. Tischendorf is happy to be able to pursue his study. He plans to publish the most significant conclusions concerning the Codex [Vaticanus], and probably a new – even if not a 'Sinaite' – edition of it. He has moved out of the expensive hotel and now lives in a private flat.
Rome 22 March 1866 p. 576 He reports that his good hopes have been dashed. The enemy is as active as the good angel. Someone has told the pope that Tischendorf's work would destroy his (the pope's) honour. In brief, the command has been given that the Codex [Vaticanus] is to be withheld from him and everyone; and a great edition of the pope himself, as splendid as the Sinaiticus, is to be undertaken at once. Jealousy and misunderstanding, Tischendorf's old acquaintances, confront him again. His friends, above all the cardinal Pitra, are as stunned as he is.
41 p. 577 Tischendorf's present work on the Codex [Vaticanus] is already far enough advanced to be of significance to the world, even if it is still incomplete. And during the last two days he has nevertheless continued working with Prof. Vercellone, who is charged with the edition [of the Vaticanus], though he himself has declared his incompetence for the job. Tischendorf does not know what will happpen, for they have placed the continuation of Tischendorf's collation – which has revealed the faultiness of Mai's publication– under the supervision of the good padre Vercellone. Tischendorf cannot go along with the fact that they have curtailed his free use of the Codex [Vaticanus] and thus also his edition from it of the New Testament, or that they seek to have Vercellone do this. In this case he would rather tell them that he is satisfied with what he has, and to hold before their eyes the shame that their plan will bring on the Curia. He will probably reach his goal in the end ; and this experience will have been very interesting and illustrative of Rome's and the pope's character. They also want his Sinaiticus-font for printing the Vaticanus, and he is supposed to write to Leipzig for this. But he will do nothing at present, and will allow time for more polite relations to be established. The affair has drawn a lot of attention, and in such a situation one gets to know people. Particularly engaged is the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein, the old mistress of Liszt. But his dear cardinal Pitra stands alone at the fore. The princess has asked him to visit her. The Saxon queen dowager has come to Rome; and this evening he will go to the celebration in the Prussian embassy on the Capitol for the birthday celebration of the king. For the Easter celebrations in St Peter's he will have a place of honour amongst the Prussian notables. To-day he has got as far as the Acts of the Apostles in his collation [of the Vaticanus]—over half way!
Rome 30 March 1866 p. 579 He has come to an intermezzo in his study of the Vaticanus. p. 580 Last Tuesday he completed his critical examination of the whole New Testament. The good Vercellone, out of friendship and his understanding of the matter, had helped him. For the pope seems to have remained subborn in his decision, and Antonelli did not dare to proceed directly against his master's orders. Vercellone is
42 also very understanding with regard to what Tischendorf now plans to do with the work he has done. Tischendorf would not have felt himself bound, if they had wanted to force him into undesired restraint; but he much prefers to express himself at once here in Rome with decisiveness and to defend his standpoint. He will now publish not only splendid specimina from the Vaticanus as he has done for the Sinaiticus, but will also prepare a new edition of the New Testament from the Vaticanus. This will cause great joy in the theological world and will have lasting consequences for New Testament criticism. The work of cardinal Mai is very defective and has been shown unreliable beyond all expectation. It is thus a great satisfaction for him, for German scholarship, to be able also here to swing the torch over Rome. This is understandably quite unpleasant for the obstinate Roman point of view ; and the pope is right in his own way to be opposed to this, since a grand edition of the Codex [Vaticanus] in his name is now supposed to be undertaken. The good cardinals are still not agreed as to the execution of this project. They talk about photographing the whole Codex [Vaticanus], but the cost would be beyond all measure (surely over 100.000 thalers) and would lead to great defects and imperfections in realisation. It seems however certain that they will rely completely on Tischenddorf's [Sinaiticus] font. He has declared that he will be able to say how much this will cost only after he has returned to Leipzig, p. 581 which he now plans to do before Whitsun. He would certainly come home straigtway in the case of an invasion of Saxony by Prussia (which he doubts will happen).
Rome 10-12 April 1866 p. 583 He mentions the illumination of St Peter's on Easter Sunday evening and the so called Girandola on the Pincio. On the Saturday before, the Colosseum was illuminated with Bengal lights. Rome at Easter is a delight! Finally, the day after to- morrow, a general illumination of the entire city will commemorate the miraculous survival of Pio Nono from an accident in 1848. Tischendorf thinks of his own delivery from danger at Eastertide in 1842. He has dedicated the twenty-three years since then to the service of the Lord. p. 584
43 He plans to leave Rome around the 20-21 April, and is taking time off for the sights of the city in addition to his library work. He has seen the queen dowager [of Saxony] and she plans to leave Rome at around the same time as he. She is very much against the robber-politics of Italy and therefore will not travel through the states of Victor Emmanuel. He has had dinner with Baroness Meyendorf (née Princess Gortchakov), whose husband had already left before Easter. Before her departure she wanted to see the MS treasures of the Vatican. He arranged this with the direction of the library. He also went with the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein to see the Codex Sinaiticus in the Propaganda. Prince Lichnovskij and a Mex(ican?) prelate came along as well. To-day he was invited with the imperial privy councilor Hase from Jena to dine with the Prussian ambassador; and to-morrow they are going with the Trinius family to Tivoli.
Rome 21 April 1866 p. 587 He writes now before leaving for Naples next Tuesday. Tischendorf is completely in agreement with the liberal measures vis-à-vis the Roman Curia with regard to the edition of the Codex Vaticanus which his wife has suggested to him in a letter ; and he has expressed these same both to Antonelli and to the pope himself during a farewell audience which he was graciously granted yesterday ; namely, that he will always be ready to place himself at His Holiness's disposition, with no other goal than to tell himself that he is serving the good cause of the Lord. The pope seemed very cheerful ; he told Tischendorf about his visit the day before to queen Marie, wished him a good trip, and gave him 'tutta la mia bendizione'. Understandably, the pope did not go into the matter of the Codex [Vaticanus] ; and Tischendorf's respectful request [concerning the edition] was his parting word. For his part, Tischendorf will return home happy with what he has achieved, and he will at once proceed with the publication that will result from it, without believing in ernest in the fulfilment of the request he has made here [concening the Codex Vaticanus]. However, strangely, the first thing he must attend to in Leipzig is the matter of his Sinaiticus-font, which they must wait for here before beginning any work [on the edition of the Codex Vaticanus]. A remarkable affair, concerning which much is still being said and written.
44 Lately, Tischendorf has been seeing the Roman sights. With de Rossi he has gone to the catacombs of Calixtus. He took the two Princesses Gortchakov (the one now Baroness Meyendorf) to see the MSS exhibition in the Vaticana; the same for the Prussian ambassador and his family. And the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein went with him to see the Codex Vaticanus.
Naples 28 April 1866 p. 590 He was sad to leave Rome on Tuesday, but he left with the conciousness that he had another successful journey, another victorious battle, behind him. He he had seen the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein on Sunday; and she had seen the pope in the Vatican on Saturday. And since she thought so much of Tischendorf, she asked after him. Pio Nono replied that Tischendorf had expressed his willingness to be of service as his parting word: 'Si è dichiarato pronto a far tutto per me. Bisogna dunque ch'io lo benedica per questo.' The princess had the impression that he was very glad about this. That is at least something, even if not very much. The Austrian ambassador tried on Sunday evening to make a good impression on Tischendorf. To please him he had invited the Prussian legation councilor Schlözer to dinner. This latter, together with his son and daughter, were the only other guests at table. Nevertheless, Hüber was wearing a grand ribbon and medal. He acts now as if they both (he and Tischendorf) had succeeded with the Curia. [Hüber had given Tischendorf a note of introduction to Antonelli upon his arrival in Rome]. p. 591 In the National Library in Naples (former Musuem Burbonicum) Tischendorf was received with honour and worked on a not very important palimpsest of the 8-9th century of 14 leaves with text of the first three Gospels. They allowed him to use the chemical tincture, so that he could read most of the text. Everyone looked with amazement at the successful operation. From Naples he plans to pass through Turin, Milan, Verona and Munich on the way to Leipzig.
Turin 9 May 1866 p. 593 He will work here to-day, and leave to-morrow for Milan; from there over Lake Como and the Splügen Pass to Chur, Lindau, Augsburg, Hof to Leipzig.
45
Petersburg 4 March 1868 p. 595-596 Yesterday he went to the ministry of education, where he was very well received by the privy councilor Peters. The latter had read the letter of the pope to Tischendorf in the Augsburger Allgemeiner newspaper. In the matter of the Codex Sinaiticus Peters is à peu près so clear and cautious as Tischendorf himself. Gortchakov has left the ministry of education in the lurch; they have heard absolutely nothing from there since they last wrote to Tischendorf. But Peters hopes that, with the guidance of the grand duke Constantine, Tischendorf will be able to do something in the present complicated situation. Here one needs conseils, into which Peters thinks Ignatiev and Prince Lobanov, besides Tischendorf (and Gortchakov?), must be drawn. Tischendorf has great respect for such conseils. He thought at once of his exemplars of the Codex and his wish ; and Peters seems to consider this to be possible and makes a note to himself at once to communicate the matter to Tolstoj ; this latter is unfortunately ill and never comes to the ministry. To- day Tischendorf will announce his presence to Tolstoj, and to many other important persons. For the present he can only hope more strongly for what he wishes.
Petersburg 4 March 1868 p. 597 Despite being ill, Tolstoj told Tischendorf to come to him straigtway. But when Tischendorf arrived (between about 10:30 and 11) he was asleep. Tischendorf left his calling card. Tischendorf was very open with Deljanov and spoke of the Codex and also the 25 exemplars. From there he went to Norov. Unfortunately he had been ill for several weeks (carbuncle on the right hand). He was his old self and was very glad to see Tischendorf. Norov was well informed about the complications in the Sinai monastery; he had just corresponded with the patriarch of Jerusalem as well as the Russian archimandrite in in Jerusalem. Things were not going at all well for Tischendorf's 'poor archbishop,' even if the outcome was still in doubt. The patriarch had addressed himself to the Holy Synod in Petersburg, but had received no answer from this latter, which was a good sign for the archbishop. Tischendorf went to Prince Gortchakov yesterday, but he had gone out. In any case he knew much more than the ministry of education had told Tischendorf, for he had also discussed the matter with Norov.
46 Tischendorf then went to the grand duke, who was surprised by his coming and received him very cordially. He did not know anything about the Sinai affair and listened to what Tischendorf said with astonishment. He found that putting together a conference (on the matter) was not his business ; and in this he was right. He remarked that p. 598 he was glad that he had nothing to do with diplomacy. But he said : 'I can take on the cause and sponsor it.' There is no need of anything more than this. They talked further, however, of the feasability of what Tischendorf indicated to him. He asked what Tischendorf wanted for the monastery and archbishop. He appeared to be completely in agreement with Tischendorf. Tischendorf told him quite openly that the best opportunity for a conclusion had been missed, and that this was extremely annoying. Tischendorf also spoke of the annoying notices of Brugsch and of the suspicions which thereby fell upon him (Tischendorf). Said Tischendorf to the grand duke : 'I take upon myself gladly the public accusations, but eveyone knows that it is not I, but the imperial government which is withholding the MS.' Tischendorf also had to take thought appropriately for his new trip to Athos and what he hoped to find there. He remarked also what splendid prospects a new trip to Sinai held for him, on the condition of a noble conclusion of the one at hand. The grand duke agreed with everything. Said Tischendorf: 'I can also very well travel without Russia, but it would be very flattering to me to carry out the new trip as the old under Russian protection.' He described the trip to Athos as a return to his earlier promise, which he had given to the imperial government and the empress. The grand prince gave him his hand thrice, and he was visibly pleased that Tischendorf was staying so long (4-5 weeks). He said: 'I have a conference now.' And indeed three highly decorated gentlemen, amongst them Korff, were waiting in the antechamber. Then Tischendorf went to see the grand duchess, who first asked him about his family etc. p. 599 Then she asked whether he did not this time still have something to do in the matter of the Sinaiticus. He indicated briefly how the matter stood, and she instructed him to tell the minister Tolstoj that she had congratualted him [Tischendorf] on the fact that he now had to deal with him [Tolstoj] instead of Golovnin (against whom she had maintained her full antipathy); and also to tell him [Tolstoj] that she had told him [Tischendorf] that Tolstoj would do everything for him out of love for her. Now,
47 thought Tischendorf, that was rich! If he succeeded in giving these instructions properly to Tolstoj, it could only be a case of wrongdoing if he did not reach his goal. Yesterday he was not successful with his visits. Ignatiev was in Moscow until Sunday; Prince Lobanov had to go to the emperor. But Tischendorf did see Peters, who intends to bring Tischendorf's affairs to the attention of the minister, whereby he hopes that Tischendorf will be called to visit Tolstoj on Sunday. He has also seen academicians Dorn and Chwolson amongst others.
