Armenia between Byzantium and the Orient: Celebrating the Memory of Karen Yuzbashian (1927–2009) 9789004397743, 9004397744

Citation preview

Karen Yuzbashyan in Matenadaran, Yerevan, 1956

Armenia between Byzantium and the Orient Celebrating the Memory of Karen Yuzbashyan (1927–2009)

Edited by

Bernard Outtier Cornelia B. Horn Basil Lourié Alexey Ostrovsky

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The logo for the TSEC series is based on a 14th-century tombstone of the Church of the East from Quanzhou, South China, courtesy of the Quanzhou Maritime Museum of Overseas Communications History. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Yuzbashyan, K. N. (Karen Nikitich), 1927-2009, honouree. | Horn, C. B. (Cornelia B.), editor. | Outtier, B. (Bernard), editor. | Lourié, B. (Basil), 1962editor. | Ostrovsky, A. (Alexey), editor. Title: Armenia between Byzantium and the Orient : celebrating the memory of Karen Yuzbashian (1927-2009) / edited by Bernard Outtier, Cornelia B. Horn, Basil Lourié, Alexey Ostrovsky. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Text and studies in Eastern Christianity, 2213-0039 ; volume 16 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019023284 (print) | LCCN 2019023285 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004397736 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004397743 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Armenian Church–History–Sources. | Manuscripts, Armenian. | Eastern churches–History–Sources. | Armenia–History. | Armenia–Civilization. | Yuzbashyan, K. N. (Karen Nikitich), 1927-2009. Classification: LCC BX123.3 .A754 2020 (print) | LCC BX123.3 (ebook) | DDC 281/.62–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019023284 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019023285

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 2213-0039 ISBN 978-90-04-39773-6 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-39774-3 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Illustrations xi List of Tables xviii Introduction

1

Memoria 1

A Free Man in a Free Country Elena Yuzbashyan

5

2

Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan Nina G. Garsoïan

3

A Memoir of Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan James R. Russell

10

17

Part 1 Jewish and Christian Beginnings through the Lens of Armenian Sources 4

Biblical Quotations in Early Armenian Literature Manea Erna Shirinian

23

5

The Armenian Philo on the Feast of Passover Predrag Bukovec

6

Jesus and the Alphabet in the Caucasus: a View of the Relationship of the Georgian Infancy Gospel of Thomas to Armenian Infancy Gospel Traditions via Cross-Cultural Intersections with the Syriac, Greek, and Ethiopic Evidence 60 Cornelia B. Horn

7

An Early Witness of the Armenian Lectionary Jost Gippert

35

97

viii

contents

8

Eigentümlichkeiten und Probleme bei der zweiten armenischen Version der Basilius-Anaphora zu Beginn der Oratio ante Sanctus und die Mischung des Weins in einigen Codices 112 Gabriele Winkler

9

Georgian and Armenian Commentaries on the First Theological Oration by Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 27) 127 Maia Raphava

10

John II of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Encaenia of St. Sion and Its Calendrical Background 152 Basil Lourié

Part 2 Armenian Textual and Material Culture 11

Georgian-Armenian Palimpsests in Repositories of the National Centre of Manuscripts of Georgia: Agathangelos’s History of the Armenians 199 Zaza Aleksidze and Dali Chitunashvili

12

La Lettre de Giwt à Vačʽē (464): hellénisme et arts libéraux en Arménie dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle 211 Jean-Pierre Mahé

13

A Discourse on the Church by Yovhan Mayragomec‘i Abraham Terian

14

The Renewal of the Debate between Royal and Monastic Ideology under Gagik I of Vaspurakan as a Factor of Commercial and Economic Revival 242 S. Peter Cowe

15

The Letters of Ioannēs Tzimiskes in the Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi 259 Tara L. Andrews

16

The Ornamented Frames in the Wall Sculpture of Tayk in Cross-Cultural Analysis 288 Arpine Asryan

225

ix

contents

17

Spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques: les petites plaques à croix murales 307 Patrick Donabédian

18

Zwischen Jerusalem und Konstantinopel: die Spezifik der armenischen hymnographischen Kanones 445 Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan

Part 3 Interacting with a Wider Cultural Context 19

The Semitic Lord of Heaven and the Buddhist Guardian of the North: Another Contamination in Iranian Syncretism? 457 Pavel B. Lurje

20

The Interrupted Feast James R. Russell

21

Byzantine Historiography and the Supposedly Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus 530 Warren Treadgold

22

La source “grecque” du calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) 580 Bernard Outtier

23

The “Martyrdom of George Zoravar Narrated by Basil” (MS Georgicus Athos 8) 602 Khatuna Gaprindashvili

24

One Episode from the History of the Georgian Codex S-1463 (Dogmatikon by Arsen Iqaltoeli) 612 Alexey Ostrovsky

25

Gregory the Armenian in Coptic Liturgical Books Youhanna Nessim Youssef

468

633

x

contents

Essays 26

Les catholicos Pahlawouni à Tzovk‘ (1116–1150): seigneurs temporels et pasteurs spirituels 651 Gérard Dédéyan

27

L’Arménie médiévale (XIe–XIVe siècle) Claude Mutafian

Indices Index of Personal Names 704 Index of Geographic Names 712 Index of Cultures and Ethnicities 717

661

Illustrations 2.1 2.2

2.3

2.4 2.5 2.6 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 17.1 17.2

Karen Yuzbashyan, Autumn 1970 12 Karen Yuzbashyan with his daughter Elena Yuzbashyan, Nina Garsoïan with her mother Inna Garsoïan, and Rusudana Orbeli, St. Petersburg, Autumn 1970 13 Karen Yuzbashyan with his daughter Elena Yuzbashyan and Saurmag Kakabadze on the balcony of the Caucasian Studies Room at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Petersburg, Autumn 1970 13 Karen Yuzbashyan and Nina Garsoïan, XIVth Congress of the Association d’études byzantines, Bucharest, September 1971 14 Karen Yuzbashyan, XIVth Congress of the Association d’études byzantines, Bucharest, September 1971 15 Karen Yuzbashyan, early 1990s 16 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 41r (top) 100 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 28r (top) 100 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 28vb (extract) 101 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 21ra (top) 102 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 46ra (top) 103 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 30r (top) 109 Transcription of the manuscript texts 265 The beginning of the letter of Tzimiskes to Ašot III, viewed graphically 266 The cathedral of Ishkhan, the brow of the window at the eastern façade 301 Ishkhan, the church of Holy Mary, the brow of the southern door 302 Ishkhan, the chapel of Gurgen, the window at the eastern façade 303 The monastery of Oshk, Deesis, the southern façade, reconstruction. Drawing by Wakhtang Djobadze 303 The monastery of Oshk, David Curopalate, a detail from Deesis. Drawing by Wakhtang Djobadze 304 Agh‘tamar, St. Cross, Gagik Artsruni, the eastern façade, 915–921. Drawing by Iosif Orbeli 305 St. Grigor Church, Sisavan, the northern façade, 6th century. Photo by Arpine Asryan 306 Arménie (Rép. d’). Sanahin. Khatchkar de Sargis (1215). Photo Patrick Donabédian 359 Arménie (Rép. d’). Mak‘enoc‘. Khatchkar «archaïque» (c. IXe–Xe s.), aujourd’hui dans la cour de la cathédrale Sainte-Etchmiadzine. Photo Patrick Donabédian 360

xii 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 17.11 17.12

17.13 17.14 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.18 17.19 17.20 17.21

17.22

illustrations Arménie (Rép. d’). Keč‘aṙis. Rang de khatchkars (c. IXe–XIIIe s.) entre la cathédrale et la chapelle Saint-Signe. Photo Patrick Donabédian 361 Arménie (Rép. d’). Tat‘ew. Cathédrale Saints-Pierre-et-Paul (895–906), façade ouest. Plaque à inscription dédicatoire. Photo Patrick Donabédian 362 Arménie (Turquie act.). Ałt‘amar. Église Sainte-Croix (c. 915–921), façade ouest. Photo Patrick Donabédian 363 Arménie (Turquie act.). Ani. Cathédrale (989–1001). Pignon de la façade ouest. Photo Patrick Donabédian 364 Arménie (Turquie act.). Ani. Rempart. Tour nord-ouest, dite de Mxit‘ar. «Khatchkar» (XIIIe s.). Photo Patrick Donabédian 365 Arménie (Rép. d’). Tełer. Façade ouest du gawit‘ (1221–1232). Rangs de «khatchkars». Photo Patrick Donabédian 366 Arménie (Rép. d’). Noravank‘. Église funéraire de Burt‘ēl Ōrbēlean (1331–1339). Façade ouest. Photo Patrick Donabédian 367 Arménie (Turquie act.). Ktuc‘ (1713–1720). Façade est. Photo Hraïr Hawk Khatcherian 368 Cilicie. Musée archéologique d’Adana. Photo Ioanna Rapti 369 Cilicie. Hṙomklay. «Khatchkar» de Vasil, probablement Pahlawuni (c. milieu du XIIe s.). Musée du Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie, Antélias, Liban. Photo Claude Mutafian 370 Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église. Photo Maxime Goepp 371 Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église. «Khatchkar» de gauche (c. 2e moitié du XIIe s.). Photo Claude Colin 372 Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église. «Khatchkar» de droite (c. 2e moitié du XIIe s.). Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian 373 Cilicie. Koṙikos. Fort terrestre. Porte de l’enceinte intérieure, face extérieure de la courtine est (c. XIIIe s.). Photo Maxime Goepp 374 Cilicie. Koṙikos. Fort terrestre. «Khatchkar» au-dessus de la porte de l’enceinte intérieure est (c. XIIIe s.). Photo Maxime Goepp 375 Cilicie. Séleucie/Silifke. Plaque au-dessus de l’entrée de la forteresse (1236?). Photo Paul Kazandjian 376 Cilicie. Papeṙon/Çandır. Forteresse. Chapelle adjointe à la façade sud de l’église (1251/1256). Photo Maxime Goepp 377 Cilicie. Région de Sis. Pierre posée à terre. Photo Maxime Goepp 378 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB006 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1440). Photo Patrick Donabédian 379 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB009 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Patrick Donabédian 380

illustrations 17.23

17.24

17.25

17.26

17.27

17.28

17.29

17.30

17.31 17.32 17.33 17.34 17.35 17.36 17.37

17.38

xiii

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB012 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1443). Photo Patrick Donabédian 381 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB007 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1460). Photo Patrick Donabédian 382 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB018 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1151). Photo Michel Basmadjian 383 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB019 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1153). Photo Patrick Donabédian 384 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB020 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Patrick Donabédian 385 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB028 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Michel Basmadjian 386 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB017 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1151 et 1835). Photo Michel Basmadjian 387 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JERHCB022 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian] (1151). Photo Michel Basmadjian 388 Rome. «Khatchkar» de Mxit‘ar (1246). Musées du Vatican, musée lapidaire. Photo Claude Mutafian 389 Crimée. Caffa/Théodosie. Église arménienne Saint-Serge (transformée en musée lapidaire), gawit‘, façade ouest. Photo Aleksandr Dzhanov 390 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade nord. Plaque de 1356. Photo Rafał Quirini-Popławski 391 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. «Khatchkar» encastré à droite de la porte (1761). Photo Patrick Donabédian 392 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. Khatchkar encastré à gauche de la porte. Photo Patrick Donabédian 393 Crimée. Caffa. Musée régional de Théodosie. Khatchkar. Photo Elena Aïbabina 394 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Sainte-Vierge Marie. Fragment présumé de khatchkar remployé dans les vestiges d’un clocher au nord-est de l’église. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 395 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, face intérieure du mur ouest. Plaque

xiv

17.39 17.40 17.41 17.42 17.43 17.44 17.45

17.46 17.47 17.48 17.49 17.50 17.51

17.52

17.53

17.54 17.55

illustrations dédiée au miniaturiste Nikołos Całkarar (1698). Photo Académie nationale des sciences de la république d’Arméie 396 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, face intérieure du mur ouest (1424). Photo Académie nationale des sciences de la république d’Arménie 397 Crimée. Caffa. Intérieur de l’église Saint-Serge (1427). Photo Jean-Pierre Kibarian 398 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. Plaque à gauche de la porte (1528). Photo Rafał Quirini Popławski 399 Crimée. Caffa. Intérieur de l’église Saint-Serge (1451). Photo Jean-Pierre Kibarian 400 Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest (1460). Photo Aleksandr Džanov 401 Crimée. T‘op‘ti/Topolevka. Chapelle Urbat‘i (Sainte-Parascève). Plaque dédiée à Karapet (1381). Photo Tatevik Sargsyan 402 Stèles à deux croix superposées. Gauche: Sala/Gruševka (Crimée); Centre: T‘op‘ti/Topolevka (Crimée); Droite: Rostov-sur-le-Don/Nor Naxiǰewan (sud Russie). Photos Tatevik Sargsyan 403 Crimée. Sala/Gruševka. Musée de l’école. Plaque dédiée à Tōnavak‘ (1483). Photo Arkadiï Baïburtskiï 404 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera (1386). Plaques remployées en haut de la façade sud. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 405 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera. Plaques remployées dans la façade sud. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 406 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera. Plaques remployées dans la façade nord. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 407 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour de Franchi di Pagano (1414). Plaque encastrée dans le mur ouest. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 408 Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Fragment de plaque à croix arménienne, provenant de la tour nº 16, déposé dans le musée de Sudak. Photo Aleksandr Džanov 409 Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne SainteMère de Dieu (1363). Plaque à croix (1427). Photo Patrick Donabédian 410 Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne SainteMère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (1441/1449). Photo Patrick Donabédian 411 Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix. Photo Patrick Donabédian 412 Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix. Photo Patrick Donabédian 413

illustrations 17.56

17.57 17.58 17.59

17.60

17.61 17.62 17.63 17.64

17.65 17.66 17.67 17.68 17.69 17.70 17.71 17.72

xv

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne SainteMère de Dieu. Plaque à deux croix dédiée à Tēr Grigor. Photo Patrick Donabédian 414 Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (1461). Photo Patrick Donabédian 415 Podolie (Ukraine). Kamenec-Podol’skiï/Kamjanec-Podilskyï. Chapelle de l’Annonciation. Plaque à croix (1554). Photo Patrick Donabédian 416 Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï/BilhorodDnistrovskyï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à deux croix (1446). Photo Tatevik Sargsyan 417 Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à deux croix et inscription (1474). Photo Tatevik Sargsyan 418 Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à croix non datée. Photo Tatevik Sargsyan 419 Trébizonde (Pont). Église du monastère St-Sauveur de Tous, façade sud. Photo Hraïr Hawk Khatcherian 420 Trébizonde (Pont). Église du monastère St-Sauveur de Tous. Niche dans le mur intérieur sud. Photo Hraïr Hawk Khatcherian 421 Teleti (près de Tbilissi, Géorgie). Gauche: Plaque à croix avec inscription arménienne de 1681, dans son état originel (1992); Centre: Cette plaque, privée de son inscription (1997); Droite: Plaque inspirée de la précédente et récemment sculptée à Tbilissi, 10, rue M. Asatiani (nov. 2017). Photos Samvel Karapetyan et Patrick Donabédian 422 Tbilissi (Géorgie). Eglise arménienne Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix de 1417 (?), à gauche de l’autel. Photo Patrick Donabédian 423 Famagouste (Chypre). Eglise latine Ste-Anne, façade nord. Plaque à croix à inscription arménienne. Photo Allan Langdale 424 Irak. Monastère Mar Behnam. Mausolée. Plaque à croix datée de 1171. Photo Amir Karrak 425 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Façade ouest, partie nord. Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 426 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Façade ouest, partie sud. Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 427 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1492). Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 428 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1603?). Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 429 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix. Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 430

xvi 17.73 17.74 17.75 17.76 17.77 17.78 17.79 17.80

17.81

17.82

17.83

17.84

17.85

17.86

20.1 20.2 20.3

illustrations Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Intérieur de la chapelle sud-est. Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 431 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1604). Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 432 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1595). Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 433 Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1610). Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan 434 Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVIIe–XVIIIe s.?). Photo Aršak Alpōyačean 435 Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVIIe–XVIIIe s.?). Photo Aršak Alpōyačean 436 Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVe s.?). Photo Aršak Alpōyačean 437 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-GVR001 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian (cf. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’art des khatchkars, p. 181, fig. 6.70) 438 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jacques de Nisibe. Plaque à croix (1613) nº ISF-HCB006 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 439 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Nersēs. Plaque à croix (1607) nº ISF-NRS001 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 440 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Monastère Saint-Sauveur de Tous. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-APK049 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 441 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jean. Plaque à croix (1622) nº ISF-HVN014 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 442 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jacques de Nisibe. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-HCB004 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 443 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix (1626) nº ISF-GVR006 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian 444 David and Goliath, southern wall of the Church of the Holy Cross (AD 920) Ałt‘amar Island, Lake Van, Armenia 522 Samson slaying a Philistine, northern wall, Ałt‘amar 523 Samson killing the lion, northern wall, Ałt‘amar 524

illustrations 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 24.1 24.2 24.3 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8 27.9 27.10 27.11 27.12 27.13 27.14 27.15 27.16

xvii

Samson killing the lion, Ateni (7th century) Gori district, Georgia 525 David killing the lion, northern wall, Ałt‘amar 526 Achaemenian king slaying a leonine beast, Persepolis, Iran 527 Maitreya at Mulbekh, Ladakh, India 528 Ervand K‘oč‘ar, engraving in the style of an illustration of a bas-relief, of Mher killing a lion 529 Cod. S-1463, grapheme ⟨թ⟩ of the Armenian pagination. 625 Cod. S-1463, graphemes ⟨գ⟩ and ⟨զ⟩ of the Armenian pagination. 625 Cod. S-1463, grapheme ⟨խ⟩ of the Armenian pagination. 625 À l’avènement du calife abbaside Haroun al-Rachid. 687 Les royaumes de Grande Arménie (fin du Xe siècle). 688 La Cilicie au XIIe siècle. 689 Les principales voies de contournement et de traversée de la Cilicie. 690 La première croisade en Asie (1097–1099). 691 Le Levant en 1140. 692 La troisième croisade en Asie (1190). 693 La reconquête arméno-géorgienne (début du XIIIe siècle). 694 Les principautés de l’Arménie zakaride (XIIIe–XIVe siècle). 694 Le Levant à la mort de Léon Ier (1219). 695 Les Mongols au Proche-Orient (1229–1243). 696 Les voyages de Smbat et de Hét‘oum Ier en Mongolie (1246–1255). 697 La partition de l’Empire gengiskhanide au milieu du XIIIe siècle. 697 Les campagnes mongoles au Proche-Orient (1256–1260). 698 Le Proche-Orient au début du XIVe siècle. 699 Les pertes territoriales du royaume d’Arménie (1266–1375). 700

Tables 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1

Transcription (Jo. 11.43–44 / Rom. 1.1–2) 100 Transcription (Introduction to January 17 / Heb. 11.34–35) 100 Transcription January 17 (Mt. 10.42)–January 19 101 Transcription (Mt. 1.18 with indication of antiphon and title) 103 Sequence of fols. 21–50 along the lections of January through March 105 Presumable distribution of palimpsest folios among original quires 107 Transcription (Introduction to the Preparation of Baptism / Is. 1.18–19) 109 The Greek, Armenian and Georgian texts of Or.27 §10 146 The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 §10 148 The Eight Spheres and the Jerusalem Calendar 163 The Homily by John II and the Synoptic Apocalypse 184 The Main Topics of Part One’s Subdivisions 186 Layout of the deciphered fragments of Agathangelos’s History of the Armenians 201 18.1 Kanonstruktur bei Step‘anos Siwnec‘i und in der byzantinischen Hymnographie 448

Introduction As a token of their gratitude and recognition of the significant work of Karen Yuzbashyan (1927–2009), his friends, disciples, and former colleagues dedicate the present collection of twenty-five contributions to the memory of this great Armenian scholar. The volume focuses on research pertinent to the history of the Armenians and the manifold contexts in which they produced and articulated their culture, the main topic of Karen’s own scholarly interests. The opening section of the volume, “Memoria,” offers three personal accounts, presenting memories of Karen that have their origins and sources within his family (written by the older one of his daughters, Elena) or are offering perspectives of a life-long friendship (authored by a recognized senior scholar in Armenian studies, Nina Garsoïan) and through the eyes of a disciple who visited him in St. Petersburg already during Soviet times (written by professor James Russell). The main section of the volume contains twenty-two scholarly articles subdivided into three parts. The common interest in Armenian sources as a depository of Jewish and early Christian materials, unites the seven articles of Part 1. These materials comprise biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphical texts (Shirinian and Horn), works by Philo or Pseudo-Philo (Bukovec), documents of early Christian liturgies (Gippert and Winkler) and homiletical sources, the latter addressing theological (Raphava) and paraliturgical (Lourié) materials. Part 2 contains eight contributions on Armenian history as well as textual and material culture directly. They deal with the literary history of Armenia from the early Christian and late antique period (Aleksidze and Chitunashvili; and Mahé), and from later epochs (Terian, Cowe and Andrews), with the history of material culture and art (Asryan and Donabedian), or work with material that is relevant across a broader chronological range (Drost-Abgarjan). The seven contributions included in Part 3 examine wider cultural contexts that are relevant for Armenian Studies: represented here are studies discussing intercultural communications between Armenian and Iranian (Lurje and Russell), Roman and Byzantine (Treadgold), Byzantine and Georgian (Outtier), Georgian (Gaprindashvili and Ostrovsky), as well as Coptic (Youssef) contexts. In its final section the present volume offers two essays that collect, in a compact and easily accessible format, important data pertaining to Armenian ecclesiastical and secular history (respectively by Dédéyan and Mutafian). The complete bibliography of Karen’s scholarly works (132 entries) was published by Aleksan Hakobian in Handes Amsorya (Vienna–Yerevan):

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_002

2

introduction

“Կարէն Իւզբաշեանի (6.01.1927–5.03.2009) գիտական աշխատանքների մատենագիտութիւն,” Պատրաստեց Ալ. Յակոբեանը, Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ, թիւ.1–12, ՃԻԳ տարի (2009), 481–494. [“Bibliography of the Scholarly Works of Karen Yuzbashyan (6.01.1927–5.03.2009),” compiled by Al. Hakobian, Handes Amsorya, iss. 1–12, year 123 (2009), cols. 481–494.] The editors are grateful to all, whose assistance made this volume possible: to Karen’s family, especially his daughter Elena Yuzbashyan and her husband Shimon Iakerson, whose support for this volume from the very first steps was the necessary foundation; to Alexey Shchekin for his technical assistance; to Viktor Kharyk and Polygramma Type Foundry (www.polygramma.com) for providing a Unicode font for the Georgian Nuskhuri and Asomtavruli scripts; to Robert R. Phenix and Matthew DeLong for very substantial contributions of their time and efforts in the process of editing articles presented here in English; to Ken Parry and his fellow board members for accepting this book for the series Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity; and to the anonymous reviewer of this volume for her or his attention to each and every detail. For any remaining errors, of course, the editors alone carry the responsibility. The authors of the individual contributions and the editors of the present volume trust that their efforts and findings would have pleased Karen Yuzbashyan, who possessed and communicated such an acute sense of the relevance of striving to see and understand the intrinsic unity of the Christian civilization and the Byzantine commonwealth, considering the Armenian culture as a precious jewel that is set within a beautiful whole. It was our goal to preserve and convey this perspective also in our composition of this volume. July 8, 2018 The Editors

Memoria

∵

chapter 1

A Free Man in a Free Country Elena Yuzbashyan

My father who was a very handsome man came into the world 90 years ago in a very beautiful place with a remarkable name, Vtoroy tupik Engelsa (Second Friedrich Engels dead end), in an old borough of Tiflis. I believe that this lovely name has since disappeared, along with the Soviet toponymy in its entirety, but it was always remembered with gusto around the house. Karen Yuzbashyan was born on January 6, Christmas Eve in Russia, and Christmas for the Armenian Church. He died on March 5, one of the most important days for the shredded history of the country, when all the good-hearted and honest citizens of the former Soviet Union, even teetotallers, gladly take a shot of vodka since it was on that day that Stalin died half a century earlier. When I was a child, I thought that the word ‘work’ implied something incredibly attractive: sometimes I would go into the Caucasian Studies Room where Dad’s table stood by the balcony with a view of the Peter and Paul Fortress, one of the main views in town. I was certainly unable to see all of this beauty from our home—we lived away from downtown, where Khrushchyovkas1 were built, but the history of our street was really miraculous: originally called Bolshaya Ob’yezdnaya (Big Bypass) it was named Orbeli Brothers Street right after we moved there. Joseph Orbeli,2 one of the three brothers, was the PhD advisor to my father. It was he who invited my father to come to Leningrad for a postgraduate course, and in 1964, my father published his biography.3 Just like all the people in his orbit, my father was, in the first place, a member of the intelligentsia in the Russian meaning of the word, and an Armenian only in the second place, or, using modern language, his “Russian intelli-

1 Low-cost apartment houses built in Khrushchev’s times (late 1950s and early 1960s). 2 Iosif Abgarovich Orbeli (1887–1961): an Orientalist scholar and a public figure, an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences and the first President of the latter (1943–1947); in 1934–1951, Director of the Hermitage. Most of Orbeli’s studies were devoted to the Caucasus, history of medieval culture of the Middle East, particularly the Sasanian and Seljuk cultures. 3 К.Н. Юзбашян, Академик Иосиф Абгарович Орбели (Москва: Наука, 1964) [K.N. Yuzbashyan, The Academician Iosif Abgarovich Orbeli (Moscow: Nauka, 1964)]; 2nd ed., 1986.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_003

6

yuzbashyan

gentsia’s” identity was primordial. We are not always conscious of such things. For instance, when abroad, we always say that we come from Saint Petersburg, not from Russia, without even realizing the role of this self-identity. In his correspondence with Efim Etkind, Igor M. Diakonov4 noted (in addition to the well-known definition from his memoirs, whereby intelligentsia are those who can see an object from diverse perspectives) that, for members of the intelligentsia, what happens to the others or to society is more important than their own worries. For Yuzbashyan, ethnically an Armenian, or Kakabadze,5 a Georgian, or Lyubarsky6 or Lundin,7 Jewish, their personal daily worry and pain was, first and foremost, everything happening to society, Russian culture and literature. Overall, pondering on the destiny and role of the Russian intelligentsia loomed large in the thoughts and conversations of my father’s friends and colleagues from his institute—all those striking people and scholars— Menshikov,8 Zograf,9 Fikhman.10 In my childhood, I heard from them something that I read about in Diakonov’s works years later: Europe has some members of the intelligentsia but no social phenomenon such as intelligentsia, i.e. no class of people who are close-knit, critically-minded, who help each other without asking for reward—those who can “see an object from diverse perspectives.” My father once said that at some point his friends and colleagues agreed to offer help, unconditionally and free of charge, to their mentees and young colleagues in every way possible, and that was always the case within my recollection: the mentees first, and only after them the children and grandchildren. As Diakonov put it, “and that is why we are drawing the string to rescue the last 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov (1915–1999): a renowned Orientalist scholar, linguist and historian, specialist in history and languages of the Ancient East. For his scientific merits, he was elected to the British Academy, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; he was a Doctor Honoris Causa (Humanities) of the Chicago University. The Dr.H.C. Diploma stressed that the academic degree was awarded to “… the person whose historical, socioeconomic, philological and linguistic studies are unparalleled both by their global reach and quality.” Saurmag Sargisovich Kakabadze (1928–1977): a specialist in the oldest period of Georgian history. Yakov Nikolayevich Lyubarsky (1929–2003): a philologist, renowned specialist in Byzantine historiography. Abram Grigorievich Lundin (1929–1994), an Orientalist especially known in the area of Sabaean studies and with his works on the origin of early Semitic writing systems. Lev Nikolayevich Menshikov (1926–2005): an Orientalist and Chinese scholar, a specialist in the Dunhuang manuscripts and Chinese vulgar literature (bianwen). Georgiy Alexandrovich Zograf (1928–1993): an Orientalist specializing in Indian studies, linguist and translator, author of numerous papers on Indo-Aryan linguistics. Itskhok Fishelevich Fikhman (1921–2011): a papyrologist and a Byzantinist, the leading figure in the Russian papyrology since the 1960s.

“nous n’ avons pas droit au désespoir”

7

remains of this unique phenomenon, the Russian intelligentsia, which is the salt of the earth.” All of them were immune to self-admiration, and every one of them was endowed with refined self-irony in abundance. As for the ethnicity, which turned into such a burning issue when perestroika began, I will forever remember what my father said back in the time of Soviet stagnation, when his closest friend Saurmag Kakabadze was telling him about the 1956 anti-Khrushchev rebellion in Tbilisi, which he, regretfully, witnessed: “The worst part of a national idea is that those obsessed with it are prepared to embrace any colours.” And all this is not at all at variance with the fact that during the years of perestroika he passionately embraced Armenian life, became a deputy to the Armenian Parliament, and even temporarily renounced science for politics but, in truth, soon got bored with such politics. His foreignness to political life is reflected in a remarkable episode from our family folklore. Once during a parliamentary meeting my father tried to cut short a plainly anti-Semitic intervention of a colleague who was speaking Russian, and lamented caustically that the colleague could not speak Armenian so that it was positively impossible to comprehend him. At which point another deputy bounced out at once and yelled—now in Armenian: “His Russian is much more akin to us than your refined Armenian (քան ձեր ռաֆինիռովաննի (sic!) հայերենը!)” The sting of his “refined” Armenian was felt by my children when they— each one in due time—went to the kindergarten in Yerevan and kindergarten nurses did not understand them (e.g. they did not ask for permission to go to the toilet in the way commonly used in Yerevan but used a euphemism). My father cared about the language as if it was a living being so that calling him a purist means saying nothing. Sometimes we would use a Western Armenian word for the sake of purity to avoid cluttering up with redundant Russicisms (e.g., we would say գետնախնձոր rather than կարտոֆիլ for “potatoes”). In this context, there was a very typical anecdote related by Dad’s cousin, Tata. Tata was as usual complaining about her mother-in-law, my father was listening with half an ear but suddenly he shrieked: “Սկեսուրիս (to mother-inlaw)?!” Tata was staggered: could it be true that Karen for the first time took interest in some family squabbles? But next she heard him cry out in indignation: “Սկեսրոջս!” All was clear now: his furious reaction was only provoked by the use of a colloquial dative form rather than the literary one. This meticulous purism applied not only to the Armenian but to Russian and even to other European languages just as well. Contrary to the atmosphere typical for Soviet times, lots of foreign guests always came to our place, and my father kept thinking about and looking into the words, colloquialisms, and slang. There was a shelf with an American slang dictionary, a huge case of

8

yuzbashyan

French police novels (Série Noire) gifted to my father by our friend, the French consul, exactly because of his adoration of living language. One day my father informed me with deep satisfaction: “I wrote out three words, asked him, and the consul doesn’t know two of them either!” (he meant some police argot). In this case, it was some kind of substitute for the living Paris, a city he dreamed about. A bottle of cognac was kept at home, to be opened in Paris, and luckily, my father lived to see the iron curtain fall and appease this hunger of his. As it happens, it was exactly in the year of my father’s 90th anniversary that I saw Oxford for the first time, and visited Yerevan after many years of absence. Those two trips proved to be a natural component of “Dad’s Year.” When in dazzlingly splendid Oxford, I kept imagining how my father viewed all this back in 1966 when he went abroad for the first time in his life to attend the Byzantine Congress. I remember contemplating as a child my Dad’s black and white photo of Oxford showing just a streetway with a line of unthinkable automobiles parked there. And in Yerevan, which was part of my father’s soul, and which, to some extent, stayed behind in the twentieth century, through all the heartbreakingly new features of the city, I suddenly received greetings directly from my father—I mean the city’s toponymy, the heritage of Levon Ter-Petrosian, the first President of Armenia. It is not only Lenin Avenue that was named after Mesrop Mashtots: I saw Movses Khorenatsi Street, a street named after Lazar Parbetsi, Dad’s last hero, and in some sidestreet I had a glimpse of Pavstos Buzand’s name. My father, as it often happens, was proud of strange, somewhat “non-principal” things. For instance, he took pride in everything he made with his hands at our summer cottage, in his engineering expertise and skills (he was very proud to have completed three years of training at the Moscow Higher Technical School (nowadays Bauman State Technical University), the best technical high school in Moscow, before entering the History Department of the Leningrad State University). In fact, those technical skills ensured his smooth integration into the new computer age when many elderly humanities scholars felt helpless. He was gifted a computer, a Macintosh laptop, in America in 1990, and was sure that the Mac revived his scientific life. As regards his core activities, my father was extremely precise and I dare say tranquil in his assessment of himself and his role in science. There was never a trace of drama in it—no jealousy, no attempt to reflect on the heights he reached. He said, for instance, in some context, that Nina Garsoïan was by far the greater scholar; he spoke of the unreachable grandeur of Igor Diakonov. Both in the past, in my father’s lifetime, and afterwards I often learned and have been learning about his own role and that of his papers for the scientific life of other people. This is what I was told about by the Israeli historian Dan Shapira, the American scholar James

“nous n’ avons pas droit au désespoir”

9

Russell, and others. Recently Sergey Arkadievich Ivanov said that he came to Saint Petersburg from Moscow in the footsteps of my father’s old article of the 1980s devoted to the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople. Nobody studied this subject then, and Sergey was finding out what materials my father had used and how he had discovered this “goldmine.” During the last couple of years, life around me and daily news have run afoul of my unbreakable optimism (in no small part inherited from my father) while the word “depression” has become too frequent for all of us. Yet I am better off than the others are: sometimes I can clearly hear my father’s cheerful voice in our kitchen in, say, 1974: “After all, we are free people in a free country!” It was always like this, it was extremely important, and this is what he taught, implicitly and subtly (for it would have been impossible otherwise) to the next generation—students and family members alike. It was with this sprouting freedom that Levon Hachikian, director of the Matenadaran, argued in his day vainly persuading my father to join the Communist Party: “Want to be the only goody-goody, don’t you?” So now I start the day by looking at my father’s sunny photo in the French newspaper to which he gave an interview as a member of the Armenian Parliament in April of 1993, and where he was called européen convaincu. I take comfort in reading the large-font title, a quotation from the interview: “Nous n’avons pas droit au désespoir.”

chapter 2

Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan Nina G. Garsoïan

Both of us were young beginners when we first met at Oxford in 1966 at the Congress of Byzantine Studies. Neither of us had published much, though we had reached the level of the doctorate. From the moment of our meeting it was obvious to both of us that we should be close friends, though we argued on many points of Church history and we could not foresee that the friendship on which we were embarking would last a lifetime. Karen was already smitten with the desire to know as much of Europe and the world as was possible at that time, and I had not yet visited the Soviet Union. Well trained as a Byzantinist, both in Armenia and by the academician Orbeli in the north, Karen had worked at the Matenadaran in Erevan, acquiring the expertise with manuscripts and therefore with primary sources that was to serve him so well at the Matenadaran and toward the end of his career to compile the Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences in his adopted home of St. Petersburg, where he made his home most of his life. The serious illness with which he was forced to contend did not daunt him in the least, but it did delay his work and it was not before 1970 that we met again, this time in what was then Leningrad, and I became the honorary godmother of his little daughter Lena. No one knew the city, to which he invariably referred as Piter, better than Karen. He walked me to exhaustion from one end of it to the other, and on a later trip in June during the white nights, until early dawn, showing me its little known by-ways, as he later would do for me in Erevan. He showed me his “datcha” at the Finnish frontier and obtained for me permission to go as far as Novgorod the Great and to present my own work to the Oriental Institute. At the same time, he pursued both his scholarly and cosmopolitan goals. His critical edition of the Armenian historian Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i led him to advise and supervise its translation into French by H. Berbérian and professor Marius Canard, which appeared in Paris in 1973. One of his greatest goals and sources of pride was the command of foreign languages, not only from a distance, but in situ, when we presented in 1993 a series of lectures in French at the Collège de France and still later, when he stayed with me in New York and was invited to lecture at Harvard in English.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_004

karen nikitich yuzbashyan

11

He had the breadth of knowledge ranging from the Arsacid period in Armenian history with the historian Łazar P‘arpec‘i to the fall of the Bagratid monarchy in the eleventh century with Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i. He studied the Byzantine system of administration in the new themes created by the Empire on Armenian territory in his “L’administration byzantine en Arménie aux Xe–XIe siecles” (published in the Revue des études arméniennes, no. 10), and most of all in his major work, Армянские государства эпохи Багратидов и Византия XI–XII вв. [The Armenian States of the Bagratid Epoch and Byzantium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 1988], where he discussed not only the minutiae of the Armenian monarchy but also its international status, the difficult problem of the Armenian Bagratids’ total autonomy in the face of the claim by the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos that the Armenian king was the doulos ‘servant’ of the Byzantine emperor. Although he was a meticulous scholar, he did not forget his responsibilities to others by keeping his work accessible to those who did not share his expertise. He never allowed his scholarship to impinge on his duties to family and country. Although for much of his life he made his home in the north, he never forgot that he was an Armenian and did not hesitate to take much valuable time from his own work in order to discharge his duty through fashioning the constitution of the new Armenian Republic. A scholar, a citizen and a dearly loved friend, he belonged to the generation of giants who fashioned the political and intellectual life of their country and who are alas leaving us. Not only will we miss them bitterly, but we will find it well-nigh impossible to replace them.

12

figure 2.1 Karen Yuzbashyan, Autumn 1970

garsoïan

karen nikitich yuzbashyan

13

figure 2.2 (Right to left) Karen Yuzbashyan with his daughter Elena Yuzbashyan, Nina Garsoïan with her mother Inna Garsoïan, and Rusudana Orbeli, St. Petersburg, Autumn 1970

figure 2.3 Karen Yuzbashyan (in the center) with his daughter Elena Yuzbashyan and Saurmag Kakabadze on the balcony of the Caucasian Studies Room at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Petersburg, Autumn 1970

14

garsoïan

figure 2.4 Karen Yuzbashyan and Nina Garsoïan, XIVth Congress of the Association d’ études byzantines, Bucharest, September 1971

karen nikitich yuzbashyan

figure 2.5 Karen Yuzbashyan, XIVth Congress of the Association d’études byzantines, Bucharest, September 1971

15

16

figure 2.6 Karen Yuzbashyan, early 1990s

garsoïan

chapter 3

A Memoir of Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan James R. Russell

Karen Nikitich and I first met at the Matenadaran, where he had just delivered an effervescent, learned paper on the invented Rushtuni language at a conference.1 After the session I bought some books at the kiosk near the entrance. We found ourselves standing next to each other on the plaza overlooking what was then Lenin Avenue and what is still Mount Ararat. Somebody came out and said he had just heard on the radio that the Supreme Soviet had passed a law prohibiting travelers from taking books out of the USSR. Я этого просто не пойму (I just can’t understand this), said I; and Karen, taking in all before us, and by implication the country occupying one-sixth of Earth’s land mass, asked, А остальное Вы понимаете? (And the rest of it, you do understand?) We became instant friends; and when Gorbachev began to allow not just books, but also people, to visit the West, Karen and I met at the home of Prof. Nina Georgievna Garsoïan, where he was staying. Nina is my teacher, colleague, and friend; and she and Karen had known each other for decades. I was instructed to take him on a walking tour of Manhattan and not to be late getting back. We were late, of course, and accepted our scolding like abashed schoolboys. It was the night of Nina’s famous Easter party. The menu was always karasun t’el, literally, forty layers—a fish pie requiring ten-pound bags of onions that baked ever so slowly—and a great leg of lamb so rare that one might still hear the bleating of the animal; and endless bottles of hearty, red, no-nonsense French wine. A huge festive crowd would jam into her little apartment; and at the end of the evening, when a few close friends and students were left, out came the chilled vodka. Les artistes chez eux, Nina remarked as she distributed the drinks in cut crystal goblets. The earthquake that shattered Leninakan was the first tremor of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Following the dictum of Nekrasov that one need not be a poet but is obliged to be a citizen, Karen set aside some of his academic duties 1 I asked Karen several times to publish an article on the subject; but he did not pursue it further. So I did; and dedicated to him “Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots,” Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Vol. VIII, part 3, St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2012, pp. 602– 684.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_005

18

russell

in Erevan and Leningrad to work for the Karabagh committee. He became a delegate of the new Armenian parliament. My life as I had known it up till then collapsed around the same time: despite a fine record and the support of Nina and some other great savants of the university, my department at Columbia turned me down for tenure, and I was unemployed. The reason was, several of these friends confided, what in the USSR we would have called the пятая графа (“fifth line”) of one’s passport where nationality was noted. Karen and a number of members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR had sent a petition to Columbia in support of my tenure: in retrospect, that gesture means more to me now than the rest of the events of that time. Some years later, in my post at Harvard, I received an invitation from Prof. Muhammad Abdulkadyrovich Dandamayev, the great historian of Achaemenian Mesopotamia, to lecture at the Oriental Institute in the city now renamed St. Petersburg. I had been expecting to stay with a lady colleague there, but apparently she had left town; and I found Muhammad and Karen waiting for me at Pulkovo. You will stay with me, of course, Karen said, as though any other idea were inherently absurd. And so began my wonderful life on Orbeli Street. Karen had been a pupil of Iosif Abgarovich Orbeli, the great Orientalist and director of the State Hermitage Museum, and had written the standard biography, published in both Russian and Armenian. It was Orbeli who had risked his life intervening personally at the Kremlin after the mass arrest of Armenian intellectuals of Leningrad in 1937—the infamous Армянская ночь (Armenian Night). It was Orbeli who had held a scholarly symposium at the Hermitage in the midst of the Blockade during the Great Patriotic War, thereby telling the world that the cradle of modern Russian culture and of the Revolution would never bow its head to the barbarism of the fascist murderers. Pleasant apartment houses nestled in a grove of trees: you come home at the end of the day, emerge from Pionerskaya metro station, walk through Udelny park, maybe buy some fruits and vegetables at the Kolomyagi market, and there is Karen on his divan, reading. He looks up and with a cheerful Eh! James jan! begins the evening’s conversation. It can be about the politics of fifth-century Armenia, or Charents’ early poetic cycle, the Tagharan; or the meaning of the name of P‘awstos Buzand, or the history of 20th-century Russia (as personally witnessed), or a book he’s reading. (Karen’s verdict on the October Revolution was: Let’s do this! And not think about this, and this, and this, and this … as his wandering finger pointed theatrically into infinity.) During the luminous northern evenings I read in my room, enjoying the patterned Russian wallpaper and the painterly vista of the ghostly, pale limbs of the birch trees through the tall windows. On the wall above the bed hangs a faded photo of the Yuzbashyan clan in Tiflis or Shusha, I forget where, and there

a memoir of karen nikitich yuzbashyan

19

is a delicate, faded Armenian rug. Round about midnight Karen calls, K’entrés? (How about a midnight snack?) We repair to the tiny, cozy kitchen. Karen pours a dram of vodka, we toast, have some bread and cheese, and converse in Armenian about the major questions of life. He is rail-thin, and as he looks up from his plate he explains he has the запасной аппетит блокадника (the reserve appetite of a Blockade survivor). In 2001 a conference at СПбГУ, St. Petersburg State University, commemorated the Conversion of Tiridates the Great of Armenia to the Christian faith; and I will never forget Karen’s gracious, lightly eloquent speech at a subsequent reception in which he celebrated St. Petersburg University itself. There is nothing on earth quite like that stretch of the Neva: the Oriental Institute and Hermitage on one side, and the University, Peter’s Kunstkamera, and Institute of Linguistics (off in its little side street) on the other. Over the first decade of the 21st century I came to Petersburg annually to lecture; and Karen was the fixed north pole, the center—стержень—of the circle who have become my best friends, in whose hospitable, inimitably Russian homes (plants, tall windows, lots of good books, small kitchen and amazing meals, conversation, reading in bed far into the small hours, a furry cat who sleeps on one’s head once the light goes out, and an amiable breakfast in the morning) I’ve been living since Karen left us. One night we were watching television, which I don’t do much in America. But those times of change were interesting in Russia and the protean Vladimir Posner was deftly hosting a talk show called Времена (The Times). Deftly, I say, because opponents did not come to blows, unlike, for instance, in the State Duma (when it was still a genuinely multi-party affair). The novelist Tatyana Tolstaya was facing off one evening against Nikita Mikhalkov, the gifted film director who had by then slid fairly far down the muddy slope of the new Great Russian chauvinism. He was making thinly veiled insinuations about, well, about what would have been written on Tolstaya’s passport’s “fifth line”. Karen sat on the edge of his divan and hissed through clenched teeth, скотина (un bête). This man of infinite courtesy and profound learning was also a fighter without fear, of whom one might borrow Vladimir Nabokov’s phrase: he had the moral equivalent of perfect pitch. God knows what he might say today. (I once had the unforgettable honor to spend an evening over drinks with Tolstaya at the home of some friends in Kuznechny lane, a stone’s throw from Dostoyevsky’s flat. When she mentioned bestial aspects of the new order and began to bristle with fury, there was a metamorphosis: her hair became a mane and her eyes turned strangely golden, and she came to resemble her leonine ancestor.) But I began this recollection of Karen Nikitich humorously, with his extemporaneous anecdote, and will come to the end with one. Critics far from the

20

russell

Northern Palmyra have condemned Karen, Nina, your obedient servant, and some other Armenologists. There are various reasons, ranging from when one thinks Movses Khorenats‘i might have lived, and the role of Iran in the formation of Armenian culture, to whether Charents addressed a love poem or two to a comely young member of his own sex. Reading one of the latest forays against our nefarious, worldwide conspiracy in an Armenian newspaper, Karen shrugged, turned to me with a smile, and said, “Eh, James jan, they’ve got everything on their side—except the facts.” A parsimonious westerner once decreed that one must choose between the perfection of the work or the perfection of the life. But anyone who has lived in Russia and beheld the magically produced пир горой (groaning board of delicacies) in a tiny apartment, or read the specialized scholarly work of the same colleague who is also an expert on some other, wholly unexpected, topic and who has lived through historical cataclysm and privation, and who is the perfect host, the perfect friend—anyone who has experienced this knows that the stingy dictum, the circumscribed vision that Tolstoy once sniffed at as an English happiness, is not true. Happy is the man who has been blessed with the friendship of a man whose work and life were both perfection. Two years ago, Oksana Nikolskaya, Khatchatur Bely, and I went to place flowers on Karen’s grave in the Armenian section of Smolenskoye cemetery. Then we bought lavash bread, feta cheese, and wine; and back at Khatchatur’s studio near Vosstaniya square, amidst canvases and cans of paint and unfinished sculpture, we celebrated our friend. Dear Karen Nikitich, may the earth rest light as a feather upon your repose amongst the Armenian immortals of arts and letters of St. Petersburg, the hero city, the city of Russian letters, Victor Tsoy’s city, the city of Akhmatova and Brodsky, the fourth Rome, where you welcomed me the way a prince welcomes a friend to his domains. With all my esteemed colleagues in the noösphere of the Soviet Union and beyond her frontiers, with all your wide circle of friends, I thank the Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, from Whom all blessings flow, for your work and your life in equal measure. May both be a shining example to us and light our way. Karen Nikitich, tamada (master of toasts at the great feast) in the kingdom of Heaven! I look forward with certain faith to the joy of meeting again, on the other side of being, your enfranchised spirit. Astuac hogid lusaworē. May God illuminate your soul.

part 1 Jewish and Christian Beginnings through the Lens of Armenian Sources

∵

chapter 4

Biblical Quotations in Early Armenian Literature Manea Erna Shirinian

Biblical quotations in the various Armenian sources (original or translated) differ substantially from the canonical text available to us today.1 The issue of biblical quotations is an extremely interesting one; however, it has not been seriously researched.2 For example, the fact that unique characteristics of the way the biblical text was quoted by the translators of the Hellenizing School have not yet been sufficiently examined by scholars supports our observation. Biblical quotations made by the representatives of the Hellenizing School are known to be flexible and differing from the canonized text. Furthermore, in the translating process different levels of flexibility are found in each of the Hellenizing translations. They are either retellings or inexact quotations of the canonical text. However, it is interesting to note that the technique of the Hellenizing School was not adopted by Armenian authors while translating the Bible. Moreover, Armenian translators have not violated the translation principle according to which even the order of the words in the Holy Scriptures was not sup1 This work was supported by the RA MES State Committee of Science, in the frame of the research project N 18T-6D342. 2 A. Carrière, Une version arménienne de l’ Histoire d’Assèneth, Nouveaux Melanges Orientaux 1886; Ս. Վէբէր, «Ս. Գրոց յարգն ու արժէքը հին Հայոց քով,» Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ 1897: pp. 130–132; Գ. Խալաթեանց, Ա եւ Բ Մնացորդաց գրքերի նորագիւտ հայ թարգմա նութիւնը (Վաղարշապատ, 1896); Գ. Խալաթեանց, Գիրք Մնացորդաց ըստ հնագոյն հայ թարգմանութեան (Մոսկվա, 1899); Գ. Խալաթեանց, «Մի նոր օրինակ նորագիւտ Մնացորդաց գրոց,» Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ (1901): pp. 193–195; М. Тер-Мовсесян, История перевода Библии, (С-Петербург, 1902), pp. 191–192; T. Macler, Le texte arménien de l’ Évangile d’après Matthieu et Marc (Paris, 1919); P.A. Merk, “Die Einheitlichkeit der armenischen Evangelienübersetzung,” Biblica 4 (1923): pp. 356–374; Եղ. Դուրեան, Ուսումնասիրութիւնք եւ քննադատութիւնք (Երուսաղէմ, 1935), pp. 465– 475, 363–371, 317–326; Եղ. Դուրեան, “Սրբագրութիւններ Մակաբայեցւոց Ա եւ Բ գրքերու թարգմանութեան,” Արեւելեան Մամուլ N2 (1908): pp. 444–451; Պ. Էսպալեան, “Հայերէն Աւետարաններու սկզբնագրի հարցը եւ Ագաթանգեղոսի ու Ղազար Փարպեցւոյ կոչումները,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ (1935): pp. 571–596, (1936): pp. 22–40, 185–195, 338–349; Հր. Աճառեան, “Տիմոթէոս Կուզ եւ Ս. Գրքի նորաբեր թարգմանութիւնը,” Բանասիրական Ուսումնասիրություններ (Երեւան, 1976) pp. 40–73; Ա. Զեյթունյան, “Աստվածաշնչի հին թարգմանության հետքերը Եղիշեի երկերում,” ՊԲՀ 2 (1980): pp. 130–142; Հ. Քյոսեյան, “Սուրբգրային վկայակոչումները Կորյունի Վարք Մաշտոցում,” Էջմիածին Դ-Ե-Զ (1993): pp. 39–49.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_006

24

shirinian

posed to be changed. The Armenian translation of the Bible being literally close to the original is not as “servile” as the translations of the Hellenizing School. Almost the same can be said about certain biblical quotations in the writings of the early Armenian authors. Here it is worth noting that, usually, in the published editions of early Armenian works, an index of biblical quotations is missing. The absence of these indices clearly demonstrates the lack of scholarly examinations of, and an interest in, this subject. The data preserved in the writings of the early Armenian historians is sufficient to help us reach some conclusions concerning this subject matter. It is true that these historians do not retell specific events from the Bible. However, when quoting from the Bible, they do show flexibility in translation. This is not an arbitrary occurrence; rather it is an editorial issue. This assertion will be clarified by the following examples. The biblical quotations in the History of the Armenians by Agathangelos, for example, do not always agree with the canonical text of the Bible. They often offer variae lectiones of the text. For instance, the canonical text of Matthew 16:13 in Armenian translation is preserved as follows: “զո՞ ոք ասեն զինէն մարդիկն՝ թէ իցէ որդի մարդոյ” [Who do people say is the Son of Man?].3 In the History by Agathangelos this verse is rendered differently: “Զո՞ ուստեք ասեն մարդիկս զՈրդւոյ մարդոյ թէ իցէ:”4 The canonical Armenian text agrees with two Greek and three Syriac MSS.5 There are many similar examples of biblical quotations in the History by Agathangelos that are different from the canonical Armenian text of the Bible.6 The biblical quotations in the History by Movses Xorenac‘i point to the possibility that the author took into account the variations in the readings from the Greek and Syriac MSS available to him when quoting the scriptures. It is possible to think that he edited his text of the biblical quotations having compared the biblical text at hand with those of the various MSS. For example, the citation of Matthew 18:7 reads as follows in the History by Xorenac‘i:7 Հարկ է գալ գայթակղութեանն, բայց վա՛յ այնոցիկ, ընդ ոյր ձեռն գայցէ գայթակղութիւնն՝ թոյլ ետուն նմա:8 3 4 5 6 7

See also Mt 14:6–11, Mk 8:27–29 and Lk 9:18–20. Ագաթանգեղոս, Հայոց Պատմություն, Ա. Տեր-Ղեւոնդյան (Երեւան, 1983), p. 242.

These include the two oldest Syriac variants: Sinaitic—syrs, Curetonian—syrc, NT, p. 62. Cf. the final two sentences of the paragraph in the same chapter, Mt 16:17–18 and Jn 1:42. We are grateful to Robert Phenix for his help with editing English translations in this article— eds. 8 Մ. Խորենացի, Հայոց պատմություն, աշխարհաբար թարգմանությունը Ստ. Մալխասյանի (Երեւան, 1981), pp. 440–442.

biblical quotations in early armenian literature

25

It is necessary that temptation must come, but woe to the one through whom the temptation comes. The same verse is a bit different in the canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew: Հարկ է գալ գայթակղութեանց. բայց վա՛յ մարդոյն այնմիկ՝ յոյր ձեռն գայցէ գայթակղութիւն:

It is necessary that temptations must come, but woe to that man through whom the temptation comes. In Luke 17:1, the corresponding verse reads as follows: Ոչ է մարթ չգալ գայթակղութեան. բայց վա՛յ այնմիկ է՝ յոյր ձեռն գայցէ

It is not possible for temptation to not come, but woe to the one through whom the temptation will come. The citation brought forward by Movses Xorenac‘i, which has variae lectiones in the Greek canonical version as well,9 matches neither the text of the Gospel of Matthew nor that of Luke. Such cases are not rare in the History by Movses Xorenac‘i.10 Retellings or inexact quotations of the kind quoted above need to be explained. The following will offer an attempt to help clarify the situation. Firstly, one must assert that the text of the Armenian translation of the Bible was not finalized at the time of Movses Xorenac‘i, as the History by him confirms: … եւ մատուցին զթուղթսն եւ զկանոնս ժողովոյն Եփեսոսի, վեց սահմանեալ կանոնաւ, եւ զստոյգ օրինակս Գրոց: Զոր առեալ մեծին Սահակայ եւ Մեսրոպայ՝ դարձեալ թարգմանեցին զմի անգամ թարգմանեալն փութանակի, հանդերձ նոքօք վերստին յօրինեալ նորոգմամբ: Բայց քանզի անգէտք էին մերումս արուեստի՝ ի բազում մասանց թերացեալ գործն գտանէր, վասն որոյ առեալ մեծին Սահակայ եւ Մեսրոպայ զմեզ առաքեցին յԱղեքսանդրիայ, ի լեզու պանծալի, ի ստոյգ յօդանալ ճեմարանին վերաբանութեան.11 9 10 11

NT, p. 68. Cf. also Mt. 7:2, Խոր. (1981), p. 341, Mt. 23:35, Խոր. (1981), p. 304, Lk 23:31, Խոր. (1981), p. 304, Jn 12 20, Խոր. (1981), p. 174, Heb 4:12, Խոր. (1981), p. 298. Խոր., (1981), p. 426, Խոր. (1991), p. 343. Concerning the word վերաբանութիւն and

26

shirinian

Then our translators, whose names we mentioned earlier, arrived and found Sahak the Great and Mesrop in Ashtishat in Tarawn; they presented to them the letters and canons of the council of Ephesus in six canonical chapters, and accurate copies of the Scriptures. Receiving these, Sahak the Great and Mesrop zealously translated again what had once been translated and made with them a new version. But because they were ignorant of our technique their work was found to be deficient at many points. Therefore Sahak the Great and Mesrop sent us to Alexandria to study elegant style and high theology at the academy.12 There are far too many examples of retellings or inexact quotations of the biblical text in the translations made by the Hellenizing School to be examined and analyzed in this article. Nevertheless, referring to several cases will help to substantiate the objective in question. For example, many biblical quotations are found in the eighth chapter of the Book of Chreia (Girk‘ Pitoyic‘), but almost all of them are retellings of the corresponding passages from the Bible. In the Armenian translation of Socrates Scholasticus’Ecclesiastical History (the Longer Socrates), the biblical quotations are known to be close to the canonical text. However, to a certain extent they are still free translations. Amazingly, in some cases the Greek original also shows some freedom when quoting from the Bible. Let us bring some examples from Socrates Scholasticus’Ecclesiastical History and its two Armenian versions: the Hellenizing Translation, called the Longer Socrates and its redaction, known as the Shorter Socrates, with which I dealt profoundly for many years. In the Greek original of this writing we read the following phrase: “καὶ ἐνὶ χιτῶνι ἐκέχρητο, τὸ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φυλάττων ῥητόν”13 [and he used one coat, observing the word of the Gospel]. This, in the Longer Socrates is translated as: “եւ միոյ պատմուճանիւ պիտաւորեալ լինէր՝ զառաքելոյն14 պահելով its possible meaning, see Մ. Շիրինյան, “Անտիկ ավանդույթների փոխակերպումը վաղ բյուզանդական եկեղեցական պատմագրության եւ հայ հին գրականության մեջ,” Աշտանակ Ա, Հայագիտական պարբերագիրք, (Երեւան, 1995), pp. 21, 23–24, and Մ. Շիրինյան, Քրիստոնեական վարդապետության անտիկ եւ հելլե նիստական տարրերը. հայկական եւ հունական դասական եւ բյուզանդական, աղբյուրների բաղդատությամբ (Երեւան, 2005), pp. 56–63, 129, 279, 292, 312. 12

13 14

Moses Khorenats’i. History of the Armenians, Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources by R.W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 4; Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 336. G. Ch. Hansen, M. Širinjan, Socrates Kirchengeschichte (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995), p. 236, l. 17. Ibid. The Armenian translation offers a variant reading, which means the text from which

biblical quotations in early armenian literature

27

զբան”15 [and he used one coat, observing the word of the Apostle], which is miss-

ing in the Shorter Socrates. These expressions echo the following phrase in Matthew 10:10, “μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας” [nor two outer garments] and its Armenian translation, “եւ մի երկուս հանդերձս”.16 That is to say, in both cases these are just free retellings of the biblical phrase. Moreover, the translator does not follow the Armenian text of the Gospel of Matthew but the Greek original of the Ecclesiastical History. This is obvious when he translates the word χιτῶν not as հանդերձ, i.e. the rendering of the Greek word in the Armenian translation of the Gospel of Matthew, but by the word պատմուճան (both meaning approximately ‘coat, tunic,’ or ‘outer garment’). It means also that not only the Armenian but also the Greek canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew differs in the quotations cited above. Other examples include:

Թիւք ԺԲ 3

Մ.Ս. (Longer Socrates) 676,8–12

Եւ այրն Մովսէս հեզ էր յոյԺ քան զամենայն մարդիկ՝ որ էին ի վերայ երկրի:

… զոր աւրինակ գիր Թուոցն Մովսիսիւ ասէ. «Թէ եւ այրն Մովսէս հեզ՝ յոյժ

Numbers 12:3

Socr. 390,27–391,1

քան զամենայն մարդիկ որ ի վերայ երկրի», զայս է եւ այժմ ասել. «Թէեւ թագաւորն Թէոդոսիոս այր հեզ յոյժ քան զամենայն մարդիկ որ են ի վերայ երկրի»

καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωυσῆς πρᾷος σφόδρα παρὰ Καθάπερ ἡ βίβλος τῶν Ἀριθμῶν ἐπὶ Μωϋπάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ τῆς σέως φησὶν ‘καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωϋσῆς πραΰς γῆς. σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας επὶ τῆς γῆς’, τοῦτ' ἔστιν καὶ νῦν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὁ βασιλεὺς Θεοδόσιος πραΰς σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

15

16

the Armenian translation was made had the word ἀποστόλου instead of εὐαγγελίου (cf. Hansen, Širinjan, Socrates). Մ. Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ Սքոլաստիկոսի Եկեղեցական Պատմութիւն եւ Պատմութիւն վարուց սրբոյն Սիղբեստրոսի եպիսկոպոսի Հռովմայ (Վաղարշապատ, 1897), p. 308. Ibid.

28

shirinian

(cont.)

Numbers 12:3

Socr. 390,27–391,1

And a man Moses was the most humble Just as the book of Numbers (Numbers one from all men, who were on the earth. 12:3) says on Moses: “And the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth”, the same could be said at this day, that the Emperor Theodosius is meek above all the men which are upon the face of the earth .

These passages demonstrate that the Greek text of Socrates in this case agrees completely with the canonical text of the Bible. The Armenian translation, on the other hand, does not, i.e. the Armenian Hellenizing translation a little bit differs from the Armenian canonical Bible (e.g. almost all auxiliary verbs are skipped), but it does follow almost literally (except the second այր=man) the Greek original. Shorter Socrates omits this passage. In another example we read:

Մատթէոս ԺԷ 2

Մ.Ս. (Longer Socrates) 561,12

… եւ այլակերպեցաւ առաջի նոցա,

… բայց զիս եւ Սողոմովն յորդորեաց ասելով, եղիցին հանդերձք քո միշտ սպիտակք, եւ Փրկիչն յաւետարանսն սպիտակ հանդերձիւք երեւի հպեալ, եւ ոչ այս միայն, այլ եւ զՄովսէս եւ

եւ լուսաւորեցան երեսք նորա իբրեւ զարեգակն, եւ հանդերձք նորա եղեն սպիտակ իբրեւ զլոյս: Եւ ահա երեւեցան նոցա Մովսէս եւ Եղիա՝ որ խոսէին ընդ նմա:

զԵղիայ սպիտակ հանդերձիւք եցոյց առաքելոցն:

Mt 17:2 (cf. Mk 9:2; Lk 9:29)

Socr. 345, 28ff.

καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς. καὶ ἰδοὺ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς Μωϋσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας συλλαλοῦντες μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σολομὼν παρῄνεσε λέγων, “Ἔστωσάν σοι ἱμάτια ⟨ἀεὶ⟩ λευκά” καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις λευκῇ φαίνεται ἐσθῆτι χρησάμενος οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Μωϋσῆν καὶ Ἡλίαν λευκοφοροῦντας ἔδειξεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

biblical quotations in early armenian literature

29

(cont.)

Mt 17:2 (cf. Mk 9:2; Lk 9:29)

Socr. 345, 28ff.

And he was transfigured in front of them, and his face shone like the sun, while his garments became white like light: And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, which were talking with him.

But Solomon too exhorted me by saying: “Let thy garments be always white” (Ecclesiastes 9:8), and our Savior in the Gospels appears clothed in white raiment: moreover he showed Moses and Elijah to the Apostles, clad in white garments.

This example is perhaps the most exciting one. But first, let us establish that the word ⟨ἀεὶ⟩ i.e. “always”, placed in brackets, is not found in any of the Greek MSS of Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History which have survived. It has been reinstated in the critical edition of the Greek text based on the Armenian translation. Such a reconstruction is justified since the word “ἀεὶ” is attested in a section of Sozomen’s writing, the source of which is Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History. It is also interesting to note that this passage is found in the Shorter Socrates as well, and is not abbreviated: Զի Սողոմոն յորդորէ, ասէ եղիցին հանդերձք քո սպիտակք. եւ Տէրն սպիտակ հանդերձիւ երեւի ըստ Աւետարանին. եւ ոչ այս միայն, այլ եւ զՄովսէս եւ զԵղիա սպիտակ հանդերձիւ եցոյց առաքելոցն.17

For Solomon admonishes, saying, “May your clothes be white,” and the Lord was revealed in white clothes according to the Gospel; not only this, but he also showed Moses and Elijah in white clothes to the apostles. The verse, in the Greek original of Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History and its Armenian versions, mentions the white clothes worn by Moses and Elijah. This detail concerning the nature of the garments of Moses and Elijah is not found in any canonical biblical text, and is therefore an apocryphon, concerning which M. Ter-Movsesian, the editor of the Longer Socrates and the Shorter Socrates (i.e., the Armenian versions of Ecclesiastical History), comments, “That

17

Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ, p. 561.

30

shirinian

Moses and Elijah wore white garments is not mentioned anywhere.”18 Nonetheless, a similar reference is found in the tenth century Byzantine Lexicon Suda, compiled about the end of the tenth century AD, where we read the following comment: ὡς δεῖ τὸν ἱερωμένον μέλαιναν ἀμφιέννυσθαι· ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σολομὼν παρῄνεσε, λέγων· ἔστωσάν σοι ἱμάτια λευκά. καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις φαίνεται λευκῇ ἐσθῆτι χρησάμενος. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ Μωσῆν καὶ Ἠλίαν λευκοφοροῦντας τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἔδειξε. ταῦτα καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ εἰπὼν ἐθαυμάσθη.19 … That it is necessary to wear the priestly black (vestment), Solomon admonished me, saying, ‘Let your garments be white.’ And the Savior in the Gospels appeared, wearing a white garment; moreover, he showed also Moses and Elijah vested in white to the apostles. Speaking these and many other things, he was looked upon with wonder. It should also be noted that in the Gospels, with the important exception of the young man at the empty tomb in the post-resurrectional accounts, white garments are mentioned in some connection with Moses and Elijah, such as in Mark 9:2 and Luke 9:29. Is it possible to think that Socrates Scholasticus simply edited this citation of Holy Scripture? One can assume the latter used a redaction that included this reading. No matter what, this question definitely needs further investigation before one can make a conclusive decision. In the Longer Socrates there are also cases where biblical quotations are brought forward with excessive flexibility and freedom. The following example is worth investigating:

Ղուկաս ԻԲ 10–12

Մ.Ս. (Longer Socrates) 470–471,4

Եւ ասէ զնոսա, ահա՝ իբրեւ մտանիցէք ի քաղաքն, պատահեսցէ ձեզ այր մի բարձեալ սափոր ջրոյ. երթիջիք զհետ նորա ի տունն յոր մտանիցէ.

Ի նաւն մտեալ ուսուցանէր. ի վերնատանն նմա Զատիկն պատրաստել հրամայեր, էշ կապեալ լուծանել հրամայէր. զբարձաւղն զսափոր ջրոյն

18 19

Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ, p. 561. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, vols. 1–4, Lexicographi Graeci 1.1–1.4 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928– 1935), repr. (Stuttgart 1967–1971), alphabetic letter sigma entry p. 481.

biblical quotations in early armenian literature

31

(cont.) Ղուկաս ԻԲ 10–12

Մ.Ս. (Longer Socrates) 470–471,4

եւ ասասջիք զտանուտէր տանն. վարդապետ ասէ քեզ. Ու՞ր են վանքն իմ, յորում զպասեքն ուտիցեմ աշակերտօքս հանդերձ: Եւ նա ցուցէ ձեզ վերնատուն մի մեծ զարդարեալ։

նշան տայր փութաւղացն ի Զատիկն. եւ այղս բեւրս որքան յԱւետարանս գրին:

Luke 22:10–12

Socr. 304,18ff.

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἰδοὺ εἰσελθόντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν συναντήσει ὑμῖν ἄνθρωπος κεράμιον ὕδατος βαστάζων· ἀκολουθήσατε αὐτῷ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἰς ἣν εἰσπορεύεται. καὶ ἐρεῖτε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς̓ οἰκίας, Λέγει σοι ὀ διδάσκαλος, Ποῦ ἐστιν τὸ κατάλυμα ὅπου τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου φάγω; κἀκεῖνος ὑμῖν δείξει ἀνάγαιον μέγα ἐστρωμένον·

Ἐν πλοίῳ εἰσελθὼν ἐδίδασκεν· εἰς ἀνώγεον οἴκημα τὸ Πάσχα εὐτρεπισθῆναι ἐκέλευσεν· ὄνον δεδεμένην λυθῆναι προσέταττεν· τὸν βαστάζοντα κεράμιον ὕδατος, σημεῖον ἐδίδου τοῖς εἰς τὸ Πάσχα σπουδάζουσι· καὶ ἄλλα ὄσα μυρία ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις γέγραπται.

And he said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house into that he enters, and you shall say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ And he will show you a large, furnished upper room.”

Having entered a ship, he taught; he ordered the Passover to be made ready in an upper room; he commanded an ass that was tied to be loosed; a man bearing a pitcher of water—was giving a sign to the ones who were hastening their preparations for the Passover and a myriad of other things like are written in the Gospels.

In this example, “the freedom” in rendering the quotation comes from the original text, i.e. not the translator, but Socrates Scholasticus himself, who perhaps reworked or modified the structure. Many similar examples are found, such as:

32

shirinian

Բ Կորնթ ԺԱ 6

Մ.Ս. (Longer Socrates) 520,5

… թէպետ եւ տգէտ եւս իցեմ բանիւ, այլ … եւ տգէտս բանիւ,20 իսկ զյոլովս եւ ոչ եթէ գիտութեամբ. առանց դպրութեան: … But even if I am untrained in speech, (I am) not in knowledge.

… untrained in speech, and many of them even illiterate.

IICor 11:6

Socr. 324,5f.

εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῇ γνώσει …

ἰδιώτας δὲ τῷ λόγῳ,21 τοὺς πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀγραμμάτους ὄντας.

But even if I am untrained in speech, (I am not) in knowledge …

… untrained in speech, many being illiterate.

It should be explained that in the Ecclesiastical History the phrase καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ ‘untrained in speech’ is attested twice and the second attestation (Socr. 384,15—ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ) completely coincides with the canonical text of the Bible. In this case, the author of the Armenian translation (the Longer Socrates) followed the Greek original rendering տգէտ բանիւ (the Longer Socrates 664,13–14) while in the same place the Shorter Socrates edited it as տգէտ էր բանիւ ‘he was ignorant in speech’. Few more words should be added concerning the Shorter Socrates. As a short edition of the literal Armenian translation, this version was created later than the text of the Longer Socrates. However, this version also does not follow the canonical text of the Bible. This is surprising, as if for the Longer Socrates itself we can assume that the Bible Canon was not finally fixed yet for the period of sixth—seventh centuries (the time of the translation), the later edition should have been avoided that. Even when comparing its text with the Longer Socrates, biblical quotations are usually changed in the Shorter Socrates. They are retellings by the author more than exact citations from the Bible. For example, we read in the Shorter Socrates: «Դարձեալ՝ ասէ՝ Հերովդիադայ մոլի եւ խնդրէ զգլուխն Յոհաննու» [Herodias raves, and asks for John’s head];22 while the Longer 20 21 22

Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ, p. 520: “անգէտս գրոց”.

Cf. Hansen, Širinjan, Socrates, p. 384, l. 15: ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ. Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ, p. 553.

biblical quotations in early armenian literature

33

Socrates has: «…դարձեալ Հերոդիաս մոլի, դարձեալ կաքաւէ, դարձեալ զգլուխն Յոհաննու ի վերա⟨յ⟩ սկտեղբն փութայ առնուլ» [Again Herodias raves, again desires to receive John’s head on a platter],23 which is closer to the biblical text.24 In conclusion, the issues connected with biblical quotations are quite intriguing, not only in reference to the Hellenizing translations, but also regarding an entire body of translated Armenian literature of the early period. One can see in all these translations a different range of freedom while citing the Bible. The materials examined in this study demonstrate that the authors and translators (especially the ones that belong to the Hellenizing School) of the early period of Armenian literature sometimes edited biblical quotations or even retranslated them. For example, the representatives of the Hellenizing School usually ignored the already existing translation of the Bible in Armenian. They did not use it when quoting the Bible in their works (mainly New Testament). Instead, generally following the Greek original of the specific work, they themselves retranslated the biblical quotations in these passages. This phenomenon, perhaps, may be explained based on the theory, according to which the New Testament in the East continued to be edited and redacted until the seventh or eighth centuries. As such, one can safely conclude that the works that included such modified biblical quotations must be considered as writings authored before the seventh or eighth centuries. Needless to say, the publishing of other Armenian MSS and fragments from times earlier than the ones discussed in this paper will be a great contribution to the scholarly endeavor of preparing the critical edition of the entire Bible in Armenian. It will also tremendously help in the efforts of resolving the problems highlighted in this article. As such, much more research is needed in this field.

Bibliography A. Carrière, Une version arménienne de l’Histoire d’Assèneth (Nouveaux Melanges Orientaux 1886). G. Ch. Hansen, M. Širinjan, Socrates Kirchengeschichte (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995). T. Macler, Le texte arménien de l’Évangile d’après Matthieu et Marc (Paris, 1919). 23 24

Տեր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ, p. 552.

Mk 6:19–28 and Mt 14:6–11.

34

shirinian

P.A. Merk, “Die Einheitlichkeit der armenischen Evangelienübersetzung,” Biblica 4 (1923): pp. 356–374. Moses Khorenats‘i. History of the Armenians, Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources by Robert W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 4; Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 1980). Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, vols. 1–4, Lexicographi Graeci 1.1–1.4 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–1935), repr. (Stuttgart 1967–1971). Ագաթանգեղոս, Հայոց Պատմություն, Ա. Տեր-Ղեւոնդյան (Երեւան, 1983). Հր. Աճառեան, “Տիմոթէոս Կուզ եւ Ս. Գրքի նորաբեր թարգմանութիւնը,” Բանա սիրական Ուսումնասիրություններ (Երեւան, 1976): pp. 40–73. Եղ. Դուրեան, Ուսումնասիրութիւնք եւ քննադատութիւնք (Երուսաղէմ, 1935). Եղ. Դուրեան, “Սրբագրութիւններ Մակաբայեցւոց Ա եւ Բ գրքերու թարգմանութեան,” Արեւելեան Մամուլ N2 (1908): pp. 444–451. Ա. Զեյթունյան, “Աստվացաշնչի հին թարգմանության հետքերը Եղիշեի երկերում,” ՊԲՀ 2 (1980): pp. 130–142. Պ. Էսպալեան, “Հայերէն Աւետարաններու սկզբնագրի հարցը եւ Ագաթանգեղոսի ու Ղազար Փարպեցւոյ կոչումները,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ (1935): pp. 571– 596, (1936): pp. 22–40, 185–195, 338–349. Գ. Խալաթեանց, Ա եւ Բ Մնացորդաց գրքերի նորագիւտ հայ թարգմանութիւնը (Վաղարշապատ, 1896). Գ. Խալաթեանց, Գիրք Մնացորդաց ըստ հնագոյն հայ թարգմանութեան (Մոսկվա, 1899). Գ. Խալաթեանց, “Մի նոր օրինակ նորագիւտ Մնացորդաց գրոց,” Հանդէս Ամսօ րեայ (1901): pp. 193–195. Մ. Խորենացի, Հայոց պատմություն, աշխարհաբար թարգմանությունը Ստ. Մալխասյանի (Երեւան, 1981). Մ. Շիրինյան, “Անտիկ ավանդույթների փոխակերպումը վաղ բյուզանդական եկեղեցական պատմագրության եւ հայ հին գրականության մեջ,” Աշտանակ Ա, Հայագիտական պարբերագիրք, (Երեւան, 1995). Մ. Շիրինյան, Քրիստոնեական վարդապետության անտիկ եւ հելլենիստական տարրերը. հայկական եւ հունական դասական եւ բյուզանդական, աղբյուր ների բաղդատությամբ (Երեւան, 2005). Ս. Վէբէր, “Ս. Գրոց յարգն ու արժէքը հին Հայոց քով,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ (1897): pp. 130–132. Մ. Տէր-Մովսէսեան, Սոկրատայ Սքոլաստիկոսի Եկեղեցական Պատմութիւն եւ Պատմութիւն վարուց սրբոյն Սիղբեստրոսի եպիսկոպոսի Հռովմայ (Վաղարշապատ, 1897). Հ. Քյոսեյան, “Սուրբգրային վկայակոչումները Կորյունի Վարք Մաշտոցում,” Էջ միածին Դ-Ե-Զ (1993): pp. 39–49.

М. Тер-Мовсесян, История перевода Библии (С.-Петербург, 1902).

chapter 5

The Armenian Philo on the Feast of Passover Predrag Bukovec

Philo of Alexandria (ca. 15BC–40AD) can be regarded as one of the primary authorities for reconstructing Early Judaism in the Second Temple period. Increasingly, students of New Testament exegesis recognise him as an important source for understanding the fundamental scriptures of Christianity which emerged in the first century AD from among a group of followers of Jesus of Nazareth within contemporary Judaism. Philo, an intellectual and expert in the Jewish tradition as well as in Hellenistic philosophy, is an example of the constant challenge of the Jewish diaspora to actualise their own heritage, crystallised in the authoritative scriptures of the Bible (especially its Greek translation, the Septuagint), in order to make it comprehensible not only for the non-Jewish majority in the Roman Empire, but also for those Jews who wished to be part of society without abandoning the religion of their fathers. How can one be a member of this specific and venerable tradition and at the same time live as a citizen in a polis like Alexandria? Next to other Early Jewish texts like 4Macc and the Jewish historiographers and Flavius Josephus, Philo took part in this “correlation problem”, sharing in the task of how to harmonise Jewish and Hellenistic identities without betraying the basic principles of one’s own ancient religion. One solution Philo proposed was an allegorical interpretation of the Bible in order to find the deeper meaning of the sometimes seemingly strange practices and narratives in Judaism; in this, the Alexandrian found a proper way to confront Greek philosophy with Jewish customs and beliefs in order to make it clear that being a Jew does not stand in contradiction to the common morals and metaphysics, but is an even better option for rendering them real. He had to explain Judaism for the majority and for Jews in the diaspora. In doing so, he is an awe-inspiring protagonist in a fascinating era. Philo’s approach to read biblical texts was influenced by the Alexandrian exegesis of Greek classical works like Homer, which tried to make the great epicist readable and significant also for the élite that was well-trained in philosophical problems. To find “another” meaning in vexing passages about the Homeric anthropomorphic gods and goddesses was a central strategy for keeping Homer normative. This is precisely the cultural-social phenomenon which Jan and Aleida Assmann called “Sinnpflege” (the preservation of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_007

36

bukovec

meaning).1 A canon of authoritative writings has to be interpreted anew in future generations, because the text itself remains unchanged. Like the narratives concerning the Trojan War and Ulysses’ wanderings, the Pentateuchal commandments and stories had to be re-understood. In this article, I analyse Philo’s interpretation of the Passover by consulting sources which are preserved only in Armenian. Philo’s extensive œuvre is written and transmitted mainly in Greek; some otherwise lost writings can be recovered in Armenian translation. The studies on Philo of Alexandria have focused thus far on the Greek corpus, whereas the Armenian translations have not yet been edited critically. In order to integrate Armenian sources into the study of Philo, this contribution starts with the information the author gives in his Quaestiones in Exodum (QE) about Passover. The second step is to correlate the results with the Greek Philo, before his own view on this Jewish feast will be linked to other concepts circulating in Early Judaism and the New Testament. These three steps can demonstrate Philo’s individual approach and answers to questions pertaining to the theology as well as the meaning of Passover in Early Judaism and Christianity.

1

Passover in the Quaestiones in Exodum

At present, a critical edition of the Armenian translation of Quaestiones in Genesim and Quaestiones in Exodum, two of the main2 writings3 of Philo of Alexandria,4 is still a desideratum.5 While this project is being accomplished

1 A. Assmann, J. Assmann, “Kanon und Zensur,” in Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, eds. A. Assmann, J. Assmann (Munich: Fink, 1987): pp. 7–27. 2 But also QGarm and QEarm came down to us only fragmentarily. Probably more than a half of the original text remains lost, cf. E. Hilgert, “The Quaestiones: Texts and Translations,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D.M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991): pp. 1–15, here p. 1. Cf. also G. Muradyan, “The Armenian Version of Philo Alexandrinus: Translation Technique, Biblical Citations,” in Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, eds. S. Mancini Lombardi—P. Pontani (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2011): pp. 51–85. 3 The next parallel to QG and QE are the contemporary commentaries on Homer, cf. M.R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 160. 4 Philo’s Quaestiones differ in many aspects from his other exegetical literature. According to Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, p. 157 the Sitz im Leben can be classified as being addressed to educated Jews in Alexandria who were well trained in the allegorical method and who expected a manual with distinct interpretations of the Pentateuch. 5 Cf. R. Marcus, “An Armenian-Greek Index to Philo’s Quaestiones and De Vita Contemplativa,”

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

37

by colleagues in Münster, Germany,6 one may consult the older edition by Johannes Baptista Aucher from 1826 which was printed in Venice, Italy, at the Armenian-Catholic Mechitarist center of Armenian studies.7 For the analysis of the Armenian texts, one may avail oneself, in addition, of a concordance of the Armenian words and their Greek counterparts8 which was collected by Ralph Marcus on the basis of the comparison of the Greek and Armenian versions of De vita contemplativa and which due to the reliability of the Armenian translation of the Greek Vorlage can be helpful for finding the equivalent Greek expressions.9 Basing his work on Aucher’s edition as well, Marcus translated the Quaestiones into English;10 the few Greek fragments of the respective texts are available in Petit’s monograph.11 Philo’s Quaestiones follow the order of the Pentateuch, combining it with chapters which are built according to the dialogic sequence of question and answer.12 He selected central themes and treated them in extenso while neglecting others. In QE, there is some space for examining the feast of Passover in connection with Ex 12; here Philo found an opportunity to interpret this important Jewish feast according to his theological premises, exegetical methods, and other aspects which were most relevant for the Alexandrian intellectual. One can find the same ideas about Passover in Philo’s more systematic writings so that a synoptic comparison is possible and will be executed in the second part of this contribution. In QE 1:4, Philo offered an “etymological”13 translation of the Hebrew term behind the Greek πάσχα and touched on an aspect of the ritual of Passover: Արդ զենուն զանցարանս զբնակութիւնն փոփոխեալ ըստ հրամանաց բանին QE 1:4 (Aucher 449)

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

in JAOS 53 (1933): pp. 251–282, here pp. 251–252: Hans Lewy from the Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften was responsible for the aspired edition. See http://www.uni‑muenster.de/FB2/exegesent/forschen/Kommentarwerk.html [accessed 3 June 2019]. Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena, ed. J.B. Aucher (Venice, 1826). Cf. also Hilgert, “The Quaestiones,” pp. 1–5. Marcus, “An Armenian-Greek Index”. Philo: Questions and Answers on Exodus, ed. R. Marcus (Cambridge—London: Harvard University Press, 1961). Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: fragmenta graeca, ed. F. Petit (Paris: Cerf, 1978). The dialogue represents a certain form of catechesis, QG and QE are like two manuals for educated Alexandrian Jews, cf. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, pp. 160–161. Cf. S.J.K. Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 34–35.

38

bukovec

And now they sacrifice the “passage”, while changing the habitation according to the commandment of the Word.

This sentence deals with Ex 12:11 and gives the Philonian interpretation of Passover as “passage”. For Philo “passage” has a deeper, more allegorical meaning.14 Here, he followed for the most part the biblical heritage and connected Passover with the events relating to the exodus of the Israelites. Yet he placed emphasis on it: the people fled from Egypt in obedience to the explicit commandment of the Logos.15 The theological concept of the Word of God, which will become most important for the New Testament, especially John, is a focal point of Philo’s doctrine. It has its roots in the sapiential Jewish scriptures of the Hellenistic period, e.g. the OT books of Sap, Sir, as well as other apocryphal texts from the diaspora. God’s Wisdom and His Word are correlative concepts which hypostatised attributes of God, either following Oriental forerunners (Wisdom) or a popular-philosophical re-interpretation of Genesis 1 (Word). The Logos is for Philo not only a distinctive entity that cooperates with God in the economy of salvation. Anthropologically, it has the function of enlightening the faithful and bring them nearer to God. This ethical aspect is part of salvation and coincides with Hellenistic expectations about the good life. Philo wished to articulate that the Passover happened through the activity of the Logos. This means that the actual Jewish Passover is a liturgical institution in accordance with reason. Fortunately, Theodoret of Cyrus’ work has transmitted QE 1:4 fragmentarily. We find here the Greek equivalent to “passage” (Arm. անցարան), διαβατήρια.16 14

15 16

Another aspect is treated by M.R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 108–109: “The annual performance of the Passover holiday thus revives in the Jews a hope for liberation from the material realm as well as from rigid social hierarchies”. This sociological momentum is also important for understanding the Therapeutae. Concerning the Greek and Armenian equivalents of “Logos”/“Word”, cf. Marcus, “An Armenian-Greek Index,” p. 258. Quaestiones, p. 234. The Greek term has its background in sacrifices made at the occasion of a crossing-over situation, cf. J. Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p. 29; H. Buchinger, “Pascha,”RAC 26: pp. 1033–1077, here p. 1035; N. Martola, “Eating the Passover Lamb in House-temples at Alexandria: Some Notes on Passover in Philo,” in Jewish Studies in a New Europe, eds. U. Haxen, H. Trautner-Kromann, K.L. Goldschmidt Salamon (Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, 1998): pp. 521–531, here p. 521; C. Schlund, “Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden”: Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfestes in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), p. 63, seems not to know that there exists a Greek fragment for QE 1:4 and mistranslates the term with διάβασις.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

39

A second point is of major interest as well: Philo understood the slaughter of lambs at Passover explicitly as a sacrifice. This is a paradigm rarely seen in the contemporaneous literature. Yet most likely Philo did not invent it, because he did not put it into question, but only interpreted it. The feast is special insofar as Jewish sacrifices were linked exclusively with the Temple; Passover was the only feast with regard to which the clans had priority. In Jerusalem at that time, the lambs were slaughtered in the vestibule of the Temple, but the meal was consumed in the midst of the family. Philo wrote as a protagonist of the diaspora, in a setting, in which one was no longer able to visit the Temple regularly. When he dignified the Passover as a sacrifice and proclaimed the faithful as those who sacrifice, once a year the monopoly of the Temple was suspended in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt when there was no sanctuary. Yet for Philo the dignity of this special provision did not only lie in the remembrance of former events. It was a commandment by the Logos and so took part in divine providence. He explained his view more specifically in QE 1:12: Այս ինքն է, զոր ասացի սակաւ յառաջագոյն, զի բագին եւ տաճար Աստուացոյ ի ժամանակէն ամենայն տուն եղեալ էր տեսականացն QE 1:12 (Aucher 457)

It means—as I told before—that every home becomes an altar and temple of God at that time for the contemplative. QE 1:12 refers to Ex 12:7 and tries to explain why and for which reason and purpose the Israelites had to sacrifice the lambs on Passover. One can recognise the same argumentative strategy that is present in the preceding passage: on the one hand, Philo went along with the doctrine that during Passover all of Israel was a people of priests and that the slaughter was a sacrifice (this shows again that Philo adopted this paradigm and did not invent it),17 but he modified it according to a more allegorical understanding.18 Intending to uncover a deeper meaning behind this sacrifice, he proposed a spiritual interpretation: the houses are altars and temples as signs of the contemplative; the sacredness pertains to the spiritualisation of the Temple cult, a typical feature of the

17 18

Cf. also the entire article of Martola, “Eating”. Cf. Buchinger, “Pascha,” p. 1041: “Durch die Allegorisierung der Etymologie […] wird der Exodus, nicht die zehnte Plage, zum narrativen Haftpunkt einer anthropologischen Deutung (Seele, nicht Gott als Subjekt)”.

40

bukovec

Jewish Hellenistic diaspora.19 Alongside their literal meaning, the cultic prescriptions have a second dimension which belongs to the world of spiritual religiosity, ethics, and other aspects of contemporaneous faith. This view can be regarded as a kind of apologetics in order to demonstrate the intellectuality and high value of Jewish religion in accordance with the philosophical thoughts current at the time. Philo provided educated Jews in the diaspora with a sophisticated concept of how to interpret and how to live Judaism in cities like Alexandria. Allegorical approaches to the traditional religion were well known among Greek and Roman authors as well, and they were not typically Jewish. Yet the topics themselves were. For instance, the spiritualisation of the sacrificial liturgies was a common paradigm in Early Jewish literature and found its way into the New Testament, too.20 In order to complete Philo’s views on Passover, the consultation of his Greek writings is needed. This can help us to comprehend his statements in QE more precisely.

2

The Results in Light of the Complete Œuvre of Philo

All of the issues concerning the Passover which Philo treated in QE were also dealt with in his other writings so that we need to discuss them only insofar as they provide additional information. The first area analysed above is the question of the etymology of πάσχα. In QE 1:4, the Greek fragment proved that the term διαβατήρια “passage, transition, migration” stands behind the Armenian translation. Philo used the word quite frequently (spec. leg. 2:41, 145, 147; vit. Mos. 2:224, 226, 228) for the explanation of the Aramaic ‫ >( ִפּסָחא‬πάσχα, but interestingly not *πίσχα as the Masoretes vocalise; the vowel a in the first syllable seems to be original) resp. the Hebrew ‫ֶפַּסח‬. Philo would have used the LXX translation and given his etymology probably without referring directly to the Hebrew text.21 The translation of the word is extracted from the storyline in the book of Exodus and does not reflect a linguistic etymology, most likely. Philo introduced another noun deriving from the verb διαβαίνω to explain the Passover: διάβασις (congr. 106; leg.all. 3:94, 154, 165; migr. 25; sacr. 63). Both Greek

19 20 21

Cf. H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), p. 261. Cf. C.A. Eberhart, Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Cf. also L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 194.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

41

words, διαβατήρια and διάβασις, are the prevalent translations in his œuvre and ought to be considered, like the above-mentioned idea of Passover as sacrifice, as a probable paradigm that was in circulation at the time and that Philo adopted from tradition. He added the radical spiritualisation of “passage” (vide infra). What one would not expect is that Philo conveyed a second translation possibility for “Passover”; this one was more common to Christian authors who wanted to establish a connection between Jesus’ death and Passover: πάθος “passion”. This etymology derives from the similarity between πάσχα and πάσχω and seemed to be familiar to Early Judaism, too. While it is easy to understand that Christianity identified a typology between Passover and Jesus’ salvific crucifixion, one has to ask what kind of suffering Jews had in mind at that time. In congr. 106, Philo interpreted the word in terms of his particular understanding. The Passover symbolised the passions which one had to abandon in order to reach and enter the divine realm. The same is told in rer. div. 192. Due to the fact that Philo provided this interpretation only twice in his work, whereas “passage” is the term that occurs in most of the instances, it is not clear whether he adopted a tradition that was circulating already or whether he invented the etymology. One can argue in favour of the first option on the basis of the simplicity which lies behind the “etymology” of πάσχα < πάσχω, but in this case it seems impossible to reconstruct the original meaning of this particular “passion”. The alternative fits well with Philo’s spiritualising theology. One ought not to leave without mention that Philo knew the Hebrew equivalent for “Passover”. He used φασέκ in congr. 94 instead of the Aramaic πάσχα; the vocalisation and phonological realisation of the Hebrew consonants are quite interesting and surely practical for diachronic studies of the Hebrew pronunciation in the first century. The change between the aspirated consonant is striking. While πάσχα has an aspirated velar and hard labial, φασέκ has a hard velar and aspirated labial. That our author interpreted Passover as “passage” in a spiritual sense, is clear from QE. Yet what exactly this meant, he did not articulate. Fortunately, Philo’s texts in Greek are more detailed. For instance, in congr. 106 he spoke about a ψυχικὸν πάσχα which is, in Platonic terminology, a transition from the visible world to the intelligible (νοητόν) and divine (θεῖον) realm. In his soul, the faithful leaves the concrete and perceptible in order to ascend to God. Philo interpreted the ancient events during the exodus of Israel as a metaphysical and mystical journey.22 This means that God installed the cultic Passover as a

22

S.J.K. Pearce, Land, pp. 30–31.

42

bukovec

sign for an inwardly process in which the human soul is able to engage, thereby coming to the divine sphere. As leg. all. 3:94, 165 attests, διάβασις “passage” also includes the starting point, from which the soul is ascending. The ascent to God corresponds to the turning away from the passions (πάθη). Philo managed to combine both “etymologies”—passage and passion—into a concise system. Passover has to do with passions because it is a process of removing them from the soul. Rer. div. 192 confirms this in other words. Probably the most concrete and best explanation Philo gave can be found in sacr. 63: τὸ πάσχα τὴν ἐκ παθῶν εἰς ἄσκησιν ἀρετῆς διάβασιν […] διάβασις γάρ ἐστιν οὐ θνητή, ἐπεὶ τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου τὸ πάσχα εἴρεται (“Passover means the passage from the passions to the practice of virtue (…) Therefore, the passage is not mortal, but it is called the Passover of the un-created and incorruptible One”).23 Passover was part of Philo’s concept of asceticism (cf. the Therapeutae!).24 For him, the soul can reach a high level of virtuousness and thereby obtain philosophical claims. Besides that, the mystical Passover is a way to gain immortality for the soul, the ultimate goal of every Greek speculation. With this pivotal statement, the Alexandrian revealed the core of his philosophical theology and was able to demonstrate that being a Jew was the fulfilment of Hellenistic hopes (see above). The last aspect we find mentioned in QE is the tradition of Passover as a sacrifice for all of Israel. In this regard, Philo spoke of the feast as a special institution where the sacrifice was established independently of the Temple service. This observation is supported by decal. 159 and vit. Mos. 2:224. Following the divine command, the people sacrificed the lambs without the intervention of priests.25 The reason for this has to do with the events in Egypt, when Moses

23 24

25

De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, ed. A. Méasson (Paris: Cerf, 1966), p. 126. Cf. M. Ebner, “Mahl und Gruppenidentität: Philos Schrift De Vita Contemplativa als Paradigma” in Herrenmahl und Gruppenidentität, ed. M. Ebner (Freiburg D: Herder, 2007): pp. 64–90; M. Hadas-Lebel, Philo of Alexandria: A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Leiden— Boston: Brill, 2012), p. 105; C. Leonhard, B. Eckhardt, “Mahl V (Kultmahl)” in RAC 23: pp. 1013–1105, here p. 1061; Leonhardt, Jewish Worship, pp. 126–127; Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, pp. 165–167. Cf. Niehoff, “Philo,” p. 108.—Pace the thesis in Leonhardt, Jewish Worship, pp. 31–33 and C. Leonhard, “Die Erzählung Ex 12 als Festlegende für das Pesachfest am Jerusalemer Tempel” in JBT 18 (2003): pp. 233–260. Leonhard’s approach in general will be treated below. Here I would like to emphasise that a Passover outside of Jerusalem and its Temple was actually a reality even before 70 AD, while Leonhard does not accept a feast outside of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem because the concept of Passover as family feast is a later, Rabbinic invention, reacting to the situation after the destruction of the Temple. His observances are correct and remain correct if we look at the paradigm shift which happened

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

43

ordered the sacrifice in order to avoid the lifestyle of the Egyptians and to establish the passage off from their passions.26 For Philo, a Jew in Egypt, Moses was the founder of a better way of life which contrasted with that of the Egyptian in the 2nd century AD when Judaism was forced to survive without the Temple. Nevertheless, the focus on the shift between Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism concerning Passover should not let one lose sight of the fact that there is—at least for Alexandria in the 1st century AD—evidence of an understanding of Passover which differs from the Deuteronomistic perspective which is so relevant for Palestine at that time. The quotations in Philo’s writings that have been discussed above mention this feast (a) as a family feast (b) which is possible because of the pre-Sinaitic commandment in Ex 12 (and which for Philo supported the legitimacy of the actual Alexandrian practice because every Israelite acts as priest here—a concept that is surely related to adaptations of an equality of political rights (isonomia) and other democratic, political theorems of the polis), and (c) without a Temple (because at Passover every household was a sanctuary). These three Philonic arguments cannot be assigned to the Jerusalem Passover. They contradict it. Therefore, I cannot follow Leonhard at this point. I understand Philo as saying quite the opposite. In Jerusalem, the lambs were slaughtered in the Temple area by professionals, and so attributed to the Temple, even if the feast thereafter moved to the quarters. Philo did not correlate Passover to the monopoly of the Temple cult and he emphasized that no priests were needed at all. A discussion of these passages is missing in ibid., pp. 241–242. What we can say about the Philonic evidence is that at least in first-century Alexandria, there was a Passover which was not related to the Temple worship. We cannot tell more about the actual liturgy due to the fact that Philo was more interested in interpretation than in practice; but that sacrifices were part of Passover is seen distinctly. Another question is what Philo might mean when he said that Passover was celebrated all over the world where Jews were living. Because of the few sources from the Early Jewish diaspora which talk about Passover, it is very problematic to make general statements here. Yet one has to take into account that there were addressees of Philo’s works: from the context and Sitz im Leben of Philo’s writings, one should expect that our author was bound to talk about things that have a fundamentum in re and are not mere phantasies Philo relied on only rhetorically. Be that as it may, regarding Alexandria he is witness to the celebration of Passover in the diaspora. From the beginning, the community in the Hellenic city in the Nile delta chose its own ways of being a Jew; one possible reason why Philo reflected the Alexandrian Passover might lie in the fact that Greek-speaking Judaism there was primarily focused on the Pentateuch, as the translation history of the LXX demonstrates. Cf. M. Tilly, Einführung in die Septuaginta (Darmstadt: WBG, 2005); S.J.K. Pearce, Land, pp. 27–29. If the main norm of Jewish religion are the five books of Moses, without the historical books of the OT, it is clear that the influence of the Deuteronomistic theology concerning the history of Israel was not very central in Palestine, i.e. while in Palestinian Judaism (and surely in other diaspora communities as well) the history of the Temple cult was part of the holy scriptures, the Alexandrian stress on the Pentateuch, on Israel’s history before the Holy Land, opens possibilities to organise liturgical life partially independently from Jerusalem. And that is what Philo knew: The installation of Passover occurs in Ex 12, before the tabernacle as the predecessor of the Temple was established. For Philo, this was the theological legitimation of a Passover in the diaspora which was not linked closely to the Temple—an observation he expected his

44

bukovec

environment. Maybe he reacted here to clichés about the Jews which circulated since Manetho; he turned their arguments into the opposite: not the Jews are barbaric, but the Egyptians themselves (cf. leg. all. 3:94). The sacrifice during Passover, which was strange in the eyes of non-Jews, had a spiritual meaning and the feast is celebrated by Jews across the entire world.27 That everyone, young and old, sacrificed the lamb and that this happened everywhere, can be an interesting hint for students of early Jewish liturgy especially in the diaspora.28 Generally, the feast is regarded as one of the times for pilgrimage to Jerusalem because the lambs were slaughtered in the vestibule of the Temple. Yet Philo does not confirm that. In the pluralism of Early Judaism, there seemed to have been more or less apparent practices, in which the feast did not take part in the central space of the Temple cult. As Philo was exceedingly interested in accentuating the autonomy of this peculiar sacrifice, there is no good reason to abnegate the existence of this concept in diaspora Judaism, especially because Philo had no intentions to relativize or polemicize against Jerusalem.29 For him, Passover was a special case where a connection to the Temple did not exist immediately. Likely, he reflected the actual practice of his time.

26 27 28

29

readers to agree with. The interesting difference to Elephantine or Garizim is that Philo did not assume the existence of a separate sanctuary as competitor of Jerusalem (here I agree with ibid., p. 24535; cf. also Buchinger, “Pascha,” p. 1045): in an allegorical interpretation, the households were actually short-time sanctuaries only for this occasion. Philo dealt with traditional sacrificial motifs, e.g. from Leviticus, not in order to make Passover dependent on the Temple, but to characterise the sacrificial nature of Passover (i.e. he did not refer to the Second Temple, but to cultic terminology in the Pentateuch!). Therefore, Philo cannot be viewed from a later, Rabbinic point of view, especially because Alexandrian Judaism lost its importance in the second century, and the Rabbis who followed Palestinian traditions within Early Judaism, were not obliged to react to “heteropractical” liturgies in the diaspora anymore. Therefore, Leonhard is probably right with the assumption that Ex 12 was written as an etiology of the Temple Passover—with the concretion that Jewish communities in the diaspora (esp. in Alexandria) re-interpreted this text and established secondarily a liturgy without a temple, based on a verbatim reading of Ex 12. Cf. Pearce, Land, pp. 121–122. Cf. Marcus, “Passover and Last Supper Revisited,” in NTS 59 (2013): pp. 303–324. S.C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993), p. 61, emphasises that there was no uniformity in early Jewish liturgy, especially between Palestine and the diaspora. Cf. Pearce, Land, pp. 16–17.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

3

45

Philonic Evidence in Context: A Short Survey of Passover in Antiquity

The Biblical etiology30 of Passover is surely Ex 12, where the people of Israel are preparing their escape from Egypt into the Promised Land.31 After the plagues and before the events at the Sea of Reeds, God gave His people an instrument for protection against the killing of the first-born. Contextualising this in the Jewish calendar (v. 2), Israel is summoned to slaughter a one-year-old lamb without any blemish (v. 5s). The meal should include azyme and herbs, too. Although the Priestly source (P) does not interpret the Passover ritual as a sacrifice,32 the prescriptions concerning the lamb (or kid) are adjusted with the sacrifices (especially in Lev) at the tabernacle,33 i.e. for P, Passover cannot be a sacrifice because it is not located within the priestly cult. Yet the prescriptions concerning the lack of blemishes and the age of the animal show that the ritual is in no way “secular”. This tension will be solved in history in different ways, either tending to the sacrificial understanding or to Passover as a family ritual (especially in Rabbinic Judaism).34 The very important verses 7 and 13, where the apotropaic unction of the doors is pre- and described, left traces of the 30 31

32

33

34

Cf. Leonhard, Eckhardt, “Mahl,” p. 1053. It should be mentioned that B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder. The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley et al.: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984), pp. 14–19, regards the Biblical Passover as sacrifice from the beginning. Cf. B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), pp. 248–249. There is no space to discuss the strata (P and J), it should be relegated to studies like M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (Göttingen—Zurich: V&R, 1988), pp. 72–73. Cf. Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 254; G. Fischer, D. Markl, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), p. 132; H. Utzschneider, W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), pp. 250–253. Cf. also v. 10 where the remaining parts of the lamb must be burned. Cf. Leonhard, Eckhardt, “Mahl,” pp. 1067, 1094; C. Leonhard, “Die Pessachhaggada als Spiegel religiöser Konflikte,” in Kontinuität und Unterbrechung: Gottesdienst und Gebet in Judentum und Christentum, eds. A. Gerhards, S. Wahle (Paderborn et al.: Schöningh, 2005): pp. 143–171, here pp. 149–151. Cf. also Marcus, “Passover,” pp. 317–318; B. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (New York et al.: Doubleday, 2011), pp. 62, 149–158; G. Stemberger, “Pesachhaggada und Abendmahlsberichte des Neuen Testaments,” Kairos 29 (1987): pp. 147–158; J. Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Biblica 70 (1989): pp. 74–95, G. Theißen, “Ritualdynamik und Tabuverletzung im urchristlichen Abendmahl,” in Ritualdynamik: Kulturübergreifende Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte rituellen Handelns, eds. D. Harth, G.J. Schenk (Heidelberg: Synchron-Verlag, 2004): pp. 278–280; M. Theobald, “Das Herrenmahl im Neuen Testament,” in ThQ 183 (2003): pp. 257–280, here p. 271; Utzschneider, Oswald, Exodus, p. 250.

46

bukovec

origins of Passover as a semi-nomadic spring ritual. The power, which caused the death of the children, turned into a mere abstraction, “destruction”; but genetically, it was an epithet or name of the demon connected with Passover.35 The term “Passover” itself belongs to this milieu. Deriving from the verbal root PSḤ “to halt, jump” (cf. v. 23, 27; 2Sam 4:4; 1 Reg 18:21, 26),36 it means the event when the demon Destruction jumps over the houses with the bloody doors.37 In

35

36 37

Cf. O. Keel, “Erwägungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosaischen Pascha und zur Etymologie von ‫ ”ֶפַּסח‬in ZAW 84 (1972): pp. 414–434; Noth, Das zweite Buch, pp. 69–71; Utzschneider, Oswald, Exodus, p. 255; J. Scharbert, Exodus (Würzburg: Echter, 1989), p. 52. Cf. also 2 Sam 24 16 where the “Angel of Destruction” (‫ )ַלַמְּלָאְך ַהמְּשִׁחית‬appears—the closest parallel to Ex 12:13. That both quotations understand “destruction” as a personal entity is an indication that there is actually a motive tradition behind the narrative which cannot be summarised with the thesis of Ex 12 as being merely an etiology of the Temple Passover. More cautious is Buchinger, “Pascha,” p. 1035. Recently, Clemens Leonhard questioned the accuracy of this thesis. His principal reservation derives from the paradoxical observation that Ex 12 is a relatively young text while the followers of the theory suggest that one can find an archaic, nomadic ritual, cf. his punch line in Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 251: “Die Rekonstruktionen des religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrunds von Ex 12 zeigen, dass der Text selbst die einzige, zuverlässige Quelle für Rekonstruktionen seines religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrunds ist”. Before I deal with his new thesis, I would like to put the focus on one specific problem which arises with the definition of Ex 12 as an etiology of the Passover sacrifice in the Second Temple: Leonhard’s intention is to demonstrate that Ex 12 was composed as an etiological narrative of the Temple cult and its monopoly in Early Judaism (before the Rabbis re-invented the feast as a family celebration after 70AD), i.e. as long as the Second Temple was in existence, there was no Passover outside of Jerusalem, not even in the diaspora (a thesis I do not agree with, see above). Yet there is no evidence in his article which would explain why Ex 12 has to be dated in this way except its character as an etiology. This sounds quite circular to me: Leonhard refuses any diachronic stratification of Ex 12 in favor of the unity of the text as a reflection of the Temple liturgy. However, replacing the former method with an implicit assumption is not satisfying either. Nevertheless, Leonhard’s critique concerning the origins of Passover is correct: it seems really odd that a late Pentateuchal chapter (whether in the Second Temple period or not) could mirror the historical background of the supposed “original Passover”—a fact which the supporters mostly do not consider. Therefore, we have to be very cautious in proclaiming that this “nomadic theory” is consistent. On the other hand, his alternative theory (Ex 12 as an etiology of Passover in the Second Temple) is not completely satisfying either: from my point of view, some idiosyncratic motives in Ex 12 cannot be explained as mere allusions to the Second Temple Passover. Two examples may suffice: the applying of the lambs’ blood on the doors do not have much in common with the pouring out at the altar; of course, the action plays a prominent part in the exodus narrative (because of this ritual, the Israelites are saved from the killing of the firstborn), but the equivalent in the Second Temple is a frequent ritual which happens also with other sacrifices. Why does the Pentateuch not interpret other sacrifices as well in this or a similar way? The spreading of the blood has a surplus of meaning which the altar does

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

47

the exile, P cancelled everything that did not fit with the monotheism of YHWH and assigned the whole ritual as well as its etiology to the one God of Israel. The context of Passover changed from a spring ritual, which in its entirety was apotropaic, to a rememberable event in Egypt, re-enacted every year. The sacrificial overtones—again: Passover is here not a sacrifice—are therefore layers of interpretation on the part of P which harmonised Passover with the tabernacle/Temple cult. They do not belong to the original Passover ritual which was more magical in order to protect the families from the demon. The connection with the Temple will be developed further in the Deuteronomistic texts (see below). The verses 14–20 and 24–27 clarify that Passover is not a unique event but shall be celebrated every year. Numbers 9 makes preparations for the special situation when Passover has to be celebrated one month later, probably an arrangement from the times of the Babylonian Exile. It has to do with faults regarding purity, which is, again, a hint that Passover adapted sacrificial aspects along the way. Other accounts in the Pentateuch where Passover is integrated into the tabernacle liturgy, are Lev 23:5–8 and Num 28:16–25. Deuteronomy 16 shows marks of further development: Passover is in charge of the entire centralisation of the cult which is invariably located at the Jerusalem Temple (v. 2). Correlating to this, the feast is clearly understood as a sacrifice, as the Hebrew root ZBḤ in verses 2, 4, and 6 demonstrate (LXX: θύειν). The explicit sacrificial terminology is supported by the extension concerning the animals accepted for Passover. Not only a lamb is prescribed, but also sheep and cattle are sacrificial material. These three modifications—Temple central-

not have: it is clearly understood as an apotropaic ritual in Ex 12—something missing in the actual worship of the Second Temple period. The apotropaic character in connection with the location on the doors cannot be explained only with the logic of the narrative in Ex 12 itself; it must have another motivation, which does not harmonise with the Temple service. It is quite complicated to find a solution for this problem. Neither one of the theories—the nomadic one and the etiology—bring a verifiable explanation. This is true for both theories, and it is Leonhard’s merit to demonstrate and deconstruct the communis opinio. The other example I choose is the precipitance Ex 12 emphasises: is it really enough to see the trouble arising here when every year the pilgrims crowd into Jerusalem? Or does this interpretation show the helplessness one is faced with if one wants to harmonise the narrative with the ritual practice, supposing that there must exist a mimesis between etiology and liturgy? Leonhard’s article and his pioneering, fascinating, and refreshing thesis are striking, but I am not convinced that his alternative really fits (see above). Nevertheless, he has shown that the former ways are questionable with good cause. We have to leave the question regarding the origins of Passover undecided as long as both theories lead to an impasse.

48

bukovec

isation, terminology, and sacrifice—solve the ambiguity in Ex 12 in order to incorporate Passover into the Jerusalem liturgy and to include the feast into the pilgrimage festivals. The first Passover in the Promised Land happened in Jos 5 (cf. v. 10, 12). The account follows the general lines, especially in Dtn 16. According to 2 Kings 23:21–22, King Josiah (reg. 640–609BC) reintroduced the Passover at the Temple after a long period of time in the wake of his cultic reforms. It reflects the predominance of Deuteronomistic theology since his regency; here, Dtn 16 has its concrete aftermath. The parallel report in 2Chr 35 emphasises, both in the Hebrew and the Greek text, the sacrificial character of Passover. In v. 1 the people ‫( ַו ִיְּשֲׁחטוּ‬MT) respectively ἔθυσαν (LXX) the victims,38 specific terms for slaughtering in the context of cult, cf. also verses 6 and 11. It can be observed that LXX even intensifies the sacrificial connotations here. Besides that and independently of the language, 2 Chr 35:11, 13, and 16 describe the Passover ritual as being a part of the Temple cult, complementing the rest of the mandatory sacrifices performed at this holy place. The “rubrics” from Ex 12 were all observed, but here they were embedded into a concrete liturgical setting. The main difference, therefore, can be seen in the prevalent use of the verb ŠḤṬ/ θύειν for the action on the animals. Hezekiah’s feast in 2Chr 30 was modelled on Josiah’s re-installation of the Temple Passover five chapters later.39 In the actual composition of the Second Books of Chronicles, this doublet comes first and is suggestive of constant attempts by the Judaean kings to adhere to the correct veneration of YHWH. 3 Esr 1, an Early Jewish scripture belonging to the LXX (as “1 Esr”), compiling passages from 2Chr, Esr, and Neh and familiar already to Flavius Josephus, takes over 2Chr 35.40 Esr 7:10–13 describes the first Passover after the consecration of the Second Temple. The theological understanding is more or less the same as with the Passover attributed to Josiah. As the exiles came back to the Holy Land, they had the intention to establish continuity to the times before. The Second Temple is a new beginning and a continuation at the same time. The eschatological provision for Passover, given in Ez 45:21–24, still intensifies the sacrificial content. The sovereign and the priests shall accompany the 38

39 40

It should receive attention that the sacrificial victims are mentioned in verses 8–9 as “Passovers” in the plural in MT: ‫ַלְפָּסִחים‬, while LXX represents the collective sense of εἰς τὸ φεσέχ. Chronicles tries to enhance Hezekiah, cf. Buchinger, “Pascha,” p. 1038. Cf. K.-F. Pohlmann, 3. Esra-Buch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980), pp. 378–377.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

49

festal days with a couple of atoning sacrifices, i.e. Passover is seen here as a particular occasion to expiate the sins of the people. In v. 19 of the same chapter, it is made clear that the brushing of the doorposts refers to the Temple building itself.41 Wisdom 18:9 alludes to the first Passover in Ex 12. For this sapiential book it is clear that the children of Israel sacrificed the lambs. Therefore, this quotation follows the pattern that has been outlined. With 3 Esr and the LXX, our attention was already directed to Early Judaism. One of the writings from this fruitful and influential era is the Book of Jubilees. Although this book can be regarded theologically as quite the opposite of Philo’s approach,42 concerning Passover, there are some striking parallels. In Jub 49, written by the Palestinian author who was anti-Hellenistic in his political orientation and belonged to the spectrum of Hasidic parties, a very important treatment of the Passover ritual is given.43 Jubilees proclaimed themselves as a revelation from Sinai in parallel to the Torah and clarified calendrical and halakhic topics;44 not only their reception in the Qumran community demonstrates the origin in Jerusalem clergy circles,45 but also the implacable stress on the Temple cult, e.g. for Passover in Jub 49 the festival is exclusively reserved to the Temple area and the sacrificial overtones are strengthened.46 No Passover can be celebrated outside Jerusalem,47 and the legal prescriptions are enforced, both in matters of the solar calendar and in regards to purity. Jub 49 is, by the way, the first quotation of the use of wine for Passover (v. 6)—an important reflexion of the ritual setting in the pre-Christian centuries. While Philo tried to make the Jewish religious law understandable through allegorical interpretation, Jub was interested in ritual validity and the strict observance of the laws themselves; but in the characterisation of Passover as a sacrifice (either only in Jerusalem as in Jub 49 or everywhere as in Philo), both concur. Therefore, the comparison of these diverging witnesses supports the view that Passover was seen as sacrifice among many groups of contemporary Judaism. Philo is not unparalleled, but he participated here in a broader consensus. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Cf. Schlund, Kein Knochen, pp. 31–33. Cf. K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981), p. 298. Concerning Mastema, the lord of the demons in Jub, cf. Schlund, Kein Knochen, pp. 109– 110. The Passover prescriptions are written on the heavenly plates (v. 8) and are an everlasting commandment.—The halakha is mirrored in v. 9–17. The Qumran fragments are edited in Qumran Cave 4, eds. H. Attridge et al., VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Cf. Jub 49:9, 16–20, 22 (sacrifice in the Temple area). Zion is the centre of the world, cf. ibid., p. 284. Cf. also Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 238.

50

bukovec

Jubilees is not the only text that retold the Pentateuch. The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB), wrongly attributed to our Philo, belongs to this group of Early Jewish scriptures, too.48 Yet whilst Jub 49 explicated Passover in quite a detailed manner, LAB 10 (and the rest of LAB) does not mention the feast. There were Jewish groups who did not consider Passover as much relevant for their religious identity like other feasts and themes. Because of that, caution is recommendable concerning generalisations of the sacrificial content of Passover for the whole of Early Judaism. While Jub is far from Philo, Aristobulus is not.49 According to tradition, he was a member of the council that translated the Torah into Greek under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reg. 283–246) in Alexandria.50 Yet not only the legend about the origins of the LXX places Aristobulus in proximity to Philo; it is the Alexandrian ambience of Hellenicised Judaism that links both authors. The adapted exegetical method of interpreting holy scriptures by allegory is one of the main concerns of Aristobulus and Philo alike. Also the strategy of defending the grandeur of Judaism connects them; Aristobulus proclaims as one of the first authors that the Greek philosophers and poets depend on Moses’ Law.51 Concerning Passover, Aristobulus refers to the feast as διαβατήρια, a term which Philo employs.52 Due to the fact that Aristobulus is older than our author, we can conclude that this motive (which derives from Ex 12:11) was common to Alexandrian Jews and is no invention by Philo himself (see above). If we go further in a process of contextualisation, we can observe that the verb θύειν in combination with Passover is well-known to Aristobulus, too.53 That means, the conception of the Passover sacrifice belongs to the adapted motives as well. Philo stands in a concrete tradition here. With the help of Aristobulus we are able to understand the somewhat vexing information in Philo’s œuvre relating to this feast (especially the bulky idea of sacrifice which does not harmonise with Philo’s primordial interest in the allegorical or moral meaning of the Pentateuchal commandments).54 As in his exegesis of the five books of Moses, 48 49

50 51 52 53 54

Introductory information in C. Dietzfelbinger, Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975). Edition: Aristobulus, ed. C.R. Holladay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Cf. also J. Riaud, “Pâque et Sabbat dans les fragments I et V d’ Aristobule,” in Le temps et les temps dans les littératures juives et chrétiens au tournant de notre ère, ed. C. Grappe (Leiden et al.: Brill, 2006): pp. 107–123. Concerning the legend of the translation of the LXX (Aristeas and the other versions), cf. Tilly, Einführung. Cf. Aristobulus, fr. 3 [pp. 150, 152, 154, 162, 164]. Cf. Aristobulus, fr. 1 [p. 130]. Cf. ibid. However, Philo is interested in interpreting the religious commandments in an allegorical

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

51

Philo explains the ritual prescriptions as allegories for inner and transcendent significations.55 This is also true with διαβατήρια. Here Philo starts with the verbal meaning of the word (“passage”) and gives it a spiritual depth.56 For him, Jewish liturgy symbolises deeper truths of religious life, corresponding to the best of Hellenistic philosophy and ethics. For Aristobulus, Passover coincides with astrology, too: the date of the feast and its calculation is not accidental, but has to do with stellar and planetary constellations.57 The links to Flavius Josephus (37/8–post 100) are not so tight. Nevertheless, the Jewish historiographer regards Passover as sacrifice, too, cf. Ant. 5:20; 9:271; 14:21; 17:213; Bell 2:10.58 In all quotations, Josephus is never concerned with the feast itself. He accepts the sacrificial conception as given by tradition. What he does is to mention the feast in order to give a date when the events that are described came about. Rarely he does connect some theological basics concerning Passover with the events. In the New Testament, Passover is a typological anchor at which the Passion of Christ is situated. For the dating of Jesus’ crucifixion, the Gospels correlate the execution with the feast, basing on the historical fact that he died around Passover. While the Synoptics give the feast itself as date (cf. Mk 15), John 19 tells us that Jesus died at the time (Passover Eve) at which the lambs were slaughtered in the Temple.59 For John, Passover became a focal point for structuring Jesus’ mission from the beginning (cf. Jn 1:29, 36; 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 19:29, 36).60 The Last Supper which occurred at the evening before his trial, was sec-

55 56 57 58 59

60

way. He emphasises that the inner meaning does not dispense from the normativity of the performance, cf. migr. 89–93. So we can reason: Philo accepts the sacrificial nature of Passover (which is given by tradition) but he wants to explain why the sacrifice is acceptable for Hellenistic, educated Jews. My focus lies on the observation that Philo would not introduce such a category as “sacrifice” if this would not exist beforehand. He can only work with it. His interest is philosophical and it updates practice. Cf. Hadas-Lebel, Philo, p. 105. Cf. Hadas-Lebel, Philo, p. 191; S.J.K. Pearce, Land, pp. 124–125. Cf. Aristobulus, fr. 1 [p. 130]. Cf. F.M. Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002). Cf. T. Knöppler, Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), p. 234; J. Kügler, “Das Johannesevangelium” in Einleitung in das Neue Testament, eds. M. Ebner, S. Schreiber (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): pp. 208–228, here p. 209. Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 241, interprets Jn 1 with Is 53 as its background. This is of course also true. Yet one has to consider that in advanced Early Christian theologies a clear separation is not the case regularly. Moreover, the different motives (Is 53 and Passover) intermingle and result in interferences, transformations and cases of overlapping. The Passover terminology is very important for John, and he is able to combine this factor with other traditional typological motives—always with Christ as its focal point.

52

bukovec

ondarily harmonised with the Passover motive,61 as can be seen in the Synoptic accounts (Mt 26:17–29; Mk 14:12–16; Lk 22:14–20) and in 1 Cor 5:7 where Paul knows the Early Christian tradition of Christ as Passover lamb62 (most interestingly, his Institution Narrative in 1Cor 11 does not refer to this link, but has the older stratum where the institution of the Lord’s Supper is not yet connected to

61

62

Cf. J. Becker, “Das Herrenmahl im Urchristentum,”Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 53 (2002): pp. 3–11, here p. 4; H. Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 1997), p. 139; J.S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C.A. Eberhart (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011): pp. 65–82; H. Feld, Das Verständnis des Abendmahls (Darmstadt: WBG, 1976), pp. 27–28; P.F. Bradshaw, “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal,” in Liturgies East and West: Ecumenical Relevance of Early Liturgical Development, ed. H.-J. Feulner (Münster: LIT, 2013): pp. 47–59, here p. 49; C. Schlund, “Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Rahmen der Pesach-Tradition,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, eds. J. Frey, J. Schröter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012): pp. 397–411, here p. 398; F. Hahn, “Zum Stand der Erforschung des urchristlichen Herrenmahls,” in Exegetische Beiträge zum ökumenischen Gespräch: Gesammelte Aufsätze, I (Göttingen: V&R, 1986): pp. 242–252, here p. 252; M. Karrer, “Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Herrenmahls nach 1Kor 11, 23b–25,” in BZ 34 (1990): pp. 198–221, here pp. 218–219; K.G. Kuhn, “Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendmahls und sein Verhältnis zu den Gemeinschaftsmahlen der Sektenschrift,” in ET 10 (1950/1): pp. 508–527, here pp. 517, 525–527; L. Wehr, “Die Bedeutung der Einsetzungsworte für das neutestamentliche Eucharistieverständnis,” in Die Anaphora von Addai und Mari: Studien zu Eucharistie und Einsetzungsworten, ed. U.M. Lang (Bonn: Nova & Vetera, 2007): pp. 15– 30, here p. 28; A. McGowan, “Rethinking Eucharistic Origins,” in Pacifica 23 (2010); pp. 173– 191, here pp. 180–183; P. Wick, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen- und Hausfrömmigkeit (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2002), pp. 151–154; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Vol. 2 (Zurich et al.: Benziger, 1999), p. 240; Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 260. Different opinions: A. Stöger, “Die Eucharistiefeier des Neuen Testaments,” in Eucharistiefeiern in der Christenheit, ed. T. Bogler (Maria Laach: Ars Liturgica, 1960), p. 11; G. Theißen, “Sakralmahl und sakramentales Geschehen: Abstufungen in der Ritualdynamik des Abendmahls,” in Herrenmahl und Gruppenidentität, ed. M. Ebner (Freiburg D: Herder, 2007): pp. 166–186; J. Hartenstein, “Abendmahl und Pessach: Frühjüdische Pessach-Traditionen und die erzählerische Einbettung der Einsetzungsworte im Lukasevangelium,” in „Eine gewöhnliche und harmlose Speise“? Von den Entwicklungen frühchristlicher Abendmahlstraditionen, eds. J. Hartenstein, S. Petersen, A. Standhartiger (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008): pp. 180– 199; J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen: V&R, 1960), pp. 50–51; H. Maccoby, “Paul and the Eucharist,” in NTS 37 (1991): pp. 247–267, here p. 262; A.M. Schwemer, “Das Problem der Mahlgemeinschaft mit dem Auferstandenen,” in Le Repas de Dieu, ed. C. Grappe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004): pp. 187–226, here p. 214; H.A.J. Wegman, “Généalogie hypothétique de la prière eucharistique,” in Questions liturgiques et pastorales 61 (1980): pp. 263–278, here p. 268; R. Eisler, “Das letzte Abendmahl,” in ZNW 24 (1925): pp. 161–192; Buchinger, “Pascha,” p. 1047. Cf. Schlund, “Deutungen,” p. 404.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

53

Passover; for Paul, Christ’s sacrifice corresponds to the slaughter of the lambs of the Old Covenant typologically, but the etiology of the Eucharist was not yet affected, although the words over the bread and the cup refer to Jesus’ atoning death).63

4

Conclusions: The Significance of Philo

When we have a look at the quotations concerning Passover until Philo, we see that the Alexandrian scholar proved to be a crucial witness for some important theological conceptions of Early Judaism. The analysis and comparisons in this contribution have crystallised the embedment of Philo’s thinking in the broad stream of Hellenised Jewish diaspora, especially in Alexandria. The most evident links exist with Aristobulus who shared with Philo the “etymological” characterisation of Passover as a “passage” (διαβατήρια, διάβασις), following Ex 12:11 LXX. In later Christian development, another Alexandrian, Origen, would take over this motive.64 Other aspects, such as the allegorical and ethical understanding of the entire corpus of Pentateuchal commandments (including Passover), substantiate the necessity of diaspora Judaism in a Graeco-Roman environment to modify and rethink the fundamental principles of Jewish religion in order to accommodate it with actual philosophical and cultural discourses. Hence, in a way that was typical for Greek scholarship, Philo tried to explain Passover with an anthropological and spiritual interpretation of the etymology. The believers proceed in their religious growing from the hic et nunc situations to the inner knowledge of the divine wisdom and Logos. The rituals of Israel are apparent symbols for that. Here we observe a theological shift of paradigms which became central for the Early Church. Philo was forgotten in Rabbinic Judaism. Besides διαβατήρια, one should be aware that Philo also knows the other important etymology of Passover: πάσχω “to suffer”.65 What in second- and third-century Christianity would become an alternative (cf. Melito vs. Origen),66 stands in harmony here. Philo was a witness for a mere sacrificial understanding of the Passover liturgy. The slaughter took part not only

63 64

65 66

Acts 12 plays with paschal overtones, but does not mirror or reflect a supposed Christian Passover, cf. Leonhard, “Erzählung,” pp. 243–244. Cf. H. Buchinger, “Eine übersehene Etymologie des Pascha: Irenäus von Lyon und die Onomastica Sacra,” in ZAC 12 (2008): pp. 215–235, here p. 217; Buchinger, “Pascha”, p. 1036. Cf. also H. Buchinger, Pascha bei Origenes, Vols. 1–2 (Innsbruck—Vienna: Tyrolia, 2005). Cf. ibid., 216. Cf. ibid., 219.

54

bukovec

in Jerusalem but in the whole world where Jews lived. For the Alexandrian Jew, Passover was a feast at which every Israelite behaved as a priest because the commandment was revealed even before the institution of the tabernacle. Exactly here an important relic of the pre-Sinai period avoided the otherwise present monopoly of the Temple cult. Like all the Alexandrian theologians (cf. Aristeas), Philo appreciated Jerusalem and its sanctuary, but he recognised the tradition according to which Passover was (1) a sacrifice (2) outside the Temple cult, (3) where the distinctions between ministry and people were blurred and every household became a place for worship. Philo did not invent this motive. It was based on OT accounts as well as the Early Jewish literature which sometimes had really no connections with him. This motive reflected a productive contemporary concept. The Temple could be present in some way in congregations, could be a living edifice. Such different communities as Qumran67 and the Pauline churches (cf. 1Cor 3:16; Rom 8:9) proclaimed that,68 but unlike Philo

67

68

Cf. R.C.D. Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006), p. 97; O. Betz, “Der heilige Dienst in der Qumrangemeinde und bei den ersten Christen,” in O. Betz, Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie, II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990): pp. 3–20; T. Wardle, “Who is Sacrificing? Assessing the Early Christian Reticence to Transfer the Idea of the Priesthood to the Community,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C.A. Eberhart (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011): pp. 99–114; D.K. Falk, “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. FS M. Baillet, ed. D.K. Falk (Leiden: Brill, 2000): pp. 106–126, here p. 125; Knöppler, Sühne, p. 76; H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (Göttingen: V&R, 1980), pp. 16, 121; B. Nitzan, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Liturgy,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. J.R. Davila (Leiden: Brill, 2003): pp. 196–219, here p. 198; L.H. Schiffman, “Holiness and Sanctity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A Holy People: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity, eds. M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006): pp. 53–68, here pp. 54–55; L.H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, eds. B. Ego, A. Lange, P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999): pp. 267–284; M. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 38–49; Buchinger, “Pascha”, p. 1040. The difference between Qumran and Paul lies in the general question whether the Temple has any relevance anymore or not. The Essenes expected an eschatological Temple which will be not defiled like the existing one while in Christianity the sanctuary lost its legitimation after the salvific death of Christ. The Qumran community relates the concepts of Temple purity and atonement to the congregation itself; therefore, they spiritualised the Temple. That Passover is not treated explicitly in the Qumran scrolls, has to do with the localisation of the feast in Jerusalem—an aspect the congregation accepts, cf. Leonhard, “Erzählung,” p. 240. One has to consider that the Teacher of Righteousness was actually the

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

55

they did it because of a problematic relation to the Temple or the effectivity of its atonements. The thesis that Passover was not regarded as sacrifice in the first century, which frequently circulates today, has no evidence in the sources and should be rejected.69

Bibliography Aristobulus, ed. C.R. Holladay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). R.C.D. Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006). A. Assmann, J. Assmann, “Kanon und Zensur,” in Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, eds. A. Assmann, J. Assmann (Munich: Fink, 1987): pp. 7–27. J. Becker, “Das Herrenmahl im Urchristentum,” Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 53 (2002): pp. 3–11. K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981). O. Betz, “Der heilige Dienst in der Qumrangemeinde und bei den ersten Christen,” in O. Betz, Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie, II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990): pp. 3–20. B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder. The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley et al.: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984). P.F. Bradshaw, “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal,” in Liturgies East and West: Ecumenical Relevance of Early Liturgical Development, ed. H.-J. Feulner (Münster: LIT, 2013): pp. 47–59. H. Buchinger, “Eine übersehene Etymologie des Pascha: Irenäus von Lyon und die Onomastica Sacra,” in ZAC 12 (2008): pp. 215–235. H. Buchinger, “Pascha,” RAC 26: pp. 1033–1077.

69

high priest from the Zadoq family who was expelled by the Hasmonean Jonathan (152– 143/2) and who transformed a part of the Hasidean party into the Essenes after that, going another way than one of his predecessors, Onias III: he did not build another temple, but he conceptualised his group into a temple. Therefore, the spiritualisation of the cult is rooted in the necessity to follow the Torah regulations without a temple, cf. H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (PhD, Bonn: University of Bonn, 1971), pp. 206–245. I am alluding to the discussion about the origins of the Eucharist. Although it seems clear that the historical Last Supper was not a Passover meal, early Christianity—already in the NT, as the Synoptic accounts demonstrate—correlated it with the feast at which (or before which) Jesus was crucified. Some NT quotations (like 1Cor 5:7) suggest that Passover was regarded as a sacrifice. Considering the Early Jewish texts, the thesis that Passover was not sacrificial in the first century, cannot remain uncontradicted.

56

bukovec

H. Buchinger, Pascha bei Origenes, Vols. 1–2 (Innsbruck—Vienna: Tyrolia, 2005). P. Bukovec, “Woher stammt Tobit 13 in der syrischen Fassung? Eine Relecture der These Lebrams zur Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit” in JAJ 3 (2012): pp. 302–328. F.M. Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002). H. Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 1997). De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, ed. A. Méasson (Paris: Cerf, 1966). C. Dietzfelbinger, Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975). C.A. Eberhart, Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). M. Ebner, “Mahl und Gruppenidentität: Philos Schrift De Vita Contemplativa als Paradigma” in Herrenmahl und Gruppenidentität, ed. M. Ebner (Freiburg D: Herder, 2007): pp. 64–90. R. Eisler, “Das letzte Abendmahl,” in ZNW 24 (1925): pp. 161–192. D.K. Falk, “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. FS M. Baillet, ed. D.K. Falk (Leiden: Brill, 2000): pp. 106– 126. H. Feld, Das Verständnis des Abendmahls (Darmstadt: WBG, 1976). G. Fischer, D. Markl, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009). J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Vol. 2 (Zurich et al.: Benziger, 1999). L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). M. Hadas-Lebel, Philo of Alexandria: A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2012). F. Hahn, “Zum Stand der Erforschung des urchristlichen Herrenmahls,” in Exegetische Beiträge zum ökumenischen Gespräch: Gesammelte Aufsätze, I (Göttingen: V&R, 1986): pp. 242–252. J. Hartenstein, “Abendmahl und Pessach: Frühjüdische Pessach-Traditionen und die erzählerische Einbettung der Einsetzungsworte im Lukasevangelium,” in „Eine gewöhnliche und harmlose Speise“? Von den Entwicklungen frühchristlicher Abendmahlstraditionen, eds. J. Hartenstein, S. Petersen, A. Standhartiger (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008): pp. 180–199. E. Hilgert, “The Quaestiones: Texts and Translations,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D.M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991): pp. 1–15. B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000). J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen: V&R, 1960).

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

57

M. Karrer, “Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Herrenmahls nach 1Kor 11, 23b–25,” in BZ 34 (1990): pp. 198–221. O. Keel, “Erwägungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosaischen Pascha und zur Etymologie von ‫ֶפַסח‬,” in ZAW 84 (1972): pp. 414–434. H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982). T. Knöppler, Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001). J. Kügler, “Das Johannesevangelium” in Einleitung in das Neue Testament, eds. M. Ebner, S. Schreiber (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): pp. 208–228. K.G. Kuhn, “Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendmahls und sein Verhältnis zu den Gemeinschaftsmahlen der Sektenschrift,” in ET 10 (1950/1): pp. 508–527. C. Leonhard, “Die Erzählung Ex 12 als Festlegende für das Pesachfest am Jerusalemer Tempel” in JBT 18 (2003): pp. 233–260. C. Leonhard, “Die Pessachhaggada als Spiegel religiöser Konflikte,” in Kontinuität und Unterbrechung: Gottesdienst und Gebet in Judentum und Christentum, eds. A. Gerhards, S. Wahle (Paderborn et al.: Schöningh, 2005): pp. 143–171. C. Leonhard, B. Eckhardt, “Mahl V (Kultmahl)” in RAC 23: pp. 1013–1105. J. Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (Göttingen: V&R, 1980). H. Maccoby, “Paul and the Eucharist,” in NTS 37 (1991): pp. 247–267. R. Marcus, “An Armenian-Greek Index to Philo’s Quaestiones and De Vita Contemplativa,” in JAOS 53 (1933): pp. 251–282. N. Martola, “Eating the Passover Lamb in House-temples at Alexandria: Some Notes on Passover in Philo,” in Jewish Studies in a New Europe, eds. U. Haxen, H. TrautnerKromann, K.L. Goldschmidt Salamon (Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, 1998): pp. 521–531. A. McGowan, “Rethinking Eucharistic Origins,” in Pacifica 23 (2010); pp. 173–191. G. Muradyan, “The Armenian Version of Philo Alexandrinus: Translation Technique, Biblical Citations,” in Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, eds. S. Mancini Lombardi—P. Pontani (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2011): pp. 51–85. M.R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). M.R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). B. Nitzan, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Liturgy,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. J.R. Davila (Leiden: Brill, 2003): pp. 196–219. M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (Göttingen—Zurich: V&R, 1988). S.J.K. Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).

58

bukovec

Philo: Questions and Answers on Exodus, ed. R. Marcus (Cambridge—London: Harvard University Press, 1961). B. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (New York et al.: Doubleday, 2011). K.-F. Pohlmann, 3. Esra-Buch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980). Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: fragmenta graeca, ed. F. Petit (Paris: Cerf, 1978). Qumran Cave 4, eds. H. Attridge et al., VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). S.C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993). J. Riaud, “Pâque et Sabbat dans les fragments I et V d’Aristobule,” in Le temps et les temps dans les littératures juives et chrétiens au tournant de notre ère, ed. C. Grappe (Leiden et al.: Brill, 2006): pp. 107–123. J. Scharbert, Exodus (Würzburg: Echter, 1989). L.H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, eds. B. Ego, A. Lange, P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999): pp. 267–284. L.H. Schiffman, “Holiness and Sanctity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A Holy People: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity, eds. M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006): pp. 53–68. C. Schlund, “Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Rahmen der Pesach-Tradition,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, eds. J. Frey, J. Schröter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012): pp. 397–411. C. Schlund, “Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden”: Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfestes in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005). A.M. Schwemer, “Das Problem der Mahlgemeinschaft mit dem Auferstandenen,” in: Le Repas de Dieu, ed. C. Grappe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004): pp. 187–226. J.S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C.A. Eberhart (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011): pp. 65–82. H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (PhD, Bonn: University of Bonn, 1971). G. Stemberger, “Pesachhaggada und Abendmahlsberichte des Neuen Testaments,” Kairos 29 (1987): pp. 147–158. A. Stöger, “Die Eucharistiefeier des Neuen Testaments,” in Eucharistiefeiern in der Christenheit, ed. T. Bogler (Maria Laach: Ars Liturgica, 1960). J. Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Biblica 70 (1989): pp. 74–95.

the armenian philo on the feast of passover

59

G. Theißen, “Ritualdynamik und Tabuverletzung im urchristlichen Abendmahl,” in Ritualdynamik: Kulturübergreifende Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte rituellen Handelns, eds. D. Harth, G.J. Schenk (Heidelberg: Synchron-Verlag, 2004): pp. 278–280. G. Theißen, “Sakralmahl und sakramentales Geschehen: Abstufungen in der Ritualdynamik des Abendmahls,” in Herrenmahl und Gruppenidentität, ed. M. Ebner (Freiburg D: Herder, 2007): pp. 166–186. M. Theobald, “Das Herrenmahl im Neuen Testament,” in ThQ 183 (2003): pp. 257–280. H. Utzschneider, W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013). M. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). T. Wardle, “Who is Sacrificing? Assessing the Early Christian Reticence to Transfer the Idea of the Priesthood to the Community,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C.A. Eberhart (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011): pp. 99–114. H.A.J. Wegman, “Généalogie hypothétique de la prière eucharistique,” in Questions liturgiques et pastorales 61 (1980): pp. 263–278. L. Wehr, “Die Bedeutung der Einsetzungsworte für das neutestamentliche Eucharistieverständnis,” in Die Anaphora von Addai und Mari: Studien zu Eucharistie und Einsetzungsworten, ed. U.M. Lang (Bonn: Nova & Vetera, 2007): pp. 15–30. P. Wick, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen- und Hausfrömmigkeit (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2002).

chapter 6

Jesus and the Alphabet in the Caucasus: a View of the Relationship of the Georgian Infancy Gospel of Thomas to Armenian Infancy Gospel Traditions via Cross-Cultural Intersections with the Syriac, Greek, and Ethiopic Evidence Cornelia B. Horn

Introduction The apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas (hereafter abbreviated as IGT) can trace its origins back to the second century. Although it has enjoyed wide circulation in many ancient and medieval Western and Oriental Christian languages, extant evidence for its direct transmission in the wider Caucasus region is limited to a single manuscript copy of the text in ancient Georgian. Manuscript A-95, the so-called Parkhali mravaltavi, which is kept at the National Center for Manuscripts in Tbilisi, Georgia, has its origins in the medieval Georgian Kingdom of Tao-Klarjeti, a region that is now mostly part of north-eastern Turkey.1 The text of the Georgian IGT, which carries the title სიყრმჱ უ(ფ)ლისა ჩ(უე)ნისა ი(ეს)უ ქ(რისტ)ჱსი siq̣ rmĕ u(p)lisa č(ue)nisa i(es)u k(risṭ)ēsi (“The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ”), is to be found almost at the very end of the manuscript, on folios 651vb–653vb; the complete manuscript comprises a total of 655 folios.2 The text is written in nuskhuri script

1 W. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet‘i, and Šavšet‘i (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie: Veröffentlichungen des Kunstgeschichtlichen Instituts der Johannes-Gutenberg Universität 17; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992) serves as a useful guide that integrates discussions of the manuscripts produced at individual ecclesiastical and monastic sites with its presentation of the archaeological and art historical evidence. On the Monastery of Parkhali, the activities of the calligrapher Gabriel Patara at the site, and the Parkhali mravaltavi, see Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 178–190. 2 See ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა ყოფილი საეკლესიო მუზეუმის (A) კოლექციისა, I1, რედ. თ. ბრეგაძე, მ. ქავთარია, ლ. ქუთათელაძე, ელ. მეტრეველი (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1973) [Description of Georgian manuscripts of the collection (A) of the former Church Museum, I1, eds. T. Bregadze, M. Kavtaria, L. Kutateladze, El. Metreveli (Tbi-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_008

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

61

and is presented in two columns per manuscript page.3 The hand that copied the text has been dated to between the tenth and early twelfth centuries, with a reasonable likelihood that the copying was executed around the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.4 Careful consideration of the specifics of language and vocabulary choices in the Georgian IGT suggest that at least some passages of the translation date to a relatively early period in the development of the Georgian language. Gérard Garitte, for instance, has noted the congruence between occurrences of the archaic adverb მუნქუესვე munkuesve, “immediately,” in chapters 3 and 4 and a characteristic usage of მუნქუესვე in the Georgian New Testament. In gospel texts, the usage of this adverb is limited to the Adysh Gospel, which dates to 897C.E.,5 was produced at the Shatberdi Monastery in the region of Klarjeti, and displays Armenianizing features.6 Garitte also observed a parallel between

3 4

5

6

lisi: Metsniereba, 1973)], pp. 361–393, here pp. 361, 391. Earlier catalogues for the manuscript referenced the location of the Georgian IGT as occurring on 568v–572v. See Ѳ. Жорданія, Описаніе рукописей Тифлисскаго Церковнаго Музея Карталино-Кахетинскаго духовенства, книга I (Тифлисъ: Типографія “Гутенбергъ,” 1903), книга II (Тифлисъ: Типографія “Гутенбергъ,” 1902) [Th. Zhordania, Description of manuscripts of the Tiflis Church Museum of Kartli-Kakhetian Clergymen, Book 1 (Tbilisi: Printing House “Gutenberg,” 1903) and Book 2 (Tbilisi: Printing House “Gutenberg,” 1902)], here Book 1, pp. 96–114, esp. p. 105. Decorative initials, on the other hand, are executed in asomtavruli script. For a fuller discussion of the manuscript evidence, see G. Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien de l’ « Évangile de Thomas »,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 51 (1956): pp. 513–520, here pp. 514– 515; Description of Georgian Manuscripts I1, pp. 361–393; and C. Horn and R. Phenix, “The Georgian Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas: Edition of the Text and English Translation,” in preparation. Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” p. 517, fn. 4; B. Outtier, “Essai de répertoire des manuscrits des vieilles versions géorgiennes du Nouveau Testament,” Langues Orientales Anciennes. Philologie et Linguistique 1 (1988): pp. 173–179, here p. 174, no. 2; and J.W. Childers, “The Georgian Version of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition, eds. B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2013): pp. 293–327, here pp. 299–305. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, p. 42; and Childers, “The Georgian Version of the New Testament,” p. 303. Studies by Joseph Molitor, Arthur Vööbus, and Gérard Garitte have suggested that the Georgian translation of several books of the Bible, including both Old and New Testament books, took as basis an older Armenian Vorlage, which in turn featured a strong influence of the Biblical text in Syriac. See for instance J. Molitor, “Zur armenischen Vorlage der altgeorgischen Version des 1. Johannesbriefes,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ [Monthly Review] 75 (1961): pp. 415–424; J. Molitor, “Die Bedeutung der altgeorgischen Bibel für die neutestamentliche Textkritik,” Biblische Zeitschrift n.F. 4 (1960): pp. 39–53; A. Vööbus, Zur Geschichte des altgeorgischen Evangelientextes, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 4 (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1953); and G. Garitte, L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits de Sinaï (Bibliothèque du Muséon 38; Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1955), pp. 18–20.

62

horn

the usage of the adverb მუნქუესვე directly in tandem with the synonymous მეყსეულად meq̣ seulad in the Georgian IGT, chapter 4:1, and the same double usage of these adverbs in the Georgian translation of the Acts of the Apostles that is in evidence in Georgian Sinai MSS 31 and 39, dated to 977 and 974 C.E. respectively.7 These pieces of evidence connect the linguistic features of the extant form of the Georgian IGT with the Tao-Klarjeti region and perhaps the Georgian presence on Sinai which in turn dates the translation to no later than the tenth century.8 The text of the Georgian IGT has seen three diplomatic and critical editions thus far, all based on the evidence of MS A-95. The two earliest editions appear to have been established independently of one another. At some time between 1917 and 1920, Levon Melikset-Bek printed the Georgian text, accompanied by a Russian translation and a brief introduction.9 In 1918, Korneli Kekelidze offered an edition of the ancient Georgian text as part of the first volume of his collection of saints’ lives for the first five months of the year.10 A little more than two decades later, as a result of the work of a graduate seminar in ancient Georgian literature on the topic of apocryphal texts, Akaki Shanidze published a critical edition of the manuscript text, accompanied by an introduction that focused on linguistic and philological questions. He also offered a critical apparatus, which provided numerous improvements of the readings beyond the work of his two predecessors in the task.11 7

8

9

10

11

Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” p. 517, fn. 4. See Garitte, L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres, p. 68 (at Acts 9:35a): და მუნქუესვე მეყსეულად აღდგა და აღემართა. Н. Марръ, “О фрагментѣ грузинской версій «Дѣтства Христа» (къ критикѣ грузинскаго текста)”, Христіанскій Востокъ 6 (1917–1920) [N. Marr, “On the fragment of the Georgian version of the ‘Infancy of Christ’,” Christian Orient 6 (1917–1920)], printed as 6.3 (1922): pp. 343–347, here pp. 343, 345, suggests that some linguistic elements of the language used in the Georgian IGT could point to the Mtskheta region or to Armenian influence. Л. Меликсет-Бекъ, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи «Дѣтства Христа»”, Христіанскій Востокъ 6 (1917–1920) [L. Melikset-Bek, “A fragment of the Georgian version of the ‘Infancy of Christ’,” Christian Orient 6 (1917–1920)], printed as 6.3 (1922): pp. 315–320. კ. კეკელიძე, ქართული ჰაგიოგრაფიული ძეგლები, ნაწილი პირველი: კიმენი, ტ. I, იანვრის, თებერვლის, მარტის, აპრილის და მაისის თვეთა ტექსტები (თბილისი, 1918) [K. Kekelidze, Georgian Hagiographical Monuments, First part: Keimena, Vol. 1, Texts for the months of January, February, March, April, and May (Tbilisi: Georgian Academy of Sciences, 1918)], pp. 115–117. See also Paul Peeters’ review in AnBoll 43 (1925): pp. 379–383, here p. 382. ა. შანიძე, „თომას სახარების აპოკრიფის ქართული ვერსიის ნეწყვეტი და მისი გაუგებარი ადგილები“, in სტალინის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის შრომები 18 (1941) [A. Shanidze, “The Fragment of the Georgian Ver-

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

63

The present study examines the episode of Jesus’ discussing the shape of the first letter of the alphabet in chapter six of the Georgian IGT in the light of published evidence that witnesses to this passage’s rendition in the Syriac tradition, the Ethiopic version that is available as part of the apocryphal Ethiopic Miracles of Jesus, the Greek recensions of the IGT, and the reworking of the IGT in the Armenian Infancy Gospel.12 Other scholars have already compared the traditions in the various vernaculars of the IGT with one another.13 Their work has included efforts to identify the relationship of the Georgian IGT to the Syriac tradition. Akaki Shanidze and Gérard Garitte have to be mentioned here explicitly for their systematic, even if only initial efforts in this respect.14 Yet research on different versions of the IGT has advanced substantially over the course of the last two decades. Garitte, for example, commented that chapter 2:5 of the Georgian IGT relates to the Syriac tradition, which for him was represented by Syriac MS W (BL Add. 14,484, sixth century), against the remainder of the versions.15 Since Garitte’s study of the Georgian text, additional material has become more easily accessible, in particular witnesses to the early Syriac tradition in the form of Syriac MS G (fifth to sixth century; Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen Syriac MS 10)16 and the earliest extant Greek recension Gs (eleventh

12

13

14 15

16

sion of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and Its Incomprehensible Passages”, in Works of the Stalin Tbilisi State University 18 (1941)]: pp. 29–40. In order to facilitate the comparison of individual paragraphs and subsections of the Georgian IGT with respective subsections of the IGT in other language versions, this study follows the system of divisions and numbering of the text that is found in T. Burke, De infantia Iesu Evangelium Thomae Graece (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum 17; Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). References to the respective editions of the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian texts will be offered below in due course. See for instance S. Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems,” Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): pp. 46–80; S. Voicu, “Verso il testo primitivo dei Παιδικὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ «Racconti del’infanzia del Signore Gesù»,” Apocrypha (1998): pp. 7–95, here pp. 60–94; and most recently Burke, De infantia Iesu, whose footnotes to the Greek text consider material from the different versions as well. Shanidze, “The Fragment,” pp. 34–35; and Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” p. 516 with fn. 3, p. 517 with fns. 2–3, p. 518 with fns. 2–5 and 7, and p. 519 with fns. 1 and 6. Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” p. 517, fn. 2. The evidence from Syriac MS W (BM Add. 14,484, fols. 12v–16r, sixth century) has been published in W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, collected and edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, with an English translation and notes (London: Williams and Norgate, 1865), pp. 熏‫–ܝ‬焏‫( ܝ‬Syriac) and pp. 6–11 (English). The text contained in Syriac MS G (Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen Syriac MS 10, fols. 1v– 4v, fifth to sixth century) has not yet been published. However, a collation of the evidence is available in W. Baars and J. Helderman, “Neue Materialien zum Text und zur Interpretation des Kindheitsevangeliums des Pseudo-Thomas,” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993): pp. 191–226 and 78 (1994): pp. 1–32, here vol. 77, pp. 194–197.

64

horn

century; Jerusalem MS Sabaticus 259 [= H]).17 From this new evidence it is obvious that the relationship Garitte posited is in fact not an exclusive one. Both Syriac MS G and Greek recension Gs witness to the same tradition as the Georgian IGT in chapter 2:5. In a study that attempts to identify the origins of the IGT, Sever Voicu argued among other points that since chapter 6:3 of the Georgian IGT refers to the last letter of the alphabet as “omega,” the last letter of the Greek alphabet, and not as “tau,” the final letter of the Syriac alphabet attested also in the early Syriac recensions of the IGT, therefore the Georgian IGT could not derive from a Syriac model, and by implication the Georgian IGT could not serve as evidence for the existence of an hypothetical Armenian IGT, which, it is presumed, would have been translated from a Syriac Vorlage of the IGT.18 The evidence that arises in part from the present article’s comparison of portions of chapter six of the Georgian IGT with the direct tradition in Syriac, and in a more complete way from a full comparison of the Georgian IGT with the evidence of the Syriac and other versions, shows that such a comprehensive assessment based on a single piece of data, no matter how intriguing, is not tenable. It has indeed become necessary to reassess the relationship of the Georgian IGT to other versions. Through such an approach one may contribute towards reevaluating the place of this influential and intriguing apocryphal work in the Christian literature of the Caucasus.19

17

18 19

Editions of recension Gs, represented by MS H, ff. 66r–72r, are available, among others, in R. Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009), pp. 219–242; and Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 302–337. Manuscript Sabaiticus 259 (MS H), dated 1089/1090 C.E., which is the sole complete, if not in fact the only clearly identifiable witness to Greek recension Gs, is the oldest manuscript evidence for any of the Greek recensions. J. Noret, “Pour une édition de l’Évangile de l’ Enfance selon Thomas,” AnBoll 90.3–4 (1972): p. 412, published a brief note, in which he alluded to his important discovery of Jerusalem MS Sabaiticus Gr 259 (MS H). See also the comments in S. Voicu, “Notes sur l’ histoire du texte de l’Histoire de l’enfance de Jésus,” Apocrypha 2 (1991): pp. 119–132, here p. 120. Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 129–131, suggests that the now lost fragmentary text of the IGT that once comprised ff. 180r–187v of Vienna MS Austrian National Library Philos. Gr. 162 (olim 144) (dated to before 1455) may be related to the Greek recension Gs. I am grateful to Marijana Vuković for discussing this material with me. Voicu, “Verso il testo primitivo,” p. 18. The full comparison of the Georgian IGT with the evidence of the versions that have been published thus far will be published in due course.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

65

Establishing the Literary and Historical Context Medieval Armenian historiography recorded that the sixth century was the date at which an extra-biblical writing on Jesus’ infancy was translated from Syriac into Armenian. The historian Samuel of Ani in the twelfth century, followed by Kirakos of Gandzak and Mkhit‘ar of Ani in the thirteenth century, reported from one or several sources that missionaries of the Church of the East had come to Armenia from Syria in ca. 590 CE and had brought along several apocryphal texts. One of these writings carried the title the “Infancy of the Lord (Մանկութիւն Տեառն mankut‘iwn teaṙn).”20 The missionaries in question translated these apocryphal works, including the text on Jesus’ childhood, from Syriac into Armenian, either already in their Syrian homelands, while preparing for their missionary journeys, or perhaps more likely on site in Armenia itself. The date of this translation activity is confirmed indirectly given that several authors, reaching back to the seventh-century writer Ananias of Shirak and the ninth-century exegete Hamam Arewelts‘i (‘the Easterner’), used an apocryphal infancy-of-Jesus text in their own works.21 The Armenian Infancy Gospel (= ArmIG), which is available today, is not identical with what would have been an Armenian translation of the IGT.22 Rather, it is a substantial, com-

20

21

22

According to Kirakos of Gandzak, the missionaries of the Church of the East came to Armenia in 588. Other apocryphal books which they translated into Armenian included the Vision of Paul and the Repentance of Adam. See Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմություն հայոց: Տեքստը պատրաստեց եւ առաջաբանը գրեց Կ. Ա. ՄելիքՕհանջանյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ., 1961) [Kirakos Gandzaketsi, History of the Armenians, ed. K.A. Melik‘-Ōhanjanyan (Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of ArmSSR, 1961)], p. 51; Kirakos Gandzakets’i’s History of the Armenians, transl. R. Bedrosian (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986), p. 45, and A. Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. xix. See F.C. Conybeare, “The Discourse of Ananias, Called the Counter upon the Epiphany of our Lord and Saviour,” Expositor V 4 (1896): pp. 321–337, here p. 333; for the Armenian text, see Անանիա Շիրակացու մատենագրությունը, Ուսումնասիրություն Ա.Գ. Աբրահամյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ Մատենադարանի հրատ., 1944) [The Writings of Ananias of Shirak, ed. A.G. Abrahamyan (Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1944)], p. 289. For comments on Ananias of Shirak’s and Hamam Arewelts‘i’s familiarity with the ArmIG, see Terian, Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, p. xix, with n. 3, 29, and p. 111. Editions of two recensions of the Armenian text of the ArmIG are available in Անկա նոն գիրք Նոր Կտակարանաց, կազմող Ե. Տայեցի (Վենետիկ: Ա. հ, 1898) [Noncanonical Books of the New Testament, ed. Y. Tayetsi (Venice: A. h., 1898)], pp. 1–126 and pp. 127–235. P. Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes II: L’Évangile de l’enfance. Rédactions syriaques, arabe et arméniennes traduites et annotées (Textes et documents pour l’étude historique du christianisme 18; Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914), pp. 69–286, provided a French

66

horn

plete Life of Jesus with an overwhelmingly strong emphasis on his infancy and youth. Nevertheless, both the ArmIG and the hypothetical Armenian IGT, that may have been one of the Vorlagen of the ArmIG, have their ultimate roots in a sixth-century translation of an earlier Syriac text. Thus, the Armenian infancyof-Jesus tradition that can be grasped in the ArmIG has a place in the network of oriental Christian apocryphal texts that have their origins in infancy traditions about Jesus that reach back into the Syriac/Aramaic realm.23 In addition, the reception of the IGT into the Armenian realm seems to have been via traditions in Syriac. The present article suggests that the Georgian IGT serves as evidence in support of the thesis that the Syriac signal for the transmission of apocryphal infancy-of-Jesus material into the Caucasus is stronger than the tradition of the Greek textual witnesses. In support of this argument, the following discussion closely examines the relationship of chapter six of the Georgian IGT to the evidence of versions in other languages.

Traces of Intersections of the Georgian Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas, Chapter Six, with Other Versions When one compares chapter 6:1–2 in the Georgian IGT to the different versions, the parallels of chapter 6:1 and the early portion of chapter 6:2 are strongest to Syriac MS W. Syriac MS G omits the material up to chapter 6:2.24 Chapter 6:1

23 24

translation. Most recently, Terian, Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, has offered a translation of one of the three recensions of the longer version into English. The main manuscript for this text is Matenadaran Ms 7574. Recently, a selection of themes and episodes in the ArmIG have aroused the interest of scholars. See for instance C. Horn, “Jesus at School among Christians, Jews, and Muslims,” in Forbidden Texts on the Western Frontier. The Christian Apocrypha in North American Perspectives, ed. Tony Burke (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015): pp. 111–131; I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “The Cave of the Nativity Revisited: Memory of the Primæval Beings in the Armenian Lord’s Infancy and Cognate Sources,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, eds. A. Mardirossian, A. Ouzounian, C. Zuckerman (Travaux et Mémoires 18; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014): pp. 285–334; I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “Rückkehr zur Geburtsgrotte. Eine Untersuchung des armenischen Berichts über die Kindheit des Herrn,” Theologie der Gegenwart 56.1 (2013): pp. 30–43; and I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “La transmission de l’ apocryphe de l’Enfance de Jésus en Arménie,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen; Beiträge zur ausserkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, eds. J. Frey and J. Schröter (WUNT 254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010): pp. 557–582. For this presentation of the origins of the ArmIG, see also Horn, “Jesus at School,” pp. 114– 115. Whether this is due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscript evidence or a peculiarity of the tradition transmitted in Syriac MS G remains to be settled.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

67

of the Georgian IGT assigns to the teacher, who requests to become the child Jesus’ instructor, the name Zake (ზაქე), which reflects the Syriac Zakkai (營‫)ܙܟ‬. The fifth- to seventh-century palimpsest fragments of the Old Latin version of the IGT do not contain the teacher’s name in the present passage, but elsewhere have the name Zaccias.25 When rendering Ζακχαῖος, “Zacchaeus,” from Greek into Georgian, e.g. in the Adysh Gospel at Luke 19:5, Georgian likewise transcribes the name as Zake (ზაქე or ზაქეე).26 Thus, the congruence of names between the Georgian and Syriac is not sufficient evidence for a Syriac Vorlage. In both the Syriac and Georgian, Zake characterizes Jesus as a “bad child” (焏‫ ܒܝܫ‬焏‫ ܛܠܝ‬ṭalyā bīšā [Syriac MS W]),27 as a “stubborn child” (焏‫ ܩܫܝ‬焏‫ܛܠܝ‬ ṭalyā qašyā [Syriac MSS P and M]),28 or as “a child such as this, strict and shameless” (ეგევითარისა მაგის ყრმისა, ფიცხლისა და ურიდისაჲ, egevitarisa magis q̣ rmisa, picxlisa da uridisaj [Georgian MS A95]).29 Neither the Ethiopic nor the Greek provide this negative characterization. To be sure, the negative characterization in the Syriac occurs in the words which Zakkai addresses to the child Jesus, whereas in the Georgian it is to be found in the words Zake speaks to Joseph. Yet the Georgian IGT may still witness here to contact with an expanded tradition of characterizing the child negatively that has its origins in the Syriac realm, or in a milieu, to which the Syriac evidence bears witness. When Joseph first responds to Zake’s suggestion to hand Jesus over to him for instruction, he warns Zake not to misjudge the child: “may you not have considered him [to be] of some small order მცირისა რაჲს ჯერისაჲ mcirisa rajs ǯerisaj.” The last phrase rendered more literally is “small of such order.”

25

26

27 28

29

For the edition of the palimpsest fragments of the Old Latin IGT, see G. Philippart, “Fragments palimpsests latins du Vindobonensis 563 (Ve siècle?). Évangile selon S. Matthieu, Évangile de l’ Enfance selon Thomas, Évangile de Nicodème,” AnBoll 90.3–4 (1972): pp. 391– 411, here p. 408. See the edition with Latin translation La version géorgienne ancienne de l’Évangile de Luc: d’ après les évangiles d’Adich avec les variantes des évangiles d’Opiza et de Tbet‘, ed. M. Brière (Patrologia Orientalis 27.3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1955): pp. 276–448, here p. 411. See Wright, Contributions, p. 焯‫ܝ‬, line 23. T. Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas from an Unpublished Syriac Manuscript: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes,”Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 16.2 (2013): pp. 225– 299, published the Syriac text of MS P. In the footnotes to this edition, Burke also collated the readings found in Syriac MS M (MS Mingana Syriac 105). See here Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 275, l. 1. See Shanidze, “The Fragment,” p. 37, l. 46; and Kekelidze, Georgian Hagiographical Monuments, p. 116, ll. 11–12.

68

horn

One could consider whether this formulation is related to the reading μικρότερου (“insignificant”) that is attested in Greek recension Ga, which only in one instance (Greek MS W) offers text for Joseph’s formulation here.30 Yet the reading of the Georgian IGT also is quite close to the well-known Semiticism of the form: adjective—of—noun, and here may be translated as “young,” “inexperienced,” “naïve,” etc. Furthermore, one may reconstruct from the Georgian a Syriac formulation ‫ܐ‬狏‫ܡ‬熏‫ܪܐ ܕܩ‬熏‫ ܙܥ‬zəʿurā dəqawmtā, “little of stature,” using qawmtā from Peshitta Luke 2:25, “Jesus was growing in stature and wisdom.”31 If that is the Vorlage, then the Georgian translator could have mistaken the Syriac demonstrative ‫ܕ‬, here expressing a genitive relationship for the relative pronoun. Such Semitic expressions are often idiomatic: e.g. Old Babylonian Akkadian rapaš uznim “long of ear,” means “wise.” What the Georgian translates as “small of order” or “small of stature” expresses the idea of “easy (to make obedient).” Georgian ჯერი (ⴟ ⴄ ⴐ ⴈ in the nuskhuri script of the manuscript) means inter alia “row,” “sequence,” “thing,” or “order.” Close in spelling is the word ჯუარი ǯuari (ⴟⴓⴀⴐⴈ in nuskhuri script) “cross.” It cannot be ruled out that the Georgian translator rendered Syriac 焏‫ ܨܠܝܒ‬ṣəlībā “cross,” which is attested throughout the Syriac traditions, as Georgian ჯუარი, and that a later copyist changed the word to ჯერი. The Ethiopic, Syriac, only one of the Greek recensions (Gd), and parts of the Slavonic comment on Joseph’s part involving a cross, either “a small cross”32 or, in the Ethiopic, “a great cross.”33 Shanidze and Garitte following him have suggested emending 30 31 32

33

Burke, De infantia Iesu, p. 353. I am grateful to Robert Phenix for discussing this Semiticism with me and for suggesting Luke 2:25 as a possible Vorlage here. For the Syriac tradition, see Wright, Contributions, p. 焿‫ ;ܝ‬Baars and Helderman, “Neue Materialien,” vol. 77, p. 195; and Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 275. For the Greek recension Gd, see Burke, De infantia Iesu, p. 409. For some of the evidence of the Slavonic tradition, see Th. Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 39 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997), p. 55, ll. 11–12 and footnotes; and A. de Santos Otero, Das kirchenslavische Evangelium des Thomas (Patristische Texte und Studien 6; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), pp. 70–71. Wondering to what the “small cross” may have referred, Stephen Gerö asked whether this expression could have had “a relation to depictions of the child Jesus, as on the triumphal arch in Santa Maria Maggiore with a nimbus into which a tiny cross is inserted.” See Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 69, fn. 2. For an edition and French translation of the Ethiopic IGT, see Les miracles de Jésus (Miracles I à X), ed. and tr. S. Grébaut (Patrologia Orientalis 12.4; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1919): pp. 555–652, here pp. 625–641 (for the relevant text of the Ethiopic IGT) and especially p. 630, ll. 2–3. Grébaut’s edition is based on five of the twenty-five manuscripts of which Grébaut had knowledge at the time. The numbering of individual scenes in his publication is different from the one followed in the present study, as the manuscripts show consider-

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

69

ჯერისაჲ to ჯუარისაჲ. This reasonable emendation may not be necessary.

Although Greek recension Gb does not witness to this passage, Greek recension Ga, noted above, is ambiguous here. Some manuscripts do not offer text for this passage, while one provides a text, which its most recent editor has changed to read “small cross.”34 Yet it is more likely that the reading of the manuscript itself, which does not contain the reference to the “cross,” ought to be retained. In that case, Ga would join Greek Gs and the Georgian in providing the only instances of a formulation of Joseph’s comment that does not refer to a cross. Gs has Joseph say, “Do not consider him to have the worth of a small man, brother.” The Georgian, together with Greek Ga (MS W) and Gs, may in this instance witness to an alternative reading within the tradition. Moreover, the fact that the Ethiopic speaks of a “great cross” instead of a small one demonstrates that this passage was corrupted early in the transmission history, leading to a greater variety of interpretations. The introductory phrase to Jesus’ words to the teacher and to Joseph in chapter 6:2b of the Georgian IGT comes closest to the Ethiopic, differing in that the Ethiopic, along with the Syriac and with Greek recension Gs, refers to names or designations of the roles of individuals.35 The Georgian IGT offers that the child Jesus suggests to the teacher that the teacher might think that the child is the father. It then also has Jesus refer to himself as the son, and does not simply have him employ the personal pronoun of the first person singular, as is the case in the early Syriac tradition (MSS W and G). These details are unique to the Georgian and it may be that the Georgian translator was working with Trinitarian-influenced language more intentionally than other IGT traditions. With the early versions (Syriac and Ethiopic), but against the Greek, chapter 6:2b of the Georgian has the child Jesus speak of an aforementioned cross. Some Greek recensions offer such a reference to a cross neither earlier at 6:2a nor here. The reference to the cross in both contexts is established firmly in the early Syriac version (MSS W and G) in a form which is closer to the Georgian than the Ethiopic is. The Georgian refers to the cross in the second instance, but is at some variance in the first instance, indicating that the Georgian relates to the early Syriac tradition, but may have been adjusted with regard to this motif through some interaction with that line of the Greek recension (Gs)

34 35

able variation in their number and numbering of the episodes in the Miracles of Jesus. A critical edition of the Ethiopic IGT is the goal of preparatory work by Cornelia Horn and Robert Phenix. Burke, De infantia Iesu, p. 353, ll. 13–14. Against Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 274, fn. 54.

70

horn

which appears to have emerged from or circulated in a milieu, possibly that of Palestine, in which Greek and Syriac influences intersected. The Georgian shares with the Ethiopic and Syriac Jesus’ foreshadowing of his crucifixion or elevation. Whereas the Ethiopic employs directly the vocabulary of crucifying,36 the Georgian reads, რ(ამეთუ) უმეტეს აღუმაღლდე r(ametu) umeṭes aɣumaɣlde “because I will be lifted up more,” corresponding closely to the Syriac, 狏‫ܝ‬焏‫ ܪܘܪܒ‬焏‫ ܐܢ‬狏‫ ܕܐܬܪܝܡ‬焏‫ ܕܡ‬dəmā d’etrīmet ’enā rawrbā’īt “for when I am greatly exalted.” The Georgian and Syriac refer either to the crucifixion, the resurrection, or the ascension. Next, in the Georgian Jesus asks the teacher, მითხარ-ღა ნიში იგი ნათესავისა მის შენისაჲ mitxar-ɣa niši igi natesavisa mis šenisaj “tell me the sign of your coming into being (or, ‘nation,’ ‘race’),” followed by a question about its origins and an assertion that Jesus knows this already. The reference to the ნიში იგი ნათესავისა “the sign of [your] nation” is a unique reading and it is not immediately clear what the context or referent of the quest for “the sign of your race” might be. Perhaps one is to understand Jesus as asking about a sign in the zodiac or another genethlialogical aspect. Or the text may attempt to relate this statement to Jesus’ words in John 2:18 about a sign that the Jews demand from him, in response to which Jesus is said to have pointed them, indirectly, to his death and resurrection. One might consider the comment that he “will be lifted up more,” which could be understood as a reference to the resurrection, as providing a context that motivates and situates the comment on the “sign of your nation.” It is noteworthy that the Georgian had offered a unique allusion to the story of Jonah with the reference to the wind of Jonah in 3:2. Whether the Georgian text’s usage of intertexts from the book of Jonah and potentially from the Gospel of John in 3:2 and 6:2b is the work of the Georgian translator or derives from a Vorlage remains an open question. Yet except for the reference to the “sign,” the Georgian’s prompting of the teacher at the hand of the child Jesus to speak about his origins or birth and the child’s assertion that he alone knows this information tie the Georgian clearly to the Ethiopic and Syriac, especially Syriac MS G. In its arrangement of individual statements uttered by witnesses who had listened to the child’s words, the Georgian corresponds to the Syriac and Ethiopic and differs from the arrangement in the Greek recensions. The latter place 36

Grébaut, Les miracles de Jésus, p. 630, ll. 2–3: እስመ ፡ ዐቢይ ፡ መስቀል ፡ ይደልዎ ፡ ለዝ ፡ ሕፃን ፨ “for a large cross is fitting for this child”; and p. 630, ll. 7–9: ወአልቦ ፡ ባዕድ ፡ ዘርእዮ ፡ ለእርአያ ፡ መስቀል ፡ ዘመሐልኩ ፡ እጹር [Grébaut: እፁር] ፨ ዘዚአየ ፡ ውእቱዝ ፡ ከመ ፡ አነ ፡ ተሰቂልየ. “No one else has seen the likeness of the cross that I swore to carry, because this is my own, just as I at my crucifixion …”

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

71

up front the comment concerning the child being perhaps five years of age,37 whereas the former mention this detail later in the passage. However, the Georgian emphasizes Jesus’ precociousness at the end of 6:2c; the parallels to this detail are found only in Greek Gs, Ga, and Gd. In Georgian 6:2d, the child responds, telling the crowd that he knows more than they do. Indeed, a comment about something “more” that Jesus knows or has to say is found throughout the early versions. The Syriac does not state what that “more” might be. The Ethiopic has the child explain that he knows the additional information from the Father and that the Father knows him, reflecting content in Matt 11:27, Luke 10:22, and John 10:15. Greek Gs, Ga, and Gd have the child impress his audience by suggesting to them in various formulations that he has knowledge of the creation of the world, a comment that is informed by theological considerations and debates in connection with Arian ideas. The Georgian offers its unique formulation ad locum in the child’s further remark, ვიხილე მე და მესმა ჴმაჲ vixile me da mesma qmaj, “I saw and heard a voice.”38 The following paragraph states that the child’s audience also “heard the voice (ესმა ჴ(მა)ჲ esma q(ma)j)” and that as a consequence their mouths were shut and they could no longer speak. The Syriac—here only MS W—, the Ethiopic, Greek Gs, and the Georgian seem to bear common witness to an original reading of 6:2d–e, in which the child announced that he had more to say and in which in a reaction to that “more” the audience was said to be both silent and unable to speak. While the Ethiopic and Greek Gs, Ga, and Gd fill that “more” with biblical or theologically motivated content, the Georgian follows a more theatrical path and introduces into the scene a “voice,” that Jesus “saw” and which both sides heard. In this theological formulation, the voice could be thought of as God’s voice, or as a reference to the Logos, especially given that the child stated that he both saw and heard a voice. Further research may be able to situate this significant passage in its different variants more precisely in the context of theological discussions in the fourth century. For now it remains unclear, whether the lack of any attempt on the part of the Syriac tradition to fill the “more” of the child’s statement with content suffices as an indication that the Syriac version here is a witness to the original text or rather that it is the result of a loss of data in transmission. The description of the audience’s strong reaction seems to require an original version with some context so that such a strong reaction was necessary or justified. The mere fact that the child himself had been speaking beforehand in 6:2d and was repeating now what he had 37 38

Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 488–489. Shanidze, “The Fragment,” p. 38, l. 72; and Kekelidze, Georgian Hagiographical Monuments, p. 116, ll. 37–117, l. 1.

72

horn

already said before is an insufficient explanation for such a reaction. Thus, it is plausible that the Georgian could preserve here a literary construction of the text that makes sense within the sequence of the story as well as in a theological context that is not (yet) under the influence of fourth-century theological debates.39 Georgian 6:2e renders Jesus’ ridiculing criticism of his audience by emphasizing the teacher’s, and with this, the Jews’ overemphasis on observing the Law. Whereas the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Greek have Jesus criticize his audience for being of small or little knowledge or intelligence, the Georgian reformulates this comment as a criticism of the teacher and other Jews as being “too lawabiding” or “very law-observing” (უშჯულო ušǯulo). Within the narrative, this unique formulation of the Georgian text connects back logically to chapter 6:2b where the child comments on the teacher’s reliance upon the Law. The interpretation of the Georgian text here may be an innovation or a reflection of a reliance on an earlier, no-longer-extant Vorlage. Georgian 6:2 f. mentions that the child speaks to those who listen to him in a very mild manner, in accord with most Syriac witnesses and Greek Gs, Ga, and Gd, which state that the audience was comforted. Yet Syriac MS W and the Ethiopic do not remark on the circumstances of the scene. In its introduction to the teacher’s words to Joseph, the Georgian does not refer to Joseph as Jesus’ father, in accord with Syriac MS W, but against the remainder of the recensions and traditions. In its description of the teacher’s efforts to instruct the child, the Georgian does not state explicitly that the teacher instructed the child in all of the letters of the alphabet. Yet its formulation that the teacher was instructing the child in “writing many times” and that he “began to teach it from alpha once more” suggests to the reader that all the letters of the alphabet were involved in these multiple efforts. The Ethiopic IGT is much shorter, stating only the teacher’s command to the child to say “alpha.” The Greek recensions state that the teacher repeated the alpha many times, but they do not refer to any other letters. The Syriac recensions articulate clearly that the teacher went through the whole alphabet. Thus, the proximity between the Syriac and the Georgian traditions has greater similarity than either one has to the Greek or any other version. The teacher’s violent reaction to the child’s persistent silence in the Georgian is given as სცა ჴელითა თავსა მისსა sca qelita tavsa missa “he struck his head with [his] hands.” The same formulation is found throughout the Syr-

39

On the basis of the critical edition, which is in progress, perhaps one could say something similar concerning the text offered in Ethiopic IGT.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

73

iac tradition, whereas the Greek and Ethiopic do not include the phrase “with [his] hands.” Just prior to this, the Georgian describes the teacher coaxing the child and leading him to school, stating, თავსა ჴელსა უსჳმიდა tavsa qelsa usymida “[he] stroked [his] head with [his] hand.” While the verb უსჳმიდა usymida “stroked” already renders the idea of petting or cajoling, the expansion with “head” and “hand” is noteworthy for stylistic and literary reasons. The expansion in question refines the text of this paragraph stylistically by first presenting the teacher placing his hand upon the child’s head in a friendly and inviting way, and later on using the references to the same body parts in order to express the teacher’s aggression. No other version conveys this perspective. The attention that the Georgian pays to these body parts may originate in a Syriac Vorlage, given that the Syriac is the only other version that highlights the teacher’s use of his hand when striking the child on his head at the end of the paragraph. Some emphasis on body parts in this paragraph is present in Greek Gs, Ga, and Gd, in which Joseph is said to have taken the child by the hand and brought him to school. Once at school, the teacher is said to have treated the child amicably (Gs and Ga) and taken him into the classroom. The reference to the teacher’s use of his hand to stroke the child’s head in the Georgian at this earlier instance may be the result of a translator’s rephrasing the text through a joining of Joseph’s and the teacher’s actions into one, and repositioning the emphasis from the child’s hand to the hand of the teacher. While the influence of a Greek model on the Georgian is possible here, the intersection with a Syriac Vorlage is clear. Theoretically, it is also possible that a Greek Vorlage could underlie both the Syriac and the Georgian texts here. It is to be noted that while the Syriac version of this passage uses the Syriac designation alaph for the first letter of the alphabet, the Georgian renders that first letter as alpha. If the Georgian relied on a Syriac Vorlage or a closely related text, it is clear that such reliance did not presuppose that the Georgian translator could not at the same time render the names of the letters of the alphabet in congruence with their Greek designations. At the same time, this means that the fact that the Georgian uses Greek names for the letters of the alphabet throughout does not therefore demand that the Georgian translator relied on a Greek Vorlage in those instances. The preference for Greek names may be due to the importance of the Greek New Testament for Georgian literature. Moreover, the occurrence of the names alpha and o (for omega) in Revelation, for example, would have been sufficient grounds to alter the Syriac Vorlage in these instances. In 6:2f., the Ethiopic, Greek, and Syriac share with the Georgian the inclusion of language derived from 1Cor 13:1. Yet whereas the Ethiopic mentions the “clanging bronze” and the “ringing bell” in the child’s description of the

74

horn

teacher’s words of instruction, and whereas the Greek mentions “a noisy gong” and “a clanging cymbal,” the Syriac and Georgian agree with one another more closely. In the Syriac and the Georgian traditions then, the child applies the biblical imagery as a description of his own words, if indeed he would utter his own words while being deprived of thinking and understanding by simply following what the teacher had pronounced for him. As has been established with the discussion of the evidence of chapter 6:2 f., there is no necessary connection between the usage of Greek names for the letters of the alphabet in the Georgian text and the Georgian translator’s reliance on a Greek Vorlage. In 6:3, the Georgian states, და იწყო ი(ეს)უ სიტყუად წერილისა მის ყ(ოვ)ლისა ალფაჲთ-გან მი-ოჰ-ამდე დიდითა გამოძიებითა da ic̣q̣o i(es)u siṭq̣ uad c̣erilisa mis q̣ (ov)lisa alpajt-gan mi-oh-amde didita gamoʒiebita “and Jesus began to say each letter from alpha to oh with great investigation,”40 employing the older name oh for the letter that came to be known in Byzantine times as omega.41 The Greek recensions for this passage read, “all the letters from alpha to omega,” while adding that Jesus did so either with “much skill” (Gs), “clearly with much care” (Ga), or “much speed” (Gd).42 The usage of the name omega instead of oh dates these Greek recensions to a point in time that is later than the evidence available through the Georgian. Thus, if the Georgian relied on a Greek Vorlage, that witness may be earlier than what can be grasped in the presently available Greek recensions. Nikolai Marr thought it was possible that მი-ოჰ-ამდე “to oh” is in fact to be read ჰოე “hoe,” the name for the last letter of the Georgian alphabet, ჵ.43 Whether there was a Greek Vorlage with oh instead of omega, or whether the name of this letter was

40 41

42 43

See also Shanidze, “The Fragment,” p. 38, ll. 89–90; and Kekelidze, Georgian Hagiographical Monuments, p. 117, ll. 14–15. In his Cratylus 393d, Plato had Socrates explain to Hermogenes that at their time “when we [i.e., the Greeks] speak of the letters of the alphabet, … we speak their names, not merely the letters themselves, except in the case of four, ε, υ, ο, ω.” For a detailed discussion of the names of ancient Greek letters, see K.E.A. Schmidt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Grammatik des Griechischen und Lateinischen (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1859), pp. 48–79, especially pp. 64–65, 75, which reprints K.E.A. Schmidt, “Die Benennungen der griechischen Buchstaben,” Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen 5.1 (Berlin: Verlag von Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin, 1851): pp. 417–440. See also H.W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920), §1, p. 7, n. b. Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 319 (ll. 51–52), 359 (ll. 64–65), 415 (l. 53). Marr, “On the fragment …” p. 345; and Shanidze, “The Fragment,” pp. 32–33, point 13, following Marr’s reflections, suggest that the Georgian translator should have written მიჰოა-ამდე or მი-ჰოე-ამდე.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

75

influenced by ჰოე, remains difficult to decide. In any case, it is even less likely that ოჰ translates the Medieval Armenian letter օ (ō).44 Yet a Greek Vorlage for the Georgian is not absolutely necessary. In the Ethiopic, Jesus recites the letters from alpha to the last letter, the name of which is not mentioned. The early Syriac tradition in MSS W and G is transmitted defectively; the entire paragraph is lost. The later Syriac tradition in MSS P and M gives the Syriac alaph and taw here and in the following sentence, but then switches to the Greek names later in the same paragraph. Thus, the names of these letters, so far as they are preserved, vary in the Syriac tradition, even within the space of a few lines. This suggests a relative openness to the adaptation of this aspect of the text to the target language. Thus, a version which may have had a Syriac Vorlage need not have preserved the Syriac names of these letters. If the Georgian of 6:3 employs the Greek names of the letters, a Syriac Vorlage is still possible. To the extent that the Georgian has the ancient form of the last Greek letter oh, this may be due to the relatively old age of the Georgian translation. The concluding comment of 6:3 in Georgian contains a trace of an underlying Syriac Vorlage. In the final phrase, რასა იგი იტყოდით rasa igi iṭq̣ odit “of which you will speak,” one may detect the presence of an anaphoric pronoun underlying იგი that is foreign to Georgian grammar but is the typical, some may say only, way to express a non-subject relative pronoun in Syriac. There the final phrase might have read 煿ܿ‫ܢ ܠ‬熏‫ܐ ܕܬܡܠܠ‬狏‫ ܒܝ‬baytā datmalləlūn lāh. One finds a trace of the usage of the verb “to speak” in the last part of the sentence in Greek Gs, “then I will trust you to speak of the beta (τότε σοι πιστεύσω λέγειν τὸ βῆτα).”45 This would be an unambiguous shared expression with the Georgian, except that in Greek Gs this verb occurs as part of the immediate statement concerning beta, and not as part of an additional relative clause as in the Georgian. Neither Syriac MS W nor MS G preserves this passage; perhaps one or both were the Vorlage for the Georgian.46

44

45 46

The Armenian letter “o” seems to appear in manuscripts only from the end of the thirteenth century onwards. Michael Stone, Dickran Kouymjian, and Henning Lehmann included MS Matenadaran 1324, dated to 1241, as the earliest manuscript featuring this letter. See M. Stone, D. Kouymjian, and H. Lehmann, Album of Armenian Paleography (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002), pp. 294, 520. Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 318–319. Gerö, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 72, sees the Georgian as a witness to a distinctive step in the development of the tradition of the saying of alpha and beta in IGT 6:3. He observed that from Irenaeus in the second century to the early Syriac tradition (MS W) in the sixth century, the form of the saying remained unchanged, with the Syriac adding an expanded narrative. Although the Georgian “usually follows” the early Syriac tradition

76

horn

The Georgian of 6:4 is an important and difficult passage. In order to facilitate the reader’s ease in being able to follow the subsequent discussion, access to the reconstructed Georgian text of chapter 6:3–4 is offered here in one place accompanied by an English translation: 6.3: და იწყო ი(ეს)უ სიტყუად წერილისა მის ყ(ოვ)ლისა ალფაჲთგან მი-ოჰ-ამდე დიდითა გამოძიებითა. მერმე თქუა: „რ(ომე)ლთაეგე ალფაჲ არა იცით, ბეტასა მას ვ(ითა)რმე ასწავებედ? გან-ღა მიმარტეთ პირველად ალფაჲ ესე, მაშინღა მრწმენეს თქ(უე)ნი ბეტაჲსათჳსცა, რასა იგი იტყოდით.“ da ic̣q̣o i(es)u siṭq̣ uad c̣erilisa mis q̣ (ov)lisa alpajt-gan mi-oh-amde didita gamoʒiebita. merme tkua: “r(ome)ltaege alpaj ara icit, beṭasa mas v(ita)rme asc̣avebed? gan-ɣa mimarṭet p̣irvelad alpaj ese, mašinɣa mrc̣menes tk(ue)ni beṭajsatysca, rasa igi iṭq̣ odit.” And Jesus began to say each letter from alpha to oh with great investigation. Then he said, “You {pl.} who do not know the alpha, how do they [sic!] teach the beta? First explain the alpha, then I shall believe you also concerning your beta of which you will speak.” 6.4: და იწყო ი(ეს)უ კითხვად47 ხატი და სახელი პირველისაჲ მის წერილისაჲ, რ(ამეთუ) აქჳნდა მას სახელებ: სამ-კედლებ, წარმატებულებ, იქცევისებ, ზე-უკუნ კეცილებ, მიმოქცეულებ, კჳკჳრის სახებ, ფერად საფასჱ, მართლიად შობილ.

47

“faithfully,” here however it witnesses to a new development since it “expanded [the saying] by prefacing it with a question.” Gerö concludes that the Georgian is a witness to “the reading of a Syriac version of the 7th–8th century.” Gerö seems to place the date of the Georgian translation in the approximate vicinity of that alternative Syriac version, given that he accepts in a comment Garitte’s assessment and characterization of the Georgian as “an archaic translation, several centuries older than the 11th century MS.” See also Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” p. 516: “le texte géorgien est conservé dans un manuscrit du début du XIe s. au plus tard, et il n’est pas douteux que la traduction elle-même soit de plusieurs siècles antérieure, comme le montrent notamment ses caractères linguistiques, très archaïques.” Garitte understands კითხვად = “to ask” and, building upon this, suggests (p. 520, fn. 4) that the text may have read “why” at this instance. Yet this would be the only instance in the present text at which რ̅ = რაჲსა. If one understands კითხვად = “to read,” no further adjustment is necessary. See also the discussion below.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

77

da ic̣q̣o i(es)u ḳitxvad xaṭi da saxeli p̣irvelisaj mis c̣erilisaj, r(ametu) akynda mas saxeleb: sam-ḳedleb, c̣armaṭebuleb, ikceviseb, ze-uḳun ḳecileb, mimokceuleb, ḳyḳyris-saxeb, perad sapesĕ, martliad šobil. And Jesus began to read the image and the name of the first letter, since it had the names: three-walled, extended, turning-around, upward bent, twisted, in the likeness of a bud, shape-wise like a treasure, born uprightly. Chapter 6:4 in particular provides the reader with Jesus’ explanation of the various names and descriptions of alpha. Arguments relying on this passage have favored a Greek or Syriac original, though the early Syriac MSS W and G do not offer any text for this passage. Thus, further considerations in this contribution are based for the most part on eleventh-century and later Greek manuscripts as well as seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Syriac manuscripts. There are at least two complex themes within this passage that require detailed consideration. One difficulty pertains to clarifying who precisely is, or is thought to be, saying what in the section. The second consists of understanding and analyzing the content of the description of the alpha. Turning to the first issue, at the end of 6:3 Jesus begins questioning the “master (διδάσκαλος)” concerning the first element (περὶ τοῦ πρώτου [or ᾱ] στοιχείου) (Gs and Gd) or the first letter (περὶ τοῦ πρώτου γράμματος) (Ga); Gb has a different text ad locum. In all recensions, the master is unable to answer. In 6:4, Jesus recites a list of attributes associated with alpha/aleph. The Ethiopic does not present a question-and-response, but instead begins 6:4 with Jesus posing a short rhetorical question, following which he gives a lengthy explanation of the form of the first letter, which shall be considered in some detail below. Whereas the early Syriac manuscripts do not offer text for this passage, the seventeenth-century Syriac MS P has a corrupt reading, stating either that ̈ “they began to ask Jesus about the shape of each one of the sign[s] (‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ atwātā)” or that “Jesus began to ask about the shape of each one of the sign[s].”48 It is not possible to identify the subject and object of the verb. One might think that the reading of Syriac MS P, “they began,” combined with the possibility of taking “Jesus” as object, suggests that the questioning arises from the teacher, possibly together with Joseph. Yet it is not clear whether or not the reader would naturally assume that Joseph is present. The child Jesus then is presented rather clearly as the one who offers the explanation, based on a written representation of the letters. 48

Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 281, ll. 50–51:爏‫ ܥ‬熏‫ܠ‬焏‫ܥ ܠܡܫ‬熏‫ ܝܫ‬熏‫ܝ‬犯‫ ܫ‬爯‫ܝ‬煟‫ܗܝ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬狏‫̈ܝܒ‬狏‫ ܟ‬爯‫ܝ ܡ‬犯‫ ܘ̣ܫ‬.‫ ܐܬܘܬܐ‬爯‫ܐ ܡ‬煟‫ܐ ܚ‬煟‫ ܚ‬爏‫ ܕܟ‬焏‫ܐܣܟܡ‬

78

horn

The most plausible reading of Syriac MS P emerges from a comparison of this introductory sentence with the parallel scene in the ArmIG. While no independent version of the IGT is preserved in Armenian, or at least has been recovered thus far, the ArmIG is a clear witness to some scenes of the IGT which have been integrated into it. In the parallel in the ArmIG, Jesus visits with the teacher Gamaliel, to whom he explains the significance of several letters. Leading up to that explanation, Gamaliel and Jesus engage one another with questions about the names and the significance of the letters. It is plausible that Syriac MS P preserves evidence of an earlier Syriac tradition, which in turn is thought to have offered the basis for the Armenian reception of the IGT that spoke of the teacher and the child discussing with one another, or questioning one another about, the shapes and meanings of the first few written letters (‫ܐ‬狏‫̈ܝܒ‬狏‫ ܟ‬ketībātā). The scribe of Syriac MS P may have misplaced the name ‫ܥ‬熏‫ ܝܫ‬yešū‘, which might originally have followed ‫ܝ‬犯‫ ܘܫ‬wešarri, to follow instead the earlier 熏‫ܝ‬犯‫ ܫ‬šarriw. The relevance of the emphasis on the written form in the Syriac evidence is addressed below. In chapter 6:4 of the Georgian IGT one reads: და იწყო ი(ეს)უ კითხვად ხატი და სახელი პირველისაჲ მის წერილისაჲ, da ic̣q̣o i(es)u ḳitxvad xaṭi da saxeli p̣irvelisaj mis c̣erilisaj, “and Jesus began to read the image and the name of the first letter.” The verb კითხვა means inter alia “ask,” “inquire,” but also “read.” This last option is the meaning intended here. In contrast to the Ethiopic, Greek, and Syriac MS P, the Georgian makes no reference to any person whom Jesus might have asked. In the ArmIG, Gamaliel instructs Jesus to “read whatever he [i.e., the teacher] assign[s] (զորինչ խրատ տամ քեզ ընթերցիր zorinč‘ xrat tam k‘ez ənt‘erts‘ir).”49 Very prominent in the retelling of the school scene and the explanation of the letters of the alphabet in the ArmIG is the emphasis on the detail that the letters are written down by the teacher and studied carefully by the child. Elsewhere, the emphasis on writing in the passage has been evaluated for its significance in the milieu of interreligious contacts.50 Here it is relevant to highlight that this pronounced emphasis on reading and writing in the scene is shared among the Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. Several points are to be noted with regard to determining the identity of the first letter of the alphabet in Georgian 6:4. Whereas in the Greek recensions Jesus discusses the order of the first element (τὴν τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου τάξιν)

49 50

See Ms M7574, fol. 94v, ll. 13–14; and Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, p. 93. For a different text, see Tayets‘i, “Non-canonical Books”, p. 86. See Horn, “Jesus at School.”

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

79

(Gs, Gd, and Ga) or first letter (τὴν τάξιν τοῦ πρώτου γράμματος) (Gb), in the versions he expounds on the appearance or form of the letter (in Ethiopic) and in a more expanded form on the appearance, image, shape, semblance, and name or significance of the letter (in Syriac and Armenian). Thus, the Georgian is closer to the Syriac and Armenian than to the Greek tradition here. The Syriac word for letters, ‫ܐ‬狏‫̈ܝܒ‬狏‫ ܟ‬ketībātā,51 is a nominalized plural passive participle of ‫ܒ‬狏‫ ܟ‬ketab “write,” lit. “written things.” The corresponding word in the Georgian passage is წერილი c̣erili, also a nominalized passive participle from the root წერ, albeit in the singular. Although one may argue that this is coincidence, or that the Georgian word is a calque created much earlier in the history of the language based on the Syriac, the Georgian IGT emphasizes Jesus’ explanation of the written letter. The ArmIG preserves this episode in a form, in which the act of writing in the interaction between Gamaliel and Jesus is much more pronounced than in any other version. The Armenian makes reference repeatedly to a writing board on which Gamaliel and Jesus write and respond to one another.52 While it is clear that the trajectory of the development of this theme passes from the Syriac into the Armenian, the relationship of the Georgian in this instance is harder to discern. Did the Georgian derive from the Syriac directly, or from an earlier, posited stage of the Armenian, or from the Syriac or even from Greek under the influence of an Armenian version? If an Armenian version were to hand, this need not have been in a lost Armenian IGT, but could have been an earlier stage of the ArmIG or even another witness. It is helpful to consider the description of the first letter of the alphabet that is offered in the various versions, starting out with the Ethiopic IGT. The Ethiopic begins with a rhetorical question concerning a three-fold or threepart line or execution of a stroke. A lacuna follows, but the text resumes Jesus’ elucidation in response to his own question and as a fuller explanation of the movement of a writing instrument as it executes the letter: “the triple ductus, [having] many treasures(?) in it, [the] slip and pull of the hand, [the] returning and rising of the [writing] instrument, straight, triplicate, upright and curved.”53 The Ethiopic emphasizes the written form and the process of

51

52 53

Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 280, translates the first sentence in chapter 6:4 as “Then Jesus began to enquire concerning the form of each character and he began with the letters.” Horn, “Jesus at School,” pp. 122–123, 127–129, where references are provided. Grébaut, Les miracles de Jésus, p. 633, ll. 5–6: ውእቱ ፡ ቅርጸተ [for Grébaut ቀርጸተ] ፡ ሥሉስ ፡ ብዙኀ ፡ ቦቱ ፡ እናግዝተ ፡ ድሑከ ፡ ወስሑበ ፡ እድ ፡ ጉቡአ ፡ ወውጹአ ፡ ማዕበል ፡ ርቱዓነ ፡ ሥሉሳነ ፡ ትኩላነ ፡ ወግፍቱዓነ ፨ Grébaut did not attempt to translate this passage, but instead suggested that

80

horn

writing. If one presumes that the Ethiopic describes the first letter of the Syriac, Hebrew, or Greek alphabet, one can be more specific and suggest that the description might fit the execution of the writing of an uncial Greek alpha. One might think that the comment regarding a curved movement or line is difficult to fit with an uncial Greek alpha. However, the uncial alpha, used to write Greek manuscripts from the fourth to the eighth centuries is, in many manuscripts, also made of three branches, among which the lower left branch may be regarded as being curved back in a loop. This shape is preserved well for instance in the form in which the Greek uncial alpha has been adopted into Coptic (ⲁ).54 The description offered in the text of the Ethiopic IGT does not seem to represent the execution of a lower case Greek alpha, neither with regard to the references to a triplicate movement or shape, nor with regard to straight or upright elements. Thus the letters which readily fit this description are Estrangela alaph ‫ ܐ‬and its Hebrew counterpart aleph ‫א‬,55 as well as Greek uncial alpha. When compared to the other versions, only the Greek recensions formulate an indirect description of the form of the written letter. In these, Jesus explains the “order (τάξις) of the first element.”56 The word “order” makes best sense, if it is understood here as the order in which a scribe places consecutive strokes on the page to give shape to a given letter. In the Greek recensions, the description of alpha is of an uncial alpha, the common form of this letter used in Greek manuscripts readily up to the eighth centuries. The Greek recension Gs, for example, offers the following text ad locum: Ἀκουόντων δὲ πολλῶν λέγει τῷ καθηγητῇ· “Ἄκουε, διδάσκαλε, καὶ νόει τὴν τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου τάξιν. καὶ πρόσχες ὧδε πῶς ἔχει κανόνας ὀξεῖς καὶ χαρακτῆρα μέσον οὓς ὁρᾷς ὀξυνομένους, διαβαίνοντας, συναγομένους, ἐξέρποντας, ἀφελ-

54

55

56

two lines of text, where his edition placed ellipsis dots, were incomprehensible. See Grébaut, Les miracles de Jésus, p. 633, n. 2. I am grateful to Robert Phenix for his suggestions regarding the reading of this passage. See also the discussion of the shape of the alpha in the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century CE) in W.A. Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus. Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 48; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), p. 113. See for instance C. Bernheimer, Paleografia Ebraica (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1924), p. 38, here especially the cursive script; and A. Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design (London: The British Library; and New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002), pp. 192–221, for discussions and representations of relevant script styles and script charts. Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 319 (l. 58), 361 (l. 72), 417 (l. 60), 459 (ll. 8–9 [here, “order of the first letter”]).

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

81

κομένους, ὑψουμένους, χορεύοντας, †βελεφετοῦντας†, τρισήμους, διστόμους, ὁμοσχήμους, ὁμοπαχεῖς, ὁμογενεῖς, σπαρτούχους, ζυγοστάτας, ἰσομέτρους, ἰσομέρους κανόνας ἔχον τὸ ἄλφα.” While many listened, he said to the teacher, ‘Hear, master, and understand the order of the first element. Pay close attention here now it has sharp lines and a middle stroke, which you see pointing, standing with legs apart, meeting, spreading, drawn aside, elevated, dancing in chorus, †…†, in triple rhythm, two-cornered, of the same form, of the same thickness, of the same family, holding the measuring cord, in charge of the balance, of equal measure, of equal proportions—these are the lines of the alpha.57 This description of the details of the letter’s shape does not necessarily follow the order of strokes in writing the letter. Yet the description also makes sense when considered to be representing a match for a Hebrew aleph (‫)א‬. The comparative consideration of the description of the shape of the first letter in IGT 6:4 requires considering the details of the Syriac evidence as well. Unfortunately, the early Syriac version (MSS W and G) does not preserve any text for this passage. Yet in Syriac MS P, one finds the following description:

爯‫ܝܦܝ‬犯‫ ܕܚ‬焏‫ܬܐ ܘܛ̈ܒܥ‬熏‫ܢ‬熏̈‫ ܓ‬煿̇‫ ܠ‬狏‫ ܐܝ‬營‫ ܣܓ‬焏‫ ܡܢ‬爏‫ܐ ܥ‬狏‫ܡܝ‬煟‫ ܩ‬爏‫ܥ‬ 爯‫ ܘܕܫܢܝܢܝ‬爯‫܆ ܘܕܡܚܡܠܝ‬爯‫ܝܚܝ‬狏‫ ܘܕܡ‬爯‫ ܘܕܢܦܝܩܝ‬爯‫ ܘܕܡܟܝܟܝ‬爯‫ܕܥܒܝ‬ 爯‫ܦܟܝ‬煿‫ܘܢ܆ ܘܕܡ‬煿‫ ܪܫܝ‬爯‫ ܘܕܡܫܦܝ‬爯‫ܒܥܝ‬犯‫ ܘܕܡ‬爯‫ ܘܕܦܫܝܛܝ‬爯‫ܝ‬狏‫ܒ‬犏‫ܘܕܡ‬ 爯‫ܬܐ ܘܕܡܟܠܠܝ‬熏‫ܝ‬狏‫ܠܝ‬狏‫ ܒ‬爯‫ܘܢ ܘܕܡܩܒܥܝ‬煿‫ ܠܓܒ̈ܝ‬爯‫ܟܢܝ‬犯‫ ܘܕܡ‬爯‫ܘܕܥܦܝܦܝ‬ .焏‫ ܚ̈ܝ‬爯‫ܘܕܡܥܛܦܝ‬ ‘al qedmāytā ‘al mānā saggī ’īt lāh gunwātā wṭab‘ê daḥrīpīn da‘bên wadmakkīkīn wədanpīqīn wədamtīḥīn wədamḥamməlīn wədašnīnīn wədamṣabbətīn wədapšīṭīn wədamrabbə‘īn wadmašəppīn rēšayhōn: wadmahpəkīn wəda‘pīpīn wadmarkənīn ləgabbayhōn wədamqabbə‘īn batlītāyūtā wədamkalləlīn wadma‘ṭəpīn ḥayyê Concerning the first, [as to] why it has many angles and strokes which [are both] sharp [and] blunt, both flat, and prominent, both extended and drawn back, both sharp and adorned, both spread out and boxed in and

57

Burke, De infantia Iesu, pp. 318–319.

82

horn

turning their heads; which are both changed and repeated, both bending down their sides and fixed in a triad, and which are both crowned and clothing [with] life.58 In his consideration of arguments that aim at elucidating the provenance and original language of the IGT, Voicu has argued that the description of alpha in chapter 6:4 of the IGT is evidence that supports a Greek origin of this passage and of the IGT as a whole. He observed that the vocabulary employed in the passage contains many neologisms, which arise most naturally from the Greek language. Voicu considered that the Syriac of 6:4 relies on paraphrases and renders the terminology of the presumed Greek Vorlage using words borrowed from Greek.59 Assuming that in this instance Voicu based his argument on the Greek recensions and Syriac MS P, one notes that these descriptions are almost the same length: Syriac MS P has nineteen separate elements and Greek Gs, seventeen, or eighteen if one includes an uncertain reading of one additional word. Both descriptions start out with nominal phrases, followed then for the most part by participles or adjectives. The final four elements of the description in Syriac occur in a form that combines participles with additional nominal phrases. ̈ The first noun used in the Syriac description, ‫ܬܐ‬熏‫ܢ‬熏‫ ܓ‬gunwātā, is a noun in the plural with roots in Greek (γωνία). The other eighteen words consist of native Aramaic vocabulary. Given the close contacts between the Greek and Syriac languages in late antiquity, in which Syriac without too many hesitations adopted Greek words into its own regular vocabulary, and given the fact that Syriac increasingly employed these also in translated texts, the evidence of Syriac MS P is insufficient for Voicu’s argument. One cannot state that, given the presence of merely a single word with Greek origins, the description of chapter 6:4 in Syriac is, because of the presence of one such term, therefore translated from Greek. A second argument Voicu advances is that a Semitic language like Syriac necessarily has to employ paraphrases when rendering Greek terminology, here mostly participles and adjectives. Yet the contrary is also true: a Greek text could more naturally represent Syriac nominal phrases as compound words, and would be far less likely to borrow from Syriac than Syriac from Greek. In particular, most of what the Syriac passage formulates is expressed naturally in Syriac through the usage of participles and adjectives,

58 59

The Syriac text of MS P printed here, follows Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 281. The English translation is the result of extensive discussions I had with Robert Phenix. Voicu, “Verso il testo primitivo,” pp. 54–56.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

83

without nouns as supplements. In four instances, the Syriac passage, as indicated above, does avail itself of nouns as object supplements for participles. Yet this fact, likewise, derives from the way Syriac naturally and customarily expresses itself. Whereas the Greek recensions describe the shape and strokes of a Greek uncial alpha, with a possibility that the description might have had its origins in a representation of the Hebrew aleph, the description of the first letter that is found in the Syriac could apply, in principle, to an uncial Greek alpha or to an Estrangela alaph. For instance, 爯‫ܒܥܝ‬犯‫ ܘܕܡ‬wədamrabbə‘īn, here translated “boxed in,” but also “rectangular,” “square,” “squared-in,” or “four-sided” in appearance, seems to describe an unnatural shape for a Greek alpha, but one could see it as a descriptive element of an Estrangela alaph surrounded in a rectangular box, its three “legs” pointing toward or touching three of the corners of a rectangle.60 A Hebrew aleph—assuming a form of the letter similar to the block script—would suggest even more clearly a rectangular shape. Overall, the Syriac description fits rather well for a Syriac alaph written in Estrangela script as well as for a Hebrew aleph. From this data, there is no clear relationship between the Syriac and Greek. The data is consistent with an early tradition that contained as one element of its narrative that the child Jesus described the first letter of the alphabet. Yet the descriptions in the versions read well and are understandable quite naturally within the terminology of the respective languages in which they appear. Thus, there is no good argument for either Greek or Syriac precedence for the passage. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that the underlying letter of the Greek, Ethiopic, and Syriac is aleph/alaph. The original text of the IGT could have been composed in Greek, while the author(s) of chapter six were describing not an alpha, but an aleph/alaph. In the course of the later Greek transmission history, this aleph/alaph and its description could then have been changed to an alpha. Given the similarities between Hebrew aleph and Syriac Estrangela alaph, it is also possible to argue that IGT 6:4 originated in Syriac, or perhaps in a bilingual Syriac-Greek milieu. Quite independent of whether one assumes Greek or Syriac as the language of original composition for the IGT, it may well be that the Syriac and Greek traditions as we have them now diverged already very early on. The following observations about the Georgian version 60

From the beginnings of Syriac writing that is observable in manuscripts down to the end of the sixteenth century, the essential characteristics of the Estrangela alaph remained the same, even if some smaller variation in shape can be noted over time. See W.H.P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, Mass.: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1946), p. 31.

84

horn

of the relevant passage support the idea that chapter six of the IGT, especially its discussion of the alphabet, was quite mutable. In the Georgian, the description of the first letter has eight elements, less than half of the Greek or Syriac. The Georgian shares some components with the Greek and Syriac, but also offers its own, unique elements. For instance, the first descriptive label or “name (სახელი)” is the description of the letter as “three-walled (სამ-კედლებ),” which fits as a description of ani, the first letter of the Georgian alphabet, in either nuskhuri (ⴀ ) or asomtavruli (Ⴀ) script. If one reduces the “loop” of an uncial Greek alpha to a line, which occurred with some regularity as well, one might also think that the description could serve as a fit for a Greek uncial alpha. Yet one could question whether the characterization “walled” might not be represented better by a Georgian ani, whose shape more readily represents a three-walled enclosure, and not simply an open structure, composed of three, albeit connected, “walls.” Syriac MS P speaks of the strokes as being ‫ܬܐ‬熏‫ܝ‬狏‫ܠܝ‬狏‫ ܒ‬爯‫ ܘܕܡܩܒܥܝ‬wədamqabbə‘īn batlītāyūtā “fixed in a triad,” by ellipsis “in a triangle” or “in a trinity,” if one were to go the more theologically explicit route. Greek Gs also offers a reference to threefold-ness as part of its description when it speaks of the first letter being (written) τρισήμους “in triple rhythm.” Some features of the Georgian are unique, but bear similarities to the descriptions found in the Syriac IGT, yet not in the Greek text. One example is the Georgian “in the likeness of a bud/flower (კჳკჳრის სახებ),” which may be related to the Syriac MS P 爯‫ ܡܟܠܠܝ‬məkalləlīn “crowned.” Especially the Syriac description here could be thought of as visualizing some aspect of the Hebrew aleph, and a fit with Syriac Estrangela alaph is possible as well. The imagery of the Georgian text in this case also makes some sense as a description of Georgian ani in nuskhuri, and even more so in asomtavruli script. Yet it makes best visual sense when the underlying letter is thought of as an uncial Armenian ayb (Ա), which could remind one quite readily of the shape of a bud, looked at from the side.61 Where the Georgian description speaks of “upward bent (ზეუკუნ კეცილებ),” it does not readily seem to have any element of the Syriac description in Syriac MS P in view, yet one might see this element as speaking for instance of the right-end, upward-moving stroke of the Syriac Estrangela alaph or the right-side, upward leg of the Hebrew aleph. One could consider whether it describes the main, left-hand stroke of Georgian ani, or perhaps 61

For a description of the shape of the uncial Armenian ayb, which is documented in Armenian manuscripts between 862 and 1331, see M. Stone, “The Development of Armenian Writing,” in Stone et al., Album, pp. 77–105, here pp. 78–79. See also the charts in Stone et al., Album, pp. 512–524, 532.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

85

the small upward continuation of the top horizontal stroke of that same letter. However, this description fits very well if said of an uncial Armenian ayb, in which both of the main vertical lines are clearly “upward bent,” if considered from the perspective of the base stroke at the bottom. One further, intriguing possibility is considering a fit of this part of the description with forms of the Greek uncial alpha as manifested in late antique or early Byzantine manuscripts. One might admit the possibility that “upward bent” could refer to the shape of the two lower legs, which extend upward joining into a single peak for instance in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, whose alpha, for instance, can readily be imagined as a possible model for the emerging Coptic alpha. Yet while the “upward” move certainly is a given in that shape of the Greek uncial alpha, it is not so clear whether this particular shape of the two lower legs may also be described as “bent.” Yet some evidence exists for an alternative shape of the Greek alpha in rare cases in Greek literary texts from the first century CE,62 and then significantly more frequently in the cursive script in Greek papyri, starting occasionally from the third century BCE on, and taking on a more prominent presence from the fifth to the eighth centuries. In those instances, the Greek alpha resembles the Armenian majuscule ayb in its main features in an astonishingly close way.63 If we consider then the individual elements of the description delivered in the Georgian text, the letter that seems to be described by the text most likely is an uncial Armenian ayb (Ա), although there is space within the sets of elements employed here that the description also fits with some aspects of the first letter of the Georgian, Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew alphabets. In his discussion of the Georgian IGT, Shanidze evaluated the evidence for establishing a relationship between the Georgian and Syriac. He concluded that they were closely related, though he did not think that the Georgian was a direct or correct translation of the Syriac.64 Instead, his remarks suggested that the Georgian derived from a Syriac model which was communicated via an intermediate version in Armenian. Shanidze referenced the evidence of an Armenian version of the scene of Jesus studying the alphabet, which JeanBaptiste Chardin (1643–1713) had collected while travelling through Persia and the wider Near East. According to Chardin, among the stories told by Christians was an Armenian legend, known as the Gospel of the Infant (“l’ Évangile enfant”). Among other scenes known from the IGT, this legend presented the 62 63 64

E.M. Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1912), p. 146. Thompson, An Introduction, pp. 191, 193–194. Shanidze, “The Fragment,” p. 35.

86

horn

story of Jesus at school, studying the alphabet. Chardin reported of the Armenian version, “when he [i.e., the child Jesus] was sent to school in order to learn the alphabet, [and when] his teacher wanted to make him say ‘a,’ he stopped and said to the teacher: ‘Teach me beforehand why the first letter of the alphabet is made this way.’ Upon this, [while] the teacher was dealing with the small [writing] board, he [i.e., Jesus] answered, ‘I will not say “a,” unless you will tell me why the first letter is made this way.’ As the teacher was getting angry, Jesus said to him, ‘I will teach you myself then. The first letter of the alphabet consists of three perpendicular lines, upon one opposite line, in order to teach us that the beginning of all things is one essence in three persons.’”65 Chardin himself explained that this letter was the lower case Armenian ayb (ա). Shanidze noted too that details in the version offered by Chardin resemble elements of the Georgian IGT, clear differences with the ArmIG in Tayets‘i’s 1898 edition notwithstanding.66 There are additional conclusions to be drawn from Chardin’s account of this episode. Right before recounting the episode of Jesus studying the alphabet at school, Chardin told his readers that the Armenian legend he encountered contained a story about the child Jesus stretching wooden boards in a carpentry project Joseph was engaged in.67 Both the school scene and the scene of the lengthening of wooden boards are elements of chapters 6 and 13 of the IGT, and of the ArmIG.68 Chardin did not specify for his readers whether he became acquainted with the Armenian legend orally or by way of a written text. In his report, the story of the stretching of the boards appears prior to the school-scene, whereas the IGT presents these two in the opposite order. In the version of the ArmIG that is provided in the text which Terian translated, 65

66 67 68

Voyages de Mr. Le Chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient. Tome Dixième, Contenant le second Voyage de l’ Auteur d’Ispahan à Bander-Abassi, & son retour à Ispahan, Enrichi d’un grand nombre de belles Figures en Taille-douce, représentant les Antiquitez & les Choses remarquables du Païs (Amsterdam: Jean Louis de Lorme, 1711), p. 27: “Qu’étant envoyé à l’ école, pour aprendre l’ A.B.C. le maître lui voulant faire dire a, il s’arrêta, & dit au Maître: aprenez moi auparavant pourquoi la premiere lettre de l’Alphabeth est ainsi faite? Surquoi le maître le traitant de petit babillard, il répondit, je ne dirai point a que vous ne me disiez pourquoi la premiere lettre est ainsi faite. Le maître, se mettant en colere, Jesus lui dit, je vous l’ aprendrai donc, moi. La premiere lettre de l’ Alphabeth est formée de trois lignes perpendiculaires, sur une ligne diametrale (l’A. Armenien est ainsi fait à peu près comme une m renversée,) pour nous aprendre que le commencement de toutes choses est une Essence en trois personnes.” Shanidze, “The Fragment,” p. 36. Voyages de Mr. Le Chevalier Chardin, pp. 26–27. In the text, which Terian translated, both scenes occur back-to-back as parts of chapter 20. See Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, pp. 92–99.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

87

both scenes are presented jointly, with the schooling in carpentry following the instructions in the alphabet, with the clear intention to depict Jesus’ intellectual and professional education, at the hands of the teacher and of Joseph. One may assume that chapter 20 of the ArmIG developed through selection and revision of material derived from the Greek or Syriac IGT. Thus, material was selected that illustrated precisely these two aspects of the child’s development. At least in the structure of its chapter 20 then, the ArmIG witnesses to the presence of the IGT among its sources. It is clear that the ArmIG incorporated sections, not only individual scenes, from the IGT. It is also relevant to consider now that the identity of the first letter in the account reported by Chardin is that of a miniscule Armenian ayb, the ayb being the letter for which the ArmIG developed a more philosophically or theologically oriented interpretation. In its basic elements, Chardin’s version of the scene is also quite close to the Syriac of chapter 6:4 of the IGT, which incorporates into the descriptions of the physical form of the letter comments that allow for a spiritual interpretation. Moreover, Chardin’s account reveals more clearly the thematic relationship between the Syriac and the Georgian. If the majuscule ayb was the referent of the Georgian’s description, then this would establish its Armenian Vorlage. Over the course of time, the customary usage of scripts, including the Armenian script, underwent transformations. The tenuous references to a majuscule (erkat‘agir) Armenian ayb in the Georgian, and clearer reference to the usage of a minuscule (bolorgir) ayb in Chardin’s account suggest such a development. Studies of Armenian palaeography establish that manuscripts written in bolorgir script come to dominate beginning from the twelfth century onwards and extending to the sixteenth century.69 With these transformations in perceptions and customary usages, as we can see in this set of evidence, also the details of rewriting versions or traditions related to the IGT underwent changes. This observation may allow one to argue that the implication that one sees arise from the observation that the Georgian IGT considered the shape of an upper-case ayb as part of the curriculum that was studied in the story of Jesus

69

D. Kouymjian, “Armenian Paleography: A Reassessment,” in Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, eds. F. Déroche and F. Richard (Collection études et recherches; Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997): pp. 177–188, here p. 182. See also D. Kouymjian, “History of Armenian Paleography,” in Stone et al., Album, pp. 13–75, here p. 69; and D. Kouymjian, “The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript: Codicology, Paleography and Beyond,” in Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text, ed. V. Calzolari, with the collaboration of M.E. Stone (Handbook of Oriental Studies / Handbuch der Orientalistik, VIII, 23/1; Leiden: Brill, 2014): pp. 5–22, here p. 12.

88

horn

at school indicates that the Armenian version of the IGT, upon which the Georgian IGT seems to have relied, dates back to a time when it was still customary to focus on writing Armenian texts more prominently in erkat‘agir. The oldest manuscripts of the bolorgir hand date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Initially, they consisted of a mix of erkat‘agir and the miniscule bolorgir letters. The earliest bolorgir manuscripts contain texts which are not considered as important as, for example, biblical or lectionary material;70 the latter continued to be written in the older erkat‘agir until the advent of printed books in the sixteenth century, when bolorgir supplanted by-and-large erkat‘agir except in inscriptions. These observations do not allow us to push back the dating of the Vorlage for the text of the Georgian IGT by centuries. Nevertheless, they offer complementary evidence that supports that the evidence of our basic manuscript, Georgian MS A-95, likely from the eleventh century, is based on an Armenian version of the IGT from around that time or somewhat prior to it, which in its turn again derives from a Syriac model. In chapter 6:4 of the Georgian IGT one notes the emphasis on the description of the individual elements or aspects of the letter as სახელებ saxeleb “names,” which Jesus deduces from the სახელი saxeli “name” of the letter. Georgian 7:1 continues this theme: the teacher Zake is said to be astounded at so much სახელისდებას saxelisdebas “name-giving.” The Greek recensions do not contain a similar concern with the “name” or “names” of the first letter. Greek Gs 7:1 refers to the whole of the child’s description with προσηγορία and to the individual elements or strokes of the letters as κανόνας “lines.” The scribe of Ethiopic 7:1 is astonished at “so many names,” sharing the emphasis on the names of the letter in the Georgian. In Syriac MS P 7:1, the scribe Zakkai calls the characteristics ̈ ‫ ܫ‬šəmāhê “names.” Names play an important role of the first letter in 6:4 ‫ܐ‬煿‫ܡ‬ in Syriac theology: on the one hand, things are known through their names, on the other hand, the interpretation of names is a form of illicit speculation, an activity in which heretics engage.71

70

71

Kouymjian, “Armenian Paleography: A Reassessment,” p. 184; and Kouymjian, “The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript,” pp. 12–13, who comments that some of the forms that come to be typical of bolorgir letters can also be discerned in the sixth- to seventhcentury Armenian papyrus, as well as in some inscriptions and graffiti dating to that same time. See also S.N. Mouraviev, Erkataguir ԵՐԿԱԹԱԳԻՐ ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien: avec, en supplément: une paléographie arménienne des Ve–VIe/VIIe siècles et un choix de sources historiques (Les Trois Secrets de Mesrop Machtots ou la Genèse des Alphabets paléochrétiens du Caucase, 1; Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2010), pp. 117–185, Annexe VI: “Ébauche de paléographie arménienne des Ve–VIIe siècles.” For work that offers an introduction to Ephraem’s theology of names, see for instance U. Possekel, “Ephrem’s Doctrine of God,” in God in Early Christian Thought: Essays in Mem-

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

89

Likewise, names and their meanings are prominent in the corresponding account in the ArmIG. Gamaliel prompts Jesus to say the first letter. When Jesus resists, Gamaliel states that the անուն anun “name” of the letter is ayb. Here the teacher is using the Armenian, not the Syriac or Greek name for the letter and he is emphasizing that he is articulating the letter’s name. Within the passage, this exchange gives further rise to a conversation between the teacher and the student about the significance or meaning of the name. Thus, Jesus explains that the մեկնութիւն meknut‘iwn “meaning” of ayb is, that “the name ayb is translated ‘God.’”72 Absent from Jesus’ description in the ArmIG is any mention of the qualities or shapes of the strokes of the letter. Likewise, in the ArmIG Jesus explains the second letter of the Armenian alphabet, ben, to be “the Word that is to be born, the Word of God becoming embodied.”73 The theological interpretation of the letters in the ArmIG has garnered some discussion.74 In light of a fuller consideration of the specific Syriac and Georgian evidence, one may be able to develop such discussions further and suggest that such reflections originated in the Armenian milieu. For that purpose, the argument that the ArmIG builds upon a Syriac Vorlage needs to be strengthened and expanded to include the role of an Armenian IGT, to which the Georgian IGT witnesses, as the intermediary between a Syriac version of the IGT and the ArmIG. The consideration of the evidence of the text of the ArmIG in interaction with the evidence of Syriac MS P and the Georgian allows one to conduct this step. Syriac MS P employs the verb “to begin” when it tells of how the child spoke about the first letter. More precisely, the text states that “he began from the written [things].”75 This emphasis on Jesus first telling about what is visible on the page also implies, at least potentially, that not all of what follows may be limited to a description of what can be seen. Thus it is possible for a reader to understand several of the elements of the description of the first letter or letters as having additional, interpretive meaning or functioning as additional commentary. Moreover, one can understand the plural form of “written [things]” as an indication that the description that is offered may not limit itself to one letter only. Prompted by such a reading of the introductory remarks, one ought to

72 73 74 75

ory of Lloyd G. Patterson, eds. A.B. McGowan, B. Daley, and T.J. Gaden (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 94: Leiden: Brill, 2009): pp. 195–238, here pp. 212–223, 231–233. See Ms M7574, fol. 95r, ll. 17–18; and Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, p. 94. For a different text, see Tayets‘i, “Non-canonical Books”, p. 87, l. 11. See Ms M7574, fol. 95r, ll. 18–19; and Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, p. 94. For a different text, see Tayets‘i, “Non-canonical Books”, p. 87, ll. 11–13. Horn, “Jesus at School,” pp. 119–122. Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” p. 281, l. 51.

90

horn

probe further the question whether several of the elements at the end of the description may have value as an interpretation or commentary upon the letters. If one considers the phrase “fixed in a triad” or “fastened in threefold-ness,” the description may be understood as speaking of the three lines that provide the essential compositional elements of a Greek alpha, a Syriac Estrangela alaph, or a Hebrew aleph. In addition, a Christian reader might feel prompted quite readily to understand the lines of the letter in their threefold manifestation at the same time as pointing to the Trinitarian understanding of God. The participle “crowned,” which Syriac MS P uses next, may suggest to the reader to visualize a part of the letter in question as being similar to a crown. The tip at the top of a Greek upper case alpha as well as the upper half of a Hebrew aleph might fit that bill. Yet the terminology of “crowning” also evokes for a Christian reader quite readily the idea of martyrdom, in which the martyr symbolically weaves and gains a crown of victory over death through her or his death. In light of the several references to a cross in the preceding text of the IGT, the idea of dying in imitation of the death of the Son of God suggests the plausibility of this line of interpretation. Finally, one might consider the representative or evocative value of the phrase “clothing [with] life” at the end of the passage. Within Syriac theological terminology, clothing metaphors describe the incarnation of the Son of God who, when becoming a human being, is thought of as having clothed himself in a human body, and who in turn clothes humans in the garment of eternal life, a garment of which the first human pair was stripped in Paradise due to their disobedience.76 When Syriac MS P speaks of the first letter of the alphabet and its strokes as that which “are clothing [with] life,” it is not easy to understand how that description offers information about any visual representation of any specific letter. Yet the phrase makes very good sense as a hermeneutical statement that considers the name of a letter, here the first letter of the alphabet, as a kind of garment in which God the Father, who in Syriac would be referenced as ‫ܐ‬煿‫ ܐܠ‬alāhā (“God”) and 焏‫ ܐܒ‬abā (“Father”) clothed himself by being articulated in human language. From such an interpretation of the Syriac evidence one may undertake almost immediately the step to the comment which the child Jesus offers in the ArmIG that “the name ayb translates God”

76

See the discussions in S. Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt (Eichstätter Beiträge 4; Abteilung Philosophie und Theologie; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1982): pp. 11–38; and R.R. Phenix, The Sermons on Joseph of Balai of Qenneshrin (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 250–259.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

91

or “the ayb translates the Name, God.”77 The earlier research result therefore that the ArmIG could be regarded as the locus for the beginnings of theological reflections concerning Trinitarian or Christological matters in the context of alphabet speculations in the traditions associated with the IGT can be adjusted now insofar as such beginnings may have been contained already, albeit more indirectly, in the Syriac IGT tradition.78 The fact that the Syriac evidence is available only in manuscript evidence from the seventeenth century, however, prompts one to retain a question about the chronology of the relationship of the traditions to one another. After all, it is at least theoretically possible, but not strongly plausible that the Armenian tradition might have had an influence on the development of the Syriac IGT tradition that is in evidence in Syriac MS P.

Conclusions If one considers the immediate significance of the Georgian IGT in the context of discerning the relationships between primarily the Ethiopic, Syriac, Greek, and Armenian traditions in chapter six, one might conclude that it witnesses to the existence of an Armenian translation of the IGT, at least chapter 6:4, prior to the eleventh century. In the Georgian IGT, the articulation of an interest in “names” and the intersection which it suggests of some of the “names” it uses for elements of the letters with “names” or elements of the description in the Syriac IGT that are not strictly visually oriented but are also open for theological interpretation together suggest that the Armenian IGT, based on the Syriac IGT, may have played an intermediary role in developing and intensifying this “theologically oriented” interpretation of the “names” of the letters. In the ArmIG, this theologically oriented interpretation of “names” appears in a more fully developed form. For chapter six of the IGT, the present article was able to show in detail that the text of the Georgian IGT has strong affinities with the Syriac tradition. At the same time, the Georgian IGT is embedded in the Greek-speaking milieu represented by various versions, with Greek recension Gs holding a certain prominence. In addition, the analysis of evidence in the Georgian IGT in connection with the evidence of the ArmIG renders plausible the existence of a now lost Armenian version of the IGT. Despite the philological difficulties which certain

77 78

See Ms M7574, f. 95r, ll. 17–18; and Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, p. 94. Horn, “Jesus at School,” p. 122.

92

horn

passages pose, there is enough data to support the conclusion that the Georgian IGT plays a remarkable role as a textual witness to the direct transmission of the IGT as an important Christological apocryphal work in medieval Armenian literature.

Acknowledgments The research, writing, and revising of this article for publication was made possible through a Heisenberg Fellowship (GZ HO 5221/1-1) and the support of a Heisenberg Professorship for Languages and Cultures of the Christian Orient at the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg (GZ HO 5221/2–1), for which the author wishes to express her gratitude to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. She records here her gratitude to Robert Phenix for many hours of discussing and critiquing minute details of the arguments advanced in this study and the larger project of which the present article is a part. To Alexey Ostrovsky, the present author is grateful for offering insights into details of the text of the Georgian IGT in its manifestation in the manuscript.

Bibliography R. Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009). W. Baars and J. Helderman, “Neue Materialien zum Text und zur Interpretation des Kindheitsevangeliums des Pseudo-Thomas,” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993): pp. 191– 226; 78 (1994): pp. 1–32. C. Bernheimer, Paleografia Ebraica (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1924). S. Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt (Eichstätter Beiträge 4; Abteilung Philosophie und Theologie; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1982): pp. 11–38. T. Burke, De infantia Iesu Evangelium Thomae Graece (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum 17; Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). T. Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas from an Unpublished Syriac Manuscript: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 16.2 (2013): pp. 225–299. J.W. Childers, “The Georgian Version of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition, eds. B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2013): pp. 293–327.

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

93

F.C. Conybeare, “The Discourse of Ananias, Called the Counter upon the Epiphany of our Lord and Saviour,” Expositor V 4 (1896): pp. 321–337. W. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet‘i, and Šavšet‘i (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie: Veröffentlichungen des Kunstgeschichtlichen Instituts der Johannes-Gutenberg Universität 17; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992). I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “La transmission de l’apocryphe de l’Enfance de Jésus en Arménie,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen; Beiträge zur ausserkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, eds. J. Frey and J. Schröter (WUNT 254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010): pp. 557–582. I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “Rückkehr zur Geburtsgrotte. Eine Untersuchung des armenischen Berichts über die Kindheit des Herrn,” Theologie der Gegenwart 56.1 (2013): pp. 30–43. I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “The Cave of the Nativity Revisited: Memory of the Primæval Beings in the Armenian Lord’s Infancy and Cognate Sources,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, eds. A. Mardirossian, A. Ouzounian, C. Zuckerman (Travaux et Mémoires 18; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014): pp. 285–334. G. Garitte, L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits de Sinaï (Bibliothèque du Muséon 38; Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1955), pp. 18–20. G. Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien de l’«Évangile de Thomas»,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 51 (1956): pp. 513–520. S. Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems,” Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): pp. 46–80. W.H.P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, Mass.: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1946). C. Horn, “Jesus at School among Christians, Jews, and Muslims,” in Forbidden Texts on the Western Frontier. The Christian Apocrypha in North American Perspectives, ed. Tony Burke (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015): pp. 111–131. Kirakos Gandzakets’i’s History of the Armenians, transl. R. Bedrosian (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986). D. Kouymjian, “Armenian Paleography: A Reassessment,” in Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, eds. F. Déroche and F. Richard (Collection études et recherches; Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997). D. Kouymjian, “The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript: Codicology, Paleography and Beyond,” in Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text, ed. V. Calzolari, with the collaboration of M.E. Stone (Handbook of Oriental Studies / Handbuch der Orientalistik, VIII, 23/1; Leiden: Brill, 2014): pp. 5– 22 La version géorgienne ancienne de l’Évangile de Luc: d’après les évangiles d’Adich avec les

94

horn

variantes des évangiles d’Opiza et de Tbet‘, ed. M. Brière (Patrologia Orientalis 27.3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1955). Les miracles de Jésus (Miracles I à X), ed. and tr. S. Grébaut (Patrologia Orientalis 12.4; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1919). J. Molitor, “Die Bedeutung der altgeorgischen Bibel für die neutestamentliche Textkritik,” Biblische Zeitschrift n.F. 4 (1960): pp. 39–53. J. Molitor, “Zur armenischen Vorlage der altgeorgischen Version des 1. Johannesbriefes,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ [Monthly Review] 75 (1961): pp. 415–424. S.N. Mouraviev, Erkataguir ԵՐԿԱԹԱԳԻՐ ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien: avec, en supplément: une paléographie arménienne des Ve–VIe/VIIe siècles et un choix de sources historiques (Les Trois Secrets de Mesrop Machtots ou la Genèse des Alphabets paléochrétiens du Caucase, 1; Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2010). J. Noret, “Pour une édition de l’Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas,” AnBoll 90.3–4 (1972). B. Outtier, “Essai de répertoire des manuscrits des vieilles versions géorgiennes du Nouveau Testament,” Langues Orientales Anciennes. Philologie et Linguistique 1 (1988): pp. 173–179. P. Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes II: L’Évangile de l’enfance. Rédactions syriaques, arabe et arméniennes traduites et annotées (Textes et documents pour l’étude historique du christianisme 18; Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914). R.R. Phenix, The Sermons on Joseph of Balai of Qenneshrin (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). G. Philippart, “Fragments palimpsests latins du Vindobonensis 563 (Ve siècle?). Évangile selon S. Matthieu, Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas, Évangile de Nicodème,” AnBoll 90.3–4 (1972): pp. 391–411. U. Possekel, “Ephrem’s Doctrine of God,” in God in Early Christian Thought: Essays in Memory of Lloyd G. Patterson, eds. A.B. McGowan, B. Daley, and T.J. Gaden (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 94: Leiden: Brill, 2009): pp. 195–238. Th. Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 39 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997). A. de Santos Otero, Das kirchenslavische Evangelium des Thomas (Patristische Texte und Studien 6; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967). K.E.A. Schmidt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Grammatik des Griechischen und Lateinischen (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1859). K.E.A. Schmidt, “Die Benennungen der griechischen Buchstaben,” Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen 5.1 (Berlin: Verlag von Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin, 1851). W.A. Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus. Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 48; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014).

jesus and the alphabet in the caucasus

95

H.W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920). M. Stone, D. Kouymjian, and H. Lehmann, Album of Armenian Paleography (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002). A. Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). E.M. Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1912). S. Voicu, “Notes sur l’histoire du texte de l’Histoire de l’enfance de Jésus,” Apocrypha 2 (1991): pp. 119–132. S. Voicu, “Verso il testo primitivo dei Παιδικὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ «Racconti del’infanzia del Signore Gesù»,” Apocrypha (1998): pp. 7–95. A. Vööbus, Zur Geschichte des altgeorgischen Evangelientextes, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 4 (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1953). Voyages de Mr. Le Chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient. Tome Dixième, Contenant le second Voyage de l’Auteur d’Ispahan à Bander-Abassi, & son retour à Ispahan, Enrichi d’un grand nombre de belles Figures en Taille-douce, représentant les Antiquitez & les Choses remarquables du Païs (Amsterdam: Jean Louis de Lorme, 1711). W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the NewTestament, collected and edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, with an English translation and notes (London: Williams and Norgate, 1865). A. Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design (London: The British Library; and New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002). Անանիա Շիրակացու մատենագրությունը, Ուսումնասիրություն Ա.Գ. Աբրահամյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ Մատենադարանի հրատ., 1944) [The Writings of Ananias of Shirak, ed. A.G. Abrahamyan (Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1944)]. Անկանոն գիրք Նոր Կտակարանաց, կազմող Ե. Տայեցի (Վենետիկ: Ա. հ, 1898) [Non-canonical Books of the New Testament, ed. Y. Tayetsi (Venice: A. h., 1898)]. Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմություն հայոց: Տեքստը պատրաստեց եւ առաջաբանը գրեց Կ. Ա. Մելիք-Օհանջանյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ., 1961) [Kirakos Gandzaketsi, History of the Armenians, ed. K.A. Melik‘-Ōhanjanyan (Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of ArmSSR, 1961)]. კ. კეკელიძე, ქართული ჰაგიოგრაფიული ძეგლები, ნაწილი პირველი: კიმენი, ტ. I, იანვრის, თებერვლის, მარტის, აპრილის და მაისის თვეთა ტექსტები (თბილისი, 1918) [K. Kekelidze, Georgian Hagiographical Monuments, First part: Keimena, Vol. 1, Texts for the months of January, February, March, April, and May (Tbilisi: Georgian Academy of Sciences, 1918)]. ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა ყოფილი საეკლესიო მუზეუმის (A) კოლექციისა, I1, რედ. თ. ბრეგაძე, მ. ქავთარია, ლ. ქუთათელაძე, ელ. მეტ-

96

horn რეველი (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1973) [Description of Georgian manuscripts of

the collection (A) of the former Church Museum, I1, eds. T. Bregadze, M. Kavtaria, L. Kutateladze, El. Metreveli (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1973)]. ა. შანიძე, “თომას სახარების აპოკრიფის ქართული ვერსიის ნეწყვეტი და მისი გაუგებარი ადგილები”, in სტალინის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის შრომები 18 (1941) [A. Shanidze, “The Fragment of the Georgian Version of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and Its Incomprehensible Passages”, in Works of the Stalin Tbilisi State University 18 (1941)]: pp. 29–40. Ѳ. Жорданія, Описаніе рукописей Тифлисскаго Церковнаго Музея КарталиноКахетинскаго духовенства, книга I (Тифлисъ: Типографія «Гутенбергъ,» 1903), книга II (Тифлисъ: Типографія «Гутенбергъ,» 1902) [Th. Zhordania, Description of manuscripts of the Tiflis Church Museum of Kartli-Kakhetian Clergymen, Book 1 (Tbilisi: Printing House “Gutenberg,” 1903) and Book 2 (Tbilisi: Printing House “Gutenberg,” 1902)]. Н. Марръ, “О фрагментѣ грузинской версій «Дѣтства Христа» (къ критикѣ грузинскаго текста)”, Христіанскій Востокъ 6 (1917–1920) [N. Marr, “On the fragment of the Georgian version of the ‘Infancy of Christ’,” Christian Orient 6 (1917–1920)], printed as 6.3 (1922): pp. 343–347. Л. Меликсет-Бекъ, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи «Дѣтства Христа»”, Христіанскій Востокъ 6 (1917–1920) [L. Melikset-Bek, “A fragment of the Georgian version of the ‘Infancy of Christ’,” Christian Orient 6 (1917–1920)], printed as 6.3 (1922): pp. 315– 320.

chapter 7

An Early Witness of the Armenian Lectionary Jost Gippert

This article provides a preliminary account of the Armenian undertext of the palimpsest codex no. 637 of the National Library of Greece, Athens. The first 30 folios of the palimpsest (fols. 21–50) are shown to contain, in distorted order, the text of the Armenian lectionary of the Jerusalem style, covering the months of January through March and matching by and large the text form as edited by A. Renoux on the basis of Jerusalem codex no. 121, with a few remarkable differences and peculiarities to be noticed off-hand.

1

Introduction

In the early Middle Ages, when paper had not yet reached the Near East and Europe, manuscripts were usually written on parchment, an expensive support material indeed as it had to be produced in a time-consuming procedure from animal hides. It is therefore no wonder that parchment codices which were no longer deemed up-to-date were often prepared for reuse as “palimpsests” by washing or scratching their original content off, thus leaving empty space for writing down new content. However, in many palimpsests that were produced in this way, the erased undertexts left traces, visible either to the naked eye or through sophisticated photographical means, and many of these undertexts are considered more important today than the overtexts covering them because they represent ancient sources that may otherwise have vanished. This is especially true for the Armenian tradition, given that the oldest dated codices preserved in this language date only from the late ninth century while palimpsests may conceal textual materials that are older than that by centuries. In this respect, it is an advantage that from the early times of Armenian literacy on, Armenian manuscripts were scattered about large areas of the Near East and Eastern Europe, where many of them were re-used as palimpsests by people who were not interested in their contents, for instance on Mt. Sinai where two Armenian majuscule codices, containing parts of the Old Testament (the so-called Bankʽ Sołomoni) and the Pauline Epistles with the Euthalian apparatus, were overwritten, along with the only

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_009

98

gippert

manuscript remains of the Caucasian Albanians, by a Georgian monk in about the eleventh century.1 Another important Armenian palimpsest is manuscript no. 637 of the National Library of Greece in Athens, which in its upper layer contains liturgical material in Greek (a Παρακλητική) written in a hand attributed to the 14th century. According to a recent description of the codex,2 it consists of a total of 122 folios, with the Greek overwriting (in minuscule) written in two columns of 48–55 lines each; the size is given as 347×249 mm. An Armenian undertext (“παλαιότερη γραφή”) is found on all of fols. 21–122, arranged in two columns “in parallel with the overtext” (“παράλληλη πρὸς τὴ νεότερη”) and relatively well discernible up to fol. 50. In accordance with a former cataloguer who consulted an “anonymous Armenian priest” (“ἀνώνυμο ἀρμένιο ἱερέα”), the Armenian content is determined as pertaining to the “Old Testament” (“Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη”).3 This, however, is only partially true. A preliminary investigation of fols. 21–50 of the codex undertaken on the basis of both colour photographs and multispectral images4 has clearly revealed that the Armenian underwriting contained materials from both parts of the Bible side by side, arranged as lections along the liturgical year, with the original order being heavily distorted as usual in the reuse of palimpsested codices. As a matter of fact, the original codex must have been a lectionary of the Jerusalem style, matching by and large the text form as edited by A. Renoux on the basis of the Jerusalem codex no. 1215 but with a few remarkable differences and peculiarities to be noticed off-hand. Even though only one third of the palimpsest has been investigated so far (fols. 21–50), it

1 See J. Gippert, W. Schulze, Z. Aleksidze, J.-P. Mahé, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vols. 1–2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) for the Caucasian Albanian undertexts and J. Gippert, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vol. 3: The Armenian layer (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010) for the Armenian undertexts of the codices Sin. Georg. N13 and N55 of the socalled New Finds collection. 2 Ζ. Μελισσάκης, “Οἱ παλίμψηστοι κώδικες τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος,” Σύμμεικτα 16 (2003–2004): pp. 159–216, here pp. 190–191. My thanks are due to Zisis Melissakis who drew my attention to the Armenian palimpsest of Athens, provided excellent photographs of the pages dealt with below and supported an assistant of mine, Manuel Raaf, in undertaking a preliminary multispectral analysis of the codex. 3 Μελισσάκης, “Οἱ παλίμψηστοι κώδικες”, p. 190 with note 56 referring to Ἰ. Σακκελίων, Ἀ. Ἰ. Σακκελίων, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Ἀθήνα: Ἐθνικό Τυπογραφεῖο καί Λιθογραφεῖο, 1892), p. 119. 4 For the technique of multispectral imaging applied in the investigation of palimpsests see J. Gippert, The Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex Vindobonensis georgicus 2 (Turnhout: Brepols 2007), pp. xxxii–xxxiv. 5 A. Renoux, Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121, vols. 1–2 (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1969–1971).

an early witness of the armenian lectionary

99

seems appropriate to summarise the preliminary results here in order to show that further efforts, especially a thorough application of multispectral imaging, would be worthwhile indeed.

2

The Structure of the Palimpsest Codex

As was stated above, the Armenian undertext appears in two columns, each covered horizontally by the Greek overwriting; among the folios investigated so far, none has been turned, the Armenian text always beginning on the top of the “Greek” page. The Armenian columns consist of only 25 lines each (vs. 48– 55 of the Greek), due to the use of majuscules and larger spaces between the lines; nevertheless, one line at the top and one line at the bottom usually stand out, as well as a few characters in the right or left margins and between the columns, because the live area of the overtext is slightly smaller than that of the underwriting. Text passages pertaining to the lections proper are written in reasonably bold erkatʽagir majuscules,6 with no slant, at an average of 14–15 characters per line and column; initials (of sections or paragraphs) are usually outdented and may extend in height up to four lines, while final characters in a line may be reduced in size and positioned a bit further up or down (cf. Fig. 7.17 showing the first five lines of cols. a and b of fol. 41r, representing Jo. 11.43–44 from the last lection of January 11 and Rom. 1.1–2 from the first lection of January 12—see the transcripts in Table 7.1). In contrast to this, lection titles and liturgical matter introducing them, including psalm verses and antiphons (“hallelujahs”), are written in smaller characters, at an average of 22 characters per line and column, thus reminding one strikingly of the Caucasian Albanian lectionary where the same distribution of letter sizes has been observed8 (cf. Fig. 7.2 displaying the first four lines of fol. 28r, contrasting the text of Heb. 11.34–35 from the first lection of January 17 in col. b with the introductory matter concerning the commemoration of St. Anthony on the same day, with the incipit of Ps. 115.6, in col. a—see the tentative transcripts in Table 7.2). There is practically no word-spacing, especially in the lection passages; punctuation is restricted to the use of a mid-line dot, and hyphenation is executed with-

6 Cf. Σακκελίων, Σακκελίων, Κατάλογος, p. 119, who styled the undertext to be “Armenian written in capital letters” (“ἡ προτέρα γραφή ἐστιν ἀρμενιστί, γράμμασι κεφαλαίοις γεγραμμένη”). 7 All images displayed below were processed manually in order to enhance the visibility of the undertext.—The first lines of the right column of fol. 41r are also displayed, in lithographic form, among the figures added at the end of Σακκελίων, Σακκελίων, Κατάλογος. 8 See Gippert et al., The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests, vol. 2, p. VI-1.

100

gippert

figure 7.1 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 41r (top) Multispectral images produced by Manuel Raaf and Jost Gippert with kind permission of the National Library of Greece table 7.1

Transcription (Jo. 11.43–44 / Rom. 1.1–2)

ՁԱՅՆ ԲԱՐՁՐ ԱՂԱՂԱԿԵԱՑ ԵՒ ԱՍԷ · ՂԱԶԱՐԷ ԱՐԻ ԵԿ ԱՐՏԱԿՍ · ԵՒ ԵԼ ՄԵՌԵԱԼՆ · ՈՏԻՒՔՆ ԿԱՊԵԼԱՒՔ · ԵՒ ՁԵՌԱՒ-

ԱՒՂՈՍ ԾՍՅ Ք՟Ի Յ՟Ի ԿՈՉԵՑԵԱԼ ԱՌԱՔԵԱԼ ՈՐՈՇԵԱԼ ՅԱՒԵՏԱՐԱՆՆ Ա՟Յ · ՈՐ ՅԱՌԱՋ ԽՈՍՏԱՑԱՒ Ի ՁԵՌՆ ՄԱՐԳ-

figure 7.2 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 28r (top) table 7.2

Transcription (introduction to January 17 / Heb. 11.34–35)

Յիշատակ սրբոյն անտոնի անապատականի · Եւ այս կանոն կատարի սաղմոս ճժե կցուրդ · Պատուական է առաջի

ԱՌԻՆ ԶԲԱՆԱԿՍ ԱՒՏԱՐԱՑ ԸՆԿԱԼԱՆ ԿԱՆԱՅՔ ՅԱՐՈՒԹԵՆԷ ԶԸՄԵՌԵԱԼՍ ԻՒՐԵԱՆՑ ·

out any mark.9 As in the oldest Gospel codices of Armenian, abbreviations are reserved for the nomina sacra ‘God’ and ‘Lord’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’, ‘Israel’ and ‘Jerusalem’ (but see 3.1 below for a remarkable exception). The individual days treated in the lectionary are usually demarcated by an ornamental line in red

9 For the sake of better readability, word-spacing and hyphens are introduced in the transcripts below.

an early witness of the armenian lectionary

101

figure 7.3 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 28vb (extract) table 7.3

Transcription January 17 (Mt. 10.42)–January 19

Jan. 17: Mt. 10.42

-ՑԷ ԶՎԱՐՁՍ ԻՒՐ · (Demarcation line)

Jan. 19

Յունուարի ամսոյ որ աւր ԺԹ է

colour (cf. Fig. 7.3 showing the crown-shaped elements of the line indicating the beginning of January 19 after Mt. 10.42 as the last lection of January 17 on fol. 28v, col. b—see the transcripts in Table 7.3). It remains unclear whether red ink was also used for certain textual materials, for instance psalms or lection titles, all visible traces of letters appearing in brownish tones. As was stated above, the palimpsest agrees by and large with the text of the Armenian lectionary of the Jerusalem type as edited by A. Renoux, both in the lections it contains and in the ancillary materials surrounding them. However, there is a major difference right at the beginning of the text. According to Renoux’s edition, there is a lacuna in the Jerusalem codex between the first lection on January 6, Lk. 2.8–20, which breaks off after the յ of the word ամենայնի, thus omitting the seven last words of verse 20, and the following lection, which covers Gen. 1.28–3,20; here it is the first 17 words of the first verse (28) that are missing, the text beginning with the կ of the word ձկանց.10 In the Athens codex, the text of Lk. 2.8–20 is contained in toto on fol. 21, the very first folio that is palimpsest, which also bears, after a demarcation line at the top of its recto, the introductory matter to the lectionary itself (matching, as far as one can tell from the few traces of the text that have remained visible, the 10

See Renoux, Le Codex arménien, vol. I, p. 210/72 with note 7. In the Paris codex (P, Bibliothèque Nationale no. 44, ca. 10th century), the lacuna extends from the beginning of the lection from Lk. 2 up to Gen. 1.22 (see Renoux, ibid., n. 6). The Erevan codex (E, Matenadaran 985, ca. 10th century) lacks the corresponding quire.

102

gippert

figure 7.4 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 21ra (top)

introduction of the Jerusalem codex; see Fig. 7.4).11 The text of Lk. 2.20 ends in the tenth but last line of fol. 20vb, with ten lines following that have remained indecipherable; however, it seems clear that they did not pertain to the lection, given that they were obviously written in the smaller letters used for liturgical matter. Gen. 1.28 is also contained in the Athens palimpsest, on fol. 24r where it extends from the end of col. a (թռչնոց երկնից եւ) to the beginning of col. b (անասնոց եւ ամենայն երկիր; ամենայն is missing before աաասնոց, probably by saut du même au même at the column break). However, verse 28 is by no means the beginning of the lection from Gen. 1 represented on fol. 24r, which starts with verse 25 (Եւ արար ա՟ծ զգազանս). What is more, fol. 24 clearly continues fol. 23, which all in all contains Gen. 1.9 (Եւ եղեւ այնպէս)–24 (ըստ ազգի եւ եղեւ այնպէս), and fol. 23 continues fol. 46, in its turn containing the very beginning of Genesis (1.1, Ի սկզբանէ արար ա՟ծ,–1.9a, եւ երեւեսցի ցամակն). On the other hand, the lection in question extends far beyond Gen. 1.28 in the palimpsest, the text on fol. 24 continuing up to 2.9 (գեղեցիկ ի տեսանել եւ), followed by 2.9b (քաղցի ի կերակուր)–3.1 on fol. 47 and 3.2– 3.19 on fol. 26. We thus arrive at a contiguous lection comprising Gen. 1.1–3.19, possibly further extending beyond that on a folio that has not yet been identified. The Jerusalem codex does contain a corresponding lection, Gen. 1.1–3.24, but this is to be read on the Monday before Easter (no. 106 in Renoux’s edition). On fol. 46, the text of Gen. 1.1 is preceded by another lection, viz. that of Mt. 1.18–25, in its turn introduced by its title and following the indication of 11

Of the text given in Renoux, Le Codex arménien, vol. I, p. 210/72 as Յիշատակարան ժողովոցն որք կատարեն յԷ՟մ, the initial letter (Յ) is clearly discernible below the demarcation line. The first text line in the palimpsest may well read Յիշատակարան ժողովոցն.

an early witness of the armenian lectionary

103

figure 7.5 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 46ra (top) table 7.4

Antiphon Title Mt. 1.18

Transcription (Mt. 1.18 with indication of antiphon and title)

Աղեղուիա Սաղմոս ՃԹ Աւետարան ըստ մատթէոսի ԺԷ ԵՒ Յ՟Ի Ք՟Ի ԾՆՈՒՆԴՆ ԷՐ

Ps. 109 to be sung as the antiphon (cf. Fig. 7.5 showing the four lines at the top of fol. 46ra, transcribed in Table 7.4). The lection of Mt. 1.18–25 introduced by Ps. 109 does occur in the Jerusalem codex, too, but as the last lection on January 7 (lection no. 17 in Renoux’s edition), and it is by no means followed by Gen. 1.1sqq. there, the next lection being Act. 6.8–8.2 on January 8 instead. Therefore, it seems conceivable that the sequence of Mt. 1.18–25 and Gen. 1.1sqq. which we find in the Athens palimpsest followed the lection of Lk. 2.8– 20 on January 6 as part of the liturgy concerning the Nativity of Jesus Christ, thus filling the gap between the end of Lk. 2.20 and Gen. 1.28 in the Jerusalem codex. Indirect evidence for this assumption is provided by the Georgian version of the Jerusalem lectionary.12 Here, the lections concerning the Nativity are gath12

For the Georgian lectionary see the edition by M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’ Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle), vol. I (CSCO 188, Iber 10; Louvain: CorpusSCO, 1959), which is primarily based upon the Paris manuscript no. 3 of the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris (of about the 10th–11th centuries). Older witnesses of the Georgian lectionary have been found in palimpsest form, for instance in the Gospel manuscript of Kurashi (Svane-

104

gippert

ered not on January 6–7 as in the Armenian tradition but on Dec. 24–25, in accordance with the date established in Greek Orthodoxy in the fourth–fifth centuries;13 nevertheless, the liturgical contents of the two versions of the lectionary are nearly the same. Indeed, in the Georgian version, Lk. 2.8–20 is the first lection, too, with Mt. 1.18–25 and Gen. 1.1–3.24 following.14 It is true that there are two further lections inserted here before Mt. 1.18–25, viz. Jer. 23.2–6 and Heb. 1.1–12;15 however, the sequence of Mt. 1.18–25 and Gen. 1.1–3.24 is as contiguous here as it is in the Athens palimpsest, including the antiphon of Ps. 109.1 preceding the lection from Matthew. The assumption that the Athens palimpsest represents, with Mt. 1.18–25 and Gen. 1.1–3.24 following upon Lk. 2.8–20, the original sequence of lections to be read on January 6, with no further lection inserted after Lk. 2.20, is corroborated by the codicological structure of the codex. To prove this, it may be convenient first to establish the sequence of the folios that have been identified so far in accordance with the lections they contain. In Table 7.5, the lections of the individual dates are arranged in the sequence given in the Jerusalem lectionary, with the corresponding palimpsest folios indicated below in their proper sequence. The Table clearly shows to what extent the original sequence of folios was distorted when they were overwritten with the Greek text. The picture becomes much less chaotic, then, if we try to reconstruct the structure of the original codex. To reach this aim, only three further presuppositions are necessary. One is the assumption that in reusing it for the Greek overtext, its original bifoliates were retained as such, yielding bifoliates of the present codex again. This assumption is unproblematic, given that the live areas of both the underwriting and the overwriting are near to identical. The second assumption is that the original codex consisted of quaternions, i.e., quires with four bifoliates each, different from the present structure which obviously comprises at least one ternion (fols. 21–26) alongside quaternions (fols. 27–34, fols. 35–42, fols. 43–50). A third assumption is that fol. 21 was not the first folio of the original codex, as suggested by its contents (see 2.2 above), but that one folio, possibly carrying title matter, an index or the like, must have

13 14 15

tia), see J. Gippert, “The Gospel Manuscript of Kurashi. A preliminary account,”Le Muséon 126 (2013): pp. 83–160, here pp. 107–114; 148–155. Cf., e.g., S.K. Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995). Sections no. 5, 9, and 13 in Tarchnischvili’s edition; note that different from Renoux, Tarchnischvili numbers psalms, antiphons, and other elements separately. Sections no. 7 and 8 in Tarchnischvili’s edition; in the Armenian lectionary, Heb. 1.1–12 is read on January 8.

105

an early witness of the armenian lectionary table 7.5

Sequence of fols. 21–50 along the lections of January through March Jan. 6

Intro 21r

1 Lk. 2,8–20 21rv

[2] [Mt. 1,18–25] 46rv

[3] Gen. 1,[1]–3,20 46v; 23rv; 24rv; 47rv; 26rv

Jan. 6 4 Is. 7,10–17

5 Ex. 14,24–15,21 22rv; 27rv

6 Mi. 5,2–7 27v

7 Prov. 1,2–19

Jan. 6 8 Is. 9,4–6

9 Is. 11,1–9 29r

10 Is. 35,3–8 29rv

11 Is. 40,10–17 29v; 32r

Jan. 6 12 Is. 42,1–8 32r

13 Dan. 3,1–35; –51; –90 32rv; 34rv; 25rv; 38rv; 35r

14 Tit. 2,11–15 35rv

Jan. 7 16 Tit. 2,11–15 bis

17 Mt. 1,18–25 bis (46rv)

Jan. 8 20 Jo. 12,24–26 42v; 39r Jan. 9 24 Lk. 1,26–38 37r

Jan. 8 18 Act. 6,8–8,2 45rv; 48rv; 42rv Epiphany

21 Heb. 1,1–12 39rv

22 Mt. 2,13–23 39v Jan. 10

25 Heb. 12,18–27 37v; 36r

15 Mt. 2,1–12 35v

26 Lk. 1,39–56 36rv

19 Tit. 2,11–15 ter (42v) Jan. 9 23 Gal. 4,1–7

Jan. 11 27 1.Thess. 4,12–17 36v; 43r

106

gippert

Table 7.5

Sequence of fols. 21–50 along the lections of January through March (cont.)

Jan. 11

Jan. 12

28 Jo. 11,1–46 43rv; 50rv; 41r

29 Rom. 1,1–12 41rv

30 Lk. 2,1–7 41v; 40r

Jan. 13 (Circumcision) 32 Lk. 2,21 40v

Jan. 14 33 Rom. 8,28–39 40v

Jan. 17 (Anthony) 36 Mt. 10, 37–42 28v Feb. 14

34 Mt. 10,16–22

Jan. 19 (Theodosius) 37 1.Tim. 2,1–7 28v

38 Lk. 7,1–10

March 18 (Cyril of Jerusalem)

40 Lk. 2,22–40 44rv; 31r

41 2.Tim. 4,1–8 31rv

42 Jo. 10,11–16 31v

Jan. 13 (Circumcision) 31 Kol. 2,8–15 40rv Jan. 17 (Anthony) 35 Heb. 11,32–40 28rv Feb. 14 39 Gal. 3,24–29 44r Preparation of Baptism 43 Is. 1,16–20 30r

Preparation of Baptism 44 Ez. 18,20–23 30rv

45 Rom. 6,3–14 30v; 49r

46 Kol. 2,8–3,4 49rv

47 Heb. 11,1–31 33rv

preceded it.16 On this basis, the codex structure can be re-established as outlined in Table 7.6 where the original quires are indicated by Roman numbers and the original bifoliates, by Arabic numbers plus the letters a and b for the two folios they comprised.

16

See J. Gippert, “The Albanian Gospel Manuscript—New Findings,” in Research Papers of the International scientific conference “The Place and Role of Caucasian Albania in the History of Azerbaijan and Caucasus” (Baku: Nacional’naja Akademija Aviacii, 2012): pp. 55–64, here p. 61 for a similar proposal concerning the Caucasian Albanian Gospel palimpsest from Mt. Sinai. (Available online: http://titus.uni‑frankfurt.de/personal/jg/pdf/jg2011j .pdf.)

107

an early witness of the armenian lectionary table 7.6

Presumable distribution of palimpsest folios among original quires I

1a

2a

3a

4a

4b

3b

2b

1b

Title

Intro; Lk. 2,8–20

Mt. 1,18–25; Gen. 1,1–9

1,9–24

1,25–2,9

2,9–3,1

3,2–19

Gen. 3,20; Is. 7,10–17; Ex. 14,24–29

21r

21v

46r

46v

23r

23v

24r

24v

47r

47v

26r

26v

II 5a

6a

7a

8a

8b

7b

6b

5b

Ex. 14,29–15,14

Ex. 15,14– 21; Mi.5,2–7

Prov. 1,2– 19; Is. 9,4– 6; Is. 11,1–6

11,6–9; Is. 35,3–8; Is. 40,10–17

40,17; Is. 42,1–8; Dan. 3,1–5

3,5–20

3,20–3

3,36–54

29r

32r

22r

22v

27r

27v

29v

32v

34r

34v

25r

25v

III 9a

10a

11a

12a

12b

11b

10b

9b

3,54–85

3,86–90; Tit. 2,11–15; Mt. 2,1–4

2,4–12; Tit. 2,11–152; Mt. 1,18– 252; Act. 6,8

6,9–7,10

7,10–28

7,28–45

7,45–8,2; Tit. 2,11– 153; Jo. 12,24–26

12,26; Heb. 1,1–12; Mt. 2,13–15

45r

48r

38r

38v

35r

35v

45v

48v

42r

42v

39r

39v

IV 13a

14a

15a

16a

16b

15b

14b

13b

Mt. 2,15– 23; Gal. 4,1–7; Lk. 1,26–28

1,28–38; Heb. 12,18–26

12,26–27; Lk. 1,39–56; 1.Thess. 4,12–15

1.Thess. 4,15–17; Jo. 11,1–20

11,20–43;

11,43–46; Rom. 1,1– 12; Lk. 2,1–4

Lk. 2,4–7; Kol. 2,8–15; Lk. 2,21; Rom. 8,28–29

8,29–39; Mt. 10,16–22

50r

41r

37r

37v

36r

36v

43r

43v

50v

41v

40r

40v

108

gippert

Table 7.6

Presumable distribution of palimpsest folios among original quires (cont.) V

17a

18a

Heb. 11,32– 40; Mt. 10,37–42; 1.Tim. 2,1 28r

28v

19a

2,1–7; Lk. 3,25–29; 7,1–10; Gal. Lk. 2,22–39 3,24–25

44r

44v

20a

20b

19b

18b

17b

Lk. 2,39– 40; 2.Tim. 4,1–8; Jo. 10,11–16

Is. 1,16–20; Ez. 18,20– 21; Rom. 6,3–10

6,10–14; Kol. 2,8–21

Kol. 2,21– 3,4; Heb. 11,1–12;

Heb. 11,12–29

31r

30r

31v

30v

49r

49v

33r

33v

It is clear from this reconstruction that from the first five quires of the original codex, one bifoliate each is still unidentified (I: 1ab; II: 7ab; III: 11ab; IV: 13ab; V: 18ab). It is likely that these can be found among the 72 palimpsest folios by applying a thorough multispectral analysis.

3

Peculiarities of Language and Orthography

All in all, the palimpsest text of the Athens codex agrees with that of the Jerusalem lectionary, and its appearance matches that of the oldest dated Gospel manuscripts of Armenian that have survived, such as the Moscow Gospels of 887AD.17 This is true for the letter shapes, the use and arrangement of enlarged initials and reduced line-final characters, the use of ե vs. է in եթե and in imperfect forms, the spelling աւ appearing instead of օ, the scope and the means of punctuation and abbreviation, and the layout in columns. However, there are a few peculiarities that can be remarked off-hand. As was stated above, abbreviations are in general restricted to the six nomina sacra, in accordance with the ancient Gospel manuscripts18 and in contrast to later usage where many pronouns, conjunctions, suffixes and the like were abbreviated. On fol. 41r, in the first line of the lection from Rom. 1 (cf. 2.1 with

17

18

Cf. the facsimile edition by Grigor Xalatʽeancʽ published at the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages under the title Աւետարան ըստ թարգմանութեան նախնեաց մերոց գրեալ ՅԼԶ թ. հայոց եւ յամի տեառն 887 (Մոսկուա: Լազարեան Ճեմարանի Արեւելեան Լեզուաց, 1899) / Évangile traduit en langue arménienne ancienne et écrit en l’ an 887 (Moscou: Institut Lazareff des Langues Orientales, 1899). Cf. B.O. Künzle, Das altarmenische Evangelium / L’Evangile arménien ancien, vol. I (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1984), pp. 102*–103* for the Moscow and Etchmiadzin Gospels.

an early witness of the armenian lectionary

109

figure 7.6 Ms. EBE 637, fol. 30r (top) table 7.7

Transcription (introduction to the preparation of baptism / Is. 1.18–19)

(Demarcation line) Ընթերցուածք վարդապետութեան ի գիր անկելոցն քառասներորդսն · եւ հանդերձե-

ԵԹԵ ԻՑԵՆ ԻԲՐԵՒ ԶՅՈՐԴԱՆ ԿԱՐՄԻՐ ԻԲՐԵՒ ԶԱՍՐ ՍՈՒՐԲ ԱՐԱՐԻՑ · ԵՒ ԵԹԵ ԱԽ-

Fig. 7.1 and Table 7.1 above), we find Ք՟Ի = Քրիստոսի and Յ՟Ի = Յիսուսի as typical examples of this. However, the same line also contains a word ԾՍՅ which in the given context must stand for ծառայ ‘servant’ as the epithet applied by St. Paul to himself (≈ Gk. δοῦλος). ԾՍՅ can by no means be a “regular” abbreviation, given that the word does not contain an Ս letter at all. In my view, the only way to explain the curious spelling is to assume that the Ս resulted from a misinterpretation of a similarly shaped abbreviation mark in a Vorlage manuscript (quasi Ծ˘Յ). If this is true, it still remains remarkable as the word seems not to have been abbreviated elsewhere, and the misunderstanding would be astonishing, to say the least. Another curious mistake witnessing to a reduced erudition of the scribe is found on fol. 30r which contains, as the first of the 19 lections pertaining to the Preparation of Baptism, Is. 1.16–20. Within the text of Is. 1.18, appearing at the top of col. b, it presents the accusative form of the name of the river Jordan, ԶՅՈՐԴԱՆ, instead of the word զորդան rendering, together with the adjective կարմիր, Gk. κόκκινος ‘scarlet’ (cf. Fig. 7.6 showing the first four lines of fol. 30r, cols. a and b, transcribed in table 7.7—note the demarcation line introducing the entry in question).19 On fol. 41r again, within Jo. 11.43, the palimpsest reads ձայն բարձր (‘loud voice’, lit. ‘high voice’), while the ancient Gospel manuscripts unanimously

19

The lections concerning the Preparation of Baptism are arranged after March 29 in the Jerusalem lectionary (section XVII in Renoux’s edition). Note that the introductory text following the demarcation line agrees with that of the Erevan ms. (E), and not with that of the Jerusalem codex (cf. Renoux, Le Codex arménien, vol. I, p. 232/94).

110

gippert

show ձայն մեծ (lit. ‘big voice’) for Gk. φωνῇ μεγάλῃ.20 This wording may have been influenced by Lk. 1.42, Mk. 15.8 and other New Testament passages that contain the same phrase. Two lines further down, the palimpsest shows ԱՐՏԱԿՍ for usual արտաքս ‘out’, a spelling that seems not to be attested elsewhere. In some cases, the extent of lections differs from that of the Jerusalem codex. This is true, e.g., for the lection from Rom. 1, which according to Renoux’s edition ends with 1.7 while it continues up to 1.12 in the palimpsest. In contrast to this, the lection of Jo. 12.24–30 prescribed for January 8 in the Jerusalem codex is reduced to 12.24–26 in the palimpsest. The time is not ripe yet to deal with differences in the application of suffixed articles, the nota accusativi, alternative verbal forms, or the substitution of synonymous function words like որպէս and իբրեւ, which are found on and on in the palimpsest. However, the examples adduced so far clearly show that a further investigation of the Athens codex is likely to reveal important insights into the history of the Jerusalem lectionary in the Armenian tradition, as well as the history of Armenian literacy in general.

Bibliography J. Gippert, “The Albanian Gospel Manuscript—New Findings,” in Research Papers of the International scientific conference “The Place and Role of Caucasian Albania in the History of Azerbaijan and Caucasus” (Baku: Nacional’naja Akademija Aviacii, 2012): pp. 55–64. J. Gippert, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vol. 3: The Armenian layer (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). J. Gippert, “The Gospel Manuscript of Kurashi. A preliminary account,” Le Muséon 126 (2013): pp. 83–160. J. Gippert, The Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex Vindobonensis georgicus 2 (Turnhout: Brepols 2007). J. Gippert, W. Schulze, Z. Aleksidze, J.-P. Mahé, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vols. 1–2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009). B.O. Künzle, Das altarmenische Evangelium / L’Évangile arménien ancien, vol. I (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1984). A. Renoux, Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121, vols. 1–2 (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1969–1971). 20

The text form of the Jerusalem lectionary is not available as Renoux’s edition gives only the incipit and desinit of the lection in question (Jo. 11.1 and 46; Renoux, Le Codex arménien, vol. I, section VII, p. 220/82).

an early witness of the armenian lectionary

111

S.K. Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995). M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle), vol. I (CSCO 188, Iber 10; Louvain: CorpusSCO, 1959). Ζ. Μελισσάκης, “Οἱ παλίμψηστοι κώδικες τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος,”Σύμμεικτα 16 (2003–2004): pp. 159–216. Ἰ. Σακκελίων, Ἀ.Ἰ. Σακκελίων, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Ἀθήνα: Ἐθνικό Τυπογραφεῖο καί Λιθογραφεῖο, 1892). Աւետարան ըստ թարգմանութեան նախնեաց մերոց գրեալ ՅԼԶ թ. հայոց եւ յամի տեառն 887 (Մոսկուա: Լազարեան Ճեմարանի Արեւելեան Լեզուաց, 1899) [Évangile traduit en langue arménienne ancienne et écrit en l’an 887 (Moscou: Institut Lazareff des Langues Orientales, 1899)].

chapter 8

Eigentümlichkeiten und Probleme bei der zweiten armenischen Version der Basilius-Anaphora zu Beginn der Oratio ante Sanctus und die Mischung des Weins in einigen Codices Gabriele Winkler

In meiner 2005 erschienen Untersuchung der Basilius-Anaphora hatte ich lediglich auf einige Probleme mit der zweiten armenischen Übersetzung (arm Bas II) hingewiesen, ohne zum Beispiel den Beginn der Anaphora bezüglich des „Dignum et iustum“ in der arm Bas II detailliert darzustellen und zu kommentieren.1 In diesem Beitrag zum Gedenken an Karen Yuzbashyan möchte ich erstens auf die eigentümliche Textgestalt der arm Bas II am Ende des EingangsDialogs zur Anaphora mit dem Übergang und Beginn der „Oratio ante Sanctus“ näher eingehen, und zweitens auch auf die Handschriften, die die Mischung des Weins mit Wasser bezeugen. Die armenische Basilius-Anaphora ist in zwei Versionen auf uns gekommen: in der älteren Textgestalt (arm Bas I), die in den armenischen Handschriften jedoch nicht dem Basilius, sondern Grigor Lusaworič‛ zugeschrieben wurde2; und in einer zweiten armenischen Übersetzung (arm Bas II), die in den Codices unter dem Namen des großen kappadokischen Heiligen überliefert ist.

I

Überblick über die Codices

Zu den wichtigsten Handschriften der arm Bas II zählen: (1) Der Codex M (= Cod. arm. 6 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München), der auf fols. 207r–247v die arm Bas II bietet (und die arm Bas I, d. h. die Liturgie des Grigor Lusaworič‛, auf fols. 261r–276v). Der Codex M stammt 1 Cf. G. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora. Edition der beiden armenischen Redaktionen und der relevanten Fragmente, Übersetzung und Zusammenschau aller Versionen im Licht der orientalischen Überlieferungen (Anaphorae Orientales II, Anaphorae Armeniacae 2; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005). 2 Ibid., S. 54, 56, 60, 62–63.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_010

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

113

aus dem Kloster Urc in Siwnik‛ und ist eine Abschrift von 1427 nach einer Vorlage aus dem Jahr 1289.3 (2) Der Codex L (= Cod. arm. 17 der Bibliothèque Municipale, Lyon), der die arm Bas II auf fols. 38v–64v bezeugt (und die arm Bas I auf fols. 28v–38r). Der Codex L entstammt der Festung von Anarzab, A.D. 1314.4 (3) Der an sich interessante Codex V1 (= Cod. arm. 1411) von Sis, Kilikien, aus der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts, der sich heute in der Bibliothek von San Lazzaro, Venedig, befindet. Die arm Bas II ist auf den fols. 123r– 166v überliefert.5 Dabei ist durchgängig auch noch die alte Zählung am unteren Rand zu erkennen, wie z.B. bei der für diesen Beitrag zum Teil noch relevanten „Oratio ante Sanctus“: Unterhalb der Angabe von fol. 145r findet sich die alte Zählung: 287r; und unterhalb der Angabe von fol. 146r findet sich die alte Nummerierung: 289r. Bereits vor Einfügung der Folienangaben in diesem Codex muss ein Folio verlorengegangen sein und dies schon vor der Einfügung der alten Zählung: zwischen fol. 145v und 146r (alte Angabe: 287v und 289r) fehlt ein ganzes Folio im Zusammenhang mit der „Oratio ante Sanctus“: Fol. 145v mit den Verben des Lobpreises der Gläubigen unmittelbar vor dem Beginn der „Oratio ante Sanctus“ endet mit: քեզ երկիրպագա[նեմք] („Dich beten wir an“); fol. 146r beginnt mit: [կենդանա]կան զաւրութիւն („lebendige Macht“) unmittelbar vor dem „ante Sanctus“.6 Das heißt, mit dem Ausfall eines ganzen Folios fehlt fast die gesamte „Oratio ante Sanctus“. In meiner Edition (und Übersetzung) findet sich dieser Abschnitt auf folgenden Seiten: pp. 212/213, Zeile 9 + Anm.: քեզ երկիրպագա[նեմք] („Dich beten wir an“); pp. 216/217, Zeile 39 + Anm.: [կենդանա]կան զաւրութիւն („lebendige Macht“). (4) Der stärker beschädigte Codex V2 (= Cod. arm. 1044 von Kilikien aus dem 14. Jahrhundert) findet sich heute ebenso in der Bibliothek von San Lazzaro, Venedig.7 3 4 5 6 7

Ibid., S. 53–54, 62–67. Ibid., S. 54–55, 62–67. Ibid., S. 113–122, 124–128. Ibid., S. 125. Ibid., S. 122–125.

114

winkler

Die arm Bas II beginnt in diesem Codex ab fol. 13r–13v mit einem Teil des Übergangs von der Epiklese zum anaphorischen Fürbittgebet. Es fehlt also der Anfang (zwischen fol. 12v und 13r sowie bei fol. 14v und 15r ist jeweils ein leeres Blatt eingeschoben) und somit ist die arm Bas II nicht vollständig erhalten. Zudem sind die Blätter der arm Bas II durcheinandergeraten und nicht alle Blätter von fol. 13r–31v gehören zur arm Bas II.8 Fol. 13r–13v beinhaltet, wie gesagt, den Übergang von der Epiklese zu den Interzessionen, ist also zwischen fol. 22v und 23r einzuschieben; fol. 14r–14v bezieht sich auf die Vorbereitung auf den Empfang der Gaben; und fol. 14v bezeugt das „Sancta sanctis“, ist also zwischen fol. 28v und 29r einzufügen.9 Von der arm Bas II fehlen demnach Teile, die für diesen Beitrag relevant wären: (1) der Eingangs-Dialog, (2) die „Oratio ante Sanctus“.10 Die Handschrift beginnt erst mit der „Oratio post Sanctus“, die auf fol. 19r einsetzt: fols. 19r–21r (Zeile 9): „Oratio ante Sanctus“ fol. 21r–21v (Zeile 3 v.u.): Einsetzungsbericht fols. 21v–22r (Zeile 6): Anamnese (mit Darbringung) fol. 22r: Lobpreis vor der Epiklese fol. 22r–22v: Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst fol. 22v (Zeile 4): Beginn der Epiklese fol. 13r: Übergang von der Epiklese zu den Interzessionen für die Toten fol. 13r–13v: Interzessionen (Gedenken der Vorväter, Patriarchen, etc., gefolgt von den Fürbitten für die Lebenden) fol. 23r: Fortsetzung der Fürbitten (bis fol. 26v) fol. 26v: Doxologie Noch wesentlich bedeutsamer ist jedoch folgende Beobachtung: Die V1 und der (im Vergleich zu V1 zweitrangige) Codex L bezeugen gegenüber M + V2 inhaltliche Übereinstimmungen, so beim Einsetzungsbericht im Zusammenhang mit den Aussagen zum Kelch: M + V2 reflektieren bei arm 8 9 10

Ibid., S. 123. Im Codex wurde dies mit anderer Hand bereits auf den fols. 13r und 14r am unteren Rand vermerkt. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 123, Anm. 278. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 123, 125.

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

115

Bas II wie bei arm Bas I die genuin armenische Überlieferung, wenn die Mischung des Weins fallengelassen wurde, während die Codices V1 + L bei arm Bas II entgegen der armenischen Tradierung die Mischung des Weins bezeugen, wie der nachfolgende Überblick zeigt:11 Die Mischung des Weins in den Codices L + V1 der arm Bas II

M fol. 231v V2 fol. 21v:

V1 fol. 150r L fol. 54r:

Zudem nahm er gleichermaßen auch den Kelch nach dem Mahl, – – – – –

Und indem er gleichfalls den Kelch mit dem Ertrag des Weinstocks nahm, mischte er [ihn], dankte er, segnete [er ihn], heiligte [er ihn], gab [er ihn] seinen heiligen Jüngern und Aposteln, wobei er sagte …

wobei er sagte …

In meiner Publikation der armenischen Fragmente mit den Codices der Basilius-Anaphora finden sich: die Edition der arm Bas I auf den Seiten: 135–197, und die der arm Bas II auf den Seiten: 199–275.12

II

Der Text der arm Bas II

Hier nun der relevante Textauszug aus der arm Bas II: d. h. der zweite Teil des Eröffnungs-Dialogs mit dem sich anschließenden Beginn der „Oratio ante 11

12

Cf. G. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak. Edition des Cod. arm. 17 von Lyon, Übersetzung und Vergleich mit der armenischen Basilius-Anaphora unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der östlichen Quellen zum „Sancta sanctis“ (Anaphorae Orientales III, Anaphorae Armeniacae 3; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2011), S. 45, 229–232. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 199: auf dieser Seite findet sich ein Druckfehler bei der Angabe des Cod. arm. 1011; anstelle von 1011 muss es 1044 heißen.

116

winkler

Sanctus“ nach dem Cod. M unter Einbezug der oben angeführten Codices, wobei jedoch nur die für diese Untersuchung relevanten Varianten angegeben werden, nicht die Varianten bei den Rubriken (die in meiner Edition eingesehen werden können). 1. Der Eingangs-Dialog: (Teil II: Der eigentliche Eröffnungs-Dialog) Der Priester laut: Die Gnade unseres Herrn Jesu Christi und die Liebe Gottes, des Vaters, und die Gemeinschaft mit dem Heiligen Geist sei mit euch allen! [cf. 2Kor 13,13] Das Volk: Und mit Deinem Geiste! [cf. 2Tim 4,22] Der Diakon: Nach oben richtet eure Herzen. Das Volk: Wir haben [sie] bei Dir, allmächtiger Herr! Der Diakon: Und danket dem Herrn von ganzem Herzen! Das Volk: Würdig und recht [ist es] (Արժան եւ իրաւ). 2. Die Oratio ante Sanctus: Der Lobpreis der Gläubigen (und Engel) Der Priester verneigt sich und betet: Würdig und recht bist Du (Արժան եւ իրաւ ես), Herr, unser Gott (տ⟨է⟩ր ա⟨ստուա⟩ծ մեր) [gepriesen? verherrlicht?].13 [Die Interpolationen:] [(1a) Die Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst] Mach würdig meine Unwürdigkeit (արժանաւորեա զիմ անարժանութի⟨ւն⟩ս),

13

Die vorgeschlagene Ergänzung durch „gepriesen“ ist auf Grund des an Christus gerichteten Lobpreises (cf. pp. 208/209) in Zeile 1: „Gepriesen bist Du …“ legitim, der unverständlicherweise durch den Einschub mit der Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst unterbrochen wird. Siehe zudem weiter unten bei den Verben des Lobpreises: „Dich preisen wir“. Andererseits wäre auch die Ergänzung: „verherrlicht“ möglich, denn auch sie wäre durch den Vergleich mit arm Bas I, syr Bas, und byz Bas gerechtfertigt. Siehe dazu den Kommentar.

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

117

der ich mit vielen Sünden befleckt bin. Nicht unwürdig erachte mich, Herr, mein Gott. Siehe! Ich nähere mich Deinem göttlichen und anbetungswürdigen Altar. Nicht, dass es etwas Würdiges [an mir] gäbe, sondern in Deiner Güte aufgrund Deiner Aufmerksamkeit möge diese [meine] Stimme anheben: Gott, vergib mir Sünder! Denn ich habe in den Himmeln und vor Dir gesündigt. Und ich bin nicht würdig des priesterlichen und geistigen Altares angesichtig zu werden, auf dem unser Herr und Gott, Jesus Christus, Dein eingeborener Sohn, für mich Sünder und voll Schuld Beladenen, geheimnisvoll vor der Opferung steht, wodurch ich Dir das Opfer darbringe, auf dass mir der Tröster und gütige, allheilige Geist gesandt wird, zu meiner Stärkung und Festigung für dieses göttliche Priestertum und für mich [und] das von Dir auserwählte Volk. [(2) Der an Christus gerichtete Lobpreis] Աւրհնեալ ես գալստեամբ քո առ մեզ ք⟨րիստո⟩ս ա⟨ստւա⟩ծ մեր որդի ա⟨ստուծո⟩յ եւ ամենաս⟨ուր⟩բդ ի հաւրէ, կամ[225v]ակցութ⟨եամ⟩բ ս⟨ուր⟩բ հոգւոյն եկիր եւ կեցուցեր զմեզ ա⟨ստուա⟩ծդ մեր. ողորմեցար չողորմելոցս. կանգնեցեր զգլորեալս, բժշկեցեր զվիրաւորեալս. հանդէս արարեր փրկութե⟨ան⟩ մերում. Gepriesen (Աւրհնեալ) bist Du in Deiner Ankunft unter uns,

Christus, unser Gott, Sohn Gottes, und Allheiliger aus dem Vater. In Übereinkunft mit dem Heiligen Geist kamst Du und machtest uns lebendig, unser Gott: Du hast Dich der Nicht-Erbarmten erbarmt, Du hast die Gefallenen aufgerichtet, Du hast die Verwundeten geheilt, ein Fest der Erlösung hast Du uns bereitet. [(1b) Fortsetzung der Bitte des Zelebranten] Wegen Deiner reichlichen Menschenliebe

118

winkler

hast Du meine Unwürdigkeit würdig gemacht und [mich] vor Deinen heiligen Altar bestellt. Deshalb, mein Gott, verwirf mich nicht in dieser Stunde, sondern nimm von mir meine Schuld, und wasche den Schmutz von meinem Geist und Leib und gib mir, freimütig Dich zu preisen, lebendiger Gott, zum Wohlgefallen des allheiligen Namens: des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes, jetzt und immerdar und in den Ewig[keiten der Ewigkeiten]. [Fortsetzung des Lobpreises der Menschen zu Beginn der Oratio ante Sanctus] (cf. supra) Abermals sagt der Priester: Der Du, Herr, Gott, allmächtiger Vater (Որ ես տ⟨է⟩ր ա⟨ստուա⟩ծ հայր ամենակալ), der Anbetung würdig bist (երկրպագելոյ արժանի), wie [es] wahrhaft recht [ist] (իբր ճշմարտապէս իրաւ) und [es] der Majestät Deiner Heiligkeit (եւ մեծվայելչութիւն. սրբութեան քում) [gebührt]: Dich preisen wir (զքեզ աւրհնեմք),14 Dir lobsingen wir (զքեզ գովեմք), Dich rühmen wir (զքեզ բարեբանեմք), Dir danken wir (զքէն գոհանամք), Dich beten wir an (քեզ երկիր պագանեմք)15, Dich verherrlichen wir (զքեզ փառաւորեմք), Der Du der einzig wahre bist, o Gott.

14

15

Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Verben des Lobpreises in den östlichen Anaphoren cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 419–451; G. Winkler, Die Jakobus-Liturgie in ihren Überlieferungssträngen. Edition des Cod. arm. 17 von Lyon, Übersetzung und Liturgievergleich (Anaphorae Orientales IV, Anaphorae Armeniacae 4; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2013), S. 190–215. Ab hier endet die V1 (fols. 145v–146r): զքեզ երկիր պագա[նեմք], dann lacuna. Der Text des Codex V1 bricht bei: „Dich beten [wir an]“ ab. In der Hs V1 fehlt zwischen fols. 145v–146r ein Folio [= Z. 10–38]. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 212/213, Anm. 9.

119

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

III

Kommentar

Wie sehr die arm Bas II mit dieser umfangreichen Interpolation von den anderen Versionen der Basilius-Anaphora abweicht, zeigt beispielsweise der Vergleich mit der arm Bas I:

arm Bas I

arm Bas II

Winkler, Basilius-Anaphora, 140/141:

Winkler, Basilius-Anaphora, 204/205– 210/211:

Beginn der Oratio ante Sanctus: Der Priester … Würdigerweise und rechtens gebührt –

Deiner Majestät Dank und Anbetung:

Der Priester … Würdig und recht bist Du, Herr unser Gott [gepriesen? / verherrlicht?] [umfangreichere Einschübe:] – pp. 206/207: Die Bitte des Zelebranten für sich – pp. 208/209: Lobpreis (an Christus gerichtet) – pp. 210/211: Fortsetzung der Bitte des Zelebranten Der Du, Herr, Gott, allmächtiger Vater, der Anbetung würdig bist, wie [es] wahrhaft recht [ist] und [es] der Majestät Deiner Heiligkeit [gebührt]:

120

winkler

( fortges.)

arm Bas I

arm Bas II Der Lobpreis:

Dich zu verherrlichen (փառաւորել) (cf. δοξάζειν) [nur 1 Verb!]

Dich preisen wir (աւրհնեմք) (cf. εὐλογεῖν) [insgesamt 6 Verben!]

als den wahren Gott …

Der Du der einzig wahre Gott bist …

Zur Textinterpolation bei der arm Bas II ist folgendes zu sagen: (1) sie ist an dieser Stelle singulär. Keine andere Version der Basilius-Anaphora belegt beim Eröffnungs-Dialog einen derartigen Texteinschub. (2) Der interpolierte Text thematisiert: a. Die Unwürdigkeit des Zelebranten, wobei der Text: „Mach würdig meine Unwürdigkeit (արժանաւորեա զիմ անարժանութի⟨ւն⟩ս)“ aus der Akklamation des Volkes: „Würdig und recht [ist es] (Արժան եւ իրաւ)“ mit der sich anschließenden Oratio des Priesters: „Würdig und recht bist Du (Արժան եւ իրաւ ես)“ hervorgegangen ist, und sich darüber hinaus im zweiten Teil der Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst fortsetzt: „Wegen Deiner reichlichen Menschenliebe hast Du meine Unwürdigkeit würdig gemacht“. b. Zwischen beide Teile der Bitte des Zelebranten ist interessanterweise ein an Christus gerichteter Lobpreis geschoben worden: „Gepriesen (Աւրհնեալ) bist Du in Deiner Ankunft unter uns, Christus, unser Gott, Sohn Gottes“, der thematisch und dabei mit dem Partizip „Gepriesen (Աւրհնեալ)“ beim Incipit explizit an das: „Würdig und recht bist Du (Արժան եւ իրաւ ես), Herr, unser Gott (տ⟨է⟩ր ա⟨ստուա⟩ծ մեր)“ anknüpft, dem jedoch das Partizip „gepriesen“ fehlt! Wenden wir uns nochmals der interpolierten, umfangreichen Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst, in deren Mittelpunkt die Unwürdigkeit des Zelebranten steht, zu. Wie bereits oben vermerkt wurde, kennt keine der Versionen der Basilius-Anaphora diese Interpolation an dieser Stelle der Anaphora. Sie ist jedoch sehr wohl bei anderen wichtigen Abschnitten der Anaphora bekannt, so am Ende der Anamnese bzw. beim Übergang zur Epiklese, wie beide Versionen der armenischen Basilius-Anaphora, arm Bas I und arm Bas II zeigen:

121

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

arm Bas I

arm Bas II

cf. Winkler, Basilius-Anaphora, 170/171– 174/175:

cf. Winkler, Basilius-Anaphora, 238/239– 244/245:

1. Anamnese: Und nun, Herr, denken wir aufgrund dieses Gebots an das heilige Leiden dessen, der für uns am Kreuz [hing] … usw.

Womit auch wir nun denken an das heilwirkende Leiden, die lebenspendende Kreuzigung … usw. Darbringung:

–16

Laut: Das Deine von dem Deinigen bringen wir Dir dar. 2. Lobpreis:

–17 Die Sänger: In allem bist Du gepriesen, Herr: Wir preisen Dich (cf. εὐλογοῦμεν), wir lobsingen Dir (cf. αἰνοῦμεν) – wir danken Dir (cf. εὐχαριστοῦμεν) wir bitten Dich (= δεόμεθα), Herr, unser Gott.

16 17 18

Nach allem und im Hinblick auf alles (κατὰ πάντα):18 Das Volk singt: – Dich preisen wir (cf. εὐλογοῦμεν) Dir lobsingen wir (cf. αἰνοῦμεν) Dich rühmen wir (cf. ὑμνοῦμεν), Dir danken wir (cf. εὐχαριστοῦμεν), Herr, und wir bitten Dich (= δεόμεθα), Herr, unser Gott.

Die arm Bas I bezeugt keine Darbringung. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 726–735; und Winkler, Die Jakobus-Liturgie, S. 343–352. Diese Einleitung zum Lobpreis fehlt in der arm Bas I. Zur Einordnung dieser Stelle, d. h. den Sinn und die Bedeutung des κατὰ πάντα, siehe den ausführlichen Kommentar in Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 729, 758–774.

122

winkler

( fortges.)

arm Bas I

arm Bas II Interpolation: Die Bitte des Zelebranten für sich selbst:

Der Priester: Deshalb, Herr, wagen auch wir Elendigen, die Du würdig gemacht hast für den Dienst an Deiner Heiligkeit – nicht wegen unserer Rechtschaffenheit, denn gar nichts Gutes haben wir auf der Erde getan, sondern wegen Deines Erbarmens und Mitleids, das Du in uns ausgesät hast – [uns] Deinem makellosen und heiligen Altar zu nähern und das Beispiel des Leibes und Blutes Deines Christus festzulegen.

Der Priester verneigt sich und betet: Deshalb, heiliger Herr des Alls, wagen auch wir, Deine sündigen und unwürdigen Diener, die wir gewürdigt wurden, Diener Deines heiligen Altars zu werden – nicht aufgrund unserer Rechtschaffenheit, denn überhaupt nichts Gutes haben wir auf der Erde getan, sondern wegen Deines Erbarmens und Mitleids, das Du reichlich in uns ausgegossen hast – uns auch Deinem heiligen Altar zu nähern, indem wir auch das Vorbild des heiligen Leibes und Blutes Deines Christus vorstellen. 3. Epiklese

Man achte auf die nicht zu übersehenden Parallelen (1) zwischen den Verben des Lobpreises vor der Epiklese und den als primär zu erachtenden Verben des Lobpreises vor dem Sanctus, die oben angeführt wurden,19 und (2) auf die Stellung der Interpolation der Bitte des Zelebranten, die den rituellen Ablauf unterbricht. Beim Abschnitt zwischen Anamnese und Epiklese verdunkelt diese Interpolation in beiden Versionen (in der arm Bas I und in der arm Bas II) den eigentlichen Übergang von der Anamnese zur Epiklese, gekennzeichnet durch die Bitte δεόμεθα, und beim Beginn der „Oratio ante Sanctus“ 19

Ibid., S. 758–773.

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

123

der arm Bas II unterbricht sie den thematischen Zusammenhang zwischen dem „Dignum et iustum“ und dem Lobpreis.

IV

Naheliegende Schlussfolgerungen aufgrund des Textes der arm Bas II zu Beginn der Oratio ante Sanctus und die Angaben zur Mischung des Weins mit Wasser im Cod. V1 + L

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns nochmals die Brüche zu Beginn der „Oratio ante Sanctus“ in der arm Bas II durch die außerordentlich umfangreiche Interpolation des Anliegens des Zelebranten, in dessen Zentrum die eigene Unwürdigkeit steht. Diese ist dabei noch unterbrochen von einem an Christus gerichteten Lobpreis, der an dieser Stelle unverständlich ist: Der Priester: Würdig und recht bist Du, Herr unser Gott [gepriesen?] (das Verb fehlt!) [umfangreichere Einschübe:] – pp. 206/207: Die Bitte des Zelebranten für sich – pp. 208/209: Lobpreis (an Christus gerichtet) – pp. 210/211: Fortsetzung der Bitte des Zelebranten Der Du, Herr, Gott, allmächtiger Vater, der Anbetung würdig bist, wie [es] wahrhaft recht [ist] und [es] der Majestät Deiner Heiligkeit [gebührt]: Dich preisen wir (փառաւորեմք) … Hier kommt noch die Beobachtung hinzu, dass diese zweite Übersetzung der Basilius-Anaphora (arm Bas II) an einigen Stellen in einem engeren Zusammenhang mit der hellenophilen Schule zu stehen scheint. Hierauf verweisen mehrere Wortbildungen, z.B. das բարեբանել, das bei den Verben des Lobpreises vor dem Sanctus genau das griechische εὐλογεῖν nachzubilden sucht,20 was in arm Bas I nicht der Fall ist; oder die Nachbildung von ἀνα-δείκνυμι mit վերա-ցուցանեմ nicht nur beim Einsetzungsbericht, sondern auch bei der Epiklese,21 bzw. ἀνα-φορά́ mit վերա-բերութիւն beim Eingangs-Dialog.22 20 21 22

Ibid., S. 441 mit Anm. 51. Ibid., S. 699 mit Anm. 19. Ibid., S. 289, Anm. 25; und Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak, S. 46.

124

winkler

Weitaus bedeutungsvoller ist jedoch die Tatsache, dass die Codices V1 + L der arm Bas II entgegen der armenischen Tradierung die Mischung des Weins bezeugen, was bereits oben beim Überblick über die Codices erwähnt wurde.23 Was die Mischung des Weins mit Wasser betrifft, so ist hier hervorzuheben, dass die Armenier Kilikiens ausschließlich im hohen Mittelalter auf der armenischen Synode von Sis 1307 und zudem in Adana 1316 bereit waren, die Mischung des Weins mit Wasser in Erwägung zu ziehen,24 was jedoch in Großarmenien zurückgewiesen wurde.25 Ein Blick auf die Herkunft und Datierung der Codices, die die Mischung des Weins belegen, und der anderen Handschriften, die dies nicht tun, ist dabei aufschlussreich:26 Der Codex L ist Zeuge für: – arm Bas I (keine Mischung des Weins) – arm Bas II (Mischung des Weins) – arm Sah27 (Mischung des Weins) Herkunft des Codex L: Anarzab in Kilikien28 Datierung: A.D.131429 Der Codex V1 ist Zeuge für: – arm Bas II (Mischung des Weins) Herkunft des Codex V1: Sis, Kilikien Datierung: zweite Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts30 Die Zeugen ohne Mischung des Weins: Der Codex M ist Zeuge für: – arm Bas I – arm Bas II Herkunft des Codex M: Siwnik‛

23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

Cf. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak, S. 434–435. Cf. N. Garsoïan, „Le vin pur du calice dans l’ Église arménienne,“ in Pratiques de l’eucharistie dans les Églises d’orient et occident. Antiquité et Moyen Âge I, eds. N. Beriou, B. Caseau, D. Rigaux (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen Âge et Temps Modernes 45; Paris: Institut d’ Études Augustiniennes, 2009), S. 249–271, hier S. 255. Cf. Garsoïan, „Le vin pur,“ S. 255–256. Cf. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak, S. 434–435. Zur Edition der Handschrift und Untersuchung der arm Sah cf. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak. Cf. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora, S. 55–56. Ibid., S. 56. Ibid., S. 113.

eigentümlichkeiten und probleme

125

Datierung: Abschrift von 1427 von einer Vorlage von 128931 Der Codex V2 ist Zeuge für: – arm Bas II Herkunft und Datierung des Codex V2: Kilikien 14. Jahrhundert32 Aus dem Überblick geht hervor, dass beide Handschriften, die die Mischung des Weins bezeugen (L als Zeuge der arm Bas II + arm Sah sowie V1 als Zeuge der arm Bas II) aus Kilikien stammen und in der Zeit der 2. Hälfte des 13. Jh.s (so V1) und Anfang des 14. Jh.s (so L) entstanden sind, während die andere kilikische Handschrift des 14. Jh.s, nämlich V2 (als Zeuge der arm Bas II) die Mischung des Weins nicht belegt. Keine Mischung des Weins mit Wasser hat zudem der Codex M von Siwnik‛ von 1427, der aus einer Vorlage von 1289 hervorgegangen ist. Dies lässt vermuten, dass nur in Kilikien und dabei nur für eine kurze Zeitspanne die Mischung des Weins überhaupt in Betracht gezogen wurde: so bezeugt der kilikische Codex V1 die Mischung des Weins zur Zeit der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jh.s bei der arm Bas II, während der spätere kilikische Codex V2 des 14. Jh.s die Mischung des Weins bereits wieder purgiert hat. Der Codex M aus Siwnik‛ (1427 aufgrund einer Vorlage von 1289), der die arm Bas I und die arm Bas II bietet, legt nahe, dass Großarmenien niemals die Praxis einer Mischung des Weins in Betracht gezogen hat. All dies spricht eigentlich auch dagegen, dass die arm Bas II tatsächlich einmal als eucharistisches Formular benutzt worden ist. Zwar gibt es von der arm Bas II, wie zu sehen war, mehrere Handschriften mit und ohne Bezeugung der Mischung des Weins, jedoch sprechen weitere Indizien eigentlich dagegen, dass die arm Bas II jemals als eucharistisches Formular eingesetzt wurde. Besonders schwer wiegt dabei der Befund, dass bislang keine armenische liturgische Quelle bekannt geworden ist, die irgendwo auf den Text der arm Bas II zurückgegriffen hätte. Die auf uns gekommenen liturgischen Quellen zitieren Auszüge aus der arm Bas I, oder lassen erkennen, dass es sich um Anspielungen auf die arm Bas I handelt und nicht um Hinweise auf die arm Bas II. Im berühmten Kommentar des Step‛anos Siwnec‛i33 wird allem Anschein nach bei den Hinweisen auf die eucharistische Liturgie nicht auf die arm Bas II 31 32 33

Ibid., S. 54. Ibid., S. 122. Cf. M.D. Findikyan, The Commentary of the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‛anos Siwnec‛i († 735): Critical Edition and Translation with Textual and Liturgical Analysis (OCA 270; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2004).

126

winkler

und auch nicht auf die armenische Athanasius-Liturgie angespielt, sondern auf die arm Bas I,34 so wie auch die wohl aus dem Mittelalter stammende Weihe des Katholikos keinen Auszug aus der arm Bas II bietet, sondern ein längeres Exzerpt aus der arm Bas I bewahrt hat.35

Bibliographie M.D. Findikyan, The Commentary of the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‛anos Siwnec‛i (†735): Critical Edition and Translation with Textual and Liturgical Analysis (OCA 270; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2004). N. Garsoïan, „Le vin pur du calice dans l’Église arménienne,“ in Pratiques de l’eucharistie dans les Églises d’orient et occident. Antiquité et Moyen Âge I, eds. N. Beriou, B. Caseau, D. Rigaux (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen Âge et Temps Modernes 45; Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009): S. 249–271. G. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak. Edition des Cod. arm. 17 von Lyon, Übersetzung und Vergleich mit der armenischen Basilius-Anaphora unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der östlichen Quellen zum „Sancta sanctis“ (Anaphorae Orientales III, Anaphorae Armeniacae 3; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2011). G. Winkler, Die Basilius-Anaphora. Edition der beiden armenischen Redaktionen und der relevanten Fragmente, Übersetzung und Zusammenschau aller Versionen im Licht der orientalischen Überlieferungen (Anaphorae Orientales II, Anaphorae Armeniacae 2; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005). G. Winkler, Die Jakobus-Liturgie in ihren Überlieferungssträngen. Edition des Cod. arm. 17 von Lyon, Übersetzung und Liturgievergleich (Anaphorae Orientales IV, Anaphorae Armeniacae 4; Rom: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2013). G. Winkler, „M.D. Findikyan’s New and Comprehensive Study on the Armenian Office,“ in OCP 72 (2006): S. 383–415. 34 35

Cf. G. Winkler, „M.D. Findikyan’s New and Comprehensive Study on the Armenian Office,“ in OCP 72 (2006): S. 383–415, hier S. 407–414. Cf. Winkler, Die armenische Liturgie des Sahak, S. 39–40.

chapter 9

Georgian and Armenian Commentaries on the First Theological Oration by Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 27) Maia Raphava

Byzantine and Eastern Christian literature retains numerous commentaries on the works of Gregory Nazianzen. Peculiarities of Nazianzen’s language and style, a certain singularity in expression, and remarkable laconism caused difficulties for those who tried to understand the depth and symbolism of his theological thought, and led to the creation of many commentaries on his works. Studies of Greek commentaries on Nazianzen’s writings require researchers to discover and study appropriate Greek manuscripts. At present, this task still remains unfinished, because of the large amount of available data. The same applies to commentaries on Nazianzen’s works that exist in other languages. Indeed, further studies of commentaries on Nazianzen’s oeuvre in different languages contribute substantially to our knowledge of his works and our understanding of how his ideas were received in later times. This article studies commentaries that accompany Georgian and Armenian translations of Oration 27, Nazianzen’s First Theological Oration. At present, two Georgian translations of this homily are known: one by Gregory Oshkeli (10th century), and a second by Ephraim Mtsire (11th century). In Gregory Oshkeli’s translation, the homily has the title, “The reading, said by our saint and God-bearing father Gregory the Theologian, revealing the evil iniquities of the Arians and Eunomians.”1 The last paragraph of the homily (§10) is accompanied by a commentary.2 In that paragraph, Nazianzen provides a list of pagan and philosophical views which he criticizes:

1 “საკითხავი, თქუმული წმიდისა და ღმერთშემოსილისა მამისა ჩუენისა გრიგოლი ღმრთისმეტყუელისაჲ, სამხილებელი არიანოზთა და ევნუმიანოსთა ბოროტად უწესოებისაჲ”. 2 The Georgian translation of the homily and its commentary, both by Gregory Oshkeli, are preserved in a single manuscript, ms. A-87 (11th century, National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi; ff. 387r–393v, and f. 393v resp.). The title of the commentary is written in Asomtavruli script with red ink.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_011

128

raphava

– Pythagoras’ silence (σιωπή), the Orphic beans (κύαμος), and the formula “He himself has spoken” (ἀυτὸς ἔφα); – Plato’s ideas (ἰδέαι), reincarnation (μετενσωμάτωσις) and the revolutions (περάδοις) of the souls, the soul’s reminiscences (ἀναμνήσεις anamnesis), and its love for lovely bodies (διὰ τῶν καλῶν σωμάτων ἐπὶ ψυχὴν ἔρωτες); – Epicurus’ atheism (ἀθεία), his atoms (ἄτμοι), and hedonism (ἡδονή); – Aristotle’s providence (πρόνοια), his artificial system (ἔντεχνον), the mortality of the soul (θνητὸς περὶ ψυχῆς), and the human origin of his doctrine (ἀνθρωπικὸς τῶν δογμάτων); – the superciliousness (ὀφρύς) of the Stoa; – the greed (λίχνος) of the Cynics; – the pagan emptiness (τὸ κενόν), fullness (τὸ πλῆρες), idols (εἴδωλα), beneficent and malignant demons (δαίμονες ἀγαθοί τε καὶ κακοποιοί), divination (μαντεία), evocation of gods (θεαγωγία), evocation of souls (ψυχαγωγία), and the power of stars (ἄστρων δύναμις). The commentary follows immediately upon the text of the homily and has the title, “Explanations of the above-mentioned, numbered words which are hard to understand”. The formulation of the commentary’s title is similar to that of the titles of tenth- and eleventh-century Georgian translations of three other commentaries on works by Nazianzen: – “An explanation of words that are hard to understand,” the title to a commentary on Oration 9, translated by David Tbeli;3 – “Maximus the Confessor’s explanation of words that are hard to understand in the homily on Christmas,” the title for a commentary on Oration 38, ascribed to Maximus the Confessor and translated by Euthymius Mtatsmindeli;4 – “Explanation of difficult words,” the title of a commentary on Oration 44, also translated by Euthymius Mtatsmindeli.5 Although the titles are similar, the commentary on § 10 of Oration 27 differs in its type and style of explanations from the other commentaries that have been mentioned here. The commentaries on Orations 9, 38, and 44 share the same style in their presentation of phrases and glosses from Nazianzen’s text 3 Ms. S-1696 (11th century, National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi), ff. 253v–254v. 4 Details can be found in: გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის თხზულებათა შემცველი ქართული ხელნაწერების აღწერილობა, ხელნაწერები აღწერა, შესავალი და საძიებლები დაურთო თამარ ბრეგაძემ (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1988) [Description of Georgian manuscripts, containing works by Gregory Nazianzen, ed. T. Bregadze (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1988)], p. 321; Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio iberica III, Oratio XXXVIII, editae a H. Metreveli et al. (Turnhout-Leuven: Brepols, 2001), pp. 121–219. 5 Details can be found in Description of Georgian manuscripts … by Gregory Nazianzen, p. 321.

georgian and armenian commentaries

129

and in their explanation: a given individual comment begins with the indication, “the Theologian’s”, followed by a citation from Nazianzen’s text, then the indication “the explanation”, followed by the commentator’s explanation of the quoted text. In contrast, the commentary on §10 of Oration 27 does not follow this model. Rather, its style is close to the comments on pseudo-Nonnus that explain mythological characters and objects.6 It is commonly accepted by scholars that Gregory Oshkeli translated Oration 27 from the Armenian version of the homily, and not directly from the Greek. This view is based on the colophon, which Ephraim Mtsire added to his own translation of the homily: Pray, o saints and those who love Christ, for Ephraim the translator, who translated this oration for the second time, because I just found this, translated by blessed Gregory Oshkeli from Armenian. However, instead of the Armenian [source], I had to translate [the text] for the second time from Greek, as I prefer my own doubtless child over the son of an Armenian and the grandson of a Greek, possibly not even doubtless. Have mercy on me for [any] errors and my daring.7 The Greek, Armenian, and Georgian texts of §10 of the homily are provided in Table 9.1. Compared to the Armenian source, the Georgian translation of § 108 shows some variations of a different nature: some words or fragments are added or omitted in the Georgian text. Yet overall, in §10 the Georgian and Armenian versions are closer to one another than in other parts of the homily. This may be attributed to Gregory Oshkeli’s approach to the translation: it is possible that he took less initiative and tried not to correct Gregory Nazianzen’s discourse in questions that pertained to classical philosophy, i.e., in the discussion of pagan and philosophical subjects. Other parts of the homily reveal a completely different picture of the correspondence between the Georgian translation and 6 ფსევდონონეს მითოლოგიურ კომენტართა ქართული თარგმანები, ტექსტები გა მოსაც. მოამზადეს ალექსანდრე გამყრელიძემ და თამარ ოთხმეზურმა (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1989) [Georgian translations of mythological commentaries by Pseudo-Nonnus, ed. T. Otkhmezuri, (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1989)], pp. 81–87; Pseudo-Nonniani in IV orations Gregorii Nazianzeni commentarii (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 50; Corpus Nazianzenum 16; Turnhout-Leuven: Brepols, 2002). 7 Ms. A-292 (1800, National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi), f. 312v. For the text of the colophon by Ephraim Mtsire, see Description of Georgian manuscripts … by Gregory Nazianzen, p. 175. 8 Hereafter, if a paragraph number is provided without a corresponding oration number, the Oration 27 is implied.

130

raphava

its Armenian source. There, the Georgian version is much more voluminous than the Armenian one. A more detailed examination of this relationship goes beyond the scope of the present article.

The Commentary on §10 of Oration 27 In the text of Oshkeli’s translation of §10 of Oration 27, in contrast to its Greek and Armenian versions, all the pagan philosophical schools are numbered (with Georgian letters). The commentary follows the homily and contains explanations that are numbered, according to the text of the homily, as following: “I”, “Word II”, “Word III”, “Word IV”, “V”, “VI”, “VII. On moving”, “VIII. On peasants”, and “IX. On other pagans”. As already mentioned, the commentary is entitled “Explanations to above-mentioned, numbered words that are hard to understand”. Since some Armenian copies contain commentaries to Oration 27 that are similar to the Georgian one, the Georgian commentary on § 10 could also have been translated from an Armenian source, as is the case for the text of the homily, but the Georgian version of the commentary is essentially older than any of the known Armenian copies. Thus, in order to examine this issue and study the origin of the commentaries on §10 Or.27, we need to compare the Georgian and Armenian versions of the commentary. Commentaries on Or.27 §10 can be found in several Armenian manuscripts: – In manuscripts M 3284 (18th c.) and V 316 (11th c.), commentaries are provided in the margins; – In manuscripts M 5602 (1178) and M 6362 (1181) of the Գիրք պատճառաց ‘Book of Causes’,9 commentaries are provided separately from the text; and – manuscripts M 3415 (1659) and M 1500 (13th c.) do not have any comments on Or.27 §10.10 Manuscript M 5602 (1178) of the Book of Causes contains a commentary, located after the Nazianzen’s text (ff. 126v–127v), as it is provided in Gregory Oshkeli’s translation. Manuscript M 6362 provides glosses marked with բն̅ for բնագիր (source text) followed by comments marked with լծ̅ for լուծումն (explanation). 9 10

The Book of Causes is an Armenian anthology of commentaries to well-known religious texts, composed before 1217 by Gregory, son of Abas. ილ. აბულაძე, ქართული და სომხური ლიტერატურული ურთიერთობა IX–X სს-ში: გამოკვლევა და ტექსტები (თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1944) [I. Abuladze. Georgian and Armenian Literary Relations in the 9th–10th centuries: Research and Texts (Tbilisi: Publishing House of Georgian Academy of Sciences, 1944)], p. 0194.

georgian and armenian commentaries

131

The Georgian and Armenian commentaries to Or. 27 § 10 are provided in Table 9.2. Comparison of the texts shows that there is no solid correspondence between the Georgian commentaries and any specific Armenian version. In some cases, a given Georgian commentary is closer to Armenian version A (M 3284), in other cases it is closer to Armenian version B (M 5602), and yet again in another case, to Armenian version C (M 6362). Studying the correspondence between the Georgian and Armenian versions, Ilia Abuladze wrote that the “[C]omparison demonstrates that … the Georgian and Armenian texts ([i.e.] the fragments of the homily and the commentaries on them) do not match one other textually. Thus we will come closer to the truth if we assume that the source of Gregory Oshkeli’s translation was a different one, compared to presently-existing [Armenian] editions, and that it represented another edition [of the text]”.11 Abuladze’s view of the relationship between Gregory Oshkeli’s translation and the Armenian version of the text of the homily appears credible. The case of the commentaries on Or.27 §10 is more complicated. The problem of the attribution of the commentary on § 10 raises several questions. What is the origin of the comments? Who was their author? What can be said about this commentary, based on the known Greek and Armenian commentaries? One may ask whether the Georgian commentary on Or.27 § 10 is indeed a translation of an unknown Armenian version, as Abuladze thought. An alternative explanation may be that it was Gregory Oshkeli’s own work that was later translated in Armenian, independent of the text of the homily. We will address these matters through the close comparison of the texts of the Georgian and Armenian commentaries. Before presenting the analysis, it is helpful to review the known data concerning the Greek and Armenian commentaries on Or.27.

Greek Commentaries There are several Greek commentaries on Or.27 among the known extant commentaries on Gregory Nazianzen’s works. These commentaries on Or.27 belong to Basilius Minimus, Elias of Crete, Maximus the Confessor, Aëtius of Antioch (Aetius Syrus), one anonymous author, and several others.12 11 12

Ibid., p. 0198. I. Sajdak, Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gregorii Nazianzeni, Pars I, De codicibus scholiastarum etc. (Cracoviae: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1914). E. Norden, “Scholia in Gregorii Nazianzeni Orationes inedita”, Hermes 27, H. 3 (1892), pp. 606–

132

raphava

Among these commentaries, the anonymous commentaries to § 5, § 7 and § 10 of the homily show some similarity to the Georgian and Armenian commentaries. In particular, the anonymous commentary on § 10 explains the expressions “τὸ κενόν” and “τὸ πλῆρες”. It also informs its reader that the philosopher who first declared “τὸ κενόν” and “τὸ πλῆρες” to be a basis for everything was Democritus, not Epicurus.13 A commentary on Or.27 §5 by the same anonymous author discusses the fragment “οἳ θάττον ἂν τοῦ αἵματος ἢ λόγων ἐστὶν ὧν μεταδοῖεν τοῖς ἀμυήτοις” ( for they would more quickly share blood with the uninitiated than words)14 and explains the reasons why Pythagoreans were prohibited from eating beans. This prohibition is also explained in a commentary in Gregory Oshkeli’s version of the homily. The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 § 10 also reveal some similarity to commentaries on Or.27 by Elias of Crete,15 and to commentaries of the anonymous author to Or.25 § 6.16 Elias of Crete focused his attention on Pythagoras’ doctrine, in particular on the rule of silence, σιωπή, and the prohibition against eating beans, some views of Plato, Aristotle, and the Cynics, and on theagogia and psychagogia. The anonymous commentary on Or.25 §6 refers to the philosophic schools of the Peripatetics (Περίπατοi), the Academy (Ἀκαδημεία), the Stoics (Στοάς), and Epicurus (Ἐπίκούρος),17 i.e. the same schools that are mentioned in Or.27 §10 and the commentaries to it. The only other place where we can find explanations on the Peripatetics is the Georgian translation. Despite the fact that the contents of the above-mentioned commentaries is close to the Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 § 10, none of them is the direct source of these commentaries. Gregory Oshkeli’s commentary on § 10, as well as the Armenian commentaries to it, are essentially different from the Greek commentaries on the same paragraph.

13 14 15 16 17

642. E. Piccolomini, Scolii alle orazioni di Gregorio Nazianzeno (Annali delle Università Toscane 16, 1; Pisae, 1879). Fr. Oechler, S. Patris nostri Maximi Confessoris de variis difficilibus locis SS. PP. Dionysii et Gregorii ad Thomam (Anecdota Graeca I; Halis: C.E.M. Pfeffer, 1857). Piccolomini, Scolii, p. 27. English tr. Robert Phenix. Sajdak, Historia, pp. 95–112; PG 36, c. 737–932. Piccolomini, Scolii, pp. 24–25. PG 35, c. 1205, A 1–3.

georgian and armenian commentaries

133

Armenian Commentaries The Armenian authors who commented on Gregory Nazianzen’s works are Nerses Shnorhali, Vardan Haghpatetsi, Elias the Syrian, David Kobayretsi, Hovhannes Imastaser, Gregory son of Abas, Mkhitar Gosh, and others.18 Most of them were clergy from “the northern provinces” of Armenia19 and all of them were authors who lived during or after the twelfth century. The Armenian manuscripts transmit commentaries of three different types: լուծմունք (explanations), պատճառք (causes), and մեկնութիւնք (commentaries). All of these are explanations of texts, differing primarily in style and formal construction. In some Armenian manuscripts, the commentaries are placed in the margins, while in others they are inserted into the main text. The authors of some commentaries are known by name, such as David Kobayretsi, who left commentaries on twelve liturgical and fifteen theological works of Nazianzen. Some of the commentaries can also be found in the Book of causes—an anthology, which are thought to be composed by Gregory, son of Abas.20 Among the various Armenian commentaries, the present study focuses its attention on the commentaries that are customarily attributed to David Kobayretsi (1150–1220). These appear in several Armenian manuscripts, including those of the Book of Causes, one of these manuscripts being M 5602 (1178).21 This manuscript does not contain the author’s name, but based on the manuscript’s colophon is it supposed that its author was David Kobayretsi. The colophon of M 5602 has been the subject of scholarly studies for a while and it has been published several times.22 It consists of two parts that are completely 18

19

20

21

22

Կ. Մուրադյան, Գրիգոր Նազիանզացին Հայ մատենագրության մեջ (Երեվան: ԳԱԱ, 1983) [K. Muradyan, Gregory Nazianzen in Armenian Literature (Yerevan: NAS,

1983)], pp. 169–194. ლ. მელიქსეთ-ბეგი, „ჩრდილო მხარის სომეხთა მოძღვარნი“ და მათი ვინაობა (ტფილისი: ტფილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 1928) [L. Melikset-Beg, “Armenian Clerics from Northern Provinces” and their personalities (Tiflis: Publishing House of Tiflis University, 1928)]. La version Arménienne des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze, par G. Lafontaine et B. Coulie (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, v.446, subsidia, t.67; Lovanii: Peeters, 1983), p. 7. Ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անվան մատենադարանի, Հտ. 2, Խմբ.՝ Լ. Խաչիկյան, Ա. Մնացականյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ, 1970) [Catalogue of manuscripts of Mashtots Matenadaran, vol. 2, eds. L. Khachikyan, A. Mnatsakanyan (Yerevan: Publishing House of Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1970)], c. 143. Muradyan, Gregory Nazianzen, 178.

134

raphava

independent from each other. The first part provides information about the commentary on Gregory Nazianzen’s work23 and the second part is a historical note on the revolt of the Orbelians in Georgia.24 Of relevance for the present study is the first part of the colophon. There the scribe informs the reader that, upon the request and directions of the Armenian Catholicos Nerses and Vardapet Vardan (Haghpatetsi), he worked on the compilation and propagation of commentaries on the works “On the Nativity of Christ” (Ի ծնունդ Քրիստոսի) and “To Those Who” (Առ որս) by the great rhetor Gregory the Theologian.25 Manuscript M 5602 contains commentaries to both the liturgical and theological collections that have been mentioned. Scholarship is divided with regard to the question of the actual author of these commentaries. Some scholars are of the opinion that manuscript M 5602 provides David Kobayretsi’s edition of previously extant commentaries on Nazianzen’s works. David Kobayretsi was familiar with commentaries on Nazianzen’s works by his predecessors Vardan Haghpatetsi and Elias the Syrian, both dating to the twelfth century, and indeed the manuscript reveals some influence and traces of commentaries by Elias the Syrian.26 Some Armenian manuscripts mention David Kobayretsi as the editor of the commentaries, whereas other manuscripts include fragments of commentaries from M 5602 without any attribution. Let us next consider the commentaries by David Kobayretsi that are found in Armenian manuscripts of the Book of Causes. Several passages in manuscript V 317 name David the Commentator as its compiler.27 Yet according to Nerses Akinean, the compiler was Gregory, son of Abas, who used explanations by David Kobayretsi.28 The relationship of David Kobayretsi to the commentaries found in the Book of Causes is unclear also because of the inconsistency of the textual data: the commentaries to the works of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa are entitled “Told by Vardapet David” (M 1879, f. 298v), whereas the commentaries to Nazianzen’s works do not provide the author’s name.29 23

24 25 26 27 28 29

Ms. M5602, ff. 268v–270a. Տեղեկագիր 8 [Bulletin 8], 118; Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի հիշա տակարաններ ե–ժբ դդ., Կազմ.՝ Ա.Ս. Մաթեւոսյան (Երեվան: ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ, 1988) [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts from 5–12 cc., ed. A.S. Matevosyan (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1988)], pp. 222–223. Ms. M5602, ff. 270v–272v; Տեղեկագիր 8 [Bulletin 8], pp. 119–120; Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, pp. 223–225. The Armenian manuscripts contain works by Nazianzen in four different collections. The present comments address only two of these. Muradyan, Gregory Nazianzen, pp. 181–182. Ibid, p. 184. Ibid, p. 183. Ibid, p. 184.

georgian and armenian commentaries

135

Thus, the question of the identity of the author of the commentaries on the two collections of homilies by Gregory Nazianzen remains unresolved. The Armenian manuscripts provide neither any clarity regarding the author of those commentaries, nor on the question of whether or not the author and the editor were the same person. Moreover, the commentaries, which are transmitted in the Armenian manuscripts, the source of which is thought to be M 5602 (i.e., David Kobayretsi’s autograph), contain a series of textual similarities to commentaries by other authors, up to the level of a complete identity of some fragments. While there is no agreement on the attribution of these commentaries to David Kobayretsi himself, the Georgian version allows one to draw a firm conclusion concerning one part of the commentaries: the commentary on § 10, which is the first homily of the collection “Առ որս” was not written by David Kobayretsi. This conclusion is based on the Georgian version, translated by Gregory Oshkeli. Here the text of the commentary on § 10 is very close to a commentary found in Armenian manuscripts, including M 5602. Gregory Oshkeli lived in the tenth century and the Georgian manuscript that transmits his translation is dated to the eleventh century, therefore both the Georgian and the Armenian commentaries on §10 cannot be attributed to any author from a period later than the tenth century.

The Origin of the Commentary on Oration 27 § 10 This section returns to the main subject of our study, namely the questions concerning the origin of the Georgian and Armenian versions of the commentaries on Or.27 §10 and the identity of their original author. Ilia Abuladze assumed that the commentaries were translated from Greek into Armenian together with the text of the homily before the tenth century, and the commentary in Gregory Oshkeli’s version was translated from an unknown Armenian version of the text. This assumption can explain some differences between the Georgian and the known Armenian versions. Yet the more detailed analysis of the text makes it clear that a more likely solution to the question is that Gregory Oshkeli created the commentary himself, based on the Greek texts. Later Armenian authors then used that commentary independently from the text of the homily.30 A closer study of both versions will reveal the fuller picture. 30

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Alexey Ostrovsky for pointing me to this possibility and some observations that support this version.

136

raphava

Solution One: From an Unknown Armenian Version to the Georgian Text In support of the assumption that Gregory Oshkeli translated the commentary from an unknown Armenian source, Ilia Abuladze pointed out the following observations: 1) The Armenian version of §10.4 renders Plato’s anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις reminiscence) as յիշողութիւն, while the commentary uses the verb form յիշել. The reminiscence of the commentary is connected with the idea of the reincarnation of souls, given that souls have memories of their protoexistence, their origin, and their final destination. In the Georgian version, these words were omitted both in the text of the homily and in the commentary. However, this observation of Abuladze does not actually support any conclusion regarding the direction of translation. 2) The Armenian version of §10.8 renders the Greek τῶν Κυνῶν as շնական ‘doggish’, while in the same place the Georgian text reads გლეხურთაჲ ‘of peasants, of poors’. The same corresponding words are presented in the commentaries. According to Abuladze, the Georgian გლეხურთაჲ is an Armenianism which originates in the wrong reading of the Armenian շնական, an exact translation of the Greek κυνικός, as շինական ‘of low level’, which had the Old Georgian equivalents მდაბიური and მდაბიო, and may be rendered as გლეხი ‘peasant’. However, there exists another explanation for the use of გლეხურთაჲ in the Georgian text: the use of this word seems to be completely justified.31 Moreover, if we accept that the Georgian გლეხურთაჲ is an Armenianism, then it is more probable that the Georgian commentary depends on the Georgian version of § 10.8 and not on the Armenian text, because otherwise we have to assume that the Georgian translator made the same mistake twice, reading շնական as շինական both in the text and in the commentary. Here, multiple, identical errors are not credible, as շնական > *շինական does not follow the principle of lectio difficilior. Thus, neither one of the arguments that have been provided in favor of the existence of an old, no-longer-extant Armenian version of these commentaries bears much weight. Solution Two: From Georgian to Armenian The alternative view posits the priority of the Georgian version of the commentaries on Or.27 §10. Here, one has to pay attention first to the fact that almost all

31

Details are found below, on pp. 140–141.

georgian and armenian commentaries

137

Armenian commentaries to Nazianzen’s works originate from cultural centers in the “northern provinces” of Armenia and are dated to the twelfth century or later. As indicated above, our attention focuses on David Kobayretsi’s commentary on Or.27 §10, which is especially close to the Georgian version. Two general notes on Kobayretsi’s work are in place here. First, the villages of Kobayr, from which David Kobayretsi originated, and Haghpat, the place where he served as a clergyman, are located not simply in the “northern provinces”, but near the Chalcedonian monasteries of Pghindzahank (Պղինձահանք), Hnevank (Հնեվանք), and Yoskepar (Յոսկէպար). As we mentioned above, David had received the exhortation to collect commentaries on Gregory Nazianzen’s works in Haghpat. Producing translations from Georgian into Armenian was an activity in which translators in the “northern provinces” engaged more widely at that time. They pursued the aim of increasing the amount of literature that was available to Armenians.32 Given such circumstances, it would be quite natural for David to avail himself of a Georgian commentary, if one existed already. Second, David Kobayretsi’s Armenian commentary is essentially more laconic than the Georgian one. This agrees very well with the principles for the composition of commentaries, which David Kobayretsi formulated himself: “I took commentaries of saintly commentators, shortened them, joined them together, and rendered them in a condensed form”.33 Regarding the textual analysis, the following observations suggest the priority of the Georgian version of the commentary. In the fragments of §10.1–§10.3, Nazianzen criticized three concepts of the Neopythagoreans, including the Orphic prohibition against eating beans; we know that Neopythagoreanism had incorporated some ideas of Orphism. Describing beans, the Armenian version follows the Greek κυάμους τοὺς Ὀρφικοὺς and uses the adjective Orphic; զոլոռունսն զՈրփիականս ‘Orphic beans’. By contrast, in the text of the homily Gregory Oshkeli ascribed the prohibition regarding beans not to the Orphic school, but to Orpheus himself, which may 32

33

Cf. Լ. Տեր-Պետրոսյան, “Փորձ հայ հին եւ միջնադարյան թարգմանական գրականության պարբերացման”, Էջմիածին, 4 (1982) [L. Ter-Petrosyan, “An Attempt at the Periodization of Ancient and Medieval Translated Armenian Literature”, Echmiadzin, 4 (1982)]: pp. 45–52; R.W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian history: the medieval Armenian adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles: the original Georgian texts and the Armenian adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. LI. Православная энциклопедия, Т. XIII (М.: Церковно-научный центр «Православная энциклопедия», 2006) [Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. XIII (Moscow: The Church Research Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2006)], pp. 594–595.

138

raphava

be a quite logical correction by Oshkeli,34 and mentioned three different persons as sources for three concepts of Neopythagoreanism in the Georgian text: Pythagoras, Orpheus, and Sephios. The Georgian version contains the name Orpheus both in the text of the homily: ორფიოსის უცერცოებანი ‘those in the unconsciousness of Orpheus,’35 and in the commentary: ორფეოჲს … დაუდვა … ცერცჳსა არა ჭამაჲ ‘Orpheus charged him not to eat beans’. Thus, the Georgian version of the homily split this fragment into three independent pieces, which is confirmed through their numbering and contrasts with the Greek and the Armenian versions of the homily, where fragments § 10.1–§ 10.3 constitute a single section. The Georgian commentary follows the composition of the Georgian text of §10 and provides short explanatory notes for all three persons, mentioned in fragments §10.1–§10.3. In contrast to the Armenian text of §10, the Armenian commentary on the Orphic beans provides the personal name Orpheus (Որփեւս ոլոռն ասաց չուտել ‘Orpheus said not to eat a bean …’) instead of the adjective Orphic. Thus, the Armenian commentary ascribes the prohibition of beans to Orpheus himself and follows not the Armenian text of §10, but the text of the Georgian commentary on the paragraph. In §10.5, Nazianzen criticized Epicurus’s concepts of atheism (ἀθεία), atoms (ἄτομοι), and hedonism (ἡδονή). The Armenian text of the homily follows the Greek text, as does the Georgian version. However, the Armenian text renders the Greek ἄτομοι ‘atoms,’ literally ‘indivisibles’ with the single word զանհատսն ‘inseparable’, while the Georgian text of the homily and the Georgian commentary on it render ἄτομοι with two words, შესახედავნი განუკუეთელად ‘inseparable shapes’. The Armenian commentary on this phrase also renders ἄτομοι with two words, զտեսակ անհատ ‘inseparable forms’, coinciding with the text of the Georgian commentary on §10.5, and clearly not with the Armenian text of the homily. Lastly, in contrast to the text of §10.5, the Georgian commentary does not mention atheism by name, but refers to it through a description of its nature: არსნი ყოველნი თჳთქმნულად თქუნა ‘proclaimed all the things [being] as self-created’. The Armenian commentary also does not use the word atheism, which can be found in the text of the homily, but matches the explanation of the Georgian version: ասաց ինքնեղ զաշխարհ ‘he proclaimed the world as self-created’. At the same time, the Armenian version B adds a special expla34

35

R.G. Edmonds, Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 221–222; Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона, т. XXII (43) (СПб., 1897) [Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. XXII (43) (St. Petersburg, 1897)], p. 221. This phrase does not seem to occur in the Greek original—ed.

georgian and armenian commentaries

139

nation to this fragment, այս է անաստուածութիւնն ‘that is, atheism’, in order to explain how this fragment is connected to the Armenian text of the homily. Here again, the Armenian commentary follows rather the Georgian one and not the Armenian text of the homily. These observations offer strong arguments in favor of an independent origin of the Georgian commentary and a subsequent use of the Georgian commentary by Armenian commentators. This solution offers a more credible response to the question of the dependency of the Georgian and Armenian commentaries upon one another than does Abuladze’s assumption.

Peculiarities and Graecisms of the Georgian Commentary The Georgian and Armenian versions of §10.3 and the commentaries on it refer to a certain philosopher, named Sephi (Armenian Սափիդէս, Սափի, Georgian სეფიოს). This name likely had appeared because of an erroneous reading of the Pythagorean formula αὐτὸς ἔφα “He himself has spoken” in the Greek source:36 it could be so if this formula was rendered in the Greek source without diacritics and spaces as ΑΥΤΟΣΕΦΑ and it was understood as ΑΥΤΟ ΣΕΦΑ ‘Sepha himself’, instead of ΑΥΤΟΣ ΕΦΑ ‘he said it himself’. The word Sepha, obtained this way, had to be understood as the name of some philosopher. Both the Armenian and the Georgian texts of Or.27 § 10, indeed, refer to a certain Sephi. This is confirmed once again in the commentary on this fragment of the homily, which not only mentions Sephi once again, but also ascribes the sentence, “Contradistinction does not exist, and everything truly exists” to him. As the commentary not only mentions a philosopher Sephi, but also cites a sentence that is attributed to him, it is possible that a person with this name, knowledge about whom is nowadays lost, did exist.37 The sentence, which is ascribed to Sephi, fully agrees with the principles of the Pythagorean schools, in particular with principles ascribed to the Eleatics.38 Therefore, the scribal error in the reading of the formula ΑΥΤΟΣΕΦΑ is completely possible. 36

37 38

For further discussion of this sentence in the Georgian and the Armenian translations of Or.27, see მ. რაფავა, „ერთი უცნობი პერსონალია გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის პირველი საღვთისმეტყველო სიტყვის (Or.27) ქართულ-სომხურ თარგმანებში“, მრავალ თავი, 19 (2001) [M. Raphava, “One unknown person in the Georgian-Armenian translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s first theological oration (Or.27)”, Mravaltavi, 19 (2001)]: pp. 213–220. Ibid. ს. წერეთელი, ანტიკური ფილოსოფია (თბილისი: თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 1968) [S. Tsereteli, Antique philosophy (Tbilisi: Publishing House of Uni-

140

raphava

In §10.6, Nazianzen criticized Aristotle’s ideas, in particular his artificial system (ἔντεχνον) and the mortality of the soul (θνητός περὶ ψυχῆς). The Georgian comment on this passage contains the phrase სულისათჳს კაცთაჲსა რეცა ჴელოვნისმეტყუელმან და მოკუდავად თქუნა lit. ‘concerning the men’s soul as a great orator and as about mortal ⟨he⟩ said’, which seems to be a broken reading. It seems that the Georgian translator wrongly understood the Greek fragment καὶ τὸ ἔντεχνον, καὶ τοὺς θνητοὺς περὶ ψυχῆς λόγους ‘and the artificial system, and the words concerning the mortality of the soul’ as a single phrase, taking τὸ ἔντεχνον as a part of the fragment which follows it, while keeping the Greek conjunction καὶ ‘and’. In contrast, the Armenian text of the homily does not contain the conjunction եւ ‘and’. Thus, the Georgian commentary follows neither the Armenian version of the text, nor even the Georgian version of the homily, but the Greek text of Or.27 directly. In §10.7 and in the comment on it, the Greek expression τῆς Στοᾶς ‘of the Stoa’ is translated as ճեմական. Oshkeli renders it with მიმო[მ]ქცევარი, the exact equivalent of the Armenian form. However, the Armenian word ճեմական refers to the Peripatetics, namely, the philosophers of Aristotle’s school.39 It is clear that the Armenian and the Georgian translators understood Στοά as a reference to the Peripatetics, but the context reveals that the discussion was about the Stoics.40 The Georgian comment discusses this subject in more detail and explains why the followers of this school were called Peripatetics, a term which is not found in the Armenian version. It is interesting to note here, that Gregory Oshkeli mentioned that the source of this information were the “books of pagan [philosophers]”, which cannot refer to the Armenian version of the text. § 10.8 and the comment on it mention the school of the Cynics. The Armenian translation renders Nazianzen’s τῶν Κυνῶν ‘of the Cynics’ with շնական,

39

40

versity of Tbilisi, 1968)], pp. 104, 118; В. Виндельбанд, История древней философии (СПб.: Тип. И.Н. Скороходова, 1893) [V. Vindelband, History of Antique Philosophy (St. Petersburg: I.N. Skorokhodov Typography, 1893)], pp. 51–54. Cf. Նոր բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի, Հ. 2 (Երեւան: ԵՊՀ, 1981) [New Dictionary of Armenian Language, vol. 2 (Yerevan: Yerevan State University, 1981)], p. 178; this is a reprint of a dictionary originally published in 1836 (Volume 1) and 1837 (Volume 2). For details see მ. რაფავა, „ელინური ფილოსოფია და „თავისუფალი საკითხები“ გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის პირველი საღვთისმეტყველო სიტყვის (Or.27) ქართული თარგმანების მიხედვით“, in: კორნელი კეკელიძე 125, შემდგ. ე. ხინთიბიძე (თბილისი: ქართველოლოგი, 2004) [M. Raphava, “Hellenistic philosophy and ‘free questions’ according to the Georgian translations of Gregory Nazianzen’s first theological oration (Or.27)”, in: Korneli Kekelidze 125, ed. E. Khintibidze (Tbilisi: Kartvelologist, 2004)]: pp. 245–267, here pp. 254–256.

georgian and armenian commentaries

141

while the Georgian translation uses გლეხური. As we pointed out above, Abuladze thought that the Georgian word was an Armenianism originating in the erroneous reading շինական. Yet more detailed study of this material has revealed that the Georgian გლეხური is the adequate rendering of the Greek Κυνῶν.41 The Old Georgian word გლეხი, which refers to a certain social status in Modern Georgian, had the meaning ‘poor’ in Old Georgian (syn. მდაბიო, დაბალი). The application of this pejorative term towards the Cynics fits with how they were perceived in ancient Greek society and is in line with the extremely simple lifestyle they promoted. This use of გლეხური in the Georgian text is further supported by the appellation უსწავლელი ‘ignorant’, which appears in the same context. The Georgian comment on §10.9 provides the names of good and bad demons: ანტიანდრეს and მადიტეს. The Armenian commentary on the same passage supplies only the name of the good demons: անդրանտին. Both names seem to be Graecisms. It is not clear what the direct Greek counterparts of these terms are. It is one of the tasks of future studies to find the exact equivalents or sources of the Georgian and the Armenian word forms. For now it is possible to assume that the Georgian phrase might be translated from a Greek text which may have formulated something like “good demons are like man, whereas bad ones are lax [ flaccid]”. In this case, ანტიანდრეს and անդրանտին have to correspond to the Greek ἀντὶ ἀνδρός ‘like a man’, and the metathesis of the Armenian form, անդր-անտի-ն, confirms that here we have the Greek preposition ἀντί, and not the prefix ἀντι-. A similar formula can be found in the Greek version of the Wisdom of Sirach 4:10: be in the place of a husband—ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς—to their mother. With regard to the word მადიტეს, it is possible to assume that it may be connected to the Greek verb μαδάω ‘to be flaccid [lax]’,42 rendering the Greek form μαδιτής ‘lax, flaccid’. Perhaps this passage addresses the well-known ideas of the Ancient Greeks about the male body as the body that has the best shape, or about the aesthetically pleasing physical form of good men and gods, and about the physical ugliness and infirmity of bad characters. This would fit well into the context of critics of Plato’s views and his idea concerning the attraction of a soul to lovely bodies, which is also found in the homily.

41 42

Ibid, pp. 254–260. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889), p. 483.

142

raphava

Conclusion The close comparison of the Greek, Armenian, and Georgian versions demonstrates that the history of the translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 27 differs from the history of the commentaries on the homily. It is clear that Gregory Oshkeli translated the Georgian version of the homily from the Armenian version in the tenth century. However, the Georgian commentary on § 10 most likely constitutes work which Gregory Oshkeli conducted on the basis of Greek sources. The Armenian versions contain the compilation of commentaries and depend mainly on the Georgian version. This leads us to conclude that they were created in a cultural environment that did not consider translations from Georgian to be something foreign. The case of the commentary on §10 of Oration 27 demonstrates that the study of Armenian translations and their comparison to Greek and Georgian versions of texts can reveal new and interesting details for a fuller study of Gregory Nazianzen’s works.

Bibliography R.G. Edmonds, Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013). La version Arménienne des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianz, par G. Lafontaine et B. Coulie (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, v.446, subsidia, t.67; Lovanii: Peeters, 1983). H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889). E. Norden, “Scholia in Gregorii Nazianzeni Orationes inedita”, Hermes 27, H. 3 (1892). Fr. Oechler, S. Patris nostri Maximi Confessoris de variis difficilibus locis SS. PP. Dionysii et Gregorii ad Thomam (Anecdota Graeca I; Halis: C.E.M. Pfeffer, 1857). E. Piccolomini, Scolii alle orazioni di Gregorio Nazianzeno (Annali delle Università Toscane 16, 1; Pisae, 1879). Pseudo-Nonniani in IV orations Gregorii Nazianzeni commentarii (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 50; Corpus Nazianzenum 16; Turnhout-Leuven: Brepols, 2002). I. Sajdak, Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gregorii Nazianzeni, Pars I, De codicibus scholiastarum etc. (Cracoviae: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1914). Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio iberica III, Oratio XXXVIII, editae a H. Metreveli et al. (Turnhout-Leuven: Brepols, 2001). R.W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian history: the medieval Armenian adaptation of the

georgian and armenian commentaries

143

Georgian Chronicles: the original Georgian texts and the Armenian adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի հիշատակարաններ Ե–ԺԲ դդ., Կազմ.՝ Ա.Ս. Մաթեւոսյան (Երեվան: ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ, 1988) [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts from 5–12 cc., ed. A.S. Matevosyan (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1988)]. Կ. Մուրադյան, Գրիգոր Նազիանզացին Հայ մատենագրության մեջ (Երեվան: ԳԱԱ, 1983) [K. Muradyan, Gregory Nazianzen in Armenian Literature (Yerevan: NAS, 1983)]. Նոր բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի, Հ. 2 (Երեւան: ԵՊՀ, 1981) [New Dictionary of Armenian Language, vol. 2 (Yerevan: Yerevan State University, 1981)]. Լ. Տեր-Պետրոսյան, “Փորձ հայ հին եւ միջնադարյան թարգմանական գրականության պարբերացման”, Էջմիածին, 4 (1982) [L. Ter-Petrosyan, “An attempt of periodization of ancient and medieval translated Armenian literature”, Echmiadzin, 4 (1982)]. Ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անվան մատենադարանի, Հտ. 2, Խմբ.՝ Լ. Խաչիկյան, Ա. Մնացականյան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ, 1970) [Catalogue of manuscripts of Mashtots Matenadaran, vol. 2, eds. L. Khachikyan, A. Mnatsakanyan (Yerevan: Publishing House of Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1970)]. ილ. აბულაძე, ქართული და სომხური ლიტერატურული ურთიერთობა IX–X სსში: გამოკვლევა და ტექსტები (თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1944) [I. Abuladze. Georgian and Armenian literary relations in 9th–10th cc.: Research and Texts (Tbilisi: Publishing House of Georgian Academy of Sciences, 1944)]. გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის თხზულებათა შემცველი ქართული ხელნაწერების აღწერილობა, ხელნაწერები აღწერა, შესავალი და საძიებლები დაურთო თამარ ბრეგაძემ (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1988) [Description of Georgian manuscripts, containing works by Gregory Nazianzen, ed. T. Bregadze (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1988)]. ლ. მელიქსეთ-ბეგი, „ჩრდილო მხარის სომეხთა მოძღვარნი“ და მათი ვინაობა (ტფილისი: ტფილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 1928) [L. MeliksetBeg, “Armenian Clerics from Northern Provinces” and their personalities (Tiflis: Publishing House of Tiflis University, 1928)]. მ. რაფავა, „ელინური ფილოსოფია და „თავისუფალი საკითხები“ გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის პირველი საღვთისმეტყველო სიტყვის (Or.27) ქართული თარგმანების მიხედვით“, in: კორნელი კეკელიძე 125, შემდგ. ე. ხინთიბიძე (თბილისი: ქართველოლოგი, 2004) [M. Raphava, “Hellenistic philosophy and ‘free questions’ according to the Georgian translations of Gregory Nazianzen’s first theological oration (Or.27)”, in: Korneli Kekelidze 125, ed. E. Khintibidze (Tbilisi: Kartvelologist, 2004)]: pp. 245–267. მ. რაფავა, „ერთი უცნობი პერსონალია გრიგოლ ნაზიანზელის პირველი

144

raphava

საღვთისმეტყველო სიტყვის (Or.27) ქართულ-სომხურ თარგმანებში“,

მრავალთავი, 19 (2001) [M. Raphava, “One unknown person in the Georgian-

Armenian translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s first theological oration (Or.27)”, Mravaltavi, 19 (2001)]: pp. 213–220. ფსევდონონეს მითოლოგიურ კომენტართა ქართული თარგმანები, ტექსტები გამოსაც. მოამზადეს ალექსანდრე გამყრელიძემ და თამარ ოთხმეზურმა (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1989) [Georgian translations of mythological commentaries by Pseudo-Nonnus, ed. T. Otkhmezuri, (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1989)]. ს. წერეთელი, ანტიკური ფილოსოფია (თბილისი: თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 1968) [S. Tsereteli, Antique philosophy (Tbilisi: Publishing House of University of Tbilisi, 1968)]. В. Виндельбанд, История древней философии (СПб.: Тип. И.Н. Скороходова, 1893) [V. Vindelband, History of Antique Philosophy (St. Petersburg: I.N. Skorokhodov Typography, 1893)]. Православная энциклопедия, Т. XIII (М.: Церковно-научный центр «Православная энциклопедия», 2006) [Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. XIII (Moscow: The Church Research Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2006)]. Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона, т. XXII (43) (СПб., 1897) [Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. XXII (43) (St. Petersburg, 1897)].

146

raphava

7

The Greek, Armenian and Georgian texts of Or.27 §1043 Կործանեա ինձ զՊիթագորի զլռութիւնն եւ զոլոռունսն զՈրփիականս, եւ զնոյնս յաղագս նոցին զՍեփեայ նորաձեւ ամբար[հ]աւաճութիւնն. Βάλλε μοι Πλάτωνος τὰς ἰδέας, καὶ τὰς μετενσωՎանեա ինձ զՊղատոնի տեսակսն եւ ματώσεις καὶ περιόδους τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ զայլ մարմինս փոփոխել հոգ[ւ]ոց, եւ τὰς ἀναμνήσεις, καὶ τοὺς οὐ καλοὺς διὰ τῶν καλῶν զշուրջ ճանապարհ մերոց հոզ[ւ]ոցս, եւ σωμάτων ἐπὶ ψυχὴν ἔρωτας. զվերստին յիշողութիւնն եւ որք ոչ բարւոք յաղագս գեղեցկաց մարմնոց յոգիսն են ցանկութիւնք Ἐπικούρου τὴν ἀθείαν, καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους, καὶ τὴν զԵպիկուրեայ զանաստուածութիւնն եւ ἀφιλόσοφον ἡδονήν· զանհատսն եւ զանիմաստասէր հեշտութիւնն Ἀριστοτέλους τὴν μικρολόγον πρόνοιαν, καὶ τὸ զԱրիստոտելի զփոքրաբան նախախնաἔντεχνον, καὶ τοὺς θνητοὺς περὶ ψυχῆς λόγους, καὶ մութիւնն, եւ զար[ո]ւեստաւորն, եւ զորս τὸ ἀνθρωπικὸν τῶν δογμάτων· յաղագս մահկանացու հոգ[ւ]ոց զբանս, մարդկայն աւանդութիւնս τῆς Στοᾶς τὴν ὀφρύν, զճեմարանին զյաւնն

8

τῶν Κυνῶν τὸ λίχνον τε καὶ ἀγοραῖον.

9

Βάλλε μοι τὸ κενόν, τὸ πλῆρες τῶν ληρημάτων, ὅσα περὶ θεῶν ἢ θυσιῶν, περὶ εἰδώλων, περὶ δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ κακοποιῶν, ὅσα περὶ μαντείας, θεαγωγίας, ψυχαγωγίας, ἄστρων δυνάμεως, τερατεύονται.

table 9.1

1 2 3 4

5

6

Βάλλε μοι Πυθαγόρου τὴν σιωπὴν, καὶ τοὺς κυάμους τοὺς Ὀρφικοὺς, καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸ Αὐτὸς ἔφα καινοτέραν ἀλαζονείαν.

43

զշնականացն զաւշոտութիւնն եւ զանյագութիւնն Վանեա՛ ինձ զունայնութիւնն, զյաճախութիւնն աղճատանաց, որ յաղագս աստուծոցն, վասն զոհիցն, յաղագս կռոցն, վասն դիւացն բարեաց եւ չարաց, զորս վասն մոլորութեանն, աստուածութեանն, հոգիածութեանն, աստեղացն զաւրութեան հրաշագործեն

Greek text is provided from PG 36, c. 24; Armenian—from Abuladze. Georgian and Armenian literary relations …; Georgian—according to ms. A–87.

georgian and armenian commentaries

1 2 3 4

147

შემიმუსრენ მე პითაგორეს დუმილნი ორფიოსის უცერცოებანი და თჳთ იგინივე მათთჳს სეფიოსის ახალსახენი ზუაობით სილაღენი ჰბრძოდე შენ პლატონის შესახედავთა, და სხუად და სხუად გუამად სულთა ცვალებისა ქადაგებასა და გარემოქცევითა ქცევასა სულთა ჩუენთასა, და უშუერებით შუენიერთა მიმართ გუამთა ტრფიალებასა სულთასა

5

ეპიკურეს უღმრთოებასა და განუკუეთელთა შესახედავთა ქადაგებასა და მისსა მას სიცოფით მშუებელობასა

6

არისტოტელესსა შეექეც შენ სიტყუამოკლესა ჴელოვნებასა და ზეგარდამოჲსა განგებულებისა განსაზღვრებასა, და რომელი მოკუდავებისათჳს სულთა ჩუენთაჲსა ყო მან გამომეტყუელებაჲ და მოსცა კაცთა

7

კუალად მოწაფეთა მისთა, მიმო[მ]ქცევრად წოდებულთაჲ, განმიმარტე მე წარბმაღლობაჲ

8 9

გინათუ ნაყროვნებით უძღებებაჲ და სიღნიოშე გლეხურთაჲ მითხრენ მე ამაოებანიცა იგი და სიცბილნი მათნი, რომელნი-იგი ღმერთთა მიერ ჴელითქმნულთა შესცთეს, რანი არიან კერპნი მათნი. იტყოდე მსხუერპლთათჳსცა მათთა და ეშმაკთა მათთჳს, მათ მიერ კეთილად და ბოროტად სახელდებულთა, რომელნი-იგი, ვითარცა ცნობამიღებულნი, სცბიან უღმრთოებით და ვარსკულავთა ძლიერებასა რასმე ქადაგებენ და საკჳრველ ჰყოფენ

148

raphava

table 9.2

The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 §10. The Georgian text of the commentary is based on ms. A–87, f. 393v. The Armenian text of the commentary is provided according to Abuladze’s edition, which is based on the following manuscripts: A—ms. M3284 (A); B—ms. M5602; C—ms. M636244

თარგმანებაჲ ზემოწერილთა მათ რიცხუეულთა ძნიად გულისჴმისსაყოფელთა სიტყუათაჲ

(1) ა პითაგორეს ბრძენთა მათგან სოფლისაგანი იყო ფილოსოფოსიa და სწავლად მის თანა მოსრულთა მათ ხუთ წელ დუმილსა უბრძანებდა და არა შეუნდობდა კითხვად რასაცა, არამედ რაჲთა ისმენდენ ოდენb და ისწავლიდენ სიტყუათა სიბრძნისათაc

a b c

A Պիթագորասa յաշակերտութիւն եկելոցն հրամայէր լուռ լինել եւ ոչ խաւսել .ե. ամb B Պիթագորասa յաշակերտութիւն եկելոցն զհինգ ամ հրամայէր լուռ լինելb զի զիմաստասիրական ուսցին խաւսս.c C ե.ամ Պիթագորասa լուռ պահէր զաշակերտսն

Պիթագորաս] +ბრძენთა მათგან სოფლისაგანი იყო ფილოსოფოსი հրամայէր լուռ լինել եւ ոչ խաւսել .ե. ամ A, զհինգ ամ հրամայէր լուռ լինել B, .ե.ամ … լուռ պահէր C] +არამედ რაჲთა ისმენდენ ოდენ զի զիմաստասիրական ուսցին խաւսս B] ისწავლიდენ სიტყუათა სიბრძნისათა,

om. AC

(2) სიტყუაჲ ბ ორფეოჲს, ჰრომთა ფილოსოფოსმანa, შჯულად დაუდვაb მოწაფეთა თჳსთაc ცერცჳსა არა ჭამაჲ, რამეთუ თჳთd ნათესავსა მამისა თჳსისასაe ჭამდა

a b c d e

44

A Որփեւսa ոլոռն ասաց չուտել, զիd զհաւր սերմնe ուտէ

B իսկ Որփեւսa աւրինադրեացb, c ոլոռն չուտել, զիd զհաւրն սերմնe ուտէ, ասէ, որ զոլոռնն ուտէ C Որփեւսa աւրէնս եդb, c հաւրն ուտէ

Որփեւս] +ჰრომთა ფილოსოფოსმან աւրինադրեաց B, աւրէնս եդ C] შჯულად დაუდვა, om. A աւրինադրեաց B, աւրէնս եդ C] +მოწაფეთა თჳსთა զի AB] +თჳთ զհաւր սերմն AB, հաւրն C] ნათესავსა მამისა თჳსისასა

Abuladze, Georgian and Armenian literary relations …, pp. 0196–0198.

georgian and armenian commentaries Table 9.2

149

The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 §10 (cont.)

(3) სიტყუაჲ გ სეფიოს ფილოსოფოსი აღზუავნა სხუათა ყოველთა ზედა ბრძენთაa და თქუა: წინააღმდგომი რაჲსავე საქმისაჲ არა ჯერ-არს,b არამედ ყოველი ჭეშმარიტ არსო

A Սափիդէսa ասաց, թէ հակառակ ինչ չիք,b այլ ամենայն ճշմարիտ է

B [Սափի] … ասաց, եթէ հակառակ ինչ ոչ գոյ,b այլ ամենայն ճշմարիտ է

C Սափիa ասաց, թէ չկայ իրք հակառակ,b այլ ամենայն ճշմարիտ է

a b

Սափիդէս A, Սափի C] +ფილოსოფოსი აღზუავნა სხუათა ყოველთა ზედა ბრძენთა հակառակ ինչ չիք A, հակառակ ինչ ոչ գոյ B, չկայ իրք հակառակ C] წინააღმდგომი რაჲსავე საქმისაჲ არა ჯერ-არს

(4) სიტყუაჲ დ პლატონ ბრძენმან ესრეთa თქუა: შესახედავი კაცთა ზედა ერთი სახე ჰგიესოb, რომლითაცა ყოველნი გამოისახვიან, ვითარცა-იგი ბეჭდითა ერთითა მრავალნი ცჳლნი ერთსახედ დაიბეჭდვიან,c და სულნი კაცთანი მიმოიქცევიანო და გუამითი-გუამად იცვალებიან, და რომელიცა გუამი სთნდეს და გულმან უთქუას, მასცა შინა დაადგრებიანოd, e.

a b c

d

e

A Պղատոնa ասաց՛ ամենայն իրիք տեսակ մի է,b որով գրին այլք, որպէս գրի մոմ մատանեաւ,c եւ ի

շուրջ գան ոգիք փոփոխմամբ եւ ցանկութեամբ ի մարմինս իջանենd, e B Պղատոնa ասաց՛ ամենայն իրիք տեսակ մի է,b որով գրին այլքն, որպէս մոմ մատանեաւ,c եւ շուրջ գալ զոգիսն ասաց եւ եթէ փոփոխմամբք մարմնոյ ի մարմին ցանկութեամբք ի մարմինսն իջանենd եւ յիշենf վերստին, ուստի ելինն եւ անդրէն դառնանe C Պղատոնa ասաց՛ թէ ամենայն իրաց տեսակ մի է,b որով գրին այլքն, որպէս մոմ մատանեաւ,c եւ շուրջ գան ոգիքն եւ փոփոխմամբ ի մարմին իջանենd եւ վերստին իջմամբ յառաջինսն վերափոխինe

Պղատոն] +ბრძენმან ესრეთ ամենայն իրիքAB||իրացC տեսակ մի է] შესახედავი კაცთა ზედა ერთი სახე ჰგიესო որպէս գրիA մոմ մատանեաւ] ვითარცა-იგი ბეჭდითა ერთითა მრავალნი ცჳლნი ერთსახედ დაიბეჭდვიან. Here the commentator means Plato’s ideas (ἰδέαι) that are imprinted in individual things as a stamp is imprinted in wax. (Theetet, c. 193) ի շուրջ գան ոգիք փոփոխմամբ եւ ցանկութեամբ ի մարմինս իջանեն A, շուրջ գալ զոգիսն ասաց եւ եթէ փոփոխմամբք մարմնոյ ի մարմին, ցանկութեամբք ի մարմինսն իջանեն B, շուրջ գան ոգիքն եւ փոփոխմամբ ի մարմին իջանեն C] გუამითი-გუამად იცვალებიან და რომელიცა გუამი სთნდეს და გულმან უთქუას, მასცა შინა დაადგრებიანო. իջանեն A] +եւ յիշեն վերստին, ուստի ելինն եւ անդրէն դառնան B, եւ վերստին իջմամբ յառաջինսն վերափոխին C, om. A, Geo.

150

raphava

Table 9.2

The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 §10 (cont.)

(5) ე ეპიკოროს ბრძენმანa არსნი ყოველნი თჳთქმნულად თქუნა,b, c და შესახედავნი — განუკუეთელად, და ვითარმედ: კაცისა კეთილი და უმჯობესიd ჭამაჲ და სუმაჲ არსო

a b

A Եպիկուրոսa ասաց ինքնեղ,b եւ զտեսակս — անհատ եւ թէ բարիd է մարդոյ ուտելն եւ ըմպելն B Եպիկուրոսa ասաց ինքնեղ զաշխարհ,b այս է անաստուածութիւնն.c եւ զտեսակսն անհատս, եւ թէ մարդոյ բարիd է ուտելն եւ զըմպելն C Եպիկուրոսa ինքնեղ ասաց զաշխարհսb եւ տեսակս անհատս, եւ բարիd զուտելն եւ զըմպելն

Եպիկըրոս] +ბრძენმან ասաց ինքնեղ A, ասաց ինքնեղ զաշխարհ B, ինքնեղ ասաց զաշխարհս C] არსნი ყოველნი თჳთქმნულად თქუნა

c d

ինքնեղ A, զաշխարհս C] +այս է անաստուածութիւնն B, om. AC, Geo. բարի] კეთილი და უმჯობესი

(6) ვ არისტოტელე ბრძენმანa თქუა: განგებულებაჲ ღმრთისაჲd ჰგიეს ზეცისათა ზედაb და ვიდრე მზედ და მთოვარედ და ვარსკულავთამდე მოიწევის,c ხოლო უქუე არღარა შთამოვალსო,e და სულისათჳს კაცთაჲსა რეცა ჴელოვნისმეტყუელმან და მოკუდავად თქუნაf

a b c d e f

A Արիստոտէլa ասաց, թէ նախախնամութիւննd մինչ յարեգակն եւ լուսին եւ յաստեղս,c եւ անտի խոնարհ ոչ եւս ինչ,e այլ իմաստասիրեաց զհոգիս մահկանացուս գոլf B Արիստոտէլa զնախախնամութիւննd խոստովանի եւ զամենայն ինչ մերոյ նախայաւժարութեան ասէ եւ ոչ ի հարկէ ճակատագրին,e բայց զհոգիս մարդկան մահկանացու ասէf C Արիստոտէլa ասաց, մինչ ի լուսաւորքդb նախախնամութիւն Աստուծոյd եւ ի ներքոյ լուսաւորքդ խնամեն.e եւ զոգիս մարդկան մահկանացուf

Արիստոտէլ] +ბრძენმან մինչ ի լուսաւորքդ C] ზეცისათა ზედა, om. AB մինչ յարեգակն եւ լուսին եւ յաստեղս A] ვიდრე მზედ და მთოვარედ და ვარსკულავთამდე მოიწევის, om. BC նախախնամութիւն] +Աստուծոյ C, ღმრთისაჲ

անտի խոնարհ ոչ եւս ինչ A, ոչ ի հարկէ ճակատագրին B, ի ներքոյ լուսաւորքդ խնամեն C] ხოლო უქუე არღარა შთამოვალსო այլ իմաստասիրեաց զհոգիս մահկանացուս գոլ A, բայց զհոգիս մարդկան մահկանացու ասէ B, զոգիս մարդկան մահկանացու C] და სულისათჳს კაცთაჲსა რეცა ჴელოვნისმეტყუელმან და მოკუდავად თქუნა

This comment to Nazianzen’s critics against Aristotle explains only two views of the philosopher: his concept of Providence (πρόνοια) and the mortality of the soul (θνητός περὶ ψυχῆς). The comment agrees with Aristotle’s view that divine Providence affects only the heavenly world that is above the dome of the sky, and does not affect those who live in the lower world that is below the dome of the sky.

151

georgian and armenian commentaries Table 9.2

The Georgian and Armenian commentaries on Or.27 §10 (cont.)

(7) ზ. მიმო[მ]ქცევართათჳს A ճեմականքն ամբարտաւանեցին եւ ոչ խաւսել ესრეთ უკუე გჳსწავიეს გარეშეთა წიგნთაგან, ընդ ումեք արժանի վարկանէին ვითარმედ ვიდრემდის პლატონ ფილოსოფოსი ცოცხალღა იყო, არისტოტელე C ճեմականքն ոչ խաւսել ընդ ումէք արժանի համարէին ամբարտաւանել და მოწაფენი მისნი ვერ იკადრებდეს ერთსა შინა ქალაქსა დადგრომად და სწავლად პლატონის პატივისათჳს, რამეთუ პატივი მოძღურებისაჲ მას ეპყრა, არამედ ადგილითიადგილად იქცეოდეს და ესრეთ სიბრძნისმეტყუელებდეს. ამისთჳს არისტოტელეანთა მათ რიტორებრითა სიტყჳთა მრორინედ გინა მიმო[მ]ქცევრად სახელ-სდვეს, ხოლო წარბმმაღლობელად ღმრთისმეტყუელმან ამისთჳს უწოდა მათ, რამეთუ ზუავნი იყვნეს და ფუდულნი, და არავის ფრიად სიტყუას მიუგებდეს, არამედ წარბმაღლობით თანა-წარჰჴდებოდეს.

(8) ჱ. გლეხურთა მათთჳს ხოლო რომელნიცა გლეხურნი იყვნეს და უსწავლელნი წარმართთაგანი იგი,a შერეულად და ღნიოშად ყოვლისაფერისა ჭამასა და სუმასა შექცეულ იყვნეს ნაყროვნებით

a

A շնականb առ բարս որովայնապարար լինի B շնականb առ բարսն ունի որովայնապարար լինել

C նման շանb զառաւրեայն միայն համարէին,

զոր ինչ անկանէր ի մի աւր ուտէին վասն որովայնմոլութեան

շնական AB, նման շան C] +რომელნიცა გლეხურნი იყვნეს და უსწავლელნი წარმართთაგანი იგი

(9) თ. ხოლო სხუათა მათ წარმართთათჳს ხოლო სხუათა მათ წარმართთაგანთა, რომელთამე ეშმაკნი გონებაკეთილნი ღმრთად აღიარნეს და რომელთამე — ბოროტნი, და კეთილთა მათ უწოდდეს ანტიანდრესადa, ხოლო ბოროტთა მათ — მადიტესადb.

a

ոմանք ի հեթանոսաց դեւս չարս խոստովանեցին եւ ոմանք դնեն զբա րիս, զոր եւ անուանեն զանուն բարոյ դիւին անդրանտինէ

դեւս չարս խոստովանեցին … անդրանտինէ] ეშმაკნი გონებაკეთილნი … ანტიანდრესად

b

անդրանտինէ] +ხოლო ბოროტთა მათ — მადიტესად

chapter 10

John II of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Encaenia of St. Sion and Its Calendrical Background Basil Lourié

1

Introduction

The homily of John II of Jerusalem (387–417)1 on the Encaenia of St. Sion2 is one of the most important witnesses related—directly or indirectly—to the liturgical institutions of Jerusalem among those preserved exclusively in Armenian. It must be considered at the same level as, for example, the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem witnessing the mid-fifth-century Jerusalem rite3 and the Vita of Cyril of Jerusalem (350–386) substantiating the veneration of this saint as the creator of the Jerusalem rite despite the fact that he was consecrated bishop by Arians.4 The successor of Cyril in the Jerusalem See, John II, delivered this homily on the day of the encaenia, or dedication, of the Sion basilica, on September 15th, 394. This homily is our sole source for this liturgical celebration tied to this holy place, known as “the mother of the Churches”.5 1 The main bibliography on John II is provided by M.M. Kohlbacher, “Vom Enkel des Origenes zum Vater der Chalcedongegner. Einleitungsfragen zum Lehrbekenntnis des Johannes von Jerusalem (CPG 3621),” in Origeniana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, eds. W.A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 137; Leuven: University Press, 1999): pp. 655–672. 2 S. below, section 5.4, some reservations to this definition of the occasion at which the homily was delivered. Below I will use the spelling “Sion” instead of “Zion” when referring to the Christian/Byzantine realities. 3 Ch. Renoux, “Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121,” 1–2, in PO 35.1 (1969); 36.2 (1971). Also relevant is his publication of the documents of a later period: Ch. Renoux, “Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le čašoc‘,” 1–3, in PO 44.4 (1989); 48.2 (1999); 49.5 (2004). 4 E. Bihain, “Une Vie arménienne de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Le Muséon 76 (1963): pp. 319– 348. 5 For Sion as “the Mother of Churches” (an appellation known, at least, from the late fourth century), s. F. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben. Texte und Untersuchungen (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff’schen Buchhandlung, 1898), pp. 99–100; Stéphane Verhelst in his commentaries in Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi. Editio—translatio—retroversio—commentarii. The Old Georgian Version of the Liturgy of Saint James, published by L. Khevsuriani, M. Shanidze, M. Kavtaria, T. Tseradze; La Liturgie de Saint Jacques. Rétroversion grecque et commentaires par S. Verhelst (Jerusalemer theologisches Forum 17; Münster: Aschendorff Verl., 2011), p. 349.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_012

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

153

However, this source is the least known among the Armenian sources relevant to the liturgy of Jerusalem. The main reason is the relative obscurity of the text itself as opposed to the relatively recent date of its discovery. The first and only publication of the Armenian original (with a Latin translation) was produced by Michel van Esbroeck (1934–2003) in 1973.6 Then, in 1984, the same author published his French translation with additional corrections to the preexisting one in Latin, along with a study of this work within the context of John II’s activity and Church politics as a whole, but still without a proper liturgical study.7 Nevertheless, despite these efforts, no liturgical scholar addressed this text with the exception of two tangentially relevant topics: its possible relation to the Jewish feast Yom Kippur, already noticed by van Esbroeck,8 and its eight-part liturgy as a prerequisite for the further development of the Octoechos.9 Indeed, the homily has little to do with the Christian liturgies of the Byzantine realm. This is not only obvious but rather striking. It is, however, not any less striking that the liturgy and the liturgical space described by John II continue the tradition of the sevenfold partition of Sion’s liturgical space traceable from the pre-Christian epoch through the first Christian centuries. The potential interest of the homily as a liturgical source goes far beyond its possible relation to Yom Kippur.

6 M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie sur l’ Église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem,”Le Muséon 86 (1973): pp. 283–304, the Armenian text on pp. 289–304. Previously, in 1966, P. Ananian published a distorted epitome of this homily under the name of certain John the Chorbishop dated by him to the 8th cent.: Պ. Անանյան, “Յովհաննես Խորեպիսկոպոսի երկու ճառեր,” Բազմա վէպ 124 (1966) [P. Ananyan, “Two Sermons of John the Chorbishop,” Polyhistory 124 (1966)]: pp. 18–28, here pp. 23–28; a detailed comparison with the original recension is provided by van Esbroeck, “Une homélie …,” pp. 287–288. Only two manuscripts of the full homily are presently known, but the later one (Matenadaran 2136) is a 18th-cent. copy of the earlier one (Matenadaran 993, AD 1456). A detailed description of the latter is provided by Michel van Esbroeck and Ugo Zanetti: M. van Esbroeck, U. Zanetti, “Le manuscrit Erévan 993. Inventaire des pièces,” RÉA 12 (1977): pp. 123–167, 479–491. 7 M. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix,” AB 102 (1984): pp. 99–134, here pp. 107–124, translation on pp. 115–124. Below I quote the sermon of John II within the text according to the page numbers of van Esbroeck’s 1973 edition and his French 1984 translation (txt/tr.). 8 Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra elaborated on these observations by van Esbroeck: D. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (WUNT 163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 299–300. Cf. also a mention by M.A. Fraser, “Constantine and Encaenia,” Studia Patristica 29 (1997): pp. 25–28, here pp. 27–28. 9 S.S. Frøyshov, “The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-mode System in Jerusalem,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51 (2007): pp. 139–178, here p. 157.

154

lourié

The purpose of the present study is a liturgical analysis of the homily against its early Christian and Jewish pre-Christian background.10

2

The Structure of the Homily: An Overview

The homily on the Encaenia of St. Sion is addressed to Porphyry, the staurophylax in Jerusalem, who later became the bishop of Gaza (395–420).11 Michel van Esbroeck managed to identify Porphyry, whose name is distorted in Armenian (P‘op‘or), as the addressee and to date the homily to the year 394, whereas previously the dedication of the Sion basilica was datable only to the interval between the enthronisation of John in 387 and the death of Emperor Theodosius the Great in 395.12 The homily is subdivided clearly into two parts, where Part One (§§ 1–23) enumerates the main topics which will be covered with the rest of the homily (§§24–97). It serves as an overture for the following. Part Two (§§ 24–97) is, in turn, subdivided into eight smaller parts, though van Esbroeck preferred a slightly different subdivision into seven smaller parts within Part Two and an additional Part Three (§§85–97). The topics enumerated in Part One are leitmotivs in the whole of Part Two. The text is extremely dense, saturated with some 300 scriptural allusions according to van Esbroeck’s count13 over approximately 100 sentences, roughly equivalent to paragraphs in van Esbroeck’s edition. Such a density of allusions

10

11

12

13

Michel van Esbroeck was also the person who introduced me to his friend Karen Yuzbashyan in 1983 in St. Petersburg, thus paving my own way to Karen when I started my studies in Armenian Christianity several years later. Since then, their names have become for me interconnected. I am sure that Karen would be glad to see Michel mentioned in a paper dedicated in his memory. Jeff Childers demonstrated that the Greek text of the Vita Porphyrii is earlier than the lost Syriac original of the extant Georgian version: J. Childers, “The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations,” in: Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, eds. J. Childers and D.C. Parker (Texts and Studies 3.4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006): pp. 154–178 (with previous bibliography on Porphyry). van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” pp. 107–111. Stéphane Verhelst expresses some doubt concerning 395 as the terminus ante quem and considers 415, the year of the discovery of the relics of St. Stephan, to be the only certain date for this terminus: S. Verhelst, Les traditions judéo-chrétiennes dans la liturgie de Jérusalem: spécialement la Liturgie de saint Jacques Frère de Dieu (Textes et études liturgiques, 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 200–203. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” p. 114.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

155

leaves a feeling of centonisation.14 Among the main scriptural authorities the author quotes 4Ezra which is, in his eyes, certainly not uncanonical.15 The imagery of 4Ezra, especially the chalice (4 Ez 14), becomes one of the key components of the symbolic language of the homilist. The leitmotivs introduced in Part One are the following: (1) the heavenly palaces-tabernacles remotely reflected in the present earthly sanctuary (§§ 1– 4); (2) the heavenly paradise where the saints shine like the fixed stars whereas the prophetical hymns follow the right path like the moving planets (§§ 5– 6); (3) an intoxication with the Holy Spirit from above, with purification of the lips and illumination (§§7–10); (4) obstacles to the true revelation, mostly sevenfold, such as the disciples of seven pagan sages, namely Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer (in Armenian a distortion of the name Hermes, sc. Trismegistus), Asclepius, Hippocrates, and Galen; or the seven locks of Samson’s head woven into the web by Delilah (Judges 16:13–14) (§§ 11–13); (5) the difference between the wisdom of the world and the true wisdom from God (quoting, besides the Bible, Gregory of Nazianzus) (§§ 14–16); (6) the Ark of the Covenant and the Propitiatory, once more in the context of the intoxication with the waves of the Holy Spirit, spiritual renovation, and the divine Bridegroom (§§17–18), together with (7) the purification of the heart in imitation of Ezra, with clear allusions to different scenes from 4 Ezra including those with the chalice and (re)writing of the holy books (4 Ez 14); this description represents Ezra as a new Moses and, thus, alludes to the idea of a New Testament (§§19–21);16 (8) Moses receiving the Holy Spirit among the gathering of the

14

15 16

Centonisation is a method of composition when quotations from other texts (supposedly known to the competent audience) are used with almost no other words. For centonisation in the literary texts and especially in liturgy, see F. Cabrol, “Centonisation,” in: Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, publié par F. Cabrol. T. 2, partie 2, Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910, cols. 3255–3259. Biblical centonisation as a homiletic style is so far never studied—evidently, because the preserved texts are relatively rare. Cf. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” p. 134. This passage (§§ 20–21; pp. 291–292/116–117) is so important for understanding the homily that it needs to be translated in full, followed by my emendations to van Esbroeck’s French translation in italics. “Avançons-nous parmi les éléments dans les prairies des pasteurs divins, broutant les fleurs aux livres divins, en imitant Esdras, lequel par le moyen des larmes de repentir (a été) spiritualisé par un jeûne de sept jours, mangeant les fleurs des champs dans la vision des troupes angéliques, en pleurant Jérusalem et Israël, ce pourquoi il reçu l’ ordre de tracer les caractères et d’ accueillir le livre qui conserve l’écrit, et l’ayant bu (il a été) envoyé comblé des dons de Dieu.” “Let us advance through the letters [that is, of the alphabet, Armenian ի տառս, cf. litteras in van Esbroeck’s Latin tr. and գրել զտառսն ‘to write the letters’, below] in the grasslands of the divine pastors, grazing on the flowers [Armenian մատենիցն] of the

156

lourié

seventy-two elders and explaining with the holy words the mystery of the Propitiatory in the divine house of the Bridegroom (§§ 22–23). This eightfold subdivision of Part One seems to me rather easily distinguishable and clearly symmetrical to the eightfold subdivision of Part Two, discussed below in section six. Part Two is called by the editor “the homily on the Propitiatory”, although it is rather a homily on the liturgical structure of the Sion basilica. Indeed, in each part of the description the homilist mentions the “Holy Propitiatory” (քաւարան = ἱλαστήριον / ‫)כפורת‬. Below, I avoid a discussion of one of the most striking liturgical peculiarities of the homily: the material object called “propitiatory”. I argued elsewhere17 that it was a chalice made from a semiprecious stone, theoretically representing the sapphire in the visions of Ezekiel, whose liturgical usage was abrogated shortly after John II but which continued to be an important holy object preserved in the Sion church before 614. The same object or, at least, its equivalent—possibly a reproduction—will appear in the Constantinopolitan replica of the Sion church, the Church of the Apostles, where it will be seen in the ninth century by Constantine-Cyril, the brother of Methodius and a future Apostle to the Slavs. Another replica of this chalice was produced in Aksum within a large program of Translatio Hierosolymi, similar to that in Constantinople. The transformation of the propitiatory into a chalice is one of the liturgical trends within Second Temple Judaism provoked by the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant.

17

Scriptures [cf. 4 Ez 9 24], imitating Esdras, who through tears of repentance (became) animated [հոգիացեալ, implying that the Greek verb was here ἐμψύχομαι, cf. NBHL 114a] by a fast of seven days, eating the flowers of the fields in a vision of the angelic hosts [4 Ez 9 26–27], mourning over Jerusalem and Israel [4 Ez 10:20]; this because he, having received the order to write out the letters [գրել զտառսն] and to receive the book which preserves the writing [4 Ez 14 24–26], and having drunk it [ուստի հրամայէ գրել զտառսն ի գիւտնապահ մատենին ընդանենալ եւ աղբերացեալ, Esbroeck’s Latin translation read unde iubet scribere litteras, a libro servante, inventionem accipere, et potatus;] he (had been) sent forth full of the gifts of God [4 Ez 14:38–40]”, English translation by Robert Phenix. Thus, the two main symbols of 4 Ez 14, the chalice and the book, are amalgamated in this passage. Mostly in the articles: В.М. Лурье, “Из Иерусалима в Аксум через Храм Соломона: архаичные предания о Сионе и Ковчеге Завета в составе Кебра Негест и их трансляция через Константинополь,” Христианский Восток 2 (8) (2000) [B. Lourié, “From Jerusalem to Aksum through the Temple of Solomon: Archaic Traditions about Sion and the Ark of Covenant in the Kebra Nägäst and Their Translation via Constantinople,” Christian Orient 2 (8) (2000)]: pp. 137–207; B. Lourié, “Inscription on the Chalice of Solomon. A New Reading in the Light of New Textual and Liturgical Witnesses,” Scrinium 13 (2017): pp. 170–198.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

157

Part Two of John’s homily is subdivided into eight sections according to the eight “circles” or “orders”, “orbits”, “spheres” etc. It is difficult to decide how to translate the Armenian word պարունակ here. Michel van Esbroeck thought that it is the same word as the one used in 4 Ez 7:77–9918 given that 4 Ezra is one of the main scriptural sources of the homily. Unfortunately, we have no corresponding Armenian word in 4Ezra, because the Armenian recension of 4 Ezra in the relevant part deviates from the lost original Greek recension.19 The Latin text distinguishes between the term via ‘way’ in 7:80–87 and ordo ‘order’ in 7:88–99, thus revealing that the lost Greek original of the extant versions has had here two different words, too, whereas the Syriac version has in each place employed the same word 焏‫ ܐܘܪܚ‬ūrḥā ‘way’. Therefore, I am sceptical toward van Esbroeck’s guess that պարունակ in our text corresponds to the Greek original term behind Latin ordo in 4 Ez 7:88–99.20 Instead, I agree with Stéphane Verhelst, who sees implied in this Armenian word the Greek term σφαῖρα ‘sphere’, connoting its cosmological meaning.21 M. van Esbroeck recognised an analogy between these “spheres” and the sevenfold structure of the heavens known from the Ascensio Isaiae and other early Christian and Jewish texts.22 The eighth “sphere” of the homilist does not

18 19

20

21 22

van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem,” p. 117. Cf. M.E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). The Armenian text contains only the section dealing with the seven ճանապարհ ‘ways’. In examining the eight “circles” of the Sion church, van Esbroeck himself acknowledged, that “[c]es cercles n’ont rien à voir avec les précédents: ils représentent simplement le niveau cosmologique des cieux” ‘these circles have nothing to do with the previous ones (in the homily, § 24); they represent simply the cosmological level of the heavens’; van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem,” p. 117, n. 74. He calls “les précédents” the “circles” first mentioned in § 24 and then implied in the introductory passage to Part Two, §§24–26. However, this passage enumerates different symbols of the heavenly Temple from the Old Testament whose total number is twenty one (= thrice seven): “heaven of heavens”, heavenly Jerusalem, the Paradise of Eden, the Ark of Shem and Noah, the tabernacle of Moses, “the house of God”, the burning bush, the ladder of James and the rock that James anointed, the Mount Sinai, the temple of Solomon, the lampstand with seven lamps, the lampstand covered with (golden) shields (1 Kgs 10:16), the temple of Ezekiel, the heavenly door, the upper room that God enters, the church of the holy righteous, the sanctuary, the synagogue and camp divine, and, finally, “the present tabernacle” (p. 292/117). I see no specific correspondence between this passage and 4 Ez 7. S. Verhelst, “Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, chapitre 1, et la liturgie chrétienne,” Liber Annuus 47 (1997): pp. 129–138, here p. 137, fn. 36. S. a review of these texts in A.Y. Collins, “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. by J.J. Collins and M. Fishbane (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995): pp. 59–93.

158

lourié

disrupt this sevenfold scheme but is established as superior to its sevenfold whole.

3

The Cosmology and Liturgical Space and Time

The cosmology implied in the homily agrees perfectly with Verhelst’s understanding of each պարունակ as a heavenly sphere and its projection on the liturgical space of an earthly sanctuary. Each of the eight subdivisions of the Sion temple is described by the homilist as having the same Propitiatory as their common raison d’être. It is most natural to understand the implied cosmological spatial structure as eight concentric spheres having the Propitiatory as their common centre. However, this geometrically simple and clear cosmology does not result in an equally clear understanding of the structure of the liturgical space within the Sion basilica. The number of possible ways of mapping a given structure of the heavens onto the earthly liturgical space is theoretically, from a topological point of view, unlimited. In fact, we know nothing certain about the internal structure of the Sion basilica,23 which was completely destroyed in 614 by the Persians and then

23

Cf. a balanced discussion of the available data and interpretations by E.K. Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus. Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity (WUNT 266; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010): pp. 317–323. Michel van Esbroeck shared the hypothesis that the main structure within the church was octagonal, but he did not propose any specific hypothesis concerning the relation of this octagonal structure to the plan of the basilica: van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem,” p. 114. Referring to van Esbroeck’s view, Bargil Pixner went further, identifying the octagonal structure with the Theodosian memorial church (ca. 382) which he called “vestibule church” according to its relation to an adjacent building (both are visible on the Roman Pudentiana mosaic, ca. 400). Pixner identified the latter as the historical church of apostles and discerned both from the “larger” Sion basilica built in 394 and visible on the Madaba map: B. Pixner, “Church of the Apostles found on Mount Zion?”Biblical Archaeological Review 16.3 (1990), here pp. 16–35, 60; cf. criticisms apud Broadhead]. Pixner’s hypothesis is incompatible with van Esbroeck’s conclusion that the homily of John II is delivered on the occasion of the encaenia of the “larger” Sion church and certainly not the Theodosian octagon (erected when the bishop of Jerusalem was still Cyril). Pixner himself did not comment on his disagreement with van Esbroeck, even in his later publication: B. Pixner, Paths of the Messiah and Sites of the Early Church from Galilee to Jerusalem: Jesus and Jewish Christianity in Light of Archaeological Discoveries, ed. by R. Riesner (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), pp. 348–351 (original German edition 1991), to whom he refers approvingly. Finally, Stéphane Verhelst (S. Verhelst, La liturgie de Jérusalem à l’ époque byzantine. Genèse et structures de l’année liturgique, unpublished PhD Thesis (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), [pp. 271–272] (no

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

159

replaced in the seventh century. This fact, nevertheless, will not prevent us from making some conclusions concerning the liturgical calendar implied by the homilist, given that the mapping of a heavenly structure onto a structure of the liturgical space is always suggesting some structure of the liturgical calendar. The heaven as such is not only a spatial structure but also a structure of time; thus, its mapping is always a spatio-temporal procedure affecting both liturgical space and liturgical calendar. The calendar implied by John II has been already discussed by Michel van Esbroeck and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. The former put forward a hypothesis that the homily delivered on September 15th, known as the commemoration day of the dedication of the Sion basilica according to many available sources, was also dedicated to the Jewish feast of the Day of Atonement (i.e. Yom Kippur) which, in this year, could have fallen on September 15th.24 Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra supported this hypothesis in general but added a little correction: according to the calendar-computation program by Nachum Dershowitz and Edward Reingold, the Julian date of the eve of Yom Kippur in 394 fell on September 20th, the last day of the eight-day feast of the Encaenia of the Anastasis church (September 13th).25 This result is not too far from van Esbroeck’s initial guess, since the Encaenia day of the Sion basilica is the third day of the same liturgical cycle which began with the dedication of the Anastasis on September 13th. Both Michel van Esbroeck and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra postulated some coincidental points between the calendar of John II and the contemporaneous rabbinic Jewish calendar. In fact, there was only one such point they dealt with: both of them focused their attention on the Propitiatory as the only feature clearly referring to some Jewish calendrical tradition (Yom Kippur).

24

25

pagination in the manuscript), esp. fn. 1286 put forward an interesting hypothesis that the octagonal church on the Pudentiana mosaic is that of Bethlehem (whose excavations proved it to be octagonal), and the whole image is an otherwise known symbolic representation of Golgotha and Bethlehem situated together as two adjacent buildings. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” pp. 111–112. In 386, the year of the famous antiJewish homilies of John Chrysostom, the Julian date of Yom Kippur (10 Tishri) was September 18th; thus, according to van Esbroeck, it is possible that the actual Jewish calendar— whose exact form is unknown to us due to its possibly irregular way of intercalating— would have had a near date, September 15th, for 10 Tishri in 394. One can notice that, according to a more recent study based on some new documental data, John Chrysostom’s homilies imply a Jewish calendar where 10 Tishri fell on September 9th–10th (from sunset to sunset) of 387: W. Pradels, R. Brändle, M. Heimgartner, “The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Iudaeos,” ZAC 6 (2002): pp. 90–116. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur …, pp. 299–300.

160

lourié

My approach will be different. I will consider the whole structure of the homily (especially of its Part Two) as calendrical and based on a Jewish calendrical pattern.

4

Zion/Sion: A Sevenfold Liturgical Space

A sevenfold (or eightfold which is derived from sevenfold) partition of both liturgical and cosmological spaces would require some kind of sevenfold/eightfold partition of the calendar. The liturgical time is the third domain, after the cosmological and liturgical spaces, which is connected with the two others via the bijective mapping. Therefore, one has to expect a sevenfold/eightfold structure for either the whole or a part of the liturgical year implied in the homily by John II. A sevenfold partition of the Christian Sion church is traceable from the very beginning, long before 394. Three Christian authors of the fourth century mention Emperor Hadrian’s visit of Mt Sion ca. AD132 reporting that he saw there seven Christian synagogues. One of these synagogues was preserved until the time of Constantine the Great. One of these witnesses is the anonymous pelerine from Bordeaux, ca. 333, who saw this last synagogue himself.26 A sevenfold structure of the Christian Sion sanctuary is implied in the thirdcentury homily by a certain, yet hardly real, Barsabas of Jerusalem, preserved in Georgian only and first edited by Michel van Esbroeck; its dating to the early third century looks the most plausible.27 There is another group of the sevenfold sanctuaries referring to Zion/Sion, albeit indirectly. This group presents the heavenly shrine and/or its principal earthly, even if sometimes imaginary, counterpart as having a sevenfold partition. Zion/Sion is concerned insomuch as being the only, or principal, earthly sanctuary. One of the most known examples is presently the Qumranic Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (2nd cent. BC) which describes an angelic liturgy while also clearly taking into account the rite of an earthly shrine. However, there is 26

27

Two other witnesses are Epiphanius of Salamis (De mensibus et ponderibus, 14) and Optatus of Mileve (De schismate Donatistarum III, 2). See an edition and analysis of all these three witnesses by F.-M. Abel in: H. Vincent, F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, Tome II: Jérusalem nouvelle, Fasc. III: La Sainte-Sion et les sanctuaires de second ordre (Paris: Gabalda, 1922), pp. 472–474. M. van Esbroeck, “Barsabée de Jérusalem, Sur le Christ et les églises. Introduction, édition du texte géorgien et traduction française,” in PO 41.3 (1982). Cf. B. Lourié, “Barsabas of Jerusalem, On Christ and the Churches. Its Genre and Liturgical Contents,” PhilosophicalTheological Review Nr 4 (2014) [Tbilisi, publ. 2015]: pp. 28–32.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

161

a number of others, which I have elsewhere enumerated.28 One can add the monolithic church of the Makarinoi (“the Blessed Ones”) having seven altars (θυσιαστήρια).29 Such liturgical rearrangements were accompanied with a diffusion of the liturgical rites specifically according to different feasts, including the yearly rites of the Day of Atonement. This is why we see, for example, in the Epistles to the Hebrews, the paschal sacrifice of Jesus treated as the sacrifice pertaining to both Pentecost (Covenant) and the Day of Atonement.30 These sevenfold sanctuaries, in turn, imply a sevenfold liturgical calendar; that is, a calendar where either the whole liturgical year or its especially important part too has a sevenfold partition. Normally, this sevenfold structure is something more distinct than a simple seven-day weekly cycle throughout the year. Thus, in the Qumranic Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice we see a 364-day liturgical year subdivided into four 13-week quarters. In 4 Ezra, there is also a sevenfold liturgical cycle, but it covers only 33 days from the foundation of the Second Temple on 1.II (cf. 1Esd 5:55) to Pentecost falling on 4.III. A similar sev-

28

29

30

B. Lourié, “Calendrical Implications in the Epistle to the Hebrews,”Revue biblique 115 (2008): pp. 245–265, here the excursus, pp. 256–260. Among the examples are: (1) “the seven (not the unique!) clouds of the glory” accompanying the camp of Israel according to several targums; R. Vicent, La fiesta judía de las Cabañas (Sukkot). Interpretaciones midrásicas en la Biblia y en el judaísmo antiguo (Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1995), pp. 196–203, demonstrated that the relevant tradition is not simply exegetical but also liturgical; (2) a Coptic magical incantation to Archangel Michael mentioning “the seven basins of the Church of the firstborn that is in the heaven” published by Angelus Kropp: A. Kropp, Der Lobpreis des Erzengels Michael (vormals P. Heidelberg Inv. Nr. 1686) (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élizabeth, 1966), p. 22/23 (German tr./txt), cf. my analysis in Lourié, Calendrical …, pp. 259–260. Cf. also a cosmological and (indirectly but explicitly) liturgical parallel to “the seven clouds of the glory” in the opening midrash of the Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (1:1) studied by Stéphane Verhelst, “Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana …,” where the divine Shekhina draws back from the Earth, farther and farther, seven times with each of seven human generations. This corresponds to the structure of seven concentric heavens and, therefore, to some kind of sevenfold heavenly sanctuary. From a brief account on the Makarinoi preserved in Greek and Georgian; J. Rougé, Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et commentaries (SC 124; Paris: Cerf, 1966), pp. 346–357 (critical edition of the Greek text with a French translation and reprint of the 1928 Z. Avalichivili’s French translation of the Georgian version). Cf. a short study of the liturgical space of the temple of the Makarinoi in В.М. Лурье, “Три Иерусалима Лалибелы. Интерпретация комплекса церквей Лалибелы в свете данных его Жития,” [B. Lourié, “Three Jerusalems of Lalibela. An interpretation of the church complex at Lalibela in the light of the data of the Life of Lalibäla”] Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 13 (2000) (= Miscellanea Aethiopica Reverendissimo Domino Stanislao Kur septuagenario professori illustrissimo, viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata): pp. 117– 140, here pp. 136–137. See Lourié, “Calendrical Implications …,” with further bibliography.

162

lourié

enfold period is implied in 2Baruch, but only covers 31 days from the date of the postponed (second) Passover 14.II (cf. 2Chr 30:15) to Pentecost falling on 15.III. The two latter calendars are a priori interesting for us, because both of the corresponding apocalypses are referring to Zion.31 A four-week pre-Pentecostal cycle based on the motifs of 4Ezra is preserved in the Liturgy of the Seventh Sabbath of the Beta Israel (Falasha), where the implied day of Pentecost is 4.III (the same as in 4Ezra and some other Second Temple Jewish liturgical sources). The Liturgy of the Seventh Sabbath is a liturgical text actually used by the Beta Israel, where the yearly cycle of seven pentecontad periods is preserved. However, the modern Beta Israel does not pay attention to most of its original liturgical features which are recoverable from the text itself which, in my opinion, originated from some branch of the Second Temple Judaism.32 The various kinds of sevenfold liturgical space and time form the proper liturgical context where John II was preaching. As Stig Simeon Frøyshov noticed, the eightfold structure of his sermon and the respective liturgy was derived from the sevenfold with the addition of one rather specific “sphere” to the earlier seven; in the same period, the ancient seven-week partitions of the Jerusalem calendar were replaced with the eight-week cycles of the Octoechos.33 Thus, his Yom Kippur is hardly the Yom Kippur of the rabbinic liturgical tradition. It is therefore no wonder that, for him, a rite involving the use of the propitiatory appears not to be performed just once a year.

5

The Liturgical Calendar of John II

5.1 An Overview One easily notices that each of the eight major topics of the eight subdivisions of Part Two has some correspondence with the Jerusalem calendrical traditions. Some of them are not specific to the fourth-century and later Jerusalem rite, whereas others are either specific or, at least, have originated from the Jerusalem liturgy, even if they subsequently found their way to Constantinople 31

32

33

S. on them B. Lourié, “The Calendar Implied in 2 Baruch and 4Ezra: Two Modifications of the One Scheme,” in Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. International Studies, eds. G. Boccaccini and J.M. Zurawski (Library of Second Temple Studies, 87; London etc.: Bloomsbury, 2014): pp. 124–137. Cf. B. Lourié, “A 364-Day Calendar Encapsulated in the Liturgy of the Seventh Sabbath of the Beta Israel of Ethiopia,” in Studies in Ethiopian Languages, Literature, and History, Presented to Getatchew Haile by his Friends and Colleagues, ed. A.C. McCollum (Ä thiopistische Forschungen, 83l Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 217): pp. 379–429. Frøyshov, “The Early Development …,” p. 157, 173 et passim.

163

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia table 10.1 The Eight Spheres and the Jerusalem Calendar Sphere (§§) Main topics

Calendrical correspondence

Date in the Jerusalem calendar (the commemorations accepted in non-Jerusalem calendars are marked with *)

I (27–33)

Pentecost.

*50th day after Easter.

Feast of the Apostles.

*50th day after Pentecost.

