I have been
interested for a while in the importance of marginal annotations for the study
of manuscripts and the texts they contain. In the same period I have also been
working on the attestation of the so-called First Epistle of Baruch in Syriac
manuscripts. In this blog post I combine these two interests, discussing a
marginal note in the 6th or 7th century Codex
Ambrosianus, also known as the important ms 7a1 of the Leiden List of Old
Testament Peshiṭta Manuscripts.
This blog
post deals with an annotation in the margin of folio 177v, situated close to
the first column containing the end of chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8
of the First Epistle of Baruch. The note reads q (with a superlinear stroke)
dzdyq’. The note is written vertically, in red ink, by a second hand, and
according to Antonio M. Ceriani, in “charachtere maronitico” (Monumenta V,2, 177n83). I read this
annotation as a liturgical note and I would translate it as “Lection for [the
commemoration of] the just”, suggesting that the passage in the column next to
it was intended by someone, who at a certain point engaged with the codex, to
be read at an occasion of commemoration of the just (pl.), alternatively at
a commemoration of a particular just person (sg.).
A small
annotation such as this one may seem (literally) a marginal detail. However, it
may turn out to be an interesting detail, since it sheds some additional light
on a hypothesis that has been repeated in scholarship ever since Ceriani
published the facsimile edition of the codex in 1876/1883. In the Praefatio
of this edition, Ceriani suggestes that the codex was probably not produced for
ecclesiastical use, since it includes neither liturgical notes, nor
an index of lessons. He notes, though, that the occasional liturgical note occurs
in the columns of some texts, but suggests that this is due to the fact that
the scribe copied the texts in question from an exemplar that contained such
notes (p. 8).
Ceriani’s
hypothesis was reiterated and discussed critically by Konrad D. Jenner in, for
example, the 1993 article “A Review of the Methods by Which Syriac Biblical and
Related Manuscripts Have Been Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks,”
and other scholars have later chimed in. In this article, Jenner engages
Ceriani’s arguments one by one. He also points out that, in addition to the
notes in the texts of the columns mentioned by Ceriani, the Ambrosianus also
contains some liturgical notes in the margins added by later hands. He points to a series of notes in Genesis
(1-39), to nine notes mentioning the Consecration of the Myron/Chrism (my
inspection of the manuscript suggests that there are more), and to two
liturgical titles in Genesis and Numbers. Jenner concludes that the codex could
have been used in public worship after all (pp. 256-57).
Despite Jenner’s
finds, Ceriani and his hypothesis continues to be referenced in books and
articles discussing the codex and/or the writings contained in it. It is repeated
even in recent publications, and I must confess that I am myself guilty of that
crime (Lied, “Reception of the Pseudepigrapha”). Sometimes Ceriani’s hypothesis
is even rephrased in research literature, now saying that the codex has not
been used liturgically. In other words, an argument about production and intent
has become an argument about later use.
The note qdzdyq’
on folio 177v of the Codex Ambrosianus displays a quite common format for
liturgical annotations in Syriac biblical manuscripts. The qoph with the superlinear stroke is
a widely used abbreviation for qryn’, “lection.” It should be noted,
furthermore, that the note is written in red ink (The red ink does not show
neither in the printed facsimile edition, nor in the online pdf, but it is easy
to spot in the manuscript itself). Hence, it generally resembles the format of rubrics
in Syriac manuscripts, and appears similar to the liturgical notes that were in
fact copied in the columns of the Codex Ambrosianus by the scribe for instance,
in Job (folio 62v, column 1, line 13) and in 1 Samuel (folio 82r, column 1,
line 15). It is likely that the note on folio 177v is recorded in this way to
appear like a rubric. Anyhow, it serves as a bookmark, noting that this is a
reading for the commemoration of the just.
As noted above,
the marginal annotation appears close to the column containing Ep Bar 8:1 (also
identified and known, imprecisely, as 2 Bar 85:1). This means that the note is
located in the proximity of the first line of a passage that is copied as a
lection in a handful of Syriac lectionary manuscripts, and which is surely
appropriate reading at a commemoration of the just. Although of varying length
(Ep Bar 8:1-7, or Ep Bar 8:1-15, or Ep Bar
8:1-3 and 8-15), this excerpted passage is attested in, for instance, Add 14486
(folio 74v), Add 14485 (folios 63v -64r), and Add 14687 (folios 74r-75v) of the
British Library. It is also present in a manuscript found in the Church of St
George in Bartella (dated 1466 ce)
and a manuscript in the Monastery of St Mark in Jerusalem (dated 1559 ce; I am indebted to the work of the
Peshiṭta Institute [Willem Baars], and grateful to Jenner for pointing me to
the last two manuscripts).
In these manuscripts the excerpted passage is scripted to be read, for example, on the
Sunday before Lent, on the Sunday of the departed, and for the commemoration of
saints. The term dzdyq’ (in the
plural), as well as the event of the commemoration of the just, appears in,
e.g., the gospel lectionary manuscript Add 14490 of the British Library (folio
264v), among other commemoration days attributed to the apostles, martyrs, patriarchs,
etc. In other words, a hypothesis might be that the annotation on folio 177v of
the Codex Ambrosianus points to a passage that has been known to this later
active reader as a lection read at occasions of commemoration and for this
reason he may have decided to make note of the location of the passage in the margin.
As
mentioned above, this note in the margin may not be a marginal detail.
First, it
adds one more example to Jenner’s list of annotations by later hands. The
number of liturgical annotations in the Ambrosianus is still not high. Compared
to other relevant biblical manuscripts, the contrary is rather the case. But
the notes are there, and they suggest that this codex may well have been used
liturgically, at least by some and on some occasions. In other words, although the
Codex Ambrosianus may originally neither have been produced, nor offered to the monastery that kept it (cf. the colophon, folio 330r), in order to be applied liturgically,
that did not prevent some later users from using it in this way.
Second,
these occasional annotations in the Codex Ambrosianus invite an insight from
the field of book history that cannot be repeated too often – namely that
although a given manuscript may have been produced with a particular use in
mind, the intentions of the producers are often not obeyed by later users.
Codices such as the Ambrosianus have lived long lives and they may have been
part of a variety of practices. Logically, we cannot use a hypothesis about
intent of production to say something about later use. Still, there is this tendency
in scholarship to focus on the origin and to make the judgment of that origin valid
to the otherwise long history of a given manuscript. The origin is allowed to
decide what the manuscript “is,” whatever happens to it later, since, after
all, that was what the manuscript once was and was meant to be. This line of
reasoning implies that we privilege one point in time over all the others, and
we overlook signs of later usage which could have been important correctives to
our overall understanding of a manuscript. This scholarly focus also implies
that we stop taking interest in the history of the manuscript at the point when
it becomes an artifact of relevance to social practice. The result is that we
lose sight of the social and cultural functions the codex may have had to those
who engaged with it, although this later engagement may be an interesting topic
for discussion per se.
Third, this
nuancing of the scholarly use of Ceriani’s hypothesis matters to those of us who work on 2 Baruch
and 4 Ezra, and their reception history. The inclusion of these two apocalypses,
as well as Josephus’s Jewish War, Book 6, in the codex has been mentioned as
one possible reason why the codex was not used liturgically (Baars, “Neue
Textzeugen,” 477n3). However, given that the observations above are correct,
the Codex Ambrosianus does display signs of occasional liturgical use,
and hence the inclusion of these unexpected writings may not have been a disqualifying
element after all – at least not to all users.
Baars, Willem.
“Neue Textzeugen der syrischen Baruchapokalypse.” Vetus Testamentum 13.4 (1963): 476-78.
Ceriani,
Antonio M. Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae V, 2. Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosianae Mediolani, 1868.
Ceriani, Antonio
M. Translatio
Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano, sec. fere VI photolithographice
edita. Volume
2. Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosianae Mediolani, 1883.
Jenner,
Konrad D. “A Review of the Methods by Which Syriac Biblical and Related
Manuscripts Have Been Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks,” ARAM
(1993):255-66.
Jenner, Konrad D. “De perikopentitels van de
geïllustreerde Syrische kanselbijbel van Parijs (MS Paris, Bibliothèque
Nationale, Syriaque 341). Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de oudste Syrische
perikopenstelsels”, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit
Leiden, 1993.
Lied, Liv
Ingeborg. “The Reception of the Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Traditions: The Case
of 2 Baruch”. In ‘Noncanonical’ Religious Texts in Early Judaism and
Early Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. McDonald.
Library of Second Temple Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Lied, Liv
Ingeborg and Marilena Maniaci, eds. Bible as Notepad. Manuscripta
Biblica. Berlin: De Gruyter. In progress.
Thanks are due to Konrad D. Jenner, Jeff Childers, Philip M. Forness, and Wido T. van Peursen.
This
blog post is based on my research and is part of the wider dissemination of my
work. If you want to use the information in this post, please cite it!
Lied, Liv
Ingeborg. “Details in
the margin – not marginal details: A liturgical annotation in the Codex
Ambrosianus,” posted on
Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture, 24 September 2015 (URL,
retrieved [date]).
If you want
to discuss any of the findings or hypotheses, feel free to contact me in the
commentary field below.
