Historical background: Mamluk and Mongol military rivalries in the 13th century 

The Mongol army’s capture of the ‘Abbasid capital of Baghdad in 1258 was a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history. After the dust of this battle had settled, the pillaging and destruction of the city’s libraries became a literary trope, amplified in Arab historiography and cultural memory. 

One of the lesser-known as aspects of this famous conquest is the participation of the army of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Anticipating the Mongols’ dominance, the Kingdom had entered into an unequal political alliance – more accurately a vassalage – with them, against their mutual enemies, the newly-established Mamluk rulers of Egypt. The Armenian king Hethum I (1213-1270) himself travelled to Mongolia to pledge his services and be recognised for his loyalty.

Hethum I (seated) in the Mongol court of Karakorum, 'receiving the homage of the Mongols', from a manuscript copy of La flor des estoires d'Orient (Fleur des histoires de la terre d'Orient), by Hayton/Hethum of Corycus (nephew of King Hethum I of Armenia), composed in 1307 CE (British Library Add MS 17971, f. 23r).

Equine medicine in war and peace 

Against this historical backdrop, a text recently catalogued for the British Library-Qatar Foundation Project in two copies (Or. 9823, dating to c. 15th century; and Or. 3133, copied 1854), contains historical perspectives on the looting of Baghdad’s caliphal library and the complex nature of Armenian political relationships in the 13th century. On a more intimate level, it also hints at the tale of a nameless Armenian surgeon; an otherwise anonymous prisoner of war whose linguistic and medical prowess gave him a tiny footnote in the history of equestrian medicine in the Middle East.  

This text, elaborately entitled The Matching Pearls Concerning the Knowledge of Precedents (al-Durr al-muṭābiq fī ʻilm al-sawābiq) in Or. 9823 and Formulary of equine medical science (Aqrābādhīn fī ʻilm ṭibb al-khayl) in Or. 3133, is a manual on the characteristics of horses and the treatment of equine diseases and injuries, in 182 or 183 short chapters.  

The work’s preamble and the beginning of the first chapter relate piecemeal a convoluted and rather confusing transmission history. This account, which varies in small but important details in different extant copies, explains that the text had originally been encountered in the Armenian language, and contained many pharmacological terms that could not be understood, until ‘a surgeon from among the captives with understanding of the terminology was found, who translated it into Arabic – that man was valued and expert in his craft.’

Introduction and start of first chapter of al-Durr al-muṭābiq fī ʻilm al-sawābiq (British Library Or. 3133, f. 1v).

The text goes on to state that ‘the Armenian king, in the service of the [now-]vanquished enemy [the Mongols], had taken the Arabic book from the library of the caliphal treasury in Baghdad, and translated it into the Armenian pen (‘qalam’, in Or 9823, or ‘took it to the Armenian realm [‘iqlīm’, in Or 3133] […] during the reign of Baybars’ (Mamluk sultan, ruled 1260-77).  

(British Library Or. 9823, f. 3r) 

The books of horsemanship and characteristics of horses  

The importance of horses to the Mongols and Mamluks, as to most medieval societies, and therefore the desirability of having the best possible understanding of their care and breeding, can hardly be understated. The wealth of Arabic manuals on horsemanship, equestrian medicine, and on animal care in general copied over many centuries makes this clear. 

According to the version of the Armenian translator-surgeon’s explanation related in the text’s preface, it is a compilation of the tried and tested hippiatric knowledge of a certain wise individual, Muḥammad ibn al-Khalīfah [‘son of the Caliph’] Yaʻqūb. Given the content and structure of the Formulary, this name appears to be a corruption of Muḥammad ibn Yaʻqūb ibn Akhī Ḥizām, a famous horse trainer who, over 350 years earlier in Baghdad, had worked for the ʻAbbasid caliph al-Mu‘taḍid (ruled 892-902), and was the author of a voluminous and highly influential early Arabic hippiatric treatise, The book of horsemanship and characteristics of horses [or: and veterinary science] (Kitāb al-furūsīyah wa-shiyāt al-khayl [wa-al-bayṭarah]). 