Finding of the Chalice of the Last Supper. Ark of the Covenant in Kiryat Yearim. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

3 July.

II (34–40)

III (41–55) IV (56–61) V (62–65)

VI (66–72) VII (73–84)

Angelic hosts, fire, heavens, heavenly tabernacles, Holy Spirit. Church, her earthly leaders, apostles Peter, Paul, and John, prophets Ezekiel and Ezra. Paradise, Tree of Life, Fall, True Vine, Christ … Ark of Shem and Noah. Abraham and Isaac, ointment of the stone (in Bethel) by Isaac.

Sinai, Moses, Tabernacle, fast. Temple of Solomon, the seven pillars of the Wisdom, the Chalicea of the Wisdom. VIII (85–97) Holy of Holies, bridal upper room.

Moses. Encaenia of Martyrium and Anastasis. Encaenia of the Sion basilica, formerly the Olivet discourse.

2 July. 21 August (in some documents in Georgian Isaac and Jacob are commemorated on the next day, 22 August). *4 September. *13 September.

*15 September.

a Not “chalices”, as van Esbroeck translates; s. below, section 5.2 (sphere VII), fn. 50.

and beyond. All of them are, moreover, historically related to the pentecontad calendar, as will be seen in a more detailed review below. Table 10.1 includes the main topics of the eight subdivisions (“spheres”) of Part Two together with their calendrical parallels. What is the nature of the feasts mentioned in the table above? I will discuss the data available on the corresponding Jerusalem celebrations according to the order of the “spheres” in John’s homily. All the descriptions of these spheres contain, in one way or another, the Temple or Tabernacle(s) symbolism, which demonstrates conformity with the predominance of the Tabernacles motif in the festivity of September 15th (s. below, section 5.4). Nevertheless, each sphere contains recognisable liturgical symbols on its own.

164

lourié

5.2 Spheres from I to VII 5.2.1 Sphere I The themes of the angelic hierarchies34 and the structure of the heavens are not necessarily related to Pentecost, but various appearances of fire are more related to the Sinai revelation or its repetition in the Sion upper chamber. There is, moreover, a direct reference to the Sinai revelation of the heavenly Tabernacle to Moses, now restated for Porphyry: “Or donc, ô (Porphyre), beauté de l’ éther céleste, qui a adapté35 les tabernacles célestes à la terre (որ զերկնային խորանն յերկրի զարդարեցեր) …” (§30, p. 293/118). The Christian Pentecost is essentially the homonymous Jewish feast (also called the feast of the Weeks) whose exact date varied according to the different manners of counting the fiftieth day after Passover/Easter. However, of greater significance is the fact that its alleged Julian date has often been taken as May 15th, presuming March 27th as the “true” Julian date for Easter,36 the day of an important Christian feast in Early Christian Jerusalem going back to the date of Pentecost 15.III according to the Book of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and most of the known Second Temple Jewish 364-day calendars.37 John’s homily, nevertheless, has no particular features related to May 15th, but still perfectly fits temporally with the movable Pentecost.

34

35 36

37

It is hardly accidental that the enumerated species of angels are seven: cherubim, seraphim, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and “les anges rassemblés par la lumière divine dans l’ air igné” (§ 27, pp. 293/117–118). On the seven angelic orders within the Sinai imagery, s., among others, J.H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai. Traditions about Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, eds. G.J. Brooke, H. Najman and L.T. Stuckenbruck (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 12; Leiden: Brill, 2008): pp. 29–72, here pp. 49–53. Michel van Esbroeck’s earlier Latin translation “qui … ornavisti” seems to me more exact. The most common presumption; cf. A.A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (The Oxford early Christian studies series; Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), pp. 48–49 (March 25th as the date of the Passion Friday, at least, in the Roman Church from the earliest time and in Cappadocia). March 27th + 49 days = May 15th. Cf. W.D. Ray, “Christmas in May? The Early Jerusalem Commemoration of the Birth of Christ,” in A View from a Bridge: in Honour of Annie Jaubert (1912–1980), Vol. 2, eds. by G. Dorival et al. (forthcoming). It is to be kept in mind, however, that the 15th days of all months are somewhat remarkable in many different calendars due to their “etymological” connection to the full moon. Therefore, it would hardly be a problem to discover some “pagan background” latent in the Jewish or Christian celebrations at 15th day of any given month. Such vague “pagan” etymology of Jewish and Christian feasts is irrelevant, however, it is the process of transition between Jewish and Christian calendars that is being dealt with here. Cf., for a different approach where the “pagan” feasts are considered as having taken place, S. Verhelst, “Le 15 août, le 9 av et le Kathisme,” Questions liturgiques

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

165

5.2.2 Sphere II The sphere is dedicated to the heavenly Jerusalem where “… nous soyons Pierre, Paul, Jean, Ézéchiel, Esdras [պետրոսանալ պաւղոսանալ յովհաննանալ եզեկիանալ եզրանալ, lit. Petriniser, Pauliniser, Johanniser, Ézéchieliser, Esdraiser] dans la vertu, afin de devenir dignes du Verbe indicible (անճառ Բանին) par la médiation de ce saint Propitiatoire” (§ 40, p. 295/119 and n. 83).38 The three first figures from the five are the most prominent apostles; one of them, moreover, being the person who described this heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21, quoted as mentioning his name in §35 together with Paul’s “city of the living God”, Heb 12:22, p. 294/118). Ezekiel and Ezra are the Old Testament prophets whose visions are especially important for John: Ezra is the main precursor of the apostles being the principal link between them and Moses (s. above, fn. 14), whereas Ezekiel is important for both his vision of the eschatological Temple (mentioned in §25, s. above, fn. 18) and the whole mystical tradition derived from his visions. Nevertheless, the second sphere is dedicated to the first three among the apostles, despite being together with their predecessors in eschatological visions Ezekiel and Ezra (additionally with a mention of Gregory of Nazianzus: §37, p. 294/119; for John, he is his direct predecessor in the theological revelation about the Holy Trinity39 and, therefore, the final link of the chain expanded from the prophets and the apostles to Porphyry and John himself). The second Pentecost is known as the New Wine festival from the secondcentury BC Temple Scroll. This feast is preserved in some Christian traditions as the feast of the Apostles in the Eastern Syrian rite and the extinguished Western Syrian rite of Tikrit,40 the so-called Vardavaṙ (Վարդավառ) in the Armenian

38

39 40

82 (2001): pp. 161–191, here pp. 177–178 (on May 15th and some other 15th-day feasts), and idem, Le lectionnaire …, p. 80 (on the pagan feast of Aphrodite and Dionysus in May, but not exactly on May 15). Michel van Esbroeck noticed that these five figures residing in the Paradise are presented in a fresco of the church of Timotesubani (ტიმოთესუბანი) in Georgia (1205–1215), and the same iconographic programme could be hypothetically recovered from the fragments preserved in some other churches of the Byzantine commonwealth (van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” pp. 109, 119, n. 84). He refers to Ekaterina Leonidovna Privalova’s monograph: Е.Л. Привалова, Роспись Тимотесубани (Тбилиси: Мецниереба, 1980) [E. Privalova, La peinture murale de Timothesoubani (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1980)], pl. XXVI. However, this is a mistake, since such figures are absent in the relevant fresco as well as in other depictions of the Paradise in the churches of Georgia described in this monograph by Privalova. On the role of Gregory the Theologian in the homily, s. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” p. 110. A. Baumstark, Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten. Eine liturgiegeschicht-

166

lourié

rite,41 and formerly Vardoba (ვარდობა), then At‘enagenoba (ათენაგენობა) “St. Athenagenos Day” in the Georgian rite.42 In most of the Christian traditions, its movable date became fixed on June 29th in the epoch of Justinian and the feast itself became limited to the commemoration of Peter and Paul, whereas, in the Byzantine rite, the next day became the Synaxis of the Twelve Apostles. In the Western Syrian rite, the feast of June 29th is still dedicated to the Apostles, not just specifically to Peter and Paul. 5.2.3 Sphere III This sphere is also Paradise. It is here that the Tree of Life, “the second Adam”, as well as the different righteous who entered Paradise are mentioned, contrasting to the evildoers who did not. In his speech, the homilist dedicates the most prominent place to Enoch and Elijah, in the line of the Merkabah mysticism: “… tu [sc., Porphyre] as transité l’en-deça comme Hénoch, tu a été transporté sur le char de Dieu [շահատակեցար կառաւք Աստուծոյ] pareil à Élie …” (§ 44, p. 295/120); “… soyons transportés [շահատակեսցուք մեք] dans le paradis par le moyen de la vertu et de l’amour comme Hénoch et Élie …” (§ 48, p. 296/120).

41

42

liche Verarbeit auf Grund hslicher Studien in Jerusalem und Damaskus, der syrischen Hsskataloge von Berlin, Cambridge, London, Oxford, Paris und Rom und des unierten Mossuler Festbrevierdruckes (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums III.3–5; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1910 [reprint: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012]), pp. 265–266. On the pre-sixth-century Jerusalem roots of the Armenian Vardavaṙ, s. Ch. Renoux, “La fête de la Transfiguration et le rite arménien,” in: Mens concordet voci. Pour Mgr A.G. Martimort à l’ occasion de ses 40 années d’enseignement et des 20 ans de la Constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1983): pp. 652–662. I have elsewhere supposed that the etymology of this word is not from vard “rose”, as Armenian hagiographical legends claim, but from its homonym having the meaning “magical word”, “word of preaching” (cf. Armenian ecclesiastical title “vardapet”), with the second component vaṙ taken in its habitual meaning “burning, inflaming, on fire”. The term therefore refers to the initial point of apostles’ preaching, the scene of Pentecost in the Zion upper room: В.М. Лурье, “Три типа раннехристианского календаря и одно разночтение в тексте Epistula Apostolorum” [B. Lourié, “Three Types of the Early Christian Calendars and One Variant Reading in the Text of the Epistula Apostolorum”], in: Традиции и наследие Христианского Востока. Материалы международной конференции, под ред. Д.Е. Афиногенова и А.В. Муравьева (Москва: Индрик, 1996) [Traditions and the Legacy of the Christian Orient. Materials of the International Conference., eds. D.E. Afinogenov and A.V. Muraviev (Moscow: Indrik, 1996)]: pp. 256–320, here p. 315. Recently Étienne Nodet argued for the hypothesis that the scene described in Acts (s. esp. 2:13) implies the second Pentecost (the New Wine festival) and not the first one: É. Nodet, “On Jesus’ Last Supper,” Biblica 91 (2010): pp. 348–369, here pp. 365–367. Т.Г. Мгалоблишвили, “Древнейший праздник «Vardoba»—«Atenagenoba».” Православный Палестинский сборник 98 (35) (1998) [T.G. Mgaloblishvili, “The Earliest Festival Vardoba—Atenagenoba,” The Orthodox Palestinian Periodical 98 (35) (1998)]: pp. 115–121.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

167

The prevailing imagery related to the state of the rightful in Paradise is, however, quite specific. Many times they are compared to trees, especially the “tree of vine”, clearly in the context of the Fall and the Redemption: Porphyry “… as planté le paradis de Dieu sur cette terre et la vraie vigne (զճշմարիտ զորթն) et as pressé la treille [խաղողն “grapes”—B.L.] divine du Christ en chevauchant l’univers” (§43, p. 295/119); “Venez donc, ô enfants du Christ … tranchez les racines de cette chair …” (follows a list of nine sins with their precedents, mostly biblical; §§45–48, pp. 295–296/120); “… plantons-nous dans la vraie vigne, le Christ …” (what follows are the biblical quotations comparing the rightful with different trees: Pss 91:13; 103:16; 95:12; 1:3; 51:10; Mt 3:10; §§ 49– 51, p. 296/120); “… soyons la vigne de Sorek (որթ սորեակս) [Is 5:2], de tous cotés entourée d’une haute haie, ayant planté le vignoble (այգի) digne de Dieu [Is 5:2]. En t’entourant l’ésprit de la haie de l’Esprit-Saint, ne laisse pas aux renards l’occasion d’entrer dans ton vignoble (յայգիդ) [Lam 3:15] …” (§§ 52– 53, p. 297/120). The contrast between the evil roots and the good trees,43 especially the “true” tree of vine, evokes the imagery of the Fall and the Redemption as primarily related to the two trees of vines: the true one which has been planted in Paradise by Christ instead of the previous one, the habitual tree of vine, which, while also planted in Paradise, was however planted there by Satan. This imagery is known especially by the Greek-Slavonic apocalypse of Baruch (3Baruch 4–5: the vine planted in the Paradise by Satan was uprooted by the flood but then planted again by Noah according to the divine commandment; cf., however, 2Baruch 36–40 where the vine is a messianic symbol). The topic of the Second Temple Jewish feast of New Wine is explicit. In the Christian Jerusalem liturgical calendar one has to recall the feast of the Chalice. The Finding of the Chalice (of Jesus’ Last Supper) is known only from Georgian documents, always on July 3rd.44 This feast is clearly nothing but the fixed

43

44

Cf. also the final exhortation: “que nous quittions cette Égypte de la chair, en nous insérant comme une branche dans les cèdres de Dieu, portons des fruits dans les sentiers angéliques, afin de devenir dignes du jardin d’ Éden par la médiation de ce saint Propitiatoire” (§§ 54–55, p. 297/121). On this feast known from different Jerusalem sources but only in Georgian, s. G. Garitte, Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) (SH 30; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1958), pp. 268–269. Garitte’s supposition that this feast could have been established in commemoration of a hypothetical reinvention of the Chalice after the Persian invasion of 614 of the Chalice—previously known as preserved either in or within the Martyrium or somewhere near the Martyrium—is untenable, because it forms a part of the long liturgical cycle traceable back to the Second Temple Jewish pentecontad calendars. Cf. also

168

lourié

Julian date for the second Pentecost: May 15th, the Julian date for Pentecost corresponding to Easter on March 27th, plus 49 days results in July 3rd. This date corresponds to the date of the New Wine festival (3.V) in the Temple Scroll, meaning that it is the date of the second Pentecost according to all 364-day calendars where the date of the first Pentecost is 15.III. Connotations of the New Wine festival are clearly preserved in John’s homily, especially in comparison with its 3Maccabees’s avatar, where the feast is called the “Chalice of Salvation” (3Mac 6:31: κώθωνα σωτήριον).45 Sphere IV 5.2.4 This description is dedicated to “the Ark (տապան) of Shem and Noah” (§ 56, p. 297/121) and contains clearly liturgical overtones, especially striking in the treatment of the black raven from Gen 8:7 as representing “the volatiles of the holocaust (ողջակիզացն թռչունք)” (§57, p. 297/121). In the Jerusalem liturgical calendar, this imagery recalls the commemoration of another ark in Kiryat Yearim. The Ark of the Covenant in Kiryat Yearim was celebrated according to all evidence on July 2nd,46 before the feast of the Chalice. The feast of the Ark,

45

46

S. Verhelst, Le Lectionnaire de Jérusalem. Ses traditions judéo-chrétiennes et son histoire, suivant l’ index des péricopes évangéliques, conclu par le sanctoral du Sin. Géo. 58 Novus, Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 26; (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2012), pp. 144–145: goes against Garitte’s hypothesis but supposes that the Chalice was originally deposed at the place of the statio of July 3rd, a church called “foundation of John”: “il faut donc supposer que le motif de l’ invention du calice remonte à la fondation de l’endroit” (p. 145). I have nothing to add about the place, but the feast itself is perfectly recognisable from the Jewish pentecontad calendars with their feast of New Wine. B. Lourié, “The Liturgical Cycle in 3 Maccabees and the 2Enoch Calendar”, in: Perceptions bibliques du temps. Études bibliques à l’ occasion du huitième centenaire de l’Ordre Dominicain et des 125 ans de l’ École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, ed. M. Leroy and M. Staszak (Études bibliques, n.s., 77; Louvain: Peeters, 2018): pp. 156–172. On this feast attested to almost unanimously in all of the sources representing the Jerusalem liturgy in Armenian and in Georgian, s. Renoux, “Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121,” 2, pp. 212/213–214/215 (txt/tr.); Garitte, Le calendrier, p. 267. I am grateful to Bernard Outtier who attired my attention to the Armenian part of the dossier, which encompasses as well later Armenian homeliaries (ճառընտիր), e.g., Bibl. nationale de France, ms. Arm. 110, nº XLIX (Outtier’s example). Cf. also Verhelst, Le Lectionnaire, p. 78: Verhelst acknowledges the pre-fourth-century date of the feast but supposes that it originated from some (probably Ebionite) Jewish-Christian polemics against the sacrifices and the temple of the Jews (“car l’ Arche a disparu dans le temple post-exilique”). Judging from the function of the Ark/Golden (Sun’s) Chariot in the calendars of such Second Temple Jewish texts as 3 Baruch and Joseph and Aseneth, where its appearance marks a liturgical celebration of the Summer Solstice (cf. below, fn. 46), we have to consider our Christian feast of the Ark (that during its staying at Kiryat Yearim still remained on its chariot!) as ultimately Jew-

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

169

in the middle of the fifth century, acquired an additional Marian meaning when the funeral of the New Ark of the Covenant, Theotokos, started to be celebrated in Gethsemane. This new feast of the Mary’s robe—initially, of her funeral shroud—has been accepted by the rite of Constantinople. Finally, the commemoration of the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Jerusalem Juvenal († 458), whose month and day of the death are unknown, was added to the same Marian feast—evidently because of his military seizure of the Gethsemane Marian shrine from the hands of the adherents of the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Jerusalem Theodosius in the summer of 452.47 The sequence of the two feasts, that of the Ark and that of the Chalice, which is preserved in all other documents than our homily, is most assuredly original. It roughly corresponds to the Second Temple Jewish calendars where the second Pentecost has been preceded—within a short period of no more than ten days—with a celebration of the Summer Solstice.48 The central imagery of this celebration has been established based on the idea of the chariot of the Sun being reconsidered in the line of the Merkabah mysticism. Within such imagery, the difference between the Ark of Noah and the Ark of the Covenant would have disappeared, and, thereby the difference between the former in our homily and the latter in the Jerusalem calendar does not become problematic. The real difficulty is the consequence of the “spheres” in our homily: the Ark after the Chalice and not vice versa. I have no explanation for this calendrical deviation. 5.2.5 Sphere V The central imagery here is the Aqedah, it allowing Abraham and Isaac to be introduced together followed by the unction of the stone in Bethel by Isaac

47

48

ish (and, consequently, its original polemical connotations as belonging to intra-Jewish polemics of the Second Temple period). B. Lourié, “L’Histoire Euthymiaque: l’ œuvre du patriarche Euthymios/Euphemos de Constantinople (490–496, † 515),” Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 20.2 (2007) [Miscellanea Patristica Reverendissimo Domino Marco Starowieyski septuagenario professori illustrissimo viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata]: pp. 189–221. This paper is heavily dependent on previous studies by M. van Esbroeck but contains some corrections to his reconstruction of the events of the 450s. Cf. the calendars of 3 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham [both analysed in B. Lourié, “Cosmology and Liturgical Calendar in 3 Baruch and Their Mesopotamian Background”, in: H. Gaylord Memorial Volume (provisional title), eds. A. Kulik, A. Orlov (Studia Judaeoslavica; Leiden: Brill) (forthcoming)], the Joseph and Aseneth [cf. B. Lourié, “The Liturgical Calendar in the Joseph and Aseneth,” in: Men and Women in the Early Christian Centuries, eds. W. Mayer, I.J. Elmer (Early Christian Studies, 18; Strathfield, Australia: St Pauls Publications, 2014): pp. 111–134], 3 Maccabees [cf. Lourié, “The Liturgical Cycle in 3Maccabees”].

170

lourié

(§§62–65, p. 298/121–122). These acts are interpreted as “only an image” of the priesthood of Christ that became accessible to us49 (van Esbroeck notices that John’s exhortation as addressed primarily to the priests50) according to the order of Melchizedek. The themes of Abraham and Isaac and the unction joined together also have a precise equivalent in the Jerusalem liturgical calendar. August 21st is clearly the fixed Julian date for the third Pentecost (ancient New Oil festival): 3.V plus 49 days results in 21.VI, provided that the fifth month is the Julian month July, containing 31 days. In the fourth century, the symbolism of the number 21 (= 7×3) was still important for the commemoration of Abraham, as it is witnessed by Gregory of Nazianzus in his sermon on Pentecost.51 The corresponding date of the Temple Scroll is 22.VI, since the fifth month in the most of the 364-day calendars—including those of the Temple Scroll and the Jubilees—contains only 30 and not 31 days. In Christian Jerusalem, however, August 22nd was the commemoration of Isaac, whose anointment of the stone in Bethel, a motive related to the New Oil festival, constitutes the principal commemoration of the feast even according to the homily by John II.52 49

50 51

52

“O prêtres du Christ, soyons les imitateurs du Fils de Dieu par le sacerdoce de Melchisédech” (Ով քահանայք Քրիստոսի լիցուք նմանողք Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ Մելքիսեդեկեան քահանայութեամբ; § 64, p. 298/121). van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” p. 121, n. 93. “I perceive that Enoch, the seventh among our ancestors (Jud 14), was honoured by translation. I perceive also that the twenty-first, Abraham, was given the glory of the Patriarchate, by the addition of a greater mystery. For the Hebdomad thrice repeated brings out this number. And one who is very bold might venture even to come to the New Adam, my God and Lord Jesus Christ, Who is counted the Seventy-seventh from the old Adam who fell under sin, in the backward genealogy according to Luke (3:34)” [Oration 41, 4; C. Moreschini, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 38–41. Introduction, texte critique et notes (SC 358; Paris: Cerf, 1990), p. 320; cf. p. 321, fn. 2 on the calculation of the ordinal number of Abraham from Gen 5:3–30, 10:21–24, and 13:10–27; English tr. by Ch.G. Browne and J.E. Swallow in: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 7 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894); revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight ⟨http://www .newadvent.org/fathers/310241.htm⟩]. The sphere V is the only exception where the propitiatory is not mentioned but, instead, the homilist mentions some “holy unction of the stone”: “en bénissant le nom du Seigneur par le moyen de la sainte onction de la pierre que voici” (աւրհնելով զանուն Տեառն ի ձեռն սուրբ աւծեալ վիմիս այս, § 65, p. 298/122; I have added the word “sainte” as a rendering of սուրբ that van Esbroeck seems to overlook in the two his translations). This phrase corresponds to the refrain that ends the descriptions of the spheres from I to IV and VII: “par la médiation de ce saint Propitiatoire” (բարեխաւսութեամբ սուրբ քաւարանիս), §§ 33, 40, 55, 61, 84, p. 294/118, 295/119, 297/121, 298/121, 302/124. The description of the sphere VIII mentions the propitiatory in another manner, whereas that of the sphere

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

171

It seems that both August 21st and 22nd were reflecting the early Jerusalem Christian liturgy, the same early Christian avatar of the ancient Jewish New Oil festival. Such a “dissociation” of the unique feast resulted from the two conflicting traditions of “translation” between the calendars; in this case, from some 364-day per year Jewish Second Temple calendar to the Julian calendar, one constituting an ancient tradition to preserve the ordinal numbers of the days within the roughly identified months and the other a more sophisticated tradition of preserving the mathematical relations between the dates within the liturgical cycles. We have already seen the same phenomenon in the similar “dissociation” of the second Pentecost into the movable feast and the fixed feast on July 3rd. Considering there were no movable feasts within the 364-day calendrical schemes, therefore, the mathematical relations between the feasts and their fixed dates were equally important). 5.2.6 Sphere VI The description of this sphere is dedicated exclusively to the vision of the heavenly Tabernacle by Moses on Sinai. The objects that were subsequently presented in the Tabernacle of Moses are enumerated in great detail. Moses is commemorated in the Christian Jerusalem calendar on September 4th (in the Constantinopolitan rite as well).53 John mentions him in different contexts including the context of fasting, referring to the 40-day Moses’ fast on Sinai, (Ex 24:18; §71, p. 300/122), thus certainly alluding to the Jewish tradition of one-day fasting during the period of Tishri before the Yom Kippur. The normal date of this fast is 3.VII. Dedication of this one-day fast to Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25–26 and Jer 41) is a phenomenon of Talmudic times, whereas the fast itself is much earlier, most likely dating back to the Hasmonean epoch.54

53 54

VI does not mention the propitiatory nor any equivalent at all (one can thus suppose that the original ending of this description is lost). Michel van Esbroeck considered this anointed stone as “l’ élément fondateur de l’ église” (van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” p. 122, n. 94). I argued elsewhere, in the two articles mentioned above, fn. 15, that the stony chalice-propitiatory was identified with the Eben Shatya (“the cornerstone”) that replaced the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies according to some Second Temple traditions. Therefore, this “stone” is another name for the same propitiatory, whereas van Esbroeck was right in his understanding of this object as “l’élément fondateur”. Garitte, Le calendrier …, p. 322. Cf. also the commemoration of the Departure of Moses in the Copto-Ethiopic calendar on 8 Tut / Mäskäräm = 5 September (Julian). It is prescribed already in the Megillat Ta‘anit (ca. 100CE) but with the rationale whose exact meaning is now undecipherable: “On the third of Tishri the mention (‫)אדכרתא‬ was removed [variant reading nullified] from the documents (‫ ;”)שטרא‬V. Noam, “Megillat Taanit—The Scroll of Fasting,” in: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud. vol. 3: The Literature of the Sages, part 1, eds. Sh. Safrai et al.,

172

lourié

John II elaborates on this commemoration of Moses but ignores the proper context of this commemoration in the Jerusalem liturgical tradition—or better, in a Jerusalem liturgical tradition that could be earlier than his own attempt to appropriate the commemoration of Moses from it but reject the commemorations of Elijah (and Elisha) and of Yom Kippur on September 10th. This tradition needs to be sketched in a separate excursus (s. below, section 5.3). 5.2.7 Sphere VII The imagery of this sphere is clearly focused on the Temple. The vocabulary is mostly explicit but several terms need a clarification. The sphere as a whole is called “la tour et la maison porteuse du voile [Sir 50:5, sc., the Holy of Holies.—B.L.], l’autel et la colonne des églises” (աշտարակ եւ տուն սրահաւորս սեղան [= θυσιαστήριον] սիւն եկեղեցից; § 72, p. 300/123). The words “tower” (աշտարակ = πύργος) and “pillar” (սիւն = στύλος) are used by John in its Second Temple Jewish and early Christian meaning of “temple”.55 The Armenian word խառնելի/խառնելիք (singular/plural, derived from the verb խառնեմ “to mix”, analogous to Greek κρατήρ) could be used in the plural form also for singular “chalice”. Given the whole passage, as van Esbroeck himself noticed, is a paraphrase of Prov 9:1–2: the Wisdom calling to her house for her chalice filled with the wine.56 I propose to translate “chalice” here in the singular form. The dedication of the church complex of Martyrium and Anastasis built by Constantine took place in 335, either on September 17th, according to the seventh-century Chronicon Paschale, which preserves some archaic Christian

55 56

Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006): pp. 339–362, here p. 341 (txt), 343 (tr.), cf. p. 345, fn. 45: “The precise nature of the event is unclear”. Nevertheless, Vered Noam follows those previous scholars who, in agreement with the mediaeval Jewish Scholiast, dated this fast to the Hasmonean period. For a different dating (to the second Jewish War against the Romans), s. S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Philadelphia: Oxford UP, 1922), pp. 97–100. Лурье, “Три Иерусалима Лалибелы …,” pp. 164–165, fn. 66. Cf. also “Voici la tour fondée à Thalpiôth avec un millier de boucliers suspendus [Cant 4:4]” (§73, p. 300/123). “Voici la vraie colonne à sept bases sur laquelle les sages s’appuient [Prov 9:1], en réjouissant ceux qui sont appélés avec amour aux coupes [to correct to à la coupe.—B.L.] [Prov 9 2]” (Ահա ճշմարիտ սիւն եւթնախարիսխք [from եւթն “seven” and խարիսխ = βάσις] յորում իմաստութիւնքն կանգնին, ուրախ առնելով զսիրով կոչեցեալսն ի խառնելիսն; § 75, p. 300/123). The wording of the Zohrab Bible is different but with the same usage of plural (ի խառնելիս) in the meaning of singular: կանգնեաց սիւնս եւթն “she has set up seven pillars”; խառնեաց ՛ի խառնելիս զգինի իւր “she mixed her wine in the chalice [lit. chalices]”.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

173

traditions, or, most likely, September 13th, according to the whole liturgical tradition whose witnesses, do not come earlier than 383 or 384, the date of Egeria’s description.57 In any case, the tradition of the celebration on September 13th has been assuredly established to coincide with the time of John II. Egeria herself explained the date September 13th as that of the dedication of the Temple of Solomon according to 2Chr 7:8–10 (cf. 1Kgs 8:65–66),58 but she—or rather, her guides—is or are certainly wrong: the counting of 2 Chr 7:8–10 implies 14 days before 23.VII, excluding this day, which leads to 9.VII as the first day of the festival of Dedication.59 Egeria’s witness is nevertheless important towards understanding Constantine’s church complex as a New Temple of Solomon. This identification goes back to the epoch of Constantine60 and is emphasised as well in the relevant part of the homily by John II. The choice of September 13th or September 17th, instead of the “scriptural” date September 9th,61 has broken all Jewish and Christian calendrical schemes. It was possibly chosen by Constantine himself due to his specific ideas of absorbing principal Roman cults into Christianity: September 13th, or the Ides of September, was the festal day of Jupiter Capitolinus whose temple or, at least,

57

58

59

60

61

The date September 17th could not be discarded as easy as by Fraser and some other scholars: “The date given by the Chronicon Paschale would appear to be a date given in error for the Egyptian date of 17 Thout, the day on which the Coptic church celebrates the finding of the Cross” (Fraser, “Constantine and Encaenia,” p. 25). The Copto-Ethiopian calendar indicated the commemoration of the Encaenia on the right date, 16 Tut = September 13th, whereas the feast of the Cross on 17 Tut is the feast of Exaltation of the Cross on September 14th. The source of this peculiar date provided by the Chronicon Paschale still remains unknown. A recent defence of September 17th as the historical date is proposed by S. Verhelst, La liturgie …, pp. [178–180]. To him, the existence of the Jupiter Capitolinus feast on September 13th would have prevented the Encaenia on the same day; I suggest it rather being in the opposite direction (s. below). Be that as it may, it does not affect our analysis of John’s homily. Egeria, Itinerarium 48 2: “Et hoc per Scripturas sanctas inuenitur, quod ea dies sit encenearum, qua et sanctus Salomon consummata domo Dei, quam edificauerat, steterit ante altarium Dei et orauerit, sicut scriptum est in libris Paralipomenon”; P. Maraval, Égérie, Journal de Voyage (Itinéraire) (SC 296; Paris: Cerf, 1982), p. 316. Egeria certainly does not have in mind the contemporaneous Jewish Rabbinic lunisolar calendar whose date 9 Tishri would have not coincided each year with the same date of the Julian calendar. She implies that the correspondence between her familiar Julian dates and the biblical ones are fixed. S. a useful review of the relevant data in L. van Tongeren, Exaltation of the Cross: toward the origins of the Feast of the Cross and the meaning of the Cross in the early medieval liturgy (Liturgia condenda, 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), pp. 31–32. That is, the date presuming the identification of Tishri with September.

174

lourié

statue (viz. a shrine) was erected by Emperor Hadrian on the place of the future Anastasis.62 Nevertheless, September 13th becomes the first date of an important or principal celebration that has no historical connection to any Jewish calendar at all. As Stéphane Verhelst noticed, it was John II who rearranged the two-day festival of the common Encaenia of both Anastasis and Martyrium in comparison with the previously existing order described by Egeria. Egeria indicated both stations of September 13th and 14th in the Martyrium, whereas already in 393 the first day was celebrated in the Anastasis, with both Armenian and Georgian sources prescribing the same order.63 This change was a prerequisite for formation of the future feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross as a separate one, whereas, before the seventh century, it would have been noted as no more than an “accompanying” feast (Baumstark’s term Begleitfest) of the Encaenia. Being only a Begleitfest, the feast of the Cross is not emphasised in John’s homily,64 although it is present behind the scenes due to the direct addressee of the homily being the staurophylax Porphyry. I consider this step as aiming at “Christianisation” of the earlier non-Christian calendrical initiative of Constantine. The sequence of the Encaenia of the Anastasis on September 13th and a clearly distinct Begleitfest in the Martyrium on the next day would have recalled the sequence of 2 Chr 7:8–10, where the dedication of the Temple of Solomon was appointed on the eve of Yom Kippur, and, therefore as a Begleitfest of the latter. In John’s calendar, the order of the principal feast and its Begleitfest became reversed, shifting their dates. Thus, the resulting “Christianisation” of the calendrical dates was less than perfect.

62

63 64

As it was first pointed out by Dom Ildephonse Herwegen (the abbot of the Maria Laach) to Anton Baumstark and first published by the latter (in 1927); cf. A. Baumstark, Liturgie comparée. Principes et Méthodes pour l’ étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes, 3e éd. revue par B. Botte, Coll. Irénikon; (Chevetogne: Éditions de Chevetogne, 1953), p. 203. This is now a rather common opinion. Cf. Constantine’s syncretism in Constantinople: V. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and Making of Christian Constantinople (London—New York: Routledge, 1994). Verhelst, Le lectionnaire …, pp. 90–91. Cf., however, the Good Thief imagery applied to Porphyry (§44, p. 295/120) and referring to the famous episode of Porphyry’s life, his vision of the crucified Christ and his healing from the Good Thief; s. van Ebroeck’s analysis, “Jean II de Jérusalem …,” pp. 109–110. The context is, however, not sphere VII (Encaenia) but sphere III (New Wine), that is, implying a contrast between the two trees, that of perdition (vine) and that of salvation (Cross).

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

175

Nevertheless, for John, the main September date—September 15th—refers to the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). Our current knowledge of the Second Temple Jewish calendars is not sufficient for a proper discussion of the Jewish “matrix” of John’s calendrical decision. We only know that the feasts of 10 and 15 Tishri, Yom Kippur and Sukkot, were interfering with each other—in different ways in different particular traditions—both having absorbed as well the topics related to the dedication of the Temple / Tabernacle.65 There should at least be assurance that there were Jewish calendrical traditions that reached John II through some Christian milieux, where the Tishri/September feasts were culminating in the middle of the month, its fifteenth day. 5.3

Excursus: Elijah and Moses as the Precursors of the Day of Judgment / Yom Kippur on September 10th In the Second Temple period, the number of the preparatory days together with the Day of Atonement itself was either ten or eight. This period was interpreted, moreover, as the multi-day consecration feast of the second temple (eight days in 3Baruch but ten days in 4Baruch = Paraleipomena Ieremiae).66 In these cases, Yom Kippur absorbed the symbolism of Sukkot—that of the heavenly Temple/Tabernacle—and became the final festival of the Tishri period. Therefore, 3Baruch certainly did not imply any continuation of its final Yom Kippur/heavenly Temple feast. The eight-day preparatory period required 3.VII as a specially marked day, regardless of the specific interpretation of this day, which was variable according to different traditions, although less likely connected to a fast as found in 3 Baruch. The appearance of Moses on September 4th in the Jerusalem calendar becomes more understandable in a larger context, where Moses turns out to be accompanied by Elijah. In the Jerusalem calendar, the historical Tishri cycle is represented with: the New Year festival properly (September 1st),67 a commem-

65

66

67

Oddly enough, van Goudoever’s 1959 review of the data [J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (Leiden: Brill, 1959), pp. 36–44], though belonging de facto to the pre-Qumranic epoch of scholarship, continues to be the clearest introduction to the relevant calendrical traditions. Of course, more recent studies would add a lot of details; s. esp. Vicent, La fiesta judía de las Cabañas …, and H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot. The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles (Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese, 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Lourié, “Cosmology …”. A useful review of biblical data concerning both seven- and nineday periods before 10.VII and their connection to the dedication of the Temple is provided by van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, pp. 36–44. Garitte, Le calendrier …, p. 319.

176

lourié

oration of Elisha (September 2nd, peculiar to the Jerusalem rite and attested to in Georgian only),68 a commemoration of the ascension of Elijah (September 3rd, also peculiar to Jerusalem and only in Georgian),69 Moses (September 4th), holy martyr Barypsab(b)a(s)/Baripsab(b)a(s) on September 10th,70 whose hagiographical dossier is poorly preserved and has not been sufficiently studied so far71 but obviously alludes to the Yom Kippur topics,72 and, finally,

68 69 70

71

72

Garitte, Le calendrier …, p. 320. Garitte, Le calendrier …, p. 321. Garitte, Le calendrier …, pp. 326–327. No such name in the four volumes of T. Ilan, Lexicon of the Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, parts I–IV (Texts and studies in ancient Judaism, 91, 148, 126, 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 2012, 2008, 2011). The name would look not so anomalous, were it spelled *Βαριξαβ(β)α(ς); that is, if the two components of this name were Barikh (‫“ )בריך‬blessed” and Saba (‫“ )סבא‬elder”, both rather common for Jewish names (two-component names with the first element Barikh were common only in the Babylonian diaspora: Ilan, Lexicon, IV, pp. 339–340), though not attested to when joined together. A more plausible etymology of this name, in my opinion, would derive it from the name Barsabas of the mysterious author of the sermon On Christ and the Churches mentioned above (fn. 25). Its main elements are preserved in Greek: a late, albeit pre-Metaphrastic long recension of the Life in the unique and defective manuscript Vat. gr. 1589 (BHG 238), several synaxarian entries (including that of the Menologion of Basil II provided with an illumination presenting his martyrdom), and several 9th-cent. hymnographical works. Cf. О.Н. Заец, “Варипсав” [O.N. Zaets, “Varipsav”], in Православная энциклопедия, т. 6 (Москва: Церковно-научный центр «Православная энциклопедия», 2003) [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia, vol. 6 (Moscow: The Church Research Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2003)]: pp. 574–575 (to my knowledge, this reference entry is the most complete). An important review of several pieces of evidence together with the only edition of BHG 238 is provided by J[oannes Baptista] S[ollerius] in the Acta Sanctorum Septembris, t. III (Antwerp: Bernardus Albertus van der Plassche, 1750), cols. 494–501. Different accounts on the saint are far from being perfectly compatible, which reveals behind them a long and ramified tradition. Baripsabas has preserved a pumpkin with the blood and the water shed by Jesus on the cross; this blood has performed healings; he was killed by the robbers who planned to take off the pumpkin but it turned out to be void. The following Byzantine verses introducing the synaxarium notice in the printed Greek menaia explain the symbolism: Βαρυψαβᾶς δι᾽ αἷμα θεῖον Δεσπότου / Εἰκεῖον αἷμα, συντριβεὶς ξύλοις, χέει “Barypsabas, for the divine blood of the Lord, / Sheds his own blood after having been crushed with woods [sc., wooden sticks]” alluding, through wordplay, to “the wood of cross” also often called “wood (ξύλον)” in Byzantium. Baripsabas imitates Christ in shedding his own blood on the wood. It is a development of the classical Christian imagery of the wooden cross as a wooden Ark of the Covenant with the sacrificial blood poured on it; cf. S. Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross was found. From Event to Medieval Legend. With an Appendix of Texts (Bibliotheca theologiae practicae. Kyrkonvetenskapliga studier, 47; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Int., 1991), 173–178; Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur …, 290–328, but with no reference to Baripsabas. Cf. also G. Mayer, “Parzival und der Hl. Varipsava. Zur Vorgeschichte der

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

177

the commemorations of the eight-day cycle of the Encaenia of the Anastasis on September 13th, including the third day of this cycle, the Encaenia of the Sion church on September 15th. The name of Baripsabas seems to be derived from the name of the heavenly High Priest, occasionally as a rather divine figure than an angelic one, preserved in Ethiopic as Bərsəbaḥel (ብርስባሔል ፡). According to the Liturgy of the Seventh Sabbath, that I consider to be a Second Temple period Jewish text preserved by the Beta Israel (Falasha) liturgical tradition, he serves within the heavenly sanctuary on Yom Kippur and during closely related celebrations.73 The name Bərsəbaḥel is certainly Aramaic, and its spelling in different Ethiopic sources is rather stable. There is no such Aramaic root as sbḥ, but, in Ethiopic, ስ normally renders Semitic š as well.74 Thus, the Aramaic form of the name is recoverable as Bar Šubḥa’el (‫“ )בר שבחאל‬Son of the Glory/Praise of God”. It would be reasonable to consider this name to be the common source of the names of both Baripsabas and Barsabas, the alleged author of the third-century Jerusalem sermon On Christ and the Churches preserved in Georgian. The most important part for our purpose is the fact that there is a Second Temple Jewish—and, most probably, Palestinian—tradition where Bərsəbaḥel (Bar Šubḥa’el) serves at Yom Kippur. This fact alone is quite enough to substantiate the appearance of Baripsabas on September 10th. The Synaxarium of Constantinople mentions the custom of proskynesis, or prostration, to the Holy Cross in the church of St. Sophia from September 10th to 13th, before the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross on September 14th.75 Such a respect to the ordinal number of the day of Yom Kippur (e.g. 10) would suggest that this custom goes back to Jerusalem, together with the custom of proskynesis to the Holy Cross itself. All of the above reveals liturgical traditions related to both eschatological Judgement (Yom Kippur) and the Transfiguration of Jesus and, therefore, explains the appearance of Moses and Elijah next to each other. The commemoration of the Transfiguration of Christ on August 6th is a relatively old

73 74

75

mittelalterlichen Gralsdichtungen”, in: Slawistische Studien zum V. Internationalen Slawistenkongreß in Sofia, eds. M. Braun and E. Koschmieder (Opera slavica, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963): pp. 319–341. Lourié, “A 364-Day Calendar …,” esp. an excursus dedicated to “Bərsəbaḥel, a Divine Priest”. This figure appears in Ethiopia in the Christian tradition as well. A. Dillmann, Ethiopic Grammar, revised by C. Bezold, transl. with additions J.A. Crichton (London: Williams and Norgate, 1907 [repr.: Eugen, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005]), pp. 63–64. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae … (Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris; Brussels: apud Socios Bollandianos, 1902), col. 34.

178

lourié

tradition, dating as far back as the late fourth century; however, it having originated in the Church of Antioch76 thus precludes the possibility of it having any relation to the early Jerusalem calendar. Let us begin with Elijah and Moses as an eschatological pair appearing before the Day of Judgment, mentioned explicitly in Malachi (3:22–24; cf. 3:1) and implicitly in the Revelation of John (the “two witnesses” in Rev 11:1–13). This identification of the two witnesses of the Revelation is an early—most likely, authentic for the Apocalypse of John—tradition, unlike the alternative identification of the two as Elijah and Enoch.77 John II, however, certainly follows the latter: he avoids any mention of Elijah together with Moses but, in sphere III, elaborates on the pair of Enoch and Elijah (§§44 and 48, pp. 295–296/120). The exegetical tradition of the eschatological coming of Elijah and Moses is not well preserved, even though its official status in thirteenth-until sixteenthcentury Northern Ethiopia would suggest its high reputation, in some part of the late antique Christian world.78 It may be likely that this part turns out to

76 77

78

S. esp. M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie géorgienne anonyme sur la Transfiguration,” OCP 46 (1980): pp. 418–445. Now this understanding of Rev 11 is closer towards reaching scholarly consensus. S., first of all, R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), pp. 273–283 (with previous bibliography). Cf. his review of the alternative tradition whose pre-Christian existence he denies: R. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?”, JBL 95 (1976): pp. 447–458. According to Bauckham, in the further Christian exegesis of Rev 11, Moses has been replaced with Enoch (although such replacement first occurs in the 2nd cent. in Tertullian, De Anima, 50). Cf., for the first authoritative scholarly identification of the “two witnesses” as Elijah and Moses, R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Revelation of St. John …, vol. 1: The International Critical Commentary (New York: Ch. Scribner’s Sons, 1920), pp. 281–284. The modern commentators feel uneasy with the relevant patristic references, and, most often, completely avoid them. Cf., e.g., D. Haugg, Die Zwei Zeugen. Eine exegetische Studie über Apok. 11, 1–13 (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen XVII, 1; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936), pp. 102–105: the only reference for Moses as one of the two witnesses is from Joachim del Fiore (p. 105). Thus, as an important testimony for this exegetical tradition, the Ethiopian Ge‘ez traditional commentary to the Book of Revelation (Τərgwame Qälämsis) should be considered as it contains a detailed and polemical digression about Moses and not Enoch as one of the “two witnesses”: R.W. Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 33; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983), 112– 115 (tr.; Ge‘ez text on the appended microfiche). This commentary is vaguely datable to the 13th–16th cent. and localised in the Northern Ethiopia; cf. Miguel Angel García, “Tərgwame”, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, ed. Siegbert Uhlig. Vol. 4: O–X (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 921–923, here 921. In the later Amharic Andəmta commentary Moses will be replaced with Enoch. The official status of the identification with Moses in North-

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

179

be Jerusalem. One can add as an indirect but important witness of the earthly Jerusalem the heavenly and eschatological Jerusalem as depicted in the mosaic on the triumphal ark of the St. Praxedes basilica in Rome, created under Pope Paschal I, between 817 and 824. There, Christ is flanked, among others, with two symmetrically positioned figures of Moses and Elijah, and the latter is accompanied with the angel of Mal 3:1; this composition is not able to be sufficiently explained with a reference to the Transfiguration scene.79 Another important parallel is the East Syrian (“Nestorian”) liturgical year where an earlier sevenpentecontad structure is still traceable and the liturgical year still contains 364 days. The main seven periods of the year (called “weeks”) are the following: Lent, Pentecost, followed with the “weeks” of Apostles, Elijah, Moses, and Dedication of the Churches. The commemorations and their order are the same as in Jerusalem, even though realised within another calendrical scheme. In Jerusalem, we see Elijah ascended on September 3rd. It is worth noting that the Jewish commemorations of 3 Tishri are, too, related to some disappearances, those of either some “mentions” (of the name of God in the documents?80) or Gedaliah. This is clearly the main day of the three-day construction from September 2nd to 4th, where Elijah became the central figure between Elisha and Moses. The Synoptic accounts of the Transfiguration not only represent this event as a revelation of Jesus as the heavenly Tabernacle,81 but are inscribed into the calendrical cycle of the Tishri feasts.82 The commemoration of the ascension of

79

80 81

82

ern Ethiopia of the corresponding period would signify, most likely, a non-Severianist tradition of the “Monophysitism”, which preserved a number of archaic Jewish-Christian features; cf. B. Lourié, “Julianism”, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, ed. Siegbert Uhlig. Vol. 3: He–N (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 308–310. Therefore, according to M.M. Schaefer, Women in Pastoral Office. The Story of Santa Prassede, Rome (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013), pp. 69–71; the author quotes (p. 71) Augustine, De civitate Dei, book 20, who “… draws on the oracle of Malachi as he delineates the role of the two prophets, Moses and Elijah, in preparing the Last Judgment (20.25, 27–29)”. See above, fn. 55. As has been first shown by H. Riesenfeld, Jésus transfiguré: l’arrière-plan du récit évangélique de la Transfiguration de Notre-Seigneur (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 16; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1947). For a detailed discussion of Riesenfeld’s view in the context of patristic exegesis and liturgical calendars, with a bibliography of previous polemics, s. B. Lourié, “Afterlife of the 2 Enoch Calendar: Major Christian Feasts on the Sixth Day,” Enoch 33 (2011): pp. 102–107, here pp. 105–107; the analysis is limited, however, to the August tradition of Transfiguration/Tabernacles. C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The Revelation of the Sacral Son of Man. The Genre, History of Religious Context and the Meaning of the Transfiguration,” in: Auferstehung—Resurrection. The Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, 1999), eds.

180

lourié

Elijah in the Jerusalem rite on September 3rd followed by the commemoration of Moses could hardly be a coincidence. The internal chronology of the liturgical Transfiguration cycle would have played with numbers six and eight—from, respectively, Mt 17:1//Mk 9:2 (μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ἕξ // μετὰ ἡμέρας ἕξ) and Lk 9:28 (Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ). Looking at the Jerusalem calendar, we see that the number eight covers the whole period from 3.VII (Elijah) to 10.VII, whereas the number six fits in the space between 4.VII (Moses) and the same date 10.VII. Thus, both intervals are absorbed by the liturgical calendar, and the interval “eight” becomes identified with the established Jewish tradition of a liturgical cycle from 3.VII to 10.VII. Both eschatological and Transfiguration contexts make us consider the commemorations of Baripsabas on September 10th and Elijah on September 3rd as mutually connected and the commemorations of Elisha on September 2nd and Moses on September 4th as flanking the September 3rd commemoration of Elijah. All of them form the cycle of Yom Kippur, including the preparatory days, and evidently without any distinct commemoration of Sukkot. John II does not follow this tradition but uses its unique element, the commemoration of Moses in September, which became accepted later throughout the Byzantine Empire and far beyond, up to Ethiopia, occasionally with a slight variation of its original September 4thdate.83 5.4

Sphere VIII: The Day of Judgment (Yom Kippur) as the First Day of the Tabernacles The sphere VIII is the bridal upper room of Christ where the propitiatory is established.84

83

84

F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (WUNT I.135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001; 20042): pp. 247–298. Apart from the Copto-Ethiopian date September 5th, one can mention a recently discovered Jerusalem tradition in the Georgian calendar (Sin. geo. 58 novus, ff. 59–69) in either the late 9th or early 10th century, where the commemoration of Moses is called his “Nativity” (შობაჲ = γενεθλία, here meaning the day of his death?) and occurs on September 3rd, whereas the commemorations of Elijah and Elisha on September 3rd and 2nd, respectively, are absent: Verhelst, Le Lectionnaire: pp. 231–255, here pp. 241 (quoted text and tr.), 249 (commentary). We do not know how old this tradition is. Formally, it is the most fitting with the calendar implied by John II. The mention of the propitiatory in § 96, p. 304/125, is somewhat enigmatic: Եւ հանապազ լսելի լիցի միշտ յարեգակնացեալ քաւարանիս; van Esbroeck translates: “et que ce Propitiatoire baigné de soleil soit toujours entendu (et quotidianum exauditum sit semper per solem factum PROPITIATORIUM hoc)” providing the references to Rev 21:23 and 22:5 (as an explanation of the solar metaphor; it is difficult to decide what exactly Greek word is

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

181

Stéphane Verhelst has already pointed out that the festal date September 15th was indeed not a creation of John II but instead an earlier festal date without any specific connexion to Sion. According to him, the station in the Sion church on this day is a later phenomenon, and its later interpretation as the Encaenia feast is historically false, due to the presence of a Sion church before the basilica was (re)constructed by John II. Nevertheless, “[l]e 15 septembre 394 commémore éventuellement la restauration de l’ église par Jean II, où le calendrier situe une station, désormais à l’ombre de l’ Anastasis”; the historical date of the dedication of the pre-394 Sion church remains unknown.85 I essentially agree with Verhelst’s reasoning but consider it to be somewhat overcomplicated. There would be nothing strange if the date of the reconstruction of the Sion church in 394 became the date of its new dedication, a variation of the Christian Hanukkah feast. Moreover, the place of the Sion feast on September 15th in the later Jerusalem calendars, where it is certainly overshadowed by the festivities of September 13th and 14th, is in sharp contrast with the liturgical contents of John’s Sion homily. In the homily, conversely, it is the September 15th festivity that is the culmination of the whole cycle starting from Pentecost. This means that, for John, this new feast is, in some way, equal to Easter—in the same manner as we will see in the later Jerusalem documents for the feast of the Encaenia of the Anastasis on September 13th.86 We are thereby in the presence of a historically unsuccessful liturgical innovation attempted by John. Before proceeding further, we should consider the difference between spheres VII and VIII; that is, between the Temple of Solomon and the upper room of the divine Bridegroom. The two are hardly distinguishable without taking into account a larger exegetical and liturgical context: both are dealing with the final fate of the blessed ones, and it is difficult to understand whether

85 86

rendered with արեգակնացեալ, but the two different van Esbroeck’s translations could grasp the general meaning anyway) and Rom 3 25 (as a—rather unhelpful—explanation of the propitiatory itself, because this verse does not mention propitiatory at all). I would explain this “hearing” the chalice/propitiatory with a reference to its prophetic function attested to explicitly in the first line of the Inscription on the Chalice of Solomon (Lourié, “Inscription”: “My chalice, my chalice, prophesy”) and indirectly with a late sixth-century pilgrims’ custom to hear human voices from the stone which was preserved in the Sion church as the “cornerstone” mentioned by Jesus but ultimately related to the Eben Shatya and the propitiatory (Лурье, “Из Иерусалима в Аксум,”: pp. 195–198). Verhelst, La liturgie, p. 279; cf. Verhelst, Les traditions, 200–203. Its octave is called ზატიკი (= զատիկ “Easter”) in the Georgian Lectionary, §1255; M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand Lectionnaire de l’ Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe s.) II (CSCO 204– 205, Iber. 13–14; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1960), pp. 47 (txt), 40 (tr.).

182

lourié

there is, in the heavenly realm, any difference between the Temple of Solomon and the upper room of Sion. However, some difference does exist: the heavenly bridal chamber clearly implies a much closer attachment to God than any other of John’s spheres. But what does it mean liturgically? Here we see the pattern of a—forced, of course—interpretation of the Day of Atonement as the first day of the eight-day Tabernacles feast which has thus far not been studied liturgically but has at least been known since the third century. The feast called “Tabernacles” (σκηνοπηγία) is subdivided into two parts: the first one dedicated to the resurrection, a traditional theme corresponding to the Tabernacles feast, and the final Judgment, a traditional theme corresponding to the Day of Atonement. The second one corresponds to the abode of the rightful with the Lord, which could be, in turn, subdivided further into two parts, one millennium on the earth and the eternity in the heavens. The clearest exposition is preserved in the ninth dialogue of the Symposium of Methodius of Olympus, dating to either the late third century or the very beginning of the fourth. Its Christian and possible Jewish background remains almost unstudied. The “normal” scheme of the Tabernacles in the third- and fourth-century Christian authors was different, although assuming two stages as well: the commemoration of wandering in the desert with tents and the final eternal life in the house of God. In this scheme, no specific attention is given to the Judgment.87 Methodius explicitly calls the first day of the feast of the Tabernacles described in Lev 23:40 the day of judgment (Symposium IX, 3, the whole paragraph88). He then continues (Symposium IX, 5):

87

88

About the mutual connexion between all these authors in their exegesis of the Tabernacles, s. J. Daniélou, “La fête des Tabernacles dans l’ exégèse patristique,” Studia Patristica 1 (1957): pp. 262–279; L. Doutreleau, Didyme l’ Aveugle, Sur Zacharie. Texte inédit d’après un papyrus de Toura, t. III (SC 85; Paris: Cerf, 1962), pp. 1058–1061 (in footnotes). Cf. also A. Conway-Jones, Gregory of Nyssa’s Tabernacle Imagery in Its Jewish and Christian Contexts, (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford UP, 2014). Didymus the Blind was at least aware of Methodius of Olympus but did not follow him in equating the first day of Sukkot with Yom Kippur. Cf. the following phrases: “When I am judged on that first day of the risen life … And so I shall take what is required on the first day, the day, that is, on which I am judged … And this is the fruit that we are to bring to the judgment seat of Christ on the first day of the Feast”. Without this “… we shall have no part, as John says, in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6)”; tr. by Herbert Musurillo in St. Methodius, The Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity (Ancient Christian Writers, 27; Westminster, MD: Paulist Press, 1958), pp. 135–136; s. text in H. Musurillo, Méthode d’ Olympe, Le Banquet. Introduction et texte critique (SC 95; Paris: Cerf, 1963), pp. 270, 272.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

183

Setting out from here and making my way from the Egypt of this life, I come first to the resurrection, the true construction of the tabernacle (τὴν ἀληθινὴν σκηνοπηγίαν); and there, setting up my tabernacle decorated with the fruit of virtue on the first day of the risen life, which is the Judgment (τῇ πρώτῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρᾳ, τῇ κρίσει), I shall celebrate with Christ the Millennium of Rest, the Seven Days as they are called, the true Sabbath Days. Then, once again, following Jesus, that has passed into the heavens (Heb 4:14), I shall arrive in heaven, just as the Jews after the rest of the Tabernacles came to the Promised Land.89 Let us notice the features that have liturgical significance. The feast of the Tabernacles is not the wandering in the desert of this world but only the resurrection which was the goal of the whole journey. This resurrection is, in turn, a prerequisite of the Day of Judgment; the true Sabbath, then, is the following “millennium of rest”. This scheme evidently assumes that the Tabernacles are the major feast among the two, Yom Kippur and Sukkot, and therefore the former should have been absorbed by the latter. It is difficult to say whether John II had any millenarian ideas in mind. Nevertheless, he retained the pattern of two different abodes of the rightful with Christ, from whom only the second one is the final and eternal, whereas the first one belongs to those who claimed victory at the final Judgment. This is the raison d’être of the Temple of Solomon, which distinguishes itself from the bridal upper room of Christ. Furthermore, this is why his homily implies the preservation of “15” as the ordinal number of the day of the Tabernacles, whereas the ordinal number of the Day of Atonement, 10, shifted to 13. John II, as it seems, made changes within the framework of the Octave of the Encaenia (since September 13th) established before him.90 He rearranged its structure creating a new culmination on the third day, September 15th, in an imitation of the triduum paschale. The identification of the September festal Octave with Easter (s. above) survived the liturgical innovations by John II. 5.5 Sphere VIII: The Olivet Discourse Another important liturgical innovation made by John II for September 15th became the translation of the station of this day from the Eleona to Sion. According to Egeria (49, 3), the third day of the eight days of the Encaenia was celebrated at the Mount of Olives. She adds that the commemorations related 89 90

St. Methodius, The Symposium, p. 139; Musurillo, Méthode d’Olympe, p. 280. First witnessed already by Egeria (49, 1): “Hi ergo dies enceniarum cum uenerint, octo diebus attenduntur” (Maraval, Égérie, p. 316).

184

lourié

table 10.2 The Homily by John II and the Synoptic Apocalypse

Feast

Homily by John II

Synoptic apocalypse (SA)

Principal witnesses of SA

Midpentecost or Second Passover (14.II) Pentecost

No

Mt 24:37–42 // Lk 17:26–33

Sphere I

Summer Solstice New Wine

Sphere IV Sphere II

Days of Noah (and Lot?) Owner of the House and Thief No Good and Wicked Slaves

New Oil

Sphere III Sphere V

Ten Virgins

3.VII

Sphere VI

Talents

Yom Kippur

Sphere VII

Mt 25:1–13; Epist. Apostolorum 43–45 Mt 25:14–30 (Lk 19:11–27 implies 1.VII) Mt 25:31–46 (cf. Ez 34:17; 1 En 89–90)

Sukkot

Judgment: Sheep and Goats Sphere VIII No

Mt 24:43–44 // Lk 12:39– 40; 1Thes 5:1–5 Mt 24:45–51 // Lk 12:41–46; 1Thes 5:6–8

to this locality are those pertaining to the Ascension and the sermon of Christ delivered there.91 As I tried to demonstrate elsewhere, the Olivet discourse—at least in its second part consisting of a series of parables—is a close paraphrase of a Second Temple Jewish apocalypse preserving its calendrical structure: each parable corresponds to a feast from Midpentecost to the Day of Atonement in their normal order. It is very similar to the liturgical structure behind the homily of John II as described above (s. Table 10.2). There are no specific intertextual links between the “Synoptic Apocalypse”, a usual term for the apocalypse known from Mt 24–25 and its Synoptic parallels, and the homily of John II, both of them go back to very similar liturgical traditions, or, rather, to the same tradition of the liturgical calendar. Their overlapping domains belong rather to the liturgy than the texts.

91

“Item tertia die in Eleona, id est in ecclesia, quae est in ipso monte, a quo ascendit Dominus in caelis post passionem, intra qua ecclesia est spelunca illa, in qua docebat Dominus apostolos in monte Oliueti” (Maraval, Égérie, p. 318).

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

185

In Table 10.2, it is apparent that the liturgical scheme behind the homily of John II appears to be a still recognisable modification of that of the Synoptic Apocalypse. The two pieces almost unrelated intertextually turn out to be closely related extratextually: they represent the same cultic tradition that is, different evolutional stages of the same liturgical calendar. Not only the unity but even the continuity of the parameters called by Hippolyte Delehaye “liturgical coordinates”92 is very significant. The liturgical coordinates of time and place are the most invariable parameters of any cult; their stability is much higher than that of the corresponding hagiographical legends, or, narratives. Table 10.2 shows the continuity between the early Christian (viz. late Jewish) “Synoptic Apocalypse” and the calendar implied in the homily by John II. This is the continuity of the corresponding systems of liturgical coordinates of time. The coordinates of place are in the same relation of continuity: we can derive from Egeria’s report that the station of September 15th was removed from the Eleona to Sion by John II himself. The coordinate of place of the Olivet discourse by Jesus (the Synoptic Apocalypse; the same in the Apocalypse of Peter) was precisely the Eleona. Therefore, we have to conclude that John II established in his new Sion basilica a new feast where the eschatological motifs of the Eleona station on September 15th were “grafted” onto the liturgical traditions proper to Sion as the “mother of the churches” and the place of the Holy of Holies. The meaning of the eschatological Feast of Tabernacles, as distinct from the eschatological Yom Kippur, was originally connected to the station of September 15th, judging from its symbolic date recalling Tishri 15th. Our conclusion concerning the Sion feast on September 15th as an innovation made by John II perfectly fits with Frøyshov’s dating of the creation of the Octoechos eight-week cycle in the epoch of John II. In both cases, an eighth element has been added to an earlier sevenfold structure.

6

Part One Compared with Part Two

Eventually, we arrived at the position to return to the main motifs in Part One. One can see in Table 10.3 that they are basically the same as those of the description of the eight spheres in Part Two, albeit in some disorder. The calendrical 92

On this notion, s. H. Delehaye, Cinq leçons sur la méthode hagiographique (SH 21; Brussels, 1934) and a development of his concept in В.М. Лурье, Введение в критическую агиографию (Санкт-Петербург: Аксиома, 2009) [B. Lourié, An Introduction to the Critical Hagiography (St. Petersburg: Axiōma, 2009)], pp. 71–151.

186

lourié

table 10.3 The Main Topics of Part One’s Subdivisions Sphere (§§) Main topics

Calendrical correspondence

I (27–33)

Angelic hosts, fire, Pentecost. heavens, heavenly tabernacles, Holy Spirit.

II (34–40)

Church, her earthly leaders, apostles Peter, Paul, and John, prophets Ezekiel and Ezra. Paradise, Tree of Life, Fall, True Vine, Christ …

(1) the heavenly palaces-tabernacles remotely reflected in the present earthly sanctuary (§§1–4) and (7) (mention of Ezra, s. below) Feast of the Apostles (2) the heavenly paradise where the saints (second Pentecost) are shining like the fixed stars, whereas the prophetical hymns follow the right path like the moving planets (§§5–6) Finding of the Chalice (3) an intoxication with the Holy Spirit of the Last Supper (sec- from above, with purification of the lips ond Pentecost = New and illumination (§§7–10) and (6) the Wine fixed on 3 July) Ark of the Covenant and the Propitiatory, in the context of the intoxication with the waves of the Holy Spirit, spiritual renovation (“Encaenia”), and the divine Bridegroom (§§17–18) Ark of the Covenant in (2) and (6) (s. above) Kiryat Yearim (Summer Solstice feast fixed on 2 July) Abraham, Isaac, and (4) obstacles to the true revelation, mostly Jacob (third Pentesevenfold, such as either disciples of seven cost = New Oil fixed on pagan sages or the seven locks of Sam21/22 August) son’s head woven into the web by Delilah (Judges 16:13–14) (§§11–13) and (5) the difference between the wisdom of the world and the true wisdom from God (quoting, beside the Bible, Gregory of Nazianzus) (§§14–16) Moses (4 September), (7) the purification of the heart in imitation of Ezra, including a 7-day fast preparation fast for Yom Kippur (3–9.VII?) (representing Ezra as a new Moses) (§§19– 21) and (8) Moses receiving the Holy Spirit among the gathering of the seventy two elders and explaining with the holy words the mystery of the Propitiatory in the divine house of the Bridegroom (§§22– 23) Encaenia of Mar(3) and (6) (s. above) tyrium and Anastasis (13 September)

III (41–55)

IV (56–61)

Ark of Shem and Noah.

V (62–65)

Abraham and Isaac, ointment of the stone (in Bethel) by Isaac.

VI (66–72)

Sinai, Moses, Tabernacle, fast.

VII (73–84)

Temple of Solomon, the seven pillars of the Wisdom, the Chalice of the Wisdom.

Part One’s subdivisions

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

187

Table 10.3 The Main Topics of Part One’s Subdivisions (cont.) Sphere (§§) Main topics

Calendrical correspondence

Part One’s subdivisions

VIII (85–97) Holy of Holies, bridal upper room.

Encaenia of the Sion basilica, formerly the Olivet discourse (15 September)

(8) and (6) (s. above)

structure known to us from Part Two is still recognisable, although severely distorted. Altogether, it appears to be a paraphrase of a liturgical calendar that pays no mind to the dates of liturgical commemorations. Brief commentaries on the eight subdivisions of Part One are provided below. Subdivision (1) corresponds almost perfectly to the description of sphere I but is limited to the main motif of the latter only. Subdivision (2) corresponds to two spheres, II and IV. The saints are the common motif within sphere II. The overlapping with the motifs of sphere IV is much more significant, because the cosmological motif here is explicit, unlike that pertaining to the description of sphere IV. As it becomes especially clear in 3Baruch, the Summer Solstice, being the highest point of the ecliptic (early route of the Sun around the Earth), is the best place for contemplating the construction of the heavens. The cosmological motifs in subdivision (2) present the first instance where an ancient calendrical structure arises from a later layer of rhetoric. Subdivision (3) corresponds, quite expectedly, to spheres III (New Wine) and VII (Chalice of Wisdom). Subdivision (4) together with subdivision (5) do not correspond directly to any of the descriptions of the eight spheres. Despite them being grouped together in this instance, I insist on their separation; as such, it would probably be better to consider them as a unique subdivision, thus reducing the total number of subdivisions to seven. Nevertheless, one can see from Table 10.3 that their actual place within the sequence of motifs roughly corresponds to sphere V with a shift by one position. The calendrical meaning of the latter is the New Oil festival that, in turn, corresponds to the parable of the wise and fool virgins in the Synoptic Apocalypse. The main motif of the subdivisions (4) and (5) is an opposition between the false and the true wisdoms, which corresponds exactly to the same motif in the parable of Ten Virgins. However, there is no correspondence to the specific numbers of the New Oil parable in the Synoptic

188

lourié

Apocalypse, numbers five and ten. Instead, the predominant place is reserved to the number seven which reveals a pentecontad nature of the New Oil festival. The motif of opposition between the two kinds of wisdom preserved on the place roughly corresponding to sphere V forms the second instance of recognisability of an ancient calendrical structure within the rhetoric. Subdivision (6) unites the motifs of the Ark of the Covenant,93 the propitiatory, and—indirectly—the Chalice (through the motif of “intoxication” with the waves of the Holy Spirit).94 These motifs correspond to spheres III, IV, presuming that the Ark of the Covenant is, in some way, the same as the Ark of Noah, and VII. The motif of the divine Bridegroom refers to sphere VIII, whereas the motif of the Encaenia (“let us become newly built …”) refers to both spheres VII and VIII. Thus, in this subdivision, five of the most important motifs of the homily amalgamated and condensed. Subdivision (7) (cf. analysis of the text in fn. 14 above) does not mention Moses being focused on the figure of Ezra. In Part Two, Ezra is explicitly mentioned only in sphere I, in alignment with the liturgical traditions where 4 Ezra was related to the first Pentecost (s. above). Nevertheless, the mention of the seven-day fast of Ezra—unlike the forty-day fast of Moses mentioned in the parallel place of the description of sphere VI—is quite appropriate for the seven preparatory days before the Day of Atonement (from 3.VII to 9.VII). It is tempting to suppose here that the third instance of preserving some traces of an ancient calendrical structure, especially in the light of Daniel Boyarin’s observation that the passage 4 Ez 7:102–8:36 “… is strikingly similar to many [Jewish] penitential prayers [Seliḥot], but particularly [more so] to the famous Seliḥa for the night of Yom Kippur, the refrain of which is, ‘O, look to the covenant, turn not to the (deeds of) the evil inclination’ ”.95 Our knowledge of the liturgical traditions pertinent to 4Ezra is, however, too fragmentary to allow us to go further.

93

94

95

Called տապանակ, whereas the Ark of Noah is called տապան; this usage of the diminutive suffix is normative for Armenian and hardly reflects any difference between the Greek words which were used in the original, κιβωτός in both cases. “Abreuvés (աղբերացեալք) donc aux flots de l’ Esprit-Saint, dansons comme David devant l’ arche du Seigneur avec la cithare [cf. 2 Sam 6:14] en criant la puissance des miracles qui se sont produits de nos jours, en exaltant (cette puissance) par des paroles éclatantes, en apportant des dons, soyons renouvelés [լիցուք նորակերտ—lit. let us become newly built/constructed, from կերտ “building, construction”] par le Propitiatoire et le divin Époux (քաւարանիս եւ աստուածաբնակ հարսնացելոյս)” (§§17–18, p. 291/118). D. Boyarin, “Penitential Liturgy in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 3 (1972): pp. 30–34, here p. 34.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

189

Subdivision (8) is centred on Moses, the main character of sphere VI, but obviously in the context belonging to sphere VIII. Moses is depicted here clearly as a prefiguration of Christ, whereas in sphere VIII it is Christ that is meant. We have to conclude that Part One is a rhetorical elaboration on the units of a liturgical calendar very similar to or identical with that of Part Two. It does not deliberately follow, however, any particular scheme of liturgical space and/or structure of heavens. Therefore, from a “cosmological” or liturgical point of view, it is noticeably confusing. Nevertheless, it still preserves some traces of at least two or even three archaic calendrical features, which are lacking in Part Two.

7

Conclusions

In examining the Jewish background of John II of Jerusalem one cannot avoid the question of whether the liturgy implied by John belonged to the tradition of the official Church or to the tradition of some small hypothetical “JewishChristian” faction, as Michel van Esbroeck and some other scholars supposed. Our analysis of the liturgical calendar resulted in no specific “Jewish-Christian” feature. However, the liturgical use of the Propitiatory is something more archaic, even if, in fact, this Propitiatory served as a chalice for the Eucharist. Therefore, a hypothesis about a specific “sectarian” Jewish-Christian legacy in John II so far remains one that is not able to be disproved. Nevertheless, it is not the only possible hypothesis. The official Church of Jerusalem shortly, before 394, or more exactly, until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, was Arian. Yet the Arians were more conservative than their opponents in preserving the Jewish legacy.96 The Arian “Great Church”, especially in Jerusalem, should be considered as another potential source of archaic Jewish traditions in Christianity.97

96

97

Cf. R. Lorenz, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 31; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The author would like to express his deep gratitude to all those whose help contributed to his work (although certainly not to his potential errors!), and, among them, especially to Cornelia B. Horn, Bernard Outtier, Stéphane Verhelst, and Nikolai Seleznyov.

190

lourié

Bibliography Acta Sanctorum Septembris, t. III (Antwerp: Bernardus Albertus van der Plassche, 1750). R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). R. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?”, JBL 95 (1976): pp. 447–458. A. Baumstark, Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten. Eine liturgiegeschichtliche Vorarbeit auf Grund handschriftlicher Studien in Jerusalem und Damaskus, der syrischen Hsskataloge von Berlin, Cambridge, London, Oxford, Paris und Rom und des unierten Mossuler Festbrevierdruckes (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums III.3–5; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1910 [reprint: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012]). A. Baumstark, Liturgie comparée. Principes et Méthodes pour l’étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes, 3e éd. revue par B. Botte, Coll. Irénikon (Chevetogne: Éditions de Chevetogne, 1953). E. Bihain, “Une Vie arménienne de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Le Muséon 76 (1963): pp. 319–348. S. Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross was found. From Event to Medieval Legend. With an Appendix of Texts (Bibliotheca theologiae practicae. Kyrkonvetenskapliga studier, 47; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Int., 1991). D. Boyarin, “Penitential Liturgy in 4Ezra,” JSJ 3 (1972): pp. 30–34. E.K. Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus. Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity (WUNT 266; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010): pp. 317–323. Ch.G. Browne and J.E. Swallow, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 7 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894). R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Revelation of St. John …, vol. 1: The International Critical Commentary (New York: Ch. Scribner’s Sons, 1920). J. Childers, “The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations,” in: Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, eds. J. Childers and D.C. Parker (Texts and Studies 3.4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006): pp. 154–178. A.Y. Collins, “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. by J.J. Collins and M. Fishbane (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995): pp. 59–93. A. Conway-Jones, Gregory of Nyssa’s Tabernacle Imagery in Its Jewish and Christian Contexts, (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford UP, 2014). R.W. Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 33; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983).

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

191

J. Daniélou, “La fête des Tabernacles dans l’exégèse patristique,” Studia Patristica 1 (1957): pp. 262–279. H. Delehaye, Cinq leçons sur la méthode hagiographique (SH 21; Brussels, 1934). H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae … (Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris; Brussels: apud Socios Bollandianos, 1902). F. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben. Texte und Untersuchungen (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff’schen Buchhandlung, 1898). A. Dillmann, Ethiopic Grammar, revised by C. Bezold, transl. with additions J.A. Crichton (London: Williams and Norgate, 1907 [repr.: Eugen, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005]). L. Doutreleau, Didyme l’Aveugle, Sur Zacharie. Texte inédit d’après un papyrus de Toura, t. III (SC 85; Paris: Cerf, 1962). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, ed. Siegbert Uhlig. Vol. 3: He–N (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, ed. Siegbert Uhlig. Vol. 4: O–X (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010). M. van Esbroeck, “Barsabée de Jérusalem, Sur le Christ et les églises. Introduction, édition du texte géorgien et traduction française,” in PO 41.3 (1982). M. van Esbroeck, “Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix,” AB 102 (1984): pp. 99–134. M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie géorgienne anonyme sur la Transfiguration,” OCP 46 (1980): pp. 418–445. M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie sur l’Église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem,” Le Muséon 86 (1973): pp. 283–304. M. van Esbroeck, U. Zanetti, “Le manuscrit Erévan 993. Inventaire des pièces,” RÉA 12 (1977): pp. 123–167, 479–491. C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The Revelation of the Sacral Son of Man. The Genre, History of Religious Context and the Meaning of the Transfiguration,” in: Auferstehung— Resurrection. The Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, 1999), eds. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (WUNT I.135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001; 20042): pp. 247–298. M.A. Fraser, “Constantine and Encaenia,” Studia Patristica 29 (1997): pp. 25–28. S.S. Frøyshov, “The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-mode System in Jerusalem,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51 (2007): pp. 139–178. G. Garitte, Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) (SH 30; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1958). J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (Leiden: Brill, 1959). D. Haugg, Die Zwei Zeugen. Eine exegetische Studie über Apok. 11, 1–13 (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen XVII, 1; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936).

192

lourié

T. Ilan, Lexicon of the Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, parts I–IV (Texts and studies in ancient Judaism, 91, 148, 126, 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 2012, 2008, 2011). M.M. Kohlbacher, “Vom Enkel des Origenes zum Vater der Chalcedongegner. Einleitungsfragen zum Lehrbekenntnis des Johannes von Jerusalem (CPG 3621),” in Origeniana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, eds. W.A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 137; Leuven: University Press, 1999): pp. 655–672. A. Kropp, Der Lobpreis des Erzengels Michael (vormals P. Heidelberg Inv. Nr. 1686) (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élizabeth, 1966). V. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and Making of Christian Constantinople (London—New York: Routledge, 1994). Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi. Editio—translatio—retroversio—commentarii. The Old Georgian Version of the Liturgy of Saint James, published by L. Khevsuriani, M. Shanidze, M. Kavtaria, T. Tseradze; La Liturgie de Saint Jacques. Rétroversion grecque et commentaires par S. Verhelst (Jerusalemer theologisches Forum 17; Münster: Aschendorff Verl., 2011). R. Lorenz, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 31; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). B. Lourié, “A 364-Day Calendar Encapsulated in the Liturgy of the Seventh Sabbath of the Betä Ǝsra’el of Ethiopia,” in Studies in Ethiopian Languages, Literature, and History, Festschrift for Getatchew Haile Presented by his Friends and Colleagues, ed. A.C. McCollum (Aethiopistische Forschungen, Bd. 83; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 2017): pp. 379–429. B. Lourié, “Afterlife of the 2Enoch Calendar: Major Christian Feasts on the Sixth Day,” Enoch 33 (2011): pp. 102–107. B. Lourié, “Barsabas of Jerusalem, On Christ and the Churches. Its Genre and Liturgical Contents,” Philosophical-Theological Review Nr 4 (2014) [Tbilisi, publ. 2015]: pp. 28– 32. B. Lourié, “Calendrical Implications in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Revue biblique 115 (2008): pp. 245–265. B. Lourié, “Cosmology and Liturgical Calendar in 3Baruch and Their Mesopotamian Background,” in: H. Gaylord Memorial Volume (provisional title), eds. A. Kulik, A. Orlov (Studia Judaeoslavica; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). B. Lourié, “Inscription on the Chalice of Solomon. A New Reading in the Light of New Textual and Liturgical Witnesses”, Scrinium 13 (2017): pp. 170–198. B. Lourié, “L’Histoire Euthymiaque: l’œuvre du patriarche Euthymios/Euphemos de Constantinople (490–496, †515),” Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 20.2 (2007) [Miscellanea Patristica Reverendissimo Domino Marco Starowieyski septuagenario professori illustrissimo viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata]: pp. 189–221.

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

193

B. Lourié, “The Calendar Implied in 2Baruch and 4Ezra: Two Modifications of the One Scheme,” in: Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2Baruch. International Studies, eds. G. Boccaccini and J.M. Zurawski (Library of Second Temple Studies, 87; London etc.: Bloomsbury, 2014): pp. 124–137. B. Lourié, “The Liturgical Calendar in the Joseph and Aseneth,” in: Men and Women in the Early Christian Centuries, eds. W. Mayer, I.J. Elmer (Early Christian Studies, 18; Strathfield, Australia: St Pauls Publications, 2014): pp. 111–134. B. Lourié, “The Liturgical Cycle in 3Maccabees and the 2Enoch Calendar”, in: Perceptions bibliques du temps. Études bibliques à l’occasion du huitième centenaire de l’Ordre Dominicain et des 125 ans de l’École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, ed. M. Leroy and M. Staszak (Études bibliques n.s., 77; Louvain: Peeters, 2018): pp. 156–172. P. Maraval, Égérie, Journal de Voyage (Itinéraire) (SC 296; Paris: Cerf, 1982). G. Mayer, “Parzival und der Hl. Varipsava. Zur Vorgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Gralsdichtungen”, in: Slawistische Studien zum V. Internationalen Slawistenkongreß in Sofia, eds. M. Braun and E. Koschmieder (Opera slavica, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963): pp. 319–341. St. Methodius, The Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity. Tr. by H. Musurillo (Ancient Christian Writers, 27; Westminster, MD: Paulist Press, 1958). C. Moreschini, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 38–41. Introduction, texte critique et notes (SC 358; Paris: Cerf, 1990). A.A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (The Oxford early Christian studies series; Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008). H. Musurillo, Méthode d’Olympe, Le Banquet. Introduction et texte critique (SC 95; Paris: Cerf, 1963). J.H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai. Traditions about Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, eds. G.J. Brooke, H. Najman and L.T. Stuckenbruck (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 12; Leiden: Brill, 2008): pp. 29–72. V. Noam, “Megillat Taanit—The Scroll of Fasting,” in: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud. vol. 3: The Literature of the Sages, part 1, eds. Sh. Safrai et al., Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006): pp. 339–362. É. Nodet, “On Jesus’ Last Supper,” Biblica 91 (2010): pp. 348–369. B. Pixner, “Church of the Apostles found on Mount Zion?”Biblical Archaeological Review 16.3 (1990). B. Pixner, Paths of the Messiah and Sites of the Early Church from Galilee to Jerusalem: Jesus and Jewish Christianity in Light of Archaeological Discoveries, ed. by R. Riesner (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010). W. Pradels, R. Brändle, M. Heimgartner, “The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Iudaeos,” ZAC 6 (2002): pp. 90–116.

194

lourié

W.D. Ray, “Christmas in May? The Early Jerusalem Commemoration of the Birth of Christ,” in A View from a Bridge: in Honour of Annie Jaubert (1912–1980), Vol. 2, eds. by G. Dorival et al. (forthcoming). Ch. Renoux, “La fête de la Transfiguration et le rite arménien,” in: Mens concordet voci. Pour Mgr A.G. Martimort à l’occasion de ses 40 années d’enseignement et des 20 ans de la Constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1983): pp. 652– 662. Ch. Renoux, “Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121,” 1–2, in PO 35.1 (1969); 36.2 (1971). Ch. Renoux, “Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le čašoc‘,” 1–3, in PO 44.4 (1989); 48.2 (1999); 49.5 (2004). H. Riesenfeld, Jésus transfiguré: l’arrière-plan du récit évangélique de la Transfiguration de Notre-Seigneur (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 16; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1947). J. Rougé, Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et commentaries (SC 124; Paris: Cerf, 1966). M.M. Schaefer, Women in Pastoral Office. The Story of Santa Prassede, Rome (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013). D. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (WUNT 163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). M.E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IVEzra (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand Lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe s.) II (CSCO 204–205, Iber. 13–14; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1960). L. van Tongeren, Exaltation of the Cross: toward the origins of the Feast of the Cross and the meaning of the Cross in the early medieval liturgy (Liturgia condenda, 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot. The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles (Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese, 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). S. Verhelst, La liturgie de Jérusalem à l’époque byzantine. Genèse et structures de l’année liturgique, unpublished PhD Thesis (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999). S. Verhelst, “Le 15 août, le 9 av et le Kathisme,” Questions liturgiques 82 (2001): pp. 161– 191. S. Verhelst, Le Lectionnaire de Jérusalem. Ses traditions judéo-chrétiennes et son histoire, suivant l’index des péricopes évangéliques, conclu par le sanctoral du Sin. Géo. 58 Novus, Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 26; (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2012). S. Verhelst, Les traditions judéo-chrétiennes dans la liturgie de Jérusalem: spécialement la Liturgie de saint Jacques Frère de Dieu (Textes et études liturgiques, 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2003).

john ii of jerusalem’s homily on the encaenia

195

S. Verhelst, “Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, chapitre 1, et la liturgie chrétienne,” Liber Annuus 47 (1997): pp. 129–138. R. Vicent, La fiesta judía de las Cabañas (Sukkot). Interpretaciones midrásicas en la Biblia y en el judaísmo antiguo (Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1995). H. Vincent, F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, Tome II: Jérusalem nouvelle, Fasc. III: La Sainte-Sion et les sanctuaires de second ordre (Paris: Gabalda, 1922). S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Philadelphia: Oxford UP, 1922). Պ. Անանեան, “Յովհաննէս Քորեպիսկոպոսի երկու ճառեր,” Բազմավէպ 124 (1966) [P. Ananian, “Two Sermons of John the Chorbishop,” Polyhistory 124 (1966)]: pp. 18–28. О.Н. Заец, “Варипсав” [O.N. Zaets, “Varipsav”], in Православная энциклопедия, т. 6 (Москва: Церковно-научный центр «Православная энциклопедия», 2003) [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia, vol. 6 (Moscow: The Church Research Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2003)]: pp. 574–575. В.М. Лурье, Введение в критическую агиографию (Санкт-Петербург: Аксиома, 2009) [B. Lourié, An Introduction to the Critical Hagiography (St. Petersburg: Axiōma, 2009)]. В.М. Лурье, “Из Иерусалима в Аксум через Храм Соломона: архаичные предания о Сионе и Ковчеге Завета в составе Кебра Негест и их трансляция через Константинополь,” Христианский Восток 2 (8) (2000) [B. Lourié, “From Jerusalem to Aksum through the Temple of Solomon: Archaic Traditions about Sion and the Ark of Covenant in the Kebra Nägäst and Their Translation via Constantinople,” Christian Orient 2 (8) (2000)]: pp. 137–207. В.М. Лурье, “Три Иерусалима Лалибелы. Интерпретация комплекса церквей Лалибелы в свете данных его Жития,” [B. Lourié, “Three Jerusalems of Lalibela. An interpretation of the church complex at Lalibela in the light of the data of the Life of Lalibäla”] Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 13 (2000) (= Miscellanea Aethiopica Reverendissimo Domino Stanislao Kur septuagenario professori illustrissimo, viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata): pp. 117–140. В.М. Лурье, “Три типа раннехристианского календаря и одно разночтение в тексте Epistula Apostolorum” [B. Lourié, “Three Types of the Early Christian Calendars and One Variant Reading in the Text of the Epistula Apostolorum”], in: Традиции и наследие Христианского Востока. Материалы международной конференции, под ред. Д.Е. Афиногенова и А.В. Муравьева (Москва: Индрик, 1996) [Traditions and the Legacy of the Christian Orient. Materials of the International Conference., eds. D.E. Afinogenov and A.V. Muraviev (Moscow: Indrik, 1996)]: pp. 256–320. Т.Г. Мгалоблишвили, “Древнейший праздник «Vardoba»—«Atenagenoba».” Православный Палестинский сборник 98 (35) (1998) [T.G. Mgaloblishvili, “The Ear-

196

lourié

liest Feastival Vardoba—Atenagenoba,” The Orthodox Palestinian Periodical 98 (35) (1998)]: pp. 115–121. Е.Л. Привалова, Роспись Тимотесубани (Тбилиси: Мецниереба, 1980) [E. Privalova, La peinture murale de Timothesoubani (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1980)].

part 2 Armenian Textual and Material Culture

∵

chapter 11

Georgian-Armenian Palimpsests in Repositories of the National Centre of Manuscripts of Georgia: Agathangelos’s History of the Armenians Zaza Aleksidze and Dali Chitunashvili

Until recently, the lower text of the palimpsest ms. V56 of the Mekhitarist collection (Vienna, Austria) was thought to be the earliest manuscript of Agathangelos’s History. According to the paleographical data, the manuscript was written sometime before the 10th century.1 Another fragment, ms. M1235 of the Matenadaran (Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, Yerevan, Armenia) dates back to the ninth to ten centuries. In chronological order, these manuscripts are followed by the protective sheet of ms. Arm. 18 from the Armenian collection of the National Centre of Manuscripts (Tbilisi, Georgia), which is dated to the 10th–11th centuries.2 There also exist some other fragments, all dated to periods later than the tenth century. Manuscript A-491, a Georgian-Armenian palimpsest preserved in collection “A” of the National Centre of Manuscripts, is the Festal Menaion, copied by a certain Lat‘avri, which belonged to the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral (108 ff., 234×180mm, vellum; titles and initials are written in cinnabar). The manuscript dates to the period of the 13th–14th centuries on paleographical grounds; it is damaged and stained, having come to us without a cover, unbound, missing its ending, and with gaps throughout. Thirty-five folia of the manuscript have a lower Armenian layer: ff. 5, 6, 38, 40, 41, 45, 48, 49, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 89, 90, 96, 97, 100, 101, 107, and 108.

1 Յ. Տաշեան, Ցուցակ հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մխիթարեան մատենադարանին ի (Վիեննա։ Մխիթարեան Տպարան, 1895–) = J. Dashean, Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-Bibliothek zu Wien, p. 40; Գ. Գալէմքերեան, “Ագաթանգեղոսի կրկնագիր բնագիրը,” Հուշարձան, 1911 [G. Galemkerean, “Palimpsest Manuscript of Agathangelos” (Monument, 1911)], pp. 67–160. See also A. Topchyan, “The Vienna Palimpsest of Agathangelos’ History” in Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve (septembre 2003), ed. V. Somers (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 56; Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009): pp. 233–243. 2 Պ. Մ. Մուրադյան, Ագաթանգելոսի հին վրացերեն թարգմանություններ (Երեվան, 1982) [P.M. Muradyan, The Old Georgian Translation of Agathangelos (Yerevan, 1982)].

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_013

200

aleksidze and chitunashvili

The Armenian text is written perpendicularly to the Georgian text. Two pages with the Georgian text are roughly equivalent to one page of the Armenian text, so we can assume that the size of the Armenian manuscript was large, approximately 460×240mm. The margins of the page are approximately 50mm. The text is written in a large, round erkat‘agir in two columns. The width of the column is 85mm; the interval between columns is 20 mm and sometimes even 25mm; the space between lines is 10 or 15 mm; the height of the letters is 8mm and the width is 5mm. Both the contours of the letters and the signs of separation, such as full points between the words, indicate the old age of the manuscript. The citations are marked by parallel points. Sometimes extra space is left between the words in order to correctly adjust the text within the column. The subtitles are written in letters smaller than the main text of the codex, which is common for old Armenian lectionaries. The archaic character of the manuscript is also evident in the glosses: only the words God, Jesus, Christ and Lord are abbreviated. All of these observations, together with paleographical data, support the dating of the manuscript to the ninth century. Only 10 pages of this palimpsest have been deciphered and identified by now, but further reading of the remainder is impossible without special equipment. The deciphered text can be found between paragraphs 781–874 of the critical edition of Agathanghelos’s The History of Armenia. It has been revealed that this manuscript is particularly similar to the group of manuscripts of the History of Armenia which are identified in the critical edition by letters α, β, b, Ա, Բ,3 but there are also some cases where our text differs both from the main text of the edition and from the apparatus criticus. While reconstructing the text, we took into account the number of graphemes in one line: normally there are 17 graphemes in one line of the palimpsest, and in few cases, there seemed to be only 12, 14 or 15 graphemes in a single line. In the present edition, the text is published in two columns, matching the manuscript layout. We use bold capital letters for the parts that we were able to read and regular minuscule for the reconstructed text. The text is reconstructed and punctuation marks are provided according to the main text and variants of the critical edition of 1909. For each deciphered page a reference is provided to the pages and the lines of the edition, and at the beginning and ending of each page—to the previous and next fragments, and beginning or ending of the words for words split across pages (a border between pages is marked as ||).

3 Ագաթանգեղոս, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, աշխատ. Գ. Տեր–Մկրտչյան եւ Ս. Կանայանց (Տփղիս, 1909) [Agathangelos, History of the Armenians, eds. G. Ter-Mkrtchyan and S. Kanayants (Tiflis, 1909)], p. ԿԹ (LXIX).

georgian-armenian palimpsests in repositories

The deciphered fragments of Agathangelos’s History of the Armenians table 11.1

Layout of the deciphered fragments

Tabula Manuscript reference (ms. A-491)

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

tabula i

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

107r–108v 107v–108r 89v–90r 89r–90v 96r–97v 96v–97r 71v–76r 73r–74v 73v–74r 100r–101v 57r–58v 38v–43r

Edition reference Pages

Paragraphs

406.7–407.3 407.4–408.1 408.1–14 408.14–409.12 412.15–413.15 413.15–414.14 414.14–415.12 417.1–15 417.16–418.13 437.4–438.1 452.2–16 459.14–460.13

781–782 782–784 784–785 785–786 791–794 794–795 795–797 799–800 801–803 838–840 861–862 873–874

Ms. A-491, ff. 107r–108v (§§ 781–782, pp. 406.7–407.3)

…|| [§781 …] ԱՄԵՆԵՔԻՆ. ԻՍԿ ՍԵՒԱ ԳՈՒՆԴՔ ԴԻՒԱՑՆԱՆ ԵՐԵՒՈՅԹ ԵՂԵԱԼ, ԶՔՈ ՏԵԱԼՔ իտեղւոՅՆ Ի ԲՐԵՒ ԶԾՈՒԽՆ պակաՍԵ ՑԱՆ: ԻՍԿ ՄԱՐԴԿԱ նն հասելոց ան Դեն քանդեալ զհիմունս մնացեալս աւերէին աղքատաց եւ տարապելոց որբոց եւ այրեաց եւ չքաւորաց, Ե ? Ի ԳԱՆձԻ ց մերթեալս՝

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

ՍՈՒՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԵԿԵՂԵ ՑՒՈՅՆ. [§782] ԵՒ ԱՌ ՀԱՍարակ ԱՄԵՆԵՑ ուն սերմանեալ ա(ստուած)Ա ՊԱՇՏՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԲԱՆ ԵՒ ԶԱՄԵՆԵՍԵԱՆ Ի ՏեառնՆ ՃԱՆԱՊԱՐՀԻՆ ԿԱՑՈՒՑ ԱՆԷՐ գիտուն լինել պատուիրանաց ԱրարչՈՒԹԵԱՆՆ: եւ յամենա ՅՆ ՔԱՂԱՔՍ [p. 407] հայոց եւ յաւանս եւ ՅԱԳԱՐԱԿՍ ԵՐԵՒ (Ց) ՈՒՑԱՆէր զտեղիս ՏԱՆ Ա(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ. ԲԱՅՑ ոչ

201

202

aleksidze and chitunashvili

Tabula I

16 17 18 19 20 21

Ms. A-491, ff. 107r–108v (§§ 781–782, pp. 406.7–407.3) (cont.)

հանէին: ԵՒ ԶԴԱՍՏԱ Կերտսն ԵՒ ՍՊԱՍ ԱՒՈՐՍ ՔՐՄԱՒՔՆ ՀԱՆԴ ԵՐՁ ԵՒ ՆՈՑԻՆ ԳԵՏ նովՔ ԵՒ ՍԱՀՄԱՆԱՒՔ ԾԱՌԱՅՈՒԹԻՒՆ ԱՊԱ

16 17 18 19 20 21

առնէր յայտ հիմնարկ ՈՒԹԵԱՆ զհետ, եւ ՈՉ ՍԵՂան ուր ԵՔ ՅԱՆՈՒՆ ասուծոյ ուղղեալ Յանուն ա(ստուծո)յ, զի չունէր զպատիւ քահանայութեան.

|| … Tab. II

tabula ii

Ms. A-491, ff. 107v–108r (§§ 782–784, pp. 407.4–408.1)

Tab. I …|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ԱՅՂ լոկ Պարսպէր քաղաքորմով զտեղիսն եւ կանգնէր զնշան տերուն ական խաչին: նոյնպէս եւ յելս ի մուտս ճանապարհացն փողոցս եւ ի հրապարակս ԵՒ Ի ճանապարհակից

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

ՊԱհ եւ ապաւեն ԶԵՐ ԿՐՊԱԳԵԱԼՆ ԱՄԵՆԵՑՈՒ նց զնոյն նշան ԿԱՆԳՆէր: [§783] առնոյր այնուհետեւ զարշակունեաց տոհմի որեարն ի վարժս վարդապէտ ութեան պարա ՊԵՑՈՒՑԵԱԼ. ՈՐՈՑ ԱՌԱՋնոյն ՏՐԴԱՏ ԱՆ ՈՒՆ

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

ՈՐՆ ԻՍԿ ԷՐ, ԱՄԵՆայն տա ՄԲ ԻՒՐՈՎ: ՆՈՅՆ ՊԷՍ ԵՒ

19 20 21

զամենայն ոգի ջանայր յերկիւրել հասուցանել ի գտութիւն ճշմարտու Թեան: եւ յորժամ այնպէս լի առնէր ընդ ամենայն տեղիս զսուրբ Աւետարանն տեառնն, եւ ամենեցուն զգուշացուցեալ անմեղութեամբ զճանապարսհ կենաց վարելոյ՝ ապա ամենեցուն զայն Դնէր ի մտի, զի տեառն ա(ստուծո)յ իւրեանց միայն երկիր պագեցեն, եւ նմա միայն սպաս տարՑԻՆ: [§784] ԱՊԱ ՅԱՆՁՆ արար եալ զնոսա ամենապահ շնորհԱՑՆ [p. 408] Ա(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ եւ ԻՆՔՆ ԱՌԵԱԼ ԶԹԱԳ ԱՒՈՐՆ ԽԱՂԱՅՐ գնացեալ երթայր

|| … Tab. III

georgian-armenian palimpsests in repositories tabula iii

Ms. A-491, ff. 89v–90r (§§ 784–785, p. 408.1–14)

Tab. II …|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

զի եւ այլ կողմանս ամենայն սահմանցն հայաստան աշխարհի սերմանեսցեն զբանն կենաց: եւ երթայր հասանէր ի դարան աղեաց գաւառն, ԶԻ ԱՆԴ ԶԱՆՈՒԱՆելոցն զսուտ ա(ստուածո)ցն զբագինսն կործանե սցեն, որ էր ի գեաւղն թորդան, մեհեանն ան ուանեալ սպիտակափառ ԴԻՑՆ Բարշամինայ. ՆԱԽ ԶՆԱ կործԱՆԷԻՆ ԵՒ, ԶՊԱՏԿԵՐ նորին ՓՇՐԷԻՆ. եւ ԳԱՆ ՁՍ ամենայն ԶՈՍ ԿԻՈՅՆ ԱՐԾԱԹՈՅն, ԱՒԱՐ հարկանէին եւ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԶԱՅՍ աղքԱՏԱՑ ԲԱԺԱ ՆԵԱԼ ԲԱՇԽԷԻՆ: ԵՒ Զգեաւղն ԱՄԵՆԱՅՆ ԴաստակերտԱՒՔՆ ՀԱՆԴ ԵՐՁ ԵՒ ՍԱՀՄԱՆԱՒՔ իւրովք յանուն ԵԿԵՂԵ ՑՒՈՅՆ ՆՈՒԻՐԷԻՆ, ԵՒ ԶԱՄԵՆԱՓՐԿԻՉ ՆՇԱՆ ԻՆ ԱՒՐԻՆակ ԵՒ ԱՆԴ ԿԱՆԳնեին: [§785] ԻՍԿ ԵՐ ԱՆԵԼՒՈՅՆ վաղվա ղակի զաւետարանԱԿԱՆ ԱՐՈՒԵՍՏ Ի ՄԷՋ ԱՌՆ ՈՅՆ ՁԵՌՆԱՐԿԵԱԼ ԶԳԱՒԱՌԱՒՆ ՀԱՆԴԵՐՁ ՄԻԱՄԻՏ սատարութե ամբ թագաւորին՝ ԳԵՐ ԵՐ Զամենեսեան ի հա Յրենացն աւանդելոց ի սատանայապաշտ ԴԻՒ ական ի սպասաւորութե

|| … Tab. IV

tabula iv

Ms. A-491, ff. 89r–90v (§§ 785–786, pp. 408.14–409.12)

Tab. III ի սպասաւորութե|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ՆԷՆ ՀՆԱԶԱՆԴ ՈՒԹիւՆ ԾԱՌԱՅՈՒԹ ԵԱՆ Ք(ՐԻՍՏՈ)Ս Մատուցանէր: ԵՒ ՅՈՐԺԱՄ Ի ՆՈՍԱ Զբ ԱՆՆ [p. 409] կենաՑ ՍԵրման ԵԱԼ, ԵՒ զամենես Եան յա(ստուած)ապաշտութ ԻՒՆ Կրթեալ, որ ՅԱՅՏնի իսկ բնակչաց ԳԱՒԱՌՆ ՆՇԱՆՔ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ԱՆՍՍ ԱՆԳՍՏԱՑ ԳԵՐԵԶՄԱՆԱՑ ԹԱԳ ԱՒՈՐԱՑ ՀԱՅՈՑ: ԵՒ ԱՆ Դ ԿՈՐԾԱՆԵՑԻՆ ԶԲԱԳ ԻՆ զեւս դիցն արամ ԱԶԴԱՅՆ, ՀԱՒՐՆ ԱՆ ՈՒԱՆԵԱԼ դիցն ամ ենայնի: եւ անդ կանգ նեալ զտէրունակ ԱՆ ՆՇԱՆՆ, ԵՒ ԶԱՒ

203

204

aleksidze and chitunashvili

Tabula IV

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Ms. A-491, ff. 89r–90v (§§ 785–786, pp. 408.14–409.12) (cont.)

ՄԵԾԱՄԵԾՔ ԵՐԵՒԵԱԼ, ԿԵՐՊԱկերպ նՄԱՆՈՒ ԹԵԱՄԲ ԴԻՒԱՑՆ ՓԱ ԽՍՏԱԿԱՆ ԼԻնէին ԱՆԿԱՆԵԼ Ի ԿՈՂՄԱՆս ԽԱՂՏԵԱՑ. ԵՒ ԻԲՐԵՒ ԶՆՈՍԱ. ԵՒՍ ՀԱՍՏԱնէր՝ ԱՊԱ ԵՐԹԵԱԼ ՀԱՍԱՆԷՐ յամուր ՏԵՂԻՆ ՅԱՆՈՒ ԱՆԵԱԼ ՏԵՂՈՅՆ ՅԱՆԻ, Ի ԹԱԳԱՒՈՐԱԲՆԱԿ ԿԱյե

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԱՆ ԱՄՐԱԿԱՆԱՒՔ հա ԱՆԴԵՐՁ Ի ԾԱՌԱՅՈՒԹ ԻՒՆ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՈՅՆ ՆՈՒԻՐԷԻՆ: [§786] եւ ապա ՅԵՏ ԱՅՍՈՐԻԿ իՍԱՀՄԱՆԱԿԻ Ց ԳԱՒԱՌՆ ՅԵԿԵՂԵՑ ԵԼԱՆԷՐ ԵՒ ԱՆԴ ԵՐ ԵՒԵԱԼ ԴԻՒԱՑ Ի ՄԵԾ ԵՒ Ի ԲՈՒՆ մեհենացն ՀԱՅ ՈՑ թաԳաւորԱՑՆ, Ի ՏԵՂ

|| …

tabula v

1 2 3 4

Ms. A-491, ff. 96r–97v (§§ 791–794, pp. 412.15–413.15)

…|| [§791 …] նախարարք եւ ազատք, դատաւորք եւ եւ զաւրավարք, եւ հասեալ կային առաջի թագաւորին : [§792, p. 413] խորհուրդ ի մէջ առնոյր թագաւորն ընդ ամենեսին, փութել հասանել՝ բարեաց

1

Ել վասն անչափակալ

2 3 4

բարձրութեան զաւրել. զի անպատում է այս պատիւ ք(րիստո)սատուր

5 6 7 8 9

[§ 794] եւ անդէն տեսԻԼ ՍՔԱՆ

10

գործոց ժառանգաւոր լինել: եկայք, ասէ ճեպեսցուք զայս առաջնորդ կենաց մերոց տուեալ մեզ jա(ստուածո)յ զգրիգորդ հովիւ կացուցանել

փառացն առաջնորդութ Եան, միջնորդ կալ ԸՆԴ ա (ստուա)ծ եւ ընդ մարդիկ. այլ զարժ Անին խնդրել ԳՏՑԵՆ:

10

11 12 13 14 15

զի ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐԵՍՑԷ ԶՄեզ Մկրտութաեամբ եւ ՆՈՐՈԳԵՍՑԷ ԱՒՐՀՆ ՈՒԹԵԱՄԲ աւրենսց ՈՅՑ ԽՈՐՀՐԴովն

11 12 13 14 15

չելի յա(ստուծո)յ երեւեալ ԹԱԳԱՒՈՐ Ին՝ տեսԱՆԷՐ ԶՀՐԵ շտակ ա(ստուծո)յ զի խոսէր Ընդ նմա, ԹԵ ՊԱՐՏԷ ԳրիգոՐԴ ՎԻՃԱԿ ԵՑՈՒՑԱՆԵԼ ԱՌԱՆՑ

5 6 7 8 9

georgian-armenian palimpsests in repositories Tabula V

16 17 18 19 20 21

Ms. A-491, ff. 96r–97v (§§ 791–794, pp. 412.15–413.15) (cont.)

արարչին մերոյ ա(ստուծո)յ: [§793] ԻՍԿ ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ոչ առնոյր ԶԱՅՍ ՅԱՆձն, առնուլ ԶՄԵԾ ՊԱտիւն ՔԱՀԱՆ ՈՒԹԵԱՆ. ԱՍԷ. ՈՉ ԿԱ րեմ հանդարտել բաւ

tabula vi

205

16 17 18 19 20 21

ՅԱՊԱղԵԼՈՅ Ի ՔԱՀԱՆԱՅ ԱՊԵՏՈՒԹԻՒՆ, ԶԻ ԼՈՒ ՍԱՒՈՐԵՍՑԷ ԶՁԵԶ: նՈՅՆպէս ԵՐԵՒԵԱԼ ԵՒ ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ ՏԵՍԻԼՆ Հրեշտակի Ա(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ, ԶԻ ՄԻ ԻՇԽ ||ԵՍՑԷ Tab. VI

Ms. A-491, ff. 96v–97r (§§ 794–795, pp. 413.15–414.14)

Tab. V ԻՇԽ|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԵՍՑԷ ԻՆՉ ՊՆԴԵԼ յամ առել վասն այնր զի Ի ք(րիստոս)է ԱՅԴ Հրամայեալ, ԱՍԷ: [p. 414] ԻՍԿ նա հաւանեալ ՎԱՂՎԱՂԱԿԻ բարբառ ԵԱԼ ԱՍԷ, ԹԵ ԿԱՄՔ Ա(ՍՏՈՒ ԾՈ)Յ կատարեսցին: [§795] ԻՍԿ ԹԱԳԱՒՈՐ վաղվ ԱՂԱԿԻ փՈՒԹՈՎ ԵՒ ՄԵԾԱՒ խնդութեամբ ՀՈԳԱՑԵԱՑ ԳՈՒՄԱՐԵ աց զգլխաւորս նախ արացն եւ ԶԿՈՒՍԱկալս ԱՇԽԱՐՀացն. ԱՌԱՋԻՆ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆն Անգէղ տան, ԵՐԿՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆ ԱՂՁ ՆԵԱՑ, ՈՐ ԷՐ ԲդԵՇԽ մեծ. ԵՐՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆՆ ՄԱՐԴՊ ԵտուԹԵԱՆ, ՉՈՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆ ԹԱԳԱ

1 2 3 4 5 6

ԿԱՊ ԻՇԽԱՆՈՒԹԵԱՆ ասպետութեանն, հինգերորդ՝ իշխանն սպարապետութեան, զաւրավար հայոց աշխարհին. վեցերորդ՝ իշխանն կորդովտաց

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

աշխարհին. եւթերորդ՝ իշխանն ծո փաց աշխարհին. ՈՒԹԵՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆ ԳՈՒ ԳԱՐԱՑ ԱՇԽԱՐՀԻՆ, ՈՐ ՄԻՒս անուանե ալ բդեԱՇԽՆ. ԻՆՆԵՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆՆ ՌՇՏՈՒՆԵԱՑ ԱՇԽԱՐՀԻՆ. ՏԱՍՆերորդ՝ Իշխան ՄՈԿԱՑ աշխարհին. ՄԵՏԱսներորդ՝ իշխանն սիւնեաց աշխարհին. երկոտասներորդ՝ իշխանն ծաւդէից աշխարհին.

|| Tab. VII

206

aleksidze and chitunashvili

tabula vii

Ms. A-491, ff. 71v–76r (§§ 795–797, pp. 414.14–415.12)

Tab. VI || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԵՐԵՔՏԱՍՆԵՐՈՐԴ Իշխ ԱՆ ՈՒՏԱՑՒՈՑ աշխա ՐՀԻՆ. Չորեք [Տ]ԱՍՆԵՐՈՐԴ՝ ՇԱՊԱՀ ԶԱՐԱՒԱՆԴ ԵՒ Խէր (!) ԳԱՒԱՐԻ. ՀԻՆԳտա ՍԱՆԵՐՈՐԴ՝ ԻՇԽանն մաղխազութեան տանն. Վեցտասներորդ՝ իշխանն արծրունեաց: [§796, p. 415] ԱՅՍ ԻշԽԱՆ ԸՆՏԻՐՔ, կուսակալք, կողմն ԱԿԱԼՔ ՀԱԶարաւորք, Բիւրաւորք Ի ՄԵԶ ՀԱ ՅԱՍՏԱՆ ԱՇԽարհի Տանն թորգոմայ, զորս Գումարեաց թագաւորն Տրդատ եւ արաքեաց Զնոսա, ի կողմանս կապու Տացւոց, ի քաղաքն Կեսարացւոց ԶՈՐ ՀԱՅԵՐԷՆ լեզուին մաժակք

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ԿՈՉԵՆ. ԶԻ ՏԱՐԵալ զգրի գորիոս. ՔԱՀանայա պետ ԿԱՑՈՒսցեն իւրեանց աշխարհին. եւ հանդերձ եցան ԴԷՏ ակն ունել ՃանաՊԱՐԱՑՆ: եւ հրամաՅԵԱՑ ԳՐել Հրովարտակ ԱՅՍ: պատճէն ՀՐՈՎԱՐՏԱԿի

10

[§797] Ի վաղնջենէ հետւ կո

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

րուսեալք, տգիտութեամբ ՄԵՂԱՑ ՊԱՇԱրեալք, մառախՂԱՊԱՏք միգա պատք, ԱՊՇԱՑԵալք, ոչ ԿԱՐԵՑեալք ՀԱՅ ԵԼ ԻՄԱՆԱԼ ՆԿԱՏԵԼ, զարեգակն ԱՐԴԱՐՈՒ Թեան տեսանել. այ սոՐԻԿ ԽԱՒԱՐԵԱԼ ք, ի մութ թաթաւէաք:

|| …

tabula viii

Ms. A-491, ff. 73v–74r (§§ 799–800, p. 417.1–15)

1

… տու|| [§799 …] տուԵԱ ՄԵԶ ԱՌԱՋ ՆՈՐԴ:

1

ՂԵՒՈՆՏԻՈՍ ԱՐՔԵՊԻՍ

2 3 4 5 6 7

ԶԴԱ ԵՒ ԿԱՐԳՆ ՍՈՎՈՐ ՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԵՒ ունայնու ԹԵԱՆ ՀԱՅՐենացն ԶՈՐ Ա(ՍՏՈՒԱ)Ծ խլե ԱՑ եւ եբարձ Ի միջոյ.

2 3 4 5 6 7

կոպոս կեսարու եւ ամենայն ուխտք քահանայութե անդ սրբոյ եկեղեցւոյ, որ այդ էք, մեք յողո րմութենէ տեառն աղաւթ իւք ձերովք առցուք

georgian-armenian palimpsests in repositories Tabula VIII

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

207

Ms. A-491, ff. 73v–74r (§§ 799–800, p. 417.1–15) (cont.)

ԵՒ ՈՒսոյց ամենեցուն ՄԵԶ ԻՒՐ զվկայութիւ Նս զհրամանս, ԸՍՏ ԻՒՐՈՑ ԿԱՄԱՑՆ գնալ. Մինչեւ տալ ՄԵԶ ՀՐԱման ՅԱՅՏ ՅԱՆԴԻՄԱՆ՝ ՄԵԶ ԶԴՈՅՆ ԻՆՔՆ զգրիգորդ ՀՈՎԻՒ տեսՈՒՉ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏ ՃՇՄԱՐՏԱ ՊԱՏՈՒմ կացուցանել: [§800] ՎԱՍՆ ԱՅՍՈՐԻԿ եւ մեր ԱՊԱՍՏան եղեալ աւ ԳՆԱԿԱՆութիւն ընդ ունակութիւն աղաւթից ՁԵՌՈՑ եւ սրբութեանդ,

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

ողջոյն, տրդատոս թագաւոր, ամենայն զաւրաւք երկիրս հայոց մեծաց, եւ աշխէն տիկին, եւ աւրիորդ ՄԵԾ ԽՈՍՐՈՎԻդուխտ: ՎԱՍՆ ԱՅՍՈՐԻԿ ԱՌԱՔե ՑԱՔ ՄԵՔ ԱՌ Ձեզ ԶԱրս ԳլխաւՈՐՍ՝ ԻՇԽԱՆ Պատուականս ԶԱշխա րհիս ՄԵՐՈՅ ՄԵԾԻ, Զի ՊԱՏՄԵՍՑԵՆ Զձեզ ԶԱՄ ԵՆԱՅՆ ԶՍՔԱՆՉԵԼԻս, ՈՐ ԱՍՏ ՅԱՅՍՄ ԱՇԽԱՐՀիս ԳՈՐԾԵՑԱՒ ԸՆԴ Մեզ:

|| Tab. IX

tabula ix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ms. A-491, ff. 73r–74v (§§ 801–803, pp. 417.16–418.13)

Tab. VIII || [§801] ԵՒ ՏՈՒԱՔ ՄԵՔ ԱԾԵԼ Առ

12 13 14

ԵՒ ՊԱՏՃԵՆ ՀՐՈվար տակի զայս աւրինակ գրեցաւ: [§802] եւ կազմեցան պատր աստեցան, առին ընդ իւրեանս պատարագս՝ոսկի եւ արծաթ ձիս եւ ջորիս եւ հանդերձս գունակ գունակս ի սպաս պատուական տե ղաց ՍՐԲՈՑ ՏԱՆՑՆ Ա(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ՝ ՈՒՐ ԱՐԱՔԵԱԼՔՆ ԵԻՆ Ն ԱՄԵՆԱՅՆ եկեղեցեացն ԱՌՆԵԻՆ ՊԱՏՐԱՍՏՈՒ Թիւն պատարագաց՝ ընդ

15

Որ էին անցանելոց:

1 ՍՈՒՐԲ ԽՈՍՏՈՎԱՆողդ 2 Ք(րիստոս)ի զգրիգորիոս. եւ զայս 3 հՐՈՎԱՐՏԱԿ ՄԵՐ ԱՌ ՁԵՌ 4 ԳՐԵՑԱՔ, ԶԻ ԸՍՏ ՏՈՒ 5 չՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԱՒԱՆԴՈՒԹեան 6 Հոգեւոր ա(ստուա)ծԱՏՈՒՐ ՇՆՈՐ 7 Հ Ք(ՐԻՍՏՈ)ՍԻ՝ ՄԵԶ ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ 8 ՏԵՍՈՒՉ եւ վարդապե 9 Տ ԱՌԱՋՆՈՐԴՈՒԹԵԱՆ 10 Ա(ՍՏՈՒԱ)ԾԱԳՆԱՑ ՃԱՆԱՊԱՐՀ 11

ացն , եւ հովիւ եւ բժ Իշկ կացուսջիք, որպէս եւ մեզ ՅԱ(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ հրամայեցաւ եւ աղաւթս արասՋԻՔ, ԶԻ

208

aleksidze and chitunashvili

Tabula IX

16 17 18 19 20 21

Ms. A-491, ff. 73r–74v (§§ 801–803, pp. 417.16–418.13) (cont.)

Զմեզ արժանիս արասցէ ա(ստուա)ծ իւրոյ ողորմութեանն Առողջութեամբ գնալ Ի ճանապարհս նորա եւ Ձեր սէրն ողջոյն եկ ԵԱԼ ՀԱՆիցէ առ մեզ:

16 17 18 19 20 21

[§803] ԵՒ ՀԱՆԵԻՆ ԶԳՐԻգոր Յոսկիրապատ կառսն արք Ունականս՝ ՍՊԻՏԱԿ ԱՁԻԳ ջորոցն: ԵՒ ԱՄԵ ՆԱՅՆ ԻՇԽԱՆՔ ԳՈՒՄԱ ՐԵԱԼՔ ընդ նմա

|| …

tabula x

Ms. A-491, ff. 100r–101v (§§ 838–840, pp. 437.4–438.1)

1

…|| [§838 …] ԵՒ հրաման տԱՅՐ

1

ԵՒ ԶԺԱՆԳՆ ԶՇԱՐԱՒ

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ՆՈՑԱ՝ Ի հաւատարիմ առաջ նորդութեամբ վերակացու լինել լուսաւոր ԱՊԷՍ հաւտին ք(րիստոս)ի: [§839] ՆՈՅՆՊԷՍ հաւանեՑՈՒ ՑԱՆԷՐ Զթագաւորն, ԶԻ Ի ԳԱՒԱՐաց գաւարաց Ի ԿՈՂՄԱՆՑ կողմանց Ի ՏԵՂԻՍ տեղիս ժողով ԵՍՑԵՆ ԲԱԶՄՈՒԹԻՒՆ մանկտւոյ, առ ի նիւ Թ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏՈՒԹԵ ԱՆ, ԵՒ գազանամ ԻՏ ՎԱՅՐենաԳՈՅՆ Զ ՃԻՒԱՂԱբարոյ ԱՇԽ ԱՐԱԲՆԱկանսն. զորս ԱՌԵԱԼ ԱՐԿԱՆէր Ի բով ՍՆ ՎԱՐԴԱպետութեան, ԵՒ ՀՈԳԵւոր սիրոյն եռԱՆԴմամբ զաղտն

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԱՀՈՏ ԴԻՒԱՑՆ ԵՒ ստորագորԾ պաշ Տամանց Ի ԲԱՑ քերէր: եւ այնչափ անջատէր ի հաՅՐԵՆացն բնակաց իւրեա նՑ՝ ՄԻՆՉԵՒ ԱՍԵլ նոցա, թե մոռա ցայ զժողովուրդ եւ զտուն հաւր իմոյ: [§840] եւ ի տեղաց տեղաց սահ մանացն հայոց՝ տայր հրաման թԱԳԱ ւորն տրդատ՝ իւրոՅ ԻՇ խանութեանն յաշ խարհաՑ ԵՒ ԳԱՒ առաց բազմութիւն Մատաղ մանկտւոյ ածել յարուեստ դպրութեան,

|| …

georgian-armenian palimpsests in repositories tabula xi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Ms. A-491, ff. 57r–58v (§§ 861–862, p. 452.2–16)

…|| [§861 …] ՄԵՆԱՒՈՐԱՍՏԱՆին. ԱՊԱ ՈՉ Հաւանէր ի ՋԱՆԵԼ ՅԱՆԱՊԱՏԷ ԱՆ ՏԻ. ԵԹԵ ՈՉ եղեւ ժողով ԲԱԶՄՈՒԹԵԱՆ ՔՐԻՍՏ ՈՆԷԻՑ, ՈՐՔ ՀԱՒԱՆԵ ՑՈՒՑԱՆԵԱԼ ԶՆա գնալ անտի. զի լաւ է, ասեն, քեզ գործ մշակու ԹԵԱՆ Ա(ՍՏՈՒԾՈ)Յ՝ քան զայդ ՄԻԱՅՆԱՒՈՐՈՒԹԻՒՆ բնակութեան յանապա ՊԱՏԻՍ ԱՅԴՐ: ԶՈՐՍ ԱՅ ՆՈՒՀԵՏԵՒ յուղարկե ՑԻՆ ԶՆՈՍԱ անտի: իսկ ՆՈՔԱ ԵԿԻՆ Հասին յեր ԿԻՐՆ ՀԱՅՈՑ, ՅԱՆԴԻ ՄԱՆ ՈՒՆԵԻՆ ԱԾԵԱԼՍ ԵՐԿՈՍԻՆ ԶՈՐԴԻՍՆ ԳՐԻԳՈՐի, առաջի թա ԳԱՒՈՐԻՆ. ԶՈՐՍ ԱՌԵԱԼ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ԹԱԳԱՒՈՐին՝ ինքՆԻՆ ՆՈՔԱՒՔ Հանդերձ ի ԽՆԴԻՐ ԵԼԱՆԷՐ սրբոյն ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ՝ ՈՒՐ ԵՒ ԳՏՑԷ: Եւ եկեալ գտանէին ի դար անաղեաց գաւառին, ի լերինն որ կոչի մանե ԱՅ ԱՅՐՔ, ՅԱՆԱՊԱՏԻՆ: [§862] ԱՊԱ ԱՂԱՉԵԱՑ երանե ԼԻ թաԳԱՒՈՐՆ տրդատ ԶՍՈՒՐԲՆ ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻՈՍ, զԻ ՓՈԽԱՆԱԿ ԶԻ ՈՉ ՀԱՒԱՆԵՑԱՒ ՆԱ ԿԱԼ ԵՒ ՇՐՋԵԼ ԸՆԴ ՆՄԱ, եւ սի Րեաց ԶՄԻԱՅՆԱՒՈՐՈՒԹ ԵԱՆ Կեանս՝ ՁԵՌՆ ԱԴՐԵՍՑԷ ԵՒ ՏԱՑԷ նմա ե ՊԻՍԿՈՊՈՍ Զսուրբ ՈՐ ԴԻՆ ԻՒՐ, ԶՈՐ ԵՏ ԱԾել ԻՆՔՆ՝ ԶԱՌԻՍտակէս: ԶՈՐ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐԵԱՑ

|| …

tabula xii

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

209

Ms. A-491, ff. 38v–43r (§§ 873–874, pp. 459.14–460.13)

…|| [§873 …] եւ ի զինուորական կողմանէն՝ զչորեսին գահերէցսն իւրոյ տաճարին որ բդեաշխք կոչին.զառաջին սահմանակալն ի նոր շիրականի կողմանէ, եւ զերկրորդ սահմանակլն յասորեստանեայց կողմանէն, եւ զերրորդն՝ յարուաստան

1

Եան: եւ այլ բազում մեծ

2

Ամեաւք եւ եւթանա

3

նասուն հազարաւ ընտիր

4 5 6 7

Ընտիր զաւրու հան դերձ՝ խաղայր գնայր Յայրարատ գաւարէ Ի վաղարշապաՏ

210

aleksidze and chitunashvili

Tabula XII

Ms. A-491, ff. 38v–43r (§§ 873–874, pp. 459.14–460.13) (cont.)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

կողմանէն, զչորորդն՝ ի մասքթ Աց կողմանէ. Զմ ԵԾ իշխանն անգեղ ՏԱՆ, ԵՒ ԶԹԱԳԱ Դիր ասպետն, եւ զ ՍպԱՐԱՊԵՏՆ ՄԵԾ, ԵՒ զիշխանն մոկաց,

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

եւ զիշխանն սիւնեաց, ԵՒ զիշխանն ռշտունեաց, ԵՒ ՄԱՂխազու Թեան տանն եւ Զշահապն զահա Պիվանին, եւ զի Շխանն սպասկապետութ

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ՔԱՂԱՔԷ՝ անցանել Ի ՍԱՀՄԱՆՍ ՅՈՒՆԱՑ: [§874] Զանց առնէր զբազում ԱՒԹԵՒԱՆԱՒՔ մեծաւ ուրախութեամբ: ԵՒ Ի ԲԱԶՈՒՄ ՊԱՏԻՒս պատրաստութեան հպատակութեան ըստ քաղաքաց քաղաքաց դիպելոց եւ շխանաց պատահելոց, զտանէին մեծարանս ընդունելութեան: ընդ ցամաք եւ ընդ ծով փութացեալ աճապարէին մինչ երթային հասանէին⟨…⟩

|| …

Bibliography A. Topchyan, “The Vienna Palimpsest of Agathangelos’ History” in Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve (septembre 2003), ed. V. Somers (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 56; Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009): pp. 233–243. Ագաթանգեղոս, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, աշխատ. Գ. Տեր–Մկրտչյան եւ Ս. Կանայանց (Տփղիս, 1909) [Agathangelos, History of the Armenians, eds. G. Ter-Mkrtchyan and S. Kanayants (Tiflis, 1909)]. Գ. Գալէմքերեան, Ագաթանգեղոսի կրկնագիր բնագիրը (Հուշարձան, 1911) [G. Galemkerean, Palimpsest Manuscript of Agathangelos (Monument, 1911)]. Պ. Մ. Մուրադյան, Ագաթանգելոսի հին վրացերեն թարգմանություններ (Երեվան, 1982) [P.M. Muradyan, The Old Georgian Translation of Agathangelos (Yerevan, 1982)]. Յ. Տաշեան, Ցուցակ հայերէն ձեռագրաց (Վիեննա, 1895) = Jacobus Dashean, Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-Bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1891).

chapter 12

La Lettre de Giwt à Vačʽē (464): hellénisme et arts libéraux en Arménie dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle Jean-Pierre Mahé

Attribuée entre le XIIIe et le XVIIIe siècles à différents Movsēs (Kałankatuacʽi, Dasxurancʽi, Ałuanicʽ), l’Histoire des Albaniens1 est en réalité une compilation anonyme du VIIIe siècle, composée de deux livres (HA I-II), auxquels un inconnu a ajouté un troisième livre (HA III) au Xe s. Aux anciennes chroniques qu’ il a reprises, le compilateur du VIIIe siècle a joint des informations générales sur l’Arménie, le plus souvent tirées de Movsēs Xorenacʽi, ainsi que certains documents rares, encore accessibles à son époque : la Lettre de Giwt Arahezacʽi, patriarche d’Arménie (461-478) à Vačʽē, roi d’Albanie caucasienne (HA I, 11), la liste des rois d’Albanie caucasienne (HA I, 15), les canons du synode d’ Ałuēn (HA I, 26), l’élégie funèbre du prince J̌uansēr par le poète Dawtʽak (HA II, 35). La Lettre de Giwt à Vačʽē est doublement intéressante. D’ une part à cause de l’histoire et de la personnalité du destinataire, de l’ autre par ce qu’ elle nous apprend sur la culture littéraire de son auteur et sur la connaissance des arts libéraux en Arménie dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle. Dans son livre, De la bataille d’Awarayr au traité de Nuarsak, dont il avait eu la bonté de m’offrir un exemplaire dédicacé, rappelant le nom de son arrièregrand-père, Tēr Aṙakʽel Iwzbašeancʽ, archiprêtre du monastère des Łazanlecʽikʽ de Šuši, Karen Yuzbašyan avait brièvement évoqué le destin exemplaire du roi Vačʽē2.

1 Texte critique : Movsēs Kałankatuacʽi, Patmutʽiwn Ałuanicʽ ašxarhi, éd. V. Arakelyan (Érévan : Matenadaran, 1983). Traduction anglaise : Ch.J.F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxurancʽi (Oriental Series 8 ; London: Oxford University Press, 1961), d’ après un texte critique établi par le traducteur. L’épithète Kałankatuacʽi vient de HA II, 11: elle est attestée pour la première fois chez Kirakos Ganjakecʽi (1200-1271). Le toponyme Dasxuran n’est même pas mentionné dans HA. Movsēs Ałuanicʽ se lit chez Mxitʽar Ayrivanecʽi vers 1289. 2 Կ. Յուզբաշյան, Ավարայրի Ճակատամարտից դեպի Նվարսակի Պայմանագիրը (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ, 1989) [K. Yuzbašyan, De la bataille d’Avarayr au traité de Nvar-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_014

212

mahé

Fils aîné du roi Arsuałēn, et d’une fille du Sassanide Yazdgard II, Vačʽē avait été constraint par son grand-père maternel de se convertir au zoroastrisme. À la mort du roi des rois, en 457, il profite de la rivalité de ses deux oncles, Hormizd et Péroz, pour revenir au christianisme, «jugeant préférable de mourir au combat, plutôt que de régner dans l’apostasie»3. Par cette rébellion ouverte, Vačʽē s’expose à de sévères représailles dès que la succession du trône de Perse sera réglée: Tandis que la confusion persistait dans la troupe des Aryas, un certain Ṙahat4, du clan des Mihrean, qui était le tuteur du fils cadet de Yazdgard, vint attaquer le fils aîné du roi avec une forte armée : il défit ses soldats, les massacra, fit prisonnier le fils du roi et le tua sur le champ. Puis il convainquit les survivants de rallier la troupe des Aryas et fit couronner son pupille nommé Péroz. Refusant d’être à nouveau réduit en servitude, le roi d’ Albanie caucasienne ouvrit une brèche dans les portes de Čʽoł5 et il y fit passer de ce côté-ci les forces des Mazkʽutʽ6. Il prit pour allié les onze rois des peuples montagnards7, livra bataille à la troupe des Aryas et causa maints dommages aux forces royales. (Péroz) eut beau lui écrire à deux ou trois reprises, de pressantes lettres officielles, il ne réussit pas à le ramener à l’obéissance. Au contraire, par écrit aussi bien que par ses émissaires, (Vačʽē ne cessait de) lui reprocher d’avoir ruiné sans motif légitime le pays d’Arménie. Il lui rappelait la mort des dynastes et les supplices infligés aux prisonniers: «Au lieu de leur accorder la vie, pour leur amitié leurs services, vous avez écourté leurs jours. Mieux vaut pour moi périr dans les tourments que de vivre dans le reniement ».

3 4 5

6 7

sak (Érévan, 1989)], pp. 217-218. Sur le règne de ce monarque, voir aussi M. Bais, Albania Caucasica. Ethnos, storia, territorio attraverso le fonti greche, latine e armene (Milano: Assoziazione Culturale Mimesis, 2001), pp. 126-127. HA I, 10 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 15, l. 15). Variante Ṙalam. Sur la côte occidentale de la Caspienne, au bord du fleuve Samur; cf. S.T. Eremyan, Hayastanə əst « Ašxarhacʽoycʽ»-i [L’ Arménie selon la Géographie (d’Anania de Chirak)] (Érévan: Académie, 1963), p. 76 (et carte B 8). Le long de la Caspienne, entre le fleuve Samur et le fleuve Saporan; cf. Eremyan, L’Arménie selon la Géographie, p. 64 (et carte B 8). Probablement les alliés traditionnels des Mazkʽutʽ, dans le nord-est du Caucase; voir la liste dans N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories Attributed to Pʽawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutʽiwnkʽ) (Cambridge Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 390 s.v. Mazkʽutʽkʽ.

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

213

Quand (les Perses) comprirent qu’ils ne pourraient le gagner ni par la violence ni par la douceur, ils firent porter un énorme trésor au pays des Xaylandurkʽ8. Ils ouvrirent les portes des Alains9 et, recrutant une forte troupe de Huns, ils guerroyèrent une année contre le roi d’ Albanie caucasienne. Quoique l’armée de celui-ci se fût éclaircie ou dispersée, ils ne parvinrent pas à le faire changer d’avis. En revanche, ils essuyèrent de bien grandes pertes, tantôt au combat, tantôt par de cruelles maladies qui les épuisèrent. Comme la traque se prolongeait, le Mec Kołmn10 du royaume fut dévasté, mais nul ne se détacha de lui. Alors le roi Péroz envoya un émissaire à Vačʽē: «Fais moi ramener ma sœur et les fils de ma sœur11 qui sont près de toi, car ils étaient zoroastriens de naissance et tu les as rendus chrétiens. Ton pays, je te le laisse ». En réalité ce bienheureux ne luttait pas pour le pouvoir; il combattait pour la piété. Cependant, il lui fit ramener sa mère et son épouse12, et lui laissa même le pays tout entier. Quant à lui, prenant l’ évangile, il se disposait à partir. Apprenant cela, Péroz, le roi des Perses, fut saisi de remords. Rejetant toute la responsabilité sur son père (Yazdgard), il scella et lui fit porter un serment sincère: «Pourvu que tu ne quittes pas le pays, je ferai tout ce que tu diras». Mais (Vačʽē) n’accepta que sa part personnelle, les mille foyers13 qu’il avait hérités de son père : voilà tout ce qu’ il reçut du roi (Péroz). Il s’y installa, en compagnie de moines. C’ est ainsi qu’ il vécut pour Dieu, sans occupation (terrestre). Il oublia tout à fait qu’ il avait été roi. Telle fut son existence14. 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

Cf. Ełišē (E. Tēr Minasean, Ełišēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʽ paterazmin [E. Ter Minasean, Yéghichê, Sur la guerre de Vardan et des Arméniens] (Érévan: Maténadaran, 1957), p. 12; R.W. Thomson, Ełishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 66). Localisation discutée par J. Marquart, Ērânšahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenacʽi (Berlin : Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1901), pp. 56, 98. C’ est-à-dire le col du Darial. Ainsi, les Perses et leurs alliés montagnards prennent à revers d’ ouest en est les Albaniens et leurs alliés caucasiens du nord-est. Non pas « a great part of the country », comme l’ écrit Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 10, car Mec Kołmn est un nom propre: Aṙakʽelyan (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 17, l. 4) l’ écrit, à juste titre, avec des majuscules. Par opposition au Bun Ałuankʽ, sur la rive gauche de la Kura, au nord, le Mec Kołmn désigne les provinces arméniennes du royaume, au sud du fleuve, sur la rive droite, où se concentrent les zones les plus construites et les plus prospères. C’ est-à-dire la mère de Vačʽē, qui est fille de Yazdgard (le père de Péroz), et les frères cadets du roi d’ Albanie. Quelque princesse iranienne qu’ on lui avait imposée. Erd, c’ est-à-dire la lucarne de la pièce du foyer, symbole de la grande famille rurale. HA I, 10 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 15, l. 16-p. 17, l. 18).

214

mahé

Il est douteux que Péroz, qui avait assassiné son frère Hormizd pour s’ emparer du trône, ait éprouvé le moindre scrupule à l’ égard de Vačʽē, le fils de sa sœur, à qui il venait de livrer pendant plus d’un an une guerre sans merci. On ne peut à la fois regretter sa conduite et rejeter la faute sur son prédécesseur. Mais, dans les familles patriarcales (gerdastan), et plus encore dans les maisons royales, les sœurs ne sont que des monnaies d’échange, qu’ on donne et qu’ on reprend si le marché échoue. À la différence de ceux des frères, leurs fils ne sont pas des rivaux potentiels sur la route du pouvoir, car ils restent extérieurs à leur clan maternel, et appartiennent de plein droit à la famille de leur père, où l’ on peut toujours les renvoyer. En récupérant la mère et les frères cadets de Vačʽē, c’ est-à-dire sa sœur et ses neveux, qu’il détache ainsi du christianisme, Péroz rabaisse l’ ex-roi d’ Albanie au rang de simple personne privée qui, par dévote humilité, ne se souvient même plus de son trône. Il est vrai qu’il lui rend ses biens propres. Mais les mille familles paysannes qui travaillent au service de l’ ancien monarque ne lui procurent pas un revenu princier, puisque le fruit de leur labeur pourvoit à l’entretien d’une communauté monastique15. Vačʽē n’aurait même pas les moyens de se réarmer, si jamais il changeait d’avis. La minuscule enclave chrétienne où il s’est réfugié n’empêche pas les Sassanides de favoriser les apostats et de maintenir leur pression sur les chrétiens dans le reste du pays. Tout en respectant les formes du droit, Péroz est donc arrivé à ses fins. Voué au célibat monastique, Vačʽē n’aura aucune descendance. En revanche, l’ héritier légitime du trône d’Albanie caucasienne, son frère cadet appelé Yazdgard, comme son grand-père maternel, est élevé à la cour de Perse dans le zoroastrisme. Le grand roi peut le garder sous tutelle ou le rétablir sur le trône quand il le jugera opportun. En attendant, lui-même gère de plein droit le royaume d’Albanie caucasienne, transformé en province perse. En réalité, Péroz n’a nullement l’intention de rétablir la royauté albanienne. C’ est pourquoi le jeune Yazdgard n’a jamais régné et son fils, Vačʽagan, n’ aurait lui non plus jamais accédé au trône sans la défaite perse de 483 et l’ avènement de Valaš16. Avant de se résoudre à vivre son christianisme, à titre personnel, entouré des siens, sans souci du monde extérieur, Vačʽē avait rêvé de le faire partager à tout son royaume. Mais le destin de l’Albanie caucasienne de son temps, qui comprend désormais les provinces arméniennes du sud de la Kura17, est, à 15 16 17

Ou, pour tenir compte des conditions de l’ époque, d’un groupe d’ermites faiblement structuré. R. Grousset, Histoire de l’ Arménie (Paris : Payot, 1947), pp. 226-229. L’ Utikʽ semble avoir été transféré de l’ Arménie à l’ Albanie caucasienne peu après l’aboli-

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

215

ses yeux, indissolublement lié à celui de l’Arménie tout entière. La tyrannie de son grand-père Yazdgard II, qui l’a contraint, dans son enfance, à renier la foi chrétienne, s’est également déchaînée contre les dynastes arméniens, tués en combattant pour le Christ, torturés à mort ou retenus prisonniers en Perse, jusqu’aux confins de l’Asie centrale. L’insurrection de Vardan Mamikonean et l’ irrédentisme de ses successeurs sont le modèle qui l’ incite à profiter de la rivalité de ses deux oncles, Hormizd et Péroz, pour se révolter en revendiquant toutes les prérogatives de son trône. À une époque où le patriarche albanien18 siège encore à Kapałak, capitale de l’ ancien royaume, Vačʽē fonde en 461 la résidence royale de Pérozabad, la future Partaw19, au centre du nouveau royaume, dans la province d’ Utikʽ. Au même moment Péroz, qui ne désespère pas encore d’étouffer la révolte dans l’ œuf en intimidant le jeune roi ou en le gagnant par quelque concession, juge opportun de libérer les derniers princes arméniens retenus en Perse. Cependant, loin de s’apaiser, le conflit s’exaspère. Trois ans plus tard, après la défaite de Vačʽē, son abdication et sa retraite monastique, le patriarche arménien Giwt Arahezacʽi (461-478), ardent partisan de l’union des chrétiens du Caucase contre les pressions zoroastriennes, écrit au vaillant confesseur de la foi20 en lui rappelant le baptême de son ancêtre Uṙnayr (après 364), qu’ il situe à l’ époque de Tiridate (avant 330) et de saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur, ce qui est un anachronisme évident. En effet, il est tout à fait impossible que le premier roi chrétien d’ Albanie caucasienne ait jamais rencontré saint Grégoire. Uṙnayr est un contemporain du roi Pap (367-374), quatre générations après Tiridate IV21. Allié de Šahpuhr, à la bataille de Bagawan, au pied du mont Npat, vers 371, il demande au roi des

18

19 20 21

tion de la monarchie arsacide en 428 ; l’ Arcʽax, plus au sud, reste arménien jusqu’en 451. Cf. C. Mutafian, E. van Lauwe, Atlas historique de l’ Arménie. Proche-Orient et Sud-Caucase du VIIIe s. avant J.-C. au XXIe s. (Paris: Autrement, 2001), p. 38; P. Donabédian, C. Mutafian, Artsakh, histoire du Karabagh (Paris : Sevig Press, 1991), pp. 11-13. La liste patriarcale (HA III, 23) ne cite aucun nom entre le catholicos Eremia, qui accueille Maštocʽ à la cour d’ Arsuałēn vers 422 (HA II, 3), et Abas, qui entre en fonction 130 ans plus tard, de 552 à 596. HA I, 15. HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 17, l. 20-p. 28, l. 21). Comme C. Toumanoff, “The Third-Century Arsacids: A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary,” RÉA 6 (1969) : pp. 233-281, nous distinguons Tiridate III (293-298), protégé des Perses, de Tiridate IV (298-330), protégé des Romains; voir la généalogie des Arsacides d’ Arménie dans C. Toumanoff, Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne de l’Antiquité jusqu’ au XIXe siècle. Tables généalogiques et chronologiques (Rome, 1990), pp. 85-86; sur les Arsacides d’ Albanie, voir ibidem, pp. 91-92.

216

mahé

Perses la faveur d’affronter personnellement les Arméniens. Prévenu par Meružan Arcruni, le sparapet Mušeł Mamikonean «tend une embuscade à la troupe des Albaniens et anéantit toutes leurs forces. Rattrapant leur roi Uṙnayr, qui avait pris la fuite, il lui assène sur le crâne maints coups du bois de sa lance en lui disant: ‘Tiens toi heureux d’être roi et de porter couronne, car je ne saurais tuer un roi, même s’il devait m’en cuire!’ Là-dessus, il le laisse échapper avec huit cavaliers et regagner le royaume d’Albanie caucasienne »22. Reconnaissant, Uṙnayr prévient Mušeł d’une seconde attaque perse ; celle-ci est repoussée à la bataille de Jiraw23. Cependant Pap considère comme une trahison la conduite chevaleresque du sparapet, et son successeur Varazdat (374-378) fait assassiner Mušeł. Si Uṙnayr, allié à Šahpuhr II dès 359, au siège d’ Amida / Diyarbakır24, demeurait encore fidèle à l’alliance perse en 371, c’est sans doute parce qu’ il était toujours païen. Sa conversion est donc postérieure d’ un bon demi-siècle à la retraite ascétique de l’Illuminateur vers 320. Faudrait-il alors admettre que le roi d’Albanie caucasienne, prétendument baptisé par saint Grégoire est un autre Uṙnayr25? Cela serait tout à fait invraisemblable. Tout d’ abord on voit mal comment l’Uṙnayr païen de 371 entrerait dans la même lignée qu’ un prédécesseur chrétien supposé, vers 314-320, et que des successeurs chrétiens avérés dès le début du Ve siècle. Plus encore, la liste des rois albaniens depuis Vačʽagan Ier le Vaillant, au début du IVe siècle, jusqu’à Vačʽagan III le Pieux (mort vers 510), ne contient qu’un seul Uṙnayr, successeur de Vačʽē Ier (vers 330), et prédécesseur de Vačʽagan II vers 40026. On doit donc admettre que la tradition rapportée par le patriarche Giwt dans sa lettre à Vačʽē Ier après 461, n’a aucune consistance historique. Elle montre simplement que la résistance solidaire des Albaniens et des Arméniens contre les persécutions mazdéennes, ainsi que l’inclusion de provinces arméniennes dans le royaume d’Albanie caucasienne, avaient fait croire qu’ Uṙnayr était un émule et contemporain de Tiridate IV. Prenant pour acquise cette tradition fabuleuse, Giwt, qui désire, en guise de prologue, décrire convenablement les vertus célestes du premier roi chrétien d’Albanie caucasienne, se sent pris du vertige de l’ ineffable. Comme Pierre,

22 23 24 25 26

Buz. V, 4 (Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, p. 193). Buz. V, 5 (Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, pp. 194-196). Movsēs Xorenacʽi III, 37 (dont s’inspire HA I, 13) confond les deux batailles de Bagawan et de Jiraw. Ammien Marcelin XVIII, 6, 22. XIX, 2, 3. C’ est l’ hypothèse d’ Akinean (Handēs Amsōreay 1953, fasc 4-6, p. 166); mais il est réfuté par Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, pp. 7-8, n. 6. HA I, 15.

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

217

marchant sur les eaux, aurait succombé à sa crainte si le Christ ne lui avait tendu la main, lui-même sombrerait dans l’abîme de l’ indicible si le Verbe ne lui permettait pas d’exprimer la pensée de son intellect en le fortifiant par les trois vertus théologales: Ainsi donc, de ce que j’avais craint, je m’approche grâce à la charité, j’ y accède par l’espérance, je m’y fixe avec une foi intrépide et je commence par où il convient de commencer. De même que, jadis, l’ amour du Christ s’établit à demeure en votre ancêtre Uṙnayr, il lui inspira une céleste émulation avec Tiridate, le roi d’Arménie. Dès qu’ il apprit les immenses prodiges de Dieu, les signes et les miracles qui avaient été accomplis par saint Grégoire au pays d’Arménie – en sorte que les nôtres s’ étaient sur le champ détournés des multiples sentiers de la voie de l’ erreur pour (se convertir) au vrai Dieu unique et, rejetant par la connaissance et l’ amitié de Dieu le joug lourd et importun des païens, avaient battu des ailes avec légèreté, pris leur essor et volé jusqu’aux cieux – quand donc le vaillant Uṙnayr eut appris tout cela, sans perdre un instant, sans différer, fût-ce par l’envoi d’un messager à son service, ce grand roi se rendit lui-même, avec ses plus grands dynastes et une troupe nombreuse, au pays d’ Arménie ; il vint se présenter au roi Tiridate, fort comme un géant. Celui-ci le reçut en frère, avec affection et amitié, se mettant tout entier à sa disposition: il lui dévoila et lui exposa, en compagnie de saint Grégoire et de toute la multitude des troupes arméniennes, les mystères du dedans et du dehors. S’inclinant, le vieux roi se prosternait, étreignant les pieds et les mains de saint Grégoire. Il relatait tout l’égarement des païens et confessait lui-même les péchés et les transgressions (qu’ il avait commis) dans l’ignorance. Saint Grégoire lui donnait pour encouragement l’ avènement charnel du Fils de Dieu, venu pour pardonner et non pour condamner, pour rendre la vie et non pour provoquer la mort, et il lui promettait la vie pour ceux d’autrefois qui ont quitté cette terre. Entendant cela, le vieux roi et tous les soldats qui l’escortaient se livrèrent à quarante jours de jeûne, renonçant à leurs blâmables forfaits de naguère. Le cinquantième jour, quand ils eurent renoncé à Satan et à toutes ses œuvres, puis confessé le culte de la sainte Trinité, le roi descendit dans l’ eau très sainte avec toute son armée. Alors le pontife les rendit parfaits en vue de la nouvelle naissance par adoption céleste; ils sortirent tous ensemble, emplis de l’Esprit saint. Au même instant leur fut accordée (l’ aide) d’ un bienheureux, consacré évêque dans la ville de Rome, qui était venu (en Arménie) avec le roi Tiridate.

218

mahé

Comblé de ces bienfaits célestes, le roi Uṙnayr revint au pays d’ Albanie caucasienne: il instruisit (ses sujets) et les rendit parfaits selon les canons apostoliques. Tous reçurent le sceau du ciel et furent inscrits dans le Livre de Vie. Les démons du pays furent chassés, les sacrifices et leurs fumées furent interrompus, l’erreur fut couverte de honte, la vérité fut exaltée, la lumière invisible régna, les ténèbres retorses furent écartées. On institua les prémices de l’église, la dîme des récoltes, de l’ aire à battre et du pressoir, des champs et des greniers, des troupeaux de moutons et de tous animaux domestiques. Bien plus (l’église) reçut en lot une part du territoire et cette règle équitable fut adoptée et confirmée au temps de vos ancêtres, de ton bienheureux père et de tes éminents aïeux et aïeules, jusqu’à l’époque de ton règne prodigieux27. La constance des Albaniens désespère les démons. Seraient-ils entrés définitivement dans la voie du salut? Le dragon, leur chef, tient à les rassurer. Si jadis l’ engeance des démons vainquit Adam, le premier père, au moyen d’ une faible bête28, combien plus ils triompheront de ses fils, grâce au grand roi des Perses! Là-dessus, une mer d’ennemis, une forêt de lances s’ abat sur l’ Albanie caucasienne, essuyant maints revers, sans même en avoir honte. « Celui qui siège dans les cieux des cieux, qui observe le monde entier, surveillant et pesant les conduites vertueuses et ceux qui s’y opposent a vu en toi le seul qui reste pieux»29. Toute la suite du discours de Giwt est un éloge des mérites du roi Vačʽē, vaillant martyr qui s’est élevé jusqu’aux cieux. On peut se demander si le texte est authentique, s’ il s’ agit bien d’ une lettre et, dans ce cas, à quel moment elle aurait été envoyée. D’ un point de vue strictement chronologique, il n’y a rien d’invraisemblable à ce que Giwt ait correspondu avec le roi d’Albanie caucasienne. En effet, il accède au siège patriarcal au moment où Vačʽē, encore sur le trône, fonde Pérozabad. Quelle que soit la date30 à laquelle on situe l’abdication du monarque, entre 461 et 464, l’ échange peut facilement avoir eu lieu, avant ou après. 27 28

29 30

HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 18, l. 13-p. 20, l. 15). Il faut naturellement préférer ici la leçon gazanov « bête» (le serpent est un θηρίον), retenue par Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 12, à gawazanawn «verge, bâton », choisie par Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 21, l. 6. HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 21, l. 18-p. 22, l. 1). Hay žołovrdi Patmutʽiwn, t. 2 (Érévan: Académie, 1984), p. 194 choisit la date de 461, Toumanoff (Les dynasties, p. 92)—indique 463. Vačʽē abdiqua durant la cinquième année de Péroz, c’ est-à-dire normalement en 464, puisque Péroz commence son règne, non pas à la mort de Yazdgard en 457, mais deux ans plus tard, en 459, après l’assassinat de son frère Hormizd.

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

219

Le style de l’écrit correspond au jugement que porte Łazar Pʽarpecʽi sur les compétences intellectuelles du patriarche Giwt : il était « plein de science en arménien, et plus encore en grec»31. Né dans le Taykʽ, le patriarche devait pratiquer couramment les deux langues depuis l’enfance, comme la plupart des habitants du littoral pontique. En tout cas, son discours se pique d’ hellénisme. Sans correspondre exactement au programme classique des sept arts libéraux, qui ne s’impose guère en Arménie qu’à l’époque d’ Anania Širakacʽi32, après 670, le parcours qu’il propose – arithmétique, géométrie, astrologie et médecine33 – comme prélude à l’exégèse de l’Écriture sainte, divisée en « livres prophétiques», «apostoliques» et «évangiles», suggère des liens directs avec la culture byzantine, seule capable à l’époque de proposer de tels enseignements. L’ indépendance relative des arts littéraires «rhétorique» et « philosophie » mentionnés incidemment34 est relativement archaïque. En Occident, ce n’est pas avant Cassiodore (fin du VIe s.) et Isidore de Séville (VIIe s.) que le trivium et le quadrivium ont été réunis35. Le programme décrit par l’ auteur est donc parfaitement possible, aux confins de Byzance, à la fin du Ve siècle. Argumentant que le roi Vačʽē surpasse même le soleil, Giwt rappelle que l’ astre du jour cause toutes sortes de dommages à la végétation, et conclut 31 32

33

34

35

Łazar Pʽarpecʽi ch. 62 (110) : R.W. Thomson, The History of Łazar Pʽarpecʽi (Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), p. 162. Cf. J.-P. Mahé, “Quadrivium et cursus d’ études au VIIe siècle en Arménie et dans le monde byzantin, d’ après le Kʽnnikon d’ Anania Širakacʽi,” TM 10 (1987): pp. 159-206, here pp. 159, 166 ; C. Zuckerman, “Jerusalem as the Centre of the Earth in Anania Sirakacʽi’s Asxarhacʽoycʽ,” in The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, ed. M.E. Stone (Hebrew University Armenian Studies 4 ; Louvain: Peeters, 2002): pp. 255-274, ici p. 268, observe que le Kʽnnikon d’ Anania contenant l’ exposé du Quadrivium ne fut achevé que quelques années après la mort du catholicos Anastase (667). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 23, ll. 15-16). La mention de la médecine à la fin de cette liste est surprenante: à cette place, on attendrait normalement un quatrième art mathématique, c’ est-à-dire la musique. Faudrait-il supposer une confusion ancienne des copistes entre bžškakanin et eražštakanin? La correction qui en résulterait serait assez lourde, mais bien justifiée pour le fond. Si l’on s’y refuse, on pourrait défendre le texte reçu en supposant une application médicale de l’astronomie; cf. J. Jouanna, J.-P. Mahé, « Une anthologie médicale arménienne et ses parallèles grecs,» Comptes Rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris: de Boccard, 2004): pp. 549-598, here pp. 553-554, 562-567, à propos du traité attribué en arménien au médecin Asclépiade. HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 27, ll. 14-17): «Si tous les philosophes rhétoriciens du pays des Grecs s’ assemblaient en un seul lieu, ils seraient incapables de prononcer comme il convient l’ éloge de tes victoires conduites par l’Esprit Saint ». I. Hadot, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1984), pp. 191, 207.

220

mahé

« c’est à juste titre que les Grecs l’ont nommé Apollon »36. Cette remarque sousentend un rapprochement avec ἀπόλλυμι («détruire »). Il n’y a donc aucune raison de contester l’attribution du texte à Giwt Arahezecʽi. Toutefois, on peut discuter s’il s’agit bien d’ une lettre: son contenu s’ apparente plutôt à l’éloge ou au panégyrique. Mais le mot lui-même (govutʽiwn) n’apparaît que timidement à la fin du document37. On remarquera la saveur archaïque de ce terme, équivalent pour le sens au grec ἐγκώμιον, que les traducteurs hellénisants des VIe-VIIe siècles calqueront par nerboł38. En revanche l’intention parénétique est évidente dès le début : « Je proférerai ces quelques encouragements et je pénétrerai l’impénétrable»39. Giwt entend raviver, à l’adresse de Vačʽē, les exhortations que l’ Illuminateur prodigua jadis à son ancêtre Uṙnayr. Néanmoins cette parénèse prend une forme épistolaire, comme le montrent les salutations du début (ołǰoyn)40, de la péroraison (i Tēr berkril)41 et de la fin (ołǰ linelov i Kʽristos)42. Certains passages pourraient donner l’impression que le roi d’ Albanie caucasienne, toujours sur son trône, est encouragé à poursuivre le combat héroïque qu’il mène pour la foi. «Dans le pays de tes pères, la foi a été préservée, les églises sont restées debout; les chapelles des martyrs, en paix ; les prêtres, à leur sacerdoce; les offrandes, sur les autels; les prophètes, à leurs leçons ; les apôtres, à consoler; les psalmistes, à bénir; les vierges, dans la virginité; les baptisés, dans la sainteté, et chacun à son rang»43. On croirait l’ image tranquille d’une société chrétienne vivant sous la protection de son souverain. Mais en fait cet idéal n’a connu qu’un éphémère début de réalisation durant les premières années du gouvernement de Vačʽē, avant la guerre sans merci déclenchée par Péroz. Bientôt, tout le pays a été dévasté et, après l’ abdication du roi, la paix religieuse ne subsiste plus que dans la minuscule enclave que Vačʽē tient par héritage paternel. C’est en réalité à ce moment là que le patriarche lui écrit. Précédemment, il l’a rencontré à plusieurs reprises, et maintenant il «le recommande à l’Esprit Saint» par son « intercession et celle de

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 24, ll. 17-18). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 27, ll. 13-14, 16). Composé de ner- (= ἐν) et de -boł (interprétation arménienne du radical de κώμη, également attestée dans pʽoł-ocʽ « rue, faubourg »), le terme hellénisant nerboł est un calque de ἐγκώμιον. Au contraire, govutʽiwn, qui n’est pas un calque mais une traduction ad sensum, confirme la datation au Ve siècle. HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 18, ll. 6-7). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 17, l. 20). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 27, l. 3). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 28, l. 20). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 25, l. 19-p. 26, l. 3).

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

221

toute la sainte congrégation de l’Église»44. En apparence, le roi a tout perdu, mais son «martyre» n’a pas été vain. Il a réveillé invisiblement l’ enthousiasme de tous les chrétiens du Caucase. «Bienheureux es-tu et bienheureux ceux qui sont proches de toi! Tu n’étais qu’un petit nombre, tu es devenu multitude ; tu étais petit par ce qui se voit, tu es devenu innombrable par ce qui ne se voit pas»45. Quoiqu’il ait renoncé «à la grandeur terrestre, occasion de péché »46, et qu’il ait tout quitté comme le prescrit l’Évangile47, il poursuit encore, dans sa solitude monastique, le combat contre le dragon48, qu’ il avait engagé en luttant contre le roi des Perses. Que peut-on demander à un monarque détrôné? La Lettre de Giwt n’a aucune visée pratique. Il n’attend rien de Vačʽē, que le rayonnement de son ascèse. L’exaltation de son héroïsme tend moins à consoler le roi lui-même, qui fuyait le souvenir de son règne, qu’à édifier les chrétiens d’ Arménie, à leur donner un exemple, à leur rendre l’espoir, tout en encourageant l’ union des chrétiens du Caucase contre l’oppression sassanide. L’idéalisme de cette démarche désintéressée rend l’évocation du baptême d’ Uṙnayr d’ autant plus significative. Ce n’est pas pour étendre sa juridiction sur l’ Église albanienne que le patriarche arménien l’attribue à Grégoire l’ Illuminateur, mais simplement pour se faire l’écho d’une opinion déjà courante à son époque. Ce document, certainement authentique, ne nous renseigne pas seulement sur les tensions religieuses qui prévalent en Arménie et dans l’ Albanie caucasienne, durant l’intervalle qui sépare la bataille d’ Awarayr (451) du traité de Nuarsak (484). Comme l’a magistralement exposé Karen Yuzbašyan, les Perses, obligés de temporiser, livrent une guerre d’usure au christianisme caucasien, en confiant systématiquement l’administration du pays à des apostats, qui prennent la place des autorités nationales coutumières49. Pour lutter contre cette influence insidieuse, la hiérarchie chrétienne ne dispose que d’armes idéologiques. Son discours se nourrit nécessairement de la science ecclésiastique de l’époque, fortement influencée par la tradition byzantine. Ce que nous apprend la Lettre de Giwt, c’ est que le système des arts libéraux codifié en Arménie à la fin du VIIe siècle d’ après les traditions alexandrines et constantinopolitaines qu’Anania Širakacʽi avait héritées de

44 45 46 47 48 49

HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 26, ll. 17-19). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 22, ll. 10-12). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 28, l. 2). Mt 19,29 ; cf. HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 25, ll. 10-11). HA I, 11 (Առաքելյան, Մովսես Կաղանկատվացի, p. 26, ll. 11-12). Յուզբաշյան, Ավարայրի, p. 239.

222

mahé

son maître Tychikos50, a des racines chronologiquement plus profondes. Le témoignage de Giwt nous révèle ce qu’on commençait à savoir en Arménie de l’ ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία byzantine dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle. Il semble bien qu’à cette époque, ceux qui connaissaient suffisamment le grec (car il n’y avait pas encore de traductions arméniennes) étudiaient d’abord la grammaire et la rhétorique puis la philosophie, qui unit étroitement la dialectique aux arts mathématiques. Ces derniers constituent le menu principal, c’est-à-dire la philosophie proprement dite. La dialectique est à la fois « partie et instrument» de la philosophie, qui n’est elle-même qu’ une préparation à la théologie, fondée sur l’exégèse biblique51. Ce sera encore le même itinéraire qui prévaudra à l’ époque d’ Anania, dont le rôle fut essentiellement de rassembler toutes les traditions disponibles et de les compléter lui-même. En effet, les versions arméniennes, dites hellénisantes, des manuels byzantins ne commencent qu’ à partir des années 570 et s’ achèvent au début du VIIIe siècle52. Nous en avons l’indice dans ce que nous apprend Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʽi (899-925)53, sur l’éducation du catholicos Yovhannēs Awjnec’ i (717-728): « Il était habile et savant dans toutes les créations rhétoriques, dans les parties du discours et dans les parties de parties, mais aussi dans la doctrine des genres, dans la catégorie de l’essence, de l’emboîtement des espèces jusqu’ à l’ homme individuel. Il n’était pas non plus ignorant des différences, des circonstances et des accidents séparables et inséparables. De même il était très versé dans les exercices rhétoriques de Théon, qui fixent si utilement les fruits de l’ arbre de l’ art, chez celui qui aime l’art»54. Manifestement ces précisions impliquent la traduction en arménien de l’ Organon et de ses commentaires, ainsi que des Progymnasmata de Théon. La Lettre de Giwt esquisse le tableau de la situation antérieure.

50

51 52

53

54

Nous sommes revenus sur l’ œuvre d’ Anania dans un colloque à la mémoire de Paul Lemerle, tenu au Collège de France les 23-24 octobre 2013. Cf. J.-P. Mahé, “L’âge obscur de la science byzantine et les traductions arméniennes hellénisantes vers 570-730,” TM XXI/2 (2017): pp. 75-86. Mahé, “Quadrivium,” pp. 163-164. A. Terian, “Hellenizing School. Its Time, Place and Scope of Activities Reconsidered,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, red. Th.F. Mathews, R.W. Thomson (Washington, 1982) : pp. 175-186. Sur la chronologie des catholicos arméniens du Xe siècle, voir C. Zuckerman, “Catholicos Anania of Mokkʽ on Himself and on Armenia’s Rulers,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, TM 18 (2014) : pp. 843-851, ici pp. 844-845. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʽi, ch. 22: P. Boisson-Chenorhokian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʽi, Histoire d’ Arménie, CSCO 605 (Louvain : Peeters, 2004), p. 164.

la lettre de giwt à vačʽē

223

Bibliographie M. Bais, Albania Caucasica. Ethnos, storia, territorio attraverso le fonti greche, latine e armene (Milano: Assoziazione Culturale Mimesis, 2001). P. Boisson-Chenorhokian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʽi, Histoire d’Arménie, CSCO 605 (Louvain: Peeters, 2004) P. Donabédian, C. Mutafian, Artsakh, histoire du Karabagh (Paris: Sevig Press, 1991), pp. 11-13. Ch.J.F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxurancʽi (Oriental Series 8; London: Oxford University Press, 1961). S.T. Eremyan, Hayastanə əst «Ašxarhacʽoycʽ»-i [L’Arménie selon la Géographie (d’Anania de Chirak)] (Érévan: Académie, 1963). N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories Attributed to Pʽawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutʽiwnkʽ) (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie (Paris: Payot, 1947). I. Hadot, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1984). Hay žołovrdi Patmutʽiwn, t. 2 (Érévan: Académie, 1984). J. Jouanna, J.-P. Mahé, “Une anthologie médicale arménienne et ses parallèles grecs,” Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris: de Boccard, 2004): pp. 549-598. J.-P. Mahé, “Quadrivium et cursus d’ études au VIIe siècle en Arménie et dans le monde byzantin, d’après le Kʽnnikon d’Anania Širakacʽi,” TM 10 (1987): pp. 159-206. J.-P. Mahé, “L’âge obscur de la science byzantine et les traductions arméniennes hellénisantes vers 570-730,” TM XXI/2 (2017): pp. 75-86. J. Marquart, Ērânšahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenacʽi (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1901). Movsēs Kałankatuacʽi, Patmutʽiwn Ałuanicʽ ašxarhi, ed. V. Arakelyan (Érévan: Matenadaran, 1983). C. Mutafian, E. van Lauwe, Atlas historique de l’Arménie. Proche-Orient et Sud-Caucase du VIIIe s. avant J.-C. au XXIe s. (Paris: Autrement, 2001). E. Tēr Minasean, Ełišēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʽ paterazmin [E. Ter Minasean, Yéghichê, Sur la guerre de Vardan et des Arméniens] (Érévan: Maténadaran, 1957). A. Terian, “Hellenizing School. Its Time, Place and Scope of Activities Reconsidered,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, red. Th.F. Mathews, R.W. Thomson (Washington, 1982). R.W. Thomson, Ełishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982). R.W. Thomson, The History of Łazar Pʽarpecʽi (Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). C. Toumanoff, Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne de l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle. Tables généalogiques et chronologiques (Rome, 1990).

224

mahé

C. Toumanoff, “The Third-Century Arsacids: A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary,” RÉA 6 (1969). C. Zuckerman, “Catholicos Anania of Mokkʽ on Himself and on Armenia’s Rulers,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, TM 18 (2014): pp. 843-851. C. Zuckerman, “Jerusalem as the Centre of the Earth in Anania Širakacʽi’s Ašxarhacʽoycʽ,” in The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, ed. M.E. Stone (Hebrew University Armenian Studies 4; Louvain: Peeters, 2002): pp. 255-274. Կ. Յուզբաշյան, Ավարայրի Ճակատամարտից դեպի Նվարսակի Պայմանա գիրը (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատ, 1989) [K. Yuzbašyan, De la bataille d’Avarayr au traité de Nvarsak (Érévan, 1989)]

chapter 13

A Discourse on the Church by Yovhan Mayragomec‘i Abraham Terian

Yovhan or Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i, also known as Mayravanec‘i (ca. 575– ca. 650), is one of the most distinguished fathers of the Armenian Church. As grand sacristan of the Cathedral of St. Gregory the Illuminator in Dwin, the capital city and seat of the Catholicosate, Mayragomec‘i was embroiled in the Christological controversies that led to the separation of the Georgian Church from the Miaphysites in 608/9 and the aftermath of that schism during the reign of Heraclius (610–641).1 His long tenure in Dwin, which began in the days of Catholicos Komitas (in office 611–628),2 came to an end in 638 when the proChalcedonian Catholicos Ezr (in office 630–641) banished him to Mayragom or Mayravank‘. Chased again by Ezr, Yovhan settled in Gardman, in Caucasian Albania, becoming an ascetic till his death. For being persecuted because of his staunch advocacy of Miaphysitism, the Armenian Church after Ezr came to recognize Yovhan as “confessor” and denounced the rapprochement between Ezr and Heraclius as abomination.3

1 N.G. Garsoïan, L’ Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (CSCO 574, Subsidia, t. 100; Leuven: Peeters, 1999): pp. 355–398, 516–583; M. Tarchnišvili, “Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’ histoire ancienne de l’ Église de Géorgie,” Le Muséon 60 (1947): pp. 29–50. 2 His confirmation by the Sasanian court was probably in 615, at a council in Ctesiphon which he attended with Matt‘ēos, bishop of Amatunik‘. 3 For a short overview of Mayragomec‘i’s life, see Ն. Պողարեան, Հայ գրողներ (Երուսաղէմ: Տպարան Սրբոց Յակոբեանց, 1971) [N. Pogharian, Armenian Writers (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1971)], pp. 67–69. For a comprehensive biography based on all known references to him, see Հ. Մ. Քենդերյան, Հովհան Մայրագոմեցի (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1973) [H.M. Kenderyan, Hovhan Mayragometsi (Erevan: Arm. Academy of Sciences, 1973)]. For an overly critical assessment of his life and work, see A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i: église, droit, et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle (CSCO 606, Subsidia, t. 116; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), pp. 255–268. Połarian surmises that Mayragom (lit., “the stable of Mayri”) could be a derogatory term used by Catholicos Ezr for Mayroy vank‘ (“the monastery of Mayri”). Conversely, the name Ezr (short for Ezras) is derogatory, meaning “edge”, as in having brought the Armenian Church “to the edge” by way of doctrinal compromises to the Byzantines, yielding to imperial pressure under Heraclius.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_015

226

terian

The historian Step‘anos Asołik Tarōnec‘i (d. ca. 1015) ascribes three major works to Mayragomec‘i, none of which is free of authorial questions. (1) Xrat varuc‘ (Counsel for Life), a collection of 44 moral discourses—reduced to 23 early in the course of their textual transmission—attributed in some manuscripts, wrongly it seems, to Catholicos Yovhan(nēs) Mandakuni (in office 484– 490) and to our author in others;4 (2) Hawatarmat (The Root of Faith), possibly a precursor of Knik‘ hawatoy (The Seal of Faith), a florilegium buttressing the fundamental beliefs of the Armenian Church;5 and (3) Noyemak, apparently a corrupted word, possibly from [Hawatoy] namak[k‘] (Epistula fidei),6 another lost work. The excerpts in the Knik‘ hawatoy bear three titles in the name of Mayragomec‘i: Ban hawatoy (Discourse on Faith, 52–55, 288, 327–330), which could well be the same as the latter work;7 Vasn Tnōrēnut‘ean P‘rkč‘in (On the Lordship of the Savior, 142–146,8 253–254); and Vasn č‘arč‘aranac‘ ew anerkiwł matnut‘ean K‘ristosi (On the Audacious Betrayal and Suffering of Christ, 363– 364). The discourse on the church, Verlucut‘iwn Kat‘ołikē Ekełec‘woy ew or i nma yawrineal kargac‘ (Exposition of the Universal Church and of the Orders Therein), could well have been another treatise once included in the third collection of Mayragomec‘i’s works listed above. Its text was brought to light by the late Archbishop Norayr Połarian of the St. James Brotherhood in Jerusalem, who published it under the above title in 1967, in the local periodical Sion 4 Պողարեան, Հայ գրողներ, p. 68, invites attention to a prefatory colophon from the seventh century, preserved in a Miscellany of the fifteenth century (Matenadaran manuscript no. 3940, fol. 2r–12r) where the collection of 44 discourses is ascribed to Mayravanec‘i; cf. G. Garitte, La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Édition critique et commentaire (CSCO 132, Subsidia, t. 4; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952), p. 348. For the colophon, see Գարեգին Ա Յովսէփեանց, Յիշատակարան ձեռագրաց (Անթիլիաս: Տպարան Կաթողիկոսութեան Կիլիկիոյ, 1951) [Garegin I Yovsepiants, Colophons of Manuscripts (Antelias: The Catholicosate of Cilicia Press, 1951)], pp. 38–46 (no. 10). Połarian deduces that the remaining 21 were probably copied in a second volume which was lost, reducing the textual transmission to 23 discourses. Eight others have come to light since, including a lament in verse and a prayer, attributed to Mandakuni by Yakob K‘ēosēian, in the series Մատենագիրք հայոց, ընդհ. խմբ. Զաւէն Եկաւեան, հատ. Ա- (Անթիլիաս: Տպարան Կաթողիկոսութեան Կիլիկիոյ, 2003–) [Armenian Classical Authors, sic, gen. ed. Zaven Yegavian, vols. 1ff. (Antelias: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia Press, 2003–)], vol. 1: pp. 1153–1278. 5 Կնիք հաւատոյ, խմբ. Կ. Տէր-Մկրտչեան (Էջմիածին: Մայր Աթոռ, 1914) [The Seal of Faith, ed. K. Ter-Mkrtchian (Etchmiadzin: Mother See Press, 1914)]; repr. (Leuven: Peeters, 1974), under the title Le Sceau de la Foi (Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 1998); and again in 2005, in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 4: pp. 51–311. 6 Պողարեան, Հայ գրողներ, p. 68. 7 Ibid., p. 69. 8 Cf. Կնիք հաւատոյ, pp. 143–144, ll. 35, 2; replicated, p. 281, ll. 21–24.

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

227

(70–75). The text published by Połarian was replicated in 2005 by Yakob K‘ēosēian in the Matenagirk Hayoc‘ (Armenian Classical Authors, sic) series, 4:349– 354.9 The document is free from overly dogmatic themes in ecclesiology, like oneness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Thus, the word “kat‘ołikē” in the title, devoid of its original meaning of “metropolitan see” and generally rendered “universal” or “catholic”, is somewhat ambiguous. Yet the document abounds with thoughts based on topoi like the church as the mystical body of Christ, the bride of Christ, virgin and mother, etc.10 As for the church orders or ecclesial ranks, they are discussed in the last eighth of the document; nonetheless, the document is known primarily for touching on this subject. Mayragomec‘i’s position is based on the Cappadocian fathers’ seven ranks of parallel heavenly and earthly hierarchies, whereas that of his critics is based on the nine ranks of Pseudo-Dionysius.11 Equally noteworthy is the author’s citing the canons of St. Sahak, the last catholicos of the Gregorid line (in office 387–428; d. 438). Evidently, this document was known to Byzantine critics of Mayragomec‘i, thus necessitating an Armenian response in the eighth century by one Sołomon Mak‘enac‘i: Yałags hunac‘ aŕ hays vasn oč‘ uneloy inn das ekełec‘akan kargaworut‘ean (“On the Greeks’ [Criticism] of the Armenians’ Not Having the Nine Ecclesiastical Orders”).12 As for the canons of St. Sahak, their criticism must have come from the same Chalcedonian circles—with the Georgian Church joining the swipe since the turn of the seventh century, accusing Mayragomec‘i of fabricating them.13

9

10

11

12 13

See above, n. 4. The series may in time be dubbed as Patrologia Armeniaca simply for conveniently bringing together the scattered sources for the study of the Armenian fathers—a grossly neglected area in patristics. On Didymus the Blind (313–398) as the progenitor of such topoi, see J. Quasten, Patrology, vols. 1–4 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press; Utrecht-Brussels: Spectrum Publishers, 1950– 1986), vol. 3, p. 97. There are no Armenian ecclesiological works prior to Mayragomec‘i. The homily «Այլաբանութեամբ եկեղեցւոյն» [“On the Church by Way of Allegory”] by the fifth-century author Ełišē, is on Job 38–39 (text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 6: pp. 1009–1011). The parallel hierarchies, in the triad of angelic orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones (The Celestial Hierarchy 7.1–2), and its counterpart on earth in the triad of ecclesiastical orders: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons (The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.7). Hence the association of the episkopos (lit., “overseer”) with “the first of those who behold God” (ibid. 5.5). Text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 6: pp. 21–26 (esp. §§7–9). See especially Narratio, p. 275, also Z. Aleksidze, J.-P. Mahé, “Arsen Sapareli Sur la séparation des Géorgiens et des Arméniens,” Revue des études arméniennes 32 (2010): pp. 59– 132, including critical text and translation. In the blatantly prejudiced document with

228

terian

As the Georgian Church distanced itself from the non-Chalcedonians, there emerged a reasserting ecclesiology in the Armenian Church. This was championed by Mayragomec‘i and followed with greater zeal a century later by Catholicos Yovhan Ojnec‘i (in office 717–728), who was further emboldened by the rise of the Bagratid Dynasty in Armenia and its Arab patronage. some unfair charges, anachronisms, and twisted logic, Sapareli (eleventh-century Iberian author), accuses Mayragomec‘i of fabricating—inter alia—the canons attributed to St. Sahak. Aware of L. Melikset-Bek’s (Լ. Մելիքսեթ-Բեկ) Armenian translation of Sapareli’s opus in Վրաց աղբյուրները Հայաստանի յեվ հայերի մասին. Քաղվածքներ վրացերեն բնագրերից հայերեն թարգմանությամբ, ներածություն-ծանոթու թյուններով եվ հավելվածներով, Հատոր Ա: Ե-ժԲ դար (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1934) [The Georgian Sources on Armenia and the Armenians: Armenian Translation with Preface, Introductions and Annotations, Volume I: The 5th–12th centuries (Erevan: Arm. Academy of Sciences, 1934)], N. Akinian (Ն. Ակինեան) embarked on his work of disputing the traditional date and attribution of the canons to St. Sahak; Քննութիւն Ս. Սահակի վերագրուած կանոններուն հայոց եկեղեցական տարին, Է-րդ դարու սկիզբը (Վիեննա: Մխիթարեան Տպարան, 1950) [An Examination of the Canons Ascribed to St. Sahak and the Armenian Liturgical Year in the Early VIIth Century (Vienna: Mkhitarists Press, 1950 = Handes Amsorya 60 (1946): pp. 48–70; 61 (1947): pp. 1–25)]. Akinian’s grudge against their supposed author, the maligned Mayragomec‘i, is mostly because the canons make a great deal of the Assumption of Mary and of the relationship between Mariology and ecclesiology—a late development in Akinian’s opinion, but see N. Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Homilies 1–5, Texts and Translations, Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). I presume that, had the Roman Catholic dogma included the bodily Assumption of Mary in its teaching at the time of Akinian’s writing, he either would not have written the book or would have written it differently (condemned as a heresy by Pope Gelasius in 405, the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed infallible dogma by Pope Pius XII on 1st November 1950, in his “Munificentissimus Deus” encyclical). Mardirossian follows Akinian closely, Le Livre de canons arméniens …, pp. 582–588, attributing the canons to Mayragomec‘i whom he calls the foremost Julianist of his time (256) and one of the greatest forgers in the medieval Armenian Church (260). Cf. N.G. Garsoïan, “Introduction to the Problem of Early Armenian Monasticism,” Revue des études arméniennes 30 (2005– 2007): pp. 177–236, here p. 190, n. 54. But see also F.C. Conybeare (who provides an English translation of the canons, Arm. text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 1: pp. 159–217), “The Armenian Canons of St. Sahak, Catholicos of Armenia (AD 390–439),” The American Journal of Theology 2/4 (1898): pp. 828–848; reprinted in idem, The Armenian Church: Heritage and Identity, compiled, with introduction, by N.V. Nersessian (New York: St. Vartan Press, 2001): pp. 839–855. What Mayragomec‘i seems to have done is not authoring the canons attributed to Sahak as charged, but extracting them from homilies that are apparently lost to us, and most likely redacting them in the process. His tendency to extract canons from homilies is attested elsewhere, where the canons he draws could be seen in their original contexts of extant homilies; see A. Terian, “Mandakuni’s ‘Encyclical’ on Fasting,” in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. R.R. Ervine (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 3; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006): pp. 185– 195. A similar extraction of canons is seen in the Quaestiones once ascribed either to Gre-

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

229

The politically charged period notwithstanding, the document considered here is devoid of polemics. Its theology is based on the Epistle to the Hebrews and its allegorization of the Mosaic tabernacle with echoes of Philonic interpretation of the tabernacle in cosmic terms.14 For Mayragomec‘i “ecclesia” means more than the earthly church. The true church is the eschatological gathering of the redeemed in heaven, symbolized by the chancel or the second or inner compartment of the church—implying that the first compartment or the nave symbolizes the church on earth. The symbolism of the altar, understandably, is reserved for the Divine dwelling in heaven. In his interpretation of the various compartments and certain services within the church, Mayragomec‘i seems to provide a primer on the fundamentals of ecclesiology.15 Points of interest are explained in the notes accompanying the translation. Exposition of the Universal Church and of the Orders Therein by Yovhan Mayragomec‘i16 § 1The

blessed Paul writes as follows to the Hebrews: “The Law was the shadow of good things to come” (Heb 10:1) and that “they serve through the copy of what is in heaven” (Heb 8:5). § 2He then speaks of the sanctu-

14

15

16

gory the Illuminator or to Mesrop Maštoc‘, afterwards considered a source utilized by Eznik, but which is an abstract of canons drawn from the latter’s work; see Մ. Մինասեան, “Գրիգոր Պարթեւի կամ Ս. Մաշտոցի վերագրուած ‘Հարցումը’ եւ Եզնիկ Կողբացի” [M. Minassian, Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Grégoire l’Illuminateur ou à Mesrop Machtotz n’est pas une source d’ Eznik, sic] Handes Amsorya 85 (1971): pp. 355– 370, 463–482; 86 (1972): pp. 73–94, 199–212, 347–354, 439–462; 87 (1973): pp. 51–60; idem, “Կանովն Սրբոյն Գրիգորի Պարթեւի` դարձեալ հարցումն եւ պատասխանիք նոր” [Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’ Illuminateur], Bazmavep 139 (1981): pp. 57–72, who attributes it to neither and rightly sees it as an early canonical derivation from Eznik, useful for correcting textual corruptions in the latter—following Galust Ter-Mkrtchian’s letter of 25 October 1911 to Nikolay Marr (cited in Handes Amsorya 85 [1971], pp. 359–360). The extraction of canons from patristic writings is attested also in the development of the Byzantine corpus canonum. See Philon d’Alexandrie: Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum I et II (e versione armeniaca et fragmenta graeca): Introduction, traduction et notes, trans. A. Terian (Les œuvres de Philon d’ Alexandrie 34C; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992). Cf. Catholicos Yovhan Ojnec‘i’s “Homily on the Church” (Յ. Օձնեցի, “Ճառ երկրորդ, յԵկեղեցի” [Y. Odznetsi, “Second Homily: On the Church”]); text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 7: pp. 95–104. “Վերլուծութիւն Կաթողիկէ Եկեղեցւոյ եւ որ ի նմա յաւրինեալ կարգաց,” խմբ. Ն. Պողարեան, Սիոն 41 (1967): pp. 70–75; cf. Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 4: pp. 349–354, with its section divisions followed here. Arm. Վերլուծութիւն renders Gk. Ἀνάλυσις.

230

terian

ary and of the things therein, “which point to the true things” (Heb 9:10), affirming that the physical is temporal. § 3He then speaks of Christ, “the high priest in the sanctuary not made by hands” (Heb 9:11). This (high priest) is not of human descent, as a human being, but the Word, the Son of God, who became human through the Virgin Mary, from whom he took body and soul and mind and everything that is in a human being17— except sin. § 4And (the apostle) says that “He entered the most holy place with His own blood, granting us eternal salvation” (Heb 9:12). § 5He then speaks of the copies, saying, “it was necessary for the copies to be cleansed by such (sacrifices), and that the heavenly things themselves also needed a better sacrifice than these” (Heb 9:23). § 6This he says to Christians. § 7Thereafter he says, “Christ did not enter the sanctuary made by hands, which is a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, to appear before God on our behalf” (Heb 9:24). § 8Take note, dearly beloved; renounce the earthly. § 9He speaks of the heavenly, which is the church. For in it the sacred bread is offered before God the Father, as well as the Eucharistic cup. These are the body and blood of Christ (our) God, offered for the salvation of those who partake with sanctity, being worthy of adoption by the grace of the Spirit. § 10Furthermore, in the same epistle, he reveals quite clearly the significance of the mystery of the church to believers. Speaking in renunciation of the history of the copies, he says: “You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire” (Heb 12:18). § 11And next, proceeding methodically and speaking presumably of the historicity of the church, he says: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to thousands upon thousands of angels … and to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb 12:22– 24). § 12With such bold terms, the holy apostle revealed the superiority of the church: not the one on earth, but that one in heaven; not an earthly city, but the Jerusalem above; not an earthly temple, but a heavenly bridalchamber; not the lowly, earthly ranks, but the spiritual hosts and those of their company. § 13It seems to me, according to the holy apostle’s remarks, that the Christian order is of a divine and heavenly structure. The lower (orders) point to past, present, and future orders that are temporal, conveying

17

Echoing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

231

to us the intelligible and heavenly things through sense-perceptible and earthly things, making readily perceptible the structure of the orders that are there and are to come. § 14Now, the church is the bride of Christ, and this was made known to us by the one who is the greatest of those born of women,18 who said: “The bridegroom is the one to whom the bride belongs” (John 3:29). § 15Christ is the bridegroom, according to His true word,19 and the church is the bride. § 16By the same token, (the church) is called (an assortment of names): “heaven”, “heaven of heavens”, “heavenly bridal-chamber”, “nuptialchamber” or “Jerusalem above”. § 17There is a list of references to show clearly that the church is called by these names. § 18However, heaven has two connotations for us. One is that (which has been) from the beginning, the past, the current (or) present (reality); and the other, that of the future, the things to come. § 19As for the church with its two compartments of the sanctuary, to me they seem to be (likewise connoting the past), the current (or present reality), and the things to come. § 20History shows us the veracity20 of that which is from the beginning, and that which moves into the future. § 21In one of the two compartments of the sanctuary which is called heaven (dwells) the Holy Trinity in verity, and in the second are the incorporeal ranks of angels and those superior to them. § 22The curtains signify two partitions: the fiery one by which the Holy Trinity is enshrouded from the incorporeal beings, and the other, the watery one, by which the incorporeal beings (are enshrouded) from the corporeal beings.21 § 23Thus, one of the most accomplished holy teachers, having studied the Holy Trinity, has said: “The Monad moves about in the most holy place, leaving out all created beings, some prevented by the first curtain and others by the second: by the first, the heavenly beings, the angels, from the Divinity; by the second, we from the heavenly beings”.22

18 19 20 21

22

John the Baptist (see Mat. 11:11). Allusion to Mat. 9:15 and parallels. Lit., “to be so”. In Philo of Alexandria’s allegorical interpretation of the curtains of the tabernacle, they represent the four elements (Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.84–88, 92). The “fiery” derives from the color “ ‘scarlet’, for its color is fiery”, “watery” derives from the color “ ‘purple’, since water is the producer of this” (ibid. 2.85). Except for some Greek fragments, this work of Philo is extant in Armenia only, on which see above, n. 14. Cf. Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.82; Special Laws 1.66–67 (see Heb 8:1–6; 9:11, etc). In the author’s view, as in Hebrews, the Mosaic tabernacle has a cosmic significance; its holy of holies symbolizes God’s abode in heaven, where

232

terian § 24But

as the holy apostle observes, the church with its second (or inner) compartment resembles the heaven to come, which no one should now understand as (the abode) of the Holy Trinity, but the one where in the future all the worthy ones will be, as the Son of God made known to us in His prayer to the Father on behalf of all the worthy believers, saying: “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us” (John 17:21). § 25Not long after, He says: “I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to complete unity” (v. 23). § 26And again He says: “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, to see my glory always” (v. 24). § 27The same holy apostle says to the believers: “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ. But when Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Col 3:3–4). § 28And elsewhere he says: “If we share in his sufferings, we may also share in his glory” (Rom 8:17). § 29Again he says: “If we endure, we will also reign with him” (2 Tim 2:12). § 30Saint Gregory says the same regarding how the righteous will become partakers of the divine glory: “When rising from heaven in the glory of the Father, Christ will come, before all the host of His angels, to take by the hand His beloved ones, drawing them to Himself (and) taking them to His divine dwelling, giving them the enjoyment of eternal life” (Teaching, §713).23 § 31Thus it is shown how the worthy, righteous ones will be with the Divinity in the eternity that is to come.

23

Christ entered after being “perfected” (Heb 2:10) and took His seat at the right hand of God (cf. Ps 109 [110]:1). On the tendency of early Christian writers’ not referring to Philo by name, see D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum III.3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), pp. 235–271; idem, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, Vigiliae Christianae Supplements (Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 32; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 25– 53. Here and in §§ 35, 37, 53, 65, as in the Seal of Faith, are found the earliest verbatim quotations from the Teaching attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator. See The Teaching of St. Gregory, trans. R.W. Thomson (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 1; New Rochelle: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001), pp. 53–54; the Arm. text (Vardapetut‘iwn) became an integral part of the History of the Armenians by Agat‘angelos (Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, §§ 259–715). The latter was translated separately and with commentary by idem, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians, trans. R.W. Thomson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1976).

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

233

§ 32So

it is24 with the second (or inner) compartment of the church, it resembles the heaven to come, where the Most Holy Trinity abides with the worthy ones, as indicated.25 § 33As for the sacred table, it denotes to us the unity of the Holy Trinity, as Saint Sahak teaches us through his vision.26 § 34As for the covering cloth, this (denotes) the numinous mystery of none other than the all-worthy Holy Trinity, which is also shown in the vision of Saint Sahak.27 § 35As for the crown (or rim),28 this is the incomparable honor of the Holy Trinity, as Saint Gregory says: “One crown of the Holy Trinity” (Teaching, §362). § 36As for the silver (utensils) dedicated for the service of the sacred table, they are the Lord’s words: “refined and tested like silver”, as the prophet had said earlier (Zech 13:9), and later taught by Saint Sahak.29 § 37As for the altar of incense, it resembles the Holy Mother of God, as Saint Gregory cited this example, saying: “For as the latter was full of the fragrance of sanctity, so also she was full of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High” (Teaching, §432).30 § 38As for the censer, it seems to me to represent the archangel’s coming with the annunciation to the Holy Virgin. § 39As for the spreading of the fragrance of incense, this is understood by us to refer to the Law, for there the offering of the incense indicates the reconciliation of God with human beings. § 40Regarding (our) reconciliation with God, the apostle says of Christ’s death: “We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom 5:10). § 41The Blessing of Blessings31 indicates the same thing: the censer represents the death of the Sav-

24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

Lit., “As for”, similar to the opening phrases that follow serially. See § 24. In Łazar’s History, 17: 6–75 (Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 2: pp. 226–234). See Robert W. Thomson’s translation, The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, trans. R.W. Thomson (Scholars Press Occasional Papers and Proceedings: Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies / S.D. Fesjian Academic Publications 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 65–72. Ibid. Arm. պսակ; Gk. στεφάνη (see Ex 25:25, 27; 27:3; 30:3–4). See above, n. 26; cf. §§ 24, 33–34. A commonplace interpretation in patristic literature. See Thomson’s note in The Teaching of St. Gregory, p. 129. The subtitle of the Song of Songs (Օրհնութիւն Օրհնութեանց) in the Armenian Bible (ed. Zohrapian). In certain manuscripts, this is the heading of the extra six verses unique to the Armenian version (8:15–20). On the antiquity of this text, compared with Codex

234

terian

ior and Lord of All; (as) it says: “The fragrance of the nard spread abroad” (cf. Cant 4:14, 16). § 42Again, it says: “I have come down into my incense garden … to gather myrrh” (Cant 5:1). This is Christ’s burial.32 § 43And since it is only for the priestly rank to offer this gift to God, it means the equation of the priest with the archangel through whom the annunciation was communicated to the Holy Virgin Mary. § 44And the One who took body from her became the reconciler of all creatures, Christ, by the blood of His cross, which at once unites heaven and earth.33 § 45As for the elevation of the bema, it points to the whole of the divine directives, the true confession of faith offered from earth, raised up and firm, by which the righteous are uplifted from the heaviness of life in this world into the lightness of the heavenly abode. § 46As for the curtain, it points to the partition separating the heaven which is known to the Trinity alone, for its own deserved dwelling. § 47As for the perpetually burning lamps, they point to the eternal light and the radiance of the righteous.34 § 48As for the objects of divination (i.e., the Urim and the Thummim), which are on the right and on the left, they point to the gifts (made) for the services and sacrifices offered in the church, and to the charity given to the poor and the homeless that is kept in the treasury of good deeds accumulated in heaven, in trust with the Father, according to the saying of the Savior: “Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matt 6:20). § 49As for the font, this is the perpetual womb of Christ’s bride, which is the church. § 50It is (located) on our right,35 but (from the perspective) of His bride, Christ’s, it is on the left,36 since our dedication (begins) from the right compartment, considered the place for baptism and for becoming a child of God through the grace of the Holy Spirit. § 51As for the one to be born anew, (he starts) from the left;37 for those called (unto baptism) first go through renunciation in that compartment (or) place and

32 33 34 35 36 37

Sinaiticus 272, see S. Euringer, “Ein unkanonischer Text des Hohenliedes (Cnt 8 15–20) in der armenischen Bibel,”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 (1913): pp. 272– 294. Allusion to Matt 26:12; cf. Mark 14:8; John 12:7. Allusion to Col 1:20. Allusion to Dan 12:3: “Those who lead many to righteousness, [will shine] like the stars for ever and ever”. As viewed clerically from the altar. As viewed ordinarily by the congregation. The back of the church, to the west—assuming a basilica-type church with a southern entrance; or simply facing westward.

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

235

(renounce) the head of its principality38 and (then turn) toward the main altar. One is then brought to the right section for the (bestowal) of the Father’s blessings with those of His co-equals: of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,39 and is then born of the water in their name, becoming an heir to God. § 52Saint Gregory teaches those born of the water and of the Spirit, saying: “The waters massed together above are the dwelling of the angels. § 53He thus made these waters just as those (above) … that all might be renewed through the Spirit in the waters and become angels, and the same Spirit might bring all to adoption” (Teaching, § 414). § 54Regarding the orientation of the church building, the dowry of Christ’s bride facing eastward this corresponds to the expected coming of the Bridegroom from the east, according to the Savior’s own saying: “For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:27). § 55The prophet Jeremiah noted the same earlier, employing the unique name of Jerusalem for all the churches of Christ, saying: “Come to Jerusalem and look toward the east and see your redemption coming from the east” (Baruch 4:36).40 Although this refers to the return from the Babylonian captivity, it certainly is to be understood as (referring also) to the second coming of Christ, (coming) to save the people of the church from captivity to death and corruption.

38 39

40

The westward renunciation of Satan. The text of § 51 is garbled at this point, with singular subjects and plural verbs and vice versa. From what clearly follows, the bestowed blessings accompany the pre-baptismal anointing, which most probably was administered at this juncture. On similar description of the location of the baptistery and on the practice of pre-baptismal anointing, see A. Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D.335 (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 4; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008), pp. 57–63, 104–105. See also G. Winkler, Das armenische Initiationsrituale: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und liturgievergleichende Untersuchung der Quellen des 3. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (OCA 217; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1982); cf. eadem, “The History of the Syriac Prebaptismal Anointing in the Light of the Earliest Armenian Sources,” in Symposium Syriacum 1976 célébré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre Culturel “Les Fontaines” de Chantilly, France (OCA 205; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1978): pp. 317–324. Winkler shows no awareness of both the Letter of Macarius and this source (among others) in her otherwise commendable study. The Armenian version of Agathangelos (Aa), on which she relies rather heavily, shows post-fifth-century redaction, of which she is equally unaware (see A. Terian, “A Compounded Interpolation in Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, eds. A. Mardirossian, A. Ouzounian, C. Zuckerman (Travaux et mémoires 18; Paris: Centre d’ Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014): pp. 617–622). Baruch in the LXX follows Jeremiah and precedes Lamentations. It reads: “Look around toward the east, O Jerusalem, and see the merriment (εὐφροσύνην) that is coming to you from God”.

236

terian § 56As

for the sound we hear announcing (the liturgy) of the hours, it signifies hearing the sound of the angelic trumpet. § 57At these (hours) one should stop pressing on with physical, gainful labor and should proceed to the church in unison (with others) to conduct the service there. § 58Behold, this truly makes us retreat from the earth and earthly things and draws us nearer to heavenly things, as the one hundred thirty-first Psalm tells us of the soul’s panting; claiming: “If I will give sleep to my eyes and slumber to my eyelids and rest to my temples, until I find a place for the Lord God of Jacob” (Ps 131[132]:4–5). The place for the Lord God of Jacob is heaven, which for us on earth is called the church, symbolically replicating heaven. § 59As for the separation of those officiating, the same Psalm teaches us of (such) priorities; for of the church it says: “Your priests will clothe themselves with righteousness and your saints will rejoice greatly” (Ps 131 [132]:9). § 60Those officiating at the table, according to this Psalm on the priests’ adorning themselves in vestments, are to join the ranks of angels.41 § 61As for the patriarch, who is the head of the bishops, he is a mediator between God and people. He represents the Giver of Life, as it was said of Saint Gregory while in his vision, saying: “The high priesthood is a representation of the image of God, (like) the incarnated Son of God” (Agathangelos, History, §745).42 § 62As for bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, psalmists,43 and other (minor) orders44—each lesser than the other—correspond to the seven ranks of the heavenly hosts, set for us as a model for the said orders, according to the brothers Basil and Gregory, the holy bishops, in their teaching by way of questions and answers about the heavenly beings.45

41 42

43 44 45

Echoing the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchical ranking. Non-verbatim quotation (text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 2: p. 1660 [102:43]). St. Gregory is frequently referred to as “high priest” in Agathangelos. The analogy between Christ and the high priest (apart from Heb 2 17; 3:1; 4:14–5:10; 6:20; 7 11–8:2; 10:12) projects the Pseudo-Dionysian analogous ranking of bishops with archangels, priests with angels, etc. (cf. § 60). Lit., “those who recite the Psalms” (corresponding to Syr. mzamrōnê). Such as acolytes or candle bearers and doorkeepers; perhaps also exorcists, whose function is to read prayers over the sick. The Cappadocian brothers Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa. This was a fourthcentury expansion of the triple rank—bishop, priest, and deacon—of the third century. The division of the angelic orders or choirs into seven is commensurate with Basil, Hexae-

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

237

§ 63Regarding

the separation of men and women into their distinct areas within the church, this is truly in keeping with the Psalms (that speak) of the saints being glad and rejoicing for being worthy to enter the heavenly dwelling,46 that is the church. They are joyful and happy, rejoicing in the divine ordinances. § 64And with them added (to the clerical orders), the number of the distinct ranks reaches nine, in accordance with the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite, who speaks (of the nine ranks) of angels.47 § 65That the orders of the church are of the same number, is (gathered also from) that which Saint Gregory says in his vision, that those who are baptized join the shining hosts.48 Moreover, in the Teaching he says: “Instead of the angels who had been cast down from the divine service, the children of men will become angels and will take their place, so that the set number of the glorious ones will remain constant, com-

46 47

48

meron, 1.5: “… all the orderly arrangement of pure intelligences who are beyond the reach of our mind and of whom we cannot even discover the names. They fill the essence of this invisible world, as Paul teaches us. ‘For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers’ or virtues or hosts of angels or the dignities of archangels” (cf. Eph 1:21 and Jerome, Contra Jovinianum, 2.28). Given the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius, the Basilian lines quoted here do not appear in the Syriac translation of the Hexaemeron, as also in the Armenian version, which was translated from Syriac by the sixth century. See Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Յաղագս վեցաւրեայ արարչութեան, խմբ. Կ. Մուրադյան (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1984) [Basil of Caesarea, on the Six Days of Creation, ed. K. Muradyan (Erevan: Arm. Academy of Sciences, 1984)]; R.W. Thomson, The Syriac Version of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea (CSCO 550, Scriptores Syri 222; Leuven: Peeters, 1995); cf. idem, Saint Basil of Caesarea and Armenian Cosmology: A Study of the Armenian Version of Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron and Its Influence on Medieval Armenian Views about the Cosmos (CSCO 646, Subsidia, t. 130; Leuven: Peeters, 2012). The notion of seven representative angels before God owes to Tobit 12 15, where Raphael announces: “I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the throne of God”; cf. the seven angels of Rev 2–3. Cf. Ps 31 [32] 11; 68:4 [68:3] (see also Ps 5 12 [11]; 13 [14]:7; 39:17 [40:16]; 52:7 [53:6]; 69:5 [70:4]; 117 [118]:24; 149:2). Note the eighth-century response by Sołomon Mak‘enac‘i to the Byzantine criticism of Mayragomec‘i’s seven ecclesiastical orders (see above, n. 13). Consequently, some redaction is to be suspected here. Familiarity with the text of Pseudo-Dionysius, as in other early Armenian texts, precedes its eighth-century translation into Armenian by Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (d. 735). For an Eng. trans., see R.W. Thomson, The Armenian Version of the Works Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO 488–489, Subsidia, t. 17–18; Leuven: Peeters, 1987). Cf. Յաճախապատում ճառք (Oft-repeated Discourses, a sixth-century moralia wrongly ascribed to either St. Gregory the Illuminator or St. Mesrop Mashtots) 10.125, 20.85–86, 91–93, 96, 154; 23.100; text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 1: pp. 7–137. Agathangelos, History, §§ 740, 753 (102.24–25, 68–70); text in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 2, pp. 1658, 1662–1663.

238

terian

plete; so that in the common process of making things equal, praise will be increasingly magnified” (Teaching, §640).49 § 66By calling it a common process of making things equal, he meant that all those who join the shining ranks merge into the same flock of birds.50 § 67Clearly, the church is a representation of heaven on earth, for the Lord assigns the same ranking to us through the number of his (holy) orders. To him be glory always.

Bibliography Agathangelos: History of the Armenians, trans. R.W. Thomson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1976). Z. Aleksidze, J.-P. Mahé, “Arsen Sapareli Sur la séparation des Géorgiens et des Arméniens,” Revue des études arméniennes 32 (2010): pp. 59–132. N. Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Homilies 1–5, Texts and Translations, Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). F.C. Conybeare, “The Armenian Canons of St. Sahak, Catholicos of Armenia (AD 390– 439),” The American Journal of Theology 2/4 (1898): pp. 828–848. S. Euringer, “Ein unkanonischer Text des Hohenliedes (Cnt 8 15–20) in der armenischen Bibel,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 (1913): pp. 272–294.

49

50

The thought, that the redeemed from the human race will replace the fallen angels, is found also in the Oft-repeated Discourses (Disc. 16.13; 23.102, in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 1, pp. 100, 135; cf. Գրիգոր Նարեկացի, Մատեան ողբերգութեան [Grigor Narekatsi, Book of Lamentation] 34.12, in Մատենագիրք հայոց, vol. 12, p. 251). The thought stems from Luke 20:36, and is part of the doctrine of restoration (apokatastasis) in Eastern Christianity, as in the eschatology of Origen (De Principiis, 1.8.4), Gregory of Nyssa (De Virginitate, 24), and Maximos the Confessor (Quaestiones et Dubia, 19). Lit., “they become a flock [of birds]”; Arm. eramanan. The imagery of birds, a commonplace in the literature of the period, symbolizes the souls of the departed (see, e.g., Teaching, §§ 655–659). The motif appears in funerary mosaics with Armenian inscriptions in and around Jerusalem, from the sixth-seventh centuries, the time of Mayragomec‘i. For an illustrated description of these mosaic floors, see B. Narkiss, “The Armenian Treasures of Jerusalem,” in Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, eds. B. Narkiss et al. (New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Brothers, 1979): pp. 21–28. Additional discoveries in more recent years have revealed the extensiveness of this site. For a fine study on the dominant motif of birds, see H. Evans, “Non-classical Sources for the Armenian Mosaic Near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, eds. N.G. Garsoïan et al. (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982): pp. 217–222.

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

239

H. Evans, “Non-classical Sources for the Armenian Mosaic Near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, eds. N.G. Garsoïan et al. (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982): pp. 217–222. G. Garitte, La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Édition critique et commentaire (CSCO 132, subsidia, t. 4; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952). N.G. Garsoïan, “Introduction to the Problem of Early Armenian Monasticism,” Revue des études arméniennes 30 (2005–2007): pp. 177–236. N.G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (CSCO 574, subsidia, t. 100; Leuven: Peeters, 1999): pp. 355–398, 516–583. A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i: église, droit, et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle (CSCO 606, subsidia, t. 116; Leuven: Peeters, 2004). B. Narkiss, “The Armenian Treasures of Jerusalem,” in Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, eds. B. Narkiss et al. (New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Brothers, 1979): pp. 21–28. Philon d’Alexandrie: Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum I et II (e versione armeniaca et fragmenta graeca): Introduction, traduction et notes, trans. A. Terian (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 34C; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992). J. Quasten, Patrology, vols. 1–4 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press; Utrecht-Brussels: Spectrum Publishers, 1950–1986). D.T. Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, Vigiliae Christianae Supplements (Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 32; Leiden: Brill, 1995). D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum III.3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993). M. Tarchnišvili, “Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’Église de Géorgie,” Le Muséon 60 (1947): pp. 29–50. A. Terian, “A Compounded Interpolation in Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘,” in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé, eds. A. Mardirossian, A. Ouzounian, C. Zuckerman (Travaux et mémoires 18; Paris: Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014): pp. 617– 622. A. Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D.335 (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 4; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008). A. Terian, “Mandakuni’s ‘Encyclical’ on Fasting,” in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. R.R. Ervine (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 3; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006): pp. 185–195. The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, trans. R.W. Thomson (Scholars Press Occasional Papers and Proceedings: Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies / S.D. Fesjian Academic Publications 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). The Teaching of St. Gregory, trans. R.W. Thomson (Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 1; New Rochelle: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001).

240

terian

R.W. Thomson, The Armenian Version of the Works Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO 488–489, Subsidia, t. 17–18; Leuven: Peeters, 1987). G. Winkler, Das armenische Initiationsrituale: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und liturgievergleichende Untersuchung der Quellen des 3. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (OCA 217; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1982). G. Winkler, “The History of the Syriac Prebaptismal Anointing in the Light of the Earliest Armenian Sources,” in Symposium Syriacum 1976 célébré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre Culturel “Les Fontaines” de Chantilly, France (OCA 205; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1978): pp. 317–324. Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Յաղագս վեցաւրեայ արարչութեան, խմբ. Կ. Մուրադյան (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1984) [Basil of Caesarea, on the Six Days of Creation, ed. K. Muradyan (Erevan: Arm. Academy of Sciences, 1984)]; R.W. Thomson, The Syriac Version of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea (CSCO 550, Scriptores Syri 222; Leuven: Peeters, 1995). Saint Basil of Caesarea and Armenian Cosmology: A Study of the Armenian Version of Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron and Its Influence on Medieval Armenian Views about the Cosmos (CSCO 646, Subsidia, t. 130; Leuven: Peeters, 2012). Կնիք հաւատոյ, Հրատարակութիւն կարապետ եպիսկոպոսի (Էջմիածին: Մայր Աթոռ, 1914) [The Seal of Faith, ed. Bishop Karapet (Etchmiadzin: Mother See Press, 1914)]. Մատենագիրք հայոց, ընդհ. խմբ. Զաւէն Եկաւեան, հատ. Ա- (Անթիլիաս: Տպարան Կաթողիկոսութեան Կիլիկիոյ, 2003–) [Armenian Classical Authors, sic, gen. ed. Zaven Yegavian, vols. 1ff. (Antelias: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia Press, 2003–)]. Մ. Մինասեան, “Գրիգոր Պարթեւի կամ Ս. Մաշտոցի վերագրուած ‘Հարցումը’ եւ Եզնիկ Կողբացի” [M. Minassian, Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Grégoire l’Illuminateur ou à Mesrop Machtotz n’est pas une source d’Eznik, sic] Handes Amsorya 85 (1971): pp. 355–370, 463–482; 86 (1972): pp. 73–94, 199–212, 347–354, 439–462; 87 (1973): pp. 51–60. Մ. Մինասեան, “Կանովն Սրբոյն Գրիգորի Պարթեւի` դարձեալ հարցումն եւ պատասխանիք նորա” [M. Minassian, Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur], Bazmavep 139 (1981): pp. 57–72. Գարեգին Ա. Յովսէփեանց, Յիշատակարանք ձեռագրաց (Անթիլիաս: Տպարան Կաթողիկոսութեան Կիլիկիոյ, 1951) [Garegin I Yovsepiants, Colophons of Manuscripts (Antelias: The Catholicosate of Cilicia Press, 1951)]. Ն. Պողարեան, Հայ գրողներ (Երուսաղէմ: Տպարան Սրբոց Յակոբեանց, 1971) [N. Pogharian, Armenian Writers (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1971)]. “Վերլուծութիւն Կաթողիկէ Եկեղեցւոյ եւ որ ի նմա յաւրինեալ կարգաց,” խմբ. Ն. Պողարեան, Սիոն 41 (1967) [“Exposition of the Universal Church and of the Orders Therein”, ed. N. Pogharian, Sion 41 (1967)]: pp. 70–75.

a discourse on the church by yovhan mayragomec‘i

241

Վրաց աղբյուրները Հայաստանի յեվ հայերի մասին. Քաղվածքներ վրացերեն բնագրերից հայերեն թարգմանությամբ, ներածություն-ծանոթություննե րով եվ հավելվածներով, Հատոր Ա: Ե-ժԲ դար (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1934) [The Georgian Sources on Armenia and the Arme-

nians: Armenian Translation with Preface, Introductions and Annotations, Volume I: The 5th–12th centuries (Erevan: Arm. Academy of sciences, 1934)]. Հ. Մ. Քենդերյան, Հովհան Մայրագոմեցի (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1973) [H.M. Kenderyan, Hovhan Mayragometsi (Erevan: Arm. Academy of Sciences, 1973)]. Քննութիւն Ս. Սահակի վերագրուած քանոններուն եւ հայոց եկեղեցական տա րին, Է. դարու սկիզբը (Վիեննա: Մխիթարեան Տպարան, 1950) [An Examination of the Canons Ascribed to St. Sahak and the Armenian Liturgical Year in the Early VIIth Century (Vienna: Mkhitarists Press, 1950 = Handes Amsorya 60 (1946): pp. 48–70; 61 (1947): pp. 1–25)].

chapter 14

The Renewal of the Debate between Royal and Monastic Ideology under Gagik I of Vaspurakan as a Factor of Commercial and Economic Revival S. Peter Cowe

Although traditionally opposed as diametric poles in argumentation,1 upon deeper analysis the dimensions of flesh and spirit appear as complementary aspects of the human psychosomatic whole. Similarly, their cognate perspectives in the philosophical sphere, conceived at different times in the history of thought as physics and metaphysics, immanence and transcendence, materialism and idealism, etc., are corollaries in the formulation and articulation of the human worldview.2 The oppositional facet of their interaction is intensified by the regular adoption of one or another of these perspectives by different social groups and the latter’s propagation of their contrasting viewpoint through various institutions. In the Armenian Middle Ages, this polarization is associated with the division of sacred and secular, church and state, and the resulting debate is engaged in by their respective elites from the court (especially the royal court) and the monastery. The Late Antique phase of the debate can be seen as supporting Mamikonian aspirations to royal power by Łazar P‘arpec‘i, who was closely connected with the aristocratic family and owed his ecclesiastical position and literary commission to Vahan Mamikonian’s patronage.3 That is why he extols the latter in his three-volume work as a strategist and courageous soldier and

1 See, for example, Ա. Գ Դոլուխանյան, Հոգու եւ մարմնի պրոբլեմը միջնադարի հայ քնարերգության մեջ (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՇ ԳԱ̌ Հրատարակչություն, 1987) [A.G. Dolukhanyan, The Problem of Soul and Body in Medieval Armenian Lyric (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1987)]. 2 For example, R.C. Vinzthum, Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995) and P. Davies and J. Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge our Understanding of Physical Reality (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1992). 3 Ղ. Փարպեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց եւ թուղթ առ Վահան Մամիկոնեան, Գ. ՏէրՄկրտչեան եւ Ստ. Մալխասեան (Տփղիս: Արագատիպ Մնացական Մարտիրոսեանցի, 1904) [Lazar Parpetsi, History of the Armenians and Letter to Vahan Mamikonyan, eds. G. Ter-Mkrtchyan and St. Malkhasyan (Tiflis: Mnatsakan Martirosyants Press, 1904)], pp. 187–188, 202–204.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_016

the renewal of the debate

243

in certain incidents advances the latter’s aspirations after attaining the ranks of sparapet (supreme commander) and marzpan (governor) to ascend to the even more exalted status of obtaining the Armenian crown from the hands of the Sasanian king.4 Ełišē adopts the contrasting viewpoint and, in one of the homilies attributed to him, redacts the Armenian version of Philo’s treatise on the Essenes5 as a protreptic to participation in the contemporary development of Christian monasticism.6 Similarly, the antagonist of his history, Yazdgard II, embodies all the negative traits of rulership by being harsh, violent, oppressive, etc.7 In contrast, the Armenian princes are portrayed as spending their time in prison in prayer and psalmody like monks8 while their wives’ way of life at home resembles that of nuns, characterized by humility, solidarity, and the absence of socio-economic distinctions.9 With such a perspective and historiographical emphasis, Ełišē seeks to promote the monastic movement, whose impact is also manifest on other early Armenian writers like Koriwn. Noting in the Vita of his teacher Maštoc‘ the transition in his career from a civil service post in the chiliarchate to his acceptance of the monastic calling, he presents the process with typical rhetorical flair as a passing from obedience to արքայատուր հրամանին (lit. the command given by a king) to աստուածատուր հրամանացն (commands given by God) and, in parallel, from the psychological state of իշխանակիր ցանկութիւնսն (the desire to bear authority (over subordinates)) to that of the 4 Ղազար Փարպեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, p. 178. 5 On the Essene movement, see P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987) and J.J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: the Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010). 6 See Philo of Alexandria, Philo About the Contemplative Life, or the Fourth Book of the Treatise concerning Virtues, ed. F.C. Conybeare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895). For Elishe’s homily, see Սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Եղիշէ վարդապետի մատենագրութիւնք (Վենետիկ: Ս. Ղազար, 1859) [Complete Works of Our Holy Father the Vardapet Elishe (Venice: St. Lazar’s Press, 1859)], pp. 184–190. See also the study on it by B. Outtier, “Une exhortation aux moines d’Élisée l’ Arménien,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont: contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux, Cahiers d’ orientalisme 20 (Geneva: P. Cramer, 1988): pp. 97–101. 7 Եղիշէ, Վասն Վարդանայ եւ Հայոց պատերազմին, Ե. Տէր-Մինասեան (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՍՌ ԳԱ̌ Հրատարակչություն, 1957) [Elishe, On Vardan and the Armenian War, ed. E. Ter-Minasyan, (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1957)], pp. 6–7, 82–84. On this issue, see also S.P. Cowe, “Ełišē’s ‘Armenian War’ as a Metaphor for the Spiritual Life” in From Byzantium to Iran: in honor of Nina Garsoïan, eds. J.-P. Mahé and R.W. Thomson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997): pp. 341–359, here pp. 347–350. 8 Եղիշէ, Վասն Վարդանայ եւ Հայոց պատերազմին, pp. 124–125. See also Cowe, “Ełišē’s ‘Armenian War,’ ” p. 353. 9 Եղիշէ, Վասն Վարդանայ եւ Հայոց պատերազմին, p. 202. See also Cowe, “Ełišē’s ‘Armenian War,’ ” pp. 353–354.

244

cowe

self-mortification of the խաչակիր գունդն (the cross-bearing community, i.e. of monks). Indeed, in terms anticipating the next iteration of the debate, he expresses his overall priorities in the following form: “It is more beneficial to renounce all activities associated with the world and to occupy oneself solely with divine service.”10 This paper suggests that a new phase in the exchange takes shape in Vaspurakan during the 10th century between the emergent Arcruni court’s pursuit of the opulent and sophisticated characteristics of royal status and the imperatives of the new type of cenobitic monastery (such as Narek) in cultivating interiority, contemplation, and the continuity of consciousness in parallel to the development of Athonite monasticism later in the century. The participants in the debate are thus on the one side the historian T‘ovma Arcruni and his continuator and, on the other, the founder and first abbot of Narek, Anania Narekac‘i, who expressed his views on the subject in a striking poem that has recently been published.11 The second fundamental issue this paper seeks to explore in this renewed phase of the debate is the underlying economic growth, which fueled both the construction of the new palaces and monastic complexes and supported the lifestyle of both elites.12 This renewal of the economy was consequently impacted by the reactivation of trade contacts between Byzantium and the ʿAbbasid Caliphate beginning in the second half of the 9th century and continuing until the Seljuk conquest. This, in turn, facilitated the creation of new cities in Armenia (reconstructed Duin, as well as Arcn, Kars, and Ani), whose gradual growth and expansion encouraged the development of artisanry and a fuller money economy under conditions relaxing the traditional restrictions 10

11

12

Կորյուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի, Է. Ա. Պիվազյան, (Երեւան: Հայպետհրատ, 1980) [Kor-

yun, Life of Mashtots, ed. E.A. Pivazyan (Erevan: Haypethrat, 1980)], p. 132 and S.P. Cowe, “Armenian Hagiography” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, ed. S. Efthymiadis, vol. 1 (Farnham, England: Ashgate Press, 2011): pp. 299–322, here pp. 302–303. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ. (Անթիլիաս: Մեծի Տանն Կիլիկիոյ Կաթողիկոսութիւնն, 2009) [Armenian Classical Authors, vol. 10 (Antelyas: Catholicate of the Great House of Cilicia, 2009)], pp. 348–355. Concerning this work, see Հ. Թամրազյան, “Անանիա Նարեկացու ‘Վասն անցաւոր աշխարհիս’ բանաստեղծութունը,” Պատմա բանասիրական հանդես 4 (1980) [Hrachya Tamrazyan, “Anania Narekatsi’s Poem ‘On This Transient World’,” Historico-philological Journal 4 (1980)]: pp. 184–195. This work intimately foreshadows the approach of Anania’s pupil Grigor and possesses affinities with the oeuvre of the latter’s Byzantine contemporary St. Symeon the New Theologian. H.A. Manandian, The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade, tr. N.G. Garsoïan, (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Library, 1965), pp. 136–143.

the renewal of the debate

245

on usury.13 Similarly, trade routes linked Armenia with Trebizond, the Black Sea, and Georgia to the north, Naxcawan, Van and the other cities around the lakeside to the south with Partaw, Ganja, Xoy, and Maragha on the one side and Karin, Erznka, and Sebastia on the other.14 Movements of commodities inevitably led to population redistribution and the establishment of new Armenian communities in various cities in the territories of Byzantium that had newly been recaptured from the Caliphate. These changes in turn led to the exchange of ideas and exemplars between Greek, Armenian, and Syrian scholars.15 As the Byzantine Drang nach Osten dislodged the Tondrakites from their center on Tepharike, it complicated the renewed debate between the spirit and flesh by introducing a third perspective. If the nascent monasticism of the 5th century had focused on the external struggle against the demons and the process of controlling the flesh and its movements through various bodily ascetic practices,16 five centuries later its primary concentration had become the monk’s inner world.17 Hence, the field of “battle” in the 10th–11th centuries had moved to the senses and the deceptive messages they communicated, since both the medium and the information they transmitted were viewed as defective and imperfect, while what was perceived by the soul was considered intelligible and perfect. The latter was therefore firm and stabilized the monk’s mind, while impressions stemming from the senses disturbed his peace and exposed him to diverse passions. At the same time, the Arcrunis’ imperative was to present their worthiness of bearing the crown to the caliph, his local representative (the ostikan),

13 14 15

16

17

Manandian, Trade and Cities, pp. 136–143. Manandian, Trade and Cities, pp. 155–172. S.P. Cowe, “Armenian Immigration Patterns to Sebastia, Tenth-Eleventh Centuries,” in Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publications, 2004): pp. 111–136, here pp. 112–118. Late Antique asceticism of the West Syrian variety is well characterized by Koryun’s description of Mashtots’s typical practices, including dwelling in mountain caves, enduring hunger and thirst, wearing a hairshirt, sleeping on the ground, but also frequently spending the whole night in vigil and prayer. For medieval developments, see S.P. Cowe, “The Impact of Time and Place on Grigor Narekatsi’s Theology, Spirituality, and Poetics,”Le Muséon 108 (1995): pp. 85–102, here pp. 96–98, and id., “The Interpenetration of the Divine and Human in Grigor Narekac‘i’s Theology of Culture,” in S. Grégoire de Narek: théologien et mystique, eds. J.-P. Mahé and B.L. Zekiyan (OCA 275; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2006): pp. 229–245, here pp. 237–240. S.P. Cowe, “Generic and Methodological Developments in Theology in Caucasia from the Fourth to Eleventh Centuries within an East Christian Context,” in Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (secoli IV–XI) (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’ Alto Medioevo, 1996): pp. 647–683, here pp. 677–682.

246

cowe

the Bagratuni monarch, the other Armenian aristocrats, and the people.18 Although Gagik’s elder brother Ašot had acknowledged the suzerainty of his namesake Ašot I in 894, when his request to grant Vaspurakan independence was met with rejection, Gagik nevertheless viewed his subsequent refusal to return Naxcawan to Arcrunid authority as an unacceptable slight against his house’s honor and standing. He therefore bypassed the king in obtaining the ostikan’s support for his claim to independent rule in the area in 908.19 Such a step against an established monarch was then justified by various articulations of royal ideology. It required a powerful display to captivate people’s eyes and ears, or, their most impressionable senses. Thus, Gagik’s constructions at Ostan and Ałt‘amar were intended to reveal his strength, the robustness of his treasury, his elevated taste, and glory befitting a king. They needed to match the palaces at Partaw and Samarra in their vast scale and artistic accomplishments, while not falling short of the standard of the lavish entertainment for which they were known.20 Simultaneously, the people expected piety and a suitable lineage from its monarchs, which Gagik skillfully delivered in the relief sculptures adorning the walls of his palatine church of the Holy Cross.21 Here, his ancestors Hamazasp and Sahak were represented22 who had died a martyr’s death fighting against the Muslims, and the king of Nineveh portrayed in the Jonah cycle, who embodied the Arcrunis’ claim of being descendent from the Assyrian royal line that had approved the prophet’s teaching and accepted the one true God at an early point in their history.23 Moreover, it is tempting to interpret the iconography of the prominent scene of David and Goliath as illustrating the transference of power and divine blessing from the Bagratids, represented by the still crowned but diminutive and discredited figure of Saul, to the youthful warrior David, who would aptly embody Gagik’s appeal for popular acclaim on the basis of his multiple successes on various fronts. Although Gagik had gained secular approval for his rule from the ostikan Yusuf, and on various occasions had amassed six crowns and four royal robes, the Bagratids had translated the Byzantine coronation rite in which the emperor was crowned by the patriarch during the coronation liturgy, and, it 18 19

20 21 22 23

L. Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght‘amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). S.P. Cowe, “Relations between the Kingdoms of Vaspurakan and Ani,” in Armenian Van/ Vaspurakan, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa CA: Mazda Publications, 2000): pp. 73–85, here pp. 78–79. S. Mnats‘akanian, Aght‘amar (Los Angeles, CA: Editions Erebouni, 1986), p. 9. Cowe, “Relations between the Kingdoms of Vaspurakan and Ani,” pp. 80–83. Mnats‘akanian, Aght‘amar, pp. 23, 25 and Cowe, “Armenian Hagiography,” p. 311. Mnats‘akanian, Aght‘amar, pp. 17, 18.

the renewal of the debate

247

appears, already received unction since the 10th century in keeping with the Old Testament and Frankish precedent.24 That sacrament was interpreted as bestowing the grace and blessing of the Holy Spirit on the candidate who, in this way, underwent divine election and adoption as the son of God.25 As a result, the Arcrunis lacked this sign of divine support and protection and attempted to compensate for it by various means. One of these was the general program of the frescoes on the interior of Gagik’s palatine church, according to which above the royal balcony was depicted the scene of the Nativity, in which Christ appeared as the Son of God and heavenly king, receiving the homage of the three magi symbolizing the submission of earthly monarchs.26 Naturally, the placing of the image conveyed the message that Gagik was God’s representative on earth. In addition, the continuator of T‘ovma Arcruni, who assumes the role of royal panegyricist, in the course of a series of exaggerations in his narrative, leaves the following account of Yusuf’s crowning Gagik: And having appointed him with such magnificence, he conferred into his (i.e. Gagik’s) hands all the land of Armenia together with rich, populous cities and every kind of comeliness, that I do not hesitate to qualify this as his invisible (emphasis mine, SPC) anointing bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Clearly, unction had not formed part of the ʿAbbasid military rite alluded to, and hence there was no visible action to which the author could allude.27 On another occasion, he calls Gagik “God’s anointed” as a further symbol of his legitimacy to rule.28 Indeed, the author’s general approach is to leave the reader in a perpetual state of awe and wonderment at Gagik’s amazing exploits and his larger-than-human persona:

24 25

26 27

28

M. Arranz S.J., “Couronnement royal et autres promotions de cour,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 56 (1990): pp. 83–133, here pp. 85–87. For the expression of this doctrine during the Cilician period, see S.P. Cowe, “Theology of Kingship in 13th Century Armenian Cilicia,” Հասկ հայագիտական տարեգիրք [Hask Armenological Annual], 2009: pp. 417–430, here pp. 421–423. Mnats‘akanian, Aght‘amar, pp. 40–41. For T‘ovma Arcruni’s continuator on Gagik’s coronation, see Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատ մութիւնն տանն Արծրունեաց, Ք. Պատկանեան (Պետերբուրգ, 1887) [Tovma Artsruni, History of the House of Artsruni, ed. K‘. Patkanean (St. Petersburg, 1887)], p. 464, and S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, vol. 1 (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2011), pp. 115–116. Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատմութիւնն տանն Արծրունեաց, p. 484.

248

cowe

This is astonishing for me to relate, this is amazing for me to hear, and more ethereal than the acme of my history and those of others, the like of which has never been heard before and for which it will be impossible to display anyone positioned as an eyewitness to such a thing.29 The commercial and economic upswing that characterized this period in Armenia also facilitated the advance of monasticism, as manifested by the construction of stone churches and gawit‘s, furnished with libraries and scriptoria which required significant funding, and the growth of cenoebitic communities of roughly a few hundred monks.30 To meet these demands, founders and donors would expend large sums of money and endow the foundations with extensive estates.31 With their livelihood secured by such measures, the vardapets developed the spiritual culture they had inherited from their fathers in new directions, as mentioned above. The monastery of Narek was established around 930 by Anania, after his arrival from Aršarunik‘.32 Reflecting on his verse, we observe that his thought completely contradicts the royal apologia presented by T‘ovma’s continuator. The work had been commissioned by Xač‘ik Aršaruni, who was elected catholicos in 973 but was already acquainted with Anania from his student days. Consequently, it is plausible to set the terminus post quem at the mid-10th century.33 Xač‘ik had requested Anania to explain to him “how man can despise this earthly [life] which is fleeting and desire only God and His kingdom”.34 From the way the question is posed it is clear that the patron was aspiring to pass from the physical to the metaphysical, from the temporal to the eternal. However, at the same time, the commissioner is well aware of the powerful attraction the senses exert on humanity to maintain its affinities with all that 29 30

31

32

33

34

Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատմութիւնն տանն Արծրունեաց, p. 468.

S.P. Cowe, “The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades (1050–1350),” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. Michael Angold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): pp. 404–429, here pp. 411–412. See, for example, Կ. Ղաֆադարյան, Սանահնի վանքը եւ նրա արձանագրու թյունները (Երեւան: Հայկական ՄՍՌ ԳՄ Հրատարակություն, 1957) [K. Lafadaryan, The Monastery of Sanahin and its Inscriptions (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1957)], pp. 97–191. Հ. Թամրազյան, Անանիա Նարեկացի կյանքը եւ մատենագրությունը (Երեւան: Հայկական ՄՇԳՄ Հրատարակություն, 1986) [H. Tamrazyan, Anania Narekatsi’s Life and Works (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1986)], pp. 24, 50. It emerges that Anania and the future catholicos were also relatives. See Հ. Թամրազյան, Նարեկյան դպրոցը (Երեւան: Հայաստան, 1999) [H. Tamrazyan, The School of Narek (Erevan: Hayastan, 1999)], p. 5. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ., p. 348.

the renewal of the debate

249

is beautiful and delightful in the externals of life and the potent impact the individual registers from such stimuli. Although not expressly stated here, it can be assumed that the apogee of this brilliant, luxurious lifestyle is that of the royal palace. However, while T‘ovma’s continuator employs all his rhetorical skills to approximate king Gagik to the heavenly king in power, authority, beneficence, and other attributes, Xač‘ik’s use of the term “only” highlights divine exclusivity, whereby the Creator remains supreme while the human is classified as “transient”, i.e. mortal.35 In his reply, Anania appeals for the application of the mind and consciousness against the impulse of the senses and reflects the precepts of the wisdom school of the Ancient Near East as manifest in the Solomonic corpus of the Old Testament, in particular the books of Ecclesiastes and Wisdom, which he frequently cites.36 The collection formed one of the core elements in the curriculum of the religious school, its importance reverting to the very inauguration of the Armenian alphabet in Samosata, the school environment of which impacted the choice of Proverbs as the first book to be translated into the newly perfected script. As a result, it is one of the earliest forms of part-Bible attested in Armenian, including the recently published fragments of an 8th–9th century palimpsest discovered in St. Catherine’s monastery on Sinai.37 At first, Solomon had enjoyed all the advantages of his office, but he had subsequently realized that they are deceptive and do not contain any serious value.38 The influence of the Lives of the Desert Fathers is noticeable on Anania’s thought.39 However, we should acknowledge the Neoplatonic works of Ps. Dionysius as the main sources of the work, which were translated into Arme-

35

36

37

38 39

S.P. Cowe, “Armenological Paradigms and Yovhannēs Sarkawag’s ‘Discourse on Wisdom’— Philosophical Underpinning of an Armenian Renaissance?,” RÉA 25 (1994–1995): pp. 125– 155, here pp. 142–143. For example, “And Solomon said, ‘Vanity of vanities, everything is in vain’” (Eccles 1:2); “As someone eats and drinks in a dream, but on awakening [finds] his hope was in vain,” (Eccles 3:11); “This is why Solomon says, ‘Neither is the eye satiated with seeing, nor the ear with listening, but all man’s effort is [directed] toward his mouth, and yet it is not satiated either’ ” (see Eccles 6:7); “Man’s life passes like the last trace of clouds” (Wisdom 2:4). For the publication, see J. Gippert, The Armenian Layer, vol. 3: The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), and, for an examination of its textual significance, see S.P. Cowe, “The Textual Significance of the Armenian Palimpsest from Sinai and its Role in the Edition of the Armenian Bible” in Analecta Orientalia Ambrosiana V (Roma: Bulzoni editore, 2016). Eccles 1:12–2:26. One of the most prominent figures in the collection is Arsenius, who, being the son of a senatorial family from Rome, after his parents’ death, divided up all his possessions and left for Egypt where he gained great fame for his ascetic lifestyle.

250

cowe

nian in the 8th century by Stepanos Siwnec‘i,40 and certain works of Plato including the Republic, which Anania would have been familiar with in the Greek original since there is no indication that this dialogue was extant in Armenian.41 This, too, can be explained in terms of the contemporary reactivation of commercial exchange as a result of which scholars and texts entered into greater circulation.42 As we know, some of the monks at Narek had relocated from Byzantine areas further west and had spread knowledge of the Greek language in the monastery.43 It is interesting that Plato did not establish himself in the curriculum of the Armenian monastic academies, however recent scholarship has demonstrated that progressive Armenian savants gained access to his works in Greek. Anania is one of the earliest of these, followed by Nersēs Lambronac‘i.44 At the same time, a set of Platonic dialogues (Apology, Euthyphro, Minos, Timaeus, and Laws) is extant in Armenian, the translation of which Arevšatyan dated to the 7th–8th centuries, yet without providing a detailed investigation of the subject.45 Subsequent studies suggest rather that the Armenian version was probably completed by the eleventh-century scholar Grigor Magistros, who had alluded to such project in his correspondence.46 This therefore associates the endeavor with the renewal of interest in Plato in Byzantium under Michael Psellus and John Italos. In this poem we witness the impact of Plato’s discussion of the interrelation of reason and the senses from Book 9 of The Republic.47 The latter are mutable, inaccurate, and become blunted with age. The pleasure they provoke is created by a temporary physical stimulus. When that terminates, the pleasure is transformed into pain and yearning.48 However, the prolongation of the pleasure in 40 41 42 43 44 45

46

47 48

See R.W. Thomson, The Armenian Version of the Works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO 488–489, Arm 17–18; Leuven: Peeters, 1987). See A. Tanielian, Archbishop Nersēs Lambronac‘i Commentary on Wisdom of Solomon (New York: Drazark Press, 2007), pp. 81–82. Cowe, “Armenian Immigration Patterns,” pp. 112–118. Cowe, “Impact of Time and Place,” p. 87. Tanielian, Archbishop Nersēs Lambronac‘i, pp. 245, 562. Ս. Արեւշատյան, “Պլատոնի երկերի հայերեն թարգմանության ժամանա՞կը”, Բանբեր Մատենադարանի 10 (1971) [S. Arevšatyan, “The Dating of the Armenian Translation of Plato’s Works,” Herald of the Matenadaran 10 (1971)]: pp. 7–20. On this development, see C. Aimi, “Platone in Armenia: Osservazioni sulla traduzione dell’ Apologia di Platone,” Rassegna Armenisti Italiani 12 (2011): pp. 15–21, and I. Tinti, “On the Chronology and Attribution of the Old Armenian Timaeus: A Status Quaestionis and New Perspectives,” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 35 (2012): pp. 219–282. G.M.A. Grube, Plato’s Republic (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1974), pp. 219–238. Grube, Plato’s Republic, pp. 233–235.

the renewal of the debate

251

the memory is categorized as a faint reflection, resembling a dream or reverie rather than something real.49 Thrasymachus, one of Socrates’ interlocutors, expresses the opinion that the king or tyrant is the happiest person in the state. Similarly, Anania proposes that Xač‘ik Aršaruni imagine himself a king with an exquisite palace embellished with variegated hues, sweet-voiced singers, and innumerable servants at his beck and call from morning till night.50 Later, he indicates how one’s physical life tends towards dissolution and entrope on a daily basis, a theme that embodies Plato’s teaching on sōma-sēma (the body is a grave (sc. for the soul)) directly expressed in the following phrase: “His body becomes his soul’s tomb and he is called a living corpse”.51 T‘ovma’s continuator attempts to present his subject as forever young and vigorous in appearance, but Anania provides a compelling contrast to the palace’s propaganda. Perhaps his masterstroke is his undermining of Gagik’s construction activity, of which the continuator is enormously proud: He built expensive, elegant constructions, then at his death he left them in ruins. People pass by and say, “Where can its builders be?”52 Similarly, T‘ovma’s continuator presents Gagik as the legitimate king of Armenia, whereas Anania defines him by the term բռնաւոր (tyrant) in the line “Now he tyrannizes, now he is tyrannized by other tyrants”.53 In sum, it is possible to conclude that although physical and metaphysical perspectives appear mutually exclusive, in reality they complement one another, and the debate between them is salutary for society’s overall balance and harmonious development. Hence, it is predictable that the 10th century economic 49 50 51

52

53

Grube, Plato’s Republic, pp. 134–136. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ, p. 348. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ., p. 350. Anania herein employs the image as an illus-

tration of the physical process of aging and dying, while for Plato it represents the general condition of the incarnate soul in contrast to its situation as an incorporeal reality after death and before being reborn. For Gagik’s construction program, see Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատմութիւնն տանն Արծրունեաց, pp. 450–464: For Anania’s perspective, see Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. Հատ., p. 355. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ., p. 354. In this way, Anania portrays the whole princely class as tyrants, while T‘ovma’s continuator tries to introduce a distinction eliminating Gagik from that category and portraying him as “a high mountain and immovable stone opposing the fearsome stormy blasts of tyrants’ threats.” See Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատմութիւնն տանն Արծրունեաց, p. 493.

252

cowe

and commercial renewal would engender a new phase in the conversation in Vaspurakan where its impact had been felt most actively.

Anania Narekac‘i on This Transient Life You also inquired how man can despise this earthly [life] which is fleeting and desire only God and His kingdom. Anania. So then if you wish to overcome the world and escape ensnarement in the allurements of this life, give heed with deliberation and examine with wisdom whether human life is futile and fleeting and disappears like a dream. 5

Thus, if you enter an elegant frescoed palace and enjoy the visual experience, still it is over when you step outside, whether for you or someone who did not see it, and you crave to see it once more. For man is deprived of this life not only when he dies, but while still alive the luster of a day passes in a day and that of a moment in a moment.

10

For if you summon singers and hear their joyful sound, when the sound quickly fades from your ear, whether you or someone who did not hear, again you crave to hear it. This is why Solomon says, “Neither is the eye satiated with seeing, nor the ear with listening, but all man’s effort is [directed] toward his mouth, and yet it is not satiated either.”54

15

As you view yourself in a dream as a king with wealthy splendour, but on awakening have nothing left except that you recall “I saw this in a dream,” so if you eat, drink and are waited upon by many from dawn to dusk, still when evening comes it is over and the day after it appears like a dream that has passed and again you are hungry and in need.

20

As a man sets off walking in the morning and sees orchards and parks and flowers on the way and journeys till he reaches his lodging, but when evening comes has nothing left except the recollection “I saw this on the way,” similarly, if you too enjoy all the earthly pleasures from dawn to dusk, still when evening comes, it is over and you crave the enjoyment

54

Eccles 6:7.

the renewal of the debate

253

25

once more. This is why the prophet says, “As someone eats and drinks in a dream, but on awakening [finds] his hope was in vain,”55 so it is with all human glory. As man’s clothing, so also man’s flesh bit by bit wears out and grows old. His hair ages and turns grey, his beauty fades, his eyesight is impaired,

30

his wits fail him and he loses his strength and if his time is extended, his body becomes his soul’s tomb and he is called a living corpse. Hence none of what is visible to us is stable. If someone has a friend, even that is disrupted, for either he dies or goes away or for various reasons transforms his love to hate.

35

If he conceives a sinful desire and commits that sin and fulfils his wish, still he is not satisfied, but that passes instantly and he craves it anew, as Solomon said: “Now he lusts after a woman and now sinful profit corrupts him. Listen, he is the one punished by God and reproached by men.”56

40

So then take heed wisely so as not to be deceived by this life. When you have occasion to sit eating, drinking and making merry recall to mind that lo, as we arise [from our places] and give glory, the merriment is over.

45

And when you see someone resplendently adorned, consider that lo he dies and turns to dust. As the prophet says: “Every man is grass and man’s glory is like a herb’s bloom.”57 And when you see spring radiant and pleasant, recall to mind that lo spring is passing and winter approaching.

50

And when you see a morning blithe and cheerful, consider lo morning is passing and night is drawing on. And when people praise and glorify you, do not become proud, for that wears out in a few days and falls into oblivion. Nothing visible is stable: that is why the apostle says, “Hope is not hope if it can be seen,”58 for that is subject to change.

55 56 57 58

Wisdom 3:11. Although infused with the spirit of the wisdom school, this saying does not appear to emanate from the Solomonic corpus. Cf. Ps 112 [LXX] 15. Rom 8:24.

254 55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

cowe

Moreover, man changes extremely quickly, for although he is exalted like the heavens, he crumbles to dust like the earth. He spreads like a cloud and is spent like a raindrop. He glistens like a flower and shrivels up like a weed. He flares like a flame and is diffused like fumes. He rages like a storm and disintegrates like a spider’s web. He erupts like a furnace and is extinguished like a smoldering ember. He surges like the sea and sinks into the depths like sand. He luxuriates like a tree and falls like a leaf. Now he fancies himself stable as a mountain, now he vanishes like a shadow. Now he roars like a lion, now he is enervated like a midge. Now he strikes you in the face like a violent wind, now he evaporates into the air like a mist. Now he swells like a flood, now he is tossed by the wind like brushwood. Today happy and tomorrow downcast. Hale in the morning and in pain by evening. Today glorious and tomorrow dishonoured. Today wealthy and tomorrow poor. Today fearsome and tomorrow fearful. Today in pomp and tomorrow at his funeral. Today in the treasury and tomorrow in the grave. One hour he was victorious and again defeated. Today desirable and tomorrow lamentable. In the morning a friend and by evening an enemy. Today he gathers and tomorrow he scatters. Now together and now divided. Today in prosperity and tomorrow a fugitive. Now loyal, now ambivalent. Today strong and tomorrow weak. Now ministered to by many servants, now in service to others. Today sated and tomorrow in need. Now exhilarated, now terrified. Today lord and tomorrow servant. Now in authority, now under authority. Today in peace and tomorrow in turmoil. Now illustrious, now destroyed.

the renewal of the debate

95

100

105

110

115

120

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

255

Today jocund and tomorrow tearful. Now in plenty, now in want. Today carefree and tomorrow careworn. Today he pursued and tomorrow he was pursued. Now dear, now hateful. Today close and tomorrow distant. Now he tyrannizes, now he is tyrannized by other tyrants. In the morning he heard good news and rejoiced, by evening he observed mourning and lamented. Now he pillaged the poor and filled his house with treasures, then he was handed over to other tyrants and became impoverished. He built expensive, elegant constructions, then at his death he left them in ruins. People pass by and say, “Where can its builders be?” This life is not stable, but everything is subject to change like a shadow. As a lamp which is extinguished by a the slightest thing, so human life is suddenly snuffed out from our midst. The period of youth lasts only a few days. Then grey hairs begin to come as an invitation to death and the flesh becomes fatigued and loses its strength. So then you should do good now as long as the time is in hand; for night comes when no one can work.59 As the apostle says, “The day of the Lord comes like a thief at night.”60 That is why the prophet [states] “Every man is grass and man’s glory is like the bloom on a herb.”61 And Solomon said, “Vanity of vanities, everything is in vain,”62 everything is futile, “everything emerged from dust and returns to dust again”63 and “man’s life passes like the last trace of clouds”64 and lingers for but a day. And the Lord Himself said, “What benefit is it for a man if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? What ransom can a man give for his soul?”65 And the apostle said, “What is visible is here for a time, but the unseen [is] eternal.”66 John 9:4. 1 Thess. 5:2. Cf. Ps 112 [LXX]: 15. Eccles 1:2. Ibid. 3:20. Wisdom 2:4. Matt. 16:26. 2 Cor. 4:18.

256

cowe

Now when earthly magnificence beguiles your mind, recall all that to mind and ask help from God and by the grace of God and Christ our God you will overcome the world.

Acknowledgements It is with deep respect that I offer this contribution to honor the memory of the great human being, scholar, and friend that was Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan for whom the interrelation between historical forces and intellectual reflection was at the center of his thought world.

Bibliography C. Aimi, “Platone in Armenia: Osservazioni sulla traduzione dell’ Apologia di Platone,” Rassegna Armenisti Italiani 12 (2011): pp. 15–21. M. Arranz S.J., “Couronnement royal et autres promotions de cour,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 56 (1990): pp. 83–133. J.J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: the Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010). S.P. Cowe, “Armenian Hagiography” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, ed. S. Efthymiadis, vol. 1 (Farnham, England: Ashgate Press, 2011): pp. 299–322. S.P. Cowe, “Armenian Immigration Patterns to Sebastia, Tenth-Eleventh Centuries,” in Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publications, 2004): pp. 111–136. S.P. Cowe, “Ełišē’s “Armenian War” as a Metaphor for the Spiritual Life” in From Byzantium to Iran: in honor of Nina Garsoïan, eds. J.-P. Mahé and R.W. Thomson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997): pp. 341–359. S.P. Cowe, “Generic and Methodological Developments in Theology in Caucasia from the Fourth to Eleventh Centuries within an East Christian Context,” in Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (secoli IV–XI) (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’ Alto Medioevo, 1996): pp. 647–683. S.P. Cowe, “The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades (1050–1350),” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. Michael Angold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): pp. 404–429. S.P. Cowe, “Armenological Paradigms and Yovhannēs Sarkawag’s ‘Discourse on Wisdom’—Philosophical Underpinning of an Armenian Renaissance?,” RÉA 25 (1994– 1995): pp. 125–155.

the renewal of the debate

257

S.P. Cowe, “The Impact of Time and Place on Grigor Narekatsi’s Theology, Spirituality, and Poetics,” Le Muséon 108 (1995): pp. 85–102. S.P. Cowe, “The Interpenetration of the Divine and Human in Grigor Narekac‘i’s Theology of Culture,” in S. Grégoire de Narek: théologien et mystique, eds. J.-P. Mahé and B.L. Zekiyan (OCA 275; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2006): pp. 229–245. S.P. Cowe, “The Textual Significance of the Armenian Palimpsest from Sinai and its Role in the Edition of the Armenian Bible” in Analecta Orientalia Ambrosiana V (Roma: Bulzoni editore, 2016). S.P. Cowe, “Theology of Kingship in 13th Century Armenian Cilicia,” Հասկ հայագի տական տարեգիրք [Hask Armenological Annual], 2009: pp. 417–430. S.P. Cowe, “Relations between the Kingdoms of Vaspurakan and Ani,” in Armenian Van/Vaspurakan, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa CA: Mazda Publications, 2000): pp. 73–85. S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, vol. 1 (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2011). P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). P. Davies and J. Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge our Understanding of Physical Reality (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1992). J. Gippert, The Armenian Layer, vol. 3: The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). G.M.A. Grube, Plato’s Republic (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1974). L. Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght‘amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). H.A. Manandian, The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade, tr. N.G. Garsoïan, (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Library, 1965). B. Outtier, “Une exhortation aux moines d’Élisée l’Arménien,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont: contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux, Cahiers d’orientalisme 20 (Geneva: P. Cramer, 1988): pp. 97–101. Philo of Alexandria, Philo About the Contemplative Life, or the Fourth Book of the Treatise concerning Virtues, ed. F.C. Conybeare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895). A. Tanielian, Archbishop Nersēs Lambronac‘i Commentary on Wisdom of Solomon (New York: Drazark Press, 2007). R.W. Thomson, The Armenian Version of the Works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO 488–489, Arm 17–18; Leuven: Peeters, 1987). I. Tinti, “On the Chronology and Attribution of the Old Armenian Timaeus: A Status Quaestionis and New Perspectives,” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 35 (2012): pp. 219–282. R.C. Vinzthum, Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995). Ս. Արեւշատյան, “Պլատոնի երկերի հայերեն թարգմանության ժամանա՞կը”,

258

cowe

Բանբեր Մատենադարանի 10 (1971) [S. Arevšatyan, “The Dating of the Armenian Translation of Plato’s Works,” Herald of the Matenadaran 10 (1971)]: pp. 7–20. Ա. Գ. Դոլուխանյան, Հոգու եւ մարմնի պրոբլեմը միջնադարի հայ քնարերգու թյան մեջ (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՇ ԳԱ̌ Հրատարակչություն, 1987) [A.G. Dolukhanyan, The Problem of Soul and Body in Medieval Armenian Lyric (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1987)]. Եղիշէ, Վասն Վարդանայ եւ Հայոց պատերազմին, Ե. Տէր-Մինասեան (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՍՌ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1957) [Elishe, On Vardan and the Armenian War, ed. E. Ter-Minasyan, (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1957)]. Հ. Թամրազյան, Անանիա Նարեկացի կյանքը եւ մատենագրությունը (Երեւան: Հայկական ՄՇԳՄ Հրատարակություն, 1986) [H. Tamrazyan, Anania Narekatsi’s Life and Works (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1986)]. Հ. Թամրազյան, “Անանիա Նարեկացու ‘Վասն անցաւոր աշխարհիս’ բանաստեղծութունը,” Պատմաբանասիրական հանդես 4 (1980) [Hrachya Tamrazyan, “Anania Narekatsi’s Poem ‘On This Transient World’,” Historico-philological Journal 4 (1980)]: pp. 184–195. Հ. Թամրազյան, Նարեկյան դպրոցը (Երեւան: Հայաստան, 1999) [H. Tamrazyan, The School of Narek (Erevan: Hayastan, 1999)]. Թովմայ Արծրունի, Պատմութիւն տանն Արծրունեաց, Ք. Պատկանեան (Պետերբուրգ, 1887) [Tovma Artsruni, History of the House of Artsruni, ed. K‘. Patkanean (St. Petersburg, 1887)]. Կորյուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի, Է. Ա. Պիվազյան, (Երեւան: Հայպետհրատ, 1980) [Koryun, Life of Mashtots, ed. E.A. Pivazyan (Erevan: Haypethrat, 1980)]. Կ. Ղաֆադարյան, Սանահնի վանքը եւ նրա արձանագրությունները (Երեւան: Հայկական ՄՍՌ ԳՄ Հրատարակություն, 1957) [K. Lafadaryan, The Monastery of Sanahin and its Inscriptions (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1957)]. Մատենագիրք Հայոց, ժ. հատ. (Անթիլիաս: Մեծի Տանն Կիլիկիոյ Կաթողիկոսութիւն, 2009) [Armenian Classical Authors, vol. 10 (Antelyas: Catholicate of the Great House of Cilicia, 2009)]. Սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Եղիշէ վարդապետի մատենագրութիւնք (Վենետիկ: Ս. Ղազար, 1859) [Complete Works of Our Holy Father the Vardapet Elishe (Venice: St. Lazar’s Press, 1859)]. Ղ. Փարպեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց եւ թուղթ առ Վահան Մամիկոնեան, Գ. ՏէրՄկրտչեան եւ Ստ. Մալխասեան (Տփղիս: Արագատիպ Մնացական Մարտիրոսեանցի, 1904) [Lazar Parpetsi, History of the Armenians and Letter to Vahan Mamikonyan, eds. G. Ter-Mkrtchyan and St. Malkhasyan (Tiflis: Mnatsakan Martirosyants Press, 1904)].

chapter 15

The Letters of Ioannēs Tzimiskes in the Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi Tara L. Andrews

A set of letters, evidently sent from the Byzantine emperor Ioannēs Tzimiskes to the Armenian Bagratid king Ašot III and to a certain Łewond vardapet in late 975 and preserved in the Chronicle written by Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi in Edessa around 150 years later,1 caught the attention of scholars as soon as the Chronicle was first published, and with good reason. The letters take their place among only a very few documents preserved directly in the Chronicle, which is an account of the history of Armenia, Byzantium, and the wider Near East between the years 951 and 1129. Their inclusion injects a level of detail and apparent accuracy concerning people, places, and dates that is largely absent from that text, particularly for the years up to 1016.2 The first of these letters is addressed to Ašot III, king of Greater Armenia. It describes a military campaign led by Tzimiskes into southern Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine between April and September 975. It is followed by what is either a garbled addendum or else a separate letter entirely, which records the resolution of an evident dispute over the possession of the fortified town Ayceacʿ in Tarōn. The last letter is addressed to Łewond vardapet, inviting him to Constantinople for the celebration of the acquisition of several icons discovered over the course of the campaign. 1 Matthew of Edessa (Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi), Žamanakagrutʿiwn (Vałaršapat, 1898): pp. 19–28. 2 For a fuller discussion of the first book of the Chronicle, see T.L. Andrews, “The Chronology of the Chronicle: An Explanation of the Dating Errors within Book 1 of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa”, Revue des études Arméniennes 32 (2010): pp. 259–282; for a more indepth discussion of the Chronicle as a whole and Uṙhayecʿi its author, see A.E. Dostourian, ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Matteos Urhayetsi)’, in Armenian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa, ed. R. Hovannisian, UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2006): pp. 155–164; C. MacEvitt, ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade, and the Armenian Diaspora’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007): 157–181; T.L. Andrews, ‘The New Age of Prophecy: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa and Its Place in Armenian Historiography’, The Medieval Chronicle, VI (2009): pp. 105– 124; and T.L. Andrews, ‘Matthew of Edessa’ in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 3 (1050–1200) eds. D. Thomas, D.R. Thomas, and B. Roggema (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 15; Leiden: Brill, 2011): pp. 444–450.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_017

260

andrews

As with almost any reasonably detailed historical source of the period, the letters pose a series of textual and historical problems. Probably the most pressing difficulty is in reconciling Tzimiskes’ claim to have entered Palestine with the omission of any similar claim in any and all other sources—Greek, Syriac, Arabic, or Armenian.3 Current scholarly consensus holds that the emperor could not have led an army south of Damascus,4 yet there has not been any real agreement as to what the passage signifies. Nicolas Adontz evidently felt the need to defend the veracity of the letter from unnamed scholars who considered it a forgery, although he was also inclined to accept that Tzimiskes had gone to Palestine.5 Although he hesitated to accept that the report of the campaign was accurate, René Grousset elaborated the view also expressed by Adontz that the purpose of the report was to impress and over-awe Ašot himself, with whom relations were fraught due in part to a latent dispute over the sovereignty of Tarōn.6 Over time the idea emerged that the letter, and the sentiments expressed with respect to Jerusalem in particular, point to a protoCrusading mindset that would come to fruition over a century later.7 Paul Walker, who demonstrated how very unlikely it was that Tzimiskes ventured on campaign any farther south than Damascus, also rejected the idea that a crusade to Jerusalem was ever intended by the emperor. The idea is nevertheless a persistent one; in recent years both Konstantinos Ikonomopoulos8 and Seta Dadoyan9 have taken it essentially for granted that Tzimiskes was expressing Crusading sentiments and that he intended to take Jerusalem from Muslim

3 Among the historians usually consulted on this period are Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire de Yahya Ibn Said d’ Antioche, Part 1’, in Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 18 (Paris: Brepols, 1924): pp. 701–833; Leo the Deacon, ed. and trans. A.-M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005); Iōannēs Skylitzēs, trans. B. Flusin, Empereurs de Constantinople (Synopsis Historiôn) (Paris: Éditions P. Lethielleux, 2003); Michael the Syrian, Chronique, ed. and tr. by J.B. Chabot (Paris, 1899); Stepʿanos (of Tarōn) Asołik, Histoire Universelle, ed. and tr. by F. Macler (Paris: Éditions de Byzantion, 1917). 4 Cf. P.E. Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of John Tzimisces in the Light of New Evidence’, Byzantion 47 (1977): pp. 301–327, for the most thorough argument. 5 N. Adontz, ‘Notes Arméno-Byzantines’, Byzantion 9 (1934): pp. 367–382. 6 R. Grousset, Histoire de La Arménie des Origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947). 7 R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Plon, 1934); G. Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State (Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1969). 8 K. Ikonomopoulos, ‘Byzantium and Jerusalem, 813–975: From Indifference to Intervention’, in Papers from the First and Second Postgraduate Forums in Byzantine Studies: Sailing to Byzantium, ed. S. Neocleous (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009), pp. 7–25. 9 S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, Volume One: The Arab Period in Armīnyah, Seventh to Eleventh Centuries (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2011).

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

261

possession by force of arms. However, even if the march into Palestine is understood to be fanciful propaganda, there is a kind of contradiction of sentiment in the first letter as far as the Holy Land is concerned. Tzimiskes writes on the one hand that he “wished to free the holy tomb of Christ our God from Tačik chastisement”, but on the other hand he reports that he “did not destroy the city [of Tiberias] or the district and […] did not plunder them, because it was the ancestral home of the holy apostles. The same also goes for Nazareth where truly the God-bearing holy Virgin Mary heard the good news from the angel.”10 How much more, then, would he have shrunk from sacking or plundering Jerusalem itself? The question of intention is a pressing one, when one examines these letters: what purpose did Tzimiskes have in apprising Ašot of the progress of his Syrian campaign? Adontz believed that the clue lay in the second letter, seemingly addressed to one Leo, protospatharios and general of Taron. He proposed that this was in fact not a separate letter at all, but a continuation of the first letter corrupted by the spurious insertion of a greeting.11 If taken this way, the letter becomes both a report of a successful campaign and a pointed display of strength—first, Ašot should be aware of Tzimiskes’ successes in Syria, and secondly, despite the sheer power that Tzimiskes had at his disposal, he would allow Ašot to retain control of the disputed fort of Ayceacʿ. Despite the elegance of the solution proposed by Adontz, it requires the historian to disregard several problems surrounding the text and its transmission. The first is the idea that a phrase of greeting would have been mysteriously dropped into the flow of a letter that is otherwise perfectly comprehensible. Nowhere else in the text of the Chronicle does an analogous textual confusion arise. It is difficult to see why it would have arisen here—and, moreover, without any attempt at emendation by any copyist. The second, related, difficulty arises in comparison with the text of Smbat Sparapet, who also appears to believe that there were three letters.12 Adontz proposed that Smbat was simply in error on this point.13 Yet if he is accepted as a reliable witness to the text of Uṙhayecʿi—which, by and large, he seems to have been—then he gives us a piece of information that the surviving version of Uṙhayecʿi’s text lacks, which is that the letter was sent by the emperor. The third difficulty comes from geography: why would Ašot be in possession of Ayceacʿ fortress in the first place, given that it was positioned so deeply in territory that was never his, and that 10 11 12 13

See below, pp. 274–275. Adontz, ‘Notes Arméno-Byzantines’, pp. 372–376. Smbat (Sparapet), Taregirkʿ, ed. by S. Agəlean (Venice: S. Łazar, 1956), p. 12. Adontz, ‘Notes Arméno-Byzantines’, pp. 375–376.

262

andrews

had moreover been annexed by the empire eight years before? While it is not outside the realm of possibility, such a cession would have to overcome the objections both of good sense on the part of the Byzantine administration, and of the extremely contentious politics that must arise if one branch of the extended Bagratuni clan suddenly came into possession of a land holding that had belonged to another branch since the ninth century. The fourth difficulty is in the puzzling word that gave Adontz his solution: the word յանափորտէն, taken to be a transliteration of the Greek rendered into the Armenian ablative case (յ-ἀναφορά-էն, “from the report”). While there is an undeniable similarity to the word ἀναφορά, it seems strange in the first place that the translator of the letter would have left this word in the Greek. Unlike words such as πρωτοσπαθάριος, θέμα, or τάγμα, this was hardly a specific Byzantine technical term with no analogue in Armenian. If one concludes instead that the word was misunderstood by a scribe in the chain of transmission to the archetype of the surviving texts of the Chronicle, then one must sacrifice the neat conclusion reached by Adontz, but many difficulties with our understanding of the text disappear. The purpose of this article and of the presentation of an updated edition and translation of the letters, is neither to present a new solution to these problems of the text, nor to throw support to one interpretation or another. Rather, its purpose is to lay out the available textual evidence for an extremely valuable, but thorny and problematic, historical source that is of interest to Arabists, Byzantinists, Armenologists, and others. The available translations and excerpts of the text have tended to offer resolutions to the difficulties presented by the letters, sometimes without doing full justice to the scope of those difficulties. Here it is hoped that the trend can be reversed. Now, interested scholars have the opportunity to study the available evidence in detail and are free to revisit the conclusions of the past century. In addition to the two major and reasonably well-trodden problems outlined above, there are a number of smaller textual questions and difficulties of identification throughout the letters. Some of them have been addressed by translators including Ara Dostourian;14 others remain unsolved problems. They are presented here where they arise, with references to discussions elsewhere, and on occasion with new solutions proposed.

14

A.E. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Belmont, MA: University Press of America, 1993).

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

263

The Text and Its Manuscripts The letters of Tzimiskes survive in all of the known extant manuscripts of the Chronicle; that is, some thirty-five manuscripts held in Yerevan, Venice, Vienna, Jerusalem, Paris, London, Oxford, Munich, Bzommar, and Rome. On the basis of preliminary work on the stemma of the Chronicle15 eight manuscripts were chosen for the present edition of the letter; together they represent an approximate coverage of the full stemma, insofar as manuscripts have been made available to the author for consultation. These are: – Yerevan, Matenadaran MS 1896 (A), copied in 1689 in the Amrdōlu monastery of Bitlis by Yakob Erēcʿ, at the behest of Vardan Bałišecʿi, who was the librarian of the monastery. This text served as the base text for the Vałaršapat edition of 1898. Those editors entertained the possibility that this manuscript had been copied directly from the autograph or a manuscript very near to it. Comparison with the other manuscripts, however, does not support that conclusion. The scribe did engage in a moderate amount of revision of the text that clearly appealed to the linguistic sensibilities of the Vałaršapat editors, and was able to fill two sizeable gaps in the text that are carried in all extant manuscripts. These scribal rectifications cannot, however, be taken as evidence that the scribe was working from a version of the text that was close to the autograph. His emendations seem to be based more on his own sense of the text and of the language than on his witness. The gaps in the text were filled only after the fact—the material evidence of this is quite clear—from an unknown exemplar which was evidently not used to correct the text elsewhere. – Yerevan, Matenadaran MS 1767 (B), copied in 1623 in Aleppo, by a scribe called Avetik at the school of the vardapet Israyel Hamtʿecʿi. This was text Բ in the Vałaršapat edition. – Yerevan, Matenadaran MS 3519 (D), copied in 1647 in Marosvásárhely, now Târgu Mureş in Romania, by Xačʿik Kafayecʿi. This was text Դ in the Vałaršapat edition. – Yerevan, Matenadaran MS 1731 (F), copied in 1617 by Zatik, son of Połtn. – Yerevan, Matenadaran MS 5587 (J), copied in 1617 in Lviv, Ukraine, by the same Zatik son of Połtn who copied manuscript F. The two manuscripts were

15

T.L. Andrews, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, with a Discussion of Computer-Aided Methods Used to Edit the Text’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2009), http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A67ea947c‑e3fc‑4363‑a289 ‑c345e61eb2eb.

264

andrews

copied from different exemplars and belong to different branches of the textual tradition. – Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Arm e.32 (O), copied probably in the early eighteenth century. The text is in multiple hands and there is no colophon, although the first page of the manuscript contains a series of records of bequests made to the Varag monastery near Lake Van. The last of these identifies the writer as Avetikʿ, who was consecrated as prior by Stepʿanos vardapet in 1703. – Venice, Mekhitarist Library MS 887 (V), copied between 1590 and 1600 by four separate scribes. The scribe who was responsible for the Chronicle’s text was Pōłos of Merzivon. The manuscript was sponsored by Petros Maxsoutencʿ in Aleppo; the text was therefore probably copied there. This is the oldest extant copy of the text. It has not been used directly in any edition of the text but was one of the exemplars for the copy that was made by the Mekhitarist fathers for Edouard Dulaurier, on which his French translation was based.16 – Vienna, Mekhitarist Library MS 574 (W), copied in 1601 by a priest named Grigor, probably in Constantinople. This is the second oldest extant copy of the text. It differs substantially from Venice MS 887. – Venice, Mekhitarist Library MS 917 (Z), copied probably during the seventeenth century. This was another one of the exemplars for Dulaurier’s copy of the text. The manuscripts D, J, W, and Z belong to a group in which only around half of the text of the Chronicle is preserved, ending shortly before the end of Book Two. (The exception is D, whose scribe switched exemplars at this point and continued the text until partway into Book Three.) The others carry a more or less complete text.

Editorial Methods Each of the texts was transcribed as diplomatically as possible from a highresolution image of the manuscript. Line and page breaks, orthography, abbreviations, and scribal corrections to the text were preserved. Each line of the transcription has been linked to the corresponding line of the respective page image. The work was done using the online tool ‘Transcription for Paleograph-

16

Matthew of Edessa (Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi), Chronique, 962–1136, avec la continuation de Grégoire le Prêtre jusqu’ en 1162, trans. E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1858).

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

figure 15.1

265

Transcription of the manuscript texts

ical and Editorial Notation,’17 in which the transcriptions are stored in an open standard format known as Shared Canvas. The text transcriptions were then rendered automatically into TEI-XML format. They will be made freely available from the site of the Swiss National Science Foundation-funded project The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa Online by the end of 2019.18 Once they were transcribed, the texts were automatically collated using the tool CollateX (Dekker et al.) and imported into the Stemmaweb site19 for further editorial work. Among the facilities available on Stemmaweb is a tool to view and correct the collation of an uploaded text. The collation is presented in graphical form as in Fig. 15.2. The editor may mark spelling and orthographical equivalences as well as other relationships between variants such as grammatical variation, synonym equivalence, and the like. The editor may also interactively correct the collation, if s/he is dissatisfied with the result produced by the automatic collation tool.20 17 18 19 20

http://www.t‑pen.org/. https://editions.byzantini.st/ChronicleME/. https://stemmaweb.net/. For further information and discussion of the theory behind the Stemmaweb tool and its use, see T.L. Andrews and C. Macé, ‘Beyond the Tree of Texts: Building an Empirical Model of Scribal Variation through Graph Analysis of Texts and Stemmata’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 28, no. 4 (2013): pp. 504–521, doi:10.1093/llc/fqt032.

figure 15.2

The beginning of the letter of Tzimiskes to Ašot III, viewed graphically

266 andrews

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

267

The edition of the present text became the impetus for a substantial extension to the functionality of this collation viewer. There was a clear need not only to correct the collation and to note reading equivalences, but also to capture information concerning the normalized orthography of the readings, and to mark certain readings as the lemma text for an eventual edition. This functionality has been incorporated into a new version of the tool on Stemmaweb. The aim is to allow the editor to express the entire edition—edited text, variants, emendations, and annotations—in graphical form, from which a print-style critical apparatus can be automatically generated—and regenerated, should the editor wish to produce a version of the apparatus that includes or excludes certain types of variants, correct mistakes, or add a manuscript to the collation. The edition of the letters of Tzimiskes was produced using these new editorial features within Stemmaweb, released publicly in early 2016. The complete collation will be made available through the Stemmaweb site, as well as through the Chronicle Online. For the present edition, the following editorial guidelines have been established: – Differences in spelling, orthography, abbreviation and so on are not noted in the critical apparatus (although they are present in the full collation.) Spelling has, as a rule, been normalized to that used in Bedrossian’s Armenian-English dictionary. – The manuscripts are remarkably consistent concerning the placement of Armenian full stops, which function essentially as paragraph endings in the modern conventions of orthography. These have been respected in the edition as presented, and the division into paragraphs is perforce altered from that which appears in the Vałaršapat printed edition. – The grammar used throughout the Chronicle varies from that of standard classical Armenian on a number of points. These include the declination of adjectives that precede the noun; the use of the -ք ending in the accusative case; and the use of a redundant յ- prefix between ի and certain words that begin with a vowel. The grammar of the text is not perfectly consistent on any of these points; however, the textual tradition is for the most part remarkably stable concerning their appearance. In the present edition we have preserved these grammatical features of the text where they appear. – The scribe of manuscript A emended the text in several places, occasionally to intervene on the points of grammar just discussed, and on other occasions to adjust the sense of the text. The majority of these emendations duly appeared in the base text of the 1898 Vałaršapat edition. In the present edition they have only been followed in a few cases, when the scribe’s conjecture makes sense of an otherwise nonsensical reading. It was considered

268

andrews

preferable to restore, insofar as possible, the text as it was evidently transmitted into the seventeenth century. – The grammar of the text is not particularly complex. Yet due to the issues mentioned above (and, perhaps, as a result of the letters themselves presumably having been translated from Greek originals) it is rather difficult to construe in places. For the English translation an attempt has been made to strike a balance between rendering the text in a fluent fashion and remaining as close as possible to what appears in the Armenian. While the text should be comprehensible, it has not been given the sort of elegance that might unnecessarily alter the sense of the original.

Bibliography N. Adontz, ‘Notes arméno-byzantines’, byzantion 9 (1934): pp. 367–382. T.L. Andrews, ‘Matthew of Edessa’ in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 3 (1050–1200), eds. D. Thomas, D.R. Thomas, and B. Roggema (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations 15; Leiden: Brill, 2011): pp. 444–450. T.L. Andrews, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, with a Discussion of Computer-Aided Methods Used to Edit the Text’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2009), http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A67ea947c ‑e3fc‑4363‑a289‑c345e61eb2eb. T.L. Andrews, “The Chronology of the Chronicle: An Explanation of the Dating Errors within Book 1 of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa”, Revue des études arméniennes 32 (2010): pp. 259–282. T.L. Andrews, ‘The New Age of Prophecy: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa and Its Place in Armenian Historiography’, The Medieval Chronicle, VI (2009): pp. 105– 124. T.L. Andrews and C. Macé, ‘Beyond the Tree of Texts: Building an Empirical Model of Scribal Variation through Graph Analysis of Texts and Stemmata’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 28, no. 4 (2013): pp. 504–521, doi:10.1093/llc/fqt032. M. Canard, ‘Les sources arabes de l’histoire byzantine aux confins des Xe et XIe siècles’, Revue des études byzantines 19, no. 1 (1961): 284–314 [doi:10.3406/rebyz.1961.1264.]. S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, Volume One: The Arab Period in Armīnyah, Seventh to Eleventh Centuries (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2011). De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo, trans. J.J. Reiske (Bonn: E. Weber, 1830). A.E. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Belmont, MA: University Press of America, 1993). A.E. Dostourian, ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Matteos Urhayetsi)’, in Arme-

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

269

nian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa, ed. R. Hovannisian, UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2006): pp. 155–164. R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947). R. Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Plon, 1934). K. Ikonomopoulos, ‘Byzantium and Jerusalem, 813–975: From Indifference to Intervention’, in Papers from the First and Second Postgraduate Forums in Byzantine Studies: Sailing to Byzantium, ed. S. Neocleous (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009): pp. 7–25. Iōannēs Skylitzēs, trans. B. Flusin, Empereurs de Constantinople (Synopsis Historiôn) (Paris: Éditions P. Lethielleux, 2003). Leo the Deacon, ed. and trans. A.-M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005). C. MacEvitt, ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade, and the Armenian Diaspora’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007): pp. 157–181. Matthew of Edessa (Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi), Chronique, 962–1136, avec la continuation de Grégoire le Prêtre jusqu’en 1162, trans. E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1858). Matthew of Edessa (Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi), Žamanakagrutʿiwn (Vałaršapat, 1898). Michael the Syrian, Chronique, ed. and tr. by J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1899). G. Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State (Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1969). Quaestiones disputatae de traductione humanae naturae a primo parente, ed. C.S. Alarcon (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1993). I.M. Resnick, Marks of Distinctions: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages (CUA Press, 2012). Smbat (Sparapet), Taregirkʿ, ed. by S. Agəlean (S. Łazar, 1956). Stepʿanos (of Tarōn) Asołik, Histoire universelle, ed. and tr. by F. Macler (Paris: Éditions de Byzantion, 1917). P.E. Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of John Tzimisces in the Light of New Evidence’, Byzantion 47 (1977): pp. 301–327. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire de Yahya Ibn Said d’Antioche, Part 1’, in Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 18 (Paris: Brepols, 1924): pp. 701–833. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire de Yahya Ibn Sa’id d’Antioche, Part 2’, in Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 23 (Paris: Brepols, 1932), pp. 349–520.

270 §1

§2

andrews

Աշոտ շահնշահ Հայոց մեծաց եւ իմ հոգեկան զաւակ, լուր եւ իմացիր թէ որչափ ինչ սքանչելիս արար Աստուած առ մեզ եւ զարմանալի յաղթութիւնս, որ եւ իմանալն անկարելի է զԱստուծոյ քաղցրութիւնն եւ զահաւոր մարդասիրութիւնն զոր արար Տէր ընդ ժառանգութիւնս իւր։ Ի յայսմ տարւոջս ի ձեռն թագաւորութեանս մերում, կամեցաք եւ քո փառաւորութեանդ ծանուցանել, ո՜վ Աշոտ Բագրատունի եւ զաւակ իմ. իմացուցանեմ քեզ, որ եւ դու որպէս եւ քրիստոնեայդ ես, եւ հաւատարիմ սիրելի թագաւորութեանս մերում, ուրախանաս եւ փառաւորես զահաւոր զմեծութիւնն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ. եւ գիտասցես թէ որչափ օգնեսցէ Աստուած քրիստոնէից ամենայն ժամանակի, քանզի յետ հարկատու առնելոյ թագաւորութեանս մերոյ զամենայն արեւելս պարսից. եւ կամ թէ որպէս հանաք զնշխարս սրբոյ հայրապետին Յակոբայ ի Մծբնայ քաղաքէն Տաճկաց, եւ առաք ի Տաճկաց զհարկն մեր, եւ զգերութիւնն հանաք ի նոցանէն, եւ ելեալ գնացաք. եւ վասն ամբարտաւանութեանն եւ հպարտութեանն Ամիր-ըլ-Մումնոյ իշխանին Ափրիկեցւոցն, զորս Մախր Արապիկք կոչեն, որ եւ բազում զօրաւք եկեալ ի վերայ մեր. եւ առ ժամ մի ի վտանգի արկին զօրսն մեր, եւ ապա յաղթեցաք նոցա մեծաւ զօրութեամբ եւ օգնականութեամբն Աստուծոյ, եւ ամօթալից դարձան որպէս զայլ թշնամիսն. եւ յայնժամ շրջան առաք զներքին կողմն աշխարհին նոցա, եւ ի սուր սուսերի մաշեցաք զգաւառս բազումս. եւ փութապէս դարձաք ի դուրս եւ

1 զաւակ լուր] զաւակալուր F 2 որչափ] ոչչաբ Z(a.c.) ‖ ինչ] om. A(a.c.) 3 յաղթութիւնս] յաղթութեանս J ‖ քաղցրութիւնն] քաղցրութիւն Z, քաղցրութենէն BFOV 4 մարդասիրութիւնն] մարդասիրութիւն BZ 6 ձեռն] ձեռս BDFJZ 7 փառաւորութեանդ] մերում add. J, մերում կամեց add. J(a.c.) ‖ ծանուցանել ո՜վ] ծանուցանելով V 8 իմ] om. B ‖ եւ] om. F(a.c.) ‖ եւ] om. A(a.c.) 10 զմեծութիւնն] զմեծութիւն ABZ 11 ամենայն] յամենայն A 12 քանզի յետ] քան ետ FV ‖ հարկատու] յհարատկու DJZ, հարկաւոր B 13 արեւելս] յարեւելս DJOWZ, երեւելս F(a.c.) ‖ սրբոյ] եկեղեցոյ add. F(a.c.) 14 ի] transp. post Մծբնայ A ‖ ի Մծբնայ] om. B 14–15 ի Տաճկաց … հանաք] om. F 15 զգերութիւնն] զգերութիւն Z, զգերութիւն B, մեր add. AB 16 ամբարտաւանութեանն] ամբարտաւանութեան ABZ ‖ հպարտութեանն] հպարտութեան ABZ 17 Ափրիկեցւոցն] Ափրիկեցւոց A ‖ զորս] զոր B ‖ Մախր] 18 զօրաւք] om. DJO(a.c.)WZ ‖ Արապիկք] պարիկք B ‖ կոչեն] կոչեին D, կոչին. A զօրք B ‖ ժամ] ժամանակ Z, ժամանակի DJOW ‖ ի] om. BDJOWZ ‖ զօրսն] զզօրսն A ‖ մեր] om. DJOWZ 19 յաղթեցաք] աղօթեցաք FV(a.c.) ‖ օգնականութեամբն] . . օգնութեամբն BDJJ(a c )OZ 20 ամօթալից] ամօթալիցս ABFV 21 շրջան] սուրն V, om. A ‖ զներքին] զներքինն F ‖ կողմն] կողմ AB ‖ աշխարհին] յաշխարհին D ‖ սուսերի] սուսերն Z(a.c.)

5

10

15

20

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes §1

§2

271

Ašot šahanšah of the great Armenians and spiritual son to me, hear and understand how many wondrous things and miraculous victories God has wrought for us, for it is impossible to understand the sweetness of God and the awesome benevolence that the Lord has wrought through this legacy of his. In this year from the hand of our majesty, we wished to make [these things] known to your eminence,1 O Ašot Bagratuni my child. I inform you, since as you are a Christian you are faithful and beloved to our majesty; you glorify and rejoice in the awesome greatness of Christ our God. And you shall know how much God can assist the Christians in every era, so much so that he gave the entire Persian East as tributary to our majesty. Or else how we removed the relics of the holy patriarch Jacob from the Tačik city of Nisibis,2 and took our tribute from the Tačiks, and took captives from them, and went forth. And because of the pride and arrogance of Amir-al-Mumn,3 the prince of the Africans whom the Arabs call Makhr, he came against us with many troops. And for a time they put our troops in danger, and then we vanquished them with great strength and with the help of God, and they turned back ignominiously like the other enemies. And then we turned and took

14 the] om. 15 whom the Arabs call Makhr] who are called Makhr-Arabs. I.e. from the Maghreb. This and the following references to ‘Africans’ allude to the fact that, in this period, al-Muʿizz relied heavily on Berber troops from North Africa. Cf. Walker, “The ‘Crusade’ of Tzimisces”, p. 307. 16–17 vanquished] prayed 18 turned and took] took the sword to 1 The word used here and elsewhere in the text to refer to Ašot, փառաւորութիւն, is interesting; its Greek counterpart is ἔνδοξον, which corresponds to the ἐνδοξότατος that according to Constantine Porphyrogennetos (De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae Libri Duo, trans. J.J. Reiske [Bonn: E. Weber, 1830], https://archive.org/details/decerimoniisaul00reisgoog II. 48.) is reserved for the kouropalates of Iberia, who would have been in communion with the church of Constantinople. According to the text, the address to Ašot, the ἄρχον τῶν ἀρχόντων of Armenia, should have been περιφανέστατος (famous, renowned). 2 This seems to be a brief background reference to the campaign that Tzimiskes made in 974; according to Leo the Deacon, History, 204, he found the city deserted, no doubt due to his having sacked it in 972 (cf. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire de Yahya Ibn Sa’id d’ Antioche, Part 2’, in Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 23 (Paris: Brepols, 1932): pp. 349– 520). 3 This is a reference to the Fatimid caliph al-Muʿizz (932–975), in whose reign the Fatimids had taken Egypt and begun to expand into the regions in which this campaign of Tzimiskes’ took place.

5

10

15

272

§3

andrews

արարաք ձմերոց, եւ զամենայն հեծելազօրսն մեր հռոգեցաք. յապրիելի ամսեանն ի մուտն դիմեալ խաղացաք ի աշխարհն Փիւնիկեցւոց՝ եւ Պաղեստինացւոց, եւ քննայոյզ առնեաք զպիղծ Ափրիկեցիքն որք եկեալ էին ի գաւառն Շամայ։ Եւ ելեալ ամենայն զօրօք մերովք դիմեալ խաղալով գնացաք ի Անտիոքայ, եւ անցաք ընդ ամենայն գաւառն մերոյ թագաւորութեանս. եւ հնազանդ արարաք օկ՞ մեծաւ հարկատրութեամբ եւ անհամար գերութեամբ, եւ հասանեաք մինչեւ ի Հէմս քաղաք. եւ ելեալ ընդունեցան զմեզ բարւոք, որք մեր հարկատուքն էին գաւառականքն. եւ հասանէաք մինչեւ ի Վատոլվէքն, որ անուանեալ կոչի Իլուպօլիս, որ է արեգ քաղաք, երեւելի եւ ահաւոր պարսպեալ մեծ յոյժ եւ հարուստ. եւ ելին պատերազմաւ ընդ առաջ մեր. եւ բազմութիւն զօրաց մերոց հալածական արարին զնոսա, եւ ի բերան սրոյ կոտորեցին. եւ յետ սակաւ աւուրց պաշարեցաք զարեգ քաղաք, եւ բազում գերութիւնս մանկունս եւ աղջկունս առին զօրքն մեր, եւ զգանձս ոսկւոյ օկ՞ եւ արծաթոյ եւ անասունս բազումս առին. եւ ահա անտի ելեալ յառաջեցաք ի մեծ քաղաքն Դամասկոս, կամեցաք եւ զայն պաշարել. իսկ քաղաքապետն ալեւոր էր, եւ այր իմաստուն. առաքեաց առ թագաւորութիւնս մեր եւ բազում ընծայիւք աղաչեաց զմեզ չանկանել ի գերութիւն, եւ ոչ գնալ ի ծառայութիւն որպէս զՎատոլվե-

1 արարաք] արարաքն O(a.c.) ‖ ձմերոց] ձմերոյ Z(a.c.), ձերոց W ‖ հեծելազօրսն] հեծելազօրն F ‖ հռոգեցաք] հաւաքեցաք DJWZ 1–2 յապրիելի] յաշխպրի O(a.c.), ապրիլի V 2 ամսեանն] ամեասն O, յամսեան DJWZ, յամսեանն V ‖ աշխարհն] յաշխարհն ABDFWZ 3 առնեաք] առնէ DJWZ, առնէայք FV ‖ զպիղծ] պիղծ Z(a.c.) ‖ Ափրիկեցիքն] Ափրիկեցիսն A ‖ որք] որ J(a.c.) 5 զօրօք] զօրք W ‖ գնացաք] գնաց O(a.c.) ‖ ի] om. B 6 ամենայն] ամենայնն Z ‖ գաւառն] գաւառսն AJ ‖ մերոյ] մեր A(a.c.) 7 հնազանդ] ի հնազանդ A ‖ հնազանդ արարաք] հնազանդութեանս F(a.c.) ‖ արարաք] արաք DJZ ‖ հարկատրութեամբ] հարկաւորութեամբ BDFJOVWZ 8 եւ] om. JOW ‖ հասանեաք] հասաք A 8–9 ընդունեցան] ընդունեցին A 10 Վատոլվէքն՝] վատոշվէքն DJWZ ‖ Իլուպօլիս] լուպավիս O, լօպօլիս B, լուավիս DJWZ 11 պարսպեալ] պատրաստեալ FV 12 պատերազմաւ] բազմաւ D ‖ բազմութիւն] բազմութիւնք A 13 ի] om. DJOWZ ‖ բերան] բերանոյ A(a.c.) 15 գերութիւնս] գերութիւնք F 15–16 զգանձս ոսկւոյ] գանձս յոսկւոյ W 16 ոսկւոյ] յոսկւոյ DJZ ‖ եւ] բազում add. V ‖ բազումս] om. V 17 ելեալ] om. V, ելեալք F ‖ յառաջեցաք] յառաջեցայս F(p.c.), յառաջեցայ F(a.c.) 18 քաղաքապետն] քաղաքն են F ‖ քաղաքապետն ալեւոր էր] քաղաքն V ‖ եւ] om. B 20 չանկանել] չանկանիլ A ‖ գերութիւն] փորձութիւն B ‖ որպէս] om. O(a.c.) 20–274.1 զՎատոլվեքայ] զատելզոքա DJOWZ, զատելւոքայ BFV

5

10

15

20

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§3

273

the inner part of their land, and we put many districts to the sword.4 And we quickly turned back and made winter quarters, and we paid all our cavalry. At the beginning of the month of April5 we marched on campaign into the land of the Phoenicians and Palestinians, and we were searching for the filthy Africans6 who had come to the district of Syria. And we departed, marching with all our forces, and went in/from Antioch, and passed through all the districts of our kingdom. We brought them to obedience with a large collection of tribute and innumerable captives, and we reached Hems city.7 And they came out and received us well, those natives who were our tributaries. And we reached as far as the city of Baalbek, which is called Heliopolis, that is the “city of the Sun”, illustrious and awesome, very well fortified and rich, and they came against us in battle. And the multitude of our forces scattered them, and they were destroyed by the sword. And after a few days we besieged the city of the sun, and our forces took many boys and girls captive, and they took treasure of gold and silver and many animals. And then going out from there we advanced to the great city of Damascus, and we wished to besiege it. Now the city chief was a grey-haired and wise man. He sent to our majesty, and with many gifts he begged us not to [cause them to] fall into captivity, and not to [force them to] go into servi-

8 large collection of tribute] great necessity 19 captivity] temptation; misfortune

13 destroyed by the sword] destroyed the edge

4 This is an intriguing passage in the letter, without a known analogue in other sources. It suggests that Byzantine and Fatimid armies clashed sometime in the autumn of 974. It is known (cf. Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of Tzimisces’, pp. 308–310, following various Arabic sources) that the Fatimids were attempting to assert their control over Syria during this time, and it is clear from the events of 975 that Tzimiskes was only too happy to enter the fray there. It is, however, difficult to reconcile the news of a battle between Fatimids and Byzantines during the time that Tzimiskes was evidently on campaign around Amida. 5 April 975. The campaign described here by Tzimiskes receives some coverage by Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire II’, pp. 368–369, as well as by Leo the Deacon, History, 207–211. The events at Damascus in particular are covered by Ibn al-Qalānisī, trans. by M. Canard, ‘Les Sources Arabes de l’ histoire Byzantine aux confins des Xe et XIe siècles’, Revue des Études Byzantines 19, no. 1 (1961): pp. 284–314 [doi:10.3406/rebyz.1961.1264.], here pp. 293–295. 6 On the significance of these ‘filthy Africans’ and their identification as Berber mercenaries, see Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of Tzimisces’, pp. 307–308. 7 i.e. Homs, Greek Ἔμεσα.

5

10

15

274

§4

andrews

քայ զբնակիչսն, եւ ոչ զգաւառն աւերել որպէս զնոցայն. եւ բերին բազում տուրս պատուականս եւ յոլով ձիս եւ ջորիս երեւելիս, եւ գեղեցիկ սարք յոսկւոյ եւ արծաթոյ, եւ հարկս յարաբացեաց ոսկւոյն ԽՌ դահեկանս. առին ի մէնջ զօրավարս, եւ տուին մեզ գիրս՝ զի յաւիտեան ծառայք կացցեն թագաւորութեանս մերում՝ ազգ զհետ ազգի, եւ ցեղս զհետ ցեղի. եւ կարգեցաք անդ զօրավար զայր ոմն որ կոչէր Թուրք, այր փառաւոր Բաղտատեցի, որ եկն առ մեզ ի ծառայութիւն Շ ձիաւորով, եւ հաւատաց ի Քրիստոս, որ եւ յառաջն ծառայեալ էր թագաւորութեանս մերում. եւ Դամասկացիքն արարին դաշինս երդման, զի տացեն անխափան զհարկն. եւ ասացին գով թագաւորութեանս մերում, եւ ընդ մեր թշնամիսն մարտնչել. եւ յաղագս այսորիկ անպաշարելի թողաք զնոսա. եւ անտի յարուցեալ գնացաք ի Տիբերական Ծովն, ուր Տէր մեր Յիսուս Քրիստոս ՃԾԳ ձկամբքն զսքանչելիսն արար. կամեցաք եւ զայն քաղաքն պաշարել. իսկ նոքա եկին ի հնազանդութիւն մերոյ թագաւորութեանս, եւ բերին մեզ ընծայս բազումս որպէս Դամասկացիքն, եւ հարկս ԼՌ դահեկանս առանց այլ տրոց, եւ խնդրեցին զօրավարս ի մէնջ, գիր ծառայութեան տուեալ մեզ, հաստատուն որպէս զԴամասկացիքն հնազանդ լինել մեզ յաւիտեան, եւ տալ անխափան զհարկն մեր։ Յայնժամ թողաք զնոսա ազատ ի գերութենէ եւ ոչ աւերեցաք զքաղաքն եւ ոչ զգաւառն եւ ոչ արարաք զնոսա աւարս, վասն զի հայրենի տուն էր սրբոց առաքելոցն. նա աւանիկ եւ զՆազարէթ ուր զաւետիսն իսկ ի հրեշտակէն լուաւ աստուածածին սուրբ կոյսն Մարիամ. նոյնպէս գնացաք եւ ի Թաբորական լեառն, եւ ելաք յայն տեղւոջն ուր

1 զբնակիչսն] բնակիչսն O ‖ զգաւառն] զգաւառսն A(p.c.), զգաւառսաց A(a.c.) ‖ բերին] բերէին W 2 տուրս] տուր W 3 յոսկւոյ] ոսկւոյ BFOV ‖ հարկս] յարկս F ‖ յարաբացեաց] արաբացեաց B, արաբացեացս V ‖ ոսկւոյն] եւ add. AF 4 առին] եւ add. ADF ‖ մէնջ] մէջ W ‖ զօրավարս] զօրականս FV ‖ զի] վասն զի DFJOVWZ, վասն B 5 ազգ] զազգք FV, ազգք O 6 ազգ … ազգի] transp. W 7 առ մեզ] om. B 8 յառաջն] առաջն F 9 ծառայեալ] ծառայեալն J(a.c.) 10 անխափան] transp. post զհարկն V 11 մարտնչել] մարտնչին BDJO(p.c.)Z, մարտնչէին O(a.c.)W 13 գնացաք] իգնացաք B(a.c.) ‖ Տիբերական] գփբերական F ‖ ուր] որում DJWZ, ուրմ O ‖ ՃԾԳ] ՃԳ FV 14 ձկամբքն] ձկամբն DFV ‖ զայն] om. B 15 բերին] բերէին W 16 ընծայս] ընծայսն F ‖ որպէս] om. A(a.c.) ‖ դահեկանս] դեկանս DJOWZ 17 այլ տրոց] այլոց V ‖ տրոց] որոց B ‖ մէնջ] մէջ W, եւ add. A 19 տալ] տան BDFJOVWZ ‖ անխափան] խափան D(a.c.) 20 զնոսա] զնա B ‖ ազատ] om. V ‖ աւերեցաք] աւիրեցաք W 21 զգաւառն] զգաւառսն A ‖ արարաք] արար A(a.c.) ‖ աւարս] աւարաք F(a.c.), յաւարս AZ, աւուրս O(a.c.) ‖ հայրենի] հայրաքնի B 22 տուն] տօն JW ‖ աւանիկ] յաւանիկ J ‖ ուր] որ BDFOVW 23 հրեշտակէն] հրեշտակապետէն A 24 եւ] om. B ‖ ի] om. Z(a.c.) ‖ ելաք] եղաք DJOWZ(a.c.) ‖ ելաք յայն] ել արքայն F ‖ յայն] այն V, յայտն Z, յայտ D(a.c.) ‖ տեղւոջն] եղոջն Z

5

10

15

20

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§4

275

tude like the inhabitants of Baalbek, and not to ruin the district like theirs. And they brought many precious gifts and a great many horses and splendid mules, and beautiful furnishings of gold and silver, and tribute of 40,000 dahekans of Arabian gold. They received this commander8 from us, and gave us a written contract that they would always be servants to our majesty, from generation to generation and from family to family. And we appointed as commander there a man who was called Tʿurkʿ,9 an honorable man of Baghdad, who came to us in service with 500 cavalry officers, and committed to Christ, as he had previously served our majesty. And the Damascenes made a sworn treaty that they would give tribute without obstruction. And they spoke in praise of our majesty, and said that they would fight against our enemies. And on account of this we left them without a siege. And from there we went to the Tiberian Sea,10 where our Lord Jesus Christ performed the miracle with the 153 fish.11 We also intended to besiege that city, but they came in submission to our majesty, and they brought us many gifts like the Damascenes, and tribute of 30,000 dahekans above and beyond other gifts. And they requested a commander from us, giving us a letter of service [promising] to be subject to us forever, faithful like the Damascenes, and to give us the tribute without obstruction. Then we left them free from captivity and did not destroy the city or the district and we did not plunder them, because it was the ancestral home of the holy apostles. The same also goes for Nazareth where truly the Godbearing holy Virgin Mary heard the good news from the angel. And likewise we went to Mount Tabor, and we were in that place where Christ our God was

5 that] A because 14 153] 103 that] go to the royal 8

9

10 11

16 other gifts] others

24 were] went forth ‖ were in

Dostourian translates զօրավարս as ‘officers’, and the manuscripts are agreed on the reading, but the plural makes little sense in the historical context. It is clear from Yahyā and from Ibn al-Qalānisi that Tzimiskes’ “appointment” was a confirmation of Alptikin (cf. note 9 below) as ruler of Damascus. This is a reference to Abū Manṣūr Alptikin, a Turk who had been in control of Damascus for two weeks. The ‘grey-haired and wise man’ named by Tzimiskes may refer to Alptikin, or may alternatively refer to Ibn al-Māward, an anti-Fatimid city leader who had summoned Alptikin to Damascus. Cf. Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of Tzimisces’, p. 310 and nn. 22, 53. i.e. the Sea of Galilee. Cf. John 21 1–14.

5

10

15

20

276

andrews

այլակերպեցաւ Քրիստոս Աստուած մեր. եւ մինչդեռ յայն տեղւոջն կայաք, եկին առ մեզ ի Ռամլէէ եւ յԵրուսաղեմէ աղաչել զթագաւորութիւնս մեր, ողորմութիւն գտանել ի մէնջ. խնդրեցին զօրավար եւ եղեն հարկատուք, եւ լինել մեզ ի ծառայութիւն, զոր արարաք իսկ. կամեցաք զսուրբ գերեզմանն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ ազատել ի պատուհասից Տաճկաց. կարգեցաք զօրավարս յամենայն թէմս որք հնազանդեցան եւ եղեն հարկատուք թագաւորութեանս մերում, որ է Պենիադա՝ որ կոչի Դեկապօլիս, եւ Գեննեսարէթ, եւ ի Արկեա, որ կոչի Պտողմիա, եւ գրով յանձին կալան ամ յամէ անխափան տալ զհարկն, եւ լինել ընդ ծառայութեամբ մեր. գնացաք մինչեւ ի Կեսարիա որ է յեզր մեծի ծովուն Ովկիանոսի. հնազանդեցան եւ եկին ընդ մերով իշխանութեամբս. եւ եթէ ոչ էին փախուցեալ ծովեզերաց բերդերն, որք էին բնակեալ պիղծ Ափրիկեցիքն զարհուրեալք ի մէնջ օգնականութեամբն Աստուծոյ, սուրբ քաղաքն յԵրուսաղէմ եաք գնացեալ եւ ի սուրբ տեղիսն Աստուծոյ էաք յաղօթս կացեալ. եւ իբրեւ լուաք եթէ փախեան ծովեզերաց բնակիչքն, յայնժամ զվերին կողմ աշխարհին հնազանդեցուցաք, եւ ընդ հոռոմոց իշխանութեամբ արարաք. եւ կարգեցաք անդ զօրավար, եւ ի մեր կոյս արարաք, եւ զոչ հնազանդեալսն պատերազմաւ պաշարեցաք, եւ առեալ գնացաք ընդ ծովեզերին պողոտայն, որ դէմ յանդիման երթայր ի Վռիտոն քաղաքն յերեւելին եւ յանուանին պարսպեալ յոյժ, որ այժմ ասի Պէրութ. պատերազմեալ եւ սաստիկ կռուով առեալ զնա, եւ Ռ Ափրիկեցի ձերբակալս արարաք. նոյնպէս եւ զՆուսերի զԱմիր-ըլ-Մումնոյ, եւ զայլ լաւագոյն իշխանսն. եւ յայն քաղաքն զօրավար եդաք, եւ անտի կամեցաք ի Սիդոն անցանել. իսկ յորժամ լուան Սիդոնացիքն, առաքեցին առ

1–2 այլակերպեցաւ … կայաք] այլակերպեցաք Z(a.c.) 2 կայաք] կայայք O ‖ յԵրուսաղեմէ] Երուսաղէմ V, յԵրուսաղէմ F 2–3 զթագաւորութիւնս] զթագաւորութեանս DJWZ 4 եւ] ուխտեցին add. A 5 կամեցաք] եւ add. A ‖ ազատել] ազատելով DJOWZ 6 պատուհասից] գերութէան A ‖ Տաճկաց] Տաճկացն F, Տաճկացն Արապկաց V ‖ յամենայն] ամենայն OVZ ‖ թէմս] թէմսն DJWZ, թէմնս O 7 հնազանդեցան] հնազանդեցաք F 8 եւ] om. B ‖ Արկեա՝] այրկեաց W ‖ որ] ոչ O(a.c.) 9 Դեկապօլիս … որ կոչի] om. Z(a.c.) ‖ յանձին] յանձն DJW ‖ ամ] յամ B ‖ անխափան] անխաբան JOZ 10 լինել] լինէր Z(p.c.) ‖ մինչեւ] om. V 11 յեզր] եզր A ‖ մեծի] մեծ DJOWZ ‖ Ովկիանոսի] Ովկիանոս ի W ‖ եկին] կին B(a.c.) 13 Ափրիկեցիքն] Ափրիկեցիք DOWZ 14 Աստուծոյ] եւ ի add. A 16 լուաք] om. FV ‖ փախեան] om. O(a.c.) ‖ բերդերն, որք էին … ծովեզերաց] om. B ‖ կողմ] զկողմն Z(a.c.), կողմն FVWZ(p.c.) 17 աշխարհին] յաշխարհին D 19 հնազանդեալսն] հնազանդեալս FV 20 Վռիտոն] վռիտուն FV ‖ քաղաքն] քաղաքս B 21 յանուանին] յանուանի B 22 կռուով] ռով F ‖ առեալ] առեալք DJOWZ ‖ Ափրիկեցի] Ափրիկեցիք DJOWZ 22–23 ձերբակալս] ձերբակալ V 23 զՆուսերի] զսուսերի V 24 յայն] այն V ‖ եւ] եւ եւ D 25 անցանել] անցանե B ‖ իսկ յորժամ … առաքեցին] om. Z(a.c.)

5

10

15

20

25

277

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

transfigured. And while we were in that place, they came to us from Ramallah and Jerusalem to beg our majesty, to find mercy from us. They requested a commander and they became tributary, and to be in service to us, which indeed we did. We wished to free the holy tomb of Christ our God from Tačik chastisement. We appointed commanders in all themes that submitted and began paying taxes to our majesty—that is Peniata which is called Dekapolis, and Gennesaret, and Acre which is called Ptolemais—and they agreed in writing to give the tribute year after year without obstruction, and to be under our service. We went as far as Caesarea which is on the shore of the great sea Ovkianos.12 They submitted and came under our power. And if they had not fled to the coastal fortresses, those filthy Africans who had dwelt there, frightened of us with the aid of God,13 we would have gone to the holy city Jerusalem and we would have stood in prayer at the holy places of God. And when we heard that the inhabitants fled to the coast, then we brought the highlands into submission, and we put them under Roman power. And we appointed a commander there, and brought them to our side, and we besieged with war those who did not submit, and we went taking the coastal highway, which came face to face with the eminent, renowned, and very fortified city of Berytos, which now is called Beirut. And making war with fierce combat we took it, and took 1000 African prisoners. And likewise for Nuṣayr, 14 of Amir al-Mumn, and the other very high-ranking princes. And we placed a commander in that city, and from there we wished to cross to Sidon. Now when the Sidonites heard of this, they sent the elders of their city

3 to be] A promised to be 12 13 14

4 Tačik] Tačik Arab

21 Nuṣayr] sword

The Mediterranean Sea. One manuscript (F) places the punctuation differently here, rendering the text ‘frightened of us, with the aid of God …’ This refers to Nuṣayr, a eunuch in the service of al-Muʿizz who is named by Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki, ‘Histoire II’, p. 369, as the emir of Beirut.

5

10

15

20

278

§5

andrews

մեզ զձերսն քաղաքին իւրեանց. եկին եւ աղաչեցին զթագաւորութիւնս մեր, եւ խնդրեցին զի հարկատուք լիցին մեզ մեծաւ ահիւ, եւ կալ մնալ մեզ ի ծառայութիւն. զորս լուաք իսկ աղաչանաց նոցա եւ կատարեցաք զկամս նոցա։ Եւ առաք ի նոցանէ զհարկն եւ տուաք նոցա զօրավար. եւ անտի յարուցեալ գնացաք ի Բիբղոն, հին եւ ամուր բերդն, եւ զայն եւս պատերազմեալ առաք եւ զբնակիչս նորա ի գերութիւն մատնեցաք. եւ մեծաւ աւարաւ եւ գերութեամբ անցաք ընդ ամենայն ծովեզերաց քաղաքանին ընդ դժուար եւ ընդ նեղ ճանապարհսն, ընդ որ այլ զօրք հեծելոց ոչ երբէք էր էր անցեալ, նեղ եւ նուրբ եւ չար ճանապարհ. եւ անդ գտանէաք շէն եւ վայելուչ քաղաքանի, եւ ամուր բերդեր, յորում կային Տաճիկ պահապանք. զամենայնն պաշարեցաք եւ քարի յատակս կործանեցաք, եւ զբնակիչսն ի գերութիւն վարեցաք. եւ յառաջ քան զհասանելն մեր ի Տրապօլիս հեծելազօրս առաքեցաք զթիմացիսն եւ զտաշխամատացիսն ի կապանն որ կոչի Քարերես, վասն զի լուեալ էր մեր եթէ պիղծ Ափրիկեցիքն անդ նստէին ի կապանին. եւ հրամայեցաք քմինս դնել եւ դարանս մահու գործեցաք նոցա, եւ որպէս պատուիրեցաք նոյնպէս եւ արարին. եւ Ս ի նոցանէ յայտնի ելեալ ի վերայ զօրաց մերոց. զբազումս ի նոցանէ սպանին, եւ յոլովս ի նոցանէ արարին կալականս, եւ ածին առաջի մերոյ թագաւորութեանս. նոյնպէս եւ ուր հանդիպէին փախստականս առնէին զնոսա. եւ իսպառ ջնջեցաք զամենայն աշխարհն Տրապօլսոյ, զայգիսն եւ զձիթենիսն եւ զբուրաստանս նոցա առ հասարակ կոտո-

2 լիցին] լինիցին FJOVWZ ‖ ահիւ] սահիւ B 3 զորս] զոր AJZ 5 Եւ] om. F ‖ առաք] առաքքեաց J(a.c.) ‖ տուաք] տուաց W ‖ զօրավար] զօրավարս AFV ‖ անտի] անդ JW 6 եւ ամուր բերդն] om. B 7 նորա] նոցա Z(a.c.) 8 մեծաւ] մեծ BDJZ ‖ եւ գերութեամբ] om. A(a.c.) 9 քաղաքանին] քաղաքին BV ‖ դժուար] դժուարս V ‖ ճանապարհսն] ճանապարհին V, ճանապարհն A 10 այլ] այլք A ‖ զօրք] զօրինաք Z(a.c.) ‖ ճանապարհսն … եւ չար] om. B 11 ճանապարհ] ճանապարհն V ‖ քաղաքանի] քաղաքանին B 12 զամենայնն] զմ՟ն JWZ, զոմն D, զամենայն BO 13 քարի յատակս] քարայատակ A ‖ ի գերութիւն] om. B 14 յառաջ] ի add. Z(a.c.) ‖ զհասանելն] զհասանիլն A ‖ ի Տրապօլիս] խորապօլիս W ‖ հեծելազօրս] հեծեալ զօրս FV 15 զտաշխամատացիսն] զտաշխատամացին DJWZ 17 դարանս] դարմանս V 18 եւ] om. D ‖ պատուիրեցաք] պատուիրեցաքն A ‖ եւ] om. B ‖ Ս] այր add. DJWZ 18–19 ի նոցանէ] transp. post ելեալ A 19 յայտնի] յայտն B ‖ մերոց] զորս add. A(p.c.) ‖ զբազումս] զբազումք Z 20 յոլովս] զյոլովս A ‖ կալականս] կալանականս AB ‖ առաջի] առ ի F 21 հանդիպէին] հանդիպէ B 22 Տրապօլսոյ] Տրապօլիս FV 23 զբուրաստանս] բուրաստանս W 23–280.1 կոտորեցաք] կործանեցաք Z

5

10

15

20

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§5

279

to us. They came and supplicated our majesty, and they asked in great fear to become tributary to us, and to remain in service to us. Indeed we heard their entreaties and we fulfilled their wishes. And we took tribute from them and gave them a commander. And from there we went to Byblos, the old and secure fortress, and attacking once more we took that [city] and delivered its inhabitants into captivity. And we passed through all the seaside towns with a great deal of booty and prisoners along the difficult and narrow paths along which other mounted troops had never passed, a narrow and tenuous and bad road. And there we found prosperous and pretty villages, and secure fortresses, in which there were Tačik guards. We besieged them all and we razed them to paving stones, and we led the inhabitants away into captivity. And before reaching Tripoli we sent mounted troops of the themata and the tagmata15 into the pass which is called Kʿareres, because we heard that the filthy Africans were sitting there in the pass. And we ordered that a watch be set and we set a deadly ambuscade for them, and it was done just as we commanded. And 2000 of them appeared in the open against our troops. They killed many of them, and made the rest of them prisoners, and led them before our majesty. And where they met fugitives they did the same to them. And finally we purged the entire land of Tripoli, we destroyed their vineyards and olive trees and

8 the] om. ‖ paths] path 15

16 2000] 2000 men

This word (զտաշխամատացիսն) was translated by Dostourian as taxiatoi. It is certainly a strange and corrupt form of the Greek word it is translating, but tagmata is a better fit both in consonants and in context.

5

10

15

20

280

§6

andrews

րեցաք, եւ յաւեր դարձուցաք, եւ արմատախիլ արարաք զամենայն գաւառն. եւ Ափրիկեցիքն որ էին անդ համարձակեցան եւ ելին ի պատերազմ ընդդէմ մեր։ Յայնժամ արձակեցաք ի վերայ նոցա եւ կոտորեցաք զամենեսեան առ հասարակ. եւ ապա առաք զմեծ քաղաքն զՃուէլն, որ Գաբաւոնն կոչէին, եւ զՎաղանեացն, եւ զՍեհունն, եւ զինքն իսկ զհռչակաւորն զուրզաւ. եւ ոչ մնաց մինչեւ ցՌամլէ եւ Կեսարիա, ոչ ծով եւ ոչ ցամաք, որք ոչ հնազանդեցան թագաւորութեանս մերում զօրութեամբն անեղին Աստուծոյ, զի մինչեւ ցմեծն Բաբելոն հնազանդ արարաք թագաւորութեանս մերում, եւ արարաք ծառայս զնոսա մեզ. վասն զի ամիսս Է շրջեցաւ թագաւորութիւնս մեր յայնմ աշխարհին հանդերձ զօրօք բազմօք. եւ սպառեցաք զքաղաքս եւ զգաւառս, եւ ոչ իշխեաց ելանել Ամիր–ըլ–Մումն օկ՞ ի Բաբելոնէ ընդդէմ մեր, եւ կամ հեծեալս արձակել յօգնութիւն իւր զօրացն. եւ եթէ չէր լեալ խստագոյն խորշակ եւ անջրդի ճանապարհի յայն տեղիսն որ մերձ է ի Բաբելոն, որպէս եւ քո փառաւորութիւնդ իսկ գիտենալ ունի, թագաւորութիւնս մեր մինչեւ ի Բաբելոն երթեալ որ եւ զինքն իսկ ի յերկիրն Եգիպտացւոց հալածեցաք. եւ իսպառ յաղթահարեալ շնորհօքն Աստուծոյ որ թագաւորեցոյցն զիս. ազատեցան այժմ ամենայն Փիւնիկէ եւ Պաղեստին եւ Ասորիք ի ծառայութենէ Տաճկաց, եւ հաւանեցան ընդ Հոռոմոց իշխանութեամբ եւ այլ եւ լիբանանու մեծ լեառն հնազանդեցաւ ընդ մերով իշխանութեամբս. եւ զամենայն Տաճկունք որք անդ կային ահագին բազմութեամբ գերութեամբ առաք եւ բաշխեցաք հեծելոց մերոց. եւ զասորեստան քաղցրապէս եւ մարդասիրաբար հովեցաք. հոգիք իբրեւ ԻՌ հանաք եւ 1 յաւեր] աւեր FV 2 գաւառն] գաւառսն A(p.c.) ‖ համարձակեցան] համարձակացն B 4–5 զամենեսեան] transp. post հասարակ V 5 զմեծ] զմեծն F ‖ զՃուէլն] ճուէլ B 6 Գաբաւոնն] գաբբաւորն Z ‖ զՍեհունն] զբոքսունն A(a.c.), զսեհոն Z ‖ եւ] om. Z 7 Կեսարիա] ցԿեսարիա A(p.c.) 9 զօրութեամբն] զօրութեամբ DF 9–10 զօրութեամբն անեղին … մերում] om. O(a.c.)V 9 ցմեծն] ցմեն F, ց AB 10 թագաւորութեանս] թագաւորութեանք F ‖ արարաք] արար W(a.c.) ‖ ծառայս] ծառայք B 11 մեզ] մեր V ‖ զի] om. DJOWZ(a.c.) ‖ ամիսս] յամիսս FV ‖ Ե] Է ABDFJOWZ 13 Ամիր–ըլ–Մումն] ափրիլի Մումնի եւ B ‖ Մումն] Մումնին եւ A, Մումնի FV 14 յօգնութիւն] transp. post զօրացն A, օգնութիւն DFV ‖ իւր] յիւր A ‖ եթէ] թէ B 16 փառաւորութիւնդ] փառաւորութեանդ V 16–17 գիտենալ] գիտենա J, գիտենաւ O(a.c.) ‖ գիտենալ ունի] գիտես V 17 երթեալ] երթալ DJWZ, էր add. A ‖ եւ] om. B 18 ի] om. A ‖ ի յերկիրն] երկիրն Z 18–19 յաղթահարեալ] յաղթահարեցաք FV 19 շնորհօքն] շնորհօք BDFJOZ 20 ծառայութենէ] ծառայութեան FV 21 եւ] om. A ‖ եւ] om. W 22 հնազանդեցաւ] հնազանդեցան V ‖ մերով] մերում D 23 որք] որ AB 24 հեծելոց] հեծելոցն D 25 մարդասիրաբար] մարդասիրապէս AFV ‖ հովեցաք] բարհովեցաք F, բարովեցաք V, հովուեցաք A(p.c.) 25–282.1 եւ ի] om. DJOWZ

5

10

15

20

25

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§6

281

orchards alike, and left them in ruin. And we eradicated the whole district. And the Africans who were there grew bold and came in battle against us. Then we attacked them and destroyed each of them alike. And then we took the great city Čuel, which was called Jabala, and Balanea, and Saone, and indeed the famous Barzuya itself. And nothing remained up to Ramlah and Caesarea, neither sea nor dry land, which was not subject to our majesty through the strength of the uncreated God, for we made everything up to the great Babylon16 subject to our majesty, and we made them servants to us. Because for five months our majesty marched in that land together with a multitude of forces. And we devoured the cities and the districts, and Amir al-Mumn did not dare to go out from Babylon against us, or to dispatch cavalry in support of his troops. And if the road to those places that are near to Babylon had not become severely and excessively hot and arid, as indeed your eminence has knowledge, our majesty would have gone as far as Babylon, for indeed we expelled him into the land of the Egyptians. And in the end I conquered with the grace of God who ruled over me. Now all of Phoenicia and Palestine and Syria have been freed from Tačik servitude and have acquiesced to Roman rule, and moreover the great mountain of Lebanon has submitted to our rule. And we took captive all the Tačiks who were there in a frightful multitude and have distributed them to our cavalry. And we tended

8–9 servants to us] our servants 9 Because] because of ‖ five] All the manuscripts read Է (7) here, but Ե (5) is more consistent with the internal chronology of the letter. 20 tended] aired 16

Dostourian takes this as a reference to Baghdad, which would be rather strange in context—this campaign was directed at the Fatimids, not the ʿAbbasids. It is much more likely to be a reference to Cairo, seat of the Fatimid caliphate since 973, founded on the site of the late antique town and fortress known as Babylon. It is perfectly reasonable that Tzimiskes would choose to use an existing Greek name for the place, rather than an Arabic one that had been coined only recently.

5

10

15

20

282

§7

§8 §9

andrews

ի Գաբաւոն բնակեցուցաք. ահա գիտասցես զի այսպիսի յաղթութիւնս ետ Աստուած քրիստոնէից որ ոչ եղեւ երբէք. եւ գտաք յայնմ քաղաքին ի Գաբաւոնն զսուրբ հողաթափն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ, որով եւ շրջեցաւ իսկ ի վերայ աշխարհի. նոյնպէս եւ զպատկերն փրկչին, զորս հրէայքն յետ ժամանակի խոցեալ էին, ուստի վաղվաղակի ել արիւն եւ ջուր, եւ զխոց տիգին ոչ գտաք. գտաք եւ յայնմ քաղաքին զպատուական հերս գլխոյ Կարապետին եւ զՄկրտչին Յովհաննու, եւ առեալ տանիմք ի պահպանութիւն աստուածապահ քաղաքին մերոյ։ Եւ արդ ի սեպտեմբերի ամսոյն հաճութեամբն Աստուծոյ, զմեր աստուածակեցոյց զօրքս ի յԱնտիոք հանաք, եւ վասն այնորիկ քո փառաւորութեանդ գիտացուցաք, վասն զի ի ձեռն մեր հրամանացս զարմանաս, եւ դու ինքն իսկ փառաւորես զԱստուծոյ մեծ մարդասիրութիւնն. եւ գիտասցես թէ որչափ բարի գործեցան այժմիկ, եւ կամ քանի յաւելան, եւ լայն եւ ընդարձակ եղեւ իշխանութիւն սրբոյ խաչին Քրիստոսի, եւ մինչեւ ցայսր տեղիք անունն Աստուծոյ գովի եւ փառաւորի. եւ ճոխանայ թագաւորութիւնս մեր անուամբ մեծութեամբ, եւ զօրութիւնն Աստուծոյ բարեբանեալ գովի ի բերանոյ մերմէ զորս ընդ ձեռամբ մերով հնազանդեցոյց Աստուած, ընդ որում հանապազ օրհնեալ տէր Աստուած Իսրայէլի։ Եւ յանափոռտէն պռտօսպաթրին Դերջնայ Լեւոնի եւ Տարօնոյ զօրավարին ողջոյն եւ ի տէր խնդալ։ Արդ գիտացաք որ զայծեաց բերդն որպէս անձին կալար՝ չես տուեալ. եւ այժմ գրեցաք առ զօրավար մեր, որ ոչ զբերդն առնու 1 Գաբաւոն] ի Բաբիլոն add. W, եւ ի Բաբիլոն add. DJOZ ‖ ահա գիտասցես] ահագին V ‖ զի այսպիսի] զայսպիսի D 2 յայնմ] յայնմն FJOWZ 3 Գաբաւոնն] Գաբաւոն V ‖ հողաթափն] հողաթափ FV, հողայ վթափն O ‖ մերոյ] om. FV 4 շրջեցաւ] շրջեցաք BZ(a.c.) ‖ աշխարհի] յաշխարհի D ‖ փրկչին] մերոյ add. A 5 ուստի] ուստ B 6 զխոց] խոց Z ‖ ոչ] om. A ‖ գտաք.] om. B ‖ գտաք] om. AB ‖ գտաք եւ] om. FV ‖ յայնմ] այնմ B 7 հերս] հերոյ V ‖ եւ] om. B ‖ զՄկրտչին] Մկրտչին AW, զՄկրտիչն BJ 8 պահպանութիւն] պահպանութիւնք F 9 Եւ արդ] յարդ F ‖ սեպտեմբերի] սեբտեմբեր F 10 այնորիկ] այսորիկ ABO 12 փառաւորես զԱստուծոյ] փառաւորեալ Աստուծոյ B 13 մարդասիրութիւնն] մարդասիրութիւն Z 14 ընդ] om. B 15 եւ] om. Z ‖ ցայսր] ցայս FV, ցայսօր DZ(a.c.) ‖ տեղիք] տեղիքն DOWZ ‖ անունն] om. J(a.c.), անուն BJZ, transp. post Աստուծոյ V 16 թագաւորութիւնս] Աստուծոյ add. J(a.c.) 17 եւ զօրութիւնն Աստուծոյ] om. B ‖ բերանոյ] բերանէ V 18 Աստուած] om. W 19 հանապազ] հանապազօր FOV ‖ օրհնեալ] զօրհնեալ W ‖ Իսրայէլի] արդ գիտացաք … զի այժմ add. Z, որ ողորմի Քրիստոս Աստուած մեղաւոր եւ ախմար գրչի սորա խաչիկին եւ ծնօղացն եւ օրինակի շնորհողս, Կարդացող։ add. D 20 Եւ] om. V ‖ յանափոռտէն] յանափոռստէն F, անափոռտէն D 21 զօրավարին] զօրավարիր B ‖ եւ] om. W 22 գիտացաք] գիտացուք J, գրեցաք A ‖ անձին] յանձին AFV ‖ չես] չե Z 23 տուեալ] սըւեալ W ‖ զօրավար] զօրավար AFV ‖ որպէս անձին … զբերդն] om. B ‖ առնու] առնում A

5

10

15

20

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§7

§8 §9

283

Syria gently and humanely. We have moved about 20,000 souls and settled them in Jabala. Behold you shall know that in this manner God gave victory to the Christians as never before. And in that city Jabala we found the holy sandal of Christ our God, with which he indeed walked over the land. And likewise the icon of the Redeemer, which the Jews had pierced some time ago, whence all of a sudden blood and water came out and we did not find the wound of the lance.17 And in that city we found the venerable hair(s) of the head of the Forerunner and the Baptist Johannes, and we took them and are carrying them off for protection in our city protected by God. And now in the month of September with the approbation of God, we brought our troops saved by God to Antioch, and because of that we have informed your eminence, because you marvel at the commands we give, and indeed you yourself glorify the great benevolence of God. And you shall know how much good has been wrought at present, and how copious and broad and vast the dominion of the holy cross of Christ has become, and [in] places as far as here the name of God is praised and glorified. And our majesty prevails in the name of greatness, and the strength of God is blessed and praised from our mouth which has been made subject by us to God, with which the Lord God of Israel is forever glorified. And from the anapʿort to18 the protospatharios of Derǰan and to the commander of Tarōn Lewon greetings and joy in the Lord.19 Now we learned that you have not given Ayceacʿ fortress as you agreed. And now we have written to our general, that he not take the fortress, nor the 2 in Jabala] add. and in Babylon 4 he] we 5 the] our 6 we did not find] we found; om. 11 that] this 19 forever] every day 20 And from …] Manuscript D contains a short colophon at this point; manuscript V contains the first sentence of the next paragraph, before backtracking to this point and repeating the whole. 22 learned] wrote 17

18 19

Leo the Deacon (X.5.) also records an extended version of the discovery of this icon. Another version of this story, in which the Jews used the water and blood issuing from the icon to cure illnesses, has been transmitted in the De passione imaginis Dominicii of Ps. Athanasius (PG 28, pp. 814–817), and from there incorporated by Nicholas of Ockham into his Quaestiones disputatae de traductione humanae naturae a primo parente, ed. C.S. Alarcon (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1993), q. 5 resp. 8. For more on these stories and how they affected the perception of Jews in the middle ages, see I.M. Resnick, Marks of Distinctions: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages (CUA Press, 2012). Grammatically, this ‘to’ could also be translated as ‘of’. Smbat Sparapet (Taregirkʿ, 12) summarizes this letter thus: ‘And he wrote to the protospatharios, and to the general of Tarōn that they should send to the king Ašot the chrysobull and 30,000 dahekans and 2000 servants, 10,000 horses and 1000 mules, for the love and accord which he gave him.’

5

10

15

20

284

§10

andrews

եւ ոչ զջորեանն զոր պայմանեցեր, զի այժմ չեղեւ առ մեզ պէտք. բայց զխրսօվուլօն զոր յուղարկեցաք, տուր տանել առ զօրավարն մեր, որ առաքէ առ թագաւորութիւնս մեր. եւ զվաստակոցդ քոց եւ զարմտեացդ գտանես զփոխարէնն ըստ սերմանեացն զամենայն բարի մի ըստ միոջէ։ Դարձեալ գրեցաւ եւ առ վարդապետն Հայոց ի Ղեւոնդն այսպէս. մեր հաճելի եւ սուրբ թագաւորութեանս սիրեցեալ մեծ իմաստասէր Պանդալեւոն, ողջոյն. ահա հրամայեցաք ձեզ որ ի դարձին մեր ի Տաճկաց գտանեմք զձեզ ի սուրբ քաղաքս եւ կամիս լեսինն յորժամ եկիր առ մեզ ի Աշոտոյ՝ շահնշահէ եւ հոգեկան զաւակէ մերմէ, եւ դարձուցեր զամենայն սրտմտութիւնս ի նմանէ, եւ տարարզԲագրատ ի Պապն Յանձաւացին. դու եւ ես Սատ Թոռնեցին պռտօսպաթարն. եւ արդ ջանացիր որ գտանեմք զքեզ աստուածապահ քաղաքին մեր. եւ անդ արասցուք տօնս մեծ հողաթափացն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ, եւ սուրբ հերացն Մկրտչին Յովհաննու. եւ արդ ահա հաճ ունիմ եւ զայս ինչ ի քէն, վասն զի խօսեսցիս ընդ մեր իմաստասէրսն եւ ընդ փիլիսո-

1 զջորեանն] զցորեանն A, զչորեանն F ‖ պէտք] պէտ B(a.c.) 2 զխռսօվուլօն] զԽՌ սովօլուանն ABDFJOW, զխռովու լաւն V, զի սովօլուանն Z 3 զվաստակոցդ] զվասակոցդ F 4 գտանես] ագանես V, տգանես F ‖ զփոխարէնն] զփոխարէնսն DJOWZ, զփոխարէն B 5 միոջէ] ջէ add. B 6 գրեցաւ] գրեաց ABDJOWZ ‖ եւ առ] om. FV ‖ ի] om. W ‖ Ղեւոնդն] յղոնդն O 7 սուրբ] om. V ‖ իմաստասէր] իմաստասէրն V 8 ձեզ] մեզ F, մեք A 9 կամիս լեսինն] կամ ի սլեսինն ADV, կամ B 10 հոգեկան] հոգիական AF ‖ զաւակէ] զաւակ BO(a.c.) 11–12 զԲագրատ ի] զԲագրատունի V, զԲագրատի DFJZ 12 դու եւ ես Սատ Թոռնեցին] om. B ‖ Սատ] աստ W 13 գտանեմք] գտանեմ ABDJOZ ‖ աստուածապահ] յաստուածապահ ABF 14 տօնս] տօն A(a.c.) 15 հաճ] հաճեալ AB 16 իմաստասէրսն] իմաստասէրն V

5

10

15

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§10

285

mules that you agreed to, for now we do not need it. But about the chrysobull20 that we sent, have it brought to our general, who will send [it] to our majesty. And concerning your labour and your production you shall find the recompense, all good, exactly according to the seeds. Then he also wrote to the Armenian vardapet Łewond in this manner.21 To the great sage Pantalewon, who is pleasing to us and beloved of our holy majesty, greetings. Now we have bidden you that upon our return from the Tačik [lands] we find you in this holy city […],22 when you have come to us from Ašot [who is] šahnšah and our spiritual child, and you have averted all anger from him, and you have brought Bagrat to Pap Hanjawacʿi; […] S[t]at23 T’ornec’i protospatharios. And now hasten that we find you in our God-protected city. And there we shall hold a great festival for the slippers of Christ our God, and for the holy hairs of John the Baptist. And now behold 1 mules] wheat 20

21

22

23

It is clear from the manuscript tradition that the scribes had little idea what this reading should have been. Most read զԽՌ սովօլօնն (40,000 sovolon); V reads զխռովու լաւն (the good of tumult). As Adontz (1934, p. 375) also noted, the text of Smbat Sparapet preserves the reading ‘chrysobull’, which has been restored here. The synopsis of Smbat Sparapet (Taregirkʿ, 12–13) describes this letter thus: “And he wrote to the vardapet Pantaleōn, that he himself and T’oṙnecʿi and the stathar [sic] should come to Constantinople as quickly as possible, with many priests, to carry out a great and celebrated feast for the holy icon and sandal of Christ, and for the hair of John the Baptist; and that they should speak with the Greek vardapets before the emperor.” There are two alternatives in the tradition for the reading here. One is եւ կամ ի սլեսինն (“or else in slesin”); this is the one accepted by the editors of the 1898 Vałaršapat edition, with “Slesin” interpreted as the name of an unknown place. However, it makes little sense for the emperor to order Łewond to be anywhere other than Constantinople for the feast, and a few lines later he reiterates his order that Łewond be in the capital. The other alternative is եւ կամիս լեսինն (“and you wish lesin”), which remains difficult to interpret. The letter as recorded by Smbat Sparapet would lead one to believe that the text should at this point read something akin to “as quickly as possible”, but the route between Uṙhayecʿi’s original text, Smbat’s synopsis, and the reading as it appears here is difficult to follow. This is another point of apparent corruption in the text. The Jerusalem text reads դայնպէս եւ Սմբատ (“likewise also Smbat”); the other manuscripts read դու եւ ես սատ (“you and I Sat”). it has thus far not been possible to consult the Jerusalem manuscripts of the text, so it is difficult at this point to say whether this reading comes from a manuscript or is an editorial emendation. The name Stat Tʿornecʿi also appears in conjunction with a certain Lewon imastasēr in Uṙhayecʿi’s account at the gathering of Harkʿ; these are presumably the same figures. Bagrat and Pap Hanjawacʿi remain unidentified, but may bear some relation to the “many priests” who were supposed to accompany Łewond.

5

10

286

§11

§12

andrews

փայիցն մերոց, եւ ուրախասցուք մեք ի ձեզ. եւ Աստուած ի մեզ եւ ի ձեզ, եւ Տէր Յիսուս եղիցի ընդ իւրում ծառայիցդ։ Իսկ յորժամ լուաւ զայս վարդապետն Հայոց Ղեւոնդ յարուցեալ գնաց ի Կոստանդնուպօլիս, եւ արարին տօնս հրաշափառս հողաթափացն Աստուծոյ եւ հերաց սրբոյ Կարապետին, եւ եղեւ յայնմ աւուրն մեձ ուրախութիւն ի Կոստանդնուպօլիս. եւ խօսեցաւ վարդապետն Հայոց առաջի թագաւորին ընդ ամենայն իմաստասիրացն հոռոմոց, եւ անպարտելի երեւեցաւ ի մէջ վարդապետացն տանն Յունաց, վասն զի յամենայն հարցմունսն հաճելի երեւեցաւ։ Եւ բազում գովութեամբ բարեբանեցին զնա եւ զուսուցիչն նորա, եւ մեծաւ պարգեւօք ի թագաւորէն երեւելիս եւ պատուականս շնորհեցաւ նմա. եւ գնաց մեծաւ ուրախութեամբ յաշխարհն Հայոց՝ ի մեծ տունն Շիրակայ։

1 Աստուած] յԱստուած V 4 հրաշափառս] հողաթափառս add. F 5 հերաց] հերեալ Z(a.c.), հերեաց F ‖ աւուրն] աւուր AZ, յաւուրն O 5–6 աւուրն մեձ] աւուր V 8 վարդապետացն] վարդապետն D, վարդապետաց ABF 9 յամենայն] ամենայն VZ 10 նորա] զնորա BO 12 տունն] տուն O

5

10

the letters of ioannēs tzimiskes

§11

§12

287

I also take pleasure in this thing from you, because you will speak with our learned ones and with our philosophers, and we will rejoice in you. And God [be] with us and with you, and the Lord Jesus be with (you) his servants. Now when the Armenian vardapet Łewond heard this he went to Constantinople, and they held a most majestic celebration for the sandals of God and the hair of the holy Forerunner, and there was great joy that day in Constantinople. And the Armenian vardapet spoke before the king with all the Roman sages, and appeared invincible amidst the vardapets of the Greek nation, because he appeared agreeable to all the questions. And with great praise they blessed him and his teacher, and with great gifts from the king this eminence and nobility was granted to him. And he went with great joy to Armenia, to the great house of Shirak.

5

10

chapter 16

The Ornamented Frames in the Wall Sculpture of Tayk in Cross-Cultural Analysis Arpine Asryan

The tenth and eleventh centuries were a period of significant political and cultural development in Transcaucasia. During that time, the region was ruled by two branches of the Bagratid princely family, i.e., the Kgharjk (Tayk-Kgharjk) and the Shirak Bagratids. Taking into account the geo-political circumstances, it is easy to see that the region was always the center of attention of neighboring superpowers. These factors continued to exert their influence on the creation of the unique and developed forms of cultural expression in the region, as evidenced in its luxuriously and uniquely ornamented church monuments, especially in Tayk. The ornamental illustrations of these monuments provide an exceptional opportunity to trace this cultural development. The region of Tayk1 is already attested in early historical sources. According to Strabo, Artashes (Artaxias) subjugated Tayk, Gugark and Khordzean. The population of this territory was said to have used the Armenian language.2 During the pre-Arabic period, Tayk belonged to the princely dynasty of the Mamikonyans, who were famous for their pro-Byzantine policy and their farreaching building activities. Yet as a result of the military campaigns of the Arabs at the end of the seventh century, the population of Tayk thinned out, and the monuments were partly destroyed and deserted. In 700C.E., the Arabs created Armenia as an administrative unit out of Armenia and the South Caucasian areas which consisted of four parts that car-

1 The historical provinces of Tayk and Klarjk are situated in the north-eastern part of modernday Turkey (regions of Erzurum, Ardvin and Ardahan). The River Chorokh with its tributaries is flowing all along the territories of Tayk and Klarjk (Tao-Klarjeti in Georgian sources). 2 Ստրաբոն, Հրաչյա Աճառյան (Յերեվան: Երեւանի Պետական Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն, 1940) [Strabo, ed. Hrachya Acharyan (Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 1940)], p. 57. The province of Khorzean or Khorzene of ancient Armenia, which corresponds to Tayk and Klarjk according to Strabo, previously belonged to the Georgian possessions, same ref., p. 109, Պարույր Մուրադեան, Կովկասեան մշակութային աշխարհը եւ Հայաստանը, պրակ. Ա (Երեւան, 2008) [Paruyr Muradyan, Cultural world of Caucasus and Armenia, A (Yerevan, 2008)], p. 9.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_018

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

289

ried the name Armenia.3 Together with a large part of the Armenian lands, Tayk belonged to the composition of Third and Fourth Armenia. The revolt against the Arabs in 774–775C.E. was crucial for Tayk. It resulted in the utter defeat of the Mamikonyans, who thereby left the arena of history. Ashot Bagratuni’s (732–748) son Vasak, who took part in the rebellion, fled and settled in Kgharjk.4 Vasak’s son, Atrnerseh, ruled over a part of Tayk/Tao as well (the provinces of Arseats por and Chakq) for a short time. Yet given the hereditary principles at work, Tayk and the other estates of the Mamikonyans passed into the hands of the Armenian lord Ashot IV (Msaker) Bagratid.5 As a result of Arabic attacks, numerous buildings were destroyed and the population was decimated. Georgian monks, who were attempting to reorganize and reestablish their influence, moved to new areas that had been deserted as a result of the revolt and gradually settled in the immediate vicinity of Armenians in the region. As the Mamikonyans were famous for their pro-Byzantine political, cultural, and religious (Chalcedonian-Orthodox) orientation, the traditions they represented continued to exist under Bagratid rule. Byzantium’s relationship with historical Armenia had a centuries-old history: besides the fact that Armenians had lived in the territory of the empire since the early Middle Ages, beginning with the end of the sixth century, numerous Armenians belonged to the upper layers of society within the empire. This continued up to the ninth to eleventh centuries.6

3 The largest parts of Armenian lands were a part of Third and Fourth Armenia. Tayk was part of Third Armenia. The western part of Gugark the province of Great Armenia, Iberia (Virk‘ in Armenian sources) and the neighboring countries were included in Second Armenia: see Ա. Եղիազարյան, “Տայքը եւ Կղարջքի կուրապաղատությունը IX դարում”, Բանբեր Երեւանի համալսարանի, Հայագիտություն 141.1 (2013) [A. Yeghiazaryan, “Tayk and the Principality of Kgharjk in IX century”, Banber—the Bulletin of Yerevan University, Armenian studies 141.1 (2013)]: pp. 3–15, here 3. 4 Վարդան Արեւելցի, Հաւաքումն պատմութեան (Վենետիկ, 1862) [Vardan Areveltsi, Historical compilation (Venice, 1862)], pp. 81–82. 5 Ստեփանոս Ասողիկ Տարոնեցի, Պատմութիւն տիեզերական (Ս. Պետերբուրգ: Ստ. Մալխասեանց, 1885) [Stepannos Taronetsi Asołik, Universal History (St. Petersburg: S. Malkhaseants publ., 1885)], p. 106; Yeghiazaryan, “Tayk and the Principality of Kgharjk”, p. 6; Ա. Եղիազարյան, “Տայքի իշխանությունը հայ Բագրատունիների տերության համակարգում”, Պատմա-Բանասիրական Հանդես, 3 (2008) [A. Yeghiazaryan, “Principality of Taik in the structure of the power of Armenian Bagratunis”, Historical-Phylological Journal, Vol. 3 (2008)]: pp. 197–208, here p. 199. 6 К. Юзбашян, Армянские государства эпохи Багратидов и Византия IX–XI вв. (Москва: Наука, 1988) [K. Yuzbashyan, Armenian States of Bagratid period and Byzantium of IX–XI centuries (Moscow: Nauka, 1988)], p. 78.

290

asryan

In the period between the tenth to eleventh centuries, Tayk was viewed as a part of the Byzantine Empire, the rulers of which had Byzantine titles. Tayk kept its autonomy, however, it also remained a stronghold for Byzantium due to it protecting the eastern borders against Arab invasions.7 Given such selfgoverning conditions, it was rather natural that a unique culture with rich traditions could emerge in Tayk. With respect to cultural life in Tayk, we should first of mention the name of the Armenian Catholicos Nerses III Tayetsi (Nerses of Tayk), who descended from the Mamikonyans, was born in the village of Ishkhan in Tayk, and was an Orthodox believer.8 Besides being proclaimed as the Catholicos of Armenia (641–661), he is also known for his building activities, hence often referred to in Armenian history as the “Builder”. He reconstructed and erected Dvin Cathedral, the Cathedral of Zvartnots, the round church right over the pit in Khor Virap (according to Al-Mukkadasi’s description) in the state of Ayrarat,9 the Cathedral in Ishkhan, the Cathedral in Banak and the church of Olti in Tayk state. These structures stand out because of the great mastery in construction techniques and numerous innovations, which had not been encountered in Transcaucasian monuments before. Nerses Tayetsi’s achievements were grounded in his pro-Byzantine position, which allowed him to acquire substantial knowledge of early Christian monuments while living in the Byzantine Empire and serving in the military in Byzantium.10 The monuments he had erected bear witness to the influence of the most important centers of the empire as well as that of Constantinople. They also express traditions of a national architecture and artistic conceptions, as wit-

7

8

9

10

During battles taking place in Asia Minor in 976–978 the Emperor Basil I sought the help of David Curopalates promising to give him in return all the northern half of Armenian western provinces. See Stepannos Taronetsi Asołik, Universal History, p. 192. After the victory of the Emperor, David Curopalates conquered the promised lands: see Ա. Տեր-Ղեւոնդյան, Արաբական ամիրայությունները Բագրատունյաց Հայաստանում (Երեւան, 1965) [A. Ter-Ghevondyan, Arabian Emirates in Bagratid Armenia (Yerevan, 1965)], p. 190. Պատմութիւն Սեբէոսի, աշխ. Գ. Աբգարյան (Երեւան, 1979) [Sebeos’ History, ed. G. Abgaryan (Yerevan, 1979)], p. 167; Մ. Օրմանյան, Ազգապատում, հատոր 1 (Էջմիածին, 2001), [M. Ormanian, Azgapatum, Vol. 1 (Ejmiadzin, 2001)], p. 825. А. Казарян, Архитектура стран Закавказья VII в.: формирование и развитие традиции (Москва, 2007) [A. Kazaryan, Architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasia countries: Formation and development of the tradition (Moscow, 2007)], p. 39. There are no remains preserved of the Khor Virap church, which was built by Nerses Catholicos. According to another version, in Khor Virap there were two churches built by Nerses. See Ormanian, Azgapatum, p. 827. M. Ormanian gives some important details about the biography of Nerses Tayetsi. In particular, he informs his readers that Nerses served in the military in Greece (see Ormanian, Azgapatum, p. 823).

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

291

nessed by the innovative use of blind arcades, round windows, and cornices. Finally, it was under Nerses that structures were decorated with mosaics and murals.11 The culture and especially the architecture of tenth- and eleventh-century Tayk/Tao developed under Davit III Bagratid (961–1000), the most powerful representative of the Bagratid family. During his reign, Byzantine elements were added to Armenian traditions, Georgian traditions, and the culture of Tayk, all of which reached unprecedented heights. The erection of the monastery church of Oshk (Oshki in Georgian), of the monasteries of Khakhu (Khakhuli in Georgian), Chordvan (Otkhta Eklesia in Georgian), and of the church of Parkhar (Parkhali in Georgian) is ascribed to David III Bagratuni Curopalates.12 The influence of Byzantine mosaics, textiles, and small architectural forms of churches is prominent in architectural forms as well as in both exterior and interior decorations. Here one may refer to the marble chancel screens, whose columns and rectangular slabs have influenced the formation of the sculptural ornamentation of the Tayk monuments. Therefore, Tayk/Tao is one of the principal centers of cultural interaction. That is expressed in the rich decoration of the monuments. Geometrically stylized elements, plant and animal images, as well as heart-shaped motives are dominating. Especially outstanding are the floral and animal images that are embraced in interwoven or successive frames. One encounters them at the eastern-façade sacristy window frame of the Cathedral in Ishkhan, at the lintel of the Small Chapel in Ishkhan, at the frame of the eastern window, and in the clothing ornament presented as a part of the Deisis scene on the southern wall of the church at Oshk. The pattern of ornamentation with interwoven frames has undergone various changes over the course of the centuries. Its numerous variations and different forms of stylization were employed throughout the Middle Ages. The earliest manifestations are best presented in late antique mosaics, early Christian sculpture, in murals, and in textile sample ornaments. The symbolism of these ornaments was formulated together with the pictographic system of floor mosaics approximately between the fourth and sixth

11

12

А. Казарян, Церковная архитектура стран Закавказья VII века: Формирование и развитие традиции, II (Москва, 2012–2013) [A. Kazaryan, Church architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasia countries: Formation and development of the tradition, II (Moscow, 2012–2013)], p. 467. The inscription of the monastery of Oshk is the only evidence that this monastery was built by Davit III Bagratuni; the others are attributed to him, taking into consideration the period of their building.

292

asryan

centuries. It was represented in the mosaics both as a main scene with continuously interwoven frames that were placed as the central part in the composition, and as one of the several ornamented strips framing the principal scene, symbolizing an ideal, heavenly world.13 Notions of Heaven were among the core ideas accompanying Christians throughout the Middle Ages. Floor mosaics at Khirbet Muqa church (Antioch, Syria 394/395),14 the Church of the Lions in Jordan (sixth century),15 St. Stephen Church (eighth century),16 and of other monuments are to be singled out among other mosaics, since in those places one finds representations not only of stylized rows of interwoven and overlapping circles, but also combinations of rectangles. We see a corresponding expression of a wall sculpture (bas-relief) ornament at the Church of Bawit (sixth century), in the ornament of the western-side decorative frieze of the northern façade. One finds animals and birds inside, which often carry a flower or a branch, for instance in their beak. It is characteristic that the pattern is presented, in nearly all bas-reliefs, in the ornamentation of windows and doors, which appear to represent a borderline between the secular realm and the holy terrain. When a person passes this border, she or he is purified. We see the same phenomenon in Tayk among the ornaments of the Cathedral in Ishkhan and the Small Church at Ishkhan. The Cathedral in Ishkhan was erected by the Armenian Catholicos Nerses III Tayetsi in the seventh century. It was reconstructed in the ninth century, under the priest Saba from the monastery of Ishkhan, who was a relative of Grigor of Khandzta.17 In 1032, it was reconstructed once more. In the ornamentation of the domed cathedral of Ishkhan, the pattern of interwoven frames is depicted on the eastern façade, in the decoration of the short brow of the central window of the three windows that are overlooking the altar (Fig. 16.1). It is represented

13 14 15 16 17

E. Kitzinger, “Studies on Late Antique and Early Byzantine Floor mosaics: I. Mosaics at Nikopolis”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951): pp. 83–122, here pp. 97–98. J. Balty, Mosaïques Antiques du Proche-Orient: Chronologie, Iconographie, Interprétation (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1995), p. 352, pls. XX–XXI. M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (American Center of Oriental Research, 1993), pp. 214– 215. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan, pp. 219, 221. Grigor Khandztetsi was one of the well-educated persons of that period and one of the first clerics who settled in Kgharjq with his followers. He is considered to be the founder of the monasteries of Khandzta, Shataberd, and three further monasteries. Н. Марръ, “Георгiй Мерчулъ, Житie св. Григорiя Хандзтiйского” (СПб., 1911) [George Merchul, The life of St. Grigor Khandzteli, ed. N. Marr (St. Petersburg, 1911)], pp. XIX, 84.

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

293

in the form of circles interwoven with three-part ribbons which have knots on four sides. Four-leafed and eight-leafed flowers are found inside. A close parallel to this pattern is found on a piece of marble rampart fragment that was discovered in Sebastia (present day Sivas) which acts as an ornament division line for secular scenes.18 One of the sacristy ramparts of the Church of St. Gregory (872) in Thebes in Greece is an example of a simpler decoration of the brow of the window of the Cathedral of Ishkhan, which appears without multiple ribbons and circle knots. Three peacocks are depicted around the date-palm. The ornament framing the scene consists of interwoven twisted circles, inside of which there are many-petalled floral images.19 The Small Church of Ishkhan (the Church of Gurgen), which is dedicated to the Virgin Mary, is a one-nave burial chapel, built in 1006 by Gurgen, the King of Kings. It is situated 25 meters south-west from the Cathedral. The ornamentation of interwoven frames decorates the brow on the southern entrance and the frame of the window on the eastern façade of the church. Twenty rectangular frames are represented on the lintel of the entrance. They include real and imaginary animals: two peacocks, winged horses, a lion, a winged lizard, a goat, a doe, a stag, a griffon with lifted tail, and an elephant. The animals are divided into two groups seen in the center of the lintel near the grapes motive that is included in the frame (Fig. 16.2 a, b). The brow of the eastern façade window of the same monument is another example, in which patterns are placed in two rows inside interwoven circles. The two rows of circles are crossed inside one another. Each circle is divided into four parts including vegetal or two or three animal patterns. The vegetal motives are reminiscent of grapes. The entire scene depicts twenty-nine birds and animals inside bunches of grapes20 (Fig. 16.3 a, b). The monastery of Oshk (963–973) is one of the most splendid buildings of the Eastern Christian world. It was built by the Bagratids David and Bagrat in 963–973.21 This is a cruciform monument with a cupola and a drawn-out west-

18 19 20 21

A. Grabar, Sculptures Byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle) (Paris: Dépositaire Adrien Maisonneuve, 1963), p. 71, pls. XXII–XXIII. Grabar, Sculptures Byzantines, p. 95. A large part of the windows frame is worn, and one part is missing so that it is difficult to discern, which animals are pictured. David had the Byzantine title of Magistros and Bagrat that of Eristav of Eristavs. David III was granted the title of Curopalate by Basil II in 989/990, after he helped the Byzantine army headed by Bardas Phokas against Bardas Skleros in 979. Bardas Phokas was defeated and as a result David Bagratuni was forced to promise to Basil II, that after his death he would legate his property to the Empire. In return, he was granted the title of Curopalate, received many gifts and strengthened his positions. See Yahya of Antioch, His-

294

asryan

ern cross-arm. The haut-relief of the Deesis on the eastern part of the south façade shows Jesus Christ, flanked by the Holy Virgin and John the Baptist. On both sides of the scene, the Bagratids David (left) and Bagrat (right) hold models of the church in their hands (Fig. 16.4).22 Each figure is 1.46 m in height. The donors have square-shaped halos to signify that they were alive during the construction of the church. They wear crowns and magnificent garments and mantles.23 The figure of David is wearing a long garment decorated with large rosette-medallions, including palm-leave ornaments (Fig. 16.5). His mantle is also showing large circles including depictions of birds which hold leaves in their beaks.24 Bagrat’s garment is also decorated with large rosettes, worked out in fine details, each one including a circle-frame surrounded with small vegetal and geometrical patterns. The observations one is able to make suggest that ornaments with interwoven frames at the Cathedral of Ishkhan and at the monastery of Oshk are not spontaneous inventions but have their ways of tradition and development. It is obvious that the particular style of ornamentation appeared in Tayk thanks to the region’s close relationship with the Byzantine Empire. This article suggests that the ornamentation in the form of circles interwoven with small architectural forms (details of the marble apse screen [templon]) and textiles, has been passed on to the monuments in Tayk and that it is best expressed in the decoration of the Small Church of Ishkhan. Among the animals that are depicted at the Small Church we see griffons, mythological animals which were favorites in Persian art and were an essential part of official, heraldic pictography.25 The true style of interwoven circles is closer to the style of late antique and early Christian mosaics and murals, where one finds besides circles also interwoven rectangles. The pattern of ornamentation has its parallel in the sculptural decoration of the altar frieze of the Panaghia Scripou monastery (Beotia, Greece)

22 23

24

25

torie de Yahya-Ibn-Said d’Antioche: Continuateur de Said-Ibn-Batriq, Fasc. 3, ed. and trans. I. Kratchkovsky and A. Vasiliev (Paris, 1932), p. 424. The sculptural group is worn and damaged. The pavements bearing sculptures of Christ and the Holy Virgin are missing. Sculptured busts of the Bagratids David and Bagrat are present in the interior of the Oshk monastery, too, in both sides of the lower cupola column niche oriented towards the main apse. Here also donators wore richly ornamented garments and similar rectangular crowns. According to Dora Piguet-Panayotova the birds are the eagles and carry two tapes with gems. See D. Piguet-Panayotova, “The Church of Oški. Architectonics and Ornaments (part 2)”, Oriens Christianus 87 (2003), here p. 210. The Sasanid dynasty was ruling up to the middle of the seventh century. It had a great impact on eastern Christian iconography.

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

295

(873–874). Small round knots decorated with plant motifs unite many-petalled rose-medallions and frames, inside of which, in the branches, there are birds and animals such as a lion, a boar, a deer, as well as birds which are fully stylized.26 We see the same picture in the door frame decoration at the Panaghia Scripou monastery.27 Wakhtang Djobadze legitimately considered that the wall sculptures of the Small Church of Ishkhan are the reproduction of the idea of ‘Paradise’. He draws parallels between the mosaics of Syria, Palestine, and Cilicia, the sculptural group symbolizing ‘Paradise’ on the second belt of the eastern façade of the Church of the Holy Cross on Aghtamar Island (915–921) (now in Turkey) as well as other monuments expressing the same idea.28 The ornaments of the monastery of Oshk are not spontaneous creations. Studies of textiles and especially of royal garments allow us to concentrate on some important issues. For example, one of the main roads leading from the Byzantine Empire to Persia was by way of crossing Tayk, an important stopping point on the Silk Road.29 Birds are depicted in the interlocking circles decorating the garment of King Gagik Artsruni shown as donor on the eastern façade of the Church of the Holy Cross on Aghtamar Island (in Lake Van) (Fig. 16.6). This example is the first and a very magnificent sample of Armenian medieval art. Such decoration frequently found in Sasanian and Byzantine art also appears in Armenian iconography.30 The tradition of presenting expensive garments, crowns and other appurtenances has been widespread since the early Middle Ages,31 especially in the ninth to tenth centuries, when Armenia and Georgia were divided into small regions—areas (ashkharh), which were ruled by different representatives of 26

27 28 29

30

31

In this sculptures I. Strzygowski notes the influence of Armenia and Persia. See Grabar, Sculptures Byzantines, p. 92. As Grabar rightly points out, this theme was widespread in Eastern Roman and then Byzantine art from the V–VI centuries on, however the implementation shows some Oriental influence. Grabar, Sculptures Byzantines, pls. XLI–XLIII, XLV, XLVI. W. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992), pp. 206–207. M. Bogisch, “Textile design as models for the architectural sculpture of Tao-Klarjeti (10th C.),” in Tao-Klarjeti: Materials of International conference (Tbilisi, 2010): pp. 41–54, here p. 45. S. Der-Nersessian, Agh‘tamar, Church of Holy Cross (Cambridge, 1963), p. 31. The same pattern as royal garment ornament is seen later in the Gospel of Kars, in the miniature depicting King Gagik with his family (Jerusalem Ms. 2556) and in the miniature-portrait of King Levon IV of Cilicia (Jerusalem Ms. 2660). The seventh-century Armenian sparapet Teodoros Rshtuni received gifts and garments decorated with gold from prince Mavias of Ismael. See Sebeos’ History, p. 169.

296

asryan

princely dynasties rivaling with each other. In order to strengthen their position, each of them attempted to gain the recognition of their authority by the powerful states of the time—Byzantium in the west and the Arab caliphate in the east. In the Byzantine Empire, the different types of presents and garments were clearly differentiated, according to the title a person might carry. This was a means to stress their obedience and hierarchic role in the empire32 once again. It was most obvious in the case of the Bagratid princely family when the Armenian Bagratids were mainly under the influence of the Persians, and when the Georgian Bagratids tended to be more pro-Byzantine.33 Oriental influence is noticeable on the garment of King Gagik I Artsruni in the sculpture of Akhtamar. This can be explained by the fact that King Gagik had received a crown and garments from emir Yusuf.34 It is characteristic that Smbat I Bagratid, on the occasion of his coronation in 890, received presents from Levon VI, the Emperor of Byzantium. Among these gifts were a luxurious garment and numerous other gifts. Thus, the Emperor confirmed and recognized Smbat I as King.35 It is noteworthy that historical sources mention that later on Smbat I built a church near his palace in Erazgavork which he decorated in accord with the ornamental patterns of his luxurious garment.36 We can already see such ornaments which were spread in Sasanian and Byzantine art as early as the seventh century on Armenian monuments. The ornament under discussion is not an exception. Simpler varieties of 32

33

34

35 36

A. Eastmond, L. Jones, “Robing, Power and Legitimacy in Armenia and Georgia,” in Robes and Honor. The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. S. Gordon (New York, 2001): pp. 147–192, here p. 166; N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines du IXe et Xe siecle (Paris, 1972), pp. 95–97. C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), pp. 334–336, 407–428; Eastmond & Jones, “Robing”, pp. 147–148, n. 1. We should mention that Ashot II Bagratuni had received the title of prince of princes and many gifts from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: see Eastmond & Jones, “Robing”, p. 154, n. 50. “He put on his head a crown of genuine gold, with very skilful composition, set with pearls and precious and rare stones, impossible to describe. He put on him a gilded garment, as well as a belt with saber, a shining mantle burning with gold, which is beyond any idea and description”. See Թովմա Արծրունի եւ Անանուն, Պատմություն Արծրունյաց տան, աշխ. Մ. Դարբինյան-Մելիքյան (Երեւան, 2006) [Thomas Artsruni and Anonym, History of the House of Artsrunik, ed. M. Darbinian-Melikian (Yerevan, 2006)], p. 314; A. Eastmond, Royal Imegery in Medieval Georgia (Pennsylvania, 1998), p. 15; and Eastmond & Jones, “Robing,” p. 152. In the donator picture Ašot’ II K’uxi (891–918) is wearing a mantle decorated with lions. They are not included in medallions and, therefore, they fall outside the range of our investigation. See Eastmond, Royal Imagery, pp. 11–13, fig. 23. Հովհաննու կաթողիկոսի Դրասխանակերտեցւոյ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց (Թիֆլիս, 1912) [Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi, The History of Armenia (Tiflis, 1912)], pp. 158–159. Draskhanakerttsi, The History, pp. 183–184; Bogisch, “Textile design”, p. 45.

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

297

it are found on a drum window of a domed church (last quarter of the seventh century) in Pemzashen (in the Shirak region in the Republic of Armenia) and in the decoration of the brow of the southern window of the eastern façade at the Church of Saint Grigor (from the seventies of the seventh century) in Sisian (Syunik region, Republic of Armenia) (Fig. 16.7). In both cases, the ornament is represented in bas-relief. In the decoration of a window brow of the eastern façade at Zoradir (Soradir) church in Vaspurakan (either mid-seventh century or the third quarter of the seventh century), where we also see framed manypetalled floral motives, the ornament is represented in low-relief.37 Unlike the royal house of the Artsrunis, the Bagratid dynasty was closer to the Byzantine Empire. The influence of Byzantine garments is more obvious in the sculptural group of the donors David and Bagrat at the Oshk monastery. Their execution is more detailed and magnificent and it is reminiscent of Byzantine garments. The influence of Byzantine garments is more obvious in the depiction of the donors David Magistros and Bagrat Eristav-eristavi at the monastery church of Oshk.38 The garments of the figures of the donors are worked out with more luxury and details, and they remind one of imperial garments. Such ornamentations are known in imperial art since the sixth century, as, for instance, in 518 on the garment decorated with floral rosettes on the consular diptych of Magnus.39 Then, in the tenth century, such ornamentation can be seen in the Synaxary of Basil II the Bulgaroktonus (Vat. Cod. Gr. 1613), on the garments of Saint Theophanes (fol. 189), Saint Philadelphus (fol. 386)40 and so on. The ornamentation of small architectural forms spread across Byzantium. The ornamentation of textiles, which were transferred to architectural decoration right from real garments, have served as models in the sculptural ornamental system of the Tayk/Tao monuments. All this must have served as a prototype for the decoration of the Tayk monuments, since medieval symbolism and symbols were common for the whole Christian world which is evident in Tayk/Tao as well. The ornamentation of interwoven frames has continued throughout subsequent centuries. It was employed both in Armenian monuments (Kecharis Monastery, Church of St. Gregory the Illuminator, first half of the eleventh century, etc.) and Georgian monuments (Gomareti, the Church of the Virgin Mary or Kukhi Church, mid-eleventh century, etc.). 37 38 39 40

Kazaryan, Church architecture, Vol. III, p. 394, figs. 1907, 1908. Eastmond & Jones, “Robing,” p. 149. A. Grabar, L’ age d’ or de Justinien (Paris, 1966), fig. 326. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance (Paris, 1923), figs. 31, 33.

298

asryan

With reference to the architecture of the period close to the beginning of the second millennium, Nikolai Marr noted that Tayk was to be regarded neither as being located at the outskirts, nor as an outlying district, but instead as being the center of Caucasian international relations. It was the knot from which Caucasian cultural life began, at first on the basis of a local pantheist culture and then built upon two Caucasian civilizations, of both Armenian and Georgian States.41 This view is still valid today. It therefore remains essential to study the monuments in Tayk in the context of three cultures: the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Byzantine one.

Bibliography J. Balty, Mosaïques Antiques du Proche-Orient: Chronologie, Iconographie, Interprétation (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1995). M. Bogisch, “Textile design as models for the architectural sculpture of Tao-Klarjeti (10th C.),” in Tao-Klarjeti: Materials of International conference (Tbilisi, 2010): pp. 41– 54. S. Der-Nersessian, Agh‘tamar, Church of Holy Cross (Cambridge, 1963). W. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992). A. Eastmond, Royal Imegery in Medieval Georgia (Pennsylvania, 1998). A. Eastmond, L. Jones, “Robing, Power and Legitimacy in Armenia and Georgia,” in Robes and Honor. The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. S. Gordon (New York, 2001): pp. 147–192. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance (Paris, 1923). A. Grabar, L’age d’or de Justinien (Paris, 1966). A. Grabar, Sculptures Byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle) (Paris: Dépositaire Adrien Maisonneuve, 1963). E. Kitzinger, “Studies on Late Antique and Early Byzantine Floor mosaics: I. Mosaics at Nikopolis”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951): pp. 83–122. N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines du IXe et Xe siecle (Paris, 1972). M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (American Center of Oriental Research, 1993). D. Piguet-Panayotova, “The Church of Oški. Architectonics and Ornaments (part 2)”, Oriens Christianus 87 (2003). C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963). 41

Н. Марр, Батум, Ардаган, Карс: исторический узел межнациональных отношений Кавказа (Петроград, 1922) [N. Marr, Batum, Ardahan, Kars: The historical knot of international relations of the Caucasus (Petrograd, 1922)], p. 8.

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

299

Yahya of Antioch, Historie de Yahya-Ibn-Said d’Antioche: Continuateur de Said-IbnBatriq, Fasc. 3, ed. and trans. I. Kratchkovsky and A. Vasiliev (Paris, 1932). Ա. Եղիազարյան, “Տայքը եւ Կղարջքի կուրապաղատությունը IX դարում”, Բան բեր Երեւանի համալսարանի, Հայագիտություն 141.1 (2013) [A. Yeghiazaryan, “Tayk and the Principality of Kgharjk in IX century”, Banber- the Bulletin of Yerevan University, Armenian studies 141.1 (2013)]: pp. 3–15. Ա. Եղիազարյան, “Տայքի իշխանությունը հայ Բագրատունիների տերության համակարգում”, Պատմա-Բանասիրական Հանդես 3 (2008) [A. Yeghiazaryan, “Principality of Taik in the structure of the power of Armenian Bagratunis”, Historical-Phylological Journal 3 (2008)]. Թովմա Արծրունի եւ Անանուն, Պատմություն Արծրունյաց տան, աշխ. Մ. Դարբինյան-Մելիքյան (Երեւան, 2006) [Thomas Artsruni and Anonym, History of the House of Artsrunik, ed. M. Darbinian-Melikian (Yerevan, 2006)]. Հովհաննու կաթողիկոսի Դրասխանակերտեցւոյ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց (Թիֆլիս, 1912) [Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi, The History of Armenia (Tiflis, 1912)]. Պատմութիւն Սեբէոսի, աշխ. Գ. Աբգարյան (Երեւան, 1979) [Sebeos’ History, ed. G. Abgaryan (Yerevan, 1979)]. Պարույր Մուրադեան, Կովկասեան մշակութային աշխարհը եւ Հայաստանը, պրակ. Ա (Երեւան, 2008) [Paruyr Muradyan, Cultural world of Caucasus and Armenia, A (Yerevan, 2008)]. Ստեփանոս Ասողիկ Տարոնեցի, Պատմութիւն տիեզերական (Ս. Պետերբուրգ: Ստ. Մալխասեանց, 1885) [Stepannos Taronetsi Asołik, Universal History (St. Petersburg: S. Malkhaseants publ., 1885)]. Ստրաբոն, Հրաչյա Աճառյան (Յերեվան: Երեւանի Պետական Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն, 1940) [Strabo, ed. Hrachya Acharyan (Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 1940)]. Վարդան Արեւելցի, Հաւաքումն պատմութեան (Վենետիկ, 1862) [Vardan Areveltsi, Historical compilation (Venice, 1862)]. Ա. Տեր-Ղեւոնդյան, Արաբական ամիրայությունները Բագրատունյաց Հայաստանում (Երեւան, 1965) [A. Ter-Ghevondyan, Arabian Emirates in Bagratid Armenia (Yerevan, 1965)]. Մ. Օրմանյան, Ազգապատում, հատոր 1 (Էջմիածին, 2001), [M. Ormanian, Azgapatum, Vol. 1 (Ejmiadzin, 2001)]. А. Казарян, Архитектура стран Закавказья VII в.: формирование и развитие традиции (Москва, 2007) [A. Kazaryan, Architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasia countries: Formation and development of the tradition (Moscow, 2007)]. А. Казарян, Церковная архитектура стран Закавказья VII века: Формирование и развитие традиции, II (Москва, 2012–2013) [A. Kazaryan, Church architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasia countries: Formation and development of the tradition, II (Moscow, 2012–2013)].

300

asryan

Н. Марр, Батум, Ардаган, Карс: исторический узел межнациональных отношений Кавказа (Петроград, 1922) [N. Marr, Batum, Ardahan, Kars: The historical knot of international relations of the Caucasus (Petrograd, 1922)]. Н. Марръ, Георгiй Мерчулъ, Житie св. Григорiя Хандзтiйского (СПб., 1911) [George Merchul, The life of St. Grigor Khandzteli, ed. N. Marr (St. Petersburg, 1911)]. И. Орбели, Из истории культуры и искусства Армении X–XIII веков, том I (Москва, 1968) [I. Orbeli, From the history of Armenian culture and arts in centuries X–XIII, I (Moscow, 1968)]. К. Юзбашян, Армянские государства эпохи Багратидов и Византия IX–XI вв. (Москва: Наука, 1988) [K. Yuzbashyan, Armenian States of Bagratid period and Byzantium of IX–XI centuries (Moscow: Nauka, 1988)].

figure 16.1

The cathedral of Ishkhan, the brow of the window at the eastern façade Photo by Arpine Asryan

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

301

302

figure 16.2

asryan

Ishkhan, the church of Holy Mary, the brow of the southern door. Above: The reconstruction by Wakhtan Djobadze. Below: The fragment Photo by Arpine Asryan

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

303

figure 16.3

Ishkhan, the chapel of Gurgen, the window at the eastern façade. Left: The reconstruction by Wakhtang Djobadze. Right: The fragment Photo by Arpine Asryan

figure 16.4

The monastery of Oshk, Deesis, the southern façade Drawing by Wakhtang Djobadze

304

figure 16.5

asryan

The monastery of Oshk, David Curopalate, a detail from Deesis Drawing by Wakhtang Djobadze

the ornamented frames in the wall sculpture of tayk

figure 16.6

Agh‘tamar, St. Cross, Gagik Artsruni, the eastern façade, 915–921 Drawing by Iosif Orbeli

305

figure 16.7

St. Grigor Church, Sisavan, the northern façade, 6th century Photo by Arpine Asryan

306 asryan

chapter 17

Spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques: les petites plaques à croix murales Patrick Donabédian

Le type initial du khatchkar1 dressé et isolé Au sortir de la période de domination arabe, dans la deuxième moitié du IXe s., naît et se répand en Arménie le type du khatchkar. Il s’ agit d’ une stèle de pierre, le plus souvent en tuf, généralement d’un mètre et demi à deux mètres de hauteur environ, parfois davantage, parfois moins, qui porte une croix à décor végétal sculptée sur sa face ouest; elle est fixée sur une base, également en pierre, au moyen d’un tenon, sorte de dent en saillie sur sa face inférieure (fig. 17.1). Ce type, dont les exemples se comptent, dans la seule république d’Arménie, par dizaines de milliers, est bien connu maintenant grâce notamment à l’importante étude de Hamlet Petrosyan2. Comme le montrent les innombrables spécimens restés in situ, ces stèles sont obligatoirement orientées, comme les églises, c’est-à-dire que l’on regarde vers l’ est lorsqu’ on se trouve devant leur face sculptée. Cette position est particulièrement adaptée à leur fonction la plus répandue (mais qui n’est pas la seule), celle de stèle funéraire dressée à l’est d’une tombe, au-dessus de l’ endroit où se trouvent les pieds du défunt. Elle est conçue sans doute de manière que, le jour du Jugement dernier, conformément aux croyances, le mort puisse se relever face à la croix, tourné vers l’est, côté d’où viendra le salut et d’ où chaque matin le soleil répand sa lumière sur le monde. On s’accorde à considérer que la création de ce type de monuments, à mi-chemin entre architecture et sculpture, s’inscrit dans la vieille tradition locale des pierres dressées. Celle-ci a pris, dans l’ Antiquité, diverses formes, 1 Admise dans l’ usage français, l’ orthographe « khatchkar» sera employée dans la présente étude. 2 Հ. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար. Ծագումը, գործառույթը, պատկերագրությունը, իմաս տաբանությունը (Երեւան : Փրինթինֆո, 2008) [H. Petrosyan, Khatchkar. L’origine, la fonction, l’ iconographie, la sémantique (Erevan : Printinfo, 2008)]. Une version abrégée en a été publiée en anglais : H. Petrosyan, Khachkar (Erevan : Zangak Publishing House, 2015). Nos références formulées ci-après ainsi : « Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար » renvoient à l’édition principale de 2008.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_019

308

donabédian

notamment celles de menhirs, de pierres ichtyomorphes (višap), de stèles à inscriptions et de bornes. Puis cette tradition s’ est incarnée, durant les premiers siècles chrétiens, dans de grandes croix isolées dont très peu d’ exemples anciens sont conservés3, et dans des monuments, toujours en pierre, à colonne ou à stèle quadrilatérale portant, sur un chapiteau, une petite croix, monuments dont plus de 250 fragments nous sont parvenus4. Enfin, à partir de la deuxième moitié du IXe s., on se mit à sculpter le motif de la croix arborescente sur des blocs spécialement taillés à cet effet. Ce choix s’ explique peut-être par le souci de remédier à la fragilité des croix de pierre, dont les bras se brisaient, ou par la volonté de développer le modèle de certaines stèles quadrilatérales dont seule une face était ornée principalement de la croix, ou encore par l’ exemple que donnaient certaines stèles antiques retaillées pour recevoir le motif de la croix. Ce choix s’explique aussi sans doute, et peut-être avant tout, parce que l’ on voulait magnifier en une forme durable et propre à l’ Église arménienne, l’ image du symbole du salut et de la voie y menant. La forme aplatie donnée à la pierre, avec au début un contour arrondi ou ovale (bientôt remplacé par un contour rectangulaire), constituait une bonne solution pour y sculpter l’image de la croix-arbre de vie, entourée de végétation, placée sous une arche, sorte de xoran (niche-autel) symbolisant sans doute la porte donnant accès au salut5 (fig. 17.2). La plaque de pierre devait avoir une forme relativement allongée pour permettre que, sous l’ arche-porte, soit représenté le type de croix victorieuse qui s’ était imposé depuis les luttes des empereurs romains et byzantins contre les Perses et les Arabes, au VIe-VIIe s. Cette croix «latine», c’est-à-dire plus haute que large, au bas de laquelle deux grandes feuilles dessinent des S symétriques, présente souvent sous son pied un médaillon inspiré de la sphère impériale évoquant l’ universalité du pouvoir, et un piédestal à degrés évoquant sans doute à la fois le Golgotha et l’ idée 3 Brève présentation de ces croix de pierre dans : С. Мнацаканян, Мемориальные памятники раннесредневековой Армении (Ереван: АН Арм. ССР, 1982) [S. Mnatsakanyan, Les monuments commémoratifs de l’ Arménie du haut Moyen Âge (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSS d’ Arménie, 1982)], pp. 41-46. 4 Sur cette dernière catégorie voir: Գ. Գրիգորյան, Վաղ միջնադարյան քառանիստ կոթողները (Երեւան : Հայաստանի պատմության թանգարան, 2012) [G. Grigoryan, Les stèles quadrilatérales de l’ Arménie du haut Moyen Âge (Erevan: Musée d’histoire de l’ Arménie, 2012)]. 5 Jean X, 9 : « Je suis la porte; si quelqu’ un entre par moi, il sera sauvé; il entrera et sortira et trouvera des pâturages». L’image de la porte, celle du paradis, de la vie, du «jardin du Seigneur », la « porte étroite de la voie resserrée», est souvent reprise, appliquée à la croix, dans les nombreuses hymnes arméniennes dédiées à la croix. Cf. A.(C.) Renoux, “La croix dans le rite arménien. Histoire et symbolisme”, Melto, Recherches orientales, V, 1 (1969) (Kaslik: Université Saint-Esprit, 1969) : pp. 123-175.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

309

d’ascension. On peut supposer que c’est sur le modèle des monnaies byzantines que ce type de croix victorieuse se généralise au VIIe s. sur les linteaux des portes des églises arméniennes, avant de se répandre, après la domination arabe, sur les khatchkars6. C’est ainsi que se crée le type originel de la pierre-croix, appelée communément khatchkar7. La fonction funéraire, tumulaire, la plus répandue, n’a peut-être pas été la première et n’est en tous cas pas la seule. On trouve aussi des pierres-croix qui sont simplement des emblèmes de la foi et des objets de dévotion, ainsi que des pierres-croix à fonction mémoriale ou commémorative, au sens large, pour marquer un événement important, une fondation, la construction d’un édifice, une victoire.

Autres types de khatchkars et éléments apparentés à eux L’ ampleur du phénomène du khatchkar et sa popularité en milieu arménien sont telles que sa typologie s’est largement diversifiée. Elle ne se limite pas au khatchkar en stèle isolée, mais comprend plusieurs autres types et sous-types, comme les khatchkars-chapelles (խաչքարամատուռ) avec de nombreuses variantes, les khatchkars emmurés (որմնափակ խաչքար), les alignements de khatchkars, grands et petits, devant une série de tombes, dans des cimetières ou à l’intérieur de monastères (Keč‘aṙis – fig. 17.3), qui peuvent parfois se trouver insérés à l’intérieur de mausolées (Hoṙomos), ou encore les sculptures à motif de khatchkar taillées à même le rocher.

6 Sur la croix victorieuse, le piédestal à degrés et le globe sous la croix, cf. P. Donabédian, “Le khatchkar, un art emblématique de la spécificité arménienne”, in L’Église arménienne entre Grecs et Latins, fin XIe – milieu XVe siècle, éds. I. Augé et G. Dédéyan (Paris: Geuthner, 2009): pp. 151-168, ici pp. 155-157, 165-166. 7 Le terme xač‘k‘ar apparaît d’ abord sur deux khatchkars, l’un de 1182 situé à Dadivank‘ en Arc‘ax et l’ autre de 1825 à Jérusalem, puis il est utilisé par Մ. Բժշկեանց, Ճանապարհոր

դութիւն ի Լեհաստան եւ յայլ կողմանս բնակեալս ի հայկազանց սերելոց ի նախ նեաց Անի քաղաքին (Վենետիկ : Ս. Ղազար, 1830) [M. Bzhshkyants, Voyage en Pologne

et dans d’autres régions habitées par des Arméniens originaires par leurs ancêtres de la ville d’ Ani (Venise : Saint-Lazare, 1830)], par ex. p. 334 et dans le chapitre consacré à Caffa: pp. 349353. Mais il faut attendre le début du XXe s. pour que le nom xač‘k‘ar commence à s’employer communément. On en trouve de fréquentes occurrences dans Ս. Էփրիկեան, Պատկերա զարդ բնաշխարհիկ բառարան, հ. Ա-Բ (Վենետիկ : Ս. Ղազար, 1903-1907) [S. Eprikyan, Dictionnaire illustré de la patrie, t. 1-2 (Venise: St-Lazare, 1903-1907)] et une mention dans Մ. Օրմանեան, Ծիսական բառարան (Անթիլիաս : Կ.Հ.Մ.Տ.Կ., 1979) [M. Ormanyan, Dictionnaire rituel (Antélias : Catholicossat de Cilicie, 1979)] (1e édition 1905-1906), p. 135.

310

donabédian

Se crée aussi, comme nous le verrons plus bas, le type du khatchkar mural c’est-à-dire de la plaque à décor de khatchkar, plus petite, destinée à être encastrée dans une façade (ou plus rarement, on l’a dit, dans la paroi intérieure d’un mausolée), qui nous intéresse en particulier ici parce qu’ il « s’ exportera» dans les communautés diasporiques où les autres catégories sont quasiment absentes. Avant de passer à l’étude de ce type, signalons, toujours sur les monuments d’Arménie proprement dite, plusieurs éléments de « décor » architectural apparentés au khatchkar ou inspirés de son image. L’un d’ eux correspond à des panneaux trapézoïdaux à décor de khatchkar placés sur la ou les faces orientales, à l’intérieur de la coupole tronquée de quelques gawit‘s ou žamatuns (narthex). Le premier exemple daté apparaît sur les faces nord-est et sudest de la coupole pyramidale au centre du gawit‘ de Hoṙomos (1038)8. Le même genre de panneau sculpté occupe la face est, dans les coupoles de gawit‘s de la fin du XIIe – début du XIIIe s. (Gošavank‘, Keč‘aṙis, Sałmosavank‘, Tełer). Le gawit‘ étant un espace à fonction notamment funéraire, on ne s’ étonnera pas du choix de ce type de décor pour le pan de la coupole qui marque l’ axe est. Plus généralement, on trouve, à l’intérieur des gawit‘s, beaucoup de khatchkars encastrés dans les murs, ainsi que des blocs portant sculptées des compositions à croix semblables à celles des khatchkars, dans l’ appareil des murs, des arcs et des voûtes. Un autre genre de décor architectural sculpté apparenté au khatchkar correspond à la série de linteaux et tympans médiévaux marqués d’ une croix à entourage végétal, attestés à partir du début du Xe s. et plus proches des nouvelles pierres-croix que des linteaux du VIIe s. (Ałt‘amar, Hałbat, Sanahin, Gaṙni, etc.). Signalons aussi le phénomène des khatchkars encastrés dans les façades d’églises postérieurement à la construction. De bons exemples se trouvaient encore récemment à Mren: sur cette église bâtie dans les années 630, une série de khatchkars que leur typologie décorative permettait de dater du début du XIe s. ont été insérés au Moyen Âge dans les façades ouest et sud ; hélas les murs concernés sont aujourd’hui effondrés ou endommagés. Enfin, rappelons les innombrables cas de croix gravées (incisées) ou sculptées (dégagées par évidement du fond) à diverses périodes, à même les murs des sanctuaires.

8 Les deux plaques de Hoṙomos sont savamment étudiées et magnifiquement illustrées dans: E. Vardanyan, “The Sculpted Dome of Hoṙomos monastery žamatun” et J.-P. Mahé, “Croix et xač‘k‘ar de Hoṙomos”, in Hoṙomos monastery: Art and History, éd. E. Vardanyan (Paris: ACHCByz, 2015) : pp. 237-300, 301-324.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

311

La plaque destinée à être encastrée dans une façade dès l’ origine Dès la période préarabe, on avait placé l’image emblématique et apotropaïque de la croix, non seulement sur les linteaux et tympans (et sur des bases, impostes et chapiteaux), mais aussi parfois, avec plus d’ ostentation, au centre et en haut d’une façade, comme à Tekor (fin Ve), Mastara et Aruč (VIIe s.)9. Il est donc assez naturel que, après la domination arabe, alors que le pays se couvrait de khatchkars dressés isolément, on ait eu l’idée de placer des plaques à décor semblable sur les façades d’églises (puis d’autres édifices), dès la construction, ou parfois, semble-t-il, peu après son achèvement. L’image restait sans doute chargée du même message magnifiant le Signe et appelant sa protection sur le sanctuaire, tout en évoquant éventuellement les circonstances de sa fondation ou en exprimant un contenu commémoratif ou symbolique complémentaire. Cette nouvelle catégorie de «khatchkar mural» se distingue généralement par des dimensions réduites et un bord inférieur rectiligne, puisque la saillie au bas des khatchkars indépendants, le tenon destiné à leur encastrement dans leur base, n’y a pas de raison d’être. Comme le montrent les nombreux exemples présents sur les constructions médiévales d’ Arménie, selon leur fonction, ces «khatchkars muraux» peuvent être munis d’ inscriptions plus ou moins longues citant les fondateurs ou donateurs, d’ inscriptions réduites aux nomina sacra, ou en être privés. Au monastère de Tat‘ew, sur la façade ouest de la cathédrale abbatiale bâtie en 896-905, l’une des inscriptions de fondation est gravée sur les deux bandes latérales d’une plaque qui est une sorte de petit khatchkar10 (fig. 17.4). Le texte prie le Seigneur de se souvenir de « Yovanēs, bâtisseur des saintes églises». La façade actuelle a été remaniée, mais le «khatchkar» qui y a été réintroduit était probablement conçu dès l’origine pour être placé là11. 9

10

11

Pour Tekor: Թ. Թորամանյան, Նյութեր հայկական ճարտարապետության պատմության : Աշխատությունների երկրորդ ժողովածու (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1948) [T. Toramanyan, Matériaux d’ histoire de l’architecture arménienne. Deuxième recueil de travaux (Erevan : Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1948)], p. 71, fig. 23. Pour Mastara et Aruč : P. Donabédian, L’ âge d’or de l’ architecture arménienne. Le VIIe siècle (Marseille : Parenthèses, 2008), pp. 127-128, fig. 207, 212; 155-156, fig. 285. Ս. Բարխուդարյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, II (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1960) [S. Barkhudaryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, II (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1960)], p. 14, nº 3 ; pl. I, fig. 3. Les premiers mots «Seigneur souviens-toi» sont gravés sur deux pierres placées légèrement au-dessus de la plaque. Même si, comme l’ indique Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 107-108, les arguments typologiques incitent à situer le « khatchkar» de Tat‘ew au début du XIe s., le contenu et la paléographie de l’ inscription confirment sa datation lors de la consécration de l’église, au tout début du Xe s.

312

donabédian

Sur la façade ouest de l’église d’Ałt‘amar bâtie vers 915-921, pour mettre en relief la dédicace à la sainte Croix, on a recouru à deux schémas. Au bas de la façade, on a représenté la glorification de la croix à travers l’ image de son élévation, avec un médaillon à croix de type paléochrétien (croix « grecque» ou «de Malte») porté par deux anges12. Et au milieu de la façade, on a placé en un rang horizontal trois plaques rectangulaires à croix « latine » feuillue qui sont des variantes de khatchkar, de format réduit13 (fig. 17.5). Ici, nul besoin d’épigraphe pour commenter le message de ces plaques qui sont un hommage trois fois proclamé à la croix victorieuse, encore exprimé d’ ailleurs, bien que plus modestement (et aujourd’hui moins visiblement à cause du narthex qui les cache), par les trois croix sculptées sur le linteau de la porte ouest14. A Ani, un petit khatchkar lui aussi privé d’ inscription est placé (légèrement désaxé) au sommet de la façade ouest de la cathédrale, apparemment au moment de son achèvement en 1001 ou peu après (fig. 17.6); stylistiquement et iconographiquement, en particulier par les deux larges branches déployées horizontalement au pied de la croix, il est typique du début du XIe s. L’absence d’inscription suggère que l’image sculptée sur la plaque était jugée suffisamment éloquente pour exprimer le message dont elle était chargée. Cette pratique réservée semble-t-il, au Xe-XIe s., à des sanctuaires importants, se répand au XIIIe s., souvent avec une part d’«individualisation » du message, l’ inscription comportant une prière en faveur d’une personne ou d’ une famille. Ainsi, toujours à Ani, sur la tour qui renforce l’angle nord-ouest du rempart, une plaque à croix est incluse dans un grand cadre mouluré (fig. 17.7). L’inscription gravée sous ce petit «khatchkar» cite la régence du prince Iwanē (début du XIIIe s.) et comporte un message mémorial habituel avec une prière pour le salut des donateurs: «[…] moi, Mxit‘ar Xawt‘enc‘, serviteur du Christ, et mon épouse Mamšah avons construit ce mémorial en souvenir de mes parents Ełbay-

12 13

14

Dans les années 1970 ou 80, la croix a été détruite. Parmi les nombreux ouvrages consacrés à l’ église d’Ałt‘amar, citons-en un où les croix de la façade occidentale sont particulièrement bien représentées: Ս. Մնացականյան, Աղթամար [S. Mnatsakanyan, Ałt‘amar] (Helsinki: Éditions Erebouni, 1985), premières planches du livre. Ces questions ont été étudiées par l’ auteur de ces lignes pour une communication sur la “Sainte-Croix d’ Ałt‘amar. Sens symbolique, architectural et iconographique de la dédicace” présentée lors du colloque international Le onzième centenaire d’Aght‘amar, organisé à l’ Institut d’ études avancées de Paris, les 22-23 septembre 2014, par Jean-Pierre Mahé, Zara Pogossian et Edda Vardanyan, et dont les actes seront publiés prochainement. Le principe du rang de trois croix au centre de la façade ouest est repris au début du XIe s. sur l’ église Saint-Georges de Hoṙomos, mais ces croix relativement petites se détachant en un relief méplat sur la surface plane du mur ne s’ apparentent pas vraiment à des khatchkars.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

313

rik et Mamer et de moi. Je supplie de [vous] souvenir [de nous] en Christ»15. En revanche, à la chapelle Sainte-Mère de Dieu de l’ ermitage dit Sunpenc‘ (1274), à Gaṙni, nul besoin de texte sur le petit «khatchkar» au décor raffiné qui achève la grande composition à cadre mouluré couvrant la façade ouest et incluant le portail et la fenêtre16. On connaît aussi plusieurs cas, au XIIIe s. et plus tard, de dalles à composition de khatchkar conçues pour être insérées en groupe, en rang ou en large « tache», dans les façades dès la construction, car appartenant à l’ appareil mural17. Souvent elles sont destinées à exprimer une prière pour le salut de l’âme de particuliers qui, on peut l’imaginer même si ce n’est pas écrit, ont probablement demandé leur insertion en souvenir de leur contribution à la construction de l’édifice. C’est le cas, semble-t-il, sur le gawit‘/žamatun (narthex) de Tełer (1221-1232), où une série de petites plaques à croix arborescente, donc du type khatchkar, ont été sculptées et harmonieusement disposées comme partie de la composition de la façade ouest18 (fig. 17.8). Plusieurs sont anonymes (on repensera à elles en observant les plaques « muettes» de Sudak en Crimée), mais beaucoup portent de brèves inscriptions citant les prénoms d’hommes et femmes qui demandent que l’ on se souvienne d’ eux [dans les prières]19. Certains de ces «ex-voto» (le terme ne convient pas tout à fait, car ces plaques ne visent pas, à proprement parler, à «acquitter» l’ exaucement d’ un vœu) sont particulièrement semblables à des khatchkars, car ils sont munis d’une «corniche» à profil de cavet surmonté d’une tablette d’ abaque saillante. On peut y voir, par l’évocation d’«authentiques » khatchkars tumulaires, une façon d’honorer la mémoire de donateurs défunts. Un exemple en est donné sur la façade occidentale de l’église funéraire du prince Burt‘ēl Ōrbēlean à Noravank‘ (1339) (fig. 17.9); une inscription y mentionne les «parons » T‘ałēn et Sałun qui demandent que l’on se souvienne d’ eux en Christ20. L’insertion

15

16 17 18 19 20

Հ. Օրբելի, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ I: Անի քաղաք (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1966) [H. Orbeli, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber I: Ville d’Ani (Erevan:

Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1966)], p. 4, nº 9. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 328, fig. 450. Plusieurs illustrations peuvent en être vues dans : Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 320-331. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 331, fig. 455. Ս. Կարապետյան, “Տեղերի վանքը”, Վարձք 10 (Երեւան : RAA, 2013) [S. Karapetyan, “Le monastère de Tełer,” Duty of Soul 10 (Erevan : RAA, 2013)]: 22-23. Ս. Բարխուդարյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ III: Վայոց ձոր (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ, 1967) [S. Barkhudaryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber III: Vayots Dzor (Erevan : Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1967)], p. 241, nº 786. L’auteur qualifie la plaque de որմնախաչ = croix murale.

314

donabédian

de la dalle et de la «corniche» saillante qui la couronne, taillées dans des pierres identiques à celles du mur, semble avoir exigé un léger aménagement de l’appareil21. Il est probable néanmoins que l’ opération a eu lieu lors de la construction ou peu après; on peut supposer qu’ elle a suivi de peu la mort des deux «barons». Deux petites croix jumelles sont d’ ailleurs sculptées, non seulement sous les bras horizontaux de la croix principale, mais aussi sur le haut cavet de la «corniche». Nous verrons plus bas des cas analogues d’ une telle «personnalisation», notamment à Jérusalem et en Crimée. A Ktuc‘, au début du XVIIIe s., la façade orientale est toute entière consacrée à la croix, car son image est plusieurs fois présentée, de diverses manières, autour et au-dessus de la fenêtre centrale22. Sur le bas de la façade, de part et d’ autre d’une bande saillante sculptée d’un motif d’ entrelacs, deux assises de l’ appareil sont constituées de nombreux blocs presque carrés, portant le motif de la croix, stylistiquement très homogènes (fig. 17.10). Comme le montrent les inscriptions gravées sur plusieurs d’entre elles, ces plaques, que, encore une fois, l’on ne peut pas tout à fait qualifier d’« ex-voto», ont été insérées en reconnaissance de dons consentis par des fidèles. Jean-Michel Thierry a noté qu’il s’agissait d’un intéressant témoignage de la contribution collective de nombreux habitants de Bałēš (Bitlis) à la construction de l’ église entre 1713 et 172023. On voit ainsi se définir, dès le début du Xe s., à côté des khatchkars monumentaux et des autres types de pierres-croix, une catégorie de plaques plus petites, toujours à «décor» de croix-arbre de vie, qui ne sont pas des monuments indépendants, dressés séparément, mais qui servent à enrichir la portée ou le message d’une construction cultuelle ou semi-cultuelle, voire profane. Ces plaques peuvent aussi permettre à des fidèles de laisser une trace de leur soutien à l’ édification du sanctuaire, en faisant placer une prière en leur mémoire et pour le salut de leur âme à un emplacement qui soit le plus proche possible du sanctuaire, c’est-à-dire sur sa façade (sur l’un de ses murs, notons-le, extérieurs). C’est la popularité de cette forme hors des frontières de l’ Arménie et son adaptation à de nouvelles conditions d’existence que nous proposons d’ évoquer brièvement ci-après.

21 22 23

Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 331, fig. 456. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 329, fig. 452.

J.-M. Thierry, Monuments arméniens du Vaspurakan (Paris: Geuthner, 1989), p. 165.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

315

Cilicie Un premier groupe d’exemples de la catégorie des petits khatchkars muraux situés hors de l’Arménie proprement dite nous est donné par la Cilicie. Rappelons que les conditions de la population arménienne en Cilicie, sous autorité étatique nationale de 1198 à 1375, avec probablement une certaine prépondérance ethnique arménienne, à une distance relativement réduite de la métropole, n’étaient pas véritablement caractéristiques d’ une situation diasporique. C’est pourquoi cette «deuxième Arménie » peut être vue comme une étape intermédiaire entre la métropole et les colonies de la dispersion. Il faut préciser que nous avons une connaissance encore très incomplète de l’ architecture cultuelle arménienne de Cilicie et ignorons presque tout de son décor sculpté24. Alors qu’aucun grand khatchkar, même à l’ état de fragment, n’a été signalé, on note ici (en attendant de prochains compléments) l’ existence de huit plaques à croix relativement petites. 1. L’une, non datée, se trouvait jusqu’en 2014 dans la cour du musée d’ Adana25 (fig. 17.11). Elle est de dimensions réduites (59,5 × 43,5 cm ; épaisseur 25 cm). Privée de décor de détail, une croix aux bras évasés se détache par évidement du fond sous une niche arrondie dans sa partie supérieure. Le contour de cette niche est légèrement souligné par deux fines incisions parallèles. Les seuls «ornements» complémentaires sont les deux petites croix gravées en larges encoches arrondies, dans les quadrants inférieurs, et les deux grappes schématiquement sculptées accrochées au bras supérieur, ainsi que les deux palmettes trilobées comblant les angles supérieurs de la plaque. Le trou au centre de la croix semble avoir été l’emplacement d’ un clou de fer (cf. dalle 24

25

On peut espérer une profonde amélioration de cette situation grâce aux riches matériaux recueillis par Maxime Goepp lors des missions qu’ il effectue en Cilicie depuis une dizaine d’ années et qui portent sur les forteresses et les lieux de culte et de culture arméniens de Cilicie. La publication des résultats de ces travaux est vivement attendue. D’ores et déjà, quelques aspects de ces découvertes ont été présentés lors de communications faites par M. Goepp aux Journées d’Études sur l’ Arménie et la Géorgie médiévales organisées par l’ auteur de ces lignes au LA3M d’ Aix-en-Provence: « La fortification du royaume arménien de Cilicie : étude typologique et particularisme régional» (14/XI/2012), et «Les centres culturels arméniens de Cilicie : quelques témoignages archéologiques» (12/XI/2014); ainsi que lors de deux conférences: « Fortifications and ecclesiastical architecture in Armenian Cilicia : some new perspectives», Armenian Studies : Multidisciplinary Dimensions (Jérusalem : Patriarcat arménien, 4/VII/2013) ; et « Fortifications et centres culturels du royaume arménien de Cilicie » (Paris : Société Française d’ Archéologie, I/2014). L’ auteur remercie Ioanna Rapti d’ avoir bien voulu lui en donner connaissance. Il est également reconnaissant à Samvel Grigoryan d’ avoir bien voulu en relever les mesures.

316

donabédian

suivante et chapitre sur Jérusalem), clou encore présent, semble-t-il, au centre des deux croix inférieures (cf. l’une des croix de Jérusalem). Par sa grande simplicité et la forme à boule unique des extrémités des bras de la croix, cette pièce s’ apparente aux khatchkars les plus anciens d’Arménie, du IXe-Xe s.26, mais par le contour rectangulaire de sa partie supérieure, elle ne semble pas antérieure au Xe-XIe s. Compte tenu de son «archaïsme», on pourrait supposer qu’ elle date du début de la consolidation de la présence arménienne en Cilicie, soit de la fin XIe-XIIe s. Nous verrons que la présence des clous plaide en faveur du milieu du XIIe s. La pierre est détachée de son contexte originel mais a vraisemblablement appartenu à un revêtement mural. 2. Une seconde plaque à croix de Cilicie est conservée à Antélias, au Liban, au musée du catholicossat de Cilicie (fig. 17.12); elle provient de Hṙomklay où elle se trouvait jusqu’en 197227. Elle pourrait, malgré sa petitesse, s’ approcher d’un «vrai» khatchkar. Ses dimensions sont: 66× 56× 14 cm. Une croix aux bras pratiquement égaux en longueur et à peine évasés se détache sur un champ rectangulaire bordé par une bande plate saillante portant une inscription. Les contours de la croix sont soulignés par deux minces filets qui dessinent à chaque extrémité une feuille trilobée et qui se croisent au centre. Ces feuilles ont un lobe sommital légèrement pointu qui évoque un bourgeon. Nettement plus végétale que la grappe de trois boules qui avait cours sur les khatchkars du Xe-XIe s., cette forme renforce l’association croix – arbre de vie ; elle s’ observe sur les khatchkars d’Arménie à partir du XIe s.28 et s’ impose à partir de la fin du XIIe s.29. Ce lobe central empiète légèrement sur la bande latérale, trait également présent, bien que rarement, sur les khatchkars d’ Arménie. Comme sur la pièce précédente, un trou creusé au centre de la croix est comblé, semble-t-il,

26 27

28 29

Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 90-110.

