Academic literature on the topic 'Manuscrits cham'

AbstractPredominantly Buddhist Cambodia is home to a distinctive Islamic manuscript tradition, introduced into the country by Cham settlers from Champa in present-day Vietnam, and further developed in the Khmer kingdom. Commonly written in Cham script (akhar srak) or in a combination of the latter and Arabic, it has largely fallen into disuse among the majority of Cambodian Muslims since the mid-19th century, as the community increasingly turned towards Islamic scholarship and printed books in jawi (i.e. Arabic-script-based) Malay. Among the side effects of this development was the adoption of jawi also for the Cham language, which has, however, only been employed in a modest number of manuscripts. A minority of akhar srak users and discontents of growing Malay religious and cultural influence, based mainly in central and northwestern Cambodia, have, however, kept the local Islamic manuscript tradition alive. Recognized by the Cambodian state as a distinct Islamic religious community in 1998, this group now known as the Islamic Community of Imam San, has made the physical preservation of, and engagement with, their manuscripts a central pillar of identity and community formation. The present article provides insight into the changing fates of the Islamic manuscript tradition in Cambodia as well as an overview of content, distribution and usage of Islamic manuscripts in the country.

Résumé D’abord, l’histoire de l’ITEM. Au départ, le classement des manuscrits d’Henri Heine (le fonds Schocken), confié à des germanistes, forcés par là à s’initier aux méthodes des archivistes. Ce faisant, ils eurent l’intuition de la possibilité d’étudier le travail créateur des écrivains à travers leurs manuscrits. Ensuite: la ‹critique génétique›. Elle ouvre un champ de recherche, fondé sur l’étude du manuscrit comme objet scientifique. Par là, elle rejoint une esthétique de la création, présente dans les lettres dès l’origine des temps modernes, mais réduite jusqu’ici au seul témoignage des écrivains. De là aussi, un nouveau rôle et de nouveaux traitements des manuscrits dans l’édition scientifique.

In this article, we focused on the fact that Park Se-chae's 《Dongyoo saurok》 exists in various forms of manuscripts and compared each manuscript. 《Dongyoo saurok》 was a hagiography of Eastern Confucians compiled by Park Se-chae throughout his life with the purpose of preserving records of the origins of Confucianism in the East. Park Se-chae's munin Lee Se-hwan continued his teacher's work, but was unable to publish it. Afterwards, 《Dongyoo saurok》 was distributed in manuscript form. The extant manuscripts of 《Dongyoo saurok》 can be roughly divided into two types. First, there were early manuscripts of 20 fascicles in 10 volumes compiled by Park Se-chae, and second, there were later manuscripts edited by Lee Se-hwan. 《Dongyoo saurok》 encompassed about 700 Eastern Confucian scholars, from Seol chong and Choi Chi-won of Silla to munin of Yi I and Seong hon of Joseon, and it clearly revealed the relationship between teacher and munin. In particular, Park Se-chae attempted to highlight the status of the two schools as the pinnacle of Eastern Confucianism by including Yi I and Seong hon and their munin as the most recent school of 《Dongyoo saurok》. In 《Dongyoo saurok》, a total of about 200 books were used, along with a variety of sentences for which no bibliographic reference was recorded. Among 《Dongyoo saurok》, the munin of Yi I and Seong hon had missing content due to limitations in individual manuscripts. Through comparison between manuscripts, the munin of the two schools were supplemented, and the munin of Yi I and Seong Hon were reconstituted with 85 and 112 people, respectively.

The reconstitution of the collection of manuscripts gathered by the 18th century mathematician Mustafa Sıdkı (Muṣṭafā Ṣidqī, d. 1183/1769) has raised interest beyond the milieu of historians of sciences. Building on the findings made by earlier scholars, and adding a number of volumes not yet identified, the article provides an inventory of some ninety manuscripts that were once in the possession of Sıdkı. This inventory shows that Sıdkı’s interests go far beyond sciences and mathematics, and that manuscripts that belonged to his collection found their way to more libraries than previously known. Cet article entend contribuer à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque de Mustafa Sıdkı (Muṣṭafā Ṣidqī), un mathématicien ottoman du xviiie siècle, mort à Üsküdar en 1183/1769. Il fait le point sur ce qui est connu aujourd’hui, répertorie les manuscrits signalés dans différentes publications, et ajoute à la liste ainsi constituée une quarantaine de manuscrits, qui montrent que les livres ayant appartenu à Sıdkı ont abouti dans d’autres bibliothèques encore que celles repérées jusqu’ici. L’inventaire ainsi constitué, qui regroupe près d’une centaine de volumes, témoigne du large champ des intérêts du collectionneur. This article is in French.

