DOI issue:
Artykuły / Articles
DOI article:Budzioch, Dagmara; Tomal, Maciej: The manuskript of the Moreh Nevuchim from the collection of the National Museum in Krakow
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31060#0160
158 Dagmara Budzioch, Maciej Tomal
fied with Abramo di Dattero (elsewhere named di Deodato!24), father of Bonaventura,
Manuelle and another Deodato? He - no doubt - was still alive when the manuscript was
completed as we have at our disposal the records of his money transaction from 1416.25
Moreover, he was a resident of Citta di Castello and freąuently visited Perugia. His and his
sons partner was certain Gaio, i.e. Yicchaą. Would he be an owner of the manuscript to
whom Deodato had passed it?
Now, a problem arises as to the expression “and he swore that what is written above is
written by his hand”. Could it be a reference to “an invoice”, a conńrmation of transaction?
Should we not rather assume that Yicchaą, the scribe, confirmed that the whole manu-
script had been written by him? But if the latter is true, the problem of the manuscript
ownership arises anew. Nonetheless, one morę hypothesis may be adyanced. Yicchaą, the
scribe, was not an owner of the manuscript but he acted as an agent who passed the work
by his hand from its previous owner, Yeąutiel ben Yechiel, to a new one, Shlomo ben Avra-
ham, mentioned in the second colophon. What is morę, the person named Shlomo ben
Ayraham is testihed among the moneylenders in Florence and Cortona.26 Maybe this hy-
pothesis does not solve the vast majority of problems posed by the colophons but it could
open sonie new ways of their interpretation. Therefore, to reconstruct the missing history
of the manuscript one should assume that after some years of drawing spiritual profit from
the reading of the text Nathanael ben Ayraham, i.e. Deodato di Abramo, decided to sell it
to another moneylender active in the region, i.e. to Shlomo ben Ayraham. As an agent to
do this he choose a certain Yicchaą, the scribe. Ali in all, during the hrst two/three decades
of the 15th century Deodato ceased to be the owner of our manuscript and the new one
became Shlomo.
We hope that new facts and further inyestigation will be able to shed some light on
these mysterious fragments. All in all, at the present stage of research we have to leave
many ąuestions open for further discussion.
At this point an Italian episode of the codexs fate ends and opens a Dutch one. The
proper text of the Maimonides' treatise is preceded by paper leaves (numbered as I and II)
with a text in Dutch. Moreover, at the end of the codex have been added some morę paper
sheets with a text in Polish (numbered from I to VI). Both texts bear signatures and dates.
The first one, in Dutch, records that the manuscript was a property of certain Her-
manus van de Walf (reading uncertain) in Amsterdam. The whole text reads as follows:
[1] Dit boek genaemt Morę Neboechiem [2] is Geschreven Int Jaar na De schepping [3]
der werelt A[nn]o 5166 A[nn]o Christi 1406. In [4] het Ligt gegeven door rabbi Mosche
[5] Ben Maimon Int Arabus en uijt [6] het Arabus Int Hebreus overgebragt [7] Door [8]
Rabbi Samuel ben Judas Abentibon [9] Gekocht in de Auti(?) bij Wijlen D[oct]o[r] [10]
Hermanus van de Walf (?). [11] Amsterdam dezentis (?) 1734
[1] This book called Morę Neboechiem [2] was written in the year from the creation
[3] of the world 5166, [i.e.] A.D. 1406. [4] [It] was edited by rabbi Mosche ben Maimon in
Arabie language [6] and translated from Arabie into Hebrew [7] by [8] rabbi Samuel ben
24
25
26
See D. Bernstein, ibidem, p. 245.
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
fied with Abramo di Dattero (elsewhere named di Deodato!24), father of Bonaventura,
Manuelle and another Deodato? He - no doubt - was still alive when the manuscript was
completed as we have at our disposal the records of his money transaction from 1416.25
Moreover, he was a resident of Citta di Castello and freąuently visited Perugia. His and his
sons partner was certain Gaio, i.e. Yicchaą. Would he be an owner of the manuscript to
whom Deodato had passed it?
Now, a problem arises as to the expression “and he swore that what is written above is
written by his hand”. Could it be a reference to “an invoice”, a conńrmation of transaction?
Should we not rather assume that Yicchaą, the scribe, confirmed that the whole manu-
script had been written by him? But if the latter is true, the problem of the manuscript
ownership arises anew. Nonetheless, one morę hypothesis may be adyanced. Yicchaą, the
scribe, was not an owner of the manuscript but he acted as an agent who passed the work
by his hand from its previous owner, Yeąutiel ben Yechiel, to a new one, Shlomo ben Avra-
ham, mentioned in the second colophon. What is morę, the person named Shlomo ben
Ayraham is testihed among the moneylenders in Florence and Cortona.26 Maybe this hy-
pothesis does not solve the vast majority of problems posed by the colophons but it could
open sonie new ways of their interpretation. Therefore, to reconstruct the missing history
of the manuscript one should assume that after some years of drawing spiritual profit from
the reading of the text Nathanael ben Ayraham, i.e. Deodato di Abramo, decided to sell it
to another moneylender active in the region, i.e. to Shlomo ben Ayraham. As an agent to
do this he choose a certain Yicchaą, the scribe. Ali in all, during the hrst two/three decades
of the 15th century Deodato ceased to be the owner of our manuscript and the new one
became Shlomo.
We hope that new facts and further inyestigation will be able to shed some light on
these mysterious fragments. All in all, at the present stage of research we have to leave
many ąuestions open for further discussion.
At this point an Italian episode of the codexs fate ends and opens a Dutch one. The
proper text of the Maimonides' treatise is preceded by paper leaves (numbered as I and II)
with a text in Dutch. Moreover, at the end of the codex have been added some morę paper
sheets with a text in Polish (numbered from I to VI). Both texts bear signatures and dates.
The first one, in Dutch, records that the manuscript was a property of certain Her-
manus van de Walf (reading uncertain) in Amsterdam. The whole text reads as follows:
[1] Dit boek genaemt Morę Neboechiem [2] is Geschreven Int Jaar na De schepping [3]
der werelt A[nn]o 5166 A[nn]o Christi 1406. In [4] het Ligt gegeven door rabbi Mosche
[5] Ben Maimon Int Arabus en uijt [6] het Arabus Int Hebreus overgebragt [7] Door [8]
Rabbi Samuel ben Judas Abentibon [9] Gekocht in de Auti(?) bij Wijlen D[oct]o[r] [10]
Hermanus van de Walf (?). [11] Amsterdam dezentis (?) 1734
[1] This book called Morę Neboechiem [2] was written in the year from the creation
[3] of the world 5166, [i.e.] A.D. 1406. [4] [It] was edited by rabbi Mosche ben Maimon in
Arabie language [6] and translated from Arabie into Hebrew [7] by [8] rabbi Samuel ben
24
25
26
See D. Bernstein, ibidem, p. 245.
Ibidem.
Ibidem.