Sur cette plaque, voir: C. Mutafian, Le royaume arménien de Cilicie, XIIe-XIVe siècle (Paris: CNRS éditions, 1993), pp. 1, 4 ; C. Mutafian, L’ Arménie du Levant (XIe-XIVe siècle), Tome II (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012), ill. 131. Trois autres petits khatchkars muraux en marbre des XVIIe-XVIIIe s. sont conservés à Antélias. Ils proviennent probablement de la NlleDjoulfa. Voir: H. Goltz, K. Göltz, Rescued Armenian Treasures from Cilicia (Wiesbaden: DLRV, 2000), p. 125 ; Armenian Relics of Cilicia, ed. A. Ballian (Athènes: Olkos, 2002), ill. 2-4. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 118. Voir par exemple le khatchkar de Bǰni de 1031. La forme (à peine marquée) en « fleur de lys » des extrémités des bras de la croix est vue par Claude Mutafian comme une « indiscutable marque de l’influence franque» (Mutafian, L’ Arménie du Levant, Tome II, légende de l’ ill. 131). L’idée est tentante, mais l’apparition du motif en Arménie dès le XIe s. (avec au début la même ébauche de pointe seulement) semble l’ infirmer.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

317

par ce qu’il reste d’un clou en fer. Nous observerons infra le même trait insolite, un reste de clou, sur des petits khatchkars de Jérusalem du milieu du XIIe s. et verrons qu’il s’agit peut-être d’une marque de consécration. Deux motifs faiblement saillants en forme de bouton et de navette (ou amande) ornent chaque bras, rappelant les gemmes qui enrichissent les précieuses croix en métal rituelles, de procession ou reliquaires. Une grappe schématisée est sculptée, «accrochée» sous chacun des bras horizontaux. Les quadrants supérieurs sont occupés par deux grosses fleurs : à gauche, une marguerite à huit pétales évoque sans doute le soleil des images de la crucifixion; à droite, une marguerite analogue, probable rappel de la lune des crucifixions, est couverte par un large médaillon à fin entrelacs. Dans les quadrants inférieurs sont logés deux boutons plus petits, légèrement bombés et à hachures, concentriques à gauche et vrillées à droite. La croix s’ appuie sur une courte hampe elle-même fixée sur un piédestal à trois degrés, probable allusion, on l’a vu, au Golgotha et à l’idée d’élévation. Apposée sur trois des quatre bords (à l’exception de la bande horizontale inférieure) et rehaussée de couleur rouge, l’inscription précise « ce saint signe a été élevé pour la protection de la sépulture de Vasil, serviteur de Dieu ». Ce Vasil peut être identifié à un membre de la dynastie Pahlawuni, frère des catholicos Grégoire III et Nersēs le Gracieux, ce qui permet de dater l’œuvre, avec une bonne probabilité, des années 1160117030. Il est difficile de se prononcer sur la situation initiale de cette plaque, au décor original et fin, sans un examen de sa face postérieure. En effet son épaisseur relative (14cm), en dépit de l’absence de «tenon », pourrait indiquer une position verticale isolée, avec fixation sur une base ou un piédestal au moyen d’un liant. Dans l’inscription, l’emploi du verbe « a été élevé» semble d’ ailleurs renvoyer à la tradition métropolitaine des khatchkars funéraires dressés à l’ est des tombes. Mais, comme nous le verrons infra, les communautés diasporiques donnent de nombreux exemples où cette formule est employée allégoriquement à propos de plaques murales. De plus, la suite du texte de l’ inscription, «pour la protection de la sépulture …», donne à penser que cette plaque assez petite était apposée sur un édifice qui pouvait être un monument funéraire, un mausolée ou une chapelle funéraire. 3-4. Les troisième et quatrième plaques à croix de Cilicie se trouvent in situ, sur la façade est du soubassement d’un édifice par ailleurs détruit, dans le

30

On notera la proximité chronologique (milieu XIIe) avec les plaques de Jérusalem présentant aussi un clou de fer (voir infra).

318

donabédian

vaste ensemble en ruine du patriarcat de Hṙomklay (fig. 17.13). Aménagé sur une pente assez marquée, soigneusement appareillé, ce puissant aménagement mettait en valeur l’édifice qu’il supportait, et le rendait particulièrement visible depuis la vallée de l’Euphrate qui forme un grand coude au pied de l’ imposant promontoire. Encore en partie «lisible » grâce à une assise partiellement conservée au-dessus du soubassement, le plan révèle une simple nef, avec à l’est une abside flanquée de deux petites sacristies angulaires31. Il s’ agissait donc d’une église ou d’une chapelle, probablement voûtée en berceau à l’origine. On propose d’y voir l’église patriarcale Saint-Grégoire32. Malgré la modestie des dimensions, l’hypothèse est plausible compte tenu de la qualité et de la visibilité de la construction33. La composition décorative de la façade orientale de l’édifice est originale, avec à mi-hauteur, une longue moulure horizontale qui s’achève de chaque côté par un repli vertical pendant. Les deux plaques à croix sont placées sous ces replis. Malgré la destruction de leur partie centrale où se trouvait la croix34, on peut admirer la grande finesse du traitement sculpté de ces œuvres (fig. 17.14, 15). Les deux feuilles qui poussent de part et d’ autre du pied de la croix et remontent vers ses bras latéraux, encore bien conservées, sont une caractéristique constante des khatchkars d’Arménie. Leur lobe sommital, recourbé comme il se doit vers l’extérieur, évoque une tête d’ oiseau (pélican ?), motif plusieurs fois observé en métropole, précisément à cet emplacement35. Plus bas, les deux amples plantes à disposition horizontale, attachées au pied de la croix par une large ceinture nouée, sont propres aux khatchkars de la première moitié du XIe s.36; apparu semble-t-il peu après l’ an mil sur les stèles d’ Ani et de sa région, cet ornement végétal singulier s’ est répandu à partir de là et s’ observe encore au XIIIe s. Curieusement découpé, le motif est traité ici avec un raffinement particulier. Au bas du pied de la croix, sur l’ habituel piédestal à gradins, on note la présence inhabituelle de figures animales. Deux félins, des lionceaux peut-être, sont sculptés sur la plaque de gauche (fig. 17.14), attachés à l’élément floral central, les pattes avant docilement jointes, la gueule tour31 32 33 34

35 36

L’ auteur doit ces indications à la documentation aimablement fournie par Maxime Goepp. Mutafian, Le royaume, p. 52, fig. 4 ; Mutafian, L’ Arménie du Levant, p. 605. S’ agissant de la petitesse de l’ édifice, on sait qu’ en Arménie, surtout à partir du XIIe-XIIIe s., les églises sont rarement grandes. Mutafian, ibidem, a cru voir, à l’ endroit martelé, à la place de la croix, une image du Christ. En réalité, les extrémités conservées ne laissent aucun doute sur la présence ici d’une croix. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 354-355. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 113-126.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

319

née vers l’arrière; la queue (à extrémité fleurie?) semble repliée vers le haut37. Sur celle de droite (fig. 17.15), un aigle se tient solidement sur ses pattes aux serres hypertrophiées, les ailes en partie refermées sur les côtés et la queue étalée empiétant sur la bande inférieure38. Aux deux extrémités supérieures du champ rectangulaire de chacune des deux plaques, de part et d’autre du bras supérieur (aujourd’hui quasiment disparu) de la croix, les grandes majuscules du nom Jésus-Christ font saillie, encore en partie conservées. Sur la plaque de gauche on distingue les abréviations ՅՍ̅ pour Yisus (Jésus) et ՔՍ̅ pour K‘ristos (Christ) ; sur la plaque de droite, les mêmes abréviations se lisent, semble-t-il, de manière inhabituelle, ՅԻ̅ à gauche et ՔԻ̅ à droite. Chaque plaque a son champ rectangulaire bordé par une assez large bande ornée d’un entrelacs végétal géométrisé très fin et complexe, le motif n’étant pas tout à fait le même sur les deux cadres. Sans leur ressembler totalement (avec en particulier un caractère moins « islamisant »), ces deux chaînes évoquent les entrelacs et arabesques subtils qui se multiplient en Arménie proprement dite à partir de la fin du XIIe s. Comme sur les khatchkars d’Arménie, le «décor » se détache par évidement du fond, mais on remarque ici que la profondeur du fond sur le champ principal est nettement supérieure à celle du fond de la bordure. Cette profondeur tient compte sans doute de l’emplacement relativement élevé de ces sculptures, éloigné du spectateur; elle vise aussi peut-être à créer un effet de contraste entre le décor fouillé et uniforme des bords et la riche diversité du champ principal dans lequel un rôle notable est réservé aux espaces vides. Comme le catholicossat a été installé à Hṙomklay vers 1150 et s’ y est maintenu jusqu’à sa prise par les Mamelouks en 129239, et compte tenu des particularités stylistiques de ces deux sculptures, on peut sans hésitation les situer entre le milieu du XIIe s. et le XIIIe s., avec une préférence pour le début de cette période. La date de construction de l’église St-Grégoire en 1174 convient parfaitement. Elles constituent une illustration particulièrement claire de la typologie sur laquelle la présente étude souhaite appeler l’ attention: celle de petites 37

38

39

Ռ. Մաթեւոսյան, Հայկական զինանշաններ (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 2002) [R. Matevosyan, Les armoiries arméniennes (Erevan : Gitutyun, 2002)] a réuni une série de figurations médiévales arméniennes de paires de lions, enchaînés ou non, et les a interprétées comme des emblèmes héraldiques, notamment de la dynastie de Bagratides et de la royauté arménienne en Cilicie. L’ aigle est très présent dans l’ art arménien médiéval et on lui attribue une large polysémie, par exemple héraldique dans l’ ouvrage cité à la note précédente. Sur ses significations possibles en référence à la bible, voir notamment : P. Donabédian, “Les thèmes bibliques dans la sculpture arménienne préarabe”, Revue des Études Arméniennes 22 (1990-1991): pp. 253314, ici pp. 274-275. Pour les références bibliques des lions menaçants: ibidem, pp. 272-274. Mutafian, L’ Arménie du Levant, Tome I, p. 481 ; Tome II, ill. 133.

320

donabédian

plaques à croix faisant intrinsèquement partie d’ un appareil mural. Par leur emplacement, à l’évidence d’origine, sur la façade orientale de l’ église (peutêtre la cathédrale patriarcale), dotée d’une forte visibilité, ces deux plaques ont, malgré leur relative petitesse, une présence et une signification particulières. Par l’absence de mention de donateur et de requête privée, ces plaques sont au nombre de celles où la croix – arbre de vie acquiert une portée générale : son message, probablement à la fois emblématique et apotropaïque, c’ est-à-dire proclamant la présence du Signe et sa protection, est clairement et entièrement exprimé par son image, que complètent les nomina sacra. 5. La cinquième plaque à croix de cet inventaire se trouve in situ, dans le château terrestre de Koṙikos, l’une des principales places fortes du royaume40. Elle est insérée au-dessus du peu qu’il reste de la porte de l’ enceinte intérieure de la forteresse, sur sa face extérieure est41 (fig. 17.16). C’ est une petite plaque rectangulaire dont la partie inférieure est détruite (fig. 17.17). La composition décorative, qui se lit assez bien malgré l’usure de la pierre et le faible relief de la sculpture, est originale. Une petite croix latine aux bras non évasés, parcourue par une simple tresse à un brin, marquée par un trou dans chaque anneau, occupe modestement le centre de la partie supérieure de la plaque. Quatre assez gros médaillons à marguerite sont placés de part et d’ autre de la croix, deux aux extrémités supérieures du champ rectangulaire, deux autres immédiatement sur les côtés du bras inférieur de la croix. Du bas de ce bras partent deux branches, comme il se doit, recourbées, mais en forme d’ ailes tournées vers l’extérieur. Sous la croix, mais indépendamment d’ elle, une bande à disposition grosso modo horizontale dessine de manière insolite deux arcs joints au centre. Elle surmonte une zone qui était destinée semble-t-il à porter une inscription. La plaque est bordée par une bande ornementale démesurément large. Y est appliqué un entrelacs à plusieurs tiges enchaînées qui s’ apparente à ceux couvrant les cadres des deux plaques décrites plus haut à Hṙomklay. Des travaux ayant été entrepris à Koṙikos par les autorités arméniennes durant le XIIIe s., c’est à cette période qu’il faut attribuer ce petit khatchkar. Celui-ci, à l’ évidence, était destiné, comme à Séleucie (voir ci-après), à protéger l’ entrée de l’importante forteresse qui défendait le deuxième port du royaume arménien. 40

41

Bibliographie sur le site de Koṙikos dans Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant, Tome I, p. 356, note 14. Y manque : J.-M. Thierry, P. Donabédian, Les arts arméniens (Paris: Mazenod, 1987), pp. 548-549. Brève description du « khatchkar» dans : R. Edwards, The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia (Washington, D.C. : Dumbarton Oaks, 1987), p. 166.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

321

6. La sixième plaque à croix de Cilicie se trouve au-dessus de l’ entrée de la forteresse de Séleucie/Silifke42 (fig. 17.18). Elle est très endommagée, l’ érosion naturelle s’étant sans doute ajoutée à la destruction intentionnelle de la croix. On devine néanmoins une composition simple, assez proche, semble-t-il, de celle de la sculpture du musée d’Adana décrite supra. Sous un bord arqué, une croix était cantonnée de quatre abréviations des noms Seigneur Dieu et Jésus Christ. Dans les quadrants inférieurs, de part et d’autre du pied de la croix, on distingue deux rosaces à marguerite. Cette plaque surmonte une dalle rectangulaire nettement plus large qui porte une inscription arménienne, hélas difficile à lire. Łewond Ališan avait pu y déchiffrer la date de 1236 et, parmi plusieurs noms de la famille royale, celui du roi Het‘um Ier43. Comme l’ atteste l’ homogénéité des deux pierres, cette plaque à croix relativement petite avait elle aussi sans doute été d’emblée disposée dans cette grande composition installée sur l’ entrée de la forteresse à l’occasion de sa construction ou de sa restauration. Outre le message que contenait l’inscription, probablement une prière en mémoire et pour le salut du roi et de ses proches, on peut attribuer à cette plaque, comme dans le cas précédent, compte tenu de son emplacement au-dessus de la porte de cet édifice militaire, une portée prophylactique. 7. La septième plaque à croix de Cilicie dont nous ayons connaissance est également à son emplacement originel, dans les ruines de la forteresse de Papeṙon (Çandır), dans les vestiges d’une chapelle attenante à la façade sud de l’ église bâtie en 1251 ou 1256 par le connétable Smbat, frère du roi Het‘um Ier44 (fig. 17.19). Malgré les dommages subis par la surface de la plaque, de dimensions réduites équivalentes à celles des pièces précédentes, on distingue encore une croix finement sculptée, aux larges bras évasés. Le contour de la croix est marqué par un double liséré fin qui dessine trois lobes à chacune des extrémités de ses bras. On devine dans les quadrants supérieurs la présence d’ un motif floral à entrelacs pénétrant en coin jusqu’à la jonction des bras de la croix. Comme sur les plaques de Hṙomklay, mais avec un relief ici beaucoup moins marqué, le champ principal rectangulaire est entouré d’ une bordure ornée d’ un assez

42 43 44

Mutafian, Le royaume, p. 52, fig. 7 ; P. Kazandjian, Horizons arméniens. Le voyage en Cilicie (Paris : Editions Astrig, s.d.), p. 34. Ղ. Ալիշան, Սիսուան (Վենետիկ : Սուրբ Ղազար, 1885) [L. Alishan, Sisuan (Venise: Saint-Lazare, 1885)], p. 285. Ալիշան, Սիսուան, p. 73; R. Edwards, “Ecclesiastical Architecture in the Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982), p. 162, fig. 11; Mutafian, Le royaume, p. 53, fig. 8. R. Edwards qualifie ce “khatchkar” de « finest known example of Armenian relief sculpture in Cilicia ».

322

donabédian

large entrelacs tressé formé d’une tige à trois brins. La plaque est placée légèrement en retrait par rapport à un large cadre quadrangulaire fortement mouluré dont l’angle supérieur droit est détruit. Ce chambranle mouluré est orné sur sa périphérie d’un type d’entrelacs anguleux caractéristique de l’ Arménie du XIIe-XIVe s. que l’on appelle communément « chaîne seldjoukide ». Ainsi encadrée, la plaque se trouvait apparemment sur le piédestal d’ un monument funéraire, au bas de la chapelle annexée au sud de l’ église. 8. Une autre pierre à croix arménienne de Cilicie, la huitième de ce corpus, appartient à l’importante série de matériaux recueillis par Maxime Goepp dans le cadre de son travail de prospection et d’étude du patrimoine architectural arménien de Cilicie. Cette pierre provient de l’ un des centres culturels de la région de Sis présentés par lui en 201245. Plusieurs autres pierres analogues découvertes par le même chercheur viendront prochainement compléter cet inventaire. Posée à terre, la pierre rectangulaire a, sur sa face antérieure, des dimensions modestes (60×45cm) s’inscrivant dans le module approximatif ayant cours ici (fig. 17.20). Bien qu’érodée, elle montre un « décor » assez fruste fait d’une croix apparemment privée d’ornementation de détail qui se détache en faible relief sur un fond délimité par un bord arrondi dans sa partie supérieure. De contour assez «approximatif», ce cadre semble s’ incurver vers l’intérieur dans sa partie médiane, du moins du côté gauche. « Latine » par ses proportions, la croix a des bras normalement évasés dont les extrémités sont arrondies en une boule unique à peine élargie. La croix est précédée par une assez longue hampe et est flanquée, dans les deux quadrants inférieurs, de deux petites croix qui lui sont semblables; celle de droite n’est pas symétrique à celle de gauche, mais déplacée en hauteur et sur la droite. Les seuls éléments complémentaires sont cinq boules, dont deux flanquent la hampe et les trois autres sont disposées autour du bras supérieur. Par la simplicité du dessin et la forme des extrémités des bras, cette sculpture pourrait laisser l’ impression d’une œuvre archaïque, ce qui dans le domaine des khatchkars signifie le IXe-Xe s. Mais la présence des deux petites croix latérales désigne plutôt une période postérieure au XIIe s. et la datation peut être brouillée par le caractère assez incertain ou fantaisiste du dessin. La pierre ne constituait pas une fine plaque, car sa profondeur (son épaisseur) peut être évaluée à c. 20 cm. Ses faces latérales sont assez rectilignes. Néanmoins, compte tenu de la légère inclinaison de son bord inférieur et de l’absence de tenon, il est peu probable que ce bloc ait pu être une stèle dressée. Il est au contraire permis de penser qu’ il faisait partie

45

Journée d’ Études du 14/XI/2012 mentionnée supra, note nº 24.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

323

de l’appareil mural d’une construction de facture modeste, et il n’est pas exclus qu’il ait appartenu, non à la catégorie des «petits khatchkars muraux», mais à celle des croix sculptées à postériori dans une façade. Considérées ensemble, ces huit pièces, par leurs dimensions réduites et leur nature de plaques insérées et non de stèles isolées (nous supposons que les cas incertains de la pierre d’Antélias et du nº 8 correspondent aussi à des éléments d’appareil mural), diffèrent sensiblement des khatchkars monumentaux de l’Arménie proprement dite, dont le type n’est pas attesté en Cilicie. En revanche, elles s’apparentent aux petits khatchkars muraux de la mère-patrie et illustrent la catégorie particulière qui nous intéresse dans la présente étude, catégorie répandue, comme nous le verrons ci-après, dans les communautés extra-métropolitaines. Celles dont l’emplacement est connu sont des pierres de façade, c’est-à-dire extérieures. Constante dans l’ ensemble, la modestie des dimensions relève d’un module approximatif commun. Portant toujours, en premier lieu, le message de la croix, elles présentent en même temps une certaine diversité fonctionnelle. Deux d’entre elles, celle du prince Vasil de Hṙomklay et celle de Papeṙon, ont vraisemblablement une fonction funéraire. Les deux de l’église de Hṙomklay, d’un grand raffinement, ont une valeur emblématique et peut-être apotropaïque, tandis que celles de Koṙikos et de Séleucie (cette dernière portant le nom du roi) étaient surtout destinées probablement à «protéger» l’entrée de ces forteresses. Bien que diverses par leur « décor », ces plaques sont toutes fidèles au canon arménien de la croix – arbre de vie placée dans un espace délimité par un cadre, orné ou non, ou porteur d’ une inscription, cadre dans trois cas arqué (pour ce qui est du haut de son contour intérieur) et dans cinq cas rectangulaire. Deux d’ entre elles présentent une particularité très rare: la trace d’un clou au centre de la croix, observée jusque-là seulement sur quelques plaques de Jérusalem (voir ci-dessous). Compte tenu des datations disponibles, cette particularité paraît propre au milieu du XIIe s.

Jérusalem Venus dès les premiers temps chrétiens en pèlerinage en Terre sainte et en particulier à Jérusalem, les Arméniens y établirent très tôt des lieux de culte et d’accueil. Le principal est le monastère des Saints-Jacques, attesté comme arménien depuis le milieu du XIIe s., qui abrite jusqu’ à ce jour le Patriarcat arménien de Jérusalem. Les murs des églises et des bâtiments du patriarcat portent encastrées de nombreuses plaques sculptées, ornées de la croix-arbre de vie. Il s’en trouve également sur plusieurs autres sites. La collection de Jéru-

324

donabédian

salem de ces petits khatchkars muraux est, après celle de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa à Ispahan, la deuxième en nombre de la diaspora arménienne. Ces deux sites ont récemment fait l’objet d’une vaste étude par Haroutioun Khatchadourian et Michel Basmadjian46. La reprise ici d’une analyse détaillée étant inutile, on se limitera à quelques notes. Les 287 pièces recensées en Terre sainte, dont la plupart à Jérusalem, sont datées ou datables entre le XIIe et le XIXe s. La typologie, les formes et compositions sont très diverses, de même que les dimensions : la hauteur varie de 13 à 90cm, et la largeur de 10 à 63cm; on trouve même quelques cas de plaques rondes et octogonales. Mais, conformément à la « norme » nationale, la croix est le plus souvent un arbre de vie, et est sculptée, souvent sous un arc et dans des ornements végétaux et géométriques, sans représentation de la crucifixion. Les deux seules exceptions sont une plaque de 1440 dans la cour à l’ ouest de la cathédrale (fig. 17.21) et une seconde, très petite, de 1776, qui représentent le Christ en croix47. Les inscriptions portent une prière pour l’intercession, en mémoire ou pour le salut de l’âme de plusieurs personnes (parfois assez nombreuses) et souvent des membres de leur famille. Très souvent, la personne principale s’ identifie comme un pèlerin: à l’évidence, c’est le cas de la grande majorité des commanditaires des plaques de Terre sainte. Souvent aussi cette personne dit « avoir dressé» la croix (ou le saint signe), formule figée qui doit être comprise dans le sens général d’«apposer une plaque», puisqu’ il s’ agit toujours de pierres insérées. On relève l’emploi, sur plusieurs plaques du milieu du XVe s., de l’ expression «ces saints signes» («surb nšank‘s») au pluriel, accompagnée d’un verbe au singulier, sauf deux cas de 1443 et de 1454 où le verbe est au pluriel48, phénomène que nous retrouverons à la même période en Crimée. Par ailleurs, comme supra à Noravank‘, dans plusieurs cas où des croix secondaires, au nombre de deux, quatre ou plus, sont ajoutées à la croix principale, ou encore deux ou trois croix sont sculptées côte à côte, ce nombre peut correspondre à celui des noms de personnes mentionnés dans l’ inscription, illustrant une sorte de «personnalisation» de l’image de la croix. Citons seulement deux exemples caractéristiques du milieu du XVe s., avec respectivement 11 croix et 11 noms (fig. 17.22), et 12 croix et probablement 12 noms49 (fig. 17.23).

46 47 48 49

H. Khatchadourian, M. Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars. Les pierres à croix arméniennes d’ Ispahan et de Jérusalem (Paris : Geuthner, 2014). Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 382, JER-HCB006; 408, JER-TGN006. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 333, BET-AST002 (1443); 415, JERTHE036 (1454). Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 382, JER-HCB009, JER-HCB012.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

325

Des groupes de pièces très apparentées donnent à penser qu’ il a pu y avoir, à certaines périodes, des productions en série, au sein d’ un même atelier. C’ est le cas, au milieu du XVe s., d’un assez grand nombre de plaques en pierre jauneocre, à motifs dessinés avec soin et précision (fig. 17.24). On y voit une croix élancée aux bras évasés à pointes généralement en feuille trilobée pointue, avec deux petites croix dans les quadrants inférieurs ; la croix est encadrée par un arc lui-même souvent surmonté d’une bande horizontale comprenant cinq ou six petits compartiments; les larges bords sont souvent finement ornementés d’une ou deux bandes à entrelacs ou motifs répétitifs. On peut aussi signaler, à l’ opposé des productions locales, un cas certainement exogène: le petit khatchkar JER-SEP001 de 70×27cm, daté de 1600, placé à l’ intérieur du Saint-Sépulcre et vraisemblablement apporté de J̌uła (Djoulfa), site célèbre pour ses khatchkars du XVIe – tout début du XVIIe s.50. Une particularité à notre connaissance jusque-là inconnue, hormis sur les deux plaques mentionnées supra en Cilicie, retient l’ attention. Quatre pièces, dont deux datées de 1151 et de 1153 et les deux autres probablement contemporaines, présentent un clou de fer au cœur de la croix51 (fig. 17.25-28). Peutêtre faut-il y ajouter deux autres plaques, elles aussi datées de 1151 : sur l’ une, un clou semble visible au centre au moins d’une des deux petites croix latérales (fig. 17.29), comme sur la plaque d’Adana, et sur l’ autre, un trou au centre de la croix suggère l’emplacement d’un clou52 (fig. 17.30). Comme le proposent Haroutioun Khatchadourian et Michel Basmadjian, ce clou peut être identifié à une marque de consécration signalée par le Livre des Canons et le Dictionnaire rituel de Małak‘ia Ōrmanean53. Cette marque se pratiquait peut-être sur des croix de bois, mais n’avait jamais été observée sur les grands khatchkars d’Arménie54. Comme on l’a vu, les deux cas relevés en Cilicie (tab. 17.11, 12) peuvent eux aussi être datés du milieu du XIIe s., alors que leur iconographie et leur style sont différents de ceux des œuvres de Jérusalem, ce qui exclut une origine géographique commune. Cette proximité temporelle semble situer la pratique du clou de consécration à une période précise, que l’ on peut imaginer être celle de l’adoption de ce rite, peut-être bientôt abandonné.

50 51 52 53 54

Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 111, fig. 6.12; 253; 404. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, pp. 41, 384, JER-HCB018 (1151), JERHCB019 (1153), JER-HCB020 (non daté), JER-HCB028 (non daté). Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 384, JER-HCB017, JER-HCB022. Օրմանեան, Ծիսական բառարան, p. 135, s.v. « xač‘k‘ar». Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, p. 252.

326

donabédian

Une autre plaque à croix de Jérusalem, datée de 1590, surprend par la présence de couleurs rouge et bleue sur certaines parties de sa croix et sur son fond. L’inscription indique qu’elle a été «dressée» par Martiros en mémoire de son père Sargis, or père et fils étaient des peintres miniaturistes de Xizan55. Si elle est d’origine, cette coloration peut donc être vue comme un singulier hommage au métier d’enlumineur. L’étude de l’épigraphie des plaques à croix de Jérusalem fait apparaître la diversité des provenances et des métiers des pèlerins, montrant ainsi le fort attrait exercé par les Lieux Saints sur le monde arménien56. La forme de la plaque murale à croix, si largement répandue dans cet îlot arménien que constituent à Jérusalem la cathédrale Saints-Jacques et le Patriarcat, est particulièrement adaptée à la fonction de marque de dévotion laissée par des pèlerins. Comme déjà noté plus haut, le terme de plaque « votive» n’est sans doute pas tout à fait approprié, puisqu’il ne s’agissait pas d’ une action de grâce pour la réalisation d’un vœu. Ce genre de plaque constituait plutôt la preuve « gravée dans le marbre» de l’expression d’une prière formulée à l’ occasion du pèlerinage de Jérusalem, l’un des principaux actes de foi d’ un croyant, prière pour le salut de son âme et de celle de ses proches, en un lieu où l’ on croyait certainement qu’elle serait le mieux «placée» pour être entendue et peut-être exaucée. L’emplacement actuel des plaques de Jérusalem, qui ne reflète sans doute pas toujours la position originelle, mêle intérieur et extérieur, ce dernier terme devant toutefois être relativisé par la situation générale enclose, probablement depuis très longtemps, du quartier arménien. L’extériorisation relevée en Cilicie ne correspondait certainement pas à l’intention génératrice de ces marques de dévotion personnelle présentes en Terre sainte, qui émanent de pèlerins ; mais cette extériorisation n’était peut-être pas non plus souhaitée ni autorisée. On observe dans tous les cas aujourd’hui à Jérusalem, ainsi que dans les foyers diasporiques, un phénomène inconnu en Arménie : la présence de telles plaques à l’intérieur d’églises. On peut expliquer leur absence en métropole57 par l’hypothèse que l’interdiction canonique de placer des inhumations à l’intérieur des lieux de culte ait été étendue à de telles plaques à connotation funéraire. Au contraire, en diaspora, cette interdiction s’ est peut-être progressivement effacée. 55 56 57

Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 151; 153, fig. 6.44. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 120. Les cas assez fréquents de remplois (tardifs) de khatchkars, petits ou grands, à l’intérieur des églises d’ Arménie, parfois sur la face du bem (élévation de l’autel), ne sont pas pris en considération ici.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

327

Bethléem Signalons également la présence de petits khatchkars à Bethléem. Au sud-ouest de la basilique de la Nativité, au sein du monastère arménien, seize pièces sont insérées dans les murs de l’église Sainte-Mère de Dieu (1621), et une dixseptième est à l’extérieur. Ces plaques à croix remontent pour l’ essentiel au XVIIIe-XIXe s. Une seule, datée de 144358, s’apparente à des plaques de Jérusalem, de même période59, et provenait peut-être de la Ville sainte.

Rome En Occident, sauf erreur, un seul monument ancien, dans le domaine qui nous occupe ici, est pour l’heure connu: le «khatchkar» de Rome, de 1246 (fig. 17.31). Grâce à Claude Mutafian, cette œuvre a été révélée au grand public occidental et montrée deux fois, lors des expositions à Rome et à Marseille60. Elle se trouve au Lapidario des Musées du Vatican et provient de la première église arménienne de Rome, Saint-Jacques-des-Arméniens. C’ est une plaque en marbre qui mesure 148,5×69,5cm. Par sa relative grandeur, ses proportions et son décor aniconique ne faisant de place qu’à la croix, elle évoque dans une certaine mesure les khatchkars d’Arménie, mais son épaisseur n’est que de 8 cm. Il est donc évident que, même si l’inscription proclame « […] cette croix a été dressée pour l’intercession de Mxit‘ar et de ses parents […]. Vous qui vous prosternez, souvenez-vous en dans vos prières», cette plaque ne pouvait pas être isolée. Certes dressée, c’est-à-dire en position verticale, elle était à l’ évidence apposée sur un appareil mural. D’ailleurs, on l’a vu, la formule « cette croix a été dressée» est fréquente sur les plaques murales de Jérusalem, et il en est de même dans les autres foyers diasporiques. D’une extrême sobriété, le «décor» présente, dans un cadre rectangulaire délimité par une étroite bande moulurée, une grande croix de largeur constante, parcourue par une tresse – une chaîne à deux brins avec une perle logée dans chaque enroulement –, et six petites croix logées dans les quadrants. Les deux croix latérales inférieures sont ornées du même motif de chaîne. Le bras

58 59 60

Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 159, fig. 6.50 (BET-AST002). Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 382, JER-HCB007 (1460) et JERHCB011 (1441) ; p. 408, JER-TGN013 (1453). Roma – Armenia, éd. C. Mutafian (Rome : Edizioni De Luca, 1999), pp. 212-213, nº VII, 25; Arménie. La magie de l’ écrit, éd. C. Mutafian (Marseille-Paris: Somogy, 2007), p. 202, nº 4.13.

328

donabédian

inférieur de la croix principale s’élargit en un trapèze évoquant un piédestal. Une brève inscription latine y est gravée, qui précise: « Cette croix est consacrée », laissant supposer une forme d’autorisation accordée par les autorités catholiques locales. Aux extrémités des trois autres bras, une saillie en demiboule empiète légèrement sur le bord mouluré. Le reste du champ est parsemé de majuscules arméniennes, gravées avec beaucoup de soin et de régularité, qui forment le texte évoqué ci-dessus. La forme insolite des croix, d’ une stricte régularité, la retenue de l’ornement et la disposition de l’ inscription soigneusement gravée sur tout le champ libre confèrent à cette plaque une grande originalité et une noble élégance. Compte tenu des observations faites plus haut, il est probable que cette plaque était encastrée sur une façade ou dans le mur intérieur d’une église ou d’un mausolée.

La Crimée L’ importante colonie que les Arméniens ont établie à partir du XIIIe s. sur la rive sud de la Crimée nous a laissé, parmi son riche héritage artistique, une quantité relativement élevée de plaques à croix et quelques « grands » khatchkars des XIVe-XVIIIe s.61. Rien qu’à Théodosie (Caffa), centre administratif génois de la presqu’île au XIVe-XVe s., on en a recensé plus d’une centaine62. Beaucoup sont déposés à l’intérieur de l’église Saint-Serge, transformée en 1971 en musée lapidaire, ou encastrés dans ses murs, notamment sur la façade occidentale de son narthex (fig. 17.32). Mais on en trouve aussi dans les autres monuments armé61

62

Գ. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ VII: Ուկրաինա, Մոլդովա (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 1996) [G. Grigoryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber

VII : Ukraine, Moldavie (Erevan : Gitutyun, 1996)], p. 20; Е. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба Каффы XIV-VIII веков (Симферополь: Сонат, 2001) [E. Aïbabina, La sculpture décorative sur pierre de Caffa des XIVe-XVIIIe siècles (Simferopol: Sonat, 2001)], pp. 62-98, 146-150. Pour une présentation d’ ensemble des khatchkars produits dans la région, voir: P. Donabédian, “Small mural khachkars in medieval Armenian communities of Crimea, Galicia, Podolia and Bessarabia”, in On the Borderline between the East and the West. Materials of the International Conference dedicated to Yaroslav Dashkevytch (Lviv: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Lviv Branch, 2018), pp. 324-335. А. Гаврилова, “Хачкары из фондов Феодосийского краеведческого музея” [A. Gavrilova, “Les khatchkars des collections du musée régional de Théodosie”], in The Second International Symposium on Armenian Art, Volume III, Yerevan, 1978 (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 1981): pp. 95-102, ici p. 95. Voir aussi: А. Гаврилова, “Феодосийские хачкары XIV-XVII вв.”, in V республиканская научная конференция по проблемам культуры и искусства Армении (Ереван: Ереванский государственный университет, 1982) [A. Gavrilova, “Les khatchkars de Théodosie des XIVe-XVIIe ss.”, in Ve conférence scientifique républicaine sur les problèmes de la culture et de l’art de l’Arménie (Erevan: Université d’ État d’ Erevan, 1982)] : pp. 278-280.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

329

niens de la ville, ainsi que dans d’autres localités. La pièce la plus ancienne, datée de 1301, aujourd’hui perdue, se trouvait dans l’ église Saint-Georges de Caffa63. Actuellement la plus haute datation est sur une plaque de 1356 insérée dans la façade nord du gawit‘ de Saint-Serge de Caffa64 (fig. 17.33). Dans le domaine architectural, les œuvres de cette communauté constituent, dans un contexte de «vraie» diaspora, l’une des premières expériences d’ hybridation entre la tradition arménienne et les formes empruntées au milieu ambiant, occidental catholique, tatare musulman et, dans une moindre mesure, grec orthodoxe65. S’agissant des «grands» khatchkars, les Arméniens de Crimée, et plus précisément ceux de Caffa, constituent, semble-t-il, la seule colonie à avoir conservé, ne serait-ce que dans quelques cas, la tradition nationale des grandes stèles dressées. Ce phénomène a peut-être été circonscrit à une période, car les spécimens préservés semblent être du XVIIe-XVIIIe s. : ils sont peut-être liés à une « mode» propre à un moment particulier: nous évoquerons infra l’ hypothèse d’une influence des stèles de J̌uła. Selon un témoignage du début du XIXe s., des khatchkars «de taille humaine» étaient fixés sur des piédestaux, à la Quarantaine de Caffa, quartier appelé par les Arméniens Hayoc‘ berd (= Fort arménien), khatchkars qui auraient ensuite été transférés à Saint-Pétersbourg66. Deux assez grands khatchkars, aujourd’hui encastrés sur la façade ouest remaniée du narthex de Saint-Serge de Caffa, étaient probablement dressés isolément à l’origine. A droite de la porte, le plus petit des deux (153 × 62cm)67 est daté de 1761 (fig. 17.34); à gauche, le second, non daté, nettement plus grand (254×78cm)68, est assez proche du précédent, sinon par le détail de sa décoration, mal conservée, du moins par sa composition générale, ses proportions et certaines de ses formes, notamment celle très caractéristique de l’ arc trilobé qui surmonte sa croix (fig. 17.35). On peut donc le considérer comme sans doute à peu près contemporain du précédent. 63 64 65

66

67 68

Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 97, nº 192. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 68, nº 100 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба,

pp. 62-63, fig. 11-1, pl. XII-1. Pour une synthèse récente sur la question et une bibliographie, on pourra consulter: P. Donabédian, “Un des premiers exemples d’ hybridation: l’architecture arménienne de Crimée”, in Series Byzantina. Studies on Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art, Vol. IX: Art of the Armenian Diaspora, ed. W. Deluga (Varsovie: Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, 2011): pp. 47-67. Բժշկեանց, Ճանապարհորդութիւն, p. 334 ; Վ. Միքայելյան, Ղրիմահայոց պատ մություն (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1989) [V. Mikayelyan, Histoire des Arméniens de Crimée (Erevan : Hayastan, 1989)], p. 195. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 82, fig. 18. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 84, fig. 20.

330

donabédian

Les fragments de deux ou trois autres stèles du même type et de la même période sont conservés au Musée régional de Théodosie69. Ces « grands» khatchkars de Caffa portent l’écho de certains de ceux de J̌uła/Djoulfa, de la deuxième moitié du XVIe s., par leurs proportions élancées, par la forme trilobée du grand arc qui surmonte la croix et par les deux gros médaillons à entrelacs aux angles supérieurs70. Un autre khatchkar, lui aussi dressé à l’ origine, de dimensions plus petites (95×56×24cm), est conservé au Musée régional de Théodosie (fig. 17.36). Cette pièce qui semble elle aussi tardive (XVIIe s. ?) a notamment pour originalité un motif de grosse corde sur ses trois bords (à l’ exception du bord inférieur) qui s’étend sur la moitié de la largeur des faces latérales par une bande à série de bosses régulièrement espacées71. Enfin, le fragment d’ une assez grande stèle de calcaire beige, en partie conservée à Sudak, pourrait provenir d’un khatchkar, à l’origine dressé (fig. 17.37). Initialement haute et étroite, cette pierre est remployée, couchée sur le côté, dans l’ appareil d’ une ancienne église génoise en ruine72. Dans un cadre arrondi en haut, bordé d’ une bande plate, sur un fond évidé, se dégage une croix à peine plus haute que large, aux bras en larges triangles, privée de tout ornement. Elle est « fixée», par l’ intermédiaire d’une fine hampe, sur un «tronc» au dessin incertain, évasé en deux branches. Un assez large espace est laissé vide au-dessus de la croix; le bas de la stèle est brisé. La datation est très difficile ; la rusticité du traitement pourrait suggérer une période tardive. Hormis ces quelques cas, les Arméniens de Crimée ont principalement choisi la voie la plus aisée à suivre dans les conditions d’ une implantation diasporique, celle des petites plaques murales. Ces œuvres nombreuses ont été étudiées, surtout pour celles de Caffa, sous l’angle de l’ histoire de l’ art par Elena Aïbabina (et plus brièvement par Anfisa Gavrilova) et sous celui de l’ épigraphie par Grigor Grigoryan (les deux se complétant et se corrigeant parfois). Il n’est 69

70

71 72

Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, pp. 87-88, fig. 22; 98, pl. XXIX. L’épaisseur de ces fragments, entre 12 et 17cm, confirme qu’ ils proviennent bien de stèles destinées à être dressées. Ա. Այվազյան, Նախիջեւանի կոթողային հուշարձաններն ու պատկերաքան դակները (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1987) [A. Ayvazyan, Les monuments commémoratifs et les sculptures figurées du Nakhitchevan (Erevan : Hayastan, 1987)], p. 265, fig. 239; 269, fig. 243. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 90, fig. 23; 93, pl. XXVIII, 2. В. Майко, А. Джанов, Археологические памятники Судакского региона Республики Крым (Симферополь : Ариал, 2015) [V. Mayko, A. Dzhanov, Les monuments archéologiques de la région de Sudak de la République de Crimée (Simféropol: Arial, 2015)], pp. 331; 407, fig. 208/6. La pierre se trouve dans le mur nord des ruines du clocher adjoint au nord du chevet de l’ église dite « Vierge Marie ». Elle est interprétée comme «une pierre tombale […] avec une représentation grossière d’ une croix fleurie».

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

331

donc pas utile d’approfondir ici leur analyse. Contentons-nous de quelques observations. La plupart de ces plaques sont en marbre, certaines sont en calcaire ou en grès. Elles sont de dimensions relativement modestes (grosso modo entre 30 et 90cm de hauteur et 20 et 45cm de largeur), avec toutefois une hauteur qui peut dans quelques cas approcher un mètre. Comme on peut en juger par celles détachées de leur mur porteur, elles ont une épaisseur très réduite (généralement entre 5 et 7 centimètres). La hauteur a tendance à augmenter au XVIe-XVIIe s. et atteint 120cm dans le cas de la plaque de 1698 dédiée au fameux miniaturiste de Caffa Nikołos Całkarar73 (fig. 17.38). Peut-être faut-il voir, là encore, l’influence des khatchkars effilés de la fin du XVIe et du tout début du XVIIe s. du grand cimetière de J̌uła74. Des séries homogènes de pièces laissent supposer l’existence d’ateliers à Caffa. Les compositions décoratives et le répertoire ornemental sont conformes à la tradition nationale, avec parfois une certaine « rusticité» et, ici ou là, des traits de fantaisie. Ainsi, sur plusieurs pièces des années 1420, un motif original en cœur dessiné par une tige à deux brins et portant en son centre une fleur de lis est tressé à l’extrémité des bras de la croix75 (fig. 17.39-40). Comme nous le verrons infra, les mêmes cœurs sont présents sur une plaque à croix précisément datée de 1427 et insérée à l’intérieur de l’ église arménienne de Lvov, dont on sait que les commanditaires, de même qu’ une partie au moins de la communauté, provenaient de Crimée (fig. 17.52). Une variante plus anguleuse consiste en une fleur à trois pétales qui, combinée aux extrémités des bras de la croix, leur confère un aspect étoilé à cinq pointes. Une autre variante donne à cette «fleur» deux pétales recourbés vers le bas, motif qui apparaît aussi sur les khatchkars contemporains de la métropole (on le trouve aussi sur des plaques de Jérusalem) et est fréquent dans le décor architectural de l’ Arménie durant la renaissance du XVIIe s. Au pied des croix est souvent représenté, dessiné par une tige à deux brins, un segment rectangulaire horizontal d’ entrelacs-tresse à plusieurs croisements, du type appelé dans diverses traditions, des cultures celtiques à l’Extrême-Orient, «nœud du bonheur », « nœud de la sagesse» ou

73 74

75

Гаврилова, “Хачкары из фондов”, pp. 99-100 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 80, nº 6-IV. Comme on le verra plus loin, la reproduction de modèles provenant à l’évidence de J̌uła s’ observe aussi sur des petits khatchkars muraux d’ Ispahan du début de l’histoire de cette communauté, mais dans ce cas-là, le lien avec la région d’origine était encore très fort. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 64, fig. 12, nº 2 (8-III, de 1429); nº 3 (7-III, de 1427); p. 66, fig. 13, nº 2 (9-III, de 1429) ; pl. XVII, 1. S’agissant de la belle et riche plaque nº 7-III de 1427, E. Aïbabina note, p. 69, l’ existence d’une pièce qui lui est très proche dans le musée de Temryuk, ville de la région de Krasnodar au Nord-Caucase (Russie).

332

donabédian

« nœud infini»76. Plus bas, l’habituel piédestal à degrés est souvent remplacé par un arc trilobé abritant un entrelacs plus ou moins végétal (fig. 17.41). En revanche, le gros médaillon si fréquent sous la croix des khatchkars d’ Arménie est quasiment absent. L’épigraphie est très présente. Les inscriptions comportent généralement une prière d’intercession pour une personne (donateur ou défunt) et souvent des membres de sa famille. On trouve aussi des épigraphes destinées à marquer la construction ou la restauration d’une église. Sur une plaque de 1425, sous un rang de trois croix, le contenu de la longue inscription citant les noms de nombreuses personnes, est à la fois mémorial-funéraire et relatif à la restauration de l’église des Saints-Archanges de Caffa77. De manière originale, sur une plaque de 1362, présentant deux croix côte à côte, différentes par leurs formes, mais placées sous deux arcs unis par un trumeau médian, est mentionnée la construction de deux églises, Saint-Nicolas et Saint-Ménas, à l’ exclusion de tout nom de particulier, de donateur78. D’une façon générale, on relève, comme sur la plaque de Noravank‘ évoquée supra, et sur plusieurs de Jérusalem, une tendance à la concordance entre le nombre de personnes citées et celui de croix sculptées. Donnons quelques exemples, parmi un assez grand nombre du XVe au XVIIe s. Au bas d’une plaque de 1403, 2 petites croix sont placées sous une double arcature et 2 personnes sont nommées79. Sur une plaque de 1427, à 6 croix correspondent 6 noms80 (fig. 17.39). Sur une plaque de 1446, à 5 croix correspondent 5 noms81. Sur une plaque de 1451, à 9 croix correspondent 9 noms82 (fig. 17.42). Sur une plaque de 1454, à 5 croix correspondent 5 noms83. Sur une plaque de 1460, à 3 croix correspondent 3 noms84 (fig. 17.43) … Ajoutons que, dans les inscriptions, les croix sont souvent désignées de l’ appellation « saints

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, pp. 75, 84, 93. Гаврилова, “Хачкары из фондов”, pp. 100-101 ; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 34, nº 28, ill. 13 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 64, fig. 12, nº 1 (6-III); p. 67. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 62 ; p. 63, fig. 11, nº 2-III; pl. XII, nº 2. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 46, nº 50 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 63, fig. 11, nº 4-III ; p. 65 ; p. 67, pl. XIII, 1. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 51, nº 60 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 64, fig. 12, nº 3 (7-III) ; pp. 67, 69-70. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 34, nº 27; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 63, fig. 11, nº 3-11 ; p. 65. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 45, nº 48 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 66, fig. 13, nº 1 (10-III) ; pp. 70-71. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 45, nº 47 ; Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 64, fig. 12, nº 4 (11-III) ; p. 71. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 60, nº 83. Le troisième nom n’est plus lisible.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

333

signes» (surb nšank‘) au pluriel85, trait rarement noté en Arménie proprement dite, mais que nous avons observé au XVe s. à Jérusalem. Comme indiqué plus haut, des plaques à croix arméniennes peuvent être signalées dans plusieurs autres localités de Crimée. Ainsi à T‘op‘ti/Topolevka, quelques plaques figurent sur les deux chapelles arméniennes du village; l’ une d’elles, au traitement très modeste, dans les vestiges de la chapelle dite Urbat‘i (du Vendredi) ou Sainte-Parascève, est datée par inscription de 138186 (tab. 17.44). A Sala/Gruševka, huit plaques de calcaire sont situées dans l’ ancienne église arménienne devenue orthodoxe. L’une d’ elles, déposée dans l’ église, se distingue par des proportions allongées, la forme arrondie de sa partie supérieure, un relief très faible et une absence d’ ornements (fig. 17.45). Elle présente deux croix superposées séparées par une bande médiane. En haut, une croix «de Malte» est inscrite dans un cercle. En bas, une croix « latine » à largeur constante a deux barres horizontales aux extrémités pattées (barrées) et une petite croix en diagonale (un «×») au bas du bras inférieur. Ce dernier «s’appuyait» sur un cercle dont seule la moitié supérieure est conservée. On ignore la datation et la nature de cette haute et étroite pierre, qui pourrait s’apparenter à une stèle indépendante, davantage qu’ à une plaque murale. Cette pierre a une grande affinité avec deux autres stèles à deux croix superposées, l’une conservée à Topolievka et l’autre, d’aspect plus archaïque, conservée à l’église Sainte-Croix (Surb Nšan) de Rostov-sur-le-Don (Nor Naxiǰewan)87. Selon une tradition locale, la stèle de Rostov, qui proviendrait originellement d’Arménie, aurait été apportée sur les bords du Don par les Arméniens de Crimée lors de leur transfert vers ces territoires russes. Quant aux deux de Crimée, elles en seraient des copies (partielles) tardives. Une neuvième plaque à croix, celle-là en marbre, qui mesure 34 × 28,5 × 8 cm, conservée au musée de l’école du village de Sala/Gruševka, est datée de 148388.

85

86 87 88

Parfois, comme nous l’ avons noté plus haut à Jérusalem, dans la formule «ces saints signes sont les intercesseurs de … », le verbe est au singulier, ce qui montre que nšank‘ est alors perçu comme un singulier. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 117, nº 264. М. Пештмалджян, Памятники армянских поселений (Ереван : Айастан, 1987) [M. Peshtmaljyan, Les monuments des colonies arméniennes (Erevan: Hayastan, 1987)], p. 165. А. Байбуртский, “Хачкары и росписи позднесредневековой армянской церкви в селе Грушевка (Сала)”, Исследования по арменистике в Украине, Вып. I (Симферополь : PrintPix, 2008) [A. Baïburtskiï, “Les khatchkars et fresques de l’église tardomédiévale du village de Grushevka (Sala)”, Etudes d’arménologie en Ukraine, Fasc. I (Simféropol : PrintPix, 2008)] : pp. 13-20, ici p. 14, ill. 14. L’auteur remercie Aleksandr Dzhanov, de Kiev, et Arkadiï Baïburtskiï, de Staryï Krym, d’ avoir bien voulu lui donner connaissance de cet article.

334

donabédian

Grosso modo triangulaire, cette plaque porte une haute et fine croix latine inscrite dans un cadre évidé, achevé en haut par un arc quasiment en chevron (fig. 17.46). La croix principale est flanquée, dans les quadrants supérieurs, de deux petites croix très simples «posées» sur ses bras latéraux, et, dans les quadrants inférieurs, de deux longues feuilles recourbées partant de son pied. Les extrémités des bras de la croix ont une forme de feuille pointue « en navette», entaillée d’une rainure parallèle à ses contours, comme sur plusieurs plaques à croix de Caffa, également datées du XVe s.89. Bien que ses bords soient abîmés, on devine que la plaque a eu une forme générale insolite en triangle, pointe en haut, ce qui suggère une probable appartenance à un appareil mural. L’inscription en majuscules soignées, gravée en deux lignes à la base du triangle, a été imparfaitement déchiffrée. Nous en proposons la lecture suivante: ԹՎ ՋԼԲ (en l’an 932 = 1483) / Ս(ուր)Բ ՆՇ(ան)ՔՍ ԲԱՐ(եխաւս) (են) ՏՕՆԱՎԱՔԻՆ / ԵՒ ԻՒՐ ՏՂԱՅՈՑՆ (Ces saints signes intercèdent pour Tōnavak‘ / et ses fils). Évoquons enfin les modestes plaques à croix conservées à Sugdeïa/Soldaïa/Sudak, insérées çà et là sur les murs de la forteresse tenue par les Génois de 1365 à 1475 et surtout sur une tour isolée90. Il s’ agit de la tour du consul génois Federico Astaguera, de 1386, située hors de la forteresse, au-dessus du port. Les plaques y sont particulièrement nombreuses : une quinzaine environ sont insérées sur chacune des quatre façades de cette tour, principalement dans sa partie haute (fig. 17.47); il y en a aussi plusieurs à l’ intérieur de la construction. Elles sont disposées sans aucun ordre, parfois renversées; certains blocs d’angle présentent une croix sur leurs deux faces, ce qui en complique encore l’ interprétation, d’autres ont été couverts de ciment (fig. 17.48, 49). Ces pierres ont à l’évidence été remployées, dans un appareil par ailleurs grossier. Vadim Maïko et Aleksandr Džanov estiment qu’elles ne peuvent provenir « que des ruines d’une église arménienne détruite»91.

89 90

91

Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, pp. 63, 64; p. 66, fig. 11-13. L’ auteur remercie Rafał Quirini-Popławski, de Varsovie, auteur d’un livre sur l’art des colonies génoises, et Aleksandr Džanov, de Kiev, auteur avec Vadim Maïko d’une étude sur Sudak plusieurs fois citée ici, pour les précisions actualisées qu’ils ont bien voulu lui donner sur les plaques de Sudak. Au sujet de ces plaques voir: P. Donabédian, “Can we call “khachkar” the Sudak cross-stones?”, Сугдейський збiрник 1 (VII) (Киïв : Видавницво Горобець, 2018) [Recueil de Sugdeïa 1 (VII) (Kiev : Éditions Horobets, 2018)]: pp. 304323. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 145, nº 384 ; Майко, Джанов, Археологические памятники, p. 239. La chapelle voisine dite des Saints-Apôtres, attribuée par plusieurs auteurs aux Arméniens, ne présente pas de plaque de ce type.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

335

A l’exception de trois pierres (voir infra), les nombreuses plaques de Sudak sont privées d’inscriptions, donc mystérieuses quant à leur signification et provenance. Souvent les blocs portent un rang de deux, trois ou quatre croix; il arrive que deux croix ne soient pas côte à côte, mais étrangement décalées l’ une par rapport à l’autre. La croix est d’une grande simplicité, ses bras sont légèrement évasés, les extrémités sont pointues ou parfois munies d’ une boule unique. Dans quelques cas, le contour de la croix est souligné par une fine incision. La croix est parfois cantonnée de deux ou de quatre petites croix. Dans quelques cas, la croix est précédée d’une très fine hampe. Les plaques sont presque privées de décor de détail autre que, parfois, des médaillons de part et d’autre du bras supérieur de la croix et une petite feuille en éventail aux angles supérieurs de la plaque. C’est le cas sur la pierre montée sur le mur ouest de la tour de Franchi di Pagano (1414), où quelques autres éléments et menus ornements apparaissent: sur le bras supérieur de la croix, une petite croix « de Malte» est incisée dans un médaillon; les bras assez évasés de la croix ont leurs extrémités marquées d’ un « bourgeon» en forme de grappe à trois boules ; leurs flancs ont de curieuses saillies en demi-cercle, sortes d’«anses» (fig. 17.50), inspirées des médaillons à nomina sacra de certains khatchkars de Jérusalem. La croix principale et les deux petites croix latérales s’«appuient» sur un piédestal à deux ou trois degrés par l’intermédiaire d’une haute et large hampe. Sur la bande supérieure de la plaque se devine une inscription arménienne qui, sauf erreur, n’avait pas été signalée. Très dégradée ces dernières décennies, elle laisse deviner les mots ՀԱՅ[ՈՑ] ԹՎԱԿԱՆԻ[Ն] = en l’an […] de l’ère arménienne. Il existe à Sudak une seconde plaque à croix qui porte une inscription en langue arménienne, celle-là plus lisible. Il s’agit d’ un fragment qui avait été remployé dans la tour nº 16 et qui est aujourd’hui déposé au musée archéologique de la forteresse de Sudak92 (fig. 17.51). Sur la moitié inférieure conservée de cette plaque, à l’origine très allongée, une croix principale s’ accompagne, sur les côtés de son bras inférieur, de deux petites croix. Ce bras inférieur a, comme sur la croix de la tour de Franchi di Pagano, des extrémités en forme de grappe à trois petites boules et (c’était aussi le cas, semble-t-il, des bras horizontaux) est muni de deux «anses». La croix est « fixée», par l’ intermédiaire d’un petit médaillon étoilé, sur un haut et large piédestal à quatre degrés. Sur la haute surface laissée libre dans la partie inférieure de la plaque, une inscription en majuscules est disposée en plusieurs lignes dont seules les trois premières sont à peu près lisibles: ԿԱՆԿՆԵՑԱՒ Ս(ուր)Բ / ԽԱՉՍ Ի ՅԻՇԱՏԱ /

92

Майко, Джанов, Археологические памятники, pp. 321, 396, fig. 197/6.

336

donabédian

Կ ԴԹԻ [Դաւթի ?] ՆՈՐՇԱՀԻՆ93 … La traduction suivante peut en être proposée, très incertaine pour les deux noms de la troisième ligne : Cette sainte croix a été dressée en mémoire de Dawit‘, de Noršah. Malgré l’extrême simplicité de ces nombreuses pièces conservées à Soldaïa/Sudak et leur caractère atypique, les archéologues de Crimée leur appliquent l’appellation de khatchkar et les considèrent comme arméniennes. Compte tenu de leur parenté avec les plaques des sites arméniens, de la présence des inscriptions susmentionnées et des témoignages sur l’ existence ici au Moyen Âge d’une population arménienne, on peut estimer fondée cette attribution. L’énigme du parfait anonymat de l’écrasante majorité de ces pièces reste entière, même si elle semble faire écho, on l’ a vu plus haut, à l’ humilité de certaines plaques de Tełer, en Arménie. Dans le domaine des plaques à croix du type des petits khatchkars muraux, la Crimée constitue, après la Cilicie et à côté de la Terre sainte, une nouvelle étape de transition entre l’héritage de la mère-patrie et les pratiques propres à la diaspora. Rappelons que la Crimée est aussi, pour l’ heure, le seul lieu d’implantation diasporique où l’on trouve quelques « grands» khatchkars isolés. À Gruševka et Topolevka, des sortes de stèles étaient également peutêtre isolées. S’agissant des petites plaques murales, le nombre élevé de pièces conservées confirme l’importance numérique de la population arménienne et son attachement à la tradition, malgré une certaine perte de savoir-faire. Ces plaques mémoriales ou funéraires personnalisées, peut-être parce qu’ elles relevaient presque de la sphère privée, manifestent un degré bien moindre d’acculturation que les monuments d’architecture, du moins jusqu’ à la fin du XVIIe s. lorsqu’apparaissent des formes marquées par l’ environnement ottoman. A l’inverse, dès le XIVe s., l’onomastique dans l’ épigraphie de nos plaques reflète une grande proximité du milieu tatare avec le recours fréquent à des noms turco-mongols, mais il s’agit là d’un phénomène généralisé, qui s’ observe aussi en Arménie et dans les autres colonies d’Orient. Bien que beaucoup de ces pierres n’occupent certainement plus leur emplacement d’ origine, il est permis de penser qu’ici, comme en Terre sainte et dans les autres foyers diasporiques, mais à la différence de la tradition métropolitaine et probablement cilicienne, il s’en trouvait aussi bien en façade qu’ à l’ intérieur des sanctuaires.

93

L’ inscription a été publiée par : Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 145, nº 384. Notre transcription propose quelques corrections minimes. Dans un courriel du 11.01.2018 A. Džanov a eu l’ amabilité de signaler la découverte, en 2016, à Sudak, d’une troisième inscription arménienne (illisible) sur un fragment de stèle sans doute antérieure à la construction de la forteresse génoise.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

337

Galicie et Podolie La communauté arménienne de Lvov/Lviv/Lemberg en Galicie s’ est constituée peut-être au XIIe s. et plus assurément au XIIIe-XIVe s. Lorsque la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère-de-Dieu de Lvov a été bâtie, en 1363, cette communauté conservait sans doute des liens étroits avec celle de Crimée, puisque, comme les deux fondateurs de la cathédrale, elle était, au moins en partie, originaire de Caffa: c’est sans doute ce qui explique certaines parentés dans l’ architecture et le décor sculpté de l’édifice94. Les plaques à croix qui y sont conservées attestent, comme nous le verrons, que ces relations se maintenaient certainement au siècle suivant. Six petites plaques à croix de marbre et d’albâtre sont encastrées dans les murs de la cathédrale (fig. 17.52-57). Une septième dalle ornée d’une croix, pierre rectangulaire plus allongée, aujourd’hui dans la galerie au sud de l’église, semble plutôt correspondre à un ancien linteau, c’est pourquoi elle n’est pas incluse dans cette étude. Sont également laissées de côté les 94 croix plus frustes, sculptées à des périodes indéterminées à même les murs et piliers de l’église. Ces sculptures et leur épigraphie ont été étudiées par le spécialiste du patrimoine arménien de Lvov et de sa région, Yaroslav Dachkévytch95. Une partie des inscriptions a aussi été relevée par Grigor Grigoryan96. Les six plaques sont, d’ une façon générale, de dimensions particulièrement réduites: à l’ exception d’une, nettement plus grande, elles ne dépassent pas 23cm de hauteur et, pour les plaques à deux et à trois croix, 25,5cm de largeur97. Trois d’ entre elles sont datées par inscription, l’une de 1427, l’autre de 1441 ou 144998 et la troisième de 1461; compte tenu de la grande homogénéité de ces six plaques et surtout de cinq d’entre elles, on peut raisonnablement les situer toutes au XVe s.

94 95

96 97

98

Thierry et Donabédian, Les arts arméniens, p. 551. Я. Дашкевич, “Армянские рельефные кресты Львова и Каменца-Подольского”, Պատմա-բանասիրական հանդես 3 (1980) [Y. Dashkevich, “Les croix arméniennes en relief de Lvov et de Kamenec-Podol’skiï”, Revue historico-philologique 3 (1980)], pp. 120-140. Dachkévytch est l’ orthographe que l’ auteur lui-même donne à son nom dans ses articles en français. Voir aussi l’ article de l’ auteur de ces lignes, cité plus haut (note 61): “Small mural khachkars … ”, pp. 331-332. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, pp. 190-191. Voici les dimensions précises : plaque nº 1 de 1427 (II de Y.D.): 45×32cm; nº 2 de 1441/1449 (VII de Y.D.) : 20 × 13cm ; nº 3 (V de Y.D.) 23× 13cm ; nº 4 (IV de Y.D.): 22,5×12,5; nº 5 (III de Y.D., à 2 croix) : 22,5 × 25,5 ; nº 6 de 1461 (VI de Y.D., à 3 croix): 23×23cm. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 190, nº 479, n’ayant pas vu la lettre Ը (= 8), donne pour date 1441, sur la base des seules lettres ՊՂ. Cette lettre étant aujourd’hui impossible à distinguer, on ne peut trancher entre les deux datations.

338

donabédian

La plaque datée de 1427, plus grande que les autres, mesure 45 × 32 cm (fig. 17.52). Elle est très proche, par sa composition, son style et une série de motifs, d’un groupe de plaques de Caffa, dont une en particulier, sculptée quatre ans plus tôt99 (fig. 17.39), et une seconde, produite la même année 1427 (nº 7-III d’E. Aïbabina100 – fig. 17.40). Bien que son décor soit plus sobre, la plaque de Lvov partage avec les sculptures de Caffa les traits suivants: une croix de mêmes proportions, un cadre carré autour du centre de la croix avec les mêmes pointes diagonales en forme de lis, et surtout le même motif de cœur enlacé à l’extrémité de chaque bras de la croix, cœur qui porte un lis en son centre, du moins au bas du bras inférieur, ainsi que la même absence de bande périphérique sur le bord supérieur. La ressemblance est telle qu’ elle autorise à envisager, malgré la distance, que la plaque de Lvov ait pu être apportée de Crimée. Les cinq autres pièces, de leur côté, manifestent entre elles une grande parenté qui permet de les attribuer à un même atelier local. Elles relèvent à peu près d’un même «module» (hauteur c. 23cm et largeur des pièces à une seule croix c. 13cm) et possèdent une série de traits communs, comme la faiblesse du relief, la finesse du dessin venant de la minceur des lignes saillantes qui seules dessinent à la fois le contour des formes et leurs détails, et le dessin des croix à bras en longs triangles pointus. La plaque de 1441/1449 se tient très légèrement à l’écart du fait de la présence d’un arc au-dessus de la croix, de quatre médaillons à marguerite dans ses quadrants, des extrémités à boule unique des bras de la croix, de l’absence de motif rayonnant à partir de son centre et de la disposition horizontale des deux feuilles «poussant » sous la courte hampe de la croix (fig. 17.53). Les quatre autres plaques (fig. 17.54-57) ont en commun les motifs suivants: la pointe en fleur de lis des extrémités des bras de la croix; les festons pendants à pointe en fleur de lis qui dessinent, dans les deux angles supérieurs, des losanges pointés vers le centre; le minuscule rayonnement créé par quatre petites feuilles logées à la jonction des bras de la croix; l’ usage de peinture rouge ou ocre à l’intérieur des motifs. Les trois plaques non datées (fig. 17.5456) ont en commun l’entrelacs-tresse, variante de « nœud infini », placé sous le pied de la croix, en forme grosso modo de triangle pointé vers le bas ; des extrémités supérieures de ce nœud partent les tiges portant les deux feuilles qui flanquent le bras inférieur de la croix.

99 100

Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, pp. 36-37, nº 30 ; 339, fig. 15. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 64, fig. 12-3 (nº 7-III); pp. 67, 69.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

339

Sur une plaque à deux croix jumelles, dont la date n’est plus visible, sculptée en mémoire de Tēr Grigor, un petit médaillon placé sur sa partie centrale supérieure retient l’attention, car il contient l’image de l’ agneau avec le labarum à croix (fig. 17.56). Ce symbole du Christ, agneau de Dieu101, qui semble avoir été introduit, probablement depuis l’Europe occidentale, en Arménie cilicienne à la fin du XIIe s. (sauf erreur, cette iconographie n’est pas attestée plus tôt ailleurs dans le monde arménien), est fréquent sur les monuments arméniens de Crimée du XIVe-XVe s., où nous en avons recensé au moins onze occurrences102. C’ est là que se situe, croyons-nous, la source de la figuration de la plaque en question, ce qui constituerait une manifestation supplémentaire du lien entre Lvov et la Crimée. Mais il faut peut-être envisager aussi la possibilité que le motif ait été directement emprunté par le sculpteur de Lvov au fameux évangile dit «du Couronnement» ou «de Lemberg » de 1198 où figure l’ une des premières représentations arméniennes de l’agneau de Dieu avec labarum à croix: cette magnifique œuvre de l’enluminure arménienne de Cilicie, qui était conservée à Lvov jusqu’à la deuxième guerre mondiale, se trouvait probablement déjà, sinon dans la ville même, du moins en Galicie, depuis le (début ? du) XVe s.103. Le contenu des cinq inscriptions en partie déchiffrables est une prière d’ intercession pour le donateur et sa famille, prière adressée au « saint signe / surb nšan »: un contenu semblable à celui que l’ on trouve sur les stèles tumulaires d’Arménie. Même si certaines de ces pièces ne sont peut-être pas à leur emplacement originel, on ne peut imaginer pour elles d’ existence autre qu’encastrées dans une paroi murale. Actuellement, et depuis sans doute longtemps, elles se trouvent à l’intérieur de l’église. On s’ approche ainsi d’ un type mémorial-funéraire intimiste, personnalisé, qui a franchi la barrière du mur séparant l’église du monde extérieur et a pénétré dans le sanctuaire pour y placer le message le plus important qu’un croyant puisse adresser à Dieu au sein même du lieu de son culte.

101 102 103

Jean 1, 29 : «Voici l’ agneau de dieu qui enlève le péché du monde». Donabédian, “Un des premiers exemples”, pp. 62, 64. A. Schmidt, “L’Evangile de Lemberg : un itinéraire rocambolesque”, in Arménie. La magie de l’ écrit, éd. Mutafian (Paris, 2007), pp. 260-263. L’auteur remercie Andrea Schmidt d’ avoir bien voulu lui confirmer (courriel du 09/02/2016) la présence en Galicie dès la fin du XIVe s. de la famille arménienne originaire de Crimée, à laquelle appartenait le « baron » Xut‘lupēk, propriétaire du manuscrit en 1422-1423. Ces données nouvelles viennent compléter celles fournies dans : Das Lemberger Evangeliar. Eine wiederentdeckte armenische Bilderhandschrift des 12. Jahrhunderts, eds. G. Prinzing, A. Schmidt (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert, 1997), pp. 22-23.

340

donabédian

Parmi les autres colonies arméniennes qui ont vécu à la fin du Moyen Âge en Galicie-Podolie, celle du bourg fortifié de Kamenec-Podol’skiï/KamjanecPodilskyï a laissé plusieurs traces architecturales. Sur l’ une d’ elles est conservée une plaque à croix qui n’est plus à son emplacement originel. Elle est grossièrement encastrée dans la face ouest du contrefort sud de la chapelle de l’ Annonciation, construction initiale en bois de date inconnue, reconstruite en pierre vers 1597 (fig. 17.57). Dotée, outre sa croix, d’ un décor très fruste, cette plaque de 27×19cm porte une inscription qui la date de 1554104. Par les quatre petits pétales qui rayonnent aux angles de la croix et par la forme trilobée pointue des extrémités des bras, cette sculpture s’apparente à celles de Lvov. En revanche, la forme grosso modo trilobée de l’arc surmontant la croix, dessiné par la bande grossièrement moulurée qui constitue son cadre rustique, rapproche cette plaque de celles de Crimée, précisément du XVIe s.105.

Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï/Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyï Liée à la fois à la Crimée et à Lvov, l’histoire de la colonie arménienne d’ Akkerman en Bessarabie ou Moldavie (aujourd’hui Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyï en Ukraine) a laissé des témoignages à partir de la fin du XIVe et du XVe s.106. L’un des plus anciens est une plaque à croix en marbre datée par inscription de 1446, encastrée dans le mur de la sacristie sud-est de l’ église arménienne SaintAuxence ou Dormition de la Vierge, (re-)construite en 1699 (fig. 17.59)107. Cette plaque à contour supérieur légèrement arrondi, qui mesure 59 × 47 cm, présente deux croix fleuries séparées par une colonnette médiane torse sur laquelle « retombent» deux arcs trilobés à sommet en accolade. Les deux hautes et fines croix à extrémités en fleur de lis pointue sont entourées d’ ornements végétaux abondants et soignés où domine le rinceau de vigne. La tige à deux brins qui dessine, au pied de chaque croix, un nœud entrelacé délimite aussi, plus bas, un demi-cercle occupé par un entrelacs végétal. La partie inférieure de la plaque est occupée par trois lignes d’inscription en majuscules soignées qui 104 105 106

107

Я. Дашкевич, “Армянские рельефные кресты”, pp. 137-138. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, p. 68, fig. 14. Ա. Թորամանյան, Մոլդավիայի հայկական պատմաճարտարապետական հուշարձանները (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1986) [A. Toramanyan, Les monuments historico-architecturaux arméniens de Moldavie (Erevan : Hayastan, 1986)], pp. 5-18; А. Тораманян, Из истории строительной деятелности армян в Молдавии (Москва: Внешторгиздат, 1991) [A. Toramanyan, Pages d’histoire de l’ activité de construction des Arméniens en Moldavie (Moscou : Vneshtorgizdat, 1991)], pp. 6-7; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 260. L’ auteur doit les trois photographies reproduites ici à l’amabilité de Tatevik Sargsyan.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

341

invoquent « la sainte croix posée au nom du Sauveur et appelée saint signe » et comporte une prière en mémoire d’Etikar et de ses parents108. La composition et l’ornementation trouvent des parallèles si étroits sur plusieurs plaques contemporaines et postérieures de Caffa109 (fig. 17.41-43) que, une fois encore, on est enclin à envisager l’hypothèse d’une «importation » de Crimée. Trois autres plaques à croix, également en marbre, sont signalées sur le même site. L’une, qui a disparu, remonterait, d’ après l’ inscription, à 967, ce qui paraît étrange, sauf si l’on ajoute, conformément au comput arménien, 551: on obtient alors une datation très plausible de 1518110. Une seconde est datée de 1474 et une troisième n’est pas datée111. Celle de 1474 (fig. 17.60) est nettement plus large que haute (elle mesure 29,5 × 16 cm) ; elle porte deux croix côte à côte, séparées par une colonnette torse, sur un fond de rinceaux. Conformément à une disposition fréquente en Crimée, un large compartiment sur la partie gauche de la surface est occupé par l’inscription qui indique : « Ces saints signes [pluriel] en mémoire de Sargis et de Galust et de leurs parents». La troisième sculpture, non datée, une grande plaque de 97,5 × 41,5 cm, diffère nettement par son style des deux précédentes (fig. 17.61). Dans un cadre rectangulaire bordé d’une bande ornementale, se dresse une haute croix latine dont le bras inférieur est flanqué de deux petites croix. Parmi les originalités de ce décor, on relève la triple rainure qui souligne nettement le contour des bras évasés de la croix et surtout la luxuriance du décor végétal, en particulier celle des deux rameaux qui partent du bras supérieur de la croix et emplissent de leurs amples rinceaux toute la partie supérieure de la composition ; on note aussi l’ornementation de la bande périphérique à rang de navettes (ou amandes) en zigzag et de palmettes très simplifiées. La datation est difficile, mais la disposition de l’abondante ornementation végétale et sa « mollesse » suggèrent une période relativement tardive, peut-être le XVIIIe s., comme le propose Aršavir Toramanyan112. Le bas de la stèle est occupé par une inscription en majuscules sur cinq lignes; le texte indique que la croix est en mémoire

108

Թորամանյան, Մոլդավիայի, p. 19; Тораманян, Из истории, pp. 8-9; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 262, nº 626 ; p. 383, photo 164.

109

Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, voir en particulier la plaque à trois croix, nº 10-III, de 1451, à l’ intérieur de St-Serge: p. 66, fig. 13/1 et pl. XIV; également des œuvres de Caffa du XVIe-XVIIe s., pp. 74, 76. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, p. 269, nº 640, lit et cite cette date de 967, qu’il qualifie de « très douteuse », mais curieusement, ne pense pas à lui ajouter, comme il se doit, 551. Թորամանյան, Մոլդավիայի, pp. 18-22; Тораманян, Из истории, pp. 7-8, 16-18; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, pp. 261-264. Тораманян, Из истории, p. 18, estime peu convaincante la datation du XVe s. proposée par H. Siruni et penche plutôt pour le XVIIIe s.

110 111 112

342

donabédian

du paron Yakobša et de ses parents et demande au lecteur de dire un miserere, afin qu’ il trouve lui aussi la miséricorde, le moment venu113. Réinsérée dans le mur de la sacristie sud-est, une cinquième pierre porte la grande et longue inscription dédicatoire, en arménien, de l’ église SaintAuxence, de 1699114. Deux petites croix sont gravées aux extrémités supérieures de la plaque, accompagnées à leur tour de brèves inscriptions « votives personnalisées». Ce bloc de marbre sombre, plus long que haut, mesurant 49×84×10cm, interprété comme une plaque mémoriale, et qui s’ apparente à un linteau, n’a pas été inclus dans la présente étude. Il faut enfin signaler à Akkerman l’existence d’ une curieuse stèle à croix, à inscription grecque de 1440, relatant la construction de la forteresse locale. La technique et l’iconographie permettent d’attribuer cette œuvre à un sculpteur arménien115. La plaque originelle, antérieure à 1440, semble avoir été partiellement altérée pour que le texte grec puisse y être inséré.

Pont, Trébizonde Des communautés arméniennes sont depuis fort longtemps présentes en Asie Mineure, à l’ouest de l’Euphrate et au nord de la chaîne pontique, hors des « limites» de l’«Arménie historique». Sur la rive sud de la mer Noire, dans la ville de Trébizonde, l’église du monastère en ruine du Sauveur de Tous (Amēnap‘rkič‘, en turc Kaymaklı manasteri), construite en 1424, possède une dizaine de petits khatchkars muraux, encastrés dans ses façades. Ceux-ci ne sont pas à leur emplacement originel. Quelques-uns, plus ou moins bien conservés, sont disposés en un rang irrégulier sur sa façade sud (fig. 17.62) ; à l’ extrémité gauche, le khatchkar est daté par inscription de 1445 (ՊՂԴ = 894 + 551) ; un autre est placé dans une niche, à l’intérieur de l’église, dans son mur sud (fig. 17.63). Ces sculptures, en particulier celle de la niche intérieure, avec le nœud tressé sous la croix et le «piédestal» trilobé, sont très proches de plaques du XIVe-XVe s. produites à Caffa116. Ceci donne à penser que les ateliers de Crimée pouvaient

113 114 115

116

Тораманян, Из истории, p. 17 ; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, pp. 261-264. Թորամանյան, Մոլդավիայի, p. 20, 2 ; Тораманян, Из истории, pp. 11-12; Գրիգորյան, Դիվան, VII, pp. 262-263, nº 627-628 ; p. 383, fig. 165. I. Гаюк, Iлюстрована енциклопедiя вiрменскоï культури в Украïнi (Львiв: Афiша, 2012), тoм I [I. Hayuk, Encyclopédie illustrée de la culture arménienne en Ukraine (Lviv: Afiša, 2012)], vol. I, p. 150, ill. 235. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба, nombreuses ill., en particulier pp. 63, 64, 66, 74, 198 (XII, 1), 200 (XIV), 206 (XX, 1-2). Voir nos fig. 33, 41-43.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

343

fournir des modèles, voire «exporter» leurs œuvres, non seulement au nord de la Mer noire, mais aussi en direction de sa rive sud.

Géorgie Laissant de côté les «grands» khatchkars présents dans le sud de la Géorgie en lien avec des présences arméniennes très anciennes sur les marches septentrionales de l’Arménie, intéressons-nous brièvement aux petits khatchkars muraux du type diasporique qui figurent parmi les monuments à inscription arménienne des provinces géorgiennes de Kartli et K’ axeti. Citons, entre autres, dans le village de Dirbi, une plaque à croix datée de 1456 par une inscription relative à la construction d’une église117, et, à Axalgori, un petit khatchkar à épigraphe relatant la rénovation de l’église Ste-Mère de Dieu en 1462118. Plusieurs petits khatchkars se trouvaient aussi dans l’ ancien monastère arménien de Teleti, à courte distance au sud de Tbilissi, peut-être fondé en 1002 et restauré au XIXe s., devenu à présent géorgien119. L’un d’ eux, daté de 1681, retient l’attention par l’élégance du dessin, la place faite à l’ inscription en grandes majuscules et par le nœud tressé à pointes « en bec » aux extrémités des bras de la croix, un motif très prisé dans l’ornementation sculptée arménienne du XVe-XVIIe s. et fréquent par exemple sur les petits khatchars de Crimée. La plaque de Teleti nous intéresse aussi pour sa curieuse « progéniture ». Son inscription arménienne ayant été soigneusement abrasée120 lors de la restauration et géorgianisation de l’ensemble à la fin des années 1990, il a servi de modèle pour une nouvelle plaque sculptée il y a quelques années. De proportions encore plus élancées, celle-ci embellit aujourd’hui la face extérieure de l’ abside d’une église géorgienne tout récemment construite dans le quartier de Saburtalo, à Tbilissi, 10 rue Mixeil Asatiani (fig. 17.64). Cette plaque peut 117

118 119

120

П. Мурадян, Армянская эпиграфика Грузии. Картли и Кахети (Ереван : Академия наук, 1985) [P. Muradyan, L’ épigraphie arménienne de Géorgie. Kartli et K’axeti (Erevan: Académie des sciences, 1985)], p. 127 et pl. IX, fig. 2. П. Мурадян, Армянская эпиграфика, p. 138 et pl. X, fig. 1. Հայկական սովետական հանրագիտարան, հ. 11 (Երեւան : Հանրագիտարանի գլխավոր խմբագրություն, 1985), “Վրացական. Ճարտարապետությունը եւ կերպարվեստը” (Մ. Հասրաթյան) [Encyclopédie arménienne soviétique, vol. 11 (Erevan: Rédaction principale de l’ Encyclopédie, 1985), [“Géorgien. L’architecture et l’art plastique” (M. Hasratyan)], p. 526. Ս. Կարապետյան, Վրաց պետական քաղաքականությունը եւ հայ մշակույթի հուշարձանները, RAA 2 (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 1998) [S. Karapetyan, La politique étatique géorgienne et les monuments de culture arménienne, RAA 2 (Erevan: Gitutyun, 1998)], pp. 56-58, pl. XXXIII.

344

donabédian

être vue comme une manifestation inattendue, en milieu orthodoxe géorgien, du rayonnement des petits khatchkars muraux arméniens. Des petits khatchkars sont présents également à Tbilissi, insérés dans les murs des églises arméniennes de la capitale géorgienne. Au pied de la citadelle, à l’intérieur de l’église Saint-Georges, on note trois plaques à croix: deux près des entrées nord et ouest, et la troisième à gauche de l’ autel, sur le mur ouest de la sacristie nord-est. Amputée de sa partie inférieure, cette dernière, de facture rustique, munie sur sa bande supérieure d’ une inscription quasi illisible, est datée, semble-t-il, de 1417 [ՊԿԶ = 866+551, le signe médian (on devine un Կ) étant très incertain] (fig. 17.65). Elle mesure 50 × 40,5 cm et présente une modeste croix arborescente aux bras légèrement évasés, avec les extrémités trilobées «bourgeonnantes». Aux angles supérieurs sont logés les traditionnels triangles rayonnants en «éventail». Toujours dans le quartier de Sololak’i, à la Ste-Mère de Dieu de Bethléem, devenue géorgienne, six plaques à croix sont visibles à l’extérieur, tandis que deux plaques, datées de 1501 et 1679, qui étaient à l’intérieur, ont disparu. Un peu plus bas dans ce quartier, deux plaques s’ observent à la Ste-Mère de Dieu de Norašēn, dont une de 1650. Quatre autres plaques à croix, tardives, dont deux datées de 1846, peuvent être vues à l’ église primatiale St-Georges Ēǰmiacnec‘oc‘ (dite Ste-Étchmiadzine).

Chypre, Famagouste Il arrive que, dans des régions où les églises arméniennes côtoient celles d’autres confessions, des petits khatchkars soient remployés dans des sanctuaires non arméniens. C’est le cas à Famagouste, dans la façade nord de l’ église latine Sainte-Anne. Une petite plaque présente une croix sur courte hampe, dont les bras ont des extrémités très évasées et pommées, flanquée des nomina sacra en arménien ՏՐ̅ ԱԾ ̅ (Seigneur Dieu) en haut et ՅՍ̅ ՔՍ̅ (Jésus-Christ) en bas (fig. 17.66)121. La relative finesse des bras de la croix, leur longueur quasi égale sur les deux axes (croix «grecque»), l’absence de feuilles partant de sous son pied confèrent à cette plaque une certaine originalité.

121

L’ auteur doit à l’ amabilité d’ Allan Langdale la photo de cette plaque, dont Camille Enlart n’ avait pas identifié l’ épigraphe comme arménienne: C. Enlart, L’art gothique et la Renaissance en Chypre, tome premier (Paris : Ernest Leroux, 1899), p. 352, fig. 231. De même, Philippe Plagnieux et Thierry Soulard, qui donnent une bonne photographie de la plaque, croient aussi y voir une inscription grecque « sous une forme abrégée très corrompue»: Ph. Plagnieux et Th. Soulard, « Famagouste. L’église Sainte-Anne», in J.-B. de Vaivre et Ph. Plagnieux, L’ art gothique en Chypre (Paris, 2006), pp. 262-263, fig. 3.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

345

Mésopotamie du Nord (aujourd’hui Irak) Parmi les traces médiévales arméniennes présentes dans les hauts lieux de la spiritualité syriaque, on a récemment signalé un petit khatchkar au monastère Mār Behnam, au sud-est de Mossoul, plus précisément dans le martyrium du saint. Hélas, ce martyrium, fondé au VIe s. puis reconstruit au XIIIe-XIVe s., a été détruit par l’organisation terroriste EIL le 19 mars 2015. On y trouvait, encastré dans le mur de l’édifice, à droite de la tombe du saint, un khatchkar mesurant 70×40cm, daté de 1171122 (fig. 17.67). La plaque présentait en son centre, sous une bande arquée, une petite croix dont la forme était proprement arménienne, avec des bras évasés à extrémités trilobées, avec deux grappes de raisin sous les bras horizontaux et un médaillon rond sous la courte hampe, au pied de la croix. Le lobe central des extrémités des bras de la croix, encore rond et non pointu, s’accordait bien avec la datation du XIIe s. Plus originaux étaient le grand développement végétal-géométrique sous la croix, l’ emplacement des deux colombes sur les côtés de cette partie inférieure, la largeur du bord et sa partie supérieure en «Pi» (π). Cette bordure supérieure, « appuyée» sur deux grosses imitations d’impostes à entrelacs, s’ inspirait de formes architecturales arméniennes. Les images d’ impostes entre l’ arc surmontant la croix et ses «supports» sont assez fréquentes sur les khatchkars monumentaux d’Arménie; plus précisément, l’ imitation d’ imposte en forme de large rectangle ornementé, comme ici, se rencontre parfois au Moyen Âge, par exemple sur des khatchkars du XIIIe s. de Noravank‘ et de Gaṙni123. Au bas de la composition courait une inscription bilingue sur cinq lignes, en arménien d’abord (trois premières lignes et début de la quatrième), en syriaque ensuite (lignes 4-5, partie droite). Dans le texte arménien, où figurait la date, un certain Sargis disait avoir dressé cette croix en intercession pour le patron Gond, éléments en partie repris dans le texte syriaque.

122

123

L’ auteur remercie le directeur-adjoint de l’ Institut d’Archéologie de l’Académie d’Arménie, Gagik Sargsyan, d’ avoir bien voulu, lors d’ un entretien le 27 juin 2016, lui donner connaissance de ce monument et de l’ article à son sujet: G. Sargsyan, A. Harrak, “Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) : pp. 17-32. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար, pp. 176-177, 254.

346

donabédian

Alep (Syrie) L’ église arménienne des Quarante Martyrs fut érigée à Alep en 1491, accompagnée d’un hospice (hogetun) destiné sans doute aux pèlerins en route pour Jérusalem. Elle fut plusieurs fois restaurée et agrandie, notamment en 1532, 1616 et en 1912-1926, avant d’être, elle aussi, en partie détruite le 26 avril 2015 par les miliciens de l’organisation islamiste EIL124. On y trouvait trente-deux sculptures du type qui nous intéresse ici. Elles ont été heureusement épargnées par les destructions. La partie la plus ancienne de l’ensemble, à son extrémité sudest, correspond à une chapelle sur les murs de laquelle trente de ces plaques à croix en marbre sont insérées. Ces dernières nous sont connues grâce à l’ étude détaillée que Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan a consacrée à leur épigraphie125. 29 sont encastrées dans la façade ouest de la chapelle, de part et d’ autre de la porte donnant sur un gawit‘ rectangulaire (narthex): 18 plaques sur la portion nord de cette façade (fig. 17.68) et 11 sur la portion sud (fig. 17.69); enfin une plaque à croix est placée à l’intérieur de la chapelle. A ces trente petits khatchkars de la chapelle s’en ajoutent deux, un dans le narthex et un autre dans un pilier de l’ église adjointe au nord-ouest en 1616. 17 de ces plaques sont munies d’ inscriptions et parmi elles 14 sont datées entre la fin du XVe et le début du XVIIe s. La plus ancienne datée a été sculptée en 1492 pour demander l’ intercession de la croix en faveur de Mansur, Yamam, Tatur, Yovanēs et Alēk‘sanos126 (fig. 17.70). Les pièces sont diverses par leurs dimensions, la plus petite mesurant 19×18cm et la plus grande environ 114×62cm. Les deux plus grandes plaques sont dédiées à des personnages importants, l’ une, de 1578, à un archevêque127 (centre de la fig. 17.69) et l’autre, de 1580, à un riche marchand128 (fig. 17.73). Les plaques sont diverses aussi par leur décoration, allant de surfaces portant simplement une modeste croix et une inscription, et dénuées de tout ornement (fig. 17.74), à des compositions assez riches comportant souvent de larges bords abondamment ornementés. Trois plaques, dont celle de 1492, une deuxième attribuée au début du XVIIe s. et une dernière non

124

125 126 127 128

Sur ce monument voir l’ étude de Ր. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները (Երեւան : ՀՃՈւ, 2013) [R. Kort‘oshyan, Les inscriptions d’Alep (Erevan: RAA, 2013)], pp. 95-98. Pour les inscriptions gravées sur ces pierres, avec pour chaque plaque un dessin précis, voir : Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, pp. 99-106. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 99, nº 2. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 100, nº 4. Dimensions: c. 114× 62 cm. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 101, nº 8.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

347

datée129 (fig. 17.70-72), présentent une composition évoquant assez précisément celles de sculptures de Bethléem et surtout de Jérusalem du XVe s.130 (fig. 17.21, 24): on y observe le même type de croix cantonnée de deux ou quatre petites croix, souvent sous un arc, dans un champ délimité par un large cadre rectangulaire à deux bandes, augmentées au-dessus de la croix d’ un registre horizontal comportant de quatre à six médaillons à motifs de roue, rosace ou étoile. Sur la plaque de 1492 se manifeste le phénomène, déjà observé dans d’autres communautés, de personnalisation de la composition. En effet elle comporte une croix principale et quatre croix secondaires, or les personnes citées dans la prière d’intercession sont au nombre de cinq. Sur une assez grande plaque (c. 60×33cm) en mémoire du prêtre Yakob de J̌uła, de 1595131, est sculptée une composition typique des khatchkars de cette fameuse ville du Naxiǰewan, avec en particulier, autour de la croix, un cadre fortement mouluré achevé par un grand arc outrepassé et en accolade, et sur le « linteau», encadrée d’un arc polylobé, une image du Christ trônant entre les quatre vivants et deux anges (fig. 17.75). Signalons enfin une plaque en marbre de 1610 mesurant environ 62×32cm, qui reprend assez fidèlement l’ ornementation des khatchkars contemporains de diverses régions d’Arménie, tant pour ce qui est des extrémités entrelacées des bras de la croix, à «becs recourbés», que pour les entrelacs des bordures132 (fig. 17.76). Les inscriptions ont pour contenu une prière d’ intercession ou en mémoire de défunts et reflètent la nature funéraire-mémoriale des plaques. Comme à Jérusalem et en Crimée (ainsi que dans d’autres foyers liés à celle-ci), on trouve plusieurs fois employé le nom « signes» au pluriel (nšank‘), suivi d’ un verbe au singulier. L’écrasante majorité des plaques à croix se trouve, on l’ a dit, sur la façade ouest de la chapelle, mais leur assemblage compact, constituant deux grands panneaux, n’est évidemment pas d’origine. Un témoignage précise que, peu avant la reconstruction de l’église en 1616, tous ces « khatchkars», ainsi que de nombreuses pierres tombales provenant du cimetière arménien voisin,

129

130

131 132

Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 99, nº 2; p. 104, nº 16, 17. Très

proches par leur ornementation, ces trois plaques pourraient être contemporaines, du XVe s., même si Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan attribue à la deuxième une datation du début du XVIIe s. sur la base d’ une lettre qui n’ est pas visible, mais qu’ il restitue. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 332, BET-AST002 (1443); p. 382, JERHCB007 (1460) ; p. 402, JER-HTP064 (1461) ; p. 408, JER-THE001 (1453) et plusieurs autres qui leur sont apparentés. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 101, nº 11. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 106, nº 21.

348

donabédian

« furent placés sur l’un des murs unissant l’ancien et le nouveau sanctuaires»133. On ignore quel était leur emplacement originel, mais on peut les imaginer à l’ intérieur d’un sanctuaire ancien et, pour les plus grandes plaques, sur des monuments funéraires.

Le Caire Le vizir arménien Badr el-Djamali (1074-1094) qui régissait les affaires égyptiennes au temps des Fatimides aurait fait attribuer à ses compatriotes en 1076 l’ église Sainte-Mère de Dieu du Caire qui appartenait jusque-là aux Syriens134. Sur les parois intérieures de cette église, quelques plaques à croix avaient été encastrées. L’une d’elles est présentée comme l’un des plus anciens vestiges arméniens d’Égypte, car prétendument datée de 981. Dans un modeste cadre annulaire, une croix «grecque» est dessinée très simplement (fig. 17.77). Les bras de la croix ont une largeur constante (ne sont pas évasés) et une extrémité arrondie légèrement élargie; aux deux extrémités latérales, une petite « excroissance» arrondie donne à la courbe un contour faiblement trilobé. Dans les quadrants sont inscrits les quatre nomina sacra « ՅՍ̅ ՆՎ ̅ ԹՐ̅ ՀՑ̅ », c’ est-à-dire Y(isu)s N(azo)v(rec‘i) T‘(agawo)r H(rēi)c‘ = Jésus de Nazareth Roi des Juifs. S’ agissant de la date attribuée à cette croix, elle se fonde sur une interprétation erronée des lettres « ՆՎ » de Nazovrec‘i (= de Nazareth) qui ont été lues « ՆԼ » et prises à tort pour la date 430 (+ 551 = 981)135. Cette date erronée a été reprise par plusieurs auteurs dont Aršak Alpōyačean136, et par l’Encyclopédie Diaspora arménienne137. En réalité, ce médaillon à croix est probablement bien plus tardif. Il s’apparente en effet à des plaques à croix de Jérusalem et d’ Ispahan, dont quelques-unes en médaillon, qui ne sont pas antérieures au XVIIe s.138. 133 134 135

136

137 138

Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները, p. 95.

S. Zeitlian, Armenians in Egypt. Contribution of Armenians to Medieval and Modern Egypt (Los Angeles : HSZ Publications, 2006), p. 45. Cette église a été détruite. Ն. Տէր Միքայէլեան, Եգիպտահայ գաղութը 10-15-րդ դարերում (Պէյրութ : Տպարան Տօնիկեան, 1980) [N. Ter Mikayelian, La colonie arménienne d’Égypte au Xe-xve siècle (Beyrouth : Imprimerie Doniguian, 1980)], pp. 59, 77-78, 223. Ա. Ալպօյաճեան, Արաբական Միացեալ Հանրապետութեան Եգիպտոսի նա հանգը եւ Հայերը (Գահիրէ : Տպարան Նոր Աստղ, 1960) [A. Alboyajian, La province d’ Égypte de la République Arabe Unie et les Arméniens (Le Caire: Imprimerie Nor Astl, 1960)], p. 15. Հայ Սփյուռք հանրագիտարան (Երեւան : Հայկական Հանրագիտարան, 2003) [Encyclopédie Diaspora arménienne (Erevan : Encyclopédie arménienne, 2003), p. 156. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, pp. 334 (ISF-APK002, ISF-APK008 de 1640), 374 (ISF-NRS014 de 1650), 388 (JER-HCB048 de 1752), 390 (JER-HCB073 de 1768).

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

349

Un second «khatchkar» a également été attribué au Xe s.139. Sur une plaque de pierre est gravée une simple croix «grecque» semblable à la précédente, mais un peu plus fruste et plus large (fig. 17.78). Comme là, les quatre extrémités sont légèrement arrondies et élargies. Aux quatre angles d’ un rectangle imaginaire qui encadrerait cette croix sont gravés les nomina sacra ՅՍ̅ (Yisus) ՔՍ̅ 140 (K‘ristos) ( Jésus-Christ) en haut, et ՏՐ̅ (Tēr) ԱԾ ̅ (Astuac) (Seigneur Dieu) en bas. Ici encore, des comparaisons avec des pièces analogues de Jérusalem permettent d’envisager une datation pas avant le XVIIe s.141. Un troisième petit khatchkar142 est très différent des deux pièces précédentes et leur est probablement antérieur (fig. 17.79). Dans un assez large bord rectangulaire décoré d’un entrelacs festonné, est soigneusement sculptée en léger relief une élégante croix aux bras évasés dont les extrémités sont tréflées. Elle est flanquée à son pied de deux croix plus petites au pied feuillu et est encadrée, au-dessus de son bras supérieur, de sept petits compartiments rectangulaires contenant chacun une croix, cette fois incisée. Entre les deux compartiments latéraux, un arc est lancé, qui surmonte la croix. Les deux médaillons souvent représentés dans les quadrants supérieurs et sans doute inspirés des images du soleil et de la lune des crucifixions, ont été reportés sur les côtés des bras horizontaux de la croix. Cette pièce s’apparente à des plaques de Bethléem et de Jérusalem datées du XVe s. (et pour l’ une, du XVIe s.)143. Il n’est pas exclus qu’elle ait pu être apportée d’un atelier situé dans la Ville sainte.

Ispahan Les 382 plaques à croix de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa, quartier d’ Ispahan où la majeure partie des déportés d’Arménie avait été installée au début du XVIIe s., constituent la plus nombreuse collection connue de ce genre de sculptures. Avec

139 140 141

142 143

Տէր Միքայէլեան, Եգիպտահայ գաղութը, pp. 59, 78.

On note une curiosité: la boucle supérieure du K‘ est tournée vers la gauche, comme pour un G. La même « fantaisie » dans le dessin de la lettre K‘ du nomen sacrum s’observe sur des petits khatchkars de Jérusalem du XVIIIe s. Cf. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’art des khatchkars, p. 390 (JER-HCB073 de 1768, JER-HCB074 de 1792). Sur la planche faisant face à la page 8, Ալպօյաճեան, Արաբական Միացեալ, qualifie ce khatchkar, dans la légende sous sa photographie, d’«ancien, non daté». Cf. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, pp. 332, 382, 386, 398, 402, 408, 410. S. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World. Paradigms of Interaction. Seventh to Fourteenth Centuries, Vol. 2 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2013), p. 66, fait elle aussi remonter les deux khatchkars du Caire au Xe s.

350

donabédian

celles de Terre sainte, elles ont été étudiées de manière approfondie par Haroutioun Khatchadourian et Michel Basmadjian144, ce qui rend inutile un exposé détaillé. A l’opposé de ce que l’on voit à Jérusalem, les plaques ont une histoire assez brève, étant datées du XVIIe-XVIIIe s., et une assez grande homogénéité stylistique; elles n’ont pas été apposées par des pèlerins ou des religieux réguliers, mais par des fidèles résidents et leurs ecclésiastiques séculiers. Les inscriptions sont stéréotypées: dans l’écrasante majorité des cas, elles comportent la formule: «cette (sainte) croix est en souvenir de … ». Au début de l’histoire de cette colonie, une quinzaine de plaques sculptées dans les deux premières décennies du XVIIe s. présentent une telle parenté dans leur décoration qu’elles peuvent vraisemblablement être attribuées à un atelier groupant des artisans venus, comme la majorité des déportés, de l’ ancienne J̌uła145 (fig. 17.80-82). Sur ces plaques à la fois relativement soignées et nettement simplifiées par rapport à leurs modèles métropolitains, mais assez abondamment ornementées, comme sur celle d’Alep de 1595 mentionnée supra (fig. 17.75), on trouve une série de traits inspirés des stèles de leur région d’ origine : notamment la profonde niche à arc en accolade qui encadre la croix; la sphère bombée sous cette dernière; dans un cas146, la scène du Christ en gloire flanqué des vivants et d’anges (fig. 17.80); dans quelques cas, l’ image du défunt agenouillé à l’angle inférieur gauche de la plaque (fig. 17.82). Hormis ce groupe particulier, les plaques d’Ispahan se distinguent en général par une relative rusticité et sobriété ornementale. Beaucoup de plaques sont de petite taille, avec approximativement une hauteur entre 15 et 28 cm et une largeur entre 12 et 21cm. Par ailleurs, certaines particularités des plaques sculptées à Ispahan permettent de supposer une production en série, surtout au début du XVIIe s., et une division du travail entre ornemanistes et lapicides147. On relève la fréquence à Ispahan de petites plaques très modestes, à une ou plusieurs croix faites d’une simple tresse (fig. 17.83-84). Plusieurs d’ entre elles, munies sur leurs bords d’une inscription continue tout autour du champ (fig. 17.85, 86), semblent présenter dans leur morphologie et leur ornementation une parenté avec les reliures en cuir des manuscrits148. Ces dernières sont elles aussi souvent marquées en leur centre d’une croix dessinée par une tresse,

144 145 146 147 148

Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, notamment pp. 169-249, 334-382. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, pp. 171, 265. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 356 (ISF-GVR001 de 1614). Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 263. Un tel rapprochement a été évoqué par Dickran Kouymjian lors de la Journée d’Etudes sur l’ archéologie et l’ art de l’ Arménie et la Géorgie médiévales organisée par le LA3M à Aix-enProvence le 12/XI/2014.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

351

tandis qu’une inscription est parfois disposée en bande continue sur les quatre bords du champ rectangulaire, la bande inférieure ne pouvant se lire que si l’ on renverse la reliure149. Appliquée à des plaques encastrées dans un mur150, une telle disposition est évidemment étonnante. Elle suggère que l’ inspiration pouvait venir des reliures, ou que plaques de pierre et reliures en cuir étaient produites dans des ateliers proches les uns des autres, à peu près à la même période (XVIIe s.). Dans leur étude des sites d’Ispahan, les deux auteurs susnommés ont plusieurs fois relevé le caractère très mobile des plaques. Ils ont établi que l’ écrasante majorité avait été déplacée, parfois dans le but de former de grands panneaux à symétrie plus ou moins cruciforme. Aujourd’hui, on trouve à la Nouvelle-Djoulfa des plaques à croix aussi bien à l’ intérieur qu’ à l’ extérieur des sanctuaires. Mais, comme à Jérusalem, l’extériorisation est relative, puisque les constructions en question sont toutes inscrites dans des ensembles entourés d’une enceinte. Les pièces véritablement extérieures, par exemple placées sur un portail donnant sur la rue, sont très rares. Le cas des trente plaques qui forment sur la façade orientale de l’église Saint-Etienne des compositions cruciformes visibles de la rue est unique151. Néanmoins cet état actuel des choses ne reflète probablement pas la situation d’origine et l’ on peut supposer qu’ ici comme ailleurs, les fidèles devaient aspirer à ce que les plaques portant leur message soient placées à l’intérieur de l’église, le plus près possible de l’ autel, puisque cela était, à l’évidence, autorisé pour ce type de « petits khatchkars muraux».

149

150

151

D. Kouymjian, Arts of Armenia (Lisbonne : Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1992), http:// armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/music.htm, fig. 298: reliure en cuir de Tatew, 1651, avec croix à tresse; fig. 300 : reliure en cuir de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa, 1695, avec inscription contournant le plat. Sur les reliures en cuir de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa du XVIIeXVIIIe s. voir : D. Kouymjian, “Les reliures à inscriptions des manuscrits arméniens”, in: Arménie. La magie de l’ écrit, éd. C. Mutafian (Marseille-Paris: Somogy, 2007), pp. 236-247, en particulier pp. 242-246. La même disposition de l’ inscription se trouve déjà sur la reliure en argent de l’ évangéliaire de Hṙomklay de 1255 : Armenia Sacra, éds. J. Durand et al. (Paris: Louvre/Somogy, 2007), pp. 266-267, nº 115 ; et sur celle de l’«Evangile de la Mer» de 1334: Mutafian, L’ Arménie du Levant, t. II, fig. 216. Plaques de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa où la croix est faite d’une tresse et où l’inscription contourne le champ : Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 336, (ISF-APK024 de 1603); p. 342 (ISF-APK074 de 1606) ; p. 358 (ISF-GVR006 de 1626); p. 360 (ISF-HCB004 de 1614). Sur ISF-GVR006, le nom du principal dédicataire, Astuacatur, gravé au bas de la plaque, est donc à l’ envers. A noter Idem, p. 388, que la plaque de Jérusalem (JER-HCB046 de 1440) a déjà une inscription sur ses quatre bords, mais la bande inférieure se lit en position normale. Khatchadourian, Basmadjian, L’ art des khatchkars, p. 190.

352

donabédian

Typologie, dénomination et fonction des « petits khatchkars muraux diasporiques» La présente étude est un modeste essai, forcément incomplet, de définition et description d’un type d’objets qui n’avait pas encore été examiné dans son ensemble. Cet inventaire devra assurément être complété et sans doute corrigé par des données nouvelles, ainsi que par des pièces dont l’ auteur de ces lignes n’a pas eu connaissance. Dans l’état actuel de la documentation, à l’ exception des quelques grandes stèles dressées isolément qui ont certainement existé en Crimée152, les séries de plaques à croix que nous avons examinées confirment ce constat: les communautés de la diaspora arménienne ont privilégié un type de monument commémoratif/«votif»/funéraire correspondant à la variante murale du khatchkar métropolitain. Ce type a hérité de son modèle l’ élément principal: la croix – arbre de vie (même s’il n’est pas rare que l’ on se contente de sculpter une simple croix, non végétale, sur un piédestal, voire sans piédestal). Mais le «khatchkar diasporique» se distingue par des traits importants, comme le matériau, souvent le marbre, choisi sans doute pour lui assurer une grande longévité, et des dimensions modestes, voire très réduites; on y relève aussi une certaine simplification de l’ornementation. L’examen des pièces réunies ici a aussi fait apparaître le rayonnement de deux centres importants : Jérusalem et Caffa. Les objets examinés dans cet article peuvent être désignés en français des termes de «(petites) plaques (murales) à croix». Mais les auteurs de l’ importante étude consacrée aux collections de Jérusalem et de la Nouvelle-Djoulfa, Haroutioun Khatchadourian et Michel Basmadjian, ont préféré ne pas faire de différence entre ces petites plaques et les grandes pierres à croix isolées d’Arménie; ils les ont incluses dans la catégorie des khatchkars, nom dont le champ sémantique s’est ainsi trouvé élargi. Compte tenu du grand avantage que présente ce choix, dans la perspective du corpus informatisé des khatchkars lancé par ces deux chercheurs et des précieux outils d’ analyse et de comparaison qu’une telle approche offrira, et parce que cette dénomination permet de mettre en valeur la spécificité arménienne du type de croix – arbre de vie qui y est figuré, l’attribution de ce nom aux plaques murales à croix se justifie. On leur appliquera donc le nom de khatchkar, mais, pour compléter leur caractérisation, on pourra lui adjoindre les épithètes «petit » et « mural» et, dans le cas des plaques des communautés de la dispersion, l’ adjectif « diasporique ». Il en

152

A l’ exception aussi, naturellement, des plaques tombées ou détachées de leur support mural et souvent (mais pas toujours) déposées dans des églises ou des musées.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

353

résultera l’appellation précise et complète, bien qu’ un peu longue, de « petits khatchkars muraux diasporiques». On a souligné plus haut la constance de l’insertion dans un appareil mural. Nous avons vu qu’en fonction du message exprimé par la plaque, le mur porteur pouvait être extérieur ou intérieur. On peut supposer que, pour les plaques à portée emblématique et apotropaïque et pour celles liées à la fondation de l’édifice, une situation extérieure était naturelle, notamment sur la porte d’entrée ou sur la façade orientale. Pour toutes les autres plaques, une position aussi proche que possible de l’autel (ou des autels) du sanctuaire était certainement préférable: ceci concerne les nombreuses pierres portant une prière en intercession pour un pèlerin, pour le salut de l’ âme d’ un défunt et des membres de sa famille, ou celles relatant la contribution d’ une personne à l’édification de l’église et comportant aussi une prière en sa mémoire. Là où l’ interdiction d’inhumer à l’intérieur d’une église restait forte et étendait probablement ses effets aux plaques apparentées à des stèles funéraires, on peut penser que l’insertion dans les façades extérieures était la seule possible. Dans les communautés où les effets de cette interdiction s’ étaient probablement émoussés, l’insertion à l’intérieur de l’église, le plus près possible de l’ autel, était sans doute permise. Les facteurs pouvant expliquer le choix des dimensions réduites, d’ une simplification de l’ornementation et de la situation insérée, dans les conditions d’une existence diasporique, ne sont certainement pas intervenus uniformément ni dans tous les cas. Parmi ces facteurs, outre les spécificités fonctionnelles que nous venons d’évoquer, il est possible d’ envisager à titre d’ hypothèses: la réduction des moyens des communautés, une certaine perte de savoir-faire aggravée par l’absence de la pierre volcanique d’ Arménie à laquelle les sculpteurs étaient habitués, l’influence du milieu urbain qui rendait peutêtre difficile, du moins en dehors des cours d’églises et des cimetières, l’ érection de grandes stèles isolées; on peut enfin supposer un souci de discrétion et peut-être même des interdictions concernant les manifestations visibles d’ un culte étranger, auxquelles pouvaient être soumises les communautés en milieu catholique ou musulman. Dans tous les cas, la permanence et l’ubiquité d’ une telle forme à travers les âges et les continents sont une précieuse illustration de l’ attachement des communautés diasporiques à l’une des manifestations les plus marquantes de leur tradition.

354

donabédian

Remerciements Cet article reprend en la développant une communication intitulée « Typological specificity of Diaspora khatchkars», présentée au Patriarcat arménien de Jérusalem dans le cadre de l’International Conference in honour of John Carswell and Jerry Murphy O’Connor, on Armenian culture and art history, Jérusalem, 11-13 juillet 2011. L’auteur remercie les organisateurs de cette rencontre, en particulier Kevork Hintlian et la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian, de lui avoir permis d’y participer.

Bibliographie Armenia Sacra, éds. J. Durand et al. (Paris: Louvre/Somogy, 2007). Armenian Relics of Cilicia, ed. A. Ballian (Athènes: Olkos, 2002). Arménie. La magie de l’écrit, éd. C. Mutafian (Marseille-Paris: Somogy, 2007). S. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World. Paradigms of Interaction. Seventh to Fourteenth Centuries, Vol. 2 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2013). Das Lemberger Evangeliar. Eine wiederentdeckte armenische Bilderhandschrift des 12. Jahrhunderts, éds. G. Prinzing, A. Schmidt (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1997). P. Donabédian, “Can we call “khachkar” the Sudak cross-stones?”, Сугдейський збiрник 1 (VII) (Киïв: Видавницво Горобець, 2018) [Recueil de Sugdeïa 1 (VII) (Kiev: Éditions Horobets, 2018)]: pp. 304-323. P. Donabédian, L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne. Le VIIe siècle (Marseille: Parenthèses, 2008). P. Donabédian, “Le khatchkar, un art emblématique de la spécificité arménienne”, in L’Église arménienne entre Grecs et Latins, fin XIe – milieu XVe siècle, éds. I. Augé et G. Dédéyan (Paris: Geuthner, 2009): pp. 151-168. P. Donabédian, “Les thèmes bibliques dans la sculpture arménienne préarabe”, Revue des Études Arméniennes 22 (1990-1991): pp. 253-314. P. Donabédian, “Small mural khachkars in medieval Armenian communities of Crimea, Galicia, Podolia and Bessarabia”, in On the Borderline between the East and the West. Materials of the International Conference dedicated to Yaroslav Dashkevytch (Lviv: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Lviv Branch, 2018), pp. 324-335. P. Donabédian, “Un des premiers exemples d’hybridation: l’architecture arménienne de Crimée”, in Series Byzantina. Studies on Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art, Vol. IX: Art of the Armenian Diaspora, ed. W. Deluga (Varsovie: Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, 2011): pp. 47-67.

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

355

R. Edwards, “Ecclesiastical Architecture in the Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982): pp. 155-176. R. Edwards, The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1987). C. Enlart, L’art gothique et la Renaissance en Chypre, tome premier (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899). H. Goltz, K. Göltz, Rescued Armenian Treasures from Cilicia (Wiesbaden: DLRV, 2000). P. Kazandjian, Horizons arméniens. Le voyage en Cilicie (Paris: Editions Astrig, s.d.). H. Khatchadourian, M. Basmadjian, L’art des khatchkars. Les pierres à croix arméniennes d’Ispahan et de Jérusalem (Paris: Geuthner, 2014). D. Kouymjian, Arts of Armenia (Lisbonne: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1992). D. Kouymjian, “Les reliures à inscriptions des manuscrits arméniens”, in: Arménie. La magie de l’écrit, éd. C. Mutafian (Marseille-Paris: Somogy, 2007): pp. 236-247. J.-P. Mahé, “Croix et xač‘k‘ar de Hoṙomos”, in Hoṙomos monastery: Art and History, éd. E. Vardanyan (Paris: ACHCByz, 2015): pp. 301-324. C. Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant (XIe-xive siècle), Tome II (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012). C. Mutafian, Le royaume arménien de Cilicie, XIIe-XIVe siècle (Paris: CNRS éditions, 1993). H. Petrosyan, Khachkar (Erevan: Zangak Publishing House, 2015). Ph. Plagnieux et Th. Soulard, «Famagouste. L’église Sainte-Anne», in J.-B. de Vaivre et Ph. Plagnieux, L’art gothique en Chypre (Paris, 2006): pp. 261-265. A.(C.) Renoux, “La croix dans le rite arménien. Histoire et symbolisme”, Melto, Recherches orientales, V, 1 (1969) (Kaslik: Université Saint-Esprit, 1969): pp. 123-175. Roma – Armenia, éd. C. Mutafian (Rome: Edizioni De Luca, 1999). G. Sargsyan, A. Harrak, “Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015): pp. 17-32. A. Schmidt, “L’Evangile de Lemberg: un itinéraire rocambolesque”, in Arménie. La magie de l’écrit, éd. Mutafyan (Paris, 2007): pp. 260-263. J.-M. Thierry, Monuments arméniens du Vaspurakan (Paris: Geuthner, 1989). J.-M. Thierry, P. Donabédian, Les arts arméniens (Paris: Mazenod, 1987). E. Vardanyan, “The Sculpted Dome of Hoṙomos monastery žamatun”, in Hoṙomos monastery: Art and History, éd. E. Vardanyan (Paris: ACHCByz, 2015): pp. 237-300. S. Zeitlian, Armenians in Egypt. Contribution of Armenians to Medieval and Modern Egypt (Los Angeles: HSZ Publications, 2006). Ղ. Ալիշան, Սիսուան (Վենետիկ : Սուրբ Ղազար, 1885) [L. Alishan, Sisuan (Venise: Saint-Lazare, 1885)]. Ա. Ալպօյաճեան, Արաբական Միացեալ Հանրապետութեան Եգիպտոսի նա հանգը եւ Հայերը (Գահիրէ : Տպարան Նոր Աստղ, 1960) [A. Alboyajian, La pro-

356

donabédian

vince d’Égypte de la République Arabe Unie et les Arméniens (Le Caire: Imprimerie Nor Astl, 1960)]. Ա. Այվազյան, Նախիջեւանի կոթողային հուշարձաններն ու պատկերաքան դակները (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1987) [A. Ayvazyan, Les monuments commémoratifs et les sculptures figurées du Nakhitchevan (Erevan: Hayastan, 1987)]. Ս. Բարխուդարյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, II (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1960) [S. Barkhudaryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armeniacarum, II (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1960)]. Ս. Բարխուդարյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ III: Վայոց ձոր (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ, 1967) [S. Barkhudaryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber III: Vayots Dzor (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1967)]. Մ. Բժշկեանց, Ճանապարհորդութիւն ի Լեհաստան եւ յայլ կողմանս բնակեալս ի հայկազանց սերելոց ի նախնեաց Անի քաղաքին (Վենետիկ : Ս. Ղազար, 1830) [M. Bzhshkiants, Voyage en Pologne et dans d’autres régions habitées par des Arméniens originaires par leurs ancêtres de la ville d’Ani (Venise: Saint-Lazare, 1830)]. Գ. Գրիգորյան, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ VII: Ուկրաինա, Մոլդովա (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 1996) [G. Grigoryan, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber VII: Ukraine, Moldavie (Erevan: Gitutyun, 1996)]. Գ. Գրիգորյան, Վաղ միջնադարյան քառանիստ կոթողները (Երեւան : Հայաստանի պատմության թանգարան, 2012) [G. Grigoryan, Les stèles quadrilatérales de l’Arménie du haut Moyen Âge (Erevan: Musée d’histoire de l’Arménie, 2012)]. Ս. Էփրիկեան, Պատկերազարդ բնաշխարհիկ բառարան, հ. Ա-Բ (Վենետիկ : Ս. Ղազար, 1903-1907) [S. Eprikyan, Dictionnaire illustré de la patrie, t. 1-2 (Venise: StLazare, 1903-1907)]. Ա. Թորամանյան, Մոլդավիայի հայկական պատմաճարտարապետական հու շարձանները (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1986) [A. Toramanyan, Les monuments historico-architecturaux arméniens de Moldavie (Erevan: Hayastan, 1986)]. Թ. Թորամանյան, Նյութեր հայկական ճարտարապետության պատմության : Աշխատությունների երկրորդ ժողովածու (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1948) [T. Toramanyan, Matériaux d’histoire de l’architecture arménienne. Deuxième recueil de travaux (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1948)]. Ս. Կարապետյան, Վրաց պետական քաղաքականությունը եւ հայ մշակույթի հուշարձանները, RAA 2 (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 1998) [S. Karapetyan, La politique étatique géorgienne et les monuments de culture arménienne, RAA 2 (Erevan: Gitut‘yun, 1998)]. Ս. Կարապետյան, “Տեղերի վանքը,” Վարձք 10 (Երեւան : RAA, 2013) [S. Karapetyan, “Le monastère de Teler,” Duty of Soul 10 (Erevan: RAA, 2013)]. Հայ Սփյուռք հանրագիտարան (Երեւան : Հայկական Հանրագիտարան, 2003) [Encyclopédie Diaspora arménienne (Erevan: Encyclopédie arménienne, 2003).

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

357

Հայկական սովետական հանրագիտարան, հ. 11 (Երեւան : Հանրագիտարանի գլխավոր խմբագրություն, 1985): էջ 524-526 “Վրացական. Ճարտարապետությունը եւ կերպարվեստը” (Մ. Հասրաթյան) [Encyclopédie arménienne soviétique,

vol. 11 (Erevan: Rédaction principale de l’Encyclopédie, 1985): pp. 524-526 “Géorgien. L’architecture et l’art plastique” (M. Hasratyan)]. Ռ. Մաթեւոսյան, Հայկական զինանշաններ (Երեւան : Գիտություն, 2002) [R. Matevosyan, Les armoiries arméniennes (Erevan: Gitutyun, 2002)]. Վ. Միքայելյան, Ղրիմահայոց պատմություն (Երեւան : Հայաստան, 1989) [V. Mikayelyan, Histoire des Arméniens de Crimée (Erevan: Hayastan, 1989)]. Ս. Մնացականյան, Աղթամար [S. Mnatsakanyan, Ałtamar] (Helsinki: Editions Erebouni, 1985). Հ. Պետրոսյան, Խաչքար. Ծագումը, գործառույթը, պատկերագրությունը, իմաստաբանությունը (Երեւան : Փրինթինֆո, 2008) [H. Petrosyan, Khatchkar. L’origine, la fonction, l’iconographie, la sémantique (Erevan: Printinfo, 2008)]. Ն. Տէր Միքայէլեան, Եգիպտահայ գաղութը 10-15րդ դարերում (Պէյրութ : Տպարան Տօնիկեան, 1980) [N. Ter Mikayelian, La colonie arménienne d’Égypte au Xe-XVe siècle (Beyrouth: Imprimerie Doniguian, 1980)]. Ր. Քորթոշյան, Հալեպի արձանագրությունները (Երեւան : ՀՃՈւ, 2013) [R. Kortoshyan, Les inscriptions d’Alep (Erevan: RAA, 2013)]. Հ. Օրբելի, Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, Պրակ I: Անի քաղաք (Երեւան : ՀՍՍՌ ԳԱ, 1966) [H. Orbeli, Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, Liber I: Ville d’Ani (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSSA, 1966)]. Մ. Օրմանեան, Ծիսական բառարան (Անթիլիաս : Կ.Հ.Մ.Տ.Կ., 1979) [M. Ormanian, Dictionnaire rituel (Antélias: Catholicossat de Cilicie, 1979)]. Е. Айбабина, Декоративная каменная резьба Каффы XIV-VIII веков (Симферополь: Сонат, 2001) [E. Aïbabina, La sculpture décorative sur pierre de Caffa des XIVeXVIIIe siècles (Simferopol: Sonat, 2001)]. А. Байбуртский, “Хачкары и росписи позднесредневековой армянской церкви в селе Грушевка (Сала),” Исследования по арменистике в Украине, Вып. I (Симферополь: PrintPix, 2008) [A. Baïburtskiï, “Les khatchkars et fresques de l’église tardo-médiévale du village de Grushevka (Sala),” Etudes d’arménologie en Ukraine, Fasc. I (Simféropol: PrintPix, 2008)]: pp. 13-20. А. Гаврилова, “Феодосийские хачкары XIV-XVII вв,” in V республиканская научнная конференция по проблемам культуры и искусства Армении (Ереван : Ереванский гос. университет, 1982) [A. Gavrilova, “Les khatchkars de Théodosie des XIVeXVIIe ss.,” in Ve conférence scientifique républicaine sur les problèmes de la culture et de l’art de l’Arménie (Erevan: Université d’Etat d’Erevan, 1982)]: pp. 278-280. А. Гаврилова, “Хачкары из фондов Феодосийского краеведческого музея” [A. Gavrilova, “Les khatchkars des collections du musée régional de Théodosie”], in The Second International Symposium on Armenian Art, Volume III, Yerevan, 1978 (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1981): pp. 95-102.

358

donabédian

I. Гаюк, Iлюстрована енциклопедiя вiрменскоï культури в Украïнi (Львiв : Афiша, 2012), тoм I [I. Hayuk, Encyclopédie illustrée de la culture arménienne en Ukraine (Lviv: Afiša, 2012)], vol. I. Я. Дашкевич, “Армянские рельефные кресты Львова и Каменца-Подольского,” Պատմա-բանասիրական հանդես 3 (1980) [Y. Dashkevich, “Les croix arméniennes en relief de Lvov et de Kamenec-Podol’skiï”, Revue historico-philologique 3 (1980)]: pp. 120-140. В. Майко, А. Джанов, Археологические памятники Судакского региона Республики Крым (Симферополь: Ариал, 2015) [V. Mayko, A. Dzhanov, Les monuments archéologiques de la région de Sudak de la République de Crimée (Simféropol: Arial, 2015)]. С. Мнацаканян, Мемориальные памятники раннесредневековой Армении (Ереван: АН Арм. ССР, 1982) [S. Mnatsakanyan, Les monuments commémoratifs de l’Arménie du haut Moyen Âge (Erevan: Académie des sciences de la RSS d’Arménie, 1982)]. П. Мурадян, Армянская эпиграфика Грузии. Картли и Кахети (Ереван : Академия наук, 1985) [P. Muradyan, L’épigraphie arménienne de Géorgie. Kartli et K’axeti (Erevan: Académie des sciences, 1985)]. М. Пештмалджян, Памятники армянских поселений (Ереван : Айастан, 1987) [M. Peshtmaljyan, Les monuments des colonies arméniennes (Erevan: Hayastan, 1987)]. А. Тораманян, Из истории строительной деятелности армян в Молдавии (Москва: Внешторгиздат, 1991) [A. Toramanyan, Pages d’histoire de l’activité de construction des Arméniens en Moldavie (Moscou: Vneshtorgizdat, 1991)].

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.1

Arménie (Rép. d’). Sanahin. Khatchkar de Sargis (1215) Photo Patrick Donabédian

359

360

figure 17.2

donabédian

Arménie (Rép. d’). Mak‘enoc‘. Khatchkar «archaïque» (c. IXe-Xe s.), aujourd’ hui dans la cour de la cathédrale SainteEtchmiadzine Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.3

361

Arménie (Rép. d’). Keč‘aṙis. Rang de khatchkars (c. IXe-XIIIe s.) entre la cathédrale et la chapelle Saint-Signe Photo Patrick Donabédian

362

figure 17.4

donabédian

Arménie (Rép. d’). Tat‘ew. Cathédrale Saints-Pierre-et-Paul (895-906), façade ouest. Plaque à inscription dédicatoire Photo Patrick Donabédian

figure 17.5

Arménie (Turquie act.). Ałt‘amar. Église Sainte-Croix (c. 915-921), façade ouest Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

363

364

figure 17.6

donabédian

Arménie (Turquie act.). Ani. Cathédrale (989-1001). Pignon de la façade ouest Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.7

Arménie (Turquie act.). Ani. Rempart. Tour nord-ouest, dite de Mxit‘ar. « Khatchkar » (XIIIe s.) Photo Patrick Donabédian

365

figure 17.8

Arménie (Rép. d’). Tełer. Façade ouest du gawit‘ (1221-1232). Rangs de «khatchkars » Photo Patrick Donabédian

366 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.9

367

Arménie (Rép. d’). Noravank‘. Église funéraire de Burt‘ēl Ōrbēlean (1331-1339). Façade ouest Photo Patrick Donabédian

368

figure 17.10

donabédian

Arménie (Turquie act.). Ktuc‘ (1713-1720). Façade est Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.11

Cilicie. Musée archéologique d’ Adana. 59,5×43,5×25 cm Photo Ioanna Rapti

369

370

figure 17.12

donabédian

Cilicie. Hṙomklay. « Khatchkar » de Vasil, probablement Pahlawuni (c. milieu du XIIe s.). 66 × 56 × 14 cm. Musée du Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie, Antélias, Liban Photo Claude Mutafian

figure 17.13

Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église Photo Maxime Goepp

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

371

372

figure 17.14

donabédian

Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église. «Khatchkar» de gauche (c. 2e moitié du XIIe s.) Photo Claude Colin

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.15

373

Cilicie. Hṙomklay. Façade est du soubassement d’une église. «Khatchkar» de droite (c. 2e moitié du XIIe s.) Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian

figure 17.16

Cilicie. Koṙikos. Fort terrestre. Porte de l’enceinte intérieure, face extérieure de la courtine est (c. XIIIe s.) Photo Maxime Goepp

374 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.17

Cilicie. Koṙikos. Fort terrestre. « Khatchkar» au-dessus de la porte de l’enceinte intérieure est (c. XIIIe s.) Photo Maxime Goepp

375

376

figure 17.18

donabédian

Cilicie. Séleucie/Silifke. Plaque au-dessus de l’entrée de la forteresse (1236 ?) Photo Paul Kazandjian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.19

Cilicie. Papeṙon/Çandır. Forteresse. Chapelle adjointe à la façade sud de l’ église (1251/1256) Photo Maxime Goepp

377

378

figure 17.20

donabédian

Cilicie. Région de Sis. Pierre posée à terre (60×45cm) Photo Maxime Goepp

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.21

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB006 (1440). 80 × 48 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

379

380

figure 17.22

donabédian

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB009. 62 × 44 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.23

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB012 (1443). 80 × 50 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

381

382

figure 17.24

donabédian

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB007 (1460). 70 × 40 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.25

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB018 (1151). 50 × 25 cm Photo Michel Basmadjian

383

384

figure 17.26

donabédian

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB019 (1153). 51 × 38 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.27

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB020. 65 × 38 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

385

386

figure 17.28

donabédian

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB028. 44 × 35 cm Photo Michel Basmadjian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.29

Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale Saints-Jacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB017 (1151 et 1835). 60 × 50cm Photo Michel Basmadjian

387

388

figure 17.30 Jérusalem. Patriarcat arménien. Cathédrale SaintsJacques. Plaque nº JER-HCB022 (1151). 90 ×37cm Photo Michel Basmadjian

donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.31

Rome. « Khatchkar » de Mxit‘ar (1246). Musées du Vatican, musée lapidaire. 148,5 × 69,5 × 8 cm Photo Claude Mutafian

389

figure 17.32

Crimée. Caffa/Théodosie. Église arménienne Saint-Serge (transformée en musée lapidaire), gawit‘, façade ouest Photo Aleksandr Dzhanov

390 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.33

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade nord. Plaque de 1356. 76 × 34 cm Photo Rafał Quirini-Popławski

391

392

figure 17.34

donabédian

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. «Khatchkar» encastré à droite de la porte (1761). 153 × 62 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.35

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. Khatchkar encastré à gauche de la porte. 254×78cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

393

394

figure 17.36

donabédian

Crimée. Caffa. Musée régional de Théodosie. Khatchkar. 95 × 56 × 24 cm Photo Elena Aïbabina

figure 17.37

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Sainte-Vierge Marie. Fragment présumé de khatchkar remployé dans les vestiges d’un clocher au nord-est de l’église Photo Aleksandr Džanov

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

395

396

figure 17.38

donabédian

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, face intérieure du mur ouest. Plaque dédiée au miniaturiste Nikołos Całkarar (1698). 120 × 59 cm Photo Académie nationale des sciences de la république d’ Arménie (d’ après CIA VII, 338, fig. 14)

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.39

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, face intérieure du mur ouest (1424) Photo Académie nationale des sciences de la république d’ Arménie (d’ après CIA VII, 36-37, nº 30)

397

398

donabédian

figure 17.40 Crimée. Caffa. Intérieur de l’ église Saint-Serge (1427). 61×49cm Photo Jean-Pierre Kibarian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.41

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest. Plaque à gauche de la porte (1528). 65 × 23 cm Photo Rafał Quirini Popławski

399

400

figure 17.42

donabédian

Crimée. Caffa. Intérieur de l’ église Saint-Serge (1451). 50×52cm Photo Jean-Pierre Kibarian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.43

Crimée. Caffa. Saint-Serge, gawit‘, façade ouest (1460). 45×40cm Photo Aleksandr Džanov

401

402

figure 17.44

donabédian

Crimée. T‘op‘ti/Topolevka. Chapelle Urbat‘i (Sainte-Parascève). Plaque dédiée à Karapet (1381) Photo Tatevik Sargsyan

figure 17.45

Stèles à deux croix superposées. Gauche: Sala/Gruševka (Crimée); Centre: T‘op‘ti/Topolevka (Crimée); Droite: Rostov-sur-le-Don/Nor Naxiǰewan (sud Russie) Photos Tatevik Sargsyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

403

404

figure 17.46

donabédian

Crimée. Sala/Gruševka. Musée de l’ école. Plaque dédiée à Tōnavak‘ (1483). 34 × 28,5 × 8 cm Photo Arkadiï Baïburtskiï

figure 17.47

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera (1386). Plaques remployées en haut de la façade sud Photo Aleksandr Džanov

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

405

406

figure 17.48

donabédian

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera. Plaques remployées dans la façade sud Photo Aleksandr Džanov

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.49

407

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour Astaguera. Plaques remployées dans la façade nord Photo Aleksandr Džanov

408

figure 17.50

donabédian

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Tour de Franchi di Pagano (1414). Plaque encastrée dans le mur ouest Photo Aleksandr Džanov

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.51

Crimée. Soldaïa/Sudak. Fragment de plaque à croix arménienne, provenant de la tour nº 16, déposé dans le musée de Sudak Photo Aleksandr Džanov

409

410

figure 17.52

donabédian

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu (1363). Plaque à croix (1427). 45×32cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.53

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (1441/1449). 20×13cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

411

412

figure 17.54

donabédian

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix. 23 × 13cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.55

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix. 22,5 ×12,5cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

413

414

figure 17.56

donabédian

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à deux croix dédiée à Tēr Grigor. 22,5×25,5cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.57

Galicie (Ukraine). Lvov/Lviv. Intérieur de la cathédrale arménienne Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (1461). 23×23cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

415

416

figure 17.58

donabédian

Podolie (Ukraine). Kamenec-Podol’skiï/Kamjanec-Podilskyï. Chapelle de l’ Annonciation. Plaque à croix (1554). 27 ×19cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.59

417

Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï/Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à deux croix (1446). 59×47cm Photo Tatevik Sargsyan

figure 17.60 Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à deux croix et inscription (1474). 16×29,5cm Photo Tatevik Sargsyan

418 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.61

Bessarabie (Ukraine). Akkerman/Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï. Église arménienne Saint-Auxence. Plaque à croix non datée. 97,5 × 41,5 cm Photo Tatevik Sargsyan

419

figure 17.62

Trébizonde (Pont). Église du monastère St-Sauveur de Tous, façade sud Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian

420 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.63

421

Trébizonde (Pont). Église du monastère St-Sauveur de Tous. Niche dans le mur intérieur sud Photo Hrair Hawk Khatcherian

figure 17.64

Teleti (près de Tbilissi, Géorgie). Gauche: Plaque à croix avec inscription arménienne de 1681, dans son état originel (1992) ; Centre: Cette plaque, privée de son inscription (1997); Droite: Plaque inspirée de la précédente et récemment sculptée à Tbilissi, 10, rue M. Asatiani (nov. 2017) Photos Samvel Karapetyan (gauche, centre) et Patrick Donabédian (droite)

422 donabédian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.65

423

Tbilissi (Géorgie). Eglise arménienne Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix de 1417 (?), à gauche de l’ autel. 50 × 40,5 cm Photo Patrick Donabédian

424

figure 17.66

donabédian

Famagouste (Chypre). Eglise latine Ste-Anne, façade nord. Plaque à croix à inscription arménienne Photo Allan Langdale

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.67

Irak. Monastère Mar Behnam. Mausolée. Plaque à croix datée de 1171. 70 × 40 cm Photo Amir Karrak

425

426

figure 17.68

donabédian

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Façade ouest, partie nord Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

figure 17.69

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Façade ouest, partie sud Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

427

428

figure 17.70

donabédian

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1492). C. 47 × 29 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.71

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1603 ?). C. 33 × 30 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

429

430

figure 17.72

donabédian

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix. C. 41 × 28 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.73

431

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Intérieur de la chapelle sudest Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

432

figure 17.74

donabédian

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1604). C. 30 × 23 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.75

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sudest. Plaque à croix (1595). C. 60 × 33 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

433

434

figure 17.76

donabédian

Syrie. Alep. Église arménienne Quarante Martyrs. Chapelle sud-est. Plaque à croix (1610). C. 62 × 32 cm Photo Raffi K‘ort‘ošyan

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.77

435

Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVIIe-XVIIIe s.?) Photo Aršak Alpōyačean

436

figure 17.78

donabédian

Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVIIe-XVIIIe s. ?) Photo Aršak Alpōyačean

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.79

Égypte. Le Caire. Église Sainte-Mère de Dieu. Plaque à croix (XVe s.?) Photo Aršak Alpōyačean

437

438

donabédian

figure 17.80 Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-GVR001. 43 × 33 cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.81

439

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jacques de Nisibe. Plaque à croix (1613) nº ISF-HCB006. 50 × 37 cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

440

figure 17.82

donabédian

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Nersēs. Plaque à croix (1607) nº ISF-NRS001 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. 30×26cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.83

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Monastère Saint-Sauveur de Tous. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-APK049 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. 31 ×25 cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

441

442

figure 17.84

donabédian

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jean. Plaque à croix (1622) nº ISF-HVN014 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. 33×18cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

spécificité typologique des khatchkars diasporiques

figure 17.85

443

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Jacques de Nisibe. Plaque à croix (1614) nº ISF-HCB004 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. 26×23cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

444

figure 17.86

donabédian

Iran. Ispahan, Nouvelle-Djoulfa. Église Saint-Georges. Plaque à croix (1626) nº ISF-GVR006 [inventaire Khatchadourian-Basmadjian]. 25×21cm Photo Haroutioun Khatchadourian

chapter 18

Zwischen Jerusalem und Konstantinopel: die Spezifik der armenischen hymnographischen Kanones Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan

Es ist bekannt, dass die liturgischen Gesänge im 1600 Jahre alten Hymnarium der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche, dem Šarakan oder Šaraknoc‘, das mehrere Redaktionen erfahren hat und bis heute kontinuierlich im Gebrauch ist, in der Form der hymnographischen Kanones überliefert sind. Diese Kanones, eine byzantinische Erfindung, wurden von Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (688–735), dem berühmten Theologen, Philosophen, Hymnographen und Übersetzer, im 8. Jh. in Armenien eingeführt. Diese Form wurde allerdings schon in der konstitutiven Phase nicht originalgetreu aus dem Griechischen übernommen. Die Rezeption des Kanons in der armenischen Hymnographie erfuhr mehrere Stufen der Adaption. Nach der Eǰmiaciner Edition von 1861 beinhaltet das Šaraknoc‘, dessen letzte Redaktion im 15. Jh. erfolgte, 133 größere und kleinere Kanones. Hierbei machen sich die Spuren einiger redaktioneller Reduktionen in der lückenhaften Nummerierung der Kanones bemerkbar. In seiner aktuellen Form beginnt und endet das Hymnarium mit Marienkanones. Die ersten drei Kanones sind der Geburt und Verkündigung der Gottesgebärerin gewidmet. Der letzte Kanon, der aus einem alphabetischen Akrostichon aus 36 Strophen besteht, wurde speziell für das Fest Mariä Himmelfahrt verfasst, separat vom regulären älteren Kanonzyklus zu diesem Fest.1 Gattungsmäßig weicht dieser kanonisierte Hymnus vom klassischen Kanon ab und setzt eher die Tradition der byzantinischen Kontakia von Romanos Melodos fort, die in der armenischen Hymnographie im berühmten Hymnus an die Heilige

1 Die chronologischen Schichten des Šarakans sind schwer festzulegen. Traditionell werden die Šarakane zum Fest der Himmelfahrt Mariae (arm. „P‘oxowmn“, „Verap‘oxowmn“, „Nnǰowmn“: „Hinüberwechseln/Entschlafen der Gottesgebärerin“) Movsēs Xorenac‘i (ca. 410–490), Yovhannēs Mandakowni (ca. 403–490) und die späteren Kanones zum 2. und 3. Tag des Festes Nersēs Šnorhali († 1173) zugeschrieben. Der Akrostichon-Hymnus, der in der Handschriftenüberlieferung des 14./15. Jh.s nur promiscue in den Hymnarium-Codices eingeschlossen wird, stammt aus der Feder des Kirakos Erznkac‘i († 1356).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_020

446

drost-abgarjan

Hṙip‘sime und ihre Gefährtinnen2 von Komitas I Ałc‘ec‘i († 628) sowie in den „Ganj“-Gesängen rezipiert wurde.3 Eine weitere Abweichung von der regulären Gestalt der Kanones im Hymnarium, die sich durch mehrere Redaktionen durchgesetzt und etabliert hat, stellt der dem Step‘anos Siwnec‘i zugeschriebene4 Zyklus von „Großen Auferstehungshymnen“ dar.5 Dieser repräsentiert ein alternatives Kanon-Modell, das aus der früheren Stufe der Kanon-Rezeption in der armenischen Hymnologie stammt. Diese Auferstehungshymnen sind unter den Kanon-Nummern 125– 132 am Ende des Šaraknoc‘ überliefert, getrennt von den regulären Kanones der Osterzeit (Nr. 52–62). Ob dieses Modell in der präredaktionellen Phase vor Šnorhali flächendeckend im Gebrauch war, bleibt ungewiß. Mit dem „Ordnungs“-Textkorpus korrespondiert eine lose Reihe von 39 Magnificat- bzw. Mecac‘owsc‘ē6 – Gesängen zum Auferstehungsfest Christi. Diese sind nach dem Theophanie-Hymnenzyklus unter der Kanon-Nr. 13 gesammelt. Im aktuellen Beitrag geht es um die erste Einheit, die „Ordnung7 der Großen Segensgesänge zum Fest der Auferstehung unseres Herrn Jesus Christus“ («Կարգ Աւագ Օրհնութեանց Տեառն մերոյ Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի»), die vermutlich auf den Vorschlag von Step‘anos Siwnec‘i selbst, die armenischen Šarakane nach dem byzantinischen Kanonmuster zu ordnen, zurückgeht und die somit das erste armenisierte Kanon-Modell darstellt. Step‘anos’ acht Kanones bestehen aus zehn Oden bzw. Šarakanen, im Unterschied zu neun Oden im byzantinischen Kanon. Kompositionell sowie in der

2 Dieser Hymnus beginnt mit dem Incipit „Anjink‘ “ (Seelen), das der Hymnengattung mit alphabetischen Akrosticha den Namen gibt. Nach dem Komitas-Muster verfasste Šarakane nach dem 7. Jh. heißen Անձինք („Anjink‘ “). 3 Die Bezeichnung գանձ / „Ganj“ („Schatz“) im Armenischen ist ein persisches Lehnwort, das in der armenischen hymnographischen Nomenklatur für die Hymnen Grigor Narekac‘is (ca. 947–1003) reserviert ist, die meist mit dem Incipit „Ganj“ beginnen (vgl. Akrostichon: GRIGORS GESANG). 4 Es ist in der armenischen Forschung umstritten, ob Step‘anos neben der Initiative, das Kanonbzw. Oktoechos-Prinzip in Armenien durchzusetzen, auch die „Großen Auferstehungshymnen“ selbst verfasst hat. Die Autorenschaft von Step‘anos Siwnec‘i, der als Autor zahlreicher anderer Šarakane wie Hymnen für Märtyrer, Entschlafene sowie Pfingst- und Fastengesänge gilt, wird durch die Hymnographenlisten der Šarakan-Codices bezeugt. 5 Mit dem Terminus „Groß“ (աւագ), der im Armenischen auch „Haupt-“ oder „Älteste“ bedeuten kann, wird auch die Karwoche (Աւագ շաբաթ / „Awag Šabat‘“, „Große Woche“, vgl. Griechisch „Megalē Hebdomada“) vor dem Osterfest bezeichnet. 6 Vgl. typologisch den Terminus „Megalynarion“ in der Nomenklatur der griechischen Hymnographie, der sich ebenfalls an den Marienhymnus im Lukasevangelium (1,46) anlehnt. 7 „Karg“ (Ordnung) scheint in diesem Fall das terminologische Äquivalent der griechischen Bezeichnung „Kanon“ zu sein, zumindest als Vorschlag von Step‘anos.

zwischen jerusalem und konstantinopel

447

Anwendung folgen sie der Struktur des Oktoechos-Prinzips des byzantinischen Kanons. Die Zahl Zehn wurde von Step‘anos offensichtlich parallel zu den zehn eusebianischen Kanontafeln verwendet, zu deren Illuminierung er einen Kommentar verfasst hatte.8 Sie galt als eine vollkommene Zahl. Man sah in ihr die Summe der Zahlen 1 bis 4. Als vollkommene Zahl versinnbildlichte sie den Antitypos der 10 göttlichen Gebote, aber auch der Vollkommenheit der Kirche oder der christologischen Lehre. Man sah in ihr das Zusammenspiel der Einheit (1) der zwei Naturen Christi (2) und der Dreifaltigkeit (3), die in vier Evangelien (4) verkündet wird. Dieses Verständnis steht im Einklang mit der trinitarischen Struktur der Šarakane, deren drei Strophen den drei Personen Gottes gewidmet sind. Die ursprünglich zwei, dem Refrain vorgeschalteten Zeilen symbolisieren die zwei Naturen Christi. Bemerkenswert ist allerdings, dass die dritte Strophe eines jeden Šarakans, die in der armenischen hymnographischen Tradition üblicherweise der dritten Person Gottes, dem Hl. Geist gilt, bei Step‘anos durch eine Theotokion/Megalynarion-Strophe ersetzt wird. Damit kommt zwar Step‘anos dem byzantinischen Muster entgegen, das eine extra Magnifikat-Ode am Ende des Kanons als neunte Ode enthält. Er modifiziert jedoch dieses Kompositionsprinzip, indem er diese Ode zwar auslässt, aber den Marienpreis in jede Ode des Kanons als letzte, dritte Strophe einschließt. Aufgrund der Untersuchung des Direktoriums der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche (Typikon) Tonac‘oyc‘ (wörtl. „Festanzeiger“, Jerusalem 1970; Erstdruck unter Katholikos Symeon (1762)) sowie der aktuellen Festkalender von Eǰmiacin lässt sich feststellen, dass die Step‘anos-Ordnung zwar in der Osterliturgie selbst nicht gesungen wird, aber Teile davon, besonders die Ōrhnowt‘iwnŠarakane, an den Sonntagen des liturgischen Jahres bis zur Fastenzeit und an den 40 Tagen nach der Osteroktave stets in Anwendung sind. Das Prinzip der Mehrfachverwendung eines Šarakans ist für die liturgische Anwendung des Hymnariums grundsätzlich charakteristisch. Daher war es möglich, den Vorschlag von Step‘anos, der unmittelbar in Konstantinopel an den modernen Entwicklungen in der byzantinischen Literatur und der Reichskirche partizipierte und diese für das eigene Land nutzbar machen wollte, zu berücksichtigen, d.h. nicht völlig abzulehnen, sondern eingeschränkt, doch kreativ umzusetzen.

8 Vgl. Մեկնութիւնք խորանաց, Էջմիածին, 2004 [Auslegung der eusebianischen Kanontafeln, H. Vigen Xatschatrian (Etschmiadsin, 2004)].

448

drost-abgarjan

tabelle 18.1

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX.(I) IX.

Kanonstruktur bei Step‘anos Siwnec‘i und in der byzantinischen Hymnographie

Ōrhnesc‘owk‘ (Ex 15,1 [Ode 1]; Ps 97,1) Nayec‘arowk‘ (Dtn 32,1 [Ode 2]) Zihowr (Dtn 32,22 [Ode 2]) Canerowk‘ (Dtn 32,39 [Ode 2]) Hastatec‘aw (1 Kö 2,1 [Ode 3]; Ps 70,3) (I) Gišerac‘ ( Jes 26,9 [Ode 5]) Es asac‘i ( Jes 38,10–20 [Ode 11]) Ōrhnec‘ēk‘ ( Jes 42,10–17) Nełowt‘ean ( Jon 2,3 [Ode 6]) Tērzlowr (Hab 3,2 [Ode 4])

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Biblische Ode (Ex 15,1) Ode (Dtn 32,1) Ode (1Kö 2,1) Ode (Hab 3,1) Ode (Jes 26,1) Ode (Jon 2) Ode (Dan 3,26) Ode (Dan 3,51) Ode (Lk 1,46)

Die folgende vergleichende Tabelle der beiden Kanon-Versionen veranschaulicht die Rezeption des byzantinischen Kanons in Armenien durch Step‘anos Siwnec‘i. Wie man dieser Tabelle entnehmen kann, orientieren sich die armenischen Kanones der ersten Rezeptionsstufe an der kompositionellen Struktur des byzantinischen Materials (vgl. den Bestand und die Reihenfolge der Muster-Oden Ex 15, Dtn 32, 1 Kö 2, Jes 26 und Jon 2, sowie Hab 3 unter modifizierter Reihenfolge). Der Hauptunterschied besteht in der Weglassung der letzten drei Oden des byzantinischen Kanons (Lobgesang des Asarja und der drei Jünglinge im Feuerofen in Dan 3, 26; 51 und Magnificat der Gottesmutter in Lk 1,46), die durch die intensivere Verwendung des großen Liedes des Mose (Dtn 32) und der Oden aus dem Buch des Propheten Jesaja ersetzt werden: das Gebet zur Beschleunigung des Gerichts (Jes 26,9), das Lied Hiskijas (38,10) und der Siegeshymnus (42,10). Bemerkenswerterweise bilden gerade diese ausgelassenen Muster-Oden, die vom ganzen kompositionellen Gerüst übriggeblieben sind, den Kern des nächsten Kanon-Modells, das als Endergebnis der Rezeptionsentwicklung des Kanons im textus receptus des Hymnariums der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche (Eǰmiacin 1861) überliefert ist und die reguläre Form der heutigen Kanonstruktur darstellt:

zwischen jerusalem und konstantinopel

1

449

Armenischer hymnographischer Kanon (Tabellarische Struktur)

Hymnographische Ode (= Šarakan) (Incipit der bibl. Oden oder Psalmen)

Biblische Oden

Ex 15,1–19 Ōrhnowt‘iwn oder Ōrhnesc‘owk‘ Asōmen / Cantemus „Lasst uns singen/preisen/segnen“ II. Harc‘ / Tōnpaterōn / Patrum Dan 3,52–56 „Gepriesen/gesegnet bist du, Herr, du Gott unserer Väter“ Dan 3,57–88 III. Gorcatown / Tōnergōn / Creatorum (Beth/Oikos/Stanza/der „Werke“) „Preiset den Herrn, all ihr Werke (gorck‘) des Herrn“ Lk 1,46–55 IV. Mecac‘owsc‘ē / Megalynei / Magnificat „Hochpreist meine Seele den Herrn“ V. Ołormea / Eleison / Miserere Ps 50,3 „Erbarme dich meiner, o Gott“ VI. Tēryerknic‘ / Ton Kyrionektōnouranon / Ps 148,1 / Dominum de coelis „Lobet den Herrn vom Himmel her“ VII. Mankownk‘ / Paides / Servi Ps 112,1 „Lobsingt, ihr Diener des Herrn“ VIII. Hambarji / Ēra / Levavi Ps 120,1 „Ich hebe meine Augen empor zu den Bergen“ IX. Čašow / Šarakane des Wortgottesdienstes während des Abendmahls. I.

Hier folgt die inhaltliche Struktur eines armenischen hymnographischen Kanons nicht strikt dem byzantinischen Muster, sondern hält sich an die älteren, später christianisierten Prinzipien der synagogalen Liturgie, indem der Kanon sich terminologisch und kompositionell am dreigliedrigen Aufbau des Musters orientiert. Diese Strukturelemente sind: der Preis für den Segen Gottes als hymnische Antwort auf göttlichen Segen (hebr. Braḵah, arm. Ōrhnut‘iwn), Ersuchen bzw. Bitte um seine Barmherzigkeit (hebr. Baqašah) und Dank(barkeit) für deren Erfüllung bzw. fröhlich bekennende Danksagung für den Empfang der Gnaden Gottes (hebr. Hodayah, arm. Gohowt‘iwn). Diese Elemente sind kumulativ in die Komposition des armenischen Kanons, so wie er heute überliefert ist, eingeflossen. Dem Braḵah-Prinzip entspre-

450

drost-abgarjan

chen die Ōrhnut‘iwn-Šarakangesänge, dem Baqašah-Prinzip die penitentialen Ołormea-Šarakane und dem Hodayah-Prinzip die Šarakanenreihe „Harc‘ “. Das armenische Kanonsystem stellt somit eine Rezeption des byzantinischen ohne Aufhebung der ursprünglichen christlich-orientalischen Tradition des liturgischen Gesangs dar. Das Kanon-Prinzip diente anscheinend hauptsächlich als Strukturelement für die Systematisierung bzw. Reorganisation des vorhandenen armenischen hymnographischen Materials unter Beibehaltung der traditionellen Inhalte und Texte. Im Unterschied zum byzantinischen Kanon integriert der armenische Kanon stärker die Psalmen, die im byzantinischen Kanon als Mustergesänge nicht vorkommen. Die Entwicklung der Rezeptionsgeschichte des hymnographischen Kanons in Armenien bedarf noch weiterer Untersuchungen. Hier eine Probe aus der deutschen Übersetzung des Armenischen Hymnariums, die im Rahmen eines DFG-Projektes entstanden und zur Drucklegung in der Schriftenreihe „Patrologia Orientalis“ (Rom) vorbereitet wird. Als Zeichen tiefer Verbundenheit und im Gedenken an Karen Nikitich, den Gutachter meiner Dissertation zu komparativen Studien der byzantinischen und armenischen Literatur, möchte ich ihm den folgenden Text in Übersetzung von Hermann Goltz (†) und mir mit leichten Modifikationen widmen.

2

Ordnung der Segenslieder der Auferstehung unseres Herrn Jesus Christos (Erster Kanon des Step‘anos) Ōrhnesc‘owk‘ / Segen(singen) lasst uns/ 1. Ton / (Ex 15,1 [Ode 1]; Ps 97,1) Singen lasst uns [einen] neuen [Ge]sang Gott, unsrem Retter, der uns aus des Feindes Knechtschaft rettete, der Starke durch seine Macht, und uns erlöste, der Geehrte mit Ehren. Du nahmst es auf dich, Gott, für uns hinaufzugehen ans Kreuz und an es zu nageln die Altheit unsrer Sünden, wofür wir tief verehren und hoch segnen deine unsägliche Niedrigkeit. Jene, die erwählte Gott aus allen Geschlechtern der Erde, geboren zu werden aus ihr, uns zu erlösen aus den Diensten der Götzen, als Gottesgebärerin lasst uns sie immer verehren.

zwischen jerusalem und konstantinopel

451

Nayec‘arowk‘ / Lasst uns aufmerken (Dt 32,1 [Ode 2]) Ich merkte auf deinen allesvermögenden Heilsplan, und mit Furcht ehren werde ich dich, Christos. Mit deinem Gekreuzigt-Werden tötetest du den Tod und aus dem Quell deiner Seite tränktest du den Erdkreis mit der Unsterblichkeit. Gottesgebärerin, makellose Jungfrau, zu dir nehmen wir Zuflucht, halte Fürsprache bei Christos für unsre Seelen. Zihowr / Denn Feuer (Dt 32,22 [Ode 2]) Mit dem Feuer deiner Gottheit, Christos, verbranntest du die Tore der Hölle und löstest den Tod auf, und Unsterblichkeit spendetest du dem Geschlecht der Menschen. Von deinem Weingarten der Unsterblichkeit kosteten wir und sahen, dass du mild und recht bist, Herr, und wegen der Rettung aller kamst du in die Welt hier. Auf der Heiligen, der Gottesgebärerin, Fürsprache spende den Verehrern deiner allheiligen Dreifaltigkeit hier die Auferstehung in der Hoffnung des Lebens der Ewigkeiten. Canerowk‘ / Lasst uns erkennen (Dt 32,39 [Ode 2]) Wir erkannten dich, Christos, ewiger König, und sahen dich, Fürst des Todes und des Lebens, denn du bist Herr, und es ist kein anderer außer dir.9 Mit deiner hocherhobenen Rechten wirst du Rache nehmen am Feind, und deine Pfeile werden sein Blut trinken, denn du bist Herr und nur du, und kein anderer sonst außer dir. Der du erstandst von den Toten, du erneuertest das Geschlecht der Menschen,

9 Vgl. Dtn 32,39.

452

drost-abgarjan

auf der Heiligen Flehen hin befestige den Grund deiner heiligen Kirche, denn du bist Herr, und es ist kein anderer außer dir. Hastatec‘aw / Es wurde gefestigt (1 Kö 2,1 [Ode 3]; Ps 70,3) Meine Feste sei, Herr, der du mit deinem sieghaften Kreuz die Hölle zerstörtest, weil du in drei Tagen erstandst, den Gefallenen aufrichtetest, den Adám. Hilf, du Retter, Gott, uns, den sich hier deines Kreuzes Rühmenden, die auf dich, Herr, gehofft, und rette, [der du] allein Wohltäter [bist], aus Drangsal unsre Seelen. Dich allein Gesegnete unter den Frauen,10 Mutter und immer Jungfrau und geistiges Licht, Gebärende unsres Schöpfers, unaufhörlich lasst uns preisen. Gišerac‘ / Aus Nächten ( Jes 26,9 [Ode 5]) Aus Nächten frühkommend hochsegnen wir dich, Christos Gott, der du dich für uns niederbeugtest, alles auf dich nahmst und das Kreuz erduldetest. Wir wurden erleuchtet von deinen Weisungen, König der Könige, Gott, der du auflöstest des Todes Fürstenmacht, alles auf die nahmst und das Kreuz erduldetest. Mit cherubischen Flügeln umborgen wurdest du, Heilige, Gottesgebärerin, Jungfrau und Mutter und Wohnstatt der Gottheit, hochgesegnet von allen apostolischen Verkündigungen. Es asac‘i / Ich sagte ( Jes 38,10–20 [Ode 11]) Hoffnung und Auferstehung des Geschlechts der Menschen, Christos Gott,

10

Vgl. Lk 1,42.

zwischen jerusalem und konstantinopel

453

mache die Krankheit meines Geistes lebendig gleich wie einstens den Hiskia. Die Leiden und den Tod nahmst du auf dich, Lebensgeber allersamt, mache heil die Krankheit meines Geistes gleich wie einstens den Hiskia. Zu dir nehmen wir Zuflucht, Stiftshütte und Tempel Gottes des Wortes, Mariam Mutter und Jungfrau, halte Fürsprache bei Christos für unsre Seelen. Ōrhnec‘ēk‘ / Segnet ( Jes 42,10–17) Das von allen Geschöpfen geehrte und vom Ende bis zum Ende der Erde tiefverehrte, das von der Jungfrau körpergewordene Wort lasst uns segnen mit tönendem Gesang. Der gezogen kommt von Edom11 mit erhobener Posaune, im Kriege aufstehend warf er nieder den unsichtbaren Amalek, das in die Hölle herabgekommene Wort lasst uns segnen mit tönendem Gesang. Aufgang vom Vater, eins in der Ehre dem Heiligen Geist, Leben des Geschlechtes der Menschen, der heute auferstand von den Toten, das in die Himmel aufgefahrene Wort lasst uns segnen mit tönendem Gesang. (I) Nełowt‘ean / In Bedrängnis ( Jon 2,3 [Ode 6]) Der du hörtest, Gott, das Rufen des Jona aus dem Leibe des Wals,12 Retter seiend, erlöse auch mich vom unsichtbaren Feinde, [du,] der du sitzt auf cherubischem Stuhl. Der du dir wieder erwähltest zum Kündenden für die Niniviten

11 12

Vgl. Jes 63,1. Anspielung auf Jon 2,3.

454

drost-abgarjan

den vom Wal Geraubten durch dreitägige Herabkunft in die Hölle, auch mich Vielsündigen entlasse aus den Banden des Todes zu deinem Leben der Ewigkeiten. Du kamst zur Rettung deiner Geschöpfe, zum gleichen Bild wurdest du mit dem irdenen Menschen, die Sünde tötetest [du] und des Todes Gefangene befreitest [du] von der Sünde. Tērzlowr / Herr, die Kunde (Hab 3,2 [Ode 4]) Es wunderten sich die Heerscharen der Himmel, da auf dich du nahmst des Knechts Gestalt, und der Prophet entsetzt sagte, ich hörte deine Kunde und fürchtete mich,13 ich merkte auf deine Werke und entsetzte mich. Weil du, der [du] eher als die Ewigkeiten Sohn des Vaters und mit dem Geiste eins in der Ehre [ist], gekommen und inmitten zweier Lebewesen14 erschienen [bist], du wurdest erhöht am Kreuz, du unternahmst die Besteigung der Rettung,15 da gelöst wurden die Wehen des Todes. Du erschienst zur Rettung deiner Geschöpfe, nicht vom Vater dich trennend, nahmst du mit Willen auf dich Kreuz und Begräbnis, und auferstanden [bist du] von den Toten mit Fürstenmacht, da gelöst wurden die Wehen des Todes. Gottesgebärerin, nichtbrautgewordene Heilige, dich flehen wir an mit unaufhörlichem Ton, die du in dir das wesende Wort des Vaters trugst und gebarst in unaussprechlicher Weise, bei ihm halte immerfort Fürsprache für unsre Seelen. 13 14 15

Vgl. Hab 3,2. Vgl. Hab 3,2. [Der Text mag hier das Hinaufsteigen ans Kreuz als Instrument der Rettung und Erlösung im Sinn haben. Anmerkung der Redaktion.]

part 3 Interacting with a Wider Cultural Context

∵

chapter 19

The Semitic Lord of Heaven and the Buddhist Guardian of the North: Another Contamination in Iranian Syncretism? Pavel B. Lurje

It is well known that Iranian religion before Islam was very open to various foreign influences. Although the core of Zoroaster’s teaching was preserved in larger or smaller amounts, many customs, concepts and deities originated from various neighboring lands: Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean lands and India. The pre-Christian religion of Armenia is very close to the Iranian. “Until the late third century A.D., Armenia and Iran shared also a common religion”, as James Russell coined in his book “Zoroastrianism in Armenia”;1 this statement is apparently also valid for the assimilation and domestication of elements of beliefs alien to Zoroastrian core and to Armenian ancestral beliefs. Michael Shenkar in his recent book made a useful summary of pre-Christian Armenian temples,2 and the idea of writing this paper came from reading afresh this data. The list of these temples follows: three in the name of goddess Anahit, one in the name of god Tir, one of the god Aramazd, one of the god Vahagn, one of the god Mihr, one of the goddess Nanē, one of the goddess Astłik and one of the god Baršamin. The first five gods have clear Zoroastrian counterparts, Anahitā, Tīrī,̆ Ahura Mazdā, Vr̥ θragna and Miθra, respectively; Nanē, of ancient Mesopotamian provenance, is widely attested in the Iranian world (especially its eastern part). Astłik here is the only genuine Armenian theonym, from astł = Indo-European *stér- “star” with diminutive suffix -ik. Of our central interest here is the god Baršamin. He is attested several times in Armenian sources.

1 J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 4. 2 M. Shenkar, Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconography of Deities in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2014), p. 19. Meanwhile, a useful book on the iconography of pre-Christian deities of Armenia appeared: M. Compareti, Le raffigurazioni di divinità pre-cristiane nella produzione fittile dell’Armenia ellenistica (Venezia: Cafoscarina, 2016).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_021

458

lurje

Baršam is the giant and tyrant in Assyria, and Aram, the progenitor of Armenians, defeats him; Baršam’s image is still venerated by Syrians.3 Baršam is the person from whom Vahagn, the leader of Armenians, stole straw in the legend of the formation of the Milky Way;4 the precious statue of Baršamin was taken by Tigranes the Great from Assyria, and later it was adorned and installed in T’ordan on the Euphrates;5 the same (?) statue and the temple of Baršimnia at T’ordan were destroyed by Gregory the Illuminator.6 James Russell proposes serious arguments that Armenian Baršamin was associated with Aramazd.7 Armenian Baršamin has been explained already by 19th-century scholars as borrowing from the Aramaic theonym Baʿal Šamin, lit. “Lord of Heaven”.8 This god probably appeared in the Akkadian form baʿalu ina šamê as early as in 14th century BCE in Amarna documents; later he (Baʿal Šamem) became chief god of Phoenicians (especially in Byblos). Baʿal Šamin is widely attested among Arameans in Egypt, Palmyra, Dura Europos, in Petra, Hatra, among Northern and Southern Arabs (Ḏū Samāwī) and even among Mandaeans. His main functions are heaven and weather, thunder; he too is a patron of certain ruling 3 Մովսէս Խորենացի, Պատմութիւն հայոց, Քննական բնագիրը եւ ներած.՝ Մ. Աբեղյան, Ս. Յարութիւնեան; Լրացումն.՝ Ա.Բ. Սարգսեան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ., 1991) [Moses of Khorene, History of Armenia, eds. M. Abeghyan, S. Yarutyunyan, A. Sargsyan (Yerevan: Publishing House of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1991)], p. 45; tr. Исторія Арменіи Моисея Хоренскаго, пер. Н. Эминъ (Москва: Въ типографіи Каткова и Ко, 1858) [Moses of Khorene’s History of Armenia, tr. N. Émin (Moscow: Publishing house “Katkov and Co”, 1858)], I, 14, 50. 4 Անանիա Շիրակացի, Տիեզերագիտություն եւ տոմար, աշխատ. Ա. Աբրահամյանի, խմբ. Հ. Աճառյան (Երեւան: Հայպետհրատ, 1940) [Ananias of Shirak, Cosmography and theory of calendar, eds. A. Abrahamyan, H. Ajaryan (Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1940)], p. 30; tr. Анания Ширакаци, Космография, пер. К.С. Тер-Давтян и С.С. Аревшатян (Ереван: Изд-во АН АрмССР, 1962) [Ananias of Shirak, Cosmography, trs. K.S. Ter-Davtyan and S.S. Arevshatyan (Erevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of ArmSSR, 1962)], pp. 68–69. 5 Մովսէս Խորենացի, p. 128; tr. История Армении, p. 92. 6 Ագաթանգեղայ պատմութիւն հայոց (Թիֆլիս: տպ. Ն. Աղանեանի, 1914) [Agathangelos, History of Armenia (Tiflis: N. Aghanyan, 1914)], p. 398; tr. Агатангелос, История Армении. Пер. К.С. Тер-Давтян и С.С. Аревшатян (Ереван: Наири, 2004) [Agathangelos, History of Armenia, trs. K.S. Ter-Davtyan and S.S. Arevshatyan (Erevan: Nairi, 2004)], p. 784, CIX; the translators propose to see here not god, but goddess, apparently following the Greek text of Agathangelos, where Βαρσαμήνη; all other sources leave no doubt that he was male god (already H. Gelzer, “Zur armenischen Götterlehre,” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Philologisch-historische Classe 48; 1896): pp. 99–148, here pp. 119–120). 7 Russell, Zoroastrianism, pp. 153, 169–174. 8 Probably, first N. Émin (История Армении, p. 291, n. 209); P. de Lagarde, G. Hoffman apud Gelzer, “Zur armenischen Götterlehre”, esp. pp. 119–122 et passim.

another contamination in iranian syncretism?

459

dynasties or clans. Baʿal Šamin is usually depicted as a bearded man with halo holding a scepter; his most common symbol is eagle, less often bull or lion; he was usually identified with Zeus by Greeks.9 Although Baršamin came to Armenia from Semitic world (the fact documented, beside his name, by Moses’ reference to Syrians venerating Baršam and the Assyrian origin of his statue at Tʿordan), a certain role of Iranians in the transmission of his cult is evident: the Armenian form of the name with r in the place of Semitic l needs explanation.10 This explanation was in fact given in 1895 by H. Gelzer, who saw here Iranian mediation, taking into account the marginal position of l in Old Iranian and the inclination to replace it with r in more widely accepted borrowings, such as Bābiru from Akkadian Bāb-ilu “Babylon”.11 Attestations of Baʿalshamin on Iranian soil are weaker: brbšm[y]n in Parthian is the name Bar Ba[ʿal]šamin of an Aramaean inhabitant of Dura Europos,12 and his apparent namesake brbγšmyn in a Christian Sogdian text is a regular rendering of Barbaʿšamīn, Barbasymas, the Syriac martyr.13 What attracted my curiosity towards Baršamin is the very similar theonym in Sogdiana: βr’yšmn /Vrēšman/. The consonance of two names is evident and the difference in vowels is surely surmountable; Sogdian β corresponds regularly to b in Western Iranian. Sogdian βr’yšmn finds parallels in the theonyms Vrrīśąmaṃ and Βρησομανο14 in closely related eastern Iranian Khotanese and Bactrian languages, respectively.15 9

10

11 12

13

14

15

The detailed study of Baʿalšamem (with Armenian data included) has been recently published: H. Niehr, Baʿalšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 123; Studia Phoenicia XVII; Louvain etc.: Peeters, 2004); the above passage is completely dependent on this volume. In the 40-pages list of Semitic loans in Armenian by H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, I. Theil (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897), pp. 281–321. I could not find any other instance of development of Semitic l into Armenian r. Gelzer, “Zur armenischen Götterlehre”, p. 121. В.А. Лившиц, Парфянская ономастика. Отечественные исследования (Санкт-Петербург: Филологический факультет, 2010) [V.A. Livshits. Parthian onomastics. Indigenous studies (St.-Petersburg: Philological Faculty, 2010)], p. 74; R. Schmitt, Personnamen in parthischen epigraphischen Quellen (Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II, Fasc. 5. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016), pp. 77–78, no. 131. P.B. Lurje, “Personal names in Sogdian texts,” in Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II, Fasc. 8 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), p. 144, no. 304. In a personal name from Dalverzin tepe, Sims-Williams, “Bactrian Personal Names,” in Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II, Fasc. 7 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), p. 54, no. 106. E. Provasi, “Sanskrit and Chinese in Sogdian Garb,” in Buddhism among Iranian Peoples

460

lurje

Sogdian Vrēšman and Khotanese Vrrīśąmaṃ, however, is name of a Buddhist deity; he is the Indian Vaiśravaṇa and at first glance does not have anything to do with Iranian religions. The popular variant form of this name is Vaiśramaṇa (in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit), Pali Vessamaṇa, Uigur Bisamin, Chinese Pisha(men) 毘沙門, Early Middle Chinese *bji-şai-mən and ultimately Japanese Bishamonten.16 In Hindu tradition, Vaiśravaṇa is the side-name of Kubera, the god of richness; in Buddhism he gains extreme popularity as guardian of northern directions and chief of the four guardians of the world (lokapālas), or Heavenly kings. He is attested in the Buddhist Sogdian invocation Avalokiteśvarasyanāmaṣṭāśatakastotra (P8, 42) in the list of deities in Sanskrit and (in the case of first three of them) their Sogdian correspondences: nm’cw βr’m pr’xm’ ’zrw’ ’yntr ’ ’δδβγ mx’tyβ wyšprkr n’r’y’n βr’yšmn “I pay homage to Brahma—Zurvan (god of time), to Indra—Adhvagh (“great god”, i.e. Ahura Mazda), to Mahadeva (i.e. Shiva)—Weshparkar (Vayu, god of wind), to Narayana (i.e. Vishnu) and to Vreshman”.17 Another passage with Vreshman is found in Sogdian Vessantara Jataka, the popular Buddhist story in free rendering rather than in verbatim translation. Closer to the end of the text, a “rishi-brahman” sees Sudhashan, the main hero, and mistakes him as a god and then dismisses his idea. Sudhashan is not Zurvan (Brahma) because Zurvan has a beard; not Adhvagh (Indra) because Adhvagh has the third eye; not Weshparkar (Shiva) because Weshparkar has three faces, not Narayana (Vishnu) because Narayana has 16 hands, and not Vreshman because Vreshman’s whole body is dressed in armor.18 In Khotan, Vrrīśąmaṃ gains a special position as one of the protectors of the kingdom. In this function he is mentioned several times in the texts both in Khotanese and Tibetan.19

16 17

18

19

of Central Asia, eds. M. de Chiara et alii (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013): pp. 191–308, here pp. 265–266; P. Lurje, “Personal names,” pp. 143– 144, no. 302. Provasi, “Sanskrit,” pp. 265–266. Edition Émile Benveniste: Textes Sogdiens. Édités, traduits et commentés par É. Benveniste (Mission Pelliot; Série In-Quarto III; Paris: Geuthner, 1940), p. 107. Main reference for identifications is still H. Humbach, “Vayu, Śiva und der Spiritus Vivens im ostiranischen Synkretismus,” in Monumentum H.S. Nyberg I (Acta Iranica IV; Téhéran-Liége: Bibliotheque Pehlevi, 1975): pp. 397–408. Edition Émile Benveniste: rty kδ ’xw βr’yšmn x’y rty ’xw ’nγt’k mz’yn ptm’wγtk x’y rty L’ ’xw βr’yšmn xcy. Vessantara Jātaka. Texte sogdien. Édité, traduit et commenté par É. Benveniste (Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale; Série In-Quarto IV; Paris: Geuthner, 1946), pp. 920–922. H.W. Bailey, “Hvatanica IV,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 10, No. 4 (1942): pp. 887–924, here pp. 912, 918–920; J. Williams, “The Iconography of Khotanese Painting,” East and West, N.S., vol. 23, Nos. 1–2 (March—June 1973): pp. 109–154, here pp. 114; 132 ff.

another contamination in iranian syncretism?

461

The metathetic form Vrēšman coexists in Eastern Middle Iranian with more regular borrowings: Sogdian β’yšrβn,20 Bactrian Βησραμανο, Khotanese vīśramanu. From the above we see that Vreshman obtained a special high position in the Buddhist pantheon of Sogdiana and Khotan and below we put together indications that he stepped beyond the purely Buddhist Sogdian contexts.21 The name βr’yšmβntk “Slave of Vreshman” appears in the epitaph on the magnificent Sino-Sogdian sarcophagus of Wirkak (494–16.06.579) from Xi’an;22 he is the oldest son of the deceased. All the other names in the inscription—as well as the rich iconographic program on the sarcophagus—have few Buddhist connotations if any.23 The name of the deceased is wyrk’k, lit. “small wolf, Wulfila”; his father is wn’wk “victorious”; grandfather rštβntk “slave of (deity of) rightfulness”; his wife wy’wsyh “dawn, Aurora”; and younger sons δrymtβntk “slave of Demeter” and pr’wtβntk, probably “slave of Fravashi?”.24 We can add that in the short Chinese redaction of the epitaph, βr’yšmβntk is rendered as Pisha, i.e. Vaishravana.25 More important is the iconographic aspect of Sogdian Vreshman, to which Frantz Grenet addressed a special paper.26 Outlining the special position of Vreshman in Sogdian Buddhist texts, he analyses his common depiction as fully armed warrior stepping on a dwarf. Further he recognizes the warrior with a dwarf under his feet among the images of Sogdian gods in Panjakent paintings. Now another, third attestation of this deity came to light: the painting of the northern wall of room 2, object XXVI from Panjakent.27 20 21 22

23

24 25 26

27

P8, 50: eight lines later than βr’yšmn! here as mahārāja, the heavenly king. We know virtually nothing of non-Buddhist culture of Khotan. Y. Yoshida, “The Sogdian version of the new Xian inscription,” in Les Sogdiens en Chine, eds. E. de la Vaissière, E. Trombert (Études thématiques 17; Paris: École française d’ExtrèmeOrient, 2005): pp. 57–72, here p. 60, line 30. Maybe a scene from Komāyaputta-jātaka, as explained by Zsuzsanna Gulácsi and Jason BeDuhn, “The Religion of Wirkak and Wiyusi: the Zoroastrian Iconographic Program on a Sogdian Sarcophagus from Sixth-Century Xi’an”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Vol. 26 (2012 [2016]), pp. 1–32, esp. 17–18. Lurje, “Personal names,” pp. 95–96, no. 115; 181, no. 443; 330, no. 1019; 408–409, no. 1306; 424, no. 1375; 426, no. 1381. Interestingly his brother δrymtβntk /Žēmatvande/ is rendered as Weimo (维摩), i.e. Vimalakīrti, maybe as a loose transcription. F. Grenet, “Vaiśravaṇa in Sogdiana: About the Origins of Bishamon-ten,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology IV (1995–1996): pp. 277–297; idem, “Avatars de Vaishravana: les étapes sogdienne et tibétaine,” Actes du colloque “La Sérinde, terre d’échanges” (13–15 février 1996) (Paris, Ecole du Louvre, 2000): pp. 169–179, also on identification of Vaiśravaṇa and Farro/Xvarenah in Kushan perion. Б.И. Маршак, В.И. Распопова и др., Отчет о раскопках древнего Пенджикента в 2002

462

lurje

In Khotan, the depictions of Vaishravana obtain a special position;28 sometimes he is rendered as a god in heavy armor above the dwarf or a flying genius. Williams (op. cit.) thinks that his imagery was formed in Khotan and in the recent Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism it is said that “Vaiśravaṇa may have originated as a Central Asian deity, perhaps in the kingdom of Khotan, where he was believed to have been the progenitor of the royal lineage”.29 The similarities between Baʿl Šamin and Vrēšman, apart from their names, are rather few (especially given the paucity of sources). In Palmyra Baʿl Šamin is sometimes depicted in full armor, but not always; on the relief from Lyon museum he is in civil dress, unlike armored Bel on the opposite side of the panel. On Panjakent paintings, Vrēšman is standing next to the most popular goddess, Nanaia. In Palmira he is often associated with Allat (who has some similarities to Nanaia) and on the demotic Aramaic papyrus Amherst (63, XVII 7–19) “The ceremony [of New Year—PL] culminates in exchange of blessings between Nanai and Baal of Heaven”.30 Baʿalšamem was the patron of ruling family of Byblos and Vrrīśąmaṃ of that of Khotan. How can it all be combined? A possible scenario is that Baʿalšamin / Barshamin entered at certain moment Iranian (Parthian?) religion from the western side. Similar incorporations are well known to us: Nanaia from Mesopotamia, Demeter from Greece,31 Sisinnius/Sasan from Eastern Mediterranean,32

28 29 30

31

32

г (Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2003) [B.I. Marshak, V.I. Raspopova et alii, Report on excavations of Ancient Panjakent in 2002 (St.-Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers, 2003)], fig. 106; it is worth noting that B.I. Marshak did not accept Grenet’s explanation and identified this god with Zoroastrian Srosh (Маршак, Распопова, Отчет, p. 48). Taking into account the Hindu association of Vaiśravaṇa and Kubera one could probably explore the possibility that a drinker-god on Sogdian silver vessels and wooden carvings, close to images of Kubera or Dionysus, can represent Vrešman instead. But he is never dressed in armour. Five images in Khotan oasis and two on manuscripts from Dunhuang associated with Khotan, see Williams, “The Iconography,” p. 132 ff. R.E. Buswell Jr. and D.S. Lopez Jr, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton— Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013), s.v. Vaiśravaṇa. R.C. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Arameans,” Studia Aramaica. New Sources and New Approaches, eds. M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, M.P. Weitzman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 206 ff.; non uidi, quoted in Niehr, Baʿalšamem, p. 100. N. Sims-Williams, “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders,” in Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams (Proceedings of the British Academy 116; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): pp. 225–242, here p. 228. M. Schwartz, “Sesen: a durable East Mediterranean God in Iran,” in Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995, Pt. 1:

another contamination in iranian syncretism?

463

Serapis from Hellenized Egypt,33 etc. Nanaia, Demeter and Serapis are unknown in Western Iran, only in the East and (in the former case) in Armenia and ancestral lands of Parthia. At some point in Eastern Iran Vare Šaman (vel sim.) met Buddhist *Veśramaṇa (a form expected in Gandhari) and they combined, probably because of the proximity of names.34 The “alliance” of these gods gave way to the growth of importance of Vrešman / Bishamon in Eastern Iranian Buddhism and its later developments. Such a scenario cannot be excluded, but is there a possibility of explaining irregularities in Vrēšman without use of Baʿal Šamin and not incorporating unnecessary facts? At any event, the metathesis *Vēšraman > Vrēšman finds a number of parallels in Sogdian and Bactrian languages;35 βr’yšmnβntk in the Xi’an inscription is rendered in Chinese as Pisha, i.e. Bishamon. Armenian authors had a clear idea of Semitic origins of Barshamin. More problematic is the appearance of Vrēšman in Panjakent paintings which are virtually void of Buddhist elements. In this connection I would like to address the Sogdian text recently discovered in Lushun and published by Yutaka Yoshida.36 It is a series of well-wishing phrases with many names of Iranian deities, heroes, mythological beings, and pure elements: “May you be wise like Simurgh”, “May you be shining afar like pure gold!”, “May you be a brave rider like brave Rustam!”, “May you be knowing human beings like (God) Khupākh!”, “May you be fragrant like the light paradise!”, etc. Line 16–17 reads šyr’nk’ry pwny’nk’r’k βy[mkxw] / [ ](.)’ym xwt’w ooo “May you be righteous and pious like King []ēm!”, the name is left unexplained. It is important here to note that pwny’nkr’k “pious” has a Buddhist Indian root, punya. This word is common in Buddhist contexts, although it

33 34

35 36

Old and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. N. Sims-Williams (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998): pp. 9–11. Sims-Williams, “Ancient Afghanistan,” p. 228. A similar phenomenon might occur with Bactrian goddess Ommα. Nicholas Sims-Williams proposed to derive her name from Old Iranian *u(s)-šmā- “growing one” (N. SimsWilliams, “The name of Kushan goddess Ομμα”, in Studia Philologica Iranica, Gherardo Gnoli Memorial Volume, eds. E. Morano, E. Provasi, A. Rossi (Roma: Scienze e Lettere, 2017), pp. 449–453). The secondary contamination of Bactrian Ommα and Indian Umā, the consort of Shiva, cannot be denied because on Kushan coins she obtains position next to Οηþο (= Shiva). Sims-Williams, “Bactrian Personal names,” p. 54. Y. Yoshida, “Heroes of the Shahnama in a Turfan Sogdian Text: a Sogdian Fragment Found in the Lushun Otani collection,” in Sogdians, their precursors, contemporaries and heirs. Based on proceedings of conference “Sogdians at Home and Abroad” held in memory of Boris Il’ich Marshak (1933–2006), eds. P.B. Lurje, A.I. Torgoev (St.-Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers, 2013): pp. 201–218.

464

lurje

appears in Manichaean Sogdian also. One can look to Buddhist parallels of the name of king as well. And indeed, we find them as Araṇemi. The king Araṇemi is the hero of the extremely popular jātaka, which is attested in large number of Central Asian traditions: Tocharian, Tumshuquise, Turkic, Chinese and eventually Sogdian, where fragments about ’rn’ym are found among the Turfan texts.37 If we admit the popularity of Araṇemi transgressing beyond the borders of the Buddhist community, we can equally admit the same of the even more popular Vrēšman. In this case, the addition of Baʿal Šamin to the Vaiśravana / Vrēšman history is unnecessary; but still one has to bear in mind this possibility. The Armenian language was not taught in St.-Petersburg State University during my studies in the 1990s. In searching for the possibility to learn Grabar my course-mate and I were advised to contact Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan, the maître of Armenian studies in Petersburg. He immediately and enthusiastically accepted us and once a week we were coming to Karen Nikitich’s home on Orbeli Street for lessons. Naturally, we started with the alphabet, and Karen Nikitich gave us a table (already printed on computer) with Armenian letters, their Greek correspondences and numeric values. There were no Latin or Cyrillic transcriptions of letters, our teacher thought Greek was enough. The further lessons were also of the “old school” type. We were reading and translating from Moses of Khorene and later P‘awstos, he was commenting on eventually each word, but there were no exercises, no practices, very little of grammar. This kind of teaching requires serious organization and devotion of a student. My friend succeeded to learn Armenian, I did not. But lessons with Karen Nikitich were not merely a language course; it always was a lecture, or seminar on various aspects of Oriental studies and not only on them. Many times in between the lessons we started discussions which led three of us far away from the studied text, and we admired the fantastic erudition, unusual way of thinking and of course bitter humor of Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan. His lessons were not lessons in Armenian but rather in oriental studies altogether or even scholarship in general.

37

W. Sundermann, “Eine soghdische Version der Araṇemi-Legende,” in De Dunhuang à Istanbul. Hommage à James Russell Hamilton, eds. L. Bazin, P. Zieme (Silk Road Studies V; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001): pp. 339–348.

another contamination in iranian syncretism?

465

Acknowledgements I am grateful to A.K. Yermolaeva for checking the Armenian quotations above from the original; I am also grateful to James Russell for his advice. Charles Melville was very kind to check the English of this article. All the shortcomings of this article and its (rather uncertain) conclusions are mine.

Bibliography H.W. Bailey, “Hvatanica IV,”Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 10, No. 4 (1942): pp. 887–924. R.E. Buswell Jr., D.S. Lopez Jr, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton—Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013). M. Compareti, Le raffigurazioni di divinità pre-cristiane nella produzione fittile dell’Armenia ellenistica (Venezia: Cafoscarina, 2016). H. Gelzer, “Zur armenischen Götterlehre,”Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Philologisch-historische Classe 48; 1896): pp. 99–148. F. Grenet, “Avatars de Vaishravana: les étapes sogdienne et tibétaine,” Actes du colloque “La Sérinde, terre d’échanges” (13–15 février 1996) (Paris, Ecole du Louvre, 2000): pp. 169–179. F. Grenet, “Vaiśravaṇa in Sogdiana: About the Origins of Bishamon-ten,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology IV (1995–1996): pp. 277–297. Z. Gulácsi and J. BeDuhn, “The Religion of Wirkak and Wiyusi: the Zoroastrian Iconographic Program on a Sogdian Sarcophagus from Sixth-Century Xi’an”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Vol. 26 (2012 [2016]). H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, I. Theil (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897). H. Humbach, “Vayu, Śiva und der Spiritus Vivens im ostiranischen Synkretismus,” in Monumentum H.S. Nyberg I (Acta Iranica IV; Téhéran-Liége: Bibliotheque Pehlevi, 1975): pp. 397–408. P.B. Lurje, “Personal names in Sogdian texts,” in Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II, Fasc. 8 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010). H. Niehr, Baʿalšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 123; Studia Phoenicia XVII; Louvain etc.: Peeters, 2004). E. Provasi, “Sanskrit and Chinese in Sogdian Garb,” in Buddhism among Iranian Peoples of Central Asia, eds. M. de Chiara et alii (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013): pp. 191–308. J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1987).

466

lurje

R. Schmitt, Personnamen in parthischen epigraphischen Quellen (Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II Fasc. 5. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016). M. Schwartz, “Sesen: a durable East Mediterranean God in Iran,” in Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995, Pt. 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. N. Sims-Williams (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998): pp. 9–11. M. Shenkar, Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconography of Deities in the PreIslamic Iranian World (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2014). N. Sims-Williams, “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders,” in Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams (Proceedings of the British Academy 116; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): pp. 225–242. N. Sims-Williams, “Bactrian Personal Names,” in Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. II, Fasc. 7 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010). N. Sims-Williams, “The name of Kushan goddess Ομμα”, in Studia Philologica Iranica, Gherardo Gnoli Memorial Volume, eds. E. Morano, E. Provasi, A. Rossi (Roma: Scienze e Lettere, 2017): pp. 449–453. R.C. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Arameans,” Studia Aramaica. New Sources and New Approaches, eds. M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, M.P. Weitzman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). W. Sundermann, “Eine soghdische Version der Araṇemi-Legende,” in De Dunhuang à Istanbul. Hommage à James Russell Hamilton, eds. L. Bazin, P. Zieme (Silk Road Studies V; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001): pp. 339–348. Textes Sogdiens. Édités, traduits et commentés par É. Benveniste (Mission Pelliot; Série In-Quarto III; Paris: Geuthner, 1940). Vessantara Jātaka. Texte sogdien. Édité, traduit et commenté par É. Benveniste (Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale; Série In-Quarto IV; Paris: Geuthner, 1946). J. Williams, “The Iconography of Khotanese Painting,”East and West, N.S., vol. 23, Nos. 1– 2 (March—June 1973): pp. 109–154. Y. Yoshida, “Heroes of the Shahnama in a Turfan Sogdian Text: a Sogdian Fragment Found in the Lushun Otani collection,” in Sogdians, their precursors, contemporaries and heirs. Based on proceedings of conference “Sogdians at Home and Abroad” held in memory of Boris Il’ich Marshak (1933–2006), eds. P.B. Lurje, A.I. Torgoev (St.Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers, 2013): pp. 201–218. Y. Yoshida, “The Sogdian version of the new Xian inscription,” in Les Sogdiens en Chine, eds. E. de la Vaissière, E. Trombert (Études thématiques 17; Paris: École française d’Extrème-Orient, 2005): pp. 57–72. Ագաթանգեղայ պատմութիւն հայոց (Թիֆլիս: տպ. Ն. Աղանեանի, 1914) [Agathangelos, History of Armenia (Tiflis: N. Aghanian, 1914)].

another contamination in iranian syncretism?

467

Անանիա Շիրակացի, Տիեզերագիտություն եւ տոմար, աշխատ. Ա. Աբրահամյանի, խմբ. Հ. Աճառյան (Երեւան: Հայպետհրատ, 1940) [Ananias of Shirak,

Cosmography and theory of calendar, eds. A. Abrahamyan, H. Ajaryan (Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1940)]. Մովսէս Խորենացի, Պատմութիւն հայոց, Քննական բնագիրը եւ ներած.՝ Մ. Աբեղյան, Ս. Յարութիւնեան; Լրացումն.՝ Ա.Բ. Սարգսեան (Երեւան: ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ., 1991) [Moses of Khorene, History of Armenia, eds. M. Abeghyan, S. Yarutyunian, A. Sargsian (Yerevan: Publishing House of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1991)]. Агатангелос, История Армении. Пер. К.С. Тер-Давтян и С.С. Аревшатян (Ереван: Наири, 2004) [Agathangelos, History of Armenia, trs. K.S. Ter-Davtyan and S.S. Arevshatyan (Erevan: Nairi, 2004)]. Анания Ширакаци, Космография, пер. К.С. Тер-Давтян и С.С. Аревшатян (Ереван: Изд-во АН АрмССР, 1962) [Ananias of Shirak, Cosmography, trs. K.S. Ter-Davtyan and S.S. Arevshatyan (Erevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of ArmSSR, 1962)]. Исторія Арменіи Моисея Хоренскаго, пер. Н. Эминъ (Москва: Въ типографіи Каткова и Ко, 1858) [Moses of Khorene’s History of Armenia, tr. N. Émin (Moscow: Publishing house “Katkov and Co”, 1858)]. В.А. Лившиц, Парфянская ономастика. Отечественные исследования (СанктПетербург: Филологический факультет, 2010) [V.A. Livshits. Parthian onomastics. Indigenous studies (St.-Petersburg: Philological Faculty, 2010)]. Б.И. Маршак, В.И. Распопова и др., Отчет о раскопках древнего Пенджикента в 2002 г (Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2003) [B.I. Marshak, V.I. Raspopova et alii, Report on excavations of Ancient Panjakent in 2002 (St.-Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers, 2003)].

chapter 20

The Interrupted Feast James R. Russell

Светлой памяти Карена Никитича Юзбашяна посвящается “You bring forth a great feast, including a magnificent table, chairs, service, and food and drink. The feast takes 1 hour to consume, and the beneficial effects do not set in until this hour is over. Every creature partaking of the feast is cured of all diseases, sickness, and nausea; becomes immune to poison for 12 hours; and gains 1d8 temporary hit points +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10) after imbibing the nectar-like beverage that is part of the feast. The ambrosial food that is consumed grants each creature that partakes a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and Will saves and immunity to fear effects for 12 hours. If the feast is interrupted for any reason, the spell is ruined and all effects of the spell are negated.” “Heroes’ Feast, Conjuration (Creation)”: instructions for a computer game

∵ Philip of Macedon had a concubine named Olympias. The story goes that an Egyptian priest named Nectanebos masquerading as a god in the form of a huge snake, or perhaps it was the god of the Egyptians Zeus Ammon with his ram’s horns, fathered a boy on her. Philip cast her out after some years and married his sister Cleopatra instead. The boy, by now a champion athlete, charged into the wedding feast and made a cutting remark; whereupon a joker named Lysius looked the youth up and down and remarked that he hoped Philip’s next son might look like Philip. The young man, enraged by the intimation he was a bastard, snatched a goblet and smote the jester with it, killing him. Philip drew his sword and made to rise but stumbled over his couch: the youth delivered a mocking comment, seized the sword, and had at the dinner guests, severely wounding most of them. It was the wedding brawl of the Centaurs and Lapiths all over again, or Odysseus and Telemachus massacring the suitors of Penelope as they dined, the narrator comments in a rather pedantic manner of this less

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_022

the interrupted feast

469

than edifying spectacle. But one wants classic precedents, since the irritable Macedonian boy in the Romance of Ps.-Callisthenes who had interrupted and spoiled the party was Alexander the Great. The story was immensely popular in Armenian. It was translated during the fifth-century “golden age”, and poets embellished the text with rhymed paraphrases in the style of the Arabic qāfiya down to the late medieval period. Manuscripts abound with miniatures in Persian style; and most likely the text was read out loud for entertainment, with the verse passages sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. The Romance is one of the most popular secular texts in all world literature and of course has echoes everywhere in the Near East. Alexander’s successors had ram’s horns poking through their curls on coins; and the Qurʾan calls the Macedonian himself Dhū ʾl-qarnain, “The two-horned”.1 Dining in general, and formal feasting in particular, was and has always remained a sanctified activity in most human cultures, conducted with special rituals and bounded by rules of etiquette that have been abandoned in many other areas and customs of modern life. In the Near East in particular, rules of hospitality so deeply rooted as to define the quality of human character itself form a protective ring around the ritual of the meal, whether one reclined on a banqueting couch, sat around the dinner table, or folded one’s legs and rested on a pillow.2 The feast recapitulates and reaffirms the social 1 See the study, Classical Armenian critical text with medieval additions, and notes by H. Simonyan, Patmut‘iwn Ałek‘sandri Makedonac‘woy (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1989)]. For an English translation of the episode discussed here see A.M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), pp. 41–42. On the image of Philip’s feast in its Armenian transmission and development, and its use in modern Armenian literature, see J.R. Russell, “The Mother of All Heresies: A Late Mediaeval Armenian Text on the Yuškaparik,” RÉA 24 (1993): pp. 273–293; on the specific image of the Centaurs and the Armenian understanding of these Mischwesen, see J.R. Russell, “Sasanian Yarns: The Problem of the Centaurs Reconsidered,” in Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201: La Persia e Bisanzio (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2004): pp. 411–438. 2 An Arabic motto reduces the rule, which was the same among the Hellenes of Homer, to a rhymed triad: Salām, ṭa‘ām, qalām, “Greeting, eating, speaking.” That is, one first welcomes any guest, even a total stranger, offers him a meal, and only then gets down to business, even if that just means asking him who he is and why he’s here. And if he is an enemy, the host must still guard him with his own life till he leaves. One recalls the adolescent Telemachus on his island doing his eager, curious, stumbling best with the newly-arrived Mentes (Athena), after he’s (she’s) eaten: Who are you stranger, and where did you come from, and how did you get here—for I do not think you came on foot. The vile inhospitality of the suitors of Penelope seems still more glaring against the backdrop of the ingenuous, endearing boy trying for the first time to play host. And another aspect of Homer’s deft art is that we see the scene through the eyes of Athena—the divine arbiter kat’ exokhen of human mores and justice.

