Manuscript No. 86: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Fragments) 19th Century
- Manuscript No. 86: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Fragments) 19th Century
- Uniform title
- Meknut’iwn Srboy Avetaranin Matt'eosi
- Date Created
- 19th century
- Armenian Manuscripts
- Fragmetns from a “Commentary on the Gospel of Marrthew.” The surviving folios deal with Matthew 2:1-23, 3:1-17, 4:1-5, 5 we are unable to determine the identity of the commentary’s author.
- Text in modern sheghagir, written in two columns of 39-40 lines each. Spiritual citations commented on are written in red sheghagir. Initials throughout in red, blue, or black erkat’agir. Headings of chapters 3 and 4 of the codex in blue erkat’agir. Only two complete quires of the codex have survived, both with gatherings of 12 leaves each. Of the remaining quire, only 6 leaves have survived.
- There are no colophons in the codex; hence its date of execution and provenance are unknown. The paleography suggests that the book to which the fragments belonged was probably written in the 19th century, in all likelihood at New Julfa in Isfahan.There are no inscriptions indicating the later history of the codex. The inside front cover hears the signature of Aris Martirosian, accompanied by a statement dated 1906 that he had received a certain amount of money from Abgar P. Abgarian. The inside back cover has the signature of “Harkey” written in English in the upper left corner, below which we find the signature of Mirza Mandali Movst’eti. In the center of the inside back cover appeas the signature of K.V. Ter Kirakosian, who must be the same priest who wrote MS 85 (Menologium fragments). There is no indication that any of these individuals actually owned the book.We have no information as to when and from whom Dr. Minasian acquired the fragments.
- 28 folios
- 32x20.5 cm.
- Binding note
- None. Unbound, unsewn quires and detached sheets. There are no holes or notches in the folds of the quires, indicating that these quires were never sewn. However, the quires and sheets are now placed between two pasteboards from a detached binding, half floth and covered with balck and white mottled paper. These boards have white paper pastedowns and were originally sewn on three linen tapes. Watermark is the same as MS 85: “LESCHALLAS 1888.” We also see large countermark on conjugate leaf: “PRO BONO PUBLICO,” an “S”, and “UNIVERSAL FOOLSCAP.”
- Condition note
- Despite the defective binding, the MS is in a good state of preservation. Some leaves have suffered damage from dampness and there are lacunae between fols. 24 and 25.
- Illustrations note
- The illuminations of these fragments consist of one decorative design, a floral spray making a division between chapters (Fol. 21v), and three initials of which one is floral (fol. 13) and two are bird-form.Like MS 85, this codex is copied in a hurried hand, squeezed into two columns on paper that has not even been ruled horizontally. It is strange, then, to encounter even the perfunctory illumination. The inks of the text – black for commentary, red for citations from Matthew, blue for margin rulings – suffice for the illuminations as well.The floral spray on fol. 21v combines traditional Armenian forms (five-lobed buds and volute-edged leaves) with an open composition of freely meandering vine forms showing a more Western sensibility.
Find This Item
- University of California, Los Angeles. Library Special Collections
- Manifest url
- Rights statement
- public domain