For a first installment see Hugoye 20.2 (2017),
419–434. The research leading to this article has received funding from
the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 679083 as
part of the research project “Transmission of Classical Scientific and
Philosophical Literature from Greek into Syriac and Arabic” (HUNAYNNET),
carried out at the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full copyright.
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
The second installment deals with an East Syriac philosophical
manuscript known as Mosul 35 preserved at the collection of the Chaldean
Patriarchate. Besides a somewhat imprecise description by A. Scher there is no
proper study of the manuscript and its content. The first part of the codex
includes works related with Aristotle’s Organon
(including two short lives of Aristotle), while the second part contains the
Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā by Gregory Bar
ʿEḇrōyō. A preliminary examination demonstrates that the manuscript is one of
the earliest East Syriac philosophical manuscripts produced in the early modern
period. Moreover, it is highly likely that it served as a model for at least
three manuscripts (Sachau 226, Sachau 211 and Vat. sir. 593/III).
The manuscript A. Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques
conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat chaldéen de Mossoul,” olim Mosul 35 needs no
special introduction as it has been known to specialists of Syriac philosophy
for a long time. The manuscript was described by Revue des bibliothèques 17 (1907), 227–260, here
237. Scher’s catalogue covers 116 manuscripts. However, it seems that
already at the time when Scher examined the collection it was much
larger.
Over the course of the 20th century the manuscript was steadily
mentioned either as inaccessible or even as lost. Cf., for instance, H.
Hugonnard-Roche, “Le commentaire syriaque de Probus sur l’Isagoge de
Porphyre. Une étude préliminaire,” See below the description of item 3. A. Vööbus, Studia
graeco-arabica 2 (2012), 230.History of the School of Nisibis, CSCO 266, Subsidia 26
(Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1965).
With the exception of some manuscripts, the collection of the
Chaldean Patriarchate was transferred to Baghdad in mid-20th century together
with the office of the Chaldean W. F. Macomber, “New Finds of Syriac Manuscripts
in the Middle East,” in D.
Wilmshurst, For a brief account about the
digitization of the collection see an article of E. Reisinger in XVII. Deutscher
Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg,
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplementa I,
Vorträge Teil 2, hrsg. von W. Voigt (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1969),
475–476.The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the
Church of the East, 1318–1913, CSCO 582, Subsidia 104 (Louvain:
Peeters, 2000), 11–12.vHMML Reading Room (www.vhmml.org).Illuminations 2017/Spring, 4–7.
The learned Chaldean bishop Addai Scher briefly presented the
content of the codex while overlooking one text (no. 3) and not identifying the
final one (no. 9). The philosophical miscellany olim
Mosul 35 includes Prōḇā’s commentary on Isagoge (no. 1), three commentaries dealing with the first part (up to
Prior Analytics I 7) of Aristotle’s Organon (nos. 5–8), the Syriac version of the Categories by Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā by
Each of the texts present in the manuscript is attested also by
other manuscript witnesses, but it is worth high-lighting that there is a group
of manuscripts that has a very similar content and one can argue that all of
these derive from A digital copy of
the manuscript is available at
<http://resolver.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/SBB0001EC4F00000000>
[accessed on February 20, 2018]. Elīyā Hōmō (1856–1932), a
prolific Chaldean scribe. Among many other manuscripts, he copied also a
manuscript in the private collection of Bishop Jāk Isḥāq that was
presented in the first installment of the “Field Notes” (G. Kessel,
“Field Notes on Syriac Manuscripts I: Two Medical Manuscripts Digitized
by the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library,” Rifaat Ebied and Nicholas Al-Jeloo published a
number of letters Jeremiah sent to Sachau that shed light on the
activity of Jeremiah (R. Ebied, “A Collection of Letters in Syriac and
Arabic Addressed to Eduard Sachau (1845–1930),” There is a mention of a manuscript copy of the olim Mosul 35. The most noteworthy
manuscript is Sachau 226 that was produced approximately in 1882.Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā that does not feature
in Sachau 226. According to a scribal note (Sachau 226, f. 90v), two persons
were involved in the manuscript’s production:
kāṯōḇā Elīyā HōmōHugoye 20.2 [2017], 421). maḵtḇānā Ēramyā. Thanks to the
clarification of Sachau we learn that the manuscript was commissioned by
Jeremiah Shāmīr on behalf of Sachau. Jeremiah Shāmīr was an industrious Chaldean
book and manuscript trader and scribe who was active in the second half of the
19th century in Mosul.ARAM 21 [2009], 79–105; R. Ebied and N. Al-Jeloo, “Some
Further Letters in Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic Addressed to Eduard
Sachau by Jeremiah Shāmīr,” Journal of Assyrian
Academic Studies 24 [2010], 1–45).olim Mosul 35 Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā in one of the letters from
Jeremiah to Sachau — it most probably refers to Sachau
211.
As mentioned earlier, Sachau 226 lacks only the E.
Sachau, Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā in comparison with olim Mosul
35. As it turns out, the treatise features in another manuscript of the Berlin
collection, namely Sachau 211. The manuscript contains only the Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā with exactly the same lacunae as olim Mosul 35 and thus may very well have been copied
directly from the Mosul codex. Unfortunately, there are no scribal notes that
could help to contextualize the manuscript, although Sachau himself says that
the manuscript was produced “wahrscheinlich in Mosul oder Umgegend um
1888.”Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der
Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Die
Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 23, Bd.
1 (Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1899), 340.olim Mosul 35
in two separate volumes (perhaps to get more profit), which are now Sachau 226
and Sachau 211.
As a matter of fact, B. Ḥaddād and J. Isḥāq, A digital copy of the manuscript is available at
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.593 [accessed on February 20,
2018]. The text of the olim Mosul 35 may very
well have been used as a model for two other manuscripts. First of all, Baghdad
Chaldean Monastery 174 (olim Notre-Dame des
Semences/Vosté 55)al-Makhṭūṭāt al-suryāniyya wa-l-ʿarabiyya fī
khizānat al-rahbāniyya al-kaldāniyya fī Baghdād (Syriac and Arabic
Manuscripts in the Library of the Chaldean Monastery Baghdad),
part 1. Syriac Manuscripts (Baghdād, 1988), 85; Jac.-M. Vosté, Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne du
Couvent de Notre-Dame des Semences près d’Alqosh (Iraq)
(Rome–Paris, 1929), 24.Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā and elsewhere as well
as the identical marginal annotations (see, for example, item 4 below) there can
be almost no doubt that Vat. sir. 593/III derived
from olim Mosul.Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā breaks off in Vat. sir. 593/III
earlier than in the Mosul manuscript.
Considering the value of the manuscript olim
Mosul 35 as a witness it is worth stressing that for three texts (viz. the first
life of Aristotle and nos. 5 and 7) it is the oldest extant copy, while for the
others unless there are copies (usually of Syrian Orthodox provenance)
originating from olim Mosul 35
takes the pride of place among those being the oldest one.
As far as
the Another early East Syriac copy, Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā is concerned, the
presence of the treatise has not been known to scholars because Scher did not
manage to identify the text. In fact, although the manuscript does not belong to
the early witnesses of the text it nevertheless appears to be one of the oldest
East Syriac copies.olim Mardin/Scher 61 is now available under the project number
CCM 382 at vHMML (dated to the 16th century
according to Scher).
All in all, olim Mosul 35 belongs to the
oldest philo-sophical manuscripts produced during the early modern period. And
given the fact that most of the texts are either not edited at all or edited
based on a smaller number of witnesses that one is aware of today, it deserves
to be taken into consideration by any student of Syriac philosophy.
In what follows we provide a description of the manuscript while
indicating the presence of the text in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Sachau 226 (B) and Vat. sir. 593/III (V).
Baghdad, Chaldean Patriarchate
CPB 223
The
shelfmark is documented also in Vööbus, All
three shelfmarks can be found in the manuscript.olim Mosul 35, olim
Baghdad 522History of the
School of Nisibis, 331.olim
Codex 52.2
Paper
264 fols.
1 col., 20 lines per page
22 × 16 × 10 cm
East Syriac handwriting without vocalization
Syriac foliation on the verso side and modern Arabic foliation on the recto side.
Condition: the manuscript is damaged
(I–2, XIII–2, XIV–1, XXI+1, XXVII–2) and some of the leaves are torn; in its
original form it most probably consisted of 27 quires, all of which are present
with just a few folios wanting; the first quire could be originally a
quaternion.
Catalogue description: Scher, A. “Notice
sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat
chaldéen de Mossoul.” Revue des bibliothèques 17 (1907):
237.
Date: the colophon is lost; the
manuscript was dated back to the 16th century by Scher (one can, most probably,
narrow it down to the second half) but the first half of the 17th century cannot
be excluded as well.
Contents:
1. ff. 1v–14v [B
4v–12v]
Title:
ܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܝܣܓܘܓܐ܆ ܦܣܘܩܐ ܬܪܝܢܐ܆ ܡܛܠ ܕܦܣܘܩܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܠܐ ܐܫܟܚܬ ܒܐܨܚܬܐ
Incipit:
ܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܪܟܐ ܐܠܦ ܠܢ ܦܪܦܘܪܝܘܣ܆ ܕܡܘܢ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܓܢܣܐ ܘܐܕܫܐ. ܘܦܘܪܫܢܐ ܘܕܝܠܝܬܐ ܘܓܕܫܐ
Desinit:
ܐܡ̇ܪ ܕܝܢ ܦܪܦܘܪܝܘܣ܆ ܕܐܝܬ ܫܘܬܦܘ̈ܬܐ ܘܦܘܪ̈ܫܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܚܡܫ ܒܢ̈ܬ ܩ̈ܠܐ܆ ܣܛܪ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢܢ ܐܬܐܡܪ. ܐܠܐ ܣܦܩܢ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܣܡܢܢ܆ ܠܘܬ ܒܘܚܢܐ ܗܢܐ. ܘܗܟܢܐ ܡܫܠܡܝܢܢ ܠܦܪܓܡܛܝܐ ܗܕܐ. ܒܝܕ ܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܪ ܟܠ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܣܘܟܠܐ ܘܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܐܝܣܣܓܘ̈ܓܐ ܕܦܪܦܘܪܝܘܣ ܦܝܠܣܘܦܐ. ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܦܪܘܒܐ ܐܢܫ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܐܪܟܝܐܛܪܘܣ ܘܐܪܟܝܕܝܩܘܢ ܕܐܢܛܝܟܝܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܐ
Ed.:
Lit.:
The manuscript contains only the second section of Prōḇā’s Hugonnard-Roche (“Le commentaire syriaque de
Probus” 230 n. 16) conflates the title of the work as supplied
artificially by Baumstark in his edition (but not in his translation
on p. 148) with the actual title of Commentary, pertaining to the common and proper
features of the quinque voces (Porph. Isag. 13.9–22.12 Busse). According to the indication
that was incorporated into the title, the first section was already missing
in the model of olim Mosul 35. British Library Add.
17215 and Dayr al-Suryān, Syr. Fragment no. 88 contain fragments of the
first section of the text which complement each other; the two sections of
the text are preserved complete in Mingana Syr. 606 and in three manuscripts
from Baghdad, Chaldean Monastery 169, 170, 171 (olim
Notre-Dame des Semences 51, 52 and 53), for the relationship among which as
well as for further information on this work see Hugonnard-Roche, “Le
commentaire syriaque de Probus.”B, which
nowhere has “fragments du commentaire de l’Isagoge composé par Proba d’Antioche”.
2. ff. 14v–16v [B
13r–14r V 155rv]
General title:
ܦܪܓܡܛܝܐ ܕܡܠܝܠܘܬܐ ܕܥܒܝܕܐ ܠܐܪܝܣܛܛܠܝܣ ܦܝܠܣܘܦܐ ܦܪܝܦܛܛܝܩܘܣ
First life. Title:
ܦܪܟܣܝܣ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܐܪܣܛܛܠܝܣ ܢܝܩܘܡܐܟܘܣ ܐܪܟܝܛܪܘܣ ܛܝܓܪܝܣ ܕܥܒܝܕܐ ܠܐܡܘܢܝܣ
Incipit:
ܐܠܨܐ ܩܕܡܝܬ ܕܢܒܥܐ ܐܬܪܗ ܘܢܣܝܡ ܓܢܣܗ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܪܟܐ ܢܥܩܒ ܐܟܚܕܐ
Desinit:
ܣܡܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܠܝܬܐ ܡܬܩܪܝܐ ܗܘܬ. ܒܗ̇ܝ ܕܐܦ ܡܛܠ ܡܚܫܒܬܐ ܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ ܗܘܘ
Second life. Title:
ܐܚܪܬܐ ܦܪܟܣܝܣ
Incipit:
ܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܠܝܣ ܒܪܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗ̣ܘܐ܆ ܕܢܝܩܘܡܐܟܘܣ ܐܣܝܐ
Desinit:
ܚܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܗܠܝܣ ܫܢ̈ܝܐ ܫܬܝܢ ܘܬܡܢܐ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡܬ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܕܘܒܪܐ ܕܐܪܝܣܛܛܠܝܣ
Ed.:
Both texts were fully transcribed from B
in Sachau’s Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften,
Bd. 1, 335–336, which goes unmentioned in Düring’s treatment of the Syriac
lives in Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical
Tradition, 183–189.
First life:
Second life:
An English translation of the Syriac lives is provided in
Düring,
Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, 185–188
but its source text is not absolutely clear.
Lit.:
3. ff. 16v–64v [B
14r–45v V 155v–175v]
Title:
ܩܐܛܐܓܘܪܝܣ ܕܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܠܝܣ ܦܝܠܣܘܦܐ
Incipit:
ܐܘܡܘܢܘ̈ܡܐ ܐܘ ܟܝܬ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܫܡܐ ܡܬܐܡܪܝܢ܆ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܕܫܡܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕܓܘܐ܇ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܥܠܘܗܝ ܕܫܡܐ ܐܚܪܬܐ ܗ̣ܝ
Desinit:
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܥܝܕܝܢ ܕܢܬܐܡܪܘܢ ܟܢܝܫܐܝܬ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܡܢܝܢ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܩܛܗܓܘܪܝܣ ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܠܝܣ
Ed.:
Lit.:
Scher overlooked this item in his description of the contents
of the codex. This omission generated some bibliographical confusion. In GSL 251 n. 4. Baumstark (followed by Georr, Les Catégories d’Aristote dans leurs versions
syro-arabes, 27) includes the Mosul manuscript among the extant
copies of Jacob of Edessa’s version of Aristotle’s Categories. And therefore King (The Earliest
Syriac Translation, 283 n. 2) suggests that Baumstark was led to
assume that Scher’s description of item no. II of his catalogue (p. 237) as
“πραγματεία de la Logique composée par Aristote, philosophe” due to its
position in the codex after the Isagoge, actually
meant the Categories. It seems rather to be the case
that Baumstark correctly inferred that the Categories
was present in the manuscript and followed the lives of Aristotle in Mosul
35 relying on the evidence provided by B and V (cf. the following statement in his Aristoteles bei den Syrern, 2: “Den Überlieferungszweig der
griechischen γένη vertreten zwei syrische Lebensskizzen dieser Art die als
Vorsatzstücke einer Übersetzung der Κατηγορίαι auf uns gekommen sind”).
For further information on the manuscript tradition of Jacob of
Edessa’s version of the Categories — including a list
of extant witnesses, a partial study of the relation between them, and
corrections to Georr’s text — see King, The Earliest
Syriac Translation, 283–296. Manuscripts B and
V are not represented in King’s stemma on p. 288.
As we noted above, B and V are in
all likelihood apographa of our codex — and therefore not copies of one of
the Notre-Dame des Semences manuscripts as King says on p. 288. The
establishment of the proper stemmatic position of olim Mosul 35 remains hence a desideratum.
4. ff. 64v–79r [B
46r–55v V 175r–181r]
Title:
ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܘܡܝܬܪ ܒܟܠ. ܪܒܢ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܣܦ ܗܘܙܝܐ. ܕܥܠ ܢܝܫܐ ܕܓܪܐܡܡܛܝܩܘܬܐ
Incipit:
ܐܡܪܢܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܚܟܝܡ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܕܝܘܢܝ̈ܐ. ܕܡܬܐܡܪܢܘܬܐ ܡ̇ܢ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇܆ ܡܢܬܐ ܙܥܘܪܬܐ ܕܪܘܟܒܗ̇ ܕܡܠܬܐ
Desinit:
ܘܐܢ ܗ̣ܘ ܕܡܬܚܙܝܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܫܘ̈ܝܢ ܕܐܦ ܠܡܫܡܥܬܐ ܕܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܢܬܝ̈ܒܠܢ ܐܘ ܕܠܐ ܢܬܝ̈ܒܠܢ܆ ܗܕܐ ܠܒܘܚܪܢܟܘܢ ܚܬܝܬܐ ܬܬܝܗܒ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܡܡܠܠܐ ܕܥܠ ܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ ܡܠܝܠܬܐ ܕܓܪ̈ܐܡܡܛܝܩܘ. ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܪܒܢ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܣܦ ܗܘܙܝܐ. ܡܩܪܝܢܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܪܒܢ. ܡܪܝ ܢܪܣܝ ܡܦܫܩܢܐ
Ed.:
Lit.:
On f. 64v one comes across a pejorative remark of Chaldean
patriarch Joseph VII Audo (1847–1878) on this grammatical treatise claiming
that the work “deserves neither to be read nor to be copied.” The same note
is present also in V. In all likelihood, the remark was
penned by the Catholicos himself.
The Syriac version of the Τέχνη γραμματική does not include the first ten of the twenty sections of the work, beginning only with section 11 (22.3 sqq. Uhlig: Περὶ λέξεως. Λέξις ἐστὶ μέρος ἐλάχιστον τοῦ κατὰ σύνταξιν λόγου κτλ.).
Despite being younger than British Library Add. 14658, Merx
argued that Add. 14620 preserves an older recension than the former. Merx
was provided with a copy of B by Richard Gottheil when,
as Merx mentions, his work was already in advanced stage and therefore he
made only limited use of the manuscript.
The attribution of the translation to
5. ff. 79v–90v [B
55v–63v V 181r–186r]
Title:
ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܦܣܘܩܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܢܐܠܘܛܝܩܐ
Incipit:
ܬܠܬ ܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ ܕܗܦ̈ܟܢ. ܐܦܘܦܐܣܝܣ ܟܘܠܝܬܐ. ܩܐܛܐܦܐܣܝܣ ܟܘܠܢܝܬܐ. ܩܐܛܐܦܐܣܝܣ ܡܢܬܝܬܐ
Desinit:
ܠܐ ܟܠ ܚܝܘܬܐܓܚܘܟܬܐ. ܘܡܬܟܢܫ܆ ܠܐ ܟܠ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܓܚܘܟܐ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܢܐܠܘ̈ܛܝܩܐ ܕܡܦܫܩ ܠܦܪܘܒܐ ܚܟܝܡܐ
Ed.:
6. ff. 90v–111r >[B
63v–79r]
Title:
ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܒܙܥܘܪ̈ܝܬܐ ܡܚܘܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܪܫܡ ܡܛܠ ܣܘܢܠܘܓܝ̈ܣܡܘ ܕܒܐܢܐܠܘܛܝܩܐ ܩܕ̈ܡܝܐ ܕܐܪܝܣܛܘܛܗܠܝܣ ܕܥܒܝܕ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܡܛܟܣ ܢܗܝܐܝܬ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܨܝܐ ܠܣܒܘܟܬ ܐܢܫ ܕܡܬܟܢܐ ܣܘܪܐ
Incipit:
ܢܝܫܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܠܚܘܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܙܥܘܪ̈ܝܬܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܢܪܫܘܡ ܡܛܠ ܙܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܣܘܢܠܘܓܝ̈ܣܡܘ
Desinit:
ܗ̇ܝ ܕܐܝܟ ܡܠܝܠܘܬܐ ܦܠܛܘܢܝܬܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܬܚܘܡܐ. ܕܡܝܘܬܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܕܒܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܨܝܐ ܠܒܪܢܫܐ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܠܡܟܬܒ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܢܠܘܛܝܩܐ ܕܡܛܟܣ ܣܝܡ ܣܓܝ ܢܗܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܨܝܐ ܠܣܒܘܟܬ ܕܐܬܟܢܝ ܣܘܪܐ
Ed.: not edited
Lit.:
7. ff. 111v–124r [B
79r–87v V 186r–192v]
Title:
ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܢܐܠܘܛܝܩܐ. ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܦܪܘܒܐ ܚܟܝܡܐ
Incipit:
ܫܒܥܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܩܗܦܐܠܗ̈ܐ ܕܩܕܡ ܟܠ ܟܬܒܐ ܙ̇ܕܩ ܕܢܬܬܣܝܡܘܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܝܠܦܢܢ ܟܬܒܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܩܕܡ ܗܢܐ
Desinit:
ܢܗܘܐ ܫܘܐ ܠܗ̇ܘ ܕܣܝܡ ܐܘ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܡܝܬܪ ܡܢܗ. ܕܢܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܨܝܪ ܡܢܗ܆ ܘܠܐ ܟܠ ܟܠܗ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡ ܠܡܟܬܒ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܦܣܩܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ
Ed.:
Lit.:
8. ff. 124r–128v [B
87v–90v]
Title:
ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܣܐܘܪܐ ܣܐܒܘܟܬ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܟܬܒܗ ܠܘܬ ܐܝܬܐܠܗܐ. ܐܢܫ ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܡ ܕܢܝܢܘܐ. ܕܒܗ ܡܛܠ ܦܪܘܛܐܣܝܣ ܕܒܟܬܒܐ ܕܦܪܝܪܡܢܣ ܡܡܠܠ
Incipit:
ܡܛܠ ܕܐܦܝܣܬ ܣܟܘܠܬܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܚܘܬܟ ܪܘܚܢܝܬܐ܆ ܕܐܥܒܕ ܠܗ̇ ܦܘܪܫܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܙܥܘܪ̈ܝܬܐ
Desinit:
ܕܗ̇ܝ ܕܝܬܝܪ ܚܣܝܡܐ ܐܡ̇ܪ ܐܢܐ. ܐܘ ܕܠܚܘܒܟ ܐܠܗܝܐ ܡܫܝܛ ܐܢܐ
Final rubric:
ܫܠܡܬ ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܦܪܘܛܐܣܝܣ ܕܒܦܪܝܪܡܢܝܐܣ ܕܣܘܪܐ ܣܐܒܘܟܬ ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܡ ܕܩܢܫܪܝܢ
Ed.:
Lit.:
The text deals with some philosophical notions and expressions
in Aristotle’s De Interpretatione; it can be
productively compared with many other texts of the commentary tradition.
9. ff. 129v–264v [V
192v–234v]
Author: <Gregory Bar ʿEḇrōyō>
Title: <Teḡraṯ
teḡrāṯā>
Incipit mut. (introduction to the
treatise):
ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܝܡܐ ܕܛܝ̈ܒܘܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܬܓܝܫ܆ ܘܬܗܘܡܐ ܕܫܘ̈ܟܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܬܡܝܫ
Desinit mut. (Book 4, ch. 4):
ܘܗ̇ܢܝܢ ܥܬܝ̈ܕܬܐ ܐܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ ܦܝ̈ܫܢ ܗܘ ܚܙܘܐ
Ed.: The text remains unedited with the
exception of a few fragments.
Lit.:
Both the beginning and end are wanting and there are some lacunae within the text. The text begins on the verso side of a folio with the recto side deliberately left blank. It suggests that the scribe had at his disposal a defective copy and decided to leave the space for the missing portion of the text. The end of the treatise (that must have occupied the two folios missing in the quire) is wanting due to a damage that occurred to the manuscript.
Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā (Tractatus tractatuum) is one out of three
philosophical compendia of Bar ʿEḇrōyō that has not received so far the
scholarly attention it deserves. This compendium consists of three books:
logic (f. 129v), natural sciences (f. 172r) and metaphysics (f. 219r).
According to Hidemi Takahashi, Bar ʿEḇrōyō draws extensively on Ghazālī’s
Maqāṣid al-falāsifa.
This copy of
Teḡraṯ teḡrāṯā escaped scholarly
attention because it was not identified by Scher. Being one of the oldest
East Syriac copies of the treatise, one wonders if it was copied from an
older East Syriac copy or from a Syrian Orthodox one. A close comparison of
its text against the extant Syrian Orthodox copies might shed some light on
the reception and transmission of the treatise in the East Syriac
milieu.
[page left blank intentionally]
Plate 1. CPB 223, f. 1v
Published with the permission of the Chaldean Patriarchate.
The image is supplied by the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library.
Plate 2. CPB 223, f. 114v
Published with the permission of the Chaldean Patriarchate.
The image is supplied by the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library.