470

russell

order; and violation of its rules is a metaphor of social chaos and injustice. The order of precedence to be followed in seating arrangements was so strict in ancient Armenia that it was set forth in a special text, the Gahnamak or “Seating Book” that specified the place of each naxarar, or hereditary dynast, in the xoran, the banqueting pavilion of the Arsacid king.3 In a famous scene in the History of P‘awstos Buzand, the fourth-century Sasanian monarch Šābuhr II offers a humiliating insult to his guest in Persia, the Armenian king Aršak II, by seating him at the foot of the table at a feast in the banqueting tent. The Armenian interrupts the meal with a torrent of abuse, declaring the Persian king an upstart and usurper, and peremptorily commanding him to yield the head of the table to him, since it is Aršak’s own Arsacid line that are the legitimate rulers of both Armenia and Iran. Aršak is arrested on the spot and bundled away in chains to languish and die in the dreaded prison called the Fortress of Oblivion.4 And it was all a well-managed setup: the Sasanian, at the suggestion of his priestly advisors—who were not called Magi, magicians, for nothing—had earlier sprinkled Armenian soil under where the Armenian king was to be seated in the pavilion, hence Aršak’s candor. The premise was that one speaks boldly and truthfully on one’s native ground, deriving strength and courage, Antaeus-like, from contact with it. Violation of the rules that guarantee the safety of a dinner guest and the sanctity of the occasion is so grave an offense that Armenian even has a special compound word which might properly be applied to Shapur’s behavior, sełananeng “being deceitful at table”.5 One does not interrupt a feast; but one also does not violate its rules. And there is also an order of the activities to which feasting belongs. In ancient Iran, the customary and cherished occupations of noblemen and kings

3 The Parthian word, xwaran, became in Armenian Christian usage the term for the high altar in a church; Old Persian tačāra-, “palace”, evolved, like Latin basilica, into the word for a cathedral, though in 4th–5th-century Armenian tačar mayri still meant “palace wood”, i.e., the royal hunting preserve. As we shall see presently, St. Nersēs Šnorhali played upon these dual meanings. 4 The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), tr. and comm. N.G. Garsoïan (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 8; Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp. IV.iii, 169–173. The 19th-century Iranian Armenian writer Raffi borrowed freely from P‘awstos in his epic novel of the fourth century, Samuēl. 5 See J.R. Russell, “Two Notes on Biblical Tradition and Native Epic in the Book of Lamentation of St. Grigor Narekac‘i,” RÉA 22 (1990–1991): pp. 135–145. The word is composed of a Hebrew loan, sełan “table” from šulḥan, and a Persian one, neng “treachery” from nang. A like IranoSemitic amalgam will be seen in the construction of the heroic image and narrative of Vasak Pahlawuni.

the interrupted feast

471

form a rhyming pair, Persian razm ō bazm, “war and feasting”, in that order. The former word is found in Arm. pate-razm, “war”; the latter, in bazm-oc‘ “feasting couch”. One first rode to the hunt, or to war, and then returned to feast: on late medieval Armenian funerary bas-reliefs the deceased is shown as an armed horseman, a diadem signifying victory or blessing or both in hand, arriving at a banquet. It is clear the banquet is what follows a battle or hunt, not what precedes it. These reliefs echo in their iconography and composition the commemorative bas-reliefs of pre-Islamic Iran, and emerge from an enduring set of traditions, rules, and values.6 That is the natural order of things, as much in the hereafter as in this world. When the order is reversed: when a feast is interrupted and the host, usually a nobleman and hero, is called off to fight—this is an encoded verbal image the hearer or reader of a heroic epic is expected to understand. It signifies a moment of particular crisis and larger reversal, a fateful turning point that can result in death. This essay explores two such instances of the topos of the interrupted feast in Armenian literature, both examples enshrined in highly ritualized genres. One is an elegy that forms part of a lament; the second, a heroic epic narrative embedded within a chronicle. Both come from the same region and period: the Armeno-Syrian borderlands in the Crusader period, spanning the 10th– 12th centuries. They deal with substantially the same set of events and emerge from the same aristocratic milieu. The heroic epic text celebrates the heroism of a scion of the ancient Pahlawuni noble house who is fighting the Muslim invader in the region of Edessa; the elegy issues from the pen of a Pahlawuni patriarch of the Armenian Church who is lamenting the fall of Christian Edessa to the Muslim conqueror Zangi. I will compare both to a third and undated text, the folk ballad of prince Aslan, which sets out the topos in a stark, elemental way and elaborates it, engaging other psychological and spiritual themes with resonances in Ancient Greece and Buddhist India. One recalls, in invoking these for comparison, that Armenia is at the midpoint between those western and eastern exemplars of the types of Indo-European poetics and

6 One such bas-relief, a tombstone from Šōš in the Armenian province of Arc‘ax (Mountainous Karabagh) is discussed in J.R. Russell, “On The Image of Zoroaster,” in Alan Williams et al., eds., The Zoroastrian Flame: Exploring Religion, History, and Tradition, London: I.B. Tauris, 2016, pp. 147–178. It is important to note that in Indo-European languages the term for order names also the moral, cosmic understandings of truth and righteousness, though the concepts are not the same: cf. among many examples one might adduce, Vedic ṛta-, Old Iranian arta-, Greek aretē, and Armenian ard and ardar: see J.R. Russell, “Aša in Armenia,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ [Monthly Review] 101 (1987): pp. 655–662.

472

russell

thought.7 The ballad of Aslan was recorded in modern times from oral informants; but some form of it might have been a part of a heroic epic cycle of the heroes and princes of Sophene, Arm. Cop‘k‘, in Western Armenia: an analogous tale supplies an ending to the Byzantine Akritic cycle that took shape in nearby Melitene (modern Malatya). An important and salient feature of the Armenian dossier, when one studies it employing a method of triangulation with the ancient cultures to its east and west, is that it engages so richly the material of Biblical tradition. A word is in order on the use of certain Biblical themes and characters in Armenian tradition, since it differs in significant ways from the use of the same material in other chrétientés—national and cultural groups for whom Christianity is central. Borrowing from the methods and terminology of Islamic studies one might call these widely differing manifestations of civilization imbued with Christian faith and tradition, from Protestant England to Catholic France to Orthodox Russia, Christianate. The Samson cycle in the Book of Judges will be seen to be of particular importance. Both texts have apocalyptic overtones; and one will discuss the apocalyptic prophecy in the Lament of St. Nersēs in particular. This discussion will involve diverse sources, particularly historical data and texts from Iran: Zoroastrian apocalyptic, and the data of heterodox nativist movements in early Islamic Iran and Central Asia. The Epic of Sasun will be discussed in the context of both apocalyptic and the complex construction of the Armenian heroic image. In the use of Biblical sources, notably those from the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, the Armenians differ significantly from many, maybe most, other Christianate cultures. Explanation of this difference requires one to offer very strenuous criticisms of Christian ideology that may offer unintended offense to some believers. The Christian church has in general always regarded itself as the legitimate heir of the Hebrew Bible: the events and prophecies of what it tellingly and tendentiously termed the “Old Testament” have been interpreted in such a way as to make them prefigure the life and mission of Christ in the “New Testament” that ostensibly supersedes it.8 The new Gospel thus not only 7 On the method of “triangulation” of an Armenian mythological theme or type between Greece and India, see J.R. Russell, “The Armenian Shrines of the Black Youth (t‘ux manuk),”Le Muséon 111, fasc. 3–4 (1998): pp. 319–343. So where, for example, one might expect to find a given topos or myth treated in India (or Iran) in the context of religion, in Greece it may appear as part of a political institution or idea, and in Armenia as a Christianized folk tale or belief. 8 The Deutsche Christen of the Hitler era, making explicit a subliminal trend in Christianity, sought to de-Judaize their faith entirely, claiming also that Christ Himself was not a Jew at all but an “Aryan” Galilean. This might be seen as just one more aberration of fascism, were it not for the fact that Germany’s greatest Hebraists and Biblical scholars co-operated enthu-

the interrupted feast

473

fulfills the old strictures of the Commandments and inherits the Covenant with the nation of Israel, but also renders both obsolete, thereby effectively annulling them. This is the argument of the argument of the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, in which he sets up a straw-man dichotomy between Grace and Law. The Covenant between God and His chosen people is transferred to gentile Christendom—in effect, to Rome, Israel’s persecutor. And the Jews, adhering faithfully and stubbornly to the “old” Law, are correspondingly derided as prematurely decrepit: they are an abhorrent living fossil, a dead and empty shell. This enforced spiritual role engenders a racialist physical caricature that in turn enfranchises violence. So the disastrous earthly destiny of the small, steadfast nation, which more is the fault of their prejudiced persecutors than the result of shortcomings of their own, is made out by the same cynical tormentors to be a visible demonstration and instructive spectacle of what happens to those who refuse renewal and rebirth in Christ. The Church styled itself for many centuries as verus Israel, the “true Israel”; and it is only in recent years that Jewish scholars have felt secure enough from physical threat openly to challenge this successionist ideology. Notably, Prof. Harold Bloom of Yale has dissected the Gospels as literary texts susceptible to the same source criticism as any other book, however inspired; and has characterized their authors and most of their interpreters as “fine misreaders” laboring under what he classically termed the “anxiety of influence”. That is a courtly way for the older professor to chide younger pupil guilty of plagiarism—an act that is dishonorable, even criminal.9 And in respect to Israel and the Covenant the various Christian denominations of the west have in recent years refined their own teachings, perhaps in part thanks to a vestigial sense of shame about the Holocaust, if not the Inquisition or the latter-day demonization of the State of Israel—a recrudescence of old anti-Semitism in a new and disingenuous guise.

siastically on the project. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Professor Heschel, a friend and the daughter of the great scholar and tsaddik Abraham Joshua Heschel, while participating in an intimate dialogue with post-war Germans, has demonstrated that precisely Christian anti-Semitism, and not merely a de-Christianized neo-paganism, was at the black heart of Nazi ideology and its adherents, very many of whom were not German. Although there were some modern Armenian “Aryanists” around the turn of the 20th century (the Constantinople journal Mehean reflected their sentiments) and later, and there persists a streak of folk anti-Semitism in modern Armenian life, particularly (and unsurprisingly) in Arab countries, my point here is to illuminate how traditional Armenian culture has often embraced Hebrew Biblical tradition in a way qualitatively different from Western Christendom. 9 See H. Bloom, Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine (New York: Riverhead, 2005).

474

russell

But Armenian Christianity presents with respect to the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, a case than in some important respects is refreshingly different from that of the other Christianate cultures. The Armenians were not the heirs of the Roman Empire and its Catholic church, nor did most of them accept the ecclesiastical or imperial suzerainty of Byzantium. Their Christian faith was a minority religion, with a national and not imperial model; and the practice of evangelizing the world by fire and sword forms no part of their collective memory (although the Armenian Church certainly persecuted its own heretics). No blood of Inquisition or Holocaust stains Armenian hands. For most of their history they have been rather—like the authentic Israel—an embattled island beset by mighty foes of another religion, often giving up their lives as martyrs to a faith inseparable from their identity as Armenians. And they accordingly embraced the image of the Maccabees engaging in unequal and heroic combat against the abominable persecutor Antiochus. Their script and language were not incidental to their religion but a part of it: there is no secular Armenian identity that is detachable from Christianity, and there are no sacred writings of non-Christian religions in Armenian. Turkish-speaking Armenians printed the Gospel in their vernacular but sanctified and separated it from the speech of Muslim Turks by using the Armenian alphabet for it, much as Jews employed the holy Hebrew alphabet for the Germanic idiom of Eastern Europe, Yiddish, for Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), and for Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Persian.10 The well-known observation comes as no surprise: Classical Armenian writers invoke the Maccabees more often than any other Christian literature does. 10

Conversion to Islam entailed the loss of Armenian speech, with the rare exception of the community of Hamšēn in the north-eastern Pontic region, who perhaps because of their extreme isolation and proximity to Georgia retained a de-Christianized Armenian dialect which has lost the word hay, “Armenian”, and in which the word for the Holy Cross, xač‘, is preserved only in the causative verb xač‘ec‘nuš (standard Arm. xač‘ec‘nel), meaning to carve the sign of the Cross in a loaf of bread to be baked, which was vaguely remembered as auspicious. But more common is the case of the sexton from the village of Bedar who fled to the local church when the Turks were overrunning and converting the people. The priest turned to him and snarled, Here vive, ez ji musalmanim! “Beat it, I’m a Muslim too!”—in Kurdish. See J.R. Russell, An Armenian Epic: The Heroes of Kasht (Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan, 2000), p. 130. There are a number of instances in which Armenian texts, including sacred ones, have been transcribed in various forms of the Syriac script, which was regarded as Christian. And this is also an indication of the cultural closeness of Armenians and Arameans, in Edessa and elsewhere. See J.R. Russell, “On Armeno-Iranian Interaction in the Medieval Period,” in Au carrefour des réligions. Mélanges offerts a Philippe Gignoux. ed. R. Gyselen (Res Orientales, VII; 1994): pp. 235–238; and most recently, H. Takahashi, “Armenisch-Garschuni (Armenisch in syrischer Schrift),” in Scripts Beyond Borders: A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World, eds. J. Den Heijer et al. (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2014): pp. 187–214.

the interrupted feast

475

Armenians equated themselves, in texts and in art, with the Hebrew children in the fiery furnace, with Daniel in the lions’ den, with Samson fighting the Philistine horde, and with little David bravely confronting the giant Goliath. Their early nationalism, with its strivings for liberation from conquerors of another religious dispensation—first Sasanian Persians, and, later, Muslim Arabs—was akin to that of the true Israel and its assertion required no typology, no foreshadowing—none of the exegetical slither of other Christianate cultures. Armenians fully embraced the concepts of Christian martyrdom, which have informed even their understanding of the 1915 Genocide; but their Hasmonean-like militancy was rooted as much or more in the Tanakh than in the Gospels.11 The Biblical image and exploits of Samson in particular will be seen to inform the construction of both the episode of Vasak Pahlawuni as related by Matthew of Edessa and the oral epic cycle of Sasun, which embraces historical events of the ninth to twelfth centuries. Samson is the pattern, not only of a hero, but of an apocalyptic and salvific figure; and we will therefore explore the apocalyptic resonances of the texts and epic and an intriguing resonance with Iranian religious and national resistance to the Arabs and Islam. Let us first consider the author of the Lament over Edessa. The Catholicos of the Armenian Church, St. Nersēs Šnorhali (“the Graceful”, ca. 1102–1173), wrote this long poem—of just over a thousand rhymed verses—in the middle of the course of his life. Nersēs was an extraordinarily prolific hymnologist: more of his šarakans, or spiritual songs, are included in the liturgy of the Armenian Church than those of any other author (other than the Psalms of David, of course). He was particularly attentive to the edification of common people, in epistles, didactic poems, credal hymns, and even collections of riddles, written so as to be intelligible to the laity. Ołb Edesioy in its way defines the early stage of the Silver, or Cilician, Age of Armenian literature.12 Its language, though still

11

12

Or as my teacher, the great Prof. Nina Garsoïan, used to quip now and then, more succinctly and with a wink, “Armenians aren’t goyim [i.e., non-Jews, a somewhat derogatory term like Middle Armenian aylazgi or Modern ōtar].” Nersēs Šnorhali, Ołb Edesioy, ed. M. Mkrtč‘yan (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1973). The text was translated and annotated by T. Van Lint, “Lament on Edessa by Nersēs Šnorhali,” in East and West in the Crusader States II, eds. K. Ciggaar, H. Teule (Leuven: Peeters, 1999): pp. 49–105. All translations here are my own. For a study of St. Nerses’ life, works, use of pre-Christian motifs, attitudes towards Islam, and apparently direct experience of its ways see J.R. Russell, “The Credal Poem Hawatov xostovanim (“I confess in faith”) of St. Nerses the Graceful,” in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, eds. J.J. van Ginkel et al., OLA 134, (Leuven: Peeters, 2005): pp. 185–236.

476

russell

a Classical idiom, is limpid, generally shorn of the rebarbative Hellenophilic usages of earlier centuries. It is syntactically lighter and more accessible than the writing of Nersēs’ great spiritual model and predecessor, the tenth-century mystic St. Gregory of Narek; and his vocabulary, when appropriate, is leavened by contemporary expressions and loans from Islamicate languages. But it is still steeped in the strongly marked vocabulary, vivid imagery, and energetic oral narrative patterns of Arsacid Armenia. These are not archaizing adornments: the Armenian literature of the Crusader era, from a time when Armenian naxarars and Frankish barons13 rubbed shoulders, has its roots in pre-Christian antiquity. Armenians felt a proximity to the culture and religion of the Arsacid Parthian dynasty that had held sway in Iran from roughly 250 BC to 226 AD, and longer in Armenia—where the line endured on the throne to AD 429. For the Arsacids did not perish in Armenia with the loss of their royal throne: they endured, seated on another, ecclesiastical one. St. Nersēs belonged to a branch of the dynasty, the ancient noble house of the Pahlawuni—“Parthians”. This sacerdotal branch traced its descent to the sons of St. Gregory the Illuminator, Armenia’s patron saint, a kinsman, according to tradition, of Tiridates the Great, the first Christian Armenian king, whom he baptized. (This tradition neatly conforms to the very archaic epic pattern of Wandersagen; it has been suggested that the historical Gregory was a Cappadocian from Caesarea and was not related to the Armenian kings at all.) Nersēs was well versed in ancient Armenian mythology and lore, and even composed Christian hymns to be recited at sunrise after he overheard his bodyguards singing pre-Christian songs to the rising sun on the high battlements of his many-gated fortress whose ruins tower over the deep, fast running Euphrates. He made a particular effort to evangelize the Arewordik‘ (“Children of the Sun”), a sect of Armenian Zoroastrians that had survived the conversion of the country; and his writings show he acquainted himself with their beliefs. Adherents were apparently still numerous enough to warrant his attention; indeed, the sect endured in Armenia through the high Middle Ages and down to modern times. The last Children of the Sun most probably perished alongside Christian Armenians in the Genocide of 1915, unless some survivors still live in eastern Anatolia, secretive and unknown.14 One of Nersēs’ rela-

13

14

Whose title survives as the common modern Armenian word for “mister”, paron; less obvious and less common is, for example, maraǰaxt, “maréchal”, which if one did not know better might easily be taken for Middle Iranian! See J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Harvard Iranian Series 5; Cambridge, MA, 1987); and idem, “A Credo for the Children of the Sun,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 4 (1988–1989): pp. 157–160.

the interrupted feast

477

tives, Gregory Magistros Pahlawuni (ca. 990–1059), a warrior, administrator, and secular scholar, had preserved in his Letters precious specimens of preChristian Armenian oral epic including an elegiac lament of king Artaxias I (Arm. Artašēs), which would date from some time after the death of that monarch in the mid-second century BC. It is thus not surprising that one finds an elegy replete with ancient native topoi in the Lament, as well as the expected Biblical images and citations of a work firmly rooted in the Christian faith and worldview. Edessa, “daughter of the Parthians”, home of Abgar—the first Christian king, in legend—was called “the blessed city”. Literary Syriac was born there; but Armenians have since ancient times also regarded it (and, indeed, Abgar), as their own. One of its most famous sons, the philosopher Bardaiṣan, wrote a history of Armenia. I have argued that the “Song of the Pearl”, a Syriac poem steeped in Parthian imagery and vocabulary, was a kind of heroic epic in miniature intended for the kind of local audience that would have found the genre particularly appealing.15 That audience might well have included Armenians fluent in Aramaic and/or Syriac. Edessa lies but a few miles north of Biblical Harran, on the flat Mesopotamian desert plain; and legend has it that Abraham underwent a trial by fire there at the hands of Nimrod and emerged victorious.16 Its fall to Zangi in 1144 was a bitter blow and a dire portent of more disaster to come, as Christian power waned and the Crusader states collapsed, in the very regions where the faith was born and first flourished. Nersēs, who resided at Hṙomklay (i.e., Rūm qalʿa, lit. “the Byzantine Greek fortress”, Tk. Rum kalesi) near Aintab (modern Tk. Gaziantep), not far away, heard an eyewitness account of the battle from his own nephew, who had fought there. The final section of the Lament is apocalyptic, a venomous denunciation of Islam and its founder Muhammad and a vengeful foretelling of the longed-for destruction of the Muslim holy of holies at Mecca and the extermination of the Muslims. It is worthwhile to examine this apocalyptic section in historical context before considering the elegy that precedes it. Islam was of course very familiar to twelfth-century Armenians. If anything, it was in that and the following century that the last serious challenges to Islam died away in all the lands surrounding Armenia (save Georgia) and the faith of Muhammad established itself ineradicably as the dominant creed of the Near and Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and much of South Asia. It had

15 16

See J.R. Russell, “The Epic of the Pearl,” RÉA 28 (2001–2002): pp. 29–100. See J.B. Segal, Edessa, “The Blessed City” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).

478

russell

come on the Armenian scene with the seventh-century conquest of the capital, Dvin, and the subsequent military occupation of the country by the Arabs and their clients, who ruled the province of Arminīya from there and from Xlat‘ (Ar. Aḫlat) on the northwest shore of Lake Van. Armenians did not, however, succumb to Muslim domination—unlike the Arameans and Copts. Many of the naxarar families, notably the Mamikoneans, who had been the hereditary sparapets, commanders in chief, of the Arsacids, participated in an unsuccessful uprising against the Arabs in the late eighth century that led to their political extinction. Vardan Mamikonean, who was crowned with martyrdom following the Battle of Avarayr against the Sasanians in the mid-fifth century, was already a saint; now his descendants were canonized as latter-day martyrs. The spirit of rebellion, once kindled, was not extinguished; and surviving naxarar houses and commoners continued the struggle. The mountaineers of Xoyt‘ and Sasun, who had always lived in proud, wild isolation, rose up in the mid-ninth century against the Arab Caliphate. This second wave was the prelude to a guerrilla war that culminated in the liberation of much of Armenia under the rule of the native Bagratid and Arcrunid dynasties, which held sway down to the conquest of eastern Anatolia by the Seljuks. The uprising in Sasun was of particular importance for quite another reason as well: it was the event around which an oral heroic epic crystallized, incorporating many extremely archaic aspects and, as we shall see presently, invoking the same salvific divine being of preChristian tradition that, mutatis mutandis, emerges in the anti-Muslim, nativist uprisings at the other, eastern end of the Iranian world, notably amongst the Sogdians. Armenian resistance to Islam was stern and enduring, and was seen in the context of earlier, unequal struggles against the overwhelming force of the Zoroastrian Persians in the Sasanian period. But that is not to say there was not close interaction with Islamicate peoples—Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and, down to the present time in particular, the Turks (whose country came to engulf most of historical Armenia)—just as there had been with the Persians. Armenians translated Islamicate books from Arabic and other languages, adapted numerous artistic, musical, and literary forms to their own use, and absorbed thousands of loan-words into the Middle Armenian vernacular; but they still regarded the new, alien religion and its founder with unwavering hostility and contempt. Foreign sources attest to numerous Armenian converts to Islam, but all these are absent for the most part from the Armenian historical record itself; for with their apostasy they dropped off the radar, ceasing to be members of any identifiable Armenian community. With the loss of Christianity came the concomitant abandonment of Armenian: the converts became Arabic- or Kurdish-speaking; and no Muslim texts were composed in Armenian, unlike

the interrupted feast

479

Persian or Turkish.17 Cultural interaction, then, had very clearly defined limits; and Armenians expressed their fervent longing for redemption from the Islamic yoke, often in narratives and visions informed by the genre of apocalyptic. Armenian visions of the end times in particular, and apocalyptic literature of the Christian East generally, reflect the situation of the age of their composition. They deal with the unwelcome presence of Islam and look forward with malevolent quiddity to its gory end. They draw abundantly upon the Apocalypse of pseudo-Methodius, which was most likely composed in the eighth century, at a time when the Aramean18 Christian community began to be seriously depleted by mass conversions to Islam. A sense of impending doom moves the pen of the visionary writer. Unlike the Armenians, who, as we have noted, compared themselves to the Maccabees—defenders of both a faith and a nation— 17

18

See for example, R.W. Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition,” in Armenian Studies In Memoriam Haig Berberian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986): pp. 829–858. Armenians imagine the prophet of Islam as a raging lunatic chained in a rocky cave, borrowing in these legends from the Iranian myth of the imprisoned archdemon and embodiment of tyranny, Zahhak. For aspects of Armeno-Islamic artistic cultural contact, see P. Soucek, “Armenian and Islamic Manuscript Painting: A Visual Dialogue,” in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, eds. T.F. Mathews, R. Wieck (New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1998): pp. 115–131. As in other societies, Armenian Christians and Muslims of various languages and nationalities found common ground in esotericism: Armenian urban fraternities studied translations of the neo-Platonic Epistles of the Brethren of Purity: on this and similar points of contact, often of similarly syncretistic character, see Seta B. Dadoyan’s magisterial three-volume opus: S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interaction Vol. 1–3 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011– 2014); and her monograph: idem, The Fatimid Armenians: Cultural and Political Interaction in the Near East (Leiden: Brill, 1997). I employ this useful term, which has recently been adopted as an official designation by the State of Israel, broadly and inclusively for the Church of Persia and the Jacobite, Chaldaean, “Nestorian”, and other Christians of the Middle and Near East who employ(ed) in ritual and/or principally speak/spoke Syriac or other dialects of Aramaic. The term approaches a national definition in the manner of Armenian Asori, “Assyrian”. The latter is obviously confusing in English, though. At the time of this writing, the Christian communities in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Pakistan, have been driven to the brink of extinction by savage and unrelenting persecution—to which their Western co-religionists have turned a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a bald head. Israel is actually the only country in the entire Near East where the Christian population has risen steadily in both relative and absolute numbers since 1948—the year the Jewish state was reborn. In the last two years the thousand-year history of the Armenian community of Aleppo has come to an end. Fortunately, Syrian Armenians at least have a Republic of Armenia on a remnant of the homeland to return to: for other Christians with no other home other than Islamized ancestral lands there is no place for such an ingathering of the exiles.

480

russell

the Arameans did not in the medieval period articulate national aspirations or claims to sovereignty over a historical territory, nor did they cultivate, at least to the degree Armenians did, the sense of a secular identity that might complement their cohesion as a religious community. Rather like the Copts in Egypt, they were reduced to the permanent status of a precariously tolerated, second-class minority in the Islamic world with a faith and a language. They were guests in their own house. Armenian apocalypses have, then, an added aspect of yearning for political, national redemption. So even though the vision of Nersēs deals with the situation of his own time and is to some extent informed by the tradition after ps.-Methodius, it also is suffused by strong patriotic themes independent of pan-Christian ideology that express a hope of local liberation. We may still discern, besides, both local and ancient affinities to Zoroastrian apocalyptic in the Armenian material, and intriguing contemporary parallels as well. The Armenian epic cycle of Sasun, mentioned above, is of interest in the context of apocalyptic literature for the period under discussion. It is replete with very archaic images and themes, but crystallized in its present form only after the mid-ninth century, accreting material down through the twelfth. The Mongol invasions of the early thirteenth century may be seen as a kind of terminus. For some nine centuries of its thousand-year history, unlike the Šāh-nāme of Ferdōsī in Iran, the epic of Sasun was transmitted only orally: Bishop Garegin Sruanjteanc‘, a scholar-priest on a mission on behalf of the Armenian Patriarchate at Constantinople to investigate the conditions in the Anatolian interior, transcribed a recitation from an oral informant and first published a part of the epic in 1874.19 There are stray references to the heroes in sources from the medieval period, as well as internal evidence, attesting to its greater antiquity. Variants continue to be recorded—one, recently, as far afield as California.20 19

20

That is not to say that there was no oral reception and expansion of the Šāh-nāme, or that it did not have both oral sources and oral developments. The Armenians added tales of the hero Rostam to the Sasun cycle, or recited them independently (see J.R. Russell, “The Šāh-nāme in Armenian Oral Epic,” in Second International Conference on Ferdōsī (Tehran, 2000), published in J.R. Russell, Armenian and Iranian Studies (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 9; Cambridge, MA, 2004): pp. 1063–1072) Movsēs Xorenac‘i, who lived centuries before Ferdōsī, is implored by his princely patron to add a few to his History of the Armenians; and there is a fragmentary tale of Rustam’s exploits in Sogdian. The Kurdish epic romance from historical Armenia (its author was Ehmed Xani of Bitlis, Arm. Bałēš) Mam u Zin, a written work of learned, literary sophistication, arose partly out of oral traditions, was received again by the same—and the altered and expanded oral versions then gave rise to new written versions. See David of Sassoun: Critical Studies on the Armenian Epic, eds. D. Kouymjian, B. Der Mugrdechian, California State University at (Fresno Armenians Series 4; Fresno, CA, 2013).

the interrupted feast

481

One cannot establish a critical text when one deals with oral literature; but by comparison of the hundred-odd recorded recitations it is evident, still, that the epic consists of four main divisions, or “branches” (Arm. čiwł), each embracing one generation of the race of the heroes. These heroes are giants, much bigger and stronger than the other Armenians, whom they protect and serve but from whom they live apart. The first “branch” is that of the founding “divine twins” Sanasar and Bałdasar, whose birth from a rock may be compared to the birth of Mithras in the Roman mystery religion—petrogenesis goes back much farther still, most likely to ancient Anatolia. The second generation is that of “Great” (mec) or “Lion-rending”/ “Leontomorphous” Mher, that is, Mithra. (In the Armenian compound aṙiwca-jew, the second element, jew-el, pron. /dzevel/ can mean either “to tear in two” or “to shape”.) This hero acquires his epithet after slaying a lion barehanded by grasping its jaws and pulling it apart. He dies because of a heroic flaw, the weakness of lust—he commits adultery with an Arab princess, and breaks a subsequent penitential vow to abstain from lying with his wife. The priests declare the vow annulled but Mher dies for his breach of it anyway: the epic is self-consciously steeped in Christianity but at the same time has little respect for the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The third “branch” is that of the hero David (Dawit‘), who comes on the scene as a guileless, strong young shepherd-boy (like his Israelite namesake) and culture hero. He brings Sasun to the zenith of its fortunes. The fourth and final section belongs to P‘ok‘r “Little” Mher/Mithra. A solitary, troubled youth, he quarrels with his father, suffers the latter’s curse, and is condemned to depart into occultation in a cave at Van. There he is to remain till the end of time, when he will emerge and redeem or destroy the world: with this ambiguous apocalyptic vision, the epic closes. In some recitations, the cave opens on Ascension Eve and Little Mher in his cave can be seen thickly covered with shaggy hair, like a wild man. (This detail is to be seen presently to resonate with the image of mighty Samson with his long tresses.) The struggle of the oppressed “Crossworshipping” Armenians against their treacherous enemies, the “idolatrous” Arabs, pervades the entire epic, providing the unifying narrative thread. Key symbols and events such as the rock birth, cave, and raven as well as of course the name Mithra itself, should properly remind one of the petrogeny, spelaeum, and corax of the Mithraic mysteries, the origins of which are, indeed, most Numerous studies of the epic by this writer are reprinted in Russell, Armenian and Iranian Studies; studies published since then are cited below, to which one may add J.R. Russell, “The Shrine Beneath the Waves,” in Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 51 (Cambridge, MA, Spring 2007): pp. 136–156.

482

russell

plausibly to be traced back to the Armeno-Iranian borderlands of the Parthian era.21 The Mithraic cult promised liberation and salvation to its devotees; and both are driving themes of the epic. Mithra, Mihr in Middle Persian, is also an extremely important Zoroastrian yazata, associated with the sun in particular, and with the social and moral qualities of covenants, witnessing, justice, and judgment; all these are germane to the events of apocalypse and to salvation, so in Zoroastrian apocalyptic he is a very prominent figure. Mithra is perhaps the most human of all the Zoroastrian yazatas, and across the Iranian world his anthropomorphic image is the same. One cannot say that of almost any other symbol of Mazdaism save perhaps the fire altar. It does not seem entirely fortuitous that when Zoroastrians imagined what their Prophet might have looked like, it was the image of Mihr from the Sasanian bas-relief Tāq-e Bostān they adopted.22 But in Armenian tradition, no matter how archaic its roots, one almost always finds also an interweaving of relevant Biblical themes and symbols—Christianity, as argued above, having become and inseparable aspect of the deep essence of Armenian identity. So Biblical material plays an equally important role. The figure of David in the Sasun epic is overt and obvious, in all its resonance. The Armenian Bagratunis as they rose to prominence claimed Davidic descent as part of their propaganda of legitimization. The Arcruni dynasty invoked the Israelite hero as well: their royal Church of the Holy Cross, built in 920 on Ałt‘amar island in Lake Van, Armenia, depicts in relief David confronting Goliath; we will return to this image presently. The other hero of ancient Israel who contributes most richly to the formation of the heroic image in the epic of Sasun is Samson, one of the most colorful and enigmatic figures of the Book of Judges of the Hebrew Bible, a text full of colorful and powerful stories that exerted a profound influence on the Armenian imagination and self-image.23 21

22 23

On the elegy of Artaxias preserved by Grigor Magistros Pahlawuni, with comparison to a similar poetic composition in Middle English, see J.R. Russell, “Some Iranian Images of Kingship in the Armenian Artaxiad Epic,” RÉA 20 (1986–1987): pp. 253–270. On Armenian apocalyptic in the eleventh century, see J.R. Russell, “Revelations of Darkness: Medieval Armenian Apocalyptic in the Epic of Sasun and the Visions of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn,” Journal of Armenian Studies 6.1 (1998–1999): pp. 3–15. In a Turkic Manichaean fragment from Xočo (T.M. 180), one finds “that son of the demons, the false Mithra”, even as Christian apocalyptic evolved its Antichrist. The Book of Judges, with its highly productive cycle of legends about Samson, seems to have contributed in an important way to the formation of the first branch of the Sasun epic as well. The mother-to-be of the twins, Covinar, consents to offer herself in sacrifice that the Armenian people may live—to be given by her father king Gagik (Arcruni) in marriage to the Arab Caliph. But first she takes a last walk in her homeland with her girl friends. Growing thirsty, she wades into Lake Van, and drinks one and a half handfuls of

the interrupted feast

483

Samson is shown at Ałt‘amar as well, in fact twice: as an almost naked giant killing a diminutive Philistine (in scale, a sort of David and Goliath in reverse), and slaying a lion with a weapon, maybe a knife or short sword. The Biblical text is quite explicit about Samson killing the lion with his bare hands alone, but the hero uses a weapon to slay the big cat on a bas-relief from the church of Ateni in the district of Gori in Georgia, as well. Ateni dates to the seventh century; so the sculptor at Ałt‘amar was evidently following a settled tradition—that is, if the figure in both cases, or either one, is indeed Samson. The association of the hero Samson and king David is further stressed by the sculptor, for David, too, is shown in bas-relief at Ałt‘amar killing a lion. He is fully clothed, and grasps the lion’s jaws with his bare hands as though to pull them apart—that is, what Samson does in the Bible; and Great Mher, in the epic of Sasun.24 Perhaps the reason for the deviation from the Biblical text in the case of Samson is the iconic Ancient Near Eastern image of the Persian king in single combat with a leonine monster he is stabbing with the short sword called an akinakes—maybe a symbolic contest in which good vanquishes evil. Or it may simply be a way of connecting this scene to the episode where Samson kills Philistine foes with the jawbone of an ass. But why, then, depict David killing

24

a milky liquid spurting from an ithyphallic rock in the water. Nine months later, she gives birth to Sanasar and his shorter twin brother Bałdasar: the Caliph, enraged that she is not a virgin, declares he will kill her and the boys. But they escape into Armenia. The escape is a motif drawn from the Biblical narrative of the sons of Sennacherib, Arm. Senek‘erim. The latter was a regnal name of the Arcrunis and the Biblical story is part of their genealogical legend. However the earlier part of the narrative seems inspired in part by the story of the daughter of Jephthah in Judges 11. She is to be sacrificed in fulfillment of his father’s vow, for the greater good of her people. But before she dies she is allowed to roam the hills with her girl companions for two months, lamenting that she must die a virgin. On Ałt‘amar, see S. der Nersessian, Aght‘amar: Church of the Holy Cross (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 18; and J.G. Davies, Medieval Armenian Art and Architecture: The Church of the Holy Cross, Aght‘amar (London: Pindar, 1991), pp. 93–94, 116. Davies suggests that Samson’s combat with the lion might have been understood as symbolic of the struggle between good and evil in the light of Psalm 22, “… open with their mouths at me like a ravening and a roaring lion”. This would accord with the probable symbolism of the Achaemenian king’s single combat with a monstrous, leonine Mischwesen. Davies goes on to consider Samson as a Christ-like figure, comparing the Lord bursting from His tomb to the Israelite hero ripping the Philistines’ gates from their hinges. This was a scene whose symbolism was of importance to Jews, too, since it is apparently depicted in a mosaic from the synagogue at Huqoq, Israel, discovered some time after Davies’ book was published. One might also compare it to Christ’s harrowing of Hell, with the specific reference in Christian exegesis (well known in Armenian sources) to Psalm 24, “Raise up your heads, O gates; and be lifted up, O ye everlasting doors, and the king of glory will come in.”

484

russell

the lion barehanded? In ISamuel 17:31–37, David declares he will go and fight Goliath, but Saul doubts his strength; so the young man tells him that when he was a shepherd, a lion or bear might steal one of his flock. He went after the beast, rescued its prey; and then, if it attacked him, wǝ-heḥezaqtī bi-zqānō wǝhikitīw wǝ-hamītīw “I used to grab it by its beard, and I struck it and I killed it” (in Armenian IKings 17.35 he grabs it by the throat: unēi zp‘ołic‘ nora ew harkanēi ew spananēi zna, translating LXX pharyngos, “throat” instead of “beard”). There is no mention of a weapon. The context is important: David was a shepherd rescuing his sheep, and for Christians this is a foreshadowing, of course, of Christ, a scion of the Davidic line, as the Good Shepherd rescuing His flock from sin and the maws of death. And in the Armenian epic cycle, David, the strong young shepherd destined to be hero and savior of his nation, is the son of lion-rending Great Mher. Perhaps Armenian iconography thus reserves the deed of greater prowess—killing with bare hands rather than with a weapon—to the Biblical figure so akin to Samson, yet possessing an additional Christian and local epic resonance. Samson will be seen to be particularly important to the construction of the episode in which Vasak Pahlawuni, with his lion’s strength, takes refuge in the cleft of a rock after a battle, in the text of Matthew of Edessa. So some detailed consideration of the Danite hero is warranted here. The Biblical text embraces the period between the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua to the dawn of kingship. In the book, the tribes of Israel, disunited, mortally threatened by the power of the invading Philistines, are ruled by šōphṭīm, a word whose English equivalent, “judges”, is somewhat misleading if it evokes only a seated, elderly man in black robes with a gavel. *Šōpeṭ was a widespread term in the region of Canaan: the Romans record that the Carthaginians, descendants of Phoenician colonists, called their civil magistrates suffetes.25 The Shophetim of Israel were men (and women!) who emerged as leaders because they combined military prowess and decision-making skill with personal charisma. The latter aspect is generally justified in the text as God-given; but from the standpoint of secular literary analysis these various qualities are typical characteristics of an epic hero. And the general political situation of Judges—of tribes with charismatic leaders but without unity under a king—will have recalled strongly to the Armenians their own fragmented predicament and their reliance on local strongmen and heroes or regional naxarars.

25

See Ch.R. Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), pp. 477–478, under the root špṭ.

the interrupted feast

485

The epic hero type is often also a defender of the weak, a trickster, and a liminal character, that is, a loner not entirely comfortable in civilized urban society or among his own people. Samson, whose name contains Hebrew šemeš, “the sun”,26 was in 19th-century scholarship categorized with various solar gods or heroes (of whom Mithra is the obvious local representative for Armenians). Judges does not call him “long hair” explicitly, but we are told he was a Nazirite, with seven braided locks. Little Mher in his cave is shaggy. Samson kills a lion by tearing it apart with his bare hands (Judges 14.5–6)—just as Great Mher does. One of the more enigmatic images of the Samson cycle is that of the honey he finds later in the carcass of the lion he has slain—the honey of which he composes his taunting riddle to the Philistines about the sweetness that comes out of strength.27 Samson tells riddles like a proper folkloric trickster, but in his case they backfire. And one need only listen to the seductive, voluptuous opera by Camille Saint-Saëns to sympathize with his fatal passion for Delilah—Great Mher again. But at love, too, he is a failure. Samson is also a liminal figure, a loner: he seems at home neither in his native Dan nor in Philistia. When he wants assistants in battle, he finds foxes, not men. He hides out, not in a house but in a crevice in the Rock of Etam, where the cowardly, servile men of Judah are to discover him, bind him, and turn him over to his Philistine enemies. The romance with Delilah, the last, fatal scene of his strange, sad life, ensues (Judges 15.8; more on this presently). In the end he will bring down the pillars of the temple of Dagon, interrupting more dramatically than ever before or since in literature, a celebration that is the very antithesis of his marriage feast.28

26

27

28

Medieval Armenians understood the meaning of the Hebrew name as “sun”: Samp‘son: aregakn nora kam anuan krknut‘iwn (“Samson: his Sun, or repetition of ‘name’”, i.e., Hebrew šēm). See M.E. Stone, Signs of the Judgement, Onomastica Sacra and The Generations from Adam (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 3; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 154. We deal here with an apparent cross-cultural archetype: Virgil, Georgics 4.281–285 expresses the widely-held ancient belief that bees are spontaneously generated in the corpse of an ox. The Mithraists echoed this belief, and anointed initiates of the degree of Leo, tellingly, with honey. Honey is golden yellow, like a lion, like the Sun; and like both it gives one warmth and strength, like liquefied fire (this was in the ages before sports drinks and caffeinated study-aids). On the Biblical figure, see S. Niditch, Judges (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008); and G. Mobley, Samson and the Liminal Hero in the Ancient Near East (New York: T & T Clark, 2006). In his search for prototypes, Mobley cites the obvious case of Enkidu in the epic of Gilgamesh and offers a more precise comparison of Samson to the ancient Mesopotamian laḫmu, a liminal figure of apotropaic power portrayed with braided locks and a strongly-muscled, naked body. We are concerned here more with the afterlife of Samson as a symbol for Armenians than with his Ancient Near Eastern pedigree—with

486

russell

Two heroes of the five of the Sasun epic bear the name Mher. There are good internal, Armenian reasons for this: Mithra is a very important Zoroastrian divinity whose Roman cult probably had its roots in the region of Armenia. But a survey of the larger historical context of the epic reveals an illuminating parallel. The eighth and ninth centuries were a period of revolt generally in the Iranian world, from Armenia in the west to Sogdiana in the east. As Islam became entrenched and Iranians converted and entered the hierarchy of Islamic society, various movements sought to reshape the new religion for their own use in the terms of their older faith and culture: the result seems to have been a kind of reformed Zoroastrianism that also incorporated elements of Buddhism, Manichaeism, and other religions that had been Iranized in their turn over the four centuries of the Sasanian period. These nativist movements were characterized by what nowadays might be called a kind of apocalyptic liberation theology: their specific aim was the overthrow of Arab domination, and that was to be a signal event of the cosmic end-times. The divinity Mithra is an apocalyptic, salvific figure with a strongly human character; and Maitreya, the future Buddha, who is endowed with so many analogous features, might have developed as a figure in the Mahayana pantheon in the first place as a result of Zoroastrian-Buddhist interaction. His name is itself cognate with Mithra; and like the Mazdean divinity he is linked to the sun and to fire. In the Eastern Iranian Khotanese language Maitreya is called Buddha-Urmaysde, i.e., BuddhaAhura Mazda, the latter divine name having become the common term for the the afterlife of the legend, as it were, rather than with its origins. The Samson-like heroes of Sasun are giants, for instance; and though this aspect could easily have arisen fortuitously, it may reflect an inheritance of post-Biblical tradition, since though Samson is not called a giant in Judges despite his great strength, Talmud b. Soṭah 10a calls him one (see Mobley, Samson, p. 21). The permutations of Samson in native tradition are interesting to observe. The founder of Revisionist Zionism, Ze’ev (b. Vladimir) Jabotinsky, wrote a novel on Samson in 1926 first published in English translation from German in 1930 as Judge and Fool, then reprinted in 1945 as Prelude to Delilah and finally in 1986 as Samson (New York: Judaea). It presents Samson as a prototype for a modern Jewish freedom fighter. So he is the leader of a rural partisan band called the Jackals, whom he is anxious to train and to equip with the iron weapons of the Philistines, and he has an adjutant as well in the person of a handsome, agile young shepherd boy named Nehushtan. His lonesome aspect is transmuted into the thoughtful, brooding individualism of the leader-type. More recently the left-liberal Israeli writer David Grossman published a brilliant and beautiful study: D. Grossman, Lions’ Honey: The Myth of Samson (New York: Canongate, 2006); Hebrew Dǝvaš arayōt, in which Samson is heartbreakingly lonely and confused, misunderstood and torn by love, at an anguished distance from his parents. So the reception of the hero at either end of the modern Jewish political spectrum rearranges like the turning of a kaleidoscope the already complex mosaic of shining chips and dazzling colors of the mosaic of Samson.

the interrupted feast

487

Sun (much as Mihr becomes a word for the Sun in New Persian). Mani is identified with Maitreya in Manichaean texts. Iranians of various confessions, both traditional and new and hybrid, might have looked to a common Mithra/Maitreya, then, as their divine hero and common savior from Arab tyranny. Buddhism and the “semi-Zoroastrian cults” of Transoxania became so fused that Muslim sources refer to them with a single designation, sumaniyya. (This word may derive from Middle Persian and Sogdian šaman, “Buddhist”, from Sanskrit śrāmana-. This may in turn be the etymology of Tungusic “shaman”.) The cultic leader Al-Muqannaʿ, who died between AD779–785, seems to have cast his own persona in the image of Maitreya for his Sogdian and Turkic followers.29 On the mountain road from the Muslim vale of Kashmir up onto the high and barren moonscape of Tibetan Buddhist Ladakh there is a ten-meter-tall bas-relief of Maitreya, erected in the eighth century at the point where native defenders by force of arms halted the incursion of Islam. Great and Little Mher in the Armenian epic of Sasun surely reflect the long persistence of old local Zoroastrian traditions, with the admixture of Christian features. But they correspond also to a much wider phenomenon of the particular historical moment when the epic took shape: the various refractions of the apocalyptic cult of Mithra/Maitreya as liberator from the Arabs. This movement is seen across the Iranian world, then, from Armenia in the west to Sogdiana at its eastern extremity.30 29

30

See the groundbreaking work by P. Crone, The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 100, 125, 132–133, 138. As a postscript to the discussion of the iconography of Mher, Samson, Mithra, and Maitreya, one may note a latter-day development. In Soviet Armenian poetry inspired by the epic of Sasun, the imprisoned hero P‘ok‘r Mher was imagined as the champion of the people bursting forth from his cave as a harbinger of Revolution, holding aloft the Red banner; and artists working with Ancient Near Eastern and other prototypes sought to create a new iconography for an ideology they believed would liberate humanity and make a new world: see J.R. Russell, The Book of the Way (Girk‘ chanaparhi) of Yeghishe Charents: An Illuminated Apocalyptic Gospel for Soviet Armenia, University of California, Berkeley, general ed. S. Astourian (Armenian Studies Program Occasional Paper Series; New York: Spring, 2012), and idem, “Mithras in Stalinist Armenia,” Ararat Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 154 (New York: Spring, 1998): pp. 45–46. This appeal to old forms for the new message led to a kind of retroactive process, the imagining of an Armenian art that might have been. Thus, Ervand K‘oč‘ar, the sculptor best known for his monumental equestrian statue of David of Sasun outside the Erevan railway station, executed a series of engravings of scenes of the Sasun epic that look like illustrations of ancient bas-reliefs of the Sasanian era, with an admixture of later styles from Ałt‘amar and Ani, though the ostensible stone originals of course never existed. One shows a turbaned Great Mher fighting his lion barehanded—no ambiguity about a weapon here! It is published in Haykakan herosakan ēposǝ (The Armenian

488

russell

Let us compare an Armenian vision, from the twelfth-century text whose elegy we are to examine in detail presently, to a Zoroastrian composition perhaps three centuries older. In the apocalyptic dénouement thundering into the end of the Lament of St. Nersēs (text p. 130, line 969) salvation takes a highly symbolic but also vividly concrete form. The conquering Franks are to come and Zk‘arn glen zseworak,/ jgen Karmir covun yatak, “roll away the blackhued stone [i.e., the Kaʿaba]/ and cast it to the bottom of the Red Sea.” One might compare to this image a similar one in the short ninth-century poem in Zoroastrian Book Pahlavi on the advent of Wahrām ī Warzāwand (Bahrām the Miracle-worker), a figure who evolved in Middle Persian Zoroastrian lore into a forerunner to the three final saviors of the Avestan canon. The text reads, in part: ān šāh Wahrām ī Warzāwand az dūdag ī Kayān be āwarēm kēn ī Tāziyān čiyōn Rōdastahm āwurd gurz *dlz kēn ī gēhān a-šān mazgitīhā frōd hilēm be nišānēm ātaxšān uzdēsčārīhā be kanēm ud pāk kunēm az gēhān “We will bring that Bahrām the Miracle-worker from the house of the Kayanians for vengeance upon the Arabs like Rostam the mace-bearer, for *long (darāz?) vengeance on behalf of the material world. And then we will tear down the mosques and establish fire [temples]; we will dig up the shrines of idolatry and purify the earth [of them] …”31 Bahrām may have been modeled in the late Sasanian period on the historical Bahrām Čōbīn (“Bahrām, Wielder of the Club”); but his name is that of Vǝrǝthraghna, the Avestan god of victory and strength. And the Kayanians—the Kavis of the Avesta and of Persian epic— are the dynasty of Vīštāspa (Persian Goštāsp), the king who first accepted the teachings of the Prophet Zarathuštra. One of the sons of Vīštāspa, Pǝšō.tanū (Middle Persian Pēšōtan, now a popular name among Parsi Zoroastrians) is to emerge from occultation and suspended animation in the Fortress of Kangha (an Avestan toponym, of unknown location), Pers. Kangdiz, and participate in the final battle against evil. In the Wištāsp yašt he is called amahrka, “immortal”.32

31

32

Heroic Epic [Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1956], opp. p. 40) by none other than the great Hovsep‘ Ōrbeli—the curator of the State Hermitage in Leningrad and mentor of Prof. Karen Nikitich Yuzbashyan, to whose immortal memory the present work is dedicated. The Pahlavi poem was published by H.W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 195–196. I have re-transliterated the text and translated it slightly differently, and propose the reading of a long vengeance on the basis of Zarathustra’s dire foretelling in the Gāthās of darǝghǝm drǝgvō.dǝbyō rašō “long destruction for the followers of the Lie” (Yasna 30.11). See Ch. Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1904), cols. 897– 898.

the interrupted feast

489

The Pahlavi Bundahišn, or book of creation, describes Kangdiz as a structure that perambulates on hands and feet—rather like the “избушка на курьих ножках” (“peasant hut on chicken legs”) of Alexander Pushkin’s long poem Руслан и Людмила (Ruslan and Ludmila)!33—and its denizens bask in eternal springtime. Seven walls34 of different metals and stones ring the fortress: one is of brinǰ, “bronze”. This detail is significant because it links Kangdiz to the city of brass or bronze (in Armenian, even with the very same word as a loan, płinj) to be discussed presently. It has 700 parasangs of roads and 15 gates, and was established on earth by Kay Xusrō (Avestan Kavi Haosravah). Several apocalyptic texts in Pahlavi tell of the fortress: the Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg (“Memorial of Jāmāspa”) adds to the description in the Bundahišn the detail that Kangdiz has seven rivers.35 Although the MSS and printed texts of one, the Zand ī Wahman Yasn, are in prose format, the narrative is repetitive in the manner of a hymn or bardic ballad. I have attempted a division of the text into strophes here to emphasize its essentially folk or epic character:36

33

34

35

36

The image is so familiar to Russian readers that one loses the shock of new perception and fails to recognize its possibly very ancient folkloric and mythological roots. On the cosmological structure and neo-Platonic and Near Eastern parallels or antecedents of Pushkin’s poem, see J.R. Russell, “The Curving Shore of Space and Time: Notes on the Prologue to Pushkin’s Ruslan and Ludmila,” in Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, eds. S. Fine, Sh. Secunda (Leiden: Brill, 2012): pp. 318–365. B.T. Anklesaria, Zand-Ākāsīh: Iranian or Greater Bundahišn (Bombay: Published for the Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha by its Honorary Secretary Dastur Framroze A. Bode, 1956), ch. 32.12, p. 270. Anklesaria reads frasp, “roof beam”; this is to be corrected to parisp, “fortress wall” (a loan still common in Armenian): see also D. Agostini, Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg: Un texte eschatologique zoroastrien (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2013), p. 56, n. 290. Agostini, Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg, ch. 7, pp. 56 (text), 100 (translation). The Avesta knows “seven rivers” (hapta- hǝndava-), cf. perhaps Russian Semirech’e, Семиречье, idem., see the very tentative suggestion in J.R. Russell, “The Place and Time of Zarathushtra,” in A Zoroastrian Tapestry: Art, Religion, and Culture, eds. P.J. Godrej, F.P. Mistree (Ahmedabad: Mapin, 2002): pp. 29–39; but here the model may be the four rivers of Eden for the arba‘ kanfōt hā-āreṣ “four corners of the world” of the Jewish cosmology, augmented by three additional streams to fit the Zoroastrian schema of seven kišvars, or climes. See B.T. Anklesaria, Zand-ī Vohūman Yasn (Bombay: K.L. Bhargava and Co, 1957), ch. 7.19– 20, pp. 60–62. I have rendered proper names in Avestan; and for most there is an old Armenian form: Aramazd = Ahura Mazdā; Šawarš= Syāvaršan (and Frangrasyan/Afrasiyāb in *Hrasyak, via the toponym Hrasekaberd, “Hraseak’s Fortress”, see J.R. Russell, “Two Armenian Toponyms,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 9 (1988): pp. 281–287); kavi = kaw; Nairyōsangha = Nersēs or Narseh; and Sraoša is indirectly attested in šrawšak (see J.R. Russell, “Armenian šrawšak,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 17 (1996): pp. 63–71). In keeping with the archaizing sense of the text I render deh, “village”, in its older sense, cf. Avestan dahyu-, “land, realm” (and thus, Middle Iranian dahibed for Avestan dainghupaiti-).

490

russell

Ud man Dādār Ohrmazd frestēm Nēryōsang ud Srōš ahlaw Be Kangdēz Ī Siyāvaxš ī bāmīg kard; Be *Čihrmēhan ī Wištāspān, Kayān xwarrah ī dēn ī rāst wīrāstār, ku:

And I, the Creator, Ahura Mazdā, send Nairyōsangha and Sraoša the just To the fortress of Kangha That Syāvaršan the shining made— To the *Čithrōmaithana,37 Vīštāspa’s son— Right restorer of the glory of the Kavis of the faith: Ēd Pēšōtan ī bāmīg! O Pǝšō.tanū the shining! Frāz raw ō ēn Ērān dehān Go forth to these realms of Iran Ī man Ohrmazd dād … That I, Ahura Mazdā, created … Ud rawēd Nēryōsang yazad ud Srōš ahlaw And they go, godly Nairyōsangha and Sraoša the just, Az weh Čagād ī Dādīg From the good Mountain of the Judgment Ō Kangdēz To the fortress of Kangha Ī Siyāvaxš ī bāmīg kard. That Syāvaršan the shining made, Uš wāng kunēnd, ku: And cry out: Frāz āy, Pēšōtan ī bāmīg, Come forth, O Pǝšō.tanū the shining, *Čihrmēhan ī Wištāspān, The *Čithrōmaithana, Vīštāspa’s son, Kayān xwarrah ī dēn rāst wīrāstar! Right restorer of the glory of the Kavis of the faith! Frāz raw ō ēn Ērān dehān Go forth to these realms of Iran Ī man Ohrmazd dād: That I, Ahura Mazdā, created, Abāz wirāy gāh ī dēn ud xwadāyīh. And establish the throne of the faith, and sovereignty, once more.

The evocation of the Mountain of Judgment, to which the soul of the departed ascends on the rays of the rising sun on the čahārom, the fourth morning after death, does not merely specify the usual location of the two divinities—

37

The mss. render the Middle Persian as čytlwmh’n or čtlwmy’n, and Anklesaria transliterates it as Chītrōmīyān. I would tentatively propose to understand this hitherto unexplained name or epithet of Pǝšō.tanū as Čihrmēhan, on the basis of the Old Persian proper name of the Achaemenian era, *Čithra-maithana- “mit glanzvoller Wohnung”. This would be a singularly appropriate epithet for the builder and resident of Kangdiz. The form is reconstructed from the Elamite Nebenüberlieferung Zi-ut-ra-me-sa-na: see M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana: Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1973), p. 257. From Old Persian *maithana- we have the Pahlavi form myhn, transliterated mēhan, “home”; modern Persian mihan “home(land)”. F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1895), p. 164 s.v. Čitrōminōi, explains this Beiname of Pēšōtan as “himmlisch von Abkunft” and notes that some Parsi traditions consider it a Beiname of Kangdiz.

the interrupted feast

491

Nairyōsangha (“Manly Speech”) is the Zoroastrian Hermes, and Sraoša (“Listener”) is one of the triumvirate, with Mithra and Rašnu (“Rectitude”), who judge the soul. It also fuses the smaller and larger apocalypses, as it were: the judgment of the individual soul after death and the events of the end times culminating in the final judgment of the whole world. Here the heroes will be summoned, come out, and advance from Kangdiz not to save the planet, though, but to restore Iran’s religious and political freedom. Another passage on Kangdiz from the little text Drāyišn ī Ahreman ō dēwān (“The Evil Spirit’s infernal babble to the demons”) is of similar structure and susceptible to similar versification. Its incantatory structure recalls also a spell, for with each episode the demons’ powers wane until it finally disappears altogether.38 And it is a wisdom text, too—an abbreviated list, reminiscent of the more detailed catalogue in the Bundahišn, of Zoroastrian sacred and mythical places and creatures, moving in order upwards from the depths of the waters to the starry heavens:39 Awēšān dēwān ud druzān ō zreh šawēnd: Sēnmurw wāng kunēd, ud sust be bawēnd. Ō hōm ī sped šawēnd Ud ānōh Kar māhīg Sar az āb abar dared, Ud sust be bawēnd. Ud ō kōf šawēnd:

38

39 40

41 42

Those demons and lying devils go to the sea. The Saēna bird40 cries out, And they are weakened. They go to the White Haoma;41 But there the Kāra fish42 Raises its head from the water And they are weakened. And they go to the mountains:

In Western magic, this is graphically illustrated by the use as a written spell of the garbled Christian words of power in Latin, Hic est cadaver (that is, “This is the body [of Christ]”, at the consecration of the Host): ABRACADABRA BRACADABR RACADAB ACADA CAD A Anklesaria, Zand-ī Vohūman Yasn, pp. 88–89. Avestan saēnō.mǝrǝgha-: the Pahlavi sēnmurw and Persian sīmorgh. Originally an eagle, it becomes in legend a creature with supernatural powers. The Armenian loan siramarg is a peacock, also with magical associations. This is a mythical type of the immortality-conferring herb haoma- (Vedic soma-) that is to be ritually prepared for mankind at the resurrection. This is a mythical creature that protects the roots of Tree of All Seeds from the jaws of evil fishes.

492

russell

Ānōh Kark murw wāng kunēd, Ud sust be bawēnd. Ud ō dašt šawēnd, Ānōh Wahman murw wāng kunēd, Sust be bawēnd. Ud ō kadagīhā ī mardomān šawēnd. Az Garōdmān wāng: Az Harburz Amahraspandān āyēnd, Az Kangdēz raftār Pēšōtan wāng āyēd, Sust be bawēnd. Abar āsmān nigērēnd, Wanand ud Haftōirang wēnēnd, U-šān nērōg be šawēd.

There the *Kǝhrkasa bird cries out,43 And they are weakened. And they go to the plain: There the bird of Vohu Manah cries out,44 And they are weakened. And they go to the abodes of men. A cry resounds from Garō.dǝmāna:45 The Amǝša Spǝntas come from high Harā,46 The cry of Pǝšō.tanū, going forth from Kangha fortress, sounds; And they are weakened. They look up to heaven; Vega and the Seven Stars behold, And then their power leaves them.

The magical abode of the Zoroastrian immortals, Kangdiz, appears in a somewhat different guise in Niẓām al-Mulk’s description of the beliefs of the followers of the eighth-century Iranian nativist religious movement of Abū Muslim. One of his lieutenants, the spāhbed “general” Sonbād, was born in Khōrāsān and raised a rebellion at Ray. Sonbād, who claimed to be a prophet, said Abū Muslim had not died but recited the greatest of the names of God, was transformed into a white dove, and was now residing with the Mahdi (the Muslim messiah-figure) and with Mazdak (a heresiarch of the Sasanian period) in a fortress of brass. Sonbād also promised to destroy the Kaʿaba and to make the Sun the qibla of prayer: a common theme for St. Nersēs and the Pahlavi text. As for the brass fortress, Crone argues, rightly in my view, that it is patterned on the myth of Kang Diz, with its layers of walls of different metals.47 One of the most popular tales of the Thousand Nights and a Night is that of the fortress of brass, which is believed to stand at either the eastern or western edge of the world: Sogdiana or Morocco. The Caliph sends a party there to find the jars 43 44

45 46 47

Avestan, a vulture: the bird is well regarded because vultures eat the flesh of exposed corpses: see Anklesaria, Zand-Ākāsīh, ch. 24.36, p. 200. The owl is named Ašō.zušta- (Persian čughd) beloved of Righteousness after the Holy Immortal of the Best Righteousness (Aša Vahišta), or zōrbarag ī Wahman, *Arms-bearer of the (Holy Immortal) Good Mind; see Anklesaria, Zand-Ākāsīh, ch. 24.28, p. 198. Avestan, “House of Song”, the heavenly abode of the righteous; cf. the Armenian loan gerezman “tomb”. The seven Holy Immortal divinities are placed on the axial mountain of the world, Avestan Harā Bǝrǝzaitī. See Crone, The Nativist Prophets, pp. 38–39.

the interrupted feast

493

in which Solomon once imprisoned the demons. But what they discover is the fact of mortality and human vanity: they repent of their vain quests and foolish interest in magic, and turn to the simple worship of God. The famed story was translated into Armenian around the year 1000 and became the core of a cluster of didactic and adventure narratives, Patmut‘iwn płnjē k‘ałak‘i, “History of the City of Bronze”, which was transmitted in manuscript, then in print, down to the early 20th century, in Classical, then in modern vernacular Armenian. Its ultimate source, as a tale of religious improvement, seems to have been the episode of the Phantom City in the Mahayana Buddhist Lotus Sutra of the Good Law (Saddharmapundarika sutra). In the Lotus Sutra, a sage with magical powers kindly creates phantom cities along the long road for the weary travelers in his care to afford them rest and a sense of having reached a goal, even though true enlightenment and redemption are still far off. The text was probably composed in an Eastern Iranian milieu, somewhere along the Silk Road.48 We have seen the apocalyptic figure of Mithra appear in the 8th–9th centuries as two Armenian folk heroes named Mher in the west and as the Sogdian Buddhist redeemer Maitreya in the east. In this instance, the remote fortress of Kang, where the heroes of Iran rest till the end times arrive, has evolved into a phantom city (Buddhist) or city of brass (Muslim and Armenian) whose purpose is religious edification; the followers of Abū Muslim in the 8th century professed belief in the city of brass, but it is one whose function has remained the same as that of the original Kang Dez. The theme of a remote enclosure from which a powerful figure, or many of them, will emerge at the end of time is a topos of apocalyptic imagination that, as we have seen, has strong folkloric overtones and is thus both easily accessible and very malleable. For a single hero, there is Mher imprisoned in his cave, and, in a related and earlier Armenian myth, king Artawazd held captive by giants called k‘aǰk‘ “the brave” in the chasm of Mount Ararat. The tyrannical dragonman Aži Dahāka (Persian Zahhāk) is to burst free from his imprisonment in Mt. Damāvand at the end of time, to be slain by the risen Kǝrǝsāspa (Persian Garšāsp). One may relate to this theme more generally the widespread European belief that in the end times the hordes of Gog and Magog are to burst through the wall Alexander built at the edge of the world to contain them. In the medieval period a related and more specific legend evolved conflating this 48

See J.R. Russell, “The Tale of the Bronze City in Armenian,” in Medieval Armenian Culture, eds. T. Samuelian, M. Stone (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984): pp. 250–261; and idem, “The Cross and the Lotus: The Armenian Mediaeval Miscellany The City of Bronze,” in The Rise of Islam, eds. V. Curtis, S. Stewart, Vol. 4, The Idea of Iran (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009): pp. 71–81.

494

russell

myth with traditions about the ten lost tribes of Israel: the latter, called the “Red Jews”, will burst upon Christendom before doomsday, slaughtering the persecutors of the remnant of their people.49 The theme of the emergence of an apocalyptic figure from millennial imprisonment or hibernation is inherently ambiguous: even for believers for whom it heralds salvation rather than doom, it is still the end of the world as we know it, and one does not feel fine. In the Pahlavi text we encounter also Rostam sagzī, the Saka and macebearer. He is a pre-Islamic epic hero whose saga is the core of the Šāh-nāme of Ferdōsī—the Persian national epic, composed around the same time as the life of St. Nersēs. As noted above, stories about Rostam were popular in Armenia, too, as the historian Movsēs Xorenac‘i attests—his fidgety, princely Bagratid patron begged for some. The date of the patmahayr, the “father of histories” of the Armenians, is not certain: the text may be fifth-century with interpolations, or eight- or ninth- without them. For our present purpose it does not matter: the figure of Rostam looms early, large, and enduringly in Armenian story telling. He was endowed with a religious dimension, in our short Pahlavi text and, it would seem, far to the east and west of the place of its likely composition. That suggests the religious aspect of Rostam long preceded Ferdōsī, whose narrative is largely shorn of it. The Mandaean “true history” or Rostam and his son presents him as a kind of Sufi; and from the other end of the Iranian world there is an enigmatic painting of a multi-armed being, presumably a Bodhisattva, attired exactly like Rostam. Sir Marc Aurel Stein unhesitatingly identified the figure as the divinized, Buddhified Iranian Saka hero.50 The Pahlavi poem declares that vengeance (kēn, a loan into Armenian) will come on behalf of the material world, in which Islam is an agent of pollution: the mosques have to be dug up at their very foundations in order to purify the earth. It has thus transferred to the apocalyptic vision Zoroastrian rules and categories of purity, according to which a buried body or other corpsematter (fingernail parings, cut hair, etc.) pollutes the earth, over which presides the Amǝša Spǝnta “Bounteous Immortal” divine being Spǝntā Armaitī, Pahlavi Spandārmad. One is reminded of the Jewish Zealots (Hebrew Qanāʾīm) of the late Second Temple Period, who regarded the presence of the Roman pagans in

49

50

See, with refs., J.R. Russell, “Hārūt and Mārūt: The Armenian Zoroastrian Demonic Twins in the Qurʾān Who Invented Fiction,” in Commentationes Iranicae: Vladimiro f. Aaron Livschits nonagenario donum natalicium, eds. S. Tokhtasev, P. Luria (Санкт-Петербург: Нестор, 2013) [St. Petersburg: Nestor, 2013]: pp. 469–480; and idem, “An Armenian Spirit of Time and Place: the Švot,” RÉA 36 (2014–2015): pp. 13–59. See J.R. Russell, “On Mysticism and Esotericism among the Zoroastrians,” Iranian Studies, Vol. 26, Nos. 1–2 (Winter/Spring, 1993): pp. 73–94.

the interrupted feast

495

the Land of Israel as not just a spiritual, but a physical pollution. The Herodian age was one in which Jews hoped Parthian conquest of the Land might herald messianic redemption: the idea that the presence of pagans rendered the soil impure might have been one of a cluster of Zoroastrian ideas that became popular in Israel in the Intertestamental period. One notes that it was precisely at this time that Jews adopted the obviously Iranian custom of exposing the dead and then depositing the dry bones in stone ossuaries, though we do not know how much of the belief system underlying the practice—as described above— was imported with it. We shall see presently that the Armenian image of the uprooting of the Kaʿaba is colored by another background of imagery and reference, from Genesis, the Book of Exodus, and the Gospels. Muslim apocalyptic also envisions the uprooting of the black stone of the Kaʿaba at the end of time—but in this case it is not to plunged ignominiously into the depths of the sea, of course, but to be transported from Mecca to the Temple Mount at Jerusalem, joining in glory the storied foundation stone of the universe, the place of the Holy of Holies of the Temple, the platform from which Muhammad, mounted on the miraculous steed Buraq, vaulted heavenwards, that the Dome of the Rock encloses. The “straight path” (ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm) of the opening chapter of the Qurʾan derives from the Zoroastrian Bridge of the Separator (Pahlavi čīnvād puhl), which is the road of the soul after death to judgment. Here, after the general resurrection and at the final judgment, the bridge will spring eastwards from the two noble rocks on mount Moriah, arching over the valley of Kidron.51 The dynamic quality of the vision of the Kaʿaba clearly derives from and builds upon the night journey of Muhammad himself from Arabia to Jerusalem and his ascension on the steed Buraq from the Rock on the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Enclosure, into the empyrean: the miʿrāj. Under Byzantine rule that enclosure, the Temple Mount, had been left intentionally in ruins, its desolation a rebuke to the Jews, who were besides forbidden even to dwell within the precincts of their own holy city. But in the seventh century the conquering Muslim Arabs welcomed the Children of Israel home and named the holy city Beit al-Muqaddas after the Temple, Hebrew Beit ha-Miqdaš, that had once stood there. They reverently cleaned and restored the Temple Mount, and built the beautiful Dome of the Rock there—not quite mosque, and not temple either, but a commemorative shrine of a universally sacred place. These 51

O. Grabar, The Dome of the Rock (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 56. I had the honor to offer an early version of this paper at the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in December 2014. The Temple Mount opened before us outside the window and across the very valley of the resurrection, the Dome of the Rock gleaming in its sublime beauty.

496

russell

pious constructions were a reproach to the Byzantines and other Christians— and it is to be recalled that the Armenian presence in Jerusalem was especially prominent then, and was to remain so. So perhaps Nersēs’ hoped-for disposition of the Kaʿaba, down into the sea rather than up onto the mountain, was in part a delayed retort to the Muslims. There is an additional layer of symbolism to the plunging of the Kaʿaba specifically into the Red Sea. The latter is the closest body of water to Arabia and to Mecca in particular, to be sure; but it is pre-eminently, in Biblical terms, the sea that parted for Moses and then closed over the pursuing Egyptian host, drowning them. Christians regarded the crossing of Israel from slavery to freedom as a typological foreshadowing of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, which was to free mankind from the bondage of sin. A widespread legend, minutely studied in many publications by Prof. Michael Stone of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,52 held that Adam and Eve after their expulsion from Eden were terrified at the setting of the Sun. Satan assured them that it would rise again in a few hours’ time, provided Adam put his signature (cheirographos is the term from Greek employed in the title of the apocryphon) to a document in which our forefather was tricked into swearing fealty to the Prince of Darkness till the unborn experience birth and the undying suffer death. A watertight clause, one would think, but the despairing Adam accepted. In the end, though, the unborn and undying Christ, through His Nativity and Resurrection, outwitted the deceiver. Accordingly, the stone bearing the Cheirograph of Adam was imagined (and sometimes portrayed in illuminated manuscripts) as lying shattered—abrogated—at the bottom of the Jordan at the feet of Christ. There is sometimes also a drowned Egyptian charioteer; and this would be the vanquished Satan. Perhaps St. Nersēs intended a third typological layer, in which the Kaʿaba was to be seen as the latter-day satanic cheirograph; and the Pharaonic warrior, as the Muslim invader. For after all, in the closely contemporary Armenian epic of Sasun the Mesopotamian home of the “idolatrous” Arabs is stubbornly identified as Mǝsǝr, that is, Miṣr, “Egypt”. The general theme of the short Pahlavi narrative on Bahrām the Miracleworker is related closely, as we have observed, to those of the longer apocalyptic texts Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg and Zand ī Wahman Yasn, which, however ancient their origins, crystallized in the form we have in around the ninth century— 52

See M.E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002) (reviewed by this writer in the International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10.2 (Fall 2003): pp. 309–312). This is an important episode of the Apocrypha, and Prof. Stone has devoted numerous publications to illuminating its treatment by a score of ancient and modern Christian literary traditions.

the interrupted feast

497

rather as the material of the Sasun epic did. They are set, in pseudepigraphical fashion, in the times of the prophet Zarathustra. So for all their detailed vaticinatio ex eventu, they do not evoke the strikingly concrete, shocking image of the demolished, uprooted mosques, so akin to the Armenian and Iranian nativist vision of a shattered Kaʿaba. The passage about the mosques mentions also shrines with idols. This could be merely a stylistic parallel embellished by archaism: the third century Sasanian high priests Tansar and Kartīr both boast—the first, in his famous Letter; the second, in inscriptions—of having put an end to the ostensible religious diversity of Arsacid society. Kartīr suppressed image-cults, whether these were the bagīns of Armenian and other Zoroastrians of the Parthian era, or the temples of Hindus in the domains of the King of Kings. Or the disdainful reference to idolatry may refer to the buddharupas—statues of the Buddha—in the Buddhist monasteries, vihāras. (Richard Bulliet long ago suggested that the oft-encountered New Persian toponym Nawbahār may refer to these.) We have already discussed the Buddhist-Zoroastrian fusion of the Maitreya cult. Monumental Buddhas, such as the two carven in niches at Bamiyan, Afghanistan—in historical Bactria—were in plain view along the roads. The most likely derivation of New Persian bot, “idol”, is simply from “Buddha”. And a number of Buddhist texts, such as the famous Bilawhar and Bōdasaf, to be considered presently, came into Arabic literature through Iran in the early Islamic period. However it is also possible that the Pahlavi text may be referring to the Muslims themselves as idolaters: in the Christian West, Muslims (called Mohammedans!) were believed to worship a golden image resembling the Roman god Mercury called a Mawmet, i.e., a “Mohammed”; and in the Armenian epic of Sasun, heroes are called xač‘apašt, “worshippers of the Cross”; their Muslim enemies, kṙapašt, “idolaters”! These designations are of course manifestly unfair, if not also supremely ignorant, since Islam is uncompromisingly monotheistic and iconoclastic in a way Christianity is not. But most religious polemic would not exist if its authors were both deeply learned and eirenic in spirit. So the uzdēsčārīhā, “idol-temples”, may perhaps be a Zoroastrian addendum to the thick Christian dossier of apocalyptic invective that slanders Islam as idolatrous. Preceding the vengeful and apocalyptic vision, though, is the long lament over the fall, the ruins out of which redemption is to arise. Nersēs takes us on a melancholy tour, bewailing paradises lost: Jerusalem, then Rome, then Constantinople, then Alexandria and Antioch. With Edessa, the bird’s eye visionary journey across seas and land, and ages of destruction, has arrived close to home and to the immediate scene of disaster. So at that point the poet recites a short but powerful elegy for the lost homeland, the fabulous realm to the

498

russell

north: Mec Hayk‘, Greater Armenia—and for its Arsacid kings and their noble and delightful ways. Line 75, penned in faraway Cilicia to the south, “here on this underside of the world”, invokes greater Armenia, the house of T‘orgom (i.e., Biblical Togarmah), and the clan (azg) and offspring (cnund) of Japheth, where stood the “throne of the sons of the Parthians, the Arsacid kings” (at‘oṙ Part‘ewazanc‘ t‘agaworac‘ Aršakuni) at the holy city of Ēǰmiacin (lit. “The SoleBegotten Descended”, called in the poem by its older, Arsacid name, Vałaršapat, “City of (King) Vologases”) and where the patriarchal line of St. Gregory the Illuminator, “son of the Parthian” (Grigorios Part‘ewazin, line 83)—St. Nersēs’ ancestor!—held sway. “But I ask, O desired one,/ Seeking answer to my case” (line 99) cries Nersēs—and then his elegiac litany begins: Ayžm ur ē t‘agn k‘o zardi ew kam psakn hrašali? Ur zardarank‘n dšxoyi: harsin ordwoy t‘agawori?

Where now is your crown (t‘ag) adorned, or its marvelous diadem (psak)? Where are the decorations of the royal princess (dšxoy), bride of the son of the king? Ur patmučan harsnarani kam oskehuṙ Where is the robe of the nuptial chamber verǰawori? or its golden fringes trimmed (oskehuṙ verǰawori)? Ēr č‘ē p‘esayn i xorani, kam p‘esawērk‘n i Why is the groom not standing at the altar tačari? (xoran) or his party (p‘esawērk‘n) in the temple (tačar)? Ur en mankunk‘n aṙagasti, zi oč‘ hnč‘en Where are the children bearing the canopy; zergsn Dawt‘i? why do they not sing David’s songs? Ziard lṙeal oč‘ harkanen zp‘ołn hnč‘oł Why have they fallen silent and do not play Tarsonac‘i? the trumpet of the Apostle Paul? Ur pararakn eznamoli, ziard i k‘ez oč‘ There is the pair of fatted oxen; and why are zenani? they not offered in you in sacrifice? Kam matṙuakk‘n bažakin zi oč‘ bašxen And the cupbearers—why do they not serve zanuš ginin? the flagons of sweet (anuš) wine? Ur barekamk‘n zuarčakic‘ ǝnd giwt ord- Where are his boon companions to welwoyn anaṙaki, come back the Prodigal Son, Kam taraceal girk hayreni aṙ i hamboyr Or his father’s wide embrace—to hug the meławori? sinner in a kiss? Ur k‘ałc‘rajaynn eražšti kam gełgełumn Where is the sweet voice of the musician, or ełanaki? the lovely lilting melody? Ur ǝnt‘erc‘ołk‘n en Surb Taṙi, kam varWhere are the readers of Holy Writ or the dapetk‘n i handisi? priests at the convocation?

the interrupted feast Ur ē at‘oṙ hayrapeti, kam k‘ahanayk‘ i surb bembi? Ur sarkawagk‘ en i spasi, kam paštoneayk‘ pataragi? Ur en xnkoc‘n i k‘ez burmunk‘, anerewoyt‘ ’w ereweli, Kam žołovoc‘n gumarumn yawur tonic‘n tēruni? Ur en gahoyk‘ t‘agawori Vałaršapat k‘o k‘ałak‘i? Kam naxarark‘n ur ark‘ayi Ayrarateand gawaṙi? Ur en išxank‘n, or aṙaǰi, kam zinakirk‘n, or en verǰi? Ur zōrakank‘n yasparizi, kam legēonk‘n i čakati? Ur mecameck‘n i bazmoc‘i, kam ur sełann amenali? Ur en azatk‘n i tačari, kam teaṙnordik‘n i całkoc‘i? Aha barjaw ays vałagoyn, yoyž heṙac‘aw, oč‘ erewi: Anurǰk‘ ’w erazk‘ ēin yaytni, ard cackec‘an i zart‘mni.

499 Where are the Patriarchal throne and the priests at the holy altar? Where are the deacons at their service, or the ministers of the holy Mass? Where, O censer, are your incense spices, both the invisible and the seen? Where is the assembled congregation on the day of the high festivals of the Lord? Where are the throne and the appointments of the king (t‘agawor) in Vałaršapat, your city? Where are the dynasts (naxarar) of the regal lord (ark‘ay) of the province of Ayrarat? Where are the princes leading up the front, or the arms-bearers that come behind them? Where are the warriors in the field; the legions, on the battle line? Where are the grandees (mecamec) on the banquet couch (bazmoc‘), the groaning board (sełann amenali)? Where are the freemen (azat) in the palace (tačar); or the sons of the lords, in the flower garden (całkoc‘)? Lo, all this was taken long ago; far away and no longer to be seen. They were reveries, apparitions of a dream, now hidden in the waking light of day.

St Nersēs has constructed his elegiac pericope with care for a subtle symmetry and planned coincidence of images. It begins with a visual picture of the Artaxiad and Arsacid crown and the diadem that was tied around it. The words for both are Parthian. But at an Armenian Christian wedding, too, the bride and groom are crowned and diademed with a band now called a narot; so the image of national sovereignty merges with that of a royal wedding. The wedding is held at the high altar of the cathedral church; but again the Parthian words for both of these, xoran and tačar, evoke coincident images, for they mean also “banqueting pavilion” and “royal palace”, the proper places for the wedding feast of a prince and princess. In the lines that follow, the poet deftly mingles images of secular feasting with Biblical themes: there is singing, but it

500

russell

is the Psalmist’s; there is trumpet music, but it is that of Paul of Tarsus; oxen are killed and cooked, but the Prodigal Son and fatted calf are recalled; and there is wine. The latter is “sweet”, and Nersēs selects not the common k‘ałc‘r here from Indo-European, which he does employ elsewhere, but anuš, Clas. Arm. anoyš, from Iranian anaoša-, “ambrosia, nectar, immortal (drink)”. One may sense secular, if not pagan, overtones as the guests get down to drinking.53 Nersēs then describes churches, palaces, kings, noblemen, and warriors in their glory—a concise but encyclopedic vision of ancient Armenian society. The pleasure of the banqueting couch follows immediately the strife of war, as is the proper order; and the word tačar, meaning either “palace” or “cathedral church”, is used again towards the end, mirroring its appearance at the beginning. In the strophe it is parallel to całkoc‘, “flower garden”: the freemen (azat) are assembled in one and the sons of lords stroll through the other and it is hard to tell which meaning of tačar we ought to understand—the royal tačar mayri of Arsacid Christian Armenia had been, after all, as noted above, the palace forest or hunting preserve, a place attached to the royal residence as the całkoc‘ seems to be to the tačar here; and had nothing to do with churches. So the elegy ends as it began, with a royal feast and with apparent plays on the ambiguous term for cathedral and palace. But the feast that begins and closes the intricate, colorful, teeming vision is sharply interrupted: it was a dream, and suddenly one is awake, in the new and disastrous reality. The elegy, despite its somewhat dreary monorhyme in the Armenian (an unfortunate hallmark of Nersēs’ poetry, which is in all other respects so luminous and complex), is of astonishing poetic power. To the reader it may conjure the verses, yet to be written, of François Villon, Where are the snows of yesteryear; or even more powerfully, perhaps, a scene still farther in the future and more distant from embattled Cilician Armenia, in English. The consonance of the details are so uncanny as to suggest a relationship; but even though the last king of Armenia had pleaded his case before Parliament at London, and though the “Lytell Chronicle” of the Cilician Armenian king Het‘um and the romance of Bevis of Hampton, with its Armenian setting, had been popular reading in Chaucer’s England, it is most unlikely that the Bard knew of Nersēs. Their parallel visions hint at a synchronicity, rather, an invisible affinity of the imaginations of great creative artists confronted in various places and ages by the same fact of transience and impermanence. By the interrupted feast! Towards the close of The Tempest of Shakespeare the magician Prospero,

53

Wine was the main business of ancient feasts: Hebrew mišteh, “feast”, comes from the root šth, “drink”.

the interrupted feast

501

having conjured an entertainment of spirits for the wedding feast of his daughter Miranda, suddenly interrupts it: “I had forgotten the foul conspiracy/ of that beast Caliban and his confederates/Against my life.” Ferdinand, the royal groom, is shocked; and the great mage comforts him: “… be cheerful, sir./ Our revels now are ended. These our actors, as I foretold you, were all spirits and/ Are melted into air, thin air;/ And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,/ The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,/ The solemn temples, the great globe itself,/ Yes, all which it inherit, shall dissolve …/ … We are such stuff/ As dreams are made on, and our little life/ Is rounded with a sleep.” (IV.i.139–158) The play is a comedy and the noble sprite Ariel has already disarmed the plotters, thwarting their plan of a treacherous and cowardly attack. Miranda and Ferdinand are married, and Prospero is vindicated. We meet the theme of an interrupted feast with grim consequences, but ones that will be set to right, in another kind of comedy, a text that long predated Nersēs and that found its setting in his neighborhood and in a cultural setting akin to that of the old Armeno-Iranian world evoked in his elegy. Most likely he knew it well. The apocryphal Book of Tobit, set in Nineveh, capital of Assyria; in Ecbatana, capital of the Medes; and at points along the road in between, is a sort of wry Oriental romance of the philosophizing Hellenistic type: it and Jonah seem to be sardonic replies to Job. It has, as one might expect for the period, a strong Persian flavor. The Zoroastrian archdemon of wrath, the only Zoroastrian demon known by name in Scripture, makes a cameo appearance as an annoyed, frustrated lover. This is Aēšma daēvā, Hebrew Ašmedai, and English Asmodeus (in Armenian, Eznik refers to demonolaters at *hešmakapašt and one common Georgian word for demon is hešmaki, from *aēšmaka-).54 But let us return to the banquet table. In II.1–14, Tobit, whose name means God is Good, reclines to feast on the Jewish festival of weeks, Shavuoth, at a suitably groaning board; but before partaking of his meal he asks his son Tobias, whose name also means God is Good, to go and see if he can find a poor man with nowhere to eat. Tobias returns, not with a destitute guest, but with the alarming news that he has found the body of a Jew who was murdered and dumped in a trash heap. Tobit leaves the table, his interrupted feast untouched, and rushes off to give the man’s remains a decent burial. After a chain of bizarre mischances he is blinded. His wife chides him for having been so charitable: See what has come of it! chitters the shrew. In the end all turns out for the relentless best and, guess what, God is Good: Tobit’s son Tobias and the

54

See J.R. Russell, “God is Good: Tobit and Iran,”Iran and the Caucasus V (Tehran, 2001): pp. 1– 6.

502

russell

comely Susannah (whose previous suitors a jealous Asmodeus had murdered, all seven of them) are married, and Tobit, cured of his blindness, dies happy and at peace.55 But now let us turn back to consider the second Armenian text, one without a happy ending. The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, ca. 1070–ca. 1140) deals with the struggle of the Armenian Christians against the invading Muslims and with apocalyptic visions brought on by the devastation wrought by the invader: its closing date is 1036. The early modern scholar Č‘amč‘ean suggested Matthew might have died in the siege of Edessa by Zangi in 1144—the very historical event that brought forth the Lament of St. Nersēs!—but this is unlikely. Towards the beginning of his narrative, Matthew evokes in the densely patterned language and imagery of epic the scene of a feast: Vasak Pahlawuni and his son Gregory (i.e., Grigor Magistros Pahlawuni, mentioned above) are at table making merry in the clan fortress of Bǰni, in AD 972. The Pahlawunik‘ were to abandon that ancestral home as Seljuk attacks and conquests pressed the Armenians to emigrate westwards into Byzantine-held Cappadocia, where Gregory was to become a military administrator and deeply educated man, one of the few in medieval Armenian tradition with no ecclesiastical connection. The fateful Battle of Manzikert (Arm. Manazkert), AD 1071, took place around the year of Matthew’s birth, and the memory of these defeats and losses might add some retrospective poignancy, a sense of impending doom, to the setting. Vasak sees a man hastening on foot towards his party of revelers, and predicts he is bringing bad news. The messenger indeed bears tidings of the fall of the district of Nigk‘. “Roaring like a lion,” Vasak girds himself for battle, stopping only for communion and confession on his way to the fray. They confront the Muslim army and Vasak engages in single combat with “a dark Ethiopian”, cleaving him in two.56 I have broken up the printed Armenian prose text57 into strophes, to give some sense of the vigor of the narrative, which owes its power, its style, to the strength, color, and cadences of such oral epic as the cycle of Sasun:

55

56

57

For a discussion of the episode see N. MacDonald, “Food and Drink in Tobit and Other ‘Diaspora Novellas’,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. M. Bredin (London: Continuum, 2006), p. 175. See Ch. MacEvitt, “The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade, and the Armenian Diaspora,”DOP 61 (2007): pp. 157–181, esp. p. 168, who astutely notes the epic quality of the scene though he does not further analyze it. He uses the text edition: Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, Žamanakagrut‘iwn (Vałaršapat, 1898), p. 11 (I employ in this study the Jerusalem text of 1869); Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, tr. by A. Dostourian (Landham, MD, 1993), p. 14. All translations here are my own. Patmut‘iwn Mattēosi Uṙhayec‘woy (Jerusalem: St. James’, 1869), pp. 13–16.

the interrupted feast

503

Yaynm žamanaki At that time zōražołov arareal t‘agaworn Delumnac‘: The king of the Dailamites58 mustered his forces against the forces of the Christians, ew ankarcs gayr hasanēr And suddenly came upon them i Nigs gawaṙin Hayoc‘ In the Armenian province of Nigk‘ merj i yamurn Bǰni. Near the fortress of Bǰni. Ew Vasak asparapetn Hayoc‘ And Vasak, commander of the Armenians, sirec‘eal ordwovn iwrov Grigoriw With his beloved son, Gregory, ew ayl p‘aṙawor azatōk‘n nsteal Seated with other freemen glorious kayr i mec uraxut‘ean: Was making merry. ew hayec‘aw Vasak i yaṙapars čanaAnd Vasak looked upon the rocky way parhin, ew aha gayr mi i štaps And lo! A man was making haste ǝnd hetewak gnac‘s čanaparhin: Along that path, on foot. ew teseal Vasakay asēr: And Vasak, seeing, said: Gužaber ē ayrn ayn. A bearer of ill tidings is that man. Ew hasanēr ayrn i duṙn berdin Bǰnoy: And the man reached the gate of the fortress of Bǰni jayn ałałaki barjeal asēr: And raising his voice in a loud cry said: Gerec‘aw amenayn gawaṙn Ngac‘. All the province of Nigk‘ is taken prisoner! Yaynžam orpēs zaṙiwc goč‘eac‘ Then like a lion roared k‘aǰ zōravarn Vasak, The brave commander Vasak, ew yaruc‘eal zgenoyr zgest erkat‘apats: And rising put on his clothing, iron armor, ew zkni nora ewt‘n azat, And seven freemen after him, ew ǝst pataheloy žamun ayl hecelazōrs And other riders after them as chanced zkni noc‘a. upon the hour. Ew kazmec‘an azatk‘n zkni Vasakay: And the freemen formed their ranks behind Vasak: ew sranayr k‘aǰ P‘ilippē And brave Philip coursed swift, ew Gorg Č‘ortuanēln And Č‘orduanēl the Wolf, ew aylk‘ omank‘: And others still. ew ays ark‘ k‘aǰk‘ ew yałt‘ołk‘ i paterazAnd these were men brave and winners in muns, war;

58

Dailam is the northern Iranian region of Māzandarān; the Zaza of Dersim (Tk. Tunceli), who largely identify culturally and ethnically with the Kurds, are in fact settlers whose language is not Kurdish but Dailamite: they call it, in fact, Dimili, with metathesis.

504 ew oč‘ karac‘ Vasak hamberel srtin, minč‘ew zōrk‘n žołovesc‘en, vasn zi kayin ǝnd jeṙamb nora ars ibrew hing hazars: ew aṙ hpartut‘ean zōrut‘ean iwr, ew hing hariwr aramb yaṙaǰeal orpēs zaṙiwc i Ngac‘ gawaṙin: ew yanjn arareal ztun ew zamurn Bǰni ordwoy iwrum Grigori. Ew hasanēr Vasak i vank‘ mi: hałordec‘aw ink‘n ew amenayn zōrk‘n

russell

But Vasak’s heart could not stay patient Till his forces all assemble, For some five thousand men stood at his hand. But out of pride in his strength With only five hundred men He went forth like a lion into Nigk‘ province. (He entrusted the house and castle of Bǰni To Gregory, his son.) And Vasak reached a monastery: With all his forces received Holy Communion ew xostovanec‘an zmełs iwreanc‘ And they were shriven of their sins, bari xostovanut‘eamb or i K‘ristos Yisus. With good confession to Christ Jesus. Ew i čanaparhin handipeal i giwł mi, And on the way they came upon a village ew tesin zi aylazgik‘n And saw the ones of alien race aṙ hasarak kotoreal ēin zamenayn giwłn, Had slaughtered all the villagers at random, ew zōrk‘ aylazgeac‘n And the armies of that alien race pateal ēin šurǰ zekełec‘eawn: Had surrounded the church ew zhawatac‘ealsn or i nersn ēr, And all the faithful who were within kayin ew kotorec‘in anxnay srov. They mercilessly put to the sword. Ew teseal zayn k‘aǰin Vasakay, Brave Vasak when he saw jayniw koč‘eac‘ orpēs zaṙiwc, Roared loud-voiced as a lion ew yarjakec‘aw i veray zōrac‘ aylazgeac‘n: And fell upon the alien horde. ew kotorec‘in znosa ars erek‘ hariwr, And they killed some three hundred of their men ew mnac‘ealk‘n p‘axstakank‘ leal And the ones remaining fled, ankanēin i zōrs aylazgeac‘n. Escaping to the army of the alien race. Ew šaržeal gayin bazmutiwnk‘ banakin And the multitudes of the camp began to move i veray zōrac‘ k‘ristonēic‘: Against the Christian army. ew ibrew anč‘ap‘ ant‘iw tesanēin And when they saw that without number or measure bazmut‘iwn zōrac‘ aylazgeac‘n, Was the alien army’s horde, ew yaynžam miaban zmah aṙaǰi edin Then they set death before them, all together, ew sksan aṙak‘inanal i paterazmin, And began to excel in the virtue of war. ew orpēs gayls i mēǰ ayceac‘, And like wolves in the midst of goats ew kam orpēs zarcuis i yerams caguc‘, Or like eagles in a flock of fledgling birds,

505

the interrupted feast aynpēs ariabar ǝnt‘anayin i mēǰ paterazmin, ew zbazums xoc‘eal diat‘awal yerkir jgēin. Yaynžam axoyean mi eleal i zōrac‘n aylazgeac‘, seaw xap‘šik ew ayr k‘aǰ, or ew Eot‘n gayl koč‘ēin zna: vasn zi, zinč‘ ē ewt‘n gayln i ǰoks oč‘xarac‘n, gorcēr na ews aṙawel i mēǰ paterazmin. Ew aha gayr xap‘šikn ibrew zseaw amp orotalov, or boc‘ hatanēin i zrehac‘ nora. Ew jayn tueal ew yanuanē yuzēr zVasak. Hayec‘aw k‘aǰn Emran, ew etes zna zi gayr orpēs leaṙn mrrkeal: darjaw aṙ Vasak ew asēr: aha ayr anparteli ew k‘aǰ, or ayl č‘ēr cneal i veray erkri. Ew asac‘ Vasak: Ov aṙiwc ew k‘aǰ Emran, vasn ēr zarhurec‘ar ǝnd tesil nora: aha es elic‘ ǝnddēm nora, ew tac‘ nora zpargewk‘n zor et Dawit‘ Gołiat‘u hayhoyč‘in Astucoy. Yaynžam hasanēr gazanabar ayrn ayn, ṙumb edeal k‘aǰin Vasakay, orpēs zi aṙc‘ē zna i cayr gełardeann iwroy: ew i štaps leal Vasakin, erags dimeac‘, ew połovat t‘rovn i veray saławartin gaheac‘: ew erkus herjeac‘ zxap‘šikn k‘aǰ, or ew masunk‘ marmnoyn yerkir ankanēr.

So they coursed heroic in the fray Ran through many and cast their corpses on the ground. Then a champion came forth from the alien army, A black Ethiop, a brave man. They called him also Seven Wolves For what seven wolves do with a flock of sheep In the deeds of war he did still more. And lo! The Ethiop advanced Thundering like a black cloud, And lightning fires from his armor leapt. He called and named and stirred Vasak. Brave Emran looked, Saw the man like a mountain wreathed in storm, Turned to Vasak and said, This is a man brave and invincible Whose like earth never bore. And Vasak said, O lion, brave Emran, Why are you terrified at his sight? Now I will come forth against him And give him all the gifts That David gave Goliath, That blasphemer against God. Then like a wild beast that man came upon him Swinging his mace at brave Vasak So as to take him on the point of his lance. But Vasak was swift, and quickly turned, And brought the steel saber down on his helmet, hard, And cleaved the brave Ethiop in twain So his body in parts fell to earth.

506

russell

The Armenian term used in Matthew’s time of a Muslim, aylazgi, literally means one of alien race; and it is the term he uses repeatedly in the text. It is pejorative and contemptuous, as designations of unfriendly outsiders tend to be, so one has retained its literal meaning in the translation.59 Besides, an inscription on the bas-relief of David and Goliath on the Church of the Holy Cross on the island of Ałt‘amar, noted above, identifies the armor-clad Philistine giant towering over the comely Israelite slip of a lad as an aylazgi. So here is its literary echo, with Vasak promising to give Seven Wolves as good as David gave Goliath. Hacking an enemy down the middle with a saber is not a unique feat of martial strength, but Vasak does roar like a lion when roused to battle (and when he is in the thick of it, too). In Armenian tradition the locus classicus for lions and tearing one down the middle is, as we have noted above, the episode in the career of the hero Great Mher. As we have seen, an apposite Biblical prototype for this heroic deed of prodigious strength is Samson; and at Ałt‘amar he does it with a weapon, like Vasak, not bare-handed like the hero in Judges. And we have noted also local prototypes. Bas-reliefs on the walls of the apadāna at Persepolis60 depict Achaemenian kings in single combat with leonine monsters, too, so this is at once a regal and heroic image. The image of the lion as a beast of supreme power and royal bearing was alive in the medieval Armenian imagination: the portrait in bas-relief of a medieval Armenian prince on his tombstone portrays him as a lion.61 In the Roman Mithraic order the initiate in the ritual of his fourth degree had to pass the statue of a fearsome leontocephalous man, the Deus Areimanius, or god of death (the epithet is a loan from Persian Ahreman, the name of the demonic opponent of the good Creator God Ohrmazd). As he did this, his old self was symbolically burnt out of him with a blast of flame issuing from the mouth of the statue, and his symbolically reborn soul was anointed with honey, the latter with its yellow color and caloric energy seen as a liquid form of fire. This was the ritual death and rebirth of the Mithraist: the tale of Lion Mher is the second part of the four “branches” of the Armenian epic, and at its conclusion the hero suffers a tragic death, which serves as both the nadir of the cycle and its great turning point, a 59

60

61

The modern term for any non-Armenian is ōtar, an Iranian loan and the equivalent of Sanskrit avatara, “avatar”, though without any of the reverential and supernatural associations of the latter. The Old Persian word is loaned into Arm. as aparan(k‘), “palace”; its more truncated New Persian form, ayvān, has the correspondingly more limited meaning of an open arch in a building. See J.R. Russell, “The Armeno-Iranian Roots of Mithraism,” in Studies on Mithraism, ed. J.R. Hinnells (Rome: Bretschneider, 1994): pp. 183–193.

the interrupted feast

507

death-and-rebirth, for the greatest of the heroes of Sasun, David, is born just as his parents die.62 In the Sasun epic, the great hero David (Arm. Dawit‘) is to perish by treachery: a seductive Muslim princess, like a latter-day Clytemnestra, kills him naked and defenseless in the bath. The topos suggests that certain men, like the American folk hero Jesse James, are invincible in a fair fight but their very nobility makes them vulnerable to the wiles of low men: “the dirty little coward/ Who shot Mister Howard/ Done laid poor Jesse in his grave.” So the listener or reader of an epic might expect the death of Vasak Pahlawuni to happen through the cunning of an inferior, and indeed it does, right after the slaying of the Muslim champion Seven Wolves:63 Yaynžam k‘aǰn Vasak darjaw miac‘eal ew gnayr ibrew zaṙiwc zayrac‘eal ǝnd mēǰ zōrac‘n aylazgeac‘ anc‘anēr ew ēr janjrac‘eal i meci paterazmin ew dimeac‘ elanēr i leaṙn or koč‘i Serkeweloy, ew i bazum halacanac‘ paterazmin nsteal ǝnd hovaneaw k‘aranc‘. Ew teseal zna šinakanac‘n ork‘ p‘axeal ēin. Yaynžam mi omn nmaneal Kayeni spanołin ekeal gtanēr zna zi nnǰēr i vštac‘n užgin: baxeac‘ zna ew ǝnkēc‘ zna ǝnd barjru k‘arin: ew ayspēs katarec‘aw k‘aǰn Vasak Pahlawunin.

62

63

64

Then the brave Vasak turned back alone And strode like a lion enraged, Passed through the midst of the alien host— And he was weary from the great fight— And he turned and went up On the mountain called Quince,64 And after all the troubles of the fight Sat down under cover of the rocks. And the peasants saw him, They who had fled. Then someone like the slayer Cain Came and found him Sleeping off his heavy pains. He struck him and cast him Down from the high rock, And thus was perfected in a martyr’s death The brave Pahlavuni, Vasak.

See most recently J.R. Russell, “The Epic of Sasun: Armenian Apocalypse,” in The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition, eds. K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta (Leiden: Brill, 2014): pp. 41–77, with refs. Jerusalem ed., pp. 16–17; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, p. 26. The translation is mine: in particular I read Kayeni spanołin as “Cain, the killer” not “the killer of Cain”. Arm. Serkeweloy, Mod. Arm. Serkevli leṙ (“mountain of Quince”), in the region of Aragacotn of the province of Ayrarat; till the 1840s there was a village, Serkevli, nearby: see T‘. X. Hakobyan et al., Hayastani ev harakic šrǰanneri tełanunneri baṙaran (Erevan: Erevan University Press, 1998), vol. 4, p. 590.

508

russell

There are several themes at work here: the obvious one is the death of the hero by the treacherous act of a lowly wretch. The verb katarec‘aw “was perfected”, used of the killing of a Christian martyr, adds the appropriate religious overtone to the death of a Davidic hero. But its very setting is an archaic topos as well: Vasak must rest after his martial exertions, and in that state he is at his most vulnerable. In an intricate poem preserved from an oral source by Movsēs Xorenac‘i, the ancient and heroic dragon-slaying Armenian god of war and victory, Vahagn, is born of a fire in the sea; and one observes that the Vedic war gods, to whom the Irano-Armenian divinity is closely kin, must curl up in sleep, small as babies, and recover their strength in the sea after a fight.65 They are vulnerable then. The image of the Armenian hero-king Tigran in Xorenac‘i’s transmission of epic tradition borrows from the image of Vahagn; so the scene of Vasak’s rest under a rocky overhang is steeped in archaic, epic associations. But the most apposite source, given the setting, is, again, in the Samson cycle: In Judges 15, Samson takes revenge on the Philistines for the murder of his wife and her father, and goes to sit, or dwell (Hebrew wa-yēšev) in a cleft of the Rock of Etam (sela‘ ‘ēyṭām). The Philistines come after him into Judah: three thousand men of Judah go to Samson, explain that the Philistines are their rulers whom they must obey. The submissive cowards bind him, and hand him over.66 Here, too, the hero is tracked down by his own people; but since there are no Philistines to hand him over to—he has beaten the aylazgik‘ already—he must be the noble Abel to a base, peasant Cain. The leonine, mighty Vasak evokes, then, a very particular kind of epic hero. But the scene in which he appears has wider resonances as well. We may now consider an Armenian epic ballad mentioned above, about the young prince Aslan (whose name means “lion” in Turkish; it is a fairly common Armenian name). It opens with Aslan making merry at a feast with his retinue of brave young warriors. When they run low on wine he dispatches a servant to go and buy some. The man returns empty-handed, and when the prince asks why, he explains that on the road he came upon a pauper who had died and he gave all the money away to the man’s relatives so he might have a proper funeral— shades of Tobit’s beneficence! Young Aslan, who apparently has led a charmed

65

66

See J.R. Russell, “Carmina Vahagni,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 32, fasc. 3–4 (1989): pp. 317–330; and most recently, idem, “Magic Mountains, Milky Seas, Dragon Slayers, and Other Zoroastrian Archetypes,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute N. S. 22, (2008): pp. 57–80. In the epic of Sasun, David’s is enraged by his own uncles’ cowardly subservience to the Arabs: he bellows so loudly at them that one voids his bowels and thereby earns his epithet, C‘ṙan Vrgo, “Vergo who shit his pants”.

the interrupted feast

509

and protected existence hitherto in which he was unaware of the grim facts of life—destitution, old age, sickness, and death—is enraged that this unfamiliar and uncouth intruder, death, has interrupted his feast. So he goes off to challenge the angel of death, Gabriel, and they engage in single combat. Aslan defeats the angel, at which point God Himself intervenes and strikes down the prince. After Jacob, perhaps, it will not do for mortals to wrestle angels to the ground. But to this reader it seems unfair, at least, if not treacherous in the manner of the foul varlet on mount Quince. Aslan thus comes to the unpleasant realization that he, like every man, is mortal. He does not accept his own death, though, and begs his parents and friends to die in his place. They turn him down, to his astonishment; the latter are in his debt for his boundless hospitality and the former, he thinks, ought to give their lives for their son. But only his wife, Margarit (“Pearl”), offers to die in his place. It is left to the reader (or listener) to judge for himself whether this is an instance of deplorable servility like immolation in suttee or the ultimate fulfillment of the injunction of Holy Writ that man and woman leave their parents and become one flesh. Touched by her self-sacrificing devotion to her husband, God grants the couple 140 years of life—twice the Biblical three score and ten. In the character of Margarit one can easily discern the theme that in literature we encounter first in Euripides’ play Alcestis, itself based upon an ancient myth. And an earlier version of the ballad of Aslan, perhaps still with leonine epithet intact, might once have formed an episode of a longer epic cycle of the Armenian Zariadrid kings of Sophene (Arm. Cop‘k‘).67 The Armenian ballad, which exists in numerous versions in late Middle Armenian and most likely took shape in the later medieval period, when Aslan was a relatively common name, perhaps assimilated around then aspects of the life of the Buddha, which were transmitted in Arabic and Persian and thence through the Christianized tale of Jehosophat and Barlaam, Arm. Yovasap‘ ew Barałam—Biblical Jehosophat (Heb., “God is Judge”) renders Bodhasaf, i.e., Bodhisattva! According to the well-known narrative of the Buddhacarita, Siddhartha’s father wanted his son to succeed him as a great king and not go the way of a religious teacher; so he kept the prince in a kind of false paradise, an enclosed palace of gardens, youth, health, and pleasure. But the prince was curious about what lay outside and exacted permission to go out on a tour. Although the king contrived a kind of Potemkin village along the predetermined route, lest unsettling impressions intrude, the 67

See J.R. Russell, “An Epic for the Borderlands: Zariadris of Sophene, Aslan the Rebel, Digenes Akrites, and the Mythologem of Alcestis in Armenia,” in Armenian Tsopk/Kharpert, ed. R. Hovannisian (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series, Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces 3; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2002): pp. 147–183.

510

russell

gods manifested themselves as a beggar, a sick man, an old man, and a corpse. These distressing spectacles spurred the prince to ponder the question of suffering in the world, and so he left his home, wife, and son. The scene of his Great Departure, on the noble steed Kanthaka, inverts the iconic theme of a warrior riding to battle: the Buddha is not going to inflict death, or even to engage in combat with it (as Aslan does) but to overcome it, and all the suffering of sentient beings, through meditation and enlightenment.68 The motif of the interrupted feast, then, is a topos worthy of interest in the continuing decipherment of the great code of Armenian epic poetry, with its dense and intricate interweaving of Iranian and Biblical themes, the latter treated in ways particular to Armenian experience and the nation’s perception of its situation in the world. We have seen the image of the feast employed by Nersēs to evoke all the splendor and panoply of a golden age: the sudden interruption of the feast as though it were a dream carries all the emotional strength of the loss. The feast uneaten is the hors d’ oeuvre of apocalypse. The Armenian apocalyptic narrative of Nersēs and the earlier Sasun cycle, we have demonstrated, can be better understood with reference to contemporary religious trends across the Iranian world, of which Christian Armenia in the early Muslim era was still in many ways a part. Matthew of Edessa uses the interrupted feast as the starting point of a short epic replete with vivid imagery, its final scene wrapped in the lineaments of archaic tragedy, with its strongest echo in the legend of Samson. The ballad of Aslan stands in timelessness, even as it is undatable: its hero is the archetypal adolescent standing on the threshold of adulthood, testing an ennobling heroism, recoiling from fundamental truth, and discovering in love all the consolation a human being can have. Samson is denied that consolation: Delilah, the gentile temptress, has deceived, betrayed, and nearly unmanned her faithful and trusting Hebrew lover. But at least his interruption of the very antithesis of the wedding feast as he brings down the blasphemous temple of Dagon in the wicked city of Gaza upon the lewd Philistine bacchanal, is the most dramatic of all. Souviens-toi de ton serviteur/ qu’ils sont privé de la lumière!/ Daigne pour un instant, Seigneur,/ me rendre ma force première!/ Qu’avec toi je me venge, O Dieu!/ En les écrasent en ce lieu!69 Revenge is a dish served loud. The compressed images and themes in the type of the interrupted feast, then, augment their power by resonating with local cultural values of particular depth—the particular obligations of hospitality, the order by which 68 69

On the Buddhist text and its diffusion, see D.S. Lopez Jr., In Search of the Christian Buddha: How an Asian Sage Became a Medieval Saint (New York: Norton, 2014). The final lines of Camille Saint-Saëns (1835–1921), Samson et Delila (1877).

the interrupted feast

511

fight should precede feast, and so on—and with archetypally human, moral concerns—life and death, innocence and deceit. But without art these are all mere rules and theories, arid and bloodless: only the skill of a deft storyteller setting the scene and selecting the sounds of words, can bring them to immortal life. And he must have the companionship of a good re-reader, a knower of the tales of Samson and Rostam. The demiurgic artist enfleshes the dream and enfranchises the dreamer, affording him the mental pleasure that is the province of the imagination; and that keen appreciation of life as the drama to which you, the artist, add a verse, is the true purpose of the human mind’s only imperishable kingdom, its magic fortress of Kang: literature.

Excursus: The Evil Feast Our exploration of the topos of the interrupted feast ended with a bang: the blinded Samson, guided by a boy, pushes against the pillars to either side of him and the temple of Dagon comes crashing down on the Philistines, bringing their victory celebration to a sudden and disastrous end.70 But the hero of Israel has his grim revenge: in his suicide attack, he has slain more of the enemy than

70

Lines 6–7 of Qurʾan ch. 89, Al-Fajr (“The Dawn”), allude to an otherwise unknown act of catastrophic, Divine vengeance that seems to have been the part of the common stock of legend to the Arabs: Alam tarakayufa faʿala Rabbuka bi-ʿĀdin, Irama dhāti ʾl-ʿimādi, “Have you not considered what your Lord did to ‘Ād, to Iram of the pillars?” The succeeding strophes refer, just as telegraphically, to analogous events: the visitation of God’s wrath on Pharaoh, and on Thamūd, “who split the rocks in the valley”. The best way to destroy a place best known for its columns is to topple them; and the resonating image of splitting a rock two lines down suggests that the legend of Samson might have played a role in the formation of the Qurʾanic legend. As to Dagon, this was a young fertility god of the corn; but Gaza is on the coast and the easy similarity to Hebrew dag, “fish”, gave rise to the mistaken idea of a divinized aquatic being, perhaps something like the Mesopotamian Ea (Berossus’ Oannes). Even mistakes can be the grit around which the pearl of a good story grows: the sea god imagined by the American writer of horror and fantasy, H.P. Lovecraft in an early story: H.P. Lovecraft, Dagon and Other Macabre Tales, ed. by A. Derleth (Sauk City, WI: Arkham House, 1965), evolved into Great Cthulhu, the winged, squid-headed winged anthropomorphic avatar of the Old Ones who dreams in a kind of death in his house at sunken R’lyeh, waiting. What Lovecraft did was to fuse the myth of Atlantis with the nativist, apocalyptic cults of oppressed, indigenous peoples. Some of his dire visions coincided with those of the British occultist Aleister Crowley; and the result of this bricolage, some of it calculated and some of it fortuitous, has been a huge movement in literature and popular culture that is probably vaguely aware that some of its energy comes from its being a new soteriological religion. See, most recently, P. Levenda, The Dark Lord: H.P. Lovecraft, Kenneth Grant and the Typhonian Tradition in Magic (Lake Worth, FL: Ibis, 2013).

512

russell

in all his previous battles combined. The feasts we vicariously attended in the two Armenian texts were good and noble. But what of the gathering of the corrupt, the evil wedding anti-feast? I would like to consider here a visionary hymn in Syriac that forms part of the cycle, probably by a single, anonymous poet, that early received the pseudepigraphical title, the Odes of Solomon. Some have attributed it to Bardaiṣan of Edessa and seen in it strong overtones of an early Christian Gnosticism. But in most cases where the interpreters seem to discern aions, gnosis, and other tell-tale Gnostic terms, the strongest resonance of the Syriac text is actually with the identical and quite innocuous Hebrew words for “ages”, “wisdom”, and so on. The known Gnostic movements were all deeply hostile to the Temple cult in Jerusalem. But the fourth Ode, in stark opposition to such a view, asserts that the place of the Lord is firmly established and can never be changed, nor will any sanctuary supplant His. And the hymn goes on to offer the ḥalvā wǝ-debšā, “milk and honey”, Hebrew ḥalav ū-dǝvaš, that is inseparable from the physical Land of Israel! The resonances with Hebrew texts are so loud as to drown out any objection: this is obviously and incontrovertibly the Temple on its holy mountain in Jerusalem. One recent interpreter has produced a monumental, meticulously scholarly commentary on the text, the fruit of many years of study and thought. But it seems that even he resorts to a kind of special pleading to de-Judaize the Odes. Where there is a tell-tale Syriac term he frequently castles the long way, as it were, to Greek terminology in order to avoid the familiar Hebrew cognate standing companionably alongside on the next square of the board. So he insists for no particular reason that the hymn in question cannot possibly refer to any actual location on earth.71 (Verus Israel, the familiar exegetical slither, etc. All familiar, in spirit if not in intent.) It is time to reclaim the Odes. It seems rather more likely that the author of the Odes was an Aramaic-speaking Jew, a member of a Hebrew-Christian community for whom he composed the poems as songs of thanksgiving celebrating God’s love, His wisdom, His generosity, His anointed, and His salvation. Some of the hymns, which speak of God as father and mother, with breasts spouting revivifying milk, are strange, but not overly so when one considers the imagery 71

See M. Lattke, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary, tr. from the original German by M. Ehrhardt (Hermeneia series; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009), ode 4, p. 47, begins: lā ’enāš mešaḥlef atrākh qadīšā ʾEllāhī, wa-lā da-nešaḥlefī wa-nesīmī be-ʾatrā aḥrīna “No man changes your holy place, O my God, and there is none who can change it and put it in another place,” and just gets more Jerusalem-oriented from there. One much prefers the more concise edition and translation of James H. Charlesworth: The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), which does not advance a tendentious and misleading agenda.

the interrupted feast

513

of Adam Qadmon, the Šiʿūr qōmāh (“Treatise on the Dimensions [of the Divine body]”), and subsequent Kabbalistic literature.72 The hymn to be discussed here is Ode 38 (Charlesworth, pp. 129–133); I transliterate the Syriac text in what would be roughly the manner a speaker of Jewish Aramaic might have pronounced it; and the translation, while owing much to both Charlesworth and Lattke, is my own. (1)

Šelqet lǝ-nūhrā da-šrārā aykh dalǝ-markavtā/ wǝ-dabrani šrārā w-aytyani. W-aʿvrani paḥtē wǝ-sedqē/ wǝ-men škīfē wǝ-gǝlālē parqani. Wa-hǝwā lī lǝmīnā dǝ-pūrqānā/ wǝsāmani ʿal dargā dǝ-ḥayyē dǝ-lā mawtā. W-ezal ʿami w-aniḥ lī wǝ-lā šabqani d-eṭʿē,/ meṭul da-šrārā ītawhi hǝwā wǝ-hūyū.

(5) Wǝ-lā hǝwā lī qīndūnūs d-ʿameh mǝhalekh hǝwīt,/ wǝ-lā ṭǝʿīt bǝmedem meṭul d-eštamʿet leh. ʿĀrqā hǝwāt ger meneh tāʿyūtā/ wǝ-lā ārʿā hǝwāt leh. Šrārā deyn āzel hǝwā b-ūrḥā triṣtā/ wǝ-kulmedem dǝ-lā yādaʿ hǝwīt leh mǝḥawe hǝwā lī. Lǝ-kulhūn sammānē dǝ-ṭāʿyūtā/ wa-lǝ-negdē hānūn da-svīrīn dǝḥalyūtā hī dǝ-mawtā.

72

I ascended to the light of the truth onto a chariot, and the truth led me and let me come on. And he guided me, passing over gulfs and chasms; and he saved me from the cliffs and the waves. And it was for me a haven of salvation; and he set me down on the step of life that has no death. And he set forth with me and gave me rest and did not let me err,/ for he was truth as so abides. And there was no peril for me since I walked with him,/ and in no thing did I err, because I heeded him. For error fled from him/ and offered him no resistance. For the truth went on a straight way,/ and whatever it was I did not know, he showed to me: All the poisons of error and the blows they think the sweetness of death.

The Šīr ha-kāvōd (“Hymn of Glory”) of the 12th-century mystic of Ashkenaz, R. Yehuda ha-ḥasid, is an intensely sensual song of ecstatic evocation of God’s imagined male body. The Aristotelian theologian Maimonides thought the imagining of an image of God even worse than he worship of a concrete idol, which is at least still but a symbol of something else unseen; and the Hymn, whose potency is to be circumscribed on the one hand, or, on the other, not diluted by excessive use, may be sung in Ashkenazic congregations only on the Sabbath. See Joseph Dan, ed., Shir Hayiḥud: The Hymn of Divine Unity (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981)], pp. 36–40.

514

russell Wǝ-la-mǝḥablāneh dǝ-ḥabālā/ ḥāze hǝwīt kad meṣṭabtā hǝwāt kaltā da-mǝḥablā/ wǝ-ḥatnā damǝḥabēl wǝ-metḥabal.

(10) Wǝ-šeʾlet la-šrārā dǝ-man enūn hāleyn/ w-emar lī hānaw maṭʿyānā wǝ-ṭāʿyūtā. Wǝ-metdameyn bǝ-ḥavīvā wa-bǝkalteh/ wǝ-maṭʿeyn lǝ-ʿālmā wa-mǝḥablīn leh. Wǝ-qāreyn lǝ-sagīyē le-meštūtā,/ wǝyāhbīn lǝhūn dǝ-neštūn ḥamrā dǝ-rawāyūthūn. Wa-mǝtīvīn ḥekmāthūn wǝmadʿayhūn/ w-ʿāvdīn lǝhūn dǝ-lā reʿyānā. Wǝ-hāydeyn šābqīn lǝhūn/ wǝ-henūn deyn hāweyn metkarkhīn kad pāqrīn wa-mǝḥablīn.

And the corruptor who works corruption/ did I see when the bride of corruption put on her adornments,/ and the groom who corrupts and is corrupted. And I asked the truth: Who are these?/ And he said to me: These are deception and error, And they take on the likeness of the beloved and his bride/ and lead the world into error and corrupt it. And they summon many to the feast/ and give them to drink the wine of their drunkenness. And they make them vomit out their wisdom and their knowledge,/and make them of no reason. And then they abandon them/ to stumble about then like madmen, corrupted.

(15) Kad layt bǝ-hūn lebā,/ āf lā ger As there is no heart in them,/ they do not bāʿeyn leh. even seek it. W-etḥakmet enā dǝ-lā neflet b-īdai And I became wise, so I did not fall into maṭʿyānē/ wǝ-ḥadīt lǝ-nafšī meṭul the hands of those who lead astray,/ d-ezal hǝwā ʿamī šrārā. and I was happy in my soul because truth had gone with me. W-eštarǝre deyn wa-ḥǝyīt w-etparqet/ For I was established, I lived, and I was w-ettǝsīmī šetʾesai ʿal īdeh dǝsaved./ And my foundations were māryā,/ meṭul dǝ-hū naṣbanī ./ laid by the hands of the Lord,/ for He Hū ger sām ʿeqārā/ w-ašqīyeh wplanted me:/ He, indeed, set the root,/ atqǝneh wǝ-barkeh,/ wǝ-pīrawhi And watered, and steadied, and blessed lǝ-ʿālmīn hāweyn. it;/ and its fruits are unto the ages. Aʿmeq wa-sleq w-aftī/ wa-mǝlā wIt deepened, and grew tall, and spread etrawrav. outwards;/ it grew full and waxed great. (20) W-eštabaḥ māryā ba-lǝ-ḥūdawhi/ bǝ-neṣbǝteh wa-bǝ-pūlḥāneh.

And the Lord alone was extolled/ in His planting and His cultivation,

the interrupted feast Bǝ-yaṣīfūteh wa-bǝ-būrktā dǝsefwāteh/ ba-neṣbǝtā yāʾītā dǝ-yamīneh. Wǝ-ba-škīḥūtā dǝ-tarʿīteh/ wa-bǝmadʿā dǝ-tarʿīteh. Hallelūyā.

515 In His care was the blessing from His lips,/ In the lovely planting of His right hand. And in the reality of His planting,/ and in the knowledge of His mind. Halleluyah!

Rendel Harris thought this an ode of Noah, who was brought over the waves in the Ark. But the patriarch after his safe mooring on Ararat did not avoid drunkenness, as we know from Genesis; and till it was destroyed in the great earthquake and eruption of 1840, the Armenian monastery of Akoṙi on the slopes of what was popularly believed to be the Biblical mountain preserved the vine Noah had planted. The itinerary of the narrator seems, rather, a journey of the soul across the perilous wilderness separating the Otherworld from our own. We have already mentioned the “straight path” of the Qurʾan (the Syriac hymn, indeed, centuries before Muhammad, has ūrḥā triṣtā) and the Zoroastrian Bridge of the Separator. The Manichaean hymn cycles in Parthian evoke a more complex geography: sharp crags, and churning seas, and ravening monsters; and the bas-reliefs of Sogdian Zoroastrian tombs in China, notably the sarcophagus of Wirkak, portray the scene: travelers, bridge, cliffs, turbulent waters, and the gnashing jaws of monsters hungry for the flesh of the damned. Frightening afterworlds are a commonplace of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist cosmology: cf. the Tibetan “Book of the Dead” in which the discarnate spirit is guided through the bardö, or intermediate state between death and rebirth. For Christians, and now world literature, it is Dante, whose sources may indeed go all the way back to the Zoroastrian Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag and Hādhōxt Nask, thus completing the circle, who has become the locus classicus of a guided journey through the infernal regions and up through purgatory to heaven. In the Ode, Truth is our Virgil. The travelers encounter a grim wedding feast, where Deception and Error get their guests drunk and the latter vomit out their sense and are lost. The groom/deceiver seems to be Satan: the commentator Lattke rightly cites Rev. 12.9, ho planōn tēn oikoumenēn holēn, “he who deceives the whole universe”, which identifies him. Perhaps the poet’s imagery is intended also to express contempt for the pagan feasts of accursed Edom—the Roman vomitorium. Many are summoned to the anti-wedding, the evil feast—a darkly ironic echo of Christ’s parable of the many who are called and the few who are chosen. Dante, and T.S. Eliot after him, moaned in horrified amazement, So many, I did not know death had undone so many—as they tramp, not across the Bridge of the Separator, but over London Bridge in the brown mephitic fog. The feast here would be the antitype of the soul’s betrothal to Christ under the wed-

516

russell

ding canopy of Heaven; and it would accordingly take place at the farthest point from there, the bottom of Hell. From where there is nowhere to go but up: and the final scene shifts from travel to stasis, from agitation to rest. God with His right hand plants the traveler as a fruit tree in a garden, and waters him. This is surely a vision of Eden. The Ode evokes most strongly, perhaps, Ps. 92, a hymn for the Sabbath day: God, whose deeds gladden the Psalmist, has exceeding profound thoughts (mǝ’od ‘āmqū maḥšǝvōteykhā). There follows a rogues’ gallery of the boor (ba‘ar), the wicked (rǝšā‘īm), workers of iniquity (po‘alēy āwen), and (thy, God’s) enemies (oyǝveykhā). They flourish, but God enables the poet to see and hear them; and the hymn closes with multiple metaphors of plants and fruits. The righteous will flourish like a date palm and cedar. They will be planted (šǝtūlīm), like the narrator of the Ode, but the Psalm makes the place specific. It is in the house of God and in His courtyards (ḥaṣrōt)—an Eden that could be the Temple of Jerusalem or the Divine palace in Heaven. There they will declare God is yāšār, “straight” or “just”, cf. the cognate Šrārā, the embodiment of Truth that is the guide of the poet of the Ode. (Calling God the Truth remains prominent in Islam, where one of His commonest names is al-Ḥaqq, “the Truth”.) The image of the faithful planted in God’s house has overtones, again, with the solid, earthly, irreplaceable, geographical Land of Israel, that would be anathema to a Gnostic, cf. the sunlit promise of the prophet from Tekoa, the sky clearing after a dark storm of dire warnings: “I will return the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild desolate cities and settle them; they will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will cultivate gardens and eat their fruits. I will plant them (ū-nǝtāʿtīm) upon their land and they will never again be uprooted from their land that I have given them, said the Lord your God.” (Amos 9.14) Amen.

Acknowledgments This paper evolved during a seminar on Iranian apocalyptic at Harvard in the Fall Term of 2014 with W. Sasson Shahanovich, PhD candidate in Classical Arabic in the NELC department and friend, to whom I am grateful for endless stimulating discussions and learned insights. I thank also several esteemed colleagues and friends: Professor Peter Machinist of Harvard has been a fount of wisdom on the Bible and Mesopotamia for the two decades I have had the honor to work with him. The art-historical insight and learning of Professor Christina Maranci of Tufts University have added a dimension to my understanding, which otherwise would have been the geography of flatland. And

the interrupted feast

517

a conversation of decades about everything Armenian with Professor Sergio La Porta of California State University at Fresno as pupil, then colleague, and always friend, has enriched one’s thought.

Bibliography D. Agostini, Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg: Un texte eschatologique zoroastrien (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2013). B.T. Anklesaria, Zand-Ākāsīh: Iranian or Greater Bundahišn (Bombay: Published for the Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha by its Honorary Secretary Dastur Framroze A. Bode, 1956). B.T. Anklesaria, Zand-ī Vohūman Yasn (Bombay: K.L. Bhargava and Co, 1957). H.W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971). Ch. Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1904). H. Bloom, Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine (New York: Riverhead, 2005). P. Crone, The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). S.B. Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interaction Vol. 1–3 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011–2014). S.B. Dadoyan, The Fatimid Armenians: Cultural and Political Interaction in the Near East (Leiden: Brill, 1997). David of Sassoun: Critical Studies on the Armenian Epic, eds. D. Kouymjian, B. Der Mugrdechian, California State University at (Fresno Armenians Series 4; Fresno, CA, 2013). J.G. Davies, Medieval Armenian Art and Architecture: The Church of the Holy Cross, Aght‘amar (London: Pindar, 1991). O. Grabar, The Dome of the Rock (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). D. Grossman, Lions’ Honey: The Myth of Samson (New York: Canongate, 2006). S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1895). Ch.R. Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Leuven: Peeters, 2000). M. Lattke, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary, tr. from the original German by M. Ehrhardt (Hermeneia series; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009). P. Levenda, The Dark Lord: H.P. Lovecraft, Kenneth Grant and the Typhonian Tradition in Magic (Lake Worth, FL: Ibis, 2013). D.S. Lopez Jr., In Search of the Christian Buddha: How an Asian Sage Became a Medieval Saint (New York: Norton, 2014).

518

russell

H.P. Lovecraft, Dagon and Other Macabre Tales, ed. by A. Derleth (Sauk City, WI: Arkham House, 1965). N. MacDonald, “Food and Drink in Tobit and Other ‘Diaspora Novellas’,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. M. Bredin (London: Continuum, 2006). Ch. MacEvitt, “The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade, and the Armenian Diaspora,” DOP 61 (2007): pp. 157–181. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, tr. by A. Dostourian (Landham, MD, 1993). M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana: Das altiranische Namengut der PersepolisTäfelchen (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1973). G. Mobley, Samson and the Liminal Hero in the Ancient Near East (New York: T & T Clark, 2006). S. der Nersessian, Aght‘amar: Church of the Holy Cross (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965). S. Niditch, Judges (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008). J.R. Russell, “A Credo for the Children of the Sun,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 4 (1988–1989): pp. 157–160. J.R. Russell, An Armenian Epic: The Heroes of Kasht (Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan, 2000). J.R. Russell, “An Armenian Spirit of Time and Place: the Švot,”RÉA 36 (2014–2015): pp. 13– 59. J.R. Russell, “An Epic for the Borderlands: Zariadris of Sophene, Aslan the Rebel, Digenes Akrites, and the Mythologem of Alcestis in Armenia,” in Armenian Tsopk/Kharpert, ed. R. Hovannisian (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series, Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces 3; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2002): pp. 147–183. J.R. Russell, “Armenian šrawšak,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 17 (1996): pp. 63–71. J.R. Russell, “Aša in Armenia,” Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ [Monthly Review] 101 (1987): pp. 655–662. J.R. Russell, “Carmina Vahagni,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 32, fasc. 3–4 (1989): pp. 317–330. J.R. Russell, “God is Good: Tobit and Iran,”Iran and the Caucasus V (Tehran, 2001): pp. 1– 6. J.R. Russell, “Hārūt and Mārūt: The Armenian Zoroastrian Demonic Twins in the Qurʾān Who Invented Fiction,” in Commentationes Iranicae: Vladimiro f. Aaron Livschits nonagenario donum natalicium, eds. S. Tokhtasev, P. Luria (Санкт-Петербург: Нестор, 2013) [St. Petersburg: Nestor, 2013]: pp. 469–480. J.R. Russell, “Magic Mountains, Milky Seas, Dragon Slayers, and Other Zoroastrian Archetypes,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute N. S. 22, (2008): pp. 57–80. J.R. Russell, “Mithras in Stalinist Armenia,” Ararat Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 154 (New York: Spring, 1998): pp. 45–46.

the interrupted feast

519

J.R. Russell, “On Armeno-Iranian Interaction in the Medieval Period,” in Au carrefour des réligions. Mélanges offerts a Philippe Gignoux. ed. R. Gyselen (Res Orientales, VII; 1994): pp. 235–238. J.R. Russell, “On Mysticism and Esotericism among the Zoroastrians,” Iranian Studies, Vol. 26, Nos. 1–2 (Winter/Spring, 1993): pp. 73–94. J.R. Russell, “On The Image of Zoroaster,” in The Zoroastrian Flame: Exploring Religion, History, and Tradition, eds. A. Williams et al. (London: I.B. Tauris, 2016): pp. 147–178. J.R. Russell, “On The Image of Zoroaster,” in Proceedings of “Looking Back: Zoroastrian Identity Formation through Recourse to the Past,” London, UK, October 11–12, 2013, ed. S. Stewart (forthcoming). J.R. Russell, “Revelations of Darkness: Medieval Armenian Apocalyptic in the Epic of Sasun and the Visions of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn,” Journal of Armenian Studies 6.1 (1998– 1999): pp. 3–15. J.R. Russell, “Sasanian Yarns: The Problem of the Centaurs Reconsidered,” in Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201: La Persia e Bisanzio (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2004): pp. 411–438. J.R. Russell, “Some Iranian Images of Kingship in the Armenian Artaxiad Epic,” RÉA 20 (1986–1987): pp. 253–270. J.R. Russell, “The Armenian Shrines of the Black Youth (t‘ux manuk),”Le Muséon 111, fasc. 3–4 (1998): pp. 319–343. J.R. Russell, “The Armeno-Iranian Roots of Mithraism,” in Studies on Mithraism, ed. J.R. Hinnells (Rome: Bretschneider, 1994): pp. 183–193. J.R. Russell, The Book of the Way (Girk‘ chanaparhi) of Yeghishe Charents: An Illuminated Apocalyptic Gospel for Soviet Armenia, University of California, Berkeley, general ed. S. Astourian (Armenian Studies Program Occasional Paper Series; New York: Spring, 2012). J.R. Russell, “The Credal Poem Hawatov xostovanim (“I confess in faith”) of St. Nerses the Graceful,” in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, eds. J.J. van Ginkel et al., OLA 134, (Leuven: Peeters, 2005): pp. 185–236. J.R. Russell, “The Cross and the Lotus: The Armenian Mediaeval Miscellany The City of Bronze,” in The Rise of Islam, eds. V. Curtis, S. Stewart, Vol. 4, The Idea of Iran (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009): pp. 71–81. J.R. Russell, “The Curving Shore of Space and Time: Notes on the Prologue to Pushkin’s Ruslan and Ludmila,” in Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, eds. S. Fine, Sh. Secunda (Leiden: Brill, 2012): pp. 318– 365. J.R. Russell, “The Epic of Sasun: Armenian Apocalypse,” in The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition, eds. K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta (Leiden: Brill, 2014): pp. 41–77. J.R. Russell, “The Epic of the Pearl,” RÉA 28 (2001–2002): pp. 29–100.

520

russell

J.R. Russell, “The Mother of All Heresies: A Late Mediaeval Armenian Text on the Yuškaparik,” RÉA 24 (1993): pp. 273–293. J.R. Russell, “The Place and Time of Zarathushtra,” in A Zoroastrian Tapestry: Art, Religion, and Culture, eds. P.J. Godrej, F.P. Mistree (Ahmedabad: Mapin, 2002): pp. 29– 39. J.R. Russell, “The Šāh-nāme in Armenian Oral Epic,” in J.R. Russell, Armenian and Iranian Studies (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 9; Cambridge, MA, 2004): pp. 1063–1072. J.R. Russell, “The Shrine Beneath the Waves,” in Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 51 (Cambridge, MA, Spring 2007): pp. 136–156. J.R. Russell, “The Tale of the Bronze City in Armenian,” in Medieval Armenian Culture, eds. T. Samuelian, M. Stone (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984): pp. 250–261. J.R. Russell, “Two Armenian Toponyms,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 9 (1988): pp. 281–287. J.R. Russell, “Two Notes on Biblical Tradition and Native Epic in the Book of Lamentation of St. Grigor Narekac‘i,” RÉA 22 (1990–1991): pp. 135–145. J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Harvard Iranian Series 5; Cambridge, MA, 1987). J.B. Segal, Edessa, “The Blessed City” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). P. Soucek, “Armenian and Islamic Manuscript Painting: A Visual Dialogue,” in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, eds. T.F. Mathews, R. Wieck (New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1998): pp. 115–131. M.E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002). M.E. Stone, Signs of the Judgement, Onomastica Sacra and The Generations from Adam (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 3; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). H. Takahashi, “Armenisch-Garschuni (Armenisch in syrischer Schrift),” in Scripts Beyond Borders: A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World, eds. J. Den Heijer et al. (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2014): pp. 187–214. The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). R.W. Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition,” in Armenian Studies In Memoriam Haig Berberian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986): pp. 829–858. The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), tr. and comm. N.G. Garsoïan (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 8; Cambridge, MA, 1989). T. Van Lint, “Lament on Edessa by Nersēs Šnorhali,” in East and West in the Crusader States II, eds. K. Ciggaar, H. Teule (Leuven: Peeters, 1999): pp. 49–105. A.M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).

the interrupted feast

521

T‘. X. Hakobyan et al., Hayastani ev harakic šrǰanneri tełanunneri baṙaran (Erevan: Erevan University Press, 1998). Haykakan herosakan ēposǝ (The Armenian Heroic Epic [Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1956]). Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, Žamanakagrut‘iwn (Vałaršapat, 1898). Nersēs Šnorhali, Ołb Edesioy, ed. M. Mkrtč‘yan (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1973). Patmut‘iwn Mattēosi Uṙhayec‘woy (Jerusalem: St. James’, 1869). H. Simonyan, Patmut‘iwn Ałek‘sandri Makedonac‘woy (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1989). Shir Hayiḥud: The Hymn of Divine Unity (in Hebrew), ed. Joseph Dan (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981).

522

figure 20.1

russell

David and Goliath, southern wall of the Church of the Holy Cross (AD 920) Ałt‘amar Island, Lake Van, Armenia

the interrupted feast

figure 20.2

Samson slaying a Philistine, northern wall, Ałt‘amar

523

524

figure 20.3

russell

Samson killing the lion, northern wall, Ałt‘amar

figure 20.4

Samson killing the lion, Ateni (7th century), Gori district, Georgia

the interrupted feast

525

526

figure 20.5

russell

David killing the lion, northern wall, Ałt‘amar

the interrupted feast

figure 20.6

Achaemenian king slaying a leonine beast (Ferdinand Justi interprets it as das ahrimanische Tier, “the beast of Ahriman”!), Persepolis, Iran

527

528

figure 20.7

russell

Maitreya at Mulbekh, Ladakh, India

the interrupted feast

figure 20.8

Ervand K‘oč‘ar, engraving in the style of an illustration of a bas-relief, of Mher killing a lion

529

chapter 21

Byzantine Historiography and the Supposedly Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus Warren Treadgold

Books I–XIII of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae, which covered the years from 96 to 353, are missing from our manuscripts and generally believed to be wholly lost, except for a few references that Ammianus himself makes to them in his surviving Books XIV–XXXI. Yet much of the supposedly lost books probably survives in Greek summaries. Ammianus’ Books I–XXV were apparently summarized in the early sixth century by Eustathius of Epiphania for his Chronological Epitome, which was quickly copied with fictional elaborations by John Malalas for his General History, then faithfully copied again in the early seventh century by John of Antioch for his Chronological History. John of Antioch’s work, which survives today in extensive fragments, was in its turn used by John Zonaras in the twelfth century, Theodore Scutariotes in the thirteenth century, and other Byzantine historians, who thus drew indirectly on Books I–XIII of Ammianus. Ammianus’ main sources for these books seem to have been a brief chronicle including the ages of the emperors at their deaths, the hypothetical Latin Kaisergeschichte, the surviving history of Herodian, and the otherwise mostly lost history of the pagan historian Eusebius, who apparently summarized Dexippus. In all, we may have around a fifth of the contents of Ammianus’ Books I–XIII.

I My subject here is an ostensibly lost part of a major source for the history of the Later Roman Empire and its relations with Persia and Armenia, the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus.1 Our rather corrupt manuscripts of Ammianus’ 1 I have tried to limit the length of this already long article by concentrating on the relations of the texts to each other rather than on their reliability as historical sources, by including only essential references to the relevant Byzantine chronicles and secondary literature, and by almost entirely avoiding references to the problematic Historia Augusta. The outlines of the present argument were first suggested in W. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (Bas-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_023

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

531

history include only Books XIV–XXXI, which cover the years from 353 to 378.2 We are therefore missing Books I–XIII, which seem originally to have covered the years from 96 to 353, since Ammianus tells us in a postscript that his history began with the reign of Nerva (96–97).3 Most scholars have assumed that everything in Books I–XIII has irretrievably vanished, except for a few passing references that Ammianus makes to them in his later books. The earlier books were presumably lost because Ammianus’ history, which was too long to fit into a single manuscript volume of convenient size, was copied into two volumes, of which only the second one became the ancestor of our manuscripts. Similarly, Procopius’ long History of the Wars has reached us in separate manuscript volumes, one with Books I–IV and the other with Books V–VIII.4 That the first volume of Ammianus’ history included thirteen books while the second volume included eighteen is probably a sign that the average length of Books I– XIII was somewhat greater than that of those we have, because the binder who divided them should have tried to make the two volumes of comparable size to avoid producing a needlessly unwieldy tome. Ammianus’ reason for ending Book XIII in the middle of the year 353 was evidently that it marked the death of the usurper Magnentius, an event not momentous enough to be a suitable dividing point for the whole work except for the binder’s convenience.5 Even if Books I–XIII were on average slightly longer than the others, it would still be obvious that Ammianus recorded the events of his own lifetime at far greater length than he did earlier history. That disproportion has bothered many of those who have worked on Ammianus. The suggestion has therefore been made that Ammianus covered his chosen period in two different works with separately numbered books, like Tacitus in his Annals and Histories.6 Yet Tacitus first wrote his Histories on the period from 69 to 96 and then his Annals on the earlier period from 14 to 69, so that he had little choice but to number the books of the Annals separately. The possibility that, like Tacitus, Ammianus wrote first on recent events and then on earlier events appears to be remote. In

2

3 4 5 6

ingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 314, 328 and idem, The Middle Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 395–396. On our mss. of Ammianus, see T. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), pp. 201–208; G. Kelly, Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 1, n. 2. Ammianus XXXI.16.9 (a principatu Caesaris Nervae exorsus). Treadgold, The Early, pp. 372–373; cf. Treadgold, The Middle, p. 477. Treadgold, The Early, pp. 60–61. Most recently argued by H.T. Rowell, “The First Mention of Rome in Ammianus’ Extant Books and the Nature of the ‘History’,” in Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jérôme Carcopino (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1966): pp. 839–848.

532

treadgold

his preface to Book XXVI, he states that he had originally concluded his history with 364 but has now continued it, without any hint that he had written a history of earlier times in between.7 Since he then concludes Book XXXI by saying that he had begun with Nerva, he cannot have written on the earlier period after writing that book. Alternatively, the argument has been made that the books in our manuscripts have all been misnumbered by five, so that what we have are actually Books XIX–XXVI and eighteen books are lost.8 This solution, however, requires several elaborate and not very plausible conjectures.9 The scholarly consensus remains that we are missing thirteen books, which covered the second and third centuries only summarily.10 Ammianus’ history is notorious for its exiguous influence on later Greek and Latin literature. It is attested only twice during the whole of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The first attestation is by Ammianus’ contemporary Libanius at Antioch, who cannot have read it because of his ignorance of Latin; the second is by the Latin grammarian Priscian at Constantinople, who may merely have glanced at a volume containing the books we now have, since he refers only to the beginning of Book XIV.11 Besides these two attestations by name, scholars familiar with the twelfth-century Byzantine historian John Zonaras have known for some time that most of Zonaras’ treatment of the years from 353 to 364 summarizes the contents of Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV.12

7 8 9 10

11

12

Ammianus XXVI.1.1–3. Barnes, Ammianus, pp. 20–31. See my objections in Treadgold, The Early, pp. 60–61, n. 65. Note, however, that under Barnes’ hypothesis each ms. volume would have had the same number of books: 18. See Kelly, Ammianus, pp. 2–3; J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 27–30; R. Frakes, “Some Thoughts on the Length of the Lost Books of Ammianus,” Ancient World 31 (2000): pp. 48–53; and D. Rohrbacher, “The Sources for the Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus,” Historia 55 (2006): pp. 106–124, especially pp. 123–124. A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 749–750, entertains the various ideas about the lost books (including his own tentative suggestion that Book XIV should be renumbered not XIX but XXIV) without finally choosing among them. In any case, my main concern here is not with the length or number of the lost books but with the material that can be recovered from them. Treadgold, The Early, pp. 51, n. 11; pp. 68–69, n. 84. On Libanius’ ignorance of Latin, which was common among Greek intellectuals of the time, see Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 643–644. While the parallels were first noticed in the late nineteenth century, they received renewed and expanded treatment from M. DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection: Zonaras, Ammianus Marcellinus, and John of Antioch on the Reigns of Constantius II and Julian,” Byzantion 50 (1980): pp. 158–185. They are also discussed, with references to hypothetical sources that I think are misconceived, by B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

533

While Zonaras’ summary is too brief to help much in correcting Ammianus’ faulty text, with the possible exception of one lacuna that will be discussed below, the parallels between Zonaras and Ammianus show that knowledge of some of the information in Ammianus’ history persisted in Byzantine historiography. Yet Ammianus’ history is unlikely to have been preserved in Latin in Byzantium until the twelfth century, and even if it had been, Zonaras is very unlikely to have known enough Latin to read Ammianus in the original. Zonaras is therefore presumed to have taken his information from the full text of the Chronological History of John of Antioch, which survives today only in numerous fragments, most of them among the Historical Excerpts made for the tenth-century emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. In fact, several fragments of John’s work show the same parallels with Ammianus as in Zonaras’ history. The question of how John of Antioch acquired his information from Ammianus is related to a longstanding dispute over the priority of the histories of John of Antioch and John Malalas.13 These two histories are obviously related, because they share much of their contents and some of their wording, though Malalas’ history ended with 565 and is written in a Greek that varies between Koinē and even less formal language, while John of Antioch’s history ended with 610 and was written in Attic Greek up to about 518 and in Koinē thereafter. Moreover, Malalas, unlike John of Antioch, includes a large amount of independent material that is demonstrably spurious, including fanciful physical descriptions of historical figures and citations of about nine sources that are otherwise unknown and appear to be fictitious.14 Until recently, the only posi-

13

14

spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras (Munich: Tuduv, 1992), pp. 327–395 (cf. n. 105 below). On Zonaras, see also Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 388–399. On this dispute, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 235–256 (on Malalas), 311–329 (on John of Antioch); and idem, “The Byzantine World Histories of John Malalas and Eustathius of Epiphania,”International History Review 29 (2007): pp. 709–745. Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 678–686 also discusses the controversy, but without mentioning my proposed solution, though he cites my The Early Byzantine Historians elsewhere. (On the other hand, when I sent my The Middle Byzantine Historians to the press, I was unaware of Cameron’s useful remarks on John Zonaras in The Last Pagans, pp. 662–689, mistakenly thinking that the book would have nothing to say about my subject.) See Treadgold, The Early, pp. 246–251. Benjamin Garstad has now demonstrated that “Bottius,” whom I had conjectured to be a source invented by Malalas, should be identified with a genuine source, probably better spelled “Bruttius” (B. Garstad, “Euhemerus and the Chronicle of John Malalas,” International History Review 38 (2016): pp. 900–929), cf. Jerome, Chronicle 96e. On the other hand, I would now add Magnus of Carrhae to the sources invented by Malalas (see below, pp. 547–548 with nn. 72 and 73). Future discoveries may lead to some further modifications of the list of Malalas’ invented sources.

534

treadgold

tions taken by scholars were that Malalas had used John of Antioch, or that John of Antioch had used Malalas, or that the problem of who had copied whom was insoluble. The dispute has recently led to the publication of two drastically different editions of John of Antioch, one assuming the priority of Malalas and the other assuming the priority of John of Antioch.15 The trouble with supposing that John of Antioch used Malalas is that it compels us also to suppose that John of Antioch detected and excised all of Malalas’ many fictions, turned Malalas’ low style into formal Attic, and then wrote a continuation not in Attic but in Koinē. No one has plausibly explained why John of Antioch should have taken as a model a work he knew to be hopelessly inaccurate, or why he should have put Malalas’ history into Attic but written in Koinē when he continued Malalas’ work on his own. On the other hand, the assumption that Malalas used John of Antioch raises the problem that Malalas produced the first version of his history around 527 and the latest around 565, while John of Antioch’s fragments extend to 610. The possible solution has been suggested that John of Antioch actually wrote his history in Attic around 518, that it was then used by Malalas, and that it was later continued to 610 in Koinē by an anonymous author whom the compilers of Constantine VII’s Excerpts mistakenly thought was John of Antioch himself. The main problem with this theory is that it fails to account for a third work written around 518 that seems to have closely resembled those of both John Malalas and John of Antioch: the lost history of Eustathius of Epiphania. We know that Eustathius of Epiphania’s Chronological Epitome was copied in two volumes, the first covering the period from Adam to the fall of Troy and the second, divided into nine books, covering the period from Aeneas to the Persian capture of Amida in 503.16 Eustathius’ death occurred before 527, when he was cited by Malalas, who says that Eustathius died after writing a description of the fall of Amida “without having composed his account to the end.”17 Therefore Eustathius wrote some time after 503, and probably after the death of Anastasius I in 518, since historians usually ended their works before the reign of the current emperor, who in Eustathius’ case was presum15

16 17

The edition that assumes the priority of Malalas is Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica, ed. and trans. U. Roberto (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 154; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), while the edition that assumes the priority of John of Antioch is Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta quae supersunt Omnia, ed. and trans. S. Mariev (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 47; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); cf. my review of both editions in Speculum 85 (2010): pp. 689–691. In the present article I cite only the much more complete edition of Roberto. See Treadgold, The Early, p. 114. Malalas XVI.9.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

535

ably Justin I (518–527). Eustathius was also cited by the sixth-century historians Hesychius of Miletus and Evagrius of Epiphania. Evagrius praises Eustathius’ elegant style, mentions “innumerable” sources that Eustathius summarized, and names some of them.18 Several of these (e.g., the pagan historians Cassius Dio, Herodian, Dexippus, and Zosimus, and the ecclesiastical historians Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) are also known to have been direct or indirect sources of Malalas and John of Antioch.19 Therefore, if we assume that John of Antioch wrote between 518 and 527, three very similar world histories that cited similar sources would have been composed during these nine years by Malalas, John of Antioch, and Eustathius of Epiphania. Moreover, at least the histories of John of Antioch and Malalas were presumably composed at Antioch, since Malalas states in the title of his history that he came from Antioch.20 There are also grounds for thinking that Eustathius, who could scarcely have found all the books he needed in his native town of Epiphania, also wrote at Antioch, where his little-known history was later consulted by Evagrius. The apparent solution to this conundrum is that both John of Antioch and Malalas copied the nearly finished history of Eustathius of Epiphania. John of Antioch copied it closely, probably almost verbatim in order to retain its elegant Attic style, then continued it to 610 in Koinē, since he apparently lacked the education to compose in good Attic himself. Malalas paraphrased Eustathius’ history more freely into his own faltering attempt at Koinē, adding various fictions and errors, and then composed successive continuations up to 565. Consequently the author who knew Latin and copied Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV was Eustathius of Epiphania, not John of Antioch, who merely copied Eustathius.21 Seemingly Zonaras took his summary of Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV from John

18

19 20 21

Evagrius I.19, III.26, III.37 (where he evidently misunderstood what Malalas says about the date of Eustathius’ death), V.24 (for some of Eustathius’ “innumerable” sources; Evagrius apparently names others at I.20). See also Treadgold, The Early, pp. 114–120 (on Eustathius), 270–278 (on Hesychius), 299–308 (on Evagrius). Treadgold, The Early, pp. 312–314; 317, n. 22. Treadgold, The Early, p. 241, n. 65. While the poorly educated Malalas may have known a little Latin, the well-educated Eustathius was probably the direct source of the quotation and translation in Malalas XII.3 of Virgil, Aeneid IV.302–303. Eustathius was probably an official in the bureaucracy of the Diocese of the East at Antioch as early as 475 (Treadgold, The Early, pp. 116–118, 326–327), when some knowledge of Latin would still have been common, especially for anyone who had to deal with legal matters, since the laws were in Latin; see A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964), pp. 988–991.

536

treadgold

of Antioch, whose work was still available in the middle Byzantine period, though at least some of Eustathius’ original history also seems to have survived into the fourteenth century.22 Among a number of other Byzantine historians who evidently made direct or indirect use of John of Antioch’s work, the largest amount of material appears to survive in two histories compiled by Theodore Scutariotes in the thirteenth century, his brief Chronicle and his much longer and more detailed Chronological Synopsis.23 Scutariotes however seems to have drawn on John of Antioch’s text only indirectly, by consulting a lost history by an unknown author that ended with the death of Alexius I Comnenus in 1118.24 That this lost history was also Zonaras’ source for material derived from John of Antioch seems unlikely, because the material from John of Antioch preserved by Zonaras is far more detailed and voluminous than that preserved by Scutariotes, a fact suggesting that Zonaras had John’s full text but Scutariotes had only an abridged version of it in the lost history to 1118. In any case, for the purposes of the present

22

23

24

Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 70–73. John of Antioch frs. 145.1, 145.2, 145.3 (ed. Roberto) may actually be fragments of Eustathius’ own work, since this part of cod. Athous 4932 = Iviron 812 has been preserved without an attribution; see Roberto’s preface, pp. cxi–cxvii. For the sake of simplicity, here I ignore the possibility that later historians consulted Eustathius rather than John of Antioch, since the consequences would be practically identical for my purposes. For Scutariotes’ use of John of Antioch, see K. Zafeiris, The Synopsis Chronike and its Place in the Byzantine Chronicle Tradition: Its Sources (Creation-1081CE) (diss. St. Andrews, 2007), http://hdl.handle.net/10023/457, especially pp. 226–228, though Zafeiris disputes, in my opinion not persuasively, the generally accepted attribution to Scutariotes of this anonymously transmitted Synopsis. My Later Byzantine Historians (in preparation) will include a discussion of Scutariotes and his two histories. See also R. Tocci, “Zu Genese und Kompositionsvorgang der Σύνοψις Χρονική des Theodoros Skutariotes,”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 98 (2005): pp. 551–568 and the new edition of the Chronicle: Theodori Scutariotae Chronica, ed. R. Tocci (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 66; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), pp. 66*– 102* (on Scutariotes), 102*–115* (on the relationship between the Chronicle and the Synopsis). See D. Sakel, “Another User of the Lost Source of Scutariotes,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62 (2012): pp. 139–144, and idem, “Codex Patmiacus Graecus 132 and the Chronicle of Scutariotes,” in Atti del X Simposio su S. Giovanni Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Roma: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità: Pontificia Università Antoniano, 2005): pp. 313–323, though his description of the lost source on p. 315, n. 9, is not supported by the source he cites; E. Patzig, “Über einige Quellen des Zonaras,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 5 (1896): pp. 24–53, or by its continuation (not cited by Sakel); idem, “Über einige Quellen des Zonaras II,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6 (1897): pp. 322–356. For a good recent discussion of Patzig’s largely outdated articles and the whole problem, see T. Banchich and E. Lane, The History of Zonaras from Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 8–10.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

537

study the consequences would be very much the same whether Scutariotes or Zonaras used John of Antioch directly or indirectly.

II At this point we should ask whether Zonaras, in summarizing John of Antioch’s virtual transcription of Eustathius, may have preserved material not just from Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV but from Ammianus’ preceding books that are now lost. For events from 353 to 364 Ammianus was evidently Eustathius’ main source, although Eustathius seems to have supplemented Ammianus with material from the ultra-Arian ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius, other ecclesiastical historians, Eunapius of Sardis, and possibly a letter from Constantius II to Sapor II of Persia and two letters from Julian to Constantius.25 Such letters could have been preserved in the government archives at Antioch, where Eustathius apparently served as an official.26 However, Zonaras and John of Antioch also include other additions to Ammianus’ account that cannot have come from government archives, such as Julian’s epitaph and the Antiochenes’ rebukes of Jovian after Julian’s death.27 The most economical hypothesis is thus that Eustathius made all these additions from Eunapius. Zonaras appears not to include any material from Ammianus on the years from 364 to 378, for which Eustathius seemingly relied on Eunapius and other sources that were less detailed and accurate than Ammianus’ Books XXVI– XXXI.28 Yet why should the usually thorough and critical Eustathius have used an inferior source for the years from 364 to 378 in preference to Ammianus’ history, which had been Eustathius’ favorite source for the immediately preceding period? As has already been noted, we know from Ammianus’ preface

25

26 27 28

The principal passages from the ecclesiastical historians are Zonaras XIII.11.14–29, XIII.13.5–44, XIII.14.2–9, though these also include some brief passages from Ammianus, and some brief passages from the ecclesiastical historians appear elsewhere. For the supposed letters of Constantius and Julian, see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 162–163. M. DiMaio, “Smoke in the Wind: Zonaras’ Use of Philostorgius, Zosimus, John of Antioch, and John of Rhodes in his Narrative of the Neo-Flavian Emperors,” Byzantion 58 (1988): pp. 230–255, especially p. 252, argued that John of Antioch included nothing from Eunapius that is not in Zosimus, but this seems unlikely; see the preface to Roberto’s edition of John of Antioch, pp. cxli–cxliii. See Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 116–118, 326–327. John of Antioch fr. 273.2 (ed. Roberto) and Zonaras XIII.13.24. See Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 242–258, especially nn. 131, 136, 137 on Zonaras’ errors.

538

treadgold

to Book XXVI that he wrote it and the following books only after an interval and as a supplement to his original history, which consisted of Books I–XXV.29 He seems to have finished his original work around 390, and his supplement around 395.30 Eustathius’ ignorance of Ammianus’ account of the period after 364 strongly indicates that Eustathius had a manuscript only of the original text of Ammianus, without the supplement consisting of Books XXVI–XXXI. This seems to be a decisive argument against the idea that Eustathius made use not of Ammianus but only of parts of Eunapius that Ammianus copied, because in that case Ammianus would have had no reason not to use Eunapius for events after 364 as well.31 Perhaps Ammianus sent a manuscript of the initial version of his work to a friend or a library at Antioch, where it remained to be used by Eustathius over a hundred years later. Consequently Eustathius is extremely unlikely to have had a manuscript of Ammianus’ history that began with Book XIV, like all the manuscripts on which our text depends. Perhaps the twenty-five-book version was fitted into one large volume, or perhaps Eustathius had two volumes with the text divided differently. Even if Eustathius had only the second volume of a two-volume set, the division between his volumes would surely have been made after some book earlier than XIII, in order to make the two volumes roughly the same size. Eustathius is therefore very unlikely to have begun using Ammianus’ history only with Book XIII. Thus we have good reason to look for possible fragments of Ammianus’ lost books in the histories of Zonaras and Theodore Scutariotes. Several other Byzantine historians, including Theophanes Confessor, George the Monk, Symeon the Logothete, and Pseudo-Symeon (copied by George Cedrenus), seem also to have consulted John of Antioch, though their texts are usually too brief to be of much help.32 29 30

31

32

Ammianus XXVI.1.1–3. Treadgold, The Early, pp. 58–59, 73–75. A. Cameron, “Nicomachus Flavianus and the Date of Ammianus’ Last Books,”Athenaeum 100 (2012): pp. 337–358, has argued for a date ca. 390 for the supplement, taking a view of Ammianus’ attitude toward contemporary emperors that differs from mine; see especially W. Treadgold, “Predicting the Accession of Theodosius I,” Mediterraneo Antico 8 (2005): pp. 767–791. Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 678–682, rightly believes that John of Antioch cannot have drawn directly on Ammianus because “it is impossible to believe that his Latin was good enough to read so long and difficult a Latin text” (p. 680); but, without considering the possibility that John copied Eustathius, Cameron improbably postulates that John copied Eunapius, who was in turn copied by Ammianus, who wrote after Eunapius’ first edition appeared (pp. 668–678). See Roberto’s preface, pp. clx–clxii (Symeon and George the Monk), clxiii–clxvi (PseudoSymeon and Cedrenus), clxvii–clxviii (Zonaras); for Theophanes, see C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD284–813

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

539

We should also examine our fragments of John of Antioch himself and even the text of John Malalas, who preserves much of the contents of Eustathius’ history, though in a badly deformed state. Of course, since Eustathius interpolated his material from Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV with material from ecclesiastical historians, we should expect him to have done the same if he used the part of Ammianus’ history before Book XIV. Which ecclesiastical historians Eustathius consulted is often unclear, since besides original works several compilations of ecclesiastical history might have been available to him.33 Moreover, we have only an epitome and fragments of the ecclesiastical history of Philostorgius, which included a number of secular events. Usually, however, even without knowing exactly which texts Eustathius used, we can distinguish the material he took from ecclesiastical historians, both because most of their histories are partly or entirely preserved and because their interests and sympathies are recognizably different from those of Ammianus and other pagan historians. The pagan histories directly or indirectly consulted by Eustathius included, to judge from our fragments of John of Antioch, the partly preserved history of Dio to 229, the history of Herodian from 180 to 238, the mostly lost history of Dexippus to 270, the Latin Breviarium of Eutropius, the mostly lost history of Eunapius, and the somewhat lacunose history of Zosimus, who largely abridged Eunapius.34 Ammianus may himself in his lost books have made direct or indirect use of Dio, Herodian, and Dexippus. Ammianus also apparently consulted the hypothetical Kaisergeschichte, a lost Latin history used by Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and others that seems to have extended to 358, perhaps with a continuation to 378.35 Moreover, Zonaras surely knew

33

34 35

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. lxxxi; and for Scutariotes, see n. 23 above. Further on these authors, see Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 38–77 (Theophanes), 114–119 (George the Monk), 203–217 (Symeon), 217–223 (Pseudo-Symeon), 339–341 (Cedrenus). Unfortunately, the relevant part of Pseudo-Symeon has not been published to date, though a text very much like it is available in an antiquated Bonn edition of George Cedrenus. Among other possibilities, Eustathius may have used the ecclesiastical history of Gelasius of Caesarea, the Chronicle of Panodorus of Alexandria, or the Tripartite History of Theodore the Lector; see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 123 (Gelasius of Caesarea), 124–125 (Panodorus), 168–171 (Theodore the Lector); and idem, The Middle, pp. 52–62 (further on Panodorus). Cf. Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 228: “Zonaras … depends on some parallel tradition that antedated and in places influenced Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, and Theodore Lector.” See the preface to Roberto’s edition, pp. cxxi–cxxxiv (Eutropius), cxxxvi (Dio), cxxxviii– cxxxix (Herodian), cxxxix–cxl (Dexippus), cxl–cxli (Zosimus), cxli–cxliii (Eunapius). See most recently R.W. Burgess, “A Common Source for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de Caesaribus between 358 and 378, with Further Thoughts on the

540

treadgold

Dio’s history directly, and up to his concluding date of 229 evidently summarized Dio in preference to John of Antioch.36 In other cases, we may have trouble telling whether a later historian knew Dio, Herodian, Dexippus, or the Kaisergeschichte directly or knew about them only from Eustathius, John of Antioch, or the lost books of Ammianus. Moreover, even if John of Antioch transmitted everything in Eustathius’ text, the Constantinian Excerpts that supply us with most of our fragments of John, which are also sometimes transmitted through the tenth-century encyclopedia known as the Suda, have undergone considerable summarizing and reworking.37 Another complication is that Zonaras sometimes combined several sources and added his own comments. Scutariotes, though he evidently includes some material from John of Antioch omitted by Zonaras, usually preserves a much more drastically abridged text than Zonaras does. One observation may however be helpful for identifying material from Ammianus. The surviving books of Ammianus record all the ages of emperors at the times of their deaths, even including the Caesar Gallus and the usurper Procopius. Thus Ammianus tells us that Gallus died at 29, Constantius II died at “40 and a few months” according to our manuscripts (usually emended to 44 and a few months, which is correct), Julian died at 32, Jovian died at 33, Procopius died at 40 and 10 months, Valentinian I died at 55, and Valens died at “nearly” 50, apparently meaning 49.38 Of the ages of these emperors, the only one recorded in our fragments of John of Antioch is 45 for Constantius II, which would be correct if counted inclusively but is not expressed in the same way as by Ammianus, even if Ammianus’ text should be emended.39 Yet Malalas and Scutariotes, both of whom evidently depended on John of Antioch, agree with

36 37

38

39

Date and Nature of the Kaisergeschichte,” Classical Philology 100 (2005): pp. 166–192. See also Rohrbacher, “The Sources,” pp. 108–112. Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 393–395. See Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 9: “The compilers of the EH [Constantine VII’s Excerpta Historica] …, as is evident from authors who survive independently, e.g. Thucydides, … routinely adapted passages for incorporation into the various volumes of the EH. … The paradoxical result is that texts of authors thought to have drawn directly upon works otherwise preserved in the EH and Suda may more accurately reflect their sources than do the actual ‘fragments’ of those sources.” Further on the Constantinian Excerpts, see Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 153–165 and A. Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past: Emperor Constantine VII and His Historical Excerpts (unpublished diss., Budapest: Central European University, 2010; http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/mphnea01.pdf). Ammianus XIV.11.27 (Gallus), XXI.15.3 (Constantius II), XXV.3.23 (Julian), XXV.10.13 (Jovian), XXVI.9.11 (Procopius), XXX.6.6 (Valentinian I), XXXI.14.1 (Valens, quinqagesimo anno contiguus). John of Antioch fr. 264 (ed. Roberto).

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

541

our manuscripts of Ammianus that Constantius died at 40.40 Therefore the mistake seems to go back either to Ammianus himself or to a very early copyist, and our fragment of John of Antioch seems to have been altered either by a late copyist or by the Constantinian excerptor to make it agree with another, more accurate source. The Byzantine historians who drew on Ammianus by way of Eustathius and John of Antioch sometimes recorded emperors’ ages at their deaths and sometimes not. Zonaras says Julian died at 31, Jovian at 33, and Valentinian I at 84.41 Zonaras’ age of 31 for Julian is probably Eustathius’ mistranslation of Ammianus’ anno aetatis altero et tricesimo, which actually means 32; Zonaras’ 33 for Jovian agrees with Ammianus; and Zonaras’ 84 for Valentinian I confirms that Eustathius had to use another source for Valentinian’s reign because his copy of Ammianus ended with the death of Jovian. Malalas says that Constantius II died at 40 (as we have seen), Julian at either 33 or 37 depending on the manuscript, Jovian at 60, Valentinian I at 55, and Valens at 49.42 Apparently in our faulty manuscripts of Malalas the 31 (λαʹ) for Julian became corrupted to 33 (λγʹ) or 37 (λζʹ). Yet how Eustathius’ 33 (λγʹ) for Jovian became Malalas’ 60 (ξʹ) is hard to see. This may well be one of Malalas’ many arbitrary fabrications, like his report that Nero, who actually committed suicide at 30, was murdered at age 69, which cannot be a copyist’s error because Malalas says Nero had “completely gray hair.”43 Since Malalas’ age of 49 for Valens is right, though Ammianus expresses it differently, here Malalas seems to have copied Eustathius, whose source (perhaps Eunapius) was right about Valens’ age. (Malalas’ accurate age of 55 for Valentinian may be a later copyist’s correction). Finally Theodore Scutariotes has ages of 40 for Constantius II (as we have seen), 31 for Julian, 60 for Jovian, and 84 for Valentinian I.44 This time Scutariotes seemingly consulted both Malalas and John of Antioch, and for some reason took the third age from Malalas and the other ages from John. The period for which Ammianus’ text is preserved corresponds to the hypothetical continuation of the Latin Kaisergeschichte from 358 to 378. While Ammianus apparently said that Constantius II died at 40 and a few months, Eutropius and Pseudo-Aurelius (author of the Epitome de Caesaribus) agree that Constantius died at 44, while Jerome says 45, which is probably either

40 41 42 43 44

Malalas XIII.17.95 and Scutariotes, p. 56.20. Zonaras XIII.13.34 (Julian), XIII.14.24 (Jovian), XIII.15.20 (Valentinian I). Malalas XIII.17 (Constantius II), XIII.24 (Julian; see Thurn’s apparatus), XIII.27 (Jovian), XIII.32 (Valentinian I), XIII.35 (Valens). Cf. Malalas X.30 (Nero ὁλοπόλιος), X.40 (his murder) with Treadgold, The Early, p. 249. Scutariotes, pp. 56 (Constantius II), 57 (Julian and Jovian), 60 (Valentinian I).

542

treadgold

inclusive reckoning or a copyist’s error.45 Ammianus, Eutropius, and Jerome agree that Julian died at the age of 32 and that Jovian died at the age of 33 (34 in some manuscripts of Jerome, again probably either inclusive reckoning or a copyist’s error), while Pseudo-Aurelius’ age of “nearly 40” for Jovian presumably comes from another source.46 Ammianus and Pseudo-Aurelius agree that Valentinian I died at age 55.47 These are all the ages we have to compare with Ammianus in the other Latin histories. On the questionable assumption that Ammianus really wrote that Constantius died at 44, these scanty data are barely compatible with the assumption that all four historians took their emperors’ ages from the continuation of the Kaisergeschichte, but that only Ammianus was careful to copy all of them. Yet since all these historians were writing about times not long past, they could also have found the emperors’ correct ages in several different ways, and in any case generalizations about the continuation of the Kaisergeschichte may not apply to the Kaisergeschichte itself. Most Byzantine historians seldom if ever record the ages at which emperors died. George Syncellus, Theophanes, George the Monk, Symeon the Logothete, Pseudo-Symeon, and others record the lengths of emperors’ reigns, but not the emperors’ ages at death. Even among Eustathius’ surviving sources, Herodian, Zosimus, and the ecclesiastical historians fail to record such ages. John of Antioch, however, seems to have recorded nearly all of them, presumably influenced by Ammianus by way of Eustathius. Though we have no text of Eustathius, and only fragments of the text of John of Antioch, if we put together the information on the emperors’ ages at their deaths in the four main texts that appear to depend on Eustathius—John of Antioch, Malalas, Zonaras, and Scutariotes—we have an almost complete list of emperors’ ages at death up to Phocas in 610, when John’s history ended.48 Before 364 only a few Caesars and usurpers are omitted, including Gallus and Procopius, whose ages Eustathius may not have bothered to copy from Ammianus. After 364 the only ages omitted are of ephemeral Western emperors, though the ages of Gratian, Valentinian II, and Valentinian III appear only in the fragments of John of Antioch.49 45

46 47 48

49

Cf. Ammianus XXI.15.3 with Eutropius X.15.2, Pseudo-Aurelius XLII.17, and Jerome, Chronicle 242b. Note that the continuation was not a source of Aurelius Victor, who concluded his history with 360. Cf. Ammianus XXV.3.23 and XXV.10.13 with Eutropius X.16.2 and X.18.2, Jerome, Chronicle 243b and 243–244e, and Pseudo-Aurelius XLIV.4. Cf. Ammianus XXX.6.6 with Pseudo-Aurelius XLV.8. Scutariotes, pp. 101.5 (Justinian I), 104.17 (Justin II), 105.2–3 (Tiberius II), 106.31 (Maurice), 107.26 (Phocas), 110.4 (Heraclius, perhaps taken from the continuation of John of Antioch; cf. Nicephorus, Concise History 27, and see Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 3–5). John of Antioch, frs. 279 (Gratian), 280 (Valentinian II), 293.1 (Valentinian III). The age

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

543

Since John of Antioch evidently took the trouble to investigate emperors’ ages at their deaths after Eustathius’ history ended, presumably John also copied the ages given by Eustathius, who in turn had copied the ages given by Ammianus and investigated those after Ammianus’ history ended. Even if some of these recorded ages are wrong or dubious, they remain indicators of an historiographical tradition followed by Ammianus, Eustathius, and John of Antioch. Did the Kaisergeschichte belong to that tradition, so that it could have been Ammianus’ source for the emperors’ ages in his lost books? After 229, when Dio’s history ends, Eutropius and Aurelius Victor never report an emperor’s age at his death until that of Constantine I in 337. For these years PseudoAurelius reports eight such ages, but remarkably, six of them disagree with the ages recorded by Malalas, Zonaras, and Scutariotes.50 This is practically conclusive proof that Pseudo-Aurelius’ ages depend on different sources from those of the Byzantine historians. Moreover, Eutropius and Victor, evidently relying on the Kaisergeschichte, both believe that Gordian II and Gordian III were the same emperor; but Scutariotes assigns them different ages, 50 and 28 respectively, showing that his source distinguished them from each other.51 As for Constantine I, he died at 66 according to Eutropius and Jerome, at 62 according to Victor, and at 63 according to Pseudo-Aurelius.52 Eustathius appears to have recorded Constantine’s age, probably correctly, at 65 years and 3 months, since Malalas records it at 60 years and 3 months and Zonaras, Scutariotes, Theophanes, Symeon the Logothete, and Cedrenus all record it at 65 years.53 In any case, the Kaisergeschichte was not the source of these ages in Ammianus, Eustathius, or any of the texts dependent on them.

50

51 52 53

for Honorius appears at Malalas XIII.49 (where μβʹ seems to be an error for μʹ), Zonaras XIII.21.17, and Scutariotes, p. 69.5. Pseudo-Aurelius says Severus Alexander died at 25 (Scutariotes says 39), Gordian III at 18 (Scutariotes says 28), Decius at 50 (Malalas and Scutariotes say 60), Trebonianus Gallus at “around 46” (Malalas says 60), Aemilianus at 47 (Malalas agrees and Zonaras and Scutariotes say 40, probably to be emended to 47), Gallienus at 50 (Malalas and Scutariotes agree), Diocletian at 68 (Malalas says 72), and Licinius at “nearly 59” (Malalas says 46). Cf. Eutropius IX.2 and Aurelius Victor 27 with Scutariotes, pp. 36.19 and 37.4. Eutropius X.8.2, Jerome, Chronicle 234b, Aurelius Victor 41.16, and Pseudo-Aurelius XLI.15. Cf. Malalas XIII.14, Zonaras XIII.4.27, Scutariotes, p. 43.10–11, Theophanes A.M. 5828, p. 33.22–23, Symeon 88.1, and Cedrenus, p. 520.14. See T. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 42: “It may be concluded … that Constantine was born on 27 February in either 272 or 273.” Yet 273 seems preferable, especially because then Eutropius’ and Jerome’s 66 can be explained by their use of inclusive reckoning.

544

treadgold

Not only was Eustathius’ source for emperors’ ages at their death plainly not the Kaisergeschichte, but that the Kaisergeschichte included any such ages seems unlikely in view of the disagreements among Eutropius, Victor, PseudoAurelius, and Jerome. Evidently Eustathius, John of Antioch, Malalas, Zonaras, and Scutariotes drew indirectly on a list of the emperors’ ages at their deaths, which Eustathius and John of Antioch continued after the version of Ammianus’ history used by Eustathius ended with 364. The original list of ages, presumably compiled over a long period by a succession of writers and quite possibly including some inaccurate guesswork, was definitely not incorporated into the Kaisergeschichte. It probably formed part of a brief chronicle that included the lengths of the emperors’ reigns, which most historians, including Ammianus, regularly record. For convenience, we may call this work the obituary chronicle.54 If Ammianus used such an obituary chronicle for his lost books, as seems very likely, he must have combined it himself with the Kaisergeschichte and with whatever other sources he consulted.

III We should now examine how Eustathius, as represented by Zonaras, John of Antioch, Malalas, Scutariotes, and other Byzantine authors, summarized parts of our surviving text of Ammianus. When we examine Zonaras’ account of the years from 353 to 364, which includes the parallels to Ammianus, we find that most of it depends on Ammianus’ Books XIV–XXV, but by no means all of it.55 On the other hand, one brief passage in the preceding section of Zonaras’ history evidently derives from Ammianus’ Book XV. In describing the division of the empire among Constantine’s sons in 337, Zonaras mentions that the Cottian Alps, which made up part of the share of Constantine II, were named for their former king Cottius, a fact that Ammianus mentions in a digression on Gaul when Julian was sent there in 355.56 We shall soon see that Zonaras rearranged his source material in other places as well.

54

55

56

Even though this obituary chronicle probably included lengths of reigns as well as ages at death, the recorded lengths of reigns are a poor means of identifying a text, since most of them are correct (or slightly miscopied) and could therefore have come from any of a variety of sources. For more detailed discussions of these parallels between Zonaras and Ammianus, with which I usually agree, see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection”; idem, “Smoke,” pp. 230– 255; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 216–241. Cf. Zonaras XIII.5.3 with Ammianus XV.10.2.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

545

As soon as our manuscripts of Ammianus’ history commence with Book XIV, we find parallels to Ammianus in Zonaras’ history. First Zonaras includes a summary of Ammianus’ account of the oppressive rule of the Caesar Gallus at Antioch and his execution by Constantius in 353, though Zonaras omits parts of Ammianus’ Book XIV on other subjects and evidently makes a few additions from Philostorgius.57 Then Zonaras gives a summary of Ammianus’ account in Book XV of the revolt of Silvanus in Gaul and its suppression in 355, omitting other parts of Book XV, skipping ahead to Book XVII for Ammianus’ account of negotiations between Constantius and the Persians in 358, and making minor additions from either Eunapius or the government archives at Antioch.58 Next Zonaras’ summary returns to Ammianus’ Book XV for Constantius’ appointment of Julian as Caesar in 355 and Julian’s successful wars in Gaul in Ammianus’ Books XV–XVIII.59 Next Zonaras includes an item not in our text of Ammianus, that Julian’s mother dreamed she would give birth to Achilles, along with an item to which Ammianus alludes in another context, that as a child Julian was entrusted to Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia to learn the Scriptures.60 The reference to Achilles indicates a pagan source favorable to Julian; since our text of Zonaras shows other rearrangements of Ammianus’ material and Ammianus took dreams quite seriously, this source may well be a lost book of Ammianus that covered Julian’s earlier life.61 Next Zonaras has a summary of Ammianus’ account in Book XX of Julian’s proclamation as Augustus in 360 and his exchange of letters with Constantius, again with additions from either

57

58

59 60

61

Cf. Zonaras XIII.9.9–20 with Ammianus XIV.1, 7, 11 and Philostorgius III.28, 28a; IV.1, 1a; and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 170–171 (though since John of Rhodes used the full text of Philostorgius, there is no need to propose him as a source along with Philostorgius); idem, “Smoke,” pp. 231–235 and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 217–219 (though on p. 219 for “only Zonaras gives his age” read “only Ammianus gives his age”). Cf. Zonaras XIII.9.20–31 with Ammianus XV.5 and XVII.5 (plus Zonaras’ short references to the Persian attacks in Ammianus XVIII and XIX); and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 162–163, 165–166, 170; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 219–220. Cf. Zonaras XIII.10.1–10 with Ammianus XV.8, XVI.1–4, 11–12, XVII.1, XVIII.2; and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 249–251; and Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 221. Cf. Zonaras XIII.10.2–4 with Ammianus XXII.9.4 (not mentioning the Scriptures); see also DiMaio, “Smoke,” p. 249, and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 220–221, who think that Zonaras’ statement that Julian’s parents entrusted his education to Eusebius is wrong, since both parents died before Julian was five; while this could be an incorrect inference by Eustathius from the fact that Eusebius did educate Julian, Julian’s parents could also have made their intentions for his education known while he was still an infant. For important dreams that foretold the future, see Ammianus XXI.1.6, XXI.1.12, XXI.2.2, XXI.14.1, XXV.2.3–4, XXV.10.16–17, XXX.5.18.

546

treadgold

Eunapius or the state archives.62 Zonaras continues with a summary of Ammianus’ account of the abortive conflict between Julian and Constantius, a translation of a poem from Ammianus predicting Constantius’ death, and Ammianus’ obituary of Constantius in Book XXI, plus a section from ecclesiastical historiography on Constantius’ Arianism.63 Zonaras’ treatment of Julian’s reign begins with a summary of parts of Ammianus’ Books XXII and XXIII, returning briefly to Book XVIII for an anecdote that showed Julian’s justice and incorporating additions from ecclesiastical historiography.64 Next Zonaras gives an account of Julian’s Persian campaign mostly summarized from Ammianus’ Books XXIII through XXV, with additions from ecclesiastical historiography; exactly how much Zonaras’ version depends on Ammianus is uncertain, because of a lacuna of unknown length at a crucial point in our text of Book XXIV.65 This lacuna seems to correspond to Zonaras’ report that two Persians claiming to be deserters treacherously persuaded Julian to burn his fleet, a story found elsewhere and apparently known to Ammianus as well.66 Zonaras’ account seems to combine at least two sources, since he mentions that the sources disagreed, reckons at 700 “triremes” and 400 transports the fleet that Ammianus’ Book XXIII puts at 1000 transports, 50 warships, and 50 bridge-builders, and attributes to “the Gauls” a victory over the Persians during Julian’s retreat, a detail omitted by Ammianus.67 Here one source of Zonaras’ source Eustathius was probably Philostorgius, who mentioned an elderly deserter from the Persian army who deliberately deceived Julian and ruined his expedition.68 Yet given Eustathius’ frequent

62

63 64 65

66 67

68

Cf. Zonaras XIII.10.11–22 with Ammianus XX.4, 8–9; and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 163–166; idem, “Smoke,” pp. 250–251; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 221–222. Cf. Zonaras XIII.11 with Ammianus XXI.1–2, 5, 15–16; and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 169, 172–173; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 222–227. Cf. Zonaras XIII.12 with Ammianus XVIII.1, XXII.2–5, 9–12, 14, XXIII.1; and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 166–168; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 227–233. Cf. Zonaras XIII.13 with Ammianus XXIII.2, XXIV.6–8 (note the lacuna in XXIV.7.2), XXV.1– 4, 9.12–13, 10.5; and see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” p. 169, n. 41; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 233–237. See especially M. DiMaio, “Infaustis Ductoribus Praeviis: The Antiochene Connection, Part II,” Byzantion 51 (1981): pp. 502–510. Zonaras XIII.13.8 (the ships; cf. Ammianus XXIII.3.9), 13.10 (differences among sources), 13.11–12 (the Gauls; cf. Ammianus XXV.18–19). Note that Zonaras and Ammianus agree that the total number of ships was 1100. Both versions of Malalas XIII.21 give the number of ships as 1250, perhaps simply because of Malalas’ tampering with his sources. Philostorgius VII.15, 15a. To judge from Zosimus III.26.2–3, Eunapius said nothing about Persian deserters in connection with Julian’s burning of the ships.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

547

use of Ammianus and Ammianus’ extensive coverage of Julian’s campaign, the obvious candidate to be Eustathius’ main source is Ammianus, whose lacuna can thus be filled in large part from Zonaras and a parallel passage in Malalas.69 Finally, Zonaras’ account of the short reign of Jovian shows parallels to Ammianus’ Book XXV mixed with further material from ecclesiastical historiography.70 Malalas cites as sources for his account of Julian’s Persian expedition “the most learned chronographer Magnus of Carrhae, who accompanied the emperor Julian,” and “the chronographer Eutychianus the Cappadocian, a soldier and vicarius of his own regiment of the Primoarmeniaci, who was himself present in the war.”71 Malalas is our sole source for both of these “chronographers” and for the extremely suspicious regiment of the “Primoarmeniaci.” Elizabeth Jeffreys has described Malalas’ citation of Eutychianus as “a reference of exceedingly dubious quality,” and I have identified as invented sources both “Eutychianus, meaning ‘the Eutychian’ (extreme Monophysite),” and the similar “Nestorianus, meaning ‘the Nestorian,’” observing that they “look almost like jokes.”72 Yet most scholars have accepted the existence of Magnus of Carrhae, who has recently been described as a source independent of Ammianus and Eunapius because at one point Magnus seems to agree with Ammianus and at another with Eunapius.73 A much more likely explanation is that Malalas simply attached the invented name of “Magnus of Carrhae” to a summary of the account that Eustathius compiled from Ammianus and Eunapius. Malalas

69

70 71 72

73

The parts apparently corresponding to the lacuna after Ammianus XXIV.7.2 are Zonaras XIII.13.4–7, 9 (omitting XIII.13.8, which differs slightly from Ammianus on the enumeration of the ships). The added details in Malalas XIII.22 (that the two false deserters were nobles who had their noses slit to make their story more plausible, and that Julian spared their lives even after they confessed) also seem likely to come from Ammianus, since they cannot belong to the alternative version about a single deserter. Matthews, The Roman Empire, p. 503, n. 65, declares himself “reluctant to accept DiMaio’s view,” without giving a reason. Cf. Zonaras XIII.14 with Ammianus XXV.5–10; and see Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 237–242. Malalas XIII.21 (Magnus) and XIII.23 (Magnus again and Eutychianus). Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources,” in E. Jeffreys et al., Studies in John Malalas (Sydney: University of Sydney, 1990), p. 81 and W. Treadgold, Early, p. 251. Cf. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), Eutychianus 3. B. Bleckmann, “Magnus von Karrhai: Zur Bedeutung der Malalas-Chronik für die Rekonstruktion der Zeitgeschichte Julians,” in L. Carrara et al., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Quellenfragen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2017), p. 125. I too accepted the existence of Magnus of Carrhae despite some reservations (Treadgold, Early, p. 77 n. 132) until I considered the implications of Bleckmann’s careful analysis.

548

treadgold

probably borrowed the name Magnus from a Magnus who distinguished himself for bravery on this expedition according to Ammianus, Zosimus/Eunapius, and a fragment in the Suda presumably taken from John of Antioch/Eustathius. As for Carrhae, Malalas first mentions Magnus of Carrhae just before saying that Julian had passed by Carrhae, a fact also noted by Ammianus and Zosimus/Eunapius and presumably Eustathius.74 In all probability not only “Eutychianus the Cappadocian” but also “Magnus of Carrhae” are among the fabricated authors that Malalas added to his chronicle to give the false impression that he had consulted many sources when he merely summarized Eustathius. Opinions may differ about precisely how much Zonaras’ account depends on Ammianus for the period from 353 to 364, because Zonaras’ history is compressed and in Greek while Ammianus’ history is expansive and in Latin, Zonaras adapted John of Antioch who copied Eustathius who in turn summarized Ammianus, and we lack full texts of Eunapius and Philostorgius to compare with Zonaras. Yet Ammianus covered this period in twelve books, Eunapius in about four, and Philostorgius, whose main concern was ecclesiastical history, in three and a half.75 The surviving books of Ammianus are about seven times as long as the corresponding part of Zosimus’ history. While we cannot be sure exactly how long Eunapius’ and Philostorgius’ books were, Ammianus must have treated the secular events of these years in considerably greater detail than either Eunapius or Philostorgius, or than any other history available to Eustathius. As a participant in Julian’s expeditions, Ammianus also wrote with more authority than younger armchair historians like Philostorgius or Eunapius (even though Eunapius had information from Julian’s physician Oribasius). Perhaps more important to an orthodox Christian like Eustathius, Ammianus’ paganism was less obtrusive than Eunapius’ and Zosimus’ paganism or Philostorgius’ Eunomian Arianism.76 One assessment of Zonaras’ sources has concluded that Zonaras’ text depends on Philostorgius mostly as a supplementary source and on Eunapius only as summarized by Zosimus.77 Moreover, several 74

75 76 77

On Magnus, see Ammianus XXIV.4.23–24, Zosimus III.22.4, and Suda A 2094 (presumably from John of Antioch, though not included in Roberto’s edition). For Julian’s passing Carrhae, see Malalas XIII.21, Ammianus XXIII.3.1, and Zosimus III.13. Cf. Prosopography, Magnus 2 and 3. For the book divisions of Eunapius and Philostorgius, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 83–88, 128–132. See Treadgold, The Early, pp. 51–78 (Ammianus), 81–89 (Eunapius), 114–120 (Eustathius), 126–134 (Philostorgius). DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 230–255, especially p. 252.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

549

misunderstandings of Ammianus’ Latin confirm that Eustathius used Ammianus.78 Our surviving fragments of John of Antioch, though scanty and abbreviated, are compatible with this reconstruction.79 The conclusion is therefore hard to escape that Ammianus was Eustathius’ main and preferred source for secular history from 353 to 364.

IV If Zonaras’ narrative from 353 to 364 is largely derived from the preserved books of Ammianus, we should also examine the preceding section of Zonaras’ narrative, running from the death of Constantine I in 337 to 353, for signs that it may depend on the lost books of Ammianus. To begin with, it has been rightly observed that in this period, for which John of Antioch was “almost certainly” Zonaras’ “direct source,” “Zonaras’s account of the sole reign of Constantius II (350–361), thirty pages in Büttner-Wobst’s edition, is completely out of proportion to his treatment of preceding and following reigns. No fewer than eighteen of these pages are devoted to the usurpation of Magnentius (350–353), by far the fullest account that has come down to us. Furthermore, no more than two of these thirty pages are concerned with church affairs, an astonishing proportion for any Byzantine historical epitome. More remarkable still, most of these thirty pages are pure narrative, covering the events of a very brief period in considerable detail, again highly unusual in such a work.”80 Since this exceptional amplitude and interest in secular history on the part of Zonaras cover the periods both before and after Ammianus’ surviving books begin with 353, we might plausibly guess that the coverage of both periods mainly depends on the same source, namely Ammianus. For the years beginning with 337 we have already found some dependence on a surviving book of Ammianus, Book XV, which parallels Zonaras’ explanation of the name of the Cottian Alps, part of the inheritance of Constantine II in 337.81 We have also found a passage in a later part of Zonaras, describing the 78

79

80 81

See DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 166–169; and, for Julian’s age at his death (mentioned above on p. 541 and n. 42), cf. Zonaras XIII.13.34 (τριάκοντα πρὸς ἑνὶ βιώσας = 31) with Ammianus XXV.3.23 (anno aetatis altero et tricensimo = 32). See John of Antioch, frs. 261–273.2 (ed. Roberto); but see also the comments of Banchich and Lane quoted in n. 37 above and DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” p. 170: “Zonaras seems to have included material in his narrative which is not preserved in the extant text of John [of Antioch].” Cameron, The Last Pagans, p. 688. Cf. Zonaras XIII.5.3 with Ammianus XV.10.2.

550

treadgold

dream of Julian’s mother that she would bear an Achilles, that may well come from the part of Ammianus’ history that described how Julian survived his father’s lynching in 337 and was educated by Eusebius of Nicomedia.82 Zonaras begins his narrative by noting that different sources disagreed as to whether the tripartite division of the empire after 337 was made by Constantine I himself or by his sons after his death, showing that Zonaras failed to realize that Constantine had made a quadripartite division including his nephew Dalmatius that his sons converted into a tripartite division after Dalmatius was killed. Evidently Eustathius again had at least two sources, one of them probably Philostorgius, who appears not to have mentioned Constantine’s four-part division, as the earlier and more detailed account of Ammianus must have done and Zosimus/Eunapius and Eutropius did.83 The other source seems unlikely to have been Eutropius, who is not detailed enough, and was probably Ammianus, perhaps along with Zosimus/Eunapius. Zonaras goes on to describe Constantine II’s defeat by Constans and Constans’ assassination by Magnentius, supplying the most detailed description we have of Constantine II’s death.84 While Philostorgius did mention these events, Ammianus must have said more about them, and seems most likely to have been Zonaras’ indirect source. Then Zonaras describes Constantius’ warfare with Sapor II of Persia, including an account of Persian politics and the escape of Sapor’s imprisoned brother Hormisdas to the Roman Empire, which actually occurred before 337. While Eutropius omits this incident and Philostorgius seems not to have mentioned it either, Ammianus says in his Book XVI that he had recorded Hormisdas’ escape in an earlier book, and Zosimus/Eunapius and a fragment of John of Antioch both include it. Yet Zosimus/Eunapius says that Hormisdas fled to Constantine I, while John of Antioch says Hormisdas fled to Licinius.85 By process of elimination, Ammianus was almost certainly Eustathius’ source for the flight of Hormisdas to Licinius, which may have appeared in a digression on relations with Persia early in Constantius’ reign.

82 83 84 85

Zonaras XIII.10.2–4. Ammianus could also have mentioned this omen when recording Julian’s birth in 332. Cf. Zonaras XIII.5.1–4 with Philostorgius III.1, 1a, Zosimus II.39–40, and Eutropius X.9; and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 236–244; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 209–210. Cf. Zonaras XIII.5.5–16 with Philostorgius III.1, 1a, 22, 22a–26a; and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 240–244; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 210–212. Cf. Zonaras XIII.5.5–6, 5.17–34 with Ammianus XVI.10.16, Zosimus II.27, and John of Antioch fr. 266 (ed. Roberto); and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 239–240; and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 210, 212–213. Note that the reference to Hormisdas in the Suda M 230, which says he fled to Constantine, should therefore come from Eunapius, not John of Antioch.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

551

Although the objection has been raised that both Zonaras and John of Antioch say Sapor and Hormisdas were sons of the Persian king Narses, while Ammianus should have known they were Narses’ grandsons, the most likely explanation is that the identification of the two as Narses’ sons was a mistake in summarizing by Eustathius.86 Then Zonaras returns to Magnentius’ rebellion and gives a detailed description of how it began, as Ammianus must also have done, to judge from his eight references to his earlier account of Constans and Magnentius.87 Zonaras says that Magnentius was proclaimed emperor at “Augustulum” at a birthday celebration for Magnentius himself, while Zosimus names the place correctly as Augustodunum (Autun) and says that the birthday celebration was for a son of Magnentius’ co-conspirator Marcellinus.88 Evidently Eustathius, an Easterner unfamiliar with Augustodunum, miscopied its name, while his statement that the celebration was for Magnentius’ own birthday may have been a mistake in summarizing. Yet the main source of Eustathius/John/Zonaras seems not to have been Zosimus, since, unlike Zosimus, Zonaras is hostile to Magnentius and gives a more detailed account of the murder of Constans, including an age at death that follows the practice of Ammianus. Then, returning to the East, Zonaras gives a description of Sapor II’s failed siege of Nisibis in 350 that appears to be independent of our other accounts.89 The degree of detail in this description, including a statistic for the size of the besieging force and an historical note that Nisibis had once belonged to Tigranes II of Armenia and Mithridates VI of Pontus, points to Ammianus as the source. Next Zonaras gives his detailed description of Constantius’ campaign against Magnentius and the rebel’s first defeat. While this description shows a few similarities to the similarly detailed account of the same campaign by Zosimus, it repeatedly differs with Zosimus and Philostorgius.90 Zonaras’

86 87

88 89

90

For the objection, see DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 184–185. Cf. Zonaras XIII.6 with Ammianus XV.5.16, XV.6.4, XVI.6.2, XX.1.1, XXI.8.1, XXII.13.3, XXVII.8.4, XXVIII.3.8; and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 242–244; and Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 213. Cf. Zonaras XIII.6.2 with Zosimus II.2–4. Zonaras XIII.7.1–14; and see Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 213–214; and especially M. Dodgeon, S. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, AD226–363: A Documentary History (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 193–207. Philostorgius III.22, 22a–26a and Zosimus II.43.1 say nothing about this siege and barely mention the war. Cf. Zonaras XIII.7.15–8.25 with Philostorgius III.22–25, 22a–26a and Zosimus II.43–54; and see DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 244–247 (listing three verbal similarities with Zosimus in n. 94 and a dubious one with Julian in n. 95); and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 214– 217. The verbal parallels with Zosimus may well mean that here Eustathius supplemented

552

treadgold

report of a dream in which Constantine I urged Constantius to avenge his brother Constans is paralleled only in a fragment in the Constantinian Excerpts from the sixth-century history of Peter the Patrician, whose source may well have been Eustathius copying Ammianus, since Ammianus considered dreams important.91 Zonaras also supplies unique and credible statistics for the sizes and casualties of the armies of Constantius and Magnentius, another feature of Ammianus’ surviving books.92 Then Zonaras includes an account of a failed plot by Magnentius to have the Caesar Gallus assassinated at Antioch, which seems unlikely to depend on Ammianus because it looks like an independent account of a plot that Ammianus recorded differently.93 Here Zonaras’ actual source was probably Philostorgius. Finally Zonaras describes how Magnentius lost another battle to Constantius, stabbed his own brother Desiderius, and killed himself, and then how Magnentius’ other brother Decentius, whom he had named Caesar, hanged himself, and how Desiderius, who had survived his wounds, surrendered to Constantius.94 This story has been doubted, because Zonaras is our only source for the name of Desiderius, which might be considered a variant of Decentius, well attested as Magnentius’ Caesar.95 Nonetheless, all our sources who mention Decentius agree with Zonaras that he was not killed or wounded by Magnentius but killed himself.96 Philostorgius apparently said that Magnentius killed an (unnamed) brother before stabbing himself.97 Socrates, followed by Sozomen, agrees with Zonaras that Magnentius had two brothers and that Decentius hanged himself, although, apparently copying Philostorgius,

91

92 93

94 95 96 97

Ammianus with Zosimus, whom Eustathius evidently used elsewhere (see Treadgold, The Early, p. 306, n. 69). See Excerpta Historica iussu imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta I.2 (Berlin: Apud Weidmannos, 1903), p. 395. On Peter’s history, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 267–268. If my interpretation is right, Peter’s source cannot have been John of Antioch, who wrote ca. 610. For Ammianus’ opinion of dreams, see n. 61 above. See Treadgold, The Early, p. 76. See Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 216–217, comparing Zonaras XIII.8.25–31 (a plot by Magnentius betrayed by a clever old woman) with Ammianus XIV.7.4 (a plot by lowranking soldiers betrayed by a contemptible woman). R. Frakes, “Ammianus and Zonaras on a Late Roman Assassination Plot,” Historia 46 (1997): pp. 121–128, argues against any connection between these two passages, but seems to me to rely too much on Ammianus’ following a strict chronological order. Zonaras XIII.9.1–8; cf. DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 246–247; and Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 71. Prosopography, under Decentius 3 and “*!Desiderius!*1”; and DiMaio, “Smoke,” pp. 246– 247. See the eight sources cited by Prosopography under Decentius 3. Philostorgius III.26.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

553

Socrates and Sozomen also say that before stabbing himself Magnentius killed another (unnamed) brother whom he had made his Caesar.98 Note that the ecclesiastical historians disagree with Zonaras only by saying that the unnamed other brother was Magnentius’ Caesar and was not just wounded but killed by Magnentius. Therefore Philostorgius cannot have been Zonaras’ source, and since he was evidently wrong that the other brother was Magnentius’ Caesar, Philostorgius may also have been wrong that this brother died of his wounds. That two brothers had names as similar as Decentius and Desiderius is not even slightly suspicious at a time when brothers were named Constantine, Constans, and Constantius, or Valentinian and Valens. The most likely explanation is that Zonaras’ account is correct and its source was Ammianus’ lost Book XIII. At this point Zonaras starts to follow Ammianus’ account of Gallus’ rule at Antioch at the beginning of Ammianus’ first surviving book, Book XIV. Malalas and Scutariotes both give such abbreviated accounts of the secular events from 337 to 353 that they include little that could come from Ammianus and cannot be found at greater length in Zonaras’ work. Malalas does however add reports that Constantine II died at age 20 and Constans at age 27, though Zonaras says Constans died at 30.99 Malalas’ age for Constantine II should probably be emended from 20 to 24, which would then be correct, the error having been made either by Malalas or by a copyist of Malalas’ history. Curiously, however, Malalas’ age of 27 for Constans is supported by PseudoAurelius, and Zonaras’ age of 30 for Constans is supported by Eutropius and Jerome.100 A possible explanation is that both Ammianus and Eustathius mentioned that reports of Constans’ age at death varied between 27 and 30, while Malalas chose to report only the first age and Zonaras chose to report only the second. Anyone who would maintain that Ammianus was not the source of the bulk of Zonaras’ account of the years from 337 to 353 should suggest a more likely lost source who described these events in detail and was not Philostorgius or Zosimus/Eunapius. Moreover, anyone who maintains that Ammianus was not the main source of this part of Zonaras’ history needs to explain why the compiler evidently used Ammianus’ history for the period after 353 but not before, or why his copy of Ammianus’ history, which ended well before our copies do, began exactly where our copies do. I doubt that any plausible alternative 98 99 100

Socrates II.32 and Sozomen IV.7.3. Malalas XIII.15 (Constantine II), XIII.16 (Constans), and Zonaras XIII.6.12 (Constans). Cf. Pseudo-Aurelius XLI.23, Eutropius X.9.4, and Jerome, Chronicle 237c. See Barnes, The New Empire, pp. 44–45, 46.

