Alanic Marginal Notes in a Greek Liturgical Manuscript (Sitzungsberichte Der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse) 9783700175926, 3700175922

Citation preview

Alexander Lubotsky Alanic Marginal Notes in a Greek Liturgical Manuscript

ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE SITZUNGSBERICHTE, 859. BAND

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN ZUR IRANISTIK HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BERT G. FRAGNER UND FLORIAN SCHWARZ NR. 76

GRAMMATICA IRANICA HERAUSGEGEBEN VON VELIZAR SADOVSKI BAND 2

ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE SITZUNGSBERICHTE, 859. BAND

ALEXANDER LUBOTSKY

ALANIC MARGINAL NOTES IN A GREEK LITURGICAL MANUSCRIPT

W

Vorgelegt von k. M. Rüdiger Schmitt in der Sitzung vom 21. März 2014

Diese Publikation wurde einem anonymen, internationalen Peer-Review-Verfahren unterzogen. This publication has undergone the process of anonymous, international peer review.

Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. ISBN 978-3-7001-7592-6 Copyright © 2015 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Druck und Bindung: Prime Rate kft., Budapest Printed and bound in the EU http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/7592-6 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

CONTENTS

1. Preface .............................................................................................................. 5 2. Description of the manuscript ........................................................................... 6 3. Paleography ...................................................................................................... 9 4. The Ossetic dialects ........................................................................................ 12 5. Alanic and the Greek alphabet ........................................................................ 14 6. The complete list of the marginal notes .......................................................... 14 7. Comments on the marginal notes.................................................................... 16 8. Alanic marginal notes ..................................................................................... 17 9. Greek marginal notes ...................................................................................... 42 10. The spelling and the language of the notes ................................................... 45 11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia” .................................... 51 References .......................................................................................................... 67

1. PREFACE “На примере Зеленчукской надписи видно, что аланы-осетины прибегали в отдельных случаях к греческому письму для составления эпитафий на своем языке, быть может и для других целей... Новые находки такого же порядка вполне вероятны.” (ABAEV 1949: 43) (The Zelenčuk inscription demonstrates that the Alans-Ossetians sometimes resorted to the Greek alphabet for writing epitaphs in their own language, and perhaps also for other purposes... New findings of a similar nature are quite likely.)

In 1992, while studying Byzantine liturgical manuscripts in the library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Sysse ENGBERG of the University of Copenhagen discovered a manuscript with some thirty marginal notes. The notes were written in Greek characters, but the language of the majority of them was not Greek. Back in Copenhagen, ENGBERG showed the glosses to her colleagues, who suspected that they were written in an Iranian language, possibly in a pre-stage of Ossetic. The specialists on Ossetic, however, strongly doubted this attribution, and ENGBERG posted some of the notes on “the Linguist-list” with a request to the linguists of the world to help her to identify the language.1 It is in this way that the marginalia have come to my attention. I wrote to Sysse ENGBERG and confirmed to her the Alanic, or pre-Ossetic, provenance of the notes. Already in 1949, ABAEV surmised that Alans must have used the Greek alphabet on some scale for writing their language (his words are used above as an epigraph), and the discovery of the marginal notes has provided a brilliant proof of his point of view. At the beginning, Sysse ENGBERG and I were planning to prepare a joint edition of the Alanic marginal notes: in 1993 and in 1994 we had two working sessions – one in Leiden and one in Copenhagen – when we discussed the major principles of the edition and started to write the commentary. ENGBERG translated most of the Greek headings, filled in the abbreviations, and started writing the description of the manuscript, while I was responsible for the linguistic analysis. Soon after that, ENGBERG unfortunately had to 1

This request can still be consulted on the web, http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-596.html. In 2007, S.M. PEREVALOV published an analysis of these “Linguist-list” notes.

6

Alexander Lubotsky

stop working on the edition due to personal circumstances, and I continued to work on the notes alone. In 2002, the late Vitalij Mixajlovič GUSALOV approached me with a request to write an article about the discovery of the marginal notes for the journal Nartamongæ, of which he was editor-in-chief at the time. On the basis of materials which had been prepared for the edition, I then compiled a preliminary report, which appeared in 2004 (ENGBERG – LUBOTSKY 2003 [2004]). In 2011, I published one more marginal note together with my Moscow colleague S.A. IVANOV (IVANOV – LUBOTSKY 2011). The purpose of the present edition is to finally put a complete collection of the Alanic marginal notes at the disposal of the scholarly community. The interpretation of the notes, given below, is necessarily preliminary and will no doubt be improved in the future. The edition owes much to Sysse ENGBERG, whose profound knowledge of the Byzantine manuscripts and liturgy was instrumental at the initial stages of working on the edition. I am further indebted to Rüdiger SCHMITT, Velizar SADOVSKY and Michael JANDA for critical remarks on an earlier version of the book and to S.A. IVANOV (Moscow) for sharing with me his photographs of the manuscript Q12. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Library of the Academy of Sciences (Библиотека Академии Наук) in St. Petersburg for granting me permission to publish the marginal notes. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT 2.1. The manuscript St. Petersburg, Library of the Academy of Sciences (Библиотека Академии Наук), Q12 is a Greek Old Testament lectionary, or Prophetologion. The Prophetologion is a book which contains the Old Testament lections in the order in which they are read during the liturgical year. Individual scribes have found different solutions to the problem of the chronological arrangement of the fixed and the movable feasts in relation to each other, a fact that explains why some of the users of the book have had difficulty in finding their way through their manuscript. An arrangement found in many Prophetologion manuscripts begins with Christmas (December 25) and Epiphany (January 6), followed by the movable year, i.e. the readings for the weekdays of Lent from Wednesday before Carnival, up to and including Easter Eve. Then come the readings for the vespers of the Tri-

2. Description of the manuscript

7

odion period, i.e. until Sunday after Pentecost (κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων πάντων), and finally the fixed year, from September to August. Each liturgical day has a heading which tells when the particular feast occurs during the movable or the fixed year. In the Lenten period, the heading will specify the day of the week, and the week within Lent, e.g. Friday of the Third week of Lent (τῇ παρασκευῇ τῆς ἑβδομάδος τῶν νηστειῶν). Each of the feasts in the Triodion period has its particular name, e.g. Sunday of the Holy Fathers (κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων). The headings of the fixed feasts normally carry both the date and the Saint of the feast, e.g. November 13, St. John Chrysostom (μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ ιγ΄ τῇ παραμονῇ τοῦ ἁγίου ἰωάννου τοῦ χρυσοστόμου). This is the arrangement found in the St. Petersburg manuscript, the major part of which was copied in A.D. 1275 by a certain Ἰωάννης ἀναγνωστοδιάκονος (deacon responsible for the recital of the Holy Scripture in church; for the other hands see § 3). He did not copy the manuscript for himself, but for a priest named Χρυσός who commissioned it. Unfortunately, this is all we are told about these two gentlemen by the subscription on the last folio of the manuscript; the scribe has not added particulars about the geographical location, neither of himself, nor of the prospective owner. We have also no information on the provenance of the manuscript: the inventory of the Library (Index s.a.: f. 4) only states that it was acquired in 1862.2 The manuscript itself does not give us any clue as to where it was copied. It is written on paper, with two columns to the page, and the model from which it was copied belonged to the Constantinopolitan, as opposed to the monastic, tradition. It could have been copied almost anywhere within the Byzantine sphere of influence, except in Italy. The manuscript contains 138 folios, some of which are severely damaged: folio 7 only has one column, folios 126‒138 miss part of the margins and some text. In 1964, the manuscript was thoroughly restored. At one point, the manuscript was owned and used by a non-Greek who had learned to read and write Greek, and who lived in a Greek Orthodox society where Greek served as the liturgical language. This possessor felt the need to identify the feasts in the margin of his manuscript, because he could 2

In IVANOV – LUBOTSKY 2011: 7, fn. 3, it is suggested that the manuscript was sold to the Library by a Russian officer (or his family) who had participated in the Caucasus War and brought it among his booty. For a parallel, see MALAXOV 1997: 35‒36.

8

Alexander Lubotsky

not easily find them by skimming the text, as a native Greek would have done.3 Supposedly, this man was entrusted with the recitation of the Holy Scripture in church and was sufficiently familiar with Greek to recite the readings, once he had located them in the manuscript. For this purpose, he wrote an abbreviated heading of his own in the margin, next to the full heading of the manuscript. The notes are always preceded by a cross. Some notes are in Greek, others in his native language written with Greek characters. Almost all feasts of the Triodion period and of the fixed year have received a marginal note in this way, but in the Lenten period only Monday of each week is marked. The glossator had a good passive knowledge of Greek, and also of orthodox liturgy. He correctly identified abbreviations like χρ(υσοστόμου), ἀπό(το)μ(ην), etc., often transcribed the Greek heading freely and even sometimes abbreviated it. On the other hand, it is also obvious that the glossator, although he appears to be conversant in Greek, did not have an active knowledge of Greek morphology and syntax. 2.2. The native language of the glossator can be positively identified as a pre-stage of Ossetic, suffice it to mention the days of the week χουτζάου πάν ‘Sunday’ (~ Oss. xwycawbon / xucawbon ‘id.’) or ἄυτεσηρ ‘Monday’ (~ Oss. Dig. avdisær ‘id.’). Instead of calling the language of the marginal notes Old Ossetic or Palaeo-Ossetic, I have decided to use the name Alanic, the name by which the language was known in Byzantium (cf. ABAEV 1949: 41ff. and passim; on Tzetzes see § 11). The fact that we find Alanic notes in a Greek Prophetologion confirms the testimony of the Flemish Franciscan monk William of Rubruck (Wilhelm van Ruysbroeck), who was sent by the French king Louis IX as ambassador to the Mongol empire. Rubruck reports that when he was in the city of Orna near Don in A.D. 1253, a group of Alans (called there Aas) came to see him on Whitsunday; they were Christian according to the Greek rite, used the Greek alphabet and had Greek priests.4

3 4

A similar phenomenon appears in Prophetologia used in Arabic speaking countries. “In vigilia pentecostes venerunt ad nos quidam Alani qui ibi dicuntur Aas, christiani secundum ritum Grecorum et habentes litteras graecas et sacerdotes graecos” (cited after ALEMANY 2000: 154).

3. Paleography

9

2.3. The exact date of the notes is difficult to determine. Since the glossator closely followed the paleographic habits of the original manuscript (see § 3), dating based on paleography is hardly feasible. On historical grounds, it is unlikely that the Alans would hold services in Greek after 1453, the fall of Constantinople, so that the marginal notes must have been written some time between A.D. 1275, the date of the manuscript, and A.D. 1453. The 13th or 14th century, before the slaughter of the Alans by Tamerlane’s army at the end of 14th century, seems the most probable date.5 3. PALEOGRAPHY 3.1. The manuscript is written by four different hands (cf. LEBEDEVA 1973: 49): the first scribe wrote folios 1-35v; the second wrote folios 3642v; the third wrote folios 43-45v. The remainder (45v-138) was written by the same ’Ιωάννης who also added the colophone (see § 2.1). The headings and the initials are generally (except for folios 36-42, the second hand) applied in vermilion. The form of the letters in the Alanic notes and the paleographic habits of the glossator are quite reminiscent of the handwriting of the Greek scribe ’Ιωάννης who has copied the larger part of the manuscript. In the table below, single letters and ligatures used in the notes are compared with those of the main text. With one exception (υρ on f. 120r), all letters from the Greek text are taken from folio 107r. Alanic notes Α

Greek text

(connected) (free)

10r, 113v,

100r, (μα) (ἀ)

Β

5

21r,

130r 107r, (πα)

107r,

(αμ)

116v

(αν)

109v,

(αυ)

21r

109v,

109v,

10r,

—

120r

128v

126v, (παν)

100r,

113v

124v

For the Latin and Byzantine sources on Christianisation of Alans, see ALEMANY 2000.

10

Alexander Lubotsky Alanic notes

Γ

Greek text

138r 109v

Ε

21r,

Η Ζ Ι

21r,

45v,

100r,

113v,

100r,

128v,

(ou)

45v,

Φ Χ

100r,

45v,

69r,

124v

128v

128v, but also

104r and

10r

126v

10r,

111v,

100r,

(υρ)

,

111v

55v,

(τζ) Υ

137r

45v

(στ)

(τη)

116v,

69r

10r,

Τ

,

100r

100r,

Σ

130r

138r

10r, Ρ

116v,

130r

116v,

109v,

Π

113v,

111v

10r, ,

107r,

128v,

107r,

Ν

100r,

100r

10r,

Μ

69r,

108v (for τζ see s.v. τ)

10r,

Λ

107r

37v,

116v,

Κ

Ο

45v,

100r',

69r,

10r, 100r,

111v', 108v,

124v 109v

—

109v

126v 113v

It is obvious that the two systems are very similar, and here I would only like to discuss the differences between them. (1) The distinction between a connected and a free alpha is the same in both systems, but the typical alpha in the Alanic notes with a long oblique

3. Paleography

11

stroke is encountered almost nowhere in the Greek text.6 This alpha, which I shall henceforth call “Alanic alpha” and indicate by underscoring (α), occurs in various positions and combinations, also word-initially. The only limitation seems to be the position in front of nasals, where we exclusively find the Alanic alpha. The combinations αν and αμ are almost always written in a ligature, possibly with the exception of 126v, but the letters are evanescent there. Importantly, the combination αν is also written with an Alanic alpha in Greek words (101v ἠ ἀνάλυψις, 121r ἡ ὑπὸπαντι). In several words (e.g. παρὰς 10r and ἀστέμακ 107r), the two kinds of alpha are used in the same word, and since there seem to be no paleographic reasons for a distribution, it is attractive to assume that the scribe tried to distinguish two different Alanic sounds. KAMBOLOV (2006: 207) proposed to equate the Alanic alpha with the omicron (παν ~ Oss. bon, καμ ~ Oss. kom, for which see below, s.vv. 100r, 116v), but this cannot be correct since α also occurs in non-nasal contexts where it does not correspond to Oss. o, as already pointed out by PEREVALOV (2007: 21). It seems likely to me that the Alanic alpha stands for /a/, whereas the common alpha stands for /æ/. For instance, ἀστέμακ corresponds to Oss. (in both dialects) æstæjmag ‘eighth’, and only the second alpha is Alanic. The case of παρὰς is less clear, but if the correspondence with Oss. barysč’i / baræsk’æ ‘fasting’ is correct, we again see that the first alpha is Alanic and matches Oss. a, whereas the second, conventional, alpha matches Oss. æ. Also in words like χουτζάου (100r) ~ Oss. xwycaw / xucaw ‘Lord’, πασήλ ~ basyl / basil, φητίβανη ~ fydywani / fidiwane, ἀποστόλ ~ Dig. Amistol, we find a match between the Alanic alpha and Ossetic a. We shall pursue the matter further below, when discussing the separate marginal notes, and in § 10.3. (2) The shape of beta and the shape of zeta are slightly different in Alanic and Greek texts. The combination τζ, for obvious reasons, only occurs in the Alanic notes and is written as a ligature. (3) Both the Greek and Alanic scribes indiscriminately use two kinds of pi: they occur many times next to each other on the same page, on the same line and even in the same word. The same is true for gamma, which is very rare in Alanic, however. 6

The only exception that I found is the alpha in the heading on 134v, which shows that the Greek scribe ’Ιωάννης did have this letter in his arsenal, but very rarely used it.

12

Alexander Lubotsky

(4) The two kinds of tau are also used in both Greek7 and Alanic, but in the Alanic marginalia, we find the “capital” tau only in the sequence τη, which occurs four times and is always written with a capital tau. In the Greek notes, the glossator uses the capital tau more often, see 105v and 119r. 3.2. Both the Greek scribe and the Alanic glossator do not use word divisions, but at the end of the line, the glossator definitely tried to finish a word, and when this was not possible, he normally broke off the word after a vowel. On two occasions, the glossator put letters above the line. In one case (128v), he did so for squeezing in the last letter of the word. In another (137r), the situation is less clear. 4. THE OSSETIC DIALECTS 4.0. Modern Ossetic has two major dialects: Iron (East Ossetic) and Digoron (West Ossetic). The Iron dialect, on which the literary language is based, is the more innovative of the two. Calling the stage before separation of the two dialects Common Ossetic (COss.), we can describe the essential differences between the dialects in terms of sound changes from COss. to Iron (for a detailed account see ABAEV 1949: 357ff., CHEUNG 2002: 12ff.)8: 4.1. The Iron vowel shift. Non-initial COss. *i and *u have merged into Ir. y, e.g. Ir. fyd ‘father’ (vs. Dig. fidæ), fyrt ‘son’ (vs. Dig. furt). This sound change has triggered several other developments. Since there were no i and u in the language any longer, COss. *e and *o became Ir. i and u respectively, filling the gap in the vowel system, e.g. Ir. miǧ ‘cloud’ (vs. Dig. meǧæ), Ir. urs ‘white’ (vs. Dig. ors). 4.2. Initial *u- has become Iron *wy-, e.g. Ir. wyrd ‘otter’ (Dig. urdæ). After the change *i > y, initial y- has disappeared in Iron. As a consequence, 7 8

On p. 107r, and are found in close proximity to each other. In the following, the Ossetic words are written according to ABAEV’s transcription used in his Ossetic etymological dictionary (except for labialized kw k’w xw gw qw ğw, which are rendered by ABAEV as ko, go, etc. and Iron palatal affricates č č’ ǯ, which ABAEV writes ḱ ḱ’ ǵ). If two Ossetic forms are given, the first refers to the Iron dialect, the second to the Digoron dialect. An asterisk before the form indicates that this form is not attested as such, being a reconstruction. Forms between slashes (/aaa/) stand for a phonological interpretation and those between square brackets ([aaa]) for a phonetic realization.

4. The Ossetic dialects

13

Iron has lost the article, and the accent has become contrastive (see below, sub § 4.7). 4.3. A further consequence of the shift *i, u > y was the rise of new consonantal phonemes in Iron. In the position before COss. *i and *e, the velars became palatalized, yielding Ir. č č’ ǯ, cf. Ir. čyzg ‘girl’ (Dig. kizgæ). In the position before COss. *u, the velars became labialized, so that Iron has a complete series of labialized velars and uvulars, viz. kw k’w xw gw qw ǧw, e.g. Ir. kwyrd ‘(black-)smith’ (Dig. kurd), sk’wynyn ‘to tear’ (Dig. sk’unun), xwyssyn ‘to sleep’ (Dig. xussun), etc. 4.4. The Iron loss of the final æ-vowel. Next to examples mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, cf. also Ir. kwyroj ‘mill’ (Dig. kurojnæ), æxsin ‘mistress’ (Dig. æxsijnæ), etc. 4.5. The development of COss. *Cwa (mostly *xwa) to Ir. Co, e.g. Ir. xorz ‘good’ (Dig. xwarz), xos ‘hay’ (Dig. xwasæ) and of COss. *Cwæ to Ir. Cæ, cf. xæryn ‘to eat’ (Dig. xwæryn), ugæs ‘sheaf’ (Dig. igwæs). 4.6. COss. awæ > Ir. wa, e.g. Ir. nwar ‘vein, sinew’ (Dig. nawær), Ir. bwar ‘body’ (Dig. bawær), Ir. cwan ‘hunting’ (Dig. cawæn). For more examples see ABAEV I: 318. 4.7. Accentuation in the two dialects is different. In Iron, accent is contrastive and largely predictable. The place of the accent is determined by the following simple rule: the word is accented on the first syllable, unless the vowel of the first syllable is a weak vowel æ or y. In that case the word is accented on the second syllable. This rule was operative before the loss of the initial y- (see sub 2 above), so that the Iron forms which used to have a definite article are accented on the first syllable. The Digoron accentuation rules are unclear (see CHEUNG 2002: 119f. for an overview of the literature). At any rate, the accent in this dialect is very weak and not distinctive. Neither MF, nor TAKAZOV 2003, nor ABAEV in his etymological dictionary give the accentuation of the Digoron words. It seems attractive to assume with CHEUNG (2002: 121) that Iron stress placement is an innovation and that the Digoron system is more archaic and is closer to the Common Ossetic state of affairs. 4.8. It is important to stress here that the above-mentioned developments of the Iron dialect are of relatively recent date. This means that all or most of

14

Alexander Lubotsky

these changes may have taken place in the post-Alanic period. At first sight, the Alanic words look much more like Digoron, but this may be deceptive, since at that stage there could have been much less differences between the dialects. In other words, in order to determine possible dialectal affiliation of the glossator, we must look for innovations and not for archaisms. 5. ALANIC AND THE GREEK ALPHABET We know of two more instances where the Greek alphabet was used to write Alanic: the Alanic inscription of the 11th‒12th century A.D. found in 1888 at the Zelenčuk river (cf. ABAEV 1949: 260ff., ZGUSTA 1987), and several Alanic phrases cited by the Byzantine writer Tzetzes (the 12th century A.D.) in his “Theogonia” (cf. § 11). There are many Ossetic sounds that the Greek alphabet of the Byzantine period did not have means to render, e.g. c [ts], ʒ [dz], q, ǧ, b, d, g, æ; glottalization could not be expressed either. As we can judge from the two abovementioned texts, the sounds b d g were written in the Greek alphabet by π τ κ, respectively, since Greek β δ γ were voiced spirants at that time (cf. ABAEV 1949: 255f.), cf. Tzetzes ταπαγχὰς ~ Ossetic (Dig.) dæ bon xwarz ‘good day to you’ (a greeting) or Zelenčuk πακαϑαρ for Ossetic Bæqatær, etc. The sounds c ʒ appear as τζ in both texts, cf. Tzetzes κίντζι ‘bride’ = Ossetic čynʒ / kinʒæ ‘id.’ (ABAEV 1949: 258), Zelenčuk τζηρϑε = Ossetic cyrt / cirt ‘monument’ (for the -ε see § 10.3). At the Alanic times, these affricates were most probably palatal (see § 10.3). The other problems relating to the spelling are discussed below, § 10. 6. THE COMPLETE LIST OF THE MARGINAL NOTES Below, all the marginal notes are transcribed in the left column; the text lacunas are indicated by square brackets ([...]), whereas a slash (/) marks change of line. The right-hand column gives the full heading found in the text of the manuscript itself and, since the headings are mostly strongly abbreviated, the abbreviated parts are given within parentheses. The Greek headings are standard formulas found in much the same wording in other manuscripts of the Prophetologion. There are altogether 34 marginal notes in the manuscript. Of those, 24 are Alanic, 9 are Greek, and 1 is mixed.

6. The complete list of the marginal notes

15

Fol. Marginal note Greek heading The Lenten period: 10r φιστηνίκ παρὰς τῇ δ΄ τῆς τυροφάγου 21r ἄυτεσήρ β΄ τῇ β΄ τῆς β΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) 30r ἄυτεσηρ γ΄ τῇ β΄ τῆς γ΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) 37v ἄυτεσηρ δ΄ τῇ β΄ τῆς μέ(σης) ἑβδ(ομάδος) 45v ἄυτεσήρ ε΄ τῇ β΄ τῆς ε΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) 55v ἄυτεσήρ ϛ΄ τῇ β΄ τῶν βαΐων 69r ἄυτεσήρ στούρ τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ῃ) β΄ πρωΐ 79v ἡ με/τα/μόρ/φωσις — 83r ἀσήρ τῷ ἁγ(ίῳ) καὶ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ῳ) σα(ββάτῳ) ἑσπ(έρας) 91v ἡλιοῦ — The Triodion period: 100r πητζινάκ / τῇ παραμο(νῇ) τῆς μέ(σο) ν΄ (i.e. χουτζάου / πάν μεσοπεντηκοστῆς) 101v ἠ ἀναλυ/ψις τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τῆς ἀναλή(ψεως) 102v τ(ῶν) ἁγί(ων) τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ῶν) ἁγ(ίων) τιη΄ ἁγ(ίων) π(ατέ)ρων π(ατέ)ρων 104r σαρὰ/βαρὰν / τῷ σα(ββάτῳ) τῆς ν΄ (i.e. πεντηκοστῆς) ἠστιπαν ἑσπ(έρας) 105v τ(ῶν) ἀ τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ῶν) ἁγ(ίων) πάντων 105v τὴ κυ(ριακὴ) β΄ idem The festivals of the fixed year: 107r ἀστέ/μακ πανὴ μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) η΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) γέννησιν τῆς ὑπ(εραγίας) ϑ(εοτό)κου 108v ἠζίπατζικρό[...]/κο μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) ιγ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) μνήμ(ην) τῶν ἐγκαινί(ων) τ(ῆς) ἁγ(ίας) ἀνασ(τάσεως) υκάνι 109v τζουβάρ μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) ιδ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ὕψωσιν τοῦ οὐρηαγ/βαναὶ τιμίου στ(αυ)ροῦ 110v τοὺ ϑεὀλόγος ιω΄ μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) κϛ΄ τ(ο)ῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) παν τοῦ ϑεολόγου 111v τημιτήρι πάν μη(νὶ) ὀκτ(ωβρίῳ) κϛ΄ μνήμ(η) τοῦ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ου) σ(ε)ισμ(οῦ) 113v μιχαήλ πάν μη(νὶ) νοεμβρίῳ η΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) σύναξιν τ(ο)ῦ ἀρχ(ι)στρατήγου μιχ(αήλ)

16

Alexander Lubotsky

Fol. Marginal note 116v ζιρὴν / κὰμ πάν 119r

120r

121r 124v

126v 128v

130r 134v 135v 137r 138r

Greek heading μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ ιγ΄ τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ο)ῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) τ(ο)ῦ χρ(υσοστόμου) εἰς τὰ ἄγια τ(ῶν) μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ κα΄ τ(ῆ)ς ὑπ(ερ)αγ(ίας) ἀγίων ϑ(εοτό)κου ὅτε εἰσέλ(ϑη) εἰς τ(ὰ) ἅγ(ια) τ(ῶν) ἁγίων πασήλ / πάν μη(νὶ) ἰανωαρίῳ εἰς τ(ὴν) α΄ τῇ παρα(μονῇ) τῆς περιτομ(ῆς) τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ. κ(αὶ) τοῦ ὁσίου π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμ(ῶν) βα(σι)λ(είου) ἡ ὑπὸπαντι μη(νὶ) φευρουαρίῳ β΄ ἡ ὑπαπαντὴ τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ ἀβήνα/τὴ πανὴ μη(νὶ) ἰουνίῳ ε΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ἐπέλευσιν τ(ῶν) ἐχϑρῶν. καὶ ἐν τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τῆς γενομένης. ἐν τῷ κάμπῳ λιτῆς φητί/βανη / πάνη μη(νὶ) ἰουνίῳ κδ΄ εἰς τ(ὸ) γεννέσιον τοῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) τοῦ προδ(ρόμου) ἀποστόλ / πάν μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κϑ΄ τῶν ἁγ(ίων) καὶ πρωτοκορυφαίων ἀπο(στόλων) πέτρου καὶ παύλ(ου) ἡλία παν μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κ΄ τοῦ ἁγ(ίου) προφήτ(ου) ἡλιοῦ [...]φω/[...] μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) ϛ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) μεταμόρφωσιν τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ [...]βα/[...]ε/[...]ι μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) εἰς τ(ᾶς) ιε΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) κοίμ(ησιν) τῆς ὑπ(εραγίας) ϑ(εοτό)κου [.]ητίβα/[..] ἀ / μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κϑ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ἀπο(το)μ(ήν) τοῦ [.]ὴρ κουρά/[...]α[? προδρόμ(ου) γρηγόρι πάνη μη(νὶ) ἰαννουαρίῳ κε΄ τοῦ ἐν ἁγ(ίου) π(ατ)ρ(ό)ς ἡμ(ῶν) γρηγορίου 7. COMMENTS ON THE MARGINAL NOTES

In the following comments, marginal notes are discussed from the liturgical, paleographic, and linguistic points of view. Every note is followed by the Greek heading, to which the note refers, its translation, and a black and white photograph. Then, a short outline of the liturgical context (L) is pro-

8. Alanic marginal notes

17

vided when necessary, which will help to explain the relation of the note to the Greek text, followed by paleographic comments (P) and an analysis of the meaning of the note and its linguistic structure (A). I first discuss the Alanic notes (and the mixed one) in § 8, followed by the Greek notes in § 9. 8. ALANIC MARGINAL NOTES In analyzing and interpreting Alanic notes, I have opted for a very cautious approach, because we have to operate with three unknowns: (1) Although it is clear that the language of the glossator is a pre-stage of Ossetic, we do not know exactly how archaic it is. (2) We do not know the spelling conventions of the glossator; we do not even know beforehand whether he had any. (3) The marginal notes do not always represent a translation of the Greek heading, which means that we can often only guess at their content. Of course, it is conceivable that the glossator has made mistakes: he was writing not an official document, but notes prepared for his own perusal, so that they might theoretically show traces of carelessness. Nevertheless, we have to start from the assumption that the text is correct and must refrain from emending the notes as much as possible. 10r φιστηνίκ παρὰς Greek heading: τῇ δ΄ τῆς τυροφάγου ‘Wednesday of Cheese Week’

L: Wednesday of Cheese Week is the beginning of Lent. P: The shape of the κ is sometimes close to that of the η in the Alanic marginal notes. As the reading -η is improbable after an iota, only κ can be meant in this context. On the two different shapes of alpha in the same word and on the specific shape of tau when followed by eta, see above, § 3. The note is complete and clearly legible.

18

Alexander Lubotsky

Alanic παρὰς is likely to stand for /baræs/. Since Proto-Iranian *p regularly becomes Oss. f, there probably was no phoneme /p/ in Alanic, so that Alanic π must represent /b/. As indicated in § 3, the “Alanic” alpha has the value of /a/ and the normal alpha has the value of /æ/. A: It is clear that this Alanic marginal note does not represent a literal translation of the Greek heading, so that its analysis must necessarily remain conjectural. Since Wednesday of the Cheese Week is the first day of Lent, it seems to be a reasonable guess that the note means something like ‘the start of Lent’, and that the second word, παρὰς /baræs/, is related to Oss. barysč’i / baræsk’æ ‘fasting, mourning’. The Ossetic word is borrowed from Gr. παρασκευή in the meaning ‘(day of) preparation; Friday, the day before the Sabbath’, probably through the Georgian mediation (cf. Georgian p’arask’evi ‘Friday’) because of the Ossetic glottalic consonants in this word. For Christians, Friday is the day of fasting and mourning, because Jesus was crucified on this day. In Ossetic, barysč’i / baræsk’æ mostly refers to a oneyear fasting and mourning by women for the dead, but it is likely that the original meaning was broader and could also refer to Lent. Although it seems probable to me that παρὰς is related to Oss. barysč’i / baræsk’æ, I cannot account for the absence of the final syllable. There is enough room after the final sigma, but there is no trace of letters.9 Another option would be to connect Alanic παρὰς with Turkish perhiz ‘abstinence, diet, a Christian or Jewish fast’, which is borrowed from Persian parhēz / parhiz ‘abstention, continence, chastity’ (Middle Persian pahrēz ‘defence, care’) and attested in many Turkic languages, e.g. Khoresm Turkish (14th century) perhīz ‘abstinence’, Kumyk parz ‘religious prescriptions, obligation, diet’, Karačaj-Balkar parɪz ‘obligation’, etc.10 It is theoretically possible that at some stage the Alans borrowed a word for ‘fast’ from a Turkic language (many words of the religious sphere from Persian and Arabic must have entered Ossetic through Turkic), but this word is unattested in Ossetic, which makes this suggestion highly hypothetical. The first word may be identified with Oss. festinag / festujnag ‘forthcoming, about to begin’, the future participle (gerundive) of the verb festyn / festun ‘to stand up, become’. For -κ- standing for -g- see above, § 5. The -e9

10

On the other hand, the vowel correspondence in the final syllable (-i / -æ) is irregular, and it is impossible to reconstruct a common form. I am grateful to my colleague Uwe BLÄSING for discussing these forms with me.

8. Alanic marginal notes

19

in Iron festynag is the result of a recent contraction of the preverb fæ- and the initial i- of the verb COss. (= Dig.) istun ‘to stand’.11 Normally, COss. (= Dig.) e corresponds to Iron i (cf. § 4.1), which means that the contraction of *-æi- to -e- had not yet taken place in Common Ossetic. In both dialects this contraction is productive and regular, cf. Dig. me ’xæs ‘my duty’ < mæ ixæs (ISAEV 1966: 20), Ir. we ’znag ‘your enemy’ < wæ yznag (ABAEV 1964: § 7, BAGAEV 1965: 32). For Ossetic festinag / festujnag we must therefore reconstruct COss. *fæ-istujnag. The rendering of /æï/ and /uj/ by -ι- and -η-, respectively, is understandable. The spelling of /a/ with -ί- in the last syllable seems less straightforward, however. In the marginalia, /æ/ is colored by a preceding palatal sound to [i] and appears written with η or ι (ἄυτεσηρ / ἄυτεσήρ /ævdæjsær/, σὴρ /sær/, ζιρὴν /zærin/, cf. § 10.3), and /j/ in the preceding syllable may have had the same effect. Nevertheless, I would not expect /a/ as a longer and a more open vowel to undergo the same coloring, although there are no examples to the contrary.12 If our analysis of the note is correct, then it must mean “Lent is about to start, Lent is forthcoming’. 21r ἄυτεσήρ β΄ Greek heading: τῇ β΄ τῆς β΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) ‘Monday of the Second Week (of Lent)’

A: This note and the four following will be discussed together. 30r ἄυτεσηρ γ΄ Greek heading: τῇ β΄ τῆς γ΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) ‘Monday of the Third Week (of Lent)’ 11 12

In the simplex, the initial i- was regularly lost in Iron styn. Note, however, that the plural of the future participles is -æg-tæ with -æ-vocalism.

20

Alexander Lubotsky

37v ἄυτεσηρ δ΄ Greek heading: τῇ β΄ τῆς μέ(σης) ἑβδ(ομάδος) ‘Monday of the Middle (=Fourth) Week (of Lent)’13

45v ἄυτεσήρ ε΄ Greek heading: τῇ β΄ τῆς ε΄ ἑβδ(ομάδος) ‘Monday of the Fifth Week (of Lent)’

55v ἄυτεσήρ ϛ΄ Greek heading: τῇ β΄ τῶν βαΐων ‘Monday of the Palm Week (= the Sixth Week of Lent)’ 13

The heading itself is on the previous page of the manuscript.

8. Alanic marginal notes

21

L: For the reference system see § 2.1. P: ἄυτεσηρ is written thrice with two accents and twice with one accent, see below. It is further remarkable that the glossator used various forms of eta in these notes, whereas the other letters are written in the same way. A: ἄυτεσηρ is unmistakably identical with Dig. avdisær ‘Monday’ (MF I: 5, TAKAZOV 2003: 15). This word represents an original phrase consisting of avdi ‘seven (gen.sg.)’ and sær ‘head’ and meaning literally ‘the head of the seven’. While writing ἄυτεσήρ with two accents, the glossator considered it as two words, whereas the initial accent of ἄυτεσηρ presumably reflects the accentuation of a compound. In Iron, this word has been replaced by k’wyrisær, where k’wyri is the word for ‘week’ borrowed from Georgian k’vira, itself a loanword from Gr. κυριακή. No information about the dialectal provenance of the glossator can be gleaned from the note, however: avdisær is likely to be the original Common Ossetic word, which has later been replaced in Iron. The spelling η [i] for *æ is most probably due to the palatal pronunciation of the preceding *s- (see below, § 10). In Greek of this period, the υ in the sequence αυτ / αυδ was already pronounced as [f] / [v], respectively. This may account for the spelling ἄυ(τ)for *av(d)- where υ stands for *v. It seems significant that the word for ‘Monday’ is consistently spelled ἄυτεσηρ, with an -ε-. Epsilon is rarely used in Alanic marginalia, the only other case being 107r ἀστέμακ ‘the eighth’, which stands for /æstæjmag/ (Oss. æstæjmag). It is therefore a distinct possibility that also in ἄυτεσηρ, the epsilon stands for -æj- (the same value of epsilon is also found in the Zelenčuk inscription and in Tzetzes, see § 10.3). This consideration may provide an important argument for the origin of the Ossetic genitive ending -y / -i. The most straightforward idea of deriving this ending from Proto-Iranian *ahya was discarded by several generations of scholars because they assumed that Proto-Iranian *-ahya would rather yield Ossetic -æj (for a discussion of

22

Alexander Lubotsky

previous suggestions, see CHEUNG 2008: 89f.). Here, we finally have this “expected” -æj, which would mean that the Ossetic ending -y / -i is due to a special development of word-final *-æj. Note that CHEUNG 2008: 90f. also opts for this derivation, albeit with a slightly different scenario. The spelling ἄυτεσηρ, with the common alpha (see § 3 on the two alphas of the Alanic marginalia), seems to point to initial *ævd- rather than to avdthat we find in Digoron avdisær.14 In Ossetic, we find both stems in the word for ‘seven’: avd is regular in the numeral, while ævd- appears in compounds (e.g., ævddæs ‘seventeen’) and derivatives (e.g., ævdæm, ævdæjmag ‘seventh’, Dig. ævdaj ‘seventy’). This interchange is due to the pre-Ossetic change of æ to a before two final consonants. Originally, the numeral ‘seven’ must thus have a- only in the nominative singular (i.e., nom. *avd, dat. *ævdæn, etc.), but the vowel of the nominative has eventually spread through the whole paradigm. In other words, if we take the spelling seriously, ἄυτεσηρ must stand for /ævdæjsær/. 69r ἄυτεσήρ στούρ Greek heading: τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ῃ) β΄ πρωΐ ‘The Great and Holy Monday at morn’

L: The Great and Holy Monday is Monday before Easter, Monday of the Palm Week. P: For the ligatures στ and υρ see § 3. A: Alanic στούρ stands for /stur/ and corresponds to Oss. styr / (æ)stur ‘big, great’. The word order is different from that of Modern Ossetic. In the modern language, the attribute always precedes the referent, whereas we find 14

It cannot be excluded, however, that the problem is of a graphic nature. In the marginal notes, we find no examples of αυ (with an Alanic alpha), so that it remains a theoretical possibility that the Alanic glossator did not distinguish between αυ and αυ.

8. Alanic marginal notes

23

the reverse order here. Nevertheless, the order of the elements in compounds like Ir. særystyr (sær + (y)styr) ‘proud, haughty, arrogant’, ‘pride, haughtiness’, lit. ‘(having) a big head’, særgwybyr / særgubur ‘with a hanging head’, etc., shows that at a previous stage the order could be different. More examples of this kind can be found in ABAEV 1949: 231ff., 1964: § 204. 83r ἀσήρ Greek heading: τῷ ἁγ(ίῳ) καὶ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ῳ) σα(ββάτῳ) ἑσπ(έρας) ‘The Great and Holy Saturday, in the Evening’

L: This is Easter Eve. A: At first sight, it seems attractive to connect ἀσήρ with the Ossetic word for ‘evening’, which is izær in both dialects. According to ABAEV (I: 561), in South Ossetic dialects we also find the form æzær, which is easier to reconcile with the initial ἀ- of ἀσήρ. On the other hand, there are two problems with this identification. First, one would expect an adverb ‘in the evening’, if the Alanic word corresponds to Gr. ἑσπέρας. We may think that ἀσήρ is the equivalent of the Ossetic adverb aizær ‘in the evening’, but the accent on the second syllable and the unlikely spelling ἀ- for *ai- seem to contradict this interpretation. Further, the spelling -σ- for -z- is strange (cf. 116v ζιρὴν for *zærīnæ), especially considering the consistency of the spelling of the consonants (see below, § 10). Therefore, it is more promising to assume that ἀσήρ corresponds to Oss. (Dig.) æ sær ‘its head, its beginning’. It is obvious that the glossator found it difficult to locate the beginning of the service in the manuscript (see § 2): this was the reason why he wrote the marginal notes in the first place. It is therefore understandable that he wanted to mark the beginning of the Easter Eve service. On folio 83r we see two crosses, but one of them has no note behind it. Presumably, the glossator originally thought that the service

24

Alexander Lubotsky

started later on the page, then discovered his mistake and put the note “the beginning” there where the service must indeed start. In Ossetic, the possessive pronoun of the third person singular is æj (jæ) in Iron and æ in Digoron. The origin of this pronoun is disputed (cf. MILLER 1903: § 61), but it is quite possible that Dig. æ represents the older form. For yet another instance of ἀ σήρ ‘his head’, see sub 137r. 100r πητζινάκ / χουτζάου / πάν Greek heading: τῇ παραμο(νῇ) τῆς μέ(σο) ν΄ (i.e. μεσοπεντηκοστῆς) ‘Eve of Midpentecost’

L: Midpentecost celebrates the midpoint between Easter and Pentecost. The feast begins on the 4th Wednesday after Easter and continues for a week. P: For the ligature of τ and ζ and for the Alanic alpha see § 3. A: χουτζάου πάν stands for /xucaw ban/ and corresponds to Ossetic xwycawbon / xucawbon ‘Sunday’, lit. ‘day of the god’, which is a calque of Gr. κυριακή (ἡμέρα), cf. ABAEV IV: 256. The development *a > o before nasals took place in Ossetic rather late, certainly not before the 13th century (see ABAEV 1949: 256), possibly even later, and in the time of the marginal notes, the word for ‘day’ must still have been *ban in Alanic. The same word is also found in an Alanic greeting, given by Tzetzes, viz. ταπαγχὰς = Ossetic (Dig.) dæ bon xwarz ‘good day to you’, for which see § 11.4.1. In the so-called “Yas word list” from the 15th century (NÉMETH 1959: 14f.), we encounter this greeting in the form daban horz. For the spelling of Alanic /b/ with a π, see § 5. However, Midpentecost is not a Sunday, but a Wednesday. It is not altogether unusual in the Greek calendar to celebrate a feast on the following, or preceding, Sunday instead of on the weekday on which it falls. It is of course

8. Alanic marginal notes

25

a little odd in this case, since the raison d’être of Midpentecost is that it falls on the 25th day after Easter (and the 25th day before Pentecost), a point which is somewhat lost if you celebrate it on the 22nd or 29th day instead. On the other hand, Midpentecost is a minor feast, and the glossator may have wanted to identify it with some other important feast, which was celebrated approximately at the same time.15 What kind of feast can that be? The first word πητζινάκ must represent something like Alanic /bicinag/, which is reminiscent of the Pechenegs, a Turkic people called in Middle Greek sources Πατζινάκοι, Πετζινάκοι (for different spellings and variants of this ethnonym see MORAVCSIK 1983b: 247f.), in Old Russian pečeněgъ, pl. -zi, in Middle Latin Pizenaci, Bisseni, Bysseni, Bessi (according to MORAVCSIK) or Pacinaci, Pacinacae, Pacinacitae (cf. VASMER 1951: 351), Arabic Pačanāk, Armenian Pacinnak (BANG 1918: 436); Georgian P’ač’anigi, P’ač’anik’i. The initial π- of πητζινάκ must at any rate stand for /b-/, since there was hardly any p at that stage (old *p had already become f long time ago), and this is further confirmed by Hungarian besenyő (BANG 1918), which is likely to be an Alanic loanword.16 Although we do not have further independent sources for the Alanic rendering of the name of this people,17 it seems very probable to me that πητζινάκ refers to the Pechenegs, and that the Alanic marginal note πητζινάκ χουτζάου πάν must thus be rendered as ‘Pecheneg Sunday’. In IVANOV – LUBOTSKY 2011, it has been argued that this Pecheneg Sunday is the Alanic name of the “Pecheneg Festival” which was officially established by the Byzantine emperor John II Comnenus in the early 12th century in order to commemorate the victory over the Pechenegs. The decisive battle in the 15

16

17

During the Triodion period, movable feasts gained undisputed prominence over immobile dates. Thus, the commemoration of the “Six Oecumenical Councils” was celebrated on the Sunday before Pentecost (MATEOS 1963: 130) and initially marked the exact date of the Church Council of 536; the same happened to the feast of the Adoration of the Cross, which is now celebrated in the middle of Lent, but initially marked the victory of the Emperor Heraclius over Persians in 628. More examples of this kind are given in IVANOV – LUBOTSKY 2011: 600–601. Interestingly, the place of the accent corresponds to that of Gr. Πατζινάκοι, Πετζινάκοι and Russian pečenég and may also be old. But see below on the expression byc’ynæg sk’wynyn. ABAEV (1935a = 1990: 251) interprets the name of a Nart hero Beʒenæg as an ethnonym “Pecheneg”, which is conceivable, but unverifiable. In Digoron, this hero is called Dedenæg (lit. ‘flower’), probably due to folk etymology.

26

Alexander Lubotsky

campaign took place at Beroea in the spring of 1122 or 1123. For more details about the battle and a discussion concerning its exact date I refer the reader to the article mentioned. The Alans probably got acquainted with the Pecheneg Festival already in the 12th century, through the Byzantine clerics. This century was a heyday for the Orthodox Christianity in the Northern Caucasus (cf. IVANOV 2008: 329), and it was the time when the Greek alphabet started to be used for writing the indigenous languages, as we can see on the example of the Alanic Zelenčuk inscription (ZGUSTA 1987: 59). We do not know for how long the victory over the Pechenegs was commemorated in Byzantium proper, but in a distant region such as Alania it could get petrified for centuries. The Ossetic expression for ‘to strive, hanker, yearn for something’ is byc’ynæg sk’wynyn / bic’inæg sk’unun,18 in Digoron also bic’inæg tonun. The verb sk’wynyn / sk’unun means ‘to tear up, exterminate’, and tonyn / tonun is largely synonymous to it, but the meaning and origin of byc’ynæg / bic’inæg is unknown. If we assume that this word originally was the denomination of the Pechenegs19, the expression would literally mean something like ‘to exterminate the Pechenegs’. The idiom seems to indicate that the Alans severely suffered from this steppe people in the past, so that it becomes understandable why they kept celebrating the Pecheneg Festival long after the Pechenegs themselves had disappeared from their horizon. 104r σαρὰ/βαρὰν / ἠστιπαν Greek heading: τῷ σα(ββάτῳ) τῆς ν΄ (i.e. πεντηκοστῆς) ἑσπ(έρας) ‘The Saturday of Pentecost, in the evening’

18

19

MF (I: 373) translate ‘порываться, страстно стремиться, стараться; sich reissen, – sehnen, – bemühen’. For a discussion of -æg versus -άκ (we would rather expect -ag) see §10.

8. Alanic marginal notes

27

L: The liturgical situation is clear: this is Eve of Pentecost. P: The hook written above the sigma in ἠστιπαν is no doubt intended to be above the eta and to indicate a spiritus. Remarkably, στ is here not written as a ligature, in contradistinction to the rest of the notes (see § 3); this might be due to an old fold in the paper which goes through the marginal note. A: The word σαρὰβαρὰν can hardly be anything else than an analogue of Ossetic (both dialects) særæværæn ‘foundation, basis, essence’, which is a derivative of the verb sær-æværyn / sær-æværun ‘to lay a foundation’20, a compound of sær ‘head’ + æværyn / æværun ‘to put, to lay down’. Pentecost is often considered to be the foundation, the beginning of the Church, as this is the moment when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. The use of two different alphas in this word seems to be at odds with the established distribution, viz. that the Alanic alpha (α) stands for /a/, and the common alpha for /æ/ (see § 3), but this discrepancy can be accounted for. The word for ‘head’ often appears in compounds as sar in Ossetic. ABAEV III: 33, for instance, adduces bæğæm-sar ‘with an uncovered head’; in Digoron, we encounter zærin-sar ‘grass-snake’, lit. ‘golden head’ (TAKAZOV 2003: 279). There is yet another reason to suspect that in σαρ-, /a/ is the correct vocalism: the word for ‘head’ in ἄυτεσήρ and elsewhere is spelled with eta, which shows that /æ/ was pronounced as [i] after a palatal sound (see § 10.3). Since we have σαρ- here, without coloring, it must contain a different vowel. As to the spelling -ὰν, in the marginal notes we do not find a single example of αν, with a common alpha, so that this spelling may be due to a paleographic habit. The two accents of σαρὰβαρὰν must probably be explained along the same lines as the two accents of ἄυτεσήρ: the glossator put the accent on the second syllable, which is the correct accent of the compound, and then added the accent on the final syllable, which is the accent of the second member of the compound. As already indicated by PEREVALOV (2007: 20), the word ἠστιπαν cannot be separated from Dig. istbon ‘праздник, праздничный день (holiday, feast-day)’, which is only recorded in TAKAZOV’s dictionary (TAKAZOV

20

MF (II: 1061) translate ‘класть начало, основание, давать повод; Grund, Veranlassung, Gelegenheit zu etwas geben’.

28

Alexander Lubotsky

2003: 305) and was unknown to ABAEV and MF.21 It is not quite clear how to analyze the -ι- in the Alanic word, which is missing in Digoron. Probably, the easiest way is to assume an anaptyctic vowel in the cluster -stb- in the speech of the glossator. A possible parallel is found in 108v ἠζίπατζικ if it is to be taken as /isbadʒyg/. The marginal note σαρὰβαρὰν ἠστιπαν can thus be interpreted as /saræværæn ist(i)ban/ and translated as ‘the feast-day of the Foundation’. 107r ἀστέ/μακ πανὴ Greek heading: μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) η΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) γέννησιν τῆς ὑπ(εραγίας) ϑ(εοτό)κου ‘September 8, the Birth(day) of the Most Holy Mother of God’

P: In the preliminary report (ENGBERG ‒ LUBOTSKY 2003), the text of the note was given as ἀστέ/μακ παν, but a closer inspection of the manuscript and the photographs shows that there is an additional -ὴ at the end of the line, albeit evanescent. A: The marginal note must refer to the date of the feast, viz. September the eighth, ἀστέμακ corresponding to Ossetic (both dialects) æstæjmag ‘the eighth’ < PIr. *aštamayāka- (CHEUNG 2002: 114, 165). The note means ‘at the eighth day’. 21

This is not the place to discuss the etymology of ist-. I would only like to mention that this word must undoubtedly be related to Oss. (y)stæn / istæn in oath formulas, cf. the following examples given by ABAEV (III: 148): Iron xwycawystæn ‘I swear by god’, Wastyrǵistæn ‘I swear by St. George’, qwyranystæn ‘I swear by Qur’an (among Muslims)’, mæ fydystæn ‘I swear by my father’, dæ farn, dæ farn, de ’zædystæn ‘I swear by your farn, by your farn, by your deity’; Digoron me ’rvadistæn ‘I swear by my brother’, mæ madistæn ‘I swear by my mother’, dæ farn, dœ farn, de ’zædistæn ‘I swear by your farn, by your farn, by your deity’.

8. Alanic marginal notes

29

The form πανὴ is the inessive singular of the word for ‘day’, corresponding to Oss. bony / boni. The glossator faithfully renders the Greek construction εἰς + acc. with the inessive, elsewhere using the nominative. The only exception is 113v, where the nominative is used instead of the inessive. Remarkably, this inessive is twice accented on the second syllable (πανὴ here and in 124v), and twice on the first (πάνη in 126v and 138r). 108v ἠζίπατζικρό[...]/κουκάνι Greek heading: μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) ιγ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) μνήμ(ην) τῶν ἐγκαινί(ων) τ(ῆς) ἁγ(ίας) ἀνασ(τάσεως) ‘September 13, Commemoration of the Consecration of the Church of the Resurrection (in Jerusalem)’

L: On September 13, the consecration or founding of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is commemorated. This is a minor feast; some other traditions celebrate Adoration of the Precious Wood of the Cross (cf. MATEOS 1962: 27). P: The second letter has a peculiar form, but it looks most like a malformed zeta. The end of the first line is almost unreadable. After an omicron, which is larger than normal because there is a hole in the paper exactly in the middle of it, there are traces of three letters, but they are too evanescent to be identified with certainty. The last two letters might be αν; the preceding letter looks like an upsilon, but the connecting stroke makes this rather improbable because ου is normally written unconnected. Furthermore, /wa/ is written -ουβα- in 109v τζουβάρ. A: In Ossetic, the clusters -kr- and -gr- do not occur in inherited words. Already in Proto-Iranian, *-kr- has become *-xr-. At a later stage, *-gr- yielded *-γr-, and all groups of a fricative or a stop plus a liquid were metathesized, so that *-xr- and *-γr- became -rx- and -rǧ-, respectively: for instance, Oss. syrx / surx ‘red’ from Proto-Iranian *suxra-, Oss. cyrǧ / cirǧ ‘sharp’ from Proto-Iranian *tigra-, etc. (cf. MILLER 1903: 36). This means that -κρ-

30

Alexander Lubotsky

cannot belong to one word, unless this is a very recent loan (even the name of Christ was adapted to Čyrysti / Kiriste). Therefore, the only probable division is ἠζίπατζικ ρό[...]κουκάνι. I am unable to give a convincing interpretation of the note. Possibly, ἠζίπατζικ means ‘founding’ or ‘consecration’, in which case we may compare the Ossetic verb (s)badyn / (is)badun ‘to sit down’ and assume a formation similar to Oss. baddzægtæ (pl.) ‘осадки (precipitation)’, something like /isbadʒyg/. An accent on an anaptyctic vowel (for which cf. 104r ἠστιπαν /istban/) may be unexpected, but has a parallel in 111v τημιτήρι /dimidiri/ (Gr. Δημήτριος). 109v τζουβάρ οὐρηαγ/βαναὶ Greek heading: μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) ιδ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ὕψωσιν τοῦ τιμίου στ(αυ)ροῦ ‘September 14, The Elevation of the Precious Cross’

L: This feast, which is called in Latin Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis, is dedicated to the discovery of the True Cross, the cross on which Jesus was crucified. According to the legend, this cross was found in 326 A.D. by Helena, the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine. The date of the feast refers to the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 335 A.D. P: The last sign of the first line is an Alanic alpha (for which see § 3) plus an element which is further unattested in the marginal notes. Most probably, this is a ligature of the Alanic alpha with a gamma, which appears in this form in the Greek text of the manuscript. As indicated above (§ 3), the Greek scribe indiscriminately used two variants of gamma (Γ and γ), and this was probably the case for the glossator, too. The spiritus above υ shows that οὐ starts a new word, but since there are further no accents on the line, οὐρηαγβαναὶ is likely to be one word. The one but last letter of line 2 can theoretically be either an alpha or an omicron, since the horizontal stroke at the right side of the circle is simply too small for an alpha and too big for an omicron. I have decided for an alpha, because the stroke, albeit short, is very clear.

8. Alanic marginal notes

31

A: τζουβάρ corresponds to the Oss. word for ‘cross, sanctuary, deity’, ʒwar / ʒiwaræ, which is a borrowing from the Georgian ǯvari. The COss. form was probably *ʒuwaræ. The Digoron dialect often shows dissimilation of *-uw- to -iw-, cf. Oss. sy / siwæ ‘horn’ < *suwa- < *sruwa-, cwan / ciwan ‘cast-iron (pot)’ < *cuwan. An interesting parallel to the spelling -ουβ- is found in the Yas word list (NÉMETH 1959: 31), cf. Yas huvaz ‘hay’ for Oss. xos / xwasæ, Yas huvar ‘millet’ for Oss. xor / xwar. In view of -a- in Oss. ʒwar / ʒiwaræ, we would expect τζουβάρ to be written with an Alanic alpha, but this is not the case. We can only guess at a reason; possibly, just a slip of the pen. The absence of a final vowel in τζουβάρ is an important indication that the glossator was the speaker of the Eastern dialect (Iron), cf. also sub 116v on ζιρὴν. οὐρηαγβαναὶ must contain οὐρηαγ- /uriag-/, a pre-form of Oss. wirag / ujrag ‘Jew’, which is a borrowing from Georgian uria ‘id.’. Presumably, the glossator wanted to specify the word /ʒuwaræ/, which means so many things in Ossetic, by calling it a Jewish cross, a cross from the land of the Jews (cf. ‘the Precious Cross’ of the Greek ms., sometimes also called ‘the True Cross’). The spelling of /g/ with gamma is unparalleled, but understandable. The ending -αὶ may reflect the ablative ending -æj, “from the land of the Jews”, so to speak, but the whole construction unfortunately remains unclear (-βαν- ~ Oss. suffix -on ?). 110v τοὺ ϑεὀλόγος ιω΄ παν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) σεπτ(εμβρίῳ) κϛ΄ τ(ο)ῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) τοῦ ϑεολόγου ‘September 26, (The Feast) of St. John the Evangelist’

P: The acute on ιω΄ is strange. May be, it was intended for παν which seems to lack an accent? A: This note with a rather peculiar mixture of Greek and Alanic nicely demonstrates the linguistic problem of the glossator. On the one hand, the normal way to say in Alanic ‘St. John’s day’ is a compound, cf. μιχαήλ παν

32

Alexander Lubotsky

‘Michael’s day’, ζιρὴν κὰμ πάν ‘The Golden Mouth’s day’, etc., where the first member is undistinguishable from the nominative. On the other hand, he did not want to translate ‘St. John the Evangelist’ into Alanic because there was presumably no ready equivalent. This may account for the peculiar nominative form ϑεὀλόγος, which also has a wrong accent (instead of θεόλογος) and a misplaced spiritus. Also the accent of τοὺ is wrong. 111v τημιτήρι πάν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) ὀκτ(ωβρίῳ) κϛ΄ μνήμ(η) τοῦ μ(ε)γ(ά)λ(ου) σ(ε)ισμ(οῦ) ‘October 26, Commemoration of the Great Earthquake’

L: The Alanic note refers to the fact that this day is normally St. Demetrios (Δημήτριος). A: This is one of the instances where the scribe did not take over the name in its Greek form, but used the Alanic variant. The Chinese chronicle ‘Yuan Shi’ (1369 A.D.) mentions several Alanic military leaders who served in the Mongolian army. One of those is called Di-mi-di-er (IVANOV 1914: 295f., ALEMANY 2000: 430), which, except for the final -ι, exactly corresponds to τημιτήρι /dimidiri/. For the split of the group -tr-, which at that time was absent and probably impossible in Alanic, cf. Oss. Bettyr from Πέτρος. The Ossetic names Dimitr and Dmitri are later borrowed from Russian (FRITZ 2006: 67, 68). 113v μιχαήλ πάν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) νοεμβρίῳ η΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) σύναξιν τ(ο)ῦ ἀρχ(ι)στρατήγου μιχ(αήλ) ‘November 8, Feast for the Archangel Michael’

8. Alanic marginal notes

33

A: Like many other names of the Christian saints, the name of the Archangel Michael was incorporated into the Alanic pantheon. One of the popular Ossetic saints was Mykalgabyrtæ / Mikalgaburtæ whose name consists of the names of Archangels Michael and Gabriel (see ABAEV s.v.; about the cult of these saints see also KALOEV 1971: 258f., ČIBIROV 1979: 145f.). In the Greek tradition, the present feast often commemorates Michael and Gabriel, together with the rest of the archangels. The question is why the glossator did not use the Alanic word, but took the name in the Greek form. It is possible that at the time of the marginalia, the festival Mykalgabyrtæ / Mikalgaburtæ was not associated with the Archangel Michael any longer. Alternatively, the glossator did not want to use the vernacular name of the festival and deliberately opted for the Greek name. This is the only case when the Greek construction εἰς + acc. is rendered in Alanic not with an inessive, but with a nominative. See sub 107r. 116v ζιρὴν / κὰμ πάν Greek heading: μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ ιγ΄ τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ο)ῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) τ(ο)ῦ χρ(υσοστόμου) ‘November 13, the Eve of St. John Chrysostomos’

A: The name of St. John Chrysostomos has often been translated in the vernaculars, cf. Old Church Slavonic Zlatoustъ, Armenian Oskeberan, Georgian Okrop’iri. Presumably, the missionaries working among the Alans did the same, translating χρυσοστόμος as *zærijnæ kam ‘Golden Mouth’, which

34

Alexander Lubotsky

appears in the note as ζιρὴν κὰμ. In Modern Ossetic this corresponds to zærin kom / zærijnæ (zærīnæ)22 kom. The -α- in κὰμ is due to the fact that the change of a to o before nasals took place not before the 13th‒14th century (see sub 100r on παν). The old form with -a- is reflected in Kabardian toponyms Sau-kam, Məstə-kam, Ullu-kam, etc. (cf. ABAEV 1949: 284). The fact that there is no final vowel in ζιρὴν is important for the question of the provenance of the glossator23, although Digoron also attests forms without final -æ, especially in compounds.24 Together with τζουβάρ (109v), this could be an indication that the glossator is of Eastern (Iron) origin. The spelling ι for *-æ- in ζιρὴν is probably due to the palatal pronunciation of the *z- (see below, § 10.3). 120r πασήλ / πάν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) ἰανωαρίῳ εἰς τ(ὴν) α΄ τῇ παρα(μονῇ) τῆς περιτομ(ῆς) τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ. κ(αὶ) τοῦ ὁσίου π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμ(ῶν) βα(σι)λ(είου) ‘January 1, Eve of the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ and (Eve) of Our Holy Father (St.) Basil’

P: It is not quite clear what exactly happened when the glossator wrote the note, i.e. why he crossed out the first word and decided to write the first line once again. 22

23

24

From Proto-Iranian *zarani̯ a-. For the development of the cluster -ni̯ - in Ossetic, see CHEUNG 2002: 103‒104. For the final -æ in this word, which is paragogic and can be secondary in Digoron, see CHEUNG 2002: 51, 55f. See the Digoron examples given by ABAEV IV: 303 and TAKAZOV 2003: 279. The latter mentions eight Digoron compounds with zærin- as first member (e.g. zærinbid ‘golden lace’, zærindag ‘golden thread’, zærinsar ‘grass-snake’).

8. Alanic marginal notes

35

A: The feast of St. Basil is very popular in Ossetia. The New Year feast is still called basiltæ in Digoron, and the winter month between the middle of December and the middle of January is called basilti mæjæ ‘the month of the basiltæ feast’. The special pastry which is baked for the New Year feast has the name basyl / basil (ABAEV I: 239f., MILLER 1882: 266f.). 124v ἀβήνα/τὴ πανὴ Greek heading: μη(νὶ) ἰουνίῳ ε΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ἐπέλευσιν τ(ῶν) ἐχϑρῶν. καὶ ἐν τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τῆς γενομένης. ἐν τῷ κάμπῳ λιτῆς ‘June 5, (Commemoration of) the Assault of the Enemies and the Eve of the Procession to the Plain’

L: The Assault of the Enemies refers to an unexpected attack of the Avars on Constantinople on June 5, A.D. 617 (for the date see MATEOS 1962: 307 with references), also known as “the Avar surprise”. P: The grave accent mark on τὴ of the second line is uncertain. It is much shorter than usual and can just be an accidental stroke. A: As indicated sub 107r, the inessive πανὴ renders the Greek construction εἰς + acc., so that the marginal note is likely to be directly related to the Greek heading. Unfortunately, I have not succeeded in finding a convincing interpretation for ἀβήνα/τὴ. It can stand for Alanic /ævinati/, /ævinadi/, /æwinati/ or /æwinadi/. The first -ή- can also be anaptyctic (see sub 104r). The first inclination is to take the final -ὴ of ἀβήνατὴ as the genitive ending of the name of the feast, although there are no good parallels in the marginalia for this construction (the normal pattern is a compound of the type 116v ζιρὴν κὰμ πάν, lit. “Golden-Mouth Day”, without a genitive ending). In view of the nature of the festival, one might assume that νατrepresents Oss. nad ‘beating, punishment’. There are several compounds with Oss. nad as the second member (ABAEV II: 146), cf. fydnad ‘жестокие

36

Alexander Lubotsky

побои (severe beating)’, sawnad ‘черные побои (black beating, i.e. “black and blue” beating)’, but I could not find a suitable first member in Ossetic.25 The preverb æv- is not attested with this verb. There are other possible avenues to explore. For instance, we can look for a “surprise” word, like ævippajdy / æveppajdi ‘suddenly, unexpectedly’ (literally, “unnoticed”, derived from fippajyn / feppajun ‘to notice’), or to consider ἀβήνατὴ gen.sg. of an abstract noun in -ad / -adæ, but again, no convincing candidates are available. 126v φητί/βανη πάνη Greek heading: μη(νὶ) ἰουνίῳ κδ΄ εἰς τ(ὸ) γεννέσιον τοῦ ἁγ(ίου) ἰω(άννου) τοῦ προδ(ρόμου) ‘June 24, the Birthday of St. John the Precursor’

P: On line 2, the combination αν seems not to be written as a ligature, contrary to the common usage, but the letters are slightly evanescent here. The first two letters of line 3 are also evanescent, but nevertheless easily identifiable. A: St. John the Precursor is known in Ossetic as fydywani / fidiwane (cf. ABAEV II: 226), lit. ‘Father Ywani/Iwane’. A parallel formation is found in Abkhaz Dad-Iuana with the word for ‘father’ before the name (cf. ABAEV 1949: 316). In the Digoron variants of the Nart-epos, St. John appears as 25

It is also unlikely that ἀβή corresponds to the Ossetic conjunction ævi ‘or’. In spite of the fact that nowadays this conjunction is generally used in the interrogative sentences, in the emotional, colloquial speech, other constructions are possible, too, cf. the example given in AXVLEDIANI 1969: 309: Card mænæj xynylæg kæny, ævi æz cardæj “Life is mocking me, or I (am mocking) life”. Nevertheless, it remains unclear why the glossator would start the marginal note with ‘or’.

8. Alanic marginal notes

37

Ojnon (see ABAEV I: 225f., 1972: 329f.), a name which undoubtedly belongs to the previous stage of Christianization. The fact that the name of St. John is written with a final -η, which must have had the value of /i/, may be an indication of the Eastern provenance of the glossator. Nowadays, the feast Fydywani / Fidiwane, for which see ČIBIROV 1976: 198f., is celebrated in August. As reported by ČIBIROV, in Central Ossetia it is celebrated two weeks after majræmy kwadzæn ‘the Dormition of St. Mary’26, which is August 15. In other words, the feast Fydywani / Fidiwane is August 29, the Beheading of St. John the Baptist, cf. 137r. For the ending of πάνη see sub 107r. 128v ἀποστόλ / πάν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κϑ΄ τῶν ἁγ(ίων) καὶ πρωτοκορυφαίων ἀπο(στόλων) πέτρου καὶ παύλ(ου) ‘June 29, the Holy and Exalted Apostles Peter and Paul’

P: The lambda is superimposed, which is presumably due to the fact that this was the last letter of the word and the available space was limited. A: ἀποστόλ is likely to be an Alanic word and not an adaptation of the Gr. τῶν ἀποστόλων, since in that case the glossator would have probably used the article (cf. sub 110v). Moreover, this feast is always called the feast of Peter and Paul in the Greek lectionaries and never just the feast of the apostles. The proof that the Alans knew the word *apostol is provided by the Digoron name of a summer month (June-July) Amistol (MILLER 1882: 263), 26

In the Digor valley, the feast is celebrated earlier, at the beginning of August.

38

Alexander Lubotsky

which must be a borrowing from Gr. ἀπόστολος (cf. ABAEV I: 51, 1970: 4, 1972: 326f.) and is named after the feast of Peter and Paul. According to ABAEV (op.cit.), the name of this month in Balkar, viz. Abǝstol, is a borrowing from Ossetic and represents the older form of the Amistol. The reduction of the middle syllable in Balkar and Ossetic indicates that the accent was not on that syllable. This corroborates the final accentuation of ἀποστόλ, which deviates from Greek ἀπόστολος. 130r ἡλία παν Greek heading: μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κ΄ τοῦ ἁγ(ίου) προφήτ(ου) ἡλιοῦ ‘July 20, the Holy Prophet Elijah’

P: There might have been an accent on παν, but the paper is rather worn here. A: The Prophet Elijah was incorporated into the pantheon of the Alanic heathen gods under the name Wacilla / Wacelia, Wacella ‘holy Elijah’ and became the god of thunder and harvest. For the Wacilla festival, see ČIBIROV 1976: 159ff. The name is further found in the Chinese chronicle ‘Yuan Shi’ in the form Ye-li-ya / Ye-lie, (IVANOV 1914: 288, 293; ALEMANY 2000: 433), where it belongs to two Alanic military leaders in the 13th and the early 14th century. Nevertheless, it seems that the glossator has used the Greek form of the name, considering the spiritus asper on the initial vowel. 135v [...]βα/[...]ε/[...]ι Greek heading: μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) εἰς τ(ᾶς) ιε΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) κοίμ(ησιν) τῆς ὑπ(εραγίας) ϑ(εοτό)κου ‘August 15, the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God’

8. Alanic marginal notes

39

P: The long note in the left hand margin is almost totally illegible, since 2‒2.5 cm of this margin is missing. It seems that the text originally filled at least 7 lines (if the traces are not accidental), but now only part of three lines can be read: βα at the end of the first line, ε (maybe, τε) at the end of the third, and ι (maybe ὶ) at the end of the sixth line. It is impossible to guess at the number of letters lost on the left hand side of the note, but usually, notes in the left hand margins have 4-5 letters to the line. We cannot know, of course, whether it was written in Greek or Alanic, but considering the glossator’s rather poor active knowledge of Greek, it is practically inconceivable that he should have written a long note in this language. Therefore I have included the note among the Alanic ones. A: The Dormition of St. Mary is still a very important feast in Ossetia, called majræmy kwadzæn in Iron and majrænti komwadzæn (kowwadzæn) in Digoron, literally, “the end of the St. Mary’s Fast (the Dormition Fast)”. Because of the bad preservation of the gloss, it is useless to speculate whether ]βα[ belongs to an Alanic word corresponding to COss. *(kom)wadzæn. 137r [.]ητίβα/[..] ἀ / [.]ὴρ κουρά/[...]α[? Greek heading: μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) κϑ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) ἀπο(το)μ(ήν) τοῦ προδρόμ(ου) ‘August 29, the Beheading of (St. John) the Baptist’

40

Alexander Lubotsky

P: The paper is worn in this place, and letters have disappeared on the left hand side of the note. The first line contains the beginning of the name φητίβανη, and if the lines were of equal length, then probably only one letter is missing at the beginning of the third line, and 2 letters (at most) at the beginning of the second line. Line 1: The perfectly legible τίβα is preceded by some traces of φ (only the vertical stroke is visible) and a reasonably legible η. Line 2: The leftmost part of the paper is torn off. The only visible letter is ἀ without any clear traces before it. After ἀ, there are likewise no traces of letters, so that ἀ seems to constitute a complete word. Line 3: After the torn off part, the first letter is clearly ὴ (the accent is evanescent), followed by ρκουρ and a superimposed ά (the accent above the alpha is not quite certain). The fact that the letter α is superimposed on the ρ might indicate the end of a word (just like in the case of λ in 128v ἀποστόλ) or the end of a syllable (see § 3.2). It seems unlikely to me that this be a correction to κουάρ, since the sequence /wa/ is spelled -ουβά- in 109v τζουβάρ. Line 4: The traces of a letter are compatible with a fairly recumbent Alanic alpha, like the first letter of 128v ἀποστόλ. A: In spite of the fact that the note is worn, it is clear that the note represents an Alanic rendering of the Greek heading εἰς τ(ὴν) ἀπο(το)μ(ήν) τοῦ προδρόμ(ου) ‘the Beheading of (St. John) the Baptist’. The first word of the marginal note no doubt contains the name φητίβανη (like at 126v), the last two letters of which must have stood at the beginning of line 2 and have now disappeared. The only other word on line 2 is ἀ, which must stand for /æ/ and represent the possessive clitic pronoun of the 3rd sg. ‘his, her’, which is Oss. jæ, æj / æ (for these forms, see sub 83r). Then, [.]ὴρ is likely to represent σὴρ, the word for ‘head’, Oss. sær, which is consistently spelled with an eta also in ἄυτεσήρ ‘Monday’, literally, “head of the seven” (cf. s.v. marginal note 21r and the following). In Ossetic, a phrase of the type ‘St. John’s head’ is expressed with the dative of the name, followed by the pronoun ‘his’ and noun. Before ἀ [σ]ὴρ ‘his head’, we thus expect a dative singular of the name fydywani / fidiwane. In both dialects of Modern Ossetic, the dative singular of the stems in a vowel is formed with a -j- between the stem and the ending, in this particular case fydywanijæn / fidiwanejæn, but there is not enough room for so many letters. Even if we assume that the dative was formed at that period without a -j(something like *fidiwanen), there is hardly enough room for three letters at

8. Alanic marginal notes

41

the beginning of the line. On the other hand, it seems possible that foreign names were still uninflected in this construction. The sequence κουρά/ (followed by ...]α[ on the next line) must be a derivative of the verb ‘to cut off’, Oss. k’wyryn / k’wærun. In Ossetic, this verb means ‘to push, hit’, but also specifically ‘to cut off (a head)’, cf. examples given in ABAEV’s dictionary (I: 654): Iron jæ sær yn ak’wyrdta ‘отсек ему голову’ (‘he cut his head off’), Digoron cirğ færætæj in æ saw ʒikko sær ku rak'wæruncæ ‘острым топором отсекают его чернокудрую голову’ (‘with a sharp axe they cut off his head with black curly hair’). Unfortunately, it remains unclear which derivative has been used here. The only nominal derivatives of this root in Modern Ossetic, listed by the dictionaries, are Dig. k’urcc ‘blow, knock’, nix-k’urcc ‘rebut’ (TAKAZOV 2003: 349, 401), and the second element of the compound Iron nyx-k’wyrd, glossed by ABAEV (II: 218) as ‘отпор’ (“удар по лбу”), ‘пришибленный’ (“получивший удар по лбу”) (‘rebut’ [“blow at the forehead”], ‘dejected’ [“having got a blow at the forehead”])27, Dig. nix-k’wærd ‘rebut, counterattack’ (TAKAZOV 2003: 401). At any rate, κουρά/[], which is a direct pre-form of Iron k’wyr-, provides an important indication of the dialectal provenance of the Alanic glossator. 138r γρηγόρι / πάνη Greek heading: μη(νὶ) ἰαννουαρίῳ κε΄ τοῦ ἐν ἁγ(ίου) π(ατ)ρ(ό)ς ἡμ(ῶν) γρηγορίου ‘January 25, Our Holy Father (St.) Gregorios’

P: The first gamma seems to be corrected from a rho. Presumably, the glossator started with a rho and then corrected it.

27

I am grateful to dr. T. Salbiev, who has pointed out this form to me.

42

Alexander Lubotsky

A: We do not know whether there was an Alanic variant of this Greek name. At any rate, the spelling of the note copies that of Greek γρηγόριος (including the accent). On πάνη, see sub 107r. 9. GREEK MARGINAL NOTES The Greek marginal notes can shed some light on the reasons why the glossator has annotated the text, but they are of less importance. I therefore limit myself to a few short comments. 79v ἡ με/τα/μόρ/φωσις Greek heading: —. P: Note the use of the Alanic alpha in a Greek note and the superimposed τα. L: There is no heading at the page, and it is not quite clear to me why the glossator wrote here the marginal note ἡ μεταμόρφωσις, which must refer to the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (= August 6, for which see sub 134v).

91v ἡλιοῦ Greek heading: —.

A: There is no heading on the page, and the note simply repeats the word which appears in the text seven lines before (ἐγένετο λόγος κυ(ρίου) πρὸς ἡλιοῦ). The reason for the note remains unclear.

9. Greek marginal notes

43

101v ἠ ἀναλυ/ψις Greek heading: τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τῆς ἀναλή(ψεως) ‘Eve of Ascension’

A: This Greek note misspels the word ἀνάληψις. Note the spelling with the Alanic alpha in front of a nu and the missing accent. 102v τ(ῶν) ἁγί(ων) π(ατέ)ρων Greek heading: τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ῶν) ἁγ(ίων) τιη΄ ἁγ(ίων) π(ατέ)ρων ‘Eve of Holy 318 Fathers (of the Council of Nicaea)’

A: The note repeats a part of the heading presumably in order to easily locate the festival in the manuscript. 105v τ(ῶν) ἀ + τὴ κυ(ριακὴ) β΄ Greek heading: τῇ παραμ(ονῇ) τ(ῶν) ἁγ(ίων) πάντων ‘Eve of All Saints’

44

Alexander Lubotsky

A: The first note simply repeats the beginning of the heading for easy orientation, but the second note is hard to explain. Not only is it completely unrelated to the heading of the ms. and indeed foreign to this liturgical book, but it is also perverted Greek. The correct expression, κυ(ριακὴ) β΄, without the article, would mean ‘the second Sunday (after Pentecost)’, a terminology that does not exist in the Prophetologion, but which belongs to a different liturgical book, the Gospel lectionary.

119r εἰς τὰ ἄγια τ(ῶν) ἀγίων Greek heading: μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ κα΄ τ(ῆ)ς ὑπ(ερ)αγ(ίας) ϑ(εοτό)κου ὅτε εἰσέλ(ϑη) εἰς τ(ὰ) ἅγ(ια) τ(ῶν) ἁγίων ‘November 21, The Entry of the Most Holy Mother of God into the Temple’

P: The only remarkable feature of this note is that the glossator uses the wrong spiritus. Note further the “capital” tau. 121r ἡ ὑπὸπαντι Greek heading: μη(νὶ) φευρουαρίῳ β΄ ἡ ὑπαπαντὴ τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ ‘February 2, Presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ’

P: As mentioned in § 3, the glossator always used an Alanic alpha when he wrote -αν-, even in Greek.

10. The spelling and the language of the notes

45

A: The spelling ὑπὸπαντι for Greek ὑπαπαντή ‘meeting’ is instructive. It shows that eta and iota had the same value for the glossator and that he did not really care about the correct placing of accents. 134v [...]φω/[...] Greek heading: μη(νὶ) τῷ αὐτ(ῷ) ϛ΄ εἰς τ(ὴν) μεταμόρφωσιν τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμ(ῶν) ἰ(ησο)ῦ χ(ριστο)ῦ ‘August 6, Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ P: The margins of the folio are severely damaged, and only two letters have survived. There are some traces below these letters, so that the note could have consisted of two more lines. A: In spite of the fragmentary character of the note, it is evident that the glossator wrote something like [ἡ μεταμόρ]φω[σις] in the margin.

10. THE SPELLING AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE NOTES 10.1. The analysis of the marginal notes in § 8 has provided us with a number of Alanic words, the identification of which is more or less certain and which may bear witness to the spelling rules of the glossator and to his language. Here is the list: Alanic ἀ ‘his, its’ ἀποστόλ ‘apostol’ ἀστέμακ ‘eighth’ ἄυτεσηρ / ἄυτεσήρ ‘Monday’ ζιρὴν ‘golden’ ἠστιπαν ‘feast-day’ κὰμ ‘mouth’ κουρα[...] ‘decapitate’ οὐρηαγ-βαναὶ ‘Jew-’

Interpretation /æ/ /abostol/ /æstæjmag/ /ævdæjsær/

Ossetic Dig. æ — æstæjmag Dig. avdisær

/zærin/ /ist(i)ban/ /kam/ /k’ur-/ /uriag-/

zærin / zærijnæ Dig. istbon kom k’wyr- / k’wærwirag / ujrag

46

Alexander Lubotsky

Alanic πάν ‘day’ πάνη ‘on the day’ παρὰς ‘Fast’ πασήλ ‘St. Basil’ πητζινάκ ‘Pecheneg’ σαρὰβαρὰν ‘foundation’ σήρ ‘head’ στούρ ‘great’ τζουβάρ ‘cross’ τημιτήρι ‘St. Demetrios’ φητίβανη ‘St. John’ φιστηνίκ ‘forthcoming’ χουτζάου πάν ‘Sunday’

Interpretation /ban/ /bani/ /baræs(k’)/ /basil/ /bic’inæg/ (or /-ag/) /saræværæn/ /sær/ /stur/ /ʒuwar/ /dimidiri/ /fidiwani/ /fæ-istinag/ (or /-æg/) /xucawban/

Ossetic bon bony / boni barysč’i / baræsk’æ basyl / basil byc’ynæg / bic’inæg særæværæn sær styr / (æ)stur ʒwar / ʒiwaræ — fydywani / fidiwane festinag / festujnag xwycawbon / xucawbon

10.2. Consonants. The spelling of consonants is very consistent: π (πάν /ban/, πασήλ /basil/, πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/) τ after /s/ (φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/, στούρ /stur/, ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, ἠστιπαν /ist(i)ban/, ἀποστόλ /abostol/) /d/ τ (ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/, τημιτήρι /dimidiri/) /k/ κ (κὰμ /kam/) /k’/ κ (κουρα[...] /k’ur-/) /g/ κ (ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/, φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/) γ (οὐρηαγ-βαναὶ /uriag-/) /c/ τζ (χουτζάου πάν /xucawban/) /c’/ τζ (πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/) /ʒ/ τζ (τζουβάρ /ʒuwar/) /f/ φ (φητίβανη /fidiwani/, φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/) /v/ β (σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/) υ before a consonant (ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/) /s/ σ (σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/, σὴρ /sær/, πασήλ /basil/, στούρ /stur/) /z/ ζ (ζιρὴν /zærin/) /w/ β (φητίβανη /fidiwani/, τζουβάρ /ʒuwar/) ου in the diphthong /aw/ (χουτζάου πάν /xucawban/) /x/ χ (χουτζάου πάν /xucawban/) /r/ ρ (στούρ /stur/, ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/) /b/ /t/

10. The spelling and the language of the notes

/l/ /n/ /m/

47

λ (πασήλ /basil/) ν (πάν /ban/, σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/) μ (ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, κὰμ /kam/)

There is actually only one deviating form, that is, γ instead of κ in οὐρηαγ-βαναὶ /uriag-/, if, of course, this word is correctly read and analyzed. Since I cannot account for the second part of the word, the analysis must remain hypothetical. 10.3. Vowels. The spelling of vowels shows more variation: α (ἀ /æ/, ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/, παρὰς /baræs(k’)/, σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/) η (ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/, σήρ /sær/) ι (ζιρὴν /zærin/) α (πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/, σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/) /a/ α (ἀποστόλ /abostol/, ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, κὰμ /kam/, οὐρηαγ/uriag-/, πάν /ban/, παρὰς /baræs(k’)/, πασήλ /basil/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/) ι (φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/) α (τζουβάρ /ʒuwar/) /i/ ι (πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/, τημιτήρι /dimidiri/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/) η (ζιρὴν /zærin/, ἠστιπαν /ist(i)ban/, οὐρηαγ- /uriag-/, πάνη /bani/, πασήλ /basil/, πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/, τημιτήρι /dimidiri/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/) /u/ ου (οὐρηαγ- /uriag-/, στούρ /stur/, τζουβάρ /ʒuwar/, χουτζάου πάν /xucawban/) /o/ ο (ἀποστόλ /abostol/) /æj/ ε (ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/, ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/) /æ/

The distribution between the Alanic alpha and the common one (namely, α /a/ vs. α /æ/), proposed in § 3 above, has turned out to be valid for most of the words. The amount of exceptions is small: (1) The spelling -ὰν in σαρὰβαρὰν /saræværæn/ may be due to the paleographic custom to write α in front of the nasals, for which we find no exceptions in the notes; the Alanic glossator even wrote αν in his Greek notes.

48

Alexander Lubotsky

(2) The final -άκ in πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/ may attest to vacillation between the suffixes -æg and -ag (plural -ægtæ) in Ossetic.28 Because of the coloring (see below), I would also prefer to analyze the suffix -ίκ in φιστηνίκ as /-æg/, rather than /-ag/. (3) The only exception for which I see no explanation, thus, is the common alpha in τζουβάρ /ʒuwar/. The phoneme /æ/ appears as η or ι in the position after /s/ and /z/, cf. ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/, σήρ /sær/, ζιρὴν /zærin/. This spelling must be due to the palatal character of the sibilants /s/ and /z/, which are still pronounced in most dialects as /ś/ /ź/ or /š/ /ž/ (ABAEV 1964: § 8, ISAEV 1966: 16). Whatever the correct analysis of 108v ἠζίπατζικ, its suffix -ικ is likely to stand for /-æg/ or /-ag/ and thus to show the same coloring in the position after the affricate /c/ or /ʒ/, which must also have had palatal pronunciation. The same coloring is also attested in Tzetzes κίντζι, which most probably stands for /kinʒæ/ (see § 11.5.3). The distribution of η and ι is remarkable. As we have seen in the comments on the Greek note 121r, the spelling ὑπὸπαντι for Greek ὑπαπαντή shows that both letters had the same value for the glossator. At first glance, it then seems that η and ι are used indiscriminately in the notes, but this view is incompatible with the consistent spelling of ἄυτεσηρ (six times), σήρ (two times) and the inessive πάνη (four times). At closer inspection we notice that when a word has only one [i], it is spelled with η: besides the already mentioned words, we find οὐρηαγ- and πασήλ. An iota exclusively appears in those words which have more than one [i], and then the iotas and the etas are used alternately, the pattern being either η-ι-η-ι (πητζινάκ /bic’inæg/, τημιτήρι /dimidiri/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/, ἠστιπαν /ist(i)ban/), or ι-η-ι-η in ζιρὴν /zærin/ and φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/. Especially τημιτήρι /dimidiri/ (~ Gr. Δημήτριος) is spectacular: even an anaptyctic vowel /i/ between τ and ρ fits into the pattern.29 This pattern must naturally be of a graphic nature. Alanic ε represents /æj/ in ἀστέμακ /æstæjmag/ ‘eighth’, and in view of the generally high level of consistency of the Alanic spelling, I have suggested above (sub 55v) that also in ἄυτεσηρ ‘Monday’, ε might have the same value. This implies that the Alanic compound ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/ still 28

29

Of course, only if my suggestion (see sub 100r) to take the Ossetic expression byc’ynæg sk’wynyn / bic’inæg sk’unun as ‘to exterminate the Pechenegs’ is correct. The only exception to this alternate placing of iotas and etas is 108v ἠζίπατζικ, but its interpretation is unclear.

10. The spelling and the language of the notes

49

shows the original ending of the genitive singular, which later was replaced by -i (Dig. avdisær), the normal final reflex of *-æj. For the first -ι- in φιστηνίκ /fæ-istinag/, see sub 10r. It seems important that the spelling ɛ for /æj/ is also found in Tzetzes σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/ ‘all the way through’ (see § 11.5.7) and in the Zelenčuk inscription, where ανη τζηρϑɛ, according to a plausible suggestion by BIELMEIER (apud ZGUSTA 1987: 32), represents *ani cirt-æj ‘their stele (this) is’. 10.4. Accentuation. In contradistinction to the spelling of consonants and vowels, which is reasonably consistent, the placement of accents in the Alanic notes gives the impression of a chaos. To begin with, the inessive of the word for ‘day’ is twice accented on the first syllable (πάνη) and twice on the second (πανὴ), without any discernible reason. Similarly, the word for ‘Monday’ is written thrice with two accents (ἄυτεσήρ) and twice with one accent (ἄυτεσηρ). Some words have no accent at all (104r ἠστιπαν, 110v παν), and some have two (σαρὰβαρὰν)30. Also in the Greek notes, we find words without accents (ἀναλυψις) and words with a wrong accent (121r ὑπὸπαντι instead of ὑπαπαντὴ, 110v τοὺ instead of τοῦ, ϑεὀλόγος instead of ϑεόλογος). This state of affairs seems to suggest that the glossator did not have contrastive word accent in his language. Accentuation in his dialect was thus closer to the situation in Digoron, see § 4.7. 10.5. The language of the marginal notes. The language of the Alanic glossator seems to show some features of the Iron dialect: (1) Final -æ is absent in τζουβάρ (< *ʒuwaræ) and ζιρὴν (< *zærijnæ), see § 4.4. (2) The name of St. John is spelled φητίβανη /fidiwani/, with a final /i/, like in Iron fydywani, as opposed to Digoron fidiwane. It is unclear to me, however, how to account for this fact. On the one hand, it is tempting to assume that φητίβανη attests the Iron sound change *e > i. On the other hand, this sound change must have been posterior to *i, u > y (§ 4.1), whereas we see that u still remains unchanged (στούρ ~ Oss. styr / stur). It is

30

I do not fully understand when the glossator uses the grave accent marks, which are quite rare. It seems that he marks the accent on the final vowel in this way (πανὴ, ἀβήνατὴ), but we also find ζιρὴν κὰμ, παρὰς, σαρὰ/βαρὰν.

50

Alexander Lubotsky

conceivable though that the whole vowel shift in Iron started with *i > y and *e > i, only (slightly) later followed by *u > y and *o > u. (3) The verb κουρ- /k’ur-/ ‘to decapitate’ is closer to Ir. k’wyr- (being its immediate pre-form) than to Dig. k’wær-, although Digoron also attests the stem k’ur- in the derivative k’urcc ‘blow, knock’. Unfortunately, the etymology of this verb is uncertain. ABAEV (I: 654) suggests borrowing from a Kartvelian language (Georgian and Megrelian k’vra ‘to beat, slay, push’), which would mean that Iron has a more original form. At any rate, Ir. k’wyr- can hardly develop out of *k’wær-, because COss. *Cwæ yields Ir. Cæ, cf. § 4.5. (4) Finally, the rendering of original *-uj- with -η- in φιστηνίκ (for *fæistujnag) ‘forthcoming’ may indicate that the scribe pronounced it as [ij], which is the expected Iron reflex of this sequence. Although many details still remain uncertain, we can state that the language of the glossator is close to the Iron dialect during the very first stages of its development. This means that dialect differentiation in Ossetic must have started as early as in the 14th century. Further, the chronology of several phonetic developments in the Iron dialect can be specified: the apocope mentioned sub 1 above must have preceded the vowel shift in Iron; the development of a to o before nasals, although attested in both dialects of Modern Ossetic, must have taken place after the first dialectal sound changes.31 10.6. Concluding remarks. The consistency of the spelling in the marginal notes is amazing, especially considering the fact that they were only intended for personal perusal of the glossator. This consistency, as well as very specific spelling features (two alphas for distinguishing /a/ and /æ/, alternate writing of η and ι), unequivocally show that the glossator was welltrained in writing Alanic in the Greek alphabet. An old tradition of writing Alanic also follows from conspicuous spelling parallels in the Zelenčuk inscription and in Tzetzes (see § 11.9), such as using Gr. π τ κ for rendering Alanic b d g and spelling ɛ for /æj/. The spelling of /c/, /dz/, etc. as τζ may be on itself less significant, but the use of a ligature in the Zelenčuk inscription and in the marginalia seems again to be a strong argument in favor of an Alanic writing tradition. I am convinced that more Alanic records written in the Greek alphabet will turn up in the future. 31

Actually, this chronology is probable anyhow because the o reflecting *aN has not become u in Iron.

11. APPENDIX. THE ALANIC TEXT IN TZETZES’ “THEOGONIA” 11.1. “Theogonia” is a relatively small work (850 verses) by the Byzantine author Johannes Tzetzes (ca. 1110‒1180), which he composed in the middle of the 12th century for his patroness, the Sevastokratorissa Irene, sister-in-law of the emperor Manuel Komnenos. In an epilogue to this text, Tzetzes writes that an educated man should address everybody in his own language: a woman at the market, people from other countries. In order to demonstrate his own knowledge, Tzetzes mentions greetings and some other expressions in several languages (Cumanic, Turkish, Latin, Alanic, Arabic, Russian, and Hebrew). This epilogue consisting of 133 verses has been consistently thrown out by the scribes, so that we only have two manuscripts at our disposal with its more or less complete text. MORAVCSIK (1930) discovered the epilogue in the Cod. Vat. Barberin. gr. 30 (15th century) and edited 35 verses which contain expressions in the foreign languages. Unfortunately, the leaf with these verses was severely damaged. Later, HUNGER (1953) found in Vienna another manuscript with the complete epilogue (Cod. Vindob. phil. gr. 118). This manuscript from the 14th century is much better preserved and finally provides the definitive readings of Tzetzes’ text.32 The manuscripts of the epilogue contain an interlinear version, which gives the translation of the foreign expressions and a few glosses. Both editors, as well as all subsequent scholarship, start from the assumption that this interlinear version belongs to Tzetzes himself, although they hardly provide any argumentation in favor of this view33. In my opinion, Tzetzes’ authorship of the interlinear version is very doubtful. First of all, whereas the text is written in versus politicus (lines of 15 syllables), the translations and glosses are not metrical and are composed in “vulgärgriechisch” (HUNGER 32

33

I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Dr. Andreas Fingernagel, Direktor der Sammlung von Handschriften und alten Drucken der Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, for granting me permission to reproduce here the photograph of fol. 161v of this manuscript with the text of the epilogue, and to Mag. Ingeborg Formann, who was extremely helpful in coordinating the production of the photograph. For instance, MORAVCSIK (1930: 355‒6) only writes: “Wenn wir Tzetzes Leidenschaft für Kommentare in Betracht ziehen – er schrieb z.B. auch zu seinem eigenen Werk einen Kommentar –, dürfen wir annehmen, dass auch diese griechischen Erläuterungen von ihm selbst stammen”. It must be acknowledged, however, that at that time MORAVCSIK was unaware of the obscene character of some parts of the interlinear version.

52

Alexander Lubotsky

1953: 302). In Codex Vindobonensis, the interlinear version is written small, in red ink, and is clearly added later than the text (cf. BIELMEIER 1993: 3). A further argument against Tzetzes’ authorship is the fact that the names of the peoples Σκύϑην and Πέρσαις are glossed as κόμανον and τούρκοις, respectively (the glosses are absent from the Barberinus). Why would Tzetzes put Πέρσαις into the text if he meant τούρκοις, which has the same amount of syllables? Finally, it seems to me out of the question that Tzetzes himself would include obscene sentences into a poem commissioned by the Sevastokratorissa. This rather looks like a practical joke of a scribe. We shall return to this point below. ABAEV (1935b, reprinted with minor changes in 1949: 248‒259, to which I shall henceforth refer), MUNKÁCSI (1939), GERHARDT (1939) and BAILEY (1982‒1985: 803) discussed the Alanic text of Tzetzes only on the basis of Codex Barberinus (B). After the publication of Codex Vindobonensis (V), an analysis of the new facts has been attempted by BIELMEIER 1993, PEREVALOV 1998, VIREDAZ 2003 and KAMBOLOV 2006: 179‒202, but much still remains enigmatic, which necessitates a renewed look at the text. 11.2. The “Alanic” text of Codex Vindobonensis is given by HUNGER (1953: 305) as follows (the interlinear version is in italics): τοῖς Ἀλανοῖς προσφϑέγγομαι κατὰ τὴν τούτων γλῶσσαν· καλὴ ἡμέρα σου, αὐϑέντα μου, ἀρχόντισσα, πόϑεν εἶσαι; ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χσινὰ κορϑὶ καντὰ, καὶ τἄλλα· ἄν δ’ ἔχῃ Ἀλάνισσα παπᾶν φίλον, ἀκούσαις ταῦτα· οὐκ αἰσχύνεσαι αὐϑέντριά μου, νὰ γαμῇ τὸ μουνίν σου παπᾶς; τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε. 34 ‘I greet the Alans in their language: “ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χσινὰ κορϑὶ καντὰ Good day, my lord, my lady, where are you from?”. And otherwise: if an Alanic woman has the priest as lover, you would hear this: “τὸ φάρνετζ, κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε Aren’t you ashamed, my lady, that a priest fucks your cunt?”’ The corresponding section of the Barberinus (B), as edited by MORAVreads:

CSIK,

34

BIELMEIER (1993: 3) points out that V has a comma after φάρνετζ.