The horse's good (ff. 22v-23r, left) and bad (ff. 62v-63r, right) points, from a copy of Kitāb al-bayṭarah, an abridgement of Kitāb al-furūsīyah wa-l-bayṭarah by Muḥammad ibn Yaʻqūb Ibn Akhī Ḥizām, attributed to Abū Muḥammad Aḥmad ibn ‘Atīq al-Azdī, dated 1223 CE. (British Library Or. 1523)

Consisting of two main parts subdivided into numerous short bābs, over the centuries Ibn Akhī Ḥizām’s Kitāb al-furūsīyah was abbreviated, edited, and translated under a wide variety of titles, with the name of its author frequently appearing in corrupted forms.i The text in Or. 9823 and Or. 3133 seems to be one of these spin-off works. But how did this Armenian surgeon – it is uncertain whether his expertise was as a horse veterinarian – find himself in the situation of back-translating the text into Arabic?  

Other names are also mentioned, further confusing the picture: a ‘philosopher’ named Saʻd al-Dīn ibn al-Ẓāhir al-ʻAjamī (‘the foreigner’ or ‘the Persian’) who participated in the composition of the text, and two individuals, Maḥbūb and his companion Abū al-Faraj, who translated it into Armenian (although the BL copies describe them working ‘from’ Armenian, this does not make sense, and another more detailed copy (Forschungsbibliothek Gotha, Ms. Orient. A 2087, f. 8v), has them working ‘into’ Armenian). 

 

Translating on the battlefield 

After repelling the Mongols in 1260 at the battle of ʻAyn Jalūt, the Mamluks retaliated against the Mongols’ Armenian allies with a punitive campaign culminating in August 1266 at the Battle of Meri, where the Armenian army was defeated, the land pillaged, and many civilians subsequently enslaved. Could this have been the occasion of the text’s and/or the surgeon’s capture? Someone with medical skill and linguistic aptitude would have been a useful captive for the triumphant Mamluks, and a useful manual on horse care carried by a soldier or by the army’s veterinary retinue could have been part of the booty. 

However, the introduction to Forschungsbibliothek Gotha, Ms. Orient. A 2087 additionally mentions the second battle of Homs of 19 Rajab 680 AH/ 3 November 1281 CE, when Mamluk forces under Sultan Qālāwūn (ruled 1279-90) again defeated the Mongols along with their Armenian military supporters. The Gotha copy describes how the Mamluk commander (and later, sultan) Lājīn assembled a group of Armenian prisoners to translate the book, but they could not understand all its pharmaceutical terminology, whereupon the surgeon was found (f. 2r). 

The Battle of Homs of 1281 in La flor des estoires d'Orient (Fleur des histoires de la terre d'Orient). (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale MS 886, f. 27v [detail]).

 

Prisoner of history: the captured surgeon 

Either way, this text conjures a melancholy picture of the unfortunate surgeon, imprisoned in an encampment on the plains of Syria. forcibly thrust into the spotlight and obliged to transmit to his captors the secrets of this text on horses. However, probably unbeknown to them all at that moment, it had originally been composed in the same language it was now being translated into.  

And despite the inevitable realisation that the text was not a source of new knowledge but belonged to an already well-established tradition, the story of its transmission was clearly considered remarkable enough, even at the time, to have been preserved throughout its subsequent scribal history, right down to 1854, when Or 3133 was transcribed. 

Amuletic squares in British Library Or. 3133, f. 33r (left) and in British Library Or. 1523, f. 110v (right). 

Jenny Norton-Wright 
Arabic Scientific Manuscripts Curator, British Library / Qatar Foundation Partnership 

 

Bibliography 

Dum-Tragut, Jasmine, Kilikische Heilkunst für Pferde – Das Vermächtnis der Armenier (Hildesheim: Editorial Olms Verlag, 2005)  

Hayton/Hethum of Corycus, La Flor des estoires de la terre d’Orient, esp Book III: 'On the Tatar nation', in Recueil des historiens des Croisades, Documents Armeniens, vol. 2, edited by Jean Dardel (1906; Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1841-1906), pp. 147-219. English translation available at: https://www.attalus.org/armenian/hetum3.htm#26. 

al-Sarraf, Shihab, 'Mamluk Furūsīyah Literature and Its Antecedents', Mamluk Studies Review 8 (2004), pp. 141-200 (esp. pp. 148-52) 

Sbath, Paul, 'Manuscrit arabe sur la pharmacopée hippiatrique', Bulletin de l'Institut d'Egypte 14 (1931-2), pp. 79-81 and plates i-iii 

Shehada, Housni Alkhateeb, Mamluks and Animals: Veterinary Medicine in Medieval Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 118-20 and 169-70 

 

See also the research project Encounter in the Corpus of the Horse: Cultural Transfer and Knowledge Transfer between the Christian West and the Muslim East in Late Mediaeval Armenian Equine Manuals (Begegnung im Körper des Pferdes. Kulturtransfer und Wissensvermittlung zwischen christlichem Westen und muslimischem Osten in spätmittelalterlichen armenischen Pferdebüchern), at the University of Salzburg (2022-25).

