Scientific description of the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery: Review of the work of Beneshevich

The Sinai Library of Manuscripts has long attracted the attention of scientists around the world. The antiquity of the monastery, created in the 6th century by the Byzantine emperor Justinian, its remoteness and abandonment in the desert, its highly instructive long history, in which the characters are people of different nationalities, languages and even religions - all this gave the monastery a unique color and teased scientific curiosity with the tempting hope of finding here scientific treasures that had disappeared without a trace in other monasteries Orthodox East and West, subjected to the many different vicissitudes of world historical catastrophes. But also the remoteness of the monastery, the difficulty and duration of travel to the monastery in the past, through the hot waterless desert, on camels, and the lack of correct scientific cataloging of all the available book wealth of the Sinai monastery on the spot served as insurmountable obstacles for many scientists to this acquaintance. Few of the more persistent and courageous scientists neglected these difficulties and achieved the desired goal - to be and work in the Sinai monastery, but their efforts and labors were not always crowned with completely successful and fruitful results. The multitude of manuscripts available here in different languages, their extremely inconvenient storage in the past in chests and formats in various monastery paraklises and rooms or cells, in the absence of catalogs and even correct numbering on manuscripts - all this prevented scientists from forming, at least for themselves, a more or less clear and definite idea about the presence of the book wealth of this library, and even less about how important the manuscripts preserved here are in the world. scientifically. In a detailed preface to this description of the Sinai manuscripts, the learned canonist - professor of St. Petersburg University V.N. Beneshevich gives us a number of respectable names of inquisitive scientists who tried to penetrate the treasured secrets of the world treasury, which teased scientific curiosity for many centuries with the scientific discoveries expected from it, important in their results, and often did not even reach the famous monastery of St. Catherine, or even if they penetrated his book treasures, then without any visible or tactile result. Surprising as it may be, this is a fact beyond doubt: the scientific world became aware of the treasures of this famous library mainly through Russian scientists, or if through Western scientists (for example, Tischendorf), then still at the expense of the Russian government with the help of benefits from Russian people of science. Archimandrites Porfiry Uspensky and Antonin Kapustin, professors N. P. Kondakov, A. A. Vasiliev, I. A. Karabinov, A. A. Tsagarelin, N. Ya. Marr and others, with their works, managed to familiarize the scientific world with the riches of this treasury to a sufficient extent. And, of course, if the work of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky appeared not in 1911, but in the forties of the last century, we can say with complete confidence that it would have been greeted with enthusiasm by scientists around the world and would undoubtedly have served as a guide for many scientific works of the late 19th century. But now, especially after careful editing and extensive additions, carried out with knowledge of the matter and complete scientific conscientiousness by Prof. V.N. Beneshevich, this book cannot but be noticed in our and Western literature. Catalog of Sinai manuscripts, compiled by the scientist arch. Antonin Kapustin, which, unfortunately, has not yet been published, according to prof. V. N. Beneshevich, “deserves full approval for its accuracy and sufficient detail in indicating the contents of the manuscripts and the characteristics of their external features, as well as for the caution and attentiveness in dating” (p. XY1II). It is not surprising that this catalog was given a lot of attention in his work: “Catalogus codicum graecorum Sinaiticorum scripsit W. Gardthausen – Lipsiensis (OXon. 1886 an.)” by the famous Greek paleographer Gardhausen, who in this very catalog, as we have proven with complete clarity (Travels in the East and his scientific results, pp. 120–148, Kyiv. 1890), rewrote many pages of the catalog about. arch. Antonina entirely. The scientist Tischendorf made his travels to Sinai to study Greek manuscripts, with financial support from the Russian government, but the catalogue raisonne of Sinai manuscripts he promised did not appear. Scientists Professors Tsagarelli and Marr studied Georgian manuscripts in Sinai, who also went there with the help of our government and charitable societies. Professor of Arabic at the Jerusalem Cross School N. Sarrouf, former travel companion to Sinai. arch. Antonin and, with his material and moral support, compiled a catalog of Syrian manuscripts, also has not yet published his work. Consequently, the description of the Greek manuscripts belonging to the Sinai Monastery, compiled by the learned Bishop Porfiry Uspensky in 1845 and 1850 during his two-time stay there, does not lose its significance even at the present time. Firstly, in this description we see a scientific study and description of such manuscripts, which for some time were in the notorious Sinai courtyard in Cairo, called “Juwaniya”. Jan W. Hardthausen, nor other scientists saw these manuscripts and did not describe them in their scientific works. Secondly, this description of the manuscripts is of great autobiographical interest, for understanding the curious fact of how Bishop. Porfiry, in a comparatively short time, could carry out very extensive scientific enterprises, and why these plans and enterprises of his were not always distinguished by the thoroughness and accuracy that our demanding times demand for this kind of work. Thirdly, from this description we can extract very interesting features to characterize the bishop’s employees. Porfiry - Feofan, Bishop of Tambov, recluse, Pyotr Solovyov and Nikolai Krylov, who once served under the command of Bishop. Porfiria in the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. From the manuscripts of the former Juvani-Sinai Library, Bishop. Porphyry described in his work more or less thoroughly: 1) “Old Testament”, a manuscript on glassine from the 13th century, containing the book of Genesis (from verse 5 of chapter 16), the book of Exodus and the book of Leviticus (only a list of chapters) with interpretations by Josephus, Phil Aquilla, Symmachus, Phaedotion, Irenaeus, bishop. Melito of Sardinia, bishop. Philo, Didymus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Eusebius, Basil the Bishop, Sukens of Diocessarie, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Chrysostom, Acacius of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (mostly), Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesus, Cyril of Alexandria (quite often) and Sevirus of Antioch; 2) Psalter (in two copies) with the New Testament without the Apocalypse with miniatures, a manuscript on glassine, written in different handwritings, one of which belongs to the reader Theodore Trich, 1242; 3) New Testament on glassine from the 11th–12th centuries; 4) Selection of the Gospel Readings (Εκλογὴ τῶν εὐαγγελίων) on Pergamin in 1119; 5) Musical stichera from 1333, written by the hand of priest George Fuscal; 6) Stichirary ΧV; 7) Πανηγυρικὸν manuscript of the 11th–12th centuries; 8) Words of Gregory the Theologian (51) XIII century; 9) Words, St. I. Chrysostom, 9th–10th centuries; 10) Works of Cyril of Alexandria 1466 and many other manuscripts. In his scholarly studies at Sinai, Bishop Porfiry enjoyed the cooperation of his colleagues: Bishop Theophan (pp. 2, 79, 94, 109, 123, 130, 131, 171, 176, 182), Peter Solovyov (p. 88) and P. Krylov (p. 229). About manuscript No. 2, X-XI centuries, containing the Old Testament, bishop. Porfiry notes: “This manuscript was examined by my assistant, the hieromonk of our Jerusalem mission, Theophan. I myself did not look into it due to lack of time. Now I regret it” (p. 2). About manuscript No. 3, which contains the Old Testament, there is the same note: “and this manuscript was noted by the same Theophanes, but I did not look at it” (ibid.). “This whole manuscript,” writes Bishop. Porfiry about the handwritten Psalter with the New Testament of 1242 No. 71 (2123), written so small and so abbreviated under titles that it is very difficult to read. Several picturesque images placed in it were likened by my companion Pyotr Solovyov on transparent paper, but due to lack of time they were not painted, except for the portraits of Michael and John Palaeologus and except for the globe and the scepter of the Byzantine eagle and a hand with a scepter, which are painted with paints exactly the same” (p. 88). The manuscripts of the works of St. Theodore the Studite “were seen and noted not by me, but by my student Nikolai Krylov” (p. 229). Bishop Theophan, who accompanied St. Porfiry Uspensky on his scholarly excursion to Sinai as a hieromonk and a member of the Spiritual Mission to Jerusalem, fell to the share of Bishop Theophan, or, as Bishop Porfiry puts it, to note the following manuscripts: No. 3 Old Testament (p. 2), Georgian manuscript No. 66 (p. 94), Four Gospels of 1067 No. 74 (p. 94), Praxapostol No. 95 (p. 109), seven liturgies of Chrysostom in 4° Nos. 138–139 (p. 123), 5 mina on glassine and 45 mina, but “I didn’t note this on glassine or paper,” No. 165–214 (p. 130), two triodes on glassine M No. 221–222 (p. 131), Paraclitic in seven copies (p. 133), Stichirarion on glassine “with musical chants for the days with drawings of saints” M 316 (p. 171), Typikon No. 323 (p. 176, and Lives of the Saints, November No. 334 (p. 182). Undoubtedly, here Ave. Theophan became acquainted with Greek paleography and acquired an interest and love for ancient Greek patristic writing, which he studied in the quiet of his cell until his blessed death. Describing the Sinai manuscripts sometimes in great detail, St. Porfiry also compiled his own paleography. His methods in this regard were somewhat unique. With the help of his collaborator, the artist Solovyov, similarizing many handwritings of ancient writing from the Sinai manuscripts (pp. 88–234), which attracted his attention as a paleographer and expert on Greek manuscripts, Ave. Porfiry did not hesitate to sometimes tear out entire sheets from them (pp. 79, 91, 94, 111, 113, 115, 122, 123, 129, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 149, 154, 157, 158, 159, 167, 173, 209, 212, 234, 455), which in most cases are now kept in the Imperial public library. Sometimes he even tore out entire articles (p. 455) in 19 sheets (p. 451) and 25 sheets (p. 254), which also arrived along with his collection of manuscripts in the same library. It is with regret that we can now talk about the sheets torn out by Bishop Porfiry and now lost without a trace for science (pp. 159, 178, etc.). About similar losses in manuscripts, but made by other readers of the Sinai manuscripts, St. Porfiry himself expressed regret in his time, making, for example, the following remarks: “There is no continuation, no end. Lost. It’s a pity (p. 162), or “Further, 3 sheets of notebook 15 were torn out (but not by Bishop Porfiry!) because this was the entry of the first scribe”? (p. 226), or “Someone cut this article. It's a pity! (p. 357), etc. In the “Description of Greek Manuscripts of the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai,” some shadow is cast in this regard on the employees of St. Porphyry. About the manuscript Καινὴ Διαθήκη of the 13th century. No. 73 Ave. Porfiry noted: “my hieromonk Theophanes saw and noted this manuscript, not me.” Prof. V.N. Beneshevich says the following about this: “This means that Feofan took three sheets from it, which are now in the bishop’s collection. Porphyria Imperial. publ. bib. 291" (p. 94). The conclusion regarding the personality of Bishop Feofan is more than doubtful and even unlikely. First of all, the finding of torn sheets among the passages that once belonged to the bishop speaks against this. Porfiry and transferred by him to the Emperor. publ. Bible In our opinion, another conclusion is more plausible: Ave. Porfiry really did not read this manuscript due to lack of time, but he could tear out three sheets for the paleography he was compiling completely freely. Bishop Theophan does not need these sheets. However, to draw such a conclusion about St. Feofan prof. V.N. Beneshevich could, based on information in this regard regarding other satellites, etc. Porphyria. P. Krylov, for example, one of the bishop’s companions. Porfiry, donated 6 leaves from the Psalter to the late liturgist Archpriest K. T. Nikolsky, making a handwritten note: “Taken from the library of the Sinai Monastery. memory in 1850. From a heap of various scraps, very ancient ones “almost from the 5th century” (p. 651). He also delivered to the late Slavist I. J. Sreznevsky a sheet from the Glagolitic Sinai Service Book (Izvest. Imperial Archaeological Society vol. IV, century VI p. 494), published by L. Heitler. Turning now to the assessment of the scientific significance of labor. Ave. Porfiry, we must establish the fact that he originally conceived this work according to a very modest plan. Its title is as follows: “Wonderful manuscripts in the library of the Sinai Monastery and in the archbishop’s cells there.” But, having many collaborators, St. Porfiry described not only all the most important manuscripts located in the monastery and in the Cairo metokh of Juvania, but even the manuscripts “in no way remarkable and not worthy of attention” (pp. 109, 128), as well as Georgian manuscripts (p. 79), Slavic Glagolitic (ibid.) and even the printed Typic of 1604. (p. 177). The description of the Sinai manuscripts of St. Porphyry, with its scientific merits, significantly surpasses the description of the same manuscripts by the German paleographer W. Hardhausen, and for that alone already deserved publication, but under the pen of the hardworking and talented editor Prof. Beneshevich, it is now a very valuable contribution to science. The text of the descriptions, according to prof. Beneshevich, he checked “first of all directly from the copybooks, and then from the drafts of the bishop himself. Porphyria. Since it turned out that Porfiry did not always make extracts accurately and did not always read the manuscripts successfully, his spelling had to be greatly corrected even when there was no genuine ancient text at hand for this” (p. XXIII). Valuable in this description are especially the appendices with extensive extracts from the Taktikon of Nikon Divnogorets, “preserved only here in full in the original language” (pp. 238, 561–601). It remains for us to express our sincere regret that the learned editor “did not add any bibliographical instructions, because they would have greatly increased the volume of the volume, would have delayed its publication for a long time and would have been more appropriate at the end of the entire work (p. XX). We sincerely wish the tireless publisher to complete the useful work he has begun and to fill in what was promised and what is missing in the first volume of this work, although we, frankly speaking, would prefer to see all the bibliographic instructions in their places near the manuscripts, and not in the form of appendices or additions in the third volume of the description, which will undoubtedly complicate the reader to a significant extent. You might be interested in: