Medieval Armenian Culture: Proceedings of the Third Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture 0891306420

Citation preview

MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN

CULTURE

University of Pennsylvania

Armenian Texts and Studies Supported by the Sarkes Tarzian Fund

SERIES EDITOR

Michael E. Stone Armenian Version of IV Ezra The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy Signs of the Judgement: Onomastica Sacra and the Generations from

Michael E. Stone Claude E. Cox

Adam

Michael E. Stone

Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity

Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher

Thomas J. Samuelian, editor

Bridget Kendall and Robert W. Thomson, translators

Medieval Armenian Culture

Thomas Samuelian and Michael E. Stone

l o2

MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN

CULTURE

edited by Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone

Scholars Press Chico, California

Thoclosy

Library

ÉLAREMONT

SCHOOL CF THEOLDGY Claremont, CA

MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Proceedings of the Third Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture edited by Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone

© 1984

University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture (3rd :

1982 : University of Pennsylvania) Medieval Armenian culture.

(University of Pennsylvania Armenian texts and studies ; no. 6)

“Proceedings of the Third Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture”—T.p. verso. 1. Armenia —Civilization—Congresses. I. Samuelian, Thomas J. II. Stone, Michael E., 1938- .

III. Title. IV. Series. DS171.D7 1982 ISBN 0-89130-642-0

956.6’201

83-14298

Printed in the United States of America

ts +

= ::

A.

à

sen se ef) à

L

2

se.

CONTENTS Preface

viii

List of Maps

ix

List of Illustrations

Armenian

Transliteration

Key

Xvi

1

John

34

J. J. S. Weitenberg

Armenian Armenian

Giancarlo

A Pioneer

A. C. Greppin

Bolognesi

A Section from the Lexicon to Galen

Dialects and the LatinGlossary of Autun of Armenian

Robert

H. Hewsen

The Kingdom

Robert

W. Thomson

T'ovmay

George Huxley

Un WW + AA. EX Se SR

Der

Mario

10.

Manuelian

D'Onofrio

Mesrob

K. Krikorian

Henning

J. Lehmann

13 29

Etymology

of Arc'ax

Arcruni

The Historical Paulician

Lucy

Greek-Armenian

and

42 69

as Historian

Geography

of the

T'ondrakian

81

Heresies

Armenian Sculptural Images Part Il: Seventh to Fourteenth Centuries A Medieval

Palace

96 120

in Avan

Grigor Tat'ewac'i: A Great Scholastic Theologian and Nominalist Philosopher

131

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, dated A.D. 1299

142

(Eusebius

of Emesa's

Historical

Commentary

on

Writings of the Old

Testament) 11.

Michel

12

Francine

van

Esbroeck

Mawet

The Rise of Saint Bartholomew's Cult from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries

161

The

179

Motif of the

Epic Literature with Iranian

Bird in Armenian

and its Relations

Tradition

13.

Michael

E. Stone

The Greek Background of Some Armenian Pilgrims to the Sinai and Some Other Observations

194

14.

Thomas

J. Samuelian

Another

203

Work

15e

Look

at Marr:

Theory of Language Jean-Pierre

Mahé

on

The

New

and his Early

Armenian

Critical Remärks on the Newly Edited Excerpts from Sebeos

218

vi

16.

Martiros

17e

James

Minassian

R. Russell

Le manuscrit actuel de l'ouvrage d'Eznik est-il celui de la première édition

240

The Tale of the Bronze

250

City in

Armenian

18.

Zaven

Arzoumanian

Kirakos

Ganjakec'i

and his History

262

of Armenia

19.

Helen

20.

Valentino

C. Evans

Canon

Tables

Career Pace

Alice

Taylor

and

22.

Viken

Sassouni

the

Manuscript

of Armenian

Seventh

24.

Nira

Stone

Thomas

Mathews

Manuscripts to Fourteenth

The Kaffa

Manuscript

the

Desert

Fathers

The

Annunciation

Metaphor

Illumination

306

Sources

Rug-Making on from

315

of

the

Centuries

of the Lives of

at the

of Armenian

291

of Models

Basis of the Illuminations

Armenian

23.

Cyprus, Italy and

Problems

Eleventh-Century

Evidence

272

of

in the

Roslin

Cilicia,

Vaspurakan

Indication

Relationships

of T'oros

Armenian

Sinai Icons:

21.

as an

Teacher-Pupil

Well:

329

343

A

Monophysitism

25°

Bo Johnson

Armenian Biblical Tradition in Comparison with the Vulgate and Septuagint

357

26.

Claude

The Use of Lectionary

365

Cox

to Establish the Text Armenian Bible

27.

Joseph M. Alexanian

28.

David

29°

Andrea

30.

Dickran

Sjils

Alexander

Manuscripts of the

The Armenian Gospel Text from Fifth through the Fourteenth

the

381

Centuries

D. Bundy

The Sources of the Isaiah of Georg Skewïrac'i

Tessier

Some Remarks about the Tradition of Greek Texts

Kouymjian Kazhdan

Commentary Armenian

395

415

Dated Armenian Manuscripts as a Statistical Tool for Armenian History

425

The

439

Armenians

in the Byzantine

Ruling Class Predominantly in the Ninth through Twelfth Centuries Index

453

Editors'

Preface

The Third Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture was held November 7-10, 1982 at the University of Pennsylvania under the auspices of the Tarzian Chair in Armenian

History and Culture.

dealt with Armenian

culture

the

Conference

sequel

to

the

November

1979.

Just

conference

were

collected

from

as

the seventh

on

many

Classical of

the

compiled.

the

in first

Culture,

on Medieval Armenian

so

Culture

possible,

and

an

index

of proper

have been

names

has

been

Since a comprehensive bibliography was not economical for a book

in the notes,

been

Armenian

was

held

at

the book easier to read and use, notes and names

as far as

of such diverse

Armenian

Culture

presented

and published as Classical

which

centuries,

in the present volume.*

To make

standardized

Armenian

papers

nearly all the participants in the Conference are represented

The conference,

to fourteenth

contents,

have

forms

been

of proper

transliterated

Arméniennes,

the names

of authors

cited, either

listed in the index as well.

and

according

place names

to

the

have

practice

in the text

Throughout

been

preferred

of the

Revue

or

the book,

and have

des

Etudes

with the exception of p , which for typographic reasons had to

be transliterated € instead of 9 , and eo , which has been transliterated o. A transliteration Many

Computer

chart has been provided below thanks

are

due

Kirk

Typing

Project in the Department

Gregorian,

who saw

for the reader's convenience.

Service,

Prof.

R. Kraft

and

the

of Religious Studies, and Prof. Vartan

to making the conference

and proceedings possible.

The editors and convenors wish to express their special thanks to the participants

in the conference

for their efforts

culture and for their cooperation

preparation

in understanding

in both the conference

Armenian

and the subsequent

for publication.

HIS MES

*The only papers this

volume

Element?" Certain

are

N.

read at the conference

Garsoian,

"The

City

which are not published in

in Medieval

Armenian—An

and E. Isaac, "The Use of Ethiopian Parchment

Armenian

Manuscripts."

Alien

in the Binding of

et 1à ta

Airantt Tr

as |

LAN

“;

>

és

SR

arcs

| “s

:

ne: és.

K

7

nivien RS EU Eee

MD

ES

SET

É

"2

SL

are

,

TS

01 crcchutléstie Jo MONET tarensr

Ni

Tool S

Pie:

SOIR À

ñ

de

ot gene

)

SCD De

à\ .

€

RE 17

h re

(ie

D

| STE

CRE

nant

PR

Fe

ne

vr

Lo 20,00

LIST OF

MAPS

Siwnik'

and

Arc'ax

until the ninth century

Siwnik'

and

Arc'ax

in the ninth century

Siwnik'

and Arc'ax

in the tenth century

Siwnik'

and

Arc'ax

in the eleventh

Siwnik'

and

Arc'ax

in the twelfth

Siwnik'

and

Arc'ax

Siwnik'

and Arc'ax

Paulician

and

century century

in the thirteenth

century

in the fifteenth-seventeenth

T'ondrakian

Heresies

ix

century

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 83

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Weitenberg

Fig. 1

The Latin-Armenian

Glossary of

27

Glossary of

28

Autun

Weitenberg

Fig.

The Latin-Armenian Autun

Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Autun.

West

Cathedral,

c.

110

1125-1135.

portal tympanum

and lintel.

Last Judgment. Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Autun.

Cathedral.

portal tympanum Damned Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Detail of west

110

and lintel.

souls.

Horomos.

Gawit'

1038, Church

of

111

S. Yovhannés. Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Yovhannavank'.

Church

111

of ss.

Karapet. Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Amalu.

Gawit',

Monastery Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Amalu.

Der

Manuelian

Fig.

Ptini.

Manuelian

Fig.

Halïbat.

Fig.

Church,

Manuelian

Fig. 10

Paris. West

Manuelian

Fig. 11

Dsel.

1321.

112

142 early seventh

century

113

of S. Nsan,

971-991.

113

Church Portrait

Arates. Portal

and

Gavwit'.

Donor Manuelian

1223

of Noravank'.

Gawit',

by 1270, West

114

tympanum. Cathedral Portal

of Notre

Dame.

114

c. 1160

Church

of Barjrak'as S.

115

Grigor Manuelian

Fig. 12

St.-Denis.:

portal

Abbey

Church,

West

115

xi

15.

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 1!

Xac'k'ar of Prince Grigor Proë

16.

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 14

T'anahat.

Church

of S. Néan,

116 West

116

portal tympanum

172

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 15

Amalu

Gawit!'

Monastery

117

of

Noravank'

13.

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 16

Parthenay-le-vieux.

Church

PU7

of

Saint-Pièrre 19:

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 17

Agarak.

20.

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 18

Ganjasar.

21.

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 19

Amalu.

22:

Der

Manuelian

Fig. 20

Sant' Angelo in Formis

M9

25:

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan:

the basilica (7-8th cent.)

125

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan:

the zone

125

118

Stele Church

Church

of S. Yovhannés

of S. Astuacacin

surrounding

the

118 119

basilica (1972) 25:

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan:

palace (a:

stairs; b:

the chimney'";

26.

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan,

126

plan of the basilica and

palace:

c-d:

"room

of

abutments).

stairs on the north

126

side of the palace 27.

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan,

palace:

the "room

of the

127-

chimney." 28.

D'Onofrio

Fig.

29.

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Avan,

palace:

chimney.

Avan,

palace:

molded

the "room

30.

51%

D'Onofrio

D'Onofrio

Fig.

Fig.

32.

D'Onofrio

Fig. 10

in

sculpture in the

"room

of the chimney."

Avan,

palace:

Avan:

cornice

128

of the chimney."

Avan, palace:

techniques

127

two different

128

129

of masonry.

structures

of the

medieval

129

palace.

55:

D'Onofrio

Fig. 11

Avan, palace:

fluted stone.

130

xii

34.

M.

Stone

Fig. 1

Wadi Haggaëÿ Inscription H Arm 71

197

354

M. Stone

Fig. 2

Mount Sinai S Arm

197

36.

Evans

Fig. 1

T'oros

Roslin, Eusebian

Jerusalem

37

Evans

Fig. 2

9

Ms.

Letter,

282

251

T'oros Roslin, Canon Tables, Jer.

232

251

38.

Evans

Fig. 3

T'oros Roslin, Canon Tables, Jer.

2383

251

39.

Evans

Fig. 4

Jer.

233

T'oros Roslin, Canon Tables, Jer.

284

T'oros

Roslin, Canon

Tables,

251

40.

Evans

Fig. 5

251

41.

Evans

Fig. 6

Yohanës.

Eusebian

letter, Freer

284

Ms. 44.17 42.

Evans

Fig. 7

T'oros

Roslin, Eusebian

"Zeytun''

Gospel,

Letter,

Istanbul,

285

Armenian

Patriarchate

43.

Evans

Fig. 8

T'oros Roslin, Eusebian Letter Jer.

286

2660

yu,

Evans

Fig..9

T'oros

Roslin,

Walters

45.

Evans

Fig. 10

T'oros Jer.

46.

Evans

Fig. 11

Ms.

Eusebian

Letter

286

Letter,

287

Letter,

288

539

Roslin, Eusebian

1956

T'oros

Roslin, Eusebian

Erevan

Ms.

u7.

Evans

Fig. 12

Eusebian

48.

Evans

Fig. 13

Canon

49.

Evans

Fig. 14

Eusebian

50.

Pace

Fig. 1

Crucifixion

10675

Tables,

Monastery

Jer.

2563

289

Erevan

7347

290

Letter,

Letter, Erevan and

197

290 299

Resurrection.

of St. Catherine,

Mount

Sinai.

51.

Pace

Fig. 2

David

playing the harp.

Erznka

299

xiii

Bible

32.

Pace

Fig.

1268.

Jerusalem

Diptych:

St. Procopius,

of St. Catherine,

23.

Pace

Fig.

Diptych:

Pace

Fig.

Pace

Fig.

King Leo II, Queen

Madonna

Pace

Fig.

Pace

Fig.

300

Keran

& family.

301

Jerusalem

302

2563, f. 380

21

Madonna Stoclet

57e

and Child.

Bruxelles,

303

collection.

Prince Vasak and sons, Virgin of Mercy

300

Sinai.

of the Nativity.

256504. 56.

Monastery

Mount

of St. Catherine.

Jerusalem

23°

1925.

Virgin with Child.

Monastery 54.

Ms.

enthroned

Christ.

303

Jer. 2568,

120; 58.

Pace

Fig.

Narzolini Galleria

22.

Pace

Fig. 10

triptych. nazionale

Triptych:

60.

Taylor

Fig.

Fig.

Four

Taylor

Fig.

313

Metropolitan

NY

Metropolitan

313

of Art, 57.185.3

John, Peter

encounter

NY

of Art, 57.185.3

Evangelists,

Museum

62.

dell'Umbria.

with Christ.

Museum Taylor

305

Perugia, Galleria

The Virgin, John and Peter at the tomb

61.

dell'Umbria.

Angel of the

Annunciation. nazionale

304

Perugia,

and two

Holy women

314

Christ and two angels at

the tomb.

Matenadaran

No.

4814,

fol. 6 63.

Taylor

Fig.

John

and

Peter

Matenadaran,

64.

Sassouni

Fig.

at the tomb.

No.

314

4818

Illustration of rug-making

322

xiv

65.

Sassouni

Fig. 2a

322

Vertical section of a typical Armenian

Church rug with a prayer

66.

Sassouni

Fig. 2b

Caucasian

Mihrab

67.

Sassouni

Fig. 3a

Central cross with angel's wings

323 323

radiating

68.

Sassouni

Fig. 3b

Armenian

rug from

324

fill sub-divided

324

"Chelabert"

Karabagh 69.

Sassouni

Fig. ka

Fantastic

creatures

field

70.

Sassouni

Fig.

4b

"Dragon

325

Rug'" attributed to

Armenians

in the 15th-18th

centuries

AE

Sassouni

Fig. 5a

Naturalistic

representation

Dragon-Phoenix 72:

Sassouni

Fig. 5b

14th- or 15th-century to Armenians

Va

Sassouni

Fig. 6a

of the

325

struggle rug attributed

326

of Anatolia

Rug with trellis design in

326

manuscript

74.

Sassouni

Fig. 6b

75:

Sassouni

Fig. 7a

Armenian

Kazak

Annunciation

rug dated

1884

with trellis rug

326 327

underfoot

76.

Sassouni

Fig. 7b

77.

Sassouni

Fig. 8a

Armenian

Karabagh

rug

Alexander

at his birth

327 is stretched

328

on a rug with latchhooks 78.

Sassouni

Fig. 8b

Armenian

Kazak

328

79;

N. Stone

Fig.

Page with marginal heads

338

80.

N «+ Stone

Fig.

Marcarius,

338

81.

N. Stone

Fig.

Mary the Egyptian

82.

N . Stone

Fig.

The

Marcus

Six Brethren

and Le sick cub

339 who

found

339

Onophrius

340

Paradise

83.

. Stone

Fig.

Paphnutius

meets

XV

84.

N. Stone

Fig. 6

Theophilus

85.

N. Stone

Fig. 7

Marcus

86.

N. Stone

Fig. 8

Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks

341

87.

N. Stone

Fig. 9

Pambo

342

838.

Mathews

Fig. 1

Yovhannes.

39.

Mathews

and the Monks

and Serapion

She

92°

Mathews

Mathews

Mathews

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

The

UCLA

Ms. #4

T'oros

Tarônec'i.

Mathews

Fig. 6

The

Annunciation.

by

353

The

Annunciation.

353

The

Annunciation.

354

The

Annunciation.

354

retouched

Tarônec'i.

UCLA

T'oros

Tarônec'i.

Venice

1917.

T'oros

Tarônec'i.

1

206

Tarônec'i.

Jerusalem

352

6289

T'oros

T'oros

352

Annunciation.

The Annunciation

Matenadaran

93.

341

and Visitors

Matenadaran

90.

340

2360

94.

Mathews

Fig. 7

The

95.

Mathews

Fig. 8

The Annunciation

Annunciation.

Nor

Juta

355

47

355

at the Well.

Paris Biblioteque Nationale,

Ms.

Lat. 9384

96.

Mathews

Fig. 9

The

Annunciation

Istanbul

27e

Mathews

Fig. 10

The Annunciation

at the Well, Rome

Biblioteca Vaticana

98.

Kouymjian

Fig. 1

Survey of Dated Manuscripts

period 99,

Kouymjian

Fig. 2

100.

Kouymjian

Eig3

356

Ms. Syr. 559

433

Armenian

for every

ten-year

1200-1700

Comparative Gospel

356

at the Well.

Kariye Camii.

Charts of Armenian

Mss and Printed

every

ten-year

Dated

Armenian

Erzeroum

from

period Mss

1150

Books

434

for

1200-1750 executed

to 1700

in

435

Armenian

Transliteration

BRUT

D

SPRL

PONS

g

e

ge

De

D

Ux

o

tn

Key

ERES

LE UE : CURE

(7

-

nn nt

MES SD NE NEA

SA ROME) NA TAN

CAUSE

TRQUMRLE

…

È

OU

…

|

=

Se Are

_

:

Ê

Fr”.;

Fe. .

À

À

ES

de ms

1 Ke 7

A

Us

var

"

C

»

\” ou

x

u

#

+

k

+

"

0

4

0

p L

+.

k

Es

-

=

Gi

1 D

sn

ri

|, 200

1 “h

A Z

2

…

Ü

M

.

LS

Qpur

ë

S_P'ELN s LATE V2 v AUS

a -

:

.

«T2

RAUTIMOSMAIMEMNAL

| _

r

‘

k

14

«

d

’

"à

* é -E

e

==

un

À

[l

ES

A di

“ |

|De 1 L

,

M4

at

FOUT AE2. NE 3 73

TA

” PE

Te #.

Jus ne # :

À SECTION

FROM

THE

GREEK-ARMENIAN

LEXICON

TO GALEN John A. C. Greppin Cleveland

Though never

edited and printed in modern

is a fairly well known linguistic works.2 vocabulary, ceutical

It is a source of uncommon

preparations,

for Armenian

primarily

names

of the

words

parts

of plants

of the

body,

in pharmastray

natural

Armenian

value of the dictionary is that it gives us

glosses, and thus provides evidence for the meanings

words

that

are

otherwise

poorly

dictionary is also of special interest since it is most

oldest of the lexicons ever can be made

used and

that are hitherto unrecorded.

The greatest lexicographic some

and rather technical Armenian

of names

If we can trust our texts, there even appears to be evidence

precise Greek-Armenian of

times, the Galen Lexicon

text,l cited with some frequency in lexicographic and

being composed

science terms.

State University

prepared in the Armenian

on the basis that it certainly

period, a point that is confirmed

precedes

in the method

understood.

likely among

language. the Middle

The

the very

This claim Armenian

of transliteration used.

In

this lexicon Gk. @ and X are transliterated as Arm. p' and k', rather than f and x, which allows us to date the original version sometime earlier than the . twelfth century.

was

largely

uncommonly

Further,

restricted

there is evidence

to the

Gold

and

used in the Middle Armenian

for the use of vocabulary

Silver

Age,

period.

Lexicon,

glossing Gk.yépavoc'crane,'

the early date of the composition From

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983-"pp..3

10, 12%

Texts

that

most

The existence of xord

is thus an indication

of

it is clear that the lexicon existed in

Medieval

and

was

of this lexicon.

the existing manuscripts

T. Samuelian

which

Arm. xord is an early word

that was replaced in Middle Armenian times by krunk. in the Galen

and

Studies

Armenian

6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of

Scholars

Press,

k

MEDIEVAL

at least

two

ARMENIAN

separate

CULTURE

recensions.

The earlier edition

arranged

lexical entries alphabetically by the first letter only.

initial a- were

order.

grouped

together

with

no

further

regard

The same was true for b- and g-, and so forth.

shows certain improvements

the Greek

Thus all entries with

for alphabetical

The second recension

in the efficiency of the text, for certain copies

prepared in the eighteenth century show alphabetization by first two letters.

Thus ab-, ag-, ad-, etc. There seems to be evidence for a still earlier stage, and this is based on

irregularities

normalize

in alphabetical

the text.3

it becomes

clear

appropriate

order

Frequently

that

the

to that section

that

when

Greek

appear

word

does

not

of the dictionary.

g- we find the entry gemos—biZ.

when

one

attempts

to

the Greek entries are reconstructed

begin

with

a

letter

In the section for the letter

Yet Arm. biZ 'rheum in the eye' cannot

be the equivalent of any Greek word approximated as gemos; rather Arm. biz can only be the equivalent of Gk. Añyun 'rheum

would

have

been

written,

in Armenian

in the eye and nose,'

letters,

as eme,

with

and it

Arm. ft

eventually being miscopied as g, and the final -e erroneously turned into the

common -os.4

As one will note when looking at the entries for g-, which

follow, the spelling errors

There

are other

made

by the copyist can be bizarre.

instances of irregularities which confirm

were later additions to the text. clear

indications

that

transliteration. Greek

word

Greek

words

Arm. xruk 'mercuric

most

commonly

that there

Arabic words can be noted,? and there are

written

are

entered

with

Western

Armenian

sulfide, HgS' is given as a gloss for a in the

manuscripts

as gunapré.

The

correct spelling of the Greek word, according to the eastern transliteration, used

elsewhere,

This

clear

satisfactory

use

would

of

evidence

The exact

the lexicon seem

be kinabari

a

Middle

= Gk.xrvvéBapr'mercuric

Armenian

that there were

transliteration

later additions

sulfide, HgS.'

system

provides

to the lexicon.6

use of the text is not yet clear.

Because

to be rather common

the lexicon itself went

and because

manuscripts of

through two revisions following its original compilation, there is every reason to believe

sufficient

that

it was

in considerable

in size to use for translating

demand.

whole

It would

Greek

not

Galenic

have

been

manuscripts.

Rather it was probably used as an ancillary to Armenian medical texts whose original was attributed to Galen. in our

discussion

vocabulary

was

of the

frequently

Arabic

In Armenian vocabulary

medical texts, as shown above in Mxit'ar

kept in the language

Herac'i,

technical

of the original.

It would

GREPPIN

5

seem that the Galen lexicon was used to provide glosses of Greek words that were

left untranslated That

in Armenian

the dictionary

was

versions of the Greek

initially

composed

to serve

medical Galen

writers. alone

is

unclear since we cannot establish clearly the original content of the lexicon.

However, appears

in the

following

text

I have

in Galen, and in Dioscorides

noted

when

the word

in question

as well.7

The following is an edited text for the entries with an initial g-. are

based

on

Matenadaran

readings and

from

of two texts

about held

forty in the

manuscripts Vienna

held

in the

collection.8

They

Yerevan

6

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

[gazgazuk]

ew abata p‘auf

‘?!

quqquqn cl

8x

br wpunw

qunqunn cl ququ'uqgn ct

lz lx

be wpupuu hupnen uwSfnpnis nunéhuu

3x 1x

br wpun

1x

yokËtn

‘weasel!

hunen

whwynep

5x

ak°is ‘weasel!

qunhu

Lx

wphu

9x

qunbuw

Lx

up

4x

qunu

1x

qunnbiuw

526

quenbuw Dioscorides Yapyapedv

1x II.25,

Galen XII.321

tuvula!

sosord

tthroat! ?

qunqunbnu

Lx

unn

x

qunqunbrnu

1x

unuon

1x

qunnuwnEnu

1x

uuunpre

7x

qunquntnu

Lx

ununp

1x

qunqunEnu

1x

unpunpn

3x

vuruhn

1x

ununn

1x

Galen

XIX.

YEVTLavhñ

368

‘gentiant 10

bogoy armat

"gentian root!

qhunhuuE

11x

pnpny

8x

wpr'unn

abpnhuuk

3x

enbny

3x

un d'unnu

ahüunuuuE

1x

pnpeny

1x

nur)

1x

pnqpn

1x

EnEN)

lx

Dioscorides

III.3,

Galen XIII.822

GREPPIN

yepévrov

‘geranium'

abnhuunu

7x

Dioscorides

barhuw

x

babruw branhrqu

1x 2x

III.116

‘crane!

abpuunu Galen

7

xord

17x

‘crane!

bnp

8x

bnp

5x

III.535

YA «GE

‘wartcress!

bu towl'1l

qnncquu

&x

enr

10x

qnhequy qnniqu

4x 5x

pnenpn ‘wool! pence hhuy uuyn

1x 2x

Dioscorides

Yhapup{a

IV.138,

Galen II.857

‘brightness!

p‘ayl-02/-um /-akm ‘i hwyyon

qunwhhenu) qnuhnepu(J)

8x

huyçnedu

qquhnenu

1x

buy çulu

quhnepu

1x

qu Lon

yhevxos

‘new wine!

k‘aic‘u

3x

‘shine! "brilliance' ‘lightning!

‘new wine!

gnnnunu

11x

pungne

14x

4x

ewngny

7x

nanknu

2x

V.6,

Galen VI.575

8x 2x

EX

qnnuknu Dioscorides

al?

8

MEDIEVAL

YAo16S

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

‘glutinous

orpes p°rp‘ur aler k‘amuac

substance!

quheny

9x

qheny

1x

anbeny

1x

‘like

flour-froth

npuybu dnhnen wibin pulug 8x

gnnbuny

Re

:

when

gnnbuny

I.30

g

npgbu gnnbuu bnhnep wibn pulug npgbu dnynen

Dioscorides

extracted

from grain!

( yAo16ç ), Galen XIX.91

YAvu6ppita'licorice root! 2x qnbubrbnhiu

pulug 1x

(yAoiGôns

)

matutaki armat ‘id! 14x J'unncuukh wpdun 5x

aahüuhartrhu

2x

d'unniunwlu

qnhunepbnhu

ie

J'unhuwtk

qnhän(y)

Lx

d'unneiuwk4h

qnnbäne

1x

Jd'unniunuk nul

anbüny qnbynenbnabhu qnbubenEuh

5x 1x Hx

anhühenbrbCu)

6x

5x

uwndun

1x

3x

qnbubübenbnhu 1x qnbynubnhu 1x Dioscorides V.63 ( yAuuÜpprta ) Galen XI.858 ( yAvuupp(cn ) YAUXOS

‘sweet!

corenoy OSarak

‘syrup of

bayberry!

qn-khnu qnukhnu

2x 7

ônnbuny 2unuq ôwpbuny 2unuq

6x 3x

qnulhu

2x

dwnbuny

Ux

qnnühnu

3X

dfnnbuny

Dioscorides III.24,

opuwunu

Galen XVIII.B.611

opuwunul

|

2x

1x

GREPPIN

YoyyuXkCS

LA

‘turmnip'

‘turnip!

sakgam

14x

2unquW

quunbh

7x

quiun

8x

2w$ qu

2x

quunhu

2

zu qu\

1x

Dioscorides

Yüpres

II.110,

Galen XI.861

‘finely ground meal' | p°osi Jjakac‘ac°

‘mill dust!

qnphu ahenhu qephu

Nr 6x 1x

qnu-h2h fnrunug h2b£/unugug hn2h£unuwugug

1x 1x 5x

qunbnu

1x

hn2h?unuwgh

1x

qunqunbnu

ex

dnnh

1x

Punngh

hnzh Punug Ubnph ebnnhu 2punugh 1x dn2h£nungug 1x uwqninh hnohunugug Dioscorides

II.85

‘chalk'

Yévos

but

‘lime,

qhhnu

4x

genen

abnnu

7x

encp 4 br

qhhununu

2x

Dioscorides

yét

V.116,

plaster!

=

#x

Galen XIV.142

‘vulture!

angk

‘vulture'

qhduw

3x

uw qn

abhuy

8x

wunn

3x

uu4n

2x

Galen

XIX.730

9

6x

1x

10

MEDIEVAL

kaotéptov

ARMENIAN

‘testicles

CULTURE

of the | käbu ju 'egs (testicle)

beaver!

the beaver

qninh

Unanr

qnin

3x

qneunh

3x

âne

5x

Yneb dône

1x

bho Wunph dm?

4x

qneb dne

1x

khe pwpurh Dioscorides

II.24,

Galen XII.337

uivvéBaptmercuric

sulfide! | xruk

anc£'uuuE qan£uuwuwyk

Dioscorides

Afiun

14x 2x

V.94,

Galen XVIII.A.579

‘“mercuric

bonik Unnek Unpneut

1x

sulfide!

6x 2x 1x

bhonct

3x

nent

Ex

Galen XII.221

‘rheum of eye or nose! | biz

qbu'nu

âne Li

2x

ehd

‘rheum of the eye! 2

of

GREPPIN

11

NOTES This dictionary

is elsewhere

Comments on the Greek-Armenia Other

can

material, and further

be found

Armenian,"

in Greppin,

Newsletter

2The

Galen

described

bibliography on the Armenian

‘'Preliminaries

lexicon

is cited

in both

armatakan

bafaran

under

Galianos,

a common

medieval

Greek

ÎThe

earliest

to the Galenic

dictionaries

not always alphabetic.

the

the Nor

heading

animals,

once

the

text

an

and

Aëatfyan's

abbreviation

for

of Galen's name.

and

Semitic

languages

frequently they listed words in homogen-

Thus a dictionary of animal names

these headings

Baïgirk'

of Indo-European

More

say, domestic

HAnother

versions of Galen

Corpus in Classical

Gal,

representation

eous groups. within

16 (1982) 69-80.

of the Society of Ancient Medicine, April 1982, 11-13.

Hayeren

were

in my article in "Preliminary

Lexicon to Galen,' REArm

would have groupings under,

flesh eating animals, snakes, birds, etc.

Arrangement

was haphazard.

clear example

has been

of words appearing out of alphabetical

edited

would

be the entry alrasan,

under a-, and is glossed as Arm. k'ufat' 'leek.'

which

order

appears

Yet the Greek word for leek

isrtpéoov and the initial Armenian p was misread as al-, as could logically happen, considering 5We

pellitory').

the shape of the Armenian

find an entry

for akrkarhay

= Arm.

Yet akrkarhay can only be Arabic

that is used in the text of Mkhitar

letters involved.

Heratsi

boloy tak (‘the root of the

ägirqarbä

(Venice

'pellitory,' a term

1832-83),

well known

for

its Arabic content, and in a text of Amirdovlat, recorded in the Haybusak (p.

365).

6Note also gud(i) and gundi which somehow are glossed as ktbiju the testicle

(egg) of the beaver'

specialized

term.

and thus must

be Gk. xaotTéprov 'id,' a very

The testicles of the beaver

were

specially noted

by the

ancients since beaver testicles do not drop at puberty, but remain within the belly.

This is a common 7Galen

physicians

valuable

and

(129-199 certainly

feature of many A.D.) the

was

probably

most

prolofic.

up until the nineteenth

best known

for his Materia

aquatic animals.

century.

medica,

the His

greatest

Dioscorides

a systematic

of

anatomical

the

(first century

compilation

ancient

works

were

AD) is

of drugs.

12

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

8My special thanks and

to Onik

collection

Yeganian,

go to Dr.Babken Chukaszian

whose

is phenomenal.

of the Hill Monastic

CULTURE

knowledge

Manuscript

16 (1982) 71.2.

?Arm. sosord

does

kokord seem

l0The

in that

huge

Library

The Viennese

is the more

for

where

the

whole

Vienna

Armenian

The numbers of the Yerevan texts are given

gentian

manuscript

common

to be witnessed

word

of the Matenadaran

manuscripts

Thanks also must go to Dr. Julian Plante, director

collection is held in microfilm. in REArm

of the

numbers

are 6 and 916.

word in the earliest texts though

as well in fifth century

appears

elsewhere

in

texts.

the

lexicon,

being

entered as jndian, where it is glossed as ernjnaki takn ‘root of the gentian.' The lead entry, jndian, is obviously from the Arabic Jintiänä 'gentian' rather

than Gk.yevtravh. lIClearly the compiler of the lexicon stood

for more

l2The obscure;

was unaware

that Gk.yAavdE

than just 'owl.'

exact

Gk.

significance

yAlapupôc

can

the meaning of the stem p'ayl-. translation of

yAapupôc

sense

kntak

as Arm.

l3The

of this

also mean

word

in a medical

text

remains

‘'hairless, bald,' but this cannot

be

In all likelihood Arm. p'ayl- is an incorrect

which should have been rendered

in a specialized

'bald.'

word

xil, elsewhere

understood

only

as

'search,

inquiry;,'

is

uniquely used here with the value of ktbi ju and thus constitutes a new word if the textual

l#Arm. 'testicle';

tradition

can

be relied

ju 'egg' is the standard

however

on.

slang term

the writing of k'ak'awi

in Modern

ju (a misspelling

‘partridge egg' implies that at least one copyist was unfamiliar

term, and

'improved'

the text with k'ak'awi

15Manuscript tradition varies here. gemos,

another

more

appropriately

Armenian

for

for kak'awi

ju)

with the slang

ju.

One tradition lists the word under

lists biZ with temos.

ARMENIAN

DIALECTS

AND

GLOSSARY

THE

OF

LATIN-ARMENIAN

AUTUN

J. J. S. Weitenberg

University of Leiden (Netherlands)

In 1882 the French scholar H. Omont published a short Latin-Armenian glossary containing 90 entries he found on the last two pages of a manuscript in the library of Autun, France.l

The remainder

of the manuscript contains

the

Jerome.

years

text

of

republished

the

this

Letters

text,

of

St.

identified

the

Six

Armenian

words

later,

A.

Carrière

of the glossary

and

added valuable comments.2 In this paper we will consider the value of this document for study in the continuity of the development

of the Armenian

language.

I shall not go

into the question of the purpose of this ‘manuel de conversation!

(Omont) or

'glossaire' (Carrière) or into the historical implications of the document. kind permission of M. J. Perrat, Conservateur

de la Bibliothèque

of Autun, I am able to present a photograph of the glossary.4 of the

photograph

improvements,

with

Omont's

and

Carrière's

editions

Municipale

À comparison

shows

mainly of a technical nature, are necessary,

By

that

some

but on the whole

they turn out to be adequate.?

The following facts are important 1)

The Armenian

in connection

with this document:

text is written in Latin characters.

The manuscript was

dated by Omont to the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century on paleographic

grounds.

the later date seems 2)

Inspection of the photograph more

this, although

Apart from inscriptions, the glossary thus constitutes one of the oldest

documents

in the Armenian

6200

AD).

(887

language:

In fact, the text

T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

confirms

probable.6

Texts

the oldest

Medieval and

manuscript,

Matenadaran

of the glossary might even

Studies

pp. 13. to 28. 13

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

be older:

(University of Scholars

Press,

14

MEDIEVAL

Carrière

adduces

ARMENIAN

arguments

CULTURE

for the fact that it was recopied.

A study of

the photograph offers some confirmation of Carrière's view. Entries (68)-(73) run as follows: (68) scirt, (69) handam, (70) gernac, (71) andam, (72) scunch, (73) uluec.

On the photograph

there are traces of an additional entry after

(69) that possibly reads (69a) genu:

scunch, identical to (72).

We might

suppose that the copist mistakenly wrote (69a) after (69) handam, misreading

it for (71) andam, then noticed his mistake and erased it. confusion

of paleographically

In addition, the

similar t and c; e.g. (11) khuert [cl. Arm.,

C'ork'] as opposed to (4) Khurec xapte [CI. Arm. €'orek' Sabt'i], is explicable only if the text had been recopied./ 3)

The person

know Armenian.

who wrote

From some

down

the first version of the glossary did not

Latin translations of the entries it is clear that

he pointed to objects and wrote down the word as he heard it. This accounts for some incorrect Latin meanings being assigned to the Armenian

words (as

(58) pectus 'breast' scirt 'heart'). In all, we

have

90

words,

most

of them

vocabulary of language, written down by someone the

immense

weight

of

orthographic

belonging

to

the

basic

who was not influenced by

conventions

of

Classical

Armenian.

These words date from a period in which reliable information on the spoken language is largely lacking and can only be traced by incidental mistakes in inscriptions and manuscripts.

The value of this glossary is yet greater when

we realize that it shows many deviations from classical usage in its lexicon and phonetics.

In his edition, Carrière expressed

the hope that the text would soon

be analyzed from a linguistic point of view.

Indeed, Meillet and to a lesser

extent Karst and Feydit used the glossary in their publications. Armenian

dialectology

at

the

turn

of

the

century

did

not

The state of permit

incorporation of the material of the glossary into a coherent picture. then, as far as I know, the glossary has not been drawn

century

publications

on

Middle

or

Modern

Armenian

surprising in view of the fact that the Modern

upon

in twentieth

dialectology.

Armenian

the Since

This is

dialects took shape

in the seventh to eleventh centuries, for which this glossary is the oldest, and most extensive

source

available.8

We know nothing about the background of the Armenian who served as the linguistic informant for the glossary, except that he was in Europe at the beginning

was.

of the tenth century,

Nevertheless

we

can

or earlier, nor do we know

try to trace

his language

what his business

back

to its native

WEITENBERG

sources.

15

In other words, we can try to connect the language of the glossary

to a specific dialect-area of Armenia, gap between

taking into account the thousand-year

the glossary and the attestation

of modern

Armenian

dialects.

À complete analysis of the glossary is outside the scope of this paper. Instead

I will concentrate

orthography

of

the

on

glossary

distinctive

phonetic

is reliable

for

a

features. linguistic

Whether enquiry

the

can

be

answered

positively; the glossary is remarkably consistent in its orthography

and,

course,

of

European

follows

the

area of the time.

orthographic Even

conventions

the Armenian

of

affricates

Latin script in such a way that we can draw conclusions First I will give an example facts.

the

Romance

are rendered

in

about them.

of how the glossary fits into the known

The loss of final postvocalic -y in polysyllables is attested in (38) luna:

lucenga: CI. Arm.

lusnkay.

This loss is common

to all modern dialects and

is in fact attested as early as the beginning of the seventh century. from

an

inscription

on

887,

polysyllables

in the

development

in this respect.

Certain

phonetic

characterization

entry (19) XXX: medial -e-.

ninth

we

can

date

century.?

features

of the dialect

The

make

glossary

it

represented

Earabat, yarsun

loss offers

possible

to

Judging

of final no

-y in

unexpected

give

in the glossary.

a

negative

For example,

Erchun [CI. Arm. eresun] exhibits the elision of unstressed,

The glossary shows that the syncopation of unstressed -e- began

a century earlier than previously thought.l0 in nearly

complete

all, except

Goris

and

coexists

the

easternmost

Samaxi)

with

the

of Modern trisyllabic

The syncopated form is attested

dialects

(Erevan,

Armenian. yarasun.

Agulis,

In Tiflis By

Nor

Juta,

the disyllabic

comparison

with

the

distribution of dialect forms, it is clear that the glossary does not represent one

of

these

eastern

dialects.

Further

corroboration

can

be found

by a

comparison of the dialectical forms of eresun with those of k'afasun.

It turns

out

interior

that

all dialects

that

lost

medial

-e-

in eresun

also

lose

unstressed -a- in k'afasun; those dialects that preserve interior -e- in eresun likewise preserve the medial -a- in k'arasun.ll explanation

lies in the fact that precisely

This is no coincidence.

those dialects

that preserve

The the

trisyllabic forms eresun and k'arasun retracted the classical accent from the last to the penultimate

In unstressed

more

general

syllable.l2

terms,

it seems

-e- and -a- originated at the same

loss of -e- in erchun

probable time.

that

loss

of

medial

The glossary attests to

and loss of -a- in (49) dens : atmunc

: [CI. Arm.

16

MEDIEVAL

atamunk'].13 a century

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Here again the glossary gives the earliest attestation by almost

of the

unexpectedly

syncopation

of unstressed

a-:l4

preserves -a- in (20) XXXX:

However,

the glossary

karraschun [CI. Arm. k'arasun].

How do we account for this?

The possibility that loss of -e- was earlier than

loss

by the

of -a- seems

coextensive

excluded

distribution

dialects.

I think

influence

of

that

form

disyllabic

karraschun

of the literary

may

language.

atmunc

in the

[syncopated]

have

This

preserved

same

glossary

forms

in

and

the

its -a- under

explanation

by

modern

the

is possible

for

literary Cilician Armenian that shows eresun [with medial e intact], although syncopation

of unstressed

interior -e- is attested

in this dialect as well.15

In sum, the glossary here shows an innovation that did not take place in the Agulis-Earabat-Erevan area.

This is a first negative indication on the

dialect-area of the glossary. Another treatment

Meillet some are

clue

to

years ago:

not diphthongized;

which

the

dialect-area

of

of Classical Armenian o and e.

shows

(9) Il:

aregakn};

glossary

is found

in the

clearly stated by

in unstressed position Classical Armenian e and o in that position o is written

that Classical

Examples:

the

The facts were

Armenian

o tended

in the glossary with u,

to become

ergout [CI. Arm. erkul; (37) sol:

(4) feria III:

Khurec

xapte

[CI. Arm.

more

closed.l6

arechac [CI. Arm.

&'orek'$abt'il;

(73) crus:

uluec [CI. Arm. olok'/g]. .In stressed position Classical Armenian e and o are

diphthongized as in (10) III: eriec [CI. Arm. erek'}; (53) facies: eriesc [CI. Arm. eresk']; (11) III: khuert [CI. Arm. €'ork']; (67) dorsum: cuelc [CI. Arm. kotk'].

Whereas

classical stressed o in interior position always appears as -

ue-, the glossary writes (hua- in initial stressed position:

(66) spina:

hualn

[CI. Arm. oin}; (74) pes: uaden [CI. Arm. otn].l/7 Classical e is never diphthongized e.g. (80) deus: ter [CI. Arm. tër]; (88) presbiter: eresc [CI. Arm. erëc'].

As far as I know, the earliest attestations of diphthongization

of classical Armenian

959).18

e in stressed

position

are

found

toponyms in the work of Constantine

The

glossary

provides

witnesses to this development. diphthongization

slightly

older

in Greek

transcriptions

of

Porphyrogenetes (who died in

and

more extensive

material

Indeed, Jahukyan goes as far as to date the

of

stressed

o and

situation

sketched

here

e to

classical

or

even

pre-classical

times.l? The This

does

not

mean,

however,

that

is found in literary Cilician the

ancestor of literary Cilician Armenian:

dialect

of the

glossary

Armenian.20 is a direct

the distribution of the diphthongiza-

WEITENBERG

tion in modern make

17

Armenian

dialects must be taken into account before we can reliable statements on this isogloss. The geographical distribution of diphthongized

modern

dialects

can

be

traced

easily

through

stressed e and o in the

Jahukyan's

work.21

Diph-

thongization of stressed e occurs in 28% of the dialects, of o in 31%. diphthongization

of o and e occur

together

Since

in the glossary, I refrain from

giving those instances where diphthongization of only one of these two vowels

OCCUrs. Diphthongization

and in some

of stressed e and o is found in one contiguous area

isolated regions.

west of lake Urmia the Xoy-Urmia

The contiguous area is centered in the region

and around

dialect

Lake Van.

(Garibjants

dialect (group 7); the southern

group

It includes the southern part of 7); all the

terrritory

of the Van-

part of the Muë-dialect (group 2), i.e. the

cities north of Lake Van and Muë itself; and the central part of the Sassun-

dialect (group 4).22

The scattered areas together form a semi-circle around

the Sivas and Karin-Erevan area (groups 1 and 2) but are very isolated.

include:

They

The Zeytun-area (group 4); the area round Sivas (group 1); Xotorjur

(east of Trabzon; group 2); a line Leninakan-Lofi (group 2).23 This isogloss tells us that diphthongization originated from the center of this region, spread over a vast area and was subsequently

neutralized,

at

least in part, by the spread of some other dialect that did not diphthongize. We

have

no direct evidence

Urmia-Van-Muë

Karin

dialect

belongs

to

area

does

this

as to the origin

is a likely candidate.

not

diphthongize

group.

But

before

of this spread,

In particular,

it is not

the

probable

dialect

of the

conclusively identified, evidence on the consonantism

although

since

that

the

the Erevan-

the

glossary

glossary

can

be

of the glossary must be

examined. The

Classical

Armenian

k', c', €'] are represented

occlusives

the following

[b, d, g, j, É D

way

Classical voiced stops2# are unchanged

(69) renes:

handam; (71) coxa:

provide decisive evidence Classical

voiced

in the glossary.26

(47) os: sabpat

phatl

in medial position after nasal:

andam, [CI. Arm. andaml.

feature of all dialects and therefore

ect.

in the glossary:

This is a general

a very early development

that can

not

for the question at hand.25

stops in all other positions appear as voiceless stops

In initial position:

E.g. (30) vinum:

chini [CI. Arm. ginik;

peran [CI. Arm. beran]; in medial intervocalic position (7) feria VII: [CI.

Arm.

S$abat']; (39) sol:

arechac

[CI. Arm.

aregakn];

in other

18

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

medial positions:

CULTURE

(2 etc.) xapte [CI. Arm.

Arm. urbat'}; in final position:

(12) V:

-Sabt'il; (6) feria VI:

urpat [CI.

hinc [CI. Arm. hingk (84) sanctus:

supr (showing metathesis?) [CI. Arm. surb].27 Classical voiceless stops have a twofold representation in the glossary: voiced and voiceless. voiceless

As a rule, the glossary has voiced stops for a Classical

stops in the environment

voiced environments.

of n, between

Here are some

vowels and after r; i.e., in

examples:

Classical voiceless stops are retained in initial position:

((17) X:

taz

[CI. Arm. tasn}; (31) caseus: paner [CI. Arm. panir];28 in final position: (57) guttur:

kcerchac [CI. Arm. xéë'ak]; (78) mulier:

st

(39) stellae:

nt

(38) luna:

kenic [CI. Arm. knikl; after

astil [CI. Arm. astt].

Classical voiceless stops appear as voiced stops in the glossary:

phonetic

lucenga [CI. Arm.

realisation

lusnkay] (in the position before

was -Cén; the glossary always writes

near

-n the

€ [schwa] as a

vowel; here too, Classical voiceless stop is voiced in the glossary:

(33) piscis:

chugen [CI. Arm. jukn]; (74) pes: uaden [CI. Arm. otnj; voicing in voiced surroundings occurs in: the group r+ consonant + vowel: (9) II: ergout [CI. Arm. erku]; (36) celum:

[CI. Arm.

erginc [CI. Arm.

artewanunk'};

getink']; (54) auris:

erkink'}; (45) cilium:

the group VCV:

(40) terra:

ardevanunc

kcedinc

aganch [CI. Arm. akanÿj(k')l; (61) humerus:

[CI. Arm. tigunc:

[CI.

Arm. t'ikunk!].2? As for the classical voiced and voiceless affricates the notation of the glossary is such that it cannot ment.

give independent

evidence

on their develop-

But there are some indications that the development of the affricates

followed

the

preserved

after nasals (as in (h)andam) we may suppose the same

affricates.

pattern

of

the

stops.

Just

as

Classical

voiced

stops

are

for voiced

The z in (41) homo:

anzen [CI. Arm. anjn] thus indicates a voiced By contrast, ch or sc in the glossary indicates a voiceless affricate: (33) piscist chugen [CI. Arm. jukn}k; (32)

sound, (Classical Armenian j (dz)). ovum:

chu [CI. Arm.

ju; (77) testiculi:

chure [CI. Arm. jurk (54) auris: suppose

that

Classical

voiced

affricates

glossary.30

Classical

scuc [CI. Arm.

ju-k'}; (35) aqua:

aganch [CI. Arm. akanÿ(k')l (j and ÿ) are

So we may

devoiced

in the

É

voiceless Ë remains voiceless in final position:

cuech [CI. Arm. koë].

(75) cabilia: As for classical voiceless €; it remains voiceless in

initial position but becomes

voiced between vowels:

Arm. cic] with unexplained final -e.3l

(59) mamilla:

cize [CI.

WEITENBERG

AS for Classical

such in the glossary.

IE)

voiceless aspirated stops, they are hardly noted as Classical t' is always written t; Classical k' is written

€ (ch beforei as in (46) nasus: chit [CI. Arm. k'it'] or k (in (20) XXXX: karraschun [CI. Arm. k'arasun]). Only in the case of (65) pugnus: prunhc [CI. Arm. brunk'] we may assume

that aspiration is notated by writing h before

the stop. Classical p' is written p initially ((56) gula: puelc [CI. Arm. p'okk"]) but b in final position (only (63) manus: hab [CI. Arm. ap'}).?? I assume that the

dialect

of

the

glossary

nevertheless

possessed

aspirated

voiceless

on accountof the spelling of the aspirated affricates and in view

consonants

of the fact that all the modern dialects retain Classical p', t', k' as voiceless

aspirated stops.33 If we compare with the consonantism

the consonantism of the modern

of the glossary as established above

dialects we

get the following picture:

Initial Position

Intervocalic

CI. Arm.

fe

d

t!

t

d

1

Sivas

d

d'

de

d

Gi

{

2

Erevan

t

d'

A

d

(al

pl

3

Trabzon

d

d

t'

d

fi

da

4

Sasun

d

t

t'

d

t

it

5

Malatya

d

Fa

Le

d

à

El

6

Agulis

t

d

t!

t

d

t'

7

Van

t

t

il

8

(Earabat - Lofi)

t

vi

ft

d

te

El

group

Autun

1

We

immediately

see

t

t

de

that the consonantism

correspond exactly to any of the dialects:

of the glossary is identical

pl

a

of the glossary does not

in initial position the consonantism

with the situation

in Van, in intervocal position

with that of Sassun, but there is no single Modern dialect which matches both positions.

This is not surprising inasmuch as there is a 1000 year gap between

the glossary and the modern dialects.

Before proceeding further, information

on

modern

the

earlier

development

of

the

dialects

is necessary.

Such

information is provided by Kortlandt's study on the relative chronology of the development

of consonantism

in the Armenian

dialects.3#

I shall try to fit

the situation of the glossary into the stages of development

established

in

Kortlandt's relative chronology. The starting-point for the development of the modern dialects is found

20

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

in the central dialect of Agulis where the consonantism the Classical language. as

it developed

accordance

with

(Autun erechun attested

is unchanged

from

The glossary cannot belong to this dialect (group 6)

classical two

voiced

facts

stop

already

into

a

voiceless

established:

that

stop.

This

neither

is in

syncopation

vs. Cl. Arm. eresun) nor diphthongization of o and e are

in Agulis dialect.

In broad terms, the other dialects orginated from the central area by two consecutive

waves

of phonetic change:

the first one characterized

by

the aspiration in voiced consonants (CI. Arm. d dialectical d'), comprising the dialects of Erevan-Karin-Mus

devoicing

of

comprising

unaspirated

the dialects

consonants

(CI.

of Earabat-Xoy-Urmia-Van

dialects originated from It is apparent

(group 2) and the second one characterized

voiced

Arm.

(group

d dialectical

7).

The

by

t),

other

these two groups in later stages.

immediately

that the glossary does not belong to the

dialect-group that originated in the first wave (Erevan-Karin-Muÿ), as it does not aspirate accordance

but devoices

the Classical

voiced

with the facts already established:

consonants.

This also is in

the syncopation of -e- did not

reach the Erevan-dialect and the diphthongization of e and o does not affect the Erevan-Karin

area,

but only the southern

part of the Muë-dialect.

So the dialect of the glossary belongs to the group that originated in

the second wave.

This is in accordance with the devoicing of classical b, d,

g (> p; t, k) in the glossary.

We can restrict the area a little bit further.

The glossary does not belong to the Earabat-area

as both the syncopation

-e- and the diphthongization of e and o did not reach that area. the Xoy-Urmia-Van

area.

But the dialect is not identical

with the western dialects of group 7

as it shows voicing of classical t (> d) in voiced surroundings. developed

of

That leaves

It must have

one step further.

According

to Kortlandt's

relative

chronology,

the third

development

involved the voicing of voiceless (glottalized) stops (CI. Arm. t etc.» d etc.). In absolute sense, loanwords enable us to date this development 10th

centuries.

As far as the Xoy-Urmia-Van

area

is concerned

to the 7ththis third

development resulted in the origin of dialect-group 4 (the Sasun-Zeytun-Syria or Cilician area with some scattered areas elsewhere, especially the western

or Janik area of the Hamèen dialect at the border of the Black Sea). Looking now at the glossary we see that classical voiceless stops are only partly voiced, in voiced surroundings only.

This leads to the conclusion

WEITENBERG

that

the dialect

of the glossary represents

an intermediate

21

stage between

stage 2 (CI. Arm. t etc. is still voiceless) and stage 3 (CI. Arm. t etc. is voiced d etc.).

This fits in with the absolute chronology

The origin of this dialect

must

be sought somewhere

mentioned above.

south or west of lake

Van.

With

these

indications

of

the

type

and

origin

of

the

dialect

represented by the glossary, is it possible to indicate its geographical position in the tenth century more precisely?

When we look for a place that belongs

to dialect-group # and also shows diphthongization of e and o we find either the Zeytun or the Sasun area.

This means

that the dialect of the glossary

does not belong to the most southern, Syrian part of dialect-group 4 as the

diphthongization did not reach this far-off area. the Armenian originated scattered

who

either

dictated from

But it does not mean that

the glossary to some

Sasun

or Zeytun.

monk

in Western

The geographical

relation

Europe of the

southern groups of the dialect-group 4 (Sasun-Zeytun-Syria) is such

that it suggests an earlier contiguous area that now

is split up by intrusion

of the later formed dialect-group 5 (Malatya-Tigranakert-Urfa) that shows no diphthongization. anywhere

near

This dialect

So

the

Armenian

informant

could

the line Zeytun-Malatya-Sasun-Lake

preliminary

conclusion

that is represented

in the

on

the

Autun

type

have

come

from

Van.

and place of origin of the

glossary

is a first approximation

made

on the basis of only a few features of this interesting document.

more

detailed

study will certainly be worth

the reward.

A

\

NOTES *I am

indebted

subject-matter 1H.

to

Prof.

F. Kortlandt

for valuable

comments

on

the

of this paper.

Omont,

"Manuel

de conversation

arménien-latin

du Xe

siecle,"

Bibliothèque de l'école des chartes 43 (1882) 563-564. The manuscript is kept in the Bibliothèque Muncipale of Autun (France) bearing the number 17 A (S 17).

The glossary is found on Fol. 156 and 156 Vo.

the manuscript

was

published

in the Catalogue

A short description of

général des manuscrits

bibliothèques publiques des départements (Paris, 1249)

2A Carrière, Un ancien glossaire latin (Paris:

des

IS.

Imprimerie Nationale,

22

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

1886).

In the following I cite the entries by the number assigned to them by

Carrière.

ÎThe

historical

Kostaneanc',

value

Hayagitut'iwn

of

this

document

arewmtean

is briefly

Ewropayum

discussed

(Tiflis:

in K.

1910) XZ.

The

fact that the Autun glossary is the earliest extant Armenian work of its kind is stressed

AN

by G. K. Gasparyan,

ArmSSR,

Hay Baïaranagrut'yan

Patmut'yun

(Erevan:

1968) 46-47.

#J thank

Mr. Perrat for his kindness in putting the photograph at my

disposal and permitting its publication.

I did not see the manuscript

itself.

5I am indebted to Prof. Dr. J. P. Gumbert, head of the department of western

paleography

graphic matters.

at the

(62) brachium:

striuch,

6Prof.

Leiden

University,

for advising

me

on

paleo-

One of the main corrections to Carrière's edition is entry

Gumbert

where

Prof.

prefers

the

Gumbert

later

rather

date

on

reads

account

stuuh.

of the

form

of

internal -s- in entries like (20), (22), (23).

There is external evidence to the

dating:

mentions

a note

in manuscript

Autun

22

that

manuscript

17

A

belonged to those works that were given to the library of Autun by Walterius, who

was

an abbott of the Autun

monastery

in the tenth century

(Catalogue

général, 16-17). TRecopying

apiigahalts; also n.

also accounts

(89) levita:

for some

aottroets

corrupted

(Carrière,

forms:

Glossaire,

(87) monachus:

17 notes 2.3).

See

17 below.

BCarrière's publication was reviewed in Paul de Lagarde, Gôttingische

gelehrte

Anzeigen

sonantism

8 (1887)

and vocalism

292-294,

who

of the glossary.

added

some

comment

on

con-

A short appraisal in general terms

of Carrière's edition was given by A. Meillet, "Auguste Carrière," Annuaire de l'Ecole

pratique

philologiques

des

2See the material patmakan

hautes

Etudes.

Section

GA

mi

k'ani

Tetekagir (1957) 4:

erevuyt'neri

Vimakan

historiques

et

the

eleventh

Arjanagrut'yunneri

century.

See

‘'Past'er hayereni

?amanakaërjani

ver-

78-82.

10The earliest inscriptional evidence from

Sciences

presented by A. A. Abrahamyan,

hnè'yunap'oxut'yan

aberyal,' HSSH

dates

des

1903 (Paris 1902) 26-27.

for loss of unstressed medial -e-

the

Hn£'yunabanut'yun

discussion (Erevan:

in A. A. HSSH

Avagyan, GA,

1973)

WEITENBERG

104-107. grakan

H. G. Muradyan, hayereni

"Hnè'yunabanut'yun,"

patmut'yan

(Erevan:

HSSH

9-165

GA,

23

in Aknarkner

1972)

1. 82

mijin

cites

only

relatively late examples.

llData on the dialectical forms are taken from Armatakan

Baïaran

k'afasun.

I have

show

this

1966) 84-85. Bt word

of the

accent

H. AËafyan, Hayeren

1971-1979)

s.vv.

‘'tooth' see

"Batagitut'yun,"

eresun,

Hawarik

and

H.

Ataïyan,

Hayoc'

to note

whereas

HSSH

GA,

for relative chronology.

that the glossary

most

Lezvi

372 and (for the Larabal-dialects)

Lefnayin karabati barbafayin k'artezé (Erevan:

is interesting

Muë)}:

see

Haypethrat, 1951) 2.

This fact is important

atamn

GA,

for ‘40! in the dialects of Ozmi,

(except the dialects of Erevan, and

HSSH

loss of -e- in eresun.

retraction

Patmut'yun (Erevan: K. À. Davt'yan,

Erevan:

no material

Akn, all of which l2On

(Repr.

modern

dialects

Moks, Marata,

Aëaïyan,

Armatakan

167-296

in Aknarkner

preserves

the classical

replaced

it by akray

Salmast/P'ayajuk,

Bafaran

s.v. atamn;

Van, Ozmi

M. H. Muradyan,

mijin grakan hayereni patmut'yan

1.

192. l&The earliest inscriptional evidence

dates

from

1036

yunabanut'yun,

3.

unstressed Esquisse

There Karst

for loss of unstressed medial -a-

Vimakan

arjanagrut'yunneri

"Hnè'yunabanut'yun,"

Historische

seems

Grammatik

to be no attestation *k'afsun.

probably

Grammaire

Imprimerie

Avagyan,

des

also

The

-e-) were

comparée

de

conditions

lost are

17This Meillet,

position

difference is found

"Remarques,"

under

25.

which

by Meillet,

classique

(and.

ed.;

1936) 20.

sur la Grammaire

historique de l'Arménien

Philologie 2 (1904) 25

de Linguistique et de Philologie arméniennes

Imprimerie Orientaliste,

initial

explained

l'Arménien

des PP. Mékhitaristes,

16A, Meillet, Remarques in Etudes

Kiliksch-Armenischen

of '40' in literary Cilician

accentual

de Cilicie de M. 3. Karst," Zeitschrift für armenische [reprinted

hnè'-

74-76.

1901) 41-44 (loss of -a-); 51-52 (loss of -e-); 216-217

assumes

-a- (and d'une

Vienne:

Karst,

Trübner,

(numerals).

see

381; Muradyan,

see

(Strassburg: Armenian;

(Tekor}:

(Louvain:

1977) 2. 121]. in diphthongization to be preserved F. Feydit,

of classical

in the

Polish

Considérations

o in medial Armenian

and

dialect;

de l'Alphabet de Saint

24

MEDIEVAL

Mesrob

ARMENIAN

(Wien:

CULTURE

Mechitaristen-Buchruckerei,

1964)

122-124

points

to the

development in the dialect of Juta. The discrepancy of (3) eriec xapte [CI. Arm. erek'#abt'i] against (4) khurec xapte [CI. Arm. €'orek'$abt'i might be explained

by the nature

tevavoet

[probably

Cl.

of the vowel

Arm.

expected, but written oe. "Remarques,"

stressed

For (51) lingua:

25; Esquisse,

see n. 5 above.

in the preceding

t'ewawor]

11.

The word

In (83)

as class. lezu see Meillet,

lizu:

For (62) brachium:

may

syllable.

-o- is diphthongized striuch [CI. Arm.

jefk!]

be corrupted.

l8Feydit, Considérations, 103-104. 126. &

fahukyan,

Hay barbafagitut'yan

neracut'yun

(Erevan:

HSSH

GA, 1972) 268-269.

20Karst, Muradyan,

Grammatik

18-21

"Hné'yunabanut'yun,"

Cilician Armenian

(where

63-67

he

is unsure

(on e> ye); 67-72

about

o > uo).

(on o).

Literary

is further developed in that initial unstressed CI. Arm. e

before liquids appears as i; Autun eriec vs. Cilician irek' ([iryek']) [CI. Arm.

erek'] (Karst, Grammatik 49-50). 21Yahukyan,

Hay _barbaïagitut'yan

neracut'yun,

63:

isogloss No.

30

(e> ye) and No. 31 (o > uo) with table 3. 22The dialects are numbered classification

(based

on

in groups according

consonantism)

in "Ob

to A. S. Garibjan's

armjanskom

konsonantizme,!

Voprosy Jazykoznanija (1959) 5: 81-90 (reprinted in Armjanskij Konsonantizm v ocenke

medunarodnoj

informacii

po

Pisowicz,

Folia

"Materiaux

Orientalia

diphthongized

17

are

barbafagitut'yan

naukam,

AN

1975)

(1976)

(with

the

neracut'yun,

For

Sektor nauënoj details

du consonantisme

197-216.

The

numbers

assigned

places

33-36):

Xoy-dialect:

where

to them

see

A.

arménien,"

e and

o are

by Yahukyan, Hay

P'ayajuk/Salmast

(118),

Bast (67), Van (68), Satax (69), Moks (70), Ozm (71),

(east of lake Sevan) (72); Muë-dialect:

Arée* (65), Arcke

ArmSSR,

1-10.

pour servir à la recherche

Urmia (119); Van-dialect:

Vardenis

lingvistiki (Erevan:

obèËestvennym

(66) (but not

Muë (55), Manazkert

Bitlis (63) and

Xlat'

(59),

(64)); Sasun-dialect:

Aygetun (60), Niè' (61). 23More

kir-dialect,

exact:

group

the

3)—Haÿen

line

T'omarza

(32)—Zeytun

(27;

Brgnik (23); XotorJur (44); the line Leninakan (near lake Sevan; 85).

(82); Kamo

belonging

(33); the

places

(42)—Gyaïgyat

to

the

Sivas

Arab-

(22) and

(83)—kalat'a

WEITENBERG

25

24The Glossary writes /d/ with the sign d, /g/ with the sign g. There are no examples for /b/. 25See

A.

Pisowicz,

(Polske Akademia

Le

Développement

Nauk. Oddziak w Krakowie.

43; Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakôw-Gdänsk:

du

Consonantisme

arménien

Prace Komisji jezykonawstwa.

Ossolineum,

1976) 60-62.

26The glossary shows the following notations for voiceless stops:

/t/

written t; /p/ written p or bp (sabpat); as for /k/, we find representations in accordance

with

the

spelling

habits

of the Romance

European

area:

[ke]

written che ((1) kyrache) or ke ((78) kenic, but also unexpectedly kce ((40) kcedinc),

whereas ce denotes

a fricative in (38) lucenga [CI. Arm.

lusnkay;

[ki] written ky ((1) kyrache) or chi ((30) chini), whereas ci denotes a fricative ((59) cize [CI. Arm. cic]); for [ka] we only find cha in (38) arechac; in other

positions /k/ is written c:

cu in (67) cuelc; nc in (12) hinc; cl in (76) cliu.

It is noteworthy that the 'aberrant' writings bp (/p/) cha and kce (/k/) only occur

in cases

therefore,

where

the voiceless

they may express some

by kce and cha in (57) guttur:

stop represents

additional

a Classical

feature.

voiced

stop;

A fricative is notated

kcerchac [CI. Arm. xtë'ak].

27The form (12) hinc [CI Arm. hing] is surprising in that we would expect a voiced

stop here, as the preservation

of the voiced

nasal (as in (h)andam) applies to word-final position too.

[CI

Arm.

hingSabt'il

following voiceless $.

the original

voiced

Entry (72) genu:

cung-k' rather than the modern

-g may

Classical

after

be assimilated

to the

scunch may denote the plural form

singular cung.

28The only exception is (70) renes: 29Some

feature

In (5) hync xapte

voiceless

stops,

gernac [CI. Arm. kënak]. however,

do

not

become

voiced

between vowels. The two cases (1) dies dominica: kyrache [CI. Arm. kiwrake]; (81) altare: patarac [CI. Arm. patarag] retained their Classical form on account of religious connotation (other instances of this influence in dialects gives Pisowicz, Développement,

61).

I have no explanation for (64)

digitus:

matun [CI. Arm. matun(k')] (plural of matn).

meche:

meëk the -e is problematical in that none of the modern dialects has

a form

*meke

or *mekë.

This unexpected

-e occurs

In the case of (8) I: quite often

in the

glossary ((35) chure [CI. Arm. jur]; (55) vise [CI. Arm. vizk; (59) cize [CI. Arm. cick; (60) puerhe [CI. Arm. p'or]. I hesitate to interpret this -e as the definite article -£ (as Carriere does), for that seems to have arisen much

26

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

later.

30The devoicing of finalŸafter nasal in aganch [CI. Arm. akanÿ(k')] is to be compared with hinc [CI. Arm. hingl; see n. 27 above.

31The evidence of (8) meche [CI. Arm. m&k] and (59) cize [CI. Arm. cic] is contradictory, however; see n. 29 above.

As for the sign z, it denotes

a voiced sound between vowels (as in (27) hazar [CI. Arm. hazar]; (42) mazen [CI Arm. maz{n)}k; (59) cize [CI. Arm. cic]) and after nasals ((41) anzen), but a voiceless sound in final position ((17) taz [CI. Arm. tas(n)]; (28) panis: haz [CI. Arm. hac'})). 32This is the only occurrence

of single b in the glossary the group -

bp- ((7) sabpat [CI. Arm. Sabat'] denotes /p/. 33As

there

is for

the

most

part

no

difference

in the

writing

of

voiceless and aspirated stops in the glossary, one could assume that voiceless and

aspirated

stops

fell together

in an aspirated

stop.

This possibility

excluded, however, by the writing of the affricates that in some

to distinguish between

voiceless and aspirate.

(75) whereas CI. Arm. €' appears as kh ((11) II:

hc ((43) oculus:

hahc:

class. aë'(k'); (82) crux:

pre-posed h might note the aspiration.

classical €.

In (57) guttur:

disturbed, however.

cases

is

seem

Thus, class. € is written ch khuert [CI. Arm. &'ork'] or

chahc [CI. Arm. xaë'] where

Both combinations reflect exclusively

kcerchac

[CI. Arm. xr'ak] the pattern is

Classical © appears as c or sc (and -z- in (59) cize [CI.

Arm. cic]) whereas Classical c' is written -t ((13) VI: viit [CI. Arm. vec'}) -z ((28) panis: haz [CI. Arm. hac']) and also -sc ((88) presbiter: eresc [CI. Arm. eréc']). 34Frederik Kortlandt, "Notes on Armenian

second consonant

shift), Studia Caucasica

historical phonology II (the

4 (1978) 9-16.

WEITENBERG

TOME ,

rx

-aa

ur 1

che:"roux

nu

AN

ameesapne NA

vémoR. series D

x a pæ ere

Fiur |

hynexhr:= Nas “

:

L22

nUMErre

pisehet erapur EPA

pe CPE

|

cb

DT




source Kirakos

the

on

of the history of that

descriptions is only

name

of

history

chapter

version

either

He

lengthy

Samuël's

of the

primary

following

the

a special

the longer

compiled

He

Albaniansl2

as

the

"Samuel

served

as

another

i

of the very

few

Armenian

historians

who,

along with

historical events that he narrates, offers an interesting autobiography through chronology,

names,

He is very much

teacher

and with expressions

attached

Yovhannes

of gratitude

to the monastery

Vanakan.

towards

of Nor Getik

his superiors.

and to his famous

Although Kirakos speaks about Mxit'ar Goë at

length, he was hardly a disciple of this great teacher, since GoëË died in 1213

when

Kirakos

Vanakan

had barely reached

the age of ten.

who died in 125116 as he, Kirakos

not as hearsay

but as an eyewitness,

for we

a long time to study at the monastery Vanakan

left

Getik

for

Xoranaÿat around 1215-1220.

until

1225 when

Jahal-ad-Din

stayed

was

him

(Vanakan)

for

TawuS

where

he established

the

school

of

Here Kirakos studied under his beloved teacher

Mengubirdi,

was captured by Molar Nuin:

the last of the Khawarasm and destroyed

XoranaŸat

Shahs

soon after

"Then they captured me and separated

me from my friends to use my services as secretray

correspondences."18

with

teacher

"This we (attest)

of Tawuë."17

(d. 1231), invaded Georgia and Armenia, Kirakos

His famous

himself states:

to read and write their This happened in the middle of the year 1236 when the

ARZOUMANIAN

Mongols were

lands."

ready to retire "from our country to go far away into foreign

Kirakos

stayed

according to his will."

Vanakan

Obviously

with

them

Kirakos's

well

Persian

versed

in

demonstrate example, “which

visited

us,

Being from the ‘province of Ganjak," where

languages

these

were

tongues.

Kirakos's called

(God)

intentional capture by the Mongols brings out the

knowledge

xoyaxana

predominant, Actually

speaking of a certain was

"until

in 1236.

interesting question of language.

and

in captivity

He ultimately escaped by night on the day his teacher

was released

Turkish

265

of

Persian

fortress,

and

Kirakos

in the Persian

“which the Persians called chandarin."20

Kirakos

there

are

must

have

indications

Arabic

languages.

gives its name

language;"1?

been which For

and

says:

or a certain

tree

He also translates the Arabic word

khalifa by adding "because khalifa means a successor!' or "they called khalifa,

that is the sucecssor of Muhammad."2l

Kirakos even preserves words in the

language of the Mongols: xunan (battlefield), t'un (fortress), t'anjah (stronghold). We should remember that the official language of the Seljuks and of the Shah Armens

was Persian.

revolt,

by the Turkish.22

it was

Mongols came official

replaced

who

language.23

lived

During

the Ilkhanid

period,

the

under the influence of Iran and adopted the Persian as their As

population was Persian:

together

comprised

Only later, in mid-1280s, after Jimri's

with

considerable

in direct contact

for Ganjak

itself, the rulers were

Muslim

"This city (Ganjak) was well inhabited

the

number

with Vanakan

Armenians.2#

Moreover,

and the

by Persians"

Mongol

of Turkic and Persian descendants

armies

who were

and his captive disciples.2?

Extensive description is provided by Kirakos concerning the monastery of Nor Getik since he was one of the important pillars of that school. he assumed

the leadership

of the doctrine

which

emphasized

Here

the "Eastern"

tradition of the Armenian

faith as against the "Cilician,"' the latter being

more

the constant

Latinized

himself states:

and

under

influence of the Crusaders.

"on the question raised among

As he

the Christians pertaining to

the Holy Spirit of God'"' Kirakos sided strongly with the doctors of the East

(Armenian proper), following the teachings of Vanakan, Vardan Arewelc'i, and others.

This question of dogma is directly connected

convened

by Catholicos

Innocent's

written vardapet

letter.

The

"to the province Vanakan,

Constantine Catholicos,

of the

to Vardan

in

1252,

persuant

East,

Arewelc'i,

upon

the

receipt

to the conciliar

in Great and

with the Synod of Sis,

to

of

decision,

Armenia,

to the

Yovsép',"

who

Pope had

learned were

the

266

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

leaders of the doctrinal

that

here

authority, centered

there

CULTURE

formulations

is dependence

notwithstanding

the

on

and men

the

of authority.26

'east'

political

on

and

matters

ecclesiastical

In 1255 Kirakos met Het'um, the Armenian in the village of Vardenis,

heard

power

and

which

is

in the ‘west.

latter was returning from his trip to Samarkand, was

It is obvious

of doctrine

Het'um

heard."27

speak

The

into Anatolia. to

integrity.

"the

hordes

in the district of Aragacotn, barbarous

nations

whom

where

he

had swept through Armenia

had

It

Kirakos seen

and

and Georgia far

Het'um recognized that only in alliance with them his kingdom

could be saved. embassy

on

Mongol

king of Cilicia, while the

the capital of Mongolia.

He first sent his brother Smbat the Constable on an official

Karakorum,

who

returned

with

the

guarantee

of

Cilicia's

Smbat's departure and return are dated by the Constable

himself

in his Taregirk', i.e. "the year 697 (-1248) when I went" and "the year 699 (=1250)

when

I returned

to my

brother

Great Armenia on his way back.

was

at that

Cilicia.

time

that Kirakos

One thing is clear:

Het'um."28

It is assumed

must

have

In 1253

Het'um

visited

by Melik'-Ohanÿanyan

received

an invitation

that it

to go to

by this time and until 1260 Kirakos was still at

Nor Getik according to a record preserved in an inscription on the walls of the monastery,

which

then as a mediator

mentions

Kirakos's

who exercised

name

his power

twice,

first as a donor,

and

to relieve his people from the

heavy taxes.2? In any event Kirakos was in Sis, Cilicia, in 1268/69, at the time when he was working on the Menologion, and this is the last date that we know of Kirakos's life.

Probably soon after he returned to his monastery

and there he died in 1271, as we learn from

his colleague Grigor Akanc':

"It was in the year 720 of the Armenian

calendar

(720 + 551 =

1271) when the glorious Armenian vardapets Vardan and Kirakos passed away."30

.

Kirakos began to write his History on May 19, 1241 on the Sunday of Pentecost: "This day when we undertook this work is the feast of the advent of the most holy Spirit in the upper room."23l He worked on his book at least for two decades

before it was completed. Whereas the first section of the History forms a compilation of events "from the previous historiogra phy," the second part, the more interesting and valuable section, contains the

Contemporary

eyewitness."232 (1265),

when

history

written by the author as "auricular and as an It ends with the events of the year 714 of the Armenian era

the

Ilkhan

Abaghu,

the

mongol

ruler

of

Persia,

1e

married

ARZOUMANIAN

Despoina, after

Mangu's

same

the illegitimate daughter

himself

being

brother

year

christened

and the founder

(1265)

of the Paleologue emperor

by the

Patriarch

of the Mongol

according to Kirakos.3#

History is verified

267

Michael VIII,

of Antioch.23 empire

Hulaghu,

in Persia,

died

the

The closing date of Kirakos's

by Vardan who adds that "it was the period between

685

(1236) and 714 (1265) that was covered by Vanakan and Kirakos concerning the Mongols,

the Persians,

the Albanians,

the Armenians,

the Georgians,

and

There is also the extensive work of Jami' al-tawarikh36 (The

the Greeks."35

Assembly of Histories) left by the wazir Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318), who used materials collected by a number

Mongols,

of collaborators

This work

of his day.

Persian

of India and Europe

and wrote

in the colloquial

contains large sections of the history of the and, being contemporary

with Kirakos's

work,

can along with Vardan's History, help in reconstructing the unfinished ending of Kirakos.

In the last and

inconclusive

paragraph

of his history,

Kirakos

tells

about Abaghu's battle with Berke Khan (1257-1267), the leader of the Golden Horde, who led his army

through the gates of Darband

banks of the river Kura.

The other bank of the river was kept by Abaghu's

troops.

and encamped on the

The battle across the Kura is recorded by Rashid-al-Din which ends

by the victory of Abaghu

river bank

and head

who

towards

was

finally able to force

Tiflis.

Saray, the capital of Batu, while Abaghu

to spend

the winter

History.37

All

of

1266/67.

Berke

retires to Mazandaran

The

three—Rashid-al-Din,

same

details

Vardan,

and

are

the ending of Kirakos's

Kirakos

which resulted Albania.

essentially describes

from

the Mongol

the

and Gurgan

found

in Vardan's

Kirakos—give

date (1265/66) for the battle between Abaghu and Berke. reconstruct

to leave

Berke dies on the way and is buried in

the

same

In this way we can

work. the political, social and economic events

invasions of Eastern

Armenia,

Georgia and

Such were, for example, the fading away of the minor kingdoms and

the feudal lords of Armenia, the domination of the Seljuks, and the adherence

of

Armenians

to

self-determination

the

and

Mongol

invasions,

even customs the gradual hands

of

Armenian

Georgians,

independence.

Kirakos

whom

In addition

the to

Zacharids his

enjoyed

account

of

the

certain

policies of taxation, beliefs,

He has carefully described

of the lands and the landholding

Armenian

church

has recorded

under

and the language of the Mongols. transition

the

the

feudal

hierarchy,

and

lords

to

the

eventually

Mongol

to the

privilèges from rulers,

mercantile

then class.

to

the the The

CULTURE

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

268

In the

is enlightening.

and manners

behavior

with his peculiar appearance,

of a distinct race

the Mongol as a member

description Kirakos gives about

chapter entitled "On the description of the appearance of a Mongol" Kirakos

says: The way they looked was frightening. sharp voice

eyes,

penetrating

and

Narrow

of all animals,

They ate meat

lived long.

No beard at all,

lips.

the

around

jaw or

the

on

hair

a little

sometimes

but

and

a race

clean

and

which

unclean,

but above all they preferred the horse meat which they broiled or roasted water

without

salt.

Then

piece by piece and

like the camels,

together.

they dipped

ate.

and others

the meat

As they ate, some

sat, but all, lords and

prostrated slaves,

ate

While drinking the wine one held the bowl and the

other filled his cup from the bowl and scattered in the air in four directions—north,

then

in salty

tasted,

and

finally

gave

the beverage

south, east and west—and

it to the

senior

of

the

clan.

Always the slave ate and drank first and then the elders, so as

to avoid any risk of poisonous food or beverage. 38 Kirakos,

unlike

his

predecessors,

utilized

monuments

or on monastery

walls as sources

on

Go$ and

famous

Mxit'ar

on

the

inscriptions

monastery

of Getik,

inscriptions that he found on the walls pertaining the builders,

and those

who

contributed

preserved

for his history.

writing

he relied

on the

to the construction

to the erection

work,

of the monuments.

There is no doubt that Kirakos, enriched with vast and contemporary became

on

While

sources,

one of the indispensable authors of the Middle Ages, to be quoted by

his successors.

By later generations, Kirakos's History was considered

only reliable source

for the Mongol

quoted by subsequent

historians.

invasions

Vardan

in Armenia,

Arewelc'i

and

as the

as such

has recorded

was

that he had

used Kirakos's History for the passages concerning "the nation of the archers, the Persians, the Albanians, the Armenians, and the Georgians,

Greeks

. . . the

vardapets Vanakan

did

not

dare

enumerating

histories

Although Vardan

were

written

in detail

and by our dear (brother) Kirakos

write

the

of which

for

the

events

of

in the

main

third

time

importance summarized

. . . but

and

worthy

Kirakos's

as well as the

by the blessed

. . . which

history we

just summarized

of

mention

passages,

but

it by

. . ."2? in some

cases important differences in information suggest that two different sources were used by each independently.

Melik'-Ohanÿanyan is inclined to think that

ARZOUMANIAN

Vanakan's

lost work

difference

may

might

have

lie in Vardan's

been

the one

used

personal knowledge

by Vardan;

269

or that the

and observations.

NOTES ÎThe designation of the History as "Armenian" is not original and goes

as

far

back

as

Yovhanniseanc'

Ganjakec'woy

the

first

of Erevan.

(Moscow,

of

the

Cf. Patmut'iwn

work

by

Oskan

Ter-Georgian

Hayoc' arareal Kirakosi vardapeti

1858).

2Kirakos Ganjakeci',

(Erevan,

edition

Patmut'iwn

Hayoc',

ed. K. A. Melik'-Ohanjanyan

1961) VIII, XXX-XXXI.

3(a) Patmut'iwn Hayoc' (ed. Oskan Ter-Georgian). (b)

Kirakosi

Grigore c'awurs

(c)

vardapeti

iwr lusabaneal

Patmut'win

Ganjakec'woy (Venice,

Hayoc'

arareal

hamafot

Patmut'iwn

i srboyn

1865).

Kirakosi

vardapeti

Ganjakec'woy

(Tiflis, 1909) [Reprint of 1858 edition]. (d)

Patmut'iwn

Hayoc',

ed. K. A. Melik'-Ohanÿanyan

(Erevan, 1961).

#C£. Kirakos (ed. Melik'-Ohanjanyan) Int. 95-111.

?bid., 116. 6Cf. note 2 above.

TE. Alifan, Hayapatum (Venice, 1901) 472. 8Kirakos, 278. 9M. Awgerian, Taëian's

Catalog

zu Wien (Vienna,

Getik)

monastery

222:

which where

Vark'

Srboc',

76.

Handschriften

Cf. No. 219 of Vienna der Mechitaristen

‘Many

became we

the

ourselves

11The Armenian

brethren

center were

came

to the

of education

famous

for

the

of

same

educated.

chieftains in the northeast

of Armenia

were backed

The peaceful

Armenia and Georgia availed time and effort for the culture

to flourish in Eastern education

monastery

many,

by the Georgian kings and often resisted the Mongol invasions. alliance between

in

Bibliothek

1895-96) 559.

10Kirakos,

(Nor

Liakatar

der armenischen

Armenia.

Monasteries

of science and literature:

Sanahin,

became

the main

Halbat,

Nor Getik, Xoranaÿat,

centers

for

270

MEDIEVAL

Hafarcin, The

KeË'afis,

teachers

Mxit'ar

ARMENIAN

Ayrivank'

in those

Gof, Vanakan

CULTURE

are

centers

Vardapet,

well of

known

schools

education

were

Kirakos, Vardan

in the

13th century.

Yovhannes

Arewelc'i,

Tawusec'i,

and others.

12Kirakos, 192-201. 13Cf. Movses Katankatuac'i, lish trans. by C. J. F. Dowsett,

Movses

Dasxuranc'i

Patmut'iwn

Afuanic (Tiflis, 1913).

The History of the Caucasian

(London-New

York,

Eng-

Albanians by

1961).

l#Kirakos, 8, 84. 15Cf. Collection

Samuël des

Anec'i,

historiens

Chronology,

anciens

et

French

modernes

trans. de

by M.

F. Brosset,

l'Arménie,

II

(Paris,

1867-68).

l6Kirakos, 348.

l7Ibid., 218. l&bid., 249. l9jbid., 313. 20ïjbid., 235. 2lïbid., 376, 378. 22Cf.

Siaset

Vizir, by Nizam

23Cf.

Nameh,

al-Mulk

Bertold

24Kirakos,

about

the office 1949) 242.

Spuler,

Kultur der Ilchanenzeit

the book

(Moscow-Leningrad,

Die

1220-1350)

Mongolen

(Berlin,

in Iran

of the

11th century

(Politik, Verwaltung

und

1955) 59.

226.

25Spuler, Die Mongolen, 450-58.

26Kirakos, 310. 27ïbid., 371. 28Smbat the Constable, Taregirk! (Paris, 1859) 124; Cf. Kirakos, 364. 22Cf. H. ACaïyan, Hayoc'_Anjnanunneri

H.

Janp'olatyan,

‘Mxit'ar

Hayastani Petakan

Patmakan

GoŸ

ew

Nor

Bataran, Il (Erevan, 1944) 625;

Getiki

T'angarani, I (Erevan,

Vank',!

ASxatut'yunner

1948).

30Grigor Akanc'i, History of the Nation of the Archers (ed. Patkanian;

St. Petersburg,

1870) 52.

ARZOUMANIAN

271

31Kirakos, 9-10. 32ïbid., 218. 33At the end of the first section the declaration and profession of the creed of the Armenian

(1100-1173)

Church by the Armenian

is inserted

by Kirakos

(121-147).

Catholicos

The

Nersës IV Snorhali

text

is authentic

and

identical with the original preserved and published in Snorhali's Endhanrakan T'utt'k'

(Jerusalem,

1871)

encyclical of Catholicos

87-107.

Kirakos

Constantine

the Council of Sis taken place in 1243. is followed

301-310).

by

the

twenty-five

Cf. Oramanian,

also includes

in his History the

I Barjrberdc'i (1221-1267) pertaining to Cf. Kirakos, 259-300.

decisions

Azgapatum

adopted

by

(Constantinople,

the

The encyclical Council

(Ibid.

1913) II.1626-1635.

The History also contains a text on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy

Spirit from the Father (Ibid., 329-333) which is "acceptable to the Armenian Church

and

proceeds

to the spirit of Kirakos,

from

the Father

the doctrine

and is manifested

of the Holy Spirit which

through

the Son."

JIbid., 333.

34Kirakos, 398. 35Vardan

1861)

Arewelc'i,

Patmut'iwn

Tiezerakan

M.

Emin;s

Moscow,

192.

36Russian trans. of Moscow-Leningrad

cf.

(ed.

Kirakos,

(Cambridge,

34,

n.

4 (Int).

1970) I.168.

37Vardan,

215

38Kirakos, 271-72. 39Vardan, 192.

Also

cf.

The

is quoted by Melik'-Ohanjanyan,

Cambridge

History

of Islam

AS AN

TABLES

CANON

OF T'OROS

CAREER

IN THE

RELATIONSHIPS

OF TEACHER-PUPIL

INDICATION

Helen

ROSLIN

C. Evans

Institute of Fine Arts (NYU)

The canon tables, Eusebius' concordance index of parallel passages in the gospels and the letter to Carpianus explaining their use—are placed at the beginning of most Cilician gospels and are among the most richly Usually the ten indices, plus of the pages in those texts.l pairs of facing folios with five on arranged are letter, explanatory Eusebius' of the indices on the distribution The folios. the letter on the first pair of

decorated

succeeding

four

varies

folios

of

pairs

considerably

However, the sense

at the whim

the canon

of freely

formats

to

artist.2

of the individual

tables of T'oros Roslin's manuscripts

chosen

to

that they often appear

formats have been found on Cilician manuscripts have been created

manuscript

from

Such diverse canon table

manuscript as does the decoration of all the folios.

is inaccurate.

T'oros,

prove that

considered

the

finest Cilician artist, produced six signed manuscripts between 1256 and 1268 A.D. whose are exact

canon

tables are preserved.?

duplicates,

each

set uses

While no two sets of these tables

the same

sequence

of bird types

atop

similar headpieces and the text is distributed in the same manner on each set

of tables.

Minor

motifs

are

also related

T'oros's

format

for the decoration

evident

on

relatively

Hromklay

the

in 1260

the Armenian

A.D.

early

Patriarchate

manuscript,

in Jerusalem.#

on the first pair of folios (fig. 1). T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

Texts

from

manuscript

the arrangement

for the Catholicos

letter of Eusebius atop rectangular

1985

and

J. 251,

he executed

at

I and which

is now

Pairs of peacocks surmount

headpieces

filled with concentric

in

the

arches

On the first folio, the peacocks! necks

Medieval Armenian and

is

which

Kostandin

to manuscript.

of the indices

Studies

pp.27208290;

272

6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

EVANS

entwine

about a cross while on the second

a fountain filled with water

columns.

Confronted

and flowers.

273

two, with flared tails, approach The headpieces

lion capitals top the columns

are supported

same bodies, but with crowned human heads, those of the second folio.

1 and the first of index

2 are on the second

by

of the first folio, the Index

pair of folios under pairs of

cranes (fig. 2). The cranes flank a water filled fountain on the first folio and an altar on the second atop headpieces that stress a triangular format.

The

rest of the second index, all of indices 3 and 4, and the first of index 5 are

displayed under

groups of partridges on the third pair of folios (fig. 3).

pair of partridges

approach

which two grapevines

a vase from

A

grow on the

first folio while on the second several flank a fountain with a pair of lions'

heads

for its spouts.

The headpieces

differing interior layouts—con-

have

circles are the focus of the first folio's and the broad

centric

border band that of the second's. pairs of roosters surmount

rectangular

On the fourth pair of folios (fig. 4) opposed

the rest of index 5 and all of indices 6, 7, and 8

where the headpieces are dominated by radiating ribs and an arch filled with

a zig-zag pattern.

The final pair of folios with indices 9 and 10 (fig. 5) have

strange, long legged birds over the headpieces filled with concentric arches of those on the first pair of folios.?

reminiscent Most

of the motifs

only to those of Hromklay,

used by T'oros on his tables are so common but also to other

Cilician

works,

elsewhere is not in itself a proof of a direct relationship.6 must be sought for his tables as a unit. With the same the

key

not

that their use

Rather the source

The search is for earlier manuscripts

distribution of the text and precisely the same distribution of

elements

of

the

decoration—the

bird

and

headpiece

sequence.

Kirakos, a painter at Hromklay

before

slightly differing canon tables.

In his gospel of 1244 A.D., Venice 69/151, for

the

Catholicos

Kostandin

I, Kirakos

T'oros, is typical of artists with only

used

the

same

bird

and

headpiece

sequence as T'oros except that the roosters precede instead of following the partridges./ at

It is Yohanes, another artist of the generation preceding T'oros

Hromklay,

sequence

who

established

the

format

copied consistently by T'oros.

for

text

distribution

and

bird

Yohanes's gospel of 1253 A.D., now

in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., F.44.17 (fig. 6) (again for the Catholicos

T'oros's

Kostandin

tables—the

I), provides

column

types,

even

many

details

of the

of the

subsidiary

headpieces,

flanking the headpieces and columns—as Narkiss has noted.8 every

set of T'oros's

canon

tables derive

from

Yohanës's

motifs

the

of

designs

However, while tables,

only the

274

most

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

basic elements

CULTURE

of their formats

remain

the letter and the indices, the sequence formats

unaltered—the

distribution of

of the bird types, and the general

of the headpieces.

It is important revival, and continuity those of Yohanes.

to understand

the complex

which

the relationship

defines

of innovation,

of T'oros's

tables

to

This can be shown by a comparison of the formats of the

first pair of folios of Yohanés's texts as the relationships the subsequent

interplay

manuscript

established

with

T'oros's

demonstrate

first pairs in his

the pattern by which

all

folios are created.

The pages by Yohanés are beautifully executed in delicate, jewel-like detail.

cross

The first folio has a pair of peacocks

as their tails stretch

perched

furled behind

in the floral rinceau

peacocks

in a delicate

portrait of Eusebius. supporting columns

whose

them.

filled spandrels

rinceau

Rearing,

confronting

confronted

heads

The

and

entwine

headpiece

a wide

arch

a double-headed

lions form

with their floral patterned

while the columns

are flanked

shaîfts.

image of the first for most

a

with

over

a

of the

Elaborate birds with trees flank the

by trees with intricately entwined

branches upon which hawks perch cleaning their claws. a mirror

filled

eagle

the capitals

rigidly looped tails and ear tufts perched on umbrella-shaped headpiece

about

has sirens

of the page.

The facing folio is

However,

the peacocks

atop the headpiece now stand with tails furled beside a fountain from which

flowers ducks

grow. his head

One

twists

its neck

for a drink from

toward

the preceding

the fountain.

The

wide

page; arch

the other has a lush

rinceau

of thick leaved foliage filled with small naturalistic birds. At the apex cranes confront a long-necked vase over a portrait of Carpianus. The birds, flanking the headpiece, simpler than those on the preceding page, have straight tails. While executed

with less detail, the first folios preserved by T'oros continue the essentials of this format. The "Zeytun" gospel, done in 1256

À.D. for the Catholicos Kostandin I, is now in Istanbul (fig. 7).? On the first folio few changes were

made—the sirens are bulky, an extra decorative arch is in the headpiece, the peacock band now parades in one direction, Eusebius is in a new pose, the birds in the trees by the headpiece are less exotic, and

the lions of the capitals do not rear.

The facing folio also changes little—the

birds by the headpieces become parrots, the birds by the columns raise their heads, the broad arch of the headpiece continues the peacock parade of the opposing page, and both peacocks atop the headpiece have the reversed head

“%

EVANS

275

pose of Yohanës's left bird with their tails inverted to allow the eyes to drip Some of these details, such as the seated pose of the lions of the capitals, are innovations which T'oros will not repeat. Others will be seen to reappear on some of the later manuscripts—the extra arch in the

down.

peacock parade in the broad arch, the bulky siren

the continuous

headpiece,

forms, and the new In

his

pose of the second

next

preserved

work,

folio's peacocks.

3.251,

of

1260

A.D.

(fig.

1), T'oros

returned to a more exact copy of the Yohanës tables for the elements outside

of the headpieces—the peacocks match those of the Yohanës types, the lions of

the

capitals

heads).10

rear

(although

only

those

of

Within the headpieces the format

the

first

folio

have

lions'

is that of the "Zeytun'! gospel

with its extra decorative arch, and the first folio echoes its peacock parade. The

innovation

hunting a deer.

in the first folio is that the spandrel fillers are now

a lion

The wide arch of the second folio is also new—the vegetative

patterns that have previously been the background for animal forms now exist alone.

As

spandrels.

if to compensate,

sirens,

not

unlike

those

by Yohanës,

fill its

Neiïther the figure of Eusebius or Carpianus relates to those in the

earlier gospels, but the thoughtful, finger to cheek pose of Carpianus will be repeated in T'oros's two last works, J.1956 and M. 10675.

The column

are

type

now

elaborated

versions

of

the

Yohanës/"Zeytun'

and

bases

will

be

continued.

From

1262

A.D.

now in the Armenian

two T'oros

manuscripts are preserved.

One, J.2660,

Patriarchate in Jerusalem, was illustrated by T'oros for

the son of King Het'um I and his wife (fig. 8); the other, W.539 (fig. 9), was done for the nephew of the Catholicos Art

Gallery

formats

in

Baltimore,

for their peacock

Kostandin I and is now

Maryland. ll

Both

in the Walters

manuscripts

pairs—that of the Yohanës

use

the

same

tradition for the first

pair and essentially that of the "Zeytun'' gospel for the second although left bird on the second folio holds its tail in the Zeytun style. of the

Walters'

T'oros

ever

manuscript

produced

even

headpiece's wide arch. only

the

layout

of

the

is the

closest

copy

to the double-headed

of the

eagle

the

The first folio

Yohanës

folio

at the apex

that

of the

In contrast, the headpiece of the second foliocopied Yohanes

manuscript.

The

spandrels

deer—in type, not pose—related to that of J.25l's spandrels.

possess

two

The broad arch

in its rinceau retains traces of the lush vegetation of the Yohanës

prototype,

but the creatures are now carnivores after their prey in a cavorting parade, as if an expansion

of the hunt

theme

of 7.251.

This is typical of the way

276

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

T'oros's tables evolve.

change,

elements

reintroduced, On

new

his other

trees

Within the sequence established by Yohanës, details

from

Yohanës's

or

T'oros!s

motifs are added—the

boldly innovative.

outside

CULTURE

manuscript

earlier

manuscripts

are

change is incremental.

of the same

year,

J.2660,

T'oros

was

more

He changed the motifs of both headpieces and the lower

with

standing

figures

of prophets.

The

other

headpieces, however, are quite faithful to Yohanës's pattern.

trees

of the

The headpieces

most often find their sources in 3.251 where there is a similar concentration of the decorative arches about the portrait busts. of spandrels seem

to be derived

from

The peacocks of both pairs

the peacock parade of the first folio

of J.251, and the vegetative design of the broad arch of the first folio was first seen on the second folio of 7.251 as well.

The animal band on J.2660's

second folio uses the confronted creature format of Yohanës's manuscript and

T'oros's W.539, but the apex is a confronted pair of sirens.

Their proportions

resemble that of the "Zeytun" sirens while their crowns are like those on the human-headed

lion capitals of 3.251.

Three years later, in 1265 A.D., in his gospel for the Lady Keran, J. 1956

(fig.

employed colums

10),

now

a similar

and

the

in

the

Armenian

assymetrical

headpieces,

Patriarchate

in

Jerusalem,

layout for each folio.l2

closely

copied

from

T'oros

The trees by the

Yohanës's

first

folio,

are

placed only at the outer edges of the two folios making them explicitly one

unit. Other elements are also revivals of Yohanës's models: the pose of Eusebius (more like that in Yohanës's gospel than any other by T'oros), the sirens of the second folio's spandrels, and the designs of the arches of the headpieces and the columns. Again there are elements from earlier Roslin works.

The

peacock

band on the second

wide

arch

of the

first

folio

folio from

is copied

the "Zeytun'"

from

J.2660

gospel.

and

the

The pose of

Carpianus

on the second folio is also derived from that on the "Zeytun" gospel. -And there are innovations, such as the exclusively foliate designs of the spandrels of the first folio, which will be repeated in T'oros's next and final signed work, M.10675. The head poses of both pairs of peacocks are also new.

For the first time the peacocks

of the first folio do not entwine Those of the second folio both face the fountain while otherwise having the bodies of the birds on the manuscripts of 1262 A.D., W.539 and

their necks.

J.2660.

In T'oros's last work, again for the Catholicos Kostandin I (now in the

Matenadaran in Erevan, M.10675 (fig. 11)), the pattern continues.l?

Patterns

EVANS

277

true to Yohanës's original gospel are seen in the entwined necks of the first scheme

pair, the basic

peacock

of the

headpieces,

the

flanking

trees

and

birds, and the patterns on both the horizontal crossbars—the stepped pattern of the upper

crossbar

lion capitals with

Yohanës's

replace

manuscript.

every

on

consistentiy

used

been

for the first time

the columns

While

having

paired acanthus leaves, their bases are the purest copy of those on his folios gospel, clearly a deliberate

since the "Zeytun!

and the broad

of the spandrels

designs

folio's peacocks

of each

folio are

inspired

are merely

The new poses of

of bird forms

a reuse

from

earlier

and J.2660

in the "Zeytun'"' gospel and reused in the W.539

The real innovation on these folios is the use of long-necked

beside the lower

outside trees.

anew his awareness

unwillingness

Thus this last work

birds

demonstrates

by T'oros

of the motifs established by Yohanes, his reuse of motifs

innovations

initially

by

The bird on the left is from J.1956 while that on the right was

first introduced gospels.

arch

on the first folio of W.539.

repeat a pattern established manuscripts.

of T'oros's

Elements

The two narrow shell-patterned arches

3.1956, done only three years earlier. the second

revival.

The pose of Carpianus and the purely vegetative

last works are also present.

on

to repeat

earlier

a format

of

tables

without

his

some

and

own,

continued

his

degree of modification

and

innovation.

This rooting of a set of canon

tables

master's work is not unique to T'oros. Keran gospel, executed

at Hromklay

the

of

same

T'oros.l4

distribution

indices,

so specifically in a preceding

The unnamed

painter of the Queen

in 1272 A.D., 3.2563 (fig. 12), also used birds,

and

headpieces

Yet his tables are only indirectly copied from

as

Yohanés

The direct source is T'oros, especially his later works, as shown

pair of folios.L5 beside

its lower

and

those of Yohanes. by the first

The peacocks of the second folio and the long-necked bird tree

are clearly derived

from

T'oros's

last work,

M.10675,

while the pose of Carpianus and the rinceau-filled spandrels of the first folio

are common

to both of T'oros's last work, 1.1956 and M.10675.

of the first folio have unentwined

The peacocks

necks like the birds of J.1956.

The trees

to the side of the pages are in the tradition of Yohanes, but the exotic tails of the upper birds curl in, a characteristic only of T'oros's last manuscripts. (The tails curl out on Yohanes's tables.) manuscripts.

The

multiple

arches

Other elements echo T'oros's earlier

of the headpieces

T'oros's earliest works, the Zeytun gospel and 3.251. first folio with its confronted

follow the pattern of The broad arch of the

peacocks and double-headed

eagle could refer

278

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

to Yohanës's design, but more likely to its reuse on W.539 on 1262 A.D. And the same zone of the second folio with its confronted lions is most reminiscent 3.2660.

of the confronted beasts on the other manuscript of 1262 A.D.,

Thus this work too is clearly part of the highly specific canon

table

evolution which can be traced through T'oros to Yohanes. The existence continuum.

T'oros,

of a common

iconographic

theme

cannot

The Catholicos Kostandin I, as a patron of Kirakos,

may

have

influenced

the

choice

of

the

formats

explain

this

Yohanës,

and

of

the

tables.

However, only Yohanës, T'oros, and the painter of J.2563, who postdates the catholicos,

consistently

adhered

sequence

of key forms—the

combined

with each

work

suggests

revived

birds

and

a

details

same their

artist's awareness

instead

different

to the

headpiece

relationship.

prototype

of the

T'oros

a number

works.

patterns

at

intense

decorative

loyalty to a specific predecessor's

artist's

continuously

in his manuscripts.

of his tables from

used

and

This fact

preceding

painter of J.2563 derived elements All three

text

layouts.

of details of the

teacher-pupil

of Yohanës's

distribution

common

Hromklay

so

this

of those

motifs can

only be explained by a need to be associated with that artist.l6

The most

logical explanation master-pupil

of this is that they chose

relationship

table format.

in general

through

the

continued

specifically

It is possible

in the

manuscript

that a more

text and

use

of the

their place master's

might thus

enable

where

in a canon

leaves

as if to authenticate

by the headpieces

us to demonstrate

help explain

tradition

thorough study of Cilician canon

the sequence of the forms supported groupings

to indicate

This would fit the stress on continuity found in Armenian

and

older texts are bound into each manuscript

of the

organization

The

of T'oros's

the

Certain earlier Cilician manuscripts,

evolution

more

it. tables by

and the distribution

extended

of Cilician

such as M.7347

art

from

master-pupil

decorative

art.

of 1166 A.D. or Venice

1635 of 1193 A.D., do share decorative formats with the Yohanes type tables, ie. M.7347's rooster format (fig. 13) is very like that of the Yohanës-T'oros type seen on J.251 (fig. 4). 17 However, no text with precisely the same format sequence and/or the same distribution of text is yet known.

A later

gospel, M.197 of 1287 A.D. (fig. 14), does have the same sequence of birds and the same distribution of text with the same type of incremental changes that have been observed by its first folio.l8

same

master-pupil

in the Yohanës/T'oros/J.2563

Works

like it might be proven

continuum.

relationship as shown to have a place in the

The possibility that the complex

decorative

EVANS

279

patterning known in Cilicia could be broken ino a series of steps from master to pupil does demonstrate

exist. how

This

first step in that

the canon

tables

prove

direction

has sought

only to

T'oros to be the pupil of Yohanës

and the painter of J.2563, the pupil of T'oros.

NOTES ÎThe research for this paper could not have been accomplished without

the aid of a summer grant for 1981-1982 from Dumbarton D.C., and a 1981-1982

Travel Grant from the Kress Foundation which allowed

me to work with the manuscripts at the Armenian

the Matenadaran San Lazzaro the Freer

Oaks, Washington,

in Erevan;

Patriarchate in Jerusalem;

the library of the Mekhitarist

in Venice; the Walters

Gallery of Art, Washington,

D.C.

F. Mathews

University,

Maryland;

at and

My thanks must be given to the

staffs of those institutions for their aid and cooperation Thomas

Congregation

Art gallery in Baltimore,

as well as to Dr.

and Alice Taylor of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York

for their advice.

2L. Azarjan, [Russian];

S. Der

Cilician

Miniature

Nersessian,

1977) pl. 115; S. Der

Armenian

Nersessian,

Painting (Erevan, Art

Armenian

(London,

1964) pls. 54, 61

Thames

Manuscripts

and

Hudson,

in the Walters

Art

Gallery (Baltimore, pub. by the Trustees, 1973) pls. 13-22; S. Der Nersessian, Armenian

Manuscripts in the Freer Gallery of Art (Washington,

7, 10; S. Der

Nersessian,

The

Chester

Beatty

Library,

1963) pls. 6,

À Catalogue

of the

Armenian Manuscripts (Dublin, Hodges Figgis and Co., 1958) pls. 8-12; S. Der Nersessian,

Manuscrits

Mekhitaristes ÎThe colophons

Arméniens

Illustrés

de

de Venise (Paris, E. de Boccard, six manuscripts

with

canon

la

Bibliothèque

de

Pères

1937) pls. XVI-XXIHI.

tables

associated

with

T'oros

by

are:

1°

Istanbul,

2

Jerusalem,

Armenian Armenian

Patriarchate,

Patriarchate,

no. 251, gospel,

1260

3

Jerusalem,

Armenian

Patriarchate,

no. 2660, gospel,

1262 A.D.

k.

Baltimore,

Walters

5

Jerusalem,

Armenian

6

Erevan,

Art Gallery,

Matenadaran,

"'Zeytun'"' gospel,

no. 539, gospel,

Patriarchate, no.

10675,

no.

1256

1262

1956, gospel,

gospel,

1268

A.D. A.D.

A.D.

1265

A.D.

A.D., previously

J.3627. A final manuscript associated with T'oros by colophon is Jerusalem, Armenian

280

MEDIEVAL

Patriarchate,

no.

ARMENIAN

2027,

CULTURE

which

as

a

ritual

has

no

canon

tables.

Nersessian, Walters Art Gallery, 15, except for the present number

which was transferred

to the Matenadaran

HThis text has been chosen in

the

Armenian

published.

Patriarchate

Ibid., 15; B. Narkiss

of Jerusalem

(New

York:

after publication

as the exemplar in

Jerusalem

of her text.

since it is one of those

which

has

not

& M. E. Stone (eds.) Armenian

Caratzas

Bros.,

1979)

Catalogue of St. James' Manuscripts (Jerusalem:

Der

of J.3627

148;

been

fully

Art Treasures

N. Bogharian,

Grand

Armenian Convent Printing

Press, 1967) II, 14-23 [Armenian]. SWhile

there

are

alterations

in the formats

from

text

to cover,

the

only significant change in the bird sequence is on the last pair of folios where

there

is an evolution

in the depiction

of the long-legged

creatures.

seriously altered is the bird on the right side of the final folio. with J.2660

that bird's head

6Related

motifs

is consistently

are found

Most

Beginning

catlike.

on Venice

1635;n11931%À.D:;:Freer5905;,1a

twelfth century gospel possibly from Hromklay; Walters 538, a Cilician gospel of

1193

A.D.;

Hromklay. Der

and

Der

Nersessian,

Art Gallery,

Chester

Nersessian,

Beatty

Manuscrits

Freer Gallery,

pls. 13-22;

Der

TThe photographs

588,

a thirteenth Arméniens

Nersessian,

of Venice

Chester

69/151's

Der Nersessian, Chester Beatty, 1.28. Kirakos

T'oros

tables

provides

a parallel

but associated

Illustrés,

gospel

with

Beatty,

canon

from

pls. XVI-XXII;

13 and pls. 6, 7, 10; Der Nersessian,

from San Lazzaro in time for this publication. with

century

Walters

2, pls. 8-13.

tables

have

not arrived

Venice 69/151 is identified in

Her association of Chester Beatty 588

example

of folio

different

formats

indices.

Ibid.,

similar

to

the

1.30 and 2, pis.

8-12. 8Der Nersessian, Freer Gallery, pls. 17-21; Narkiss & Stone, Armenian

Art Treasures, 48.

(Unlike Narkiss, I find only the canon tables of Yohanës to be compelling related. Within the body of the

and T'oros's manuscripts

manuscripts, T'oros's pericope markings are elaborate while those of Yohanës

are

simple

figurative,

circles; Yohanës's

T'oros's

initial

at

the

beginning

of

not; the portraits of the evangelists

each

gospel

is

vary, etc.)

?See footnote 3. Photographs of only the Eusebian letter and the dedicatory folios are available at Dumbarton Oaks, but they so closely match those of Yohanës's manuscript and fit so well into the pattern established by

EVANS

281

the rest of T'oros's manuscripts that there seems no reason to doubt that the

other folios were 10See Bogharian,

also based on the Yohanes

footnote

Grand

3; Narkiss

Catalogue

11See footnote

Bogharian, Walters

Grand

l2See

3; Narkiss 10-30

footnote

Stone,

Armenian

Art

Treasures,

148;

(1967) 2.14-23.

Catalogue,

Art Gallery,

&

prototype.

& Stone, Armenian

VIII (1972),

277

Art Treasures,

for 3.2660.

148-149;

Der Nersessian,

for W.539.

3; Narkiss

&

Stone,

Armenian

Art

Treasures,

149;

Bogharian, Grand Catalogue (1972) 6.526-530. lee

footnote 3; Bogharian,

l4Narkiss

15As

& Stone,

in the

established

Grand

Armenian

Catalogue (1977) 8.263.

Art Treasures,

T'oros/Yohanës

relationship,

on the first folios is followed

64, 149.

the

pattern

of exchange

throughout the entire set of tables.

l6See footnotes 6, 7, and 16 for manuscripts with similar motifs from Hromklay

Hudson,

and

L.

Durnovo,

Armenian

Miniatures

(London:

Thames

and

1961) 102-103. 1/7Der Nersessian,

Miniatures,

pls. 41-42

Walters

for M.7347

tables at the Matenadaran formats

very

manuscript.

similar

showed

to

the

Art

Gallery,

7, 27, and

in the Matenadaran.

it to posess peacock,

Yohanes

type

and

Azarjan,

in the

crane, same

and

rooster

order

in the

The text itself is not distributed in quite the same

fig. 13 has indices 6 and 7, not 7 and 8.

Cilician

A study of its canon

manner,

i.e.

The other two pairs of folios in

M.7347 are topped by guinea hen like creatures and frontally posed peacocks, rather

than

Arméniens

partridges

the Yohanëés 18Der

type are quite consistent Nersessian,

colophon

is lost.

“written

by Bishop

tables

and long-ledgged

birds.

Illustrés, pls. XVI-XXII for Venice

were

studied

Freer

Gallery, 60 and footnote

. . . in the year

at the

Nersessian,

Manuscrits

There are similarities to

until the final pair of folios.

A notice of 1590 as tranlated John

Der

1635.

Matenadaran.

150.

by Der

1287, on March

The principal

Nersessian 13."

states

The canon

282

ik

MEDIEVAL

Jerusalem, Roslin,

2.

ARMENIAN

Armenian

1260

Jerusalem,

A.D.

Congress.

Patriarchate, Courtesy

Armenian

and 2, by T'oros

CULTURE

ms. 251, Eusebian letter, by T'oros

of the Library

Patriarchate,

Roslin,

1260

ms.

A.D.

of Congress.

251, Canon

Courtesy

tables,

of the

indices

Library

1

of

EVANS

34

Jerusalem, 4, and

Armenian

5, by T'oros

233

Patriarchate, ms. 251, Canon tables, indices 2, 3, Roslin,

1260

A.D.

Courtesy

of the

Library

of

Congress.

4,

Jerusalem,

7, and

Armenian

8, by T'oros

Congress.

Patriärchate, ms. 251, Canon tables, indices 5, 6,

Roslin,

1260

A.D.

Courtesy

of the

Library

of

284

5.

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

Jerusalem,

and

Armenian

10, by T'oros

CULTURE

Patriarchate,

Roslin,

1260

ms.

A.D.

251,

Canon

Courtesy

tables,

of the

indices

Library

9

of

Congress.

L

6.

Washington,

Yohanës,

D.C., Freer Gallery of Art, ms. 44.17, Eusebian

1252

A.D.

Courtesy

sonian Institution, Washington,

of the Freer

D.C.

Gallery

letter, by

of Art,

Smith-

EVANS

7e

Istanbul,

Armenian

Patriarchate,

T'oros

Roslin, 1256

barton

Oaks, negatives B52. 2188-

A.D.

"Zeytun"

Courtesy

gospel, Eusebian

of Photograph

B52. 2189.

285

letter, by

Collection,

Dum-

286

MEDIEVAL

Dre pvp

ARMENIAN

RER > entame à argetoonde d ne

Wapée. Fée

ee Horn bag LED A crborBond

8.

Jerusalem,

CULTURE

ci

Armenian

Pénonaets Sant TAROT

1 É

Patriarchate,

T'oros Roslin, 1262 A.D.

Courtesy

ms.

£

à PE rss nés CN a ai2 arts short ES RE NS

2660,

Eusebian

letter,

by

of the Library of Congress.

NA 7 RNR AMRAA VETEMENT NS SEINE 89DEARERA : Era eeTam

SAGE RON NS RE AAA ADR ARMAND A BARrer AUD PRRAD RER ESSAMU EN QI NA MANS DRE ERA EN RSSNRERSà À PSS è NS RARES RER PS See Sen LEE SONO Re re

9,

Baltimore, . Roslin,

1262

Walters A.D.

Art

Gallery,

Courtesy

ms.

539, Eusebian

of Walters

Art Gallery,

: :

letter, by T'oros Baltimore.

EVANS

nn Ge db

287

rev

a anErgfarenant à dE

10.

Jerusalem, T'oros

Armenian

Roslin, 1265

Patriarchate,

A.D.

Courtesy

ms.

1956,

Eusebian

of the Library

letter,

of Congress.

by

288

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Dre

ilnntigr;s Cngaur

ET

ébrse

ar dore

RE dreCR

Me

€

ee phrases

Lusastmempathe génome tue gs#erde va ee. res À cordon Error apagr tee

ER DAS Pre je comfort

Lo

ES grd

enlencrarbrereen elle à f.

EN gsnennesgeSurheun

org enBt arr Bee urnes ga peer veémet uneugorenplqmedasern Shots : Gala

Phare Shrngepgtrge ge shobasHon, vo nngershe 3

mrrmtise22

7 organes

jeeEgi 2 5pat rs: 7

Ceres re : Brant. RU Lost qd Psurebrunt Lodttinss fine. LegoyLafsE nojoe rie

7 nr pauline

“4 rire Are ae gere 4

{

ce hope ts he spi e Er LyarE Soaprgnnsbnerge nee neue > Fam rprme srnenhggeentbe don) Dar Ogre À

Lg orenf Bac nmdse 4 he Kogsehe Alt mpeg atRe2) Lapmtens prirent pra Porn LÉO oser Chen Looneo urnShas Lg à Pépin pPsssepegané rente

etres des

Dern Bonnphed. 1iperdhgfangteerd. RL

RE

Erevan,

1268

Ke Er

Matenadaran,

A.D.

Courtesy

sv,

rainee RE à rte eu en STE

ms.

10675,

of

Photograph

negatives B52. 1811 - B52. 1812.

Eusebian

letter, by T'oros

Collection,

Diumbarton

Roslin,

Oaks,

EVANS

12°

Jerusalem,

A.D.

Armenian

Courtesy

Patriarchate,

ms.

2563,

of the Library of Congress.

Eusebian

letter,

239

1272

290

13%

MEDIEVAL

Erevan, A.D.

Le

ARMENIAN

Matenadaran, Courtesy

Erevan,

CULTURE

ms. 7347,

Canon

of the Matenadaran,

Matenadaran,

of the Matenadaran,

ms.

197, Eusebian

Erevan.

tables, indices 6 and 7, 1166

Erevan.

letter,

1287,A.D.

Courtesy

ARMENIAN

CILICIA,

SINAI ICONS:

CYPRUS,

PROBLEMS Valentino

ITALY

AND

OF MODELS*

Pace

Università di Roma (Italy)

Years

ago, Kurt

Weitzmann

published

a double-sided

icon from

the

Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, representing the Crüucifixion and

the

Resurrection

(fig.

1).

Together

with

other

icons

from

the

same

collection, among them a diptych representing the Virgin with the Child on

one side (fig. 4) and St. Procopius on the other side (fig. 3), he ascribed it to a Venetian thirteenth of two

workshop

century.L

active

at

Acre

around

the

In a paper read at the 1981

worlds," I expressed

third

quarter

Symposium

of

my disagreement with Weitzmann's

views.2

My

aim is to reexamine these icons and their possible models or prototypes. cases

| am

reasoning, these

going

works

workshop

to make

therefore, but

are

is not

simply

testifies

of the painter, without

and his source.

concerned

necessarily

with

the

models.

corroborated

The

The

line of

by the chronology

to the availability

of such

implying any further

the

"The meeting

models

of

in the

relation between

him

For this reason I am purposely avoiding to deal with questions

of chronology.Â

To begin with, in the Resurrection

depicted in the double-sided icon

(fig. 1), the crowned heads are clearly reminiscent of models like the David playing

the

harp

in the Erznka

indeed have an ultimate Western,

Bible

of 1268

must not be ruled out for this reason. Salomon—that

possibly from

the

is the

crowned

at a kind

of Levantine

of Queen

Keran's

Pennsylvania

Armenian

Texts

The

hairdoo

After all, the physiognomic on

types

& M. Stone, eds.

1983.

head

aiming

T. Samuelian

(fig. 2).4

may

French, origin, ? but the Cilician connection

the

physiognomy,

family

Medieval and Studies

pp. 291 to 305.

291

right—is as

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

type of

non-Western,

somehow

represented

Armenian 6).

clearly

not distant

in her

famous

(University of Scholars

Press,

Gospels (fig. 5).6

CULTURE

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

292

Moreover, the heavy ornamentalism of both icons is often

found in Cilician miniatures. Once again Queen Keran Gospels provide a good

example./ found

Particularly

in Cypriote

relevant,

beyond

painting, à are

other

similarities

the borders

which

are

of the halos which

also

we

see

around the heads of the Madonna and the Child, and of St. Procopius in these

icons (fig. 3, 4) and around the Madonna of the Nativity in the Queen Keran

Gospels (fig. 6) in a loose miniature sheet from the Stoclet collection (fig. 7) and elsewhere in the (Cilician) side.? As

I already

said

these

similarities

must

possible proof of the availability of Cilician Sinai

icons;

a direct

participation

surely be ruled out, since

Cilician

be

models

of Cilician miniatures

From

are not strong enough

this perspective,

and

Sinai

in Cyprus,

painter from

provided

do not

can share

a few similarities in the

to prove

this point.l0

proposed

by Sotirious,

with late thirteenth-century

who

ascribed

that island, are just as unsatisfactory. 1

models

icons

as

6f our

that is, the search for the origin of workshop

which produced the Sinai icons, the comparisons painting

simply

artists in this workshop

features which could support direct interrelations: painterly treatment

understood

in the workshop

for the iconography

of the Virgin

our

diptych

to a

But Cyrpus certainly

in the

diptych

(fig. 4),

derivative from the Kykkiotissa,"12 for her physiognomic type, L3 and for the

punched

halos in the Resurrection. 14 If the workshop

from

which

Cyprus (and elsewhere)

evidence

of

a

phenomenon

produced

the Sinai icons had models

but also from which

Kurt

Cilicia, we

Weitzmann

would

and

not only

gain further

Wolfgang

Grape

already pointed out, dealing with parallels between

a Sinai icon of the Last Judgement and a miniature by T'oros Roslinl5 as well as between a Sinai icon of the Crucifixion and a miniature in the Queen Keran Gospels.l6 Both cases bear on the "Cicilian question" within the Mediterranean

context.

Further cases will help us to understand

better the many

facets of

this issue.

Sirarpie iconography

Der

Nersessian

between

Duccio's

drew

our

‘Madonna

attention dei

to

francescani!

the and

similarity two

of

earlier

Cilician miniatures (figs. 7, 8) based on lost models alleged to be of Western In my opinion it has not

origin, which would have been influenced Duccio.l7 yet been

demonstrated

conclusively that this iconography is ultimately of In this case, as well, the possibility of Cilician credit cannot out.l8 The same point can be made with another case which is

Western origin.

be ruled

PACE

drawn from one of the two miniatures: tunic with a sash supported by

by the Child

Christ wears an ''embroidered" white

bracets (fig. 7).

in the diptych, (fig. 4) whose

partially depends on the "Kykkiotissa."

a number was

as noted before,

Since this peculiar fashion occurs in

from

Cyprus

than from

any other

areas—for

example,

Italy—

it is often misunderstood.20 The

bound

A similar clothing is worn

iconography,

of Cypriote icons,l? I feel that it is more likely that this fashion

exported

where

293

peculiarly

to Cyrpus.

century.

Its use

About

innovative.

embroidered

1270,

began

the

in this

tunic of Christ

is not necessarily

to be

fairly

in the

Cilician

If such a feature

innovation

white

of fashion

iconographic

common

miniature

context,

seems

should this

to have

fourteenth been

quite

turn out to be a Cilician

would

be

another

piece

of

evidence supporting the hypothesis that Cilician models were available to the workshop

where

these Sinai icons were

painted.21l

Cilicia and Italy shared other artistic contacts. devoted

a careful

study

to the

finished

"Gaibana

in

1259,

epistolary,"

area,

resemblances

to Cilician

examples

of

Byzantinizing

"Marzolini

triptych" in the National Gallery of Umbria at Perugia23 (figs. 9,

painting

miniatures

painting;22 in

bear

of the

Venice-Padua

manuscript

whose

Wolfgang Grape has a manuscript

outstanding

he also pointed

Central

Italy;

for

out some

instance,

the

10). There is no doubt that the Umbrian context

should

than

the Centro-Italian

tradition

triptych must be seen in a wider provides.

In this context,

which

be sought in the East, not in the West as was believed,2# the role

played by Cilicia in the larger framework of the "Byzantine question!" cannot easily be ascertained:

buildings in the background,

stylization of landscape,

physiognomical types, crysography make it possible for us to tie this triptych also, to Cilician miniatures as well, but not exclusively to them.

Grape and

I have made comparisons between this Umbrian panel painting and the Second Prince Vasak Gospels2? (figs. 8, 9, 10); other comparisons could be made with the Queen

Keran

influences

between

Without

church

any

at

Gospels,26 Umbria

doubt

the

Perugia,

in

further and

recorded

1279,

instances

Cilicia

of parallelism

should

gift of liturgical

is a stimulus

for

be

or reciprocal

carefully

books

further

checked.27

to an

research

Armenian

in this

direction.28 I presented here some clues which would let us detect Cilician models

behind "'Sinai" and Centro-Italian paintings.

We look forward to a time when

CULTURE

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

294

research on Cilician painting, and with it of the other Mediterranean areas "between East and West," will provide the kind of evidence which will either confirm

or deny the hypothesis of this paper.

NOTES

*The Author wishes to express his gratitude toward those who enabled him to carry his program of research partially embodied in the present paper: Archbishop Shahe Ajemian and Archbishop Norayr Bogharian at the Armenian at

of Israel and CNR

of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai; the N.C.R.D.

the Monastery

Sophronios

Higoumenos

Damianos,

Archbishop

Patriarchate of Jerusalem; of Italy. IK. Weitzmann,

Oaks

"Icon Painting in the Crusader

Kingdom,"

Dumbarton

Papers, 20 (1966) pp. 49-83 (64-69). 2V, Pace, "Italy and the Holy Land:

Venice,"

Proceedings

Kalamazoo—Ann

3The

of

Arbor,

the May

double-sided

Symposium

Import-Export.

"The

meeting

I.

of

The case of

two

worlds,"

1981; ed. V. Goss; in press.

Icon

and

diptych

belong

to

paintings whose chronology should be carefully checked.

a larger

group

of

For some considera-

tions on the difficult use of their stylistic data, see my "Possibilita e limiti

dell'analisi stilistica come metodologia storica: in pittura':

the International au moyen-age"

Colloquium

(Rennes,

May

on "Artistes,

dated later than "before should be ruled out. comparisons:

the

behind

shape

Murano

in the

zu Potsdam

and

of the

are

fifteenth

of it in the early thirteenth Friedenskirche).

century.

halo

motifs

centuries,

but

century:

San

85; Berlin:

correctly dates these

His article

starry

indeed

See S. Badstubner-Groger,

(Das christliche Denkmal.

H. Hallensleben

first half of the thirteenth

and

Resurrection

in the fourteenth

instance

(now Potsdam,

Verlag, 3. Aufl., 1980).

of the "heaven!"

Christ

fairly widespread

Die Friedenskirche

As far

I have the feeling that they are to be

1291" and that for this reason their origin at Acre

complex

is at least one

Cipriano,

artistique

i Altet; in press).

Unfortunately, I cannot prove my point with satisfactory

mandorla

which were

there

the

Artisans et Production

1983; ed. X. Barral

as icon and diptych are concerned,

within

‘'Stile,' 'Maestro' e 'Bottega'

con particolare riferimento alle icone sinaitiche,"! Proceedings of

Union

mosaics

to the

is due to appear

in the

PACE

Zeitschrift fur Künstgeschichte.

It was he who pointed to me this example.

Moreover, the painterly treatment St. Procopius from

show

thirteenth

Procopius,

somehow

century

see:

of the large figures of the Virgin and of

an ‘academic"

characteristics.

K. Weitzmann,

295

quality, which seem For

a good

The Icon (New York:

color

to me

plate

Braziller,

of

far St.

1978) pl37:

See also pl. 38. #On the Ernzka

l'an

1269:

Etudes

Ms.

Jerusalem

byzantines

Calouste

Bible, see:

No.

S. Der Nersessian,

1925," published

et arméniennes

Gulbenkian,

Louvain:

(Bibliotheque Editios

"La Bible d'Ernzka de

1966

and reprinted

arménienne

Peters,

1973) [hereafter

BAS, followed by the year of the original publication] 603-609. illustrations

see also:

B. Narkiss

of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: See, for instance, of the

so-called

St.

6The famous

at Reims

1140-1270

It is dated 1272.

S. Der Nersessian,

graphiques,

144-148

Art Treasures,

Cathedral:

(Munchen:

illustrations, see:

1977)

63-64,

as

Art Treasures

Philippe Auguste and

VW. Sauerländer,

Hirmer,

2563, still needs an

For some comments

and splendid color

L'Art arménien (Paris:

and figs. 104-107;

or Narkiss

Gotische

1970) figs. 260-261.

Queen Keran Gospels, Ms. Jerusalem

art-historical study.

quoted

For further

Press, 1979) figs. 84-86.

the hairdoo of the so-called

Louis

Skulptur in Frankreich:

& M. Stone, eds., Armenian

Massada

in her

de la Fondation

Arts et Metiers

& Stone, Armenian

figs. 77-78.

7See, for instance, the throne of the Madonna in the Annunciation (f.

184) of the Queen Keran Gospels, or the frame of the window in the building to the left, behind the Evangelist Luke, in Ms. Erevan 9422 Matenadaren 9422 (see a color pl. in:

B. Brentjes, S. Mnazakanjan

des Mittelalters in Armenien 8]t may ornamentalism

(Berlin:

be remembered that

a group

No.

& N. Stepanjan, Kunst

Union Verlag, 1981) fig. 236.

that it is also on the basis of their strong of

Sinai

icons

(among

them

the

Procopius

diptych) has been ascribed to Cypriote painters by G. and M. Sotiriou, in their

Icones

du Mont

Sinai (Athenes:

Istitut Francais,

1958) 2, .159, 170-173 [in

Greek, with French summary]. ÎThe

miniature

from

the Stoclet

collection

was published by S. Der

Nersessian, in her "Deux exemples arméniennes de la Vierge de Misericorde,"

REArm

7 (1970) 187-202 [BAS, 585-601].

in the Second

Prince Vasak

Quite similar halos are also found

Gospels (figs. 8, 9, 13) and in other Cilician

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

296

CULTURE

manuscripts at Erevan:

Matenaradan

Kunst des Mittelalters,

figs. 234-238.

No. 197 and 9422 (see Brentjes, et al.,

10Comparisons can be drawn between the Queen Keran Gospels (especially Moses and the Apostles in the Transfiguration, f. 69 or the angel in the Annunciation, f. 184) and the Resurrection (the figures of Adam and Eve). Compare also the crysography in the Queen Keran Gospels and in the Procopius diptych.

llSotiriou, Icones di di Mont Mont Sinai Sinai I, figs. references 86 and

188-190,

2, 171-173, with 1935), pls. 80,

tis Kyprou (Athens,

to his Ta byzantina Mnemeia

117 [in Greek]. l2Sotiriou, Icones di Mont

Sinai, 171-172.

It is the red veil over

the

maphorium on the Virgin's head which testifies to the dependence of this icon on the Kykkiotissa; the pose of the Child does not follow that prototype. a later copy (Munchen,

of the Kykkiotissa,

Geneve,

Paris:

Nagel,

see:

A. Papageorgiou,

1969), 48.

l3Ppapageorgiou, Ikonen aus Zypern, IIS Jahrbuch

Rice,

"Cypriot

der osterreichischen

For

Ikonen aus Zypern

Icons

25.

with

Plaster

Relief

Byzantinistik (1971), 21.

Background,"

M. S. Frinta, "Raised

Gilded Adornment of the Cypriot Icons, and the Occurrence

of the Technique

in the West," Gesta 20 (1981) 333-347. 15Weitzmann,

der byzantinischen Der Nersessian,

The Trustees

Icon Painting, 59, figs. 14-15; W. Grape, Grenzprobleme

Malerei

Armenian

(Dissertation,

17Der Nersessian,

der

1973) 82-85, fig. 38a-b.

S.

Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore:

of the Walters

Art Gallery,

l6Grape, Grenzprobleme,

(Abhandl.

Wien,

1973) 20-21.

79-81, fig. 36a-b.

"Deux Exemples'';

Heidelberger

Akademie

C. Belting-Ihm, Sub Matris tutela

der

Wissensch.

Phil.-hist.

Klasse,

Heidelberg

1976), 68-70 agrees with Der Nersessian stating that the Cilician

miniatures

‘'entstanden

offenbar

unter

franziskanischem

l8pace, Italy and the Holy Land, "The

iconography

Numismatic

of the

Trams

54.

Einfluss."

See also D. Kouymiian,

of King Levon

I," Armenian

Journal, 4 (1978) 67-74.

1?Papageorgiou,

20An

'Coronation'

note

Ikonen aus Zypern, figs. on pp. 21, 36 and &6.

Italian origin for this fashion

was

guessed by Der

Nersessian,

PACE

"Deux

297

Exemples," BAS, 594, on the basis of the reference to a Sienese panel

painting of 1262.

This work, however, clearly testifies to misunderstandings

different

a good

For

materials.

pinacoteca nazionale

colour

Icons

la 'Maniera

and

K. Weitzmann,

oriente

Il Medio

greca,'"

For further

1977) 22-23.

Sagep,

1 (Genova:

di Siena,

P. Torriti, La

see:

illustration

examples of iconographic dependence on the Kykkiotissa, see: "Crusader

of two

since ‘dash"' and "silk scarf" are made

of the original composition,

e l'Occidente

del XIII secolo (ed. H. Belting; C.I.H.A., Atti del XXIV Congresso

nell'arte

Internazionale di Storia dell'arte, Bologna 1979; Bologna:

CLUEB,

1982), 71-

77 esp. 73-74 and P. Santamaria, "La Vergine Kikkiotissa in due icone laziali Roma

del Duecento,'

(Atti della

1300

anno

dell'Università

dell'arte

di

Roma

Roma,

di studi di storia

IV settimana

1981;

Roma:

di

L'Ermä

Bret-

schneider, in press). 21To transmitted

our

present

point,

such a feature

22Grape, Grenzprobleme, 23bid.., 145.

and

the

Holy

dell'Umbria.

(Roma:

Dipinti,

mento

On

enough

that

Cilician

models

of the Sinai icons.

Weitzmann,

the

sculture

"Icon

tritych:

e oggetti

F. d'arte

painting," 82; Pace, "Italy

Santi,

Galleria

nazionale

di età romanica

e gotica

Istituto poligrafico dello Stato, 1969), 37-38. 24M, Boskovits,

Notari

be

passim.

See also:

Land."

it would

to the workshop

(Firenze:

Pittura umbra e marchigiana fra Medioevo e Rinasci-

Edam,

1973) 7-9; M. Boskovits, ""Gli affreschi della sala dei

a Perugia e la pittura umbra

alla fine dei XIII secolo," Bollettino

d'Arte 56 (1981), 1-41 esp. 7-8. 25Grape,

Holy

Grenzprobleme,

144-146,

fig. 77a-b;

Pace,

"Italy

and

the

Land."

26Compare the painterly treatment in the Queen Keran Gospels of the tunics of the apostles Annunciation,

in the Washing

of the Feet, or of the angel in the

with the angel of the Annunciation in the Umbrian triptych; or,

the crysography

of both miniatures

and panel.

27Pace, "Italy and the Holy Land." 28Der

Nersessian,

"Deux

Exemples,"

592

(quoting

G.

Hovsepian,

Colophons des manuscrits, Antelias, 1951 [in Armenian]) was the first scholar to draw the attention of Art Historian to this important reference.

See also:

298

MEDIEVAL

Pace,

"Italy and

parallels between

ARMENIAN

the Holy

CULTURE

Land.!'

Der

Nersessian

points out a number

of

Italy and Cilicia, explaining them as the result of a trend

brought from Italy to Cilicia, in the wider context of historical events, which

testify

to the

Kingdom.

rising

iconographic

themes

tures ciliciennes" 601.

importance

of

the

Western

culture

in the

Cilician

See, among the many works she devoted to Cilician Art, "Western in Armenian

manuscripts,'! (1965), BAS,

(1969), BAS, 509-515;

"Deux

Exemples"

71-94; "Minia-

(1970) BAS, 585-

Once admitted the "contacts! between the two areas, the artistic trends

must not have followed Grenzprobleme,

however

a one-way

and balanced position.

The history of Cilician Armenian

by S. Der Nersessian, "The Kingdom

of Cilician Armenia,"

Crusades, general ed. K. M. Setton (vol. IL eds. R.-L.-Wolff

direction of influences.

passim, has taken, correctly in my opinion, a more

and H. W. Hazard,

University of Wisconsin

has been surveyed A History of the

The Later Crusades.

Madison,

Milwaukee

Press, 1969), 630-659 [repr.:

Grape, cautious

and

1189-1311;

London:

BAS 611-630].

The

PACE

Figure 1

Crucifixion Mount

and

Sinai.

Resurrection. (K. Weitzmann,

Kingdom, Dumbarton

Figure 2

David

playing

1925.

Louvain:

(S. Der

Monastery Icon

of St.

Painting

in the

299

Catherine, Crusader

Oaks Papers 20 (1966) fig. 28)

the harp. Nersessian,

Erznka Etudes

Bible

1268.

byzantines

Editions Peters 1973, fig. 380)

Jerusalem

Ms.

et armeniennes.

300

MEDIEVAL

Figure 3

ARMENIAN

Diptych:

Sinai.

CULTURE

St. Procopius,

(Courtesy

Monastery

of St.

Catherine,

Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria

Mount

Expedition

to

Mt. Sinai)

Figure 4

Diptych:

Sinai.

Virgin with Child.

(Courtesy

Mt. Sinai)

Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria Expedition to

PACE

Figure 5

King Leo II, Queen (Narkiss Jerusalem:

&

Stone, Massada

Keran

& family.

Armenian Press,

Art

1979.

2563, f. 380

Jerusalem Treasures

f. 77)

301

of

Jerusalem,

302

Figure

MEDIEVAL

6

ARMENIAN

Madonna

CULTURE

of the Nativity.

Jerusalem

2563,

9

1121, le

,

184

Figure 7

Madonna

and

Nersessian,

Figure 8

Child.

Etudes

Bruxelles,

byzantines

Stoclet

PACE

303

collection.

(Der

et armeniennes.

f. 367)

Prince Vasak and sons, Virgin of Mercy, enthroned Christ. 2568,

f. 320.

Jerusalem.

(Narkiss

p. 69)

& Stone,

Armenian

Art

Treasures

Jer. of

304

MEDIEVAL

Figure 9

ARMENIAN

Narzolini

triptych.

CULTURE

Perugia,

(Carlo Fiorucci, Perugia)

Galleria

nazionale

dell'Umbria.

Figure 10

Triptych:

Angel

nazionale

dell'Umbria.

of

the

Annunciation.

(Carlo Fiorucci,

PACE

305

Perugia,

Galleria

Perugia)

VASPURAKAN

MANUSCRIPT

ILLUMINATION

ELEVENTH-CENTURY

AND

SOURCES

Alice Taylor

Institute of Fine Arts (NYU)

In the

two

centuries

manuscript

painting

purakan.

Hundreds

fifteenth-century

following

flourished of

the Mongol

in the southern

manuscripts

Vaspurakan.l

have

No

invasions

Armenian

survived

manuscripts

from

with

of Asia

Minor,

province

of Vas-

fourteenth-

illuminations

and

can

be

attributed by colophon to Vaspurakan between the early eleventh and the late thirteenth centuries; this may merely indicate that the manuscripts

in the

Seljuk

period

were

all destroyed.

Scholars

have

produced

maintained

that

traditions of manuscript illuminations survived unbroken from the eleventh to the fourteenth

centuries.

Lilit Zakarjan undertook

to trace such a survival,

basing her study on a group of manuscripts made in K'ajberuni from 1316.2

She showed that this group depends on an eleventh-century model and

concluded eleventh-

that

a

local

tradition

in

and the fourteenth-century

A fourth

manuscript

the exact

manuscript

relationship

illumination

linked

the

Vaspurakan.

dependent

may join the K'aÿberuni group. detail

1296 to

on the same

eleventh-century

In establishing this, I will consider between

the eleventh-

model

in more

and fourteenth-century

manuscripts, and suggest that the fourteenth-century copies do not come of a local tradition, but copy a very unfamiliar The

Metropolitan

Museum

in New

illumination on both sides (figs. 1 and 2).

figures, but the fragment

carries

indication

The

of provenance.

no

York

owns

a single

Captions in Armenian

other

out

model.

text, and there

folio finds close

folio

with

identify the

is no external

parallels in the eleventh-

century.

T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

Texts

Medieval and

Studies

pp. 306 to 314.

306

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

TAYLOR

307

The shorter dimension of the page is the height of the illustration and the longer dimension, its width.

Bound in a codex of normal proportions, the

picture would be sideways, with the spine of the book running along the feet of the figures.

Since the feet in both illustrations fall to the same edge of

the folio, when the page is turned, rotating the folio around the spine of the book, the other

side comes

out upside down.

À rather large group of eleventh-century Armenian Gospel manuscripts has illustrations laid oùt in the same

way.

These illuminations form a cycle

illustrating major events in the life of Christ, preceding the canon-tables and the text

of the Gospels,

which

are

mounted

The orientation of the pictures means

in the usual, vertical

that turning from

fashion.

one illustration to

the next requires turning the whole book around.

The fragment in New

York (henceforth

the Metropolitan fragment)

very closely resembles a folio from one of these manuscripts,

Matenadaran, its preface

a Gospel made in 1038.4

cycle.

Metropolitan

The last of these

Museum.

It includes

Four folios carry the eight scenes of folios corresponds

to the page

The scene at the tomb is the rarer of the

Christ, three women,

and two

apostles.

À combination

any two of these elements would be surprising; all three occur

in this manuscript

in the

Recto shows the resurrected Christ at the tomb, and

verso, four standing Evangelists. two.

No. 6201 of the

of

together only

and in its copies.£

This scene in the Gospel of 1038 does not correspond to any particular

Gospel text.

Rather, it compiles elements of all four accounts, straining the

structure of the pictorial narrative to give as explicit a demonstration of the reality of the resurrection as possible without contradicting the Gospel story. As in Mark

16:1, three women

which they intend

on which

two

John 20:12.

tomb

as

Matthew tomb.

to annoint

related Christ

in John

alone

The women

look to the tomb,

Two angels figure in Luke

24:4, and in

stand two men, the two apostles who visit the

20:3-10,

mentions

the tomb, carrying the spices with

Christ's body.

angels are perched.

Below the women

28:4

approach

the

but

not

sleeping

in any guards,

really has no part in the narrative

of the who

other

appear

Gospels. below

the

at this point, since the

mortals are to visit the tomb and leave without concrete

proof that he has

risen. The artist has managed to include elements from differing versions of the story without allowing them to conflict.

The three women,

who should

arrive at the empty tomb alone, see only the angels, as do the apostles. 24

The

308

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

angels look past these figures to Christ; they see him, but the other figures Unlike the standard images of the discovery of the empty tomb,

do not.

illustration

this

Christ,/

include

not

do

which

resurrection

the

reveals

explicitly. the insertion of several separate incidents

device,

This compositional

into one space, most distinguishes the Gospel of 1038, since this miniature, Most of the for all its rarity, does have ties to east Christian tradition. do occur,

elements

at the tomb

with the women

already appears in the

Christ meeting two

Syriac Gospels of 586, where the monk Rabula included in the same landscape with the two women

women

of the two scenes

connection

the resurrection

tomb clearly

more

directly than the scene

It occurs

alone.

a juxtaposition

traditional

than

a common

became

at the tomb.8

moments

the conflation

This close

Syrian device for showing

of the discovery of the empty

in the frescoes of Aft'amar.l0 as well. of two

the

Even

and Syrian iconography.

singly, in Armenian

of Christ

combination

in the

narrative,

of the Gospel of 1038.

But this is

and

thus

more

That the Gospel of

1038 departed radically from the norms of medieval Armenian iconography is demonstrated

The

Gospel of 1038. retained

tomb

simplified

of John.

fragment

in New

Clearly, the artist was

the composition

the open

by later artists.

by its reception

Metropolitan

is a later

version

of the

with his model;

he

of the Gospel of 1038, with the angels perched on

at the upper

the narrative

York

uncomfortable

left and

Christ

by representing

standing at the right, but

only two

moments

he

from the Gospel

The two men preceding Christ at the tomb are the two apostles of

John 20:4-9.

The second is labelled ‘'Petros!' in agreement with the text.

The

Gospel does not identify the first apostle to arrive at the tomb, but he was commonly taken to be John, as he is labelled here (Yovhannes).

In the Gospel

according to John, a moment later, Mary, after meeting the angels where she is expected tomb. to this

to find Christ's body, turns her back on the two angels and the

She appears in the illumination just below the tomb. figure

reads

kuysn

'the

virgin."

Although

account clearly shows this person to be Mary

The caption next

the

Magdelene,

context

of John's

the verses

actually

illustrated (John 20:11-14) do call her simply Mary, and it was fairly common

to mistake

her

for the Virgin

Mary.ll

divided in his response to a venerable as

he could

of the

composition;

changed details to conform

The creator

old manuscript.

however,

of the fragment

was

He retained as much

he consciously

and

deliberately

to the single text he had chosen and to simplify

La

TAYLOR

the space in the composition.

Metropolitan

fragment,

309

Even so, to fully understand the image of the

the

viewer

must

look

at

different

events

simul-

taneously, but the consecutive moments of John's narrative have been spread

out to minimalize

the problems

of the Gospel of 1038.

The Gospel of 1038 and the other eleventh-century which it can be grouped!2 are all large codices.

is smaller

(19 x 29 cm.

harmonies

of the eleventh-century

Metropolitan where

Its very

fragment

brightly

may

colored

be

sparse indication of setting.

the

published

fragment

may

(Matenadaran

were

artists,

have come

contrast

with

the

in fourteenth-century

usually

from

but

painted

the same

the

subtle

On stylistic grounds, the on

Vaspurakan,

blank

paper

It is not possible to assign the page

Vaspurakan

a Gospel

bright colors manuscripts.l3

placed

figures

manuscripts with

The Metropolitan fragment

creator

of

the

to any of

Metropolitan

circle as Melk'isedek, who

No. 4813) in Berkri in 1338.14

with

painted

In that manuscript,

Melk'isedek used decorative motifs very similar to those of the Metropolitan

fragment,

including

the draperies

the elongated,

decorated

with

angular braid pattern of the frame,

simple

scratches

and

circles.

If the

and

Metro-

politan fragment was produced around Berkri, it joins the group of copies of the

Gospel

of

copies—Xat'er

simply

1038

that

chronology.

similarities exclsuion

In

of the

published.

publishing

three

Gospels

them, to

that characterize

Metropolitan

creators

of

between

the model

the circumstances

fragment—dealt

with

and at roughly the same

the

concentrated

eleventh-century

All three of the later artists—Xa@'er,

Vaspurakan,

The

Zakarjan

their

of the significant divergences

differences place.

Zakarjan

these

and Yovsian—also adjusted it, changing the events depicted to

in which

on

model

the

to the

and the copies,

the copying took

Yovsian and the creator of the

same

model,

in the

same

area

of

time, but they did so independently.

In the Gospel of 1294, Matenadaran No. 4814 (fig. 3), XaË'er replaced the complex overlapping of time and space easy

to

read

evidently

moment;

two

in a group,

resurrected

Christ.

at

the

Xat'er

present one moment.

women

empty

tomb

No.

4818

shows

John

and

Peter,

arrive,

They

look

past

the

angels

to

tomb.

This violence to the text demonstrates

Yovsian produced and

with

him

the

has given up all fidelity to the Gospel texts to

puzzling the Gospel of 1038 was of 1306

in the Gospel of 1038 with one

together

how extremely

to Xac'er.

two nearly identical Gospels, Matenadaran of 1316.15

to

have

His treatment

been

just

as

No. 4806

of the discovery

uncomfortable

of the

with

the

:

310

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

iconography of the Gospel of 1038 as Xa'er or the artist of the Metropolitan

fragment.

Yovsian's

does XaË'er's,

solution differs from

but preserves

the model

more

drastically

than

the meaning of the Gospel texts (fig. 4).

He

broke the scene into separate episodes in order to resolve an ambiguous scene into familiar

components.

In his version, only Mary

She faces him in the upper right corner.

Magdelene

sees Christ.

John 20:14 says that she turned her

back on the angels to see Christ, and so they are behind her. and Mary stand two women.

as in Matthew

Below Christ

28:1, facing away from the tomb.

Peter and John are properly alone as they investigate the tomb (here rather

quaintly filled with the dead). These

three

misunderstandings, both

adduced

provenance

variations

on

the

eleventh-century

but separate revisions.

twelfth-

and

Zakarjan

thirteenth-century

model

are

and H. Hakobyan

manuscripts

of

not

have

uncertain

as evidence of a continuous local tradition linking the Gospel of

1038 to early fourteenth-century Vaspurakan.l6

There may have been some

tie (besides that of the copying itself) between the eleventh-century Gospels and fourteenth-century Vaspurakan, format

of

However, there

the

pages—was

the evidence

indicated

by

the

of 1038

in

many

dearth

of

Vaspurakan

had to grapple

break late

in local artistic eleventh-,

manuscripts.

with his model

alone

of 1038 was not copied in K'aÿberuni before research

should

show

manuscripts.l7

of 1038

indicates

that

production—exactly

twelfth-,

and

early

as

thir-

Each artist who copied the Gospel

without the aid of a developed local tradition. More

Vaspurakan

of the copies of the Gospel

had been a significant

teenth-century

since their most distinctive feature—the

adopted

to what

and devise

his own

solution,

This suggests that the Gospel

1294. extent

this pattern

is repeated

elsewhere in Vaspurakan from the end of the thirteenth century, but evidence

already

available

points to a break in traditions of manuscript

before this period:

illumination

Vaspurakan painting, as it appears in the late thirteenth

and early fourteenth centuries, breaks down into many local schools.

Der

Nersessian

focused

on

the schools

further noted that the independence

of Van and

Xizan;l8

of Arceë, Ostan, Ait'amar,

Sirarpie

Hakobyan

has

Batéë, Varag,

and Xlat' and other highly localized iconographies coincides with the evidence

provided by copies of the Gospel of 1038.1? deal of activity in manuscript

illumination

There was in Vaspurakan a great in the late thirteenth

and early

fourteenth centuries, but this activity did not spring from local tradition.

It

was not until the many small schools of Vaspurakan coalesced later during the

TAYLOR

fourteenth

century that a new

local canon

311

developed.

NOTES

ÎH. Hakobyan, SSH

GA,

Vaspurakani

manrankarë'ut'yuné

(Erevan:

Haykakan

"1976)M06.

2L. Zakarjan,

ArmSSR,

IZ

Istorii

Vaspurakanskoj

Miniatjury

(Erevan:

AN

1980) 14-35.

ÎThe best discussion literature,

of the group,

is that of B. Narkiss,

B. Narkiss

and

M.

Stone;

with a good survey of the earlier

Armenian

Jerusalem:

Art Treasures

Massada

Press,

of Jerusalem

1979)

(eds.

36-40.

The

manuscripts are treated more fully, but somewhat fancifully, by T. Izmajlova, Armjanskaja

Miniatjura

Hzmajlova,

XI Veka (Moscow:

XI Veka,

47-64

with

Iskusstvo,

the older

1979) 47-102.

literature.

Sbid., pls. 28 and 29. 6E. Kirschbaum,

ographie (Rome:

‘Frauen

Herder,

am

Grab,'

Lexikon

der

Christlichen

Ikon-

1970) 2, 54-62.

Tlbid. &c.

Graf-Verlag,

Cecchelli,

1959)

The

Rabbula

unnumbered

Gospels

plate

labelled

(Otten

fol.

and

Manuscrits syriaques à Peintures (Paris: Paul Geunthner, ?Leroy, Manuscrits 105.

bridge:

(and

Der

Lausanne:

13a, and

Urs

J. Leroy,

Les

1964) pl. 32.

syriaques, pls. 79 and 93.

Nersessian,

Aghtamar:

Church

of the

Holy

Cross

(Cam-

Harvard University Press, 1965) pl. 67, just visible in the lower right

mislabelled

Vahramian,

‘"Harrowing

Aght'amar

of

hell"),

and

S.

(Documenti di Architettura

Der

Nersessian

Armena

8; Milan:

and

H.

Edizioni

Ares, 1974) pl. 58, lower left. 117. Appearance

Breckenridge,

''Et

Prima

of Christ to His Mother,"

l2Narkiss,

Jerusalem,

Vidit':

The

Iconography

of

the

Art Bulletin, 39 (1957) 13.

36.

l3lbid., pls. 49-51, and Izmajlova, XI Veka, pls. 24-29, 38, 40, 42,

45-46.

312

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

14H, Hakobyan,

Grol,

CULTURE

Armenian

Miniature:

1978) pl. 20 [in Armenian, 157akarjan,

reproduced,

Vaspurakan

(Erevan, Sovetakan

Russian, and English].

Vaspurakanskoj

Miniatjury,

84 and 87.

Only No.

4818

is

pl. 14.

l6jbid., 10-11,

and Hakobyan,

Vaspurakani

manrankar&'ut'yunë,

19:

17Hakobyan, Armenian Miniatures, pls. 11, 19, 20-22, 27-29. l8The

Chester

Beatty

Library:

À Catalog

of the

scripts (Dublin, Figgis and Co., 1958) xxxiii-xxxix. 12Hakobyan,

Vaspurakani

Manrankarc'ut'yuné,

67.

Armenian

Manu-

TAYLOR

Fig. 1.

and

New

Peter

York,

at

Vaspurakan

the

Metropolitan

tomb

with

Museum

Christ

of Art, 57.185.3.

and

(Deposited by J. C. Burnett,

two

angels,

313

The Virgin, John

fourteenth

1957, Metropolitan

century.

Museum

of Art

photo).

Fig.

2.

New

Evangelists,

York,

Metropolitan

Museum

fourteenth

century,

Vaspurakan

1957, Metropolitan Museum

of Art photo).

of Art,

57.185.3,

(Deposited

by

verso.

J.

C.

Four

Burnett,

314

MEDIEVAL

Fig. 3.

Erevan,

women

encounter

ARMENIAN

Matenadaran,

Christ

and

CULTURE

No. 4814,

two

fol. 6.

John,

angels at the tomb,

Peter

and

two

1294, Argelan,

Xat'ër (after Lilit Zakarjan, Iz Istorii Vaspurakanskoj Miniatjury (Erevan:

ArmSSR,

Fig. 4.

Holy

artist

AN

1980) fig. 13).

Erevan, Matenadaran,

No. 4818, fol. 11 verso.

John and Peter at the

tomb, two angels, Mary encountering the risen Christ, and two Holy Women, 1316, Hazarakn,

artist Yovsian (after Lilit Zakarjan, Iz Ist®rii Vaspurakansko);

Miniatjury (Erevan, AN ArmSSR,

1980) fig. 14).

EVIDENCE THE

OF ARMENIAN ILLUMINATIONS FROM

THE

RUG-MAKING

ON

OF ARMENIAN

SEVENTH

THE

BASIS OF

MANUSCRIPTS

TO FOURTEENTH

CENTURIES =

Viken

Sassouni

. X

University of Pittsburgh

Introduction With the exception of the Pasyrik rug, dated to the sixth century B.C. and uncovered

by Rudchenko

from

has survived

Armenia

and fourteenth

centuries,

This hiatus

in 1949 in mounds

of Altai, no earlier

AD.

is in part attributable

to the accidental

Pasyrik and to the fragility of textiles in general. unearthed

from

the

knotted rugs were Schurmann

carpet

other than rare samples dated to the thirteenth

excavation

being made recently

of

Erebuni

toward

and

elsewhere,

the fifth century,

attributed

the

freezing of the

Small fragments have been

weaving

proving

that

AD.

of the

Pasyrik

rug

populations living in the sixth century, BC, in the Armenian Plateau.l it was

established

that

knotted

rugs

Were

probably

made

to

Thus,

as early as the

eighth century, BC and that there was a continuity of weaving these rugs to the present

day.

During centuries

the

only

Armenians

period

indirect

were

extending

evidence

rug-weavers

large degree these come

from

from

has

without

the

been

seventh

quoted

interruption

to

to

the

fourteenth

establish

that

during this period.

the To a

travelers and historians of the time.

The Arab historian Ibu Kaldoun wrote that in the eighth century rugs were Marco

given as payment

T. Samuelian Pennsylvania 1983.

of taxes

by Armenia

Polo, passing through Armenia

pp.

& M. Stone, eds. Armenian

Texts

to the

Caliph

of Baghdad.2

at the end of the thirteenth

Medieval and Studies

315 to 328.

315

Armenian Culture. 6).

Chico,

CA:

century,

(University of Scholars

Press,

316

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

reports that it was the Armenians

"the

finest

beautiful

and

most

and very

beautiful

and the Greeks in Turkomania

rugs

rich silk cloth

in the

world"

of many

not

colors!

who wove

to mention

whereas

‘very

the Turkomans

were a "simple people" who lived in the mountains of the Anatolian plateau.

The Arab geographer Yakout, writing in the thirteenth century (1229) after having defined

the geographical

the city of Van, indicates

Thus

it was

handicraft

established

and home

More

position and that

woven

rug-weaving

industry during the middle

precise documents fourteenth

dependency

was

an

active

Armenian

ages.

and fifteenth

paintings in Italy, made

centuries.

during the

Artists of the time, such as

Holbein, reproduced with great precision of detail oriental rugs which highly appreciated

as rare luxury items, thus permitting

It is a similar Armenian

manuscript

type of source

that

illuminations

a source

Armenian and oriental rugs.

as

this study for

this

material

shows

were

a precise dating.

will concentrate the

on:

documentation

of

As direct examination of these manuscripts was

not possible, in this report only published sources are utilized. of

of

there?

about the existence and nature of Anatolian

rugs are to be found in the Renaissance thirteenth,

administrative

that large rugs were

that

only

about

reproduced out of a total store of 20,000.

200-250

A rapid survey

manuscripts

have

been

Their author's criteria of selection

for publication being unspecified (some for their style, some for their beauty

and degree of preservation), the present review should be considered only as preliminary

There

due to uncertainties

are

investigated

from

illuminations

and

General

1.

rugs;

of sampling

areas

manuscript

composition

decorations, Actual

five

where

the

techniques.

study

illuminationst

2. Illustrations

of a page,

of

rug-making

can

1. Dye

similarities

between

of actual

its parallel

rug-making

in rug

especially borders similarities between

illustrations of rugs in the illuminated

design;

be

processes;

3.

4. Details

of

illumination and rugs; 5.

pages.

Dye similarities Although

illumination

and

rug-making

have

their

own

technical

dictates, a large number of colors used in both have similar hues and probably derive

from

similar

dye sources.

There are some

obvious differences:

foil either as an undercoat

to make

simply directly as a main color.

The use in illuminations of gold

the colors more

responsive

to light or

There are greater freedoms in illumination

SASSOUNI

317

design than in rug-making due simply to the technical dictates of warp, woof and knotting imposed There

harmful

by weaving.

are also certain

to

wool's

manuscripts.

dyes (like the dark brown or black) which are

modulus

On

of

the other

elasticity

hand,

there

but are

not

to

certain

the

parchment

mineral

of

powdered

and

mixed with a suspension media which were used in illuminations, but were not really dyes which

could be applied to wool.

À recent that

most

chemical

analysis of dyes used from

of the dyes were

sources

such

as

Karmir,

Madder

Other

Lapis roots

studies

extracted

Lazuli

and

from

Indigo

similar

for

the

manuscripts# vegetable

blues,

Red

reveals

or

mineral

lake,

Vortan

for the reds, etc.?

are

still needed

for direct

comparison.

However,

at

first glance there is no important discrepancy between the manuscript palette

and the one

of the rugs with

derived form natural sources

Armenian

inscription,

and not, as after

as long as these were

1850, from aniline and chrome

dyes.6

2e

Illustration The

of actual rug-making

Armenian

tations of people: common etc.

illuminations

their dress, their occupations.

to find wine-making,

Among

process

often include

these

on their margin,

represen-

In this last category, it is

hunting, fishing, navigating, building, warring,

occupations

the weaver's

arts are

relatively

frequently

illustrated./

LS

General

Others

composition

have

mentioned

a door

of a church,

certain

compositional

with

Armenian

larities

with

a prayer

rug with

that the design of a manuscript page,

binding

characteristics

inscriptions

those

before

an elaborate

have

the

of illuminated

similar

of a book,

in common. border

pages.

composition

treatments

(Fig. 2a, Note

as rugs,

which

share

the frame;

simi-

Fig. 2b,

in the composition of the

The frontispiece of the illumination in Fig. 4a is designed with oblique

arms dividing the field which is filled by fantastic creatures.8 to the "Armenian

Dragon-Rug"

in Fig. 4b:

very similar, as is the choice of colors. the

have

as 2a.)

In other cases there are close resemblances field.

as well

It is interesting that rugs

attribution

to

Armenians

of

the

‘the composition

Compare this of the field is

This type of similarity may explain dragon-rugs,

of

which

the

seven-

318

MEDIEVAL

teenth-century

Koher

In another Dragon-Phoenix China. 10

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Rug, with its Armenian

frontispiece, (Fig.

Compare

5a)

there

is a naturalistic

probably

this

to

the

inscription,

brought

representation

through

fourteenth-

or

is a derivative.?

the

of the

silk-road

from

fifteenth-century

com-

partmented rug from the Berlin Museum, attributed to Armenians of Anatolia (Fig. 5b).

The Dragon-Phoenix struggle here has evolved a geometric style.ll

One derivative of the dragon-rugs in the nineteenth century is the Chelabert Armenian

Karabagh

manuscript 4.

rug

(Fig.

3b).

Compare

its

composition

with

the

in Fig. 3a.l2

Details of decoration There

found

are

many

in Armenian

detailed

details in the decorations of illuminations

rugs.

decoration

(Fig. 3a, note

of the columns;

details

on

Fig. 7a, note

which are

the cross;

Fig. 4a, note

decoration

of the chair.)

Some are seen in the border treatment; others are found in the rug designs typically associated with Armenian inscription, like birds, church floor plans, flowers,

crosses,

Early

geometric,

etc.13

illuminations

angular

Armenian rugs.

of the

style

very

ninth

close

to

and

tenth

Caucasian

centuries

and

have

certain

a clear

Anatolian

Later on, the Armenian illuminations show a strong tendency

to curvilinear decoration and naturalistic representations of humans,

animals

and plants. D,

rugs

Direct

rug reproductions

There

are

are

a certain

represented.

number

There

of Armenian

are

several

illuminations

types

of

rugs

where which

actual can

be

distinguished. a.

Rugs underfoot

of apostles,

saints

and

the Virgin

These rugs which are frequently represented, seem

they usually have a single border

made

to be stereotyped;

of geometric designs in subdivided

squares, surrounding a plain field, often blue or red.

Rarely a fringe is seen,

which may even raise a question as to the real nature of what is represented. On the other

which

seem

hand, there are a number

to

have

these

same

surrounded by a simple and single border. design,

are more

individualistic

of rugs with Armenian

characteristics—plain

field,

inscriptions

red-orange,

Others, also small rugs with trellis

(Fig. 6a); (compare

Armenian rugs with similar designs (Fig. 6b)).

with nineteenth-century

b,

Saddle

here are frequent.

horizontal-striped Armenian

Fringes

material,

these rugs have a

design which is not usually associated

In much

with those bearing

inscriptions that either

and sixteenth

are represented seated on saddle rugs.

Although there is no way to affirm that they are pile-rugs

than kilims.

conclude

319

rugs

Most of the horsemen rather

SASSOUNI

in

of the published

the

nineteenth

century.

One

would

therefore

those designs with stripes existed during the fifteenth

centuries,

disappeared and then were replaced by new designs

in the nineteenth century; or that those saddle rugs were imported from other ethnic groups. L4

(Es

Full rug representation

There are finally some illuminations which illustrate actual rugs whose designs have been transmitted to the end of the nineteenth century. Gospel

of

Xizanl5

the

rug

spread

under

the

Virgin's

characteristics of the "Mina Khani'" design (Fig. 7a). Armenian

has

Compare

In the all the

it with the

Karabagh rug with a "Mina Khani'' design dated 1904 and inscribed

in Armenian (Fig. 7b). Another example

is

found

Romance.lé

as

an

decorated Kazak

feet

Alexander

in

the

infant

with latchhook rosettes (Fig. 8a).

dated

manuscript

is represented

Compare

of

the

on

a

Alexander

rug

entirely

it with the Armenian

1896 with similar design and colors (Fig. 8b).

Conclusions

From

these

few

examples

one

is impressed

by the parallelism

and

similarities between Armenian illuminations and rugs from areas inhabited by Armenians.

While

the profusion

those of the Mogul or Persian

of rug illustrations

manuscripts

does not compare

of the same

period, one

realize that their manuscripts were mostly court-commanded luxury and courtly magnificence

The

theme.

most

frequent

Furthermore

monasteries

where

there these

were

products where

to be glorified.

Armenian

was

manuscripts

a real

manuscripts

tradition were

had

primarily

of austerity

composed.

The

peoples, dwelling mostly in rural villages, led simple and austere domineering ostentation

to

should

a religious

among

the

surrounding

lives.

The

Islamic population had taught the minority populations to avoid or any visible indication

of wealth.

In spite of all these limitations shedding new

the illuminations being published are

light on the rug-maker's craft and products.

320

MEDIEVAL

more

Yet become

available

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

manuscripts

of the 20,000

as more

be expected

light can

in published sources.

*Viken Sassouni died while these proceedings were in preparation. On behalf of the conference participants, the editors and convenors wish to express

their grief at the loss of a valued colleague

and friend.

NOTES IU. Schurmann,

NM

"The Pasyrik Rug," Lecture to Armenian

Rug Society,

Sept-.1982: 2A. Sarkissian, Two Studies on Armenian

Armenian

Review

33 (1980) 1-2 [first published

Rugs (trans. L. Amirian) The

19291.

3lbid. EM. Orno & T. F. Mathews, "Pigment Analysis of the Glajor Gospel of U.C.L.A.,"

Studies

in Conservation

35, Dilanian,

astan (1979) 6H.

Review

11:

"Vordan

2 (1982) 7:

Hayastan, are

Yovhannes)

Cochineal]

Sovetakan

Hay-

"Natural

Dyes

in Caucasian

Oriental

Rug

Rugs,"

25-26.

7A. Kevorkian,

methods

Karmir'" [Warm-red,

12-14.

Bedankian,

(Erevan:

26 (1981) 57-72.

The

Craft

and

1983) plates

1) thread

Mode

24-25

twisting

(M.

of Life in Armenian

[In Armenian]. 4223,

la

1401,

2) spinning (M. 4818, la 1316—Hazarka,

weaving (M. 5472, 516-52a—16th

century Rome.

The

Miniatures

three

Xizan,

major

Gospel

by

Gospel by Xaë'ër) 3)

(Bishop Zakaria Alexander

Romance).

8L. Durnovo, 1960) 125, 127.

Miniatures

arméniennes

(Paris:

Editions Cercle d'Art,

Ms. of the middle 13th century by T'oros Roslin and Gospel

of 1316, virgin spinning wool. 9Sarkissian, "Two 10Durnovo,

IIN, Fokker,

1979) 42.

Studies,"

Miniatures,

Caucasian

1-2.

127.

Rugs of Yesterday (London:

Allen

& Unwin,

SASSOUNI

12H. & H. Buschhausen, Mekhitarist

Congregation

fig. 168. [Hymnal, 13v.

The Illuminated Armenian

of Vienna (Vienna:

Mekhitarist

321

Manuscripts of the Press, 1977) pl. 60,

Lake Van, 16th cent.]l.

Sassouni,

'"'Armenian

Rugs,'

The

Armenian

Review

(1980)

#4:

383-411.

l#Durnovo, Miniatures, 159 [Gospel of 1332}; 167 [Gospel of 1397]; 170 [Hymnal

1482];

183 [Alexander

Romance,

16th centuryl;

99 [Gospel,

mid-

thirteenth century]. 5H.

Hakopian,

Armenian

Miniatures

of Vaspurakan

akan Grol, 1978) pl. 6 [Evangelist Mark Gospel, Annunciation,

Gospel

l6B. Narkiss

Rochelle, 1536].

NY:

15th century, & M. Stone,

Caratzas

Bros.,

Xizan

Armenian

(Erevan:

1303, Arcesk

Sovet-

pl. 56 [The

Rug]. Art Treasures

1979) pl. 127

[The

of Jerusalem

Alexander

(New

Romance

of

322

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Fig.

1.

Illustration

rug-making.

Notice

stretched. Rome, The

Fig.

(Manuscript

Bishop Craft,

2a.

The

of

church. 1303.

Zakarian

pl.

illumination section

15th

being cent.

Kevorkian,

total

frame

represents a typical

Gospel

warp

25.)

(Manuscript

Hakopian,

of actual

the

of Mark

Armenian

of

the

a vertical

Armenian

of Arèeë of after

Minatures,

pl.

6)

SASSOUNI

Fig.

2b.

Mihrab 2a.

(Private

Fig.

3a.

wings

Hymnal Ms.

A Caucasian

similar

to

À central

radiating

of Van.

Buschhausen,

pl.

rug with

a prayer

illumination

in

Collection.)

cross

(Cross

1l6th

Mekhitarist,

Vienna,

the

323

Vienna,

Armenian

60).

of

cent.

with

angel's

Navakalik,

in Armenian. after

Manuscripts

of

324

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Fig.

3b.

from

Karabagh.

cruciform (Private

Fig.

An Armenian

design

4a.

The

by oblique

after

12)

rug

central

arms

radiating.

frontispiece is

blue fill

(Manuscript 13th

with

the

Collection.)

illumination

creatures

"Chelabert"

Notice

arms. the

of the

century: Durnovo,

of this

sub-divided

Canon

boldly

Fantastic

sub-divided

field.

second

of

of

half

the

Concordance

Miniatures

arméniennes,

SASSOUNI

Fig.

4b.

À "Dragon

to Armenians and

18th

divided

arms. are

Rug"

in the

of

in combat.

4a.

of

the

(Courtesy

17th field

and

golden

subdivisions the

Notice

of design

frontispiece

the

blue

resulting

representations

similarity

l6th,

Notice

by intersecting

Phoenix

attributed

15th,

centuries.

In the

Fig.

325

and

Dragon

and

the

colors

illumination of the

with in

Textile

Museum. )

Fig. of

5a.

the

inspired the

A naturalistic

Dragon-Phoenix

from

Silk-Road.

illumination

after

O1d

China

and

brought

Frontispiece from

Armenian

1952) pl. 35.

representation

struggle,

Cilicia,

of

probably

through an

1288,

Manuscripts

(Erevan,

326

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Fig.

5b.

A l4th

attributed The

Fig.

6a.

The

light

borders.

L'Art

arménien

Fig.

6b.

design

as

rug

underfoot

has

(Paris:

Art

Kazak

in Fig.

(Private

ue

geometric

Museum

after

a trellis

6a.

rug dated

In

Graphiques,

1884

Collection.)

is

(AMI)

on

century from

a clear

with

Rugs,

field

Nersessian:

1977)

L

in

(Berlin

Caucasian

Der

rug

Anatolia.

represented

style.

Fokker,

design

century.

et Metiers

An Armenian

15th

Dragon-Phoenix

linear

(Manuscript of 12th

or

to Armenians

pl.

126.)

a similar

and

42.)

SASSOUNI

Fig.

7a.

The

trellis

design

(Gospel

of

Fig.

7b.

Notice

the

"Varsenig

Annunciation. called

Xizan.

In

An Armenian date

1904,

SAHAGIAN."

“Mina

The

Kevorkian,

Karabagh and

large

Khani."

the

(Harold

rug

underfoot

Notice

Armenian

Rug with Armenian

the

inscription

pl.

"Mina which

Collection,

the

typical

spinning

Manuscripts,

a typical

Bedoukian's

has

Virgin

327

wool.

56.)

Khaii" reësd

Montreal.)

design.

328

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

dt Foie tte +

Fig.

8a.

Alexander

latchhooks.

Armenian

(The

Treasures

at

his

Romance

of

birth of

is

stretched

Alexander.

Jerusalem,

In

on

a rug

Narkiss

with

typical

& Stone,

127.) Éhis Dre

&

.

:

sx N* 3 è

YA +n RDA m6

Fig.

8b.

and

color

An Armenian palette

as

Kazak

dated

in Fig.

8a.

1896

with

(Private

a very

similar

Collection.)

design

THE

KAFFA

MANUSCRIPT THE

DESERT, Nira

Hebrew

manuscript

in Jerusalem.

University

of Jerusalem

of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

no. 285 of the Library of the Armenian

It was written

Monastery of St. Anthony. physical format.

LIVES OF

Stone

I wish to present the manuscript of Egypt,

OF THE

FATHERS

in 1430

C.E.

in Kaffa

Patriarchate

in the Crimea

in the

Its substantial content is parallel to its substantial

It numbers

823 paper pages

measuring

2.7 x 18 x 9 cms.

The script is a transitional bolorgir-notragir in black ink with the titles and the names

of the saints written in red.

in two columns.

it has been repaired at some

The manuscript a further

Each

page has 37 lines of writing,

The book is in a fairly good state of preservation, although points and there is worm

damage

at others.

contains 38 full or half-page miniature paintings and

500 or so small illustrations which decorate

the text.

These are

chiefly heads or groups of heads related to the stories in the corresponding

text (fig. 1).1 The Crimea fourteenth and

western

their

art.

Italian

tribution,

was a cross-roads

and fifteenth

The Venetian

character,

while

centuries and

and firmly established

there,

Armenians

active

formed

a meeting colonies

Byzantium

point for eastern brought

made

also contributed

their

with

them

own

con-

not a little to the This was also

art which, naturally, developed in this well-to-do

community.

in the

There

ferment

of

a foreign colony second

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

pp.

and

proximity

T. Samuelian

1983.

Genovese

the various cultures and artistic traditions.

true of the local Armenian

colony

and

Greece

the Russian

contacts between

of cultures of the busiest kind in the

and formed

Texts

Medieval and

Studies

329 to 342. 522

was

a very

international

significant

commerce

Armenian

and

the

in size only to the Greeks.2

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

330

MEDIEVAL

According

ARMENIAN

to the

CULTURE

colophon

illuminated by the monk Thaddeus

in Kaffa.

of our

manuscript,

Avramec'

it was

in the monastery

written

and

of St. Anthony

He tells how he carried out extensive scientific research in order

to locate the most appropriate texts to include in the composition which we now possess.

He relates his search for the best texts in Armenian and, when

he did not find them, he searched them as well.

among

the Greek texts and copied from

He illuminated and illustrated the whole so that the painting

would attract and give pleasure to the reader? Now,

abundance

Armenian

from

illuminated.

A

fruitless—no

texts

of the

earlier periods, search

among

Lives

of the

not

a single

but similar

Desert

copy

manuscripts

Fathers

exist

known

in Greek

to

was

us

in

is

equally

manuscript was found which might have served as an examplar

for Avramec!'s

rich and artistic illuminations,

highly creative.

which

are highly original and

This accords with the painter's own witness in the colophon.

The possibility always exists that the copyist of our manuscript copied the colophon and that Avramec', instead of being an energetic researcher was only a very

faithful

on this point.*

copyist.

There

is a measure

of scholarly disagreement

One thing seems quite incontrovertable—he

talented painter, even

if he copied his paintings from

On this point, one further small detail may be added:

some

was an extremely lost exemplars.

in the Library of the

Mekhitarist Fathers in Venice there are, still unpublished, a number containing

illuminations

they survive.?

almost

Professor of the copy.

where

Der Nersessian directed my attention to them

is of the opinion that Avramec' the accuracy

of pages

identical to those in our manuscript, also painted them.

Thus, the discomfort

Her evidence

and

for this is

of the figure seated on the

chair recurs in both manuscripts, a clear indication, in her opinion, that both

were painted by the same artist (fig. 2). Yet,

created

we

may

question

whether

Avramec',

the total corpus of illuminations

so great an artist that he

in the Jerusalem

manuscript,

was

still able to make copies so slavishly exact as the Venice pages, in which no hint of creativity can be discerned. things:

However, one might postulate one of two

(1) that his rigorous training as a scribe prepared him for these two

seemingly incompatible activities; or (2) that one of his apprentices did it, hinting at the existence return

of an unknown

atelier, a subject to which we will

later.

The

originality

of the

illuminations

in our

manuscript

enhances

its

intrinsic value while at the same time creating those problems that generally

N. STONE

331

accompany such uniqueness. We often feel some discomfort where we are suddenly confronted by an artistic work that does not belong, at first glance, to

any

readily

recognizable

always tend to search

the

more

creation

so

when

which

school,

style,

the

These

beginner.

work

of art

is not

other

on

that among

the Greek

illuminated,

upon

he based

or of

one

or more

were

have

since

may

these

that

This is, of course,

at most

the evidence

that we

(or do not have), we

have

the outside possibility

only a supposition and, in view of

disappeared.

now

assume

was in fact a talented and creative painter and he created

that Avramec!

and executed

the

is actually

the

of our manuscript.

illumination

If, indeed,

we

accept

the

assumption

that

Avramec!'

originator of these paintings, why did he do it at just that moment and no other?

Why did Armenian

a manuscript of this type? Fathers

and

similar

illustrated. and

creation

but

were

the

Lives

From

the time

manuscripts

The answer Civil

of the

yet

Psalters

Desert

none

of them

and even

Fathers

clearly indicates

may

of Avramec'

was

Menologia

of Egypt?

The

the special importance

Mount

spreading fast. solace

there

him

there

were

not

uncommon

rather

numerous

are none.

the

Crimea

towards

the

The Muslims were already knocking on the

The time had come

Athos

in the

to turn to the world of the ascetic

Hesychastic

movement

was

flourishing

and

It summoned Eastern Christians to flee the corrupt world and

in solitude

and

prayer.

Monasticism

well as a political aim of many Eastern Christians./

atmosphere

are

lie in the general social and political unrest of the

middle of the fifteenth century.é At

on

of this type—before

upheavals

gates of Byzantium.

seek

before,

Gospels,

to the text at that particular time and the value seen in making

illuminated

saints.

plentiful

of a cycle of illustrations

it attractive.

period.

After all, manuscripts of The Lives of the Desert

works not

of history

art wait until the year 1430 to illuminate

Why did artists illustrate

Synaxaria,

attributed

previous

standards,

professional

and

himself

known

not the work of an amateur

highest

that he investigated

manuscripts

which

any

We

and so forth,

or stylistic exemplar.

is, of course,

There

category.

exemplars,

based

were

of

paintings

are

precision and quality.

excellent

or

could have served as its iconographic

The paintings of our manuscript a

atelier,

for influences, relationships,

gave

artists

the incentive

to create

became

an ideological

as

It may be that this new

rich

and

elaborate

trations of stories about the famous solitary monks of earlier ages. that a real need was fulfilled is borne out by the numerous

illus-

The fact

later copies of

332

MEDIEVAL

our manuscript, ologically

ARMENIAN

which thus takes on very great importance

and artistically

Palaeologian

CULTURE

renaissance

our

manuscript

which

belongs

attributed

great

in many

indeed.

Chron-

respects

to the

significance

to saints and

their icons. Avramec'

generally

based

known stereotypes (fig. 3). quite

unique

and

without

the portraits

In the iconography predecessors.

in his manuscript of the scenes,

Moreover,

on

well-

however,

the combination

he is of the

scenes and portraits to form the illustrative cycle of Avramec'

manuscript is

equally

creation,

new.

manuscript least

Nonetheless,

although

it was

was copied in the succeeding

six

times

and

it provided

thus

a unique

centuries

many

in its complete

iconographic

stereotypes for single scenes or parts of them.8

models

our

form

that

at

became

The most prominent of these

is the presentation of the luscious garden as the Garden of Eden with the four rivers (fig. 4).

The rivers flow upwards out of a rocky background and appear

later in all copies of the Kaffa manuscript, As

manuscript,

as well as in another

type of

a Synopsis of Biblical History? to

the

stylistic

affiliations

of the

manuscript—most

painting in the Crimea followed the Cilician style.

Armenian

Our manuscript, however,

forms a clear exception to this and, as we shall demonstrate, it is not alone. Its style we

dub Armeno-Crimean.10

On the one hand the Armeno-Crimean

characteristics

of contemporary

Byzantine

style exhibits some

style:

(1) the

well-known

division

of the

background in the proportions of one-third to two-thirds (figs. 3 and 5); (2) the attempt to create realistic pictures as seen in the paintings of the rocky

mountains;

and (3) the grouping of figures so that they penetrate

the depth

of the background (fig. 6). Indeed, the problem of depth occupied our painter and we can observe another interesting attempt to solve it in his painting of the sea (fig. 7). In that painting, he uses a gradual lightening of lines of blue as a technique to give the impression of depth for the sea and its waves.

A

strikingly similar technique is employed in a fresco of the year 1479—just 49 years

later

Moscow

than

our

to represent In contrast

manuscript—in

the

Cathedral

of the

Assumption

to its Byzantine

aspects,

teristic of the style of the manuscript

the chief distinguishing charac-

is that it rendered

the human

form

more correctly, gradually moving away from a flat presentation of form.

in other

Crimean

additional

signs

manuscripts of

in

the depth of the heavens.1l

of

simplification

this of

group, detail

our and

manuscript the

also

shortening

As

shows of

the

N. STONE

333

proportions of the figures (fig. 8). The artist, however, goes even further. realistic

a description

figures,

he attempts

example,

the

usual

as

possible

of the

to attribute clothing

He tries seriously to give as

figures.

individual

of desert

Instead

traits

fathers

to each

and

other

of anonymous of them.

saints

For

receives

a

personal touch when a group of monks appears in turban-like headgear which

identifies them as Egyptians (fig. 9). Yet another characteristic of the Armeno-Crimean generally

limited

palette.

special in character

The

colors

are

indeed

manuscripts is the

brilliant,

but

they

are

and include many shades of brown, purple, green, yellow

and white.l2

All these

features

differentiate

the style of our

congeners from the bulk of "Cilician-type"

Crimean

manuscript

manuscripts.

and its

Moreover,

the uniqueness of much of its iconography and of its overall illustrative cycle may

also be due to its creation We

which

were

script.

have,

indeed,

been

in a distinct tradition.

able

to locate a number

painted in the Crimea

in a style similar

of other

manuscripts

to that of our

manu-

This justifies the new conclusion that in Kaffa there was an atelier

that painted in this distinct, Armeno-Crimean 1.

À page that is sewn

1449

(Matenadaran,

style.

inside a Kaïffa manuscript of the year

no.

1203)

presents

among a group of disciples or admirers. time

ago, pointed

paintings

in our

faces of many

out the

stylistic

manuscript,

Gregory

similarity

particularly

of the small marginal

Tat'ewac'i

Dr. Korkhmazian, some between

it and

in the traits of the

figures.

The

painter of

this portrait may have belonged to the same school as Avramec"' and have come

of the young

from the Crimea.

Armenians

from

This is plausible since many

the Crimea

went

to Tat'ew

to

study.13

Other

clearly

Crimean

manuscripts

which

belong

to the

Armeno-Crimean

school are the following:

2.

Ms. Matenadaran, no. 7337 of 1352.14

3.

Ms.

Matenadaran,

no.

3863

of 1401.15

These two manuscripts contain figures similar, among other features, in their

stance and form. 4. Ms.

Jerusalem,

frontispiece

with

no.

773,

a portrait

a Miscellany

of

nn

Nersès

from

Crimea,

:

Snorhali,

go

has a

stylistically

334

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

belonging to the Armeno-Crimean

school. 16

5. The

mentioned

Venice

evidence

manuscript

that someone Desert

pages

Lives

of the

when

it was painted.l7

Fathers

which

sometimes

an atelier

Furthermore,

or school

we can discern in its

influences, as indeed we would expect in this

of cultures.

even

Some

their eyes are

rather

phenomenon indicate

of these

are:

not

than

light.

Armenian

These

cast

to

the painter

Armenians

he used

realized

and,

even

though

foreigners who were

the

in the Crimea

Byzantine

This

were

they

faces

It could foreigners

were

of the

in

fact

European

at his time.

The limited palette is characteristic

from the Crimea

give a

faces.

of ways.

that these

as his model

features

the

might be explained in a number

that

Egyptians, 2.

important

The faces of the figures are elongated, their hair is fair and

western

and

apparently

in the Crimea

style.

work both eastern and western 1.

was

also

of the

himself, or by one of his students.

At this time, then, there existed

painting in the Armeno-Crimean a cross-roads

are

As we stated, these pages might have

been painted by Avramec'

area,

above

carefully copied the manuscript

while the mountains

of Armenian

painting

and the buildings are in

style.

3.

The purple marble looks Italian (fig. 4).

4.

The red carved

table appears

to be Mongol

or Chinese

in

of the Crimea

to Russia

is

Thus

considerable

character (fig. 7). 5.

There

seems

to be a Russian

The geographical reflected

in its

resemblance manuscript important

art

proximity as

between and

connection.

well

the stance

in

the

is

of the figures in Avramec!''s

paintings

artist, Theophanes

there

of

a

much

earlier,

the Greek, in Moscow.l8

very This is

particularly true of the bent-over figures in the manuscript (fig. 8).

We

know

that

Theophanes

worked

Crimea before he moved to Moscow.

for some

time

in the

Perhaps he left an atelier

there, or at least a pervasive influence which is still to be felt in the somewhat 6.

Russian

later

proximity

Armeno-Crimean is also expressed

between the painting of Avramec'

style. in a certain

and the Novgorodian

similarity

school.

N. STONE

325

The influence of this school may be a contributory factor in the sudden popularity of the Lives of the Desert Fathers, for it has a particular penchant for hagiographical icons which provided amazingly descriptive representations of scenes

from

the lives

of the

saints.l?

CONCLUSIONS The conclusions

Jerusalem a.

manuscript The

that are to be drawn

The

has

Eastern

scenes

no

clear

exemplar,

Armenian

or Western.

represented

the narratives x

analysis of the

of the Lives of the Desert Fathers are the following:

manuscript

Byzantine, b.

from the above

are

contained

or

,

usually

directly

related

to

in the text.

The popularity of this particular cycle of illustrations in the mid-fifteenth century is probably related to the rise

of the Hesychian Church.

movement

in the contemporary

This in turn was stimulated,

Greek

partly at least, by

the disruptive political situation at that time. d.

The from

study

of at least

probable

existence

Avramec' ee

five

the contemporary

other

examples

Armenian

of a distinct

of painting

Crimea

indicates

the

atelier

of which

the

manuscript is a chef d'oevre.

The style cultivated in this atelier is quite separate from the more

widely

known

Armenian

style of the Crimea,

the so-called "Crimean Cilician style," although it shares certain f.

The

characteristics

analysis

of

the

with it.20 manuscript's

paintings

stylistic point of view indicates a number affiliations:

particularly

western,

Byzantine,

Russian—both

preliminary

analysis

suggests

that

Mongolian-Chinese,

of the school

and of the later Novgorodian

This

our

from

a

of interesting and

of Theophanes

type.

continuing

study

of the Kaffa

manuscript will illuminate still other unknown aspects of Armenian art in the Crimea.

336

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

NOTES IBogharian,

Grand

Catalogue

of St. James

Manuscripts

(Jerusalem,

1967) 2. 107-112 (in Armenian). 234

Lamonte,

The World of the Middle Ages

3See above,

note

HThere

different

expressed

are

to me

I.

opinions

on

this matter.

the view that Avramec'

also the whole colophon. the paintings,

mainly

Korkhmazian,

The

Der

Nersessian but

Dr. Korkhmazian claims that Avramec' did not copy

because

Armenian

no

possible

Miniatures

model

Archbishop Bogharian communicated may

be authentic

which

and

was

the

has been

of the Crimea

Russian].

manuscript

Dr.

copied not only the paintings

colophon

Greek

(New York, 1949) 625.

found.

(Erevan,

See

E.

1978) [in

orally that he thinks that the

Avramec'

translated

the

text

from

a

possibly illuminated.

These pages, from Ms. no. 1922 of the Mekhitarist Library in Venice will be published

soon

with a description

6p. Obolensky,

1453 (London,

The

Nesessian.

Commonwealth:

Eastern

Europe

500-

1971) 260-261.

Laa Meyendorff,

Social Problems example

Byzantine

by S. Der

Byzantine

(London,

Hesychasm:

Historical,

1974) chaps. 1, 8, and 9.

Theological

and

See also chap. 11 as an

of its influence on art.

8The copies are: Jerusalem

Library,

BM Ms. no.

add, 27.301:

Armenian Patriarchate of

Mss. nos. 23, 228, 268, 293, 410, 971 and 1409; Venice,

Ms. no.

9See S. Der Nersessian,

the Armenian

Mekhitarist

1922. The Chester

Manuscripts (Dublin,

Beatty Library:

A Catalogue of

1958) 6.

10Some observations on components of the artistic style in the Crimea are

to be

found

Mechitaristen with

ours

coming

and

from

Matenadaran

in

H.

&

H.

Buschhausen,

in Wien (Wien, 1981) 43-44. they the

do not

discuss

Armeno-Crimean

the

Armenische

Indeed,

No. 3863, justly citing it as an example

This composition

is known

der

This analysis does not conflict

manuscripts

group.

Handscriften

we

have

they only

identified mention

as Ms.

of Italian influence.

in at least three manuscript copies, one

N. STONE

in the

Chester

Beatty

Library

Library of the Armenian and University

Centuries (Moscow,

others

in Jerusalem—one

and the other in the Jewish

in the National

lThis new

Monuments

of Architecture

of the 14th-17th

1973) 22. trend

in colors may be attributed

new paints in Trebizond. These

two

Library.

l2See M. Ilyin, Moscow

153-4.

and

Patriarchate

337

may

to the development of

See G. Mathew, Byzantine Esthetics (London, 1963)

have been shipped to the Crimea.

14Korkhmazian,

Crimean

(ed.) Miniatures arméniennes

Miniatures,

66.

See

also

L. A. Dournovo

(Erevan, 1969) plate 69.

LSlbid., plate 24. l6ïbid., plate 52. 17This manuscript

is located

in the Library

of Manuscripts

of the

Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Archbishop Bogharian kindly drew it to my

attention.

18See note

5, above.

12$ee Ilyin, Moscow 20This matter

will be completed

Monuments,

43.

is the subject of a separate study by the writer which

soon.

338

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

se

+

du. Lhf Enpuputa

tetephfes 5 fann Groupes Ë

Ro mt sb bre nee ml

PRE ve +Lyme fai a sut bé she. fine maté, JE

dr pq. > me ss “ué PAU 1

FO Fagrrré

pod

Ron

ei .

poste 4 peGÉ

RES

Ë

Ka De D

md téregk

de nf

ht

Pottfté GlenBéé sobaemts pue

2

;

ha"

mrsiqunhat 5 pute 4

pli nen gt à Bénc Re

mon,

mere fl

Safe rte

SNS

géee » mx

ere

Bjr

ponte à HfEage mm mg 4 LE

vie Pen génies De ae su Ecran

eu re 4 Fe +4 ar PE

ne @nfgEngin hépret ®

Hague phone be Jus Lt mot mg he"RASE mette

gb rnbhe

Léo

Émietei pmtshegeég er à

|

NA Breÿhncs Re guet àonda pt

À‘Etighe, gg

spi!

raider

Lhgfoug, gamscenndst bg SE “À 3

puhtond tps EU

ee

DÉpbhe » Hg sabettapouée fpétout a

sil

SERA Lente nie

=

Li Poste set bquiene ame

RS

ge

0

me inter cg rt A Res EE NPaBaphts àthin bpà54

ah

Ga

sitae, che de +

n à

ps

Ex pepe”, pps ne, sgh? nus arte La Bien hd, RE nf mu ang af fe

SES a

Figure 1.

pe re

with marginal heads

tetegérectet bite pe RSC es à EE

ns rss

5

pote

À

qe fe feu mgg cs Hépae RNA He sramnelentete -

Figure 2.

Marcarius,

Marcus and the Sick Cub

N. STONE

Figure 3.

Figure #4.

Mary the Egyptian

The Six Brethren

who found Paradise

339

340

ouh Le:

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

ae xLuttes sit it fuites poteNES24 Lab L172po 78 duos ñ à ph Aya 4 tin di mlerasflète, gong ve ceBen. 26 pou plis

Figure 5.

Paphnutius

meets

Onophrius

DE vapée-he fn gs Fraise ang By fa seghegtlr Re peser ments aptes h

uk, Pape Amel éte

FE

sPLR

I, INRISI 4 +

-Figure 6.

Theophilus and the Monks

N. STONE

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Marcus

and Serapion

Paphnutius

and the four old Monks

341

342

MEDIEVAL

Figure 9.

Pambo

ARMENIAN

and Visitors

CULTURE

THE

ANNUNCIATION

À METAPHOR

OF

Thomas

Institute

Specifically Armenian

AT THE

ARMENIAN

WELL:

MONOPHYSITISM*

F. Mathews

of Fine Arts (NYU)

developments

in Christian iconography have not

yet been systematically studied in any depth, for it is generally assumed that Armenian

iconography

iconography

only

Annunciation,

that

has

departs

occasionally

however,

interesting

from and

the

accepted

language

incidentally.

sometimes

makes

implications.

À

The

of Byzantine

iconography

a specifically Armenian

hitherto

unpublished

of

the

statement

manuscript,

University of California, Los Angeles, ms. Arm. 4, offers a good example (fig.

1).

The background

recedes

consists

of a high wall with

zig-zag to the left; above

occasional

the wall, elements

windows,

of city-scape

that

appear

including the Virgin's house on the right that breaks through the upper frame. In the foreground the angel makes a bold gesture of speech while the Virgin,

occupied with spinning, bends slightly to give ear to his message. the

dove,

encircled

by an aureole,

flies down

Overhead,

along a path of light that

consists of two beams pouring out of the semicircle of heaven at the top of the picture.

Below, in the center, there is shown a well on which the Virgin

has placed her pitcher.

The well is framed

with a shouldered

which two streams of water fall into a single basin.

arch beneath

It is this well with its

two jets of water that excites the viewer's curiosity.

For unless one supposes

that Armenia invented hot-and-cold water plumbing, the two spouts of water are a perfectly gratuitous well. was

detail, quite unnecessary

We lack colophon information executed,

but

the

painter,

to the depiction of the

about the place where U.C.L.A.

named

Yovhannés,

is

mentioned

ms. 4 in

an

inscription on the front fly-leaf, and the scribe entered his name at the end T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

Texts

Medieval and

Studies

pp. 343 to 356.

343

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

344

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

of the gospel of Mark the unworthy

The much

on p. 229, saying:

than

iconography

"I beseech

scribe Vrt'anis, in the year

iconographic

older

CULTURE

of

the

the

tradition

me,

1643."

of this Annunciation

seventeenth

U.C.L.A.

you to remember

century.

manuscript

can

Virtually

is the

be shown

identical

Annunciation

to be

with

the

in a very

handsome gospel prepared for the chief vardapet of Glajor, Esayi Néec'i, in

the year signed

1323 (fig. 2).2

repeatedly

zig-zags

The manuscript, Erevan, Matenadaran

by the

painter

T'oros

off to the left with similar

architecture

descends on the same stream of light. two figures are otherwise little arched

above.

artist of U.C.L.A.

It cannot,

appearance

of water

behind

on the same

them

erect but the we discover

fall into a basin, with

Matenadaran

iconographic

wall

it, and the dove

and need not, be demonstrated

of this iconography

can be followed fairly closely.

ms. 6289, is

background

The Virgin stands more

ms. 4 copied directly from

that he depended

The

The

similar, and between

well in which two streams

Virgin's pitcher is obvious

rather

Tarônec'i.

ms.

a the

that the

6289, but it

tradition.

in the work of T'oros Tarôünec'i

The earliest work in which T'oros Tarôünec'i's

signature appears is U.C.L.A.

ms

13

This gospel was already half finished

when T'oros started work on it, and the Annunciation

that had been completed (fig. 3).

was one of the scenes

Nevertheless, T'oros could not resist the

impulse to improve on the work of his predecessors.

He repainted the face,

hands and mantle of the Virgin to make her better match his rendering of the Virgin elsewhere in the gospel, and he added the dove in sketchy white outline pouring down a stream

of grace.

a hexagonal

from

amphora.

well-head

The iconography

which

T'oros later repeated

includes a palm tree and

a single stream

this iconography

of water

flows

his own work, Venice ms. 1917 dated 1307 (fig. 4).#

The domes and gables

echo the earlier miniature, and the Virgin repeats the same awkward holding her spindle to one side.

Matenadaran

upon

to illuminate

ms. 206.5

somewhat

simplified and its stream

The next dated Annunciation he was called

gesture,

The dove, again in sketchy white, descends

from the hand of God; the tree has been

well has been somewhat

into an

in a gospel that is totally

reduced

in T'oros's oeuvre

an entire

Richly illuminated

in scale and the

of water

occurs

omitted.

in 1318 when

Bible for Esayi Né'ec'i, Erevan,

with preface

miniatures

for the

books of the Old Testament and text miniatures within the four gospels, this bible is T'oros's finest and most

consistent work.

In the Annunciation

it is

clear that T'oros's style has matured, his figures have relaxed and acquired

MATHEWS

345

a gentle grace, and his composition works together as a unit instead of as a collection of pieces (fig. 5). At the same time it is clear that T'oros is trying

to integrate new

iconographic

Perhaps taking his

into his painting.

sources

cue from Syrian painting, T'oros now

places the dove against a disc of light

(fig. 10);6 on the other hand, the way he has bent the ray of divine grace to

make

it enter

the Virgin's ear

is a distinctly

Glajor in the early fourteenth

shouldered

on

depends

T'oros

a literal A

per aurem."/

this very manuscript

century;

arch a large amphora

foreign

known

no

as its

includes

For the representation of the

front fly-leaf a page from a Latin gospel book. however,

"conceptio

material appears to have been in circulation in

wide variety of non-Armenian

well,

element,

Western

on

speculation

of the theologian's

translation

Beneath

source.

sits on a shelf; under

a

the shelf a pair of

pour into a wide basin.

spouts of water

A similar iconography is repeated by T'oros three years later, in 1321,

in a gospel book in Jerusalem,

ms. 2360.8

The dove appears on the disc of

light following the ray toward the Virgin's ear; in the arched well T'oros has represented two spouts over a basin but he has carelessly forgotten to show

the water flowing from the spouts (fig. 6). This manuscript is a work of tiny dimensions, a mere

11 cm. high, in which the paintings were executed without

a great deal of care. something

about

iconographic

Still the omission

T'oros; namely,

detail.

Had

unlikely that he would

he invented

have

of the flowing

water

may

tell us

that he is probably not the inventor of this

the well

forgotten

with

the two

spouts

it is

to show it correctly in this instance.

Two years later he corrected his mistake when he painted Matenadaran

6289

with the water flowing, as we have seen (fig. 2). It should also be noted that in ms. 6289 he abandoned the Western and represented

the rays spreading

iconography of ''conceptio per aurem"

out as if to "overshadow!"

the Virgin, in

the expression of the evangelist (Lk. 1:35). Who but

was the inventor of this iconography cannot now be determined,

it is clear

fourteenth

that

cing-foil

arch

executed

in Glajor

variations

around

nearby

it gained

century.

ard

It

considerable

appears

a rather around

in

ornate 1330

a

popularity

somewhat

basin—in

Nor

(fig. 7); and

the turn of the century

in

Glajor

in

the

different

form—with

Juta ms.

47 which

it appears

in Matenadaran

with 6305

still

a

was other

executed

in

Tat'ew.?

To Armenian

interpret painting

properly one

must

this really

development ask two

of

questions:

iconography first, how

in

late

has the

346

MEDIEVAL

Armenian

ARMENIAN

iconographer

CULTURE

re-worked

the tradition

Well; and secondly, why has he so re-worked

The human

Annunciation,

marking

of the Annunciation

the decisive

moment

when

God

history through the Incarnation, is one of the commonest

Christian

art;

nevertheless,

the

at the

it.

Annunciation

at

the

Well

entered

subjects in

is an

unusual

subject.

This is all the more surprising in view of the wide circulation given

to

aubject

in

three

Protoevangelium

of

James,

the

Gospel.10

According

interdependent

extra-biblical

Pseudo-Matthew,

and

the

accounts: Armenian

to these accounts the Virgin had gone to drawn water

when she first heard the angel address her, "Rejoice, Virgin Mary." she did not actually

home

the Infancy

see

him, she was

Though

frightened at the voice and hastened

to return to her assigned work of spinning for the temple veil.

angel, however, pursued her in order to continue his message

The

as narrated in

Luke. In Early Christian art the Annunciation at the Well appears only twice, once

on a pilgrim's flask from

cover.ll

the Holy

Land

and once

on

an

ivory book

In both instances the well is intepreted as a natural spring coming

out of the ground;

the Virgin kneels

to draw

water

and she turns back

to

catch sight of the angel who appears behind her (fig. 8). In Middle Byzantine art

the

subject

somewhat

is equally

different.l2

rare,

Now

the

and

when

well

is a man-made

it appears

may kneel or walk, and the angel still approaches flies.

This

version

of

the

iconography

the

iconography

well-head;

from

remained

is

the Virgin

behind, but now current

he

through

the

Paleologan period and was used at the Kariye Camii in Constantinople

(fig.

9) In contrast to Byzantine or Western

show

a special

develop

in the

conveying

predilection course

of

the theme.

for the

the

thirteenth

This new

sitting

or

standing

in front

century

iconography

the Well with the traditional "'at-home" between

art, artists in Syria and Armenia

Annunciation

of her

at

combines

Annunciation..

house,

her

the

Well,

a new the

they for

Annunciation

at

The Virgin is shown

spinning

in her

her and the angel is shown the well and sometimes

version of the subject first appears in a very handsome

and

iconography

hand,

the tree.

but This

Syriac manuscript

in

London, British Library, ms. add. 7170, fol. 12v, dating 1216-20,13 and in the

nearly

contemporary

occurs

again in a Syriac ms. of 1226 and in one of ca. 12501 before it is

employed

twin

in the famous

manuscript

Armenian

in the Vatican

Gospel of Queen

(fig. 10).14

Keran

It then

in 1272.16

This

MATHEWS

is clearly the tradition that stands behind the Annunciation the first two manuscripts of T'oros Taronec'i—the

347

as it appears in

U.C.L.A. ms. 1 and Venice

ms. 1917 (figs. 3 and 4). As century

we

have

seen,

re-worked

the

this

painters

iconography

of Glajor by

in the

early

transforming

the

fourteenth

free-standing

well-head into an arched well containing two spouts (figs. 2 and 5-7). On one level

this

may

be

seen

as

simply

an

Armenian

appropriation

of

the

iconographic vocabulary, for it should be observed that in medieval Armenian

architecture the well actually took the shape of an arched enclosure.l7 thirteenth century well in Tat'ew

may be taken as typical:

The

a slightly ogive

vault shelters the place where water ran into a basin or trough.

The artist's

re-working of the well into an arched enclosure adds a note of local color to the iconography.

But this does no explain the two spouts.

In thirteenth century Syrian and Armenian

including the well must from

whom

be taken

painting the preference for

as a Mariological

metaphor.

man's salvation was to spring was commonly

"well" or the "source!

in homiletic

literature

The

Virgin

referred to as the

and hymns.Ll8

When

the well

image was re-worked in Glajor, however, the metaphor seems to have shifted: the

well

is now

Christological

rather

than

Mariological.

The evidence

is

circumstantial but considerable, for a mixing or commingling of liquids is one

of the earliest divine

nature

Incarnation

analogies in

in the

hominis."l?

used to explain the union

Christ.

Thus

term

Similar

Augustine

"mixtura':

uses

of

the

“In hac terms

of the human

described

the

persona

mixtio,

and the

mystery

mixtura

mixtura,

of

est

krasis,

Dei

the

et

synkrasis

might be found in discussions of the hypostatic union in Irenaeus, Tertullian,

Cyprian,

Apollinarius,

The

Council

denunciation and

one

Epiphanius, or Gregory Nazianzenus.20

of Chalcedon,

of Eutyches,

nature

after

however,

changed

all of

who had spoken of two natures

the

union,

the

fathers

that.

before

of the council

In their

the union

insisted

on the

perfect integrity of both the human and the divine nature after the union in Christ.

They

claiming

a union

asynchytos,

meaning

of

term

the

therefore

rejected

the

earlier

i.e. ‘'unconfused

asynchytos,

language

of ‘mixture!

in two natures."2l

‘unconfused,"

is precisely

pro-

The root

"not-poured-

together," being derived from syn-cheo, "I pour together, or mix."

After the

Council

avoid

metaphors however,

of

Chalcedon of mixture

never

seem

Greek

theologians

generally

tried

in speaking of the Incarnation; Armenian to have

abandoned

the archaic

to

all

theologians,

terminology.

Having

348

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

rejected Chalcedon at the Council of Dvin in 506/8, Armenian theologians continued to refer to the Incarnation as a mixing or mingling of Thus, in the words of Nersës Snorhali, "The incorporeal the two natures.22 formally

with the body, making it divine by the mixture (xatnmamb),

Word commingled

but not undergoing any change or alteration in this union."23 Further, when the Synod of Htomkla tried to formulate the Armenian position for the same

Comnenus,

Manuel

emperor

Byzantine

of the

benefit

on the

they fell back

"The body commingled (xaïnec'aw) with the divine nature,

expression:

This

without at the same time being estranged from its natural essence."2# pre-Chalcedonian,

not to say anti-Chalcedonian,

in Armenian

of continuity

theology

formula was evidently a line to maintain.

important

that was

It has not yet been possible to trace this metaphor

theological appears.

literature

of the school

of Glajor

where

of mixing into the

our

iconography

first

Esayi NË'ec'i, the principal luminary of that school, does not seem

to have

been

wedded

to any

rigid

formula

for

expressing

the

Armenian

position on the natures in Christ; he goes so far as to say that one could with

orthodoxy

speak either

qualified exerted

the

of two

statement

by the Dominican

the Chalcedonian seemed

other

or of one

Unitores

Yet

nature

it is clear

on the church

in Christ,

from

in Greater

the

if one

pressures

Armenia

that

issue was very much on peoples' minds in the first decades

of the fourteenth century. that

natures

properly.2?

to stand

Indeed it was the only substantive dogmatic issue

between

the Armenian

and the Roman

issues being questions of rite and calendar.26

churches,

the

It is significant, then,

that at precisely this time an iconography appears to give expression to the ancient

metaphor

of the mixing of natures

While the iconography

in Christ.

of the Annunciation

with two jets of water

the well remains a minor theme in the overall development of Armenian it is a

theme

worth

noting.

Dogmas

are

not

generally

susceptible

translation into images; the issues are far too subtle and abstract.

in art, to

Efforts

to represent the equality of Persons in the Trinity by images of three bearded men or a three-headed monstrous. remarkable.

moment

man only succeed in making the mystery ridiculous or

The suitability of the Armenian

image is therefore all the more

The symbol is placed in parallel to the narrative image:

in which

the human

nature

of Christ

was

fused

with

at that

the divine

nature, when the Virgin accepted the message of the angel, the nature of the

union

is expressed

in the

iconography

of the

well.

It is a specifically

Armenian image invented to express a specifically Armenian understanding of

MATHEWS

the mystery

349

of the Incarnation.

NOTES “For their kindness

in providing me

with photographs

of material

in

their care I would like to thank Archbishop Norayr Bogharian of the Armenian Patriarchate Biblioteca

adaran,

of

Sts.

James,

S. Lazzaro,

Erevan.

Mekhitarian

Jerusalem,

Venice,

For

the

and

Father

Mr. Babgen

photograph

of

Nersës

Nersëssian

Choukasezian

figure

7 I am

of the

of

the

Maten-

indebted

to

A.

of Brussels.

IU.C.L.A.

Arm.

ms. 4 was purchased by Dr. Caro Minasian from one

Grigor Davitian on 27 July 1950, prior to which it is said to have belonged to the family of Hoja Petros Veligian. x 250 mm., it includes miniatures six

subjects

from

the

life

and the Transfiguration.

of the four evangelists and the following

of

Crucifixion, the Annunciation,

Executed on paper and measuring 186

Christ:

the

Entry

into

Jerusalem,

the

the Baptism, the Presentation in the Temple,

The canon tables are missing and the scenes from

the Life of Christ are in scrambled

order at the beginning of the book; the

style, however, confirms that they belong to the book and were executed by the same

painter as the evangelists.

Armenian

mss. in the U.C.L.A.

The catalogue

of this and the other

Collection will be published shortly by Avedis

K. Sanjian. 2This

ut'yan

ms.

Glajori

is discussed

Dproc'ë

by A. N. Avetisyan,

(Erevan,

1971),

pp.

Haykakan

124-35;

the

Manrankarc'-

Annunciation

is

published in fig. 41.

ÎThe Second

Storm

signed by an artist named

to be T'oros Taronec'i. and

A. K. Sanjian

at Sea (p. 227) and the Ascension

(p. 453) are

T'oros who, on the grounds of style, can be shown

The manuscript will be published by T. F. Mathews

in Armenian

Gospel

Iconography:

The Glajor Gospel of

LEA #Sirarpie Der Nersessian, et

Manuscrits arméniens illustrés des 12e, 13e

l4e siècles de la Bibliothèque

1937)M0 112-5672; SThis

ms.

is

des Pères, Mekhitaristes

de Venise

(Paris,

0102

is discussed

in

Avetisyan,

Haykakan

ManrankarC'ut'yan

350

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Glajori, 90-91. 6The dove against a halo of light appears in Syrian mss. of the second decade

of the

thirteenth

century,

Vatican

Syr.

559,

fol.

8v,

and

British

Library 7170, fol. 15 (cf. Jules Leroy, Manuscrits syriaques à peintures [Paris, 1964], pl. 73, 3 and 4.

By the end of the century it was taken up in Cilician

painting as in Vienna, ms. 278, fol. 161 (Heide and Helmut Buschhausen, Die illuminierten

armenischen

Handschriften

der

Mechitaristen-Congregation

in

Wien [Wien, 1976], fig. 82). 7 Gertrude

(New

York,

Schiller,

1971), vol.

conceived per aurem "Bann

Astuac

Iconography

of Christian

1, pp. 42-44.

The

emut

énd unkn

Iseleanc'n

i nerk's."

(T'angaran Haykakan

1898)

Peeters,

Cf.

Art, trans.

that

the

was expressed already in the Armenian

Girk' Nor Ktakaranac' 19.

notion

Paul

l'Enfance (Paris, 1914) 97.

J. Seligman

Blessed

Virgin

Infancy Gospel:

Esayi Tayec'i,

Ankanon

Hin ew Nor Dprut'eanc'; Venise,

2

Évangiles

Apocryphes,

Led

Il:

L'Evangile

de

Nevertheless it is in the West that this notion is

first expressed in iconography. 8Bezalel

Jerusalem

Narkiss

(Jerusalem,

and

ŸL. A. Dournovo

(Erevan,

1967), fig. 62.

10The Wilhelm

Ante-Nicene chap.

and

1963)

E. Stone,

Armenian

Art

R. G. Drampyan,

Haykakan

Manrankarë'utyun

[Text in Armenian,

Protoevangelium

Schneemelcher,

Philadelphia,

Michael

Treasures

of

1979) 76, 150.

New

380;

The

of James, Testament Gospel

Russian, and French.]

chap.

11 in Edgar

Apocrypha

of

(trans.

Pseudo-Matthew,

Hennecke

R. McL. chap.

and

Wilson;

9 in The

Fathers 8 (New York, 1926) 272; The Armenian Infancy Gospel,

5, Tayec'i,

Ankanon

Girk'

14;

cp.

Peeters,

Évangiles

Apocryphes,

2.89-90.

LlFor the pilgrim's flask see André Grabar, Ampoulles de Terre Sainte

(Paris, 1958), pl. 31. l2For the Middle

u Byzantine

version see Vat. Gr. 1162, fol. 117v, C.

Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilie di Giacomo L3Leroy, Manuscrits

14G. de Jerphanion,

la Bibliothèque

Vaticane

syriaques, pl. 73, &.

syriaques,

monaco (rome, 1910), pl. 50.

pl. 73, 3.

Les miniatures du manuscrit syriaque no. 559 de

(Vatican

City,

1940), pl. IN, 3; Leroy,

Manuscrits

MATHEWS

LSMidyat, es-Za'faran, syriaques,

Syro-orthodox

Mar

Hanania,

pl. 105, 1 and

16 Jerusalem,

Episcopacy,

Evangelary,

Evangelary,

fol.

22.

fol.

J.

351

14v, and

Leroy,

Deir

Manuscrits

127, 1.

Armenian

Narkiss and Stone, Armenian

Patriarchate Art, 63-64,

of St. James, ms. 2563, fol. 184.

149, but without

illustration of the

Annunciation.

170. X. Xalpaxèjan,

GraXdanskoe

Zod'estvo

Armenii

(Moscow,

1971)

228-39.

18G. W. H. Lampe, À Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961) s.v. pège and phrear.

l?Augustine, Epist. 137, 11 (PL 33, 520). 20See

the citations

given by Pascal

Tekeyan,

Controverses

christo-

logiques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle (1165-1198) (Orientalia citations

Christiana in G.

W.

Analecta

H.

Lampe,

124; Rome, A

1939)

Patristic

Greek

86, n.

1.

Lexicon,

Further

see

krasis

and

s.v.

synkrasis.

213, D. Mansi, Sacrorum

conciliorum

nova et amplissima collectio, VII,

125: 22For the Armenian Council

of Chalcedon 23Nersës

troverses

reaction to Chalcedon see Karekin Sarkissian, The

and the Armenian

Snorhali,

christologiques,

Encyclical 86, from

Church

Letter

(New

as

York,

cited

by

1965). Tekeyan,

the edition of Constantinople,

Con-

1825, 57.

24Synod of Hromkla as cited by Tekeyan, Controverses christologiques,

91, from

the edition of Constantinople,

1825,

177.

25Letter of Esayi NÜ'ec'i to Tér Matt'éos (dated 1321), cited by M. A. van

den Oudenrijn,

"Uniteurs

40 (1956) 105-106.

26ïbid., 94-112.

et Dominicains

d'Armenie;"

Oriens

Christianus

352

Figure

MEDIEVAL

1.

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Los Angeles, University of California,

Arm. ms. 4, p. 10.

Annunciation by the painter Yovhannes,

Figure 2.

Erevan, Matenadaran,

ms. 6289, fol. 143.

the painter T'oros Tarônec'i,

1323.

The

1643.

The Annunciation by

MATHEWS

Figure 3.

Los Angeles, Annunciation,

Figure - 4.

Venice,

University of California, Arm. ms. 1, p. 305. retouched

Biblioteca

Annunciation

353

S.

by T'oros

by T'oros

Lazzaro,

Tarôünec'i,

Tarônec'i,

ms.

1307.

1917,

before

fol.

The

1307.

153.

The

354

MEDIEVAL

Figure 5.

CULTURE

Erevan, Matenadaran, T'oros

Figure 6.

ARMENIAN

Taronec'i,

Jerusalem,

ms. 206, fol. 474v.

The Annunciation by

1318.

Patriarchate

of St. James,

ms.

Annunciation by T'oros Tarônec'i, 1321.

2360, fol. 149.

The

MATHEWS

Figure 7.

Nor

Juta, ms.

47, fol. 1v.

The

Annunciation,

355

1330.

FER =É

Sn) FS

Figure 8.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. lat. 9384, ivory cover, detail. The

Annunciation

at the

Well.

356

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

Ÿ

Figure

9.

ÈS

Istanbul,

CARTE

Kariye

Annunciation Center

Figure

10.

Rome,

CULTURE

at

+

the

for Byzantine

Biblioteca

re

Camii,

S

mosaic

of

HÉSITER

the

Well.

(Courtesy

Studies,

Washington,

Vaticana,

inner

of

narthex.

Dumbarton

à

The

Oaks,

D.C.)

ms. Syr. 559, y fol. 8v.

Annunciation at the Well, 1219-20.

(From de Jerphanion.)

The

ARMENIAN

BIBLICAL

WITH

TRADITION

THE VULGATE

IN COMPARISON

AND

SEPTUAGINT

Bo Johnson

Lund University (Sweden)

The history of the origin of the Armenian translation according

was to

made

during

tradition,

the

there

first decades

were

text, then

Bible is well known. of the

three

stages

a new

translation

fifth

in

this

work:

from

The

century,

and,

first

a Greek

a

translation

from

a Syriac

text

emanating

from

Asia Minor, and after that a final translation from a text

brought from Alexandria. Like other daughter versions of the Septuagint, such as the Ethiopian, Coptic, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, this Armenian own

and was scarcely observed

isolation was broken in 1666, when the Armenian

printed by Oskan

This and

the

and thus made

following

Bible lived a life of its

by those working with the biblical text.

available

editions

This

Bible was for the first time

to the world of biblical scholars.

awakened

great

interest

scholars working in the field of biblical text research.

among

European

During the eighteenth

century there was an ongoing discussion about the Septuagint, and among the issues raised at that time were

the place and value of the Armenian

as a witness of the text of the Greek Bible.l

Bible

It was soon observed that the

Armenian language was well adapted to provide a literal translation from the Greek, and so the Armenian

translation would have almost the same

its Greek

Vorlage—granted

that it really was

But there

was

an obstacle.

The

old tradition

a word and

for word

the

text

value as

translation.

itself

offered

possible hints of Syriac or Latin influences.

In a journal Vorlage

of the

article

Armenian

of

T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

pp.

that

translation

Texts

time, was

Medieval

and

Studies

357 to 364.

357

Bredenkamp the

Greek

Armenian

6).

confirms

that

Septuagint.2 Culture.

Chico,

CA:

But

the he

(University of

Scholars

Press,

358

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

observes

that the Armenian translation does not follow the Greek text form

of Codex

Alexandrinus

so closely as had been claimed

by La Croze?

The

Vorlage rather seemed to be a mixed text with certain affinities to the Greek text

in the Complutensian

Polyglott

from

the

beginning

of the

sixteenth

century. Bredenkamp

had no idea of the suggested Syriac influence, but so far

as the Vulgate was concerned,

influence

on

the

marginal

notes

Armenian

in the

he had no doubt that the Latin exerted some

text.

He

Armenian

enumerates

Bible

several

emanating

from

passages

the

with

Vulgate

and

remarks on certain influences on the text itself. The

observations

made

Eichhorn in his Introduction

1823,

he devotes

20 pages

corrections

following

Concerning

the influence

devotes three

Bredenkamp

were

the

to the Syriac

Armenian

likely,

later

taken

translation.

but

up

by

In the fourth edition, # of

he

leaves

from the Vulgate, however,

the

Eichhorn

finds

question

open.

he has no doubt.

He

pages to the passages 2 Sam 3:33 and Num 26:14, mentioned

by Bredenkamp 1823,

by

to the Old Testament.

as proof of corrections

he mentions

that he has not

following the Vulgate.

seen

the edition

But still, in

of Zohrab

of 1805.

In the nineteenth century and up to recent times, the Old Testament Introductions

generally

take very little notice of the

Armenian

translation.

Scholars differ slightly concerning the possibility of Latin or Syriac infleunce, and the conclusion

voiced

Arabic,

and

Georgian,

value—although they have

been

During

is often that of Kenyon

Slavonic

translations

the Armenian,

to be of little critical

in the edition of 1939, this statement was replaced by "but little studied."6

this

time

another

project

had

careful collation of the text of the Armenian Gôttingen®

in 1903:

appear

editions

of the

Septuagint.

As a result,

character

and the value of the. Armenian

influence

from

Syriac or Latin

sources

begun—the

was

painstaking

and

Bible for the Cambridge? and

translation raised

the

question

of the

and also its supposed

again.

The basis for this

new textual research was the Zohrab edition and a large number of Armenian Bible manuscripts.? The

Armenian

Bible

resulted

the beginning of the fifth century.

from

the activity of the translators

at

Whether the old tradition concerning the

three stages of the translation should still be regarded as valid is a question open

to discussion.

explanation »

to what

To

me,

the

I observed

old

tradition

in 1 Samuel.

still offers

(Cox,

the

however,

most

cannot

likely

find

JOHNSON

359

similar traces of the Syriac in the Armenian Deuteronomy. 10 I think we must await the full examination of the Armenian Bible for a final decision. preliminary

stage, however,

it is worth considering

of the Armenian

Bible in the individual books of the Gôttingen

even

for the work

if the basis

may

At this

the different treatments

Septuagint,

not have been exactly the same

all the

time. In any case, the Armenian

century.

Bible existed in the second half of the fifth

And this Bible no doubt was quite uniform in character.

In its final

form, the text was, and still is, a good witness to the so-called

‘'hexaplaric'

text,

revision

i. e.

the

Greek

text

emanating

from

the

third

century

by

Origen in the direction of the Hebrew bible using the three Greek translations by Aquila,

Theodotion,

and Symmachus.

It is not plausible that there were no contacts between the Greek and the Armenian

Bible during the following centuries.

and translation into

may

Georgian.

have

There

served

The

as a bridge when

is a parallel

development

Armenian

language

the Bible was translated in Greek

and

Armenian

concerning the change from majuscules to minuscules (glxagir and p'ok'ragir respectively). certainly

At the same

formed

In the according

thirteenth

to tradition,

elaboration contacts

time the Arabic

as a minuscule

of the

westwards

by Bredenkamp,

century, under

Armenian

and this was

during the reign of King Het'um

his auspices,

Bible

with the roman

Eichhorn,

script developed,

script. new

text.

Since

Catholic

and others,

efforts

were

King

Church,

Il, and,

made

Het'um

in the

also

kept

it has been suggested

that the corrections

in the Armenian

Bible in accordance to the Vulgate could already have been inserted into the text

by

Het'um

“falsifications

himself.

If, however,

Latin

Vulgate

Bredenkamp

These

in accordance

will

we

go behind

faint

corrections

were

mostly

labelled

as

to the Vulgate." the edition

considerably.

as proof of an

influence

of Oskan,

Those from

two

the

impact

passages

of the

quoted

by

the Vulgate are not convincing.

The reading "300" instead of "200" in Num 26:14 was imputed to the influence of the Latin Bible on the basis of a marginal note in Oskan.

Now this number

"300," it turns out, is not to be found in the Wulgate at all, and so it has been

suggested that Oskan thought that it must have been the Vulgate, even if he himself

was

correction

Armenian

not

responsible

for the

change,

from the time of Het'um.

texts are divided.

Jerusalem

because

he took

But this is just a guess.

1925, a manuscript

it to be a In fact, the

dating to 1269,

360

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

has 200" like the Septuagint, and so has one of Zohrab's eight manuscripts. The other manuscripts have "300." verses replaced, and the number

But the text here is confused with whole "300" may have arisen from any number

of

sources.

The other passages,

2 Sam 3:33, is a doublet.

The first line in the

Armenian text is more similar to the text of the Vulgate than the second line,

which

is the

Jerusalem

text

1925.

Symmachus,

of the But the

according

Septuagint.

The

first

first line is almost

line is also

identical

to a marginal note in the Greek

with

missing the

text M.

The

same is the case with a doublet in the following verse (2 Sam 3:34).

The

parallel text is missing in Jerusalem

majuscule

in of

1925, but appears both in the margin of

Jerusalem 1928 (from the year 1648) and in the text and margin of Jerusalem 1934 (from the year 1646). from

the side of Greek

thirteenth

This obviously indicates a new wave of influence

manuscripts

century and onwards,

on the Armenian

manuscripts from the

but hardly testifies to any impact from

the

Latin Vulgate at this time.

There is, however, one influence from the Vulgate before Oskan that cannot be denied.

It is the division of the text into chapters.

This division

was introduced by the English archbishop Stephan Langton who died in 1228. It was soon taken over by scribes and scholars and

later

to printed

editions,

even

editions

and applied to several texts

of the Hebrew

course does not imply that the text was in any Way amended

of the Vulgate. in some text.

Bible, which

of

in the direction

By the fourteenth century the Latin chapters begin to appear

Armenian

manuscripts,

often

together

with

older

divisions

of the

From the middle of the seventeenth century, this division is made more

explicit by the use of letters A, B, G, . . . within the chapters and by the numbéring western

of single verses,

European

Thus

all in accordance

with

the Vulgate

and

most

translations and editions of that time.

Latin

influence

on

the

Armenian

Bible

begins

by gradually

introducing the Latin division of the text in the thirteenth century. seems

printed Bible,

edition and

Vulgate. from

of 1666

inserted

introduced

marginal

notes

Latin names and

perhaps

for certain some

books

corrections

Nevertheless, he followed in the main the manuscript

the

year

overestimated. arrived

There

to have been no influence on the text itself before Oskan, who, in his

1295,

and

Gehman,

at a similar

his

dependence

in his examination

conclusion.ll

on

the

Vulgate

of the Armenian

of the

from

Erevan

should

not

the

180, be

text in Daniel,

JOHNSON

So we

must

look in another

direction if we are to find the basis and

the background for the activity in the field of the Armenian during the thirteenth century.

361

This background

Biblical study

is obviously Greek.

One of the novelties in the Armenian text at this time is the division of the

text

into

sections.

division of the text. variety of systems. and

Earlier

there

existed

several

systems

for

the

The Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint offer a wide It is important to distinguish here between the character

the history of the text itself and the sections

marked

in the text.

In

many cases a mere glance at the manuscripts shows that the signs indicating the text sections are by a later hand.

But even when they were inserted by

the copyist himself, they are of course not of the same from the same source as the text form.

age, nor necessarily

It makes sense that the division into

sections took place at first in order to compare manuscripts with each other; that

is, it emanated

libraries.

from

the

scribes

Consequently, the same

certain

number

textual

character.

systems,

of sections

In the

the

system applied

Septuagint

sometimes combined

out completely.

was

or

scholars

in monasteries

and

for the division of the text into a to manuscripts

tradition

there

of quite different

are

several

parallel

in the same manuscript and not always carried

The length of the single sections can vary considerably

and

gives the impression that the work was conducted in a rather arbitrary way. One section may contain just a few lines and the next one several pages. possible explanation of this might be that some

A

signs indicating the sections

were lost, and the next copyist changed the surviving numbers of the sections to the right sequences. The

existing

division

of the

Armenian

Bible

into

sections

is not

complete in the earliest manuscripts (from the thirteenth century) and seem to have been introduced at the same Armenian

This

indicates

manuscripts Samuel

time.

manuscripts and was taken over

that

it was

at a time.

also in this respect.

Armenian

text.

Vaticanus

(the majuscule

The same

taken

I have

over

checked

In 1 Samuel division

B) from

This division is the same in the by Zohrab

from

a

several

in his printed edition.

single

or

Greek

manuscripts

a

few

Greek for 1

there are eighty sections in the

of the text is found

the fourth century,

in the old Codex

where

the signs are

obviously inserted by a later hand, and in thirteenth-century Codex Vaticanus no. 330, Rahlfs's Number

the Old Testament.

108.12

This manuscript

contains the first half of

The division into sections is very different in the various

books, and sometimes in the same book there is competition between parallel

362

MEDIEVAL

systems. was

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Only Joshua (30 sections) and 1 Samuel have the same division that

taken

over

by the Armenian

Rahlfs remarks

has marked

Bible.

that this manuscript,

the layers with

Greek,

according

old Slavonic

to Mercati

and Guidi,

and old Armenian

number

letters.

An examination of the manuscript shows that every eighth sheet has

a Greek

and

an

old

Slavonic

letters in this connection. of Georgian

Armenian,

number,

number-letters.

in the

There

margin,

division of the sections.

but

there

are

are,

they

occasionally,

have

hardly

might have been

biblical text in the Eastern indication

Armenian

manuscripts

any

Armenian

is rather a series

some

signs,

anything

involved

possibly

to do with

the

the

and were

These

in the work

with the

churches. of

influence

exerted

Armenian text at this time are the marginal notes. variant readings.

hardly

But the Slavonic and not least the Georgian signs

show that this manuscript Another

but

The third sequence of numbers

also taken

over

notes are very uniform

by the

Greek

on

the

They are found in several by Zohrab

and

printed

in the Armenian

as

tradition,

and they were obviously taken from a specific Greek manuscript in the same

way as the division of the text had been. notes

usually

parallel

to

refer the

Symmachus.

to variant

Septuagint,

An examination

they often

appear

was

divided

exerted

not

Greek

to which

Aquila,

manuscript

sections

and

supplied

though

limited

undergone

translations

Theodotion,

and

108.13

though, in the thirteenth

have

Greek

these

these facts lead is that the Armenian

one or a few Greek

to

to

even

a similar,

seem

the three

character

into

readings from

from

attributed

manuscripts

of the marginal notes in 1 Samuel shows that

in the same

The conclusion kept its uniform

readings and

In the Greek

with

marginal

manuscripts. influence.

any

century,

notes

Bible

the text

and

parallel

Later, the Latin

tradition

As for the text itself, it does

revision

as

a

consequence

of

these

influences.

NOTES

LA numerous written

good

representative

references by La Croze.

to

the

of

the

Armenian

discussion translation

The correspondence

is to

be

in letters

found

in the

received

or

is gathered in Thesauri epistolici

Lacroziani (ed. I. L. Uhlius; Lipsiae, 1742-46)

1-3.

JOHNSON

2H.

Bredenkamp,

Testaments,'

"Ueber

Eichhorn's

die

Armenische

Allgemeine

Bibliothek

Uebersetzung

der

biblischen

363

des

Alten

Litteratur

4

(1937) 623-652. FThesauri epistolici niAA

Lacroziani,

3. 201.

Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament

(4th ed.; Gottingen,

1823) 2.329-349,

Dbid., 348. 6F, G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts Being a History of the Text and its Translations

and enlarged, London, TA. according

E.

Brooke

and

to the Text

Manuscripts,

Ancient

N.

McLean,

of Codex

with a Critical

Authorities

(4th ed.; London,

1903; Revised,

rewritten

1939). eds.,

Vaticanus,

Apparatus

The

Old

Testament

Supplemented

Containing

in Greek

from other Uncial

the Variants of the Chief

for the Text of the Septuagint (Cambridge:

University

Press, 1906-) 1-. 8A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta

Vetus

W. Kappler,

J. Ziegler,

Testamentum

Graecum

Gôttingensis editum (Gôttingen: 2H. S. Gehman,

Die armenische

1. Samuelbuch

(Coniectanea

1968); B. Johnson,

Forschung

zur

Bibel.

Septuaginta.

Festschrift

Echter

1972)

Notes

Verlag,

in Armenian

Jerusalem:

Translation Studies

St.

Wort,

für

67-72;

Lied

James

Joseph

Arbor,

1976)

penetrating studies of the Armenian

on

the

zur

Würzburg: Marginal

17-20;

C.

E.

Cox,

Press,

The

Armenian

Armenian

Texts and

1981).

See

also

the

text in certain volumes of the Güttingen

6; 301-327.

"Daniel," 95.

aus Erevan,!

and Biblical Studies (ed. M. E. Stone;

Scholars

edition of the Septuagint.

11Gehman,

Remarks

CWK

Beiträge

(ed. J. Schreiner;

‘Some

Zeuge im

2; Lund:

Gottesspruch.

(University of Pennsylvania

Michigan:

10Cox, Deuteronomy,

als hexaplarischer Series

and its

48 (1930) 82-

Bibelhandschriften

Ziegler

B. Johnson,

Press,

Litterarum

1931-) 1-.

Wissenschaft

Testament

und

1 Samuel," Armenian

of Deuteronomy

2, Ann

Old

"Fünf armenische

1.

J. Wevers eds.,

Version of the Book of Daniel

Bibelübersetzung

biblica

and

Societatis

& Ruprecht,

für die Alttestamentliche

99; B. Johnson,

Gleerup,

Vandenhoeck

"The Armenian

Affinities,"' Zeitschrift

R. Hanhart Auctoritate

364

MEDIEVAL

12A, Testaments,"

schaften

ARMENIAN

Rahlfs,

"Verzeichnis

Nachrichten

zu Gôttingen

von

CULTURE

der griechischen der

Koniglichen

(Philologisch-historische

Handschriften Gesellschaft

Klasse

des Alten

der

Wissen-

1914 Beiheft, Berlin,

1915) 248. 133ohnson,

"Marginal

Marginalia in 4 Kingdoms,' Jerusalem:

St. James

Notes,'

Armenian

Press,

M.

E. Stone,

"Additional

note

on

the

and Biblical Studies (ed. M. E. Stone;

1976) 21-22.

THE

USE

OF LECTIONARY THE

TEXT

MANUSCRIPTS

OF THE

ARMENIAN

Claude

Brandon

The

textual

following tools:

critic

BIBLE

Cox

University

of the

1) Armenian

TO ESTABLISH

(Canada)

Armenian

Bible

has

available

indeed the Georgian is a daughter version of the Armenian; the

biblical

manuscripts;

text

the

historical

and

ecclesiastical

3) quotations of

writings;

4)

lectionary

5) editions of varying quality of the parent text (Greek, Syriac)

of the Armenian Until

in

to him

manuscripts (mss); 2) the Georgian version, if

version.

now,

the textual

limited itself to 1 and 5.

criticism

of the Armenian

Bible has generally

The chief exception to this is Lyonnet who employs

1 through 5 in an attempt to recover a form of text of the Gospels older than that

preserved

in Zohrabian's

evidence

of the existence

attempt

to

application.

back

Lyonnet

behind"

was

of Tatian's

Zohrabian's

trying

to discover

Diatessaron

text-type

has

a

much

but

his

wider

Put most simply, the Armenian Bible was translated in the early

fifth century thirteenth

‘get

edition.2

of a translation

but mss of the complete

centuries.?

Bible do not predate the twelfth

or

The question, then, is, "Can we and, if so, how do we

get back to a text that is closer to the date of translation than is the form of text, e.g., in Zohrabian who printed a fourteenth-century lies in a methodology

that employs

special

As for

challenges.

Armenian

1, we

possess

textual tradition of the various

be compared 2)

and more

different

text

biblical books.

The answer

groups

within

the

These groups can

original types of text determined.

The use of the Georgian version may be of value for the textual

criticism of some books of the Armenian Bible. T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

ms?"

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 each of which has its own

Texts

Medieval and

Studies

pp. 365 to 380.

365

However, repeated attempts

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

366

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

at revision of the Georgian

CULTURE

Bible make

its use as a daughter

version quite

hazardous.4# 3)

Quotations

from

the

Bible

in Armenian

and historians are an important potential means of the Armenian

biblical text.

The same

ecclesiastical

of access

writers

to an early form

problems that face the use of the

quotations to establish the text of the Septuagint are present here:

citation

from

critical

memory,

alteration

in

the

course

of

recopying,

lack

of

editions.? 4)

The extent to which the Armenian

a valuable

means

of access

Lectionary may prove to be

to an early text has not yet been

assessed.

As

with quotations one can expect that scribes would alter an older type of text

to agree with a later one with which they were

familiar.

As with 2 and 3

one is faced with the problem of not having a critical edition: individual 5)

The

use of the Greek

control in the textual

Greek

and

Syriac

criticism

texts,

textual traditions.

Greek

one must use

mss. and Syriac translations

of the Armenian

and

especially

the

Bible.

Greek,

is an important

However,

represent

both

the

developing

As a result one is forced to ask concerning "what kind of"!

or Syriac text the Armenian

is related to.

Further, though Koriwn

seems to suggest a relation to the Syriac, the nature of that relation is not yet clear.

from

Armenian

Deuteronomy (Dt), e.g., derives its present form at least

a particular type of Greek

The text-critical

collation

purpose

of

this

paper

use of the Armenian

of lectionary

text.

citations

is to

call

Lectionary

from

attention

by offering

to

the

potential

the results

of the

Dt.

The lectionary citations of Dt were collated against the text printed in Deuteronomy.

The text printed there is that of ms 61 (San Lazarro

ms

1007). This ms belongs to the "group a"! group of mss, the text-group which offers the purest form

Ms 61, dated date.

of text.

1332, and other mss of group a are medieval or later in

The question naturally arises about the extent

text preserves

the translation

made

to which this type of

in the fifth century.

Concerning

text-critical usefulness of scriptural citations in the Lectionary,

me

that the following possibilities emerge:

it seems

the to

COX

1)

2)

Lectionary

mss take us back earlier than the best type of text extant

in biblical

mss of the Middle

Ages.

Lectionary mss provide a type of text as good as our best extant type of text = group a in Deuteronomy.

offer

corroborating

extant 3)

367

The

evidence

In this case, the Lectionary could

that

would

help to establish

the

best

type of text.

type of text

preserved

in Lectionary

mss is a developed

text such as is preserved in 57 (= Zohrabian's

citations

will

ms).

not

add

type of

In this case,

significantly

the

collation

of Lectionary

to ms

evidence

and will be of little use for establishing the original text.

In all of the above it would be more precise to say ‘the earliest type of text preserved in lectionary mss' rather than "lectionary mss" or "the type of text

preserved

in lectionary

mss.!'

lectionary

mss

the same

to offer

This is so because

one

type of biblical

should not expect all

text:

Lectionaries

from

different localities and of different dates likely will reflect the type of text in use

in particular

localities

at

particular

dates.

Therefore

guidelines likely apply to lectionary mss as apply to biblical mss:

lectionary mss from Armenia

the

same

the earliest

proper likely will preserve the most valuable

text.

The collations of the Lectionary texts offered here are limited to Dt. The Lectionary

contains

7:11-8:1;

8:12-9:10;

represent

more

The three Le

the following

9:11-9:24;

than one-eighth lectionary

Jerusalem

selections

10:1-10:15;

dated

which is located

that

book:

These

6:4-7:10;

113

verses

of the text of Dt.

mss collated

121,

from

11:10-11:25.

are:

ji192,

copied

in the Amanus

in

Mashkevor

Mountains

located north of Antioch of Syria.

which

monastery are, in turn,

This ms is designated below

as LI. 2:

Jerusalem

1998,

dated

1374,

province of Sivas; Tiwrik located

about

midway

This is designated 25

Leiden,

known./

copied

in Tiwrik

= Divrigi, Diwrigi,

between

Ankara

in the Turkish

or Difrigi and is

and Lake Van.6

L2.

Rijksuniversiteit

Or.

This ms is designated

5479,

15th

century,

origin

un-

L3.

The list given below is the list of readings collected from the collation of the lectionary mss against the text in Deuteronomy. sigla employed.

The following are the

Ms 9 appears in full collation (not partial as in Deuteronomy)

368

as

MEDIEVAL

CULTURE

ms)

base

Zohrabian's

(=

57

does

ARMENIAN

does

which

all

at

appear

not

in

(See appendix for collations.)

Deuteronomy. Biblical

mss:

9-13-61

al

253

Group

a

all

130 =243::233 33

bI

218

bII

b

331=133mr0218 38

cl

57

cil

33-2935

Lectionary

c

21057

162

d

174

e

mss:

BEN

El PPT SEp LCSS 7)

Lula? For other signs and abbreviations

From conclusions

the

known

lectionary

the biblical these

collation

of

the

three

lectionary

xvii-xix.

mss

the

following

can be drawn.

First, tradition

the

see Deuteronomy,

text

of

previously

the

lectionary

from

the

mss

belongs

biblical

mss.

within Put

the

textual

differently,

the

mss do not take us back closer to the date of translation than do

mss.

lectionary

There mss:

appear

to be no original readings attested

Li and L2 alone attest

only by

the use of the demonstrative

nu with the pronoun at 7:1 and with the verb at 9:7.

These are noteworthy

readings but it cannot be proven yet that they are more. likely to be original

than the forms

without

the nu.8

Second, the textual character of the lectionary mss can be determined generally.

This can be done by assessing the amount

group a type of text.

lists of readings characteristic group

bc readings

of deviation

from

the

From the apparatus of Deuteronomy one can assemble

and

readings are as follows:?

the

of the different

agreements

of the

text groups. lectionary

There mss

with

are 28 these

COX

Total

bc readings

Atrestedhby "ML

28

5

What

this means

much

more

1iel2

13

11

18

369

is that LI is basically a group a type of text while L3 is

a group bc type of text; L2 is more

a bc type of text than LI

but less so than L3. Do the lectionary passages of Dt found Total

mss belong with group b or with group c?

in the Lectionary

c readings

there are Attestedibyes{t

14

0

this is that

LI

is not

is?

13

2

3

The conclusion

to be drawn

group © text:

it is a group a type of text but shares a few readings with

group b.

from

In the

14 group c readings. 10

L2 and L3 have few group c readings:

are

more

group

developed

text-type

developed

than group c.

Third,

as

b than

than

must

group

that the text-types they

€ text-types.

If group

c is a more

group b then L2 and L3 offer a text that is less be

clear

from

lectionary mss do not offer among This can be demonstrated

readings among

by the

they do have substantial

agreements with bc readings and this can only mean attest

influenced

remarks

themselves

just

made,

a homogeneous

these

three

type of text.

further by comparing the numbers of shared unique

the three mss:

Mss

Shared unique readings

CI FIL2EPL3

LI

0

E2

12

LI + L3

311

É2 + L3

ï)

It is clear from this comparison

that Li and L2 are more closely related to

each other than is Li to L3 or L2 to L3. Finally, to respond to the questions posed at the outset concerning the

text-critical value of lectionary mss: these lectionary

by the best extant type of text known offered

by mss

L2 and L3 are more

the group c type of text.

offer

corroborating

recoverable is offered text-critic

text.

the earliest type of text preserved in

mss, i.e., the text in LI, is about as good as that preserved

One

evidence If among

may

that

from biblical mss.

The types of text

developed, but not yet so developed as conclude

would

that the lectionary

help

to

establish

the

mss

can

earliest

the three lectionary mss the purest type of text

by the earliest ms and the most developed by the latest then the may

expect

to

find

the

earliest

lectionary

witness

the

most

370

MEDIEVAL

valuable.

ARMENIAN

This conforms

CULTURE

with general text-critical

principles.

NOTES ÎThese

Gottingen

text-critical

or Armenian, biblical

tools

edition

text

coincide

with

of the Greek

methodology:

into

which

those

OT

1) Greek

the

mss;

Greek

in commentaries

available

to

(The Septuagint

an

2) the versions,

was

translated;

of the church

editor

[LXX]),

fathers;

of the Gôttingen

From

of

4) lectionary

of the mss;

5)

As an example

approach cf., e.g., J. W. Wevers, ed., Genesis (Septuagint,

Testamentum

tingensis editum,

the

such as the Latin

3) quotations

edition(s) of the biblical text in the parent language, Hebrew. Vetus

of

a model

Graecum,

Auctoritate

1; Gôttingen:

Vandenhoeck

the start the Gottingen

LXX

mss in the belief that they represent have little text-critical

Academiae

usefulness.

Scientarum

and Ruprecht,

Greek

text forms

See J. W. Wevers,

in Gottingen,

dritte Folge, Nr. 81; Gôttingen:

25. Lyonnet,

Philologisch-Historisch

Vandenhoeck

13; Rome:

History of the

XI, Abhandlungen

and Ruprecht,

Les origines de la Version arménienne

(iblica et Orientalia

lectionary

and therefore

Text

Greek Genesis (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Akademie der Wissenschaft

1974).

has disregarded

late, mixed

Pontifico Istituto

Got-

Klasse,

1974), 176-185.

et le Diatessaron

Biblico,

1950).

ÎThe earliest complete Bible listed in my The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy Chico, CA: century;

(University Scholars

of Pennsylvania

Press,

the next oldest

Armenian

1981) is San Lazarro

is Yerevan

ms

Texts

ms

178, dated

5See

6For Grand

location

2;

12th-13th

with Mzekala Shanidze

in preparing

s "Cyril

of Alexandra's

Organization information

Catalogue

Armenian

1311, dated

decided not to try to use the Georgian

Deuteronomy.

International

Studies,

1253-1255.

Hit was for this reason, based on conversations

in Tbilisi, that it was

and

Library;

Text

for

on

Jerusalem

121

of St. James

Manuscripts

Jerusalem:

St. James

of place names

Deuteronomy,"

for Septuagint and Cognate

I am

indebted

and

1998

(Calouste

Bulletin

Studies see

N. Bogharian,

Gulbenkian

Printing Press,

to A. K. Sanjian,

of the

10 (1977) 31f.

1966-).

ed.,

Foundation

For

ed., Colophons

the of

Armenian

Manuscripts

(Cambridge,

Renoux's XXXVI,

1971)

MA:

Le

1301-1480:

Harvard

Codex

A

Source

Middle

371

Eastern

History

University Press, 1969), Appendix C, 388-429.

armenien

Jerusalem

121

Fascicule

2, No.

168, ed. F. Graffin;

is devoted

to ms

121

Renoux

for

COX

dates the Jerusalem

(Patrologia

Orientalis

Turnhout/Belgique:

but does not reproduce

A.

Tome

Brepolis,

the biblical citations.

lectionary reflected by the later Armenian

mss

to the 5th century. Ms

121 and

in the summer helpfulness

1998 were collated

of 1975.

in Jerusalem

at St. James

Monastery

In this connection

I would

like to recognize

Norair

Keeper

of Manuscripts

of Archbishop

Bogharian,

the

at St.

James.

7Rijksuniversiteit Or. 5479 was collated in Leiden in July 1978.

grateful to J. J. S. Weitenberg for checking information 8There are a number

of issues which at present remain unresolved

the textual criticism of the Armenian demonstratives

-s -d -n:

I am

concerning this ms.

among

Bible.

in

One of these is the use of the

the readings listed below some

43 involve

confusion in this regard.

Another concerns confusion among various forms of

the subjunctive,

present and aorist and between

between

different forms of

the present and different forms of the aorist (e.g. 4k99ke

8:1:

both are aorist subjunctives).

variation number should

in the list above. of

a relative

the pronoun

There are some

Still a third

pronoun

when

be plural too?

the

area

or

4bg$ÿhe

at

24 cases of this type of

of confusion

antecedent

is plural

concerns

the

in number:

There are 8 cases of this in the list.

?Group bc readings are those attested by:

33' 38 162 174; 33' 38 162;

33! 38 174; 33 38 162 174; 33 38 162; 33 38 174; 218 38 162 174, 218 38 162. Group

c appears

Deuteronomy,

to be a development

219f.

In the collation

of the group

b type of text:

of the lectionary

between { and 7 is not counted, nor is the presence or absence

of final y.

(1) refers to a ehange of line or column. 10Group c readings are those attested llIncludes 9:17 where

by:

cf.

mss the distinction

38 162

the reading of Li is Li*vid.

174 or 38 162.

DT?

MEDIEVAL

Appendix 6:4

ARMENIAN

Collations

=

-

EDR

HÉTNIEP

ETS

|] pn

Jbp

23387

fin] + be

Ju

13 162

L3

L' 9 rell

LACL)

4

#

quauw

] qünuw

233 218 174 L2* L3

be 2° L3(1)

Enhgb 6:10

png

] SwbuwywpSh

Éwtuups

om

buy 4 Junwg

]pr kb 9 33' 38' 162 174 13

qw, om

CULTURE

] babgk%

omwp

2.

EL3

om

2

JI2

be

|] Ju4ndpuw 13, Jwkn4pwy

Jwkngpne

Jwknpwy

qoutwpu

57 233

|] puqwpu

] ane

ane 1

13' 33' 38' 174 L'

] wwühgh

mwbbgk

gone

2331

33' 38 174 L',

162

38 162 L3(1)

13 L'

] qnpu

13 L'

ane 2 qnpu 13' L' RS UE EUX qanp 3 |] arru 13' 38" 162 L1° L2 L3 Juwphgbu ] =bughu13 174 12 L3, =bugku baba 162 6:12

wuéhu

]

+ pnel

Eau

2

L3

wwounbu 3bu

233mg

]-b9bu

Jdupbughu

wa qu 9 U ] waqquwug gdbop

] qaébep

Gaufuu U4 mu wÿ 1 ]

qSw£ny'u

LE

UDE

d'huy U 57

L2

L Lil

SLS7ÈT;

] + pr

papébu gbu hnpé ne (ob ü

33 38' 162 L3

2T8L

] -hgbu

218,

Er 162 L' OrIS SSSR

ITASEE

-hgbu Ll ] {PE L3

|] qSw£snguu

9 33 38'

162

174 L3

ga Swény qaewrh tr 218 38' 162 174 L2 aewprh ] aewph% 13 218 38" 162 174 Li 13

Lchgh

] Lhübgh

Eponcwe F1nJ +.

geba

] daeba

brweneÿp

au

38' 162 174 12

|] bpqwe np 233

wo an euUp

] +%

L 162

13 33'

] +%

13

38'

13 174 L1 13,

L3

162 174 L2 13

La,

inc

bouvneüg

L2

COX

np

]

wë

wtnnh

38" 162 174 L3, om L

praeunp

tr

fin

] + be

om

DE uk &u

éupuwswnu

L3 T3

L2

] +

%

9 L3 rell

ahpuwerne üu ] bouwene‘uu 33' 38' 162 boiwene'üuu Ll*, qhoweneuu

Lbgb]

Lb%hgb

wyuopu] une

Jap œne

13 38'

] Drg

] + up

umwpgh

162 174 L'

162013,

CF Ou

TT

|] wwpgk

162(1)

|] quaequ

13

L3

13 Ll

qu ne p $wghu ] qud'ny $wgh%w 33 38' adbrbqawghu hbpbuwghu L2 abpneuwghu ] gaJbEpneuwghu OSSI

gadbkg

]

cuy

apbga

YVnuw

HP

233

post

qaeneuup

DA

uw gku

38

qneuunp

peer

9-233

gl

gE

aebtga

] qadébg

wJL be

FLO ]

L2,

+

218

57 162

%

L3

174

L2,

wwggbku

pr m)

-pbgneugk

L2 L3

L3

38'

162

Ll'

ua qu

L2

] qwgqu

] pr be

33

wub uw

Y

L1l

L3

] b 12

uwlkwewrnpp

134)

wyJL

LL

7

£2n

Swéb guwr

cr

gEk

ITA

L3

233 12

13

NS 8

] wn 1 2

pre

qui

] bu

L2

L2*(c

wqjuuwTpE gne guuhgE]

wwpuh

12

(L)

] un gbu

gopebé ] anvnb

174

L3

nefun tr

1 nwgbku

wnünegneu

I2,

13

] qnp 162 Ll il qnev L

quaqu'

174 FLE

218 38 162 174 L'

wyuep

fipu bu

fin

13) 13' L3

12

] huwpuwe ALU.

] up

Swpg

nbuybu pp (bufp

L3

]pr b

fupuwe nu

CITE

L3

Jhéwlbé

] sup suwupwuu

Jbekebh%

373

|] wn

(=wewrnepp9)

5'£-rell

IL

9-61-233

] uwkwewnp

Lil

374

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

abpqened'uu

Swupg

]

CULTURE

] abpœned'u

+%

bÇwÿ |] pre

hwupuwrnuh

Egbuwmwgng

-Lagÿ

ANnIE = wgg |] wqgqu

y L

] unbybwg 218

qu uan ne hp

]

+

] Luhgke

Cm

2

qé une

L2

233

174

L2

hd

L2

9-13' 218 174 L

MES

] qrefun 13 162 L Uqu

qé'unr Uy

ga grpbwu

] pr

6 prae

9 L3

L es 5702

ggnnpbuwu

tr

162

abn ] ahen 162 L2 L3, qunbuwuju

|] quüquyu

np

png

Swpgÿü

cbgb ons

] Enbgb

aufoun

174

|] wa

wë gE

E[E

ne ÿ 13

33

L3*

(c pr m)

38!

162

L2

13

Il

|] Yuwynein ] unyw

dun |] wpnk ThUINCENNTS

gahwupe

tr

Il

] w#bgE

ahuwwneun

qnp

L

Ekbwwgng%] =ng qanpu ] arr L2 wyL

9 Li rell

13

] J www

] wfunu

L3

qben

Lil

prae

h0233108 (1)

J w'bwu ne ‘uu

ww

162

+£6g L3

qrefunu be

38'

Ll

cehgte om

9-233

L3

bepng om L3 13 57 174 L'

] wyJn

NEE

L3

13 174 L2

hwpue ny Uuh

Jdunbibwg

174

9 Ll L3 rell

13 218

EE

9-13

] abbwpæ

9 Ll,

L2 L3

mue

[ZE 13

33'

38"

162

174

L2

218 L'

IL

bobvshobe ] bphbgbu 11 Lan gwuEk

] + %

9L

dhéwSbkéu

1

gaewqnce4u

] qewqnek

om

pr

2

wé% 9-61-233

>

2/13

13'

218 L'

L3

] wé L' rell

JbEpbuwg ] Jbpbuwgp Ll*(c pr m), Jbpbuwg L2(1) géhuunwg |] =nwtwgu 174 I3, uuUug Ll,unwgu% L2

que hwhgbu

]=bugbu

L3

L3

COX

Lhübhgh

] Lhah

13 57 162 12 13

qu'une U ] qu'unebu nbqen$SEu

4bggË

L2

] nbqenn$E

9 ] 4wyg6

L2,qnre2buwy

wpéwfny etnukny Pb Vngwuk ] Gangw

tr Ll

nwuh

L3

]

Ll

13' 174 L'

anroO2buwiu ]pr be bg ] anbu 1621

ghu

375

-hgbu

13

218 57 162 L

L2

Lhübabe | db Lhvbgbu va ny

] Gq nfu

162

quan

U i q Lu Y

wJL

|] wyn L

L3

L2

om br 3: LI*(c prim) &œuunne fpu'uwg ] =Lwgu om

bu

Eu

d'uey un fi4 p ] nh4

I2

Lil

eba 9 ] éba 61° -233° 33 38' 162 L3 4kkggke ] 4bgÿhe L2 13 218

L3

chübgbe ] Lbvb$he L2 13 dunwuy h 9E p

] Pre

bui13

73,

Er

durw

Eu S hp

L2

2h%hgbu ] =bugbu 9-13 33 38' 162 174 E2 L3 Etw4hgbu ] =bugbu 13 33 38' 162 174 L2 L3 up

jun

]

+ pn

om pnl Ju£wluhgk

12 ]=-bugk

CPE)

Ombre

'erell

"197

d'anuu ghu

8:15

9 38 L2

POINTS

om a

gg

1

uwugunn

om

pm

] J'nnuwbwy gku

L

L3 ] pPr'h

238,13,

wbwmmunn

13

L2

2 L3

huph£é ] 4wphé 33 38° 162 12 13

wunebp Dong 8:16

] wnebep 33 162 L3 ] Pnepg 13

33

38'

hkbowkpbwgü

] =Yÿnbwg

ba

61-233*]

d'utuwüw

Ll, pbq qdobg

NZ

9 218

174

d'un

9 L'

qpba

] +

up uw

] wpwuphw

few

33 38'

|] hu

L,wnrhep

1621,

233

Sbep

L3

rell

J'utwüpe

d'utwtwhe ü 233€,

Swpp

qacpocefhü

%

38'

qpbq

(yheQ T1 )9-13 d'utwuheu

L2*,

L2C pr m L3 rell

162 174 L'

Ll

33

38'

qu à Glsup lin 218 txt qaJbé ] Jbé& 9 L' rell

162

13

|] quyu

33-2]18mg

38'

162

174 L3

376

CULTURE

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

wyL

|] wn

162 Li

ngd

| red

12

12

]pr 4

acpneËh

EEE ] PE 12

L2 38

gku ] d'an ww d'anuu ghu 33' ] Eplwy gbu Epléb gbu

wwpunbugbku

om

be

]

4

-hg6e

Ll*(c

174

323338

] ane

16217413

13 12

Ynpvsbhe

Yknrvsbabe

L3

pr m)

] ww gbu 9-233 IA, tr Ll Ynpeuwbule L2

a cg wub gbu kw wyuop Ynpuwbulp

qnou

162

33 (L)POLS

13

Unpvsbobe ] urebobe 29-233 33 38 L' bkn

] h£L

om

be

1

38'

174.512 13 L2 L3

38' 162 174 12

qeopwgngu

] pr

4

57 Ll,

] arr

qaerwgnJÿ

33 38' 162 L2 13

|] Jbrkhÿu

abokbüw

qnou

9-13'

] wugwuhgku

w Uguw Ubu

174 L3

13 218 57 13

PE ] PE

13 33 38! 162 174 L3

om

wJuen

L3

om

‘“w

kpBbgt ] trPuwygt 33 38' 162 174 L2 13 Snepü ] S$nep 162 L2 L3 wnwÿh

2

je

post

q'unuw

BE ] &RE

33" 13

mp

wé

1 ]+

aewph wyL

np

] ewrb

] wn

2e]

up

L

23313

13 33 38' 162 174 L'

218 L

+ w8

nefèk

tr

233

L3

] wdé neffbwu

Il

abrhbr ] +% 9-13' 33' 174 L2 L3 wJL | wn L 4h 61-233 ] be L, PrbeLà rell qnefun ] wp om up 2 174

om

be 2

L2 L3

233 L

|] Juwkndpw 13,Jwkn4puwy 33 38 174 L2 L3,

Jukndpne

Juwknpuwy

9-233

ET LUN 2 aewph 9-61 |] pwph bLite

]+%

duphthe

===

L

Yngu

LE un U'U ] Lhun% qui fun wi u

218 57 162

L' rell ] dwkngu 57 L2 L3

] quwufunwku

L2

11()

COX

ne foun fr ] iv

13

abph4nubü

bphneu

eurbnE ‘tu

ewpbnEu

qerbuwçu

OT

9:12

57

] grbuwy

12

LIi*(l)gbpyneu

13

218

] Jwenepu

L2

en fun ww

Lu

174

eurbaE‘uu

+4

L3

]

wink

Llc pr m L2

L2

Jdwenep'ü

wpetu

174

12

L

L3

qu twmunp Sue ] qÉwbwmun $we pn Ll dneçpwëny |] dneg= L, d&nepwényu 13' Enyr]

om

Bnen

fhd

33 38'

162

174

Lil

L3(1)

unwcbky ]pr be 174 qupéEuwy ] qupéwy

LERGE

377

] phbuwun GE

Ll L3 L2

13

LE un U4U ] LEwnY

9-13

L2

L3

encenebr

] encrenpbus

En 13

dnepwéng

] dnen= Ll, dnepuënyu 13 33 38' 162 174 L

abrhnukw

] abryneukhÿü

qunuS h uU

] -ÿhu

bpynph% ] bpyneu 174 12, bphyne Ll L3 rell unwfunwl pu -Lp 13 Jbpynukhu ] Jbpyneuhÿ Il L3 b ébnu ]om hf 1313, dEnk% 1741

qéuwp

|] £swr

218

174

174

L1* vid L3 L2(1)

L'

upudnneft ab ] arr püd post om be 4 dulw@wkh

] -Ph% 13 57 162 L2, Llinc 13 peur tr 13 218 38' 162 174 L' 13 218 57 162 174 L' ] +% 162 174 L2

ON uw

LS ET, ] +% 13

EL uw

2

38

qad'bqu“u

] gadbnu

13 L2

bowwkp

] Rÿwvk

12

] Lhunuk

L3

LEn GE

om

hp 2

Il

abobqdwuuÿ

174

L2

L3

] =Jutu 33' 38' 162 174 L2 L3

gwük4nefft ] -[fbü 13 33 38' 162 Jbp ] dbp 9-13 33 38' 162 L' Luwpku

wu E

pun

] DEN

Ubu

]

Ykur kg eur

Ubu,

174

L2

e 23303308

om abph4hbrw L2 dbpned ] ébpny 33' 38' 162 174 L1 L3

L'

L3

378

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

du nt

9:24

10:1

Uhr { EwÿUR 2 ] Vanpw

dunf uw ul fr 1 POUR Lu aug ] wubk 13 L' L En WU ] LEunmu

2SS

-qudu

233 162(1)

Jwthnean

&ngbgh

Ynqlwuu

218,

SSTGAPT17ASTALES

9

qnpu

] LRU

mu 131

13

1 en utup Dub

|] qnm

162 174 13, Ll ) 4nyu

218

a nan uwu U ü Œne

1075

L3 L

unGwul nnd'wuu |] pr k 38' on tu nn d'un twknnd

en ua cu ul u

10:2

CULTURE

33(1)

33 UNE B

13

LE uwn UUu ] LEwn

I3

rell

57 L1l

174 L2 L3

TTA NE

] Jdwwhnun

] =bugk

L'

L2

bpknphü ] bnyne L rell h dbnu ] om h 13 Il, dbnfü 174 L2 13 OM

EL

AMIS

] wSwpnÿ

bnbwqun

|] Enhbwquwup

Ynpw 10:77

NT

wSwpndü

2]

Gw

233 33 38' 162 L3 9-13

ANT MIPE be 223858 Jbunbhu 13-61 ] JEnbhuy J Eunwkwy

L rell

Dneeg ] Preng L2*vid, 10:8

om

uw

gwJuen

10:9

wyunphh 4wyh om

du up TOIT

10:12

|] wyunph4

L'

162,

Jbnbhuy

Swpg%

$fpng 33" 174 L' 7

l

Ll

13

Juuÿ

be

13

33' 38' 162 L3

33' 38' 162 174 L'

L2

|] Swpg

218 L

bEn ] hEL 9-13' 38' 174 12 13 wJn

2e

chgh om

Erkkr om

Ll

REA

] Lhkühgh 27

si

13 218 174 12

Lil

]pr te

33 38' 162 174 13, om L2

BEA

qq ue wl

9,JEwmwkwg ..

wtw4h ]+% 13' 38' 162 174 L 2 9-61-233 L ] om L3 rell

GmuÉ

10:15

]pr

] 4wgh ump

wi L

10:13 10:14

174

L3 ] JduJuwrp

dunwugneféth

10:10

57

9-13 L3

] queuwl

L1*

L2,

COX

adba ]prke wenen

11:10

E

218(1)

wenepg

L3

161.33.

wyL

|] wyn

om

ænep

LE ur

Guy hu

om

11:14

233 L3

61

Uuy hu

162

9-13

162

9 L'

11:16

Jwqbu ghu

Un

L2

] hghu ] Ju

174

Il

hu L1*

I,

gnepwuy 96e 13,

Jnepuwbuy gEkwl 3 38' om

whpu

u ppun

==

] ubpne

Yknpvshghe dbq

]

] büä

wpkghe

JwugwuhgEp 139381"162

102

-b9be 11, 4nrushe 13 13

] quauw

9 L'

rell

] Enbgb 218 12

wupwnd

wbpowunpdp

L3

Lune Le ÉCE be 3 162 L3 À 6 Lil L3

11:20

qu'au uw il qu nw

121

Lbübghe wenepg

%

] UHR

brkrkb%

L3

12

] -bÿhe

] +

bpkrb

6113

218 38' 162 174 12

A3

] eba

T

] bräph

EBE ] BE 162 12 cebsbe ] vrehôhe dbq

L2

L3

L2

16-233

bababt rene) om om

162

] wruu$her

q'unuw

9 L2 13

9 L rell

L2

wë ]+ gn 218 38' 162 174 L2 L3 œtur ] pr Fe L3 11:23

rell

L3

JrepuwuygE |] gnen=

142322

9 L'

L3

|] wpÿuwunny

J w'Ud h ‘üu

l'ISS

rell

om ba 1 33 38° 162 L3(1) dbpng ] ébpnel 9 33 38' 162 L1*(c pr m) L2 L3 qbn |] aben 9-13" 33 38° 174 L', qhen 162 win

11:18

174;

33 38' 162 L'

] qupnwkuww

VapuyEk

ASS

T7

162

L2

] LE

2

]

03338"

Lil 13

pn

Uanpuw

nr

| nnnqw&bÿU

qupuuy hü

1e32

] une Rue TS

Jen 9.1" reul

]pr

wnnquwuÿE

LL:11

L

9-61

Jnpduwul

379

up |]

+ wg

L3

380

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

waqqu'u

|] pr qa 9 Ll

ébpng

2ng

quwaqqu

np

13

+ ÿ 13

$ga°pug

11:24

CULTURE

ny

9 ]

&nbuh gb

vu

né 1

12

218

] pr

4

L L2

23303338" bu

cbgb

] tabgh 12

ThéE

] Th

gbu

T3

abrubn wph gk np4 bu

M749E2

33'

38'

2

dhüsbe ] Jhüs 11 uwSlwvpu |] uwSd'wÿp 11:25

162

Li

] abrhben wpuwugk L2 FubE D233%E2

13

162

L'

233 33' 162 174 L'

THE

ARMENIAN THROUGH

GOSPEL THE

TEXT

FROM

FOURTEENTH

THE

FIFTH

CENTURIES

Joseph M. Alexanian Trinity College,

The

scholars

Armenian

version

Deerfield,

of the Bible

since the beginnings of modern

Studies by European have corroborated

and American

Illinois

has been of interest

New Testament

scholars

to textual

textual criticism.l

during the past forty-five

years

the testimony of Movsës Xorenac!'i and the shorter Koriwn

that the Armenian

New

Testament

early fifth century (Arm

was translated

first from

Syriac in the

1), and was revised following the Council of Ephesus

in 431 A.D. from Greek manuscripts (Arm 2).2 Although

scholars

have

been able to identify the Syriac base of Arm

1, the nature of the Greek text underlying Arm 2 is still a matter of debate. Progress in this area the Armenian

New

has been hampered Testament

based

by the lack of a critical edition of

on the earliest extant

manuscripts

by a scarcity of scholars trained in both classical Armenian of New

Testament

textual

criticism.

In a study begun about of fifty-five Armenian and

Georgian

ten years ago, the author analyzed the texts

gospel manuscripts and nineteen

witnesses

in Luke

11 using

compared

forty-seven of the above

regarding

their

gospels.ÿ

The Armenian

through

the

Jerusalem,

Our

omission

or

purpose

and

was

inclusion

centuries

the United

to solve

the

Armenian

& M. Stone,

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

pp. 381

eds.

Texts

and States

certain

Medieval

and

manuscripts, test

Method, # and

plus nine others,

passages

in the

four

sixty-four in all, date from the ninth are

Studies

to 394.

381

located

in

Soviet

Armenia,

of America.

problems

ology, investigate the nature and development T. Samuelian

Greek, Latin, Syriac,

Colwell-Tune

of seven

manuscripts,

seventeenth

Venice,

and

and the science

Armenian

6).

in text-critical

of the Armenian Culture.

Chico,

CA:

method-

gospel text, (University of

Scholars

Press,

382

and

MEDIEVAL

clarify

ARMENIAN

the relationship

CULTURE

of Armenian

to the various

families

of Greek

manuscripts in order to shed light on the history of the gospel text. paper we will limit our remarks

to the development

In this

of the Armenian gospel

text from the fifth through the fourteenth centuries, focusing on the nature of the fifth-century text, the forces that shaped it during ten centuries of transmission, and the differences between the Arm 2 text of the majority of our manuscripts and the text normally used by scholars, the printed Zohrabian

edition of 1805. The

Fifth-Century

Arm archetype

Text

1 was translated from the Syriac in the early fifth century.6 was not the Diatessaron

four-gospel

text

similar

to the

or the Peshitta

Sinaitic

The

Syriac but an Old Syriac

Syriac./

Arm

1 is found

in the

fifth-century fathers and the earliest liturgical manuscripts and is reflected

in the earliest Georgian manuscripts and fragments. also found Old

in some Syriac

of our extant and

Tatianic

Armenian readings,

ticiples, addition of personal pronouns, Syriac

characterized

gospels, Arm

the Arm

Traces of Arm

harmonization,

and proper nouns

1 text.?

1 are

manuscripts.8 avoidance

of par-

transliterated

In the test passages

from

from

the four

1 included Luke 22:43-44, the account of the Bloody Sweat, but

supported the critical text in the other six passages. 10 Arm

2 was the result of the revision of Arm

1 by Greek manuscripts

brought from Constantinople after the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.l1 Armenian

since

gospel

they

Greek.l2

all

manuscripts

share

examined

certain

free

thus

far derive

renderings

and

from

sixth

centuries, Arm

2 more

The nature eighty years. recently, manuscript

evidence

of

the

The earliest Armenian and Old Georgian manuscripts and fragments

found in the extant manuscripts.

and

revision,

mistranslations

suggest that the original form of Arm 2 was closer to Arm

conformed

this

AI

most

eliminated closely

1 than the text

Minor corrections, probably during the fifth

Old

Syriac

and

Tatianic

readings

of this Greek base has concerned

textual critics for over

Virtually every type of Greek text has been suggèsted. scholars

assumed

(or manuscripts)

against

the

that

the

Greek

of the Caesarean

existence

and

to the Greek.13

of

a

underlying

text-type.

Caesarean

Arm

However,

text-type

has

Until

2 was

a

as the

become

overwhelming, L4 the need for a reassessment of the relationship between the

ALEXANIAN

Armenian

and Greek

Our

texts

research

has become

suggests

that

383

urgent.

the base

of the

Arm

2 revision

manuscript of the Early Koine text similar to the Greek codex 1 (XII).

was

a

"Early

Koine!' is our designation for an influential text which developed out of the Alexandrian

earliest

text-type

in the

translations

into

second

Latin

century

and

and

Syriac.

became

It continued

wide-spread use into the Middle Ages and at the same medieval

Byzantine

the

base

for the

unchanged

in

time evolved into the

text-type.

The Early Koine text is the text of Origen (III) and the Greek family 1 (X-XV).

It is found in Jerusalem in the fourth century, in Constantinople

in the ninth century,

and has been

traced even

which had close ties with the Armenian Codex

1, the primary

witness

Church

early Arm

of Cappadocia,

until the late fourth century.

to the Early Koine text, is one of the primary

witnesses to our majority text in Luke

Old Syriac, the base for Arm

to Caesarea

11.

The other primary witnesses are

1, and Old Georgian, which was translated from

245

Arm

faithfully

2 is an accurate

represents

and proper

nouns

Greek

without

and sensitive translation of the Greek text.

word

order,

becoming

tenses,

grammatical

It

constructions,

slavish. 16

In Luke 11, Arm 2 avoids the longer additions from Matthew which are characteristic In company

of the Byzantine

text, but does contain

with the Alexandrians,

short harmonizations.

the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Early Koine,

Arm 2 rejects the additions to the Lord's prayer (11:2-4, cf. Matthew the request

for bread

(11:11, cf. Matthew

7:9), the reference

6:9-13),

to the bushel

(11:33, cf. Matthew 5:15), and the phrase "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (11:44, cf. Matthew

23:27).

are

Arm

11:11

representative,

(cf. Matthew

(cf. Matthew

6:22).

In short harmonizations,

2 follows

the Early

Koine

of which the following

in adding iwr/autou

in

7:9) and in reading the future tense etic'i/estai in 11:34

In substituting pargews baris/agatha for pneuma hagion

in 11:13 (cf. Matthew 7:11) and taéarn/naou for &ikou in 11:51 (cf. Matthew 23:35), Arm

2 follows its Old Syriac base.l7

(mid V—mid

XIII), Arm 2 read the critical text in all seven test passages. L8

The

Text

of the Sixth

the

Persians

through

Eighth

During the first eight centuries

Centuries

During these centuries, the Armenians fought repeatedly, first against and

later

against

the

Arabs,

to

preserve

their

church

and

384

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

culture.

We have no gospel manuscripts from this period, but written sources

and archaeological

Armenia

and

thousands

of Biblical,

produced.

Greek

remains

in major

text

testify to monasteries

cities

throughout

liturgical,

Opportunities

gospel

CULTURE

for

were

the

theological,

contact

plentiful

and

with

in

and scriptoria throughout

Near

East,

where

secular

no

doubt

manuscripts

were

the

Byzantine

Church

and

western

Armenia,

Jerusalem,

the

and

elsewhere.l?

Certain with

Arm

evidence

suggests

2 for acceptance,

until

readings with strong Armenian 2 readings

which

were

that

Arm

the

1 continued

eighteenth

Armenian

manuscript

displaced

"old

edition

Four

by Arm

1 readings

K'ft'enawor

He

notes

of the

minority

in our

majority

their

Gospel"

text.

1 during this period, before the

tradition diverged into two branches.20

father T'éodoros

anti-Chalcedonians. the

century.

and Greek support appear to be original Arm

Such readings witness to the presence of Arm century

in use, competing

refers

to Arm

The seventh-

1 while debating

with

rejection of the "first translation"

because

it contained

the

account

and

of

the

Bloody Sweat (Luke 22:43-44).21 Arm

2 steadily gained acceptance

ecclesiastical conservative

Arm

tendencies

2 underwent

would

gradual

minor.

The

random

corrections

involving

many

examples

from

spelling,

prefer in our

Greek

extant

substitution,

prior to the ninth century.22 some

and

article

usage

gained sufficient

were

omission,

illustrate

what

acceptance

time,

relatively

of harmonizations,

intra-versional

While many

where

At the same

manuscripts

constructions,

position,

readings,

1 text.

though the changes

manuscripts,

grammatical

and

of outlying monasteries

the Arm

modification,

occurring minority

during this period probably due to

pressure and to the destruction

variants

addition,

must

trans-

have

been

such variants remained to enter

the majority

Texts

Divergence

of the

Sometime into two

Manuscript

before

branches,

Group

majority of manuscripts,

Tradition

the ninth century, Z and

While

corpus of fifty-five manuscripts, W.

The

manuscripts

:

of Group

Group

Group

the Arm

w.23

Group

W contains

2 manuscripts

divided

Z comprises

the vast

only a few.

Out of our

fifty-one belong to Group Z, four to Group Z share

eight distinctive

Luke 11 which distinguish them from Group W.

group

readings

in

In 145 variation-units in Luke

ALEXANIAN

11,

pairs

of

agreement,

Group

Z

and

Group

W

manuscripts

with most of the percentages

show

385

only

53%-77%

being below 70%.

Percentages

and above.

Percentages

of agreement between pairs of Group Z manuscripts are above 70% for the vast reaching 90%

percentages

with some

majority, agreement

W manuscripts

for Group

of

are only 56%-67%.24

Our Group Z manuscripts date from the tenth through the seventeenth centuries.

They have higher percentages of agreement,

fewer errors,

fewer

singular readings, and fewer minority readings than the manuscripts of Group W.

They

are

the product

Frédéric preserves Louis

of a relatively

and

the original Arm

Leloir,

process

Macler

on

the

August 2 text.26

other

of conforming

hand,

Arm

controlled

Merk

textual

believed

view

Group

2 to the

suggests that the truth is somewhere assumed

Z as only

Greek

gospel

between

2 text conformed

context

of a scholarly

and

political, and

stage

Our

in the

research

these two extremes.

to the Byzantine

text.

ecclesiastical

concern

and

uniform

intellectual,

which

one

text.27

As we

But these changes

the proportions of a thorough revision, nor did they result in

an Arm

standable,

Z faithfully

Stanislas Lyonnet, Arthur Vôôübus, and

shall see, the Group Z text did change over the centuries. never

tradition.2

that Group

Biblical

text.

and religious

encouraged—perhaps

The

forces

at times

They occurred for

Group

which

an

within the

accurate,

under-

Z manuscripts

reflect

resisted

arbitrary

demanded—careful

change

transmission

of

the gospel text. The

Group

centuries.

W manuscripts

Among

them

are M1111

Armenian

gospel

manuscript

readings;

E3784

(1057,

harmonizations;

contains

errors,

and

the most

singular

and

Rhodes

J2562

readings

from

than the manuscripts of Group Z. among

them

must

explain satisfactorily

Any attempt peculiar

random theories

and

to reconstruct

readings.?l

the

1.

which

These

variants,

the

most

random

manuscript

#502),

and

with

together

manuscripts

especially

the

Greek most

with

E3784

contain

more

harmonizations

As we have seen, percentages of agree-

Arm

the history of the Armenian

the rise of Group

partly to error

with Greek

added

Arm

4991),28 the earliest dated

with

are low.2?

characteristics

contact

one

#863),

minority

the ninth through the eleventh

(887, Rhodes the

(XI, Rhodes

readings,

ment

date from

another

Macler

and harmonization,

manuscripts.30

1 as

W.

gospel text

attributed

their

but primarily to

Later armenologists refined his

important

source

of the

Group

W

386

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

Our examination

CULTURE

of the Group W manuscripts confirmed

of these scholars and contributed one additional Group

W.

Some

of

the

singular

and

the findings

source for the readings of

minority

readings

found

in these

manuscripts, and in some Group Z manuscripts as well, appear to be readings from the original Arm 2 revision which uiltimately failed to displace the Arm 1 readings in the accepted

gospel text.32

Thus, the divergence caused

by

Because

scribal

of

constant

uneducated

of Group

carelessness,

the textual

of

and

warfare,

persecution

and ill-prepared

W from

absence

control,

for the demanding

mainstream

and

clergy

was

provincialism.

were

sometimes

task of copying

the Biblical

text.

Circumstances

did not always allow for the control and correcting of

texts

provided

scriptorium.

spellings,

by a

and

preserved

Arm

À

1 and

provincial

original

spirit

Arm

clung

to

2 readings

dialectal

lost in the

majority of manuscripts.

Contributing factors were the geographic isolation

imposed by the Armenian

terrain, the availability of Greek manuscripts, and

the textual struggle between seventh

centuries, Group

trophes

W

characteristics

The

did

of the

Text

not

The

1 and Arm

on each

survive

the

religious,

and

twelfth

political,

centuries,

persist in a few later Group

ninth,

through

tenth,

and

Politically

2 during the fifth, sixth, and

independently

eleventh

of the Ninth

splendor.33

Arm

all operating

Eleventh

eleventh

divided,

the

manuscript. and

although

cultural

some

catas-

Group

W

Z manuscripts.

Centuries

centuries

several

were

a period

kingdoms

in

the

of cultural

Armenian

homeland built magnificent churches and cathedrals and decorated them with carvings

and

paintings,

some

of which

were

executed

by European

artists.

Ani, the capital of the Bagratid kingdom (859-1045), was filled with palaces and

"a thousand

and one

churches'"'

at the height of its power.

There

are

scholars who trace the origins of the European Gothic style to the Armenian architecture

of this period.

Monasteries and scriptoria flourished. manuscripts

were

produced

for royalty,

Beautifully illuminated Biblical

clergy, and

merchants.?#

wealthy

noblemen

and

Nineteen of our sixty-four manuscripts come from this period, including E229 (989, Rhodes #724) and E3793 (1053, Rhodes #866), the Group Z manuscripts closest to our majority text with 92%-93% agreement in Luke 11, and the four manuscripts »

of Group

W.

ALEXANIAN

387

During this period, errors, singular readings, and variants in Luke are

generally

majority

high.

text,

However,

in the

Group

they are greatly reduced.

Z manuscripts

closest

In the test passages,

11

to our

the critical

text is read in all seven cases by all manuscripts except E7737 (965, Rhodes #1019),

which

reads

Mark

and John

16:9-20

after

a subscript,

and E229,

Mark

16:9-20

from

the east and the Byzantine armies from the west.

which

reads

7:53-8:11.

The period came

to an end with the onslaughts of the Seljuk Turks Two hundred

years

of independence and glory passed, and hundreds of priceless manuscripts were destroyed.

The

Text

of the Twelfth

through

Fourteenth

Centuries

Two of our manuscripts are dated in the eleventh or twelfth centuries, and two in the twelfth.

The two earlier manuscripts, Ki (Rhodes #1048) and

K2 (Rhodes #1049), read the critical text in all five passages where they are extant.

31796 (late XII, Rhodes #475) reads the critical text in six of seven

passages,

K20

but includes

(XII, Rhodes

preceding passages

Luke

#1067)

six centuries where

22:43-44,

departs

as did the ancient

from

the

prevailing

Arm

Arm

1 text.

2 text

Only

of the

in reading the critical text in only one of the three

it is extant.

Copied probably in Xarberd, west of Armenia proper within Byzantine territory, K20 illustrates the extent of foreign influence on individual Arm

manuscripts. strongly

The

The name of the scribe's mother is Greek.

Byzantine

manuscript

surprising As

Turks,

and

contains

historic

house

Armenia

emigrated of Kars

kingdom.

Once

Hiomklay,

Sis,

again and

many

was

written

influenced invaded

southwest

founded

culture

of them

a prayer

to find the text of K20

Armenians

Bagratid

in character,

even

which

flourished. The

labelled

Byzantines

power

in Greek.

It is not text.

and

into Cilicia, where

a barony

elsewhere.

are

in Greek.35

by the Byzantine

by the

the

Seljuk

a prince of the

was

later

elevated

Scriptoria

were

established

and

2

The miniatures are

wealth

of the

to a

in

Armenian

kingdom of Cilicia (1080-1375) are reflected in the beautifully written and lavishly illuminated manuscripts produced for catholicoi, archbishops, priests, and

members

T'oros

Roslin

The

of the

royal

family.

and Sargis Picak

Bagratid

kingdom

The

graceful

illuminated

had preserved

and

the Biblical

creative

artistry

of

narratives.36

and enhanced

native Armenian

338

MEDIEVAL

culture.

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

The kingdom of Cilicia exposed Armenian culture for the first time

to the

full force

of European—especially

Frankish—culture.

As

a result,

Armenian social structure, religious life, law, art, and even the alphabet were

Europeanized.

The power and influence of the Roman

introduced into the life of the Armenian Church.

Catholic Church were

These dramatic changes in

Armenian society are reflected in the texts of our eighteen manuscripts from the thirteenth

and fourteenth

Whereas

read

centuries.

virtually all manuscripts

the critical

text

in all seven

prior to the thirteenth century had

test

passages,

thirteen

of the

fifteen

manuscripts examined in the four gospels now adopt the reading of the Latin Vulgate in one to six passages,

the average

being between

three

and

four.

Thé only two manuscripts to preserve the original Arm 2 text, C949 (XII-XII,

Rhodes

#1038)

eastern

and

and 31925

(1269,

northwestern

considerable

animosity

Rhodes

corners

toward

of

#477),

historic

from

the far north-

where

there

was

Cilicia.37

This shift from the Early Koine toward

dramatically

come

Armenia,

in the test passage

from

Luke.

the Vulgate text is seen most

Whereas

all but one

of the

fourteen manuscripts from the ninth through the twelfth centuries omit Luke 22:43-44,

all but

five of the

through the seventeenth

the account probably

passage as a means the

supposedly

awareness

manuscripts

centuries read it.

of the Bloody

due to Latin

thirty-four

Sweat

influence.

in the Armenian

the

in thirteenth-century

Pro-Latin

clergy may

Armenian

thirteenth

This overwhelming acceptance of

beginning

of assuring the Chalcedonian

Monophysite

from

Church.38

Cilicia is

have introduced

West of the orthodoxy It may

also

reflect

the

of an

Church that this passage, unlike the other six, was

found in the "first translation"

(Arm

1).

Vulgate influence is seen also in the introduction of Western art forms into manuscript

illumination,

the addition of the letters "6!" and "f! to the

alphabet, the adoption of the Frankish chapter divisions for the gospel text, the Latinized spelling of Solomon

(Luke 11:31) in some Cilician manuscripts,

and the rapid shift from erkat'agir (uncial) to bolorgir (minuscule) script at the beginning

of the thirteenth

century.39

There

is no evidence,

however,

that the influence of the Latin Vulgate resulted in a thorough revision of the Arm

2 text.

conspicuous An

Rather,

the changes appear

to be limited to proper names

and

passages such as the ones we have noted. interesting example

of conformity

31941 (1334-1349, Rhodes #484).

to the Vulgate text is seen

in

The text of this manuscript agrees with the

ALEXANIAN

Vulgate text in Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, and John 5:4.

389

In the remaining

four test passages, the original text follows the critical text, the original text of Arm

2.

However,

God" in Mark

a later hand has added Matthew

1:1 in the margins.

In Mark

16:2-3 and "the Son of

1:2, "Isaiah" has been erased by

a later hand and the sign of the plural added to "the prophet." is absent,

but a note

in the lower

margin,

indicates that the story of the woman

to the

note

Frankish

until

chapter

the

J1941

is the Frankish numbers

fifteenth

perhaps

caught in adultery belongs there.

designation

for chapter

are rarely found

century,

J1941

John 7:53-8:11

by the original scribe,

has

eight.

in Armenian

them

Next

Although

the

gospel manuscripts

throughout

the

four

gospels.

is also the earliest of our manuscripts by far to use the Latin letter

lo" for the diphthong "aw." In Luke

11, there is evidence of firmer control over the production of

manuscripts

in Cilician

eliminated.

Errors, singular readings, and random Greek readings are reduced

to their lowest harmonizations

point.

our majority text.

textual

the other

Percentages

changes

Cilician

of agreement

of the Vulgate

in Luke

11

2 readings

manuscripts

between

agreeing

readings

produce

which is smoother

our majority text.

have

are

ten

in the

a gospel

Cilician manuscripts

88%

text

and more.#0

test

passages

and the

in fourteenth-century

and fuller than the early Arm

2 text and

It is this text which is found in the Zohrabian edition of

In the test passages,

Cilician

1 and early Arm

hand,

pairs of manuscripts

adoption

Cilician Armenia

1805.

On

All Arm

(mostly intra-versional) and other minor additions not found in

are high, with many

The

Armenia.

manuscripts

Zohrabian

in reading

agrees

the

critical

omitting Matthew

16:2-3 and John 7:53-8:11.41

from

the Cilician

manuscript

from

minor

orthographic

31930

differences,

with our fourteenth-century text

in only

two

passages,

In Luke 11, Zohrabian differs

(1323, Rhodes

#480) only once,

apart

in supplying the omitted efew/egeneto

in 11:14.

The kingdom of Cilicia fell before the ravages of the Black Death and the repeated attacks of the Mamelukes of Egypt and their Syrian allies. inhabitants manuscripts.

of

Cilicia

centers

as widely

artistic

and

manuscript

fled,

In scriptoria scattered

textual production

taking

with

throughout

them

Greater

as Constantinople

traditions

of Cilicia

for centuries.

their

cherished

Armenia

and New

continued

and

The

Biblical

in cultural

Julfa in Persia, the

to influence

Armenian

390

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

NOTES ISee, e.g., R. Simon, Critical Enquiries into the Various Editions of the

Bible (London:

Tho. Braddyll,

1684) 208.

2Surveys of text-critical studies in the Armenian version may be found in F.

Macler,

(Paris:

Le

texte

Imprimerie

arménien

Nationale,

the New Testament (Stockholm: 138-171; Origin,

d'après

Matthieu

et

Marc

Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954)

B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Transmission,

157-171, especially

Luke

de l'évangile

1919) xxxiv-Ixxii; A. Vôôbus, Early Versions of

and

the

dissertation,

and

Limitations

166-167;

Question

University

(Oxford:

Clarendon

and J. M. Alexanian,

of

the

Caesarean

of Chicago,

"The

Press,

Armenian

Text"

Their 1977)

Version

(Unpublished

in

Ph.D.

1982) 5-34.

3Compare K. Lake, R. P. Blake & S. New, ‘The Caesarean Text of the

Gospel of Mark," Harvard Theological Review 21 (1928) 255-256, 310; Vüdbus, Early

Versions,

ment,"

170; L. Leloir,

300-313

Testaments,

mentlichen

in

K.

"La version

Aland

(ed.),

die Kirchenvaterzitate

Textforschung,

Die

arménienne alten

und Lektionare

5; Berlin:

Walter

du Nouveau

Ubersetzungen (Arbeiten

de Gruyter,

Testa-

des

zur

Neuen

Neutesta-

1972) 305; and KR.

Kieffer, Au delà des recensions? (Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Series,

3; Lund:

CWK

Gleerup,

1968) 236-237,

244-249.

kSee E. C. Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the

New Testament (New Testament Tools and Studies, 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1969); G. D. Fee,

Contribution Testament

to

Methodology

Studies

"Codex

in Establishing

15 (1969)

Interlude in New Testament

28-31;

E.

in the

Textual

J. Epp,

"The

Gospel

Wm. B.

of John:

Relationships," Twentieth

A

New

Century

Textual Criticism,'"' Journal of Biblical Literature

93 (1974) 407-410; and Alexanian, ÎThe seven

Sinaiticus

test passages

"Armenian Version in Luke," 85-122. are as follows:

Matthew

16:2-3, Mark

1:1

(the Son of God"), Mark 1:2 ("in the prophets" or "in Isaiah the prophet"), Mark

16:9-20,

Luke

22:43-44,

John

5:4, John

7:53-8:11.

The earlier

witnesses generally support the reading "in Isaiah the prophet" and the omission of the remaining six passages. and usually shorter

text as the "critical"

Greek

in Mark

1:2

We will refer to this older

text.

6See the surveys listed in footnote 2.

Every text-critical study of the

ALEXANIAN

Armenian

1.

gospels published

It should

different

perhaps

sections

histories.

since

be noted

of the

See Colwell,

Old Syriac, not Greek,

New

Testament

Studies

was

1938 has supported

that, in the may

very

21-23.

the base of the Arm

or

version,

different

textual

The statement

that

1 gospels implies nothing

version.

Compare

J. A. Robinson,

(Texts and Studies, Vol. III, No. 3; Cambridge:

1895) 83-92; L. Leloir, "Versions armeniennes,''

Robert

a Syriac base for Arm

manuscript

have

in Methodology,

regarding other sections of the Armenian Euthaliana

same

391

University Press,

cols. 810-818

in L. Pirot,

A.

& H. Cazelles (eds.), Supplement VI of Dictionnaire de la Bible (ed.

F. Vigouroux;

Lehmann, James,"

Paris:

Librairie

Letouzey

et Ane,

1960) col. 812; and

H. 3.

"Some questions concerning the Armenian version of the Epistle of Acta

Jutlandica

(Humanities

Series, 56, entitled

Aarhus

Armeniaca)

56 (1982) 57-82. 7Robinson, Peshitta

Version

Euthaliana, of the

(1897) 883-912; Voobus,

76-82;

New

Early Versions,

origines de la version armenienne Rome:

Pontificio

8Lyonnet,

F. C. Conybeare,

Testament,"

Instituto

138-159.

"The

Journal

Compare

Growth

of the

of Theology

1

S. Lyonnet, Les

et le Diatessaron (Biblica et Orientalia, 13;

Biblico,

Les origines,

American

1950)

195-274.

55-194.

TMbid., 51-54; Voôbus, Early Versions, 148-149. 10L yonnet, Les origines, 12-13; Alexanian, "Armenian Version in Luke,"

188. 1 IVoobus, Early Versions,

12A, setzung,"

Merk,

"Die

168-169.

Einheitlichkeit

Biblica 4 (1923) 356-374;

13Lyonnet,

Les origines,

l#see Epp, "Twentieth enian Version

in Luke,"

15Alexanian,

l6Compare Encyclopedia

160-161,

armenische Les origines,

185-194,

Evangelienuber180.

264-265,

274-277.

Century Interlude," 393-396; Alexanian, "Arm-

35-79.

"Armenian

Version

F. C. Conybeare,

Britannica,

162-164; and E. F. Rhodes 17 Ajexanian,

der

Lyonnet,

1lth

ed.

"Armenian (1910)

in Metzger,

"Armenian

in Luke,"

273-284,

288-290.

Language

2.572;

Vôôbus,

Early Versions,

171.

Version in Luke," 290-291.

and

Literature,"

Early

Versions,

392

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

L8lbid., 188-189. 19see, Monasteries

Muséon

e.g.,

À.

K.

Sanjian,

in Seventh-Century

82 (1969) 265-266,

Armenian

"Anastas

Vardapet's

Jerusalem:

287-292;

A

List

Critical

and R. W. Thomson,

Pilgrim on Mount Tabor,"

of Armenian

Examination,"

"Seventh

Journal of Theological Studies

Le

Century 18 (1967)

27-33. 20Ajexanian,

"Armenian

21bid.,

F. C. Conybeare,

292;

Version

in Luke,"

221-223.

"Armenian

Version

Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible (New York: 1898-1905)

1.153-154;

G. Garitte,

critique et commentaire 132, Subsidia

tome

La Narratio

(Corpus Scriptorum

4; Louvain:

of NT,"

de Rebus

Armeniae:

Christianorum

Imprimerie

in James

Charles Scribner's Sons, Édition

Orientalium, Vol.

Orientaliste

L. Durbecq,

1952)

329-331. 22Alexanian,

23Frédéric

“Armenian

Macler

Version

was

the first scholar

the Armenian

gospel manuscript

1-2,

315.

165-166,

closest

The

to Zohrabian.

in Luke,''

tradition.

designation

‘Group

199-223.

to note

the two branches

in

See Macler, Le texte arménien,

"Group

Z'"' indicates

W"' (for "'wild") indicates

the

manuscripts

manuscripts

whose

texts do not agree closely with one another or with any known textual group. See P. R. McReynolds, Byzantine

New

Claremont

Graduate

"The Claremont

Testament School,

24 Alexanian,

Profile Method

Manuscripts"' 1968)

“"Armenian

and the Grouping of

(Unpublished

Ph.D.

dissertation,

133.

Version

in Luke,"

169-171,

180-181.

25bid., 170-180. 26Macler,

arménien

Le

texte

arménien,

315;

de l'évangile d'après Matthieu

A.

Merk,

et Marc

review

of

by F. Macler,

Le

texte

Biblica

4

(1925)9229;

27Lyonnet,

Les

origines,

264-274;

VôGbus,

Early

Versions,

167-171;

Leloir, "Versions arméniennes," col. 813; Leloir, "La version arménienne,"

305.

28Armenian manuscripts are identified by manuscript number followed by their date, by year or century, An Annotated

[St. Paul's] which

List of Armenian

University,

usually

indicates

1959). the

and the catalog number

New Testament

The city

manuscript where

the

in E. F. Rhodes,

Manuscripts (Tokyo:

number manuscript

includes

Rikkyo

a letter,

is located

(C

=

ALEXANIAN

Chicago,

E = Erevan,

J = Jerusalem),

and the library number.

of MI1111, the letter refers to Moscow,

where

in the H. Kurdian

Mechitarist

collection,

Monastery

29Alexanian,

Wichita,

Kansas,

Version

but now

in Luke,"

was

located

Manuscripts formerly

in Venice, Italy, are identified

“"Armenian

In the case

the manuscript

when it first drew the attention of European scholars.

393

in the library of the

by the letter "K."

180-183.

30Macler, Le texte arménien, 2, 94, 165-166. 31See A. Merk, "Die armenische Evangelien und ihre Vorlage," Biblica 7

(1926)

69-71;

Lyonnet,

Les

origines,

180-190;

Voobus,

Early

Versions,

154-167. 32Alexanian, 33Useful,

will be found Armenian

though

Missionary

Armenian

Cradle

(Buenos

(Ancient

1970);

V.

General

Pasdermadjian,

of Armenian

America,

and

Places,

A

Union of America,

(London:

and

culture

Y.

Astowrian,

1947); S. Der

1946);

Nersessian,

68;

History

history

Christianity (New York:

Inc.,

Sipan Press,

Kurkjian,

Benevolent

Histoire

of

Aires:

Peoples

M.

of Civilization

uelian,

accounts

221-223,

À History of Armenian

Association

Hayoc'

Armenians

Publishers,

Version in Luke,"

popular,

in L. Arpee,

Patmowt'iwn The

“"Armenian

New

of

York:

Armenia

Praeger

(New

York:

1964); D. M. Lang, Armenia:

George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1970); and H.

de l'Armenie

(Paris:

Librairie

Orientale

H. Sam-

1964).

34S, Der Nersessian, Armenian Art (Paris:

Thames and Hudson, 1977)

80-122.

35H,

Kurdian,

"An

Important

Armenian

MS

with

Greek

Miniatures,"

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1942) 155-162. 36Der

Introduction

Gallery,

(ed.),

Nersessian,

to Armenian

Manuscript

Art,

123-162;

Illumination

S.

Der

Art

Brothers,

37 Alexanian,

Treasures

Publishers, “Armenian

of Jerusalem 1979) 47-62, Version

Nersessian,

An

Walters

Art

(Baltimore:

1974) cols. 3-8; Der Nersessian, The Armenians,

Armenian

Caratzas

Armenian

(New

149-153; B. Narkiss

Rochelle,

New

York:

81-88.

in Luke,"

189, 296.

38]t is interesting to note that, during the doctrinal controversies of the seventh century, the theologian Yovhan

Mayragomec'i

charged that this

394

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

passage

had been interpolated

party in the Armenian 39Alexanian,

CULTURE

into the Lukan

Church.

“"Armenian

See Garitte, Version

text by the pro-Chalcedonian La Narratio,

in Luke,"

45, 326-334.

191, footnote

1, 223-226.

Hïbid., 175-177, 186-187. #The pericope adulterae

is given at the end of the Gospel of John.

THE

SOURCES

OF

THE

ISAIAH

OF GEORG

COMMENTARY

SKEWRAC1I

David

D. Bundy

Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium)

The exegetical

literature on Isaiah is vast and for the most

not yet been critically examined because

or published.

the Isaiah text provided a common

part has

It is a significant literature

matrix upon which the patristic

writers could restate and reaffirm the tenets of their spirituality and of their

theology.

The Gëorg Skewfac'i's commentary

on Isaiah is one of the most

voluminous produced after the golden age of Greek patristic literature.

important

in its own

thirteenth

century.

Greek

and

primary tified, other

as

well

of

about

observations Greek

of Armenian

literature

It is also a witness to the critical and

Syriac

concern

information

right as a monument

this

the

as

Armenian

article

in

which

author/compiler,

about

the use

sources.

we

an

These

shall

indication

of those

sources

synthetic

sources

provide

It is

in the use

are

biographical

of the sources and

of

the

a comparison

idenwith

and Syriac commentaries.

Géorg Skewrac'i ( 1301)l GEorg Vardapet

Gëorg Lambronac'i)

was born at Lambron

and studied

at several

Castle (therefore also listed as

monasteries

before

returning

to

the Monastery of Skewta? to write and compile his commentaries on the Acts

of the Apostles and on Isaiah as well as a number

of other theological and

philological worksi before his death in 1301 C.E.* The Commentary of two

manuscripts

heavily

on

a

on Acts was published in 1839 at Venice on the basis

from

version

of

the

the

T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

Texts

library

of St. Lazarus.

Chrysostomian Medieval and

Studies

pp. 395 to 414. 395

Armenian 6).

This

Commentary Culture.

Chico,

CA:

work

on

depends

Acts6

and

(University of Scholars

Press,

396

MEDIEVAL

incorporates

ARMENIAN

much

material

of Nisibis/Edessa

CULTURE

taken from

(c. 309-373)”

from the fifth century.8

a commentary

the Armenian

version

attributed

to Ephrem

of which

is probably

It also contains citations attributed by the scholiast

to Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, David (the Philosopher), Dionysius, Kirakos

and

primarily

the

for

mentary.?

Catholicos

its contribution

Unfortunately

as he was compiling oldest of which after

Whereas

our

has

of the

been

studied

Ephremian

to the attention

com-

of Prof. Geerard

of the Clavis Patrum

Graecorum.10

on Isaiahl 1 is preserved in some 38 manuscripts, the

actual

4825

(1295 C.E.) which

composition

of the

the projected critical edition

was

of this essay

are based on a collation

texts:

4825 (1295 C.E.), Yerevan

James 365 (1299 C.E.), Yerevan

copied

commentary

in

only three

1292

will use all of the textual

the observations

VYerevan

commentary

knowledge

it did not come

is Yerevan

the

to

This

the fourth volume

The commentary years

Nerses.

C.

E.l2

witnesses,

of the seven

oldest

4214 (1298 C.E.), Jerusalem

4119 (1307 C.E.), Yerevan

St.

1138 fol. 143 v-

153 r (1347 C.E.) (fragment only), Yerevan 4141 (1351 C.E.) and Yerevan 1209 (undated, probably

13th-early

copied

and present

errors

and differences

masterpiece innovative

and

14th century).

relatively

of abbreviations.

happily

These manuscripts are carefully

few variants

free

from

apart from Yerevan

the

4825

orthographical

normal

spelling

is a paleographical problems

and

from

abbreviations.

The Isaiah Commentary:

(Scope, Genre and Structure) What we have termed

manuscript

catalogues

and

a commentary,

because

following the indications of the

of structural

and

methodological

siderations to be indicated below, is actually generically a catena.

Petit

who

catenae the

has

worked

biblical

manuscripts

juxtaposed exegetical six centuries Greek

extensively

with

the

Greek

has suggested a definition for the genre:

the church mentaries,

which

the

sacred

text: is

but

must

be

been

they confirm

preserved. what

amended

for

that many

More

This is accurate the

Armenian

by

of the first for the

and

Syriac

of the exegetical traditions of

than

was appreciated

exegetical

accompanied

citations deriving from the commentators

It is in these catanae

have

Latin

"One labels as 'catenae!

with their respective attributions."l3

compilations

materials.

in

and

con-

Françoise

the

great

systematic

com-

and read.

The work of making this material available has just bégun.

There is

BUNDY

of course,

the fundamental

Leitzmann,l4

and

classification

there

is the

of the Greek catanae

magisterial

297

by Karo and

status quaestionis

of Robert

Devreesse.l5

Devreesse also edited fragments taken from certain catenae on the Octateuch and the Kings. 16 Most helpful and methodologically the most sound

has been the work of Françoise Petit on the catenae

of Exodus.

She has devoted

of Genesis and

much effort to the diachronic examination and

texts.l7

publication of these

The analysis of the Greek exegetical literature in the catenae devoted to Isaiah has not been taken beyond the pioneering work by Faulhaber of the catenae on the prophets found in selected Roman

manuscripts.l8 There is of

course the work of L. Eisenhofer on the Procopius Commentary

on Isaiah (P.

G. 88, 1817-2718) which depended upon the catenae and commentaries for its materials and which

Eisenhofer

The commentary

materials

and

was able to document.19

of Gëorg Skewrac'i has affinities with this corpus of

divergences.

It is similar

in its method

of documenting

sources, in its method of using sources, and in the scope of the sources cited. It is different knowledge) sources

in structure

is due

scholiasts

and brings to bear

in the Greek catenae. to

toward

the

Syriac

citing

the

scholiast methodology.

influences. entire

parent

found

(to our

The

proclivity

of

the

Greek

gives

to

the

Syriac

way

Only the texts to be commented

immediately

not

text

only in so far as is relevant to the comment the comments

material

Some of this difference in structure and

envisaged.

upon are cited and

À text is cited and

follow from one or several authors.

This method

(not unlike that of Procopius) had been practiced in the Syrian church since the fourth and authentically scholia

from

fifth centuries

from

properly

the main

Ephrem

so called

if the commentaries

are any indication. but

a terse,

sparse

biblical text and organized

edited) as an integral unit.

generally

agreed

The scholia were commentary

to be

no longer

preserved

apart

(and no doubt supplemented

Isaiah commentary

and

materials preserved in Syriac

include the Ephremian

scholia (known from

the Severian catena), Iso'dad of

Merw,

Salibi,

(Gregory

Dionysius

Gannat work,

Bussame.20 but

Gèorg

in documenting can

they were

neither

abü-l-Faraÿ)

sometimes

consistent

and

documented

or systematic

the their

in the

of their sources.

Fortunately, sources

Barhebraeus

The Syriac commentators

unfortunately

identification catenists

bar

be verified,

Skewrac'i

follows

the material

used.

the attributions

the When

tendency

of

the

the indications

Greek of the

of the manuscripts are remarkably

398

MEDIEVAL

accurate. where

ARMENIAN

However,

a citation

CULTURE

as was suggested by Faulhaber,

it is not always clear

begins or ends.21

This documentation poses most accutely a methodological problem for the study

of this and

similar

works.

It lends

repository of data illuminative of the Greek

itself

to serve

as a mere

and/or Syriac traditions.

is certainly an important legacy of GEorg Skewfac'i.

However

This

the primary

contribution which this text can make is to help us understand more fully the history of commenting

on the Isaiah text and

the process

of selection

and

appropriation of three exegetical heritages (Greek, Syriac and Armenian) thirteenth-century

Armenia.

As Devresse

argued,

deserves to be studied as having worth on its own a source

for establishing

worthwhile Sources

texts

Indicated

in the Prologue

commentary

begins

employed, the king for whom from

Yerevan

4825,

Sudunuweun

nn ny ned'&

J'E4 Gnefbw

vnipe

Euuwybuw dE be un

h

Uswg

Ehoblh

merits and not merely as

and therefore

presumably

more

Lemmata

a

upEnJ

tary on the holy prophet Isaiah from the illustrious

nu4EpEpwtwhu

dupquuybnh®

Suwypu=

A

Cyril

]

gbnpebu

interpreters,

the holy

father Ephrem, John Chrysostom and

un E nr à

[

sources

The text, taken

À concise collection of the commen-

wnbpuwwepne

SEfSny

indicating

reads:23

Swuepu

Spudw'uur

superscription

it was written and the author.

preuwrnn

Uhepah

Guy ng

and

with

d'upqwpkhu

JnafSw%wune

h

earlier

in

of literature

periods.22

The here

from

this genre

Patriarch

Commanded

wrupku

by

Armenians,

of

the

Het'um

Alexandria.

Lord 14,

of

the

-Hdone

25y

Géorg Vardapet. There

are,

manuscripts.

however,

in the outer

margins.

Those commentators

Ephrem,

John

identified

The

sources

indicated

by the lemmata

The hand is always the same thus indicated

Chrysostom,

Severus, Athanasius, a source

other

These were written, in the manuscripts examined,

Cyril

by abbreviations

of

Alexandria,

of the

in black ink

as that of the copyist. of their names

Sergius

(Sarg),

include:

Evagrius,

Epiphanius, Gregory, George, Gregory of Nazianzus by the abbreviation,

abbreviations

proffered

and

bara.

by the lemmata

are

for the most

part

accurate

insofar

However,

there has been enough confusion to warrant a caveat to anyone who

as

resources

are

available

to control

the

sources

used.

BUNDY

would

attempt

Sometimes taken

to

reconstruct

the

work

of

a

particular

the scribe (or compiler) failed to note

from

say,

Chrysostomian

Ephrem,

in

the

commentary.

midst

And

attributed to the wrong author.

of

commentator.

a sentence

a lengthy

occasionally,

a

399

or paragraph

citation comment

from is

the

simply

More often the lemmata are missing.

For

example the entire body of material dealing with Isaiah 47 is not documented although Ephremian and Chrysostomian which

cannot

materials are used along with others

at this stage of the investigation be identified.

Then too, the citations appropriated are often reworked so as to make

positive identification of sources a hazardous enterprise. Skewfac'i

In addition, Géorg

(or his sources) often supplements the text used with comments

clarifications.

The

lack

of

critical

editions

of

the

extent

or

exegetical

literature and the regretted loss of many important works militates against the exhaustive

identification

of the sources

of this work.

The chart 1 in the Appendix indicates the sources and their frequency according to the lemmata is to be noted

chapter

11:

becomes

that

1.

accompanying

Cyril

is cited

It is in chapter

a consistently

in the

prologue

and

source

until

chapter

difference based

on

4825

and

up to

which

and this

more care was taken

in the first half of the commentary.

in the documentation Yerevan

30 after

It

Gregory is cited only in chapters 53 and 54.

From the number of attributions, it appears that much with the documentation

consistently

10 that Sergius (Sarg) is first mentioned

exploited

work is infrequently mentioned.

each chapter of the Isaiah text.

There is little

of the manuscripts examined.

Jerusalem

St. James

The chart is

365.

The Use of Sources

Having described acknowledged, method

we

the commentary

proceed

now

to

an

and indicated the scope of sources examination

John commentary

Chrysostom.

The

on Isaiah attributed

most

important

to John

source

Chrysostom.

preserved most completely in an Armenian version. the

of

Georg

Skewfac'i's

of using his sources.

Mekhitarist

fathers

28:16, and 30:6-64:10.25

of St.

Lazarus

includes

for this work

is the

This commentary

is

The edition published by material

on

Isa 2:2-21:2,

The Latin translation published separately depends

for Isa 1:1-8:10 on the translation of the Greek text provided by Montfaucon

and

reproduced

prologue

in Migne

and commentary

(P.G. 56, 11-94).26

The Armenian

text of the

on Isa 1:1-2:2 was published later by Avetisian.27

400

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

The authenticity of the Chrysostomian commentary

inconclusively discussed.

as did L. Dieu2? and J. Quasten.30 used

and

complemented

traditional

observable

with the authentic

3. Ziegler argued that the biblical text

in the

commentary

style of the assuredly

and method

authentic

in the work.?l

More recently, J. Dumortier Chrysostom

coincide

commentaries,

Nevertheless

with

the

nor did the style

M. Geerard

included it

has suggested that what one finds in the is based

on

record which the Greek scribe could not decipher but which

served

an Armenian

translator/writer

behind

he could

which

hypothesis33

Theodoret

not

himself, but that the remainder

screen working

did

works of Chrysostom.

Greek text is from

a stenographic

on Isaiah has been

The Mekhitarist fathers affirmed its authenticity28

and

a framework

further

argues

that

of Cyrrhus on the work attributed

and in fact the radical differences the authenticity

for his own

publish it.22 J.-N. Guinot the

lack

and a

this as a

of dependence

to Chrysostom

between

work

accepts

of

to Chrysostom,

the two works augers poorly for

of the commentary.34

The question of authenticity cannot be settled, if ever, until there is a critical edition of the commentaries

Armenian

text,

until

the exegetical

catenae

and

are edited, and until the fragments attributed to Chrysostom

on Isaiah extant in Greek and Syriac catenae on Isaiah are carefully examined and compared with the Armenian

materials.

Of the Greek scholia, Faulhaber

lists five scholia found in Ottob. 452 dealing with Isa 6:2, Isa 37:33, Isa 49:15,

Isa 57:17 and Isa 57:18ff.35

He notes that others are to be found in Vat. Gr.

450, 459, 465, 570, 576, 577, 807, 1146, 1190, 1225, 1785 and Palat. 11 and

Ottob. 7.6 Isaiah

The

Armenian

has

been

writing

corpus of the Chrysostomian

examined

of this work

is uncertain.

provide a terminus a quo. works

assembled

by Akinian.37

11:1-2.

of the

material

on

translation

or

the Seal of the faith?8 does

in the early 7th century

at the behest

of the Catholicos

In this collection is found one passage from the

commentary

on

Isaiah

taken

from

the

discussion

of Isaiah

Thomson has suggested that the text represents, probably, an earlier

translation extracts the

However

commentary

date

This is a florilegium of theological and exegetical

Komitas (612-628 C.E.).3? Chrysostomian

The

text

ambiguous

than that published.#0

make found

and

better

in the

reads

However,

as he suggests,

sense than the Armenian Seal

much

of

more

the

Faith

smoothly.

edition."#l

makes

l'in places his

In several cases

grammatical

Some

changes

items

also

less

resolve

BUNDY

4O1

theological ambiguities and may well reflect a response to the Chalcedonian and

of the question of the number

of

translations or revisions can be achieved only after a careful examination

Julian crises.##

of

the Armenian The

But, the resolution

exegetical traditions.

excerpts

from

the

Chrysostomian

commentary

on Isaiah in the

work of Géorg Skewfac'i do not follow a particular pattern in their fidelity

or

lack

thereof

slavishly follows

to

followed. exactly

the

the

original

For

example,

text.

Often

the

Chrysostomian

as

text

the

Chrysostomian

of the

does

that

comment

on

text

is

on Isa 2:1-3

Isa 12:1-6.

However,

Géorg Skewïrac'i often reworks his text to restate the ideas and/or to edit out technicalities accurately. resultant

these

which That

text

were

is usually

revisions

for him

irrelevant.

there is a relationship

are

beyond

Credit

between

doubt.

What

is usually given, and

the cited

remains

source

unclear

due to the genius of Gëéorg Vardapet

and

the

is whether

or to one of his

predecessors.

Let

us take for example,

text of the Chrysostomian

parallels underlined),

Ephrem. citations mentary

are

The less

commentary

in Chart

attributed to Ephrem,

the passage

is juxtaposed

on Isa 11:2.

to that of Géorg (with

second

most

exploited

than

source

is the

However,

the critical

attributed

is the case

problems

to Ephrem

Benedictus) in the Roman

for the

edition

are no less serious.

was

The

com-

A portion of a

published by Moubarek

edition of Ephrem's works.#?

is problematic.

There

are

an

enormous

(alias Petrus

Here were included

The source of

number

of

variants

the published text and Vat. Syr. 103 to which the editor had access,

not the least of which is commentary Lamy

C.E.).

Chrysostomian

material on the prologue of Isaiah and on Isa 1:1-43 and 66. between

commentary

the Syrian (c. 309-373

and less lengthy.

commentary

this

The

2 of the Appendix.

presumably Ephrem

frequent

commenting

who

extracted

published

from

the

text

on Isa 43-65. This lacuna was filled by

of the

B. L. 12, 144.46

commentary

This manuscript,

on Isa 43-66

which

he

a copy of Vat. Syr. 103,

contains a catena on the entire Old Testament compiled by a certain Severus

in 861 C.E. at Edessa.#/ The materials attributed are

mostly

Severian

taken

catena.

from

to Ephrem

the same

Whether

it was

corpus taken

in the work of Géorg Skewfac'i

of material from

the

as that Syriac

found

catena,

in the from

a

previously existing Armenian translation of that catena or from an Armenian

402

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

translation of the Ephremian commentary is difficult to ascertain.

The latter

two

there

possibilities

citations

are

attested

more

in

likely

earlier

of

translation

having been made.4? question

decisively

Bardenhewer”!

preserved

as

Translations"'

authenticity assumed

more cautious.

their authenticity.

Once

the

Lamy

the

of

case,

well.+à does

this

the scholia

since

not

mention

material

has

to be from

may

is tenuous

materials

its entirety

been and

Pohlmann?2

be authentic.?6

again the relationship

Cyril.

not

a

Burkitt?# and Ortiz de Urbina?? rejected

in G&org's commentary

Armenian

such

More recently, Murray suggested some of the material of

catena

relationship

the

Ephrem?0

between

the text cited

varies greatly.

and the version

Sometimes

version presents a woodenly literal translation of the Syriac.

the

are

However

stated that their authenticity was beyond doubt.

and Bravo®3 were the severian

Armenian

of

addressed.

been

commentators

Catalogue The

Ancient

to have

The

at best.

is now

A detailed

of the

Syriac

and

in preparation.

large commentary

in Greek.97

study

the Armenian At other times

of Cyril of Alexandria

It was used widely in Greek

and is partially preserved

in a Syriac version,

is preserved

in

exegetical catanae, 8

the most

extensive

fragment

which is in the Severian catena.?? How There

and when

the work

was translated

in the Isaiah commentaries Kund.6l delete

much

of David

The borrowed

Sergius. commentary

passages

of the anti-Jewish

Vardapet Kund

K'obayrec'i,

Grigor

was cited

Abasu

and Sargis

The

are heavily revised,

commentary

of Georg

described

briefly by Akinian62

nor have I yet been able to obtain are few

and

far between.

as the prologue

probably

Skewfac'i

a total of 51 times as acknowledged

was

Thus

indicates,

at least on occasion

of the citations

coincide

and interestingly,

rhetoric.

when "from

cites

that of Sargis

by the lemmata.

but has not been

a microfilm.

of sources to a more complicated level.

none

is unclear.60

Géorg Skewfac'i used Cyril extensively for the first portion of the

commentary.

taken,

into Armenian

is no citation in the Seal of the Faith but the commentary

It dôes raise the question

In the copy examined,

G€org

was

citing

the lemmata

the commentary

all of the commentaries,""63

citing from

This

published

another

commentator.

with the commentaries

he was

However,

of John

Chrysostom,

of the commentary

on Isa 7:14,

Cyril or Ephrem. . Athanasius.

Indicated

as the source

45:14-15

and 57:16

identified.

is Athanasius

but the source

BUNDY

403

have

not been

or sources

The fragment listed in Mai (on Isa 7:3) is not used.6# The incipit

of the scholia indicated

Evagrius. Ponticus.

The

Neither

are not related.65

by Faulhaber

attribution

Faulhaber

in Isa

nor

the

10:17

CPG

is probably

reflect

to

citations

Evagrius

dealing

with

Isaiah in the catanae examined. George.

The source suggested by the lemma at Isa 3:12 has not been

identified. Gregory

45:16, 55:11

of Nazianzus.

This

author

and 64:5 and is acknolwedged

theologian."

These

scholia

have

not

been

is cited

for Isa 2:2, 5:29,

by the abbreviation found

in the

41:22,

Acaban,

Greek

corpus

"the of

Gregory's works and should probably be added to the scholia on Isaiah listed

in the CPG.66 Gregory. of Nazianzus.6/

The writer so designated is not to be identified with Gregory There is no indication in the 25 lemmata

with chapter 53 of Isaiah) as to which Gregory is intended.

(all having to do Zanolli, following

a suggestion of Akinian, discovered these fragments are taken from a homily by Grigor Skewfac'i, Severus.

Géorg's uncle and mentor.68

The lemmata

32:2 indicating their source of Antioch However sources

to the commentary

to be Severus are probably

on Isa 21:9 and

referring to Severus

who was often cited in the Greek exegetical catenae on Isaiah.6?

there is not precise reference to specific works in the text and the have not been

Bara. been

attached

identified.

The source intended by the abbreviation bara at 42:3 has not

identified.

Conclusions

Géorg Skewrac'i thus used for his commentary on Isaiah a wide range of sources Ephrem

from

three exegetical traditions:

of Edessa; the Armenian

the Syriac work

and the Greek works of Chrysostom,

Cyril of Alexandria,

of Nazianzus, Severus of Antioch, and Evagrius.

thirteenth-century

to

Athanasius,

Gregory

All of the Syriac and Greek

works appear to have been already extant in Armenian

through

attributed

works of Sargis Kund and Grigor Skewrac'i;

versions.

Syriac and Greek commentaries

Later sixth-

were

apparently

unknown. The use of sources is not a slavish copying but rather shows a creative adaptation of materials available.

It indicates that a commentary

tradition

404

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

was being developed on the basis of the patristic traditions. this freedom

and creativity

is best

seen

contemporary

Syrian and Greek writers.

by comparing

The scope of

G&org's

work

with

The Syriac writers had developed a

rather closed indigenous tradition; within the Greek church

the recopying of

patristic catenae indicates the parameters of the possible were defined.

commentary

of G&org Skewfac'i

on Isaiah is an important

milestone

The

in the

history of exegesis.

APPENDIX Chart

1

Chapter of Isaiah Prologue

John

Ephrem

Chrysostom 2#Cite

lMerE

Cyril,

1

1

40

18

Cyril, 34

2

20

12

Cyril

Greg. Naz.,

3

20

12

Cyril

George,

k

k

t

5

30

15

ls

1

1

Cyril, 3 Cyril, 24

6

15

5

Cyril,

2

19

6

Gyolnir

8

13

9

Cyril, 12

Greg.

Naz.,

1

13 Athanasius,

9

16

8

Cyril

42

10

12

11

Cyril,

15

11

12

10

Cyril

12

7

-

Severus,

1

13

6

G

Sergius,

1

10

Evagr.,

14

8

Sergius,

2

15:

2

Sergius,

1

16

2

Sergius,

1

17

2

18

2

3

Sergius,

1

19

10

10

Sergius,

1

20

4

Sergius,

1

21

1

Sergius/MnSeverus;

1

1 Sergius,

Sergius, 2

1

1

BUNDY

22

5

4

23

k

2

24

4

5

25

5)

5

26

8

7

Sergius,

27

3

3

Sergius,

28

16

17

Sergius,

29

8

10

Sergius,

30

10

9

31

4

3

32

3

&

Sergius,

33

7

8

Sergius,

34

2

3

35

?

2

36

1

1

37

1

1

38

4

5

39

3

4

40

10

5

ul

6

5

Sergius,

Greg. Naz.,

y2

20

18

Sergius,

Bara,

1

43

7

7

ut

6

6

45

7

7

Sergius,

Greg.

Naz.,

46

2

5

47

No

sources

[=

Sergius,

Sergius, = EF ON 2

Severus,

indicated

48

7

6

49

14

14

50

3

5

6

7

bi

Sergius,

405

Sergius,

52 5324

10

7

sa

12

Gregory;

24

54

10

11

Gregory,

1

55

5

5

56

5

5

57

5

5

58

8

k

Greg. Naz.,

1

Athanasius,

1

1

1

1, Athan.

406

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

59

Sergius, 2

60

Sergius,

1

61

Sergius,

1

63

Sergius,

1

64

Greg. Naz.,

65

Sergius,

1

Sergius,

1

62

66

OO LU 00 Lo Uni OO

ON, En IN Fe OO KO Ge

1

BUNDY

Chart

2

Chrysostom

be

Swwhgk

Sngh

on

Isaiah

11:242

be

SEpé newë nn pù

4udhé dhhbüby

be

wyLe

bobenh

wpe

Sneh

EE

b Yw boyhenhet

w

Jbrkhen

Lunegne

nbun

E[E wbun: BE cbr

npu

[PE

brhusbgh

nrubu

babyé

q'uu

wub

qhüs

da

mnt

bu4

wubg [BE ner

up

dut

dbp Jher

b d'upl' ut

4upuewnbp

bo4ush

d'updhu

a Snabé abduuunnefPbu gghnnefébuÿ

be

nouku

Sngenyü

qhus

rep

E put qu, 2vsuquu

Ephbent

br

grcebs

uw

Ywpuweuk

dngr

du

penseüh

d'updhüuu pémnevh

br

qahi'uunnrffbuu, gg bunne(ét w'u

nvek

qnegp

Suy Sng£e

wc

wn

PE arbugnep

wubyngü PE Lagk beu

Gngeny

E pphunnuÿ;

BE b Supé

qnip

Su Sngke

be

L'une

BE wuwnnrwé

quuunnewéY;

Sngundu

wub

Ebphbenh

Dmbp

erbugneep

wpq

Juebprit

be PEnqnnbnÿ

Sngendü

Surpé

beu

wkhnuwu

konnnbugh

Er

Sngh œhnne(tuwuu

wunncwëwywpnnr{(btuwu,

up wpnu

wunnrëény

11:243

vnpw

np

br

Sannuwbugh

Isaiah

wub fnpSpæny

br quepnefbwÿ

wunncénges

on

b dbowy

Swv£wpny:

Sobuybpté

ERPE L19gË q'uw

Skewrac'i

Suehgl

Snqh

Skpénewëpt

Snqh

Er

Sngb

ul wsbu gb

acbouus

Georg

Unpuw

b dEkpuwy

wunnrëny

bduwvunnefbtw

be

407

duut

ne nu Suy SnJke

qnp

E pu

Jbp Jhber

a$nehv

q$wvÉswpny,

408

MEDIEVAL

Chrysostom be

Isaiah

gneggËé

Ywpweisn

wg

Snqenyu

be

n$5

bus

Vw

qh

wehuwk

Ed'p

wy uwhukh

nbpü

Glw bphebpnd

Lhüby

4h

npubu

be quu ü wy vnphy wyJL LE dupe

on

Isaiah

quuunnewéwwpnneftbuu büpbufp Jbp

gneggËE

Ywpweun

11:243

qh

wphüwk

dbq [8E

Snqgeny

Er

wyr

n5

uw

qupdébug

wyy

qh

vague

Ep

Swpuunus gne p

Snqeny

Unpuw

LhUEL

npqbhu

bus bp

npubu

kwpweun

J'upr

npebu

wpuu sgh

d'wupeu

Ep

wyy

wunnrëény

Ung 4 bu

un

babe ah

herbe

qhuupurn

wyJL

Th hwpueunbing

qaSnehü

be qSneh

ns

büupbude

ah

wpuwugE

np püyuwçpue

huptup

n$5

adbg

wunnrény

br püpnc uk

qSnqhu:

ah

Jupr

babe

ERE

ewobbugk

wwpqbr=

Skewrac'i

Saqung% d'bq

n$5 EEE Ywpuen

ay w4bu

JEp

E Yuwpweiun

SueunwphS

adwuprb4%

d'bq

EE

E Snakh c'üenebyind

Epubumhet

Georg

wuwnLény

np

Lhubghu

CULTURE

11:242

quunnewégwpnneffbuwt

bvpbulp Jp

on

ARMENIAN

Jbq pwbbugk:

ah

us

BUNDY

409

NOTES 1H, AËaryan, Hayoc' anjnanunneri bafaran, v. I (Haykakan SSR Erevani Petakan 86.

Hamalsaran,

See also:

Matenadarani

I:

Gitakan

7 (1964) 399-435.

skizbën minë'ew

1944)

350;

Presentation,

Caire:

1700:

v. I:

Mistrih,

texte

et traduction

hay grakanut'ean

1300 (Venetik:

biographies

de

(Studia Orientalia

Georges

Christiana

S. Lazar, de

Skevra.

Armenica;

Le

1970); N. Polarian, Hay grotner € - Ze dar

Tparan S. Yakobeanc',

storia letteraria di Armenia

Patmut'iwn

skizbën min&'ew

Trois

Franciscain,

1942) 465 no.

"La ‘Vie de Georges de Skevra,'" Banber

K. K'iparian,

Vincent

Ed. du Centre

(Erusalem:

AëSxatut' yunner, v. XXI; Erevan,

E. M. Baghdassarian,

1971) 324-329;

(Venezia:

P. S. Somal, Quadro della

S. Lazaro,

1829), 106 (Note that the

last author confuses two Georges, one from the 12th, the other from the 13th century);

L.

Tesowt'yune

G.

Xa{'eryan, "Gr£'ut'ean

Mijnadaryan

Hayastandum

Arvesti"

Lezvakan

(Erevan:

-

K'erakanakan

Hayk. SSR Akad. Hratarak,

1962) 99-171, 288-320; G. Zarbhanalian, Patmut'iwn Hay Hin Dprut'ean d - Zg

dar (Venetik:

Mxit'arean Tparan, 1932) 717-721.

2H. Oskian,

"Skewfac'i

Vank'é,"

Handës

Amsôreay

69 (1955)

17-42,

207-236, esp. 38-42. 3Mistrih, Trois biographies, et la communion

Orientalia Christiana Collectanea HAËaryan,

19-26; Vincent

par Georges de Skevra,

Anjnanunneri

3Meknut'iwn

Gorcoc'

2.

et notes," Studia

16 (1981) 209-250, 2 plates.

bafaran,

465

Afak'eloc'

eberane ew Yep'reme (Venetik:

Mistrih, "Sur la confession

texte, traduction

no. 86.

Xmbagir

S. Lazar,

arareal

naxneac'

Yosk-

1939); Mistrih, Trois biographies,

: 6The Chrysostomian

text found in this commentary

is quite different

from that published by Montfaucon (P.G. 60, 13-384) but was found by F. C. Conybeare,

and Kirsopp

"The Commentary

of Ephrem

on Acts;,"' in F. J. Foakes-Jackson

Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity,

Apostles (Grand

Rapids:

Baker,

1979,

Part I, The Acts of the

repr.) III, 375, to be identical

with a

Greek version preserved in a "New College Ms. of Chrysostom on Acts." new

edition

of the Greek

text is being prepared

A

by F. T. Gignac (CPG, 2,

4426). 7N. Akinian,

Surb Ep'rem:

Meknut'iwn

Gorcoc'

Arak'eloc'

(K'nnakan

410

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

Theologie

fur katholische

Zarbhanalian,

dar d - #g (Venetik: 376;

Akinian,

Surb

9Akinian, beare,

"Der

haykakan

by Charles

"Com-

Renoux.

t'argmanut'eanc'

naxneac'

Mxit'aran Tparan, 1889), 443; Conybeare, "Commentary," Ep'remi

Meknut'iwn

Surb

Ep'remi

"Commentary,'"

376-453.

10M.

Clavis

Turnhout:

Il.l;

Merk,

and Conybeare,

226-260

edition is being prepared

Matenadaran

Hayoc',

August

zur Apostelgeschichte,!" Zeitschrift

48 (1924) 37-58,

A new

mentary," 373-379. 8G.

des hl. Ephraem

Kommentar

neuentdekte

naxneac' by

Examined

1921).

Tparan,

Mxit'arean

T'argmanut'ean

ew

Matenagrut'ean

Hratarakut'iwn Vienna:

CULTURE

Geerard,

Gorcoc'

Meknut'iwn

Patrum

Afrak'eloc',

Gorcoc'

Graecorum

6-7.

Arak'eloc',

II (Corpus

3-6;

Cony-

Christianorum:

Brepols, 1980) 4.249-250.

IlA, Zanolli, "Notizie sulla catena di Giorgia di Skewra e su dua codici

Armeni

della Casanatense," Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 3 (1935)

307-318;

Mistrih,

Trois biographies,

L2N. Bogharian, Gulbenkian

Grand

Foundation

20.

Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts (Calouste

Armenian

Library;

Jerusalem:

Armenian

Convent

Printing Press, 1967) 269. 13Françoise Petit, "Les 'chaîhes" exégétiques grecques sur la Genèse et

l'Exode,

(Texte

Programme

d'exploration

und Untersuchungen, IG.

richten

von

Karo, der

H. Leitzmann,

kônigl.

15Robert Devreesse,

l6Robert

d'édition," Akademie

"Catenarum

Gesellschaft

Hist. Klasse, 1902 (Gottingen:

Bible, Supplement

et

115; Berlin:

der

graecorum

Wissenschaften

L. Harstmann,

"Chaîes

Studia Verlag,

Patristica

XII

1975) 46.

catalogus," zu Gôttingen.

NachPh.-

1902) 334-342.

exétéques grecques," Dictionnaire de la

1 (1928) col. 1084-1233. Devreesse,

Les

anciennes

commentateurs

grecs

de

l'oc-

tateuque et les rois (fragments tirés des chaîhes) (Studi e testi, 201; Citta del Vaticano:

Bibliotheca

Apostolica Vaticana,

1959).

17Françoise Petit, "Les fragments grecs du livre VI des "Questions sur la Genèse"

de Philon

L'Ancienne

version

(Texte

Untersuchungen,

und

Petit, Catenae

d'Alexandrie,"

Le

Muséon

89 (1971) 93-150;

latine des questions sur la Genese

113,

114; Berlin:

F. Petit,

de Philon d'Alexandrie

Akademie

Verlag,

1973);

F.

graecae in genesim et in exodum, I. Catena Sinaitica (Corpus

BUNDY

Christianorum,

Series

Graeca,

2; Turnhout:

Brepols;

Leuven:

til

University

Press, 1977). 18m, Faulhaber, (Biblische

Studien,

19Ludwig

Die Propheten-Catenen

4, 2-3; Freiburg

Eisenhofer,

Studie (Freiburg i. Br.:

i. Br.:

Procopius

nach rômischen Handschriften

Herder,

1899).

Gaza.

Eine

von

literarhistorische

Herder, 1897).

20For bibliography, see D. Bundy, "Isaiah 53 in East and West," Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den ôstlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter

hrsg.

M.

Schmidt

(Eichstatter

Beiträge,

4; Regensburg:

Friedrich

Pustet,

1982) 53-74. 21Faulhaber,

Propheten-Catenen,

22Devreesse,

"Chaînes exégétiques grecques," col. 1097-1098.

23Yerevan

4825,

folio col.

#40.

1 lines

1-6.

24Zanolli, "Notizie," 311-312. 25Eranelwoyn

(Venetik:

Yovhannu

Tparan S. Lazar,

26A, Tiroyan,

tomi (Venetiis:

St.

John

1880).

In Isaiam

St. Lazarus,

273, Avetisian, on

"The

Chrysostom's

Oskeberani

meknut'iwn

Esayeay

Heraîfter, Chrysostom,

prophetam

interpretatio

margarëi

Isaiah.

S. Joannis

Chrysos-

1887). Newly

Discovered

Commentary

on

part of the Armenian Version Isaiah,"

Sion

9

(1935)

21-24

(Armenian). 28Chrysostom,

Isaiah, introduction.

29L. Dieu, "Le Commentaire arménien de S. Jean Chrysostom sur Isaie

est-il authentique," RHE 303. Quasten,

16 (1921) 7-30.

Patrology (Amsterdam:

Spectrum,

1963) III.435-436.

313. Ziegler, ed. Isaias (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Gottingensis, 327,

XIV; Gottingen: Dumortier,

"Une

Vandenhoeck énigme

und Ruprecht,

chrysostomienne:

inachevé d'Isaïe," Mélanges de Sciences Religieuse.

Graecum

1939) le

. . .

13, 73-74.

commentaire

Universitas (Lille, 1977)

43-47. 33Theodoret

de

Cyr,

Commentaire

sur

Isaie.

Introduction,

texte

412

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

critique, traduction et notes par Jean-Noël Guinot (Sources Chretiennes, 276;

Paris:

Ed. du Cerf,

1980) 19.

34Guinot, Theodoret 35Faulhaber,

de Cyr, 25-26.

Propheten-Catenen,

68-69.

36]bid. 69. 37N.

Akinian,

armenischen

"Des

hl.

Chrysostomus

Kommentar

zu

Isaias

in der

Literatur," Handës Amsôreay 48 (1934) 43-55 (Armenian).

38Catholicos Komitas, Le Sceau de la Foi (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation

Calouste

Gulbenkians

Louvain:

Ed. Peeters,

1974).

393. Lebon, "Les citations patristiques grecques du "Sceau de la Foi," RHE

25 (1929) 1-3.

On the citation of Chrysostom

HOR. W. Thomson,

Patristica,

XII (Texte

on Isaiah see p. 23.

"The Fathers in Early Armenian

und

Untersuchungen,

Literature," Studia

115; Berlin:

Akademie

Verlag,

1975) 464.

#1R, W. Thomson, "Fathers," 464. #2Chrysostom, #3Yerevan

4825,

#4Catholicos

#5Ephrem sex

tomos

aucta,

Isaiah,

ad

(Romae:

HA

de la Foi, 318-319.

quae exstant

codices

vaticanos

praefationibus,

Ex Typographia

graece,

syriace, latine, in

allosque

notis,

castigata,

variantibus

multis

lectionibus

vaticana,

apud J. M. H. Salvioni,

1732-1746.

1737-1743.] Lamy,

Sancti

Ephraem

Syri hymni

1882-1904). LES Assemani,

Bibliotheca

Apostolica

Vaticanae

Codicum

Librairie Orientale et Americaine;

III, 25-28.

"Chrysostomus

#9Zarbhanalian,

et sermones,

II

:

scriptorum Catalogus (Paris:

#8Akinian,

11.

sub pontificis maximi e Bibliotheca vaticana prodeunt

#6Thomas-Joseph

(Mechelen,

mss.

interpretatione,

[Syriac volumes

1 line 28 - col 2 line

Le Sceau

Syrus Opera omnia

illustrata; nunc primum

...

105 col.

Komitas,

distributa,

nova

fol.

132.

Kommentar,"

T'argmanut'eanc',

51-52.

443-466,

Manu-

1926, repr.)

BUNDY

413

50Th. 3. Lamy, "L'Exégèse en orient au IV® siècle ou les commentaires de Saint

Ephrem,"

510tto

(Darmstadt:

Revue

Biblique

Bardenhewer,

2 (1893)

Geschichte

5-25,

161-181,

der Altkirchlichen

465-486.

Literatur,

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962), pp. 347-348.

Bnd. 4

(Reprint

from edition of Freiburg i. B. Herder, 1924.) 52A. turam

Pohilmann,

textus

in

S. Ephraem

codicibus

impressus (Brunsberg: 53Carlos Ecclesiastica

manuscriptus

et

in Sacram in

editions

Scripromans

ÆEduard Peter, 1864).

Bravo,

"Notas

Xaveriana

introductorias

a la noematica

de San Efren,"

6 (1956) 243-246.

5UF, C. Burkitt, Studies,

Syri commentariorum

vaticanis

S. Ephraim's

VII, 2; Cambridge:

Quotations

University

Press,

from

the Gospel (Texts and

1901) 4-5.

DST. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca (Roma:

Pont. Inst. Ori. Stud.,

1965) 73-74. 36Robert Murray,

Symbols of Church

Syriac Tradition (Cambridge:

University

and Kingdom.

Press,

A Study in Early

1975), 32 note 2.

57p, G. 70, 19-1499, 58Karo

and

Leitzmann,

"Castenarum

graecarum

catalogus,"

passim;

CPG 4, 185-259 passim. 39Vat. Syr. 103, fols. 218-238. 607arbhanalian,

T'argmanut'eanc',

61Akinian, "Chrysostomus

507, 509.

Kommentar,"

21-52.

62ïbid. 63bid., 52. 64 Angelus Mai, Novae 65Faulhaber,

patrum bibliothecae

Propheten-Catenen,

(Romae,

1853) 7, 2, 239.

63.

66CPG, 2, 3052. 67Cfr.

Faulhaber,

Propheten-Catenen,

41; Zanolli, "Notizie,"

310-311,

318. 68Zanolli, Venice,

S. Lazarus

"Notizie," 741

318 ("Annotizione").

fol. 31ff.

The homily is preserved in

414

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

69CPG, 4, pp. 216-217; Faulhaber, Propheten-Catenen, 75-78.

SOME

REMARKS

ABOUT

THE

ARMENIAN

GREEK

TEXTS

Andrea

Tessier

TRADITION

OF

Università di Padova (Italy)

From Armenian

the point of view

translations

of Greek

of a classical texts, whose

philologist

source

the value of the

has been

transmitted

to

us through its 'direct' tradition, lies in the fact that they may cast some light

on a lost segment of this tradition, insofar as its lectiones may survive in the translation.

Although it is often hard to determine the age of a translation and of its

lost

Greek

antecedent,

sometimes

a

translation

tradition) turns out to be prior to the whole

(not,

extant

of

course,

direct tradition:

value of such a witness, even though it mirrors its antecedent

its

the

distortedly, is

quite great.

On the other hand, even the translation of a manuscript, whose

place

the traditional

within

hierarchy

is surely

low,

should

not

be hastily

discarded (medieval variants are often ancient), unless we possess some plain evidence

that

manuscript; This philology Greek

the underlying

definition

might

source

data,

philosophical, intentional,

of the connections

sound

texts, besides

important

manuscript

is copy

of another

extant

in which case the eliminatio would apply. too

narrow,

providing

belong

religious for I deem

to

literary

it necessary

philological domain, where

the

Classical Armenian

and

Armenian

translations

of

the critic and the editor of the latter with

Armenian

and

between

because

civilization trends.

and

However,

to circumscribe

the subservience

mirror such

outstanding narrowness

is

the field of a definite

of broader cultural data to the

critical procedure is, at first glance at least, unavoidable. First 1 shall try to point out some T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

pp.

Texts

Medieval and

Studies

415 to 424.

415

major problems, and faults, which Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

416

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

inventory might be the

A makeshift

this domain.

in recent times affected following: a. value;

Most nineteenth-century editions of Armenian

this

owing

to the

philological procedure book! Moreno

unsatisfactory

from

Morani has re-examined

Mekhitarist edition of Nemesius' showed

recensio

which they stem.

to the

In a recent

old-fashioned

and outstanding

the manuscript sources of the Venetian

mepl

that the single manuscripts

and

texts are of poor

pÜoeuc

offer,

&vepéruv

in many

(1889)2 and

cases,

a better

reading

were

influenced

by the

than the one the Venetian editor chose.

b.

Some

editors of Armenian

translations

Greek originals and, on this basis, they edited some difficult passages of their

text and divested it of any critical value for the original. faulty procedure Ce ologists

The

‘division

is likely

accounted

to

of labour'

bring

about

between

some

An example of this

Aristotle's

Armenian

common

De Mundo.

and

classical

mistakes,

which

concise

Armenian

survey

philology

above-mentioned or "horizontal"

makes

be

some

of the

proceed

problems

without

that

stressing

arise

the

in Greek-

fact

that

Let

viz. the work of an editor of a Greek classical text

of its Armenian

us turn

now

"diachronic"

procedure

of a

and,

text

the

critical operations must be deemed typical of a "synchronic"

philology,

use

of

cannot

translation

in the

apparatus

criticus he is

constructing or, sometimes, through the choice of some good readings,

text.

phil-

will

for afterwards.

À

who

will be given below, concerning

to the outermost

region

of this domain,

in his

i.e. the

that rightfully belongs to the history of the tradition

dealing

with

a "closed

recension,"?

aims

at

placing

its

translations within the frame of the stemma codicum.

With reference to this

I can quote an excellent book by the above-mentioned

Moreno Morani,* where

the Armenian to

the

whole

contamination

translation of Nemesius' of

direct

that would

An overview

Aristotle

its

as shown

of the

text is convincingly shown to be prior

tradition

have affected fate

in critical

of the

editions

and

free

from

the

widespread

the latter. Classical

of the

Armènian

Greek

text

opportunity to illustrate the philological method in practice.

translations

of

will give ample The aim of my

research has primarily been the rearrangement of these oriental translations as they bear on Greek philology rather than first-hand

of Armenian philology.

research in the field

I recently completed a comprehensive revision of the

TESSIER

417

apparata to Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian treatises which made use of

the Armenian

data from

a recent

where

versions, omitting the Categoriae,

edition of the translation” fills the gap and makes modern reference available to the philologist planning a new edition of the Greek text. liberty of giving some

I will take the

examples of faults and misunderstandings which bear

problems.

on the above-listed

Two Aristotelian treatises, the Categoriae and the De Interpretatione,

and

two

pseudo-Aristotelian

ones,

the De Mundo

and the De Virtutibus et

Vitiis, were handed down to us in a Classical Armenian version:

for the first

two the date of the fifth century A.D. is generally agreed upon.

The second

two

have

been

dated

ninth centuries

his foreword

by Frederick

Cornwallis

A.D.,6 contradicting

Conybeare

the Venetian

to the seventh

Mekhitarist

to

editor, who, in

to the 1833 editio princeps, judged them as being contemporary

to the two previous works.7 It is beyond my aim to inquire into the identity of the translator (or translators),

though

undoubtedly

the

traditional

attribution

to

David

the

Invincible (Dawit' Anyatt'), a Christian Neoplatonist of Armenian origin, must be rejected.8

Whatever

above-mentioned

date

are

therefore

to

be

translators

of the

among

F. C. Conybeare

written

Armenian

the

Greek

practically

(‘indeed''—as

with

Conybeare

most

reproduced

translations

valuable As

within

their

is little more

to the fashion

dproc'), operating in that time.

says,

"has

witnesses

a matter

verbatim

points out—"it

must stress the point that the Armenian as

our

originals.

words'"?), according

Hellenizing school (Yunaban treatises,

for

than the manuscript tradition we possess:

numbered

reconstruction

Armenian

choose

the

limits, it is beyond doubt that their Greek antecedents

very old, older in any case correct

we

for

of fact Greek

are they a the

model

than the Greek

of the so-called Nevertheless, I

text of the two pseudo-Aristotelian

undergone

the

most

wholesale

cor-

ruption."10 I have already

treatises:

mentioned

the Armenian

editio princeps of these four

it was completed and printed in Venice, in 1833, in the island of

San Lazzaro, on the basis of the manuscripts held in the monastery. end of the last century, in 1892, Conybeare

At the

collated this text with the Greek

original, using, for the treatises included in the Organon, the Waïitz edition, ll and,

for

the

pseudo-Aristotelian

ones,

the

Bekker

edition;l2

volume he added the results of the collation to other Armenian perused in Paris, Jerusalem, Pavia and Ejmiacin.

in the

same

manuscripts

It is particularly significant

418

MEDIEVAL

that Conybeare

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

did not complete the collation with consistent standards, but

when dealing with the pseudo-Aristotelian, the variants of the Armenian,

to

the

corruption

therefore seems

of the

acknowledged

From

1893

and in 1977

basis we

by the

recent

author,

were so evidently due

limits

who,

new

edition

of Collation

unfortunately,

events

are

seldom

took place in this

of the Armenian

inventory of the Armenian

and satisfactory

Categoriae

Aristotelian

in his weighty Armenian

some forty manuscripts

expect new

The Logical Treatises

The

two noteworthy

by H. Anasyan

enumerates

may

of them

exactness.

to the present

the most

texts he "even hesitated to print

most

itself."13

the aforementioned

scripts accomplished the scholar

version

even

to aim at scientific

field, in 1966

because

for each

manu-

Bibliography:l#

treatise;

on

editions of the Armenian

such texts.

in Armenian

In his Oxford edition of the two logical treatises (Categoriae and De interpretatione) in 1949 Lorenzo

Minio-Paluello

inserts the Armenian

trans-

lation in the critical apparatus to the Greek text, l? relying ex-professol6 on Conybeare's

Collation.

In spite of the already mentioned

inaccuracy of the

latter, Minio-Paluello's apparatus, owing to its "negative! structure (i.e. only the testimonies succeeds

for the variants

in overcoming

Let us examine author,

the

tradition, known

variant

seems

to bear

the Armenian

readings was

a.

to the printed

of Conybeare's

text

are

accounted

forl/),

faults.

instead a couple of passages where, according to the

translation

whereas

some

ambiguous

text allows

the

Greek

us to easily spot which

of the

in the translator's

evidence

antecedent

to

manuscript.

Int.20a4 oLov Ent to dyLalverv Hat Bañiterv M.-P.'s apparatus:Ü[email protected]ôirer B:fc: [ALT] Conybeare's

It is plain and evident

text:

makotjéin

ew

gnayl8

to the reader of the Armenian

that it actually confirms

version

the reading of B (Marcianus 201), yet

in Minio-Paluello's apparatus

the square brackets enclosing

the

siglum of the version (the capital A stands for Dawit') mean:l? "quid

translator

legerit

ignoramus."

This

note,

Conybeare's silence in the Collation, is misleading:

owing

to

as a matter

of fact the latter critic never stresses the coincidence between Waïitz's Paluello

Greek should

text and the Armenian remark

that

his

version,

text,

when

whereas

Minio-

innovative

as

TESSIER compared

to

Waitz's,

does

not

coincide

with

the

419

Armenian

either.

b.

Int.22b4 yat ao abtn ylyvetar M.-P.'s apparatus: C.'s text:

TAG

&vTipautc

Étouévne

Tÿ Érouévr

n' ZA:

[A]

hetewelumn20

The dative of the version, that in Minio-Paluello's apparatus is stated

as

not

evidently ported

bearing

mirrors

by the

sufficient

evidence

to

the

the reading of n (Ambrosianus

Syra

anonyma

(Z)

and

the

Greek,

L 93), sup-

Latin

version

by

Boethius (A). The

fault

is

once

more

engendered

by

Conybeare's

silence, because Waïitz's text coincides in this reading with the Armenian.

to

À

Paradoxically enough, the absence of any remark as

in Minio-Paluello's apparatus

for its 'negative' the lectio

The Armenian

Translation

Friderico

and

C. Conybeare

faulty

by the

cilessly exposes

accepta

in the apparatus to his edition refero":22

this treatise. of Lorimer's

omissions

Lorimer

and

occasionally

of the Armenian

the editor

excerpta

the

edition

is further mer-

faults.

tries to restore the Greek text on

translation

of

The

apparatus, 23 which

against

after the example of Wilamowitz,

innovative

herewith

upon Conybeare's data, which are particularly regards

structure

Conybeare's

Unfortunately

remarkably

as

'positive'

the sole authority direct tradition,

supports

"Omnia fere quae de hac interpretatione lectionibusque

himself states his dependence vitiated

À

of the De Mundo

is used by W. L. Lorimer

of the Greek text.2l

discontinuous

would be less misleading,

would then imply that

recepta.

This version ejus scio,

structure

treatise

the evidence

of all

who had published some in his Griechisches

Lese-

buch;24 with some conjectures relying on the Armenian, avowedly due to Paul Wendland,

the editor

Furthermore,

of Philo Judaeus. Lorimer

assumes

that

the Armenian

from two different Greek manuscript sources. on

which

Ejmiacin

the Venetian

and

edited

(397a13 to 401b29).

edition

is based

in Vienna, 2 With reference

with

including

translation

stems

He counterposes the tradition a codex

the

Conybeare

last third

found

in

of the treatise

to this, I hope to have demonstrated

in

a recent paper26 that such opposition can hardly be proved on the ground of

420

the

MEDIEVAL

manuscripts

edition

and

the

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

hitherto

published,

Ejmiacin

manuscript

which had already been transmitted Moreover,

some

misunderstandings

alleged

of the

even

though

actually

display

cases

the Venice

alternative

readings,

through the direct tradition.

‘separative

Armenian

in few

version.

mistakes' Let

arise

us examine

from

patent

a couple

of

passages.

Mu.399b23 Tù yap méôn,

a.

al

Tù 61”

&époc

&ravtæ

Lorimer's apparatus: zé97 :Mon 187 R 188 b°mn:rdv Fe Mut? Neap R 256: re 2

(Gr)évo rdôn s : oÂpé)via räôn Z : aut hoc aut illud 2’ : oùpéva b"’ (7):

Venice edition (V) 624, 16-17 erkin Ejmiacin ms. (E) 230a25-26 kirk'n

First of all, erkin of V does not meanoüp&vtæas Conybeare's backversion

doubtfully27 states, for we would expect to find in

the Armenian

erknayin.

I think that the editor

was biased by the reading où(p&)via

né&On — Parisinus 2381

(Z).

the adjective

We can easily get rid of this alleged 'Leitfehler'28 by

assuming

that erkin represents

the corruption

of the reading

kirk'n to be found in E, which mirrors %&@n

of the direct

tradition. In my opinion V and E are likely to display two Armenian

variants rather

b.

than two Greek

Mu.4Olall

de pnorv Lorimer's

onés.2?

"näv yap épretov rAnYyÿ vÉuETaL"

‘HpénÂAELTOc app.

nr © a (vel Beoë Any): rAnvhv b* (ganin) : név yÿ vel xE yhv 5 à chv y (= ri B) Fla F113 Lp Mar O Par 166 Par 2494 R 58 R 7o R 223 R 1314 (riv rÿv) R 1908

Ven 215 b" (hhoghov) mn : Aéyov Capelle ex b cod. Par. Arm. 106 (banio = Xdyov : sic et cod. Vind. Arm. 320)

V 627,10 hotov E 23la44 ganiw The Aristotelian passage quotes Heraclitus (fragment B 11 DK}: the meaning is that every animal

‘which goes on all fours'30 js

driven to pasture by the blows of God, and this fits with the general

sense

laws of God

of the passage,

(401a10 totc

i.e. that every animal obeys the

toù

8eoû

nerSéueva

Seouotc).

TESSIER

421

Surprisingly the whole direct tradition carries the readingthv TV

yfv,which

must

be rejected here, though

véueoSar ?! is not

YAV

nonsensical

in itself; the right

reading nAnyfñ,We can see from the apparatus, is handed down through

the

indirect

tradition,

namely

Stobaeus

(the

capital

Gothic s stands for the excerpts from this author).32 Let us turn now tho the Arm. version:

no doubt that E

mirrors Stobaeus' reading, since ganiw is an instrumental from gan, that represents the proper Armenian equivalent for TAnYñ. The faulty backformation nAnyñv.(Lorimer's forgery,

and is due to Conybeare,

Stobaeus'

variant

because

who

his Greek

apparatus) is sheer

could

model

not have

was

known

Bekker's De

Mundo, and translated ganiw bearing in mindthv Yfivthence the

accusative. As for baniw =A6Y,

Capelle

in

Nationale)

a

Paris

of the

this reading was found by Wilhelm

manuscript

Armenian

(106,

version;

now

240

this basis the Aristotelian text and translated: emendation

once

more

testifies

improved

on

"wird doch alles

Getier [...] von der Weltvernunft geleitet."?# persuasive

Biblioteque

the scholar

This seemingly against

the

mis-

leading practice of intervening on the Greek original by means

of an

isolated

Armenian

reading,

since baniw

represents

an

obvious corruption of the difficilior lectio, ganiw, and, far from

affecting

the Greek

text, must

be eliminated

from

its appa-

ratus.

The third Armenian is likely to stem

reading, holkov, also an instrumental,

from an antecedenttf

yf, which

corruption ofnAnYyf.

If we are right in assuming

yñv

tradition

of the

direct

of this mistake,

for the dative

is but

would

might be a

this, Thv

a syntactical

not make

adjustment

sense

here:

a

clue to this might be the reading Thv YÜV, with 'iota subscript;'

of the Vaticanus 1314. This is briefly the status quaestionis.

To sum

up, when

I faced the

problem of the value of these Armenian translations in order to reconstruct their Greek antecedent

them,

I met

apparatuses

a

fairly

hitherto

manuscripts, and considered the use hitherto made of

discouraging

completed

suffer

situation. from

one

Broadly major

fault:

speaking,

the

they always

422

MEDIEVAL

CULTURE

The only correct philological

opinion, is an extremely misleading instrument.

the

on

at least

data,

of the

the. re-examination

is, of course,

procedure

in my

which,

work

Conybeare's

on

drawing

data

second-hand

with

deal

ARMENIAN

evidence of the Armenian printed editions we possess. I would even suggest that a complete absence of these data may turn out to be less deceiving than

their misuse.

some

the above-mentioned

deeply explored:

be more

of the Armenian

the misuse

Yet the Armenian side of the problem

versions of the Aristotelian treatises. must

from

stemming

patent misunderstandings

redressed

I only hope to have

does not provide final solutions.

I just

of which

samples

direction,

in this

done

I have

work

The presented,

work

by H. Anasyan

finally offers an almost thorough catalogue of the manuscript tradition of the it is to be hoped

and

translations

that on this basis new

editions

will be

prepared in the near future and that the new editions of the Greek originals will correctly

take them

into account.

NOTES lu. Morani, di

Nemesio

Contributo

(Memorie

per un'edizione

dell'Istituto

Lettere; Classe di Lettere—Scienze

Istituto Lombardo

di

Scienze

e

Morali e Storiche Vol. 33 Fasc. 3; Milano:

di Scienze e Lettere, 1973).

2Nemesiosi etik—S.

critica della versione armena

Lombardo—Accademia

p'ilisop'ayi

Emesazioy,

Yatags

bnut'ean

mardoy

(Ven-

Lazar, 1889); on the authorship of the edition cf. Morani, Contributo,

112 3G, Pasquali, Monnier,

1952)

(Padova:

Antenore,

HM. Nemesio

126

Morani,

Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Firenze: ff.;

SV.

Le

tradizione

Avalle,

manoscritta

della Universita

e Letteratura,

K.

Silvio

Principi

di critica

del "De

natura

Le

testuale

1972) 23 f.

(Pubblicazioni

filologiche

D'Arco

C'aloyan

18; Milano:

&

S.

gut'eanc'n Aristotèli (Erevan, CF. C. Conybeare,

P.

Cattolica

del Sacro

Vita e Pensiero,

Lalap'aryan,

Ananun

hominis"

di

Cuore—Scienze

1981).

Meknut'iwn

Storo-

1961).

À Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of

TESSIER

the Greek

Text of Aristotle's

Virtutibus

et

Vitiis

Classical Series 7Koriwn

agrut'iwnk'

and

Stuttgart:

Porphyry's

1, 6; Oxford, vardapeti,

(Venetik,

8Conybeare, encyclopädie

Categories,

of

De Interpretatione,

Introduction

De Mundo,

(Anecdota

De

Oxoniensia,

1892) XXXII.

Mambrëi

vercanoki

ew

Dawt'i

Anyatt'i,

Maten-

1833). Collation,

VII; Kroll,

"David,"

2232-33

der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

J. B. Metzlersche

IConybeare,

423

Verlagsbuchhandlung,

Collation,

in Paulys

Real-

(neue Bearb. G. Wissowa;

1901) 4.2.

V.

lOfbid., XXXIL. 1l'Aristotelis Organon Graece l2Aristoteles

Graece

l3Conybeare,

Collation,

14H, S. Anasyan, DAristoteles

Paulello;

Oxonii:

1831) I 391-401.

Matenagitut'yun,

et

Liber

University

de interpretatione

Press,

1 would not term

II (Erevan,

1976).

(ed.

L. Minio-

1949).

Conybeare's

work an edition "ad artis

rationem."

17M.

Teubner,

L. West,

Textual

Criticism

and Editorial

Technique

(Stuttgart:

Ë

1973) 87.

18Conybeare,

Collation,

l9Aristotelis

Categoriae,

20Conybeare,

Collation,

21 Aristotelis

qui fertur

Les Belles Lettres, 22Aristotelis

24U,

von

168, 19. 2.

178, 4. libellus De

Mundo

(ed. W. L. Lorimer;

Paris:

1933). De

23West, Textual

Berlin,

Berolini

1844).

XXXII.

Categoriae

l6]bid., XII: criticae

(ed. I. Bekker;

Haykakan

Oxford

(ed. T. Waitz; Lipsiae

Mundo,

20 n.l.

Criticism,

87.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Grieschisches

Lesebuch

(6th ed.;

1926) I.2.186-199.

25F,

C.

Conybeare,

"Aristoteli

Handës Amsoreay 7 (1893) 227-232.

yatags

Astucoy

ëndôrinakut'iwn,"

424

MEDIEVAL

26A,

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

Tessier,

"Leitfehler

pseudo-aristotelico?,"

Bollettino

edizione

nazionale

nella

del

traduzione

comitato

armena

per

del

De

Mundo

la preparazione

dei classici greci e latini—Accademia

dell'-

Nazionale dei Lincei

27 (1979) 31-40.

27The double quotation mark after the siglum of the version (here the

small

Gothic

h stands

Lorimer's practice: minime

tamen

for

the

Armenian

version)

M"Lectio exemplaris Graeci

means,

Armeniaci

according

to

probabilis quidem,

certa.!

28p, Maas,

"Leitfehler

und stemmatische

Typen," Byzantinische

Zeit-

schrift 37 (1937) 289-294. 29For an example of an almost

36 = V 615, 7,=—=

'reverse' corruption, see Mu. 395b35-

näSoc of the original has been rendered in Armenian with

yerkir. 30Thus

H. G. Liddell

rev. H. S. Jones; Oxford: That

Epnetôv

& R. Scott,

Oxford

A Greek-English

University

Lexicon

(9th ed.;

Press, 1940) 691, s.v. ÈpnetOv

here means "something that moves with its trunk parallel

to the ground" rather than "a creeping thing" was

by G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus.

The Cosmic

satisfactorily pointed out

Fragments (Cambridge:

Cambridge

U.P., 1954) 260.

31Liddel & Scott, Lexicon, 1167, s.v. véuo. 321 cannot

hold that a similar reading may

Latin version, where

this passage

33Thus G. Avetik'ean & X. Siwrmelean haykazean lezui (Venetik, 1836-37) I 528, s.v. 34. dem

Capelle,

from Apuleius'

& M. Awgerean,

Die Schrift von der Welt, ein Weltbild

I. Jahrh. n. Chr. (Jena:

subsequently

be drawn

looks hopelessly corrupt.

Eugen

Diederichs,

1907) 94.

adopt the right readingrAnyfä and translate:

Nor baïgirk'

im Umriss

aus

The scholar

will

"Wird

doch

alles,

was da kreucht und fleucht, durch den Schlag (Gottes) getrieben!"' in his work Die Vorsokratiker

(Leipzig:

Alfred

Kroner Verlag,

1935) 36.

DATED

ARMENIAN

MANUSCRIPTS

FOR

ARMENIAN Dickran

California

À question economic

which

conditions

of

AS A STATISTICAL

State

TOOL

HISTORY

Kouymjian

University,

always

disturbs

earlier

centuries

Fresno

& Paris

historians

writing

is

whether

about

social or

generalizations

or

hypotheses about relative prosperity or decline in a given period are in fact

correct.

This is especially true when

or do not supply more progress

of great

the historical sources

are either few

than a superficial catalogue of wars, famines, or the

men.

Armenian

historians often face this problem.

long periods, such as the sixteenth century, no histories in Armenian

For

exist at

all. Independent

primary

sources,

scholars long for. texts

corroboration

even

when

church

hypotheses

rich

derived

in that era.

construction

and

quantitative

measure

In the Armenian

and manuscript

been given to using the material

analyzing

is something

testimony

about

of the

case this would

illumination.

remains

material include

Almost

of Armenian

quite apart from their value as artistic monuments, tion of textual

from

in details,

all

One of the classic ways of confirming notions derived from

is the qualitative

produced

of

relatively

culture

principally

no attention

has

culture statistically,

as independent verifica-

good times and bad, victories and defeats.

À decade ago, during the initial stages of the compilation of the Index of Armenian

of cards

Art, it became clear that mere

arranged

chronologically

in the

visual inspection of the number

files

could

accurate idea of the relative production of miniature period. l

A glance at the file arranged

the preference

for one image over

T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

pp.

Texts

iconographically

another

Medieval and

Studies

425 to 439.

425

furnish

would demonstrate

during the course

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

a reasonably

painting at any given

CA:

of centuries.

(University of Scholars

Press,

426

MEDIEVAL

Gradually

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

the data base increased

(illuminations).

It

considerations,

became

to over

clear

10,000 individually indexed

that,

independent

this base might serve as a mode

In 1980, while the author

historiographically

obscure

collective

des

Histoire

illuminations.

and

sixteenth

it was

validity

statistical

manuscripts

centuries

decided

to utlize

for

the

the

material

new

It was augmented to include

and not just those with miniatures

or

It seemed likely that by simply plotting manuscript production

chronologically, the

artistic

was engaged in preparing a chapter on the

fifteenth

Armeniens,2

all Armenian

strictly

of statistical evidence.

already collected in the Index of Armenian Art. data from

of

items

graphic results would visually and instantly confirm or deny

of historical

analysis

impressions

supported

of the

in a striking

period.

way

The

many

results

of the

of this

conclusions

reached about the history of Armenia

from the fall of the Cilician kingdom

in 1375

Abbas

to the

presented

deportations

in the new

of Shah

in 1604.

They

were

partially

Histoire.?

In the following pages the methodology developed will be presented in some

detail accompanied

already

achieved,

by (1) an indication

(2) the

effort

necessary

of the limitations of the work to carry

project, and (3) refinements of the system needed credible.

It is hoped

corrections, resources

and

were

that others

suggestions

for

will engage

out

and

complete

the

to make the results more

in this work

improvement.

The

with

additions,

premises

and

the

as follows.

It is usually said that some 25,000 Armenian manuscripts have survived to our day.

The majority of them are in Armenian repositories, either church

or state controlled.

Thanks to the aggressive work of the 1960s undertaken

by the Matenadaran

in Erevan

in issuing a two volume

summary

catalogue

of the largest single collection of Armenian manuscripts,

and the publication

program

of the Calouste

the completion

printing

of catalogues

Gulbenkian

of the major

Foundation

toward

collections

in the diaspora, ? the vast

majority, perhaps 90 percent or more, of all Armenian identified and recorded The

idea

according

of tabulating

to accepted

all Armenian

and

manuscripts have been

norms. manuscripts

is hardly original.

But thus far no single published guide nor detailed report offering a profile of the corpus of Armenian

manuscripts

is available.

For our survey the following major collections were used through their

published

catalogues:

Erevan,

Matenadaran,

10,408

manuscripts;

a group

comprising those of Venice, Mekhitarist Congregation, Volume lil, Rituals, 136

KOUYMJIAN

manuscripts;é

mar, 683

Vienna,

Lebanon,

Mekhitarist

monastic

manuscripts;8

Congregation,

collections

New

Julfa,

including

Isfahan,

1,304

that

427

manuscripts;/

Bzom-

of the Antonian

Patriarchal

collection,

fathers,

811

manu-

scripts;? and a composite group including collections in the United States, the Vatican,

German

manuscripts. 10

collections,

periods, is thus 13,944. Armenian

Dublin

(Chester

Beatty),

and

Cyprus,

The total of these codices, all thoroughly tabulated

Patriarchal

fixed time span.

In addition collection

2,800 manuscripts

were

from

the Jerusalem

examined, ll but only recorded

Altogether, a total of 16,744 Armenian

in the statistical analysis.

738

for all for a

manuscripts entered

The future addition of all other published material

not included in this survey would bring the manuscripts close to 20,000, and the utilization of catalogues and inventories which are not yet published, such as

the

3,500

remaining

the

or

more

in the Venice

in the Jerusalem

overall

total

of

Mekhitarist

collection,

25,000

collection

and

would bring the number

believed

to

be

extant.

Our

the

1,000

very close to

dual

sampling

represents respectively 55.8 percent (13,944 ms) and 67.0 percent (16,744 ms) of surviving data. In order

to guarantee

a degree

of certitude

and

to facilitate

the

recording process, it was decided

to use only specifically dated

manuscripts;

that

indicating

or

is, those

execution.

with

If more

counted.

a

colophon

than one

Approximately

year

dated

was

the

precise

mentioned,

works,

for

year

instance

‘second

fourteenth century! or "last decade of the fifteenth,'"' were

sampling

of 13,949

nineteenth between

manuscripts

century; 1300 and

for the additional 1620 only were

The first observation 13,944 manuscripts,

the

percentages

remarkably

manuscripts; dated known

of

similar

Vienna,

manuscripts;

manuscripts.

Jerusalem

to be made

results:

even

series,

into the late dated

is, that of the smaller sampling of precisely dated.

within

this

Matenadaran,

57.9

percent

New

the composite

the

Of the

manuscripts

collections

Bzommar,

of

tabulated.

57.2 percent of 7,973 were

individual

recorded

half

excluded.

of was

Julfa together,

group,

57.2

Calculating

sampling or

54.5 percent

percent

or

produces

6,030

422

out

or

dated

1,521 of 738

A general figure of 57 percent would mean that of the 25,000

Armenian

material

all dates were

years

only the first year

culture

manuscripts produced

over

we

can

expect

to have

a period beginning

extending through the nineteenth century.

14,250

dated

bits of

in the ninth century and

Our statistical analysis makes use

of 7,973 dated manuscripts for this broad period, and by extrapolating from

428

the

MEDIEVAL

Jerusalem

ARMENIAN

collection

(57

CULTURE

percent

of

2,800

items), a total of 9,569 pieces of evidence Methodologically

the easiest

them on a simple graph.

way

or

1,596

for the period

to perceive

commissioned

items,

increased

prosperity.

these

data is to plot

since

they are

should

probably

coincide

Since manuscripts were to be considered

with

the

increase

Because of the scarcity of surviving manuscripts copied

the graphs

were

with the year

designed

1790.

to begin

with

the

year

1200

the same

period. 12

willful destruction

Since

of whole

and

There are fewer than 100 dated manuscripts

up to the end of the twelfth century with perhaps twice that many from

luxury

in relative

Thus, a series of charts was plotted of both individual collections

1190,

terminate

and

production

and groups of them. before

dated

1300 to 1620.

The resulting curve with its peaks and valleys should

instantly reveal the trends in manuscript production. usually

additional

we

have

libraries

reliable

with

historical

thousands

undated

witness

of codices,

to the

especially

during the Seljuk Turkic invasions,L3 an adequate notion of production cannot be obtained statistically.

Though there

was obviously

continued

destruction

and loss in the centuries which followed, the number of surviving manuscripts for the thirteenth, fourteenth and succeeding centuries is sufficient to obtain meaningful

results. l4

Three

major

charts

were

plotted.

1.

The

entire

Matenanadarn

collection of more than 6,000 dated manuscripts as a control group, since it is itself made

up of diverse collections from a broad geographical

À chart of the combined items.

3.

A chart

area.

2.

collections, except Jerusalem, of nearly 8,000 dated

for a limited

author was most concerned

moment

in Armenian

history, the one

with at the time of the initial research,

the

1300 to

1620,15 which includes the previous material plus all dated manuscripts from

the first eight volumes of the Jerusalem catalogue for this time span. I combines

these

three

curves

on

a single

graph.

In addition,

individual collections were plotted with varying coordinates.

Figure various

The three major

tabulations plotted the frequency of manuscript production by decade. charts plotted output

year by year

and in five, ten, twenty-five,

100 year periods; each produced

a somewhat

same

ten

material.

The

one

using

year

Other

fifty, and

different type of curve for the

periods

seemed

to be

the

most

appropriate for the data at hand and was chosen as the best for illustrative

purposes. The results clearly reveal time

the level of manuscript :

that in the sixteenth

production

fell below

century

for the first

that of the previous

or

KOUYMJIAN

fifteenth century.

The decline

is palpable:

429

the fourteenth century records

593 dated manuscripts, the fifteenth 832, the sixteenth only 627, and just the

first fifty years of the seventeenth

more

than 2,750 dated

sampling of 16,744

1,250, while the entire century leaves us

manuscripts.

These figures are based on the larger

items.

À more detailed analysis the period most intensively investigated—the fourteenth to the early seventeenth century—shows that production begins to decline sharply between

1340 and 1350, a time of unrest in the Near

Mongol IlI-Khanid rule ends and successors

fight over the pieces.

East as

There is a

recovery in the next decade, but then a deeper and deeper decline during the

successive campaigns of Timur which devastate Armenia from 1387 to 1402. Only after these

are over

during Qara Qoyunlu

rule.

does production However,

begin to increase

another

decline

and sharply so

in quantity is apparent

in the two decades after the death of Qara Yusuf (1420), rising again in the

1450s and 1460s, declining in the next decade, and then once again increasing until the year Then, Armenian

Ottoman

1500.16 from

1500,

manuscript

1505,

decades

corresponding

1530s and 1540s. the

century.

is the severest These

are

the

drop in years

of

against the Safavids and his conquest of

to the eastern

campaigns

of sultan

Sulayman

in the

The half century from 1500 to 1550 represents the absolute

manual

From

years—1513,

there

recorded.

The decline remains generalized during the next

point in the production

replaced

to 1520

ever

sultan Selim's campaigns

Egypt, Syria, and Armenia.

lowest

really

production

our

1519,

of Armenian

copying

of

sampling

of nearly

1520,

1538,

scriptoria until printing finally

manuscripts

altogether

17,000

1540—from

in the

manuscripts

the sixteenth

eighteenth

there

century

are

five

for which

not a single one is recorded, whereas for the previous and following century,

the fifteenth and seventeenth, there is not a single unproductive year and for the fourteenth

only one,

1374,

for which

Just as clearly and perhaps even

no

manuscript

more

is recorded. 17

dramatically,

visual inspection

of the graphs shows a steady rise in manuscript copying starting in the 15505,

rising sharply, especially after 1610, to reach the absolute historic high point of productivity during

the

in the decade

last

Ottoman

ending

campaign

in 1660. of

the

Slight declines century

toward

are the

marked east

in

1575-1580, again during the great famine and Jelali revolts of 1595-1600, and

during

the

instigated

forced by Shah

immigration Abbas

of the

in the years

Armenians 1604-1611.

out

of the

Arax

valley

430

MEDIEVAL

Certainly

clearer

ARMENIAN

refinements

results.

CULTURE

in the

For instance,

system

employed

would

produce

instead of basing the statistics

Armenian

manuscripts,

if one were

Armenia,

eliminating

works

to choose

form

even

on all dated

only those executed in greater

Constantinople,

western

Anatolia,

the

Crimea and Poland, the picture would no doubt be made to appear even worse

in periods of decline fifteenth

and

hand,

the results

some

extent

provided

centuries,

under

discussion

can

are of a kind

proper,

apparent

sub-categories

within

there

fourteenth

has

been

century

be controlled

On

the other

or at least checked

to

of other surviving cultural vestiges,

that

would

manuscript

have

been

produced

by all

Obvious examples would

production—all

illuminated

codices

of course, architectural monuments.

a recent

survey

limited

by Jacques

Sislian

which

mental building corresponding

at least in the

revivals.

at all times and in every environment.

or all Gospel manuscripts—and, latter

during

by plotting the frequency

such works

Armenians include

and less brilliant for Armenia

sixteenth

to eastern shows

For the

Armenia

fluctuations

almost exactly to our charts.l8

in the

in monu-

In the entire

second half of that century, when manuscript production was in sharp decline,

there is almost a total absence Another Armenian

of church

Gospel

manuscripts

as

Testaments and complete Bibles. Rhodes'

construction.

such control can be seen in the chart, Figure Il, which plots

survey of Armenian

well

as

the

few

extant

Old

and

New

It is based on information taken from Erroll

Gospels. 1?

The various indices indicate that of

1,244 manuscripts, 809 or 65 percent, are dated, a higher than average figure. The curve

without

of dated

exception,

Gospel chart

decade,

Gospels executed

is another

of the number

1512 to 1800.20

from

1200

the results of the other block

of information,

of Armenian

to 1750, bears out, almost

graphs.

printed books

This curve shows not the number

were tens of thousands

Plotted

the frequency,

from

on

this same

once

again by

the first issued

in

of actual books, for there

printed in the period, but only separate works.

There

are listed altogether 968 titles with the exact date of publication. From

these two graphs (Figure Il) it becomes

the first decade of massive distribution of Armenian in the 1660s corresponds production

certain!y

(Figure I).

in demand.

exactly This

clear that

to that of the highest level of manuscript

probably

With

immediately

printed books beginning

the

reflects

first

a large rise in literacy

Armenian

Bible

printing

in

and

1666,

Armenian Gospel manuscript production shows a precipitous drop, the copying

of Gospels

ceasing

completely

in 1750

as the

production

of printed

texts

KOUYMIJIAN

further increased. Il, and

the

moment,

However, a comparison between the Gospel graph, Figure

general

manuscript

the second

graphs,

Figure

half of the eighteenth

I, shows

century,

that

just at

margin of ten, there continued new

variety

books,

of secular

dictionaries,

various

There

text by a

to be a steady and relatively high number of

manuscripts executed, even increasing toward the 1790s. the

this

despite the halt in the

manual production of the Gospel, the single most copied Armenian

repositories:

431

works travel

which

are

accounts,

Surely this reflects

preserved

memoires,

in the

manuscript

account

books,

text

kinds of essays.

is almost

no

limit

to

the

amount

and

kinds

of information

available from the statistical analysis of these relatively large bodies of data. The individual

be plotted.

production

of scores of separate scriptoria and localities can

Several have been test-chartered,

Figure III, is based on some between

1180 and 1700.

including Erzerum.

Its graph,

45 manuscripts from the larger sampling dated

Turkish and Armenian

sources on the city indicate

that by 1523, as a consequence of the Turko-Persian wars during which it was used as a frontier garrison by the Ottoman army, Erzerum had become totally deserted

by its civilian

sampling for Erzerum about

population.21

from

1488 to 1570.

100 citizens, mostly Armenians.

steadily

center

to become

in the

in the Ottoman

in the dramatic The

next

empire.

on

are

no

century

the

manuscripts

By 1540 there

were

in our

once

again

But, from then on, the city prospered the

third

most

The burst of Armenian

rise in manuscript

city of Julfa

There

important

trading

activity is reflected

production. Arax

is also

a case

in point.

Its total

destruction and abandonment in 1604 presents us with an interesting terminus ad

quem.22

sampling. century

(1456),

frequency

rapid

Ten

dated

Julfan

The earliest is from four

increasing

from

the

manuscripts

sixteenth

important

half

comes

of the

before are

merchant

center

its final destruction

four

manuscripts.

it was definitively Evidently,

further

scripts will prove

include

all existing

large

century,

the

in the east.

at the start of the

Graphically

confirms our notion that Julfa was a city in dynamic moment

the

the mid-fifteenth

to a close paralleling the city's

Armenian

Finally, for the “half-decade there

from

second

seventeenth

century

known from

as the century

rise as the most

are

1325, then another

ascension

this

data

just at the

condemned.

effort

fruitful.

Armenian

on

Ideally,

statistical

analysis

of Armenian

the data base should

manuscripts,

with or without

manu-

be completed

a date.

to

In the

432

MEDIEVAL

catalogues century,"

undated

ARMENIAN

manuscripts

‘first quarter

colophons.

CULTURE

are already ascribed

of the fourteenth

The eventual computerization

century,"

of this information

very difficult, especially if one initially limited place of execution,

to a period, ''sixteenth by evidence

type of text, and identifying

other

than

would not be

the categories say to date, It has been

the

hope of the computerization program designed for the Index of Armenian

number.

Art

to input all manuscripts, not just illuminated ones as is now the case.23

far inadequate resources have prevented the execution of this work. younger scholars more

Thus

Perhaps

adept and specifically trained in computerization

and

statistical analysis will be intrigued enough by this preliminary study to carry on

the

work.

0S€

00€

002

0S

OST

,..

JO

00

---

PeUTAUON

'9T #2 SEN

peuTAUOY

U9TUM

0S2

0081-0027 potiod Jeef-0T doJ ÂïoAe

‘UBJEpeEUSIEN —

0€£0'9

AeAINS Jo

eJe

poJeq

UPTUEUIY

Sel

SUOTIOSTIOON SNTA

PposTU 04 TT OZ9T-OTCT

(uexepeueqem

SRATIOSNUEN

wetesnief

SUOTIO9TTO0 SUTPATOUT)

-- UBAOIH

pezep

SSI 80#‘OT

exnSTtTx ‘I

KOUYMJIAN

#H6'ET UOTUM SSI peqep €/6*/ JO o2e

?

O0T

SszdTiosnuem

433

OO08T

OSAT

OOZT

OS9T

O09T

00ST

OST

OOtT

OSET

OO£T

OST

OOCT

CULTURE ARMENIAN MEDIEVAL

434

|

(l |

l

l |

|

L !

|

O08T

h NJ [e) O

R a Ur O

+ a © ©

H Ur Ur O

HA Ur Q ©

+= + Ur ©

=

+F Le] ©

Ha

LD UY O

HA

peiep

R

LD Q O

HR

D Ur ©

g96 surquesezrdez

R

Lo] Le] [=]

SAooq pequtid uerueuxy----

a Ur O

SOT3TJ

(OO8T-ZIST)

SH0O0Œ

Jo

PUE

SSII

UoOSTIedWON

perUTIX

uBtueuxzy

‘II

eXANSTH

4 (Sopouy ‘4 dogJje) peyep ee 608 UOTUM JO SSN HHZ‘T--SOTATH ‘SJUeUCISE] MON ‘STedS09— Tedson

OO8ST-0O0O2T

OZ

5%

OT

(0)

G

Ge

0€

(Obr,

SE

SeT311/S3dt10snuem

KOUYMIIAN

435

OOÛT

poinooxe OS9T OO9T

OSST

sJ{tTJIosnueu

00ST

OSHT OOùT

UETUSUIY

OSET OO£T OSZT

pee

OOÂT OSTT UT 04 UMOXTOZIH WOXF

SSH 02

OT

ST

av

OSTI

SSI

SSH

OOCT

S SSN

SASTA *ILII

436

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

NOTES ID. Kouymjian,

IAA:

Index

of Armenian

Illuminations, Fascicule I, Illuminated Armenian

A.D.

(Fresno

and

Paris:

University, and Center see

also,

of

Armenian

Studies

"IAA:

Armenian

The

Studies

Manuscripts

to the Year

I:

Manuscript

California

State

History and Art, 1977), xi;

Iconographical

I (1975)

Part

Program,

for Research on Armenian

Kouymjian,

Journal

Armenian

Art,

Manuscripts to the Year 1000

Index

1:65-67;

of Armenian

Kouymijian,

1000 A.D.,' Arkheion

Art,"

"Illustrated

Pontou,

36 (1979)

Turcs

ottomans

249-252. 2Kouymijian,

(XVE-XVI®

"Sous

le joug

siècle), 343-376

(Toulouse:

des

in Gérard

Turcomans

Dédéyan,

et

des

ed., Histoire des Arméniens

Editions Privat, 1982).

3lbid., 370-1. 40. Maëtoc'i

Eganyan,

anvan

of each

Zeyt'unyan

Matenadarani,

3A more back

A.

of the

P'.

Ant'abyan,

C'uc'ak

HSSH

1965

2 vols. (Erevan:

or less complete

issue

&

list of these

Revue

des

Etudes

can

GA,

be found

jeragrac' & 1970).

printed

at the

Arméniennes.

For Erevan, see note 4; for Venice, B. Sargisian & G. Sargsian, Mayr c'uc'ak

hayerën jeragrac'

- girk' jefnadrut'eanc'

matenadaranin

(Venice:

Mxit'areanc'

Mekhitarist

i Venetik, III, MaStoc'

Congregation,

1966).

two volumes devoted to 319 Gospels and religious manuscripts 1924), were not tabulated because of lack of indexes. representing notes

199

manuscripts

11, 16, and

Bibliothek

Armenian volume

with I with

incorporated

1914,

The Gospels, however,

in Rhodes'

list; see

below

19.

23, Dashian,

aristen

are

The first

(Venice,

Catalog

zu Wien

resume 575

der armenischen

(Vienna,

of each

manuscripts;

Mekhitarist

manuscript volume

Handschriften

in der

Congregation,

in German.

Il contains

Mekhit-

1895), text in

This

numbers

represents

574-1304,

H.

Oskian, same title (Vienna, 1963). 8M. K'ésisian, C'uc'ak hayerën jeragrac' Zmmari vank'i matenadaranin

(Vienna:

Mekhitarist

Congregation,

Oskian,

same

Vol.

423-682,

plus 37 additional

title,

es, Ter-Awetisian,

1964), 422 manuscripts;

IT, "Antonean

hawak'acoy"

N. Akinian

(Vienna,

1971),

& H. nos.

manuscripts. C'uc'ak

hayerën

jefagrac'

Nor Jutayi Amenap'rkië'

-

KOUYMIIAN

Vank'i, I (Vienna: jetagrac'

Mekhitarist Congregation,

Nor-Jutayi

S. Amenap'rk£'ean

hitarist Congregation,

437

1970); L. G. Minasian, C'uc'ak

vanac'

t'angarani,

II (Vienna:

Mek-

1972).

104. K. Sanjian, À Catalogue of Medieval Armenian Manuscripts in the United

States (Berekeley-Los Angeles-London:

1976), 180 manuscripts; Borgiani

beare

Vaticani

Barberiniani

Adbhibitis (Rome:

N. Karamianz,

Berlin.

University of California Press,

E. Tisserant, Codices Armeni Chisiani

Schedis

Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis,

Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse

und

Staatsbibliothek

J.

Verzeichnis

in Deutschland,

Franz Seiner Verlag,

1962), 28 manu-

The Chester

Beatty Library.

A Catalogue of the

Hodgis Figgis, 1958), 67 manuscripts; Mekhitarist

1961), 69 manuscripts.

IIN. Polarian,

Armenian

Mayr c'uc'ak

Covenant

IAA,

Fasc.

Century,

Preliminary

Program,

California

jeragrac'

Printing Press,

12See Index of Armenian

Kouymjian,

title and

J. Assfalg

Handscriften

C'uc'ak hayerën jeragrac' Nikosiayi i Kipros (Vienna:

Congregation,

in der K.

with German

1892), 22 manuscripts;

Orientalischen

(Wiesbaden;

Nersessian,

Asher, 1888), 99

Handschriften

in Armenian

Manuscripts, 2 vols. (Dublin:

N. Akinian,

Salem:

der

Handschriften

scripts; S. Der

Armenian

Munchen,

Mekhitarist Congregation,

Molitor,

Armenische

zu

State

Yakopeanc'

I-VIIT (Jeru-

1966-1978).

Art, Fasc. I, op. cit., 14 manuscripts; and D.

II, Illuminated Report

Srboc'

and

Armenian

Checklist

University,

1977),

Manuscripts

(Fresno: 40

of the

Armenian

manuscripts.

New Testament

University, see

below

Manuscripts (Ikebukuro, Tokyo:

1959), is of help, listing some notes

16 and

Step'annos

Petersburg:

alike,

Orbëlean,

from

List of

Rikkyo (St. Paul's) to the year

1220,

10,000 were destroyed in the monastery of Tat'ev Histoire

Imperial Academy

l4]f, as is suggested

undated

the

18.

l31n the 1160s some alone,

90 manuscripts

11th

Studies

Since

majority of early manuscripts are Gospels, E. Rhodes, An Annotated Armenian

Cony-

der Kôniglichen Bibliothek zu

Verzeichniss der Armenischen Handschriften (Berlin:

resume (Vienna: &

Cornwallis

1927), 127 manuscripts;

manuscripts; G. Kalemkiar, Catalog der Armenischen Hof-

Bybliothecae Vaticanae

Frederici

de la Siounie,

of Sciences,

later in this paper,

all collections

are

trans.

M. Brosset,

I (St.

1864) 1.191.

plotted,

all manuscripts, dated and

the resulting

data

would

produce meaningful curves for the tenth through the thirteenth century too.

438

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

15 Actually the dates were originally 1375 to 1604, but curiosity about the period just before

and after stretched

the limits.

16The historical details for this and other sections below will be found

in Kouymijian,

"Sous le joug des Turcomans;"

1/7These New

empty

Testament

a much

years

have

Manuscripts,

larger sampling

been

making

esp. 341-358.

checked

than that of 16,744

Rhodes,

Armenian

manuscripts.

183, Sislian, "L'Activité architecturale

du XIVE siècle," REArm

against

the basis for our results dependent on

en Arménie

orientale au cours

16 (1982) 289-299, see especially the table given in

PI. XXX. 12Rhodes, are very

Armenian

New

Testament

20Hay hnatip grk'i matenagitakan

List

of

Early

(Erevan:

Manuscripts,

the various

indices

useful.

Armenian

Myasnikyan

books will not change 2ÎThe

Printed

Library,

c'uc'ak

Books

1512-1800),

1963), updated

(A Bibliographical

collective

information

on

authorship

early

printed

R. Jennings,

"Urban

the basic outline of the curve.

information

is based

on Ottoman

Population in Anatolia

in the 16th Century:

Amasya,

Erzeroum,"

Trabizon

1512-1800

and

defters,

A Study of Kaiseri,

International

Journal

of Middle

Karaman, Eastern

Studies VII (1976) 21-57, cf., Kouymijian, "Sous le joug des Turcomans," 362-3. 223. BaltruSaitis & D. Kouymjian, "Julfa on the Arax and Its Funerary Monuments,"

Etudes

Arméniennes/Armenian

Berbérian, D. Kouymjian

(ed.), (Lisbon:

Studies.

In

Memoriam

Haïg

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, in

press). 23D. Kouymjian, Index

of

Armenian

Wien, 4-9. Oktober

Wissenschaften,

Art

"Computerization (IAA),"

XVI.

1981, Akten (Vienna:

1981), 10 pages.

of Manuscript

Internationaler

Illuminations:

The

Byzantinistenkongress

Der Osterreichischen Akademie der

THE

ARMENIANS

IN THE

PREDOMINANTLY

BYZANTINE

IN THE

TWELFTH

Kazhdan

Dumbarton

Galesius

by name,

the

longed for a journey

Oaks

life of a Byzantine

following

CLASS

THROUGH

CENTURIES

Alexander

In the eleventh-century

RULING

NINTH

episode

saint, Lazarus

is related:

to the Holy Land, found

young

a companion

of Mount

Lazarus,

who

in a monk

from

Paphlagonia, but this monk happened to be a vicious and perfidious; as they arrived

in Attaleia, the major Cilician harbor, the monk

naukleros,

talked

Lazarus.

to

him

"in

the treacherous

Another

contemporary

plan to Lazarus

have found

was

Saint's life transfers

from Cilicia or Paphlagonia: his

dialect"

and

met a ship-owner, agreed

Only by the intervention of a sailor who understood

revealed

off

Armenian

and

hung

to

him and

the boy saved from slavery.!

us into another

area,

far away

Nilus of Rossano is said by his hagiographer to

a fox skin on the road; he bound

clothes

sell

Armenian

them

(Byzantine saints sometimes

on

the

the skin around

stick

he carried

his head,

on

took

his shoulder

had strange and hard-to-explain ideas).

In such

unusual garb he entered the kastron, the small local center, and children who

saw began

him

walking

to

throw

"Bulgarian

"in such a shape," stones

at

him

as the hagiographer

and

to

yell.

Some

modestly

of them

puts it,

called

him

kalogeros," a word that does not have an English equivalent but

can be rendered in Russian as starec; it is quite plausible to surmise that by this name Frankos,

the children an ethnonym

the Normans.

meant

Bogomil.

that designated

Other

kids, however,

in Byzantine

called

him

texts first and foremost

But what matters for our purpose is the third group of local

children—they called Nilus Armenian.2 T. Samuelian

& M. Stone, eds.

Pennsylvania

Armenian

1983.

pp.

440

Texts

Medieval and Studies

to 452.

439

Armenian 6).

Culture.

Chico,

CA:

(University of Scholars

Press,

440

MEDIEVAL

An

Armenian

quite a natural Armenian

small

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

ship-owner

with

an

Armenian

sight in eleventh-century

crew

Attaleia,

would

next

have

to the

been

heart

of

territory, but from the life of Nilus we learn that even boys in a

South-Italian

considered

kastron

Armenians

were

not

unaware

of Armenians,

as strange as the warlike Normans

though

they

and the heretical

Bogomils. Geographically Byzantine

empire;

well.

find them

We

seen,

the

they were

Armenians

ubiquitous

were

from

ubiquitous

the social

throughout

the

point of view,

as

on all rungs of the social ladder, including the topmost,

the imperial throne.

Among Byzantine basileis of Armenian

descent there is

Leo V (813-820) explicitly described

by Nicephorus

who

and Assyrians";? though I cannot guess

originated

from

the Armenians

Skeuophylax

as a man

who the Assyrians of Nicephorus were, there is no doubt about the Armenian

origin of Leo V.

Basil I (867-886),

Tsimisces

(969-976),

Armenian

origin

chroniclers.

all

was

This

were

understood

fact

is well

Romanus

definitely by

of

I Lecapenus

Armenian

contemporaries

known

and

clearly

(920-944),

stock, and

John

and

their

emphasized

demonstrated

by

by Peter

Charanis, whereas Elisabeth Bauer repeats these data without any substantial

change or addition.# Even among

descent.

the higher echelon of clergy we find people of Armenian

Andronicus

I (1183-1185),

enraged

by Patriarch

Theodosius

Bora-

diotes (1179-1183), called him "the crafty Armenian,' and Nicetas Choniates,

the historian Armenian

who

preserved

this scene,

"by his father's kin."?

comments

Il (1143-1146), belonged to the famous Armenian flourished in the tenth century, Byzantine generals;

another

that

the patriarch

was

Another twelfth-century patriarch, Michael

when

family of the Curcuas that

John Curcuas was one of the foremost

John Curcuas,

magistros

during Tzimisces

reign,

was killed during the war against the Rus, and still another John Curcuas held the very important post of the katepana (governor) of Italy in 1008. suggest that by the time of Michael

the family Armenian

had

been

Hellenized,

roots of the family:

II Curcuas,

but his contemporaries Michael Italicus,

We could

in the mid-twelfth

skillful

century,

did not forget the rhetorician

of the

twelfth century, in his panegyricus dedicated to the patriarch claims that his hero's fatherland

was "the divine paradise planted in the East,"6 and such a

vague expression could aptly, in the Byzantine rhetorical language, designate Armenian

territory.

Armenian

Theoctistes was an influential monastic

leader in the second

KAZHDAN

quarter

monk

of the eleventh century.

and hegumenos

charter);

in 1034

monastic

allottment

In the purchase deed of 1030 he is named

of the monastery

he acquired

Mauros

44]

for

of Esphigmenu

his monastery

(Esphagmenu

a virgin

land

in the

nearby

the

Kormos; as the protos of Athos he signed two

Charters now in the archive of the Laura of Saint Athanasius (1035 and 1037) the first of which has his signature not in Greek but in Armenian/ charter

of 1037

Within

of

sheds

the framework

privileges

Nicephorus: unless

some

new

light on the activity of Armenian

of the Byzantine

bestowed

by

Nicephorus

should

he preferred

to eat

Another

protos

church.

This charter

Theoctistes

on

be entertained

in his own

his

spiritual

together

cell, receiving

with the

monks

contains a list

brother

the protos,

same

meal

as

Theoctistes; he retained a servant who was to be fed with the brethern; after

Theoctistes'

death, Nicephorus

and vineyards. charter

was

to get an estate

with various

It is worth mentioning that among witnesses who signed the

of 1037

was

at least one

belonged to the same post of strategos

Armenian,

John

Petroses,

who

1037

in the Thracian

contains

the

years in the theme

evidently

noble family as Smbat Petruses; Smbat in 1064 held the town

of Apros.8

Why did Nicephorus receive this exceptional endowment? of

buildings

explanation:

Nicephorus

of Charsianon

diligently

(probably from

The charter

served

1001 through

he founded a monastery and gathered a number of monks.?

thirty-six

1037), where

We can conclude

from this charter that the monastery of Esphigmenu had a certain number

of

monks who were not only still connected with Armenian literacy but who also participated in the organization of missionary activity on the eastern borders of the Byzantine

empire.

brother of the Armenian

The date of 1001

Theoctistes,

when

Nicephorus,

was sent to Charsianon

the spiritual

ought to make

us especially alert:

that was the time of the death of David Curopalates and

of the

of his principality

annexation

Byzantium.

by

Basil

The Empire apparently needed

on the eastern The

II (976-1025),

emperor

of

missionaries of Caucasian origin

frontier.

role

of the

Armenians

in the

Byzantine

army

is well

known.

Nicephorus (963-969), in his Strategicon, acknowledges that the eastern army would

be recruited

saying

he emphasizes

least

on

the

(1028-1034)

from

eastern

two

elements,

the specific

frontier.

guard was formed

Rhomaioi

role played

According of Armenians,

and

Armenians; 10 by so

by Armenian

to Kamal

contingents

ad-Din,

and due to them

was able to survive the flight from Aleppo in 1030.11

Roman

at

Ill's

the emperor

However, in numerous

u42

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

chrysobulls issued by Alexius I (1081-1118) the

foreign

billeted

mercenaries

throughout

explained?

(including

the

Empire.l2

How

are not listed among

and

can

Alans)

this

who

puzzling

would

be

silence

be

Does the imperial court consider the Armenians as the emperor's

subjects, not foreigners? decreased

Or had the role of Armenian contingents drastically

by the end of the eleventh

Here

granted

Armenians

Abchasians

we

that

confront

the

society—but

a very

Armenians

century?

important

played

a

has this part remained

question.

very

always

We

significant the same?

can

take

part Can

it for

in Byzantine we

reveal

changes under the smooth and pleasant surface of the overall statement some

Byzantine

Armenian

emperors,

patriarchs,

abbots

and

generals

any

that

belonged

to

families?

The search for changes necessarily presupposes certain operations with

figures

but

Byzantine

to

it is well

known

demographic

hurdle

this

information?

seemingly

Byzantine

insurmountable

Tentatively

temporarily

that

state

archives

data are vague and unreliable.

restricted

we

segment

ruling elite of the eleventh

can,

barrier,

although

of the

and twelfth

the

for

Byzantine

perished

Iack

only

of

a

centuries.

of our

sources;

even

if we

and

I mean

the

The ruling elite is the

do not know

within the

all the members

Byzantine ruling class, we can be pretty sure that we will meet

the leading

families

period of time.

if we

choose

The eleventh

for our

and twelfth

precise

socially

population.

single social stratum located, with a certain degree of consistency,

spotlight

and

Can we find a means

investigation centuries

of the

almost

all

a relatively broad

present

a particularly

favorable period, since the Empire, until the catastrophe of 1204, was not yet

transformed world,

into an

doomed

hand, Greek

insignificant

to be gobbled

sources

of these

centuries

the habit of using family names 1000,

whereas

before

city-state

this

on

the edge

up by the Turkish

are relatively

was established

date

they

were

of the

superpower;

Christian

on the other

abundant.

in Byzantium used

Moreover,

only in about

sporadically

and

not

consistently.

The results of my calculations have been analyzed in two monographs published

in

Russian of

and

scholars.

One

framework

of

summarize

its conclusions

difficulties

a scholar

the

these

therefore books

Byzantine

is dedeicated

ruling

shortly,

has to cope

practically elite.l3

unavailable to

with

Armenians

I will

but first I wish

to

take

to expose

Western

within

a moment one

the to

of many

while investigating the problems

of

KAZHDAN

medieval

demography.

should be included

443

This difficulty can be flatly defined as follows:

among

Byzantine

Who

Armenians?

Of course there are some families whose Armenian descent cannot be questioned:

closely

they are explicitly named

connected

doubt

with

Armenian.

origin,

them

such

now

Armenian

families

Musele,

Curcuas,

Taronites,

various

scholars

concerning

Petruses,

consisting

of twenty

as Armenians,

their Armenian

take as an example

of Peloponnesia Monembasia,

into consideration

that later sources An

even

805,

though

nobility?

that skleros

never harder

we

have

and I can

been

described

no direct

and Georgian

and much

poisoned

insoluble

as it seems

according

to

the

The case is ambiguous, 'austere

Let us

Chronicle

to crack

is the

and Iberi.

word and

origin of the Sclerus family. small

group

were

of four

families

intermittently

ink spilt.

As a matter

of fact, the problem

from the heat of the dispute:

of

Chalcedonian

especially

in the region of Taiq, and we know some

by C. Toumanoff,

the "Caucasians,"15

was

not

between

unbridgeable,

Byzantine subjects who

seems

to me

The term to provide a

a "patriotic" but barren discussion.

If we assume

that there were about thirty or forty Armenian

within the Byzantine

ruling elite of the eleventh

establish

point

"Caucasians"

is not as

the difference

creed

spoke and wrote, besides the Greek, both Georgian and Armenian.

a

between

scholars; sharp words have been said by both parties

Armenians

from

called

The problem of their ethnic origin

and

happy outlet

of

especially if we

or severe,' is a Greek

Georgians

introduced

is by

indications

(especially that of Pacuriani) produced a hot dispute predominantly Armenian

add to

There

Is this testimony sufficient to enlist the

(Tornices, Pacuriani, Vichkatzi and Apuchap) who

in our sources both Armenians

have

any

Armenian

or less vague hints.

mention the Armenian nut

without

the first of whom, the strategos

originated,

Armenia.l4

Aspietes,

who

descent, only more

at about

in Lesser

are

of unquestionably

families

even

names

they were

I have just mentioned.

the family of Sclerus,

Sclerus into the Armenian take

whom

by our sources,

their

fourteen

as the

group

territories,

I couted

the fifteenth,

another

Armenians

starting

in Byzantine

for

deliberation

society.

The

families

and twelfth centuries,

about

general

the

role

number

played

we

by the

of "aristocratic"

families in Byzantium is approximately 340, so the Armenians made up a good

ten percent of the whole. Other

ethnic

minorities

played

a lesser

role than

Armenians.

The

Southern Slavs gave sixteen aristocratic families at that period, about ten or

#4

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

CULTURE

eleven were of "Latin! origin (mainly from Norman Italy), a few less—of Arab descent,

approximately

The

Armenian

uniform.

Some

five—Turks. group

of them

within

the Byzantine

ruling class was far from

retained their language,

culture

and

Monophysite

religion, even though the most cultivated of them could not resist the charm of

Byzantine

civilization:

Gregory

literature

Pahlavuni

and devoted

Magistros

many

had

profound

knowledge

of Greek

years to translation

Greek.l6

Relations between the Monophysite (Gregorian) Armenians and the

from

Byzantine state, church and population were tense, and the story of Gagik of

Ani is perhaps the most

eloquent episode of this incessant struggle:

left Ani in 1045 and the emperor (perhaps

also

metropolitan

some

lands

endowed

in Charsianon

of Caesaria

but was

him and

captured

with

Lycandus);

by local

their castle and hanged on the wall in 1079/80. of Armenian

aristocracy

ranks of the Byzantine No

was

another

dom.

the

brought

to

creed and joined the

governors

of

aristocracy

provinces,

some

of

some

was much

more

of the "Byzantine

and served

the Empire

them

civil

were

According to my calculations, the role of the Caucasians

aristocracy

murdered

But there was another group

Chalcedonian

distinction:

belonged to the military

and

he

magnates,

elite.l7

less important

Armenians'' generals

which accepted

Gagik

a part of Cappadocia

as

officials,

within the military

significant than their part in the civil official-

Within this group four families are represented

by civil functionaries

only; we could add to them also the Machitarii, although the functions of the

first

among

them,

Basil

Machitarius,

governor of Melitene and Lycandus, judge.

not

clear

but at the same

enough—he

was

the

time he functioned

as

On the contrary not less than twelve or fifteen families belonged to

the military aristocracy, whereas generals

and

officialdom. and

are

about

governors

and

a considerable

eventually

found

group of families began as their

place

within

the

civil

In other words, Armenians occupied about 10% of the civil elite 25%

origin we know

(or even

more) of the Empire's

(the figures seem

military

aristocracy

to be higher than the overall

whose

percentage

produced above; the discrepancy is to be explained by the fact that the origin can

be

determined

registered

only

families).

for

approximately

service were predominantly warriors an

enormous

exaggerated,

role

a

half

of

the

Thus we suggest that the Armenians in

whereas

the

Byzantine

their

impact

whole

or military administrators; army,

on

the

even

civil

if the

bulk

of

in the Byzantine

they played

figure

service

was

of

25%

not

is

that

KAZHDAN

445

significant. We can reach the same

conclusion in a different way.

If we analyze

the correlation of various groups within the Byzantino-Armenian

aristocracy,

the following figures:

8% of old noble families had

lost their importance by the eleventh century:

42% of families which can be

we get, approximately,

the

aristocracy

military

13%

and

officials;

who served in the civil service.

figures should not be accepted as precise and impeccable reason

to doubt that the Armenians

mainly

as warriors.

We

have

commanders

now

to study

and governors

predominantly

serve?

civil

became

and

face

changed

eventually

but

of families

of families which had belonged to

37%

as military aristocracy;

determined

Even if these

data, we have no

entered the ranks of the Byzantine elite

the

‘''geographical

on Byzantine

distribution"

service:

in which

of Armenian

regions did thy

The first conclusion we are able to draw is that some

Byzantino-Armenian

families, in their service, were connected with particular

areas.

Taronites

Thus

Macedonia in Edessa.

But

Caucasian aim

functioned

in

the

stable

links

fact

zone.

themes—from to thwart

the

of this kind

groups of Byzantine aristocracy.

is the

frontier

the

districts

of

Thessalonike,

and Skoplje; the Dallasseni were active in Antioch; the Apuchap,

that In

Armenians

the

were

eleventh

used,

century

can

be traced

What is more above

this

all, for

zone

in other,

relevant service

included

the

not

for our in the eastern

Antioch up to Iberia, as well as the island of Samos, that was

the access

to the Aegean

Sea, and also Italy and the north-west

regions; the latter encompassed

at the beginning of the century, during the

reign of Basil

Macedonia

Il, Thessalonike,

Philippopolis

had

population.

Later,

a

“"Armenian

activity"

considerable, after

even

Basil's

Eastern

though

shifted westward—to

Melitene,

provinces

were

annexed

themes

from

Empire,

by Byzantium Greeks

social

the

Armenian area

of

population was especially dense in themes

of

Antioch,

Armenian

In Vaspurakan

soon

Edessa,

governors were

and Iberia, which

after that the administration

to governors of Armenian of

measurable Bulgaria,

way,

during Basil Il's reign, the first governors were

but very

basis

by the

Devol, Skoplje and Sirmium.

in the

just in these districts.

was transferred The

not of

Taron, Vaspurakan, Iberia and Sebasteia.

especially abundant recruited

of the

Philippopolis;

annexation

It is well known that the Armenian the

and

the

Byzantino-Armenian

difficult to describe since our sources

of these

stock. 18 aristocracy

is

very

are particularly scanty in determining

446

MEDIEVAL

economic

state

ARMENIAN

positions

and

that landed

CULTURE

economic

estates

activities.

are mentioned

Nonetheless,

in the hands

we

are

of fifteen

able to

Armenian

families adding up to 40%; some of these estates (those of Pacuriani, Burtzes,

Gabras, Pahlavuni and so forth) were large according to Byzantine standards. These figures do not imply that 60% of Armenian landless; the silence of medieval

though

it is worth

civil officialdom these

sources

noting that those

stand outside

Armenian

of

Byzantine

elite:

thus

them

among

68%

of families

owned

the

landed

which

can

echelon

to

render other of

the

clan (the Comneni and their of various

sizes, whereas

16% of all the families can be

as landowners.

Now important

we

come

part

of

to another the

puzzling

Byzantine

problem.

military

Armenians

aristocracy;

formed

they—at

substantial part of their elite—belonged to the landowning class. functionally

and

socially

provide the main Armenians

concluded

remained

outside

Anna

of

the

ranks

of the Armenian

them;

who and

appeared

fifty families,

only five

to

however,

quite

of the imperial dynasty.

but it is not

a

Thus both

Surprisingly, clan

an

least

seldom

Whereas Armenian

only the figures that

families have a position equal to that of the

Batatzes

or Contostephani.

marriages'"' to the Comnenian

Dalassena

of those

dynasty.

Comnenian

of around

to be among

Ducas or Palaeologi,

of the "Armenian

the

with representatives

clan consisted

happened

matter—none

they joined

support of the Comnenian

marriages

the Comnenian

families

even

belonged

But we

uppermost

estates

Byzantine civil aristocracy only about

described

agument,

with the data concerning

among

Byzantine ruling class, the so-called Comnenian relatives),

families

this list of landowners.

figures eloquent if we compare

groups

aristocratic families were

is a very unreliable

married

to John

Let us study all the cases

house.

Comnenus,

the father

of the future

emperor Alexius 1; Michael Taronites's spouse was Maria, Alexius Comnenus's sister—the to

the

marriage was concluded still before 1081, before Alexius's ascent

throne.

The

relations

of

the

Curticii

with

the

Comneni

are

questionable:

even if Constantine Curticius was married to Theodora, Alexius

l's daughter,

the alliance

found

another

husband,

was

of short

Constantine

Gabras with Alexius's other daughter,

Gregory

Pacurianus

youngest brother. Comneni

Junior

was

the

duration,

and

quite soon

Angelus.

The

Maria,

planned

was

son-in-law

of

marriage

of Gregory

but not concluded.

Nicephorus,

There are no evidences about "Armenian

Theodora

Alexius's

marriages! of the

in the twelfth century, except in the case of Michael Gabras,

who

KAZHDAN

married the niece of Manuel I and that of John Comnenus,

Manuel's nephew,

branch!" of the Taronites.

the "Euphratian

who took his bride from

447

Thus we can surmise that in the eleventh and especially in the twelfth

century

the Armenians

social

ladder:

but—unlike

were

they

in a sense restricted

formed

a

significant

in their climbing up the

part

of

the

Byzantine

the Byzantine Can

ruling class.

we

find an explanation

of this puzzling situation?

In a recent

article, S. Vryonis drew attention to the ambiguity of the Byzantine of

the

Armenian.

anti-Armenian

It was

prejudice

demonstrating

well

known,

existed

in

even

before

Byzantine

Vryonis,

society;

his

beauty"

were

praised

physical prowess,

by Byzantine

authors.l?

images

that

strong

merit

lies

that side by side with this hostile attitude Byzantium

milder language, and very often "Armenian

physical

elite

the tenth century—they had no access to the topmost echelon of

in

knew a

bellicosity, and

This ambiguity

of

images coincides with the ambiguity of behavior of the Byzantino-Armenian aristocracy

with respect to the Byzantine

state:

they formed

and provincial governors

a solid body

of imperial

military commanders

responsible

posts on the frontier; on the other hand, they frequently sided

sent to the most

with rebels or even headed dangerous insurrections—I counted about 25 cases

of mutiny from 976 through 1204, in which Armenians them

were

Hellenized,

whereas

guage, dress and religion. they were

a considerable

participated; some

group

preserved

their

of lan-

They were consistent supporters of the regime, but

"dissidents."

This observation, however, does not bring us the final solution of the puzzle:

neither

the

ambiguity

prevented the Armenians

the ninth and tenth centuries. and the twelfth centuries If we

service

summarize

during

the

of images

nor

the

ambiguity

of behavior

from seizing the leading positions in the Empire of We ought to acknowledge that in the eleventh

the Armenian the

eleventh

data

and

situation in Byzantium grew worse.

concerning

twelfth

the

Armenians

centuries,

we

get

in Byzantine

the

following

figures:

From noble

the reign of Basil II we have data concerning #40

Armenians

commanders

in Bynzatine

and one

official,

service,

including

Basil Lecapenus,

33

military

of exclusively

high rank; From

the second quarter of the eleventh century we have

data concerning

38 noble Armenians,

of whom

only 23 can be

448

MEDIEVAL

ARMENIAN

determined

as military

From noble

CULTURE

commanders;

the third quarter of the eleventh century about 50

Armenians

are

mentioned,

of

whom

about

30

were

military commanders; There

are

also

evidences

(mainly

provided

material) that can be dated only approximately century—among were

military

these

26 noble

Armenians

to the eleventh

only eight or nine

commanders.

Alexius l's reign forms a turning point: testimonies only about

activity

on 63 noble

Armenians

20 of them

can

be

During

were

roughly

was

involved

the

reign

(1118-1143) and Manuel recorded;

the number

decreased

even

we can collect

of this span

of time,

of

to

the

eleventh

military

his

two

I (1143-1180), of warriors

more—only

or

descendents,

John

them

twelve

none

of them

dated

belonged

Thus we can observe

narrowing

to the

Byzantium;

second, within

civil service.

number

within

supported

and Armenian

the Comnenian

by the

affinity.

"clan" This

and

(and

its shift

elite

provincial toward

that seized

connected

of approximately

the power

with fifty

the

in 1081

dynasty

families

the military command.

not

Comnenian

clan

officialdom, important On

military

were

aristocracy

pushed

into

the

who

did

background,

join

the

ranks

transformed

the

other

families hand,

suffered from

the

Old

of the

into

plunged into provincial life or even vanished completely.

Armenian

by

included,

families

the

the

their explanation in the

prbably, the largest landowners, and monopolized

of

of

history of the period.

dynasty

of families

clan

first, a general

the ruling

of warriors

aristocracy,

Both tendencies could find, it seems,

In Byzantium or

in the

element

Byzantino-Armenian

realities of both Byzantine

Four

century,

two tendencies of development:

a decrease

the

twelfth

19 noble

to the military class.

in the role of the Armenian

governors)

relation

roughly

know

at the

only five were military commanders.

are

we

Il are

to have

century

more

1204)

seems of them;

Armenians, persons

(up to

twelfth

40 noble Armenians

among

eleven

or

service.

end of the twelfth of whom

but

warriors; of the ten people whose

dated

centuries only one

was

by the seal

civil Many

such a fate. end

of

the

eleventh

century

new

Armenian principalities started to appear in Northern Syria, Mesopotamia and

KAZHDAN

Cilicia.

The most efficient representatives of Armenian

there, and their influx into Byzantium Alexius

l's reign

the

Aspietes

families who entered

and

stantinople,

however,

was

against

Pacuriani,

of Armenian

Brachamius

and

during

Armenian

of fact

as a matter

stay

in Con-

twelfth-century

this

AIl

Bagrat,

whom

and dependency

served

he

Supposedly

(Coccobasilius)

I, at

Alexius

any

the title of sebastos

had

Byzantine Peenegs.

chains

‘the

from

absconded

having

came,

which

in Northern

Syria

governor

of

according to Albert of

siege of Nicaea in 1097, where

him during the crusaders'

met

Aix, Baldwin

Crusade,

appointed

Ravendal, is a typical example of this new tendency:

the

and

Byzantium

First

be

their

create

to

tried

of Boulogne

Baldwin

can

Byzantium

from

the

by

the end of the

from

between

zone

reinforced

strongly

links of relationship

traditional

ebb-tide

Tornices,

Vichkatzi,

Moreover,

Rubenides

in the frontier

principalities

development

a

Cilicia.

Bagrat

only

whose

Theodorocani,

Dalasseni,

a sort

Philaretus

destroyed

will.

their

to the Empire.

came

on,

century

independent

and

it not

Rubenides

the

for

were

Delphanas

observed. Seljugs,

the

influx into Byzantium

stopped,

the

as

Artsrunides,

eleventh

were

Thus

differs signally from the emigration of Basil Il's time when such

emigration families

Coccobasilii

the ranks of the Byzantine elite, and perhaps also the

After Alexius's death the Armenian

have

aristocracy rushed

considerably.

but the information concerning the latter is extremely vague.

Vaspurakanites,

would

declined

449

rate

of the

his

Greek

and commanded

emperor."

Vasil

Kogh

brother

the tropps of the

Albert describes Bagrat20 as a perfidious man who was

experienced in warfare and whose repute was high throughout Armenia, Syria

Gabriel (Khavril), hegumenos of Melitene (died about 1103), was

and Greece.

his destiny with the frontier zone.

another man who connected

his origin,

“according

to

Tyre2l_he

was

case,

a certain

Greek

tongue

at the same Michael

and

habits"

in the

words

time very close to Byzantine

Andreopulus

translated

for

him

the book of Syntipas; in the preamble Andreopulus

An Armenian

of William

in any

culture: from

of

Syriac

addressed

into

Gabriel

with the Greek titles of dux and sebastos.22

Even

though

the flow of the Armenian

aristocracy

into Byzantium

began to dwindle from the very beginning of the twelfth century, if not from the end of the eleventh century, the links of Armenian principalities with the Empire between

were

not

interrupted;

they

vassals and their sovereign.

incorporated

took

on

a different

shape;

the

links

The Armenian aristocracy ceased to be

into the ranks of the Byzantine

elite, but appeared,

time

and

CULTURE

ARMENIAN

MEDIEVAL

450

again, in the Byzantine

army

as independent

vassals with their own troops.

Perhaps, all these changes could shed light on the Armenian during the Crusades—the

crusaders, Empire

and

Armenians

the Crusaders'

induced

Byzantine

were

animosity

toward

The social role of the Armenians considered

within

frontier zone. far from

the larger

the staunchest

‘"treacherous"

behavior

supporters of the

with

regard

in the Byzantine empire should

framework

menace

century

the

of the

problem

of the

be

Byzantine

On the one hand, these territories on the border lay relatively

the center

parafeudal

to

the Armenians.

of the centralistic

and totalitarian

state;

hand, they required prompter and more responsible decisions.

abiding

attitude

of hostile

tendencies

Byzantium

invasions

which,

in this hotbed

however,

on the other

There was the

of anti-centralistic

and

did not win the day in the twelfth-

despite the temporary

success

of the Comneni.

NOTES

LAASS Novembris III, 511F. 2AASS Septembris VI, 286 D. 3Theophanes

2, 22.36:

#p, Charanis,

The Armenians

E. Bauer, Die Armenier

Wirtschaft

in the Byzantine Empire (Lisboa,

im Byzantinischen

und Kultur (Yerevan,

5SNicetas Choniates,

1963);

Reich und ihr Einfluss auf Politik,

1978).

Historia

(ed. J. L. Dieten;

Berlin:

de Gruyter,

Gautier;

Archive

1971) 253.2-3. 6Michael

l'Orient Chrétien 7On tel'nost'

him,

Italikos,

Lettres

et discours

(ed.

P.

de

14; Paris, 1972) 72.18-19. A.

P. Kazhdan,

Feoktista," Vestnik

8A. P. Kazhdan,

"Esfigmenskaja

Erevanskogo

gramota

universiteta

1037

(1974) 3:

"Greëeskaja nadpis' XI v. s upominaniem

stratiga," Istoriko-filologiteskij Zurnal (1973) 2: Actes d'Esphigmenou

g. i deja236-238.

armjanina-

189f.

(ed. J. Lefort; Paris, P. Lethielleux,

1973) No.

103u. Kulakovskij, "Strategika imperatora Nikifora," Zapiski Akademii

Nauk. Serija Istor.-Filol. 8 (1908) 9:

lv,

Rozen,

Imperator

1.3.

Vasilij

KAZHDAN

451

See also the commentary

on p. 28.

Bolgarobojca

(Saint Petersburg,

1883),

319:

124,

znaCenie

P. Kazhdan,

B. L. FonkiX,

''Novoe

dlja vizantinovedenija," Viz. Vrem.

BA,

P. Kazhdan,

Armjane

izdanie

aktov

Lavry

i ego

34 (1973) 49.

v sostave

gospodstvujuStego

klassa Vizan-

tijskoj imperii v XI-XII vv. (Yerevan,

1975).

See reviews by N. Garsoian in

American

1978)

703

Historical

Review

(June

f.

and

by

W.

Seibt

in

Byzantinoslavica 38 (1977) 50 f.

14W, Seibt, Die Skleroi (Vienna, 1976) 19 f. 15C.

Toumanoff,

"Caucasia

and

Byzantium,"

Traditio

27

(1971)

111-152.

I6R.

Armenians

W.

Vestnik

of

their

Environment

V Arutjunova-Fidanjan,

Armjane-xalkedonity

imperii (XI v.) (Yerevan,

A.

Arutjunova-Fidanjan,

"Fema

nauk

AN

Vaspurakan,"

the

1967) 436 f. na vostoënyx gran-

1980).

‘"Vizantijskie

ArmSSR Viz.

on

Proceedings of the Thirteenth

Studies (London,

ob3éestvennyx

Fidanjan,

Influence

Congress of Byzantine

icax Vizantijskoj 18V,

"The

in Exile in the Eleventh Century,"

International AA.

Thomson,

Vrem.

(1973) 38

praviteli

2:

(1977)

femy

Iverija,"

63-78;

Arutjunova-

80-93;

Arutjunova-

Fidanjan, "Vizantijskie praviteli Edessy v XI v.," Viz. Vrem. 35 (1973) 137-153. 195, Vryonis,

"Byzantine

Images

of the Armenians,"

65-81

in R. G.

Hovannisian (ed.) The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Los Angeles, 1981). 207, Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Series Latina, Paris, 18781890) 166, col. 447 D.

2lïbid., 201, col. 178 A. 22Mich.

Istor-Filol.

Andreopulus,

Liber

Syntipae,

11 (1912) No. 1, p. 2.9-12.

Zapiski

Akademii

Nauk,

Serija

si

M

n MT 4

.

nie EN

-

aid

DJ 4 Pa

Ce _" PCs

—r

" Œc

F2 unrh nai

RC «

BTE, ENT 1

Gal

3

di:

A OMIS

EM

É

,

: FVN

s.

solere De ou 2

q

F3

ie: 14

.

bo

{ = PL'CL