554

treadgold

explanations can be offered. We should also expect this part of Ammianus’ history to have been reasonably accurate, since Ammianus was born around 330 and must have had access to good oral and written sources going as far back as 337.101 Unfortunately, partly because Eustathius’ Latin was imperfect and partly because both he and Zonaras were compiling world histories of which this period was only a small part, the summaries provided by Zonaras that can occasionally be supplemented from Malalas and Scutariotes are sometimes inaccurately transmitted, much shorter than Ammianus’ original text, and mixed with information from other sources, especially Philostorgius. If the hypothesis that Ammianus was the main source on which Zonaras depends for these years is accepted, we may be able to make a very rough calculation of the length of Ammianus’ treatment of the years from 337 to 353. Zonaras’ treatment of the years from 353 to 364 is about 5 % as long as Books XIV–XXV of Ammianus, which cover the same period. Admittedly, this part of Zonaras includes a good deal of information not derived from Ammianus, most of it apparently from Philostorgius, and omits a good deal of information that is in Ammianus, especially the digressions and invented speeches that Zonaras says his friends had asked him to drop from his sources.102 On the other hand, we can assume that Zonaras’ treatment of the preceding period also included a good deal of information not in Ammianus, most of it apparently from Philostorgius, and omitted a good deal of information in Ammianus, especially digressions and speeches. One possible objection is that because Ammianus says in his preface to Book XV that from that point he intended to write more extensively, Eustathius and Zonaras might have chosen to include more of Ammianus’ more concise account up to Book XIII than they did later.103 However, several scholars have observed that our extant Book XIV is about as ample as the later books and that Ammianus’ references to his lost books imply that he also gave quite ample treatment to the years beginning with 337.104 In any case, Zonaras’ treatment of the period from 337 to 353 is a little less than three-quarters as long as his treatment of the period from 353 to 364, to which Ammianus devoted twelve books. If on average Zonaras drew approximately the same amount of material from each of Ammianus’ books in both periods, Ammianus covered the period from 337 to 353 in about nine books, 101 102 103 104

On Ammianus’ life, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 52–59. Zonaras, preface 1, pp. 4–7; cf. Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 33–34. Ammianus XV.1.1. See Rowell, “The First Mention,” pp. 839–845; Matthews, The Roman Empire, pp. 18, 27–30; and Barnes, Ammianus, pp. 26–30.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

555

leaving roughly four books for the period from 96 to 337. If Book V began with 337, from 337 to 353 Ammianus’ treatment would have averaged rather less than two years per book, about twice his pace from 353 to 364, a little less than one year per book. This would also mean that Ammianus covered the years from 96 to 337, before the times that he and his informants could remember, on a dramatically different scale, averaging about sixty years per book. While this estimate may go too far in supposing that Ammianus covered the events of his youth at the same rate as those of his maturity, note that advancing the point of expansion by a book or two would make relatively little difference in the disproportion. If it was Book VII that began with 337, Ammianus would have covered the years from 337 to 353 at an average of somewhat more than two years per book, and the years from 96 to 337 at an average of about forty years per book.

V We should now look for indications that Zonaras, following Eustathius, might have used Ammianus for the times of Diocletian and Constantine I, from 284 to 337.105 Philostorgius did not cover this period, except for its very end, while Zosimus’ account of Diocletian has been lost in a lacuna. Zonaras’ brief description of Diocletian’s accession is quite similar to that of Eutropius. Yet Zonaras includes several facts omitted by Eutropius: that Diocletian had been Duke of Moesia and Count of the Domestici before becoming emperor, that he told the army that the murderer of his predecessor Numerian was Aper, that Aper was “prefect of the army” (i.e., Praetorian Prefect), that Diocletian visited Rome to inaugurate his reign, and that Diocletian made Maximian his colleague either in his second year (correct) or in his fourth (incorrect, even if referring to Maximian’s promotion to Augustus in Diocletian’s third year).106 Interestingly,

105

106

While most of the remainder of my discussion parallels that of Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise, I agree with Cameron, The Last Pagans, p. 627: “The solid and lasting contribution of Bleckmann’s book was to demonstrate just how much good evidence for the late third and early fourth centuries survives in the twelfth-century history of the Byzantine monk Zonaras. At least one lost late antique source needs to be postulated to account for all this material. Unfortunately, Bleckmann was persuaded by Paschoud to identify this lost source as Flavian [Nicomachus Flavianus].” I see no reason to repeat or summarize the extensive and conclusive arguments against this identification presented by Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 617–690. As will appear, I identify the principal lost source as the lost books of Ammianus. Cf. Zonaras XII.31, pp. 613.14–614.7, and Scutariotes, p. 40.27–28 (also putting the appoint-

556

treadgold

Theophanes also includes the mistake that Diocletian made Maximian his colleague in his fourth year, and George Syncellus, whose chronicle Theophanes continued from 284, includes the facts that Aper was prefect of the army and had murdered Numerian and that Diocletian went to Rome in 284.107 Aurelius Victor also says that Aper was Praetorian Prefect and Numerian’s murderer, presumably because Victor used Eutropius’ source.108 The agreement of Zonaras with Theophanes and George Syncellus should not be particularly surprising, since John of Antioch is known to have been a source of Theophanes, and Theophanes had received from George the materials that he used to continue George’s chronicle, presumably including the history of John of Antioch.109 John’s source, Eustathius, must therefore either have combined Eutropius with another source, or consulted Eutropius’ source, or consulted another source that used Eutropius’ source. Since, as several scholars have noticed, Zonaras’ parallels with Eutropius usually include more information than is to be found in the text of Eutropius, the conclusion that Eustathius repeatedly used another source to interpolate Eutropius seems much less likely than that Eustathius and Eutropius shared a source, if perhaps indirectly. According to all recent authorities, Eutropius’ source (and Victor’s) was the hypothetical Kaisergeschichte. For this reason the suggestion has recently been made that John of Antioch (for whom we may substitute Eustathius) used a Greek translation of the Kaisergeschichte.110 Yet Greek translations of Latin works were very rare in Antiquity, and since the Kaisergeschichte seems to have been lost even in Latin and in the West soon after the end of the fourth century, even the Latin text is extremely unlikely to have reached Eustathius in Antioch in the early sixth century.111 Although Eustathius found Ammianus’ history at Antioch, Ammianus was an Antiochene who must have had associates in the city to whom he

107

108 109 110

111

ment of Maximian in Diocletian’s fourth year) with Eutropius VIII.19–20. See also Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 135–136. Theophanes, A.M. 5780 (287/88), p. 6, and George Syncellus, A.M. 5776 (283/84), p. 472 (calling Aper first ἐξάρχου of the army and then ὕπαρχον, both obviously errors for Zonaras’ ἔπαρχον; cf. Prosopography, Aper 2). Aurelius Victor 38.6. Theophanes, preface, pp. 3–4. Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 665–668. Cameron includes an argument for the existence of such a translation based on one minor error shared by George Syncellus and the fourthcentury historian Festus that could simply be a coincidence. Cf. Cameron, The Last Pagans, p. 674: “The KG cannot have been significantly more detailed than its various derivatives and continuations, which in turn explains why it disappeared without trace.”

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

557

could have sent his work, and even so Eustathius found only a copy of the first edition. A much simpler and likelier hypothesis than a Greek translation of the Kaisergeschichte is that Eustathius copied not Eutropius or the Kaisergeschichte but Ammianus, who is known to have used the Kaisergeschichte and, since he surely wrote at greater length than its other users including Eutropius, must have included most of what was in it. After all, if Eustathius used Ammianus’ history for the period after 337, why should he not have used it for the earlier period, when sources were less abundant? Because Ammianus seldom dates events by years, Eustathius may himself have muddled the chronology if he failed to distinguish Maximian’s two promotions to Caesar and to Augustus and then tried to use Ammianus’ account to date what he thought had been a single promotion.112 Otherwise Zonaras’ additional details appear significant and plausible, though his reports that Diocletian had been Duke of Moesia and visited Rome are unique and have been doubted, evidently because of Zonaras’ late date.113 Yet neither report is improbable in itself. Diocletian was evidently an experienced commander who had held important military posts, and for a new emperor to visit Rome to inaugurate his reign had long been customary, so much so that Diocletian’s supposed decision not to do so has been considered a deliberate break with precedent.114 If Diocletian did visit Rome, Ammianus would surely have mentioned it, since he was particularly interested in the city and provides a lengthy description of Constantius II’s visit there in 357.115 Next Zonaras refers to Diocletian’s and Maximian’s persecuting Christians, perhaps relying as much on his memory as on Eustathius’ summary of a derivative of Eusebius’Ecclesiastical History, since he puts the beginning of the persecution too early.116 Then Zonaras summarizes the events of the First Tetrarchy, once more showing unmistakable parallels to Eutropius’ history but adding more information.117 Again Zonaras evidently followed Ammianus by way of Eustathius and John of Antioch. John and Zonaras share the error that the Quinquegentiani (“men of the five tribes”), a band of Moors who invaded Roman Africa, were “five men of Gentiani”—an obvious misinterpretation by 112 113

114 115 116 117

On Ammianus’ dating, see Barnes, Ammianus, pp. 43–51. For doubts, see Prosopography, Diocletianus 2; T. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 5 (“perhaps”); idem, The New Empire, p. 50; and S. Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985), p. 241, n. 1. Williams, Diocletian, p. 41. For Constantius’ visit to Rome, see Ammianus XVI.10. Zonaras XII.31, pp. 614.8–15; see Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 136. Cf. Zonaras XII.31, pp. 614.16–617.14, and Scutariotes, p. 41.1–12 with John of Antioch frs. 247, 248, 249 (ed. Roberto) and Eutropius IX.20–26.

558

treadgold

Eustathius of a Latin source derived from the Kaisergeschichte, since both Eutropius and Victor mention the Quinquegentiani.118 Ammianus, Eustathius’ probable Latin source, presumably mentioned the Quinquegentiani as well. Zonaras himself seems to be responsible for misnaming Constantius I “Constans” and the usurper Carausius “Crassus,” because John of Antioch uses the correct forms of both names, though Scutariotes, apparently following Zonaras, uses “Constans.” The events in this section that are noted by Zonaras but not by Eutropius are the revolt of the cities of Busiris and Coptus in Egypt, Constantius I’s epithet of “Chlorus,” a list of the first seven Sassanid kings of Persia, and the peace treaty made between Diocletian and Narses I of Persia. Again Zonaras’ additional information appears to be accurate, with the likely exception of the epithet “Chlorus,” which appears to be attested only in the early sixth century and may have been added by Eustathius.119 The revolt of Busiris and Coptus is otherwise attested solely by Eusebius’ Chronicle under the year 293 and in its translation by Jerome, and by Theophanes, who evidently relied on John of Antioch.120 The list of the Persian kings is also paralleled in George Syncellus’ chronicle.121 Thus almost all of Zonaras’ secular history of the First Tetrarchy can be plausibly attributed to Ammianus. There follows a short description of Diocletian’s persecution of Christians, taken by Eustathius from a text derived from Eusebius, perhaps the lost fifthcentury chronicle of Panodorus of Alexandria.122 Next Zonaras records the 118

119

120

121

122

Cf. Zonaras XII.31, p. 615.12 (πέντε τινῶν Γεντιανῶν) with John of Antioch fr. 247.12–13 (εʹ ἀνδρῶν Γεντιανῶν). Eutropius IX.22.1, 23 refers to the Quinquegentiani and Aurelius Victor 39.22 to the nationes Quinquegentanae, a clearer formulation; Eustathius’ source, probably Ammianus, must have been less clear, like Eutropius. See Prosopography, Constantius 12. The epithet appears at Malalas XII.48, but not in John of Antioch fr. 252 (ed. Roberto), where Constantius is given the Latin epithet “Pauper” (though “Chlorus” could of course have appeared in the full text of John). Jerome, Chronicle 226a; note that this entry is also found in the Armenian translation, and therefore goes back to Eusebius. Cf. Theophanes A.M. 5782 (289/90), p. 6.23–25 (where Busiris is misspelled Ὁβούσιριν, evidently because Theophanes misunderstood the article in ὁ Βούσιρις as part of the name). Cf. Zonaras XII.31, p. 616.4–10 with George Syncellus A.M. 5715 (222/23), p. 441 (at 441.9, for ἄλλος δʹ read ἄλλως δʹ ⟨μῆνας⟩). Note that this list is accurate if Vararaces (Οὐαραράκης), mentioned by both Zonaras and George, is understood to be Vararanes II (Prosopography, Vararanes II). Note also that this list differs slightly from that of Agathias IV.24.1–25.1, who uses “Hormisdates” for “Hormisdas” and “Vararanes” (correctly) for “Vararaces,” indicating that George depended not on Agathias but on the full text of John of Antioch for the first part of his list; the second part includes kings after Agathias’ time. Cf. Zonaras XII.32, pp. 617.15–618.3 with Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 140. On Panodorus, see n. 33 above.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

559

retirements and triumphal celebrations of Diocletian and Maximian, including a digression on the Greek derivation of the word “triumph.” Parallels with fragments of John of Antioch again indicate that John was Zonaras’ source. Once more Zonaras shows clear parallels with Eutropius, but the digression on the triumph is not in Eutropius, and as a Greek with a fondness for digressions Ammianus seems to be its most likely source.123 Another passage follows in which Eustathius apparently cited Eusebius, but is more likely to have depended on Panodorus.124 Proceeding to the dissolution of the second Tetrarchy, Zonaras has another passage with parallels to Eutropius but several additions: that Maximian told the Roman Senate of his son Maxentius’ unfitness to rule but quickly recanted, that Maximian hanged himself, and that Constans (i.e., Constantius I) preferred Constantine to his sons by his second marriage, whom Zonaras names but Eutropius does not.125 As before, the most likely source of the passages with incomplete parallels to Eutropius is Ammianus, who apparently transmitted more of the information in the Kaisergeschichte than Eutropius did. Then, with Constantine’s reign, the character of Zonaras’ text shows a marked change, which (to judge from our fragments of John of Antioch) occurred in Eustathius’ text as well. Zonaras’ account of Constantine begins with a vision of an angel that told Constantius I to name Constantine his heir, a series of legendary labors assigned to Constantine by the Eastern emperor Galerius, and a short description of the conflict between the Eastern emperors Maximinus and Licinius that confuses Maximinus with Galerius.126 This section obviously comes from a pro-Christian and relatively late source, certainly not the pagan historians Ammianus, Eutropius, Eunapius, or Zosimus, but probably the same lost biography of Constantine that appears to lie behind most of Zonaras’ account of that emperor.127 It seems to be unrelated to a section that 123 124 125

126 127

Cf. Zonaras XII.32, pp. 618.4–619.19, and John of Antioch frs. 250, 251.1, 251.2 (ed. Roberto) with Eutropius IX.27, X.1 and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 140–142. Cf. Zonaras XII.32, pp. 619.19–621.23, and John of Antioch frs. 250.1, 251.2 (ed. Roberto) with Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 142–145. Cf. Zonaras XII.33, pp. 621.24–623.2, and John of Antioch frs. 251.2, 252, 253 (ed. Roberto) with Eutropius X.1, 3 and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 145–146 (noting possible explanations for Zonaras’ apparently inaccurate name for one of Constantius’ sons). Cf. Zonaras XII.33–34, pp. 623.3–625.12, with Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 146–147. See Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 194: “Zonaras, Cedrenus, and Scutariotes all reflect complex biographical and hagiographical traditions that begin with Eusebius’ Life of Constantine and the lost work of Praxagoras …. However, rather than these biographies, it is some of the content of the so-called Opitz and Guida [read “Guidi”] Lives, as distinct from these specific Lives themselves, that provides the greatest number of significant points of contact with Zonaras.” On these and other biographies of Constantine, see S. Lieu,

560

treadgold

appears at this point in some manuscripts of Zonaras but not others, recording the succession of bishops at Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria on the basis of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.128 This lost biography of Constantine is probably the source of the greater part of the rest of Zonaras’ account of Constantine’s reign, but not of all of it. Zonaras also adds comments of his own, probably a little information from Philostorgius, and citations by name of Cassius Dio, Eusebius’Ecclesiastical History, the acts of the Council of Nicaea (apparently meaning a work by Gelasius of Cyzicus), and Julian’s Caesars.129 Yet some elements of Zonaras’ account seem to be inserted from an earlier and probably pagan source that was presumably Ammianus, including a note that according to some Constantine’s mother Helen was not married to his father and a description of Constantine’s wars with Licinius.130 Finally, the end of Zonaras’ account is a sort of obituary of Constantine in the style of Ammianus’ obituaries of later emperors. This passage shows parallels with both Eutropius and John of Antioch and includes the citation from Julian’s Caesars, which criticizes Constantine’s extravagance in terms that Ammianus would have approved.131 The parallel to Zonaras in John of Antioch mentions Constantine’s killing “the son of his sister Commoda,” which is evidently Eustathius’ misunderstanding of a phrase like that in Eutropius noting that Constantine killed “his sister’s son, a youth of agreeable character (sororis filium commodae indolis iuvenem).”132 Yet this cannot be taken as proof that

128 129

130

131 132

D. Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 97–106, with an annotated translation of the Guidi life on pp. 106–146. Cf. Zonaras XII.34, pp. 625.12–628.19, with Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 147, who suggest that this section may be a later interpolation into Zonaras’ work. Cf. Zonaras XIII.1–4 and John of Antioch frs. 254–256 (ed. Roberto) with Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 189–208. On Gelasius of Cyzicus’ work entitled Acts of the Council of Nicaea, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 165–166. For Zonaras’ use of Philostorgius on Constantine’s death, see M. DiMaio, “Zonaras, Julian, and Philostorgios on the Death of the Emperor Constantine I,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 26 (1981): pp. 118–124. Zonaras XIII.1.4, 21–29; cf. Symeon the Logothete 88.2–3. The identification of this pagan source was made by B. Bleckmann, “Die Chronik des Johannes Zonaras und eine pagane Quelle zur Geschichte Konstantins,” Historia 40 (1991): pp. 343–365, who refers to Symeon as “Leo Grammaticus,” since at the time Wahlgren’s edition of Symeon: Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon I, ed. S. Wahlgren (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006) had not yet appeared. “Leo Grammaticus” was one of several copyists of Symeon’s chronicle. Cf. Zonaras XIII.4.29–34 and John of Antioch frs. 254, 255 (ed. Roberto) with Eutropius X.6.3–8.1 and Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 208. Cf. John of Antioch fr. 254.1–2 (ed. Roberto) with Eutropius X.6.3 and DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection,” pp. 167–168.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

561

Eustathius copied Eutropius. If Eutropius and Ammianus both closely followed the Kaisergeschichte, Ammianus could have borrowed these words from it just as Eutropius did, perhaps in an even more easily misunderstood form. George Cedrenus (or Pseudo-Symeon) adds a story about Constantine not mentioned by Zonaras that probably derives from Ammianus and Eustathius by way of a mostly lost passage of John of Antioch. According to Cedrenus, Metrodorus, a philosopher who had traveled in India, gave Constantine a gift of Indian jewels and pearls but claimed that the Persians had stolen others from him; when Constantine unsuccessfully demanded these treasures from Sapor II, war with Persia resulted. Cedrenus goes on to say that Constantine sent some of his jewels to the barbarians across the Danube, a report paralleled among the fragments of John of Antioch, and that Constantine was the first emperor to wear a diadem decorated with pearls and jewels, a report paralleled in Pseudo-Aurelius, another user of the Kaisergeschichte. Almost conclusively, Ammianus states in Book XXV that war had first broken out between Rome and Persia because Constantine “greedily accepted the lies of Metrodorus, as we have earlier related in full,” obviously in one of the lost books.133 As for Malalas, his treatment of this period is badly muddled by his usual inventions of physical descriptions of the emperors, his confusing the emperors with each other (partly because he was misled by Eustathius), and especially his fixed idea that the simultaneous imperial reigns from 285 to 324 occurred sequentially.134 Nevertheless, Malalas supplies us with our best data for the ages when these emperors died: Diocletian at 72, Maximian at 57, Constantius I at 60, Galerius (confused with Maxentius) at 53, Maximinus (confused with Licinius) at 46, and Constantine at 60 years and 3 months (which can be corrected from Zonaras and other Byzantine historians to 65 years).135 Since we have seen that Ammianus was careful to record emperors’ ages at their deaths, he is the most likely source of these ages, even when they have been

133

134 135

Cf. Cedrenus I, pp. 516.12–517.9 (where Cedrenus’ date is presumably one of the fictions of Pseudo-Symeon) with John of Antioch fr. 255 (ed. Roberto), Pseudo-Aurelius XLI.14, Ammianus XXV.23, Dodgeon, Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier, pp. 153, 381, and Prosopography, Metrodorus 1. Cedrenus I, p. 517.9–11, describes Constantine’s donating to “the Great Church” Gospels decorated with pearls and jewels in a passage that seems less likely to derive from Ammianus. Malalas XVIII.8 shows that he later discovered his chronological mistakes, but without bothering to rectify them; cf. Treadgold, The Early, pp. 249–250. Malalas XII.44 (Diocletian), XII.46 (Maximian), XII.47 (Galerius, not Maxentius), XII.48 (Constantius I), XII.50 (Maximinus, not Licinius), and XIII.14 (Constantine I; emend to ξεʹ from the texts listed on p. 543 with n. 53 above); see Barnes, The New Empire, p. 46; Treadgold, The Early, pp. 318–319, n. 31; and idem, The Middle, p. 395, n. 34.

562

treadgold

attached to material that has nothing to do with his work. The only one of these emperors for whom Eutropius records an age at death is Constantine, giving an age of 66, which is correct if counted inclusively but a different number from that evidently recorded by Eustathius, and therefore probably derived from a different source.136 Why would Eustathius have relied on Ammianus for most of his account of secular events from the accession of Diocletian up to the accession of Constantine, but then adopted the lost life of Constantine in preference to Ammianus? One obvious reason is that Eustathius thought Ammianus, as a pagan, gave insufficiently favorable treatment to Constantine’s conversion and merits. Yet we also have grounds to think that Ammianus’ treatment of this period was not very expansive, because if it had been Eustathius would probably have found more of interest in it to summarize. For the reign of Diocletian, Ammianus appears to have included around twice as much information as is to be found in Eutropius, who was also a pagan and a user of the Kaisergeschichte. Ammianus had no apparent motive to give much more voluminous treatment when he came to the reign of Constantine, whom he would not have treated with enthusiasm but could not have criticized freely when he wrote under Valentinian II. The conclusion that Ammianus gave much less attention to the years from 284 to 337 than to the succeeding period helps to confirm the usual assumptions that Ammianus’ earlier books were much less detailed than his later ones and that Ammianus was primarily a contemporary historian.

VI In looking for fragments of Ammianus’ history before 284, we should probably give up searching the part of Zonaras’ narrative before the concluding date of Dio’s history in 229, since Ammianus cannot have had much to add to the information Zonaras and Eustathius found in Dio and in Zonaras’ source derived from Eusebius of Caesarea. We know in fact that Zonaras in his earlier books relied heavily on Dio’s history, for which he is one of our main sources of fragments.137 After our fully preserved text of Dio ends with 46 A.D., we depend mostly on John Xiphilinus’ epitome of it, which was only about a quarter as long as the original.138 Therefore Zonaras’ source for any otherwise unattested information is likely to have been the full text of Dio, not the lost books of 136 137 138

Eutropius X.8.2. On Zonaras’ earlier use of Dio, see Treadgold, The Middle, p. 394. On Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, see Treadgold, The Middle, pp. 310–312.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

563

Ammianus. Dio himself regularly recorded the ages of the emperors at their deaths, which Zonaras evidently repeats from him. What is striking is that the obituary chronicle, as reflected in Malalas and Scutariotes, seems to have differed significantly from Dio and Zonaras on the death dates of emperors before 238, even though most of these dates are not preserved in both traditions for comparison. For example, according to Zonaras and to Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, Hadrian (117–138) died at the age of 62 years, 5 months, and 19 days, but according to both Malalas and Scutariotes Hadrian died at 65.139 According to Zonaras and to Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, Commodus (180–192) died at the age of 31 years and 4 months, but according to Scutariotes at 41.140 According to Zonaras and Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, Pertinax (193) died 4 months short of the age of 67, but according to both Malalas and Scutariotes Pertinax died at 70.141 Admittedly, sometimes the ages given in both traditions are compatible. Thus according to Zonaras and Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, Didius Julianus (193) died at the age of 60 years, 4 months, and 4 days (Xiphilinus omits the days), which is differently expressed but compatible with Malalas’ and Scutariotes’ age of a round 60.142 According to Zonaras and Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio, Septimius Severus died at the age of 65 years, 9 months, and 29 days (Xiphilinus says 25 days), which is compatible with Malalas’ 65 years.143 (Our abridged fragments of John of Antioch include no such ages from 96 to 229.) Yet where Malalas and Scutariotes differ from Dio on these ages, or even in the form in which they are expressed, their source was presumably Eustathius (in Scutariotes’ case by way of John of Antioch), and Eustathius’ source was probably Ammianus.144 Given the fragmentary state of our texts of both Dio and John of Antioch, the fictional elaborations of Malalas, and the extreme compression of Scutariotes and other Byzantine chronicles, we cannot be sure exactly how independent Eustathius and Ammianus were from Dio; but Eustathius clearly depended less on Dio than on Herodian’s history once it begins with 180.145 We seem to be left with no clear evidence that Ammianus used Dio. 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Cf. Zonaras XI.24, p. 521.16–17, and Dio LXIX.23.1 with Malalas XI.20 and Scutariotes, p. 31.14. Cf. Zonaras XII.5, p. 538.12–13, and Dio LXXIII.22.6 with Scutariotes, p. 32.22–23. Cf. Zonaras XII.6, p. 542.13, and Dio LXXIV.10.3 with Malalas XII.14 and Scutariotes, p. 32.26. Cf. Zonaras XII.7, p. 545.22–23, and Dio LXXIV.17.5 with Malalas XII.17 and Scutariotes, p. 32.29. Cf. Zonaras XII.10, pp. 555.21–556.2, and Dio LXXVII.17.4 with Malalas XII.22. For full references to these ages in Malalas and Scutariotes, see the appendix to the present article. See John of Antioch, frs. 191–219 (ed. Roberto) with the parallels noted in Roberto’s apparatus.

564

treadgold

After Dio’s history ended with 229, Zonaras obviously needed to rely on other sources. A comparison of parallel texts indicates that he relied mainly on the full text of John of Antioch, who copied Eustathius. A recent study has tentatively concluded “that the close correspondences between Zonaras, Herodian, and Eusebius result from Zonaras’ use of an intermediate chronological source that integrated secular and ecclesiastical events and that itself depended for secular events from ca. 222 up to ca. 238 on a tradition that derived, in part, from Herodian.”146 This intermediate source was evidently John of Antioch’s copy of the history of Eustathius. Most scholars believe that some of Ammianus’ references to his lost books show that he depended on Herodian, though some have doubted this.147 Herodian’s history concludes with 238. From 229 to 238 Zonaras and Scutariotes still record the ages of emperors at their deaths, which are as a rule not noted in Herodian’s history. Although our abridged fragments of John of Antioch include no ages for the half-dozen emperors of this period and there is a lacuna in Malalas’ text at this point, we have ages for all six emperors if we put together our information from Zonaras and Scutariotes. According to Scutariotes, Severus Alexander (222–235) died at 39, which is perhaps an error for 29.148 According to Zonaras, Maximinus Thrax (235–238) died at 65, and Scutariotes’ 60 is probably just a corruption of this.149 According to both Zonaras and Scutariotes, Gordian I (238) died at 79.150 According to Scutariotes, Gordian II (238) died at 50.151 Finally, Zonaras says that Pupienus Maximus (238) died at 74 and his colleague Balbinus (also 238)

146

147

148 149 150 151

Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 73; cf. p. 79: “Parallels again suggest Zonaras’ dependence on an intermediate source rather than his direct consultation of Herodian and Eusebius [of Caesarea], the ultimate sources of much of the information he transmits.” L. Mecella, “Malalas und die Quellen für die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser,” in Carrara et al., Weltchronik, pp. 73–98, argues that for the third century, besides Eustathius, Malalas used another source derived from the Kaisergeschichte; without sharing her faith in some of Hans Thurn’s reconstructions of the lacuna in our text of Malalas from 211 to 253, I agree that Malalas used a source derived from the Kaisergeschichte—namely Ammianus. For the case that Ammianus depended on Herodian, see J.F. Gilliam, “Ammianus and the Historia Augusta: The Lost Books and the Period 117–285,” in Bonner Historia-AugustaColloquium 1970 (Bonn, 1972): pp. 125–147, accepted by Barnes, Ammianus, p. 213, partly accepted by Matthews, The Roman Empire, p. 482, n. 42, but disputed by M.F.A. Brok, “Un malentendu tenace (les rapports entre Hérodien et Ammien Marcellin),”Revue des Études Anciennes 78/79 (1976/77): pp. 199–207, who actually demonstrates only that Ammianus used other sources along with Herodian. Scutariotes, p. 35.15 (for λθʹ read κθʹ). Zonaras XII.16, p. 578.9–10, and Scutariotes, p. 36.11 (for ἑξήκοντα read ἑξήκοντα ⟨ἔξ⟩). Zonaras XII.17, p. 579.19–20, and Scutariotes, p. 36.16. Scutariotes, p. 36.19.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

565

at 60.152 While the indirect source of these ages was presumably the conjectural obituary chronicle, Eustathius’ direct source is likely to have been Ammianus, because, as we have seen, the list of the emperors’ ages evidently reached Ammianus’ time and was not reflected in the Kaisergeschichte. From 229 to 238 Zonaras’ account mostly summarizes Herodian with some additions derived from Eusebius of Caesarea. Here Eustathius seems to have consulted Herodian’s history directly, because if he had merely made a Greek summary of Ammianus’ summary of it in Latin, Zonaras and John of Antioch would not show the clear verbal parallels with Herodian that they do, including Gordian I’s reference to himself as “about 80,” which conflicts slightly with the obituary chronicle’s putting his age at 79.153 Yet Zonaras includes three items not recorded by Herodian or Eusebius: that the Persian king Artaxerxes invaded Cappadocia and besieged Nisibis around 230, that the emperor Maximinus killed his own wife, and that “some write” that “a certain Pompeianus” was emperor briefly between the emperors “Maximus” and “Albinus” and another emperor, “Publius Balbinus.”154 This last item, also found in Scutariotes, evidently resulted from a failure to recognize either “Albinus” and Balbinus or “Pompeianus” and Pupienus as the same emperor.155 The obituary chronicle seems not to have shared this confusion, because it apparently recorded only two ages at death for Pupienus Maximus and Balbinus and their two doublets. Since this mistake seems to have been a blundering attempt to combine the accounts of the Kaisergeschichte and the obituary chronicle, it must go back to Eustathius and probably goes back to Ammianus. The mention of Nisibis also probably goes back to Ammianus, whose own experiences gave him an interest in the Persian frontier and in Nisibis in particular. Ammianus mentions in Book XIV having said in a lost book that Maximinus’ wife had tried to restrain her husband from his cru152

153

154

155

Zonaras XII.17, p. 579.4–5 (referring to “Maximus” and “Albinus”). Zonaras calls Balbinus “Albinus” (except at p. 579.14, where he calls him “Balbinus” without realizing that he was the same emperor) and Scutariotes, p. 36.10, 13, calls him “Galbius” and “Galbinus,” though John of Antioch fr. 224 (ed. Roberto) correctly calls him Balbinus. Cf., e.g., the quotation from the Persian ambassadors in Zonaras XII.15, p. 573.8–11, with Herodian VI.4.5, Gordian’s proclamation with the mention of his age in John of Antioch fr. 224.32–37 (ed. Roberto) with Herodian VII.5.1–2, and the death of the city prefect Sabinus after the lacuna in John of Antioch fr. 224.38–43 (ed. Roberto) with Herodian VII.7.4–5. Cf. Zonaras XII.15–17, pp. 573.1–580.6, and John of Antioch frs. 219–224 (ed. Roberto) with Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 77–89, especially nn. 6, 16, 24 (where for “Herodian VIII.9.7–9” read “Herodian VII.9.7–9”). At Zonaras XII.16, p. 578.2–3, the remark, “Aquileia is said to be today’s Venice,” must be an addition by Zonaras himself. Cf. Zonaras XII.17, p. 579.2–14, with Scutariotes, p. 36.10–13 (referring to “Maximus” and “Galbius” and “Pompianus” and “Publius Galbinus”).

566

treadgold

elty (perhaps provoking him to kill her), while in Book XXVI Ammianus says that Gordian I hanged himself, a fact recorded by Herodian, Zonaras, and a fragment of John of Antioch.156 The report that Maximinus killed his wife is repeated by George Syncellus, presumably following John of Antioch, who followed Eustathius.157 Here Eustathius must have combined material derived from Eusebius with both Herodian and Ammianus. If Eustathius supplemented Herodian with another source than Ammianus, the obvious candidate would be Dexippus, whose history reached 270. Yet we can be reasonably sure that Eustathius knew Ammianus’ lost books, while Eustathius seems unlikely to have known Dexippus’ history directly. Zonaras’ account of this period would surely be less confused than it is if Eustathius had had direct access to Dexippus’ history, which was detailed, more or less contemporary, and written in Eustathius’ native language of Greek, and discussed events both before and after the accession of Gordian III in 238.158 Much of this confusion apparently arose because, as we have seen, the Kaisergeschichte, as represented by Eutropius and Victor, assumed that Gordian II and Gordian III were the same man.159 Since both Zonaras and Scutariotes recognize the existence of three emperors named Gordian, Eustathius and Ammianus must have realized it as well; but Ammianus would still have been puzzled by the mistake in the Kaisergeschichte. The fact that Zonaras refers to differing accounts of Gordian I’s death could mean that Eustathius had compared Ammianus and Herodian, but could also mean that Eustathius was copying Ammianus, who either mentioned the discrepancy himself or copied a reference to it from the Kaisergeschichte. Since Ammianus gave variant accounts of the death of his contemporary Jovian, he should not have been reluctant to give variant accounts of events of the more distant past.160

156 157 158

159

160

Ammianus XIV.1.8, XXVI.6.20. George Syncellus A.M. 5728, p. 442.10–11. See Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 82–88, who begin their discussion with the welljustified remark, “The source tradition or traditions that Zonaras reflects are both confused and confusing.” See Eutropius IX.2 and Aurelius Victor 27. Unlike Rohrbacher, “The Sources,” pp. 111–112, I doubt that this error was shared by Ammianus, who in XXIII.5.17 refers to Gordian III as iunior Gordianus and in XXVI.6.20 to Gordian I as superior Gordianus. In his actual narrative Ammianus could easily have made it clear that there were three Gordians, perhaps by referring to Gordian II as senior Gordianus. Ammianus XV.10.13.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

567

VII From 238 to 270, between the end of Herodian’s history and the end of Dexippus’ history, Malalas, Zonaras, and Scutariotes again record each emperor’s age at his death, if we put the evidence of all three historians together. According to Scutariotes, Gordian III (238–244) died at 28, Philip the Arab (244–249) at 63, and Decius (249–251) at 60; between Gordian III and Philip, Scutariotes also includes two dubious ephemeral emperors, Marcus and Hostilianus Severus, who supposedly died aged 43 and 46 respectively.161 The Constantinian Excerpts from Malalas confirm Scutariotes’ ages for Philip and Decius and say that Trebonianus Gallus (251–253) also died at 60.162 Malalas says that Aemilianus (253) died at 47, which John of Antioch may have miscopied from Eustathius as 40, the age recorded by Zonaras and Scutariotes.163 Malalas says Valerian (253–260) died at 61.164 Malalas and Scutariotes agree that Gallienus (260–268) died at 50, Claudius II (268–270) at 56, and Quintillus (270) at 41.165 The evidence therefore continues to support the existence of an obituary chronicle, whether accurate or not. After the end of Herodian’s history in 238, Zonaras’ account shows clear parallels with that of Zosimus, but since Zonaras includes many additional events and details he must depend not on Zosimus but on Zosimus’ source, evidently Dexippus or another historian who used Dexippus.166 In fact, in a parallel passage evidently taken from John of Antioch, George Syncellus cites Dexippus by name as a source for the reign of Trebonianus Gallus, and the list of sources that Evagrius evidently took from Eustathius includes Dexippus.167 Zosimus in turn includes many events and details that are not in Zonaras. Yet given that Zonaras often follows Zosimus sentence by sentence, the absence of verbal parallels is remarkable, extending repeatedly to different Greek transliterations of Latin names.168 This is of course just what we would expect if 161 162 163 164 165 166

167 168

Scutariotes, pp. 36.31 (Gordian III), 37.2 (Marcus), 37.4 (Hostilianus), 37.17 (Philip), 37.30 (Decius). Malalas XII.25, p. 227, XIIIc (Philip), XVb (Gallus), XVIIe (Decius) in Thurn’s edition, where our main ms. has a lacuna. Malalas XII.25, Zonaras XII.22, p. 592.3–4, and Scutariotes, p. 38.13–14. Malalas XII.26. Malalas XII.27, XII.28, XII.29 and Scutariotes, pp. 38.29, 39.3, 39.8. Cf. Zonaras XII.18–20, pp. 581.17–583.9, 584.1–585.5, 589.3–14 with Zosimus I.17.2–23.3, Zonaras XII.21–23, pp. 589.15–589.22, 589.24–592.5, 593.3–596.9 with Zosimus I.24.1–30.1, 36.1–2, and Zonaras XII.24–26, pp. 596.15–603.6, 603.22–606.6 with Zosimus I.30.1–3, 38.1– 44.1, 46.1–47.1. George Syncellus A.M. 5746, p. 459.13–16; Evagrius V.24. Cf. Zonaras XII.21, p. 589.16 (Βολουσιανὸν; cf. John of Antioch fr. 229 [ed. Roberto]), XII.23,

568

treadgold

Ammianus translated material from a Greek history into Latin and Eustathius then summarized Ammianus’ Latin in Greek. The Kaisergeschichte, to judge from Eutropius and Victor, had much less to say about this period than did Zonaras’ and Eustathius’ source, who was apparently Ammianus, combining information directly or indirectly from Dexippus with the Kaisergeschichte and the obituary chronicle. If so, Zonaras preserves considerably more of the contemporary part of Dexippus’ history than previous scholars have thought has survived.169 As before, Zonaras’ account of the reigns of Gordian III, Philip, and Decius combines secular and Christian material, all evidently taken from Eustathius by way of John of Antioch.170 Since Eustathius and his source were combining different sources, both of them not surprisingly became confused, as did Zonaras and Scutariotes later. Zonaras confusedly gives two versions of the death of Gordian III as if he had been two different emperors named Gordian, one who died after falling from his horse on a Persian campaign and the other who was killed because of a plot by Philip the Arab on a Persian campaign. The story of the plot was presumably accurate and reported by Dexippus and the Kaisergeschichte. By process of elimination, the story of the accident, probably circulated by Philip to exculpate himself, evidently came from the obituary chronicle. Zonaras separates these two versions from each other with a passage from his source based on Eusebius of Caesarea.171 While Scutariotes, George

169

170

171

p. 592.20 (Γαλιήνῳ), XII.24, p. 596.19 (τὰ Μεδιόλανα), XII.24, p. 596.20 (Αἰρούλοις; cf. George Syncellus A.M. 5748, p. 467.15, Αἴλουροι), XII.26 (Κυντιλιανὸν; cf. John of Antioch fr. 234 [ed. Roberto], Κυντίλιος and George Syncellus A.M. 5763, p. 469.21–22, Κεντίλλιος) with Zosimus I.24.1 (Οὐολουσιανὸν), 30.1 (Γαλλιηνὸν), 40.1 (Μεδιολάνῳ), 42.1 (Ἑρούλους), 47.1 (Κυντίλλου). Note also that in Scutariotes, p. 38.22, the city of Salona (Σάλονα) is a misunderstanding of the name of Gallienus’ son Saloninus (Zosimus I.38.2, Σαλωνῖνος), while Zonaras XII.24, p. 597 has somehow misunderstood that the son (unnamed by Scutariotes) had the same name as his father (ὁμώνυμον). The few verbal resemblances between Zosimus on the one hand and Zonaras, John of Antioch, George Syncellus, and Scutariotes on the other seem to be merely coincidental. See F. Millar, “P. Herrenius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions,” Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969): pp. 12–29, especially pp. 21–24, on the scantiness of our other fragments of Dexippus and the dubious quality of those in the Historia Augusta. More recently, see P. Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and in the Fourth Century AD (Warsaw: Warsaw University, 2006), pp. 39–54, and L. Mecella, Dexippo di Atene: Testimonianze e frammenti (Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2013). Cf. Zonaras XII.19–20, pp. 583.1–589.14, with John of Antioch frs. 226, 227 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5731, p. 443.3–9, A.M. 5737, p. 444.16–18, A.M. 5746, p. 459.5–13, and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 91–100. Cf. Zonaras XII.17, pp. 580.7–14 (the death of Gordian III after falling from his horse),

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

569

the Monk, and George Cedrenus adopt the story of the accident, a fragment of John of Antioch, George Syncellus, Eutropius, Victor, and Pseudo-Aurelius all adopt the story of the plot.172 The explanation may well be that Ammianus, realizing from Dexippus and the obituary chronicle that there had been three Gordians and trying to reconcile this with the two Gordians mentioned in the Kaisergeschichte, assigned the two versions of Gordian III’s death to different Gordians; then Eustathius, uneasy with this awkward solution, tried to distract his readers from it by inserting the Eusebian material between the two versions of the death; then George the Monk and George Cedrenus chose the first version from John of Antioch while Scutariotes and George Syncellus chose the second. Much like the “Pompeianus” who was evidently a doublet of Pupienus, the mentions of “Marcus” and “Hostilianus Severus” may reflect confused reports about Philip’s son Marcus and Decius’ son Hostilianus.173 Yet unlike “Pompeianus,” about whom even Zonaras expresses doubts (possibly copied from Ammianus by way of Eustathius), in our texts based on Eustathius both Marcus and Hostilianus are assigned their own ages at death and brief biographies, which may be practically all that the obituary chronicle said about them. Zonaras and Scutariotes agree that on hearing of Gordian’s death in the East the senate at Rome elected Marcus, a “philosopher,” who died almost at once in the palace, and that Hostilianus Severus then became emperor but died almost immediately while being bled for a disease.174 Even if what the obituary chron-

172

173

174

580.15–581.16 (a passage derived from Eusebius), XII.18, pp. 581.17–582.13 (the murder of Gordian by Philip) with Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 88–91. Cf. George the Monk, p. 461.13–15, and George Cedrenus I, p. 451.11–12, with John of Antioch fr. 225 (ed. Roberto), Scutariotes, p. 36, George Syncellus A.M. 5731, p. 443.3–9, Eutropius IX.2.3, Aurelius Victor 27.8, and Pseudo-Aurelius XXVII. Note that if John of Antioch, like Zonaras, included both versions, the Constantinian excerptors for “On Plots against Monarchs” would still have omitted the story of the accident, because it involved no plot against a monarch. See Banchich and Lane, The History, p. 91, and M. Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235–284 (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1990), p. 198 (showing that both Philip and his son Philip were named Marcus), 33–34; 255–258, 261–265 (on Hostilianus, who was however not named Severus). Scutariotes, p. 37.10–11, is an incomplete reference to a “Marius” hastily proclaimed by the senate after Philip but may actually refer to the Marinus who briefly rebelled against Philip according to Zonaras XII.19, p. 584.2–8, and Zosimus I.20.2. Malalas XII.25, p. 227, XVIb in Thurn’s edition (from the Constantinian Excerpts “On Plots”) refers to the Marius who according to John of Antioch fr. 230 (ed. Roberto), Eutropius IX.9.2, and Aurelius Victor 33.9–12 was proclaimed and then killed by the army in Gaul after the death of the usurper Postumus; on that Marius, who was also named Marcus, see Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature, p. 484. Cf. Zonaras XII.18, p. 582.14–21, with Scutariotes, pp. 36.31–37.

570

treadgold

icle said about these ephemeral emperors was mostly invented, it was not so implausible that Ammianus would have felt compelled to reject it. Zonaras’ accounts of the reigns of Trebonianus Gallus and Aemilianus similarly seem to combine Dexippus, the Kaisergeschichte, and the obituary chronicle, punctuated by some Christian material. Zonaras then moves on to the reign of Valerian and the Persian invasion that followed Valerian’s defeat and capture, before including more Christian material.175 Zonaras’ account of the tumultuous reign of Gallienus concludes once more with a little Christian material. Then come accounts of the reigns of Claudius II and the ephemeral Quintillus, spelled “Quintilianus” by Zonaras and Scutariotes but “Quintillius” by John of Antioch and George Syncellus.176 After a single citation of Eusebius, Zonaras’ report that Constantine’s father Constantius I (“Constans”) was the grandson of Claudius II by his daughter, though presumably invented to lend legitimacy to the house of Constantine, is paralleled in Eutropius and probably in Victor, and therefore derives from the Kaisergeschichte.177 Ammianus would presumably have seen no reason to omit it. For the period from 270 to 284, Malalas and Scutariotes, doubtless following the obituary chronicle, generally agree about the ages at which the emperors died. According to Malalas, Aurelian (270–275) died at 61, Tacitus (275–276) at 75, Florianus (276) at 65, Probus (276–282) at 50, Carus (282–283) at 60 “and a half,” Numerian (283–284) at 36, and Carinus (283–285) at 32.178 While Scutariotes’ 60 for Aurelian is probably a copyist’s error for Malalas’ 61, Scutariotes agrees with Malalas’ ages for Tacitus and Probus, rounds off Malalas’ 60 and a half for Carus to just 60, and agrees with Malalas’ age for Numerian.179 Zonaras’ account of the reign of Aurelian is briefly interrupted toward the beginning by 175

176

177

178 179

Cf. Zonaras XII.21–23 with John of Antioch frs. 228, 229 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5746, p. 459.13–17, A.M. 5748, pp. 465.20–466.23, Scutariotes, pp. 37.31–38.19, and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 100–170. Cf. Zonaras XII.24–26 with John of Antioch frs. 230–235 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5748, pp. 466.23–467.28, A.M. 5763, p. 469.17–22, Scutariotes, pp. 38.20–39.8, and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 109–122. Eutropius IX.22.1 and Aurelius Victor 34.6–7 (where the lacuna after Constantius et Constantinus atque imperatores nostri presumably referred to their descent from Claudius, the subject of the chapter). If we follow the obituary chronicle, Claudius was born ca. 214 and Constantius was born ca. 246, so that a daughter of Claudius and mother of Constantius could conceivably have been born ca. 230; but few ancient or medieval readers would have had the critical sense to check such data. Malalas XII.30 (Aurelian), XII.31 (Tacitus), XII.32 (Florianus), XII.33 (Probus), XII.34 (Carus), XII.35 (Numerian), XII.36 (Carinus). Scutariotes, pp. 39.16 (Aurelian), 39.20 (Tacitus), 40.4–5 (Probus), 40.8 (“Sarus” = Carus), 40.13 (Numerian).

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

571

a short passage of Christian material. Then the reigns of Aurelian, Tacitus, Florianus, Probus, Carus, Numerian, and Carinus are described without anything else that is obviously an insertion.180 Zonaras mentions varying accounts of the length of Tacitus’ reign and the deaths of Carus and Numerian, and expresses disbelief that grain fell from the heavens to feed Probus’ army. Although these could be Eustathius’ comments on different sources, they seem more likely to be comments by Ammianus. For example, according to Zonaras some said that Aurelian brought Zenobia from Palmyra back to Rome (the version of the Kaisergeschichte), while others said that she died on the way (the version of Zosimus/Eunapius).181 Ammianus would presumably have found both versions and mentioned them. Finally, after another interpolation from Christian sources, Zonaras reaches the accession of Diocletian. A comparison of Zonaras with Zosimus again indicates a common source, also with only insignificant and probably coincidental verbal parallels.182 If the explanation given above for the years from 238 to 270 is right, the reason for the lack of verbal parallels is that Zosimus’ source had been translated into Latin by Ammianus and summarized back into Greek by Eustathius before Zonaras used it. Yet this time the common source cannot have been Dexippus’ history, which had ended with 270. While Eunapius did continue Dexippus, the first installment of Eunapius’ history seems to have appeared around 397, later than Ammianus’ first installment around 390.183 Although the suggestion has recently been made that Eunapius’ first installment appeared a few years before Ammianus’s, this case is far from proven, and even if correct would not prove that a copy of Eunapius’ history arrived promptly from his home in Sardis to Ammianus’ home in Rome.184 A much more likely explanation is that for this period Ammianus shared a source with Eunapius, who must have had a written source, because he wrote in plausible detail on events that had occurred more than a century before he wrote.185

180

181 182 183 184 185

Cf. Zonaras XII.27–30 with John of Antioch frs. 235–246 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5764, pp. 469.25–470.15, A.M. 5765, pp. 470.24–471.3, A.M. 5770, p. 471.11–15, A.M. 5776, p. 472.9–26, Scutariotes, pp. 39.9–40.26, and Banchich and Lane, The History, pp. 122– 134. Cf. Zonaras XII.27, pp. 607.6–11, with Eutropius IX.13.2 and Zosimus I.59. Cf. Zonaras XII.27–30, pp. 606.7–14, 607.1–612.7, with Zosimus I.50.1–2, 56.1–2, 59, 61.2– 67.2. See Treadgold, The Early, pp. 58–59 (Ammianus), 81–83 (Eunapius). See Cameron, The Last Pagans, pp. 672–673. This source is unlikely to be Heliconius of Byzantium, who since his history ended with 379 would also have needed a written source for the years from 270 to 284. On Heliconius, see Treadgold, The Early, pp. 48–49, except that I now withdraw my suggested identification of

572

treadgold

If we consult the same list of sources that Evagrius evidently repeated from Eustathius, the obvious candidate to be Ammianus’ and Zosimus’ shared source is the obscure pagan historian Eusebius (different, of course, from the Christian Eusebius of Caesarea). Evagrius mentions him just after Dexippus, attributing to Eusebius a history running from “Octavian” to the death of Carus (283).186 Two fragments, probably from the Constantinian Excerpts, survive from Eusebius’ history, one assigned to “Book IX” on a “Scythian” siege of Thessalonica and the other on a siege of a city in Gaul, probably Tours.187 Both Zonaras and Zosimus mention two “Scythian” sieges of Thessalonica, the first under Valerian and the second under Claudius, though which of these Eusebius described, and which siege in Gaul, is uncertain.188 If Eusebius’ Book IX reached the reigns of Valerian or Claudius, it was most likely the final book, especially because Eusebius, an imitator of Herodotus who wrote in the Ionic dialect, might well have divided his history into nine books like those of Herodotus. Nine books for more than three hundred years implies quite concise treatment, summarizing and continuing Dexippus’ history and probably serving as Ammianus’ source for Dexippus. In any case, Eustathius’ reference to this Eusebius, like his reference to Dexippus, was presumably copied not from the original work but from a reference to it in a source, in this case Ammianus.

186

187

188

his history as the Anonymus post Dionem, ed. C. Müller (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum IV; Paris, 1868), pp. 191–199), which is now securely attributed to Peter the Patrician by T. Banchich, The Lost History of Peter the Patrician: An Account of Rome’s Imperial Past from the Age of Justinian (London: Routledge, 2015), especially pp. 6–9. Moreover, the Anonymous shows clear verbal parallels with Zonaras: cf. Anonymus fr. 9.1 with Zonaras XII.26, p. 605.1–6; and Anonymus fr. 10.1 with Zonaras XII.27, p. 606.7–13. Evagrius V.24. On this Eusebius, see B. Baldwin, “Eusebius and the Siege of Thessalonica,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124 (1981): pp. 291–296, and especially Janiszewki, The Missing Link, pp. 54–77 (though his tentative identification of the historian as the consul for 359 seems too late for a writer who concluded his history with 283). Ed. in Jacoby, FGrHist IIA, no. 101. That these excerpts came from the Constantinian collection has been doubted, but is convincingly argued by Németh, Imperial Systematization, pp. 145–177 (mentioning Eusebius on p. 153). Cf. Zonaras XII.23, p. 593.4–6 (under Valerian), XII.26 pp. 604.20–605.2 (under Claudius, with a note on the derivation of the name of Thessalonica that may well be Ammianus’ addition) with Zosimus I.29.2 (under Valerian), 43.1 (under Claudius, without the derivation). Eusebius’ second description of a siege could apply to Gallienus’ siege of “a certain city of Gaul” held by Postumus (Zonaras XII.24, p. 598.14–18). The references to the sieges in Zonaras and Zosimus are so condensed that we should not expect them to show parallels with Eusebius’ descriptions.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

573

VIII In sum, the balance of probability is that Ammianus was the principal source of Eustathius, John of Antioch, Zonaras, and Scutariotes for the whole period from 229 to 364, and sometimes as early as 96. Although the reign of Constantine I from 306 to 337 would be an exception, even for that period the quantity of material that Eustathius took from his biography of Constantine was not necessarily much more or less than what Eustathius was accustomed to take from Ammianus’ history when he used it. Nonetheless, the supposition that Eustathius summarized Ammianus (and Zonaras summarized Eustathius) at the same rate throughout the period of Ammianus’ history would lead to the impossible conclusion that Ammianus covered the years from 229 to 353 in some forty-five books, not including the 133 years he covered before 229. The book numbers in our manuscripts indicate that Ammianus covered this whole span in just thirteen books, and even those scholars who want to renumber his books have suggested adding only five more books, or ten at the most.189 Obviously we should not expect Ammianus to have described events of a hundred to three hundred years before his own time in the same detail as events within living memory. If the foregoing analysis is correct, his main written sources were (1) the very brief obituary chronicle, (2) the Kaisergeschichte, which was probably not much longer than the very short histories of Eutropius and Victor, (3) the fairly short history of Herodian, and (4) the probably fairly short history of the pagan Eusebius. Since these sources would have been packed with facts, as the histories of Eutropius and Victor are, the books Ammianus based on them would probably have been similarly concise, except when padded somewhat with digressions. If so, Eustathius and Zonaras would presumably have copied far more from Ammianus on the period from 229 to 337 than on the period from 337 to 364. While Eustathius or Zonaras would have omitted Ammianus’ digressions, with the likely exception of the digression on the word “triumph,” Eustathius also added considerable information from Christian sources. We might therefore make the very tentative guess that Zonaras gave about 50% as much space as Ammianus to the years from 229 to 337, rather than around 5%, the percentage Zonaras gave to the years from 353 to 364 and perhaps from 337 to 353. (Admittedly, the estimate of 50 % is more or less arbitrary, and scholars who prefer to renumber Ammianus’ books can feel free to assume

189

See above, pp. 531–532.

574

treadgold

a reduced percentage to fit their hypothesis of five or ten lost books.) Thus Ammianus might have covered the years from 229 to 337 in some four and a half books. From this we might guess that Ammianus’ Books I–VI covered the period from 96 to 337 and his Books VII–XIII the period from 337 to 353.190 Altogether we may have as much as a fifth of the content of Ammianus’ first thirteen books in the form of Greek summaries in later historians. This estimate is admittedly approximate and speculative, but perhaps no more so than earlier reconstructions of Ammianus’ lost books. The process of editing fragments of late ancient Latin historians has lagged behind that of editing the much more numerous fragments of late ancient Greek historians. Even if the arguments presented here are wrong, an attempt to collect and edit fragments of the Kaisergeschichte would surely help to clarify a wide range of problems. Moreover, even after the publication of two rival editions of the fragments of John of Antioch, it should now be clear that even the longer of the two editions has omitted many relevant fragments from Zonaras, Scutariotes, and several other Byzantine historians, and that these ought to be collected and published as a supplement, if not in a new edition. Of course, if the arguments presented here should be accepted, even if only in substantial part, they would demonstrate the feasibility of an edition of the fragments of Ammianus’ lost books, which should include Ammianus’ own references to them, most or all of the passages listed in the appendix to this paper, and probably a few additional passages in George the Monk, Symeon the Logothete, Pseudo-Symeon, George Cedrenus, and other Byzantine historians. The results should show that Books I–XIII of Ammianus’ history ought to be considered fragmentary rather than lost, and that Ammianus had much more influence on later historiography than has previously been recognized.

190

The content of the books might then have been very roughly as follows: (I) Nerva to Marcus; (II) Commodus to Severus Alexander; (III) Maximinus to Valerian; (IV) Gallienus to Carinus; (V) Diocletian to Constantius I; (VI) Constantine I; (VII) war between Constantine II and Constans; (VIII) war between Constantius II and Sapor II; (IX) usurpation of Magnentius; (X) war between Constantius and Sapor (continued); (XI) submission of Vetranio and appointment of Gallus; (XII) war between Constantius and Magnentius; (XIII) victory of Constantius over Magnentius. Of course, Ammianus mixes different events in different places in Books XIV–XXXI, and he doubtless did the same in Books I– XIII.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

575

Appendix: List of Possible Fragments of Lost Parts of Ammianus’ History For the Period 96–229 – Ages of emperors at their deaths: Malalas X.54 (Nerva), XI.12 (Trajan), XI.20 (Hadrian), XI.27 (Antoninus Pius), XI.33 (Verus), XII.13 (Commodus), XII.14 (Pertinax), XII.17 (Didius Julianus), XII.22 (Septimius Severus), XII.23 (Geta), p. 225 IIb Thurn (Macrinus), and p. 225 IIIc Thurn (Elagabalus) and Scutariotes pp. 30.22 (Nerva), 31.14 (Hadrian), 31.22 (Antoninus Pius), 32.22–23 (Commodus), 32.26 (Pertinax), 32.29 (Didius Julianus), 33.28 (Macrinus), and 34.31 (Elagabalus)

– –

–

–

–

–

For the Period 229–284 Reign of Severus Alexander: Zonaras XII.15, pp. 573.1–574.15, John of Antioch fr. 220 (ed. Roberto), and Scutariotes, p. 35.8–16 (at p. 35.16, for λθʹ read κθʹ) Reigns of Maximinus, Gordian II, Pupienus, and Albinus: Zonaras XII.16– 17, pp. 576.5–578.2 and pp. 578.3–580.6, John of Antioch frs. 222–224 (ed. Roberto), and Scutariotes, pp. 35.17–36.16 (at p. 36.11, for ἑξήκοντα read ἑξήκοντα ⟨ἔξ⟩) Reigns of Gordian III, Philip, and Decius: Zonaras XII.18–20, pp. 581.17–583.9, pp. 584.1–585.5, and 589.3–14, John of Antioch frs. 225 and 226 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5731, p. 443.3–9, A.M. 5737, p. 444.16–18, and A.M. 5746, p. 459.5–13, and Scutariotes, pp. 36.20–37.10, 37.16–23, and 37.26–30 Reigns of Gallus, Aemilianus, and Valerian: Zonaras XII.21–23, pp. 589.15– 589.22, 589.24–592.5, and 593.3–596.9, John of Antioch frs. 228 and 229 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5746, p. 459.13–17 and A.M. 5748, pp. 465.20– 466.23, and Scutariotes, pp. 37.31–38.19 Reigns of Gallienus, Claudius II, and Quintilianus: Zonaras XII.24–26, pp. 596.15–603.6, and 603.22–606.6, John of Antioch frs. 230–234 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5748, pp. 466.23–467.28 and A.M. 5763, p. 469.17–22, and Scutariotes, pp. 38.20–39.8 Reigns of Aurelian, Tacitus, Florianus, Probus, Carus, Numerian, and Carinus: Zonaras XII.27–30, pp. 606.7–14 and 607.1–612.7, John of Antioch frs. 235–246 (ed. Roberto), George Syncellus A.M. 5764, pp. 469.25–470.15, A.M. 5765, pp. 470.24–471.3, A.M. 5770, p. 471.11–15, and A.M. 5776, p. 472.9–26, and Scutariotes, pp. 39.9–40.9

For the Period 284–337 – Beginning of Diocletian’s reign: Zonaras XII.31, pp. 613.14–614.7, and Scutariotes, p. 40.27–28

576

treadgold

– First Tetrarchy: Zonaras XII.31, pp. 614.16–617.14, John of Antioch frs. 247–249 (ed. Roberto), and Scutariotes, p. 41.1–8 – Retirements of Diocletian and Maximian: Zonaras XII.32, pp. 618.4–619.19, John of Antioch frs. 250 and 251.1 (ed. Roberto), and Scutariotes, p. 41.8– 12 – Dissolution of Second Tetrarchy: Zonaras XII.33, pp. 621.24–623.2, XIII.1.4, and XIII.21–29, Symeon the Logothete 88.2–3, John of Antioch frs. 252 and 253 (ed. Roberto), and Scutariotes pp. 41.14–42.4 – Reign of Constantine I: Zonaras XIII.4.29–34, George Cedrenus I, pp. 516.12– 517.9, and John of Antioch frs. 254 and 255 (ed. Roberto) – Ages of emperors at their deaths: Malalas XII.44 (Diocletian), XII.46 (Maximian), XII.47 (Galerius, not Maxentius), XII.48 (Constantius I), XII.50 (Maximinus, not Licinius), and XIII.14 (Constantine I; for ξʹ read ξεʹ from Zonaras XIII.4.27, Scutariotes p. 43.10–11, Theophanes A.M. 5828, p. 33, Symeon the Logothete 88.1, and George Cedrenus I, p. 520.14) For the Period 337–353 – Birth and education of Julian: Zonaras XIII.10.2–4 – War between Constantine II and Constans: Zonaras XIII.5.5–16 and Scutariotes, pp. 53.24–54.3 – Constantius II’s war with Persia and its background: Zonaras XIII.5.5–6 and XIII.5.17–34 – Usurpation of Magnentius: Zonaras XIII.6 and John of Antioch frs. 257–259 (ed. Roberto) – Persian siege of Nisibis: Zonaras XIII.7.1–14 – Constantius’ war with Magnentius: Zonaras XIII.7.15–8.31 – Constantius’ victory over Magnentius: Zonaras XIII.9.1–8 and John of Antioch fr. 260.1–15 (ed. Roberto) – Ages of emperors at their deaths: Malalas XIII.15 (Constantine II; for κʹ read κδʹ) and XIII.16 (Constans) and Zonaras XIII.6.12 (Constans) For the Period 353–364 (Ammianus XIV–XXV) – Lacuna after Ammianus XXIV.7.2 (Julian’s burning his fleet): Zonaras XIII.13.4–7 and XIII.13.9 and Malalas XIII.22

Acknowledgments My best thanks go to Thomas Banchich, Timothy Barnes, Michael DiMaio, and Fergus Millar for helpful comments that have improved this article. A short-

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

577

ened version of this work was delivered in June 2017 as a lecture to the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research at the kind invitation of Peter Frankopan.

Bibliography Anonymus post Dionem, ed. C. Müller (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum IV; Paris, 1868). B. Baldwin, “Eusebius and the Siege of Thessalonica,”Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124 (1981): pp. 291–296. T. Banchich, The Lost History of Peter the Patrician: An Account of Rome’s Imperial Past from the Age of Justinian (London: Routledge, 2015). T. Banchich and E. Lane, The History of Zonaras from Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great (London: Routledge, 2009). T. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998). T. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). T. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). B. Bleckmann, “Die Chronik des Johannes Zonaras und eine pagane Quelle zur Geschichte Konstantins,” Historia 40 (1991): pp. 343–365. B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras (Munich: Tuduv, 1992). B. Bleckmann, “Magnus von Karrhai: Zur Bedeutung der Malalas-Chronik für die Rekonstruktion der Zeitgeschichte Julians,” in L. Carrara et al., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Quellenfragen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2017). M.F.A. Brok, “Un malentendu tenace (les rapports entre Hérodien et Ammien Marcellin),” Revue des Études Anciennes 78/79 (1976/77): pp. 199–207. R.W. Burgess, “A Common Source for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de Caesaribus between 358 and 378, with Further Thoughts on the Date and Nature of the Kaisergeschichte,” Classical Philology 100 (2005): pp. 166–192. A. Cameron, “Nicomachus Flavianus and the Date of Ammianus’ Last Books,” Athenaeum 100 (2012): pp. 337–358. A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). M. DiMaio, “Infaustis Ductoribus Praeviis: The Antiochene Connection, Part II,” Byzantion 51 (1981): pp. 502–510. M. DiMaio, “Smoke in the Wind: Zonaras’ Use of Philostorgius, Zosimus, John of Antioch, and John of Rhodes in his Narrative of the Neo-Flavian Emperors,”Byzantion 58 (1988): pp. 230–255.

578

treadgold

M. DiMaio, “The Antiochene Connection: Zonaras, Ammianus Marcellinus, and John of Antioch on the Reigns of Constantius II and Julian,” Byzantion 50 (1980): pp. 158– 185. M. DiMaio, “Zonaras, Julian, and Philostorgios on the Death of the Emperor Constantine I,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 26 (1981): pp. 118–124. M. Dodgeon, S. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, AD226–363: A Documentary History (London: Routledge, 1991). Excerpta Historica iussu imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, 4 vols. (Berlin: Apud Weidmannos, 1903–1910). R. Frakes, “Ammianus and Zonaras on a Late Roman Assassination Plot,” Historia 46 (1997): pp. 121–128. R. Frakes, “Some Thoughts on the Length of the Lost Books of Ammianus,” Ancient World 31 (2000): pp. 48–53. B. Garstad, “Euhemerus and the Chronicle of John Malalas,” International History Review 38 (2016): pp. 900–929. J.F. Gilliam, “Ammianus and the Historia Augusta: The Lost Books and the Period 117– 285,” in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1970 (Bonn, 1972): pp. 125–147. Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica, ed. and trans. U. Roberto (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 154; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta quae supersunt Omnia, ed. and trans. S. Mariev (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 47; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008). P. Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and in the Fourth Century AD (Warsaw: Warsaw University, 2006). E. Jeffreys et al., Studies in John Malalas (Sydney: University of Sydney, 1990). A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964). G. Kelly, Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). S. Lieu, D. Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History (London: Routledge, 1996). C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). L. Mecella, Dexippo di Atene: Testimonianze e frammenti (Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2013). L. Mecella, “Malalas und die Quellen für die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser,” in L. Carrara et al., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Quellenfragen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2017): pp. 73–98. F. Millar, “P. Herrenius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions,” Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969): pp. 12–29.

byzantine historiography and the supposedly lost books

579

E. Patzig, “Über einige Quellen des Zonaras,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 5 (1896): pp. 24– 53. E. Patzig, “Über einige Quellen des Zonaras II,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6 (1897): pp. 322–356. M. Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D.235–284 (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1990). Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). D. Rohrbacher, “The Sources for the Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus,” Historia 55 (2006): pp. 106–124. H.T. Rowell, “The First Mention of Rome in Ammianus’ Extant Books and the Nature of the ‘History’,” in Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jérôme Carcopino (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1966): pp. 839–848. D. Sakel, “Another User of the Lost Source of Scutariotes,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62 (2012): pp. 139–144. D. Sakel, “Codex Patmiacus Graecus 132 and the Chronicle of Scutariotes,” in Atti del X Simposio su S. Giovanni Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Roma: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità: Pontificia Università Antoniano, 2005): pp. 313–323. Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon I, ed. S. Wahlgren (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006). Theodori Scutariotae Chronica, ed. R. Tocci (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 66; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015). R. Tocci, “Zu Genese und Kompositionsvorgang der Σύνοψις Χρονική des Theodoros Skutariotes,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 98 (2005): pp. 551–568. W. Treadgold, “Predicting the Accession of Theodosius I,” Mediterraneo Antico 8 (2005): pp. 767–791. W. Treadgold, “The Byzantine World Histories of John Malalas and Eustathius of Epiphania,” International History Review 29 (2007): pp. 709–745. W. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). W. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). S. Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985). K. Zafeiris, The Synopsis Chronike and its Place in the Byzantine Chronicle Tradition: Its Sources (Creation-1081CE) (diss. St. Andrews, 2007).

chapter 22

La source «grecque» du calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (xe siècle) Bernard Outtier

Lorsqu’en 1958 le regretté Professeur Gérard Garitte éditait le Calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle)1, il remarquait que la fête de saint Grégoire évêque d’Arménie était célébrée le 12 octobre et non le 30 septembre comme chez les Byzantins. Or, parmi ses sources, Ioane Zosimé, auteur de ce calendrier compilé, nommait «un exemplaire grec». Il y a longtemps déjà que j’ ai identifié cette source – comme d’ailleurs, indépendamment, l’ a fait aussi la grande spécialiste des manuscrits liturgiques géorgiens anciens, Lili Khevsuriani. Dans cette source, saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur est bien au 30 septembre. J’ ai plaisir à la publier en l’honneur du grand codicologue, historien ouvert aux mondes grec et géorgien, et très cher ami que fut Karen Youzbachian. Le texte ouvre le manuscrit Sinaï, Sainte-Catherine géorgien 14, un hymnaire (iadgari) du Xe siècle, aux feuillets 1 à 6 verso, suivi, comme il est habituel dans ces manuscrits, d’un Hirmologion, avant les hymnes présentées dans l’ ordre du calendrier. Je donne le texte, puis sa traduction. L’indication de la fête (le quantième est en lettres-chiffres majuscules) est suivie du ton de l’ office (cette indication est rubriquée) et d’un hirmos (incipit rarement omis) : je renvoie au numéro (sans lettre) de l’hirmos selon l’édition d’ E. Metreveli ou parfois au numéro (avec la lettre E) de l’édition de S. Evstratiadis2. Voici d’ abord texte et traduction:3

1 G. Garitte, Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) (Subsidia hagiographica 30 ; Bruxelles, 1958). 2 ელ. მეტრეველი, ძლისპირნი და ღმრთისმშობლისანი : ორი ძველი რედაქცია X-XI სს. ხელნაწერების მიხედვით (თბილისი, 1971) [E. Metreveli, Hirmoi et Theotokia. Deux rédactions anciennes d’après des manuscrits des Xe-XIe ss., (Tbilisi, 1971)]; S. Evstratiadis, Hirmologion (Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1932). 3 Lorsque ce tome-là était en préparation, Lili Khevsuriani a publié le texte dans: « დედითა საბერძნეთისაჲთა – Nach Vorlage aus Griechenland. Der liturgische Kalender des Codex Sinait. Geo.O.14», in : ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ Beiträge eu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchichen Pareiarchatefür Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, D. Atanassova, T. Chronz (Hg.) (Wien-Berlin, 2014), S. 341-380 (orientalia – patristica – oecumenica Vol. 6.1).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_024

ბასილისი სილიბისტროჲსი მალაქია წინასწარმეტყუელისაჲ გორდი მოწამისაჲ ნათლის–ღებისანი განცხადებაჲ იოვანეჱსი და ნათლის–ღებისანი მაკარისი, არსენისი და პიმენისი პოლოევკრატისი მოწამისაჲ გრიგოლ ნოსელისაჲ თევდოსისი სტეფანე მამასახლისისა სინელთაჲ და განცხადების მსგესბსი (!) ჰერმოლოს სტრატონიკა მოწამისაჲ

ბაბულა პატრიაქისაჲ ქოზიბას ღმრთის–მშობლისანი ანტონისი ათანასი და კუირილეჱსი თევდიტე ხუცისაჲ ევთიმისი მაკარისი ტიმოთე მოციქულისაჲ

იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით. კ. კა. კბ.

ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა

ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა

1 2 3 337. 4 65. 5 61 სხუანი 60 6 66. 7 336. 8 334. 9 231. 10 62. 11 336. 12 337. 13 რომელი შეეწია (comme au 2 14 janvier). 266. 15 337. 16 332. 17 18 157. 19 155, სხუანი 154. 20 152. 21 3. 22

მოედით ერნო 65. რომელი შეეწია E22 334 (განუკუეთელსა).

Babylas, patriarche A Choziba, la Théotokos Antoine Athanase et Cyrille Théodote, prêtre Euthyme Macaire Timothée, apôtre

Basile Silvestre Malachie, prophète Gordios, martyr (Hymnes) du baptême Épiphanie Jean et (hymnes) du baptême Macaire, Arsène et Poemen Poyeucte, martyr Grégoire de Nysse Théodose Étienne, higoumène (Pères) du Sinaï et octave de l’Épiphanie Hermylos, Stratonikos, martyrs

Janvier 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : zéro.

იანვარი ლა̅ , დღის–საძიებელი არაჲ.

ა. ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ.

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

581

ფებერვალი კჱ̅ დღის–საძიებელი გ

კლემენტოს და აგათონისი ბიკენტისი გრიგოლი ღმრთის–მეტყუელისაჲ ქსენეტონტჱსი ოქროპირისაჲ ეფრემისი იგნატისი იპოლიტეჱსი კუიროზ და იოვანეჱსი

ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ.

მიგეგებაჲ სუიმეონ და ანაჲსი ისიდორეჱსი აგათონისი ივლიანე მოწამისაჲ პართენი ებისკოპოზისაჲ პოლიკარპი ებისკოპოზისაჲ ნიკოფორე მოწამისაჲ

[f. 1v] ა. მამისი ეფრემისი

კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ. ლა.

ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

ჴმაჲ ბ სხუანი დ (გი̅ )

ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ

63, 333. და ტრი(ფო)ნა მოწამისაჲ. 118. 155. 266. 65. 336. 151. 332. 332.

151.

151, სხუანი 119.

266. 336. ტრისტატას 160. 2, სხუანი 4. 65. 335.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Clément et Agathon Vincent Grégoire le Théologien Xénophon Chrysostome Ephrem Ignace Hippolyte Cyr et Jean

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

Hypapante Syméon et Anne Isidore Agathon Julien, martyr Parthénios Polycarpe, évêque Nicéphore, martyr

Le Père Ephrem et Tryphon, martyr

Février 28 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 3

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

582 outtier

ა.

პავნუტისი ევსტათი ებისკოპოზისაჲ ათანასისი პოლოკარპო მოწამისაჲ იოვანეჱს თავის პოვნაჲ ტარასი ებისკოპოზისაჲ მაკარი ებისკოპოზისაჲ პაპიონ დიოდორონ მოწამისაჲ სადოთ მოწამისაჲ

კ. კა. კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ.

ევდიკია მოწამისაჲ

მარტი ლა

ზაქარიაჲს ჴორცთა პოვნაჲ ბლასიონტოტისა მელეტი პატრიაქისაჲ მარტინიანოზ მონაზონისაჲ ავქსანტისი ონოსიმე ხუცისა მოწამისაჲ პამფილე მოწამისაჲ და მოყუასთაჲ ევფროსინეჱსი ლეონტი პაპიისაჲ ავქსიბი ებისკობოზისაჲ

ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით.

ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ .

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ

ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ

65. 65. 266. 65. 337. E173. 155.

რომელი შეეწია E298.

E98. 336.

ღმერთსა, რომელმან იჴსნა

151. 332. 62. 151. 266. 151. 151. 337.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Paphnuce Eustathe, évêque Athanase Polycarpe, martyr Invention de la tête de Jean Taraise, évêque Macaire, évêque Papias, Diodore, martyrs Sadoth, martyr

Invention du corps de Zacharie Blaise Mélèce, patriarche Martinianos, moine Auxence Onésime, prêtre-martyr Pamphile, martyr, et (ses) compagnons Euphrosyne Léon, pape Auxibios, évêque

1

Eudocie, martyre

Mars 31 (jours)

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

583

ევტროპი მოწამისაჲ პორფირი ებისკოპოზისაჲ ევსუქი ხუცისაჲ თევდორე მოწამისა ახლისაჲ და მოყუასთაჲ

ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით. კ. კა. კბ.

ვეოფილაკტე ებისკოპოზისაჲ პავლე ებისკოპლზისაჲ ორმოცთაჲ სოფრონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ პიონ მოწამისაჲ თეოფანისი საბინონ მოწამისაჲ ჯერტოზ მოწამისაჲ ამონისი ევსუქი ებისკოპოზისა ალექსიონისი კუირილე იჱრუსალემელ პატრიაქისაჲ დამწუართაჲ მალქონ მონაზონისაჲ მნიანეჱსი კოდარტოჲსი

[f. 2r] ვ. კონონისი

ბ. გ. დ. ე.

ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ .

ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ

335.

157. 151. 332. 6. 337. 65. 157.

233. ივლიანეჱსი 336. 337. 65. 65.

234. 65. 151.

ფარაო E117.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

6

2 3 4 5

Théophylacte, évêque Paul, évêque Les Quarante (martyrs) Sophrone, évêque Pionius, martyr Théophane Sabinos, martyr Geronte, martyr Ammonios Hésychius, évêque Alexis Cyrille, patriarche de Jérusalem Les brûlés (vifs) Malchus, moine Aninas Codratus

Konon

Eutrope, martyr Porphyre, évêque Hésychius, prêtre Théodore néo-martyr et ses compagnons

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

584 outtier

339.

155. 121. 336.

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

უგალობდეთ ღმერთსა ჩუენსა E134? 148?

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

337. 332.

335. 341. 341.

უგალობდეთ 337? 338?

332. E141, 157. 336. 151.

ე. პერსიდა მწმისაჲ [f. 2v] ვ. ევტუხონ ებისკოაოზისაჲ ზ. როფინაჲსი დიაკონისაჲ ჱ. პატერმოთიოჲსი თ. ვიპონ მოწამისაჲ ი. ტერტიოს მოწმისაჲ

ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ სხუანი ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

ჴმაჲ ბ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ

აპრილი ლ დღის–საძიებელი ვ

არტემონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ თომა მონაზონისაჲ. ხარებაჲ აღაღეთა ზედა ისაკ მონაზონისაჲ წმიდისა მატრონაჲსი ბასილი ქერსონელ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ნეოფიტეჱსი იოვანე კლემაქსისაჲ კუირიაკოზ ებისკოპოზისაჲ

მარიამ მეგუიპტელისაჲ სტეფანე ებისკოპოზისაჲ ნიკიტაჲსი მოწამისაჲ თევდორე მოწმისაჲ

ა. ბ. გ. დ.

კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ. ლა.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Artémon, évêque Thomas, moine Annonciation Isaac, moine Sainte Matrone Basile, évêque de Chersonèse Néophytos Jean Climaque Cyriaque, évêque

6 7 8 9 10

5

1 2 3 4

Eutychius, évêque Rufin, diacre Patermouthios Vipon, martyr Terentius, martyr

Persida

Marie l’Égyptienne Étienne, évêque Nicétas, martyr Théodore, martyr

Avril 30 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 6

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

585

ანტიპა მოწამისაჲ თევდოსისი თევდოსი მოწამისაჲ სუიმეონ ხოჳცისა მოწამისაჲ საბა მოწამისაჲ ერინი მოწამისაჲ აგაპიტონ პატრიაქისაჲ შუიდთა ყრმათა ეფესელთაჲ გიორგი პატრიაქისაჲ პაფნუტი ხუცისა მოწმისაჲ წმიდისა თევდირესი თევდორესივე წმიდისა გიორგისი

გიორგისივე მარკოზ მახარებელისაჲ ბასილი ამასელ ეპისკოპოზისაჲ მისივე მაქსიმოს მოწამისაჲ მასონისი იაკობ მოციქულისაჲ

ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით. კ. კა. კბ. კგ.

კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ.

ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ

341. 341. 151. 332.

E173. 62. (ჴმაჲ) დ განწყობილი (variante de 152?) 121. 3.

155. 155.

უგალობდეთ 337? 338?

337. 155. 151.

335. 341. 337.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Le même Georges Marc, évangéliste Basile, évêque d’Amasée Le même Maxime, martyr Mason Jacques, apôtre

Antipas, martyr Théodore Théodose, martyr Syméon, prêtre-martyr Sabas, martyr Irène, martyre Agapit, patriarche Les sept Enfants d’Éphèse Georges, patriarche Paphnuce, prêtre-martyr Saint Théodore Le même Théodore Saint Georges

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

586 outtier

ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ

იერემიაჲსი ათანასისი

ნიკნფორეჱსი პელაგიაჲსი დომენტისი იობისი მართლისაჲ ჯუარისაჲ იოვანე მახარებელისაჲ

ა. ბ.

გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ.

[f. 3r] თ. ესაჲაჲსი ი. სიმონ მოშურნისაჲ ია. მოკიოჲსი იბ. ეპიფანეჱსი იგ. მეთოდი მოწამისაჲ იდ. პახუმისი იე. ისიდორეჱსი ივ. ზაქარია წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ იზ. ელადი ხუცისაჲ იჱ. გიორგი ებისკოპოზისაჲ ით. პატრიკი ხუხისაჲ არმატა ფარაო 158.

უგალობდეთ ოა̅ 337? 338 ? არმატა ფარაო 158.

3. 299. 62. 333.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

3 4 5 6 7 8

288? 290? სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ) 332. 65. 151. 336. 152. ჯუარი ქადაგა მოსე E322. 332. 155. 335.

1 2

უგალობდეთ E283? 284 ?

333.

Isaïe Simon le Zélote Mocius Épiphane Méthode Pachôme Isidore Zacharie, prophète Helladios, prêtre Georges, évêque Patrice, prêtre

Nicéphore Pélagie Domèce Job le juste (Apparition) de la Croix Jean, évangéliste

Jérémie Athanase

En Mai 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 1

მაისა ლა დღის–საძიებელი ა ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ გი̅

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

587

ივსტჳნიანე მოწამისაჲ

ნიკიფორე მოწამისაჲ ლჳკიანე მოწამისაჲ მიტროფანეჱსი სებასტია მოწამისაჲ თეკლაჲსი, მარიამის და მართაჲსი პასარიონისი თევდორეჱსი

ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ.

ივნისი ლ დღის–საძიებელი დ

თალელე მოწამისაჲ კოსტანტინე და ელეიეჱსი იუდა მოციქულისაჲ სუიმეონ მესუეტისაჲ მიქა(ე)ლ მთავარ–ებისკოპოზისაჲ მელენტიონ მოწამისაჲ თერაპონტა მოწამისაჲ იოვანე მონაზონისაჲ ფილეტერონ მოწამისაჲ თევდოსია მოწამისაჲ დიდომოს მოწამისაჲ ერმია მოწამისაჲ

ა.

კ. კა. კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ. ლა.

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ გ.

ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა.

151. 336. 336. 151. 155. 65.

337 და ქრისტეფორეჱსი უგალობდეთ ოა̅ მორწმუნო.

65. 151. 155.

უგალობდეთ ოა̅ 337? 338 ?

155. 231. 332. 62. 336. 336.

და ისრაჱლი მისა დწვჲ ̅ =?

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Thalélée, martyr Constantin et Hélène Jude, apôtre Syméon le Stylite Michel, archevêque Mélèce, martyr Thérapon, martyr Jean, moine Philétérus, martyr Théodosia, martyre Didyme, martyr Hermias, martyr

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

Nicéphore, martyr Lucien, martyr Métrophane Sébastienne, martyre Thècle, Marie et Marthe Pasarion Théodore

Justin, martyr et Christophe

Juin 30 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 4

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

588 outtier

კუირილე ალექსანდრიელისაჲ

[f. 3v] ი. ტიმოთე მოციქულისაჲ ია. ბართლომე მოციქულისაჲ იბ. ბარნრბაჲსი იგ. აკჳილიანე მოწამისაჲ იდ. მალოდიოისის იე. ელისე წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ ივ. ტოქანა ებისკოპოზისაჲ იზ. ამოს წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ იჱ. ლეონტისი იგივე ით. ზოტიმე მოწამისაჲ კ. დოლან მოწამისაჲ კა. ივლიანეჱსი კბ. ევსებია მოწამისაჲ კგ. იოვანეჱს შობაჲ კდ. იოვანეჱს შობაჲ კე. ფებრონიაჲსი კვ. ოლბიანონ მოწამისაჲ კზ. სამსონ მონაზონისაჲ კჱ. კჳროს და იოვანეჱსი, პავლეჱსი კთ. პეტრე–პავლეთაჲ ლ. ყოველთა მოციქულთაჲ

თ. ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ

ჴმაჲ დ

333. 341. 341. 334. 155. 151.

ტრისტატას 160.

301. 337.

266. 338. 155. 301. 155.

62. 62.

151.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

9 Timothée, apôtre Barthélemi Barnabé Aquilina, martyre Méthode Élisée, prophète Tychon, évêque Amos, prophète Léonce, item Zosime, martyr Doulas, martyr Julien Eusèbe, martyr Nativité de Jean Nativité de Jean Fébronie Olbianus, martyr Samson, moine Cyr et Jean, Paul Pierre et Paul Tous les apôtres

Cyrille d’Alexandrie

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

589

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ

კუირიკეჱსი ანტიოქოზ მოწამისაჲ მარინა მოწამისაჲ ათანასი მოწამისაჲ მარკიანეჱსი ელია წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ

იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით. კ.

ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ.

კოზმან–დამიანეთაჲ ლაქერნას ღმრთის–მშობელისაჲ ქაკინთონ მოწამისაჲ ანდრიონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ მართა სუიმეონის დედისაჲ მართენო მოწამისაჲ აკაკისი პროკოპისი ანატოლია პატრიაქისაჲ ორმეოცდახუთთაჲ ევფემიანეჱსი პროკლე და ელიარიონ მოწამეთაჲ.

155.

333. 337.

რომელმან დაანთქა მეწამულსა E130? 337. სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ) 267.

რომელმან დაანთქა E130.

233.

337.

333. 231. 155.

6.

Cosme et Damien Aux Blachernes, de la Théotokos Hyacinthe, martyr André, évêque Marthe, mère de Syméon Marthe (?) Acace Procope Anatole, patriarche Les Quarante-cinq (martyrs) Euphémie Proclus et Hilaire, martyrs

15 16 17 18 19 20

Cirycus Antiochus, martyr Marine, martyre Athanase, martyr Macrine Élie, prophète

13 Athénogène, évêque 14 Juste, martyr

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Juillet 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 6

ივლისი ლა დღის–საძიებელი ვ

[f. 4r] იგ. ათენაგენა ებისკოპოზისაჲ იდ. იოსტონ მოწამისაჲ

ა. ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ.

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

590 outtier

ა. ბ. ბ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ.

მაკაბელთაჲ პოვნაჲ სტეფანეჱსი დალამატიონისი და ელისჱსი სოფიაჲსი და ასულთაჲ მოსჱსი ფერისცვალებაჲ ევსიქნისი მარინაჲსი ელიანოსისი

აგუისტოსი ლა დღის–საძიებელი ბ

სუიმეონ სალოსისაჲ ოაკინთო მოწამისაჲ აპოლინარიონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ქრისტინაჲსი ანაჲსი, ეპრაქსიჲსი, ულომთაჲსა არმოლაოზ ხუცისაჲ პანტელემონისი იოვანე ებისკოპოზისაჲ ქალკიდონელისაჲ კთ. კალენიკე მოწამისაჲ ლ. თევდოტეჱსი ლა. ეზეკიელ წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ

კა. კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ.

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ ა

ტრისტატას 160.

ჴმაჲ (დ) ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

3.

337. 332. 337? 338? 231. 333. 152. სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ) 336.

151. 337.

301. 65. 155. 337. უგლბდთ ოა̅ 337? 338? ̅ 336. 62. 64? 67? 62.

ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Syméon Salos Hyacinthe, martyr Apollinaire, évêque Christine Anne, Eupraxie, Olympias Hermolaüs, prêtre Pantéléémon Jean, évêque de Chalcédoine

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Macchabées Invention d’Étienne Dalmatus et Élisée Sophie et (ses) filles Moïse Transfiguration Eusignius Marinus É(mi)lianos

Août 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 2

29 Callinique, martyr 30 Théodose 31 Ézéchiel, prophète

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

591

ლავრენტისი მორონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ტარსისოსისი ევპლონ მოწმისაჲ მაქსიმეჱსი ღმრთისმშობლისაჲ

[f. 4v] იე. მარიამობაჲ ივ. მარიამობაჲვე იზ. პავლე და იოვანეჱსი მოწამეთაჲ იჱ. ფლორომ მოწამისაჲ ით. ანდრია მჴედრისაჲ კ. სამუელისი კა. ბასა მოწმიდისაჲ (! = მოწამისაჲ) კბ. აგათონიკონ მოწამისაჲ კგ. ათანასი ხუცისა მოწამისაჲ კდ. ტატიანე მოწამისაჲ კე. ტიტე მოციქულისაჲ კვ. საბა ასურისაჲ კზ. გელასი მოწამისაჲ კჱ. იან მოწამისაჲ კთ. იოვანეჱს თავის–კოჳეთაჲ ლ. ალექსანდელ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ლა. ღმრთისმშობლისაჲ

ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ დ

ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ

152.

339. 337? 338? 341. 336.

3. 66. 336. 336. 337. 155. 155.

აღაღე პირი E141. პირადპირადად 5 (ετερος).

337. 155.

რომელი შეეწია E22.

155.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

10 11 12 13 14 Fête de Marie Même fête de Marie Paul et Jean, martyrs Florus, martyr André, militaire Samuel Bassa, martyre Agathonicus, martyr Athanase, prêtre martyr Tatianus, martyr Tite, apôtre Sabas le Syrian Gélase, martyr Jean (?), martyr Décollation de Jean Alexandre, évêque Théotokos

Lautent Myron, évêque de Tarse Hippolyte Maxime Théotokos

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

592 outtier

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ (დ გი̅ ) ჴმაჲ. ჴმაჲ დ

წელიწდის–თავი, მ დედათა მოწამეთაჲ

მამაჲსი ანთიმო ხუცისა მოწამისაჲ ბაბჳლაჲსი და ჩჩჳლთაჲ ზაქარია წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ თეოქლისტეჱსი სოზონტა მოწამისაჲ ღმრთისმშობლის შობაჲ იოაკიმ და ანაჲსი ბარიფსაბამოწამისაჲ პეტრე ებისკოპოზისაჲ ნიკ(ე)ლისაჲ კოქნიტონი ენკენიაჲ ჯუართა აპყრობაჲ ნიკიტა მოწამისაჲ ევფიმია მოწამისაჲ

ა.

ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ.

[f. 5r] იზ. ოთხთა კრებათაჲ იჱ. თეოდორაჲსი ით. აგათოკლია მოწამისაჲ კ. ევსტათისი, თეოტიტეჱსი, აგაპისი, ლუკასი

151.

უგალობდეთ.

341.

3. ჴმაჲ დ 151. 155. 151. 337.

62. 333. 155. 151.

მოედით ერნო. სხუაჲ 67.

337. 337. 151. 333. 334.

155.

17 18 19 20

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1

Les quatre Conciles Théodora Agathoklia, martyre Eustathe, Théopistè, Agapius, Luc

Commencement de l’année, Femmes martyres Mamas Anthime, prêtre martyr Babylas et les enfants Zacharie, prophète Théoctiste Sozon, martyr Nativité de la Théotokos Joachim et Anne Barypsabas, martyr Pierre, évêque de Nicée Cornutus Dédicace Exaltation de la Croix Nicétas, martyr Euphémie, martyre

En Septembre 30 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 5

სეკდემბერსა ლ დღის–საძიებელი ე ჴმაჲ დ

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

593

ა. ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია.

კა. კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ.

არეთა მოწამისაჲ კუიპრიანტჱსი და იოსტინი დიონოსისი დომენტისი რომანაჲსი თომა მოციქულისაჲ სერგის–ბაქოზთაჲ პელაგიაჲსი იაკობ ალფეჱსი ევლონპიონ მოწამისაჲ ზინაჲდაჲსი

ოკდომბერი ლა დღის–საძიებელი არაჲ

იონა წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ ფოკაჲსი თეოფილე ეფესელ ებისკოპოზისაჲ თეკლაჲსი რომანა მოწამისაჲ იოვანე მახარებელისაჲ ზაქარიაჲს დადოჳმებაჲ ხარიტონისი კუირიაკოზისი გრიგოლ სომეხისაჲ

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ (დ) ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ .

ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ (დ გი̅ ) ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ .

266.

6.

ტრისტატას 160.

333. 151. 333. 266.

62. 156. 337? 338? 337. 341. 62. 338. 151. 335.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Jonas, prophète Phocas Théophile, évêque d’Éphèse Thècle Romanos, martyr Jean, évangéliste Mutisme de Zacharie Chariton Cyriaque Grégoire l’Arménien

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Aréthas, martyr Cyprien et Justine Denys Domèce Romanos Thomas, apôtre Serge et Bacchus Pélagie Jacques, fils d’Alphée Eulampius, martyr Zénaïde

Octobre 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 0

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

594 outtier

ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ . ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ. ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ

აბერკოჲსი იაკობ ძმისა ოჳფლისაჲ არეთაჲსი მარკიანე მოწამისაჲ (იოვანეჱს) თავის–პოვნაჲ დემეტრე მოწამისაჲ კოზმან–დამიანეთაჲ არტემიდოსო ზენობისი და მოყუასთაჲ ეპიმახოს მოწამისაჲ

კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ. ლა.

ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ . ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ

ჴმაჲ ბ

ტარაქოზელი კარიონ და პალოსისი ნაზარიონ მოწამისაჲ ლოკიანე ხუცისაჲ ლონგინოსი ოსე წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ ლუკა მახარებელისაჲ იოელ წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ

[f. 5v] კ. არტემინ მოწმისაჲ. კა. ილარიონისი

იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით.

65. 155.

151. 335. 336. 65. სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ) 266. 151. 3.

62? 89? სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ) 231.

266. 65.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Tarachus Carion et (A)pollos Nazaire Lucien, prêtre Longin Osée, prophète Luc, évangéliste Joël, prophète

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Abercius Jacques, frère du Seigneur Aréthas Marcien, martyr Invention de la tête (de Jean) Démétrius, martyr Cosme et Damien Artémidore Zénobe et ses compagnons Épimaque, martyr

20 Artémius, martyr 21 Hilarion

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

595

[f. 6r]

ა. ბ. გ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ. იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით. კ. კა.

ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ

336. 153. 66. 336. 61? 151. 336. 231. 155. 333. 152. 65. სხუაჲ (ჴმაჲ დ) 152. 332. 335. 151. 151. 332 სხუაჲ 333. 332. 233. 332. 151.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Cosme et Damien Acyndinus et ses compagnons Acepsimas, Joseph, martyrs Joannice Matrone Paul de Thèbes Les Trente-trois martyrs Les Archanges Barlaam Nil Ménas Jean l’Aumônier Chrysostome Les Archanges Gouria-Samona et leur compagnon Matthieu, évangéliste Grégoire le Thaumaturge Platon, martyr Abdias, prophète Proclus, patriarche (Présentation de) la Théotokos

Novembre 30 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 3

ნოენბერი ლ დღის–საძიებელი გ

კოზმან–დამიანეთაჲ აკონდინეთა აკეფსიმა, იოსეფ მოწამეთაჲ იონაკისი მატრონაჲსი პავლე თებელისაჲ ოცდაცამეტთა მოწამეთაჲ მთავარანგელოზთაჲ ბარლამ მოწამისაჲ ნეილონისი მენაჲსი იოვანე მოწყალისაჲ ოქროპირისაჲ მთავარანგელოზთაჲ გურია–სამონაეთი მათე მახარებელისაჲ გრიგოლ საკუირველთ–მოქმედისაჲ პლატონ მოწმისაჲ აბდია წმნაწარმეტყუელისაჲ პროკლე პატრიაქისაჲ ღმრთისმშობლისაჲ

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

596 outtier

ა. ბ. ბ. დ. ე. ვ. ზ. ჱ. თ. ი. ია. იბ.

კბ. კგ. კდ. კე. კვ. კზ. კჱ. კთ. ლ.

ნაომ წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ ამბაკუმ წინაწარმეტყუელისაჲ სოფონია წინაწარმეტყუკლისაჲ ბარბარესი და იოვანეტესი საბაჲსი ნიკოლაოზისი ამპროზისი პატიპიონისი ანაჲსი მარიამის დედისაჲ ამფილოქისი დანიელ მესუეტისაჲ სპორიდონისი

დეკენბერი ლა დღის–საძიებელი ე

კიკილა მოწამისაჲ პეტრე კაბიტოლენ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ეკატერინაჲსი პეტრე ალექსანდრიელისაჲ კლემენტოზ პაპისაჲ იაკობ დაჭრილისაჲ ირინარხო მოწამისაჲ თევდოლონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ანდრია მოციქულისაჲ

ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა

ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ. ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ბ

რომელი შეეწია E22.

155. 157. 151. 341.

231. იაკობისი ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ 335. 155. 266. 62? 89?. (დ გი̅ ) 340. 4. 153. 333.

65. 3.

62. 155. 332. 337. 336. 337. 65.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Cécile, martyre Pierre, évêque de Capitolias Catherine Pierre d’Alexandrie Clément, pape Jacques l’Intercis Irénarque, martyr Théodore André, apôtre

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Nahum, prophète. Jacques Habacuc, prophète Sophonie, prophète Barbara et Jean Sabas Nicolas Ambroise Patapius Anne, mère de Marie Amphiloque Daniel le Stylite Spyridon

Décembre 31 (jours), Indicateur du jour : 5

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

597

ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ა გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅

ჴმაჲ ა ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ გ. ჴმაჲ ბ

ჴმაჲ დ ჴმაჲ ბ ჴმაჲ ა. ჴმაჲ გ გი̅ ჴმაჲ გ ჴმაჲ დ გი̅ ჴმაჲ ა.

ქრისეშობასავე კვ. ქრისტეშობაჲვე, დავით–იაკობისი კზ. სტეფანეჱსი კჱ. თევდორე პატრიაქისაჲ კთ. ჩჩჳლთა ყრმათაჲ ლ. ირინე ებისკოპოზისაჲ ლა. მარკელე მონაზონისაჲ

ევტრატისი და მოყუასთაჲ ფილემონ და აპოლონისი ნისთერეონ ებისკოპოზისაჲ ანგეა წმნაწარმეტყუელისაჲ იოვანე ებისკოპოზისაჲ სარდიკისაჲ სამთა ყრმათა, დანიელისი მილანტო, კალენიკე მოწამეთა გაბოტელთაჲ იგნატისი ივლიანეჱსი ანაიტასიაჲსი ათთა მოწამეთაჲ კრეტელთაჲ აბრაჰამ, ისაკ და იაკობისი

[f. 6v] კე. ქრისტეშობაჲ. სასწაულთანი.

კ. კა. კბ. კგ. კდ.

იგ. იდ. იე. ივ. იზ. იჱ. ით.

155. 231. 336. 336. 121. 336.

64? 67? მისივე (ჴმაჲ) გ 121.

რ˜ დაფარა 61?

6. 121. 337. 121.

301. 121. 333.

151. 65.

კრებათა რიცხუი სრული, ბერძული, დღესასწაულნი თუეთანი სწერიან.

(suite)

Ignace Julienne Anastasie Les Dix martyrs de Crète Abraham, Isaac et Jacob

Eustrate et ses compagnons Philémon et Apollonius Nestor Aggée, prophète Jean, évêque de Sardique Les Trois enfants, Daniel Mélèce, Callinique, martyrs de Galatie

26 27 28 29 30 31

Item, Nativité du Christ. David et Jacques Étienne Théodore, patriarche Les saints Innocents Irénée, évêque Marcel, moine

25 Nativité du Christ

20 21 22 23 24

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Compte total grec des synaxes, les fêtes des mois y sont écrites

598 outtier

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

599

On l’aura remarqué, l’indication du mois est suivie du nombre de jours que ce mois compte. Suit l’indicateur du jour, ou « nombre qu’ il faut ajouter au chiffre exprimant la place du premier janvier dans la semaine pour obtenir le chiffre exprimant le jour de la semaine où tombe le premier du mois considéré»4. Il est piquant de voir que G. Garitte cite ici notre manuscrit, qu’ il connaît donc; pourquoi dit-il que le chiffre de l’ indicateur du jour y est omis, sauf pour janvier? Pourquoi, surtout, n’a-t-il pas reconnu la source qu’ il cherchait? Les noms des saints sont indiqués au génitif: « (fête) de Basile », les noms des fêtes, au nominatif: «Épiphanie». Les hirmoi ont été presque tous identifiés: quelques-uns manquent dans l’ édition d’E. Metreveli, qui utilise pourtant l’hirmologe du manuscrit SainteCatherine du Sinaï géorgien 14: c’est que l’hirmologe et l’ hymnaire ne correspondent pas au calendrier, qui est une pièce autonome. C’ est pourquoi il n’a pas toujours été possible d’identifier l’hirmos, l’ office de l’ hymnaire étant différent. Le calendrier commence au premier janvier, l’ hymnaire au Dimanche avant Noël. Comme dans les travaux de compilation de Iovane Zosime, nous avons donc ici des parties qui ne sont pas de même époque de composition. La liturgie est toujours vivante! Les seules divergences de notre calendrier avec celui du manuscrit SainteCatherine du Sinaï géorgien 34 sont: Grégoire d’ Arménie au 30 septembre – c’est la date byzantine et Dométios au 4 octobre: c’ est également la date byzantine pour Domèce le Perse; en outre, il y a entre les deux manuscrits un décalage d’un jour entre les mémoires du 7 au 30 octobre, sans doute dû à un accident matériel. On peut donc dire que le modèle du manuscrit Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï géorgien 34 n’est pas, matériellement, le manuscrit Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï géorgien 14, mais un modèle commun. Les notices du manuscrit SainteCatherine du Sinaï géorgien 14 ont été intégrées par Iovane Zosime dans son calendrier, en général, en dernière place, et souvent dans un second temps. Mais nombre d’entre elles sont propres à ces deux manuscrits, ou sont à une date propre à ces deux seuls manuscrits: voir, par exemple, le 8 janvier: Macaire, Arsène et Poemen (propres); le 24 janvier, Vincent, ailleurs, le 22 janvier. Bien des fêtes sont palestiniennes: Théodose (le Cénobiarque), le 11 janvier; la fête à Choziba le 16 janvier; Euthyme (le Grand), le 20 janvier. Mais on trouve aussi des saints de Constantinople : Méthode de Constantinople, qui mourut le 14 juin 847 donne une date post quem pour l’ état du calendrier. On verra aussi Nicétas, higoumène de Médikion en Bithynie avant

4 Garitte, Le calendrier, p. 121.

600

outtier

820, au 3 avril; Michel, archevêque (évêque, selon le Synaxaire grec), mort en 826, le 24 mai; Nicéphore, patriarche de Constantinople, mort en juin 829, le 2 juin; Joannice, le 4 novembre, mort le 3 novembre 846. Par là, notre calendrier se distingue du calendrier melkite palestinien présenté par A. Binggeli, manuscrit Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï syriaque M52N. Il ne comporte pas les néo-martyrs des premiers siècles de l’ islam5. C’ est de notre calendrier que provient la mauvaise traduction de ιερο-μαρτυς par «prêtre-martyr», que G. Garitte avait relevée6. Au 26 janvier, la forme bizarre ქსენეტონტჱსი pour Xenophon a fait hésiter Ioane Zosime, qui marque seulement le début du mot: ქსენე. Ioane répète la faute Théodore pour Théodora le 5 avril, Persida le 5 avril (voir le commentaire de G. Garitte), Mason pour Jason le 29 avril, Melode pour Méthode le 13 mai et le 14 juin, Helladius le 17 mai, Zotime pour Zosime le 19 juin, Eusébie pour Eusèbe le 22 juin. Le 9 avril, il lit ღაპონ pour ვიპონ, deux formes incorrectes. On pourrait continuer et multiplier les exemples, ils n’ajouteraient rien de plus. Remarquons simplement que le 12 août, il s’ agit bien d’ Euplus, selon la seconde conjecture de G. Garitte, non d’Hippolyte. Le 10 novembre, il faut lire და ნიეჲლისი, Sin. 14 ნეილონისი et Nil, au lieu de Daniel; Nil est bien à cette date dans le Synaxaire grec. Le 28 novembre, notre manuscrit confirme la conjecture de G. Garitte: Irénarque. De même au 19 décembre. En conclusion, le calendrier du manuscrit Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï géorgien 14 et l’exemplaire grec du calendrier du manuscrit Sainte-Catherine géorgien 34 ont une même source. Ce calendrier, copié à Saint-Sabbas ou à SainteCatherine du Sinaï, vers le milieu du dixième siècle, témoigne de la byzantinisation en marche dans la liturgie grecque de Palestine. La fête de saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur à sa date byzantine dans un calendrier géorgien illustre les échanges entre les communautés linguistiques de la Chrétienté, échanges auxquels K. Youzbachian a toujours prêté attention.

Bibliographie A. Binggeli, “Un ancien calendrier melkite de Jérusalem (Sinaï syr. M52N),” dans Sur les pas des Araméens chrétiens. Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux, éds. F. Briquel Chatonnet et M. Debié, Cahiers d’études syriaques 1 (Paris, 2010): pp. 181-194.

5 A. Binggeli, “Un ancien calendrier melkite de Jérusalem (Sinaï syr. M52N),” dans Sur les pas des Araméens chrétiens. Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux, éds. F. Briquel Chatonnet et M. Debié, Cahiers d’ études syriaques 1 (Paris, 2010) : pp. 181-194. 6 Garitte, Le calendrier, pp. 32–33.

la source « grecque » du calendrier palestino-géorgien

601

S. Evstratiadis, Hirmologion (Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1932). G. Garitte, Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) (Subsidia hagiographica 30; Bruxelles, 1958). L. Khevsuriani, « დედითა საბერძნეთისაჲთა – Nach Vorlage aus Griechenland. Der liturgische Kalender des Codex Sinait. Geo.O.14», in: ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ Beiträge eu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchichen Pareiarchatefür Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. D. Atanassova, T. Chronz (Hg.) (orientalia – patristica – oecumenica Vol. 6.1; Wien-Berlin, 2014): pp. 341-380. ელ. მეტრეველი, ძლისპირნი და ღმრთისმშობლისანი : ორი ძველი რედაქცია X-XI სს. ხელნაწერების მიხედვით (თბილისი, 1971) [E. Metreveli, Hirmoi et Theotokia. Deux rédactions anciennes d’après des manuscrits des Xe-XIe ss., (Tbilisi, 1971)].

chapter 23

The “Martyrdom of George Zoravar Narrated by Basil” (MS Georgicus Athos 8) Khatuna Gaprindashvili

The “Martyrdom of George Zoravar Narrated by Basil” has reached us in a single manuscript copy. The work is preserved in MS georgicus Athos 8, folios 351r– 354v, kept in the collection of Georgian manuscripts at the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos.1 Manuscript Ath. 8 is a collection of hagiographical compositions that was copied in the tenth century. Scientific interest in the manuscript began a long time ago. Nikolai Marr was the first scholar who drew attention to this manuscript. He noticed that this collection contained, among some other compositions, remarkable hagiographical works that were translated from Armenian into Georgian.2 His observation is supported by a marginal note on folio 349r (the note dates to the tenth century): “These martyrdoms are translated from Armenian” („ესე (წამებ)ანი სომხ(ურისა)გან თარგმნილ არიან“). This note refers to a set of some works within the manuscript, yet, unfortunately, from the photocopy of the manuscript that was available for the present research, it was not possible to read the text of the note with full precision. Ilia Abuladze published the greater part of the works in MS georgicus Athos 8 that were translated from Armenian into Georgian in his book Georgian and Armenian Literary Relationships in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries.3

1 ხ. გაფრინდაშვილი, “Ath. 8-ში დაცული გიორგი ზორავარის წამება,” აღმოსავლეთ მცოდნეობა 2 (2013), [Kh. Gaprindashvili, “The Martyrdom of George Zoravar preserved in ms. Athos georgicus 8,” Oriental Studies 2 (2013)]: pp. 25–38. 2 Н. Марр, «Из поездки на Афон», Журнал Министерства народного просвещения, мартъ (1899) [N. Marr, “On the trip to Mount Athos,” Journal of the Ministry of the National Education, March (1899)]: pp. 1–24. 3 ი. აბულაძე, ქართული და სომხური ლიტერატურული ურთიერთობა IX–X სს-ში (თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1944) [I. Abuladze, Georgian and Armenian Literary Relations of the 9th–10th centuries (Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 1944)], pp. X, 208, 275, here esp. p. 019.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_025

“martyrdom of george zoravar narrated by basil”

603

Robert Blake and Nikolai Marr prepared and published descriptions of the manuscript, in which they mentioned that the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar” was translated from Armenian into Georgian. Yet they did not expand on their observation. With this article, I want to draw special attention to this text, since thus far the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar” is the only one of the works contained in MS georgicus Athos 8, that has not received further study by any scholar.4 We find the work on folios 351r–354v, being placed between two Armenian hagiographical compositions (the “Words on the martyrdom of Osiki and his relatives” [„სიტყუანი წამებისათჳს წმიდისა ოსიკისი და მოყუასთა მისთაჲ“] and the “Martyrdom of Saint Nerses Archbishop of Armenia and Khadi who was his disciple” [„წამებაჲ წმიდისა ნერსჱ მთავარ ეპისკოპოსისა სომხეთისაჲ და ხადისი ეპისკოპოსისაჲ მოწაფისა მისისაჲ“]). Zoravar (զօրավար) is an Armenian term, which means “military leader.”5 Old Armenian literature applies the name Գէորգ Զօրավար (Georg Zoravar) exclusively to the martyrdom of St. George (“Սուրբ Գէորգ Զօրավարի վկայաբանութիւն”). An investigation of the question as to whether Georgian and Armenian Synaxaria feature any saint who carries the name George Zoravar showed that the Georgian church tradition reflected in these texts does not acknowledge any saint with this name. In Armenian Synaxaria, however, George Zoravar and St. George, who was martyred in the fourth century under Emperor Diocletian, are treated as the same person. In the Armenian tradition, the feast of St. George is celebrated on April 23rd. MS georgicus Athos 8 does not supply the date of the feast of St. George Zoravar. Yet the feast day of the saint whose story is told in the text that precedes the Martyrdom of George Zoravar in the manuscript is celebrated on May 12th. The feast date for the saint, whose story follows that of George Zoravar, is 4 Le Synaxaire géorgien, ed. N. Marr (PO, t. XIX, fasc. 5); R. Blake, “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque de la Laure d’ Iviron au mont Athos,”ROC 28 (1931–1932): pp. 289– 361; 29 (1933–1934): pp. 114–159, 225–269; Материалы по грузинской агиологии. По рукописям X века, с предисловием издал А. Хаханов (Труды по востоковедению, издаваемые Лазаревским Институтом Восточных языков, вып. XXXI; Москва, 1910) [Materials on the Georgian hagiology. According to the manuscripts dated to 10th century, ed. A. Khakhanov (Materials in the oriental studies, published by the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages XXXI; Moscow, 1910)]. 5 ქართლის ცხოვრება. მთ. რედ. რ. მეტრეველი [ტექსტები გამოსაც. მოამზადეს: მ. ქავთარია, ელ. ცაგარეიშვილი, ზ. სარჯველაძე, მ. ლორთქიფანიძე, მზ. შანიძე, ც. ქურციკიძე, ზ. ალექსიძე და სხვ.; ბიბლიოგრ. შემდგ. ვ. სილოგავა] (თბილისი: არტანუჯი, 2008) [The Georgian Chronicle, ed. R. Metreveli [the text was prepared by M. Kavtaria, El. Tsagareishvili, Z. Sardzhveladze, M. Lordkipanidze, Mz. Shanidze, Ts. Kurtsikidze, Z. Aleksidze etc.; bibliography by V. Silogava (Tbilisi: Artanudzhi, 2008)], p. 301.

604

gaprindashvili

offered as June 1st. In his calendar, John Zosimus places the feast of St. George on May 25th.6 We notice here an interesting coincidence: the feast of George Zoravar falls between May 12th and June 1st. Perhaps the copyist identified St. George with St. George Zoravar and thus deliberately placed the feast date of George Zoravar during this period. In order to gain clarity concerning the identification of Saint George Zoravar, we have compared the text of the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar Narrated by Basil,” that is preserved in MS Athos 8 with several texts of the “Martyrdom of St. George” in both Georgian and Armenian literature.7 In the process, we have defined which features are shared among these works, and which are different from one another. The result showed that the text of the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar” and the texts of the “Martyrdom of St. George” differ significantly from one another. The only detail both sets of compositions have in common is that in both cases the St. George in question was lacerated on a wheel of swords.8 Based on this detail one may have to conclude that the “Martyrdom of St. George Zoravar,” both in style and in content, differs greatly from any of the reputed texts known as “Martyrdom of St. George.” Yet there is another key issue to keep in mind. The title of the “Martyrdom of St. George Zoravar Narrated by Basil” already indicates that the presumed author of the work was Basil the Great. In fact, a Georgian eulogy of St. George has come down to modern times, which is ascribed to pseudo-Basil. This text is preserved in MS georgicus Athos 79 and was edited by Enriko Gabidzashvili in 1991.9 A comparison between the “Martyrdom of St. George Zoravar” with the pseudoBasilian text clearly showed that there are no connections. The task of discerning whether or not Basil of Caesarea may have been the author of the “Martyrdom of St. George Zoravar” was aided through access to an electronic database. The “Martyrdom of St. George Zoravar” contains no toponyms and hardly any proper names. The only proper name one encounters in the text is that of Cornelius the Centurion, whose disciple, George Zoravar, is our main character. A search for this name in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database among the works of Basil the Great led us to a text that is quite similar to the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar”. The text in question is a homily, 6 მსოფლიო მართლმადიდებელი ეკლესიის შეერთებული კალენდარი, I გამოცემა (თბილისი, 2001) [The world orthodox church united calendar, first publication (Tbilisi, 2001)], p. 74. 7 ე. გაბიძაშვილი, წმინდა გიორგი ძველ ქართულ მწერლობაში (თბილისი: არმაზი-89, 1991) [E. Gabidzashvili, Saint George in the old Georgian literature (Tbilisi: Armazi-89, 1991)]. 8 The Georgian Orthodox church celebrates a special feast for the laceration of St. George on a wheel on November 23rd. 9 გაბიძაშვილი, წმინდა გიორგი …, p. 236.

“martyrdom of george zoravar narrated by basil”

605

entitled the “Martyrdom of St. Gordios”. Greek and Latin texts of this work are published in Patrologia Graeca 31.10 The “Martyrdom of St. Gordios” was quite popular in both ancient Greek and Armenian literature. In the Greek, Armenian, and Georgian calendars, the feast of St. Gordios occurs on January 3rd. Gordios was a centurion from Caesarea, who was tortured during the time of the Roman emperor Licinius (308–324). Basil the Great is known to have composed a homily about him. In her book Translations of Basil the Great’s works into Old Georgian, Nino Kajaia mentioned that Euthymius of Athos translated almost all of the homilies contained in the collection of Basil the Great’s homilies known as “Ethikon” into Georgian. Only three homilies were not translated, which are known as the “Martyrdom of Varlaam,” the “Martyrdom of Gordios,” and a homily named “On the Youth.” According to Kajaia, those three homilies were not translated, because they were thought to have been written by pseudo-Basil.11 Thus far, the existence of a Georgian translation of pseudo-Basil’s homily on the “Martyrdom of Gordios” is unknown. However, there is an old Armenian translation of this homily that follows the Greek text word by word, which also employs the same division into chapters. The comparison of the Georgian translation with the Greek and Armenian texts shows that the Georgian text sometimes follows the Greek, and, correspondingly, the Armenian text, but in other cases does not do so. For instance, the Greek and Armenian texts contain eight chapters, whereas the Georgian text begins from chapter four and omits the introductory praises of the saint. Moreover, in the Greek and Armenian texts, the passage that describes St. Gordios appearing from the mountains is quite broad and occupies a whole page. The Greek and Armenian texts offer many details concerning how Gordios comes down from the mountains (e.g. he has a severe look on his face) and portray him as a distressed person. Nature had had a bad influence on him. He is described as wearing dirty clothes and as holding a stick in his hand. When he appears at a market square he attracts people’s attention and every one listens to him. The Georgian text, however, condenses this section of the text considerably: when St. George, who full of courage and wisdom, came down from the mountain, everyone who saw him wanted to listen to his speech. The comparison of the sections of the text with one another shows that the Georgian translation of the work sometimes follows the Greek and Armenian 10 11

PG 31, cc. 490–507. ნ. ქაჯაია, ბასილი კესარიელის თხზულებათა ძველი ქართული თარგმანები (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1992), [N. Kadzhaia, Old translations of the compositions of Basil the Great (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1992)].

606

gaprindashvili

versions, and sometimes does not, as mentioned earlier. In the following table, the passages that are different have been underlined.

PG 31

Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Գիրք Պահոց

Ath. 8

Ἐπεὶ δὲ διὰ τῶν κηρύκων σιωπὴ τῷ δήμῳ ὑπεσημάνθη, ἐκοιμήθησαν μὲν αὐλοὶ, κατεσιγάσθησαν δὲ ὄργανα πολυαρμόνια· ἠκούετο Γόρδιος, ἐθεωρεῖτο Γόρδιος.

Եւ իբրեւ ի ձեռն քարոզացն լռութիւն բազմութեանն նշանակեցաւ, դադարեցին փողք, լռեաց քնար բազմայարմար, լուեալ լինէր Գորդիոս, տեսեալ Գորդիոս:

და ქადაგი ჴმობდა, რ(აჲთ)ა დადუმებაჲ იყოს ყოვლისა ერისაჲ და დააცხრო საყჳრი და დაადუმეს ქნარი მრავალფერად განგებული.

Ὡς δὲ εἴπε τὴν πατρίδα, τὸ γένος, τὸ εἴδος τοῦ ἀξιώματος ἐν ᾧ ᾖν, τὴν αἰτία τῆς φυγῆς, τὴν ἐπανοδον, ὅτι Πάρειμι, ἔργῳ καὶ τὴν τῶν ὑμετέρων προσταγμάτων καταφρόνησιν, καὶ τὴν εἰς Θεὸν, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἤλπισα, πίστιν ἐπιδειξόμενος· καὶ γὰρ ἤκουσά σε, φησὶ, πολλῶν διαφέρειν τῇ ἀγριότητι· ὡς οὖν ἐπιτήδειόν μοι τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς τὸ πληρωθῆναί μου τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐξελεξάμην.

Իբրեւ ասաց զգաւառն, զազգն, զտեսակն արժանաւորութեանն, յորում էրն, զպատճառս փախստեանն, զվերստին գալն, թէ մերձեմ գործով եւ զնոցա հրա մանացն քամահանս, եւ յԱստուած, յոր յուսացաւ զհաւատն ցուցեալ:

ხოლო მან აუწყა ქუეყანაჲ თჳსი და ნათესავი თჳსი, რამეთუ შერაცხილ თაგანი იყო და მიზეზიცა სივლ ტოლისა თჳსისაჲ აუწყა მათ და ვითარ გარდამოჴდა მთით და შევიდა სახილავსა მას და შეურაცხყო ბრძანებაჲ იგი მთავრისაჲ მის და სასოვებაჲ თჳსი ღმრთისამიმართი აუწყა მას და სიმტკიცე სარწმუნო ვებისაჲ მის თჳსისაჲ უთხრა მას.

Ἐκενώθη τῶν οἰκητόρων ἡ πόλις, ὥσπερ τινὸς ῥεύματος, τοῦ πλήθους ἀθρόως ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον μεταῤῥυέντος. Οὐ γυνή κατεδέξατο τῆς θέας ἀπολειφθῆναι, οὐκ ἀνὴρ ἀφανὴς ἣ ἐπίσημος.

Թափեցաւ ի բնակչաց քաղաքս, որպէս իրիք հոսման, բազմութեան միանգամայն ի տեղիս յայս հոսեալք: Ո չ կին հաւանեալ լինէր ի տեսմանէն ի բաց կալ, ո չ այր երեւելի եւ կամ աննշանաւոր:

And the preacher was calling forth all the folk to be noiseless and those trumpets and lyre which had been playing in different ways were silent although.

Then he notified people about his homeland and origins, that he was from a well-born family and after that he notified them about the reason of his running away and when he came down from the mountain and arrived to the place, he abandoned the command of the ruler and notified him about his own faith, belief, and told him about his own firm credence. ხოლო ქალაქი იგი დაცარიელდა მკჳდრთაგან მისთა და სიმრავლეჲ იგი მამათა და დედათაჲ სრბით მიიწინეს ადგილსა მას.

Then the city became empty by his inhabitants and a lot of men and women had been running to the place.

“martyrdom of george zoravar narrated by basil”

607

(cont.) PG 31

Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Գիրք Պահոց

Ath. 8

Ἐξέλειπον τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν οἵκων οἱ φύλακες· ἀκλειστα μέν ἧν τῶν ἐμπόρων τὰ ἑργαστήρια· διέῤῥιπτο δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὥνια· μία δὲ πάντων φυλακὴ καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τὸ πάντας ὁμοίως ὑπεξελθεῖν, καὶ μηδὲ κακοῦργον ἐναπομεῖναι τῆ πόλει. Κατέλειπον δοῦλοι δεσποτῶν θεραπείας· καὶ ὅσον ξένον τοῦ δήμου, καὶ ὅσον ἐγχώριον, ὧδε παρῆν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα.

Թողին զբանդս իւրեանց բանդապահքն, առանց փակելոյ էին վաճառականացն գործարանք, ընկեցեալ լինէր ի հրապարակս վաճառք: Մի ամե նեցուն պահպանութիւն եւ ամրութիւն զամենեսեան նմանաբար ելանել եւ ոչ չարագործ ոք ի բաց է մնալ ի քաղաքէս:

დაუტევნეს საპყრობილენი მცველ თანი თჳნიერ დაკრძალვისა და ვაჭართა სავაჭრონი თჳსნი უგულე ბელს-ყვნეს ურაკპარაკსა ზედა და ფოლოცსა და არა დარჩა მცველი მას ზედა.

They left prisons without closing them and merchants left their own stores and there were no guards on the square and in the streets.

This comparison illustrates well the peculiar translation or revision of the homily of Basil the Great. The key to solving the puzzle of how the texts concerning George Zoravar and Gordios connect was Avgeryan’s edition of the Armenian translation of the “Martyrdom of St. Gordios.”12 Yet it has to be mentioned that this particular Armenian translation differs significantly from the Greek, Armenian, and Georgian versions of the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar” and the “Martyrdom of Gordios” we have investigated thus far. Avgeryan provides notes and commentaries that accompany his publication and that inform us that there was another brief Armenian translation, which was kept in the Armenian “Tcharntir” (collection of works). Moreover, Avgeryan mentions specifically that in the version of the “Tcharntir” he used, the copyist wrote “Georgeos” instead of “Gordios,” as also in other cases he wrote կապանք (“fetters”) instead of կապարք (“agonizing”). In Armenian, the graphical representation of the letters դ [d] and գ [g] is quite similar. Thus, the copyist may simply have confused the names Գորդիոս [Gordios] and Գէորգէոս [Georgeos]. At present, we do not have access to the whole text of the shorter Armenian translation. Yet the author of the commentaries gives us the initial sentences of a given paragraph of this Armenian text. This material suffices already to allow us to see that the Georgian translation follows this brief Armenian translation of the “Martyrdom of Gordios.” 12

Լիակատար Վարք եւ վկայաբանութիւն սրբոց որք կան ի հին Տօնացուցի Եկե ղեցւոյ Հայաստանեաց: Ի Հ. Մկրտիչ վարդապետէ Աւգերեան, Հ. Ա. (Ի Վենետիկ, 1810) [Life and martyrdom of the saints written in the old Armenian calendars, testified

by V. Avgeryan, Vol. 1 (Venice, 1810)], pp. 423–446.

608

gaprindashvili

The brief Armenian translation

Ath. 8

Յայնժամ արին այն եւ մեծն ոգւով եւ մեծն իմաստությամբ ի վերուստ՝ ի լերանցն իջանէր՝ ի տեսարան …

მას ჟამსა წმიდამან გეორგი, მჴ[ნემან] და სავსემან სიქუელითა და სრულმან სიბრძნითა, გარდამოჴდა მთით და მოიხილა სახილავსა მას …

At that time Saint George, [who was] valiant and full of wisdom and rational, came down from the mountain and arrived to the place … կոչեա՛ զօրականս, ո՞ւր կապարքն, ո՞ւր քուքք, ի վերայ անուոցն պրկեսցի, ի վերայ փայտին տանջեսցի, բերցին տանջանք, գազանք, հուր, սուր, խաչ, վիհ, պատրաստեցին այլքն …

… მოუწოდონ მსახურთა და განმზადნენ საკრველნი და სატანჯველნი და ბრძანა ურმისთვალსა ზედა დაკრვაჲ [მისი]. და მუნქუესვე განმზადნეს თითო ფერნი სატანჯველნი და მჴეცნი და ძელი აღმართეს და მახჳლი და მთხრებლი განმზადეს

Servants were called and they prepared fetters and torture items and he commanded to tie [him] on the cart wheel. and they instantly prepared different kinds of torture items and predatory animals and they rose log and sword and dug out hole. Զի՞ հեղգայք ասէր. զի՞ դադարեցէք, զգեսցին մարմինքս, խորտակեսցին անդամք …

რაჲსა ოდებ ხართ და რაჲსა სდროებთ: დაჭრენით ჴორცნი ჩემნი და შემუსრენით ასონი ჩემნი …

What are you waiting for? Slice my flesh and cut my body … Լուեալ զխոստմունսն՝ երանելւոյն, ծիծաղեցաւ զնորա անմտութեամբն, եթե զի՞նչ կարծես արքայութեան երկնից արժանիս տալ: Եւ յայնժամ անըմբերելի սրտմութեամբ զսուրն մերկացուցեալ՝ զզօրականն մերձ կացուցանէր, եւ ձեռամբ եւ լեզուաւ պիղծ սպանողացն մահու դատապարտէր զերանելին: Փոփոխեցաւ ամենայն տեսարանն՝ ի տեղիս յայս.

… რაჟამს ესმოდა რა წმიდასა მას აღნათქუემი, ეცინოდა მას და ჰრქუა: „რაჲ მომცე მე ღირსი სასუფეველისა ცათაჲსა?“ მაშინ გულისწყრომითა აღივსო მთავარი იგი და ბრძანა განძარცუვაჲ ნეტარისაჲ მის და უბრძანა, რაჲთა შეურაცხებით აგინებდენ მას და მოვიდეს ყოველნი სახილავსა მას …

When the Saint heard the words of promise he laughed and said to him: “What can you give me instead of heaven?” Than the ruler became angry and ordered to undress the Saint and commended people to come and see the sight and to insult him …

“martyrdom of george zoravar narrated by basil”

609

(cont.) The brief Armenian translation

Ath. 8

Զայսոսիկ ասացեալ՝ եւ յինքեան զօրինակն խաչին շուրջ գրեալ, երթայր առ վէրն, ոչինչ փոփոխեալ զգոյնն, եւ ոչ այլայլեալ զերեսացն ինչ զուարթութիւն.

და ესევითარითა სიტყჳთა ასწავებდა მათ და თჳთ ჯუარითა გარე-შეიზღუდა თავი თჳსი და მიჰმართა სატანჯველთა მათ და არა შეიცვალა ფერი პირისა მისისა სხუად ფერად.

And he taught them and crossed himself and addressed to the torture items and the color of his face did not change.

The congruence between the Georgian text and the shorter Armenian translation is obvious. With regard to the original of the Georgian translation, one may observe that the Georgian text does not feature elements that reveal Armenian origins. One does not detect any indications of an underlying Armenian syntax or the usage of Armenian vocabulary. One notices, however, the use of vocabulary that is shared between Georgian and Armenian. In a given sentence, verbs are omitted. This phenomenon is customary for old Armenian and for old Greek as well. Thus far, no evidence has come to the fore that there is or ever was a short Greek version of the homily of Basil the Great on the martyr Gordios. Therefore, it is most likely that the Georgian translation of the homily was translated from an Armenian one.

Summary The “Martyrdom of George Zoravar narrated by Basil” exists only as one copy of the manuscript. The work is preserved in the manuscript Nº8 (351r–354v) in Iviron monastery collection on Mount Athos. For the identification of Saint George Zoravar, we have compared the text of the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar narrated by Basil,” preserved in the manuscript Ath.8, with other texts of the “Martyrdom of St. George,” both in Georgian and Armenian literature. The result showed us that the text of the “Martyrdom of George Zoravar” and the text of the “Martyrdom of St. George” are quite different from each other. We have also compared this text with the “Martyrdom of Saint Gordios” of Basil the Great (4th c.) kept at Thesaurus Linguae Greacae, because of some similarities between these two texts. It turned out that we were not working with the “Martyrdom of St. George”, but rather that of St. Gordios. We do not know any short Greek version of the Homily by Basil the Great, like the Arme-

610

gaprindashvili

nian one, that would have been similar to the Georgian translation of the work “The Martyrdom of Gordios”. We therefore suggest that the Georgian text was translated from the Armenian one.

Bibliography R. Blake, “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque de la Laure d’Iviron au mont Athos,” ROC 28 (1931–1932): pp. 289–361; 29 (1933–1934): pp. 114–159, 225–269. Le Synaxaire géorgien, ed. N. Marr (PO, t. XIX, fasc. 5). Լիակատար Վարք եւ վկայաբանութիւն սրբոց որք կան ի հին Տօնացուցի Եկեղեցւոյ Հայաստանեայց: Ի Հ. Մկրտիչ վարդապետէ Աւգերեան, Հ. Ա. (Ի Վենետիկ, 1810) [Life and martyrdom of the saints written in the old Armenian

calendars, testified by V. Avgeryan, Vol. 1 (Venice, 1810)]. ი. აბულაძე, ქართული და სომხური ლიტერატურული ურთიერთობა IX–X სს-ში

(თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1944) [I. Abuladze, Georgian and Armenian Literary Relations of the 9th–10th centuries (Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 1944)]. ე. გაბიძაშვილი, წმინდა გიორგი ძველ ქართულ მწერლობაში (თბილისი: არმაზი-89, 1991) [E. Gabidzashvili, Saint George in the old Georgian literature (Tbilisi: Armazi-89, 1991)]. ხ. გაფრინდაშვილი, “Ath. 8-ში დაცული გიორგი ზორავარის წამება,” აღმოსავლეთმცოდნეობა 2 (2013), [Kh. Gaprindashvili, “The Martyrdom of George Zoravar preserved in ms. Athos georgicus 8,” Oriental Studies 2 (2013)]: pp. 25–38. მსოფლიო მართლმადიდებელი ეკლესიის შეერთებული კალენდარი, I გამოცემა (თბილისი, 2001) [The world orthodox church united calendar, first publication (Tbilisi, 2001)]. ქართლის ცხოვრება. მთ. რედ. რ. მეტრეველი [ტექსტები გამოსაც. მოამზადეს: მ. ქავთარია, ელ. ცაგარეიშვილი, ზ. სარჯველაძე, მ. ლორთქიფანიძე, მზ. შანიძე, ც. ქურციკიძე, ზ. ალექსიძე და სხვ.; ბიბლიოგრ. შემდგ. ვ. სილოგავა] (თბილისი: არტანუჯი, 2008) [The Georgian Chronicle, ed. R. Metreveli [the text was prepared by M. Kavtaria, El. Tsagareishvili, Z. Sardzhveladze, M. Lordkipanidze, Mz. Shanidze, Ts. Kurtsikidze, Z. Aleksidze etc.; bibliography by V. Silogava (Tbilisi: Artanudzhi, 2008)]. ნ. ქაჯაია, ბასილი კესარიელის თხზულებათა ძველი ქართული თარგმანები (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1992), [N. Kadzhaia, Old translations of the compositions of Basil the Great (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1992)]. Н. Марр, «Из поездки на Афон», Журнал Министерства народного просвещения, март (1899) [N. Marr, “On the trip to Mount Athos,” Journal of the Ministry of the National Education, March (1899)]: pp. 1–24.

“martyrdom of george zoravar narrated by basil”

611

Материалы по грузинской агиологии. По рукописям X века, с предисловием издал А. Хаханов (Труды по востоковедению, издаваемые Лазаревским Институтом Восточных языков, вып. XXXI; Москва, 1910) [Materials on the Georgian hagiology. According to the manuscripts dated to 10th century, ed. A. Khakhanov (Materials in the oriental studies, published by the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages XXXI; Moscow, 1910)].

chapter 24

One Episode from the History of the Georgian Codex S-1463 (Dogmatikon by Arsen Iqaltoeli) Alexey Ostrovsky

Dogmatikon (Introduction) Dogmatikon (დოგმატიკონი; late 11th c.), an anthology of Christian dogmatic and polemic works translated from Greek by Arsen Iqaltoeli, constitutes a very important monument of Old Georgian literature. The anthology had been compiled with the aim of providing a necessary ground for polemics with nonChalcedonian churches and it had a solid impact on subsequent Georgian literature.1 Arsen Iqaltoeli (არსენი იყალთოელი; †c. 1125), the translator and editor of Dogmatikon, was a prominent figure of Hellenophiles School of Georgian translators (11th–12th centuries).2 He worked on Dogmatikon around 1070–1100 and during his work he visited Mount Athos and Constantinople.3 His translations are of special interest for text studies because of his thorough style of translation—Arsen followed Greek sources as closely as possible, usually with exact, almost one-to-one correspondence. In many cases, Arsen’s translations included in Dogmatikon retain editions of texts that are closer to their archetypes than the Greek editions known today.4

1 For further discussion on Dogmatikon see, for example, М. Рапава, “«Догматикон», догматико-полемический сборник Арсения Икалтоели (XI в.)”, in XVI Ежегодная богословская конференция ПСТГУ. Материалы, Том 1 (Москва: ПСТГУ, 2006) [M. Raphava, “Dogmatikon, a dogmatic and polemic anthology of Arsen Iqaltoeli (the 11th c.),” in XVI Annual Theological Conference of STOU. Papers, Vol. 1 (Moscow: STOU, 2006)]: pp. 234–237. 2 Details on Arsen Iqaltoeli can be found in ი. ლოლაშვილი, არსენ იყალთოელი : ცხოვ რება და მოღვაწეობა (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1978) [Ivane Lolashvili, Arsen Iqaltoeli: life and deeds (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1978)]. 3 ლოლაშვილი, არსენ იყალთოელი, p. 43. 4 Cf. M. Raphava, “Georgian Translations of Nicetas Stethatos’s Epistles (According to Arsen Iqaltoeli’s Dogmatikon),” in Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context: Memorial Volume for the 125th Anniversary of Shalva Nutsubidze (1888–1969), eds. T. Nutsubidze, C.B. Horn, B. Lourié (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 2; Brill, 2014): pp. 244–282.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_026

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

613

These peculiarities of Dogmatikon make it important not only for scholars of Georgian studies, but for scholars of Byzantine studies as well.5 For example, both the recently discovered Epistle IX by Nicetas Stethatos and his authorized colophon retained in Dogmatikon are unknown from Greek sources.6 The colophon allowed to date the compilation of the collection of Nicetas’ works to January of 1080, thus establishing one more robust date in the poorly dated biography of Nicetas Stethatos.7 Currently, a group of scientists from K. Kekelidze National Center of Manuscripts (Tbilisi, Georgia) are preparing the publication of the whole Dogmatikon.8 For the studies in Old Armenian literature, Dogmatikon is of interest in the context of the legacy of Simeon Pghindzahanetsi, who translated Elements of Theology by Proclus Diadochus, Fount of Knowledge by John Damascene, The

5 Cf. B. Outtier, “Le Dogmatikon d’ Arsène d’ Iqalto et ses modèles grecs”, Le Muséon 114.1–2 (2001): pp. 217–226. 6 Raphava, “Georgian Translations”. 7 A. Ostrovsky, M. Raphava, “Notes on Georgian Translations of the Works of Nicetas Stethatos”, Scrinium: Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History, X: Syrians and the Others: Cultures of the Christian Orient in the Middle Ages (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014): pp. 383–401. 8 The group is led by Maia Raphava and includes Nana Chikvatia, David Shengelia, and Giorgi Kublashvili. The content of the whole anthology is planned to be published in seven volumes. The first three volumes of Dogmatikon are already published: დოგმატიკონი, I = ანასტასი სინელი, წინამძღუარი, ტექსტი გამოსაცემად მო ამზადეს ნ. ჩიკვატიამ, მ. რაფავამ და დ. შენგელიამ, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთეს ნ. ჩიკვატიამ და დ. შენგელიამ (თბილისი, 2015) [Dogmatikon, I = Anastasius of Sinai, Hodegos, eds. N. Chikvatia, M. Raphava, D. Shengelia (Tbilisi, 2015)]; დოგმატიკონი, II = ნიკიტა სტითატი, თხზულებანი, ხუთი პოლემიკური სიტყვისა და ეპოსტოლეთა ტექსტები გამოსაცემად მოამზადა და გამოკვლევა დაურთო მ. რაფავამ, ტექსტები „აღსავალთათჳს“, „სულისათჳს“ და „სამოთხისათჳს“ გამოსა ცემად მოამზადა და გამოკვლევა დაურთო მ. კასრაძემ, ლექსიკონი და საძიებლები მოამზადეს მ. რაფავამ და ნ. ჩიკვატიამ (თბილისი: შპს „საჩინო“, 2013) [Dogmatikon, II

= Nicetas Stethatos, Works, eds. M. Raphava, M. Kasradze, N. Chikvatia (Tbilisi, 2013)]; დოგმატიკონი, III = გამოკრებანი წამებათანი, ტექსტი გამოსაცემად მოამზადა, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთო დ. შენგელიამ (თბილისი, 2015) [Dogmatikon, III = Doctrina Patrum, ed. D. Shengelia (Tbilisi, 2015)]. As of 2019, the group works on volumes IV–VI, which will include works of John Damascene (vol. IV—De fide contra Nestorianos, Contra Nestorianos, Contra Jacobitas, and De duabus in Christo voluntatibus; vol. V—Sacra parallela, and *Institutio elementaris) and Theodore Abū Qurrah (vol. VI). Remaining part of Dogmatikon (a collection of works of Eustratius of Nicaea and other authors) is planned to be published in volume VII (however, it may span more volumes).

614

ostrovsky

Spiritual Ladder by John Climacus, and some other works from Georgian into Armenian.9 Simeon Pghindzahanetsi (Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի; c. 1188—after 1248) was an Armenian Chalcedonian monk from Pghindzahank (Պղնձահանք; modern Akhtala [Ախթալա]), whose activities belong to the first half of the thirteenth century, in accordance to his colophons from 1227 and 1248.10 He was one of the key figures of literary activities of his time in Northern Armenia that was under control and influence of the united Georgian kingdom.11 Simeon’s translations from Georgian into Armenian were aligned with efforts of other Armenian scholars, who worked to increase the range of texts, available in Armenian.12 Simeon Pghindzahanetsi based his translation of Dialectica by John of Damascus on two Georgian versions, including the translation by Arsen Iqaltoeli.13 Some other works translated by Simeon from Georgian can be found only in Dogmatikon, so he had to use it as one of the sources. In this context, a special object of interest is Dogmatikon codex S-1463, which might be directly used by Simeon for his work (see below).

Codex S-1463 Codex S-1463 (National Center of Manuscripts, Tbilisi) is one of the most important copies of Dogmatikon and is the most complete and authoritative 9

10

11

12

13

Ն. Ակինեան, Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի եւ իր թարգմանութիւնները վրացերէնէ (Վիեննա: Մխիթարեան տպարան, 1951) [N. Akinian, Simeon Pghindzahanetsi and his translations from Georgian (Vienna: Mechitarists Publishing House, 1951)]. Ակինեան, Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի, p. 6; see also Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշա տակարաններ : ԺԳ դար, Կազմ. Ա. Ս. Մաթեւոսյան (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՍՌ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիայի հրատարակչություն, 1984) [Commemorative inscriptions of Armenian manuscripts: 13th century, ed. A.S. Matevosyan (Yerevan: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1984)], pp. 154, 248–249. Լ. Տեր-Պետրոսյան, “Փորձ հայ հին եւ միջնադարյան թարգմանական գրականության պարբերացման”, Էջմիածին 4 (1982) [Levon Ter-Petrosyan, “An attempt of periodization of the Ancient and Medieval translated Armenian literature”, Etchmiadzin 4 (1982)]: pp. 45–52, here p. 50. Rewriting Caucasian History: The medieval Armenian adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles: The original Georgian text and the Armenian adaptation, translated with introduction and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Oxford Oriental Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. li. იოანე დამასკელი, დიალექტიკა, ქართული თარგმანების ტექსტი გამოსცა, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთო მაია რაფავამ (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1976) [John of Damascus, Dialectics, tr. and ed. M. Raphava (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1976)], pp. 29– 30.

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

615

copy of the anthology known today. It was also credited as one of the earliest copies of the anthology.14 Based on the material (paper) and general manuscript evaluation, the codex S-1463 was broadly attributed to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries by T. Zhordania.15 This dating of S-1463 was accepted by A. Bakradze in a description of the collection S of the National Center of Manuscripts.16 Later, based on codicological data and marginal notes, I. Lolashvili proposed to date S-1463 to 1120–1130s CE,17 while L. Kajaia, based on similarity of the hand of ms. S-1463 and one of the hands of ms. Q-37, proposed to date S-1463 between the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century.18 Despite the fact that the strong arguments of L. Kajaia and I. Lolashvili were never countered, the dating of S-1463 to the period of twelfth–thirteenth centuries remained widely accepted until today.19 A recent study of the paleography of the codex confirmed that it must be attributed to the end of the eleventh to the beginning of the twelfth centuries, as paleographic peculiarities and codicological data of S-1463 prevent its dating beyond the specified timeframe (i.e. it cannot be dated earlier than 1080 nor later than the decade of 1150).20 The primary hand of the codex was 14

15

16

17 18

ნ. ჩიკვატია, „ ‘დოგმატიკონის’ ხელნაწერი კრებულები (S 1463 ნუსხასთან მათი მიმართების ცხრილი)“, მრავალთავი XX (2003) [N. Chikvatia, “Dogmatikon manu-

scripts (a table of their correspondences to the manuscript S-1463)”, Mravaltavi XX (2003)]: pp. 81–85. თ. ჟორდანია, ქრონიკები (ტფილისი: სტამბა მ. შარაძისა, 1892) [T. Zhordania, Chronicles (Tiflis: M. Sharade’s Press, 1892)] (reprint: თ. ჟორდანია, ქრონიკები, I (თბი ლისი: არტანუჯი, 2004) [T. Zhordania, Chronicles, I (Tbilisi: Artanuji, 2004)]), p. 309. Here we must note that T. Zhordania had not explained the details of his dating, but in the end of 19th century, when T. Zhordania worked with the manuscript, the Georgian paleography was in a very naïve state. ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა : ყოფილი ქართველთა შორის წერა-კი თხვის გამავრცელებელი საზოგადოების (S) კოლექციისა, ტ. II, შედგენილია და დასაბეჭდად მომზადებული ა. ბაქრაძის, თ. ბრეგაძის, ე. მეტრეველისა და მზ. შანიძის მიერ, ე. მეტრეველის რედაქციით (თბილსი: საქართველოს სსრ მეც ნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1961) [Description of Georgian manuscripts: The collection of Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians (S), II, eds. A. Bakradze, T. Bregadze, E. Metreveli and M. Shanidze, ed. in chief E. Metreveli (Tbilisi: Press of the Academy of Science of Georgian SSR, 1961)], p. 213. ლოლაშვილი, არსენ იყალთოელი, p. 144. ლ. ქაჯაია, პუნქტუაცია V–XII საუკუნეების ქართულ ხელნაწერებში, სადისერ ტაციო შრომა ფილოლოგიის მეცნიერებათა კანდიდატის სამეცნიერო ხარის ხის მოსაპოვებლად (თბილისი, 1969) [L. Kajaia, Punctuation in Georgian manuscripts

19 20

of 5th–12th centuries, diss. Candidate in Philology (Tbilisi, 1969)], p. 180. Cf. Outtier, “Le Dogmatikon”, p. 217; ჩიკვატია, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ ხელნაწერი კრე ბულები”, p. 81; Dogmatikon, II, pp. 16, 211; etc. ა. ოსტროვსკი, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის დათარიღებისა და შედგე

616

ostrovsky

attributed to Ioane Mtavaraisdze (იოანე მთავარაჲსძე), a known Georgian clergyman from Antioch, who also copied the manuscript Q-37 in 1091.21 Hence, codex S-1463 is not only the most complete copy of Dogmatikon, but also the oldest known Dogmatikon manuscript, which was created at the same time (or almost at the same time) as its autograph. Precise translation and attention to details of the text revealed in S-1463 allow us to treat the codex as one of the most authoritative copies of Dogmatikon for the time of its creation, having had almost the same value as the autograph.22 All of these make codex S-1463 the most important manuscript for studies of Dogmatikon. The study of quire signatures and codicological peculiarities of S-1463 revealed that the codex consists of two different manuscripts, copied by the same person: S-1463-a (ff. 1–102) and S-1463-b (ff. 103–312).23 The manuscript S-1463-a contains three fundamental works: Hodegos by Anastasius Sinaïta and Dialectica and Expositio fidei by John Damascene. The manuscript S-1463-b contains shorter works: five polemic works of John Damascene, works of Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore Abū Qurrah, Nicetas Stethatos, and others. Both manuscripts are divided in quires of 8 folios (4 bifolios) that is typical for Georgian tradition.24 Quires have authorized numberings (made with the primary hand of the manuscripts) with signatures on the first and the last page of each quire. Collation of the manuscript S-1463-a is 1–128 136, and one of S1463-b is 1–268 272(?). In addition to the authorized quire numberings, codex S-1463 contains several more quire numberings and foliations: an Armenian quire numbering from the end of the sixteenth century, five more Georgian quire numberings and foliations from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century and a modern foliation.25 The Armenian quire numbering of S-1463 covers the whole codex (ff. 1– 312). It numbers original quires and pages of the manuscript with letters of the Armenian alphabet. The collation of quires in the Armenian numbering is 1–128 136 14–398 402, which exactly follows the two authorized Georgian quire ნილობისათვის”, მრავალთავი 24 (2015) [A. Ostrovsky, “On the dating and the content

21

22 23 24 25

of the Dogmatikon manuscript S-1463”, Mravaltavi 24 (2015)]: pp. 110–128, here pp. 112–113. Even if one rejects the direct attribution of the hand, the primary hand of S-1463 belongs to a person whose name is Ioane, and it reveals a striking similarity to the hand of Ioane Mtavaraisdze. ოსტროვსკი, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის”, pp. 113–114, n. 6. Ibid., pp. 123–125. Details on pagination and codicological data of cod. S-1463 are provided based on ოსტროვსკი, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის”. Ibid., pp. 120–121.

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

617

numberings with the only peculiarity: the authorized Georgian quire numberings are specific to manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b, while the Armenian one numbers quires throughout the whole codex S-1463. So, qq. 1–13 of the Armenian numbering correspond to qq. 1–13 of S-1463-a, while remaining qq. 14–40 correspond to qq. 1–27 of S-1463-b. Due to the lack of paleographic samples, the Armenian quire numbering of S-1463 was broadly dated to the period of 1400–1700, with the most probable dating being the end of the sixteenth century.26 Analysis of quire numberings and foliations of S-1463 shed some light on the history of the codex, and now we understand it better overall (prior to this, we had no data about the history of the codex S-1463 before the nineteenth century). The codex had to get to the Armenian Chalcedonians before the end of the sixteenth century, most probably shortly after it was created in the twelfth century, and was possessed by Armenians until it was returned back to Georgians in the seventeenth century.27 In the Armenian Chalcedonian environment, S-1463 was in use at least in the end of the sixteenth century (and possibly earlier). Since its return to Georgian hands, S-1463 had been used quite intensively, as we can see from quire numberings and partial foliations being made approximately each 50–70 years (in the end of the seventeenth century, in the middle of the eighteenth century, in the end of the eighteenth to the beginning of nineteenth century and in the end of the nineteenth century). Finally, in the nineteenth century, it was possessed by Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians. This article goes further into studies of “Armenian” period of history of S1463 and pays special attention to reconstruction of the history of codex S-1463 before the seventeenth century and to its traces in Armenian tradition. In particular, I will address the following questions: – What are the Georgian traces of S-1463 before it came into the possession of the Armenian Chalcedonians? – When and how could it have been possessed by Armenians? – What are the Armenian traces of S-1463?

26

27

Ibid., pp. 120; M.E. Stone, D. Kouymjian, H. Lehmann, Album of Armenian Paleography (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002), pp. 532–535. The shape of graphemes reveals a greater proximity to ones of M2964, M1253 and V582/446, dated to 1562–1596: ibid., pp. 412–413, 420–421, 424–425 (tab. 148, 152, 154). ოსტროვსკი, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის”, p. 125.

618

ostrovsky

Early Period: Georgian Traces of Manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b It is important to understand how S-1463 had been used in the Georgian environment before it was obtained by the Armenian Chalcedonians. This depends on the relation of S-1463 to other Georgian manuscripts. The final decision on dependencies between different manuscripts of Dogmatikon can be made only after detailed study of their codicological data, marginal notes and textual data, which is currently in progress. The latest research revealed that all manuscripts, retaining Arsen Iqaltoeli’s translations, can be split into two big groups—the Ioaneseuli and the Arseniseuli manuscripts. These groups represent different editions of Arsen Iqaltoeli works, and the protograph of the Ioaneseuli edition is definitely the manuscript S-1463-b, while the Arseniseuli manuscripts are not descendants of S-1463-b and possibly have different protographs.28 There are two early copies (or descendants) of S1463-b, made before the manuscript came to the Armenian Chalcedonians: cod. K-23 and ms. K-24 (the 13th century; Kutaisi State Historical Museum, Georgia).29 There is no direct evidence of where and when mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b were bound in a single codex, but it must have happened no later than sometime in the sixteenth century, when the Armenian quire numbering was added. The manuscript S-1463-a includes John Damascene’s Dialectica and Expositio fidei (henceforth “major works”), while the manuscript S-1463-b begins with John Damascene’s De fide contra Nestorianos, Contra Nestorianos, Contra Jacobitas, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus (henceforth “minor works”). Therefore, binding both manuscripts in one codex, created the following composition of John Damascene’s works:

28

29

Research of the model and dependencies between Dogmatikon manuscripts is currently performed by Alexey Ostrovsky. An article is being prepared and is expected to be published in Mravaltavi 26 or Mravaltavi 27. For a detailed description of mss. K-23 and K-24 see ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა (ქუ თაისის სახელმწიფო ისტორიული მუზეუმი), ტ. I, შედგენილია და დაბეჭდად მომზადებული მუზეუმის მეცნიერი მუშაკის ე. ნიკოლაძის მიერ, რედაქტორი საქართველოს სსრ მეცნ. აკად. ნამდვილი წევრი პროფ. კ. კეკელიძე (თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1953) [Description of manuscripts (Kutaisi State Museum of History), Vol. I, ed. E. Nikoladze, ed. in chief K. Kekelidze (Tbilisi: Press of the Academy of Science of Georgian SSR, 1953)], pp. 104–110. Despite the different dating of the descriptions, both manuscripts are written the same time (if not the same hand) and the most probable dating of these manuscripts is 12th century (based on the same grounds that used in ოსტროვსკი, “ „დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის” for analysis of cod. S-1463).

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

619

1. Dialectica, 2. Expositio fidei, 3. De fide contra Nestorianos, 4. Contra Nestorianos, 5. Contra Jacobitas, 6. De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, 7. Sacra parallela, and 8. *Institutio elementaris. This model is unique and appears only in the codex S-1463. Twenty-one other Georgian codices of Dogmatikon either include all or some of Damascene’s minor works (15 mss.) or do not include Damascene’s works at all (6 mss.).30 It is important that none of these manuscripts, copied after the sixteenth century, when S-1463 returned to Georgians as a bound codex, follows the composition of S-1463, while some of those manuscripts follow the composition of ms. S1463-b (e.g. ms. K-15).31 Thus, despite the intensive use of the most authoritative copy of Dogmatikon since the seventeenth century (that is clear from nonauthorized Georgian quire numberings of S-1463), Georgian copyists avoided to follow the model of the whole codex S-1463, but followed the model of its part—ms. S-1463-b. The only credible reason for this could be the tradition to copy minor and major works of John Damascene separately, already existed before cod. S-1463 returned to Georgian, which leads us to an assumption that in the Georgian environment mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b also had not to be bound in one codex. This assumption is also supported with data of ms. K-24, which is an early copy of Dogmatikon, made before mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b left the Georgian environment: K-24 follows the model of S-1463-b without any traces of S-1463-a.32 So, binding manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b in codex S-1463 had to have been made by their Armenian owners, when both manuscripts were outside of the Georgian environment.

30

31 32

See table in ჩიკვატია, „‘დოგმატიკონის’ ხელნაწერი კრებულები”, pp. 81, 84–85 (tab. I–III). I excluded ms. S-2397 from consideration, since it does not seem to be a copy of Dogmatikon (in any case, it does not affect the picture, as it includes only Damascene’s Dialectica). Also, I excluded the early copies of Dogmatikon—mss. K-24 and K-23. The description of ms. K-15 is incomplete (ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა (ქუთაისის სახელმწიფო ისტორიული მუზეუმი), I, pp. 75–78). I examined the manuscript de visu. ჩიკვატია, „‘დო გმატიკონის’ ხელნაწერი კრებულები”, Pl. I; ხელნაწერთა აღწე რილობა (ქუთაისის სახელმწიფო ისტორიული მუზეუმი), I, pp. 108–110.

620

ostrovsky

Shifting to Armenian Chalcedonians So, when and how could the manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b have come into the possession of the Armenian Chalcedonians? It is very probable that Ioane Mtavaraisdze kept both manuscripts while he was alive, as peculiarities of S-1463-b indicate that Ioane worked on the manuscript for a long time.33 Ioane was a Georgian clergyman at Black Mountain near Antioch, Syria (modern Turkey) in the later quarter of the eleventh century (specifically between 1080 and 1090) and was close to Ephrem Mtsire; in his last years in the first half of the twelfth century Ioane was the abbot of Bertha monastery in Klarjeti (ბერთა; near the modern village of Ortaköy, Artvin Province, Turkey).34 Thus, both manuscripts should have been kept in Bertha monastery until Ioane’s death and then, most probably, either in the same monastery or possibly somewhere else in Klarjeti. We know that Simeon Pghindzahanetsi translated texts from Dogmatikon, so the Simeon’s translation must be examined for possible traces of Ioaneseuli edition of the texts. Indeed, the Armenian translations by Simeon follow the Ioaneseuli edition of Arsen’s translations both textually and codicologically. Here we provide only couple of examples:35 1. Major works of John Damascene are supplied with a colophon “Կատարումն վաստակոց Յոհաննու Դամասկացոյ, կոչեցեալ Մանսուր: Համառօտ ասացեալ, նորո շնորհաց աւանդութիւնք, եւ թարգմանեալ Սիմէոնի, ի վրաց լեզուէ ի հայ բառ:” (The end of works of John Damascene, named Mansur, another, short, gracious traditions, translated from Georgian language to Armenian words by Simeon).36 A very similar colophon is attested only in S-1463, in the same place: “დასასრული შრომათა იოვანე მანსურისთაჲ, ხოლო ითარგმნა არსენისგან ვაჩესძისა” (End of works of John Mansur, while translated by Arsen Vachesdze).37 Relevant Arseniseuli Georgian manuscripts38 do not provide a

33 34

35 36 37 38

See ლოლაშვილი, არსენ იყალთოელი, pp. 142–144; ოსტროვსკი, “„დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის”, p. 125. For more discussion on Ioane see მ. რაფავა, “იოანე მთავარაისძე, შავი მთის ქართველი მოღვაწე”, წახნაგი : ფილოლოგიურ კვლევათა წელიწდეული, 1 (2009) [M. Raphava, “Ioane Mtavaraisdze, a Georgian figure from the Black Mountain”, Tsakhnagi: An annual of philological studies 1 (2009)]: pp. 128–138. Full set of samples and detailed comparison will be provided in a work, being prepared. Also see n. 28 above. Mss. J1297, f. 152r; M63, f. 110v. Ms. S-1463, f. 102v. Mss. S-2562 (12th–13th cc.), S-2574 (13th–14th cc.).

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

621

colophon in this place.39 It is remarkable that in the Georgian version this colophon quite logically marks the end of the manuscript S-1463-a, while the Armenian version contains several more works attributed to John Damascene (in some manuscripts, including the earliest ones [mss. J1297, J1035 and J768], they immediately follow the colophon)40 therefore “end of works” is not quite correct here and rather follows the colophon of the Georgian source. 2. The Ioaneseuli edition of §39 of Contra Jacobitas (according to the authentic paragraph numbering) provides the reading “ხოლო უწყით სადმე, ვითარმედ ვითარცა ორთა ღუართა მიერ დაჰსახავს მას სანეტარელი კჳრილლე” (but know ⟨2pl.⟩ once that blessed Cyril describes Him [also] as two springs),41 which corresponds to Greek § 58 (“Ἐπιστήσατε δέ, ὡς καὶ ἐν δυςὶν αὐτὸν χιμάροις ὁ μακάριος διαγράφει Κύριλλος”),42 but incorrectly renders χιμάροις goats as ღუართა springs (possibly mixing it with χειμάρροις?). The Arseniseuli edition provides a corrected reading ვაცთა goat,43 correcting error of Ioaneseuli branch of manuscripts.44 The Armenian version also marks this paragraph as § 39 and, again, follows the Ioaneseuli edition: “այլ գիտէք եւ դուք զի իբրեւ զերկուս վտակս օրինակեաց զնա կիւրեղ” (but know ⟨2pl.⟩ you too that Cyril describes Him as two springs).45 Therefore, a protograph of Simeon’s translations had to have belonged to descendants of both S-1463-a and S-1463-b. Since we know that the Armenian Chalcedonians possessed mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b quite early, there is no need to introduce extra complications—we can accept that the protograph of

39

40 41 42 43 44 45

See ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა: ყოფილი ქართველთა შორის წერაკითხვის გამავრცელებელი საზოგადოების (S) კოლექციისა, ტ. IV, შედგენილია და დასაბეჭდად დამზადებული თ. ბრეგაძის, ლ. კიკნაძის, მ. ქავთარიას, ლ. ქაჯა იას, მ. შანიძის, ქრ. შარაშიძის და ც. ჭანკიევის მიერ, ე. მეტრეველის რედაქციით (თბილსი: მეცნიერება, 1965) [Description of Georgian manuscripts: The collection of Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians (S), Vol. IV, eds. T. Bregadze, L. Kiknadze, M. Kavtaria, L. Kajaia, M. Shanidze, Ch. Sharashidze and Ts. Chankieva, ed. in chief E. Metreveli (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1961)], pp. 48–49, 97–98. Description of manuscripts and appropriate references are provided in the next section. Mss. S-1463, f.124rb, ll. 26–27; K-24, f.38rb, ll. 1–4. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, ed. P.B. Kotter, IV: Liber de haeresibus. Opera polemica (Patristische texte und Studien 22; Berlin, 1981), p. 130. Ms. A-205, f.213v, l. 53–f.214r, l. 1. This observation on Georgian texts belongs to George Kublashvili, to whom I express my deep gratitude. M 63, f.181r, ll. 8–9.

622

ostrovsky

Simeon’s translation were actually mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b themselves.46 If so, both manuscripts had to have been in Pghindzavank by sometime in the decade spanning 1240–1250 (as Pghindzavank is the only known place where Simeon worked, according to his colophons). There are at least two possible scenarios of how exactly manuscripts S-1463a and S-1463-b could have come to Pghindzavank. First, the manuscripts could have been donated to Pghindzavank by members of Zacharids (Mkhargrdzeli) family, who patronized the monastery. The donator could have been atabeg Ivane Mkhargrdzeli, who converted the Pghindzahank church to a Chalcedonian one and founded the monastery of Pghindzavank. Simeon directly mentions atabeg Ivane in his colophon to the translation of works by Gregory of Nyssa, dated from 1227: «… ի վանքն որ կոչի Սպլէնձահան, ընդ հովանեւ Սուրբ Աստուածածնին, յիշխանութիւն Իվանէ աթապաքին՝ շինողի վանիցս, զոր յերկար ժամանակ արասցէ Տէր որդովքն [իւրովք] հանդերձ …» (… in the monastery of the Holy Mother of God, that is called Splendzahan, during the rule of atabeg Ivane, the builder of the monastery, may God give him and his sons long life …; Ms. M1013, f. 241v).47 Being one of the higher officials of Georgian Kingdom, atabeg Ivane certainly had enough possibilities and resources to obtain valuable manuscripts. Second, the manuscripts could be obtained by the Armenian Chalcedonians either directly in the Bertha monastery or somewhere else in Klarjeti. The expansion of the Sultanate of Rûm to Tao, Klarjeti and other territories of modern northern-western Turkey and the wars for those territories between the Georgian Kingdom and the Sultanate in 1180–1240 had to have caused enough chaos in the region.48 At the same time, Pghindzavank could have had some 46

47

48

Of course, we cannot completely exclude a possibility that this is a coincidence, and Simēon made his translation from some early copy of S-1463-a and S-1463-b, while S-1463 itself got to Armenian Chalcedonians later. However, such scenario requires so many complications, that it cannot be accepted without proof (currently we have no arguments in favor of this version). Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշատակարաններ, pp. 154. The data of the manuscript’s colophon is also supported by the evidence of Kirakos Gadzaketsi: «Իւանէ … թաղեցաւ ի Պղնձահանքն, ի դուռն եկեղեցւոյն, զոր շինեաց ինքն, առեալ ի հայոց վրացի վանս հաստատեաց» (Iwane … was buried at Pghndzahank, near the church which he himself had built, taking it from the Armenians and making it into a Georgian monastery; History of Armenia, ch. XVII, tr. Robert Bedrosian). მ. ლორთქიფანიძე, დ. მუსხელიშვილი, რ. მეტრეველი, საქართველოს ისტორია, ტ. II: საქართველო IV საუკუნიდან XIII საუკუნემდე (თბილისი, 2012) [M. Lortkipanidze, D. Muskhelishvili, R. Metreveli, History of Georgia, Vol. II: Georgia from the fourth century until the thirteenth century (Tbilisi, 2012)], pp. 432–435; Вл. Гордлевский, Государство сельджукидов в Малой Азии (Труды Института Востоковедения, XXXIX; М.-Л.:

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

623

connections to the region of modern northern-western Turkey: for example Minas, a colleague of Simeon, was from Trebizond.49 Currently we lack data in support of any of these versions, but in my opinion the most probable scenario is the first one: it is highly probable that ktetor donated some books to the newly-established Chalcedonian monastery of Pghindzavank.

Armenian Traces of Codex S-1463 For finding traces of S-1463 among Armenian manuscripts, we must take into account one important codicological indicator—a composition of works of John Damascene, created after binding mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b (see above). Based on the arrangement of texts, Armenian manuscripts that include translations of works from Dogmatikon can be split in three groups:50 A: Mss. J1297 (1363), J1035 (1604) and J768 (1710), with the composition of Dialectica, Expositio Fidei, Answer to the Jews, De fide contra Nestorianos, and Contra Nestorianos.51 B: Ms. M116 (16th c.), with the composition of Dialectica and Expositio Fidei, followed by On the Roman Church of Eustratius of Nicaea’s. C: Mss. M63 (16th c.), M103 (1729) and Gal. 77 (18th c.), with the combined composition of Dialectica, Expositio Fidei, On the Roman Church (by Eustratius of Nicaea), Answer to the Jews, De fide contra Nestorianos, Contra Nestorianos, Contra Jacobitas, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, and Answer to the Armenians (Gal. 77 does not include major works, but otherwise follows the model C).52

49

50 51

52

Издательство АН СССР, 1941) [Vl. Gordlevsky, The state of seljuks in Asia Minor (Proceedings of Oriental Institute, XXXIX; Moscow-Leningrad: Publishing house of Academy of Science of SSSR, 1941)], pp. 29–31. Ն. Ակինեան, “Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի եւ իր թարգմանութիւնները վրացերէնէ (1188–1255՞). Դ. Յովհաննես Կլիմաքոս”, Հանդէս ամսօրեայ (1947) [N. Akinian, “Simeon Pghindzahanetsi and his translations from Georgian (1188–1255): IV: John Clemax,” HA (1947)]: pp. 257–282, here p. 259. Ակինեան, Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի, pp. 87–88, 92–95. For details on ms. J768 see Ն. Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Սրբոց Յակո բեանց, հ. Գ (Երուսաղէմ, 1968) [N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, Vol. III (Jerusalem, 1968)], pp. 212–213; for ms. J1297 see Ն. Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Սրբոց Յակոբեանց, հ. Դ (Երուսաղէմ, 1969) [N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, Vol. IV (Jerusalem, 1969)], pp. 520–522; for ms. J1035 see ibid., pp. 50–51. For details on ms. M63 see Մայր ցուցակ Հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անուան

624

ostrovsky

The comparative table of models of these Armenian manuscripts and appropriate parts of ms. S-1463 can be found in the Appendix. Other manuscripts, like M101 (1740), M102 (1746), etc., include Dialectica and Expositio Fidei in various contexts and do not follow any common model. As we can see, groups A and C generally follow the order of the Georgian model (with one shift in group A). Model A provides the earliest known composition of major and minor works of John Damascene in the same manuscript (ms. J1297, dated to 1363). Model C merges both model B and model A (following model B and then remaining part of model A), and then adds three more translations—Contra Jacobitas, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, and Answer to the Armenians. The most complete set of works of John Damascene is provided in model C: it includes all but one minor Damascene’s works from Dogmatikon, inserting On the Roman Church and Answer to the Jews between Expositio Fidei and De fide contra Nestorianos (both texts are also translated from Dogmatikon). Why none of the models A, B and C follows the composition of cod. S-1463 exactly (which would be quite logical)? For model A this could have happened because mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b were not bound in a single codex yet at the time of creation of the model, so cod. S-1463 could not have any impact on sequential composition of John Damascene’s works. For model C the reason could be the same, and model C merged models B and A mechanically (so both assumptions can be true). The oldest manuscript of the group C is ms. M63 (16th c.), which dating matches the dating of the Armenian quire numbering of cod. S-1463 (14th–17th cc. with the most probable dating to the end of 16th c.). Thus, the hands of both manuscripts must be studied to check whether it is just a coincidence or not. The hand of the Armenian quire numbering of cod. S-1463 demonstrates some features that are not often for Armenian hands from the fourteenth to seventeenth century and almost never were combined in the same hand: 1. Grapheme ⟨թ⟩ does not contain an exit loop and is ⟨ր⟩-like (see Fig. 24.1); it is found in 9 of 28 samples of hands from 1378–1600 (1378 is the year when this form of grapheme appears first).53

Մատենադարանի, I, կազնեցին՝ Օ. Եգանյան, Ա. Զեյթունյան, Փ. Անթաբյան, խմբագրությամբ՝ Ա. Մնացականյանի, Օ. Եգանյանի (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1984) [General catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of Mes-

53

rop Mashtots Matenadaran, I, compiled by O. Yeganyan, A. Zeitunyan, P. Antabyan, eds. A. Mnatsakanyan, O. Yeganyan (Erevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Science of Armenian SSR, 1984)], cc. 255–268. For ms. M103 see ibid., cc. 431–432. Stone et al., Album of Armenian Paleography, pls. 128–155.

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

figure 24.1 Grapheme ⟨թ⟩

figure 24.2 Graphemes ⟨գ⟩ and ⟨զ⟩

625

figure 24.3 Grapheme ⟨խ⟩

Grapheme ⟨զ⟩ has a clearly open top, and ⟨գ⟩ has it rather closed (see Fig. 24.2), while usually ⟨զ⟩ and ⟨գ⟩ have identical top parts; this peculiarity is found in only 4 of the same 28 samples. 3. Grapheme ⟨խ⟩ has the last element shorter than the middle one (see Fig. 24.3); only one of the same 28 samples has this feature. Ms. M63 was written by several scribes, and some of them, i.e. the hands of ff. 174r–175r, 175v–176r and ff. 176v–177v, reveals a great similarity to the Armenian hand of S-1463 (that is Contra Jacobitas, which Armenian translation is first found in M63!).54 Actually, the same features are found in hands of M63, ff. 174r–177v, and the hand of ff. 175v–176r seems to be very close if not identical to the hand of Armenian quire numbering of S-1463 according to graphemes available for analysis (ա, բ, գ, դ, ե, զ, է, ը, թ, ժ, ի, լ, խ). In any case, both hands are very similar and demonstrate the same set of rare features, so it is credible that the hand of Armenian quire numbering of cod. S-1463 belongs to one of the scribes of ms. M63 (if not one of the hands of M63, ff. 174r–177v). Therefore, it is very probable that mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b were bound in one cod. S-1463 by scribes of ms. M63 in the sixteenth century. Since ms. M63 is the first known manuscript of model C, Armenian scribes of the manuscript could bound both mss. S-1463-a and S-1463-b in cod. S-1463 naturally, as they were merging models A and B, and both models already included texts from both manuscripts. Also, as we can see, M63 introduced several more Armenian translations from Dogmatikon, and scribes, working on M63 used the Georgian protograph as well. Therefore, one more question naturally arises: were Contra Jacobitas, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, and Answers to Armenians translated by Simeon in the thirteenth century and copied from some nowadays lost Armenian manuscript, or were they translated in the sixteenth century in the course of work on M63? This question goes far beyond scope of this article and deserves a separate study. 2.

54

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Khatuna Gaprindashvili, who first analyzed M63 in situ and found similarities between the Armenian hand of S-1463 and one of the hands of M63.

626

ostrovsky

As it follows from Georgian quire numbering of cod. S-1463, in seventeenth century the codex left the Armenian environment and returned back to Georgian hands.

Summary Codicological data of the codex Geo. S-1463 itself and Armenian manuscripts, retaining translations of works included in Dogmatikon, allow us to reconstruct the following history of the codex S-1463 during the eleventh to seventeenth centuries: 1. The manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b were copied by Ioane Mtavaraisdze as two separate manuscripts after 1080 and not later than beginning of the twelfth century. During 100–150 years after their creation they might have remained in the Georgian environment. 2. In the twelfth century or in the early thirteenth century, before the decade of 1240, both manuscripts were possessed by Armenian Chalcedonians, probably in Pghindzavank. The most probable scenario here is that manuscripts were donated to the monastery by its founder atabeg Ivane Mkhargrdzeli. During the thirteenth–sixteenth centuries both manuscripts remained in the Armenian environment and were bound in a single codex S-1463 in the sixteenth century. 3. In the seventeenth century the codex S-1463 was returned to the Georgian environment. What about Armenian translations from Georgian, the following conclusions can be made: 1. One of the Georgian protographs of the Armenian translations of John Damascene’s works, made by Simeon Pghindzahanetsi, had to be manuscripts S-1463-a and S-1463-b. 2. The same manuscripts were used for work on manuscript Arm. M63 in the sixteenth century. There is also a possibility that Armenian translations of John Damascene’s Contra Jacobitas, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, and anonymous Answers to the Armenians, which are traditionally attributed to Simeon Pghindzahanetsi, were made not in the thirteenth century by Simēon, but rather in the sixteenth century during the work on the manuscript M63. An in-depth study of texts attributed to Simēon may shed light on this question.

71. 307v–309v –

23. 226r–246r 3. 152r–208r –

4. 103r–108v

5. 108v–116v

Answer to the Jews

De fide contra Nestorianos

Contra Nestorianos

2. 29r–110v

1. 8r–28v

M63 (16th c.)

5. 216r–229v –

4. 208r–216r –

6. 162r–171r

5. 156r–162r

4. 115v–156r

3. 247r–255v 3. 111r–115v

2. 57r–246v (…–243)

Word against the Romans …*

2. 42r–152r

3. 54r–102v

1. 3r–55r (1– …)

Expositio fidei

1. 15r–42r

M116 (16th c.)

2. 40r–53v

J1297 (1363)

Dialectica

S-1463 (12th c.) 1. 1r–23v (1r– …)

M103 (1729)

–

Gal 77 (18th c.)

– ?

4. 530–569 – ?

3. 505–530 – ?

2. 87–109

6. … (…–283)

5. … (258– …)

4. 124–144

3. 110–124

4. … 1. 1–86 (188–257)

3. 98r– … (179–187)

2. 91–433 2. 23v–97v – (…–178)

1. 1–90

J768 (1710)

2. 343–505 – ?

– ?

1. 23–343

–

J1035 (1604)

Appendix. Comparison of Composition of Geo. S-1463 and Core Armenian Manuscripts

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

627

–

–

–

– ?

9. 198r–229v –

8. 185r–197v –

7. 173r–185r

–

–

– ?

9. …–199r 7. 209–277 (330–381)

8. … 6. 177–208 (307–329)

7. … 5. 145–176 (284–307)

Notes: – First lines provide both a position of the text in a manuscript (provided in bold) and text’s exact page range (provided in normal font). – Second lines provide page range, specified in Akinean’s edition, rendered in brackets (provided only if Akinean’s page range differs from the modern foliations or paginations). Question marks are used on a second line to indicate entries absent in manuscript descriptions, but marked as present in the manuscript in Akinean’s work. (In such cases data of manuscript descriptions is preferred over Akinean’s one). – Entries, arranged in an order other than one of M63, are highlighted. * This work is attributed to Eustratius of Nicaea in both Georgian and Armenian versions.

22. 220r–226r –

–

De duabus in Christo voluntatibus 7. 128r–138v

Answers to the Armenians …

–

6. 116v–128r

Contra Jacobitas

(cont.)

628 ostrovsky

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

629

Bibliography Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, ed. P.B. Kotter, IV: Liber de haeresibus. Opera polemica (Patristische texte und Studien 22; Berlin, 1981). A. Ostrovsky, M. Raphava, “Notes on Georgian Translations of the Works of Nicetas Stethatos”, Scrinium: Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History, X: Syrians and the Others: Cultures of the Christian Orient in the Middle Ages (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014): pp. 383–401. B. Outtier, “Le Dogmatikon d’Arsène d’Iqalto et ses modèles grecs”, Le Muséon 114.1–2 (2001): pp. 217–226. M. Raphava, “Georgian Translations of Nicetas Stethatos’s Epistles (According to Arsen Iqaltoeli’s Dogmatikon),” in Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context: Memorial Volume for the 125th Anniversary of Shalva Nutsubidze (1888–1969), eds. T. Nutsubidze, C.B. Horn, B. Lourié (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 2; Brill, 2014): pp. 244–282. Rewriting Caucasian History: The medieval Armenian adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles: The original Georgian text and the Armenian adaptation, translated with introduction and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Oxford Oriental Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). M.E. Stone, D. Kouymjian, H. Lehmann, Album of Armenian Paleography (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002). Ն. Ակինեան, Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի եւ իր թարգմանութիւնները վրացերէնէ (Վիեննա: Մխիթարեան տպարան, 1951) [N. Akinian, Simeon Pghindzahanetsi and his translations from Georgian (Vienna: Mechitarists Publishing House, 1951)]. Ն. Ակինեան, “Սիմէոն Պղնձահանեցի եւ իր թարգմանութիւնները վրացերէնէ (1188–1255՞). Դ. Յովհաննես Կլիմաքոս”, Հանդէս ամսօրեայ (1947) [N. Akinian, “Simeon Pghindzahanetsi and his translations from Georgian (1188–1255): IV: John Clemax,” HA (1947)]: pp. 257–282. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշատակարաններ : ԺԳ դար, Կազմ. Ա. Ս. Մաթեւոսյան (Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՍՌ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիայի հրատարակչություն, 1984) [Commemorative inscriptions of Armenian manuscripts: 13th century, ed. A.S. Matevosyan (Yerevan: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1984)]. Մայր ցուցակ Հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անուան Մատենադարանի, I, կազմեցին՝ Օ. Եգանյան, Ա. Զեյթունյան, Փ. Անթաբյան, խմբագրությամբ՝ Ա. Մնացականյանի, Օ. Եգանյանի (Երեվան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն, 1984) [General catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of Mesrop Mashtots Matenadaran, I, compiled by O. Yeganyan, A. Zeitunyan, P. Antabyan, eds. A. Mnatsakanyan, O. Yeganyan (Erevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Science of Armenian SSR, 1984)].

630

ostrovsky

Ն. Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Սրբոց Յակոբեանց, հ. Գ (Երուսաղէմ,

1968) [N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, Vol. III (Jerusalem, 1968)]. Ն. Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Սրբոց Յակոբեանց, հ. Դ (Երուսաղէմ, 1969) [N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, Vol. IV (Jerusalem, 1969)]. Լ. Տեր-Պետրոսյան, “Փորձ հայ հին եւ միջնադարյան թարգմանական գրականության պարբերացման”, Էջմիածին 4 (1982) [Levon Ter-Petrosyan, “An attempt of periodization of the Ancient and Medieval translated Armenian literature”, Etchmiadzin 4 (1982)]: pp. 45–52. დოგმატიკონი, I = ანასტასი სინელი, წინამძღუარი, ტექსტი გამოსაცემად მოამზადეს ნ. ჩიკვატიამ, მ. რაფავამ და დ. შენგელიამ, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთეს ნ. ჩიკვატიამ და დ. შენგელიამ (თბილისი, 2015) [Dogmatikon, I = Anastasius of Sinai, Hodegos, eds. N. Chikvatia, M. Raphava, D. Shengelia (Tbilisi, 2015)]. დოგმატიკონი, II = ნიკიტა სტითატი, თხზულებანი, ხუთი პოლემიკური სიტყვისა და ეპოსტოლეთა ტექსტები გამოსაცემად მოამზადა და გამოკვლევა დაურთო მ. რაფავამ, ტექსტები „აღსავალთათჳს“, „სულისათჳს“ და „სა მოთხისათჳს“ გამოსაცემად მოამზადა და გამოკვლევა დაურთო მ. კასრაძემ, ლექსიკონი და საძიებლები მოამზადეს მ. რაფავამ და ნ. ჩიკვატიამ

(თბილისი: შპს „საჩინო“, 2013) [Dogmatikon, II = Nicetas Stethatos, Works, eds. M. Raphava, M. Kasradze, N. Chikvatia (Tbilisi, 2013)]. დოგმატიკონი, III = გამოკრებანი წამებათანი, ტექსტი გამოსაცემად მოამზადა, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთო დ. შენგელიამ (თბილისი, 2015) [Dogmatikon, III = Doctrina Patrum, ed. D. Shengelia (Tbilisi, 2015)]. იოანე დამასკელი, დიალექტიკა, ქართული თარგმანების ტექსტი გამოსცა, გამოკვლევა და ლექსიკონი დაურთო მაია რაფავამ (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1976) [John of Damascus, Dialectics, tr. and ed. M. Raphava (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1976)]. ი. ლოლაშვილი, არსენ იყალთოელი : ცხოვრება და მოღვაწეობა (თბილისი: მეცნიერება, 1978) [Ivane Lolashvili, Arsen Iqaltoeli: life and deeds (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1978)]. მ. ლორთქიფანიძე, დ. მუსხელიშვილი, რ. მეტრეველი, საქართველოს ისტორია, ტ. II: საქართველო IV საუკუნიდან XIII საუკუნემდე (თბილისი, 2012) [M. Lortkipanidze, D. Muskhelishvili, R. Metreveli, History of Georgia, Vol. II: Georgia from the fourth century until the thirteenth century (Tbilisi, 2012)]. ა. ოსტროვსკი, “„დოგმატიკონის“ S-1463 ხელნაწერის დათარიღებისა და შედგენილობისათვის”, მრავალთავი 24 (2015) [A. Ostrovsky, “On the dating and the content of the Dogmatikon manuscript S-1463”, Mravaltavi 24 (2015)]: pp. 110–128. თ. ჟორდანია, ქრონიკები (ტფილისი: სტამბა მ. შარაძისა, 1892) [T. Zhordania,

one episode from the history of the georgian codex s-1463

631

Chronicles (Tiflis: M. Sharade’s Press, 1892)] (reprint: თ. ჟორდანია, ქრონიკები, I (თბილისი: არტანუჯი, 2004) [T. Zhordania, Chronicles, I (Tbilisi: Artanuji, 2004)]). მ. რაფავა, “იოანე მთავარაისძე, შავი მთის ქართველი მოღვაწე”, წახნაგი : ფილოლოგიურ კვლევათა წელიწდეული, 1 (2009) [M. Raphava, “Ioane Mtavaraisdze, a Georgian figure from the Black Mountain”, Tsakhnagi: An annual of philological studies 1 (2009)]: pp. 128–138. ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა : ყოფილი ქართველთა შორის წერა-კითხვის გამავრცელებელი საზოგადოების (S) კოლექციისა, ტ. II, შედგენილია და დასაბეჭდად მომზადებული ა. ბაქრაძის, თ. ბრეგაძის, ე. მეტრეველისა და მზ. შანიძის მიერ, ე. მეტრეველის რედაქციით (თბილსი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1961) [Description of Georgian manuscripts: The collection of Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians (S), II, eds. A. Bakradze, T. Bregadze, E. Metreveli and M. Shanidze, ed. in chief E. Metreveli (Tbilisi: Press of the Academy of Science of Georgian SSR, 1961)]. ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა : ყოფილი ქართველთა შორის წერა-კითხვის გამავრცელებელი საზოგადოების (S) კოლექციისა, ტ. IV, შედგენილია და დასაბეჭდად დამზადებული თ. ბრეგაძის, ლ. კიკნაძის, მ. ქავთარიას, ლ. ქაჯაიას, მ. შანიძის, ქრ. შარაშიძის და ც. ჭანკიევის მიერ, ე. მეტრეველის რედაქციით (თბილსი: მეცნიერება, 1965) [Description of Georgian manuscripts: The collection of Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians (S), Vol. IV, eds. T. Bregadze, L. Kiknadze, M. Kavtaria, L. Kajaia, M. Shanidze, Ch. Sharashidze and Ts. Chankieva, ed. in chief E. Metreveli (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1961)]. ლ. ქაჯაია, პუნქტუაცია V–XII საუკუნეების ქართულ ხელნაწერებში, სადისერტაციო შრომა ფილოლოგიის მეცნიერებათა კანდიდატის სამეცნიერო ხარისხის მოსაპოვებლად (თბილისი, 1969) [L. Kajaia, Punctuation in Georgian manuscripts of 5th–12th centuries, diss. Candidate in Philology (Tbilisi, 1969)]. ნ. ჩიკვატია, „‘დოგმატიკონის’ ხელნაწერი კრებულები (S 1463 ნუსხასთან მათი მიმართების ცხრილი)“, მრავალთავი XX (2003) [N. Chikvatia, “Dogmatikon manuscripts (a table of their correspondences to the manuscript S-1463)”, Mravaltavi XX (2003)]: pp. 81–85. ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა (ქუთაისის სახელმწიფო ისტორიული მუზეუმი), ტ. I, შედგენილია და დაბეჭდად მომზადებული მუზეუმის მეცნიერი მუშაკის ე. ნიკოლაძის მიერ, რედაქტორი საქართველოს სსრ მეცნ. აკად. ნამდვილი წევრი პროფ. კ. კეკელიძე (თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1953) [Description of manuscripts (Kutaisi State Museum of History), Vol. I, ed. E. Nikoladze, ed. in chief K. Kekelidze (Tbilisi: Press of the Academy of Science of Georgian SSR, 1953)]. Вл. Гордлевский, Государство сельджукидов в Малой Азии (Труды Института Востоковедения, XXXIX; М.-Л.: Издательство АН СССР, 1941) [Vl. Gordlevsky, The

632

ostrovsky

state of seljuks in Asia Minor (Proceedings of Oriental Institute, XXXIX; MoscowLeningrad: Publishing house of Academy of Science of SSSR, 1941)]. М. Рапава, “«Догматикон», догматико-полемический сборник Арсения Икалтоели (ХI в.)”, in XVI Ежегодная богословская конференция ПСТГУ. Материалы, Том 1 (Москва: ПСТГУ, 2006) [M. Raphava, “Dogmatikon, a dogmatic and polemic anthology of Arsen Iqaltoeli (the 11th c.),” in XVI Annual Theological Conference of STOU. Papers, Vol. 1 (Moscow: STOU, 2006)]: pp. 234–237.

chapter 25

Gregory the Armenian in Coptic Liturgical Books Youhanna Nessim Youssef

Gregory the Armenian, also known as Gregory the Illuminator, played an important role in introducing Christianity to Armenia.1 Surprisingly, the entry of Gregory the Armenian in the Coptic Encyclopedia does not give any indication of his veneration in the Coptic Church.2 In the book History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, we read: Then he met the father, Abba Cyril the Patriarch, and honoured him and rejoiced with him, and he (Gregory) confessed to him the upright Orthodox faith which is our faith, in the company of the Jacobites in the presence of the great multitude which was assembled at the cell of our father Abba Cyril the Patriarch. And on that day it was made known amongst all the people, the genuineness of the agreement between the Copts, the Armenians, the Syrians, the Abyssinians and the Nubians concerning the upright Orthodox faith, on which the saintly, virtuous fathers agreed.3 This faith is reflected in the veneration of Gregory the Armenian. Despite the fact that there are no relics of Gregory in Egypt,4 his following dates back as early as the seventh century in Egypt. In this paper, we will provide an overview of the different texts related to this saint.

1 J.-P. Mahé, “Affirmation de l’ Arménie chrétienne (vers 301–590),” in Histoire du peuple arménien, ed. G. Dédéyan (Paris: Privat, 2008): pp. 164–168; V.N. Nersessian “Armenian Christianity,” in The Blackwell companion to Eastern Christianity, ed. K. Parry (Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2007): pp. 23–47. 2 Archbishop Basilios, “Gregory the Illuminator, saint,” in Coptic Encyclopaedia, ed. A.S. Atiya, Vol. 4 (New York: MacMillan, 1991): pp. 1183a–1183b. 3 A.S. Atiya, Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church known as the History of the Holy Church by Sawirus Ibn al-Mukaffa’, Textes et Documents, Vol. II, part III (Le Caire: Société d’ Archéologie Copte, 1959), pp. 219–220 (text), pp. 345–346 (translation). 4 Even in Armenia P. Maraval did not mention any pilgrimage centre; P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Paris: Cerf, 1985), pp. 374–375.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_027

634 A

youssef

Gregory the Armenian in the Coptic Calendar

The first attestation of the veneration of Gregory the Armenian in Egypt occurs in a liturgical calendar in the seventh century, dating 15 Kîhak.5 Gregory the Armenian is commemorated in the Synaxarion6 of the Coptic Church on three days: 19 Tût (16 September Julian), which is also the same date as his commemoration in eastern Churches, 3 Bâbah (30 September Julian), and 15 Kîhak.7 It is worth mentioning that the 30 September is the commemoration of Gregory the Armenian in the Eastern Churches. The extra two dates seem to commemorate two Gregory patriarchs of Armenia (c. 118 and 129) who also came to Egypt. The dates of 19 Tût, 3 Bâbah and 15 Kîhak are not mentioned in the Ménologes. There is another date of 30 Tût,10 however, it is attested in Ms Arab 15 of the Vatican on 3 Bâbah and 15 Kîhak.11 The fragment Barberini based on the Synaxrion gives three commemoration dates.12 Another manuscript from the Victor Emanuel Library, dated 1343AD, mentions the feasts of 3 Bâbah and 15 Kîhak.13 Abû al-Barakât did not include the date of 19 Tût in his calendar, but he mentioned the dates of 3 Bâbah, 15 Kîhak14 and also another date on 30 Tût.15 5 6

7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

A. Papaconstantinou, Le Culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbasides, l’apport des inscriptions et des papyrus grecs et coptes (Paris: CNRS, 2001), pp. 72–73. For a study of the different versions of this liturgical book, cf. R.G. Coquin, “Le Synaxaire des Coptes, un nouveau témoin de la récension de la Haute Égypte,” AB 96 (1977): pp. 351– 365. For this book cf. G. Colin, “Le Synaxaire éthiopien: état actuel de la question,” AB 106 (1988): pp. 273–317. R. Basset, Le Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite (PO 1, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904), pp. 280 [66]– 281 [67], 315 [101]; R. Basset, Le Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite (PO 3, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907), pp. 465 [389]–468 [392]; J. Forget, Synaxarium Alexandrinum (CSCO 3; Paris: Carolus Poussielgue, 1905), pp. 30, 49, 160. Atiya, ʿAbd al-Masih, KHS-Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian, p. 219 (text), 344 (translation). A. Khater, O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church known as the History of the Holy Church by Sawirus Ibn al-Mukaffa’, Textes et Documents, Vol. III, part I (Le Caire: Société d’ Archéologie Copte, 1968), pp. 7, 20, 29, 32–33 (text), pp. 12, 21–22, 31, 47 (translation). F. Nau, Les Ménologes des évangéliaires Coptes-Arabes (PO 10, fasc. 2; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1915), pp. 188 [24]–189 [25], 195 [31], 211 [47]. Nau, Les Ménologes des évangéliaires, pp. 211 [47], 212 [48]. Nau, Les Ménologes des évangéliaires, p. 223 [59]. Nau, Les Ménologes des évangéliaires, pp. 225 [61]–226 [62]. E. Tisserant, Le calendrier d’Aboul-Barakat (PO 10, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1915), pp. 254 [10]–255 [11], 260[16]. Tisserant, Le calendrier, p. 255 [11].

