Armenian, Hittite, and Indo-European Studies: A Commemoration Volume for Jos J.S. Weitenberg (Hebrew University Armenian Studies) 9042931655, 9789042931657

Citation preview

HEBREW UNIVERSITY ARMENIAN STUDIES 15

Armenian, Hittite, and Indo-European Studies A Commemoration Volume for Jos J.S. Weitenberg Edited by

UWE BLÄSING, JASMINE DUM-TRAGUT, AND

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

PEETERS 2019

ARMENIAN, HITTITE, AND INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES

HEBREW UNIVERSITY ARMENIAN STUDIES 15

Armenian, Hittite, and Indo-European Studies A Commemoration Volume for Jos J.S. Weitenberg

Edited by

Uwe Bläsing, Jasmine Dum-Tragut, and Theo Maarten van Lint With assistance from Robin Meyer

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2019

A Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2019 – Hebrew University Armenian Studies All rights reserved. Peeters – Bondgenotenlaan 153 – B-3000 Leuven – Belgium D/2019/0602/99 ISBN 978-90-429-3165-7 eISBN 978-90-429-4108-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Jos J.S. Weitenberg. Publications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uwe Bläsing Die armenischen Pflanzennamen in Peter Simon Pallas’ Flora Rossica. Eine Studie zu Etymologie und sprachlicher Interaktion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giancarlo Bolognesi Nuovi contributi allo studio dell’antica traduzione armena della Cronaca di Eusebio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christoph Burchard A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Aseneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Peter Cowe The Object of Ałt‘amarc‘i’s Affections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen Critical Edition: Endpoint or Starting Point? An Experiment with Basilius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rick Derksen ‘Henbane’ in Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jasmine Dum-Tragut Die Sprache(n) der armenischen Diaspora in Jerusalem . . . Gayane Gevorgyan The Past Imperfect in the Western Group of Armenian Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alwin Kloekhorst Hittite ‘water’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickran Kouymjian Illustrations of the Armenian Alexander Romance and Motifs from Christian Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henning Lehmann Severian Cento No. 2 in MS Galata 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

1

37

49 61

83 113 121

135 143

149 183

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Hrach Martirosyan Traces of Indo-European ‘Father Sky, God’ in Armenian . . Alessandro Orengo Il ԲԱՌ ԳԻՐԳ ՏԱԼԻԱՆԻ Un dizionario armeno-italiano del XVII secolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrzej Pisowicz A Short Phrase Book of the Stepanakert Variant of the Karabagh Dialect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David T. Runia Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim 2.62 and the Problem of Deutero-theology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James R. Russell From Mashtots‘ to Nga‘ara: The Art of Writing and Cultural Survival in Armenia and Rapa Nui. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Schrijver Hittite Plant Names in KBo XIII 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erna Manea Shirinian Vitae Homeri, Pseudo-Nonnos’ Commentary on Sermon 4 by Gregory of Nazianzus and the Armenian Book of Causes . . Michael E. Stone The Orbelian Family Cemetery in Ełegis, Vayoc‘ Jor, Armenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert W. Thomson Traditions of Armenian Biblical Exegesis: The Example of the Book of Proverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theo van den Hout Lydian qeśi-, qelλk and Lycian tihe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theo Maarten van Lint The Miniature of Ezekiel’s Throne Vision in the Erznka Bible of 1269 (J1925) and its Textual Background . . . . . . . . Lucas Van Rompay Two Armenian Hymns on Abraham and Sarah Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

207

249

259

271 315

323

347

375 395

403

423

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Uwe Bläsing Professor in Turkic and Caucasian Studies at the Arya International University, Yerevan. Giancarlo Bolognesi In vita Professore di Glottologia e Filologia germanica e Direttore dell’Istituto di Glottologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano. Christoph Burchard Professor Emeritus, Neutestamentliche Theologie, Ruprecht-KarlsUniversität Heidelberg. S. Peter Cowe Grigor Narekatsi Professor of Armenian Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen Honorarprofessorin Nordische Philologie des Mittelalters, ErnstMoritz-Arndt-Universität, Greifswald. Rick Derksen Specialist in Comparative Historical Linguistics, Baltic and Slavic Linguistics, Leiden (PhD Leiden, 1996). Jasmine Dum-Tragut Abteilung für Armenologie, Zentrum zur Erforschung des Christlichen Ostens (ZECO), Universität Salzburg, und Fachbereich Linguistik, Paris-Lodron Universität, Salzburg. Gayane Gevorkyan Senior Researcher at the Ačaṙyan Institute of Linguistics, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia. Alwin Kloekhorst Associate Professor at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. Dickran Kouymjian Haig and Isabel Berberian Professor Emeritus in Armenian Studies at California State University, Fresno. Henning G. Lehmann Professor Emeritus and former Rector of the University of Aarhus.

VIII

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Hrach Martirosyan Specialist in Armenian and Indo European Linguistics at the University of Leiden (PhD Leiden, 2008). Alessandro Orengo Professor of Linguistics, Dipartimento di Civilisazione e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa. Andrzej Pisowicz Professor at the Institute of Oriental Philology at the Jagiellonian University, Krakow. Douwe Runia Professorial Fellow in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne; Honorary Professor, Institute of Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University. James R. Russell Mesrop Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University. Peter C. H. Schrijver Professor of Celtic Languages and Culture at the University of Utrecht. Erna Manea Shirinian Head of the Department of research and Editing of Ancient Armenian Text at the Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, Matenadaran, Erevan, and Professor of History at Erevan State University. Michael E. Stone Professor of Armenian Studies and Gail Levin de Nur Professor of Religious Studies Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Robert W. Thomson In life Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies at the University of Oxford. Theo van den Hout Professor of Hittite and Anatolian Languages at the University of Chicago. Theo Maarten van Lint Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies at the University of Oxford. Lucas Van Rompay Professor in the Department of Religious Studies Emeritus, Duke University.

JOSEPH JOHANNES SICCO WEITENBERG 5 AUGUST 1943 GRONINGEN - 14 APRIL 2012 LEIDEN

Jos Weitenberg was born on 5 August 1943 in Groningen, the Netherlands. He studied Classics and Indo-European Linguistics, specialising in Old Norse, Hittite, and Armenian. His teachers in Armenian were Gérard Garitte in Leuven and Paul Jungmann in Bonn. In 1979, after teaching Classics at a secondary school, he became lecturer at the Department of Comparative Linguistics of Leiden University. He defended his PhD thesis, Die hethitischen u-Stämme in 1984. In 1994, also at Leiden University, Jos Weitenberg became the first Professor of Armenian Studies in the Netherlands, as incumbent of a Chair made possible by the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Dutch Armenian community under auspices of the AIEA, created for his exceptional contribution to Armenian Studies. He retired from the Professorship in January 2009. In 1981 Jos Weitenberg founded, together with Professor Michael E. Stone of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes of which he became Secretary. In 2001 he succeeded Michael Stone as President of AIEA, a function he held until the end of 2006. AIEA became a focal point of Armenian Studies in particular in Europe and the Middle East, next to the Society of Armenian Studies, established in the 1970s in the United States of America. Many scholars in Armenian studies now are members of both organizations. Over thirty years after its inception AIEA has over three hundred members and is a forum for students and scholars seeking to develop a cohesive scholarly field, foster innovative thinking and practical initiative, and to carry out the task with which the legacy of Armenian culture presents us. Its fundamental characteristic of a friendly, encouraging and fertile atmosphere is due in no small part to Jos’s inspiring effort. Jos Weitenberg is the author of a dozen monographs and some hundred scholarly articles and reviews, which have decisively advanced our insight in the development of Armenian from Indo-European, its dialectal variety and the development from Classical via Middle to the Modern Armenian varieties. Jos’s knowledge of Armenian in all its varieties was profound and in many respects, unparalleled. His Grammar of Armenian from Classical Armenian Onwards and his volume on Linguistics in the AIEA Handbook of Armenian Studies remain unfinished. It is a

X

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG

consolation to know that a colleague has agreed to carry these projects to completion. Early on, Jos understood the possibilities computerised and digitised tools would offer scholarship and he set out to serve the field through his co-operation with Michael Stone in the Leiden-Jerusalem Armenian Database, and later by setting up, with Professor Peter Robinson, the Leiden Armenian Lexical Textbase. In Leiden he worked together with the philologist and computer expert Professor Andrea De Leeuw van Weenen in devising computerised grammatical analysis tools, which led, among other things, to their jointly authored A Lemmatized Index of the Armenian Version of Deuteronomy (1992). Their collaboration also led to the successful completion in 1993 of A Reverse Analytical Dictionary of Classical Armenian, a project Jos had inherited from his teacher Paul Jungmann at his untimely death in 1979. Collaboration is a key-word in Jos’ approach to furthering Armenian studies and in integrating the field in the wider endeavours in the humanities, as among others books published in 2010 and 2011 show: his analytical wordlist to Christoph Burchard’s A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of «Joseph and Aseneth», published in Michael Stone’s Hebrew University Armenian Studies Series in which this memorial volume appears as well, and Eusèbe d’Emèse. Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise (1980). Fragments grecs et syriaques avec traduction, jointly edited with Françoise Petit and Lucas van Rompay, published in Peeter’s Traditio Exegetica Graeca series. In 1992 Jos set up the series Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature (DSALL) with Rodopi in Amsterdam, in which until 2000 six volumes were published. Two of these were authored by Altaïst Uwe Bläsing, another colleague and friend with whom Jos established a fruitful collaboration. Jos was member of the editorial boards of the Annual of Armenian Linguistics, Het Christelijk Oosten/The Christian East, and Armeniaca (English Summaries of Armenological Publications in Armenia). Jos was an inspiring teacher, encouraging a questioning, and (self-) critical attitude. Once he had decided that a student had potential he gladly placed at their disposal not only his scholarly expertise and kind attention, but his exceptional library, and the warmth of his family, as well. Generations of students and scholars enjoyed the hospitality Jos and Ingrid Weitenberg and their four children extended to them. Jos’s PhD students defended theses in Hittite and in Armenian Studies, benefitting from his deep love for and profound erudition in his field, and equally

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG

XI

from his human kindness, encouragement, and wisdom. His trust in the positive outcome of the dissertation was particularly stimulating. Although Jos was an avid reader, the ivory tower of scholarly aloofness was not his abode. When the collapse of the Soviet Union offered possibilities of direct collaboration with colleagues in Armenia, Jos actively engaged in research projects involving scholars in the Matenadaran and in the Academy of Sciences, in particular the Institute of Linguistics. For over four decennia Jos also maintained warm ties with the Dutch Armenian community and the various associations of Armenians living in the Netherlands. There, as among colleagues and friends, he was much respected for his knowledge of the Armenians’ language and culture, and deeply appreciated for his humanity. Not of a naturally combative disposition, Jos nevertheless knew well when to speak up, be it against Genocide denial, or to underline the positive contributions Armenians have made during the extended period of Dutch-Armenian contacts, of which the last four-hundred years are the best known. The illness, which had defined so much of his life and that of his family ever since he was diagnosed with it, took an increasingly heavy toll on his energy. He gratefully accepted an organ transplant, which considerably prolonged his active life. He joined various initiatives in Church and medical organisations to help support their aims. All who have known Jos were touched by the warmth of his personality, his great friendship and his humanity and kindness, and will cherish these alongside the profound influence he left upon them as scholars – in fact these seem indistinguishable with Jos, and this is also the experience of the editors of this volume. The editors deeply regret that this volume, envisaged as a Festschrift, has had to become a memorial volume. Particular thanks go to Mr Robin Meyer of Oxford University, whose energy, expertise and efficiency contributed greatly to finishing the editing of this volume. The editors are especially grateful to the authors for their patience with the very extended delay in offering the volume for publication. It is hoped that the volume may be seen as an homage by his students, friends and colleagues to the scholarship and the person of Jos Weitenberg.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

MONOGRAPHS 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

1984 Die hethitischen u-Stämme (Amsterdamer Publ. zur Sprache und Lit., Bd. 52). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 526 pp. 1985 Nederlands-Armeense Woordenlijst (Modern WestArmeens). Leiden: Hakuchi Press, VI, 63 pp. 1990 J.J.S.Weitenberg - A. De Leeuw Van Weenen, A Lemmatized Index of the Armenian Version of Deuteronomy (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32; Leiden Armenological Publications 1). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, XII, 96 pp. 1992 Parallel Aligned text and Bilingual Concordance of the Armenian and Greek Versions of the Book of Jonah (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature, 1). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 173 pp. 1993 Paul Jungmann (†) - J.J.S. Weitenberg, A Reverse Analytical Dictionary of Classical Armenian (Trends in Linguistics. Documentation 9). Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 836 pp. 1996 Robert Dankoff - A.Turgut Kut - J.J.S.Weitenberg, The Versified Armenian-Turkish Glossary by Kalayi, ca. 1800. Cleveland: Cleveland State University Armenian Publications, 61 pp. 1996 Een leerstoel in den vreemde. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar armeense studies vanwege de Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes op vrijdag 12 januari 1996. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. 22 pp. 2001 J.J.S.Weitenberg, Th.M. van Lint, H.L.M. Defoer, W.C.M. Wuestefeld, Armenië. Middeleeuwse miniaturen uit het christelijke Oosten, Utrecht: Catharijneconvent – Zwolle: Waanders 160 pp. 2009 Wetenschap, canons en Armeense woordenlijstjes. Oratie uitgesproken door prof. dr. J.J.S.Weitenberg ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als bijzonder hoogleraar in de Armeense studies vanwege het Leids Universitair Fonds. Aan de Universiteit Leiden op donderdag 22 januari 2009. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 11 pp.

XIV 10.

11.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

2010 Christoph Burchard, A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of «Joseph and Aseneth» With an Index of Words by Joseph J.S. Weitenberg, (Hebrew University Armenian Studies, 10). Leuven: Peeters, v. 211 pp. 2011 Françoise Petit, Lucas Van Rompay and Jos J.S.Weitenberg, Eusèbe d’Émèse. Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise (1980). Fragments grecs et syriaques avec traduction (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 15), Lovanii – Walpole MA: Peeters, xl. 442 pp.

WEB-SITE EDITION 12.

2007 LALT Leiden Armenian Text Base http://www.sd-editions. com/LALT/

ARTICLES 1972 1. 2.

“Einige Bemerkungen über die Ableitungen und die Flexion hethitischer u-Stämme.” Hethitica 1: 31-58. “Die hethitischen Wörter auf -aru.” Anatolica 4: 157-178.

1975 3.

4. 5.

“Armenisch ort‘ ‘Weinstock, Rebe’, griech. πτóρθoς und heth. paršdu-.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 89: 66-75. “Hethitisch kuša-.” Indogermanische Forschungen 80: 66-70. “Décès du Docteur Paul Jungmann (13.III.1929 - 16.VIII.1975).” Orbis 24: 535-537

1976 6.

“Griechisch IKTAR, YPERIKTAINONTO und hethitisch ikt‘Bein’.” Mnemosyne (Ser. IV) 29 (3): 226-232.

1977 7.

“Hethitisch (anda) warpa- und warpa.” Hethitica 2: 47-52.

1979 8.

“Einige Bemerkungen zu den hethitischen Diphthongstämmen.” In E. Neu - W. Meid (Hrsg.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch,

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

XV

(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 25), Innsbruck: 289-303. 1980 9.

“Armenian Action Nouns in -st.” In John A. C. Greppin (ed.), Proceedings First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books: 209-219.

1981 10.

“Armenian ĕndocin.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 2: 85-98.

1983 11. 12. 13.

“Een hettitische rechtszaak (KUB 13, 35+).” In K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Schrijvend Verleden, Leiden-Zutphen: 182-186. “Remarks on the Pronominal Genetive in Classical Armenian.” Revue des Etudes Arméniennes NS 17: 113-121. “Armenian Dialects and the Latin-Armenian Glossary of Autun.” In Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone (eds.), Medieval Armenian Culture, (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 6), Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press: 13-28.

1984 14. 15.

16.

“Evliya Chelebi on the Armenian Language of Sivas. Some Remarks.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5: 99-108. “The Inflexion of mi ‘one’ as a Trace of Proto-Armenian Gender.” In International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, Yerevan, September 21-25, 1982. Erevan: 195-218. “Additional -n in Armenian.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6: 101-106.

1985 17. 18. 19.

“Reconstructing Classical Armenian. The Case of kotem(n).” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 98: 238-244. “The treaty of Nvarsak. A Linguists’ Approach.” Armenian Review 38 No. 3 (151): 29-34. “Studies in Early Armenian Lexicography. The Armenian-Latin Dictionary by M. Veyssière De La Croze.” Revue des Etudes Arméniennes NS 19 (appeared 1987): 373-429.

XVI

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

1986 20. 21.

“Infinitive and Participle in Armenian.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 7: 1-26. “Additional h-, Initial y- and Indo-European *y- in Armenian.” In M. Leroy - F. Mawet (eds.), La place de l’Arménien dans les langues Indo-Europeénnes (Acad. Royale de Belgique; Fonds René Draguet; Classe des Lettres t. III). Louvain : 90-101.

1987 22. 23. 24.

“De armeense taal.” In Armeense Taal en Cultuur. Almelo: Onderwijsadviescentrum Noord-Twente: 3-10. “Proto-Indo-European Nominal Classification and Old Hittite.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48: 213-230. (coauthor Michael E. Stone, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) “The Leiden Armenian Database.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 2 No. 4: 245-250.

1988 25.

(coauthor H. Braam) “Het project Informatisering Niet-Westerse Talen.” In Handelingen Symposium SURF-en met een toetsenbord, Delft: TU Delft: 372-379.

1989 26.

27.

“Armenian arbunk‘ ‘vigour, maturity’.” In Subhadra Kumar Sen (ed.), Hanĵamana. Taraporewala Memorial Volume, Calcutta: Calcutta University 109-113. “The Inflection of Proper Names in Armenian.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 10: 57-72.

1990 28.

29. 30.

“Het Nederlandse etymologische woordenboek en de vergelijkende indo-europese taalwetenschap.” In W.J.J. Pijnenburg (ed.), Honderd jaar etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands, Den Haag: SDU: 363-372. “Armenian and the ASCII table.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 11: 79-82. “XVII dari latinatip k‘erakanut‘yunĕ.” Patma-Banasirakan Handes 1990/4 (131): 31-38.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

XVII

1991 31.

32.

“Reform movements in Armenian.” In C. Hagège - I. Fodor (eds.), Language Reform. History and Future, Vol. V. Hamburg: Buske: 393-408. “The meaning of the expression ‘to become a wolf’ in Hittite.” In Perspectives on Indoeuropean Language, Culture, and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé, Vol. I. (Journal of IndoEuropean Studies. Monograph, 7) McLean, VA: Institute for the Study of Man: 189-198.

1992 33.

34.

35.

“Aspekte der relativen Chronologie des Armenischen.” In Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und Relative Chronologie. Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Leiden, 31. August - 4. September 1987 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft Band 65), Innsbruck: 137-149. “An Early Dialectal Phonetic Split in Classical Armenian: the Cases of t‘awt‘ap‘em and p‘lanim.” In John A. C. Greppin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Cleveland State Univ., Cleveland OH, September 14-18, 1991. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books: 295-318. “The Uses of Asyndesis and Particles in Old Hittite Simple Sentences.” In O. Carruba (ed.), Per una Grammatica Ittita. Towards a Hittite Grammar, Pavia: Gianni Iuculano Editore: 305-353.

1993 36.

37.

38.

“The Use of the Subjunctive Form in Koriwn and in the History of the Nation of the Archers.” In J.J.S. Weitenberg – S. Simonyan (eds.), Computers in Armenian Philology, Erevan: Armenian Academy Press: 72-100. “The Language of Mesrob: l’Arménien Classique pour lui-même?” In Chr. Burchard (ed.), Armenia and the Bible. Papers Presented to the International Symposium held at Heidelberg July 16-19, 1990, Atlanta: Scholars Press: 221-231. “On the Interpretation of Postclassical Armenian Linguistic Data.” In Henning Lehmann & J.J.S. Weitenberg (eds.), Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools (Acta Jutlandica 69:1, Humanitas Series 68), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press: 63-74.

XVIII 39.

40.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

“Initial y- in Classical Armenian and the early development of Armenian dialects.” In Liana Hovsepian, Nvard Parnassian, Suren Simonian (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (21-23 September 1987, Erevan: Armenian Academy Press, vol. 2: 208-217. “The Leiden Jerusalem Armenian Database. A Report.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 13: 31-47. (A preprint appeared in March 1993, 13pp.).

1994 41.

“Text Chronological Aspects of the use of the Article -s and -d in Gospel Manuscript M and E.” In S. Ajamian and M.E. Stone (eds.), Text and Context. Studies in the Armenian New Testament. Papers presented to the Conference on the Armenian New Testament 22-24 May, 1992 (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 13). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press: 97-113.

1995 42.

43.

44.

“The Role of Morphological Variation in Medieval Armenian Poetry.” In J.J.S. Weitenberg (ed.), New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature, 3). Amsterdam: Rodopi: 121-134. “La Grammaire arménienne «latinatip» du XVIIe siècle.” In W. Smoczynski (ed.) Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia I. Safarewicz memoriae dicata. Cracoviae: Universitas: 461-472. “Sigmatization and Thematization in Hittite.” In Th. van den Hout & J. de Roos (eds.), Studio Historiae Ardens Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Uitgaven van het Nederlands HistorischArcheologisch Instituut te Istanbul LXXIV), Istanbul: 333-344.

1996 45.

46.

“Literary Contacts in Cilician Armenia.” In K. Ciggaar & A. Davids & H. Teule (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States: Context - Contacts - Confrontations. Acta of the Congress held at Hernen castle in May 1993 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 75). Leuven: Peeters: 63-72. “On the Early Development of the Armenian Dialects.” In Dora Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. McGill University Montreal,

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

XIX

Quebec, Canada May 1 - 5, 1995, Delmar NY: Caravan Books: 93-118. 1997 47.

48.

49. 50.

51.

“Armenian mawruk‘ ‘beard’.” In Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Amsterdam: Rodopi: 339-347. “Eusebius of Emesa and Armenian Translations.” In Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5), Leuven: Peeters: 163-170. “Linguistic Continuity in Armenian Hellenizing Texts.” Le Muséon 110: 447-458. “The Prepositional Group i y- and the Orthography of Gospel Manuscript M (Matenadaran 6200).” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 18: 39-50. “Armenian Plurals in –stan.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. (Fs. Schuetz) 50 (1-3): 329-336.

1999 52.

“Puristen uit Lwow; de sturing van het Armeens.” In Nicoline van der Sijs (ed.), Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen. Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Contact: 277-282.

1999-2000 53.

“On the Early Development of Armenian Dialects. II. The Monophthongization of AY.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 20: 1-26.

2000 54. 55.

“The chronology of Armenian dalapr ‘sword’ in Dionysius Thrax.” Aštanak 3: 65-70. “Greek Influence in Early Armenian Linguistics.” In Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, C. Versteegh (eds.), History of Language Sciences. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften. Histoire des Sciences du Langage, Vol. I. Berlin New York: Walter de Gruyter: 447-450.

2001 56.

“Two Grammatical Models for Classical Armenian.” In J. Kniffka (ed.), Indigenous Grammar Across Cultures. Frankfurt a. M. etc.: Peter Lang: 455-469.

XX 57.

58.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

“On the Chronology of the Armenian Version of Dionysius Thrax.” In Rosa Bianca Finazzi & Alfredo Valvo (eds.), Pensiero e istituzioni del mondo classica nelle culture del Vicino oriente. Atti del Seminario Nazionale di studio (Brescia 14-15-16 ottobre 1999), Alessandria: Edizione dell’Orso: 305-314. “Thoughts on Armenian Accentuation.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 21: 65-73.

2002 59.

“Aspects of Armenian Dialectology.” In: Jan Berns - Jaap van Marle (eds.), Present-day Dialectology. Problems and Findings (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 137). Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 141-157.

2003 60.

61.

“Hellenophile Syntactic Elements in Armenian Texts.” Actes du Sixième Colloque international de Linguistique arménienne (INALCO – Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 5-9 juillet 1999). SLOVO vol. 26-27 (2001 -2002): 64-72. “Classical Armenian hagag ‘Breath’ and ogem ‘to speak’.” In Brigitte L. Bauer – Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Language in Time and Space. A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 144). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 419-428.

2004 62.

“Armenian barwok‘ ‘good, well’.” In Adam Hyllested a.o. (eds.), Per Aspera ad Astericos. Studia Indogermanica in Honorem Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft). Innsbruck, pp. 627-632.

2005 63.

64.

“Dutch – Armenian Lexical relations.” In: Arend Quak – Tanneke Schoonheim (eds). Gehugdic sis sammungun thinro. Liber amicorum W.J.J. Pijnenburg. Groningen: Gopher Druk: 433-448. “Cultural Interaction in the Middle East as reflected in the Anthroponymy of Armenian 12th - 14th century Colophons.” In J.J. Van Ginkel, H.L. Murre – Van den Berg, Th.M. van Lint (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

XXI

since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 134): 265-273. 2006 65.

66.

67.

“Armenia/Armenien.” In Ulrich Ammon – Norbert Dittmar – Klaus J. Mattheier – Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, 2nd, completely revised and extended edition. Berlin New York: Walter De Gruyter, Vol. 3: 1900-1902. “The Armenian Monasteries in the Black Mountain.” In K. Ciggaar and M. Metcalf (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean. I. Antioch from the Byzantine Reconquest until the End of the Crusader Principality (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 147), Leuven etc.: Peeters: 79-93. “Aspects of Classical Armenian Orthography: Armenian E, Ē and the Greek names in the Gospels.” In Anna Krasnowolska a.o. (eds.), In the Orient where the gracious Light … Satura orientalis in Honorem Andrzej Pisowicz, Krakow: Ksiegarnia Akademicka: 215-228.

2007 68.

“Das armenische Personennamensystem.” In Andrea Brendler and Silvio Brendler (eds.), Europäische Personennamensysteme. Ein Handbuch von Abasisch bis Zentralladinisch. Anlässlich der 65. Geburtstage von Rosa Kohlheim und Volker Kohlheim, Hamburg: Baar: 57-66.

2008 69.

70.

“Syntactic Criteria for Classical Armenian Text Chronology: The Use of the Second Person Possessive Pronouns.” In Barlow der Mugrdechian (ed.), Between Paris and Fresno. Armenian Studies in Honor of Dickran Kouymjian, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers: 275-282. “Diphthongization of Initial e- and the development of Initial y- in Armenian.” In Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume I: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Studies (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32). Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi: 609-616.

XXII 71.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

“Schets van land en volk.” In Armeniërs in Nederland. Een verkennend onderzoek, Den Haag: Federatie Armeense organisaties Nederland FAON: 13-30.

2009 72.

“The use of the preposition n ‘in’ in Classical Armenian.” In Jahukyan Readings 2009. Republican Scientific Session Reports (Yerevan, April 28-29, 2009). Erevan: Nairi: 189-196.

2010 73.

74.

75.

“Note on the Classical Armenian closing diphthong ew.” In S. Vanséveren (éd.), Calliope. Mélanges de linguistique indo-européenne offerts à Francine Mawet. (Lettres Orientales 14), Peeters: Leuven: 249-257. “Armeno-Syrian Cultural Relations in the Cilician Period (12th14th cc.).” In Herman Teule, Carmen Fotescu Tauwinkel (eds.), The Syrian Renaissance (Eastern Christian Studies 9), Peeters: Leuven: 341-352. Takahashi, Tideimi and Weitenberg Jos J.S. “The shorter Syriac Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9. Part I.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 10, 68-82 (Part II to appear in the online journal Hugoye).

2011 76.

“Note on the Classical Armenian Suffixes oł- and awł-.” In Jasmine Dum-Tragut and Uwe Bläsing (eds), Cultural, Linguistic and Ethnological Interrelations in and around Armenia. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars: 183-195.

2014 77.

“Manuscripts and Dialects.” In V. Calzolari (ed.) with the Collaboration of M.E. Stone, Armenian Philology in the Modern Era. From Manuscript to Digital Text. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 214-225.

2017 78.

“The Dialectology of Armenian.” In J. Klein, B. Joseph, M. Fritz, and M. Wenthe (eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 1132-1146.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

XXIII

FORTHCOMING 79.

“Classical Armenian as a vehicle of religious thought.” In Kevork Bardakjian (ed.), The Armenian Church. (Submitted 2006). 16 pp.

REVIEWS 1.

R.W. Thomson (Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources), Moses Khorenats‘i History of the Armenians (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1978). Vigiliae Christianae 34, 1980: 101-102. 2. Michael 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). Vigiliae Christianae 37, 1983: 306-307. 3-6. Johann Tischler, Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck 1977 ff.). Kratylos 23, 1978 (1979): 86-95; Kratylos 24, 1979 (1980): 71-77; Kratylos 26, 1981 (1982): 91-94; Kratylos 30, 1985: 102-104. 7. Abraham Terian, Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus (Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981). Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 33, 1983 (No. 111): 380-381. 8. Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications 1981). Bibliotheca Orientalis 41, 1984: 254-255. 9. Claude E. Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981). Journal for the Study of Judaism 15, 1984: 172-173. 10. Thomas J. Samuelian (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture (s.l.: Scholars Press 1982). Journal for the Study of Judaism 15, 1984: 198-199. 11. Erich Neu, Investigationes Philologicae et Comparativae. Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser (Wiesbaden: O. Harassowitz 1982). Bibliotheca Orientalis 42, 1985: 120-128. 12. Hovhannes D. Muradyan, Hayoc‘ Lezvi Patmakan K‘erakanut‘yun, Vol. I (Erevan: HSSH GA hratarakč‘ut‘yun 1982). Annual of Armenian Linguistics 7, 1986: 99-101. 13. B. Limper, Die Mongolen und die christlichen Völker des Orients (Diss. Köln 1980). Bibliotheca Orientalis 42, 1985: 765-766.

XXIV 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

George Bournoutian, Eastern Armenia in the Last Decades of Persian Rule 1807-1828 (Malibu: Undena Publications 1982). Bibliotheca Orientalis 42, 1985: 766-767. Jaan Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol.1-2, (Berlin New York Amsterdam: Mouton 1984 f.). Gnomon 59, 5, 1987: 438-440. Editha Wolf-Crome (Hrsg.), Aufbruch nach Armenien. Reise- und Forschungsberichte aus dem Lande Urartu-Armenien, (Berlin: Reimer 1985). Bibliotheca Orientalis 47, 1990: 213-214. Gevorg B. Jahukyan, Hayoc‘ Lezvi Patmut‘yun Vol. I Naxagrayin žamanakašrȷ an (Erevan: HSSH GA hratarakč‘ut‘yun 1987). Annual of Armenian Linguistics 10 1989: 95-98. Mari Kristin Arat, Die Wiener Mechitaristen. Armenische Mönche in der Diaspora. (Wien: Böhlau Verlag 1990). Bibliotheca Orientalis 49, 1992: 576-577. Liana Hovsepian, Nvard Parnasian, Suren Simonian (eds.), The Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (2123 September 1987), Yerevan 1993 (Yerevan: Armenian Academy Press), Vol.1 (244pp.) - Vol.2 (253pp.). Annual of Armenian Linguistics 15 (1994): 85-89. Jared S. Klein, On Personal Deixis in Classical Armenian. A Study of the Syntax and Semantics of the n-, s-, and d- Demonstratives in Manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian Gospels (Muenchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 17, Neue Folge) (Dettelbach: J.H. Roel 1996). Annual of Armenian Linguistics 18 (1997): 63-68. Jean-Pierre Mahé et Boghos Levon Zekiyan (eds.), Saint Grégoire de Narek théologien et mystique. Colloque international tenu à l’Institut Pontifical Oriental ... 20-22 janvier 2005 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 275) (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale 2006). Vigiliae Christianae 62, 2008: 100-101.

EDITORIAL ACTIVITIES Editor of the microfiche series Armenian Sources (Inter Documentation Company, Leiden - Zug), 1985-1988. Editor (together with Th.M. van Lint) of the Series Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Linguistics (DSALL), by Rodopi in Amsterdam:

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

XXV

J.J.S. Weitenberg Parallel Aligned Text and Bilingual Concordance of the Armenian and Greek Versions of the Book of Jonah, 1992 (173 pp.). Uwe Bläsing, Armenisches Lehngut im Türkeitürkischen am Beispiel von Hemşin, 1992 (142 pp., ill.). J.J.S. Weitenberg (ed.), New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, 1995 (199 pp.). Uwe Bläsing, Armenisch-Türkisch. Etymologische Betrachtungen ausgehend von Materialien aus dem Hemşingebiet nebst einigen Anmerkungen zum Armenischen, insbesondere dem Hemşindialekt, 1995 (207 pp., ill.) Robert W. Thomson, Indices to the Armenian Version of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite. Greek-Armenian and Armenian-Greek, 1997 (vi. 126 pp). Robert W. Thomson, The Lawcode (Datastanagirk‘) of Mxit‘ar Goš. Translated with Commentary and Indices by Robert W. Thomson, 2000 (359 pp.)

Editor of the Series Accessing Armenian Colophons, published by the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, Erevan: 1. Gevorg B. Jahukian, Dialect Features in Armenian Colophons, Erevan 1997 (56 pp.) 2. Liana S. Hovsepian, The Language of the Armenian Colophons of the 13th Century, Erevan 1997 (103 pp.) 3. Artashes Matevosian, Armenian Colophons as a Source for the History of Medieval Armenian Culture, Erevan 1998 (124 pp.) Co-editor of the following publications: 1. Henning J. Lehmann & Jos J.S. Weitenberg (eds.), Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools (Acta Jutlandica 69:1 Humanitas Series 68). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press Aarhus, 1993 (112 pp. ill.) 2. Suren Simonyan and Jos J.S. Weitenberg (eds.), Computers in Armenian Philology, Yerevan: Armenian Academy Press, 1993 (101 pp.) (Review: Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Journal of the Society of Armenian Studies 9, 1996-1997 [1999)]: 207-209) 3. Robert S.P. Beekes, Alexander M. Lubotsky, Jos J.S. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und Relative Chronologie. Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Leiden, 31. August - 4. September 1987 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 65), Innsbruck 1992.

XXVI

JOSEPH J.S. WEITENBERG PUBLICATIONS

Editor of the Newsletter of the AIEA. (1983) Member of the editorial board of the Annual of Armenian Linguistics (1980-) Member of the editorial board of Het Christelijke Oosten (1997-) Member of the editorial board of Armeniaca (English Summaries of Armenological Publications in Armenia) (2000-).

DIE ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PETER SIMON PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA1 EINE STUDIE ZU ETYMOLOGIE UND SPRACHLICHER INTERAKTION UWE BLÄSING

Peter Simon Pallas wurde am 22. September 1741 zu Berlin geboren. Sein Vater, Simon Pallas war damals Professor der Chirurgie am Collegium medico-chirurgicum sowie leitender Wundarzt an der Berliner Charité. Seine Mutter Susanna entstammte einer Hugenottenfamilie, die einst von Metz nach Berlin übergesiedelt war. Der in diesem Umfeld heranwachsende Peter Simon genoß von jungen Jahren an eine gründliche Erziehung und Ausbildung, die ihn nicht nur der Medizin und den Naturwissenschaften nahe brachte sondern auch fremden Sprachen, für die er gleichermaßen begabt war. Zweifelsohne wurden hier die Fundamente für sein späteres universelles Können und Schaffen gelegt. Von 1754 bis 1760 studierte er Medizin und Naturwissenschaften, zunächst in Berlin, dann in Halle (an der Saale) sowie in Göttingen, um schließlich am 27. Dezember des Jahres 1760 an der Universität zu Leiden zum Doktor der Medizin promoviert zu werden.2 Es folgte eine Zeit der Reisen in Europa, eine Zeit der Unruhe, die geprägt war von Spannungen zwischen ihm und seinem Vater, der darauf drang, daß sich sein Sohn als Arzt niederlassen solle. Pallas jedoch hatte sich zu diesem Zeitpunkt schon längst der Botanik und ganz besonders der Zoologie verschrieben und weigerte dem Andringen des Vaters nachzugeben, bis er 1767 im Auftrag von Katharina II. als Naturwissenschaftler an die Russisch-Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu

1 Dieses Thema habe ich in kürzerer Form als Vortrag auf der 9. Generalkonferenz der Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes in Würzburg (10.-12. Oktober 2002) präsentiert. 2 In seiner Dissertation De infestis viventibus intra viventia (s. Abb. 1.) beschäftigt sich der gerade einmal neunzehnjährige Pallas u. a. mit der Frage nach der Entstehung der Eingeweidewürmer. Entgegen der damals und auch später noch lange vorherrschenden opinio communis, selbige entstünden aus verdorbenen Säften, vertritt er – wie immer seiner Zeit weit voraus – die Auffassung, daß diese Parasiten aus Eiern hervorkommen, die mit der Nahrung aufgenommen werden.

2

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 1. Titelblatt der Dissertatio medica inauguralis

St. Petersburg berufen wurde. Die Akademie übertrug ihm sogleich die Leitung ihrer damals größten Expedition, die ihn zwischen 1768 und 1774 ins Wolga-Uralgebiet und weiter bis tief hinein nach Sibirien (Transbaikalien) führte (s. Abb. 2.). Nach seiner wohlbehaltenen Rückkehr widmete sich Pallas ganz der Auswertung der Expeditionsmaterialien und ihrer wissenschaftlichen Beschreibung. Erst 1793 unternahm er nochmals eine einjährige Forschungsreise nach Südrussland und auf die Krim, wo er sich nach einem kurzen weiteren Aufenthalt in St. Petersburg niederließ, um beinahe den Rest seines Lebens dort zu verbringen. Erst 1810 kehrte er in seine Geburtsstadt Berlin zurück, wo er am 8. September 1811 verstarb. Pallas publizierte auf sehr vielen Gebieten der Wissenschaften. Allen voran steht natürlich die von ihm so geliebte Zoologie, die er mit 57, z. T. sehr umfangreichen Arbeiten bedacht hat. Sein überhaupt berühmtestes Werk ist die monumentale und dabei noch nicht einmal ganz vollendete Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica (1811-1831). Unter den botanischen Beiträgen ist die Flora Rossica an erster Stelle zu nennen, die ebenfalls unvollendet geblieben ist. Pallas nahm dieses Werk auf Anordnung

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

3

Abb. 2. Route von Peter Simon Pallas 1768-1774 (nach Wendland 1992: 1161)

Katharinas II. in Angriff, und 1784 bzw. 1788 wurden die beiden den ersten Band formenden Teile erstmals gedruckt. Vor der botanischen Beschreibung gibt Pallas neben dem wissenschaftlichen sowie oft deutschen und englischen Namen bei vielen Pflanzen auch noch deren Namen in Sprachen des Russischen Reiches an. Dieser Umstand macht dieses Werk so außerordentlich wertvoll, denn für viele Sprachen – insbesondere des fernen Sibiriens – enthält es die ersten und manchmal sogar bis dato einzigen Belege. Ein weiteres Verdienst von Pallas sind seine ergiebigen Reisebeschreibungen sowie ganz vortreffliche geowissenschaftliche, ethnographische und linguistische Arbeiten wie Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Rußischen Reichs (1771-1776), Bemerkungen auf einer Reise in die südlichen Statthalterschaften des russischen Reichs in den Jahren 1793 und 1794 (1799-1801), Tableau physique et topographique de la Tauride, tiré du journal d’un voyage fait en 1794 (1795), Sammlung historischer Nachrichten über die Mongolischen Völkerschaften (1776-1801), Linguarum Totius Orbis Vocabularia Comparativa (1786-89), um nur einige zu nennen.

4

UWE BLÄSING

Wie Pallas, der selbst niemals in Armenien gewesen ist, an die armenischen Phytonyme gekommen ist, läßt sich nicht genau feststellen. Möglich wäre, daß er etwa unter den in jenen Tagen schon in Sankt Petersburg ansässigen Armeniern Informanten gehabt hat.3 Viel wahrscheinlicher ist aber, daß er sie von Kollegen oder Freunden mitgeteilt bekam bzw. deren schriftlichen Aufzeichnungen entnahm.4 Außer diesen Pflanzennamen hat Pallas noch weiteres armenisches Material überliefert, vor allem in den Linguarum Totius Orbis Vocabularia Comparativa, die jedoch eine Art Grundwortschatz ins Auge fassen und deshalb kein Spezialvokabular, wie Pflanzennamen5 etc. enthalten. Zur Herkunft des darin dargebotenen Wortschatzes macht Pallas folgende Angaben: Variantes voces Persicae et Arabicae linguarum e vocabulariis manuscriptis variorum auctorum deprompta sunt. Sic et Armenorum lingua in pluribus vocabulariis differentias praebuit insignes et praesertim in libris adhibita, a vulgata variis secundum regiones idiotismis inquinata, saepe declinat.6

Wie dem auch sei, Flora Rossica gibt für 14 Pflanzen armenische Namensentsprechungen an, bei einigen sogar Synonyme. Insgesamt enthält das Werk somit 18 armenische Pflanzennamen, die – in jeweils alphabetischer Reihenfolge angeordnet – den beiden nachstehenden Auflistungen zu entnehmen sind: A. Name: 1. 2. 3.

armenisch & Alaschari Angus Asgyll

botanisch (nach Pallas) Viburnum Opulus Juglans regia Mespilus germanica

deutsch (nach Zander) Gewöhnlicher Schneeball Echte Walnuß Echte Mispel

3 Auszuschließen ist, daß Pallas die Wörter während seiner Zeit auf der Krim (also nach 1793) von dortigen Armeniern zu hören bekam, da die Flora Rossica zu jenem Zeitpunkt bereits gedruckt vorlag. 4 Zur Erstellung der Flora Rossica gebrauchte Pallas nicht nur die eigenen Materialen sondern in großem Umfange auch die im Akademischen Naturalienkabinett untergebrachten Herbarien und Manuskripte sowohl seiner Vorgänger wie D. G. Messerschmidt, J. Amman, J. G. Gmelin, G. W. Steller etc. als auch die seiner Mitarbeiter und Kollegen wie J. J. Lerche, J. P. Falk, G. Georgi, S. G. Gmelin, A. J. Güldenstaedt und schließlich die seiner Korrespondenten und Freunde, worunter E. Laxman, J. A. C. Sievers, P. A. Demidov, M. L. Patrin, C. L. Hablizl etc. zu nennen sind; s. Wendland 1992: 421. 5 Mit Ausnahme von ДУБЪ (131.) ‘Eiche’ und ВИНОГРАДЪ (143.) ‘Weinstock, Weinrebe’. 6 ‘Die unterschiedlichen Wörter des Persischen und des Arabischen sind handschriftlichen Wörterlisten verschiedener Gewährsleute entnommen. Ebenso weist auch die Sprache der Armenier in den meisten Vokabularien auffallende Unterschiede auf, und besonders die in Büchern verwendete weicht häufig von der je nach Gebiet durch verschiedene Idiotismen verderbten Umgangssprache ab.’

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Chagoch Chansoer Funduch Kagni Kiala-masli Kutzachur

Vitis vinifer Pyrus Malus Corylus Avellana Quercus Robur Viburnum lantana Berberis vulgaris

10. 11.

Laina-Taref Mamuch

Quercus Robur Prunus spinosa

12. 13. 14.

Masch Pevénk Srisk

Rubus fruticosus Quercus Robur Berberis vulgaris

15. 16. 17. 18.

Tans Tschata Tuta Wart

Pyrus Cydonia Morus tatarica Morus tatarica Rosa canina

B. Name: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

botanisch Berberis vulgaris Corylus Avellana Juglans regia Mespilus germanica Morus tatarica Prunus spinosa Pyrus Cydonia Pyrus Malus Quercus Robur Rosa canina Rubus fructicosus Viburnum lantana Viburnum Opulus Vitis vinifera

5

Echter Weinstock Holz-Apfel Gewöhnliche Hasel Stiel-Eiche Wolliger Scheeball Gewöhnliche Berberitze, Sauerdorn Stiel-Eiche Gewöhnliche Schlehe, Schwarzdorn (Echte) Brombeere Stiel-Eiche Gewöhnliche Berberitze, Sauerdorn Echte Quitte Weißer Maulbeerbaum Weißer Maulbeerbaum Hunds-Rose

& armenisch (nach Pallas) Kutzachur, Srisk Funduch Angus Asgyll Tschata, Tuta Mamuch Tans Chansoer Kagni, Laina-Taref, Pevénk Wart Masch Kiala-masli Alaschari Chagoch

Betrachtet man dieses kleine ‘Herbarium’ unter botanischem Aspekt, so haben wir es hier mit lauter Bäumen und Sträuchern zu tun, die zum überwiegenden Teil auch noch zu den sogenannten Nutzpflanzen7 gehören. Dies ist allerdings kein Zufall, sondern entspricht ganz dem 7 Wohl mit Ausnahme des Schneeballs (Viburnum) trifft dies auf alle anderen Gewächse zu, die in der Hauptsache ihrer Früchte (Trauben, Äpfel etc.) aber auch ihres Holzes (etwa Eiche und Walnußbaum) sowie bestimmter, aus Teilen von ihnen gewinnbarer Stoffe (Sauerdorn/Farbstoff, Haselnuß/Fett etc.) wegen von z. T. nicht unerheblichem Wert waren und bis heute sind; zu Einzelheiten s. Franke 1997.

6

UWE BLÄSING

Konzept der Flora Rossica, gerade wirtschaftlich nutzbaren Pflanzen den Vorrang zu geben. Eine kurze, aber ganz gute Charakteristik des Inhaltes der beiden Teile des ersten Bandes stammt von dem Zeitzeugen Karl Asmund Rudolphi (1771-1832), einem Mediziner und Naturforscher und ganz engen Freund von Pallas:8 Sie enthalten hauptsächlich die in dem Gebiet der russischen Monarchie wildwachsenden Bäume und Sträucher, zwar nicht vollständig, aber doch in der grössten Zahl, und das Fehlende hätte sich immer nachholen lassen, da Pallas, wie auch bey einem solchen Werk nicht gut anders thunlich ist, keine systematische Ordnung befolgte, sondern am Schluss eine solche Übersicht geben wollte. Von den bekannten Pflanzen ist wenig gesagt, von den übrigen eine vollständige Beschreibung und eine gute Abbildung gegeben, von allen aber bemerkt, wo sie vorkommen, und welche ökonomische oder medicinische Anwendung von ihnen gemacht wird. Am Schluss sollte eine Geographie der russischen Pflanzen geliefert werden, von der man sehr viel erwarten durfte, wenn man auf die Proben sieht, die er von der sibirischen Flora und ihren Gränzen in seiner (ersten) Reisebeschreibung (gegen Gmelin), so wie späterhin von der taurischen gab. (zitiert aus Wendland 1992: 430.)9

Aus sprachlicher Sicht nun macht die Liste einen recht authentischen Eindruck, d. h. sie enthält Notationen, denen in vielen Fällen – wie die Untersuchung zeigen wird – keine schriftsprachliche sondern nur eine dialektale Form zugrunde gelegt werden kann, wobei schwierig zu beurteilen ist, ob alle Lexeme auch ein und demselben Dialekt entstammen. Weiter ist hier im Vorfeld schon zu bemerken, daß die Etyma (soweit festzustellen) fremder Herkunft, also keine Erbwörter aus dem Indogermanischen sind. Neben Lehnwörtern, deren direkter Ausgangspunkt ermittelbar ist, enthält die Liste aber auch solche, deren Quelle nicht bekannt ist. Sie gehören in die Gruppe der frühesten ‘Substratlehnwörter’, wozu Greppin 1992: 61f. schreibt: We have, on an early level, detected Luwian, Hurro-Urartian and possibly Akkadian loanwords (though not directly). And than there is of course that great mass of Parthian vocabulary that came in just at the end of the preliterate period. Yet there remains a substratum in Armenian of large 8 Er ist der Verfasser der ersten Lebensbeschreibung, die unter dem Titel Peter Simon Pallas. Ein biographischer Versuch, vorgelesen in der öffentlichen Sitzung der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften den 30sten Januar 1812 im gleichen Jahre noch in Beyträge zur Anthropologie und allgemeinen Naturgeschichte zu Berlin erschienen ist (liegt mir nicht vor) und der ursprünglich auch das folgende Zitat entstammt. 9 Verwiesen sei hier noch auf die etwas längere, sehr aufschlußreiche, da sachkundig und unter aufklärerischen Aspekten geschriebene Rezension der Flora Rossica, welche die Allgemeine Literaturzeitung am 30. Dezember 1785 abdruckte (siehe ibd. 431f.).

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

7

proportions, between a quarter and a third of the language. This substrate is, of course, a loan substrate, but the languages that make up the substrate are unknown; certainly they are not among those recorded in any cuneiform or hieroglyphic inscription that has survived. But it is also obvious that this substrate is composed of more than one language.

Abgesehen davon, daß es über den hier gegebenen Rahmen hinausging, wäre es im Hinblick auf das gerade Gehörte auch mehr als verwegen, jeden einzelnen Terminus bis in den tiefsten und dunkelsten Winkel seiner Herkunft verfolgen und dabei schon Bekanntes überarbeiten und vertiefen zu wollen. Es erscheint mir deshalb angezeigt, aus dem aus Flora Rossica zusammengesammelten ‘Fruchtkörben’ eine Frucht herauszunehmen und deren Name – allen anderen voran – einer ausführlicheren Untersuchung zu unterziehen. Meine Wahl ist dabei gefallen auf: MAMUCH ‘PRUNUS spinosa’; Germanis Der Schleedorn oder Schwarzdorn, Anglis Black-thorn or Sloe-tree, Scotis Slae, Gallis Le Prunellier, Rossice ТЕРНЪ (Pallas 1784: 18).10 Diese Eintragung bei Pallas ist die früheste bisher bekannte Referenz für arm. mamux (Gen. mamx-oy) ‘Schlehe, wilde Pflaume11 (als Frucht)’. Sie ist genau ein halbes Jahrhundert älter als die im 1837 in Venedig erschienenen Baṙagirk‘ hay-italakan von J̌axǰaxean 1837: 944a (ferner s. Malxaseanc‘ III, 246; ARS 457a), die bisher als die früheste galt (so nach HAB III, 244a). Alt- oder Mittelarmenische Belege für diesen Terminus als solchen liegen uns keine vor, wohl aber für die von ihm abgeleitete Form mamx-i (Gen. Sing. mamx-woy, Gen., Dat., Abl. Plu. Mamxeac‘) ‘Schlehdorn, Prunus spinosa L. (als Pflanze)’ (NBHL II, 200; HAB ibd.),12 die bereits im 5. Jahrhundert in Buzandaran pat‘mut‘iwnk‘ (IV, 14: mamxeac‘n) vorkommt (s. dazu a. Ališan 1895:

10 = Prunus spinosa L., deu. Gewöhnliche Schlehe, Schwarzdorn; eng. Blackthorn, Sloe; franz. Epine noire, Prunellier (Zander 2000: 621b), rus. tërn, ternovnik (Macura 1982: 555). 11 = arm. vayri salor, welches synonym verwendet wird (s. Suk‘iasyan 1967: 435b); gleiches gilt für deu. wilde Pflaume, wilder Zwetschkenbaum oder nld. wilde pruymboom etc., die regional gebräuchlich waren oder noch sind (mehr dazu bei Marzell 1943-79: III, 1157f.). Weiterhin zu nennen ist Prunus Selvaticus (so bei Ališan 1895 ; zu selvaticus vgl. ital. selvatico ‘wild’ = lat. silvaticus), das Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2849, 2850 allerdings von Prunus spinosa L. trennt (?), obgleich schon Plinius (Historia naturalis XXIII, 133) die ‘Schlehenfrüchte’ silvestrium prunorum bacae nennt; s. a. Pauly 1938: 19, 1458. 12 Die modernere Sprache kennt neben mamxi noch das zweifellos rezentere mamxeni ‘Prunus spinosa L.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 791). Zu den Suffixen -i und -eni zur Ableitung von Baumnamen s. Abeghian 1936: 44f.

8

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 3. Mamxi (Safarean 1884: 34)

Nr. 1951).13 Durch diesen Textbeleg wird klar, daß das hier zugrunde liegende Etymon, mamux im Armenischen sehr hohen Alters sein muß, wofür indirekt vielleicht auch seine gute Verbreitung innerhalb der Dialekte sprechen mag, wozu Ačaṙyan (HAB ibd.) folgende Synopsis zusammengestellt hat: arm. dial. mamux (Erevan) ‘eine saure, unbrauchbare Frucht’, (Arabkir) ‘ǰan ēriyi’,14 (Łazax, Partizak) ‘Schlehe’, mamōx (Akn), mamēō‘x (Aslanbēg), mämēōx (Svedia) ‘Schlehe’; mamox (Muš) ‘unreif’ (so beispielsweise 13 Apa gnayr mardpetn Hayr i surb tełeac‘n, ew ēǰ yap‘n getoyn hosanac‘n Ep‘ratu, hovitsn t‘anjraxuṙn antaṙin, i getaxaṙnunsn erkuc‘ getoc‘n, i t‘awut‘ xarjic‘n mamxeac‘n, or i tełwoǰn i hnoc‘n imn šinac k‘ałak‘, zor šineal Sanatruk ark‘ayi, orum anun tełwoyn Mcurk‘ koč‘i. ‘Then the hayr-mardpet left the holy places and went down to the bank of the Ep‘rat River, to a heavily wooded valley, a thicket of reeds and buckthorn at the junction of two rivers. [This was] the place where a city had been built in antiquity by King Sanatruk, and the name of the place was Mcurn’ (Garsoïan 1984: 96; 1989: 140). Beachte die inkorrekte Übersetzung buckthorn, richtig ist blackthorn! 14 = ttü. caneriği ‘grüne Pflaumenart, die im Frühling auf den Markt kommt’ (Steuerwald 1972: 148a; TS 1988: 247b). Eine botanische Bestimmung liegt mir leider nicht vor.

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

9

in: keṙasě mamox ē ‘die Kirsche ist unreif’); mamug-salōr15 (Atap‘azar) ‘damon’16 und maměxki (Łarak‘ilisa) ‘eine Baumart, Schlehdorn’; s. a. Ačaṙean 1913: 748.

Wie wir sehen, haben einige Dialektformen sekundär ihr u in o verwandelt (z. T. sogar noch mit Palatalisierung desselben in einen ö-Laut). Weitere Realisationen dieser Art, nämlich mamox bzw. mamoxi bezeugt Ališan 1895 : ibd. (ferner s. a. Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2849f.) aus Tarōn17 in Ostanatolien. Als Beispiele für das Vorkommen von mamxi und mamux in der moderneren Literatur zitiert žamanakakic‘ hayoc‘ lezvi bac‘atrakan baṙaran (ŽHLBB III, 469f.) Textstellen aus Werken von Hovhannes T‘umanyan (1869-1923) bzw. Sero Xanzadyan (1915-1998). Ferner begegnet uns mamux noch im Dialekt von Nor-Naxiǰewan (Rostov am Don) als Umschreibung für ‘Vagina’ (s. a. Ačaṙean 1913: 748a), wie sie ganz ähnlich auch im Armenischen von Łarabał und im Türkeitürkischen existiert, vgl. arm. ciran bzw. ttü. şeftali, deren Grundbedeutung allerdings nicht ‘Schlehe’ sondern ‘Aprikose’ bzw. ‘Pfirsich’ ist (HAB III, 244a).18 Obgleich Ačaṙyan anhand dieser unverkennbaren Parallelen schon überdeutlich darauf hingewiesen hat, daß wir es mit einem einzigen Etymon zu tun haben, versucht J̌ahukyan 1987: 139, 209, 251, 276, ohne auf die Problematik einzugehen, mamux ‘Vagina’ als Begriff für einen Körperteil als Erbwort aus dem Indogermanischen herzuleiten, indem er es als Reduplikationsform vom Stamm arm. mux ‘in eine Sache stechen; das Stechen’, mx-el ‘hineinstecken, stechen, stoßen, hineintauchen’ (HAB III, 353f.; ARS 479a) < idg. *mukh- (*meukh-; Pokorny 1949-59: 745) ‘hineinschlüpfen’ interpretiert. Diese Ansicht ist aber, wie auch die weitere Diskussion noch zeigen wird, zumindest in dieser Form klar zurückzuweisen. Der Vergleich von Geschlechtsteilen mit bestimmten Früchten beschränkt sich – wie wir alle wissen – keineswegs auf die beiden von Ačaṙyan angeführten Beispiele, er ist recht weit verbreitet.

15

< *mamuk-salor = mamux-salor. = eine Pflaumenart, ‘Damaskean c‘ełic‘’ (‘von der Damaszener Sorte’) (Malxaseanc‘ I, 485a); s. a. Amirdovlat‘ 1990: Nr. 102, 429. Auch in Europa kennen wir seit alters her die Damaszenerpflaume, lat. pruna Damascena. Besonders im Gebiet Alaverdi in Armenien begegnet man der kultivierten Sorte damasx dełin (‘Damask-Gelb’), die mit ihren dunklen, herben Früchten der Schlehe recht nahe kommt; s. HP 1958: I, 154. Nach Amirdovlat‘ (Nr. 2111) ist dełin auch ein anderer Name für spitak salor (‘weiße Pflaume’). 17 Gebiet etwa nordwestlich des Van-Sees. 18 Vgl. dazu ttü. (Argot) Canım benim ... Tatlım ... Şeftalisi güzel hayatım ... ‘Du, meine Seele, ... meine Süße, ... mein Leben, deren Pfirsich so schön ist’ (Aktunç 1990: 252b). 16

10

UWE BLÄSING

Von Ačaṙyan unerkannt blieb die Anbindung des aus dem Dialekt von Van bezeugten arm. mamuxik ‘weibischer, charakterlich schwacher Mann, Memme’ (Ačaṙyan 1913: 748a) an mamux in seiner übertragenen Bedeutung ‘Vagina’, zu dem jenes sich nämlich formal und semantisch genau so verhält wie ttü. amcık ‘jemand ohne starke, als positiv erachtete charakterliche Eigenschaften’ (Aktunç 1990: 36b) zu seiner Basis am ‘Vulva, Scham’ (Steuerwald 1972: 38b). In beiden Fällen wird ein Wort für das weibliche Geschlechtsteil mit einem Diminutivsuffix (arm. -ik bzw. ttü. -cik) versehen, um so eine verächtliche, geringschätzige Bezeichnung für einen Mann zu kreieren. Möglicherweise hat dabei das türkeitürkische Modell im Van-Dialekt des Armenischen Pate gestanden. Desweiteren läßt sich unser Terminus auch noch im dialektalen Türkeitürkischen nachweisen, wo er allerdings eindeutig auf das Armenische zurückgeht; die Formen im einzelnen sind: mamuḫ (Tunceli, Elazığ, Malatya) ~ mamuk (Isparta, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Malatya) mamık (Malatya, Maraş, Hatay, İçel, Kırşehir, Ankara) ‘wilde Pflaume’, (Adana) ‘Sorte roter Trauben’ und ayu mamuğu (Malatya) ‘wilde Pflaumenart’ (‘yabanî can eriği’; s. dazu Fußnote 14) (DS 3115b; 4585a; 432b)19. Zu diesen Realisationen fügt Dankoff 1995: 102 noch memik (Bor – Niğde) ‘Pflaume, die sich aufgrund zu viel Regens im Frühjahr wie ein Geschwür herausgebildet hat und unter Pilzbefall leidet’ hinzu, was sowohl von der Form als auch der Semantik her möglich aber keineswegs zwingend ist. Ebensogut könnte es sich hierbei um das präzise vom selben Ort (Bor – Niğde) bezeugte und lautlich absolut identische memik ‘Brustwarze’ in einer Nebenbedeutung handeln; vgl. dazu ttü. meme ‘Brust’, übertragen u. a. ‘Geschwulst, Knoten’ (Steuerwald 1972: 622a), memecik ‘kleine Geschwulst oder pickelähnliche Erhebung auf der Haut bzw. der Schleimhaut’ (TS 1004b) sowie krd. memik ‘Brust; Brustwarze; kleine Geschwulst, Geschwür (auf der Haut)’ (Îzolî 1987: 129a). Verkümmerte und durch Krankheiten oder andere Faktoren in ihrem frühen Entwicklungsstadium geschädigte Früchte von ihrem Aussehen her mit einer 19 Zu keiner dieser Realisationen liegt mir eine botanische Bestimmung vor. Im Türkeitürkischen bezeichnet man Prunus spinosa L., also die ‘Schlehe (Baum und Frucht)’, in der Regel als ttü. çakal eriği (‘Schakal-Pflaume’), ferner auch als deli erik (‘verrückte Pflaume’) oder als göğem, das in vielen Türksprachen vorkommt (vgl. dazu ganz besonders ‘Tataris Goegoen vel Kogun’ bei Pallas 1784: 18), und dem wir auch in zahlreichen Sprachen Dagestans (s. Xajdakov 1973: 57b) sowie im Armenischen begegnen: arm. kokan ~ kokun, gōgan, gōgam etc.; HAB II, 617b; Suk‘iasyan 1967: 331a, 565a; zu diesen sowie zu weiteren (regionalen) Synonymen im Türkeitürkischen s. Baytop 1999: 204f. und 1997: 101.

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

11

Brustwarze zu vergleichen liegt m. E. im aktuellen Falle viel mehr auf der Hand als die semantische Verbindung über Pflaume,20 weshalb ich memik eigentlich nicht als Armenismus ansehen möchte. Nicht minder schwierig gestaltet sich die Beurteilung eines weiteren möglicherweise hierher passenden Dialektterminus, ttü. memük (Çorum) ‘Fortpflanzungsorgan bei Menschen’21 (DS 4591b). Vor allem die recht allgemein und undeutlich gehaltene Umschreibung verdunkelt den genauen Sachverhalt, dennoch darf man diese Form höchstwahrscheinlich an das armenische Wort anschließen. Unsere ganz besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdienen einige weitere Belege dieses Etymons, die vom Balkan stammen, genauer gesagt aus dem dortigen Zigeunerischen (Romani), nämlich: rom. mamuhó ‘Schlehe, Prunus spinosa L.’ und mamux ‘Vagina’. Das Große Wörterbuch der Zigeunersprache von Wolf 1993: Nr. 1861, 1863, das seinem Wesen nach eine Kompilation ist, gibt für den ersten Beleg das 1930 erschienene Werk Les Tsiganes von Popp Şerboianu an, welches das erste umfassende Werk über die rumänischen Zigeuner und ihre Sprache ist (‘Mamuhó, pl. mamuhá, sm. = prunelle’; S. 334a). Der zweite Beleg hingegen entstammt dem 1947 veröffentlichten Srpskohrvatsko-Ciganski Rečnik von Uhlik (liegt nicht vor). Tatsächlich läßt sich unser Terminus noch in einer ganzen Reihe balkanischer Romanidialekte nachweisen; so findet man etwa bei Boretzky & Igla 1994: 175a folgende Eintragungen: mamúx (Kalderaš, Gurbet) ~ mamúh (Bugurdži), mamuř, mamuřa 1. ‘Schlehe, Schlehenstrauch’ 2. (bosnisches Gurbet) ‘Vagina’; interessant sind auch die Verbindungen und Ableitungen wie kali mamuxa ‘Himbeere’, kamuni mamuxa ‘Hagebutte’ sowie mamuxlín ~ mamuxin, mamuxalin, mamuřlin ‘Schlehenstrauch’ und das aus dem Zigeunerischen in Tschechien stammende mamuch-óri ‘der kleine Dorn’ (Ješina

20 Bei Pflaumen auftretende Krankheiten mit einem hier mehr oder weniger passenden Krankheitsbild sind z. B. die ‘Monilia-Fruchtfäule’ (Monilia laxa), die besonders in feuchten Jahren auftritt, wobei die erkrankten Früchte zu sogenannten Fruchtmumien schrumpfen. Ebenfalls in Betracht käme die ‘Narren- oder Taschenkrankheit’ (ausgelöst durch den Pilz Taphrina pruni), bei der die Früchte zunächst unnatürlich anschwellen und eine schotenähnlich langgestreckte, gekrümmte Form annehmen. Erst im weiteren Verlauf werden sie schrumpelig und trocknen ein bzw. verfaulen. Schließlich ist da noch das Scharka-Virus, das die ‘Pockenkrankheit der Zwetschge’ zur Folge hat, d. h. die Fruchtoberfläche wird pockennarbig; s. hierzu die Website Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (www.stmlf.bayern.de/lbp/lbp-home.html), Zwetschgen/Pflaumen – Krankheiten und Schädlinge. 21 Wörtlich: ‘İnsanlarda üreme organı’.

12

UWE BLÄSING

1886: 86a;22 Wolf 1993: Nr. 1864), die verdeutlichen, daß das Wort gut und tief in das lebende Romani eingebettet ist. Bis vor ganz kurzem war mamux noch nie als Armenismus im Romani beschrieben worden, so läßt sich auch keiner der einschlägigen Quellen ein dementsprechender Hinweis entnehmen.23 Lediglich in dem Beitrag I prestiti armeni nella romani von Alessandro Orengo findet sich eine kurze Notiz unter der Rubrik possibili prestiti dall’armeno: ‘[rom.] mamux «susina selvatica»: [arm.] mamxi ..., mamowx «susina selvatica»‘ (S. 11). Ohne Zweifel gehören diese Romanibelege zu den zahlenmäßig an sich recht wenigen Wörtern, welche die Zigeuner aus dem Armenischen übernommen und mit nach Europa gebracht haben. Zeugnisse aus dem Zigeunerarmenischen, d. h. aus der Sprache der Boscha oder überhaupt aus Zigeuneridiomen in Kleinasien (Anatolien) sind allerdings nicht bekannt. Was nun die Herkunft oder überhaupt den Ursprung des Wortes arm. mamux betrifft, so liegen diese bis jetzt völlig im Dunkeln. Wie bei vielen Pflanzennamen im Armenischen – man denke nur an arm. xnjor : hurr. hinʒurə ‘Apfel’ oder arm. kotemn : akad. kuddimmu ‘Kresse’ etc. (s. Greppin 1992: 69f.) – könnte es sich auch bei diesem Terminus um ein Substratwort aus einer der einst im anatolisch-mesopotamischmediterranen Raum beheimateten Sprachen handeln. Eindeutige Anknüpfungspunkte lassen sich allerdings nicht ausfindig machen, was einer solchen Vermutung aber keineswegs Abbruch tut, da uns beiweitem nicht der gesamte Wortschatz der hier in Betracht kommenden Sprachen vorliegt. So geht auch beispielsweise Greppin 1992: 71 für arm. p‘rp‘rem ~ p‘erp‘er ‘Portulaca L.’, prs. parparam ~ parparhan, grg. parpina und gr. πεπλίς von einer gemeinsamen, nicht näher bestimmbaren ‘mediterranen Quelle’ aus. Doch neben einer solch bequemen aber nichtssagenden Lösung bestehen im Falle von arm. mamux m. E. zwei, wenn auch recht hypothetische Möglichkeiten für dessen weitere Herleitung, die ich im folgenden kurz vorstellen und erläutern möchte. Konkret denke ich hierbei innerhalb des

22 Zum Suffix –óri, ‘wodurch Diminutiva entstehen’ s. ibid. S. 24f. Wenngleich Pfarrer P. Josef Ješina diesen speziellen Terminus nicht als Armenismus erkannt hat, bietet er uns in seinem kleinen ‘Werkchen’ Romáńi Čib oder die Zigeuner-Sprache (1886) eine leider relativ unbekannt gebliebene Armenisch-zigeunerische Liste, die immerhin 17 Eintragungen umfaßt (S. 67), im Vergleich zu 34 in Il contributo armeno alla lingua Romani von Hancock 1987! 23 Die Herleitung von rom. mamux ‘Vagina’ < ttü. mahmuz ‘Sporn’ (s. Wolf Nr. 1863) bzw. rom. mamux ‘Schlehe; Vagina’ < prs. mahmīz ‘Sporn, Stachel’ o. dgl. (s. Boretzky & Igla 1994: 175a, 330b; Hancock 1995: 42) ist in jedem Falle unzutreffend!

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

13

Armenischen an den Stamm arm. mux, den ja bereits J̌ahukyan für seine ‘Körperteil-Etymologie’ bemüht hatte, und außerhalb des Armenischen an gr. μύξα, die ‘Brustbeere, Sebesten, Cordia myxa’. Was den ersten Vorschlag angeht, so hat vor etwas mehr als zehn Jahren Brian Joseph anläßlich der Fourth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics in Cleveland in seinem Beitrag Armenian Reduplicated Nouns Mamul, Mamuṙ, and Mamur noch auf zumindest zwei weitere möglicherweise in diesen Reigen passende Kandidaten hingewiesen, nämlich auf arm. mamuk ‘Spinne’ sowie mamux ‘Schlehe’, für die er aber keine passenden Anschlußmöglichkeiten finden konnte. Ich möchte es einmal ganz dahingestellt sein lassen, ob oder wie der Stamm arm. mux- allg. ‘Das-Hineinstecken’, spez. ‘Eintauchen von glühendem Eisen in Wasser, Härtung’ ins Indogermanische einzubetten ist und auch wie und wann es zu der Reduplikation gekommen ist. Außer Zweifel steht, daß er nicht nur formal (vielleicht als ein Nomen instrumenti; wie arm. mamul ‘Presse, Schraubstock’; s. Joseph 1992: 104) eine brauchbare Basis wäre, sondern auch semantisch ganz vorzüglich zum ‘Strauch der Schlehe’ passen würde, welchen nämlich schon Vergil seiner Dornen wegen rühmt (Georgica 4, 145); eine Tatsache, die sich auch sonst in den Benennungen niedergeschlagen hat, man denke z. B. an deu. Schwarzdorn, eng. Blackthorne oder an das kurz zuvor genannte rom. mamuch-óri ‘der kleiner Dorn’ und natürlich auch an rus. tern ‘Schlehe’ = aksl. tr“n“ ‘Dorn’, das wie deu. Dorn, eng. thorn etc. letztlich indogermanischer Herkunft ist: < idg. *tr̥-no-; s. Mayrhofer 1992-2001: I, 664; Pokorny 1949-59: 1031. Die zweite Hypothese, die ebenfalls eine Reduplikation voraussetzt (sehr wahrscheinlich eine Art Analogiebildung), spielt mit der Verbindung von arm. mux- und gr. μύκ(σ)- bzw. μύσ(κ), die – um es gleich vorweg zu nehmen – unter indogermanischem Aspekt kaum denkbar ist; d. h. sie ist, wenn überhaupt, dann auf Substratbasis zu erklären. Eine gewisse Unsicherheit birgt die Semantik des griechischen Terminus, denn es ist nicht so recht klar, um welchen Baum es sich bei μύξα eigentlich handelt; vgl. dazu Wörterbucherklärungen wie z. B. ‘sebesten, Cordia Myxa’ (Liddell & Scott 1953: 1153a) oder ‘myxum, a kind of plum’ (Sophocles 1957: 772b). D. h. die Frage ist, ob μύξα nun eine Pflaumenart oder aber ein Brustbeerenstrauch, die sog. Cordia myxa, vorlin. Myxa domestica, sive Sebesten (J. Bauhin I 2, 197) ist. Wie an diesen Fachtermini ersichtlich, steht der Begriff myxa zumindest in der botanischen Nomenklatur ganz klar für die Brustbeere. So ist denn auch die gängige Meinung: lat. myxa < gr. μύξα ‘Cordia myxa’, welches identisch ist mit

14

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 4. Verbreitung von Prunus spinosa L.24

gr. μύξα ‘Schleim, Nasenschleim’, wegen der ‘schleimig-süßen Früchte’ (Genaust 1996: 407f.). Problematisch ist jedoch, daß dieses Cordiengewächs in der antiken Literatur meist als ‘Pflaume’ oder speziell als ‘Ägyptische Pflaume’ angesprochen wird, so z. B. als gr. κοκκυμηλέα von Theophrast, der diesen Baum in Historia plantarum (IV, 2, 10) wie folgt beschreibt:24 Ἄλλο δέ τι δένδρον, ἡ κοκκυμηλέα, μέγα μὲν τῷ μεγέθει καὶ τὴς φύσιν [τοῦ καρποῦ] ὅμοιον τοῖς μεσπίλοις καὶ τὸ μέγεθος παραπλήσιον, πλὴν ἔχον τὸν πυρῆνα στρογγύλον· ἄρχεται δὲ ἀνθεῖν μηνὸς Πυανεψιῶνος, τὸν δὲ καρπὸν πεπαίνει περὶ ἡλίου τροπὰς χειμερινάς· ἀείφυλλον δ᾿ἐστιν. Οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴς Θηβαΐδα κατοικοῦντες διὰ τὴν ἀφθονίαν τοῦ δένδρου ξηραίνουσι τὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸν πυρῆνα ἐξαιροῦντες κόπτουσι και ποιοῦσι παλάθας.25 Da ist eine andere Baumart, die Brustbeere, sie ist von langem Wuchs und, was die Beschaffenheit ihrer Frucht angeht, ist diese ähnlich der der Mispeln und auch in der Größe kommt sie dieser beinahe gleich, jedoch hat sie einen bauchig gerundeten Kern. Sie beginnt im Monat Pyanopsion [vierter 24 Diese Karte zu Prunus spinosa L. (Abb. 4.) sowie die entsprechende zu Berberis vulgaris L. (Abb. 8.) basieren im wesentlichen auf den allgemeinen Verbreitungskarten für diese beiden Species, die über die botanische Website Den virtuella floran des Naturhistoriska riksmuseet (Swedish Museum of Natural History) in Stockholm ganz leicht erreichbar sind (http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/welcome.html). 25 Theophraste 1989, 66

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

15

Monat des attischen Jahres = Oktober/November] zu blühen, die Frucht wird um die Zeit der Wintersonnenwende reif; außerdem ist sie immergrün. Aufgrund der großen Fülle des [Brustbeeren]Baums trocknen die Bewohner um Theben [in Ägypten] die Früchte und, nachdem sie den Kern herausgelöst haben, zerstampfen sie diese und bereiten daraus eine Art Kompott zu.

Einer fast wörtlich identischen Beschreibung begegnen wir bei Plinius, der in Historia naturalis (XIII, 64) den Baum entsprechend prunus Aegyptia nennt: Ibi et prunus Aegyptia, ..... pomo mespili, maturescens bruma nec folia demittens. lignum in pomo grande, sed corpus ipsum natura et copia messium instar incolis; purgatum enim tundunt servantque eius offas. ‘Dort [bei Theben] gibt es auch die Brustbeere, ..... mit einer Frucht ähnlich der Mispel, blühend um die Zeit der Wintersonnenwende und das Laub nicht abwerfend. Der Stein in der Frucht ist groß, aber das Fruchtfleisch selbst ist aufgrund seiner Beschaffenheit und wegen des reichen Ernteertrags wertvoll für die Einheimischen; denn nachdem es gereinigt worden ist, zerstampfen sie es und bewahren es in Form von Klößchen auf’.

Da die griechischen Quellen zu myxa ansonsten nur wenig Brauchbares im Zusammenhang mit einer Bestimmung herzugegeben scheinen, möchte ich bei Plinius bleiben, der möglicherweise den Schlüssel zur Lösung enthält, da er ganz deutlich einen Unterschied zwischen prunus Aegyptia und myxa macht. Während er prunus Aegyptia zu den ägyptischen Bäumen zählt, nennt er myxa nur wenige Kapitel (XIII, 51) zuvor unter den Bäumen von Syrien und zwar gemeinsam mit der Damaszenerpflaume: Syria praeter hanc peculiares habet arbores: ... pruna in Damasco monte nata et myxas, utramque iam familiarem Italiae. e myxis in Aegypto et vina fiunt. Darüber hinaus hat Syrien noch ganz eigene Bäume [u.a.]:... Die Pflaumen, die am Berg Damaskus vorkommen und die Myxae, die beide schon in Italien bekannt sind. Aus den Myxae macht man in Ägypten auch Wein.

Später in Buch XV (41-43) im Zuge der Erörterung der verschiedenen Pflaumensorten verweist uns Plinius auf folgendes: Ingens postea turba prunorum: ... in peregrinis arboribus dicta sunt Damascena a Syriae Damasco cognominata ... simul dici possunt populares eorum myxae; quae et ipsae nunc coeperunt Romae nasci insitae in sorbis. Im folgenden die gewaltige Masse (Gruppe) der Pflaumen:... Unter den fremdländischen Bäumen sind [schon] die Damaszenerpflaumen erwähnt worden, die nach Damaskus in Syrien benannt sind... Zugleich können deren Landsmänninen, die Myxae genannt werden, welche man jetzt auch angefangen hat in Rom zu kultivieren, gepfropft auf Ebereschen.

16

UWE BLÄSING

Auch hier werden die Myxa und die Damaszenerpflaume wieder in einem Atemzuge als populares, d. h. Landsleute genannt und zwar ausdrücklich als Pflaumensorten, bezeichnenderweise nicht aber prunus Aegyptia!26 Ich sehe eigentlich keinen Grund hier nicht den Angaben von Plinius zu folgen; d. h. es spricht einiges dafür, daß Myxa doch der Name einer Pflaumensorte war und erst später auf die schwarze Brustbeere übertragen wurde und zwar wegen deren Schleimigkeit im Hinblick auf gr. μύξα ‘Schleim, Nasenschleim’, das somit etymologisch von dem Baumnamen μύξα zu trennen ist. Bei der Durchsicht verschiedener etymologischer Wörterbücher des Griechischen und Lateinischen gewinnt man, was diesen Punkt betrifft, kein klares Bild. Fest steht nur, daß μύξα Schleim’ (< * μύκσα (?) zum Stamm μύκ- gehört, der u. a. vorliegt in μύσσομαι ‘sich schneuzen’ etc. (s. Frisk 1960-72: II, 277). Lediglich Chantraine 1968-80: II, 726a meint ganz allgemein: ‘Bien que le fruit soit répandu de l’Égypte à la Malaisie, l’hypothèse d’un emprunt est moins probable’. Furneé (S. 393) dagegen trennt den ‘Schleim’ vom ‘Baum’, darüber hinaus verbindet er noch μύσκλον ‘Art Pflaumenbaum’ mit μύξα, wobei er aber voraussetzt, daß ξ (ks) durch Metathese aus σκ (sk) entstanden ist. Zur Cordia myxa als Pflanze sei noch bemerkt: ‘Viele der 230 Arten von Cordia sind wertvolle Nutzhölzer und haben wohlschmeckende Steinfrüchte, so besonders die von Ägypten [!] durch Südasien bis Australien verbreitete und in den Tropen und Subtropen häufig kultivierte Cordia myxa L., deren eiförmige, zugespitzte, orangerote, schleimig-süße Früchte in Ostindien gegessen und als Hustenmittel gebraucht werden. Früher waren sie auch in Mitteleuropa (heute noch in der Türkei) als 26 Plinius führt seine Aufzählung der prunus-Sorten noch fort mit Persica, dem Pfirsich und pruna silvestria, der Schlehe. Im Zusammenhang mit der Erörterung des Pfirsich räumt er auch gleich auf mit der damals gängigen Meinung, die Persica sei in Persien selbst giftig und verursache quälende Schmerzen, doch nach der Einfuhr nach Ägypten, wo die Könige sich dieser Eigenschaft als Folterinstrument zu bedienen gedachten, habe sie ihre gefährliche Giftigkeit aufgrund der Bodenbeschaffenheit verloren. Weiter- und das ist in unserem Zusammenhang noch relevant - leitet er über zu persea, einem Gewächs, auf welches das gerade Gesagte auch zutreffe, das aber völlig anders sei, den ‘Roten Myxae’ ähnlich (‘myxis rubentibus similis’), und das nicht außerhalb des ‘Orients’ (‘extra orientem’) gedeihe. Die persea identifiziert man gewöhnlich als Minusops schimperi L., eine Pflanze, die weder mit Cordia myxa noch mit dem Genus Prunus das geringste zu tun hat. Sie ist heimisch in Äthiopen, doch wurde sie im Pharaonischen Ägypten auch angebaut. Ihre natürlich ebenfalls völlig ungiftigen Früchte, die zwei Samenkerne enthalten, sind gelb und schmal, also durchaus vergleichbar mit denen vieler Prunus-Arten, aber auch mit denen von Cordia myxa! Ich denke, hieraus wird deutlich, daß diese Passage lediglich einen oberflächlichen Vergleich der Früchte enthält, aber keinen Hinweis gibt, der uns zwingt, in Myxa doch die Brustbeere und keine Pflaumenart zu sehen!

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

17

schwarze Brustbeeren, Myxae oder Sebesténae offizinell. Im 17. Jh. wurden sie auch von in Italien gepflanzten Bäumen gewonnen und über Venedig nach Deutschland gebracht’ (Hegi 1927: V/3, 2124). Ob sich nun eine der von mir vorgestellten Hypothesen als zutreffend oder wenigstens in die richtige Richtung gehend erweisen wird, muß sich noch herausstellen, denn mit Sicherheit ist hierüber noch nicht das letzte Wort gesprochen.27 Wie schon angedeutet, sollen nun noch die restlichen armenischen Pflanzennamen bei Pallas kurz untersucht werden, wobei ich mich aber neben dem Allernötigsten auf die Erörterung einzelner markanter Punkte beschränken muß. Die Reihenfolge entspricht genau der in Flora Rossica: TANS ‘PYRUS Cydonia’; Germanis Wilder Quittenbaum, Anglis Wild Quince, Gallis Le Coigner vel Coignassier sauvage (Pallas 1784: 21). Diese Eintragung repräsentiert das bereits im Altarmenischen als Standardbezeichnung der ‘Birne (Frucht)’ gebräuchliche arm. tanj, neben dem in jener frühen Zeit noch die Ableitung tanji ‘Birnbaum, Pyrus L.’28, das Diminutivum tanjik ‘kleine Birne’ sowie einige Zusammenstellungen wie karmratanj ‘Rot-Birne’ und xozatanj (‘Schweine-Birne’) ‘die Frucht von Pyrus silvestris’ (HAB IV, 369; NBHL I, 956c, 1075c & II, 843) bezeugt sind. Der etymologische Hintergrund dieses Namens ist völlig unbekannt. Neben tanj attestiert in späterer Zeit Amirdovlat‘ (Nr. 2981, 3274)29 noch eine Form mit stimmlosem Auslaut, also tanc ‘Birne’, wie sie auch aus den Dialekten von Axalc‘xa und Karin bekannt ist. Lautlich kommt diese Realisation der Pallasschen Notation, die auf jeden Fall den östlichen Typ (vgl. warm. danc, dial. danj; HAB ibd.) 27 Etymologisch unklar ist beispielsweise auch der Status und damit die Frage nach einer eventuellen Einbeziehung von (alt-)grg. muxa (< *muqa) ‘Eiche’ (Abulaʒe 1973: 302a; Tschenkéli 859b) in die weitere Disskussion; vgl. hierzu noch die Eintragung ‘Georgianis Mucha’ bei Pallas 1788: 3. Und aus dem Griechischen ließe sich womöglich noch gr. μύκηρος ‘Mandel, Nuß’ heranziehen; s. dazu Frisk 1960-72: II, 267. 28 Auch dafür heute die jüngere Bildung tanj-eni allg. ‘Pyrus L.’, spez. (~ tanj-eni sovorakan) ‘Pyrus communis L.’ (Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2893; Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 1169; HDF I, 332f.). 29 Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i lebte im 15. Jahrhundert. Er gilt als einer der namhaftesten armenischen Mediziner und war ein vorzüglicher Kenner der Medizin der Araber, Perser und Griechen. Von seinem Geburtsort Amasya (in Nordanatolien) siedelte er 1478 nach Konstantinopel über, wo er 1497 verstarb. Seine Werke geben uns nicht nur einen tiefen Einblick in die Medizin seiner Zeit, sondern sind den Philologen ein schier unerschöpfliches Reservoir für die botanisch-pharmakologische Terminologie des Armenischen und darüber hinaus des Osmanischen, Arabischen usw.

18

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 5. Tanjeni (Safarean 1884: 142)

verkörpert, nicht echt näher.30 Recht ungewöhnlich ist allerdings die Bestimmung von Tans als ‘Quitte, Cydonia oblonga Mill’,31 für die mir sonst keine Hinweise mehr vorliegen.32 Obwohl die Genera Pyrus und Cydonia aus botanischer Sicht so nahe beieinander stehen, daß letzteres früher nicht als selbständiges Genus sondern nur als Spezies von ersterem (i. e. Pyrus Cydonia) angesehen wurde, kann dies aber kaum der Grund hierfür sein, ebensowenig wie die auf der Fruchtform basierende Einteilung der Quitten in Birn- und Apfelquitten. Worauf nun diese interessante semantische Abweichung beruht, ist nicht echt nachvollziehbar. Ein Fehler seitens Pallas bei der Bestimmung ist in jedem Falle auszuschließen, wenn überhaupt, kann ein solcher nur von einer an sich schon fehlerhaften Aufzeichnung durch einen anderen oder von einem sehr unkundigen Informanten ausgegangen sein. Ganz ähnlich gestaltet sich übrigens der Hintergrund bei der Eintragung: ‘PYRUS Cydonia’, die ‘Quitte’ ist ‘Rossis ad Terecum tatarico nomine’, ‘bei den Russen am Terek unter dem tatarischen Namen’ Армудъ (Armud; Pallas ibd.) 30 Zur Wiedergabe von arm. j mit s bei Pallas vgl. Chansoer! Die einzigen mir bekannten Belege dieses Wortes mit auslautendem -s sind die eindeutig dem Westarmenischen zuzurechnenden arm. dial. (Aslanbêg) dōs (HAB ibd.) und der zweite Bestandteil des Lehnwortes ttü. (Hemşin) aşen-dos (‘Herbst-Birne’) ‘eine lokale Birnensorte’; s. dazu Bläsing 1998: 51. 31 Syn. Cydonia vulgaris Pers.; deu. Echte Quitte, eng. Quince (Zander 2000: 323a). 32 Die übliche Bezeichnung der Quitte im Armenischen ist arm. serkewil (für die Frucht) bzw. serkewli ~ serkew(i)leni (für den Baum) (HAB IV, 205f.; Bedevian 1936: Nr. 1304; HDF I, 331f.; Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 1086). Auch sie zählt zu den Substratwörtern; s. a. Mkrtčjan 1983: 34.

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

19

bekannt. Auch dieser Name ist ein ganz typischer Birnenname (vgl. u. a. krm., gag. ttü. armut ‘Birne’ s. Hauenschild 1993: 153; Leksika 1997: 139), als Dialektlehnwort im Russischen jedoch wird er beinahe ausschließlich für die Quitte gebraucht, vgl.: rus. dial. armud ‘Quitte’ (Vasmer 1964-73: I, 87; Šipova 1976: 37), ferner noch ‘Mespilus, Mispel(strauch)’ (Pawlowski I, 19b). CHANSOER ‘Pyrus Malus’ ebenso Persis Chansoer; Germanis Holzapfelbaum, Anglis Crab-Tree, Gallis Pomier savage, Rossis Лѣсная Яблоня (Pallas 1784: 22).33 = arm. xnjor ‘Apfel’ (Malxaseanc‘ II, 275c; ARS 299a). Ebenso wie tanj kommt dieser Name nicht nur als solcher, sondern auch in einer ganzen Reihe von Ableitungen und Zusammenstellungen seit frühester Zeit im Armenischen vor, so beispielsweise in xnjori ‘Apfelbaum’, xnjorik ‘Äpfelchen’ oder karmraxnjor ‘Rot-Apfel’ (HAB II, 380; NBHL I, 955 & 1075b). Speziell die Form arm. xnjoreni ‘Apfelbaum’ dient zugleich in der armenischen botanischen Nomenklatur als Genusname für ‘Malus Mill.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 484; HDF I, 350; Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2899). Auch arm. xnjor gehört in den Reigen der sog. Substratwörter, es wird heute zumeist in Verbindung gebracht mit hurr. hinʒurə ‘Apfel’; für weitere Einzelheiten zu diesem schon oft diskutierten Wort sei hier der Kürze halber verwiesen auf Mkrtčjan 1983: 27f., Nikolayev & Starostin 1994: 237f. und die bei diesen Autoren angegebene weiterführende Literatur. Was die Notation Chansoer betrifft, so ist zu sagen, daß a für arm. ě (Schwa) steht (vgl. unten Angus), die stimmhafte Affrikate (j) durch s wiedergegeben ist (vgl. Tans) und daß oe schließlich auf Palatalisierung (ö) hindeutet, wie sie u. a. vorliegt in arm. dial. (Goris, Łarabał, Sebastia, Salmast) xnjēōr! Eindeutig falsch ist allerdings die Eintragung ‘Persis Chansoer’ bei Pallas, da dieses Wort zu keiner Zeit im Persischen gebräuchlich war. Dennoch erscheint sie mir interessant, da sie irgendwie Veranlassung zum Spekulieren gibt: Sollte sich womöglich hierin die Information eines Gewährsmannes widerspiegeln, eines Armeniers, der oder dessen Familie ursprünglich aus Persien (Salmast!?) stammte, und der nach dem Apfelbaum gefragt, diesen ganz korrekt Chansoer nannte, zusätzlich aber darauf hinwies, daß man ihn ‘zuhause in Persien’ ebenso nenne?!

33 = Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill., deu. Holz-Apfel, Wild-Apfel, eng. Apple, Wild Crab, franz. Pommier sauvage (Zander 2000: 507b), rus. jablonja dikaja (Macura 1982: 668).

20

UWE BLÄSING

ASGYLL ‘MESPILUS germanica’ ebenso Persis Asgyll; Germanis Mispel-Strauch, Anglis Medlar-Tree, Gallis Le Neflier, Rossis Чишки vel Чишковое дерево (Pallas 1784: 29).34 Eine präzise hierzu passende Form scheint innerhalb des Armenischen nicht bezeugt zu sein. Dennoch ist der weitere Hintergrund dieses Terminus zunächst ziemlich transparent, denn er steht zweifelsohne in einer Reihe mit azb. äzgil und ttü. (osm.) ezgil ‘Gemeine Mispel’ (ADİL II, 241a; ASE IV, 150a; Steuerwald 1972: 288b; Redhouse 1890: 81a; Baytop 1997: 94; DS 1829a), deren Ausgangspunkt prs. azgīl ~ azgel, izkīl ‘Mispel’ (Junker 1965: 24a; Steingass 1957: 44b; Karimi 1995: Nr. 1788) sein dürfte; s. a. Eren 1999: 142b. Ob die armenische Form nun unmittelbar aus dem Persischen – worauf auch Pallas hinweist – kommt oder erst durch eine Türksprache vermittelt wurde, entzieht sich unserer Kenntnis. Schwierig wird es auch mit der weiteren Zurückverfolgung, denn in keiner der genannten Sprachen bzw. ihrer Gruppen ist das Wort wirklich alt, nicht einmal im Persischen, wo es erst seit dem Ende der Safawidenzeit auftritt, was für Zärinäzadä Grund war, es den aserbaidschanischen Wörtern im Persischen (Fars dilinde azärbaǰan sözläri; 1962: 127) zuzuordnen. Doerfer (1963-75: IV, 260; N 10 = 1955), der hierauf hingewiesen hat, hält es dagegen ‘eher’ für persisch, doch meint gleichzeitig auch wieder, das Wort erinnere ‘an russ. kizil (kurd. kîzîl) -ev gewertet werden darf, wie es vorliegt in arm. dial. (Muš, Erevan, Karin) tērēv (HAB IV, 398). [Pevénk]: Ein Eichenname dieser Art existiert allem Anschein nach im Armenischen nicht; vgl. die Synonymreihe in Suk‘iasyan 1967: 299a: kałneni, ěntani kałni, manik‘eł, tkołni, lołp‘i, hoši, hoški. Auch die botanischen Quellen enthalten keinen dementsprechenden Eintrag, was nahe legt, daß wir es mit einem Eichennamen aus einer anderen Sprache oder gar mit einem ganz anderen Wort zu tun haben. Alles deutet hier auf letztere Möglichkeit hin. In Frage kommen könnte vielleicht arm. bewekn ‘Pistacia terebinthus L.’ (HAB I, 443f.), was aber auch nicht so recht überzeugen will.

42 Während die Blätter von Platanus L. und Acer pseudoplatanus an sich sehr breit sind, sind die von Quercus robur nur im Vergleich mit anderen Eichenarten breit. Alle diese Spezies sind in Armenien heimisch, nicht aber der Trompetenbaum?

24

UWE BLÄSING

TUTA ~ Tschata ‘MORUS tatarica’, Georgianis Tuta ~ Tschata; Rossis ad Volgam Tut derevo, tatarice et persice Tutt (Pallas 1788: 9).43 Auch hier liefert Pallas wieder Synonyme, die er darüber hinaus sowohl für das Armenische als auch das Georgische in absolut identischer Form angibt. Der erste Terminus, Tuta gehört ganz klar zu den Substratwörtern, die sich durch eine enorme Verbreitung im Areal und z. T. hohes Alter auszeichnen, vgl. u. a. akkad. (neu-babylonisch) tūtu (Eilers 1971: 586), syr. tūtā (Payne Smith 609a; Brockelmann 820a), prs. tūt ~ tūd (Steingass 1957: 333; Karimi 1995: Nr. 1802), oss. tuta (Abaev 1958-89: III, 321), osm. (ttü.) tut ~ dut (Önler 1990: Nr. 137, 511), arm. t‘ut‘ (Malxaseanc‘ II, 122b), rus. tut (Vasmer 1964-73: IV, 126f.) und grg. tuta (Maq̇ašvili 1961: 32a; Tchenkeli 502b) zu weiteren Einzelheiten siehe Mkrtčjan 1983: 26f. bzw. HAB II, 202. Wie diese kleine Formenschau aber zeigt, läßt sich der Beleg von Pallas nicht so gut mit arm. t‘ut‘ ‘Maulbeere’ verbinden, das in dieser Form nicht nur in der Schriftsprache sondern auch in nahezu allen Dialekten vorhanden ist. Man kommt hier viel eher zu der Überzeugung, daß es sich auch im ‘Armenischen’ um die georgische Form, also grg. tuta handelt, zumal der zweite Name ebenfalls vom Georgischen aus erklärt werden kann: < grg. (dial.) m-čòada (Maq̇ašvili 1961: 32a) (?). Außer dem Stamm sind auch die Ableitungen arm. t‘t‘i und vor allem t‘t‘eni (Malxaseanc‘ II, 104c), das heute als Genusname für ‘Morus L.’ steht, vorhanden; s. Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 375; HDF I, 165. Nicht sinnvoll ist übrigens die Behandlung von ttü. dial. tut ‘Maulbeere’ etc. als ‘armenisches Lehnwort’ bei Dankoff 1995: 49. Weder die geographische Verbreitung dieser Form noch sonst etwas geben einen dementsprechenden Anlaß und schon gar nicht das anlautende t- (gegenüber dem heute schriftsprachlichen d-), welches Dankoff anscheinend aber genau hierzu bewogen hat44. Für das Türkische im allgemeinen ist davon auszugehen, daß es diesen Namen unmittelbar aus dem Persischen (tūt) erhalten hat, was tkm. tūt (TkmR 646a) insofern gut veranschaulicht, daß es nicht nur – wie fast alle anderen Türksprachen – das t, sondern auch noch die Vokallänge bewahrt hat; der d- Anlaut hat sich so gut wie nur im Osmanisch-Türkischen und seiner Einflußsphäre (im Gagausischen aber auch Karaimischen) eingestellt und da auch nur 43 = Morus alba var. tatarica (Pall.) Ser., deu. Weißer Maulbeerbaum, eng. Silkworm Mulberry, White Mulberry (Zander 2000: 530a), rus. belyj tut (Macura 1982: 577). 44 Mit dem gleichen Recht hätte man auch krd. tūt (KR 771a) oder ar. tūt id. (Steinschneider 1897-99: Nr. 400) heranziehen können!

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

25

Abb. 6. T’t’eni (Safarean 1884: 60)

partiell (vgl. osm. ‫دوت طوت توت‬, Redhouse 1890: 605b, 1250b, 918a). Es liegt also nichts mehr auf der Hand, als die türkeitürkische Dialektform tut mit ihren zahlreichen Schwestern wie z. B. özb., kzk., kmk., tat. und azb. tut (s. Dmitrieva 1972: 207; ADİL IV, 213a; Eren 1999: 124; Leksika 1997: 136) in eine Reihe zu stellen. Wenn etwas einer Erklärung bedarf, dann ist es doch die Abweichung, also die d-Form!? FUNDUCH ‘CORYLUS Avellana’, Tataris tauricis Funduk; Rossice Орѣшник (Pallas 1788: 22).45 Obwohl es sich ursprünglich um ein und das selbe Etymon handelt, kann diese Form – wie schon Tataris tauricis Funduk erahnen läßt – nicht in direkter Abhängigkeit zu den im Armenischen gebräuchlichen arm. pnduk ~ pntuk, pndeł ‘Haselnuß’ (HAB IV, 93a) stehen. Der Ursprung dieses in vielerlei Formen und Nuancen im gesamten Orient und selbst 45 = Corylus avellana L., deu. Gewöhnliche Hasel (Zander 2000: 305a), rus. amerikanskij lesnoj orex (Macura 1982: 369).

26

UWE BLÄSING

darüber hinaus verbreiteten Namens ist im klassischen Altertum zu suchen und zwar in der Bezeichnung gr. κάρυον ποντικόν (ab dem 3. Jh. v. Chr.; Zenon Papyri; Liddell & Scott 1953: 881a, 1448a) bzw. lat. pontica nux (1. Jh. n. Chr., bei Plinius; Lewis & Short 1966: 1397c), was soviel bedeutet wie die ‘Pontische Nuß’ und damit einen Hinweis auf deren Heimat, nämlich die kleinasiatische Schwarzmeerküste gibt. Wann und auf welchen Wegen genau sich die Pontica in die verschiedenen Sprachen verbreitet hat, ist oft nur schwer nachvollziehbar. Im Armenischen jedenfalls ist der Name nicht besonders alt. Die ersten greifbaren Belege stammen aus dem 15. Jahrhundert von Amirdovlat‘, der neben arm. pntux auch noch fntux (§ 2501) nennt. Hierbei ist zu beachten, daß in jener Zeit die zweite, armenische Lautverschiebung bereits durchgeführt war. Mit anderen Worten, պնտուխ (pntux) ist die reguläre westarmenische Schreibweise für bndux, das unmittelbar nur ar. bunduq ‘Haselnuß’ (Wehr 1968: 67b) entsprechen kann. Diese arabische Realisation stammt ihrerseits aus dem Aramäischen (*punduq); vgl. aram. pundaq (Dalman 1967: 338a), syr. pendqā (Payne Smith 450a; Brockelmann 579a), bzw. pundqā, pundaqrīn (Löw 1881: Nr. 99), deren direkter Vorläufer gr. ποντικόν ist.46 Auch nach Osten ist dieses Wort gewandert, was phl. pondik ‘Haselnuß’ (MacKenzie 1986: 69) beweißt. Das heutige Persisch verwendet neben prs. bunduq insbesondere die Form funduq (Steingass 1957: 202, 939b; Karimi 1995: Nr. 909), die aber beide ganz offensichtlich keine lautgesetzlichen Weiterentwicklungen der aus dem Griechischen stammenden Pahlaviform sein können. Erstere repräsentiert ebenfalls die arabische. Die zweite läßt sich möglicherweise aus dem (Reichs-)Aramäischen erklären, in dem die ‘stimmlose bilabiale Okklusive’ p ‘mit leichter Aspiration’ ausgesprochen wurde und positionsbedingt sogar schon spirantisch (f) geworden war (nach Vokal, sowohl innerhalb eines Wortes als auch zwischen Wörtern; Segert 1990: 87 & 117). Auf jeden Fall ist es diese f-Form, die einen großen Siegeszug hinein in die Türksprachen, weiter ins Russische und vom Türkisch-Osmanischen aus sogar zurück ins Neugriechische unternommen hat; vgl.: osm. fınduk ~ funduk, ttü. fındık, azb. fındıġ, tat., bšk., krg. funduk etc.47 sowie rus. funduk (Vasmer 1964-73: IV, 210; Šipova 46 Zu gr. o > syr. u beachte: ‘Griechisches o, ω wird bei den Westsyrern entweder ( ( beibehalten, und dann ^ “  “ geschrieben, ... oder zu u. Hier herrscht viel Schwanken’ (Nöldeke 1977: 34), doch scheint die Tendenz zu u im allgemeinen stärker zu sein. 47 Manche Türksprachen haben alternierende Formen (f-/p-) oder sogar nur solche mit p-, wobei dieses p aber nicht das ursprüngliche darstellt, sondern aus f hervorgegangen ist. Diese Erscheinung beruht darauf, daß f dem Türkischen an sich fremd ist und darum

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

27

1976: 357) und ngr. φουντούκι (Andriotis 1971: 409b; Meyer 1893: 30). Es liegt also nahe, daß das ‘armenische’ Funduch bei Pallas irgendeine türksprachige Ersetzung für arm. pntuk ist; ähnliches mag auch gelten für arm. (Amirdovlat‘) fntux (s. o.). In der botanischen Terminologie hat sich neben der Ableitung arm. pndukeni allg. ‘Haselnußstrauch’ und spez. ‘Corylus maxima Mill.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 1005) aber arm. txleni weitgehend als Genusname (Corylus) etabliert; s. HDF I, 204; Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 1188f. KIALA-MASLI ‘VIBURNUM lantana’; Rossis Гордина, Гордовина, Гордовидъ (Pallas 1788: 30).48 Genau diese Form (kialamasli) zitiert auch Ačaṙyan (HAB I, 546), jedoch nicht aus Pallas sondern nach einem im 19. Jahrhundert durch den russischen Botaniker Annenkov zusammengestellten Botanischen Wörterbuch.49 Er geht davon aus, daß diese Realisation irgendwie in eine Verbindung gebracht werden kann mit Formen wie arm. germast(i), geramasti, gerimasti, geremasti ‘Viburnum lantana L.’ (s. Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 222) und dial. g‘ērēmasti, gilamasri, germasri, kilimastri und krmrasti, von denen einige volksetymologisch beeinflußt sein dürften. Einer ganz ähnlichen und nicht minder vielgestaltigen Reihe von Schneeballnamen begegnen wir in den anatolisch-türkischen Dialekten: ttü. germişek, germesik, germeşa, germeše, germeşük ‘Viburnum lantana L. sowie giraboğlu, girabolu, gireboğlu, gireboli, gilaburu, geleboru, gilabada, gil-dar und giligili V. opulus L. (Baytop 1997: 118f.). Auch hier scheint z. T. Volksetymologie eingewirkt zu haben. Für das Persische schließlich nennt Karimi 1995: Nr. 2761 eine Form ‫ݥة شو‬٫‫( ݢ‬garmah šū?) ‘Viburnum lantana’. Trotz dieser Formenfülle bleibt leider einmal mehr die Frage nach der weiteren Herkunft offen; s. a. Eren 1999: 155a.

vielfach nur mit p wiedergegeben werden konnte bzw. noch wird. Vgl. gag. funduk ‘lesnoj orex’ ~ pındık ‘zemljanoj orex’ (GagR 377b, 501a). tkm. pıntık (TkmR 539b) etc. 48 = Viburnum lantana L., deu. Wolliger Schneeball (Zander 2000: 753b), rus. gordovina (Macura 1982: 119). 49 Nikolaj Ivanovič Annenkov (1819-1889), Autor einer Reihe pflanzenkundlicher Arbeiten. Sein berühmtestes Werk ist das einzigartige, doch leider sehr seltene Botaničeskij slovar’ (1859-1878), das neben den botanischen Fachtermini sowie den russischen, deutschen, englischen und französischen Bezeichnungen auch die Namen der Gewächse in vielen Sprachen des Russischen Reiches verzeichnet; s. BSĖ 2, 461f.

28

UWE BLÄSING

ALASCHARI ‘VIBURNUM Opulus’; Rossis Калина (Pallas 1788: 31).50 Aus formaler Sicht kann es sich bei dieser Notation einzig um arm. alažahri ~ alažari ‘Kreuzdorn, Rhamnus L.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 273; HAB I, 90b)51 handeln, dem sein primär osmanisch-türkischer Ursprung sozusagen ins Gesicht geschrieben steht: < osm. (18./19. Jh. in Burhān-ı Qātı’ Tercümesi) ala cehri ‘eine Wurzel, die zum Gelb-Färben benutzt wird; Rhamnus’ (Tar 1963-77: 83; Redhouse 1890: 180a), ttüL. ala cehri ‘Rhamnus sp.’ (Baytop 1997: 27f.), ‘echte Gelbbeeren = grünliche, etwa erbsengroße, unreife Früchte verschiedener Kreuzdornarten (Rhamnus), aus denen man ein Färbemittel hergestellte, das früher bis nach Europa exportiert wurde’ (Steuerwald 1972: 27b; Baytop 1999: 17). Die Herleitung dieses Terminus aus einem ar. (*)al-ğahrī (?) die Ačaṙyan (HAB ibd.) vorgeschlagen hat, ist schon insofern falsch, daß die erste Komponente nicht den Artikel ar. al- sondern das Farbadjektiv tü. ala ‘bunt, scheckig’ (Doerfer 1963-75: Nr. 518) repräsentiert. Unter formalem bzw. lautlichem Aspekt hat Alaschari keinerlei Besonderheiten zu bieten, wohl aber von semantischer Seite. Denn ähnlich wie bei Tans (oben) stellt sich die Frage, wie es zu dieser Abweichung kommt. Wie auch immer, die lokale armenisch-botanische Nomenklatur verwendet arm. bṙnč‘i (s. HAB I, 490f.) als Name des Genus ‘Viburnum’ und speziell bṙnč‘i gerimasti für ‘V. lantana’ bzw. bṙnč‘i sovorakan für ‘V. opulus’; s. HDF II, 272f.; Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 170. Im armenischen Volksglauben kommt Viburnum opulus die Rolle eines starken Abwehrmittels gegen den bösen Blick zu, nicht selten trägt man ein Stück davon ‘mit anderen Abwehrmitteln bei sich, oder hängt es dem Vieh um den Hals’ (Abeghian 1899: 61). Ein Brauch, dem man heute aber nicht mehr weiter folgt. CHAGOCH ‘VITIS vinifera’; Rossis Виноградъ (Pallas 1788: 40).52 = arm. xałoł ‘(Wein-)Traube; Weinrebe, Vitis (vinifera) L.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 460; HDF II, 206; Amirdovlat‘ 1990: § 908),53 welches nicht nur als solches sondern auch in zahlreichen Ableitungen und Komposita 50 = Viburnum opulus L., deu. Gewöhnlicher Schneeball (Zander 2000: 754a), rus. kalina krasnaja (Macura 1982: 204). 51 Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2945 dagegen bestimmt arm. alažahri als ‘Reseda luteola L., Färber-Resede, ‘Färber-Wau’; vgl. ttü. cehri (çiçeği), dağ cehrisi ‘id.’ (Baytop 1997: 193; Steuerwald 1972: 151). 52 = Vitis vinifera L., deu. Echter Weinstock, Weinrebe (Zander 2000: 759b), rus. vinograd vinorodnyj (Macura 1982: 78). 53 Der ganz exakte, in der lokalen Botanik gebräuchliche Name für ‘Vitis vinifera L.’ ist arm. xałoł mšakovi oder x. gineber (HDF II, 207f.).

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

29

seit ältester Zeit im Armenischen attestiert ist; s. HAB II, 321f. Auch dieser Pflanzenname gehört in die lange Reihe von Substratwörtern unklarer Herkunft.54 Zur ungleichartigen Wiedergabe von arm. ł (als -gbzw. -ch) in der ansonsten völlig unauffälligen Notation Chagoch, sei bemerkt, daß -ł positionsbedingt im heutigen Standard-Ostarmenischen sowie in vielen Dialekten stimmlos (> x) geworden ist; vgl. dazu die beiden direkt hierher gehörenden Dialektrealisationen arm. xavōł vs. xavōx (HAB ibd.) oder armL. ałǰik ‘Mädchen’ vs. dial. axǰig, axč‘ik (HAB I, 129f.) etc. In diesem Punkt stimmen übrigens die Einträge in der Flora Rossica und den Vocabularia Comparativa nicht ganz überein: ВИНОГРАДЪ (143.) Хагóгь, Вохкоись (Pallas 1789: 40a). Die Schreibung гь läßt hier vielleicht doch mehr an ł denken. Außerdem ist noch ein ‘neuer’ Name hinzu gekommen, Вохкоись - arm. ołkoyz, ołkuyz ‘Traube’ (HAB III, 553b; ARS 528a)-,55 in dem ganz in Übereinstimmung mit dem gerade gesagten - ł (vor k) > x geworden ist, wenngleich ich hier einen diesbezüglichen Dialektbeleg schuldig bleiben muß. Für den Rebstock als solchen wird dieser Terminus jedoch nicht verwendet, ebensowenig wie die entsprechende Ableitung ołkuzeni, die als Name für das Genus ‘Staphylea L., Pimpernuß’ fungiert; desweiteren vgl. arm. ołkuz-ak ‘Dictamnus L., Diptam’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 944f.) sowie die Farnnamen ołkuz-a-pter (‘Trauben-Farn’) und lusn-ołkuz-i (‘Mond-Traube-Habender’) ‘Botrychium lunaria (L.) Sw., Echte Mondraute’ (Bläsing 2001: 38f.). KUTZACHUR ~ Srisk ‘Berberis vulgaris’, Georgianis Kodsachuri, Bocharis Sirch; Rossice Барбарись, Rossice ad Terec fl. et in Ucrania Кисланка item Кислица (Pallas 1788: 41).56 Wie die beigefügten Belege aus dem Georgischen und aus Buchara bereits erkennen lassen, handelt es sich im Armenischen in beiden Fällen um Lehnwörter: Ersteres, Kutzachur ist in eine Reihe zu stellen mit arm. kocoxur, kcoxur, kcoxri ‘Berberitze, Berberis (vulgaris) L. (Pflanze und Früchte)’ 54 Nicht unwahrscheinlich ist eine weitere Verbindung zu hurr. (GIŠ) ḫalūlu ‘eine Frucht’ (s. Mkrtčjan 1983: 17; J̌ahukyan 1987: 426), wobei aber keineswegs deutlich ist, in welchem Verhältnis beide zueinander stehen. 55 Hinzu kommt noch aus dem Kilikischen Pferdebuch des 13. Jahrhunderts die Diminutivform arm. ołkuzuk ‘Weintraube’ (Dum-Tragut 2005: 172, 262; Č‘ugazsyan 1980: 126). 56 Berberis vulgaris L, deu. Gewöhnliche Berberitze, Sauerdorn (Zander 2000: 224a), rus. barbaris obyknovennyj (Macura 1982: 37).

30

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 7. Kocoxur (Safarean 1884: 60)

(Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 517; Ališan 1895: Nr. 1419; HAB II, 617a),57 deren unmittelbarer Ausgangspunkt grg. ḳoc̣axur-i (Tschenkéli 1965-74: 617b)58 ist. Die Bildung dieses im Altgeorgischen noch nicht attestierten Terminus ist formal und semantisch leicht durchschaubar. Es ist eine -ur-Ableitung (s. dazu Fähnrich 1986: 40) von grg. ḳoc̣ax-i ‘sehr sauer’ (Tschenkéli 1965-74: ibd.), in der sich ebenso wie in deu. Sauerdorn (= spina acida), rus. kislica (s. Marzell 1943-79: I, 571f.) und ttü. dial. ekşimen (Baytop 1997: 158) eines der markantesten Merkmale dieser Pflanze, nämlich der essigähnlich saure und scharfe Geschmack ihrer Blätter und Beeren widerspiegelt. Das erste mir bislang bekannte Zeugnis dieses georgischen Lehnwortes im Armenischen ist die Form arm. kocuxoṙ, welche sich wieder im 15. Jahrhundert bei Amirdovlat‘ (§ 1053) findet und die damit zeitlich vor den allem Anschein nach frühesten Beleg ihrer georgischen Mutterform, grg. ḳoc̣axur-i im 17./18. Jahrhundert bei Orbeliani 1966-93: I, 386b und natürlich auch weit vor das Pal57 Darüber hinaus erwähnt Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibd.) folgende Dialektbelege: (Erevan) kcō´xur, (Tp’łis) kōca´xur, (Łarabał) kuco´xur, kcēō´xur, (Łazax) kcō´xōr, (Goris) kcō´xěr und (Łaradał) kuco´wlxi und Bedevian 1936: Nr. 640 noch kocoxri und kocoxuri. 58 Weiter gehören hierher grg. dial. ḳvac̣axuri, ḳoc̣maxuri, laz. ḳac̣axuri, ming. ḳorc̣oxuli und svan. gvac̣̣xir, goc̣xir ‘Berberis (vulgaris) L.’ sowie die artifiziellen Bildungen grg. kartuli ḳoc̣axuri ‘Berberis iberica Stev. et Fisch.’, grg. čveulebrivi ḳoc̣axuri ‘Berberis vulgaris L.’ (Maq̇ašvili 1961, 41a, 72a, 83a).

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

31

lassche Kodsachuri fällt. Außer im Armenischen kann man diesen georgischen Namen noch im benachbarten Abchasischen antreffen: abx. a-ḳac̣ax ̊ər ‘Berberis vulgaris L.’ (Adzinba & Alanija 2001: 23). In der armenischen Botanik hat sich heute die Form arm. kcoxur (s. HDF I, 128) nicht nur gegenüber den mit ihr verwandten Realisationen durchgesetzt sondern auch gegenüber ihren Synonymen, arm. cor bzw. coreni59 und zrišk, womit wir bei dem zweiten Wort von Pallas angekommen sind: SRISK = arm. zrišk (~ zrešk) ‘Berberis vulgaris L.’ (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 517; Bedevian 1936: Nr. 640; Ališan 1895 : §729), welches sich ebenfalls dank Amirdovlat‘ (§129, 598, 973) bis ins 15. Jahrhundert zurückverfolgen läßt. Es gilt als direkte Übernahme von prs. zirišk (~ sirišk) ‘Berberis vulgaris L.’ (Steingass 1957: 615a, 675a; Karimi 1995: Nr. 456f.); s. HAB II, 112 und Hübschmann 1897: 265. Wenngleich dieser Terminus im Armenischen nur ganz sporadisch vertreten ist,60 verfügt er ansonsten doch über eine recht weite areale Verbreitung, wovon inneriranisch beispielsweise krd. zerēšk id. (RK 1957: 38a), gil. zərəšk (GilR 1980: 278) und außerhalb des Iranischen ar. sirišk,61 syr. zršk (Brockelmann 208a) sowie osm. zirişk ‘The common barbarry ...; especially, its dried fruit’ (Redhouse 1890: 1007b)62 Zeugnis ablegen. Weiterhin sind in diesem Kontext tkm., özb., krg. (dial.) zirk, kkp. zırq, uig. ziriq ‘Berberis’ (s. Dmitrieva 1972: 178) und natürlich (Pallas, Buchara) Sirch zu vermelden, die aber nur von prs. zirik (~ zirīk) ‘Berberitze’ (Steingass 1957: 615f.; Karimi 1995: ibd.) ausgehen können. Kontrastiert man nun die beiden Basiswörter prs. zirišk und zirik, sieht es danach aus, daß wir es mit einer -iš-k- (?) bzw. -ik-Ableitung von ein und demselben Stamm zu tun haben könnten. Was sich allerdings hinter einem solchen Stamm zir verbirgt, ist mir nicht klar. Im Hinblick auf die ‘in 59 Arm. cor(en)i, cor (Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 517) waren die schon im Altarmenischen (Grabar) gängigen Bezeichnungen für diese Pflanze bzw. deren Frucht; s. HAB II, 468f. und NBHL I, 1026b. 60 Als einzigen Dialektbeleg weiß Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibd.) aus Erevan zirišk‘ anzuführen, den er aber auch nur aus einem anderen Werk, aus Hayoc‘ bar u ban (S. 187b) von Amatuni geholt hat. 61 Weiter nennt Steinschneider ar. zršk und šrsk (Nr. 934 & 1142). 62 Früheste Belege für osm. zirişk findet man in den Werken Mücerrebnâme (17a, 18a) und Müntahab-ı Şifâ (80b, 78a, 121b, 122b) im 14./15 Jahrhundert (s. dazu Önler 1990: Nr. 567 sowie zu Einzelheiten über die beiden genannten Werke ibd. S. 358). Weiterhin führt auch Sulxan Saba Orbeliani (s. o.) zirišḳ(i) (II, 521b) als türkisches (‘turkuli’) Äquivalent zu grg. ḳoc̣axur-i an.

32

UWE BLÄSING

Abb. 8. Verbreitung von Berberis vulgaris L. (s. Fußnote 24)

herabhängenden Trauben vereinigten gelben Blüten’ (s. Marzell 194379: I, 568) oder ‘das leuchtend gelbe Innere der Stämme und der Wurzeln’ (s. Baytop 1999: 148f.)63 sowie ausgehend von ganz ähnlichen Formen und Namen wie etwa azb. zärinč (vgl. prs. zarīn), özb. zaraŋg (< prs. zarang u. a. ‘Berberitze’; Dmitrieva 1972: ibd.) böte sich zumindest unter semantischem Aspekt eine Verbindung mit prs. zar ‘Gold’ (Steingass 1957: 612b) an. Unerklärt bleibt bei dieser Art der Interpretation allerdings die abweichende Vokalisation (a : i), für die sonst keine Hinweise mehr vorliegen. Berberis vulgaris ist Bestandteil der europäischen Flora, im Vorderen Orient wächst sie vor allem im und um den Kaukasus und vereinzelt in den anatolischen Randgebirgen (s. Abb. 8.). In der Heilkunde kommt besonders die Wurzel, Radix berberidis bzw. Cortex berberidis radicis zur Anwendung. Die daraus gewonnen Arzneien wirken im allgemeinen Appetit anregend, kräftigend und Fieber senkend; s. Baytop ibd. 63 Weiter berichtet Baytop noch speziell über die nah verwandte Berberis crataegina DC., daß man den in ihren Wurzeln enthaltenen gelben Farbstoff vielfach als einfaches Einfärbemittel für Zeltplanen oder Säcke verwendet, was dieser Pflanze wie auch z. T. Berberis vulgaris Namen wie ttü. (dial.) sarı ağaç (‘gelber Baum’), sarı çalı (‘gelber Strauch’) sowie sarı odun (‘gelbes Holz’) und natürlich ‘Tataris Sare-agatsch, i. e. lignum flavum’ (Pallas ibd.) einbrachte. Ferner möchte ich hinweisen auf mong. (Chalcha) šar mod (‘gelber Baum’ bzw. ‘gelbes Holz’) ‘Berberis sibirica Pall.’ (Ölʒiixutag 1983: 94).

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

33

WART ‘ROSA canina’; Tataris Güll, Georgis Eskili, Rossis Шиповникъ, fructus Шипъ (Pallas 1788: 60).64 = arm. vard ‘Rose’ (ARS 629b; Malxaseanc‘ IV, 308b), das bekanntermaßen aus dem Nordwestiranischen, genauer gesagt dem Parthischen (*ward) übernommen ist, dem lautgesetzlich die südwestiranische Form (phl., prs.) gul ‘Rose’ entspricht;65 s. hierzu Schmitt 1983: 93; HAB IV, 317.66 Die einzige Auffälligkeit an der Pallasschen Notation ist, daß sie den in der gesprochenen Sprache bei -rd eingetretenen Übergang zu -rt‘ widerspiegelt, wie arm. dial. vart‘ (HAB ibd.) bestätigt. Die hierzu gehörende Ableitungen, arm. vardeni ‘Rosenstrauch’ (Bedevian 1936: Nr. 2987) ist als Genusname in der modernen armenischen Botanik durch masreni (eig. ‘Hagebutte’) verdrängt, weshalb die Species ‘Rosa canina L.’ heute masreni sovorakan oder masreni šan heißt, seltener kommt noch šn-a-vard vor; s. dazu HDF I, 406 und Łazaryan 1981: Nr. 805a. Die beiden letztgenannten Namensformen sind übrigens Nachbildungen des Binoms Rosa canina ‘Hunds-Rose’. MASCH ‘RUBUS fruticosus’; Rossis Ежевика (Pallas 1788: 65).67 = arm. moš ‘Brombeere’ (ARS 482a; Malxaseanc‘ III, 358b). Auch dieser Pflanzenname läßt sich bis ins Altarmenische zurück verfolgen, wo man ihm erstmals in der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments, im Buche Jeremia als mošay ‘eine Art Strauch’ begegnet. An Ableitungen und Komposita sind moši bzw. mošeni sowie mošavayri zu nennen; hierzu und zur Verbreitung in den Dialekten s. HAB III, 345f., ferner 64 = Rosa canina L., deu. Hunds-Rose (Zander 2000: 651a), rus. šipovnik sobačij (Macura 1982: 641). 65 Das von Pallas für das Ossetische angegebene (Dugoris) Vagale hat hiermit natürlich nichts zu tun; zur Etymologie von oss. (Iron) wağyly ~ (Digoron) wæğæli s. Abaev 1958-89: IV, 41f. 66 Auch im Osmanischen des 14.-15. Jahrhunderts ist verd ‘Rose’ bezeugt. Önler (1990: Nr. 534) schließt diese Realisation – ohne Nennung des iranischen Etymons – unmittelbar an ar. ward(a) ‘Rose, Blüte (s. Eilers 1971: 583; Asbaghi 1988: 271) an, was an sich nicht unmöglich ist. Immerhin ist ward so tief ins Arabische eingebettet, daß es nach semitischer Art als gewöhnliche dreiradikalische Wurzel behandelt wird, die sogar Verben bildet: wrd II (warrada) ‘Blüten tragen; rot färben’ V (tawarrada) ‘rot sein od. werden’ etc. (Wehr 1968: 942b). Doch spricht m. E. auch nichts dagegen, die osmanischen Belege direkt mit dem Iranischen zu verbinden, in dem diese Nord-Westform (als Lehnelement) noch stets herumgeistert, so in: krd. wärd poet. ‘Rose’ (KR 787b) oder prs. ward ‘Rose, Blume’, welches aber mit der arabischen Verwandten ineinander läuft; vgl. etwa die arabisierende Pluralbildung prs. wurd ‘Rosen’ oder die Femininform warda ‘eine einzige Rose od. Blume’ (Steingass 1957: 1462). 67 = Rubus fruticosus L., deu. (Echte) Brombeere (Zander 2000: 656a), rus. eževika kustarnikovaja (Macura 1982: 166).

34

UWE BLÄSING

NBHL II, 297a. Der weitere etymologische Hintergrund dieses Terminus ist wiederum verschwommen. J̌ahukyan 1987: 72 betrachtet ihn zusammen mit dem lautlich und semantisch nahezu identischen arm. mor ‘Rubus idaeus L., Himbeere’ (Malxaseanc‘ III, 359b)68 als möglicherweise aus dem Indogermanischen ererbt: ‘idg. *mor- ‘Brombeere, Maulbeere’ > arm. mor, mori, moreni, und vielleicht auch moš (*morš < *mors-?)’, was er schließlich noch zu einer Form ‘nostratisch’ *marja ‘Beere’ stellen möchte. An anderer Stelle, im Kapitel Armenisch und Südkaukasisch (!) findet man (ibd. 588) folgende etwas modifizierte, aber ebenso nichts sagende Information: ‘arm. mor(i), moreni, moš(ay), dial. moṙ (idg. *moro-) – grg. marc̣̣q̇w-, svan. bäsq̇i-, bäsq̇- ‘Brombeere?’ (*marc̣q̇w-, nostratisch *marja ‘Beere’)’; ferner s. ibd. 139 & 255. Recht haben dürfte J̌ahukyan ganz allgemein, was die Verbindung von arm. moš mit mor angeht. Zu untersuchen wäre dabei allerdings, was genau hinter dem Element *s in *r-s steckt, vor allem ob es aus dem Armenischen selbst oder aber aus einer diesem vorangehenden Sprachform stammt. Auch was die gesamte Herkunft des Etymons (idg. *mor-) betrifft, sollte diese nochmals näher unter die Lupe genommen werden, insbesondere im Hinblick auf kaukasisches Sprachmaterial, das zahlreiche lautlich sehr ähnliche Beerennamen enthält. Nikolayev & Starostin 1994: 804f. fassen einen Teil von diesen zusammen unter PEC69 *mer(ʔ) V ‘a kind of berry’. Möglich, daß es sich als ein uraltes Wanderwort offenbart. Da es z. T. um ganz verschiedene Beeren geht, kann uns die Verbreitung der sie hervorbringenden Gewächse hier kaum brauchbare Anhaltspunkte liefern. Zu arm. mošeni ~ moṙeni als Namen des botanischen Genus ‘Rubus L.’ s. HDF I, 386. Ferner nennt Łazaryan noch mṙ-a-moši ~ čaxn-a-moši ‘Rubus chamaemorus L.’ (1981: Nr. 862), k‘ar-a-moši ‘Rubus saxatilis L.’ (Nr. 1257), während er mošeni ~ moši als solches ganz explizit der Species ‘Rubus caesius L.’ (Nr. 856) zuweist. Nachdem wir nun alle Namensnotationen von Pallas haben Revue passieren lassen und erörtert haben, können wir festhalten, daß die Formen durchweg einen östlichen Dialekttyp vertreten. Die Frage allerdings, ob sie auch einem einzigen Dialektkontinuum oder sogar einem ganz bestimmten Lokaldialekt entstammen und eventuell auf einen einzigen 68 Ferner auch ‘Fragaria vesca L., Wald-Erdbeere’, so u. a. in dem Lehnwort ttü. (Hemşin) mor ~ moy ‘Walderdbeere’: < arm. (Hamšen) (*moy) < *mōr; s. dazu Bläsing 1992: Nr. 94. 69 = Proto-East-Caucasian.

ARMENISCHEN PFLANZENNAMEN IN PALLAS’ FLORA ROSSICA

35

Gewährsmann zurückgehen, läßt sich noch immer nicht beantworten. Besonders auffallend sind irgendwie die mit dem Georgischen gemeinsamen Termini (Tuta ~ Tschata; Kutzachur), aber auch mögliche Hinweise auf den Iran (s. Chansoer). Was die zeitliche Datierung betrifft, so stammt das Material höchstwahrscheinlich aus dem frühen 18. Jahrhundert, also grob gesagt, aus der Zeit von Pallas und seinen Kollegen. Schließen möchte ich meinen kleinen Beitrag70 nunmehr mit einem mahnenden Wort von Peter Simon Pallas, das heute, in einer Zeit sogenannter zielorientierter Veränderungen im akademischen Alltag, die für viele unserer kleinen Fächer irreparable Schäden mit sich bringen, vielleicht aktueller ist denn je (zitiert aus Stresemann 1962: 256f.): Wenn zur Würde irgendeiner Wissenschaft nur das gerechnet wird, was der Menschheit zum unmittelbaren und merklichen Nutzen dient, unter Hintansetzung alles dessen, was ergänzt, verfeinert, vollendet, erfreut – welch winziges bißchen Wissen bleibt dann noch übrig! Führen denn nicht die dem gierigen Gaumen angepaßten Wissenschaften allmählich zur Barbarei zurück!

* *

*

ABKÜRZUNGEN DER SPRACHEN abx. akkad. ar. aram. arm. azb. bšk. deu. eng. franz. gag.

Abchasisch Akkadisch Arabisch Aramäisch Armenisch Aserbaidschanisch Baschkirisch Deutsch Englisch Französisch Gagausisch

70 Nun ist auch der Zeitpunkt gekommen, um allen Kollegen und Freunden, die mich bei der Erstellung dieses Beitrages in irgendeiner Weise unterstützt haben, meinen aufrichtigen Dank auszusprechen. Besonders nennen möchte ich Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Robert Kerr, Theo van Lint, Alessandro Orengo, Michiel de Vaan sowie Kees Lut und seine Mitarbeiter bei Nationaal Herbarium Nederland der Universität Leiden.

36 gil. gr. grg. hurr. idg. ital. kkp. kmk. krd. krg. krm. kzk. lat. laz. ming. mong. ngr. osm. oss. özb. phl. prs. rom. rus. svan. syr. tat. tkm. ttü. tü. uig. warm. dial. L.

UWE BLÄSING

Gilani Griechisch Georgisch Hurritisch Indogermanisch Italienisch Karakalpakisch Kumykisch Kurdisch Kirgizisch Karaimisch Kazakisch Lateinisch Lazisch Mingrelisch Mongolisch Neugriechisch Osmanisch Ossetisch Usbekisch Pahlavi Persisch Romani (allg. Zigeunerisch) Russisch Swanisch Syrisch Tatarisch Türkmenisch Türkeitürkisch Türkisch Uigurisch (modern) Westarmenisch dialektal Literatur-, Schriftsprache

NUOVI CONTRIBUTI ALLO STUDIO DELL’ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI1

1. Questo contributo al volume in memoria di Jos Weitenberg vuole significare la mia sincera ammirazione per l’eminente collega e amico che in tanti studi e ricerche ha messo in evidenza l’acutezza del suo ingegno, e ha prestato la sua opera intelligibile e appassionata alla fondazione e all’affermazione dell’AIEA, di cui era il benemerito e apprezzato Presidente.2 Il mio approccio a questo testo di Eusebio, veramente importante e fondamentale non solo per la filologia armena, ma anche, e forse ancore più, per la filologia classica e per la storiografia antica, è stato propiziato da uno dei maggiori poeti italiani, nonché sommo filologo classico, completamente ignaro di armeno. La mia attenzione fu dapprima attratta dalle acute e perspicaci ‘Annotazioni’ sul De Providenzia di Filone Alessandrino, che Giacomo Leopardi scrisse servendosi di una versione latina, peraltro non sempre affidabile, del testo armeno appena pubblicata a Venezia nel 1822 da G. B. Aucher. Il mio studio su questo testo fu subito giudicato ‘importante’ da Sebastiano Timpanaro, che, anche per le ‘Annotazioni’ dello stesso Leopardi sulla Cronaca di Eusebio, scriveva: ‘è augurabile che Giancarlo Bolognesi ci dia presto uno studio dello stesso tipo di quello sui contributi a Filone’.3 L’occasione per dare compimento all’auspicio, formulato dal maggiore studioso e più acuto interprete degli scritti filologici leopardiani, mi venne fornita dall’VIII Convegno internazionale di studi leopardiani, in cui presentai una relazione nella quale dicevo: Un’analisi particolareggiata e non superficiale di tutte le Annotazioni [di Leopardi] sulla Cronaca di Eusebio richiede ovviamente uno spazio ben

1

Professor Giancarlo Bolognesi passed away on the 20th December, 2005. Jos Weitenberg was President of AIEA from 1999 to 2006 (eds.). 3 Timpanaro 1978: 68 n. 17, 82-83 n. 65. Lo studio sui contributi a Filone, cui si riferisce Timpanaro, è Bolognesi 1970: 65-79, ora anche in Bolognesi 1998: 3-23. 2

38

GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI

maggiore di quello che mi viene ora consentito. Mi limito quindi a esemplificare alcuni aspetti della vasta problematica che la recenzione critica leopardiana fa emergere, rimandando a succesivi lavori una esaustiva trattazione dell’argomento.4

All’invio dell’estratto della mia relazione S. Timpanaro rispondeva immediatamente con una lettera datata 2 febbraio 1995 nella quale scriveva: Le sono molto grato per l’invio del Suo saggio, davvero fondamentale, su Giacomo Leopardi e l’armeno … Ho letto ora con vivissimo interesse il Suo lavoro [sulla versione della Cronaca di Eusebio]. Sono lieto di constatare che Pacella ed io non avevamo commesso troppe inesattezze nel commentare i contributi leopardiani.5 Ma Lei, forte della Sua conoscenza dell’armeno e della Sua invidiabile competenza in questo campo, ha compiuto un grande passo avanti… Mi sento sicuro della giustezza di tutte le Sue osservazioni, e aspetto con desiderio il nuovo studio che Lei preannuncia.

Per il bicentenario della nascita del ‘poeta e filologo sommo’ S. Timpanaro mi sollecitò vivamente a raccogliere in un volume tutti i miei scritti ‘che hanno contribuito in modo decisivo a far conoscere un altro aspetto dell’ingegno davvero straordinario di Giacomo Leopardi’, e in questo volume cominciai a onorare l’impegno assunto pubblicando Nuove considerazioni sulle ‘Annotazioni sopra la Cronaca d’Eusebio’ di Giacomo Leopardi.6 In una lettera del 19 febbraio 1999 S. Timpanaro trovò ‘tutto il volume … davvero affascinante’, e sottolineava ‘l’importanza del … libro per tutti gli studiosi del Leopardi filologo, e, direi, del Leopardi in generale’. Concludeva infine la lettera dicendo: In questo bicentenario leopardiano molto è stato scritto di ripetitivo, di inutile e talvolta di errato. Per fortuna sono usciti anche libri e saggi davvero importanti, e uno dei più importanti è certamente il Suo.

Ora il volume in memoria di Jos Weitenberg mi permette di aggiungere altri nuovi contributi allo studio di un testo che è una miniera di materali altrove non sempre reperibili.

4

Bolognesi 1994: 353-354, ora anche Bolognesi 1998: 69. Si riferisce alla magistrale edizione critica, con accurato commento filologico, delle varie stesure delle Annotazioni sopra la Cronaca d’Eusebio, pubblicata nel volume Leopardi 1969: 197-437. 6 Bolognesi 1998: 85-95. 5

ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO

39

2. Una prova della straordinaria capacità che Leopardi aveva di cogliere tutte le sfumature semantiche, che un vocabolo greco poteva assumere in diversi contesti, risulta inequivocabilmente dall’osservazione seguente: Συστήσας τῷ υἱῷ Ναβουχοδονοσόρῳ ὄντι ἔτι ἐν ἡλικίᾳ μέρη τινὰ τῆς δυνάμεως. L’armeno: partem copiarum contractam filio suo Nabucodrossoro, matura tunc aetate iuveni, traditit. Quel contractam viene dal non aver capito la voce greca συστήσας, che qui non significa il ragunare ma l’affidare. ὄντι ἔτι ἐν ἡλικίᾳ vale: ancor giovane o ancora nel fior dell’età, non matura tunc aetate iuveni (279-285).7

È anzitutto bene ricordare che, per le Annotazioni su Eusebio, Leopardi si servì dell’edizione di A. Mai & G. Zohrab8, che non riportava il testo armeno, ma la sua traduzione latina, la sola comunque che poteva riuscire intelligibile al Leopardi completamente ignaro di armeno. Leopardi quindi giudica ‘l’(interprete) armeno’, e lo confronta con i frammenti superstiti dell’originale greco, partendo soltanto dallo traduzione latina del testo armeno. Alla luce di questa precisazione è opportuno controllare il corrispondente passo della traduzione armena che recita: գումարեաց եդ ի ձեռին որդւոյն իւրում Նաբուկոդրոսորայ, որ այնուհետեւ ի չափ իսկ հասակի հասեալ էր, մասն ինչ ի զաւրացն (I 65-66)9.

Dalla collazione del testo armeno con il frammento superstito dell’originale greco risulta anzitutto che, con un procedimento abbastanza normale in questa come in altre antiche traduzioni armene di testi greci, la subordinata greca espressa con il participio συστήσας è stata resa con forme aoristali coordinate all’aoristo ἐξέπεμπε, che segue immediatamente il passo citato. Ma la cosa più interessante è che συστήσας è stato tradotto non con un solo vocabolo armeno, come sembra aver inteso Leopardi, ma con il verbo գումարեաց ‘raduno’ (reso in latino con contractam) e con la locuzione եդ ի ձեռին ‘consegno, affidò’ (letteralmente ‘pose in mano’), cioè in latino tradidit. 7 Il referimento è alle righe delle Annotazioni sopra la Cronaca d’Eusebio, pubblicata in Leopardi 1969: 209-312. 8 Eusebio di Caesarea 1818b. 9 Il referimento è al volume e alle pagine dell’ancora fondamentale ‘editio princeps’, Eusebio di Caesarea 1818a. Di quest’opera Leopardi poté prendere conoscenza a Roma nel dicembre 1822, ed ebbe modo di valersene solo parzialmente nella terza e definitiva redazione delle Annotazioni su Eusebio.

40

GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI

Non è certo infrequente che un unico termine greco sia reso nelle antiche traduzioni armeno con una iteratio synonymica, cioè con due vocaboli semanticamente simili o anche perfetti sinonimi.10 Nel caso che stiamo analizzando il traduttore armeno non ha però usato due sinonimi, ma ha avvertito la duplice valenza semantica di συν-ίστημι, che, oltre al significato di ‘radunare’, ha anche quello di ‘affidare’ (soprattutto nel greco dei Settanta, con cui i traduttori armeni dovevano avere pure una certa dimestichezza). Già nella mia prolusione universitaria ho avanzato l’ipotesi che i t‘argamanič‘k‘ si servissero anche di glossari e lessici11, e l’idea è stata ripresa e confermata da allievi della mia scuola che hanno dimostrato che alcune coppie sinonimiche, con cui sono stati tradotti singoli vocaboli greci, trovano effettivamente riscontro in lessici giunti fino a noi. Non è da escludere quindi che anche il traduttore armeno di Eusebio possa aver trovato in qualche lessico il duplice valore semantico di greco συνίστημι. Non meno interessante ed esatta è anche l’osservazione leopardiana che, nel passo citato di Eusebio, ‘ὄντι ἔτι ἐν ἡλικίᾳ vale: ancor giovane o ancora nel fior dell’età12, non matura tunc aetate iuveni’. Faccio rilevare che il traduttore armeno, risolvendo con un procedimento che gli è abituale, il costrutto participiale con una proposizione relativa, ha reso l’espressione greca con: որ այնուհետեւ ի չափ իսկ հասակի հասեալ էր

dove որ ... էր è la traduzione di ὄντι; այնուհետեւ è la traduzione di ἔτι; իսկ può corrispondere alle particelle greche μέν, τε, δέ ecc., ma a volte può anche non avere una precisa corrispondenza in greco; ի չափ իսկ հասակի հասեալ è la traduzione di ἐν ἡλικίᾳ.

A ἡλικία corrisponde normalmente arm. հասակ, che del vocabolo greco presenta sostanzialmente tutte le principali valenze semantiche

10 Anche i primi glossatori di testi latini in antiche lingue germaniche (e in altre lingue) ricorrono a coppie sinonimiche per rendere singoli vocaboli latini. 11 Bolognesi 1965: 159. 12 Espressione che ci richiama alla mente splendidi versi leopardiani (‘Canti, e così trapassi Dell’anno e di tua vita il più bel fior’; il fior de gli anni tuoi’, ecc.), che escludono categoricamente l’interpretazione ‘matura tunc aetate iuveni’ dei traduttori del testo armeno della Cronaca di Eusebio.

ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO

41

‘età, tempo, epoca, secolo, statura’. Già nella ‘regina delle traduzioni’ հասակ traduce ἡλικία sia nel senso di ‘età’: եւ Յիսուս զարգանայր իմաստութեամբ եւ հասակաւ եւ շնորհաւք յԱստուծոյ եւ ի մարդկանէ (Lu 2.51) καὶ Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτεν ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ χάριτι παρὰ Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις et Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines;

sia nel senso di ‘statura’: ո՞վ ի ձէնջ առ հոգալ կարիցէ յաւելուլ ի հասակ իւր կանգուն մի (Lu 12.25) τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ προθεῖναι πῆχυν ἕνα; quis autem vestrum cogitando potest adicere ad staturam suam cubitum unum?

In altri lavori abbiamo potuto constatare come gli antichi traduttori armeni abbiano fatto ricorso alla tecnica del calco semantico, caricando vocaboli armeni di nuovi significati sul modello dei corrispondenti termini lessicali greci.13 È quindi possibile, anzi verosimile, che anche il vocabolo armeno հասակ si sia caricato, per calco semantico, di tutti i significati originariamente propri del corrispondente vocabolo greco ἡλικία. Comunque, il traduttore armeno della Cronaca di Eusebio, avendo ben compreso che nel contesto citato ἐν ἡλικίᾳ significa ‘nel fiore dell’età’ (esattamente come ha annotato Leopardi), per evitare l’ambiguità cui poteva dar luogo la polisemia del termine հասակ, ha opportunamente pensato di disambiguarlo aggiundendo ի չափ ... հասեալ. La locuzione armena ի չափ հասանեմ significa infatti ‘floreo aetate’14, ed è già attestata nella ‘regina delle traduzioni’ per rendere, senza possibilità di equivoco, il termine greco ἡλικία proprio nel significato di ‘giovane, nel fior dell’età’. È infatti usata, per esempio, dai genitori per indicare il figlio cieco dalla nascita, miracolato da Gesù, non tanto piccolo d’aver bisogno che i genitori rispondano per lui, ma ‘nel fiore degli anni, nel pieno rigoglio della giovinezza’ (οἱ ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ erano ‘i giovani atti a portare le armi’, i ‘giovani di leva’ diremmo oggi), quindi ormai in grado di rispondere da solo alle domande dei farisei: ցդա իսկ հարցէք ինքնին ի չափ հասեալ է (Ioh. 9,21) αὐτὸν ἐρωτησάτε, ἡλικίαν ἔχει 13 14

Bolognesi 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990a, 1990b, 1992. NBHL II, 573a.

42

GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI

ipsum interrogate, aetatem habet; թէ ինքնին ի չափ հասեալ է ցնա իսկ հարցէք (Ioh. 9,23) ὅτι ἡλικίαν ἔχει, αὐτὸν ἐπερωτήσατε quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.

Molto interessante in questi due contesti è anche la diversa resa armena del pronome αὐτόν. Nel primo caso viene usato դա (preceduto dalla preposizione ց), cioè il pronome che indica persona o cosa vicina a chi ascolta (infatti il giovane miracolato è presente e vicino ai farisei cui i genitori parlano), nel secondo caso viene usato նա, cioè il pronome che indica persona o cosa lontana da chi parla e da chi ascolta (infatti il giovane miracolato non è più presente). In questo almeno l’armeno mostra un grado di precisione superiore allo stesso greco.15 Nel primo dei due contesti troviamo poi la conferma che armeno իսկ può anche non avere alcuna corrispondenza in greco. La conferma che la locuzione armena ի չափ հասանել siginifica ‘nel fior dell’età’ si ha in altri contesti di questa stessa traduzione armena della Cronaca di Eusebio, dove appunto la locuzione è attestata anche come traduzione del verbo greco ἀκμάζω, di cui il più classico dei dizionari greci dà come primo e principale significato ‘to be in full bloom, at the prime’. Così, per esempio, abbiamo: Մուսիկոս Եուկտիայ եւ Նիմփայ ի չափ հասանէր (II 102)16 Μουσικὸς ὁ Εὐκταίου καὶ Νύμφης ἤκμαζε. Փիղամոն Դեղփիացի ի չափ հասեալ էր (II 124) Φiλάμμων ὁ Δέλφιος ἤκμαζεν. Պղատոն փիղիսոփոս ի չափ հասեալ երեւէր (II 218) Πλάτων ὁ φιλόσοφος ἤκμαζεν. Իսոկրատէս սոփեստէս ի չափ հասեալ երեւէր (II 220) Ἰσοκράτης17 σοφιστὴς ἤκμαζε. 15 Abbiamo scritto altrove: ‘il traduttore armeno [della Bibbia] ha dato prova di una consumata perizia e di una singolare maestria nell’uso delle proprie risorse linguistiche ... Si sforza con successo di non piegare passivamente la propria lingua, addatandola a imitare pedissequamente il modello linguistico greco, non rinuncia ai propri mezzi espressivi, ma se ne serve abilmente per gareggiare con quelli del modello greco che ha davanti, e in questa gara a volte riesce persino a superare, in precisione e varietà di sfumature, lo stesso modello greco, mettendo a profitto risorse sconosciute alla lingua greca, come l’uso duttile del triplice articolo armeno, capace di possibilità espressive ignote non solo al greco ma anche ad altre lingue’, Bolognesi 1982: 20. 16 Nella traduzione latina di Aucher ի չափ հասանէր è reso con vivebat, che ritengo un errore di stampa per vigebat. 17 Ἰσοκράτης è un emendamento congetturale dello Scaligero, ben confermato dalla traduzione armena, che, anche in questo caso, ha conservato l’esatta lezione originaria, in luogo di quella corrotta Σοκράτης della tradizione manoscritta greca (si veda l’osservazione di Leopardi alla riga 2261 in Leopardi 1969).

ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO

43

In conclusione, l’analisi di questo passo mostra, ancora una volta, l’acume del Leopardi nell’interpretare la precisa connotazione semantica di un vocabolo greco, reso in armeno con una locuzione che gli stessi traduttori del testo armeno non sono riusciti a interpretare con altrettanta acribia.18 3. Esatta nella sua scarna concisione è l’osservazione leopardiana: ‘‘Ωπλισσομένοις Dite ὡπλισμένοις’ (1100)

Nell’apparato critico di Pacella & Timpanaro viene precisato: ‘ὡπλισμένους codd.: ὡπλισσομένους Scaligero, ὡπλισσομένοις Mai (!)’.

Io aggiungo che l’edizione di Aucher (I 294) riporta la forma ὡπλισσομένους dello Scaligero. Trattatandosi del participio perfetto del verbo ὁπλιζω, è ovvio che le forme ὡπλισσομένους e ὡπλισσομένοις non possono avere alcuna giustificazione sul piano linguistico. Si può invece discutere sulla forma di accusativo ὡπλισμένους dei codd., o di dativo ὡπλισμένοις proposta da Leopardi. E qui il testo armeno (che Leopardi ignorava) dà certamente ragione a Leopardi. Il passo in cui appare il vocabolo in questione è: Պաւղիդամաս Սկոտուսացի … ընդ վառեալս մերկանդամ կռուէր (Aucher I 294)

in corrispondenza del frammento greco: Πολύδαμας Σκοτουσσαῖος … ὡπλισμένους (vel ὡπλισσομένους, vel ὡπλισσομένοις) γυμνὸς κατηγωνίσατο.

Si può subito notare che il verbo armeno կռուէր, che rende κατηγωνίσατο non regge l’accusativo, ma la preposizione ընդ + locativo (ընդ վառեալս). È questo il costrutto sintattico normalmente usato per rendere il dativo greco retto da un verbo che significa ‘combattere, lottare’ (μάχομαι, πολεμέω). Lo si può chiaramente vedere in tutte le traduzioni armene di testi greci, già a partire da quella fondamentale della Bibbia, fino a quelle

18 Rimando al mio lavoro ‘Nuove considerazioni sulle Annotazioni sopra la Cronica d’Eusebio di Giacomo Leopardi’, in Bolognesi 1998: 88.

44

GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI

della ‘scuola ellenizzante’, dove il verbo կռուիմ, seguito dalla preposizione ընդ + loc., rende μάχομαι seguito dal dativo. Per esempio nella traduzione dei Progymnasmata di Elio Teone troviamo: ոչ ընդ Պարսիկս Հերակլէս կռուի (76, 16) οὐχι κενταύροις ὁ Ἡρακλῆς μάχεται կռուի … ինքն ընդ ինքեան (102, 1) μάχεται … αὐτὸς ἑαθτῷ.

Si può quindi concludere che nel passo della Cronaca di Eusebio ընդ վառեալս suppone nell’originale greco ὡπλισμένοις, come giustamente congetturato da Leopardi, e non ὡπλισμένους dei codd. 4. Precisa e puntuale è l’annotazione leopardiana: Ἀντίοχος Φιλωθεὶς τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ. Pecca la stampa. Quel φιλωθεὶς è participio. Ivi. Καὶ Κλεοπάτραν τὴν αὐτοῦ θυγατέρα τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ εἰς γυναῖκα. Dopo la voce θυγατέρα manca la voce ἐκδίδωσι, e il difetto è di questa edizione (2307-2311).

Comincio col far notare che Φιλωθεὶς e φιλωθεὶς devono ritenersi errori di stampa per Φιλιωθείς e φιλιωθείς. Ciò detto, anche queste osservazioni sono suffragate dal testo armeno che recita: Անտիոքոս բարեկամեալ ընդ Պտղոմեի … եւ զԿղեոպատրա զդուստր իւր տայր նմա կնութեան (I 236).

Arm. բարեկամեալ è infatti il participio passato del verbo բարեկամեմ, e prova che il traduttore armeno della Cronaca di Eusebio ha rettamente interpretato φιλιωθείς come participio aoristo passivo, e non come un antroponimo, del resto inesistente. E dopo զդուստր իւր (τὴν αὐτοῦ θυγατέρα) il testo armeno ha տայր, esatta traduzione di ἐκδίδωσι, di cui Leopardi aveva avvertito la mancanza nel testo greco di Mai-Zohrab. La perfetta corrispondenza di arm. տայր a ἐκδίδωσι è garantita anche dall’identica formula che appare poco dopo in questa stessa traduzione armena della Cronaca di Eusebio, dove troviamo: տայ զդուստր իւր կնութեան (II 244)

in corrispondenza di un testo semanticamente speculare rispetto a quello citato: τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θυγατέρα πρὸς γάμον ἐκδίδωσι.

ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO

45

C’è solo da rilevare che il cosidetto ‘presente storico’ greco in questa, come in altre traduzioni armene, può essere indifferentemente reso col presente armeno (տայ), ma anche con l’imperfetto (տայր), come si può vedere, per esempio, in un lungo contesto, molto vicino a quelli sopra riportati, dove troviamo: շինէր (II 240) շինէր (II 242) սատակէր (II 242) տային (II 242)

in corrispondenza del presente κτίζει in corrispondenza del presente οἰκοδομεῖ in corrispondenza del presente τελευτᾷ in corrispondenza del presente δίδωσιν

Notο ancora che l’espressione formulare: տամ զդուստր իւր կնութեան

è molto frequente fin dalla traduzione armena della Bibbia. 5. Nell’annotazione leopardiana immediatamente seguente si legge: Πρὸς αὐτὸν Πτολεμαῖον ἐλθών, καλῶς ὑπεδέχθη‧ οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ στασιάσαντες, μεγάλης ταραχῆς αἴτιοι γεγόνασιν Ἰουδαίοις. Ma le stampe del Sincello hanno: πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον ἐλθών, καλῶς ὑπεδέχθη. Οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν στασιάσαντες col resto. E così va scritto il presente luogo, e così fu letto dall’armeno e da San Girolamo (2312 - 2317).

Nell’apparato critico Pacella-Timpanaro notano: ‘Il Dindorf (Sync. 283A = II 537,16 sg.) ha la lezione preferita dal Leopardi, lo Schoene quella del Mai: l’uno e l’altro senza alcuna nota’.

Il corrispondente testo della traduzione armena è: երթեալ առ Պտղոմէոս մեծարանաւք պատուէր. ընդ որում ի կռիւ գռգռեալ եղբայրն … (II 238).

Da cui si evince che, proprio come nelle stampe del Sincello, il traduttore armeno leggeva πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον (առ Պտղոմէոս), e non πρὸς αὐτὸν Πτολεμαῖον come nel testo di Mai-Zohrab. E in questo l’armeno coincide perfettamente anche con il testo di San Gerolamo che ha ad Ptolemeum. Nessuno finora ha però avvertito alcune divergenze della traduzione armena dell’opera di Eusebio rispetto ai testi del Sincello e di San Gerolamo. Anzitutto il testo armeno ha il singolare եղբայրն (ὁ ἀδελφός), e non il plurale οἱ ἀδελφοί del Sincello, e fratres di San Gerolamo. Inoltre in armeno dopo եղբայրն manca l’equivalente di αὐτοῦ del Sincello, e di eius di San Gerolamo.

46

GIANCARLO BOLOGNESI

Invece l’armeno ha ընդ որում in corrispondenza di πρὸς αὐτόν del Sincello, e di contra eum di San Gerolamo. La preposizione ընդ + loc. traduce bene anche πρός + acc. (già nella traduzione della Bibbia abbiamo, per esempio, խաւսել ընդ քեզ = λαλῆσαι πρὸς σέ (Lu. 1.19), però որում è il loc. (e dat.) sing. del pronome relativo որ, e questo potrebbe indurre a supporre che nel testo greco, di cui il traduttore armeno di Eusebio disponeva, ci potesse essere πρὸς ὅν anziché πρὸς αὐτόν. Un’attenta analisi interna, di tutta la versione armena della Cronaca eusebiana, ci può salvaguardare da questa erronea conclusione. Infatti in questa, come in altre antiche traduzioni armene di testi greci, anche in quelle più fedeli all’originale greco, non è raro che il traduttore renda il pronome αὐτός con il relativo որ, modificando il costrutto sintattico, senza peraltro cambiare sostanzialmente il senso di tutto il periodo. Per il nostro testo ricordo ad esempio: որոյ պատկերն (I 21) in corrispondenza di τὴν δὲ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ որոց անուն կոչիցին գոնգք (I 19) in corrispondenza di ὀνομάζεσθαι αὐτὰς γόγγας զորս տարեալ Ինուտրի Լիկոնացւոյ (I 363-364) in corrispondenza di ἄγοντος αὐτοὺς Οἰνώτρου τοῦ Λυκάονος որում անուն էր Սիկեղոս (I 382) in corrispondenza di Σίκελος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

e l’esemplificazione potrebbe continuare. Alla luce di questi dati si può quindi ritenere che, nel passo analizzato, ընդ որում è la resa di πρὸς αὐτόν del Sincello (e di contra eum di San Gerolamo), e ciò conferma, almeno per questo particolare, la conclusione dell’annotazione leopardiana: ‘E così va scritto il presente luogo, e così fu letto dall’armeno e da San Girolamo’. Rebus sic stantibus risulta quindi inesatta la nota di Pacella – Timpanaro che, nell’apparato critico, affermano che lo Schoene presenta la lezione del Mai (quella cioè senza πρὸς αὐτόν). Nello Schoene (p. 203) si legge infatti ‘gegen welchen’, traduzione letterale di arm. ընդ որում, che, come abbiamo dimostrato, rende in questo contesto πρὸς αὐτόν dell’originale greco. Da questa indagine possiamo infine ricavare anche una lezione di metodo, e cioè che, anche nelle traduzioni più fedeli, alcuni scostamenti dall’originale non riflettono sempre necessariamente varianti dell’originale, ma possono anche essere spiegati come occasionali scelte stilistiche che hanno portato a variare la resa di una stessa lezione dell’originale, senza peraltro alterarne e comprometterne l’intelligibilità.

ANTICA TRADUZIONE ARMENA DELLA CRONACA DI EUSEBIO

47

6. Interessante è l’osservazione di Leopardi: Ἦν δὲ τότε Ἰταλία ἡ ἀπὸ Τάραντος ἄχρι Ποσειδωνίας παράλιος. Gli Editori: Ιnterpres arm. pro παράλιος videtur legisse παράλιον, quae spernenda lectio non est. Avranno voluto dire παραλίας genitivo, perché la preposizione ἄχρι non riceve altro caso, e perché in forza di nome sostantivo, si dice παραλία, non παράλιος né παράλιον. O forse l’armeno avrà letto: ἄχρι πρὸς τὴν Ποσειδωνίας παραλίαν (1578-1584).

Il corrispondente testo armeno è: քանզի էր Իտաղիա յայնժամ ի Տարանտայ մինչեւ զՊոսիդոնի ծովեզրն (I 382).

Arm. ծովեզր è sostantivo e significa ‘costa, lido, litorale, spiaggia’ (letteralmente ‘costa del mare’, in quanto composto formato da ծով ‘mare’ ed եզր ‘costa, spiaggia, litorale’). In quanto sostantivo, arm. ծովեզր non può che corrispondere a παραλία, di cui copre perfettamente tutti i significati. È interessante rilevare che poco prima, nella stessa Cronaca di Eusebio (I 369), ծովեզր è usato per tradurre il sostantivo αἰγιαλός ‘costa, lido, spiaggia’, che di παραλία è un perfetto sinonimo.19 In questo passo l’aggetivo παράλιος ‘marittimo’ è grammaticalmente e lessicalmente insostenibile, e sarebbe comunque stato reso in armeno non con il sostantivo ծովեզր, ma con l’aggetivo ծովեզերեայ ‘marittimo’. Il testo armeno suppone quindi un originale greco con la lezione παραλίας congetturata da Leopardi. Occorre anche precisare che la preposizione ἄχρι (che regge sempre il genitivo) è tradotta in armeno con մինչեւ ց ‘fino a’ (che regge sempre l’accusativo), come risulta inequivocabilmente da esempi che si possono trovare nella stessa traduzione armena della Cronaca di Eusebio, dove, per esempio, poche pagine prima del passo analizzato, si legge: մինչեւ ց ճորդ ի երորդ (I 332) ἄχρι τῆς ρκς´.

Il testo armeno non autorizza quindi la considerazione finale, pur formulata in forma dubitativa, di Leopardi: ‘O forse l’armeno avrà letto: ἄχρι πρὸς τὴν Ποσειδωνίας παραλίαν’.

19 Già nella traduzione armena della Bibbia ծովեզր traduce αἰγιαλός (cf. per esempio Mt. 13,2; Act. 21,5).

A MINOR EDITION OF THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH CHRISTOPH BURCHARD I. THE PROBLEM AND A PROVISIONAL SOLUTION The Armenian translation (Arm) of the ancient Jewish romance of Joseph and Aseneth (JosAs) is remarkable on two counts. First, unlike most other versions of the story, Arm never fell into oblivion. Nearly fifty manuscripts ranging from the 13th to the 18th centuries survived.1 As early as 1806 J. Zohrab, the renowned editor of the Armenian Bible, even had finished an edition together with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; unfortunately it was never printed except for JosAs 22-29 which A. Carrière published in 1886.2 Second, in alliance with the Syriac and the second Latin translation, Arm represents the oldest and fullest form of the story, but it is better than Syr and LatII.3 Yet we do not have a complete edition, let alone a critical one.4 What we do have is an idea of how the Armenian manuscript tradition developed or, to put it the other way round, how its archetype may be reconstructed, though not yet in every detail. The fifty or so manuscripts fall into six families labelled Arma.b.c.d.e.h plus two isolated codices designated Armf.g, and these are divided into two branches, both not entirely complete. One branch is Armf or M1500 (332),5 the one-volume 1 See Burchard 1996a: 103-137; 1996b: 139-159; 1999; Burchard, Burfeind & Fink 2003: 3-6, 11-15, 368f. (cited as Leiden Edition); Burchard 2010 – Thanks are due to Uwe Bläsing for help with the Armenian. 2 Burchard 1996a: 104. JosAs was never translated into Modern Armenian as far as I know. 3 Leiden Edition, 46-48, 368f. 4 The only edition which includes all 29 chapters and uses more than one ms. is Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1896: 152-198 (cited as Y). It is based on a late ms. belonging to a defective family (see note 10 below) and has a scanty apparatus which is almost useless. The extensive apparatus of the Leiden Edition registers Arm on the base of full collations from the relevant mss. (see at note 9 below), but this of course is no substitute for an edition. On chs. 25-29 see note 7 below. 5 The Sandbjerg Symposium of AIEA in 1989 proposed to quote individual mss. by an abbreviation of their present location followed by the library’s signature; hence M1500 is Erevan, Matenadaran, no. 1500 (see also note 9 below); See Coulie 1994, where some

50

CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

theological library penned by Mxit‘ar of Ayrivank‘ in A.D. 1282-83 (or 1285?) following a book-list ascribed to John Sarkavag of Hałbat (A.D. 1045/55 – 1129?).6 JosAs ends with 28:13 սրովք մերովք. The second branch encompasses all other families (including the solitary Armg). They differ considerably, but all of them lack 25:3 թէև – 27:11 and fill the gap by a brief collage of chips from the omitted text.7 They must therefore go back to a hyparchetype which was marred by this error. The hyparchetype also lacked 29:8f., either by default or because Arm never had these verses. A comparison of M1500 (332) and the hyparchetype as represented by its descendants with one another and with the Greek and other versional evidence (now accessible through the Leiden Edition) shows that both branches of the Armenian manuscript tradition independently from each other go back to the same translation, and that M1500 (332) is much closer to it in both length and wording. The text of an edition which aims at reconstructing the archetype of the tradition should therefore follow M1500 (332) down to its end in 28:13 except where (the) other families are manifestly superior, and a reconstruction of the hyparchetype from 28:13 վասն զի onward until the end in 29:7.8 It is not necessary to use all extant manuscripts unless the edition is to record every single sideline of the textual history. The following selection of 18 manuscripts will do:9 Armf M1500 (332) Arme J1925 (333), V229 (376), M347 (379) slightly different abbreviations are adopted. I have used numbers composed of three or four digits for JosAs mss. generally. The first digit specifies the language; Armenian is 3. The second indicates the last figure of the ordinal number of the century in which the ms. was written. The third and eventually fourth digits are simply enumerating (the order is arbitrary). Hence 332 is short for an Armenian ms. from the 13th cent. 6 Cf. Burchard 1999: 76; Leiden Edition, p. 14. 7 Burchard 1996c is a preliminary edition of these chapters according to M1500 (332) and selected mss. from Arma.b.c.d.e. It is true that Armc ends with 22:10, but it has a common ancestor with Armb where the lack of 25:3 – 27:11 is attested. Other mss. which break off earlier such as Armg (3711) can be shown to belong to the second branch by affinities with mss. which do so without doubt. 8 Perhaps my earlier attempt (see note 7 above) will do. It goes without saying that 25:3 – 27:11 will come out slightly inferior to what the text could be if M1500 (332) had company, and 28:13 – 29:7 much worse because M1500 (332) is lacking. 9 Burchard 1996b: 156. For the composition of the sigla see note 5 above. J = Jerusalem, LB = London, British Library, M = Erevan, Matenadaran, OBodl = Oxford, Bodleian Library, RCas = Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, RV = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana, V = Venice, St. Lazzaro, WM = Vienna, Mekhitarist Monastery.

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH

51

Arma OBodl Arm. e. 30 (331), WM126 (341), WM888 (373) Armd V679 (352), WM705 (354) Armg M5781 (3711) Armh M1665 (M, uncertain date), M8301 (355) Armc M346 (342), V280 (351) Armb RCas1988 (362),10 M6734 (364), LBOr8833 (371), RV1 (372) The apparatus should record all variants from all manuscripts used except the deviations from standard orthography and obvious blunders. However, before the archetype can be reconstructed a number of disputed or unexplored questions should be answered such as the relationship of the families which represent the hyparchetype,11 the impact of contamination,12, possible Middle Armenian influence, the date and script of the archetype,13 the translation habits (e.g. regarding the article), the nature of the Greek Vorlage, and possible secondary Greek influence.14 Moreover, as it appears that JosAs was translated together with the Pseudo-Ephremian homily In pulcherrimum Joseph,15 it must be decided whether the two writings should be edited together. All this requires a lot of further work but nobody seems to be in sight to shoulder it. I wonder, then, if it might be helpful to envisage a minor edition that could be assembled within reasonable time. I would suggest for its text down to 28:13 a reproduction of M1500 (332) in standard orthography excluding patent blunders but including in brackets inserts from the descendants of the hyparchetype to fill out gaps if such are indicated by Greek and/or other versional evidence. From 28:13 վասն զի till the end 10

This is the text of Y (see note 4 above). The provisional stemma in Burchard 1999: 81 is not the last word. A separate reconstruction of the hyparchetype could be useful (but cf. section III 3 below). 12 For an example see the beginning of section II below. Cf. also Burchard 1999: 78. 13 I believed until recently that the Vorlage of Arm was an uncial ms. but could not find hard evidence to prove it (Burchard 1999: 87f.). I realize now that 18:9 points into the opposite direction. The Greek mss. FW and Arm agree to read αἳ πορίαι αὐτῆς and գնացք նորա ‘her walks’ for αἳ παρειαὶ αὐτῆς ‘her cheeks’. ‘Walks’ does not make sense here, hence πορίαι is mistaken. It is hardly possible to confuse O and A in Greek uncial script, but fairly easy in minuscule, especially in a small hand. If Arm was translated from a minuscule, it was no earlier than the 9th or 10th century. The Bagratuni era from the 10th to the early 11th centuries is a possible matrix. The hyparchetype probably antedates the 13th century. As to the script of the archetype, some evidence points to երկաթագիր (Burchard 1999: 84f.; section III 4 below at the end). 14 It may not be likely, but ought to be given further attention (Burchard 1996b: 159; 1999: 77). 15 Leiden Edition, pp. 30f. For the Armenian tradition see Burchard 1996b: 140, note 3; 1999: 86f. 11

52

CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

the text should be a reconstruction of the hyparchetype.16 Such a text would be close to the archetype in length and fairly close in wording. It should be undergirded by a full apparatus from the 18 manuscripts cited above to allow improvement by the users and provide insights into the history of JosAs in Armenian. Ch. 1 is presented on the following pages as a specimen. II. CHAPTER 1

AS A

SPECIMEN

The text follows M1500 (332) except that words presumably omitted by Mxit‘ar (or its Vorlage) but preserved by (descendants of) the hyparchetype are inserted in broken brackets. Words transmitted by M1500 (332) alone are underlined. The orthography is standardized (also in the apparatus).17 Abbreviations including numerals are written out in full. Proper names are capitalized. The punctuation is mine. In case of variation, the apparatus fully documents both the text and the variant readings from the 18 manuscripts plus Y. Subvariants are included in parentheses; they refer only to the preceding word unless otherwise stated. Orthographical variants and abbreviations including numeral letters and symbols as well as special variants of individual manuscripts (except subvariants) are as a rule disregarded. In the interest of brevity I only use my numbers, not the Sandbjerg sigla, omitting the initial 3 (=Armenian).18 The witnesses are aligned in the order of the list given in section I with one exception. Arme falls into three subgroups which are here represented by their oldest members 33, 76, and 79. Subgroup 33& lacks the title and the beginning of the text, starting with 2:6 ի գիշերի. Subgroups 76& and 79& are intact, but in 79& the title and the text before 2:6 ի գիշերի are Arma, not Arme. The ancestor of this subgroup seems to have been a manuscript like 33 (not 33 itself) which was restored to full length from an Arma manuscript much like 31 (probably not 31 itself).19 79 is therefore ranged with 31 and its allies, Arme is represented in the specimen by 76 alone.

16

See notes 7 and 8 above. Mxit‘ar writes ե for է and եա; ւ for ու when followed by a vowel; he omits the middle յ in –այի- etc. and the final յ in –այ etc. unless followed by a demonstrative. 18 See note 5 above. 19 There was occasional contamination also later on (Burchard 1999: 77-79). 17

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH

53

The following signs are used in the apparatus: rel reliqui, i.e. those witnesses from the group of 18 which are not cited individually by numbers + in addition > omitted by omitted as part of a longer omission ? reading uncertain Պատմութիւն Ասենեթայ 1:1 Եւ եղև յամին առաջնում21 22յևթն23 ամաց24 լիութեանն25 յամսեանն առաջնում26, որ աւր հինգ27 էր ամսոյն, առաքեաց Փարաւոն զՅովսէփ28 շրջել ընդ ամենայն երկիրն Եգիպտացւոց. 1:2 29Եւ եկն Յովսէփ ի չորրորդ ամսեանն յառաջին ամին, 30որ աւր ութ և տասն էր ամսոյն, ի սահմանս Արեգ քաղաքի 31և ժողովէր զցորեան32 33երկրին այնորիկ իբրև34 զաւազ 20

20 Title] Պատմութիւն Ասենեթա 32; P. Ասանեթայ M? 55; 33. For the titles of Arma.b.c.d.e.g which are longer and vary considerably see Leiden Edition: 338. 21 առաջնում 1°] 32 42 M 55, յա- 41 51; առաջնումն 31 79 64 72, յա- 73 76 52 54 711 62 71 Y; 33 22 յևթն – առաջնում 2°] 32 31 rel; > 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 23 յևթն] 32 31 41 79? 711 55? 42; ևեաւթն 54 M; եաւթն 73?, է 52; 33, 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y 24 ամաց] 32 41 73 79 52 M 55 42; ամացն 54 711; ամանց 31; 33, 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y 25 լիութեանն] 32 42 55; –ան M?; –անցն 31 41 79 711; –անց 73 52 54; 33, 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y 26 առաջնում 2°] 32 42; –մն 79 711 M 55, յա– 73; առաջնումնն 31 41; > 52 54; 33, 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y 27 հինգ] 32 31 rel; ևթն 76, է 72; ևթներորդ behind էր 62 64 (եաւ– 64) 71 Y (եօթ– Y); 33 28 զՅովսէփ] rel Y; զՅուսեփ 32 31, –էփ 41; 33 29 և եկն – ամին] և եկն (32, otherwise եկեալ) Յովսէփ (Յուսեփ 32 31, –էփ 41) ի չորրորդ ամսեանն (ի չ. ա. only 32) յառաջին ամին 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; և եկեալ եհաս M 55 42 51; և եկեալ հասեալ 76 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 30 որ – ամսոյն] որ աւր ութ և տասն (ութ և տ.: ևթն և տասն with orthographical variants 31 41 73 79 52 54 711) էր ամսոյն 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; յութուտասներորդ (ի ժը. 42 51) աւուր ամսոյն (> 51) M 55 42 51; ի ժը. աւր(ն 62 64 71) 76 62 64 71 72; յութ և տասն օրն Y; 33 31 և ժողովէր] 32 rel Y; ի (> 41 73) ժողովել 31 41 73 79; 33 32 զցորեան] 32 73 711; –անն 31 41 79; ցորեան rel Y; զամենայն զցորեան (ցո– 52) 52 54; 33 33 երկրին այնորիկ] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; յերկրին (յերկրի 51; յերկրէն 42 55; յերկիրն 76 64 72) յայնմիկ rel Y; 33 34 իբրև] 32 rel Y; որպես 52 54 711; 33

54

CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

ծովու. 1:3 Եւ էր այր մի ի քաղաքին յայնմիկ35 նախարար Փարաւոնի, 36 37 և սա էր իշխան ամենայն ուրեք մեծամեծացն Փարաւոնի, 38և էր մեծատուն յոյժ և իմաստուն և պարկեշտ և խորհրդական Փարաւոնի, 39վասն զի Փարաւոնի վերագոյն էր քան զամենայն մեծամեծսն 40 41 խորհրդականութեամբ . Եւ անուն էր առնս42 այսորիկ43 Պետափրէ44 քուրմ45 Արեգ քաղաքի46. 1:4 Եւ էր դուստր մի47 նորա կուսան իբրև48 ութևտասնամենիւք49, կոյս մեծ և գեղեցիկ կերպարանաւք յոյժ 50քան զամենայն կուսանսն որ ի վերայ երկրի. 1:5 Եւ սա51 ոչ ինչ 52նմանութիւն ունէր յինքեան53 զդստերացն54 Եգիպտացւոց55, այլ 56էր ամենևին նմանեալ

յայնմիկ] 32 31 rel; այ– 62 71 Y; + որ էր 76 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 և սա – Փարաւոնի 3°] witnesses of text see next two entries; > 76 M 55 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 37 և սա – Փարաւոնի 2°] և սա (նա 711) էր (է 31 41 73 79) իշխան ամենայն (only 32) ուրեք (ուրեմն 711; ի. ա. ու.: յիշխանաց 31 41 73 79) մեծամեծացն Փարաւոնի 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33, 76 M 55 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y 38 և էր – Փարաւոնի 3°] 32; > 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33, 76 M 55 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y 39 վասն զի վերագոյն էր] 32; վասն (քան 711) զի մեծագոյն էր 52 54 711 M 55; և էր նա (> 62 Y) մեծագոյն 76 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y; և մեծագոյն 31 41 73 79; 33 40 մեծամեծսն] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; –ծս rel Y; 33 41 խորհրդականութեամբ] 32 31 rel Y; ի խ. 62 71; 33 42 առնս] 32; առնն 31 79 52; առն rel Y; նորա 55; 33 43 այսորիկ] 32 31; այնորիկ rel Y; անորին M; > 711 55; 33 44 Պետափրէ] 32 rel Y; –րեայ 31 41 73 79 52 54 711 42 64; 33 45 քուրմ] 32 31 rel Y; և էր ք. 52 54; 33 46 քաղաքի] 32 31 rel; –ին 52 Y; 33 47 մի] 32 rel Y; միամօր behind նորա 711 (> կուսան); > 31 41 79 52 54; 33 48 իբրև] 32 rel Y; > 31 41 73 79 711; 33 49 ութևտասնամենիւք] 32; –նից 31 41 73 79; ութ և տասն (or ութուտասն) ամաց rel Y; + և էր 52 54; 33 50 քան – երկրի] քան զամենայն կուսանսն (–անս 76 64 M 42 51 71 72, կուսան 55) որ (իբրև 62 64 71 Y; իբր 72, ի բարի 76; + եին 52 54) ի վերայ (+ ամենայն 76) երկրի(ն 54) 32 rel Y; > 31 41 73 79 711; 33 51 սա] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; > rel Y; 33 52 նմանութիւն ունէր] 32 31 41 73 79 711; –նս ունէր 52 54; ունէր նմանութիւն 76 M 55 42 51 72; ուներ 62 64 71 Y; 33 53 յինքեան] 32; յ. ամենևին(ս 54) 31 41 79 52 54 711; > rel Y; 33 54 զդստերացն] 32 711; ի դստերացն 31 rel Y; 33 55 Եգիպտացւոց] 32 rel Y; –ոցն 31 41 79 76 51 72; 33 56 էր ամենևին նմանեալ] էր (> 62 64 71 72 Y) ամենևին (> 711) նմանեալ 32 711 M 55 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y; էր ամենայնիւ նման 52 54; նմանէր ամենևին 31 41 73 79; ամենևին 76; 33 35 36

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH

55

դստերացն57 Եբրայեցւոց58; մեծ59 էր իբրև զՍառա60 և61 գեղեցիկ 62իբրև զՌեբեկա 63և64 65 զՌաքէլ66. Եւ անուն էր67 68կուսին այնորիկ Ասենեթ69. 1:6 Եւ չոգաւ հռչակ գեղեցկութեան70 նորա ընդ ամենայն 71 ծագս երկրի. Եւ72 խնդրեին զնա ի կնութեան73 ամենայն որդիք74 նախարարացն75 և որդիք մեծամեծաց76 77և թագաւորաց, 78 երիտասարդք79 ամենեքեան80 և զաւրաւորք81. Եւ էր նախանձ և հակառակութիւն մեծ82 ի մէջ նոցա վասն Ասանեթայ83 և պատրաստեին84

դստերացն] 32 rel; –աց 62 64 71 Y; ի դստերացն 31 41 73 79; 33 Եբրայեցւոց] 32 52 54 711 M 55 42; –ոցն 31 rel Y; Եգիպտացւոցն 76 62; 33 59 մեծ] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; (+ զի 55) մեծահասակ rel Y; 33 60 զՍառա] 32 55 62 Y; –ռայ rel Y; զՍարրայ 711; 33 61 և 2°] 32 rel Y; > 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33 62 իբրև զՌեբեկա] 32 52; ի. -կայ 41 54 55; ի. զՌաբեկայ 31 79 711 M; ի. զՀռաբեկայ 73; որպէս Ռաբեկայ 76; ո. Հռաբեկայ 72; ո. –կի 62 64 71; ո. զՌաբեկա 51; ո. զՀռաբեկայ 42?; ո. Հռեբեկա Y; 33 63 և վայելուչ քան զՌաքէլ] witnesses of text see next entries; > M 55; 33 64 և 3°] 32 31 rel; > 76 62 64 71 72 Y; 33, M 55 65 վայելուչ քան] 76 62 64 71 72 Y; վայելչագեղ քան 42 51; > 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33 M 55 66 զՌաքէլ] 32; զՀռաքէլ rel Y; 33 M 55 67 էր 3°] 32 52 54 711 M 55; before անուն 76 52 51 62 64 71 72 Y; > 31 41 73 79; 33 68 կուսին այնորիկ] 32 rel; կուսին 711 42 51; նորա 62 64 71 Y; > 76 72; 33 69 Ասենեթ] 32; Ասանեթ 31 rel, –նէթ 41 711 62 71 Y; 33 70 գեղեցկութեան] 32 31 rel Y; –թիւն 76; > 711; 33 71 երկիր – երկրի] երկիր և ընդ ծագս 52 54; ծագս երկրի 32; երկիր(ն 31 41 73 79 711) 31 rel Y; 33 72 և 3°] 32 31 rel Y; > 62 64 71; 33 73 կնութեան] 32 711 62 64 71 Y; –թիւն 31 rel; 33 74 որդիք 1°] 32 31 rel Y; –քն 76 72; 33 75 նախարարացն] 32 rel Y; աշխարհացն 31 79, աշխարհին այնորիկ 41 73; 33 76 մեծամեծաց] 32 M; –ցն 31 rel Y; 33 711 77 և թագաւորաց] և (> M 55) թագաւորաց(ն M) 32 M 55; և թագաւորացն 31 rel Y; 33 78 երիտասարսդք – զաւրաւորք] witnesses of text see next entries; > 711?; 33 79 երիտասարդք] 32 M 55 42 51; –քն 76 62 64 71 72 Y; և երիտասարդք(ն 31 41 73 79) 31 41 73 79 52 54; 33 711 80 ամենեքեան] 32 42 64; –քին Y; ամքն. 76 M 55 51 62 71 72; ամենայն 31 41 73 79 52 54; 33, 711 81 զաւրաւորք] 32 31 42 51 M 55; –քն (+ ամենայն 31 41 73 79 52 54) rel Y; 33 711 82 մեծ] 32; > rel Y; 33 83 Ասանեթայ] 32 rel Y; –թի 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33 84 պատրաստեին] 32 rel Y; –եցին 31 41 73 79 711 –եցան 52 54; 33 57 58

56

CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

պատերազմել85 86ընդ իրեարս վասն նորա87. 1:7 88 լուաւ89 վասն նորա անդրանիկ90 որդին91 Փարաւոնի և աղաչէր զհայր92 իւր, 93զի տացէ զնա94 նմա կնութեան95. 96Եւ ասէ ցՓարաւոն անդրանիկ որդին իւր: տուր ինձ 97զԱսենեթ դուստր Պետափրեայ քրմի98 Արեգ քաղաքի կնութեան99. 1:8 Եւ ասէ ցնա Փարաւոն հայր100 իւր: Ընդէր խնդրես դու101 կին անարգագոյն102 քան զքեզ, և103 դու104 թագաւոր ես 105ամենայն երկրիս Եգիպտացւոց? 1:9 106Ոչ աւասիկ զդուստր թագաւորին Մովաբացւոց խաւստեցեալ է քեզ, 107 108և նա ինքն է դշխոյն Մովաբացւոց և գեղեցիկ յոյժ? 109Զնա առցես զքեզ կնութեան.

պատերազմել] 32 711 M 55 42, ի պ. 76 51 62 64 71 72 Y; պատերազմն (–մ 73) 31 41 73 79; ի պատերազմ 52 54; 33 86 ընդ իրեարս] 32 M 62 64 Y; ընդ իրարս 76 55 42 51 71 72; > 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33 87 նորա] 32 rel Y; անուան նորա 31 41 73 79 52 54; 33 88 և 1°] 31 rel Y; > 32; 33 89 լուաւ] 32 31 rel Y; լուեալ 73 52; 33 90 անդրանիկ] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54; –կն rel Y; 33 91 որդին] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54; > rel Y; 33 92 զհայր] 32 31 41 73 79 711 42; –րն rel Y; 33 93 զի տացէ] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711 M? 55; տալ rel Y; 33 94 զնա] 32 31 rel; > 76 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 95 կնութեան] 32; ի կնութիւն (–թեան 711 42 51) 31 rel Y; 33 96 և – կնութեան] only 32 711, variants see next entries; > rel Y; 33 97 զԱսենեթ դուստր] 32; զդուստրն 711; 33, rel Y 98 քրմի] 32; > 711; 33, rel Y 99 կնութեան] 32; ի կ. 711; 33, rel Y 100 հայր] 32 31 41 73 79 711 42; –րն rel Y; 33 101 դու 1°] դու (+ քեզ 31 41 73 79 52 54 711) 32 31 rel Y; 33 102 անարգագոյն] 32 31 rel Y; անարգոյն 72; արագագոյն 76; 33 103 և 2°] 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; զի rel Y; 33 104 դու 2°] 32 31 rel; > 76 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 105 ամենայն երկրիս Եգիպտացւոց] 32; ամենայն Եգիպտացւոց 52 54 711; Եգիպտացւոցս ամենայն 31 41 73 79; Եգիպտոսի rel Y; 33 106 ոչ – քեզ] ոչ աւասիկ (աւանիկ 76 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y) զդուստր(ն 76 72; դուստր 42) թագաւորին (only 32, but see 52 below; արքային rel Y) Մովաբացւոց խաւսեցեալ է քեզ (խ. է ք.: խ. է վասն քո before զդ. rel Y) 32 rel Y; զդուստր Մադիանացոց թագաւորին 52 (belongs to next phrase); > 31 41 73 79 54 711; 33 107 և նա – կնութեան] witnesses of text see next entries; > 76 M 55 42 51 62 64 71 72 Y; 33 108 և նա – յոյժ] 32; և գեղեցիկ յոյժ 54 711; և գեղեցիկ 31 41 73 79; զի է գեղեցիկ յոյժ behind կնութեան 52; 33, rel Y 109 զնա – կնութեան] (+ զի 31 41 73 79) զնա (զսա 711; > 52; + ընդէր 54) առցես քեզ կնութեան (ի կնութիւն 31 41 73 79 54 711; + 52, see previous entry) 32 31 41 73 79 52 54 711; 33, rel Y 85

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH

57

III. ADDITIONAL NOTES 1. The constitution of the text requires little comment. It led to 268 words plus two for the title (Y had only 197 plus two which goes to show its inferiority). 26 words, i.e. almost 10%, come from 32 alone, including a complete phrase in 1:3 and the better part of another one in 1:9. 6 words are inserted on the strength of other manuscripts, viz. 1:5 վայելուչ քան, 1:6 երկիր և ընդ, and 1:7 և. 7 words are supported by 32 alone, but have variants in other manuscripts, viz. 1:2 եկն, 1:3 վերագոյն, առնս, 1:4 ութևտասնամենիւք, 1:5 Ասենեթ, 1:7 դուստր, and 1:9 քեզ 1°; moreover in 1:9 the position of խաւսեցեալ է քեզ is predicated on 32 alone. There is no graphic blunder which had to be relegated from 32 as such. 2. The text is pre-critical inasmuch as all those instances where words of 32 are opposed by different words from (the) other families have not been examined. This is left to the judgment of the users. The decision is sometimes easy,110 but often enough something is to be said for both sides.111 In these cases I suggest as a rule of thumb that, given the high quality of 32 as to length, the readings of 32 be accepted as text unless there is strong proof to the contrary.112 A special case in which the principle in dubio pro 32 will not work is the last syllable of Aseneth’s name in 1:5 (and elsewhere), because Mxit‘ar writes ե for both ե and է, so that we do not know what he read. But the principle need not be applied here. –նեթ is supported by 32 rel except 41 711 62 71 which have –նէթ. The four manuscripts are not among the oldest and come from three different families. Surely their –նէթ is due to the influence of the conventional form of the name. If so, the –նեթ in 1:7 where 32 is alone should be allowed to stand and not emended to –նէթ. A quick survey of the occurrences of the name down to ch. 29 seems to show that support for –նէթ

110 E.g. when there is Greek and/or versional support only for 32, either alone as in 1:2 եկն vs. եկեալ (or similar) and 1:3 վերագոյն vs. մեծագոյն or in concert with other mss. as in 1:2 ութ և տասն (or similar) vs. ևթն և տասն. Could ևթն for ութ be due to a confusion of Ը and Է in երկաթագիր? It seems possible in small script, cf. Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002: pl. 28, J1924, A.D. 1064; pl. 42, CB554, A.D. 1174. See also note 121 below. 111 Incidentally, I have noticed three instances in ch. 1 where both sides have outside support, viz. 1:2 և ժողովէր vs. (ի) ժողովել, 1:6 երիտասարդքն vs. և ե., and 1:7 զի տացէ vs. տալ. These must be decided by other criteria. 112 1:4 ութևտասնամենիւք seems to be doubtful, but offhand I see no other candidate.

58

CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

varies and is generally weak. So it is likely that the archetype had –նեթ, a point which I have overlooked hitherto.113 3. The apparatus shows that the families which hark back to the hyparchetype vary considerably from each other. 1:9 is an example. Armb.c.e.h and Y following Armb preserve only the first sentence out of three. Arma, Armd(54), and Armg (711) omit ոչ աւասիկ - Մովաբացւոց 2° and change the syntax of the rest; և գեղեցիկ յոյժ refers to Pharao’s firstborn (1:8), not the Moabite queen, and the last sentence refers to Aseneth (զի must be ‘why’, not ‘because’), again not the Moabite queen. Armd(52) seems to be derived from a better version of this, but it is garbled. I wonder if it is possible to reconstruct the text of the hyparchetype from these fragments without the help of 32, and this may be so elsewhere, too. To be fair to the hyparchetype, ch. 1 (why this of all chapters?) is in worse shape than the rest of the extant text. Small gaps and other mistakes occur all the way through, but less thickly, and omissions of more than a few words are relatively scarce,114 excepting of course 25:3 – 27:11. The flaws of 32 do not seem to increase.115 4. Some words about ch. 1 as a translation.116 A comparison of the reconstructed text and the Leiden Edition shows first of all that 1:3 τῶν σατραπῶν καὶ, ὁ ανὴρ οὗτος, ἦν 4°, 1:4 καὶ (before ἦν μεγάλη), 1:6 ἐκείνην, υἱοὶ πάντων τῶν, 1:7 πάτερ, and 1:9 Ἰωακεὶμ are not represented by Arm, i.e. 16 words out of 313.117 Small gaps like this occur all the way down to ch. 29. Part of them may be due to the Greek Vorlage, e.g. 1:7 πάτερ and 1:9 Ἰωακεὶμ.118 If it was a minuscule of the 9th or 10th century119 small losses (and other flaws) are to be expected. Yet the lion’s share doubtless must be attributed to the Armenian translator(s) and/or copyists before 32 and the hyparchetype separated, but it is difficult to tell who caused what. On the other hand Arm is slightly fuller than the text of the Leiden Edition in a few places. Some words came in naturally. 1:1 որ աւր հինգ

113 There are more problems connected with Aseneth’s name, notably the variation Ասե-/Ասա-. Space does not permit to tackle them here. 114 Burchard 1990–1991: 69. Add 15:10 և տեսցէ զքեզ և ուրախասցի ի քեզ; 21:12 ի լիութեան տան հաւր իմոյ; 29:8f. 115 Burchard 1990–1991: 69f. 116 Burchard 1996a: 128-131. 117 This figure seems to be far above the 268 words of ch. 1 in Armenian, but more than 50 Greek words are articles which are rendered by suffixes in Armenian if at all. 118 See the apparatus of the Leiden Edition. 119 See note 13 above.

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF JOSEPH AND ASENETH

59

էր ամսոյն for the simple πέμπτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς is idiomatic.120 In 1:3 այր մի (but see below) and 1:4 դուստր մի the translation justifiably adds the indefinite article which is non-existant in Greek, and 1:3 էր brings out the copula implicit in the Greek nominal phrase. Some additions seem to be made for clarification. 1:3 ուրեք (or ուրեմն?) may be meant to enforce ամենայն and 1:4 կոյս to punctuate the phrase; the repetitive Մովաբացւոց in 1:9 assures the reader that the daughter of the king of Moab is queen there, not elsewhere. A divergent Vorlage is possible, though not certain, for 1:3 այր մի (some Greek manuscripts read τις ἀνὴρ, but the explanation offered above may be sufficient), 1:4 իբրև (one Greek family reads ὡς), and 1:6 նախանձ և հակառակութիւն մեծ for ἔρις πολλὴ. This last instance is interesting on two counts. First, Syr (alone) writes qrb’ wḥdyn’ ‘pugna ac contentio’. Since the Vorlagen of Syr and Arm were closely related it is conceivable that both had a word couple before them instead of the simple ἔρις. Unfortunately Syr is prone to double translation (e.g. 1:2 ‘coacervabat ac colligebat’, 1:4 ‘procera ac praeclara’). So if there was a fuller Vorlage it would be attested by Arm alone. While this cannot be excluded I think it is preferable to regard նախանձ և հակառակութիւն as an attempt to enforce the attribute մեծ. Second, the two Latin versions read certamen magnum and contentio magna. So մեծ may go back to μεγάλη instead of πολλὴ. There is little evidence of mistranslation. 1:1, 8 Եգիպտացւոց for Αἰγύπτου and 1:9 Մովաբացւոց for Μωὰβ are idiomatic; 1:3 խորհրդականութեամբ is loose at worst. 1:6 երկրի for τῆς οἰκουμένης may go back to τῆς γῆς for which there is some Greek and Latin evidence. The only plain mistake is 1:1 առաջնում 2° for τῷ δευτέρῳ unless it can be explained away as a later confusion of A and B in երկաթագիր.121 5. There is some evidence in later chapters that the archetype of the Armenian tradition was occasionally corrupt and hence not identical with the original of Arm.122 I see no such evidence in ch. 1. Submitted 2003.

120 Cf. the perfect parallel in Ezek 8:1, also Gen 8:5; Ezek 1:1; Bar 1:2, etc.; Jensen 1959, § 185. JosAs employs the turn again in 1:3 and 3:1, but not 22:2. 121 Cf. Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002: pl. 13, M2374, A.D. 989; pl. 34, M832, A.D. 1154. See also note 110 above. 122 Burchard 1996a: 122-124.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS S. PETER COWE Filled with love, my heart rejoices, From afar it rushes toward you, And, greeting you, offers a kiss, In love I am bound to your love … My heart faints and is mightily aflame, It is full of tenderness toward you, In love it is bound to your love No more will it be parted from you.1 O for the moment when I’d see you, Kiss your right hand that touched the Lord, That for a time I’d gaze upon your face with my eyes, Then would I yield up the ghost from my body.2

Love, that most sublime of human emotions, comprises the primary and fundamental theme of medieval Armenian lyric. Moreover, Grigoris Ałt‘amarc‘i’s role in this sphere merits consideration as the consummate exponent of this genre in the high style, exerting a significant impact on later exponents of the art. That certainly is the tacit judgment of the anonymous compiler of the earliest known anthology of secular 1

Րամեալ սիրով սիրտ իմ ցընծայ, Հեռաստանէ առ քեզ խաձտեայ, Եւ ողջունեալ քեզ համբոյր տայ, Սիրով ի սէր քո կապեցայ…

Նըւաղեալ սիրտ իմ յոյժ տոչորի, Խանդաղակաթ առ քեզ լինի, Սիրով կապեալ ընդ քեզ կապի, ’Ւ այլ ի քեզնէ ոչ բաժանի: Akinean 1910, 44, ll. 20-25 and 45, ll. 36-39. 2 Ոհ, թէ լիներ այն պահն, որ զքեզ տեսնէի Զաջդ տիրաշօշափ ես համբուրէի Ժամ մի դէմ երեսիդ աչօք հայէի Ապա զհոգիս մարմնոյս իմ ավանդէի: This verse was written by the priest Yakob T‘oxat‘ec‘i in honor of his teacher Yakob Ayvat‘enc‘i in c. 1612-1614. The poem from which it is excerpted is preserved in manuscript W745 (hin t‘iw 797) copied in 1605-1629, ff. 228 r.-230 r. On the work, see Akinean 1921, 174-175 and, on the manuscript, Oskean 1963, 283-291.

62

S. PETER COWE

Armenian songs preserved in an exemplar of the seventeenth century, which was discovered by the late philologist Asatur Mnac‘akanyan.3 Classifying the material in a tripartite division by the criterion of delicacy, sophistication, and register, he allotted Grigoris about half the poems in the first category. However, not only was the latter a fine practitioner of the art, but an inspiring teacher, since most of the remaining poems in the first class belong to his student Zak‘aria Gnunec‘i, whose devotion to his master was such that he took several of Grigoris’ works with him to Constantinople in 1544 to copy and thus disseminate them among the Armenian community in the capital. Consequently, the aesthetic evaluation of the compositions that circulate under his name has provoked a great degree of scholarly interest, especially over the last century. A miniaturist of some accomplishment, he also revived interest in illuminating Ps. Callisthenes’ Life of Alexander, a genre largely neglected in the two intervening centuries following Xač‘atur Keč‘aṙec‘i’s demise. Moreover, three of his executions of the theme from 1525, 1526, and 1536 have survived, the narrative further illustrated by a series of kafa poems in which he comments on the turn of events.4 In contrast to the protracted debate over the interpretation of several of his verses, there is widespread agreement among researchers that they are generally to be ascribed to the period of his youth. Moreover, their achievements belie the usual determinist prescriptions for the creation of art, in that they coincided with a particularly tempestuous period in Ottoman-Persian relations. A scion of the Sefedinian dynasty, son of Iskender and grandson of Smbat styled ‘King of Vaspurakan’, we know that he acceded to the Catholicate of Ałt‘amar in 1512, while still possibly in his late teens, after tasting the monastic life in Varag.5 The see had, nevertheless, declined significantly in importance since the middle of the previous century when it seemed set to encompass the jurisdiction of Ēǰmiacin and arrogate supreme authority under Zak‘aria III.6 In the years after accession Grigoris’ peace of mind was further perturbed by external pressures. Insurrection broke loose on Shah Ismail’s death, as Ałtamarc‘i records in a poem dated to 1523:

3

Mnac‘akanyan 1971. On Grigoris‘ kafas, see Simonyan 1989, 69-363, and, for his illuminations of the same literary work, see Akinean 1958, ԽԴ-ԾԱ. 5 See Akinean 1920, 125; Ačaṙyan 1972, vol.1, 621-622, and Avdalbegyan 1963, 24. 6 Hewsen 1984, 126-127. 4

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

63

The Hagarites with perverted laws Seer my nation like fire.7

The very seat of the catholicate was in jeopardy, and, as he indicates in his panegyric of the miniaturist painter, Yovsēp‘ Vardapet, Grigoris was compelled to adopt a peripatetic existence for the next few years, moving from one monastery to another around the shore of Lake Van.8 Returning home in the early 1530s, he had to retreat once again before the campaign of Sultan Suleyman in 1534 as the Ottomans and Safavids strove to settle their border on the most advantageous terms to the detriment of the resident population of the frontier area in dispute. It might be hard to predict his artistic potential from the early pieces written at the instigation of Grigor Vardapet, under whose tutelage he remained for some years as catholicos.9 These are largely on fairly standard religious themes like the martyrdom of St. Marinus, which was written in 1516.10 Another work records the unflinching witness to the faith offered by the eighteen year old neo-martyr Astuacatur Xat‘ayec‘i of Bitlis in 1519.11 Yet his handling of the ganj and mełedi poems for the feast of the Holy Cross of Uṙĕnkar already appear more mature, indicating his fascination with acrostics, which was to be a hallmark of his later compositions.12 In general, the techniques of Armenian versification were not elevated into an end, a tour de force of formal dexterity, and thus there are no instances of, for example, the šayri triple rhyme scheme exploited by the Georgian poet Rustaveli or the even more intricate palindromes of Elia, the fourteenth century Nestorian metropolitan of Nisibis.13 Armenian acrostic seems to accompany the development of an elaborate type of hymn known as kac‘urd, the first example of which derives from the Հագարացիք օրինօք թիւր, Զազգսը խանձեն որպէս ըզհուր: Avdalbegyan 1963, 142, ll. 151-152. 8 Avdalbegyan 1963, 163, ll. 34-36. 9 Avdalbegyan 1963, 13. It appears that his teacher is to be identified with Grigor Cort‘an Arčišec‘i, abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Cross at Uṙĕnkar. See Avdalbegyan 1963, 18-24 and Xač‘ikyan 1967, 150-151 for his commissioning a Ganjaran manuscript there in 1490. 10 Avdalbegyan 1963, 107-120. 11 This poem employs Armenian, Persian, and Turkish for verisimilitude in dialogue as Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i had done in his justifiably celebrated romance Yovhannēs ew Aša (Yovhannēs and Aša [Ayše]). See Srapyan 1958, 163-171. For the broader issue of Ałt‘amarc‘i’s Persian usage, see Č‘ugaszyan 1963, 128-168. 12 Avdalbegyan 1963, 143-152. 13 For a consideration of Rustaveli‘s versification, see Rayfield 2010, 91-92. 7

64

S. PETER COWE

seventh century.14 Subsequently, alphabetic acrostics were often employed in love poems cataloguing the beloved’s diverse physical charms. Grigoris utilizes the pattern in four poems where each new line begins with the following letter of the alphabet, including one on the Crucifixion and another on the Mother of God.15 In two others it is applied to the first line of each four line stanza where the subjects are once more Christ and the Virgin.16 Apart from these there are several poems, in which Grigoris follows a widespread tradition of spelling his name verse by verse, a device which would incidentally serve to reduce mistakes in attribution, since less care was expended on copying song books (tałaran) than liturgical and school texts. However, his most ambitious feat of technical virtuosity is a double acrostic, scarcely if ever attempted by Armenian poets. The first spells his name verse by verse, the appropriate letter being repeated at the beginning of each of the four lines until this breaks down latterly, while the name of the addressee is spelled in the same way by the final letter of each line, again with a little license in some cases.17 The occasion for this virtuosic treatment is not hard to find, in that the poem is a eulogy of Yovsēp‘ Vardapet, who had guided the catholicos’ instruction in manuscript illumination. Apparently, it was written during one of Grigoris’ periods of exile from Ałt‘amar. Since the thirteenth century rhetoric and poetics had come to be regarded as an essential component of higher education.18 Hence the display is reserved for one of the poet’s most discriminating readers. Granted the self-imposed metrical straitjacket, the thought does not suffer inordinately, yet the tone is quite conventional without any flight of imagination. Yovsēp‘ exhibits all the qualities of his office; he is learned, wise, and pure of soul. However, the warmth and immediacy of Grigoris’ relationship with his other

14 The first extant work of this type is the justly renowned hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘ (Devoted Souls) composed by Catholicos Komitas Ałč‘ec‘i for the inauguration of the restored church of St. Hṙip‘simē in Vałaršapat in c. 618. See Šarakan 1936, 573-589, and, for a translation and study of the hymn’s poetics, Terian 2007, and for a musicological study, Pidejian 2007. Another famous example of this genre is Kirakos Erznkac‘i’s hymn on the Dormition of the Mother of God Arewelk‘ gerarp‘in (Most radiant East). For the text, see Šarakan 1936, 993-1002, and, for an English translation, Hacikyan 2002, 952-959. 15 Avdalbegyan 1963, 157-159, 164-166, 177-179. 16 Avdalbegyan 1963, 167-173. 17 Thus the acrostic at the beginning of the lines reads Գրիգորիսէ (from Grigoris) and the latter Յովսեփին (for Yovsēp‘). 18 On this, see Cowe 1995, 39.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

65

teacher Grigor Rabunapet are overshadowed by the spirit of formalism, which pervades the poem. At this point it is worth pausing briefly to consider the wider significance of the master-pupil relationship in medieval Armenia. It was one of the few institutions documented to persist intact from at least early Christian times until the late Middle Ages, a continuity objectified in the diplomas awarded after the period of apprenticeship, which would trace the line of succession generation by generation as far as this was known. With the eclipse of many of the major aristocratic families, so to some extent fell the prestige of the bishop, while that of the vardapet rose increasingly with the spread of monastic schools, who tended to enjoy a reputation for greater erudition and sanctity of life.19 The fame of the most renowned was acknowledged in titles like tiezeraloys (lit. ‘light of the universe’) and indeed candidates flocked from widespread communities to study under figures such as the venerable scholar Vardan Arewelc‘i (c.1198-1271). It is therefore natural that this bond would find literary expression. In fact one of the earliest works of Armenian literature is Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘.20 Moreover, the intimacy, which might characterize their relationships is well described by Anania Širakac‘i in the seventh century, when he remarks of his teacher Tykhikos: ‘He loved me like a son and shared all his ideas with me’ (և սիրեաց զիս որպէս զորդի իւր և պարապեաց յիս յամենայն խորհրդոց իւրոց). 21 In time this respect became embodied in literary funeral orations and subsequently in panegyrics devoted to them during their lifetime as that of Grigoris to Yovsēp‘ discussed above. It is against this background that we are perhaps to view some of Ałtamarc‘i’s striking innovations in genre, uniting elements of varied provenance to create powerful collages, yet harmonizing them with such taste and sensitivity that the difference of levels has remained opaque even to some modern criticism unattuned to the symbolism. One of Grigoris’ earliest references to his vardapet occurs in the colophon to the poem on St. Marinus, in which he describes himself as: 19 Probably the most striking instance of this phenomenon relates to Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i abbot of the Monastery of Tat‘ew (1391-1408), whose ecclesiastical authority was such that he took the initiative in seeking to draw the Catholicate of Ałt‘amar back into communion with the primatial see of Sis with which it had been in schism since the early twelfth century. For a recent study of this interesting episode see La Porta, 2001, 77-86. 20 Abełyan 1941. 21 Abrahamyan1944, 207.

66

S. PETER COWE

At the feet of the fortunate rabunapet The vigilant watchful one, Grigoris by name The excellent rhetorician, the invincible philosopher, And thrice-blessed great teacher.22

Yet soon fulsome praise yields to intense pleading in the genre of complaint (gangat) in poem nine ‘Let me Make Complaint’ (Գանգատ մ’առնեմ), according to which the spurned lover is accustomed to express his grief and affliction of heart, imploring his beloved’s sympathy and compassion.23 That the teacher is the addressee of the work is suggested by the remark that he advises fools ‘rabunabar’ (like a teacher), and the further observation that he is ‘the boast of the host of brothers’ (Րամից եղբարց պարծանք ես), which implies the various monks of the community, who are later besought to implore remission for his many faults. It appears that the vardapet has withdrawn from his pupil and hence Grigoris appeals to him, voicing his confused psychic condition in his mentor’s absence in motifs from love poetry.24 He tosses feverishly from dusk till dawn and is near to death if help does not arrive. My life is bitter and harsh, I lament continually without respite I am wounded by sin, I have fallen prey to a grievous malady.25

Thereafter, he composes a second plea, poem ten, explicitly addressed to Grigor Rabunapet, which he commends to the latter’s sacred counsel (սուրբ խորհուրդ). In view of the recipient’s monastic calling, the poet notes that he resembles waterfowl in having no permanent home, only a 22 Avdalbegyan 1963, 120, ll. 273-276. The characteristics extolled in the citation highlight the importance of the trivium consisting of grammar, rhetoric, and logic in the curriculum of elementary classes in monastic academies. In contrast, the reference to Grigor’s vigilance and watchfulness relates more to his attainments as a monk on the spiritual path. On this, see Cowe 1994-95, 139-144. 23 For ease of reference, I have adopted the ordering of Grigoris‘ poems established in Avdalbegyan‘s critical edition. 24 The impression is given that one factor involved in this withdrawal is dissatisfaction with some of what Grigoris has been writing. This provides some grounds for speculation that the difference of opinion may have been caused by some of the poet’s imagery, which would not have been traditional within a monastic setting. It seems likely that his appeal to Persian simile and metaphor may have been involved in the vardapet‘s negative response. In this connection, the poet’s use of the term ‘vain talking’ (ունայնաբանես) in the conclusion to categorize his work in poem twenty, which contains explicit references to the romances of Leyl and Majnun and Farhad and Shirin, may suggest his awareness of this critique of his more catholic literary taste. 25 Avdalbegyan 1963, 156, ll. 25-28.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

67

temporary abode like the swallow. Then he highlights the unparalleled impact his teacher has had on him: he had been thundering forward like a river in spate, unstoppable by anyone, but came to a halt when he saw the teacher’s face, which, in his words, caused him to sink as one shipwrecked.26 The affection Grigoris feels toward his spiritual guide is demonstrated most sincerely in the line ‘With lips divine you kissed me’ (Շրտամբք աստուածային համբուրեցեր զիս), the candor of which seems to have been reinterpreted in a more conventional manner by a later scribe in a variant version of the poem to read ‘With lips theological you taught me’ (Շրտամբքդ աստուածաբան դու ուսուցեր զիս).27 As a result, the poet’s heart is warmed by his love. The vardapet had nourished him, and hence now he comes thirsty to receive succor from him, but the latter is unavailable.28 The work concludes with a series of striking similes, which frequently recur in eulogies of the beloved, though, as with some of the previous motifs, it is possible to perceive a more specific focus in them. The teacher is likened to a peacock, a rose bush, fragrant incense, and the tree of life in paradise. However, none of these images can adequately do justice to his exquisite characteristics, for, according to the conventional cadence, he is peerless.29 In addition to the set of poems we have been reviewing, in which the identity of the addressee is fairly secure, Ałtamarc‘i composed another series of works, several of which appear more poetically mature, which differ markedly from most of the preceding both in structure and tone, though maintaining certain affinities with poem ten.30 In each of these the emphasis falls not on form, but on linguistic flexibility and pictorial palette. As the same or similar images constantly recur in these poems with subtle variation, it is reasonable to assume that they are closely related. Indeed, they are laid out as a single unit in the earliest secular collection mentioned above. 26 Ibid., 158, ll. 21-22. A similar motif recurs in poem twenty-two, where one look from the beloved makes viewers melt, though they be as hard as steel or rock (Յով որ դու նայիս և առնես նատար / լինի քան ըզմոմ պողպատ է թէ քար), ibid., 209, ll. 27-28. 27 Ibid., l. 23 and 161, l. 23. According to the conventions of love lyric, Grigoris also imagines entering the garden with Christ, talking with Him the livelong day, and planting kiss upon kiss on Him (ibid., 214, ll. 23-24). 28 Ibid., 157, ll. 11-12. 29 Ibid., 159. 30 Distinct from the range of works lacking a clear dedication is a set of three poems devoted to the Virgin Mary (nos. 12-14) and another set devoted to Christ (nos. 1, 15, 23). Similarly, poem eight reflects the tension between the two fundamental human elements of flesh and spirit against the backdrop of the transience of life, as does poem twenty-seven.

68

S. PETER COWE

Though eliciting wonder and amazement from all who have studied them, these delicate odes have nevertheless provoked much controversy over the last century. One school of interpretation contends these works belong to the well-established tradition of the male poet’s rapturous hymn to female beauty. Tchobanian, for example, writes, ‘Ces poèmes … chantent la beauté de la femme et la puissance de l’amour.’31 Similarly, Abełyan depicts the poet’s psychological state as follows: With his sincere ardor … he transports readers as Ałtamarc‘i himself was transported by the ‘divine image’ of his belle. His fiery character instantly reveals itself, as he is fascinated, raptured by an exquisite person and wants to depict that.32

In contrast to that secular perspective, which could be characterized by the motto ‘cherchez la femme,’ Akinean was inclined to ascribe a religious coloring to a number of works in the above series, regarding them as spiritualizing allegories.33 Of poem sixteen commencing ‘I praise you, angel in the flesh’ (Գովեմ զքեզ մարմնով հրեշտակ) he writes ‘The contents is a panegyric of the Church’.34 And indeed there are lines, which can be construed in that vein. However, other features of the poem militate against that overall view, as Avdalbegyan has already demonstrated. The crux is associated with the following verse: In hue you are a good fruit, Your tree [is] in the garden in Eden, Eden is our church, Which is irrigated by the Spirit.35

She rightly observed that Grigoris glosses the term ‘Eden’ by the phrase ‘our church’.36 In consequence, since the author is evoking the fruit of the tree of paradise, one must conclude that it is more plausible that he is appealing not to the faithful as a whole, but to a single individual, whose identity is revealed by the use of the vocative ‘teacher’ (rabun).37 By his asceticism and self-denial the monk resembles the

31

Tchobanian 1906, 199. Abełean 1959, 411. 33 Akinean 1958, ՃԼԵ-ՃԽԱ. 34 Ibid., ՁԷ. 35 Avdalbegyan 1963, 180, ll. 13-16. 36 Ibid., 70. 37 Moreover, the gospel image of setting a lamp under a bushel unites both of these poems. See ibid., 158 and 181. 32

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

69

disembodiment of an angel, while, by her physical beauty, a woman is poetically accorded the appearance of an angel incarnate. Similarly, Akinean regards poem twenty ‘You paradise of Eden’ (Դու դրախտ Եդեմայ) as a description of the Holy Cross Church of Ałt‘amar. The line ‘the company of evil spirits is driven away by you’ (Գունդըք չար այսոցն ի քէն հալածի) is therefore construed as referring to the flight of Kurds from the island.38 Yet this approach is also questionable, since the phrase ‘You work more wonders than the strong cross’ (Դու սքանչելագործ քան զօրաւոր խաչ) would thus be rendered meaningless.39 Significantly, the compiler of the earliest collection of secular poetry qualifies the first section of the anthology as ‘in praise of someone desirable’ (գովասանաբար առ ոմն բաղջալիս).40 Since he was closer to the author in time and place than we are, his testimony is obviously valuable. In light of this, then, we might argue that the works are eulogies of an attractive person, not an object or event.41 The paradox in interpretation is well sustained in poem seventeen, another idealizing work beginning ‘You are from the paradise of Eden’ (Դու ես յԱդինայ դրախտէն),42 in which the addressee has overcome the poet with fragrance, so that he burns with love as the nightingale in response to the rose, according to a widespread Near Eastern motif.43 And indeed a series of floral images follows of myrtle and lily blossoming by the riverside, which cast out human cares. The later remark, however, that the demons shudder at this figure, who comes marvelously 38 Akinean 1958, ՃԼԸ-ՃԼԹ. For the text of the poem, see Avdalbegyan 1963, 192-198. 39 Ibid., 196, l. 53. 40 Mnac‘akanyan 1971, 108. 41 Since the attribute of expelling demons in the Gospels is principally that of Jesus, as is also well illustrated by the related phrase ‘the driving out of demons’ (դիւաց հալածել) in the colophon of a Gospelbook copied in 1201 to which we shall have recourse for a series of similar parallels (Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1951, col. 682) and since Ałt‘amarc‘i frequently depicts Jesus as the teacher par excellence, the conjecture may be countenanced that the reference is once more to Grigoris‘ vardapet. See the reference to the cross as ‘Holy watchtower of the Teacher’ (Րաբունոյն [sic] դու սուրբ դիտարան) in Avdalbegyan 1963, 147, l. 142; ‘He became the house and home of the Teacher of heaven and earth’ (Րաբունւոյն երկնի ‘ւ երկրի, Եղև նա տուն և տեղ[ի]), ibid., 128, ll. 5-6; ‘The Teacher’s flowering Eden’ (of the Virgin Mary) (Րաբունոյն Եդեմ ծաղկած), 175, l. 17; ‘Holy Master of teachers’ (Րաբունեաց սուրբ վարդապետն), 178, l. 32. 42 A similar palette of paradisal motifs is found in the colophon to a Gospelbook of 1201, which underscores the new life associated with preaching the Gospel, the four evangelists paralleling the four rivers of Eden according to convention. See Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1951, col. 683. 43 On this motif, see Cowe 1997, 315-316, as well as the succinct treatment in Nersissian 1984, 104-118.

