THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF BAR ‘EBROYO’S CHRONICLE A Preliminary Study* Grigorios Bar ‘Ebroyo (1225/6-1285)1, the Syrian Orthodox maphrian of the East2, stands at a turning point in the history of Syriac literature 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 Patriarch. He was in charge of the Syrian Orthodox community settled in the Eastern regions, that is modern Northern Iraq and Iran. 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 Paul Bedjan 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 London 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 Saint 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, 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 Tur Abdin, written in 1481/2. 16 Yuḥanon Dolabani (Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Mardin, 1918-1969) asserts that the priest 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.