JournalofCopticStudies 16 (2014) 69–87 doi: 10.2143/JCS.16.0.3066720

LEFT BEHIND: A RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE CHURCH YALE MONASTIC ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT

BY STEPHEN J. DAVIS, GILLIAN PYKE, ELIZABETH DAVIDSON, MARY FARAG AND SCHRIEVER

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOUISE BLANKE

This collaborative article focuses on recent excavations in the ancient church at the Monastery of St. — i.e. the — in , , as part of the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project (YMAP).1

1 Archaeological work at the Monastery of St. Shenoute — including survey, excava- tions, stratigraphic and architectural analysis, and art conservation — has taken place with the cooperation of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, first under the auspices of the Consortium for Research and Conservation at the of the Sohag Region (2002–2007: directed by Elizabeth Bolman and Darlene Brooks Hedstrom), and more recently under the auspices of the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project (2008 to the present: directed by Stephen J. Davis and Gillian Pyke). Publications on the history of this work include: Peter Grossmann, Darlene Brooks-Hedstrom, Mohamed Abdal-Rassul, and Eliza- beth S. Bolman, “The Excavation in the Monastery of Apa Shenute (Dayr Anba Shinuda) at Suhag, with an Appendix on Documentary Photography at the Monasteries of Anba Shinuda and Anba Bishoi, Suhag,” DOP58 (2004), 371–82; Darlene L. Brooks Hedstrom, “An Archaeological Mission for the White Monastery,” Coptica 4 (2005), 1–26; Peter Grossman, Darlene L. Brooks Hedstrom, Saad Mohamad Mohamad Osman, with a con- tribution by Hans-Christoph Noeske, and in collaboration with Mohamad Ahmad Abd al-Rahim, Tarik Said Abd al-Fatah, and Mahmud Abd al-Mugdi, “Second Report on the Excavation in the Monastery of Apa Shenute (Dayr Anba Shinuda) at Suhag,” DOP 63 (2009), 167–219; Elizabeth S. Bolman, Luigi De Cesaris, Gillian Pyke, Emiliano Ricchi, and Alberto Sucato, “A Late Antique Funerary Chapel at the White Monastery (Dayr Anba Shenouda), Sohag,” BulletinoftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt 195 (Summer 2009), 12–18; Elizabeth S. Bolman, Stephen J. Davis, and Gillian Pyke, “Shenoute and a Recently Discovered Tomb Chapel at the White Monastery,” JECS18.3 (2010), 453– 62; Stephen J. Davis, with contributions by L. Blanke, E. Bolman, D. Brooks Hedstrom, M. Burgoyne, T. Herbich, B. Layton, S. Mohammed, G. Pyke, and P. Sheehan, “Archaeol- ogy at the White Monastery, 2005–2010,” Coptica 9 (2010), 25–58; Elizabeth S. Bolman, Stephen J. Davis, Luigi De Cesaris, Father Maximous el-Anthony, Gillian Pyke, Emiliano Ricchi, Alberto Sucato, and Nicholas Warner, with contributions by Mohammed Abdel Rahim, Louise Blanke, Wendy Dolling, Mohammed Khalifa, Saad Mohammed, and Anna Stevens, “The Tomb of St. Shenoute? More Results from the White Monastery (Dayr Anba Shenouda), Sohag,” BulletinoftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt 198 (Spring 2011), 31–38.

997680.indb7680.indb 6969 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 70 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

In it, we report on the discovery of manuscript fragments that shed light on the history of the White Monastery library, a collection that contained over 1,000 books, the largest in medieval Egypt.2 A large percentage of extant — including the writings of the monastic leader Shenoute — originally derived from that collection, and as a result the monastery has played a central role in the development of Coptic studies as a historical field. Our paper has four parts. First, we describe the archaeological context, and our methods of excavation, cataloguing, and photographic documen- tation. Second, we report on the data discovered, including the material and number of fragments, the languages and scripts represented, patterns of ornamentation, and text types. Third, we present a case study related to the discovery of a Coptic fragment that belongs to the Shenoutean corpus. Fourth and finally, we draw conclusions about the implications of this find for our knowledge of the textual and architectural history of the site, including the light it sheds on where manuscripts were stored in the monastery.

The Excavation of the So-called “Candle Room” in the White Monastery Church

Since 2006, Bentley Layton (Yale University), in collaboration with architect Burgoyne, has led a project to document the architec- ture of the church.3 Their goal has been to record the current state of the building and in the process to reconstruct its earlier stages of develop- ment, including restoration work performed by the Comité de conserva- tion des monuments de l’art arabe and the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) during the twentieth century.4 One of the areas still to