70

S. PETER COWE

from Sinai and is cinnamon in the Thebaid, is very instructive.44 The demons appear to be bound by the power of a spiritual athlete, whose prowess is thus compared with that of the early fathers of Christian monasticism in the Thebaid, the upper region of the Nile valley, and St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai.45 Poem nineteen ‘Divinely painted image formed by the Creator’ (Աստուածանըկար պատկեր յօրինեալ ի յարարողէն) adduces a number of images already encountered in poem seventeen. Its monastic association is made explicit by identifying the addressee with St. Antony in the penultimate line.46 At the same time, support for construing the latter designation as an honorific metaphor for Grigoris’ teacher is provided by Matenadaran MS 7707 of 1611 A.D., which employs the superscription ‘Poem of Grigoris Ałt‘amarc‘i composed on his Teacher’ (տաղ … ասացեալ ի վերա [sic] վարդապետին իւրոյ). Abełyan, who considered that these last two poems evoke a female figure, penetratingly remarks on the fact that Grigoris is the first Armenian poet to concern himself with woman’s inner self.47 Reviewing later, early modern, love poetry, one gains the overall impression that if Ałt‘amarc‘i had no precedent in this regard, he scarcely had a successor either.48 The artifice is perhaps even finer in poem eighteen beginning ‘With Beauty Effulgent of the Sun, Full Moon From the Fifteenth Day’ (Արեգակնափայլ գեղով լի լուսին ի տասնուհնգէ). The image of the moon is regularly applied to the beloved’s face and, in keeping with this, there follow in succession the typical eyes like seas, brow like a rainbow, tongue like sugar and lips like rose petals. These then yield to flowers 44 Avdalbegyan 1963, 184, l. 42 (Ի լեռնէն գաս սինէական). Cf. the phrases ‘[You are] balsam from Egypt’ (պալասան ի յԵգիպտոսէ) and ‘You are found on Mt. Sinai’ (գըտանիս ի լեառըն Սինէ) in Poem 18, 186, ll. 13, 15. 45 Chitty 1966. Grigoris would be well acquainted with the subject from his reading of the Lives of the Fathers, for which see Thomson 1995, 72-73. 46 Avdalbegyan 1963, 191. In this connection the following passage from a eulogy on Minas T‘oxat‘ec‘i likening the addressee to various masters of monastic spirituality is instructive: A second Macarius and Antoninus (sic) Երկրորդ Մակար ‘ւ Անտոնինոս (sic) Or the Father of Fathers Arsenius. Կամ հարանց հայր Արսէնիոս. You are holy and pure like Paul, Սուրբ և մաքուր ես զէտ Պօղոս, Or the fortunate Evagrius. Կամ զերջանիկն Եւագրիոս: See Gevorgyan 1964, 119, ll. 29-32. 47 Abełean 1959, 412. 48 For a brief overview of the subject, see Cowe 1997, 316. It appears that Yarut‘iwn Alamdarean (1796-1834), a pioneer of the Armenian Romantic movement, is one of the first to reflect a fuller appreciation of women’s emotional depth and moral and intellectual capabilities. See Patkanean 1884.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

71

and various types of precious stones, all consonant with Tchobanian’s interpretation already discussed. And yet, in emphasizing the addressee’s lustrous beauty, the poet wonders, ‘Could it be you are the angel Michael?’ (Միքայէլ հրեշտա՞կն ես միթէ). Again, presumably, the name is no coincidence. However, another image from the second line is even more revealing. The subject is a ‘fearful hirsute seraph’ (սոսկալի վարսաւոր սերովբէ).49 In Łazar P‘arpec‘i’s letter to his patron Vahan Mamikonean at the end of the fifth century the author notes that ‘scripture is accustomed to call vardapets angels’ (սովոր են զվարդապետս հրեշտակս անուանել աստուածեղէն գիրք).50 Moreover, Nersēs Šnorhali in his lament on the fall of Edessa in 1144 gives Łazar’s comment more focus, commenting that ‘the class of subtle vardapets’ is ‘of the same genus as the seraphim’ (Որ ցեղակից էք սրոբէից / Դասք հանճարեղ վարդապետաց).51 This statement in turn illuminates some of the previous bird images, which would seem to further mark Grigor Vardapet as a denizen of the heavenly sphere.52 Reviewing the imagery of the other poems in the series, Akinean concludes that, in addition to the Archangel Michael,53 several other metaphors employed of the addressee are more appropriate to a male figure. Of these, one should note first of all the series of Old Testament

49 The phrase seems to derive from the biblical parallel at Ezekiel 28:16 where the epithet is applied to a cherub (քերովբն վարսաւոր). See also the usage of adjectives compounded with seraph (սրովբէ) in NBHL, vol. 2, 762-763. The religious connotations of the term are also underlined in its application to the Virgin being a ‘fearful seraph, more exalted than the cherub’ (Սոսկալի սրովբէ, Վեհ քան ըզքրովբէ) in Avdalbegyan 1963, 166, ll. 30-31. 50 Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Malxasean 1985, 193. See also the allusion to Grigor Magistros’ reference to his close correspondent Catholicos Petros Getadarj as a seraph looking after his flock in Abełean 1959, 30, and the comparison of a monastic choir to its angelic counterpart in Ełišē 1836, 160: ‘And as thus arranged and ordered, all clustered around in likeness to six-winged seraphs, they ceaselessly make their voices resound on high’ (և իբրև այսպէս կարգեալք և յօրինեալք, ամենեքեան ի նմանութիւն վեցթևեան սերովբէից շուրջ պարակեալք, ձայնս անհատս ի վեր հնչեցուցաեն:). 51 See Mkrtč‘yan 1973, 43, ll. 187-188. 52 Hence, significantly, it is not the beauty of the peacock’s plumage, which is the object of attention in Grigoris’ tenth poem, as normally, but its flight – ‘Like the peacock you have soared’ (Սիրամարգի նըման սաւառնացեալ ես) Avdalbegyan 1963, 158, l. 29. For a telling example of such ornithological metaphors for the monastic life, see Cowe 19941995, 125-155. One might also compare the similar metaphor employed in the introduction to Ełišē’s history: ‘We are raised up with you in flight: like high-soaring birds … we receive knowledge,’ Thomson 1982, 58, (Եւ ահա վերաբերիմք ընդ քեզ ճախրելով, և իբրև բարձաթռիչս եղեալ` … առնուցումք զգիտութիւն). See Tēr-Minasean 1957, 5. 53 Avdalbegyan 1963, poems 18 and 20.

72

S. PETER COWE

characters including Joseph the Canaanite,54 Seth, and Absolom.55 Then we are struck by the presence of military terminology such as ‘chief soldier of these battlelines, you are strengthened by the general’ (Ռազմիցս գըլուխ զինուոր, զօրանաս ի զօրավարէն),56 and the theme of the hunt in ‘lion in the fen with mighty arms … all the game shudder and shake’ (Առիւծ ի շամբի բազկօք զօրաւոր … Սարսափեն, դողան երէքըդ բոլոր)57 and ‘you soar higher than a valiant eagle’ (Քան ըզքաջ արծիւ բարձրագնաց ես).58 At the same time, the religious connotation of these last two images is also evident. The lion and the eagle belong to the tetramorphs, which draw the divine chariot, and act as symbols for the evangelists Mark and John. If these images are difficult to reconcile with a female subject, what alternatives remain? In Akinean’s opinion the works are dedicated to a range of different subjects. Poem twenty-one ‘You are the Sun’ (Դու ես արեգակ) in his opinion is addressed to Amir Gurǰibek, one of the catholicos’ brothers.59 Nevertheless, it seems that a more authoritative figure in envisioned, who is likened to Mecca and ‘the golden medrasseh’ (ոսկի մէտրասայ),60 an expression recalling the following line from poem nineteen, ‘a house of wisdom built by the arm of the awesome Mighty One’ (Տուն իմաստութեան շինեալ ի յահեղ հըզօրի բազկէն).61 Similarly, the phrase ‘I am thirsty, give me a drink of milk’ (Ես եմ ծարաւեալ, արբո՛ ինձ մին կաթ) is more emblematic of parental rather than brotherly care.62 Perhaps the closest parallel in Grigoris’ oeuvre is to milk and wine emanating from Christ’s breast as honey flows from His lips.63 We might also 54

Ibid., poem 21. Ibid., poem 22. 56 Ibid., poem 19, l. 28, p. 190. Here, one might consider the appropriation of martial metaphors by the monastic movement to refer to the continual unseen warfare in which its representatives engage. For an early Armenian example of this tendency, see Cowe 1997b, 351-356. Note also the inclusion by the anonymous biographer of Nersēs Šnorhali of the following characteristic in enumerating his virtues, ‘patience in the labors of spiritual warfare’ (զհամբերութիւնն ի ճգունս հոգևոր պատերազմին). See Ališan, 1901, 375. From this perspective, as rabunapet or principal vardapet, it is understandable how Grigor might be alluded to as ‘chief soldier’. 57 Avdalbegyan 1963, poem 21, p. 202, l.33. 58 Ibid., 203, l. 45. See also n. 52. 59 Akinean 1958, ՃԼԸ. For an English translation of this work, see Russell 1992-1993, 101-105. 60 Avdalbegyan 1963, 200, l. 9. 61 Ibid., 190, l. 31. 62 Ibid., 202, l. 42. 63 Ibid., 213, ll. 5-6. The reference is probably to the effluence of blood and water when the soldier pierced Jesus’ side (John 19: 34-35), which was interpreted symbolically 55

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

73

recall that Grigor Vardapet is described as providing succor in poem ten.64 In that connection, Akinean avers that ‘depiction of a male figure is very rare in our literature’. 65 Yet that pronouncement is too sweeping. It really depends on which sort of tradition is investigated: compositions eulogizing teachers evince many such descriptions. Let us take, for example, Grigor Skewṙac‘i’s panegyric of Nersēs Lambronac‘i.66 The work opens with an explanation of the characteristic features of the genre. According to this, the eulogy should begin with ‘bodily strength, height of good stature, the beautiful proportions of the limbs … But those accustomed to describe the beauty of inner comeliness, portray this attractiveness as something other under [the form of] masks’.67 Thus Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i claims of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i that no tongue of clay can express ‘either his bodily beauty or the radiance of his soul’.68 As a bard (ašuł) portrayed in order all the attractive features of a beautiful woman’s body and face, so the panegyricists adopted a similar pattern in extolling their subjects. Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i recalls Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s ‘beautifully shaped lips, his arm of heavenly construction, his right hand distributing favors, his firmly formed limbs and unwavering legs, his heel which trod on serpents, and his steps soaring heavenward’.69 Grigor Kesarac‘i approaches the description of his recently deceased teacher Srapion in similar fashion: Ah my breath and soul, how were you plucked away? Choice in body, pure and virgin … how did you fall silent? Your cheek with light, your eyebrows an arch, how did you disappear from sight? Your lips a thread, your jawline lustrous, how did you unite with the dust? 70 as foreshadowing the salvific efficacy of the sacraments of baptism and eucharist (1 John 5:6). 64 Ibid., 157, ll. 11-12. 65 Akinean 1958, ՃԼԸ. 66 Grigor Skewṙac‘i 1854. 67 Ի զօրութենէ մարմնոյ, ի բարեչափութենէ հասակի, ի գեղեցկամասնութենէ անդամոց …. Իսկ որ ի ներքուստ զբարեմասնութեանն սովորեցին նկարագրել զգեղ, այլ իմն ընդդիմակօք զքաջահաճութիւնն ստորագրեն: Ibid., 9. 68 Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i 1741, 718. 69 զգեղեցկայարմար շրթունսն, զերկնաքառոյց բազուկն և զշնորհաբաշխ աջն, զպընտակազմ անդամսն, զանսահելի ոտսն, զօձահալած գարշապարն և զերկնաթռիչ գնացսն: Ibid. 70 Է՛ շունչ իմ և հոգի, զիա՞րդ քաղւեցար, Ընտիր մարմնով սուրբ և կոյս, զիա՞րդ ի հող լուծար Յայտդ քո լուսով, ունկդ քո կամար, զիա՞րդ անտեսացար …

74

S. PETER COWE

Moved by emotional power, the description frequently reaches the level of idealization, as Grigor Skewṙac‘i states, referring to this as an accepted convention ‘depicting [subjects] in the form of the prototype in whom they were established’.71 This is well illustrated in another portrayal of a vardapet: ‘Heavenly grace has descended upon you, my soul yearns for your form, the impression of the divine’.72 An exhaustive enumeration of all the traits which works of this genre share with Ałt‘amarc‘i’s poems lies outside the bounds of this paper.73 However, it is important to consider the issue of love allegory. In this connection Avdalbegyan writes, ‘The preponderance of Ałtamarc‘i’s poems are more expressions of the lack of real love, expressions of yearning, desire, and dreaming of love’.74 She arrived at this conclusion after a comparison with works of Yovnat‘an Nałaš. It is certainly true that sexually suggestive verses of the following type are entirely absent from Ałt‘amarc‘i’s oeuvre: I’m desperate for your melons. Let my hand go among them, Let me sell myself and buy that orchard of yours. O unjust one, Let me pick some fruit and have a giggle. 75

However, on the contrary, in an extremely poignant poem Yovnat‘an addresses the vardapet Simēon: Fruitful olive tree in the Lord’s house Gold candelabra set in view Շրթունքդ լար, կլափդ փայլուն, զիա՞րդ ի հող մածար: Akinean 1936, 415-417. 71 զպատկերանալն ի կերպարան սկզբնատիպն յոր և հաստատեցան: Grigor Skewṙac‘i 1854, 12. 72 Շնորհքն աստուածային ի քեզ իջեալ է, աստուածատիպ կերպիդ հոգիս փափագէ. With this we may compare Grigoris’ parallel images ‘Divinely painted image formed by the Creator’ (Աստուածանըկար պատկեր յօրինեալ ի յարարողէն), Avdalbegyan 1963, 188, l. 1, and ‘Show me that divinely drawn image of yours’ (Զայդ աստուածագիծ պատկերդ քո ինձ ցոյց), 209, l. 32. 73 A more detailed study of this theme is currently in progress. 74 Avdalbegyan 1963, 78. 75 Շամամներիդ համար դառն եմ, Թո՛ղ, որ ձեռս մէջն խառնեմ, Ինձ ծախեմ` էդ բախչէդ առնեմ: Զալուն, թող` ես Եմիշ քաղեմ, Մէկ ծիծաղեմ: Mnac‘akanyan 1983, 48-49.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

75

Filled with practical as well as theoretical Virtue, Simēon Vardapet … Where is your like in the land of Armenia …? Servant of your grave, Yovnat‘an … 76

His sincere emotion is a reminder that human relations involve an infinite variety of expressions of love. And if the deacon-bard was so moved, how much more intensely might the vardapet’s fellow monks have felt at his passing. Reflecting on Ałtamarc‘i’s three famous allegories, the problem becomes all the more complicated, as the poet weaves his message so skillfully into the conventions of the traditional rose and nightingale romance that it is difficult to attempt to separate the strata when taken in isolation. Literary history indicates how divergent the interpretation of a contemporary readership or audience can be from the author’s own understanding of his work and hence the difficulties are compounded for later philologists.77 Accordingly, scholars of this question have tried to approach the matter with suitable caution. Emblematic is Avdalbegyan’s statement that at first sight these poems are warm eulogies of the coming of spring, the harbinger of love, while every reader can plumb the poem’s depths as they please.78 Kostaneanc‘ notes that at first he considered poem twentyfive beginning ‘After the rose’s departure’ (Յետ գնալոյ վարդին) as Ałtamarc‘i’s expression of the fidelity of his affection for a woman, adding that ‘The object of this ardor has transformed Ałtamarc‘i into a perfect bard (ašuł)’.79 Subsequently, however, he altered his opinion, offering the piece a more symbolic construction to the effect that the nightingale’s lament mourns the region’s fall under Muslim rule.80 In contrast, Avdalbegyan identifies the rose with the island of Ałt‘amar, object of the poet’s yearning in exile.81 Consistent with his spiritualizing Պտղալից ձիթենի` ի մէջ Տեառն տան, Աշտանակ ոսկի` եդեալ յանդիման, Լցեալ գործնական, այլև տեսական Առաքինութեամբ, Սիմէոն վարդապետ… Ո՞ւր է քեզ նման երկիրս Հայաստան … Քո գերեզմանիդ ծառայ Յովնաթան… Ibid., 195-199. 77 For an example of this issue, see Srapyan 1962, 145. 78 Avdalbegyan 1963, 82-83. 79 Cited ibid., 85. 80 Kostaneanc‘ 1898. 81 Avdalbegyan 1963, 61. 76

76

S. PETER COWE

approach, Akinean views the lovers’ dialogue as an interchange between the basic elements in human nature, a debate between flesh and spirit.82 If, however, we contextualize the allegories within Grigoris’ other works, despite the contrasts in form, we observe a series of situations and images already familiar. Let us first consider poem twenty-four ‘Spring Came’ (Գարունն երեկ). Here we encounter once more the complaint of the poet in isolation, who beseeches his monastic brothers to intercede with the vardapet. In poem nine ‘Let me Make Complaint’ (Գանգատ մ’առնեմ) he had pleaded ‘Brothers, I implore you, seek remission for me’ (Եղբարք առ ձեզ պաղատիմ, թողութիւն խնդրէք վանս իմ).83 Here he begs listeners to secure his release from a similar impediment: Dear friends together, If you know a remedy, make me a means So I can go to the rose, my refuge, And serve it with a willing heart.84

There he had asked confusedly, ‘Why did you ignore me, who am tormented continually?’85 Here he insists: Don’t consider me unworthy Or a servant at your door, Don’t send your slave empty away.86

Poem five ‘The Flowers say’ (Ծաղկունքն ասեն), on the contrary, is much less specific, since it was not directed to the vardapet, but was written at the request of Astuacatur Mecop‘ec‘i in 1523. Here the nightingale decides, ‘Let me come and descend beneath the rosebush’ (Գամ իջանեմ վարդենոյն տակ)87 and the description of the rose in a number of respects resembles the works examined above, e.g.: Akinean 1958, ՂԴ-ՃԵ. Avdalbegyan 1963, 156, ll. 33-34. 84 Ով սիրելիք իմ հաւասար, Թէ գիտէք դեղ` արէք ինձ ճար, Գընամ ի վարդն ի զէնէհար Եւ ծառայեմ սրտովս յոժար: Ibid., 222, ll. 17-20. 85 Ընդ է՞ր արիր զիս անտես, Որ հանապազ տանջիմ ես: Ibid., 156, ll. 23-24. 86 Մի՛ համարիր զիս անարժան, Կա՛մ սպասաւոր ի քոյդ դըրան, Մի՛ արձակեր զգերիս ունայն: Ibid., 223, ll. 26-28. 87 Ibid., 131, l. 9. 82 83

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

77

… in you there is no stain, On the earth you stand unique From trials you stand afar.88

The lover also finds himself in the same situation of rejection: Why do you spurn me in my yearning I praise the rose in song … You have no love in your heart, That’s why you don’t heed my voice.89

Turning to the poem many regard as Ałt‘amarc‘i’s masterpiece, one notes that here too he gives expression to the lover’s melancholia of spirit. Though the opening of poem twenty-five ‘After the Departure of the Rose’ (Յետ գնալոյ վարդին) exudes a tone of despondency, it ends unexpectedly with a doxology to God and exultant expectation of the future. Like the one just considered, the poem begins with the absence of the rose, but with one important nuance.90 The rose has not gone, but was taken from the garden, as the owner of an orchard was removed in Grigoris’ well-known poem twenty-seven: They say, ‘Get up and go from this orchard’. They take me to the edge of the land, They lay me in the ground.91

In consequence, the nightingale appeals to the flowers, the birds, and finally the Creator, in order to obtain precise information. This search too has its counterpart in the genre of the lament on a vardapet. For example, Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i writes of Yovhan Orotnec‘i:

Չկայ ի քեզ արատ, Վրայ աշխարհիս կենաս անհատ, Ի փորձանաց կենաս ի զատ: Ibid., 139, ll. 117-119. 89 Յէ՞ր կու մերժէք զիս կարօտով Ես կու գովեմ զվարդըն ձայնով … 88

Ի ձեր սըրտիդ դուք սէր չունիք, Վասն այն զիմ ձայնս չընդունիք: Ibid., 139, ll. 115-116 and 141, ll. 137-138. 90 Cf. ibid., 138, l. 94 ‘Who taught you your coming and going?’ (Զգալդ և զգնալդ քեզ ո՞վ ուսուց:). 91 Կ’ասեն, թ’ ‘Արե՛կ, ե՛լ այգուս’: … Տանին ի յեզեր հողոյս, Դնեն զիս ի մէջ հողոյս: Ibid., 259, ll. 28-30.

78

S. PETER COWE

Looking for the leader of light … and not finding him, The caring physician and he does not appear … I venerate his eyes, but do not see them I scour the land in my mind, but he is not to be seen … If I raise a lament, he does not hear … If I ask, he does not reply And does not spare my tears … 92

Unfortunately, the rose has departed to an inaccessible location. Hence, the nightingale writes it a letter like the correspondence we have seen all through the corpus of poems, and this particular feature, as can readily be imagined, is a major aberration from the normal pattern of the rose and nightingale lyric. In it the author reemploys forms already familiar from his earlier works. The rose is ‘honorable’ (պատուական) and ‘blessed’ (երանելի). Addressing it, the nightingale writes: … you are alive unstained by the flesh … May internal and external evil flee from you. 93

We should also recall that he states in poem seventeen ‘The demons are shaken by you’ (սասնին ի քէն).94 The tenor of the master-pupil relationship, which Grigoris experienced with his vardapet emerges more clearly from the following couplet: If you ask about my sobriety, I have neither sense, nor vision, nor wisdom.95 92

Խնդրելով զառաջնորդն լուսոյ և ոչ գտանելով: Զխնամող բժիշկն և ոչ ուրեք է … Ակն ածեմ զաչս և ոչ տեսանեմ, Յածիմ մտօք և ոչ երևի, Եթէ կական բարձայց` ոչ լսէ … Եթէ հարցից` ոչ պատասխանէ Եւ յարտասուս ոչ խնայէ:

‘Նորին Գրիգորի ներբողեան ողբերգաբար ոգեալ ի թաղումն Տիեզերալոյս Վարդապետին իւրոյ Յօհաննու Որոտնեցւոյ’ (Eulogy by the Same Grigor at the Funeral of his teacher Yohan Orotnec‘i the Ecumenical Vardapet) in Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i 1741, 711-716, at 714-715. 93 անարատ մարմնով ես դու կենդանի … Ներքին և արտաքին չարն ի քէն փախչի: Avdalbegyan 1963, 233, l. 88 and 234, l. 92. 94 Ibid., 183, l. 39. 95 Թէ զիմ ըզգաստութիւնըս հարցանես դու, Չունիմ խելք ու բասար ’ւ ոչ իմաստութիւն: Ibid., 234, ll. 101-102. Related terms recur in a number of Grigoris’ works. In poem twenty-one the cognate verb appears at the takhallus where the poet commends himself to prayer and sober living in light of the transience of life (ibid., 205, l. 79). Similarly, in

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

79

The Greek equivalent of the Armenian term zgastut‘iwn is σωφροσύνη or νῆψις. The form is frequently encountered in ascetic counsels as the definition of passionless perfection, to which the pupil aspires with the assistance of a trained spiritual guide. It transpires that the rose has gone to paradise, a term contrasted with the orchard, so that in its response the rose offers this piece of advice: If its [i.e. the nightingale’s] love is completely with the rose, Tell it to search for it [the rose] in paradise. 96

At dawn a violent peal of thunder is heard as the poem attains its apogee. Suddenly the rose appears. This vision is the cause of the doxology: ‘With my eyes I saw the rose amidst the bushes’ (Տեսայ աչօք ըզվարդն ի մէջ թըփերին).97 If we have already isolated themes from the lament of the vardapet and correspondence between Grigoris and his teacher, there is yet another element woven into the texture of the poem, which pays Grigor the most profound compliment of all. The garden, the gardener, the search for a beloved’s body, the thunder of theophany, and the dawn vision are all features of the resurrection narrative, bearing a particular resonance with St. John’s account of Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene.98 Granted a certain general similarity to the apparatus of the rose and the nightingale, one wonders whether there is any clear affinity with the author’s precise purpose in writing. After gaining an acquaintance with Ałt‘amarc‘i’s poetic art it seems implausible that the resemblance could be merely accidental. Sensing Christ’s presence, what did Mary exclaim, whom did she truly see? The scriptural text reads as follows: ‘Jesus said, “Mary.” And she turned and said to him in Hebrew “Rabbuni,” which is translated teacher (vardapet)’.99 There are many echoes in medieval Armenian of Christ as teacher, but here it gives extra point to the metaphor in some of Grigoris’ other works that the subject is the express poem twenty-three, he confesses ‘I do not even have sobriety’ (Ժուժկալութիւն չունիմ անկամ [sic]), 215, l. 37. The contrast is spelled out in a colophon in a Gospelbook commissioned by Nersēs Šnorhali, where the scribe extols the catholicos as ‘sober and vigilant in examining the divine scriptures’ (զգաստ և արթուն ի քննութեան աստուծայնոց գրոց). See Ališan 1901, 376. 96 Թէ կատարեալ իւր սէրն ի հետ վարդին է, Ասցէք թէ ի դրախտն ըզնա որոնէ: Avdalbegyan 1963, 236, ll. 115-116. 97 Ibid., 237, l. 132. 98 Jn 20.11-16. 99 Ասէ ցնա Յիսուս. Մարիամ: և նա` դարձաւ և ասէ ցնա եբրայեցերէն. րաբբունի, որ թարգմանի վարդապետ: (Jn 20.16), see Zohrapean 1805, 721.

80

S. PETER COWE

image of the Creator.100 Apart from the universal application of Gen. 1:25 to the human race, the poet singles out his master as a special manifestation of Christ.101 Moreover, it is this vision, which gives meaning to his existence. The nightingale saw the rose in reality, and it is the poet’s everyday life, which is an illusory dream.102 This confession may help us penetrate another of Ałt‘amarc‘i’s aenigmas. The approach to you is mortal As the two become united, The departure from there is immortal, Being dissolved, we are bound indissolubly. 103

The love and respect he feels for the vardapet on earth endures beyond physical death. Indeed it is precisely death which will bring them together more lastingly, for in the afterlife there will be nothing to part them. Although the flesh endures corruption, the immortal soul endures, and it 100 The following phrase from the šarakan on St. Gregory the Illuminator highlights this role of Christ: Րաբունւոյն հրամանաւն ի վերուստ կոչեալ յառաքելական յաթոռ Տէր Գրիգորիոս (Called at the behest of the Teacher on high to the apostolic seat, Lord Grigorios), Šarakan 1936, 273. Note also the following examples from a fifteenth century poet: ‘May the Master of creation bless you all’ (Վարդապետն արարածոց օրհնէ զձեզ զամենեսին), ‘The general company of the fiery ones rebuke [me], They rise up against me as an adversary before the Master’ (Րամկական հրեղինաց զօրքն նախատեն, Րաբունոյն առաջի ոսոխ ինձ յառնեն), and ‘Master Jesus, head of saints’ (Րաբունդ Յիսո՛ւս, գլուխ սրբոց). See Łazinyan 1971, 178, l. 21; 182, ll. 19-20; 200, l. 25 respectively. For a possible depiction of Christ as vardapet in a manuscript illumination of the twelfth century, see Der Nersessian and Mekhitarian 1986, 24, 29. 101 That vardapets were often likened to their heavenly master is indicated by examples like the following. The author of the History of the Nation of Archers refers to Vanakan Vardapet in the following terms: ‘He would distribute spiritual food, that is the word of teaching of the Spirit, being likened to Christ, the heavenly teacher in meekness and humility, silence and long-suffering’ (բաշխէր զկերակուրն հոգևոր, այսինքն զբան վարդապետութեան Հոգւոյն, նմանեալ երկնաւոր վարդապետին Քրիստոսի, հեզութեամբ և խոնարհութեամբ, լռութեամբ և երկայնմտութեամբ:). See Połarean 1974, 27. 102 This topos of monastic literature is well developed by Anania Narekac‘i in a work on the transience of life preserved in Matenadaran MS 2680, f. 309r., which opens as follows: ‘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’ (Արդ եթէ կամիս որ յաղթես աշխարհի և ոչ ընբռնիս [sic] ի կենցաղոյս պատրանս, և դու խորհրդեամբ միտ դիր, և իմաստութեամբ փորձեա թէ սնոտի և անցաւոր է կեանք մարդկան. և որպէս զերազ աներևոյթ լինի:) 103 Իսկ մուտն ի քեզ մահկանացուի, Որ և երկուքըն շաղկապի, Անտի և ելն է անմահի, Լուծեալ կապիմք անլուծելի: Avdalbegyan 1963, 181, ll. 25-28.

THE OBJECT OF AŁT‘AMARC‘I’S AFFECTIONS

81

is only under those conditions that the vardapet and his pupil will truly reunite. In his poetry Grigoris was thus able to transcend the public voice of traditional eulogies and laments on vardapets, infusing his compositions with the deeply personal tone of love lyric, adapting the imagery to his needs and allowing the different layers of symbol to resonate, enhancing the overall effect. In this respect it is Grigoris who is the nonpareil. In keeping with the tone and perspective of the foregoing, it is an honor and profound debt of gratitude for me to offer this study in token of the the warm affection and highest regard in which I held Jos as a senior colleague, scholar, and friend. Memory Eternal!

CRITICAL EDITION: ENDPOINT OR STARTING POINT? AN EXPERIMENT WITH BASILIUS ANDREA DE LEEUW VAN WEENEN 1. INTRODUCTION The printing of a critical edition constitutes for the editor the culmination of a longlasting engagement with a text and its manuscripts. He/she has chosen and transcribed a base text, collated, studied the relations between the manuscripts and devised a stemma, wrestled with incomprehensible sentences and emended them to the best of his/her knowledge, and laid down the collected knowledge in apparatus and introduction. By the time the edition is published it is likely that the editor will have turned to a different undertaking. Printed editions are themselves the starting point for further research. In general such research can be carried out more quickly and reliably when the edition is also available in machine-readable form. In this case it is possible to carry out types of research which are not feasible through a printed edition alone, or which can only be achieved through the kind of time investment that present conditions at universities make as good as impossible. This paper will describe an attempt to undertake such research, the difficulties encountered and ways in which an editor could make further research easier to carry out, while at the same time improving the quality of the edition. In the Leiden Armenian Database project Classical Armenian texts are analyzed morphologically. Since 1988 a series of programs has been developed to carry out this task. The end product is a fully analyzed and disambiguated running text, in which each word form is provided with a lemma, word class and grammatical tag (case and number for nouns; person, number, tense, mood, and voice for finite verbs).1 When a text is only available in printed form, it needs to be typed or scanned with all

1

For a short description of the analysis strategy see de Leeuw van Weenen 2000.

84

ANDREA DE LEEUW VAN WEENEN

the related risk of errors; moreover the process of collating and correcting arising from this approach will prove time-consuming. When a text already exists in electronic form, the time-consuming data entering can be skipped, although a conversion of some kind will almost certainly be required and this may prove to be time-consuming in its own right. If the printed edition is derived from this electronic text, the processes of collating and correcting are superfluous, as there will be no digressions from the printed text. Such was the case with Uluhogian’s edition of Basil’s Rules.2 When we received the complete set of files pertaining to this edition, in particular the critical apparatus, it opened up the possibility of reconstructing the readings of the individual manuscripts, which, from a linguistic point of view, are just as, if not more, interesting than the emended reading text. Regrettably an exact reconstruction of the actual manuscript texts has not been possible, because the text and variants have been normalized orthographically and to some extent also morphologically. Another aspect of the edition with scope for further research is illustrated through a study of the biblical quotations. The text of Basilius’ Rules contains many biblical quotations, most of which are identified in the edition. Several biblical verses are even cited more than once. It soon became clear that those verses occurring more than once were not always cited in identical form, and that not all manuscripts had the same version. Therefore a collection of the biblical quotations was made in order to present the material and provide a basis for further research. A small sample of this material is to be found in section 4. 2. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 2.1 Conversion The first hurdle to take was the conversion of the typesetting files of the Basilius edition to the format used in the Leiden Armenian Database. Since typesetting files contain all kinds of layout information that will be irrelevant, and are usually in a proprietary format, which may not adhere to the ASCII conventions, the first step is to find out how the text is encoded. In this case font tables were provided, but no other information 2 We were very glad to be able to use the typesetting files of Gabriella Uluhogian‘s edition of Basil of Caesarea‘s Rules for the monastic life. For the criteria adopted in establishing the edition, and the abbreviations and symbols used in the apparatus, see there, Uluhogian 1993, LV-LXIV.

CRITICAL EDITION: ENDPOINT OR STARTING POINT?

85

about the encoding. It is very likely that whereas a printer knows what key combinations to use to produce, for example, a superscript number, he does not know – and has no need to know – in what way this information is stored in the computer. The first disks received turned out to be in CPM format and were therefore illegible on my computer. The next set, being in DOS format, could be read physically. It contained a total of 73 files with rather cryptic names in a proprietary encoding. As we had been supplied with font tables for both the Roman and the Armenian fonts, a preliminary conversion was attempted by replacing the character codes for the Roman characters by their ASCII equivalent. Comparison with the printed book now enabled me to decide the content of each file. The edited text itself was divided over 33 files, the critical apparatus over 20. Page headers were also contained in separate files. By converting the original proprietary encoding for the Armenian characters to the encoding in use in our project, which follows the Hübschmann-MeilletBenveniste transliteration, a sufficient number of the text files became legible, enabling me to work out the meaning of intervening typesetting codes for areas of white space, for font changes, for superscripts etc. The various parts of the text were merged into a single text file in our local encoding. This encoding was devised in such a way that text written in it can be read without difficulty by anyone familiar with the Hübschmann-Meillet-Benveniste transliteration and can be printed with TEX either in this transliteration or in Armenian characters by choosing one of two specially adapted fonts. After this, the text file was taken through the various steps of the procedure for morphological analysis developed for the Leiden Armenian Database, thereby producing a morphologically tagged text. One of the requirements for a critical edition, besides presenting the reader with the ‘best’ version of the text (whatever the sense of best one wishes to apply), is the reliable and objective presentation of the facts. From the edited text and the attached critical apparatus it should therefore be possible to reconstruct the readings of the individual manuscripts, although, in this instance, not in their original orthographical state. To do so, the apparatus files had to be brought into a suitable form. Deciphering the apparatus turned out to be rather more complicated than had been the case for the text, because of the greater number of signs, the many font changes, and the fact that various punctuation signs occur in both fonts, so that they could be accompanied by different font change codes.

86

ANDREA DE LEEUW VAN WEENEN

Further complications arose from occasional inconsistencies in the original encoding. Once deciphered, the notes were inserted in the text at their anchoring points. This was not completely straightforward because the note numbers are not unique; in the course of the edition, they started anew nine times. Moreover note numbers show both gaps and interpolated numbers. The apparatus was apparently constructed by hand, as may be concluded when one sees that the numbering of the notes is not consecutive: note numbers are missing (357 on p. 6, 726 and 727 on p. 13, 1047 on p. 20, 1212 on p. 24, 1449 on p. 30, 401 on p. 48, to mention but a few), jump (from 451 to 552 on p. 48, from 162 to 138 between pages 212 and 213) or are interpolated (1257a on p. 62 164a – 164z, 164A – 164D on p. 213–214, 1706a, 1706b on p. 245). Notes without anchoring in the text and notes numbered incorrectly are listed in 5.2. 2.2. Quotations The next step was to extract the biblical quotations. Quotations are enclosed within guillemets (« ») and are usually followed by an identification. This produced 996 quotations, of which about 80 were without identification. Most of the latter proved to be interrupted quotations, where the first part had not been marked. Unidentified quotations remain. Thus the quotations on p. 10 line 12, p. 24 line 18-19, p. 115 at the start of paragraph 333, and p. 239 line 21 have yet to be traced. In a number of cases, the quotation contains a ասէ, ասէ Տէրն or ասէ Պաւղոս, which does not belong to the quotation proper. At the final stage I have removed these insertions in Mt. 12:50, 13:45, 15:19, 16:24, 17:9, 18:6, 17, 19, 22:36, 23:5, 25:30, 34, 35, 46, 28:19, Mk. 9:49, Lk. 6:36, 9:23, 10:27, 12:43, 48, 22:27, Jn. 12:50, 14:23, 15:10, 12, 16:13. Some quotations are marked not with the plain bible reference, but with Cp. plus a bible reference, implying that it is an allusion instead. The Cp. marking is not always used consistently; one of the two quotations of Mt. 3, 12, which are essentially the same, is marked with Cp. (p. 226), while the other (p. 30) is not. 2.3. The organisation of the apparatus The notation in the apparatus is aimed at providing the necessary information in as little space as possible. In spite of this, the most concise expression is not always chosen.

CRITICAL EDITION: ENDPOINT OR STARTING POINT?

87

In principle, only four types of variant occur: – – – –

replacement, omission (indicated by gngni ‘He was dropping’, kuzi > guzi ‘He was wanting’. But this phenomenon is not regular in the dialect. Before many vowel-initial verbs k does not change: kasi – kasi ‘He was speaking’, kudi – kudi ‘He was eating’. The above-mentioned rule applies in the dialect of Alaškert, too. In this dialect the change k > g takes place also before verbs which have initial h-. In this case h- is dropped. In the dialect of Karin kĕ occurs before vowel-initial verbs. If the verb begins with a consonant it may stand either before or after the verb: kudey kudeyr kuder kudeynk kudeyk kudeyn

‘I was eating’

kĕ kenay kĕ kenayr kĕ kenar kĕ kenaynk kĕ kenayk kĕ kenayn

‘I was staying’

kenay kĕ kenayr kĕ kenar kĕ kenaink kĕ kenaik kĕ kenain kĕ (193)

In the regions of Poland, the Bukovina, Suč‘ava, Hungary, and Rumania where Armenian is (was) spoken, the PI is expressed by the particle gi, which precedes the verb. gi sirei gi sireis gi sirer

‘I loved’

gi sireink gi sireik gi sirein3

In the dialects of Kesaria (Kayseri), Cilicia (in Zeyt‘un and Maraš), and Svediya the PI is expressed by the finite verb and the particle ka. In Svediya the particle ka appears as gu, because in this dialect Old Armenian k is voiced, and a changes into u. gu sirar gu sirer gu sirir

3 4

Ačaṙyan 1953: 164-165. Pašayan 1964: 65.

‘I loved’

gu sirairank gu sirairak gu sirairan4

PAST IMPERFECT IN THE WESTERN GROUP OF ARMENIAN DIALECTS

137

However, according to Ačaṙyan and Andreasyan in the dialect of Svediya the PI is expressed by particle gĕ: gĕ krairam gĕ krairs gĕ krir

‘I was writing’

gĕ krairnk gĕ krairk gĕ kraia5

Ačaṙyan considers gu as the particle expressing continuity: Instead of inventing a new particle in the dialect of Svediya a division of functions took place between gĕ and gu, giving the function of expressing the simple present (and imperfect) to the first particle and the function of expressing continuous present (and imperfect) to the second one.6

In the area of Cilicia the particle ka appears as go: Zeyt‘un go siyi go siyiy go siyey go siyink go siyik go siyin

‘I loved’

go gudi ‘I was eating’ go gudiy go gudei go gudink go gudik go gudin (110)

According to Łaribyan the particle go originated in the form ka: There is a particle go in the dialect of Zeyt‘un. If the vowel a is stressed in an open syllable it changes into o, e. g. chogo - inch ka. However, the vowel u never is subject to such alterations. Also, the voiceless sounds of the language are pronounced voiced. Therefore go can only be derived from ka.7

In Kesaria a two-particle formation is characteristic for vowel-initial verbs. It is placed before the verbal component, e.g. ga garneri, ‘I was taking’. Consonant-initial verbs have a single particle formation and allow a pre-posited ga only, e.g. ga gireri ‘I was writing’. The paradigm is as follows: ga gireri ga girerir ga girer 5 6 7

‘I was writing’

Ačaṙyan 1961: 77; Andreasyan 1967: 86. Ačaṙyan 1961: 100-101. Łaribyan 1953: 54.

ga garneri ga garnerir ga garner

‘I was taking’

138

GAYANE GEVORGYAN

ga girerink ga girerik ga girerin

ga garnerink ga garnerik ga garnerin8

In Edessa (Urfa) the index of PI is the particle gĕ, which is placed before the finite verb, e. g. ghavni ghavnir ghavner

‘I was liking’

ghavnink ghavnik ghavnin9

In Malatya PI is expressed through a combination of the personal verb with a post-posited particle a: k‘reyi a k‘reyir a k‘rer a

‘I was writing’

k‘reyaq a k‘reyiq a k‘reyin a10

According to Łaribyan, in Malatya the PI continuous is formed with the particle a, whereas the PI is formed by adding kĕ to the personal verb.11 In our opinion, in Malatya the original function of the particle kĕ was to express the meaning of a PI. It was used also for the formation of the conditional mood. In order to avoid the danger of a merger, the particle kĕ specialized as a conditional mood marker. The original function of the particle a was to express the meaning of continuous tense. It is only in a later stage that it also acquired the meaning of a general past and present and assumed the function which originally was expressed by the particle kĕ. Therefore, the situation in Malatya may indeed be explained as representing the spread of a as a simple present marker at the expense of the original marker kĕ. In the same way, in the dialect of Arabkir, Ačaṙyan considered the particle ĕ as the particle of the continuous tense and gĕ as the particle of PI. But according to the materials of the Dialect Atlas Questionnaire, the Arabkir dialect does not have a separate continuous tense, and the suffix, which Ačaṙyan indicated as belonging to the continuous tense, is used to designate the imperfect (and the general present): 8

Antosyan 1961: 101, 115. Łaribyan 1982: 235-236. 10 Danielyan 1967: 161. 11 Łaribyan 1958: 147. 9

PAST IMPERFECT IN THE WESTERN GROUP OF ARMENIAN DIALECTS

zruncei nĕ zrunceir ĕ zruncer ĕ

‘I was talking’

139

zrunceink ĕ zrunceik ĕ zruncein ĕ (192)

Therefore in the present-day dialects of Malatya and Arabkir the PI indicators are the suffixes a and ĕ. These belong to the continuous tense by origin, but are no longer used in this function. They are now used to form the PI (and the present). In Aramo the particle hay, which originates from aha, combined with the finite verb and the auxiliary verb is used to express the PI (and the present). Thus, in Aramo the PI is formed analytically, just as it is in the dialect of Kessab. The verbal form has an ending –ar for the 1st person singular, an ending -ir for the 3rd person singular, and an ending –er for all other persons. In the opinion of Łaribyan the ending –ir for the third person must be explained phonetically, and not morphologically: The third person singular does not have an auxiliary verb. It is plausible to suppose that this participle is the form of the conjugated verb in the third person singular of the PI. (…) The third person singular of the PI is formed (…) without auxiliary verb, because the participle is itself this auxiliary verb; it has retained in itself the meaning of the finite form of the third person of the PI.12

Consequently, the paradigm of the PI in Aramo is the following: hay ĕmnar a hay ĕmner is hay ĕmnir

‘I was staying’

hay ĕmner ink hay ĕmner ik hay ĕmner in13

It is interesting that in the PI the distinction between the various conjugations has disappeared, with only one type of conjugation emerging: the different conjugations discernible in the present have all merged in the PI. In Kabusie, in all three different conjugations, in the PI the particle ir is added to the verb. According to Łaribyan it originated in the third person singular of the auxiliary verb er. This particle for the third person is added to the verb and becomes an ending. All the conjugated verbs in the PI have an ending –rn for the first person, an ending –r for the second person, and plural endings in -ak, -ik, -in, which are the same as in classical Armenian. In this dialect gēü is described as the particle of PI: 12 13

Łaribyan 1958: 40-41. Łaribyan 1958: 41.

140

GAYANE GEVORGYAN

gēü sürvaym ir gēü sürvayr ir gēü sürvir

‘I was studying’

gēü sürvayk‘ir gēü sürväk‘ ir gēü sürvayn ir14

According to Łaribyan in the dialect of Kabusie the PI is formed quite distinctively, without any equivalent in other Armenian dialects: There is an ending –m in the first person singular, which is not at all typical for the Ha, Ka, and Kĕ branches of Armenian dialects. There are endings –ēyk‘, -ik‘, -ak‘–in the first person plural, without a nasal, as is the case in the past tenses in the first person plural in Classical Armenian. Moreover, the PI adds its invariable word–particle ir (= ēr) in order to express the meaning of the past, a feature in which it corresponds to the dialects of the L branch. This word-particle ir is added to the conjugated forms of all the analytical tenses. In the second person plural, this dialect has an ending – ak‘ (-äk‘) which is identical with the one in Classical Armenian (-ik‘).15

An interesting application of person and number endings is found in Armenian dialects. On the basis of their material expression they can be divided into seven groups. To the first group belong those dialect units, in which all endings of past verbal forms have their own forms. This group extends across a large part of the Western dialect area, – e.g. Akn (Eğin, Kemaliye), Trapison (Trapzon), Karin (Erzurum), Baberd (Bayburt), Hamšen (Hemşin), Erznka (Erzincan), Severek, Evdokia (Tokat), Adapazar: Partizak kmnayi kmnayir kmnar

‘I was staying’

kmnayink kmnayik kmnayin (284)

The endings of the second and third persons singular have become identical in the dialect units of all other groups. These verbal formations are used in the dialect area of Xnus, Moks (in some regions), Van (again in some regions), Šatax, Sasun (in some villages only), e. g. Moks, (village of Hagin) kmne kmner kmner

14 15

Łaribyan 1958: 84. Łaribyan 1958: 103.

‘I was staying’

kmnenk kmnek kmnen (287)

PAST IMPERFECT IN THE WESTERN GROUP OF ARMENIAN DIALECTS

141

Within a large region of Van, the above-mentioned endings may be further distinguished. They differ only by an alternate vowel, e. g. Van, Berkri kzurtcim kzurtcir kzurtcer

‘I was talking’

kzurtcink kzurtcik kzurtcin (243)

In our opinion, it is possible to assume that the merger of the endings of the second and third persons singular occurred first. Before that, in the dialectal units the endings -ir, and -er were used. According to the law of identification it was only later on that they became identical. It is also possible to assume that the law of identification, along the lines just sketched, included the first person as well. The identification of the first person singular and plural occurred in the same way. Later, by omitting the nasal n, the reduced form of the first person plural became associated with the second person plural. To the third group belongs the dialect area of Sparkert, Alaškert, Moks, Gavaš, in which the identification includes in itself all three persons in the singular. They possess the ending -er in three persons, e. g. Sparkert gxoser gxoser gxoser

‘I was talking’

gxosenk gxosek gxosen (158)

To the fourth group belongs a large area of Sasun, Motkan, Xut, Xnus, Muš, (partially), Bulanux, and (part of) Alaškert. Here the homonymous pairs are person and number endings of the second and third persons in the singular, and first person in the singular and plural, e. g. Xnus (village of Gopal) kxosenk kxoser kxoser

‘I was talking’

kxosenk kxosek kxosen (45)

To the following, fifth group belongs rather a small dialect area, in the main, Sasun and some regions of Muš. Here the homonymous pairs are formed only by the second and third persons in the singular. For the first person singular and plural and the second person plural there is a series of three-membered homonymy, e. g.

142

GAYANE GEVORGYAN

Sasun (village of Geliguzan) ge xosek ge xoser ge xoser

‘I was talking’

ge xosek ge xosek ge xosen (62)

The identification of the first person singular and plural is employed in one region of Muš only: Muš (village of Dugnug) kxosenk kxosir kxoser

‘I was talking’

kxosenk kxosek kxosen (100)

The seventh and final group is found in the dialect area Hamšen (in some regions). The homonymous pairs are formed by the endings of the first and second persons plural, e. g Hamšen, village Unie Ballux ginayi gu ginajid gu ginar gu

‘I was going’

ginayke gu ginayke gu ginayne gu (252)

On the basis of the above material, we may come to the following conclusion. In the majority of Armenian dialects, the general present and the PI employ the same stems. The difference between them consists in the distinction between the endings, which have either finite forms or auxiliary verbs. A number of dialects do not fit the general grammatical rule, displaying the differences in the verbal formations of the present and the PI.

HITTITE ‘WATER’ ALWIN KLOEKHORST

Although Jos Weitenberg mainly occupied himself with Armenology, his linguistic career started with Hittite studies. Especially his contributions on the Old Hittite traces of a three member nominal classification system1 are outstanding, although unfortunately their implications for the interpretation of the PIE gender system have not yet received the attention they deserve. By dedicating this paper to him, I would like to express my gratitude to Jos Weitenberg for guiding my steps into Hittite studies. The most important attestations of the paradigm of the Hittite word for ‘water’ can be found in Rieken 1999: 292:2 nom.-acc.sg. gen.sg. dat.-loc.sg. all.sg. instr. erg. nom.-acc.pl. dat.-loc.pl.

a-a-tar (OS), ṷa-tar (OS) ú-ṷi5-te-na-as (MH/NS) ú-i-te-e-ni (MH/MS), ú-e-te-ni (MH/NS) ú-e-te-na (MH/NS) ú-i-ta-an-ta (OS), ú-i-da-an-da (OH/NS), ú-e-da-an-da (MH/ NS), ú-e-da-an-ta (undat.), ú-i-te-ni-it (MH/NS) ú-e-ti-na-an-za(-) (MH/NS) ú-i-ta-a-ar (OS), ú-e-da-ar (OS), ú-e-da-a-ar (NH) ú-i-te-na-as (MH/NS)

The fact that the Hittite paradigm shows nom.-acc.sg. ṷātar alongside oblique ṷe/iten- has since Schindler 1975: 4-5 been explained as reflecting a PIE static paradigm. The idea is that the ṷad- : ṷed- ablaut must be old. Schindler 1975: 4 states ‘il est impossible que l’alternance wa- : we- soit un développement interne en hittite’ and assumes it reflects PIE *ṷod- : *ṷed-. In his view, these full grades must have had the accent, which points to zero grades in the suffix and the ending. This leads to the reconstruction of an original static paradigm nom.-acc.sg. *ṷód-r, gen.sg. *ṷéd-n-s. The Hitt. nom.-acc.pl. ṷe/idār is considered to reflect the old collective *ṷédōr.3 1 2 3

Weitenberg 1987 and 1995. See l.c. for full attestation places. For the abbreviations, see the Bibliography Schindler 1975: 4.

144

ALWIN KLOEKHORST

According to this theory, the synchronic Hittite paradigm must be due to a pre-Hittite remodeling on the basis of the paradigm of ‘fire’ which has a proterodynamic inflection: in analogy to nom.sg. pahhur, gen.sg. pahhuenas (< *péh2-ur, *ph2-ṷén-s) the original paradigm *ṷód-r, *ṷéd-n-s was altered to attested ṷa-a-tar, ú-ṷi5-te-na-as. There are some flaws in this theory. Firstly, the reconstruction of the static paradigm is based on the Hittite material only. Although nom.-acc. sg. *ṷód-r is reflected in other IE languages as well (e.g. Goth. watō < *ṷod-ōr), an e-grade form *ṷed-n- is not attested outside Hittite4. Secondly, the idea that the paradigm of ‘water’ took over the inflection of ‘fire’ in pre-Hittite is not likely. Some facts cannot be explained by this assumption. For instance, in the paradigm of ‘water’ the archaic instr. ṷe/idanta (< *-én-t) is often found (from OS onwards) whereas the younger form ṷidenit is found in NS texts only. The paradigm of ‘fire’,5 however, only has instr. pahhuenit (oldest attestation MH/MS). It is difficult to explain how ‘water’ obtained the archaic instr.sg. ṷe/idanta if it took over its inflection from the word for ‘fire’, of which no **pahhuanta is attested. Finally, Schindler’s remark that the ṷa- : ṷe- ablaut cannot be due to an inner-Hittite development, is incorrect, as we will see later on. Let us first look critically at the Hittite forms themselves. We notice that the vowel of the stem is written e as well as i, whereas the vowel of the suffix is written e throughout almost all the attestations.6 Especially the spelling dat.-loc.sg. ú-i-te-e-ni indicates that the suffix syllable was accented: ṷe/idén-. This is generally accepted and used to explain the e/i-spelling of the stem vowel: unaccented (pretonic) *e (sometimes) yields i (cf. Melchert 1994: 101). In this manner, ṷitenas is considered to reflect *ṷedénos, and similarly ṷidār < *ṷedṓr. The e/i-spelling in Hittite, however, is not only used to denote unaccented (pretonic) *e, but is used to write the anaptyctic vowel /ə/ as well.7 We shall return to this point later. 4 Arm. get ‘river’ is sometimes considered to reflect *ṷedō from *ṷedōr, but must reflect an s-stem *ṷéd-os- (cf. e.g. Olsen 1999: 45-6). 5 Cf. CHD. 6 Erg. ú-e-ti-na-an-za(-) probably bore its accent on the ending -anz, which caused pretonic weakening of the *e of the suffix to i. Instr. ṷe/idanta shows a because of the sound law *eNT > Hitt. aNT (cf. Melchert 1994: 134-5). 7 Cf. Kimball 1999: 193-9.

HITTITE ‘WATER’

145

It is important to mention that within Hittite no initial alternations are allowed: all forms within a paradigm had to start with the same consonant. All pre-Hittite sound laws that would have caused initial alternation were blocked. The participle *lghént-, for instance, should regularly have given Hitt. **alkant- in isolation. As a part of the paradigm of lāki ‘to fell’ (*lógh-ei), however, it yielded lagant- [ləgánt-]. In 3pl.pres. *h1sénti ‘they are’, the preconsonantal *h1 should regularly have dropped (cf. *h1lenkh- > Hitt. link- ‘to swear’ ~ Gk. ἐλένχω ‘to accuse’).8 In analogy to 3sg.pres. *h1és-ti the laryngeal was restored, after which /ʔésti/ : / ʔsénti/ yielded Hitt. e-es-zi : a-sa-an-zi. In my view, this tendency to avoid initial alternation explains the fact that in Hittite (consonantal) ṷ- never alternates with (vocalic) #u-.9 This indicates that forms with original ablaut *ṷe/oC- : *#uC- must have undergone analogic reshaping. For instance, 3pl.pres.act. *ulh2énti ‘they hit’ should regularly have yielded Hitt. **ulhanzi. As part of the paradigm of ṷalh- (*ṷelh2-), however, it developed to ṷalhanzi /ṷəlhánzi/. The same goes for 3pl.pres.act. ṷarpanzi ‘they wash’ /ṷərpánzi/ from *urpénti. In isolation it should have become Hitt. **urpanzi, but it was secondarily changed to ṷarpanzi in analogy to 3sg. ṷarpzi < *ṷérp-ti. The schwa that emerges between ṷ and the following consonant is spelled a in these verbs because the latter consonant is a resonant. Whenever the second consonant is a stop, however, we find the e/i-schwa. For instance, Hittite ṷekzi : ṷekanzi ‘to wish’ must reflect the PIE root *ṷeḱ-.10 In order to explain the e-grade in 3pl. ṷekanzi, it is generally assumed that the Hittite paradigm reflects acrostatic inflection *ṷēḱ- : *ṷeḱ-.11 This is contradicted, however, by the fact that all other IE 8

Cf. Melchert 1994: 66-7. The seemingly alternation ṷ- : u- in the verbs ṷas(ia)- ‘to buy’ and us(sa)nia- ‘to put up for sale’ cannot be used as an argument, as these forms do not belong to one paradigm. The verb ṷas(ia)- reflects *ṷos(ee)-, whereas us(sa)nia- is derived from a noun *us-no- ‘sale’ (Neu 1980: 87-8). This *usno-é- is very archaic, as is shown by the fact that after Anatolian split off from PIE, the word was innovated to *ṷosno-é-, which yielded Skt. vasnayáti ‘to higgle’ and Gk. ὠνέομαι ‘to buy’ (through *ṷosn-ee-, cf. Beekes 1995: 230). The ṷ- : u- alternations in urāni besides ṷarāni ‘burns’, ustul- besides ṷastul- ‘sin’ and urrir beside ṷarrir ‘they helped’ are of another category (cf. Neu 1980: 87). For instance, the occasional spelling of 3sg.pres. ṷarāni ‘burns’ as urāni is due to the fact that the verb ṷar- is a middle with zero grade-inflection: 3sg. *ṷH-ó, 3pl. ṷH-ént-o. The form ṷarāni (dissimilatory from *ṷarāri) is therefore to be interpreted as /ṷərāni/. The alternation ṷarāni : urāni does not reflect zero vs. full grade, but rather shows different ways of spelling /ṷ(ə)rāni/. 10 In Kloekhorst 2008: 996-7 this verb is treated in more detail. 11 E.g. Oettinger 1979: 17. 9

146

ALWIN KLOEKHORST

languages point to an original root present.12 It is therefore a priori more desirable to assume that also Hitt. ṷekzi : ṷekanzi ultimately stems from *ṷéḱ-ti : *uḱ-énti. In the case of the singular form, the equation is clear: PIE *ṷéḱ-ti > Hitt. ṷekzi. The development of the plural form must be explained as follows. At the time that the difference between ṷ and u became phonemic, 3pl. *uḱénti was altered to *ṷkénti in analogy to 3sg. *ṷekti in order to avoid initial paradigmatical alternation. This *ṷkénti automatically developed a schwa between ṷ and k, yielding attested ṷekanzi /ṷəkanzi/. Let us now return to the paradigm of ‘water’. We saw that Schindler’s most important argument for reconstructing *ṷód-r, *ṷed-n-s is the fact that in his view the ṷad- : ṷed- alternation cannot be an inner-Hittite development. This argument now has become invalid, as we have seen that in the form *uḱ-énti an e/i-schwa emerged in order to avoid initial alternation, giving Hitt. ṷekanzi. In my view, this scenario is possible for the oblique forms of ‘water’ as well: Hitt. ṷed- actually denotes /ṷəd-/ < *ṷd- in which form the e/i-schwa emerged in order to avoid initial paradigmatical alternation with nom.-acc.sg. *ṷódr > Hitt. ṷātar. This interpretation fits in well with the observation that the vowel of the stem syllable of these forms is written e as well as i, a spelling alternation which is typical for the e/i-schwa. To sum up: at the (Pre-Hittite) time that u and ṷ became phonemically distinct, the original proterodynamic paradigm *ṷód-r, *ud-én-s was changed to *ṷódr, *ṷdéns in order to avoid initial paradigmatical alternation.13 These latter forms regularly yielded Hitt. ṷātar, ṷitenas: /ṷātər/, /ṷədenas/.14 Considering the stem vowel e/i to reflect /ə/, we now rather interpret the Hittite material as follows:

12 E.g. Skt. 3sg. váṣṭi : 1pl. uśmási ‘to wish, to want’, GAv. 3sg. vaštī : 1pl. usǝ̄mahī ‘to wish’. 13 Note that if Hitt. utnē ‘land’ indeed is a derivative of the stem *ṷed- ‘water’, this form must reflect *ud-nēi. The fact that here *ud- did not become *ṷd- is explained by the very early separation of *ṷód-r and *ud-nēi. That the separation must have taken place very early can be seen semantically by the fact that the word developed the meaning ‘land’, and formally by the fact that the formation is very archaic within Hittite (utnē is the only *-ēi-stem that survived in Hittite). 14 The replacement of the proterodynamic genitive ending *-s by hysterodynamic *-os > Hitt. -as can be widely observed throughout the Hittite material.

HITTITE ‘WATER’

nom.-acc.sg. gen.sg. dat.-loc.sg. all.sg. instr. erg. nom.-acc.pl. dat.-loc.pl.

ṷa-a-tar ú-ṷi5-te-na-as ú-i-te-e-ni ú-e-te-na ú-i-ta-an-ta ú-e-ti-na-an-za(-) ú-i-ta-a-ar ú-i-te-na-as

= /ṷā` dər/ = /ṷədénas/ = /ṷədéni/ = /ṷədéna/ = /ṷədánta/ = /ṷədenánts/ = /ṷədā` r/ = /ṷədénas/

147 < *ṷód-r < *ṷd-én-(o)s < *ṷd-én-i < *ṷd-én-t < *ṷd-en-ónt-s < *ṷd-ṓr

My interpretation has a few advantages over Schindler’s analysis. First, it explains why no traces can be found of an oblique form *ṷed-nin any other IE language. Secondly, it makes the awkward assumption that in pre-Hittite times the paradigm of ‘water’ must have taken over the inflection of ‘fire’ unnecessary. Finally, my interpretation opens the way to compare gen.sg. ú-ṷi5-te-na-as (< proterodynamic *ṷd-én-(o)s) with Goth. gen.sg. watins < *ṷod-en-(o)s. Nom.-acc.pl. ú-i-ta-a-ar now can be equated with Gk. nom.sg. ὕδωρ ‘water’, both from *ud-ṓr.15

15 This article was written in 2003, with some minor additions in 2008. Relevant new literature and insights from after this period could not be included.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND MOTIFS FROM CHRISTIAN ICONOGRAPHY1 DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Armenian is among the dozens of languages in which the Romance of Alexander has been translated.2 Because in antiquity Armenians felt at home in both the West and the East, the Greek world of the Mediterranean and the Persian Empire of the Near East, they took a special and early interest in the life and deeds of Alexander the Great. Armenian nobility fought on both sides of the battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.). The Orontid kings of Armenia were descended from the Achaemenid line; the Artaxiad kings also claimed Persian descent, though they were allies from time to time of the Romans, while the most famous of them, Tigranes the Great, tried to bring Armenia into the Hellenistic world. The Armenian Arsacid dynasty originated when the brother of the Parthian Great king of Iran came to rule as the king of Armenia. The translation of the Alexander Romance took place after nearly five centuries of Armenian Arsacid rule had ended and Armenia, already Christianized for more than a century, accepted political vassalage under the Sasanian rulers of Iran while connected to the great universal religion of the Byzantine and Latin West. This historical dimension makes the relationship between Armenia and Alexander ambiguous, for though it is clear that the Latin and Byzantine traditions allied themselves with Alexander as a champion of their culture and the Islamic world of Arabs, Persians, and Turks adopted him as a descendent of the great Achaemenid dynasty, Armenians could claim a legitimate sympathy to both the oriental and the occidental Alexander. 1 Part of the research was realized thanks to successive grants from the Bertha and John Garabedian Charitable Foundation of Fresno, California. Earlier versions of this study were presented at a conference on Armenian Christianity in Erevan, Armenia, November 1997 and lectures for the Société des Études Arméniennes, Paris, April 1998, at the University of Geneva, May 1998, and at the Byzantine Museum, Thessaloniki, April 2003. See also an earlier general study on the Armenian cycle of miniatures, Kouymjian 1999. 2 Ross, 1988, provides information on the texts and illustration of virtually all language versions.

150

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

This essay will concentrate on the visual representation of the work within the context of Armenian illuminated manuscripts rather than its textual history, which is briefly summarized below.3 There is a very rich Armenian illustrated tradition of the Alexander story, contrary to Wallis Budge’s pronouncement of 1933 that among Near Eastern and Far Eastern peoples only the Persians have tried to illustrate their versions of the life.4 Unfortunately, the impressive Armenian material has been underexploited. I. THE ARMENIAN TEXT A. History of the Armenian Translation Scholars agree that the Armenian translation of the Alexander Romance was made in the late fifth century and directly from a Greek version. The original was probably written in the third century by a Greek from Alexandria who compiled it from a variety of sources heavily augmented by legend, but eventually ascribed to Callisthenes, an historian and friend of the world conqueror, and thus became known as the Pseudo-Callisthenes Greek version. The Armenian was used by nineteenth century scholars to help reconstruct the lost original Greek text of the Romance based on a defective Byzantine manuscript of the eleventh century.5 The fifth century date would put it in the initial wave of translations after the invention of the Armenian alphabet around 405 A.D. The early dating is based on two major arguments: 1) the glosses and direct borrowings from the Alexander Romance by early Armenian sources, especially the supposed fifth century author Movsēs Xorenac‘i, and 2) the language of the translation, a Hellenizing or as some specialists maintain pre-Hellenophile Armenian, most popular in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Mekhitarist father Yakobus Tašean, in the first major Armenian study of the text, brought together the borrowings from early authors, but especially the 3 Kouymjian 1999, presents the background for an iconographic study of the Armenian Alexander. Simonyan 1989 separated the texts into three recensions (A, B, and C) based on her study of sixty-eight manuscripts; a shorter description of the Armenian translation and its relationship to the Greek text of the Pseudo-Callisthenes can be found in Wolohojian 1969, 1-21. 4 Wallis Budge 1933, 8; cf. Wolohojian 1969, 16. 5 Especially for the lacunae in the A or Alpha Recension based on P grec 1711; for a discussion with pertinent literature, see Wolohojian 1969, 2-7. For a more recent review of the Armenian tradition see Traina 1996.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

151

passages from Movsēs Xorenac‘i.6 Tašean and others before him regarded the translation of the Pseudo-Callisthenes as the work of Movsēs himself, considered one of the pupils of St. Mesrop Maštoc‘, the inventor of the alphabet.7 Since, however, there is still controversy over the date of Movsēs, with many authorities questioning the fifth century attribution and suggesting the seventh or even later centuries, perhaps some doubt can be cast on the fifth century translation date.8 On the other hand the Hellenizing translators flourished from the last quarter of the fifth through the sixth century and later, up to Step‘anos Siwnec‘i’s translations of Dionysius, 718, which would support, though cautiously, the accepted dating. It is interesting perhaps to point out that in the vast translation program carried out by the pupils of Mesrop, the History of Alexander the Great is the first secular work rendered into Armenian, done by a team that concentrated initially on the Bible and the church fathers.9 B. Manuscript tradition A large number of Armenian manuscripts of the Alexander Romance have survived, upward to a hundred, though no definitive list has been established. Fr. R. T‘reanc‘, the compiler of the first, and until very recently, the only Armenian edition (1842), worked with some ten manuscripts mostly from the Mekhitarist Fathers Library in Venice; Tašean used seventeen manuscripts for his study (1892); Fr. Nersēs Akinian (1938), thirty-two; Albert Wolohojian, in 1969, thought there were about forty extant codices for a future critical edition; and finally Hasmik Simonyan, in her new edition (1989), lists sixty-eight manuscripts.10 My own incomplete list includes about eighty. 6 Tašean 1892a, 24-34, in part restated in Wolohojian 1969, 9-14. References are also found in the following authors, mostly historians: John Catholicos (ninth century), T‘ovma Arcruni (tenth century), Grigor Magistros (eleventh century), Mxit‘ar Goš (twelfth century). 7 Wolohojian 1969, 9-13, presents late nineteenth and early twentieth century opinion. 8 For some recent discussions see the Introduction to Thomson 1978 and 2006b, T‘op‘č‘yan 2001 (English version Topchyan 2006), and Garsoïan 2003-2004. 9 Thomson 1995, especially the first section entitled ‘Translations into Armenian’, 29-88, and Thomson 2007, 169-179. 10 T‘reanc‘ 1842; Tašean 1892a, cf. Wolohojian 1969, 14, note 50; Akinian 1938; Wolohojian 1969, 21; Simonyan 1989, 34-65, for a complete list with descriptions; Simonyan does not claim completeness. This very large book does not offer a critical edition, but a diplomatic one, her A recension of the medieval translation with the addition

152

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

There are only two pre-sixteenth century manuscripts (V424 and M10151); neither can be precisely dated but both are attributed to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century, though of different versions and with varying histories. The most famous Armenian Alexander is also the most beautifully illustrated, a treasure of the Mekhitarist Monastery on the island of San Lazzaro, Venice (Fig. 1). T‘reanc‘’s original edition of 1842 was primarily based on this manuscript, which is unfortunately defective. It has recently been published as a luxurious facsimile.11 Its primary colophon is missing so we know neither its date or place of copying, but we do know the name of the scribe, a certain deacon (sarkavag) Nersēs. We also lack information about the artist or artists who lavishly illuminated the manuscript. Sirarpie Der Nersessian has attributed it to the late thirteenth or fourteenth century on the basis of the style of the miniatures12 and because in a colophon (perhaps recopied?) of the manuscript, the poet Xač‘atur Keč‘arec‘i (1260-1330), says he reedited the Armenian version of the Alexander Romance.13 In this revised version he added more than 150 short poems,14 called in Armenian kafas after the Arabic qafiya, rhymed verse, as a running commentary on the text and its episodes.15 Kafas by other poets and copyists were also composed in the sixteenth century and after, but Xač‘atur’s are those most often found though sometimes together with verses of later authors.16 Xač‘atur also composed an introduction championing Alexander as precursor to Christ, this together with his moralizing kafas helped to make the Romance acceptable to a Christian reading public.

of rhymed poems (kafas), 67-364, for which see below, as well as the text of the earliest manuscript dated to the thirteenth century (M10151), her B recension. 11 Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003; all folio references will follow this edition. 12 Der Nersessian 1978, 233, fourteenth century; Macler 1928, 23-24, late thirteenth, early fourteenth century. 13 Simonyan 1989, 51, considers the manuscript to be of the fourteenth century. It is the oldest example of the new or revised recension (Simonyan’s A recension); no autograph copy by Xač‘atur has survived. 14 Simonyan 1989, 52; she earlier reported 127 kafas: Simonyan 1979, esp. 123. 15 Avdalbegyan 1958; for older literature see Thomson 1995, 214. For a discussion of his ‘reediting’, see Wolohojian 1969, 14-16. For a recent study of the relationship between kafas and illuminations see Maranci 2003-2004. The translation of the text, kafas, and legends of V424 can be found in Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003, the text volume. 16 Most famous of these are catholicos Grigoris of Ałt‘amar and his student, the scribe and Bishop Zak‘aria Gnuni; brief discussion in Wolohojian 1969, 14-16. On Grigoris, see Thomson 1995, 137-8 and Thomson 2007, 190.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

153

The other thirteenth century manuscript now in the Matenadaran in Erevan (M10151) is considered to be the oldest surviving example of the Armenian version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes as it was copied before Xač‘atur edited the text and added kafas to it.17 As mentioned above Simonyan published it for the first time, but separately rather than as an integral part of her edition of the text with the kafas.18 This manuscript also lacks the original colophon so we know neither its date, place, nor scribe. A quire at the beginning and two at the end of the text had been lost much before these sections were restored to the manuscript (with kafas) in 1606 by the priest Anton.19 According to Simonyan, all subsequent manuscripts, including that of the Xač‘atur Keč‘arec‘i group, are based on this prototype.20 There are also a large number of brief summaries or epitomes of the Romance and a very popular oral tradition, first recorded in writing in the seventeenth century.21 II. ILLUSTRATED ARMENIAN MANUSCRIPTS There is a rich tradition of Armenian manuscripts of the History of Alexander the Great with illuminated cycles. Of the eighty manuscripts in my provisional list, fourteen are illuminated.22 They are or were all heavily illustrated with an average cycle of a hundred and twenty-five scenes. Among the fourteen illustrated manuscripts there are two 17

Simonyan 1979, 117. Beside what she considers the oldest manuscript, M10151, she lists six other examples of this early recension (designated the B recension by her) in the Erevan collection and one in St. Petersburg; all dated from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. On the kafas in the Alexander History, see Simonyan 1975, 41-134. 18 Akinian 1938, 206, spoke of the existence of an even earlier text, which he planned to edit. Though Simonyan (1989, 364-446) was the first to publish the text – her B recension – it had been discussed earlier in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Skinner 1940. 19 A description of the manuscript M10151 can be found in Simonyan 1989, 26, 49-50. 20 A nuanced suggestion that the B recension may not be what Simonyan believed it to be is offered by Cowe 1996. 21 Simonyan 1989, 446-492, an edition of these as her C recension, based on a late seventeenth and a nineteenth century manuscript, both in Erevan. See her earlier comments on the folk versions in Simonyan 1979, 126-7. Oral legends about Alexander, independent in many details from the Pseudo-Callisthenes, survived into the nineteenth century, see Tcheraz 1901. 22 The fourteenth example of the nineteenth century (M8003) has no miniatures but was laid out with spaces for 101 illustrations. Simonyan‘s list of sixty-eight manuscripts contains ten that are illustrated; Kouymjian 1999, 97-8, for a short discussion, and Ross 1988, 6-7, for important observations on the Armenian cycle. Ross 1963, passim, also discusses the Armenian versions in relation to the earliest cycle.

154

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

epitomes or shorter versions of the Alexander story; these are also fully illustrated.23 The miniatures of the Armenian Alexander have only been seriously considered at any length in connection with the remarkable manuscript of the Mekhitarist Fathers in Venice. Fr. Awgerean at the beginning of the twentieth century devoted a two part article to them concluding that they were executed at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century by an artist in Cilician Armenia along with, but perhaps somewhat later than, the text of the manuscript itself.24 A decade later, Frédéric Macler provided uniform reproductions of eighty-three of the surviving miniatures (originally there were at least 116), but referred the reader to Awgerian’s article for a commentary.25 Sirarpie Der Nersessian, unfortunately, never devoted a special study to either this manuscript or the illustrations of the Armenian Alexander, though she mentioned in passing several of the artists who illustrated manuscripts containing the cycle. She thought the miniatures of Venice 424 to be stylistically close to Byzantine painting.26 Heide and Helmut Buschhausen regard the art as Paleologan with an oriental influence and opt for localization in Trebizond, comparing the miniatures to those of the Chrysobolis of Alexis III of 1374 (Fig. 2).27 Most recently the manuscript was the subject of a thesis for the University of Venice by Cecilia Veronese Arslan.28 After reviewing the earlier literature, she develops her own views on the illustrations. Rejecting Cilicia as the artistic region, she prefers greater Armenia, finding resemblances between the illustration of the Erznka (Erzıncan) Bible of 1269 now in Jerusalem, J1925 (Fig. 3) and the Venice Hellenic Institute Alexander (Fig. 4). She also sees the style as archaizing, inspired by mideleventh century Armenian art, itself much inspired by the Byzantine tradition of the period. As for Trebizond as a place of execution, she accepts some stylistic similarities with Paleologan art, but finds no evidence for an Armenian scriptorium in Trebizond. For Veronese Arslan, 23

According to Simonyan, Ber805 of 1535 and M3387 of 1635. Aucher 1914. The article was illustrated with a sampling of a dozen miniatures. 25 Macler 1928, 21 ff.; the facsimile edition has all miniatures, including torn pages and stubs of folios, Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003. Macler also reproduced all the miniatures from W319 of 1694 and P291 of 1712 (colophon), but an earlier date of ca. 1646 has been proposed because of several sheets of watermarked paper. 26 Der Nersessian 1978, 233. 27 Buschhausen 1976, 103 and personal communication, letter of 16 November 1997. See the Chrysobull of 1374 which the Buschhausens use as an example (our Fig. 2). 28 Veronese 1992. 24

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

155

the Venice manuscript’s art remains rather unique in Armenian painting, displaying a very artistic quality and combining an earlier ArmenoByzantine tradition with Islamic influences.29 The importance of the Venice manuscript to the study of the iconographical development of the Armenian Alexander cannot be over stressed. Not only is it the oldest illustrated Armenian version, but it is also separated by more than 200 years from the next series of five illuminated Alexander manuscripts all from the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Of these, the one dated 1544, copied and painted by Bishop Zak‘aria Gnuni in Constantinople, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester,30 has the closest iconographic resemblance to the Venice manuscript according to Der Nersessian.31 For instance compare the crucifixion of Besos and Zarivardan, the assassins of Darius, in the two manuscripts, V424 and MCR3 (Figs. 5-6). Yet, another manuscript copied and illustrated in Rome by Bishop Zak‘aria and his student Yakob Jułayec‘i between 1538 and 1544, now in Erevan (M5472), shows little resemblance to either the Manchester or the Venice manuscript.32 One more contemporary example illustrated by the catholicos Grigoris of Ałt’amar in 1536, now in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, J473, according to Der Nersessian follows a completely separate iconographic tradition.33 Compare for example the birth of Alexander from the Jerusalem manuscript (Fig. 8) with that of Venice (Fig. 9). Even a second manuscript illustrated ten years earlier by Grigoris in 1526, now in the Mekhitarists Library in Venice except for a few leaves in the Princeton University Library, shows little similarity with Grigoris’s later work in Jerusalem or with the Venice 424 manuscript.34 These real or seeming disparities raise a number of iconographic and textual questions, which until now have remained unstudied or only 29

Conclusions in Veronese 1992, 147-161. MCR3, description (but without a list of miniatures of which there are 121) in Kurdian 1975; three illustrations in Yovsēp‘ean 1969, 128-132; one illustration in Tchobanian 1923, opposite p. 124; one in Kouymjian 2007, 172. 31 Der Nersessian 1978, 233. 32 A few poor illustrations can be found in Simonyan 1989, 71, 80, 289, 481; two double page illustrations in color can be found in Alessandro Magno 1995, 333; double page in color in Kouymjian 2007, 170. I discussed the manuscript at a conference in Erevan in September 2011: „The Miniature Cycle of the History of Alexander the Great and Matenadaran Manuscript No. 5472“. 33 J473 copied at Varag Vank and Ałt‘amar in 1536 by Margarē of Arješ; Der Nersessian 1978, 233; discussed in Kouymjian, forthcoming. 34 V.Kurd 280; PRU, Garr23. For details, see Sanjian 1976, 406-8, no. 94; Macler 1928, figs. 84-88. See Lollini 2005 and Kouymjian forthcoming. 30

156

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

partially so. Recent interest in the Armenian History of Alexander the Great has been predominantly textual and even in this domain, focused more on the poetry of the later kafas than on the text of the translation from the Greek.35 The poetic commentary begun by Xač‘atur Keč‘arec‘i, in the late thirteenth century and continued by Catholicos Grigoris, Bishop Zak‘aria Gnuni, and others even into the nineteenth century has provided one of the largest groups in the corpus of medieval Armenian poetry. The same energy needs to be devoted to the artistic cycle or cycles used to illustrate the text. In both textual and iconographic research we seem unable to go back earlier than the time of Xač‘atur and the Venice manuscript, that is around 1300. The earliest version of the History (M10151, called the prototype by Simonyan), which predates, and that only slightly, the reedited text of Xač‘atur, was not illustrated. As mentioned above seven other manuscripts (all later) from among the sixty-eight she studied belong to what she calls the pre-Xač‘atur recension.36 None of these have miniatures either. This would suggest that illustrative material was added to the Armenian version at the same time as the kafas, that is at the end of the thirteenth or the early fourteenth century, and possibly by Xač‘atur himself. Xač‘atur was known as scribe, poet, and painter. When deacon Nersēs copied the Venice manuscript as well as a preface and an allegoric post-scriptum, the colophons of Xač‘atur saying he had reedited and corrected the text were already in his exemplar. The hypothesis that Nersēs’s model was an earlier manuscript copied and illustrated by Xač‘atur has been proposed by a number of scholars, most recently Veronese.37 This earlier exemplar we suppose was illustrated because Nersēs when copying it for manuscript V424 left spaces for miniatures, which were painted in later; the kafas in red ink and the legends in black were also added within these frames by a different scribe. Was this in fact Xač‘atur who was alive until 1330? Yet, since the principal colophon and that of the artist are lacking, we do not know where, when, or by whom they were executed. Some have conjectured that Xač‘atur was the artist, suggesting that he was better at painting than poetry, because 35 Maranci 2003-2004. Cowe 1996, which studies the translation into Armenian is an exception. 36 See note 19 supra. These are M1783 (eighteenth century), M3182 (seventeenth century), M5627 (eighteenth century), M5632 (nineteenth century), M6485 (seventeenth century), M9631 (eighteenth century), and SABO A-9 (eighteenth century); Simonyan 1979, 117. 37 Veronese 1992, 10.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

157

some consider his kafas rather undistinguished. But if it is true that Xač‘atur illustrated the Venice copy, it might itself be the first Armenian version, since it is perfectly possible that the original autograph manuscript of Xač‘atur, now lost, which Nersēs copied was not illustrated and only during Xač‘atur’s collaboration with Nersēs did he make clear to the scribe where to leave space for miniatures. A good case can be made for the suggestion that illustrations of the Armenian version of the Alexander Romance began with Xač‘atur’s revision since, as we have said, none of the eight surviving manuscripts of the text as it existed before Xač‘atur’s modification, is illustrated.38 However, only one-fifth of the surviving manuscripts with the Xač‘atur additions are illustrated; there might have been some illustrated Armenian copies made from the fifth to the twelfth century, which simply did not survive beyond the sixteenth century. Perhaps it is the moment to point out that prior to the thirteenth century we have no secular Armenian manuscripts decorated with a miniature cycle. The History of Alexander seems to be the first, at least the oldest surviving, example.39 By the time it is illustrated in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century it already has attached to it moralizing poems, which begin to make Alexander a paradigm of Christian virtues, thus an acceptable text for illustration in a monastic scriptorium.40 Some scholars, David Ross the most representative, believe that the Alexander Romance by Pseudo-Callisthenes was illustrated from the earliest times, already in the fourth century.41 It is, therefore, not inconceivable that the Greek manuscripts available to the Armenian translators of the fifth century contained miniatures. Kurt Weitzmann pointed out long ago the persistence of that cycle by the insertion of miniatures from it,

38 Only one dates to before Xač‘atur’s time (M10151) for which see note 19 above; this may not be a definitive argument since the later manuscripts might have all been dependent on the M10151. 39 See Kouymjian 2007. 40 There are no book artists that we know of who were not clerics in this period. In fact, it is not yet clear when lay artists started to execute paintings in manuscripts; I would suspect the seventeenth century. Secular subjects, donor portraits for examples, appear early in Gospel manuscripts as they do in sculptural reliefs on churches. On my remark ‘paradigm of Christian virtue’, Peter Cowe, in an email of March 23, 1998, comments: ‘My impression is that the primary focus of the kafas is not so much to extol Alexander as to tone him down by underscoring his foibles and … the pursuit of worldly glory and power and contrasting him negatively as a world conqueror with the achievements of Christ’. 41 Ross 1963 and 1988.

158

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

centered on Alexander’s legendary horse Bucephalus, in classical texts.42 That a large Alexander cycle existed is evidenced by the later Byzantine and medieval French manuscripts. In the Islamic east, illustrated epics of the kings such as Firdusi’s Shahnameh, completed in the early eleventh century, or Nizami’s Khamsa of the late twelfth century, contained sections on Alexander, which were illuminated. The Histoire universelle, written in the first half of the thirteenth century, has a concluding section on Alexander the Great and was already a popularly illustrated text among the Crusaders in the later thirteenth century.43 But these examples do not have sufficiently large cycles of the Alexander story to have been the inspiration behind the 125 or so miniatures in the Armenian cycle. On the other hand, the illustrated manuscript of the Pseudo-Callisthenes in the Hellenic Institute for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies in Venice has a cycle of some 250 richly painted miniatures, often in two parts, spread throughout the text.44 The art shows Paleologan influences. Similarities to the Armenian manuscript V424 include the treatment of the armor and the horses. But it has been dated to the fourteenth century by Xyngopoulos who ascribed it to either Crete or Cyprus;45 the recension is from the gamma recension different from the original Greek alpha used for the Armenian translation. A thirteenth century French version of the Romance has 150 miniatures, but the text and illustrations are from very different and late recensions. III. SIMILARITIES WITH CHRISTIAN ICONOGRAPHY Since the earliest illustrated Armenian manuscript of the History of Alexander the Great with its kafas is also the first to give the work a moralizing tone, it would be natural to expect that the dozen or so 42 Weitzmann 1970, 2nd edition of 1947, 145-6, figs. 133-4. Ross 1963, 1-2, summarizes and evaluates Weitzmann‘s conjectures. 43 For details on the composition and especially the illustrations of the Crusader manuscripts, see Buchthal 1957, 68-87. 44 For a brief description, several illustrations, and the most recent bibliography, see Alessandro Magno 1995, no. 126, 330-333. See also Traina‘s discussion of the Venice manuscript, part of the exhibit, with recent bibliography, Alessandro Magno 1995, no. 125, 327-330. 45 Xyngopoulos 1966, 141-143; cf. Veronese 1992, 37, 46, and Alessandro Magno 1995, 330. Xyngopoulos reproduces all the miniatures and provides translations of all captions in the text. More recently a facsimile edition has been published by Trahoulia 1997, in Greek with a translation of the captions into English and modern Greek.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

159

illuminated manuscripts of the Armenian version dated from around 1300 to 1800 would reveal similarities with the preponderant Christian art of that same tradition.46 Indeed, the vast cycle of scenes, which covers the episodes of the life of the world conqueror, shows many parallels to individual miniatures of Old and New Testament stories. Among the most evident are scenes of nativity, crucifixion, banquets, burial, the embrace, presentation of gifts, destruction by water, group cavalry, royal portraiture, and a number of miscellaneous episodes.47 Rarely, however, is there an identical iconographic similarity, but rather a sharing of common elements between the secular and the religious illuminations. A few examples will demonstrate the point. 1. The crucifixion of Besos and Zarivardan, the assassins of king Darius, ordered by Alexander at the site of the latter’s tomb resembles the Crucifixion. In the Alexander Romance it has a consistent iconography among all manuscripts (Figs. 5-7). Among the most characteristic examples are V424 of c. 1300, fol. 76v (Fig. 5), PRU, Garr23 of 1526, and MCR3 of 1544, fol. 96v (Fig. 6). The resemblance to the Crucifixion is clear even if there are two crosses instead of one and more rarely three. In Armenian Gospel examples from the eleventh century, the two thieves are portrayed crucified along with Christ, who is normally shown alone in Armenian art. A visual parallel with two crosses, as in the Alexander miniatures, does occur in the eleventh century, but only in miniatures where the artists have placed two scenes side by side within a single frame, giving the false illusion that two different people are on crosses (J3624, Gospels of 1041, fol. 9v, Crucifixion and Descent from the Cross).48 M5472, p. 161 (Fig. 7), however, deviates radically in iconography. 2. There are several episodes in the History of Alexander illustrated by banquet scenes; the most notable are (a) the ambassadors of Darius at first ordered to be crucified, V424, fol. 30 (Fig. 10), but later feted by Alexander, V424, fol. 31 and (b) the banquet with his men at which 46 Maranci 2003-2004, 24, suggests that the miniatures of V424 do not represent the earliest Armenian cycle of the Alexander Romance because Xač‘atur‘s kafa, the one accompanying the miniature of a unicorn of a distinctly feline character (fol. 95), placed next to the creature, describes it as ‘like a stag’; therefore, she argues that there must have been an earlier illustrated manuscript in which the unicorn looked like a deer rather than a tiger or a leopard. 47 Lollini 2005, also treats the general question of similarities to Christian iconography through the two illustrated Alexanders, V424, and V.Kurd280. 48 J3624, fol. 9v, Gospels of 1041, and M3784, fol. 9v, Gospels of 1057; Izmailova 1967, figs. 26-7, respectively.

160

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Alexander is poisoned, V424, fol. 117 (Fig. 11).49 The Gospel parallels are the Marriage Feast at Cana and the Last Supper; the Old Testament Hospitality of Abraham also lends itself to pictorial exchange. In a Gospels of c. 1268 attributed to T‘oros Roslin, there are a number of banquet scenes – Herod’s banquet, Last supper, Jesus at the house of Levi, Marriage Feast at Cana – which like those in the Alexander are small in size with fewer guests around the table (except for the Last Supper).50 3. Burial scenes of the dead Nectanebos and especially of Darius recall the Entombment of Christ. There are many examples in each of the manuscripts: V424, fol. 73v, Alexander carrying the bier of Darius; W319, fol. 232v, Alexander on his deathbed, fol. 235, Alexander in his tomb at Alexandria (represented in the same way as Eternal Jerusalem in seventeenth and eighteenth century Armenian Gospels) (Fig. 12); P291, fol. 179, Alexander on his deathbed.51 The artists Zak‘aria and Yakob Jułayec‘i in M5472 of ca. 1544, fol. 80, (Fig. 13) also have in mind miniatures of the Raising of Lazarus, for they show the soldiers covering their noses with their sleeves because of the stench of the corpse, a trait common to Armenian Gospel iconography of the thirteenth century in Cilicia, for example T‘oros Roslin’s rendering of the scene in Malatia Gospels of 1268 in Erevan.52 4. The reconciliation of Philip and Olympias, Alexander’s parents, J473, fol. 21; W319, fol. 32v, or the embrace of Philip and Alexander before the latter goes off to compete in the games at Pisa, W319, fol. 29v, recall the Visitation of Martha and the Virgin.53 5. The presenting of gifts (V424, fol. 20) or a crown to Alexander or Philip recalls gifts given to the Christ child in the Adoration of the Magi. 6. The royal pose of kings Philip, Alexander (Fig. 10), and Darius recalls that of Christ enthroned so prevalent in thirteenth century Cilician 49 For the banquet with ambassadors: V424, fol. 31, Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003; W442, fol. 12, Macler 1928, fig. 82; W319, fols. 56 and 209; P291, fol. 51v, respectively, Macler 1928, figs. 110, 172, 220. For Alexander’s betrayal at his banquet: V424, fol. 117, Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003, W319, fol. 223v, Macler 1928, fig. 182. 50 WAF32.18, Gospels copied in Hromkla, 85, 169, 373, 548, Der Nersessian 1963, figs. 77, 98, 141, 168 respectively. 51 For the Venice manuscript, Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003, fol. 7v; for the Vienna and Paris manuscripts, Macler 1928, successively figs. 188, 190, 308. I have discussed the representation of burial in the Alexander Romance in association with images of burial in Byzantine and Muslim representations of the fourteenth century: Kouymjian 2008, 129-131, figs. 6.8-6.10 52 M10675, formerly in Jerusalem, fol. 300v, Der Nersessian 1978, 134, fig. 97. 53 Macler 1928, pl. XXII, figs.100 and 99 respectively.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

161

manuscripts.54 There is also a resemblance to the Evangelists’ portraits of the same period among the many scenes of Alexander or Darius receiving envoys or writing letters (V424, fol. 32v [Fig. 14], fol. 78); while their thrones resemble those of Christ or the Virgin. 7. Individual miniatures echo comparable Biblical episodes: the sea monster of Alexander with the whale of the Jonah story; the destruction of Darius’s army crossing the Stranga in V424 (fols. 67, 69) but especially W319 (fol. 113v) with those of the Pharaoh’s troops crossing the Red Sea in the famous miniature of T‘oros Roslin; the soldiers and Roxanna around Alexander’s death bed (W319, fol. 232v) is like the crowd in the Dormition of the Virgin.55 Yet these parallel examples do not definitively demonstrate that the iconography of the Alexander Romance was inspired by Christian motifs. That is, the Gospel or Bible scenes seem not to be the source of the artists’ models, except perhaps in Mat. 5472. I do not wish to suggest, however, that the opposite might have been true: that the art of the Alexander cycle affected the Christian cycle. Though no work has been engaged in this direction, the late fourth century mosaic with the birth of Alexander, to be discussed below, and its resemblance to the Nativity begs the question of the influence of a pagan iconography on early Christian art. On the other hand it can be reasonably argued that the Alexander cycle influenced at least one secular set of manuscript paintings, namely the battle scenes with elephants in the few illustrations of the battle of Vardananc‘ in later manuscripts, such as the Hymnal (Šaraknoc‘) of 1482 (M1620, fols. 295v-296), or various

54 Examples are particularly striking from the most luxurious of the Armenian Alexander manuscripts, V424, but also from the fourteenth century Byzantine Alexander in the Hellenic Institute, Venice, for which see Xyngopoulos 1966. In addition to our Fig. 4 from V424, fol. 26, there are many others from that manuscript: fols. 14v, 26, 30. 32v, 42, 67v, 74, suggesting an aristocratic patron for the manuscript. Among the miniatures of Christ enthroned one can cite the following Cilician examples reproduced in Der Nersessian 1978: Gregory of Narek before Christ, M1568, fol. 177v, of 1173, fig. 89; Christ and Donor, J1796, fol. 288v, of the twelfth century, fig. 90; Last Judgment, M10675, fol. 89v of 1268, fig. 93; Christ and the royal family, Queen Keran Gospels, J2563, fol. 380, of 1272, fig. 107; Christ enthroned and Virgin with Prince Vasak and family, Prince Vasak Gospels, J2568, fol. 320, of the thirteenth century, fig. 109; Christ and donor, Gospels of 1316, J1950, fol. 16v, fig. 117. 55 For V424, Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003, and Macler 1928, figs. 34, 36; for W319, fol. 113v, Macler 1928, fig. 142. The Crossing of the Red Sea in J2027, fol. 4v, Ritual of 1266, Der Nersessian 1978, 132, fig. 95; for W319, fol. 232v, Macler 1928, fig. 188.

162

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

scenes in the illustrated History of Agat‘angełos of 1569-1570 (M1920, fols. 250v, 183v).56 A final example will, I hope, underline the danger of facile comparison between the representations of similar subjects in the Romance and the Gospels. There is at the beginning of the Pseudo-Callisthenes a nativity: the birth of Alexander (Figs. 8-9, 15-16). The scene as painted by Grigoris of Ałt‘amar in 1536 (J473, fol. 17) (Fig. 8) looks like a standard Nativity with Olympias replacing the Virgin, Alexander, Christ, and Nectanebos, in place of Joseph. Bishop Zak‘aria a few years later, in 1538-44 (M5472) also rendered the scene by using Gospel iconography of the birth of Jesus. But these are exceptions to the standard Armenian representations of Alexander’s birth. V424 (fol. 8) (Fig. 9), BER805 (fol. 8v) (Fig. 15), MCR3 (fol. 11v), W319 (fol. 19v),57 and M7677 (fol. 13) copied in Constantinople in 1695, all preserve a more primitive version of Alexander’s birth, inspired, according to David Ross, by the Egyptian custom of using a birth chair on which the mother sits to conceive. Ross believes this detail to have been artistically established in Alexandria according to local tradition and dates the iconography back to the first illustrated version of the fourth century. The text of the Greek alpha recension and the Armenian version are explicit on this detail: ‘And when the fixed birth span of nine months for the completion of the pregnancy had come to an end, Olympias went and sat on the childbearing throne to give birth’.58 This scene (Fig. 16), slightly modified, appears along with three others from the Alexander cycle already in the fourth-fifth century villa mosaics from Baalbek, studied in detail by Ross, demonstrating that the Armenian cycle guards elements of the original iconography.59 Theoretically, many traditions could have influenced the Armenian artist of V424. In the conclusion of her study of the manuscript, Veronese suggests that Armenian art of the period, including this manuscript, was highly eclectic and took from both East and West. The western tradition 56 For M1620, Mutafian 1999, 89, fig. III.40; Durand, Rapti, Giovannoni 2007, 74-75, no. 15. For M1920, Kouymjian 2007b, 165, fig. Battle of Avarayr, 171, fig. King Trdat and Emperor Constantine. The latter scene can be conveniently compared to V424, fols. 89v-90, Battle between Alexander and King Poros, illustrated in ibid., 177 fig. 57 Illustrated in Kouymjian 1999, figs. 1-4, and in Macler 1928, under the respective folios for V424 and W319. 58 Wolohojian 1969, 32, paragraph 25. 59 Ross, 1963, reprinted in Ross 1985; citing Weitzman he also points out that this iconography was common in classical times for the birth of a god. The mosaic is now more commonly dated to the late fifth, early sixth century than Ross‘s fourth century.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

163

entered Armenia through the close contacts and intermarriage of the Armenian nobility of Cilicia with its Crusader counterpart from France and later Jerusalem and Cyprus, while Byzantine art was a constant source of inspiration for Armenian painting from the sixth century on. The oriental elements in various miniatures of the Venice manuscript, for instance Near Eastern clothing, especially the turbans reserved for Persians, are present in the Byzantine Alexander of the Hellenic Institute and in Crusader miniatures as well as contemporary Islamic works. But such apparel was already part of Armenian art and life in the tenth century as witnessed by relief sculpture from the tenth century churches of Ałt‘amar, Hałbat, and Ani.60 Stylistically relating the miniatures of V424 to Byzantine art, particularly to the Paleologan period, with perhaps a substratum going back to Armenian borrowings from the tenth and eleventh centuries, though possibly correct, does not advance the search for more direct antecedents. Unlike most Armenian manuscripts, I repeat we do not know the date, the place of execution, or the artist of this earliest illustrated Alexander. To propose, for instance, Trebizond requires more than a stylistic similarity, for as Veronese has well observed, we must explain how an Armenian scribe copied the manuscript there. It would be easier to posit the existence of a Byzantine manuscript in the Armenian scriptorium responsible for the production of Venice 424. In this respect the ancillary disciplines of paleography and codicology may help. The defective Venice manuscript was restored in Padua in 1972-1974 and valuable codicological data may have been lost.61 I have undertaken a paleographic examination of the principal text in black ink and tried to compare it with other late thirteenth and early fourteenth century manuscripts studied during research for the Album of Armenian Paleography authored by Michael Stone, Henning Lehmann, and myself.62 60 For convenient examples, Der Nersessian 1978, figs. 54, 58 for early tenth century usage at the church of the Holy Cross, Ałt‘amar; fig. 73 for the monastery of Hałbat, tenth century. 61 To the best of my knowledge the manuscript had never been thoroughly described before its restoration and had not (and I believe still has not) been included in the published volumes of the Mekhitarists Library manuscript catalogue. Veronese 1992, 10-15, offers the most complete physical description, but see also Simonyan 1989, 51-2, and of course now the new facsimile edition with a massive critical apparatus and a complete list of the 112 surviving miniatures or fragments, to which one should add the four miniatures or fragments of the two folios from the Venice manuscript now with the Vienna Mekhitarists, W442: Traina, Franco, Kouymjian, Veronese Arslan 2003. 62 Stone, Kouymjian, Lehmann 2002, and 2006 for the Armenian translation.

164

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Nersēs the scribe’s minuscule (bolorgir) resembles very much that used at the very beginning of the fourteenth century in the Armenian monastery of Glajor.63 It was a famous center of learning in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It had an excellent scriptorium and produced wellillustrated manuscripts, including the recently published Glajor Gospels of 1300-1307 by a team of artists the most famous of whom was T‘oros of Tarōn.64 Certain representations, especially portraits of the kings in the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Matthew, pages 28-33 (Fig. 17),65 offer an echo of the way king Alexander was sometimes treated in the Venice manuscript. Should this attribution to Glajor prove to be correct it would place the production of the manuscript in Greater Armenia, outside the immediate sphere of the Cilician kingdom, the major center of painting in the late thirteenth century, and still rather distant from Trebizond. Furthermore, it would underline the affinities with Armenian monasteries in the northwest, such as Erznka where miniature painting in the second half of the thirteenth century, at least in the famous Bible of 1269 as discussed above, has a general feeling vaguely akin to the Venice manuscript (Fig. 3).66 V424 also shows some kinship with Armenian illumination from the Crimea in the early fourteenth century when a previously established community was being reinforced by further immigration from Greater Armenia.67 A localization of the copying and painting of the Mekhitarist History of Alexander in one of the northern monasteries of Armenia seems a very reasonable supposition, and a date in the early fourteenth century also most likely. This does not, however, help us much with the prototype of the manuscript or the origin of its painted cycle. Many illustrations used in manuscripts of the Armenian Alexander must go back to the origin of the picture cycle itself. What were the 63 In particular the bolorgir script of the scribe Yunan in a manuscript copied at Glajor in 1334 reproduced by Garegin Yovsēp‘ean 1969, 107, figs. 90-91. 64 Mathews and Sanjian 1991. For a detailed review of the study see Kouymjian 1992-1993. 65 LSU1, 28-33, Mathews and Sanjian 1991, figs. 28-33. 66 J1925, Erznka Bible of 1269, for instance, fol. 241 (our Fig. 3), Job and his friends who wear crowns and garments similar to those in the V424 and seated on thrones or benches resembling those in the Romance, Narkiss and Stone 1979, 72, fig. 86. 67 Heide and Helmut Buschhausen have been attracted by this notion believing strongly and with some evidence that Byzantine Trebizond would have been a gateway city to the Crimea. Personal communication as in note 27 above. On Armenian immigration into the Crimea see, e.g. Mik‘aelyan 1964, Schütz 1980, Xačikjan 2009 (Russian translation of Xač‘ikyan 1980, repr. in Xačikyan 1999); on artistic achievements also Korxmazjan 1978, Stone 1997, Buschhausen & Korchmasjan 2009.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

165

artistic or textual chains that linked the oldest illustrated Armenian version (V424) to fourth century iconography during the 800 years that separate them? Except for the Baalbek mosaic and the few miniatures in the eleventh century manuscript of the Pseudo-Oppian discussed above, and the textual information for the birth chair used by Olympias, we lack totally evidence that might help.68 The Armenian text follows the Greek alpha or original recension from which it was translated. There are only two surviving Greek alpha manuscripts and neither of them is illustrated.69 Therefore we are left with the study of the late cycles illustrating other versions of the text in the hope of localizing scenes iconographically similar to those in the Armenian group.70 Recent comparison to Serbian manuscripts of the Alexander Romance might provide some new insights.71 Furthermore, later Armenian manuscripts with an extensive cycle, such as W319 of 1694 with its 100 miniatures, or P291 of 1708-1712 with its 118 miniatures, seem either to follow a cycle different from the Venice manuscript or else their images have been dramatically infiltrated by later non-Armenian iconography. All the miniatures of only three Armenian manuscripts have been published (V424, W319, P291). For the moment it appears that there is not a singular tradition in the miniature cycle. But until all illustrated codices are properly described and studied, I am not sure we will be able to reach any firm conclusions on the history of the cycle or cycles of the Armenian Alexander or the origins of the iconography. The subject is wide open to basic research. Hopefully, younger art historians will take up the challenge.

68 69 70 71

See Weitzmann in note 48 above. Principally P grec 1771, see a full discussion in Ross 1988, 6 ff. See fuller discussion in Kouymjian 1999, 102-04. Kampouri-Vamvoukou 2000.

166

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 1 Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, History of Alexander the Great, c. 1300, fol. 27, Alexander with the statue of “his father” Nectanebus in Egypt. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

167

Fig. 2 Mount Athos, Monastery of Dionysion, Chrysobull of Alexis III Komnenus, 1374. Photo courtesy of Helmut Buschhausen.

168

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 3 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, J1925, Erzinjan Bible, 1269, fol. 241. Job discussing his fate with three friends. Photo after Narkiss and Stone, 1979

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

169

Fig. 4 Venice, Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post Byzantine Studies, Gk. No. 5, Romance of Alexander the Great, mid-fourteenth century, fol. 142. A message from Candice is read to Alexander. Photo Wikimedia Commons.

170

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 5. Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, c. 1300, fol. 76v. Besos and Zarivardan crucified over the tomb of Darius. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

171

Fig. 6. Manchester, John Rylands Library, MCR3, Constantinople, 1544, fol. 96v. Besos and Zarivardan crucified over the tomb of Darius. Photo John Rylands Library.

172

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 7. Erevan, Matenadaran, M5472, Rome, 1538-1544, p. 161. Crucifixion of Besos and Zarivardan. Photo Matenadaran.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

173

Fig. 8. Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, J473, Varag Monastery, 1536, fol. 17. Nectanebos adoring the birth of Alexander. Photo Dickran Kouymjian.

174

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 9. Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, c. 1300, fol. 8. Birth of Alexander. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

Fig. 10. Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, c. 1300, fol. 30. Alexander orders the crucifixion of the ambassadors of Darius. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

175

176

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 11. Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, c. 1300, fol. 117. Alexander feeling sick (because of poison) while dinning with his soldiers. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

177

Fig. 12. Vienna, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, W319, Constantinople, 1694, fol. 235. Ptolemy erects a tomb for Alexander at Alexandria. Photo after H. and H. Buschhausen.

178

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 13. Erevan, Matenadaran, M5472, Rome, 1538-1544, fol. 80. Burial of Darius. Photo Matenadaran.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

Fig. 14. Venice, Mekhitarist Brotherhood, V424, c. 1300, fol. 32v. Darius writes to his satraps Vshtasp and Spandiatar. Photo courtesy of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood.

179

180

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 15. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Or.805, Sebastia, 1535, fol. 8v. Birth of Alexander. Photo Staatsbibliothek.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

181

Fig. 16. Beirut, Archaeological Museum, mosaic from Baalbek, c. 500. Birth of Alexander. Photo Beirut Archaeological Museum.

182

DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN

Fig. 17. Los Angeles, UCLA Arm. No. 1, Glajor Gospels of 1300-1307, p. 30. Genealogy of Christ from Salmon to Solomon. Photo after Mathews and Sanjian 1991.

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54 HENNING LEHMANN

The 14th century Armenian manuscript, No. 54 of the Galata Collection, has already rendered great services to Patristic scholarship1. For the study of Severian of Gabala two centones, consecutively placed on pages 363-375 and 375-384 of the manuscript, are of particular importance. I have given a description of the first cento attributed to ‘Severian of Emesa’2 in my contribution to the Berbérian Memorial Volume (Lehmann 1986). The second cento is briefly presented in my Philadelphia paper of 19793. The purpose of what follows is to give a more extensive presentation of the contents of this collection of quotations from Severian and their original contexts as well as their contribution to the definition of a final corpus Severiani and the character of the cento as a ‘florilege homily’ concentrating on collecting – and separating – biblical testimonies to the economy of salvation and to the divine nature and dignity of Christ. It should be noted at the outset that the collector of this cento takes great care in quoting both title and incipit of each homily and also in separating the single quotations from one another through such formulae as: եւ յետ յոլովից (and after a long passage); եւ յետ սակաւուց (and after a short passage); եւ յետ այլոց (and after other things). I use the siglum G to designate the manuscript, MS Galata, No. 54. 1. ONE QUOTATION FROM THE HOMILY De matre filiorum Zebedaei (CPG 4249) This first quotation in the cento derives from the homily published in 1913 by Hermann Jordan as the ‘29. Stück’ in his collection of Armenian

1 I am mainly referring to the fragments from Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses and Epideixis, published in Renoux 1978. For a description of the manuscript, see Renoux’s introduction, pp. 13ff. A full description (in Armenian) is found in Kiwlēsērean 1961, 311-348. 2 On this attribution, see Lehmann 1986, 480 (cf. Lehmann 2008, 97-98), and Lehmann 1975, 147ff. 3 Lehmann 1982, 117ff (cf. Lehmann 2008, 72ff).

184

HENNING LEHMANN

Irenaeus fragments.4 The title of the homily is identical with that given by Jordan, but the incipit is different. The first word in the Galata text is վկայիցն; in the second word there is a lacuna; supposedly the word is արիւն, the two words together meaning ‘the blood of the martyrs’. I take the difference of the incipits to mean that Jordan’s text is incomplete, but I have not been able to trace any homily, whether in Greek or Armenian, with an incipit corresponding to that of G. Therefore I have no basis for determining, how large the initial lacuna of Jordan’s text is, let alone filling it. The text comprises 34 lines of Jordan’s edition (32, l. 9 –33, l. 19; German translation: 182-184, ll. 102-142). Briefly summarized the quotation concentrates on the economy of salvation being the reason why Jesus exercises human will and reacts to human manifestations of will. In particular, this is illustrated through references to Jesus’ question to the mother of the sons of Zebedee: What is it you wish? (Mt. 20:21) and the leper’s words to Jesus: If you will… (Mt. 8:2).5 There are only few variant readings in G compared with Jordan’s text. I shall here list the three most important ones: 1. After the first five words: եւ նա ասէ, զինչ կամիս6 (And he said: What is it you wish?) G in addition to Jordan has an extra line emphasizing the paradox inherent in the economy of salvation: որ զխորհուրդսն տեսանէ, հարցանէր, զինչ կամիս. (He who sees the thoughts (of men) asked: What is it you wish?). I presume the reason of the variation to be omission through homoioteleuton in Jordan’s text. 2. The Armenian word for οἰκονομία is in Jordan the ‘classical’ word տնտեսութիւն (32,20), whereas G has տնաւրէնութիւն, which must – as a ‘calque’ of the Greek word divided into its ‘elements’: οἶκος = տուն + νόμος = աւրէնք – be considered a ‘philhellene’ feature. However, there is otherwise in G no particular relation with what is traditionally included under ‘philhellene’ translation technique. I would therefore take this element rather to be an interesting example of a translational choice illustrating that the passage from one stage or school of translation to another in old Armenia was a gradual one, or that a copyist’s habit of rendering a word could have been the decisive factor for the choice of word in the text, as it now appears.

4 5 6

Jordan 1913. In both cases the verb of the Greek New Testament is θέλω. Jordan 1913, 32, 9f.

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54

185

3. Finally, it should be mentioned that G supports Jordan’s conjecture: լոյս (= light) instead of յոյս (= hope).7 Jordan was well aware of the impossibility of maintaining that Irenaeus should be the author. To some extent inspired by Nerses Akinian, the well-known Mechitharist scholar, he considers Severian as a more probable choice.8 A few years after the publication of Jordan’s book G. Dürks argued more extensively for Severian’s authorship,9 and this attribution has been generally accepted.10 2. ONE QUOTATION FROM THE HOMILY In natale Domini Iesu Christi (CPG 4657) The quotation corresponds to the following lines in the Greek version: PG 61,764, l. 3 from the bottom – 765, l. 16: αἱ μαῖαι ἐψηλάφων … μὴ φθαρῆναι (18 lines in all). In the Armenian parallel to be found in MSS Jerusalem 1 and 154, however, there is a supplementary paragraph inserted after the first seven lines of the Migne text (i.e. after ἀνθρωπίνης, PG 61,765, l. 3). G does not have the whole paragraph of the Jerusalem witnesses, but it has one extra phrase here, viz. the following: Քրիստոս ծնեալ ի կուսէ առանց մարդկային սերման (Christ [was] born by the virgin without the semen of a man).11 The supplementary paragraph in the Jerusalem manuscripts adds references to Eve’s ‘birth’ out of Adam, Moses’ striking the rock to make water pour out, and Habakkuk bringing food to Daniel as forebodings of the miracle of the immaculate (conception and) birth. Where the text is present in both G and the Jerusalem manuscripts, the amount of variations is very small, mainly of an orthographic kind. Because of the surplus G could be seen as representing the same line of transmission as the Jerusalem witnesses. On the other hand there is no formula of the type referred to above to divide the quotation in two and ascertain an omission, and as the surplus is of so modest volume, and as there are on the whole only few and small variations between G and Migne, it might be considered, whether G belongs rather to the tradition behind the Greek text as known today. 7

Cf. Jordan 1913, 183, note 8. Jordan 1913, 190ff. 9 Dürks 1922, 64-69. 10 See e.g. Zellinger 1926, 73, and CPG, vol. 2 (Geerard 1974) on CPG 4249. 11 Cf. Lehmann 1982, 114 (cf. Lehmann 2008, 68f). 8

186

HENNING LEHMANN

Briefly summarized the fragment preaches the miracle of the incarnation seen as the incorruptible entering of the Son of God into the earthly life of mankind. For questions about authorship etc. I refer to my comments elsewhere.12 In my view the presence of the quotation in the Galata cento is an additional and fairly strong external testimony of Severian’s authorship. 3. ONE QUOTATION FROM THE HOMILY De Iesu dormiente in navicula (CPG 4699) This fragment finds its parallel in PG 64,21, ll. 26-37: ἐκάθευδεν ὁ κύριος οἰκονομικῶς … πρὸς τὴν προσκύνησιν ἐπιστρέφοντα. In Migne’s edition the homily has a very long, double title: Quod mari similis sit haec vita, et in illud, cum Iesus ascendit in naviculam cum discipulis suis, et obdormivit. The very short quotation (corresponding to 11 lines in Migne) emphasizes Jesus’ knowledge about the tempest to come and his power to still it (Mt. 8:23-27). However, the incarnation as an element in the economy of salvation implies that both Jesus’ disciples and nature (wind and sea) are allowed to act on the basis of either belief or doubt, after which the disciples can learn their lesson, and nature can be brought from its state of unrest into the harmony of worship. B. Marx proposed Proclus of Constantinople as the author of this text.13 F. J. Leroy, however, showed that the attribution to Proclus of a great number of pseudo-Chrysostomic homilies suggested by Marx is untenable in many cases.14 As far as this homily is concerned, Marx only refers to the comparison between Jesus asleep in the boat and the holy child at rest in Mary’s womb. For such a short text as this homily (very probably an abbreviation of the original) the amount of internal criteria must necessarily be small. Yet, a few elements that point in the direction of Severianic authorship should be mentioned. In PG 49,328 and 52,819 (CPG 4186 and 4188, resp.) there are parallels to the way in which David’s sin is described in PG 64,21f. The way in which the author refers to an imminent risk of barbarian invasion might be parallelled with corresponding elements in 12 Lehmann 1982, 114f and 119, and Lehmann 1995, 221f and 225ff (cf. Lehmann 2008, 68ff, 74, 155ff, 166ff). 13 Marx 1940, 73. 14 Leroy 1967, chapter 6 and passim.

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54

187

genuine Severian texts pointed at by Zellinger.15 In particular, however, it would be appropriate to underline that the repeated description of Jesus’ sleep being οἰκονομικῶς and not κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεότητος ἀξίαν is in line with the principal argument in the other Severianic texts of the Galata cento. This motif in its relationship with Jesus having authority over the elements of nature was in general singled out as belonging to the homiletic-exegetic thematics of Severian already by Zellinger, who refers to parallels both in the Genesis-homilies and in the Aucher collection.16 To such internal arguments should now be added the appearance of the quotation in the Galata cento adding an external argument, which to my mind bears a considerable weight. 4. FOUR QUOTATIONS FROM THE HOMILY In illud: Quomodo scit litteras (CPG 4201) These fragments, three very short quotations (nos. 1, 2 and 4), one somewhat longer (no. 3), correspond to the following sections in Migne: 1. (PG 59,645, ll. 58-61): Οὐ πάντα γὰρ … ἀπίστοις. 2. (PG 59,645, ll. 64-74): Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους … μαχομένους. 3. (PG 59,646, l. 42 – 647, l. 20): Ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ νομισθῇ … τὰ νοήματα. 4. (PG 59,647, l. 72 – 648, l. 3): Ἐλέγχει Ἰουδαίων … Θεῷ μάχεται. In content these quotations are closely related to those quoted in the earlier sections of the cento. Here the centonist first (in section 1) quotes Severian’s statement that Jesus’ words must be distributed so as to take some of them to be according to his dignity, others to have been meted out corresponding to our weakness. Then he chooses (as section 2) the paragraph about Jesus hiding his dignity to the Jews, to whom he only spoke about the dignity of the Father. Yet (section 3), ‘Son’ is a name pointing towards both the divine and the human in Christ. 1 Jn. 1:7 points out that the Son participates in the sufferings of the body. Human death is death of the body, but in Mt. 10:17f. it is not specified that it is only the body that dies. Correspondingly He, who knows everything because 15 16

Zellinger 1926, 81ff. Zellinger 1926, 170f.

188

HENNING LEHMANN

of his divinity, can because of his human nature be described as being in need of knowledge, when the word is uttered according to the οἰκονομία (Arm. տնաւրէնութիւն), not according to τὸ τῆς θεότητος ἀξίωμα (Arm. աստուածութեան պատիւ). This then is the textual key to the fact (section 4) that the glory of the Son remained hidden to the Jews. This homily on Jn. 7:15 was attributed to Severian by B. Marx.17 This attribution was supported by H.-D. Altendorf,18 and to the best of my knowledge no objection has been raised to Severian’s authorship. Thus, with the supplementary external evidence of the Galata cento this homily can today be considered one of the texts most securely belonging to the bishop of Gabala. The amount of variants in relation to the Migne text is very modest. 5. ONE QUOTATION FROM THE HOMILY In crucem Domini et in Spiritum Sanctum et in Trinitatem (CPG 4196) This very short quotation finds its parallel in the following lines in Migne: (PG 56,504, l. 61 – 505, l. 6): Πλὴν ὅταν ἀκούσῃς σταυρὸν … ἀξία δὲ Θεοῦ δι’ ἑαυτόν. Once again the principal topic of the cento is presented; here the double formula of οἰκονομία and ἀξία (ἐξουσία) is applied to the awe which we owe the suffering and crucified Lord. The final phrase unites the two elements: the cross is (there) for our sake, God’s dignity is (there) for his own sake. External evidence for Severian’s author’s rights to this homily was not available until 1960, when J. Kirchmeyer pointed to the name of the author as given in MS Sin. gr. 493.19 On the other hand internal arguments at an early time of Patristic scholarship led to the right attribution. The historical names to be mentioned are Sirmond and Montfaucon, whose arguments were taken up and expanded in the 20th century, first by J. Zellinger,20 and later on by A. Wenger21 and H.-D. Altendorf.22 Thus, here the Galata cento can be said only to strengthen a strong case.

17 18 19 20 21 22

Marx 1939, see esp. 309-315. Altendorf 1957, 146-148. Kirchmeyer 1960, 18-23. Zellinger 1926, 27-34. Cf. Wenger 1956, 461. Altendorf 1957, 253f.

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54

189

The few lines of this fragment exhibit very few variations between the Greek and the Armenian, but the difference of title should of course be noted, the Galata cento having the title quoted above – as compared with the traditional one: De serpente, quam Moyses in cruce suspendit in deserto, deque divina trinitate. 6. TWO QUOTATIONS FROM THE HOMILY In verbum: Confiteor tibi, Pater Domine caeli et terrae, et in visionem Danielis (CPG 4295,17a) Quantitatively speaking, these two quotations represent more than half of the text of the cento. As, in addition, only a small fraction of this homily is known beforehand, viz. from a quotation in Syriac to be found in Severus of Antioch’s Liber contra impium Grammaticum23 and covering only a small fraction of the text of the Galata cento, G is here a witness of particular importance. The centonist of G harmoniously unites these quotations with the preceding half of the cento. Having used earlier on quotations concerned with Christ’s sufferings and ‘ignorance’, and having shown that these do not detract from his divinity, the question is now about Jesus praising the Father as Lord of Heaven and Earth. Is such a praise (or confession – cf. the confiteor of the title, Arm. խոստովանիմ, Gr. ἐξομολογοῦμαι, – Mt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21) not sign and proof of subordination? The answer is no, because again this subject must be seen in the light of the economy of salvation. First, Jesus’ praise of the Father must be understood as an example set for man(kind). Secondly, it must be remembered that the economy of salvation is prepared for the benefit of man. The source of immortality did not need a resurrection; the Saviour did not need a human body, nor a baptism of purification. It was man(kind) and nature who were in need; baptism was needed to purify, first the river of Jordan, and then (Christian) man. The next question raised concerns Jesus’ word in Jn. 11:25: ‘I am the Resurrection’. Is there not a problem in Jesus’ uttering this word before his resurrection, and is there not a contradiction with Paul’s word in Gal. 1:1 about the Father having raised the Son from the dead?

23 Lebon 1993a and 1933b. Cf. Wenger 1967, 219-234. Apart from the identification and publication of the Greek homily from which one of Severus’ quotations is taken, Wenger comments on the four Severian fragments quoted by Severus on pages 222ff.

190

HENNING LEHMANN

In fact, heretics have argued to that effect. The hermeneutic clue to the understanding of Paul must, however, be found in 2 Cor. 13:3; and as according to that apostolic word Christ speaks through apostles, we are once again led to the understanding that in the Bible certain passages are coined with relation to the incarnation (Arm. ի մարմնալոյն), whilst other passages elevate us to the level of the divine glory (Arm. ի պատիւ աստուածութեանն (G, 381, ll. 5f). The perspective, in which Jesus’ praise and confession should be seen, is the right distribution of the sayings of Jesus – between the divine and the human (Arm. տես զիարդ բաժանէ որպէս զինքն որոշէ, G, 381, l. 13). Neither should Jesus’ prayer about knowledge of God (cf. CPG 420124) induce us to forget his power (Arm. զաւրութիւն). The second quotation starts out from testimonials of the Old Testament. First Ps. 22 (21):10 is seen in combination with Isa. 49:1, the sequence of which, viz. Isa. 49:3 is then combined with the New Testament key text of Phil. 2:6f. The texts quoted are all about God, the Father, and about the divine birth which does not take place by virtue of a law of nature or a process of nature; neither does it add to or subtract from the eternal divinity of the Father – and the Son; and when, in Isa. 49:1-3 and Phil. 2:6f, the word ‘servant’ is used, this is about a function, which the Son takes upon him – in order to fulfil the economy of salvation. The next composition of Old and New Testament testimonials is taken from Heb. 1:7-9 and the Psalm quotations and allusions used there.25 The words about ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως (Ps. 45 (44):8; Heb. 1:9) refer to the Holy Ghost, but the rest of the passage of Hebrews is concerned with the Son being superior to any creature, including the angels; and both David and Isaiah testified to the eternal supremacy of the Son (Ps. 74 (73):12; Isa. 6:1:5). Heretics have voiced doubts as to whether the Biblical testimonies (in particular Isa. 6, maybe) should be taken about the Son. This is repudiated through a reference to Jn. 12:37f., 40f. The supremacy of the Son is from eternity, but he can also be said to be given the supremacy, viz.

24

Cf. above, section 4. It seems that this is the text to be preached about on the Sunday in question. This would be the natural understanding of Arm. այլ ի յառաջի կայ եկեսցուք (but let us get to what is in front [of us]), G, 381, l. 33). 25

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54

191

that belonging to the human economy of salvation (Arm. զարքայութիւնն … զմարդկային տնաւրէնութեանն), and that is what the Jews do not understand. Priorities can also be set in terms of age and time. A particular complementarity between such priorities and simultaneity relevant for language to be used about God can be taken from Gen. 2 when explaining, how Adam is older than Eve, because he was created first, and at the same time simultaneous with his woman, as she was made from a rib of his body. Transferred to the relationship between the Father and the Son, on one hand the Son described as Λόγος and Χριστός is ‘younger’ or ‘later’ than the Father. But it should be noted that in the logos-text par excellence: the prologue of the Gospel of John, the ‘simultaneity’ is the first thing to be shown: the Son was God from eternity, being ‘with the Father’. The image of Adam who could not possibly have had an offspring without his rib in the shape of a woman can support our understanding of the word that the Father did not create one thing without the Son (Jn. 1:3). The image of Adam can be used in three further ways: 1. Adam and Eve being two persons of one nature (or essence) (Arm. երկու անձինք եւ մի բնութիւն) corresponding to the central Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. 2. The unity as expressed through the woman being with Adam can be seen in parallel to the formula ‘God with God’. 3. The ‘superiority’ of the Father being the head of the Word can be seen in parallel to the description of Adam as the head of the woman. According to the body Christ is the head of man and of the same substance as man; he is therefore like us, because he is ‘of us’, and he is like the Father, because he is ‘of the Father’. Below, Severus’ quotation (in Lebon’s Latin translation = L) shall be set out in parallel with the Armenian text of G.26

26 Words in G abbreviated according to usual practice in Armenian manuscripts are rendered in their unabbreviated form.

192

HENNING LEHMANN

G (379, l. 33 – 380, l. 14) եւ եթէ ոք հաւաստեաւ կամիցի ասել եւ լսել, Քրիստոս վասն իւր ոչ եկն, ոչ չարչարեցաւ եւ ոչ յարեաւ, քանզի ոչինչ ի յայսցանէ պետս անէր աղբեւր անմահութեանն եւ ոչ ինչ նմայ ամբարի, այլ ամենայն մեզ շնո(ր)հի. երեւեցաւ յաղագս մեր իբրեւ զմարդ. ոչ մարդկային մարմնոյ կարաւտեալ, այլ զի զմարդկան բնութիւն ըստանայցէ վերստին, մկրտեցաւ ի յորդանան. եւa) զմեղս ի բաց դնելով, այլ զի ի բնութիւն ջրոցն զսրբութիւնն խառնեսցէ. եւ ոչ զի յայլմէ ի վեհագոյն զաւրութենէ սրբեսցի. այլ իւրով իսկ ձեւով մարդկութեանն, թեպէտ եւ թուէր մարդկութիւն ընդունելb) ինքն ինքեամբc) սրբէ, քանզի նորին է ձայն մեծի թագաւորին, եւ յաղագս սոցա սրբեմ զանձն, զի իցեն սոքայ սրբեալք ճշմարտութեամբ նորին աղագաւ եւ ճարճարի, զի զմեր ճարճարանսն լուծցէ, յաղագս նորին եւ յարեաւ, զի զմահ լուծցէ, վասն նորին յարեաւ ի մեռելոց. զի զմեզ յարուսցէ

L (237, l. 21-33) Et si quis accurate velit et loqui et audire: ipse Christus pro seipso neque venit, neque passus est, neque surrexit: nullo enim ex his indigebat fons immortalitatis; neque sibi quidquam lucratur, nam omnia nobis donat. Apparuit propter nos ut homo, non humana carne indigens, sed naturam humanam recuperans. Baptizatus est in Iordane, nona) peccata ponens, sed naturae aquae sanctificationem immiscens; neque praestantiori virtute sanctificabatur, sed in ipsa humanitatis specie, etsi baptizarib) videbatur, ipse seipsumc) sanctificabat. Ipsius enim magni Regis vox est: ‘Et pro eis ego sanctifico meipsum, ut sint et ipsi sanctificati in veritate’. Ideo etiam patitur, ut passionem nostram solvat; ideo reviviscit, ut mortem solvat; ideo resurgit, ut nos suscitet.d)

In general, the Syrian and the Armenian texts are very closely related. However, the following details and variant readings should be noted: (a) Here it would be natural to correct the Armenian according to the Syrian, adding: non. (b) Here – as compared with baptizari – the Armenian has ‘assume (accept) humanity’ (մարդկութիւն ընդունել). (c) Instead of the accusative case: seipsum (object), the Armenian has the instrumental case: ինքեամբ. (d) Here Lebon adds the note: Locum non repperi (presumably referring to the ‘quotation’ marked a couple of lines before the end of the passage). I suppose that further searching for the ‘source’ would yield no result, as I take the ‘quotation’ to be one of the examples, where Severian’s rhetoric style contains an element of ‘dramatizing’ through the use of ‘direct speech’, even where there is no source for the ‘line’ in question.27 27

Cf. Lehmann 1975, e.g. 13, 292ff, 336ff.

SEVERIAN CENTO NO. 2 IN MS GALATA 54

193

Neither of these differences points towards two different Greek texts, one behind each of the versions, but it would be particularly interesting to know the Greek lying behind the difference in (b). As to internal arguments for Severian’s author’s rights I would mainly point at the following features: First, it has been mentioned already that the passages quoted fit in very well in the main theme of the whole cento, and we have also pointed to the lines of connection with the homily CPG 4201. Secondly, e.g. Jn. 2:19 with its temple imagery is one of Severian’s favourite ‘Antiochene testimonials’ for the relation between divine and human in Christ, cf. e.g. PG 52,782 (CPG 4187); 52,830 (CPG 4189); 56,501 (CPG 4196); 59,672 (CPG 4203); Zell., Stud. 14f (CPG 4215). Correspondingly, 2 Cor. 13:3 is Severian’s favourite hermeneutical key to opening the door between the apostolic message and Jesus’ own words in the Gospels, referred to e.g. PG 49,323 (CPG 4186); 56,423 (CPG 4193); 56,473 (CPG 4194); 56,556 (CPG 4198); 59,700 (CPG 4204). The combination of Isa. 6:1ff and John 12:37ff (G, 382) taken to demonstrate that the Son was king of eternity, i.e. even before the incarnation, can be found in a close parallel, PG 55,605f (CPG 4190), whereas PG 56,510 (CPG 4196) is related, but slightly different, in so far as it takes Ps. 74 (73):12 (cf. G, 382, ll. 13ff) to be about the kingdom of the Father, Lk. 1:32 about the kingdom of the Son, and Isa. 6:1ff to be about the kingdom of the Holy Ghost. The difference between the two Greek parallels is not uncommon in Severian; it seems to belong to the ‘homiletic freedom’ to be expected,28 and the general character and contents of the passage in the Armenian quotation to my mind strengthens the case for Severian’s paternity. Therefore, besides the external evidence in Severus and the Galata cento, there are a number of internal testimonies in the quotations of the cento in the form of lines of connection with well-known Severian homilies. On the other hand, the fascination of this text, of course, lies in the additional material it contains. Thus e.g., to the best of my knowledge the interesting use of an Adam-Eve typology to describe how in the Trinity the relation can be determined both in terms of ‘before-after’ and of simultaneity – in parallel with the sequence of the elements in the prologue of John, is not to be found in any of the Severian texts known so far. 28

Cf. e.g. Lehmann 1995, 227 (cf. Lehmann 2008, 168), n. 40.

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN HRACH MARTIROSYAN1 1. PIE ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ The only reliably reconstructable Early Proto-Indo-European divinity is *diēus ‘Sky God’, the head of the PIE pantheon: Hitt. DŠiuš ‘Sun God’, Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’, tatiš Tiṷaz ‘father Tiwaz’; Skt. dyáuḥ, acc. dyā́m, loc. dyávi, diví ‘heaven, Sky God, day’, Dyáuṣ pitā́ ‘Father Sky’; Gr. Zεύς, voc. Ζευ̃, gen. Δι(ϝ)ός, dat.loc. Δι(ϝ)ί, dat. also Διϝεί, acc. Ζῆν, Zεὺς πατήρ; Lat. Iuppiter ‘father (D)iūs’, etc. The PIE word for ‘god’, *deiuos (cf. Skt. devá, Lat. deus, OIr. día, OPruss. deywis, Lith. diẽvas, etc.) was originally a thematic adjective constructed from the same root *dieu- ‘diurnal sky’, so the semantic development must have been: ‘the celestial one’ > ‘god’.2 The underlying appellative meaning ‘heaven, heavenly brilliance, day’ (cf. Skt. dívā ‘by day’, Lat. diēs ‘day’, etc.) is seen in Arm. tiw, GDLocSg tu-ənǰ-ean, LocSg i tuənǰean, i tu-ē; later o-stem: ISg təw-o-v ‘day’.3 1

I am grateful to the University of Michigan Armenian Studies Program‘s Manoogian Simone Foundation post-doctoral Fellowship that made the completion of this article possible. I am greatly indebted to Alison Marie Vacca and Kate Bellamy for checking my English. My special thanks go to Satenik Gharagyozyan for her indispensable technical assistance. I am further indebted to Benjamin Fortson, Rémy Viredaz and Armen Petrosyan for valuable suggestions. 2 For the forms and a discussion, see Pokorny 1959: 185; Neu 1974: 116-131; Watkins 1974; Toporov 1975: 318-326; Gurney 1977: 9-16; Haudry 1982: 23-27; 1987; 1988: 225-227; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 2: 791-792 = 1995, 1: 692-693; Dunkel 1991; Bader 1993; V. Haas 1994: 188-189, 243, 378; Schrijver 1995: 223, 256; Mallory and Adams 1997: 149b; 2006: 408-409; Matasović 2004: 82; West 2007: 166-173; Fortson 2010: 25. 3 See Hübschmann 1897: 498; HAB 4: 410, with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 185. It is tempting to derive tuənǰean from PArm. *tiw-ini- < *diu-(e)n-i-, in a way comparable to cognate formations in *-n- as Hitt. šiu-n(i)-, šiuniia- ‘divine’, etc., unless Hittite šiun- was abstracted from Old Hittite acc.sg. *šiun, cf. Gr. Ζην-, etc. (for a discussion of these forms, see Watkins 1974: 104ff; Neu 1974: 122ff; Starke 1990: 167 n.551; Kloekhorst 2008: 763-764; Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1: 100, 100 n.170). The Hittite form has been compared with Urart. Šiuini ‘Sun God’ (see Ivanov 1961: 323-324 n.84; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 2: 897 = 1995, 1: 793; Petrosyan 2002a: 248-249, and, especially,

196

HRACH MARTIROSYAN

It is uncertain whether this etymon is reflected in Armenian in the meaning ‘god’ and as a theonym.4 The derivation of Arm. di-k‘ ‘god’ from this PIE word is untenable.5 Arm. di-k‘ derives from IE *dheh1s-, cf. Gr. ϑεός ‘god’, Lat. fēriae < OLat. fēsiae ‘festival days’, fēstus ‘festive’, fānum < *fas-no-m ‘hallowed place’, Osc. fíísnú ‘templum’, etc.6 In the following, the appurtenance of the Armenian theonym Tir and the word astuac ‘god’ to PIE *diēus is discussed. In the final two sections, I present two possible traces of PArm. *Tiw ‘Sky God’. 2. THE ARMENIAN THEONYM TIR The Armenian scribe/writer god was identified with the Greek Apollo. His name has two spellings: Tir and Tiwr. During the last few decades it has frequently been claimed that this Armenian theonym reflects the PIE word, namely that Tiwr is the original variant and is identical to OIc. Týr.7 However, the final -r of the Old Icelandic theonym comes from *-z < *-s through rhotacism.8 Furthermore, the original form of this Armenian theonym is Tir, as is clearly seen from the genitive Tri dic‘ “of the god Tir” attested in Agat‘angełos § 778; the variant reading Tiwr dic‘ is only found in the Venice 1835 and T‘iflis 1883 editions and is not confirmed by any direct manuscript testimony,9 whereas Tri dic‘ is corroborated by Τρίδις in the Greek version of Agat‘angełos.10 Petrosyan 2009). The relationship between Urart. Šiuini and Hurr. Šimigi (on m vs. u, see Furnée 1972: 244 n.3) is unclear. 4 Cf. Harut‘yunyan 1987: 53-54, involving also a hypothetical *Erk-. 5 O. Haas 1940: 104; Ananikian 1964: 13-14; Harut‘yunyan 1987 ibid. 6 However, a contamination is perhaps possible (note the epenthetic -w- in diw-c‘-; cf. also dew ‘spirit, demon’), see J̌ahukyan 1992: 17; cf. Abeɫyan 1985: 41-42. 7 Ałayan 1974: 148; 1986: 61-62; Aɫabekyan 1979: 60; K‘oč‘aryan 2001: 290; Petrosyan 2002a: 249-250; 2006a: 44; Baṙnasyan 2006: 345-346. 8 See, e.g., Lehmann 1986: 352b; Puhvel 1987: 198-200. 9 Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘ 1909 = Thomson 1980: 404, note to line 9; see also Thomson 1976a: 316-317, 483 n.778.4; Russell 1987: 292. 10 Justi 1895: 325; Gelzer 1896: 109-110; Bart‘ikyan and Ter-Łewondyan 1973, 1: 38a, 2: 38a = Bart‘ikyan 2002, 1: 293a, 304a; P. Xač‘atryan 1990: 82. Even if the reading Tiwr proves reliable, the -w- should be regarded as secondary, cf. kšiṙ, obl. kšṙ-o- ‘scales; weight’ (Bible+; dialectally ubiquitous) : kšiwṙ in Chapter 19 of Assizes of Antioch (Ališan 1876: 79L-7), translated by Smbat Sparapet, 13th cent. (HAB 2: 611a); earlier, in Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent., we find kšiwṙ, var. kšiṙ (Abrahamyan 1940: 41L12). Further examples: čiṙ ‘small bunch of grapes’ (Bible+; dialects) : MidArm. čiwṙ (HAB 3: 201202; MHB 2, 1992: 88b); sp‘iṙ- (*p‘iṙ-, p‘ṙ-) : sp‘iwṙ- (HAB 4: 287b, 531a). For these and other examples, see Karst 1901: 26 (§ 10b and especially footnote 2) = 2002: 34-35. However, I know of examples only with -ɫ and -ṙ, but not -r.

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN

197

Most probably, Arm. Tir is an Iranian loanword.11 The direct equation Arm. Ti(w)r : OIc. Týr should therefore be abandoned. Nevertheless, one should perhaps not exclude the possibility that the theonym Ti(w)r is a blend of Armenian *Tiw and Iranian Tīr(ī).12 The native Proto-Armenian deity *Tiw must have denoted ‘Heavenly Light, Sunny Day, Sunshine God, Thunder God’ or the like. I hope to discuss this theonym in greater detail elsewhere. 3. ARM.

ASTUAC ‘GOD’

Arm. astuac, o-stem ‘god’13 is widely represented in Classical Armenian and in dialects (HAB 1: 279-282). Some dialects display a sound change -tw- > -(t)p: Zeyt‘un asb‘ɔj (vs. Hačən asvɔj), gen. asuju (Ačaṙyan 2003: 299); Hamšen aspaj (Vaux 2000-2001: 56; Vardanyan 2009: 275, 343), Akn asvaj and asbaj (HAB 1: 282a), gen. astǝju, instr. astǝjɔv, abl. astuzmɛ (Gabriēlean 1912: 242); Van aspac (uninflected), astvac, gen. astǝcu, abl. astǝcucʻ (Ačaṙyan 1952: 119, 247); Moks aspac (vs. Kümir astvac, Cap‘anc‘ asvac), gen. asu (mainly by women), ascu, astəcu (Orbeli 2002: 206). For the sound development -dv- > -db- (assimilation of plosiveness), cf. Zeyt‘un nidb‘aɫɛɫ from *net-u-aɫeɫn ‘arrow and bow’.14 Simplification of the consonant cluster is also visible through the loss of the internal dental stop, -sdb- > -sb-, compare, e.g., vardapet ‘teacher, religious master; master, chief of craftsmen’ > vardpet > dial. varpet ‘craft master; home teacher’.15 The 11 Emin 1864: 20; Justi 1895: 325; Gelzer 1896: 109; Taławarean 1909: 73-75; Ačaṙyan 1940-51, Vol. 1: 308; Ačaṙyan 1972, Vol. 5: 155, 169; Ananikian 1964: 29-33; Russell 1987: 289-321; Ishkol-Kerovpian 1986: 138-141; J̌ahukyan 1987: 579, 581, 582; 1992: 26. For a discussion, see also Eilers 1976: 43-50. 12 Petrosyan 2006a: 44-45; 2007: 184. 13 The loss of -a- in the oblique forms (gen. astucoy, instr. astucov) is usually ascribed to the Middle Armenian period (Karst 1901: 43 = 2002: 49; Meillet 1913: 20; 1936: 22; Schmitt 1981: 42; Olsen 1999: 545; for an extensive discussion, see HAB 1: 279-280). Pedersen (1904: 133; 1906: 239-240 = 1982: 5-6, 107-108) argues against this view and treats astucoy as archaic. Muradyan (1982: 74, 79) prefers a dialectal explanation. 14 Typologically, cf. IE *londhuo- > Lat. lumbus ‘hips, loins’ (de Vaan 2008: 352). 15 See Ačaṙean 1898: 372; HAB 4: 320b. The dialectal forms of vardapet which preserve -da- intact have a religious meaning (in contrast with varpet, which means ‘craft master’ and ‘home teacher’) and are correctly treated by Ačaṙyan (HAB ibid.) as borrowings from the religious language. Kossian (1994) separates the dialectal varpet from the Classical Armenian vardapet. For varpet he posits a borrowing from Hieroglyphic Luwian warpi- ‘skill, knowledge’, to which, he assumes, -pet was later added in analogy with vardapet. In my opinion, this is gratuitous. The derivation of varpet < vardpet from

198

HRACH MARTIROSYAN

genitive form astucoy > astcoy has been simplified in dialects to astu, assu, asju, etc.16 A considerable number of etymologies have been proposed for Arm. astuac. Nevertheless, many scholars still consider this word to be etymologically obscure. One of the most popular theories is the comparison of astuac with the Thraco-Phrygian theonym Σαβάζιος first suggested by Marr.17 J̌ahukyan18 also involves the Urartian theonym Šebitu, as well as Hitt. Aštabi, a god who was venerated in the land of Halpa and in the city of Tuwata. In order to explain the development from Σαβάζιος to astuac, Marr (1911: 769-774) assumes a number of groundless steps such as *sab- > *asb- > *asv- > *astv-. It should be noted that he explicitly takes the dialectal forms asboc etc. as older than the classical form astuac, which is not correct.19 The etymology should thus be abandoned. It is evident that the dialectal forms are easily explicable within the framework of Armenian-internal developments. Arm. astuac has also been compared to other theonyms and epithets from Asia Minor, Iran and the Caucasus.20 Many other etymologies have also been proposed.21

vardapet through syncope of the internal -a- is impeccable. The syncope of a medial -a- in polysyllables (see Karst 1901: 42-46 = 2002: 48-53; Martirosyan 2010: 549) is abundantly observable in dialects, as well as in inscriptions and colophons especially from the 10th century onwards (Avagyan 1973: 81-94; Muradyan 1982: 68-74, 76-79; J̌ahukyan 1997: 15-16, 30). The intermediary form vardpet, albeit marked by Ačaṙyan (1898: 372b) with an asterisk, is also frequently attested in inscriptions with the meaning ‘craft master, stonemason, architect’ and should be regarded as the immediate predecessor of dialectal varpet ‘craft master’ (Barxudaryan 1963: 18-27 et passim; Avagyan 1973: 89-90, 342). For an attestation in colophons, see J̌ahukyan 1997: 30. 16 HAB 1: 282a. 17 Marr 1911: 759; see also Adonc‘ 1911: 394; Leo 1, 1966 [< 1917]: 268-269; Durean 1933: 107-109; Łap‘anc‘yan 1945: 159-160; 1947: 85, 98, 163, 217, 237, 245; 2008: 50, 69; Kapancjan 1956: 279, 289, 290, 309; Lisic‘yan 1969: 258-259; J̌ahukyan 1970: 116; Vardumjan 1991: 74-75. 18 Džaukyan 1985: 370; J̌ahukyan 1986: 52; 1988, 2: 71. 19 Pace Dalalyan 2006: 46-48. For an essentially correct analysis, see Matikean 1920: 170-171. 20 See Marr 1912; V. Xač‘atryan 1967: 76-78; Mkrtschjan 1974: 314; Abaev 1978: 45; Schmidt 1980: 37; Greppin 1983: 304; Bailey 1986; Dalalyan 2006: 46-48. 21 See Patrubány 1897: 143; Matikean 1920: 168-171; Heubeck 1953; 1953a; Pisani 1961; Ananikian 1964: 13-14, 380; Schmitt 1972-74: 23; Eilers 1976: 57 n.134; Greppin 1983: 304; Hilmarsson 1983; Hamp 1984; Simonyan 1984: 229-230; J̌ahukyan 1987: 274, 435; Russell 1987: 174-175; de Lamberterie 1992: 105-106 n.30; Olsen 1999: 545-546; Holst 2009: 167. For older references and an extensive philological and etymological discussion, see HAB 1: 279-282.

