Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian 9781463234584

Citation preview

Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian

Analecta Gorgiana

1094 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian

Robert Thomson

Y W 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com G&C Kiraz is an imprint of Gorgias Press LLC Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 2010 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2012

‫ܚ‬

ISBN 978-1-4632-0142-5

Y W

ISSN 1935-6854

Reprinted from the 2010 Piscataway edition.

Printed in the United States of America

____________________________________________________________________________

LITERARY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SYRIAC AND ARMENIAN

ROBERT THOMSON ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY

O

ne of the intriguing aspects of the study of Eastern Christianity, at least in so far as the written texts are concerned, is that the same works may reappear in different languages in different contexts. Writings circulated and were translated, and then reworked for a different audience. Here I shall discuss the Armenian case; more specifically, the impact of texts written in Syriac on the development of Armenian literature. One could of course, make a similar assessment of Greek into Armenian, Greek into Georgian, Armenian into Georgian and vice-versa, Greek into Arabic into Georgian, and so ad infinitum. But from the Armenian point of view, Syriac and Greek writings were assimilated into the local culture from the very beginning of writing in the Armenian language, that is, from the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. The connections between Armenians and other non-Greek speaking Christians of the Near East have been investigated in a very patchy way. That is, some aspects of the question are well known and one can rely on a body of previous scholarship; other aspects have been more or less neglected. The history of the text of the Bible, for example, has received far more attention than the Armenian tradition of biblical commentaries;

and the theological issues in polemical exchanges between Armenian and Syrian Christians have been studied in more detail than the mutual impact of literary genres. In what follows I shall attempt to survey the impact in Armenia of a variety of writings in Syriac, and try to identify the more significant points of contact. The first attempt in modern times at a detailed investigation into contacts between the Armenians and their neighbours to the south was made at the very beginning of the twentieth century by the noted Armenian scholar Erwand Ter-Minasian. After studying at the patriarchal academy in Ejmiacin, he went to Leipzig for doctoral research. There he produced his first book, The Armenian Church in her Relations with the Syrian Church, written in German and published in 1904.1 Ter-Minasian was able to take advantage of the publication three years earlier of the Book of Letters, a collection of correspondence between Armenians, Syrians, Greeks and Georgians, which still forms the basis for research in the field.2 In his book Ter-Minasian treated the main features of contacts between the two churches from the earliest missionary activity down through the thirteenth century. His principal concern, as the title indicates, was theological, involving the debates, letters and credal statements

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 3

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

exchanged between the leaders of both churches. Here I shall attempt something rather different, namely, a study of the texts that came into Armenia from Syria, and their impact on Armenian writers.3 The title, “Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian,” may imply that there was a two-way exchange of ideas and literary forms, but this would be misleading. Despite the close contacts between the Christian speakers of Syriac and of Armenian over many centuries, the literary borrowings were primarily, though not exclusively, from Syriac to Armenian.4 My interest here is in what texts the Armenians translated from Syriac, and the ways that such translations may have influenced later Armenian authors. Did, in fact, such texts have an impact on the development of Armenian traditions? This will not be as straightforward as it might seem. Although there is a good deal of information in colophons of Armenian manuscripts regarding translated texts, very little research has been done on the influence of such works in Armenia—with the exception of their theological impact after the council of Chalcedon.5 Contacts between the inhabitants of Armenia and those of Syria and Mesopotamia go back to long before the Christian era. No documents from Armenia survive from that period, other than inscriptions in Aramaic and Greek. The impact of Aramaic on the vocabulary of the Armenian language has attracted some attention, though in linguistic terms the subsequent influence of Christian Syriac was much greater.6 Only when the Armenians began writing in their own language, after the invention of a specific script, just after 400 of the Christian era,7 did they record contemporary relationships with the Syriac speaking world and speculate on what might have happened in the past. Such speculations, as found in the great Armenian historian MovsƝs Xorenac’i, have little historical value in detail, but do point to a

strong sense of interaction in previous ages. MovsƝs derives the name Armenian [which was used by foreigners, not Armenians themselves] from the hero Aram, who was descended from Japheth and was the father of the Armenian king Ara the Handsome.8 He describes the visit of Semiramis to Armenia to woo Ara, for whose sex appeal she had a fateful passion—fateful for Ara, that is! The Armenians call themselves Hay, plural Hayk’, and their eponymous ancestor Hayk lived six generations before Aram. According to MovsƝs the three greatest Armenian heroes, in order of their valour, were Hayk, Aram, and Tigran, the last being confused with the historical first century BC king defeated by the Romans.9 Later on we shall encounter further legendary connections between Armenia and Syria. Syriac, the Christian dialect of Aramaic associated with Edessa,10 entered Armenia with the northward expansion of Christianity from the plains into the mountains. The classic account of the conversion of Armenia through the heroic labours of Saint Gregory the Illuminator is found in the History attributed to a certain Agathangelos. That work is concerned with the eastward thrust of Christians from the Roman empire into Armenia.11 But it is not the earliest Armenian text to describe the arrival of Christianity in Armenia. The composition of the History known as the “Epic Tales,” or in Armenian, Buzandaran Pamut’iwnk’, dates from the 460s.12 Although it takes for granted the basic theme of Gregory’s work and the establishment of an Armenian hierarchy, it indicates in no uncertain terms that the spreading of the gospel in southern Armenia was the result of Syrian activity. The unknown author mentions by name numerous Syrian ascetics and holy men. More importantly from our point of view, the earliest missionary efforts in Armenia are linked to the Syrian tradition of the conversion of Edessa through Addai, known as T’addƝos in Armenia. The Buzandaran does not explicitly associate T’addƝos with Edessa, though it

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 4

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

does obliquely imply that Edessa had been built by Armenian kings,13 a tradition amplified by the later MovsƝs Xorenac’i. He makes Abgar an Armenian, and provides an etymology for the name: since the Syrians could not pronounce his Armenian title awag ayr, they distorted it to Abgar.14 The Buzandaran simply knows of T’addƝos’s coming to Armenia, where he was martyred by king Sanatruk.15 His martyrdom, however, was not incorporated into the Armenian adaptation of the Syriac Doctrina Addai.16 T’addƝos’s importance is that he was considered the spiritual ancestor of Saint Gregory, whose see is called the “throne of T’addƝos.” Furthermore, the Buzandaran gives a lengthy account of the search for Noah’s ark by Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, whom the author calls “the wise Persian, zgon Parsik.”17 When the homilies of Afrahat were translated, they were known as zgon and attributed by the Armenians to the bishop of Nisibis.18 The Buzandaran also knows that Jacob attended the council of Nicaea with Gregory’s son AristakƝs, and the author elaborates on Jacob’s vision of the emperor Constantine’s guardian angel.19 The connection of Jacob with Armenia is elaborated by the translator of Afrahat’s homilies, who turns the introductory letter into one from Jacob to Gregory the Illuminator’s son, Aristakes; a later source even makes Jacob the cousin of Gregory.20 The prevalence of the use of Syriac in southern Armenia, contrasted with knowledge of Greek in western parts, was earlier stressed by Koriwn. His biography of Maštoc’, the inventor of the Armenian script, was written in the 440s. It is the first Armenian composition of its kind, and is more indebted to Greek than to Syrian models.21 Koriwn describes the search for a special script for Armenian by the missionary Maštoc’ in concert with the patriarch Sahak at the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. Up to that time any written text used by the church had to be