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

53

τοῖς Ἀλανοῖς προσφϑέγγομαι κατὰ τὴν τούτων γλῶσσαν. καλὴ ἡμέρα σου, αὐϑέντα μου, ἀρχόντισσα, πόϑεν εἶσαι; ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χοινὰ κορϑιν[-----]. οὐκ αἰσχύνεσαι αὐϑέντριά μου τὸ φάρνετζ(ν) κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτερφουὰ [--]οῦγγε. As far as the Alanic part is concerned, there is hardly any discrepancy between the readings of B and V. With the hindsight of the better manuscript readings of V one can clearly see on the photograph of B (MORAVCSIK 1930: 355) that it reads χσινὰ (cf. already ABAEV 1949: 257), κορϑὶκ[ and καὶτζ. The only real difference is the final -ν of φάρνετζν in B, which has an unusual form and most probably represents a malformed comma, which we find on this spot in V. The line concerning the relationship of an Alanic woman with a priest and a part of the translation of the last Alanic phrase are absent in B. This could of course be due to the obscene character of this text, but it is important that the introductory line about the Alanic woman contains 16 syllables instead of 15 (a fact not noticed before), which is a strong indication that this line is a late interpolation. Moreover, the sentence would not make much sense in a passage where Tzetzes relates how he addresses people in various languages. 11.3. Before we embark upon the analysis of the Alanic phrases, let me add two remarks of methodological nature. First, I totally agree with BIELMEIER (1993: 3) that “[n]atürlich wäre es methodisch optimal, wenn der Text mit Hilfe nur einer ostiranischen Sprachform in konsistenter Weise umfassend gedeutet werden könnte”. Since the previous studies have made it clear that Tzetzes’ Alanic is an older stage of Ossetic (ταπαγχὰς ~ Oss. dæ bon xorz / dæ bon xwarz; χσινὰ ~ Oss. (æ)xsin / (æ)xsinæ; κίντζι ~ Oss. ḱynʒ / kinʒæ), the more we can explain in terms of Ossetic the better. Postulating Alanic forms only on the basis of other East Iranian languages must be considered an ultimum refugium. Secondly, in view of the fact that Tzetzes was quite precise in reproducing the greetings in other languages, we must start from the assumption that the transmitted text correctly represents Alanic forms and avoid emendations as far as possible.

54

Alexander Lubotsky

11.4. The first line (ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χσινὰ κορϑὶ καντὰ) 11.4.1. The first line of the Alanic text starts with ταπαγχὰς, identified by all scholars as the Ossetic greeting dæ bon xorz / dæ bon xwarz, lit. ‘(may) your day (be) good’. The same greeting is also found in the so-called “Yas word list” from the 15th century, where it is spelled daban horz (NÉMETH 1959: 14f.). ταπαγχὰς stands for Alanic /dæ ban xwarz/. The development *a > o before nasals took place in Ossetic rather late, certainly not before the 13th century (see ABAEV 1949: 256). Even in the Alanic marginalia, which are likely to be dated by the 14th century, this sound change is not yet operative (see sub 100r), and the word for ‘day’ is spelled πάν there. For the spelling of Alanic /b/ with π, see § 11.9. The absence of -r- in χὰς may be due to wrong perception. The weakness of -r- can be demonstrated by the comparative of this Ossetic adjective, viz. xwyzdær / xwæzdær where the -r- is dissimilatorily lost (cf. GERHARDT 1939: 40). 11.4.2. μέσφιλι is difficult. MUNKÁCSI (1939: 270) compared Oss. me’fsin (< mæ æfsin) ‘my mistress’, which was met with approval by ABAEV (1949: 257) and GERHARDT (1939: 41f.). This analysis is too problematic to be credible, however. One may at least argue that -σφ- for -fs- is due to Tzetzes’ wrong perception (or to dialectal metathesis), or that -έ- was the result of the sandhi -æ æ- already in Alanic times. But Alanic -λ- for -n-,35 -ι for -æ (cf. Digor æfsinæ), and, finally, the meaning αὐϑέντα μου ‘my lord’ have found no convincing explanation. The explanation of μέσφιλι from me’fsin is beset with difficulties and the meaning does not fit, so that we should better forget it (cf. for further discussion BIELMEIER 1993: 5-10)36. The best proposal up to now is that of VIREDAZ (2003), who analyses μέσφιλι as *mæ ‘my’ + *isfili ‘lord’ < *ispar(i)ya- < Proto-Iranian *īsu̯ ariya- (OAv. isuuan- m. ‘ruler, powerful person’, Skt. īśvará- m. ‘lord, ruler’). The semantics are perfect and the morphological side of the etymol-

35

36

ABAEV’s parallel lamaz ‘Muslim prayer, namaz’ < *namaz does not work, since it shows dissimilation of the nasals, cf. ABAEV II: 13 for more examples of that kind. BIELMEIER’s own solution (1993: 10‒13) is also improbable. He assumes a compound μέσ- + φιλι. The second member, which would stand for *fæli < Proto-Iranian *par(w)ya‘first’, is not attested in Ossetic and shows an irregular loss of -w-. For the first member there are no plausible candidates at all (BIELMEIER discusses several options, but without much conviction).

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

55

ogy is cogent37, but some problems remain. The word is attested neither in Ossetic nor in any other Iranian language except for Old Avestan (the form with -r- is only found in Sanskrit). The first -ι- of μέσφιλι VIREDAZ explains with the sound change Proto-Iranian *a > Oss. y/i, for which there are no parallels in this particular environment38. The group *-sf- is always metathesized to -fs- in Ossetic (jæfs / æfsæ ‘mare’ < *asfā- < Proto-Iranian *asu̯ ā-, æfsæryn / æfsærun ‘to kick down, step with the foot’ < Proto-Iranian *spar-, etc.), so that we have to assume that this metathesis was posterior to the 12th century, which is conceivable but unverifiable. 11.4.3. χσινὰ, which must mean ἀρχόντισσα ‘(my) lady’, is certainly identical with Oss. (æ)xsin / (æ)xsinæ ‘mistress, lady’ (< Proto-Iranian *xšaiϑnī-). Although MORAVCSIK read χοινὰ in his edition, ABAEV (1949: 257) already corrected this reading and identified the word. 11.4.4. κορϑὶ καντὰ, according to the translation of the interlinear version, must mean πόϑεν εἶσαι ‘where do you come from?’. ABAEV, who had only κορϑιν[ at his disposal, proposed to read this as κορϑιγ[, which would stand for Oss. ku’rdigæj cæwis(æ) (1949: 257f.) ‘from where (from which side) do you come?’. I think ABAEV was right that κορϑὶ has something to do with the local adverbs, which are compounds with ærd(yg) / ærd(ig) ‘side’ as their second member, cf. ardæm / ardæmæ ‘here, this way’ (the pronominal stem a- ‘this’ + the allative sg. of *ærd), wyrdæm / wordæmæ ‘there, that way’ (pron. wy- / wo- ‘that’ + id.), ardygæj / ardigæj ‘from here’ (a- ‘this’ + the ablative sg. of ærdyg / ærdig), wyrdygæj / wordigæj ‘from there’ (pron. wy- / wo- ‘that’ + id.), Dig. kurdæmæ ‘where, in which direction?’. What, then, is the ending of κορϑὶ? It can hardly stand for Alanic /kurdæj/ (< *ku-ærdæj). First, the spelling -ὶ for Alanic /-æj/ is not what we would expect39. Second, as we have seen, the ablative adverbs are formed from the enlarged stem ærdyg / ærdig. Moreover, there seems to be no verb in Ossetic which would fit καντὰ. 37

38

39

An additional argument in favor of this etymology is the fact that ε seems always to respresent /æj/ in Alanic texts. The only secure examples of this development are found in the neighborhood of the nasals (CHEUNG 2002: 13), cf. tynʒyn / itinʒun ‘to spread out’ < *u̯ i-ϑanǰa-, nyx / nix ‘nail’ < *naxa-. Rather -ε, cf. below on σαοῦγγε.

56

Alexander Lubotsky

The easiest way to resolve these problems is to assume that the word division is wrong. The blanks between the words in Greek mss. are often minimal, so that it is very difficult to discern the word boundary if one is not familiar with the language. It is therefore possible that the scribe of ms. V has divided the words in a wrong way. Note that ms. B has no accent on the iota and no word division. If we divide κορϑὶκαν τὰ, we immediately get the grammatical structure of the sentence. τὰ is 2 sg. present of the verb ‘to be’, Oss. dæ (both dialects),40 whereas κορϑὶκαν is an adjective comparable to ardygon / ardigon ‘local, from here, from this side’, wyrdygon / wordigon ‘from there, from that side’.41 These adjectives are very productive in Ossetic and one can add -rdygon / -rdigon to every pronominal stem.42 A nice illustration of the use of adjectives in -rdygon is the Iron saying reproduced at MF II: 687 (I have adjusted the transcription): Kæcon dæ? mæ us kæcon u, wycy’rdygon ‘Where are you from? Where my wife is from, there (I am) from’. It is remarkable that whereas the adjectives for ‘from here’ and ‘from there’ are etymologically identical in both dialects, the interrogative adjective ‘from where, from which direction’ is derived from different pronominal stems. Both dialects have introduced the productive stem of the interrogative pronoun ‘what’ or ‘which’ into this adjective, cf. Iron kæcyrdygon (kæcy ‘which one’, kæcæj ‘from where’), čerdygon (či ‘who’), Iron cyrdygon / Digoron cirdigon (cy/ci ‘what’). κορϑὶκαν must stand for an Alanic adjective /kurdigan/ or /kordigan/ ‘from where’ and contain the pronominal stem *ku‘where’ (the elision of the initial æ in second members of compounds is well attested in Ossetic, cf. ABAEV 1964: § 7, ISAEV 1966: 21). The stem *ku- is found in Dig. kumæ, kurdæmæ ‘where, in which direction’, in Ir. iskwy ‘somewhere’, nikwy ‘nowhere’ and in their derivatives (cf. ABAEV I: 605), and in Dig. kucæj adv. ‘from where’, kucon adj. ‘from where’ (cf. MF II: 710, ABAEV 1949: 474).43 40

41 42 43

This explanation of τὰ has already been given by BIELMEIER (1993: 15‒16), but his analysis of the preceding words is most certainly wrong. He takes both κορϑὶ and καν- as adverbs meaning ‘where’, the first comparable to Buddh. Sogd. kwrδ, and the second to LAv. kana ‘by which’. In order to save ABAEV’s interpretation, KAMBOLOV (2006: 199) assumes that κορϑὶκαν is a scribal mistake and reads *κορϑὶκαι τὰ = Oss. ku’rdigæj dæ. For this type of adjectives, cf. Russ. (colloquial) tutošnij, tamošnij, German hiesig, etc. Even to innæ ’other’, cf. innærdygon / innærdigon ‘from the other side, foreign’. ABAEV (I: 574) and ISAEV (1966: 68) give the Digoron form as kæcæj, but this form probably is an Ironism.

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

57

As to the phonology, -α- in κορϑὶκαν is what we expect, since the change *an > on has not yet taken place in Alanic (see above on ταπαγχὰς). The -omay have been taken over from Alanic *wordugon (~ Dig. wordigon) ‘from there’.44 Since ms. B has no accent on the iota, the gravis on κορϑὶ may be a later addition, so that accentuation of the Alanic word remains uncertain. Accordingly, the first line consists of two sentences: ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χσινὰ /dæ ban xwa(r)z mesfili xsinæ/ ‘may the day be good for you, my lord, my lady’ and κορϑὶκαν τὰ /kordigan dæ/ ‘where are you from?’. Note that the Greek translation of the interlinear version is very precise and the rendering of the Alanic text seems to be fairly close to the original. 11.5. The second line (τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε) As already mentioned above, the introductory line about an Alanic woman and a priest as well as the obscene Greek interlinear “translation” of the Alanic sentence are obviously late interpolations, presumably being a joke of a scribe. We shall see below that the Greek and Alanic texts do not correspond. This means that all previous interpretations of the Alanic sentence, which had to resort to heavy emendations in order to synchronize the Alanic and Greek texts, are erroneous to a large extent. At the same time, we are confronted with the situation that there is no other way to discover what the Alanic phrase means than an internal analysis of the text itself. We can only surmise that the phrase represents a greeting of some kind. While searching for a clue to the interpretation of the Alanic text, we notice that it contains three words (φάρν-, κίντζι, καὶτζ) which seem to correspond to Ossetic terms directly or indirectly related to a wedding ceremony: farn / farnæ ‘bliss, prosperity (typically associated with the wedding)’, čynʒ / kinʒæ ‘bride, daughter-in-law’, kajys, kais / kajes ‘father-in-law (wife’s father)’. This consideration makes me believe that the Alanic text is a kind of wedding greeting or wish. 11.5.1. τὸ may correspond to Dig. dæw ‘your’ or to its common variant do. MUNKÁCSI (1939: 273) assumed for this word the nominative *du ‘you’ (Oss. dy / du), but this analysis does not fit syntactically. PEREVALOV (1998: 44

Alternatively, we may assume that this o is due to phonetic lowering of u before an r, cf. a similar situation in the name Ηστορη, attested in the Zelenčuk inscription, which probably stands for *(i)sturi (ZGUSTA 1987: 33).

58

Alexander Lubotsky

120), following HUNGER (1953: 307), suggests that τὸ may simply be the Greek article, as it is used by Tzetzes in introducing the Russian sentences,45 but the syntax there is different. 11.5.2. φάρνɛτζ unmistakably contains the Ossetic word farn / farnæ ‘bliss, prosperity, good fortune’ (thus already ABAEV 1949: 258), but what is -ɛτζ? There is no such suffix or ending in Ossetic, and since it has no accent, it is likely to be a clitic. I assume that this is the 3 sg. of the copula, Alanic /-esc/, the preform of Oss. is / (j)es < COss. *es. The latter form reflects Proto-Iranian *asti (cf. Av. astī̆, OP astiy). We may reconstruct the following intermediate stages: *asti > *aisti (i-epenthesis) > *aisci (assibilation) > *aisc (apocope) > *esc (monophthongization) > *est (cluster simplification) > *(j)es (loss of the final -t). All these developments are uncontroversial and can be illustrated by many examples. Here I just give one example for each of the developments: i-epenthesis: Oss. mid- / med- ‘inside’ (in compounds) < *maidya- < PIr. *madya-; assibilation: Oss. cyrγ / cirγ ‘sharp’ < PIr. *tigra-; apocope: Oss. yssæʒ / insæj ‘twenty’ < PIr. *winsati-; monophthongization: Oss. miγ / meγæ ‘cloud’ < PIr. *maiga-; cluster simplification: Oss. fæstæ ‘after, behind’ < PIr. *pasčā; loss of the final -t: Oss. ængas / ængas(t) ‘look’ < PIr. *ham-kāsta-. It seems probable that -ɛτζ represents the stage *esc or *aisc, the final cluster being written as -τζ. The loss of the final -t, which led to the attested form es, is fairly recent, as follows from the variant form ængast, present in Digoron, and from the plural ustytæ / ostitæ of the word us / osæ ‘(married) woman’, which still shows the -t-. For an important additional argument in favour of this interpretation see below, sub καὶτζ. The final vowel of Digoron farnæ must be due to recent paragoge (CHEUNG 2002: 57, 68), because Ossetic -a- in this word can only be explained by the sound law Proto-Iranian *aCC# > Oss. aCC (usually, ProtoIranian *a develops into Ossetic æ), which means that in Proto-Ossetic, the word ended in *-rn.

45

πάλιν τοῖς ‘Ρῶς ὡς ἔχουσιν ἔϑος προσαγορεύω / τὸ σδρᾶ, βράτε, σέστριτζα, καὶ δόβρα δένη λέγων (ms. B πράτε, λέγω) (HUNGER 1953: 305).

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

59

It is clear that τὸ φάρνɛτζ, which must mean ‘your farn (good fortune) is...’ is hardly reconcilable with the Greek translation οὐκ αἰσχύνεσαι ‘aren’t you ashamed’. The attempts of MUNKÁCSI (1939: 272f.), ABAEV (1949: 258) and BIELMEIER (1993: 16-17) to find any correspondence between the text and the translation were unsuccessful. Furthermore, the translation αὐϑέντριά μου is not in accordance with the translation of μέσφιλι in the first line as αὐϑέντα μου46. 11.5.3. κίντζι has already been identified by ABAEV as Oss. čynʒ / kinʒæ ‘bride, daughter-in-law’. In order to account for the Greek rendering αὐϑέντριά μου, ABAEV assumes that this word here means ‘young woman’ and is a modifier to the following μέσφιλι, which is translated in the first line as αὐϑέντα μου. I believe we must stick to the meaning ‘bride’, not only because it is the meaning deeply rooted in both dialects, but also because in the same line we find the word καὶτζ, which probably stands for Oss. kajys, kais / kajes ‘father-in-law (wife’s father)’. The Greek translation of the second line is inadequate anyway. If -ι stands for *-i, κίντζι might be a genitive or inessive (Oss. čynʒy / kinʒi), which does not seem to make sense syntactically. Therefore, I suggest that -ι is just a spelling for /-æ/, due to the preceding affricate (usually, /æ/ is spelled with α, cf. τα- /dæ/, χσινὰ /xsinæ/, τά /dæ/). As is known, the development of č > c, ǯ > ʒ is very recent (cf. BIELMEIER 1989: 242), and it is only to be expected that -τζ- of κίντζι reflects a palatal affricate ǯ [dž]. A nice parallel to this spelling is found in the Alanic marginalia, where /æ/ is spelled as η or ι after /s/, /z/, cf. § 10.3 for examples and a discussion. 11.5.4. Since in the first line, the translation of which proved to be reliable, μέσφιλι means ‘αὐϑέντα μου’, we have no reason to doubt this meaning in the second line. The translation of the second line is most probably wrong anyhow. 11.5.5. καὶτζ can be compared with Oss. kajys, kais / kajes ‘father-in-law (wife’s father)’. According to ABAEV (I: 568), kajys, kais / kajes reflects ka 46

The further analysis of the Alanic phrase shows that the obscene Greek sentence νὰ γαμῇ τὸ μουνίν σου παπᾶς finds no parallel in the Alanic text. For instance, for μουνί ‘vulva’ (cf. HUNGER 1953: 307) we would expect a pendant of Oss. bygk / bugkæ (MF I: 365), Ir. byzyl (MF I: 367), or Dig. k’æw (MF II: 728).

60

Alexander Lubotsky

‘who’ + is / (j)es 3 sg. of the copula. It is a euphemism based on a taboo which forbids calling certain members of the family by name. For instance, husband and wife, when they are not alone, never call each other by name. The wife calls her husband næ læg ‘our husband’, jæ wyj kæm i ‘where is he’, and the husband calls his wife næ us ‘our wife’, o, wærtæ us ‘hi, woman there’, næ qusys ‘don’t you hear?’ (KALOEV 1971: 215). Accordingly, the husband calls his father-in-law kajys, kais / kajes ‘who is’, i.e. ‘somebody’. In the plural, the same word refers to the whole family of the wife. Alanic καὶτζ considerably strengthens Abaev’s etymology. As we have seen above, the 3 sg. of the copula (Oss. is / (j)es) is Alanic -ɛτζ, and καὶτζ, which may stand for /ka(j)esc/, shows that this word indeed contains the copula. The disyllabic scansion of this word is further necessary to form a correct metrical line of 15 syllables. BIELMEIER (1993: 18‒19) takes καὶτζ as an abstract noun to the verb qæjyn / qæjun ‘futuere’ (MF I: 438) in the predicative function together with the following 3 sg. fut. subj. φουὰ. Although not meant as such by Tzetzes, this derivation presumably was instrumental in the genesis of the obscene interlinear version (see below). 11.5.6. φουὰ has been convincingly explained by BIELMEIER (1993: 18‒ 19) as the 3 sg. future subjunctive (using ABAEV’s terminology) of the verb fæwyn / fæwun ‘to be, become, turn out to, end’ and thus stands for /fæwa/, -æw- being rendered by Gr. -oυ-. The third person of the future subjunctive in a main clause generally expresses a wish (ABAEV 1964: 60), so that φουὰ must mean ‘may/let ... be, become’. 11.5.7. BIELMEIER (1989: 241 and fn. 13, 1993: 20-21) has connected σαοῦγγε with Oss. sawǵyn / sawgin ‘priest’ because of the Greek translation ‘παπᾶς’, but since the translation is wrong, there is no need to follow this analysis, which entails insurmountable phonological difficulties. In view of the great accuracy, with which Tzetzes has rendered the Alanic words, it seems reasonable to take σαοῦγγε at its face value and to connect it with Oss. swang / sawængæ. Similarly to the spelling -oυ- for /-æw-/ in φουὰ, we here find -oυfor /-wæ-/. The Common Ossetic form is identical with that of Digoron, viz. *sawængæ. In Iron, COss. *-awæ- between consonants has become -wa-, cf. Ir. nwar ‘vein, sinew’ (Dig. nawær), Ir. bwar ‘body’ (Dig. bawær), Ir. cwan ‘hunting’ (Dig. cawæn). For more examples see ABAEV I: 318.