The previous blog post in this series on the provenance of the Colebrooke Collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library examined the role of Indian ‘pandits’ in gathering the manuscripts. This blog outlines how Colebrooke, along with the pandits Citrapati and Bābūrāma, became entangled in accusations of corruption.

In 1807, Colebrooke was made a member of the supreme council of the Government of Bengal, a position he would hold until the end of 1812. He had established a reputation as both a capable administrator and a respected Sanskrit scholar, and his knowledge of Hindu law in particular had proven to be a great asset for the East India Company. However, at this time the EIC was still struggling to cast off its reputation as a rapacious corporation and present itself instead as a responsible administrator of British territories in India.

South East View of the New Government House of the East India Company in Calcutta, published in 1805 (British Library, P1685).

In the early years of the nineteenth century, a series of scandals led to the removal of several of the Company’s district judges. One of these was William Brodie who, in 1810, was suspended due to findings of corruption while he had been judge and magistrate of Purnia. The charges had centred on an inheritance dispute for which he had been accused of accepting a bribe from one of the parties. The allegations were made by a local landholder, Charles Reed, who had been representing one of the other parties in the dispute. The proceedings had dragged on, but Reed persisted, and after the verdict against Brodie was passed, Reed began making accusations against the higher-ranking members of the judiciary, who he believed had been obstructing his earlier efforts to bring Brodie to trial.

Colebrooke was one of those now in the firing line. When he had ascended to the supreme council, he had also taken on the role of chief judge of the superior court. Although his day-to-day involvement in the courts was limited, his reputation as an authority in Hindu law meant he was often consulted for his opinion. Charles Reed now accused him of misusing his authority, and Colebrooke vigorously defended himself. In the records of the proceedings of the supreme council we find a number of lengthy responses Colebrooke made to these allegations. He also gave up his position as chief judge, in an effort to prevent any future accusations.

The New Court House and Chandpal Ghaut, from a set of views of Calcutta, published in 1788 (British Library, P46).

However, Colebrooke’s efforts to protect himself would have implications for the pandits he had formerly employed. Citrapati, now pandit of the superior court, had earlier been called on to give an opinion on the inheritance dispute mentioned above. However, he was then accused of receiving a bribe from one of the parties. Charles Reed seized on Citrapati’s connections with Colebrooke in order to accuse the latter, and Colebrooke again sought to defend himself. In doing so, however, he left Citrapati exposed. In a supreme council meeting in February 1812, Colebrooke claimed that Citrapati had visited him at his home ‘with much apparent agitation’ to report the charge brought against him. Colebrooke recounted that he replied to Citrapati that ‘whatever explanation or vindication he had to offer… must be stated, not to me, but to the court before which the accusation has been preferred.’ He then ‘immediately dismissed him, and have forbidden his future visits to my house.’

Extract from Colebrooke’s Minute, presented to the Supreme Council at their meeting at Fort William on 10 February 1812 (British Library, IOR P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 19).

Citrapati was adamant that he had refused the offer of a bribe. However, he had not spoken of it until this time, and this, Colebrooke claimed, ‘indicates a way of thinking not accordant with the delicate and scrupulous integrity which should be expected from a person holding the office which he does’. Furthermore, he claimed, ‘it will constitute in my opinion a sufficient ground for his removal though he should be proved innocent of the charge.’ (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 19). The rest of the council concurred, and Citrapati was immediately suspended, pending an investigation.

Bābūrāma also found himself embroiled in the allegations against Citrapati. In a statement made to the court, Citrapati claimed that, after he had refused the proffered bribe, the alleged briber tried to leave the money at Citrapati’s house, promising to collect it the next day. Citrapati refused this also and stated that: "I afterwards heard that having left them [the money] with Bābūrāma, whose house is at some distance from mine, he had departed, and that he had said to Bābūrāma that he would on the morrow send a man to fetch them; but next day no man came to take them away. On the day following, Bābūrāma took the money… and gave it to him" [i.e. back to the alleged briber] (IOR/P/130/45, 18 February 1812, No. 79).

Reed seized on this detail, asserting that the bribe had been ‘left in deposit with one of Mr Colebrooke’s servants’ and that ‘it will necessarily follow that Mr Colebrooke is guilty of a most heinous offence, equally so as if the money had been deposited for the joint benefit of himself and Citrapati’ (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 20). Colebrooke sought to defend himself against this association, declaring: "The person mentioned as my servant and with whom the rejected bribe is said to have been afterwards for a short time deposited, is one who was formerly employed by me as a Sanskrit Copyist. He ceased to be employed by me in that capacity six or seven years ago, on his setting up a Sanskrit Press. But I have since continued to him a monthly allowance in consideration of his occasionally attending to sort and arrange my collection of oriental manuscripts. In this relation of service towards me, it was a great dereliction of duty to undertake, for a day, or for an hour, the custody of a deposit yet tainted with the corrupt destination it had borne though rejected."

He went on: "However mortifying it is to find that some at least, if not all these persons, are so undeserving of the favourable opinion I entertained of them, and that several of them happen by a vexatious coincidence to be persons who have been at some period in my service, I trust that my name has been in no shape mixed in their proceedings." (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 21)

In a context in which the EIC was under close scrutiny from critics in Britain, Colebrooke was keen to protect himself from any suspicion of misconduct. However, this came at the expense of the pandits whose assistance had been vital to his achievements in India.

Several months passed following Citrapati’s suspension, and then in November 1812 his voice once more appears in the proceedings of the Government of Bengal. Citrapati submitted a petition to the Governor General, ending with a plea ‘that your Lordship in Council will deem it proper to clear from the false accusation a poor Pundit (your Petitioner) who is for a period of nine months oppressed under the suspension from his office, and at the same time will be pleased to extend your natural clemency towards him by pronouncing an order for reinstating him to his former situation’ (IOR/P/131/7, 14 November 1812, No. 21).

The ending of Citrapati’s petition to the Governor General of Bengal (IOR/P/131/7, 14 November 1812, No. 21).

Problems with locating the relevant witnesses meant that the enquiries into Citrapati’s case were again delayed. He submitted a further petition in February 1813, but to no avail. A year later, in March 1814, Citrapati died, and the investigation was never concluded. As for Bābūrāma, it is unclear whether Colebrooke continued to employ him as a librarian. But we know that his Sanskrit Press ceased to operate following Colebrooke’s departure from India, in 1814.

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts on the provenance of the Colebrooke collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library. The first post introduced the Colebrooke family and the East India Company; the second post focused on Colebrooke's manuscripts on Hindu law and the third on Colebrooke and the pandits. The next, and final, blog in this series will consider the legacies of Colebrooke and his pandits.

Works Consulted
Jha, Jagdish Chandra, ‘Some Light on the Early Judicial System of the East India Company’, The Journal of the Bihar Research Society Vol. LIII, Parts I-V (1967), pp. 214-223.
Rocher, Rosanne and Rocher, Ludo, The Making of Western Indology: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company (London: Routledge, 2012).
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 17 December 1811 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 17 December 1811, No. 1). British Library, IOR/P/148/71.
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 6 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 19). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Letter from Charles Reed to the Governor General, 7 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 20). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 7 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 21). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Statement by Citrapati [D], 13 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 18 February 1812, No. 79). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Petition of Citrapati (Government of Bengal Proceedings 14 November 1812, No. 21). British Library, IOR/P/131/7.

David Woodbridge, Provenance Researcher Sanskrit Collections (REAP pilot project 2023-2025)

This guest blog is by Lina Elhage-Mensching, Research Associate at Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Lower Saxony.

This blog post is both a result and a demonstration of the valuable cooperation between the British Library and the Göttingen Digital Edition of the Coptic Old Testament project, of which the DFG-funded project Digital Edition and Critical Evaluation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary is a satellite project.[i] I wish to dedicate it to Mrs Ilana Tahan, who sadly passed away and whose contribution was key to the showcase presented in what follows.

The start of the readings from the Holy Week Lectionary, beginning with the passage for early Holy Monday, comprised of a reading from the "Torah of Moses" corresponding to the beginning of Genesis. (Holy Week Lectionary. Wādī Naṭrūn, Egypt, 990 AM/1273 CE. Add MS 5997, f 31r)

The showcase presents a manuscript that is preserved at the British Library in London under the shelfmark Add MS 5997.[ii] The manuscript under discussion was the primary source used by Oswald H.E. Burmester[iii] in his study of the structure of the Book of the Holy Pascha, i.e. the Holy Week lectionary used by the Coptic Orthodox Church.[iv] In particular, in volumes one and two of his Le Lectionnaire de la Semaine Sainte[v], O.H.E. Burmester (1897–1977) collated a total of 21 manuscripts, of which two are Sahidic and nineteen are Bohairic. As he noted, he published the text of the oldest dated Holy Week lectionary[vi] and gave a Concordance Table at the end of his edition with a comprehensive list of all readings derived from the various manuscripts he had studied in his work.[vii] On the ba­sis of his collation, Burmester indicates that, in consideration of the omissions and additions observed in the manu­scripts, the lectionaries could be divided into three categories. The first category comprises fifteen collated manuscripts that belong to the ‘normal type,’ and correspond to the current service of the Coptic Church. The second category is represented by two manuscripts that lack many pericopes of the Old Testament, which led Burmester to suppose that they mirrored the service before the revision by Peter of Behnesā.[viii] The third category is represented by four manuscripts with many additional readings for the day hours’ services, which Burmester assumed to be ar­ranged following Peter of Behnesā’s revision.[ix] The manuscript described in this showcase belongs to the second category.

A folio from the Lectionary featuring passages from the Gospels of Luke and John, as well as a strip from a Syriac manuscript used as a patch. (Holy Week Lectionary. Wādī Naṭrūn, Egypt, 990 AM/1273 CE. Add MS 5997, f 254r)

A Coptic Holy Week lectionary covers all the days from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday. During the course of Holy Week, each day is divided into ten hours, with five designated as ‘Hours of the Day’ and five as ‘Hours of the Eve’. The readings for each period are drawn from both the Old and New Testaments. Some Hours comprise more readings than others and extracts from homilies. Moreover, the Psalter in its entirety is recited on Holy Friday whereas the odes of the Old and the New Testament, the book of Revelation, and the Gospel according to John are read in full at various moments on Holy Saturday.[x] The Holy Week lectionary at issue is a bilingual Bohairic­–Arabic paper codex entitled كتاب البصخه المقدسه (The Book of the Holy Pascha), in Arabic only. Originating from Wādī Naṭrūn in Lower Egypt, it is dated to 22nd Toth, 990 AM = 19th September 1273 CE,[xi] The codex consists of 315 folios, measuring 247 x 342 mm each, and featuring a text in two columns of about 25 lines per column. The paper is most probably of local provenance with no watermarks. The parallel Bohairic and Arabic texts are liturgical readings, hymns and prayers for the period between the first Hour of the Eve of Palm Sunday and the first Hour of the Eve of Easter Monday. This lectionary follows the sequence of five Canonical Hours[xii] of the Eve (1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 11th Hour) and five Canonical Hours of the Day itself (1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 11th Hour) for every day of the Holy Week. There is also a 12th Hour on Holy Friday commemorating the entombment of Christ. The readings are pericopes from the Old Testament –the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), the Poetry and Wisdom books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach), the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel), the Minor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Malachi)– and from the New Testament, i.e., the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul (1Corinthians, 2Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1Timothy Hebrews), and 1Peter. There are no homilies in this Holy Week lectionary.[xiii]

You will find a brief overview of the characteristics of this codex on the Catalog of the Holy Week Lectionary Bohairic website.

The codex structure can be viewed in the Göttingen Virtual Manuscript Room.

A semi-diplomatic edition of the complete codex can be viewed in the VMR workspace.

Since Burmester’s pioneering work, two dated Holy Week lectionaries from an earlier period have been identified. However, one is written entirely in Arabic, and only 26 fragmentary folios of the other survive. Although the manuscript Add MS 5997 preserved at the British Library is not the oldest extant dated Coptic Holy Week lectionary, it is the oldest complete bilingual one. It is therefore highly valuable for the study and research history of Coptic liturgical manuscripts, which is why it was chosen for the showcase.

Lina Elhage-Mensching
Research Associate, Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Lower Saxony, currently working on the project ‘Digital Edition and Critical Evaluation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary.’

---

[i] The manuscript presented in this blog post is one of the most important manuscripts studied in the framework of the DFG (German Research Foundation) project (DFG n° 491266891 ) at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Lower Saxony, with the title ‘Digital Edition and Critical Evaluation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary,’ launched in 2022.

[ii] See W.E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum. London, 1905, 513–514.

[iii] From 1945 onwards, O.H.E. Burmester added the attribute 'KHS' to his surname, signing his name as 'O.H.E. KHS-Burmester'. 'KHS' is an abbreviation of Χατζής, a Greek title given to Christians who had undertaken a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. See also note 5 by E. Hammerschmidt in KHS-Burmester, Oswald Hugh Ewart, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Part 1: Die Handschriftenfragmente der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg . Wiesbaden, 1975.

[iv] This manuscript is one of those studied within the framework of the DFG-funded project entitled 'Digital Edition and Critical Evaluation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary', which was launched at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Lower Saxony in 2022. See https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/web/digital-edition-of-the-coptic-holy-week-lectionary/project.

[v] O.H.E. Burmester, Le Lectionnaire de la Semaine Sainte : Texte Copte édité avec traduction française par E. Porcher après le manuscrit Add. 5997 du British Museum (2 vols.; PO 24.2 and 25.2; Paris : Firmin-Didot, 1933/1939), 1.173–294, 2.179–470. The same year O.H.E. Burmester was awarded his Ph.D. degree in Philosophy by the University of Cambridge with a thesis titled Bohairic pericopae of Wisdom and Sirach & Coptic Church Offices . For more information on Burmester’s vita, see “In Memoriam O.H.E. Khs-Burmester (1897–1977),” in Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 23 (1976–1978), [1].

[vi] Dating back to 1273 AD. While it is indeed the oldest extant complete and dated Bohairic–Arabic Holy Week lectionary, there are two other and older witnesses of the Holy Week Lectionary of the Coptic Church. The oldest one is a fragmentary manuscript written in Bohairic with a colophon dated AM 880 = AD 1164 and is kept at the National Library of Greece in Athens under shelfmark EBE 3550/Δ. The second oldest extant Holy Week lectionary is a monolingual Arabic lectionary with a colophon dated AM 900 = AD 1184 and is kept at the Monastery of St Antony in Egypt under shelf-mark Taqs 260.

[vii] See Burmester, Lectionnaire, II, 476–85.

[viii] For more information about the revision by Peter of Behnesa, see Burmester, “A Coptic Lectionary Poem (from Ms. 408, Coptic Museum, Cairo)”, in Le Muséon 43, 1930, 375–385.

[ix] See Burmester, Lectionnaire, I, 175.

[x] See D. Atanassova “Neue Erkenntnisse bei der Erforschung der Sahidischen Quellen für die Paschawoche,” in Egypt and the Christian Orient. Peter Nagel zum 80. Geburtstag , Texte und Studien zu Koptischen Bibel 1, eds. H. Behlmer, U. Pietruschka, F. Feder. Wiesbaden, 2018, 1­–37, 1 and 25.

[xi] Colophon on page <315v>.

[xii] According to the tradition of the Coptic Church, in an effort to “introduce some uniformi­ty in the services,” the first Coptic Holy Week lectionary was composed by Patriarch Gabriel ibn Turaik (1131–1146), in the first half of the 12 ^th century. See Burmester, “The Canons of Gabriel Ibn Turaik, LXX Patriarch of Alexandria” in OCP 1 (1935), 5–45.

[xiii] A clear indication that this lectionary precedes the revision by Bishop Peter of Behnesā, who added lessons and homilies to the lectionary of the Coptic Church in the 13 ^th century. See Burmester, Lectionnaire, I, 173; L. Villecourt, “Les observances liturgiques et la discipline du jeûne dans l’Église copte (d’après la Lampe des ténèbres, chap. XVI–XIX),” in Le Muséon 37 (1924), 201–280, 260.