in either Greek or Syriac, languages unknown to the mass of the people. The first attempt at a solution came from a Syrian bishop named Daniel.22 The nature of Daniel’s script is quite unclear from Koriwn’s description, which refers to letters “buried and resurrected from other scripts, yayloc’ dprut’eanc’ t’aáealk’ ew yaruc’ealk’.” One possibility is that Daniel had experimented with letters derived from a script earlier used for some form of Aramaic. It is interesting that no mention is made of any attempt to use Greek script for Armenian, for there were earlier parallels in the writing of Anatolian languages in Greek letters. Daniel’s alphabet was tried for a couple of years, but found unsatisfactory, and Maštoc’ himself managed to create the script that is still in use with the aid of a Greek calligrapher in Samosata on the Euphrates.23 The significance of Armenian contacts with Christian Syria thus became paramount in the first burgeoning of a native Armenian literature. Maštoc’ sent his disciples abroad to translate the texts required for ecclesiastical purposes. Some were sent to Edessa, as well as Greek centres of learning; and an Armenian presence in Edessa is sporadically attested in continuing years.24 To this early period, or at least to the fifth century, may be ascribed the translation of several Syriac texts: the Homilies of Afrahat, for example, and the Letter to the Christians in Persia of Aithalla, bishop of Edessa.25 On the other hand, although the Armenian versions of Ephrem’s works have often been attributed to the fifth century, only some of them are genuine, and most were translated much later. The Commentaries on the Old Testament, for example, reflect ninth century Syrian exegesis and are first cited by Vardan Arewelc’i in the thirteenth century.26 The Hymns on Nicomedia may have been commissioned by Nerses of Lambron;27 the prayers are not genuine, and numerous homilies were commissioned by Gregory Vkayaser.28 The first reference to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 5

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

Homilies on the Faith, a genuine work, is found in the Letters of Gregory Magistros in the eleventh century.29 The famous Commentary on the Diatessaron had an influence on Armenian homilies of uncertain date, but that work is probably to be attributed to Ephrem’s disciples.30 The Armenian Ephrem tradition is still unclear, though fortunately Dr Ed Mathews is gradually bringing light to bear on it.31 Also influential in Armenia were translations from Syriac of works originally written in Greek: the Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, considered by all Armenian historians not only as a source of information but especially as an authoritative model;32 and, somewhat later, the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea, which was used by Armenians from the seventh century on. The Hexaemeron is unusual in that not only did the original Syriac translator expand his text in rhetorical fashion, in turn the later Armenian translator expanded his own version.33 This is in contrast to the faithful rendering of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. The translation via Syriac of the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch is attributed to the fifth century.34 The Kephalaia Gnostica by Evagrius of Pontus also came into Armenia via Syriac, but not before the sixth century. Like Basil’s Hexaemeron, the Armenian version was adapted to fit with Armenian preconceptions.35 Nor must one forget that liturgical texts are just as important, if not even more urgently needed, for the conduct of Christian worship. The importance of liturgical and hagiographical material is immediately apparent in the Buzandaran, which was already discussed in the foregoing description of Syrian influence in fourth century Armenia. And it is just as obvious in the second great Armenian composition of the fifth century, the History attributed to Agathangelos that describes the conversion of king Trdat through the work of Saint Gregory the Illuminator.36

Agathangelos emphasises the place of Greek Christianity rather than Syrian. His work is an elaborate defence of the primacy of the holy sites of Vaáaršapat, the modern E‫ݷ‬miacin, where the martyred saints whose death eventually led to Trdat’s conversion were buried, and where Gregory supposedly saw a vision of their martyria. Although Vaáaršapat was not the site of Gregory’s own tomb, it soon became the holy site par excellence for Armenian Christianity. What is significant for our present theme is that Agathangelos, writing in the second half of the fifth century, was already familiar with a range of texts that had been translated from Syriac, notably various Acts of Syrian Martyrs which influenced his description of Gregory’s own torments, and Syrian baptismal rituals that influenced the descriptions of the various mass baptisms supposedly conducted by Gregory.37 The impact of Syrian hagiographical texts on Armenian historiography has not been explored in detail, though Levon TerPetrosyan has made a notable contribution with regard to the Armenian version of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs.38 The collection of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs is attributed to Marutha of Maip’erkat.39 In Armenian the collection did not survive as a whole, and many of the individual lives circulated separately. The translation is attributed to a certain priest Abraham, about whom the late fifth century historian àazar gives us information. After the defeat of the Armenian rebellion against Iran in 451 a large number of nobles and clergy were taken into exile, several of whom were later martyred. Abraham escaped death, but he and another priest named XorƝn had their ears cut off, and were sent to perform forced labour in Asorestan, south of Nisibis. After the death of XorƝn, Abraham was released and returned to Armenia. àazar, writing at the end of the century, states that he had been able to meet Abraham, though he gives no date.40 The historian EáišƝ, in his account of the same

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 6

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

rebellion, elaborates on the story of Abraham, indicating that on his return to Armenia he came a widely venerated holy man.41 But not until the early tenth century is a “book of the history of the martyrs of the East” attributed to him. The historian T’ovma Arcruni mentions it in his description of the martyrs from Armenia, Syria and Palestine who were put to death by Shah Shapuh in the fourth century, more than forty thousand, he claims.42 This certainly would be a collection like that of Marutha, not a description of the Armenians put to death after 451.43 These Acts of martyrs in Sasanian Iran influenced those historians writing about Armenian experiences in the same empire, such as àazar and EáišƝ, or who adapted themes from the Acts to their own hagiographical account of pagan Armenia, such as Agathangelos. The History of Agathangelos is also of interest to our theme, being the only Armenian History translated, or at least adapted, into Syriac.44 As already noted, the story of Armenia’s conversion had from an early date been assimilated to the story of the conversion of Edessa. But the importance of the site of Vaáaršapat in Iranian Armenia, especially after the failed rebellion against shah Yazkert in 451, prompted greater emphasis on the role of Gregory and of the martyrs buried there. Oral traditions concerning Gregory and his work no doubt preceded the formation of the Armenian script and written accounts. The Armenian text of Agathangelos as it has come down to us, plausibly dated to the 470s or 480s, is not the only form of the story, and already displays numerous confusions. Variants of the tale are known from versions in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Georgian, and other languages. Gregory’s heroic fortitude in torment, the endurance of Rhipsime, who fled from persecution by the Roman emperor only to confront a fate worse than death at the hands of king Trdat in Armenia, her martyrdom with many companions that

caused Trdat and his court to be afflicted by demons, until Gregory was rescued from the dungeon where he had been thrown many years before—all this made a dramatic story that found an audience beyond Armenia. So Gregory came to be celebrated in most calendars of Christendom.45 Several points stand out in the Syriac adaptation of the story. It begins long before Gregory with an account of Addai’s martyrdom in Armenia at the hands of Sanatruk, a tale known to the Buzandaran; it is aware of the division of the Armenian church into pro- and anti-chalcedonian camps at the beginning of the seventh century; it reports the discovery of Gregory’s relics and their burial at T’ordan in the time of the emperor Zeno, which is not found in Armenian until the historian MovsƝs Xorenac’i; and it ends with the emperor Heraclius building a church on the site of Gregory’s tomb. The Syriac thus reflects a sympathetic attitude to the chalcedonian party in the Armenian church, and is generally dated to the first decade of the seventh century. But one may doubt whether the story of Gregory was absorbed into the mainstream of Syrian Christianity. George, bishop of the Arabs in the early eighth century, and noted for his scholarly commentaries on Aristotle among other writings,46 is the author of a famous letter in response to a variety of queries from a monk and priest named Iešu Habiši. The fifth section of the letter is devoted to “the bishop Gregory who instructed the Armenians.”47 George gives a brief resumé of the story, including some direct quotations. These clearly indicate that he is using a text closer to the version known in Arabic than to any other rendering, and certainly not the known Syriac adaptation.48 Then George demonstrates that this Gregory of the Armenians is to be distinguished from other famous Gregories, namely Thaumaturgus, Nazianzenus, and the one from Nyssa.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 7

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

Iešu had been interested in liturgical differences between the Syrians and Armenians, but was clearly unfamiliar with the tradition that Gregory was the founder of Armenian practice. One aspect of this Syriac version of Agathangelos does not seem to have attracted attention. The manuscript which contains the text was written in 1184/85, and Michel van Esbroeck, who published it in 1977, thought that the hand was that of the patriarch Michael. In any event, the Syriac text twice calls the Sasanian shah the “king of Tabriz.” There is a parallel in a much later Armenian text, wrongly attributed to Shapuh Bagratuni, that contains legendary tales of Armenian princes in Muslim times.49 But it is unlikely that this title is original to a Syrian adaptation of Agathangelos made around the year 610. The Syrians could not have been entirely unaware of the Armenian Gregory, for the seventh century historian SebƝos describes in some detail a discussion on religious matters before shah Xosrov following the capture of Jerusalem in 614. This debate brought together the captive bishop of Jerusalem, Zakarias, Greek prisoners from Alexandria, Armenians, and local Christians from Asorestan and the East—a profusion of sects, according to SebƝos.50 The Armenian catholicos Komitas produced what SebƝos calls the “Book of Gregory.” It is not clear how useful this was in a debate concerning the council of Chalcedon, which took place more than a century after Gregory’s death. According to SebƝos the shah declared: “All Christians who are under my authority should hold the faith of Armenia.” The historian EáišƝ refers to a much earlier debate before shah Yazkert in which the shah deceitfully introduced Christianity in a review of all Iranian doctrines, supposedly declaring: “Question, examine, look. Let us choose and hold which is best.”51 In EáišƝ this is part of a rhetorical build-up to Yazkert’s persecution in Armenia, but the historical nature of other

such debates is well attested in Syriac and Greek sources.52 Theological discussions were particularly significant in the sixth century, the period when the Armenians were working out their own position during the controversies that followed the council of Chalcedon. Although the theological issues are not my present concern, it will be interesting to see whether such debates introduced the Armenians to further Syriac texts. We have good evidence for the topics discussed from the surviving correspondence between Armenians and Syrians on the occasions of the two councils held at Dvin in 505-6 and 555. In the letters preserved in the Armenian Book of Letters, the Girk’ T’át’oc’, there are frequent references to Syrian theologians, but no mention of any specific texts that were translated from Syriac into Armenian. Only later texts, such as the early eighth century pro-chalcedonian text known as the Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, which survives not in the original Armenian but in a Greek version, refer to the translation of works by Timothy Aelurus and Philoxenus.53 Timothy’s Refutation of Chalcedon does exist in Armenian translation, but it was made from the original Greek and the date is uncertain.54 As for Philoxenus, no self-standing Armenian version of his dogmatic works is known, though quotations may be found in florilegia. In the earliest Armenian florilegium, known as the Seal of Faith, which is attributed to the seventh century Catholicos Komitas, Philoxenus appears several times; Ephrem is also cited, though he was not mentioned in the sixth century correspondence in the Book of Letters.55 The Letter on the Three Degrees of the Monastic Life by Philoxenus is also known in Armenian, as well as Arabic, but the date of the translation is unknown.56 The next significant encounter of Armenians and Syrians was at the council of Manazkert in 726 in the time of the patriarch YovhannƝs Awjnec’i. It is noteworthy that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 8

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

the Acts of the council were written in both Armenian and Syriac, and each side kept a copy of the signed document in the other’s language.57 The council was called to discuss the issue of Julianism, or the incorruptibility of Christ’s body, but other matters concerning liturgical rituals also arose. These differences of ritual gave rise to many polemical treatises, of which the most famous in Syriac is probably that by Dionysius Bar-Salibi [+ 1171]. In his Diatribe against the Armenians, Dionysius mentions this council at Manazkert and states that the two patriarchs effected a union. He adds that the Syrian patriarch Mar Athanasius made over to the Armenian patriarch YovhannƝs a monastery on the borders of Armenia and Syria, where young Armenians and Syrians were to learn both languages and translate works of the Fathers from Syriac into Armenian. But after the death of the two patriarchs, according to Dionysius, the Armenians broke their agreement.58 He gives no indication as to what texts might have been translated; and I am not aware of any Armenian source for this agreement and its consequences. Dionysius also attacks the Armenians of later times for moving south into Syrian territory and alienating Syrian churches and monasteries on the Black Mountain. This southward migration was particularly significant in the eleventh century, and did indeed lead to much closer relationships between Armenians and Syrians.59 Armenian evidence for translations from Syriac in the preceding centuries is sparse, but a few moments of interaction deserve mention. After the time of Catholicos Yovhannes Awjnec’i and the consolidation of Armenian traditions and ritual in the eighth century, debates on such matters became more common between Christian protagonists. During the ninth century the influence of Muslim culture and knowledge of the Arabic language penetrated Armenia, and one finds Christian Armenians even adopting Arabic

names; at the same time Armenian attacks on Islam became more focussed.60 Christian writing in Arabic also becomes more significant, and two Syrian writers deserve an especial mention for their involvement with Armenia. Theodore Abu Qurrah is the most noted defender of the Chalcedonian faith writing in Arabic as well as Syriac. His first treatise against the Armenians was written before 813, when it was translated into Greek.61 It was delivered to Armenia, though no Armenian translation is known. In any event, in 817 Theodore was invited to the court of prince Ašot Msaker, who had inaugurated the rise of the Bagratuni family to power. Nonnus of Nisibis also attended the debate. The Armenians were not swayed by Theodore Abu Qurrah, but the real fruits of the occasion only surfaced later. Ašot’s son, Bagarat, prince of Armenia 830-852, requested from Nonnus a commentary on the Gospel of John. Drawing on Syriac sources, but writing in Arabic, Nonnus presented his commentary to Bagarat around 840, but it was not translated until after 856.62 As the origin of the work in a dispute between Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian theologians might suggest, it is primarily concerned with Christology. The Arabic is lost, so it is not clear to what extent the Armenian translator may have abridged or adapted the original. In any event, it is extensively quoted by later Armenian authors in their own commentaries on John.63 Nonnus makes a final appearance in Armenia at the council of Širakawan, held in 862 à propos of discussions between the Armenian patriarch Zak’aria and Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. This episode and the surrounding correspondence, which extended over many years, is of importance for the relationship of the Armenian church to the ecumenical patriarchate, and has attracted a good deal of attention in recent scholarship.64 Unfortunately, other than the presence of Nonnus at the council, nothing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 9

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

further is said of his role by Armenian sources. It is, however, an indication of his continuing popularity in Armenian theological circles. At this point the curious Armenian History attributed to Zenob the Syrian, deserves a mention. The work is in two parts: the unknown author claims that the first part was written in Syriac back in the time of Gregory the Illuminator by Zenob, first abbot of the monastery of St John the Baptist at Glak, north-west of Lake Van; the second part, which he attributes to YovhannƝs Mamikonean, gives the history of the monastery from the time of Zenob down to the seventh century. Full of fantastic tales, it is in fact a patriotic work designed to boost the fame of the monastery of St. John, which emerged on the scene in the tenth century. Since it contained relics of St John the Baptist that had been supposedly discovered by John the Evangelist, until its destruction in 1916 the monastery of Glak was an important site of pilgrimage. From the Syrian point of view this History is of interest in making Jacob of Nisibis the cousin of Gregory the Illuminator.65 During the ninth and tenth centuries it is hardly surprising that the relationship of Armenia with imperial Byzantium should figure more prominently in Armenian sources than contacts with Syria and the Church of the East. After the turmoil of the Muslim advances in the late seventh to eighth centuries and the iconoclastic controversies that lasted well into the ninth century, Byzantium began an inexorable eastward expansion. This came to its climax with the brief incorporation of the small Armenian kingdoms: Vaspurakan in 1021, and Ani in 1045. Armenians had already been encouraged to emigrate westwards, and new bishoprics west of the Euphrates had been established by the end of the tenth century. The exodus of Armenians from the homeland was further intensified by the influx of Turkish raiders, beginning around 1019. The

Seljuk advance drove numerous Armenians southwards into the Taurus and Cilicia, where small Armenian principalities were established well before the arrival of the Crusaders at the end of the century. The Armenian patriarchate too was in exile after the fall of Ani. After one hundred years of peripatetic existence, from 1045 to 1147, the new see was finally established in Hromkla on the Euphrates, more or less due west of Edessa.66 As more and more Armenians established themselves in Cilicia, they came into closer contact with indigenous Greeks and Syrian Christians. Thus began the second major period of translation from Syriac into Armenian. Previously, theological works of different kinds had dominated translation activity. Now, secular scholarship made a major impact in the fields of medicine, natural science, law, and history, in addition to a continuing interest in hagiography.67 The last patriarch to reside in Ani, Peter, fell into disgrace in 1033 on charges of cupidity, took refuge in Greek territory, and spent some months as a captive in the castle of Gregory Magistros. This Gregory, a noted scholar, served as dux of Mesopotamia for the Byzantine empire. In his correspondence he refers to Peter in captivity reading Ephrem On the Faith, but he does not indicate when the translation was made.68 Gregory Magistros was a member of the Pahlavuni noble family, and his descendants were to dominate the patriarchate for the next two centuries. His son Vahram took the name Gregory on becoming catholicos in 1066. This second Gregory [after the Illuminator] did not have the administrative ability of his father; and though he inherited his interest in scholarship, it was not Plato, Euclid, or the grammarian Dionysius Thrax that he studied, but rather the lives of saints. He left his duties to co-adjutors and spent his time seeking out biographies of saints that were not yet available in Armenian. For this activity he

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 10

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

acquired the soubriquet “vkayasƝr, lover of the saints.” The lives of Ephrem and of Mar Awgen were among the translations he commissioned. That of Ephrem was made in 1101, but neither the translator nor the place where it was translated is mentioned in the text.69 In the same year another unidentified translator rendered Ephrem’s Homily on the Beheading of John the Baptist. To VkayasƝr the translation of Daniel of Salah’s Commentary on the Psalms is also attributed.70 This was used by later Armenian commentators such as Vardan Arewelc’i. Even Greek texts could also come to Armenia via Syrian hands. For example, the Commentary on the Gospel of John by John Chrysostom was rendered from Greek in 1117 by a certain Kirakos, seemingly with the help of Andreas the Syrian priest.71 In addition to the translation activity of Gregory VkayasƝr, there are numerous references to the work of the later Catholicos NersƝs Šnorhali, which indicate that he had both Greek and Syriac Martyrdoms rendered into Armenian. Unfortunately, the specific texts are rarely mentioned, though colophons of some manuscripts do provide a few details. Thus the Life of Sargis and his son Martiros, “was translated by a priest Michael in 1158, and edited [yarmarec’aw] by NersƝs, brother of the Catholicos,” i.e. NersƝs Šnorhali brother of the Catholicos Gregory III.72 Another translation corrected and put into good Armenian by NersƝs was the Life of Barsauma [the fifth century hermit], which had been translated by Gregory, a priest from Melitene.73 Of greater interest, however, is the development of new genres of literary composition—or at least, if not exactly literary in the sense of belles-lettres, of texts in fields not yet developed in Armenian. Perhaps the most significant in the long run for the history of the Armenian people, both in Armenia itself and in the diaspora, was the development of secular legal codes. From the

beginning of writing in the Armenian language there had always been texts of canon-law, both translations of the acts and decrees of Greek councils and the proceedings of local Armenian ones. The first compilation of such canons was made in the early eighth century by the catholicos YovhannƝs Awjnec’i, whose relationship with the Syrian church was mentioned above.74 Such legislation, however, did not cover secular matters, private or public, from questions of inheritance to marriage, theft or murder. In traditional Armenian society these matters had been settled in the courts of local lords.75 After the collapse of the medieval kingdoms of central Armenia, the infiltration of Muslim emirs, and the dispersal of much of the populace beyond the old borders, i.e. by the mid-eleventh century, this lack of consistent legal guidance became a stumbling block. In particular, ecclesiastical leaders were distressed at Armenians resorting to the local courts of Muslims to settle internal Armenian problems. At more or less the same time solutions were implemented by two scholars at opposite ends of Armenian territory. In the north-east Mxit’ar Goš, learned monk and founder of monasteries, was encouraged in 1184 to begin a Lawcode based on Armenian practice. He used biblical, ecclesiastical and previously unrecorded local practices to work out a code of broad application. This, in various adaptations, formed the basis for later Armenian legal practice at home and abroad into early modern times.76 Probably as yet unaware of Mxit’ar’s work, in the south-west NersƝs of Lambron, bishop of Tarsus and a famous translator and author, reacted in 1193 to an identical problem by translating legal texts from Greek and Syriac. Two Syriac texts were incorporated into the Armenian collection: the first translated was the so-called Sententiae Syriacae, followed by the better-known Syro-Roman Lawcode.77 Unfortunately, there

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 11

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

is little information on how these codes were used in practice. Another new field of activity was that of medicine. The authority of Galen in medical matters was known to Armenians long before the twelfth century, though it is unclear when the first Armenian dictionary of medical terms based on Galen was actually composed, perhaps not until the tenth century. It was, however, via Syriac and Arabic that serious treatises on medicine, and theories about the working of the human body began to circulate in Armenia. The first of these was the work of a Syrian, Abu-Said, born in 1098 at Edessa. The treatise, entitled On the Constitution of Man, is not known in Syriac. It may have been composed in Armenian as a collaborative effort with NersƝs Lambronac’i; that is, it was not translated from a previously existing Syriac text, but written down by NersƝs from an oral presentation by Abu-Said.78 This sort of collaboration, with one person dictating and NersƝs writing down, is known from NersƝs’ Commentary on the Book of Revelation. The latter was adapted from a Greek text that the Armenian metropolitan of Hierapolis read out in Armenian. NersƝs later wrote up his preliminary version in “literary, k’ert’oáakan,” style, adding new material of Armenian interest.79 Other examples of such collaborative translation occur again later. As for the text by Abu-said, it is a detailed description of the human anatomy, and served as the beginning of a long tradition of Armenian medical treatises. The most notable early scholars in this field were Mxit’ar from Her, who in 1184 composed a work called The Treatment of Fevers,80 and his disciple Grigoris, who wrote On the Nature of Man and his Illnesses.81 There are also medieval Armenian treatises on hippiatry, notably one translated in 1296 by a Syrian named Faraj.82 But all these works are primarily based on Arab teaching and terminology, and although Syrians were involved, the texts themselves are not examples of Syriac literature.83

Syrian doctors could also be involved with other branches of learning in addition to their medical duties. Here I refer especially to the Syrian Išox, known to both Syrian and Armenian sources. He was responsible for building a hospital in the Cilician Armenian capital Sis in 1241, and is renowned in Armenian for a brief composition entitled On Nature, which deals not only with anatomy and medicine, but also with cosmography and plants.84 It seems to have been composed in Armenian, rather than Syriac, like the work of Abu-said. Išox also played an important role in the literary sphere as collaborator with Vardan Arewelc’i in the translation of the great Chronicle by the Syrian Patriarch Michael. As for the exchanges of letters between ecclesiastics, Armenian, Syrian and Greek during the Cilician period, their content falls into the sphere of theological issues; from our point of view there is no indication, in the Armenian letters at least, that new translations were made. It was not long until the impact of translations from Latin made itself felt in Armenia, reflecting the influence of the Roman church in the Crusader period, and the missionary activities, especially of the Dominican order, in the East more generally.85 But that is not relevant for the Syrian connection. Of particular interest in that last regard was the Armenian adaptation of Patriarch Michael’s great Chronicle. It appears that the Maphrian Ignatios II, who was consecrated in 1222, had brought the autograph codex of Michael’s work to Hrom-klay. In fact he spent most of his time at the Armenian patriarchate there, rather than at the monastery of Mar Barsauma, and there he eventually died in 1252.86 The Armenian rendering of Michael was made by Vardan Arewelc’i, who is famous for a Chronicle of his own, a Geography, and various commentaries.87 Two points in the rendering of Michael’s work stand out. In the first place, the initial translation was made in 1246 with the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 12

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

assistance of the priest Išox, already mentioned, who on his death was buried at Hromklay; and then a second translation was made by Vardan himself only two years later. Secondly, both versions are different, being abbreviated adaptations of the Syriac original with additional material inserted that is relevant to Armenian interests.88 Although it is not totally unknown in Armenian for there to be two translations of the same foreign text, such as the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, and although it is not unusual for translations to incorporate new, specifically Armenian material, such as the rendering of the Georgian Chronicles, it is unique that both renderings were made by the same person so close in time. Naturally enough, in his own later Chronicle Vardan drew heavily on this translation of Michael. In the same year as the first translation, 1246, Vardan had collaborated with a different Syrian, the priest Smawon, in a rendering of a Eulogy on the Apostle Thaddaeus and Abgar, king of the Armenians and Syrians, which is attributed in the colophon to Jacob of Sarug.89 Some seventeen homilies attributed to Jacob of Sarug are known in Armenian.90 Although he died in 521, not until the twelfth or thirteenth century were these translations made.

Conclusion: Enough has been said to indicate the long symbiosis of Armenian and Syrian Christians from the earliest days of missionary activity through the middle ages. Relationships were sometimes friendly and influential, but sometimes fraught with animosity over theological differences. In the sphere of literary borrowings, the Armenians were more indebted to their southern neighbours than vice-versa, which is perhaps not surprising given the earlier development of literature in Syriac. This is especially noticeable in texts of a theological or hagiographical nature. In the writing of history, however, at which the Armenians excelled, only Michael’s Chronicle made a serious impact; the previous Armenian tradition was primarily indebted to Greek models. But all in all, Armenian culture owes a remarkable debt to Syriac. And in the broader area of Eastern Christianity generally, the interest of different traditions in the same literary materials points to common traits which have not yet been fully explored. Many of the points raised here deserve more space for elaboration; and the significant gaps point to the need for more research in the numerous areas of Armenian literary activity that remain more or less unexplored.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 13

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1 E. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen, Texte und Untersuchungen, NS XI, 4 (Hinrichs: Leipzig, 1904); Armenian version: Hayoc’ Ekeáec’u Yaraberut’iwnnerƟ Asorwoc’ Ekeáec’ineri het, Mayr At’or (Ɯjmiacin, 1908). See also H.G. Melk’onyan, Hay-asorakan haraberut’yunneri patmut’yunic’ (Erevan, 1970). 2 Girk’ T’át’oc’, Matenagrut’iwn naxneac’, ed. Y. Izmireanc, (ęotineanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1901); nd 2 edition, ed. N. Poáarean (St. James: Jerusalem, 1994). 3 References to Armenian texts given in the notes will include a translation, if one exists. Further details concerning different editions, translations and secondary literature may be found in R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD (Brepols: Turnhout, 1995), and idem, “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993-2005,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 163–223. 4 For examples of Armenian into Syriac [of a later period] see S.P. Brock, “Armenian in Syriac script,” Armenian Studies in Memoriam H. Berbérian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 1986), 75-80; and A. Van Lantschoot, “Un texte arménien en lettres syriaques,” Mélanges E. Tisserant III, Studi e Testi 233, (Vatican City, 1964), 419–428. Brock also notes a Syriac palimpsest in the Monastery of St. Catherine with lower writing in Armenian: S.P. Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (St. Catherine’s Monastery: Athens, 1995), 9–11, 71–72; I am grateful to Emilio Bonfiglio for this reference. 5 For the impact of Philoxenus, for example, see S.P. Cowe, “Philoxenus of Mabbug and the Synod of Manazkert,” Aram 5 (1993) 115–129; and for Timothy Aelurus, A.B. Schmidt, “Die Refutatio des Timotheos Aelurus gegen das Konzil zu Chalcedon. Ihre Bedeutung für die Bekenntnisentwicklung der armenischen Kirche Persiens im 6. Jh,” Oriens Christianus 73 (1989) 149–165. 6 See H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil, Armenische Etymologie

(Leipzig, 1897; reprinted Georg Olms: Hildesheim, 1972), 281-321. The recent work by Nerses Mkrtchyan, Semitiskie jazyki i armjanskij, Erevan 2005, was not available to me. In addition to loanwords as such, the adaptation of terms of Syriac origin is also noteworthy; see, for example, E. Shirinian, “Reflections on the ‘Sons and Daughters of the Covenant’ in the Armenian sources,” Revue des études arméniennes 28 (20012001) 261–285; for the Syrian bnay qeyama see S. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria,” in Asceticism, ed. V. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (Oxford University Press: New York, 1995), 220– 45. For Armenian vocabulary in Syriac see C.A. Ciancaghlini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac, Beiträge zur Iranistik, 28, (Ludwig Reichert: Wiesbaden, 2008), 270–72 [221 words noted]; I am grateful to Sebastian Brock for this reference. 7 The invention of a script for Armenian was the work of Maštoc’. See the biography written by his disciple Koriwn: Vark’ Maštoci/Vita di Maštoc’, ed. P. Ananean with Italian translation by Y. Ashrafian, Biliotheca Armeniaca, 4 (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1998); and G. Winkler, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maštoc. Übersetzung und Kommentar, OCA 245 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome, 1994). 8 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. M. Abeáean and S. Yarut’iwnean (Mnac’akan Martiroseanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1913; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1981), and Armenian Academy of Sciences, Erevan, 1991; translation, R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1978), reprinted Caravan Books: Ann Arbor MI, 2006. See Book I, ch. 5 for Aram’s genealogy, and ch. 12: “By his name all races call our land.” 9 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, I, 31. 10 Edessa is called Urha in both Syriac and Armenian. 11 Agat’angeáos, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean and S. Kanayeanc’ (Mnac’akan Martiroseanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1909); R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1976). 12 This anonymous History was wrongly attributed to a certain P’awstos called Buzand. See the Introduction to N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories attributed to P’awstos Buzand

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 14

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ [Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’] (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1989), for an explanation of buzand, “narrator of epic tales, bard,” and the date of composition. Armenian text, Pawstosi Buzandac’woy Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. K’ Patkanean (Imperial Academy of Sciences Press: St. Petersburg, 1883; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1984). 13 Buzandaran, V 32. 14 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, II 26 and 27. Awag ayr is not a historical title; it means “senior man.” 15 Buzandaran, III 1. 16 Armenian tradition attributes the authorship of this Syriac text to Labubna; Labubneay T’uát’ Abgaru, ed. à Ališan (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1868); idem, Lettre d’Abgar, ou Histoire de la conversion des Édesséens par Laboubnia (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1868). 17 Buzandaran, III 10. 18 For the Armenian version of Afrahat see G. Lafontaine, La version arménienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien, 3 vols., CSCO Scriptores Armeniaci, 7–12 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain 1977-1980). A similar epithet came to be applied to Ephrem, xorin, “the profound;” see, for example, the extracts in the seventh century catena known as the “Seal of Faith:” Knik’ Hawatoy, ed. K. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean (Mayr At’or: Ɯjmiacin, 1914), reprinted as Sceau de la Foi (Peeters: Louvain, 1974). 19 Buzandaran, III 10. 20 See the History attributed to Zenob below p. 10. 21 See E.G. Mathews Jr., “The Life of Maštoc’ as an Encomium: A Reassessment,” Revue des études arméniennes 24 (1993), 5–26; also J.-P. Mahé, “Une lègitimation scripturaire de l’hagiographie: La Préface de Koriwn (443) à la Vie de Maštoc’, inventeur de l’alphabet arménien,” in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 132 (Paris 1992), tome I, 29–43. 22 It is possible, though unproven, that this is the same Daniel, bishop of Arzon on the Tigris north of Nisibis, who is mentioned in the Acts of the council of Ctesiphon held in 410; see Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 235–36, and N.G. Garsoïan, L’Eglise arménienne et le grand schisme d‘Orient, CSCO 574, Subsidia 100 (Peeters: Leuven, 1999), 23.

23 Once the scripts were firmly established, then one does find Armenian texts written in Syriac letters; see note 4 above. Curiously, the earliest surviving example of written Armenian letters on papyrus is Greek written in Armenian script by a learner; see J. Clackson, “A Greek Papyrus in Armenian Script,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 223–58. The papyrus is in Paris. Inscriptions on stone date from the fifth century. 24 See Garsoïan, Schisme, 69 and notes; also Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche, 59, who notes the presence of an “Armenian” bishop in Edessa. 25 For Afrahat see above, note 18. Text and translation of Aithalla in Y. T’orosean, At’eáahay episkoposi Urhay T’uát’ ar K’ristoneays ašxarhin Parsic’ vasn hawatoy (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1942); see also D. Bundy, “The Letter of Aithalla (CPG 3340). Theology, Purpose, Date,” IIIe Symposium Syriacum 1980, OCA 221 (Rome, 1983), 135–42. 26 The Armenian version of the Old Testament commentaries is being edited by E.G. Mathews Jr: The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, and idem, The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus—Deuteronomy attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO, Scriptores Armeniaci 23-26 (Peeters: Leuven, 1998-2001). 27 C. Renoux, MƝmrƝ sur Nicomédie, PO XXXVII 2, 3 = 172, 173 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1975); see p. xix for the translation being sponsored by NersƝs Lambronac’i. 28 For this Gregory’s translation activity, see below pp. 10 and 11. 29 See below, note 69. 30 For the Armenian text see L. Leloir, S. Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version arménienne, CSCO 137, 145, Scriptores Armeniaci 1, 2 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1953). For its influence on the Homily on the Passion attributed to EáišƝ, see R.W. Thomson, A Homily on the Passion of Christ attributed to Elishe, Early Christian Texts in Translation, 5 (Peeters: Louvain, 2000), 8–11. 31 E.G. Mathews Jr., “The Armenian Literary Corpus attributed to Ephrem the Syrian: Prolegomena to a Project,” Saint Nersess Theological Review 1 (1996) 394–402. Further bibliographical information in Thomson, A Bibliography, and “Supplement,” s.v. Ephrem.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 15

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ 32 The Armenian translation of the Ecclesiastical History is a close rendering, unlike some of the later translation via Syriac discussed below; see the comparison of the Syriac and Armenian by A. Merx in W. Wright and N. McLean, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili. Syriac text with a Collation of the ancient Armenian version by A. Merx (Cambridge University Press: London, 1898), reprinted Amsterdam 1975. 33 Armenian text in K. Muradyan, Barseá Kesarac’i: Yaáags vec’awreay ararþ’ut’ean (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1984). The argument for the Syriac origin of the Armenian version is summarised in R.W. Thomson, “The Syriac and Armenian Versions of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993) 113–117. 34 Text of Ignatius in T’uát’k’ S. Ignatosi (Constantinople, 1783); see also R. Pane, “Un’ antica traduzione dimenticata: la versione armene delle lettere di S. Ignazio di Antiochia,” Le Muséon 112 (1999) 47–63. 35 For the Armenian texts see B. Sargisean, Srboy hǀrn Ewagri Pontac’woy Vark’ ew Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1907). For the changes see R. Darling Young, “The Armenian Adaptation of Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostica,” Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daly (Peeters: Leuven, 1992) 535–541. 36 For Syrian influence in Agathangelos and the Buzandaran see G. Winkler, Das armenische Initiationsrituale, OCA 217 (Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium: Rome, 1982), and eadem, Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symbolums, OCA 262 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome 2000). 37 See the Introduction to R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos. History of the Armenians (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1976). 38 L.H. Ter-Petrosyan, Abraham Xostovanoái Vkayk’ Arewelic’Ɵ (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan 1976). M. Van Esbroeck, “Abraham le Confesseur (Ve S.), traducteur des passions des martyrs perses,” Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977) 169–179, gives a précis of Ter-Petrosyan’s book and a good mise-en-scène. For the Armenian version see G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean, Abraham Xostovanoái Vkayk’ Arewelic (Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 1921); in the Introduction he notes parallels with passages in Agathangelos, the Buzandaran, EáišƝ, and MovsƝs Xorenac’i.

39 The attribution has been questioned; see the Introduction to G. Wiessner, Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 1967). 40 àazar P’arpec’i, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean and S. Malxasean (Tiflis, 1904; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1985), 106; trans. R.W. Thomson, The History of àazar P’arpec’i (Scholars Press: Atlanta GA, 1991). 41 EáišƝ, Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc’ Paterazmin, ed. Ter-Minasyan (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan, 1957), 183-192; trans. R.W.Thomson EáišƝ. History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1982). 42 T’ovma Arcruni, Patmut’iwn Tann Arcruneac’, ed. K’. Patkanean (St. Petersburg 1887; reprinted Tiflis, 1917, and Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1991), 65, and 208 for Abraham’s later years; trans. R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artsruni. History of the House of the Artsrunik’ (Wayne State University Press: Detroit, 1985). 43 On the other hand, T’ovma, 80, later ascribes to Abraham an account of the defeat in 451 when a total of 696 Armenians were killed, but such a work is quite unknown. 44 Text and translation in M. van Esbroeck, “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange,” Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977) 291-358. For a detailed commentary see his earlier study of the Karshuni version, which was rendered from the Syriac, “Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange,” Revue des études arméniennes 8 (1971) 13–167. 45 See the general survey in R.W. Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory (Caravan Books: Ann Arbor, 2010); it includes English translations of the Armenian, Greek, Arabic and Syriac versions. 46 For George and his commentaries on Aristotle see I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca, 2nd edition (Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum: Rome, 1965), 183–4. 47 For the Syriac text, first printed in P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca (Teubner: Leipzig, 1858), 108-134, see G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange, Studi e Testi 127 (Vatican City, 1946), 408–419. English translation in B.H. Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies (London, 1861), 69–75. 48 Analysis and comparison of the quotations in G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 16

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ d’Agathange, Studi e Testi 127 (Vatican City, 1946), 420–425. 49 M. Darbinyan-Melik’yan, Patmut’iwn ananun zruc’agir karcec’yal Šapuh Bagratuni (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1971), 55; trans. R.W. Thomson, “The Anonymous Story-Teller [also known as “Pseudo-Šapuh”], Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988/89) 171–232. 50 SebƝos, Patmut’iwn, ed. G. Abgaryan (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1971), 149–161, for the gathering and related documents; trans. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. Translated Texts for Historians, 31 (Liverpool University Press, 1999), translation by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston, assistance from T. Greenwood. 51 EáišƝ, Vasn Vardanay, 15. 52 See, for example, A. Cameron, “Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion,” Disputation Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Medieval Near East, ed. G.J. Reinink and H.L.J. Vanstiphont, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 42 (Leuven, 1991), 9–108; or B. Lewis and F. Niewöhner, Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1992). 53 For Timothy and Philoxenus in the Narratio see G. Garitte, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, CSCO 132, Subsidia 4 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1952), 163–66. An Armenian text of dubious authenticity also refers to the translation of Timothy and Philoxenus; translation in Garsoïan, L’Eglise arménienne, 481–83. Philoxenus is quoted by Sahak Catholicos in his attack on the Nestorians, Girk’ T’át’oc’, 1901 edition, 451; this text is not included in the 1994 edition. See further M. van Esbroeck, ”Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691,” in The Council in Trullo Revisited, ed. G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, Kanonika 6 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome 1995), 323–466; the quotation is on p. 406. 54 K. Ter-Mekerttschian and E. TerMinassiantz, Timotheus Älurus’ des Patriarchen von Alexandrien Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzen Lehre (Hinrichs: Leipzig, 1908); Armenian version, Hakaþa‫۾‬ut’iwn (Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 1908). See also A.B. Schmidt, “Die Refutatio des Timotheos Aelurus gegen das Konzil zu Chalcedon. Ihre Bedeutung für die Bekenntnisentwicklung der armenischen Kirche

Persiens im 6. Jh,” Oriens Christianus 73 (1989) 149–165. 55 See note 18 above for the Knik’ Hawatoy. For Philoxenus see further S.P. Cowe, “Philoxenus of Mabbug and the Synod of Manazkert,” Aram 5 (1993) 115–29. 56 For the Armenian translations see A. De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1963), 112. 57 See Ter-Minassiantz, 73–75, quoting Barhebraeus: The copy in Syriac was given to the Armenians, and the one in Armenian to “us Syrians.” 58 A. Mingana, The Work of Dionysius Bar‫܈‬alƯbi against the Armenians, Woodbrooke Studies, 4 (Heffer: Cambridge, 1931), 55. 59 For Armenian settlement in Cilicia between 1068 and 1150 see G. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans, et Croisés, 2 vols. (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 2003). 60 For early Armenian attitudes to Islam see R.W. Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Tradition,” Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 1986), 829-858; reprinted in R.W. Thomson, Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity, Variorum, CS 451 (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1994). 61 By the noted Byzantine author Michael the Synkellos. See further J.C. Lamoreaux, “An unedited Tract against the Armenians by Theodore Abnj Qurrah,” Le Muséon 105 (1992) 327–341. 62 For the text see K’. ý’rak’ean, Meknut’iwn Yovhannu Awetaranin (Surb Lazar: Venice 1920); and D.D. Bundy, “The commentary of Nonnus of Nisibis on the Prologue of John,” Actes du premier congrès d’études arabes chrétiennes, OCA 218 (Rome, 1982), 123-33. For the historical background, see L. Mariès, “Un commentaire sur l’Evangile de saint Jean, rédigé en arabe (circa 840) par Nonnos (Nana) de Nisibe, conservé dans une traduction arménienne (circa 856),” Revue des études arméniennes 1 (1920-21) 273–296. 63 See, for example, the many citations in Grigor Tat’ewac’i’s commentary of the late fourteenth century, Meknut’iwn Yovhannu Awetarani, ed. à. Zak’aryan (Mayr At’or: Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 2005). 64 For the council see K. Maksoudian, “The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 17

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Council of Širakawan,” Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988-89) 333–44. On the correspondence between Photius and Zak’aria see I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius: Deux débats théologiques après le Tromphe de l’Orthodoxie, (CSCO 609, Subsidia 117 (Peeters: Leuven, 2004); and T. Greenwood, “Failure of a Mission? Photius and the Armenian Church,” Le Muséon 119 (2006) 123–167. 65 For a study of this History see L. Avdoyan, Pseudo-YovhannƝs Mamikonean. The History of Tarǀn (Scholars Press: Atlanta GA, 1993). There are several editions of the Armenian text, the most recent being Patmut’iwn Tarǀnoy, ed. A. Abrahamyan (Erevan, 1941). That Jacob of Nisibis was Gregory’s cousin is not found in the documents cited by P. Krüger, “Jakob von Nisibis in syrischer und armenischer Überlieferung, “Le Muséon 81 (1968) 161–179. 66 For these developments see A.E. Redgate, The Armenians (Blackwell: Oxford, 1998), chapters 9 and 10. 67 See A.B. Schmidt, “Die armenischsyrischen Beziehungen im Spiegel der kilikischen Ubersetzungsliteratur,” Armenologie in Deutschland, ed. A. Drost-Abgaryan, H. Goltz, Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 35 (Münster, 2005) 119–126; and L.H. TerPetrosyan, “Asorineri derƟ haykakan Kililioy mšakut’ayin keank’um žb-žg darerum,” BazmavƝp 145 (1987) 122–161. 68 See letter 1 in K’. Kostaneanc’, Grigor Magistrosi t’át’erƟ (GƝorg Sanoyeanc’ Press: Alexandropol, 1910), 3–4. 69 For the Life of Ephrem see L. TƝr Petrossian and B. Outtier, Textes arméniens relatifs à S. Éphrem, CSCO 473, 474, Scriptores Armeniaci 15, 16 (Peeters: Louvain, 1985). 70 For the colophon see the description of Bzommar 120, dated to 1289, in M. Keschischian, Katalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Bibliothek des Klosters Bzommar (Mechitarist Press: Vienna, 1964), 239–43. Armenian text by K’. ý৘ak’ean, “DaniƝl vardapeti Asorwoy Meknut’iwn Saámosac’ Dawt’i,” BazmavƝp 124127 (1966-1969). See also S.P. Cowe, ”Daniel of ৡalaত as Commentator on the Psalter,” Studia Patristica 20 (1989) 152–59. 71 See the colophon in A.S. Mat’evosyan, Hayeren Jeragreri Hišatakaranner E-Žb dd.

(Matenadaran: Erevan, 1988), 145-50. VkayasƝr’s translation activity is discussed in M. Ormanean, Azgapatum, 2nd ed. (Sevan Press: Beirut, 1959), vol. I, col. 1281–83. 72 See the colophon in Mat’evosyan, 178–79. 73 See the colophon in H.S. Anasyan, Haykakan Matenagitut’yun, vol. II (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan, 1976), 1438. 74 For the Armenian texts see Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’, ed. V. Hakobyan, 2 vols. (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan 1964, 1971). For a study of early Armenian canon law see A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’) de YovhannƝs Awjnec’i, CSCO 606, Subsidia 116 (Leuven 2004). 75 For traditional law see J.-P. Mahé, “Norme écrite et droit coutûmier en Arménie du Ve au XIIIe siècles,” Travaux et Mémoires 13 (2000) 683–705. 76 For the Armenian text see Mxit’ar Goš, Girk’ Datastani, ed. H. T’orosyan (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1975); trans. and commentary in R.W. Thomson, The Lawcode [Datastanagirk’] of Mxit’ar Goš, Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature, 6 (Rodopi: Amsterdam/ Atlanta GA, 2000). 77 See H. Kaufhold, Die armenischen Übersetzungen byzantinischer Rechtsbücher, Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechsgeschichte, 21, (Löwenklau-Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main, 1997), which includes the text of the Sententiae Syriacae. For the Syro-Roman code see H. Bruns and E. Sachau, Syrisch-römisches Rechtsbuch (Brockhaus: Leipzig, 1880); reprinted Wiesbaden 1985. 78 See J.-P. Mahé, “La version arménienne du médecin Abou-Saïd,” Hommage rendu à Jean Filliozat, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Institut de France: Paris, 2006), fasc. 4, 21-36. For the Armenian text see C.A. Vardanyan, Abusayid. Yaáags kazmut’ean mardoy (Matenadaran: Erevan 1974). There is a curious brief text where Abusaid, learned in both profane and ecclesiastical knowledge, questions Nerses Catholicos; see F.N. Finck, “Kleinere mittelarmenische Texte.” Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie 1 (1903) 206. 79 See R.W. Thomson, Nerses of Lambron. Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John, Hebrew University Armenian Studies, 9 (Peeters: Leuven, 2007), 16–19, for the collaboration.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 18

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ 80 See E. Seidel, Mechitars des Meisterarztes aus der ‘Trost bei Fiebern’ nach dem Venediger Druck vom Jahre 1832 zum ersten Male aus dem Mittelarmenischen übersetzt und erläutert (Leipzig, 1908). 81 Text in A. Kcoyan, K’nnut’iwn bnut’ean mardoy ew norim c’awuc’ (Erevan, 1962). 82 See B.L. ý’ugaszyan, Bžškaran jioy ew a hasarak grastoy (Matenadaran: Erevan 1980). For medieval Armenian medicine see S.A. Vardanyan, Histoire de la médicine en Arménie de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Paris 1999 [trans. R.H. Kévorkian]; Armenian version: Hayastani bžškut’yan patmut’yun, Erevan 2000. Further bibliography in Thomson, Bibliography, 280–81, and “Supplement,” 222. 83 Similar translations from Arabic around this time include a work on chemistry, or rather alchemy, by Ibn Baitar, and a Calendar that Syrians translated from Arabic into Armenian. More important was the rendering from Arabic of the Greek Geoponica, a 10th century Byzantine compilation on agriculture, based on earlier sources; text in à Ališan, Girk’ Vastakoc’, t’argmanut’iwn naxneac’ yarabaci lezuƝ (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1877).

84 Text in S. Vardanyan, Išox, Girk’ i veray bnut’ean (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1979). 85 See in general S.P. Cowe, “The Armenians in the era of the Crusades 1050-1350,” chapter 17 of The Cambridge History of Christianity. Eastern Christianity, ed. M. Angold (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2006), 404–429. 86 See Honigmann, Le couvent de Bar‫܈‬aumƗ et le patrirchat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie, CSCO 146, Subsidia 7 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1954), 68. Ignatios was a great builder of churches; he constructed one at Hrom-klay itself, and also at Melitene, Antioch and Sis. 87 For details see Thomson, Bibliography, 210–212, and “Supplement,” 203 88 For the two versions see A.B. Schmidt, “Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des Grossen,” Le Muséon 109 (1996) 299–319. There are two editions of the Chronicle, Žamanakagrut’iwn St. James: Jerusalem 1870 and ibid 1871. 89 The colophon is in Jerusalem, 1365; see N. Poáarean, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, vol. IV (St. James: Jerusalem, 1969), 644. 90 ýaĠk’ eranelwoyn Yakobay Srþoy, in Girk’ ew þaĠ hogešah (Constantinople, 1722).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 19