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN

199

Pisani (1950: 181 n.4) suggests a compound with the PIE word for ‘god’ which is the main subject of this paper: *iaĝi-diṷ-aĝ- ‘sanctus deus’, with *aĝ- > -ac ‘to bring, lead, move’; for the first component, cf. Skt. yájati ‘to honour, sacrifice’, Gr. ἅγιος ‘holy, sacred’, etc. J̌ahukyan (1992: 16-17, 23; cf. 1988a: 156) assumes a similar compound but links the first component with Arm. ays ‘wind, (evil) spirit’, Skt. ásura- ‘god, lord, name of a group of gods’, PGerm. *ansuz ‘god’, etc. Hambarjumyan (2002; 2002a) also agrees on the *diṷ- part but invokes a number of other connections, most of which are untenable. It should be noted that the connection of the -tu- part of astuac to this PIE word for ‘god’ was first proposed by K. Šahnazarean in 1864 (see HAB 1: 281a). Later, J̌ahukyan (2000)22 assumes a compound with the same component -ac < *aĝ- ‘to bring, lead, move’ and, as the first member, *ast-iw, a derivative of the stem *ast ‘power, might’, connecting the latter with hastem ‘to affirm, assert, create’. The basic meaning of astuac ‘god’ is therefore, according to this etymology, ‘creator’.23 This interpretation, although worthy of consideration, is unconvincing: the h-less variant of the stem, ast-, does not mean ‘to create’. Furthermore, the philological status and the origin of the formation *ast-iw are obscure. Compare also hastuac ‘creation, fabrication’ (and not ‘creator’) in the famous wordplay with astuac ‘god’ in Agatʻangełos § 71.24 None of the etymologies are entirely satisfactory. In my view, the comparison with Hitt. aššu- ‘good’ and Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’ (from our PIE word for ‘diurnal sky, god, Sky God’) suggested by Xačaturova (1979: 373-374) deserves particular attention.25 The existence of a compound *Aššu-Tiṷaz may be corroborated, I think, by Hitt. aššušiṷatt- ‘good day’ (cf. Ved. su-dyút- ‘having magnificent lustre’).26 Hitt. I am indebted to T. Dalalyan for indicating J̌ahukyan’s article to me. Dalalyan (2006: 46-48) accepts this etymology, but he separates astuac from the dialectal form *aspac. For the latter he assumes an underlying *aspat (seen, according to him, in Svan Apsat‘ ‘god of hunting’, cf. Marr 1912) from *Sabad, a directly unattested by-form of Σαβάζιος (see above on Marr’s etymology). Then, he proceeds, Arm. *aspat became *aspac through analogical influence of astuac. 24 Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean & Kanayeanc‘ 1909 = Thomson 1980: 40; Thomson 1976a: 80-81. For older interpretations from hastem, see HAB 1: 280-281; cf. Pedersen 1904: 133; 1906: 243 = 1982: 6-7, 111. Jerejian (1953: 149) assumes an etymological connection between astuac ‘god’ and hastuac ‘creation, fabrication’. 25 Kapancjan (1956: 279 n.1) connects Arm. astuac ‘god’ to this Anatolian theonym, assuming the following development: *Swat- > *Aswat >astuac. 26 On this compound, see Otten 1950: 126-127; Ivanov 1965: 282-286; Watkins 1974: 101, 106-107; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 1: 348-349; 2: 780 = 1995, 1: 304, 683. 22 23

200

HRACH MARTIROSYAN

šīṷatt- ‘god’ and CLuw. Tiṷad- (nom.sg. Tiṷaz) ‘Sun God’ may be explained from the Pre-Proto-Anatolian paradigm *diéu-ot-s, *diu-ótom, *diu-ot-ós < Quasi-Indo-European *diéu-t-s, *diu-ót-m, *diu-ot-ós, through generalizations of the stems */diéuot-/ and */diuod-/, respectively.27 This albeit practically unnoticed etymology of astuac is highly attractive. A similar pattern of representing the principal deity is frequent in the Armenian tradition. In swearing formulae from the Loṙi region of the type ɛn X-ə gidena ‘may be a witness (lit. know, be aware)’, the God is represented as Bari lis ‘Good light/dawn’, bari ɔr ‘Good day’, əregnak ‘Sun’, kapit Astɔc ‘blue God’, ergink‘ ‘sky’ (Lalayan 2004: 341). In an Armenian Morning Prayer from Balu (Sargisean 1932: 325), God is referred to as Bari Kʻristos Asvac ‘Good Christ God’ and is associated with the Sun God (surb arew ‘holy sun’). A Morning Prayer from Nerkʻin Basen starts with Ov Bari lusi astvac, Hisus Kʻristos tɛr ‘O God of Good light, Jesus Christ Lord’; the verb is put in the plural as if two divinities are addressed (Hakobyan 1974: 370). In a folk belief recorded by Sargis Haykuni,28 Bari lusu astuc ‘God of Good light’ is mentioned in contrast with evil spirits of the night; note Arm. dial. bari-li/us ‘dawn’, literally ‘good light’29 seen, e.g., in a folk-song (Abeɫyan 1940: 127L-12): Bari lusun durs elay ‘I went out at dawn’. In Arčak, the planet Venus is called Pari lusu astɫ, literally ‘star of the Good light’ (Avagyan 1978: 24bL-10). Typologically compare Iran. *vahu-uša(h)-farnah- ‘whose good/benefit is from the farn of Morning Star’ (see Bogoljubov 1989: 88). For the typology of ‘Good Deity’ or ‘Good Sun-god’, note Hatt. izziištan ‘Good Sun-god’ > Hitt. DIzzištanu (if this interpretation is correct),30 Lat. Bona Dea (MNM 1, 1980:182c), Fr. le Bon Dieu, as well as OIr. dagdae < Celt. *dago-dēuos, literally ‘le Bon Dieu’, etc. (Watkins 1974: 102).

27

See Kloekhorst 2008: 766-767, with a discussion. See Svazlyan 1973: 40a. 29 Amatuni 1912: 92a; Ter-Mkrtč‘yan 1970: 182b, 183 n.53. 30 For the comparison I am indebted to Armen Petrosyan. The Hittite theonym has been identified with DUD.SIG5 ‘Good Day’. For a discussion of these Hattic and Hittite forms, see Ivanov 1965: 283; 1982: 162-163; Neu 1974: 127-128; Gurney 1977: 12, 12 n.5, 38; Puhvel 1984: 468; Manessy-Guitton 1987: 37-38; Petrosyan 2002: 129 n.438; 2007: 190. 28

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN

201

Thus, Arm. astuac ‘god’ may be regarded as a loanword from a directly unattested Anatolian form going back to *Aššu-Tiṷaz ‘good deity/lord, good Sun-god, good dawn/day’ or the like. Melikišvili (1979) interprets Urart. aštiuzi as meaning ‘god’ or ‘idol’ and compares it with Arm. astuac. This is uncertain.31 If the comparison is accepted, the Urartian word may be treated as an Armenian borrowing.32 4. ARM.

CIACAN ‘RAINBOW’

Arm. ciacan ‘rainbow’, a-stem: GDSg ciacan-i (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Philo apud NBHL 1: 338c, s.v. Aramazday gōti), ISg ciacan-a-w (Cyril of Alexandria) ‘rainbow’. The oldest attestation is found in Revelation 10.1 (rendering Gr. ἶρις). The well-known passage from Genesis 9.13 reads (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 184): Zaɫeɫn im edic‘ yamps ew eɫic‘i i nšanak yawitenakan uxtin ənd is ew ənd amenayn erkir ‘I shall place my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the eternal covenant between me and the earth’. Here, Arm. aɫeɫn ‘bow’ (rendering Gr. τόξον) stands for the rainbow which is to serve as a divine sign, nšanak ‘sign’ (rendering Gr. σημεῖον ‘sign, mark’).33 Remarkably, both aɫeɫn and nšanak came to denote the rainbow in Armenian. For the former, cf. aɫeɫn ‘bow; rainbow’ (Bible+), diminutive *aɫeɫn-ak ‘rainbow’: Van ananak, Ozim anəɫnak, etc.; as for the latter, note Akn nšanak ‘rainbow’.34 Quoting this Biblical passage, T‘ovma Arcruni (9-10th cent.) adds:35 or ē ciacand, zor omank‘ hur mekneal yampoy asac‘in, ew ordik‘ tarrapaštic‘n – gōti Aramazday ‘which is the rainbow (ciacan). Some say that it is fire emerging from cloud, and those who worship the elements (say it is) the belt of Aramazd’. Aramazday gōti is also attested in Philo.36 31

See Hilmarsson 1983: 6; Arutjunjan 2001: 179 n.18, 180 n.44, 438a. Cf. J̌ahukyan 1986: 51-52, 57; 1988a: 151; 1992: 17, 23; Petrosyan 1997: 146; 2006: 133-134. 33 For an elaborate folk version of this narrative from Łaradał, see Hovsepʻyan 2009, 1: 318-319, 332. 34 HAB 3: 461a; Gabikean 1952: 425. See also Andranik 1900: 170 (Dersim); Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 193 (Širak); Hakobyan 1974: 276 (Nerk‘in Basen); Gyozalyan 2001: 227 (Musa Leṙ). 35 Vardanyan 1985: 32L-6f; transl. Thomson 1985: 81. 36 NBHL 1: 338c; see also Thomson 1985: 81 n.3. 32

202

HRACH MARTIROSYAN

The origin of the word ciacan is unknown.37 On the strength of Armenian dialectal designations of the rainbow such as ‘Mary’s belt’, ‘St. Karapet’s belt’, ‘Rain’s Bride’, *Covean ‘lightning/thunder Goddess of the celestial Purple Sea’, *Orot-ik ‘little Thunder’, etc. (Haneyan 2001), as well as the above-mentioned gōti Aramazday ‘the belt of Aramazd’ in Philo and T‘ovma Arcruni, I propose to interpret ciacan ‘rainbow’ as *Ti(w) ‘Sky God, Thunder God’ (from PIE *diēus) + the compositional vowel -a- + *can- ‘sign, omen’, probably belonging with *can- ‘to know, be acquainted’ from PIE *ĝn(e) h3-. For this meaning of *can-, cf. Russ. znak ‘sign’, etc. from the same PIE verbal root. Another possible trace of this notion is can-ak(-) ‘disgrace’ (Bible+; dialect of Alaškert), probably from *can- ‘sign, spot’; for the semantic development, compare xayt-aṙak ‘disgrace’ vs. xayt ‘spotted’, nšawak ‘disgrace’ vs. niš ‘sign, spot’. For the loss of the final -w in *tiw, compare Arm. *ti ‘day’, which, like Lat. diēs ‘day’, can be regarded as analogical after the PIE accusative form *diēm, cf. Skt. dyā́m, Gr. Ζῆν, Lat. diem, etc. (Martirosyan 2010: 612-613). Thus, the rainbow has been regarded as ‘the sign/omen of the Sky/ Thunder-god’. This pattern, albeit not confirmed by direct evidence (cf. Petrosyan 2010: 201-202 n.2), is not inconceivable; celestial phenomena might have been interpreted as signs from the sky, omens (cf. e.g. Welsh coel ‘presage, omen’, if related with Lat. caelum ‘sky’).38 The Biblical passage above and the dialectal nšanak ‘rainbow’ may serve as a semantic parallel, albeit typological. The initial c- instead of t- may be due to assimilation t…c > c…c. Compare Van crnjel ‘to spread news’,39 if from taracem ‘to spread, stretch’, with assimilation t…c > c…c, epenthetic nasal (on which see Martirosyan 2010: 735-736), and voicing -nc- > -nj- (Ačaṙyan 1952: 61, 86, 294). If instead one expects *diē(u)s > Arm. *či-, the assimilation becomes much easier: *či-a-can > ciacan through regressive assimilation of affricates, cf. *canač‘em > čanač‘em ‘to know, be acquainted with’.40 A number of dialects display designations for ‘rainbow’ going back to a compound *cirani-gōti, lit. ‘purple belt’: Hamšen jinari kɔdi (Ačaṙyan 37 See HAB 2: 454b; J̌ahukyan 1990: 71 (sem. field 1); Olsen 1999: 943. Olsen (1999: 299) lists ciacan among nouns in -an with an obscure etymological background. 38 See Schrijver 1991: 267-268; de Vaan 2008: 80-81; Matasović 2009: 197-198. 39 For a textual illustration, see Nawasardeanc‘ 1890: 36L7. 40 Compare also *z-oyž > žoyž ‘patience’. For these examples, see HAB s.vv.; Meillet 1936: 29; Winter 1999.

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN

203

1947: 73, 235), Polis jirani-gɔdi (Ačaṙyan 1941: 220), Erznka cirani gɔdi (Kostandyan 1979: 157b), Svedia ciränə kudək‘ (Andreasyan 1967: 366b), K‘esab ciränə kütä (Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 206a), Xotorǰur *cirani-gōti (Yušamatean 1964: 466a), etc. If this compound is old, its influence may have supported the development *t/či-a- > ci-a-. Alternatively, and this is perhaps more plausible, the second component of the compound can be derived from ac- ‘to bring, lead, move; to encircle, tie (a girdle), etc.’, as has been suggested in NBHL 1:1015b (cir aceal, with cir ‘circle’ as the first member). This suggestion has recently been revived and developed by A. Petrosyan in a very informative paper (2010), in which he examines the naming patterns of the rainbow as reflected in a large number of languages. In accordance with my interpretation of the first component, A. Petrosyan treats the compound as ‘the belt of Sky God’. This etymology is very attractive since it conforms to the widespread pattern ‘Belt of God’. In my opinion, the noun *ac-an ‘belt, girdle’, albeit unattested, may find some support from the suffix -an(-k‘)41 seen in kap-an ‘pass, gorge’ and kap-an-k‘ ‘tie, chain’ from kapem ‘to tie’, pat-an ‘wrap, wrapper, shroud’ from patem ‘to wrap, shroud, encircle’, p‘at‘-an-k‘ ‘envelope, amulet’ from p‘at‘-at‘‘to envelop, enfold’.42 5. ŁARABAⱢ TKƆ́ⱢƐN ‘HAZELNUT’ Arm. kałin, o-stem ‘acorn’ (Bible+); kaɫn-i ‘oak-tree’ (Bible, P‘awstos Buzand, etc.); ark‘ayakan kaɫin (Cyril of Jerusalem), ark‘a-kaɫin (Galen) ‘hazelnut’, lit. ‘royal acorn’; xoz-kaɫin, lit. ‘pig-acorn’, in Asar Sebastac‘i (16-17th century).43 The word kałin is widespread in the dialects (HAB 2: 496a). The ‘acorn’ is usually represented as xoz-kaɫin, that is ‘acorn for pigs’. Next to it, the dialect of Łarabaɫ has tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’ (and metathesized ktɔ́ɫɛn, cf. Łaradaɫ t‘ákuɫnə), with an unexplained t- and with irregular change of a to ɔ.44 Note also Hadrut‘ təkɔɫɛn ‘id.’.45 For the suffix -an(-k‘), see Greppin 1975: 38, 43; J̌ahukyan 1998: 11-12, 14-15. For these words, see HAB s.vv. 43 See Karapetyan 1993: 211, in the glossary – 349. See also Ališan 1895: 65-66, 287-288. 44 See HAB ibid.; Ališan 1895: 342, 611, treating Łarabaɫ tkoɫin as synonymous to ark‘akaɫin, on which see above. 45 See Poɫosyan 1965: 16. 41 42

204

HRACH MARTIROSYAN

Since Ayvazovsk‘i, Pictet, et al., Arm. kałin, o-stem ‘acorn’ is connected with Gr. βάλανος f. ‘acorn’, Lat. glāns, glandis f. ‘acorn, beechnut; missile discharged from a sling’, Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, Lith. gìlė, dial. gylė̃ ‘acorn’, Latv. zĩle ‘acorn’, etc.46 It has been assumed that the initial t- of Łarabaɫ tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’ reflects ti- ‘big’ (J̌ahukyan 1972: 278, cf. 281). This explanation should be abandoned since the hazelnut, on the contrary, is smaller, and the vocalic change remains unexplained. Besides, the definition of ti- as ‘big’ is uncertain.47 I tentatively assume that the form reflects PArm. *tu-kaɫin > *tukuɫin (vocalic assimilation)48 and can be derived from Quasi-Indo-European *diuos gʷl̥h2-eno- ‘divine acorn’, cf. Gr. *διϝός βάλανος ‘chestnut’ and Lat. iūglāns ‘walnut’.49 On *tu/tw-, the oblique stem of tiw ‘day’, see section 1.50 As is pointed out by Laufer (1919: 369, 3691), the pattern of Gr. Διός βάλανος “acorn of Zeus” is comparable to that of Pers. šāh-bal(l)ūt ‘the edible chestnut’ < ‘acorn of the Shah, royal acorn’; cf. Pahl. šāh-balūt ‘id.’, Arm. šahpalut ‘id.’, an Iranian loan, Łarabaɫ šmbálut‘ ‘chestnut’.51 Compare also ark‘a-kaɫin above. For vocalic assimilation *tukáɫin > *tukúɫin, cf. erdumn ‘oath’ > Łarabaɫ ǘrt‘ümnə. Unlike in *tukaɫin, with voiceless stops, here we are dealing with a voiced d, consequently, with Ačaṙyan’s Law: rdu > rdü > rt‘ü (Martirosyan 2010: 747-748).

46

HAB 2: 495-496; Martirosyan 2010: 348-349. J̌ahukyan (Djahukian 1985: 155; J̌ahukyan 1987: 129, 255) treats *tkoɫin as an old dialectal variant with a different ablaut. On the archaic nature of the form, see also N.M. Simonyan 1979: 194. One might think of an influence of txil ‘acorn, hazelnut’ (on this word, see HAB 4: 412a; HLBB 6, 189a), but this is uncertain. 48 As for Łaradaɫ t‘ákuɫnə, one might assume another outcome of *tu-kałin > *takułin through vocalic metathesis, though the aspirated tʻ- and the loss of -i- are unclear to me. 49 On these forms, see Walde and Hofmann 1, 1938: 727; Schrijver 1991: 273. 50 An apparent problem for this explanation is that tiw has been reduced twice: tiw > tu > tə. This is not impossible, however. Compare, e.g., Łarabaɫ ələrä́tɔn, composed of aliwr ‘flour’ and tun ‘house’ (Davt‘yan 1966: 301), əxpərä́čür ‘fountain-water’, composed of ałbiwr ‘fountain, spring’ and ǰur ‘water’ (Davt‘yan 1966: 304). One might argue that əxpərä́čür rather contains the genitive form, viz. ałber, cf. ałber-akn ‘fountain-head, source’. Even so, this is hardly an unsurmountable problem for tkɔ́ɫɛn from *tu-kałin, since here also we are dealing with oblique tu- (cf. i tu-ē, etc.). Alternatively, we might assume a development *t(i)wk- > *tə(w)k- as in, e.g., Middle Persian šiftālūg [špt’lwg] ‘peach’ > Arm. Mełri šǝtałuk ‘peach’. 51 See Hübschmann 1897: 272; HAB 3: 486a. 47

TRACES OF INDO-EUROPEAN ‘FATHER SKY, GOD’ IN ARMENIAN

205

SUMMARY The Proto-Indo-European theonym *diēus ‘Sky God, Father Sky’ has not been independently preserved in Armenian. Armenian Tir (secondarily, Tiwr) was borrowed from Iranian Tīr and cannot be directly equated with Old Icelandic Týr, the final -r of which is due to rhotacism. The only possible way to connect Armenian Ti(w)r to the PIE theonym under discussion is to assume a blend of Proto-Armenian *Tiw ‘Heavenly Light, Sunny Day, Sunshine God, Thunder God’ and Iranian Tīr. The connection of the Armenian word for ‘god’, astuac, with Σαβάζιος should be abandoned. The loss of the medial -t- in some dialects is certainly secondary. The tu-component of the word may be related to our *Tiw but probably through an Anatolian intermediate, though the exact source is not entirely clear (cf. Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’, Hitt. aššu- šiṷatt‘good day’, etc.). According to my tentative etymologies, the theonym *Tiw may also be reflected in two Armenian words: ci-a-can ‘rainbow’, if from *t/ či-acan ‘belt of the Sky/Thunder-god’ (or *t/či-a-can ‘the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god’), and Łarabaɫ tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’, if from *tu-kałin (cf. Gr. Διός βάλανος ‘chestnut’, literally ‘acorn of Zeus’).

IL ԲԱՌ ԳԻՐԳ ՏԱԼԻԱՆԻ UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO* ALESSANDRO ORENGO

Tra i diversi ambiti della linguistica armena, da Jos Weitenberg praticati con la competenza nota a quanti lo conoscono, un posto di rilievo occupa la dialettologia. Ci è dunque parso appropriato, dopo aver tante volte fruito e goduto del suo insegnamento, offrirgli l’edizione commentata di un piccolo dizionario armeno-italiano, nel quale l’elemento dialettale occupa un ruolo non marginale. Presso la Biblioteca dei padri Mechitaristi di San Lazzaro si conserva un libretto a stampa di 80 pagine, intitolato Բառ գիրգ տալիանի (Baṙ girg taliani) ‘Dizionario di italiano’. Né il luogo né la data di edizione sono indicati, ma R. Kévorkian (1986:146), sulla base del tipo e del corpo dei caratteri tipografici usati, pensa si tratti di un prodotto della stamperia veneziana di Michiel Angelo Barboni, risalente al periodo tra il 1680 ed il 16841. Tale libretto contiene un dizionario armeno-italiano (il Բառ գիրգ տալիանի propriamente detto, pp. 1-64), seguito da una serie di frasi e dialoghi, redatti in armeno e poi tradotti in italiano (i Խօսք տալիանի, pp. 65-80), il tutto esclusivamente scritto in caratteri armeni. Nel dizionario le parole armene sono raggruppate in ordine alfabetico, limitatamente alla lettera iniziale. Ogni sezione così individuata è separata dalla successiva per mezzo di uno spazio bianco, almeno nel caso in cui la transizione avvenga all’interno di una stessa pagina: solo tra le lettere ս e վ tale spazio manca.

* Principali abbreviazioni usate nel testo: ar. = arabo; arm. = armeno; it. = italiano; pers. = persiano; tc. = turco; ven. = veneziano. Desideriamo ringraziare alcuni amici e colleghi con i quali abbiamo discusso di alcuni dei lemmi di questo dizionarietto: Melada Ałabekyan, Gohar Muradyan, e Aram T‘opč‘yan di Erevan, Theo M. van Lint di Oxford e Piervittorio Rossi di Castiglione delle Stiviere (Mantova). Naturalmente restiamo noi i soli responsabili di quanto scritto nel presente articolo. 1 Per una più precisa descrizione di questo dizionarietto e per la bibliografia ad esso relativa rimandiamo ad Orengo 1997: 203-207 e relative note.

208

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

Occorre a questo punto precisare come vadano intese le etichette di ‘armeno’ ed ‘italiano’ da noi ora usate: sotto la prima denominazione si intende una varietà con forti tratti non-standard, sia dovuti ad influssi dialettali che alla presenza di elementi alloglotti (turchi, persiani, arabi), non lontana da quelle varietà di armeno all’epoca in uso all’interno del ceto mercantile, cui peraltro il dizionarietto era con tutta probabilità destinato. Con ‘italiano’ indichiamo invece una varietà di lingua sotto la quale è spesso facile rintracciare la componente dialettale, veneziana, che talvolta emerge in maniera chiara, in altri casi si intravvede alla base di forme parzialmente adattate allo standard. Per questa varietà di lingua, il talian dell’anonimo compilatore del dizionarietto, ci pare tuttora valida la definizione che avevamo a suo tempo proposta di ‘italiano quale si parla a Venezia’. Finalità del presente lavoro è offrire una trascrizione commentata della prima parte del libretto, quella contenente il dizionario. In questa sede il commento è essenzialmente finalizzato alla verifica dell’esattezza delle corrispondenze lessicali proposte dall’anonimo compilatore. ALCUNE CARATTERISTICHE DELLE VARIETÀ DI ARMENO ED ITALIANO CONTENUTE NEL DIZIONARIETTO

Nel dizionarietto si notano alcuni fatti grafici, che ovviamente possono rispecchiare una pronuncia particolare e quindi assumere valore ai fini dell’identificazione del dialetto o dei dialetti che stanno alla base dei lemmi o delle relative glosse. In questa sede ci limiteremo ad elencare alcuni di questi fatti, mentre di altri daremo conto nelle note ai singoli lemmi: destiniamo ad altro momento la discussione degli stessi, sia per non abusare dell’ospitalità concessaci, sia anche per poter pure tener conto di quanto si evince dai dialoghi che costituiscono la seconda parte del libretto, assai utili per stendere alcune note di morfologia e sintassi. Divisione delle parole Nel dizionarietto lemma e glossa sono separati da un punto, ma se il lemma o la glossa sono costituiti da più parole, non sempre il compilatore le divide, né è sempre facile, per il lettore, dire con sicurezza se una tale divisione ci sia o non ci sia. In alcuni casi, sembra anche assumere un certo peso la lunghezza della riga, e quindi due parole sono accostate al fine di non andare a capo nel glossare un dato lemma. In generale,

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

209

tuttavia, si nota una certa incoerenza nella divisione delle parole armene (e lo stesso vale per quelle italiane). Così, nella stessa pagina, troviamo անալի, ma ան համ (7)2, բարիօր, ma բարի երիկուն (9). Sono poi spesso scritte senza separazione le sequenze formate da nome o avverbio + verbo: ականջդնել (4), բանունիմ (8), հոտառնուլ (34), շուրջգալ (45). Questo tipo di grafia è particolarmente frequente in sintagmi col verbo անել: էհմալանել (20), հանաքանել (35), միտքանել (41), շահանել (46). Altri casi verranno segnalati nelle note ai lemmi. Fatti concernenti il vocalismo armeno In alcuni casi si nota la confusione tra է ed ե: բնտռէլ (10), իմացնէլ (24), կէրակուր (32); շեկ (46). Altri fenomeni grafici rispecchiano fatti fonologici già noti in armeno medievale, come: 1. la caduta di ա interno nei polisillabi, p. es. in մեռնիլ (42); 2. il passaggio di ու ad ո, in posizione iniziale, davanti a ղ: ողարկել per յուղարկել (47); 3. la chiusura del dittongo ոյ in ու, in sillaba finale davanti a consonante, documentata in բուն (10), գուն (13), ծուլ (31), կապուտ (32); 4. la chiusura del dittongo իւ in ու, in sillaba finale davanti a consonante, documentata in ձուն (37), ճուղ (38), մռջում per մրջիւն (40); 5. la chiusura del dittongo այ in ե o է, in posizione iniziale, documentata in երել (18), էս, էն (20). Fatti concernenti il consonantismo armeno Per quanto riguarda il consonantismo, talvolta si ha confusione fra sorda, sonora o aspirata: բուրթ per բուրդ (8), գիրգ per գիրք (11), պաշխել per բաշխել (51). Talvolta la sorda per sonora compare in posizione postnasale: գանկատ (13), եղունկ (16), թանծր (23), խնծոր (29). È anche documentato l’uso di խ per ղ: ախփ per աղբ (2). Infine è da notare la caduta di յ iniziale: աջողութիւն (8), ունք per յօնք (46), ողարկել per յուղարկել (47).

2 D‘ora in poi i termini contenuti nel dizionarietto sono indicati con riferimento alla pagina in cui essi si trovano del dizionarietto stesso.

210

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

Resa dei prestiti dal turco Circa la resa dei prestiti dal turco, normalmente traslitterati con una grafia armena di tipo ‘occidentale’, ci limiteremo a notare, un fenomeno fra i tanti, la frequente spirantizzazione dell’occlusiva velare sorda del modello, quale si riscontra p. es. in արխալուղ < arkalık (3), ղուշ < kuš (38), ղավ < kav (38), ղափաղ < kapak (38); չպուղ < çubuk (50), ռաղամ < ar.-tc. rakam (53) etc. Peraltro questo è un fenomeno abbastanza normale nei prestiti armeni dal turco, per il quale si può vedere Ačaṙean 1902:35. Resa dei termini italiani Infine due parole circa la resa dei termini italiani. Per quanto riguarda il vocalismo, la է rende normalmente la , e la օ rende la . Inoltre, in alcuni casi, compare է anche dove tanto l’it. che il ven. presentano : սալէրայ (3), ma it. e ven. saliera; ըսքէթթօ (19), ma it. schietto, ven. schièto. In posizione non prevocalica, la ե compare solo in փրիմայ վերայ (11) primavera, քեզիայ (24) chiesa (ma քէզիայ p. 17), ցերեզէ (62) cfr. ven. zarèsa ‘ciliegia’, e pare valere . Lo stesso valore tale grafema avrà in փիեռայ (62) da ven. piera ‘pietra’. Per շօլերէ si veda subito sotto. La ե in posizione prevocalica vale (semivocale), p. es. in մաքեայ (26) macchia. Pertanto una grafia come լեօնէ (6) riprodurrà it. antico lione, ven. liòn, e non it. leone. Il digramma նե interno prevocalico rende il grafema , p. es. in վինեայ (2) vigna; per la resa di si ha tuttavia qualche eccezione, come պակնաթօ (21) bagnato o մալիկնիթայ (48) malignità, che forse riproducono la grafia italiana, e non la pronuncia. Così il digramma լե interno prevocalico rende (digramma per la laterale palatale), p. es. in փիլեարէ (5) pigliare, ma anche per questa resa si riscontrano alcune eccezioni, come շօլերէ (6) sciogliere, քօլէրէ (23) (rac)cogliere, dove l’alternanza ե/է, se non è un semplice refuso, sembrerebbe deporre ancora per un valore di entrambi i grafemi armeni. Tuttavia i digrammi նե e լե sopra commentati potrebbero anche riprodurre una pronuncia locale /nj, lj/ di parole per lo più italiane. Il dittongo è reso con աօ o con ավ: աօթումնօ (2) autunno (dove si nota l’influsso di una grafia italiana latinizzante); քավզայ (50) causa. Per quanto riguarda le consonanti, le occlusive e le affricate sono trascritte secondo una grafia armena ‘occidentale’, con պ, տ, կ, ճ, ծ per

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

211

, , (con valore velare), (con valore palatale), (sonora) e փ, թ, ք, ց per

, , (con valore velare), (sorda). La lettera ջ non compare mai in parole italiane. Alcune apparenti eccezioni trovano la loro giustificazione nel fatto che la parola riprodotta non è quella italiana ‘standard’ (o toscana, se si vuole), ma ha alla sua base una forma dialettale veneziana, seppure talvolta italianizzata. Questo è quanto avviene p. es. in սէտայ (6) ven. seda ‘seta’, ամիկօ (8) ven. amigo ‘amico’, վօտօ (15) ven. vodo ‘vuoto’, ըզվօտարէ (16) ven. svodàr ‘svuotare’, ֆիկօ (22) ven. figo ‘fico’, սօֆօկարէ (27) ven. sofegàr ‘soffocare’, մասթիկարէ (29) ven. mastegàr ‘masticare’, փօտէրէ (33) ven. podèr ‘potere’. Altri casi verranno segnalati nelle note al testo. Il digramma è reso con քվ: աքվայ (7, 52) acqua; con կվ: սանկվէ (7) sangue. Un gruppo iniziale costituito da sibilante (sorda o sonora) e da occlusiva o da , è di norma preceduto da ը: si veda p. es. ըսթօռթօ (22) storto, o il sopra ricordato ըզվօտարէ (16). Quando la յ compare in posizione finale postvocalica, essa non ha alcun valore fonologico: p.es. ֆօնթանայ (2) fontana. Le consonanti doppie non sono sistematicamente notate, anche in conseguenza della diversa fonte, toscana o veneziana, della parola riprodotta. Altre particolarità concernenti la resa grafica delle glosse riproducono probabilmente pronunce particolari, italiane o dialettali, e verranno studiate in altra sede. CRITERI DI EDIZIONE Il testo è trascritto nel modo più fedele possibile all’originale: solo le abbreviazioni sono sciolte, tra parentesi tonda. Nella traduzione che proponiamo abbiamo cercato di individuare il termine o i termini che potessero rendere il valore tanto del lemma armeno quanto della glossa italiana proposta dal compilatore, anche se ciascuno di essi, preso isolatamente, poteva avere, primariamente, un valore diverso, spesso più generico. Nei limiti del possibile, abbiamo inoltre cercato di conservare i termini proposti dal compilatore. Nel caso in cui lemma e glossa, pur appartenendo al medesimo ambito semantico, non coincidano, abbiamo indicato una possibile traduzione dell’uno e dell’altra, separate dal segno . Quando i lemmi armeni risultano registrati nei maggiori dizionari di tale lingua, abbiamo ritenuto superfluo trattarne nelle note. Quando

212

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

invece questo non avviene, un primo elemento di confronto è stato il Միջին հայրենի բարարան (Miǰin hayereni baṙaran; MHB), al quale rimandiamo senz’altra indicazione, eventualmente riportando la grafia in cui un determinato vocabolo vi compare, quando essa non coincida con quella del dizionarietto. Un secondo elemento di confronte è stato fornito da testi grammaticali più o meno coevi al nostro, quali gli Սկզբունք իտալական լեզուի (Skzbunk‘ italakan lezui), contenuti nel Գիրք այբուբենից (Girk‘ aybubenic‘) pubblicato a Marsiglia nel 1675, o la grammatica italiana di A. Mērasean, pubblicata a Venezia nel 17743. Anche il dizionario armeno-inglese di E. Riggs (Smirne, 1847) si è rivelato utile in più di un caso. Fra i testi non grammaticali, di una certa utilità si sono rivelate opere storiche o libri di conti di mercanti redatti più o meno all’epoca in cui il nostro dizionario vedeva la luce. Nel caso di parole armene prese a prestito dal turco o dal persiano, la parola modello è di norma indicata solo quando la voce armena non risulti registrata nei maggiori dizionari. I lemmi turchi si presentano nell’ortografia corrente, quelli persiani nella trascrizione di Steingass 1992. Delle glosse italiane o veneziane diamo conto nelle note solo nel caso che esse non risultino facilmente evincibili dalla traduzione da noi proposta: ne trattiamo dunque quando esse rappresentino termini effettivamente lontani dall’uso attuale, oppure termini (spesso derivati o modellati su voci dialettali), che risultano omofoni, ma semanticamente del tutto diversi, da vocaboli propri dell’italiano contemporaneo. Quando non diversamente indicato, le voci veneziane sono tratte dal dizionario del Boerio (1856). Pisa – Leida, primavera 2003

3

Su questi due lavori si veda Orengo 1997: 207-211.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

213

ԲԱՌՐԳԻՐԳՐՏԱԼԻԱՆԻ Ա(ստուա)ծ. Ա(ստուա)ծութի(ւն). Արդար. Անձն. Աստղ. արեգակն. անձրև. ամպ. աշխարհ. արևելք. արևմուտք.

տիօ. տիվինիթայ. ճուսթօ. փէրսօնայ. ըսթէլլայ. սօլէ. փիօվայ. նօվօլօ. մօնտօ. լէվանթէ. փօնէնթէ.

Dio divinità giusto persona stella sole pioggia4 nuvola mondo levante, oriente ponente, occidente

[2] ամառն. աշունք. աղբիւր. առու. այգի. առաստաղ. աթոռ. ակութ. ակիշ.

էսթաթէ. աօթումնօ. ֆօնթանայ. ռիվօլօ. ինեայ. թէթթօ. քառէկայ. ֆօկէր. քամինօ. փալէթթայ.

աղ. ախփ. աղչիկ. ականջ. աչք. ատամն. աղիք.

սալէ. մէռտայ. փութթայ. օրէքքէ. օքիօ. տէնթէ. պուէլլէ.

estate autunno fontana rivolo, rigagnolo vigna soffitta, soffitto tetto5 sedia6 focolare, camino pinze del camino paletta del camino sale merda ragazza7 orecchio8 occhio dente budella9

[3] առջ.

օռսօ.

orso

Փիօվայ < ven. piova, documentato come voce letteraria anche in it. Non sembra esserci esatta corrispondenza tra il lemma e la glossa e la stessa discrepanza si riscontra a p. 37 del dizionarietto, dove si legge ձեղունք. թէթթօ. Può valer la pena notare che il Mērasean (1774: 58-59) traduce առաստաղ e ձեղուն con ‘il palco, il solaio’, mentre per ‘il tetto’ usa l‘atteso տանիք. Nei dialetti italiani il tipo tetto per ‘soffitto’ è documentato solo in Sicilia (AIS, carta 877), così come il tipo tetto morto per ‘soffitta’ (AIS, carta 869). Rileviamo infine che la forma tetto sembra estranea al dialetto veneziano. 6 Քառէկայ < ven. carèga. 7 Փութթայ < it. putta o ven. puta. 8 La glossa è al plurale. 9 Per պուէլլէ cfr. ven. buèla. 4

5

214

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

աղվէս. աղաւնի. արդար իւղ. աջկողմն. առաջ. ատափխանայ. աշխարհական. աբեղայ. աթթար. աշփազ. աթլազ. ալռանկ. արխալուղ. աղաման. անկուզ.

վօլփէ. քօլօմպինօ. օնթէսութիլ. աման տռէթթայ. աւանթի. տէսթռօ. մօնտանօ. ֆրաթէ. տրօկէրօ. քօկօ. ռազօ. ըզկվառտօ. քամիժօլայ. սալէրայ. նօժէ.

volpe colombo burro10 a destra avanti latrina, ritirata11 mondano, secolare frate droghiere12 cuoco13 raso14 vermiglio15 casacca16 saliera noce17

[4] ալի պօխօրայ. ատել. աշուղ լինիլ. արթնանալ. արտասուել. աղաղակել. ազատել. աղաչել. աղօթել. ականջդնել. արգելել. աշխատիլ.

սուզինի. օտիարէ. ինամօռարսի. տիզմիսքեարսի. լաքռիմարէ. չիկարէ. լիպէրարէ. փռէկարէ. օրարէ. ասքօլթարէ. իմփէտիրէ. ֆաթիկարսի.

susina18 odiare innamorarsi19 svegliarsi20 piangere gridare21 liberare pregare pregare ascoltare impedire faticare

10 Arm. արդար իւղ ‘burro’ è conservato, nella forma արդ‘արեղ, nel dialetto degli Armeni di Polonia: cfr. Ačaṙyan 1953: 63. Su ven. ontosutil ‘burro’ si veda quanto detto in Orengo 1997: 206 e 402 (nota 28). 11 Ատափխանայ < pers. adabkhâna ‘water-closet’ (lett. ‘scuola’). Per la glossa si veda it. destro ‘latrina’; in ven. tale voce significa ‘puzzo’. 12 Per աթթար cfr. ar.-tc. attar ‘profumiere’, tc. attar/aktar ‘erborista’. Nel Girk‘ Ayb. (76a) աթթար traduce սփիցիալէ ‘speziale’. 13 Աշփազ < pers. âsh-paz, tc. aşpez. 14 Աթլազ < ar.-tc. atlaz/atlas; cfr. anche Riggs 1847: 1. 15 Ալռանկ < tc. al reng/renk ‘colore vermiglio’, cfr. pers. rangi âl ‘colore giallo-rosso’; ըզկվառտօ < ven. sguardo ‘vermiglio’. 16 Արխալուղ < tc. arkalık; per քամիժօլայ cfr. ven. camisòla. 17 Forme analoghe a quella del lemma armeno si trovano nei dialetti di Tabriz e Nuova Giulfa: cfr. HAB II: 131. 18 Per ալի պօխօրայ cfr. pers. âlû’ i bukhârâ ‘tipo di susina’, tc. alubuhara ‘prugna secca’. La glossa è al plurale. 19 Per աշուղ < ar.-tc. âşık ‘innamorato’. 20 Per տիզմիսքեարսի cfr. ven. desmissiarse. 21 Per չիկարէ cfr. ven. cigàr.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

215

աւետիք տալ. անկանիլ. ամպումէ. անձրև կգայ.

նօնցիարէ. քասքարէ. ֆա նօվօլօ. փիօվէ.

annunciare cascare è nuvoloso22 piove

[5] արածել. ապաշխարել. առողջանալ. աղքատանալ. ածիլել. աքսորել. քշել. առաջին. ափսոս. աճապ. ապրանք. այսօր. անիրաւ. առաւօտն. առնել. ասել.

փաշէրէ. ֆար փէնիթէնցայ. կվարիրսի. վէնիր փօվէրօ. ռատարէ. պանտիրէ. փրիմօ. փէքքայ. սէ. մէրքանցիայ. անքու. ինճուսթօ. մաթինայ. փիլեարէ. տիրէ.

pascolare far penitenza guarire diventare povero radere, rasare23 bandire, cacciare primo peccato! (esclamazione) forse che, se24 mercanzia oggi25 ingiusto mattino prendere, pigliare dire

[6] անիսոն. աղքատ. ալմաս. ապրշում. արճիճ. ասուղ. ածելի. արծաթ. այծ. արձակել. աւել. աժէ. առողջ. ակն. առիւծ. աղեխ.

անիզի. փօվէրօ. տիամանթէ. սէտայ. փիօմպօ. ակօ. ռատաօր. արճէնթօ. քավռայ. շօլերէ. ըսքօվայ. վալէ. սանօ. ճօյայ. լեօնէ. ակաթայ.

anice povero diamante26 seta27 piombo ago rasoio28 argento capra sciogliere scopa vale, ha valore sano gioiello leone agata (pietra preziosa)29

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Ամպումէ = ամպում է. Per ռատարէ cfr. ven. radàr. Per աճապ si veda il MHB. Per անքու cfr. ven. ancùo. Per ալմաս si veda il MHB. Per ապրշում si veda il MHB. Ռատաօր < ven. radaòr. Per աղեխ si veda il MHB.

216

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

[7] արաղ. ալուր. աման. ագռաւ. աղլուխ. աղի. անալի. ան համ. անհաւատ. անհնար. անամօթ. աշկարայ. աշակերտ. աժան. արիւն. աջող.

աքվայ տէվիթայ. ֆարինայ. վազօ. քօռվօ. ֆացօլէթթօ. սալաթօ. սէնցայ սալէ. սէնցայ կուսթօ. սէնցայ ֆէտէ. ինփօսիպիլէ. սէնցայ վէրկօնեայ. քիարօ. տիշէփօլօ. պօնմրքայ. սանկվէ. փռօսփէրօ.

acquavite (liquore) farina vaso corvo fazzoletto, pezzuola30 salato senza sale senza sapore senza fede impossibile senza vergogna chiaro, manifesto31 discepolo a buon mercato sangue prospero

[8] աջողիլ. աջողութի(ւն). առշուն.

ռիէշէրէ. փռօսփէրիթայ. պռացօլարէ.

Բանունիմ. բերան. բեր. բաց. բարձ. բուրթ. բամպակ. բարակ. բարեկամ. բազուկ. բակլայ. բրինձ.

օտաֆարէ. պօքայ. փօռթայքվայ. ափռէ. ավէրճի. քավէցցալ. լանայ. պօմպաժօ. սօթթիլէ. ամիկօ. էռպէթթայ. ֆավայ. ռիզի.

riuscire prosperità nome di un’unità di misura32 ho da fare33 bocca porta qua (imperativo) apri (imperativo)34 cuscino35 lana cotone36 sottile amico bietola37 fava riso38

Per աղլուխ si veda il MHB. Per աշկարայ si veda il MHB. 32 Առշուն < tc. arşın (cm. 68); Per պռացօլարէ cfr. ven. brazzolèr, che il Boerio (1856: 99) traduce con ‘passetto’, unità di misura che, in diverse località, aveva valori diversi, tra cui quello di cm. 67 (cfr. GDLI XII: 765). 33 Բանունիմ = բան ունիմ. 34 Per ավէրճի cfr. ven. averzer ‘aprire’. 35 Per քավէցցալ cfr. ven. cavazzal, it. capezzale. 36 Պօմպաժօ < ven. bombaso. 37 Per էռպէթթայ cfr. ven. erbèta (erbète) ‘bietola’. 38 La glossa è al plurale, forse usato come plurale tantum. 30 31

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

217

[9] բարկութի(ւն). բարկացօղ. բարկանալ. բարևտալ. բժշկել. բնակիլ. բամբասել. բռնել. բանալ. բաժանել. բանադրել. բառնալ. բարիօր. բարի երիկուն. բարի գիշեր. բարեկամութի(ւն).

քօլէրայ. քօլէրօզօ. ըսթիցարսի. սալութարէ. մէտիքարէ. ապիթարէ. մօռմօռարէ. քեափարէ. ավէրճիր. ափռիրէ. ըսփարթիրէ. էսքօմունիքարէ. քարիքարէ. պօնճօռնօ. պօնտի. պօնայսէրայ. պօնայ նօթթէ. ամիցիցիայ.

còllera collerico arrabbiarsi salutare curare abitare calunniare afferrare aprire39 dividere scomunicare caricare, sollevare buon giorno, buondì buona sera buona notte amicizia

[10] բղուղ. բերդ. բաժին. բաղնիք.

ծառայ. ֆօռթէցցայ. փարթէ. ըսթուվայ.

բոլոր. բնտռէլ. բակ. բահ. բիճ.

թօնտօ. ցէրքարէ. քօռթէ. պայիլ. մուլօ.

բուն. բղջախոհ. բնութի(ւն). բաթ. բողկ. բանիլ. բերել.

նիօ. լուսուրիօզօ. նաթուրայ. անարէ. ռավանօ. լավօռարէ. փօռթարէ.

giara40 fortezza parte bagno turco, stanza riscaldata per il bagno41 rotondo cercare42 cortile badile figlio illegittimo, bastardo43 nido lascivo natura anatra44 ravanello lavorare45 portare

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Per ավերճիր cfr. ven. averzer. Ծառայ < ven. zara. Per բաղնիք si veda il MHB. Per it. stufa (stuva) ‘sauna’ si veda il GDLI XX: 423. Բնտռէլ per lo standard փնտռել. Per բիճ si veda il MHB. Մուլօ < ven. mulo ‘bastardo’. La glossa è al plurale. Per բանիլ si veda il MHB.

218

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

[11] բանճար. բոպիկ. բոզ. բանչիասել. բարի. բօշայ.

էռպայ. ըսքալցօ. փութանայ. նօն իմփօռթայ. պօնօ. ցինկանայ.

verdura, erbaggi46 scalzo puttana non importa47 buono zingara

Գաւառ. գարուն. գեղ. գետ. գետափ. գետին. գերան. գրիչ. գիրգ.

փայէզէ. փրիմայ վերայ. վիլլայ. Ֆիումէ. ռիվայ. թէռռայ. թռավէ. փէննայ. լիպրօ.

regione primavera villaggio fiume riva terra, suolo trave penna libro

[12] գլուխ. գայլ. գէր. գող. գօտի. գավաթ. գարի. գազպին.

թէսթայ. լուօ. կռասսօ. լատրօ. ֆացեօլ. ըսքուէլլայ. օռծօ. մաննայ.

գովել. գրկել. գնալ. գալ.

լօտարէ. ապռացցարէ. անտարէ. վէնիրէ.

testa lupo grasso (agg.) ladro fascia (?)48 tazza, scodella orzo secrezione zuccherina, manna lodare abbracciare andare venire

Per բանճար si veda il MHB. Բանչիասել = բան չի ասել. 48 L‘interpretazione è molto incerta. Arm. գօտի vale comunemente ‘cintura’; in HLBB I: 281-282, tra i diversi valori di գոտի, si trova anche quello di ‘turbante’ (գլխի փաթաթան, չալմա), documentato nei dialetti di Xarberd, Van e Moks, e probabilmente da confrontare con կոտի ‘cappello, colbacco’ (գլխարկ, փափախ) registrato in Ałayan 1976: 760, che lo considera dialettale. Ven. faciòl o faziol indica un ‘manto di pannolino che cuopre quasi tutta o buona parte di una donna’ (quindi un vestito lungo); faciol o faziol curto indica ‘quel pannolino con cui le donne si riparano nella mestruazione’; ed infine con faciòl da sugarse le man si indica l‘asciugamano: per tutto questo si veda Boerio 1856: 258. Per it. facciòlo ‘fazzoletto’ si veda il GDLI V: 559. Notiamo infine che il confronto con ճացեօ (53) ven. giazzo e քացեարէ (63) ven. cazzàr depone a favore del fatto che Ֆացեօլ presupponga un ven. faz(z)iol, rendendo quindi poco probabile un accostamento con ven. fas(i)olo, it. antico fasciòlo (GDLI V: 575) ‘fagiolo’, che peraltro, se non andiamo errati, non troverebbe comunque sostegno nel lemma armeno. 46 47

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

գաղել. գնել. գտնուլ. գողանալ.

ասքօնտէրէ. քօմփռարէ. թռօվարէ. ռօպարէ.

nascondere comprare trovare rubare

[13] գալ տարի. գահալ. գինի. գեղեցիկ. գեղացի. գխտոր. գազ.

լաննօ քի վիէնէ. փօլթռօնէ. վինօ. պէլլօ. վիլլանօ. կալայ. պռացօ.

գանկատ. գերեզման. գիր. գործ. գիշեր. գուն. գերմակ. գառն. գորտ.

լամէնթօ. սէփօլքռօ. լէթէրայ. լավօռէ. նօթթէ. քօլօռէ. մինութօ. անեէլլօ. ռանայ.

l’anno prossimo pigro, poltrone49 vino bello contadino galla, noce di galla misura di lunghezza, braccio50 lamentela tomba lettera (dell’alfabeto) lavoro51 notte colore sottile, esile agnello rana

[14] գանկատել. գաճ. գործելի. գաղտուկ. գերի. գիտուն.

լամէնթարսի. քալցինայ. քառպօնէ. ասքօսթօ. ըսքեավօ. տօթթօ.

lamentarsi calce52 carbone nascosto schiavo, prigioniero dotto, sapiente

Դաշտ. դուռն. դառն. դոխ.

քամփանեայ. փօռթայ. ամարօ. քօլումպինօ.

campagna porta amaro piccolo di colombo53

219

Per գահալ si veda il MHB. Il valore del braccio era, a Venezia, di m. 0,683, ed in altre città italiane non si discostava molto da queste dimensioni (cfr. GDLI II: 345). A giudicare da quanto si legge nel glossario al libro dei conti di Yovhannēs Tēr-Davt‘ean (Yovhannēs 1984: 370), il valore del գազ mutava, anche sensibilmente, da città a città: alle dimensioni del braccio veneziano sembra avvicinarsi il գազ di Aleppo, che valeva m. 0,677. 51 Se non si tratta di errore di stampa, è strana la է finale in լավօռէ. All‘italiano lavoro corrispondono in ven. laòro e la(v)orièr. 52 Գաճ < Pers. gach ‘calce’ (anche ‘gesso’). 53 Il termine è anche attestato in Girk‘ Ayb. 74a, dove però traduce փիչչիօնի ‘piccioni’. 49

50

220

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

դատաւոր. դատաստան. դպիր. դարբին. դեղորեք ծախօղ.

ճիւտիցէ. ճիւսթիցիայ. ծակօ. ֆավռօ. ըսփէցիէրօ.

giudice tribunale chierico54 fabbro speziale, farmacista55

[15] դեղին. դդում. դեղքել. դնել. դողալ. դուր գալ. դուր չի գալ. դու. դուք. դուրս. դժուար. դանակ. դեռ. դեռչէ. դէմելնել.

ծալլօ. ցուքքայ. թօսիքարէ. մէթէրէ. թռէմարէ. փիացէրէ. տիսփիացէրէ. թի. վու. վօի. ֆօռայ. տիֆիցիլէ. քօլթէլլօ. ատէսսօ. նօն անքօրայ. ռինքօնթռարէ.

դատարկ.

վօտօ.

giallo zucca avvelenare56 mettere tremare piacere non piacere tu, voi57 voi fuori difficile coltello adesso non ancora andare incontro, incontrare vuoto

[16] դատարկել. դառնալ. դարձնել. դեղ. դժոխ. դռնակ. դէմադէմ.

ըզվօտարէ. թօռնարէ. վօլթարէ. մէտիցինայ. ինֆէռնօ. պալքօնցինօ. ինքօնթռօ.

vuotare tornare voltare medicina inferno finestra58 incontro, faccia a faccia

Երկինք. ելքէն. եղունկ. երանի քեզ.

ցիէլօ. վէլօ. օնճիայ. պէաթօ վօյ.

cielo vela59 unghia beato te, beato voi (Lei)

Ծակօ < ven. zago. Դեղորեք < դեղորայք ‘medicinali’. 56 Il lemma դեղքել non sembra registrato nei dizionari. La forma è però presupposta da տէխկէլ ‘avvelenare’ del dialetto di Mužambar (Tabriz): HAB I: 649. 57 Per le glosse cfr. ven. ti, vu, usate anche come forme di cortesia. 58 Դռնակ vale ‘finestra’ (ֆէնէսթռա) anche in Girk‘ Ayb. 72a-73a; lo stesso in Schröder 1711: 366. Per պալքօնցինօ si veda ven. balcòn ‘finestra’. 59 Ելքէն < tc. yelken; վէլօ < ven. velo ‘vela’, secondo Boerio 1856: 783 proprio del linguaggio dei pescatori. 54 55

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

երբ. երակ. ետևն. ետոյ.

քվանտօ. վէնայ. ինտռիօ. փօի.

quando vena indietro poi

[17] եպիսկոպոս. եղտոտ. ելնուլ. եփել. եաղութ. երախտիք. երես. երեսէ ձգել. երդում. երդում անել. ես. երկու. երեք. երեսուն. եխնի. եկեղեցի.

վէսքօվօ. ըսփօռքօ. ուշիրէ. քուժինարէ. ռուպինօ. մէրիթօ. ֆացիայ. ապանտօնարէ. ճուրամէնթօ. ճուրարէ. մի. իօ. տուօ. թռէ. թռէնթայ. սուֆէկաթօ. քէզիայ.

vescovo sporco60 uscire cuocere, cucinare rubino61 merito faccia, volto abbandonare giuramento giurare io due tre trenta stufato62 chiesa63

[18] երևիլ. եղ. երել. երկաթ.

մօսթռարսի. օնթէսութիլ. պռուծարէ. ֆէռռօ.

mostrarsi burro64 bruciare65 ferro

Զարպաֆ. զաւակ.

փաննի տօռօ. ֆիօլօ.

filo d’oro66 figlio

221

60 Forme analoghe a quella arm. si trovano nel dialetto di Nuova Giulfa e del Karabagh: HLBB I: 369 e cfr. anche HAB I: 136 (s.v. աղտ). 61 Per եաղութ si veda il MHB. 62 Եխնի < Pers. yakhnî, tc. yahni ‘carne stufata’. In Schröder 1711 եախնի è tradotto con ‘jus carnium’ (v. p. 349, dove si legge, erroneamente, ետխնի; p. 352, due volte). Per la glossa ven. si veda l’italiano soffocato ‘cucinato in un abbondante intingolo o liquido di cottura’ GDLI XIX: 264. 63 La grafia della glossa, accolta così com’è, presuppone un it. chesia, che peraltro si ritrova, nella forma քեզիայ, anche a p. 24 del nostro dizionarietto, sempre che quest’ultima non riproduca un chiesia. In effetti l’it. antico conosce chièsia (GDLI III: 72), mentre il ven. ha chiesa. Nei dialetti italiani forme riconducibili a chesia sono sporadicamente attestate nella Puglia meridionale, e, isolatamente, nella Calabria settentrionale e nella Sicilia nord-occidentale (cfr. AIS, carta 783). 64 Per ven. ontosutil si veda la precedente nota 10. 65 Per երել (< այրել) si veda il MHB. 66 Per զարպաֆ si veda il MHB (զարբաֆ / զարպապ). Con la stessa grafia attestata nel nostro dizionario, il termine compare varie volte nella Patmut‘iwn di Abraham Kretac‘i

222

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

զաֆրան. զայրանալ. զընտան. զղջալ. զարար. զզուիլ. զիս. զեղջմարդ. զձեզ.

ցաֆրանօ. էսսէր ինքօլէրայ. փռիժօն. փէնթիրսի. տաննօ. ռիզիկօ. ապօռռիրէ. մէ. ըզպռօտիկօ. վօի.

zafferano67 adirarsi prigione, segreta pentirsi danno, difficoltà68 aborrire me (pron. pers. acc.) uomo orribile (?)69 voi (pron. pers. acc.)

[19] զէրէ. զուտ. զահմէթ. զահմէթ տալ. զկեռ. զինճիֆր. զէնճէֆիլ. զարմ. զատ. զէրտավայ. զուրտեղ. զօղալ. զմրութ.

փէռչիօքէ. ըսքէթթօ. ըսքօմօտօ. ըսքօմօտարէ. նէսփօլէ. ցինապռօ. ծինծէրօ. ռացցայ. սէփարաթամէնթէ. մառթօռէ. փէռնիէնթէ. քօռնօլէ. զմրալտօ.

poiché, perché70 schietto, puro disturbo (sost.)71 disturbare nespola72 cinabro73 zenzero74 razza, stirpe separatamente martora, faina75 per niente, invano corniola76 smeraldo77

Էշ. էհմալ.

ազինօ. նէկլիճէնցայ.

asino negligenza78

(XVIII secolo), per esempio al cap. 11 (Abraam 1973: 52,19), al cap. 38 (121,19 e 123,10) e al cap. 52 (173,6). 67 Per զաֆրան si veda il MHB. 68 Per զարար si veda il MHB. 69 L’interpretazione è molto incerta. In զեղջ մարդ si può dare a զեղջ il valore di ‘orribile’ o di ‘miserabile’; ven. sbròdego significa ‘sguattero’ oppure, come aggettivo, ‘sudicio, unto’. 70 Per զէրէ si veda il MHB. 71 Per զահմէթ si veda il MHB. 72 La glossa è al plurale. 73 Per զինճիֆր si veda il MHB (զինճֆր, զնճուֆր). 74 Per զէնճէֆիլ si veda il MHB (զէնճէպիլ etc.). 75 Զէրտավայ < tc. zerdava, che Redhouse 1968: 1280 traduce con ‘beach martin’ (cioè beech marten ‘faina’). In K‘iwp‘elean 1883: 130 զէրտէվա è tradotta con ‘martre’ ed in Ciakciak 1829: 451 questo stesso vocabolo traduce l’it. martora. La glossa մառթօռէ può essere un plurale o eventualmente un maschile singolare, forse da cfr. con ven. martoro. 76 La glossa è al plurale. 77 Per զմրութ si veda il MHB. 78 Էհմալ < ar.-tc. ihmal.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

223

[20] էհմալանել. էն. եսօր. էս. էրէկ. էնտեղն. էստարի. ենտից. էստից. էրարարիր. էնտոր համար. էլլաւ. էրէց.

նէկլիճէրէ. էլլօ. քվէլլօ. անքու. քվէսթօ. քօսթուի. հիէրի. լայ. ինքվէլ լօկօ. քվէսթօ աննօ. տիլայ. տիքվայ. փէռքէ ավէ ֆաթօ. փէռքվէսթօ. մէլիօ. փռէթէ.

trascurare79 egli, quello oggi80 questo, costui ieri là, in quel luogo quest’anno di là di qua perché hai (avete) fatto?81 per questo meglio82 prete

Թագաւոր. թագ.

ռէ. քօրօնայ.

re corona

[21] թօփ. թուֆանկ. թանաք. թուխտ. թեփ. թիկունք. թև. թաց. թշնամի. թրթնճուկ. թթու. թապաղ. թաս. թի. թքել. թակել.

քանօնէ. ըսքեօփօ. ինքեօսթռօ. քարթայ. սիմօլայ. ըսփալլայ. ալայ. ումիտօ. պակնաթօ. նէմիքօ. ացէթօզայ. կառպօ. փիաթօ. թացցայ. կօթթօ. ռէմօ. ըսփուարէ. պասթօնարէ.

cannone83 fucile, archibugio84 inchiostro carta semola spalla ala umido, bagnato nemico acetosa (nome di pianta) acido85 piatto (sost.)86 tazza, coppa87 remo sputare bastonare

Per էհմալ անել si veda Ačaṙean 1902: 98. Per անքու cfr. ven. ancùo. 81 Էրարարիր = է՞ր արարիր. 82 Էլ լաւ: Per questo tipo di comparativo nel dialetto di Nuova Giulfa cfr. Ačaṙean 1940: 206-207, § 255. 83 Per թօփ si veda il MHB. 84 Per թուֆանկ si veda il MHB. Ըսքեօփօ < ven. schiopo. 85 Կառպօ < ven. garbo ‘acido’. 86 Per թապաղ si veda il MHB. 87 Կօթթօ < it. gotto; cfr. ven. goto. 79 80

224

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

[22] թանկ. թանկութի(ւն). թեթև. թեք. թռչիլ. թագուն. թէոր. թէչէ. թուշ. թուզ. թողուլ. թափել. թոք. թէժ. թօզ. թուխ.

քարօ. քարէսթիայ. լէճերօ. ըսթօռթօ. վօլարէ. ասքօզօ. սէ. սէնօն. կանասէ. ֆիկօ. լաշարէ. ըսփանտէրէ. փուլմօնէ. ֆօռթէ. փօլվէրէ. պրունօ.

caro, costoso alto costo leggero storto, obliquo volare nascosto se se non guancia88 fico lasciare versare polmone ardente89 polvere90 bruno

[23] թանծր. թել. թէնճէրէ. թէզպէհ. թաղել. թամամել. թէզ. թեզնիք. թօթվել.

ըսփէսօ. ացէ. ֆիլօ. ըսթանեատայ. քօրօնայ. սօթէռռարէ. ֆինիրէ. փռէսթօ. մանիկօ. ըսքօռլարէ.

spesso filo91 pentola92 corona del rosario93 sotterrare finire94 presto95 manica96 scuotere, scrollare97

Ժամանակ. ժողովել. ժուռ. ժառանգել. ժառանգ.

թէմփօ. քօլէրէ. ակրէսթէ. էրէտիթարէ. էրէտէ.

tempo raccogliere uva acerba ereditare erede

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

La glossa è al plurale e va confrontata con ven. ganassa. Per it. forte ‘ardente’ si veda GDLI VI: 212. Թօզ < tc. toz. Ացէ (plurale) < ven. azza (cfr. it. accia ‘filo grezzo’). Թէնճէրէ < tc. tencere; ըսթանեատայ < ven. stagnada. Թէզպէհ < tc. tesbih/tespih ‘prayer beads’ (Redhouse 1968:1158). Per թամամել si veda il MHB. Per թէզ si veda il MHB. Strano il maschile nella glossa, che presuppone il ven. mànego. Per ըսքօռլարէ cfr. ven. scorlàr.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

[24] ժամ. ժանկառ. ժանկ. ժողովուրդ.

քեզիայ. վէռտէռամէ. ռուծինէ. փօփօլօ.

chiesa98 verderame ruggine popolo

Իշխանութի(ւն). իշխան. իմանալ. իմացնէլ. իմ. միօ. ինձանէ. ինձ հետ. ինքն. ինն. ինաթճի. իղրար.

ֆաքօլթայ. փրէնցիփէ. ինթենտէրէ. ավիզարէ. մեր. նօսթրօ. տա մի. քօն մի. էսսօ. նիօվէ. օսթինաթօ. փռօմէսսօ.

facoltà principe capire avvisare mio, nostro da me con me egli nove ostinato99 promessa (sost.)100

[25] իստակել. իստակ. իրաւ. իջանել. իմտատանել. իժ. իւր. իքմին.

նէթթարէ. նէթթօ. ցէռթօ. տէշէնտէրէ. սօքօռռէրէ. վիփէրայ. սուօ. քվալքէ քօսայ.

pulire101 pulito102 certo scendere soccorrere103 vipera suo una cosa, qualcosa104

Լալ. լոյս. լուսին. լէհէպ. լեզու. լու.

փիանճէրէ. լուժէ. լունայ. քուլթրայ. լինկվայ. փուլիժէ.

piangere luce luna coperta105 lingua pulce

225

98 La glossa presuppone una forma chesia, che si trova anche a p. 17 di questo dizionarietto, o forse un chiesia. Si veda quanto detto alla nota 63. 99 Ինաթճի < tc. inatçı. 100 Per իղրար si veda il MHB (իխրար). Per it. promesso ‘promessa’ cfr. il GDLI XIV: 585-586. 101 Per il tipo իստակ(ել) < յստակ(ել), frequente nei dialetti arm., si veda HAB III: 412. 102 Per իստակ si veda il MHB (յիստակ). 103 Իմտատ անել: իմտատ < ar.-tc. imdad/imdat + անել. 104 Իքմին < իք մին. In arm. vale anche ‘roba, merce’: p.es. nei dialoghi contenuti alle pp. 71, 74 di questo dizionarietto, իքմին è tradotto con ռօպայ e քօսայ. 105 Per լէհէպ si veda il MHB (լեհեֆ). Nella grafia լհեպ il termine compare al cap. 19 di Abraham Kretac‘i (Abraam 1973: 72,2)

226

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

լապսթրակ. լղար.

լիէվրօ. մակրօ.

lepre106 magro

[26] լայն. լեղի. լսել. լնուլ. լողտալ. լաքայ. լավ. լիմոն. լուանալ. լայեղ. լահանայ. լիզել. լինել. լալքար. լաճվարթ.

լարկօ. ամարօ. ֆիէլ. սէնթիրէ. ասքօլթարէ. փէնիրէ. նատարէ. մաքեայ. պօնօ. լիմօնէ. լավարէ. տէնեօ. քափուցցի. լէքարէ. էսսէրէ. ամէթիսթայ. լափիս լածուրի.

largo amaro (agg.); fiele sentire, ascoltare riempire107 nuotare108 macchia109 buono limone lavare degno110 cavolo111 leccare essere ametista112 lapislazuli

[27] Խոտ. խոց.

էռպայ. փիակայ.

erba piaga

Il tipo լապսթրակ per նապաստակ è assai diffuso nei dialetti (cfr. HAB II: 428). Strana la glossa (tra l’altro con է invece di un più probabile ե), forse da cfr. con it. pienare ‘riempire’ (per cui si veda il GDLI XIII: 405). 108 Per լող տալ si veda il MHB. La glossa, che presuppone certamente *nadare, sembra un compromesso tra it. antico natare (GDLI XI: 215-216) e nodàr, presente in diverse aree del Veneto (cfr. Prati 1968: 113). Il ven. ha nuar. 109 Լաքայ < Pers. lakâ, tc. leke. 110 Per լայեղ si veda il MHB. 111 Լահանայ < tc. lâhana (parola di origine greca); la glossa è al plurale e va confrontata con ven. capuzzo ‘cavolo’. 112 Ad arm. լալ (da cui լալ քար) il MHB attribuisce il valore di ‘rubino’ (սուտակ), probabilmente anche in base al significato di ar.-tc. lâ‘l, pers. lâl, da cui la parola armena è presa a prestito. Tuttavia, il valore di ‘ametista’ pare confermato da Girk‘ Ayb. 76, dove լալս traduce ամէթիսթի, nonché da quanto si legge nel cap. 53 di Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i: ամէթիօսթոս` որ է լալն (Aṙak‘el 1990: 444). Da notare peraltro che nella tavola sinottica che, in Aṙak‘el, precede immediatamente il cap. 53 (Aṙak‘el 1990: 442) arm. ամէթիուսթոս è equiparato ad ar. լալ ed a ‘ֆռանգերէն’ պալաշխ: quest’ultimo, da confrontare con it. balascio, francese balais, spagnolo balajo, catalano balaix, portoghese balache etc., indica in realtà una varietà di rubino, o piuttosto lo spinello. Questo per quanto riguarda l’aspetto strettamente lessicale, che potrebbe anche riflettere una classificazione delle gemme diversa da quella attuale. Si potrebbe però fare un ulteriore passo ed osservare che, con la denominazione di ametista orientale si indica, erroneamente, il corindone viola, membro del gruppo mineralogico di cui fa parte anche il rubino (cfr. Cavenago-Bignami Moneta 1993: 63-64). Quanto allo spinello, ricordiamo che può essere confuso col rubino (cfr. Cavenago-Bignami Moneta 1993: 59). 106 107

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

խաղող. խաչ. խորոված. խիար. խիար շէմպէ. խմել. խաղալ. խեղդել. խաղասել. խրատել. խօսք. խօսիլ. խաւար. խեղճ.

ուվայ. քռօժէ. ռօսթօ. քուքումարօ. քասիայ. պէվէրէ. ճօկարէ. սօֆօկարէ. քանթարէ. ավիզարէ. փառօլայ. փառլարէ. օսքուրօ. կրամօ.

uva croce arrosto cetriolo113 cassia114 bere giocare soffocare, strozzare cantare115 consigliare parola parlare oscuro, buio infelice, gramo

[28] խուզել. խոստովանիլ. խրիտանել. խարճել. խափել. խառնել. խնչել. խղճալ. խղճմտանք. խուլ. խակ. խալի. խնամի. խաշ.

թօզարէ. քօնֆէսարսի. ինվէսթիր լի տանարի. ըսփէնտէրէ. կապարէ. մէսքեարէ. մուքեարէ. քօմփաթիրէ. քօնշիէնցայ. սուռտօ. իմմաթուրօ. թափէօ. փարէնթէ. թռիփփէ.

խաշել. խելք.

լէսսարէ. ճուտիցիօ.

tosare confessarsi investire il denaro116 spendere117 ingannare mischiare soffiarsi il naso118 compatire coscienza sordo acerbo, non maturo tappeto119 parente interiora o altre carni bollite, trippa120 lessare senno

227

Per խիար si veda il MHB; per քուքումարօ cfr. ven. cugùmero ‘cetriuolo’. խիար շէմպէ < tc. hıyarşembe. 115 Per խաղ ասել si veda il MHB. 116 Խրիտ անել ‘investire il denaro’ (cioè impiegarlo acquistando merci) < pers. kharîd ‘acquisto’ + անել. In Sarhad figlio di Šahvel è attestato խրիդ ‘acquisto’ (v. glossario in Sarhad 1994: 174); in Yovhannēs Tēr-Davt‘ean si legge ամ … խրիտ արարեալ ‘ho acquistato (della merce)’ (Yovhannēs 1984: 78 ed anche il glossario, p. 387). 117 Per խարճել si veda il MHB. 118 Per մուքեարէ cfr. ven. mocàr, mocarse. 119 Per խալի si veda il MHB. 120 Per խաշ si veda il MHB. La glossa è al plurale (forse usato come plurale tantum). 113 114

228

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

[29] խելօք. խնծոր. խաշու. խռով. խռովիլ. խան.