2 On this library, see Tito Orlandi, “The Library of the Monastery of Shenute at Atripe,” in: Arno Egberts, Brian P. Muhs, and Jacques van der Vliet (eds.),Perspectives onPanopolis:AnEgyptianTownfromAlexandertheGreattotheArabConquest, Leiden/ Boston 2002, 211–232; and Stephen Emmel, “The Library of the White Monastery in ,” in: Harald Froschauer and Cornelia Römer (eds.), Spätantiken Biblio- theken:LebenundLesenindenfrühenKlösternÄgyptens, 2008, 5–14. 3 The authors would like to thank Bentley Layton for his valuable contributions to the work of YMAP and the preparation of this article. 4 On the restoration of the White Monastery Church by the Comité in the early twen- tieth century, see Cédric Meurice, “L’intervention du Comité de conservation des monuments de l’art arabe au couvent Blanc de Sohag,” in: Anne Boud’hors and Catherine Louis (eds.), ÉtudescoptesXI:Treizièmejournéed’études(Marseille,7–9juin2007), CBC 17, Paris 2009, 1–12. The SCA’s conservation and reconstruction of the church in the 1980s and

997680.indb7680.indb 7070 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 71

be surveyed was a wall recess filled with rubble at the south end of the east wall of a room located in the northeast corner of the church, at the top of a second flight of stairs to the north of the sanctuary. In recent times, this room had been used for the storage of charcoal and used can- dles, and as a result it has come to be commonly designated as the “Can- dle Room” [Figs. 1 and 2]. The investigators suspected that the recess might provide access to a space under the northeast staircase that had not yet been recorded. An archaeological investigation of the recess and the floor of the room was undertaken by archaeologists Gillian Pyke and Louise Blanke in 2011 and 2012, starting with the floor in order to avoid cross-contamination of archaeological deposits. The excavation of the Candle Room floor took place December 7–11, 2011. First, the stored contents of the room were removed and tempo- rarily relocated to the roof of the church for the duration of the work. These contents included a number of woven plastic mats that had cov- ered the entire floor surface, forming a separation layer between the upper modern material (e.g. charcoal and candles) and earlier deposits. All deposits below the mats were treated as archaeological in nature and excavated using a single-context method consistent with that used by YMAP throughout the White Monastery. Each discrete feature and deposit was identified using a locus number and fully documented in terms of its location, size, shape, identification and composition, associated finds, and relationship to other features via a locus sheet, photo-documentation, and a 1:20 plan. Within each locus, finds of each distinct material (i.e. bone, pottery, charcoal etc.) were allocated a unique find number (prefixed WM) within the overall site recording system. The first deposit (Locus 1128) was a 1cm thick layer of dust that cov- ered the whole room and contained modern materials, such as fragments of floor plaster, brick, candle, charcoal, newspaper, cardboard, and folded

1990s is documented in a set of unpublished -language reports filed at the White Monastery inspectorate. The two most detailed accounts of this work are: (1) Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rasūl Muḥammad, Jamāl Ḥamādah al-Baṣīlī, and ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Ẓāhir Zakī (eds.), Taqrīr‘ana‘mālal-tablīṭbi-l-Dayral-Abyaḍal-atharī [ReportonthePavement Work at the Ancient White Monastery], 31pp. (covering the years 1984 to 1996); and Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rasūl Muḥammad, ed., Iktishāfātal-athariyabiḥafā’irminṭaqatal- Dayral-AbyaḍgharbSūhāj [TheArchaeologicalDiscoveriesinExcavationsintheDistrict oftheWhiteMonastery,westofSohag], 92pp. (covering the years 1986 to 1993). Copies of these two reports were made available to Stephen J. Davis and Gillian Pyke of YMAP in December 2011. Davis has privately produced tables of contents in English for both and has begun work on summaries/translations of their contents as a basis for future study.

997680.indb7680.indb 7171 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 72 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

pieces of paper with prayers written in Arabic (petitions left by recent visitors). In addition, a few ancient sherds of pottery were recovered. Below this deposit, three breaks in the plaster floor were found: a large one running in parallel to the north wall (Locus 1129), a smaller one in the southwestern corner (Locus 1130) and one in the western central part of the floor (Locus 1131) [Fig. 3]. Fragments of parchment and paper with Coptic or Arabic writing, as well as some fragments of textile and leather, were found in all four of these loci (the upper layer of dust and the three breaks in the plaster floor beneath). These fragments were recovered in three stages. Many were handpicked from the deposits prior to sieving, others were identified and separated as a result of sieving, and still others were handpicked from the already sieved material in the better-lit conditions of the expedition workroom. The first two stages were performed by Pyke and Blanke, with Stephen Davis assisting. The third stage was performed by Bentley Layton and Daniel Schriever. Pyke, Layton, and Schriever also took photos of the fragments individually and in large groups and conducted preliminary analysis on selected pieces. The 2012 season of work in the Candle Room involved two compo- nents: first, the excavation of the recess, and second, the comprehensive photo-documentation and cataloguing of the fragments. On December 8, 2012, a small excavation was carried out in the Candle Room recess by Blanke and Pyke, with the cooperation of the SCA, using the same method as in the previous season. The purpose of this work was to determine whether the recess was a self-contained architectural feature, or whether it gave access to a space located below the adjoining staircase. A second research question related to whether the fill of the recess would yield additional manuscript fragments. Two distinct loci were identified, the first located directly above the second. The first locus (Locus 1162), 0.11m in depth, consisted of a loose matrix with small stones and building material. The second locus (Locus 1163) was located immediately below the first: it consisted of building materials of significantly larger size, such as limestone blocks and fired bricks [Fig. 4]. Pyke and Blanke excavated the second locus to a depth of approximately 15cm before an area of fill in the northeastern part of the niche caved in, revealing that the recess continued below the level of the plaster floor. The configuration of this collapse suggested the possible presence of a floor level lower than that in the Candle Room, or an access point to a space under the staircase as had been proposed by Michael Burgoyne. The void that was created between the limestone blocks

997680.indb7680.indb 7272 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 73

and fired bricks suggested that they had been part of a deliberate infill of building materials into the space, possibly during the Supreme Council’s reconstruction work in the 1980s. The excavation was halted at this point due to concerns about the instability of the fill material and structural integrity of the recess. No manuscript fragments were found.

Documentation and Classification of the Candle Room Fragments

The photo-documentation and cataloguing of the manuscript fragments discovered in 2011 (hereafter, the Candle Room fragments) took place in December 2012 under the direction of Davis, with the assistance of Schriever, Elizabeth Davidson, and Mary Farag. The photos were taken with a Sony NEX-5N mounted on a tripod in one room of the SCA inspectorate. Fragments with writing on them were assigned individual numbers — recorded by locus, find number, and fragment number — and then photographed on recto and verso. Each fragment thus has two photographs, labeled a and b, for each side. The investigators created a photo log, with notes about physical features, and made preliminary tran- scriptions of selected pieces with legible script. A photographic database of Candle Room fragments has been made publicly available on the Yale University Egyptological Institute in Egypt website, , to facilitate wider study of these finds. Once photo-documentation was complete, Davidson, Farag, and Schriever examined the Coptic fragments one by one and produced rough transcrip- tions of the letters extant on each. Davis examined the fragments written in Arabic and transcribed their contents. Due to time limitations, fragments containing more textual content were prioritized during this initial phase of on-site investigation. More work on the fragments themselves will be done in future seasons. The manuscript fragments can primarily be divided in two ways: by material and by language. Two materials, parchment and paper, pre- dominate among the extant fragments. The languages that appear on the ancient fragments are Coptic and Arabic. In addition, pieces of leather and other bookbinding materials also comprised part of the find, as well as some modern paper with Arabic prayers, pieces of newsprint in Arabic, French, and Modern Greek, and an imported Austrian matchbox. Frag- ments that lacked writing were counted and sorted by material, but were not individually numbered or photographed.

997680.indb7680.indb 7373 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 74 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

Altogether 1,336 parchment, paper, and leather fragments were recorded (see Table 1 below). Twenty-five pieces of leather and binding materials were found that probably comprised portions of codex covers and binding. Thirty-eight pieces of modern Arabic, French, and Greek text comprised part of the same find. The majority of them are newspaper fragments, though some are modern hand-written prayers and petitions and one is a piece of an Arabic school-text exercise. The remaining pieces, 1,273 in number, are parchment and paper frag- ments. The amount of parchment far exceeds that of paper. Almost three quarters of the fragments are made of parchment, 922 pieces or 69%, while paper composes about one quarter of the find, 351 pieces or 26%.

TABLE 1

Material Type Number of Fragments Percentage Parchment 922 of 1336 69% Paper 351 of 1336 26% Other 63 of 1336 5%

Coptic and Arabic scripts are attested with different frequency in the parchment and paper fragments (see Table 2 below). Among the 922 parchment fragments, 377 pieces contain identifiably Coptic script (41%). Only five parchment pieces contain identifiably Arabic script (less than 1%). The rest of the fragments contain traces of ink or are completely blank. Some fragments are made of very fine parchment. Others are made of rather coarse parchment, in which the hair follicles are easily visible and the tint of the parchment is relatively dark. Among the 351 paper fragments, seventy-eight pieces contain identi- fiably Coptic script (22%). Forty-nine contain identifiably Arabic script (15%). The rest of the paper fragments contain traces of ink or are com- pletely blank. While hardly any Arabic appears among the parchment frag- ments, the paper fragments present a more even distribution (roughly a 3:2 ratio of Coptic to Arabic texts).

TABLE 2

Material Type Coptic Script Arabic Script Parchment at least 377 at least 5 (41%) (less than 1%) Paper at least 78 at least 51 (22%) (15%)

997680.indb7680.indb 7474 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 75

What the parchment and paper fragments have in common is the fact that a large number of pieces stem from the margins of pages, approximately 40% in each collection. The calculation of 40% includes blank fragments and pieces in which a side margin is evident. If fragments with only trace amounts of ink also come from the margins of the manuscripts, then in the case of parchment the percentage would rise from 40% to 66%. In the case of paper, it would rise from 39% to 68%. This suggests that a good number of the fragments may have broken or fallen off the edges of manuscript leaves — a kind of codicological “dandruff.”5 Most, if not all, of the Coptic fragments appear to be written in book hand and therefore probably derive from literary or liturgical manuscripts. In terms of scripts, both unimodular and bimodular writing are attested.6 Some fragments contain a type of script with serifs in the form of a small knob;7 some also have decorative features such as crosses or faces.8 In the next section, we will discuss one identified piece from a literary codex. The evidence for liturgical codices includes a fragment with the abbreviation for hermēneia (ϩ􀁹ⲣ) [Fig. 5].9 Hermēneiai are excerpted col- lections of verses from the Psalms common in liturgical books called typika.10 Other fragments contain rubrics — text written in red ink with directives for reading performance — which may also indicate liturgical function.11 What conclusions can be drawn from this survey? How might we explain the large incidence of parchment in comparison with paper? Can this collection of fragments be taken as a representative sample of the White Monastery library at some particular point in its history? Does it mark a time when parchment manuscripts had become brittle and needed

5 The authors would like to credit Kelly Shand of Yale Divinity Library for this metaphor. 6 For an example of unimodular script, see Fragment 1129.3124.6; for an example of bimodular script, see Fragment 1129.3124.8. In unimodular script, letters such as omicron and epsilon are accorded similar amounts of space as other letters. In bimodular script, letters such as omicronand epsilon are accorded almost half the space allotted to other letters. 7 For an example, see Fragment 1129.3124.56. 8 For two examples, see Fragments 1129.3124.15 and 1129.3124.95. 9 Fragment 1129.3149.28. 10 Diliana Atanassova, “The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy: Retro- spect and Prospect,” in: Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic, and Radle (eds.), RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:ProceedingsoftheFourthInternational CongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Lebanon,10–15July,2012, Eastern Christian Studies 22, Leuven 2014, 47–96, at 50. 11 For an example, see Fragment 1129.3124.20.

997680.indb7680.indb 7575 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 76 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

to be copied onto paper? Or did the Candle Room function as a storage space for manuscripts that required repair or replacement? At this stage, we do not yet possess definitive answers to this set of questions. The identification of one small Coptic fragment, however, has represented a significant step forward in our knowledge about the textual and architec- tural history of the White Monastery.

A Case Study of a Fragment from Shenoute’s Corpus

Our investigations thus far have yielded one fragment (Fragment 1129.3124.1) that can be identified with certainty [Fig. 6]. The fragment belongs to the writings of Shenoute of Atripe, the leader of the monastery in the fourth and fifth centuries. The remainder of this paper will introduce the frag- ment and the method of its identification, and discuss the implications of this discovery for the history of the Candle Room fragments. Fragment 1129.3124.1 was found in the large break in the plaster floor running parallel to the north wall of the Candle Room (Locus 1129). This locus yielded the largest quantity of fragments, some 728 paper and parchment with ink. The fragment in question is from a parchment codex. In its longest dimensions, it measures 6.5 cm wide and 5.5 cm tall — making it one of the largest fragments in the find. Three lines of Coptic writing are par- tially visible on both the recto and verso, with a small fold concealing part of the text on the verso.12 The writing includes page numbers — thus the recto is numbered as page 173 of the codex [Ⲣ􀁹Ⲟ􀁹Ⲅ], while the verso is page 174 [Ⲣ􀁹Ⲟ􀁹Ⲇ]. Besides this fragment, we have identified only three others that may preserve page numbers.13 For any of the Candle Room fragments, there are two possible methods of identification. The first possibility is to identify the text. This requires the preservation of meaningful quantities of writing: ideally, not just a few letters, but at least a word or two. For the vast majority of the Candle Room fragments, textual identification is not a realistic option, as the fragments are simply too small. Of the 855 fragments with ink, about 450 have identifiable letters. But of these, only about two dozen, at best, preserve enough text to offer any hope for the identification of textual contents.

12 Due to the brittle condition of the parchment, it was not possible to examine the text underneath the fold. 13 Fragments 1128.3110.55, 1128.3111.19, and 1129.3124.480.

997680.indb7680.indb 7676 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 77

A second possibility is to identify the codex from which a particular fragment derives. This method focuses on codicological features of the manuscript, such as paleography, the use of red ink, decorative strokes and other ornamentation, the width of the columns and the margins, the pagination scheme, and the succession of hair and flesh within the quire. Codicological reconstruction has been a primary axis of research in Coptic studies since the inception of the field, and a substantial amount of manuscript data is available for codices thought to have come from the White Monastery library.14 For the majority of the Can- dle Room fragments, codicological identification is the most promising possibility. In the case of Fragment 1129.3124.1, both methods worked in con- cert. Identification of the text was made first, which facilitated identifi- cation of the codex. The first clue was the sequence of letters in the top line of the recto: ϩ-ⲛ-ⲛ-ⲉ-ⲓ-ⲥ-ⲩ. This seemed likely to represent the Coptic words ϩⲣⲁⲓ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲓⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ, “in these congregations.” The phrase is extremely common in Shenoute’s collection of disciplinary epis- tles called the Canons, where it is used to designate the monastic federa- tion as a whole. The second and decisive clue proved to be the second line of text on the recto, where one can read the sequence, ϯ-ⲉ-ϫ-ⲛ. In fact, ϯ ⲉϫⲛ- is a relatively uncommon construction meaning “stand up for” or “fight on behalf of.” By searching the Shenoutean corpus for this construction in conjunction with the phrase “in these congregations,” we were able to identify the fragment as part of book 9 of Shenoute’s Canons. This section of Canons 9 is known from two other manuscripts, both edited by Johannes Leipoldt in 1913.15 These manuscripts allow us to restore the fragmentary text as follows (the letters visible on the fragment are highlighted).

