p. 136
THE VISIT OF 1859
This then, a typical event in its day, was the first dealing between
Tischendorf and St Catherine's. The second, in 1853, proved an
anticlimax so far as Codex Sinaiticus was concerned. All that
Tischendorf found was a little fragment containing eleven lines
from Genesis in a collection of lives of saints. According to his son-
in-law's account, it was in use as a bookmark. There was no sign of
anything else, and the librarian had no recollection of what had
happened to the leaves which Tischendorf had seen in 1844. The
visitor went home with other treasures, but no further forward in
this respect. When he returned in 1859, things got exciting again.
This time, Tischendorf had imperial patronage. We resume his
account:
Several motives, and more especially the deep reverence of all Eastern
monasteries for the Emperor of Russia, led me. in the autumn of 1856. to
submit to the Russian Government a plan of a journey for making system-
atic researches in the East... The interest which my proposal excited, even
within the imperial circle, inclined the Emperor in my favour. It obtained
his approval in the month of September, 1858 . . . and in the commence-
ment of January, 1859,1 again set sail for the East...
After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the
convent... I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in
readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an
entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my
desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward
of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned towards sunset
he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had
he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation,
he said 'And I too, have read a Septuagint;’ and so saying, he took down
from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red
cloth, and laid it before me. 1 unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my
p. 137
great surprise, not only those fragments which, fifteen years before, I had
taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the
New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a
part of the Pastor of Hermas.
Again Tischendorf’s version requires scrutiny. Fortunately, we arc
now able to form a far fuller picture of the events which followed
and their complicated background.
In order to understand what follows, it is necessary to know the
extent and sources of the documentary evidence now available.
First, there are papers in Russia which have been the subject of
several studies. Second, there is previously unstudied material in St
Catherine's. This consists partly of correspondence and other
papers which have been there since the events in question. There is
also a set of papers which were copied in June 1940. There was at
that time still a White Russian embassy in Cairo, and the monastery
had copies made of the documents held there which related to
Codex Sinaiticus. We are no longer dependent upon later reports by
Tischendorf and others.
Moreover, we have available a new document which allows the
history of Codex Sinaiticus to be studied from a fresh perspective.
This is the agreed account between the four partners in the Codex
Sinaiticus Project. It is a text which, in its own words, recognizes that
the events are not fully known: ‘hence, they are susceptible to widely
divergent interpretations and recountings that are evaluated
differently as to their form and essence. Although they have not
come to a full accord over the recent history of the Codex, the four
collaborating institutions offer the present, common, agreed text as
the basis of a common formulation, as a framework of historical
reference that may be completed by yet further documents, and as
a basis for dialogue and the interpretation of events'. The following
account draws on the full range of documentation, viewing it in the
light of this courageous and far-sighted achievement.
p. 138
COPYING THE MANUSCRIPT
In the first place, Tischendorf wanted to transcribe the manuscript.
Affairs at this point were confused by the fact that a new archbishop
was to be elected. The Prior, the only person with the authority to
allow him to borrow it for this purpose, had left for Cairo.
Tischendorf received permission for the loan and sent off a Bedouin,
who returned in nine days with the manuscript. Once the
manuscript was in Cairo, Tischendorf was able to borrow a quire
at a time to make the transcription.
Meanwhile, the process of installing a new archbishop was not
proving straightforward. The nominee was Cyril, to be the second
archbishop of that name. The consecration had to be carried out by
the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed to Cyril’s appoint-
ment. The difficulties arising out of this situation had both an
immediate and a more lasting influence. To start with, they compli-
cated the process of making a transcription of the manuscript. They
were also an important factor in the chain of events which led to the
presentation of the manuscript to the Tsar. They have also been
responsible for some of the subsequent misunderstandings and
controversy surrounding this presentation.
It needs to be stated again that Tischendorf s goal was to produce
printed editions of ancient manuscripts, so as to preserve their
contents for posterity. The edition of Codex Sinaiticus was a
continuation of the project he had set himself at the beginning
of his career:
In the first place my object is to collect the few manuscripts of the text of
the New Testament written before the tenth century and lying dispersed
through the libraries of Europe, and print them verbatim. This collection
of originals, which would comprise thirty to forty volumes, appears to me
on one side to present a far safer foundation for the learned critics of the
text of all ages than the comparison of lists of various readings; and on the
other side I consider it in itself a valuable possession for the Christian
church.
p. 139
The most important task for him was therefore to record the
contents. This he set out to do at once in Cairo:
The time was now come boldly and without delay to set to work to a task
of transcribing no less than a hundred and ten thousand lines, - of which
a great number were difficult to read, either on account of later cor-
rections, or through the ink having faded, - and that in a climate where
the thermometer during March, April, and May, is never below 770 in the
shade. No one can say what this cost me in fatigue and exhaustion.