սավիօ. փօմօ. պրուօ. սուլլէվաթօ. տիզկութարսի. փրէնչիփէ.

intelligente mela brodo di carne121 turbato122 turbarsi123 principe

Ծով. ծակ. ծամել. ծնիլ. ծեր. ծառ. ծաղիկ. ծնօղ. ծուռ.

մարէ. պուժօ. մասթիկարէ. փարթօրիրէ. վէքքեօ. ալպէրօ. ֆիօրէ. փարէնթի. ըսթօռթօ.

mare buco masticare partorire vecchio albero fiore genitore124 storto

[30] ծիրան. ծիծաղիլ. ծախել. ծծել. ծարաւ. ծածկել. ծալել. ծառայ. ծայր. ծաքար. ծոմ. ծոմ կենալ. ծիրանի. ծանտր. ծունկ. ծամ.

արմէլլինի. ռիտէրէ. վէնտէրէ. ծուծարէ. սէ. քօվռիրէ. փիէկարէ. սէրվիթօրէ. քավօ. փիրիայ. տիճունօ. տիճունարէ. ըզկվարտօ. փէզօքքօ. ճինօքեօ. ցացարէ.

albicocca125 ridere vendere succhiare sete coprire piegare servo punta, capo, estremità imbuto126 digiuno (sost.) digiunare vermiglio127 pesante128 ginocchio capigliatura129

Per խաշու si veda il MHB. Per it. sollevato ‘agitato, turbato’ si veda il GDLI XIX: 354. 123 Տիզկու‹ս›թարսի: տիզկուոթարսի nel testo. 124 La glossa è al plurale. Per it. parente ‘genitore’ si veda il GDLI XII:589. 125 Per արմէլլինի (al plurale) cfr. ven. armelìn ‘albicocca’. Peraltro, la quarta lettera del lemma armeno non risulta stampata in modo chiaro, sicché sarebbe possibile, anche se meno probabile, leggere արմելլինի. 126 Փիրիայ < ven. piria. 127 Ըզկվարտօ < ven. sguardo. 128 Il tipo ծանտր o ծանդր per ծանր è già nell‘arm. medievale (cfr. MHB) ed è assai diffuso nei dialetti (cfr. HAB II: 445). Per փէզօքքօ cfr. ven. pesòco. 129 Per ցացարէ (al plurale) cfr. ven. zàzzara ‘zazzera, capigliatura’. 121 122

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

229

[31] ծամտաք. ծուխ. ծիծ. ծխանելիք. ծոց. ծուլ. ծերանալ.

մասթիցէ. ֆումօ. թէթթէ. ինցէնսօ. սէնօ. փօլթռօնէ. ինվէքեարսի.

mastice fumo mammella, tetta130 incenso131 seno pigro, poltrone invecchiare

Կենդանի. կարկուտ. կայծակ. կարմունճ. կօլ. կղզի. կարմիր. կաղամար.

վիվօ. թէմփէսթայ. սաէթթայ. փօնթէ. լակօ. իզօլայ. ռօսսօ. քալամարօ.

vivo grandinata132 fulmine, saetta ponte lago133 isola rosso calamaio

[32] կապայ. կէրակուր. կող. կատու. կին. կապուտ. կոյս. կշեռք. կտաւ. կանանչ. կորեկ. կտաւ հատ. կարծիք. կուլ տալ. կռվիլ. կապել.

վէսթէ. մինէսթրայ. քօսթայ. կաթթօ. տօննայ. թուրքինօ. վէրճինէ. տօնծէլլայ. պիլանցայ. թէլայ. վէռտէ. մէլեօ. սէմէնցայ տէ լինօ. տուպիօ. ինկեօթիրէ. քռիարէ. լիկարէ.

veste; tonaca134 vivanda135 costola gatto donna turchino vergine, ragazza bilancia tela verde miglio seme di lino supposizione inghiottire136 litigare, rimproverare137 legare

[33] կախել.

փէնտէրէ.

appendere

130

La glossa è al plurale (forse usato come plurale tantum). Per ծխանելիք ‘legno di aloe usato come incenso’ si veda il MHB. 132 Per թէմփէսթայ cfr. ven. (e it. dialettale) tempesta ‘grandinata’. 133 Per կօլ si veda il MHB. 134 Per կապայ si veda il MHB. Il termine compare anche in Abraham Kretac‘i, per esempio al cap. 38 (Abraam 1973: 121,19; 122,15-18; 123,11) e al cap. 49 (161,6-7). 135 Per it. minestra ‘cibo, vivanda’ si veda il GDLI X: 440. 136 Per կուլ տալ si veda il MHB. 137 Per քռիարէ cfr. ven. criàr ‘gridare, rimproverare’. 131

230

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

կլաեկ. կանճ. կտրել. կոտրել. կանկնիլ. կարդալ. կթել. կփցանել. կարել. կորցնել. կարենալ. կէշտանել. կար. կարկատել. կաշի.

ըսթանեօ. ճօվէնէ. թալիարէ. ռօմփէրէ. ըսթարէ. լէճէրէ. մօլցէրէ. աթթաքարէ. քուժիրէ. փէռտէրէ. փօտէրէ. ըսփասէճարէ. քուժիթուրայ. ռափէցցարէ. քօեայ. քօռտօվան.

stagno (metallo) giovane (agg. e sost.)138 tagliare rompere alzarsi, stare in piedi leggere mungere139 attaccare cucire perdere potere passeggiare140 cucitura rappezzare cuoio, cordovano

[34] Հայր. հոգի. հարսն. հրեշտակ. հող. հիւսիս. հաց. հորթուկ. հաւ. հարամի.

փատրէ. անիմայ. ըսփօզայ. անծէլօ. թէռռայ. սէթէնթռիօնէ. փանէ. վիթէլլօ. կալլինայ. ասասինօ.

հաւատալ. հալալ. հարամ. հրաժարիլ. համարել. հայիլ. հոտառնուլ.

քռէտէրէ. լէցիթօ. իլլէցիթօ. ռինօնցիարէ. քօնթարէ. կվառտարէ. նազարէ.

padre anima sposa angelo terra, terreno settentrione, nord pane vitello gallina brigante, persona malvagia141 credere lecito142 illecito143 rinunciare contare, calcolare guardare annusare, sentire un odore144

[35] հոտիլ.

ըսփուցարէ.

puzzare

կանճ < tc. genç. La glossa presuppone un molzere che, pur non essendo veneziano, è attestato in area dialettale veneta: cfr. AIS, carta 1194 ed anche Prati 1968: 107. 140 Կէշտ անել < pers. gasht, tc. geşt ‘passeggiata’ + անել. 141 Per հարամի si veda il MHB. 142 Per հալալ si veda il MHB. 143 Per հարամ si veda il MHB. 144 Per նազարէ cfr. ven. nasàr. 138

139

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

231

հոգս անել. հաթաթայ տալ. հասնիլ. հանգչիլ. հրամայել. հնազանդիլ. հարցանել. հիւանդանալ. հարուստ. հաքանիլ. հանաքանել. հազալ. հալել. հեշտ. հիմիկս. հաւատք.

քուրարէ. մինացարէ. առիվարէ. ռիփօզարսի. քօմանտարէ. ուպէտիրէ. տօմանտարէ. ամալարսի. ռիքքօ. վէսթիրսի. պուռլարէ. թօսիրէ. ֆօնտէրէ. ֆացիլէ. ատէսօ. ֆէտէ.

aver cura, preoccuparsi minacciare arrivare riposarsi comandare ubbidire domandare ammalarsi ricco vestirsi burlare tossire fondere facile adesso fede

[36] հաստ. հոտ. հէքիմ. հերիքէ. հետ. հարաւ. հակ. հակառակ. հակառակիլ. հեծնել. հանդիպիլ.

կռօսօ. օտօռէ. մէտիքօ. պասթայ. ինսիէմէ. ավուսթռօ. պալլայ. քօնթռարիօ. քօնթռասթարէ. քավալքարէ. ինքօնթռարէ.

grosso, spesso odore medico145 basta146 insieme, con sud balla di merce contrario contrastare cavalcare incontrare

Ձմեռն. ձոր. ձայն. ձուկն. ձէթ.

ինվէռնօ. վալլէ. վօժէ. փէշէ. օլեօ.

inverno valle voce pesce olio

[37] ձեռք. ձի. ձու. ձախ. ձմերուկ. ձեռդնել գրի.

մանօ. քավալլօ. վօվօ. ցանքօ. անկուրիայ. սօթօսքրվէրէ.

mano cavallo uovo sinistro147 anguria sottoscrivere

145 146 147

Per հէքիմ si veda il MHB (հեքիմ). Հերիքէ = հերիք է ‘è abbastanza’. Ցանքօ < ven. zanco.

232

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

ձուն. ձուկն որսալ. ձգել. ձեր. ձեզ. ձեզանէ. ձավար. ձագ. ձեղունք.

նէվէ. փէսքարէ. պութարէ. վօսթռօ. ավօի. տավօի. ֆառռօ. փուլէզին. թէթթօ.

ձևել. ձև.

թալեարէ. ֆօրմայ.

neve pescare buttare vostro a voi da voi grano mondato farro piccolo di uccello148 soffitto, soffitta tetto149 tagliare (un vestito) forma

[38] Ղուշ. ղութի. ղալամթրաշ. ղավ. ղարավաշ. ղարաֆիլ. ղափաղ. ղապուլանել. ղայիլկալ. ղազ. ղուսուր. ղալիպ.

ուժէլէթթօ. ըսքաթօլայ. թէմփէրինօ. լէսքայ. մասէրայ. քարօֆօլօ. քօվէրքեօ. ացէթթարէ. քօնթէնթարսի. օքայ. ռէսթօ. ֆօրմայ.

uccello150 scatola151 temperino152 esca (per fuoco)153 serva154 garofano155 coperchio156 accettare157 essere d’accordo158 oca159 resto (di denaro)160 stampo161

Ճուղ. ճերմակ. ճանապարհ. ճիկար.

ռամօ. պիանքօ. ըսթրատայ. ֆէկաօ.

ramo bianco strada fegato162

148

Ven. polesín, pulzìn indica propriamente il piccolo di gallina, di anatra o di oca. Per una analoga, non perfetta corrispondenza fra lemma e glossa si veda quanto detto alla nota 5. 150 Ղուշ < tc. kuş. 151 Per ղութի si veda il MHB. 152 Ղալամթրաշ < pers. qalam-tarâsh, tc. kalemtıraş / kalemtraş. 153 Ղավ < tc. kav. 154 Per ղարավաշ si veda il MHB. 155 Per ղարաֆիլ si veda il MHB (ղարանֆիլ). 156 Ղափաղ < tc. kapak. 157 Per ղապուլ անել si veda il MHB. 158 Ղայիլ կալ: per ղայիլ ‘concorde’ si veda il MHB. 159 Per ղազ si veda il MHB. 160 Ղուսուր < ar.-tc. kusur/küsur (plurale di kesir). 161 Per ղալիպ si veda il MHB (կալիպ). 162 Per ճիկար si veda il MHB. 149

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

233

[39] ճանճ. ճշմարիտ. ճշմարտութի(ւն). ճնճղաբլիթ. ճղել. ճրագ. Ճարանել. ճարչկայ.

մուսքայ. վէրօ. վէրիթայ. մալվայ. ըզպռիկարէ. լուժէ. ռիմէտիարէ. նօն սի փօ.

ճէպ. ճաքած. ճաքիլ. ճաղատ. ճրագու. ճչալ. ճուղապտալ. ճուղապ.

ըսքարցէլլայ. ըսֆիզօ. քռէփարէ. քալվօ. սէօ. ցիկարէ. ռիսփօնտէրէ. ռիսփօսթայ.

mosca vero verità malva163 squarciare164 lampada trovare un rimedio165 non si può, non c’è modo166 tasca, scarsella167 crepato, con una fessura168 crepare, fendere calvo sego gridare169 rispondere170 risposta171

[40] Միածին. մինակ. մին. մարդավարութի(ւն). մկրատ. մոմ. միս. մեղք. մազ. մորթի. մատն. մռջում. մօտիկ. մուռտառ. մեռել.

ունիճէնիթօ. սօլօ. ունօ. քռէանցայ. ֆօռֆէ. քանտէլայ. քառնէ. փէքքաթօ. քավէլլի. փէլլէ. տէօ. տէի. ֆօռմիկօլայ. վիցինօ. ըսփօռքօ. մօռթօ.

unigenito solo uno buona educazione forbici candela carne peccato capigliatura, capelli pelle dito172 formica173 vicino sporco morto

163 La forma armena è variante di (o errore per) ճնճղկաբլիթ per cui si veda p. es. Bedevian 1936: 381 (n° 2200). 164 Per la glossa cfr. ven. sbregàr. 165 Per ճար անել si veda il MHB. 166 Ճարչկայ = ճար չկայ. 167 Per ճէպ si veda il MHB. 168 Per ըսֆիզօ cfr. ven. sfeso. 169 Per ցիկարէ cfr. ven. cigàr. 170 Per ճուղապ տալ si veda il MHB. 171 Per ճուղապ si veda il MHB. 172 La glossa presenta le forme ven. al singolare ed al plurale. 173 Per il tipo մռջում < մրջիւն nei dialetti arm. cfr. HAB III: 371.

234

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

մեղաւոր. մաղատանոս.

փէքաթօռէ. փռէսիմօլօ.

peccatore prezzemolo174

[41] մանուշակ. մոխիր. մուխայար. մօռ. միզար. մսմար. մաշիկ. մէշին.

վիօլայ. ցէնէրէ. մուքայարօ. փավօնացօ. թուռպան. քիօտօ. ըսքառփայ. մառօքին.

միտքանել. միտն վերայ պահել. միաբանիլ. մռճամ. մկրտել. մկրտութի(ւն). մեծանալ. մարսել. մտնել.

փէնսարէ. աթէնտէրէ. քօնվէնիրէ. քօռալլօ. պաթիծարէ. պաթէզիմօ. վէնիր կրանտէ. տիժէրիրէ. ինթռարէ.

viola (fiore) cenere mocaiardo175 violetto, paonazzo176 turbante177 chiodo178 scarpa marocchino (cuoio di pelle di capra o pecora)179 pensare occuparsi, badare (?)180 concordare corallo181 battezzare battesimo crescere digerire entrare

[42] մերկ. մեռնիլ. մուրալ.

ինուօ. մօռիէ. մէնտիքարէ.

nudo morire182 mendicare

Մաղատանոս < tc. mağdanos, per cui si veda p. es. Bedevian 1936: 149-150 (n° 882) e 448-449 (n° 2609). 175 Il MHB attribuisce a մուխայեար il valore di ‘tessuto di cotone o seta’ (բամբակե կամ մետաքսե կտավ` գործվածք, կերպաս), ma it. mocaiardo o mocaiarro indica una ‘stoffa di pelo di cammello o di capra’ (cfr. GDLI X: 631). Tanto la voce armena quanto quella italiana (ed anche il quasi-sinonimo mohair) derivano dall‘ar. mukhayyar, che indica un ‘panno scelto (khayyar) di pelo di capra’ (v. p.es. DELI III: 768, s.v. moire). Lasciando per ora da parte il valore del termine nell’unico passo riportato nel MHB, ci pare che, almeno per quanto riguarda il significato di մուխայար nel nostro dizionarietto, la concordanza tra il valore del termine arabo e quello della glossa italiana tolgano ogni dubbio circa il fatto che qui ci si riferisca a ‘stoffa fatta con pelo di capra’. 176 Per մօռ si veda il MHB. 177 Միզար < ar.-tc. mi‘zar/mizar ‘copertura, velo’. 178 Per մսմար si veda il MHB. 179 Մէշին < tc. meşin. 180 Seppure il raffronto non sia completamente sicuro, riteniamo possibile farlo dando al lemma arm., միտն (ի) վերայ պահել, il senso di ‘fare attenzione, concentrarsi su qualcosa’. 181 Մռճամ < ar.-tc. mercan. 182 Մօռիիէ nel testo. 174

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

մաղել. մոռանալ. մեզ. մեզհետ. մածուն. մեծ. մեղք. մոծակ. մուշկ.

թամիժարէ. ըսքօռտարսի. անօի. քօննօի. փուինայ. կրանտէ. փէքքաթօ. մուսօնի. մուսքեօ.

setacciare183 dimenticarsi, scordarsi a noi con noi ricotta184 grande peccato zanzara185 muschio (sostanza odorosa)

Յ(իսու)ս. յաւիտեան. յղանալ. յղի.

ժէզուս. ինէթէռնօ. ինկռավիտարսի. կրավիտայ.

Gesù in eterno rimanere incinta gravida

[43] յորդորել. յետուտել. յայտնել. յետձգել. յետին. յարուցանել. յետոյ. յոյս. յուսալ. յուսահատիլ. յաղթել. յատակ. յատուկ.

էսօռթարէ. նէկարէ. տիքեարիրէ. ռիթարտարէ. ուլթիմօ. սուշիթարէ. փօի. ըսփէրանցայ. ըսփէրարէ. տէսփէրարէ. վինցէրէ. ֆունտօ. փռօփրիօ.

esortare negare (?)186 manifestare, rivelare posticipare ultimo suscitare poi speranza sperare disperare vincere fondo, base proprio, particolare

Նաւ. նշան. նուշ.

նավէ. սէնեօ. մանտօլէ.

nave segno mandorla187

[44] նաւարար. նօսր.

մարինարօ. քեարօ.

marinaio, barcaiolo188 rado

235

Per թամիժարէ cfr. ven. tamisàr. Per փուինայ cfr. ven. puìna. 185 Per մուսօնի (plurale) cfr. ven. mussòn. 186 Pur con qualche perplessità (յետ ուտել non è registrato in nessun lessico), interpretiamo il lemma nel senso di ‘rimangiarsi (la parola o simili)’, e quindi ‘negare’, valore che նէկարէ ha anche a p. 48 del vocabolarietto. Data l‘incertezza del lemma, occorre però precisare che ven. negàr vale sia ‘negare’ che ‘annegare, affogare’. 187 Per մանտօլէ (plurale) cfr. ven. màndola. 188 Per questo valore di նաւարար cfr. Ałayan 1976:1056. 183 184

236

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

նեղ. նման. նօքար. նարկիզ. նուռ. նեղանալ. նշանանել. նստիլ. նախատել. նախանձ. նախանձիլ. նա. նրանէ. նախշ. նոր.

ըսթռէթթօ. սիմիլէ. սէրվիթօրէ. նարցիզօ. փօմօ կրանաթօ. տիսկուսթարսի. սինեարէ. սէնթարէ. ռիփռէնտէրէ. ինվիտիայ. ինվիտիարէ. էլլօ. քվէլլօ. տա էլլօ. փիթթուրայ. նօվօ.

stretto simile servo narciso melograno infastidirsi segnare sedere (verbo)189 rimproverare, sgridare invidia invidiare egli, quello da lui disegno ornamentale nuovo

[45] նորել.

ռիֆարէ.

rifare

Շնորհք. շատ. շուտ. շահ. շուշայ. շուն. շիտակ. շախկամ. շալ. շապիք. շոր. շամփուր. շլոր. շռել. շուրջգալ.

կրացիայ. մասսայ. փռէսթօ. կվատանեօ. վէռօ. քանէ. տռիթթօ. ռավէ. ըսթամէթթօ. քամիժայ. ապիթօ. ըսփէօ. ամօլի. փիշարէ. քամինարէ.

grazia troppo190 presto guadagno vetro191 cane dritto rapa192 scialle di lana193 camicia abito spiedo susina194 pisciare camminare

[46] շարժել. շարժ. շարել.

մօվէրէ. թէռռէմօթօ. էմփիրարէ.

muovere terremoto disporre in fila, infilzare (detto di perle o simili)195

189 190 191 192 193 194 195

Per la glossa cfr. ven. sentàr. Մասսայ < ven. massa. Per շուշայ si veda il MHB. La glossa è al plurale. Per it. stametto ‘tessuto di lana leggera’ si veda il GDLI XX: 56. Per ամօլի (al plurale) cfr. ven. àmolo. Per էմփիրարէ cfr. ven. impiràr.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

շիտակել. շահանել. շնորհակալ լինիլ. շնալ. շփել. շեկ. շիլ. շեռ.

տռիցարէ. կատանեարէ. ռինկրացիարէ. ֆօռնիքարէ. ֆռէկարէ. պիօնտօ. մաթթօ. ուրինայ.

raddrizzare guadagnare ringraziare fornicare sfregare biondo matto196 urina

Ողորմած. որդի. որոտ. ունք. ոտք.

միզէրիքօրտիօզօ. ֆիօլօ. թուօնօ. ցիլեօ. փիէ.

misericordioso figlio tuono sopracciglia197 piede

[47] ոջիլ. որձակ. ոսկերիչ. ուրաք. ոսպ. ունապ. ուզել. ողորմորալ. ուշոց տալ. ուշոց. ուշ դնել. ուրախանալ. ուտել. ուսնիլ. ուսցնել. ողարկել. ողորմիլ.

փիօքեօ. կալլօ. օրէզէ. մանարին. լէնթէ. ծիծօլէ. վօլէրէ. սուփլիքարէ. պէսթէմիարէ. պէսթէմիայ. օսէրվարէ. ռալէկրարսի. մանճարէ. իմփարարէ. ինսինեարէ. մանտարէ. քօնփաթիրէ.

pidocchio gallo orafo198 ascia199 lenticchia giuggiola200 volere supplicare bestemmiare bestemmia201 far attenzione rallegrarsi mangiare imparare insegnare mandare commiserare

[48] ոչինչ չաներ. ուրանալ. ունենալ. ով. որն.

նօն իմփօռթայ. նէկարէ. ավէրէ. քի. քվալէ.

non importa negare avere chi quale, il quale

237

196 Arm. շիլ, che normalmente significa ‘guercio, strabico’, assume il valore di ‘matto’ nel dialetto di Nuova Giulfa (cfr. HAB III: 517 e Ačaṙean 1940: 379). 197 Per ունք (< յօնք) si veda il MHB. 198 Օրէզէ < ven. orèse. 199 Per ուրաք si veda il MHB; մանարին < ven. manarin. 200 Per ծիծօլէ (al plurale) cfr. ven. zìzola. 201 Probabilmente variante di ուշունց (cfr. anche յիշոց).

238

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

ուր. ուսկից. որդ. ոսկի. ուրախ. ուժ. ուժով. ուլունք.

տօվէ. տի տօվէ. վէրմէ. վէրմօ. օռօ. ալէկրօ. ֆօռցայ. ֆօռթէ. փէռլէ ֆալսէ.

ուշ. ոլորել. ոխ. ուղտ.

թարտէ. թօռծէրէ. մալիկնիթայ. ինփիքօ. քամէլօ.

dove da dove verme oro lieto forza forte perla di vetro, perla falsa202 tardi torcere rancore, malanimo203 cammello

[49] ոռ. որձ.

քուլօ. մասքեօ.

culo maschio

Չէնկէլ. չուան. չափ. չոր. չար. չախու. չախմախ. չաշխուր. չամիչ. չափել. չուխայ. չիֆթ. չորացնել.

ա՛նքօրայ. քօռտայ. միզուրայ. սէքքօ. քաթիվօ. պռիթթօլայ. պաթիֆօկօ. քալցէ. ծպիպօ. միզուրարէ. փաննօ. փէր. փար. սէքքարէ.

àncora204 corda misura secco cattivo coltellino205 pietra focaia, acciarino206 calzoni207 uva passa, zibibbo misurare tessuto di lana, panno paio, coppia208 seccare, disseccare209

202

La glossa è al plurale. L‘interpretazione è abbastanza sicura, anche se, non volendo intervenire sulla lezione tràdita, non riusciamo a capire da dove l‘autore tragga la seconda glossa, che presuppone un *impico. 204 Per չէնկէլ cfr. pers. changal, tc. çengel ‘uncino’, per cui si veda anche il MHB (չանկալ). Anche in arm. kiptchak č‘angal vale ‘àncora’ (DAK: 180). 205 Չախու < pers. châqû, tc. çakı; il termine è anche in Riggs 1847: 107, in Ačaṙean 1902: 267 e cfr. MHB (չախուեկ). Per պռիթթօլայ cfr. ven. brìtola. 206 Per չախմախ si veda il MHB; պաթիֆօկօ < ven. batifògo. 207 Չաշխուր < tc. çakşır, çakşur, passato poi a pers. châqshûr/châqshur ‘a kind of red hose’ (Steingass 1992: 386); Riggs 1847: 107 ha չաշխըր. Per it. calze ‘calzoni’ si veda il GDLI II: 562-563. 208 Չիֆթ < tc. çift. 209 In սէքքարէ la seconda lettera non risulta stampata in modo chiaro, sicché sarebbe possibile, anche se meno probabile, leggere սեքքարէ. 203

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

չիթ.

ինտիանայ.

indiana, tela di cotone stampata210

[50] չանկ. չոքիլ. չէ. չպուղ.

կրայէլլայ. ճինօքեարսի. նօն. պակէթթայ.

?211 inginocchiarsi no bacchetta212

Պտուղ. պատ. պարզկայ. պատիւ. պարկեշտ. պաղչայ. պատկերք. պանիր. պզտիկ. պատճառ. պատկերահան. պնահ.

ֆրութթօ. մուրալեայ. քեարօ. օնօրէ. պանքէթթօ. մօտէսթօ. ճառտինօ. քվատրօ. ֆուրմաճեօ. փիքօլօ. քավզայ. փիթթօրէ. մուրէր.

frutto muro, muraglia sereno (del tempo)213 onore; banchetto214 probo giardino215 quadro formaggio piccolo causa, motivo pittore muratore216

[51] պալմոմի.

չէրայ.

cera217

239

Չիթ < pers. chît (parola di origine hindi), passata a tc. çit. Non ci è stato possibile trovare una traduzione che soddisfi lemma e glossa. Tra i vari significati di չանկ/ճանկ (compresi quelli riportati dal MHB) abbiamo: 1. ‘nebbia fitta’; 2. ‘unità di misura di capacità, usata per i cereali’; 3. ‘artiglio, unghia, uncino’; 4. ‘arpa, cetra’; 5. ‘campana’. In alcune accezioni il termine armeno è preso a prestito dal persiano o dal turco, ed in queste lingue parole omofone possono avere ancora altri valori, tutti lontani, però, da quello presunto per la glossa. Inoltre, in Girk‘ Ayb. 73a չանկեր traduce ֆուրքէթթէ ‘forchette’. Infine, in ambito botanico, ճանկ indica la ‘rosa di Gerico’, anastatica hierochuntica: Bedevian 1936: 55 (n° 330), ճանկխոտ il ‘camepizio’, ajuga chamaepitys: Bedevian 1936: 29 (n° 171), ճանկիկ infine il ‘caprifoglio’, lonicera caprifolium: Bedevian 1936: 370 (n° 2143). Se la glossa deriva da ven. graèla, questa vale ‘grata’, ‘graticola’ e in generale qualsiasi strumento fatto a forma di graticcio, come quello usato per pigiare l‘uva o battere la lana. 212 Չպուղ < tc. çubuk (Riggs 1847: 111 ha չպուխ). La glossa, nonostante l‘inattesa grafia, sarà da it. bacchetta, ven. (e veneto) bachèta (cfr. AIS, carta 561), e non da ven. baghèta ‘piccolo otre’ 213 Per պարզկայ si veda il MHB. 214 Arm. պատիւ assume il valore di ‘banchetto, festa’ nei dialetti di Ayntab e Nuova Giulfa: cfr. HAB IV: 43, Ačaṙean 1913: 900 e Ačaṙean 1940: 382. Tale uso è attestato anche in Schröder 1711: 348. 215 Per պաղչայ si veda il MHB. 216 Պնահ < pers. bannâ‘, մուրէր < ven. murèr. 217 Per պալմոմի si veda il MHB (պալմումի). 210 211

240

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

պօզ. պտուկ.

պէրէթթին. փինեաթայ.

պնակ. պաչել. պառկիլ. պարշիլ. պարտիլ. պառաւ. պիտի. պաշխել. պարծենալ. պակաս. պարկ. պսակ. պոլոճիկ. պողպատ.

փիատինէ. պաժարէ. տօռմիրէ. աքքօռտարսի. տօվէրէ. վէքեայ. պիզօնեայ. տօնարէ. վանթարսի. ըսքարցօ. սաքքօ. մաթրիմօնիօ. ռունեօն. ացալին.

grigio218 pentola (di terracotta o sim.)219 piatto, vassoio220 baciare dormire accordarsi221 dovere vecchia bisogna distribuire vantarsi scarso sacco matrimonio rene, rognone acciarino

[52] պեխ. պաք. պորտ. պարապ. պէ սիրաթ.

մուսթացօ. տիճունօ. պօնիկօլօ. օցիօզօ. ինսօլէնթէ.

baffi222 digiuno223 ombelico224 inattivo, disoccupato insolente225

Ջուր. ջաղաց. ջնջել. ջահ. ջորի. ջանք անել. ջանք. ջհուտ.

աքվայ. մօլինօ. փէննարէ. լամփատէ. մուլօ. ըսթէնթարէ. տիլիծէնցայ. էպռէօ.

acqua mulino cancellare lampada226 mulo sforzarsi impegno, sforzo ebreo227

Per պօզ si veda il MHB. Per պտուկ si veda il MHB. 220 Per փիատինէ (al plurale) cfr. ven. piàdena: ‘vaso di legno, a guisa di piatto grande ad uso di cucina’ (Boerio 1856: 501). 221 Per պարշիլ cfr. tc. barış ‘riconciliazione’; si veda anche պարըշմիշ ըլլալ ‘riconciliarsi’ in Ačaṙean 1902: 287. 222 Alla fine della pagina 51, dove, secondo l‘uso tipografico dell‘epoca, si anticipano le prime lettere della prima parola della pagina seguente, պեխ compare nella grafia պեղ. 223 Per պաք si veda il MHB. 224 Պօնիկօլօ < ven. bonìgolo. 225 Պէ սիրաթ (probabilmente scritto con i due elementi separati) < pers. bîsîrat ‘che ha un cattivo carattere, scostumato’, composto da pers. bî/be ed ar. sîrat. 226 La glossa è al plurale. 227 Per ջհուտ si veda il MHB. 218 219

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

ջուլ. ջարդել. ջկ.

սաքքօ. ֆրաքասարէ. սէփարաթամէնթէ.

sacco fracassare separatamente228

[53] ջոկել. ջուլահակ.

ցէրնէրէ. թէսէր.

separare tessitore229

Ռանտայ. ռանտայ պանրի. ռաղամ. ռէհան. ռամալ. ռավէնտ. ռեխ. ռամ. ռուպ. ռայայ.

փիանայ. կրաթաքաժօ. ցիֆրայ. պազիկօ. ասթռօլիկօ. ռուպառպառօ. մուզօ. քապօլայ. քվարթօ. սուտտիթօ.

pialla230 grattugia231 numero232 basilico indovino233 rabarbaro234 muso incantesimo235 quarto236 suddito237

Ստեղծօղ. սուրբ. սէլեան.

քռէաթօրէ. սանթօ. կրանաթօ.

creatore santo granato238

228 229 230

piana.

241

Nel testo si ha, erroneamente, ջսկ. Թէսէր < ven. tessèr. Per ռանտայ cfr. pers. randa, tc. rende; Riggs 1847: 29 ha ըռէնտէ; փիանայ < ven.

Per կրաթաքաժօ cfr. ven. gratacàsa. Ռաղամ < ar.-tc. rakam. 233 Per ռամալ si veda il MHB. 234 Per ռավէնտ si veda il MHB (ռաւանդ). 235 Per arm. ռամ cfr. MHB ըռամ ‘incantesimo, stregoneria’: il termine indica propriamente la psammomanzia (cfr. Malxaseanc‘ IV: 156). La forma *cabola, presupposta dalla glossa del dizionarietto, sarà da cfr. con it. cabala ‘forma di arte divinatoria’. 236 Per ռուպ si veda il MHB. 237 Ռայայ < tc. raya/reaya. 238 La forma arm. è probabilmente un prestito, con metatesi, dal tc. seylân (taşı) ‘granato’ (lett. ‘pietra di Ceylon’); cfr. anche ar. sîlân ‘granato’. Tanto la forma che il significato sono confermati dal Girk‘ Ayb., 76, dove սէլեանս traduce կրանաթի. Il termine compare in una variante, սէլան, nel libro mastro di Sarhad, e dalla curatrice, Š. Xač‘ikyan, è interpretato come ‘un tipo di rubino’ (հակինթի տեսակ, Sarhad 1994: 180): peraltro, come nota Cavenago-Bignami Moneta 1993: 59 e 80, granato e rubino sono facili da confondere. Invece, nel cap. 53 della Patmut‘iwn di Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i si legge: սարդիոնն, որ է սէյլանն (Aṙak‘el 1990: 442), dove il riferimento al սարդիոն farebbe identificare la pietra սեյլան con qualche varietà di corniola, come confermerebbe anche Riggs 1847: 127, che glossa սէլեան con ‘sardonyx’. A complicare ulteriormente la situazione, però, c‘è la tavola sinottica che, in Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i, precede immediatamente il cap. 53 (Aṙak‘el 1990: 441): qui all‘arm. սարդիոն (che può essere giallo o rosso scuro) si affiancano l‘ ‘arabo’ դեղին սէլյան (traduzione che fa riferimento ad una pietra gialla), il pers. փիճայի (forse per bejâd ‘pietra simile al rubino’), e il ‘ֆռանգերէն’ տպազիօ. Quale che 231 232

242

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

սառուց. սար.

ճացեօ. մօնթանեայ.

ghiaccio montagna

[54] սով. սեղան. ս(ուր)բ սեղան. սանտուղք. սնտուկ. սճուղ. սիրտ. սուտ. ստութի(ւն). սահաթ. սարայ. սանթուռ.

ֆամէ. թավօլայ. ալթարէ. ըսքալայ. քասսայ. սալաօ. լուկանիկայ. քուօռէ. ֆալսօ. ֆալսիթայ. օրօլոճեօ. փալացցօ. ըսփինէթթայ.

սահաթճի. սավզիֆրուշ. սուրմայ. սև. սղոց.

օրօլոճէր. էռպառիօլ. ֆիլօ տօռօ. նէկրօ. սէկայ.

fame tavola altare scala cassa salame, luganega239 cuore falso falsità orologio240 palazzo241 spinetta (strumento a corde)242 orologiaio243 verduraio244 filo d’oro245 nero sega

[55] սերկևիլ. սիրել. սիրտ տալ. ստեղծել. սերմանել. սլքալ. սուտասել. սպանել. սանտ.

փօմօ քօտօնեօ. ամարէ. անիմարէ. քռէարէ. սէմինարէ. ըզպռիսսարէ. տիր պուժիայ. մացարէ. մօռթէր.

mela cotogna246 amare incoraggiare creare seminare scivolare247 mentire uccidere, ammazzare mortaio

sia la situazione generale, crediamo che il significato ‘granato’ per il lemma del dizionarietto sia sufficientemente sicuro. 239 Սճուղ < tc. sucuk; Riggs 1847: 132 ha սուճուխ. 240 Per սահաթ si veda il MHB. 241 Per սարայ si veda il MHB. 242 Սանթուռ < tc. santur. 243 Սահաթճի < tc. saatçi (v. anche սահաթ); per օրօլօճէր cfr. ven. relogièr. 244 Սավզիֆրուշ < pers. sabzî-farosh; էռպառիօլ < ven. erbarìol. 245 Սուրմայ < tc. sırma. Nella grafia սրմայ, il termine compare anche in Abraham Kretac‘i, varie volte nel cap. 26 (Abraam 1973: 88,1; 89,15-18). 246 Alla fine della pagina 54, dove, secondo l‘uso tipografico dell‘epoca, si anticipano le prime lettere della prima parola della pagina seguente, la prima sillaba di սերկևիլ compare nella grafia սէր. 247 Սլքալ è probabilmente variante di սլկալ, սլկել. Per la glossa cfr. ven. sbrissàr.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

սանտր. սանտրել. սունկար.

փէթթինէ. փէթթինարէ. ըսփօնճիայ.

pettine pettinare spugna248

Վարդապետ. վարպետ. վկայ. վեր.

տօթթօրէ. միսթռօ. թէսթիմօնիօ. սու. սօփռայ.

dottore mastro249 testimone su, sopra

[56] վայր. վայելել. վախել. վախ. վերջանել. վերջ. վերպատել. վատ. վեց. վացուն. վ(ա)ս(ն) իմխաթերն. վաստակիլ. վստահ.

ճու. ապասսօ. կօտէրէ. ավէր փավուրայ. թիմօրէ. փավուրայ. ֆինիրէ. ֆինէ. ալցարէ. մալէ. սիէ. սէսանթայ. փէռլամօռմիօ. ըսթռաքարսի. առօկանթէ.

վարել. վարձ. վիզ. վարդ.

արարէ. սալարիօ. քօլլօ. արիօզայ.

giù, sotto godere temere timore, paura finire fine innalzare (?)250 male (sost.) sei (num.) sessanta per amor mio251 faticare sicuro, risoluto arrogante arare compenso collo rosa252

243

Per սունկար si veda il MHB; per ըսփօնճիայ cfr. ven. sponza. Secondo Boerio 1856: 418 ven. mistro ‘dicesi al Lavoratore o Padrone di bottega’. 250 Anche se con qualche dubbio, intendiamo վեր պատել nel senso di ‘alzare un muro’ o simili. Per completezza segnaliamo tuttavia che in Ačaṙean 1913: 998 ed in Malxaseanc‘ IV: 318 (in entrambi i casi alla voce վեր) tale sintagma è registrato come proprio del dialetto di Agulis (e di uso gergale), col valore di ‘comprare, acquistare’ (գնել, ծախու առնել). Ora, nel gergo italiano è attestato, fin dal Cinquecento, ed in area veneta, il termine alzare col valore di ‘rubare; guadagnare, ricavare qualcosa con sistemi non troppo puliti’ (cfr. Ferrero 1991: 11), ma siamo convinti di sopravvalutare le capacità del compilatore se ammettessimo che egli abbia voluto attribuire una glossa gergale ad un lemma altrettanto gergale, tra l‘altro non perfettamente equivalente dal punto di vista semantico. 251 Խաթեր < ar.-tc. hâtır. Cfr. MHB խաթր; Riggs 1847: 46-47 ha խաթեր, խաթ(ը)ր. Si veda anche, nel cap. 24 di Abraham Kretac‘i, քո խաթերդ համար ‘per te, per amor tuo’ (Abraam 1973: 82,9-10). 252 Strana la grafia արիօզայ, da riportare alla variante it. riòsa (cfr. GDLI XVII: 90), probabilmente con errata divisione della sequenza articolo + nome. 248

249

244

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

[57] վալանցայ. վայել. վռազել. վաղն. վաղնչէ մէկէլօր.

ֆիլցատայ. ցիկարէ. ավէր ֆռէթթայ. տօմանի. փօսթտօմանի.

coperta spessa253 lamentarsi254 aver fretta255 domani dopodomani

Տէր. տալ. տարերք. տեղ. տղայ. տակռիկ. տուն. տախտակ. տօշակ. տաքդեղ. տօլմայ.

փատրօնէ. տարէ. էլէմէնթայ. լօկօ. փութթօ. ռայիզէ. քազայ. թավօլայ. լէթթօ. փէվէրէ. փիէն.

padrone dare elementi, primi rudimenti luogo ragazzo radice256 casa tavola, asse letto257 pepe258 riempito, pieno259

[58] տաք. տարայի. տիմի.

քալտօ. ցէնտալ. տիմիթօ.

տօլչայ. տանծ. տամպուլ.

սէքեօ. փէրօ. միրա‹պ›օլանօ.

տրտմիլ. տեսնել. տաքացնել. տանել.

թրիսթարսի. վէտէրէ. ըսքալտարէ. փօռթարէ.

caldo zendado, stoffa di seta260 tessuto di filo greggio o di cotone261 secchio262 pera mirabolano, varietà di susina263 rattristarsi vedere scaldare portare

253 Վալանցայ < tc. velençe/velense (parola di origine romanza); ֆիլցատայ < ven. filzàda ‘coperta da letto ruvida e rozza’. 254 La glossa è da cfr. con ven. cigàr. 255 Per վռազել si veda il MHB. 256 Per տակռիկ cfr. arm. տակռի. La forma տակռիկ è presupposta dagli esiti presenti in diversi dialetti, per cui si veda HAB IV: 361-362. Ռայիզէ < ven. raise. 257 Տօշակ < tc. döşek. 258 Per տաքդեղ si veda il MHB (տաքտեղ). 259 Տօլմայ < tc. dolma. 260 Տարայի < per. dârâ’î, tc. darayi. 261 Տիմի < tc. dimi; տիմիթօ < ven. dìmito (o lìmito) ‘tessuto d‘accia e di bambagia’. Entrambe le voci sono di origine greca. 262 Per տօլչայ si veda il MHB. 263 Տամպուլ è variante grafica di դամբուլ. Nel dizionarietto, la glossa è scritta erroneamente միրառօլանօ: it. mirabolano indica una varietà di susino o susina.

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

տնազանել. տափակ. տապակ. տարի. տասն. տակն. տիրակ.

մինքեօնարէ. փիանօ. ֆրսուրայ. աննօ. տիէժէ. սօթթօ. թռավէ.

deridere264 piatto, piano (agg.) padella265 anno dieci sotto trave266

[59] տերև. տարթլու. տավի. տավիանել. տիվան.

ֆօլեօ. աֆլիթթօ. լիթէ. լիթիկարէ. ճուսթիցիայ.

foglia267 afflitto268 lite269 litigare270 tribunale271

Ցորեն. ցամաք. ցեխ. ցախ. ցուրտ. ցրտացնել.

ֆրումէնթօ. շութթօ. ֆանկօ. ֆաշինի. ֆռէտտօ. ռէֆռէտտարէ.

ցանկութի(ւն). ցանկանալ. ցերեկ. ցաթքել. ցուցտալ.

տէզիտէրիօ. տէզիտէրարէ. տի. սալթարէ. մօսթռարէ.

frumento asciutto fango frasca272 freddo (agg.) diventar freddo, raffreddarsi273 desiderio desiderare giorno, dì saltare274 mostrare275

[60] ցաւ. ցավիլ. ցեց.

տօլօռէ. տօլէրէ. թարմի.

dolore dolere, far male tarlo, tarma276

245

Per տնազ անել si veda il MHB (տնազ, տնազել). Per ֆրսուրայ cfr. ven. fersòra. 266 Տիրակ < tc. direk. 267 Per it. foglio ‘foglia’ si veda il GDLI VI: 103. 268 Տարթլու < tc. dertli. 269 Per տավի cfr. il MHB (տաւի). 270 Per տավի անել cfr. il MHB (դաւի / տաւի անել). 271 Per տիվան cfr. il MHB (տիւան). 272 Per la glossa (al plurale) cfr. ven. fassinèr ‘frasche’ ed anche it. fascina ‘fascio di sterpi’. 273 Per ցրտացնել cfr. il MHB. 274 Per ցաթքել cfr. il MHB. 275 Ցուցտալ = ցուց (< ցոյց) տալ. 276 La glossa è al plurale. 264 265

246

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

Փողի շահ. փայտ. փառք. փոս. փուշ. փէնճէրէ. փէշթախթայ. փարկալ. փայծաղ. փաչէք. փախչիլ. փինէքիտալ. փչել.

ինթէրէսսէ. լէնեօ. կլօրիայ. ֆօսսայ. ըսփինայ. պալքօն. ըսքռինեօ. քօմփասսօ. ըսփիէնծայ. կամպէ. ըսքամփարէ. ինտօռմէնցարսի. սուփեարէ.

interesse, proventi legno gloria fossa spina finestra277 scrigno, cassa278 compasso279 milza280 gamba281 fuggire addormentarsi282 soffiare283

[61] փորել. փչացնել. փոխտալ. փոխան.

քավարէ. տիսսիփարէ. իմփռէսթարէ. պռակէսէ.

փետել. փորձել. փոր. փէշկաշ. փերփերան.

փէլարէ. փռօվարէ. փանցայ. փռէզէնթէ. փուռցէլանայ.

փէռլէ. փոշի. փտած.

մարգարիտ. փօլվէրէ. մարցօ.

scavare284 distruggere285 dare in prestito286 braghe, calzoni, mutande287 pelare provare pancia dono288 portulaca (pianta erbacea)289 perla290 polvere marcio

Per փէնճէրէ cfr. il MHB; պալքօն < ven. balcòn ‘finestra’. Arm. փէշթախթայ sarà da confrontare con pers. pesh-takhta ‘desk’ (Steingass 1992: 266), e con tc. peştahta, cui il Redhouse 1968: 930 attribuisce i seguenti valori: ‘1. small desk, counter (in a shop); 2. money-changer‘s board’. Riggs 1847: 148 ha փէշտախտա ‘counter’. 279 Per փարկալ cfr. il MHB. 280 Ըսփիէնծայ < ven. spienza. 281 Փաչէք < tc. bacak. La glossa è al plurale. 282 Փինէքիտալ < pers. pînakî/pînagî ‘sonno’ + տալ. Per ինտօռմէնցարսի cfr. ven. indormenzarse. 283 Per սուփեարէ cfr. ven. supiar. 284 Per it. cavare ‘scavare’ si veda il GDLI II: 920. 285 Per փչացնել cfr. il MHB. 286 Փոխտալ = փոխ տալ. 287 Պռակէսէ < ven. braghesse. 288 Per փէշկաշ cfr. il MHB (փէշքաշ). 289 Per փերփերան cfr. il MHB; Per la glossa cfr. ven. porcelàna, it. porcellana ‘portulaca’. 290 Si noti l‘inversione dei vocaboli ed il plurale della forma it. 277

278

UN DIZIONARIO ARMENO-ITALIANO DEL XVII SECOLO

247

փտիլ. փէրուզայ.

մարցիրսի. թուրքէզէ.

marcire turchese (pietra preziosa)291

[62] Քարոզ. քաղաք. քաղցր. քո. քար. քպրիթ. քօրուկ. քիթ. քօֆթայ. քացախ. քամխայ.

փռէտիքայ. ցիթայ. տօլցէ. թուօ. փիեռայ. ցուլֆարինի. ֆօլլօ. նազօ. փուլփէթթէ. ազէօ. տամասքէթթօ.

քիրազ. քիրամիտ. քիմեոն.

ցերեզէ. քօփփի. քումինօ.

քերել. քորել. քակել.

ռասփարէ. կրաթթարէ. տիսֆարէ.

predica città dolce tuo pietra fiammiferi292 soffietto, mantice293 naso polpetta294 aceto damasco, drappo di seta lavorato295 ciliegia296 tegola297 comino, cumino (pianta)298 raschiare grattare slegare

[63] քաղցիլ. քամել. քրայովտալ. քերթել. քթվել.

ավէրֆամէ. ըսթռօքօլարէ. ֆիթթարէ. ըսքօռթիկարէ. ըսփուլիժարէ.

aver fame spremere (?)299 dare in affitto300 scorticare301 togliere le pulci302

Per փէրուզայ cfr. il MHB (փերուզայ). Քպրիթ < pers. kibrît, tc. kibrit (la parola è di origine ar.; nel MHB քպրիթ vale ‘zolfo’). La glossa è al plurale. 293 Քօրուկ < tc. körük; per ֆօլլօ cfr. ven. fòlo. 294 Per քօֆտայ cfr. il MHB (քօֆթէ); la glossa è al plurale. 295 Per քամխայ cfr. pers. kamkhâ, tc. kemha. 296 Per քիրազ cfr. il MHB; la glossa è al plurale. 297 Per քիրամիտ cfr. il MHB; la glossa (al plurale) andrà confrontata con ven. copo, it. dialettale coppo. 298 Քիմեոն < tc. kimyon (parola di origine greca). 299 Il lemma arm. vale ‘spremere’: in ven. strucàr significa ‘spremere’, ma strucolàr (più vicino alla glossa) vale ‘abbracciare’. 300 Քրայովտալ: քրայ < ar.-tc. kira ‘affitto’ allo stumentale + տալ; cfr. tc. kiraya vermek. 301 La glossa (scortigare) sembra il risultato di un compromesso fra ven. scortegàr ed it. scorticare. 302 Per ըսփուլիժարէ cfr. ven. spulesàr. 291

292

248

ALESSANDRO ORENGO

քշել. քահանայ. քալամ. քահրիպար. քաղել. քսել. քրտնիլ. քրտինք. քած. քաշել.

քացեարէ. փռէթէ. քափուցցի. ամպռայ. ռաքօլիէրէ. օնծէրէ. սուարէ. սուօրէ. ֆէմինայ. թիրարէ.

cacciare prete cavolo303 ambra raccogliere ungere sudare sudore femmina304 tirare

Օրհնել. օրհնած.

պէնէտիրէ. պէնէտէթթօ.

benedire benedetto

[64] օգտակար. օգնել. օգնութի(ւն). օր. օճաղ. օծել. օթաղ. օտաղաճի. օրորոց.

ութիլէ. այութարէ. այութօ. ծօռնօ. ֆօկէրօ. օնծէրէ. քամէրայ. լէնեօ տալօէ. քունայ.

utile aiutare aiuto giorno focolare305 ungere alloggio, camera306 legno d’aloe307 culla

Ֆստուղ. ֆէնէռ. ֆէրաճէ. ֆստան. ֆիլ.

փինեօլի. ֆէռալէ. ֆէռարեօլ. քառփէթթայ. էլէֆանթէ.

pinolo308 lanterna309 mantello310 gonna311 elefante312

Per քալամ cfr. il MHB; per la glossa (al plurale) cfr. ven. capuzzo ‘cavolo’. Il lemma si riferisce in particolare alla cagna, la glossa ha valore generale. 305 Per օճաղ cfr. il MHB (օճախ). Per ֆօկէրօ cfr. ven. foghèr. 306 Per օթաղ cfr. il MHB. 307 Օտաղաճի < tc. ödağacı ‘albero d‘aloe’. 308 Per il lemma arm., il valore di ‘pinolo’ è corroborato dal fatto che in Mērasean 1774: 40-41 tc. ֆըստըք e arm. ֆըստուղ traducono pignuoli. Altrove tale voce vale ‘pistacchio’: così in Riggs 1847: 161 (ֆըստըխ) e nel MHB (ֆստուխ). La glossa it. è al plurale. 309 ֆէնէր < tc. fener; per ֆէռալէ cfr. ven. feràl. 310 ֆէրաճէ < tc. ferace; per ֆէռարեօլ cfr. ven. ferariòl. 311 ֆստան < tc. fistan, pers. festân (la parola è di origine romanza); per քառփէթթայ cfr. ven. carpèta. 312 Per ֆիլ cfr. il MHB. 303 304

A SHORT PHRASE BOOK OF THE STEPANAKERT VARIANT OF THE KARABAGH DIALECT ANDRZEJ PISOWICZ

After the conference of specialists in Armenian dialectology held in Stepanakert on 11-12 August 2001, a two weeks’ course in Karabagh dialect was organized for the participants. Everyday classes began with a very good introductory theoretical lecture given by Prof. Bert Vaux assisted by some native speakers. Then practical lessons followed in three groups. One of them, to which the author of the present paper was happy to belong, was led by Mrs. Sirun Baghdassarian, a teacher of a local middle school and a speaker of the variant of the Karabagh dialect which is spoken in Stepanakert, the capital of the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh. Mrs. Baghdassarian spoke to us in Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA).1 That is also the language used by her when teaching at school. We were lucky to listen to many local Armenian songs performed by Mrs Baghdassarian who, having a very fine voice and good memory (she knows about 300 songs by heart!), sometimes also sings in public. But, first of all, Mrs. Baghdassarian gave us a lot of information on the Karabagh dialect. All the phrases given below were pronounced by her during the lessons and written down by the participants of the course. Needless to say, however, the only person responsible for possible mistakes in the Latin transcription and, perhaps, for the interpretation of some difficult points, is the undersigned. Before presenting some eighty-five of the sentences written down at the time, divided below into topical groups (far from representing a complete corpus of material, of course), I would like to mention some details. First, the transcription is the one used generally for modern Armenian (ašxarhabar). Greek represents here the velar voiced fricative continuing Old Armenian (OA) . The aspiration of the stops and affricates (which is very weak in the case of the latter) is noted by ph, th, kh, ch, čh. 1 Abbreviations: Arab. = Arabic, Azerb. = Azerbaijani, KD = Karabagh dialect, OA = Old Armenian, Pers. = Persian, Rus. = Russian, SEA = Standard Eastern Armenian.

250

ANDRZEJ PISOWICZ

The voiced b, d, g, j, ǰ occur mainly in loan words, as the corresponding OA consonants (written բ, դ, գ, ձ, ջ) are represented in Karabagh dialect (KD), first of all as voiceless stops, unaspirated in initial position. OA voiced stops and affricates have been maintained only after nasals, e.g. inj < OA inj (dative of the pronoun yes < OA ես es ‘I’). It is worth noting that devoicing of initial stops occurs also in some New Persian loan words, e.g. kyezar ‘carrot’ < Pers. gazar. Other additional signs used in transcription are as follows: – əē representing a diphthong absent in Standard Armenian (both Eastern and Western), e.g. vəēnn-aman ‘shoe’ where the first syllable corresponds to OA ոտն ‘foot’. The second part is aman ‘receptacle’ the whole word being a calque from Azeri ayag-gabı (Turkish: ayak-kabı); – ä is a front low vowel also absent in both ašxarhabars; – ö, ü are pronounced like the corresponding (short) German or Turkish vowels – gy, ky, khy are palatalised stops. As far as the stress in KD is concerned it falls, as a rule, on the penult, similarly to the Ararat (Yerevan) dialect. But, oddly enough, sometimes the stress is placed on the last syllable of Russian words where the original (Russian) stress is quite different, e.g. akušká ‘window’ bitter). They shall eat the bitter and tainted fruit of their ways. No comment. See Ps. 106.34 for tainted (land).

The last example may be a case of scribal error: Z=L AGAINST H 8.5.

Z=LXX/P: Uninstructed ones, place it in your hearts L: Uninstructed ones, place it in your hearts H: Unsullied ones, place these words in your hearts (uninstructed, anxratk’; unsullied, anaratk’. Scribal confusion, or deliberate?)

It is also worth noting that at one place Hamam quotes from the Peshitta. At the beginning of chapter 16 the lemma reads: “The glory of the humble goes before,” which is not in the Septuagint or the Armenian.

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

383

Since Hamam comments on this verse, he or his source must have had access to the Syriac version. Hamam naturally brings to his commentary a wide range of biblical texts in confirmation of his explanations. Very occasionally there are some confusions or surprising juxtapositions. In 9.12 he refers to Paul’s phrase “thorn-bearing and fallow” in the allegory of an unproductive field; but the phrase is from Isaiah 7.24. In 2.6 Hamam quotes Psalm 118.11, adding “Says the Preacher,” as if the quotation came from Ecclesiastes. His usual term for the Psalmist is “the singer, ergoł.” At 10.15 he says that God protected Paradise “in seraphic fashion” so that the Enemy might not enter it again. But according to Genesis 3.24, it was the Cherubim who guarded it. And when discussing the parallel between the Cross and the tree of life, he says that around the latter stand seraphim and cherubim (11.30). Solomon is frequently mentioned, and at 13.1 Hamam says that “he increased in wisdom,” which is a direct quotation from Luke 2.51 about Jesus. In explaining the phrase “A wise son makes his father happy” (15.20), he refers to the son who said “I go to work the vineyard” and later went to work it, making his father happy – the vineyard being the Gentiles. But in the parable of Matthew 21.28, there are two sons; and the one who said he would go, did not. In 26.5, the author of Proverbs exhorts the reader not to give an answer to a senseless man. Hamam draws the parallel of Jesus responding to those who asked by what authority he did his miracles by asking in turn whether the baptism of John was from heaven or earth (Mt. 21.25). Rather awkwardly, Hamam states that the Jews, confronted with this, were unable to give a response to the senseless one. Speculation concerning number symbolism was a very popular theme in Armenian writers and commentators.28 Hamam, however, shows no great interest in this. Only the first verse of chapter 9 is explained in such fashion: “Wisdom has built her house and erected seven pillars.” The house is understood as heaven, thus the seven pillars are to be understood as arches and vaults and eternal dwellings. But here on earth the number seven refers to the seven eras of a thousand years each from creation, according to the seven spheres, i.e. the spheres in which the seven planets move. The seven eras of time is an ancient theme in Armenian, greatly elaborated in the Teaching of Saint Gregory, and often repeated.

28

See Thomson 1976b; reprinted in Thomson 1994, VIII.

384

ROBERT W. THOMSON

Unlike the earlier Step‘annos of Siwnik‘ on the Evangelists, for example, Hamam is not interested in textual problems and the interpretation of Hebrew words. Only once does he offer an etymology: “Edom, which is darkness.”29 There are in Armenian very many word-lists and dictionaries; some of them elucidate technical terms such as medicine or minerals, some of them explain specialised vocabulary, as in the works of Philo or pseudo-Dionysius, while some are straightforward dictionaries of non-Armenian languages.30 In the last category there are lists of Hebrew words. Unfortunately this vast mass of material has not been fully published or investigated yet, so the sources of Armenian interpretations are not always clear. Hebrew was not known in Armenia,31 but an enterprising enquirer would have found many translations of Onomastica sacra, biblical commentaries, or other material such as the works of Philo, which he could raid to good effect. Hamam’s etymology of Edom, “darkness,” does not correspond with the published Onomastica sacra, where Edom is glossed as “red or earthly,” the same meaning as that in the Armenian version of Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis, IV 171.32 In his Commentary on Proverbs Hamam’s basic aim is a moral one, the thrust of his work being an exhortation to direct our lives towards the divine summons. For Hamam the Holy Spirit speaks through Solomon, and the Wisdom of the Book of Proverbs is God the Word, manifested in Christ. His emphasis is on the contrast between the Old Testament and the New, not so much to engage in typological parallels – such as one finds in the Teaching of Saint Gregory, for example – but to stress the incomprehension of Israel, who did not heed the prophets, in contrast to the church which proclaims the message of Christ. Hamam does not have one fixed interpretation of those passages in Proverbs that he interprets in terms of the New Dispensation; the same phrase may suggest different meanings in different places. A few examples may give the flavour of his message.

29

Edom: “darkness,” at 19.26. See Amalyan 1966 and 1975; Uluhogian 1985; the brief listing in Thomson 1995, 255-256, and Thomson 2007, 214. 31 Cf. Macler 1927. Weber 1927 discusses Armenian authors’ knowledge of Palestinian geography (or lack thereof) from personal knowledge or textual evidence, but does not raise the question of knowledge of the meaning of the names. 32 Red or earthly: See Stone 1981, 130-131. Hebrew distinguishes ‘adom, “red,” and ‘damah, “earth, land.” For Armenian commentaries on Philo see Grigoryan 1960; Vardazaryan 2006. 30

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

385

Honey and the honeycomb are frequent points of comparison in Proverbs. For Hamam the honeycomb may mean the words or grace of Christ or the grace of the gospel;33 honey can refer to the words of the gospel, the visible Law, or marriage (which is sweet and pleasant);34 though he does seem more interested in ascetics, interpreting the “corner in the open air” as the desert which the saints inhabited with ascetic lives in desolate mountains.35 Several expressions refer to the church: the beautiful woman who is the crown of her husband, the corner of the house (where the house is the world), or the mother, whose wise son refers to the believers among the Gentiles.36 Mother can also be used of the Law and the prophets or of the Spirit.37 Clouds refer to the prophets, as do birds; for the nets spread out to catch the birds are the Jewish people hunting the prophets.38 The apostles are also called clouds, and oxen refer to the spiritual leaders of the church.39 The disciples are the Lord’s vats, while streams of water indicate the unstable nature of mankind.40 Hamam does not engage in overt theological controversy with other Christian churches beyond lumping Jews and “schismatics” together as refusing to accept the replacement of the old dispensation by the new. Mani, who dared to say that he himself was the Spirit and called the good creation of God evil,41 is mentioned twice: once to interpret “the senseless woman” of 25.24, and once in the context of curses at 26.2. On the latter occasion the “wicked” Mani is linked with Menander. The latter’s heresy as a follower of Simon Magus features in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, III 36 and IV 7. Although Eznik discusses Mani at some length and links him with Marcion and the Messalians, Menander is rarely attested in early Armenian writers. He appears in an Armenian List of Heresies of uncertain date which is much influenced by Epiphanius’s Panarion, where he is linked to Cerinthus and other Gnostics,42 and also in a long list of heretics in the Book of Letters, namely the 33

Respectively 16.24, 27.7, 24.13. Commentary to 24.13, 27.7, 25.16. 35 To 21.9. 36 To 14.4, 25.24, 17.21 (and cf. 15.20). 37 To 31.1, 20.20. 38 To 3.20, 1.17. 39 To 3.20, 14.4. 40 To 3.10, 21.1. 41 Commentary to 25.24 and 26.2. Mani figures in Eznik; see §413 for the two principles of good and evil. That Mani called himself the Spirit is emphasized in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History; see the Armenian version, ch. 25 (Socrates Scolasticus 1897; Thomson 2001b, 59). 42 See Thomson 1965, 362. 34

386

ROBERT W. THOMSON

Confession of Faith sent by Xač‘ik Catholicos to the metropolitan of Melitene in the late 10th century.43 The only Menander mentioned in the Armenian version of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History is the comic poet (341-290 BC). But the Armenian version of Michael the Syrian refers to a historian, the magus Menander, according to whom the crown of Nimrod, Nebrovt‘, was made of woven material, hiwsacoy, and not beaten metal, kṙanakop‘.44 Why the obscure Gnostic Menander was picked up by Hamam I do not know. In any event, Hamam mentions no contemporary heretics. Although Hamam makes no reference to Armenia or Armenians, he does mention the Byzantines. Proverbs 30.29-31 refers to three things which move simply and the fourth walks beautifully: the young of a lion, the cock which struts in the forest, the goat that leads flocks, and the king who becomes a public orator. According to Hamam these are the four kingdoms which rule over the four corners of the earth. The first is that of Abraham and his offspring; but in these last times The Word of God reigned over the house of Jacob, and of his kingdom there is no end. The cock refers to the Babylonians; and the goat is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. But the fourth is “the firm and immoveable Asian region, the worthy dominion taking its trophy from God, that is, the kingdom of the Romans.” And Hamam goes on to quote Daniel, the fourth beast of ch. 7, who crushed the others, and now in faith and knowledge of God “walks beautifully” in the gospel and the cross of Christ. It would be easier to interpret this praise for the empire if we knew who Hamam was and where he was writing. But clearly he was not a rabid antichalcedonian. And he took a rather different line from Sebēos, who interpreted the fourth beast as the kingdom of Ismael, which surpasses all kingdoms in evil.45 The first reference to the Romans in this commentary comes at 11.8: “The righteous one is saved from pursuers; and in his stead the impious are handed over.” Hamam refers to Christ being pursued by Satan, whom he bound in Hell, so that Satan “was handed over” to irredeemable destruction. He continues: “At his wish (i.e. Christ’s) those consumed 43

Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘ 1901, 302-322; see p. 307. Michael the Syrian, edition of Jerusalem 1871, 16, where the text adds that this also appears in the “Second Book of Yovsap‘.” The note ad loc. states that the testimony of Yovsap‘ does not appear in the other Armenian translation – i.e. Jerusalem 1870 – (nor is it in the French translation from different manuscripts, Langlois 1868, 34), and that Yovsap‘ is thought to be “Yovsepos.” 45 Sebēos 1979, 162. 44

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

387

by the sword of the Romans were assigned to Satan’s fire.” The allusion is unclear. Even more puzzling is the interpretation of Proverbs 31.8-9: “Judge everyone with integrity … and select the poor and weak.” Hamam goes to say: “Rahab and Babylon were remembered before God, and the harlots were purified and the whores were washed, the Ethiopians were made white in soul, the Persians were praised and were offered as a special sacrifice to God.” The references to Rahab and the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch are obvious enough; and according to Acts, ch. 2, the gospel was preached in Parthian; but the sacrifice of the Persians eludes my efforts at elucidation. Although he mentions Romans, Hamam never refers to Chalcedon or raises the issue of “Nestorian” heresy. But since there are several verses in Proverbs which were widely considered to refer to Christ and the Incarnation, a brief summary of Hamam’s views may be relevant to this issue. The most frequently cited verse interpreted in a christological way is 8.22: “The Lord acquired me (Z: confirmed me) as the beginning of his ways for his works; before ages he confirmed me.” Hamam comments as follows: “In this later age (God the Word) came into union ineffably and was similar in the flesh to a created being. … Hear and understand, not in vain as the Arians were delirious about the Word. Before the coming into being of the world he considered the providence of incarnation, and in these last times in accordance with his condescension he repeated the same for the fulfilment of those listening.” More explicit of the mode of incarnation are the following statements, mostly brief, for only once does Hamam expand at length on the subject. 3.17. “Her ways are ways of good, and all her paths are peace.” He himself is wisdom and power (I Cor. 1.24), intelligence pure and simple in the essence of the Father’s being, the triad proceeding from incomprehensibility as an essential hypostasis, iskakan zawrut‘eamb. This is a traditional expression, going back to the Teaching of Saint Gregory.46 9.9. “The wisdom of the just is successful.” These are the first disciples of the Word of God, the witnesses and preachers of his true divinity and true humanity.

46

See Thomson 2001a, 15-19, for such terminology.

388

ROBERT W. THOMSON

20.15. “A multitude of fields is gold.” The Word came to affinity with us earthly creatures. Azgakc‘ut‘iwn is a calque on Greek συγγένεια. 20.27. “The light of the Lord is the spirit of mankind.” The Word put on the mind of mankind and this rational nature with breath. More curious is the explanation to 26.3: “Like a whip to a horse and a goad to a donkey.” The horses are Israel, and their whip is the selfmoving (ink‘našarž), living word of God. The expression “self-moving” does not occur in early Armenian texts in a christological context, though of course it is a philosophical commonplace. The longest passage relevant here is 30.18-20. “There are three things which are impossible for me to understand, and the fourth I do not know. The course of a flying eagle, the paths of a snake on a rock, the course of a ship on the sea, and the ways of a youth.” The eagle, the king of birds, is the Word descended from the Father. In accordance with the goings of the subtle snake on the rock – in such fashion, but differently, the Word descended to the passage of the rock, dwelling in the womb of the Virgin, preserving the Virgin uncorrupted through the incomprehensible birth, from whom the rock was separated without a hand. And the mountain, which is the virginal womb, remained unscarred and undiminished. The sea is the holy Mary. The ship is the essential Word himself, the bearer of the depths, and he took human flesh… And the way of a youth specifically refers to Christ. (Here Hamam refers to the main events from the circumcision of Jesus at 8 days to the ascension and coming again). But the course of that youth is inscrutable and incomprehensible.”47

47 Less technical, but worth noting, are also the following passages: 9.8. “The just one is saved from pursuers.” The just is one, the same wisdom and power of God. He was pursued in the body … and descended into hell. His pursuer and the prince of death he bound, and he also plundered his stronghold. He humbled himself as a snare for his pursuer, and instead of him Satan was handed over to irredeemable destruction. (This is an illustration of the popularity of the Harrowing of Hell in Armenian texts; cf. references in Thomson 2000, 11-12). 16.24. “Good words are honeycombs.” The delightful words of Christ are indeed a honeycomb, who although in the body existed in omnipotent power. 24.4. “By wisdom is a house built.” God made man a beautiful construction with the co-operation of the Only-begotten. Gorcakc‘ut‘iwn, as in the Teaching.

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

389

Armenian orthodoxy was firmly based in the Nicene tradition, and there is no indication in this commentary that Hamam is taking an antichalcedonian stand. NERSĒS LAMBRONAC‘I Let us turn now to Nersēs of Lambron, the first of the prolific authors of biblical commentaries in medieval Armenia. In contrast to Hamam, information about the life and works of Nersēs is fairly abundant, even if only half of his voluminous literary oeuvre has been published. The Commentary on Proverbs is among his later works, having been finished in 1197. Nersēs notes that he had visited Constantinople three years before and had read commentaries on Job and Proverbs; unfortunately, he does not say which ones.48 In Armenian there were translations of Hesychius of Jerusalem on Job as well as Ephrem; but there do not seem to be Armenian translations of Greek commentaries on Proverbs.49 However, since Nersēs was a competent Greek scholar, he would have read what was available in Constantinople in the original. Although to date no comprehensive study of Nersēs as exegete has appeared,50 his general approach to commenting on the Bible can already be seen in his earliest commentary, that on the Psalms which he wrote in his twenties and finished in 1181.51 His interest lies not so much in the contrast between the Old Testament and the Christian church which Hamam emphasizes, but rather in the spiritual value of the text as an accompaniment to prayer and meditation. He concentrates on moral issues and the role of the Spirit. Rarely does he resort to allegorising or typological exegesis; he often understands the text in a more or less purely literal way. In this work Nersēs refers directly to only a few of his sources: The Life of Antony, Gregory of Nazianzen On Pentecost, Gregory of Nyssa On the Soul, and Philo; but he was clearly familiar with a range of hagiographical writings, and Prince Max has noted parallels with John Chrysostom. 48 See the colophon in the Introduction to the edition by Prince Max, 1929; also in Mat‘evosyan 1988, 292. 49 See Thomson 2009. 50 The most useful survey is Akinean 1956. Further bibliography in Thomson 1995, 175-78, and Thomson 2007, 198. Published biblical commentaries by Nersēs: Twelve Prophets, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, scholia for the Seven Catholic Epistles, and Revelation; unpublished: Psalms, Song of Songs. See Thomson 2009. 51 See Thomson 2005 (pub 2006).