14 The Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (CMCL) project, directed by Tito Orlandi, has made codicological reconstruction one of its primary goals. This digital phi- lology project recently moved from Rome to Hamburg, and its website can be accessed at the following address: . Stephen Emmel did invaluable work in reconstructing the codices that contain Shenoute’s writings: see Emmel, Shenoute’s LiteraryCorpus, 2 vols., CSCO 599–600, Subsidia 111–112, Leuven 2004. 15 Johannes Leipoldt (ed.), Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, vol. 4, CSCO 73, Paris 1913, 96–111 (= fr. 71), at 100; cited by Walter E. Crum, ACopticDic- tionary, 1939, 393b (s.v. ϯ ⲉϫⲛ-).

997680.indb7680.indb 7777 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 78 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛϭⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲩⲙⲉ ⲏ If people are found to be amiable or ⲉⲩⲟ ⲛϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲉϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥⲣⲡⲉⲧϩⲟⲟⲩ friendly to evil-doers in these ϩⲣⲁⲓ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲓⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ ⲉⲩϯ congregations, standing up for those ⲉϫⲛⲛⲉⲧⲕⲱ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ who abandon the commandments that ⲉⲧⲕⲏ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ are laid down for us, they shall be ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲓⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ. expelled from these congregations. ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲣⲁⲓ At all times, if people among us are ⲛϩⲏⲧⲛ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϫⲉⲥⲉⲟ learned to be in contention with one ⲛϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ ⲛϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ another for a three-day period — not ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲉⲃⲟⲧ to mention three months, certainly ⲙⲁⲗⲓⲥⲧⲁ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ not years — whether it be males or ⲟⲩϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ females, they and those who know ⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ about them shall be treated in ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ accordance with the same judgment, ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲓⲕⲣⲓⲙⲁ ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ for they did not tell the whole ϫⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩⲧⲁⲙⲉⲧⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲱⲅⲏ ⲧⲏⲣⲥ congregation and those who rule over ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ. ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ them. It is they who shall decide ⲥⲣⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ ⲉⲕⲁⲁⲩ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲓⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ whether it is advantageous to leave ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛⲙⲉϣⲧⲡϩⲱⲃ them in these abodes, once the matter ϩⲓⲧⲛⲙⲙⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲣⲉ ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ has been investigated with the help ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲁⲩ. of the reports and all the siblings. ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ If it isn’t, they shall be expelled ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲛ. from us.16

The recto text is part of a rule mandating the expulsion of any and in the congregations for defending who rebel against the monastic rules. The verso, meanwhile, concerns monks and who feud with one another. The text on the fragment specifies that witnesses will be brought to testify about the feud, after which the quarreling monastics may or may not be expelled. On the basis of Stephen Emmel’s extensive codicological analysis and reconstruction of Shenoute’s works, we were able to identify the codex from which the fragment derives. It is part of codex BV, a manuscript of Canons, book 9, which originally comprised at least 160 leaves, although only twenty-nine leaves are known to survive.17 Fragment 1129.3124.1 from the Candle Room increases this number to thirty: its two sides may now be designated as BV 173 and BV 174.18

16 Ed. and trans. Bentley Layton, TheCanonsofOurFathers:MonasticRulesof Shenoute, Oxford 2014, 262–263. The quoted text and translation corresponds to rule nos. 405 and 406 in Layton’s corpus. 17 See Emmel, Shenoute’sLiteraryCorpus (see n.14), 1:231–33 and 2:778–92 (with further bibliography on this codex). 18 This identification has been confirmed by Stephen Emmel (per. litt., Jan. 4, 2012). Emmel further observed that the succession of flesh and hair in the fragment corresponds to the placement of pp.173 and 174 in BV as the 7th leaf of quire 11.

997680.indb7680.indb 7878 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 79

Implications for the Textual and Architectural History of the White Monastery

The identification of Codex BV helps us to contextualize the Candle Room fragments in relation to the dispersal of the White Monastery library. In many ways, BV is a typical White Monastery codex: its leaves were dismembered and sold off piecemeal over a span of 125 years, during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.19

ThreeStagesofDissemination This dissemination took place in three main stages.20 The first stage may be identified with the earliest documented sale of White Monastery manu- scripts, around 1780, when missionaries in Egypt delivered assorted Coptic texts to Cardinal Stefano Borgia in Rome. At least six leaves from Codex BV were included in this earliest batch, and published in Georg Zoega’s catalogue in 1810. But the rest of the codex must have stayed behind in the monastery. Over a century later, additional leaves were removed during a second stage of manuscript dispersal. This stage corresponds to the efforts by

19 The earliest publication of leaves from Codex BV was by Georg Zoega, Catalogus codicumcopticorummanuscriptorumquiinMuseoBorgianovelitrisadservantur, Rome 1810, 380 (no. 184). Other portions of this codex have subsequently been edited, cata- logued, and discussed in Johannes Leipoldt, SchenutevonAtripeunddieEntstehungdes nationalägyptischenChristentums, TUGACL 25.1, Leipzig 1903, 6 (c.2, c.3, c.6), 9 (f.1); W. E. Crum, CatalogueoftheCopticManuscriptsintheBritishMuseum, London 1905, 57–58 (no. 169), 106 (no. 235), 518 (no. 169); Leipoldt, SinuthiiArchimandritaeVitaet OperaOmnia, 3 vols. CSCO 41, 42, 73, Paris 1906–1913, III.37–9; IV.vii (no. 64; cf. p. 106– 107), vii–viii (no. 65), 90–92 (= cod. C), 159–161 (= cod. A); Émile Amélineau, Œuvres deSchenoudi:Textecopteettraductionfrançaise, 2 vols., Paris 1907–14, I.lxii–lxvi; II.cx, cxv–cxvi, 111–114, 200–204; Henri Munier, Manuscritscoptes, CGC Nos. 9201–9304, 1916, 112–113; K. H. Kuhn, “The Observance of the ‘Two Weeks’ in Shenoute’s Writings,” in: Kurt Aland and Frank L. Cross(eds.), PapersPresentedtotheSecondInter- nationalConferenceonPatristicStudiesHeldatChristChurch,Oxford,1955, 2 vols., TUGACL 63–64, Louvain 1957, II.427–34, at 427 (note 3); Walter Beltz, “Katalog der koptischen Handscriften der Papyrus-Sammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu ,” APF 26–27 (1978–80), 111 (no. III 50); Paulinus Bellet, “Nou Testimoni de les Lletres de Sant Antoni (Cambridge, University Lib. Add. 1876.2),” StudiaMonastica 31 (1989), 251–257, at 252 (note 6); Dwight W. Young, CopticManuscriptsfromtheWhiteMonas- tery:WorksofShenute, MPER 22, Vienna 1993, 48 (no. 8), 59–60. 20 Our account of this history of manuscript sale and dissemination draws from Emmel, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus, (see n. 14) I.18–24; Emmel, “The Library of the White Monastery in Upper Egypt,” (see n. 2) 5–14; and Catherine Louis, “The Fate of the White Monastery Library,” in: and Hany N. Takla (eds.) Christianity andMonasticisminUpperEgypt.Volume1:andSohag, Cairo/New York 2008, 83–90.

997680.indb7680.indb 7979 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 80 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

Gaston Maspero in the mid-1880s to purchase the rest of the collection at the White Monastery. Maspero’s efforts were thwarted: although he and his French colleagues were able to purchase a large proportion of the manuscripts and bring them to Paris, many other pieces were sold off in separate lots to libraries and collections around the globe over the next decade and a half. In the case of Codex BV, leaves appeared in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, and were variously published by Johannes Leipoldt, Walter Crum, Émile Amélineau, and others. A third and final stage of the dispersal occurred when the White Mon- astery church underwent renovations in 1906. A final cache of documents was discovered; shortly thereafter the rest of the monastery’s manuscript holdings were sold off. This discovery seems to be the source for a final batch of leaves from Codex BV, which currently reside in the and in the in Cairo. Presumably, the upper corner of BV 173/174 broke off sometime during this long process of dispersal. The rest of the leaf was taken away, and this fragment was left behind. Since the rest of the leaf is not extant in any collection, we cannot pinpoint exactly when this occurred. Still, it is possible to draw important conclusions about the history of the White Monastery manuscripts and the use of the Candle Room. One longstanding question related to the history of the White Monastery has been: Where might the monastic “library” have been located? How and where did the monks store their books? From the thousands of leaves now preserved in far-flung places — from Cairo to Cambridge, from Paris to St. Petersburg, from to New Haven — scholars have been able to get a glimpse of the impressively expansive size of the monastery’s original manuscript holdings; but they remain vexed over the question of where these texts would have been found within the walls of the monastery.

ThreeKindsofEvidence

The ancient church at the White Monastery has been a primary focus of scholars attempting to identify where these manuscripts were originally kept. We have three main kinds of evidence for the possible location or locations of such archives at different times during the monastery’s history. The first kind of evidence is architectural. Peter Grossmann has iden- tified a room in the southeast corner of the church as the location of the ancient library: the room features a monumental façade at its entrance

997680.indb7680.indb 8080 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 81

and a series of wall recesses along its interior walls, which Grossmann interprets as receptacles of bookshelves.21 Such architectural features, however, are the only indications that the room may have served this purpose and its identification as the monastery’s ancient library remains provisional. The second kind of evidence is the written testimony of modern Euro- pean visitors. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the English Coptologist Walter Crum (1904), drawing on the testimony of a certain Canon Oldfield who had paid a visit to the White Monastery and inter- viewed the monks there, reported on a “small room to the north of the central apse, entered from the north apse by a narrow passage” that bore Coptic wall inscriptions labeling different corpora of biblical, patristic, historical, and hagiographical texts.22 Although the inscriptions are no longer extant, the place Crum described is probably the small sacristy or pastophorion to the north of the apse, connected to the choir or khurus of the church by means of a low archway.23 In an earlier account, Gaston Maspero wrote in 1892 about a “hidden cell” containing “incomplete books, detached leaves of discarded , Gospels, or collections of sermons that were once used in the monas- tery… heaped pell-mell on the floor of a small room located behind the choir in a keep that was connected with the body of the church only by means of a very narrow secret passage.”24 Was Crum referring to the

21 Peter Grossmann, ChristlicheArchitekturinÄgypten, Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One: The Near and Middle East. Volume 62, Leiden 2002, 528–36, esp. 532: “Dieser Bibliothekssaal ist auf allen vier Seiten mit regelmäßig angeordneten hohen Nischen für die Unterbringung der Buchrollen und der damals bereits üblich gewordenen buchmäßig angelegten Codices versehen.” 22 W. E. Crum (“Inscriptions from Shenoute’s Monastery,” JTS 5 (1904), 552–569, at 552–553) referred to this small room as “the Secret Chamber”; see also Wladimir de Bock, Matériauxpourserviràl’archéologiedel’Égyptechrétienne, St. Petersburg 1901, 39ff. 23 Sofia Schaten and Jacques van der Vliet (“Monks and Scholars in the Panopolite Nome: The Epigraphic Evidence,” in: Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla (eds.),Chris- tianityandMonasticisminUpperEgypt.Volume1:AkhmimandSohag, Cairo/New York 2008, 131–142, at 137–138) are convinced that these inscriptions must have been “writ- ten on the walls of the north pastophorion,” that any books stored there would have been “primarily those used for liturgical reading” (consistent with the typical function of a sacristy), and that in any case the contents of the room “cannot automatically be equated with thelibrary of the monastery.” 24 Gaston Maspero, Fragmentsdelaversionthébainedel’AncienTestament, MMAF 6.1– 2, Paris 1892, 1; trans. Stephen Emmel, “The Library of the White Monastery in Upper Egypt,” (see n. 2) 8, note 6. Gustave Lefebvre, in his 1920 article on the White Monastery (“Deir-el-Abiad,” in Dictionnaired’archéologiechrétienneetdeliturgie, vol. 4.1, Paris 1920, 459–502, at 498–501), would later surmise that a second-floor northeastern chamber

997680.indb7680.indb 8181 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 82 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

same room as Maspero? If so, it would mean that by the time Canon Oldfield visited the monastery these large heaps of manuscripts had been removed and only the inscriptions remained. Another possibility is that Maspero was referring to a different room. There are two small chambers located above the pastophorion — one now used as a chapel dedicated to St. Cyril, the other the aforementioned Candle Room — both accessed via a flight of stairs in the northeastern corner of the church. To complicate matters further, in a later account written in 1906, Maspero reported on the discovery of books in what he describes as “a new storage chamber” used during the early twentieth-century renovation of the church’s northeast corner by the Comité: In 1906, when some repairs were made at the Monastery under the care of the administration of endowments, a new storage chamber was used by the workers, and there came to light a significant quantity of manuscripts, in addition to superb [pieces made of] brass. The Antiquities Service took hundreds of pages, which it conferred over to the Jacobite Coptic Patriar- chate in Cairo. Then, after the archaeological supervision of the work was withdrawn, entire books and hundreds of fragments began to appear on the market...25

Maspero’s “new storage chamber” would seem to be a different location than the “hidden cell” containing books that he wrote about in 1892.26 If so, Maspero (1892), Crum (1904), and Maspero (1906) attest to as many as three different locations where books were (or had been) stored. In any case, today none of the rooms in question — the pastophorion, the Chapel of St. Cyril, or the Candle Room — has any evidence of surviving inscriptions, and we are left with only the indirect testimony of these European visitors.

was in fact the place to which Maspero was referring (the place where the White Monastery manuscripts now in the Bibliothèque nationale were found). 25 Maspero, “Compte rendu de J. B. Chabot, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque nationale, Revuedesbibliothèques 16 (1906), 351–367,” Revuecritique 43 (1907), 322–323, at 323; Louis, “Fate of the White Monastery Library,” (see n. 20) 89. About 100 of the fragments conferred to the Coptic Patriarchate in 1906 were later pur- chased by the British Museum through the intermediation of the Rev. George Horner: for a concise account, see Bentley Layton, CatalogueofCopticLiteraryManuscriptsinthe BritishLibraryAcquiredsincetheYear1906, London 1987, xxxi. 26 Catherine Louis (“Fate of the White Monastery Library,” 83–84) has referred to this storage chamber as “a third hidden room” that “contained the last pages that the monas- tery revealed.” Louis’ statement that it was a “third hidden room” seems to be based on the assumption that each of the stages of manuscript dissemination was associated with a different “hidden room” within the church. This is not a necessary assumption, however, as the manuscripts being sold at each stage could have come from more than one location at a time.

997680.indb7680.indb 8282 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 83

The third kind of evidence for the storing of books is the archaeologi- cal discovery of texts, and here the Candle Room provides us with our only direct and indisputable evidence regarding where manuscripts were stored in the White Monastery church. The Candle Room is an improb- able match for the room where Canon Oldfield (according to Crum) saw his inscriptions.27 To reach the Candle Room from the khurus and main sanctuary, one must walk through the pastophorion, under a low door lintel, around a corner, up a flight of steps, around another corner, past the second-floor chamber (the Chapel of St. Cyril), up another flight of steps, to a landing that gives access to the Candle Room (to the left) and a third flight of stairs leading to the roof (to the right). It is a more probable match for one of Maspero’s two rooms: the “hidden cell” in the keep described in 1892, or the “new storage chamber” used during the restoration work conducted by the Comité beginning in 1906. Should the rest of BV 173/174 ever turn up in a collection whose acquisition can be linked to a particular phase of manuscript dispersal, it would be possible to adjudicate more definitively between these two possibilities.

Final Conclusions

What final conclusions can we draw about the Candle Room and the texts it contained? First, if the last batch of White Monastery manuscripts was sold at the time of the 1906 renovations to the church, we know with certainty that the fragments found in the Candle Room must have already been deposited in that room before then and not after. Second, in the context of the ongoing work by Layton and Burgoyne to document the current state of the building and to reconstruct its earlier stages of devel- opment, our discovery also proves that the Candle Room existed, was accessible, and functioned as a storage space for books prior to those 1906 renovations. What we do not know is when the leaves to which the fragments belonged were originally deposited in the room or when they were sold and removed from the site, but we can draw certain general conclusions from the manuscript record. As mentioned earlier, Fragment 1129.3124.1 comes from an identifiable codex that was dismembered and sold off over the course of approximately 125 years, when the manuscripts of the White Monastery were successively removed during three main phases

27 Crum, “Inscriptions,” 552–53.

997680.indb7680.indb 8383 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 84 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

of dissemination. For at least a portion of this history, the Candle Room housed the remains of manuscript BV and potentially hundreds of other codices, some of which may still be identified from the fragments left behind. In this way, YMAP’s excavations — and one tiny piece of parch- ment — have begun to help advance our knowledge of both the textual and architectural history of the Monastery of St. Shenoute and its monu- mental church.

Yale University Pierson College Master’s Office 261 Park Street New Haven, CT 06511 [email protected]

997680.indb7680.indb 8484 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 85

Fig. 1. Architectural plans of the White Monastery church by Hans Gerhard Evers, Rolf Romero, and the members of the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt based on survey work conducted in October 1962 (Schnitte L-L and G-G, previ- ously unpublished), courtesy of Peter Grossmann. Slightly different versions of these same drawings appeared in H.-G. Evers and R. Romero, “Rotes und Weisses Kloster bei Sohag. Probleme der Rekonstruktion,” in ChristentumamNil, ed. K. Wessel (Verlag Aurel Bongers: Recklinghausen 1964), 175–94, figs. B and R. Photograph by Stephen J. Davis.

Fig. 2. Peter Grossmann, “Zur Stiftung und Bauzeit der großen Kirche des Schenuteklosters bei Sūhāg (Oberägypten),” ByzantinischeZeitschrift101 (2008), 35–54, fig. 1. Courtesy of Peter Grossmann.

997680.indb7680.indb 8585 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 86 S.J. DAVIS – G. PYKE – E. DAVIDSON – M. FARAG – D. SCHRIEVER

Fig. 3. After excavation of floor loci (SW, W, N) in the Candle Room. Photograph by Gillian Pyke.

Fig. 4. Recess in eastern wall of the Candle Room after excavation in 2012. Photograph by Gillian Pyke.

997680.indb7680.indb 8686 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 RECENT DISCOVERY OF MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS IN THE WHITE MONASTERY 87

Fig. 5. Parchment fragment 1129.3149.28a–b, with the abbreviation ϩ􀁹ⲣ (hermēneia) visible on side b. Photograph by Stephen J. Davis.

Fig. 6. Parchment fragment 1129.3124.1a–b from Shenoute’s Canons 9. Photograph by Stephen J. Davis.

997680.indb7680.indb 8787 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33