St Petersburg 12 March 1868 p. 602 He remarks that he seems always to be in a carraige going somewhere in Petersburg. He has seen Norov and the baroness Rhoden; and in the evening he was invited to dinner by Prof. Chwolson. He is at the centre of attention amongst academicians and their wives. The Sinaiticus has had great impact. In the library they told Tischendorf that everyone who comes there knows of it, and it is the object most in demand. The catholicos of Armenia knew only the Codex beside Tischendorf and Voltaire! On Sunday he made many visits. All the pious Russians were in church: Prince Urusov, Litov, Korff. He ate with Norov, who was fasting. There he met a Greek archimandrite (Palamos) who had more precise and recent information from Jerusalem, where the cause of Tischendorf's 'poor archbishop' is in a bad way. On Monday he saw the general Ignatiev, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople (who was earlier in the most important post in China). Tischendorf has a very important and useful conversation with Ignatiev who knows very well the situation and is a good friend p. 603 of Tischendorf's archbishop Cyril, who comes to see him almost every week. However, the conflicts which have grown up around Cyril have gone so far that it is no longer possible to think of rehabilitating him. But Ignatiev has in mind another, higher position for him, which will give him a certain compensation. Ignatiev told Tischendorf that he (Ignatiev) has not yet met the new archbishop who has been put forward by the scheming patriarch [of Jerusalem]. For years Ignatiev has kept up communication with the monks concerning the original of the Sinaiticus ; he agrees completely with Tischendorf that the affair as it stands is humiliating for Russia. He told Tischendorf: 'J'ai dit mille fois à Gortchakoff qu'il faut payer' ; but Gortchakov refused with the greatest meanness to condescend to any compensation. Ignatiev is
48 very angry with Gortchakov. (He also called Prince Lobenstein a foolish man, though he is now minister of Justice!) Even a year ago, says Ignatiev, he could have settled the matter (naturally, with the necessary money), but now it is much more difficult and complicated. Nevertheless, he declared himself ready to take the matter in hand, and with 25.000 rubles – he wants to increase the 20.000 which are usually quoted, since compensation now goes for all sides – he believes he will succeed. 'J'en réponds,' he told Tischendorf expressly. (From here Tischendorf will write further on the 13th [the following day].) Although Tischendorf is now superfluous in all of this affair, at least here in this place, he is nevertheless very happy and wants now to set the matter in motion. For in Petersburg one says: Alone, alone, man is alone! In such a matter one cannot rely on anyone else. He also visited Gortchakov, who acted as if he left everything to Ignatiev. The minister of education will probably have to step in now again. Tischendorf has still not seen him, because on Sunday he sent Tischendorf word through Peters that on account of his bad health he had to refer Tischendorf to Mianov 'until further notice.' On Monday, whilst Tischendorf was eating, both Mianov and Tolstoj had either come to visit or left their calling cards in person at his hotel. On Tuesday Tischendorf again saw Peters, who took his affair very much to heart. Peters had told the minister what the grand duchess had instructed Tischendorf to tell him. Peters prepared at once a paper for Tolstoj concerning the 25 exemplars, but since the ministry itself has no money, he sent the paper to the finance minister. This latter, who also had become minister through the help of the grand duke, then received Tischendorf very warmly and said he would do what he could for him. p. 604 Tischendorf hopes for the fulfilment of his old expectation. He also saw Mianov for a hour, and it seemed that he too would do everything according to Tischendorf's wish. Then Tischendorf went to the grand duke, who was very surprised by the news Tischendorf brought him. Clearly, writes Tischendorf, he must also go in person to the emperor, to seek to arrange things for success. He went therefore to Count Adlerberg to ask to be received by the emperor. So stand matters. Tischendorf has good hopes: Rien n'est fait que ce qui est fait. Ignatiev has been to Athos himself and is very interested in such research as that of Tischendorf. In the case of such a trip, whether under contract from Russia or not, he would certainly give his fervent recommendation. There are the best prospects for a new Sinai trip, if only the agreement be made in stately wise, through his mediation.
49
Moscow 1 March 1868 p. 605 He had almost given up making a trip to Moscow on account of the unbearable prolongation of the affair of the original of the Sinai MS. But Baron Korff quickly organised a Moscow trip after all. To date Tischendorf has still not seen the emperor. The old Adlerberg and his sons are not to blame that Tischendorf's request to see the emperor was answered only 8 days afterwards; this is specifically Russian. The emperor answered that Tischendorf should express himself more clearly to Korff in the matter of the affair. Then Adlerberg told him orally that in 2 or 3 days 'l'empereur fixera l'audience.' Korff, who agrees with and seems very devoted to Tischendorf, is now convinced together with Tischendorf that he will not succeed in obtaining the result which he desires because he is not allowed to give his report the emperor himself, but must give it to Adlerberg. It would appear that the emperor had been unfavourably influenced by such people as Adlerberg and Schuvalov. In addition, this fear is confirmed by the manner in which the emperor spoke to Ignatiev. Namely, he had spoken of a return to the monastery of the original MS. Tischendorf was glad that Ignatiev had replied decidedly that this would be a humiliation for Russia. Korff informed Tischendorf of all this, who had spoken with Ignatiev the day before his departure for Constantinople. Under these circumstances, whereby the pourparlers and Tischendorf's audience with the emperor might have dragged on interminably, and also because Holy Week and Easter would make such demands on the emperor's time, Tischendorf decided simply to write and tell the emperor that he was at the latter's disposal for an audience on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, but that on Monday (after Palm Sunday) he had to return home, 'for I have the duty to celebrate the Easter holiday with my family.' He also said that at the emperor's every wink he would hurry back from Leipzig to Petersburg. Thus, it is now settled, whether the emperor receives him on the days named or not. (Korff's report will hardly reach the emperor before then, for Tischendorf's note to Korff must first be translated into Russian etc). Therefore Tischendorf plans to leave on Monday p. 606 for Leipzig. It is very unpleasant for Tischendorf that this important matter is not proceeding more smoothly, to say nothing of the unpredictable result. But otherwise the success of this trip is already good and costly enough, so that he can reckon it amongst the most fortunate undertakings of his life.
50 He was at a festive dinner given by Titov; at breakfast with the grand duchess (the grand duke was indisposed: he had been very busy and slept badly, and the duchess had told him he looked like a sick cat!). The duchess will send a present for Tischendorf's daughter Alexandra. Norov has ordered a Russian suit to be made. But the money which Tischendorf is bringing home for the 25 exemplars weighs more than all gifts: 3450 thalers (Peters insisted on thalers, not rubles). About Moscow he says only that he has been received here with true distinction. It is a splendid thing to be a famous man. The Russian clergy in the library of the Holy Synod here were beside themselves with joy and did not know what they could do for him. Since the railway connexion to Moscow from Germany will be ready in three years, perhaps Tischendorf will be able to return here. Gieseke will have been in touch with his wife concerning the expedition of the [25] exemplars of the Codex [for which Tischendorf has received payment].
Petersburg 5 April 1868 p. 608 Yesterday Tischendorf went to see Adlerberg, to tell him that he had to leave on Monday or Tuesday; and at 4 in the afternoon Tischendorf received an invitation to see the emperor at noon to-day. This is a good sign for the affair. Adlerberg had received Korff's report ¼ hour earlier with the information of all that Tischendorf proposed ; thus, the emperor would have already read the report when the invitation went out. Yesterday the English ambassador and his wife and the Greek ambassador, Count Metaxa, went with Tischendorf to the foreign ministry to see again for the first time his treasure [the Sinaiticus]. He was touched at heart. They stayed there about two hours; and naturally all eyes were soon focused on him. He gave a lecture, one inspired by excitement and determination. He will leave for Leipzig on Tuesday.
51
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf - J.M. Featherstone
Though much has been written on the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by Konstantin Tischendorf (1815-1874),1 little use has yet been made of Tischendorf’s personal letters to his fiancée/wife Angelika and brother Julius. Not only of interest for the Sinaiticus, this voluminous correspondence provides a highly entertaining view of Tischendorf’s travels throughout Europe and the Near East, his hobnobbing with royalty and equal joy in collecting books and personal distinctions. It is hoped that the following summary, with the barest annotation, will prompt a complete edition and study of the letters. The page numbers are those in the transcription of the letters typed by Tischendorf’s daughter, in the family’s possession, photocopies of which have been deposited in the library of St Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai. ______
1 Most recently D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus – The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible, London 2010 ; Chr. Böttrich, Der Jahrhundertfund. Entdeckung und Geschichte des Codex Sinaiticus, Leipzig (Evangelische Verlagsanstalt) 2011, with extensive bibliography.
LETTERS
Cairo, 1 May 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 71 : He plans to stay 14 days on Sinai.
St Catherine’s, Sinai, 26 May-1 June 1844 : p. 78 : The monks, who change very often, give him a very different impression from that of Schubert [Gotthilf Heinrich v. Schubert, Reise in den Orient in den Jahren 1832 und 1833, 1840]. If he had soldiers under his command, he would believe it a holy task to throw this rabble over the walls. How sad it is when one sees man bring his meanness, his wretchedness straightway into the wonderful sublimity of Nature ! How splendid Sinai and all that surrounds it is ! He had never experienced a more imposing impression than he did a few hours before arriving at the monastery.
Cairo, 15 June 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 81 He took only two letters of recommendation with him to Sinai ; one of them, from the superior of the Sinai monastery in Cairo, was of no use because this perfidious Greek
1 wrote to his monastery that they might put everything at his disposal, but they should be careful with him with regard to manuscripts. p. 83-84 Results of his researches : He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitz gelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of the very oldest preserved in Europe. He believes they are from the mid-fourth century, and they are remarkable not only for their age but also other reasons. He also possesses 24 palimpsest folia with Arabic writing of the 12th century and Greek of the 8-9th century ; further, 4 similer palimpsest folia ; and finally, amongst other less significant things, 4 mutilated folia of a Greek New Testament of the 7-8th century. He has reported this to the head court preacher v. Ammon and expects to receive more money. He must cut his trip short : he wants to go to the patriarch in Constantinople in order to obtain the rest of the folia (beside the 43 he has) which remained at Sinai [=um noch den von jenen 43 Blättern auf dem Sinai verbliebenen Rest zu erhalten] ; thus he has suspended making a public announcement of his find. That his trip to Sinai was of interest to him in thousands of other ways his brother will certainly understand.
Constantinople, 4 September 1844 p. 95 He has been received by the present patriarch and by two dismissed patriarchs on the Princes Islands.
Constantinople, 4 September 1844 (to his brother Julius) : p. 97 His brother had not received the news of the find of the oldest parchment document in Europe, which he is bringing to Saxony. His trip to the East has exceeded all hopes. He does not know yet whether he will give all his MSS to the [Saxon] government, in order, perhaps, to receive a higher salary than usual for a professor. He has also acquired a MS in Constantinople : a Greek palimpsest of 200 folia from the 12th century, whose older text is from the 8th century, thus the oldest preserved Gospels for church use.
Cairo, 14 February 1853
2 p. 198 He visits the Patriarch and head of the Sinai Monastery [Constantine, former patriarch of Constantinople, later archbishop of Sinai] together with the Russian minister and general consul and finds the best reception ; he hopes to find the same reception at Sinai itself ; his dear old friend Cyril the librarian is still there ; he believes he has God’s blessing for his new journey.
Cairo, 19 March 1853 p. 206 Despite the failure of his main goal, he has been rewarded beyond his expectations : he is bringing back more than ten very old palimpsests, of which two are particularly valuable, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament. The first, from the 5th –as well as the 2d— century forms a pendant to the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, and he has thought to call it, in honour of Prince Johann, the Codex Johanneus, provided that the Government fulfils his wishes for the future. He hopes to God that he and his wife will prevail in future in their material struggle. Besides these palimpsests, his greatest treasures are three uncial MSS from the 9th century, two of which contain the Gospels, the other Genesis. Whereas the palimpsests are very short, the latter MSS are much longer and belong to the most significant witnesses of the Biblical text. God grant that these discoveries will be to the honour of His name. Falkenstein has been made minister of culture and will certainly help.
Leipzig, 22 July 1857 p. 271 The minister [Falkenstein] has come back, but Tischendorf has not yet seen him. Tischendorf’s friend from Oxford Max Müller is in Leipzig and has news about the English expedition to Greek monasteries. The government is taking part, but luckily the expedition was only for the purpose of observation. There are plans for further action, including all acquisitions. So Tischendorf hopes, if the Russian minister is true to his word, to set out in the coming winter to that place where the dearest thing to his heart lies. This goal is so isolated that it will also be able to take it away in isolation. A way will be found. ‘The world belongs to the bold.’ He must not fail where there is a great, splendid purpose to achieve.
Leipzig, 26 July 1857
3 p. 273 Tischendorf is awaiting any day the decision of the Russian government in the matter which makes his heart burn with zeal.
Dresden (1858 ?), Tuesday p. 275 He is invited to dine with the Russian ambassador.
Dresden (1858 ?), Wednesday p. 276 He dined with Prince Volkonskij. Beust was also there, Falkenstein as well.
Trieste, 10 January 1859 p. 278 He departs for the East amidst preparations for war.
Alexandria, 17 January 1859 p. 281 The Prussian consul and Russian consul [from Cairo] are old acquaintances of Tischendorf. The Russian vice-consul in Alexandria tells Tischendorf that during the past year the Russian consulate has done much in favour of the Sinai monastery : Good preparation ! All correspondence from the Synod in Petersburg goes through the Russian vice-consulate, and there is nothing to arouse suspicion. The goal of his journey is known at least here in Alexandria, but there is no connexion here with the monastery. He has heard again of the stories told by Simonides. He is in a hurry to go to Cairo and then further on to his goal.
Cairo, 21 January 1859 p. 285 He will leave in two days for Sinai. He could almost have lost hope of success, for the Sinai monks here [in Cairo] have remained true to their former character. But he is none the more stupid ; and to his great joy, he has learnt that his Cyril is still alive. He is very eager to see what will be possible. God grant His blessing to the journey ! The Russian general consul is an excellent man, if rather young and not completely experienced. When Tischendorf comes home he will certainly have Sinai sausages in
4 his suitcase, and let us hope they will be packed with other treasures, so that he may bring his children – and also the emperor – something fitting.