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

61

For swang / sawængæ ABAEV (IV: 178) gives the following meanings: “1. вплоть до, даже (up to, even); 2. (Dig.) всегда, постоянно, сквозной (?) (always, continuously, through (?)); 3. (Ir.) горный гребень, кряж, хребет, горный склон (mountain-crest, ridge, range, mountain slope).” The common semantic element seems to be ‘constant, continuous, ongoing’. In the Iron compound swangfars, swangvars ‘боковая часть (the side part)’, swang- has the meaning ‘whole, continuous’ (fars is ‘side’).47 The final -ɛ of σαοῦγγε can hardly represent /-æ/, however. As we have seen above, the usual spelling of (-)æ is α, cf. τα- /dæ/, χσινὰ /xsinæ/, τά /dæ/. Therefore, we may assume that -ɛ stands for Alanic /-æj/, σαοῦγγε being an adverb in the ablative. ABAEV (I: 178) gives the expression særy swangæj ‘с самого начала (from the very beginning)’, where swangæj must mean something like ‘all the way through’ (særy is gen.sg. of the word for ‘head, beginning’). Importantly, the spelling ɛ for /-æj/ is also found in the marginal glosses and in the Zelenčuk inscription, see § 10.3. 11.6. Whereas all words of the second line are reasonably clear, the syntax is ambiguous and allows for various combinations of the constituents. The last two words, viz. φουὰ σαοῦγγε, express a wish: ‘may it (scil. the farn) be continuous, everlasting!’,48 but the beginning can be interpreted in several ways. If we take the comma after φάρνετζ in ms. V seriously (see fn. 34), the first sentence is τὸ φάρνετζ ‘farn is for you’ (lit. ‘yours is the farn’), presumably followed by the vocatives κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ ‘the bride, my lord, the father-in-law’. The vocative μέσφιλι ‘my lord’ then refers to the bridegroom. If, on the other hand, we take τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι together, the meaning would be ‘the bride is your farn (good fortune)’49, and μέσφιλι καὶτζ either refer to two men (the bridegroom and bride’s father) or only to bride’s father (‘my lord father-in-law’). In spite of these ambiguities, it seems clear that we are dealing with a wish or a greeting pronounced by a guest on a wedding. Presumably, Tzetzes learned it when he was attending an Alanic wedding. In Ossetia, farn is typi47

48

49

The element swa- / sawæ- probably has the same meaning in Oss. swadon / sawædon ‘(mineral) spring’, i.e. ‘constant (flowing) water’ (don ‘water’). Cf. a typical Ossetic greeting farn wæ nyxasy! ‘фарн да будет на вашем собрании!’ (‘let farn be at your gathering!’) (ABAEV I: 421). If we assume that κίντζι is an inessive, the sentence would mean ‘your farn is in the bride’, which is unlikely.

62

Alexander Lubotsky

cally associated with the wedding and the bride. Among the examples given by ABAEV I: 421 s.v. farn, we find the following two sentences: farn fæcæwy! ‘фарн шествует! (возглас шаферов при вводе невесты в дом жениха)’ (‘the farn is progressing! [an exclamation pronounced by the best men when the bride is being brought to the bridegroom’s house]’), and adæm farny zarytæ kodtoj ‘народ пел (свадебные) песни фарна’ (‘the people were singing the (wedding-)songs of the farn’). Cf. further the sentence mentioned in MF (I: 1340): xorz us u farnxæssæg “хорошая женщина приносит счастие (с собою); eine gute Frau bringt Glück mit sich”. The proposed analysis of this line gives a correct metrical structure. If we assume that τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε stands for /dæw farn-esc kinʒæ mesfili kajesc fæwa sawængæj/, we get a normal line of 15 syllables. 11.7. We may now return to the question of the strange and obscene Greek rendering of the Alanic greeting. Since the interlinear version cannot have been written by Tzetzes himself, it must have been added by a scribe, possibly instigated by a curious patron who commissioned a copy of the manuscript. This is how it could have happened. The scribe asks his Alanic acquaintance what the sentence τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι μέσφιλι καὶτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε can possibly mean. The Alan answers: “I do not understand the entire sentence, but I can guess more or less what it is about because some of the words are quite clear: κίντζι must be kinʒæ ‘bride’, μέσφιλι is ‘my lord’; σαοῦγγε might stand for sawgin ‘priest’, and καὶτζ for qæjis ‘you fuck’. Expressions with farn we use for greetings, but also when something indecent has been mentioned. For instance, we may say in this situation: færngun ajtæ ‘be endowed with farn!’50.” We can imagine how much fun the scribe had when he wrote down the translation and then added an introductory line, explaining the context wherein this phrase can be used. 11.8. Let us summarize the results. We have identified the following words and phrases:

50

A Digoron expression, corresponding to Iron færnǯyn ut. This is the way how ABAEV (1949: 258) tried to reconcile the Alanic text with the Greek rendering οὐκ αἰσχύνεσαι ‘aren’t you ashamed?’.

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

Tzetzes καὶτζ κίντζι κορϑὶ καν σαοῦγγε τά ταπαγχὰς τὸ φάρνετζ φουὰ χσινὰ

Interpretation /kajesc/ /kinʒæ/ /kordigan/ /sawængæj/ /dæ/ /dæ ban xwa(r)z/ /do/ or /dæw/ /farn-esc/ /fæwa/ /xsinæ/

63

Ossetic kajys, kais / kajes čynʒ / kinʒæ *kyrdygon / *kordigon swangæj / sawængæj dæ dæ bon xorz / dæ bon xwarz Dig. dæw or do farn is / farnæ (j)es fæwa (æ)xsin / (æ)xsinæ

The rendering of Alanic by Tzetzes is accurate and the spelling is quite consistent51: /i/ /u/ /e/ /je/ /o/ /a/ /æ/

/æj/ /æw/ /æw/, /wæ/ /k/ /g/

51

ι o ɛ ι ο? α

(κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/, χσινὰ /xsinæ/, κίντζι /kinʒæ/) (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/) (φάρνετζ /farn-esc/) (καὶτζ /kajesc/) (τὸ /do/ or /dæw/) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/, κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/, φάρνɛτζ /farn-esc/, καὶτζ /kajesc/, φουὰ /fæwa/, σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/) α (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/, χσινὰ /xsinæ/, τά /dæ/) ι (κίντζι /kinʒæ/) Ø (φουὰ /fæwa/, σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/), cf. τὸ /do/ or /dæw/ ɛ (σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/) o? (τὸ /do/ or /dæw/) oυ (φουὰ /fæwa/, σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/) κ (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/, κίντζι /kinʒæ/, καὶτζ /kajesc/) κ (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/) γ (σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/)

Deviations are very few: -χὰς for /xwarz/, -τζ for /-sc/, oυ for /æw/, /wæ/ (probably, [uw] / [wu] phonetically).

64

/d/ /b/ /f/ /x/ /xw/ /ʒ/ [ǯ] /s/ /-sc/ /-z/ /n/ /r/

Alexander Lubotsky

τ ϑ π φ χ χ τζ σ τζ σ ν γ ρ Ø

(ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/, τά /dæ/, τὸ /do/ or /dæw/) (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/) (φάρνετζ /farn-esc/, φουὰ /fæwa/) (χσινὰ /xsinæ/) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/) (κίντζι /kinʒæ/) (χσινὰ /xsinæ/, σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/) (φάρνετζ /farn-esc/, καὶτζ /kajesc/) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/) (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/, χσινὰ /xsinæ/, κίντζι /kinʒæ/) (+γ,χ) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/, σαοῦγγε /sawængæj/) (κορϑὶ καν /kordigan/, φάρνετζ /farn-esc/) (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwa(r)z/)

11.9. In general, the spelling rather closely follows the rules and conventions of Greek, e.g. -γχ- and -γγ- for -nx- and -ng-, respectively. On the other hand, the spelling of the stops seems to indicate an independent tradition. As was pointed out by ABAEV (1949: 255f.), π and κ are used to render both voiced and voiceless stops because Gr. β and γ were voiced spirants at that time. There is more doubt about τ. In the original publication (1935b), ABAEV was of the opinion that τ also stands for /d/ in ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwarz/. After the criticism of GERHARDT (1939: 39), however, he changed his mind (1949: 256, fn. 1) and suggested that τα- ‘your’ may represent Alanic /tæ/ (cf. Av. tauua ‘your’, etc.) and that the Ossetic initial d- is due to post-Alanic voicing. On the basis of the limited material of Tzetzes it is difficult to decide. We find τ for /d/ only in the word for ‘your’ (ταπαγχὰς /dæ ban xwarz/ and τὸ /do/ or /dæw/), where it reflects Proto-Iranian *t and in the 2 sg. of the copula (τά /dæ/), where the origin of *d is unclear, but it cannot be ruled out that this *d also goes back to *t (cf. WEBER 1983: 90f. with the older literature). There remains κορϑὶ καν (/kordigan/) with ϑ used for /d/ (from Proto-Iranian *d). It is therefore a distinct possibility that τ stands for Alanic *t, whereas ϑ stands for Alanic *d. This distribution is different from that found in the Zelenčuk inscription, where both τ and ϑ stand for Alanic /t/: τ is found in the word-final position (φoυρτ /furt/), while ϑ is found in the middle of a word (Πακαϑαρ /Bæqatær/, τζηρϑɛ /cirtæj/), cf. ABAEV 1949: 269.

11. Appendix. The Alanic text in Tzetzes’ “Theogonia”

65

In the Alanic marginal notes (see § 10.2), τ stands for /d/ both in wordinitial and word-internal positions (ἄυτεσηρ /ævdæjsær/, φητίβανη /fidiwani/, τημιτήρι /dimidiri/) and for /t/ in the sequence /st/ (φιστηνίκ, στούρ, ἀστέμακ, ἠστιπαν, ἀποστόλ). Unfortunately, there is no instance of /t/ in another position, so that we do not know how it was spelled. A theta is only used in ϑεὀλόγος which most probably is Greek. It is instructive to compare Tzetzes’ spelling of the other languages (cf. GERHARDT 1939: 38f.). In Latin, he uses δ for d (δόμινɛ, oὖνδɛ, δɛκoύαλɛ, κόμoδo, πɛδόνɛ), τ for t (φράτɛρ, τζιβιτάτɛμ), β both for b (βένɛ) and for v (βɛνέστι, πρoβίντζια, καβαλλάριoυς, βίς), π for p (πɛρ-μάρɛ). In the Russian text, too, β stands for b, cf. βράτɛ (although ms. B reads πράτɛ) for *brate (ἀδɛλφέ), δόβρα δένη for *dobrъ denь (or, less probably, *dьnь). It follows that only in the Alanic text did Tzetzes consistently use voiceless stops for b and g. Since we come across the same convention in the Zelenčuk inscription and in the marginalia, it seems certain that there was an independent Alanic spelling tradition on the basis of the Greek alphabet. Moreover, considering Tzetzes’ precise rendering of Alanic (cf. also the spelling ε for /æj/), it is tempting to speculate that he took his phrases from a written source or, at least, that the phrases were written down for him by an Alan, who knew the spelling conventions. 11.10. There is not much to be said about the provenance of Tzetzes’ informant. We see no trace of the Iron innovations, but this does not necessarily mean that the informant was a speaker of the Western dialect. As argued in § 10.5, dialect differentiation in Ossetic is likely to have started in the 14th century, so that in the 12th century, when Tzetzes wrote his “Theogonia”, there were hardly any dialectal differences between Iron and Digoron. A similar point of view was already expressed by ABAEV (1949: 259).

REFERENCES ABAEV I–IV = ABAEV, V.I., Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka. Moscow – Leningrad, 1958-1989. ABAEV 1935a = ABAEV, V.I., O sobstvennyx imenax Nartovskogo eposa, Jazyk i Myšlenie 5 (cited from ABAEV 1990). ABAEV 1935b = ABAEV, V.I., Alanica. Izvestija Akademii Nauk, 1935, No. 9, 881–894. ABAEV 1949 = ABAEV, V.I., Osetinskij jazyk i fol’klor, I. Moscow – Leningrad. ABAEV 1964 = ABAEV, V.I., A grammatical sketch of Ossetic. Bloomington – The Hague. ABAEV 1970 = ABAEV, V.I., The names of the months in Ossetic. In: M. Boyce, I. Gershevitch (eds.), W.B. Henning Memorial Volume. London, 1-7. ABAEV 1972 = ABAEV, V.I., Kak apostol Petr stal Neptunom. Ètimologija 1970, 322–333. ABAEV 1990 = ABAEV, V.I., Izbrannye trudy, T. 1. Religija, fol’klor, literatura. Vladikavkaz. ALEMANY 2000 = ALEMANY, A., Sources on the Alans: A critical compilation. Leiden, etc. AXVLEDIANI 1969 = AXVLEDIANI, G.S., Grammatika osetinskogo jazyka, tom II. Sintaksis, pod red. G.S. Axvlediani. Ordžonikidze. BAGAEV 1965 = BAGAEV, N.K., Sovremennyj osetinskij jazyk. I. Ordžonikidze. BAILEY 1950 = BAILEY, H.W., L’accento in osseto digoron. Ricerche linguistiche I,1, 58–66. BAILEY 1982-1985 = BAILEY, H.W., Alans (Additional notes). In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. 1. London. BANG 1918 = BANG, W., Über den Volksnamen besenyő. Túrán 1918, 436–7. BIELMEIER 1989 = BIELMEIER, R., Sarmatisch, Alanisch, Jassisch und Altossetisch. In: R. Schmitt, Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, 236-245. BIELMEIER 1993 = BIELMEIER, R., Das Alanische bei Tzetzes. In: W. Skalmowski, A. van Tongerloo (eds.), Medioiranica. Proceedings of the International Colloquium organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 21st to the 23rd of May 1990, Leuven, 1–27. CHEUNG 2002 = CHEUNG, J., Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Wiesbaden. CHEUNG 2008 = CHEUNG, J., The Ossetic case system revisited. In: A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken and J. Wiedenhof (eds.): Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam / New York, 87–106. ČIBIROV 1976 = ČIBIROV, L.A., Narodnyj zemledel’českij kalendar’ osetin, Cxinvali. ENGBERG – LUBOTSKY 2003 = ENGBERG, S. and A. LUBOTSKY, Alanic marginal notes in a Byzantine manuscript: a preliminary report. Nartamongæ: the Journal of Alano-Ossetic Studies 2 (2003 [2004]), 41–46. FRITZ 2006 = FRITZ, S., Die ossetischen Personennamen (Iranisches Personennamenbuch, vol. III, fasc. 3). Wien. GERHARDT 1939 = GERHARDT, D., Alanen und Osseten. ZDMG 93, 33–51. HUNGER 1953 = HUNGER, H., Zum Epilog der Theogonie des Johannes Tzetzes. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 46, 302–307.

68

Alexander Lubotsky

Index, s.a. = Index systematicus manuscriptorum in Bibliotheca Imperiali Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. Sancta Petropolis. ISAEV 1966 = ISAEV, M.I., Digorskij dialekt osetinskogo jazyka. Moscow. IVANOV 1914 = IVANOV, A.I., Istorija mongolovъ (Juan’-ši) obъ asaxъ-alanaxъ. Xristianskij Vostokъ II, 281–300. IVANOV 2008 = IVANOV, S.A., Religious missions. In: J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge, 305-332. IVANOV – LUBOTSKY 2011 = IVANOV, S.A., and A. LUBOTSKY, An Alanic marginal note and the exact date of John II’s battle with the Pechenegs. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 103, 595–603. KALOEV 1971 = KALOEV, B.A., Osetiny (istoriko-ètnografičeskoe issledovanie), 2nd ed. Moscow. KAMBOLOV 2006 = KAMBOLOV, T.T., Očerk istorii osetinskogo jazyka: Učebnoe posobie dlja vuzov. Vladikavkaz. LEBEDEVA 1973 = LEBEDEVA, I.N., Grečeskie rukopisi (Opisanie rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii Nauk SSSR, t. 5). Leningrad. MALAXOV 1997 = MALAXOV, S.N., O grečeskoj pis’mennoj tradicii u narodov Severnogo Kavkaza v X-XVII vv., Mir pravoslavija, No 1. Volgograd, 32-39. MATEOS 1962 = MATEOS, J., Le Typicon de la Grande Église, Tome I: Le cycle des douze mois, ed. J. Mateos [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165]. Roma, 1962. MATEOS 1963 = MATEOS, J., Le Typicon de la Grande Église, Tome II: Le cycle des fêtes mobiles, ed. J. Mateos [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 166]. Roma, 1963. MF = MILLER, V.F., Osetinsko-russko-nemeckij slovar’. Pod redakciej i s dopolnenijami A.A. Frejmana. I: A – Z 1927, II: I – S 1929, III: T – ɧ 1934, Leningrad. MILLER 1882 = MILLER, V.F., Osetinskie ètjudy. Čast’ vtoraja. Izslědovanija. Moscow. MILLER 1903 = MILLER, V.F., Die Sprache der Osseten. Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Anhang zum ersten Band. Strassburg. MORAVCSIK 1930 = MORAVCSIK, J., Barbarische Sprachreste in der Theogonie des Johannes Tzetzes. Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 7 (Jahrgang 1928/ 1929), 352–365. MORAVCSIK 1983a = MORAVCSIK, Gy., Byzantinoturcica I. Die byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkvölker. 3., unveränderte Auflage. Berlin. MORAVCSIK 1983b = MORAVCSIK, Gy., Byzantinoturcica II. Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen. 3., unveränderte Auflage. Berlin. MUNKÁCSI 1939 = MUNKÁCSI, B., Beiträge zur Erklärung der “barbarischen” Sprachreste in der Theogonie des J. Tzetzes. Kőrösi Csoma-Archivum, Supplementary Volume I. 1935–39, 267–81. NÉMETH 1959 = NÉMETH, J., Eine Wörterliste der Jassen, der ungarländischen Alanen. Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst. Jahrgang 1958, Nr. 4. PEREVALOV 1998 = PEREVALOV, S.M., Ešče raz o “varvarskix” frazax v “Teogonii” Ioanna Ceca. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury, Vyp. 5. Moskva – Magnitogorsk, 116–122.

References

69

PEREVALOV 2007 = PEREVALOV, S.M., Iz istorii otkrytija Peterburgskoj rukopisi BAN Q 12 s alanskimi glossami. Vestnik Vladikavkazskogo Naučnogo Centra, Tom 7, No. 1, 17–22. PEREVALOV 2012 = PEREVALOV, S.M., Zametki k čteniju “staryx i novyx” pamjatnikov alanskogo imeni i alanskogo jazyka, Vestnik Vladikavkazskogo Naučnogo Centra, Tom 12, No. 4, 2–10. TAKAZOV 2003 = TAKAZOV, F.M., Digorsko-russkij slovar’. Vladikavkaz. VASMER 1951 = VASMER, M., Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch II. Heidelberg. VIREDAZ 2003 = VIREDAZ, R., Alain μέσφιλι. Studia Iranica 32, 35–46. WEBER 1983 = WEBER, D., Beiträge zur historischen Grammatik des Ossetischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 88, 84–91. ZGUSTA 1987 = ZGUSTA, L., The Old Ossetic inscription from the river Zelenčuk. Wien.

PLATES

10r

21r

30r

37v

45v

55v

69v

79v

83r

91v

100r

101v

102v

104r

105v

107r

108v

109v

110v

111v

113v

116v

119r

120r

121r

124v

126v

128v

130r

134v

135v

137r

138r

Cod. Vindob. phil. gr. 118, f.161v

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN ZUR IRANISTIK HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BERT G. FRAGNER UND FLORIAN SCHWARZ (Nr. 1–21: Veröffentlichungen der Iranischen Kommission, Nr. 22–29: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik, Nr. 30–31: Herausgegeben von Bert G. Fragner Nr. 32–68: Herausgegeben von Bert G. Fragner und Velizar Sadovski)

Nr. 1: Manfred Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen. Unter Mitarbeit von János Harmatta, Walter Hinz, Rüdiger Schmitt und Jutta Seiffert. 1973 (SBph, 286. Band) Nr. 2: Karl Jahn, Die Geschichte der Kinder Israels des Rašīd ad-Dīn. 1973 (Dph, 114. Band) Nr. 3: Manfred Mayrhofer, Zum Namengut des Avesta. 1977 (SBph, 308. Band, 5. Abhandlung) Nr. 4: Karl Jahn, Die Frankengeschichte des Rašīd ad-Dīn. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. 1977 (Dph, 129. Band) Nr. 5: Ronald Zwanziger, Zum Namen der Mutter Zarathustras. (Sonderdruck aus Anzeiger, 114/1977) Nr. 6: Rüdiger Schmitt, Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos. (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. I). 1978 (SBph, 337. Band) Nr. 7: Manfred Mayrhofer, Supplement zur Sammlung der altpersischen Inschriften. 1978 (SBph, 338. Band) Nr. 8: Karl Jahn, Die Indiengeschichte des Rašīd ad-Dīn. Einleitung, vollständige Übersetzung, Kommentar und 80 Texttafeln. 1980 (Dph, 144. Band) Nr. 9: Oswald Szemerényi, Four Old Iranian Ethnic Names: Scythian – Skudra – Sogdian – Saka. 1980 (SBph, 371. Band) Nr. 10: Rüdiger Schmitt, Altpersische Siegelinschriften. 1981 (SBph, 381. Band) Nr. 11: Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa, Aogəmadaēcā. A Zoroastrian Liturgy. 1982 (SBph, 397. Band) Nr. 12: R. E. Emmerick and P. O. Skjærvø, Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese I. 1982 (SBph, 401. Band) Nr. 13: Manfred Mayrhofer, Lassen sich Vorstufen des Uriranischen nachweisen? (Sonderdruck aus Anzeiger, 120/1983) Nr. 14: Reinhard Pohanka, Zu einigen Architekturstücken von Tell-e Zohak bei Fasa, Südiran. (Sonderdruck aus Anzeiger, 120/1983) Nr. 15: Wilhelm Eilers, Iranische Ortsnamenstudien. 1987 (SBph, 465. Band) Nr. 16: Reinhard Pohanka, Die Masdjed-e Djoume in Darab, Südiran. (Sonderdruck aus Anzeiger, 121/1984) Nr. 17: R. E. Emmerick and P. O. Skjærvø, Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese II. 1987 (SBph, 458. Band) Nr. 18: Wolfgang Felix, Antike literarische Quellen zur Außenpolitik des Sāsānidenstaates. Erster Band (224–309). 1985 (SBph, 456. Band) Nr. 19: Reinhard Pohanka, Burgen und Heiligtümer in Laristan, Südiran. Ein Surveybericht. 1986 (SBph, 466. Band) Nr. 20: N. Rastegar und W. Slaje, Uto von Melzer (1881–1961). Werk und Nachlaß eines österreichischen Iranisten. 1987 (SBph, 477. Band)

Nr. 21: Ladislav Zgusta, The Old Ossetic Inscription from the River Zelenčuk. 1987 (SBph, 486. Band) Nr. 22: Wolfram Kleiss, Die Entwicklung von Palästen und palastartigen Wohnbauten in Iran. 1989 (SBph, 524. Band) Nr. 23: Nosratollah Rastegar, Zur Problematik einiger handschriftlicher Quellen des neupersischen Namenbuches. 1989 (SBph, 525. Band) Nr. 24: Dorit Schön, Laristan – eine südpersische Küstenprovinz. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte. 1990 (SBph, 553. Band) Nr. 25: Rüdiger Schmitt, Epigraphisch-exegetische Noten zu Dareios’ Bīsutūn-Inschriften. 1990 (SBph, 561. Band) Nr. 26: Jost Gippert, Iranica Armeno-Iberica. Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen. Band I–II. 1993 (SBph, 606. Band) Nr. 27: R. E. Emmerick and P. O. Skjærvø, Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese III. 1997 (SBph, 651. Band) Nr. 28: Xavier Tremblay, Pour une histoire de la Sérinde. Le manichéisme parmi les peuples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’après les sources primaires. 2001 (SBph, 690. Band) Nr. 29: Rüdiger Schmitt, Die iranischen und Iranier-Namen in den Schriften Xenophons. (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. II). 2002 (SBph, 692. Band) Nr. 30: Rüdiger Schmitt, Meno-logium Bagistano-Persepolitanum. Studien zu den altpersischen Monatsnamen und ihren elamischen Wiedergaben. Unter redaktioneller Mitwirkung von Velizar Sadovski. 2003 (SBph, 705. Band) Nr. 31: Antonio Panaino, Rite, parole et pensée dans l’Avesta ancien et récent. Quatre leçons au Collège de France (Paris, 7, 14, 21, 28 mai 2001). Edité par Velizar Sadovski, avec la collaboration rédactionnelle de Sara Circassia. 2004 (SBph, 716. Band) Nr. 32: Roman Siebertz, Die Briefmarken Irans als Mittel der politischen Bildpropaganda. 2005 (SBph, 722. Band) Nr. 33: Rüdiger Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk. (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. III). 2006 (SBph, 736. Band) Nr. 34: Heiner Eichner, Bert G. Fragner, Velizar Sadovski und Rüdiger Schmitt (Hrsg.), Iranistik in Europa – gestern, heute, morgen. Unter redaktioneller Mitarbeit von Hannes Hofmann und Vera Giesen. 2006 (SBph, 739. Band) Nr. 35: Uto v. Melzer, Farhangnevīs. Materialien zu einem Persisch-deutschen Wörter-buch. Hrsg. von Nosratollah Rastegar. Band I–IV. 2006 (Dph, 339. Band) Nr. 36: Manfred Mayrhofer, Einiges zu den Skythen, ihrer Sprache, ihrem Nachleben. 2006 (SBph, 742. Band) Nr. 37: Siegfried Weber, Die persische Verwaltung Kaschmirs (1842–1892). Band 1–2. 2007 (SBph, 754. Band) Nr. 38: Farhangnevīs. Datenbank zu Uto von Melzers lexikographischen Materialien: Persisch-Deutsch/Deutsch-Persisch. Hrsg. von Nosratollah Rastegar. 2007 (CDROM) Nr. 39: Rüdiger Schmitt, Pseudo-altpersische Inschriften. Inschriftenfälschungen und moderne Nachbildungen in altpersischer Keilschrift. 2007 (SBph, 762. Band) Nr. 40: Thamar E. Gindin, The Early Judaeo-Persian Tafsīrs of Ezekiel: Text, Translation, Commentary. Vol. I: Text. 2007 (SBph, 763. Band)

Nr. 41: Antonio Panaino und Velizar Sadovski, Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses, I.: Antonio Panaino, Chronologia Avestica. Velizar Sadovski, Epitheta und Götternamen im älteren Indo-Iranischen. 2007 (SBph, 764. Band) Nr. 42: Helmut Slaby, Bindenschild und Sonnenlöwe. Die Geschichte der österreichischiranischen Beziehungen bis zur Gegenwart. Nachdruck. 2010 (SBph, 770. Band) Nr. 43: Tommaso Gnoli, The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles in the Roman East (1st– 3rd Century A.D.). 2007 (SBph, 765. Band) Nr. 44: Thamar E. Gindin, The Early Judaeo-Persian Tafsīrs of Ezekiel: Text, Translation, Commentary. Vol. II: Translation. 2007 (SBph, 766. Band) Nr. 45: Thamar E. Gindin, The Early Judaeo-Persian Tafsīrs of Ezekiel: Text, Translation, Commentary. Vol. III: Commentary (in Vorbereitung) Nr. 46: Bert G. Fragner, Ralph Kauz, Roderick Ptak und Angela Schottenhammer (Hrsg.), Pferde in Asien: Geschichte, Handel und Kultur / Horses in Asia: History, Trade and Culture. 2009 (Dph, 378. Band) Nr. 47: Giorgio Rota, La Vita e i Tempi di Rostam Khan. Edizione e traduzione italiana del Ms. British Library Add 7,655. 2009 (SBph, 790. Band) Nr. 48: Fridrik Thordarson, Ossetic Grammatical Studies. 2009 (SBph, 788. Band) Nr. 49: Rüdiger Schmitt und Gerhard Brugmann (Hrsg.), Aus Karl Brugmanns Jugenderinnerungen. Eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Rüdiger Schmitt. 2009 (SBph, 786. Band) Nr. 50: Velizar Sadovski, Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des ältesten Indo-Iranischen (Veda und Avesta). (Stilistica Indo-Iranica, II.) (in Vorbereitung) Nr. 51: Velizar Sadovski und David Stifter (Hrsg.), Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944–1994). 2012 (SBph, 851. Band) Nr. 52: Ralph Kauz, Giorgio Rota und Jan Paul Niederkorn (Hrsg.), Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im Mittleren Osten in der frühen Neuzeit. 2009 (SBph, 796. Band) Nr. 53: Giorgio Rota, Under Two Lions. On the Knowledge of Persia in the Republic of Venice (ca. 1450–1797). 2009 (SBph, 793. Band) Nr. 54: Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanistik: Über Darstellungen und Einführungen von den Anfängen bis in die Gegenwart. 2009 (SBph, 787. Band) Nr. 55: Ela Filippone, The Fingers and their Names in the Iranian Languages. (Onomasiological Studies of Body-Part Terms, I). 2010 (SBph, 811. Band) Nr. 56: Olav Hackstein, Apposition and Nominal Classification in Indo-European and Beyond. 2010 (SBph, 798. Band) Nr. 57: Geschichte Wassaf’s. Persisch herausgegeben und deutsch übersetzt von HammerPurgstall. Neu herausgegeben von Sibylle Wentker nach Vorarbeiten von Klaus Wundsam. Band 1. 2010 (SBph, 802. Band) Nr. 58: Gisela Fock, Die iranische Moderne in der Bildenden Kunst: Der Bildhauer und Maler Parviz Tanavoli. 2011 (SBph, 815. Band) Nr. 59: Geschichte Wassaf’s. Deutsch übersetzt von Hammer-Purgstall. Herausgegeben von Sibylle Wentker nach Vorarbeiten von Elisabeth und Klaus Wundsam. Band 2. 2010 (SBph, 803. Band) Nr. 60: Toshifumi Gotō: The Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and its Indo-Iranian Background. 2013 (SBph, 849. Band)

Nr. 61: Yuri Stoyanov, Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross. The Sasanian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and Byzantine Ideology of Anti-Persian Warfare. 2011 (SBph, 819. Band) Nr. 62: Barbara Karl, Treasury ‒ Kunstkammer ‒ Museum: Objects from the Islamic World in the Museum Collections of Vienna. 2011 (SBph, 822. Band) Nr. 63: Şevket Küçükhüseyin, Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmung im Prozess kultureller Transformation. Anatolische Quellen über Muslime, Christen und Türken (13.‒15. Jahrhundert). 2011 (SBph, 825. Band) Nr. 64: Geschichte Wassaf’s. Deutsch übersetzt von Hammer-Purgstall. Herausgegeben von Sibylle Wentker nach Vorarbeiten von Elisabeth und Klaus Wundsam. Band 3. 2012 (SBph, 827. Band) Nr. 65: Antonio Panaino und Velizar Sadovski, Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses, II. 2013 (SBph, 845. Band) Nr. 67: Luke Treadwell, Craftsmen and coins: signed dies in the Iranian world (third to the fifth centuries AH). 2011 (Dph, 423. Band, gleichzeitig: Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission, Band 54) Nr. 69: Amr Taher Ahmed, La « Révolution littéraire ». Étude de l’influence de la poésie française sur la modernisation des formes poétiques persanes au début du XXe siècle. 2012 (SBph, 829. Band) Nr. 70: Roman Siebertz, Preise, Löhne und Lebensstandard im safavidischen Iran. Eine Untersuchung zu den Rechnungsbüchern Wollebrand Geleynssen de Jonghs (1641– 1643). 2013 (SBph, 835. Band) Nr. 71: Walter Posch, Osmanisch-safavidische Beziehungen 1545–1550: Der Fall Alḳâs Mîrzâ. Teil 1 und Teil 2. 2013 (SBph, 841. Band) Nr. 72: Niccolò Pianciola und Paolo Sartori (Hrsg.), Islam, Society and States across the Qazaq Steppe (18th – Early 20th Centuries). 2013 (SBph, 844. Band) Nr. 73: Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). 2014 (SBph, 850. Band/Grammatica Iranica 1, hrsg. von Velizar Sadovski) Nr. 74: Christine Noelle-Karimi, The Pearl in its Midst. Herat and the Mapping of Khurasan (15th–19th Centuries). 2014 (Dph, 463. Band) Nr. 75: Bert G. Fragner, Ralph Kauz und Florian Schwarz (Hrsg.): Wine Culture in Iran and Beyond. 2014 (SBph, 852. Band) Nr. 77: Tilmann Trausch, Formen höfischer Historiographie im 16. Jahrhundert. Geschichtsschreibung unter den frühen Safaviden: 1501–1578. 2015 (SBph, 861. Band) IRANISCHE ONOMASTIK HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BERT G. FRAGNER UND FLORIAN SCHWARZ (Nr. 1–10: Herausgegeben von Bert G. Fragner und Velizar Sadovski)

Nr. 1: Rüdiger Schmitt, Das Iranische Personennamenbuch: Rückschau, Vorschau, Rundschau (mit einer Bibliographie zur Iranischen Personennamenkunde). 2006 (SBph, 744. Band) Nr. 2: Sonja Fritz, Die ossetischen Personennamen. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band III, Faszikel 3). 2006 (SBph, 746. Band) Nr. 3: Ulla Remmer, Frauennamen im Rigveda und im Avesta. 2006 (SBph, 745. Band)

Nr. 4: Ran Zadok, Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 1B). 2009 (SBph, 777. Band) Nr. 5: Philippe Gignoux, Christelle Jullien, Florence Jullien, Noms propres syriaques d’origine iranienne. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 5). 2009 (SBph, 789. Band) Nr. 6: Rüdiger Schmitt, Iranische Personennamen in der neuassyrischen Nebenüberlieferung. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 1A). 2009 (SBph, 792. Band) Nr. 7: Nicholas Sims-Williams, Bactrian Personal Names. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel 7). 2010 (SBph, 806. Band) Nr. 8: Pavel B. Lurje, Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel 8). 2010 (SBph, 808. Band) Nr. 9: Rüdiger Schmitt, Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander d. Gr. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band V, Faszikel 5A). 2011 (SBph, 823. Band) Nr. 10: Rüdiger Schmitt, Manfred Mayrhofer: Leben und Werk. Mit vollständigem Schriftenverzeichnis. 2012 (SBph, 828. Band) Nr. 11: Matteo De Chiara, Mauro Maggi and Giuliana Martini (Hrsg.), Buddhism Among the Iranian Peoples of Central Asia (= Multilingualism and History of Knowledge, Volume I. Hrsg. von Jens E. Braarvig, Markham J. Geller, Gebhard Selz und Velizar Sadovski). 2013 (SBph, 848. Band) Nr. 12: Olav Hackstein and Ronald I. Kim (Hrsg.), Linguistic Developments along the Silkroad: Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian (= Multilingualism and History of Knowledge, Volume II. Hrsg. von Jens E. Braarvig, Markham J. Geller, Gebhard Selz und Velizar Sadovski). 2012 (SBph, 834. Band) Nr. 13: Rüdiger Schmitt und Günter Vittmann, Iranische Namen in ägyptischer Nebenüberlieferung. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VIII). 2013 (SBph, 842. Band) Nr. 14: Manfred Hutter, Iranische Personennamen in der hebräischen Bibel. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 2). 2015 (SBph, 860. Band)

IRANISCHES PERSONENNAMENBUCH BEGRÜNDET VON MANFRED MAYRHOFER HERAUSGEGEBEN VON RÜDIGER SCHMITT, HEINER EICHNER, BERT G. FRAGNER UND VELIZAR SADOVSKI Bisher erschienen: Band I: Die altiranischen Namen Von Manfred Mayrhofer. 1979 (Sonderpublikation). Faszikel 1, 2 und 3 in einem Band: Faszikel 1: Die avestischen Namen. Faszikel 2: Die altpersischen Namen. Faszikel 3: Indices zum Gesamtband.

Band II: Mitteliranische Personennamen Faszikel 2: Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique. Von Philippe Gignoux. 1986 (Sonderpublikation) Faszikel 3: Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique. Supplément (1986–2001). Von Philippe Gignoux. 2003 (Sonderpublikation) Faszikel 7: Bactrian Personal Names. Von Nicholas Sims-Williams. 2010 (SBph, 806. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 7) Faszikel 8: Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. Von Pavel B. Lurje. 2011 (SBph, 808. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 8) Band III: Neuiranische Personennamen Faszikel 3: Die ossetischen Personennamen. Von Sonja Fritz. 2006 (SBph, 746. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 2) Band IV: Materialgrundlagen zu den iranischen Personennamen auf antiken Münzen: Nomina propria Iranica in nummis Von Michael Alram. 1986 (Sonderpublikation) Band V: Iranische Namen in Nebenüberlieferungen indogermanischer Sprachen Faszikel 4: Iranische Namen in den indogermanischen Sprachen Kleinasiens: Lykisch, Lydisch, Phrygisch.Von Rüdiger Schmitt. 1982 (Sonderpublikation) Faszikel 5A: Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander d. Gr. Von Rüdiger Schmitt. 2011 (SBph, 823. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 9) Faszikel 6a: Iranische Namen in den griechischen Dokumenten Ägyptens. Von Philip Huyse. 1991 (Sonderpublikation) Band VII: Iranische Namen in semitischen Nebenüberlieferungen Faszikel 1A: Iranische Personennamen in der neuassyrischen Nebenüberlieferung. Von Rüdiger Schmitt. 2009 (SBph, 792. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 6) Faszikel 1B: Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung. Von Ran Zadok. 2009 (SBph, 777. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 4) Faszikel 2: Iranische Personennamen in der hebräischen Bibel. Von Manfred Hutter. 2015 (SBph, 860. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 14) Faszikel 5: Noms propres syriaques d’origine iranienne. Von Philippe Gignoux, Christelle Jullien, Florence Jullien. 2009 (SBph, 789. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 5) Band VIII: Iranische Namen in ägyptischer Nebenüberlieferung Von Rüdiger Schmitt und Günter Vittmann. 2013 (SBph, 842. Band/Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 13)