According to his son-in-law, Tischendorf accomplished the task in
two months, with the assistance of two Germans resident in Cairo,
a doctor and a chemist (in some accounts they are an apothecary
and a bookseller). Their role was to copy out the manuscript, and
Tischendorf checked their work. No doubt they achieved a great
deal. But why docs Tischendorf’s own account go on to state that
when in September he took the manuscript as a loan to St
Petersburg, it was ‘there to have it copied as accurately as possible'?
And that it was to take a further three years to complete ‘the
laborious task of producing a facsimile copy of this codex in four
folio volumes'? Is it true that in those two months in Cairo they
transcribed the whole manuscript? Or at any rate, that what they
produced was more than the rough beginnings of a transcription?
The experience of the Digital Project (building on a hundred and
fifty years of research) suggests that eight weeks might serve to
produce some sort of a version of some of the manuscript, but not
an accurate copy of the whole.
But it is the outcome that matters, and the facsimile edition is
a wonderful achievement, transferring the manuscript into book
form, with layout and font intended to represent those of the
manuscript, and with detailed notes describing the corrections.
Tischendorf not only had to make a transcription, he had to
ascertain the number of scribes, allocate the text to each, and do
the same for all the correctors. Areas where he was at fault
have already been mentioned. But on the whole he laid safe
See Plate 15
p. 140
foundations for subsequent research. The triumphant denouement
came when
In the month of October, 1862,1 repaired to St. Petersburg to present this
edition to their Majesties. The Emperor, who had liberally provided the
cost, and who approved the proposal of this superb manuscript appearing
on the celebration of the Millenary Jubilee of the Russian empire, has
distributed impressions of it throughout the Christian world, which,
without distinction of creed, have expressed their recognition of its
value.
PRESENTATION TO THE TSAR
(skip for now - includes Uspensky (Uspenski)
Wc may put the matter into context by telling the story
of Tischendorf’s Russian equivalent, Archimandrite Porphyry
Uspenski (also baptised Constantin). Uspenski visited St Catherine’s
shortly after Tischendorf's first visit. He saw the manuscript, and
it appears that Tischcndorf's success in becoming the one whose
name was most closely associated with it came to rankle him. In 1863
he published a bad-tempered attack on the manuscript, observing
that ‘the people looked affectionately on the relic of Sinaitic
antiquity, and kissed it devoutly, knowing nothing of its heretical
origin, neither perceiving any foul odour from it’. (The supposed
heresy is due to the text’s differences from the Byzantine text of later
centuries.) Although this attack has the odour of sour grapes about
it, it did not need Tischendorf’s equally ill-tempered rejoinder
against the ‘dirty controversy of a stupid and fanatical monk, who is
p. 141
full of absurd petty jealousy*. But this is only one part of the
relationship between the two men. In 1862 Uspenski was extremely
generous in sharing his finds with Tischendorf, who wrote warmly
of his generosity and their cordial dealings.
Skip St. Petersburg - loan etc
p. 142
For the next three years, Tischendorf examined the manuscript in
St Petersburg regularly while making the edition. On 29 October
1862, he passed it over to the Russian authorities, at the point at
which he presented his edition to the Tsar and Tsarina. The manu-
Then Archbishop Cyril
p. 147
Traditionally, interpretations of the story have centred around
Tischendorf, treating him either as hero or as villain. The extensive
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
p. 148
The book by Tischendorf’s son-in-law is
L. Schnellcr, Search on Sinai.
The Story of Tischendorf s Lije and the Search for a Lost Manuscript, London:
Epworth Press, 1939
are by Dr Fyssas, with a few re-phrasing?. Note that
Dr Zakharova's
translation of the Synaxis' letter at
http://www.nlr.ru/cng/exib/Codex
Sinairicus / zah / 3_5 html differs slightly from the version above in its
interpretation of the penultimate clause.