Cairo, 15 February 1859 (received 25 February, at 6 :00 PM) p. 287 The Lord has given victory and given His blessing to his researches. He was received in the monastery in the most excellent way, although he had not brought the letter of introduction, but only the official letter of the Russian general consul. The oikonomos himself came personally straigthway to greet him and took him through the garden into the monastery. Very soon Cyril, his old friend, came to him from the superior, who was ill. Cyril was very warm ; just a few days ago he had spoken with the superior, who had wanted to meet Tischendorf in Constantinople, where he was supposed to have been with his wife. As Cyril accompanied him to the superior, Tischendorf was treated like a good spirit sent from Above. They spoke of his great work for the Church as if it was something they knew with precision. They wished only that the Lord should help him find that what he sought, for the good of the Church. p. 288 He was very surprised by this reception ; but he happily went along with it. Cyril told him that he asked most of the visitors who had come since 1853 for news of him ; and most of them had something to tell him. The report was that he was now in one place, now in another. There were also reports about his wife. When Cyril had heard that Tischendorf had come without his wife, he told the superior at once that something must have happened to her. The library was at his disposal. He was able to take in his hands and look through almost every MS, in order to see which ones he wanted to study afterwards. Already this was a great blessing, and he thought his trip was a success, even if nothing else came out of it. He announced openly his intention to make acquisitions with the name and the gold of the emperor, though the direct, official way did not lead to the goal, so it was considered a private agreement. He comported himself more like a Russian prince than a Saxon professor. He gave gifts at every opportunity. His favour and mediation in Petersburg were much sought after. And imagine what happened ! The oikonomos and he saw the golden MS and others in the room of [=bei] the old skeuophylax ; and then the oikonomos had in his room [=in seiner Stube] and showed to Tischendorf the MS of which the Codex Friderico-Augustanus is undoubtedly a part and of which
5 Tischendorf had seen another fragment containing Isaiah and other parts of the Old Testament on his first trip to Sinai. But the MS was no longer the fragment of 70-80 folia, but 346. Tischendorf was beyond himself with joy as he rushed with it into his cell. There he saw that the whole New Testament was in it : the only such MS in the world ! Neither the Codex Vaticanus nor the London Alexandrinus has all the New Testament, and the Sinai Codex is certainly older than both of them. This find is an event for all Christian scholarship. Of course, no one in the monastery knew what the MS contained. And now more surprises : At the end of the book there is the entire Epistle of Barnabas, one of the disciples of the Apostles, of which a considerable part has until now been considered to be lost in the Greek original, and for which the extant parts are transmitted only in later, unreliable MSS. He had tears in his eyes, and his heart had never been so moved. When he recovered he thought how there might also be the Shepherd of Hermas text here ; and then he took a folio and read : ‘The Shepherd’ ! He lost all control. He thought that it could only have been the Lord’s calling that led him to this discovery. The whole MS, such as it is, is an incomparable treasure for scholarship and the Church. The Hermas is not complete like the Barnabas, with about a third of the text, the first part, preserved. What a sensation this will make everywhere, especially in Leipzig ! His views on Hermas were wrong, but in one thing he was right : the Athos text is not only much inferior than the Sinai one, but is also certainly corrupted from the Latin. What was to be done now ? One thing was certain : Not one letter was to remain uncopied by his own hand. He attempted to acquire it, but this failed. Then he requested to have the MS taken to Cairo. But the old Vitalios [=Skeuophylax in the Praktika =Sinai Archive 2207, Arith. 20, 28 December 1862, p. 299] could in no way be convinced, though the whole monastery became very cross with this old stubborn ox. He left on the condition of coming back for 5-6 weeks, or else the MS was to be sent in care of the monastery in Cairo. Unfortunately, the excellent superior Dionysios had left for Cairo the day before the discovery, upon news of the death of the archbishop partiarch Constantios. Yesterday Tischendorf has achieved what he wanted : A messenger has been dispatched from the Cairo monastery p. 290 who is to bring the MS here (Cairo) by next Wednesday, in order that Tischendorf can copy it with ease. Perhaps he will succeed in more. He would offer 10.000 thalers outright, if it was for sale, though only as a gift—with a gift in return, of course. But even if he does not possess the original MS, the discovery has been made. It will be
6 the most important and greatest of his works. His plan to edit it in the name of the emperor is already fixed. He will write with the next ship to the emperor and the grand duke Constantine. Also to his minister : he will leave it to Falkenstein to give the news to the Saxon newspapers. He asks his wife not to say anything about it to anyone except best friends. He has already copied Barnabas and Hermas in the monastery. He will need a good six weeks in Cairo to finish the work of copying. He describes his departure from Sinai : it was a affair of state. The Russian imperial flag was raised over the monastery ; three rifle shots were fired ; and the oikonomos, Cyril and other brothers accompanied him on his way out.
Cairo, 16 February 1853 p. 296 He had to give all the copies of his edition of the New Testament to the Sinai monks. It is a good sign for them that they had so great a desire for such a thing. After the success he has had, he would like to go home at once ; but should it, contrary to all expectation, prove possible to acquire as a gift the precious Sinai Bible which he wishes to copy immediately letter-for-letter, he will have to change his plans. In that case he would not dare carry the MS about nor to send it off, but he would have to take it to Petersburg himself and put it in the emperor’s hands. He has also acquired all the Arabic Pauline Epistles amongst which was the fragment of the Epistle to the Hebrews which Prof Delitzsch was so delighted with.
Cairo, 15 March 1859 p. 301 Contrary to his wish, he has not dared wait any longer in announcing his find, because even the English have stuck their noses and eyes into the monastery here, so that word must have gone through all Europe. He has written to Falkenstein in the most official manner and asked him to have the news printed in the Leipzig newspaper. Whatever impression the find makes—probably a mixed one – it is a splendid success, which will make his trip unforgettable in the annals of Christian literature, and this is mort imporatnt to him than anything Hinz and Kunz [ho polloi] might say. He has found a doctor med. L’Orange from Königsberg and a pharmacist from Leipzig to help with the copying of the MS, though he must revise everything himself. By Reminiscere-Sunday all the New Testament will be finished ; then all the rest, God willing, in the Laetare-week in April. There is still a glimmer of hope of
7 acquiring the splendid, inestimable original ; this would make him exceedingly happy. He is making three photographic facsimiles, which he hopes will turn out well.
Cairo, 30 March 1859 p. 307 There is great interest in Alexandria and Cairo concerning the discovery, and in German and English circles etc. it is much talked about. People come to him to see it. p. 308 The copying is advancing. Yesterday he collected the last 125 folia from the monastery. His doctor and pharmacist (named Voss, from Leipzig, who calls the bookseller in Leipzig his uncle) write about fifty folia per week. But he tells his wife that he still has hope of taking away the precious MS as a gift for their imperial Majesties. Just yesterday both of the monastery superiors fully confirmed him in this hope. But the matter must be presented to the others —the subordinates, so Tischendorf understands, of the superior in Cairo, Agathangelos– who are coming (probably next week) from Constantinople and Wallachia for the election of a new archbishop. In hope of this, Tischendorf has stopped with the revision, since he could revise the remaining folia on the return trip. He is not sure how to proceed after receiving the treasure. The best way seems to be to complete the trip as quickly as possible, as he has promised the imperial minister. It is probable that he will be charged by Petersberg with bringing the emperor’s gift in recompense to the monastery, so that he will have to come back to Cairo, if not to Sinai ; but this latter only of other MSS can also be acquired together with the gift. As a minimum he would ask for 25.000 franks=6.000 thalers ; but 10.000 or 20.000 thalers would be an ‘imperial’ sum. With what great joy will he receive the MS ! In this case he will telegraph Prince Volkonskij immediately.
Cairo, 14 April 1859 p. 312 There is still no definitive solution in the matter of the Bible treasure from Sinai ; for rien n’est fait que ce qui est fait. But it is very close to the desired decision. The monastery and almost all its – many – superiors, who have come together from various lands have expressed to him, in a decided and definitive way, their intention of giving the precious MS through him as a gift to the emperor Alexander. In the
8 week of Easter the election of the archbishop will take place in the Cairo monastery ; it may take longer, but in all probability it is already decided. Immediately afterwards the formalities concerning the MS are to be observed, which may take two weeks. One of the monks, perhaps the superior of the monastery here, a very learned man who is already personally acquainted with the emperor, will probably be given to him as an escort. As soon as this is done, he will leave immediately for Europe by way of Trieste, Vienna, Dresden and Leipzig, to Petersburg. For he has understood that he must not leave here until the treasure comes with him. This is a case like that of the merchant in Scripture who p. 313 finds the costly pearl. He would have preferred things to go more simply, but there is no changing the situation now. It will all be a great triumphal procession for him. Everything is the Lord’s doing. In the meantime, the copying is finished, but he must now revise everything.
Alexandria, 1 May 1859 p. 316 The bishop has been elected in the monastery in Cairo during Easter Week. But for his formal installation he must be consecrated by the partriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople. This will take two months. Tischendorf has spoken with the new archbishop, who told him decidedly that the MS would be given to the emperor as a gift through Tischendorf as intermediary. Indeed, the first man after the archbishop, the superior of the monastery in Cairo, told the Russian general consul that even if Tischendorf wanted to return to Leipzig, the MS would still be given to the emperor through him as intermediary. This is a sign of their recognition that without him the monks would not have known the worth of their treasure. Tischendorf has thus decided to travel to Jerusalem and Mar Saba, and to return to Cairo in July to receive the MS. He knows that they wanted to send a delegation from the monastery with him, not so much for the MS as for the purpose of informing the Holy Synod in Petersburg of the election of the archbishop ; and Tischendorf declared himself ready to take such a delegation with him at his, that is, imperial expense, desiring the protosyncellus [the superior of the monastery in Cairo] as his escort. This gave great pleasure. The general consul repeatedly told Tischendorf with what ‘enchantment’ they spoke of him in the monastery.
9 Jerusalem 14 May 1859 p. 328 He goes to Mar Saba with the grand duke Constantine. The patrairch and other clergy received the grand duke, who then introduced Tischendorf to the patriarch and told him of his mission and recommended it. At table Tischendorf sat near the grand duke, and Cyril was at Tischendorf’s side. Across the table he spoke with the patriarch, through Cyril’s translation. After the meal, as they talked about library researches, Mansurov implied that it would be very good if Tischendorf made a discovery in the presence of the grand duke. Taking the hint, Tischendorf went with Cyril into one of the three libraries. After a half-hour’s effort he had two palimpsests in his hands, one of which had already been named by Coxe. With it he hurried P. 329 to the grand duke. His joy was great. He took the MS straightway as a loan to Jerusalem ; the grand duke informed Cyril in Tischendorf’s name that he desired to give for it 100 Napoleons d’or as a gift from the emperor ; but the time was too short to come to an agreement with the patriarch. The agreement has still not been concluded. On the 17th they visited the famous Omar Mosque which is rarely open, and hundreds of other persons took the opportunity to see it.
Jerusalem, 7 June 1859 p. 337 He will have many things to discuss with his Sinai friends concerning the relations of Russia with the Eastern Church ; perhaps he will be able to finalise the gift of the MS without having to wait for all the formalities and difficulties of the consecration of the archbishop. He has had intimate talks with the Russian bishop in Jerusalem. He is a fine, clever, imposing man : the Russian Synod could not have sent a better representative of Russian interests in the face of the countless intrigues of these Greek clerics. He will soon go for talks with the government in Petersburg. Tischendorf will meet him there, and he will be able to help him with the Synod.
Cairo, 28 July 1859 p. 352 He was received very warmly in the Sinai monastery in Cairo. As soon as the archbishop caught sight of him, he came to greet him with the friendliest face. Then they talked. Their agreement had come into difficulty because the patriarch of
10 Jerusalem hesitated to complete the consecration of the archbishop, ostensibly because the new Sinai archbishop belonged to the Russian ‘party’. But no one told Tischendorf that he had to wait for the consecration. He told the archbishop that he wanted to arrive in Petersburg in August, and also that the grand duke Constantine was expecting him then. He also mentioned the earlier agreement that the protosyncellus would accompany him ; but Cyril seemed not to want to hear about this, perhaps out of envy, or so it seemed to Tischendorf. He left in the hope that all would be settled soon ; but it is not yet settled. It is good that he will see the grand duke, who knows everything and will have told the emperor. Tischendorf then took the first three Gospels from the MS back to his lodgings since he still had to revise the copy.
Alexandria, 10 August 1859 p. 357 See here : how the matter has turned out contrary to all expectation and desire. The archbishop of Sinai has explained to him in all friendship that the consecration must be done before he can leave with the precious Sinai Bible. And under the circumstances Tischendorf can find no proof of unfriendliness, for this was the earlier agreement. The consecration is still opposed by the patriarch of Jerusalem. For this reason five deputees of the monastery have been in Constantinople for nearly three months ; their latest reports say that there are very good prospects for a solution. Therefore Tischendorf has decided to go to Constantinople, in order to further the cause of the monastery together with the Russian ambassador, Prince Lobanov. He also hopes to find something for his purposes in the library of the Seraglio.
Constantinople, 31 August 1859 p. 363 He spent the 20th to 26th with Prince Lobanov and had the opportunity to hasten the official tractations with the Porte. Fuad pasha, the minister for foreign affairs, agreed with Lobanov on the 25th to bring the matter to a good end. The patrairch of Jerusalem persists in his opposition, and the oecumenical patriarch of Constantinople has also taken his side. Under these circumstances, Tischendorf thinks the Sinai monks would have lost if he had not come together with the Russian embassy. To get round the two patriarchs, the Ottoman government will recognise the newly elected
11 Cyril as superior of the Sinai Brotherhood, without requiring the consecration of the same as archbishop by the patriarchs. But with this recognition, Tischendorf’s goal will be achieved : As superior Cyril can validly have disposal of the MS. Tischendorf hopes in the course of this week to hear that the decree has been issued, then he will leave for Alexandria as foreseen ; if not, he must change his plans : he cannot leave the MS in peril. The Sinai delegation considers him their best friend, their helper and deliverer : ‘God and also St Catherine have sent him,’ they say.
Constantinople, 5 September 1859 (received 16 September) p. 366 Despite earlier hopes of success, Tischendorf is troubled by the news that the partraich of Jerusalem has written to Lobanov in an unfriendly way against the archbishop elect of Sinai, and that he will not recognise any decree of the Porte ; and he will issue a sort of ban, a bitter circular to all Orthodox churches against the Sinaite pretender, whom he labels a ‘renegade’, that is, one who was originally a Mohammedan, one circumcised. He also said unfriendly things about Tischendorf in his letter : that he had come to Constantinople to foment an intrigue. Tischendorf was shaken ; the prince also had fear, for he told himself, firstly, that no one can force the patriarch to do something when he was within his rights ; and secondly, what would they say of him, if he intervened with the Porte for someone under a ban ? Lobanov does not give up, but he wants to gather precise information p. 367 on Cyril. Tischendorf comes back a few days later and is relieved : Lobanov sent a dragoman to the patriarch to give him a written document saying that his right to decide in the matter of consecration was fully recognised, but that the reason for his refusal, renegadism, was unfounded ; and should there really be grounds for this refusal, it is completely against his holy duty to make such misuse of a secret allegedly told in confession by the deceased patriarch Constantios. (The prince believed the story as little as Tischendorf, for there was even a letter of recommendation for Cyril from Constantios written shortly before his death.) Further, the prince’s document stated that the Sinaites were determined to maintain the result of their election, even if it meant waiting 1,2 3 years for the consecration. Likewise, the Porte was determined to draw up its decree. The patrairch would therefore only cause scandal and would have to bear the blame for it. Thus would the threatened circular bring shame upon him. This is supposed to have made a strong
12 impression on the patriarch, and the prince expects that he will give in. Tischendorf hurried to the Sinai delegation to tell them what had happened , and they were relieved. Furthermore, news has come to-day that the viceroy of p. 368 Egypt has recognised the elected Sinai archbishop in so far as he can, and has recommended that the Porte also recognise him. After the first bad news from the prince, Tischendorf had thought it might be necessary to revise the MS again in Cairo, for his edition of it, if he should have to leave Cairo without it. Not that he thought that the earlier promise would be broken, but only that the original MS would follow later. He also thought about a provisional loan to take it to Petersburg. His heart was heavy ; but in the worst case, what else could he do against such a patriarch ? Tischendorf’s achievement stands forever, his triumph is great, even if he can only put his copy in print. But he takes new courage. The Lord is watching over this matter ; Tischendorf sees and feels this, together with his Sinaite friends. He is only sorry that his return home to his family will be delayed.
Constantinople (Pera), 14 September 1859 p. 372 On Saturday – to-day is Wednesday—Tischendorf was told that the decree would come from the Sultan’s cabinet, and that it was already paid for (15.000 Piasters). He told the Sinai deputation to present their thanks to Prince Lobanov, and he was full of joy. But yesterday he learnt that on the same Saturday the tirelessly intriguing patriarch of Jerusalem again expressed his opposition to the grand vizier, saying that the election of the Sinai monks was not conducted properly. This change of tactic shows that the patriarch did not believe that he would succeed with his earlier objections. He has now requested several days delay in order to bring evidence. This he hopes to gain through bribes he has sent with a Greek to Egypt. Tischendorf went to the first dragoman [of the Russian embassy] Argyropoulo and to Prince Lobanov and urged both to take urgent measures. In support of these measures, the Sinaites have found a document from 1670 which states that the patriarch of Jerusalem has the duty of consecration, but can in no way oppose the election of the bishop. And Lobanov seemed disposed to act to-day through Argyropoulo at the Porte.
Constantinople (Pera), 16 September 1859 p. 375
13 Lobanov, who is wholeheartedly for the cause of the Sinaites, thought that Tischendorf should go together with the embassy’s dragoman to Fuad Pasha, the foreign minister, and to the grand vizier. But the dragoman Argyropoulo was against this, because Tischendorf might present the matter in too eager a manner, which would not be helpful ; so Argyropoulo went alone. As matters stand, Tischendorf does not expect a quick decision according to his wishes. The patriarch has stopped the issue of the decree, and now time will be necessary for him to produce his undoubtedly false objections. But the prince will deal with the patriarch again, and the end result can only be the one desired by Tischendorf. In view of this Tischendorf has had a thought : that the prince in his official capacity should draw up a paper in roughly the following wise : ‘Mr Tischendorf has informed me that the Sinai monks have the intention of giving the old Bible MS to the emperor through his mediation. But because this cannot be carried out officially until the newly elected head of the Sinai brotherhood is officially recognised, Tischendorf has desired in the meantime to take the said MS to Petersburg as a loan for the purpose of checking the transcription during priniting. Whilst the undersigned imperial ambassador supports this wish of Mr Tischendorf, he declares expressly that, when the said MS is taken as a loan to Petersburg, it nevertheless remains the property of of the Sinaites, until the superior, p. 376 in the name of the brotherhood, formally, in writing or through delegation, finalises the presentation to the emperor.‘ Lobanov was completely in agreement ; like Tischendorf, he also has few doubts that in this way Tischendorf will be able to take the original with him. In this way the actual presentation to the emperor is also completely decided ; perhaps this will still be done before Tischendorf reaches Petersburg—in this case the ambassador will immediately send a telegraph — or at least during the time he is in Petersburg. From this procedure it will be clear how great Tischendorf’s devotion to the matter is, whereas the obstacle to its completion comes from the malevolent patriarch. Further, this gives the superior the guarantee that the imperial embassy will do everything to bring about his confirmation. When all goes well in Cairo, then Tischendorf will leave on the 4 or 5 October, so that he will be in Trieste on the 11th, and then Vienna in the evening of the 12th ; then in Dresden in the evening of the 14th.
Dresden 30 October 1859
14 p. 381 The Sinai Bible and other MSS are put on exhibition before the king and queen of Saxony and various officials. p. 381 He is given the title of court councilor [Hofrat].
Petersburg 17 November 1859 p. 389 Tischendorf hopes for no little success ; the discovery has aroused much attention ; there is much envy, jealousy and intrigue, as well as narrow-minded Orthodoxy, which is perhaps the greatest danger. p. 390 Lobanov writes from Constantinople that the Sinai affair is ‘au même point’. But Tischendorf sees from all the details that the situation has not deteriorated. Here in Petersburg matters will also take time. Nothing is organised yet for the edition, the photographing etc. p. 395 Letter from Lobanov in Constantinople : Still no satisfaction in the Sinai affair. p. 396 Tischendorf speaks to Grimm [who has reported to the empress] about his plans for the edition of the Codex Sinaiticus ; Tischendorf is willing to associate the entire collection of MSS he has brought back with the name of the empress. Nöltingt reports that Muralt is surprised that Tischendorf has still not delivered the MS to the imperial library. Könneritz tells of the opposition of the Russian clergy to the Codex (Was it written before the First Nicaean Council ?), and stresses the point that the empress is now extremely Greek-Orthodox. Zunk tells Tischendorf at table that Grimm will speak personally to the empress about him ; he has no fears that anyone will bring opposition to Tischendorf to the ears of the empress. p. 397 Zunk tells how happy Korff was with the idea that the whole collection of MS should be named for the empress and thus find its way into the library. Two months ago in England Dorn had heard much about the Codex Sinaiticus : that Tischendorf had not managed to buy it ; instead, the monastery wanted to send it
15 with a large delegation to Russia, but this was rejected by the emperor because of the great cost ; and after this the MS remained unobtainable. Dorn was surprised that Tischendorf had it in his hands.
Petersburg 20 November 1859 p. 398 He received a telegraph that he should come to Tsarskoe Selo to see the emperor and empress. He takes all his collection and is accompanied by Grimm. He was received most graciously ; their Majesties were very interested in the Sinai Bible [the empress had read the article in the Augsburger Zeitung]. The emperor was especially happy about the attitude of the Sinai monks and Tischendorf’s report on this in the Allgemeine Zietung, directed against the Times (The monks wanted no English money, but wanted to lay the precious MS at the feet of Emperor Alexander, the refuge and defence of the Orthodox Church.). The empress was interested more in the literary aspect, in the relation of this MS to the Slavonic and Russian Bible. Tischendorf also spoke of the great importance of the Septuagint as the text used by the Apostles ; they also discussed Barnabas. Tischendorf told their Majesties the whole story, from the discovery of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus on ; the famous basket evoked shock and amazement. The emperor has little time, but listened for twenty minutes ; then he left, but said he would see the rest of the collection on Monday at 12 :00. The empress stayed twenty minutes longer ; she also wanted to hear about his earlier trip. p. 399 Tischendorf finally visits Kovalevskij, who is officially the most important person and who treated him very well, saying that Tischendorf’s name was immortal. Fourteen days earlier Kovalevskij had read a report concerning Tischendorf to the emperor. He now told Tischendorf what is to be done. He is in full agreement that Tischendorf should do the edition in Leipzig ; Tischendorf is to inform the emperor of this to-morrow and cite the approval of the minister [Kovalevskij]. Tischendorf should give Kovalevskij a report of all expenses ; everything is to be brought to the noblest and quickest conclusion. He will come himself to Tischendorf on Wednesday. Tischendorf was surprised by Kovalevskij’s conduct ; he had been told he was an indifferent bureaucrat. Preparations were also to be made quickly for a grand exhibition,
16 probably in the ministry of Culture. Tischendorf was also to ask the emperor the next day whether in this should be in the ministry or the library. In the afternoon Tischendorf was received – as graciously as in Jerusalem – by the grand duke Constantine and his wife. Tischedorf will be seeing the grand duke again in the next days and is happy for this. All is well. But on point he and the the grand duke are not in agreement. The duke said that : Since it is not certain that we have the Sinai Bible, we must begin at once with the photographing, for which we have here in the Admiralty the most excellent facilities. Tischendorf said at once that this did not fit with his plans [to return to Leipzig]. But he will have to arrange things further with him. Everything will work out.
Petersburg 22 November 1859 p.402 In the empress’s salon Tischendorf diplays all his palimpsests and MSS on 5 or 6 tables, arranged in order, that is, the palimpsests on one table, the thousand-year-old Greek Bible MS on another, the Egyptian atiquities on another etc. The emperor and empress spent a hour viewing them. They seemed very pleased. The emperor asked how long he was staying, and the empress said pointedly ‘Auf wiedersehen’ ; then came the heir to the throne, who was also very interested. p.404 The grand duke Constantine tells Tischendorf he should come to Petersburg for two to three years. The duke’s national feeling is too great. Tischendorf explains to him that he has given his word expressly to the king and minister [of Saxony]. The duke insists he should devote several years to Russia. After all, it is only right, since everything is being done at the expense of the emperor—or rather, empress – that the work should appear in Russia, instead of the MS and all the money and honour going to Leipzig ; – of course, all on the condition that the Saxon government agrees. Tischendorf tells his wife that they should prepare themselves for this possibility ; but nothing is certain. He speaks of Providence and the need to follow it and the Lord. p. 405 This evening he has written his big report for Kovalevskij. When Tischendorf was visiting the grand duke, Kovalevskij came to see him [he found his card afterwards]. Tischendorf wonders why he was there (emperor’s orders ?) and is excited.
17 Petersburg 28 November 1859 p. 406 All is going well, but it will take time. He thinks he might be able to leave around the 12 December. His MS exhibition will open in the imperial library on the coming Wednesday. Kovalevskij will deliver his decisive report on Tischendorf to the emperor on Friday or Saturday. Then all will probably go quickly. This week Tischendorf has been busy making arrangements for the edition of the Codex. Kovalevskij is on Tischendorf’s side about doing most of the work in Leipzig, and he imagines the difference in cost will be decisive for the emperor : 40.000 instead of 85.000-90.000. In an hour he goes with Tolstoj, the representative of the emperor in the Synod, to present the Sinai MS to the high clerics before the exhibition. Tolstoj told him that he had been opposed to him, but the empress had convinced him otherwise. Now he seems to be devoted to Tischendorf.
Petersburg 8 December 1859 p. 408 He expects the emperor’s decision to be taken to-morrow or the day after. He does not expect that the emperor will require him to move to Russia ; and his talk to-day with the minister [Kovalevskij] has convinced him of this. p. 409 Tischendorf notes that in the last ten days he has heard little from court, that is, the imperial family, probably because of the delay in the ministerial report to the emperor ; only after this does he expect to be summoned to the emperor himself. His exhibition in the imperial library draws numerous illustrious and other visitors. p. 410 The newspapers are full of reports on the exhibit ; the Sinaiticus is the object of marvel from every side. Of course, there is also jealousy. His visit to the Holy Synod was less edifying : surrounded by these Greek Church leaders one might have been afraid, as though one was in a Medieval court of the Inquisition. But there were also several more pleasant figures, and Prince Urusov who accompanied him was very respectful. Honoris causa he called Tischendorf ‘Excellency’.
Petersburg : TELEGRAMME 15 December 1859 p. 411
18 Gift from the emperor five thousand thalers. Departure hopefully Sunday.
Berlin 23 March 1860 p. 412 His arrival had aroused extraordinary interest : the highest circles were full of talk about him and the Sinai MS. In the Academy the comportment was tolerable. Mommsen and Haupt were there. He also had an audience with Prince Friedrich Wilhelm and the English Princess Victoria ; then with the prince regent and his wife.
Petersburg 2 April 1860 p. 415 He learns that after his departure last year hostile rumours against him have been circulating (a real comité against him, led purely by Germans !) ; but after he is received by Kovalevskij and the grand duke Constantine in the same gracious way as before, these rumours have been silenced. Yesterday he was with Kovalevskij and his head of chancellery Kisselovskij, and presented his mémoire on the subject of the edition. The association of the work with the Jubilee of the Russian state met with their approval. The minister will probably present everything to the emperor on the 4 April. Then there will also be an article in the court journal about his presence and thereby an indirect statement against all slander – the main accusation being that he had taken away the Sinaiticus. The minister officially declared in the library that this had been done with the emperor’s express agreement. Tischendorf remarks that despite all the evil lies, he had never lost his good humour. p. 416 The Lord has always allowed him to triumph as His true servant.
On the subject of the coming to Petersburg of the Sinai monks Tolstoj had still heard nothing. But Kovalevskij had heard from from his brother, who is in the Eastern section of the foreign ministry, that the archbishop of Sinai himself wants to come. Tischendorf can well understand this. He will make enquiries about this in the coming days. He believes that Cyril will arrive in good time, that is, at the beginning of May. Tolstoj, who also told Tischendorf about the slander against him, has received Tischendorf very warmly.
19 Petersburg 9 April 1860 p. 418 The details of the edition have not yet been settled. Firstly, Tischendorfs presentation had to be translated [into Russian] during the past week ; and now there are the Easter holidays, during which he cannot be received by the emperor ; nor does he want to be received before the details of the edition are settled. What is more, Kovalevskij has informed him that Prince Gortschakov, the prime minister, has expressed concern over the undertaking of the edition, ‘since we do not yet possess the original, and the Sinaites might reclaim it during the work of edition.’ Kovalevskij did not allow himself to be swayed and explained to the prince that this matter concerned only the ministry of education ; he would however like to have information on the matter, in so far as the other really had something to say. Tischendorf believes that Gortchakov p. 419 limited himself to saying that the ambassador in Constantinople had written that the MS was by no means to be considered as already presented to the emperor – stupidly the Russian and French Journal in Petersburg had written in imprecise, that is, incorrect terms on the subject – ; rather, it had only been loaned to Tischendorf. This is certainly nothing new, but the very same that Tischendorf has always exactly told the emperor, the minister and everyone interested. Gortchakov’s concern appears also to come from incomplete knowledge of the affair ; unless there is some other underlying cause, such as national vanity, etc. For there is much national opposition. Tischendorf shares all his important pièces, in particular the document from the superior of the monastery which allowed the MS to be given to him. There, the edition is precisely the purpose for the immediate delivery of the MS to him. He hopes that all will go according to their wishes. Kovalevskij is naturally deeply affected. He cannot let himself be deterred from something which has essentially been decided by the emperor. But one sees anew how bad the terrain in Petersburg is, and what significance is given to Tischendorf’s affairs in higher circles. But all the greater will be the satisfaction of success : nothing significant can be achieved without such struggles ! He awaits eagerly the letter from the Russian general consul in Egypt who is supposed to inform him of the intentions of the Sinai monastery in connexion with the delegation. No request for permission to travel here to Petersburg has yet been
20 made by the monastery. Tischendorf therefore doubts that the matter can be concluded during his present stay. From the imperial court he has heard nothing ; no one has required his presence. But this is to be expected in this time of prayer. p. 420 He has had a quarrel with Norov, who believes that he had no right to take the Sinai New Testament away from Petersburg ; but he has otherwise defended him as a friend. From a patriotic standpoint is he completely against the publication in Leipzig. But he shows Tischendorf kindness and talks of accompanying him on a new trip to the East. Tischendorf remarks that it is better to make such people warm, enthusiastic—if wholly unreliable—friends, rather than enemies. Tischendorf feels keenly the sacrifice all this extraordinary action demands of himself and his wife. May the Lord give His blessing. The harder it is, the greater the worth it will have.
Petersburg 18 April 1860 p. 423 The details of the edition must wait until after the Easter holidays ; but all appears to be going well. He has not spoken with Prince Gortchakov personally, but he cannot imagine that he will put up any opposition. Tischendorf has given Kovalevskij a short sketch of his efforts on the Sinai Bible together with important pièces from his correspondence. This will give evidence of his personal contribution in this matter. It has also been given to Gortchakov. The Russian general consul in Egypt has written that the archbishop of the Sinaites has gone to Sinai (probably for Easter), and that Tischendorf’s chosen deputy for Petersburg has gone to Tiflis as superior of the Sinai monastery there. Thus he could give him no news in the matter of the delegation. Tischendorf has understood that the monastery is not at all in a hurry to send the delegation. He cannot conclude from this that the whole matter of the donation [of the MS] will remain unaccomplished, for in this case the general consul would have had some news. This situation and his talks with Kovalevskij have convinced him of the need to write a long, important letter to the archbishop. He advises him, aside from the question of the delegation, to write an official letter to Kovalevskij concerning the donation through Tischendorf’s mediation. He gives good reasons for doing this. It would be in the interest of the monastery itself and, understandably, it is greatly desired by Tischendorf. He made allusion to the favour that would be
21 shown to the monastery by the emperor ; and he advises Cyril to suggest that the MS be named for the empress. Concerning when this letter should be sent, he advises to wait until the Spring of the next year, when he must come in person to Petersburg ; and he also advises the archbishop to arrange the presentation in connexion with the 1000-year Jubilee. In a postscript he inserts an historical sketch of the discovery, wherein he relates exactly how the beginning of it goes back to his find in a basket of the library in 1844, etc. It seemed to him desirable that the archbishop should know all of this from him with precision. He has composed the account in such a way as to mention the Russian archimandrite Porfirij, but that he himself had priority in the discovery. Because he has now given up on the delegation coming during his present stay, and unless Gortchakov foments some intrigue, he plans to leave around Cantate-Sunday, the 6 May.
Petersburg 21 APril 1860 p. 427 Gortchakov will cause no problems. The foreign ministry has arranged everything and has rejected the doubts expressed by the clergy as to whether Tischendorf should be charged with the edition of the Sinai MS. All 300 of the facsilimes de luxe are to be reserved for the emperor ; and since the work will be printed abroad, the censure of the Holy Synod does not apply.
Petersburg 25 April 1860 p. 429 Tischendorf has proof again that he is doing the Lord's work. All his plans for the edition had been accepted by the minister Kovalevskij, and yesterday they received the sanction of the emperor. He must take great attention in travelling, for he has the MS with him; he will probably have an entire carriage to himself. p. 430 Success is behind him, the future winks more favourably than it does upon most mortals. The Lord has put the Sinai MS in Tischendorf's weak, unworthy hands.
Petersburg 5 May 1860 p. 432
22 Tischendorf has an audience with the emperor, during which they spoke of the connexion of the work with the Jubliee; p. 433 The emperor seemed to be pleased with this, if the work can be finished before then. Tischendorf was also told by the minister's representative that the emperor had received the idea 'avec une particulière bienveillance'.
Petersburg 17 May 1861 p. 438 He has bad news of Kovalevskij; he has seen him and he is very ill; he will go to Germany for a cure and will certainly leave his post in the ministry. But his successor will probably be the library director Korff, who has received Tischendorf in a most friendly way.
Petersburg 21 May 1861 p. 440 He sees the emperor and shows him proofs of the printed edition and his corrections; the emperor seems pleased with the prospect that the book will be ready for the Jubilee. It will be a 'true monument,' he says. The emperor asked when he thought it would be ready. Tischendorf hopes to be finished by the end of July 1862. p. 441 There is excitement over who will follow Kovalevskij, who leaves soon for a cure in Germany.
Petersburg 27 May 1861 p. 445 He has seen the grand duke and duchess. All is well. Yesterday he saw Gortchakov. When he told him about the difficulties of finishing in time for the Jubilee, the other replied: 'But a Hercules like you!'
Petersburg 1 June 1861 p. 446 He wants to leave soon, even though the photo-lithographic facsimile is not coming along well. He has arranged with a commercial friend that only half of the folia will be done here, and the other half in Leipzig; a good solution.
23 p. 447 The Petersburg newspaper (the 'friend' of Tischendorf's academic enemies) has brought out, at Norov's instigation, Tischendorf's reply to the latest Dutch attack on his dating of the Sinai Bible.
Warsaw 8 October 1862 p. 449 The grand duke was pleased to receive the German foreword to the edition. Tischendorf gave him a copy of his report to the minister. The duke told him that the news from the Sinai monastery which he had had before leaving Petersburg at the beginning of June was very discouraging p. 450 with regard to the original of the Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was unpleasantly surprised, but he still does not believe that it will be given back ; he freely told the duke of the authorisation for the title which he had concluded from the archbishop's silence: Petropolitanus.
Warsaw 11 October 1861 p. 453 The grand duke presented Tischendorf to the Catholic archbishop and Polish nobility at an exhibition of the original MS, which he described – following Tischendorf's supposition – as one of the fifty copies made by Eusebius for Constantine. The edition was the object of admiration.
Petersburg 16 October 1862 p. 459 Yesterday he visited Golovnin, who was waiting eagerly for the arrival of the boxes of exemplars. Tischendorf had not received any telegraph concerning their arrival at the Russian border ; Golovnin wanted to telegraph himself. He told Tischendorf he would present him to the emperor, empress and heir; and he was to present the objects to them. This seemed a good sign to Tischendorf. p. 460 Tischendorf was to give his report and bills etc. to the assistant-director of chancellery, Peters.
24 The boxes of exemplars are to be unpacked in Tischendorf's presence in two rooms of the foreign ministry. Because the imperial family is in Gatchina, it will probably be mid-November before Tischendorf can be received by them. Everyone in the imperial library considers the publication of the edition as a great event. Golovnin invites 461 him to dinner the next day, 6 October. Tischendorf gives him the Foreword, which he says he will read. Golovnin also asks him to bring a copy of the edition.
Petersburg 19 October 1862 p. 462 Tischendorf has had the boxes of exemplars sent to the ministry. At dinner the minister Golovnin said he had read the German Prolegomena and spoke much of the printing of the Codex, though his other guests were hardly interested in this. As Tischendorf was leaving, Golovnin told him that he would invite him next time with the English ambassador Lord Napier, who was very pleased about this. Tischendorf is happy that requests for the exemplar are coming in from everywhere, for example, from Vienna, with signatures of the entire theological faculty. Golovnin tells him that his report was good, and that he will give it, together with his bills of expenses, which he has had from Peters, to the emperor. With the bills, too, is he in agreement. p. 463 The boxes have arrived at the ministry; on Tuesday they will be unpacked; Tischendorf will be there. He hopes the bookbinder has not made any errors! Yesterday Tischendorf saw Norov. Whereas it was believed in the ministry that they would have to give back the original MS – to which Tischendorf immediately and decidedly, in so far as he could, declared his opposition –, Norov has received very comforting news from the archbishop's own mouth. For this reason Tischendorf now believes that he will make another journey to Sinai, this time with his wife.
Petersburg 25 October 1862 p. 464
25 The waiting will soon be over : the emperor comes back from Gatchina to-day, Saturday, and the minister intends to present Tischendorf to him in Tsarskoe Selo on Monday. p. 465 It was only the day before yesterday that some of the boxes of exemplars were unpacked in the foreign ministry ; and it was only yesterday that Tischendorf saw Golovnin again. He has all the friendly ways that go with a 'First Personage' [Golovnin's sobriquet], though it is difficult to discern the real feelings of such a man's heart. He told Tischendorf yesterday that the emperor was above all concerned that the original MS should be in fireproof safekeeping. A fire in the ministry of home affairs had destroyed many precious documents, including the entire correspondence with the pope. Therefore the emperor is very worried also for the Sinai Bible. Neither the emperor nor the minister think of giving up the MS ; they only want to gain time. 'Time the wonderworking God!' According to what Golovnin said, they wanted first to bury the MS in fireproof repose in the foreign ministry, and thereby perhaps to escape the opposition from the side of the Eastern patriarch. Now, if this is indeed the intention and will of the emperor and the government, there will be no new Sinai trip for the present. Tischendorf is curious to speak about this with the emperor and Gortchakov, who has evidently again become involved. Tischendorf is pleased with the very stately manner in which his visit to Tsarskoe Selo has been arranged. Golovnin said he would send a court carriage to collect him at the station ; and Tischenedorf was to have a room in the palace. The ministerial currier will see to the transport of the exemplars to be presented to the emperor; and Golovnin told him: 'Perhaps I shall send you with a councilor who speaks German.' Golovnin could not have been more attentive. He also said again that he would invite Tischendorf to dine together with the English ambassador, Lord Napier. But before he actually sees the emperor, Tischendorf can have no assurance of anything; still, he has no reason to doubt the realisation of his hopes. Norov has been very kind to him, and p. 466 he has spoken on his behalf to the empress. He had brought her a very old and beautiful Gospel Book as a gift from the patriarch of Alexandria. When the empress asked about the text in it, he said 'Ah, your majesty knows that only Master Tischendorf understands this; I could only make a fool of myself by expressing an
26 opinion.' In a similarly childlike way he is happy that I have made note of one of his own old MSS in my books. During the unpacking of the boxes of exemplars Tischendorf has found no problems with the bookbinding.
Petersburg 1 November 1862 p. 469 Yesterday in the ministry of education Mansurov told Tischendorf of the dogmatic fears in Petersburg. He must prepare himself in order to give correct answers to the empress and emperor, for they will no doubt speak about this. After examination, Tischendorf is happy that all the apparent 'heretical' pages of the MS (because of readings which disagree with the usual text) are outweighed completely by several passages of great importance. Tischendorf went to dinner yesterday with Gortchakov, who had read about the exhibition of the MS in Warsaw. At dinner there was also the Greek ambassador. The conversation moved between the Codex and the Greek Revolution. The first councilor of the Russian embassy in Constantinople, with whom Tischendorf had had much contact earlier concerning the original of the Codex, was also there. p. 470 Gortchakov also spoke about the dogmatic questions of the Codex. Tischendorf had to explain in detail the passage at the end of the Gospel of Mark. He seemed to want Tischendorf to go to Moscow, to speak with the all-worthy metropolitan, the old Philaret, and referred in this connexion to Prince Urusov; but Tischendorf says to his wife that he would only do this if he is told expressly to do so by a higher authority. Tischendorf spoke much with Gortchakov about the original of the Codex. He seemed less keen on waiting for a long time, especially since the patriarch of Jerusalem had now been decorated with the Alexander-Urovskij [medal] and there would thus be no more harm to fear from his side; for it was only on account of him that the emperor was hesitant. Tischendorf became all the more curious to speak with the emperor himself. There may also be some jealousy against Tischendorf at play, at least on the part of Mansurov and the like. But this latter saw correctly that the publication was the main thing for the world ; one would consider the original MS with more indifference, if one did not rightly fear that England would immediately seek to get hold of it out of rivalry. Tischendorf has already written his wife that he has decided to give the original MS back into the hands of the emperor.
27 A box, which he has had made as an envelope, cost no less than 5rh. All such things here are incredibly expensive. For this reason the Leipzig binding of the Codex is justified, even if it is in many ways deficient. This is to be distributed as an interim binding: each person will have to replace it with his own good binding. So was it understood in the ministry as well, and no one had thought to pay attention to any imperfections.
Petersburg 5 November 1862 p. 473 Meyendorf, the president of the emperor's cabinet, told Tischendorf that the grand duke had praised his exhibtion of the MS in Warsaw; and he assumed that the duke had written to Golovnin about his rapport ; Tischendorf concludes that this can only help his cause. p. 474 At a dinner given by the English ambassador Lord Napier, Tischendorf speaks with Golovnin, Prince Gagarin, Revertera from the Austrian embassy, the Saxon envoy Könneritz, and others. Napier said that England was full of talk about the Sinaiticus. Könneritz took him home in his carriage ; he spoke of Tischendorf's epoch-making publication which, like that of Luther, belonged to Saxony. It was his opinion that in the course of time the Sinaiticus would have a similar effect on the Church as that of Luther. On Sunday Tischendorf received the visit of Prince Urusov, the representative of the emperor to the Holy Synod, who had accompanied Tischendorf to the Synod in '59. p. 475 Urusov was full of praise for Tischendorf, of whose work on the Sinaiticus he said: 'Toute l'Europe en parle ; elle s'agenouille devant vous.' As Tischendorf expressed joy and told him that the ministry had also recognised his work, the other replied: 'Mais nous ne sommes pas toute à fait des Ostrogothes, des barbares.' Urusov seemed very devoted to Golovnin. (Meyendorf is hostile to him, as is also the grand duke.) p. 476 Tischendorf has just this morning been to see Golovnin. He seems to have already read his report to the emperor, though he said nothing to Tischendorf concerning the donation [of the MS]. Golovnin spoke to him about the emperor's views on the distribution [of the exemplars]. He wishes that Russia be considered first, so the list
28 of these gifts should be drawn up at once. Then comes Europe, that is, its scholarly institutions. And only afterwards the European rulers. This will take time; but the emperor appears to see himself as sovereign in this matter. The gift list will be sent to Tischendorf as soon as it is ready. But the minister does not believe that the gifts for Europe will go out before February, because the Russian ambassadors abroad must be consulted. Tischendorf's own exemplars need not wait; he can do with them as he wishes. Tischendorf remarked to Golovin the resultant problem that these exemplars would go out to certain people months earlier than the imperial gifts ; he grand duke will receive the first exemplars. To this Golovnin tells him: 'I have already written to the grand duke about this.' From this, Tischendorf concludes that the grand duke has already been informed concerning him, and perhaps has also been asked for his opinion. God give His blessing! The others seem to understand the significance of the matter. Tischendorf wishes only that he could have seen the emperor himself.
Petersburg, Saturday, 8 November 1862 p. 478 Early on Wednesday Tischendorf saw Golovnin, who talked of nothing except the distribution of the exemplars, the intention of the emperor concerning the original MS (that they would soon write to the monastery, and so also every year until the goal is reached), and Tischendorf's reception in Tsarskoe Selo. Therefore Tischendorf was was very surprised on Thursday when a large envelope arrived from the ministry which contained the star [medal] and ribbon of the Order of St Stanislaus, with a note written by Golovnin himself : 'Sa Majesté l'Empereur désirant témoigner Sa haute satisfaction etc.' Furthermore, Golovnin has given him his own star and ribbon (he has other, higher awards). Tischendorf notes that awards of this importance are given in Saxony almost only to ministers; he notes also that his friend, the state councilor Dorn reveived the same medal a few months ago; but none of the envious urchins of the library have anything of the sort. The fact that this award arrived before the audience with the emperor p. 480 and the fact that Golovnin has sint his own medal, heightens the honour in Tischendorf's perception. It is the first case of such an award to a foreign professor. Tischendorf notes Golovnin's use now of the particle 'de' (Constantin de Tischendorf), denoting that he now belongs to the Russian nobility.
29 Petersburg 14 November 1862 p. 481 Tischendorf, in Saxon court uniform and the Stanislaus star round his neck, has an audience with the emperor and empress in Tsarskoe Selo. Three parchment and three paper exemplars had been delivered to his room there. The emperor had trouble with his eyes and could not look carefully at the exemplar. Tischendorf went through the contents of the German Prolegomena; the empress was very interested. They spoke much about the original MS. The emperor was very unclear on the matter and referred to the oppositon of the patriarch of Jerusalem. Tischendorf tried to present the conclusion in a much easier way, invoked the tacitly conceded title 'Petropolitanus' (which he had to translate and explain to the empress), stressed that that patriarch had nothing to say in the matter, and placed himself at the emperor's disposal for the conclusion by indicating that he would also like to take part in it, even as he had earlier taken the matter in hand alone. The emperor did not express his intention for the original MS in any decided way. This latter, in which Tischendorf had shown the emperor the passages which had been rewritten in the 8th century and also the end of Mark, remained in the emperor's hands (a painful parting for Tischendorf). Tischendorf also showed them the facsimiles, in particular that of a palimpsest passage, since the empress had asked if he now called it (the Sinaiticus MS!) a palimpsest ; this, he remarks, was not very amusing. On the subject of the end of Mark, Tischendorf himself began talking about the dogmatic side of the MS. The empress seemed to have already been reassured in the matter. Concerning the distribution, for which the emperor had plans differing from those of Tischendorf, this latter asked if he could make an exception and give one to the king of Saxony immediately on his return. 'Yes, for your king,' was the reply.
Petersburg 18 November 1862 p. 485 He explains the problems of the financement of the project. The ministry of education is in a bad way, though the project does not really depend on the ministry, but on the emperor personally. It is however under the supervision of the ministry. Prompted by Golovnin, Tischendorf has enlisted the help of the excellent Meyendorf, the initimate friend of the emperor and empress. Meyendorf will see Golovnin before he leaves with the emperor and empress leave for Moscow, in order to settle the the
30 question of Tischendorf's imperial honorarium. This latter has not been arranged exactly as Tischendorf would have liked; but he must be grateful all the same to have achieved the highest distinction a German professor can aspire to: Russian heriditary nobility etc.
Petersburg 23 November 1862 p. 487 He learnt to-day that his honorarium consists of 100 exemplars of the Codex, including the 12 already agreed upon. These will be sent back to Leipzig, to his address, at the expense of the ministry. He will earn some 12-15.000 thalers from this. p. 488 He has visited Porfirij in the Nevskij monastery, and the latter showed him the things he had collected on his travels through monasteries—much of which reminded Tischendorf of his own collection. He was very friendly and let Tischendorf take things home to copy for publication, including two small pieces of the Sinaiticus, whose lost parts may have been long before destroyed. He also has several bits of Pauline epistles on papyrus. Little of it remains, and it is no older than about the 5th century; but it is unique of its sort. Tischendorf has also copied this. On a second visit Porfirij gave Tischendorf copies of his publications, amongst them many illustrations of the Sinai monastery. To-day Tischendorf went again to him. And he is coming to visit Tischendorf the day after to-morrow. He knows how to conduct himself properly, unike the miserable simpletons of the library and the academy.
Petersburg 28 November 1862 p. 491 Dinner with the heir to the throne. Golovnin also there. Tischendorf is given 300 rubles for the trasport of the boxes of exemplars back to Leipzig, instead of the 150 he had reckoned on.
Baden-Baden 4 February 1864 p. 492 The grand duke and duchess are here, but the duchess is very ill and Tischendorf has not been able to see her.
31
Berlin 24 October 1864 p. 494 Count Hohenthal has not arrived; the king is in Schloss Babelsberg. Yesterday Tischendorf dined with the Grimms. In Brussels the king will be absent (Tischendorf has read that he is in Switzerland). He thinks to go to Paris at the beginning of November. But before writing to him there, his wife is to send a parcel to his cousin Julius Herold Makelaar in Amsterdam (she will find it in the cupboard, wrapped in grey paper, labelled Apokrypha, vol. 3). She should also include in the packet the pages of the edition of the New Testament from the Sinaiticus which he left lying on the desk. [His cousin is then to send this to the Saxon embassy in Paris (see next letter below.) – Tischendorf often makes such requests in the later letters.]
3 November 1864 p. 496 He has told his cousin Harold in Amsterdam to forward the parcel, when it arrives, to the Saxon legation in Paris. He reports that he did nothing important in Berlin; he will return there after England. In Hanover he saw the king, who devoted a whole hour to him, despite the visit the day before of the prince and princess of Wales. The king, though blind was very keen on the Sinaiticus. The queen reminded Tischendorf that he knew nearly her whole family, including the grand duke of Oldenburg, whom Tischendorf had almost forgotten. They spoke also about the grand duke [Constantine]. The queen told him he should tell the grand duke about the minister of cults Golovnin. Of course Tischendorf told her that the grand duke knew well what he thought of the man. p. 497 The queen knew about the Wohltat Christi, of which Tischendorf was editor. The king thought he had received an exemplar of the Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf knew from the royal librarian was not the case; he later wrote to the queen recommending its purchase. In Holland he saw old and new friends. In Amsterdam the 84-year-old Samuel Müller cried for joy and said all Europe can be proud of him. Whilst he was in Leiden, Cobet, who had gone to Utrecht, came back just to see him. In the Hague his old friend the royal librarian was absent, but Tischendorf was well received.
32 In Brussels he visited the royal librarian (the son ; the father was perhaps just now in Leipzig at Tischendorf's office). The new Saxon envoy has not yet got fully organised (his wife, the princess was in Italy) ; but Tischendorf thinks he will be able to achieve something for [the sale of exemplars of] the Codex in Brussels. He repeats the request for the Apocrypha, vol. 3, this time to be sent to Paris; his letter from Berlin must not have arrived.
Paris 9 November 1864 p. 502 He visits Mme Seguin, who translated his Reise in den Orient. She is related to leading families in Petersburg and is close to the grand duchess Helene. He works in the library which is open from 10 to 4. There Tischendorf met an academician from Munich, Thomas, whom he thought he would not like because of the man's intimate relations with Fallmerayer. But he turned out to be quite nice. He spoke of Tischendorf's lecture in Augsburg as an 'event.' Always surprises!
Paris 13-14 November 1864 p. 505 He was at a session of the Institut. The famous Greek philologist, Prof. Egger told him that his name had been proposed as a corresponding member, and that it would certainly come through in time ; but there were many candidates and few places. He was received by the archbishop of Paris, Darboy, who declared 'Votre nom est d'une réputation européenne.' When Tischendorf spoke about the exemplar of the Codex, the other complained that his library was in a bad way with finances.
Paris 22 November 1865 p. 510 Baron Seebach [the Saxon envoy] received him. They spoke about the emperor [Napoleon III] and the exemplar of the Codex. Seebach's wife (née Countess Nesselrode) is well known in the Tuilleries, also her sister, the countess Kreptowitsch, whom Tischendorf knows from Warsaw; thus these two daughters of the once all-mighty Russian minister will help him in Paris.
Paris 8 December 1864 p.516
33 He visited Guizot who said that his works were some of the most important of the century. p. 517 His cousin Harold will send Tischendorf's wife 128 rh as payment for one exemplar of the Codex.
Paris 15 December 1864 p. 518 He thinks to leave on Monday; but if Napoleon III will receive him on Monday, he will stay another day. The day before yesterday (Tuesday) he went with Seebach to see the minister of education; and with Seebach's help it appears that the minister will buy 5 exemplars of the Codex at 600 frcs. each.
Paris 16 December 1864 p. 521 The minister of education has told him he will buy four exemplars for his ministry and one for the imperial home ministry. What a Christmas gift! (as compared to the nasty business of the Leipzig bookdealer). From the minister's son (who followed behind his papa), Tischendorf learnt that the minister had not had the opportunity to arrange his audience with the emperor. So he leaves on Monday.
London 2 February 1865 p. 523 He has been to the British Museum, where he was well received by Sir Frederick Madden who is still in charge; Tischendorf worked till around 4. He made mention of the exhibit of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus; everyone was pleased, but wanted to know how difficult it was to gain entry. To-morrow he will bring the MSS he wants to offer for sale to the British Musuem. All has gone according to wish. Thanks be to God who always protects him, whether under the beautiful sky of Egypt or in the London fog.
London 9 February 1865 p. 526
34 The Codex Frederico-Augustanus has arroused great interest in the British Museum: on the first day there was a great crowd of officials and scholars; there is much talk of him and the Codex. He has agreed to give a public lecture on the Codex Sinaiticus in the Royal Society [of Literature, see next letter below] , in the presence of London élite society.
London 12 February 1865 p. 528 The Trustees of the British Museum have allocated 85 pounds (about 570 rh) for the purchase of the old parchment MSS which Tischendorf has (rather contemptuously) kept at home in a drawer. He is pleased. He gives his wife 10 rh as a gift, for her recovery from her nursing [of their son Immanuel]. p. 529 The Codex Friederico-Augustanus and the old pieces from the Codex of Porfirij have become the object of great interest. He will give his lecture in the Royal Society of Literature next Wednesday at 8:00. He has more than fifty invitations to Oxford and Cambridge. If only he succeeds in this lecture attended by archbishops, bishops, high lords and other nobles! He will speak in French, but there will be a summary in English.
17 February 1865 p. 532 His MS collection has arrived safely; from the payment for it he will send 500 rh in English notes. The lecture was not so well attended as expected (because of the cold). But the applause was great. p. 533 He was invited to dinner by the Lord Bishop of Lonndon, whose wife received him graciously and immediately introduced him to Mrs Gladstone, the PM's wife. There were over 100 people invited. The bishop introduced him to some 30-40 persons, including the minister Gladstone. Tischendorf wore his star and smaller medals, which drew attention, especially from the ladies.
London 19 February 1865 p. 536
35 His lecture at the Royal Society has been printed for the members of the Society (some 200). But the sale of the Sinaiticus exemplars is not progressing. Fleischer has done harm by selling three exemplars to an unknown acquaintance for 100 rh. These have evidently reached London and have been sold for 20 pounds, which has affected Tischendorf's pricing. p. 537 He will be going in the evening to the dean of Westminster, D. Stanley; and then to the Gladstones (Mrs Gladstone had invited him when they were at dinner with the bishop of London). To his great sadness Tischendorf has learnt that the grand duchess [Constantine] is deathly ill in Goslar.
London 28 February 1865 p. 538 He went to dinner in the country estate of Williams ( head of Williams and Norgate and a good friend of Tauchnitz). Williams will send a prospectus on the Sinaiticus to some 2-300 important addresses; and he hopes with Tischendorf for good results. For this reason Tischendorf has made a special price 'for a few copies,' namely 21 pounds, about 143 rh, of which he receives 18 pounds, or about 120 rh. This is the most promising way to proceed in England, and Tischendorf expects that it will proove successful. The parchment exemplar will be bought by the British museum for 220 rh. He plans to make short trip to Cambridge at the end of the week.
London 4 March 1865 p. 542 At the dinner with Gladstone, Tischendorf met the Russian ambassador Brumov, who invited him for the celebrations for the anniversary of the reign of the emperor. Prince Bariatinskij will also be there. The sale of the Codex is going well. The parchment exemplar brought 33 pounds; and another to-day for 18 pounds netto.
London 10 March 1865 p. 543
36 In Cambridge he was guest at various colleges: Every meal was richer than the last. He and the Codex were always at the centre of attention. In the Senate Hall he was given an honorary doctorate. p. 544 The 'orator publicus' proclaimed that he had performed many promotions to the doctorate, but none so happily as this one. He spoke of Tischendorf's many works, in particular the Sinaiticus, which shone forth, despite all intrigues – Simonides was referred to under the term 'Grecia mendax.' p. 545 Later that evening the father-in-law of the vice-chancellor, also a master (of Pembroke) since 1828 and doctor of Divinity, Ainsley, said to his friends he would rather have the Sinaiticus than the Kohinoor (the diamond). The Times reported everything the day after, even if it rather cooly (so it seemed to Tischendorf) referring to the 'well known editor of the Greek text of the Bible.' Now he is back in London, to rest a bit before going to Oxford.
Oxford 17 March 1865 p. 548 Yesterday he was given an honorary doctorate in Oxford. Pusey, the famous catholicising Oxford theologian made the proposal for the doctorate in the Oxford Senate Council; he wrote a note to Max Müller [Tischendorf's old friend in Oxford] : 'only one opinion was expressed about it' ; even one of the council members whose latest book Tischendorf had criticised voted in his favour. So, he was now Legum Dr Honorarius of Cambridge and Juris civilis Dr Honorarius of Oxford; probably no other Saxon had received such distinctions. Especially now, with the usual disfavour of Germany in England, p. 549 Tischendorf's experiences in London, Cambridge and Oxford are doubly significant.
Oxford 26 March 1865 p. 551 He is sure that the honours received in Oxford and Cambridge will have an echo in Saxony. It is very unusual that these universities have given to him alone their highest honour at this time (instead of on a certain day in July, when several persons are given such honours at once). In the Athenaeum of 25 March was it said (probably
37 by someone from Oxford) that 'the emperor of Russia must without doubt feel himself flattered by these English distinctions, he who has become the proud possessor of the Codex Sinaiticus.' p. 552 On Sunday evening he was at the house of Prince Bariatinskij for dinner. And to-day he was invited by Sir Charles Nicholson who in a letter called him the 'most illustrious scholar of the age' [cited in English] who had purchased the Codex Sinaiticus together with the Codex Friederico-Augustanus. The head of the British Museum gave Tischendorf the photographic facsimile of the Epistle of Clement from the Alexandrinus as a gift (he had wanted to buy it for 3 pounds). Lagard, with whom he ate in the Athenaeum Club (with good champagne) wanted to arrange for Murray to translate Tischendorf's Reise in den Orient, but it did not come off. He was also invited twice by the archbishop of Canterbury, the highest dignitary in England after the queen; and he poured the coffee for Tischendorf personally. He also saw the archbishop of York. Also the minister of education and Keeper of the Seal (Duke Argyle) and other statesmen treated him with respect. p. 553 The senior Russian diplomat Brunerov wanted to hear his entire life's story ; and told Tischendorf that he could proclaim: 'Non omnis moriar'.
Paris 6 April 1865 p. 559 Again it appears there will be no audience with the emperor [Napoleon III], who is ill. Tischendorf also could not see the minister of education, Duruy, but simply left a letter expressing his wish for an audience.
Ferrara 12 February 1866 p. 561 During his stop in Vienna, he was very well received by the undersecretary in the imperial foreign ministry Baron Meysenbug, as also by two scholars, v. Karajan and Miklosicz, the latter member of the education council and the state council, who said he was willing to help arrange the purchase of several exemplars of the Codex [Sinaiticus].
38 In Venice they told him in the Biblioteca Marciana that they regretted not having got an exemplar of the Codex [Sinaiticus]. They took steps to obtain one through Prince Gagarin– whom Tischendorf knows— but Dekanov told them that there were no exemplars left ; he indicated however that Tischendorf still had a few. To-day in the library in Ferrara he was occupied with the palimpsest which he has had in mind for the past 23 years. It was a disappointment. The good cardinal Mai had also studied the MS with the former librarian, and he had spread the rumour that the underlying text contained, amongst other things, the Epistle of Clement of Rome. After examination, Tischendorf indeed read 'of Clement, bishop of Rome'; but the cardinal had missed what went before: 'Life and Martyrium.' Thus, it was only a Life of Clement, not his Epistle. Next he is going to Florence, to see a member of the cathedral chapter, the former librarian, who is in close touch with the pope (and who believes that the letters which Tischendorf has received from the pope were all his doing ; Tischendorf doubts this, because the letters show a genuine interest and knowledge of the subject).
Rome 22 February 1866 p. 565 From the Austrian ambassador he has received a note of recommedation to Antonelli, the secretary of state [of the Vatican]. From the head librarian of the Vatican he learns that his earlier letter to the pope has not been kept secret and that the present affair cannot be settled simply by taking the pope by surprise. Therefore Tischendorf has chosen the direct way: to attempt to win over the secretary of state, on whom certainly most depends. Yesterday Tischendorf visited him and was very well received. Tischendorf learnt that this cardinal has very close relations with Princess Luise; and Tischendorf of course mentioned his own relation with her. There was also a mutual connexion with the Saxon royal family. Tischendorf then expressed his request, which the cardinal received without any grimace; but he said there would be need of further consultation. Tischendorf also visited the padre D. Vercellone, who is important here, though he is on the side of those who believe that the edition [of the Codex Vaticanus] should be done in Rome, to Rome's honour. But Vercellone seemed to have such esteem for Tischendorf that he promised not to put up any opposition [to Tischendorf's project]—at least he promised this. Tischendorf told Antonelli this straightway; and the latter said he
39 would speak at once himself to the pope about an audience for Tischendorf, although Tischendorf wanted to go to the chief steward Bartolomeo Pacca. Since Tischendorf could not find the latter, he wrote to him according to Antonelli's instructions. Straightway Tischendorf sent Antonelli an exposé, expressing himself as forcefully as possible, together with an exemplar of the Porphirij palimpsest, that is, vol. V of the Monumenta and the French Gospel text. Now he must wait. But since the matter is so critical, he has the best hope. Rien n'est fait que ce qui est fait.
Rome 25 February 1866 p. 567 Yesterday he was received by the pope, very respectfully. Evidently the view already indicated to him previously – some 2 to 3 years ago – still remains unchanged : They are ashamed to replace the bad work of Cardinal Mai, which is dedicated to the pope and is to appear under his protection, by a masterpiece of Tischendorf. He will describe the audience further in another letter. He spoke as carefully as he could, and as indulgently as possible for Mai's work. But Pius first expressed the opinion: 'But then we need no new edition.' And later : 'Potremo fare anche noi.' Then Tischendorf said: 'But it will senza dubbio be possible for me to examine the Codex precisely?' Answer:' Si, si.' This p. 568 is what Tischendorf always considered as the surest way: that he should at least be able to clear up the matter in a scholarly way, even if the beautiful publication was not allowed. If this is now fully achieved, it will be enough for him. For whether the Roman Curia, which always answers vital questions with their non possumus, would go along with his wish, was doubtful in the highest degree. Still, he hopes that Cardinal Pitra, who seems to esteem him greatly, will take action to help.
Rome 2 March 1866 p. 569 As he said in his last letter, the audience with Pio Nono left him discouraged; but now, thanks to the help of the excellent French Benedictine cardinal Pitra (whose scholarly work, as earlier in the case of Mai, has raised him to the dignity of cardinal), Tischendorf's main business in the Eternal City is on the right path. He went to the Vatican Library and was very well received by Pitra, who told him that although the refusal, already expressed by the pope's mouth, of a 'Sinaite'
40 edition of the Codex [Vaticanus] [i.e. an edition of the Vaticanus after the manner of Tischendorf's edition of the Sinaiticus] or of the New Testament therein – since such an edition is alreay to appear under the auspices of the Holy See –, Tischendorf is to be allowed to study the Codex [Vaticanus] freely, with longer than usual working hours in the library. Pitra then took him directly to the Codex Vaticanus and they started comparing passages in it with the facsimile of the Sinaiticus. p. 570 He visited Antonelli again and thanked him for his help. He told Tischendorf that when he had presented Tischendorf's demand for another edition to the pope, this latter said: Vergogna! Tischendorf then told Antonelli that he would do all he could to help the Holy See to complete the work as he thinks it should be done, in order to preserve the honour of the Holy See. (Pitra had also told Tischendorf that Antonelli had exclaimed: 'The Sinaiticus has appeared under the auspices of the emperor of Russia, the Alexandrinus under those of the king of England, and so must the Vaticanus appear under the auspices of the pope' ; the fact that Mai has already done the work is thus fully ignored.) Antonelli confirmed what Pitra had told him. After leaving Antonelli, Tischendorf began his study of the Vaticanus at once, though it turned out that he could work only during the usual hours from 9 to 12. But in fact this limitation of time was justified, for this is when the many foreigners, namely Englishmen, who always come to see the Codex [Vaticanus], are allowed to look at it under glass. Tischendorf is happy to be able to pursue his study. He plans to publish the most significant conclusions concerning the Codex [Vaticanus], and probably a new – even if not a 'Sinaite' – edition of it. He has moved out of the expensive hotel and now lives in a private flat.
Rome 22 March 1866 p. 576 He reports that his good hopes have been dashed. The enemy is as active as the good angel. Someone has told the pope that Tischendorf's work would destroy his (the pope's) honour. In brief, the command has been given that the Codex [Vaticanus] is to be withheld from him and everyone; and a great edition of the pope himself, as splendid as the Sinaiticus, is to be undertaken at once. Jealousy and misunderstanding, Tischendorf's old acquaintances, confront him again. His friends, above all the cardinal Pitra, are as stunned as he is.
41 p. 577 Tischendorf's present work on the Codex [Vaticanus] is already far enough advanced to be of significance to the world, even if it is still incomplete. And during the last two days he has nevertheless continued working with Prof. Vercellone, who is charged with the edition [of the Vaticanus], though he himself has declared his incompetence for the job. Tischendorf does not know what will happpen, for they have placed the continuation of Tischendorf's collation – which has revealed the faultiness of Mai's publication– under the supervision of the good padre Vercellone. Tischendorf cannot go along with the fact that they have curtailed his free use of the Codex [Vaticanus] and thus also his edition from it of the New Testament, or that they seek to have Vercellone do this. In this case he would rather tell them that he is satisfied with what he has, and to hold before their eyes the shame that their plan will bring on the Curia. He will probably reach his goal in the end ; and this experience will have been very interesting and illustrative of Rome's and the pope's character. They also want his Sinaiticus-font for printing the Vaticanus, and he is supposed to write to Leipzig for this. But he will do nothing at present, and will allow time for more polite relations to be established. The affair has drawn a lot of attention, and in such a situation one gets to know people. Particularly engaged is the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein, the old mistress of Liszt. But his dear cardinal Pitra stands alone at the fore. The princess has asked him to visit her. The Saxon queen dowager has come to Rome; and this evening he will go to the celebration in the Prussian embassy on the Capitol for the birthday celebration of the king. For the Easter celebrations in St Peter's he will have a place of honour amongst the Prussian notables. To-day he has got as far as the Acts of the Apostles in his collation [of the Vaticanus]—over half way!
Rome 30 March 1866 p. 579 He has come to an intermezzo in his study of the Vaticanus. p. 580 Last Tuesday he completed his critical examination of the whole New Testament. The good Vercellone, out of friendship and his understanding of the matter, had helped him. For the pope seems to have remained subborn in his decision, and Antonelli did not dare to proceed directly against his master's orders. Vercellone is
42 also very understanding with regard to what Tischendorf now plans to do with the work he has done. Tischendorf would not have felt himself bound, if they had wanted to force him into undesired restraint; but he much prefers to express himself at once here in Rome with decisiveness and to defend his standpoint. He will now publish not only splendid specimina from the Vaticanus as he has done for the Sinaiticus, but will also prepare a new edition of the New Testament from the Vaticanus. This will cause great joy in the theological world and will have lasting consequences for New Testament criticism. The work of cardinal Mai is very defective and has been shown unreliable beyond all expectation. It is thus a great satisfaction for him, for German scholarship, to be able also here to swing the torch over Rome. This is understandably quite unpleasant for the obstinate Roman point of view ; and the pope is right in his own way to be opposed to this, since a grand edition of the Codex [Vaticanus] in his name is now supposed to be undertaken. The good cardinals are still not agreed as to the execution of this project. They talk about photographing the whole Codex [Vaticanus], but the cost would be beyond all measure (surely over 100.000 thalers) and would lead to great defects and imperfections in realisation. It seems however certain that they will rely completely on Tischenddorf's [Sinaiticus] font. He has declared that he will be able to say how much this will cost only after he has returned to Leipzig, p. 581 which he now plans to do before Whitsun. He would certainly come home straigtway in the case of an invasion of Saxony by Prussia (which he doubts will happen).
Rome 10-12 April 1866 p. 583 He mentions the illumination of St Peter's on Easter Sunday evening and the so called Girandola on the Pincio. On the Saturday before, the Colosseum was illuminated with Bengal lights. Rome at Easter is a delight! Finally, the day after to- morrow, a general illumination of the entire city will commemorate the miraculous survival of Pio Nono from an accident in 1848. Tischendorf thinks of his own delivery from danger at Eastertide in 1842. He has dedicated the twenty-three years since then to the service of the Lord. p. 584
43 He plans to leave Rome around the 20-21 April, and is taking time off for the sights of the city in addition to his library work. He has seen the queen dowager [of Saxony] and she plans to leave Rome at around the same time as he. She is very much against the robber-politics of Italy and therefore will not travel through the states of Victor Emmanuel. He has had dinner with Baroness Meyendorf (née Princess Gortchakov), whose husband had already left before Easter. Before her departure she wanted to see the MS treasures of the Vatican. He arranged this with the direction of the library. He also went with the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein to see the Codex Sinaiticus in the Propaganda. Prince Lichnovskij and a Mex(ican?) prelate came along as well. To-day he was invited with the imperial privy councilor Hase from Jena to dine with the Prussian ambassador; and to-morrow they are going with the Trinius family to Tivoli.
Rome 21 April 1866 p. 587 He writes now before leaving for Naples next Tuesday. Tischendorf is completely in agreement with the liberal measures vis-à-vis the Roman Curia with regard to the edition of the Codex Vaticanus which his wife has suggested to him in a letter ; and he has expressed these same both to Antonelli and to the pope himself during a farewell audience which he was graciously granted yesterday ; namely, that he will always be ready to place himself at His Holiness's disposition, with no other goal than to tell himself that he is serving the good cause of the Lord. The pope seemed very cheerful ; he told Tischendorf about his visit the day before to queen Marie, wished him a good trip, and gave him 'tutta la mia bendizione'. Understandably, the pope did not go into the matter of the Codex [Vaticanus] ; and Tischendorf's respectful request [concerning the edition] was his parting word. For his part, Tischendorf will return home happy with what he has achieved, and he will at once proceed with the publication that will result from it, without believing in ernest in the fulfilment of the request he has made here [concening the Codex Vaticanus]. However, strangely, the first thing he must attend to in Leipzig is the matter of his Sinaiticus-font, which they must wait for here before beginning any work [on the edition of the Codex Vaticanus]. A remarkable affair, concerning which much is still being said and written.
44 Lately, Tischendorf has been seeing the Roman sights. With de Rossi he has gone to the catacombs of Calixtus. He took the two Princesses Gortchakov (the one now Baroness Meyendorf) to see the MSS exhibition in the Vaticana; the same for the Prussian ambassador and his family. And the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein went with him to see the Codex Vaticanus.
Naples 28 April 1866 p. 590 He was sad to leave Rome on Tuesday, but he left with the conciousness that he had another successful journey, another victorious battle, behind him. He he had seen the princess Sayn-Wittgenstein on Sunday; and she had seen the pope in the Vatican on Saturday. And since she thought so much of Tischendorf, she asked after him. Pio Nono replied that Tischendorf had expressed his willingness to be of service as his parting word: 'Si è dichiarato pronto a far tutto per me. Bisogna dunque ch'io lo benedica per questo.' The princess had the impression that he was very glad about this. That is at least something, even if not very much. The Austrian ambassador tried on Sunday evening to make a good impression on Tischendorf. To please him he had invited the Prussian legation councilor Schlözer to dinner. This latter, together with his son and daughter, were the only other guests at table. Nevertheless, Hüber was wearing a grand ribbon and medal. He acts now as if they both (he and Tischendorf) had succeeded with the Curia. [Hüber had given Tischendorf a note of introduction to Antonelli upon his arrival in Rome]. p. 591 In the National Library in Naples (former Musuem Burbonicum) Tischendorf was received with honour and worked on a not very important palimpsest of the 8-9th century of 14 leaves with text of the first three Gospels. They allowed him to use the chemical tincture, so that he could read most of the text. Everyone looked with amazement at the successful operation. From Naples he plans to pass through Turin, Milan, Verona and Munich on the way to Leipzig.
Turin 9 May 1866 p. 593 He will work here to-day, and leave to-morrow for Milan; from there over Lake Como and the Splügen Pass to Chur, Lindau, Augsburg, Hof to Leipzig.
45
Petersburg 4 March 1868 p. 595-596 Yesterday he went to the ministry of education, where he was very well received by the privy councilor Peters. The latter had read the letter of the pope to Tischendorf in the Augsburger Allgemeiner newspaper. In the matter of the Codex Sinaiticus Peters is à peu près so clear and cautious as Tischendorf himself. Gortchakov has left the ministry of education in the lurch; they have heard absolutely nothing from there since they last wrote to Tischendorf. But Peters hopes that, with the guidance of the grand duke Constantine, Tischendorf will be able to do something in the present complicated situation. Here one needs conseils, into which Peters thinks Ignatiev and Prince Lobanov, besides Tischendorf (and Gortchakov?), must be drawn. Tischendorf has great respect for such conseils. He thought at once of his exemplars of the Codex and his wish ; and Peters seems to consider this to be possible and makes a note to himself at once to communicate the matter to Tolstoj ; this latter is unfortunately ill and never comes to the ministry. To- day Tischendorf will announce his presence to Tolstoj, and to many other important persons. For the present he can only hope more strongly for what he wishes.
Petersburg 4 March 1868 p. 597 Despite being ill, Tolstoj told Tischendorf to come to him straigtway. But when Tischendorf arrived (between about 10:30 and 11) he was asleep. Tischendorf left his calling card. Tischendorf was very open with Deljanov and spoke of the Codex and also the 25 exemplars. From there he went to Norov. Unfortunately he had been ill for several weeks (carbuncle on the right hand). He was his old self and was very glad to see Tischendorf. Norov was well informed about the complications in the Sinai monastery; he had just corresponded with the patriarch of Jerusalem as well as the Russian archimandrite in in Jerusalem. Things were not going at all well for Tischendorf's 'poor archbishop,' even if the outcome was still in doubt. The patriarch had addressed himself to the Holy Synod in Petersburg, but had received no answer from this latter, which was a good sign for the archbishop. Tischendorf went to Prince Gortchakov yesterday, but he had gone out. In any case he knew much more than the ministry of education had told Tischendorf, for he had also discussed the matter with Norov.
46 Tischendorf then went to the grand duke, who was surprised by his coming and received him very cordially. He did not know anything about the Sinai affair and listened to what Tischendorf said with astonishment. He found that putting together a conference (on the matter) was not his business ; and in this he was right. He remarked that p. 598 he was glad that he had nothing to do with diplomacy. But he said : 'I can take on the cause and sponsor it.' There is no need of anything more than this. They talked further, however, of the feasability of what Tischendorf indicated to him. He asked what Tischendorf wanted for the monastery and archbishop. He appeared to be completely in agreement with Tischendorf. Tischendorf told him quite openly that the best opportunity for a conclusion had been missed, and that this was extremely annoying. Tischendorf also spoke of the annoying notices of Brugsch and of the suspicions which thereby fell upon him (Tischendorf). Said Tischendorf to the grand duke : 'I take upon myself gladly the public accusations, but eveyone knows that it is not I, but the imperial government which is withholding the MS.' Tischendorf also had to take thought appropriately for his new trip to Athos and what he hoped to find there. He remarked also what splendid prospects a new trip to Sinai held for him, on the condition of a noble conclusion of the one at hand. The grand duke agreed with everything. Said Tischendorf: 'I can also very well travel without Russia, but it would be very flattering to me to carry out the new trip as the old under Russian protection.' He described the trip to Athos as a return to his earlier promise, which he had given to the imperial government and the empress. The grand prince gave him his hand thrice, and he was visibly pleased that Tischendorf was staying so long (4-5 weeks). He said: 'I have a conference now.' And indeed three highly decorated gentlemen, amongst them Korff, were waiting in the antechamber. Then Tischendorf went to see the grand duchess, who first asked him about his family etc. p. 599 Then she asked whether he did not this time still have something to do in the matter of the Sinaiticus. He indicated briefly how the matter stood, and she instructed him to tell the minister Tolstoj that she had congratualted him [Tischendorf] on the fact that he now had to deal with him [Tolstoj] instead of Golovnin (against whom she had maintained her full antipathy); and also to tell him [Tolstoj] that she had told him [Tischendorf] that Tolstoj would do everything for him out of love for her. Now,
47 thought Tischendorf, that was rich! If he succeeded in giving these instructions properly to Tolstoj, it could only be a case of wrongdoing if he did not reach his goal. Yesterday he was not successful with his visits. Ignatiev was in Moscow until Sunday; Prince Lobanov had to go to the emperor. But Tischendorf did see Peters, who intends to bring Tischendorf's affairs to the attention of the minister, whereby he hopes that Tischendorf will be called to visit Tolstoj on Sunday. He has also seen academicians Dorn and Chwolson amongst others.
St Petersburg 12 March 1868 p. 602 He remarks that he seems always to be in a carraige going somewhere in Petersburg. He has seen Norov and the baroness Rhoden; and in the evening he was invited to dinner by Prof. Chwolson. He is at the centre of attention amongst academicians and their wives. The Sinaiticus has had great impact. In the library they told Tischendorf that everyone who comes there knows of it, and it is the object most in demand. The catholicos of Armenia knew only the Codex beside Tischendorf and Voltaire! On Sunday he made many visits. All the pious Russians were in church: Prince Urusov, Litov, Korff. He ate with Norov, who was fasting. There he met a Greek archimandrite (Palamos) who had more precise and recent information from Jerusalem, where the cause of Tischendorf's 'poor archbishop' is in a bad way. On Monday he saw the general Ignatiev, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople (who was earlier in the most important post in China). Tischendorf has a very important and useful conversation with Ignatiev who knows very well the situation and is a good friend p. 603 of Tischendorf's archbishop Cyril, who comes to see him almost every week. However, the conflicts which have grown up around Cyril have gone so far that it is no longer possible to think of rehabilitating him. But Ignatiev has in mind another, higher position for him, which will give him a certain compensation. Ignatiev told Tischendorf that he (Ignatiev) has not yet met the new archbishop who has been put forward by the scheming patriarch [of Jerusalem]. For years Ignatiev has kept up communication with the monks concerning the original of the Sinaiticus ; he agrees completely with Tischendorf that the affair as it stands is humiliating for Russia. He told Tischendorf: 'J'ai dit mille fois à Gortchakoff qu'il faut payer' ; but Gortchakov refused with the greatest meanness to condescend to any compensation. Ignatiev is
48 very angry with Gortchakov. (He also called Prince Lobenstein a foolish man, though he is now minister of Justice!) Even a year ago, says Ignatiev, he could have settled the matter (naturally, with the necessary money), but now it is much more difficult and complicated. Nevertheless, he declared himself ready to take the matter in hand, and with 25.000 rubles – he wants to increase the 20.000 which are usually quoted, since compensation now goes for all sides – he believes he will succeed. 'J'en réponds,' he told Tischendorf expressly. (From here Tischendorf will write further on the 13th [the following day].) Although Tischendorf is now superfluous in all of this affair, at least here in this place, he is nevertheless very happy and wants now to set the matter in motion. For in Petersburg one says: Alone, alone, man is alone! In such a matter one cannot rely on anyone else. He also visited Gortchakov, who acted as if he left everything to Ignatiev. The minister of education will probably have to step in now again. Tischendorf has still not seen him, because on Sunday he sent Tischendorf word through Peters that on account of his bad health he had to refer Tischendorf to Mianov 'until further notice.' On Monday, whilst Tischendorf was eating, both Mianov and Tolstoj had either come to visit or left their calling cards in person at his hotel. On Tuesday Tischendorf again saw Peters, who took his affair very much to heart. Peters had told the minister what the grand duchess had instructed Tischendorf to tell him. Peters prepared at once a paper for Tolstoj concerning the 25 exemplars, but since the ministry itself has no money, he sent the paper to the finance minister. This latter, who also had become minister through the help of the grand duke, then received Tischendorf very warmly and said he would do what he could for him. p. 604 Tischendorf hopes for the fulfilment of his old expectation. He also saw Mianov for a hour, and it seemed that he too would do everything according to Tischendorf's wish. Then Tischendorf went to the grand duke, who was very surprised by the news Tischendorf brought him. Clearly, writes Tischendorf, he must also go in person to the emperor, to seek to arrange things for success. He went therefore to Count Adlerberg to ask to be received by the emperor. So stand matters. Tischendorf has good hopes: Rien n'est fait que ce qui est fait. Ignatiev has been to Athos himself and is very interested in such research as that of Tischendorf. In the case of such a trip, whether under contract from Russia or not, he would certainly give his fervent recommendation. There are the best prospects for a new Sinai trip, if only the agreement be made in stately wise, through his mediation.
49
Moscow 1 March 1868 p. 605 He had almost given up making a trip to Moscow on account of the unbearable prolongation of the affair of the original of the Sinai MS. But Baron Korff quickly organised a Moscow trip after all. To date Tischendorf has still not seen the emperor. The old Adlerberg and his sons are not to blame that Tischendorf's request to see the emperor was answered only 8 days afterwards; this is specifically Russian. The emperor answered that Tischendorf should express himself more clearly to Korff in the matter of the affair. Then Adlerberg told him orally that in 2 or 3 days 'l'empereur fixera l'audience.' Korff, who agrees with and seems very devoted to Tischendorf, is now convinced together with Tischendorf that he will not succeed in obtaining the result which he desires because he is not allowed to give his report the emperor himself, but must give it to Adlerberg. It would appear that the emperor had been unfavourably influenced by such people as Adlerberg and Schuvalov. In addition, this fear is confirmed by the manner in which the emperor spoke to Ignatiev. Namely, he had spoken of a return to the monastery of the original MS. Tischendorf was glad that Ignatiev had replied decidedly that this would be a humiliation for Russia. Korff informed Tischendorf of all this, who had spoken with Ignatiev the day before his departure for Constantinople. Under these circumstances, whereby the pourparlers and Tischendorf's audience with the emperor might have dragged on interminably, and also because Holy Week and Easter would make such demands on the emperor's time, Tischendorf decided simply to write and tell the emperor that he was at the latter's disposal for an audience on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, but that on Monday (after Palm Sunday) he had to return home, 'for I have the duty to celebrate the Easter holiday with my family.' He also said that at the emperor's every wink he would hurry back from Leipzig to Petersburg. Thus, it is now settled, whether the emperor receives him on the days named or not. (Korff's report will hardly reach the emperor before then, for Tischendorf's note to Korff must first be translated into Russian etc). Therefore Tischendorf plans to leave on Monday p. 606 for Leipzig. It is very unpleasant for Tischendorf that this important matter is not proceeding more smoothly, to say nothing of the unpredictable result. But otherwise the success of this trip is already good and costly enough, so that he can reckon it amongst the most fortunate undertakings of his life.
50 He was at a festive dinner given by Titov; at breakfast with the grand duchess (the grand duke was indisposed: he had been very busy and slept badly, and the duchess had told him he looked like a sick cat!). The duchess will send a present for Tischendorf's daughter Alexandra. Norov has ordered a Russian suit to be made. But the money which Tischendorf is bringing home for the 25 exemplars weighs more than all gifts: 3450 thalers (Peters insisted on thalers, not rubles). About Moscow he says only that he has been received here with true distinction. It is a splendid thing to be a famous man. The Russian clergy in the library of the Holy Synod here were beside themselves with joy and did not know what they could do for him. Since the railway connexion to Moscow from Germany will be ready in three years, perhaps Tischendorf will be able to return here. Gieseke will have been in touch with his wife concerning the expedition of the [25] exemplars of the Codex [for which Tischendorf has received payment].
Petersburg 5 April 1868 p. 608 Yesterday Tischendorf went to see Adlerberg, to tell him that he had to leave on Monday or Tuesday; and at 4 in the afternoon Tischendorf received an invitation to see the emperor at noon to-day. This is a good sign for the affair. Adlerberg had received Korff's report ¼ hour earlier with the information of all that Tischendorf proposed ; thus, the emperor would have already read the report when the invitation went out. Yesterday the English ambassador and his wife and the Greek ambassador, Count Metaxa, went with Tischendorf to the foreign ministry to see again for the first time his treasure [the Sinaiticus]. He was touched at heart. They stayed there about two hours; and naturally all eyes were soon focused on him. He gave a lecture, one inspired by excitement and determination. He will leave for Leipzig on Tuesday.
51