Subject of this article is the copy of Four Gospels preserved at the Church Institute in Sofia (gr. 949), which was displayed in the Brilliance of Byzantium Exhibition organized during the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (August 22 - 27, 2011) and which we assumed to have been produced by the hand of one of the most famous scribes at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, i.e. Theodore Hagiopetrites. The type of the script employed in the Four Gospels at the Church Institute (CHAI gr. 949) is in the so-called by L. Politis unique ?Hagiopetrites Style?. Although the manuscript does not contain a colophon, comparison to the manuscripts of Theodore Hagiopetrites known to us and especially to Cod. D. gr. 29 (Olim. Kos. 35) at the Ivan Dujcev Centre - an autograph of the scribe of 1307, as well as to another manuscript from Saint Petersburg, Cod. gr. of ASUSSR, No 10/667 of the 14th century, provides good reasons to assume that the Four Gospels manuscript (CHAI gr. 949) was also produced by Theodore Hagiopetrites. Our certainty was further substantiated after we had studied in situ the Four Gospels from Academician N. P. Likhachev?s archive published by Igor Medvedev in the collection ? In Memoriam Ivan Dujcev? of 1988 which is currently kept under No 10/667 in the Archive of the Leningrad Section of the Institute of History at the Russian Academy of Science. Having compared the illumination and the specifics of motif stylization, as well as the specific colouring, we could assert that the two manuscripts manifest pronounced similarities. Thereby, the 27 manuscripts by T. Hagiopetrites published by R. Nelson should also be supplemented by the Four Gospels at the Church Institute (CHAI gr. 949) in addition to the Apostle Lectionary of 1307, autograph of Theodore Hagiopetrites at the Dujcev Centre, Cod. D. gr. 29 (Olim. Kos. 35), which R. Nelson briefly mentioned in his preface, and the Saint Petersburg Four Gospels, published by I. Medvedev.

At the most recent MTE journal presentation during the NCTM Research Conference in Washington, DC, titled “Could I Publish This in MTE? Advice from Published Manuscripts in the MTE Journal” (Crespo, Chao, & Yow, 2018), we asked the audience the following questions: Who is intending to write a manuscript for the MTE journal?Who is a reviewer for the journal?Who is a reader of the journal?

The article deals with the special version of the third redaction of the Old Russian Chronograph from the collection of V. M. Undolsky. It is quite different from other copies of this text. The compiler of the manuscript not only revised the traditional structure of the third redaction of the Chronograph by increasing the number of its chapters from 169 to 182 but also fundamentally changed its historical meaning. The vast majority of manuscripts of the third redaction of the Chronograph brought its narrative up to the end of the Time of Troubles in 1618, thereby emphasizing the end of the “rebellious” period in Russian history and the relative “unimportance” of the following years of quiet rule of the first Romanovs. The Chronograph in 182 chapters continues its narrative of Russian history up to the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 and pays much attention to the military events and rebellions of the early Romanov era. This codex was written in the patriarchal scriptorium between 1686 and 1696 (most likely in 1686–1689). The paper on which it is written was actively used in other textually related manuscripts from the patriarchal scriptorium in the late 1680s– 1690s. The Undolsky’s copy of the third redaction of the Old Russian Chronograph is not the only version enlarged by additional chapters. More chapters than in the “classical” version can be found in Rumyantsev’s second copy of the Chronograph. Both Undolsky’s and Rumyantsev’s manuscripts derive from a common protograph — a special form of the third redaction of the Chronograph in 179 chapters. The Undolsky manuscript, however, is continued by the Patriarchal Chronicle for the years 1619–1686. Accordingly, the number of chapters is increased to 182. In contrast, the Rumyantsev manuscript is augmented by the Tale of Mosokh and retains the original 179 chapters. Both manuscripts are supplemented by various excerpts from the Book of Royal Degrees. Simultaneously with them, there also appeared other variants of the Chronograph that expressed the patriarchal bookmen’s thoughts about Russian and world history in the 1680s and 1690s: the Fokhtov Chronograph in 187 chapters and its revised version – the Vologodsky Chronograph in 189 chapters, and also the Tikhonravov Chronograph in 184 chapters. The changes that became fixed in some codices from the last quarter of the 17th century were the results of editorial work of patriarchal and other scribes, who compiled new chronographs and their brief redactions (“chronographets”) in the 1680s – 1690s

Este ensaio centra-se em quatro objetos materiais definidos que se en­contram nos arquivos do espólio do escritor Carlos de Oliveira (1921-1981), presentemente ao cuidado do Museu do Neo-Realismo em Vila Franca de Xira, Portugal. Trata-se de três cadernos manuscritos, dois deles an­teriores à publicação de Finisterra, Paisagem e Povoamento (romance de 1978), e um posterior; e um conjunto de 5 folhas dispersas datilografadas, datadas de 1970, com o título “Cosmogonia”. Nos dois cadernos anteriores à data de publicação, o autor esboça aquilo a que chama “apontamentos” e “esquemas”, para além de uma série de considerações sobre o ofício da escrita. No terceiro, Carlos de Oliveira responde a “uma leitora curiosa” do romance, explicando detalhes e referências e insurgindo-se contra a crítica que, nas suas palavras, “não entendeu” a lógica intrínseca da narrativa. A “Cosmogonia”, por seu lado, representa uma justificação “filosó­fica” para o romance. De um modo enfático, essas 27 páginas manuscritas permitem recuperar, em movimento contínuo e progressivo, tanto a an­terioridade do romance como uma parte – crucial – da sua posteridade.