390

ROBERT W. THOMSON

Some specific examples may illustrate the similarities and differences between Hamam and Nersēs, disregarding the great length of the latter’s work compared to Hamam’s. DIFFERENCES 1.7: “The impious despise wisdom.” Where Hamam interprets the “impious” as the house of Israel, Nersēs speaks of individuals, led by Satan, who do not accept God. And at 1.22, where again “the impious hated wisdom,” for Hamam this refers to the house of Israel, but Nersēs interprets it of those outside the Jewish law and of heathen customs. 1.17: “Nets are spread out for the birds.” As already noted, for Hamam the hunters are the Jewish people, and the birds the prophets who were killed unjustly; whereas Nersēs speaks in general terms of those who slay innocent persons, with examples from the Old Testament. Hamam’s frequent interpretations in terms of Christ and the Incarnation are often ignored by Nersēs. For example, 1.30: “They did not wish to heed my counsels.” Hamam applies this to the Word made flesh, whose wisdom the Pharisees hated. For Nersēs it means all those who ignored God’s laws, like the Ninevites or Sodomites. 3.8: “There will be healing for your body.” Through the Incarnation, says Hamam. But Nersēs interprets this of those who turn to a virtuous life. On the other hand, the “wood of life” (3.18) is identified by them both as Christ’s Cross, following a universal Christian interpretation. 20.27: “The spirit of man is the light of the Lord.” Here we have a verse often cited in a Christological context.52 Hamam takes it in that sense and refers to the human mind, nature and soul accepted by the incarnate Word. But Nersēs interprets it of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the human mind. Nersēs’s more literal approach is clear at 3.20: “The clouds poured down rains,” which he interprets of the creation of the world. For Hamam the clouds are the prophets. Or 3.33: “The curse of the Lord is on the houses of the impious.” The apostate Jews and schismatics, says Hamam. But Nersēs applies the curse to all the impenitent, not mentioning Jews

52

See Young 1997, 223.

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

391

at all. This is in line with his constant theme of biblical meditation as a means to repentance. The most noteworthy difference is at 30.19: “There are three things which are too wonderful for me; indeed, four which I know not.” We have already seen that Hamam explains all these in terms of the Incarnation. Totally different is Nersēs. A youth is not knowable because unpredictably he turns now to good, now to evil. The eagle refers to the angels who watch over us and whose coming is unknowable. The rock is Christ, but the path of the snake is the turmoil of višaps. The snake brings us to passion and sin, and the choice of the true path remains unattainable. The sea is this life on which men sail as they pass through it. Curiously Nersēs has no gloss for ship, so commonly used as a image of the church. Even more interesting is the explanation of 30.30: the young of a lion, the cock, the goat, and a king. Here Hamam sees four kingdoms, as we noted. But for Nersēs these four images refer to Christians, bishops, monks and Christ. SIMILARITIES Both emphasize the role of the Spirit and the church, e.g. 1.8: “Hear the instruction of your father, and do not reject the rules of your mother; so that you may receive a crown of grace and a golden necklace.” For Nersēs, father and mother are God the Father and the church; this is not glossed here by Hamam, but elsewhere he equates mother and church. Both interpret the crown as Christ; for Hamam the necklace is the grace of the Spirit, and for Nersēs the incorruptible hope given by the church.53 3.29-30: “Do not fashion evil for your friend; be not ill-minded to a man without cause.” Here both commentators illustrate injustice by the same examples: Achitobel’s towards David, and Judas’s to Christ, for the first verse; and Shimei’s to David for the second. GRIGOR TAT‘EWAC‘I The third Commentary on Proverbs to be discussed is that by Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i. Grigor (circa 1340-1409) was a noted theologian and philosopher, whose most famous work is the Book of Questions, which has 53

Here Grigor is explicit about the immortal life.

392

ROBERT W. THOMSON

been described as an Armenian Summa.54 Although this Encyclopedia includes sections on various books of the Bible, only recently has his work as biblical commentator received attention. His commentaries on Job and Matthew remain unpublished; but those on Ecclesiastes and Wisdom, the Song, Isaiah, and John were recently published. A short version of his Commentary on the Psalms appeared in 1993.55 In keeping with his method of approach in other major works, he prefers the Question and Answer format. This does not prevent him from following the book of Proverbs more or less in order; but he passes over a great deal of the text and asks questions only of certain words or phrases. He begins with a discussion of the meaning of the word aṙak “proverb or parable,” and puts this text in the context of Solomon’s other writings on Instruction (xrat): Proverbs is addressed to children, tłayk‘; Ecclesiastes to youths, eritasardk‘; the Song of Songs to old men, cerunik‘.56 In this commentary Grigor rarely quotes his sources by name, except for biblical authors. A reference to “the philosopher,” for example, might be to Dawit‘ Anyałt‘ or a text attributed to Aristotle, though he does mention Plato, Pythagoras and “others.”57 A noteworthy feature of Grigor’s Answers is the listing of interpretations or meanings, usually in tens. There are ten kinds of benefit in the book of Proverbs, useful for teachers instructing pupils:58 there are 10 arguments to show that there is no contradiction in scripture between Proverbs, Gospel and prophets;59 10 meanings of terms like “wealth,” or “servant;”60 10 instances of loan or usury;61 10 instances of moderation and 10 of excess;62 10 practical and 10 spiritual reasons for praising

54

de Durand 1968. Further bibliography in Thomson 1995, 134-5, and Thomson 2007,

189. 55 For Proverbs see K‘yoskeryan 2000. For the recent editions of John (2005), Ecclesiastes and Wisdom, the Song, and Isaiah (all in 2008) see Thomson 2009. Cf. Keuchgerian 1996. 56 The relationship of Solomon’s three books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song) is variously defined in patristic writers. Nersēs of Lambron in his Introduction to his Commentary on Proverbs indicates that Proverbs offers instruction for the path leading to separation from the vanities of this world; Ecclesiastes deals with higher realities; while the Song is directed at souls inspired by the love of God who are in a passionless state removed from this world. 57 Commentary to 1.3, 25.27. 58 To 1.6. 59 To 1.28 60 To 8.18, 9.3. 61 To 19.17. 62 To 19.17.

TRADITIONS OF ARMENIAN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

393

a virtuous woman;63 10 ways to describe the character of Satan;64 and so on. In accordance with a philosopher’s desire for classification, unlike Hamam or Nersēs, Grigor draws attention to the threefold division of the book of Proverbs. The first 9 chapters deal with theoretical wisdom; the second part, chapters 10 to 24, deals with practical wisdom; while the third part admonishes the three ages (of man).65 Grigor does not place much emphasis on interpreting the Old Testament in terms of the New. The Mosaic Law is a tip and awrinak of the coming of the Saviour,66 and Grigor identifies several references in Proverbs to the Incarnation.67 But unlike Hamam, he does not constantly castigate the impiety of the Jews; and unlike Nersēs, he does not dwell at length on the spiritual life. Such considerations are not entirely foreign to him; repentance, mercy, faith, the dangers of sin, exhortation to virtue, all have their place in the commentary. But his tone and presentation are quite different from the previous two. He treats the Proverbs as a text to be expounded in class, as one might a work of moral philosophy; not as an aid to prayer as did Nersēs, or as an exhortation to virtue as did Hamam. Finally, let us compare the three approaches to a few verses. 4.27: “Do not go astray to the right or left.” All three emphasize that the straight path is the holy way of life. Here Hamam does not gloss “right and left.” Nersēs and Grigor agree, however, that the right hand is the doing of good works for the sake of vainglory, not God’s glory, while the left indicates murder, theft, adultery and similar sins. 8.22: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning.” This is a universally accepted reference to the Word and the Incarnation. 9.1: “Wisdom has built her house and erected seven pillars.” For Hamam the house is heaven, but for Nersēs, it is Christ’s body from the Virgin. The seven pillars are the seven vaults of heaven for Hamam, but the seven powers of the Spirit for Nersēs. Grigor here has another of his multifold answers, including the seven zones of heaven, the seven graces, the seven candlesticks of Revelation (a book not often quoted in Armenian), and seven other parallels.

63 64 65 66 67

To 31.10. To 30.15. See the Introduction to each section. To 9.2. To 1.20, 8.22.

394

ROBERT W. THOMSON

9.3: “She sent her servants to announce in a loud voice.” For Hamam these servants are the apostles. Nersēs contrasts the silent life of Christ who preached through his acts, signs and way of life. Grigor again comes up with ten interpretations of servant, bringing in Constantine and Trdat as examples of pious kings. 25.27: “To eat too much honey is not good.” Hamam warns against striving too hard to understand the incomprehensible. Nersēs interprets it of the vain words of vardapets. Quoting Romans 16.18: “By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple,” he states that we must only rely on true and tested words. Grigor notes that there are different kinds of knowledge, as of honey, and also quotes Romans 16.18 to warn of the schismatics. As one of his ten answers he states that we must first establish practical virtue, then receive theoretical, as the Philosopher says. This is a reference to Dawit‘ Anyałt‘, who discusses practical and theoretical in chapter 15 of his Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy, the standard textbook of medieval Armenian instruction.68 No neat conclusion can be drawn from this brief survey of the only three Armenian commentaries to the biblical Book of Proverbs. Each text has to be understood in the context of its own author’s more general concerns. Further research will no doubt elucidate individual parallels with the wider range of commentaries in Greek and Syriac, though preliminary comparisons with the surviving literature indicate that the Armenian writers did not follow closely any other known source. It is clearly premature to suggest on the basis of these three texts that there was a common theme to Armenian exegesis that distinguishes it in some way from that of other Christian literatures. No one author is “typical” of such a long and diverse tradition in Armenia. It is encouraging that in recent years several unpublished texts have seen the light of day. I trust that this long neglected area of scholarship will soon receive the attention that has been lavished on other aspects of Armenian literary creativeness.

68

1983.

Arevsatyan 1960; Armenian text with facing translation in Kendall and Thomson

LYDIAN QEŚI-, QELΛK AND LYCIAN TIHE THEO VAN DEN HOUT 1. My copy of Johannes Friedrich’s Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen still bears the date: April 8, 1972. It was recommended to me by my Latin teacher, Jos Weitenberg. As a sixteen year old gymnasium student in Amsterdam in 1970, fascinated with everything that had to do with languages and especially Proto-Indo-European I was lucky to get him as my Latin teacher for three years. I remember Jos sitting with the sign list in that same Friedrich’s Hethitisches Keilschriftlesebuch (and watching us as well) while we did our tests on Virgil, Tacitus or St. Augustine. Regularly he would write etymologies on the blackboard or scribble a word in some script unknown to us. He further spurred my interests by giving me things to read like Friedrich’s Entzifferung which opened up to me the wondrous world of cuneiform, hieroglyphic and alphabetic scripts as well as the languages written in them. Jos also supported my choice to study classical philology, defending me against those who tried to persuade me to ‘do something useful’. We have stayed in touch ever since. He didn’t mind my tagging along to the Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Vienna in 1978, I attended the defense of his dissertation on the Hittite u-stems of 1984 (one of the books that every Hittitologist keeps within easy reach for continuous consultation) as well as his inaugural lecture in Leiden in 1996. Jos provided me with many books and articles and was there at defining moments in my career: his signature appears on both my high school diploma of 1973 as well as on the ‘bul’ of my doctorate of 1989. It is therefore with sadness but also with a feeling of enormous gratitude that I dedicate this modest note on Lydian qelλk to Jos’ memory. In his Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen (p. 92f.) Johannes Friedrich gives a full transliteration and translation as well as a photo of the Lydian-Aramaic bilingual from Sardis. In this inscription a form qelλk occurs twice which Friedrich (transliterating it as ‘pelλk’) rightly took as an indefinite pronoun of some kind. Its derivation has presented some difficulties, however, that I would like to comment on in the present paper.

396

THEO VAN DEN HOUT

Apart from a possibly acephalous (-)˹q˺e˹lq˺il (15.8)1 the words starting with qe˚ in the Lydian lexicon of Roberto Gusmani are divided over three entries: the relative pronoun qe-/qi-, qela- ‘Gelände, Boden’ and qeśi- ‘irgendein, wer auch immer’. The function of the latter as an indefinite pronoun depends almost entirely on its alleged dat.-loc. or obliquus singular qelλ(-k) which twice occurs in the Lydian-Aramaic bilingual (1.6 and 8) and corresponds to the Aramaic indefinite pronouns mndʿm and mndʿmt respectively. Apart from these occurrences the same form is also attested in the inscriptions 5.5 and 24.10. The change from a stem qeśi- to the obl. qelλ(-k) is explained through two (morpho-) phonological rules: — the -i- of i-stem nouns and adjectives disappears before all endings but the nom.sg.2 — /s, ś, n/ before /-λ/ changes to /l/.3 So, from a stem qeśi- we would get an obl. *qeśλ which then becomes qelλ next to a nom.sg.c. qeśis. 2. There seems to be some confusion, however, concerning the conditions under which the second rule applies. According to Gusmani in the grammar of his Lydisches Wörterbuch 4 it only works if the s, ś or n follows a consonant: s, ś, n > l /C—λ. As an example he quotes ibśimsi‘Ephesian’ > obl. *ibśimsλ > ibśimlλ. For the /n/ compare the personal name Mλimn(a)- (cf. the nom.sg. Mλimnś/Mλimnaś) the obl. of which is Mλimlλ < *Mλimn-λ. Yet under the lemma qeśi- the same development is assumed for qelλ although there is no preceding consonant. Craig Melchert in his Anatolian Historical Phonology5 does not mention any restriction and consequently derives qelλ from qeśi-.6 The restriction initially imposed by Gusmani in his grammar does seem necessary, though. If the rule would apply generally we should not only not encounter any sequence *-Cs/ś/nλ but neither a sequence -Vs/ś/nλ. For the former the cluster -nsλ- in the verb (f)ênsλibi- ‘to do damage to (vel sim.)’ seems to be an exception but the morpheme boundary between the prefix 1

All text references are to Gusmani 1964. Cf. Gusmani 1964, 38 (§22). 3 Cf. Gusmani 1964, 183, and Melchert 1994, 372. 4 Gusmani 1964, 35 (§17). 5 Melchert 1994, 372. 6 Friedrich/Heubeck 1969, 410, also derive qelλ from qeśi- but do not give the above morphophonological rule. Other examples like ibśimlλ vs. ibśimsi- and brafrlλ vs. brafrsithey explain (ibid. 409) as heteroclitic declension forms. 2

LYDIAN QEŚI-, QELΛK AND LYCIAN TIHE

397

(f)ên- and the stem will have prevented the verbal stem from becoming unrecognizable († fênlλibi-).7 The sequence niwiślλ in 24.10 (for the context see below §3) likewise only seemingly violates the rule: the stem ends in -śś(i)- with the second ś undergoing the change to l. The sequences -Vs/ś/nλ would all have changed into -Vlλ. Forms like esλ (-), saristrośλ, wnisλ, Qldânλ testify to the contrary, however, without any apparent explanation. Apart from the phonological difficulty the supposed indefinite stem qeśi- raises other problems as well. It is attested only once in a nom.sg.c. (qeśis 22.7) beside which there is again only one attestation of an extended niqeśi(s)–k (also nom.sg.c.) in the same line. Unfortunately, the meaning of the passage in which both occur remains obscure and the identification of these two stems as indefinite pronouns is based on the assumption that they contain the relative stem and especially on qelλ and its Aramaic correspondence rather than the other way around. In Kahle/Sommer (1927) the latter started from a more simple stem qeli- which only needs the first rule to produce the desired qelλ. But Sommer hesitated to see in it the genitival adjective of the relative stem qi-/qe- as long as it was unclear to what extent the suffix -li- went beyond the function of a possessive adjective.8 The hesitation goes back to the equation of qelλk with the Aramaic mndʿm which is rendered as ‘was auch immer’ and functions as a substantivized indefinite pronoun. It does not show any signs of a genitival relation. The appended -k in the Lydian version 1.6 is explained as comparable to -que in forms like Latin quisque.9 Since in 1.8 the -k in qelλk seems to be used as a real connective Sommer assumed a simplification from *qelλk–k ‘and whatever’ there.10 Gusmani rejected the idea of a genetival adjective of the relative stem, since it is not used as an adjective and because of the alleged ‘uselessness’ of a generalizing -k in that case. Instead he derives it from qeśi- as mentioned above.11

7 Moreover, all certain examples involve word final clusters containing the obl. case ending -l. Perhaps it did not apply word internally at all. Clusters with the dental affricate /ts/, written τ, were apparently not affected either: compare e.g. 62.5 aτλedmaś (or aτλudmaś). 8 Kahle and Sommer 1927, 64. 9 Of course, Latin quisque ‘each’ is comparable in its formation only, functionally quiscumque/ quaecumque/ quidcumque ‘whoever, whatever’ is the real comparandum. 10 KlF (= Sommer and Ehelolf 1927-1930), 72, see also Gusmani 1964, 184. 11 Gusmani 1960, 292; cf. also Gusmani 1964, 184.

398

THEO VAN DEN HOUT

3. With Sommer the phonological problem cannot be circumvented otherwise, it seems, than by departing from a stem qeli-. Since we know no other -li-derivatives in Lydian, this form, in its turn, cannot be anything else than the genetival adjective of the relative stem, certainly if we take the Aramaic corresponding forms into account.12 The problem of its substantival use is hardly insurmountable. The many one-word inscriptions, mostly sealings, consisting of a name with the -li-suffix and the clitic first person pronoun -m of the type Manelim ‘I am Mane’s’ are very close to being substantivized.13 Moreover, among the nouns ending in -li- there are a few that look like they are substantivized adjectives: compare serli- ‘administration’ from a Proto-Anatolian *serli- ‘of the high (place/authority)’ vel sim.14 More complicated is its meaning: a gen.adj. of the relative stem does not simply mean ‘whoever, whatever’ but should be ‘whose/of whom/of what’. Only with an added -k does it become an indefinite pronoun and the translation should be ‘whoseever/of whomever/of whatever’. The expected use and translation of a definite qeli- can best be illustrated by the following hypothetical examples: *qelis wânaś is situated here, ... (subject) ‘Whose tomb is situated here, ...’ *qelν wânaν you see here, ... (object) ‘Whose tomb you see here, ...’ *qelλ wânaλ fênsλibid, ... (indir.object) ‘To whose tomb he brings damage, ...’

Although not very likely to occur within the specific situation of the Lydian tomb inscriptions, each of the above definite genitival adjective forms can theoretically be made indefinite by adding -k (‘whosever / of whomever / of whatever’). As such it would function as the gen. of the indefinite pronoun qi-+–k. The substantivized neuter would literally be ‘(that) of whatever’. However, the gen.adj. does not have to be possessive only but can also, as suggested to me by Craig Melchert, indicate a general notion of appurtenance.15 This could lead to a meaning ‘of

12 The only possibly related formation in other Anatolian languages might be the enigmatic Lycian tihe which always occurs in close association with the noun zummê/zummã (for references see Melchert 1993). The latter noun is always the object of the verb a(i)‘to do/make’ and has the tomb as its indir.object. Because of the following curse formula it denotes a negative action. 13 For the interpretation of the clitic -m see Melchert 1991, 138 n. 14. 14 See Gusmani 1964 s.v. with literature, Oettinger 1978, 83; Eichner 1986, 205 n. 5; Melchert 1994, 337. 15 For this cf. Hajnal 2000, 174f.

LYDIAN QEŚI-, QELΛK AND LYCIAN TIHE

399

whatever sort/kind’ and make the form directly comparable to Latin qualis as had already been suggested by Alfred Heubeck.16 The nom. and acc.sg. both common and neuter gender of qeli- would all be identical, *qelik, because of the regular elision of the endings -s/-ś, -n/-n and -d/t before -k.17 The oblique case required by the verb (f)ênsλibi- ‘to do damage to, to damage (vel sim.)’ would be our qelλk. Compare the following passage where the form is attested twice: (1.3-8) ak–it n[ãqis] / esλ mruλ buk esλ wãnaλ buk esνaν / laqirisaν bukit kud ist esλ wãnal bλtarwo[d] / ak–t–in nãqis qelλk fênsλifid fa–k–m–λ Artimuś / Ibśimsis Artimu–k Kulumsis aaraλ biraλ–k / kλidaλ kofuλ–k qiraλ qelλk bilλ wcbaqênt

The first qelλk in line 6 is clearly substantival and would in a possessive or partitive interpretation be lit. ‘whoever does damage to (anything) of whatever (there is)’, i.e., ‘to whatever part of anything’. With the meaning ‘of what kind/sort’ we would arrive at: ‘whoever does damage to (anything) of whatever kind’, i.e., ‘to whatever there is’. The second qelλk in 1.8 is adjectival and seems best served with the second meaning: ‘Wh[oever] (does damage) to this stela, this tomb or this laqirisa or (to) where(?) in this tomb (there is something) belonging(?), and whoever does damage to whatever part of anything/to whatever there is, Artemis of Ephesus and Artemis of Koloe will destroy his18 court and house, his earth and water, whatever kind of property (is) his.’

If the Lydian text in 1.6 would have wanted to say ‘and whoever does damage to whatever/anything’ it should have used the (unattested) obliquus of the indefinite pronoun: *qλk or *qeλk. The nom.-acc.sg.n. of this stem is used substantivized in 24.10 buk–mλ–is fakarsed qik ‘or (whoever) cuts off (vel sim.) something (qik < qid–k) for himself (–is) from/with respect to it19 (–mλ)’. This is what the Aramaic version does. In the Lydian version the indefinite pronoun comes at the end of the protasis, legally very adept, trying to include any of his possessions that 16 Heubeck 1959, 42f. n. 151 (‘Vgl. auch lyd. +elis (“welcher?”; Ableitung von +is), dessen Verhältnis zu dem ähnlich gebildeten lat. quālis nicht ganz klar ist’), 69. 17 Cf. Gusmani 1964. 18 This and the following instances of ‘his’ translate the enclitic personal pronoun obl. -mλ. 19 According to Melchert 1991, 140f., the dat. of the pronoun refers to the ‘supreme authority of the temenos’ here and translates ‘cuts off anything from him for himself’. It might also refer to the object or property that the subject of the stela Mitradastaś is talking about; see below for further context.

400

THEO VAN DEN HOUT

might conceivably fall outside the scope of the previously listed items. In line 8 one could suppose simplification of an original *qiraλ qelλk–k ‘and whatever kind of property (is) his’ but this is not necessary, if we take it as an apposition to the things just mentioned. Shorter but essentially identical is the curse in (5.5) fa–k–mλ Artimuś qiraλ qelλk wcbaqênt ‘(and whoever harms my wife Kile or my children,) Artemis will destroy for him whatever kind of property’.

Either the pronoun bilλ ‘his’ has been left out and the same is meant as in 1.8 or the writer meant ‘his property and whatever part of it’. Gusmani tentatively considers the possibility, that in 5.5 qelλ (–k) comes from qela- ‘Grundstück’ as a variant of the attested obl. qelaλ.20 As a parallel he mentions forms like inal and inl, to which one could add alarmaś/alarmś, mlimnaś/mlimnś. However, with Melchert (1994: 377), these are cases of anaptyxis rather than syncope: sometimes a vowel can be inserted in certain clusters, whereas in qelλ the regular -a- would have been thrown out. Finally there is qelλk in the difficult inscription 24, where it agrees with the obl. case of niwiśśi-, which functions as a noun here. After an initial declaration by Mitridastaś in the first person sing. mostly, a curse formula begins in line 7 with ‘(if) someone …-s evil or ‘cuts off’ something from it for himself’: (24.9-11) bu–k–mλ–it basν(-?)śak/νãkid niwiślλ qelλk buk mêtlid buk bidêν qik int ‘or (if) he defiles/desecrates(?)21 it by whatever kind of evil(?) or causes defect(?)22 or some damage(?), (Artemis of Ephesos will ...!).’

4. Looking for related or comparable forms in the other Anatolian languages only Lycian tihe offers itself as a perhaps typologically similar form, that is, a genitival adjective of the relative stem. 23 It occurs six times in a more or less fixed formula which is best preserved in TL 59:

20

Gusmani 1964, 181f. Or ‘and whoever exposes it to defilement/desecration by whoseever evil(?)’. For the possible etymology and meaning based thereon of a verb śaknãki- see Gusmani 1980, 41. 22 Cf. Melchert 1992, 48 w. n. 27. 23 For the attestations see Melchert 1993, 75. 21

LYDIAN QEŚI-, QELΛK AND LYCIAN TIHE

401

ebêñnê : xupâ : meti prñnawatê : Qñturahi : Hrppidubeh / tideimi Zimasttrah : tuhes : meijadi : tike tihe / zumm˹ê˺ [mene tu]beiti : muhâi : huwedri :24 ‘This tomb, Qñturahi, son of Hrppidube, nephew of Zimasttra built it for himself. (If) someone (tike) makes/causes tihe zummê to it/therein (–ij–), all the gods shall strike him.’

Variants to the formula concern an acc.sg. zummâ (TL 91, 3) or a different word order. The latter is probably the case in TL 44c, 17 where we read aiti tihe zum[m- and where tike may have followed. Conversely, in N314b, 1-3 we find tihe following zummê in a relative sentence: xupa ebehi / tijjadi : tike / zummê : tihe ‘Who makes/causes some (tike) zummê tihe to it, (i.e.) this tomb, (a curse follows).’

Different, it seems, is N 326, a fragmentarily preserved text from Xanthos provisionally published by Laroche in transliteration: (7-8) ... ]kenexttaditike[ ... / ...]êtitiheêtisttali[ ...25

The inscription does not use any word dividers. Laroche himself offered the following analysis: ti]ke–ne xttadi tike[ ... / ... ]êti tihe êti sttali[26 ‘que personne n’ôtera rien ... sur [cette] stèle’

Whether the words in line 8 belong to the syntactic construction in 7 remains unclear. Holger Pedersen took tihe in the occurrences known to him as the genitive of the relative stem with, however, indefinite meaning and functioning as the indirect object (‘wenn hier jemand an jemandem Schaden tut’).27 Since the latter slot is already filled in N314b with the dat. xupa ebehi, this is not very plausible. Emanuel Laroche saw in tihe the corresponding form to Hittite kuišša ‘each’ albeit with a different meaning,

24 The faint sign trace after zumm- in the handcopy in TAM I seems to favor the present reading; for the text see also Houwink ten Cate 1961, 94. 25 Laroche 1979, 115-118. 26 Unfortunately, Laroche seems to have made a mistake here. In his transliteration êti appears twice as given above (]êtitiheêtisttali[) but in his analysis he gives it only once (]êti tihe sttali[). Taking his transliteration as being the primary source (see also his own quotation êti sttali in the commentary on p. 118) and given the otherwise sudden shortening of the line in question vis-à-vis the immediately preceding and following one I take the transliteration as the correct rendering of what is on the stone. 27 Pedersen 1945, 21.

402

THEO VAN DEN HOUT

‘quelque’.28 However, Hitt. kuišša consisting of kui- + the coordinator -a/-ya, the two forms are neither etymologically nor functionally comparable. Moreover, the new text N314b makes clear what ‘quelque dommage’ in Lycian should have looked like: tike zummê. Craig Melchert proposes to see in -he the reflex of the gen. ending *-so: ‘of/for someone’.29 But again, all expected slots seem to be filled already in that particular clause in N314b: the subject (ti– ‘whoever’), the object (zummê) with its attribute (tike ‘some’) and the indirect object (xupa ebehi ‘that tomb’ repeated in the clitic –ij–). If then tihe is a form of the genitival adjective, it could only be the dat.pl. not agreeing with any constituent in the clause and therefore either substantivally or adverbially used. The latter combined with the meaning of Lydian qeli- could result in something like ‘in whatever sort of way’. This meaning would fit all passages except for perhaps N 326. If Laroche’s analysis with a double êti is correct, the combination êti tihe is a separate prepositional phrase on a par with êti sttali: ‘on whatever kind of (things), on the stela’. However, one would expect êti tihe in that case to follow êti sttali rather than precede it. 5. CONCLUSION In view of the problems facing the interpretation proposed thus far, it seems best to accept the existence of the genitival adjective of the indefinite stem qe-–k in Lydian. The forms qeśi-/niqeśi- may very well be the indefinite pronouns which past scholarship has seen in them but they have to be separated from qeli-. For the Lydian lexicon we therefore get the following four lemmata: — qerelative pronoun — qela‘property’ vel sim. — qeli-(k) gen.adj. (of pronoun qe-) — qeśi‘?’ Whether the Lycian form tihe is indeed functionally comparable remains uncertain. Submitted Spring 2003. 28 So too Houwink ten Cate 1961, 69f. w. lit., and Neumann 1969, 387f. Meriggi 1980, 326 called it ‘oscuro’, cf. also ibid. 327. 29 Melchert 1994, 324.

THE MINIATURE OF EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE OF 1269 (J1925) AND ITS TEXTUAL BACKGROUND THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

The opening chapter of the book of Ezekiel relates the vision the prophet saw on the banks of the Chebar canal, in Babylon, five years after he was exiled, with part of the Jewish people, from Jerusalem by Nebukadnesar in 598 BC. The vision recurs in a different form in the tenth chapter of the book, and has formed the basis for mystical and political interpretations in Judaism and Christianity for two millennia.1 It is to the Christian, and particularly one Armenian interpretation of the vision that I would like to dedicate the following pages as a small token of gratitude to the memory of my teacher and Doktorvater, Jos Weitenberg. From the early Christian period onwards, the interpretation and depiction of Ezekiel’s vision has tended to take on elements from visions related in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4. From an early period on, therefore, in Christian understanding, the vision comprised more than that of the Godhead seated on his throne-chariot supported by four living creatures, with their faces of a human being, a lion, an ox and an eagle and who moved on wheels with similarities of eyes in them. These four living creatures became the signs of the evangelists and pointed to the four 1 The literature on Ezekiel, his visions and his book is extensive. Some works on Ezekiel’s chariot-vision and its nachleben published after this contribution was written (2003), are given in italics. Some modern commentaries and studies are: Joyce 2009; Block 1997; Greenberg 1983; Zimmerli 1979. For a collection of ancient Christian commentaries see Stevenson and Glerup 2008; a study on early Christian interpretation is Christman 2005. The reception of Ezekiel and his visions is the subject of Mein and Joyve 2011, Joyce 2011, de Jonge and Tromp 2007. An older interpretation combining art and theology is Neuss 1912. On Ezekiel in the context of apocalyptic, see Rowland 2002 (original publ. 1982); cf. Kovacs and Rowland 2004. For William Blake’s reception of Ezekiel see Rowland 2010 and 2007. On the mystical interpretations in the Jewish tradition see among others Scholem 1960 and 1995; Halperin 1988. On the depiction of gods and kings carried by animals, see Keel 1977; Rosenberg 1989. Further bibliographical references can be found in these works. References to manuscripts follow Coulie (1994), see http://aiea.fltr.ucl.ac.be/AIEAfr/Outils_files/Sigles.pdf.

404

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

gospels, while the Godhead was re-interpreted as Christ in Glory, and the chariot as the cross.2 This results in considering the vision as an Old Testament prefiguration of events that are related in the New Testament, which is common practise in Christian exegesis, and is confirmed in the Armenian tradition by commentaries on Ezekiel.3 The fusion of these various biblical components in the depiction of the vision make it into a bridge between the Old and the New Testaments. This brings along another important biblical figure, John the Baptist, whose role is that of the conferral on Christ of the Old Testament traditions of kingship, priesthood and prophecy, through his baptism. With John the Baptist the Old Testament period of prophecy and expectation of the Messiah ends and the New Dispensation is initiated. Thomson describes John’s role as follows: John the Baptist is the link between the old covenant and the new. The tradition of priesthood, kingship, and prophecy of the seed of Abraham descended to him, and he was the keeper of this tradition and its heir, at once priest, prophet, and king. He passed on this tradition, the priesthood, the prophecy, and the kingship, to our Lord Jesus Christ.4

When John baptises Christ in the Jordan God reveals the exact nature of Jesus’ being and mission. After this mission is completed by his death on the cross and his resurrection, he appears as Christ in Glory, seated on the chariot, now the image of the cross, on which his redeeming work was executed. Finally, he is the Christ of the Second Coming, the enthroned Judge on the day of the Last Judgement. All of these elements are to be taken into account when addressing the interpretation of the miniature that is the subject of this paper. 2 The earliest attribution of the four living creatures to the four gospels and their four authors was made by Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century with emphasis on Rev 4:6-7 in Adversus haereses III, 11, 8, see Rousseau et Doutreleau 1974, 160-164. He was followed by Jerome around 400, who stressed Ezekiel’s vision; see Bonnard 1977, Praefatio, 64-67. Gregory the Great delivered his homelies on Ezekiel in 593-594, which exerted a lasting influence on Western Christianity; see Morel 1986, Hom. I,15 and Hom. IV, 1 (104-105 and 148-151). Gregory also combines the throne vision with the baptism of Christ, Hom. VIII, 21 (304-307). For a survey of the formation of the western Fathers’ thought, see the discussion of the Maiestas Domini in Veelenturf 1997. Representations in Christian art start at the end of the fourth century. Cf. Ladner 1992, 38-39. 3 So e.g. in a text probably by Vardan Arewelc‘i and thus dating form the thirteenth century. The equation of the chariot with the cross is indirect, through the equation of the four living creatures with the evangelists. Earlier on in the text the chariot is called the soul of the virtuous (եւ է առաքինեաց հոգին կառք Աստուծոյ:); see Stone, Wright, and Satran 2000, 145-155, with van Lint 2000, 155-158; cf. Russell 1997, 360. 4 Thomson 2001a, 9.

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

405

Below textual sources will be presented that I believe account for two of the miniature’s enigmatic elements, which so far have received only a compositional explanation: the pole of the chariot, which represents, in my view the vertical part of the cross, and the hand holding up the cross, representing, I submit, the hand of John the Baptist. The former explanation emerges from the equation of the chariot with the cross as the throne of the glory of God, the latter from John the Baptist’s role as fulfiller of the Old Testament and herald of the New one, by his sermons and by his baptism of Christ. One source perhaps suggests another explanation. The miniature depicting the throne vision studied here is one of the illuminations of the Erznka bible, kept as manuscript No 1925 in the Armenian Patriarchate (Saints James Monastery) in Jerusalem (J1925). This Bible was copied in 1269 for Sargis, the Archbishop of Erznka, and for his son, Prince Yovhannēs. Both are well known personalities.5 In this period Erznka enjoyed a semi-autonomous status under Mongol dominion. While some of the illuminated manuscripts betray influence from Greater Armenia6, ties with Cilicia were particularly strong7. Narkiss in his study of the Armenian manuscripts in Jerusalem detects influences from both areas.8 While illuminations depicting scenes from the gospels were widespread in Armenian art, those from the Old Testament had been more limited. They are attested in church chapels from the seventh century in Lmbat and T‘alin (both depicting the throne vision)9, in the tenth century Church of the Holy Cross at Ałt‘amar (a Genesis cycle), which is also 5

Bałdasaryan 1970. M10359, Gospel, dated 1201, cf. Der Nersessian 1973b, 604 (M designates Matenadaran, Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, Erevan). 7 So Collection Kévorkian, New York, Gospel no. 6, dated 1200, as cited in Der Nersessian 1973b, 604. 8 Narkiss and Stone 1980, 66-68. 9 Der Nersessian 1973a; Der Nersessian, 1978, 70-71; Durnovo 1957, 10-11. Der Nersessian 1978, 71 gives the following description of the frescoes in Lmbat and T‘alin and of the development of the theme in Christian art: ‘A theophanic vision once adorned the apse in the cathedrals of T‘alin and of Mren, and the churches of Gosh and Lmbat. Only tiny patches remain, scarcely enough by which to identify the subject, except at Lmbat where the lower half of the composition may still be seen (fig. 46). Christ was depicted within an aureole, encircled by green, white and red bands; He is seated on a throne, its legs inlaid with precious stones and pearls, which is set on a pedestal no less sumptuously decorated. On either side of the aureole, a tetramorph, its four crossed wings covered with eyes, stands between two wheels. The emerald-winged seraphim at either extremity of the painting are in worse condition. Flames leap up from the lower band and mount quite high up behind the wheels. 6

406

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

richly decorated on the outside. Old Testament scenes also occur on funerary monuments, such as the hypogeum at Ałc‘ and a funerary stele in Haṙič‘, both depicting Daniel in the Lions’ Den. Another one is that of the three youths in the fiery furnace, depicted in Ojun (Odzun) and Brdajor (Brdadzor).10 We find scenes from the Old Testament in three types of books: Psalters (sałmos[aran]), Rituals (maštoc‘) and Lectionaries (čašoc‘). Occasionally, from the tenth century onwards, the sacrifice of Isaac would be placed at the beginning of a Gospel, because of its symbolic meaning, foreshadowing the offer of Christ by God the Father. The Erznka Bible presents the earliest example of a Bible illuminated throughout, not limiting itself to author portraits. It contains thirty-eight illuminations at the beginning of most of the books. It contains seven illuminations from biblical scenes, other than the author-portraits, and all of these are based on the Old Testament. At the beginning of the book of Ezekiel there are two miniatures. The first of these depicts the throne vision, while on the opposite page a portrait of Ezekiel is placed. The unknown painter shows himself an independent artist, an impression based not solely on the way he depicted the throne vision. In relating a detail from the book of Daniel, for instance, he does not choose one of the usual scenes, that of Daniel’s vision, the dream of Nebukadnesar, or

The Old Testament theophanic vision, probably originating in Palestine, was a favourite theme with artists of the Early Middle Ages for apsidal decoration. There are numerous examples of this particularly in Coptic art, and later in Cappadocia. Though Armenian paintings are, on the whole, bound up with this major artistic trend, they have one definite distinguishing feature. The four animals inspired by the Revelation, which other artists show encircling Christ, are never depicted. Armenian painters conformed to the account of Ezekiel’s vision (1:1-21), by showing the “living creatures” with two pairs of wings, and they tried to bring out the shape and structure of the wheels “whose appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel”. Only the six-winged seraphim are borrowed from Isaiah’s vision (6:2).’ The same author gives a more elaborate description of the frescoes and adds to the occurrence of Old Testament theophanies by mentioning Hosios David in Thessaloniki (mosaic), the Coptic frescoes in Baouît, the frescoes at Latmos and the Georgian cave church of David Garedja in Dodo in Der Nersessian 1973a, 525-526. See further Ihm 1960, 42-51. A good illustration of the apse mosaic in Housios David can be found in Mathews 1999, fig. 88, p. 119, with a study of it on 115-140, esp. 116-119 and 136-138. On the frescoes in the Coptic chapels in Baouît, see Grabar, 1946, vol. 2, 207-234 and Album, Pl. XLIV, XLV and XLVII, and now, with better illustrations, Iacobini 2000. On the Cappadocian churches, see the richly illustrated descriptions in Restle 1967; esp. no. 10 Göreme Chapel 7, Tokalı kilise, Vol 2, fig. 123; no. 26 Çavuşin, Pigeon Hole, Vol. 3, fig. 319; no. 28 Gülü Dere, Chapel 3, figs. 333-336; no. 36 Susum Bayri (Ürgüp) Holy Theodore, fig. 383; no. 46 Soğanlı, Tahtalı kilise, fig. 434, dating from the tenth and eleventh centuries. 10 Der Nersessian 1978, 66.

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

407

the three youths in the Fiery Furnace, but instead turns to the story of Susanna, idiosyncratically subsuming it in one illumination.11 This particular illumination of Ezekiel’s throne vision has been described and interpreted several times by art historians. Among their interpretations special attention deserve those by Sirarpie Der Nersessian and Bezalel Narkiss.12 Both cannot, by their own admission, give a completely convincing explanation for two elements in the miniature, the hand coming from below, and the pole it holds. The reason for this may lie in the fact that neither has adduced a textual context other than the biblical one, but have relied either on structural arguments, as in the case of Der Nersessian, or on narrative ones, combined with a structural element, as in the case of Narkiss. And yet there are other texts in the Armenian tradition, which, in my view, possess a remarkable explanatory power when brought to bear on this miniature. Before commenting on them, let us briefly reiterate the interpretations by Der Nersessian and Narkiss. Der Nersessian devoted an article to the illuminations of the Erznka Bible.13 She repeated her interpretation in Armenian Art, which runs as follows:14 The magnificent composition of the Vision of Ezekiel differs fundamentally both from the rare examples preserved in Byzantine manuscripts, and from apse compositions of Cappadocian churches; in certain details it even deviates from the Biblical text, the better to create a unified composition. A hand, issuing from the iridescent circle of the aureole, holds the shaft of a golden wheel surmounted by a half-wheel, and at the top appears the majestic figure of the Lord, seated on a golden throne and holding un unfurled scroll. Four hexapteriges, each with four identical faces, are attached to the spokes of the great wheel. Lower down, Ezekiel is lying beside the river Chebar, and an angel is showing him the scroll that the Lord has commanded him to eat (Ch. 1-3). The deviations from the Biblical text -the wheel with a shaft held by a hand- are a voluntary effort to emphasize the vertical axis of the composition dominated by the image of God. Furthermore, by showing the seraphim attached to the spokes of the wheel, the painter conveys more accurately the meaning of the phrase ‘when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth the wheels were lifted up with them’.

11 Der Nersessian 1973 II, 103, fig. 381. This description of the Erznka Bible is based on Der Nersessian 1973b and Narkiss and Stone 1980, 64-66. 12 A recent description is Nersessian 2001, 178-179 (no. 106), which combines descriptions by Bogharian, Der Nersessian, Narkiss and Stone. See the Bibliography at the end of the description. 13 Der Nersessian 1973b. 14 Der Nersessian 1978, 218-19.

408

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

The main argument Der Nersessian adduces for the explanation of the deviations from the text of Ezekiel is compositional. Narkiss offers a different explanation:15 The illustration of Ezekiel’s vision also seems to be taken from a prototype, probably of an eastern origin. The picture does not, in any case, illustrate the text of the first and the tenth chapters of Ezekiel literally, but combines it with the Second Coming of Christ in the book of Revelation, chapter 4. The multi-coloured, rainbow-like, oval frame and the fire within it seem to be based on Ezekiel (1:4, 28), as also are the wheels, one within the other, covered with eyes (1:15-18, 10:12). The enthroned Christ is also based on Ezekiel (1:26), although the blank scroll in his right hand is described in Revelation as a book written on both sides and relates to his Second Coming (5:1). The vision of the four-faced creatures covered with eyes is also Ezekiel’s (1:5-11, 10:12-14), but the fact that they have six wings, rather than four, and that each has four identical, rather than different, faces relates it to Revelation (4:6-8). The hand emerging from the fire and grasping the shaft is a strange element in the composition, which may be related either to the creatures’ hands mentioned in Ezekiel (1:8, 10:7), or to the hand which carried the scroll ‘written within and without’ (2:8-10), similar to the apocalyptic book which God holds in His hand (Rev. 5:1). The undulating blue stripes under the vision represent the river Chebar, where the vision took place (Ezekiel 1:1), but the angel giving Ezekiel the scroll to eat is related to another stage of the vision (3:1). It may explain the appearance of the hand holding the shaft as related to this scene, a conflation which may have existed in the artist’s unknown model.

The author adds that the way the vision is depicted differs from those we know and may therefore belong to a different tradition. He assumes three different models: early Eastern Christian, probably Syriac Bibles, later Byzantine and western prototypes.16 Later Armenian illuminations depict the throne vision in a very different way. In order to bring this out more clearly, descriptions of three of them are included here. In the Erznka Bible illumination we see as it were the throne and the cross on the brink of merging, occupying an intermediate position between the Vision’s text in Ezekiel 1 and the Second Coming of Christ on the cross as depicted e.g. in a Yaysmawurk‘ of 1638.17 In some illuminations from the Van area chariot and cross seem 15

Narkiss and Stone 1980, 66. Narkiss and Stone 1980, 68. 17 J1919, Połarean 1972, 371 (J designates Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate). The four living creatures are replaced by four angels blowing the trumpets of the resurrection. Three steps are necessary to change the Erznka Bible miniature into the usual depiction of the cross with Christ in the centre and the four living creatures next to him, located in 16

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

409

to be fully fused in the depiction of the Throne Vision. Der Nersessian observes that later Armenian miniaturists did not follow the examples set by the fresco in Lmbat and the Erznka Bible, but by the one painted in 1338 in a Bible by Avag (M4429): 18 Cette miniature, dessinée aux traits, représente Le Christ assis à l’intérieur de trois circles concentriques; quatre double-roues occupent la bande médiane et quatre tétramorphes la bande extérieure. Une main sort de cette dernière bande, au-dessus d’Ézéchiel, tombé face contre terre auprès du fleuve du Kébar; la feuille de parchemin est à côté de lui.

Examples of such compositions are the illumination by the painter Minas in a Gospels dating from 145519, a fifteenth century Gospels,20 and modelled on Minas’ composition, in the Hymnal of Van of 1529, the corners formed by the vertical and horizontal beams of the cross. Firstly, the diagonal spokes need to be turned 45 degrees, one of which then fuses with the lower beam of the cross, while the other three form the arms and the top of it. Secondly, the Eternal One has to move to the centre of the cross, and thirdly, the four living creatures must move from the edges of the poles to the point where these emerge from the centre of the cross. These steps are not to be understood as having a chronological order. The iconographic models of the cross with Christ and the four living creatures are older than the illumination in the Erznka Bible, as is shown e.g. by the so-called Dionysios bronze in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, as well as by pre-iconoclastic coins with chi-formed ordering, where a Byzantine emperor appears in the centre, with four other emperors symmetrically ordered around it. Cf. Kühnel 1992, 196-97. 18 Der Nersessian 1973b, 608. 19 J3815, page 39. ‘A beardless Christ occupies the place of honour at the centre of three circles; the wheels, shaped like gold disks, are shown in the next zone; the apocalyptic “creatures” occupy this zone and the next, with the circle passing through their bodies at the neck. Trefoil arches surround the heads, and two wings, detached from the bodies, meet at the tip of spokes that pass through the wheels. Ezekiel is prostrate, but not recumbent, beside the river, and a hand is shown offering him a scroll on which the title of the scene is inscribed. The donor kneels at the right, and the manuscript that he has had transcribed is suspended on reeds. There is a great difference between this composition, reduced to a decorative diagram, and the beautiful miniature in the Erzinjan Bible’; Der Nersessian 1978, 230-31, and fig. 176. A full page colour photo appears also in Thierry & Donabédian 1987, fig. 138. Der Nersessian 1973c, 700 remarks on the placing of Ezekiel’s throne-vision at the opening of a Gospel-book, of which this is the earliest known instance. On Minas and his work, see further Vardanyan 1998-2000, Vardanyan 2003-2004 and Leyloyan-Yekmalyan 2009, 190-91. 20 BOB1327, fol. 7v (BOB designates Boston Public Library). It has a composition similar to those painted by Avag and Minas. ‘Christ Emmanuel, beardless, is enthroned inside the innermost of three concentric circles; four tetramorphs stand diagonally, like the spokes of a wheel, inside the outer circles, their bodies awkwardly cut by the second circle. A human hand comes out from under the third circle and presents the scroll to Ezekiel kneeling by the river Chebar; the words “the vision of Ezekiel that he saw at the river Chebar” are written in gold letters on the scroll. A closed book hangs from the reeds growing on the bank of the river.’ Der Nersessian 1973d, 686-687, and n. 18; Der Nersessian 1973, II, 121 (fig. 444).

410

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

where the chariot is no longer visible, with Christ in the centre of the four poles of the cross, like spikes reaching under an edge of 45 degrees towards the outer border of the aureole which is here perfectly round. Here the emphasis possibly is placed on the second coming of Christ, as the closed book in the reeds may make clear, which is understood to refer to Rev. 10.21 The theme so idiosyncratically depicted by the painter of the Erznka bible was to be widely known in Armenian manuscript illumination. A word may be added about the positioning of the miniature in the sequence of illuminations, described by Der Nersessian:22 The illustration of the manuscript opens with twenty-three full-page miniatures, followed by the Letter of Eusebius to Carpianus explaining the concordance of the four Gospels, and the Canon or concordance tables written inside decorative frames. The portraits of the evangelists face the opening pages of their Gospels. [...] The full-page miniatures placed at the beginning of the Gospel form a kind of multiple frontispiece illustrating the life of Christ by means of the principal episodes, many of which are at the same time important feasts of the Christian Church. Three Old Testament subjects have been added to the Gospel cycle: the Sacrifice of Isaac, the Tree of Jesse, and the Vision of Ezekiel. The first of these, the symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, had already been represented in the Armenian Gospel manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries; it was omitted in the following period, when the miniatures were usually introduced into the body of the manuscript to accompany appropriate passages in the Gospel, and it reappeared in the fourteenth century when the painters resumed the earlier custom of grouping the full-page miniatures at the beginning of the Gospel. At approximately the same time the composition of the Tree of Jesse passed from the art of western Europe to Armenian art, and perhaps shortly later the Vision of Ezekiel, which had been represented earlier in Armenian Bibles, was added to the initial group of miniatures in the Gospel manuscripts.

The positioning of the illumination with Ezekiel’s throne vision at the beginning of the gospels makes its interpretation as an event foreshadowing the coming of Christ even more marked, as we shall see below. The interpretations of the illumination of the throne vision in the Erznka Bible by Der Nersessian and Narkiss take as their starting point the biblical text, translated into an image. This image may bring together different parts of the biblical narrative. Elements of the image which are not compatible with the biblical text are explained as serving 21 22

J1667, fol. 237v, description in Narkiss & Stone 1980, 91; illumination, 101 (fig. 125). Der Nersessian 1973d, 686.

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

411

compositional purposes, yielding a unique illumination, or by assuming an intermediate layer of transmission, in this case illuminations from elsewhere in the Christian world. The latter are referred to in general terms only: no specific examples are given. Texts other than the biblical ones are not taken into consideration as possible sources for the way in which the scene is depicted. It has been a point of some controversy, also in Armenian studies, whether, and how, textual witnesses may be brought to bear on images.23 An instance of this is the interpretation by Mathews of the Genesis cycle in the drum of the Church of the Holy Cross at Ałt‘amar, which elicited reactions from Nicole Thierry, and from Outtier, addressing the problem of textual support for specific interpretations of works of art.24 A brief review of the argument may help stress the possibilities and difficulties of such an approach. Mathews’ starting point is his thesis that where pictures deviate from the Biblical text, we are able ‘to detect the evidence of what might be called a “cultural filter”’. He elaborates on this: ‘The original story is being filtered through the vision of intermediary interpreters; it is being re-worked to reflect a special bias; it is being made to accommodate other traditions beside the tradition of the unadorned text of Sacred Scripture.’ For his task in hand this means that ‘the challenge of the Ałt‘amar frescoes, then, is to understand the peculiarly Armenian reading of the text of Genesis that underlies the iconography.’ He concludes that ‘from the outset the Christian artist read the text only through the filter of Christian exegeses of the text.’25 In making sense of the way in which the Creator is depicted in the scenes of the creation of Adam and Eve, Mathews adduces The Teaching of Saint Gregory as source for the depiction of Christ as the Creator.26 Thierry objected to some of Mathews’ interpretations, and stressed the importance of the influence of other pictorial sources. She points out that 23 For a general caveat ‘against too broad generalizations and the inappropriate use of literary evidence to explain images with which they have no demonstrable temporal, spatial and ideological connection’ see de Groot and Moorsel 1977-1978, quoted here from van Moorsel 2000, 115. 24 Mathews 1982; reprinted in Mathews 1995, X; Outtier 1983; Thierry 1984. 25 Mathews 1982, 248-289. 26 Mathews 1982, 253-256. According to Mathews (255), the passage in The Teaching is itself based on Irenaeus of Lyons’ Christological interpretation of Gen 1:27 in Adversus Haereses V, 16, 2 (Harvey, 1857, II, 368). If this is indeed the source, then the author of the Teaching must have known it in the original, because the Armenian translation does ‘not predate the late sixth century’, Thomson 2001a, 43.

412

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

the Teaching of Saint Gregory cannot be taken as the sole point of departure, and rules out a purely Armenian or East Christian character of the frescoes, while allowing for the painter’s personal innovative additions. Her overall conclusion led her to reject Mathews’ method: ‘Bref, la tradition iconographique prévaut sur celle de lectures hypothétiques.’27 This seemed to be too radical a rejection of the method Mathews proposes, at least this is implied by Outtier. In the introductory remark to an article in which he adduces textual testimonies from the Armenian version of St. Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis for the interpretation of the Genesis cycle at Ałt‘amar he states: ‘Tout en reconnaissant le charactère nécessairement hypothétique que présente le rapprochement entre l’iconographie et un commentaire biblique, il nous semble non dénué de tout interêt d’ajouter une pièce nouvelle à ce dossier.’28 What follows makes it quite clear that Outtier does not lack confidence in the explanatory power of texts when pressed into the service of interpreting images. He closes his contribution with a question, the rhetoric character of which seems beyond doubt: ‘Sans que l’on puisse prouver une influence du texte sur le peintre, ne peut-on poser le problème d’une possible relation?’29 Mathews continued to apply his premises, re-formulating his method, as in the case of his study of the final four illuminations in the Etchmiadzin Gospel: ‘The challenge is to reconstruct the thought patterns that lie behind these four miniatures.’30 He elaborates on the way literary sources may be used:31 In invoking literary sources to explain visual material one need not imply a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. One does not have to imagine the painter with a patristic library on his shelf in order to invoke patristic sources; one need only demonstrate that the literary and visual materials both come from the same milieu. Literary and visual material are parallel manifestations of the same culture; artist and theologian breathe the same air, and the same fabric of ideas appears in both their works.

27 Thierry 1984, 290-298; this refers to the creation of Adam and of Eve. These sections of Thierry’s article make clear what the character of her objections to Mathews’ interpretations and to his method are. Her final conclusion on the hierarchy between text and image is formulated on page 309. Cf. the remark by de Groot and van Moorsel, note 23. 28 Outtier 1983, 589. 29 Outtier 1983, 592. 30 Mathews 1982a, 200; reprinted in Mathews 1995, VII. 31 Mathews 1982a, 200.

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

413

Mathews chose this approach for the study of Armenian Gospel iconography as well:32 It is exegesis that supplied the principles by which subjects were chosen and developed. … the end product is a work of intelligence, whether that be the individual intelligence of the single artist or the collective intelligence of a tradition of scribes and artists who have shaped and reshaped the imagery over the course of time.

In the following not only exegetical material will be adduced to help explain the particular make-up of the miniature of the throne vision in the Erznka Bible, but also texts with a slightly different interpretative character, as in the case of the Armenian hymnal and of religious poetry, or texts which are somewhat further removed from the format of a formal exegesis of a biblical book, as in the case of an elaborate, explanatory colophon. However, they all derive from the same tradition and were produced within a limited time span in three different prominent centres of Armenian culture. At the beginning of this paper it was suggested that the hand, which holds the shaft belongs to John the Baptist, while the shaft represents the stem of the cross, a conclusion drawn after considering the role John plays in Armenian texts which comment on the throne vision. It is now time to examine the evidence on which this interpretation is based. So far I have come across three texts in which John the Baptist is assigned an essential role in sustaining the divine throne-chariot of Ezekiel’s vision, and one in which the throne vision is understood as a foreshadowing of the mystery of baptism by John. The earliest one is a poem by the tenth century poet-mystic Grigor Narekac‘i. This is followed by a colophon from the late twelfth century Lemberg Gospels. The third text is a šarakan, a hymn from the Armenian hymnal. The fourth text occurs in Esayi Nč‘ec‘i’s Commentary on Ezekiel, written in 1303 by the abbot of the famous and influential monastery of Glajor at the request of Step‘anos Orbelian, archbishop of Siwnik‘. A fifth text may point in another direction, although I do not think that it necessarily explains anything about the miniature under investigation. It is another passage in the same Commentary. One more text by Narekac‘i establishes the transition from chariot-throne to the cross. The texts adduced below stem from the period between roughly 980 and 1303, that is to say from 32 Mathews and Sanjian, 1991. The approach is set out by the authors in the Introduction (p. 3), and more elaborately by Mathews in the section ‘Exegetical Method in the Study of Gospel Iconography’ (76-81). The quotations are from page 78.

414

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

somewhat less than three centuries before until thirty four years after the miniature in the Erznka Bible was painted. Before turning to the identification of the hand, let us look at the way in which the throne-chariot and the cross are identified. The interpretation of the throne-chariot as prefiguring the cross is a well-known phenomenon. In order to show that its presence in Armenian culture is not limited to painting, but is present explicitly in its literature as well, a quotation of a section of the text by Narekac‘i may suffice.33 In his Panegyric on the Holy Cross Grigor Narekac‘i explicitly calls Ezekiel’s throne vision “your wondrous appearance through revelation before the event”, likening the cross to the divine chariot when he writes: ‘For through the mystery of wheel within wheel it depicted in itself the positioning of your cross in an immutable manner.’34 The context of these lines is the following:35 You are celebrated, holy, glorious sign of the admirable cross. Which in the establishment of the faces of the quadrangle of the ones yoked together, in equivalent sequence, of the chariot formed by the many-eyed, pluri-optic cherubs, wheeling about without being compelled to move on the ground, with the soaring focus of the seraph born on the wings of love, by admirable flying about, with infallible motion, confirmed your wondrous appearance through revelation before the event. For through the mystery of wheel within wheel it depicted in itself the positioning of your cross in an

33 Nerboł surb xač‘in (Panegyric on the Holy Cross), Awetikean 1827, 37-69; van Lint 1999, 109-114. Narekac‘i’s Panegyric is not the only work which equals Ezekiel’s thronechariot with the cross. An earlier work, ascribed to David the Invincible Philosopher, is “An Encomium of the Holy Cross of God”, in which cross and chariot are also equated: “Then the cross-chariot advances in four directions at once, bearing the Emmanuel…” See Nersoyan 1986, 86. Nersoyan’s translation is based upon the anonymous edition, Koriwn, Mambrē, Dawit‘ Anyałt‘1833. 34 van Lint 1999, 112-13. Դրուատեալ ես սուրբ պանծալի նշան հրաշազան խաչիդ: Որ ի դրութիւն դիմակացն քառաքուսեան լծորդացն, զուգակշիռ հետևմամբ, անկարօտաճեմ ճախրանօք բազմատեսօղ յոքնաչեայ քրովբէանիւթ ձևացեալ կառացն, սէրարփին սիրասուր սլացմամբ սխրասարաս սաւառնմամբ, անսայթաքական գնացիւք` զքոյդ ճշմարտէր սքանչելատեսիլ երևումն կանուխ յայտնութեամբ: Քանզի անիւ ի յանիւ խառնեալ խորհրդիւ, զդրութիւն խաչիդ անփոփոխադիր տեսակ ի յինքեան նկարէր, զոպարտ գաղափար յինքեան ընկալեալ: Նախ այլասեռ նիւթոցն հալուած յէլէքտրիոն անուոցն կազմած` զքո փոփոխումնդ ի բացուստ նկատեաց. քանզի ի վերայ քո հնչեաց բարբառ ձայնի Աստուծոյ սադդայի: Ուստի և յԱստուծոյ ոտիցն տեղիդ, գեղեցիկ երգաբանութեամբ զանեղծն իսկութիւն ի քեզ պսակեն, օրհնեալ փառք տեառն ի տեղւոջ իւրում: Awetikean 1827, 45-46. 35 In the miniature in the Erznka Bible we see Christ seated upon the cross, i.e. the cross is under him, as a footstool, just as suggested in the text here. Covakan 1995, 45 translates յԱստուծոյ ոտիցն տեղիդ with Աստուծոյ ոտքերուն պատուանդանիդ վրայ, stressing the idea of the footstool, reflecting Isa. 66:1. See also van Lint 1999, 109 and 112-113.

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

415

immutable manner36, receiving in themselves as your blameless image the spirit of the power of the living God. Also molten matter of other kinds, composed into the yellow amber of the wheels, it reflected your transformation from afar. For over you sounded the clamour of the voice of God-Shaddai. Whence also you are the place for God’s feet, where with beautiful song of praise they crown on you the incorruptible substance, blessed is the glory of the Lord in his abode.

This text, composed on the occasion of the transferral of a piece of the true cross from the church of John the Baptist to the church of the Holy Mother of God, both in Aparank‘ in Mokk‘ south of lake Van in 983, establishes beyond any doubt the relation between the chariot and the cross. One also has to bear in mind the usual interpretation of the four living creatures as representations of the four evangelists and indeed of the Gospels themselves, according to which ‘the tetra-morph throne chariot of God is the symbol of the Gospel, fourfold in its unity.37 I will not go into the number four and its elaborate symbolism here.38 The following texts can be adduced to cast light on the meaning of the hand holding the shaft. 1. In his Tał Yarut‘ean, ‘A Poem on the Resurrection’, Grigor Narekac‘i had shown this connection by having the chariot getting stuck, with a King’s Son seated on the throne, on its descent from mount Masis to Jerusalem: the pull of the powerful oxen is insufficient to get it moving again. The whole train stands still and the impasse is overcome only when a boy with blond hair – xardišageł-, broad-shouldered and with a thundering voice takes charge of the chariot. He is none other than John the Baptist, with a thinly veiled substratum of Vahagn, the Zoroastrian deity worshipped by the Armenians before their conversion to Christianity, shouting out to the yoke of oxen, while Narekac‘i sings: ‘From the pole the wheels of the cart were set in motion, exuding sweet-smelling fragrance it rolls along today’.39 36 Note the way in which the artist may have interpreted this text in the miniature: the pole rising vertically along the middle of the mandorla, up to its centre, where under an angle of 45 degrees four spokes issue from just under the top of the cross, forming the spokes of a wheel on top of which is established the throne on which God-Christ is seated. 37 Schmidt 1997, 96: ‘Der von den Wesen getragene tetramorphe Thronwagen Jahwes ist Symbol des in seiner Einheit vierfältigen Evangeliums’. 38 The subject is treated in Russell 1997. 39 For a study of this poem and its representation of the throne vision with John the Baptist as essential mover, see van Lint 1999. The invocation of the Iranian substratum in

416

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

2. In one of the colophons of the Lemberg (Lvov-Lviv) Gospels the scribe Step‘anos makes the connection between John the Baptist and the Throne Vision: ‘Yovhannēs, who is great among those born of women, has become the chariot in the way of the high one, when he took upon himself the Trinity.’40 Schmidt explains this in the following way before quoting a hymn that carries the same idea: In der Taufe Christi hat sich der heilige Dreieinheit Gottes selbst offenbart. In Fortschreibung der Ezechiel-Vision sieht Stephanos in dem Täufer Johannes die Figuration des tetramorphen Thronwagens. Gleich wie die vier geflügelten Wesen Jahwes Thron getragen haben, so trägt der Täufer als auf Christ hinweisender Gottesbote41 mit seiner Handauflegung bei der Taufe Christi gewissermaßen die Dreiheit Gottes selbst. Johannes ist wie die vier geflügelten Wesen Thronwagen für die dreieinige Gottheit geworden.42

3. A further suggestion for the interpretation of the hand as belonging to John the Baptist can be found in the Šaraknoc‘ (the Armenian Hymnal): The son of the barren one preached the mystery of the four-faced living creatures seeing the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove coming down over the waters, said crying out: ‘Behold, the lamb of God, about whom it was testified by the Father: This is my beloved son, with whom I am contented.’ (Mt 3.17)43 the depiction of John the Baptist is functional here: Vərəθragna was the champion and standard-bearer of the gods (Yazadān), helping others out of an impasse. Grigor Narekac‘i emphasises an argument based on biblical exegesis by invoking pre-Christian imagery that still carried force with the Armenian people of the Van region (and likely also elsewhere). Cf. Garsoïan 1982, esp. 159, reprinted in Garsoïan 1985, XII. Vahagn was a warrior-god who fought for the gods – and for man, as the Armenians believed. Having adopted many of his properties Surb Karapet, the forerunner of Christ may have assumed a markedly auxiliary role in Armenia, fully supported by his humble nature as described in the New Testament. Instances of this are recorded in the History written by Pseudo Yovhannes Mamikonean, where Surb Karapet twice comes to the aid of the Armenian army, blinding the Persian adversary with the light of his eyes, casting fear upon them by his huge appearance and shiny hair. See Avdoyan 1993, 134, 150. For studies on Vahagn, see Russell, 1987, 189-234; Russell 1989; Mahé 1994. 40 The Lemberg Gospels date from 1198-1199. They are also known as the Skewṙa Gospels, after the monastery in Cilicia where their copying was completed. For a full study of this manuscript, see Pringzing & Schmidt 1997. On the colophons, Schmidt 1997, 94-102; the quotation is from the Lemberg Gospels, fol 420v, see Schmidt 1997, 100, and Prinzing and Schmidt 1997, Tafel II, Abb. 6. 41 Schmidt 1997, 96 with note 8, refers here to the depiction of John the Baptist as winged messenger. 42 Schmidt 1997, 96. 43 The hymn is part of the cycle of the theophany (canon of the eighth day, čašu, last strophe) and quoted in Drost-Abgaryan & Goltz 1996, 100. The Armenian text is that of

EZEKIEL’S THRONE VISION IN THE ERZNKA BIBLE

417

4. The essential part played by John the Baptist in the transition from the old dispensation to the new one is stressed by Esayi Nč‘ec‘i in his Commentary on Ezekiel, finished in 1303, within a generation after the Erznka Bible illumination was painted. Sensitive to the place where the vision came to Ezekiel, on the banks of the river Chebar, the exegete combines it through the element of water with the Jordan, in which the Holy Forerunner baptised Christ, the baptism that opened up communion between humanity and God. He even plays on John’s Armenian name, Surb Karapet, by using the verb karapetel, meaning to ‘precede, guide, announce’, in his exegesis. Commenting on Ezek. 1:1. Esayi writes: And because the people sat there, David testifies, saying: ‘At the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.’ Which is a symbol of this fleeting and unstable life, and of the disposition and nature of mankind. Because of this it was there that he saw the vision which was about the people. And understand, they foretold the mystery of the life-giving baptism, those who received the divine revelations at the waters. And the heavens opened. It is fitting to understand that the heavens were divided, and immediately joined again and are [as they always are]. Or, not opening in truth and in reality, but as a spiritual vision. After this, heaven began to open and to announce the descent of the only-begotten to earth, and the ascent of mankind to heaven. Thus, what harm was there in captivity for the prophet, he did not see the Jewish temple, but he saw the heavens. He was in captivity, but he danced with the angels! But the opening predicts the overflowing and abundant effusion of grace which is on the prophet, as they say, the sources of the depths opened. In the same way also [understand] the mystery of the dispensation of the Lord in the descent of the Spirit on the Jordan. 44 the Šaraknoc‘, Constantinople 1853, 79: Չորեքկերպեան կենդանեացն ըզխորհուրդ քարոզեաց ամլորդին, տեսանելով սուրբ զհոգին աղաւնակերպ իջմամբ ի վերայ ջուրցն, աղաղակէր ասելով, ահա գառն աստուծոյ որ ի հօրէ վըկայեցաւ, դա է՛ որդի իմ սիրելի, ընդ որում ես հաճեցայ: The literal translation by Drost-Abgaryan and Goltz is as follows: Der viergestaltigen Lebewesen Geheimnis kundgetan hat der Unfruchtbare Sohn (sc. Johannes der Täufer), schauend den heiligen Geist in taubengestaltiger Herabkunft auf den Wassern. Er schrie sagend: Siehe das Lamm Gottes, das vom Vater bezeugt worden ist. ‘Dies ist der Sohn mein, der geliebte, an welchem ich Wohlgefallen habe.’ 44 J1159, dated 1392, p. 13, ll. 9-23: և զի անդ նստէր ժողովուրդն, դաւիթ վկայէ ասելով. առ գետս բաբելոնաց անդ նստէաք և լայէաք: որ է նշանակ հոսական և անհաստատ կենացս, և բարուց և բնաւորութեան մարդկան: վասն այնորիկ զտեսիլն որ վասն մարդկան էր անդ տեսանէր: Իսկ առ ի միտս, զխորհուրդ կենարար շնորհի մկրտութեանն գուշակէին, որք առ ջուրս աստուածային յայտնութեանցն պատահէին: Եւ բացան երկինք: Ի դէպ է իմանալ թէ պատառեցան երկինք, և անդէն դարձեալ կցեցան և կա: և կամ ո՛չ ճշմարտութեամբ և իրօք բանիլ, այլ հոգևոր տեսութեամբ: յասյմհետէ սկսաւ բանալ երկինք և կարապետել զիջումն միածնին յերկիր, և զմարդկան ելից յերկինս: Արդ զի՞նչ վնաս մարգարէիս ի գերութենէն, ո՛չ տեսանէր զհրէական տաճարն, այլ տեսանէր զերկինս: ի գերութեան էր, այլ ընդ հրեշտակս պարէր: Բայց բանիլն զյորդ և զառատ զեղումն շնորհացն որ ի վերայ մարգարէիս գուշակէ, ըստ այնմ բացան աղբերք անդնդոց: նմանապէս և ի խորհուրդ տնօրէնութեան տեառն ի յորդանան իջման հոգւոյն:

418

THEO MAARTEN VAN LINT

The apse decoration in Hosios David, the oldest one depicting Ezekiel’s throne vision in its Christian interpretation shows a remarkable detail that confirms the antiquity of the combination of Ezekiel’s throne vision with the epiphany of the Trinity and baptism. A figure in the water, the god of the river Jordan, makes a defensive gesture at what is understood to be the baptism of Christ.45 In some Armenian manuscript illuminations of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, the same gesture is made by this being in the Jordan, which is interpreted as the devil. In others Christ can be seen trampling the devil, sometimes represented in the image of a snake, underfoot.46 These four texts present strong evidence for the possibility of explaining the hand holding the shaft in the Erznka Bible illumination as belonging to John the Baptist. Still, an additional motive for its presence could be adduced. The meaning of the hand as it is mentioned in Ezek. 1:8 is commented upon in detail by Esayi Nč‘ec‘i, who here acknowledges his sources and quotes Symmachus and Step‘annos Siwnec‘i; he opens this paragraph by quoting Ezek 1:8, the verse he is commenting on: And they had the hand of a man under their wings on their four sides. Symmachus said that these are the four corners [of the world]. The hand must be understood as the active power of God, who, having lifted it up, sustains the chariot and those who had lifted it up. Likewise the four-sided creatures and all nature are sustained through the word of his power. And understand this, for the hand is the likeness of the body: it shows to the prophets the special revelation of the incarnation of Christ. About which it is said in the songs: ‘my nephew has stretched out his hand through the aperture’. (Song of Songs 5:4) And Step‘annos Siwnec‘i says thus: The 45 Severian of Antioch interprets the temple stream in Ezekiel 47 as the Jordan, into which the seed of baptism has fallen. Ihm 1960, 46, note 4; Neuss 1912, 86. The defensive gesture finds its biblical source in Psalm 114 (LXX 113, 1-8), cf. verse 3: ‘The sea looked and fled; Jordan turned back’ (NRSV). 46 An example of the latter is BAL W.543, dated 1455, fol. 6v (BAL designates the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland); for biblical, patristic and Armenian liturgical references, see Der Nersessian 1973e, 37-38, and fig. 143. The Armenian manuscripts held in the Walters Art Museum are now accessible online, see: