THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE A Preliminary Study*

Grigorios Bar ‘Ebroyo (1225/6-1285)1, the Syrian Orthodox of the East2, stands at a turning point in the history of since he lived just before the literary output by the Syriac communities dramatically decreased. Relying on a massive amount of earlier sources, his literary production is impressively wide, large-scale and encyclopedic and covers exegetical, theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, and poetical works. The political upheaval following the formal conver- sion of the Ilkhanid emperors to Islam (ca. 1295) marked a watershed in the history of Syriac communities, which from then on could no longer benefit from the favor of the Mongol court. The frequent pillaging and raids that affected the Near East in the 14th and 15th century eventually led to a crisis in the Syriac communities and the dearth of literary pro- duction in the following centuries. Against this backdrop, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s compilations met the needs of a public that wanted access to its cultural heritage by putting at its disposal short, accessible compilations. This explains the success Bar ‘Ebroyo enjoyed among audiences over the centuries resulting in the high number of manuscripts of his writings, which represents a unique case in the history of Syriac literature. The codex pro- duction of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s works allows therefore a unique insight into the history of their reception and is a fundamental issue scholars need to address both for the philological assessment of the text and for its literary analy- sis. Yet, despite its relevance, the textual tradition of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s works

* The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ ERC Grant Agreement n. 313153. I am grateful to P.G. Borbone, M. Conterno, M. Debié, P. Van Nuffelen, and the anony­mous reviewers for their helpful remarks and corrections. I want to express my sincere thanks also to K. Reed who checked my English. S.I.M. Pratelli is working on a critical edition of the Chronography. I look forward to engage his results on the textual tradition of the Chronography with my own. Proper names are usually given in English translation. Where common English versions do not exist, the names are transcribed after the following standards: ܐܳ = o, ܚ = ḥ, ܥ = ‘, ܦ = p/ph, ܨ = ṣ, ܫ = sh, ܬ = t/th. The names of the modern scholars are kept in their current form (e.g. Yuḥanon Dolabani). All translations are my own. 1 Takahashi, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Grigorios. 2 The second highest ecclesiastical figure in the Syrian Orthodox Church, after the . He was in charge of the Syrian Orthodox community settled in the Eastern regions, that is modern Northern Iraq and .

Le Muséon 131 (1-2), 73-100. doi: 10.2143/MUS.131.1.3284835 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2018. 74 M. MAZZOLA has never been the object of a targeted study and was only occasionally considered for text editions. The work of Hidemi Takahashi3 which pro- vides a full list of manuscripts still remains the only reference work. The object of this article is the textual tradition of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle4, a universal history from the Creation until the author’s time (1285-6), written in Syriac and structured in a civil (Chronography) and an ecclesiastical (Ecclesiastical History) part. The latter is in turn divided in two sections, dedicated to the history of the Syrian Orthodox and of the East Syrian Church. Both parts of the Chronicle (Chronography and Ecclesiastical History) were continued by anonymous writers up to the late 15th century. The two parts of the Chronicle have always been edited separately. The Chronography was first edited by Paul J. Bruns and George W. Kirsch in 1789 on the basis of MS Hunt. 52 (14th century) and translated into Latin5. In 1890 published an improved version of the Bruns – Kirsch edition based on an unknown manuscript6. Finally, in 1932 Ernest A.W. Budge published a reproduction of MS Hunt. 52 accompanied by an English translation which was based, though, on the Bedjan edition7. The Ecclesiastical History was edited by Jean B. Abbeloos and Thomas J. Lamy in the years 1872-18778, on the basis of the manuscript Add. 7198 (16th century) and translated into Latin9. An English translation based on the Abbeloos – Lamy edition has been published in 2016 by David Wilmshurst10. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle is preserved in an exceptionally high number of manuscripts in comparison to other Syriac historiographical works, which each survived in just one copy. This fact has not escaped scholars’ notice and it has recently created an interest in the (re-)edition of the text11.

3 Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography. 4 Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 73-76; Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire, p. 589-595; Weltecke, Les grandes chroniques; Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle. 5 Bruns – Kirsch, Chronicon Syriacum. 6 Bedjan, Chronicon Syriacum. 7 Budge, The Chronography. 8 Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Text = Abbeloos – Lamy edition). 9 There are two other editions of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle, which however are not used for scholarly purpose. The first, a 1983 transcription from a still unknown manuscript by Gabriel Farzoyo is no longer available, cf. Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle, p. 63. In 1987, Mor Julius Yeshu‘ Çiçek (1942-2005) reproduced the edition of P. Bedjan. The book can still be obtained from the Ephrem Monastery in Losser (The Nether- lands) http://morephrem.com/bookshop. 10 Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle. 11 Ongoing project ‘Critical edition & annotated translation of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Syriac World Chronicle with its continuations up to 1500’ directed by Prof. D. Weltecke (Goethe- Universität Frankfurt). BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 75

In what follows, I shall ascertain, first, the number of manuscripts actu- ally eligible for a critical edition. I shall nuance the view that the trans- mission of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle is an exception diverging from the norm of Syriac historiography. Second, I shall investigate the independent transmission of the two parts of the Chronicle. Formerly interpreted as a deliberate choice of Bar ‘Ebroyo, the copying of the two parts in different volumes turns out to be the result of a later development in the manu- script tradition. Finally, I shall give an overview of the continuations. An accurate comparison of the existing continuations has never been under- taken and still remains a desideratum. Since a detailed analysis of the content of the continuations goes beyond the limits of this article I have focused on issues that are relevant for the philological evaluation of the manuscripts and that can contribute to determining their mutual relation. A stemma based on the results of the study of the issues just mentioned and on the collatio of a portion of the Ecclesiastical History will be pro- posed at the end.

1. Overview of the manuscripts

Scholars have noted the unusually high number of manuscripts contain- ing Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle, seeing it as an exception to the transmission of historiographical works in Syriac12. The full list of manuscripts provided by H. Takahashi seems at first sight to confirm this assessment but, as we shall see presently, this interpretation is misleading. I am providing here an updated list of manuscripts. Additional bibliography has been checked for catalogues and studies between 2005 and 201613. Explanation of dat- ings different from Takahashi and additional information are provided in the footnotes. For complementary information including the references to the catalogues refer to Takahashi’s volume14.

12 Teule, Syriac Historiography, p. 335; Witakowski, Syriac Historiographical Sources, p. 266-267. 13 Brock – Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts; Del Río Sánchez, Catalogue des manuscrits; Harrak, Catalogue; Vian, Per le cose della patria nostra. 14 Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography. 76 M. MAZZOLA

Table 1: Manuscripts containing the entire Chronicle

Manuscript Date Relation to Others Vatican City, Vatican Library, before 1356/7 Syr. 166 , Berlin State Library, before 1481/215 Sachau 210 Jerusalem, St. Mark Monastery, 211 before 150316 = St. Mark 3617 Oxford, Bodleian Library, 1498 Huntington 1 Vatican City, Vatican Library, 18th century Copies of Vat. Syr. 166 Syr. 383-388 Urfa, Syrian Orthodox Church, 4818 undated

15 F. 106r contains a note by Ignatius IX, Patriarch of , written in 1481/2. 16 Yuḥanon Dolabani (Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of , 1918-1969) asserts that the Addai of Beth Sbirino continued the Chronography during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1491/2, on the basis of the palaeographical affinity of the continuation with an Addai’s note on MS St. Mark 41. Dolabani, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, p. 416, Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 164, 292. Takahashi dates the manuscript before 1491 according to Dolabani’s assessment. However, there is no evidence that the mss. St. Mark 41 and 211 were already stored in Jerusalem in 1491/2 and even if we suppose that Addai is the author of the continuation, he could have supplemented the text later on. Ephrem I Barsoum (Syrian Orthodox Patriarch 1933-1957) accepted Dolabani’s hypothesis and put forth further arguments in its favour. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, p. 506-507. For the comments on the continuations see below. Since the attribution of the continuation to Addai is still uncertain, I take as terminus ante quem a note recording a meteor in 1503 (f. 241r). 17 The continuations of the Chronicle cited in Baumstark’s description of MS St. Mark 36 are the same as the ones of MS St. Mark 211. Baumstark, Die literarische Handschriften, p. 134. Takahashi has also pointed out that the number of the pages indicated by Baumstark corresponds to MS St. Mark 211, arguing thus that the two are but one and the same manuscript. Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 292. 18 This is mentioned in a list sent to Sachau by the priest of the protestant com- munity in Urfa in 1880. Sachau, Über syrische Handschriften-Sammlungen, p. 43. The title ܐܢܒܙ̈ ܒܬܟܡ (maḵtaḇ zaḇnē, ‘chronicle’) is not sufficient to assess if it contained both parts or only one. Most of the codices of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Urfa were moved to the Church of Saint George in Aleppo in 1924. A catalogue of these manuscripts was being prepared by the Metropolitan Mor Grigorios Yuḥanon Ibrahim, who was abducted in 2013 in Aleppo. The manuscript does not match any new signature in Aleppo and it is not included in the list of digitized manuscripts of the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aleppo. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 77

Table 2: Manuscripts containing only the Ecclesiastical History

Manuscript Date Relation to Others Cambridge, University Library, 14th century19 Second part of Oxford, Dd 3.8 Hunt. 52 , Laurentian Library, before 155821 Orientale 36620 , collection Patr. Ignatius 15th-16th Zakka I ‘Iwaṣ22 Istanbul, collection Petrus Fehim 7 1590/1 London, British Library, 16th century (?) Additional 7198 Cambridge, University Library, 18th-19th Additional 2006 Charfeh, Syrian Catholic Patriarcal 1887 Copied from Abbeloos – Residence, fonds ancien 16.3 Lamy edition , Monastery of Mor 1889 Antonios, 55123 Pampakuda, collection Konat 220 1894 Charfeh, Syrian Catholic Patriarcal 19th-20th century Copied from Abbeloos – Residence, fonds ancien, 16.1-2 Lamy edition Birmingham, University Library, 19th-20th century Mingana 192AB Location unknown, collection Jacob 1905 Bar Butrus Saka 25 Deir al-Zafaran, Syr. 132 1906 Copied from Abbeloos – Lamy edition , Syrian Orthodox Archiepisco- 1907 = Mosul, Syrian Orthodox pal Residence, 1.31 Archdiocese, 5324

19 Bcheiry, The Account of the Syriac Orthodox, p. 10-11. For dating see also section 3. 20 This manuscript contains only the first part of the Ecclesiastical History. Cf. Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 293; Assemani, Bibliothecae mediceae laurentia- nae, p. 190-197. Note that also the signature in Takahashi (Laur. 136) is to be corrected. 21 Note of holding by the priest Thomas (1558/9) (f. 193v). 22 A partial reproduction of the manuscript is given in ‘Iwaṣ, Al-batriyark Diyunisiyus. 23 According to Takahashi many manuscripts stored in the monastery of St. Anthony came from Alqosh. This manuscript, however, does not seem to be present in the cata- logues. Cf. Scher, Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques Notre-Dame-des-Semences, Vosté, Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne. 24 New signature in the Virtual Hill Museum & Manuscript Library; see https://www. vhmml.org/readingRoom/view/136292. 78 M. MAZZOLA

Manuscript Date Relation to Others Damascus, Syrian Orthodox 1911 Patriarchate, 9.4-5 Birmingham, University Library, 1932 Copied from Abbeloos – Mingana 585A Lamy edition Location unknown, collection Jacob 1935 Bar Butrus Saka 24 Midyat, Monastery of Mor Gabriel 25 1953 Midyat, Monastery of Mor Gabriel 26 1965 Spanga, collection Assad Sauma 1983 Location unknown, coll. Butrus Saba undated Location unknown, coll. J.P.P. Martin undated

Table 3: Manuscripts containing only the Chronography

Manuscript Date Relation to Others Oxford, Bodleian Library, 14th century (?) First part of Cambridge, Huntington 52 Dd. 3.8 Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, undated Syr. 167 Deir al-Zafaran before 186527 Damascus, Syrian Orthodox before 186528 Patriarchate Midyat, Monastery of Mor Gabriel 29 1966 Kharput, coll. Metr. ‘Abd al-Nur undated Aslan

25 To be added to Takahashi’s list; see https://www.vhmml.org/readingRoom/view/ 122908. 26 To be added to Takahashi’s list; see https://www.vhmml.org/readingRoom/view/ 122816. 27 Used by Stephan of Jezireh for his translation in 1865, Takahashi, Barhe- braeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 295. 28 In his Arabic translation Stephan of Jezireh referred to have been informed about the existence of this manuscript. The source of this information is unknown. Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 295. 29 To be added to Takahashi’s list; see https://www.vhmml.org/readingRoom/view/ 122894. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 79

The total number of manuscripts is thirty-four. A substantial part of the tradition of the Ecclesiastical History (15 out of 22 MSS) consists of late- 19th-20th century copies and although it has been occasionally claimed that the modern exemplars of the Chronicle should be considered too for a critical edition30, the chances that these manuscripts are copies of ancient exemplars is very slim. Indeed, of the fifteen modern manuscripts men- tioned above, at least four certainly are copies of the Abbeloos – Lamy edition. The following evidences suggest that those four are not the only copies based on that edition. The first hint comes from the transmission history itself: from the table above a gap in the chronology of copying appears between the early 17th and the late 19th centuries. The beginning of the gap coincides with the transfer of the oldest manuscripts to Europe and it ends with the appear- ance of the printed edition of the Ecclesiastical History (1872-1877). Indeed, MS Or. 366 was part of the collection that Ignatius Na‘matallah31 took with him when he travelled to Italy in 157632. The Oxford manuscripts were transferred to Europe in 1681 by Robert Huntington when he resigned his post of chaplain at the Levant Company in Aleppo33. The library fund of manuscripts St. Mark Monastery in Jerusalem was established between the 16th and 17th centuries34 and hence the Jerusalem manuscript should have been already stored there, quite removed from Tur Abdin, which was the major center of copy of Syriac manuscripts during the Ottoman Empire. From then on that manuscript can hardly have been the antigraph of further copies. MS Vat. Syr. 166 was found by the Maronite Andrea Scandar during the expedition funded by Clemens XI, in 171835. Finally, MS Add. 7198 was transferred to Europe in 182036. It appears that the oldest manuscripts we have were all found and taken away by European collectors in the time span between the 16th and 18th centuries which is precisely when the production of copies in the East actually stopped. This suggests there were no or very few copies of the text avail- able in the East in this period.

30 Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle, p. 63. 31 Syrian Orthodox Patriarch (1557-1576). He moved to after his abdication in 1576. 32 Fani – Farina, Le vie delle lettere, p. 57-60. The manuscript is included in the list of Na‘matallah’s books preserved in the MS Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Cl. III 102 (f. 14v). I thank Prof. Pier Giorgio Borbone who informed me about this list. 33 Hunt – Madan, A Summary Catalogue. 34 Brock et al., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary, p. 269-270. 35 Assemani, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae, p. xxiii. Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica. 36 Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, p. vii-x; Rich, Narrative of a Resi- dence, p. 311. 80 M. MAZZOLA

There are further indications to support this conclusion. When the European collectors started looking for Syriac manuscripts in and Tur Abdin, no manuscripts of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle would have been available at that time. Indeed, according to Alphonse Mingana the antigraph of MS Ming. 192AB was either lost or stored in the St. Mark Monas­tery in Jerusalem37. This statement reveals that when Mingana found MS Ming. 192AB, no other codex was available in the regions Mingana visited, which made him suppose that the possible antigraph might be lost or stored in Jerusalem, a peripheral area where the European collectors were not looking for manuscripts. Moreover both MS Konat 220 (1894) and MS Ming. 585 (1932) were copied by the Matthew Bar Paul and the latter is proven to be a copy of the Abbeloos – Lamy edition38. This strongly suggests that MS Konat 220 also reproduced the printed edition, since if Matthew had had access already to an old manu­ script in 1894 he would not have had recourse to the edition for the Ming. 585 copy in 1932. Finally, Matthew copied the Ming. 585 in Mosul, an area where finding ancient exemplars of a work by Bar ‘Ebroyo should have been easy39; if he used the printed edition, it means that there were no more manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History around. In light of all these considerations, the chances that the 19th-20th century copies are based on old manuscripts drop consistently and we can assume that, among the manuscripts we have today, the number of apographs of ancient exemplar is limited. This has two important consequences: first, the number of manuscripts eligible for a critical edition can be limited to the European exemplars. Second, the idea that the circulation of the work was exceptional for the genre should at least be toned down. The manu- scripts actually copied from old exemplars, i.e. the manuscripts produced until the 17th century, amount to nine exemplars40. The Chronicle of Bar

37 ‘The old manuscript from which he transcribed the present one is apparently lost, unless it be the one preserved in our days in the Syrian Orthodox monastery of St. Mark, in Jerusalem’. Mingana, Catalogue, p. 422. 38 Brock, Notes on Some Texts, p. 219-221. 39 The oldest manuscripts of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s works were copied and stored first in the region around Mosul, where he mostly spent his years as maphrian. See manuscripts sections in Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography. The library of the Monastery of St. Matthew, where Bar ‘Ebroyo dwelt contained, indeed, all his writings already in 1298 (note in MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Sachau 326). 40 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Sachau 210; Cambridge, University Library, Dd 3.8+Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 52 (originally one single manuscript); Damascus, collection Patr. ‘Iwaṣ; Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Orientale 366; Istanbul, collection Petrus Fehim, 7; Jerusalem, St. Mark Monastery, 211; London, British Library, Additional 7198; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 1; Vatican City, Vatican Library, Syr. 166. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 81

‘Ebroyo had therefore a rather limited circulation in ancient times, even though it circulated more widely than other historiographical works. How- ever, this cannot be ascribed to a different perception of the historiograph- ical genre by the Syriac audience but it is part of a phenomenon of gen- eral interest in Bar ‘Ebroyo’s works, due to the compilatory and accessible nature of his writing in a period of cultural decline.

2. The division between Chronography and Ecclesiastical History

Part of the textual tradition attests to an independent transmission of the Chronography and the Ecclesiastical History which eventually led to the two parts being edited separately. Afterwards, a number of scholars have tended to treat them as different works, and occasionally interpreted the division of the Chronicle in two distinct volumes as a deliberate choice of Bar ‘Ebroyo41. However, a closer look at the textual tradition reveals a different scenario. Most of the manuscripts including only the Ecclesiastical History are 19th-20th century manuscripts which are pre- sumably copies of the printed edition. The 14th century MS Dd. 3.8 was part of the same codex as MS Hunt. 52 which thus originally contained both Chronography and Ecclesiastical History42. Accordingly, we can argue that the oldest manuscripts including only the Ecclesiastical History are limited to four codices43. A scribal note in MS Bibl. Laur., Or. 366, the oldest of these four exemplars, sheds light on the reasons for these exceptions.

MS Bibl. Laur., Or. 366 (f. 1r.) 1 [ ] ] [ 2 [ ] this book ܐܒܬܟ ܐܢܗ ] [ ܢܡ 3 of the Chronicle [which he composed] ܬܝܐܝܪܘܣܒ ]ܡܣܕ[ ܐܢܒܙ̈ ܬܘܢܒܬܟܡܕ in Syriac, ̇ 4 he himself, the one who is in the Beth ܗܟܦܗܐ ܎ܕܩ܏܎‍ ܬܝܒܒܕ ܘܗ ܘܗܼ Qad(ishē), translated

41 Aigle, Barhebraeus et son public, p. 93 ; Duval, La littérature syriaque, p. 198 ; Witakowski, Syriac Historiographical Sources, p. 267. 42 The manuscript was probably split up to accommodate the supplementary material to the civil and ecclesiastical part because the hand of the restorer is the same in both the manuscripts. MS Add. 7198 was copied from the MS Dd. 3.8. after the manuscript had been already dismembered. See below. 43 Mss. Or. 366, Zakka ‘Iwaṣ, Fehim 7, Add. 7198 contain only the Ecclesiastical History. See p. 77, Table 2. MS Vat. Syr. 167 contains only the Chronography. See, p. 78, Table 3. 82 M. MAZZOLA

5 into the Saracen44 language without the ܐܒܬܟ ܢܡ ܪܛܣ ܐܝܩܪܣ ܐܢܫܠܠ book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History. ܒܬܟܡ ܘܗܘ̇ .ܝܩܝܛܣܝܣܝܠܩܐܕ 7 We have that Chronicle in Arabic and .܎ܘ ܎ܬ‍ܝ܏ܐ ܢܝܕܝܐܨ̈ ܐܝܒܪܐܒ ܐܢܒܙ̈ therefore ܐܕܗܠܥܘ 8 we did not need the first part ܐܬܘܓܠܦ ܠܥ ܢܢܩܢܬܣܐ ܐܠ� ܐܬܝܡܕܩ 9 of that book, corresponding to the time ܀ ] [ܘ ܐܢܒܙ ]ܬ[ܘܦܠ ܐܒܬܟܕ ܗܢܡ and [ ]

According to the note, the manuscript was copied from a model which included both parts. A further indication is that the first folio (f. 1v) contains a part, conveniently shortened, of the general preface preced- ing the Chronography. Evidently, the scribe has intentionally omitted the Chronography because it was available in Arabic45, whereas the Eccle- siastical History was not. One more detail strongly suggests that the original manuscript included both parts: Barsoum, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s brother, listing Bar ‘Ebroyo’s works in the appendix to the Ecclesiastical History, presents the Chronicle as follows:

Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. III. 479:

The book which (I) have in hand that is ܬܝܟܘܐ ܐܕܝܐ̈ ܠܥܕ ܐܒܬܟ the Chronicle ܐܢܒܙ̈ ܬܘܢܒܬܟܡܕ

If Barsoum, while attaching an appendix to the Ecclesiastical History, asserts that he is writing directly on the book of the Chronicle, he evidently possessed a volume containing both parts, and the work had therefore

44 I.e. Arabic. Evidences that the term is used for Arabic language are found in Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. I. 275, II. 581, II. 369, III. 469, III. 477. 45 Except for the grammatical and exegetical writings, the entire production of Bar ‘Ebroyo has been translated into Arabic by the Syrian Orthodox, from the 16th century until the end of 19th. This points out the progressive decline of the during the Ottoman Empire, mostly due to the crisis of Syriac monasticism which eventually deprived Syriac communities of the main institution promoting Syriac learning (Murre van der Berg, I the Weak Scribe, p. 17). The Chronicle, however, unlike the other works, was translated only in 1865. Thus, when the copyist asserts that an Arabic translation of the Chronography was available, he was probably referring to the History of the Dynasties, a universal chroni­cle written by Bar ‘Ebroyo in Arabic. It has been recently demonstrated that the History of the Dynasties is an independent work carried out on the basis of different sources. See Teule, The Crusaders in Barhebraeus. The misinterpretation of this work as an Arabic translation of the Syriac Chronicle dates back to Barsoum’s witness. See Abbeloos – Lamy, Chroni- con Ecclesiasticum, col. III. 467-469. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 83 been conceived in a unique volume already by his brother. Finally, the preface that precedes the Chronography was definitely meant to introduce the reader to the entire Chronicle because Bar ‘Ebroyo refers in it to both parts46. Hence, the codicological evidence proves on the one hand that the sep- arate transmission of the Chronography and the Ecclesiastical History is limited to very few exceptions. On the other hand, the separation is due to a later development of the textual tradition and it does not correspond to the original intention of the author, who shaped and published his Chroni­ cle as a unique work, albeit structured in two parts. As I mentioned above, this bears significant consequences for the literary analysis of the work. The choice to publish both parts in the same volume might imply the intention on the part of Bar ‘Ebroyo to make connections between the civil and ecclesiastical events. Moreover, the information we possess on Bar ‘Ebroyo’s life and literary activity allows us to study his production also in a diachronical perspective. Scholars approaching the historiographical analysis of the Chronography or the Ecclesiastical History should reckon with the fact that the author composed both of them in the same period, and in all likelihood, using the same sources.

3. The Continuations

Both the civil and the ecclesiastical parts of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle were continued by anonymous scribes from the point where Bar ‘Ebroyo stopped (1285) up to the late 15th century. Such continuations shed light on a period of the history of for which we lack reliable sources. For such a purpose historians have used the continuations included in MS Add. 7198, reproduced in Abbeloos – Lamy edition, while the continuations included in other manuscripts still need further investiga- tion. Besides having an intrinsic value as historical sources, the con- tinuations can also help to trace the transmission history of the main text. As I shall show shortly, the information derived from the analysis of the continuations allows us to detect two branches of the textual transmis- sion (Redaction I and Redaction II) and the mutual relations between the manu­scripts within the branches themselves. These data are corroborated by the readings emerging from the collatio of the manuscripts, set out in section 4.

46 Bedjan, Chronicon Syriacum, p. 1; Budge, The Chronography, p. 1. 84 M. MAZZOLA

Table 4: Overview of the Continuations

Manuscript Continued up to Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Chronography > 1288/9 Syr. 166 Ecclesiastical History (Syrian Orthodox) > 1493 Ecclesiastical History (East Syrian) > 1496 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Ecclesiastical History (Syrian Orthodox) Orientale 366 > 149347 Jerusalem, St. Mark Monastery, 211 Chronography > 1492 Ecclesiastical History (Syrian Orthodox) > 1495/6 Ecclesiastical History (East Syrian) > 1496 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 1 Chronography > 1288/9 Ecclesiastical History > 1284/5 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 52 Chronography > 1492 Cambridge, University Library, Dd 3.8 Ecclesiastical History (Syrian Orthodox) > 1495/6 Ecclesiastical History (East Syrian) > 1496 London, British Library, Additional 7198 Ecclesiastical History (Syrian Orthodox) > 1495/6 Ecclesiastical History (East Syrian) > 1496 Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Chronography > 1492 Syr. 167

This overview shows clearly that the continuations are rather uniform. As I shall argue, the continuations of the Chronography exist only in one part of the tradition (Redaction II). They are most likely the work of suc- cessive authors who continued the Chronicle in different stages: the final, multi-layered text was then copied in block from one codex to the other: it is in fact identical in all the manuscripts. The Ecclesiastical History was instead expanded by a unique author, probably at the end of the 15th cen- tury, who continued both in the Syrian Orthodox and East Syrian part from the beginning of the 14th century (successors of Philoxenus Nemrud for the first part and successors of Barsoum for the second one) up to the patriarchate/maphrianate of Noah the Lebanese (ca. 1493). The tables 5 and 6 provide synoptic views of the continuations of the Chronography and the Ecclesiastical History respectively.

47 The alleged continuation up to year 1576 (Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, p. 293) consists actually of some scant notes added later in the last folio (193r). See possible analogies with the ‘Catalogus Patriarcharum Sedis Antiochenae a Chaldaico in Latinum conversus’ (1581) vd. Hayek, Le relazioni della Chiesa Siro-giacobita, p. 49. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 85

Table 5: Continuations of the Chronography

Scribe 1 Scribe 2

Redaction I Redaction II Vat. Syr. 166. Hunt. 1 St. Mark 211 Hunt. 52 Vat. Syr. 167 Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – 1284 1284 1284 1284 1284 Argon son of Argon son of Argon son of Argon son of Argon son of Aqaba (1284) Aqaba (1284) Aqaba (1284) Aqaba (1284) Aqaba (1284) Murder of Murder of Murder of Murder of Murder of Shams al-Din Shams al-Din Shams al-Din Shams al-Din Shams al-Din (1284-1288/9) (1284-1288/9) (1284-1288/9) (1284-1288/9) (1284-1288/9) After Argon After Argon After Argon (1292-1295) (1292-1295) (1292-1295) Beginning of Beginning of Beginning of the short the short the short kingdom of kingdom of kingdom of Baydu Baydu Baydu (d. 1295) (d. 1295) (d. 1295) Beginning of Beginning of Beginning of the kingdom the kingdom the kingdom of Ghazan of Ghazan of Ghazan (1295-1304) (1295-1304) (1295-1304) Death of Death of Death of Nawruz Nawruz Nawruz (Ghazan reign) (Ghazan reign) (Ghazan reign) History of Hethum king of Cilicia (1296) Capture of Amid (1317) Expedition of Expedition of Expedition of the Huns the Huns the Huns (1394) (1394) (1394) Devastation of Devastation of Devastation of Tur Abdin by Tur Abdin by Tur Abdin by Timur (1397) Timur (1397) Timur (1397) Continuation Continuation Continuation of the of the of the Chronicle Chronicle Chronicle (1394-1492) (1394-1492) (1394-1492) 86 M. MAZZOLA

This table allows us to draw the following conclusions: first, all the manuscripts, including the oldest one (Vat. Syr. 166), contain the continu- ation up to the year 1288, which suggests that this part was attached to the Chronography right after Bar ‘Ebroyo’s death (possibly by his brother Barsoum). The subsequent continuations are included only in MSS St. Mark 211, Hunt. 52 and Vat. Syr. 167. The text is identical in all the mentioned manu­ scripts with the exception of MS Vat. Syr. 167 which contains two inter- polations (the History of Hethum and the Capture of Amid). From my codicological study of MS Vat. Syr. 167 it has emerged that after the passage on the Death of Nawruz, the copyist added a new quire48 to make room for possible additional material on the 90 years between Ghazan’s reign and the Expedition of the Huns. The two notes on Hatem and Amid were apparently the only information he found, since the last three folios of the quire were left blank. In short, these two notes found only in MS Vat. Syr. 167 are probably later additions, while all the rest is iden- tical in all the manuscripts. The uniformity of the continuations suggests that the texts were transmitted from one codex to the other as a unit since the hypothesis that different scribes put together the very same miscel- laneous material independently is implausible. This implies that these three manuscripts (St. Mark 211, Hunt. 52, Vat. Syr. 167) belong to the same family (Redaction II)49. The study of the continuations allows us to detect also the mutual rela- tion of the manuscripts within Redaction II. MS Vat. Syr. 167 is most likely the youngest since the handwriting of the main text is the same as the continuation, and therefore the manuscript was copied after the con- tinuations were added in its apograph. The apograph is most likely the Hunt. 52 since a relation between this manuscript and MS Vat. Syr. 167 was long ago pointed out50 and the presence in Vat. Syr. 167 of only the Chronography might be explained by the fact that it was copied from Hunt. 52 after the latter was already split up. As to the original manuscript of the Chronicle MS Hunt. 52+Dd. 3.8, it was certainly dismembered to accommodate new quires containing the continuations from the Death of Nawruz up to the Continuation of the Chronicle (1394-1492)51. The first scribe, therefore, wrote the text up to the Beginning of the kingdom of Ghazan (1295-1304), whereas the later