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

635

The calendar of the Muslim author Qalqašandî did not include any veneration to this saint under any day.16

B

Gregory the Armenian in the Other Liturgical Books17

The Actual Euchologion The name of Saint Gregory of Armenia occurs in the Coptic Euchologion. We will refer to the best edition of this book prepared by Abd al-Masih Salib and printed by Claudius Labib,18 which is considered as being the most adequate and critical edition.19 In the Commemoration of Saints in the Liturgy of Saint Basil, his name is mentioned after the Cappadocian bishops Basil, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory the Miracle-Performer. He is followed by some of those who attended the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.20 The Antiphonarion (Difnar) The Difnar (Antiphonarion) is a liturgical book.21 It mentions for the days of 19 Tût, 3 Bâbah, and 15 Kîhak. We provide here the text according to the manuscript from Harit Zuwayla that is preserved in the Coptic Museum:22

16 17

18

19 20

21

22

R.G. Coquin, “Le calendrier Copte des Fêtes de saints chez al-Qalqašandî,”Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975): pp. 387–411. For these books cf. H. Malak, “Les Livres Liturgiques de l’Eglise Copte,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant III (Studi e testi 233; Vatican, 1964): pp. 1–35; U. Zanetti, “Bohairic Liturgical Manuscripts,” OCP 60 (1995): pp. 65–94. Abd al-Masih Salib, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲭⲟⲗⲟⲅⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲫⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯϣⲟⲙϯ ⲛⲁⲛⲁⲫⲟⲣⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲃⲁⲥⲓⲗⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲗⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲁⲃ (Cairo, 1902): the book of the Holy Euchologion which is the book of the three anaphorae of St. Basil, St. Gregory and St. Cyril and other holy prayers; hereafter Euch, 1902. U. Zanetti, “Esquisse d’ une typologie des Euchologes Coptes Bohaïriques,” Le Muséon 100 (1987): pp. 407–418. Euch 1902, pp. 352–362; A. Budde, Die ägyptsche Basilios-Anaphora, Text—Kommentar— Geschichte (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 7; Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2004), pp. 182–183. Cf. G. Gabra, “Untersuchungen zum Difnar der koptischen Kirche. I. Quellenlage, Forschungsgeschichte und künftige Aufgaben,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 35 (1996): pp. 37–52; Idem. “Untersuchungen zum Difnar der koptischen Kirche. II. Zur Kompilation,” Bulletin de la Société d’ Archéologie Copte 37 (1998): pp. 49–68. For this manuscript, cf. N. Mekhaiel, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichte des koptischen Difnars (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 14; Munster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2010), pp. 42–47.

636

youssef ‫ التاسع عشر من شهر توت تذكار القديس‬The nineteenth of the month of Tût the ‫ اغريغور يوس بطر يرك الارمن‬commemoration of Saint Gregory the Patriarch of the Armenians23

ⲯⲁⲗⲓ ⲏⲭⲟⲥ ⲁⲇⲁⲙ

Psali tune Adam24

ⲑⲱⲟⲩϯ ⲛⲉⲙⲏⲓ `ⲙⲫⲟⲟⲩ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲓⲟϯ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉⲣⲫⲙⲉⲩ`ⲓ ⲉⲧⲥⲱⲧⲡ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏⲉⲣⲉⲩⲥ

Assemble with me today O my fathers and my brethren in the chosen commemoration of the high priest

ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲟϩⲓ ⲉⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲅⲣⲓⲅⲟⲩⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲟⲥ

The great shepherd of the holy flock who is Gregory the Armenian

ⲁϥⲉⲣⲫⲟⲣⲓⲛ `ⲙⲡⲓⲭⲗⲟⲙ `ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲙⲉⲧ⳥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲅⲣⲓⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧⲉϥⲃⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲑ̅ⲩ̅

Gregory the Great wore the crown of martyrdom in his holy life

ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ `ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲁⲛⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ϯⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲧⲏⲣⲥ `ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲉⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲁϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲓ `ⲙⲡϭ̅ⲥ̅

He became a shepherd over the whole country of Armenia by the order of the Lord

ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛⲓϣϯ He built churches in great glory and pre`ⲛⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲭⲱ `ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ `ⲛⲛⲓⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ `ⲛⲁⲡⲟ- served in them the apostolic laws. ⲥⲧⲟⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲁⲩⲁϣⲁⲓ ⲉϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲡⲓϣⲱ ⲉⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲥⲓⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ `ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲡⲓ ⲉⲩϩⲓⲉⲃⲣⲏϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

They (the churches) became numerous more that the sands of the sea and the bright stars that are innumerable

ⲁⲩϩⲓⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲓⲣⲓ `ⲛⲛⲓⲁⲣⲉⲧⲏ ⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲓ `ⲛⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ `ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ

They became eager to practice the virtues he modelled to them like Paul (the Apostle).

23 24

D.L. O’Leary, The Difnar (Antiphonarium) of the Coptic Church, Vol. 1 (London: Luzac, 1926), p. 17. Adam: The tone to which hymns are sung on Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays. The name is taken from the first stanza of the Theotokia for Monday “Adam was yet sorrowful of heart …”

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

637

ⲁⲩϣⲱⲡⲓ ϩⲓ ⲡϣⲁϥⲉ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲉⲩϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ `ⲛϫⲱⲣϩ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲙⲉⲣⲓ

They dwelt in the deserts with holy congregations singing to Christ the King, night and day

ⲁϥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲙⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲉϥϫⲟⲥ `ⲙⲡⲁⲓⲣⲏϯ

The holy prophetic word was fulfilled in him which thus says:

`ⲛⲧϣⲉⲃⲓⲱ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲓⲟϯ ⲉⲩⲉϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲁⲕ `ⲛϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲉⲕⲉⲭⲁⲩ `ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲕⲁϩⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ

“Instead of fathers there will be children and you will put them as leaders on the whole earth”25

ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲉϥⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲙⲟⲓ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲕϩⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲕⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

Through his prayers, Christ our Saviour grant us Your peace according to Your great mercy.

Commentary There is no biographical information, thus the text can apply to any saint. The loan Greek words (here in Italics) are very common in Coptic texts. `ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲟⲛ ⲏⲭⲟⲥ ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ

To him also tune Batos26

ⲑⲱⲟⲩϯ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲛ `ⲙⲫⲟⲟⲩ ϧⲁ ⲛⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ `ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲑⲉⲗⲏⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲉⲣⲫⲙⲉⲩ`ⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩ ⲅⲣⲓⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏⲥ ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥⲉⲣϩⲱⲃ `ⲛⲛⲓϣⲫⲏⲣⲓ `ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ `ⲛⲛⲓⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧϫⲟⲙ `ⲛϯⲑⲣⲓⲁⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅

Assemble you all with us today O people of Christ in order to rejoice in the commemoration of the great shepherd Gregory the Patriarch who worked miracles like the Apostles by the power of the Holy Trinity

ⲑⲁⲣⲇⲉⲇ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲓⲍⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ϫⲉ `ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲉⲙ `ⲛⲥⲱϥ `ⲛⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ `ⲛⲛⲓⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ

Tiridates, the impious king tortured him for he refused to obey him in worshipping idols

`ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲓⲛ ⲉϩⲓⲧϥ ⲉϧⲣⲏⲓ ⲉⲡⲓⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲟⲩ ⲛϧⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓϩⲕⲟ ⲛⲉⲙ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓ`ⲓⲃⲓ

So he ordered to be thrown into the pit in order to die of hunger and thirst

25 26

Ps 45:16. The tune to which hymns are sung on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The name is taken from the first verse of the Theotokia of Thursday: “Bush which Moses saw in the desert.”

638

youssef

ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ `ⲙⲓ̅ⲉ̅ `ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ `ⲛⲭⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲁϥϥⲓⲣⲱⲟⲩϣ ϧⲁⲣⲟϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩϧⲉⲗⲗⲱ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲣⲱⲟⲩⲧ

He was in that pit for fifteen years of time and Christ cared for him through a blessed old woman

ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲧⲟⲗⲙⲁⲛ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ ⲁϥⲁⲙⲟⲛⲓ `ⲛⲛⲓⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲧⲓⲙⲱⲣⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲥⲟⲡ

And the impious king also dared to arrest the holy virgins and torture all of them

ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥϧⲱⲧⲉⲃ `ⲛϯⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲓⲙⲁ ⲑⲏⲉⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ `ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲉ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ϯϣⲉⲗⲉⲧ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅

And he also killed the wise, holy, virgin saint Aripsima, the bride of Christ

ⲁϥⲉⲣⲙⲕⲁϩ `ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲙⲁϣⲱ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ϯⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲩⲙⲁ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉϭⲓⲧⲥ ⲛⲁϥ `ⲛⲟⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲓ

The evil, lawless king became extremely sorrowful for Saint Aripsima for he wanted to take her as a wife

ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧⲥ ⲁ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ̅ ⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ `ⲓ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ And because of her, an evil spirit came ⲥⲁϧⲟⲩⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲕⲟⲗⲁⲍⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϧⲉⲛ and possessed him, punishing him with many tortures. ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ `ⲙⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲧⲱⲃϩ `ⲙⲡϭ̅ⲥ̅ Our holy father Gregory prayed to the ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ϩⲓⲛⲁ `ⲛⲧⲉϥϯ ⲛⲁϥ `ⲛⲧⲉϥⲥⲁⲣⲝ Lord in order to restore his body to that which He had created ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥⲑⲁⲙⲓⲟϥ ⲛϧⲏⲧϥ ⲁϥⲥⲱⲧⲉⲙ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡϭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉⲡⲧⲱⲃϩ `ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁϥ `ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ `ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ ⲛⲓⲃⲉⲛ27 `ⲛⲉϥϫⲓϫ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲣⲁⲧϥ

The Lord heard the request of our father Gregory and restored his body but without nails in his hands and feet

ⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲛⲁϩϯ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲉϥⲏⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ `ⲛϯⲉⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ `ⲛϣⲟⲩⲧⲁⲓⲟϥ

The king believed and all his house and the people of Armenia, through (the prayers of) our holy and most honourable father Gregory

27

Read ⲛⲓⲓⲉⲃ.

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

639

ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲁⲧⲥⲁϣϫⲓ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲭⲓⲣⲟⲧⲟⲛⲓⲛ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲏⲃ

He built for them churches in unspeakable glory and consecrated for them bishops and priests.

ⲁϥϫⲉⲕ ⲡⲉϥⲇⲣⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲉⲥ ⲁϥϯ ⲙⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ̅ ⲉⲛⲉⲛϫⲓϫ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧϥ

He completed his race at a good old (age) and gave up his spirit to the hand of Christ who loved him.

ⲧⲱⲃϩ `ⲙⲡ̅ϭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉϩⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲛ

Pray to the Lord on our behalf …

Commentary This text contains several historical features, such as the name of the King Tiridates who demanded the saint to worship idols. The name of the nun, Rhipsima, also appears in our text. It seems that the author of this text took the source of his information from the commemoration of Gregory the Armenian in the Synaxarion. ‫ الثالث من شهر بابه القديس اغريغور يوس وانبا‬The third of the month of Bâbah (com‫ سماون البطر يرك‬memorating) Saint Gregory and Anba Simon the Patriarch ⲯⲁⲗⲓ ⲏⲭⲟⲥ ⲁⲇⲁⲙ

Psali tune Adam

ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲛⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ `ⲛϯⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ ⲫⲟⲩⲱϣ `ⲙⲡϭ̅ⲥ̅

Gregory the great Bishop of Armenia by the will of the Lord.

Commentary The third of Bâbah corresponds to 30 September in the Julian Calendar, which is the date of his commemoration in the eastern Churches, however, we find only one stanza in the Difnar. The commemoration of the Patriarch Simon II surpassed this. ‫ الخامس عشر من كيهك تنيح القديس اغريغور يوس‬On the fifteenth of Kîhak reposed Saint ‫ بطر يرك الارمن‬Gregory the Patriarch of the Armenians ⲯⲁⲗⲓ ⲏⲭⲟⲥ ⲁⲇⲁⲙ

Psali tune Adam

ⲱ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲑⲛⲁϣⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲉⲡⲓⲁⲅⲱⲛ `ⲛϣⲫⲏⲣⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓ⳥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ

O who is able to utter about the fight of the great holy Saint Gregory the martyr

640

youssef

ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥϫⲟⲕⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲁⲩⲥⲉ- These (miracles) he accomplished ⲃⲏⲥ28 ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲛⲛⲁϩϯ ⲉϧⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ because of his piety and his great faith in Christ ⲓⲥϫⲉⲛ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲧⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁϥⲙⲉⲛⲣⲉ ϣⲉⲡϧⲓⲥⲓ Since his childhood he loved to endure ⲁϥⲧⲏⲓϥ ⲉⲩⲙⲉⲧⲃⲱⲕ `ⲛϧⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ sufferings, and gave himself up to slavery by his own will ⲉϥⲧⲉⲛⲑⲱⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲡⲉⲛϭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉⲧⲁϥϭⲓ ⲙⲟⲣⲫⲏ `ⲙⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ

Resembling our Lord Jesus who took the form of a servant for our salvation

ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓϧⲓⲥⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϥϣⲟⲡⲟⲩ ϧⲁⲣⲟⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲁϥⲁⲓⲧⲉⲛ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙϩⲉ

And all the sufferings that He received by His own holy will and He freed us

ⲁϥⲧⲏⲓϥ ϩⲱϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓⲭⲉⲧ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲉⲡϧⲓⲥⲓ `ⲛⲛⲓⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲥⲱϯ `ⲛⲛⲓⲃⲁⲣⲃⲁⲣⲟⲥ

And this other Gregory the Great also received sufferings of tortures and he saved the Barbarians

ⲁϥⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲉϧⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲫⲛⲁϩϯ `ⲛϯⲑⲣⲓⲁⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ϣⲁⲧⲟⲩⲉⲣⲡⲉⲙϣⲁ `ⲙⲡⲭⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ `ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟⲃⲓ

He brought them to the faith of the Holy Trinity so that they became worthy of having their sins forgiven

ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲛⲱⲟⲩ He built churches in great glory and preserved within them the apostolic laws.29 ⲁϥⲭⲱ `ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ `ⲛⲛⲓⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ `ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲁⲩⲁϣⲁⲓ ⲉϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲡⲓϣⲱ ⲉⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲥⲓⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ `ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲡⲓ ⲉⲩϩⲓⲉⲃⲣⲏϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

They (the churches) became numerous more that the sands of the sea and the bright stars that are innumerable

ⲁⲩϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲁϫⲓ `ⲛⲇⲁⲩⲓⲇ ϫⲉ `ⲛⲧϣⲉⲃⲓⲱ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲓⲟϯ ⲉⲩⲉϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲁⲕ `ⲛϫⲉ ϩⲁⲛϣⲏⲣⲓ

The words of David were fulfilled in him: “Instead of parents you will have children.”

ⲉⲧⲁϥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ `ⲙⲡⲉϥϣⲉⲙϣⲓ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲁϥ`ⲙⲧⲟⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲓ̅ⲉ̅ `ⲛⲭⲟⲩⲓⲁⲕ

He completed his holy service and rested on the 15th of Kîhak

ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲉⲩⲭⲏ

Through the prayers

28 29

Read ⲙⲉⲧⲉⲩⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ. This stanza and the following one is mentioned in the commemoration of 19 Tût.

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

641

Commentary The text above does not contain biographical data, however, the most important part is the last stanza that states the commemoration day for resting is on the 15 Kîhak. `ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲟⲛ ⲏⲭⲟⲥ ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ

To him also tune Batos

ⲑⲱⲟⲩϯ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲛ `ⲙⲫⲟⲟⲩ ϧⲁ ⲛⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ Assemble you all with us today O people `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ `ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲑⲉⲗⲏⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲉⲣⲫⲙⲉⲩ`ⲓ of Christ in order to rejoice in the com`ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ `ⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩ memoration of the great shepherd ⲉⲧⲉ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲣⲭⲏⲥ ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁGregory the Patriarch who performed ϥⲉⲣϩⲱⲃ `ⲛⲛⲓϣⲫⲏⲣⲓ `ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ `ⲛⲛⲓⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟ- miracles like the Apostles by the power of the Holy Trinity ⲗⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧϫⲟⲙ `ⲛϯⲑⲣⲓⲁⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲑⲁⲣⲇⲉⲇ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲃⲁⲥⲁⲛⲓⲍⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ϫⲉ `ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲉⲙ `ⲛⲥⲱϥ `ⲛⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ `ⲛⲛⲓⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ

Tiridates, the impious king tortured him for he did not obey him in worshipping idols

`ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲉⲣⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲓⲛ ⲉϩⲓⲧϥ ⲉϧⲣⲏⲓ ⲉⲡⲓⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲟⲩ ⲛϧⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓϩⲕⲟ ⲛⲉⲙ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓ`ⲓⲃⲓ

So he ordered to throw him in the pit so that he die of hunger and thirst

ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ `ⲙⲓ̅ⲉ̅ `ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ `ⲛⲭⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲁϥϥⲓⲣⲱⲟⲩϣ ϧⲁⲣⲟϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩϧⲉⲗⲗⲱ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲣⲱⲟⲩⲧ

He was in that pit for fifteen years of times and Christ cared for him through a blessed old woman

And also the king killed Rhipsima and ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥϧⲱⲧⲉⲃ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲁⲣⲉⲯⲩⲙⲁ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲁ ⲫϯ ϫⲱⲛⲧ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ the virgins. God was angry with him and ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁϥⲁⲓϥ `ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ `ⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲣ ⲧⲱⲟⲩ made him (the king) like a wild swine ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲁ ⲡⲏⲓ `ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲓⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁⲩϫⲓⲙⲓ `ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲁϥⲟⲛϧ ⲁⲩⲣⲁϣⲓ ⲁⲩϯⲱⲟⲩ `ⲙⲫϯ

When those of the house of the king saw these (things) they went to the pit and found our father living, they were happy and glorified God

642

youssef

ⲁⲩ`ⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲁϥ `ⲙⲡⲓⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲁϥⲉϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁϥⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉϥϣⲱⲛⲓ ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ ⲛⲓⲓⲉⲃ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ

They brought him (Gregory) to the king. He prayed for him (the king) and he was healed from his sickness; except for his nail in his body

ⲁϥⲛⲁϩϯ30 ⲉⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ̅ ⲛϫⲉ ϯⲉⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ31 ⲧⲏⲣⲥ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲁϥⲫⲱϣ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ

All Armenia believe in Christ Jesus and he (Gregory) built for them churches and ordained clergy

ⲁϥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲁϫⲓ `ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲇⲁⲩⲓⲇ ⲉⲩⲉϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲁⲕ `ⲛϫⲉ ϩⲁⲛϣⲏⲣⲓ `ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲕⲁϩⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ

The word of our father David was fulfilled in him: “Instead of fathers you will have children as leaders upon the whole earth.”

ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϧⲉⲛ He also built for them churches of indescribable glory and consecrated for them ⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲁⲧⲥⲁϣϫⲓ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲉⲣbishops and priests. ⲭⲓⲣⲟⲧⲟⲛⲓⲛ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲏⲃ ⲁϥϫⲉⲕ ⲡⲉϥⲇⲣⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲉⲥ ⲁϥϯ ⲙⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ̅ ⲉⲛⲉⲛϫⲓϫ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧϥ

He completed his race at a ripe old (age). He gave up his spirit into the hand of Christ whom loved him.

ⲧⲱⲃϩ `ⲙⲡ̅ϭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉϩⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲛ

Pray to the Lord on our behalf …

Commentary The first three and last three stanzas are taken from the Difnar of 19 Tût. The middle part is an allusion to the commemoration of the Virgin Rhipsima, venerated on 29 Tût. It could be possible that this date led to the confusion with the date of Gregory who is to be commemorated on 19 Tût. The Turuhat We will provide in full the description of the Catalogue of Simaika: Ms 323 Liturgy32 Ṯurûẖât for the feasts of the months of Tût, Bâbah and Hâtûr, incomplete at the end Copto-Arabic.

30 31 32

Read ⲁⲥⲛⲁϩϯ. Read ⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ. This Manuscript is not catalogued by Graf in his catalogue of the Manuscripts of Cairo.

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

643

273 folios, 20 lines, 24×16cm, Simple frontispiece at the beginning. Folio mutilated. Titles in red. Folios restored. Some of the Turûhât taken from the “Difnar.” The title runs as follows: “The Antiphonal binding with a flap. XVth century.”33 As we see, the text below is not taken from the Difnar. In his essential article, O.H.E. Burmester published the first stanza and gave the number of stanzas.34 ‫ تاسع عشر توت اغريغوروس‬The nineteenth of Tût. ‫ بطر يرك الارمن لحن ادام‬Gregory Patriarch of the Armenians, tune Adam. ⲟⲛⲧⲱⲥ ⲁⲕⲉⲣⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲛⲓⲃⲁⲑⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲟⲩⲧ ⲉⲙⲁϣⲱ ⲉϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲱ ⲡⲓⲙⲉⲑⲣⲉ `ⲛϣⲟⲩⲧⲁⲓⲟϥ ϧⲉⲛ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ `ⲛⲁⲧⲫⲱⲛ `ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲫⲏⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲅⲣⲓⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ

‫ بالحقيقة استحققت اعلا الدرج‬In truth you are worthy ‫ المكرمة جدا ً افضل من العالم‬of the most honourable degrees of the world ‫ ايها الشهيد المكرم بغير سفك‬O most honoured witness ‫ دم الممدوح بالغبطة القديس‬in mortal wounds, with‫ اغريغور يوس‬out bloodshed, the holy Gregory

ϫⲉ `ⲛⲑⲟⲕ ⲁⲕⲉⲣⲁⲥⲕⲓⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ϯⲉⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ35 ⲁⲕϥⲁⲓ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲩⲗⲁⲍⲓⲛ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲑⲉⲟⲗⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁ

‫ لانك بعبدت في ارمنية واحتملت‬For you practised ascetism ‫ العقو بة‬in Armenia you, endured punishment because (you) were worshipping God 36

ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲑⲁⲣⲇⲏⲧ ⲁⲕⲭⲁⲕ37 ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲗⲁⲕⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩⲓ ⲉϥⲥⲁⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ `ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲕⲱⲥ

‫ من اجل طرداد الملك من اجل‬Because of the evil king ‫ عبادتك وضعوك في الاشرار في‬Tiridates, the evil (ones) ‫ جب اسفل الارض‬threw you down in to the pit of the earth38

33

34 35 36 37 38

M. Simaika, Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the Principal Churches of Cairo and Alexandria and the Monasteries of Egypt, Vol. 1 (Cairo: Publications of the Coptic Museum, 1939), p. 84, Serial Number 171. O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, “The Turûhat of the Saints,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 4 (1938): here p. 158. Read ⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁ. This word is absent from Lampe. The last three words are absent from the Arabic version. Read ⲁⲩⲭⲁⲕ. The Arabic render is different: “For because of your piety, that the King Tiridates, (and) the evil (ones) threw you in a pit under the earth.”

644

youssef

ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧϥ ⲁⲗⲏⲓ ⲉⲣⲟϥ `ⲛ39 ⲟⲩⲇⲉⲙⲱⲛ ⲉϥϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲁ ⲡϭ̅ⲥ̅ ϭⲓⲃϯ40 `ⲙⲙⲟϥ `ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ `ⲛⲟⲩⲉϣⲁⲩ ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲣⲁⲟⲩⲱⲕ41 ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲁϥⲁⲥⲓⲱⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲟⲣⲡⲕ ⲉⲡⲓⲙⲁⲛⲉⲥⲱⲟⲩ

ⲣⲱⲙⲏ ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲗⲉⲱⲛⲧⲓⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲧⲁϩⲟⲕ `ⲛⲟⲩⲁⲣⲭⲏⲥ ⲉϯⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲁⲥ

‫ وللوقت ركبه شيطانا شر ير غير‬On the spot, an evil demon ‫ الرب شكله مثل خنز يز‬possessed him. The Lord changed him so that he became like a swine ‫ فحيبيذ احضروك اليه فعوفي‬Therefore they brought ‫ وارسلك الى ابينا لانديوس راعي‬you (Gregory) to him (the king). He was healed and he sent you to shepherd ‫ مدينة رومية اقامك بطر يركا علي‬Rome the city, our father ‫ ارمينيا‬Leontius consecrated you as a leader of Armenia

ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛϩⲱⲥ `ⲙⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ϩⲓ ⲡⲉⲕ‫فلنسبح المسيح في تذكارك ونصرخ‬ ϫⲓⲛⲉⲣⲙⲉⲩ`ⲓ ⲉⲛⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ‫جهرا ثمار تعاليمك‬ ⲣⲏⲧⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲟⲩⲧⲁϩ `ⲛⲛⲉⲕⲥⲃⲱⲟⲩⲓ ϫⲉ ⲱⲟⲩⲛⲓⲁⲧⲕ `ⲛⲑⲟⲕ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲏⲉⲧϧⲁⲑⲟⲩⲱⲕ ⲛⲉⲛⲓⲟϯ `ⲛⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ

Let us praise Christ in your commemoration saying also in the fruit of your teachings.

‫“ قايلين طو باك يا ابينا اغريغور يوس‬Blessed are you our father ‫ مع اباينا القديسين اصحابك‬Gregory and your brethren our saintly fathers.”

ⲱⲟⲩⲛⲓⲁⲧⲕ ⲱ ⲡⲓⲥⲏⲓⲛⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲏⲉⲧϩⲉⲙⲕⲏⲟⲩⲧ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲓⲣⲓ `ⲛϩⲛⲙⲏⲓⲛⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲛⲉⲕϩⲃⲏⲟⲩⲓ ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲩⲃⲏⲟⲩⲧ

‫ طو باك يا طبيب كل المعذبين‬Blessed are you, O physi‫ لانك صنعت الايات باعمالك‬cian of the afflicted (ones) ‫ الـكر يمة‬for you did marvels with you pure deeds

ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲧⲉⲕⲁⲑⲗⲓⲥⲓⲥ `ⲛⲛⲓϣϯ ⲉⲛⲉⲥⲱϥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲉⲕⲥⲩⲛⲏⲇⲉⲥⲓⲥ ⲁⲕⲉⲣⲡⲉⲙⲡϣⲁ `ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ

‫ من اجل نيتك وجهادك الحسن‬Because of your great, ‫ استحقيت الفرح في مدينة‬good struggle and your consciousness, you became worthy to joy

39 40 41

Read `ⲛϫⲉ. Read ϣⲓⲃϯ. This pronominal form is not attested in Crum.

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books ϧⲉⲛ ⲓ̅ⲗ̅ⲏ̅ⲙ̅ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓ⳥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲑⲙⲏⲓ `ⲛⲁⲧⲕⲓⲙ ϣⲁ ⲡϫⲱⲕ `ⲛⲛⲓⲭⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ

645

‫ يروشليم مع الشهدا والا برار بغير‬of Jerusalem together ‫ زوال الى كمال الازمان‬with the martyrs and the unshakable, righteous ones, till the end of ages ‫ بصلوات‬Through the (prayers) …

ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ

Commentary While all the sources attest that he was consecrated by Leontius Bishop of Cappadocia, our text instead mentions Leontius of Rome. The Arabic is sometimes different from the Coptic text, and it seems that the translation was made separately. The Greek loan words in Coptic are sometimes not attested even in the Patristic lexicon. (The Doxology) There is also no Doxology42 that Batos dedicated to Saint Gregory.43 The Psali There is no Psali44 for Gregory the Armenian, however, his name is mentioned in a Psali for the Virgin Mary: ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲉⲙ ⲉⲛⲓⲥⲁϧ `ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲛⲓⲣⲉϥⲃⲉⲃⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲉⲩϫⲱ `ⲙⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ `ⲛϯⲡⲁⲛⲁⲅⲓⲁ ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ

I heard the teachers of the church, the fountains of wisdom, speak of the honour of the all-holy Virgin Mary

ⲃⲁⲥⲓⲗⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲣⲉⲙ`ⲛⲕⲁϯ ⲁϥϫⲱ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲉⲑⲃⲏϯ ϫⲉ ⲁ ⲡⲁϩⲏⲧ ⲓⲱⲣⲉⲙ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩϩⲟϯ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥϭⲓⲥⲁⲣⲝ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ `ⲛϧⲏϯ

Basil the Wise uttered honours concerning you: “My heart was amazed with awe for He who was incarnated of you (Mary).”

42

43 44

The word doxology is composed from two Greek words: “Doxa” meaning “good report, glory”; and “logos” meaning “word, expression”. Hence the combined meaning is “the expression of glory.” The doxology is a hymn used in the Coptic Church to commemorate an event or a church personality. It is usually a short hymn of 5–10 stanzas. Y. ʿAbd Al-Masih, “Doxologies in the Coptic Church,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 8 (1942): here pp. 37, 41, 59. The psalis are hymns recited before the Odes and the Theotokia. The psalis could be sung with the Adam tune or with the Batos tune. cf. Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, “Remarks on the psalis of the Coptic Church,” Bulletin de l’ Institut des études coptes 1 (1958): pp. 85–100.

646

youssef

ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲑⲉⲟⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲅⲣⲏⲅⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲑⲁⲩ- Gregory the Theologian, Gregory the ⲙⲁⲧⲟⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲅⲣⲏⲣⲟⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲁⲣⲙⲉⲛⲓⲟⲥ ⲁⲩϫⲱ wonder-maker, Gregory the Armenian `ⲛⲛⲉⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲥⲙⲟⲥ spoke of your blessedness.

The Coptic Lectionary45 In the Coptic Lectionary, the liturgical readings of 19 Tût, which is the first commemoration of Gregory the Armenian, did not mention anything about the saint as this is the third day of the feast of the glorious Cross.46 The readings of the first feast are consecrated for foreign bishops such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory the Armenian, Sylvester of Rome, Paul of Antioch, Liberius of Rome, Felix of Rome, Gregory the Thaumaturgus, Peter of Edessa, Eustathius of Antioch, Epiphanius of Antioch and Theophilus of Alexandria. The second feast consists of the readings of Saint Simon II the Patriarch. The reading regroups the texts with reference to the fathers before the schism rather than by the feast of Saint Gregory.47 The readings for the 15 Kîhak are mainly for the prelates before the schism including three Roman Popes. These readings are used for the feasts of Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius the Apostolic, Simon II of Alexandria (or Gregory the Armenian), Gregory the Armenian, Sylvester of Rome, Severus of Antioch, Paul of Antioch, Liberius of Rome, Felix of Rome, Gregory the Thaumaturgus, Peter of Edessa, Meletius of Edessa, Eustathius of Antioch, Epiphanius, and Theophilus of Alexandria.48

Conclusion The place of Gregory the Armenian is quite unique in the Coptic Church. He has three or even four days commemorating his feast. In the lectionary, he is considered as being one of the fathers of the Church. While there is no psali or doxology for Gregory the Armenian, the Tarh and the Difnar give a summary of his life with some details. While his cultic veneration was known as early as the seventh century, it flourished after the tenth century with the arrival of the Armenians viziers; hence, we find many Greek loan words from a late date. 45

46 47 48

For the system of reading in the Coptic Church cf. U. Zanetti, Les lectionaires coptes annuels—Basse-Égypte (Publications de l’ Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 33; Louvain: Peeters, 1985), pp. 1–50. M. De Fenoyl, Le Sanctoral Copte (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut Orientales de Beyrouth XV; Beirut, 1960), p. 68. De Fenoyl, Le Sanctoral Copte, p. 73. De Fenoyl, Le Sanctoral Copte, pp. 42, 99.

gregory the armenian in coptic liturgical books

647

These few pages link the introduction of Christianity to Armenia with the tenth-century advent of the Armenians in Egypt, which was the area of expertise of the late Professor Yuzbashyan.

Acknowledgments In 1992, Professor Youzbashian was invited by Professor G. Dedeyan to give a series of lectures in Montpellier University. I was impressed by his knowledge and his humility and so it is my pleasure to dedicate these few pages to him. I would like to thank to my colleague Lisa Agaiby who revised the English language of the paper.

Bibliography Y. ʿAbd Al-Masih, “Doxologies in the Coptic Church,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 8 (1942). Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, “Remarks on the psalis of the Coptic Church,” Bulletin de l’Institut des études coptes 1 (1958): pp. 85–100. Archbishop Basilios, “Gregory the Illuminator, saint,” in Coptic Encyclopaedia, ed. A.S. Atiya, Vol. 4 (New York: MacMillan, 1991): pp. 1183a–1183b. A.S. Atiya, Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church known as the History of the Holy Church by Sawirus Ibn al-Mukaffa’, Textes et Documents, Vol. II, part III (Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte, 1959). R. Basset, Le Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite (PO 1, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904). R. Basset, Le Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite (PO 3, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907). A. Budde, Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora, Text—Kommentar—Geschichte (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 7; Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2004). G. Colin, “Le Synaxaire Éthiopien: état actuel de la question,” AB 106 (1988): pp. 273–317. R.G. Coquin, “Le calendrier Copte des Fêtes de saints chez al-Qalqašandî,” Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975): pp. 387–411. R.G. Coquin, “Le Synaxaire des Coptes, un nouveau témoin de la récension de la Haute Égypte,” AB 96 (1977): pp. 351–365. M. De Fenoyl, Le Sanctoral Copte (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut Orientales de Beyrouth XV; Beirut, 1960). J. Forget, Synaxarium Alexandrinum (CSCO 3; Paris: Carolus Poussielgue, 1905). G. Gabra, “Untersuchungen zum Difnar der koptischen Kirche. I. Quellenlage, Forschungsgeschichte und künftige Aufgaben,”Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 35 (1996): pp. 37–52.

648

youssef

G. Gabra, “Untersuchungen zum Difnar der koptischen Kirche. II. Zur Kompilation,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 37 (1998): pp. 49–68. A. Khater, O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church known as the History of the Holy Church by Sawirus Ibn al-Mukaffa’, Textes et Documents, Vol. III, part I (Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte, 1968). O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, “The Turûhat of the Saints,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 4 (1938). J.-P. Mahé, “Affirmation de l’Arménie Chrétienne (vers 301–590),” in Histoire du peuple arménien, ed. G. Dédéyan (Paris: Privat, 2008): pp. 164–168. H. Malak, “Les Livres Liturgiques de l’Eglise Copte,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant III (Studi e testi 233; Vatican, 1964). P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Paris: Cerf, 1985). N. Mekhaiel, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichte des koptischen Difnars (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 14; Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2010). F. Nau, Les Ménologes des évangéliaires Coptes-Arabes (PO 10, fasc. 2; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1915). V.N. Nersessian “Armenian Christianity,” in The Blackwell companion to Eastern Christianity, ed. K. Parry (Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2007): pp. 23–47. D.L. O’Leary, The Difnar (Antiphonarium) of the Coptic Church, Vol. 1 (London: Luzac, 1926). A. Papaconstantinou, Le Culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbasides, l’apport des inscriptions et des papyrus grecs et coptes (Paris: CNRS, 2001). M. Simaika, Y. ʿAbd al-Masih, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the Principal Churches of Cairo and Alexandria and the Monasteries of Egypt, Vol. 1 (Cairo: Publications of the Coptic Museum, 1939). E. Tisserant, Le calendrier d’Aboul-Barakat (PO 10, fasc. 3; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1915). U. Zanetti, “Bohairic Liturgical Manuscripts,” OCP 60 (1995). U. Zanetti, “Esquisse d’une typologie des Euchologes Coptes Bohaïriques,” Le Muséon 100 (1987): pp. 407–418. U. Zanetti, Les lectionaires coptes annuels—Basse-Égypte (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 33; Louvain: Peeters, 1985).

Essays

∵

chapter 26

Les catholicos Pahlawouni à Tzovk‘ (1116-1150) : seigneurs temporels et pasteurs spirituels Gérard Dédéyan

Les Ichkhan de Tzovk‘ (au milieu du XIe siècle)1 Chassés de leurs domaines de Grande Arménie par l’ expansion byzantine, les Pahlawouni, héritiers de la charge catholicossale, surent se reconstituer partiellement un hayrénik‘ à Tzovk‘, en Syrie du Nord (petite forteresse, homonyme de celle des Pahlawouni en Quatrième Arménie, dont le nom signifie « les lacs ») et, à partir de leur nouveau domaine patrimonial, stimuler l’ activité et régler l’ organisation de la diaspora arménienne proche-orientale. C’ est sans doute l’ aîné des fils d’Apirat Pahlawouni, Vasil, qui lui succéda à la tête de Tzovk‘ (après sa mort en 1111, à l’occasion d’une attaque turque), secondé par son cadet Chahan, alias Zôravar. Le catholicos Grigor II Vekayasêr (1065-1105), en tant qu’ oncle maternel des frères cadets de Vasil, Grigor et Nersês, les avait fait venir auprès de lui, à Karmir Vank‘, en Euphratèse, sous la protection de Gogh Vasil, ichkhan résidant 1 Cette contribution ayant été élaborée principalement à partir du chapitre 3 – «Les principautés des Pahlawouni et de leurs voisins» –, de la 4° partie de notre ouvrage Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés. Étude sur les pouvoirs arméniens dans le Proche-Orient méditerranéen (1048-1150) (Lisbonne : Bibliothèque arménologique de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian, 2003), nous nous permettons d’ y renvoyer pour la bibliographie, principalement aux pages 1245-1279. On trouvera des informations complémentaires dans: Isabelle Augé, Byzantins, Arméniens et Francs au temps de la Croisade. Politique religieuse et reconquête en Orient sous la dynastie des Comnènes, 1081-1185 (Paris: Geuthner, 2007); eadem, Églises en dialogue : Arméniens et Byzantins dans la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle (Louvain: Peeters, 2011) ; Mère Mariam Vanérian, La correspondance de saint Nersès Chenorhali avec les Arméniens, thèse de Doctorat (Université Montpellier III, 2007); Լ. Տեր-Պետրոսյան, Խաչա կիրները եւ հայերը, 2 հ. (Երեւան, 2005-2007), Հ. Բ. Պատմաքաղաքագիտական հետազոտություն [Levon Ter Pétrossian, Les Croisés et les Arméniens (en arm.), 2 vol. (Erevan : Armenian Library of Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2005-2007), t. II, Recherches historico-politiques, passim] ; Aram Ier, Catholicos de la Grande Maison de Cilicie, Saint Nerses the Gracious and Church Unity. Armeno-Greek Church Relations (1165-1173), «Historical Background » (Antelias-Lebanon, 2010), pp. 29-47 ; Claude Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant, 2 vol. (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2012), t. I, « Les institutions religieuses», et plus particulièrement aux pages 476-500, t. II, « Généalogies », 40. « Les Pahlavouni d’Euphratèse».

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_028

652

dédéyan

à K‘ésoun, sans doute peu avant 1105, pour que le catholicos coadjuteur et son successeur désigné, Barsegh (lui-même cousin germain, par son père, d’ Apirat) les élevât et préparât «Grigor, fils d’Apirat» au pontificat suprême. Après son élection, en 1113 (à l’âge de treize ans), Grigor III, avec son frère Nersês, dut rester à Karmir Vank‘, sous la protection du fils adoptif de Gogh Vasil, Vasil Tegha, auquel Barsegh l’avait confié. C’est, sans doute, l’ expulsion de Vasil Tegha par Baudouin de Bourcq, comte d’Édesse (1100-1118), en 1116, qui amena Grigor et Nersês à se replier sur Tzovk‘, sous la protection de leur frère aîné Vasil le Vieux. On peut imaginer sans peine les difficultés de tout ordre (psychologique, dynastique, hiérarchique) que durent rencontrer, dans leur existence à Tzovk‘, Vasil, seigneur de la place, et son cadet Grigor, jeune catholicos (1113-1166), sans cesse cité «hors classe» dans les nombreux rappels généalogiques de l’ oeuvre de saint Nersês Chenorhali. Il semble cependant que Vasil, dont Nersês loue la piété, ait préféré – coexistant tant bien que mal avec ses frères – céder le pas à la dignité catholicossale, en se retirant peut-être d’ abord, à Édesse, puis à Kaṙkaṙ, sur l’Euphrate, avant d’aller en Égypte. La chronique du Pseudo-Sembat (manuscrit de Venise), à la suite d’événements de l’ année 1140, rapporte les circonstances de la cession de Tzovk‘ à Grigor III (et à son frère Nersês Chenorhali), que l’on doit sans doute situer vers 1116, sous le règne de Roger de Salerne, prince normand d’Antioche (1112-1119): « En ce temps-là, le saint catholicos des Arméniens, Têr Grigoris, séjournait dans le très petit deghiak [citadelle] de Tzovk‘, sur les frontières de Telouk‘, que le saint patriarche avait acheté au brindz [prince] d’Antioche avec quinze gegh [villages] pour soixante mille dahékan». Ce dernier ne pouvait exiger du seigneur de Tzovk‘ le service militaire traditionnellement exigé des vassaux francs: le statut de Tzovk‘ devait être au moins aussi avantageux que celui d’un «franc-fief» du système féodal des Latins (dont le détenteur n’était soumis qu’à des services très réduits, voire même à aucun service). Cette installation à Tzovk‘ concerne toute la maison patriarcale, voire une partie importante de la parentèle pahlawounienne. Les seigneurs ecclésiastiques de Tzovk‘ purent ensuite relever directement des comtes d’ Édesse, qui s’étaient imposés dans la région de Telouk‘, non loin de Tzovk‘, pendant la période de régence à Antioche. Il n’est pas sans signification que, de 1116 à 1150, Tzovk‘ ait été la résidence des catholicos arméniens. Un colophon de manuscrit de 1173 nous donne des renseignements précis sur les pérégrinations patriarcales et la situation du catholicos à Tzovk‘. Après avoir rappelé que les catholicos résidaient traditionnellement à Ani, dans le Chirak, le scribe ajoute: « Mais, en ce temps-là, le catholicos Grigoris, accompagné de son frère Nersês, universellement illustre,

les catholicos pahlawouni a tzovk‘

653

avait transféré son lieu de résidence dans le yerkir [région] d’ Antioche, dans le gawaṙ [canton] de Telouk‘, dans le petit deghiak [citadelle] appelé Tzovk‘ ».

Situation critique en 1149-1150 La situation du comté d’Edesse se détériora beaucoup sous le règne de Josselin II (1131-1150), en raison de l’expansion de Zengî, émir turc de Mossoul et d’Alep, qui s’empara d’Edesse en 1144. La prise, par le sultan seldjoukide Masʿoûd Ier, de Marach, « enlevée à l’achkharh [pays] de la Grande Antioche», en 1149, acheva de démoraliser les occupants de Tzovk‘, comme cela ressort du récit du Pseudo-Sembat : « Devant ces événements, le saint patriarche des Arméniens, Grigoris, constatant ce grand affaiblissement de la puissance des chrétiens et voyant qu’ il n’avait pas d’amrots [château fort] où se réfugier, redouta de demeurer dans leur château de Tzovk‘». Une politique aussi ambiguë ne pouvait que désorienter le catholicos et son frère. L’auteur du colophon de 1173 dit de même des Pahlawouni: « Ils appréhendèrent de rester dans le deghiak [citadelle] de Tzovk‘, car il n’était pas assez bien fortifié pour les préserver du fléau qui dévastait le pays». Grigor III et son frère Nersês cherchèrent d’abord refuge plus à l’ouest, chez le prince ṙoubênien T‘oros II. Il est intéressant de noter que T‘oros II, quatre ou cinq ans après son retour en Cilicie, apparaissait comme un dynaste puissant. Il était déjà maître de la montagne et cherchait à s’étendre vers le Sud, où il s’ empara de Mesis en 1151, et vers l’Est, où il prit T‘il Hamtoun à la même époque. Les Pahlawouni de Tzovk‘, parmi les princes arméniens locaux, ne voyaient plus alors de recours que dans les Ṙoubêniens, bien que, comparativement à eux, ces derniers fussent d’extraction très récente. Quant à leur point de chute (pour à peine un an), le château d’Aylaser K‘ar, nous pouvons supposer qu’ il se trouvait à la frontière orientale de la principauté ṙoubênienne. Le catholicos et les siens, prenant en compte l’ expansion des Bagratides de Géorgie et la libération récente d’Ani, pensèrent également, un moment, retourner en Transcaucasie, sans doute dans l’ achkharh [pays] d’ Ayrarat, où ils avaient détenu, avant l’annexion byzantine, d’ importants domaines. L’Arménie du Nord avait été partiellement libérée, avec Ani, par David IV le Reconstructeur (1089-1125), roi des Abkhazes et des Ibères, dont le fils Démétré (1125-1156), contemporain du catholicos Grigor III, tentait de poursuivre l’ oeuvre. Le Pseudo-Sembat (dans le manuscrit de Venise) souligne qu’ « ensuite, ils projetèrent de se rendre en Orient, auprès du t‘agawor [souverain] des

654

dédéyan

Ibères, car il tenait Ani, ville dans laquelle ils trouveraient peut-être la tranquillité et un lieu de refuge tout à fait sûr contre les ennemis », qui avait été le siège du catholicos Barsegh, prédécesseur et oncle de Grigor III.

Le transfert du siège catholicossal à Hoṙomkla Mais, selon le Pseudo-Sembat, Grigor III, s’étant arrêté en chemin à Tell Bâshir, où se trouvaient Béatrice, la femme de Josselin II (veuve de Guillaume de Sahyoûn, un baron antiochien) et son fils, qui avait vaillamment défendu la ville contre les musulmans, fut invité à exposer les raisons de son voyage à la princesse: «Alors celle-ci l’arrêta dans son voyage en lui donnant l’ inaccessible berd [château] de Hoṙomkla comme lieu de résidence ». La sécurité offerte par la place forte de Hoṙomkla était infiniment supérieure à celle assurée par Tzovk‘, si l’on en croit le colophon de 1173: « Bien que les gawaṙ [cantons] voisins eussent été pris par les barbares jusqu’ à la Grande Antioche, eux restèrent hors de danger en raison des [puissantes] fortifications du lieu et de la protection accordée par la main toute-puissante qui a construit le ciel». Le transfert du siège catholicossal à Hoṙomkla eut lieu non après la prise de Marach par les Turcs, contrairement à ce que suggère l’ auteur du colophon, mais après les malheurs qui frappèrent successivement le comté d’ Édesse au printemps 1150, à savoir la capture de Josselin le Jeune par les Turcomans, en mai, et la deuxième attaque de Masʿoûd, le sultan d’ Iconium, contre Tell Bâshir, en juin. Le gouverneur arménien de Hoṙomkla, Mik‘ayêl, adressa un appel au secours à Grigor III par l’intermédiaire de la comtesse Béatrice, « en apprenant que son mari, Josselin II, avait succombé». La cession de Hoṙomkla à Grigor III eut lieu alors que Béatrice et son fils Josselin III se trouvaient encore à Tell Bâshir, à la fin mai 1150. Ainsi, une modeste partie de l’ héritage de « Josselin l’ Arménien» comme les Arabes le surnommaient en raison de ses ascendants maternels, échappait à la mainmise grecque, à laquelle devait se substituer, un an après, l’occupation musulmane. Il ressort, de l’Histoire de Vardan l’Oriental, que c’ est « aux deux frères germains Ter Grigor et [Ter] Nersês» que l’épouse du comte d’ Édesse remit la forteresse de Hoṙomkla. Ceux-ci purent ainsi poursuivre cette forme orientale du passage du «frérage» qu’ils avaient adoptée à Tzovk‘. Il faut ici nuancer : le terme de «frérage» s’inscrivait, en Occident, dans un système purement féodal. Les Arméniens, quant à eux, avaient encore du mal à renoncer au caractère allodial de leurs terres. Le terme de sép‘akan [bien possédé en propre, propriété], qui est appliqué par Vardan à la place forte de Hoṙomkla, a pu qualifier

les catholicos pahlawouni a tzovk‘

655

également d’autres territoires arméniens du comté d’ Édesse que les dirigeants francs considéraient comme de simples fiefs, mais qui, pour les ichkhan apparaissaient comme de nouveaux hayrénik‘. Le catholicos dut, postérieurement, indemniser Josselin III, réfugié dans le royaume franc de Jérusalem, qui lui délivra un acte de vente en bonne et due forme. Le document concernant cette transaction fut soigneusement enfermé dans un coffre, étant une garantie contre toute revendication ultérieure des héritiers, mais disparut ensuite, peut-être lors de la prise de Hoṙomkla par les sultans mamloûks d’Égypte, en 1292. Il faut souligner que l’ acte souscrit par Josselin III mentionne le catholicos et son frère, ce qui confirme l’ hypothèse d’une cosouveraineté sur les forteresse de Tzovk‘ ou de Hoṙomkla. Le transfert des Pahlawouni de Tzovk‘ à Hoṙomkla s’ effectuait dans le cadre d’échanges territoriaux plus vastes. Les ambassadeurs de Manuel Comnène, empereur de Byzance (1143-1150), proposaient à Béatrice, la même année 1150, de lui racheter ce qui lui restait du comté d’Édesse, dont Tzovk‘ faisait partie, c’est-à-dire, selon l’archevêque Guillaume de Tyr dans son Histoire d’OutreMer, presque contemporaine des événements, Samosate, al-Bîra, ‘Ayntab, Râwandân, Tell Bâshir, Telouk‘ et Hoṙomkla, toutes places auxquelles il faut certainement ajouter Tzovk‘, et obtenaient satisfaction pour l’ essentiel. La diplomatie byzantine était alors active en Euphratèse, peut-être par l’ intermédiaire du duc byzantin de Cilicie, Thomas. Dès 1149, on avait vu les Grecs s’ unir aux Francs et aux Arméniens de l’Euphratèse contre les Turcs. Les places susmentionnées, dès 1151, tombaient, pour la plupart, aux mains des musulmans. Seule Hoṙomkla, qui avait été d’abord concédée en fief aux Pahlawouni par Béatrice, puis donnée en pleine propriété contre dédommagement financier, à l’ exemple des forteresses vendues aux Byzantins, fut finalement exclue des cessions territoriales consenties à Manuel Comnène.

Coexistence des seigneurs de Hoṙomkla avec les émirs turcs et tensions familiales Le fait que les frères Grigor III et Nersês Chenorhali se soient installés à Hoṙomkla, sur l’Euphrate, suggère qu’ils espéraient se maintenir en Euphratèse avec l’ aide de Byzance, tout en gardant une certaine autonomie. Mais l’ Empire byzantin, malgré les aspirations territoriales des Comnènes, dut renoncer à ce mirage oriental (les différents princes turcs – Seldjoukides de Roûm, Artoukides, Zengides – se partageant les vestiges du comté d’ Édesse dès 1151) et se contenter, à partir de 1158, de la suzeraineté sur Antioche. La vague de reconquête déclenchée par la dynastie zengide était irréversible. Grigor III exerça

656

dédéyan

son autorité dans la «forteresse des Romains» conjointement avec son frère Nersês, jusqu’à sa mort en 1166. Il n’est pas exclu que, à partir du milieu du XIIe siècle, Hoṙomkla ait reçu un résident musulman. Quoique sous domination turque, les catholicos de Hoṙomkla durent de conserver une réelle autonomie, due d’abord au caractère inexpugnable de leur forteresse (les éléments datant du XIIe siècle étant le fossé, les courtines du côté Est et certaines portes monumentales), ensuite au fait qu’ ils avaient une force armée, dont on peut supposer qu’ils disposaient aussi lorsqu’ ils étaient dans leur forteresse, plus modeste, de Tzovk‘. Celle-ci permit à Grigor IV de réagir à une tentative de son neveu Châhenchâh pour lui enlever Hoṙomkla, en 1185, à la faveur d’une absence du catholicos, parti pour la Cilicie, comme le rapporte Michel le Syrien: «Mais le catholicos, l’ayant appris, vint en toute hâte, réunit des soldats et mit le siège contre la forteresse ». Le catholicos n’ayant pu emporter d’avantage décisif, l’oncle et le neveu furent amenés à négocier. Le Pseudo-Sembat, dans le manuscrit de Venise, à propos de la capture (par surprise) du catholicos Grigor V par l’archevêque Hovhannês, en 1194, nous dit : « Lorsque la nouvelle [de la capture] se fut répandue dans le berd [château] extérieur et dans le chên [village] intérieur, tous, pour secourir leur patriarche, marchèrent en armes contre le kla [citadelle] qu’ ils accablèrent de flèches pendant trois jours, pour se calmer ensuite devant l’ inanité de leurs efforts ». On a relevé, dans les ruines des remparts de Hoṙomkla, des postes de tir, d’ où opéraient habituellement les archers. La capacité défensive de la place, l’ entretien d’une garnison (il n’était point besoin qu’elle fût importante) permirent aux catholicos de se maintenir pendant près d’un siècle et demi à Hoṙomkla, qui ne tomba qu’en 1292, à l’époque où les armées des sultans mamloûks balayaient la Syrie franque.

Relations interecclésiales au Levant Grands seigneurs féodaux en exil, mais aussi pasteurs spirituels, les catholicos Pahlawouni, depuis leur résidence syrienne de Tzvok‘, où ils étaient en relations avec les princes francs, surent entretenir des liens interecclésiaux avec l’ Église latine, nouvellement installée au Levant, à la suite des Croisades. On ne s’étonnera pas que, en dépit de quelques différences d’ ordre cultuel et de quelques persécutions localisées dont la finalité n’ était pas religieuse, les rencontres suscitées en vue d’un accord doctrinal avec les Latins se soient bien déroulées. Cette remarque vaut principalement pour le synode latin de Jérusalem, en avril 1141. Il est certain que le danger croissant représenté par Zengî, le maître de Mossoul et d’Alep, n’était pas étranger à cette nouvelle prise

les catholicos pahlawouni a tzovk‘

657

de conscience d’une solidarité interconfessionnelle (d’ où semblent exclus les Byzantins, en raison de leurs revendications de suzeraineté sur Antioche et de leur prétention d’y introduire un patriarche grec). Les catholicos de la dynastie Pahlawouni, qui nourrirent souvent un véritable sentiment panchrétien, entrèrent facilement dans ces vues. Déjà en 1074 Grigor Vekayasêr, découragé de ses pourparlers avec les Grecs sous l’empereur Michel VII, avait eu des contacts, sans doute directement ou, au moins, par échanges d’ambassades, avec le pape Grégoire VII ; celui-ci avait demandé que le concile de Chalcédoine fût reconnu et que la formule du Trisagion (susceptible d’une interprétation monophysite) fût modifiée, mais, peutêtre stimulé à la perspective de «compenser» le schisme latino-grec de 1054, il avait consenti à envoyer le pallium sollicité par son correspondant et uni ses efforts à ceux du catholicos pour poursuivre des clercs considérés comme hérétiques par l’Église arménienne. Michel le Syrien nous apprend que, en 1139, le légat du pape Innocent II, se rendant à Telouk‘, y rencontra le catholicos Grigor III : l’ entrevue fut sans doute ménagée par Josselin II lui-même, qui résidait plus volontiers à Tell Bâshir qu’ à Édesse. Comme la suite des événements le montre, les liens semblent avoir été étroits entre les Pahlawouni de Tzovk‘ et la famille comtale d’ Édesse. Sur le chemin de Jérusalem, Grigor III s’arrêta, pendant l’ hiver 1140, à Antioche, dont le prince, Raymond de Poitiers, était, dans une certaine mesure, son suzerain pour le château de Tzovk‘ (qu’il lui avait acheté) et où il participa (ou assista) au synode d’Antioche, au cours duquel le légat pontifical Albéric d’Ostie déposa le patriarche latin d’Antioche, Raoul de Domfront, qui était un intrigant. En assistant au concile de Jérusalem, tenu à la fin d’ avril 1141, après les fêtes de Pâques, et auquel participèrent, en présence des princes, tous les prélats latins de Syrie, Grigor III oeuvrait pour l’ ouverture. Sa venue, notée par Guillaume de Tyr, fut l’événement du concile: « A ce synode fut, entre autres, présent, le pontife suprême des Arméniens, mieux, le premier de tous leurs évêques, de Cappadoce, de Médie, de Perside et des deux Arménies, le docteur éminent qui est appelé Catholicos». Guillaume de Tyr note que fut composée, avec l’ aide de Grigor III, une liste des points de doctrine sur lesquels l’Église romaine et l’ Église arménienne paraissaient être en désaccord, et que le catholicos promit d’ effectuer des corrections sur nombre d’entre eux. Les Latins étaient surtout opposés à l’ usage de vin pur pour la consécration et à l’emploi de la formule du Trisagion (« Dieu saint, saint et fort, saint et immortel») avec l’addition « Qui as été crucifié pour nous», deux caractéristiques de la liturgie arménienne qui leur paraissaient relever du monophysisme. Le supérieur du couvent-université de Gladzor (pays de Siounik‘), Yésayi de Nitch, affirme que, à son époque, c’ est-à-dire dans la pre-

658

dédéyan

mière moitié du XIVe siècle, on conservait encore les questions posées par le pape Innocent II, par l’intermédiaire de son légat, et les réponses (celles fournies par Grigor III et Nersês Chenorhali), qui paraissent avoir consisté en une explication des usages arméniens (utilisation de vin pur dans le calice, célébration de la Nativité et de l’Épiphanie le même jour). Malgré une certaine réserve, dictée par le souci de ne pas se discréditer auprès des moines de Grande Arménie, plus conservateurs, le ralliement du catholicos ne paraît pas devoir être mis en doute: cela explique la satisfaction de l’archevêque de Tyr. Les Arméniens, quant à eux, relatent l’événement sur un ton plutôt triomphaliste. Aux yeux de Samouêl d’Ani, Grigor III est le premier patriarche de l’ époque des Croisades à avoir eu une notoriété internationale. Ce catholicos, paré selon lui de toutes les vertus, «fut vénéré et glorifié non seulement par les hommes de notre nation, mais par les t‘agawor [souverains] et ichkhan [princes] de race étrangère, surtout par les t‘agawor et patriarg [patriarches] des Hṙomayetsi [Romains, i.e Latins]». Le concile, pour Samouêl d’ Ani, consolida les liens arméno-francs: «L’appréciant vivement, ils [les Francs] se réjouirent et renforcèrent leurs liens d’amitié avec le hayrapet [patriarche] et avec notre azg [nation]». Kirakos de Gandzak, évoquant dans des termes analogues le resserrement de l’alliance arméno-franque, nous apprend également qu’ «ils [les Francs] renouvelèrent avec lui les anciens traités de Terdat et de saint Grigor avec le kayser [empereur] Constantin et le hayrapet [patriarche, pape] Sylvestre», se référant ici à des traditions arméniennes concernant Terdat II et saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur.

Ambassade catholicossale auprès du pape Ces contacts avec le légat pontifical devaient se prolonger d’ abord par la réponse du pape à la lettre envoyée de la part du catholicos (réponse où l’ orthodoxie de la profession de foi arménienne était reconnue). On lit dans le Gawazanagirk‘ (équivalent du Liber pontificalis romain) composé à Sis, résidence du catholicos depuis 1292: «Le patriarche de Rome lui [à Grigor] envoya une lettre où il lui demandait de célébrer la fête de la Nativité et du Baptême [du Christ] en même temps que la grande Église de Rome et le reste du monde ». La lettre d’Innocent II (dont on ne conserve que la version arménienne) était accompagnée d’un pastoral et du pallium, pour Grigor III. Nersês Chenorhali joua sans doute un rôle dans ces contacts, puisque son biographe, Nersês de Lambroun, rappelle que le pape exprima le désir de voir ce « saint évêque, agréable à Dieu …, versé dans la langue des Arméniens et des Latins », et de s’ entretenir avec lui, souhait qui fut peut-être réalisé en faveur de son successeur : en effet,

les catholicos pahlawouni a tzovk‘

659

il faut surtout relever l’envoi d’une ambassade de Grigor III Pahlawouni auprès du pape Innocent II, remplacé, au moment de l’ arrivée des Arméniens, par Eugène III, sous le pontificat duquel eut lieu la Deuxième Croisade (1147-1149), occasionnée par la chute récente d’Édesse. De fait, Grigor III envoya au pape une ambassade sur laquelle l’évêque bavarois Otton de Freisingen (1111-1158), dans sa Geste de Frédéric (Barberousse), nous fournit des informations essentielles, ayant été témoin oculaire du séjour des Arméniens à Viterbe (au nord de Rome). Partis au printemps 1144, les ambassadeurs de Grigor III n’ arrivèrent à destination qu’à l’automne 1145. Lors d’une cérémonie célébrée par le pape Eugène III, était présent, selon Otton de Freisingen, un «évêque» revêtu de la « dignité pontificale ». Nous n’excluons pas que le prélat arménien susmentionné soit Nersês Chenorhali lui-même, bien qu’aucune source arménienne n’évoque sa participation à l’ ambassade; il faut souligner que, dans sa correspondance relative au catholicos, le pape demande, à plusieurs reprises et à diverses périodes, d’ avoir comme interlocuteur soit Grigor III, soit son frère Nersês. D’abord, dans la Geste de Frédéric, Otton de Freisingen mentionne la pontificalis dignitas, qui fait de l’évêque l’égal d’un catholicos ; Nersês Chenorhali, à cette époque, était associé à l’activité de Grigor III (avec lequel il est constamment mentionné par les sources arméniennes) comme un catholicos coadjuteur, avec droit de succession; en 1140, il avait été invité, en même temps que Grigor III, au synode latin d’Antioche, où les discours des deux prélats furent particulièrement appréciés; ensuite – plus de deux décennies plus tard, il est vrai – c’est lui qui fut mandaté par son frère pour les discussions interconfessionnelles et envoyé à Constantinople auprès de l’ empereur Manuel Comnène. Les légats arméniens de Grigor III, «choisissant l’ Église romaine pour juge», venaient prier le pape de trancher entre l’Église arménienne et l’ Église grecque en ce qui concernait l’usage de pain azyme, de vin sans addition d’ eau, et la célébration de la Nativité le jour de l’Épiphanie, que la seconde reprochait à la première. Envisageant peut-être même une réforme liturgique, ils demandaient à s’initier sur pièces aux usages latins et obtenaient d’ assister aux messes romaines, et particulièrement aux messes pontificales. Le Mékhitariste Alichan a admis que saint Bernard de Clairvaux, le réformateur du monachisme bénédictin au XIIe siècle et l’ inspirateur d’ Eugène III (particulièrement pour la Deuxième Croisade), pouvait être présent lors des rencontres latino-arméniennes de Viterbe. Si l’on n’a pas de renseignements sur ce point, l’on sait tout au moins que, dans le village natal de saint Bernard, Fontaine lès-Dijon, en Bourgogne (dont son père Tescelin était seigneur, ayant pour résidence le château de Fontaines), on vénérait, au XIIe siècle, les reliques – peut-être transférées d’Orient à la fin du XIe siècle – de saint Ambro-

660

dédéyan

sinien; ce dernier, selon la tradition locale, était né en Arménie, à Artémita (peut-être la localité d’Artamet, située près de Van). On peut, en tout cas, penser que l’écho des souffrances des Arméniens et des Syriaques, autant que de celles des Francs, après la chute d’ Édesse et la réduction du comté à sa partie ciseuphratésienne, à partir de 1146 (incluant la résidence catholicossale de Hoṙomkla), joua son rôle dans la prédication de la Deuxième Croisade par saint Bernard de Clairvaux, à l’ assemblée de Vézelay (31 mars 1146) d’abord, à la Diète de Spire (25-27 décembre 1146) ensuite. Quoi qu’il en soit, la rencontre entre Eugène III et l’ ambassade arménienne porta ses fruits. Deux siècles plus tard, à l’époque du concile de Sis, le catholicos Mekhit‘ar disait, à propos des problèmes relatifs au calice et à la fête de Noël: « On trouvera [des informations] sur ces points dans la lettre du pape de Rome Eugène à Têr Grigoris, frère du grand Nersês Klayetsi [de Hoṙomkla]». Outre cette lettre, qui dut être circonstanciée, Eugène III remit aux légats arméniens une crosse pastorale et un voile pour le catholicos, ainsi que des livres liturgiques; ceux-ci vinrent enrichir le Machtots, «à l’ époque de Nersês Klayetsi», particulièrement en ce qui concerne la consécration catholicossale et l’ onction des évêques et des prêtres (onction que les Arméniens n’ avaient pas), comme en témoigne une lettre du catholicos Mekhit’ar adressée au pape Clément VI en 1343. Il revient à Grigor III Pahlawouni d’avoir choisi, devant les difficultés religieuses sans cesse soulevées par les Grecs, et aussi en raison de leur hostilité politique (au moins dans le cas de la Cilicie), de se tourner vers l’ Église de Rome, dont le pape, bénéficiant, aux yeux des Arméniens, d’ une sorte de primauté d’honneur parmi les autres patriarches, se voyait reconnaître, en cas de litige grave entre Églises, le rôle d’arbitre suprême. Ainsi, pendant la période (1116-1150) moins connue où ils résidèrent dans la modeste forteresse de Tzovk‘, sous la protection, d’ abord des princes d’ Antioche, ensuite des comtes d’Édesse (Josselin II étant de mère roubênienne), les frères Grigor III, catholicos, et Nersês Chenorhali, coadjuteur, surent à la fois maintenir la tradition «féodale» de leur illustre maison et déployer une activité conforme à leur rôle de chefs de l’Église arménienne. Dans la deuxième moitié du XIIe siècle, à Hoṙomkla, cet aspect oecuménique allait prendre toute sa dimension, vis-à-vis des Grecs, d’abord, avec le catholicossat de Nersês Chenorhali, ensuite vis-à-vis des Latins – et sans renier l’ ouverture vers Byzance – avec Grigor IV Tegha.

chapter 27

L’Arménie médiévale (XIe-XIVe siècle) Claude Mutafian

La fin de la royauté en Grande Arménie (XIe siècle) Après la chute de la royauté arsacide en 428, il n’y eut plus d’ État arménien durant plusieurs siècles: l’Arménie fut partagée entre Rome et la Perse sassanide, puis entre Byzance et le califat arabe, les grandes familles féodales penchant suivant les cas vers l’est ou l’ouest (Carte 27.1). L’affaiblissement du califat abbasside à partir du IXe siècle ouvrit des perspectives de renaissance étatique en Arménie orientale: en 884 le calife fit parvenir une couronne royale au prince Achot, de la dynastie bagratide considérée comme proarabe, et l’empereur byzantin reconnut le fait accompli. Le nouveau royaume d’Arménie eut plusieurs capitales successives sur la rive orientale de l’ Akhourian, avant de se fixer vers 960 à la légendaire Ani, la « Ville aux mille et une églises» dont on voit encore les ruines avec sa cathédrale à la coupole effondrée. Fidèles au principe impérialiste «diviser pour régner », les califes voyaient d’un bon œil la politique de morcellement des rois bagratides, qui cédèrent à deux branches cadettes des territoires autour de Kars et dans le Loŕi. Plusieurs autres royaumes arméniens virent aussi le jour, en Siounie, en Artsakh et surtout dans le Vaspourakan où la dynastie des Artzrouni se posa d’ entrée en rivale des Bagratides (Carte 27.2). Leur royaume est resté célèbre par l’ église d’Aght‘amar, chef-d’œuvre de l’architecture arménienne, construite sur une île du lac de Van au début du Xe siècle. Il n’en reste pas moins que seul le souverain siégant à Ani portait le titre de «roi d’Arménie ». Sa vassalité envers le calife, certes peu contraignante, se traduisait clairement par le fait que les Bagratides n’ont jamais frappé monnaie. Le XIe siècle allait marquer la fin de ces royautés arméniennes, victimes de l’ expansionnisme byzantin qui profita de la menace turque seldjoukide pour les transformer en thèmes frontaliers, tout en attribuant aux souverains déchus des fiefs dans l’Empire. La série commença par le Vaspourakan, annexé en 1021 en échange de territoires en Cappadoce septentrionale. En 1045 vint le tour d’Ani: le dernier roi bagratide se retrouva lui aussi en exil en Cappadoce, et le roi de Kars suivit en 1064. Seuls les petits royaumes de Loŕi et de Siounie survécurent encore quelques décennies. En cette même année 1064, Ani fut prise par les Seldjoukides, qui y installèrent la dynastie des Cheddadides. Les Byzan-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004397743_029

662

mutafian

tins n’auront donc conservé la ville que 19 ans. Le catholicossat dut lui aussi abandonner son siège dans l’ancienne capitale, et il allait errer durant presque un siècle.

La «migration étatique» des Arméniens (XIe-XIIe siècle) La défaite byzantine de Mantzikert en 1071 permit aux Seldjoukides victorieux d’occuper peu à peu tout le centre de l’Asie Mineure et d’ y fonder un sultanat avec Konya pour capitale, ne laissant à Byzance que les côtes. Cette expansion turque s’accompagna d’un exode d’une partie de la population d’ Arménie. Comme c’est toujours le cas, l’émigration se dirigea là où étaient déjà installés des compatriotes. On a vu que les souverains déchus furent installés en Cappadoce, une région byzantine assez fortement arménisée. Or, la Cappadoce et la Cilicie s’étaient trouvées, durant des siècles, sur la frontière mouvante arabo-byzantine. Appliquant la classique politique colonialiste qui consiste à installer les minorités dans les zones les plus exposées, les empereurs avaient déplacé dans cette région – comme d’ailleurs en Thrace, sur leur frontière occidentale – un grand nombre de leurs sujets arméniens. C’ est donc tout naturellement que les émigrés fuyant le joug turc en Grande Arménie s’ en vinrent grossir la population arménienne dans cette marche de l’ Empire byzantin. Les meilleures preuves en sont données par les chroniques des croisades. Alors que les Francs étaient parvenus en 1097 à l’entrée de la Cappadoce, un croisé anonyme écrivit qu’ils entrèrent «dans le pays des Arméniens », ce que répète Guibert de Nogent: «L’armée du Seigneur entra en Arménie ». D’ autres sources étrangères témoignent de l’importance du facteur arménien en Syrie du Nord et en Euphratèse, à l’est de la Cilicie (Carte 27.3). Cette Euphratèse était alors aux mains de puissants seigneurs arméniens byzantins, pendant qu’ à l’ est, en Cilicie et plus spécialement dans les forteresses du Taurus étaient installées plusieurs dynasties arméniennes récemment immigrées, en particulier les Roubénides à Vahka et les Héthoumides à Lambron et Papéŕon. Il faut souligner le fait que, comme l’avenir le prouvera, ces familles n’étaient pas venues pour fuir l’ oppression et se fondre dans un nouveau moule, leur but était de recréer dans un nouveau territoire la royauté arménienne détruite en Grande Arménie. Le nouveau cadre géographique, une plaine dotée d’ une vaste façade maritime et protégée de tous côtés par des chaînes de montagnes, le Taurus au nord et l’ Amanus à l’est (Carte 27.4), était pourtant tout sauf familier aux Arméniens qui vivaient depuis des siècles sur des hauts-plateaux sans aucun accès à la mer et ouverts aux envahisseurs de l’est comme de l’ ouest. Ils firent preuve d’ une impressionnante faculté d’adaptation, se convertirent au commerce maritime

l’ arménie médiévale

663

et apprirent vite à jouer, au milieu d’une mosaïque de peuples, les uns contre les autres, eux qui n’avaient jamais connu qu’un entourage bipolaire, toujours entre deux grandes puissances ennemies. Les Arméniens de Cilicie parvinrent remarquablement à concrétiser cette véritable «migration étatique»: au bout d’un siècle de subtile diplomatie les Roubénides ceindront en 1198 la couronne royale, et le royaume ainsi créé prospérera durant plus d’un siècle et demi sous la brillante monarchie héthoumide.

Arméniens et croisés (XIIe siècle) Cette extraordinaire épopée fut rendue possible par la conjonction d’ un facteur historique et d’une coïncidence géographique. D’ une part, on a vu que l’ invasion turque provoqua à la fin du XIe siècle une concentration arménienne dans ce coin nord-est de la Méditerranée, d’autre part c’ est précisément à cette époque que le pape Urbain II prêcha la première croisade qui, dans sa route de Constantinople à Jérusalem, passa nécessairement par la Cilicie et la Cappadoce (Carte 27.5). C’est ainsi qu’Arméniens et Francs entrèrent naturellement en contact. S’ajoutant aux Grecs, aux Arabes et aux Turcs, ce nouvel élément permit l’élaboration d’une stratégie «tous azimuts » où les alliances se nouaient et se dénouaient selon les circonstances du moment. Les Arméniens, en particulier les barons roubénides, se montrèrent particulièrement efficaces dans ce jeu. Quels furent les rapports entre les Arméniens et ces nouveaux venus, les croisés? À la suite de la bulle du pape Grégoire XIII du 13 octobre 1584, on présente trop souvent une sorte d’alliance naturelle entre deux peuples chrétiens ayant les musulmans pour ennemi commun, les Arméniens devenant spontanément des sortes d’auxiliaires de la croisade. Cette vision manichéenne est non seulement simpliste mais totalement fausse. Tout d’ abord, les Arméniens sont certes chrétiens comme les croisés, mais aux yeux de ces derniers ce sont des chrétiens hérétiques. D’autre part, on s’est rapidement rendu compte que beaucoup de seigneurs francs n’étaient pas venus dans le seul but de « libérer Jérusalem» des musulmans; ces cadets de grandes familles dont l’ avenir était bouché en Europe à cause des règles de la féodalité occidentale voyaient dans la croisade une occasion unique de se créer en Orient des fiefs qui leur étaient refusés en Occident, ils étaient donc bien décidés à s’ y installer. Dès lors, ces ambitions étatiques ne pouvaient qu’entrer en concurrence avec les objectifs des Arméniens, eux aussi désireux de fonder un État dans la région. On allait vite s’apercevoir qu’il y avait là une source permanente et inévitable de conflits, parfois sanglants, d’autant plus que les Francs sont longtemps restés tournés vers l’Europe, ignorant tout des subtilités de l’Orient si familier aux Arméniens.

664

mutafian

En fait, les Francs ne pouvaient pas se passer des Arméniens pour plusieurs raisons. Tout d’abord, il s’agissait là de chrétiens bon connaisseurs de la région. De plus, pour s’installer et faire souche, ces chevaliers avaient besoin d’épouses, qui devaient être des princesses bien entendu chrétiennes, de plus non grecques à cause du schisme de 1054. Pratiquement seules les Arméniennes répondaient à toutes ces conditions, elles se retrouvèrent donc vite à la tête des quatre «États latins du Levant»: du nord au sud, le comté d’ Édesse, la principauté d’Antioche, le comté de Tripoli et le royaume de Jérusalem (Carte 27.6). Ainsi le deuxième roi de Jérusalem, Baudouin II, et son épouse, la princesse arménienne Morfia, eurent quatre filles dont l’ une épousa le prince d’Antioche et une autre le comte de Tripoli; quant à l’ aînée, la fameuse Mélisende, elle devint de plein droit reine de Jérusalem, et Guillaume de Tyr la présente comme «une femme douée de plus de sagesse et de prudence qu’ il n’appartient d’ordinaire à son sexe, et qui avait dirigé avec beaucoup de vigueur les affaires du royaume pendant trente ans et plus [1131-1161], tant du vivant de son mari que sous le règne de son fils». Les heurts conjugaux furent fréquents, ces princesses orientales ayant un sens politique bien plus fin que leurs époux francs. Ajoutons que la «diplomatie matrimoniale » joua dans les deux sens : comme on le verra, nombre d’Arméniens s’unirent avec des Francs pour sceller des alliances politiques.

Arméniens et Flamands en Euphratèse (1098-1120) Dès la fin du XIe siècle, un seigneur arménien, Philarète Brachamios, avait réussi à créer en Euphratèse byzantine une vaste principauté, mais elle fut éphémère, l’une des raisons tenant à sa confession chalcédonienne qui lui aliéna nombre de ses sujets arméniens. Au début du siècle suivant, c’ est toujours en Euphratèse qu’étaient concentrés les espoirs arméniens de recréation étatique, plusieurs seigneurs étant à la tête d’importants fiefs. Certains étaient eux aussi chalcédonisés, comme T‘oros à Édesse, T‘at‘oul à Marache ou Gabriel à Mélitène, mais le plus célèbre d’entre eux, le «sébaste » Gogh Vasil [Basile le Voleur], maître de la région de Ŕapan et K‘ésoun, était resté fidèle à l’ Église apostolique arménienne et avait accueilli le siège catholicossal en exil. Il faudra moins de deux décennies aux Francs pour mettre définitivement fin à tous ces espoirs. Le cas le plus emblématique concerne Édesse. Depuis la victoire franque de Nicée, le prince flamand Baudouin de Boulogne était conseillé par un frère de Gogh Vasil, Bagrat, appelé Pancrace par les Francs. Avec le Normand Tancrède, il quitta à Héraclée le gros de la croisade pour tra-

l’ arménie médiévale

665

verser la Cilicie, après quoi il répondit au début de 1098 à un appel à l’ aide de T‘oros depuis Édesse assiégée par les Turcs. L’occasion était trop belle : il fut reçu en grande pompe dans la ville et adopté par le seigneur arménien, qui fut peu après mis à mort par un soulèvement populaire auquel le Flamand n’était certainement pas étranger. C’est ainsi que fut fondé le premier des États latins du Levant, le comté flamand d’Édesse. Vu l’importance de l’ élément arménien dans la ville, Baudouin épousa une princesse arménienne, qu’ il répudia dès qu’il réussit, après la prise de la Ville sainte en juillet 1099, à se faire couronner roi de Jérusalem. Il confia Édesse à l’un de ses parents, Baudouin de Bourcq, qui épousa Morfia, fille du seigneur arménien Gabriel de Mélitène, et monta à son tour sur le trône de Jérusalem en 1118, à la mort de Baudouin Ier. À cette époque, l’ Euphratèse arménienne avait vécu, liquidée par les deux Baudouin. Les espoirs arméniens se déplacèrent en Cilicie.

Arméniens et Normands en Cilicie (1098-1137) Pendant que Baudouin se rendait à Édesse, le gros de la croisade continuait sa route. Après un siège long et difficile, les Francs s’ emparèrent d’ Antioche en été 1098. Peu après, ils adressèrent au pape une lettre où on lit : « Nous avons vaincu les Turcs et les païens, mais nous n’avons pu venir à bout des hérétiques grecs, arméniens, syriens et jacobites». Les Arméniens de Cilicie allaient entrer en rivalité ouverte avec les Normands d’ Italie du Sud, maîtres de la principauté d’Antioche frontalière fondée par Bohémond de Tarente, auquel allait succéder son neveu Tancrède. Byzance tenta bien d’ intervenir pour ne pas abandonner ces territoires qui faisaient partie de l’ Empire, mais vers 1110 les Normands contrôlaient une grande partie de la plaine cilicienne où ils avaient installé, à Tarse et Mamistra, des sièges ecclésiastiques latins. À la même époque, le prince roubénide T‘oros Ier s’empara sur les Grecs de la villeforteresse d’Anavarza, qui devint ainsi la première capitale des Roubénides en Cilicie, et il y construisit une chapelle. Il mourut en 1129 et fut enterré à Drazark, un couvent qu’il avait restauré et qui allait être le mausolée de la famille. Lui succéda son frère Léon Ier, qui dut faire face aux ambitions du nouveau prince d’Antioche, Bohémond II, fils du fondateur de la principauté. Très habilement, Léon évita l’affrontement et laissa les Normands et les Turcs Danichmendides se battre entre eux en Cilicie. Le prince y laissa la vie. Profitant de la situation, Léon, allié au nouveau comte d’Édesse, Jocelin II, époux de sa sœur, se rendit maître de la plaine cilicienne et considéra, en 1135, le moment venu pour restaurer la royauté, mais il tomba dans un guet-apens tendu par le nouveau prince d’Antioche, Raymond de Poitiers. Il fut bientôt libéré quand une

666

mutafian

menace commune apparut à l’horizon, le réveil de Byzance. L’une des raisons qui poussèrent l’empereur Jean Comnène à intervenir en Cilicie est sans aucun doute à chercher dans l’attitude du prince arménien : il était encore trop tôt pour se proclamer roi, Byzance ne pouvait le tolérer.

La Cilicie byzantine et la chute d’Édesse (1137-1169) L’ armée byzantine commandée par Jean Comnène entra en Cilicie en 1137 et captura Léon, qui fut, avec deux de ses fils, envoyé à Constantinople où il périt quelques années plus tard. La Cilicie se retrouva ainsi placée sous l’ autorité directe de Constantinople. Soucieux d’ affermir son contrôle sur la région, l’empereur décida une nouvelle expédition en 1142, mais il périt d’ un accident de chasse en Cilicie l’année suivante. Il nomma pour lui succéder son fils Manuel. L’année 1144 fut marquée par la chute d’Édesse, prise par l’ atabeg Zengî, maître de Mossoul et d’Alep. Le comté lui-même disparut quelques années plus tard et le dernier comte, Jocelin II, de mère arménienne, fut capturé en 1151 et mourut en prison. Ce coup dur pour le Levant chrétien eut une conséquence positive pour les Arméniens: voulant éviter qu’ elle ne tombe aux mains de l’ ennemi, la comtesse offrit au catholicos Grégoire III la forteresse de Hŕomkla sur l’Euphrate. Le catholicossat retrouvait enfin un siège, qu’ il allait conserver durant près d’un siècle et demi. Emprisonné avec son père Léon, T‘oros II parvint à recouvrer la liberté. Il tenta, par des alliances matrimoniales, la réconciliation avec la maison héthoumide rivale et surtout, tout en évitant de heurter de front le pouvoir grec, il se rendit maître de la Cilicie au milieu du siècle. En un premier temps, Manuel Comnène excita contre lui le sultan seldjoukide et le nouveau prince d’Antioche, Renaud de Châtillon, puis en 1158 il dirigea la troisième expédition byzantine en Cilicie et Syrie du Nord. L’empereur se contenta d’ une soumission formelle de la part de T‘oros, qui se comporta en vassal jusqu’ au retour de l’empereur dans sa capitale. Il changea d’attitude à la suite du meurtre de son frère Stéphane par le gouverneur byzantin de Cilicie : il se déchaîna alors contre les Grecs et se rapprocha du nouveau prince d’ Antioche, Bohémond III. Alors qu’il avait marqué son opposition tactique au projet, il se résigna à participer au front panchrétien qui subit en 1164 une écrasante défaite à Hârim face à l’émir Noûr al-Dîn. Il resta fidèle à l’ alliance latine, effectuant même un voyage à Jérusalem. À sa mort, en 1168, il avait reconstitué la Cilicie arménienne de son père et affermi l’emprise roubénide malgré tous les efforts de Byzance. Selon le rabbin Benjamin de Tudèle qui passa dans la région

l’ arménie médiévale

667

vers 1164/65: «Korykos est le début du pays appelé Arménie, c’ est la limite de l’ empire de T‘oros, seigneur des montagnes et roi d’ Arménie ». Son seul échec concerne le front héthoumide: ses tentatives de réconciliation interne n’ont pas abouti.

La Cilicie arménienne (post 1170) La succession de T‘oros II donna lieu à d’âpres batailles, et c’ est son frère Mleh, un ancien templier, qui l’emporta avec l’aide du puissant émir d’ Alep, Noûr al-Dîn. Il s’appuya sur ce dernier dans sa politique à la fois antilatine et antigrecque, un changement total de cap diplomatique qui comportait de gros risques mais s’avéra efficace: quand Noûr al-Dîn mourut en mai 1174, Francs et Byzantins avaient été chassés de la Cilicie, dont Mleh resta seul maître. Curieusement, alors que l’historiographie arabe reconnaît les mérites de cette politique consistant à tirer profit de Noûr al-Dîn à son insu, les sources et études arméniennes sont quasi unanimes pour le mettre au ban, allant jusqu’ à l’ accuser de s’être converti à l’islam. Une affirmation que rien ne corrobore, bien au contraire: Mleh fonda un couvent où il fut enterré, son sceau porte l’ image de la Vierge et il avait épousé une nièce du catholicos Nersês Chnorhali dont il régla la succession après son décès en 1173. Mleh fut assassiné en 1175 par les barons arméniens. Comme son frère T‘oros, il n’avait en fait subi qu’un échec, face à la maison héthoumide qu’ il ne réussit pas à soumettre. Laissons le mot de la fin à René Grousset: ce brillant historien pourtant très occidentophile dut concéder que le « demi-renégat » Mleh « fut, en somme, le libérateur de son pays» grâce à « la politique antifranque et islamophile qu’il pratiqua». Un an après cet assassinat, la défaite byzantine de Myrioképhalon face aux Turcs seldjoukides changea les données; elle sonna à plus ou moins brève échéance le glas des prétentions grecques sur la Cilicie mais elle exacerba la menace musulmane, avec l’affermissement de ce sultanat au nord du Taurus et surtout la montée en puissance de Saladin, maître de l’ Égypte et bientôt de la Syrie continentale. Dans ces conditions, Ŕoubên, fils du défunt Stéphane et successeur de son oncle Mleh, dut bien entendu revenir à l’ alliance latine. Il rétablit les sièges latins de Cilicie supprimés durant la domination grecque, participa aux expéditions militaires franques et prit une épouse franque, tout en réussissant à juguler les menaces de ses voisins musulmans et à mettre définitivement fin aux espoirs byzantins sur la Cilicie. Les dangers les plus pressants venaient de la dynastie héthoumide, toujours hostile, et de la principauté d’Antioche. Bohémond III captura Ŕoubên en l’ invitant traitreusement

668

mutafian

à Antioche, il ne le libéra que contre une rançon, la cession de certaines places fortes et surtout une clause explicite de vassalité.

La fondation du royaume d’Arménie (1187-1198) Ŕoubên mourut en 1187. Son frère Léon II, qui lui succéda, fut tout de suite confronté à la prise de Jérusalem par Saladin, suivie de la reddition du roi Guy de Lusignan et de la disparition des États latins. Comme la chute d’ Édesse presque un demi-siècle plus tôt, cette catastrophe pour l’ Orient chrétien fut bénéfique aux Arméniens. En effet, elle provoqua la troisième croisade, dirigée par les trois plus grands souverains d’Europe, Philippe II Auguste de France, Richard Ier Cœur de Lion d’Angleterre et l’empereur germanique Frédéric Ier Barberousse (Carte 27.7). Les deux premiers prirent la voie maritime. Le roi d’Angleterre conquit au passage l’île de Chypre, où il installa finalement son vassal Guy de Lusignan, roi détrôné, Acre fut reprise en 1191 mais Jérusalem resta à l’Islam. Ainsi fut recréé un «royaume de Jérusalem» sans la Ville sainte. Quant à Frédéric, il emprunta la voie terrestre. Léon, auquel le pape avait demandé d’apporter son aide à la croisade, jugea le moment opportun pour raviver les projets royaux que son grand-père homonyme avait échoué à mener à terme. L’empereur avait lui-même apporté une couronne, comme il l’ affirma aux envoyés du catholicos Grégoire IV venus à sa rencontre à Konya. Ce catholicos menait, sans doute de connivence avec Léon, une diplomatie parallèle: il tenait Saladin informé de la marche de la croisade germanique et de sa débandade à la suite du décès de l’empereur qui, une fois franchi le Taurus, se noya dans le Salef, près de Séleucie, en juin 1190. Peu après disparurent successivement le sultan seldjoukide et Saladin. Les querelles dynastiques qui s’ ensuivirent soulagèrent Léon sur ses frontières nord et sud-est, et son seul véritable danger restait Antioche, malgré son mariage avec une nièce de Sibylle, troisième épouse de Bohémond III. Bientôt répudiée, Sibylle s’ allia à Léon, qui réussit à venger son frère en capturant Bohémond à Baghras. Un accord fut trouvé grâce à la médiation de Henri de Champagne, époux de la reine de Jérusalem. Cette fois c’est le prince d’Antioche qui devenait vassal du Roubénide, et une clause matrimoniale précisait que Raymond, fils de Bohémond, épouserait Alice, fille aînée de Ŕoubên, donc nièce de Léon, et qu’ un éventuel héritier mâle hériterait de la principauté: Raymond-Rouben naquit en 1198, après la mort de son père. Le décès de Frédéric ne mit pas fin aux desseins royaux de Léon, qui envoya en 1194 des ambassadeurs en Italie auprès de son fils et successeur Henri VI. En

l’ arménie médiévale

669

1197, son chancelier fit voile vers le Levant muni de deux couronnes. En septembre il couronna à Nicosie Amaury de Lusignan, frère du défunt Guy. Il chargea ensuite le légat pontifical de porter l’autre couronne en Cilicie, où le 6 janvier 1198, à Tarse, le prince Léon II devint Léon Ier, « roi par la grâce de Dieu et de l’Empire romain». Le royaume avait pour capitale Sis, déjà choisie par Mleh. La reconnaissance par la papauté se fit moyennant quelques concessions doctrinales que le roi s’empressa d’oublier, et l’empereur byzantin envoya lui aussi une couronne. Le royaume d’Arménie était bel et bien reconstitué, mais hors d’Arménie. On possède quatre sceaux en or, où se lit autour du portrait du roi la légende «Léon roi d’Arménie», certaines monnaies en argent portant même la légende «Léon roi de toute l’Arménie».

La libération partielle de la Grande Arménie (XIIe siècle) La genèse de ce royaume d’Arménie ne doit pas faire oublier la situation en Grande Arménie, où vivait encore une importante population arménienne qui, tout en étant solidaire de sa représentation étatique, n’en cultivait pas moins sa spécificité. Un bon exemple en fut donné en 1113, quand l’ archevêque d’Aght‘amar refusa d’entériner l’élection du catholicos Grégoire III Pahlavouni et fonda un siège dissident. Les raisons en sont à chercher plus dans la tradition autonomiste du Vaspourakan que dans le prétexte invoqué, la jeunesse du nouvel élu. Bien qu’anathématisé, ce «catholicossat d’ Aght‘amar» se maintint durant des siècles et joua parfois un rôle de contrepoids en Grande Arménie par rapport au titulaire, qui siégeait d’abord en Euphratèse, puis en Cilicie de 1292 à 1441. L’évolution politique de cette Grande Arménie était étroitement liée à sa voisine septentrionale, la Géorgie, qui avait pu échapper à l’ annexion turque grâce à sa situation à l’écart des grandes routes d’ invasion. L’affaiblissement de la puissance turque au Proche-Orient, dû aux victoires de la croisade, lui permit d’entamer au début du XIIe siècle un processus d’ unification et de reconquête sous la houlette de David le Restaurateur, roi bagratide d’ Abkhazie, en Géorgie occidentale, qui reconquit en 1122 la métropole, Tiflis, aux mains de l’ Islam « depuis quatre cents ans», et Ani l’année suivante. L’ ancienne capitale arménienne fut perdue par son fils Dimitri, puis reprise par Georges III en 1161, ainsi que Dvin en 1162. Ani continua à être perdue et reprise, jusqu’à sa conquête par « les généraux d’Arménie et de Géorgie Zak‘arê et Ivanê» en 1198, l’ année même du couronnement de Léon. Ces deux frères arméniens occupaient les postes les plus élevés dans le royaume, l’aîné, Zak‘arê, étant commandant en chef de l’ armée. Il mou-

670

mutafian

rut en 1212 après avoir réussi, au bout de deux décennies, à reprendre aux Turcs pratiquement toute l’Arménie septentrionale et orientale, dans le cadre du royaume de Géorgie (Carte 27.8). Plusieurs grandes familles arméniennes possédaient alors des fiefs dans cette «Arménie zakaride », comme les Djalalides en Artsakh, les Orbélian en Siounie, les Prochian dans le Vayots Dzor, et bien d’autres (Carte 27.9). Ce début du XIIIe siècle était donc particulièrement faste, puisqu’il y avait deux Arménie, le royaume en Cilicie et des principautés autonomes dans le cadre du royaume de Géorgie.

La culture arménienne (XIIe siècle) Durant tout ce XIIe siècle, période de gestation du royaume, la culture arménienne n’arrêtait pas de s’épanouir dans ces deux composantes « libres » du monde arménien, et même en dehors, en Arménie occidentale sous le joug turc. En Cilicie, de fascinants manuscrits sortaient des scriptoria de monastères comme Drazark dès 1113, ou Skevŕa, mausolée des Héthoumides, dont une fameuse copie de Grégoire de Narèk en 1173, avec quatre portraits du poète, ou encore un Évangile en 1198, année du couronnement, si somptueusement enluminé qu’on pense qu’il devait s’agir d’une commande pour l’ occasion. Il ne reste malheureusement aucune trace des monastères eux-mêmes, seuls subsistent comme témoins de l’architecture religieuse quelques restes de chapelles, comme celle de T‘oros à Anavarza. Les forteresses ont mieux résisté au temps; il s’agissait souvent de constructions préexistantes amplifiées par les princes arméniens. Pour les khatchkars, en dehors de quelques exemples incrustés dans les murailles, on n’en possède qu’ un, celui de Basile frère du catholicos Nersês Chnorhali. On a plus d’exemples d’architecture religieuse de cette période en Grande Arménie, comme certaines constructions à Sanahin, Gochavank‘ ou Haghartzin. Signalons également un très beau khatchkar de 1181 à Gandzasar. L’Arménie seldjoukide a elle aussi produit des merveilles, comme les extraordinaires khatchkars de 6m. de haut près de Terdjan, en Haute-Arménie, ou encore la merveilleuse porte en noyer sculptée en 1134 au monastère des Saints-Apôtres de Mouch, dans le Tarôn. Les peintures murales, elles, ont pratiquement disparu. La seule conservée orne l’abside de l’église principale du « Monastère Blanc», en Haute-Égypte, portant la date de 1124 et due à un artiste originaire d’Euphratèse. L’historiographie arménienne du XIIe siècle compte deux grands noms. Matthieu d’ Édesse est une source exceptionnelle pour les croisades et la période de

l’ arménie médiévale

671

formation du royaume, alors que la chronique de Samuel d’ Ani est précieuse pour la chronologie de toute la période. Dans le domaine juridique se distingue la figure de Mkhit‘ar Goch, auteur d’un célèbre Code de Lois. Quant à la littérature, elle est essentiellement le fait de la dynastie Pahlavouni. Descendant de Grégoire Magistros, grand lettré et premier écrivain laïc de l’histoire arménienne, cette dynastie occupa le catholicossat de 1066 à 1203. Signalons son fils Grégoire II, plus tard le poète Grégoire IV, mais les deux figures proéminentes, peut-être les plus importants personnages arméniens de ce siècle, restent le catholicos Nersês Chnorhali et son petit-neveu Nersês de Lambron, de mère Pahlavouni et de père héthoumide.

Le règne de Léon le Magnifique (1198-1219) Conscient des dangers centrifuges de la conception classique de la royauté arménienne, où le souverain n’était qu’un primus inter pares, Léon décida d’ y mettre fin. Prenant modèle sur la féodalité européenne qu’ il connut via les croisades, il imposa ce système centralisé où tous les seigneurs devaient obéissance au roi. En fait, son royaume fut structuré sur le modèle franc dont il adopta les codes de lois ou «Assises». Les noms mêmes des charges furent francisés: ainsi le commandant en chef de l’armée, traditionnellement appelé « sparapèt», devint le «connétable». Le jeune royaume était entouré de deux États musulmans et deux États francs. Au nord, le sultanat de Konya restait menaçant, de même qu’ à l’ est l’ émirat d’Alep, aux mains d’un fils de Saladin. Au sud-est la principauté d’ Antioche était affaiblie, coupée du reste des États francs depuis les conquêtes de Saladin, alors qu’au sud la puissante dynastie des Lusignan régnait sur l’ île de Chypre. La succession d’Antioche allait être l’un des principaux problèmes du règne de Léon. En effet, à la mort de Bohémond III en 1201, son fils le comte Bohémond de Tripoli brigua la principauté, faisant fi de l’ accord de 1194 selon lequel elle devait échoir à son neveu Raymond-Rouben, fils de son frère aîné. Il s’ensuivit un conflit de plus d’une décennie, attisé par l’ affaire de Baghras, une forteresse commandant la passe méridionale de l’ Amanus, que Léon refusait de restituer aux Templiers. Deux coalitions s’ affrontaient: le comte de Tripoli était soutenu par le sultan seldjoukide, l’émir d’ Alep fils de Saladin et les Templiers, alors que Raymond-Rouben pouvait compter, outre son grand-oncle Léon, sur les Hospitaliers, sur le sultan d’Égypte, frère de Saladin, et paradoxalement, au début tout au moins, sur le pape Innocent III qui respectait Léon et avait une aversion pour le comte de Tripoli.

672

mutafian

Léon chercha également à mettre de son côté les Lusignan de Chypre. Ce fut l’une des raisons de la répudiation de son épouse antiochéenne, suivie de son remariage, à l’âge de soixante ans, avec Sibylle, fille du roi Amaury Ier de Chypre, âgée d’une dizaine d’années. Il arrangea aussi l’ union d’ une autre fille d’Amaury, Helvis, avec Raymond-Rouben, dont il fit son héritier pour le trône d’Arménie. Il réussit également à aplanir provisoirement le différend avec la maison héthoumide. Sa position étant ainsi renforcée, Léon parvint finalement à s’emparer d’Antioche en 1216 et à y installer son petit-neveu. Le pape Honorius III entérina ce fait accompli, prélude à une union entre la principauté et le royaume, c’est-à-dire à une annexion de facto d’ Antioche à l’ Arménie. Ce bel édifice s’écroula bientôt à cause de la politique désastreuse de RaymondRouben, qui chercha à se débarrasser de la tutelle de son grand-oncle tout en s’ aliénant la noblesse franque. Le résultat ne se fit pas attendre: en 1219, son rival reprit le pouvoir et devint Bohémond IV, prince d’ Antioche et comte de Tripoli. Trop occupé sur le front antiochéen, Léon ne put se consacrer suffisamment à la défense de son royaume face aux Seldjoukides, qui l’ envahirent en 1208 et surtout en 1216-1218. Le roi dut se résoudre à des cessions territoriales et à une reconnaissance de vassalité vis-à-vis de son puissant voisin (Carte 27.10). Léon Ier mourut en 1219. Malgré ses échecs en politique extérieure, le bilan de son règne est largement positif. Ayant imposé son autorité tant sur la noblesse que sur l’Église – en n’hésitant pas à s’immiscer dans le choix du catholicos – il laissait un puissant royaume centralisé, incontournable tant sur l’ échiquier politique du Levant que dans le commerce méditerranéen.

La succession de Léon le Magnifique (1219-1226) L’ œuvre de Léon fut tout de suite mise à mal par le problème de sa succession, à laquelle trois candidats pouvaient prétendre. Le défunt roi avait luimême intronisé Raymond-Rouben avant sa «trahison», mais il laissait aussi deux filles, Ŕit‘a de son premier mariage, antiochéen, et Zabêl de son mariage Lusignan. C’est logiquement cette dernière qu’ il désigna comme héritière à sa mort, avec un régent durant sa minorité. Bien entendu, Ŕit‘a avait pour elle le droit d’aînesse que son époux, Jean de Brienne roi de Jérusalem, était bien décidé à faire valoir, mais elle mourut en 1220 avec son fils. Les prétentions de Raymond-Rouben trouvèrent un écho auprès de plusieurs nobles arméniens réunis autour de sa mère Alice, nièce du roi défunt, mais la rébellion fut militairement écrasée par le régent Constantin de Papéŕon, d’ une branche cadette des Héthoumides, qui caressait l’espoir d’installer sa dynastie à la tête du royaume

l’ arménie médiévale

673

via le mariage d’un de ses fils avec Zabêl, désormais reine incontestée. Il fut déçu en un premier temps, le conseil de régence ayant décidé de mettre un point final au conflit avec Antioche en portant son choix sur Philippe, fils de Bohémond IV. Mariage et couronnement furent célébrés en 1222. Le second roi d’Arménie était donc un Franc, mais son règne fut bref car il fut arrêté en 1224 et mourut en prison. Ce meurtre provoqua bien entendu des réactions violentes de Bohémond, père du défunt, ainsi que du pape Honorius III qui avait été trop heureux de voir un catholique régner sur les « hérétiques» arméniens. Une habile diplomatie, incluant le chantage à l’expulsion de la hiérarchie latine de Cilicie, eut raison de ces menaces.

Les débuts du règne de Hét‘oum Ier (1226-1240) Il est d’usage d’expliquer le meurtre de Philippe par une politique latinophile qu’il aurait mise en œuvre, mais le ton des colophons ne corrobore pas cette interprétation. On peut y voir plutôt la main du régent qui, dès lors, parvint à imposer le remariage de la reine avec son fils Hét‘oum, couronné en 1226. Les sources sont unanimes pour dire qu’il dut surmonter par la force les réticences de Zabêl elle-même: «La reine Zabêl, lit-on chez le chroniqueur syriaque Bar Hebræus, resta dix ans sans permettre au roi d’avoir des relations avec elle, mais ensuite elle se réconcilia avec lui et lui donna des fils et des filles ». Le mariage fut effectivement une réussite, traduite par les fréquentes mentions de la reine dans les colophons. De plus, les monnaies en argent « Hét‘oum-Zabêl» sont un cas unique de représentation d’une reine dans la numismatique arménienne. Ajoutons que les souverains héthoumides, qui allaient régner presque sans interruption jusqu’à la chute du royaume, se référaient souvent aux Roubénides, dont ils descendaient par lignée féminine, afin d’ asseoir leur légitimité. Le gros danger pour le nouveau roi, Hét‘oum Ier, venait du nord: le puissant sultanat de Konya s’étendait désormais de la mer Noire à la Méditerranée et menaçait même le royaume de Géorgie, dont la reine dut donner la main de sa fille au fils du sultan. On possède de nombreuses preuves de la position de vassalité du royaume d’Arménie, qui devait payer tribut, fournir des contingents armés et frapper des monnaies bilingues au nom du roi et du sultan. De plus, il y avait dans le royaume une faction favorable aux Seldjoukides, menée par l’ oncle maternel du roi, Constantin de Lambron, de la branche héthoumide aînée. Hét‘oum renforça l’alliance avec le royaume de Chypre en mariant deux de ses sœurs avec le roi Henri Ier et le comte de Jaffa Jean d’ Ibelin, célèbre juriste.

674

mutafian

Les Mongols au Proche-Orient (1220-1243) Si le XIIe fut au Proche-Orient le siècle des croisés, le XIIIe allait être le siècle des Mongols. C’est de 1206 qu’on date la proclamation de Gengis Khân comme souverain de toutes les tribus mongoles. Peu après, il lança ses armées tous azimuts à la conquête du monde. Cela dit, il ne faut jamais perdre de vue le fait que pour les Mongols l’essentiel, le phare, était la Chine, l’ Occident n’étant qu’ une terre à conquérir sans intérêt particulier. Nomades, polygames, presque indifférents à la religion, archers incomparables, experts en minage de remparts, les Mongols ne pouvaient que déconcerter le monde christiano-musulman. Ils se considéraient naturellement comme les maîtres du monde, ne connaissant que les notions de vassal et d’ ennemi comme on le lit dans une lettre adressée au pape Innocent IV en 1247 : « Quiconque nous obéira conservera sa terre, son eau, son patrimoine », mais « que quiconque nous résistera soit anéanti». Il y avait chez eux une importante composante chrétienne due au prosélytisme des Nestoriens qui, jadis anathématisés au concile d’Éphèse de 431, avaient depuis lors essaimé en Perse et en Extrême-Orient; c’est pourquoi, durant tout le XIIIe siècle, les Mongols se montrèrent beaucoup plus hostiles aux musulmans qu’ aux chrétiens. Le peu d’importance qu’ils attachaient à la religion se traduit par le fait que, par commodité, ils finissaient toujours par adopter la religion de leurs sujets. Leur première apparition au Caucase date de 1220. Il s’ agissait d’ une avantgarde qui, après avoir vaincu plusieurs fois les troupes arméno-géorgiennes, remonta la rive de la Caspienne vers la Russie du Sud. Ce ne fut qu’ une tornade passagère, qui, à voir l’absence de mention dans les colophons, ne semble pas avoir laissé beaucoup de traces. Colophons et inscriptions font au contraire largement état des expéditions dévastatrices de Djalâl al-Dîn, sultan du Khwârezm, qui se considérait comme le champion de l’ islam. Une fois maître de l’ Azerbaïdjan en 1225, il l’emporta à Gaŕni sur l’ armée arméno-géorgienne, s’ empara de Dvin, de Tiflis, de Khlat‘, mais sa suffisance lui aliéna les autres souverains musulmans et, manquant d’alliés, il fut vaincu par les Mongols et périt en 1231. Les Mongols réapparurent ainsi dans la région et commencèrent par l’ Azerbaïdjan la soumission de toute l’Asie occidentale, ordonnée par Ogodaï, fils de Gengis Khân, et confiée à son général Tchormaghan. La Géorgie, avec l’ Arménie zakaride, fut prise et dévastée en 1236, les villes qui refusaient de se rendre étant impitoyablement détruites, comme Ani qui mit de longues années à se relever. «Les sages princes d’Arménie et de Géorgie, lit-on chez l’ historien contemporain Grégoire d’Aknèr, comprirent que Dieu leur avait donné la puissance et la victoire pour s’emparer de nos pays, ils allèrent nouer des liens

l’ arménie médiévale

675

d’amitié et présenter leur vassalité aux Tatares, promettant de payer le tribut […] et de les suivre avec leur cavalerie partout où ils iraient; les Tatares y ayant consenti, ils cessèrent les massacres et les dévastations dans le pays, y laissèrent un gouverneur et retournèrent dans leur région de Moughan ». Les seigneurs finirent donc par apprendre comment se comporter avec ces nouveaux venus, ils se soumirent et certains d’entre eux firent même le voyage à Karakoroum, la capitale mongole; ce fut le cas d’Avag, fils d’Ivanê, qui reçut, selon la tradition, une princesse mongole. Cette expérience des seigneurs de l’ Arménie zakaride fut essentielle pour le royaume d’Arménie, le roi Hét‘oum ayant appris la leçon de leur bouche, en particulier de Hasan Djalal venu lui rendre visite en Cilicie. Succédant à Tchormaghan, Batchou lança l’offensive à l’ ouest contre le sultan seldjoukide qui somma son vassal Hét‘oum de venir le seconder. Le roi comprit le danger et gagna du temps, évitant ainsi de participer en juin 1243 à la bataille du Köse Dağ où l’armée turque, pourtant plus nombreuse, fut anéantie par les Mongols (Carte 27.11); cette défaite marqua le crépuscule de la puissance seldjoukide contrainte d’accepter la suzeraineté mongole. Hét‘oum s’ empressa de se soumettre aux Mongols qui l’avaient libéré de l’ épée de Damoclès turque, il se résigna même à extrader la famille du sultan réfugiée à Sis. Ce choix politique, on l’a vu, ne faisait pas l’unanimité chez les seigneurs du royaume, et Constantin de Lambron décida de s’y opposer militairement avec l’ aide des Turcs; il fut mis à mort en 1250. Une autre conséquence du Köse Dağ fut la migration des Khwarezmiens vers la Palestine, où ils reprirent en été 1244 Jérusalem dont Frédéric II avait négocié la restitution en 1229, puis en octobre ils infligèrent aux Francs une écrasante défaite à La Forbie. Les Francs de Syrie, tout comme les Seldjoukides, cessèrent d’avoir un quelconque poids politique dans ce Proche-Orient dont la carte géopolitique se simplifiait.

Les voyages de Smbat et Hét‘oum en Mongolie (1246-1255) Hét‘oum ne négligeait pas pour autant le rapprochement avec le monde latin, en particulier via la diplomatie matrimoniale. Il maria une de ses filles, Sibylle, avec le prince d’Antioche Bohémond VI, qui devint de facto son vassal, pendant que deux autres filles, Fimi et Marie, s’unirent à des princes Ibelin de Chypre, Julien de Sidon et le sénéchal Guy. L’essentiel de sa diplomatie n’en restait pas moins axé vers la Mongolie, où Güyük, fils d’ Ogodaï, fut intronisé en 1246. C’est alors que Hét‘oum décida de formaliser la situation par un traité. Il dépêcha pour cela à Karakoroum son frère aîné le connétable Smbat, figure

676

mutafian

de proue du monde arménien du XIIIe siècle. En chemin, à Samarkand, Smbat envoya à Chypre, à ses deux beaux-frères, le roi Henri Ier et le comte Jean de Jaffa, une lettre datée du 7 février 1247, dont plusieurs copies nous sont parvenues; il insiste sur l’hostilité des Mongols à l’ Islam et sur l’ importance de l’ élément chrétien, confirmant la justesse du choix diplomatique de son frère. Smbat revint lui aussi avec une princesse mongole, dont il eut au moins un fils, Vasil le Tatare. (Carte 27.12) La mort de Güyük en 1248 donna lieu à une lutte de succession entre sa branche et celle de Tolui, autre fils de Gengis Khân. C’ est Mongka, fils de Tolui et d’une princesse nestorienne, qui lui succéda en 1251. L’année suivante, peu après le décès de son épouse Zabêl, Hét‘oum se mit à son tour en marche pour Karakoroum, accompagné d’un ambassadeur mongol. Pour traverser l’Asie Mineure turque, où l’extradition de la famille du sultan moins d’une décennie plus tôt l’avait mis en position d’ ennemi public, il se déguisa en marchand, mais quelqu’un le reconnut à Erzindjan et la situation fut sauvée par l’ambassadeur qui eut le réflexe de gifler le roi, ôtant ainsi tout soupçon. On trouve ce détail chez Bar Hebræus, mais c’est l’historien arménien Kirakos de Gandzak qui recueillit le récit de la bouche même du roi et consacra un chapitre détaillé à ce voyage historique. Après cette périlleuse traversée de l’ Asie Mineure, Hét‘oum fut accueilli par les seigneurs de Grande Arménie comme leur roi, il y reçut les cadeaux destinés au khân et, remontant la rive de la Caspienne, rencontra sur la basse Volga l’homme fort de l’ Occident mongol, Batou, cousin germain de Mongka et ancêtre de la Horde d’ Or de Russie méridionale. Il se présenta devant le khân en septembre 1254, et signa un traité dont on ne connaît malheureusement pas la teneur exacte. En recoupant les sources, il semble que, moyennant un tribut et l’obligation de fournir un contingent militaire, le roi obtint divers privilèges comme des exemptions de taxe ou la liberté de culte, mais surtout la garantie de la protection mongole en cas d’ attaque. Il retrouva Sis en été 1255.

L’éclatement de l’Empire mongol et la montée en puissance des Mamelouks (1250-1260) L’ énorme territoire conquis par les Mongols s’ avérant ingouvernable, il fut scindé en quatre entités sous Mongka. À l’est, il attribua le khanat « suprême», la Chine, à son frère Koubilaï, qui fut donc suzerain formel des trois autres. L’ Asie centrale fut l’apanage de Djagataï, oncle de Mongka, la Russie méridionale devint le khanat de la Horde d’Or fondé par Batou et son fils Sartakh, enfin Mongka confia l’«ilkhanat» de Perse à son frère Houlagou qui, avec son

l’ arménie médiévale

677

épouse nestorienne Dokhouz Khatoun, fut chargé de poursuivre les conquêtes au Proche-Orient. Hét‘oum le rencontra à Talas sur son chemin de retour. (Carte 27.13) Les Mongols ayant la coutume de finir par adopter la religion de leurs sujets, Koubilaï devint bouddhiste alors que les trois autres États, à population majoritairement musulmane, allaient s’islamiser tôt ou tard. La conversion fut assez rapide pour les deux premiers, alors que les souverains de Perse n’embrassèrent l’ islam qu’à la fin du XIIIe siècle. Durant un demi-siècle, ils furent de fidèles protecteurs du royaume d’Arménie, mais l’efficacité de ce soutien dépendait de la situation sur leurs frontières orientale et surtout septentrionale, le conflit ayant vite éclaté entre la Perse et la Horde d’Or. C’est également durant le règne de Mongka que se produisit en Égypte un coup d’État qui allait être fatal pour le Levant chrétien. La dynastie ayyoubide y fut renversée par une clique d’esclaves turcs. Bientôt maîtres de l’ Égypte et de la Syrie continentale, ces sultans mamelouks régnèrent plus de deux siècles et demi et furent de farouches ennemis de toute présence chrétienne dans la région: ils allaient mettre fin à la Syrie franque en 1291 et au royaume d’ Arménie en 1375.

La campagne mongole en Syrie (1260) Houlagou commença par s’attaquer à ce qui restait de la puissance seldjoukide: treize ans après le Köse Dağ, une nouvelle défaite turque marqua la fin du sultanat, devenu province de l’ilkhanat mongol. Le roi d’ Arménie profita de son statut d’allié pour récupérer certaines places. Deux ans plus tard, la sanglante prise de Bagdad signa en 1258 la fin du califat abbasside vieux de cinq siècles. L’ilkhân se tourna alors vers la Syrie encore ayyoubide. En compagnie de son gendre Bohémond VI d’Antioche, Hét‘oum participa à cette expédition au cours de laquelle le catholicos bénit l’ armée mongole franchissant l’ Euphrate à Hŕomkla. La prise d’Alep en janvier 1260 se solda par un massacre comparable à celui de Bagdad. Elle fut suivie de la conquête de la Syrie ayyoubide. Bohémond et Hét‘oum furent récompensés par des annexions, qui permirent pour la première fois de faire la jonction territoriale entre Hŕomkla et la Cilicie. (Carte 27.14) Pour diverses raisons, Houlagou ne poursuivit pas vers l’ Égypte, il laissa aux ordres de son lieutenant Kitbougha, chrétien nestorien, un contingent chargé d’affronter l’armée mamelouke. Les Francs, toujours aussi dépourvus de vision diplomatique et méfiants vis-à-vis des Mongols, laissèrent passer l’ armée mamelouke sur leur territoire, et en septembre 1260, près du mont Thabor, les

678

mutafian

Mongols subirent leur première défaite. La Syrie était mûre pour tomber au pouvoir des Mamelouks, emmenés par le célèbre sultan Baybars qui scella une alliance avec la Horde d’Or afin de prendre l’ilkhanat en tenailles.

L’oppression mongole en Grande Arménie (1236-1265) Si la «pax mongolica» fut profitable au royaume d’ Arménie, que ce soit politiquement, commercialement, économiquement ou culturellement, la situation était bien différente en Grande Arménie soumise aux exactions des préfets locaux au service des Mongols, en général des Persans, souvent très antichrétiens, qui profitaient de leur position pour opprimer la population écrasée sous les taxes. De plus, la terre était ravagée par l’élevage extensif des nomades mongols, les villages disparaissaient les uns après les autres et l’ émigration dépeuplait le pays. C’est ainsi qu’en 1255 le petit-fils homonyme du prince Zak‘arê fit part au franciscain Guillaume de Rubrouck de son désir de quitter le pays. Quelques années plus tôt, sentant poindre la menace d’ une rébellion arménogéorgienne, le catholicos Constantin Ier avait promulgué une bulle enjoignant la population à se résigner à son sort sans broncher afin de ne pas mettre en péril l’alliance mongole vitale pour le royaume: un exemple parfait de Realpolitik! Quant aux princes arméniens, ils avaient un statut qui les mettait théoriquement à l’abri de ces exactions, mais les pouvoirs locaux n’en avaient cure, si bien que leur seule chance était de «passer au-dessus », c’ est-à-dire d’ aller se présenter directement aux autorités mongoles et de revenir avec un édit de protection. Les effets pervers de ces pouvoirs locaux reçurent une éloquente illustration lors de la tentative de révolte géorgienne de 1260. Le prince Zak‘arê, petit-fils du vainqueur d’Ani, fut calomnié par le préfet persan Arghoun auprès de Houlagou, qui le fit sauvagement mettre à mort en 1261. Le même préfet fit subir le martyre au grand prince de l’Artsakh, Hasan Djalal, avant que sa fille, épouse d’un général mongol, ait pu intervenir auprès de Dokhouz Khatoun. L’année suivante, Houlagou confia le vizirat à un Persan farouchement antichrétien, frère de l’historien Djouwaynî. Malgré tout cela, les sources arméniennes rivalisent de louanges à la mort de l’ilkhân, survenue en 1265 et suivie du décès de Dokhouz Khatoun, le couple étant mis en parallèle avec l’ empereur Constantin et sa mère Hélène.

l’ arménie médiévale

679

Le royaume d’Arménie face aux Mamelouks (1266-1289) Abagha, successeur de Houlagou, resta fidèle à la politique de son père, mais deux facteurs annonçaient des années difficiles pour le royaume d’ Arménie : d’une part, confrontés aux attaques de la Horde d’ Or au nord et du khanat de Djagataï à l’est, les Mongols de Perse étaient trop occupés pour secourir efficacement leur allié, de l’autre les Mamelouks se montraient incomparablement plus agressifs que ne l’étaient les Ayyoubides. Ainsi, quand en 1266 Baybars envoya une armée envahir le royaume, Hét‘oum alla demander l’aide de l’ilkhân, mais quand il revint l’ ennemi avait déjà forcé la passe de l’Amanus. Dans un colophon daté de 1268, le connétable Smbat écrivit un poignant poème: «Les Égyptiens parvinrent à Maŕi/ tuèrent T‘oros, fils du roi/ et bien d’autres avec lui/ incendièrent Sis et Misis/ et tous leurs édifices/ Léon le fils aîné/ du grand roi d’Arménie Hét‘oum/ fut emmené et enfermé/ dans la ville d’Égypte». Hét‘oum finit par satisfaire aux exigences de Baybars, avec lequel il dut signer un traité de paix incluant d’ importantes cessions territoriales. Léon fut libéré du Caire en 1268, et peu après son père entra dans les ordres où il mourut. À Hét‘oum Ier succéda ce fils Léon II, couronné en 1271. Le danger mamelouk se faisait plus pressant, et en 1275 c’est Baybars en personne qui mena la deuxième invasion du royaume. Là encore, l’ aide mongole s’ avéra inefficace. De plus, à l’ouest la tribu turque des Karamanides menaçait le royaume sur cet autre front, et en 1276 le connétable Smbat périt en les combattant. Enfin, comme pour la Grande Arménie, le pouvoir des ilkhâns sur leur province d’Anatolie s’exerçait via des gouverneurs locaux, en général des Turcs, ce qui constituait un danger potentiel pour le royaume d’ Arménie voisin. En 1281 eut lieu à Homs une grande bataille où l’ armée mongole commandée par le frère d’Abagha comprenait des contingents arméniens – de Cilicie comme de Grande Arménie – et géorgiens. Elle se solda par une victoire des Mamelouks. Intronisé en 1284, Arghoun, fils d’Abagha, multiplia les tentatives d’alliance avec les dirigeants européens et confirma la politique arménienne de ses prédécesseurs, mais Léon II jugea sage de signer le 7 juin 1285 un traité de paix avec les Mamelouks: moyennant des concessions relativement limitées, il obtint une trêve de «dix ans, dix mois, dix jours et dix heures». Ce dernier grand roi d’Arménie mourut en 1289.

680

mutafian

Une période faste pour l’Arménie (1198-1289) En 1263 eut lieu à Acre une entrevue entre les légats du pape et du catholicos. Sans préciser la raison, le pape Urbain IV avait convoqué le catholicos, qui se fit représenter par Mkhit‘ar de Skevŕa. L’arrogance habituelle des représentants de l’ Église de Rome provoqua une violente réaction de ce dernier : « D’ où l’ Église de Rome tient-elle ce pouvoir, de se faire juge des autres sièges apostoliques et de n’être point elle-même soumise à leur jugement? […] Qui vous a donné cette prérogative?». Pour se permettre de telles invectives, le légat devait se sentir en position de force: effectivement, au milieu du XIIIe siècle, le royaume d’ Arménie était devenu le plus puissant État du Levant chrétien. Plus généralement, couvrant presque un siècle, de 1198 à 1289, les règnes de Léon Ier, Hét‘oum Ier et Léon II furent à tout point de vue une période particulièrement faste pour l’Arménie. Inauguré par des privilèges octroyés en 1201 aux républiques de Gênes et de Venise qui contrôlaient l’ essentiel des échanges méditerranéens, favorisé par la position incontournable du royaume d’Arménie sur l’échiquier levantin, le commerce florissait dans les ports ciliciens. À partir de 1260 environ, le port d’Ayas prit un essor fulgurant qui reçut un coup de fouet en 1268 quand la prise d’Antioche par les Mamelouks en fit le seul point de transit entre l’Europe et l’Extrême-Orient. La description de Marco Polo, qui y passa en 1271, est à cet égard éloquente. Le personnage le plus symbolique de la culture arménienne de cette époque est sans aucun doute le connétable Smbat, frère aîné du roi Hét‘oum Ier. Outre la lettre en français qu’il envoya, on l’a vu, à ses beaux-frères chypriotes, il traduisit du français les «Assises d’Antioche» dont l’ original est perdu, il élabora lui-même un Code de Lois inspiré de Mkhit‘ar Goch, écrivit des poèmes ; on lui attribue aussi une chronique très importante pour l’ histoire de son temps. Plus généralement, l’historiographie est particulièrement riche au XIIIe siècle. Si l’œuvre du docteur Vanakan est en grande partie perdue, nous sont parvenues celles de ses disciples, dont les plus célèbres sont un historien des Mongols connu sous le nom de Grégoire d’Aknèr, et surtout Vardan l’ Oriental et Kirakos de Gandzak. Ajoutons Vahram Raboun, secrétaire du roi Léon II, le chroniqueur Mkhit‘ar Ayrivanetsi, et les innombrables colophons de manuscrits qui sont les sources les plus sûres. Originaires aussi bien de Cilicie que de Grande Arménie, ces auteurs sont des preuves vivantes du brassage entre ces composantes du monde arménien. On en trouve même en Arménie seldjoukide, comme Hovhannês Plouz d’Erznka [actuelle Erzindjan], parfait symbole de cette «panarménité». Dans le royaume d’Arménie, avec sa prolifération de souverains, princes et dignitaires religieux, il n’est pas étonnant que la floraison artistique ait

l’ arménie médiévale

681

été exceptionnelle. L’enluminure profitait de cette émulation, les commandes affluaient et les manuscrits étaient plus somptueux les uns que les autres: citons l’évêque Jean, frère du roi Hét‘oum Ier, qui fonda une école de miniaturistes au couvent de Gŕnèr, son cousin germain le maréchal Ôchin dont le nom est lié à plusieurs chefs-d’œuvre, le catholicos Constantin Ier qui encourageait à Hŕomkla plusieurs artistes dont T‘oros Ŕoslin, certainement le plus grand miniaturiste arménien de tous les temps, sans oublier la reine Kéŕan, petite-fille du seigneur Constantin de Lambron exécuté pour haute trahison. Épouse de Léon II sans doute dans le cadre d’une démarche diplomatique visant à éviter la scission entre les deux branches héthoumides, elle se révéla grande protectrice des arts et des lettres; son nom reste immortalisé par l’ « Évangile de la reine Kéŕan», l’un des plus fabuleux manuscrits arméniens, réalisé en 1272 par un artiste de nom inconnu. Peu de pièces d’orfèvrerie nous sont parvenues, mais la reliure de l’«Évangile de Bardzrberd», de 1254, est un éloquent témoignage de l’art des maîtres ciliciens. L’Arménie zakaride n’était pas en reste, l’émulation se faisant entre dynasties princières. Signalons les miniatures de l’«Évangile de Haghbat » ou des manuscrits de l’Artsakh, les khatchkars des Prochian au Vayots Dzor, des Oukanides et des Sadounides à Haghbat, ceux de Dadivank‘ en Artsakh, les sculptures des Ôrbélian à Noravank‘. Dans le domaine de l’ architecture, il serait trop long d’énumérer les monastères qui ont profité d’ ajouts et d’ embellissements de la part de ces grandes familles ou encore de riches marchands, comme Tigran Honents qui fit construire son église à Ani en 1215. En Asie Mineure turque, le plus grand manuscrit arménien au monde, le mythique Homéliaire dit «de Mouch», fut copié et enluminé dans les toutes premières années du XIIIe siècle en Haute-Arménie, de même que la volumineuse Bible d’Erznka en 1269. De son côté l’ « Évangile des Traducteurs» avec ses bleus inimitables est daté de 1232 et vient sans doute de la région d’Erzeroum. Quant au Vaspourakan, il avait sa propre école d’ enluminure. Ajoutons-y les productions artistiques dans les colonies plus éloignées comme l’ Italie.

Hét‘oum II, roi franciscain d’Arménie (1289-1307) Pour le royaume d’Arménie, la situation déjà bien délicate à la mort de Léon II s’ aggrava d’autant plus que son fils Hét‘oum II n’ était pas l’ homme de la situation. Ayant fait vœu de chasteté et refusé de ceindre la couronne, il entra dans les ordres franciscains et passa son temps entre le trône et le couvent. À chaque période de retraite, il transmettait le pouvoir à l’ un de ses frères, qui y prenait

682

mutafian

goût et se montrait réticent à l’abandonner, ce qui créait régulièrement un état de crise. Avec ses sœurs, il poursuivit la diplomatie matrimoniale en mariant Zabêl à Amaury de Tyr, frère du roi Henri II de Chypre, puis Ŕit‘a à Michel Paléologue, héritier du trône byzantin, mais ses appels à l’ aide à la chrétienté, en particulier aux monarchies européennes, restèrent sans effet. En 1306, de son vivant même, il transmit la royauté à son jeune neveu Léon III. L’année suivante, tous deux furent assassinés avec d’ autres seigneurs arméniens par le commandant des Mongols d’Anatolie, un musulman convaincu qui les avait traîtreusement invités: les temps avaient changé !

Le chant du cygne de l’alliance mongole (1295-1335) Le début du règne de Hét‘oum II avait été marqué par deux victoires mameloukes. En 1291, la prise d’Acre scella la fin définitive de la Syrie franque, et l’ année suivante ce fut le tour de Hŕomkla. Le siège catholicossal se déplaça dans la capitale, Sis, et le royaume dut signer un nouveau traité de paix qui l’ affaiblissait encore plus. Comme l’écrivait le roi lui-même : « Nos auxiliaires, la nation des archers, tardèrent à venir». Déjà bien compromise, la protection mongole était vouée à disparaître à la suite de la conversion à l’ islam du nouvel ilkhân, Ghâzân, dès son avènement en 1295. Les préfets musulmans redoublèrent d’ardeur antiarménienne, et les exactions ne cessèrent qu’ à la suite de la démarche de Hét‘oum II auprès de Ghâzân. Bien que devenu musulman, celui-ci était resté fidèle à ses alliances et continua à soutenir le royaume contre ses coreligionnaires mamelouks. Ceux-ci entreprirent en 1298 une nouvelle invasion qui se solda encore par des concessions arméniennes, mais l’année suivante Ghâzân se lança dans une grande expédition contre les Mamelouks, avec la participation de nombreux contingents chrétiens dont les rois d’Arménie et de Géorgie. En décembre 1299, l’ affrontement eut lieu encore à Homs, et cette fois les Mongols remportèrent une victoire totale qui les rendit maîtres de la Syrie. Hét‘oum II entra à Damas avec Ghâzân, mais ce dernier, au lieu de poursuivre sa campagne pour donner le coup de grâce aux Mamelouks aux abois, décida de rentrer en Perse, comme Houlagou l’ avait fait quatre décennies plus tôt. Certes, à la différence de son arrière-grand-père il repartit à l’attaque les années suivantes, en partie poussé par le roi d’ Arménie, mais en 1303, arrivé sur l’Euphrate, il fit de nouveau marche arrière, sans doute à cause de menaces sur une autre frontière. Les troupes qu’ il chargea de poursuivre la lutte furent vaincues en avril par les Mamelouks. Pour les Arméniens, totalement engagés aux côtés des Mongols, la situation s’ assombrissait à vue d’œil. Ghâzân mourut en 1304, et si certains colophons déplorent sa disparition

l’ arménie médiévale

683

comme la perte d’un souverain arménophile, d’autres commencent à changer de ton dans leur appréciation des Mongols. (Carte 27.15) Son frère et successeur Öldjaïtou, qui conduisit en 1312 la dernière campagne mongole contre les Mamelouks, puis le fils de ce dernier, Aboû Saʿîd qui lui succéda en 1316, poursuivirent en gros la ligne politique de Ghâzân. Cela dit, l’importance du royaume mongol n’était plus ce qu’ elle était, et les colophons arméniens sont désormais quasi unanimes pour dénoncer les autorités, incapables de juguler les tendances centrifuges des intermédiaires locaux au détriment des populations, surtout des chrétiens contraints de porter un signe distinctif «de manière à ce que quiconque les voie les reconnaisse comme chrétiens et les insulte». La mort d’Aboû Sa‘îd en 1335 marqua la fin effective de la Perse mongole. L’Asie occidentale fut livrée à l’ arbitraire et à l’ anarchie jusqu’aux ravages de Tamerlan à la fin du siècle.

Les différends religieux (XIVe siècle) Voyant venir la fin de l’alliance mongole, le royaume d’ Arménie désormais entouré d’ennemis de tous côtés ne comptait plus que sur l’ Europe comme allié potentiel, mais un obstacle de taille se dressait. Les Arméniens étaient, comme on l’a rappelé, considérés comme hérétiques par l’ Europe catholique. Les heurts ont été constants, surtout depuis l’implantation de l’ Église latine au Levant à l’occasion des croisades, mais ils allaient s’ exacerber au XIVe siècle à cause de l’affaiblissement de l’Arménie, dont la papauté comptait profiter sans vergogne. Installés à Avignon à partir de 1309, les papes se montrèrent intraitables: trouvant là un moyen de chantage idéal, ils exigeaient comme préalable à toute aide éventuelle la soumission de l’Église arménienne et l’ adoption du rite latin, dont elle s’éloignait sur plusieurs points comme le mélange de l’ eau et du vin, le filioque, les dates de la Nativité et de Pâques, la nature du Christ. On connaît de nombreux projets de «passages», ou plans de nouvelle croisade, et comme le Levant chrétien était alors réduit aux royaumes de Chypre et d’Arménie ceux-ci étaient partie prenante dans une bonne proportion d’ entre eux. Dans certains cas, l’aide à l’Arménie menacée était même explicitement l’ un des buts de l’expédition. L’exemple le plus fameux reste le projet élaboré vers 1320 par l’infatigable propagandiste de l’ Arménie, le noble vénitien Marino Sanudo. Dans ces conditions, une scission se fit jour dans le monde arménien et ne cessa de s’approfondir, tant parmi les dirigeants qu’ au sein du clergé. Vu sa conversion à l’ordre mineur, il n’est pas étonnant que Hét‘oum II ait été un farouche partisan des concessions, secondé en cela par le catholicos Gré-

684

mutafian

goire VII d’Anavarza. Les conclusions d’un concile ad hoc réuni à Sis en 1307 allaient dans ce sens et soulevèrent de violentes protestations, tant en Cilicie qu’en Grande Arménie et en Asie Mineure, l’ un des chefs de file étant Ésayi Ntchetsi, recteur de l’Université de Gladzor, en Siounie. La réponse des « unionistes» fut la convocation du concile d’Adana, en 1316, qui entérina ces décisions latinophiles. Rois et catholicos suivaient cette ligne qui, loin de faire l’ unanimité dans le royaume, était catégoriquement rejetée par l’ écrasante majorité du clergé de Grande Arménie. C’est le pape Jean XXII qui lança dès son avènement en 1316 une campagne de prosélytisme en direction du monde arménien, confiée en un premier temps aux franciscains, mais bientôt aux dominicains, plus agressifs. Elle s’ avéra remarquablement efficace et aboutit à la fondation au Nakhitchevan de l’ordre des Frères uniteurs, constitué d’Arméniens catholiques qui allaient devenir le fer de lance de la pénétration romaine. Plusieurs textes viscéralement antiarméniens furent diffusés, le plus célèbre étant la liste des « cent dix-sept erreurs» dressée à Avignon en 1341, sur ordre de Benoît XII, par des Arméniens convertis. Les tensions persistèrent jusqu’ à la chute du royaume, à laquelle elles contribuèrent en créant un climat de guerre civile. Ajoutons que ces concessions ne servirent finalement à rien, aucune aide efficace n’étant venue de l’Europe. Les États étaient, de plus, trop occupés par leurs problèmes internes et leurs rivalités qui dégénéraient parfois en affrontements, comme la guerre de Cent Ans déclenchée peu avant 1340.

La culture arménienne durant l’agonie du royaume (1289-1375) Après l’apogée culturelle de la période de gloire du royaume, on aurait pu s’ attendre à une période de creux. En fait, sans atteindre les sommets précédents, le monde arménien n’a cessé de montrer sa vitalité. Le commerce se poursuivait tant bien que mal, comme le montre le privilège accordé aux Siciliens en 1331. L’architecture continuait à produire ses chefs-d’ œuvre, en particulier en Grande Arménie sous la houlette des grandes familles comme les Ôrbélian à Tat‘èv et Noravank‘, les Prochian à Spitakavor, les Vatchoutian à Sanahin. L’art du khatchkar atteignit des sommets avec les œuvres de Momik et Pôghos, et l’ orfèvrerie peut s’enorgueillir de belles reliures, comme celles de l’ « Évangile de la Mer» de 1334 ou de l’«Évangile de Gênes » de 1347, ainsi que de deux superbes reliquaires en argent, l’un réalisé en Cilicie en 1293 pour commémorer la chute de Hŕomkla, l’autre en Grande Arménie en 1300, commande des princes Prochian du Vayots Dzor. L’enluminure est dominée par la figure du

l’ arménie médiévale

685

prolifique Sargis Pitzak qui, sans avoir le génie de T‘oros Ŕoslin, élabora un art assez personnel dont de nombreux spécimens nous sont parvenus. Il n’en faut pas pour autant négliger Mkhit‘ar Anetsi, T‘oros Tarônetsi ou encore Avag, dont les œuvres traduisent une farouche opposition à l’ Église catholique. L’historiographie brilla encore autour de 1300, que ce soit en Grande Arménie avec le prince de Siounie Stép‘annos Ôrbélian, opposant comme Avag à toute idée d’«union» religieuse, ou en Cilicie avec Hét‘oum de Korykos, cousin germain du roi Léon II, qui, à côté de ses écrits en arménien, dicta en français, sur commande du pape Clément V, son œuvre immortelle intitulée La Fleur des histoires de la terre d’Orient; on y trouve en particulier d’ inestimables renseignements sur les Mongols, dont l’auteur était familier. La littérature fut durablement marquée par les luttes religieuses. Ainsi, de la ville d’ Erznka, en Asie Mineure, étaient originaires aussi bien Hovhannês Erznkatsi Tzortzoretsi, fervent unioniste, que Movsês Erznkatsi, farouche opposant, comme l’ était en Cilicie Georges de Skevŕa. Citons également les poètes Frik et Khatchatour Ketchaŕetsi.

La fin du royaume d’Arménie (1306-1375) Un autre fils de Léon II, Ôchin, monta sur le trône en 1308. Il fut tout de suite confronté à un nouveau problème: en 1306, sans doute avec la complicité de son épouse Zabêl, sœur du roi d’Arménie, Amaury de Tyr avait renversé son frère le roi de Chypre et pris le pouvoir dans l’île. Henri II fut exilé en Cilicie où Ôchin l’incarcéra à Lambron. Cette première crise arméno-chypriote prit formellement fin en 1310 avec l’assassinat d’Amaury et l’ accord qui suivit, mais elle laissa des cicatrices qui mirent largement une décennie à disparaître et affaiblirent considérablement le royaume. Son fils Léon IV lui succéda en 1321, dans une atmosphère malsaine de complots. Les Mamelouks en profitèrent pour lancer une attaque et mettre à sac le port d’Ayas, seul concurrent d’Alexandrie. Le royaume dut encore négocier une trêve, qui fut violée en 1335 et 1337. La paix de 1337 scellait la perte d’ Ayas et amputait le royaume de toute la partie à l’est du Pyramos. Pendant ce temps, le roi multipliait les ambassades en Europe, qui restèrent toutes lettre morte. (Carte 27.16) La décadence du royaume fut accélérée par les luttes internes, tant dynastiques que religieuses. Léon IV mourut sans héritier en 1341. Lui succéda son cousin germain Guy, fils de Zabêl et d’Amaury de Tyr. Ce Lusignan, deuxième roi latin d’Arménie, subit le même sort que le premier et fut assassiné au bout de deux ans. La couronne passa successivement à deux Constantin, d’ une

686

mutafian

branche héthoumide cadette, qui eux aussi adressèrent de vains appels à l’ Europe. En 1360, les Mamelouks s’emparèrent de la côte cilicienne, privant le royaume de tout accès à la mer. Enfin, après la mort du deuxième Constantin, le dernier roi d’Arménie fut un Lusignan, Léon V, neveu de Guy. Il fut couronné en septembre 1374, et Sis tomba aux mains des Mamelouks en avril 1375. Emmené en captivité au Caire, Léon fut libéré grâce au roi de Castille qui paya la rançon exigée par le sultan. De lointaine ascendance poitevine, Léon V se rendit finalement en France et mourut à Paris en 1393. On l’ enterra au couvent des Célestins, qui fut pillé à la Révolution mais le gisant put être sauvé et se trouve depuis la Restauration dans la Basilique de Saint-Denis, au milieu des rois de France. En Cilicie, la population arménienne se maintint jusqu’ au début du XXe siècle, quand y mirent fin les massacres d’Adana de 1909 suivis du génocide de 1915. Quant au catholicossat, il demeura à Sis après la chute du royaume, mais en 1441 un concile décida le transfert en Grande Arménie. Sis devint alors le siège du «Catholicossat de la Grande Maison de Cilicie », dernier reste institutionnel de l’ultime royaume d’Arménie, déplacé en 1930 à Antélias, près de Beyrouth, suite au bradage de la Cilicie par la France dans les années 1920.

Cartes Les cartes proviennent de plusieurs livres de l’auteur: – 27.1 et 27.3: Atlas historique de l’Arménie (Paris : Autrement, 2001), cartographie Éric Van Lauwe; – 27.4: La Cilicie au carrefour des empires (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1988), cartographie Jean Khatchikian; – 27.2 et 27.5 à 27.16: L’Arménie du Levant (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2012), cartographie Éric Van Lauwe.

carte 27.1 À l’avènement du calife abbaside Haroun al-Rachid

l’ arménie médiévale

687

carte 27.2 Les royaumes de Grande Arménie (fin du Xe siècle)

688 mutafian

carte 27.3 La Cilicie au XIIe siècle

l’ arménie médiévale

689

carte 27.4 Les principales voies de contournement et de traversée de la Cilicie

690 mutafian

l’ arménie médiévale

carte 27.5 La première croisade en Asie (1097-1099)

691

692

carte 27.6 Le Levant en 1140

mutafian

l’ arménie médiévale

carte 27.7 La troisième croisade en Asie (1190)

693

694

carte 27.8 La reconquête arméno-géorgienne (début du XIIIe siècle)

carte 27.9 Les principautés de l’ Arménie zakaride (XIIIe–XIVe siècle)

mutafian

l’ arménie médiévale

carte 27.10

Le Levant à la mort de Léon Ier (1219)

695

carte 27.11

Les Mongols au Proche-Orient (1229-1243)

696 mutafian

l’ arménie médiévale

carte 27.12

Les voyages de Smbat et de Hét‘oum Ier en Mongolie (1246-1255)

carte 27.13

La partition de l’ Empire gengiskhanide au milieu du XIIIe siècle

697

carte 27.14

Les campagnes mongoles au Proche-Orient (1256-1260)

698 mutafian

l’ arménie médiévale

carte 27.15

Le Proche-Orient au début du XIVe siècle

699

carte 27.16

Les pertes territoriales du royaume d’Arménie (1266-1375)

700 mutafian

Indices

∵

Terms Armenia, Armenian, Armenians, and Greek (as ethnicity or language name) are not included into indices, as their scope covers the whole volume. Essays are included into index only partly (whenever it is appropriate). Abbreviations used: A.C. A.K. alt. Arm. Azer. B.E. epigr. Geo. Gr. P.K. R.E. Rus. S.E. Turk. Ukr. W.R.E.

Armenian Catholicos Armenian King alternative Armenian Azeri Byzantine Emperor Epigraphy entry Georgian Greek Persian King Roman Emperor Russian Sasanian Emperor Turkish Ukrainian Western Roman Emperor

The following typography conventions are used: 1) Footnote numbers are provided with leading dot, e.g. 100.24 stands for p. 100, fn. 24. 2) When the referred term appears both in the main page text and a footnote, the footnote number is provided in square brackets, e.g. David III Curopalates … 293[.21]. 3) Whenever a reference within an entry provides an alternative form or spelling, the actual form is provided in brackets, e.g. Balash … 214 (Valaš). 4) Whenever a referred fragment contains both the main entry spelling and the alternative form, the alternative form is provided in square brackets, e.g. Bagratids dynasty … 246 [Bagratuni].

Index of Personal Names Abas, catholicos of Caucasian Albania (552– 596) 215.18 Abbasids dynasty 244, 247, 281.16 Abgar 477 Abraham 163, 169, 170, 186, 477 Abû al-Barakât 634 Abū Manṣūr Alptikin 275.8 .9 Abū Muslim 492, 493 Achaemenids, dynasty 18, 483, 490.37, 506 Achilles 545, 550 Aelius Theon 222 (Theon) Aemilianus, R.E. (253) 543.50, 567, 570, 575 Aëtius of Antioch 131 Aetius Syrus see Aëtius of Antioch Agathangelos 24, 199, 201, 235.39, 236.42 Albinus see Balbinus Alēk‘sanos, epigr. Alep (1492) 346 Alexius I Comnenus 536 Al-Mukkadasi 290 Ammianus Marcellinus 530–533, 535, 537– 566, 568–576 Anania Narekatsi Anania Narekac‘i: 244, 248–251[.53], 252 Anania Shirakatsi 65 (Ananias of Shirak); Anania Širakacʽi: 219, 221, 222 Ananias of Shirak see Anania Shirakatsi Anastasius, A.C. (661–667) 219 (Anastase) Anastasius I, B.E. (491–518) 534 Anastasius Sinaïta 616 Antiochus 474 Aper, praetorian prefect 555, 556 Apirat Pahlavuni 651, 652 Apollo 220 (Apollon) Archangel Michael 161.28 Arcruni dynasty see Artsruni Ardashir I, P.K. (180–242) 565 (Artaxerxes) St. Aripsima 638 Aristeas 50.50, 54 Aristobulus 50, 51, 53 Aristotle 128, 132, 140, 150.f, 155 Arsacids dynasty 215.17, 470, 476, 478, 497– 500 Arsen Sapareli 228.13 Arsen Iqaltoeli 612, 614, 618, 620 Arsen Sapareli 228.13 Arsen Vachesdze see Arsen Iqaltoeli

Arshak II, king of Armenia (4th c.) 470 Arsuałēn, king of Caucasian Albania 212, 215.18 Artašēs see Artaxias I Artashes see Artaxias I Artaxerxes see Ardashir I Artaxiads, dynasty 499 Artaxias I, A.K. (189–160BCE) 288, 477, 482.21 Artsruni dynasty 244–247 (Arcruni), 297, 478 (Arcrunid); Arcruni: 482, 483.23 Artuqids dynasty 655 (Artukides) Ashot II Bagratuni, king of Armenia (914–929) 296.33 Ashot II Kukhi, ruler of Tao (891–918) 296.34 Ashot III, king of Armenia (953–977) Ašot III: 259–261, 271, 283.19, 285 Ashot IV Msaker, ruler of Armenia (806–826) 289 Ashot Bagratuni, ishkhan (732–748) 289 Ašot Bagratuni see Ashot III Athanasius I, bishop of Alexandria (328–373) see Athanasius the Apostolic Athanasius the Apostolic 646 Atrnerseh, son of Vasak 289 Aurelian, R.E. (270–275) 570, 571, 575 Aurelius Victor 539, 543, 544, 556, 558, 566, 568–570, 573 Badr el-Djamali 348 Bagrat (c. 975, unidentified) 285[.23] Bagrat, Eristav of Eristavs 293[.21], 294, 297 Bagrat 664 Bagratids dynasty 11, 228, 246 [Bagratuni], 262 (Bagratuni), 288, 289, 291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 319.37 (Bagratides), 478, 482 (Bagratuni), 494, 653 (Bagratides) Bagratuni see Bagratids Bahrām the Miracle-worker 488 [Wahrām ī Warzāwand] Balash, S.E. (484–488) 214 (Valaš) Balbinus, R.E. (238) 565[.152 .155], 575 Bar Šubḥa’el 177 Bardaiṣan of Edessa 477, 512 Bardas Phokas 293.21

705

index of personal names Bardas Skleros 293.21 Baripsabas 176.72, 177, 180 Barsabas of Jerusalem 160, 176.70, 177 Barsegh see Parsegh of Cilicia Basil, hagiographer 602, 604, 609 Basil II the Bulgaroktonus, B.E. (976–1025) 176.71, 290.7, 293.21, 297 Basil of Caesarea see St. Basil the Great St. Basil the Great 112 (Basilius), 134, 236[.45] (of Caesarea), 604 [of Caesarea], 605, 607, 609, 635, 646 (of Caesarea) Basile le Voleur see Kogh Vasil Basil the Wise 645 Basilius Minimus 131 Buddha 486, 497, 509, 510[.68] Burt‘ēl Ōrbēlean 313 Caesar Gallus, Roman caesar (351–354) 540, 545, 552, 553 (Gallus) Carausius, Roman usurper (286–293) 558 Carinus, R.E. (283–285) 570, 571, 574.190, 575 Carus, R.E. (282–283) 570–572, 575 Cassiodorus 219 (Cassiodore) Cassius Dio 535, 539, 540, 560, 562, 563 Claudius II, R.E. (268–270) 567, 570[.177], 572, 575 Commoda, sister of Constantine I 560 Commodus, R.E. (180–192) 563, 574.190, 575 Constans see Constantius I Constans I, R.E. (337–350) 550–553, 576 Constantine I the Great, R.E. (306–337) 160, 172–174, 543, 544, 549, 550, 552, 555, 559–562, 570, 573, 576 Constantine II, R.E. (337–340) 544, 549, 550, 553, 576 St. Constantine-Cyril 156 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, B.E. (913– 959) 296.33, 533, 534 Constantius I, R.E. (305–306) 558, 559, 561, 570[.177], 576 Constantius II, R.E. (337–361) 532.12, 537, 540–542, 545, 546, 549–553, 555, 576 Constantius Chlorus see Constantius I Constantius Gallus see Caesar Gallus Cornelius the Centurion 604 Cottius, Celtic king (1st c. BCE) 544 Crassus see Carausius Cyril of Alexandria 616

Cyril of Jerusalem (350–386) 152, 158.23 Cyril the Patriarch, Abba 633 David, king 475, 483, 498, 640, 642 David and Goliath 246, 475, 483, 484, 505, 506 David III Curopalates 290.7, 291 [Davit], 293[.21], 294, 297 David IV the Builder 653 (David IV le Reconstructeur), 669 (David le Restaurateur) David Bagratid see David III Curopalates David Kobayretsi 133–135, 137 David Magistros see David III Coropalates David of Sasun 481, 482, 487.30, 507, 508.66 David Tbeli 128 Davit III Bagratuni see David III Curopalates Dawit‘, epigr. Sudak 336 Decentius, brother of Magnentius 552, 553 Desiderius, brother of Magnentius 552, 553 Decius, R.E. (249–251) 543.50, 567–569, 575 Dexippus, Greek historian (3rd c.) 530, 535, 539, 540, 566–572 Didius Julianus, R.E. (193) 563, 575 Diocletian, R.E. (284–305) 543.50, 555–559, 561, 562, 571, 574.190, 575, 576 Egeria 173, 174, 183, 185 Ełbayrik, epigr. Ani, father of Mxit‘ar Xawt‘enc‘ 312 Elias of Crete 131, 132 Elias the Syrian 133, 134 Elijah 29, 30, 166, 172, 175, 177–180 Elisha 172, 176, 179, 180 Ełišē 243, 487.30 Ephraem see Ephrem the Syrian Ephraim the Lesser see Ephrem Mtsire Ephrem Mtsire 127 (Ephraim), 129 (Ephraim), 620 Ephrem the Syrian 88.71 (Ephraem) Epiphanius of Antioch 646 Epiphanius of Salamis 160.26 Eustathius of Antioch 646 Etikar, epigr. Akkerman 341 Ezekiel 156, 157.20, 163, 165, 186 Ezr, A.C. (630–641) 225 Ezra 155, 165, 186, 188 Eugene III, pope (1145–1153) 659, 660

706 Eunapius of Sardis 537–539, 541, 545–548, 550, 553, 559, 571 Eusebius, Christian historian see Eusebius of Caesarea Eusebius, pagan historian 530, 572, 573 Eusebius of Caesarea 535, 557–560, 562, 564–566, 568, 570, 572 Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop, Julian’s educator 545, 550 Eustathius of Epiphania 530, 534–544, 546–569, 571–573 Eutychianus the Cappadocian, chronographer 547, 548 Euthymius the Athonite 128 (Mtatsmindeli), 605 (of Athos) Eutropius (Flavius) 539, 541–544, 550, 553, 555–562, 566, 568–570, 573 Evagrius of Epiphania 535, 567, 572 Ezekiel 156, 157.20, 163, 165 [Ézéchiel], 186 Ezra 155, 156.16, 163, 165 [Esdras], 186, 188 Fatimids dynasty 271.3, 273.4, 275.9, 281.16, 348 (Fatimides) Federico Astaguera 334 Felix of Rome 646 Ferdōsī 480, 494 Flavius Josephus 35, 48, 51 Flavius Eutropius see Eutropius Florianus, R.E. (276) 570, 571, 575 Franchi di Pagano 335 Gabriel Patara, calligrapher 60.1 Gagik I Artsruni, king of Vaspurakan (10th c.) 242, 246, 247, 249, 251[.53], 295[.30], 296, 482.23 (Arcruni) Gagik of Vaspurakan see Gagik I Artsruni Galbinus see Balbinus Galerius, R.E. (305–311) 559, 561, 576 Gallienus, R.E. (260–268) 543.50, 567, 568.168, 570, 572.188, 574.190, 575 Gallus see Caesar Gallus, Trebonianus Gallus Galust, epigr. Akkerman 341 Garegin Sruanjteanc‘, bishop (19th c.) 480 Gelasius, pope 228.13 Gelasius of Caesarea 539.33 Gelasius of Cyzicus 560 St. George see George Zoravar

index of personal names George Cedrenus 538, 561, 569, 574, 576 George the Monk 538, 542, 568, 569, 574 George Syncellus 542, 556[.110], 558[.121], 566, 567, 569, 570, 575 George Zoravar 602–609 Giwt Arahezacʽi see Gyut Gogh Vasil see Kogh Vasil Gond, patron, epigr. Mār Behnam 345 Gordian I, R.E. (238) 564–566 Gordian II, R.E. (238) 543, 564, 566, 575 Gordian III, R.E. (238–244) 543, 566–569, 575 St. Gordios 581, 605, 607, 609, 610 Gratian, R.E. (367–383) 542 Gregorids family 227 St. Gregory see Gregory the Illuminator Gregory II the Martyrophile see Grigor II Vekayasêr Gregory III of Cilicia see Grigor III Pahlavuni Gregory VIII, pope (1187) 657 St. Gregory of Armenia see Gregory the Illuminator Gregory the Armenian see Gregory the Illuminator Gregory the Great see Gregory the Illuminator St. Gregory the Illuminator 112, 215–217, 220, 221, 225, 229.13, 232, 233, 235, 236[.42], 237, 458, 476, 498, 580, 599 (Grégoire d’Arménie), 600; Gregory the Armenian: 633–646; 658 Gregory of Khandzta 292[.17] (Grigor) Gregory Magistros Pahlawuni see Grigor Magistros Gregory the Miracle-Performer see Gregory Thaumaturgus Gregory of Narek see Grigor Narekatsi Gregory Nazianzen 127–131, 133–138, 140, 142, 150.f; Gregory of Nazianzus: 155, 165, 170, 186 Gregory of Nazianzus see Gregory Nazianzen Gregory of Nyssa 134, 236[.45], 238.49, 622 Gregory Oshkeli 127, 129–132, 135–137, 140, 142 Gregory the Patriarch see Gregory the Illuminator Gregory, son of Abas 130.9, 133, 134

index of personal names Gregory Thaumaturgus 635 (MiraclePerformer), 646 [Wonder-maker] Gregory the Theologian 127, 134, 165.39, 635, 646 Gregory the Wonder-Maker see Gregory Thaumaturgus Grigor, priest 264 Grigor II Vekayasêr, A.C. (1065–1105) 651, 657 Grigor III Pahlavuni, A.C. (1133–1166) 317 (Grégoire III), 651–655, 657–660 Grigor IV Tegha, A.C. (1173–1193) 656, 660 Grigor V, A.C. (1193–1194) 656 Grigor Lusaworič‛ see Gregory the Illuminator Grigor Magistros 250, 477 (Gregory), 482.21, 502 [Gregory], 503 (Gregory), 504 (Gregory) Grigor Narekatsi 244.11, 446.3, 476 (Gregory of Narek) Grigorios Part‘ewazin see Gregory the Illuminator Gurgen, King of Kings of Georgians (994– 1008) 293 Gyut, catholicos of Armenia (5th c.) Giwt Arahezacʽi: 211, 215, 216, 218–222 Hadrian, R.E. (117–138) 160, 174, 563, 575 Hamam Arewelts‘i 65 Hamazasp 246 Helen, mother of Constantine II 560 Heraclius, B.E. (610–641) 225 Herodian 530, 535, 539, 540, 542, 563–567, 573 Herodians dynasty 495 Herodias 32, 33 Hesychius of Miletus 535 Hethum I, king of Cilicia (1226–1270) 321 (Het‘um), 500 Holy Virgin see Mary; 233, 294[.22] Hormizd III, S.E. (457–459) 212, 214, 215, 218.30 Hormizd, Sassanid, son of Hormizd II 550 (Hormisdas), 551, 558.121 Hostilianus, son of Decius 569 Hostilianus Severus, possibly the R.E. between Gordianus III and Philip the Arab 567, 569 Hovhannês, archbishop 656 Hovhannes Imastaser 133

707 Ibn al-Qalānisī 273.5, 275.8 Imad ad-Din Zengi Zangi: 471, 477, 502 Ioane Mtavaraisdze 616, 620, 626 Ioane-Zosime 580, 599, 600, 604 (John Zosimus) Ioannēs Tzimiskes 259–261, 263, 267, 271.2– 3, 273.4–5, 275.8–9, 281.16 Isaac 163, 169, 170, 186 Isidore de Séville 219 Ivane Mkhargrdzeli 312 (prince Iwanē), 622, 626 St. Jacob, apostle 163, 186, 271, 509 Jeremiah, bishop of Caucasian Albania (5th c.) 215.18 (Eremia) Jeremiah, prophet 235 Jerome 541–544, 553, 558 Jesus 25, 41, 51, 53, 55.69, 60, 63, 65–72, 74– 80, 83, 85–90, 103, 117, 161, 167, 170.51, 176.72, 177, 179, 181.84, 183, 185, 230, 275, 287, 294, 319, 348, 446, 450, 504, 640, 642 St. Joannicius the Great 600 (Joannice) St. John, evangelist 38, 51.60, 163, 165 (Jean), 186 John II, bishop of Jerusalem (387–417) 152– 154, 156, 157, 158.23, 159, 160, 162–165, 168, 170–175, 178, 180–185, 189 John of Antioch 530, 533–544, 548– 551, 552.91, 556–561, 563–570, 573– 576 John the Baptist 32, 33, 285, 294 John the Chorbishop (8th c.) 153.6 John Chrysostom 159.24, 582 (Chrysostome), 596 (Chrysostome) John Climacus 614 John Damascene 613, 614, 616, 618–621, 623, 624, 626 John Italos 250 John Malalas 530, 533–535, 539–544, 546– 548, 553, 554, 558.119, 561, 563, 564, 567, 570, 575, 576 John Mansur see John Damascene John of Rhodes 537.25, 545.57 John Zonaras 530, 532, 533, 535–576 John Zosimus see Ioane Zosime John Xiphilinus 562, 563 Joseph, father of Jesus 67–69, 72, 73, 77, 86, 87

708 Jovian, R.E. (363–364) 537, 540–542, 547, 566 Julian, R.E. (361–363) 540–542, 544–551, 560, 575, 576 Justin I, B.E. (518–527) 535 Khachig I Arsharuni, A.C. (973–992) 248, 249, 251 Kirakos of Gandzak 65, 211.1 (Kirakos Ganjakecʽi), 658, 676+ Kogh Vasil 651 (Gogh), 652 (Gogh) Komitas I Ałc‘ec‘I, A.C. (611–628) 225, 446 Koriwn 243 Łazar P‘arpec‘i 8, 11, 219, 242 Leo Grammaticus 560.130 Leontius of Cappadocia, bishop 645 Leontius of Rome 644, 645 Levon IV, king of Cilicia (1320–1341) 295.30 Lewon imastasēr 285.23 Lewon, protospatharios, general of Tarōn 261 (Leo), 283 Łewond vardapet 259, 285[.22–23], 287 Libanius 532[.11] Liberius of Rome 646 Licinius, R.E. (308–324) 543.50, 550, 559– 561, 576 Magnentius, Roman usurper (350–353) 531, 549–553, 574.190, 576 Magnus, consul 297 Magnus of Carrhae 533.14, 547, 548 Maimonides 513.72 Malalas see John Malalas Mamer, epigr. Ani, mother of Mxit‘ar Xawt‘enc‘ 313 Mamluks 319 (Mamelouks), 676+ Mamikonians dynasty 242, 288–290 (Mamikonyans), 478 (Mamikoneans) Mamšah, epigr. Ani, spouse of Mxit‘ar Xawt‘enc‘ 312 Manetho 44 Mansur see John Damascene Mansur, epigr. Alep (1492) 346 Marcellinus, co-conspirator of Magnentius 551 Marcus, possibly the R.E. between Gordianus III and Philip the Arab 567, 569 Marcus, son of Philip the Arab 569

index of personal names St. Mariam see St. Mary Martiros, epigr. Jerusalem 326 St. Mary, mother of Jesus 169 [Theotokos], 228.13, 230, 233 (Holy Virgin), 234, 261, 275, 294[.22] (Holy Virgin), 453 (Mariam), 645 Mashtots see St. Mesrop Mashtots Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi 259, 261, 285.22–23, Matthew of Edessa: 475, 484, 502, 506, 510 Matthew of Edessa see Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi Mayravanec‘i see Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i Maxentius, R.E. (306–312) 559, 561, 576 Maximian, R.E. (286–305) 555–557, 559, 561, 576 Maximinus Thrax, R.E. (235–238) 565, 575 Maximinus II, R.E. (308–313) 559, 561, 576 Maximus see Pupienus Maximus Maximus the Confessor 128, 131, 238.49 Meletius of Edessa 646 Meružan Arcruni 216 St. Mesrop Mashtots 8, 26, 215.18 (Maštocʽ), 229.13, 243 (Maštoc‘), 245.16 (Mashtots) St. Methodius 156 Methodius of Olympus 182 Metrodorus, philosopher 561 Michael, archbishop (d. 826) 600 Michael Psellus 250 Mithridates VI of Pontus 351 Mkhargrdzeli family see Zacharids Mkhitar of Ani 65 (Mkhit‘ar), 685 (Mkhit‘ar Anetsi) Mkhitar Ayrivanetsi 680 (Mkhit‘ar) Mkhitar Gosh 133, 671 (Mkhit‘ar Goch) Mkhitar de Skevŕa 680 (Mkhit‘ar) Moses 28–30, 42, 43, 50, 155, 157.20, 163–165, 171, 172, 175, 177–180, 186, 188, 189, 459, 496, 637.26 Movsēs Ałuanicʽ 211 Movsēs Dasxurancʽi 211 Movsēs Kałankatuacʽi 211 Movses Xorenac‘i 20, 24, 25, 211 (Movsēs), 464 (Moses of Khorene), 480.19, 494, 508 Mušeł I Mamikonean, sparapet (4th c.) 216 Mxit‘ar, epigr. Rome 327 Mxit‘ar Xawt‘enc‘, epigr. Ani 312; see also Mamšah, Ełbayrik, Mamer

index of personal names Narseh, S.E. (271–293) 551 (Narses), 558 (Narses) Nero, R.E. (54–68) 541 Nerses III Tayetsi, A.C. (641–661) 290–292 Nerses IV the Gracious, A.C. (1166–1173) 133 (Shnorhali), 134, 317 (Nersēs le Gracieux), 445.1, 446 (Šnorhali), 470.3, 472, 475–477, 480, 488, 492, 494, 496–502, 510, 651–656, 658–660 Nerses Klayetsi see Nerses IV Nersēs Lambronac‘i 250, 658 Nerses Shnorhali see Nerses IV Nerses of Tayk see Nerses III = Nerses Shnorhali Nerva, R.E. (96–97) 531, 532, 574.190, 575 Nicetas, hegumen of Medikion (d. 820) 599 Nicetas Stethatos 613, 616 Nikephoros, patriarch of Constantinople 600 Nikołos Całkarar, miniaturist from Caffa 331 Nimrod 477 Noah 157.20, 163, 167–169, 184, 186, 188, 515 Noršah, epigr. Sudak 336 Numerian, R.E. (283–284) 555, 556, 570, 571, 575 Orbelians dynasty 134 Oribasius, physician of Julian 548 Octavian, R.E. (27 BCE–14 CE) 572 Optatus of Mileve 160.26 Orpheus 137, 138 Pahlavuni, dynasty 317, 471, 476, 507, Pahlawouni: 651–653, 655–657 Panodorus of Alexandria 539.33, 558, 559 Pap, Armenian king (367–374) 215, 216 Pap Hanjawacʿi (c. 975, unidentified) 285[.23] Parsegh of Cilicia, A.C. (1105–1113) Barsegh: 652, 654 St. Paul, apostle 52, 53, 109, 163, 165, 166, 186, 229, 237.45, 473, 498, 636 Paul of Antioch 646 Paul of Tarsus 500 P‘awstos Buzand 18, 464, 470[.4] Peroz I, S.E. (459–484) Péroz: 212–215, 218.30, 220 Pertinax, R.E. (193) 563, 575 St. Peter, apostle 163, 165 (Pierre), 166, 186

709 Peter of Edessa 646 Peter the Patrician 552, 572.185 Petros Maxsoutencʿ 264 St. Philadelphus 297 Philip the Arab, R.E. (244–249) 567–569, 575 Philo of Alexandria 35–44, 49–51, 53, 54, 231.21, 232.22, 243 Philostorgius 539, 545, 546, 548, 550–555, 560 Phocas, B.E. (602–610) 542 Plato 74.41, 128, 132, 136, 141, 149, 155, 250, 251 Pompeianus see Pupienus Maximus Porphyry, staurophylax in Jerusalem, bishop of Gaza (395–420) 154, 164, 165, 167, 174[.64] Priscian, Latin grammarian 532 Probus, R.E. (276–282) 570, 571, 575 Proclus Diadochus 613 Procopius, Roman usurper (365–366) 540, 542 Procopius of Caesarea 531 Pseudo-Aurelius 541–544, 553, 561, 569 Pseudo-Basil 604, 605 Pseudo-Dionysius 227, 236.42, 237.45, 47 Pseudo-Methodius 479, 480 Pseudo-Nonnus 129 Pseudo-Sembat 652–654, 656 Pseudo-Symeon 538, 539.32, 542, 561, 574 Ptolemy II Philadelphus, pharaoh (283– 246 BCE) 50 Publius Balbinus see Balbinus Publius Galbinus see Balbinus Pupienus Maximus, R.E. (238) 564, 565, 569, 575 Pythagoras 128, 132 Qalqašandî 635 Quintilianus see Quintillus Quintillius see Quintillus Quintillus, R.E. (270) 567 (Quintilianus), 570, 575 Raffi, 19th c. writer 470.4 St. Ripsime Rhipsima: 639, 641, 642; see also Aripsima Romanos the Melodist 445 Rubenids, dynasty 653

710 Sahak 246 St. Sahak the Great, A.C. (387–428) 26, 227, 228.13, 233 Sałun, paron, epigr. 313 Samuel of Ani 65, 671 Sapor II of Persia see Shapur II the Great Sargis, epigr. Jerusalem 326 Sargis, epigr. Akkerman 341 Sargis, epigr. Mār Behnam 345 Sargis, epigr. Sanahin 359 fig. 17.1 Sasanians, dynasty 5.2, 212 (Sassanid), 214 (Sassanid), 221 (Sassanid), 225.2, 243, 294 (Sasanid), 295, 296, 470, 475, 478, 482, 486, 487.30, 488, 492, 497, 558 (Sassanid), 661 Sassanids, dynasty see Sasanians Saul 246, 484 Seljuks, dynasty 5.2, 244, 322 (Seldjoukid), 478, 502, 622.48, Seldjoukid: 653, 655 Septimius Severus, R.E. (193–211) 563, 575 Severus Alexander, R.E. (222–235) 543.50, 564, 574.190, 575 Severus of Antioch 646 Shapur II the Great, S.E. (309–379) 215 (Šahpuhr), 216 (Šahpuhr), 470; Sapor: 537, 550, 551, 574.190 Shem 157.20, 163, 168, 186 Silvanus, renegade Roman general (355) 545 Simeon I of Yerevan, A.C. (1763–1780) 447 (Symeon) Simeon II, pope of Alexandria (830) Simon: 639, 646 Simeon Pghindzahanetsi 613, 614, 620–623, 625, 626 Smbat I (Bagratid), king of Armenia (890–914) 296 Smbat Sparapet 261, 283.19, 285.20–22, 321 (Smbat) Socrates, philosopher 74.41, 155, 251 Socrates Scholasticus 26–33, 535, 539.33, 552, 553 Solomon 29, 30, 163, 249, 252, 253, 255, 493 Sołomon Mak‘enac‘i (8th c.) 227, 237.47 Sozomen 29, 535, 539.33, 552, 553 Stat Tʿornecʿi, protospatharios (c. 975) 285[.23] Step‘anos Asołik Tarōnec‘i 226 Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (688–735) 237.47, 250, 445–448, 450

index of personal names Sylvester of Rome 646 Symeon the Logothete 538, 542, 543, 574, 676 Symeon the New Theologian 244.11 Tacitus, Marcus Claudius, R.E. (275–276) 570, 571, 575 Tacitus, Publius Cornelius, historian (1st–2nd cc.) 531 T‘ałēn, paron, epigr. 313 Tatur, epigr. Alep (1492) 346 Tēr Grigor, epigr. Lviv 339 St. Theodora 600 St. Theodore 600 Theodore Abū Qurrah 616 Theodore the Lector 539.33 Theodore Scutariotes 530, 536–538, 540– 544, 553, 554, 558, 563–570, 573–576 Theodoret of Cyrus 38, 535 Theodosius, anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Jerusalem (5th c.) 169 Theodosius I the Great, B.E. (379–395) 28, 154 Theodosius the Cenobiarch 599 Theon see Aelius Theon St. Theophanes 297 Theophanes the Confessor 538, 542, 543, 556, 558, 576 Theophilus of Alexandria 646 Thoros II the Great, lord of Cilicia (1144–1169) 653 Thrasymachus 251 Tigranes II the Great, A.K. (140–55BCE) 458, 508 (Tigran), 551 Tiridates the Great, A.K. (287–330) 19, 215[.21], 216, 217, 476, 637, 639, 641, 643 Tiridates III see Tiridates the Great Tiridates IV see Tiridates the Great T‘oros II see Thoros II T‘ovma Arcruni 244, 247[.27], 248, 249, 251[.53] Trebonianus Gallus, R.E. (251–253) 543, 567, 570, 575 Tychikos 222 Tzimiskes see Ioannēs Tzimiskes Uṙnayr, king of Caucasian Albania 215–218, 220, 221

index of personal names Vačʽagan I the Brave, king of Caucasian Albania 216 (le Vaillant) Vačʽagan II, king of Caucasian Albania 216 Vačʽagan III the Pious, king of Caucasian Albania 216 (le Pieux) Vačʽē, king of Caucasian Albania 211–215, 218–221 Vačʽē I, king of Caucasian Albania 215 Vahan Mamikonian 242 Valaš see Balash Valens, R.E. (364–378) 540, 541, 553 Valentinian I, R.E. (364–375) 540–542, 553 Valentinian II, R.E. (375–392) 542, 562 Valentinian III, W.R.E. (425–455) 542 Valerian, R.E. (253–260) 567, 570, 572, 574, 575 Varazdat (374–378) 216 Vardan Areveltsi 654 (Vardan l’ Oriental) Vardan Bałišecʿi, librarian at Amrdōlu 263 Vardan Haghpatetsi, vardapet 133, 134 Vardan Mamikonean 215, 478 Vardan l’ Oriental see Vardan Areveltsi Vasak, son of Ashot Bagratuni 289 Vasak Pahlawuni 470.5, 475, 484, 502–508 Vasil the Old 652 (Vasil le Vieux) Vasil, probably Pahlawuni, epigr. Hṙomklay 317, 323 Vasil Pahlawuni 651 Vasil the Robber see Kogh Vasil Vasil Tegha 652 Victor see Aurelius Victor Wahrām ī Warzāwand Miracle-worker

see Bahrām the

Xač‘ik Aršaruni see Khachig I Arsharuni

711 Yakob Erēcʿ, scribe at Amrdōlu 263 Yakob of Jǔła, priest 347 Yakobša, paron 342 Yamam, epigr. Alep (1492) 346 Yazdegerd II, S.E. (438–457) Yazdgard: 212– 215, 243 Yovanēs, epigr. Alep (1492) 346 Yovanēs, epigr. Tat‘ew (895–906) 311 Yovhan Mayragomec‘i 225–229, 237.47, 238.50 Yovhan Ojnec‘i, A.C. (717–728) 222 (Yovhannēs Awjnec’i), 228 Yovhannēs Awjnec’I see Yovhan Ojnec‘i Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʽi (899–925) 222 Yovhan(nēs) Mandakuni, A.C. (484–490) 226 Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i see Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i Yusuf ibn Abi’l-Saj, emir of Azerbaijan 246, 247, 296 Zaccias see Zake Zacharids family 622 Zake, teacher of Jesus 67 [Zaccias, Zakkai], 88 [Zakkai] Zakkai see Zake Zangi see Imad ad-Din Zengi Zaza of Dersim 503.58 Zengi dynasty 653, 654 (Zengides), 655 (Zengides), 656 Zenobia, queen of Palmyrene Empire 571 Zosimus 535, 537.25, 539, 542, 546.68, 548, 550, 551, 552.90, 553, 555, 559, 567, 568.168, 571, 572 Zoroaster 457

Index of Geographic Names Africa 271, 277, 477, 557 Akhtala 614 Akkerman 340, 342, 417–419 Aksum 156 Albania (Caucasian) 211–216[.10 (Ałuankʽ) .11 .17 [Utikʽ] .21] [Utikʽ (215)], 218, 220, 221, 225 Alep [Aleppo] 263, 264, 346, 350, 479.18 (Aleppo), 653, 656 Aleppo new for Alep Alexandria 26, 35, 37[.12], 40, 42, 43–44.25, 50, 53, 54, 497, 560 Ałt‘amar, island in Van 246, 295 (Aghtamar), 310, 312[.13 .14], 363, 482, 483, 487.30, 506, 522, 523, 524, 526 Ałuankʽ Arm. for Albania (Caucasian); 213.10 Amida [Diyarbakır] 216, 273.4, 534 Amrdōlu, monastery in Bitlis 263 Anastasis, church in Jerusalem 159, 172, 174, 177, 181 Anatolia 476, 478, 480, 481 Ani 244, 312, 318, 487.30, 652–654, 658 Antioch 178, 273, 292, 497, 532, 535, 537, 538, 545, 552, 553, 556, 560, 616, 620; Antioche: 652–655, 657, 659, 660, 664–669, 672, 673, 675, 680 Arab caliphate 296, 478, 482.23 Arabia 275, 495, 496 Aragacotn, region in Ayrarat 507.64 Arc‘ax 309.7, 471.6 [Karabagh] Arcn 244 Ardahan, region in Turkey 288.1 Ardvin see Artvin Aršarunik‘ 248 Arseats por, province of Tayk 289 Artamet 660 Artemita, probably Artamet 660 Artvin, region in Turkey 288.1 (Ardvin), 620 Ashtishat 26 Asia Minor 290.7, 342 (Asie Mineure), 462, 464, 472, 477 Assyria 246, 458, 459, 501 Ateni, church in Kartli 483, 525 Athos, mount 244, 602, 609, 612 Augustodunum [Autun] 551

Augustulum scribal error for Augustodunum; 551 Autun new for Augustodunum; 551 Awarayr 211, 221, 478 (Avarayr) Ayceacʿ, fortress in Tarōn 259, 261, 283 Ayrarat, province 290, 499, 507.64, 653 Axalgori 343 Bactria 497 Bagawan 215, 216.23 Bałēš Arm. for Bitlis; 314, 480.19 Bana Geo. for Banak Banak [Bana], cathedral in Tayk 290 Belgorod-Dnestrovskiï Rus. new for Akkerman; 340 Beotia 294 Bertha, monastery in Klarjeti 61, 620, 622 Bessarabia, region in Ukraine 340, 417–419 Bethel 163, 169, 170, 186 Bethlehem 159.23, 327, 344, 347, 349 Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyï Ukr. new for Akkerman; 340, 417–419 Bithynia 599 Bitlis [Bałēš] 263, 314, 480.19 Bǰni, fortress 316.28, 502–504 Black Mountain, place near Antioch 620 Black Sea 245, 342, 343 Busiris 558 Byblos 279, 458, 462 Byzantine, Byzantium 30, 74, 85, 127, 152.2, 153, 165.38, 166, 176.72, 180, 219 (Byzance), 225.3, 227, 229.13, 237.47, 244–246, 250, 259, 262, 273.4, 288–291, 293.21, 294–298, 472, 474, 477, 495, 496, 502, 530, 532, 533, 536, 538, 541–544, 549, 555.105, 561, 563, 571, 574, 577, 580, 613, 655 [Byzance], 657, 660 (Byzance) Caesarea 277, 288, 476, 605 Caffa [Theodosia] 309.7, 328–332, 334, 337, 338, 341, 342, 352, 390–394, 396–401 Cairo 281.16, 348, 349.143, 435–437, 642.32 Çandır Turk. new for Papeṙon; 377 Cappadocia 164.36, 227, 236.45, 476, 502, 565, 635, 645 Carrhae 548

713

index of geographic names St. Catherine, monastery on Sinai 249 Caucasus (South) 5.2, 60, 64, 66, 212.7, 215, 221, 288, 298; see also Transcaucasia Central Asia 215, 462, 464, 472, 477 Centre of the Earth 219.32 Chakq, province of Tayk 289 China 461 (Sino-), 515 Chordvan Arm. for Otkhta Eklesia; 291 Chorokh, river 288.1 Cyprus 344 Cilicia 295, 315–317, 319.37, 321–323, 325, 326, 336, 339, 475, 498, 653, 655, 656, 660; see also Cilician Armenia Cilician Armenia 339, 500; see also Cilicia Constantinople 156, 162, 169, 171, 177, 221, 259, 271.1, 285.21–22, 287, 290, 497, 532, 599, 600, 612, 635, 659 Coptus 558 Corycus see Koṙikos Cottian Alps, mountains 544, 549 Crimea 313, 314, 324, 328–331, 333, 336–343, 347, 352, 390–409 St. Cross church in Rostov-on-Don 333, 403 Dailam, region of Māzandarān 503.58 Damascus 260, 273[.5], 275[.8 .9] Danube, river 561 Dasxuran 211.1 Dirbi, village in Georgia 343 Diyarbakır new for Amida; 216 Djoulfa (Fr.) see Julfa Dura Europos 458, 459 Dvin, city 225, 244, 478 St. Gregory cathedral in Dvin 225, 290 Dzirav 216[.23] (Jiraw) Dzovk see Tsovk Eastern Europe 97, 474 Ecbatana 501 Edessa 259, 471, 474.10, 477, 497, 502, 652– 655, 657, 659, 660 Edremit Turk. new for Artamet Egypt [Mǝsǝr, Misr] 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 167.43, 183, 249.39, 271.3, 348, 458, 463, 479.18, 480, 496, 558, 633, 634, 647, 652, 655 Ephesus 26, 635 Epiphania 535 Erznka 245

Erzurum, region in Turkey 288.1 St. Étchmiadzine, church in Vałaršapat 108.18, 344, 360 Ethiopia 177.73, 178[.78], 179.78, 180 Euphrates, river 318, 342, 458, 476, 652, 655 Euphrates, province 651, 655 Europe 97, 339, 493; see also Eastern Europe Famagusta 344 Galicie, region in Ukraine 337, 339, 340, 410–415 Sea of Galilee [Tiberian Sea] 275[.10] Ganja 245 Gardman 225 Gaṙni 310, 313, 345 Gaul, region 544, 545, 569.173, 572 Genoa Génois: 328, 334[.90], 336.93 St. George church in Caffa 329 St. George church in Hoṙomos 312 St. George church in Tbilisi 344 St. George Ēǰmiacnec‘oc‘ same as St. Étchmiadzine; 344 Georgia [Iberia, Virk‘] 6.5, 60, 134, 165.38, 245, 271.1 (Iberia), 289.3 (Iberia, Virk‘), 295, 298, 343, 474.10, 477, 483, 525, 614, 622, 653 Göljük, village Turk. for Tsovk Gori 483, 525 Gošavank‘ alt. for Hoṙomos Greece 290.10, 293, 462, 471, 472.7 St. Gregory church in Thebes 293 St. Grigor church in Sisian 297 Gruševka [Hrushivka, Sala] 333, 336, 403, 404 Gugark 288, 289.3 Haghpat, monastery in Lori 137, 310 (Hałbat) Hałbat see Haghpat Harit Zuwayla, church in Cairo 635 Hatra 458 Hayoc‘ berd, district in Caffa 329 Hazar, lake Turk. for Tsovk Hizan see Xizan Hnevank, monastery in Lori 137 Holy Cross, church on Ałt‘amar 295, 482, 506

714 Hoṙomkla see Hṙomklay Hoṙomos [Gošavank], monastery 309, 310 [Gošavank‘], 312.14 Hṙomklay [Rumkale] 316, 318–321, 323, 351.149, 370–373, 477 [Rūm qalʿa, Rum kalesi]; Hoṙomkla: 654–656, 660 Hrushivka Ukr. for Gruševka Iberia [Virk‘], country alt. for western Georgia; 271.1, 289.3 Iconium Sultanate same as Rûm Sultanate; 654 India 457, 471, 472.7, 561 Iran [Parthia, Persia] 20, Persia: 85, 158, 167.44, 212–216[.21], 218, 221, 271, 294– 296, 308; 457, 459, 463 [Parthia], 469 (Persia), 470 [Persia], 471, 472, 475, 476, 480, 482 (Parthia), 490– 493, 495 (Parthia), 497 [Parthia], 503.58; Persia: 530, 534, 536, 537, 545– 547, 550, 551, 558, 561, 565, 568, 570, 576 Iraq 479.18 Isfahan see Ispahan Ishkhan [Ishkhani], cathedral in Tayk 290– 295, 301–303 Ishkhan [Ishkhani], village in Tayk 290 Ishkhani Geo. for Ishkhan Ispahan 324, 331.74, 348–351, 438–444 Israel 39, 41, 42, 43.25, 45, 47, 49, 53, 156.16, 161.28, 162, 177, 283, 473–475, 479, 482, 484, 494–496, 511, 512, 516 Iviron, monastery on Athos 602, 609 St. James, monastery in Jerusalem 226, 323, 326, 379–388 Jérusalem 39, 42–43.25, 44, 46.37, 47–49, 54, 97, 98, 100–104, 110, 152–154, 157.20, 162–165, 166.41, 167–172, 175–181, 189, 230, 231, 235, 260, 261, 277, 314, 316, 317, 323–327, 331–333, 335, 346–352, 354, 379–388, 445, 447, 495–497, 512, 516, 645, 655–657 Jǔła 325, 329, 330, 331 Julfa Azer. new for Jǔła; 329, 331 Kakheti 343 (K’axeti) Kamenec-Podol’skiï Rus. for KamjanecPodilskyï; 340, 416

index of geographic names Kamjanec-Podilskyï [Kamenec-Podol’skiï] 340, 416 Kapałak 215 Karabagh Azer. for Arc‘ax; 471.6 Karin 245 Karmir Vank, monastery in Euphrates 651, 652 Kars 244, 295.30 Kartli 343 Kgharjk Arm. for Klarjeti; 288, 289, 292.17 Khakhu Arm. for Kakhuli; 291 Khakhuli [Khakhu], monastery in Tayk 291 Khandzta, monastery in Shavsheti 292.17 Khirbet Muqa, church in Antioch 292 Khor Virap, church in Ayrarat 290[.9] Khordzean, province 288[.2] [Khorzean] Khorzene, province 288.2 Khotan 460, 461[.21], 462[.28], 486 Kiev see Kyiv Klarjk Arm. for Klarjeti; 288.1.2 Klarjeti [Kgharjk, Klarjk] 61, 288[.1.2] (Kgharjk, Klarjk), 289 (Kgharjk), 292.17 (Kgharjq), 620, 622 Kobayr, monastery in Lori 137 Koṙikos [Corycus] 320, 323, 374, 375 Ktuc‘, island in Van 314, 368 Kura, river 213.10, 214 Kyiv Kiev: 333.88, 334.90 Lemberg Lat. for Lviv; 337, 339 Lviv [Lemberg, Lvov] 263, 331 (Lvov), 337, 338 (Lvov), 339 (Lvov, Lemberg), 340 (Lvov), 410–415 Lvov Rus. for Lviv; 331, 337–340, 410–415 Maghreb 271.14 Mār Behnam, monastery near Mosul 345 Maragha 245 Mayragom 225 Mayravank‘ see Mayragom Māzandarān 503.58 Mec Kołmn 213 Mecca 477, 495, 496 Medikion, monastery in Bithynia 599 Mediterranea 457, 462 Mediterranean Sea 277[.12] [Ovkianos] Mesopotamia 18, 345, 457, 462, 477, 485.28, 496, 511.70, 516 Mǝsǝr Arab. for Egypt; 496

index of geographic names Middle East 5.2, 477, 479.18 Misr Arab. for Egypt; 496 Moesia 555, 557 Moldova 340 (Moldavie) Morocco 492 Mosul 345, 653, 656 St. Mother of God of Bethlem, church in Tbilisi 344 Nakhichevan 245 (Naxcawan), 246 (Naxcawan), 347 (Naxiǰewan) Narek 244, 248, 250 Naxiǰewan see Nakhichevan; 347 Naxcawan see Nakhichevan; 245, 246 Nazareth 35, 261, 275, 348 Near East 85, 97, 249, 259, 469, 477, 479.18, 483, 485.28, 487.30, 489.33 New Julfa, quarter in Isfahan NouvelleDjoulfa: 324, 349, 351, 352, 438–444 Nicaea 560, 635 Nineveh 246, 501 Nisibis 271, 551, 565, 576 Nor Naxiǰewan Arm. for Rostov-on-Don; 333, 403 Noravank‘ 313, 324, 332, 345, 367 North Caucasus 331.75 Northern Armenia 614, 653 (l’ Arménie du Nord); see also Armenia Nouvelle-Djoulfa Fr. for New Julfa Npat, mount 215 Nuarsak 211, 221 Ovkianos see Mediterranean Sea; 277 Olti [Oltisi], church in Tayk 290 Oltisi Geo. for Olti Ortaköy, village in Artvin 620 Oshk [Oshki], monastery in Tayk 291, 293– 295, 297, 303, 304 Oshki Geo. for Oshk; 291 Ostan 246 Otkhta Eklesia [Chordvan], monastery in Tayk 291 Pakistan 479.18 Palestine 43–44.25 .28, 49, 70, 177, 259–261, 281, 295, 599, 600 Palmyra 458, 462, 571 Panaghia Scripou, monastery in Beotia 294, 295

715 Papeṙon [Çandır] 323, 377 St. Paraskeva, chapel see Urbat‘i; 333 Parkhali [Parkhar], church in Tayk 60[.1], 291 Parkhar Arm. for Parkhali; 291 Parthia see Iran; 463, 482, 495, 497 Partaw 215, 245, 246, CH12, CH14 Pemzashen 297 Perozabad 215, 218 Persia see Iran; 85, 158, 167.44, 212–216[.21], 218, 221, 271, 294–296, 308, 469, 470, 530, 534, 536, 537, 545–547, 550, 551, 558, 561, 565, 568, 570, 576 Persepolis 506, 527 Petra 458 Phoenicia 259, 281 Pghindzahank 137, 614, 622 [Pghindzavank], 623 (Pghindzavank), 626 (Pghindzavank) Pghindzavank, monastery see Pghindzahank Podolie, region in Ukraine 337, 340, 416 Pont 342, 420, 421, 474.10 Red Sea 488, 496 Rome 327, 389, 497, 646 (Roman) Roman Empire 35, 277 (Roman), 281 (Roman), 287 (Roman), 473, 474, 486, 530, 559 (Roman), 605 (Roman) Rostov-on-Don 333, 403 Rum kalesi Turk. for Hṙomklay; 477 Rūm qalʿa Arab. for Hṙomklay; 477 Rûm Sultanate 622, 654 (Iconium) Rumkale new for Hṙomklay Sala Arm. for Gruševka; 333, 403, 404 Samarra 246 Sardis 571 Sanahin, monastery in Lori 310, 359 Sasun 479, 481, 482[.23] Sebastia [Sivas] 293, 245 Seleucia 320, 321, 323, 376 Seljuk State same as Rûm Sultanate; 653 St. Sergius church in Caffa 328, 329 Serkevli, village in Turkey 507.64 Shataberd Arm. for Shatberdi; 292.17 Shatberdi [Shataberd], monastery in Klarjeti 61, 292.17 (Shataberd) Shirak 287, 288, 297, 652 ( fr. Chirak)

716 Silifke new for Seleucia; 321, 376 Sinaï, mount 49, 62, 97, 106, 157.20, 163, 164[.34], 171, 186, 249, 580, ‘599, ‘600 Sion see Zion Sisian 297 Sivas new for Sebastia; 293 Siwnik see Syunik Sogdiana 459, 461, 486, 487, 492 Soldaïa Ital. for Sudak; 334, 336, 395, 405– 409 Sololaki, district in Tbilisi 344 Soradir [Zoradir], church in Vaspurakan 297 South Asia 477 Sudak [Sugdeïa, Soldaïa] 313, 330, 334–336, 395, 405–409 Sugdeïa Gr. for Sudak; 334 Surb Nšan church see St. Cross church in Rostov-on-Don Syria 65, 245, 259, 261, 273[.4], 281, 283, 292, 295, 346, 479.18, 620, 651, 656, 657 Syunik, province 113 (Siwnik‛), 124–125 (Siwnik‛), 297 Tao Geo. for Tayk; 289, 291, 297, 622 Tao-Klarjeti [Tayk-Kgharjk, Tayk and Klarjk] 60, 62, 288[.1] (Tayk-Kgharjk) Tarawn see Tarōn; 26 Tarōn, province 26 (Tarawn), 259–261, 283[.19] Tarsus 500 Tat‘ew, monastery in Syunik 311[.11], 351.149 (Tatew), 362 Tayk [Tao] 219, 288[.1 .2], 289[.1], 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 297, 298, 622 (Tao) Tayk-Kgharjk Arm. for Tao-Klarjeti; 288[.1] Tbilisi 60, 199, 613, 614 Tełer, monastery in Aragacotn 310, 313, 336, 366 Teleti 343, 422 Temple Mt. in Jerusalem 495 Temple of Solomon 157.20, 163, 173, 174, 181– 183, 186 Temryuk 331.75

index of geographic names Tepharike 245 Thebes 293 Theodosia Gr. for Caffa; 328, 330, 390–394 Thessalonica 572[.188] Tiberian Sea same as Sea of Galilee; 275 Tikrit 165 Timotesubani 165 Topolevka [T‘op‘ti] 333, 336, 402, 403 Topolivka Ukr. for Topolevka T‘op‘ti Arm. for Topolevka; 333, 402, 403 T’ordan 458, 459 Tours, city in Gaul 572 Transcaucasia 288, 290, 653; see also Caucasus Trebizond 245, 342, 420, 421, 623 Tsovk [Göljük, Hazar] 651–657, 660 Turfan 464 Turkey 60, 288.1, 295, 363–365, 368, 620, 622, 623 Ukraine 263, 340, 410–419 Urbat‘i [St. Paraskeva], chapel in Topolevka 333 Utikʽ Arm. for Albania (Caucasian); 214.17, 215 Vałaršapat 498, 499 Van, city 245, 481, 660 Van, lake 264, 295, 478, 482, 522 Vaspurakan, province 242, 244, 246, 252, 297 Virgin Mary of Kukhi, church 297 Virgin Mary of Ishkhan, church 293, 302 Virk‘ Arm. for Iberia; 289.3 Xaylandurkʽ 213 Xizan 326 Xoy 245, 478 Yoskepar, monastery in Lori 137 Zion 49.47, 160 [Sion], 162, 166.41, 230 Zoradir see Soradir Zvartnots cathedral in Ayrarat 290

Index of Cultures and Ethnicities Abkhazian(s) alt. for western Georgian(s); 653 Africans 271, 273[.6], 277, 279, 281 Alans / Alanian 213 (Alains) Albanian(s) (Caucasian) 98, 99[.1], 106.16, 213.9, 214–216, 218, 221 Arabs / Arabic 228, 260, 271[.15], 273.4, 277.4, 281.16, 288–290, 307–309, 311, 458, 469[.2], 473.8, 475, 478, 481, 486– 488, 495–497, 508.66, 509, 511.70, 516, 642, 643.36.38, 645, 654 Aramean(s) 458, 474.10, 478–480 Avestan 488, 489[.36], 491.40, 492.43 .45 .46 Bactrian 459, 461, 463[.34] Berber(s) 271.15, 273.6; see also Moors Carthaginians 484 Caucasian Albanian(s) see Albanian(s) Chinese 460, 461, 463, 464 Copts / Coptic 80, 85, 161.28, 171.53, 173.57, 180.83, 478, 480, 633–635, 637, 642, 645[.42], 646[.45] Dailamite(s) 503[.58] Daylam / Daylami see Dailamite(s) Egyptians 468 Ethiopian(s) 60, 63[.12], 67–73[.32 .33 .39], 75, 77–80, 83, 88, 91, 171.53, 173.57, 177, 178.78 [Ge‘ez], 180.83, 502, 505 (Ethiop) Ge‘ez see Ethiopian(s); 178.78 Georgian(s) 6.5, 60–64[.2 .6 .8 .12 .19], 66– 76[.43 .46], 78, 79, 83–89, 91, 92, 98, 103[.12], 104, 127–132[.2], 135–142[.36], 146–151, 154.11, 160, 161.29, 163, 166, 167[.44], 168.46, 174, 176, 177, 180.83, 199, 200, 225, 227, 228[.13] [Iberian], 288.1 .2, 289, 291, 296–298, 343, 344, 501, 580–600, 602–610, 612–614, 615.15, 616–622[.44], 624–626, 628, 653 (Abkhazians, Iberians)

Hebrew 37, 40, 41, 47, 48, 80, 81, 83–85, 90, 161, 229, 472, 474, 475, 482, 485, 494– 496, 501, 508, 512; see also Israelites, Jews / Jewish Huns 213 Iberian(s) alt. for [eastern] Georgian(s); 228.13, 653 Indian 6.9, 460, 463 Iranian(s) same as Persian(s); 213, 457, 459– 463[.34], 470.4, 471.6, 475, 476.13, 478, 479.17, 482, 486, 487, 492–495, 497, 500, 501, 503.58, 506.59, 510 Israelites 38, 39, 43.25, 46.37, 54, 481, 482, 484, 506; see also Jews / Jewish, Hebrew Jews / Jewish 35–45, 48–54, 70, 72, 153, 154, 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 167, 169, 171–175, 177–180, 182–185, 188, 189, 283, 473, 474, 494, 495, 501, 512, 513, 623, 624; see also Hebrew, Israelites Judeo-Arabic 474 Judeo-Persian 474 Judeo-Spanish [Ladino] 474 Khotanese [Saka] 459, 460, 461, 494 (Saka) Kurds / Kurdish 474.10, 478, 480.19, 5034.58 Ladino see Judeo-Spanish; 474 Maghrebian 271[.15] (Makhr) Makhr see Maghrebian; 271[.15] Manichaean 464, 486, 487, 515 Mandaean(s) 458, 494 Medes 501 Mongols / Mongolian 336, 480 Moors 557; see also Berbers Pahlavi 488, 489, 490.37, 491.40, 492, 494, 495, 496, 497; see also Persian(s) [Iranian(s)] Palestinians 273 Parthian(s) 459, 462, 470.3, 476, 477, 482, 495, 497, 498, 499, 515; see also Persian(s) [Iranian(s)]

718 Persian(s) [Iranian(s)] 158, 167.44, 213[.12], 214, 215.21, 216, 218, 221, 271, 294, 296, 308, 457, 459–463[.34], 469–471[.3– .6], 475, 476.13, 478, 479[.17], 482, 483, 486–488, 490.37, 491.40, 492–495[.44], 497, 500, 501, 503.58, 506[.59 .60], 509, 510, 534, 545–547[.58 .68], 550, 551, 558, 561, 565[.153], 568, 570; see also Pahlavi, Parthian(s), Sasanian Phoenicians 273, 458, 484 As a politician her sympathy was always for the underdog in society Roman(s) 40, 473, 481, 484, 486, 496, 497, 506, 519 Saka alt. for Khotanese; 494 Sasanian(s) 225.2, 243, 294.25, 295, 296, 462, 470, 475, 478, 482, 486, 487.30, 488, 492, 497; see also Persian(s) [Iranian(s)]

index of cultures and ethnicities Seljuks 478, 653 Sogdian 459–461, 462.27, 463, 464, 478, 480.19, 487, 493, 515 Syrians / Syriac 24, 61.6, 63–75, 76.46, 77– 85, 87–91, 154.11, 157, 245, 260, 458, 459, 474.10, 477, 479.18, 512, 513, 515, 633 Tačik 261, 271, 277, 279, 281, 285 Tibetan 460, 487, 515 Tocharian 464 Tumshuquise 464 Turkic 464, 482.22, 487 Turk(ish) 275.9, 474[.10], 336 (Turc), 342 (Turc), 479, 508, Turc: 653–656