48 The new quire starts at f. 171v which includes the History of Hatem. 49 This hypothesis would benefit of a closer investigation on the text of the continuations, in order to assess hypothetical different readings. 50 Levi Della Vida, Two Fragments of Galen, p. 184. 51 The numbering of quires and the paper type change. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 87 continuations were apparently not yet available. This supports the dating of the manuscript to the 14th century, as previously suggested by Wright on a paleographical basis52. Although MS St. Mark 211 needs further paleographical investigation, at first sight it seems to be written by the same hand from the beginning to the Devastation of Tur Abdin by Timur (1397), which suggests that the manuscript was copied after the 14th century and therefore it is later than MS Hunt. 52. Philological evidences, illustrated in section 4, show that the main text of MS St. Mark 211 derives ultimately from MS Hunt. 52 albeit indirectly53. The overview of the continuations confirms such a hypothesis: the scribe of St. Mark 211 already had at his disposal all the continuations up to the Devastation of the Tur Abdin by Timur (1397) which were not yet included in the Hunt. 52. Accordingly, MS St. Mark 211 was copied from an apograph of MS Hunt. 52 to which this material had been added. After a later scribe had attached the Continuation of the Chronicle (1394-1492) to MS St. Mark 21154, the whole block of the continuations landed back in MS Hunt. 52, which is proved by the fact that MS Hunt. 52 erroneously took over an independent historical note of MS St. Mark 211 (dated to 1503)55 in the account Devastation of Tur Abdin by Timur (1397)56. To sum up, the Chronography was provided with a first continuation up to the year 1288 right after the death of Bar ‘Ebroyo. The later continua- tions entered the manuscript tradition in at least three different moments which can be summarized in the following diagram:

Fig. 1: Diagram Continuations Chronography

52 Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, p. 979. 53 See section 4, p. 93-96. 54 The handwriting of this section seems different from the previous ones. For discussion on the author of this continuation see note 16. 55 MS St. Mark 211. Note recording a meteor in 1503 (f. 241r). 56 MS Hunt. 52. Devastation of Tur Abdin by Timur (f. 174v). 88 M. MAZZOLA

What is relevant for the assessment of a stemma codicum is that the presence of the civil continuations only in three manuscripts (Hunt. 52, Vat. Syr. 167, St. Mark 211) confirms that they belong to the same branch of the transmission (Redaction II). The first redaction of the Hunt. 52 contained only the continuations up to 1304, which corroborates the pale- ographical dating of the manuscript to the 14th century. The philological data illustrated below demonstrate that MS St. Mark 211 derived from MS Hunt. 52 through an intermediary and this dovetails with the outcomes of the analysis of the continuations: the copyist of MS St. Mark 211 had indeed access to later continuations which were not yet included in the Hunt. 52. A later scribe added in MS St. Mark 211 the continuation (1394- 1492). This ‘stock’ of additional material included in MS St. Mark 211 passed again to MS Hunt. 52 after the end of the 15th century.

Table 6: Continuations of the Ecclesiastical History57

Scribe 1 Scribe 2

Redaction I Redaction II Vat. Syr. 166. Or. 366 Hunt. 1 S. Mark 211 Dd. 3.8. Add. 7198 Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Nemrud Nemrud Nemrud Nemrud Nemrud Nemrud (1284/5) (1284/5) (1284/5) (1284/5) (1284/5) (1284/5) After After After After After Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Philoxenus Nemrud, Nemrud, Nemrud three Nemrud three Nemrud three Ignatius of Ignatius of illegitimates illegitimates illegitimates Mardin Mardin (patriarchs) (patriarchs) (patriarchs) (1292/3) (1292/3) John Ismael John Ismael John Ismael John Ismael John Ismael Basil Gabriel Basil Gabriel Basil Gabriel Shahab Shahab Shahab Shahab Shahab Abraham Bar Abraham Bar Abraham Bar Abraham Bar Abraham Bar Garib Garib Garib Garib Garib Philoxenus the Philoxenus the Philoxenus the Scribe Scribe Scribe

57 The table provides the parallel lists of the headings introducing the entries dedicated to the various patriarchs. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 89

Redaction I Redaction II

Vat. Syr. 166. Or. 366 Hunt. 1 S. Mark 211 Dd. 3.8. Add. 7198 Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Syrian Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox Joshua of Joshua of Joshua of Midyat Midyat Midyat Behnam of Behnam of Behnam of Behnam of Behnam of Ḥadl Ḥadl Ḥadl Ḥadl Ḥadl Mas‘ud of Mas‘ud of Mas‘ud of Ṣalaḥ Ṣalaḥ Ṣalaḥ Enoch of Enoch of Enoch of ‘Aynwardo ‘Aynwardo ‘Aynwardo Simon of Beth Simon of Beth Simon of Beth Man‘em Man‘em Man‘em Qawmo of Qawmo of Qawmo of Beth Sbirino Beth Sbirino Beth Sbirino Qalaph of Qalaph of Qalaph of Qalaph of Qalaph of Ma‘dan Ma‘dan Ma‘dan Ma‘dan Ma‘dan Joshua of Joshua of Joshua of ‘Aynwardo ‘Aynwardo ‘Aynwardo ‘Aziz Bar ‘Aziz Bar ‘Aziz Bar Sobto Sobto Sobto Bar Shayallah Bar Shayallah Shabo of Arbo Shabo of Arbo Shabo of Arbo John Bar John Bar John Bar Quphar Quphar Quphar Noah the Noah the Lebanese Lebanese East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – Beginning – 1285 1285 1285 1285 1285 Hence forward Hence forward Hence forward Hence forward Hence forward the brother of the brother of the brother of the brother of the brother of the author the author the author the author the author

Narration of Narration of Narration of Narration of Narration of the death of the death of the death of the death of the death of Bar ‘Ebroyo Bar ‘Ebroyo Bar ‘Ebroyo Bar ‘Ebroyo Bar ‘Ebroyo 90 M. MAZZOLA

Redaction I Redaction II Vat. Syr. 166. Or. 366 Hunt. 1 S. Mark 211 Dd. 3.8. Add. 7198 East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian East Syrian After After After After Grigorios Grigorios Grigorios Grigorios (Bar ‘Ebroyo) (Bar ‘Ebroyo) (Bar ‘Ebroyo) (Bar ‘Ebroyo) Barsoum and Barsoum and Barsoum and Barsoum and all the all the all the all the successions of successions of successions of successions of the maphrian the maphrian the maphrian the maphrian until Noah the until Noah the until Noah the until Noah the Lebanese Lebanese Lebanese Lebanese (1493-) (1493-) (1493-) (1493-)

Unlike the Chronography, the additions to the Ecclesiastical History appear in the whole tradition, with the exception of MS Hunt. 158. As regards the Syrian Orthodox part of the Ecclesiastical History, the sequences and the texts are always identical until the year 1285 when the patriarchate of Philoxenus Nemrud begins. This part has to be ascribed to Bar ‘Ebroyo. After Philoxenus Nemrud the first variation in the sequence occurs. The passage After Philoxenus Nemrud three illegitimates (patriarchs) included in MSS St. Mark 211, Dd. 3.8 and Add. 7198 provides a more detailed account of the consecration of the concurrent patriarchs Ignatius Constantine and Ignatius Michael II during the legitimate patriarchate of Ignatius of Mardin (1294-1333) while the MSS Vat. Syr. 166 and Or. 366 give a different account focused on the latter (After Philoxenus Nemrud, Ignatius of Mardin). In the following sequences (between John of Ismael and Ignatius Bar Shayallah) the content is the same in the entire tradition: all the manu- scripts provide the same narration about the Mardin patriarchs, the patri- archs of Sis and the Tur Abdin patriarchs until the year 1493. However, MSS Vat. Syr. 166 and Or. 366 structured the passages only under the sequence of the Mardin patriarchs (John Ismael, Shahab, Abraham Bar Garib, Behnam of Ḥadl, Qalaph of Ma‘dan) apparently recognized as the only legitimate ones while MSS St. Mark 211, Dd. 3.8 and Add. 7198 gather the narrative also under the sequences of the patriarchs of Sis (Basil Gabriel, Philoxenus the Scribe, Simon of Beth Man‘em) and Tur Abdin patriarchs (Joshua of Midyat, Mas‘ud of Ṣalaḥ, Enoch of ‘Aynwardo, Qawmo of Beth Sbirino, Joshua of ‘Aynwardo, ‘Aziz Bar Sobto, Shabo of Arbo, John Bar Quphar) as in the following example:

58 The bulk and the binding made the codex difficult to dismember in order to make space for the additions. This is a further clue that the continuations were composed probably at the end of the 15th century, since the scribes of MS Hunt. 1 (1498) did not know this text yet. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 91

MS Add. 7198 MS Vat. Syr. 16659 After Ignatius of Mardin, i.e. John Badr After Ignatius of Mardin, i.e. John Badr Zakko Ismael, son of John brother of the Zakko Ismael, son of John brother of the elder defunct. elder defunct.

After Badr Zakko had died, a synod was After Badr Zakko had died, a synod gathered in the monastery of Mor Hana- was gathered in the monastery of Mor niah, near Mardin. The Barsoum Hananiah, near Mardin. The bishop of Ṣalaḥ, head of the synod, John of Barsoum of Ṣalaḥ, head of the synod, Qartmin i.e. Joshua Bar Sophro of Beth John of Qartmin i.e. Joshua Bar Sophro Sbirino, Philoxenus of Mbadre, i.e. of Beth Sbirino, Philoxenus of Mbadre, Se‘red, the bishop Sobo of the monas- i.e. Se‘red, the bishop Sobo of the mon- tery of Noṭopho, Cyril of Ḥaḥ, i.e. Simon astery of Noṭopho, Cyril of Ḥaḥ, i.e. Aelian and the bishop of the Armenians Simon Aelian and the bishop of the of Mardin consecrated John of Amid, i.e. Armenians of the dioceses of Mardin Ismael al-Majad, son of John deacon of consecrated John of Amid, i.e. Ismael Mardin, and they called him Ignatius… al-Majad, son of John deacon of - A dispute arose between the patriarch din, and they called him Ignatius… Ismael and the maphrian Matthew Bar A dispute arose between the patriarch Ḥananw… The maphrian suppressed Ismael and the maphrian Matthew Bar the proclamation of the patriarch for Ḥananw… The maphrian suppressed four years and proclaimed that of Cili- the proclamation of that patriarch for cia (Michael II). The patriarch Michael four years and proclaimed that of Cili- II of Sis sent gifts to the maphrian but cia (Michael II). The patriarch Michael afterwards the peace was established II of Sis sent gifts to the maphrian but between the maphrian and the patriarch afterwards the peace was established of Mardin and he was proclaimed in the between the maphrian and our father entire East and in the region of Mosul, patriarch of Mardin and he was pro- while that (patriarch) of Sis was pro- claimed in the entire East and in the claimed in the West, in the North-East, region of Mosul, while that (patriarch) in Maragheh, Tabriz and Azerbaijan… of Sis was proclaimed in the West, in Mor Michael II reached his end and the further North-East, in Maragheh, died in the year 1660 of the Greeks, and Tabriz and Azerbaijan… Mor Michael fulfilled the patriarchate for 36 years. of Sis reached his end and died in the year 1660 of the Greeks, and fulfilled After Mor Michael II, Basil Gabriel of the patriarchate for 36 years. After he Melitene died the western gathered in Melitene, i.e. the bishop of Cyprus, that After the patriarch Michael died the of Jerusalem, that of Gargar, the bishop western bishops gathered in Melitene of Aleppo and Philoxenus of Damas- i.e. the bishop of Cyprus and Jerusalem, cus, an able and skillful writer. From that of Gargar, the bishop of Aleppo there they went to Sis and proclaimed and Philoxenus of Damascus, an able this Basil patriarch of and and skillful writer. From there they Syria… went to Sis and proclaimed this Basil patriarch of Syria in Antioch …

59 MS Or. 366 gives a shortened version most likely derived from MS Vat. Syr. 166 or its antigraph. See also Valenzano, La cronaca ecclesiastica. 92 M. MAZZOLA

The differences between the continuations of the manuscripts in the sequences between John of Ismael and Ignatius Bar Shayallah, thus, do not relate to the actual content but are purely structural. Major additions and variations on the patriarch Ignatius Bar Shayallah60 are instead found in MSS St. Mark 211, Dd. 3.8 and Add. 7198 against the version included in MSS Vat. Syr. 166 and Or. 366. Likewise the account of the last patriarch Noah the Lebanese presents major additions in MSS St. Mark 211, Dd. 3.8 and Add. 7198 while MS Or. 366 does not provide any information and MS Vat. Syr. 166 includes only a brief note about a visit to his family in Lebanon. In short, since all the manuscripts share the identical source material from John Ismael (1333-1366) to Bar Shayallah (1493), it is unlikely that the continuations were written by different authors, despite the structural discrepancies in the sequences. It is instead more plausible that the con- tinuation was written by one single author and that it was a) later struc- turally re-arranged and b) extended in the account of the successor(s) of Philoxenus Nemrud and of the last two patriarchs John Bar Shayallah and Noah the Lebanese. This rearranged and extended version is found in MSS St. Mark 211, Dd. 3.8 and Add. 7198 which accordingly prove to belong to the same branch of the tradition (Redaction II). As to the dating, the continuations after Philoxenus are always the work of a later scribe61 except for MS Add. 7198 (16th cent.) which was thus copied from a MS that contained both the Ecclesiastical History and the additions. The absence of the continuation in MS Hunt. 1 (1498) which could not be dismembered to accommodate new quires62, the fact that all of them stop with the patriarchate of Noah the Lebanese and that they were not yet available earlier than the 16th century lead us to suppose that the continuation was accomplished under the patriarchate of Noah at the end of the 15th century. The continuations of the East Syrian part of the Ecclesiastical History are unvaried in the entire tradition. The narration of Bar ‘Ebroyo stops in 1285, as in the first part. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s brother, Barsoum covered the account of the death of Bar ‘Ebroyo and the information on his own

60 Independent historical notes added by later scribes are found in MS Dd. 3.8 (ff. 78r- 90r). Among this material is included also a detailed biography of the patriarch Bar Shayal- lah (ff. 81r-90r). This account is not the same text as the one included in the continuations, though mutual relations cannot be excluded. See Palmer, John Bar Šayallāh, p. 190. For a photographical reproduction and translation of this biography see Bcheiry, The Account of the Syriac Orthodox. 61 In all the manuscripts new quires are added for the continuations after Philoxenus Nemrud. 62 See note 58. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 93 maphrianate. The following sequences and narrative are identical in all the manuscripts, confirming that the entire continuation of the East Syrian part is the work of one single author. Finally, it is possible to suppose also that both continuations of the Syrian Orthodox and East Syrian parts of the Ecclesiastical History were the work of the same author, since they cover the identical timespan and they surely began to circulate together63. To sum up, it is likely that one single author composed the continuations to both parts of the Ecclesiastical History around the beginning of the patriarchate of Noah the Lebanese (1493); the continuation of the Syrian Orthodox part has been a) reworked structurally in the account from John Ismael (1333-1366) to Bar Shayallah (1493), and b) expanded, at the begin- ning, in the account of the successor(s) of Philoxenus Nemrud, and, at the end, in the account of the last two patriarchs Bar Shayallah and Noah the Lebanese, in one branch of the transmission (Redaction II). Since the ecclesiastical continuations were probably the work of the same author and were attached to the main text at a later moment, we know that the Chronicle did not undergo any reworking by the continuator.

4. Stemma Codicum

The information derived from the analysis just undertaken supports the results of the collation I have carried out for the main text, which will be set forth in what follows64. According to the information gathered about the textual tradition, it seemed sufficient to rely only on the oldest manuscripts, because, as it has been shown, the possibility that the 19th- 20th century copies are based on old manuscripts is quite limited.

Sigla: V = Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Syr. 166 (<1356/7) J = Jerusalem, St. Mark Monastery, 211 (<1503) O = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 1 (ca. 1498) F = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Orientale 366 (<1558)

63 In the mss. Dd. 3.8, St. Mark 211, Vat. Syr. 166 both the continuations are written by the same copyist. 64 The collatio has been focused only on the Ecclesiastical History which is the object of my doctoral research. The setting up of a definitive stemma would benefit from a closer investigation on the manuscripts of the Chronography. A project on the critical edition of the Chronography, which will provide useful data for the completion of this analysis, is currently ongoing: ‘Critical edition & annotated translation of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Syriac World Chronicle with its continuations up to 1500’ directed by Prof. D. Weltecke (Goethe-Universität, Frank- furt). 94 M. MAZZOLA

C = Cambridge, University Library, Dd. 3.8 (14th c.), originally first part of H H = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 52 (14th c.), originally second part of C L = London, British Library, Additional 7198 (16th c.) = Abbeloos – Lamy edition65

I have collated the manuscripts V, J, O, F, C66 and the Abbeloos – Lamy edition on the basis of a sample text (col. I. 1-101). The following table gives an overview of a) the forty-two readings67 that do not match with the edition (Different Readings) and b) the statistics of agreement between the manuscripts (Agreements).

Table 7: Overview of the Manuscripts Readings (Sample text: Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. I. 1-101)

Different readings68 Agreements69 V-F-O-C-J: 5 V-F-O-C: 11 V-F-O-C: 6 V-F-O: 22 V-F-O: 11 C-J-L: 24 V-O: 6 V-O: 28 C-J: 3 J-L: 32 O: 4 C: 2 J: 2 V: 2 F: 1

The cases of agreement above mentioned (C-J-L: 24; V-F-O: 22) allow detecting a strong affinity between two groups of manuscripts (V-F-O= Redaction I and C-J-L= Redaction II). This information matches what has been illustrated in the section concerning the continuations. To give but one example:

65 The Abbeloos – Lamy edition is referred to with L in the tables, being a diplomatic transcription of that manuscript. 66 The readings of C are taken from the appendix of the printed edition. 67 Orthographical and stylistic variants are not considered since they cannot be used safely as hint of affinity between two manuscripts. 68 E.g., in the case of V-F-O, the number 11 means that in eleven cases these manu- scripts share a reading, which is different from L. These cases are not meant to be read as a negative apparatus: in the example mentioned above the remaining manuscripts, C and J, might a) share the reading of the edition, b) have a different common reading, and c) give two different readings. 69 In the case of V-F-O-C, the number 11 means that these manuscripts agree eleven times against the edition. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 95

Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. I. 13 C-J-L ܢܝܪܣܥ ܐܝܢܫ̈ ܩܕܨܘܝ ܩܘܕܙ ܪܬܒ After Zadok, Jehozadak for ܥܒܪܐܘ 24 years

V-F-O ܢܝܪܣܥ ܐܝܢܫ̈ ܩܕܨܘܝ ܩܘܕܙ ܪܬܒ After Zadok, Jehozadak for 20 years70

The high number of correspondences between J-L in readings unat- tested elsewhere (J-L: 32) suggests a derivation of the manuscripts from a common antigraph71. Also the manuscripts V-O agree in a high number of cases (V-O: 28), 6 of which are shared readings unattested elsewhere. Also in this case a derivation from a common antigraph can be supposed72. The consistency between the group V-F-O and C in 11 cases suggests that it was the antigraph of J and L (γ) that introduced further corruptions and that C should be placed higher in the stemma73, as it emerges from the following example:

Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. I. 71 V-F-O-C ܐܢܘܓܐ ܐܪ̈ܕܚ ܡܥ ܐܝܠܝܠܡ̈ ܕܟܘ While the disputants were ܐܐܝܓܣ̈ ܆ܐܠ�ܡܒܼ̈ ܘܘܗ ܢܝܕܒܥܿ discussing with each other, many ܐܬܘܢܩܬ ܪܬܒ ܘܘܗ ܢܝܕܓܢܬܡ were seduced by the fashion of the ܐܡ�ܝܠܥ ܢܝܕ ܐܢܝܕܘܡ .ܐܬܘܠܝܠܡܕ eloquence, and a young confessor 74 ܢܘܗܠܒܩܘܠ ܐܬܠܡ ܪܡܐܼ spoke against them . ܐܢܘܓܐ ܐܪ̈ܕܚ ܡܥ ܐܝܠܝܠܡ̈ ܕܟܘ While the disputants were J-L ܐܐܝܓܣ̈ ܆ܐܠ�ܡܒܼ̈ ܘܘܗ ܢܝܕܒܥܿ discussing, many were seduced. ܢܘܗܠܒܩܘܠ ܐܬܠܡ ܪܡܐܼ .ܢܝܕܓܢܬܡ He spoke against them.

Such a hypothesis is also confirmed by the fact that J never differs from L in agreement with the group V-F-O. Last, we know that F, J and O could not be the source for any other attested copy since the former includes only the Syrian Orthodox part of the Ecclesiastical History and both J and O show some important lacu- nae75. On the basis of the mentioned considerations the following stemma is proposed:

70 Cf. Chabot, Chronique, p. 741. 71 A direct derivation of L from J is unlikely since the scribe of J used to omit the name of the previous patriarch in the standard formula ‘After patriarch X, patriarch Y’. If copied from J, L should have had omitted the names as well. 72 O cannot derive from V since in at least two cases V hands down a corrupted reading. 73 This is a further clue that C is earlier than J. 74 Cf. Chabot, Chronique, p. 124. 75 For J see note 71. O is slightly incomplete in some part. In both the cases the lacunae are not caused by later material accidents. 96 M. MAZZOLA

Fig. 2. Stemma codicum

5. Conclusions

Although the Chronicle of Bar ‘Ebroyo has been claimed to be an important source for the history of the Medieval Near East76 and has been massively used for such a purpose, its textual tradition has never been the object of a specific investigation. As I hope to have shown, the analysis of its transmission contributes significantly and in many respects to the study of the Chronicle. The manuscripts eligible for a critical edition are fewer exemplars than the catalogue lists suggest. The possibility that the modern copies of the Ecclesiastical History were made on old manuscripts is very lim- ited because by the end of the 17th century almost all the ancient copies of the work had already been transferred from the Eastern regions to Europe. The independent transmission of the Chronography and the Ecclesiasti- cal History proved to be limited to very few cases and to be due to a later development of the tradition. While approaching the historiographical analysis of the work, scholars should consider that the entire Chronicle was conceived and published at the same moment, a significant detail

76 Wright, A Short History; Duval, La littérature syriaque; Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 97 in the context of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s literary production, which stretched out over a wide chronological span and needs to be analyzed diachronically as well. Finally, the study of the continuations has shown an overall uniformity, suggesting that the continuations were transmitted as a whole from one manuscript to another. The continuations of the Chronography were com- posed in several stages and are attested in only three manuscripts (Hunt. 52, Vat. Syr. 167, St. Mark 211) which corroborates their belonging to the same branch of transmission (Redaction II). As to the Ecclesiastical History, the continuations are instead attested in the entire tradition, albeit occasional structural differences and expansions occur for the Syrian Orthodox part in three manuscripts (Dd. 3.8, St. Mark 211, Add. 7198), which suggest they belong to the same branch (Redaction II). The con- tinuation of the East Syrian part is instead identical in all the manu- scripts. Both continuations of the Ecclesiastical History were probably composed by a unique author at the end of the 15th century. The hypothe­ sis of two branches transmission of the Chronicle which has emerged from the analysis of the continuations is corroborated by the results of the collatio. These data are fundamental tiles to reconstruct the mosaic of the textual transmission of the Chronicle, and provide a sound philological basis for a future critical edition and for the historiographical analysis of the work.

Bibliography

Abbeloos – Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum = J.B. Abbeloos et T.J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Louvain, 1872-1877. Aigle, Barhebraeus et son public = D. Aigle, Barhebraeus et son public à travers ses chroniques en syriaque et en arabe, in Le Muséon, 118 (2005), p. 87- 107. Assemani, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae = G.S. Assemani et S.E. Assemani, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus in tres partes distributus, Roma, 1756-1759. Assemani, Bibliothecae mediceae laurentianae = S.E. Assemani, Bibliothecae mediceae laurentianae et Palatinae mss. codicum orientalium catalogus, Firenze, 1742. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls = I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A His- tory of Syriac Literature and Sciences, tr. by M. Moosa, Piscataway, NJ, 2003. Baumstark, Die literarische Handschriften = A. Baumstark, Die literarische Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem, in Oriens Christianus, 11 (1913), p. 128-134. 98 M. MAZZOLA

Bcheiry, The Account of the Syriac Orthodox = I. Bcheiry, The Account of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Yūḥanun Bar Šay Allah (1483-1492): The Syriac Manuscript of Cambridge: DD.3.8(1), (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies, 34), Piscataway, NJ, 2013. Bedjan, Chronicon Syriacum = P. Bedjan, Gregorii Barhebræi Chronicon Syriacum e codd. mss. emendatum ac punctis vocalibus adnotationibusque locupletatum, , 1890. Brock et al., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary = S. Brock, A. Butts, G. Kiraz, and L. Van Rompay, eds., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Piscataway, NJ, 2005. Brock, Notes on Some Texts = S. Brock, Notes on Some Texts in the Mingana Collection, in Journal of Semitic Studies, 14.2 (1969), p. 205-226. Brock – Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts = S. Brock and L. Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt), (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 227), Leuven, 2014. Bruns – Kirsch, Chronicon Syriacum = P.J. Bruns et G.W. Kirsch, Bar-Hebraei Chronicon Syriacum, Leipzig, 1789. Budge, The Chronography = W. Budge, The Chronography of Grigorios Abû’l Faraj, the Son of , the Hebrew Physician, Commonly known as , Being the First Part of his Political History of the World, London, 1932. Chabot, Chronique = Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’An- tioche (1166-1199), éditée pour la première fois et traduite en français par J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1910. Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire = M. Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque: transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et islam (Late Antique History and Religion, 12), Leuven, 2015. Del Río Sánchez, Catalogue des manuscrits = F. Del Río Sánchez, Catalogue des manuscrits de la fondation Georges et Mathilde Salem (Alep, Syrie), (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 16), Wiesbaden, 2008. Dolabani, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts = Y. Dolabani, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery, Piscataway, NJ, 2009. Duval, La littérature syriaque = R. Duval, La littérature syriaque: des ori- gines jusqu’à la fin de cette littérature après la conquête par les Arabes au XIIIe siècle (Bibliothèque de l’enseignement de l’histoire ecclésiastique. Anciennes littératures chrétiennes, 2), Paris, 1899. Fani – Farina, Le vie delle lettere = Le vie delle lettere. La tipografia medicea tra Roma e l’Oriente, a cura di S. Fani e M. Farina, Firenze, 2012. Harrak, Catalogue = A. Harrak, Catalogue of Syriac and Manu- scripts: Manuscripts Owned by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities and Heri­ tage (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 639; Subsidia, 126), Leuven, 2011. Hayek, Le relazioni della Chiesa Siro-giacobita = I.A. Hayek, Le relazioni della Chiesa Siro-giacobita con la Santa Sede dal 1143 al 1656, édité par P.G. Borbone et J. Daccache (Cahiers d’Études Syriaques, 3), Paris, 2015. Hunt – Madan, A Summary Catalogue = R. Hunt and F. Madan, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford which have not hitherto been catalogued in the quarto series, Oxford, 1895- 1953. BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE 99

‘Iwaṣ, Al-batriyark Diyunisiyus = Z. ‘Iwaṣ, Al-batriyark Diyunisiyus al Talmahri, in Journal of Syriac Academy of Baghdad, 3 (1977), p. 45-77. Levi della Vida, Two Fragments of Galen = G. Levi della Vida, Two Frag- ments of Galen in Arabic Translation, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 70.3 (1950), p. 182-187. Mingana, Catalogue = A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts now in the Possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke Settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham, Cambridge, 1933-1939. Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica = G. Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni, Venezia, 1840-1861. Murre Van der Berg, I the Weak Scribe = H. Murre van der Berg, ‘I the Weak Scribe’: Scribes in the in the Ottoman Period, in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 58 (2006), p. 9-26. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History = T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, transl. by J.S. Black, London – Edinburgh, 1892. Palmer, John Bar Šayallāh = A. palmer, John Bar Šayallāh and the Syrian Orthodox Community under Aqquyunlu Rule in the Late Fifteenth Century, in Christians and Muslims in Dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages, edited by M. Tamcke (Beiruter Texte und Studien, 117), Beirut – Würzburg, 2007, p. 187-206. Rich, Narrative of a Residence = C.J. Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan and on the Site of ancient , London, 1836. Sachau, Über syrische Handschriften-Sammlungen = E. Sachau, Über syrische Handschriften-Sammlungen im Orient, in Mittheilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, 3 (1900), p. 43-47. Scher, Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques Notre-Dame-des-Semences = A. Scher, Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du cou- vent des chaldéens de Notre-Dame-des-Semences, in Journal Asiatique, 7 (1906), p. 479-512 ; 8 (1906), p. 33-82. Takahashi, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Grigorios = H. Takahashi, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Grigorios, in Brock et al., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary, p. 54-56. Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography = H. Takahashi, Barhebraeus: a Bio-bibliography, Piscataway, NJ, 2005. Teule, Syriac Historiography = H. Teule, Syriac Historiography, in Nos Sources. Arts et littérature syriaques (Sources syriaques, 1), Antelias, p. 377-400. Teule, The Crusaders in Barhebraeus = H. Teule, The Crusaders in Barhe- braeus Syriac and Arabic secular chronicles, in K. Ciggar, A. Davis and H. Teule, eds., East and West in the Crusader States (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 125), Leuven, 1996, p. 39-49. Valenzano, La Cronaca ecclesiastica = N. Valenzano, La “Cronaca ecclesia- stica” di Barhebraeus († 1286) nel manoscritto Firenze, Biblioteca medicea laurenziana, Orientale 366 (diss.), Pisa University, 2014. Vian, Per le cose della patria nostra = P. Vian, ‘Per le cose della patria nostra’. Lettere inedite di Luigi Angeloni e Marino Marini sul recupero dei mano- scritti vaticani a Parigi (1816-1819), in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Aposto- licae Vaticanae, 18 (2011), p. 693-799. Vosté, Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne = J.M. Vosté, Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne du couvent de Notre-Dame des Semences près d’Alqoš (Iraq), Rome – Paris, 1929. 100 M. MAZZOLA

Weltecke, Les grandes chroniques = D. Weltecke, Les grandes chroniques des XIIe et XIIIe siècles, in M. Debié, éd., L’historiographie syriaque (Études syriaques, 6), Paris, 2009. Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle = Bar Hebraeus. The Ecclesiasti- cal Chronicle, translated by D. Wilmshurst (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies, 40), Piscataway, NJ, 2016. Witakowski, Syriac Historiographical Sources = W. Witakowski, Syriac Histo- riographical Sources, in Byzantines and Crusaders in Non-Greek Sources, 1025-1204, edited by M. Whitby, Oxford, 2007, p. 253-282. Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle = W. Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Grigorios Bar ‘Ebroyo, in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 6 (2006), p. 61-81. Wright, A Short History = W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts = W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, London, 1870-1872.

Gent Universiteit- EPHE, Paris Marianna Mazzola Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35, UFO, 9000 Gent, Belgium [email protected]

Abstract — Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronicle is preserved in a remarkably high number of manuscripts in comparison to the other historiographical works in Syriac, which all survive in just one copy. The textual tradition of the Chronicle therefore allows a unique insight into its reception and its study contributes fundamentally to the philological and literary evaluation of the work. This article addresses the textual tradition of the Chronicle by focusing on three aspects: the identification of the manuscripts eligible for a critical edition of the text, the separated transmission of the two parts of the Chronicle (Chronography and Ecclesiastical History) and the continuations of the Chronicle. This preliminary study aims at providing a sounder philological base for a future critical edition (which is among the desiderata). In fact, there are fewer manuscripts eligible for a critical edition than the catalogue lists suggest. In addition, the independent transmission of the Chronography and the Ecclesiastical History is limited to very few cases and it is explained by a later development of the tradition. Finally, the study of the continuations will be inte- grated into the data emerging from the collatio of the manuscripts to show that the textual tradition can be divided in two branches (Redaction I and Redaction II).