The Life of Mashtots' by His Disciple Koriwn: Translated from the Classical Armenian with Introduction and Commentary 9780192847416, 0192847414

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OX F ORD EARLY C HRIST IAN TE XT S General Editors Gillian Clark  Andrew Louth

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OX FORD EARLY C HRISTIAN TE XT S The series provides reliable working texts of important early Christian writers in both Greek and Latin. Each volume contains an introduction, text, and select critical apparatus, with English translations en face, and brief explanatory references. Titles in the series include: The Case Against Diodore and Theodore John Behr Jerome’s Epitaph on Paula A Commentary on the Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae Edited by Andrew Cain The Life of Saint Helia Critical Edition, Translation, Introduction, and Commentary Edited by Virginia Burrus and Marco Conti Nonnus of Panopolis Paraphrasis of the Gospel of John XI Edited by Konstantinos Spanoudakis Damasus of Rome The Epigraphic Poetry Edited by Dennis Trout Leontius of Byzantium Complete Works Edited by Brian E. Daley, SJ Faith in Formulae A Collection of Early Christian Creeds and Creed-­related Texts Edited by Wolfram Kinzig

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘ By His Disciple Koriwn Translated from the Classical Armenian with Introduction and Commentary

ABRAHAM TERIAN

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Abraham Terian 2022 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2022 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2022942551 ISBN 978–0–19–284741–6 Printed and bound in the UK by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

To my friends at the Matenadaran

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Preface The need for a new English translation of Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘ has been strongly felt ever since the appearance of the first and only such translation by Bedros Norehad (1965). His translation with omissions of key words and phrases fails to adhere to the Eastern Armenian translation by Manuk Abeghyan, of which it is a translation—­not of the Classical text edited by Abeghyan and provided by him, facing the translation (1941). There are several recent translations of the Life in other Western languages; however, none is based on the latest edition of the Armenian text, that of the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ series (2003). As with several of my recent publications, I started working on this book decades ago. It began with a paper: ‘Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘ as an Encomium’, read at the International Conference on Armenian Medieval Literature, 15–19 September 1986, Institute of Literature, Yerevan (published in the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 3 [1987–1988], 1–14). Then there was another paper:‘Toward a Structural Analysis of Koriwn’s Language’, read at the International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, 21–23 September 1987, Institute of Linguistics, Yerevan. A third paper, ‘Further Observations on the Genre of Koriwn’s “Life of Mashtots” ’, was read at the inter­nation­al conference convened in Yerevan on the occasion of the 1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian letters (13–16 September 2005). Much of the Introduction in this volume is a weave of these three papers read in Armenia. I was fortunate at the 1987 conference in Yerevan to have been asked by the organizers to lay a wreath at the tomb of Mashtots‘ on behalf of the participants. At a reception that evening I was also asked to give an impromptu speech on the occasion, as a participant from the Armenian Diaspora. No wine was served in those days because of restrictive measures affecting the whole Soviet Union under the perestroika promoted by Gorbachev. There was no need for wine; we were inebriated by something that surpassed the best of Armenian wines. Then and there was this book conceived. There is a degree of patriotic sentimentality in The Life of Mashtots‘ that speaks to ‘Armenian hearts and souls’ besides its universal, spiritual appeal. Most spiritual classics were written for specific audiences

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

viii

Preface

with specific concerns, yet they speak to all generations; such is Koriwn’s work. On one occasion, I read the ancient text in Oshakan, where Mashtots‘ is buried. In my solitude under a tree, I felt I was there at his funeral, described briefly by Koriwn yet vividly and with deep emotion. Over the years, I have shared preliminary versions of my translation with students and friends, and have recommended its reading to various Armenian youth groups where English is prevalent. It is with a great measure of soul-­satisfaction that I share it with a larger readership, and hopefully beyond my generation. I am especially grateful to the administration of the Matenadaran/ Mashtots‘ Institute of Ancient Manuscripts and to my friends there, both past and present, for their support during my many visits. This book is dedicated to them as a token of my appreciation for ‘the real thing’ they have given me. I would like to convey my thanks to the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) and to the Knights of Vartan for twice funding my travel to Armenia, and to the Armenian Communities Department of the Gulbenkian Foundation for permission to use the Armenian text from the first volume of the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ series and to the Reichert Verlag of Wiesbaden for permission to reproduce the map by G. Neuber, found at the end of the book (from the late Robert H. Hewsen’s 1992 edition of The Geography of Ananias of Širak). The administration and staff of the National Humanities Center in Research Triangle Park, NC, deserve special thanks for enabling me to complete this work while engaged in other, Hellenistic studies during my year as Robert F. and Margaret  S.  Goheen Fellow in Classical Philosophy at the Center (2018–19). I wish to express my profound gratitude to Karen Raith of Oxford University Press for her valuable suggestions and for recommending this work to be included in the excellent series of Oxford Early Christian Texts, and to Jo Spillane, Mirjana Misina, and Dorothy McCarthy for their exceptional care in seeing it through the process of publication. Abraham Terian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Contents Transcription of Armenian

xi

PART I. Introduction 1 A. The Life of Mashtots‘6 B. The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life21 C. Rhetorical Elements in the Life36 D. Manuscripts, Texts, Editions, and Translations 48 E. Synopsis 53 PART II. Text and Translation

55

PART III. Commentary115 Appendices199 I. Overview of Encomium Traditions in Classical Literature 201 II. Other Literary-­Rhetorical Techniques in the Life 206 III. The Life’s Parallels with the Armenian Version of Agathangelos 211 Bibliography213 I. Primary Sources: Editions and Translations 216 II. Secondary Sources and Reference Works 223 Indices I. Index of Proper Names II. Index of Biblical Citations

243 245 249

Map: Armenia and Neighbouring Lands in c. 387

251

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Transcription of Armenian Based on the Library of Congress System Ա

Բ

Գ

Դ

Ե

Զ

Է

Ը

Թ

Ժ

ա

բ

գ

դ

ե

զ

է

ը

թ

ժ

a

b

g

d

e

z

ē

ĕ

t‘

zh

Ի

Լ

Խ

Ծ

Կ

Հ

Ձ

Ղ

Ճ

Մ

ի

լ

խ

ծ

կ

հ

ձ

ղ

ճ

մ

i

l

kh

ts

k

h

dz

gh

ch

m

Յ

Ն

Շ

Ո

Չ

Պ

Ջ

Ռ

Ս

Վ

յ

ն

շ

ո

չ

պ

ջ

ռ

ս

վ

y

n

sh

o

ch‘

p

j

r˙

s

v

Տ

Ր

Ց

Ւ

Փ

Ք

Օ

Ֆ

ՈՒ

ԵՒ

տ

ր

ց

ւ

փ

ք

օ

ֆ

ու

եւ / և

t

r

ts‘

w

p‘

k‘

ō

f

u

ew

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

PART I

Introduction

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Introduction Prior to the fifth century of our era, Armenians wrote in Aramaic, Parthian or Arsacid Pahlavi, Greek, and Syriac languages in which they conducted official transactions and cherished their sacred texts.1 The invention of a native script in ad 406, followed by an avalanche of translations that covered much of the literary heritage of the Early Church in the East,2 was a most decisive event in the history of the Armenian people that sealed their destiny as a Christian nation. This 1  Artak Movsisyan, The Writing Culture of Pre-­Christian Armenia, trans. Varditer Grigoryan and Mary Grigoryan (Yerevan: Yerevan University Publishers, 2006), 198–255. 2  A significant number of works in Greek and Syriac from the early centuries of the Christian Era were translated into Armenian in the fifth century; see the section ‘Translations into Armenian’ in Robert  W.  Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 29–88, and passim for early writings by native authors; idem, ‘Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad: Publications 1993–2005’, Le Muséon 120 (2007) 163–223; Levon Ter-­Petrossian, Ancient Armenian Translations, trans. Krikor Maksoudian (New York: St. Vartan Press, 1992; for Armenian readers, Garegin Zarbhanalian, Matenadaran haykakan t‘argmanut‘eants nakhneats‘: dar D–ZhG (Library of Early Arm. Translations: IV–XIII Cent.) (Venice: Mkhit‘arean tparan, 1889). For early Armenian literature, see Karekin Sarkissian, A Brief Introduction to Armenian Christian Literature (London: Faith Press, 1960, 2nd edn, Bergenfield, NJ: Michael Barour Publications, 1974); The Heritage of Armenian Literature: Vol. I. From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age, ed. Agop J. Hacikyan et al. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000); Vahan Inglisian, ‘Die armenische Literatur’, in Armenisch und kaukasiche Sprachen, ed. Gerhard Deeters et al., Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.7 (Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1963), 156–250; Charles A. Renoux, ‘Langue et littérature arméniennes’, in Christianismes orientaux: Introduction à l’étude des langues et des littératures, ed. Micheline Albert, Initiations au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 107–66; Vache N. Nalbandyan et al., Histoire abregée de la littérature arménienne médiévale, du V au XIII siècle, traduit de l’armenien par V. A. Issahakyan (Yerevan: Sovetakan Grogh, 1986); Manuk Abeghyan, Istoriia drevnearmianskoĭ literatury (Yerevan: Acad. of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1948; repr. 1975); for Armenian readers, idem, Hayots‘ hin grakanut‘yan patmut‘yun, girk‘ aṙajin: skzbits‘ minchev X dar (History of Ancient Arm. Literature, Book I: From the Beginning to the X Century) (Yerevan: Acad. of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1944); Norayr Pogharian, Hay groghner (Arm. Writers), (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1971); and for a bibliography: Poghos Khach‘atrian, Hay hin grakanut‘ean matenagitut‘iwn (Bibliology of Old Arm. Literature) (Yerevan: Tigran Mets, 2016).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

4

Introduction

came about a century after (St) Gregory the Illuminator succeeded in converting the nobility of the land, in ad 301, beginning with its Arsacid king (St) Trdat (Tiridates III, reigned 298–330).3 The tireless protagonist of the new enlightenment, at a time when parchment codices were replacing papyrus scrolls, was (St) Mashtots‘ (c.360–440), also called Mesrop by certain writers.4 To complete the work of ­evangelism begun by Gregory, whereby the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion, the missionary-­minded Mashtots‘ was fully persuaded that the translation of the Bible into Armenian was a must to reach the masses, to instruct them in the faith. That his motivation was essentially religious, rather than secular or socio-­political, is borne out by the text translated here.5 His dream to come up with a set of letters, a convenient alphabet for the phonetic dictates of the language, was only the beginning of this great endeavour. This also helped bridge land and people unequally divided since the treaty of Akilisenē (usually dated to c.387) between the two superpowers of the time: the Byzantine or East Roman Empire in control of the lesser western part of Armenia, and Sasanian Persia in control of the greater eastern part.6 The dramatic development was recounted not by a historian but by an orator, the eulogizer Koriwn, a disciple of Mashtots‘. Consequently, there are historical gaps, at times at critical points, in the Life of Mashtots‘—one of the earliest extant compositions in the newly invented alphabet. There is, nonetheless, a certain historical perspective in the Life, in that Koriwn regarded his work as another Acts of the Apostles, the biblical book which recounts the spread of Christianity. 3  The Paikuli monument with bilingual inscription names the Sasanian Narseh (r. 293–302) as king of Armenia, a territory he lost after suffering defeat by Galerius at Osḩa in Basean in 298. Thus, the previously proposed date (287) for the beginning of Trdat’s reign has to be abandoned. With his zeal for the new faith, Trdat went to war to halt the persecution of Christians by the Roman Emperor Maximinus Daia, who in 311 invaded Armenia (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 9.8.2). The latter establishes the conversion of Trdat at an earlier date, usually placed in 301. 4  On the variants of the name, see the discussion below, on Mashtots‘ in Armenian and non-­Armenian sources of the fifth century. 5  For a discussion, see Hagop J. Nersoyan, ‘The Why and When of the Armenian Alphabet’, JSAS 2 (1985–6), 51–71. 6 For more, see comment on 3.2 (36.9). On the details of the partition, see Anne E. Redgate, The Armenians, The Peoples of Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 137; on later adjustments, see ibid. 140–65; cf. Nikoghayos Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, ed. and trans. Nina  G.  Garsoïan (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1970), 7–24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Introduction

5

Following up on this theme, historians of the fifth century sustained the perceived continuity of the Armenian people with God’s people in the Scriptures, hence their moral emphasis, a trajectory in Armenian literature.7 Like Koriwn, Armenian writers of the century drew on a wide range of Early Christian works dependent on the Classical tradition, and were well acquainted with the respective literary genres known in Late Antiquity. A substantial part of their writings could be classified as persuasive literature, documents for reinforcing the Christian faith primarily, but not devoid of other aims underlying their narratives. On their part, Armenian writers—­historians in particular—­were able to utilize powerful and proven symbols as they dwelt on native heroes, producing works evocative of strong religious and patriotic ideals while upholding the dynastic repute of their respective patrons.8 They provided icons of identification for future generations and succeeded in leaving a permanent imprint on the way in which later generations viewed their faith. More importantly, the scrupulously devout and patriotic orientation of the early Armenian writers imprinted itself indelibly on the Armenian literary tradition. The various aspects of literacy in the mid-­fifth century compel us to think of Mashtots‘ not just as an inventor of alphabets and his dis­ ciples as simply translators who needed an alphabet in order to embark upon their work. A considerable attainment of learning (paideia) was essential to achieve these, and there was an expected deportment that followed learned men. Their rhetorical skill was considered the best indicator of their learning. Educated men occupied an important place in the public arena and wielded great power through their sponsors or patrons. Words and the use of words were the most important 7  For more on this perspective, see Robert W. Thomson, ‘The Concept of “History” in Medieval Armenian Historians’, in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-­ third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, ed. Antony Eastmond (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 89–99. 8  For a review of early Armenian historiography, see Theo Maarten van Lint, ‘From Reciting to Writing and Interpretation: Tendencies, Themes, and Demarcations of Armenian Historical Writing’, in The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 2. 400–1400, ed. Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 180–200; cf. Robert W. Thomson, ‘The Writing of History: The Development of the Armenian and Georgian Traditions’, in Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–XI): 20–26 aprile 1995, 2 vols., Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1996), 1:493–520.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

6

Introduction

tools in their possession; the forms of speaking and writing were ­valued by educated contemporaries who readily recognized them. This was their badge of social standing.9

A.  THE LIFE OF MASHTOT S‘ Koriwn was a translator, an occupation for which he was prepared with others by their teacher Mashtots‘. He considered himself a priv­ il­eged pupil, no doubt for being among the first (1.2). He speaks fondly of his filial relationship as he refers to his/their spiritual ‘father’ in the few self-­references, where he names himself but once (20/19.5). We do not know much about him except for the rare personal remarks, where he also divulges just as little information about his associates, some of whom he names. He tells us nothing about his specific contribution to the collaborative effort of translating biblical books and patristic writings. His biblical quotations do not indicate any of this.10 He was part of a team or a school of translators and, judging from his preface to the book, a studious fellow among them. He was probably more at home with Greek than with Syriac, and in 429 was on a mission to Constantinople to acquire more Greek manuscripts of the Bible, which necessitated a revision of the earlier translation from varying types of Greek and Syriac texts (ch. 20/19).11 He returned two years later, bringing also the canons of the Council of Nicaea (325) and those of the newly convened Council of Ephesus (431). He must have been deservedly distinguished, having been asked by fellow dis­ ciples, even by the most illustrious senior among them, the locum tenens of the Catholicosate and Bishop of Ayrarat, the ‘honourable’ Yovsep‘ of Hoghots‘m, to write about their beloved teacher (1.1 [22.14–15]). Considering it a great privilege, the author declares himself ‘the least’ 9 Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, The Curti Lectures (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 41. 10  A comparison of Koriwn’s biblical citations with those of the Armenian Bible shows little harmony between the two; see Hakob  H.  K‘yoseyan, Surbgrayin vkayakoch‘umnerĕ Koryuni ‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘um’ (The Scriptural Citations in Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘), Ējmiatsin 50.4–6 (1993) 39–49. 11  Koriwn was probably middle-­aged at this time—­assuming that he was among the first disciples and accomplished enough to teach others; 12.1–6 (58.2–16). The acquired manuscripts were most likely of the fairly developed type of Byzantine text (more on the Armenian Bible below).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

7

qualified disciple for such an honour (1.2 [22.18]). The understatement, known as litotes in rhetoric, purposefully represents the author as less significant than he is, thus achieving an ironic effect. Upon further encouragement by fellow disciples, Koriwn embarks on his task, which, though not lengthy, proves to be a truly remarkable work. It consists of some thirty average pages in manuscript form (fifteen folia), or nearly twice as many when we consider the fact that only uncials (Arm. erkat‘agir, lit., ‘iron-­forged letters’) were used through the end of the first millennium of the Christian Era.12 The request seems to have been for a special occasion in Oshakan: for a memorial service in 443, commemorating the third anniversary of the teacher’s death and the likely transfer of his remains to the newly built shrine by the chancellor Vahan Amatuni.13 This is the last 12  A corruption of the text at 16/15.10 (64.3–4), coupled with the assumption of a Georgian origin of the name Koriwn, led certain scholars at the turn of the twentieth century to surmise that he probably belonged to the Georgian group of students mentioned there. For a summary of the arguments, see Gaṙnik Fntglian, Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i, Ughgheal ew Lusabaneal (Koriwn, Life of Mashtots‘: Emended and Annotated) (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1930), 18–22, 34. The Armenian name is the word for a lion’s whelp, corresponding to the diminutive for Leo, Leon, Leontios, or Leonidas, the early Armenian form of which is Ghewond (cf. HAnB 2:676–7). The name suggests that he hails from Eastern Armenia and not from the Byzantine-­controlled regions; cf. Ghewondēos and Ghewondēs, fellow disciples named in 17/16.5 (66.3) and 20/19.5 (74.26) respectively. Koriwn’s Armenian identity is absolutely clear, declared in his opening line and seen in his sustained enthusiasm throughout the book, especially in his inclusive language when describing the teaching endeavours throughout the districts of Armenia (ch. 12). It is inconceivable that when speaking of the local pupils gathered around Mashtots‘ in Georgian territory, he would declare himself one of ‘those among them who were found worthy’ (16/15.10 [64.3–4]), especially when he had been with Mashtots‘ all along and introduces himself contrarily in the opening page (1.2 [22.18]). Another repeated point for his supposed Georgian origin and episcopal appointment to the Georgian royal court derives from an argumentum ex silentio, namely, the absence of his name in mid-­fifth-­century Armenian Church assemblies. That Koriwn must have held a high ecclesial office is simply another presupposition, so too the counter argument it necessitates: that he died probably soon after the compos­ ition of the Life, before the Council of Shahapivan (444) or the concord of the Christian faith signed in Ashtishat (450/1). 13  Cf. the encomiastic Sharakan Srbots‘ Hṙip‘simeants‘ (Hymn to the Hṙip‘simean Saints) by Catholicos Komitas (in office 615–28), composed in alphabetic acrostic on the occasion of the transfer of the relics of St Hṙip‘simē and her martyred companions to the church built near Ējmiatsin in 618/619 (Sharakan Hogewor Ergots‘ Surb ew Ughghap‘aṙ Ekeghets‘woys Hayastaneayts‘ [Hymnal of Spiritual Songs of the Holy Orthodox Armenian Church] [Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1936], 573–82). For a study and a translation, see Abraham Terian, ‘The Poetics of a Church and the Structure of a Hymn: The Sharakan Anjink‘ Nuirealk‘ by Catholicos Komitas’, SNTR 12 (2007), 141–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

8

Introduction

dated event recorded in the Life (ch. 27/26), the body of which ends with a brief tribute to Vahan (ch. 28/27), an epilogue (ch. 29/28), a chronological summary with the regnal years of the Sasanian rulers of the period (ch. 30/29), and a postscript possibly by the author himself. It ends with the second year of Yazdegerd II (440, the year of the death of Mashtots‘, on 17 February), or his ‘first’ year if the accession year—­the time from accession to the first day of the New Year—­is not to be counted, as is consistently the case in this piece of chronological information and throughout the Life. The date of composition (443) is further substantiated by the mention of Vardan, the martyred hero of the 451 war with the Persians, as a student of Sahak (12.8 [58.19–21]), and the favourable mention of Vasak Prince of Siwnik‘ as a devout supporter of Mashtots‘ (15/14.6–7 [62.1–7]). Later authors of the fifth century speak negatively of Vasak as a lapsed traitor during the 451 war.14 The Life was thus composed as a particular encomium intended for oral delivery first, a formal expression of praise (Arm. govest) to extol Mashtots‘ and his memorable work. Yet the written tribute is as much a memorial for the author as it is for his teacher. More than a translator, Koriwn is an eminently inspiring rhetorical writer, unconcerned about historical details considered to have been familiar to his immediate audience. Unfortunately, pronouncements on his writing have sometimes been less than complimentary, especially by those who are critical of his ‘historiography’, faulting him for not detailing crucial developments.15 In this introduction I endeavour 14 Eghishē, History, esp. ch. 4 (MH 1:623–32); Ghazar, History, esp. 2.36 (MH 2:2263–4). 15 Misreading the Life as historiography persists; e.g. Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomed: réflections sur l’historiographie arménienne’, REArm 23 (1992), 121–53, here 124–5; Gabriele Winkler, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maštoc‘, Übersetzung und Kommentar, OCA 245 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994), 92, needlessly supplies the bracketed words ‘[Dies ist die Geschichte]’ at the very beginning of her translation; Giusto Traina, ‘Tradition et innovation dans la première historiographie arménienne’, in L’historiographie tardo-­antique et la transmission des savoirs, ed. Philippe Blaudeau and Peter Nuffelen, Millennium-­ Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 55 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 153–4; van Lint, ‘From Reciting to Writing and Interpretation’, 182–3. Robert  W.  Thomson includes Koriwn’s work in his list of histories, ‘The Major Works of Armenian Historiography (Classical and Medieval)’, in Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text, ed. Valentina Calzolari with the collaboration of Michael  E.  Stone, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies 23/1 = History of Armenian Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 314–15. Studies in Armenian as of the nineteenth century, faulting Koriwn for historiographic shortcomings, are too numerous to cite; see e.g. T‘orgom Gushakian, Uruagits hay matenagrut‘ean

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

9

to thwart such criticisms by showing that Koriwn’s work falls outside the genre of historiography, even though historical elements abound in his work. Among the more important historical features is the secondary, collaborative role played by the Catholicos Sahak (in office 386–428; d. 7 September 439), the last of the heirs of St Gregory the Illuminator to hold the office. He is introduced in Chapter 6 and featured next to Mashtots‘ on several occasions in the ensuing narrative. Sahak’s enthusiastic support for the endeavour notwithstanding, the somewhat tense relationship between the two men—­implied every now and then—­seems to have been glossed over by Koriwn, at times apologetically.16 There is also the supportive role of the Armenian King Vṙamshapuh,17 whose counsel—­however helpful it might have seemed at first—­yielded but abortive results (6.5–12). Mashtots‘ was a visionary monk, fully committed to the ascetic life yet eager to render his service to the Church. In its course he became an ardent missionary, inventor of letters, Bible translator, founder of schools, organizer of bands of translators, and eminent teacher. His career began as an officer in the royal secretariat, from where he moved to a ‘higher calling’, to serve Christ in the spreading of the Gospel. In his recounting of this piece of information from the Life at the end of the fifth century, the historian Ghazar P‘arpets‘i specifies that this was during the reign of the Armenian Arsacid King Khosrov IV (387–9), in whose court Mashtots‘ ‘was appointed to the office of royal scribes’.18 Surely, he must have been baptized before taking ascetic (Conspectus of Armenian Bibliography), ed. Isahak Minasian (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 2001), 42–7 (a posthumous publication). 16  In the Life, see 6.1–12; 7.1; 12.7–9; 16/15.11; 17/16.24–5; 19/18.7; 20/19.1–10. On the early attempts to fill some historical gaps, especially on the relation between Mashtots‘ and the Catholicos Sahak, see Thomson, The History of Łazar, 49 n. 2; Paruyr Muradyan, Kovkasean mshakut‘ayin ashkharhĕ ew Hayastanĕ (The Caucasian Cultural World and Armenia), Pt. I (Yerevan: National Acad. of Sciences of RA/‘Gitut‘iwn’, 2008), 65–77. 17 Vṙamshapuh’s regnal years are usually specified as 401–17 (at times wrongly as 389–414), his sixth year being synchronized with the eighth year of the Sasanian king Yazdegerd I (406), the year of the invention of the Armenian letters. Given the consistent omission of the ‘accession year’ by the author (on which see the extended com­ ment  on the chronology at the end of the Life), Vṙamshapuh’s reign ought to have begun in 400. 18  History, 1.10.1 (MH 2:2211). The partition of Armenia between the Persian (Sasanian) and Roman (Byzantine) empires in 387 marks the beginning of Khosrov’s reign as vassal king under the Sasanian rulers, who controlled Greater or Eastern

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

10

Introduction

vows, and it is clear from the Life that he found joy in asceticism to the point of establishing ascetic orders. His mode of asceticism is described as periodic, solitary, and at times with groups led by him.19 The practices detailed by Koriwn have much in common with Syrian practices of the time, which allowed for social involvement whenever needed in the community. This is but in anticipation of his greater involvement and still greater achievement. That Mashtots‘ was a high-­ranking cleric is emphasized in the Life (e.g. 13.1; 15/14.4; 16/15.10; 18/17.8) and attested by contemporary sources that mention him. The same facilitate a reconciliation of the variants of his name. Nikoghayos Adontz (Adonts‘) rightly identifies him with Mastoubios the Chorepiskopos of Armenia to whom were addressed the three lost treatises On the Deceit of the Persian Magi (Περί της ἐν Περσίδι μαγικής) of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), according to the annotation of these treatises by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (in office 858–67 and 877–86).20 In his insightful Armenia, while the Byzantines controlled Lesser or Western Armenia. The Armenian Arsacid dynasty ended in 428. On its demise, see comment on 17/16.24. 19  See 4.1–7; 23/22.1–3, 9–10; cf. 13.4; 15/14.5 and comments on the respective passages. Cf. the contemporaneous description of the fourth- and fifth-­century as­cetics in north-­west Syria by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, A History of the Monks of Syria, trans. R(ichard) M. Price, Cistercian Studies 88 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1985). 20  Masht‘ots‘ ew nra ashakertnerĕ est otar aghbiwrneri (Masht‘ots‘ and His Pupils According to Foreign Sources), Azgayin Matenadaran 111 (Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1925), 6–10. For the remarks by Photius on the now lost work(s) by Theodore, see Bib. Photii, PG 103:281. Photius mentions that Theodore wrote three books against magic: Read the three brief books by Theodore On Persian Magic and How It Differs From Christianity; dedicated to Mastubius, an Armenian and suffragan bishop. In the first book the accursed doctrine of the Persians, introduced by Zarades [Zoroaster], concerning Zuruam [Zervan], whom he makes the beginning of all things and calls Fortune, is expounded; how that, having offered a libation to beget Hormisdas, he begot both him and Satan; thus the mixing of blood. Having set forth this impious and disgraceful doctrine in plain words, he refutes it in the first book. In the other two books he discusses the Christian faith, beginning from the creation of the world and at the same time rapidly going down to the law of grace. This Theodore is believed to be Theodore of Mopsuestia, since he mentions with approval the heresy of Nestorius, especially in the third book. He also foolishly talks of the restoration of sinners to their former condition. (Bibl. Cod. 81) There are to date no extant fragments of this work; see George Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, ed. Richard  S.  Haugh et al., trans. of selections from Vizantīĭskīe ottsy by Raymond Miller, Collected Works of Georges Florovsky 8 (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebanstalt, 1987), 206. Florovsky observes: ‘St. Photius mentions that Theodore wrote three books against magic; Ebedjesu mentions two; and the Chronicle of Seert mentions one’ (ibid.).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

11

art­icle, Adontz goes on to show how the various and yet early attestations of the name (Masht‘ots‘/Mashtots‘/Mashdots‘/ Mazhdots‘/Mesro(v)b/ Mesro(v)p) ultimately point to its derivation from the Iranian deity Mazd-, with the suffix -ak corresponding to Arm. -ots‘. All his suggestions are intriguing since they also help explain the alteration to Mesrob/Mesrop; all forms being recognizable in the name Mastoubios. In Greek-­speaking Lesser Armenia, his name seems to have been perpetuated as Mastrobos, which survives in its Armenian form, Mastrovbos,21 in an early colophon copied subsequently, now extant in an eleventh-­century Gospel manuscript at the Matenadaran.22 Equally suggestive of the clerical standing of Mashtots‘ is the letter of Proclus of Constantinople (in office 434–46) addressed to both Sahak and Mashtots‘ (spelled Mazhdots‘) in its Armenian version, a reply to a letter sent by the Armenian bishops in 436 expressing concern about heterodox doctrines being brought to Armenia.23 Quite significantly, such correspondence is alluded to in the Life (24/23.2 21 The o becoming ov before b, as in Arm. Yakovbos = Gk. Ιakobos; Arm. Yovb = Gk. Iob; etc., with the usual -os ending of masculine names in Greek. 22  Matenadaran MS 10434, of the year 1069 (fo. 287r), copied from an exemplar belonging to Anania, the tenth-­century abbot of Narek; Hayeren dzeṙagreri hishatakaranner, E-­ZhB darer (Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, V–XII Centuries), ed. Artashes S. Mat‘evosyan, Nyut‘er Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmut‘yan 21 (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1988), 1; cf. Muradyan, Kovkasean mshakut‘ayin ashkharhĕ ew Hayastanĕ, 59–61. James R. Russell suggests ‘bearer of good news or reward’ as the meaning of the name, on the basis of an Iranian form, mwjdg or mozhdag, attested in Manichaean texts in Middle Parthian of Turfan, and thus identical in meaning to ‘Agathangelos’, the enigmatic author of the History of Armenia’s conversion to Christianity; ‘On the Name of Mashtots’, Annual of Armenian Linguistics 15 (1994), 67–78 (repr. in idem, Armenian and Iranian Studies, HATS 9 [Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press, 2004], 597–608). Edward Gulbekian associates the name Mashtots ‘with the ascetic practice of tonsure, the shaving of part of a monk’s head; ‘Mesrop or Maštoc‘’, in Armenian Perspectives: 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes, ed. Nicholas Awde, Caucasus World (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1997), 29–33, 368–71. Gulbekian supposes Mesrop to be the real name and Mashtots‘ the honorific surname, an epithet given for the ascetic order established by him. This is simply a reversal of an old suggestion made by Mkrtich‘ Awgerian, that Mashtots‘ is the real name and Mesrop the priestly name; Liakatar vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwn srbots‘ (Complete Lives and Testimony of the Saints), 12 vols. (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1810–15), 5:281. On the old scholarly debate over the name(s), and the consensus view on the originality of Mashtots‘, see Artashes  A.  Martirosyan, Mashtots‘ (Patma-­ k‘nnakan tesut‘yun) (M.  [A Historico-­ critical Examination]) (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1982), 151–2. According to Achaṙyan the etymology of the name is unknown, HAnB 3:214 (s.v. ‘Mashtots‘’). 23  The letter of Proclus, Epistola II: Ad Armenios, de fide, is extant in Greek (PG 65:855–74), with an Armenian translation that lacks the preamble preserved in Greek

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

12

Introduction

[86.13]). In their reply to Proclus, Sahak and Mashtots‘ (spelled Mashdots‘) reassure him of their caution regarding heretical tendencies, as they denounce Theodore of Mopsuestia at the end.24 Also note­ worthy is the correspondence between Sahak and Akakios, Bishop of Melitene, with whom Mashtots‘ had established a relationship attested in the Life (17/16.5 [66.2]).25 The high clerical standing of Mashtots‘ is depicted further in the Life, where he stands not only alongside Catholicos Sahak and King Vṙamshapuh of his native land, but also alongside civil and religious leaders of foreign lands visited by him. A glance through the Index of Proper Names provided at the end of the book will be enough to validate his high social/clerical standing through his contacts. According to Koriwn, there was nothing miraculous or supernatural about the crafting of the alphabet by Mashtots‘. He did it by hard work, toiling day and night, for a considerable time. His efforts were blessed, for ‘God the All-­bountiful granted him that good fortune; for by his sacred right hand he attained the stature of fatherhood, begetting new and wonderful offspring—­the letters of the Armenian language’ (8.3 [48.6–11]).26 It happened while the Saint was in the region (Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘ [Book of Letters], ed. Norayr Pogharian [Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1994], 30–40). 24  Ibid. 41–8. It should be remembered that Theodore’s writings were tampered with by his opponents, who hoped to have him accused of heterodoxy (see comment on 7.2 [46.13]). 25  On the two letters by Akakios of Melitene, one to Sahak (and his reply), and the other to the Armenian clergy in general, see comment on 20/19.1 (74.11–14). 26  Subsequent authors have misread Koriwn’s remark on the blessed hand of Mashtots‘ as a remark on God’s hand miraculously dictating the letters; cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.53.7 (MH 2:2081). However, see Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 234, for a clear understanding of Koriwn. Of special interest are the Vatican Library frescoes of the year 1589, where on the sixth pillar of the salone sistino St John Chrysostom (347–407, Archbishop of Constantinople 398–404) is featured with the Armenian alphabet. Although the attributions of the ‘exotic’ alphabets are to equally ‘exotic’ authors in the minds of Renaissance thinkers, the association of Chrysostom with Armenia is a stretch of his banishment in 404, his confinement in Cucusus (today’s Göksun in Turkey) prior to his subsequent exile to Pityus and death on the way, at Comana Pontica (near Tokat, in the Yeşil Irmak valley). See Paul Nelles, ‘The Vatican Library Alphabets, Luca Orfei, and Graphic Media in Sistine Rome’, in For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. Ann Blair and Anja-­Silvia Goeing, 2 vols., History of Science and Medicine Library/Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1:441–68. All we could say with certainty is that Mashtots‘ was a late contemporary of Chrysostom, whose exile and death did not transpire in Armenian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

13

of Edessa and Amid, from where he journeyed to Samosata to meet with a calligrapher named Rufinus (Arm. Hṙop‘anos), who perfected the shapes of the uncial letters (8.6 [48.15–50.1). In Samosata Mashtots‘ embarked on the translation of the Bible immediately, util­ iz­ing Syriac and Greek manuscripts of various recensions. This was in collaboration with two of his disciples, Yovhan Ekeghets‘ats‘i and Yovsep‘ Baghnats‘i, with Rufinus himself inscribing the very first verse, Prov. 1:2: ‘To know wisdom and counsel, to discern words of prudence’ (8.7 [50.6–7]). It was indeed prudent to start the translation of the Bible with a text consisting of short and often detached sayings rather than with a book of narrative prose. However, one would think that the scriptures most urgently needed would have been those of liturgical use, the Psalter and the Gospels. Of the thirty-­six original letters of the Armenian alphabet twenty-­ one follow the order of the Greek alphabet, excluding but three (Ξ, Ψ, Ω), and most conform to the axis of their Greek equivalents: Α/Ա, Β/Բ, Γ/Գ, Δ/Դ, Ε/Ե, Ζ/Զ, Η/Է, Θ/Թ, Ι/Ի, Κ/Կ, Λ/Ղ, Μ/Մ, Ν/Ն, Ο/Ո, Π/Պ, Ρ/Ռ, Σ/Ս, Τ/Տ, Υ/Ւ, Φ/Փ, Χ/Ք. The fifteen with peculiar sounds and for which no Greek equivalents exist, thought to conform to Parthian or Pahlavi (Middle Persian) and Syriac near-­equivalents,27 territory at the time in question. On European perceptions of the Armenian language during the Renaissance, see Virgil B. Strohmeier, The Importance of Teseo Ambrogio degli Albonesi’s Selected Armenian Materials for the Development of the Renaissance’s Perennial Philosophy and an Armenological Philosophical Tradition (Yerevan: Armenian Philosophical Academy, 1998). 27  So thinks Achaṙyan (Hayots‘ grerĕ, 555), whose schema of these letters’ dependency on non-­Greek graphemes is not incontrovertible. There has been much speculation on the Armenian alphabet’s resemblance to the Ge‘ez (Ethiopic) alphabet, even in the absence of any established order or link. On the peculiar forms of the Armenian letters, see Liparit Sadoyan, ‘Hayots‘ Mesropasteghts aybubenĕ’ (The Armenian Alphabet Created by Mesrop), PBH (2005), 2:58–86. On their derivation especially from Greek, see Ashot G. Abrahamyan, Hay gri ew grch‘ut‘yan patmut‘yun (History of the Armenian Alphabet and Paleography) (Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1959). On demonstrable, albeit minor, Coptic influence, see comment on 8.4 (48.9–11). On their evolving forms, see the vast Album of Armenian Paleography, ed. Michael E. Stone, Dickran Kouymjian, and Henning Lehmann (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002), 77–110; cf. Dickran Kouymjian, ‘Armenian Paleography’, COMS 277–82. For a comprehensive list and illustrations of early Armenian inscriptions, see Timothy Greenwood, ‘A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions’, DOP 58 (2004,) 27–91. For the earliest inscriptions, dating from before ad 447, see Michael E. Stone, ‘Armenian Inscriptions from the Fifth Century from Nazareth’, REArm 22 (1990–1), 315–22; cf. idem, The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, ed. idem, with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel van Esbroeck and William Adler, HATS 6 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). For a summary of these

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

14

Introduction

are interspersed within the Greek order: Ը, Ժ, Լ (originally pronounced Ղ, judging from the above sequence, and the Ղ as Լ), Խ, Ծ, Հ, Ձ, Ճ, Յ, Շ, Չ, Ջ, Ր (originally pronounced Ռ, judging from the above sequence, and the Ռ as Ր), Վ, Ց. The predominantly Greek character of the Armenian alphabet is further seen in the fact that they were perfected by a Greek calligrapher who, obviously preferring curves over angles, was also privileged to inscribe the first words of the initial translation of the Armenian Bible (ch. 8). As a result of contact with the Latin West during the First Crusade, two letters were added in the eleventh century: O, originally the diphthong ԱՒ, and Ֆ (Ō and F). A word is necessary here on the theological connotation of certain of the thirty-­six letters: the first, Ayb (Ա), is taken to signify God in the native language (the initial of Աստուած / Astuats); and the last, K‘ē (Ք), corresponding to Greek Chi (Χ) and resembling the already known Christogram, is taken to signify Christ (the initial of Քրիստոս / K‘ristos). Both letters correspond, in a way, to Greek Alpha and Omega (Α and Ω), ‘the First and the Last’ (Rev. 1:8), Christ’s self-­designation in the Apocalypse, further clarified with the additional phrase ‘the earliest Armenian inscriptions outside the Caucasus, see Yana Tchekhanovets, The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land: Armenian, Georgian and Albanian Communities between the Fourth and Eleventh Centuries CE, Handbook of Oriental Studies/HDO Section One: The Near and Middle East 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 41–136. For the earliest inscription in historic Armenia, that of the St Sargis Basilica of Tekor (Digor, 35 km SE of Kars, destroyed in the last century) dated to 478–90, see Greenwood, ‘A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions’, 79–81 (inscr. A.1, fig. 1, and the bibliography there); cf. Karapet  G.  Ghafadaryan, ‘Tekori tachari V dari hayeren ardzanagrut‘yunĕ ew Mesropyan aybubeni aṙajin taṙadzewerĕ’ (The Armenian Inscription of the Cathedral of Tekor and the Initial Forms of the Mesropian Alphabet), PBH (1962), 2:39–54; Serge N. Mouraviev, Erkataguir (ԵՐԿԱԹԱԳԻՐ) ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien, avec, en supplément: une paléographie arméniene des Ve–VIe/VIIe siècles et un choix de sources historiques. Les trois secrets de Mesrop Machtots ou la genèse des alphabets paléochrétiens du Caucase 1 [Sankt Augustin: Academia-­ Verlag, 2010], 119–21. Among the extant thousands of Armenian manuscripts, the earliest dated are the Gospel of Queen Mlk‘ē of 862 in the Mekhitarist Library, San Lazzaro, Venice (V1144/86), and the Lazarian Gospel of 887 in the Matenadaran in Yerevan (M6200). Much work remains to be done on the more than 3,000 fragments dating from before the ninth century, preserved as pahpanakk‘, folded folia from older manuscripts used as guard-­leaves, stitched as part of the binding at the beginning and at the end of a codex. So far the earliest penned specimen of Armenian writing is a sixth-­century papyrus from Egypt (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, BnF Arm 332), an Armenian student’s Greek vocabulary/phraseology written in Armenian letters on the one side and short tales about Diogenes Laertius in Greek but likewise written in Armenian letters on the other side; see James Clackson, ‘A Greek Papyrus in Armenian Script’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000), 223–58.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

15

beginning and the end’ (21:6; 22:13). No less significant is the seventh letter, Ē (է), literally translating Greek (ho) Ōn, the ‘Existent One’ (or ‘He who is’), the name God gives to himself in Exodus 3:14, and the only single letter in Armenian which constitutes a word. Moreover, allegorically it signifies perfection, especially following the biblical six days of creation (Gen. 2:2–3). Since the letters were also used for numbers, as in dates and Bible references,28 much speculation surrounds their mystical significance, especially when computing the numerical value of words.29 This, however, is beyond our interest. Mashtots‘ commands the primary role in the narrative, which builds up like a crescendo in a musical composition, reaching its loudest point with his arrival in Armenia bearing the newly invented alphabet, like Moses with the Ten Commandments—­indeed, faring better than Moses (9.4–5 [52.1–8]). Several parts of the Life present Mashtots‘ as a teacher, active in gathering disciples. He is a teacher like Jesus, the Teacher par excellence, who taught by personal example, as did the Apostles and their disciples in succession, passing on a tradition faithfully transmitted by Mashtots‘ to his disciples (23/22.11–14, 19–21 [82.16–84.6, 17–24]; cf. ch. 10/6).30 He is an exemplar worthy of emulation by those who knew him, and by extension, by readers of the text. He is an ardent missionary, with a burden to evangelize neighbouring peoples for whom he is said to have invented alphabets: on his initiative for the Georgians, whose territory he visited twice (chs. 16/15 and 19/18) and for the ‘Aghuank‘’, generally translated as ‘Caucasian Albanians’, speakers of a language akin to Udi, upon their initiative (17/16.22 [68.24–8]).31 The latter script, once considered 28  The numerical value of the 36 letters is consecutive for each nine, arranged perpendicularly in four columns: Ա–Թ for single digits, 1–9; Ժ–Ղ for tens, 10–90; Ճ–Ջ for hundreds, 100–900; Ռ–Ք for thousands, 1,000–9,000 (e.g. 1,111 = ՌՃԺԱ; 9,999 = ՔՋՂԹ). 29  Not unlike gematria with the Hebrew letters. 30 Curiously, Koriwn names only thirteen of the many disciples of Mashtots‘ (including himself), as if corresponding to the Twelve, with the addition of St Paul. Their names, in alphabetic order, are: Danan, Enoch, Eznik, Ghewondēos, Ghewondēs, Hovhan of Ekegheats‘, Hovhan the Confessor, Hovsep‘ of Hoghots‘mants‘, Hovsep‘ of Paghan, Koriwn, Mushē, T‘adik, and Tirayr. A certain Jeremiah is named, a disciple of Sahak. See the Index of Proper Names at the end of this book. Later tradition adds thirty more names to their rank; see the list in Krikor Maksoudian, The Origins of the Armenian Alphabet and Literature (New York: St. Vartan Press, 2006), 169–74. 31 On the misnomer and the specificity of the language, as related to Udi, see Wolfgang Schulze, ‘Caucasian Albanian and the Question of Language and Ethnicity’,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

16

Introduction

lost—­though tabulated in two Armenian manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries respectively (see comment ad loc.), resurfaced in 1996 when Zaza Aleksidze identified two palimpsests among the Georgian manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St Catherine Monastery in the Sinai (N/Sin-­13 and N/Sin-­55). The palimpsests, with traces of much-­fragmented paschal readings from the Gospel of John and ­others from the Synoptics, Acts, the Epistles, and the Old Testament, apparently belonged to a single codex: a lectionary pos­sibly from the seventh century and based—­with slight variations—­on the Jerusalem textual tradition that survives in Armenian and Georgian, from a lost Greek original. Georgian selections from the Life of Anthony by Athanasius and from other Desert Fathers were copied over the erased text (which also contains an Armenian layer of Hexaplaric readings) in the tenth or eleventh centuries by the scribe Michael, who left his colophons in both palimpsests. It is enough to say that a comparison of all three scripts in their uncial forms, Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian, leaves little or no doubt about a common der­iv­ ation, necessitated by the region’s conversion to Christianity.32 Koriwn tells of the training of scribes and translators, the opening of schools and the spread of literacy into the far corners of the land. But these were not the first Christian schools in Armenia, a multicultural and multilingual land. A late contemporary of Koriwn, the in Sprachen, Völker und Phantome: Sprach- und kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur Ethnizität, ed. Peter-­Arnold Mumm, Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten 3 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 275–312; cf. Robert  H.  Hewsen, ‘Ethno-­History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians’, in Classical Armenian Culture, ed. Thomas J. Samuelian, UPATS 4 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 27–40; and Nora Dudwick, ‘The Case of the Caucasian Albanians: Ethnohistory and Ethnic Politics’, Cahiers de Monde russe et soviétique 31.2–3 (1990), 377–84. 32  See comments at 8.1 and 4 (on the Armenian script); 16/15.2 (on the Georgian script); and 17/16.22 (on the Caucasian-­Albanian or Udi-­related script). On the social and cultural ties within the Caucasus in this period, see Cyril Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1963), 33–144, and 105–6 n. 160 for a brief history of scholarship—­before the recent revival of apologetics. For general discussions on the creation of the three alphabets, see Werner Seibt and Johannes Preiser-­Kapeller, eds., Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen: Referate des internationalen Symposions, Wien, 1–4 Dezember 2005 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011); cf. Juan Signes Codoñer, ‘New Alphabets for the Christian Nations: Frontier Strategies in the Byzantine Commonwealth between the 4th and 10th Centuries’, in New Perspectives on Late Antiquity in the Eastern Roman Empire, ed. Ana de Francisco Heredero, David Hernández de la Fuente, and Susan Torres Prieto (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 116–62, esp. 131–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

17

author of the Buzandaran, when recounting the activities of Catholicos Nersēs the Great (in office 353–73), tells us: ‘In all the cantons of Armenia, in different localities he established schools. The languages of instruction in these schools were Greek and Syriac’ (EH iv.4). By the end of the fifth century, another historian, Ghazar P‘arpets‘i, writes retrospectively about the tediousness of constant translation from Syriac during worship, and about members of the clergy wasting their time on Syriac:  The blessed Mashtots‘ agonized constantly, with concern upon seeing the great effort and the even greater expenditure of the young men of Armenia, who at great cost and through distant journeys and with time consuming preoccupation were wasting their days in the schools of Syrian learning. For the liturgy of the church and the readings of scripture were conducted in Syriac in the monasteries and churches of the Armenian people. But the people of such a vast country were quite un­able to comprehend or profit from it, and the incomprehension of the Syrian tongue kept the ministers toiling and was unprofitable to the people. (History, 1.10.6–7; trans. mine)33

Foremost of the overwhelming volume of translations is that of the Bible. As noted above, this was first done from Syriac and varying types of Greek texts under the initiative of Mashtots‘ (8.6–8 [48.15– 50.9]), and later revised under the initiative of Sahak with Greek manu­scripts brought from Constantinople by Eznik and Koriwn following the Council of Ephesus in 431 (20/19.5–9 [74.24–76.11]). The revision notwithstanding, the Armenian Bible retains residual readings from the Syriac translation in certain parts while showing evidence of various Greek recensions in others. Traces of the Syriac layer are evident especially in Genesis and the Psalms, and to some extent in the Gospels and the Epistles.34 Other mixed readings derive from 33  Text in MH 2:2212. Ghazar’s remarks are equally apropos of the period following the removal of Sahak from office in 428 by the Sasanian Court. Those appointed to succeed him for the next two decades surrounded themselves with Syriac-­speaking clergy from among their Syrian and north-­Mesopotamian countrymen; see Gabriele Winkler, ‘An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church History’, REArm 19 (1985), 85–180. 34  In Genesis, e.g., the Armenian has 30 additions, 12 omissions, and 29 variants of proper names that agree with the Peshitta text and not the Septuagint (LXX). For more, see Manuel J. Jinbachian, ‘The Armenian Translation of the Bible’, in Übersetzung—­ Translation—­Traduction: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung, ed. Harald Kittel et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 3:2366–72; cf. Claude E. Cox, ‘The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible, with Special Reference to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

18

Introduction

distinct Greek recensions in addition, as in 1–2 Samuel/Kingdoms and the Book of Daniel;35 while others, like Deuteronomy and Job, are devoid of a Syriac layer, being translated directly from Greek.36 There the  Book of Genesis’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010), 45–67; Andranik Zeitounian, ‘Les divergences des manuscrits grecs et arméniens du “Livre de la Genèse” ’, in Armenia and the Bible: Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg, July 16–19, 1990, ed. Christoph Burchard, UPATS 12 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 233–43. Anton Baumstark, ‘Der armenische Psaltertext. Sein Verhältnis zum syrischen der Pešîttâ und seine Bedeutung für die LXX-­Forschung’, OC II, 12–14 (1925), 180–213; III, 1 [23] (1926–7), 158–69, 319–33; III, 2 [24] (1927), 146–59; cf. Levon Ter-­Petrosyan, Saghmosneri hayeren t‘argmanut‘yunĕ ew nra nakhōrinakĕ (The Armenian Translation of the Psalms and Its Vorlage), Ējmiatsin 32 (1975), 1:41–51; 4:37–45; 6:58–64, 9:49–57; 33 (1976), 8/9: 22–4. On the New Testament as a whole, see S. Peter Cowe, ‘The Armenian Version of the New Testament’, in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, 2nd edn, New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 253–92. As for the Gospels, see Stanislas Lyonnet, Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron, Biblica et Orientalia 13 (Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1950); cf. Arthur Vööbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, CSCO 128, Subsidia 3 (Leuven: Durbecq, 1951), 150: ‘The Armenian fathers often quote readings which occur only on grounds of Syriac text tradition’; cf. Joseph M. Alexanian, ‘The Armenian Gospel Text from the Fifth through the Fourteenth Centuries’, in Medieval Armenian Culture: Proceedings of the Third Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture [Held at U. of Pennsylvania, November 7–10, 1982], ed. Thomas  J.  Samuelian and Michael  E.  Stone, UPATS 6 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 381–94, for whom the Syriac influence is considerably less. 35  S. Peter Cowe, ‘La versión armenia’, in El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega, I: 1–2 Samuel, ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz (Madrid: CSIC, 1989), pp. lxxi–lxxix; idem, The Armenian Translation of Daniel, UPATS 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) . 36 Claude  E.  Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy, UPATS 2 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981; idem, Armenian Job: Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation, HUAS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006). Cox discerns a Hexaplaric text as the basis for both, the same type of text with which much of the other books of the Pentateuch were revised, whereas those of the Major and Minor Prophets generally reveal a Lucianic text of Antiochene origin. Moreover, manuscripts preserve two distinct versions of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 1–2 Chronicles, and Sirach (see e.g. Paolo Lucca, ‘Le due versioni armene di I e 2 Cronache: analisi e confronto dei testi e loro rapporti con le versioni greca e siriaca’ [Diss. Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, 2000–1]; Garegin Hambardzumyan, The Book of Sirach in the Armenian Biblical Tradition: Yakob Nalean and His Commentary on Sirach [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016]). The Book of Revelation seems to have undergone four revisions between the fifth and twelfth centuries, when it was introduced into the Armenian canon (Frederick  C.  Conybeare, The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Incarnation and Epistle on Easter [London: The Text and Translation Society, 1907; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1974]). For general surveys of the textual history of the Armenian Bible, see Claude E. Cox, ‘The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis’, in Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text, ed. Valentina Calzolari, with the collaboration of Michael  E.  Stone

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

A.  The Life of Mashtots‘

19

is also the possibility that Greek texts of certain biblical books, including the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, came into Armenian through Syriac connection first. Consequently, the early Greek text of the Gospels, already a mixed type of text, was further influenced by Syriac texts which seem to have been influenced by the Diatessaron—­the early Gospel harmony created by Tatian (d. c.180) and used by the heretical Marcionites.37 Gospel translations dependent on Syriac had apparently become questionable and, more than other translations, called for revision. And just as the initial Armenian translation was revised, so was the Old Syriac, and so also parts of the Old Georgian translation after first relying on the Old Armenian base.38 On the whole, the textual character of the Armenian Bible justifies Koriwn’s narrative on two counts: his not specifying the language of the texts on which the initial translation was based, thus granting the use of both Syriac and Greek texts for its realization; and that there was a second stage of translation, with a revision based on manuscripts brought from Constantinople. Equally noteworthy is the fact that Eznik, Koriwn’s companion and co-­bearer of the Constantinopolitan manu­ scripts, is also the author of a treatise—­the original title of which is lost—­dealing with problems of theodicy and hence called On God (De Deo); however, the title tagged by Armenian editors, Refutation of the Sects (Eghts aghandots‘), reflects the author’s denunciation of erroneous teaching that reaches its height in Marcionism.39 (Proceedings of the Colloque international sur ‘La philologie arménienne entre passé et futur: du manuscrit au document digitalisé’ [Projet AIEA], Université de Genève, 5–7 octobre 2006) (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 231–46; and S.  Peter Cowe, ‘The Bible in Armenian’, in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450, ed. Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 143–61. For earlier studies, see Vrej N. Nersessian, A Bibliography of Articles on Armenian Studies in Western Journals, 1869–1995, Caucasus World (Richmond, UK: Curzon/ The British Library, 1997), 65–74. 37  For a summary and an analysis of scholarship, see William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 203–10, 314–18 (on studies by Schäfers, Conybeare, Essabalian, Lyonnet, and Leloir). 38  Jeff W. Childers, ‘The Bible in Georgian’, in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450, ed. Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 162–78. 39  MH 1:433–512; Eng. trans., A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Kołb, trans. Monica  J.  Blanchard and Robin  D.  Young, Eastern Christian Texts in Translation 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998); Arm. text with French trans. in Eznik de Kołb: De Deo, ed. and trans. Louis Mariès and Charles Mercier, PO 28, fascs. 3–4 (Paris: Firmin-­Didot, 1959). Cf. Robert  P.  Casey, ‘The Armenian Marcionites and the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

20

Introduction

A comment on the canon of the Armenian Bible is necessary here. The historian Movsēs Khorenats‘i has a significant detail on the Old Testament: ‘And he (Mesrop) immediately embarked upon the translation, beginning prudently with Proverbs and covering the recognized twenty-­two (books), and the New Testament.’40 This ‘recognized’ form of the canon is of Jewish origin and was adopted by the Syriac trans­ lators of the Hebrew Bible, thus reinforcing the consensus in scholarship that the initial Armenian translation of the Bible was—­to a certain extent—­from Syriac and did not include apocryphal or deu­tero­ canon­ic­al books. These were probably added during the subsequent revision based on the Byzantine text of the Septuagint (LXX) influenced by Origen’s Hexapla and brought to Armenia after the Council of Ephesus (431). As for the New Testament, the Catholic or General Epistles (those of James, Peter, John, and Jude) precede those of Paul—­as in most Greek manuscripts. Apocryphal gospels were never part of the canon, even though the Protevangelium of James, dating from the end of the second century, enjoyed a degree of popularity because of its chapters on Mary and its purported Hierosolymitan origin. Unique to the Armenian canon of Pauline writings and drawing possibly on a Syriac text, is the addition of Third Corinthians, an apocryphal work comprising the Acts of Paul, dating from c.ad 160. Not so unique is the omission of the Book of Revelation, which became part of the Armenian canon late in the twelfth century but never part of the long-­ established Armenian Lectionary.41 Diatessaron’, Journal of Biblical Literature 57 (1938), 185–94, who sees in Eznik’s remarks possible censuring of local sectarians who retained the Diatessaron as their gospel. Eznik is also the author of a short ‘Letter to Mashtots‘’, in which he reiterates the Trinitarian formula agreed upon at the Council of Ephesus (MH 1:513). 40  History, 3.53.10 (MH 2:2082). The earliest witness to the Hebrew canon in twenty-­two books is the first-­century historian Josephus (Against Apion, 1.8). The sum is determined by the fact that certain groups of books were originally written on a single scroll. Thus, the first five books of Moses, known as the Torah, are regarded as one book. The two books of Samuel are regarded as one, so also the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, and Ezra-­Nehemiah; so too are the Minor ­prophets, known as the Book of the Twelve. 41  On the latter three, see, respectively, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with Three Early Versions of the Protevangelium of James, trans. Abraham Terian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy, Studies in Biblical Literature 18 (New York: P.  Lang, 2000); Robert  W.  Thomson, ‘The Reception of the Biblical Book of Revelation in Armenia’, in The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, ed. Kevork Bardakjian and Sergio La Porta, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 242–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

21

In closing this general introduction, it should be stated that the Late Antique period was an era of widely shared cultures not only in the southern Caucasus but also throughout the ancient Near East. The border regions between Armenia and Syria, although primarily Zoroastrian, were fertile grounds for the spread of Christianity. Yet relative to the Iranians, the Byzantine Greeks, and the Christian Syrians of the Fertile Crescent, Armenians and their Caucasian neighbours lacked a native script, the need for which became more pronounced after the adoption of Christianity. While church and state depended on foreign languages and their alphabets in dealing with the outside world, worship in Greek and Syriac within the Armenian Church had to be tolerated until remedied; acculturation had its ­limits. At the turn of the fifth century Mashtots‘ took the process of religious enculturation to new heights not only by crafting letters but also by transferring into Armenian much of the accumulated Christian heritage of the day.

B.  THE RHETORIC OF PRAISE AND THE GENRE OF THE LIFE As noted earlier, most of the literary output of the Golden Age consists of biblical and patristic translations produced by a school of translators known as the disciples of Mashtots‘. There are but few works composed in Armenian by these early scholars. Mashtots‘ himself is credited with writing ‘many discourses, easy to deliver . . . full of  the whole fervour of the truth of the faith accordant with the Gospel’ (21/20.1 [78.3–5]) and ‘many hortatory and cautionary letters’ (27/26.1 [92.1]); some liturgical and canonical works are attributed to  his associate and patron, the Catholicos Sahak, a translator and writer in his own right (20/19.2 [74.13]).42 Of their immediate 42  See Manuk Abeghyan’s note at 21/20.1 (78.2–5) in Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (bnagirĕ dzeṙagrakan ayl ĕnt‘erts‘vatsnerov, t‘argmanut‘yamb, aṙajabanov ev tsanot‘ut‘yunnerov) (Koriwn, Life of Mashtots‘, Text with Critical Apparatus, Translation, Introduction, and Notes), Hay Patmagirneri Matenashar Ashkharhabar T‘argmanut‘yamb 2 (Yerevan: Haypethrat, l94l; repr. in Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series, with ‘Introduction’ by Krikor H. Maksoudian; Delmar, NY: Caravan, l985), 118–19. The second of the parenthesized or bracketed references to the text of Koriwn in this study are to the pages and lines of Abeghyan’s edition.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

22

Introduction

­ isciples, Eznik wrote the treatise referred to above, known as Refutation d of the Sects or De Deo, and Koriwn the Life of Mashtots‘. Koriwn’s tribute to his beloved teacher is not only the best known of these early Armenian writings but also the most influential, having strongly impacted several of his near contemporaries.43 Its literary form, however, 43  The borrowings from Koriwn are overwhelming, especially by the continuator of the History of Agathangelos (see Appendix III), as the scholarly consensus maintains (for the history of scholarship, see Hakob  S.  Anasyan, Haykakan Matenagitut‘yun [Armenian Bibliology], 3 vols. [Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR/ Yerevan State University, 1959–2004], 1:186–213); cf. Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 153–4. However, views to the contrary, that Koriwn is the editor, author, and/or translator of several other works including the History, persist. Galust Tēr-­Mkrtch‘ian, Agat‘angeghosi aghbiurnerits‘ (From the Sources of Agathangelos) (Vagharshapat: Mother See Press, 1896), was first to suggest Koriwn’s role as editor of the History, even to surmise that Agathangelos is but Koriwn’s pseudonym (responding to Yakobos Tashian’s pioneering work that led to the academic debate and the emerging consensus, Agat‘angeghos aṙ Gēorgay asori episkoposin ew usumnasirut‘iwn Agat‘angegheay grots‘ [Agathangelos to the Syrian Bishop George and a Study of the Agathangelian Books] [Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1891]). Tēr-­Mkrtch‘ian was followed by Norayr N. Biwzandats‘i, Koriwn Vardapet ew Norin T‘argmanut‘iwnk‘, Girk‘ Makabayets‘wots‘, Ewt‘agh Aghek‘sandrats‘i, Agat‘angeghos ew P‘awstos Biwzand, handerdz ditoghut‘eambk‘, teghekut‘eambk‘ ew lusabanut‘eambk‘ (Koriwn Vardapet and His Translations: The Books of Maccabees, Euthalius of Alexandria, Agathangelos and P‘awstos Biwzand, with Observations, Comments and Notes) (Tiflis: Martiroseants‘, 1900); and Fntglian, Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i, ii, asserting that The Teaching of St. Gregory (embedded in the History of Agathangelos, §§259–715) is the magnum opus of Koriwn; so too Norayr Bogharian (Pogharian, N. Tsovakan), Koriwn Vardapeti erkerĕ (The Works of Koriwn Vardapet) (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1984; repr. of his articles in Sion 56 [1982], 191–3; 57 [1983] 38–40, 87–90, 152–5, and 211–14, with an added index of the special terms considered); and, more recently, Albert V. Musheghyan, Koriwn t‘e Agat‘angeghos: bnagreri k‘nnut‘yun nor tesankyunits‘ (Koriwn or Agathangelos? Textual Analysis from a New Perspective), Lraber (1996/2), 49–64, proposing the priority of the latter. Such arguments hinge on uncritical acceptance of the textual unity of the Armenian version of Agathangelos (including the Teaching and its traditional attribution to St Gregory the Illuminator, considering it a translation from Greek) and ignore the evidence of the other versions of Agathangelos and the hand of the continuator of the extant Armenian version. The passages common to both Koriwn and Agathangelos are part of a precise and concise narrative in the former, whereas in the latter they are scattered within the range of the continuator’s embellished work only. For more, see Aram Ter-­ Ghevondyan, trans., Agat‘angeghos, Hayots‘ Patmut‘yun (Yerevan: Yerevani Hamalsarani Hrat., 1983), 503–6; Robert W. Thomson, trans., Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1976), pp. lxxxviii–xc; idem, trans., The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos (Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 2010), 93–8, 526–7. Alongside the clear indications of dependency on Koriwn, including amiss (atopos) adaptations in Agathangelos—­noted by the translators of the History—­see my extended comment on 23/22.15–18, a passage cited contrarily by Musheghyan in support of his differing view. The scholarly consensus as stated by Abeghyan has not changed (Koriwn, 118–19 n. 131).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

23

has not been studied sufficiently, whereas much attention has been focused on its biographical and historical contents.44 Koriwn’s work deserves more literary attention than it has hitherto received. In so many ways it has left an important influence on Armenian literature ever since its beginning. This is attributable, in part, to the fact that as a discourse the Life is guided in form as well as in function by a rhetorical theory of presentation. The formal structure of its particular parts comprises an ingenious composition in which the author exhibits mastery of the various rhetorical conventions in the Late Antique period. And there is more than the mastered conventions of the technē: the aesthetic side of the discourse, the artistically pleasing presentation of the content. There are units of periodic rhythm and thought, a kind of aesthetic cadence very characteristic of rhetorical discourse, cohesively pointing to a conclusion. In this part of the introduction, I analyse the structure of the Life, the grounds for its classification as an encomium or praise—­more than just a hagiography or sacred biography that idealizes its subject. Several of the points I discuss here were part of a preliminary study of the Life based on ancient rhetorical criticism.45 I reiterate here, with 44 For a select bibliography, see Maksoudian, ‘Introduction’, in Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (cited above, n. 42), pp. xxix–xxxii, and Khach‘atrian, Hay hin grakanut‘ean matenagitut‘iwn (cited above, n. 2), 221–6. For more, see Thomson, Bibliography, s.v. ‘Koriwn’, 142–5; and Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 10–43. Although outdated, the latter is essential for the history of scholarship on the Life. 45 ‘Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘ as an Encomium’, JSAS 3 (1987–8), 1–14. Edward G.  Mathews, Jr., ‘The Life of Maštoc‘ as an Encomium: A Reassessment’, REArm 24 (1993), 5–26, considers the work a mere hagiography, as does Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ‘Une légitimation scripturaire de l’hagiographie: la préface de Koriwn (443) à la Vie de Maštoc‘’, in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, T.  1: Antiquité tardive et christianisme ancien (IIIe–VIe siècles), ed. Louis Holtz et Jean-­Claude Fredouille, Collection des études augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 132/Série Moyen-­Age et temps modernes 26 (Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes, 1992), 1:29–43. Mahé takes up the subject of the genre in L’Alphabet arménien dans l’histoire et dans la mémoire: Vie de Machtots par Korioun, Panégyrique des Saints Traducteurs par Vardan Areveltsi, Bibliothèque de l’Orient chrétien 5 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2018), 109–25, and sides with Mathews’ assessment: ‘Terian 1987 retient surtout que la  structure en six points de la  Vie de Maštoc‘ (prologue, origine, éducation, œuvres, comparaison, épilogue) est strictement conforme aux règles rhétoriques de l’éloge (ἐγκώμιον). Il suggère toutefois que Koriwn ne s’appuie pas sur un  manuel de rhétorique, mais s’inspire de la  lecture d’autres éloges. Mathews 1993 critique ces arguments pour conclure que la Vie de Maštoc‘ n’est pas un  éloge, mais un  récit biographique [sic], ce qui est aussi notre interprétation’ (110  n. 3), yet he goes on to explicate Koriwn’s rhetorical training (111–12). Both authors fail to disprove the arguments made in favour of the narrower classification of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

24

Introduction

further elaboration and reaffirmation, the requisites for encomium or praise that are followed systematically by Koriwn, somewhat distinct from known eulogies dated to Late Antiquity. In the part that follows, I analyse the work from a broader rhetorical perspective, dwelling on its traditionally transmitted oratorical elements: the general features of its orality, the schemata or constructs of a verbally communicated work at first. These features are usually overlooked in the quest for biographical and historical elements scattered in the narrative, often and wrongly considered from hagiographical and/or his­torio­graph­ ic­al perspectives. The historian Ghazar, writing around ad 500 and claiming to have read Koriwn’s work ‘many times’,46 does not mention Koriwn in his chronological list of Armenian historians. He begins the History by considering himself the third such writer, the successor of the pseud­ onym­ous Agathangelos, author of the History that covers the missionary work of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, and of P‘awstos, whose ‘epic histories’ account for the better part of the century that followed Armenia’s conversion to Christianity. Nor do later Armenian his­tor­ ians, like Stephen of Tarōn, include Koriwn in their list of historians.47 These ancient historians, more familiar with the genre, must have viewed The Life of Mashtots‘ rightly as belonging to a different cat­ egory. Moreover, the archetypal text of all the surviving copies of Koriwn’s complete work (M2639, on which more is said near the end of this introduction [D]) is but a later appendage to an earlier, sizable historiographical codex and bears the following descriptive title of a the Life as encomium. Opting for the broader category of hagiography, which cannot be ignored, is tempting once historiography is ruled out; see S. Peter Cowe, ‘Armenian Hagiography’, in Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, ed. Stephanos Efthymiadis, vol. 1 (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2011), 299–322. This, however, is unsustainable when a more specific literary genre suggests itself consistently. The Life cannot be fitted into the stylized framework of typical hagiographies. One could possibly speak of a hagiography composed as an encomium. Cf. Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 47–9, where, after taking issue with the classification of the Life as encomium, she stresses ‘Geschichte’, patmut‘iwn, a word which appears in the unoriginal title and once in the text, in the sense of ‘narrative’ with reference to the Pentateuch (2.3 [24.15]). 46  ‘This was accurately established, in writing, by the aforementioned pious Koriwn, and we have gained precise information from it, having read it many times’, History, 1.10.4 (MH 2:2212). For more, see Artashēs Mat‘evosyan, ‘Ghazar P‘arpets‘in Mashtots‘ean greri masin’ (Gh. P‘. on the Mashtots‘ean letters), PBH (2002), 2:93–111. 47  See Robert W. Thomson, Ełishē: History of Vardan and the Armenian War, HATS 5 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

25

commemorative work: Yishatak srboyn Mesrovpay arareal eraneloyn (‘Written in memory of the blessed Saint Mesrovp’). Given the intersection of related genres in antiquity and the problems associated with genre-­specificity when dealing with works of the period, the Life could be thrown easily within the broader category of biography or hagiography—­more so because the incipit Life in the titles of the abridged version known as ‘Short Koriwn’ (Arm. P‘ok‘r Koriwn, in two recensions, discussed further below, under section D) has been adopted in all editions of the work. The derivative title, however, is not altogether misleading; it rightly suggests that the chronologically arranged contents abound with historical and biographical information.48 The work is our primary source on the history of the events surrounding the beginnings of Armenian literary activity and of those responsible for that enlightenment. Enough is said about Mashtots‘ biographically: his birth, education, service at the royal court, excellence in secular law and the military art, priestly devotion, vigils, evangelistic efforts, gathering of disciples, travels in the quest for letters, the founding of ascetic communities, literary activities, and his eventual death and burial. The biographical information is at times punctuated with slight hagiographical elements, and this is to be expected in writings on saints. However, except for the wondrous light associated with the death and burial of Mashtots‘ (ch. 27/26), a topos, there is not a single miracle story in the Life, nor is he a heavenly intercessor. As a laudatory ode, an encomium, the Life differs from the stylized hagiographies on the lives and legends of the saints.49 There is no contest here between the forces of good and evil finding a 48  Bedros Norehad’s rendering of vark‘ variously as ‘life’ and ‘biography’ in the prologue (§2 [24.7, 10; 34.24; cf. his translation of zhamanakk‘ at 24.12 as ‘life’]) could be misleading; see his translation, The Life of Mashtots‘ (New York: AGBU, 1964; repr. Yerevan: Yerevan State University, 1981, 2005), 21–2, 26. A facsimile of Norehad’s translation is appended to Maksoudian’s composite edition of Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (cited above, n. 42). The translation is included with supplementary notes in Hacikyan et al., The Heritage of Armenian Literature, 1:149–81 (cited above, n. 2); on its other deficiencies, see below, n. 105. 49 For examples, see David  M.  Lang, Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints: Selected and Translated from the Original Texts, Ethical and Religious Classics of East and West 15 (London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1956). For earl­ier models, see Moses Hadas and Morton Smith, Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in  Antiquity, Religious Perspectives 13 (New York: Harper and Row, 1965); Patricia Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man, The Transformation of  the  Classical Heritage 5 (Berkeley: University of California Press, l983). With ­reference  to  Koriwn’s work, see Mayis T‘. Avdalbekyan, Hay gegharvestakan ardzaki

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

26

Introduction

battleground in the life of the Saint. Nor do we find excerpts of speeches by the Saint, as found in the better-­known vitae from the fourth and fifth centuries, such as the Life of Anthony by Athanasius of Alexandria and the anonymous Life of Rabbula. Not a single quotation of a saying by the Saint is found in the Life of Mashtots‘. As a matter of fact, the text of Koriwn was twice adapted by deletion of the lengthy second chapter, a sixth of the total work, resulting in the abridged version known as ‘Short Koriwn’ for inclusion in the evolving menologies of the saints (vark‘ srbots‘ ). This version—­in two recensions—­pre-­dates the account in the later synaxaries (Arm. yaysmawurk‘) compiled in Armenian Cilicia, where the vita of Mashtots‘ is dependent mostly on the account by Khorenats‘i, who utilizes the short version and adds some of his own. As an encomiast or panegyrist Koriwn is more than a biographer or hagiographer. For him Mashtots‘ is not Armenia’s second enlightener, following in the footsteps of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, whom he does not even mention. Rather, Mashtots‘ is more than a saint; he is ranked with the perfect, the prophets and the apostles—­indeed one who has surpassed them, even the foremost of the prophets (Moses) and of the apostles (Paul).50 Consequently, the lengthy apology or justification for praise (ch. 2) requires literary and contextual ex­plan­ ation for its distinctness when comparing the work to biographical or hagiographical writings. Moreover, a distinction ought to be made between the broader genre of bios (whether biography or hagi­og­ raphy, Christian sacred biography) and the more specific genre of encomium, while admitting the difficulty in distinguishing these since the latter is often incorporated into the broader category in con­ sid­er­ations of works from Late Antiquity (after the Graeco-­Roman period, when these genres had become closely related literary forms).51 Still, a major distinction remains to be made: whereas a bios requires

skzbnavorumĕ—­V dar (The Origin of Armenian Artistic Prose—­ Fifth Century) (Yerevan: Acad. of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1971), 128–41. 50  Life 9.4–6 (52.1–12); 26/25.1–2 (90.2–11). Biblical precedents, especially from the New Testament, could be cited among the factors contributing to similar developments in the Early Church. See Abraham Terian, Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The Early Panegyrics on St. Gregory. AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 2 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 15–16. 51  For a discussion, see Robert  R.  Phenix, Jr. and Cornelia  B.  Horn, trans., The Rabbula Corpus, WGRW 17 (Atlanta: SBL, 2017), pp. xxviii–xxxiii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

27

no audience, an encomium is meant for one and is written with an audience in mind and fitted for oral delivery.52

1.  Koriwn’s narrative as encomium Affinities between Koriwn’s literary style and the rhetorical tradition have been observed by Melik‘-Ohanjanyan in the first part of a short, tripartite study on the Life.53 He notes that the structure of the treatise follows the six principles for encomium outlined in the Girk‘ pitoyits‘ (Book of Chreia), an Armenian rhetorical textbook identified for the most part with the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius (late fourth century ad) and later sources.54 Such a textbook, even the Greek version 52  On this important subject, see Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau, eds., Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 31 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 1–28. See also comment on 2.41 (34.20). 53 Karapet  A.  Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, ‘’Vark‘ Mashtots‘i’ zhanrĕ ev patmagrakan nshanakut‘yunĕ’ (Des particularités de genre et de la valeur historico-­littéraire et historiographique de la ‘Vie de Machtotz’ de Koriun) BM 7 (1964), 49–52; cf. his introduction to the Russian translation of the Life: Koriun, Zhitie Mashtotsa, perevod Sh. V. Smbatiana i K. A. Melik-­Ogandzhaniana, predislovie K. A. Melik-­Ogandzhaniana, kommentarii Sh. V. Smbatiana (Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1962), 5–71. Although Melik‘Ohanjanyan was first to consider the encomium form as the basis for analysing the Life, this remained to be fully demonstrated. 54  Arm. text in MH 7:749–898. Since the first edition by Yovhannēs Zōhrapian, the work was wrongly attributed to Movsēs Khorenats‘i: Girk‘ Pitoyits‘ Movsisi Khorenats‘woy (Venice: S.  Ghazar, 1796; repr. 1843); Srboy hōrn meroy Movsēsi Khorenats‘woy matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (The Works of Our Holy Father Movsēs Khorenats‘i), 2nd edn (Venice: S. Ghazar, l865), 341–581]). In part a composite work, it was translated into Armenian late in the sixth century by the so-­called Hellenizing School, with some Armenian examples imitative of the Greek text and taken from the Scriptures as well as from certain of the newly translated works of Philo of Alexandria. For the Greek text, see Hugo Rabe, ed., Aphthonii Progymnasmata, Rhetores Graeci l0 (Leipzig: Teubner, l926), l–51. On the date of Aphthonius, see James R. Butts and Ronald F. Hock, ‘The Chreia Discussion of Aphthonius of Antioch: Introduction, Translation and Comments’, in The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Vol. I: The Progymnasmata, ed. Ronald  F.  Hock and Edward  N.  O’Neil, Texts and Translations 27/Graeco-­Roman Religion 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, l986), 211. For more on the Armenian text, see the significant discussions by Gohar  S.  Muradyan, ‘‘Pitoyits‘ Girk‘ĕ’ ew nra hunaren nakhōrinakĕ’ (The Book of Chreia and Its Greek Exemplar), PBH (1984), 3:111–24; Girk‘ Pitoyits‘ (Book of Chreia) (Yerevan: National Acad. of Sciences of RA, 1993), where she identifies 31 of the 54 ‘nakhakrt‘ut‘iwnner’ as from Aphthonius, and the remaining 23 as by Movsēs K‘ert‘ogh (often and wrongly confused with Khorenats‘i); ‘The Rhetorical Exercises (progymnasmata) in the Old Armenian “Book of Chreia”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

28

Introduction

of Aphthonius—­the primary source of the named Armenian text—­ would be too late to have been utilized by Koriwn, who nonetheless seems to be thoroughly familiar with rhetorical theories from earlier times. The structure of Koriwn’s Life does not seem to have been shaped by one or another of the outlines for encomium in the near-­ contemporary progymnasmata,55 for his proficient work reflects broad familiarity with rhetorical traditions and possibly literary ­models from Late Antiquity or even Classical times. Still, a delineation of the literary genre of the Life is necessary for the verification of its place within the epideictic tradition, indeed for its classification as an encomium—­however difficult the task because of the convergence of biographical/hagiographical and encomiastic characteristics since Late Antiquity. Genre recognition is important in affecting the gathered meaning, especially when reading ancient texts. Admittedly, the complexity of the task is somewhat demanding, since by its very nature hagiography is adulatory writing, and one is apt to encounter mixed genres in ancient literature. However, the lengthy and well-­ defined apology or justification for praise (ch. 2), which contains the author’s declared intention and several other elements that are commonplace in Classical prologues to encomia, is decisively helpful for determining the genre of the work, beside further internal evidence. These elements and other recurring features in the body of the work will be discussed next (for an overview of the perceived genre in Classical literature see Appendix I).

(Girk‘ Pitoyic‘): Translation or Original Composition? (On the Occasion of P. Cowe’s Review)’, REArm 27 (1998–2000), 399–415; ‘‘Pitoyits‘ Girk‘ĕ’ k‘ristoneats‘vats chartasanakan dzeṙnark’ (The ‘Girk‘ Pitoyits‘‘: A Christianized Rhetorical Endeavor), HA 114 (2000) 2–67; ‘Pitoyits‘ Grk‘i och‘ t‘argmanakan maseri lezun ew hay heghinakneri hunabanut‘yunnerĕ’ (The Language of the Non-­translated Parts of the Girk‘ Pitoyits‘ and the Graecism of Armenian Authors), Ashtanak: Hayagitakan parberagirk‘ 3 (2000), 99–122; cf. eadem, ‘Le style hellénisant des Progymnasmata arméniens dans le contexte d’autres écrits originaux’, in Actes du sixième colloque international de linguistique arménienne (INALCO—­Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-­Lettres, 5–9 juillet 1999), ed. Anaid Donabédian and Agnès Ouzounian, Slovo 26-­7, 2001–2 (Paris: INALCO, 2003), 83–94. 55 Five progymnasmata survive under the names of Aelius Theon of Alexandria (2nd cent. ad), Hermogenes of Tarsus (2nd cent. ad), Libanius of Antioch (4th cent. ad), his pupil, Aphthonius of Antioch (late 4th cent. ad), and Nicolaus of Myra (5th cent. ad). The first and major parts of the last two of these progymnasmata are among the Armenian translations by the so-­called Hellenizing School of the late sixth century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

29

2.  Encomium requisites in Koriwn’s narrative Classical rhetoric, especially Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric, the­or­et­ic­al manuals, and practical textbooks, including literary models, had ­considerable influence on later literature. Donald A. Russell’s general observation that ‘the exercises done in schools of rhetoric . . . had a more powerful influence on literature than any amount of theory’56 is quite compelling. Koriwn’s familiarity with the early progymnasmata and other ­rhet­oric­al literature could be attributed to his Greek education, possibly obtained at the Hellenic School in Samosata, with the initial group of disciples brought there by Mashtots‘ (7.3 [46.19–20]).57 His involvement in translation from Greek is further attested by his being sent with Ghewondēs to Constantinople in c.429, to help Eznik of Koghb and Yovsep‘ of Paghan translate works of the Greek fathers (20/19.3–5 [74.15–28]).58 His composition of the Life some forty years after his schooling clearly shows the lasting effect of his rhetorical training, especially in the epideictic tradition or, more specifically, the en­comi­ as­tic; that is, the third Aristotelian division of rhetoric and its later amplifications. The Life adheres more to the broad guidelines for such composition from earlier, Classical times (see Appendix I) than to the detailed outlines for encomium in any particular version of the progymnasmata in Late Antiquity. The ensuing follows the general outline for encomium since Classical times, in the Isocratean/Aristotelian tradition: (1) prologue, (2) origin and family, (3) birth and upbringing, (4) accomplishments and actions accordant with virtue, and (5) epilogue, with the middle three constituting the body of the treatise.

56  ‘Rhetoric, Greek’, in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Hammond and Scullard, 921. 57  It is important to note that there was a centre for Greek learning in this predominantly Syriac-­speaking city in Late Antiquity, and that it was renowned for rhetoric. Lucian of Samosata (c.ad 125–85) deserves special mention, author of several ­encomia: Dionysus, De Calumnia, Dipsades, De Demo, Harmonides, Herodotus, Muscae Encomium, and Patriae Encomium. 58  On rhetorical education in the Byzantine period, see George  L.  Kustas, ‘The Function and Evolution of Byzantine Rhetoric’, Viator 1 (1970), 55–73, and Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12 (Munich: Beck, l978), 1:92–120.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

30

Introduction

(a) Prologue A sixth of the document is devoted to the proem (ch. 2), which is preceded by a preface or brief statement on the author’s intention to write the treatise: ‘I had been thinking of the God-­given script of the nation descended from Ashkenaz and of the land of Armenia, as to when or at what time it was bestowed and through what kind of man such resurgent divine grace was revealed, and of his luminous teaching and angelic virtue in piety, to elaborate upon these reminiscences in a special book’ (1.1 [22.8–14]). Koriwn declares himself unworthy of the task, calling himself ‘the youngest’ or least qualified among the pupils (1.2 [22.18]). Such understatements are commonplace litotes in Classical literature, especially on the part of encomiasts of great men.59 Equally typical is the beginning of the proem. The author wonders ‘whether there is license to document the lives of men made perfect’ (2.1 [24.6–7]). He affirms that the challenge to praise such men derives from the Scriptures, where one finds a host of those named and unnamed ‘devout masters’, both before and after Christ (2.18–19 [30.1–9]). Following a list of biblical examples of praise, he observes: ‘It is therefore evident . . . that praise of all the God-­loving elect is from the Lord Himself, some from angels, and some from one to another; not for personal pride, but to prompt one another to zeal, so that being encouraged by one another, we may attain to the accomplishment of good works’ (2.39 [34.12–16]). Like others before him, Koriwn is critical of the use of encomium for sheer ostentation;60 he opts for its pragmatic use (cf. 2.30 [32.15–19] and the restatement in the epilogue, 29/28.4 [98.10–14]). He then alludes to the writings of the apostolic fathers, now deemed extracanonical: ‘We have also the gracious, post-­canonical writings from after the Apostles, indicating how they were honoured by one another, were praised for their true faith and Gospel-­oriented piety’ (2.41 [34.19–21]). He concludes: ‘And now, being prompted by them both [sc. the canonical Scriptures and the extracanonical writings], let us begin to commit to writing the life of the just man’ (2.42 [34.23–4]).61 59  Cf. Isocrates, Panegyricus 13; Panathenaicus 36; Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.6.11; Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.1. 60  Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1367b36; Cicero, De Oratore 2.84.341; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.1. 61  Note that at the beginning of the proem Mashtots‘ is ranked with those made perfect and at the end acclaimed as a just or righteous man (cf. Heb. 12:23).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

31

The repeated use of the words govut‘iwn (praise) and govel (to praise) in the proem is noteworthy. All seven occurrences of the verb are found only in the proem, as also six of the eight uses of the noun (the remaining two being praise given to God).62 What Koriwn is about to render to the subject of his writing is—­by implication—­what the Scriptures and the extracanonical writings have rendered all along to the worthies of the past, namely, praise. These elements, together with his intention to write (stated immediately before the proem) and his purpose for writing (stated at the end of the proem), are of considerable significance for the identification of the whole treatise as an encomium. He wants the reader to know well that he is writing in a genre which demands exalted language. Indeed, at the climax of his œuvre, Koriwn refers to it as an ‘oration’ (chaṙ) composed for ‘the one remembered’ (yishelin); i.e. memorialized or commemorated (9.6–9 [52.8–54.2]).63

(b)  Origin and family Koriwn treats the encomiastic requirement of origin and family very briefly, by simply naming the birthplace, the province, and the father, ‘a blessed man’ (3.2 [36.5–7]). Here he follows the instructions to omit discussing family should the praised person have no ancestral distinction.64

(c)  Birth and upbringing The early life of Mashtots‘ is likewise covered briefly. Reference is made to his being tutored in Greek literature since childhood, his service in the royal secretariat, and his mastery of law and the military art. 62  See Ēlza Demirchyan, ed., Haykakan hamabarbaṙ, 2: Koriwn ‘Vark’ Mashtots‘i’ (Armenian Concordance, 2: Koriwn, ‘Life of Mashtots‘’) (Yerevan: Acad. of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1972; reprinted in Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i: A Photoreproduction of the 1941 Yerevan Edition), 55–6. 63 Abeghyan sees the proem as an apology for the ensuing historical account (Koriwn, 13–16; cf. Maksoudian, ‘Introduction’, pp. xiv–xv), and Nersēs Akinian considers it a later addition by the author (‘Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ S.  Mashtots‘ Vardapeti: k‘nnut‘iwn ew bnagir ew tsanōt‘ut‘iwnner’ [History of the Life of St Mashtots‘ Vardapet: Enquiry, Text, and Notes], Mkhit‘ar tōnagirk‘/Mechitar Festschrift = HA 63 [1949], 183). See also Claude Cox, ‘The Purpose of Koriun’s Life of Mashtots‘’, in Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of LeMoine  G.  Lewis, ed. Everett Ferguson (Abilene: ACU, 1981), 303–11. 64 Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1441a5–6; cf. Cicero, Partitiones Oratoriae 22.74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

32

Introduction

Koriwn hastens to add that with regard to the Scriptures, Mashtots‘ was self-­taught while serving the princes (3.24 [36.8–17]). Koriwn fulfils several conventional requirements in these few lines.

(d)  Accomplishments and actions according to virtue The achievements of Mashtots‘ are treated not topically under the virtues but chronologically, which is by far the preferred method in composing encomia. A summary of the actions of Mashtots‘ is given first, beginning with his abandoning the princely service and entering the service of Christ. All subsequent steps follow that initial move of joining an ascetic order. A long list of endured hardships in the course of piety is given, and the summoning of pupils is seen as part of the same religious exercise. ‘And thus, bearing with a wilful courage all the temptations that came upon him, and growing in radiance, he became known and pleasing to God and men’ (ch. 4). The master’s toil on behalf of others is stressed (5.4 [40.14]; 8.2 [48.6–7]; 23/22.11 [82.16–17]). Toil and hardship in great accomplishments are among the essential elements in the composition of encomia.65 Miracles or providential interventions accompanying these selfless efforts are noted (5.3 [40.11–13]; 6.4 [42.8–10]; 8.3 [48.7–8]; 27/26.5, 8 [92.18–20; 94.8–10]). These also are among the expected features.66 Somewhat related to the preceding, but perhaps more to the external advantages (e.g. having influential friends), is the parade of dignitaries who readily commit themselves or the services of their good offices to Mashtots‘.67 The four cardinal virtues are touched upon in passing, especially with reference to the Scriptural examples in the proem. With reference to Mashtots‘ and his work, all four are contemplated: justice (2.42 [34.24]), 65  Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1366b3–6, 37–1367a5,19; Cicero, De Oratore 2.85.345–7; etc. 66 On portents, miracles, or divine acts, cf. Cicero, Partitiones Oratoriae 21.73; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.11. 67  The Catholicos Sahak (passim), Shabat‘, Lord of Goght‘n (Colthene, 5.7 [40.2–6]; 13.4–5 [60.10–13]), his son and successor, Giwt (13.5 [60.13–16]), King Vṙamshapuh of Armenia (6.6 [42.13–44.14]; 9.3 [54.1–4]), Vaghenak, Lord of Siwnik‘ (15/14.2 [60.18–22]), his successor, Vasak (15/14.2 [62.1–7]), King Bakur of Georgia (16/15.4 [62.14–19]), the Emperor Theodosios (17/16.4 [64.25–68.4]), the Patriarch of Constantinople, Attikos (17/16.7 [66.10–11]), King Artashēs of Armenia (17/16.24 [70.8–9]), King Arsvagh of Caucasian Albania (18/17.2 [70.13–72.9]), Khurs, Lord of Gardman (19/18.2 [72.18–24]), King Ardziwgh of Georgia (19/18.5 [72.25–8]), and Ashushay, Lord of Tashir (19/18.6 [72.29–74.2]).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

33

courage (4.7 [38.15–16]; 22/21.1 [78.15–18]; 26/25.2 [90:10–11]), wisdom (8.8 [50.4–7]; 12.7 [58.18]; 14/10.2 [54.14]), and temperance (passim, in the vigils of his devotional and monastic life). As a teacher, Mashtots‘ exemplified these virtues in his own life (12.6 [58.15–16]; 20/19.10 [76.12–14]; 23/22.2 [80.11–12]),‘for true ­teachers habitually set their personal virtues as a rule to their disciples’ (23/22.11 [82.17–18]). This Socratic ideal is widely held in Greek paideia and is a recurring feature in the encomiastic literature.68 Understandably, in the Life, Christ is the Teacher who set the ultimate example for his dis­ciples, and they in turn passed it on to their followers. ‘Thus, the blessed one [sc. Mashtots‘] had assumed this honoured tradition, and similarly admonished all who came near him with the same exhortation’ (23/22.20 [86.3–4]; cf. 23/22.14, 19–20 [84.3–5, 17–19; 86.1–2]). Comparison with renowned persons is yet another, often recommended step to extol great men and their meritorious achievements.69 Such instances of encomiastic comparison are highlighted in the Life. The concern of Mashtots‘ for his people is no less than that of the Apostle Paul for his people (5.5 [40.18]).70 In describing the profound joy of Mashtots‘ on his return to Greater Armenia with the newly finalized alphabet, Koriwn declares: ‘Even the magnificent Moses was not as joyous during his descent from Mount Sinai’ because of the sinful people, ‘causing the bearer of His commandments to weep bitterly with a broken heart. For the despair of the bearer became visibly apparent in the shattered tablets’ (9.4–5 [52.1–8]).71 Koriwn then adds this extended note: Let no one consider us overly bold for what we have said, for which we may be censured. How could a very modest man be compared with the magnificent Moses, be made equal to the one who spoke with God and did wonders? But we can, all the more so in the belief that whether in revealed or in hidden things there is nothing to fault the Deity for, since it is the grace of the one omnipotent God that is distributed to all earthborn nations. (9.7–8 [52.13–19]) 68  Xenophon (Memorabilia 1.2.117) states that all teachers demonstrate to their disciples that they themselves practise what they teach—­citing Socrates as an example. On the predominance of the Socratic example, see Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, Analecta biblica 105 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), passim. 69  Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1368a11–25: ‘Point out . . . that he has done it better than anyone else’; ‘The comparison should be with famous men; that will strengthen your case; it is a noble thing to surpass men who are themselves great’ (lines 12, 21; cf. Cicero, De Oratore 2.85.348). 70  Alluding to Rom. 9:1–3. 71  Alluding to Exod. 31:18–32:19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

34

Introduction

This is followed by comparing the ongoing scribal and evangelistic activity with that mandated by Moses in the Law, David in the Psalms, and Christ in the Gospel (11.1–7 [54.18–56.9]). ‘And thus in all the regions of Armenia, Georgia, and Caucasian Albania, throughout his lifetime, in summer and winter, night and day, dauntless and without hesitation in his conduct—­passionate and accordant with the Gospel, he bore the name of Jesus the Saviour of all before kings, princes, and all the pagans,72 and with no opposition from adversaries’ (22/21.1 [78.13–18]).73 Finally, the deeper sorrow of the ever-­active Mashtots‘ over the death of his associate Sahak is compared with the sadness, loneliness, and relative inactivity of the Apostle Paul because of the temporary absence of his associate Timothy.74 Koriwn observes: Inasmuch as the holy Apostle, upon temporarily not finding his companion, Timothy, says that his soul was restless, how much more intense is deemed the survivors’ grief over those who are forever departed! Even though the sadness caused by loneliness would not allow (Paul) to be cheerful, yet (Mashtots‘) carried out fully, with the grace of God, the course of evangelism and administration of the holy church and strove even more, trying harder. (26/25.1–2 [90.5–10])

The two persons with whom Mashtots‘ is laudably compared are the first of the prophets and the last of the apostles: Moses and Paul, the most famous biblical characters and authors in the Old and New Testaments respectively. Beginning with the introductory comparison of the author’s praise of Mashtots‘ and that of the biblical worthies, the masterful use of the Scriptures to draw contrast, to restate, and to reaffirm is noteworthy.

(e) Epilogue Except for the chronological postscript or addition at the end of the treatise (ch. 30/29), what follows the detailed description of the Saint’s death and burial is a well-­defined epilogue (ch. 29/28). The concerns 72  Further comparison with the Apostle Paul, who was chosen to proclaim the name of Jesus before such hearers; see Acts 9:15. 73  Further contrast with the Apostle Paul, who had many opponents; see 1 Cor. 16:9. 74 Judging from the context, there seems to be a conflation, if not confusion, between Acts 17:14–16a (cf. 18:5) and 2 Cor. 2:13 (cf. 8.23). If the allusion is more to the latter passage, then the reference would be to Titus and not Timothy, and an early scribal error could be suspected here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

B.  The Rhetoric of Praise and the Genre of the Life

35

indicated at the outset are restated in summary form. Koriwn has accomplished his task, which is in keeping with what the Scriptures and the extracanonical writings have allowed for the worthies of the past, namely, praise. He goes on to suggest that his work is another, simpler ‘[Acts] of the Apostles’ (29/28.3 [98.6–8]). He employs a literary commonplace by referring to the ‘arranged in brief’, i.e. leaving out the ‘much more’ that could have been said about Mashtots‘,75 whom he calls ‘my father’ (29/28.2 [98.2–4]), and concludes by restating what he had upheld in the prologue regarding the pragmatic aspect of encomium ‘as an inspiring example’ for posterity (29/28.4 [98.10–14]; cf. 2.39 [34.12–16).

Conclusion (based also on Appendix I) Koriwn’s celebrated Life of Mashtots‘, the best-­known of the earliest works composed in Armenian amidst the numerous translations of the Golden Age, is a disciple’s tribute to his beloved master. The ter­ minus ad quem for its original composition seems to have been the solemn transfer of the remains of Mashtots‘, three years after his death and burial, to their final resting place at the newly built shrine in Oshakan (27/26.8–10 [94.11–18]). The occasion seems to have called for a ceremonial oration that became the major building block of the encomium as we have it. Regardless of the overlapping literary traditions in Christian biography since Graeco-­Roman times—­and more so in Late Antiquity—­ the opening pages of the Life are crucial for identifying its literary genre within the rhetorical, epideictic tradition. The repeated use of the words govut‘iwn (‘praise’) and govel (‘to praise’) in the prologue is declarative of the genre. The common features of encomium, as found in encomiastic prose in Classical literature, are readily recognizable in Koriwn’s work. His thorough familiarity with this genre is discernible in much of the details within the broad, recurrent pattern of encomium: origin and family, birth and upbringing, accomplishments and actions according to virtue. As an encomiast, Koriwn shows familiarity with theoretical manuals and/or practical textbooks. However, he 75  Cf. Eccl. 12:9–12; John 20:30; 21:25; Philo, De Posteritate Caini 144; De Ebrietate 32; De Vita Mosis 1.213. In a way, the reader is taken back to the personal inadequacy motif expressed by the encomiast at the beginning of the treatise (1.2 [22.18]).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

36

Introduction

does not seem to be drawing on a template from a particular handbook, but on what had become topoi of the genre. The Aristotelian notion of comparison, among several other elements recurring in Classical encomia, is a dominant feature in the treatise. This is best seen in the author’s drawing on biblical examples to exalt Mashtots‘. Koriwn compares his praise of the blessed Saint with the Scriptures’ praise of biblical worthies, suggesting that his writing—­compared by him to the Acts of the Apostles—­is no less inspired than the Scriptures, and that Mashtots‘ is no less a worthy man than the prophets and the apostles. The bearer of the Armenian alphabet is likened to the Lawgiver of the Hebrews and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The high praise accorded to Mashtots‘ is more than that for a saint and commends the Life as an encomium. Clearly, its author stands in the mainstream of a broad literary-­rhetorical tradition, fully aware of the particulars of the en­comi­ as­tic genre which he follows rather systematically. As stated, the Life does not appear to have been structured according to the dictates of a single pattern drawn from one or another of the progymnasmata surviving from Late Antiquity.76 There is, nonetheless, a general conformity with the basic, traditional rules for composing encomia, and rhetorical features abound in the details—­as will be shown in the sequel. As a whole, the work is a coherent, systematic presentation with challenging rigour, shaped more by considerations of a rhetorical concern than by those of a biographical and/or his­tor­ ic­al curiosity.

C.  RHETORICAL ELEMENTS IN THE LIFE Readers of the Life of Mashtots‘ in Classical Armenian are generally impressed by the author’s advanced language and remarkable command of an extensive vocabulary. The text mirrors the literary and structural thoroughness of a language just committed to writing, as well as the skill of its author. Such an early composition in the native 76  Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, with whom I thoroughly agree about the genre of the Life as an encomium (see above, n. 53), was wrong in fitting it with the Girk‘ Pitoyits‘, identified in part with the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius. As Hägg and Rousseau put it, ‘The topoi and rhetorical strategies were largely inherited and shared, as was the basic narrative structure of a “life” ’, Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

37

tongue obviously reveals the degree of cultural attainment at the time—­language being the best indicator of the author’s cultural familiarity. Koriwn’s terminological stock is impressive indeed. The total number of lexical terms in the vocabulary utilized by him is 1,675, and more than half of these words (985 to be exact) occur only once in this quite short composition of some thirty folia in manuscript length when written in uncial majuscules or erkat‘agir (երկաթագիր, ‘ironclad letters’). The considerably high number of words that occur but once (hapax legomena) and the peculiarly constructed compounds that are unique to our author call for further structural ana­ lysis. But that is beyond the limitations of this introduction. Suffice it to say that his gripping language and style, his fine calibrations and literary artistry demonstrated in passage after passage, with pervasive polyphony, are rhetorically construed and intended for oral delivery.77 Moreover, the two recensions of the abridged version of Koriwn, which evolved quite early in the history of the transmission of the text (dubbed ‘Short Koriwn’, on which more shall be said later), preserve titles that are suggestive of an oral tradition encompassing public reading at memorial services: In commemoration of Saint Mesrovp [sic] the teacher, as regards his life, composed by the saintly Koriwn (B); In commemoration of the history of the life of the blessed [and] saintly teacher Mesrovb [sic], recited by his disciple Koriwn (C).78 Orality is an overlooked area in the study of ancient texts; and this negligence in scholarship is conspicuous, given the degree of literacy in ancient times, the scarcity of written texts, the communal setting of ancient reading—­as a collective or group experience—­and the per­ form­ance and oral transmission even of written texts.79 An aspect that 77  I disagree with those who characterize Koriwn’s language as complex or even coarse; e.g. Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 164. Cf. Mahé’s mixed assessment: ‘Ce qui me charmait en lisant Koriwn, c’était d’abord son style, foncièrement irrégulier, inattendu, presque chaotique, mais inventif et expressif . . . La hardiesse de Koriwn me confondait d’admiration’ (L’Alphabet aménien, 9). 78  «Ի յիշատակի սրբոյն Մեսրովպայ վարդապետի զոր արարեալ է Կորեան սրբոյ յաղագս վարուց նորա» (recension B: Matenadaran 3787 and 3797, c.1347–1350). «Ի յիշատակ պատմութեան վարուց երանելւոյ սուրբ վարդապետին Մեսրովբայ զոր ասացեալ է նորին աշակերտի Կորեան» (recension C, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arm. 178, 12th cent., the earliest of the extant manuscripts of the Life). 79 On the discursive dynamics of oral culture, see the articles in Literacy and Orality, ed. David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Catherine Hezser,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

38

Introduction

should not go unnoticed is the importance of the length of a public reading or of a performance in antiquity: approximately two hours—­as the ancient custom is still followed today, thanks to the lasting influence of a mandate in Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric.80 Koriwn shows keen awareness of the necessity of the oral-­oracular encounter, and of the acceptable duration of a narrative’s public reading, as the length of the text indicates.

1. Proposition Koriwn’s prologue or exordium (ch. 2), preceded by a brief preface (ch. 1), is the first major part of the Life, comprising one-­sixth of the document. There he is quick to declare his proposition, the status causae, in two queries: ‘And now let us begin with a prologue on whether there is licence to document the lives of men made perfect’81 (2.1 [24.6–7]); and ‘What shall we say about the mutual praises obtained between the associates [of God],82 those whose nobleness the Lord of all lauded to the full?’ (2.14 [28.9–11]). The noun ‘praise’ (govut‘iwn) is crucial in the latter question, for in the prologue Koriwn employs the term five more times, in the singular, as he goes on to indicate the Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). 80  Among the more helpful treatments of the subject, see Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, trans. Jane  E.  Lewin (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1980), 33–40, 86–8, 94–5, 113–17, 227–34; Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 2nd edn (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 142– 4. There is a renewed interest in Aristotle’s Poetics and its influence in Late Antiquity, thanks to Stephen Halliwell, The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary (London: Duckworth, 1987), and his earlier extensive study: Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 81  ‘Those made perfect’ (katarelots‘ ) here as well as at 28/27.1 (96.6) could also refer to the deceased, especially the dead in Christ (cf. Heb. 12:23, ‘the spirits of the righteous made perfect’/yogis ardarots‘ katarelots‘). The word is never used in the dogmatic sense of perfection in this work; cf. the noun katarumn in 27/26.1 and 29/28.1 (92.5; 96.18). 82 Zugakank‘, a term used in the sense of ‘allies of God’, as earlier with reference to Abraham (dashnawor, 2.4 [24.24]); cf. ‘the friends of God’ (Astutsoy barekamk‘) in Eznik of Koghb, Eghts aghandots‘ (Refutation of the Sects), 3.17.19 (MH 1:496). The latter designation is used with reference to Christian apologists as well as biblical worthies and their like, those who were martyred for God’s sake. The singular zugakan is used in 26/25.1 (90.2) with reference to Mashtots‘ as an associate of Sahak.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

39

kind of writing he is about to undertake (in the rest of the treatise the term appears twice only, as praise to God). The verb ‘to praise’ (govel) he uses seven times and only in the prologue. The proposition he states in the form of questions at the beginning and justifies in his lengthy prologue, that it is scripturally permissible to write such a work, is restated in the middle of the body of the text by yet another question and reaffirmed in the balance and simplicity of the narrative: ‘Let no one consider us overly bold for what we have said, for which we may be censured. How could a very modest man be compared with the magnificent Moses, be made equal to the one who spoke with God and did wonders?’ (9.7 [52.13–16]; all other question marks in Koriwn appear only in biblical quotations). As I have shown elsewhere, and more so below, such comparison is a major literary-­ rhetorical requirement in encomium or formal praise in the Classical tradition, which Koriwn follows quite faithfully. However, Koriwn has a broader intent, which he divulges in the prologue. His purpose in narrating the accomplishments of the saint(s) is to uphold a worthy example to succeeding generations, following the perceived purpose of the letters of Paul, to which he draws attention: ‘And he has declared all this not for the exaltation of praise but so that it may serve as an example and a rule to be followed by those who were to come later’ (2.30 [32.15–17]). He repeats the same intent in the epilogue, applying it to his ‘praise’ of the departed fathers: ‘for an inspiring example to their spiritual descendants and to those who, through them, will be taught from generation to generation’ (29/28.4 [98.13–14]).83 It could therefore be argued that he is doing more than merely praising the protagonist of his encomium, that the Life was also intended for didactic effect.

2. Persuasion Koriwn’s commitment to persuasion from the outset is part of his rhet­oric­al strategy, a strategy sustained throughout his narrative. His intention is not only to document the life of a departed person but also to show that the central figure of his treatise is a saintly man, a ‘just man’ or a ‘righteous man’ (2.42 [34.24–5]), in keeping with those 83  On the didactic factor in formal or epideictic praise, see the section on pragmatism, below.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

40

Introduction

who ‘were praised for their true faith and Gospel-­oriented piety’ (2.41 [34.20–1). The exemplary life of Mashtots‘ moves the author to conclude: ‘And thus in all the regions of Armenia, Georgia, and Caucasian Albania, throughout his lifetime, in summer and winter, night and day, dauntless and without hesitation in his conduct—­passionate and accordant with the Gospel—­he bore the name of Jesus the Saviour of all before kings, princes, and all the pagans, and with no opposition from adversaries’ (22/21.1 [78.13–18]). In the middle of the narrative the author has this anticipation: ‘Being thus constrained, through hopeful endeavour and in a noteworthy and fruitful way, our blessed fathers manifested their husbandry according to the Gospel’ (11.7 [56.7–9]). Koriwn’s art of persuasion is equally evident in the narratively confirming personal connection, the experiential or participatory, seen in his occasional and interchangeable use of the first-­person singular and plural. Only in the introductory paragraph and in quotations from Scripture we find the first-­person singular—­whether as pronoun or as verbal suffix. More suggestive is his use of the first-­person plural—­the inclusive ‘we’ of which there are several instances—­at times as part of the verbal form. These usages of the so-­called ‘edi­tor­ ial we’ also function rhetorically, to establish an authorial bond with the readers and to engage them in the narrative. The narrative becomes doubly authoritative, indeed unquestioned, because its content derives from an eyewitness who has seen much of what he recounts and who is not slow to give credit to fellow disciples, who are equally familiar with his account and on whose behest he writes: Not that we were informed by favourable rumours of old and had them arranged in the form of a book; on the contrary, we ourselves were beholders of their faces, associates in the spiritual endeavours, hearers of the grace-­imparting teaching, and their companions according to the mandates of the Gospel. Nor have we been untruthful in what we have recounted, verbose with our words about my father; on the contrary, omitting the commonplace and gleaning from those eminently familiar, we have arranged in brief that which is evident not only to us but also to the readers of this book. (29/28.1–2 [96.19–98.5])

Koriwn buttresses his writing with a statement very much like the exordium of 1 John (1 John 1:1–4), emphasizing the tangible, his­tor­ ic­al nature of the events witnessed to in the document by linking himself explicitly in fellowship with the protagonist of the literary awakening. His truthfulness is further affirmed by his writing for the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

41

home audience, ‘those eminently familiar’, from whom he gleaned some—­if not much—­of his information. This kind of reassuring is an invariable part of rhetorical persuasion. Clearly, the voice of the writer is the voice of a persuasive speaker. In considering Koriwn’s skill of persuasion, his use of biblical quota­tions and allusions deserves special consideration. In the prop­ os­ition­al prologue (ch. 2) he uses biblical quotations and allusions arrayed in strings or clusters only, never separately or in isolation, and all with the intent of presenting his work as fulfilling a biblical mandate. There are seven instances of such strings of varying length in the proposition: 1. Three quotations (Ezek. 28:3; Dan. 9:23; Luke 1:42). 2. One quotation (Job 2:3 [1:8]) preceded and followed by related or linked allusions. 3. Three quotations (John 1:47; Matt. 8:10; 26:13) preceded and followed by related or linked allusions. 4. Three quotations (Acts 9:15; 2 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:33). 5. Two quotations (1 Cor. 14:1; Gal. 4:18), each followed by a related or linked allusion. 6. Four quotations (Heb. 12:2; 13:17; Phil. 2:5; Jas. 5:10–11). 7. Two quotations (Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:20). Proportionately, the nearly twenty biblical quotations in the prop­ os­ition correspond to the balance of biblical quotations in the rest (the body) of the work, where eight quotations appear separately84 and the remaining twelve in clusters. The first cluster consists of six biblical quotations and is itself divided into three smaller clusters or units (two from Isaiah, two from the Psalms, and two from Matthew);85 besides, this compounded cluster falls in the middle of the manu­ script (11.2–6 [54.25–56.7]), and there Koriwn contemplates the major parts of the Bible, consecutively: the Pentateuch or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings of the Old Testament; then the Gospel and its proclamation in the rest of the New Testament. The remaining three clusters, of two quotations each, appear in the second half of the body:

84  Rom. 9:2 (5.5 [40.17–18); Isa. 30:15 and Prov. 1:2 (8.5, 7 [48.4–5; 50.6–7]); Isa. 30:25 (12.4 [58.10]); Ps. 45:10 (44:10 LXX; 16/15.8 [62.27]); 2 Cor. 2:9–10; Acts 1:1 and Matt. 26:41 (23/22.3, 11, 14 [80.16–19; 82.19–20; 84.5–6]). 85  Isa. 8:1; 30:8; Ps. 102:18 (101:18 LXX); 87:6 (86:6 LXX); Matt. 28:19; 24:14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

42

Introduction

1. Ps. 1:2; 1 Tim. 4:13–16 (20/19.10 [76.13–21]). 2. 2 Cor. 12:10; 12:9 (23/22.3 [80.16–20]). 3. Ps. 31:5 (30:5 LXX); Acts 7:59 (25/24.1 [88.4–5]). Koriwn’s balanced distribution of biblical quotations and allusions, an isocolon of sorts, suggests a deliberate pattern, more so his clusters or batteries of quotations, aimed to affirm and to persuade more effectively.

3. Pragmatism Framing the past pragmatically and selectively for the present is part of the author’s rhetorically structured narrative purpose. Following the perceived example of Paul’s letters, where ‘he has declared all this not for the exaltation of praise but so that it may serve as an example and a rule to be followed by those who were to come later’ (2.30 [32.15–17), Koriwn goes on to set the same criterion for his work, as he states at its conclusion: ‘And we recounted this not entirely for the honour of God’s saints, who were revered for their resplendent faith and manifest life, but for an inspiring example to their spiritual descendants and to those who, through them, will be taught from generation to generation’ (29/28.4 [98.10–14]). (As noted above, this last statement from the epilogue complements the previous statement from the prologue, creating an inclusio). The purpose of narrating the accomplishments of the saints as an example to succeeding generations is accomplished by upholding the personal example Mashtots‘ sets for his disciples. This is done repeatedly and only in the second half of the body of the treatise: ‘To them [sc. the ‘disciples of truth’] they offered their personal accomplishments [as] a rule and example, bidding them to abide by that same rule’ (12.6 [58.15–16]). ‘And thus the fathers spent their entire time, day and night, with the reading of books. And flourishing and prospering in them, they became good examples to their studious assistants’ (20/19.10 [76.12–14]). There is an interesting weave of this theme in ch. 23/22: ‘And again he established many and countless groups of monks, having them dwell in built and unbuilt places, on plains and on mountains, in caverns and in cells. From time to time he showed himself as an example to them’ (23/22.1–2 [80.9–12]). This was in keeping with the practice of ‘true teachers [who] habitually set

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

43

their personal virtues as rules for their disciples’, just like Jesus, who ‘often took His disciples aside and made His flawless person an ex­ample to flawed men’ (23/22.11–12 [82.17–18, 20–1]). ‘As for the blessed apostles, having been taught by the Truth, they first applied [His example] to their imperfect selves and then upheld it to their dis­ ciples’ (23/22.19 [84.17–19]). ‘Similarly, all the fathers who succeeded the apostolic orders, being personally endowed with goodness, passed on an example lastly to us. Thus the blessed one upheld this honoured tradition and admonished all who came near him with the same exhortation’ (23/22.20 [86.1–4]). Koriwn’s writing for succeeding generations compels us to consider his work as a missionary document as well, in keeping with the missionary activities of Mashtots‘ himself. His narrative is from a disciple-­ witness to those removed in time and place, while it is addressed to an immediate audience consisting of fellow disciples, ‘those eminently familiar’ and for whom the contents of the book are ‘evident’ (29/28.2 [98.3–5]). The demonstrative nature of epideictic oratory is that of pedagogic inspiration and aspiration. In it the orator plays the role of a teacher, and his dominant leitmotif is the virtue of the ‘just man’, so sublimely embodied in the person of Mashtots‘. By teaching others, the author, as a faithful disciple, is emulating his beloved teacher.

4. Appeal As is often the case in persuasion, the orator tries to rouse the emotions of his audience or readers. After having convinced them intellectually, it remains for him to conquer their sympathy toward a cause and to stimulate them to action by recourse to appeal. Koriwn takes this step at the end of the prologue and again near the end of the body of his work. His lengthy prologue ends with these words associated with the pragmatic side of the work: ‘not for personal pride, but to prompt one another to zeal, so that being encouraged by one another, we may attain to the accomplishment of good works’ (2.39 [34.14– 16]). Conversely, we find the same point made near the end of his work and anticipated in two bible quotations: ‘On the Law of the Lord you shall meditate day and night’ [Ps. 1:2], and ‘Give heed to reading, consolation, and to doctrine. Do not neglect the gifts bestowed on you . . . Meditate upon them, committing yourself to the same . . . for if you do that you shall save both yourself and them who shall listen to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

44

Introduction

you’ [1 Tim. 4:13–16] (20/19.10 [76.12–21]). There follows a catalogue of the missiological and pedagogical enterprise of Mashtots‘ beyond his inventing alphabets, an endeavour to be emulated by his disciples and—­by implication—­the audience of the book (chs. 21/20–23/22). At the end of the list of these exemplary activities Koriwn appeals by  upholding their tradition as a precept for all: ‘Similarly, all the fathers who succeeded the apostolic orders, being personally endowed with  goodness, conveyed [their own] example to us who are of late. Thus the blessed one upheld this honoured tradition and admonished all who came near him with the same exhortation’ (23/22.20 [86.1–4]).

5. Bracketing The repetition of key words, the recapitulation of the main points and thoughts, in the introduction and conclusion of the work (the prologue and the epilogue), help not only to tie or frame together the work as a whole but also to facilitate its appeal. I shall give three ex­amples of such bracketing. (1) The notion that the subject’s good deeds and virtues are too numerous for the author to do justice to is a commonplace utilized by encomiasts—­when protesting their sense of inadequacy in view of the magnitude of the task. Koriwn brings this up appropriately in the prologue: ‘Although I was the youngest and the stringent demand that was laid surpassed our ability, immediately and without hesitation [I began] to write in book form that which was proposed’ (1.2 [22.18–19]); and again, in the epilogue, as a closing: ‘Nor could we even dare to point out every single deed . . . We set aside the multitudinous accomplishments of the saints in order to recount in some detail the most important events’ (29/28.3 [98.6, 8–10]). (2) The author’s comparison between his modest work and the biblical Acts of the Apostles at the end (ibid. [98.7–8]) is anticipated in the repeated mention of that book in the prologue (2.26, 37 [32.2–3; 34.7]), in the course of justification for his work. (3) Likewise, the purpose of narrating the accomplishments of the saints as an example to succeeding generations is stated in the prologue (2.30, 39 [32.15–17; 34.12–17), following the perceived purpose of the letters of Paul; and again, in the epilogue: ‘for an inspiring example to their spiritual descendants and to those who, through

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

45

them, will be taught from generation to generation’ (29/28.4 [98.13–14]). With this statement Koriwn reframes his work, reinforcing the inclusio. On a lesser scale, bracketing is discernible in the various parts of the Life, especially in the prologue as a unit (ch. 2). This part begins and ends with the words «Եւ արդ առեալ . . .» (‘And now let us begin . . . ’), words never used again after that. The author is clearly connecting the end of his prologue with its beginning and thus paving the way for the central part of his work, the body. Moreover, in the transitional three lines that follow, Koriwn makes another connection between the end of the preface and the end of the prologue, wishing that the demand (hraman) placed upon him be carried out appropriately (2.43 [36.1–3]; cf. 1.1–2 [22.14–19]). In a similar vein, he connects these transitional lines with the beginning of the prologue (2.1 [24.6–7]), its end (2.42 [34.23–4]), the closing of the body (28.27.1 [96.5–6]), and the epilogue (29/28.1 [96.18–19]) by referring to the venerable father(s) at each juncture.

6. Varia Koriwn uses a number of other literary devices and rhetorical techniques, elements too common yet too lengthy to detail here: catchwords, superlatives, alliteration, asyndeta, polysyndeta, and to some extent chiasmata. Examples of these are provided in Appendix II. Something, however, should be said about the relative sparsity of tropes in the Life. I have left the discussion of this more encompassing category to the very end of this section simply because the near-­ absence of imagery, metaphors, and similes in the Life would—­in and of itself—­seem to counter the arguments hitherto presented, but upon further consideration all but substantiate them. Koriwn employs but three faint images, and they appear in contexts where heresy and/or orthodoxy are the subject. The first appears at the end of his preface, in his prayer request upon undertaking the work, an entreaty emanating from fear of erring doctrinally in the course of writing: ‘We therefore ask them all to join our effort through prayer, through that mandate of divine grace, so that we may sail most freely and unerringly over the boundless waves of the doctrinal sea’ (1.3 [24.3–4]). The image of sailing safely over doctrinal waters appears frequently in religious writings of the fourth and fifth cen­tur­

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

46

Introduction

ies, a tense period because of suspicions of heresy in emerging works. The second image appears with reference to the inerrant teaching of Mashtots‘, as he makes the Georgian youths go through ‘the furnace of indoctrination’ (16/15.8 [62.24]). The third image appears after the remarks on the eradication in Armenia of the heretical works of Theodore of Mopsuestia: At that time there emerged, brought to the land of Armenia, the books of falsehood and vain traditions of a certain man from Byzantium named Theodoros,86 concerning whom the synodical patriarchs of the holy churches had informed the faithful glorifiers [of God], Sahak and Mashtots‘, in writing. And they eradicated them from their midst with truth-­loving zeal, rejected and threw them out of their borders, lest any  satanic smoke be admitted into the luminous teaching (24/23.3 [86.15–16]).87

The absence of metaphors in the Life is as striking as the sparse use of faint imagery (limited to the three cited examples). Equally sparse is his use of similes: only four, three of which are in close proximity and all limited to expressions of endearment communicated in terms of family relations: He [sc. Mashtots‘] was [soon] joined by Giwt,88 the son of the Christ-­ loving Shabat‘, who like his father rendered much service to the teacher—­as much as a son would [to his father]. (13.5 [60.13–16]) He [sc. Mashtots‘] cared so much for them [sc. the youths of Siwnik‘] that he nurtured and counselled them like a foster-­father. (15/14.4 [60.24–5]) He [sc. Vasak Sisakan] showed ample support for the Gospel-­oriented teaching; showing submission, as a son to his father (15/14.7. [62.4–5].

86 Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–428; bishop from 392), who was accused of Nestorianism and Pelagianism and whose Christological views were declared suspect at the Council of Ephesus (431), was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) as the progenitor of Nestorianism, since Nestorius was his student. Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus for refusing to ac­know­ledge the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos or Bearer of God. 87  Heresy as ‘satanic smoke’ is not attested in Armenian patristic writings; heresy as ‘satanic winds’ is a more common metaphor. See e.g. ‘Homily on the Church’ by Catholicos Hovhannēs Odznets‘i in Matenagrut‘iwnk‘ Yovhannu Odznets‘woy (The Writings of John of Odzun) (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1833), 151–67 (esp. 158). 88  Also in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.60.5 (MH 2:2095); cf. HAnB 1:474, s.v. ‘Giwt 1.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

C.  Rhetorical Elements in the Life

47

And drawing near to Eznik in the city of Constantinople, they [sc. Ghewondēs and Koriwn] embraced him like a most intimate sibling. (20/19.5 [74.26–8])

Koriwn’s apparent aversion to the use of imagery, metaphors, or sim­ iles is most likely influenced by Aristotle’s limited definition or theory of metaphor (encompassing all three categories) and his ambivalence about the use of metaphors in both The Poetics and The Rhetoric.89 According to Aristotle in his Rhetoric, metaphor tends to slow down the rapid transmission of information in the realm of learning. He tends to prefer simple ones, those that convey information as fast as they are stated—­so long as one has advance knowledge of the metaphor or that one’s mind does not lag behind in comprehending them. A further reason for Koriwn’s reluctance to use metaphors in general may stem from his own experience as a translator. He must have been aware of the translational or interpretative difficulties associated with metaphors because of cultural unfamiliarity with them, and seems to avoid them deliberately.

Conclusion (based also on Appendix II) The rhetorical/literary structure of the Life is neither complex nor elusive. Clearly, the framing of the past pragmatically and selectively for the present is part of the author’s rhetorically structured narrative purpose. This is equally evident in the confirming and reassuring personal connection, the experiential, seen in his occasional use of the first-­person singular and plural. He knew very well how to enlighten and to inspire pedagogically, writing not just for fellow disciples but also certainly for generations to come. Unmistakably noticeable to the reader of the text in its original language are the rhythmic and periodic structures. These help enhance the author’s scheme of rhetorical argumentation, psychologically winning over the readers’ attention and adherence to the proposition. In effect, Koriwn is doing what he attributes to Mashtots‘: ‘Through 89  Poetics Chapter 21, 1457b1–30 (seen as perception of similarity in dissimilars); Rhetoric III, 1404b–1406b; 1410b–1411b (seen as instructive means). On the ‘restrained’ or ‘moderate’ use of metaphor, see Gualtiero Calboli, ‘The Metaphor after Aristotle’, in Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of William W.  Fortenbaugh, ed. David C. Mirhady, Philosophia Antiqua 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 123, 128, 134.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

48

Introduction

fluent speech90 he would cause the overflowing and most abundant streams of his teaching to spread in the hearts of the hearers’ (23/22.10 [82.14–15]). The work possesses the eloquence of an oral discourse and the refinement of a written treatise. The voice of the writer is certainly the voice of an eloquent orator. As a gifted orator and writer, Koriwn skilfully employs alliteration, euphonic phrases, impressive word order, and other literary devices all calibrated for rhetorical effectiveness. He communicates his praise of Mashtots‘ as much orally as textually, maintaining a dynamic relationship between speaker and hearer, writer and reader. By adapting the text from an original for oral delivery, Koriwn has bequeathed a remarkably inspiring book for posterity. The Life reflects the art of an orator who, in the composition of the whole, knows how to place form at the service of content and content at the service of form. Otherwise, he would have and could have given much fuller and much needed historical information about such a momentous event. The biographical and historical data given by him are by no means negligible, yet there does not seem to be any doubt that his primary objective is the demonstration of the praiseworthy virtue that Mashtots‘ embodies as a true teacher and exemplary man. The rhetorical clarity of the Life leaves no room for hesitation when it comes to its classification within the epideictic kind of presentation, as demonstrated. In the Life of Mashtots‘ we have one of the best examples of ora­tor­ic­al eloquence, with all the hallmarks of the Classical rhetorical trad­ition.

D.  MANUSCRIPTS, TEXTS, EDITIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS As we have seen, the received text of the Life of Mashtots‘ (A) is a complete treatise, a rhetorical discourse in three broadly outlined parts: introduction or prologue preceded by a brief preface, body, and conclusion or epilogue followed by a brief postscript. There are two short versions or recensions of the Life (B and C), dating from about the eighth century or shortly thereafter, referred to

90  Lit., ‘With unshut mouth.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

D.  Manuscripts, Texts, Editions, and Translations

49

as P‘ok‘r Koriwn (‘Short Koriwn’).91 These omit the lengthy prologue of the encomium, exactly a sixth of the total work, which constitutes the proposition (ch. 2 [24.6–34.24]), the lucid thematic statement that is to be demonstrated, the status causae essential for the structure of the whole. These also show conflation of later sources in their supplementary information.92 The genesis of the short versions is invariably related to the emergence and formation of menologies, the collected lives of the saints for liturgical reading, for which the text seems to have been oddly adapted—­in lieu of writing a conventional hagiographic account as found in the later synaxaries (Arm. yaysmawurk‘) of the thirteenth–fifteenth centuries, where the account on Mashtots‘ is dependent more on Khorenats‘i than on Koriwn (as discussed earl­ ier, in the first part of section B).93 A translation of the two recensions of the abridged text is not provided here simply because of the consensus in scholarship in favour of the longer version A. The full text of A survives as a lone manuscript from the late seventeenth century, appended to and bound with a historiographical miscellany (zhoghovatsoy) copied at the Monastery of Amrdol in Baghēsh (Bitlis) in 1672 (Matenadaran, M2639, fos. 549r–62r). Clearly, the folia of the text of Koriwn are not an integral part of the original manu­ script; their width is short by a centimetre and their marginal layout is different, so too the penmanship—­regardless of its semblance to the rest. All other manuscripts of A are but copies of this single manu­ script of the Life, all copied in Ējmiatsin (M1891, dated 1774; M131, 91  The respective texts are found in the MH edition: 1:229–57 (A), 258–63 (B), and 264–72 (C). 92  Norayr Pogharian (Tsovakan), ‘P‘ok‘r Koriwni heghinakě’ (The Author of Short Koriwn), Sion 33 (1959), 167–8, observes the redactor’s dependence on the Armenian  translation of Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History, which could not have been translated before the sixth century, and revised in 695; see also Robert  W.  Thomson, The Armenian Adaptation of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus: Translation of the Armenian Text and Commentary, HUAS 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001). 93  Attempts to augment the long version of the Life with these later sources are methodologically unsustainable, as are the attempts to use their variances to cast doubt on the integrity of Koriwn’s narrative of events, as in Khatuna Gaprindashvili’s comparative studies on Mashtots‘ in the synaxaries (2015), in Ghazar P‘arpets‘i (2016), and in Moses Khorenats‘i (2017), articles integrated in her ‘Koriunis ‘Maštoc‘is c‘xovreba’ (tek‘stis t‘argmna, gamokvleva da komentarebi)’ (Koriwn’s ‘Life of Mashtots‘’ [Translation of the Text, Examination and Comments], Ph.D.  Diss., Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2019). The query could have been aimed to show the Nachleben of Koriwn’s long version of the Life (see also the last comment on 16/15.2 [62.11]).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

50

Introduction

dated 1781; M3143, dated 1828). Even the first edition of the Life by the Venetian Mekhitarists in 1833 was from a copy of this same manu­script.94 The integrity of the text stands in spite of the persistent comparison of its variant readings vis-­ à-­ vis those of the short version(s). The weightier question, however, pertains to the actual order of the narrative. This has subsided since the end of the last century, with Artashes Mat‘evosyan’s shuffling a couple of paragraphs believed to have been transposed during the text’s earlier transmission.95 His ingenious rearrangement has helped settle a number of questions, not the least of which pertains to the elusive ‘Daniēlian’ letters supplied by a Syrian bishop prior to the invention of the letters by Mashtots‘ and which were abandoned immediately—­so it seems—­for their insufficiency, not after two years of experimentation, which appears to be a rather unreasonable period. The respective texts of ‘Short Koriwn’, extant in considerably older manuscripts than those of A, are part of once larger compendia. Recension B is based on two Matenadaran manuscripts: M3787, a homiliary (char ĕ̇ ntir), and M3797, a menologium (Vark‘ Srbots‘); both dated to the middle of the fourteenth century. Recension ‘C’ is based on the oldest manuscript of the Life: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arm. 178, a sizable menologium, from the twelfth ­century.

94  Koriwn Vardapeti, Mambrēi Vertsanoghi ew Dawt‘i Anyaght‘i matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Works of Koriwn Vardapet, Mambrē the Lector, and David the Invincible) (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1833), 1–29; repr. separately under the title Koriwn Vardapeti Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ ew mahuan S. Mesrovpay (Koriwn Vardapet’s History of the Life and Death of St Mesrovb) in 1833, in 1847 (in Smyrna); and again, with the addition of P‘ok‘r Koriwn in the apparatus, ed. by Ghewond Alishan, in 1894 (in Venice), and with the addition of P‘ok‘r Koriwn at the end of the text, in 1913 (in Tiflis, as vol. 53 of the Ghukasian Matenadaran series) under the title Koriwn, Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ ew mahuan S. Mesropay vardapeti meroy t‘argmanch‘i (Koriwn, History of the Life and Death of Our Translator St Mesrop Vardapet). For a list of the manuscripts, see Maksoudian, ‘Introduction’ (above, n. 42), p. xxxii. 95 Artashes  S.  Mat‘evosyan, Koriwni Mesrop Mashtots‘i patmut‘ean dzeṙagri mi t‘ght‘i teghap‘okhut‘iwn (Misplacement of a folio in a manuscript of Koriwn’s history of Mesrop Mashtots‘/Déplacement d’un feuillet dans le manuscript de l’Histoire de Koriwn), Bibliotheque d’armenologie Bazmavēp 32 (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1990); review by Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ‘Quatre nouvelles publications (1990–1994) sur Koriwn’, REArm 25 (1994–5), 417–28. Mat‘evosyan replaces 6 lines in ch. 10 (Abeghyan 54.9–14) with 6 lines from ch. 6 (Abeghyan 44.11–16) and moves the replaced lines of ch. 10 to form a new ch. 14 (unnecessarily increasing the number of the following chapters by one; his numbering is followed by subsequent editors).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

D.  Manuscripts, Texts, Editions, and Translations

51

Editions and translations, including Artashes Mat‘evosyan’s edition with an Eastern Armenian translation,96 have their merits as well as their drawbacks. The latter are mostly because of certain textual difficulties that have at times invited unwarranted, superfluous emend­ ations that continue to be followed. Believing that Koriwn is the author of several contemporaneous works, Norayr Biwzandats‘i went overboard ‘correcting’ each in the light of the others.97 Martiros Minasian’s text is based on selectively choosing from among the many emendations by Biwzandats‘i.98 Far more disconcerting is Nersēs Akinian’s edition,99 not only for his emending nearly every variant of the text in the light of ‘Short Koriwn’ but also for his inundating the text with conjectural emendations. Most readings proposed by him are to be regarded less than doubtful, indeed dismissible. Gaṙnik Fntglian, critical of the emendations by Biwzandats‘i, subjects the entire text to philological analysis and opts for grammatically preferred emendations.100 His work is rich in philological observations, constituting a philological commentary on the whole—­albeit more on the emendations than on the original readings. It is rather unfortunate that this noteworthy edition has not had a greater impact on later scholarship on the Life. By far the most influential edition of the last century, and one that still holds a significant place in the history of scholarship on the Life, is Manuk Abeghyan’s edition.101 It has held well against all others simply because of its generally objective emendations, fair in number when compared with those of other editors. With but few add­ ition­al emendations and adoption of Mat‘evosyan’s two corrective 96  Artashes Mat‘evosyan, Vark‘ Mesrop Mashtots‘i, Hayots‘ Matenagirner (Yerevan: ‘Hayastan’, 1994), 83–107 text, 34–61 trans. 97 Biwzandats‘i, Koriwn Vardapet ew Norin T‘argmanut‘iwnk‘, 174–381 (after comparing Koriwn with Agathangelos, 36–139; with P‘awstos Biwzand or the Biwzandaran Patmut‘iunk‘, 139–60; with the Books of Maccabees, 161–4; and Euthalius of Alexandria, 164–73). 98 Martiros Minasian, ed.,‘Koriwni k‘nnakan bnagirĕ ew tsanōt‘agrut‘iwnner ĕst Norayri’ (The Critical Text of Koriwn and the Annotations by Norayr), HA 106 (1992) 65–158. 99  Koriwn. Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ S. Mashtots‘i (Biographie des Hl. Maštoc‘), Texte und Untersuchungen der altarmenischen Literatur 1 (Vienna: Mechitharisten-­ Buchdr., 1952). 100 Fntglian, Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (see above, n. 12). 101  Critical text with an Eastern Arm. trans. and notes: Koryun, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (see above, n. 42). Living and working within the Soviet Union, Abeghyan was not familiar with Fntglian’s edition.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

52

Introduction

transpositions, it forms the basis of the two most recent editions of the text: that of Poghos Ananian,102 and that of the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ (MH) series, edited with critical apparatus by two prominent scholars: Paruyr Muradyan and Karen Yuzbashyan.103 The latter is the text provided alongside the Translation. While following its chapter and section divisions, I have also provided chapter, page, and line references to Abeghyan’s edition throughout (in parentheses), and have supplied Scriptural references to quotations in the text that had eluded editors. I have made but few minor corrections of likely scribal errors found in the MH edition: դասուն . . . գնդովն / դասիւն . . . գնդիւն at 11.8 (56.12–13),104 եղեալ / եդեալ at 20/19.1 (74.11), and յակասագոյն / պակասագոյն at 23/22.15 (84.7). My only major issue with the MH edition and all others is at 23/22.15–18 (84.7–16), where I have identified a compounded interpolation, italicised within curly brackets in the Translation and explained in the Commentary. As for other translations into Western languages, only the latest in French, German, Italian, and Russian are worth citing here.105 These and all other translations are listed in the Bibliography.

102  Poghos Ananian, ed., Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i/Koriun, Vita di Maštoc‘, Yaṙajaban, bnagri verakazmut‘iwn ew tsanot‘agrutiwnner (Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, with Introduction, Textual Reconstruction and Notes), Haykakan Matenadaran 4/Bibliotheca Armeniaca 4 (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1998); parallel Italian trans. by Y. Ashrafian, Vita di Maštoc‘, Bibliotheca Armeniaca 4 (Venice: S. Lazzaro, 1998). Ananian had earlier published a series of studies on nearly every aspect of the Life, brought together in a monograph: Vark‘ S. Mesrop Mashtots‘i (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1964); throughout, he follows Abeghyan’s text (11 n. 12). 103  MH 1:229–57. 104 Cf. գնդիւն at 27/26.7 (94.7). 105  For the various, more recent translations, none of which is based on the latest edition of the Armenian text, see above: for French, by Mahé, n. 43 (cf. ‘Koriwn, La Vie de Maštoc‘: traduction annotée’, REArm 30 [2005–7], 59–97; based on selective emend­ ations ‘par de grands philologues, comme Norayr, Hr. Ačaryan, N.  Akinean et M. Abełyan’, L’Alphabet aménien, 153); for German, by Winkler, n. 15 (this should be used with great caution because of its heavy reliance on Akinian’s highly questionable text, replete with controversial emendations; so too is the earlier German translation by Inglisian; see the Bibliography); for Italian, by Ashrafian, n. 100 (based on Ananian’s text); for Russian, by Smbatian (Smbatyan) and Melik-­ Ogandzhanian (Melik‘ Ohanjanyan), n. 51 (the only translation based strictly on Abeghyan’s meritorious text). Norehad’s English translation (above, n. 48, from Abeghyan’s translation) is often unreliable and at times omits key words in important phrases, even whole lines: e.g. 9.5, 7 (52.7–8, 15; key words); 16/15.5 (62.16–17, whole lines); 26/25.1 (90.2–4, key words).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

E. Synopsis

53

E. SYNOPSIS Ch. 1. Ch. 2. Ch. 3. Ch. 4. Ch. 5. Ch. 6. Ch. 7. Ch. 8. Ch. 9. Ch. 10. Ch. 11. Ch. 12. Ch. 13. Ch. 14/10. Ch. 15/14. Ch. 16/15. Ch. 17/16. Ch. 18/17. Ch. 19/18. Ch. 20/19. Ch. 21/20. Ch. 22/21. Ch. 23/22. Ch. 24/23. Ch. 25/24. Ch. 26/25. Ch. 27/26. Ch. 28/27. Ch. 29/28. Ch. 30/29.

A literary memorial for Mashtots‘. Justification for praise. Birth and upbringing of Mashtots‘. Spiritual development. First mission to Goght‘n. Catholicos Sahak and King Vṙamshapuh lend their support; the alphabet of Bishop Daniel obtained and rejected. Educational journey with disciples to Syria and Mesopotamia. The invention of the Armenian alphabet; the beginning of Bible translation. Return to Armenia with the newly-­invented alphabet. Dissemination of learning. Revival in Armenia through translating, writing, and teaching. Founding of schools; Mashtots‘ and Sahak define tasks. Second mission to Goght‘n. Mission to Median territory. Mission to Siwnik‘. The invention of the Georgian alphabet; first mission to Georgian territory. Journey to Constantinople and Byzantine Armenia; the invention of the Caucasian-­Albanian alphabet. Mission to Caucasian-­Albania. Second mission to Georgian territory: Gardman and Tashir. Collective endeavours and verification of earlier translations; ecclesial writings by Sahak. Exhortative writings by Mashtots‘. Mashtots‘ the evangelist. Mashtots‘ the founder of ascetic establishments and transmitter of the Apostolic tradition. Sahak and Mashtots‘ as guardians of orthodoxy. Death and burial of Sahak. Ongoing work of Mashtots‘. Death and burial of Mashtots‘. Successors and their fate. Epilogue. Chronological appendix.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

PART II

Text and Translation

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

ՊԱՏՄՈՒԹԻՒՆ ՎԱՐՈՒՑ ԵՒ ՄԱՀՈՒԱՆ ԱՌՆ ԵՐԱՆԵԼՒՈՅ ՍՐԲՈՅՆ ՄԵՍՐՈՊԱՅ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏԻ ՄԵՐՈՅ ԹԱՐԳՄԱՆՉԻ Ի ԿՈՐԻՒՆ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏԷ ՅԱՇԱԿԵՐՏԷ ՆՈՐԻՆ 1. [Ա] 1  Զազքանազեան ազգին եւ զՀայաստան աշխարհին զաստուածապարգեւ գրոյն, եթէ ե՛րբ եւ յորում ժամանակի մատակարարեցաւ եւ որպիսի՛ արամբ այնպիսի նորոգատուր աստուածեղէն շնորհս երեւեցաւ եւ վասն նորին լուսաւոր վարդապետութեան եւ հրեշտակաբար կրաւնիցն առաքինութեան զմտաւ ածելով յիշատակարանս առանձին մատենանշան ծաղկեցուցանել եւ մինչ դեռ անդէն ի խորհրդանոցի մտացս վասն յուշ արկանելոյ միայնագործ հոգայի, եկեալ հասանէր առ իս հրաման առն միոյ պատուականի Յովսեփ կոչեցելոյ, աշակերտի առն այնորիկ, եւ ընդ նմին այլոց եւս քաջալերութիւն աշակերտակցաց մերոյն վարդապետութեան: 2  Ուստի եւ իմ մասնաւոր աշակերտութեան վիճակ առեալ, թէպէտ եւ էի կրտսերագոյն, եւ առաւել քան զկար մեր, գրաւեալ անաչառ հրամանին հասելոյ, փութանակի եւ առանց յապաղելոյ զառաջի եդեալն մատենագրել: 3 Զորս եւ մեր համաւրէն աղաչեալ երկախառնել ընդ մեզ աղաւթիւք՝ յանձնարարութեամբ աստուածեղէն շնորհացն, զի կամակ­արագոյնս եւ ուղղագոյնս նաւիցեմք զհամատարած ալեաւքն վարդապետական ծովուն:

2. [Բ] 1 Եւ արդ առեալ նախաբանեսցուք, եթէ իցէ՞ համարձակութիւն գրով նշանակել զվարս արանցն կատարելոց, ոչ ի մէնջ արուեստախաւսեալ մերոյն կարծեաւք վիճաբանելով, այլ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘ *

1.  [A LITERARY MEMORIAL] [22] 1 I had been thinking of the God-­given script of the nation descended from Ashkenaz* and of the land of Armenia, as to when or at what time it was bestowed and through what kind of man such resurgent divine grace was revealed, and of his luminous teaching* and angelic virtue in piety, to elaborate upon these reminiscences in a special book. And while I was still absorbed in recalling things all alone, there in the council-­chamber of my thoughts, a demand was laid upon me by an honourable man named Yovsep‘,* a disciple of that man, and with it encouragement by fellow disciples from our circle of learning, 2 whence it was my fortune to have had (my) particular discipleship. Although I was the youngest and the stringent demand that was laid surpassed our ability,* immediately and without hesitation (I began) to write in book form* that which was proposed. [24] 3 We therefore ask them all to join our effort through prayer, through that mandate of divine grace, so that we may sail most freely and unerringly over the boundless waves of the doctrinal sea.*

2.  [ JUSTIFICATION FOR PRAISE] 1 And now let us begin with a prologue on whether there is licence to document the lives of men made perfect,* not by arguing our opinions

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

58

The Life of Mashtots‘

յաւրինակացն տուելոց զընդդիմակացն բարձրացուցանել: 2  Քանզի Աստուծոյ բարերարին այսպէս բարեխորհեալ զիւրոց սիրելեաց, ոչ միայն ըստ առաքինութեան վարուց՝ զչքնաղ եւ զբարձրագոյն հատուցումն բաւական համարել յանսպառ յաւիտեանսն, այլ եւ աստէն իսկ կանխագոյն. զի անցաւոր ժամանակաւքս մատենապատում երկնաբերձ պայծառացուցեալ, զհոգեղինացն եւ զմարմնականացն առ հասարակ փայլիցեն: 3  Եւ ի մովսիսական պատմութեան յայտնի է երանելեաց արանցն ազնուականութիւն, ճշմարտութեան հաւատոցն հաստատութիւն, աստուածամերձ աստուածամուխ կենացն վայելչութիւն, սքանչելական կենացն պայծառութիւն: 4  Զի ոմն ընդունելի պատարագաւ արդար կոչեցեալ, եւ այլ ոմն հաճոյական արուեստիւ ի վերայ ամենակուլ մահուանն կենաւք երեւեալ, եւ միւս ոմն բովանդակ արդարութեամբ ի վերայ համատարած լեռնացելոյ աստուածապատիժ ծովուն հանդերձ ամենայն շնչականաւք տարեւոր ժամանակաւք նաւակաց պահեալ, եւ միւսոյն յանկարծագիւտ հաւատովք արդարացեալ, աստուածամերձ աստուածախաւս դաշնաւոր կատարեալ, եւ զաւետիս հանդերձելոց բարեացն ժառանգեալ: 5  Բազմաւք ե՛ւ այլ նոյնպիսիք աստուածածանաւթ գտեալք, որոց ազնուականութիւնքն յամենայն աստուածածանաւթ գրոց պատմի: 6 Հանգոյն ասացելոցս երանելւոյն Պաւղոսի առ Եբրայեցիսն կարգեալ զանուանս՝ գովէ զնոցին ճշմարտութիւն հաւատոցն. որով զվարձահատոյց մխիթարութիւն ընկալան յամենապարգեւողէն Աստուծոյ, ըստ իւրաքանչիւր յառաջադիմութեանցն. նա եւ զժանդագործին Րահաբու զհիւրընկալութիւն լրտեսացն՝ համեմատէ: 7  Իսկ իբրեւ հայեցեալ ի բազմախուռն գումարութիւն արդարոցն՝ զսակաւուցն զանուանս յայտ առնէ, եւ զայլովք եւս զանց առնէ, անբաւական զժամանակն առ ի կարգի պատմելոյ: 8  Ի կիր արկանէ այնուհետեւ նշանակել միանգամայն զփորձութիւնս ի վերայ յարձակեալս եւ զնոցա զանընդդիմակաց զնահատակութիւնսն, զորս եւ պատուականս քան զաշխարհական վաճառս համարի: 9  Սոյն աւրինակ եւ ամենայն գիրք հոգեպատումք նշանակեալ ունին զքաջութիւնս ամենայն զաւրաց. զոմանց՝ ըստ աստուածեղէն կրաւնիցն զբարեյաղթութիւն, եւ զոմանց՝ ըստ աշխարհակիր կարգաց զմարտից եւ զպատերազմաց

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

59

with eloquence but by upholding certain examples to be given to the contrary-­minded. 2 Surely the benevolent God has been so mindful of His loved ones as not only to deem the splendid and grand reward of eternal ages proper for their virtuous lives, but also to have them extolled to the heavens in books as of here and very early on, in these transient times, that they may shine equally among the incorporeal and the corporeal beings. 3 The nobleness of blessed men, the steadfastness of their faith regarding the truth, the comeliness of their lives drawn close to God— ­deeply devoted to God—­and the radiance of their marvellous lives are obvious in the narrative by Moses.* 4 Someone is called righteous because of his acceptable sacrifice;* another appeared to go on living* because of his resplendent attitude toward the all-­devouring death; another, with utmost righteousness, was protected in a ship* for a period of one year over the God-­ sent scourge of a boundless, mountain-­high sea, along with every breathing creature; another was justified through newfound faith,* was drawn close to God, conversed with God, became a perfect ally and inherited the good news of the bounties to come. [26] 5 There are others like them in many ways who have come to know God, whose nobleness is recounted in all the books that make God known.* 6 Similar to what I have said, the blessed Paul, listing their names (in the letter) to the Hebrews,* praises their true faith by which they received—­each according to their advancement—­rewarding con­sola­ tion from God, the giver of all gifts. He takes into consideration even that immoral Rahab’s hospitality to the spies.* 7 When looking at the mixed assembly of the righteous, he divulges the names of a few and omits those of others, time being insufficient to account for them in sequence. 8 He then proceeds to point out in general the temptations unleashed at them and their quiescent martyrdom, which is deemed more honourable than earthly gain. 9 All inspired books depict such examples of fortitude on the part of countless warriors: the moral victory of some, in accordance with  religious piety; the valour of others in struggles and wars, in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

60

The Life of Mashtots‘

արութիւնսն, որպէս զՆեբրոտայն եւ զՍամփսոնին եւ զԴավթայն: 10  Եւ զոմանց զբնական զիմաստութիւն գովեալ աստուածեղէն իմաստութեամբն հանդերձ, որպէս զՅովսէփայն յԵգիպտոս, եւ զԴանիէլին ի Բաբիլոն: 11 Յորոց եւ հզաւր թագաւորացն խրատիչք էին, զաշխարհական կենցաղոյս զհանգամանսն ցուցանէին, հանդերձ ամէնիշխանին Աստուծոյ ծանաւթս առնելով: 12  Զորոց եւ մարգարէին իսկ գովեալ զիմաստութիւնն, ասէր ցոմն այսպէս. «Մի՛թէ իմաստնագո՞յն իցես քան զԴանիէլ. կամ իմաստո՞ւնք խրատտուք խրատեցին զքեզ հանճարով իւրեանց» (Եզեկ. ԻԸ 3): 13  Եւ ոչ այսչափ միայն, այլ եւ հոգեկան ազգին հրեշտակութեամբ՝ գովեալ զսրբոցն զաւրութիւն, որ զԴանիէլ «ցանկալի քարոզելովն կոչէին» (Դան. Թ 23). եւ զսուրբ Տիրամայրն ի Գալիլեայ՝ «աւրհնեալ ի կանայս» (Ղուկ. Ա [26–28], 42): 14  Բայց զի՞նչ ասիցեմք զզուգականացն զառ ի միմեանց պատուեալ զգովութիւնս, զորոց եւ Տէրն իսկ ամենայնի՝ բերանալիր գոչէր զազնուականութիւնսն, ոչ միայն զյանդիմանական գործոյն, այլ եւ զծածուկ սրտիցն լուսաւորութիւնս առաջի հրեշտակաց եւ մարդկան բերէ: 15  Որպէս զհիւրամեծարին Աբրահամու հրեշտակաւքն հասելովք զծառայական հաւասարութիւնն յայտ արարեալ. պատմելով նմա յետ աւետեացն ընկալելոց, զինչ ի Սոդոմն էր գործելոց: 16  Նոյնպէս եւ զքաջի նահատակին Յոբայ յառաջ քան զպատերազմել առաջի պատերազմականին՝ յաւրինէ զգովութիւն ասելով. «Այր ճշմարիտ, արդար եւ աստուածապաշտ, եւ որոշեալ յամենայն գործոց չարաց» (Յոբ Բ 3 [Ա 8]): 17  Իսկ մեծին Մովսէսի զառաւելագոյն զաստուածամուխ մերձաւորութիւն՝ ամենայն եկեղեցական գրով հնչեցուցեալ, զորոյ եւ զտղայութեան զկայտառութիւնն յայտ արարեալ աստուածեղէն աւրինացն. նա եւ զայլազգոյն զՅոթորի եւս զխրատն չանցուցեալ անգիր: 18  Եւ այնպէս միահամուռ ամենայն աստուածակրաւն արուեստականացն բարեգործութիւնք՝ փայլեն յաստուածագիր աւրինացն, զորոց չէ ոք բաւական յիշատակել զերանելի անուանց գումարութիւն: 19  Եւ ոչ միայն զյառաջագունիցն, այլ եւ զկնի եղելոցն զՄիածնի Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ փրկչին ամենեցուն՝ ի լուսաբեր Աւետարանին իւրում ծաղկեցուցանէր զազնուականութիւնս, մանաւանդ երանութեամբ իսկ պսակէր ոչ միայն սեպհականացն

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

61

accordance with secular standards, such as that of Nimrod,* that of Samson,* and that of David.* 10 The innate wisdom of certain others is praised along with their divine wisdom, as that of Joseph in Egypt* and that of Daniel in Babylon.* 11 Some of them were counsellors to mighty kings,* [28] showing them the fundamentals of secular life while acquainting them with God, the ruler of all. 12 In praising their wisdom, the prophet speaks to someone as follows: ‘Are you perhaps wiser than Daniel, or that the wise in counselling have counselled you in their genius?’ [Ezek. 28:3]. 13 And not only this, but also the valour of the saints is praised in messages borne by the spiritual race,* for in their proclamation they were calling Daniel ‘much beloved’ [Dan. 9:23]* and the Holy Mother of the Lord in Galilee, ‘blessed among women’ [Luke 1:(26–8) 42].* 14 Why should we speak (only) of associates* who received praise from one another? There are those whose nobleness the Lord of All* lauded to the full. He brings not only their evident acts but also the secrets of their hearts into the open, to the attention of angels and people, 15 just as He revealed the servile courtesy of the hospitable Abraham towards the approaching angels; telling him, after he had received the good news, what He was about to do in Sodom.* 16 Similarly, He phrases the praise of the valiant martyr Job* prior to his contest with the one who wages war,* saying, ‘An honest, just, and godly man, one who abstains from all evil deeds’ [Job 1:8].* 17 As for the great Moses, his very intimate, deep devotion to God is acclaimed in all the ecclesiastical books.* His youthful enthusiasm is revealed in the divine Law; likewise, the counsel of the foreign Jethro is not overlooked in writing.* [30] 18 The good deeds of all the devout masters shine so strongly together, throughout the divinely written Law, and none is capable of remembering the full list of their blessed names. 19 He has inscribed in His light-­bearing Gospel the nobleness not only of those who came before but also of those who followed the only begotten Son of God,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

62

The Life of Mashtots‘

զերկոտասանիցն, եւ կամ զյառաջամուտ զԿարապետին, այլեւ զայլոց մատուցելոցն գովէ զհաւատոցն ճշմարտութիւն: 20  Քանզի զՆաթանայէլ «առանց նենգութեան» (Յովհ. Ա 47) նշանակէ եւ զթագաւորազին զմեծութիւն հաւատոցն՝ «անգիւտ յԻսրայէլի» (Մատթ. Ը 10) ասէ: 21  Բայց ոչ միայն զմեծամեծսն, այլ առաւել եւս զթեթեւագոյնսն բարձրագոյնս [առնէ] անարգամեծարն Քրիստոս, որ սակաւիկ ինչ զծախ իւղոյն յարգէ, եւ զծախելեացն յիշատակարան պատմեն «ամենայն ուրեք՝ առ ի ներքոյ երկնից» (Մատթ. ԻԶ 13): 22 Եւ զկնոջէն քանանացւոյ «մեծ զհաւատոցն» (Մատթ. ԺԵ 28) ասէ. նաեւ զդանկաց երկուց ընծայելոցն գովէ զարկանելեացն զյաւժարութիւն առաւել քան զմեծացն: 23  Իսկ Պաւղոսի ի մտի եդեալ էր շրջեցուցանել զքրիստոսադիր կարգացն պայծառութիւնն, «անաւթ ընտրութեան» (Գործք Թ 15) անուանեալ, անուանակիր յաշխարհի իւրոյ սքանչելի անուանն առնէ: 24  Վասն որոյ երանելոյն հայեցեալ ի շնորհացն բարձրութիւն առ իւրոյ մեծ աւրինացն եւ առ ամենայն սրբոցն, բարձրագոյն բարբառով ի փառատրութիւն դառնայ, եթէ՝ «Շնորհք Աստուծոյ, որ յամենայնի հռչակ հարկանէ զմէնջ ի Քրիստոս եւ զհոտ գիտութեան իւրոյ յայտնի առնէ մեւք յամենայն տեղիս» (Բ Կոր. Բ 14): 25 Ի վերայ այնորիկ ապա եւ զհամարձակագոյնն բերէ, թէ՝ «ո՞ կարէ բիծ դնել ընտրելոց Աստուծոյ» (Հռոմ. Ը 33): Եւ զայս աւճան ընկալեալ ի Տեառնէ երանելի առաքելոցն՝ զամենայն գործակցաց իւրեանց գրով նշանակել զքաջութիւնս: 26 Տեսանել զոմանց ի սուրբ Աւետարանին եւ զոմանց ի Գործս Առաքելոցն երանելոյն Ղուկասու մատենագրեալ. եւ իցեն որ ի Կաթուղիկէս առաքելոցն առաւելագոյնս ճանաչին: 27  Այլ Սրբոյն Պաւղոսի չորեքտասանեքումբք թղթովք պատմէ զիւր առաքելակիցս եւ նիզակակիցս, եւ ուրախակիցս իւր առնէ, եւ ի վախճանի թղթոցն ըստ իւրաքանչիւր ումեք յողջոյն կատարեալ՝ յանուանէ հարցանէ. եւ զուրումն յԱւետարանէ անտի նշանակէ զգովութիւնսն: 28  Բայց ո՛չ միայն զերանելւոյն զաւգնականութիւնսն յարգէ, այլ եւ զքրիստոսամեծար ասպնջականիցն իւրոց՝ բազում գովութիւնս փոխանակ մեծարանացն կարգէ, վասն որոյ եւ յաղաչանս առ Աստուած մատուցեալ՝ զփոխարէն բարեացն հատուցանել հայցէ: 29 Եւ ամենայն եկեղեցեաւք հնչեցուցանէ զընտրելոցն զազնուականութիւն, ոչ միայն զարանցն, այլեւ զկանանցն աշակերտելոց, որ զճշմարտութիւնն Աւետարանէն:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

63

the Saviour of all. He not only crowns with blessedness his special Twelve* and the Forerunner* who preceded, but also praises the sincere faith of others who drew near. 20 For He refers to Nathanael as ‘someone without guile’ [John 1:47], and remarks about the royal officer’s overwhelming faith that is ‘not found in Israel’ [Matt. 8:10]. 21 Christ who honours the despised ones exalts not just the greater things, but more so the lesser. He thinks highly of the pouring of a little ointment and (declares) that the memory of those who poured it ‘should be told everywhere under heaven’ [Matt. 26:13].* 22 Moreover, He speaks of the Canaanite woman’s ‘great faith’ [Matt. 15:28],* and also praises the voluntary offering of two mites over and above the large (offerings).* 23 As for Paul, who was determined to spread the luminous tenets established by Christ, he was called ‘a chosen vessel’ [Acts 9:15] picked up to uphold the name, His wondrous name, in the world. 24 Therefore the blessed one, considering the prominence of grace, the grand precepts given to him and to all the saints, resorts to glorifying with the loudest voice, (saying) that ‘it is the grace of God that makes us rep­ut­ able in all things in Christ and manifests through us the fragrance of His knowledge everywhere’ [2 Cor. 2:14]. 25 He then adds, even more boldly: ‘Who can blame the chosen of God?’ [Rom. 8:33]. And certain of the blessed apostles received such an endorsement from the Lord, [32] to write about the valour of all their fellow workers. 26 That of some is seen in the holy Gospel, and that of others in the Acts of the Apostles written by the blessed Luke. And there are certain others who are better known by way of the Catholic (Letter)s of the Apostles.* 27 Moreover, in his fourteen letters Saint Paul speaks of his fellow apostles and fellow soldiers,* and considers those who rejoice with him—­greeting them individually and inquiring about them by name at the conclusion of his letters; and to certain of them he ascribes praise from the Gospel. 28 He not only acknowledges the helpfulness of the blessed one(s), but also cites much praise in response to the courtesies of his Christ-­honouring hosts. For this reason, in petitions made to God, he asks that their favours be recompensed; 29 and through all the churches he trumpets the nobleness of the elect—­not just that of the men, but also that of the women disciples,* those who preach the truth.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

64

The Life of Mashtots‘

30  Եւ զայս ամենայն աւետարանեալ ոչ ի պարծանս գովութեան, այլ զի աւրինակ եւ կանոն զկնի եկելոցն պաշտիցի. որպէս ի նոյն իսկ զի բարեաց գործոց նախանձաւոր լինել ամենեցուն ստիպէ ասելովն, թէ՝ «Զհե՛տ երթայք սիրոյ. եւ նախանձաւոր լինել ամենեցուն հոգեւորացն» (Ա Կոր. ԺԴ 1): 31  Որոց զյաւժարութիւն Աքայեցւոց վասն պաշտաման սրբոցն ի Մակեդոնիա պատմեալ՝ նախանձեցուցեալ յորդորեաց: 32 Այլեւ համարձակութիւն իսկ տայ անխափան ի բարեացն առաքինութիւն, թէ՝ «Լաւ է յամենայն ժամ նախանձել ի բարիս» (Գաղ. Դ 18): 33 Այլ եւ նմանաւղ իւր եւ Տեառն ստիպէ լինել: 34 Դարձեալ փութայ ամենեքումբք հանդերձ ըստ Քրիստոսի հետոցն վարել. «Հայեցարո՛ւք, ասէ, ի զաւրագլուխն հաւատոց, եւ ի կատարիչն Քրիստոս» (Եբր. ԺԲ 2): 35  Եւ դարձեալ, թէ՝ «Յիշեցէ՛ք զառաջնորդս ձեր, որք խաւսեցան զբանն Աստուծոյ. հայեցեալ յելս գնացից նոցա, նմանաւղք եղերուք հաւատոցն» (Եբր. ԺԳ 7): 36  Եւ միանգամայն, եթէ՝ «Զայս խորհեսցի իւրաքանչիւր ոք ի ձէնջ որ եւ ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս» (Փլպ. Բ 5): 37 Հանգոյն սմին եւ Ղուկաս յսկիզբն Առաքելագործ մատենին դնէ: 38  Իսկ ցանկալի Տեառնեղբայրն Յակոբոս, զհամաւրէն իսկ զգունդն սրբոց հանդերձ սրբասէր տերամբն յաւրինակ առեալ՝ ի թղթին իւրում ասէ, եթէ՝ «Աւրինակ առէք չարչարանաց եւ յերկայնմտութեան զմարգարէսն, որ խաւսեցան յանուն Տեառն. զհամբերութիւն Յոբայ լուարուք, եւ զկատարումն Տեառն տեսէք» (Յակ. Ե 10–11): 39  Յայտնի է այսուհետեւ ասացելովքս, եթէ գովութիւն ամենայն աստուածասէր ընտրելոցն ի Տեառնէ է, որ՝ ի հրեշտակաց, որ՝ առ ի միմեանց, ոչ ի պարծանս անձանց, այլ առ ի նախանձուկս միմեանց արկանելոյ, զի միմեամբք քաջալերեալք՝ հասանիցեմք ի բարեացն կատարումն՝ ի նշանակեալ նպատակն երանելւոյն Պաւղոսի, եթէ՝ «Միաբան հասանել ի չափ հասակին Քրիստոսի» (Եփես. Դ 13): 40 «Որոյ ազատութիւնն յերկինս է, ակն ունել փրկչին մեծին Աստուծոյ» (Փլպ. Գ 20): 41 Ունիմք եւ զկանոնական յաջորդեալ յառաքելոցն անտի զշնորհապատում գրեալսն, եթէ ո՛րպէս մեծարեալք ի միմեանց, գովեալք ըստ ճշմարիտ հաւատոյն եւ ըստ աւետարանագործ կրաւնից, մինչեւ ցայսաւր ժամանակի նովին սովորութեամբ վարին:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

65

30 And he has declared all this not for the exaltation of praise but so that it may serve as an example and a rule to be followed by those who were to come later.* In order to compel even all to become zealous for good works, he says, ‘Pursue love and be zealous for all the spiritual gifts’ [1 Cor. 14:1]. 31 When speaking in Macedonia about the willingness of the Achaeans to serve the saints, he exhorts (all) to show (similar) zeal.* 32 Moreover, he challenges (all) to pursue the good things of virtue without wavering, saying, ‘It is always good to be zealous for good things’ [Gal. 4:18]. 33 Furthermore, he urges (all) to emulate him and the Lord.* [34] 34 Again, he hastens with them all to follow in the footsteps of Christ. ‘Look,’ he says, ‘at Christ, the captain and the perfecter of faith’ [Heb. 12:2]. 35 And again: ‘Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God, observe their course, be emulators of their faith’ [Heb. 13:7]. 36 And finally: ‘Let each of you who is in Christ Jesus think of this’ [Phil. 2:5]. 37 Luke states something similar to this at the beginning of his book on the Acts of the Apostles.* 38 Whereas the beloved James, the brother of the Lord, citing as example the whole assembly of the saints along with the Lord, lover of saints, says in his Letter, ‘Take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, for an ex­ample of suffering and forbearance. Give heed to Job’s patience and see the Lord’s conclusion’ [Jas. 5:10–11].* 39 It is therefore evident from what has been said that praise of all the God-­loving elect is from the Lord Himself, some from angels, and some from one to another; not for personal pride, but to prompt one another to zeal, so that being encouraged by one another, we may attain to the accomplishment of good works, the aim indicated by the blessed Paul, namely, ‘to attain together to the measure of the stature of Christ’ [Eph. 4:13], 40 ‘(we), whose freedom is in heaven; to wait for the Saviour, the great God’ [Phil. 3:20].* 41 We have also the gracious, post-­canonical writings from after the Apostles,* indicating how they were honoured by one another,* were praised for their true faith and Gospel-­oriented piety. They abide by the same custom to this day and age.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

66

The Life of Mashtots‘

42  Եւ արդ առեալ յերկոցունց համարձակութիւն ի գիր արկանել եւ զվարս առն արդարոյ: 43  Արդ այսուհետեւ եւ խոստացեալն առաջի դիցի, եւ հայրենակատար մեծարեալ պայմանաւ որ առ ի մէնջ՝ հաճեսցի, եւ նոցա քաղցրատուր հրաման հատուցեալ զարդարեսցի:

3. [Գ] 1  Առն, զոր ի նախակարգ բանիս նշանակեմք, վասն որոյ եւ  փոյթ արարեալ մեր պատմելոյ, էր Մաշթոց անուն, ի Տարաւնական գաւառէն, ի Հացեկաց գեղջէ, որդի առն երանելւոյ Վարդան կոչեցելոյ: 2  Ի մանկութեան տիսն վարժեալ հելլենական դպրութեամբն, եկեալ հասեալ ի դուռն Արշակունեաց թագաւորաց Հայոց Մեծաց, կացեալ յարքունական դիւանին, լինել սպասաւոր արքայատուր հրամանանացն առ հազարապետութեամբն աշխարհիս Հայոց՝ Առաւանայ ուրումն: 3  Տեղեկացեալ եւ հմուտ եղեալ աշխարհական կարգաց, ցանկալի եղեալ զինուորական արուեստիւն իւրոց զաւրականացն: 4  Եւ անդէն ուշ եդեալ փութով ընթերցուածոց աստուածեղէն գրոց, որով առ ժամայն լուսաւորեալ եւ թեւամուխ միջամուխ եղեալ յաստուածատուր հրամանացն հանգամանս, եւ ամենայն պատրաստութեամբ զանձն զարդարեալ, հարկանէր զիշխանացն սպասաւորութիւնսն:

4. [Դ] 1  Եւ յետ այնորիկ ըստ աւետարանական չափուցն՝ ի ծառայութիւն Աստուծոյ մարդասիրին դարձեալ, մերկանայր այնուհետեւ զիշխանակիր ցանկութիւնսն, եւ առեալ զխաչն պարծանաց՝ ելանէր զկնի ամենակեցոյց խաչելոյն: 2  Եւ հաճեալ հրամանացն՝ ի խաչակիր գունդն Քրիստոսի խառնէր, եւ անդէն վաղվաղակի ի միայնակեցական կարգ մտանէր: 3  Բազում եւ ազգի ազգի վշտակեցութիւն ըստ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

67

42 And now, being prompted by them both,* let us begin to commit to writing the life of the just man. [36] 43 Now, that which has been promised shall henceforth be proffered;* and may our finite honouring of the departed father be acceptable; and may their kindly laid demand be fulfilled befittingly.

3.  [BIRTH AND UPBRINGING OF MASHTOTS ‘] 1 The man whom we singled out in our preliminary words, whose story we are eager to tell, was named Mashtots‘.* (He was) from the district of Tarōn,* from the village of Hats‘ekats‘,* the son of a blessed man named Vardan.* 2 From childhood he had been tutored in Hellenic learning, and having reached the court of the Arsacid kings of Greater Armenia,* served in the royal chancellery as an executor of the royal commands during the chancellorship* of a certain Ar˙awan* in the land of Armenia. 3 He was well versed and proficient in civil law, and was esteemed by his fellow servicemen for his military skill. 4 And thereon he devoted himself quite eagerly to the reading of the divine books, by which he was promptly enlightened; he was deeply immersed, submerged in the particulars of the God-­given commands. And having equipped himself with every preparation, he rendered his services to the princes.*

4.  [SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT] [38] 1 And subsequently, in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel, he turned to the service of God the lover of humankind. From  then on, having rid himself of the controlling passions and taken up the exalted cross,* he followed the all-­sustaining Crucified.* 2 And in compliance with the mandates (of the Gospel), he enlisted in  the cross-­bearing legion of Christ and soon joined an order of ­solitaries.* 3 He endured many and diverse hardships in everything,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

68

The Life of Mashtots‘

Աւետարանին կրէր ամենայն իրաց. ամենայն կրթութեամբ հոգեւորացն զանձն տուեալ՝ միայնաւորութեան, լեռնակեցութեան, քաղցի եւ ծարաւոյ եւ բանջարաճաշակութեանց, արգելանաց անլուսից, խարազնազգեստ եւ գետնատարած անկողնոց: 4  Եւ բազում անգամ զհեշտական հանգիստ գիշերոյն եւ զհարկ քնոյ՝ յոտնաւոր տքնութեան ի թաւթափել ական վճարէր: 5 Եւ զայս ամենայն առնէր ոչ սակաւ ժամանակս: 6  Եւ գտեալ եւս զոմանս՝ յինքն յարեցուցանէր՝ աշակերտեալ նմին սովորական աւետարանութեան: 7  Եւ այնպէս ամենայն փորձութեանց ի վերայ հասելոց կամայական քաջութեամբ տարեալ եւ պայծառացեալ՝ ծանաւթական եւ հաճոյ լինէր Աստուծոյ եւ մարդկան:

5. [Ե] 1  Առեալ այնուհետեւ երանելւոյն զհաւատացեալս իւր, դիմեալ իջանէր յանկարգ եւ յանդարման տեղիս Գողթան: 2  Այլ եւ ընդ առաջ ելանէր նմա իշխանն Գողթան, այր երկիւղած եւ աստուածասէր, որում անուն էր Շաբիթ, եւ ասպնջական հիւրամեծար գտեալ՝ բարեպաշտութեամբ սպասաւորէր ըստ աշակերտաց հաւատոցն Քրիստոսի: 3 Իսկ երանելւոյն վաղվաղակի զաւետարանական արուեստն ի մէջ առեալ, ձեռն արկանէր զգաւառովն հանդերձ միամիտ սատարութեամբ իշխանին. գերեալ զամենեսեան ի հայրենեաց աւանդելոց, եւ ի սատանայական դիւապաշտ սպասաւորութենէն՝ ի հնազանդութիւն Քրիստոսի մատուցանէր: 4 Եւ յորժամ ի նոսա զբանն կենաց սերմանեալ, յայտնի իսկ բնակչաց գաւառին նշանք մեծամեծք երեւէին, կերպակերպ նմանութեամբ դիւացն փախստական լինելով՝ անկանէին ի կողմանս Մարաց: 5  Նոյնպէս առաւել հոգ ի մտի արկանէր զհամաշխարհականս սփոփելոյ. եւ առաւել աղաւթս մշտնջենամռունչս եւ բազկատարած պաղատանս առ Աստուած եւ արտասուս անդադարս, զմտաւ ածելով զառաքելականն, եւ ասէր հոգալով. «Տրտմութիւն է ինձ եւ անպակաս ցաւք սրտի իմոյ, վասն եղբարց իմոց եւ ազգականաց» (Հռոմ. Թ 2–3):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

69

in accordance with the Gospel. He subjected himself to every spiritual dis­cip­line: solitariness, solitude in the mountains, hunger and thirst, feeding on herbs, the dark cells, wearing sackcloth, and having the floor for a bed. 4 Very often, in the blink of an eye, he would exchange a night’s refreshing rest and the necessity of sleep for a vigil, standing. 5 And he did all this not a few times. 6 And having found some others, he made them adhere to him in discipleship for the same broad evangelization. 7 And thus, bearing with a wilful courage all the temptations that came upon him, and waxing in radiance, he became known and pleasing to God and men.*

5.  [FIRST MISSION TO GO GHT ‘N] [40] 1 From then on, taking his faithful (followers) along, the blessed one went to the lawless and incorrigible regions of Goght‘n.* 2 The prince of Goght‘n, whose name was Shabat‘,* a reverent and God-­loving man, went out to meet him. He was found to be courteous and hospitable, and served him devoutly, as befits disciples professing Christ. 3 As for the blessed one, embarking immediately upon the art of evangelism, he set out across the district with the unwavering support of the prince. Capturing them all away from their ancestral traditions and the servitude to satanic idolatry, he brought them to obedience to Christ.* 4 And when he had sowed the word of life among them, great wonders were clearly revealed to the inhabitants of the district: demons with varied appearances vanished, they moved to the region of the Medes.* 5 He likewise resolved to have greater concern for the con­ sola­tion of the entire population of the land; so he had more groaning prayers to God, petitions made with outstretched arms and ceaseless tears,* bearing in mind the apostolic (words) and saying with concern, ‘I am grieved and my heartache for my brothers and kin is endless’ [Rom. 9:2–3].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

70

The Life of Mashtots‘

6  Եւ այնպէս տրտմական հոգովք պաշարեալ եւ թակարդապատեալ եւ անկեալ ի ծուփս խորհրդոց, եթէ որպիսի՛ արդեաւք ելս իրացն գտանիցէ:

6. [Զ] 1  Եւ իբրեւ աւուրս բազումս անդէն ի նմին դեգերէր, յարուցեալ այնուհետեւ հասանէր առ սուրբ կաթուղիկոսն Հայոց Մեծաց, որոյ անունն ճանաչէր Սահակ, զոր պատրաստական գտանէր նմին փութոյ հաւանեալ: 2  Եւ միանգամայն յաւժարութեամբ գումարեալ հանդերձ աղաւթիւք մեծաւք առ Աստուած կանխէին, վասն ամենայն ոգւոց քրիստոսաբեր փրկութեանն հասանելոյն: 3  Եւ զայն առնէին աւուրս բազումս: 4  Ապա ելանէր նոցա պարգեւական յամենաբարին Աստուծոյ ժողովել զաշխարհահոգ խորհուրդն երանելի միաբանելոցն, եւ ի գիւտ նշանագրաց Հայաստան ազգին հասանել: 5  Բազում հարցափորձի եւ քննութեան զանձինս պարապեցուցեալ եւ բազում աշխատութեանց համբերեալ, ազդ առնէին ապա եւ զկանխագոյն խնդրելին իւրեանց թագաւորին Հայոց, որոյ անուն կոչէր Վռամշապուհ: 6  Յայնժամ պատմէր նոցա արքայն վասն առն ուրումն ասորւոյ եպիսկոպոսի ազնուականի՝ Դանիէլ անուն կոչեցելոյ, որոյ յանկարծ ուրեմն գտեալ նշանագիրս աղփաբետաց հայերէն լեզուի: 7  Եւ իբրեւ պատմեցաւ նոցա յարքայէ վասն գտելոյն ի Դանիէլէ, յաւժարեցին զարքայ՝ փոյթ առնել վասն պիտոյիցն այնոցիկ: 8  Եւ նա առաքէր զոմն Վահրիճ անուն հրովարտակաւք առ այր մի երէց, որոյ անուն Հաբէլ կոչէին, որ էր մերձաւոր Դանիէլի ասորւոյ եպիսկոպոսի: 9  Իսկ Հաբէլին զայն լուեալ, փութանակի հասանէր առ Դանիէլն, եւ նախ ինքն տեղեկանայր ի Դանիէլէ նշանագրացն, եւ ապա առեալ ի նմանէ առաքէր առ արքայն յերկիրն Հայոց: 10  Ի հինգերորդի ամի թագաւորութեան նորա ի նա հասուցանէր: 11  Իսկ արքային հանդերձ միաբան սրբովքն Սահակաւ եւ Մաշթոցիւ՝ ընկալեալ զնշանագիրսն ի Հաբէլէն, ուրախ լինէին:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

71

6 He was thus surrounded and entrapped by grave concerns and submerged under a tide of thoughts, as to how he might find a solution to the matter.

6.  [CATHOLICOS SAHAK AND KING VR˙ AMSHAPUH LEND THEIR SUPPORT; THE ALPHABET OF BISHOP DANIEL OBTAINED AND REJECTED] [42] 1 After mulling over the same thing for many days there, he arose and came to the holy Catholicos of Greater Armenia whose name was Sahak,* whom he found predisposed, cherishing the same concern. 2 They teamed up amiably and resorted to God in earnest prayers that all souls may attain the salvation brought by Christ. 3 And they did this for many days. 4 Those blessed, like-­minded ones with overwhelming concerns, coming together to invent letters to bring to the Armenian nation, were then visited with favour from the most gracious God.* 5 After having occupied themselves with much probing and examining, and having endured much toil, they disclosed their long-­sought objective to the king of Armenia whose name was Vr˙amshapuh.* 6 Thereupon the king told them of a certain nobleman, a Syrian bishop named Daniel, who recently happened to possess alphabetic characters for the Armenian language.* 7 And when [44] the king told them about Daniel’s possession, they prevailed upon the king to take quick interest in these essential things. 8 And he sent someone named Vahrich* with official messages to a certain man, a priest whose name was Habēl, who was a relative of the Syrian bishop Daniel. 9 As for Habēl, upon hearing it, he hastened to Daniel and had himself familiarized first hand by Daniel about the letters; then, taking them from him, he sent them to the king in the land of Armenia.* 10 They reached him in the fifth year of his reign.* 11 As for the king, upon receiving the letters from Habēl, he rejoiced together with the like-­minded saints, Sahak and Mashtots‘.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

72

The Life of Mashtots‘

12  Իսկ իբրեւ ի վերայ հասեալ, թէ չեն բաւական նշանագիրքն՝ ողջ ածել զսիւղոբայս զկապս հայերէն լեզւոյն, մանաւանդ զի եւ նշանագիրքն իսկ յայլոց դպրութեանց քաղեալք եւ յարուցեալք դիպեցան, յետ այնորիկ դարձեալ կրկին անգամ ի նոյն հոգս դառնային, եւ նմին ելս խնդրէին ժամանակս ինչ:

7. [Է] 1 Վասն որոյ առեալ երանելոյն Մաշթոցի դաս մի մանկտոյ հրամանաւ արքայի եւ միաբանութեամբ սրբոյն Սահակայ, եւ հրաժարեալք ի միմեանց համբուրիւ սրբութեանն՝ խաղայր գնայր ի հինգերորդ ամի Վռամշապհոյ արքային Հայոց, եւ երթեալ հասանէր ի կողմանս Արամի՝ ի քաղաքս երկուս Ասորոց. որոց առաջինն Եդեսիա կոչի, եւ երկրորդին Ամիդ անուն: 2 Ընդդէմ լինէր սուրբ եպիսկոպոսացն, որոց առաջնոյն Բաբիլաս անուն եւ երկրորդին Ակակիոս. հանդերձ կղերականաւքն եւ իշխանաւքն քաղաքաց պատահեալ, եւ բազում մեծարանս ցուցեալ հասելոցն՝ ընդունէին հոգաբարձութեամբ ըստ Քրիստոսի անուանելոցն կարգի: 3 Իսկ աշակերտասէր վարդապետին զտարեալսն ընդ իւր յերկուս բաժանեալ, զոմանս յասորի դպրութիւնն կարգէր [ի քաղաքին Եդեսացւոց], եւ զոմանս ի յունական դպրութիւնն՝ անտի ի Սամուսատական քաղաքն գումարէր:

8. [Ը] 1  Եւ նորա իւրովք հաւասարաւք զսովորականն առաջի եդեալ զաղաւթս եւ զտքնութիւնս եւ զպաղատանս արտասուալից, զխստամբերութիւնս, զհոգս զաշխարհահեծս, յիշելով զասացեալսն մարգարէին, եթէ՝ «Յորժամ հեծեծեսցես, յայնժամ կեցցես» (Ես. Լ 15): 2  Եւ այնպէս բազում աշխատութեանց համբերեալ վասն իւրոյ ազգին բարեաց ինչ աւճան գտանելոյ: 3 Որում պարգեւէր իսկ վիճակ յամենաշնորհողէն Աստուծոյ. հայրական չափուն

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

73

[46] 12 But when it was realized that these letters were insufficient to convey fully the syllabic sounds* of the Armenian language, especially since these letters were found to have been gleaned and re­covered from other literatures,* once again they were thrown back into the same concern; and they were seeking a solution to it for some time.*

7.  [EDUCATIONAL JOURNEY WITH DISCIPLES TO SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA] 1 Consequently, taking with him a group of young men, with the authorization of the king and the consent of Saint Sahak, the blessed Mashtots‘ took leave with a holy kiss and departed in the fifth year of Vṙamshapuh,* king of Armenia. He came to the region of Aram, to two Syrian cities,* the first of which was called Edessa* and the second Amid* by name. 2 He presented himself to the holy bishops, the first of whom was named Babilas* and the second Akakios.* The clergy with the rulers of the cities came out together and showed great respect to the visitors, receiving them with solicitude, according to the custom of those named after Christ. 3 As for the teacher fond of disciples, dividing those whom he brought with him into two (groups), assigned some to Syriac learning (there)* and sent the others from there* to the city of Samosata for Greek learning.*

8.  [THE INVENTION OF THE ARMENIAN ALPHABET; THE BEGINNING OF BIBLE TRANSLATION] [48] 1 With his co-­equals he kept up the usual prayers, the vigils, the tearful pleadings, the life of austerity, and the concern for the groaning world,* remembering the saying of the prophet: ‘When you groan, then you shall live’ [Isa. 30:15]. 2 Thus he endured much toil in order to find some relief for the good of his nation. 3 And God the All-­bountiful granted him that good fortune; for by his sacred right hand he attained the stature of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

74

The Life of Mashtots‘

ծնեալ ծնունդս նորոգ եւ սքանչելի՝ սուրբ աջովն իւրով, նշանագիրս հայերէն լեզուին: 4  Եւ անդ վաղվաղակի նշանակեալ, անուանեալ եւ կարգեալ, յաւրինէր սիղոբայիւք կապաւք: 5  Եւ ապա հրաժարեալ յեպիսկոպոսէն սրբոյ, հանդերձ աւգնականաւք իւրովք իջանէր ի քաղաքն Սամոսատացւոց, յորում մեծապատիւ իսկ յեպիսկոպոսէն եւ յեկեղեցւոյն մեծարեալ լինէր: 6 Եւ անդէն ի նմին քաղաքի գրիչ ոմն հելլենական դպրութեան Հռոփանոս անուն գտեալ, որով զամենայն ընտրութիւնս նշանագրացն զնրբագոյնն եւ զլայնագոյնն, զկարճն եւ զերկայնն, զառանձինն եւ զկրկնաւորն, միանգամայն յաւրինեալ եւ յանկուցեալ, ի թարգմանութիւն դառնային հանդերձ արամբք երկուք, աշակերտաւքն իւրովք. որոց առաջնոյն Յովհան անուն կոչէին, յԵկեղեաց գաւառէն, եւ երկրորդին Յովսէփ անուն՝ ի Պաղանական տանէն: 7 Եւ եդեալ սկիզբն թարգմանելոյ զգիրս նախ յԱռակացն Սողոմոնի, որ ի սկզբանն իսկ ծանաւթս իմաստութեանն ընծայեցուցանէ լինել, ասելով՝ եթէ «Ճանաչել զիմաստութիւն եւ զխրատ, իմանալ զբանս հանճարոյ» (Ա 2): 8 Որ եւ գրեցաւ ձեռամբն այնորիկ գրչի, հանդերձ ուսուցանելով զմանկունս գրիչս նմին դպրութեան:

9. [Թ] 1 Ապա յետ այնորիկ առնոյր թուղթս յեպիսկոպոսէ քաղաքին եւ հրաժարեալ ի նոցանէ հանդերձ ամենայն իւրովքն, բերէր առ եպիսկոպոսն Ասորոց: 2  Որ յորոց նախընկալն եղեւ, առաջի արկեալ նոցա զնշանագիրս աստուածատուրս. վասն որոյ բազում իսկ գովութիւնք յեպիսկոպոսաց սրբոց եւ յամենայն եկեղեցեաց բարձրանային ի փառս Աստուծոյ, եւ ի մխիթարութիւն աշակերտելոցն ոչ սակաւք: 3  Յորոց հրաժարեալք այնուհետեւ եւ առեալ թուղթս աւետագիրս, հանդերձ շնորհատուր պարգեւաւքն եւ ամենայն իւրայիւքն, ի շնորհացն Աստուծոյ ճանապարհորդ լինէր. զաւթեւանաւք անցեալ աջողութեամբ եւ հոգելից ուրախութեամբ եկեալ հասանէր ի Հայաստան աշխարհն, ի կողմանս Այրարատեան գաւառին, առ սահմանաւք Նոր Քաղաքին, ի վեցերորդ ամի Վռամշապհոյ արքային Հայոց Մեծաց:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

75

fatherhood, begetting new and wonderful offspring—­the letters of the  Armenian language.* 4 And immediately he inscribed, named, and arranged (them) there,* correlating (them) with the syllabic sounds.* 5 Then taking leave of the holy bishop,* he went along with his helpers to the city of Samosata, where he was regarded with great respect by the bishop and the church. 6 Having found there in the same city a certain scribe of Hellenic learning named R˙ hop‘anos,* by whom all the variations of the letters, the narrow and the broad, the short and the long, the single and [50] the doubled* were duly shaped and finalized, he turned to translating together with the two men, his disciples: the first of whom was named Yovhan, from the district of Ekegheats‘,* and the second named Yovsep‘, from the House of Paghan.* 7 And thus began the translation of the Scriptures, beginning with the Proverbs of Solomon, which, even from the outset, proposes becoming familiar with wisdom, saying: ‘To know wisdom and counsel, to discern words of prudence’ [1:2],* 8 which were penned by the hand of that scribe while the youth were being trained as scribes in that very learning.

9.  [RETURN TO ARMENIA WITH THE NEWLY-­ INVENTED ALPHABET] 1 Then, obtaining letters from the bishop of the city and taking leave of them, with all those of his company he returned to the Syrian bishop. 2 He laid the God-­given alphabet before those by whom he was welcomed earlier, whereupon much praise from the holy bishops and all the churches ascended to the glory of God and no less to cheer on the disciples. 3 Afterwards, receiving letters of salutation and graciously given gifts, with all those of his company he took leave of them. He journeyed by the grace of God, passing safely through the lodges, and with spiritual joy he arrived in the land of Armenia, in the regions of the district of Ayrarat,* near the boundaries of Nor K‘aghak‘,* in the sixth year of Vr˙ amshapuh, king of Greater Armenia.*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

76

The Life of Mashtots‘

4 Եւ ոչ այնպէս մեծն Մովսէս զուարճանայր յէջս Սինէական լերինն. չասեմք թէ առաւելաւքն՝ պակասագոյն: 5  Քանզի յԱստուծոյ առեալ եւ աստուածագիր հրաման ի բազուկս՝ այրն աստուածատես ի լեռնէն իջանէր. այլ վասն վրէժագործ ժողովրդեանն, որոց թիկունք ի տէրունիսն եւ կործան յերկիր, տիրադրուժք յիւրեանց կուռս ձուլածուին երկիր պագանէին, եւ զնորին հրամանաբերն սրտառուչ սրտաբեկ լացուցին. քանզի ի տախտակացն խորտակելոց յայտնի եղեալ տեսանէք բերելւոյն թախծութիւնն: 6  Իսկ այսր երանելւոյ՝ վասն որոյ ճառեալքս յարդարին, ոչ ըստ այնմ աւրինակի, որ անդն գործեցան, այլ ինքն իւրով լցեալ հոգեւոր մխիթարութեամբ՝ կարծեալ զընդունելեացն յաւժարութիւնն եւ ընդունելեացն յուսով ուրախութեան՝ դասաւորութիւն ճանապարհացն աւետաբեր: 7  Բայց մի՛ ոք յանդգնագոյն վասն ասացելոցն զմեզ համարեսցի, թէ զիարդ զայր մի խոնարհագոյն ընդ մեծին Մովսէսի, ընդ աստուածախաւսին, սքանչելագործին նմանեցուցեալ հաւասարեաց. որով թերեւս ստգտանիցեմք: 8 Եւ կարեմք այլ աւելի հաւատովք. քանզի եւ չկայ ինչ ի վերայ յայտնեաւք եւ ծածկականաւք զաստուածականն խոտել, քանզի միոյն Աստուծոյ ամենազաւրի շնորհք առ ամենայն ազգս երկրածնաց մատակարարին: 9  Եւ արդ եկեալ յիշելին մերձ ի թագաւորական քաղաքն, ազդ լինէր թագաւորին եւ սրբոյ եպիսկոպոսին: 10  Որոց առեալ զամենայն նախարարագունդ աւագանւոյն ամբոխ, ի քաղաքէն ելեալ՝ պատահէին երանելւոյն զափամբ Ռահ գետոյն: 11  Եւ զցանկալի ողջոյնն միմեանց տուեալ, ուստի եւ բարբառաւք ցնծութեան եւ երգաւք հոգեւորաւք եւ բարձրագոյն աւրհնութեամբք ի քաղաքն դառնային, եւ զաւուրս տաւնական ուրախութեամբ անցուցանէին:

10. [Ժ] 1 Ապա առեալ երանելի հոգաբարձուացն զյանկարծագիւտ խնդրելին, հայցէին եւս յարքայէ մանկունս մատաղս, որով զնշանագիրսն արծարծել մարթասցեն: 2 Եւ յորժամ բազումք ի նոցանէ տեղեկանային, ապա հրաման տայր ամենայն

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

77

[52] 4 Even the magnificent Moses was not as joyous during his descent from Mount Sinai.* We cannot say that his (joy) was greater, for it was much less. 5 For when the man who had seen God was descending from the mountain with the commandments inscribed and given by God in his arms, the vengeful people—­who had turned their backs to things of the Lord and had corrupted the earth by rejecting the Lord and by bowing down to their molten idol—­caused the bearer of His commandments to weep bitterly with a broken heart. For the despair of the bearer became visibly evident in the shattered tablets. 6 But as for this blessed one, concerning whom our oration is composed, he did not act in that manner, as had transpired there.* On the contrary, being filled with spiritual consolation, he was mulling over the eagerness of those who were to be the recipients; and with the anticipated joy of the recipients, the bearer of good news took to the network of roads. 7 Let no one consider us overly bold for what we have said, for which we may be censured. How could a very modest man be compared with the magnificent Moses, be made equal to the one who spoke with God and did wonders? 8 But we can, all the more so in the belief that whether in revealed or in hidden things there is nothing to fault the Deity for, since it is the grace of the one omnipotent God that is distributed to all earthborn nations. [54] 9 And now, as the one remembered* was approaching the royal city, the king and the holy bishop were informed. 10 Taking with them an entire throng, a contingent of senior nakharars,* they came out of the city and met the blessed one on the bank of the river R˙ ah,* 11 and after greeting one another longingly, amidst sounds of joy and the singing of spiritual hymns and loud doxologies, they returned to the city. And they passed the days in festive joy.*

10.  [DISSEMINATION OF LEARNING] [44.11–16] 1 Having their sought-­after objective* newly realized, the blessed superintendents then asked the king for young children through whom they might be able to disseminate the letters. 2 And when many of them had become versed, (the king) commanded that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

78

The Life of Mashtots‘

ուրեք նովին կրթել. որով եւ յաստիճան իսկ վարդապետութեան գեղեցիկ՝ երանելին հասանէր, եւ իբրեւ ամս երկու կարգեալ զվարդապետութիւն իւր, եւ նովին նշանագրովք տանէր: 3 Եւ այնպէս միջամուխ եղեալ հանգամանաւք աւրինապատգամացն, մինչեւ բնաւ արտաքոյ իւրեանց բնականութեանն զերծանել:

11. [ԺԱ] 1 Եւ ի ձեռն առեալ այնուհետեւ աստուածագործ մշակութեամբ զաւետարանական արուեստն՝ ի թարգմանել, ի գրել եւ յուսուցանել. մանաւանդ հայեցեալ ի տեառնաբարբառ հրամանացն բարձրութիւնն, որ առ երանելին Մովսէս եկեալ, վասն ամենայն իրացն եղելոց, յաստուածեղէն պատգամացն բարձրութիւն աւանդելոցն՝ մատենագրել առ ի պահեստ յաւիտեանցն որ գալոցն էին. նոյնպիսիք եւ այլոց մարգարէիցն հրամայեալք: 2  «Առ, ասէ, քարտէզ նոր մեծ, եւ գրեա՛ ի նմա գրչաւ դպրի» (Ես. Ը 1): 3  Եւ այլուր, թէ՝ «Գրեա՛ զտեսիլդ ի տախտակի, եւ ի գիրս հաստատեա՛» (Ես. Լ 8, Ամբ. Բ 2): 4 Իսկ Դաւիթ յայտնապէս եւս վասն ամենայն ազգաց՝ զվիճակ աստուածատուր աւրինացն նշանակէ ասելովն, թէ` «Գրեսցի յազգ այլ» (Սաղմ. ՃԱ 19): 5  Եւ թէ՝ «Տէր պատմեսցէ գրովք ժողովրդոց» (Սաղմ. ՁԶ 6): 6  Զոր եկեալ կատարեաց ամենափրկիչն Քրիստոս շնորհատուր հրամանաւն, եթէ՝ «Ելէք ընդ ամենայն ազգս» (Մատթ. ԻԸ 19). եւ եթէ՝ «Քարոզեսցի Աւետարանս ընդ ամենայն տիեզերս» (Մատթ. ԻԴ 14): 7 Ուստի եւ երանելի հարցն մերոց համարձակութիւն առեալ՝ յուսալից փութով եւ երեւելի եւ արդիւնակատար ըստ Աւետարանին՝ զիւրեանց մշակութիւնն ցուցանեն: 8 Յայնմ ժամանակի երանելի եւ ցանկալի աշխարհս Հայոց անպայման սքանչելի լինէր. յորում յանկարծ ուրեմն աւրէնսուսոյց Մովսէս՝ մարգարէական դասիւն, եւ յառաջադէմն Պաւղոս՝ բովանդակ առաքելական գնդիւն, հանդերձ աշխարհակեցոյց Աւետարանաւն Քրիստոսի, միանգամայն եկեալ հասեալ ի ձեռն երկուց հաւասարելոցն՝ հայաբարբառք հայերէնախաւսք գտան:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

79

the same (letters) be taught everywhere.* Thus, the blessed one attained even the admirable rank of teacher,* and carried on his teaching for about two years with the use of the same letters.* [54.14–16] 3 They were so deeply absorbed by the particulars of the injunctions of the Law that they were completely disengaged from their external environment.*

11.  [REVIVAL IN ARMENIA THROUGH TRANSLATING, WRITING, AND TEACHING] 1 And from then on they gave themselves to the art of evangelism through the husbandry sanctioned by God: translating, writing, and teaching, especially since they gazed at the grandeur of the injunctions spoken by the Lord, which were given to the blessed Moses concerning all the things that were—­the grandeur of the transmitted divine commands that were inscribed in a book in order to be preserved until the advent of the eternal things.* Likewise the injunctions that had been instructed to the other prophets: 2 ‘Take a new, large parchment,’ he says, ‘and write on it with a pen [56] of a scribe’ [Isa. 8:1]. 3 And elsewhere: ‘Write the vision on a tablet and inscribe it in a book’ [Isa. 30:8; Hab. 2:2]. 4 As for David, he points out clearly the place of the God-­given Law for all nations, through the saying that ‘It shall be written for another nation’ [Ps. 102:18 (101:19 LXX)], 5 and that ‘The lord shall recount it in the writing of the people’ [Ps. 87:6 (86:6 LXX)],* 6 which Christ, the Saviour of all, fulfilled at his coming, by his gracious command: ‘Go to all nations’ [Matt. 28:19], and that ‘This gospel shall be preached in all the world’ [Matt. 24:14]. 7 Being thus constrained, through hopeful endeavour and in a noteworthy and fruitful way, our blessed fathers manifested their husbandry according to the Gospel.* 8 At that time our blessed and desirable land of Armenia became unquestionably wonderful; where at the hands of two associates—­as if suddenly—­Moses the teacher of the Law with the prophetic order and progressive Paul with the whole apostolic group, along with the world-­sustaining Gospel of Christ, came to be found in the Armenian tongue, became Armenian-­speaking.*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

80

The Life of Mashtots‘

9 Անդ էր այնուհետեւ սրտալիր ուրախութիւն եւ ակնավայել տեսիլ հայելւոյն: 10  Քանզի երկիր, որ համբաւուցն անգամ աւտար էր կողմանցն այնոցիկ, յորում ամենայն աստուածագործ սքանչելագործութիւնքն գործեցան, առժամայն վաղվաղակի ամենայն իրացն եղելոց խելամուտ լինէր. ոչ միայն ժամանակաւ պաշտեցելոցն, այլ եւ յառաջագոյն յաւիտենիցն, եւ ապա եկելոցն, սկզբանն եւ կատարածի, եւ ամենայն աստուածատուր աւանդութեանցն:

12. [ԺԲ] 1  Իսկ իբրեւ զչափ առեալ զիրացն հաստատութեան, եւ համարձակագոյն եւ առաւելագոյն զաշակերտութիւնն նորագիւտ վարդապետութեանն խմբէին ուսուցանել եւ թեքել, եւ պատրաստական քարոզութեանն անգէտ մարդկան յաւրինել: 2 Որոց եւ ինքեանք իսկ ի կողմանց եւ ի գաւառաց Հայաստան աշխարհին յորդեալք եւ դրդեալք հասանէին ի բացեալ աղբիւրն գիտութեանն Աստուծոյ: 3  Քանզի յԱյրարատեան գաւառին՝ ի կայս թագաւորացն եւ քահանայապետացն, բղխեցին Հայոց շնորհք պատուիրանացն Աստուծոյ: 4 Անդ էր յիշելի եւ մարգարէականն, եթէ՝ «Եղիցի անդ աղբիւր բղխեալ ի տան Դաւթի» (Ես. Լ 25, Զաք. ԺԳ 1): 5  Որ եւ սկսան իսկ սիւնք եկեղեցւոյ միջամուխ ձեռամբ զգործ աւետարանչացն Քրիստոսի գործել, գումարել ի կողմանս. ի գաւառս, ի տեղիս տեղիս Հայաստան ազգին, դասս դասս զաշակերտեալսն ճշմարտութեանն, զհասուցելոցս ի կատարումն գիտութեան, բաւականս եւ առ ի զայլսն զեկուցանելոյ: 6  Որոց կանոն եւ աւրինակ զիւրեանց անձանց արգասիս եդեալ, եւ պատուիրեալ կալ ի նմին կանոնի: 7 Եւ իւրեանց անդէն զ առընթերակաց արքունիսն, հանդերձ ամենայն ազատագունդ բանակիւն, աստուածեղէն իմաստութեամբն վարդապետեալ: 8  Առաւել երանելւոյն ՍահակայզՄամիկոնեանորեարնիվարժսվարդապետութեանն պարապեցուցեալ, որոց առաջնոյն Վարդան անուն էր, որ եւ Վարդկան կոչէր: 9 Նոյնպէս եւ զամենայն ոգի ջանայր յերիւրել, հասուցանել ի գիտութիւն ճշմարտութեան:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

81

9 What heart-­warming joy existed there from that time on, and what a pleasant sight for the eyes of the beholder. 10 For a land un­famil­iar even with the fame of those regions where all the miracles wrought by God had been performed, soon learned all the things that had taken place: not only those that had been venerated through time, but also those that were long before, from eternity, and those that are to come later—­the beginning and the end,* besides all the God-­given traditions.

12.  [FOUNDING OF SCHO OLS; MASHTOTS ‘ AND SAHAK DEFINE TASKS] [58] 1 And when they had assessed the soundness of things, they became increasingly emboldened in gathering more disciples for the newfound teaching,* to educate and train and form (them) in prep­ar­ ation for preaching to ignorant men.* 2 On their part they streamed in and were thrilled to come from all regions and districts of the land of Armenia to the flowing spring of divine knowledge. 3 For in the district of Ayrarat, at the royal and high-­priestly centres,* there gushed forth for the Armenians the grace of God’s commandments. 4 The prophetic (word) should be recalled at this point: ‘And there shall be a spring gushing forth for the House of David’ [Isa. 30:25; Zech. 13:1].* 5 Thus did the (two) pillars of the Church* begin to practise resolutely the role of the evangelists of Christ, to assemble in various places in the districts and regions of the Armenian nation groups upon groups of disciples of the truth, (deeming) those of us who had reached the culmination of learning as qualified to teach others. 6 To them they set* their personal accomplishments (as) a rule and ex­ample, bidding them to abide by that same rule. 7 And they duly instructed in the divine wisdom those associated with the royal court, along with the entire patrician contingent of the army.* 8 Moreover, the blessed Sahak kept busy instructing mainly the gentlemen of the Mamikoneans, the foremost of whom was named Vardan, who was also called Vardkan.* 9 Likewise he strove to edify everyone, to bring (all) to the knowledge of truth.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

82

The Life of Mashtots‘

13. [ԺԳ] 1  Յետ այնորիկ առնոյր հաւանութիւն երանելին Մաշթոց, որպէս զի տէր Եպիսկոպոսն ի կայենականսն, եւ նա ի սփիւռս հեթանոսաց զբանն կենաց սերմանիցեն: 2 Եւ հրաժարեալ ի նոցանէն հանդերձ աւգնականաւքն, որոց առաջնումն Տիրայր անուն ի Խորձենական գաւառէն, եւ երկրորդին Մուշէ անուն ի նահանգէ Տարաւնոյ, որք էին սուրբք եւ զուարթագոյնք, հանդերձ այլովք եւս սպասաւորաւք Աւետարանին, զոր չեմք բաւական ըստ անուանցն նշանակել: 3  Որովք յանձն եղեալ երանելին շնորհացն Աստուծոյ, երթեալ իջանէր յՌոտաստակն Գողթան, յառաջին դաստակերտն իւր: 4 Եւ անդ ընդելական սովորութեամբն ի կիր արկեալ զվարդապետութիւնն՝ հաւասարութեամբն բարեպաշտին Շաբաթայ, լի առնէր զգաւառն ողջունիւ Աւետարանին Քրիստոսի. եւ կարգէր յամենայն գիւղս գաւառին դասս սրբոց վանականաց: 5 Որում եւ հասեալ ժամանեալ հայրաբարուին Գտայ, որդւոյ Շաբաթայ առն քրիստոսասիրի, բազում սպասաւորութիւն իբրեւ հաւասարի որդւոյ վարդապետին տանէր:

14. [ԺԴ] 1  Յայնժամ վաղվաղակի հրաման առեալ ի թագաւորէն՝ սկիզբն առնելոյ զխուժադուժ կողմանսն Մարաց, որք ոչ միայն վասն դիւական սատանայակիր բարուցն ճիւաղութեան, այլ եւ վասն խեցբեկագոյն եւ խոշորագոյն լեզուին՝ դժուարամատոյցք էին: 2 Առ ի յարդարել եւ զնոցա հարուստ ամացն ծնունդս առեալ՝ պարզախաւսս, հռետորաբանս, կրթեալս, աստուածատուր իմաստութեանն ծանաւթս կացուցանէին:

15. [ԺԵ] 1  Ապա յետ այնորիկ ի սահմանակիցս ի Սիւնական աշխարհն ելանէր: 2 Եւ անդ աստուածասէր հնազանդութեամբ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

83

13.  [SECOND MISSION TO GO GHT ‘N] [60] 1 After this the blessed Mashtots‘ came to an agreement* that the lord bishop* would sow the word of life in the central encampments* and he himself among the dispersion of the heathen.* 2 And he took leave of them with his helpers, the first of whom was named Tirayr, from the district of Khordzean,* and the second, named Mushē, from the province of Tarōn,* who were both saintly and very diligent (men), and other servants of the Gospel whom we are unable to identify by name. 3 Trusting in God’s grace, the blessed one went with them to Ṙotastak in Goght‘n, his first territory.* 4 And expounding the doctrine in his usual manner there, in company with the pious Shabat‘,* he filled the district with the message of Christ’s Gospel and organized bands of holy ascetics* in all the villages of the district. 5 He was (soon) joined by Giwt, the son of the Christ-­loving Shabat‘,* who like his father rendered much service to the teacher—­as much as a son would (to his father).

14/10.  [MISSION TO MEDIAN TERRITORY] [54.9–14] 1 Soon thereafter he took permission from the king to begin in the unfamiliar regions of the Medes* who were difficult to approach, not only because of their demonic, satanic perversity of character, but also because of their very crude and harsh language. 2 Taking upon himself to refine such an offspring of countless gen­er­ ations, he made them coherent speakers, eloquent, educated, and knowledgeable of the God-­given wisdom.*

15/14.  [MISSION TO SIWNIK‘] 1 Afterwards he went to the adjacent land of Siwnik‘.* 2 There too he was welcomed with godly deference by the prince of Siwnik‘ whose

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

84

The Life of Mashtots‘

ընկալեալ զնա իշխանին Սիւնեաց, որ էր Վաղենակ անուն: 3  Բազում աւգնականութիւն գտեալ ի նմանէ վասն իրացն առաջի արկելոցն, մինչեւ հասանել նմա բովանդակ ի վերայ սահմանաց Սիւնեաց: 4  Եւ ժողովեալ մանկունս առ ի նիւթ վարդապետութեանն, առաւել զգազանամիտ զվայրենագոյն զճիւաղաբարոյ կողմանցն. եւ այնչափ փոյթ ի վերայ ունելով՝ եւ դայեկաբար սնուցանել եւ խրատել, մինչեւ ի նոցունց իսկ ի վայրենեացն եպիսկոպոս տեսուչ եկեղեցւոյն Սիւնեաց կարգել, որոյ անունն կոչէր Անանիաս, այր սուրբ եւ երեւելի, հայրաբարոյ ժառանգաւորաց եկեղեցւոյ: 5 Ապա եւ զերկիրն Սիւնեաց դասուք վանականաց լնոյր: 6  Յորում ժամանակի պարգեւեալ յԱստուծոյ, հասանէր ի գլուխ իշխանութեանն Սիւնեաց քաջն Սիսականն Վասակ, այր խորհրդական եւ հանճարեղ եւ յառաջիմաց, շնորհատուր իմաստութեամբն Աստուծոյ: 7  Բազում ինչ նպաստութիւն ցուցանէր աւետարանագործ վարդապետութեանն, իբրեւ որդւոյ առ հայր՝ հպատակութիւն ցուցեալ, եւ ծառայեալ ըստ Աւետարանին վայելչութեան, մինչ ի վախճան զհրամայեալսն ի գործ բերէր:

16. [ԺԶ] 1 Դարձեալ յետ ժամանակի ինչ ընդ մէջ անցելոյ՝ հոգ ի մտի արկանէր սիրելին Քրիստոսի եւ վասն բարբարոսական կողմանն: 2  Եւ առնոյր կարգեալ նշանագիրս վրացերէն լեզուին, ըստ շնորհեցելոյն նմա ի Տեառնէ: 3 Գրէր, կարգէր եւ աւրինաւք յարդարէր. եւ առնոյր ընդ իւր զոմանս լաւագոյնս յաշակերտաց իւրոց, յարուցեալ գնայր իջանել ի կողմանս Վրաց: 4 Եւ երթեալ յանդիման լինէր թագաւորին, որում անուն էր Բակուր, եւ եպիսկոպոսի աշխարհին՝ Մովսէս: 5  Եւ առաւելագոյն հնազանդեալ նմա ըստ աւրինացն Աստուծոյ՝ թագաւորին եւ զաւրացն, հանդերձ ամենայն գաւառաւքն: 6  Եւ նորա զիւր արուեստն առաջի արկեալ՝ խրատէր յորդորելով. յորում եւ յանձն առեալ ամենեցուն զխնդրելին կատարել: 7 Եւ գտեալ զայր մի թարգման վրացերէն լեզուին, որ անուանեալ կոչէր Ջաղայ, այր գրագէտ եւ ճշմարտահաւատ. հրաման տայր այնուհետեւ արքայն Վրաց՝ ի կողմանց

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

85

name was Vaghinak,* 3 from whom he received much help for the things that were proposed, enabling him to reach clear across the boundaries of Siwnik‘. 4 And for the doctrinal subjects, he gathered youths from the most wild, savage, and forbidding regions,* and he cared so much for them that he nurtured and counselled them like a foster-­father.* He even appointed an overseeing bishop for the church of Siwnik‘ from among those savages, whose name was Ananias,* a saintly, distinguished, and fatherly man for the heritors of the church. 5 He then filled the land of Siwnik‘ with bands of ascetics.* [62] 6 It was ordained by God that the valiant Vasak Sisakan,* a thoughtful, prudent, and perceptive man, endowed with the grace of divine wisdom, became head of the principality of Siwnik‘ at that time. 7 He showed ample support for the Gospel-­oriented teaching; showing submission, as a son to his father. And serving with gracefulness accordant with the Gospel, he carried out to the end all that was requested.

16/15.  [THE INVENTION OF THE GEORGIAN ALPHABET; FIRST MISSION TO GEORGIAN TERRITORY] 1 Again, after the passage of some time, the beloved of Christ thought of attending to foreign regions,* 2 and by the grace given him by God he undertook to arrange letters for the Georgian language.* 3 He wrote, arranged, and put them in proper order, and taking with him a few of his best disciples, he arose and went to the regions of Georgia.* 4 And he came and presented himself to the king, whose name was Bakur,* and to the bishop of the land, Moses.* 5 And the king, the army, along with all the districts, heeded him even more, in accordance with God’s Law. 6 He placed his skill at their disposal, counselling persuasively, until they all took upon themselves to carry out the sought-­after objective.* 7 And he found a translator to the Georgian language, a man by the name of Jaghay, a literate and devout man. Thereupon the king of Georgia commanded that youths be gathered from various

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

86

The Life of Mashtots‘

կողմանց եւ ի խառնաղանջ գաւառաց իշխանութեան իւրոյ ժողովել մանկունս եւ տալ ի ձեռն վարդապետին: 8  Զոր առեալ՝ արկանէր ի բովս վարդապետութեանն եւ հոգեւոր սիրոյն եռանդմամբ զաղտ եւ զժանգ շարաւահոտ դիւացն եւ զսնոտիագործ պաշտամանն ի բաց քերէր, այնչափ անջատեալ ի հայրենեաց իւրեանց եւ անյիշատակ ցուցանել, մինչեւ ասել, թէ՝ «Մոռացայ զժողովուրդ իմ եւ զտուն հաւր իմոյ» (Սաղմ. ԽԴ 11): 9 Եւ արդ զնոսա, որ յայնչափ ի մասնաւոր եւ ի բաժանեալ լեզուացն ժողովեցան, միով աստուածաբարբառ պատգամաւքն մի ազգ կապեալ՝ փառաբանիչք միոյ Աստուծոյ յաւրինէր: 10  Յորոց եւ գտան արժանիք՝ ելեալ ի կարգ եպիսկոպոսութեան վիճակ, որոց առաջինն Սամուէլ անուն, այր սուրբ եւ բարեպաշտաւն, եպիսկոպոս կացեալ տանն արքունականի: 11  Իսկ իբրեւ ընդ ամենայն տեղիս Վրաց կարգեալ զգործ աստուածպաշտութեանն, այնուհետեւ հրաժարեալ ի նոցանէ՝ դառնայր յերկիրն Հայոց եւ պատահեալ Սահակայ կաթուղիկոսին Հայոց, պատմէր նմա զողջութենէ եղելոցն, միանգամայն եւ փառաւոր առնելով զԱստուած, զմեծանունն Քրիստոս:

17. [ԺԷ] 1  Ապա դարձեալ ելանէր, շրջէր զտեղեաւք կարգելովք եւ զգաւառաւքն աշակերտելովք աշխարհին Հայոց, զուարթացուցանել, նորոգել եւ հաստատել: 2  Եւ յորժամ այնպէս ընդ ամենայն տեղիս լի առնէր զսուրբ Աւետարան Տեառն եւ ամենեցուն զգուշացուցեալ զկենաց ճանապարհն վարելոյ, խորհուրդ առնէր այնուհետեւ վասն կէս ազգին Հայոց, որ էր ընդ իշխանութեամբ թագաւորին Հոռոմոց: 3  Եւ փութացեալ գնայր հանդերձ աշակերտաւք բազմաւք անցանել ի կողմանս Յունաց: 4  Եւ վասն առաւելագոյն բարեգործ համբաւուց՝ յառաջագոյն զնմանէ անդ ի հիւսիսական կողմանց հռչակելոց՝ առաւել միամտութեամբ ընտանեբար յեպիսկոպոսաց աշխարհին եւ յիշխանաց եւ ի գաւառականացն պատուեալ լինէր, մանաւանդ ի

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

87

regions and populous districts of his realm and brought to the teacher. 8 Welcoming them, he forged them through the furnace of in­doc­trin­ ation,* and through the warmth of spiritual love he eradicated the filth and rottenness of the foul demons and their futile worship. He distanced them considerably from their ancestral (customs), made unmemorable to the extent of the saying, ‘I forgot my people and my father’s house’ [Ps. 45:10 (44:11 LXX)]. [64] 9 He thus united into one nation, with one divinely uttered message, those who were gathered from among so many distinct and dissimilar tongues, making them glorifiers of one God.* 10 Those among them who were found worthy* were elevated to the rank of the episcopal order. The foremost of them was a saintly and devout man by the name of Samuel, who was appointed bishop of the royal house.* 11 And when he had organized the work of God’s worship in all parts of Georgia,* taking leave of them he returned to the land of Armenia, and meeting Sahak, the Catholicos of the Armenians, reported some of all that had transpired. Together they glorified God, the exalted Christ.

17/16.  [ JOURNEY TO CONSTANTINOPLE AND BYZANTINE ARMENIA; THE INVENTION OF THE CAUCASIAN-­A LBANIAN ALPHABET] 1 He then arose and went back to the places that had been organized and those districts in the land of Armenia where they had made disciples, in order to cheer and to revitalize and to confirm.* 2 And when he had filled every place with the holy Gospel of the Lord, admonishing them all to walk in the path of life,* he then thought of the other half of the Armenian nation, that under the rule of the Byzantine king.* 3 And he hastened and went with many disciples to cross over into the regions of the Greeks. 4 And because the far-­reaching fame of (his) acclaimed, good works there in the northern regions* had long preceded him, at the entry of the road* he was sincerely and amicably honoured by the bishops and rulers and provincials of the land, especially by the commander in chief * of the land whose name was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

88

The Life of Mashtots‘

սպայապետէն աշխարհին, որ անուանեալ կոչէր Անատողիս, ի մուտ ճանապարհին, որ զիրս առաջի եդեալ՝ գրով ցուցանէր կայսերն, որում անուն Թէոդոս կոչէին, որդի Արկադու կայսեր. ուստի եւ հրաման ելանէր՝ վայելուչ մեծարանաւք զՍուրբն՝ Ակումիտ անուն կոչելոյ: 5  Իսկ նորա զբազմութիւն աշակերտացն տարեալ ի քաղաքն Մելիտինացւոց, յանձն առնէր սրբոյ եպիսկոպոսի քաղաքին, որ Ակակիոսն կոչէին, եւ գլխաւոր աշակերտացն թողոյր զայն, որում Ղեւոնդէոսն կոչէին, այր հաւատարիմ եւ ճշմարտապաշտ: 6  Եւ առեալ երանելոյն զպատուական եպիսկոպոսն Դերջանոյ, որոյ անուն կոչէր Գինթ, եւ զսակաւս յաշակերտաց անտի, եւ ելեալ յանդրուարն դիմոսական եւ բազում պատիւ գտեալ, հասանէին ի թագաւորակաց քաղաքն Կոստանդինական: 7 Զորմէ իսկոյն պատմէին յարքունիսն, եւ մտեալ առաջի պատուական աթոռոյն՝ յանդիման լինէր աստուածակարգ թագաւորացն եւ հայրապետին սրբոյ կաթուղիկոսին աշխարհամուտ դրանն, որում Ատտիկոս կոչէին, յորոց եւ գտեալ շնորհս: 8  Հրամայեալ լինէր ժամանակս ինչ անդէն ի տիեզերական քաղաքին մեծարել դարմանաւք կարգելովք յեկեղեցւոյն եւ յարքունեաց եւ ի պատուական իշխանաց քաղաքին: 9  Եւ ապա յետ Պասեքին կատարելոյ՝ ցուցեալ կայսերն զպիտոյիցն զհանգամանս, եւ առեալ զանընդդիմակաց հրամանն հանդերձ սակերաւք կայսերագիր նշանակելովք՝ վասն մանկտոյն յաշակերտութիւնն առ ի կէս ազգէն Հայոց ժողովելոյ, եւ վասն ժանտագործ ազգին բարբարիանոսաց, եւ եկեղեցեաց հաստատութեան, եւ մեծամեծ պարգեւաւք պատուելոյ: 10  Վասն որոյ հաւանեցուցեալ ճշմարտին զարքունիսն, անընկալ թողոյր: 11  Եւ երկիր պագեալ ծիրանափառ աւգոստականացն եւ սրբոյ կաթուղիկոսին, եւ ընկալեալ ողջոյն յեկեղեցւոյն եւ յերեւելի իշխանաց քաղաքին, եւ ամենայն իւրայովքն յաջողեալք՝ ելանէին ի դեսպակս եւ ի կառս արքունատուրս, եւ մեծաւ շքով եւ բազում վայելչութեամբ ունէին զճանապարհս արքունականս: 12  Եւ ամենայն քաղաքացն պատահելով, ի քաղաքին պայծառագոյն երեւէին: 13  Եւ մեծամեծ պարգեւս գտեալ, գային հասանէին ի ժամադիր կողմանս: 14  Եւ անդէն վաղվաղակի պատահեալ սպարապետին Հայոց, հանդերձ սակերաւք կայսեր յանդիման լինէին: 15  Եւ նորա առեալ սակերս կայսերական նշանաւք,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

89

Anatolios.* The latter presented the matters in writing to the emperor, whose name was Theodos[ios], the son of the emperor Arkadios.* Whereupon an edict was issued to have the saint called, with per­tin­ ent honours, Akumit.* [66] 5 And he took a great many of the disciples to the city of Melitene* and entrusted them to the holy bishop of the city whose name was Akakios,* and he left behind as principal of the disciples one named Ghewondēos,* a faithful and devout man. 6 And then the blessed one taking with him the honourable bishop of Derjan, whose name was Gint‘,* and a few of his disciples there, and boarding a state-­ owned carriage* and receiving much courtesy, arrived at the royal city of Constantinople.* 7 The court was duly informed of him, and he entered into the presence of the exalted throne,* the God-­ordained monarchs* and the patriarch, the holy catholicos at the imperial court,* Attikos* by name, and found favour with them. 8 It was decreed that he be honoured there in the cosmopolis for some time, with conveniences provided by the Church, the court, and the ­honourable princes of the city. 9 And then, after the Paschal observance, he explained to the emperor the nature of the needs and obtained unquestionable authorization, along with a sacred ordinance bearing the imperial seal:* regarding the discipleship of young men to be gathered from that half of the Armenian nation;* regarding the Borborites*—an iniquitous people; the strengthening of the churches;* and also to be honoured with great gifts. 10 The faithful one, however, having persuaded the court, declined (the latter). 11 And he made obeisance to the augusti* clothed in purple and to the holy catholicos; and having received greetings from the Church and from the distinguished princes [68] of the city, and having succeeded in all his affairs, they boarded the litters and carriages provided by the royal court, and with great pomp and much grandeur took the royal roads. 12 And at every city they arrived, they were deemed most illustrious in the city. 13 And having received many gifts, they finally arrived at the destined regions. 14 At once they visited the commander-­in-­chief * of (Lesser) Armenia and presented themselves with the emperor’s sacred ordinance.* 15 And when he received the sacred ordinance bearing

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

90

The Life of Mashtots‘

փութայր վաղվաղակի զհրամանն կատարել: 16 Եւ հրեշտակս արձակեալ այնուհետեւ ի գաւառս կէս ազգին Հայոց յիշխանութեանն կայսեր, բազմութիւն մանկտւոյ ժողովել եւ նոցին ռոճիկս կարգել ի պատեհագոյն տեղիս, յորս եւ երանելին զվարդապետութիւնն իւր ի գործ արկեալ, եւ ժողովելոցն քաղցրացուցանէր: 17  Ապա յետ այնորիկ ձեռն արկանէր զդժպատեհ եւ զկամակոր բարբարիանոս աղանդն քննելոյ: 18 Եւ իբրեւ ոչինչ գտանէր հնարս յուղղութիւն ածելոյ, առեալ ի գործ արկանէր զթշուառացուցիչ գաւազանն, ծանրագոյն պատուհասիւք ի բանդս, ի տանջանս, ի գելարանս: 19  Իսկ յորժամ այնու եւս պակասեալք ի փրկութենէն գտանէին, խորտակեալս, ապա խանձեալս, մրեալս եւ գունակ գունակ խայտառակեալս, եւ յաշխարհէն կորզէին: 20  Իսկ երանելւոյն զիւր վարդապետութեանն պայման արարեալ սակեալ եւ վճարեալ: 21  Եւ բազում շնորհագիր մատեանս զհարցն եկեղեցւոյ ստացեալ, ծովացուցանէր զվարդապետութեանն զխորութիւն, եւ լցեալ զեղոյր ամենայն բարութեամբք: 22  Յայնմ ժամանակի եկեալ դիպէր նմա այր մի երէց աղուան ազգաւ, Բենիամէն անուն. եւ նորա հարցեալ եւ քննեալ զբարբարոս զբանս աղուաներէն լեզուին, առնէր ապա նշանագիրս ըստ վերնապարգեւ կորովի սովորութեան իւրում եւ յաջողութեամբ Քրիստոսի շնորհացն կարգեալ եւ հաստատեալ կշռէր: 23  Յետ այնորիկ հրաժարեալ յեպիսկոպոսաց, յիշխանաց աշխարհին եւ յամենայն եկեղեցեաց. առ որս թողեալ վերակացուս հաւատացելոցն՝ զերկուս ոմանս յիւրոց աշակերտացն, որոց առաջնոյն Ենովք անուն էր, եւ երկրորդին Դանան, արք կրաւնաւորք եւ յառաջադէմք յաւետարանական սպասաւորութեանն. զորս յանձն արարեալ շնորհացն Աստուծոյ՝ անդէն զետեղէր: 24 Եւ ինքն բազում աշակերտաւք գայր, անցանէր ի կողմանս Հայոց Մեծաց եւ հասեալ ի Նոր Քաղաքն՝ յանդիման լինէր սրբոյ եպիսկոպոսին Սահակայ եւ թագաւորին Հայոց, որում անուն Արտաշէս կոչէին, եւ ամենայն բանակին: 25 Եւ պատմեալ նոցա զգործս կողմանցն այնոցիկ ըստ աջողութեանց շնորհացն Աստուծոյ, դադարէր անդ աւուրս ինչ, մխիթարէր վասն հոգեւոր անձուկն սփռելոյ:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

91

the imperial seal, he hastened to carry out the command at once. 16 He therefore dispatched messengers to the districts of that half of the Armenian nation (living) under the emperor’s rule to have many young men gathered and to allocate provisions for them at the most convenient locations, where the blessed one resumed his teaching, delighting those who had been gathered.* 17 Afterwards he undertook to scrutinize the indecent and stubborn sect of the Borborites.* 18 And when he found no other means to correct them, he began to use the misery-­inflicting stick, with very severe punishments, imprisonment, tortures, and fetters. 19 And when they were found still bereft of salvation, they were bruised, then branded, smirched and subjected to various indignities, and driven out of the land. 20 However, the blessed one devoted himself to his teaching task, organized and consummated it. 21 And having acquired many gracefully written books by the church fathers, he broadened the depth of his teaching and was filled to overflowing with every goodness.* 22 At that time a certain man, a priest of Caucasian-­Albanian* ethnicity, named Benjamin,* came calling on him. After inquiring from him about the strange diction of the Caucasian-­Albanian language and exploring it, he (Mashtots‘)—with his usual keenness (of mind) granted from above—­came up with an alphabet; and by the grace of Christ, he successfully put it in order and ascertained it thoroughly.* [70] 23 After this he took leave of the bishops, the princes of the land, and all the churches, leaving with them two of his disciples, the first of whom was named Enoch and the second Danan,* as overseers of the faithful,* pious and progressive men in the service of the Gospel, whom he commended to God’s grace and placed there. 24 And along with many disciples he crossed over to the regions of Greater Armenia,* and arriving at Nor K‘aghak‘,* presented himself to the holy bishop, Sahak, and to the king of Armenia, whose name was Artashēs,* and to the entire army, 25 and reported to them the things wrought by the help of God’s grace in those regions. He stayed there a few days and was consoling, in order to spread the spiritual fervour.*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

92

The Life of Mashtots‘

18. [ԺԸ] 1  Եւ ապա յետ այնորիկ հրաժարեալ գնալ ի կողմանս Աղուանից: 2  Եւ երթեալ իջանէր յաշխարհն եւ հասեալ ի թագաւորական տեղիսն, տեսանէր զսուրբ եպիսկոպոսն Աղուանից, որում անուն Երեմիա կոչէին, եւ զնոցին թագաւոր, որում Արսվաղ էր անուն, ամենայն ազատաւք հանդերձ. որոց առաւել հպատակութեամբ ընկալեալ վասն անուանն Քրիստոսի: 3 Ապա հարցեալ ի նոցանէ, առաջի եդեալ վասն որոյ եկեալն էր: 4  Եւ նոցա երկոցունց զուգակցելոց, եպիսկոպոսին եւ թագաւորին, յանձն առեալ դպրութեանն հնազանդելոյ. տային եւս հրաման՝ ի գաւառաց եւ ի տեղեաց իշխանութեանն իւրեանց բազմութիւն մանկանց յարուեստ դպրութեանն ածել եւ գումարել՝ ըստ արժանաւոր եւ պատեհ տեղեաց, դասս դասս դպրոցաց, եւ ռոճիկս կարգել ի դարմանս: 5  Իսկ իբրեւ հրամանն այն արդեամբք եւ գործովք յանկ ելանէր, ապա այնուհետեւ երանելոյն Երեմիայի եպիսկոպոսի ի ձեռն առեալ՝ վաղվաղակի զաստուածային գրոց թարգմանութիւնս ի գործ արկանէր, որով անդէն յական թաւթափել վայրենամիտ եւ դատարկասուն եւ անասնաբարոյ աշխարհն Աղուանից մարգարէագէտք եւ առաքելածանաւթք եւ աւետարանաժառանգք լինէին, եւ ամենայն աւանդելոցն Աստուծոյ ոչ իւիք անտեղեակք: 6  Դարձեալ առաւել եւս երկիւղածն յԱստուծոյ արքայն Աղուանից՝ միամիտ փութով հրաման տայր սատանայակիր եւ դիւամոլ ազգին սաստիւ՝ թափել զերծանել յունայնավար հնացելոցն եւ հնազանդ լինել ամենահեշտ լծոյն Քրիստոսի: 7  Եւ յորժամ զայն արարեալ հաւասարութեամբ եւ լցեալ զպիտոյն իւրեանց եւ զկամացն յաւժարութիւն, ձեռնատու եւս եղեալ նմա սրբամատոյց վարդապետութեանն ի Բաղասական կողմանս սրբոյ եպիսկոպոսին, որում անուն Մուշեղ կոչէին, հրաժարէր ապա եւ ի թագաւորէն եւ յեպիսկոպոսացն եւ յամենայն եկեղեցւոյն Աղուանից: 8  Եւ զոմանս յիւրոց աշակերտացն վերակացուս իւրեանց կացուցանէր, հանդերձ արամբ քահանայիւ արքունական դրանն, որում անունն Յովնաթան կոչէին, որոյ բազում յաւժարութիւն ի վարդապետութենէն էր գտեալ:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

93

18/17.  [MISSION TO CAUCASIAN ALBANIA] 1 Afterwards he left for the regions of Caucasian Albania.* 2 Having arrived in the land, and upon reaching the royal sites, he met the holy bishop of the Caucasian Albanians, whose name was Jeremiah,* and their king, whose name was Arsvagh,* along with all the patricians, who received him with total commitment for the sake of Christ’s name.* 3 And when he was asked by them, he presented the reason for his coming. 4 And they, the two associates, the bishop and the king, taking upon themselves to carry out the (proposed) instruction, commanded to fetch and gather many youths from districts and regions within their jurisdiction* for the art of learning and to assemble (them) in convenient and appropriate places, in various levels of schools, and to allocate provisions for (their) sustenance. 5 And when that order was properly and actually carried out in due course, the blessed bishop Jeremiah soon afterwards began to undertake the translation of the divine books. Thus, in the blink of an eye,* the bestial and vain and savage (people of the) land of Caucasian Albania became knowledgeable of the prophets and familiar with the apostles and heirs to the Gospel, and in no way ignorant of the traditions about God.* [72] 6 Moreover, the God-­fearing king of Caucasian Albania commanded with resolute promptness the nation possessed by Satan and misled by demons to rid and free itself completely from the futile things of old and to submit to the most amiable yoke of Christ.* 7 And when he had done this equitably and had satisfied their needs and eager expectations,* being helped in his sacred teaching in the region of Baghasakan* by the holy bishop whose name was Mushegh,* he then took leave of the king, the bishops, and the entire church of the Caucasian Albanians. 8 And for them he appointed certain of his disciples as overseers, along with a man, a priest of the royal court, whose name was Jonathan,* in whom great eagerness for the teaching was discerned.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

94

The Life of Mashtots‘

9 Եւ յանձն առնելով զնոսա եւ զանձն՝ ամենապահ շնորհացն Աստուծոյ, խաղացեալ գայր ի կողմանցն Աղուանից, անցանել յաշխարհն Վրաց:

19. [ԺԹ] 1 Եւ հանդէպ հասեալ գայր Գարդմանական ձորոյն: 2 Ընդ առաջ լինէր նմա իշխանն Գարդմանից, որում [անուն] Խուրս կոչէին, եւ ասպնջական եղեալ նմա աստուածասէր երկիւղածութեամբ, առաջի դնէր զանձն վարդապետին, հանդերձ իշխանութեամբն իւրով: 3  Առաւելագոյն իսկ վայելեալ ի հիւթ եւ ի պարարտութիւն վարդապետութեանն, յուղարկէ զերանելին՝ ուր եւ երթալոցն էր: 4 Իսկ նորա անցեալ դիմեալ ի կողմանսն: 5 Առ որով ժամանակաւ Արձիւղ անուն թագաւորեալ Վրաց, որոյ առաւելապէս պայծառացուցեալ ծաղկեցուցանէր զվարդապետութիւնն եւ նորա շրջեալ զամենայն աշակերտաւքն, պատուիրեալ կալ ի ճշմարտութեանն: 6  Յայնժամ իշխանին Տաշրացւոց, առն պատուականի եւ աստուածասիրի, որ անուանեալ կոչէր Աշուշայ, ի ձեռն տայր նմա զանձն ամենայն գաւառովն իւրով. եւ նորա ամենսփիւռ վարդապետութիւնն, ոչինչ պակասութեամբ, քան զայլոցն գաւառաց անցուցեալ: 7 Եւ յանձն արարեալ զնոսա սրբոյ եպիսկոպոսին Սամուէլի, այնմ՝ զոր ի վերոյ նշանակեցաք, ինքն դառնայր ի կողմանս Հայոց Մեծաց. եւ եկեալ ի սովորական տեղիսն, զընդելական ողջոյնն սրբոյն Սահակայ եւ ամենայն պատահելոցն տուեալ, պատմէր նոցա վասն այնր եւս նորագործ իրացն. որք իբրեւ լուան, առաւել գոհանային զպարգեւացն Աստուծոյ:

20. [Ի] 1  Յետ այնորիկ ուշ եդեալ երկոցունց երանելեացն՝ զիւրեանց ազգին զդպրութիւն առաւել յարգել եւ դիւրացուցանել: 2 Ձեռն ի գործ արկանէր ի թարգմանել եւ ի գրել մեծն Իսահակ՝ ըստ յառաջագոյն սովորութեանն:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

95

9 And committing them and himself to God’s all-­protecting grace, he continued from the regions of Caucasian Albania to cross over into the land of Georgia.*

19/18.  [SECOND MISSION TO GEORGIAN TERRITORY: GARDMAN AND TASHIR] 1 As he was nearing the Gardmanian Valley,* 2 the prince of Gardman, whom they called Khurs,* met him, received him hospit­ ably, with God-­loving piety, and placed himself and his principality at the teacher’s disposal. 3 After enjoying fully the substance and the richness of his teaching, he sent the blessed one on his intended way. 4 And he set out towards those regions. 5 At that time (one) by the name of Ardziwgh* reigned in Georgia who promoted and extolled learning most laudably. And he (Mashtots‘) went about visiting all his disciples, exhorting (them) to abide in the Truth.* 6 Meanwhile the prince of Tashirk‘,* an honourable and Godloving man, [74] whose name was Ashushay,* placed himself and his entire district in his hands. And the dissemination of his teaching was no less evident (there) than in the other districts. 7 And leaving them in the care of the holy bishop Samuel, whom we mentioned above,* he returned to the regions of Greater Armenia.* Coming to the usual places he saluted with the familiar greeting Saint Sahak and all those whom he met, and related to them also of those new endeavours. Upon hearing (him) they thanked God all the more for (His) gifts.

20/19.  [COLLECTIVE ENDEAVOURS AND VERIFICATION OF EARLIER TRANSLATIONS; ECCLESIAL WRITINGS BY SAHAK] 1 After this the blessed ones gave their attention to further expand and expedite the literature of their nation. 2 Sahak the Great,* as was his custom before, set his hand to translate and to write.*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

96

The Life of Mashtots‘

3  Որոց դարձեալ դէպ լինէր եղբարս յաշակերտացն՝ յուղարկել ի կողմանս Ասորոց ի քաղաքն Եդեսացւոց, զՅովսէփ, զոր ի վերոյն յիշեցաք, եւ երկրորդն Եզնիկ անուն՝ յԱյրարատեան գաւառէն, ի Կողբ գեղջէ, զի յասորական բարբառոյն՝ զնոցին հարցն սրբոց զաւանդութիւնս հայերէն գրեալս դարձուսցեն: 4  Իսկ թարգմանչացն հասեալ՝ ուր առաքեցանն, եւ կատարեալ զհրամանսն եւ առ պատուական հարսն առաքեալ, անցեալ գնային ի կողմանս Յունաց, ուր եւ ուսեալք եւ տեղեկացեալք, թարգմանիչս կարգէին ըստ հելլենական լեզուին: 5  Ապա յետ ժամանակի ինչ ընդ մէջ անցելոյ՝ դէպ լինէր ոմանց եղբարց ի Հայաստան աշխարհէս, դիմել իջանել ի կողմանս Յունաց, որ եւ Ղեւոնդէս առաջնոյն անուն էր, եւ երկրորդն՝ Կորիւնս, եւ մատուցեալ յարէին յԵզնիկն, իբրեւ առ ընտանեգոյն սննդակից՝ ի Կոստանդինական քաղաքին, եւ անդ միաբանութեամբ հոգեւոր պիտոյիցն զխնդիրն վճարէին: 6  Որոց յետ այնորիկ հաստատուն աւրինակաւք աստուածատուր գրոցն եւ բազում շնորհագիր հարց յետ այնր աւանդութեամբք, եւ Նիկիական եւ Եփեսոսական կանոնաւք, գային երեւելով աշխարհին Հայոց, եւ առաջի դնէին հարցն զբերեալ կտակարանսն եկեղեցւոյ սրբոյ: 7  Իսկ երանելւոյն Սահակայ զեկեղեցական գրոց գումարութիւնն՝ կանխաւ ի յունական բարբառոյն ի հայերէն դարձուցեալ, եւ բազում եւս զհայրապետաց սրբոց զճշմարիտ զիմաստութիւնն: 8  Դարձեալ յետ այնորիկ առեալ հանդերձ Եզնակաւ զյառաջագոյն զյանկարծագիւտ զփութանակի զթարգմանութիւնս հաստատէր ճշմարիտ աւրինակաւք բերելովք: 9 Եւ շատ եւս մեկնութիւն գրոց թարգմանէին: 10 Եւ այնպէս զամենայն ժամանակս իւրեանց՝ յընթերցուածս գրոց ծախէին հարքն՝ զտիւ եւ զգիշեր, եւ նովիմբ ծաղկեալք եւ շահաւետեալք՝ աւրինակ բարեաց ուսումնասէր առընթերակայից լինէին. մանաւանդ զի ունէին պատուիրանս զգուշացուցիչս յաստուածակարգ պատգամաւորացն, յորոց առաջինն հրամայէ, թէ՝ «Յաւրէնս Տեառն խորհեսցիս ի տուէ եւ ի գիշերի» (Սաղմ. Ա 2). եւ երկրորդն հանգոյն նմին պատուիրէ, թէ՝ «Մի՛տ դիր ընթերցուածոց մխիթարութեան վարդապետութեան, մի՛ անփոյթ առնել զշնորհացդ որ ի քեզ են. յայդ խորհեա՛ եւ ի դոյն յամեսջիր. զայդ եթէ առնիցես, ե՛ւ զանձն ապրեցուսցես, ե՛ւ զայնոսիկ, որ քեզն լսիցեն» (Ա Տիմ. Դ 13–16):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

97

3 (As) it happened (time) and again, they sent two brothers from among their disciples to the region of the Syrians, to the city of Edessa: (the first), Yovsep‘, whom we mentioned above,* and the second, Eznik by name,* from the district of Ayrarat, from the village of Koghb,* for the purpose of translating the written traditions of their holy fathers from the Syriac language into Armenian. 4 After the translators had arrived where they were sent and had carried out their orders and sent (the translations) to the honourable fathers, they crossed over into the regions of the Greeks, where they were educated and made knowledgeable, (and where) they were appointed translators from the Greek language. 5 After an intervening time had passed, it happened that certain of the brothers from the land of Armenia had to go to the regions of the Greeks. The name of the first was Ghewondēs,* and the second was I, Koriwn.* And drawing near to Eznik in the city of Constantinople, they embraced him like a most intimate sibling;* and there, together, they attended to matters pertaining to the spiritual needs. [76] 6 Then they returned to the land of Armenia,* appearing with reliable copies of the God-­given Book* and many of the subsequent, gracious traditions of the fathers, along with the canons of Nicaea and Ephesus,* and placed before the fathers the Testaments of the Holy Church* which they had brought. 7 As for the blessed Sahak, who early on had translated from the Greek language to Armenian all the ecclesial books and the true wisdom of many holy fathers,* 8 once more thereafter, with Eznik, he began to verify the previous, recently accomplished, and hurried translations with the accurate copies that were brought; 9 and they also translated many biblical commentaries.* 10 And thus the fathers spent their entire time, day and night, with the reading of books. And flourishing and prospering in them, they became good examples to their studious associates, especially since they possessed the forewarning commandments from the messengers appointed by God, the first (and foremost)* of which directs: ‘On the Law of the Lord you shall meditate day and night’ [Ps. 1:2]; and the second similarly admonishes: ‘Give heed to reading, consolation, and to doctrine. Do not neglect the gifts bestowed on you . . . Meditate upon them, committing yourself to the same . . . for if you do that you shall save both yourself and those who shall listen to you’ [1 Tim. 4:13–16].*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

98

The Life of Mashtots‘

21. [ԻԱ] 1  Ապա յետ այնորիկ դարձեալ՝ այնպիսի առաւել եւ բարձրագոյն վարդապետութեամբն՝ սկսեալ երանելոյն Մաշթոցի ճառս յաճախագոյնս, դիւրապատումս, շնորհագիրս, բազմադիմիս ի լուսաւորութենէ եւ ի հիւթոյ գրոց մարգարէականաց կարգել եւ յաւրինել, լի ամենայն ճաշակաւք աւետարանական հաւատոցն ճշմարտութեան: 2 Յորս բազում նմանութիւնս եւ աւրինակս ի յանցաւորացս աստի, առաւելագոյն վասն յարութենական յուսոյն առ ի հանդերձեալսն, յերիւրեալ կազմեալ, զի հեշտընկալք եւ դիւրահասոյցք տխմարագունիցն եւ մարմնական իրաւք զբաղելոցն լինիցին, առ ի սթափել եւ զարթուցանել եւ հաստահիմն առ ի խոստացեալ աւետիսն քաջալերել:

22. [ԻԲ] 1 Եւ այնպէս յամենայն կողմանս Հայոց, Վրաց եւ Աղուանից զամենայն ժամանակս կենաց իւրոց, զամառն եւ զձմեռն, զտիւ եւ զգիշեր՝ անվեհեր եւ առանց յապաղելոյ իւրով իսկ աւետարանական եւ ողջապատում գնացիւքն՝ առաջի թագաւորաց եւ իշխանաց եւ ամենայն հեթանոսաց եւ անընդդիմակաց ի հակառակորդաց՝ զամենափրկչին Յիսուսի անուն կրեաց յանձին: 2 Եւ զամենայն ոգի քրիստոսազգեստ եւ հոգեղէն վառեաց, եւ բազում բանդականաց եւ կալանաւորաց եւ տագնապելոց ի բռնաւորաց թողութիւն արարեալ՝ կորզելով զնոսա ահաւոր զաւրութեամբն Քրիստոսի: 3  Եւ բազում մուրհակս անիրաւութեան պատառեաց, եւ բազում սգաւորաց եւ կարճամտելոց՝ մխիթարական վարդապետութեամբն զակնկալութիւն յուսոյն ըստ յայտնութեան փառաց մեծին Աստուծոյ փրկչին մերոյ Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի նաւթճեաց. եւ զամենայն միանգամայն յաստուածապաշտութեան պայման անդր փոխեաց:

23. [ԻԳ] 1 Եւ դարձեալ բազում եւ անհամար գունդս վանականաց ի շէնս եւ յանշէնս, դաշտականս եւ լեռնականս, անձաւամուտս

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

99

21/20.  [EXHORTATIVE WRITINGS BY MASHTOTS ‘] [78] 1 Then, following this, the blessed Mashtots‘, given to his excellent and profound teaching, began to arrange and to compose discourses to be often repeated, easy to deliver, gracefully written, diverse, (culled) from the enlightenment and crux of the prophetic books, full of the whole fervour of the truth of the faith accordant with the Gospel.* 2 Into these he incorporated many analogies and examples from the transient things of the present, especially concerning the hope of resurrection for the things to come; that they might be intelligible and easily understood by the most ignorant and those occupied with carnal matters, in order to awaken and arouse and urge (them) on firmly to the promised good news.

22/21.  [MASHTOTS ‘ THE EVANGELIST] 1 And thus in all the regions of Armenia, Georgia, and Caucasian Albania, throughout his lifetime, in summer and winter, night and day, dauntless and without hesitation in his conduct—­passionate and accordant with the Gospel, he bore the name of Jesus the Saviour of all before kings, princes, and all the pagans,* and with no opposition from adversaries.* 2 And he enabled everyone to put on Christ* and become spiritual; [80] and he emancipated many prisoners, detainees, and those in anxiety by wresting them from tyrants through the mighty power of Christ; 3 and he tore up many inequitable contracts.* And through his comforting teaching he proclaimed to many mourners and despondent people expectation and hope because of the reve­ la­tion of the glory of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;* and in general he converted them all to the state of worshipping God.*

23/22.  [MASHTOTS ‘ THE FOUNDER OF ASCETIC ESTABLISHMENTS AND TRANSMIT TER OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION] 1 And again he established many and countless bands of ascetics,* having them dwell in built and unbuilt places, on plains and on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

100

The Life of Mashtots‘

եւ արգելականս բնակեցուցեալ հաստատէր: 2  Զորս ընդ ժամանակս ժամանակս իւրով իսկ անձամբն աւրինակ ցուցանէր. առեալ զոմանս յաշակերտաց յիւրաքանչիւր մենաստանացն եւ երթեալ լեռնակեաց, սորամուտ ծակախիթ եղեալ՝ զառաւրէական զկերակուրն խոտաբուտ ճաշակաւքն վճարէին: 3  Եւ այնպէս վշտակեաց տկարութեան զանձինս տային, մանաւանդ որոց հայեցեալ ի մխիթարութիւն առաքելական բանիցն, թէ՝ «Յորժամ տկար եմ վասն Քրիստոսի, յայնժամ զաւրացեալ լինիմ» (Բ Կոր. ԺԲ 10), եւ թէ՝ «Լաւ եւս լիցի պարծել տկարութեամբս, զի բնակեսցէ յիս զաւրութիւնն Քրիստոսի» (ԺԲ 9): 4  Անդ էր այնուհետեւ չարբենալ գինւով, այլ առաւելուլ հոգւով, եւ պատրաստել զսիրտս երգովք հոգեւորաւք, ի փառս եւ ի գովութիւն Աստուծոյ: 5  Անդ կրթութիւն քաղցրուսոյց ընթերցուածոց՝ հոգեպատում գրոց: 6  Անդ քաջալերութիւն յորդորական վարդապետութեան, առ ի յառաջադէմ ընտրութեանն՝ պսակահաս քրիստոսադիր կիտին: 7 Անդ եռալ հոգւով աստուածապաշտ ծառայութեամբ: 8  Անդ աղաւթք աղերսալիք, եւ խնդրուածք հաշտեցուցիչք վասն ամենեցուն կենաց՝ առ մարդասէրն Աստուած: 9 Եւ նովին հոգեկրաւն արուեստիւն հանէր աւուրս բազումս յանապատ տեղիս, մինչեւ ազդ լինէր յերիցանց՝ իրաց ինչ աւգտակարաց եկեղեցեաց կողմանցն այնոցիկ՝ հասանել յաւգնականութիւն շնորհաւքն Քրիստոսի: 10 Եւ նորա առանց իրիք զբաղելոյ՝ հանդերձ գործակցաւք իջեալ ի թիկունս դիպացն պատահելոց, եւ վճարեալ զաւրութեամբն Աստուծոյ, եւ յորդորագոյնս եւ պարարտագոյնս եւ անփակ բերանով՝ զվտակս վարդապետութեանն ի սիրտս լսողացն ծաւալեցուցանէր: 11 Եւ զայս առնէր զամենայն ժամանակս իւր վասն անձին եւ վասն աշխարհի. քանզի սովոր իսկ են ճշմարիտ վարդապետք՝ զանձանց առաքինութիւնս կանոն աշակերտելոցն դնել, մանաւանդ յուշ առնելով զտէրունականն՝ զմիոյ միայնոյ իմաստնոյն Աստուծոյ. «Քանզի սկսաւ Յիսուս առնել եւ ուսուցանել» (Գործք Ա 1): 12  Որոյ բազում անգամ առեալ զաշակերտսն ուրոյն, եւ աննիազական անձամբն աւրինակ կարաւտելոցն լինէր, յորժամ ի Թաբաւրական լերինն՝ զաւետեաց երանութիւնն տայր, եւ յորժամ ի նմին լերին զկանոնական զաղաւթս առնէր, մինչդեռ աշակերտքն ի

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

101

mountains, in caverns and in cells. 2 From time to time he showed himself as an example to them. He took certain disciples from each of the lavras and went to live in the mountains, hiding themselves in dugouts and secret holes, receiving their daily nourishment by feeding on grasses. 3 And thus they subjected themselves to excruciating in­firm­ity, looking for consolation especially in the apostolic words, that ‘When I am weak because of Christ, then I am strong’ [2 Cor. 12:10], and ‘It will also be better that I glory in my infirmities so that the power of Christ may dwell in me’ [vs. 9].* [82] 4 There, from then on, they did not become drunk with wine, but increased in the Spirit* and buoyed up their hearts with spiritual songs to the glory and praise of God.* 5 There was training in edifying readings of inspired books. 6 There was encouragement through hortatory teaching, leading to the pre-­eminent election, to the mark of the crown offered by Christ.* 7 There they were fired up by the Spirit during divine services. 8 There were petitioning prayers and con­cili­ atory entreaties to God, the lover of humankind, for the life of all (people). 9 And in keeping with the same spiritual practice, he would spend many days in eremitic places* until notified by priests to come to help, by the grace of Christ, in matters beneficial for the churches in those regions. 10 And without further preoccupation, descending with his co-­workers to shoulder whatever happened to be the task, he would accomplish it through the strength given by God. Through fluent speech* he would cause the overflowing and most abundant streams of his teaching to spread in the hearts of the hearers. 11 And he did this throughout his lifetime for himself and for the country, for true teachers are accustomed to set their personal virtues as a rule for the learners, and especially by recalling that (verse) about the Lord, the one, only wise God:* ‘Jesus began to work and to teach’ [Acts 1:1]. 12 He often took His disciples aside and made His flawless person an example to flawed men, (as) when on Mount Tabor* He proclaimed the good tidings of the beatitudes, or when on the same mountain He offered His canonical prayer,* (and) while the disciples

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

102

The Life of Mashtots‘

Տիբերական ծովուն նաւէին: 13  Եւ դարձեալ յաւուրս բաղարջակերացն յաւրինական տաւնին՝ զգիշերոյն աղաւթքն եւ ցայգոյ, ի Ձիթաստանեաց լերինն առանձինն մատուցանէր: 14 Ուստի եւ յայտնի իսկ է եւ առանց խուզելոյ, եթէ ոչ վասն անձին ամենատէրն, այլ համաշխարհի յուսումն զայն գործէր. որ է աւրինակ ամենայն հնազանդելոց. վասն որոյ ասէր իսկ. «Արթուն կացէք, զի մի՛ ի փորձութիւն մտանիցէք» (Մատթ. ԻԶ 41, հմմտ. Մարկ. ԺԴ 38): 15 Իսկ արդ եթէ թեթեւագոյն արուեստից՝ պակասագոյն են ի գիտութենէ ազգք երկրածնացս, ո՛րչափ եւս այնմ արուեստի ոք համարեսցի եւ անգիտանալ՝ որ ընդ Աստուած զխաւսսն կատարէ: 16 Որով երանելին Պաւղոս ամենեցուն տգիտանալ ասէ, վասն որոյ «զամենակեցոյց Հոգին ի թիկունս հասանել՝ անմռունչ հեծութեամբ բարեխաւս» (Հռոմ. Ը 26) գիտէ: 17 Իսկ արդ յորժամ լսիցեմք, եթէ՝ «սկսաւ Յիսուս առնել եւ ուսուցանել» (Գործք Ա 1), ապաքէն առնէ եւ ուսուցանէ, եւ ոչ եթէ զի պարգեւեսցէ իմանալի է: 18 «Եւ բարեխաւսել նորա վասն սրբոց» (Հռոմ. Ը 27) եւ բարեխաւսել Հոգւոյն Սրբոյ՝ առ ի վարդապետելոյ մեզ, զի ընդ միմեանց բարեխաւսելն գիտելի է. քանզի միապատիւ է աստուածականն եւ ոչ բազմաբար: 19 Իսկ երանելի առաքելոցն ընկալեալ ի վարդապետութենէ ճշմարտութեանն, նախ կարաւտական անձանցն մատակարարէին, եւ ապա աշակերտացն բարձեալ տանէին. երբեմն առանձինն՝ եւ երբեմն ժողովրդովքն գումարելովք՝ զփառսն Քրիստոսի առաւելովք բարձրացուցանէին. քանզի առաւել աւգտակար իսկ է՝ յամենայն աշխարհակիր զբաւսանաց առանձինն սահմանել եւ միայն աստուածպաշտութեանն պարապել, զոր եւ մարգարէքն գործէին, որք ի լերինս եւ յանապատս եւ ի փապարս վիմաց՝ զաստուածեղէն կրաւնիցն զծառայութիւն հարկանէին: 20  Նոյնպէս եւ ամենայն հարքն, որք յաջորդեցան յառաքելական կանոնաց, կրեալ անձամբք զլաւութիւնս՝ բերէին վերջնոցս աւրինակ. ուստի երանելիս այս բարձեալ էր զաւանդելոցն պատիւ, եւ ամենայն մատուցելոց առ նա՝ զնոյն պատուիրեալ գուշակէր: 21 Եւ այնպէս յառաջ՝ ամենայն աստուածեղէն գանձուցն վայելչութեամբք լցեալք, պարարտացեալք, խաղացեալք գնային ի բազում ժամանակս՝ նովին ի նոյն կանխեալք, ի նմին հանապազորդեալք:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

103

were sailing on the Sea of Tiberias.* 13 And, again, during the days [84] of the feast of Unleavened Bread prescribed in the Law,* He was offering nighttime prayers even till daybreak, alone on the Mount of Olive Groves.* 14 Thus it is evident, indeed without scrutiny, that the Lord of All* did this not for Himself but to teach the whole world, as an example to all who obey, and for that reason He said, ‘Watch so that you will not enter into temptation’ [Matt. 26:41 par. Mark 14:28]. 15* {But now, since the earthborn races are most deficient in the knowledge of the lightest skills, how much more ignorant would one be considered of the skill of him who engages in conversations with God?* 16 For this reason the blessed Paul says all are ignorant.* Therefore he knows that ‘the all-­vivifying Spirit comes to (our) help, an intercessor through (our) inarticulate sighs’ [Rom. 8:26]. 17 {{But now, when we hear that ‘Jesus began to work and to teach’ [Acts 1:1], should it indeed be understood that He works and teaches and not that He was to bestow gifts?}}* 18 ‘And His intercession is for the saints’ [Rom. 8:27]. Moreover, it should be known that the intercession of the Holy Spirit is to teach us to intercede for one another. For the Divine is not of varying but of equal honour}.* 19 As for the blessed apostles, having received from the teaching of the Truth,* they first applied (His example) to their imperfect selves and then held it up to their disciples;* sometimes in private and sometimes among people gathered together, they greatly exalted the glory of Christ. For it is more beneficial indeed to withdraw oneself from all worldly preoccupations and to engage only in the worship of God, as the prophets used to do, devoting themselves to the exercise of godliness in the mountains and in the deserts and in the clefts of the rock.* [86] 20 Similarly, all the fathers who succeeded the apostolic orders, being personally endowed with goodness, passed on an example lastly to us. So did the blessed one uphold this honoured tradition and admonish all who came near him with the same exhortation. 21 And thus they proceeded, being filled with every grace from the divine treasuries; richly endowed, they carried on joyfully, for a long time, persevering steadily in the selfsame pursuit.*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

104

The Life of Mashtots‘

24. [ԻԴ] 1  Յայնմ ժամանակի բերեալ երեւեցան ի Հայաստան աշխարհին գիրք սուտապատումք, ընդունայնախաւս աւանդութիւնք առն ուրումն հոռոմի, որում Թէոդորոս անուն: 2  Վասն որոյ սիւնհոդոսական հայրապետացն եկեղեցեացն սրբոց նշանակեալ՝ ազդ առնէին ճշմարտահաւատ փառաւորչացն Սահակայ եւ Մաշթոցի: 3  Եւ նոցա ճշմարտասէր փութով զայն ի միջոյ բարձեալ՝ աշխարհահալած արտաքոյ իւրեանց սահմանացն մերժեցին, զի մի՛ ի լուսաւոր վարդապետութիւնն ծուխ ինչ սատանայական յարիցէ:

25. [ԻԵ] 1  Յետ այնորիկ դէպ լինէր նովին ճշմարտութեամբ՝ երանելւոյն Սահակայ լցեալ աւուրբք երկայն ժամանակաւք եւ վայելչացեալ աստուածաբեր պտղոցն, բարութեամբք, յառաջնումն ամի երկրորդ Յազկերտի, որդւոյ Վռամայ՝ թագաւորի կացելոյ ի Պարսից աշխարհին, ի Բագրաւանդ գաւառի, ի գիւղ Բլրոցաց, ի կատարել ամսեանն Նաւասարդի, որպէս եւ զաւր ծննդեան երանելոյն յիշէին, յերկրորդ ժամու աւուրն, ի պաշտաման անուշահոտ իւղոյն, հանդերձ աստուածահաճոյ աղաւթիւք ծերունւոյն ի Քրիստոս աւանդեալ, հայեցեալ ի բան մարգարէին, որ ասէր. «Ի ձեռս քո յանձն առնեմ զհոգի իմ» (Սաղմ. Լ 6). եւ Ստեփաննոսի երանելւոյ, որ ասէր. «Տէր Յիսուս, ընկա՛լ զհոգի իմ» (Գործք Է 59): 2  Ըստ նմին աւրինակի եւ նորա ապսպրեալ զանձն եւ զմնացեալս ամենապահ շնորհացն Աստուծոյ: 3  Զոր եւ առեալ վաղվաղակի ամենայն հանդերձելովք՝ ձեռնասուն աստուածասէր պաշտաւնէիցն իւրոց, որոց գլխաւորին Երեմիա անուն ճանաչէր, այր սուրբ եւ բարեպաշտաւն, հանդերձ աստուածասէր իշխանակնաւ միով, որ անուանեալ կոչէր Դուստր, որ էր կին Վարդանայ, զոր ի վերնոյն յիշեցաք, եւ բազում ամբոխից սրբոց ժողովոց: 4 Բարձեալ զսուրբն սաղմոսիւք եւ աւրհնութեամբ եւ հոգեւոր բարբառով, յետ սակաւ ինչ աւուրց ընդ տիւ եւ ընդ գիշեր ի Տարաւն հասուցանէին մինչ ի բուն իսկ գիւղն յԱշտիշատ: 5 Եւ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

105

24/23.  [SAHAK AND MASHTOTS ‘ AS GUARDIANS OF ORTHOD OXY] 1 At that time there emerged, brought to the land of Armenia, the books of falsehood and vain traditions of a certain man from Byzantium named Theodoros,* 2 concerning whom the synodical patriarchs of the holy churches* had informed the faithful glorifiers (of God), Sahak and Mashtots‘, in writing.* 3 And with truth-­loving zeal they eradicated them thoroughly from their midst, kept them out of their borders, lest any satanic smoke be admitted into the luminous teaching.

25/24.  [DEATH AND BURIAL OF SAHAK] 1 It then came to pass that the blessed Sahak, with that same righteousness, reached the fullness of his days after a long life and graced with the goodness of God-­given bounties. In the first year (of the reign) of Yazdegerd II,* son of Bahram,* as king of the Persian world, in the district of Bagrawand and village of Blrots‘k‘,* at the end of the month of Nawasard,* [88] even as they were commemorating the birthday of the blessed one, at the second hour of the day, in the course of being administered the fragrant oil* with prayers pleasing to God, the elderly man expired in Christ, as he contemplated the words spoken by the prophet, ‘Into your hands I commit my spirit’ [Ps. 31:5 (30:6 LXX)],* and as the blessed Stephen said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’ [Acts 7:59]. 2 In like manner he committed himself and everything else to God’s all-­protecting grace. 3 Hastily making all arrangements, his well-­trained and God-­loving staff, the chief of whom was known by the name Jeremiah,* a saintly and devout man, with the assistance of a God-­loving and noble lady named Dustr, the wife of Vardan, whom we have mentioned above,* as well as a large crowd of saintly men, 4 carried the saint with psalms, doxologies, and spiritual utterances,* and (going) day and night for several days, brought him to Tarōn, to the very village of Ashtishat.* 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

106

The Life of Mashtots‘

անդ ի մարտիրոսական խորանին յարկեղ սրբոյն հանդերձ ամենայն անուշահոտ խնկաւք եդեալ եւ կնքեալ քրիստոսական կնքովն՝ եւ զաւրինաւոր յիշատակն ի վերայ կատարեալ, այնուհետեւ իւրաքանչիւրն դառնային: 6 Որոց եւ նոյնպէս ամի ամի գումարելովք ի նոյն ամսեան՝ զնոյն յիշատակն տաւնախմբեն:

26. [ԻԶ] 1  Իսկ երանելի զուգականին լուեալ, զՄաշթոցէ ասեմ, բազում անձկայրեաց տրտմութեամբ եւ արտաւսրագութ ողբովք եւ ծանրաթախիծ սգովք պաշարեալ դնէր. զի թէ առաքեալն սուրբ ոչ գտեալ առժամայն զընդելակիցն զՏիմոթէոս՝ անհանգիստ զհոգւոյն ասէ, ո՛րչափ եւս առաւել զմիանգամայն զհրաժարելոցն՝ սաստիկ կիրս մնացելոցն է համարեալ: 2  Բայց թէպէտ եւ միայնաւորութեանն տրտմութիւն չթողոյր զուարթանալ, սակայն զաւետարանական ընթացսն եւ զվերակացութիւնն սրբոյ եկեղեցւոյ շնորհաւքն Աստուծոյ առանց պակասութեան տանէր, եւ առաւել փութայր գուն եդեալ՝ զամենեսեան յորդորելով առ բարեացն քաջութիւն: 3  Եւ զցայգ եւ զցերեկ պահաւք եւ աղաւթիւք եւ ուժգին խնդրուածովք եւ բարձրագոյն բարբառովք՝ զաստուածադիր պատուիրանացն, հրամանս յուշ առնելով՝ զգուշացուցանէր ամենայն մարդոյ, մինչեւ բազմագոյնս եւ զդժուարագոյն վարուց կրթութիւնս. մանաւանդ զի եւ զմտաւ իսկ ածէր ըստ ծերունական հասակին զաւր վախճանին, չտայր քուն աչաց եւ ոչ նիրհ արտեւանաց՝ մինչեւ հասանել ի հանգիստն Տեառն:

27. [ԻԷ] 1  Եւ մինչդեռ այնպէս մերձաւորացն առ իւրեւ զհոգեւոր եռանդն ածէր, եւ բազում թուղթս խրատագիրս եւ զգուշացուցիչս ընդ ամենայն գաւառս առաքէր, անդէն ի նմին ամի, յետ ամսոց վեցից անցելոց վախճանի երանելւոյն

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

107

And there, at the altar of the martyrium,* they laid the saint with sweet-­smelling incense of all kinds in a coffin and sealed it with the seal of Christ.* And after performing the proper memorial rites over him, they returned one and all (to their places). 6 Coming together in the same way year after year, in the same month, they hold the same memorial rites in commemoration.*

26/25.  [ONGOING WORK OF MASHTOTS ‘] [90] 1 Upon hearing this, his blessed partner, I speak of Mashtots‘, being consumed with deep longing, was overwhelmed with sadness and with tearfully touching lamentations and intensely sorrowful mourning. Inasmuch as the holy Apostle, upon temporarily not finding his companion, Timothy, says that his soul was restless,* how much more intense is deemed the survivors’ grief over those who are forever departed! 2 Even though the sadness caused by loneliness would not allow one to be cheerful, yet he carried out fully, with the grace of God, the course of evangelism and administration of the holy church and strove even more, trying harder, exhorting everyone to be undaunted in goodness. 3 And day and night, with fasting and praying and with much supplication, and in a loud voice he admonished everyone, reminding them of the commandments written by God, even the various and most arduous disciplines of life. Above all, thinking of his final day, owing to his advanced age, ‘he would not allow sleep to his eyes nor slumber to his eyelids’ [Ps. 131.4] until he attained rest in the Lord.*

27/26.  [DEATH AND BURIAL OF MASHTOTS ‘] 1 And while he thus revived the religious fervour of those who were near him [92] and sent many hortatory and cautionary letters to all the districts, in that very year, six months after the death of the blessed Sahak, while the Armenian army was with the teacher in Ayrarat, in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

108

The Life of Mashtots‘

Սահակայ, լինէր հանդերձ սրբով վարդապետաւն բանակն Հայոց յԱյրարատեան ի Նոր Քաղաք, եւ նովին հոգեկրաւն վարուք հասանէր սրբոյն քրիստոսակոչ կատարումն, յետ սակաւ ինչ աւուրց հիւանդութեանն, յերեքտասաներորդում ամսեանն Մեհեկանի: 2 Եւ յորժամ որոշեալ ի միջոյ ձեռնասուն աշակերտացն եւ խառնեալ ի գունդն Քրիստոսի հասանէր, թեթեւացեալ եւ սթափեալ ի ցաւոցն՝ կանգնեալ նստաւ ի ժողովոյն միջի, եւ համբարձեալ զձեռսն հանապազատարած յերկինս՝ զամէն մնացեալսն յանձն առնէր շնորհացն Աստուծոյ, վասն նոցա աւգնականութիւն հայցէր: 3  Եւ անուանք գլխաւորաց աշակերտացն ժողովելոցն են այս. առաջնում Յովսէփ, զոր եւ ի սկզբան գրեցաք. երկրորդին Թադիկ. արք զգաստք, զգուշագոյնք հրամանաց վարդապետութեանն: 4  Ի զինուորական կողմանէն առաջնումն Վահան անուն յազգէն Ամատունեաց, որ էր հազարապետ Հայոց Մեծաց, եւ երկրորդին Հմայեակ՝ ի Մամիկոնեան տոհմէն, արք պատուականք, երկիւղածք, հրամանակատարք վարդապետական հրամանաց: 5  Եւ մինչդեռ ձեռք սրբոյն ընդ երկինս կարկառեալ էին, տեսիլ սքանչելի խաչանման լուսաւոր շողաւոր ձեւ երեւէր ի վերայ ապարանիցն, յորում երանելին վախճանէր, զոր ամենայն ուրուք ինքնատես եղեալ, եւ ոչ առ յընկերէ պատմեալ: 6  Եւ սորա սրբոցն զսէր եւ զմիաբանութիւն աւանդեալ, զմերձաւորս եւ զհեռաւորս աւրհնութեամբ պսակէր, եւ զհաճոյական աղաւթս հասուցեալ ի Քրիստոս՝ հանգեաւ: 7  Զոր առեալ Վահանայ եւ Հմայեկի կազմութեամբ վախճանելոյ, հանդերձ աշխարհական ամբոխիւ, սաղմոսիւք եւ աւրհնութեամբ եւ հոգեւոր ցնծութեամբք, կանթեղաւք վառելովք եւ ջահիւք բորբոքելովք եւ խնկաւք բուրելովք եւ ամենայն լուսաճաճանչ գնդիւն, եւ այնու խաչանշան լուսաւոր յառաջախաղաց նշանաւն, յԱւշականն ելանէին, եւ անդ ի մարտիրոսարանն մատուցեալ, զաւրինաւոր յիշատակն կատարեալ, ապա նշանն աներեւոյթ լինէր, եւ նոքա յիւրանքանչիւր դառնային տեղիսն: 8  Իսկ յետ երից ամաց անցելոց յաջողեցան Վահանայ Ամատունւոյ քրիստոսասէր փութով խորան սքանչելի կանգնել տաշածոյ վիմաւք քանդակելովք, եւ ի ներքսագոյն խորանին զսրբոյն հանգիստն յաւրինեալ: 9  Որոյ սպասս վայելուչս, գունագոյնս, պայծառատեսիլս, ոսկւով եւ արծաթով

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

109

Nor K‘aghak‘,* with that same, life-­long piety the saint met his end, being summoned by Christ. (It happened) after an illness of a few days, on the thirteenth day of the month of Mehekan.* 2 When he came close to being taken away from the midst of his well-­trained disciples to (join) Christ’s legion, freed from his pains and regaining consciousness, he arose and sat in the midst of those assembled, and with arms pleadingly lifted to heaven, he committed to God’s grace all those who remained and asked for (divine) help for them. 3 And the names of the principal disciples who were gathered are the following: first, Yovsep‘, whom we mentioned at the beginning, and second, T‘adik;* considerate men, most heedful to the doctrinal mandates. 4 From the military quarters, the name of the first, Vahan, of the Amatuni clan, who was the chancellor of Greater Armenia,* and that of the second, Hmayak, of the Mamikonean clan;* ­honourable and reverent men, observers of the doctrinal mandates. 5 And as the arms of the saint were outstretched to heaven, there was a marvellous vision: a luminous, radiant form in the shape of the cross appeared over the mansion where the blessed one was dying.* This was not reported by friends; it was seen from everywhere, [94] by everyone. 6 And he passed on love and unity as a legacy to the saints, crowned with blessing those near and far, and went to his rest, offering prayers pleasing to Christ. 7 Vahan and Hmayak, along with a crowd of laymen, lifting him in conformity (with the proper custom) for the deceased, with psalms and doxologies and spiritual joy, with lighted lanterns and flaming torches, sweet-­smelling incense and shiny candlesticks, preceded by the resplendent sign of the cross,* went up to Ōshakan.* And arriving at the martyrium there, they performed the proper memorial rites.* Then the wonder disappeared;* and they, one and all, returned to their places.* 8 However, after three years had passed, Vahan Amatuni was able to erect, with Christ-­loving zeal, a marvellous shrine with hewn, sculptured stones; and in the centre of the shrine he built the saint’s resting place.* 9 For the altar, in remembrance of the life-­giving body and blood of Christ, he prepared graceful vessels of varied colours, pleasant

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

110

The Life of Mashtots‘

եւ ակամբք պատուականաւք՝ ի յիշատակարան սեղանոյն կենդանարար մարմնոյ եւ արեանն Քրիստոսի պատրաստեալ, եւ ամենայն սրբովք ի միասին գումարելովք զմարմին խաչակրաւն վկային Քրիստոսի, երանելոյն Մաշթոցի, ի հանգիստ խորանին փոխէր: 10 Եւ զնորին աշակերտ Թադիկ անուն, զայր զգաստ եւ բարեպաշտաւն, հանդերձ եղբարբք, երանութեանն հասելոյ սպասաւոր սրբոյն ի փառս Աստուծոյ կարգէին:

28. [ԻԸ] 1 Եւ գլխաւորս, վերակացուս, տեղապահս յայտ արարեալ հարցն կատարելոց, որոց առաջինն Յովսէփ, գլխաւոր ժողովոյն, եւ երկրորդն այլ աշակերտ՝ Յովհան անուն, այր իսկ սուրբ, վարդապետասէր եւ ճշմարտապատում: 2 Որում դէպ լինէր յետ վախճանի սրբոյն, բազում եւ ազգի ազգի փորձութեանց եւ կապանաւոր վշտաց, մենամարտիկ երկպատական բռնութեանն, ի Տիզբոն քաղաքի վասն Քրիստոսի յաղթութեամբ տարեալ համբերեաց. վասն որոյ եւ զխոստովանողական անուն ժառանգեաց, ի նոյն վերակացութիւնն դառնայր յերկիրն Հայոց: 3  Իսկ բարեացապարտին Վահանայ, որ յանկարծահաս կենաց ամենեցուն լինէր՝ աշխարհածնունդ հայրենեացն սեպհական որդի գտեալ շնորհաւքն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ, մերձաւոր կենակից [լինել] վայելէր:

29. [ԻԹ] 1  Եւ զի ըստ աւրինակի գրելոցս առ ի մէնջ հարքն ի կատարումն դարձան՝ ոչ եթէ ի հին համբաւուց տեղեկացեալ եւ մատենագրեալ զայս կարգեցաք, այլ որոց մեր իսկ ականատես եղեալ կերպարանացն, եւ առընթերակաց հոգեւորական գործոցն, եւ լսող շնորհապատում վարդապետութեանն, եւ նոցին արբանեակ ըստ աւետարանական հրամանացն: 2 Ոչ սուտապատում ճարտարախաւս եղեալ առ ի մերոց բանից

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

111

to behold, in gold, silver, and with precious stones. And together with all the assembled saints, he transferred the body of the blessed Mashtots‘, the confessor of Christ’s religion of the cross, to its resting place within the shrine. [96] 10 And to the glory of God, they appointed the disciple named T‘adik,* a considerate and devout man, along with (certain) brothers, as minister(s at the shrine) of the saint who had attained blessedness.

28/27.  [SUCCESSORS AND THEIR FATE] 1 The heads, overseers, and vicars had been designated by the departed fathers. The first of them was Yovsep‘, head of the council (of ­bishops),* and the second, another disciple named Yovhan,* a truly saintly, studious, and truthful man.* 2 It so happened that, after the passing of the saint,* this man victoriously withstood many and varied trials and tribulations in chains, for Christ’s sake, in the city of Tizbon,* in a single-­handed combat against twice as much persecution; and for this reason he inherited the name of confessor, and returned to his overseeing (post) in Armenia. 3 As for the beneficent Vahan, who through the grace of Christ our God continued to be of immediate help in everyone’s life, he proved—­as a layman—­to be a true son of the fathers. It befitted him to be an intimate partner in their lives.*

29/28. [EPILO GUE] 1 As (indicated) in the text of this writing, the fathers departed to their end.* Not that we were informed by favourable rumours of old and had them arranged in the form of a book; on the contrary, we ourselves were beholders of their faces, associates in the spiritual endeavours, hearers of the grace-­imparting teaching, [98] and their companions according to the mandates of the Gospel. 2 Nor have we been untruthful in what we have recounted, verbose with our words

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

112

The Life of Mashtots‘

զհաւրէն իմոյ կարգեցաք, այլ զյաճախագոյնն թողեալ, եւ ի նշանաւոր գիտակացն քաղելով զհամառաւտս կարգեցաք, որ ոչ միայն մեզ, այլ եւ որ զմատեանս ընթեռնուն՝ յայտնի է: 3 Քանզի չէաք իսկ հանդուրժաւղք՝ զամենայն արարեալսն կտակաւ նշանակել զիւրաքանչիւրսն. այլ ի դիւրագոյնս եւ ի հեշտագոյնս, յառաքելական անդր զանձինս պատսպարեցաք. որոց անցեալ զբազմախուռն արգասեաւք սրբոցն՝ առ ի մանրակրկիտ առնելոյ զկարեւորագոյնս պատմելոյ զհանգամանս: 4 Ասացաք ոչ ի պատիւ ինչ սրբոցն Աստուծոյ, որք ամենապայծառ հաւատով եւ վարուք ծանուցեալք յարգեցան, այլ յաւրինակ քաջալերիչ՝ հոգեւոր ծննդոց իւրեանց, եւ որք նոքաւք աշակերտելոց իցեն յազգս ազգաց:

30. [Լ] 1  Եւ արդ լինի համար ամաց հաւատոց երանելւոյն ամք քառասուն եւ հինգ, եւ ի դպրութենէն Հայոց մինչեւ ցվախճան սրբոյն՝ ամք երեսուն եւ հինգ, որք համարին այսպէս. թագաւորեալ Կրմանայ Պարսից արքայի ամս վեց. եւ Յազկերտի ամս քսան եւ մի [եւ Վռամայ ութ եւ տասն], եւ յառաջնումն ամի երկրորդ Յազկերտի որդւոյ Վռամայ վախճանեցաւ երանելին: 2  Եւ արդ առնու համար ամաց սրբոց հաւատոց ի չորրորդում ամէն Կրմանայ արքայի մինչեւ ցառաջին ամն երկրորդ Յազկերտի որդւոյ Վռամայ, եւ դպրութեանն Հայոց յութերորդ ամէ Յազկերտի առեալ սկիզբն: 3 Եւ Քրիստոսի մարդասիրին փառք յաւիտեանս. ամէն:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

The Life of Mashtots‘

113

about my father; on the contrary, omitting the commonplace and gleaning from those eminently familiar, we have arranged in brief that which is evident not only to us but also to the readers of this book.* 3 Nor could we even dare to point out every single deed* as in a testamentary document, but made ourselves content with this quite facile and simpler ‘(Acts) of the Apostles’.* We set aside the multitudinous accomplishments of the saints in order to recount in some detail the most important events. 4 And we recounted this not entirely for the honour of God’s saints, who were revered for their resplendent faith and manifest life,* but for an inspiring example to their spiritual descendants and to those who, through them, will be taught from generation to generation.*

30/29.  [CHRONOLO GICAL APPENDIX] 1 And thus the number of the blessed one’s years in the faith* is forty-­ five years; and from the (beginning of) Armenian literature to the saint’s death, thirty-­five years—(the forty-­five years) counted as follows:* Kerman(shah)* of the Persians reigned six years, and Yazdegerd twenty-­one years,* ;* and in the first year of Yazdegerd II,* son of Bahram, the blessed one died. [100] 2 And thus are his years in the holy faith counted: starting from the fourth year of Kerman(shah) to the first year of Yazdegerd II,* son of Bahram; and those of Armenian literature, from the eighth year of Yazdegerd (I).* 3 And glory to Christ, the lover of humankind, forever. Amen.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

PART III

Commentary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary Title. As noted (Introduction [B]), the extant title, History of the Life and Death of the Blessed Man St. Mesrop Vardapet Our Translator by His Pupil Koriwn Vardapet, is of later derivation. The name Mesrop never appears in the text, where it is consistently Masht‘ots‘ (modified to Mashtots‘ in the translation and commentary, except when found in quotes and references). On vardapet as a religious teacher, see ­comment on 10/6.2 (44.13–15); cf. that on ‘teaching’ in 1.1 (22.11). Throughout, entries from the translation—­ in bold—­ follow the chapter and section divisions as found in the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ series (Armenian Classical Authors, hereinafter abbreviated MH) 1:229–57. With cross-­references in the commentary, these are followed by page and line numbers of Abeghyan’s edition, in parenthesis (on the various editions, see Introduction [D]).

CHAPTER 1 1. the nation descended from Ashkenaz. Arm. Azk‘enazean, a name that occurs but rarely in Classical Armenian sources with reference to the Armenian people as descendants of Ashkenaz, an elder brother of Togarmah (Arm. T‘orgom), sons of the biblical Gomer, a grandson of Noah through Japheth in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:2–3). Ashkenaz as the Noachian progenitor of the Armenians is cited also by St Gregory of Narek, ‘Litany for St. Gregory the Illuminator’ (MH 12:687, line 93): ‘. . . zt‘or˙uns Azk‘anazu’ (‘You cleansed, enlightened, and perfected the grandchildren of Ashkenaz’; however, earlier in the same work (MH 12:685, lines 41–2), St Gregory has: ‘. . . ordwots‘ T‘orgomay’ (‘Filled with the intelligible light, you appeared from the West to the regions of the North, to the sons of T‘orgom dwelling in darkness’; used interchangeably also in another of his works, History of the Holy Cross of Aparank‘, 6.26 (Azk‘anaz) and 7.30 (T‘orgom), (MH 12:916; Eng. trans. Abraham Terian, The Festal Works of St. Gregory of Narek: Annotated Translation of the Odes, Litanies, and Encomia, A Pueblo book [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016], 113, 116, 228, 229).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

118

Commentary

A more common self-­understanding among medieval Armenians is that they are the descendants of T‘orgom, who is said to have ­begotten Hayk, the legendary ancestor of the Armenians (Movsēs Khorenats‘i, Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘, 1.5.30, 9.20–1, 10.9, 12.36 [MH 2:1761, 1775, 1776, 1786]; Eng. trans., Robert  W.  Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians, rev. edn [Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 2006], 72, 81, 83, 89; hereinafter abbreviated History). The claim is not original with Khorenats‘i, for the same assertion is made in Agathangelos, History, §16, a passage inspired by the opening words of Koriwn’s work, and §§776, 796 (MH 2:1312 [‘Prologue’ 40]; 1674 [107.12] and 1684 [112.2]; Eng. trans., Robert  W.  Thomson, Agathangelos, History of the Armenians [Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1976], 29, 315, 335; hereinafter abbreviated History). The Armenian claim of descent from T‘orgom (‘Thorgama’ in the Septuagint [Gen. 10:3 LXX]) has its origin in the Greek Chronicle or guide to the chronology of the Old Testament (Synagōgē xronōn kai etōn), compiled before ad 235 and attributed to a certain Hippolytus, identified by some as bishop of Rome (Hippolytus Werke. Bd. 4: Die Chronik, ed. Rudolf Helm, 2nd edn, GCS 46 [Berlin: Akademie-­Verlag, 1955], 12). The partial Greek text, of which there are three Latin translations from the fourth century and several utilizations by Greek chroniclers and chronographers, has an Armenian recension derived and expanded from the latter in the seventh century (ibid., p. xiv) by an ‘anonymous’ chronicler (‘Ananun’; text in MH 5:799–895) and used widely since (for a survey and a German translation of the recension, see Josef Markwart, ‘Arm. Chronik v. J. 686/7’, appended to the earlier edition of the Greek text, Hippolytus Werke. Bd. 4: Die Chronik, ed. Adolf Bauer and Rudolf Helm, GCS 36 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929], 393–558; cf. Movsēs Kaghankatuats‘i or Daskhurants‘i, Patmut‘iwn Aghuanits‘ Ashkharhi, 1.2.4, 1.14.3–4, ed. Varag D. Ar˙ak‘elyan [Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1983], 4, 32 [MH 15:33, 65]; Eng. trans., C. J. F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by  Movsēs Dasxurançi, London Oriental Series 8 [London: Oxford University Press, 1961], 2, 19). The extant texts include a section on the division of the world among the descendants of Noah (Diamerismos tēs gēs), the source of the tradition. For a critical assessment of the Greek text, dubbed Liber generationis, its later recensions, and the reworked Latin expansions, see R(ichard) W.  Burgess, ‘The Date, Purpose, and Historical Context of the Original Greek and the Latin

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

119

Translation of the So-­called ‘Excerpta Latina Barbari’, Traditio 68 (2013), 1–56, esp. 7–20. The combined reading of Ezek. 27:14 and 39:6, along with Jer. 51:27 (28:27 LXX): ‘Summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz’, coupled with Gen. 10:3, where Ashkenaz is an elder brother of Togarmah, has led to inconsistency not only in the Armenian claim of descent from either Ashkenaz or Togarmah (or both), but also in early Jewish and Christian sources regarding the biblical identity of nations inhabiting the lands around the Black and Caspian Seas. The Hebrew word ‘Ashkenazi’ (cf. Assyrian ‘Ishkuza’) originally meant a Scythian. In medieval rabbinic literature the word was used  to  refer to northern people and regions—­including the land of  Togarmah—­even beyond the Danube. See Marcus Jastrow and Max  L.  Margolis, ‘Ashkenaz’, in The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. Isidore Singer et al., 12 vols. (New York; London: Ktav, 1901–6), 2:191–2; cf. Gotthard Deutsch, ‘Ashkenaz,’ ibid. 192–3. Teaching: vardapetut‘iwn, an abstract noun employed again in this opening page and elsewhere, some twenty-­four times altogether, usually refers to the Christian doctrine as imparted by the Fathers (e.g. 20/19.10 [76.18]; cf. the adj. vardapetakan, ‘doctrinal’, in the last line of this chapter and elsewhere: 27/26.3–4 [92.17–18], implying Apostolic teaching and preaching); or, to religious knowledge acquired through education or schooling, or learning in general (as in the immediately following section [22.17]; cf. 12.1 [58.3]; 19/18.5 [72.26]; translated ‘learning’ in these three instances). Except for its use at 21/20.1 (78.3), the word need not be taken as a reference to the traditional Teaching of St. Gregory embedded in Agathangelos (History, §§259–715) and justifiably attributed to Mashtots‘ or his circle of disciples (see comment ad loc.). On the inherent meaning(s) of the word vardapet, see comment on 10/6.2 (44.13–15). Yovsep‘ (Hoghots‘mets‘i). This Yovsep‘ (Joseph) is to be distinguished from another disciple by the same name, ‘from the House of Paghan’, mentioned further below as a translator with Yovhan of Ekegheats‘ in Samosata (8.6 [50.3–4]) and later with Eznik of Koghb in Edessa and Byzantium (20/19.3 [74.15–23]). Yovsep‘, of whom other fifth-­century sources say that he comes from the village of Hoghots‘mants‘ (hence called Hoghots‘mets‘i) located in the valley of Vayots‘ Dzor in Siwnik‘ (for references, see HAnB 3:710, s.v. ‘Yovsēp‘ 5’), heads the list of dis­ ciples in 27/26.3 (92.13), where his identity is further stressed with the words ‘whom we mentioned at the beginning’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

120

Commentary

After the Armenian Arsacid Kingship was abolished and the Patriarch Sahak deposed by the Persian ‘king of kings’ Bahram V in 428, the Persians appointed Surmak, bishop of Bznunik‘ as head of the Church, who was followed by two Syrians, Brk‘isho and Samuel (Ghazar, History, 1.15.9–13 [MH 2:2223–4]; Khorenats‘i, History, 3.66 [MH 2:2108–9]). Sahak died in 439 (see below, ch. 25/24 [86.18– 88.19]), and according to Ghazar, Mashtots‘ designated Yovsep‘ to succeed him (History, 1.19.3 [MH 2:2236]). The historians of the period seem to gloss over the succession problem in view of the fact that the patriarchal throne was not vacant but occupied by non-­ Armenian appointees of the Sasanian Court (see Winkler, ‘An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church History’, 85–180). However, they are consistent in referring to Yovsep‘ as locum tenens (Arm. teghapah). The tenth-­ century historian Asoghik (Stephen of Tarōn, History, 2.2.3–5 [MH 15:686–7]) tells of a council held upon the death of Surmak (or of the Syrian catholicoi who succeeded him) at which Yovsep‘ was elected catholicos, and ‘at the order of Vardan [Mamikonean] . . . was placed on the patriarchal throne’. None of the fifth-­century writers, however, refers to Yovsep‘ in that position. In Eghishē’s History of Vardan Yovsep‘ is styled as bishop and never as catholicos or patriarch (passim; cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.65–6 [MH 2:2105–9]). Koriwn seems to allude to this imprecise administrative position of Yovsep‘, both at the beginning and at the end of the Life (28/27.1 [96.6]). The council in question was that of Shahapivan, convened by Yovsep‘ in ad 444, conceivably without the authorization of the Persian ‘king of kings’ whose recognition of Yovsep‘ as catholicos was never realized (see comment on Yovhan the Confessor at 28/27.1 [96.7]). Yovsep‘ probably had a significant role during the ad 451 rebellion against the Persians. Consequently, he was deported to Persia, where he was martyred in 454 (Eghishē, History, 7.319–21 [MH 1:732]). It is important to note that Koriwn’s work pre-­dates not only the martyrdom of Yovsep‘ but also the council held a decade earlier. For more on church– state relations under the Sasanians, see Nina  G.  Garsoïan, ‘Secular Jurisdiction over the Armenian Church (Fourth–Seventh Centuries)’, Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Ševčenko on His Sixtieth Birthday by His Colleagues and Students, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7 (1983), 220–50, here 235–47. 2. I was the youngest . . . surpassed our ability. The author’s understatement, a litotes, purposefully represents a thing as much less

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

121

s­ ignificant than it is, achieving an ironic effect. Such self-­deprecation is a literary commonplace in Late Antiquity, a feature in encomia where it appears usually in the prologue—­as Koriwn does here, and again in the epilogue (29/28.3 [98.6–7]). Cf. St Gregory of Narek’s dedicatory memoir to his encomia (MH 12:963–4; Terian, The Festal Works of St. Gregory of Narek, 367–9). to write in book form. Writing a book was highly significant in the Late Antique period, when scrolls were giving way to codices. Writing a book was tantamount to establishing the truth, as one understood it, for posterity. It is this truth conveyed in book form that is vouched for at the conclusion, creating an inclusio (ch. 29/28). See Eric G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1977). 3. sailing . . . the doctrinal sea. The imagery of sailing safely over doctrinal waters appears frequently in writings of the fourth and fifth centuries, a tense period because of rampant suspicions of heresy surrounding emerging works. The prayer request emanates from fear of erring doctrinally in the course of writing. Cf. e.g. Hippolytus,‘The pupils of these men, when they perceive the doctrines of the heretics to be like unto the ocean when tossed into waves by violence of the winds, ought to sail past in quest of the tranquil haven. For a sea of this description is both infested with wild beasts and difficult of navigation . . .’ (Refutation of All Heresies, Bk. vii, in Ante-­Nicene Fathers, Volume 5: Fathers of the Third Century, ed.Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson [Buffalo: The Christian Literature Pub. Co., 1886] vii.1 [p. 100]). Also St Gregory of Nyssa, ‘Funeral Oration on Meletius’, Bishop of Sardis: ‘Where is that safe helm of our souls which steered us while we sailed safely over the swelling waves of heresy?’ (trans. Henry A.  Wilson, NPNF 2nd ser., 5:514). For Armenian sources, see the preamble to the canons of the Council of Shahapivan, held in 444 (Kanonagirk‘ Hayots‘ [Canon Law of the Armenians], ed. Vazgēn Hakobyan, 2 vols. [Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1964–71] 1:424). This line of Koriwn is borrowed in Agathangelos §15 and echoed in §1.

CHAPTER 2 1. the lives of men made perfect. Arm. zvars arants‘n katarelots‘; as in Gk. teleiōmenoi, the latter term is used for the departed faithful, the dead

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

122

Commentary

in Christ, especially the martyred saints (cf. katarelots‘ in 28/27.1 [96.5–6], and katarumn in 27/26.1 and 29/28.1 [92.5; 96.18], with ­reference to the departed fathers in the author’s bracketing the book literarily). The phrase owes to Heb. 12:23, ‘the spirits of the righteous made perfect’ (Arm. yogis ardarots‘ katarelots‘) in the heavenly Jerusalem (v. 22); cf. Heb. 10:14, on Christ making perfect those who are sanctified. It is beyond the scope of this brief commentary to go over the ­concept of ‘perfect men’ in Greek paideia. In biblical terms, the concept appears rarely in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Armenian version of the Bible (Deut. 18:13, on being perfect before God, and 2 Kgs. [2 Sam.] 22:26, on associating with people deemed perfect; Sir. 44:17 LXX, said of Noah). In the Post-­Apostolic Fathers, it is said of Esther, being ‘perfect’ in faith (1 Clem. 55.6); Ignatius describes the ‘perfect’ Christians (Ign. Eph. 15.2); and the Didache declares ‘perfect’ those capable of bearing the whole yoke of Christ (Did. 6.2). The Desert Fathers were generally considered ‘perfect men’ for having heeded the call in Matt. 19:21. On justification to write such an account, to which this entire ­chapter is dedicated, see Introduction (B). 3. the narrative by Moses. The Pentateuch, Genesis to Deuteronomy. 4. acceptable sacrifice. Alluding to the sacrifice of Abel (Gen. 4:3–12), called ‘righteous’ in Heb. 11:4. appeared to go on living. Alluding to Enoch (Gen. 5:21–4); cf. Heb. 11:5. protected in a ship. Alluding to Noah (Gen. 6:9–8:22); cf. Heb. 11:7. justified through newfound faith. Alluding to Abraham (Gen. 12:1– 22:19; cf. Rom. 4:1–22; Heb. 11:8–10). 5. all the books that make God known. The canonical writings regarded as Scripture: the Old Testament canon being the same as that of the Septuagint, including various apocryphal and at times deuterocanonical books such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; and the New Testament canon, including Third Corinthians, unique to the Armenian canon (elsewhere part of the apocryphal Acts of Paul), and excluding the Book of Revelation. 6. names (in the letter) to the Hebrews. Heb. 11:4–32. Rahab’s hospitality to the spies. Heb. 11:31; cf. Jas. 2:25, recalling Josh. 2:1–21; 6:17, 22–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

123

9. Nimrod. The first of the post-­Flood heroes in the Genesis table of nations and mythic founder of Babylon (Gen. 10:8–9). The Heb. Bible (MT) has: ‘. . . a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The Gk. Bible (LXX) contrarily has: ‘. . . a mighty hunter against the Lord’; not so the Arm. Bible, which follows the Heb. reading. The negativity stems from Nimrod’s mythic ties to Babylon, the power that opposes God’s people in biblical history. Samson. Judg. 15:24–16:31. David. 1 Sam. 16:12–30:31 and 2 Sam. especially. 10. Joseph in Egypt. Gen. 39:1–50:26. Daniel in Babylon. As recounted in the Book of Daniel. 11. counsellors to mighty kings. Such as Joseph and Daniel, already named, in the service of foreign kings; so too Nehemiah and possibly Ezra. Mordecai in the Book of Esther may also be considered as one in the service of a foreign king. 13. Daniel ‘much beloved’. Alongside Dan. 9:23, see 10:11, 19. Holy Mother of the Lord in Galilee, ‘blessed among women’. Conflating the Annunciation to Mary with her visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1:26–8, 42). 14. associates. Zugakank‘, a term used also in the sense of ‘allies of God’, as earlier with reference to Abraham (dashnawor, 2.4 [24.24]), and not just in the vernacular sense of two associates. Note that the examples that follow are individuals who had a special relationship with God; cf. ‘the friends of God’ (Astutsoy barekamk‘) in Eznik of Koghb, Eghts aghandots‘ (Refutation of the Sects), 355; Arm. text with French trans. in Eznik de Kołb: De Deo, ed. Louis Mariès and Charles Mercier, PO 28, fascs. 3–4 (Paris: Firmin-­Didot, 1959); Eng. trans., Monica  J.  Blanchard and Robin  D.  Young, Eznik of Kołb. On God, ECTT 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). The latter designation is used with reference to apologists for God, especially in matters of theodicy, as well as of biblical worthies and their like, those who were martyred for God’s sake. The singular zugakan is used in 26/25.1 (90.2) with reference to Mashtots‘ as an associate of Sahak. the Lord of All. An epithet, tērn isk amenayni, repeated at 23/22.14 (amenatērn, 84.3). 15. what He was about to do in Sodom. Alluding to the narrative in Gen. 18:1–33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

124

Commentary

16. the valiant martyr Job. Those who survived unbearable suffering in trials of faith are called ‘martyrs’ in early Armenian literature. A classical example is St Gregory the Illuminator, styled ‘martyr’ for having endured suffering like no other human (see Terian, Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity, 25–6, 33–4). prior to his contest with the one who wages war. Lit., ‘before his wa­ging war against the one who wages war’; cf. Job 1:8–12, with an allusion to Job’s proverbial endurance as a righteous sufferer, as narrated in the book of the Bible bearing his name. On Satan warring even in heaven, see Rev. 12:7–9; cf. Isa. 14:12; Luke 10:18. ‘An honest, just, and godly man, one who abstains from all evil deeds’ [Job 1:8]. The quotation differs somewhat from the extant Arm. Bible; cf. Job 2:3. On the distinctions between the versions, see Claude E. Cox, Armenian Job: Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation, HUAS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006). 17. Moses . . . is acclaimed in all the ecclesiastical books. Except for the Pentateuch or the Law, the Torah, and the ensuing Book of Joshua, Moses is seldom exalted in the Old Testament. Koriwn seems to express such awareness in the next sentence, as he limits himself to the first division of the OT: the Law (a self-­correction of a sort could be noticed here). For Moses in the New Testament, apart from the polemics of the Gospels, see Acts 7:20–2; 2 Cor. 3:7; Heb. 11:23. The exaltation of Moses anticipates the encomiastic comparison in 9.4–8 (52.1–19), where Mashtots‘ surpasses even Moses. Jethro is not overlooked in writing. The father-­in-­law of Moses, revered for his counsel; Ex. 18:17–27. 19. crowns with blessedness his special Twelve. Alluding to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 5:3–12; cf. 19:28 and its Lucan parallel (22:30). the Forerunner. Referring to John the Baptist, whose blessedness is pronounced—­albeit ironically—­in Matt. 11:7–11. 21. the pouring of a little ointment . . . ‘should be told everywhere under heaven’. Alongside Matt. 26:13, cf. Mark 14:9. Singling out the acts of three praiseworthy women in this paragraph is noteworthy. 22. offering of two mites. Luke 21:3; cf. Mark 12:43. 26. Catholic (Letter)s of the Apostles. A designation for the non-­Pauline letters in the New Testament: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

125

27. fellow soldiers. Lit., ‘fellow archers’, the etymology being rooted in the kind of warfare for which the ancient Armenians were famed. The notion is based upon the Pauline understanding of believers as soldiers of Christ, engaged in a cosmic warfare in which Christ has already triumphed over the principalities and powers in high places (Eph. 6:12; cf. 3:10; Col. 2:15). 29. women disciples. For women followers of Jesus, see e.g. Mark 15:40–1; Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–42. Several examples of women leaders in the Primitive Church are found in Paul’s letters. Worthy of mention are the nine named and two unnamed women in Rom. 16:1–7, 12–15; cf. Phil. 4:2; Col. 4:15; 2 Tim. 4:19, 21, and Acts 18:2–3, 18–19, 26. On the ministry of such women, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘Women in the  Pauline Mission’, in The  Gospel  to the  Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission, ed. Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity,  2000), 221–47; cf. Bernadette  J.  Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 30. an example and a rule to be followed by those who were to come later. At the end of the encomium the same Pauline purpose is applied to writing this very ‘praise’, thus creating an inclusio (29/28.4 [98.11–14]). Sections 30–8 (32.15–34.11) are utilized by the author of the Biwzandaran (iv.4.62–7), who also maintains the order of the scriptural quotations and/or allusions. The parallel was first observed by Step‘an Kanayiants‘, who assigns the priority to the Biwzandaran: ‘Patmagirk‘ Hayots‘’ ew mi k‘ani ditoghut‘iwnner P‘awstos Biwzandi masin’ (‘Armenian Historians’ and Some Observations on P.  B.), Ararat 36 (1903), 249–50 (cf. Garsoïan, EH 273 n. 38). 31. (Paul) exhorts (all) to show (similar) zeal. 2 Cor. 9:1–2; cf. Rom. 15:26. 33. (Paul) urges (all) to emulate him and the Lord. 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; cf. Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6. Cf. Agathangelos §848, applied to St. Gregory the Illuminator. 37. Luke states . . . at the beginning of his book on the Acts of the Apostles. Possibly alluding to Acts 1:14: ‘These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer.’ 38. ‘. . . and see the Lord’s conclusion’. A fitting quotation (Jas. 5:10–11), given the author’s narrative of the quest for letters.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

126

Commentary

40. ‘(we), whose freedom is in heaven; to wait for the Saviour, the great God’. A paraphrase of Phil. 3:20. Arm. Bible: ‘For our virtue is in heaven, from where we wait for the Christ’ (cf. the Gk.: ‘For our citizenship is in heaven, from where also we eagerly wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ’). The inflated Pauline verse appears similarly in Agathangelos §777. 41. post-­canonical writings, from after the Apostles. The random group of Christian writings that follow the New Testament, known as those of the Apostolic Fathers. They span the first two Christian centuries, yet they are distinguishable from the New Testament apoc­ rypha, in that they are historical and orthodox. how they were honoured by one another. Of those memorialized by their contemporaries from the period ‘after the apostles’, Melitius, bishop of Sardis (d. c.180) is a foremost example. He was esteemed as a prophet, according to Tertullian (as quoted by Jerome in De viris illustribus 24 [PL 23:643]). Gregory of Nyssa’s famed ‘Funeral Oration on Meletius’ begins as follows: ‘The number of the Apostles has been enlarged for us by this late Apostle being reckoned among their company’ (trans. Henry A. Wilson, NPNF 2nd ser., 5:513). So also Gregory of Nazianzen’s ‘Panegyric on the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria’ (Oration 21) and ‘Panegyric on St. Basil’ (Oration 43), trans. Charles  G.  Browne and James  E.  Swallow, NPNF 2nd ser., 7:269–80; 395–422. Regardless of some common elements the latter has with the Life, e.g. the saint as personification of virtue and an exemplary model for imitation, the Life differs considerably; after all, Mashtots‘ is neither a miracle worker nor a heavenly intercessor. Cf. Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory of Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, with an Introduction on the Early Christian Funeral Oration, trans. Leo P. McCauley and Martin R. P. McGuire, FC 22 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1953; repr. 2004), and Andrea Sterk, ‘On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian Legacy of Leadership’, Church History 67.2 (1998), 227–53. 42. being prompted by them both. That is, by both the biblical and the extra-­biblical writings—­in response to the enquiry at the beginning on whether it is permissible to engage in such writing. Koriwn is clearly connecting the end of his proposition with its beginning; note his use of the words ‘Ew ard ar˙eal’ (‘And now let us begin’) here and at the beginning of the chapter, and never again in the rest of the work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

127

43. Now . . . These lines constitute an announcement of subject, introducing the next major unit of the work (on such catchwords in the Life, see Appendix II). Cf. the connection between these lines and the opening remarks on the ‘demand’ (1.1 [22.13]). The word hayrenakatar (here rendered ‘the departed father’) is problematic, if not corrupt, as Abeghyan suggests (Koryun, 107 n. 49). The apparently conflated words need to be separated, as hayrn katareal; cf. harts‘n katarelots‘ (‘the departed/perfected fathers’) and hark‘n i katarumn dardzan (‘the fathers departed to [their] end’) at the end of the body of the text and in the epilogue, 28/27.1; 29/28.1 (96.5–6, 18–19), corresponding to arants‘n katarelots‘ (‘the men made perfect’) at the beginning of the prologue and ar˙n ardaroy (‘the just man’) at its end (2.1, 42 [24.7; 34.24]).

CHAPTER 3 1. Mashtots‘. This is the first mention of ‘Masht‘ots‘‘ (Մաշթոց), the consistent spelling of the Saint’s name in the Life, as possibly also in Ghazar’s History written at the end of the fifth century—­given the fact that this spelling of the name is used interchangeably with Mashtots‘ (Մաշտոց) in the surviving but rather late manuscripts of the History. The latter spelling, used commonly, is adopted in this translation and commentary. Other authors have Mesrob/Mesrovb or Mesrop/ Mesrovp, as in Khorenats‘i, History (except in 2.10.5, where it is Mashtots‘ [MH 2:1866]). The etymology of the name is unknown, according to HAnB 3:214, s.v. ‘Mashtots‘ 2’. However, N.  Adontz (Adonts‘) suggests that the earliest attestations of the name (Մաժդոց, Մաշդոց, Մաշթոց) ultimately point to its derivation from Iranian mazd-­ak, meaning ‘sage’—the suffix regularly corresponding to Arm. –ots‘: Masht‘ots‘ ew nra ashakertnerĕ ĕst otar aghbiwrneri (Masht‘ots‘ and His Pupils according to Foreign Sources), Azgayin Matenadaran 111 (Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1925), 6–10 (the booklet is a reprint of his segmented article ‘Antsanōt‘ ējer Masht‘ots‘i ew nra ashakertneri keank‘its‘ ĕst otar aghbiwrneri’ [(Hitherto) Unknown Pages on Masht‘ots‘ and His Pupils according to Foreign Sources], HA 39 [1925] 194–202, 322–7, 435–41, 531–9). Adontz identifies Mashtots‘ with Mastoubios the Chorepiskopos of Armenia to whom were addressed the three lost discourses On the Deceit of the Persian Magi of Theodore of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

128

Commentary

Mopsuestia, according to the annotation of the book by the Patriarch Photius (Bib. Photii, PG 103:281; on Theodore’s later demise, see ch. 24/23 and comments). The suggestion by Adontz is intriguing, since it also helps explain the alteration to Mesrop; both forms being recognizable in the name Mastoubios, with the ‘t’ altering to ‘r’ (ibid.). That the name is invariably related to a religious ‘sage’ or a divine is further supported by Armen Petrosyan’s heightened study, ‘Tir ew Mashtots‘. dprut‘yan astvatsĕ ew greri steghtsoghĕ’ (Tir and Mashtots‘: the Scribe-­ god and the inventor of writing) in Hayots‘ grer. mijazgayin gitazhoghov nvirvats hayots‘ greri gyuti 1600-­ amyakin. zekuts‘umneri zhoghovatsoy (Armenian Letters: International Conference Dedicated to the 1600th Anniversary of the Invention of the Armenian Letters. Collection of Proceedings), ed. Vladimir Barkhudaryan et al. (Yerevan: Gitut‘yun, 2006), 41–53. District of Tarōn. The vast district of Tarōn/Taronitis, in the region of Taruberan (its third district according to the Ashkharhats‘oyts‘, 29/40), lies west of Lake Van, north of the Taurus Mountains (for the early Armenian references to the district see Garsoïan, EH 492, s.v. ‘Tarōn/ Tarawn’; for a brief history, Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 5:57–8, s.v. ‘Taron’). Koriwn here refers to Tarōn as a ‘district’ (gawar˙) and elsewhere as a ‘province’ (nahang, 13.2 [60.6]). Such inconsistency is found also in the Buzandaran (gawar˙, 3.16, 19; 4.14, 15; 5.3; 6.16; nahang, 3.14; 4.15). For the most part the district was the domain of the Mamikoneans, the clan that held the hereditary command of the Armenian army under the Arsacids and thereafter. the village of Hats‘ekats‘. The village, mentioned also in the Buzandaran (3.19.14 [MH 1:303]), the History of Ghazar (1.10.1 [MH 2:2011]), and the History of Khorenats‘i (3.47.2 [MH 2:2070]), cannot be located with certainty. Eremyan places it south-­east of Ashtishat, north of the Megh River (Map G/4). In their Russian translation of the Life, Smbatian (Smbatyan) and Melik-­Ogandzhanian (Melik‘Ohanjanyan) maintain that the village survived till 1915, under the name of Khas Gegh (Zhitie Mashtotsa, 133 n. 57; cited by Garsoïan, EH 467, s.v. ‘Hac‘ekeac‘ / Hac‘ekac‘ giwł’). a blessed man named Vardan. Named also by Ghazar (History, 1.10.1 [MH 2:2011]); cf. HAnB 5:75, s.v. ‘Vardan 4.’ The adjective ‘blessed’ (Arm. eraneli, -woy) suggests that he could have been a cleric, a suggestion further conditioned by Koriwn’s repeated use of the term (forty-­four times). The territorial and ancestral references imply that our Saint hails from the Mamikonean clan, among whom the name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

129

seems to have been common; see also below, 12.7–9; 27/26.3–6 (58.17–22; 92.12–94.10). 2. Arsacid kings of Greater Armenia. In his recounting of this passage at the end of the fifth century, Ghazar specifies that this was during the reign of Khosrov IV (387–9), in whose court Mashtots‘ ‘was appointed to the office of royal scribes’ (1.10.1 [MH 2:2011]; cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.49.1–5 [MH 2:2073–4]). ‘Greater Armenia’ designates the Armenian Highlands or the ever-­shifting territorial extent of the ancient Armenian kingdoms. However, at the time of Koriwn’s writing, Greater or Eastern Armenia was under Sasanian control (hence, the occasional designation as Pers-­Armenia in ancient and modern sources), just as Lesser or Western Armenia was under Byzantine control. The unequal partition was dictated by the Treaty of Akilisenē, also known as ‘The Treaty of Theodosios’, in 387 (with Shapur III), ending the centuries-­old conflict between Rome and Persia over Armenia. Both parts were nominally governed by the Armenian branch of the Arsacid kings, as vassals of their respective suzerains: Arshak III in Lesser Armenia, and Khosrov IV in Greater Armenia. With the immediate death of Arshak III in 387, Lesser Armenia was administered directly by the Byzantines, while the dwindling Arsacid Dynasty in Greater Armenia lasted till 428. On its demise, see below, on King Artashēs at 17/16.24. This state of the partition was reversed two centuries later, at the end of the Byzantine– Sasanian war of 572–91. Koriwn refers to Greater Armenia five more times: 6.1 [42.2]; 9.3 [50.22]; 17/16.24 [70.7]; 19/18.7 [74.5]; 27/26.4 [92.16]). On the Armenian Arsacids, see Nina  G.  Garsoïan, ‘The Aršakuni Dynasty (ad 12–[180?]–428)’, in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, 2 vols. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 1:63–94. chancellorship. The word hazarapetut‘iwn indicates the state, condition, or power of a hazarapet, Gk. chiliarch, lit., ‘commander of a thousand’. While the term was used loosely in Persia for those in charge of countless others under their military command, in Pers-­ Armenia it was used primarily for those in charge of civilian administration; cf. 27/26.4 (92.16). Ar˙awan. His name is unattested elsewhere (see HAnB 1:205, s.v. ‘Ar˙awan 2’). 4. . . . rendered his services to the princes. Cf. Agathangelos §§863–4, said of King Trdat III (r. 298–330), serving God ultimately.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

130

Commentary

CHAPTER 4 1. followed the all-­sustaining Crucified. Echoing Matt. 16:24 and parallels. Cf. Gal. 5:24, and 1 Cor 1:23 and 2:2 on Christ ‘the crucified’. 2. joined an order of solitaries. The terminology and the description here leave no doubt that the order Mashtots‘ joined at the beginning of his religious life was an order of solitaries or hermits, similar to early Syrian ascetic communities, such as described by Koriwn’s exact contemporary, Theodoret bishop of Cyrrhus (423–57) in his Religious History, subtitled The Ascetic Life and written in the year 440 (Text: Théodoret de Cyr, Histoire des moines de Syrie, ed. Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-­Molinghen, 2 vols., SC 234 and 257 [Paris: Cerf, 1977–9]; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, A History of the Monks of Syria, trans. R(ichard) M.  Price, Cistercian Studies 88 [Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1985]). See also Edward G. Mathews, Jr., ‘Early Armenian and Syrian Contact: Reflections on Koriwn’s Life of Maštocʿ’, SNTR 7 (2002), 5–27; idem, ‘The Early Armenian Hermit: Further Reflections on the Syriac Sources’, SNTR 10 (2005), 141–67. As in Theodoret’s History, varying forms of asceticism are described by Koriwn when recounting the ensuing missionary activities of Mashtots‘ (23/22.1–3, 9–10 [80.9–19; 82.9–15]; cf. 13.4; 15/14.5 [60.13, 28]). Such orders were soon on the decline in Armenia—­indeed discouraged as of the middle of the fifth century, in favour of coenobitic monasticism. Canons 15 and 16 of the Council of Shahapivan (ad 444), regardless of questions about their authenticity, promote monasticism under the leadership of an abbot or a bishop, as does the 23rd discourse in the Yachakhapatum collection of discourses by an anonymous abbot of the late sixth century. That coenobitic monasticism was gradually becoming the norm during the second half of the fifth century is attested in the historical works of the period that project practices of their time into earlier periods recounted in them. By the end of the fifth century the development was complete, as seen in Ghazar’s ‘Letter’ appended to the History, describing the monastery at the capital Vagharshapat over which he was the appointed head (cf. History, 1.10, where he writes anachronistically, as he recounts the early phase of the life of Mashtots‘; and 1.18, as he describes the establishment at Ashtishat following the burial of Sahak [MH 2:2211–14, 2234–5]; cf. the early phase of the latter establishment as described by Koriwn in ch. 25/24). For more, see my forthcoming monograph,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

131

A Documentary History of Early Armenian Monasticism: 5th–6th Centuries, and my introduction to the Yachakhapatum discourses (Moralia et Ascetica Armeniaca: The Oft-­Repeated Discourses, FC 143 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2021], 1–58, esp. 37–41). 7. became known and pleasing to God and men. Cf. Rom. 14:18. This entire chapter is appropriated for St Gregory the Illuminator in Agathangelos §859, and echoed in part with reference to King Trdat III in §865.

CHAPTER 5 1. Goght‘n. The chapter spotlights the Saint’s first mission to the region, the thirty-­ third district of Vaspurakan (Ashkharhats‘oyts‘ 33/44), extending north-­east into the southern region of Siwnik‘ or present-­day Nakhijewan (see Garsoïan, EH 465, s.v. ‘Gołt‘n/Gawt‘an’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 1:935, s.v. Goght‘n’). Mashtots‘ resumes his mission in the district after the invention of the Armenian letters (13.3–5 [60.8–16]). Since the Life is conceived of as another Acts of the Apostles, like the latter it contains several missionary journeys com­ par­able to those of the Apostle Paul. 2. Shabat‘. A name of Syriac derivation; ‘Shabit‘/Shabit‘ay’ and ‘Shambit‘’ in later sources dependent on Koriwn (HAnB 4:100, s.v. ‘Shabat‘ 1’). Its inflected form, ‘Shabat‘ay’, occurs twice below (13.4, 5 [60.11, 14]). The same prince, followed by his son Giwt, continues to support the Saint upon his return to Goght‘n (ibid.). 3. obedience to Christ. Echoing 2 Cor. 10:5. This section and the next (3–4) are used in Agathangelos §785, where ‘Khaghtik‘’ is named in place of ‘the Medes’. Khaghtik‘ lies west of Erzurum (Karin/Theodosiopolis). 4. region of the Medes. Commonly called ‘Mark‘’(genitive ‘Marats‘’) in Armenian sources, it lies north of Lake Urmia. It was part of Atrpatakan (ancient Media), within the Arshakuni kingdom of Armenia and bordering Iran. The inhabitants of the region, of Median descent, are described as demonic people in 14/10.1 (54.10–12). 5.  . . . and ceaseless tears. Cf. Agathangelos §864, said of King Trdat III.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

132

Commentary

CHAPTER 6 1. Catholicos of Greater Armenia whose name was Sahak. Sahak’s titles vary in the Life, where he is referred to as ‘Catholicos’ a second time at 16/15.11 (64.9). Curiously, Koriwn never refers to Sahak as hayrapet (patriarch), a term he reserves for non-­Armenian prelates; however, he uses the term Catholicos twice when referring to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Attikos (17/16.7, 11 [66.10–11, 21]). Sahak is usually surbn, ‘the saint’; or eranelin, ‘the blessed one’ (passim). Twice he is surb episkoposn, ‘the Holy Bishop’ (9.9 [54.2]; 17/16.24 [70.7–8]); once tēr episkoposn, ‘the Lord Bishop’ or ‘the Chief Bishop’ (13.1 [60.3]); once metsn, ‘the Great’ (20/19.2 [74.13]); and once equated with Mashtots‘ as one of the two ‘superintendents’ (hogabardzuats‘n, 10/6.1 [44.11]). For more on the patriarchal titles in vogue and the fluctuating nomenclature at the time, see the ‘Appendix’ in Robert W. Thomson, trans., The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Scholars Press Occasional Papers and Proceedings, Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies, S.  D.  Fesjian Academic Publications 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 272–4; and Nina G. Garsoïan and Jean-­Pierre Mahé, Des Parthes au Califat: quatre leçons sur la formation de l’identité arménienne (Paris: De Boccard, 1997), 79–106, by Mahé (‘Le rôle et la fonction du catholicos d’Arménie du viie au xie ciècle’). On the territory of ‘Greater Armenia’ in historical context, see comment on 3.2 [36.9]. 4. were then visted with favour from the most gracious God. Echoing 3 Mac. 5:6 (ArmB). 5. Vr˙amshapuh. His regnal years, usually specified as 401–17 (at times 389–414), are still debated. He must have ascended the throne after an imprecise interregnum—­of possibly a decade—­following the removal of his brother, Khosrov IV, in 389 (who made a fleeting return in 417/18). See Garsoïan, ‘The Aršakuni Dynasty’, 85, 94. Determining the beginning of Vr˙amshapuh’s reign is crucial for dating the major events in the Life, for on three occasions in the body of the text Koriwn refers to certain years of his reign: below in this chapter, 10 (44.7—­fifth year), in 7.1 (46.9—­fifth year) and in 9.3 (50.21—­sixth year). The last was the year in which Mashtots‘ invented the Armenian letters, synchronized at the end of the Life with the eighth year of Yazdegerd I (ad 406). Since, however, our author does not seem to count the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

133

accession year of a monarch (on which see the extended comment on the helpful chronological data provided at the end of the Life), it remains to suggest that Vr˙amshapuh’s reign began in ad 400, after Yazdegerd I (399–420) ascended the Sasanian throne (just as Vr˙amshapuh’s brother, Khosrov IV, was deposed when Bahram IV [388–99] ascended the throne; cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.50–1[MH 2:2074–9]). See also HAnB 5:126, s.v. ‘Vr˙amshapuh’. When introducing a personal name from here on, Koriwn often uses the formula oroy anun koch‘ēr, lit., ‘who was called by name’, with the name following. 6. Syrian bishop named Daniel . . . alphabetic characters for the Armenian language. A textual corruption exists at this juncture, where the manuscripts, originally in uncials, have ԳՐԵԱԼ (greal, ‘written’) and in the next line or section ԳՐԵԼՈՅՆ (greloyn, ‘the writing’). Abeghyan rightly emends these to ԳՏԵԱԼ (gteal, ‘found’) and ԳՏԵԼՈՅՆ (gteloyn, ‘the find’) on the basis of context and com­ par­able uses of ‘yankartsagiwt’ in 2.4 (24.22–3), with reference to one’s newfound faith; in 10.1 (44.11), with reference to the newly realized alphabet; and in 20/19.8 (76.9–10), with reference to the newly accomplished translations (p. 108 n. 58). Abeghyan’s lectio facilior has found added support in Olga Vardazaryan’s reading the verb ‘gteal’ in its passive sense (from ‘gtanil’), implying that these letters were newly ‘found’ or that they recently came to be ‘possessed’ by the Syrian bishop (‘‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘i’ erku srbagrumnerĕ ew Ghazar P‘arpets‘u vkayut‘yunĕ’ [Two Corrections in the Life of Mashtots‘ and the Testimony of Ghazar P‘arpets‘i], BM 18 [2008], 41–57, esp. 50). As indicated here and below (comment on section 12 [46.1–3]), these were pre-­existing, archaic letters belonging to ‘other literatures’ or ‘alien writings’. They were not discovered by chance (‘yankarts uremn’, lit., ‘somewhat suddenly’, ‘. . . unexpectedly’, or ‘. . . by coincidence’), but rather—­as noted on the use of the word ‘yankarts’ elsewhere in Koriwn—­they were ‘newly’ or ‘recently’ possessed by Bishop Daniel, i.e. he ‘lately’ happened to have them in his possession. Without the emendation and the passive sense of the verb, the text is to be translated ‘who had serendipitously written a script’. Thus, in Khorenats‘i, as in the already corrupt reading of ‘Short Koriwn’, Daniel himself had drawn these letters (History, 3.52.5 [MH 2:2079]; that ‘Short Koriwn’ utilizes a text of the Life that has corrupt readings, is seen also in 23/22.15–18 [84.7–16]). The letters were thought to be suitable for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

134

Commentary

Armenian, until they were proven to be inadequate for the transcription of the sounds of the language. There is good reason to conclude that the letters, deemed insufficient for an Indo-­European language like Armenian, were of Semitic origin—­similar perhaps to the adapted Aramaic square script of ancient inscriptions found in Armenia and northern Mesopotamia (Anahit G. Perikhanyan, ‘K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii armyanskoi pis‘mennosti’ [On the Question of the Origin of the Armenian Script], in Peredneaziatskii Sbornik, II: Deshifrovka i interpretatsiya pis‘mennosti Drevnego Vostoka [Moscow: Oriental Lit. Publishing House of the Acad., 1966], 103–33). James R. Russell surmises, with good reason, that the ‘Daniēlian’ letters were possibly of Manichaean writings (composed in Syriac Aramaic and translated into other languages), one further reason for their eventual rejection (‘On the Origins and Invention of the Armenian Script’, Le Muséon 107 [1994], 317–33; repr. in idem, Armenian and Iranian Studies, 553–79). Unfortunately, Koriwn’s words are sparse and somewhat ambiguous at this point, and he does not mention Daniel’s see. ‘Sent them to the king in the land of Armenia’ (44.7) suggests that his see was outside the Arsacid realm. Josef Marquart (Yovsēp‘ Markwart) has identified two Syrian bishops by that name, mentioned among participants in the Council of Seleucia-­Ctesiphon of 410, convened by Mar Isḥaq, Catholicos of the East (in office 399–410/12): Daniel of Arzon/ Arzanēnē (Aghtsnik‘), near Amida (Diyarbakir), and Daniel of Mokk‘/ Moxoene (Bēth Moksājē), a district south of Lake Van; and another by the same name in the Council of Seleucia-­Ctesiphon of 424, convened by Mar Dadisho (in office 421–450/6); ‘Über das armenische Alphabet in Verbindung mit der Biographie des hl. Mašt‘oc‘’, HA 26 (1912), 213–16. 8. Vahrich. See HAnB 5:30, s.v. ‘Vahrich 1.’ Khorenats‘i adds that Vahrich belonged to the Khaduni family (History, 3.52.8 [MH 2:2080]). Habēl. The king’s information about Daniel’s recent acquisition seems to have been provided by the priest Habēl, the eventual intermediary and recipient of the royal letter carried by Vahrich. 9. (Habēl) sent them to the king in the land of Armenia. Ghazar, like Koriwn, speaks of the king’s hearing, while in Armenia, of an ancient script adapted for Armenian by Daniel (History, 1.10.10–11 [MH 2:2212–13]). Khorenats‘i places Vr˙amshapuh in Mesopotamia at the time, ordered by the Persian King Vr˙am (Bahram IV, 388–99) to pacify warring factions there. The priest Habēl approaches the ­

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

135

Armenian king and promises ‘to adapt for the Armenian language a script that had been fashioned by the bishop Daniel’. This was to fill a need felt by Vr˙amshapuh since Mesrop (Mashtots‘) had quit being the king’s scribe (History, 3.52.4 [MH 2:2079]; Khorenats‘i then falls back on Koriwn’s version, somewhat contradicting himself). 10. fifth year of his reign. The ‘fifth year’ (=ad 405) of Vr˙amshapuh’s reign is repeated in 7.1 (46.9). Achar˙yan emends the regnal year in both instances: to ‘second’ and ‘third’ respectively (Teghekagir Git. Ak. Hayk. Fil. 1.6 [1941] 170, cited by Abeghyan, 108–9 n. 59). The emend­ ations are unwarranted and unnecessary, more so after Mat‘evosyan’s restoration of the text (on which, see Introduction [D], and the last comment on the varying systems of dating a sovereign’s accession year—­at the end of the Commentary). 12. But when it was realized . . . The translation follows Mat‘evosyan’s restoration of the text (Koriwn, Vark‘ S. Mesrop Mashtots‘i [1994], 89 and 92) by inserting Abeghyan’s 44.11–16 between 54.13 and 14 (see below, 10.1–2), from where the passage seems to have been transposed in the course of the text’s transmission. For Mat‘evosyan’s other transpositional restoration, see comment ad loc. the syllabic sounds. Arm. siwghobays kaps, in conjunction, as in 8.4 (48.11), are equivalent to Gk. syllabeis (kab[s] being a redundant equivalent to syn-), to be understood as referring to the syllabic consonants. Interestingly, the Greek word in plural form—­as here—­could also mean ‘letters of the alphabet’ (q.v. in Liddell and Scott, A Greek– English Lexicon [9th edn], 1672). The secondary meaning, however, has to be ruled out, since Koriwn uses the word aghp‘abetats‘ in section 6 (42.17) for the latter sense. from other literatures. Abeghyan emends k‘aghealk‘ (‘gleaned’) to t‘aghealk‘ (‘buried’), seeing it with yaruts‘ealk‘ (‘resurrected’ or ‘recovered’) as an antonymous pair. Achar˙yan reads it t‘oghealk‘ (‘abandoned’; Hayots‘ grerĕ, 105; cf. 72–3 [1928 edn]). The ablative case of ‘yaylots‘n dprut‘eants‘’ (‘from other literatures’ or ‘from alien writings’) favours the unamended textual reading, which is retained in the MH edition. The word ‘dprut‘iwn’ appears eleven times in the treatise (3.2 [36.8]; 6.12 [46.3]; 7.3 [46.18, 19] twice; 8.6 [48.15]; 8.8 [50.8]; 18/17.3 [70.20, 22] twice; 20/19.1 [74.12]; 30/29.1, 3 [98.17; 100.3]; consistently translated ‘learning’, except here and at 30/29.1, 3 [98.17; 100.3]), where it is translated ‘literature’; but only here the word is in the ­plural, implying that these letters were drawn probably from more

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

136

Commentary

than a single literary source or resources of learning (which rules out the possibility of Daniel’s deriving these letters from an unearthed discovery—­or that he drew them himself; cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.52.5, 9 [MH 2:2079–80], where there are conflicting statements about their origin). The history of scholarship on the Life abounds with speculation on this subject. For a survey, see Achar˙yan, Hayots‘ grerĕ, 59–106 (1928 edn); Ananian, Vark‘ S. Mesrop Mashtots‘i, 58–86; Karen  N. Yuzbashyan, ‘Le  destin de l’alphabet de Daniēl en Arménie’,  REArm 25 (1994–5), 171–82. For more on the origin of these rejected letters, see above, on section 6. seeking a solution to it for some time. In its progression from bad to good, the transition not only feeds hope, but also converts hope to reality.

CHAPTER 7 1. the fifth year of Vr˙amshapuh. Still ad 405. As in 6.10 (44.7), Achar˙yan suspects a corruption in the ordinal number ‘fifth’, thinking that the original was ‘third’ (երրորդ), corrupted into ‘fifth’ (ե-րորդ or ե-րդ); cited by Abeghyan, 109 n. 59. With his unnecessary emend­ ations, both here and in 6.10, Achar˙yan seeks to allow more time for the events recounted here and leading to the invention of the letters in the ‘sixth’ year of Vr˙amshapuh’s reign, referred to in 9.3 (50.21). the region of Aram . . . two Syrian cities. A loose biblical designation for the country of the Aramean tribes, named after the fifth descendant of Shem in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:22). As part of ancient Assyria, the territory covered northern Syria and Mesopotamia. The dominant language of the region was Aramaic, a western Semitic language that became the lingua franca of the ancient Near East from Achaemenid times of Persian rule (fifth century bc) till it was supplanted by Arabic (seventh century ad). Syriac is a form of Aramaic based on the language of Edessa and Nisibis as of the first century ad and used to this day in the liturgy and literature of the Syrian Church. It is interesting that of the two cities, separated by some 180 km, Koriwn mentions the more distant one first, no doubt because of Edessa’s greater prominence. However, throughout this short chapter he is treating the two cities jointly, as also their metropolitan bishops. Edessa. At times called Ur˙hay in Arm., Urfa (Şanliurfa) today, Edessa boasted of the ‘School of the Persians’, or the old ‘School of Nisibis’,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

137

which re-­established itself there under St Ephrem after Nisibis fell to the Persians in 363 (Becker, ‘Edessa, School of ’, GEDSH 139–40; or in 361, Arthur Vööbus,  History of the School of Nisibis, CSCO 266, Subsidia 26 [Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1965], 5). The school was under Antiochene influence and was noted for its rich curriculum: from reading the Psalter in Syriac to translating biblical commentaries from Greek (ibid. 13–17). The city was equally noted for its monasteries and cells, which attracted countless monks during this period. On the history of this major city in north-­western Mesopotamia and the beginning of Christianity there, see J(udah) B. Segal, Edessa ‘The Blessed City’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). For the early Arm. references to the city, see Garsoïan, EH 497, s.v. ‘Ur˙hay’; for the Arm. past of the city, see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 2:167–8, s.v. ‘Edesia.’ Amid. Gk. Amida, is today’s Diyarbakir; an ancient city on the west bank of the Tigris in Upper Mesopotamia; Arm. Tigranakert, identified—­though not convincingly—­with one of the several ancient cities so named after either Tigran I (c.123–95 bc) or Tigran II ‘the Great’ (95–56 bc). For its ancient monasteries, see Takahashi, ‘Amid’, GEDSH 18–20. For the early Arm. references to the city, see Garsoïan, EH 440, s.v. ‘Amid’; on the erroneous identification with ancient Tigranakert, see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 2:99–102, s.v. ‘Diarbek‘ir’ (esp. 100; not to be confused with either of the two lost cities so named in the Caucasus, especially with the excavations carried out in the Martakert province of Artsakh by Hamlet  L.  Petrosyan since 2005, which have yielded no epigraphic evidence). 2. Babilas. ‘Babilos’ in ‘Short Koriwn’ and Khorenats‘i, History, 3.53.5 (MH 2:2081). The name is generally considered a corruption of either Pakida(s), the bishop in office (398–409) at the time Koriwn places Mashtots‘ in Edessa (405), or Rabbula (in office 411/12–435/6). The latter emendation, tempting as it is, compels acknowledgement of some anachronism here, as Marquart points out (cited by Abeghyan, 109 n. 63; cf. Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i, 315 nn. 379, 381). Reluctance to accept the original reading as Rabbula, apart from the slightly late year of his coming into office (411/12), hinges also on the fact that he was an enemy of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), conceivably a friend of Mashtots‘ (to whom he addressed three treatises On the Deceit of the Persian Magi; on these lost treatises, once annotated by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople [in office 858–67 and 877–86],

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

138

Commentary

see Introduction (A). The years of ‘Mar Pakida’ and those of ‘Rabbula’ are based on the Chronicle of Edessa (44 and 49 for one and 51 and 59 for the other; trans. B[enjamin] H.  Cowper, ‘Selections from the Syriac, No. 1: The Chronicle of Edessa’, Journal of Sacred Literature, ns 5 [1864] 28–45; cf. Georg Günter Blum, Rabbula von Edessa, der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, CSCO 300, Subsidia 34 [Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1969], 7, 39. It is equally possible that as the reception of Theodore soured in Armenia (see comment on 20/19.2 [74.13–14] and 24/23) as a result of Rabbula’s efforts among those of others (see Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia  B.  Horn, trans., The Rabbula Corpus, WGRW 17 [Atlanta: SBL, 2017], pp. clxxxviii–cxcii), the name of the Edessene bishop whom Mashtots‘ met was replaced with that of the better known and more orthodox Rabbula. Attitudes toward Theodore changed in Edessa with the successor of Rabbula, bishop Hiba (Ibas, in office 435/6–457), who is credited with promoting the translation of Theodore’s biblical commentaries; Vööbus, History of the School of Nisibis, 16–19; Van Rompay, ‘Hiba’, GEDSH 195–6. On Rabbula’s other enemies, especially Nestorius and the much hated Borborites, see comment on 17/16.9, 17 (66.17–18; 68.13–14). Akakios. A common name of bishops in this period; cf. Akakios Bishop of Melitene, mentioned later in the Life (17/16.5 [66.1–2]), and Akakios Bishop of Beroea/Berroia (Aleppo; d. 433). Among those known from the second half of the fifth century are the Patriarch of Constantinople (in office 471–88;‘Akakios’, ODB 1.43) and the Nestorian Bishop/Catholicos of Seleucia-­Ctesiphon, the winter residence of the Sasanian rulers, 35 km south-­east of present-­day Baghdad (in office 484–495/6; on whom see Van Rompay, ‘Aqaq Acacius’, GEDSH 27). The last two lines of this section are utilized in Agathangelos §804. 3. assigned some to Syriac learning (there). Since Koriwn is treating the two cities and their metropolitan bishops jointly, the reader is left with the assumption that the learning of Syriac was pursued in both places. and sent the others from there. As Norayr Biwzandats‘i rightly observes, the verb gumarem also means yghem (‘send’); a meaning omitted in NBHL. He cites Khorenats‘i, History, 3.55.5 (MH 2:2084); Eghishē, History, 3.159, 6.58 (MH 1:604, 670); and Ghazar, History, 3.60.7 (MH 2:2304) as examples (see Gevorg Tēr-­Vardanian, ed., ‘Norayr Biwzandats‘u ‘K‘nnasēr’ĕ’, PBH (2005), 2:107–8. For his example

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

139

from Ghazar, Biwzandats‘i refers to its citation by Manuēl Jakhjakhian in the Armenian–Italian dictionary: Bar˙girk‘ i barbar˙ hay ew italakan/ Dizionario Armeno-­Italiano (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1837), 378. The unnamed location must have been Edessa, the city nearer to the next destination. Clearly, there are suppressed details surrounding the protagonist’s journey to Mesopotamia. Samosata for Greek learning. Some 100 km north of Edessa, Samosata (now the village of Samsat in Turkey’s Adiyaman Province) was one of the largest cities on the upper Euphrates, in the Byzantine province of Euphratensis, and an important centre of Christianity since the third century (Ernst Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 [Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales, 1935], 134–7; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 4:487–8, s.v. ‘Samosat’). It is important to note that there was a centre for Greek learning in this predominantly Syriac-­speaking city in Late Antiquity, where earlier the satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata (c.125–c.185) could have received his early training. The ‘Short Koriwn’ and Khorenats‘i (History, 3.53.5 [MH 2:2081]) have ‘Samos’ instead, suggesting an Aegean environment. Dividing of pupils into two groups, for Syriac and Greek learning, appears also in Agathangelos §840.

CHAPTER 8 1. With his coequals he kept up the usual prayers, the vigils, the tearful pleadings, the life of austerity, and the concern for the groaning world. That this statement comes after the pupils were sent to their respective schools and just before the invention of the Armenian letters, is worth considering. Who, then, were the ‘coequals’ with whom Mashtots‘ resorted to ascetic practice at the time of his great accomplishment? An exegetical understanding of the context compels us to place him in a monastic community (note that the ascetic backdrop here differs somewhat from that of the solitary prayers described in 5.5 [40.14–16]). The compound ‘ashkharhahets’ (‘groaning world’, unattested in the NBHL; cf. ‘ashkharhahog’ in 6.4 [42.9]), encapsulates Rom. 8:22 (‘We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time’). In its context (vv. 18–27, esp. 20–3), the wordless ‘groaning’ is indicative of the Spirit’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

140

Commentary

intercession not only for personal but also for universal salvation. Paul himself could have been contemplating the Isaianic verse that follows (Isa. 30:15); as for Koriwn, the birthing imagery is quite fitting for the emergence of the long-­sought alphabet. However, the contemplated Scripture has a significant history in ascetic or monastic circles, branding the spiritual environment of monks. In their prayers with sighs and tears for deliverance from sin, a widespread monastic practice promoted by Evagrius of Pontus (c.345–399), renunciants cried with groans when words were insufficient to find suitable language to express their emotions. On the rich proliferation of monastic developments in the region see, in addition to the references cited in conjunction with the cities named in ch. 7, Daniel Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 33 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002). The unspecified locus of the invention of the Armenian alphabet appears to have been a monastic establishment—­whether rural or urban—­within the radius encompassing the cities named in the preceding chapter. Of these, Edessa, nearer than Amid to the next des­tin­ ation (Samosata, where the newly invented letters were perfected), is the more likely location. For more on the likelihood of a monastic setting for the invention of the Caucasian alphabets, see comments below: on the Armenian script, section 4; on the Georgian script, 16/15.2; and on the Caucasian-­Albanian or Udi-­related script, 17/16.22. 3. by his sacred right hand he (Mashtots‘) attained the stature of fatherhood, begetting new and wonderful offspring—­the letters of the Armenian language. Quite often and wrongly, ‘God’ is taken as the subject of the last two verbs. Thus misconstrued, the Armenian alphabet is presented as handed down by revelation (so in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.53.7 [MH 2:2081]). Thomson misreads Koriwn’s account at this juncture, identifying the ‘hand’ as that of the calligrapher Rufinus (The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 47 n. 8). Except for the words ‘the letters of the Armenian language’, this section and the preceding (2–3) are appropriated for St Gregory in Agathangelos §830. 4. And immediately he inscribed, named, and arranged (them) there. The context, both preceding and following, points to the region of Edessa as the general area where Mashtots‘ came up with the Armenian letters. The ‘immediate’ realization of the long-­sought quest

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

141

seems to have taken place in a monastic environment, where Mashtots‘ appears to have benefited from the itinerant character of monasticism in the region. correlating (them) with the syllabic sounds. The last two instrumental nouns (sighobayiwk‘ kapawk‘) appear, likewise in conjunction and with a single sense, in 6.12 (46.2; see comment ad loc.). Attempts to clarify the seemingly wanting sense by paraphrasing can be somewhat misleading; cf. Winkler’s ‘gestaltete er [sie] mit Vokalen und Konsonanten’ (Koriwns Biographie, 100), and Mahé’s ‘il les assembla en syllabes, en ligatures avec des lettres vocaliques’ (L’Alphabet arménien, 176). As noted in the Introduction (A), the sequence of the Armenian letters is the same as that of all the alphabets of the West that are based on Phoenician, especially Greek, and read from left to right. The add­ ition­al letters are interspersed throughout the common order. More than half of the letters were adapted from Greek, the rest appear to have been derived from Syriac and Parthian or Pahlavi archetypes—­ though not entirely, as we shall see. For a comparative table, see Hrach‘ya Achar˙yan, Hayots‘ grerĕ (The Arm. Letters), ed. Ēduard B. Aghayan (Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1984), 555. I agree with Serge Mouraviev’s observation that the grids of some twenty Armenian uncials conform with the grids of the corresponding Greek letters; however, I disagree with his hypothesis that these same letters constitute the Danielian letters—­half of them labelled ‘quasi’ Danielian (see comment on 6.6 and12 [42.15–17 and 46.1–2]), a theoretical hypothesis that cannot be substantiated in the absence of letters known only by name (see Erkataguir, 31–45). Mouraviev is correct, however, in seeing strong similarities among the three Caucasian alphabets, attributable to the same hand (see comment on 16/15.2 [62.11], on the Georgian alphabet; and 17/16.22 [68.24–28], on the Caucasian-­Albanian or Udi-­related alphabet). Far more convincing are the studies by R˙ uben Hakobyan (T‘arumian) on the mirror images of the Armenian letters, in both derivation and development. Of particular interest is his study on the origin of the letter «Ճ» (‘ch’ / ‘č’), demonstrating its precise derivation from Coptic «Ճ» (‘j’, the letter janja), which represents the same sound as in Armenian (‘Hayots‘ aybubeni Ճ tar˙i tsagumĕ’ [The Origin of the Letter CH (Č) of the Armenian Alphabet], in Hayastanĕ ew arewelak‘ristoneakan k‘aghak‘agrt‘ut‘yunĕ—­III: Hanrapetakan gitazhoghov nvirvats chanach‘vats hayaget-­ kovkasaget Pavel Ch‘obanyani

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

142

Commentary

tsnndyan 70-­amyakin, Erevan, 17–18 mayisi, 2018 [Armenia and Oriental Christian Civilization—­III: National Conference Dedicated to the 70th Anniversary of Eminent Armenologist-­Caucasologist Pavel Chobanyan [1948–2017], Yerevan, May 17–18, 2018, Papers and Abstracts], ed. Alexan Hakobyan et al. [Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences of RA/Oriental Institute, 2018], 66–72; for a broader discussion with a survey of scholarship on the subject, see idem, Hayots‘ tar˙erĕ: Dzewagoyats‘man hamematakan k‘nnut‘yun [The Armenian Letters: A Correlational Study of Their Formation] [Yerevan: Antares, 2017). The most likely possibility for such derivation is through monastic contacts, attributable to ascetic movements between the Thebaid in Egypt, the Judaean wilderness, and the Syrian desert during this period (see Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks). The semblance of the Armenian script to the Ge‘ez script is worth mentioning, even though there is not a single match between them. 5. the holy bishop. The textual reading of both noun and adjective is plural, ‘the holy bishops’ (yepiskoposats‘n srbots‘), emended to singular (yepiskoposēn srboy) by Abeghyan (110 n. 69, without providing the textual reading in the apparatus criticus). The originality of the plural reading could stand since, as noted above, the author is treating the two Syrian cities and their metropolitan bishops jointly (7.2 [46.13]). Moreover, there were suffragan bishops subject to the metropolitan’s authority, much as Mashtots‘ himself may be viewed in relation to Sahak. This section is faintly echoed in Agathangelos §806.

6. R˙ hop‘anos. Arm. Hr˙op‘anos; Lat. Rufinus, the calligrapher responsible for giving the newly invented Armenian letters their final shape. Cf. the elaboration on his role by Khorenats‘i, who makes him a dis­ ciple of Epiphanius of Salamis, author of the Panarion, c.310/320–403 (History, 3.53.5 [MH 2:2081]). the doubled. The word krknawor in context does not refer to diphthongs but to letters that require more than a single stroke of the pen. Yovhan, from the district of Ekegheats‘. Very little is known about Yovhan of Ekegheats‘, who comes from the westernmost regions of Upper Armenia (Bardzr Hayk‘), from one of the two domains of the Gregorids—­the other being Daranaghik‘ (Garsoïan, EH 461, s.v. ‘Ekełeac‘’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 2:177–8, s.v. ‘Ekeghyats‘ Gavar˙’). He could have been a relative of the Catholicos Sahak. He is to be distinguished from ‘another’ Yovhan mentioned later in the document,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

143

known as ‘Confessor’ (28/27.1 [96.7]). For further references to him, see HAnB 3:539–40, s.v. ‘Yovhannēs 10’. Yovsep‘, from the House of Paghan. Yovsep‘, possibly from the vicinity of Balu in the district of Tsop‘k‘ or Sophene, is mentioned further below, 20/19.3 (74.16), as a translator with Eznik of Koghb in Edessa—­ some twenty years later—­and subsequently in Byzantium (cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.60.9–13 [MH 2:2096–7]). There, he is the one ‘who was mentioned above’, referring to this passage. He is not to be confused with Yovsep‘ who is mentioned at the beginning of the document, who also heads the list of foremost disciples in 27/26.3 [92.13], where he is the one ‘whom we mentioned at the beginning’, and evidently the same Yovsep‘ with an administrative role in 28/27.1 [96.6]). For further attestations to Yovsep‘ ‘from the House of Paghan’ see HAnB 3:710, s.v. ‘Yovsēp‘ 3’. 7. ‘To know wisdom and counsel, to discern words of prudence’ [Prov. 1:2]. Note the similarity of the words in Ezek. 28:3, quoted in the prologue (2.12 [28.4–5]).

CHAPTER 9 3. Ayrarat. This was the central territory of the Arshakuni realm, consisting of sixteen districts according to the seventh-­century Geography (Ashkharhats‘oyts‘) of Anania Shirakats‘i. As Garsoïan observes in her study of the Biwzandaran, ‘The term it [sc. the Ashkharhats‘oyts‘] applies to this region is ‘realm’ (ašxarh), which occurs in BP as well (III.xii), but the lesser qualification of ‘district’ (gawar˙) is more common (III.vii–viii; IV.xiv; V.vi)’ (EH 451, s.v. ‘Ayrarat/Ararat’; see also Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 1:239–40, s.v. ‘Ayrarat’ and map). Nor K‘aghak‘. The Arsacid capital Vagharshapat (today’s Ējmiatsin and its vicinity named for the ancient capital), founded—­as the ori­ gin­al name implies—­by King Vagharsh I (r. 117–40). Koriwn refers to it by its Roman name, Kainēpolis (‘New City’, attested in inscriptions related to fortifications and the stationing of the XV Legion Apollinaris there in 163), and specifies it as ‘the royal city’ further below (section 9 [54.1]; cf. 17/16.24 [70.7] and 27/26.1 [92.4]). For the city in ancient Arm. sources, see Garsoïan, EH 498–9, s.v. ‘Vałaršapat’; for a brief history, see ODB 3.2149, s.v. ‘Vałaršapat’; EI 8.3:278–81, s.v. ‘Ejmiatsin’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

144

Commentary

Cf. Neapolis (‘New City’), name given to several newly-­founded cities in Graeco-­Roman times. sixth year of Vr˙amshapuh, king of Greater Armenia. That is ad 406, corresponding with the eighth regnal year of Yazdegerd I (see comment on 6.5 [42.14] and the extended comment on the colophonic section at the end). On the territory of ‘Greater Armenia’ in historical context, see comment on 3.2 (36.9). This section is appropriated for the Illuminator in Agathangelos §808; said also about his arrival with Trdat in Rome, §874. 4. Even the magnificent Moses was not as joyous during his descent from Mount Sinai. Alluding to the experiences in Ex. 32. In the ensuing comparison, Koriwn brushes away the situational factors. 5–6. For when the man who had seen God . . . as had transpired there. The comparative image of Mashtots‘ has been applied to St James of Nisibis in the Biwzandaran (iii.10[11–16]), his descent from ‘Mount Sararat’ with a plank from Noah’s Ark. On the distinction of this mountain from Mt. Ararat, see ‘Sararad/Ararad, Mt.’ (sic) in Garsoïan, EH 489. 9. the one remembered. Arm. yishelin could also mean ‘the one memorialized’ or ‘the one commemorated’. The solomnity of the occasion at which the Life was first delivered is also reflected in §6: ‘this blessed one, for whom our oration is composed . . .’ 10. a contingent of senior nakharars. The nakharars were the heads of the noble families, the feudal clans. As tribal overlords and members of the hereditary nobility, they were autonomous toparchs even as they provided troops for the Arsacid king or the ruling marzpan. The reference here is to the upper echelons of the nobility. The term is a hapax in the Life (here in the compound nakhararagund). For more, see Garsoïan, EH 549–50, s.v. ‘naxarar’. the river R˙ ah. Most likely a shortened name of the river Eraskh, the Araxes, given its proximity to the capital; otherwise a hitherto un­iden­ ti­fied tributary of the Araxes, with a name unattested elsewhere (cf. Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 4:434, s.v. ‘R˙ ah’). This section is utilized in Agathangelos §819, where the river is the Euphrates. 11. And they passed the days in festive joy. Echoing 2 Mac. 6:11 (ArmB).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

145

CHAPTER 10 1–2. Having their sought-­after objective newly realized . . . with the use of the same letters. Following Mat‘evosyan’s restoration of the text (see Introduction [D]), the preceding part of Abeghyan’s ch. 10 (54.9–14, on the second mission to Median territory) has been placed between chs. 13 and 14 as a new ch. 14. In its place, these lines from Abeghyan’s ch. 6 (44.11–16) were fittingly substituted here. (Mat‘evosyan’s restoration was in turn adopted by Ananian in his edition of the text [p. 34] and by the editors of the text in the MH series, which we follow.) 1. the sought-­after objective. The noun khndrelin (‘the sought-­after objective’) occurs three times, consistently with this meaning (6.5 and 16/15.6 [42.13 and 62.19]); so also the compound adjective yankartsagiwt (‘newly-­found’) occurs three times and with consistent meaning (2.4 and 20/19.8 [24.22–3 and 76.9–10]). 2. the same (letters) be taught everywhere. Lit., ‘to teach (or educate) everywhere with the same (letters)’. The verb krt‘el is a hapax legomenon in the Life, corresponding to Gk. paideuein. the admirable rank of teacher. ‘yastichan isk vardapetut‘ean geghets‘ik.’ Koriwn’s stress on the role of Mashtots‘ as a teacher of note is introduced at the outset, in the intent to dwell on ‘his luminous teaching (vardapetut‘ean) and angelic virtue in piety’ (ch. 1). The angelic conduct of a teacher is a given: his all-­important teaching through personal example (12.6; 23/22.2, 11–12, 19–20; 29/28.4 [58.15–16; 80.11–12; 82.16–21; 84:17–21; 98.10–14]). Robert W. Thomson rightly observes that the use of the abstract noun vardapetut‘iwn ‘to mean the rank of vardapet is unusual’ (‘Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church’, Le Muséon 75 [1962], 367–84, here 373 n. 17). The early sources are not clear on the origin of this rank or office that may not have been an ecclesiastical one requiring ordination. As Thomson concludes: the term ‘seems to have been a popular rather than an official title’ (ibid. 384). The context seems to suggest a title by popular consent or ac­ clam­ ation, in recognition of superior ability in teaching the Christian message (cf. Biwzandaran vi.16 [3–5], with reference to Gind; cited by Thomson, ibid. 374 n. 19). Thomson goes on to point out the word’s semblance in morph and meaning to Iranian/Parthian vardapat (ibid. 384 and n. 52). That the word is invariably related to oral, rhetorical tradition could be shown through further linguistic (Proto-­Indo-­European) and etymological considerations, denoting that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

146

Commentary

vardapet originally meant an orator of note or a master rhet­or­ician (given the ‘v/b’ interchangeability or ‘betacism’; cf. Gk. bardos, Lat. bardus, Eng. bard, and the P-­I-­E suffix pet, for a chief or master in any discipline). On the canonical development of the rank of Vardapet, commonly rendered as ‘teacher’ or ‘doctor of the church’, see Garabed Amadouni, ‘Le rôle historique des hiéromoines arméniens’, in Il monachesimo orientale: atti del Convegno di studi orientale che sull predetto tema si tenne a Roma: sotto la direzione del Pontificio Istituto Orientale, nei giorni 9, 10, 11 e 12 aprile 1958, allocuzione di S.S. Pio XII, relazioni di. Irénée Hausherr et al., OCA 153 (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1958), 279–305; cf. the mostly lex­ico­graph­ ic­al discussion by Paul Krüger, ‘Über den Ursprung des armenischen Vardapetentums’, Ostkirchliche Studien 17 (1968), 314–24; and Tachat Yartĕmian (Dajad Yardemian), ‘Vardapet’ĕ hay ekeghets‘akan mtatsoghut‘ean mēj (The ‘Vardapet’ in Armenian Ecclesiastical Thought) (Venice: S. Ghazar, 2001). two years with the use of the same letters. With Mat‘evosyan’s res­tor­ ation, the reference to the use of the newly-­found letters for two years applies to the letters invented by Mashtots‘ and not to those obtained from Daniel. Ghazar, who claims to have read Koriwn ‘many times’ (History, 1.10.4 [MH 1:2212]), seems to corroborate the restored reading and to second Koriwn’s statement on the joint work of ‘the blessed superintendents’ with the letters invented by Mashtots‘. Ghazar moves quickly (and apologetically) to grant Sahak a say in favour of the Greek order of the alphabet and the pronunciation of diphthongs in accordance with Greek (ibid.). Moreover, Ghazar was a pupil of Aghan Artsruni, the uncle of Ghazar’s patron Vahan Mamikonean (History, 1.4.6 [MH 2:2204–5]), a contemporary of Koriwn and most likely another pupil of ‘the blessed superintendents’. 3. They were so deeply absorbed . . .The statement is about the studious disciples of Mashtots‘, engaged in translation—­as elaborated in the next chapter (and not about the Median pupils of the unrestored text).

CHAPTER 11 1. injunctions . . . given to the blessed Moses . . . until the advent of the eternal things. See Ex. 17:14; 34:27–8; cf. Deut. 27:1–8; 31:19–29. On the teleological end of the Law, see Rom. 10:4; cf. Gal. 3:24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

147

The major parts of the Bible are contemplated consecutively in this chapter: The Pentateuch or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings of the Old Testament; then the Gospel and its proclamation (the Kerygma) in the New Testament, omitting the Epistles. 4–5. As for David . . . More often than not, Armenian citations of the Psalms are drawn from the liturgical Psalter dependent on a Syriac text, hence the textual variants when compared with the canonical text in the Armenian Bible dependent on Greek (the Septuagint [LXX]). 7. . . . according to the Gospel. The whole paragraph (1–7) is found verbatim in Agathangelos §§893–6. Valentina Calzolari utilizes the Agathangelian passage in an attempt to emend the text of Koriwn, ‘La citation du Ps 78 (77), 5–8, dans l’épilogue de l’Histoire de l’Arménie d’Agathange’, REArm 29 (2003–4), 9–27. 8. two associates, Mashtots‘ and Sahak; elsewhere, said about Bishop Jeremiah and King Arsvagh of Caucasian Albania (18/17.2–3 [70.14–20]). Moses the teacher of the Law with the prophetic order and progressive Paul with the whole apostolic group, along with the world-­ sustaining Gospel of Christ . . . became Armenian-­speaking. In these overly enthusiastic lines on ‘mission accomplished’, Moses and Paul respectively represent the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament epistles, flanking the Gospel. The section is utilized by the continuator of Agathangelos (§854), where the personification of the Scriptures is obscured. 9–10. What heart-­warming joy . . . is utilized, through 12.2 (56.16– 58.7), by the continuator of Agathangelos (§§775–6).

CHAPTER 12 1. the newfound teaching. Referring to the Christian doctrine. preaching to ignorant men. Cf. 23/22.10 (82.12–15) and comment on the preaching endeavour. 3. in the district of Ayrarat, at the royal and high-­priestly centres. Arm. kays, a word with military connotations, refers to central hubs, here both civil and religious; cf. kayenakaysn in 13.1 (60.3). Here too is the only instance in the Life where Koriwn uses the term

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

148

Commentary

k‘ahanayapetk‘ for the prelates of the land: the bishops accompanying the nakharars or heads of the feudal clans (on the latter, see above, comment on 9.10 [54.2–3]). He uses several different titles when referring to Sahak (see above, comment on 6.1 [42.2–5]). This section and others in this chapter (7–9) are appropriated for St Gregory in Agathangelos §790. 4. ‘And there shall be a spring gushing forth . . .’ (Isa. 30:25; Zech. 13:1). Cf. Isa. 35:6–7; 41:18; 43:19–20. 5. (two) pillars of the Church. Mashtots‘ and Sahak. Echoing Gal. 2:9. qualified to teach others. Echoing 2 Tim. 2:2. 6. they set. Following the MH edition, which, like Ananian’s edition [p. 40], has եդեալ (edeal) in lieu of Mat‘evosyan’s and Abeghyan’s եղեալ (egheal). personal accomplishments (as) a rule and example. Recording the accomplishments of the saints for an example to posterity is restated at the end of the document (29/28.4 [98.12–13]). 7. the entire patrician contingent of the army. The reference is clearly to the noble detachments of the cavalry, to which the nakharars contributed their best horsemen. The word azatagund occurs also in Biwzandaran iv.15(68), 53(9), 55(10); v.1(2) and 24(23); cf. azatakhumb in iii.11(3), and azatazawrk‘ in iii.21(12), all in the same sense. See comments above, 9.10 (54.2–3) on the nakharars; and also below, 13.1 (60.3) on the central encampments. 8. the Mamikoneans, the foremost of whom was named Vardan, who was also called Vardkan. The hero of the ad 451 battle of Avarayr against the Persians, memorialized in the histories of Eghishē and Ghazar. The family ties between the Gregorids and the Mamikoneans are noteworthy. Vardan was a grandson of Sahak, whose daughter Sahakanush was married to Hamazasp Mamikonean, Vardan’s father. For more on the family ties, see below, 25/24.3 (88.10–12), where Vardan’s wife, Dustr, cares for Sahak’s burial. See HAnB 5:75–6, s.v. ‘Vardan 6’; HAnB 2:85, s.v. ‘Dstrik’. As for the alternate name, Vardkan, it is a diminutive form of the name. 9. bring (all) to the knowledge of truth. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4. The sentence, with others from the preceding lines on the instruction of the Mamikoneans, is utilized in Agathangelos §783 (where 17/16.2 [64.15–16] is also utilized).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

149

CHAPTER 13 1. an agreement. Unlike the previous authorizations by King Vr˙amshapuh, as in 7.1, 10/6.1, this was a mutual arrangement between the two saints, with Mashtots‘ apparently taking the initiative. The word hawanut‘iwn occurs only at this juncture in the document. the lord bishop. Tēr episkoposn, a rare and conceivably an early title for the Catholicos as the prelate of the land; clearly, a reference to Sahak, to whom Koriwn refers variously in the Life (see above, comment on 6.1 [42.2–5]). Tēr is also a personal name, though not in Koriwn; HAnB 5:143, s.v. ‘Tēr 1’. Cf. ‘Tirayr, from the district of Khordzean’ mentioned in the next section. the central encampments. The words ‘i kayenakans’ are nearly synonymous with ‘i kays t‘agaworats‘n ew k‘ahanayapetats‘n’, ‘at the royal and high-­priestly centres’ in the district of Ayrarat, in the previous chapter (12.3 [58.7–8]). The reference here is to these established, stationary centres of church and state in and around Nor K‘aghak‘. It seems that Mashtots‘ extended his teaching to these areas after Sahak’s death (27/26.1 [92.4]). The word in question, ‘kayen’, is not a toponym, so as to mean ‘(among) the inhabitants of Kayen’. Such a place name, however, is attested at a much later time, in Kirakos Gandzakets‘i, a thirteenth-­century author (Abeghyan, Koryun, 112 n. 93). On these technical terms, see Nina Garsoïan, ‘T‘agaworanist kayeank‘’ kam ‘Banak ark‘uni’: Les residences royales des Arsacides arméniens’, REArm 21 (1988–9), 251–70. the dispersion of the heathen. In this role, Mashtots‘ fulfils the office of ‘Chorepiskopos of Armenia’, as he (‘Mastoubios’), the recipient of works by Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), is referred to by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (in office 858–67 and 877–86). See Introduction (A). The biblically inspired words echo John 7:35. 2. Tirayr, from the district of Khordzean. His name is attested in later sources dependent on Koriwn; HAnB 5:155, s.v. ‘Tirayr 1’. Ghazar refers to him as ‘Tēr i Khordzean’, History, 1.10.18 (MH 2:2214), and Khorenats‘i calls him ‘Tēr Khordzenats‘i’, History, 3.54.5 (MH 2:2083), cited by Abeghyan, Koryun, 112 n. 92. On the god Tir in the pre-­Christian Armenian pantheon, see Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 34–8; James R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Harvard Iranian Series 5 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 289–321. Khordzean is a district of ‘Fourth Armenia’, on the Euphrates (Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 2:798, s.v. ‘Khordzenakan Gavar˙’ and the alternate name ‘Khordzene’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

150

Commentary

Mushē, from the province of Tarōn. His name is attested in later sources dependent on Koriwn; see HAnB 3:463, s.v. ‘Mushē 4’. This is the only instance where Koriwn refers to Tarōn as a ‘province’ (nahang); see comment on 3.1 (36.5–7). Cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.54.5 (MH 2:2083), who names both Tirayr and Mushē. The rest of this section is utilized in Agathangelos §818.

3. to R˙ otastak in Goght‘n, his first territory (i.e. his first field of activity). See Abeghyan, Koryun, 113–14 n. 96, who explains rather con­vin­ cing­ ly the corruption of the toponym R˙ otastak in the lead manuscript(s) to ar˙ ots tann (‘at the foot of the house’). This locality in the district of Goght‘n, where Mashtots‘ began his missionary activity, must have been of special interest to him (see above, 5.1 [40.2]). The site is placed on the left bank of the Araxes, slightly south-­west of Akulis. Elsewhere in Arm. toponymy , R˙ otastak (R˙ otĕstak or R˙ ostak) is attested as (1) a district of Utik‘, the twelfth region of Greater Armenia according to the Ashkharhats‘oyts‘ (33/44), between the Kur River and Arts‘akh; and (2) the district around Salamas (Salmast), north-­west of Lake Urmia, at times under the abbreviated form R˙ otakk‘, and as such was an alternative name for the episcopal see of Ar˙nay located in that area (my thanks to the late Robert Hewsen for a personal note on the subject, dated 12 Feb. 2001). Abeghyan rightly does not capitalize the compound ‘dastakert’, lit., ‘a fief’, here translated ‘territory’, referring to the boundary where the Saint began his missionary work and defining the named region. From the multiple meanings given in the NBHL (Gk. georgion, agros, demiourgēma; Lat. arvum, ager, opus artificis, factura), the word could be further expounded as an agricultural, tillable domain owned by the crown—­as suggested also by its later Armenian usages (2:599). Whether taken sep­ ar­ate­ly or in conjunction with a named locus as here, the word was also used as a name for a number of localities from the Middle Ages to the present (see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 2:38–9). Etymologically, the word is related to dastiarak/-el, in the sense of educating, as in Greek paideia. In the appropriation of this passage for St Gregory the Illuminator, the continuator of Agathangelos (§841) connects R˙ otastak with Vagharshapat (cf. HHShTB 4:449, s.v. ‘R˙ otastak’).

4. the pious Shabat‘. The prince of Goght‘n named above (5.2 [40.5]). Both occurrences of the name are in the genitive case, ‘Shabat‘ay’. Except for the name, the adverbial phrases are utilized in Agathangelos §828, with King Trdat and his troops doing the Illuminator’s bidding.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

151

organized bands of holy ascetics. Cf. 15/14.5 (60.28) and 23/22.1 (80.9). On early ascetic movements in Armenia, see Introduction (A) and n. 19; also comments on 4.2 (38.6). 5. Giwt, the son of the Christ-­loving Shabat‘. Both father and son are mentioned also by Khorenats‘i, History, 3.60.5 (MH 2:2095). Cf. HAnB 1:474, s.v. ‘Giwt 1’.

CHAPTER 14/10 1. the unfamiliar regions of the Medes. The demonic characterization of the seemingly incorrigible Medes is anticipated in 5.4 (40.11– 13). This account of the mission to Median territory was once transposed to ch. 10 (see comment there on the textual restoration by Mat‘evosyan; alas, he reproduces Abeghyan’s misspelling of ծանոթս, read correctly as ծանաւթս by the MH editors, and unnecessarily creates a newly numbered chapter—­throwing off the traditional chapter enumeration which I maintain after the slash). This whole paragraph is utilized in Agathangelos §789.

CHAPTER 15/14 1. Siwnik‘. According to the Ashkharhats‘oyts‘ (33/44) this ninth, north-­eastern region of Greater Armenia was comprised of twelve districts—­stretching south and south-­east of Lake Sevan down to the River Araxes and to Arts‘akh to the east, covering a substantial part of the present Republic of Armenia and Nakhijewan. Its territorial ­significance was second only to that of the Arshakuni realm (see Garsoïan, EH 490–1, s.v. ‘Siwnik‘/Sisakan’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 4:639–41, s.v. ‘Syunik‘’ and map). The line is echoed in Agathangelos §837. 2. Vaghinak. The uncle of Vasak Sisakan (Siwni), mentioned below, ruled 405–13 (HAnB 5:33, s.v. ‘Vaghinak 2’). 4. wild, savage, and forbidding regions. All in the sense of primitive, uncivilized, or inhospitable people and places. he cared . . . like a foster-­father. Echoing 3 Mac. 3:9 (ArmB).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

152

Commentary

Ananias. That Mashtots‘ was a high-­ranking cleric is attested here also, with authority to appoint a bishop (cf. 16/15.10 [64.3–6]; 18/17.8 [72.9–13]). For further attestations to Ananias, dependent on Koriwn, see HAnB 1:149, s.v. ‘Anania 1’. The entire section is contemplated in Agathangelos §839. 5. He then filled the land of Siwnik‘ with bands of ascetics. Cf. the nearly identical terminology in 13.4 (60.13); see comment ad loc. The sentence is omitted by Mahé, L’Alphabet arménien, 186. 6. Vasak Sisakan. Nephew of the above mentioned Vaghinak. Vasak usurped the principality by murdering his uncle in 413, according to Eghishē (History, 6.134 [MH 1:680]). The belief that his coming to power ‘was ordained by God’ is based on the predestinarian theology of Rom. 8:29–30 (cf. Eph. 1:5), and seems to reflect historical developments of later years: Vasak’s appointment as governor (marzpan) of Georgia in 440 and of Armenia in 441/2 by Yazdegerd II (438–57). These were the years between the death of Mashtots‘ and the writing of the Life. Vasak played a traitorous role during the 451 war, according to Eghishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War. Thus the year 451 is the furthest terminus ad quem for the writing of the Life. Vasak died as a prisoner in Persia in 454/5. By calling Vasak ‘Sisakan’, Koriwn becomes the earliest witness to the legend, amplified in Khorenats‘i (History, 1.12.28 [MH 2:1785–6]), according to which the land of Siwnik‘ derives its name from an eponymous Sisak (Garsoïan wrongly considers the sixth-­century Syriac Historia ecclesiastica of Ps.-Zacharaias Rhetor as the earliest source of the legend; EH 491). Cf. HAnB 5:45, s.v. ‘Vasak 6’. Vasak’s support of the Saint’s ministry, summed up in the next section (7 [62.4–7]), is translated to King Trdat’s support of the Illuminator’s ministry in Agathangelos §865.

CHAPTER 16/15 1. foreign regions. Arm. barbarosakan koghmann (with the possible loss of the plural suffix -ս in կողման[ս]ն; cf. կողմանս in section 3 [62.14]), does not necessarily mean ‘barbaric regions’ (as translated by Mahé: ‘la contrée des barbares’, L’Alphabet arménien, 187); rather, the reference is to foreign lands in general (as translated by Winkler: ‘fremde Gegenden’, Koriwns Biographie, 105 [§83]), where foreign

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

153

languages are spoken, here the Armeno-­Georgian borderlands (see comment on section 3). The adjective is used in the sense of its exact Greek equivalent, barbaros (‘foreign’ or ‘speaking a foreign tongue’); it appears only once more in the Life and that in 17/16.22 (68.25), with reference to the ‘foreign diction’ (zbarbaros zbann) of the Caucasian Albanians, the Aghuank‘. After all, the Christianization of the land is a fait accompli according to section 4 (62.15); hence section 9 (64.1–3) is to be seen as hyperbolic. 2. letters for the Georgian language. The Georgian asomtavruli and Armenian erkat‘agir uncials, the oldest forms of the respective alphabets, show considerable similarities; they leave little or no doubt about a common derivation—­whether by the same hand or from the same quarters, with the Greek alphabet as the basic model and postdating the Christianization of the south Caucasus (see comment on 8.4 [48.9–11]). The same holds true for the Caucasian-­Albanian script, the creation of which Koriwn likewise attributes to Mashtots‘ (see comment on 17/16.22 [68.24–8]). Among the earliest preserved examples of Georgian epigraphy are the Bīr el-­Qutt mosaic inscriptions, wrongly dated to 430 when excavated in 1952 by Virgilio Canio Corbo at the remains of the monastery of St Theodore, 6 km south-­east of Jerusalem and 2 km north of Bethlehem. Besik Khurtsilava (Besarion Xurc‘ilava), ‘The Inscriptions of the Georgian Monastery in Bi’r el-­Qutt and Their Chronology’, Christianity in the Middle East 1 (2017), 129–50, limits the early dating to two of the four inscriptions, relegating the other two to a century later; for more on these inscriptions and others besides, see Giorgi  V.  Cereteli (George  V.  Tseretheli), Użvelesi k‘art‘uli carcerebi palestinidan (The Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions from Palestine), (T‘bilisi: Sak‘art‘velos SSR mec‘nierebat‘a akademia, 1960). However, Tchekhanovets, The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land, 136– 200, rejects this early dating, which is ‘based on selective reading of historical sources’, and, on sound archaeological grounds, dates the whole complex and its four inscriptions to the years 532–52 (pp. 147–9: ‘Claiming a connection between Peter the Iberian and the Bir el-­Qutt monastery would contradict all the archaeological and historical evidence known today’). Yet Georgian monks were active in Palestine since early in the fifth century, and their literary efforts are manifest in translations of liturgical texts of Hierosolymitan origin. This, a shared legacy among the churches of the Caucasus during this period, along

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

154

Commentary

with the ties to Jerusalem in the much-­reworked traditional conversion history of Georgia (on which see Michel van Esbroeck, ‘The Place of Jerusalem in Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’, in Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Georgian, ed. Stephen  H.  Rapp, Jr. and Paul Crego, Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–1500 5 [Farnham: Ashgate, 2012], 175–91; see also Konstantin  B.  Lerner, The Wellspring of Georgian Historiography: The Early Medieval Historical Chronicle ‘The Conversion of K‘art‘li’ and ‘The Life of St. Nino’ [London: Bennett and Bloom, 2004]), has given rise to the hypothesis that the cradle of the Georgian letters could have been in Palestine (Werner Seibt, ‘Wo, wann und zu welchen Zweck wurde das georgische Alphabet geschaffen?’ in Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen: Referate des Internationalen Symposions, Wien, 1.–4. Dezember 2005, ed. Werner Seibt and Johannes Preiser-­Kapeller [Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011], 83–90). There are, nonetheless, differing and mostly untenable hypotheses on the origin of the Georgian alphabet. As Toumanoff observes: ‘The Iberian historical tradition ascribes, against all plausibility, the invention of the alphabet to the First King, Pharnabazus I’ (Studies in Christian Caucasian History, 105 n. 160); cf. Besik  V. Khurtsilava (Besarion Xurc‘ilava), K‘art‘uli asomt‘avruli anbani da misi avtorebi ‘Bakur’ da ‘Gri Ormizd’ (Georgian Asomtavruli Script and its Authors: ‘Bakur’ and ‘Gri Ormizd’) (T‘bilisi: B.  Xurc‘ilava, 2008), an attempt to place its origin in the first half of the fourth century, with the introduction of Christianity, instead of the first half of the fifth. The earliest epigraphic examples in Georgia are the Sioni Basilica inscriptions of Bolnisi in Lower K‘art‘li (south-­east Georgia), dating from 493–5 (Bolnisis użvelesi k‘art‘uli carcerebi [The Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions of Bolnisi],ed.Valeri Silogava [T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1994), Eng. sum., 93–109. On this early script, see Ilia  V.  Abulaże (Abuladze), K‘art‘uli ceris nimušebi. Paleograp‘iuli albomi (Examples of Georgian Writing: A Paleographical Album), 2nd expanded edn (T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1973); among others, T‘amaz V.  Gamqreliże (Thomas  V.  Gamkrelidze), Ceris anbanuri sistema da żveli k‘art‘uli damcerloba: anbanuri ceris tipologia da carmomavloba, with a preface by Akaki G. Šaniże (Shanidze) (T‘bilisi: Tbilisi State University Press, 1989), 104–12 (in Georgian), 245–52 (in Russian); Eng. trans., Alphabetic Writing and the Old Georgian Script: A Typology and Provenience of Alphabetic Writing Systems, Anatolian and Caucasian Studies (Delmar,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

155

NY: Caravan Books, 1994); and more recently, the overview by Tamara Pataridze, ‘Georgian Palaeography’, COMS 292–6. It is worth observing that, unlike the Armenian alphabet, which has its peculiar graphemes interspersed among the sequence of the Greek alphabet, the Georgian peculiar graphemes are appended to the Greek alphabetic order, thus maintaining the numerical value of the Greek alphabet. This feature has an antecedent in Coptic and other scripts emerging in Early Christianity and draws attention to the possible influence of monastic contacts outside the Caucasus; the same possibility—­albeit on different grounds—­may hold true for Armenian (see comment on 8.1 and 4 [48.2–5, 9–11]) and the Udi-­related or Caucasian-­Albanian script (see comment on 17/16.22 [68.24–8]). Among other shared features indicative of common endeavours in Early Christianity for alphabetic inventions are the Georgian and Armenian equivalents to Greek χ (chi, the initial of Christ, Χριστός), represented in the shape of the cross in one language and as a Christogram in the other. Equally significant among the Georgian and Armenian peculiar graphemes (those without Greek equivalent), is the inverted Georgian jan/i, equivalent to Coptic Ճ (janja), borrowed without inversion in Armenian, and representing the same sound in all three languages. As for the cross or the Christogram in Coptic, it stands as the last of the letters in that alphabet (ti/de). Correspondences between these alphabets and the Caucasian Albanian alphabet are too numerous to discuss here; for some elements, see the proper comment ad loc. In his survey of early Georgian literature to the end of the tenth century, Korneli Kekeliże (Kekelidze) raises the question as to when the Georgian letters were invented: K‘art‘uli literaturis istoria, t. 1: Żveli mcerloba (History of Georgian Literature, Vol. I: Early Writings) (T‘bilisi: Gamomc‘emeli T‘oma Č‘ik‘vanaia, 1923). For him the early Armenian sources are not to be ignored, since they attest to the fact that both the Georgian and Armenian alphabets share some common origin rooted in their acceptance of Christianity (pp. 28–32; cf. 197 and 293). He recounts Koriwn’s version of events and places these early activities within the years 408–12. Also not to be ignored is the intermediary place of Armenian texts in early Georgian translations, including biblical texts; see e.g. Gérard Garitte’s observations on the Syriac stratum in the Georgian version of Acts via Armenian: L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits du Sinaï, Bibliothèque de Muséon 38 (Leuven: Peeters, 1955),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

156

Commentary

and more broadly, Childers, ‘The Bible in Georgian’, 162–78. Cf. Michael Tarchnišvili and Julius Assfalg, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, auf Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen Literaturgeschichte von K.  Kekelidze, ST 185 (Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955), and—­just as importantly—­David  M. Lang’s review, calling into question the Chalcedonian/‘Orthodox’ revisionism in the latter, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19.1 (1957), 179–81. For further criticism of Tarchnišvili’s method, see Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasion History, 105–6 n. 160. Overall, it seems that Koriwn’s generally trustworthy account has to be read guardedly, all the more because of its encomiastic character. Syro-­Palestinian monastic contacts may well have provided the grounds for devising the alphabets of the South Caucasus, and this on the initiative of Mashtots‘. His pioneering role in the common endeavour is quite significant in the Life and cannot be ignored—­much less dismissed as interpolation on the basis of selective reading of textual variants that are not part of the Life, or for the reasons that (a) Koriwn’s statement on the invention of the Georgian letters by Mashtots‘ appears also in the ‘Third Letter of Catholicos Abraham of Armenia to Catholicos Kiwrion of Georgia’ (with a reminder of the earlier work of St Gregory the Illuminator) during the separation of the Georgian and Armenian churches in 608, as quoted in the Book of Letters (Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘, ed. Izmireants‘, 180; cf. the revised edition by Pogharian, 340, and MH 4:10.5–6); and (b) the statement is not found in certain manuscripts of Ukhtanēs, a tenth-­century historian, when quoting the Third Letter of Abraham to Kiwrion (History of the Armenians, 2.50; but cf. the text in MH 15:569.5–6 and the variant readings ad loc.). The latter is the argument made by Zaza Aleksiże (Aleksidze) in his partially edited and translated book Epistolet‘a cigni, somxuri tek‘sti k‘art‘uli t‘argmanit‘, gamokvlevit‘a da komentarebit‘ (Book of Letters: Armenian Text with Georgian Translation, Investigation and Comments), Uc‘xouri cqaroebi sak‘art‘velos šesaxeb 21 (T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1968), esp. 37–41. His assertions are reiterated by Gaprindashvili, ‘Koriunis “Maštoc‘is c‘xovreba” ’, esp. 151–5 (on issues of methodology in this dissertation supervised by Aleksidze, see above, Introduction [D] and n. 93). On the history of the schism—­ the touchstone of Armeno-­Georgian relations since the turn of the seventh century, see Nina G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient, CSCO 574, Subsidia 100 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

157

3. he arose and went to the regions of Georgia. Arm. i koghmans Vrats‘ (from Virk‘, Parth. Viržān), corresponding to Gk. and Lat. Iberia (note the ‘v/b’ interchangeability or ‘betacism’), is by no means a reference to the whole of K‘art‘li (‘Georgia’ derives from ‘Kurj’, the Arabic name for the land following the seventh-­century conquest). This, the first journey to unspecified Georgian territory, must have been limit­ed to a region in the eastern part the K‘art‘velians called Somkhit‘i: the March of Armenia or the Armeno-­Iberian marchlands north of the upper Euphrates and south of the Kur River, a frontier region also known as Gogarene (Arm. Gugark‘; see the next comment). Mashtots‘ returned to the same region following his journey to Constantinople (18/17.9–19/18.7 [72.14–74.9]), a region further defined by the reference there to Tashir, another principality of the marchlands of Gogarene. Christianization allowed for widespread interaction along the border regions of Georgia, as further attested in shared literary sources and other cross-­cultural contacts in this period. For a list of the various suggestions on the year of this journey, ranging from 409 to 417, see Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 310. 4. the king, whose name was Bakur. Gk. Bakurios; Lat. Aspacures. Achar˙yan, like others, identifies him with Varaz-­Bakur II of Iberia (East Georgia), whose reign (379/80–393/4) he wishes to extend to 409, the year he assigns for this journey of Mashtots‘—while not ruling out the possibility of a Khosrovianni/Mihranid progeny by the same name and with lesser authority in the region at a later time (Hayots‘ grerĕ, 399 [1968 edn]; 184–5 [1984 edn]). The name is attested in the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian as the maternal grandfather of the ascetic prince whose sojourn in the Holy Land is memorialized by his disciple John Rufus (where Bakurios is wrongly called the first Christian king of the Iberians [§§6, 11], a distinction reserved for Mirian III, reigned 306–37; John Rufus: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus, ed. and trans. Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix Jr., WGRW 24 [Atlanta: SBL, 2008], 7, 13). As for the name attested in the Bīr el-­Qutt complex, I  agree with Tchekhanovets that ‘the combination of the names “Maruan”, “Burzen” and “Bakur” in the inscriptions should be regarded as coincidental, or written in memoriam’ (The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land, 148). The source for the Iberian conversion narrative by Tyrannius Rufinus (d. 410) was an Iberian ‘king’, gentis ipsius rex, named

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

158

Commentary

Bacurius, whom he met in Jerusalem and who had served in various high positions within the Roman army, including Comes Domesticorum and Palaestini tunc limitis Dux (Hist. eccl. 1.10 [PL 21:480–2]).‘Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned a Bacurius (“a native of Iberia”) fighting at Adrianople in 378 (Res Gestae 31.12.16); Libanius corresponded with a Bacurius in 392 (Ep. 1043, 1044, 1060); and both Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. eccl. 5.25.13) and the pagan historian Zosimus (Hist. Nov. 4.57) speak of Bacurius as one of Theodosius’ principal commanders at the Battle of the Frigidus in September of 394’ (Christopher Haas, ‘Mountain Constantines: The Christianization of Aksum and Iberia’, JLA 1.1 [2008], 101–26, here 108). For more on the historicity of the name, as that of a dynastic toparch or marcher-­lord (bidakhsh) of Somkhit‘i-­Gugark‘, see Stephen  H.  Rapp, Jr., The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes: Caucasia and the Iranian Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 72–4, 389; cf. Cyril Toumanoff, ‘Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia’, Traditio 25 (1969), 1–33, esp. 27, 31–3, where Toumanoff identifies him as the informant of Rufinus about the conversion of Iberia to Christianity; and Paul Peeters,‘Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie d’aprés les sources hagiographiques’, AB 50 (1932), 5–58, esp. 33–8 for the identities of other bearers of the name. For more on the latter, see Nicolas J. Preud’homme, ‘Bacurius, The Man with Two Faces’, Iberia-­ Colchis 13 (2017), 166–92, distinguishing Bakur the informant of Rufinus from the Armeno-­K‘art‘velian bidakhsh (‘king’), and him from the rest of the Iberian kings in the early decades of the fifth ­century. the bishop of the land, Moses. Toumanoff is inclined to place him in the See of Ts‘urtavi, in Gogarene, where the name appears to have been common (‘Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia’, 32). Interestingly, the traditionally acknowledged sixth bishop of Mtskheta is Mose(s)/ Mos(s)e, 410–25, whose name is validated by Koriwn and—­like that of the Iberian bishop Jeremiah (18/17.2 [70.15])—is found in neither the annals of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba nor the narratives of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay (Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 307–8, 350–1, citing Kalistrat Salia, Histoire de la nation géorgienne [Paris: Edition Nino Salia, 1980], 80; idem, ‘Les chefs de l’église géorgienne depuis l’origine jusqu’à nos jours (d’après le Calendrier de l’Église géorgienne publié par le Patriarcat, Tbilisi 1962)’, Bedi Kartlisa 41–2 [1962], 14–16). The early history of Georgian Christianity is assumed in this passage, spanning most of the fourth century and into the fifth. According

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

159

to The Life of St. Nino—­given the seventh- and ninth-­century expansions of the seminal story about the conversion of Iberia by an unnamed slave girl in Rufinus’ Hist. eccl. 10.11, it began with her converting Queen Nana and King Mirian (on which see Cornelia B. Horn, ‘St. Nino and the Christianization of Pagan Georgia’, ME 4 [1990], 242–64; for an English translation of the seventh-­century version, found in Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay by Gregory the Deacon, see Margery Wardrop and James  O.  Wardrop, ‘Life of St. Nino’, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 5 [1903], 1–88). It is not difficult to discern in it echoes of the early Agathangelian stratum of the tradition regarding the eastward fleeing nuns and the Parthian St Gregory, the Illuminator of the wider region (Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory, passim). Dan D. Y. Shapira rightly states that the St Nino traditions (from anonymity to one who is well-­connected and with ties to Jerusalem) ‘should be studied, as a whole, in a general context of the split with the Armenian Mother Church in the early 7th century’, and goes on to observe: ‘The mere memory of the form of Christianity once shared by Georgians and Armenians (and Albanians) was suppressed in Georgian sources, and in fact, practically all the extant Georgian literature originates after the split’ (‘ “Tabernacle of Vine”: Some (Judaizing?) Features in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino’, Scrinium 2 [2006], 273–306, here 277, 279 n. 19; see also Cyril Toumanoff,‘Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (VIIth–XVth Centuries)’, Traditio 1 [1943], 139–82, here 149–53, and the invaluable introductions by Stephen H. Rapp, Jr. to K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba: The Georgian Royal Annals and Their Medieval Armenian Adaptation, 2 vols., Anatolian and Caucasian Studies [Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1998], 1:13–43; 2:1–25; cf. idem, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiogrphy: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, CSCO 601, Subsidia 113 [Leuven: Peeters, 2003]). 6. the sought-­after objective. On the noun khndrelin, see comment on 10/6.1 (44.11–12). The immediate objective of inventing alphabets for the eastern regions of the Byzantine empire was part of the latter’s broader objective to maintain regional cohesion through Christianization. The lines of this section are utilized in Agathangelos §828, and much of the rest of the following sections (7–8 [62.18–28]) in Agathangelos §839 (with 15/14.4 [60.22–4]). 8. the furnace of indoctrination. This is one of the three rare metaphors used by Koriwn (see Introduction [C]). The word vardapetut‘iwn, here translated ‘indoctrination’, usually refers to religious teaching in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

160

Commentary

a doctrinal sense, and differs from the word krt‘ut‘iwn, which Koriwn uses distinctly in the sense of ‘education’, ‘discipline’, or ‘training’, as in 4.3 (38.8), 23/22.5 (82.3), and 26/25.3 (90.14); cf. krt‘el, ‘to educate’, in 10.2 (44.14), a hapax in the Life. 9. he now united into one nation, making them glorifiers of one God. Said of Constantine the Great (reigned 324–37) in Agathangelos §867, at the start of the narrative about St Gregory’s and King Trdat’s purported visit to Rome. 10. Those among them who were found worthy. A textual corruption here needs comment, even though it is explained adequately by Abeghyan (Koryun, 115 n. 102). The text reads, ‘yorots‘ ew im anarzhanis’ (lit., ‘among them [or, of whom] I, the unworthy one’), leading some to think that Koriwn was one of those Georgian youths, who then became a bishop. Abeghyan follows Biwzandats‘i in emending the words in question thus: ‘yorots‘ ew gtan arzhanik‘’ (‘Those among them who were found worthy’), explaining the corruption in the uncials of the once unspaced words (յորոցեւիմանարժանիս/ յորոց.եւ.գտան.արժանիք). Abeghyan observes correctly that the latter is consonant with the immediate context, and that all of Koriwn’s other self-­ references corroborate the emendation (see especially 20/19.5 [74.25–6], the only instance where the author gives his name). Samuel . . . bishop of the royal house. Unattested elsewhere; name repeated in 19/18.7 (74.4). 11. all parts of Georgia. A generalization—­if not an encomiastic hyperbole. See comment on section 3 (62.14).

CHAPTER 17/16 1. He then arose . . . This section is claimed for ‘the great Gregory’ in Agathangelos §862 (end). 2. And when he had filled . . . The first half of this section is utilized in Agathangelos §783 (cf. 12.9 [58.21–2], utilized in the preceding lines of the Agathangelian passage). the other half of the Armenian nation, that under the rule of the Byzantine king. That is, the territories in Western or Byzantine Armenia, often referred to as ‘Lesser Armenia’ in comparison with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

161

the larger part of the country referred to as ‘Greater Armenia’ in the Life, as below, section 24 (70.7). On the partition of Armenia between the Byzantine (East Roman) and Sasanian (Persian) empires in 387, see comment on 3.2 (36.9). On ‘the Byzantine king’ and the date of the visit, see comment on section 4 (64.25–6). Khorenats‘i extends Sahak’s activity to Western Armenia, adding that he was not well received; thus necessitating the mission of Mashtots‘ to these regions (History, 3.57.2 [MH 2:2087]). 4. the northern regions. A recurring designation in Arm. sources for Armenia and the countries to the north. at the entry of the road. Possibly the old Kars (Chorsene) to Erzurum (Theodosiopolis) road at the northern border, the historical crossing place between Persian and Byzantine Armenia since the partition in 387. T(homas) A. Sinclair describes the border as the ridge between the upper Aras (Araxes) basin and the upper basin of the Tuzla Su. ‘The two plains were the most likely corridor of attack for either side anywhere in Armenia, and it was just to the west of the Deve Boyun that the city of Theodosiopolis was built (sometime between 408– 450), primarily as a means of blocking Persian attacks.’ Sinclair notes that ‘Between 387 and the reign of Justinian (second quarter of the sixth century) the borders to the south of this area were not policed or maintained in the sense that either empire kept a strict watch on or tried to control movements of civilian population from beyond the border.’ Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey, 2 vols. (London: Pindar Press, 1987–90), 2:273. the commander in chief. Arm. spayapet, or sparapet, as further below in this chapter (14 [68.6]), is the usual equivalent for Gk. strategos; cf. Lat. magister militum. On the office, see Robert Bedrosian, ‘The Sparapetut‘iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, Armenian Review 36.2 (1983), 6–46, listing those Armenians who held the office in the given period. Anatolios. Text has ‘Anatolis’. The name means ‘eastern’, befitting a commander guarding the eastern frontier of the empire. He informed the emperor about the plans of Mashtots‘ to teach the alphabet in Byzantine Armenia, thus introducing the Saint to the emperor. Upon his return, Mashtots‘ had to present the emperor’s rescripta to Anatolios, whose identity remains unknown. Theodos[ios], the son of the emperor Arkadios. Theodosios (text has ‘Theodos’) II (r. 408–50) ascended the throne as a youth upon the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

162

Commentary

death of Arkadios (r. 395–408). He was already married at the time of the Saint’s visit (see further below [7 and 11] in this chapter [66.9, 20]). Theodosios’ marriage to Athenais-­Eudokia was on 7 June 421 (ODB 1.220–1, s.v. ‘Athenais-­Eudokia’). She was declared augusta on 2 January 423 (d. 460); hence the visit must have been thereafter, and certainly before the death of the patriarch Attikos in 425. Arevshatyan places the visit in 422/3 (‘Maštoc‘ et les débuts de la patristique arménienne’, 313). Koriwn’s account is complementary to the emperor’s known studiousness and the relatively quiet situation on the eastern frontier of the Empire (ODB 3.2051–2, s.v. ‘Theodosios II’). Akumit. Cf. Gk. akoimetos, lit., ‘sleepless one’, a relatively common designation for learned clerics devoted to prayer and tireless study; pl. akoimetoi, an early monastic community in Constantinople, purportedly founded by the archimandrite Alexander the Akoimetos in 405 (ODB 1.46, s.v. ‘Akoimetoi, Monastery of ’). Cf. Lat. acuminatus, lit., ‘sharp’, ‘keen’, or ‘watchful’. For a comparable term in Arm., mshtapashton, see Tachat Yartĕmian,‘‘Anapat’ ew “vank‘ ” ezreru bovandakayin-­ imastayin nshanakut‘iwnĕ hay vanakan mtatsoghut‘ean mēj’ (The Contextual and Inherent Meaning of the Terms ‘Anapat’ and ‘Vank‘’ in Armenian Monastic Thought), Bazmavēp 156 (1998), 53–5. Olga Vardazaryan draws the honorific akimit from Gk. ‘ἀκ(κ)ού(μ)ϐιτος’ (akoumbiton/‘couch’; cf. Arm. akumb/‘club’), emblematically referring to the Grand Palace, the so-­called  ‘Triclinium of nineteen couches’, where invited guests customarily reclined instead of sitting. Thus Mashtots‘ was an honoured guest there, and the word was not intended as a title; ‘Inch‘pes Mashtots‘ĕ dardzav “Akimit” ’ (How Did Mashtots‘ Become ‘Akimit’?), BM 23 (2016), 219–30. However interesting the observation, it is not convincing. The contextual sense is that of a lasting title, bestowed prior to the arrival in the capital city. 5. Melitene. Today’s Malatya, a major city of eastern Cappadocia, to the north of Samosata and west of the Euphrates, situated at a crossroads leading from Asia Minor to Mesopotamia. In c.ad 400, it became the civil and ecclesiastical metropolis of Armenia II. For more, see ODB 2.1336, s.v. ‘Melitene’. Akakios. A common name of bishops in this period; cf. Akakios, Bishop of Amid, mentioned earlier in the Life (7.2 [46.13] and comment there). On the two letters by Akakios of Melitene, one to Sahak (and his reply), and the other to the Armenian clergy in general, see comment below, at 20/19.1 (74.11–14).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

163

Ghewondēos. The Arm. here preserves the Gk. form of the name ‘Leontios’, suggesting that he was a native of Lesser or Western Armenia, which was under Byzantine control at the time. Achar˙yan incautiously identifies him with the disciple Ghewondēs mentioned below, who was sent with Koriwn to ‘the regions of the Greeks’ (20/19.5 [74.26]); see HAnB 3:141, s.v. ‘Ghewond 4’. 6. bishop of Derjan, whose name was Gint‘. Derjan, a district of Greater Armenia, south of the district of Karin, present-­day Erzurum in the Euphrates valley, east of Erznka or Erzincan (cf. HHShTB 2:93, s.v. ‘Derjan Verin’). Also in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.57.21, 3.60.4 (MH 2:2089, 2095), where the bishop’s name is in the variant form, Gnit‘, emended to Gint‘, following Koriwn; see HAnB 1:478, s.v. ‘Gnit‘ 2’. state-­owned carriage. Arm. yandruarn dimosakan. The adjective is a borrowed form of Gk. dēmiosios. The noun (andruar, var. andruvar), defined as a wagon drawn by two horses (NBHL 1:137–8), differs from those used for the means of transport in section 11 (68.1–2): i despaks ew i kar˙s. the royal city of Constantinople. Arm. t‘agaworakats‘ k‘aghak‘n Kostandinakan, lit., ‘the Constantinian regal city’; cf. tiezerakan k‘aghak‘n, ‘the cosmopolis’ in section 8 (66.12). On the likely date of arrival, 422/3, see above, on section 4 (64.25–6). 7. the exalted throne. This was at the Great Palace in Constantinople, begun by Constantine  I.  Two fifth-­century palaces, the Boukoleon and the Hormisdas, were built after the reported visit. The same passage is applied to St Gregory’s and King Trdat’s arrival in Rome, in Agathangelos §875. the God-­ordained monarchs. The augustus/emperor Theodosios II and the augusta/empress Athenais-­Eudokia; see above, comment on section 4 (64.25–6). the imperial court. Arm. ashkharhamut drann, a common designation for the Byzantine palace (NBHL 1:263), the Mega Palation. Attikos. Patriarch of Constantinople (in office 406–25), born in Sebaste, in Western or Byzantine Armenia (ODB 1.230, s.v. ‘Attikos’). Twice in this chapter he is referred to as catholicos (see further below, section 11 [66.21]). Better known for his intrigues and later for his charity, Attikos was a staunch opponent of St John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (in office 397–404), to the point of influencing his deposition and banishment to Cucusus in Cappadocia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

164

Commentary

and then to Pityus in Abkhazia (he died on the way in Comana, in Pontus, in 407). After Chrysostom’s death, Attikos became a supporter of him (Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom); hence Khorenats‘i has Attikos make an enthusiastic reference to the teaching of Chrysostom (History, 3.57.36 [MH 2:2091]; misconstrued by Thomson, Khorenats‘i, 48 n. 94, 325 n. 443). 9. a sacred ordinance bearing the imperial seal. Typical of the sacra rescripta. that half of the Armenian nation. See above, section 4 (64.17). Borborites. Enough has been written hypothetically on the identity of the Borborites or ‘the filthy ones’ (from Gk. borboros), known also as Barbelians or Barbelioti and Phibionites, who were demonized primarily for their bizarre Gnostic tenets. Scholarly consensus has not changed since Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) labelled them as libertine Gnostic sectarians (Panarion, 25–6; cf. Theodoret, Compendium haereticarum fabularum, 1.13). The Byzantine authorities were bent on eradicating them, more so since they came to the attention of Attikos, the named Patriarch of Constantinople. In general, Armenian heretical designations are imprecise; see Galust Tēr-­Mkrtch‘ian, ed., ‘Girk‘ herdzuatsots‘’, Ararat (1892), 91–114; Robert W. Thomson, ‘An Armenian List of Heresies’, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 16 (1965), 358–67. On their mistreatment by Mashtots‘, see comment on section 17 (68.13–14). For a survey of opposition to heretical movements in Armenia, see Aram Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i: église, droit, et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle, CSCO 606, Subsidia 116 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 188–252; cf. Ervand Ter-­Minasyan, Mijnadaryan aghandneri tsagman ew zargats‘man patmut‘yunits‘ (From the history of the rise and spread of medieval sects) (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1968). the strengthening of the churches. This third authorization underscores the importance of the mission, which is in keeping with the Christianization endeavour upon which Mashtots‘ embarked decades earlier. Strengthening orthodoxy in the eastern provinces and beyond not only helps the unification of the empire but also prevents Sasanian expansionism and the harbouring of heterodox Christians in Persian-­ controlled lands. As Redgate observes, ‘The motivation behind Mesrop’s creations was concern for his people’s salvation rather than for its worldly prospects, but their timing may nevertheless have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

165

related to the contemporary political situation’ (The Armenians, 141; cf. Robert W. Thomson, ‘Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12–13 [1988–9], 28–45; repr. as ch. 3 in his  Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity, Variorum Collected Studies Series 451  [Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1994]; and Stephen H. Rapp, Jr., ‘Caucasia and Byzantine Culture’, in Byzantine Culture: Papers from the Conference ‘Byzantine Days of Istanbul’ Held on the Occasion of Istanbul Being European Cultural  Capital 2010: May 21–23, 2010, ed. Dean Sakel [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014], 217–34, here 220–4). Except for the occasional synchronism, Koriwn’s silence about the Sasanians and their religion is noteworthy—­quite unlike his associate Eznik, who was not slow to write about ‘the errors of the Persians’. 11. the augusti. The augustus Theodosios and the augusta Eudokia, earlier referred to as ‘monarchs’ (section 7 [66.9]). Sections 11–13 are appropriated for the Illuminator in Agathangelos §§879–81. 14. the commander-­in-­chief. Arm. sparapet (sic), referring to the above-­mentioned Anatolios (4 [64.24]). the emperor’s sacred ordinance. The sacra rescripta mentioned above. 16. . . . delighting those who had been gathered. Lines echoed in Agathangelos §837. 17. the indecent and stubborn sect of the Borborites. On their identity, see comment on section 9 (66.17–18). Cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.58.7 (MH 2:2092; trans. Thomson, 326). The Borborites, whose Gnostic beliefs and practices were variously described as weird, were harshly persecuted by the nascent orthodoxy. Their mistreatment by Mashtots‘, as described in the following section, is commensurate with known methods of punishing and branding heretics, indeed torturing them. His acts, however, demand further explanation. The Borborites were regarded as incorrigible after all efforts to integrate them in the orthodox community had seemingly failed, thus justifying their persecution to the point of annihilating them and hence their eastward flight. Akakios of Constantinople, whom Mashtots‘ had just visited, was one of their arch-­enemies, as was Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (see comment on 7.2 [46.13]), whose zealous persecution of the Borborites is praised effusively in his Vita (see Phenix and Horn, The Rabbula Corpus, p. cxlii).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

166

Commentary

Opposition to heretics seems to have been tantamount to public declaration of one’s orthodoxy—­if not a panegyrical requirement in those days to highlight a saint’s orthodoxy. Moreover, on his return from Constantinople, where he was honoured as Akumit and recognized as a distinguished teacher, Mashtots‘ seems to have been challenged to ‘educate’ an intractable group in Byzantine Armenia. It must be remembered that the power to inflict the horrific punishments must have rested with the Byzantine administrative authorities. 21. . . . and was filled to overflowing with every goodness. The line is echoed in Agathangelos §837. 22. Caucasian-­Albania(n). Arm. Aghuank‘ mirrors the word ‘Albanoi’ used by Strabo (63 bc–c.ad 23) and other ancient authors after him for tribes inhabiting the territory between the Caspian Sea and the Kur(a) River (Geogr. 9.1.5; 9.2.15; 9.3.2, 5; cf. Pliny NH 6.11.29; 6.15.36–9; Ptolemy Geogr. 5.11). ‘Caucasian’ is generally supplied to distinguish this land and peoples from ‘Balkanian’ Albania(ns). Under Sasanian domination in the fifth century and thereafter, the toponym was used to include annexed territory and tribes of the marchlands south of the Kur(a), as Koriwn and other early Armenian authors seem to suggest (e.g. Anania Shirakats‘i, a seventh-­century author of a geography: Ashkharhats‘oyts‘, 28–9/39; for more, see the extended comment below). The missionary activities of Mashtots‘ among the Aghuank‘ need not have been limited to one of the latter tribes whose language—­adopted for ecclesial use—­was close to that of the Udi people of the marchlands, as explained below (Arm. Utik‘; Gk. Ouitia/ Otēnē; Lat. Otene). For brief geographical descriptions, see Garsoïan, EH 438–9, s.v. ‘Ałuank‘’; 498, s.v. ‘Utik‘/Uti’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 1:196, s.v. ‘Aghvank‘’; 4:207, s.v. ‘Utik‘’; for general discussions, see V(ladimir) Minorsky, ‘Caucasica IV’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 15.3 (1953), 504–29; Aleksan A. (H)akobyan, Albaniia-­Aluank v greko-­latinskikh i drevnear­ mianskikh istochnikakh (Albania-­Aghuank‘ in the Greek-­Latin and Ancient Armenian Sources) (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1987); and more recently, Lara Fabian, ‘Albania in Greek and Latin Texts: The Use and Utility of “Views from the West” ’, in From Albania to Arrān: The East Caucasus between the Ancient and Islamic Worlds (ca. 330 BCE–1000 CE), ed. Robert  G.  Hoyland, Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 25 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020), 9–27; for more, see Introduction, n. 31.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

167

Benjamin. For later references to him, dependent on Koriwn, see HAnB 1:407, s.v. ‘Beniamin 1’. came up with an alphabet . . . put it in order and balanced its arrangement. The seventh-­century History (with a continuator into the tenth) attributed to Movsēs Kaghankatuats‘i or Dashkhurants‘i follows Koriwn’s Life, repeating that Mashtots‘ drew letters for both the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians. However, it adds that the coming of Mashtots‘ ‘to the province of Uti’ was upon his return with disciples from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Patmut‘iwn Aghuanits‘ Ashkharhi,1.27.1–4; 3.24.7; ed. Ar˙ak‘elyan, 95, 342 [MH 15:135–6, 421]; History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. Dowsett, 54–5, 228). On the general reliability of the History, see James Howard-­Johnston, ‘Caucasian Albania and its Historian’, in From Albania to Arrān, ed. Hoyland, 351–69. On the possibility of Mashtots‘ having invented the Caucasian alphabets in a Syro-­Palestinian ascetic environment, or in a monastery near Edessa where itinerant ascetics seem to have had some influence, see comments on 8.1 and 4 (on the Armenian script) and on 16/15.2 (on the Georgian script). The formerly lost alphabet was discovered in 1937 by the Georgian philologist Ilia V. Abuladze in a fifteenth-­century Armenian manuscript of the Matenadaran in Yerevan (M7117, fo. 145r–v), which has the fifty-­two letters arranged and named with their phonetic values—­ along with six other alphabets (‘K otkrytiiu alfavita kavkazskikh albantsev’ [On the Discovery of the Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians], Izvestiia Instituta iazyka, Istorii i material‘noĭ kul‘tury im. Akad. N. Marra 4.1 [1938], 69–71); preceded by a study of their phon­ et­ic structure by Akaki G. Šaniże (Shanidze), who went on to show that the language is close to Udi, and is invariably related to other Caucasian languages: ‘Novootkrytyi alfavit kavkazskikh albantsev i ego znachenie dlia nauki’ (The Newly Discovered Caucasian-­Albanian Alphabet and Its Significance for the Sciences), ibid. 1–68; idem, ‘Poriadok bukv gruzinskogo, armianskogo i albanskogo alfavitov’ (The Connotation of the Georgian, Armenian, and Caucasian-­Albanian Letters), Materialy po istorii Azerbaĭdzhana 2 (1957), 33–43. Epigraphic corroboration of the letters emerged during the 1946–53 excavation in Mingechaur (Azerbaijan). For a comprehensive study of the language and its relation to Udi (at times dubbed ‘Old Udian’), see Wolfgang Schulze, ‘Towards a History of Udi’, International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2.1 (2005), 55–99; idem, ‘Caucasian Albanian and the Question of Language and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

168

Commentary

Ethnicity’, 275–312. See also Serge N. Mouraviev, ‘La forme interne de l’alphabet albanais caucasien et la phonologie de l’oudien’, Le Muséon 93 (1980), 345–74; and Jost Gippert, ‘The Script of the Caucasian Albanians in the Light of the Sinai Palimpsests’, in Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen, ed. Seibt and Preiser-­Kapeller, 39–50, for a complete inventory of the letters and the sound system reflected by them. See the arrangement of the fifty-­two letters also in Achar˙yan, Hayots‘ grerĕ, 682 (1984 edn); note that their arrangement follows that of the Armenian alphabet, with the add­ ition­al sixteen graphemes interspersed among the latter’s sequence. For yet another Armenian manuscript, from the sixteenth century, containing the same alphabet with identical arrangement, see H(arry) Kurdian,‘The Newly Discovered Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1.2 (1956), 81–3; idem, ‘S.  Mesrop Mashtots‘ ew aghuanakan grerĕ’ (St M.-M. and the Caucasian-­Albanian Letters), Bazmavēp 120 (1962), 247–52 (the manuscript, once owned by Kurdian, was gifted to the Venetian Mekhitarists of St Lazzaro); cf. Robert H. Hewsen, ‘On the Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians’, REArm 1 (1964), 427–32. On the discovery at St Catherine Monastery in the Sinai in 1996 of two palimpsests (N/Sin-­13 and N/Sin-­55) with erased Caucasian Albanian excerpts of a seventh-­century Hierosolymitan lectionary—­ including an Armenian layer—­derived from a lost Greek version, with Georgian selections from the Life of Anthony by Athanasius and from other Desert Fathers, copied over the erased text in the tenth or  eleventh centuries, see Zaza Aleksidze and Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ‘Découverte d’un texte albanien: une langue du Caucase retrouvée’, Comptes-­rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-­lettres 141.2 (1997), 517–32; idem, ‘Le déchiffrement de l’écriture des Albaniens du Caucase’, Comptes-­rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-­ lettres 145.3 (2001), 1239–57; Eng. trans. ‘The Deciphering of the Script of the Caucasian Albanians’, in From Albania to Arrān, ed. Hoyland, 335–49. For the editio princeps (to be revised by the same editors now aided by advanced technology), see Jost Gippert, Wolfgang Schulze, Zaza Aleksidze, and Jean-­Pierre Mahé, eds., The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai, 2 vols., Monumenta palaeographica Medii Aevi: Series Ibero-­Caucasica 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008); and Jost Gippert, ed., The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai. III: The Armenian Layer, Monumenta palaeographica Medii Aevi: Series Ibero-­ Caucasica 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010);

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

169

idem, ‘Palimpsests of Caucasian Provenance. Reflections on Diplomatic Editing’, COMS 403–10; idem, ‘Hexaplaric Material in the Albano-­ Armenian Palimpsests’, in Kavkasia aġmosavlet‘sa da dasavlet‘s šoris. Istoriul-­p‘ilologiuri żiebani miżġvnili Zaza Aleksiżis dabadebis 75 clist‘avisadmi / Caucasus between East and West: Historical and Philological Studies in Honour of Zaza Aleksidze, ed. Dali Čitunašvili et al. (T‘bilisi: Xelnacert‘a erovnuli c‘entri, 2012), 205–11. On their close affinity with the Armenian biblical text, see idem, ‘The Linguistic Background of Caucasian Albanian Literacy’, in Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus: Papers from the International Conference ‘Current Advances in Caucasian Studies’, Macerata, January 21–23, 2010, ed. Vittorio Springfield Tomelleri et al. (Munich and Berlin: Otto Sagner, 2011), 3–21. Cf. Charles Renoux, ed., Le lectionnaire albanien des manuscrits géorgiens palimpsestes N Sin 13 et N Sin 55 (Xe–XIe siècles), PO 234 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). Apart from this recent discovery, all extant Christian literature pertaining to Caucasian Albania is in Armenian. Among recent studies see e.g.,my artcle: ‘Monastic Turmoil in Sixth-­Century Jerusalem and the South Caucasus: The Letter of Patriarch John iv to Catholicos Abas of the Caucasian Albanians’, DOP 74 (2020), 9–39. 23. Enoch and . . . Danan. Also in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.60.4 (MH 2:2095). Cf. HAnB 2:121, s.v. ‘Enovk‘ 1’; 2:10, s.v. ‘Danan’. the faithful. The newly enlightened or Christianized communities in Byzantine Armenia. 24. Greater Armenia. On the territory of ‘Greater Armenia’ in his­tor­ ic­al context, see comment on 3.2 (36.9). Nor K‘aghak‘. The capital Vagharshapat, likewise called Nor K‘aghak‘ in 9.3 (50.21); ‘the royal city’ in 9.9 (54.1). king . . . Artashēs. Artashēs III (IV) or Artashir (r. 422–8), the son of the aforementioned King Vr˙amshapuh and the last of the Arsacid kings, ascended the throne aged 18. Upon the request of the Armenian nakharars, the feudal overlords of the various clans, who were unhappy with the youthful king’s behaviour, Artashēs was recalled by the Sasanian Court. Thus ended the Arsacid rule in Armenia (from 12 to 428 ad), and with it the last branch of the Parthian royal house that ruled Persia until overthrown by the Sasanians (from 247 bc to 224 ad). This also led to the deposition of Sahak from the patriarchal office in 428, a decade before his death in 439 (the Gregorid hierarchs, of Parthian origin and of whom Sahak was the last, were also considered

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

170

Commentary

bishops of the Arsacid royal house). For further references to the ill-­ fated king in Arm. sources, see HAnB 1:308–9, s.v. ‘Artashēs 12’. The first part of this section is echoed in Agathangelos §837. 25. . . . to spread the spiritual fervour. This last sentence is borrowed with slight variation in Agathangelos §827.

CHAPTER 18/17 1. Afterwards he left for the regions of Caucasian Albania. After having invented the Caucasian-­Albanian alphabet (see the preceding chapter and the extended comment on 17/16.22 [68.24–8]); similar to the first mission to Georgian territory—­after the invention of that alphabet (ch. 16/15). As noted above, the historian of the land, Movsēs Kaghankatuats‘i or Daskhurants‘i, identifies ‘the province of Uti’ as the destination of Mashtots‘, conceivably another border region (see the next comment). 2. bishop of the Caucasian Albanians, whose name was Jeremiah. Attention must be drawn to Paul Peeters’ ‘Jerémie, évèque de l’Iberie perse (431)’, AB 51 (1933) 5–33, the bishop by this name present at the Council of Ephesus in 431. For more, see comment on the Iberian bishop Moses (16/15.4 [62.15]); for later Armenian citations of the name, dependent on Koriwn, see HAnB 2:136, s.v. ‘Eremia 1’. During the period of the Caucasian churches’ unity, it would not have been surprising to have bishops of different ethnicity as hierarchs beyond their ethnic communities, as was the case of Iohane, a K‘art‘li (Georgian) bishop of Partavi in Caucasian Albania, whose tomb with asomtavruli inscription (dated to the 5th/6th century) was discovered in 2002 among the ruins of a Georgian/Caucasian Albanian monastery at Umm Leisun in Jerusalem (see Yana Tchekhanovets, ‘Iohane, Bishop of Purtavi, and Caucasian Albanians in the Holy Land’, in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of Leah Di Segni, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini et al., Collectio maior 54 [Milan: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014], 305–13). While this is a rare archaeological discovery, the Armenian documentary evidence from before the seventh century for such interaction between the churches of the Caucasus is not so scarce.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

171

king whose name was Arsvagh. ‘Arsuaghēn’ in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.54.6 (MH 2:2083). The latter form of the name is attested in a gem-­ seal in Middle Persian dating from the Sasanian period: Āhzwahēn ī Ārdān Shāh (‘Aswahen King of Albania’); see Murtazali  S.  Gadjiev, ‘On the History of Writing in Caucasian Albania’, in Written Culture in  Daghestan, ed. Moshe Gammer, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Humaniora, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 369 (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2015), 53 fig. 7; read and identified by idem, ‘Gemma-­ pechat‘ tsaria Albanii Asvagena’, Vestnik drevnei istorii 1 (2003), 103, fig. 1; found among intaglios in the Pirousan collection published by Philippe Gignoux, ‘Intailles sassanides de la collection Pirousan’, in Monumentum H.S. Nyberg, Tome III, Acta Iranica 6 (Leuven: Peeters, 1975), 17 pl. 1, fig. 2.2 (cited by Gadjiev). for the sake of Christ’s name. Echoing 2 Cor. 4:5. 4. the king . . . commanded . . . Reverberated in Agathangelos §787. 5. in the blink of an eye. Echoing 2 Mac. 6:20 (ArmB). . . . in no way ignorant of the traditions about God. Lines utilized in Agathangelos §§787, 840. Cf. 14/10.1–3 (54.9–11). 6. the most amiable yoke of Christ. Lines echoing Matt. 11:30, util­ ized in Agathangelos §787. 7. And when he had done this . . . eager expectations. Echoing 2 Cor. 8:11; a line utilized in Agathangelos §788. Baghasakan. Possibly beyond the north-­eastern border of Greater Armenia, in Caucasian Albania. On the undetermined boundaries of the region, see Garsoïan, EH 486–7, s.v. ‘P‘aytakaran/Balasakan’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 1:571, s.v. ‘Baghasakan’. Mushegh. His name is attested in subsequent sources dependent on Koriwn; see HAnB 3:463, s.v. ‘Mushē 5’. 8. Jonathan. Unattested in other fifth-­century sources; for later cit­ ations dependent on Koriwn, see HAnB 3:705–6, s.v. ‘Yovnat‘an 1’. 9. the land of Georgia. Koriwn here introduces the Saint’s second journey to Georgian territory, possibly in the year 424 (so Achar˙yan, while others suggest 421–c.430; see Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 310); for the first journey, nearly a decade earlier, see ch. 16/15 and the comments there, especially on section 4 (62.14–15). The ‘land’ is better known as the Armeno-­Iberian marchlands (on which see Toumanoff,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

172

Commentary

Studies in Christian Caucasian History, 437–99; Rapp, The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes, passim) since it was part of either domain at various periods in history, including periods of autonomous principalities headed by local overlords, the dynastic bidashkhs (thought of as ‘princes’ or even ‘kings’).

CHAPTER 19/18 1. Gardmanian Valley. Presumably Gardmanadzor (text: Gartmanakan Dzor), the administrative centre of Gardman, the sixth district of Utik‘, which was the twelfth region of Greater Armenia (Ashkharhats‘oyts‘ 33/44), between Lake Sevan and the Kur River (see Garsoïan, EH 464, s.v. ‘Gardman/Gardmanajor’; Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 1:809, s.v. ‘Gardman’). On the first mission to Georgian territory, see comment on ch. 16/15. 2. the prince of Gardman . . . Khurs. Unattested in other fifth-­century sources; for later references dependent on Koriwn, see HAnB 2:563, s.v. ‘Khurs 1’. Cf. the toponym ‘Khuzasheni’/‘Xusašeni’, the Gardman castle, on which see Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, 479 nn. 180, 183 and 483–4 n. 205. 5. Ardziwgh (reigned in Georgia). Variant name of Arshil/Arsilios, brother of Bakur according to the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian (§7; see comment at 16/15.4 [62.15]). On the possibility of an earlier co-­ regency, see Mahé, ‘Koriwn, La Vie de Maštoc‘’, 78 n. 151, 83 n. 190. Toumanoff gives the years of his reign as 411–35, ‘Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia’, 27. In its given form, the name is unattested in  other sources (s.v. ‘Ardziwgh’ in HAnB 1:191–2; cf. ‘Ardzil’ in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.60.8 [MH 2:2096], and the variant ‘Arsuaghēn’, King of Caucasian Albania, ibid. 3.54.6 [MH 2:2083], ‘Arsvagh’ in the Life, 18/17.2 [70.16]). the Truth. Christ, as Truth personified (John 14:6). 6. Tashirk‘. A principality of the Armeno-­Iberian marchlands of Gugark‘; today’s district of Lor˙i, north of Shirak (HHShTB 5:36–7, s.v. ‘Tashir’ and ‘Tashirk‘’). On the principality in this period, see Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, 190–1 n. 199. Ashushay. His name is attested elsewhere in Armenian sources, as well as in a personal seal in Greek: Ασουσας πιτιαξης Ιβιρων Καρχηδων,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

173

‘Asusas, ruler of the Iberian border province of Gugark‘’. For references, see HAnB 1:191–2, s.v. ‘Ashushay’. 7. Samuel, whom we mentioned above. At 16/15.9 (64.5). Greater Armenia. On the territory of ‘Greater Armenia’ in historical context, see comment on 3.2 (36.9).

CHAPTER 20/19 2. Sahak the Great. This is the only instance in the Life where Sahak is called ‘Great’; moreover, this is also the only instance where his given name is ‘Isahak’. If not a scribal flip, an authorial expansion more than an early interpolation may be suspected here. After all, the Life is intended to praise Mashtots‘ and his achievements; thus it does not treat each of the fathers equally even though it refers often to the two saints. Still, there is a distraction from the primary focus on Mashtots‘. It is equally fair to surmise that the initial version of the Life must have undergone authorial changes between its oral delivery and the final written form. began to translate and to write. The identifiable works attributed to Sahak consist of canons (MH 1:219–22) and two letters (the col­lab­ ora­tive translations are impossible to assign to their respective trans­ lators). The first is a creedal/confessional letter co-­ authored with Mashtots‘ and addressed to Proclus of Constantinople (in office 434– 46), in response to his letter to Armenian clergy in general, itself a reply to a letter sent by Armenian bishops in 436 expressing concern about heterodox doctrines being brought to Armenia. The letter of Proclus, Epistola II: Ad Armenios, de fide, is extant in Greek (PG 65:855–74), with an Armenian translation that lacks the preamble preserved in Greek (Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘ [Book of Letters], ed. Norayr Pogharian [Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1994], 30–40, and 41–8 for the joint letter of Sahak and Mashtots‘). Quite significantly, there is a likely allusion to the letter of Proclus to ‘Sahak and Mashtots‘’ in the Life (24/23.2 [86.13]). In their reply to Proclus, they reassure him of their caution regarding heretical tendencies, as they denounce Theodore of Mopsuestia at the end. (It should be remembered that Theodore’s writings were tampered with by his opponents, who hoped to have him accused of heterodoxy; on the opposition to Theodore by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

174

Commentary

Rabbula, the bishop of Edessa, see comment on 7.2 [46.13].) The second, a faith-­ affirming letter from Sahak (MH 1:223–4; cf. Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘, ed. Pogharian, 52–5), is a reply to a letter from Akakios, Bishop of Melitene, mentioned earlier in the Life (see 17/16.5 [66.1– 3]; for the letter of Akakios to Sahak, and another by him addressed ad Armenios, see ibid. 49–51, 56–9). Gabriele Winkler is of the opinion that the denunciations of Theodore in the Armenian correspondence are a later addition, the original being limited to Nestorius (‘Die spätere Überarbeitung der armenischen Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum’, OC 70 [1986], 167–70). As regards the canons attributed to Sahak, unwarranted questions have been raised regarding their authenticity, beginning with the anonymous Armenian-­Chalcedonian author of the Narratio de rebus armeniae, an eighth-­century polemical work which survives in Greek translation only (ed. Gérard Garitte, CSCO 132, Subsidia 4 [Leuven: Durbecq, 1952], 275). This controversial source attributes them to Yovhan or Yovhannēs Mayravanets‘i or Mayragomets‘i (c.575–c.650), the grand-­sacristan of the Cathedral of St Gregory the Illuminator in Dwin, then capital city and seat of the Catholicosate. Mayravanets‘i was embroiled in the Christological controversies surrounding the schism between the Georgian and Armenian Churches in 608/9 on account of Chalcedon. The Narratio was utilized by the eleventh-­ century Georgian polemicist Arsen Sapareli; see Zaza Aleksidzé and Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ‘Arsen Sapareli Sur la séparation des Géorgiens et des Arméniens’, REArm 32 (2010), 59–132, including critical text and translation; also the overly critical assessment of Mayravanets‘i’s life and work by Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘), 255–68. Mayravanets‘i, as the first editor of the Armenian Liber canonum, apparently gleaned canonical passages from homilies by Sahak that are lost to us (with later interpolations not to be ruled out); cf. the canons attributed to Catholicos Yovhan Mandakuni (in office 484–90), gleaned from certain of his extant homilies (see Abraham Terian, ‘Mandakuni’s ‘Encyclical’ on Fasting’, in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. Roberta  R.  Ervine, AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 3 [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006], 185– 95). Gleaning canons from homilies was customary also in the making of the Byzantine Liber canonum. 3. Yovsep‘, whom we mentioned above. In 8.6 (50.4).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

175

Eznik. Eznik’s name appears two more times in this chapter, as translator with Ghewondēs and Koriwn in Constantinople and bearer of Greek texts from there, and reviser with Sahak of the earlier Armenian translation of the Bible, in the light of the newly brought manuscripts from Constantinople (more on this below). He is the author of Eghts Aghandots‘ (Refutation of the Sects), not so wrongly called De Deo (On God): Eznik de Kołb: De Deo, ed. and trans. Mariès and Mercier; Eznik of Kołb. On God, trans. Blanchard and Young (see first comment on 2.14 [28.9]). A fragmentary letter on Christological issues, ‘Eznkay T‘ught‘ ar˙ eranelin Mashtots‘ Vardapet (‘Letter of Eznik to the Blessed Mashtots‘ Vardapet’, now included in the MH series, 1:513) is preserved in two collections of early Arm. church documents: the Book of Letters (Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘, ed. Norayr Pogharian [Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1994], 28–9), and the The Seal of Faith (Knik‘ Hawatoy [Ējmiatsin: Tparan Mayr At‘or˙oy, 1914], 51, 131). For all subsequent references to him, see HAnB 2:197, s.v. ‘Eznik 1’. village of Koghb. On the location and the antiquity of Eznik’s birthplace, with a brief history of the village to the beginning of the twentieth century, see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 3:196, s.v. ‘Koghb . . .  (gyugh . . .)’. 5. Ghewondēs. Achar˙yan hastily identifies him with the disciple Ghewondēos mentioned earlier (17/16.5 [66.3]); see HAnB 3:141, s.v. ‘Ghewond 4’. However, he is often equated with the priest Ghewond, who plays a heroic religious role in Eghishē’s History of Vardan. Koriwn. This is the only mention of the author’s name in the work. Achar˙yan places this journey to Constantinople in ad 424, to learn Greek ([sic] HAnB 2:677, s.v. ‘Koriwn 1’), whereas Biwzandats‘i places it in ad 431 (Koriwn Vardapet, 384–5), following Khorenats‘i who correlates it with the elevation of Maximianos, Archbishop of Constantinople 431–4 (Khorenats‘i describes the journey of these two disciples as being taken on their own and out of jealousy of the other two disciples just mentioned, and draws a distinction between the pairs: the first two being interested in Syriac sources, and the latter two in Greek sources; History, 3.60.9–13 [MH 2:2096–97]). Moreover, this is the only instance in Khorenats‘i where he mentions Koriwn by name, despite his heavy reliance on the Life, underscoring further his literary dependence on Koriwn (cf. Thomson, Khorenats‘i, 15, 47–8, and 329–30 for the parallel passages).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

176

Commentary

sibling. Arm. snndakits‘, literally ‘one nourished together’, as a foster brother. The word further suggests that the reunited fellows were all part of the same cohort or generation of disciples. 6. Then they returned to the land of Armenia. On the duration of the stay in Constantinople (431–4), see the above comment on Koriwn. reliable copies of the God-­given Book. These unspecified texts of the Bible, said to be ‘reliable’ (Arm. hastatun [76.1]), are described further on, in section 8 (76.10), as ‘accurate’ (Arm. chshmarit). The implication is that certain of the previously utilized texts were deemed unreliable or that they contained inaccuracies. canons of Nicaea and Ephesus. At the first of these Councils (ad 325) Arius and his followers were condemned, and at the recently convened second (ad 431), Nestorius and his followers. The challenges posited by Arianism and Nestorianism were of great concern to Armenian churchmen in the fourth and fifth centuries, respectively. The canons of the Council of Nicaea were brought earlier to Armenia by St Aristakēs, son and successor of St Gregory the Illuminator, who was present at the Council (Agathangelos, History, §§884–5; cf. Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘, 3.10; Khorenats‘i, History, 2.89–91). The canons of these Councils were incorporated in the Liber canonum of the Armenian Church as of the eighth century: Kanonagirk‘ Hayots‘ (Canon Law of the Armenians), 1:114–31, 277–81 (ed. Hakobyan). the Testaments of the Holy Church. Manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Sections 6–9 (76.1–11) call for an exegetical understanding of these lines simply because of the importance of their inherent meaning. Previous scholarship has perpetuated early generalizations that are not supported by a closer look at the text. The ‘reliable’ and ‘accurate’ manuscripts brought from Constantinople were not limited to bib­ lical and conciliar texts; they included writings by the Church Fathers. The previous translations—­in all categories—­were checked in the light of these newly acquired manuscripts not so much to correct or revise them but to substantiate, to ascertain, or to verify their ac­cur­ acy (hastatēr, the primary subject of the verb is Sahak). Moreover, the adjectives qualifying the previous or earlier translations are somewhat synonymous (yar˙ajagoyn, like p‘ut‘anaki, also conveys a sense of hastiness). The implication is that although these earlier translations were done hastily, their accuracy was verified and/or substantiated. As noted (Introduction [A]), the Armenian translation of the Bible

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

177

shows utilization of various text-­types, variously dominant in the respective books. 7. all the ecclesiastical books and the true wisdom of many holy fathers. Certainly, not ‘all’ ecclesiastical (liturgical/canonical) books were translated by Sahak (lit., gumarut‘iwn, the determiner ‘all’, means the ‘totality’). The qualifier ‘many’ (bazum) with reference to his translation of patristic books is reasonable, though none could be assigned to him with certainty. On his works in general, see the above comment, on section 2 (74.12–14). According to Khorenats‘i, Sahak was a translator from Syriac texts, since Greek texts were burned by the Persians (History, 3.54.8–9 [MH 2:2083]), thus contradicting Koriwn’s statement that Sahak ‘translated from the Greek language to Armenian all the ecclesiastical books and the true wisdom of many holy fathers’. 8. to verify the previous . . . hurried translations with the accurate copies that were brought. The verification of ‘the former, random, and hurried translations’, ordered by Sahak and carried out with the help of Eznik, was not limited to the Bible (see the preceding comments). On the base texts of the Armenian Bible and the ensuing revision, see Introduction (A). Khorenats‘i twists this passage somewhat disparagingly: Receiving these, Sahak the Great and Mesrop zealously translated again what had once been translated and made with them a new version. But because they were ignorant of our technique their work was found to be deficient at many points. Therefore Sahak the Great and Mesrop sent us to Alexandria for accurate instruction in rhetorical language on the analogy of the academy (History, 3.61.7–8 [MH 2:2098], trans. Thomson, 331).

Implying that Sahak and Mashtots‘ were not highly skilled translators, ‘angētk‘ ēin merums aruesti’ (lit., ‘they were ignorant of our skill’; as Thomson observes, the last word here corresponds to Gk. technē [Moses Khorenats‘i, 331 n. 481), Khorenats‘i creates justification for his purported role as a late starter in the endeavour—­albeit without naming any of his classmates at the city that was more famous than the cities where the real disciples studied. Nonetheless, he rightly perceives the necessity of rhetorical training in order to qualify for the kind of work pursued by the likes of Eznik and Koriwn, his source on the subject.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

178

Commentary

9. translated many biblical commentaries. Armenian translations of early commentaries tend to transmit the text-­types of the quoted lemmata, the entries of the biblical passages commented upon. They show no effort on the part of the translators to modify these passages in harmony with the newly translated Armenian Bible. On the early translations, see the first note in Introduction (A). On Armenian bib­ lical commentaries with much reliance on these early translations, see S.  Grk‘i hayeren meknut‘yunneri matenagitut‘yun (Bibliology of the Armenian Commentaries on the Holy Bible), compiled by Eznik Petrosyan and Armen Ter-­Step‘anyan, Hayastani Astvatsashnch‘ayin Ĕnkerut‘yun, Astvatsashnch‘agitakan Matenashar 2 ([Yerevan]: Hayastani Astvatsashnch‘ayin Ĕnkerut‘yun, 2002); an appendix lists ancient commentaries translated into Armenian: on the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Cf. my review of the latter in SNTR 8 (2003), 141–3. 10. the first (and foremost). Since the following quotation is from the Psalms, the phrase cannot be taken in a chronological sense. This paragraph is found almost verbatim in Agathangelos §§889–90.

CHAPTER 21/20 1. Mashtots‘ . . . began to arrange and to compose many discourses, easy to deliver, gracefully written, diverse . . . full of the whole fervour of the truth of the faith accordant with the Gospel. Koriwn’s wording suggests a written composition; the verbs kargel ew yawrinel are used by him, both separately and in conjunction, for that which is written down (2.16 [28.16]; 8.4 [48.10 in conjunction]; 8.6 [50.1]; 29/28.1–2 [96.28–98.5]). There is good reason to conclude that the allusion is to the Teaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator (Vardapetut‘iwn, the long insertion in Agathangelos, History, §§259–715) and not to the Oft-­repeated Discourses (Yachakhapatum char˙k‘) also attributed to St Gregory the Illuminator (on the basis of the claim made in Agathangelos §886). For less convincing arguments that the latter also belongs to Mashtots‘, or that it derives from his circle of disciples, see Paul Vetter, Haykakan ashkhatasirut‘iwnk‘ hayagēt P. Fetteri (sic) (Armenian Studies by the Armenologist P. Vetter), trans. Yakobos Tashian, Azgayin Matenadaran

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

179

17 (Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1895), 64–75, a pioneering work followed by several philologists, e.g. A(rmenuhi) N.  Srapyan, ‘‘Yachakhapatum’ char˙eri heghinaki harts‘ĕ’ (The ‘Yachakhapatum’ Discourses’ Authorship Question), Haykakan SSR˙ Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Teghekagir: Hasarakakan Gitut‘yunner 5 (1962), 25–38; Sen Arevshatyan, ‘Maštoc‘ et les débuts de la patristique arménienne’, in From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoïan, ed. Jean-­Pierre Mahé and Robert  W.  Thomson, Scholars Press Occasional Papers and Proceedings 8, Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies, Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 309–24; and Hrach‘ya Tamrazyan, ‘Steghtsagorts anhati ew arvesti tesut‘yan khndirnerĕ Mesrop Mashtots‘i ‘Yachakhapatum char˙erum’’ (Matters of Artistic Personality and Art-­ perception in the ‘Yachaxapatum Discourses’ of Mesrop Mashtots‘), BM 19 (2012), 9–20, enumerating Vetter’s porous arguments for the ascription to Mashtots‘ (p. 19); cf. Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 110–21. These arguments are systematically refuted in my introduction to the ‘Yachaxapatum Discourses’ (Moralia et Ascetica Armeniaca: The Oft-­ Repeated Discourses). The work is a late-­ sixth-­ century monastic moralia by an anonymous abbot with a convoluted style; it is not as simple as the Teaching and does not reflect the literary language of the ‘Golden Age’. In his introduction to The Teaching of St. Gregory, Thomson misconstrues these lines of Koriwn by taking the Agathangelian ‘difficult’ for Koriwn’s ‘easy’ and expresses uncertainty about the written form of the composition in question (56–7; but see the references to the terminology used in the Life, provided at the beginning of this comment). Moreover, he states that the earliest attestation for a verbatim quote from the Teaching is from the beginning of the seventh century—­alluding to the florilegium known as the Seal of Faith, Arm. Knik‘ hawatoy (ibid. 53–4). However, earlier dependence on the Teaching is evident in the Oft-­Repeated Discourses, the late-­sixth-­ century text referred to above, from which excerpts are likewise found in the Seal of Faith (parallel passages in Moralia et Ascetica Armeniaca, 42–3). Thomson’s dating the Teaching ‘in its present form’ to the latter part of the fifth century, thus calling into question its authorship by Mashtots‘, is rather ambivalent. To allow for the late-­fifth-­century Armenian authors’ familiarity with the work, he is compelled to grant

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

180

Commentary

that ‘the Teaching is a document that has undergone more than one stage of development’ (ibid. 52). Having earlier introduced the work’s common themes and shared patristic tradition, Thomson turns his attention to the elusive yet early sources of the work—­all pre-­dating the Council of Ephesus (431). He refers to parallels with an early and now lost Armenian text translated into Georgian: ‘On the Faith’, De Fide, attributed to Hippolytus (ibid. 51–2; citing the edition and translation of the Georgian text by Gérard Garitte, ‘Le traité géorgien “Sur la Foi” attribué à Hippolyte’, Le Muséon 78 [1965], 119–72). For the text of a minor work with apocalyptic views and confuting the former religion of the Armenians, called Harts‘umn ew pataskhanik‘ (The Question[s] and Answers), traditionally attributed to St Gregory and by some in recent scholarship to Mashtots‘, and thought to have been one of the sources utilized by Eznik in the late 440s, see Nicolas Adontz, ‘Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur et ses rapports avec Eznik’, Revue de l’Orient chrétien 25 [ns 5] (1925–6), 309–57 (text, 312–22); Levon Khach‘ikyan, ‘Grigor Part‘evin veragrvats ‘Harts‘umĕ’, orpes hay matenagrut‘yan erakhayrik‘’ (Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Grégoire le Parthe, prémices de l’écriture arménienne), BM 7 (1964), 301–30 (text, 315–28; cf. text in MH 1:147–53), attributes it to Mashtots‘; reverting, however, to Adontz’s position in ‘Otaralezu hay grakanut‘yunĕ ch‘orrord darum’ (Foreign-­ language Arm. Literature in the Fourth Century), PBH (1973), 3:27–51. For further improvements upon the text, see Martiros Minasian, ‘Kanovn srboyn Grigori Part‘ewi dardzeal harts‘umn ew pataskhanik‘ nora’ (Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur), Bazmavēp 139 (1981), 57–72, who attributes it here, as elsewhere, to neither: ‘Grigor Part‘ewi kam S. Mashtots‘i veragruats ‘Harts‘umĕ’ ew Eznik Koghbats‘i’ (Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Gregoire l’Illuminateur ou à Mesrop Machtotz n’est pas une source d’Eznik), Handes Amsorya 85 (1971), 355–70, 463–82; 86 (1972) 73–94, 199–212, 347–54, 439– 62; 87 (1973) 51–60. He sees it as an early canonical derivation from Eznik’s Refutation, to the point of employing it to correct textual corruptions in the latter. On the derivation of the seminal questions and answers from the apocalyptic book of 4 Ezra (particularly the latter part of ch. 7) in a related recension, see Michael  E.  Stone, ‘The Armenian Questions of St. Gregory: A Text Descended from 4 Ezra: Edition of Recension I’, Le Muséon 131 (2018), 141–72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

181

CHAPTER 22/21 1. he bore the name of Jesus the Saviour of all before kings, princes, and all the pagans. Further comparison with the Apostle Paul, who was chosen to proclaim the name of Jesus before such hearers; see Acts 9:15. no opposition from adversaries. Further contrast with the Apostle Paul, who had many opponents; see 1 Cor. 16:9. 2. to put on Christ. A baptismal image, echoing Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27. 3. he tore up many inequitable contracts. See Col. 2:14, possibly contemplating Gen. 2:17, the covenant God made with Adam, which, being broken, obliged him and all his posterity to the penalty of death—­till the coming of Christ. See also Michael  E.  Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), in which Adam surrenders himself and his posterity to Satan and death, in writing, till the coming of Christ. This too was torn/shattered by Christ. Mashtots‘ is here presented as imitator of Christ. expectation and hope because of the revelation of the glory of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Allusion to Tit. 2:13–14. he converted them all to the state of worshipping God. The activities of Mashtots‘ summed up here, as imitatio Pauli/imitatio Christi, and through much of chapter 23/22, have been attributed with minor adaptations to the Illuminator in Agathangelos §§843–53 (22/21.1–3 = §§843–4; 23/22.1 = §845; 23/22.2–3 = §846; 23/22.4–8 = §847; 23/22.9 = §848; 23/22.10–11a = §849; 23/22.11b–14 = §850; 23/22.15– 16 = §851; 23/22.17–19a = §852; 23/22.19b–21 = §853).

CHAPTER 23/22 1. established many and countless bands of ascetics. Cf. 13.4 (60.13); 15/14.5 (60.28). On the Saint’s first ascetic experience and kind of asceticism, see comment on 4.2. 3. ‘When I am weak . . .’ The reversed order of verses is retained in Agathangelos §846.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

182

Commentary

4. they did not become drunk with wine, but increased in the Spirit. Allusion to Acts 2:4, 13–15. with spiritual songs to the glory and praise of God. Application of Eph. 5:18. 6. to the mark of the crown offered by Christ. Echoing 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4. The readings of scripture, just like the ensuing homilies, must have been in the presence of hearers. 9. eremitic places. Cf. section 1, above. On early ascetic movements in Armenia, see Introduction (A) and n. 19; also comments on 4.2 (38.6). Koriwn goes on to provide some detail of the ascetic practice (in the ensuing sections). 10. Through fluent speech. Lit., ‘With unshut mouth.’ The discoursing abilities of Mashtots‘ are often cited as proof of his authorship of the Yachakhapatum discourses, a sixth-­ century document on ascetic ­morals. On the question of its authorship, see comment on 21/20.1 (78.2–6). The context suggests that the help given by Mashtots‘ and his disciples was primarily in teaching and/or preaching; cf. 12.1 (58.2–5). 11. the Lord, the one, only wise God. Referring to Rom. 16:27. 12. Mount Tabor. Contrary to tradition since the fourth century and to some Armenian sources from the sixth and seventh centuries, Koriwn does not identify Mount Tabor as the mount of the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) but as the site of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) and of Jesus’s private prayers by the Sea of Tiberias (Matt. 14:23); cf. e.g. ‘Haytnut‘iwn Tear˙n i T‘ap‘or Ler˙in’ (The Epiphany of the Lord on Mount Tabor), attributed to Eghishē in Srboy hōrn meroy Eghishēi Vardapeti matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Writings of Our Holy Father Eghishē Vardapet) (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1859), 212–35, and the seventh-­century description of Mount Tabor by an anonymous Armenian pilgrim, wrongly attributed to Eghishē (236–9). See Robert W. Thomson, ‘A Seventh-­Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount Tabor’, Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967), 27–33, with translation of the text found in the Venice edition. On the ancient churches and monasteries on Mount Tabor, see Michael  E.  Stone, ‘Armenian Pilgrimage to the Mountain of the Transfiguration and the Galilee’, SNTR 9 (2004), 79–89. His canonical prayer. An allusion to ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, embedded in the Sermon on the Mount, taught in Galilee (Matt. 6:5–14). The prayer acquired liturgical significance early in the Primitive Church,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

183

as is evident in the Didache, the earliest church order, from the end of the first century. the Sea of Tiberias. The reference seems to be to the calming of the storm, Matt. 8:23–7 and parallels. 13. feast of Unleavened Bread prescribed in the Law. ‘The feast of Unleavened Bread’ at which the paschal lamb was eaten, was celebrated soon after sunset—­following the Passover sacrifice on the 14th day of Nisan. The feast thus marked the beginning of the 15th day. The rite, with customary observances, commemorated the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (Ex. 12–13). The contextual allusion is to the beginning of the Passion, Christ celebrating the Last Supper with his disciples (Matt. 26:17–30 and parallels). on the Mount of Olive Groves. The prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the western slope of the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley (Matt. 26:36–46 and parallels). 14. the Lord of All. An epithet, amenatērn, used earlier, at 2.14 (tērn isk amenayni [28.10]). The remarks on Jesus as the true teacher, instructing his disciples called to teach the truth, resume at section 19 (84.17). 15–18. {But now . . . {{But now . . . not that He was to bestow gifts?}} . . .  For the Divine is not of varying but of equal honour}. There is good reason to suspect that the italicized passage (15–18 [84.7–16] in curly brackets) constitutes an interpolation with a subsequent gloss (17 [84.12–14] in double curly brackets); hence, a compounded in­ter­pol­ ation. The first interpolation, interjected as a question—­a typical argument from a minori ad majus (. . . որչա՞փ եւս . . . [the mark missing in the text])—interrupts the contextual flow of thought regarding Mashtots‘ as an orthodox teacher, faithful to the apostolic tradition received from Jesus, the Teacher par excellence, who set Himself as an example to the world and to His disciples (11–14), who in turn set themselves to be examples to their disciples (19). The charismatic interpolator wanted to make a statement about the Holy Spirit as a teacher also, a role ascribed to the Spirit in John 14:26, and went on to state the shared honour and glory of the Persons of the Trinity, thus interrupting with the present tense the author’s past-­tense narrative. The argument, from the work ascribed to the Holy Spirit to the Spirit’s co-­equality in honour with the Son (and the Father), is in fact addressing the question of the Spirit’s essential deity without subordination

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

184

Commentary

to either the Father or the Son (see George L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought [London: SPCK, 1952], 76–96, 242–64). Similarly, the gloss by the second interpolator (17 [84.12–14] in double curly brackets) is also interjected as a question (with the missing mark to be supplied over ոչ [ո՞չ] in the text): a counter argument interrupting the large interpolation (15–18), even its biblical quotation. Its gist is to underscore the fact that Jesus too bestows spiritual gifts (see Eph. 4:8), a role ascribed primarily to the Spirit (see 1 Cor. 12:1–11; 14:1, 12; Heb. 2:4). Also noteworthy is the repetitious quote of Acts 1:1 in this gloss by the second interpolator, interpreting or reminding one of the earlier quote (11 [82.19–20], above). Nowhere else in the Life does one find any Bible quotation repeated or interpreted, and in the case of Rom. 8:26–7, as noted above, interrupted. Nor is there any argumentation with such a sharp change in tone as in the compounded interpolation (sections 15 and 17), where both interjections come as objections in the form of questions, each to contra­ dict what was said previously, with the words «Իսկ արդ» (‘Isk ard’, lit., ‘But now’, in the sense of the contradictory ‘but’, ‘however’, ‘nay’, or ‘rather’; cf. Gk. μὲν δή, μὲν οὖν, or οὖν, used in transitions, adversatively, indicating a correction, or pointing forward to an antithesis; Herbert  W.  Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. edn [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956], 655, on the combined force of these two particles; see also «Իսկ զ.» and «Արդ զ.» in NBHL, 1:868, 345). It is important to note that the words «Իսկ արդ» are not found elsewhere in the Life. Indeed, typical interpolations—­as long established in textual criticism—­have their genesis as marginal notes or questions that later creep into the text when copied by unsuspecting scribes. The author’s use of questions is limited to the lengthy prologue of the second chapter, his rhetorical justification for writing the encomium, with only one other question by him and that at the most climactic point of the encomium: ‘Let no one consider us overly bold for what we have said, for which we may be censured. How could a very modest man be compared with the magnificent Moses, be made equal to the one who spoke with God and did wonders?’ (9.7 [52.13–16]). The consecutive questions of the interpolations make the authenticity of the italicized passage more and more suspect. My initial observations on this passage appeared in ‘A Compounded Interpolation in Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘’, in Mélanges Jean-­Pierre Mahé, ed. Aram Mardirossian, Agnès Ouzounian, and Constantin

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

185

Zuckerman, Travaux et mémoires 18 (Paris: Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014), 617–22. On his part, Mahé considers the passage a descriptive elaboration or meditation on prayer as speaking with God, not an interpolation. He goes on to express concern, however, about the implications of the passage, were it to be considered an interpolation (L’Alphabet arménien, 136–8 and 205–6): the implications for the date of the redacted Agathangelos (Aa), where this fragmented passage is part of the most extensive borrowing from Koriwn (§§845–53; esp. 851–852a). To abide by his initial translation published prior to my study of this passage, Mahé bends my point somewhat by saying ‘L’argument avancé allègue la  discontinuité du texte’ (at the end of section 14, his 4 [p. 205]), while my argument—­based on textual criticism—­is one of pointing out a recurring disruption and not just discontinuity, objections to immediate contexts by two interpolators, respectively. I do not see digressive meditation between the end of 14 and the beginning of 19 (his sections 4 and 6). Moreover, he does not address any of the components of my demonstration, which by definition is neither hypothetical nor simply conjectural—­much less alleged. It remains to add that were the passage in question to be considered a meditation on prayer (though there is no allowance for such digression in a carefully structured encomium; see Introduction [B] and Appendix I), it would be the only digressive passage in the Life—­like the other one-­ of-­a-­kind anomalies noted above, limited to these sections and not seen elsewhere in Koriwn’s œuvre. Furthermore, the primary interpolator is taking Koriwn where he did not wish to go: into doctrinal controversy (cf. 1.3 [24.3–4]). 15. the skill of him who engages in conversations with God . . . Allusion to 1 Cor. 14:2. Necessarily, I here depart from the punctuation of the interpolated text, reading it interrogatively, as an argument from a minori ad majus: Իսկ արդ եթէ թեթեւագոյն արուեստից` յակասագոյն են ի գիտութենէ ազգք երկրածնացս, որչա՞փ եւս այնմ արուեստի ոք համարեսցի եւ անգիտանալ որ ընդ Աստուած զխաւսսն կատարէ: The recurring word aruest (‘skill’) in this section has a unique contextual meaning (as observed also by Musheghyan, ‘Koriwn t‘e Agat‘angeghos’, 52–3): that of spiritual ‘attainment’; whereas elsewhere in the Life the conventional meaning of ‘skill’ predominates; cf. 2.4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

186

Commentary

(24.19; 3.3 (36.13); 5.3 (40.9); 11.1 (54.19); 16/15.6 (62.18); 18/17.4 (70.22). However, were these authentic lines by the author, he would have used the adjective hogekron (‘spiritual’) to qualify aruest, as in section 9 above (82.9). Cf. the terminology in Khorenats‘i, History, 3.61.8 (MH 2:2098): ‘angētk‘ ēin merums aruesti’, sc. Sahak and Mesrop, quoted above, at 20/19.8. 16. of which the blessed Paul says all are ignorant. The allusion is to 1 Cor. 12:1, ignorance about the gifts of the Spirit, the charismata (cf. 14:36–8); elsewhere in the Epistle, see 15:34, ignorance about God. 17. and not that He was to bestow gifts? This second gloss (in double curly brackets), interpolated in disagreement with the first interpolator’s argument (in single curly brackets), builds on the role of Jesus as teacher: by adding His role as bestower of gifts as well. Moreover, the blatant gloss interrupts the quotation of Rom. 8:26–7, the only such interruption of a biblical quotation in the Life. Here too the text calls for a question mark, as noted above (on sections 15–18): ապաքէն առնէ եւ ուսուցանէ, եւ ո՞չ եթէ զի պարգեւեսցէ իմանալի է: 19. the teaching of the Truth. The teaching of Jesus, himself ‘the Truth’ in John 14:6; resumption of section 14 (84.2–6). held it up to their disciples. Possible allusion to Paul’s admonitions in 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6. in the mountains and in the deserts and in the clefts of the rock. Allusion to Heb. 11:38. Here, however, there is a reflection of worship in the early church, of divine services in cave churches. 21. . . . Richly endowed, they carried on joyfully, for a long time, persevering steadily in the selfsame pursuit. As noted at the end of the preceding chapter, the unit comprised of chapters 22/21–23/22 is util­ ized in Agathangelos §§843–53; it constitutes the largest block of borrowing from Koriwn.

CHAPTER 24/23 1. the books of . . . Theodoros. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350–428; bishop from 392), who was posthumously accused of Nestorianism and Pelagianism and whose Christological views were declared

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

187

suspect at the Council of Ephesus (431) when those condemned appealed to his writings. He was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) as the progenitor of Nestorianism, since Nestorius was his student and younger cousin. Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus for refusing to acknowledge the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos or ‘Bearer of God’. Theodore probably was an early friend of Mashtots‘, to whom he addressed three treatises On the Deceit of the Persian Magi. On these lost treatises, once annotated by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (in office 858–67 and 877–86), see Introduction (A). For more on Theodore and the Armenian Church, see comment on Sahak’s writings at 20/19.2 (74.13–14). 2. the synodical patriarchs of the holy churches. At the time of Koriwn’s writing, there were but three patriarchates or ‘holy synods’: those of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople and Jerusalem were raised to that dignity, the former being accorded the second place, after Rome, and Jerusalem for its historic significance. Koriwn’s remark, however, need not be limited to these patriarchates. Metropolitan bishoprics or important sees also had their synodal dignity. informed . . . Sahak and Mashtots‘, in writing. Allusion, inter alia, to the letter of Proclus of Constantinople (in office 434–46) addressed to Armenian clergy in general, his Epistola II: Ad Armenios, de fide, on which see comment on 20/19.1 (74.11–14); cf. the similar letter of Akakios of Melitene ad Armenios, and Sahak’s reply, ad loc.

CHAPTER 25/24 1. In the first year of the reign of Yazdegerd II. That is, in 439; the regnal years of Yazdegerd II (Arm. Yazkert) are 438–57 (our author, like all Armenian authors of the fifth century, does not count the sovereign’s accession year; see the extended comment on the concluding chapter). For the rulers of the Sasanian Dynasty, see The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1, ed. Ehsan Yarshater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 178. Bahram. Bahram V (420–38); Arm. Vr˙am. district of Bagrawand and village of Blrots‘k‘. On this sixth, north-­ western district of Ayrarat, see Garsoïan, EH 452–3, s.v. ‘Bagrewand/

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

188

Commentary

Bagrawand’. The site of the village of Blrots‘k‘ (genitive Blrots‘ats‘) remains unidentified in the present-­ day district of Alashkert/ Vagharshakert (HHShTB 1:703, s.v. ‘Blrots‘ats‘ Giwgh’). the end of the month of Nawasard. The first month of the year in ancient Arm. reckoning, ending on 7 September in 439. In his recounting of this passage, Ghazar acknowledges Koriwn’s Life as his source (History, 1.18.3–4 [MH 2:2234]). administered the fragrant oil. An attestation of the sacrament of anointing the sick in the Arm. Church; based on the admonition in Jas. 5:14–16. On this early tradition, see Paul Meyendorff, The Anointing of the Sick, Orthodox Liturgy Series 1 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009). On ancient formularies of anointing in the Armenian Church, including the forehead and hands of the deceased cleric with chrism, see M.  Daniel Findikyan, ‘Funerals: Eastern Churches’, in New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, ed. Paul F. Bradshaw (London: SCM Press, 2013), 215–17. ‘Into your hands I commit my spirit’ (Ps. 31:5 [30:6 LXX]). Cf. Luke 23:46. 3. Jeremiah. Koriwn is followed by Khorenats‘i, History, 3.67.8 (MH 2:2111); cf. HAnB 2:136, s.v. ‘Eremia 2’. Dustr, the wife of Vardan, whom we have mentioned above. Sahak is Vardan’s maternal grandfather; see comment on 12.8 (58.20–1). Dustr is a fitting example of ‘women disciples’ commended in the author’s Preface (2.29 [32.14]); moreover, she is the only woman named in the body of the Life, apart from biblical women (Rahab, the Mother of the Lord, and the anonymous Canaanite woman) cited in the Preface to justify the author’s literary praise of worthy men (2.6, 13, 22 [26.7; 28.7; 30.14]). 4. carried the saint with psalms, doxologies, and spiritual utterances. Similar to the description of the funeral of Mashtots‘ narrated further below (27/26.7 [94.4–10]), and to that of Nersēs the Great in the Buzandaran (EH v.24); cf. the scene of the baptismal procession in Agathangelos §834. brought him to Tarōn, to the very village of Ashtishat. Ashtishat in Tarōn, in Western Armenia, was an important religious centre before Armenia’s conversion to Christianity (see Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 192–5, 248). Its main Christian churches were built by St Gregory the Illuminator over the remains of temples dedicated to Vahagn, Anahit, and Astghik (Agathangelos, History, §§810–16, 836).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

189

Still acclaimed as the ‘Mother Church’ at the time of Sahak’s death (ibid. §814; cf. EH iii.14), Ashtishat was an optimal place for his burial—­even though all the hereditary Catholicoi of the Gregorid line were buried elsewhere. According to the Buzandaran, Gregory the Illuminator, his elder son Vrt‘anēs, and his son Yusik were buried in the ancestral village of T‘ordan in the district of Daranaghik‘; whereas Aristakēs, the younger son of the Illuminator, and Nersēs the Great— Sahak’s father—­were buried in the village of T‘il, in the district of Ekegheats‘ (EH iii.2, 11–12; v.24). On the toponyms, see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 5:57–8, s.v. ‘Taron’; 1:300, s.v. ‘Ashtishat’; see also Terian, ‘Ashtishat’ in ODLA 1:165. 5. at the altar of the martyrium. Text has i martirosakan khoranin; cf. the nearly synonymous i martirosakann further below, with reference to the burial of Mashtots‘ at the martyrium in Oshakan (27/26.7 [94.9]). In both instances, the text implies pre-­existing edifices where remains of martyrs, conceivably from the Diocletianic persecution, were interred. The term gradually came to have a variety of applications: the underground crypt or cubiculum which contained the tomb; the altar or baldachin erected over it; and/or the chapel itself. That there were secondary burials with special chapels built for our re­spect­ ive saints is both implicit and explicit in the immediate sequel, in both cases. sealed it with the seal of Christ. The sealing of a coffin, distinct from the liturgical sealing of a gravesite with the sign of the cross, involved wax impression with a seal: a carved stamping mould that embossed a cross. For a number of such Byzantine lead seals, see Ioanna Koltsida-­Makri, ‘The Representation of the Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals’,  Studies in Byzantine Sigillography  4 (1995), 43–51. Shutting a wooden coffin with four nails, reminiscent of the nails with which Christ was affixed to the Cross, was a later, Byzantine tradition. 6. they hold the same memorial rites in commemoration. A likely postscript attesting to a nascent tradition. Enlarging on Koriwn, Ghazar adds that there was a church over the site of Sahak’s grave, where miracles were recurring, and also a monastery with a brotherhood (History, 1.18.38 [MH 2:2235]). Such expansion must have taken place by the end of the century, as the spread of Armenian cenobitic monasticism is strongly evidenced by then; see Terian, A Documentary History of Early Armenian Monasticism (forthcoming).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

190

Commentary

A death was considered noble if accompanied by posthumous honours, such as publicly celebrated commemorations after the erection of monuments, as Demosthenes (fourth century bc) describes this age-­old practice: ‘It is a proud privilege to behold them possessors of eternal honours and a memorial of their valour erected by the State, and deemed deserving of sacrifices and games for all future time’ (Funeral Oration 36). Funeral orations themselves are structured in the very pattern of the encomium to glorify the dead, first by giving a public recognition of their meritorious lives and later by annual burnishing of their reputation. On the Classical tradition, see John E. Ziolkowsky, Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at Athens (Salem, NH: Ayer Company, 1985), 126–8.

CHAPTER 26/25 1. the holy Apostle . . . says that his soul was restless. There seems to be a conflation here—­if not a confusion—­between Acts 17:14–16a (cf. 18:5) and 2 Cor. 2:13 (cf. 8:23). If the allusion is more to the latter passage, then the reference would be to Titus and not Timothy. An early scribal error could be suspected here. 2–3. Whereas the sadness caused by loneliness . . . until he attained rest in the Lord. Cf. Agathangelos, History, §§887–8, where the borrowing from Koriwn is applied to St Gregory the Illuminator; and Buzandaran, 3.6, where it is applied to St Grigoris, the martyred grandson of St Gregory.

CHAPTER 27/26 1. Nor K‘aghak‘. The capital Vagharshapat (see above, comment at 9.3). thirteenth day of the month of Mehekan. The day falls on 17 February 440; Mehekan being the seventh month of the year in ancient Arm. reckoning (the same regnal year in which Sahak died). 3. T‘adik. A diminutive form of T‘adēos (Thaddeus); unattested elsewhere. He may be identified with T‘adēos, Bishop of Artaz, who came to office in 421 and died not long before 451 (HAnB 2:244, s.v.‘T‘adēos 1’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

191

He is mentioned further below, in section 10 (96.1), as minister in charge of the shrine where the Saint was buried. Cf. Khorenats‘i, History, 3.67.18 (MH 2:2113). 4. Vahan, of the Amatuni clan, who was the chancellor of Greater Armenia. On the office of chancellor, Arm. hazarapet, see 3.2 (36.11). On Vahan’s later exploits, see HAnB 5:10–11, s.v. ‘Vahan 11’. On the territory of ‘Greater Armenia’ in historical context, see comment on 3.2 (36.9). Hmayak, of the Mamikonean clan. The brother of Vardan Mamikonean and fellow martyr in the 451 war against the Persians (Eghishē, History, 6.45 [MH 1:668]); the father of Vahan Mamikonean, patron of the historian Ghazar P‘arpets‘i (History, 1.1.6, 1.18.5 [MH 2:2201–2, 2235]). For further references to him, see HAnB 3:90, s.v. ‘Hmayeak 4–5’. 5. where the blessed one was dying. The vision is said to have lasted till after the burial in Ōshakan, some 15 kilometres away (7 [94.10]). As Thomson observes, ‘visions play an important role in early Armenian histories’; see his ‘Appendix’ to The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 267–8. Heavenly light shining on the pale cheeks of a dying saint is a topos in hagiography. 7. . . . the resplendent sign of the cross. Cf. the procession scene of Sahak’s funeral (25/24.3–6 [88.8–19]) and the commonplaces noted there. Moreover, close affinities are found between this passage and Agathangelos §833 (the sign of the cross appearing for three days at the baptism of King Trdat and his company), and §834 (the procession following); as well as the Biwzandaran’s account of Nersēs the Great’s funeral (v.24). A more conspicuous borrowing is found in Khorenats‘i’s account of the death and burial of ‘Mesrop’ (History, 3.67.10–19 [MH 2:2111–13]): ‘As I heard from many trustworthy men, there shone a light like a ray in the form of a dim cross over the house where the blessed one gave up the ghost. The glow did not quickly fade, nor was it visible to a few but to the whole multitude, so that many of the unbelievers were baptized’ (trans. Thomson, 343). The scene is reminiscent of several in the history of Early Christianity, the most remarkable of which is the appearance of the luminous cross in the sky over Jerusalem on Pentecost, in 351, as reported by Cyril of Jerusalem to Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great. Ōshakan. Village in the district of Aragatsotn. The Amatuni possession of Oshakan could be traced to a royal grant by Khosrov II of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

192

Commentary

Armenia (d. 252) to an earlier Vahan Amatuni for his commanding a fourth of the troops in a battle with Shapur I of Persia (see refs. in Achar˙yan, HAnB 5:10; s.v. ‘Vahan Amatuni 5’). In his recounting of the death and burial of the saint, the historian Ghazar attests to the later namesake: ‘The prince of the Amatunik‘, Vahan, took that virtuous man’s body and brought it to his own village called Ōshakan’ (History, 1.19.1 [MH 2:2235]). For the village in other early Arm. sources, see Garsoïan, EH 485–6, s.v. ‘Ōšakan/Awšakan’; for a brief history, see Hakobyan et al., HHShTB 5:481–3, s.v. ‘Ōshakan’. at the martyrium there, they performed the proper memorial rites. The term martirosaran (syn. vkayaran, not used by Koriwn; cf. martirosakan khoran used with reference to Sahak’s burial 25/24.5 [88.15– 16]), like the Greek term martyrion, designates the burial-­place of confessor(s) or martyr(s). On pre-­existing martyria, see comment ad loc. The funerary rite of the period remains unknown. The earliest extant rite, hitherto unpublished and currently under study, is from the eighth century and attributed to Step‘anos Siwnets‘i (d. 735). then the wonder disappeared. Arm. nshan corresponds to Gk. sēmeion, ‘sign’ or ‘miracle’; earlier said to be ‘a marvellous vision’ (5). In Agathangelos, the wonder (nshan) of the resplendent cross at the baptism of Trdat and his company disappeared after three days (§833). one and all, returned to their places. Koriwn’s march of events continues after indicating a time lapse. 8. Vahan Amatuni . . . built the saint’s resting place. This was in 443, the likely year in which the Life was composed for the occasion. The present church that marks the saint’s resting place was built in 1875–9 by Catholicos Georg IV (in office 1866–85) on the ruins of that old church and its later restorations of 1277 and 1639—­as was also the monument for Vahan Amatuni in the churchyard. The church was restored in 1960, on the occasion of the sixteenth centennial of the saint’s birth, and a new tombstone, inscribed in uncials (erkat‘agir) ՍՈՒՐԲ ՄԵՍՐՈՊ ՄԱՇԹՈՑ 361–440 (Saint Mesrop Masht‘ots‘ . . .), was placed over the grave. The recurring word khoran, here translated ‘shrine’, could also refer to a permanent canopy, a baldachin. As for Koriwn’s wording, ‘ew i nerk‘sagoyn khoranin’, it is borrowed by Agathangelos (§769), in describing the three chapels or martyria built by St Gregory for each of the three martyred virgins, hence the plural ‘shrines’ or ‘canopies’ in ‘ew i nerk‘sagoyn khoranats‘n’. 10. T‘adik. The second of the foremost disciples named above, section 3 (92.13).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

193

CHAPTER 28/27 1. Yovsep‘, head of the council (of bishops). The locum tenens, Yovsep‘ Hoghots‘mets‘i, named in the opening remarks (see above, 1.1 [22.15]). Yovhan. Some, like Achar˙yan, are inclined to identify this Yovhan with Yovhan of Ekegheats‘, the disciple mentioned earlier (8.6 [50.3–4; cf. HAnB 3:540, s.v. ‘Yovhannēs 14’). Given Koriwn’s specific, non-­ associative remarks here, this Yovhan is to be distinguished from the former by his added cognomen, ‘Confessor’. Others tend to identify him with the Catholicos Yovhan Mandakuni (in office 478–90). This, however, is questionable for several reasons beyond Mandakuni’s late contemporaneity; e.g. Ghazar, who mentions Yovhan of Ekegheats‘ in passing, as a disciple of Mashtots‘ (History, 1.10.18 [MH 2:2214]), is also clear on the identity and role of Mandakuni (3.69–72, 99). Nowhere does Ghazar, our foremost authority on Mandakuni, mention the latter’s persecution in Ctesiphon (Tizbon). The reference to Yovhan’s ill-­treatment there and his return to Armenia seems to point to a time prior to the events of the year 451, since both historians of the events surrounding that year, Ghazar and Eghishē, do not mention him among named prisoners who were deported, tortured, martyred, or, as in the case of the feudal lords, allowed to return from exile in 462. It is possible that Yovhan headed an ill-­fated delegation to the Sasanian Court early in the reign of Yazdegerd II (438–57) to secure the confirmation of Yovsep‘ of Hoghots‘mants‘ as Catholicos, following the death of Samuel, the last Catholicos of Syrian origin (d. 437) appointed by Bahram V (420–38) after the removal of Sahak from the throne of St Gregory in 428 (which must have been vacant from 437 till the Council of Shahapivan in 444, convened upon the order of Yovsep‘, whose unauthorized leadership was in violation of the Sasanian king of kings’ prerogative to appoint the patriarch of the Armenian Church). On the martyrdom of Yovsep‘ in 454, while in Sasanian captivity, see comment on 1.1 (22.15). studious and truthful man. Vardapetasēr ew chshmartapatum (ayr), lit., ‘teacher-­loving (or, lover of teaching) and (habitually) truth-­telling man.’ Echoed in Agathangelos §774: ‘chshmartapatum vardapetut‘eambn.’ 2. after the passing of the saint. The singular here seems to refer to the death of Mashtots‘. Tizbon. Ctesiphon, the Sasanian capital, some 30 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, on the left bank of the Tigris (for early Arm. references to  the city, see Garsoïan, EH 495, s.v. ‘Tispon/Tizbon’). Yovhan’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

194

Commentary

ill-­treatment there need not be seen as consequent to the 451 revolt against the Persians (see comment above). 3. As for the beneficent Vahan . . . as a layman. This last section is applied to King Trdat in the ‘Preface’ of Agathangelos (§13). Certain editors of Koriwn’s text unnecessarily emend the text at this point, for want of understanding the meaning of the word ashkharhatsin as ‘layman’.

CHAPTER 29/28 1. our fathers departed to their end. Katarumn, as at 27/26.1 (92.5), refers to death or union with Christ, here with reference to both Sahak and Mashtots‘ (cf. harts‘n katarelots‘ at 28/27.1 [96.5–8] and arants‘n katarelots‘ at 2.1 (24.7). With this transitional sentence Koriwn announces his introduction of the epilogue—­ by referring to his cover­age thus far. The sense of a good narrative ending goes as far back as Aristotle’s Poetics: his appeal for a consonance between the beginning, the middle, and the end. The continuator of the Armenian version of Agathangelos borrows the lines of this section, appending them to the ‘Preface’ (§14); the lines echo 1 John 1:1–4; cf. 2 Pet. 1:16. 2. to the readers of this book. Having neared the end of his discourse, indicating a transition from orality to a written form, the author underscores its character as logos alēthinos, vouching for its truthfulness. On the significance of having an account in a book, see comment on ch. 1. 3. to point out every single deed. The notion that the subject’s deeds and virtues are too numerous to do justice to them is a commonplace (cf. John 21:25), often utilized by encomiasts when protesting their sense of inadequacy in view of the magnitude of the task. Koriwn has brought this up appropriately in the prologue: ‘Although I was the youngest and the stringent demand that was laid surpassed our ability . . .’ (1.2 [22.18]), and here again in the epilogue, as a closing. this quite facile and simpler (Acts) of the Apostles. According to our author, as ‘a testamentary document’, the Life is comparable to the Acts of the Apostles. There is a deliberate framing of the end of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

195

document with its beginning, where the Acts of the Apostles is mentioned twice (2.26, 37 [32.2–3; 34.7]). The author implies that his work is written in the spirit of that biblical book. The claim made in this statement is clearly panegyrical. 4. who were revered for their resplendent faith and manifest life. The text has ‘who were (made) manifest by the most exalted and life-­ giving cross’ (ork‘ amenaparts ew kendanatur khach‘iwn tsanuts‘ealk‘), which, as Abeghyan observes, is suspect. He opts for the preferred reading in Short Koriwn (98.11 and 123 n. 171), which makes better sense here and is followed by others. will be taught from generation to generation. This paragraph with the recurring plural ‘saints’—like the rest of the œuvre—­appears to be redactional, reflecting the author’s likely adaptation of the text from an ori­gin­al for oral delivery. The prototypical text probably referred to Mashtots‘ alone. The purpose of narrating the accomplishments of the saint(s) as an example to succeeding generations is stated in the prologue (2.30 [32.15–17), following the perceived purpose of the letters of Paul. With this restatement Koriwn has created an inclusio framing his work. The entire section constitutes also the closing of Agathangelos (§§897–9).

CHAPTER 30/29 1. years in the faith. Understandably, as a cleric. forty-­five years . . . counted as follows. This last chapter is colophonic in nature and appears to be a postscript by either the author or a continuator who, in reckoning the regnal years of the Sasanian rulers, does not count the sovereign’s accession year—­the time from accession to the first day of the New Year—­following traditions known in the ancient Near East (the unscrambling of these systems is credited to Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd edn [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983]). Assuming that the author is consistent throughout, the first and the last lines of his chronological frame need to be explained according to this reckoning system: (a) Kermanshah (Bahram IV) had been six years into his reign (seven, if the accession year is to be counted) and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

196

Commentary

has six ‘more’ years remaining at the time when the Saint began his religious life; (b) the first year of Yazdegerd II would also be his second (if the accession year is to be counted), the year in which the Saint died. Earlier in that same year of the reign, St Sahak died (see comment on 25/24.1). Here it should be noted that Yeghishē, Ghazar, and Khorenats‘i likewise count the regnal years of Yazdegerd II after his accession year. Kerman(shah). Another name for Bahram IV (388–99), since he was governor of Kerman (‘Kermanshah’) before succeeding his father, Shapur III (383–8). Kermanshah (Bahram IV) was halfway through his reign at the time the Saint turned to religious life and embarked on his mission. Allowing for the author’s not counting the accession year and his apparent dividing of the following years of the reign roughly in half to mark the start of the Saint’s religious life (see the next comment on ‘the fourth year’), the chronology provided is quite reliable. Yazdegerd twenty-­one years. Yazdegerd I (399–420); as usual, the accession year is not reckoned here. . The scribal omission appears to be the result of either homoioarchton (identical beginning) or homoioteleuton (identical ending), since Bahram V is accounted for in the next line. Bahram V actually reigned nineteen years (420–38); however, the author of these lines omits the accession year, as he does in the other regnal years he gives. Eighteen is consistent with his way of reckoning. 2. starting from the fourth year of Kerman(shah) to the first year of Yazdegerd II. This seems to be a restatement, made in general terms; hence the seeming discrepancy in Kermanshah’s ‘sixth’ and ‘fourth’ year of reign. As for the reign of Yazdegerd II (438–57), see comment on the preceding section, and that on 25/24.1 (on the year of St Sahak’s death). I here reproduce the entire chronological appendix, adding the regnal years of the Sasanian rulers from The Cambridge History of Iran (3.1:178). Within the brackets I also add the synchronic data from the earlier chronological citations in the Life. Note that the author, as elsewhere in the Life and like other Armenian authors of the fifth century, does not count the accession year of the respective ruler. 1 And thus the number of the blessed one’s years in the faith is forty-­five years [396–440]; and from the (beginning of) Armenian literature to the saint’s death, thirty-­ five years [406–40]—(the forty-­ five years)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Commentary

197

counted as follows: Kerman(shah) [a.k.a. Bahram IV, 388–99] of the Persians reigned six years [i.e. as of ‘the blessed one’s years in the faith’], and Yazdegerd [I] twenty-­one years [399–420], [420–38]; and in the first year of Yazdegerd II [438–57], son of Bahram, the blessed one died [17 February 440]. 2 And thus are his years in the holy faith counted: starting from the fourth year of Kerman(shah) [395/6, discounting the accession year 388/9] to the first year of Yazdegerd II [439/40, discounting the accession year 438/9], son of Bahram [V]; and those of Armenian literature, from the eighth year of Yazdegerd [I] [406, synchronized with the sixth year of Vr˙amshapuh, King of Armenia in 9.3 (50.21–2)].

The eighth year of Yazdegerd I. The year 406 for the invention of the Armenian letters appears to be correct, providing thirty-­five years for the Saint’s ministry after that momentous event (see comment on the synchronism in 6.5, and Introduction, n. 17). This addendum, with the other chronological references provided, substantiates indirectly Mat‘evosyan’s reconstruction of the text (see comment at the end of 10/6.2 [44.15–16]; Mat‘evosyan, however, does not make this additional argument in favour of his reversing the once wrong transposition). The disappointment with and the rejection of the Danielian letters following their reception in the ‘fifth’ year of Vr˙amshapuh’s reign was almost immediate; consequently, there is no need to emend any of the references to his reign (6.10 [44.7—­fifth year]; 7.1 [46.9—­fifth year] and 9.3 [50.21—­sixth year]). The chronological synchronism of the various reigns needs no adjustment; there are no discrepancies (contra Hakob Manandyan, K‘nnakan tesut‘yun hay zhoghovrdi patmut‘yan [Critical Assessment of the History of the Armenian People], 3 vols. [Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1944–60] 2.1:259–66). For a history of the scholarly debate on Koriwn’s synchronism, see Martirosyan, Mashtots‘, 199–220, esp. 213, on the post-­dating system in reckoning the regnal years of Sasanian rulers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendices

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix I Overview of Encomium Traditions in Classical Literature (Supplement to Introduction B1)

There are several studies that treat the encomium genre as a whole,1 beginning with its early development within Greek poetic traditions of the sixth century bc: the odes to cities and countries, their gods, heroes, distinguished citizens, and popular events. The development of encomiastic prose is attributed to Gorgias of Leontini (c.483–376 bc) and his famous pupil, Isocrates (436–338 bc).2 Their prose encomia were responsible for establishing an early pattern by highlighting only the noble and by citing deeds as evidence of virtue. Isocrates seems to have been equally responsible for setting yet another trend: that of producing handbooks of rhetoric with instructions for composing encomium, treated under epideictic oratory. Although his handbook is no longer extant, it probably influenced the well known Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, once attributed to Aristotle (384–322 bc) and now to his contemporary Anaximenes of Lampsacus (c.380–320 bc). Two sections of this 1  Theodore C. Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902), 89–261; Otto Crusius, ‘Enkomion’, in Real-­Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, and Wilhelm Kroll (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1905), 10:2581–3; Georg Fraustadt, Encomiorum in litteris Graecis usque ad Romanam aetatem historia (Leipzig: Noske Bornensis, 1909); Vincenz Buchheit, Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon (Munich: Huber, 1960); Theresia Payr, ‘Enkomion’, in Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, ed. Franz Joseph Dölger et al. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1962), 5:331–43; and Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Thechnik und Methode, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2, Abt. 3 T (Munich: Beck, 1974), 177–210. 2  Of the works of Gorgias, the Encomium of Helen and Defence of Palamedes are extant; of Isocrates, Helen, Busiris, Archidamus, Evagoras, Philippus, and the Panathenaicus are noteworthy. The latter’s Evagoras, especially 8–11, is often singled out as the earliest example of a eulogy in prose. The speech of Pericles recorded by Thucydides (c.460/455–c.400 bc) and the Agesilaus of Xenophon (c.428/7–c.354 bc) became equally important models, reflected in later historians like Dio Chrysostom (c.ad 40–112) and Tacitus (c.ad 56–115), especially in his Agricola. Voluminous authors like Plutarch (c.ad 50–120) and Lucian of Samosata (c.ad 125–185) wrote several prose encomia (by Plutarch: De Fortuna Romanorum, De Alexandrini Virtute, De Gloria Atheniensium, and others; by Lucian: Dionysus, De Calumnia, Dipsades, De Demo, Harmonides, Herodotus, Encomium Muscae, and Encomium Patriae, in addition to his satire Rhetorum praeceptor). The widespread popularity of prose encomia is further attested among Latin authors like Cicero (106–43 bc); see especially his Pro Marcello, De Imperio Cn. Pompeii, and the Philippicae.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

202

Appendix I

early manual of rhetoric deal with encomium.3 Of Aristotle’s own works, the Rhetoric, deemed ‘the greatest of all oratorical theories’,4 contains a section on encomium,5 as do also the later theoretical handbooks6 and the more popular progymnasmata, the practical textbooks which provide preliminary instruction in rhetoric and exercises in composition.7 A review of the three Aristotelian divisions of rhetoric,8 with some elaboration on the third and its subdivisions, is essential for a better understanding of the genre under consideration. Aristotle, whose theories of rhetoric were perhaps anticipated by Anaximenes9 and were generally followed by later theoreticians,10 divided rhetoric into the following three categories determined by three kinds of audiences for speeches. (1) The jurisprudential or the forensic (Gk. dikanikon; Arm. atenakan), of concern to judges and jurors, is to accuse or defend someone usually in a legal setting; it stresses what is just or unjust in an act of the past. (2) The political or the deliberative (Gk. symbouleutikon; Arm. khorhrdakan), of concern to politicians, is to advise or even urge someone to act or not to act, depending on the expediency of schemes for the future—­persuasion and dissuasion, usually in the political arena. (3) The epideictic or the demonstrative (Gk. epideiktikon; Arm. ts‘uts‘akan), of concern to spectators, is to praise or blame someone in the present. It concerns itself with what is honourable or dishonourable with a view to an increasing or decreasing order of values; it reinforces values the audience already holds. The subdivisions of the third category are characteristic of its intended use: praise (Gk. egkōmion or epainos; Arm. nerboghakan or govasanakan) by dwelling on the virtues, and blame (Gk. psogos; Arm. parsawakan) by 3  Chapter 3 (1425b34–1426b22), on embellishment; chapter 35 (1440b5–1441b29), on praise and blame. 4  Harry Caplan, Of Eloquence: Studies in Ancient and Mediaeval Rhetoric (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1970), 134. 5  Rhetoric 1366a23–1368a37. 6 Among Latin handbooks with traditional Greek elements, cf. Pseudo-­Cicero (early 1st cent. bc), Ad Herennium 3.6.10–8.15; Cicero (106–43 bc), De Oratore 2.84.340–86.350; Partitiones Oratoriae 21.71–23.82; and Quintilian (c.ad 30/35–100), Institutio Oratoria 3.7.1–28 and 8.4.1–29. 7  For the surviving texts, see Introduction, n. 55. The exercises covered (1) fable, (2) narrative, (3) moral anecdote, (4) maxim, (5) refutation and confirmation, (6) the commonplace, (7) encomium, (8) comparison, (9) character sketch, (10) description, (11) abstract question, and (12) introduction of a law. See Donald  A.  Russell, ‘Progymnasmata’ in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Nicholas G. L. Hammond and Howard H. Scullard, 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 883. 8  Rhetoric 1358a36–1359a29, 1366a23–1368a37. 9  Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1436a32–1445b3. 10  See Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 1.2.2; Cicero, De Inventione 1.9.12–10.13; De  Oratore 1.31.141; Partitiones Oratoriae 20.69–70; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.4.1–16, among others.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix I

203

dwelling on the vices. Epideictic is not merely ‘the ceremonial oratory of display’, as Aristotle calls it;11 it has a pragmatic dimension, for by praising the virtuous ‘we shall be able to inspire confidence in ourselves or others in regard to virtue’.12 The two terms for praise and that for epideictic (Gk. egkōmion, epainos, and epideiktikon) appear interchangeably in rhetorical literature, with each of these terms extended to denote the whole exercise. The third division thus becomes synonymous with its predominant subdivision. Such terminological fluidity and structural flexibility underscores Aristotle’s preference of intent over content. He offers no formal structure in his treatment of epideictic. While the importance of intent is primary and that of content secondary, the significance of the latter need not be minimized; content is governed by intent. Hence Aristotle goes on to propose certain considerations for composing encomia. They may be summarized as follows: (1) to cite the noble or the virtuous qualities: justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness, prudence, and wisdom—­especially deeds that best exemplify these and are esteemed by the audience; and (2) to magnify these deeds especially by amplification and comparison, for ‘where we take our hero’s actions as admitted facts, our business is simply to invest these with dignity and nobility’.13 There are no fixed structures within the genre apart from this broad outline. The concern for structure and uniformity in contextual features is sharply pronounced by Anaximenes, whose second division of rhetoric is devoted especially to encomium.14 He specifies three points to be made in the encomiastic proem: stating the proposition, refuting misrepresentations, and inviting attention by noting the most remarkable deeds of the subject.15 He then outlines the rest as follows: advantages external to virtue—­ noble descent, physical strength, charm, and wealth; and those inherent in virtue, the cardinal virtues—­wisdom, justice, courage, and commendable lifestyle.16 Then should follow the subject‘s birth, youth, early manhood, and adulthood, using the cardinal virtues as the organizing principles for the latter.17 The use 11  Rhetoric 1358b32. 12  Rhetoric 1366a23. 13  Rhetoric 1366a23–1368a37. For a brief treatment of Aristotle’s epideictic, see Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-­Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), 133–5. 14  Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1440b5–1441b29. 15  Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1440b5–13. 16  Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1440b14–23 (cf. 1422a7–11 and Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.6.10–8.15, where the three types of praise, built on external circumstances [rerum externarum], physical attributes [rerum corporis], and qualities of character [rerum animi], seem to be indebted to Anaximenes; the classification could be traced to Plato [Philebus 48E; Phaedrus 241C; Euthydemus 279A–D; Gorgias 447C; Laws 697B; Epistles 8.355B]). 17  Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1440b24–1441b13. Anaximenes goes on to provide brief instructions for the opposite, blame (1441b14–27).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

204

Appendix I

of comparison, enthymeme, maxim, and other literary constructs like amplification and recapitulation is often recommended for concluding sections. Later elaborations on these traditional principles contain further instructions for composing the various parts, which are noticeable in the Life. The directions for the introduction (principium) account not only for the treatment of the person being praised or the subject under consideration, but also for the inclusion of the encomiast and the audience.18 Instructions for the narration or statement of facts (narratio) repeat the advantages noted above, dividing them into three categories: external circumstances (descent and education), physical attributes (charm, beauty, strength, agility, and good health), and moral qualities (exhibited in wealth or poverty, power, fame, friendship or enmity, loyalty, benevolence, and good will), character traits demonstrable in the pursuit of the four cardinal virtues.19 Hence it is necessary to recite actions illustrative of the virtues praised; ‘but the most welcome praise is that bestowed on deeds that appear to have been performed by brave men without profit or reward,’ especially if they involve toil and danger and are profitable to others. ‘And one must select achievements that are of outstanding importance or unprecedented or unparalleled in their actual character.’20 Moreover, comparison is highly commended: ‘A splendid line to take in a panegyric is to compare the subject with all other men of high distinction.’21 Cicero, however, insists that no formal argumentation is needed within the tripartite schema of advantages when treating matters that are certain; nonetheless, the encomiast should adopt a suitable style and be mindful of neologisms, archaisms, metaphors, parallelism, similes, antitheses, doublets, and rhythmic periods.22 The use of embellishment is urged, including ‘surprising or unexpected events or things foreshadowed by portents and prodigies and by miracles, or what will appear to be occurrences sent by heaven or by fate to the person of whom we shall be speaking’.23 Achievements could be treated either chronologically, whether the earliest or the most recent first, or topically, under the virtues.24 In the Partitiones Oratoriae 18  Cf. Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.6.11–12. 19  Ad Herennium 3.7.13–8.15 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.12). 20 Cicero, De Oratore 2.85.345–7 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.15–16, where he values unique achievement, especially if done for the sake of others rather than for oneself; owing to Aristotle, Rhetoric 1366b3–6, 1367a19). 21  De Oratore 2.85.348. 22  Partitiones Oratoriae 21.71–22.74 (cf. Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.8.15, where greater flexibility is allowed: ‘We need not use all three . . . because often not all of them apply, and often, too, when they do, the application is so slight that it is unnecessary to refer to them’). 23  Partitiones Oratoriae 21.73 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.4–6, where proof is required should the claims appear incredible to the hearer or reader). 24  Partitiones Oratoriae 22.75 (cf. Pseudo-­ Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.7.13 and Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.10, 15, where the chronological is preferred).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix I

205

Cicero goes on to discuss at length the treatment of virtuous acts, summing up his discussion as follows: In the whole fabric of the speech the greatest attention is to be focused on the quality of a person’s breeding and upbringing and education and character; and on any important or startling occurrence that a man has encountered, especially if this can appear to be due to the intervention of providence; and then each individual’s opinions and utterances and actions will be classified under the scheme of the virtues that has been propounded, and these same topics of research will be drawn on to supply the causes and results and consequences of things.25 Finally, there should be a summary (enumeratio) and brief amplifications now and then.26 Most of these features appear also in later Greek writers, especially Menander Rhetor (late 3rd cent. ad). A considerable amount of traditional material is transmitted in the two treatises Peri epideiktikōn that pass under his name. The same traditional concerns for composing encomium recur in the rhetorical textbooks, the progymnasmata. These concerns, in addition to the preliminary and concluding statements, may be summed up as follows: origin and family, birth and upbringing, accomplishments and actions according to virtue.27 Typical of the progymnasmata is the following passage from Aphthonius, cited by Melik‘Ohanjanyan as the ultimate source containing the canons for encomium to which Koriwn adheres in his composition of the Life.28 It is given here in its entirety both for its summation and in anticipation of the ensuing discussion: You will make the exordium according to the subject at hand; next, you will place genus, which you will divide into race, fatherland, forebears, and fathers; then, you will take up education, which you will divide into inclination to study, talent, and rules; then, you will bring out the most important topic of the encomium, the achievements, which you will divide into the spirit, the body, and fortune—­the spirit like courage or prudence, the body like beauty, swiftness or strength, and fortune like power, wealth, and friends. To these you will add comparison, in order to infer a greater position for the one being praised through the process of placing side by side; finally, the epilogue more in the style of a solemn prayer.29 25  Partitiones Oratoriae 23.82 (tr. Rackham). 26  Pseudo-­Cicero, Ad Herennium 3.8.15. 27  Donald A. Russell and Nigel G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor. Edited with Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), p. xxv. 28  Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, ‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘i zhanrĕ’, 49–52, quoting the Armenian text in part. 29  From Ray Nadeau, ‘The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation’, Speech Monographs 19 (1952) 273; cf. Clark, Rhetoric, 197, and Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, p. xxviii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix II Other Literary-­Rhetorical Techniques in the Life (Supplement to Introduction C3)

1. Catchwords Koriwn uses announcement of subject to mark major transitions, as he does at the beginning of the prologue (2.1 [24.6–7), and again when about to launch into the body of the treatise (2.43 [36.1–3]), and at the beginning of the epilogue—­when about to conclude his narrative (29/28.1 [96.1–2]). He also uses a number of catchwords to indicate the beginning of new paragraphs or transitions, such as with adverbs of time, especially; e.g. ‘And now . . .’; ‘Afterward . . .’; ‘After that . . .’; ‘Then . . .’; ‘But then again . . .’; ‘After all that . . .’; ‘And then . . .’; ‘Next . . .’ (Եւ արդ . . ., Եւ յետ . . ., Եւ յետ այնորիկ . . ., Ապա . . ., Ապա դարձեալ . . ., Ապա յետ այնորիկ . . ., Եւ ապա . . ., Եւ ապա յետ . . .).30 He often uses conscious and purposeful replication of words or phrases in order to stress a point, as in this anaphoric example: There (անդ), from then on, they did not become drunk with wine, but increased in the Spirit and buoyed up their hearts with spiritual songs to the glory and praise of God.31 There (անդ) was training in edifying readings of inspired books. There (անդ) was encouragement through hortatory teaching, leading to the pre-­eminent election, to the mark of the crown offered by Christ.32 There (անդ) they were fired up by the Spirit during divine services. There (անդ) were petitioning prayers and conciliatory entreaties to God, the lover of mankind, for the life of all [people] (23/22.4–8 [82.1–8]). Not all pairs or series of related words, phrases, or sentences could be cited here, like Զի ոմն . . . եւ այլ ոմն . . . եւ միւս ոմն . . . եւ միւսոյն . . . (2.4 [24.18, 20, 22]). Some noteworthy examples of pairs are found in 8.6 (48.17–50.1), 21/20.2 (78.10–11), and 23/22.1, 10 (80.9–11; 82.13–15), among others.

30  Իսկ արդ . . . (‘But now . . .’) occurs in the perceived interpolation only (see comment on 23/22.15–18). 31  Application of Eph. 5:18. 32  Echoing 2 Tim. 4:8; Jas. 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix II

207

2. Superlatives There is an abundant use of superlatives, seen in compounds that end with the suffix -գոյն or begin with the prefix ամենա- (Koriwn does not use superlatives beginning with the prefix գեր-).33 Far more interesting, however, is Koriwn’s use of paired superlatives with the suffix -գոյն, of which he must have been particularly fond. (a) զի կամակարագոյնս եւ ուղղագոյնս նաւիցեմք (1.3 [24.2–3]). (b) զչքնաղ եւ զբարձրագոյն հատուցումն բաւական համարել յանսպառ յաւիտեանսն, այլ եւ աստէն իսկ կանխագոյն (2.2 [11–12]). (c) բայց ոչ միայն զմեծամեծսն, այլ առաւել եւս զթեթեւագոյնսն բարձրագոյնս [առնէ] անարգամեծարն Քրիստոս (2.21 [30.10–11]). (d) նշանագրացն զնրբագոյնն և զլաւագոյնն (8.6 [48.16]). (e) մի՛ ոք յանդգնագոյն վասն ասացելոցն զմեզ համարեսցի, թէ զիարդ զայր մի խոնարհագոյն . . . (9.7 [52.13–14]). (f) եւ համարձակագոյն եւ առաւելագոյն զաշակերտութիւնն նորագիւտ վարդապետութեանն խմբէին (12.1 [58.2–3]). (g) այլ եւ վասն խեցբեկագոյն եւ խոշորագոյն լեզուին` դժուարամատոյցք էին (14/10.1 [54.11–12]). (h) վասն առաւելագոյն բարեգործ համբաւուց` յառաջագոյն զնմանէ անդ ի հիւսիսական կողմանց հռչակելոց . . . պատուեալ լինէր (17/16.3 [64.20–3]). (i) այնպիսի առաւել եւ բարձրագոյն վարդապետութեամբն` սկսեալ երանելոյն Մաշթոցի ճառս յաճախագոյնս . . . յաւրինել (21/20.1 [78.2–5]). (j) և յորդորագոյնս և պարարտագոյնս . . . ծաւալեցուցանէր (23/22.10 [82.14–15]). (k) եթէ թեթեւագոյն արուեստից` յակասագոյն են ի գիտութենէ ազգք երկրածնացս (23/22.15 [84.7–8]). (l) զգուշացուցանէր ամենայն մարդոյ, մինչեւ բազմագոյնս և զդժուարագոյն վարուց կրթութիւնս (26/25.3 [90.11–14]). (m) եւ ի ներքսագոյն խորանին զսրբոյն հանգստեան յաւրինեալ: Որոյ սպասս վայելուչս, գունագոյնս . . . պատրաստեալ (27/26.8– 9 [94.13–16]). (n) ի դիւրագոյնս և ի հեշտագոյնս . . . պատսպարեցաք (29/28.7 [98.7–8]).

33 e.g. ամենաբարի, ամենազաւր, ամենակեցոյց, ամենահեշտ, ամենաշնորհող, ամենապահ, ամենապայծառ, ամենապարգեւող, ամենատէր, ամենափրկիչ, etc. See Demirchyan, ed., Haykakan hamabarbar˙, 2: Koriwn, 5–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

208

Appendix II

3. Alliteration Koriwn’s work is in effect poetic prose, replete with alliteration (i.e. repetition of the same sound at the start of two or more words). Here are a few examples, beginning with the opening line: (a) ԶԱզքանազեան ազգին և զՀայաստան աշխարհին զաստուածապարգեւ գրոյն (1.1 [22.9]). (b) անաւթ ընտրութեան անուանեալ` անուանակիր յաշխարհի իւրոյ սքանչելի անուանն առնէ . . . բարձրագոյն բարբառով ի փառատրութիւն դառնայ (2.23 [30.18–20]). (c) լուսաւորեալ և թեւամուխ միջամուխ եղեալ յաստուածատուր հրամանացն հանգամանս . . . զարդարեալ (3.4 [36.14–16]). (d) հրամանաբերն սրտառուչ սրտաբեկ լացուցին. քանզի ի տախտակացն խորտակելոց յայտնի եղեալ տեսանէր բերելւոյն թախծութիւնն (9.5 [52.6–7]). (e) պակասեալք ի փրկութենէն գտանէին, խորտակեալս, ապա խանձեալս, մրեալս և գունակ գունակ խայտառակեալս, և յաշխարհէն կորզէին (17/16.19 [68.17–18]). These examples could be multiplied easily, for there is hardly a chapter where they could not be found.

4. Asyndeta Equally noteworthy is the emphatic rhythm created by the author’s use of asyndeton (deliberate omission of conjunctions between a series of related words or clauses) and polysyndeton (the use of many conjunctions). Of the former sort, the following are some examples: (a) ի մովսիսական պատմութեան յայտնի է երանելեաց արանցն ազնուականութիւն, ճշմարտութեան հաւատոցն հաստատութիւն, աստուածամերձ կենաց վայելչութիւն, սքանչելական կենացն պայծառութիւն (2.3 [24.15–18]). (b) ժողովեալ մանկունս . . . զգազանամիտ զվայրենագոյն զՃիւղաբարոյ կողմանցն (15/14.4 [60.22–24]) (c) արկանէր . . . ծանրագոյն պատուհասիւք ի բանդս, ի տանջանս, ի գելարանս (17/16.18 [68.15–16]) (d) զյառաջագոյն զյանկարծագիւտ զփութանակի զթարգմանութիւնս (20/19.8 [76.9–10]). (e) սկսեալ երանելոյն Մաշթոցի ճառս յաճախագոյնս, դիւրապատումս, շնորհագիրս . . . կարգել և յաւրինել (21/20.1 [78.2–5]). (f) Եւ գլխաւորս, վերակացուս, տեղապահս յայտ արարեալ (28/27.1 [96.5]).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix II

209

5. Polysyndeta Of polysyndeton, these are a few examples from among many, used to create a slow, emphatic rhythm: (a) տրտմական հոգովք պաշարեալ և թակարդապատեալ և անկեալ ի ծուփս խորհրդոց (5.16 [40.19–21]). (b) առաջի եդեալ զաղաւթս և զտքնութիւնս և զպաղատանս արտասուալից (8.32 [48.2–3]). (c) ուսուցանել եւ թեքել, եւ պատրաստական քարոզութեանն անգէտ մարդկան յաւրինել (12.1 [58.4–5]). (d) այր խորհրդական և հանճարեղ և յառաջիմաց, շնորհատուր իմաստութեամբն Աստուծոյ (15/14.6 [62.2–3]). (e) յեկեղեցւոյն և յարքունեաց և ի պատուական իշխանաց քաղաքին (17/16.8 [66.13]). (f) վայրենամիտ և դատարկասուն և անասնաբարոյ աշխարհն Աղուանից մարգարէագէտք և առաքելածանաւթք և աւետարանաժառանգք լինէին (18/17.5 [70.27–9]). (g) առաջի թագաւորաց և իշխանաց և ամենայն հեթանոսաց և անընդդիմականաց (22/21.1 [78.16–17; cf. 80.1]). (h) Եւ զցայգ և զցերեկ պահաւք և աղոթիւք և ուժգին խնդրուածովք և բարձրագոյն բարբառովք . . . զգուսացուցանէր (26/25.3 [90.11–12]). (i) սաղմոսիւք և աւրհնութեամբ և հոգեւոր ցնծութեամբ, կանթեղաւք վառելովք և ջահիւք բորբոքելովք և խնկաւք բուրելովք և ամենայն լուսաճաճանչ գնդիւն. . . ելանէին (27/26.7 [94.5–8]).

6. Asyndeton and polysyndeton Here are some that show balanced use of asyndeton and polysyndeton to further heighten the rhetorical effect in oral delivery: (a) զանձն տուեալ` միայնաւորութեան, լեռնակեցութեան, քաղցի և ծառաւոյ և բանջարաճաշակութեանց, արգելանաց անլուսից, խարազնասգեստ և գետնատարած անկողնոց (4.3 [38.8–11]). (b) նշանագրացն զնրբագոյնն և զլայնագոյնն, զկարճն և զերկայնն, զառանձինն և զկրկնաւորն, միանգամայն յաւրինեալ և յանկուցեալ (8.6 [48.16–50.1]) (c) ոչ միայն ժամանակաւ պաշտեցելոցն, այլ և յառաջագոյն յաւիտենիցն, և ապա եկելոցն, սկզբանն և կատարածի, և ամենայն աստուածատուր աւանդութեանցն . . . (խելամուտ լինէր) (11.10 [56.20–2]).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

210

Appendix II

(d) յամենայն կողմանս Հայոց, Վրաց և Աղուանից զամենայն ժամանակս կենաց իւրոց, զամառն և զձմեռն, զտիւ և զգիշեր` անվեհեր և առանց յապաղելոյ . . . Յիսուսի անուն կրեաց յանձին (22/21.1 [78.13–18]). (e) սպասս վայելուչս, գունագոյնս, պայծառատեսիլս, ոսկւով և արծաթով և ակամբք պատուականաւք . . . պատրաստեալ (27/26.9 [94.14–18]).

7. Chiasmus Two examples: 4.1–2 1 Եւ յետ այնորիկ ըստ աւետարանական չափուցն՝ ի ծառայութիւն Աստուծոյ մարդասիրին դարձեալ, մերկանայր այնուհետեւ զիշխանակիր ցանկութիւնսն, եւ առեալ զխաչն պարծանաց՝ ելանէր զկնի ամենակեցոյց խաչելոյն: 2 Եւ հաճեալ հրամանացն՝ ի խաչակիր գունդն Քրիստոսի խառնէր, եւ անդէն վաղվաղակի ի միայնակեցական կարգ մտանէր: A զիշխանակիր B զխաչն B´ խաչելոյն A´ խաչակիր 5.1–3 1  Առեալ այնուհետեւ երանելւոյն զհաւատացեալս իւր, դիմեալ իջանէր յանկարգ եւ յանդարման տեղիս Գողթան: 2 Այլ եւ ընդ առաջ ելանէր նմա իշխանն Գողթան, այր երկիւղած եւ աստուածասէր, որում անուն էր Շաբիթ, եւ ասպնջական հիւրամեծար գտեալ՝ բարեպաշտութեամբ սպասաւորէր ըստ աշակերտաց հաւատոցն Քրիստոսի: 3  Իսկ երանելւոյն վաղվաղակի զաւետարանական արուեստն ի մէջ առեալ, ձեռն արկանէր զգաւառովն հանդերձ միամիտ սատարութեամբ իշխանին. գերեալ զամենեսեան ի հայրենեաց աւանդելոց, եւ ի սատանայական դիւապաշտ սպասաւորութենէն՝ ի հնազանդութիւն Քրիստոսի մատուցանէր: A երանելւոյն   B իշխանն     C Քրիստոսի A´ երանելւոյն   B´ իշխանին     C´ Քրիստոսի

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Appendix III The Life’s Parallels with the Armenian Version of Agathangelos 1.3

Agat.

§15

15/14.7

Agat.

§865

2.30–2

 

§848

16/15.6

 

§828

2.39–40

 

§777

16/15.7–8

 

§839

3.4

 

§863–4

16/15.9

 

§867

4.1–7

 

§859, 865

17/16.1

 

§862

5.3–4

 

§785

17/16.2

 

§783

5.5

 

§864

17/16.7

 

§875

7.2

 

§804

17/16.11–13

 

§879–81

7.3

 

§840

17/16.16, 21, 24

 

§837

8.1–3

 

§829–30

17/16.25

 

§827

8.5

 

§806

18/17.4–7

 

§787–8

9.3

 

§808, 874

18/17.5

 

§840

9.9

 

§819

20/19.10

 

§889–90

11.1–7

 

§893–6

21/20.1–2

 

§886

11.8

 

§854

22/21.1–3

 

§843–4

11.9–12.2

 

§775–6

23/22.1–21

 

§845–53

12.3, 7–8

 

§790

26/25.2–3

 

§887–8

12.9

 

§783

27/26.7

 

§833–4

13.2

 

§818

27/26.8

 

§769

13.3

 

§841

28/27.1

 

§774

13.4

 

§828

28/27.3

 

§13

14/10.1–3

 

§789

29/28.1

 

§14

15/14.4

 

§839

29/28.1–4

 

§897–9

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography ABBREVIATIONS AB BM COMS CSCO DOP ECTT EH EI FC GCS GEDSH HA HAnB HATS HHShTB HUAS JLA JSAS ME MH NBHL NPNF OC OCA ODB ODLA PBH PG PL PO REArm SC

Analecta Bollandiana Banber Matenadarani Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies (see Bausi et al.) Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Dumbarton Oaks Papers Eastern Christian Texts in Translation The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (see Garsoïan) Encyclopaedia Iranica The Fathers of the Church Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (see Brock et al.) Handēs Amsōreay (Handes Amsorya) Hayots‘ andznanunneri bar˙aran (see Achar˙yan) Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies Hayastani ew harakits‘ shrjanneri teghanunneri bar˙aran (see Hakobyan et al.) Hebrew University Armenian Studies Journal of Late Antiquity Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies Medieval Encounters: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture in Confluence and Dialogue Armenian Classical Authors (see Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘) Nor bar˙girk‘ haykazean lezui (see Awedik‘ian et al.) Nicene and Post-­Nicene Fathers (2nd series) Oriens Christianus Orientalia Christiana Analecta Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (see Kazhdan) Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity (see Nicholson) Patma-­banasirakan handes Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Patrologia Orientalis Revue des études arméniennes Sources chrétiennes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

216 ST SNTR UPATS WGRW

Bibliography Studi et Testi St. Nersess Theological Review University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies Writings from the Greco-­Roman World

I. PRIMARY SOURCES: EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

Editions of the Life «Կորիւն Վարդապետի Պատմութիւն վարուց և մահուան Ս. Մեսրովբայ» / ‘Koriwn Vardapeti Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ ew mahuan S.  Mesrovbay’ (Koriwn Vardapet’s History of the Life and Death of St Mesrovb). Pages 1–29 in Koriwn Vardapeti, Mambrēi Vertsanoghi ew Dawt‘i Anyaght‘i matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Works of Koriwn Vardapet, Mambrē the Lector and David the Invincible). Venice: S.  Ghazar, 1833; repr. ­separately in 1833 (Venice) and in 1847 (Smyrna). Կորիւն Վարդապետի Պատմութիւն վարուց և մահուան Ս. Մեսրոպայ Վարդապետի մերոյ թարգմանչի / Koriwn Vardapeti Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ ew mahuan S. Mesropay Vardapeti meroy t‘argmanch‘i (Koriwn Vardapet’s History of the Life and Death of St Mesrop Vardapet Our Translator) with the addition of P‘ok‘r Koriwn (Short Koriwn) in the apparatus. Edited by Ghewond Alishan. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1894. Կորիւն, Պատմութիւն վարուց և մահուան Ս. Մեսրոպայ Վարդապետի մերոյ թարգմանչի / Koriwn, Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ ew mahuan S. Mesropay Vardapeti meroy t‘argmanch‘i (Koriwn, History of the Life and Death of St Mesrop Vardapet Our Translator) with the addition of P‘ok‘r Koriwn at the end of the text (pp. 44–6). Ghukasian Matenadaran 13. Tiflis: N. Aghanian, 1913. Կորիւն, Վարք Մաշտոցի, ուղղեալ և լուսաբանեալ / Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i, Ughgheal ew Lusabaneal (Koriwn, Life of Mashtots‘: Emended and Annotated). Edited by Gar˙nik Fntglian. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1930. Կորյուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի / Koryun. Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (Koryun, Life of Mashtots‘). Edited and translated (E.  Arm.) by Manuk Abeghyan. Hay Patmagirneri Matenashar Ashkharhabar T‘argmanut‘yamb 2. Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1941; repr. Cairo: Tparan Yusaber, 1954; Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1981, 2005; Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985; E. Arm. trans. repr. Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1962; Yerevan: Sovetakan grogh, 1979. Կորիւն, Պատմութիւն վարուց Ս. Մաշտոց Վարդապետի / Koriwn. Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ S.  Mashtots‘ Vardapeti (Biographie des hl. Maštoc‘ Vardapet). Edited by Nersēs Akinian. Texte und Untersuchungen der alt­ armenischen Literatur 1. Rev. edn. Vienna: Mechitharisten-­Buchdr., 1952. Former edn: ‘Patmut‘iwn varuts‘ S.  Mashtots‘ Vardapeti: k‘nnut‘iwn ew

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

217

bnagir ew tsanōt‘ut‘iwnner’ (History of the Life of St Mashtots‘ Vardapet: Enquiry, Text, and Notes). Mkhit‘ar tōnagirk‘—Mechitar-­Festschrift, HA 63 (1949), 171–320. «Կորիւնի քննական բնագիրը և ծանօթագրութիւններ ըստ Նորայրի» / ‘Koriwni k‘nnakan bnagirĕ ew tsanōt‘agrut‘iwnner ĕst Norayri’ (The Critical Text of Koriwn and the Annotations by Norayr). Edited by Martiros Minasian. HA 106 (1992), 65–158. Վարք Մեսրոպ Մաշտոցի / Vark‘ Mesrop Mashtots‘i. Edited and translated (E. Arm.) by Artashes Mat‘evosyan. Hayots‘ Matenagirner. Yerevan: ‘Hayastan’, 1994. Կորիւն, Վարք Մաշտոցի / Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i / Koriun, Vita di Maštoc‘, Yar˙ajaban, bnagri verakazmut‘iwn ew tsanot‘agrutiwnner (Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, with Introduction, Textual Reconstruction and Notes) by  Poghos Ananian, parallel Italian trans. by Y.  Ashrafian. Haykakan Matenadaran 4, Bibliotheca Armeniaca 4. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1998. «Կորիւն, Վարք Մաշտոցի» / ‘Koriwn. Vark‘ Mashtots‘i’ (Koriwn, Life of Mashtots‘). Pages 225–72 in MH 1. Edited by Karen N. Yuzbashyan and Paruyr Muradyan.

Translations of the Life Armenian (Eastern): See above, Abeghyan (1941), Mat‘evosyan (1994). Armenian (Western): Կորիւն, Վարք Մեսրովբայ / Koriwn, Vark‘ Mesrovbay. Translated and annotated by Step‘an Y. Banian. Boston: Baykar Press, 1951. English: The Life of Mashtots‘. Translated by Bedros Norehad. New York: AGBU, 1964; repr. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1981 (ed. Pivazyan, polyglot); Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985 (ed. Maksoudian, facsimile); Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000 (ed. Hacikyan et al., with supplementary notes); Yerevan: Yerevan State University, 2005 (ed. Ter-­Step‘anyan, polyglot). French: ‘Gorioun. Biographie du bienheureux et saint docteur Mesrob.’ Translated by Jean-­Raphael Emine. Pages 9–16 in Historiens arméniens du cinquième ciécle. Edited by Victor Langlois. Collection des historiens anciens et ­modernes de l’Arménie 2. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1869 (trans. of Short Koriwn). ‘Koriwn, La Vie de Maštoc‘: traduction annotée,’ par Jean-­Pierre Mahé. REArm 30 (2005–7), 59–97. L’Alphabet arménien dans l’histoire et dans la mémoire: Vie de Machtots par Korioun, Panégyrique des Saints Traducteurs par Vardan Areveltsi. Textes traduits et annotés par Jean-­Pierre Mahé. Bibliothèque de l’Orient chrétien

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

218

Bibliography

5. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2018. Previous trans.: ‘Koriwn, La Vie de Maštoc‘: traduction annotée.’ REArm 30 (2005–7), 59–97. Georgian: Koriunis ‘Maštoc‘is c‘xovreba’. Translated by Khatuna Gaprindashvili. Pages 226–80 in ‘Koriunis ‘Maštoc‘is c‘xovreba’ (tek‘stis t‘argmna, gamokvleva da komentarebi)’ (Koriwn’s ‘Life of Mashtots‘’: Translation of the Text, Examination and Comments). Ph.D. Diss., Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2019. German: Goriuns Lebensbeschreibung des hl. Mesrop. Aus dem armenischen Urtexte zum ersten Male übersetzt und aus armenischen Schriftstellern erlätert von B(enedikt) Welte. Tübingen: E. Tr. Eifert, 1841. ‘Koriun, Beschreibung des Lebens und Sterbens des hl. Lehrers Mesrop.’ Übersetzt und mit einer Einleitung versehen von Simon Weber. Pages 181–232 in Ausgewählte Schriften der armenischen Kirchenväter. Bd. I: Eznik, Koriun, Hatschachapatum. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 57. Munich: Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet, 1927. ‘Leben des hl. Maschtotz von seinem Schüler Koriun.’ Übersetzt von Vahan Inglisian. Pages 117–46 in Ausbreiter des Glaubens im Altertum. Edited by Wilhelm Schamoni. Düsseldorf: Patmos-­Verlag, 1963. Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maštoc‘, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Translation and commentary by Gabriele Winkler. OCA 245. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994. Italian: See above, Ananian and Ashrafian (1998). Latin: Vita beati magistri Mesrop, qui primus caracteres armenicos invenit, composita a discipulo ipsius nomine Coriun, ex armenico in latinum translata. Lacroix scripsit, dictante archiepiscopo Uscano [Voskan Yerevants‘i, d. 1674]. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des manuscrits, NAL 2083, xviiie (sic) siècle. Edited by Poghos Ananian. Bazmavēp 124 (1966), 277–83. Persian: Kūrīūn. Zindagī-­i Masrūp Mashtūts (Koriwn, Life of Mesrop Mashtots‘). Translated (from Abeghyan’s E.  Arm. trans.) by Garoon Karo Sarkisean (Garun K. Sargisian). Tehran: Intishārāt-­i Nāʼīrī, 2002. Russian: Koriun, Zhitie Mashtotsa. Perevod Sh(avarsh) V.  Smbatiana i K(arapet) A.  Melik-­Ogandzhaniana, predislovie K.  A.  Melik-­Ogandzhaniana, ­kommentarii Sh. V. Smbatiana. Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1962; repr. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1981, 2005, 2009, 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

219

Polyglots: Կորյուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի / Koryun. Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (Koryun, Life of Mashtots‘), text and E.  Arm. (ed. and trans. Abeghyan); Russian (trans. Melik-­ Ogandzhanian); English (trans. Norehad). Edited by Ēmanuel A. Pivazyan. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1981. Կորյուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի / Koryun. Vark‘ Mashtots‘i (Koryun, Life of Mashtots‘), text and E.  Arm. (ed. and trans. Abeghyan); Russian (trans. Melik-­Ogandzhanian); English (trans. Norehad); French (trans. Langlois); German (trans. Inglisian, unacknowledged). Edited by Armen Ter-­Step‘anyan. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 2005.

Ancient Texts Agathangelos. Ագաթանգեղոս, Պատմութիւն Հայոց / Agat‘angeghos, Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ (History of the Armenians). MH 2:1295–1424, 1647–1735. Agathangelos. Ագաթանգեղոս, Հայոց Պատմություն / Agat‘angeghos, Hayots‘ Patmut‘yun (History of the Armenians). Translated by Aram TerGhevondyan. Yerevan: Yerevani Hamalsarani Hrat., 1983 (Cl. Arm. text facing). Agathangelos. Agathangelos: History of the Armenians. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1976 (Cl. Arm. text facing). Agathangelos. The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos. Translated with Introduction and Commentary by Robert  W.  Thomson. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 2010. Anania Shirakats‘i. «Աշխարհացոյց» / ‘Ashkharhats‘oyts‘‘ (Geography). Pages 336–54 in Անանիա Շիրակացու Մատենագրությունը / Anania Shirakats‘u Matenagrut‘yunĕ (The Writings of Anania Shirakats‘i). Edited by Ashot G. Abrahamyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1944. Anania Shirakats‘i. The Geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘): The Long and the Short Recensions. Translated by Robert H. Hewsen. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) 77. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1992. Aphthonius of Antioch. Aphthonii Progymnasmata. Edited by Hugo Rabe. Rhetores Graeci l0. Leipzig: Teubner, l926. Aristotle. The Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. London: Duckworth, 1987. The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with Three Early Versions of the Protevangelium of James. Translated by Abraham Terian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

220

Bibliography

Arseni Sap‘areli. Ganqop‘isat‘wis k‘art‘velt‘a da somext‘a. ‘Arsen Sapareli Sur la séparation des Géorgiens et des Arméniens.’ Translated by Zaza Aleksidzé and Jean-Pierre Mahé. REArm 32 (2010) 59–132. Eghishē. Մատենագրութիւն / Matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Writings). MH 1:521– 1071. Eghishē. Սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Եղիշէի Վարդապետի մատենագրութիւնք / Srboy hōrn meroy Eghishēi Vardapeti Matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Writings of Our Holy Father Eghishē Vardapet). Venice: S. Ghazar, 1859. Eghishē. Ełishē: History of Vardan and the Armenian War. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. HATS 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Eznik Koghbats‘i. Եղծ աղանդոց / Eghts aghandots‘ (Refutation of the Sects). MH 1:433–512. Eznik Koghbats‘i. Eznik de Kołb: De Deo. Edited and translated by Louis Mariès and Charles Mercier. PO 28, fascs. 3–4. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1959. Eznik Koghbats‘i. A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Kołb. Translated by Monica J. Blanchard and Robin D. Young. ECTT 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Ghazar P‘arpets‘i. Պատմութիւն Հայոց / Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ (History of the Armenians). MH 2:2201–2394. Ghazar P‘arpets‘i. The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Scholars Press Occasional Papers and Proceedings, Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies, S.  D.  Fesjian Academic Publications 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Գիրք Թղթոց / Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘ (Book of Letters). Edited by Norayr Pogharian. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1994. Գիրք Թղթոց / Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘ (Book of Letters). Epistolet‘a cigni, somxuri tek‘sti k‘art‘uli t‘argmanit‘, gamokvlevit‘a da komentarebit‘ (Book of Letters [Partial]: Armenian Text with Georgian Translation, Investigation and Comments). Uc‘xouri cqaroebi sak‘art‘velos šesaxeb 21. T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1968. «Գիրք հերձուածոց» / ‘Girk‘ herdzuatsots‘‘ (Book of Heresies). Edited by Galust Tēr-Mkrtch‘ian. Ararat (1892), 91–114. «Գիրք հերձուածոց» / ‘Girk‘ herdzuatsots‘‘ (Book of Heresies).‘An Armenian List of Heresies.’ Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Journal of Theological Studies, ns 16 (1965), 358–67. Գիրք Պիտոյից / Girk‘ Pitoyits‘ (Book of Chreia). Edited by Gohar S. Muradyan. Yerevan: Hayastani GAA Hratarakchʻutʻyun, 1993. Gregory of Nazianzen. ‘Panegyric on the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria’ (Oration 21) and ‘Panegyric on St. Basil’ (Orations 43). NPNF. Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, 7:269–80; 395–422.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

221

Gregory of Nyssa. ‘Funeral Oration on Meletius.’ NPNF. Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, 5:513–17. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշատակարաններ, Ե–ԺԲ դդ. / Hayeren dzer˙agreri hishatakaranner, E-ZhB darer (Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, V–XII Centuries). Edited by Artashes S. Mat‘evosyan. Nyut‘er Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmut‘yan 21. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1988. Hippolytus. De Fide. Edited and translated by Gérard Garitte. ‘Le traité géorgien “Sur la Foi” attribué à Hippolyte.’ Le Muséon 78 (1965), 119–72. Hippolytus. Werke. Bd. 4: Die Chronik. Edited by Rudolf Helm, 2nd edn. GCS 46. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955. Jerome (Hieronimus). De viris illustribus. PL 23:601–720. John Rufus. The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the  Monk Romanus. Edited and translated by Cornelia  B.  Horn and Robert R. Phenix Jr. WGRW 24. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Կանոնագիրք Հայոց / Kanonagirk‘ Hayots‘ (Canon Law of the Armenians). Edited by Vazgēn Hakobyan. 2 vols. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1964–71. K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba: The Georgian Royal Annals and Their Medieval Armenian Adaptation. Edited by Stephen H. Rapp, Jr. 2 vols. Anatolian and Caucasian Studies. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1998. Կնիք հաւատոյ / Knik‘ hawatoy (Seal of Faith). MH 4:51–311. Կնիք հաւատոյ / Knik‘ hawatoy (Seal of Faith). Edited by Karapet TērMkertch‘ian. Ējmiatsin: Tparan Mayr At‘or˙oy, 1914; repr. Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 1998; repr. under the title Le Sceau de la Foi. Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Leuven: Peeters, 1974. ‘Life of St. Nino.’ Translated by Margery Wardrop and James  O.  Wardrop. Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 5 (1903), 1–88. Մատենագիրք Հայոց / Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ (Armenian Classical Authors). Gen. ed. Zaven Yegavian. Armenian Library of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Antelias: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 2003ff. Movsēs Kaghankatuats‘i. Պատմութիւն Աղուանից Աշխարհի / Patmut‘iwn Aghuanits‘ Ashkharhi (History of the Caucasian Albanians). Edited by Varag D. Ar˙ak‘elyan. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1983. Movsēs Kaghankatuats‘i. Movsēs Dasxuranç‘i [sic]: The History of the Caucasian Albanians. Translated by C(harles). J.  F.  Dowsett. London Oriental Series 8. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1961. Movsēs Khorenats‘i. Պատմութիւն Հայոց / Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ (History of the Armenians). MH 2:1743–2121. Movsēs Khorenats‘i. Սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Մովսէսի Խորենացւոյ մատենագրութիւնք / Srboy hōrn meroy Movsēsi Khorenats‘woy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

222

Bibliography

matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (The Works of Our Holy Father Movsēs Khorenats‘i). 2nd edn. Venice: S. Ghazar, l865. Movsēs Khorenats‘i. Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Rev. ed. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 2006. Narratio de rebus armeniae. Edited by Gérard Garitte. CSCO 132, Subsidia 4. Leuven: Durbecq, 1952. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd Series. 14 vols. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886–1900; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Odznets‘i, Catholicos Yovhan(nēs). Մատենագրութիւնք / Matenagrut‘iwnk‘ (Writings). MH 7:21–172. Odznets‘i, Catholicos Yovhan(nēs). Մատենագրութիւնք Յովհաննու Օձնեցւոյ / Matenagrut‘iwnk‘ Yovhannu Odznets‘woy (The Writings of John of Odzun). Venice: S. Ghazar, 1833. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne et al. 161 vols. in 166 pts. Paris: Garnier, 1857–1966. P‘awstos Buzand. Բուզանդարան Պատմութիւնք / Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ (Epic Histories). MH 1:277–428. P‘awstos Buzand. The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘). Translated by Nina  G.  Garsoïan. HATS 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Proclus. Epistola II: Ad Armenios, de fide. PG 65:855–74. Photius. Bibliotheca. PG 103–4. Rabbula of Edessa. The Rabbula Corpus. Translated by Robert R. Phenix, Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn. WGRW 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2017. Շարական Հոգեւոր Երգոց Սուրբ և Ուղղափառ Եկեղեցւոյս Հայաստանեայց / Sharakan Hogewor Ergots‘ Surb ew Ughghap‘ar˙ Ekeghets‘woys Hayastaneayts‘ (Hymnal of Spiritual Songs of the Holy Orthodox Armenian Church). Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1936. Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History. The Armenian Adaptation of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus: Translation of the Armenian Text and Commentary by Robert W. Thomson. HUAS 3. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Step‘anos Asoghik of Tarōn. Պատմութիւն տիեզերական / Patmutʼiwn tiezerakan (Universal History). MH 15:639–828. Teaching of St. Gregory (see Վարդապետութիւն Սրբոյն Գրիգորի / Vardapetut‘iwn Srboyn Grigori). Theodoret of Cyrrhus. A History of the Monks of Syria. Translated by R(ichard) M.  Price. Cistercian Studies 88. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1985. Tyrannius Rufinus. Historia ecclesiastica, I–II. PL 21:465–540. Ukhtanēs. Պատմութիւն Հայոց / Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ (History of the Armenians). MH 15:446–616.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

223

Վարդապետութիւն Սրբոյն Գրիգորի / Vardapetut‘iwn Srboyn Grigori (The Teaching of St Gregory). MH 2:1425–1646. Վարդապետութիւն Սրբոյն Գրիգորի / Vardapetut‘iwn Srboyn Grigori. The Teaching of St. Gregory. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Rev. edn. AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 1. New Rochelle: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001. Յաճախապատում ճառք / Yachakhapatum char˙k‘ (Oft-repeated Discourses). MH 1:7–137. Յաճախապատում ճառք / Yachakhapatum char˙k‘ (Oft-repeated Discourses). Moralia et Ascetica Armeniaca: The ‘Oft-Repeated Discourses’ (Yachakhapatum char˙k‘). Translated by Abraham Terian. FC 143. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2021.

II. SECONDARY SOURCES AND REFERENCE WORKS Abeghyan, Manuk. Հայոց հին գրականության պատմություն, գիրք առաջին, սկզբից մինչև X դար / Hayots‘ hin grakanut‘yan patmut‘yun, girk‘ ar˙ajin: skzbits‘ minchew X dar (History of Ancient Arm. Literature, Book I: From the Beginning to the X Century). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1944. Abeghyan, Manuk. Istoriia drevnearmianskoĭ literatury (History of Ancient Armenian Literature). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1948; repr. 1975. Abrahamyan, Ashot  G.  Հայ գրի և գրչության պատմություն / Hay gri ew  grch‘ut‘yan patmut‘yun (History of the Armenian Alphabet and Paleography). Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1959. Abulaże (Abuladze), Ilia V. ‘K otkrytiiu alfavita kavkazskikh albantsev’ (On the Discovery of the Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians). Izvestiia Instituta iazyka, Istorii i material‘noĭ kul‘tury im. Akad. N. Marra 4.1 (1938), 69–71. Abulaże (Abuladze), Ilia  V.  K‘art‘uli ceris nimušebi. Paleograp‘iuli albomi (Examples of Georgian Writing: A Paleographical Album). Second expanded ed. T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1973. Achar˙yan, Hrach‘ya. Հայոց անձնանունների բառարան / Hayots‘ andznanunneri bar˙aran (Dictionary of Armenian Personal Names). 5 vols. Yerevan: Petakan Hamalsaran, 1942–62. Achar˙yan, Hrach‘ya. Հայոց գրերը / Hayots‘ grerĕ (The Arm. Letters). Edited by Ēduard B. Aghayan. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1984. Adontz, Nicolas (Nikoghayos). Armenia in the Period of Justinian. Edited and translated by Nina G. Garsoïan. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1970. Adontz, Nicolas (Nikoghayos). Մաշթոց և նրա աշակերտները ըստ օտար աղբիւրների / Masht‘ots‘ ew nra ashakertnerĕ est otar aghbiwrneri

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

224

Bibliography

(Masht‘ots‘ and His Pupils According to Foreign Sources). Azgayin Matenadaran 111. Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1925; repr. of «Անծանօթ էջեր Մաշթոցի և նրա աշակերտների կեանքից ըստ օտար աղբիւրների» / ‘Antsanōt‘ ējer Masht‘ots‘i ew nra ashakertneri keank‘its‘ ĕst otar aghbiwrneri’ ([Hitherto] Unknown Pages on Masht‘ots‘ and His Pupils According to Foreign Sources). HA 39 (1925), 194–202, 322–7, 435–41, 531–9. Adontz, Nicolas (Nikoghayos). ‘Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur et ses rapports avec Eznik.’ Revue de l’Orient chrétien 25 [ns 5] (1925–6), 309–57. Aleksidze, Zaza and Jean-Pierre Mahé. ‘Découverte d’un texte albanien: une langue du Caucase retrouvée.’ Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 141.2 (1997), 517–32. Aleksidze, Zaza and Jean-Pierre Mahé. ‘Le déchiffrement de l’écriture des Albaniens du Caucase.’ Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 145.3 (2001), 1239–57. Eng. trans. ‘The Deciphering of the Script of the Caucasian Albanians.’ Pages 335–49 in From Albania to Arrān: The East Caucasus between the Ancient and Islamic Worlds (ca. 330 BCE–1000 CE). Edited by Robert G. Hoyland. Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. Alexanian, Joseph  M.  ‘The Armenian Gospel Text from the Fifth through the  Fourteenth Centuries.’ Pages 381–4 in Medieval Armenian Culture: Proceedings of the Third Dr. H.  Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture  [Held at U.  of Pennsylvania, November 7–10, 1982]. Edited by Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone. UPATS 6. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Amadouni, Garabed. ‘Le rôle historique des hiéromoines arméniens.’ Pages 279–305 in Il monachesimo orientale: atti del Convegno di studi orientale che sull predetto tema si tenne a Roma: sotto la direzione del Pontificio Istituto Orientale, nei giorni 9, 10, 11 e 12 aprile 1958 / allocuzione di S.S. Pio XII. Edited by Irénée Hausherr et al. OCA 153. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1958. Ananian, Poghos. Վարք Ս. Մեսրոպ Մաշտոցի / Vark‘ S. Mesrop Mashtots‘i. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1964. Anasyan, Hakob  S.  Հայկական մատենագիտություն / Haykakan Matenagitut‘yun (Armenian Bibliology). 3 vols. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, Yerevan State University, 1959–2004. Avdalbekyan, Mayis T‘. Հայ գեղարվեստական արձակի սկզբնավորումը—­V դար / Hay gegharvestakan ardzaki skzbnavorumĕ—­V dar (The Origin of Armenian Artistic Prose—­Fifth Century). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1971. Awedik‘ian, Gabriēl, Khach‘atur Siwrmēlian, and Mkrtich‘ Awgerian, eds. Նոր բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի / Nor bar˙girk‘ haykazean lezui (New

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

225

Dictionary of the Arm. Language). 2 vols. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1836–7; repr. Yerevan: Yerevan State Univ., 1979–81. Awgerian, Mkrtich‘. Լիակատար վարք եւ վկայաբանութիւն սրբոց / Liakatar vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwn srbots‘ (Complete Lives and Testimony of the Saints). 12 vols. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1810–15. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Barkhudaryan, Vladimir et al., eds. Հայոց գրեր. միջազգային գիտաժողով նվիրված հայոց գրերի գյուտի 1600-ամյակին, զեկուցումների ժողովածո / Hayots‘ grer. mijazgayin gitazhoghov nvirvats hayots‘ greri gyuti 1600-amyakin. zekuts‘umneri zhoghovatso (Armenian Letters: International Conference Dedicated to the 1600th Anniversary of the Invention of the Armenian Letters. Collection of Proceedings). Yerevan: Gitut‘yun, 2006. Baumstark, Anton. ‘Der armenische Psaltertext. Sein Verhältnis zum syrischen der Pešîttâ und seine Bedeutung für die LXX-Forschung.’ OC II, 12–14 (1925) 180–213; III, 1 [23] (1926–7) 158–69, 319–33; III, 2 [24] (1927) 146–59. Bausi, Alessandro et al., eds. Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction. Hamburg: Tredition, COMSt, 2015. Bedrosian, Robert. ‘The Sparapetut‘iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.’ Armenian Review 36.2 (1983), 6–46. Biwzandats‘i, Norayr N. Կորիւն Վարդապետ և նորին թարգմանութիւնք, Գիրք Մակաբայեցւոց, Եւթաղ Աղեքսանդրացի, Ագաթանգեղոս և Փաւստոս Բիւզանդ, հանդերձ դիտողութեամբք, տեղեկութեամբք և լուսաբանութեամբ / Koriwn Vardapet ew Norin T‘argmanut‘iwnk‘, Girkʻ Makabayetsʻwotsʻ, Ewtʻagh Aghekʻsandratsʻi, Agatʻangeghos ew Pʻawstos Biwzand, handerdz ditoghut‘eambk‘, teghekut‘eambk‘ ew lusabanut‘eambk‘ (Koriwn Vardapet and His Translations: The Books of Maccabees, Euthalius of Alexandria, Agathangelos and Pʻawstos Biwzand, with Observations, Comments and Notes). Tiflis: Martiroseants‘, 1900. Blum, Georg Günter. Rabbula von Edessa, der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe. CSCO 300, Subsidia 34. Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1969. Bogharian, Norayr (Pogharian, aka N. Tsovakan). Հայ գրողներ / Hay grogh­ ner (Armenian Writers). Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1971. Bogharian, Norayr (Pogharian, aka N. Tsovakan). Կորիւն Վարդապետի երկերը / Koriwn Vardapeti erkerĕ (The Works of Koriwn Vardapet). Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1984 (repr. of his articles in Sion 56 [1982] 191–3; 57 [1983] 38–40, 87–90, 152–5, and 211–14, with an added index of the special terms considered). Bogharian, Norayr (Pogharian, aka N.  Tsovakan). «Փոքր Կորիւնի հեղինակը» / ‘P‘ok‘r Koriwni heghinakě’ (The Author of Short Koriwn). Sion 33 (1959), 167–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

226

Bibliography

Brock, Sebastian P., Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay, eds. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011. Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. The Curti Lectures. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Buchheit, Vincenz. Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon. Munich: Huber, l960. Burgess, R(ichard) W.  ‘The Date, Pupose, and Historical Context of the Original Greek and the Latin Translation of the So-called “Excerpta Latina Barbari”.’ Traditio 68 (2013), 1–56. Burgess, Theodore  C.  ‘Epideictic Literature.’ Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902), 89–261. Butts, James R. and Ronald F. Hock. ‘The Chreia Discussion of Aphthonius of Antioch: Introduction, Translation and Comments.’ Pages 209–34 in The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Volume I: The Progymnasmata. Edited by Ronald F. Hock and Edward N. O’Neil, Texts and Translations 27, GraecoRoman Religion 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, l986. Calboli, Gualtiero. ‘The Metaphor after Aristotle.’ Pages 123–50 in Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of William W. Fortenbaugh. Edited by David C. Mirhady, Philosophia Antiqua 105. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Calzolari, Valentina. ‘La citation du Ps 78 (77), 5–8, dans l’épilogue de l’Histoire de l’Arménie d’Agathange.’ REArm 29 (2003–4), 9–27. Caner, Daniel. Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 33. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Caplan, Harry. Of Eloquence: Studies in Ancient and Mediaeval Rhetoric. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1970. Cereteli, Giorgi V. (George V. Tseretheli). Użvelesi k‘art‘uli carcerebi palestinidan (The Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions from Palestine). T‘bilisi: Sak‘art‘velos SSR mec‘nierebat‘a akademia, 1960. Childers, Jeff W. ‘The Bible in Georgian.’ Pages 162–78 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Edited by Richard Marsden and E.  Ann Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Clackson, James. ‘A Greek Papyrus in Armenian Script.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000), 223–58. Clark, Donald L. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Conybeare, Frederick  C.  The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Incarnation and Epistle on Easter. London: The Text and Translation Society, 1907; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1974.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

227

Cowe, S. Peter. ‘Armenian Hagiography.’ Pages 299–322 in Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. Edited by Stephanos Efthymiadis. Vol. 1. Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2011. Cowe, S.  Peter. The Armenian Translation of Daniel, UPATS 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Cowe, S. Peter. ‘The Armenian Version of the New Testament.’ Pages 253–92 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. 2nd edn. New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 42. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cowe, S. Peter. ‘The Bible in Armenian.’ Pages 143–61 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Edited by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Cowe, S. Peter. ‘La versión armenia.’ Pages lxxi–lxxix in El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega, I: 1–2 Samuel. Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz. Madrid: CSIC, 1989. Cox, Claude  E.  ‘The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis.’ Pages 231–46 in Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text. Edited by Valentina Calzolari, with the collaboration of Michael E. Stone (=  Proceedings of the Colloque international sur ‘La  philologie armé­ nienne entre passé et futur: du manuscrit au document digitalisé’ [Projet AIEA], Université de Genève, 5–7 octobre 2006). Leiden: Brill, 2014. Cox, Claude E. Armenian Job: Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation. HUAS 8. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Cox, Claude E. The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy. UPATS 2. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Cox, Claude E. ‘The Purpose of Koriun’s Life of Mashtots‘.’ Pages 303–11 in Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of LeMoine G. Lewis. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene: ACU, 1981. Cox, Claude E. ‘The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible, with Special Reference to the Book of Genesis’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010), 45–67. Cox, Patricia. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 5. Berkeley: University of California Press, l983. Crusius, Otto. ‘Enkomion.’ Pages 10:2581–3 in Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, and Wilhelm Kroll. Stuttgart: Metzler, l905. Demirchyan, Ē(lza), ed. Հայկական համաբարբառ, 2. Կորիւն «Վարք Մաշտոցի» / Haykakan hamabarbar˙, 2: Koriwn ‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘i’ (Armenian Concordance, 2: Koriwn, ‘Life of Mashtots‘ ’). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1972; repr. in Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i. Deutsch, Gotthard. ‘Ashkenaz.’ Pages 2:192–3 in The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York; London: Ktav, 1901–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

228

Bibliography

Dudwick, Nora. ‘The Case of the Caucasian Albanians: Ethnohistory and Ethnic Politics.’ Cahiers de Monde russe et soviétique 31.2–3 (1990), 377–84. Fabian, Lara. ‘Albania in Greek and Latin Texts: The Use and Utility of “Views from the West”.’ Pages 9–27 in From Albania to Arrān: The East Caucasus between the Ancient and Islamic Worlds (ca. 330 BCE–1000 CE). Edited by Robert  G.  Hoyland. Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. Findikyan, M.  Daniel. ‘Funerals: Eastern Churches.’ Pages 215–17 in New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship. Edited by Paul  F.  Bradshaw. London: SCM Press, 2013. Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. Analecta biblica 105. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Florovsky, George. The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century. Edited by Richard  S.  Haugh et al., trans. of selections from Vizantīĭskīe ottsy by Raymond Miller. Collected Works of Georges Florovsky 8. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebanstalt, 1987. Fraustadt, Georg. Encomiorum in litteris Graecis usque ad Romanam aetatem historia. Leipzig: Noske Bornensis, l909. Gadjiev, Murtazali S. ‘Gemma-pechat‘ tsaria Albanii Asvagena.’ Vestnik drevnei istorii 1 (2003), 102–19. Gadjiev, Murtazali S. ‘On the History of Writing in Caucasian Albania.’ Pages 41–54 in Written Culture in Daghestan. Edited by Moshe Gammer. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Humaniora, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 369. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2015. Gamqreliże, T‘amaz V. (Thomas V. Gamkrelidze). Ceris anbanuri sistema da żveli k‘art‘uli damcerloba: anbanuri ceris tipologia da carmomavloba, with a preface by Akaki  G.  Šaniże (Shanidze). T‘bilisi: Tbilisi State University Press, 1989. Eng. trans., Alphabetic Writing and the Old Georgian Script: A Typology and Provenience of Alphabetic Writing Systems. Anatolian and Caucasian Studies. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1994. Gaprindashvili, Khatuna. ‘Koriunis ‘Maštoc‘is c‘xovreba’ (tek‘stis t‘argmna, gamokvleva da komentarebi)’ (Koriwn’s ‘Life of Mashtots‘’ [Translation of the Text, Examination and Comments]). Ph.D. Diss., Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2019. Garitte, Gérard. L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits du Sinaï. Bibliothèque de Muséon 38. Leuven: Peeters, 1955. Garsoïan, Nina G. ‘The Aršakuni Dynasty (ad 12–[180?]–428).’ Pages 1:63–94 in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Edited by Richard G. Hovannisian. 2 vols. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Garsoïan, Nina  G.  L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient. CSCO 574, Subsidia 100. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Garsoïan, Nina G. ‘Secular Jurisdiction over the Armenian Church (Fourth– Seventh Centuries).’ Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Ševčenko on His

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

229

Sixtieth Birthday by His Colleagues and Students / Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7 (1983), 220–50. Garsoïan, Nina  G.  ‘‘T‘agaworanist kayeank‘’ kam ‘Banak ark‘uni’: Les residences royales des Arsacides arméniens.’ REArm 21 (1988–9), 251–70. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. Ghafadaryan, Karapet  G.  «Տեկորի տաճարի V դարի հայերեն արձանագրությունը և Մեսրոպյան այբուբենի առաջին տառաձևերը» / ‘Tekori tachari V dari hayeren ardzanagrut‘yunĕ ew Mesropyan aybubeni ar˙ajin tar˙adzewerĕ’ (The Armenian Inscription of the Cathedral of Tekor and the Initial Forms of the Mesropian Alphabet), PBH (1962), 2:39–54. Gippert, Jost, ed. The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai, Volume III: The Armenian Layer. Monumenta palaeographica Medii Aevi: Series Ibero-Caucasica 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Gippert, Jost. ‘Hexaplaric Material in the Albano-Armenian Palimpsests.’ Pages 205–11 in Kavkasia aġmosavlet‘sa da dasavlet‘s šoris. Istoriulp‘ilologiuri żiebani miżġvnili Zaza Aleksiżis dabadebis 75 clist‘avisadmi / Caucasus between East and West: Historical and Philological Studies in Honour of Zaza Aleksidze. Edited by Dali Čitunašvili et al. T‘bilisi: Xelnacertʻa erovnuli cʻentri, 2012. Gippert, Jost. ‘The Linguistic Background of Caucasian Albanian Literacy.’ Pages 3–21 in Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus: Papers from the International Conference ‘Current Advances in Caucasian Studies,’ Macerata, January 21–23, 2010. Edited by Vittorio Springfield Tomelleri et al. Munich and Berlin: Otto Sagner, 2011. Gippert, Jost. ‘Palimpsests of Caucasian Provenance. Reflections on Diplomatic Editing.’ Pages 403–10 in COMS. Gippert, Jost. ‘The Script of the Caucasian Albanians in the Light of the Sinai Palimpsests.’ Pages 39–50 in Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen: Referate des Internationalen Symposions, Wien, 1.–4. Dezember 2005. Edited by Werner Seibt and Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011. Gippert, Jost, Wolfgang Schulze, Zaza Aleksidze, and Jean-Pierre Mahé, eds. The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai, 2 vols. Monumenta palaeographica Medii Aevi: Series Ibero-Caucasica 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Greenwood, Timothy. ‘A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions.’ DOP 58 (2004), 27–91. Gulbekian, Edward. ‘Mesrop or Maštoc‘.’ Pages 29–33, 368–71 in Armenian Perspectives: 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes. Edited by Nicholas Awde. Caucasus World. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1997.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

230

Bibliography

Gushakian, T‘orgom. Ուրուագիծ հայ մատենագրութեան / Uruagits hay matenagrut‘ean (Conspectus of Armenian Bibliography). Edited by Isahak Minasian. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 2001. Haas, Christopher. ‘Mountain Constantines: The Christianization of Aksum and Iberia.’ JLA 1.1 (2008), 101–26. Hacikyan, Agop  J., Gabriel Basmajian, Edward  S.  Franchuk, and Nourhan Ouzounian, eds. The Heritage of Armenian Literature: Vol. I. From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000. Hadas, Moses and Morton Smith. Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity. Religious Perspectives 13. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Hägg, Tomas and Philip Rousseau, eds. Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Hakobyan (Akobyan), Aleksan  A.  Albaniia-Aluank v greko-latinskikh i drevnearmianskikh istochnikakh (Albania-Aghuank‘ in the Greek-Latin and Ancient Armenian Sources). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1987. Hakobyan (T‘arumian), Ṙ uben. «Հայոց այբուբենի Ճ տառի ծագումը» / ‘Hayots‘ aybubeni CH tar˙i tsagumĕ’ (The Origin of the Letter CH (Č) of the Armenian Alphabet). Pages 66–72 in Hayastanĕ ew arewelak‘ristoneakan k‘aghak‘agrt‘ut‘yunĕ—­III: Hanrapetakan gitazhoghov nvirvats chanach‘vats hayaget-kovkasaget Pavel Ch‘obanyani tsnndyan 70-amyakin, Erevan, 17–18 mayisi, 2018 (Armenia and Oriental Christian Civilization—­III: National Conference Dedicated to the 70th Anniversary of Eminent Armenologist-Caucasologist Pavel Chobanyan [1948–2017], Yerevan, 17–18 May 2018. Papers and Abstracts). Edited by Alexan Hakobyan et al. Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences of RA, Oriental Institute, 2018. Hakobyan (T‘arumian), Ṙ uben. Հայոց տառերը: Ձեւագոյացման համեմատական քննություն / Hayots‘ tar˙erĕ: Dzewagoyats‘man hamematakan k‘nnut‘yun (The Armenian Letters: A Correlational Study of Their Formation). Yerevan: Antares, 2017. Hakobyan, T‘adewos Kh., Hovhannes Kh. Barseghyan, Step‘an T.  Melik‘Bakhshyan, and Ēduard B.  Aghayan, eds. Հայաստանի և հարակից շրջանների տեղանունների բառարան / Hayastani ew harakits‘ shrjanneri teghanunneri bar˙aran (Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia and Adjacent Territories). 5 vols. Yerevan: Yerevani Hamalsarani Hrat., 1986. Halliwell, Stephen. Aristotle’s Poetics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Hambardzumyan, Garegin. The Book of Sirach in the Armenian Biblical Tradition: Yakob Nalean and His Commentary on Sirach. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Hammond, Nicholas G. L. and Howard H. Scullard, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, l970.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

231

Hausherr, Irénée et al., eds. Il monachesimo orientale: atti del Convegno di studi orientale che sull predetto tema si tenne a Roma : sotto la direzione del Pontificio Istituto orientale, nei giorni 9, 10, 11 e 12 aprile 1958 allocuzione di S.S. Pio XII. OCA 153. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1958. Hewsen, Robert  H.  ‘Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians.’ Pages 27–40 in Classical Armenian Culture. Edited by Thomas J. Samuelian. UPATS 4. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Hewsen, Robert H. ‘On the Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians.’ REArm 1 (1964), 427–32. Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Honigmann, Ernst. Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071. Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales, 1935. Horn, Cornelia B. ‘St. Nino and the Christianization of Pagan Georgia.’ ME 4 (1990), 242–64. Hovhanessian, Vahan. Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy. Studies in Biblical Literature 18. New York: P. Lang, 2000. Howard-Johnston, James. ‘Caucasian Albania and its Historian.’ Pages 351–69 in From Albania to Arrān: The East Caucasus between the Ancient and Islamic Worlds (ca. 330 BCE–1000 CE). Edited by Robert  G.  Hoyland. Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. Hoyland, Robert G., ed. From Albania to Arrān: The East Caucasus between the Ancient and Islamic Worlds (ca. 330 BCE–1000 CE). Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. Hunger, Herbert. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. 2 vols. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12. Munich: Beck, l978. Inglisian, Vahan. ‘Die armenische Literatur.’ Pages 156–250 in Armenisch und kaukasiche Sprachen. Edited by Gerhard Deeters, Georg Renatus Solta, and Vahan Inglisian. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.7. Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1963. Jakhjakhian, Manuēl. Բառգիրք ի բարբառ հայ և իտալական / Bar˙girk‘ i barbar˙ hay ew italakan / Dizionario Armeno-Italiano. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1837. Jastrow, Marcus and Max L. Margolis, ‘Ashkenaz.’ Pages 2:191–2 in The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York; London: Ktav, 1901–6. Jinbachian, Manuel J. ‘The Armenian Translation of the Bible.’ Pages 3:2366–72 in Übersetzung—­Translation—­Traduction: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung. Edited by Harald Kittel et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Kanayiants‘, Step‘an. «‘Պատմագիրք Հայոց’ եւ մի քանի դիտողութիւններ Փաւստոս Բիւզանդի մասին» / ‘ “Patmagirk‘ Hayots‘ ” ew mi k‘ani

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

232

Bibliography

ditoghut‘iwnner P‘awstos Biwzandi masin’ (Armenian Historians’ and Some Observations on P. B.), Ararat 36 (1903), 241–51. Kazhdan, Alexander  P., Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot, Anthony Cutler, Timothy  E.  Gregory, and Nancy Patterson Ševčenko, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kekeliże (Kekelidze), Korneli. K‘art‘uli literaturis istoria, t. 1: Żveli mcerloba. T‘bilisi: Gamomcʻemeli Tʻoma Čʻikʻvanaia, 1923. Khach‘atrian, Poghos. Հայ հին գրականութեան մատենագիտութիւն / Hay hin grakanut‘ean matenagitut‘iwn (Bibliology of Old Armenian Literature). Yerevan: Tigran Mets, 2016. Khach‘ikyan, Levon. «Մեսրոպ Մաշտոցի ծննդյան 1600 ամյակը» / ‘Mesrop Mashtots‘i cnndyan 1600 amyakĕ’ (The 1600th Year of the Birth of M. M.). BM 7 (1964), 11–24. Khach‘ikyan, Levon. «Գրիգոր Պարթեվին վերագրված ‘Հարցումը’, որպես հայ մատենագրության երախայրիք» /’Grigor Part‘evin veragrvats ‘Harts‘umĕ’, orpes hay matenagrut‘yan erakhayrik‘‘ (Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Grégoire le Parthe, prémices de l’écriture arménienne). BM 7 (1964), 301–30. Khach‘ikyan, Levon. «Օտարալեզու հայ գրականությունը չորրորդ դարում» / ‘Otaralezu hay grakanut‘yunĕ ch‘orrord darum’ (Foreignlanguage Arm. Literature in the Fourth Century). PBH (1973), 3:27–51. Khurtsilava, Besik (Besarion Xurc‘ilava). ‘The Inscriptions of the Georgian Monastery in Bi’r el-Qutt and Their Chronology.’ Christianity in the Middle East 1 (2017), 129–50. Khurtsilava, Besik (Besarion Xurc‘ilava). K‘art‘uli asomt‘avruli anbani da misi avtorebi ‘Bakur’ da ‘Gri Ormizd’ (Georgian Asomtavruli Script and its Authors ‘Bakur’ and ‘Gri Ormizd’). T‘bilisi: B. Xurc‘ilava, 2009. Koltsida-Makri, Ioanna. ‘The Representation of the Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals.’ Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 4 (1995), 43–51. Köstenberger, Andreas J. ‘Women in the Pauline Mission.’ Pages 221–47 in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. Edited by Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Kouymjian, Dickran. ‘Armenian Paleography.’ Pages 277–82 in COMS. Krüger, Paul. ‘Über den Ursprung des armenischen Vardapetentums.’ Ostkirchliche Studien 17 (1968), 314–24. Kurdian, H(arry). ‘The Newly Discovered Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians.’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1.2 (1956), 81–3. Kurdian, H(arry). «Ս. Մեսրոպ Մաշտոց և աղուանական գրերը» / ‘S. Mesrop Mashtots‘ ew aghuanakan grerĕ’ (St. M.-M. and the CaucasianAlbanian Letters). Bazmavēp 120 (1962), 247–52. Kustas, George L. ‘The Function and Evolution of Byzantine Rhetoric.’ Viator 1 (1970), 55–73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

233

K‘yoseyan, Hakob  H.  «Սուրբգրային վկայակոչումները Կորյունի ‘Վարք Մաշտոցում’» / ‘Surbgrayin vkayakoch‘umnerĕ Koryuni “Vark‘ Mashtots‘um” ’ (The Scriptural Citations in Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘), Ējmiatsin 50.4–6 (1993), 39–49. Lang, David  M.  Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints: Selected and Translated from the Original Texts. Ethical and Religious Classics of East and West 15. London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1956. Lang, David  M.  Review of Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, auf  Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen Literaturgeschichte von K. Kekelidze, by Michael Tarchnišvili and Julius Assfalg. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19.1 (1957), 179–81. Lerner, Konstantin B. The Wellspring of Georgian Historiography: The Early Medieval Historical Chronicle ‘The Conversion of K‘art‘li’ and ‘The Life of St. Nino’. London: Bennett and Bloom, 2004. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott, and Henry S. Jones. A Greek–English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940. Lucca, Paolo. ‘Le due versioni armene di I e 2 Cronache: analisi e confronto dei testi e loro rapporti con le versioni greca e siriaca.’ Diss. Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, 2000–1. Lyonnet, Stanislas. Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron. Biblica et Orientalia 13. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1950. Mahé, Jean-Pierre. L’Alphabet arménien dans l’histoire et dans la mémoire: Vie de Machtots par Korioun, Panégyrique des Saints Traducteurs par Vardan Areveltsi. Bibliothèque de l’Orient chrétien 5. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2018. Mahé, Jean-Pierre. ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomed: réflections sur l’historiographie arménienne.’ REArm 23 (1992), 121–53. Mahé, Jean-Pierre. ‘Une légitimation scripturaire de l’hagiographie: la préface de Koriwn (443) à la  Vie de Maštoc‘.’ Pages 1:29–43 in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, T. 1: Antiquité tardive et christianisme ancien (IIIe–VIe s­ iècles). Edited by Louis Holtz and Jean-Claude Fredouille, Collection des études augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 132, Série Moyen-Age et temps modernes 26. Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes, 1992. Mahé, Jean-Pierre. ‘Quatre nouvelles publications (1990–1994) sur Koriwn.’ REArm 25 (1994–5), 417–28. Maksoudian, Krikor  H.  ‘Introduction.’ Pages vii–xxxii in Koriwn. Vark‘ Mashtots‘i. A Photographic Reproduction of the 1941 Yerevan Edition with a Modern Translation (by Bedros Norehad) and Concordance. Edited by idem. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985. Maksoudian, Krikor H. The Origins of the Armenian Alphabet and Literature. New York: St. Vartan Press, 2006. Manandyan, Hakob. Քննական տեսություն հայ ժողովրդի պատմության / K‘nnakan tesut‘yun hay zhoghovrdi patmut‘yan (Critical Assessment

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

234

Bibliography

of  the History of the Armenian People), 3 vols. Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1944–60. Mardirossian, Aram. Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i: église, droit, et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle. CSCO 606, Subsidia 116. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Margolis, Max L. ‘Ashkenaz.’ Pages 2:191–2 in The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York; London: Ktav, 1901–6. Marquart, Josef (Yovsēp‘ Markwart). ‘Über das armenische Alphabet in Verbindung mit der Biographie des hl. Mašt‘oc‘.’ HA 26 (1912), 213–16. Martin, Josef. Antike Rhetorik: Thechnik und Methode. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2, Abt. 3 T. Munich: Beck, l974. Martirosyan, Artashes  A.  Մաշտոց (Պատմա-քննական տեսություն) / Mashtots‘ (Patma-k‘nnakan tesut‘yun) (M.  [A Historico-critical Examination]). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1982. Mat‘evosyan, Artashes  S.  Կորիւնի Մեսրոպ Մաշտոցի պատմութեան ձեռագրի մի թղթի տեղափոխութիւն / Koriwni Mesrop Mashtots‘i patmut‘ean dzer˙agri mi t‘ght‘i teghap‘okhut‘iwn (Misplacement of a folio in a manuscript of Koriwn’s history of Mesrop Mashtots‘ / Déplacement d’un  feuillet dans le manuscript de l’Histoire de Koriwn). Bibliotheque d’armenologie Bazmavēp 32. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1990. Mathews, Edward G., Jr. “Early Armenian and Syrian Contact: Reflections on Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘.” SNTR 7 (2002), 5–27. Mathews, Edward G., Jr. “The Early Armenian Hermit: Further Reflections on the Syriac Sources.” SNTR 10 (2005), 141–67. Mathews, Edward G., Jr. ‘The Life of Maštoc‘ as an Encomium: A Reassessment.’ REArm 24 (1993), 5–26. McCauley, Leo P. and Martin R. P. McGuire, trans. Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory of Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, with an Introduction on the Early Christian Funeral Oration. FC 22. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1953; repr. 2004. Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, Karapet  A.  «‘Վարք Մաշտոցի’ ժանրը եվ պատմագրական նշանակությունը» / ‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘i zhanrĕ ev ­patmagrakan nshanakut‘yunĕ’ (Des particularités de genre et de la valeur historico-littéraire et historiographique de la ‘Vie de Machtotz’ de Koriun). BM 7 (1964), 49–57. Meyendorff, Paul. The Anointing of the Sick. Orthodox Liturgy Series 1. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009. Minasian, Martiros. «Գրիգոր Պարթեւի կամ Ս. Մաշտոցի վերագրուած ‘Հարցումը’ և Եզնիկ Կողբացի» / ‘Grigor Part‘ewi kam S.  Mashtots‘i veragruats ‘Harts‘umĕ’ ew Eznik Koghbats‘i’ (Le ‘Questionnaire’ attribué à Gregoire l’Illuminateur ou à Mesrop Machtotz n’est pas une source d’Eznik). HA 85 (1971), 355–70, 463–82; 86 (1972), 73–94, 199–212, 347–54, 439–62; 87 (1973), 51–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

235

Minasian, Martiros. «Կանովն սրբոյն Գրիգորի Պարթեւի դարձեալ հարցումն և պատասխանիք նորա» / ‘Kanovn srboyn Grigori Part‘ewi dardzeal harts‘umn ew pataskhanik‘ nora’ (Le Questionnaire de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur), Bazmavēp 139 (1981), 57–72. Minorsky, V(ladimir). ‘Caucasica IV.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 15.3 (1953), 504–29. Mouraviev, Serge  N.  Erkataguir (ԵՐԿԱԹԱԳԻՐ) ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien, avec, en supplément: une paléographie arméniene des Ve–VIe/VIIe siècles et un choix de sources historiques. Les trois secrets de Mesrop Machtots ou la genèse des alphabets paléochrétiens du Caucase 1. Sankt Augustin: Academia-Verlag, 2010. Mouraviev, Serge N. ‘La forme interne de l’alphabet albanais caucasien et la phonologie de l’oudien.’ Le Muséon 93 (1980), 345–74. Musheghyan, Albert  V.  «Կորիւն թե՞ Ագաթանգեղոս. բնագրերի քննություն նոր տեսանկյունից» / ‘Koriwn t‘e Agat‘angeghos: bnagreri k‘nnut‘yun nor tesankyunits’’(Koriwn or Agathangelos? Textual Analysis from a New Perspective), Lraber (1996/2), 49–64. Movsisyan, Artak. The Writing Culture of Pre-Christian Armenia. Translated by Varditer Grigoryan and Mary Grigoryan. Yerevan: Yerevan University Publishers, 2006. Muradyan, Gohar S. «‘Պիտոյից Գիրքը’ և նրա հունարեն նախօրինակը» / ‘‘Pitoyits‘ Girk‘ĕ’ ew nra hunaren nakhōrinakĕ’ (The ‘Girk‘ Pitoyits‘’ and Its Greek Exemplar), PBH (1984), 3:111–24. Muradyan, Gohar  S.  «Պիտոյից գիրքը՝ քրիստոնեացված ճարտասանական ձեռնարկ» / ‘‘Pitoyits‘ Girk‘ĕ’ k‘ristoneats‘vats chartasanakan dzer˙nark’ (The ‘Girk‘ Pitoyits‘’: A Christianized Rhetorical Endeavour). HA 114 (2000), 2–67. Muradyan, Gohar S. «Պիտոյից Գրքի ոչ թարգմանական մասերի լեզուն և հայ հեղինակների հունաբանությունները» / ‘Pitoyits‘ Grk‘i och‘ t‘argmanakan maseri lezun ew hay heghinakneri hunabanut‘yunnerĕ’ (The Language of the Non-translated Parts of the Girk‘ Pitoyits‘ and the Graecism of Armenian Authors). Ashtanak: Hayagitakan parberagirk‘ 3 (2000), 99–122. Muradyan, Gohar  S.  ‘The Rhetorical Exercises (progymnasmata) in the Old Armenian “Book of Chreia” (Girk‘ Pitoyic‘): Translation or Original Composition? (On the Occasion of P. Cowe’s Review).’ REArm 27 (1998– 2000), 399–415. Muradyan, Gohar  S.  ‘Le style hellénisant des Progymnasmata arméniens dans le contexte d’autres écrits originaux.’ Pages 83–94 in Actes du sixième colloque international de linguistique arménienne (INALCO—­Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 5–9 juillet 1999). Edited by Anaid Donabédian and Agnès Ouzounian. Slovo 26-27, 2001–2002. Paris: INALCO, 2003. Muradyan, Paruyr. Կովկասեան մշակութային աշխարհը և Հայաստանը / Kovkasean mshakut‘ayin ashkharhĕ ew Hayastanĕ (The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

236

Bibliography

Caucasian Cultural World and Armenia. Pt. I. Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences of RA, ‘Gitut‘iwn’, 2008. Nadeau, Ray. ‘The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation.’ Speech Monographs 19 (1952), 264–85. Nalbandyan, Vache  N., Varag  S.  Nersessyan and Henrik  G.  Bakhchinyan, Histoire abregée de la littérature arménienne médiévale, du V au XIII siècle, traduit de l’armenien par V. A. Issahakyan. Yerevan: Sovetakan Grogh, 1986. Nelles, Paul. ‘The Vatican Library Alphabets, Luca Orfei, and Graphic Media in Sistine Rome.’ Pages 1:441–68 in For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton. Edited by Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing. 2 vols. History of Science and Medicine Library, Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions 18. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Nersessian, Vrej N. A Bibliography of Articles on Armenian Studies in Western Journals, 1869–1995. Caucasus World. Richmond, UK: Curzon/The British Library, 1997. Nersoyan, Hagop J. ‘The Why and When of the Armenian Alphabet.’ JSAS 2 (1985–6), 51–71. Nicholson, Oliver, ed. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Olson, David R. and Nancy Torrance, eds. Literacy and Orality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Pataridze, Tamara. ‘Georgian Palaeography.’ Pages 292–6 in COMS. Payr, Theresia. ‘Enkomion.’ Pages 5:331–343 in Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by Franz Joseph Dölger et al. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, l962. Peeters, Paul. ‘Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie d’aprés les sources hagiographiques.’ AB 50 (1932), 5–58. Peeters, Paul. ‘Jerémie, évèque de l’Ibérie perse (431).’ AB 51 (1933), 5–33. Perikhanyan, Anahit  G.  ‘K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii armyanskoi pis‘mennosti’ (On the Question of the Origin of the Armenian Script). Pages 103–33 in Peredneaziatskii Sbornik: II. Deshifrovka i interpretatsiya pis‘mennosti Drevnego Vostoka (Near-Eastern Digest: II. Decipherment and Interpretation of Writings from the Ancient East). Moscow: Oriental Lit. Publishing House of the Academy, 1966. Petersen, William  L.  Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Petrosyan, Armen. «Տիր և Մաշտոց, դպրության աստվածը և գրերի ստեղծողը» / ‘Tir ew Mashtots‘. dprut‘yan astvatsĕ ew greri steghtsoghĕ’ (Tir and Mashtots‘: The Scribe-god and the Inventor of Writing). Pages 41–53 in Hayots‘ grer. mijazgayin gitazhoghov nvirvats hayots‘ greri gyuti 1600-amyakin. zekuts‘umneri zhoghovatsoy (Armenian Letters: International Conference Dedicated to the 1600th Anniversary of the Invention of the  Armenian Letters. Collection of Proceedings). Edited by Vladimir Barkhudaryan et al. Yerevan: Gitut‘yun, 2006.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

237

Petrosyan, Eznik and Armen Ter-Step‘anyan, eds. Ս. Գրքի հայերեն մեկնությունների մատենագիտւթյուն / S. Grk‘i hayeren meknut‘yunneri matenagitut‘yun (Bibliology of the Armenian Commentaries on the Holy Bible). Hayastani Astvatsashnch‘ayin Ĕnkerut‘yun, Astvatsashnch‘agitakan Matenashar 2. Yerevan: Hayastani Astvatsashnch‘ayin Ĕnkerut‘yun, 2002. Pogharian, N. Tsovakan, see Bogharian, Norayr. Preud’homme, Nicolas J. ‘Bacurius, The Man with Two Faces.’ Iberia-Colchis 13 (2017), 166–92. Rapp, Stephen  H., Jr. ‘Caucasia and Byzantine Culture.’ Pages 217–34 in  Byzantine Culture: Papers from the Conference ‘Byzantine Days of Istanbul’ Held on the Occasion of Istanbul Being European Cultural Capital 2010: May 21–23, 2010. Edited by Dean Sakel. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014. Rapp, Stephen H., Jr. The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes: Caucasia and the Iranian Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. Rapp, Stephen  H., Jr. Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts. CSCO 601, Subsidia 113. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Redgate, Anne E. The Armenians. The Peoples of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Renoux, Charles (A.), ed. Le lectionnaire albanien des manuscrits géorgiens palimpsestes N Sin 13 et N Sin 55 (Xe–XIe siècles). PO 234. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Renoux, Charles (A.). ‘Langue et littérature arméniennes.’ Pages 107–66 in Christianismes orientaux: Introduction à l’étude des langues et des littératures. Edited by Micheline Albert. Initiations au christianisme ancien. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Russell, James R. ‘On the Name of Mashtots.’ Annual of Armenian Linguistics 15 (1994), 67–78; repr. in idem, Armenian and Iranian Studies. HATS 9. Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press, 2004, 597–608. Russell, James R. ‘On the Origins and Invention of the Armenian Script.’ Le Muséon 107 (1994), 317–33; repr. in idem, Armenian and Iranian Studies. HATS 9. Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press, 2004, 553–79. Russell, James  R.  Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Harvard Iranian Series 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987. Sadoyan, Liparit. «Հայոց Մեսրոպաստեղծ այբուբենը» /’Hayots‘ Mesropasteghts aybubenĕ’ (The Armenian Alphabet Created by Mesrop). PBH (2005), 2:58–86. Salia, Kalistrat. ‘Les chefs de l’église géorgienne depuis l’origine jusqu’à nos jours (d’après le Calendrier de l’Église géorgienne publié par le Patriarcat, Tbilisi 1962).’ Bedi Kartlisa 41–2 (1962), 14–16. Salia, Kalistrat. Histoire de la nation géorgienne. Paris: Edition Nino Salia, 1980.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

238

Bibliography

Sarkissian, Karekin. A Brief Introduction to Armenian Christian Literature. London: Faith Press, 1960, 2nd edn. Bergenfield, NJ: Michael Barour Publications, 1974. Schulze, Wolfgang. ‘Caucasian Albanian and the Question of Language and Ethnicity.’ Pages 275–312 in Sprachen, Völker und Phantome: Sprach- und kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur Ethnizität. Ed. Peter-Arnold Mumm. Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Schulze, Wolfgang. ‘Towards a History of Udi.’ International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2.1 (2005), 55–99. Segal, J(udah) B. Edessa ‘The Blessed City’. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Seibt, Werner. ‘Wo, wann und zu welchen Zweck wurde das georgische Alphabet geschaffen?’ Pages 83–90 in Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen: Referate des Internationalen Symposions, Wien, 1.–4. Dezember 2005. Edited by Werner Seibt and Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011. Šaniże (Shanidze), Akaki  G.  ‘Novootkrytyi alfavit kavkazskikh albantsev i ego  znachenie dlia nauki’ (The Newly Discovered Caucasian-Albanian Alphabet and Its Significance for the Sciences). Izvestiia Instituta iazyka, Istorii i material‘noĭ kul‘tury 4.1 (1938), 1–68. Šaniże (Shanidze), Akaki  G.  ‘Poriadok bukv gruzinskogo, armianskogo i albanskogo alfavitov’ (The Connotation of the Georgian, Armenian, and Caucasian-Albanian Letters). Materialy po istorii Azerbaĭdzhana 2 (1957), 33–43. Shapira, Dan D. Y. ‘ “Tabernacle of Vine”: Some (Judaizing?) Features in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino.’ Scrinium 2 (2006), 273–306. Signes Codoñer, Juan. ‘New Alphabets for the Christian Nations: Frontier Strategies in the Byzantine Commonwealth between the 4th and 10th Centuries.’ Pages 116–62 in New Perspectives on Late Antiquity in the Eastern Roman Empire. Edited by Ana de Francisco Heredero, David Hernández de la Fuente, and Susan Torres Prieto. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. Silogava, Valeri, ed. Bolnisis użvelesi k‘art‘uli carcerebi (The Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions of Bolnisi). T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba, 1994. Sinclair, T(homas) A.  Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey. 2 vols. London: Pindar Press, 1987–90. Srapyan, A(rmenuhi) N.  «‘Յաճախապատում’ ճառերի հեղինակի հարցը» / ‘ “Yachakhapatum” char˙eri heghinaki harts‘ĕ’ (The ‘Yachakhapatum’ Discourses’ Authorship Question). Haykakan SSR˙ Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Teghekagir: Hasarakakan Gitut‘yunner 5 (1962), 25–38. Sterk, Andrea. ‘On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian Legacy of Leadership.’ Church History 67.2 (1998), 227–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

239

Stone, Michael E. Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Stone, Michael  E.  ‘Armenian Inscriptions from the Fifth Century from Nazareth.’ REArm 22 (1990–1), 315–22. Stone, Michael  E., ed. The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel van Esbroeck and William Adler. HATS 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Stone, Michael E. ‘Armenian Pilgrimage to the Mountain of the Transfiguration and the Galilee.’ SNTR 9 (2004), 79–89. Stone, Michael E. ‘The Armenian Questions of St. Gregory: A Text Descended from 4 Ezra: Edition of Recension I.’ Le Muséon 131.1–2 (2018), 141–72. Stone, Michael E., Dickran Kouymjian, and Henning Lehmann, eds. Album of Armenian Paleography. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002. Strohmeier, Virgil  B.  The Importance of Teseo Ambrogio degli Albonesi’s Selected Armenian Materials for the Development of the Renaissance’s Perennial Philosophy and an Armenological Philosophical Tradition. Yerevan: Armenian Philosophical Academy, 1998. Tarchnišvili, Michael and Julius Assfalg. Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, auf Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen ­ Literaturgeschichte von K. Kekelidze. ST 185. Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955. Tashian, Yakobos. Ագաթանգեղոս առ Գէորգայ ասորի եպիսկոպոսին եւ ուսումնասիրութիւն Ագաթանգեղեայ գրոց / Agat‘angeghos ar˙ Gēorgay asori episkoposin ew usumnasirut‘iwn Agat‘angegheay grots‘ (Agathangelos to the Syrian Bishop George and a Study of the Agathangelian Books). Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1891. Tchekhanovets, Yana. The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land: Armenian, Georgian and Albanian Communities between the Fourth and Eleventh Centuries CE. Handbook of Oriental Studies, HDO Section One: The Near and Middle East 123. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Tchekhanovets, Yana. ‘Iohane, Bishop of Purtavi, and Caucasian Albanians in the Holy Land.’ Pages 305–13 in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of Leah Di Segni. Edited by Giovanni Claudio Bottini et al. Collectio maior 54. Milan: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014. Ter-Minasyan, Ervand. Միջնադարյան աղանդների ծագման և զարգացման պատմությունից / Mijnadaryan aghandneri tsagman ew zargats‘man patmut‘yunits‘ (From the history of the rise and spread of medieval sects). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Arm. SSR, 1968. Tēr-Mkrtch‘ian, Galust. Ագաթանգեղոսի աղբիւրներից / Agat‘angeghosi aghbiurnerits‘ (From the Sources of Agathangelos). Vagharshapat: Mother See Press, 1896.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

240

Bibliography

Ter-Petrossian, Levon. Ancient Armenian Translations. Translated by Krikor Maksoudian. New York: St. Vartan Press, 1992. Ter-Petrossian, Levon. «Սաղմոսների հայերեն թարգմանությունը և նրա նախօրինակը» / ‘Saghmosneri hayeren t‘argmanut‘yunĕ ew nra nakhōrinakĕ’ (The Armenian Translation of the Psalms and Its Vorlage).  Ējmiatsin  32 (1975), 1:41–51, 4:37–45, 6:58–64, 9:49–57; 33 (1976), 8/9: 22–4. Tēr-Vardanian, Gevorg, ed. «Նորայր Բիւզանդացու ‘Քննասէր’ը» / ‘Norayr Biwzandats‘u ‘K‘nnasēr’ĕ.’ PBH (2005), 2:101–43. Terian, Abraham. ‘A Compounded Interpolation in Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘.’ Pages 617–22 in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé. Edited by Aram Mardirossian, Agnès Ouzounian, and Constantin Zuckerman. Travaux et mémoires 18. Paris: Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014. Terian, Abraham. ‘Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘ as an Encomium.’ JSAS 3 ­(1987–8), 1–14. Terian, Abraham. ‘Mandakuni’s “Encyclical” on Fasting.’ Pages 185–95 in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East. Edited by Roberta  R.  Ervine, AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 3. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006. Terian, Abraham. ‘Monastic Turmoil in Sixth-Century Jerusalem and the South Caucasus: The Letter of Patriarch John iv to Catholicos Abas of the Caucasian Albanians.’ DOP 74 (2020), 9–39. Terian, Abraham. Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The Early Panegyrics on St. Gregory. AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 2. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005. Terian, Abraham. ‘The Poetics of a Church and the Structure of a Hymn: The Sharakan Anjink‘ Nuirealk‘ by Catholicos Komitas.’ SNTR 12 (2007), 141–60. Terian, Abraham. Review of S. Grk‘i Hayeren Meknut‘yunneri Matenagitut‘yun by Eznik Petrosyan and Armen Ter-Step‘anyan, eds. SNTR 8 (2003), 141–3. Thiele, Edwin  R.  The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983. Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thomson, Robert W. ‘An Armenian List of Heresies.’ Journal of Theological Studies, ns 16 (1965), 358–67. Thomson, Robert W. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘The Concept of “History” in Medieval Armenian Historians.’ Pages 89–99 in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999. Edited by Antony Eastmond. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘The Major Works of Armenian Historiography (Classical and Medieval).’ Pages 303–20 in Armenian Philology in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Bibliography

241

Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text. Edited by Valentina Calzolari with the collaboration of Michael E. Stone. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies 23/1 = History of Armenian Studies 1. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Thomson, Robert W. ‘Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example.’ Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12–13 (1988–9), 28–45; rprt. as ch. 3 in his Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity. Variorum Collected Studies Series 451. Aldershot; Brookfield VT: Variorum, 1994. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘The Reception of the Biblical Book of Revelation in Armenia.’ Pages 242–53 in The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective. Edited by Kevork Bardakjian and Sergio La Porta. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 25. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘A Seventh-Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount Tabor.’ Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967), 27–33. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad: Publications 1993–2005.’ Le Muséon 120 (2007), 163–223. Thomson, Robert  W.  ‘The Writing of History: The Development of the Armenian and Georgian Traditions.’ Pages 1:493–520 in Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–XI): 20–26 aprile 1995. 2 vols. Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1996. Toumanoff, Cyril. ‘Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia.’ Traditio 25 (1969), 1–33. Toumanoff, Cyril. ‘Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (VIIth–XVth Centuries).’ Traditio 1 (1943), 139–82. Toumanoff, Cyril. Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1963. Traina, Giusto. ‘Tradition et innovation dans la première historiographie arménienne.’ Pages 153–64 in L’historiographie tardo-antique et la transmission des savoirs. Edited by Philippe Blaudeau and Peter Nuffelen, Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 55. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Turner, Eric G. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. van Esbroeck, Michel. ‘The Place of Jerusalem in Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay.’ Pages 175–91 in Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Georgian. Edited by Stephen H. Rapp, Jr. and Paul Crego, Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–500 5. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. van Lint, Theo Maarten. ‘From Reciting to Writing and Interpretation: Tendencies, Themes, and Demarcations of Armenian Historical Writing.’ Pages 180–200 in The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

242

Bibliography

­400–1400. Edited by Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Vardazaryan, Olga. «Ինչպե՞ս Մաշտոցը դարձավ ‘Ակիմիտ’» / ‘Inch‘pes Mashtots‘ĕ dardzav “Akimit” ’ (How Did Mashtots‘ Become ‘Akimit’?). BM 23 (2016), 219–30. Vardazaryan, Olga. «‘Վարք Մաշտոցի’ երկու սրբագրումները և Ղազար Փարպեցու վկայությունը» / ‘‘Vark‘ Mashtots‘i’ erku srbagrumnerĕ ew Ghazar P‘arpets‘u vkayut‘yunĕ’ (Two Corrections in the Life of Mashtots‘ and the Testimony of Ghazar P‘arpets‘i), BM 18 (2008), 41–57. Vetter, Paul. Հայկական աշխատասիրութիւնք հայագէտ Պ. Ֆէթթերի / Haykakan ashkhatasirut‘iwnk‘ hayagēt P. Fetteri (sic) (Armenian Studies by the Armenologist  P.  Vetter). Translated by Yakobos Tashian. Azgayin Matenadaran 17. Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1895. Vööbus,  Arthur. History of the School of Nisibis. CSCO 266, Subsidia 26. Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1965. Vööbus, Arthur. Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac. CSCO 128, Subsidia 3. Louvain: Durbecq, 1951. Winkler, Gabriele. ‘An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church History.’ REArm 19 (1985), 85–180. Winkler, Gabriele. ‘Die spätere Überarbeitung der armenischen Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum.’ OC 70 (1986), 143–80. Xurc‘ilava, Besarion, see Khurtsilava, Besik. Yartĕmian, Tachat (Dajad Yardemian). «‘Անապատ’ և ‘վանք’ եզրերու բովանդակային-իմաստային նշանակութիւնը հայ վանական մտածողութեան մէջ» / ‘ “Anapat” ew “vank‘ ” ezreru bovandakayin-­ imastayin nshanakut‘iwnĕ hay vanakan mtatsoghut‘ean mēj’ (The Contextual and Inherent Meaning of the Terms ‘Anapat’ and ‘Vank‘’ in Armenian Monastic Thought). Bazmavēp 156 (1998), 32–59. Yartĕmian, Tachat (Dajad Yardemian). «Վարդապետ»ը հայ եկեղեցական մտածողութեան մէջ / ‘Vardapet’ĕ hay ekeghets‘akan mtatsoghut‘ean mēj (The ‘Vardapet’ in Armenian Ecclesiastical Thought). Venice: S. Ghazar, 2001. Yuzbashyan, Karen N. ‘Le destin de l’alphabet de Daniēl en Arménie.’ REArm 25 (1994–5), 171–82. Zarbhanalian, Garegin. Մատենադարան հայկական թարգմանութեանց նախնեաց, դար Դ–ԺԳ / Matenadaran haykakan tʻargmanutʻeants‘ nakhneatsʻ: dar D–ZhG (Library of Early Armenian Translations: IV–XIII Cent.). Venice: Mkhitʻarean tparan, 1889. Zeitounian, Andranik. ‘Les divergences des manuscrits grecs et arméniens du “Livre de la Genèse”. ’ Pages 233–43 in Armenia and the Bible: Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg, July 16–19, 1990. Edited by Christoph Burchard. UPATS 12. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Ziolkowsky, John  E.  Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at Athens. Salem, NH: Ayer Company, 1985.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Indices

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

I. Index of Proper Names Primary references are to chapter and section divisions of the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ edition of the text (2003), followed by parenthesized page and line numbers of Abeghyan’s edition (1941). Names found in biblical quotations and allusions are followed by the abbreviation (bib.); others are followed by epigrammatic identifications. Abraham (bib.): 2.15 (28.13) Achaeans (bib.): 2.31 (32.19) Acts of the Apostles (bib.): 2.26, 37 (32.2; 34.7) Aghuank‘, see Albania(ns) (Caucasian) Akakios, Bishop of Amid: 7.2 (46.13) Akakios, Bishop of Melitene: 17/16.5 (66.2) Akumit, title bestowed on Mashtots‘: 17/16.4 (64.27) Albania (Caucasian): 18/17.1, 5, 6 (70.13, 28; 72.2); 22/21.1 (78.13) Albanian (Caucasian) language: 17/16.22 (68.26) Albanian(s) (Caucasian): 17/16.22 (68.24); 18/17.1 (70.15) Amatuni, see Vahan Amatuni Amid, city of: 7.1 (46.12) Ananias, Bishop of Siwnik‘: 15/14.4 (60.27) Anatolios, Commander in Chief of Byzantine Armenia: 17/16.4 (64.24) Aram, upper Mesopotamia: 7.1 (46.11) Aṙawan, Chancellor of Greater Armenia: 3.2 (36.11) Ardziwgh, King of Georgia: 19/18.5 (70.25) Arkadios, Byzantine Emperor: 17/16.4 (64.26) Armenia: 1.1 (22.8); 3.2 (36.11); 6.5, 9 (42.13; 44.7); 7.1 (46.10); 9.3 (50.20); 11.8 (56.10); 12.3 (58.6); 16/15.11 (64.9); 17/16.1 (64.14); 20/19.5, 6 (74.25; 76.4); 22/21.1

(78.13); 24/23.1 (86.9); 28/27.2 (96.12) Armenia, Greater: 3.2 (36.8); 6.1 (42.3); 9.3 (50.22); 17/16.24 (70.7); 19/18.7 (74.5); 27/26.4 (92.16) Armenian language: 6.6 (46.2); 8.3 (48.9); 11.8 (56.14–15); 20/19.3, 7 (74.19; 76.7) Armenian(s): 6.4 (42.10, 13); 12.5 (58.13); 17/16.2, 9, 14, 16, 24 (64.17; 66.17; 68.6, 9; 70.8); 27/26.1 (92.4) Arshakuni Dynasty: 3.2 (36.9) Arsvagh, King of Aghuank‘: 18/17.2 (70.16) Artashēs, King of Armenia: 17/16.24 (70.8) Ashkenaz (bib.): 1.1 (22.8) Ashushay, Prince of Tashirk‘: 19/18.6 (74.1) Ashtishat, village in Tarōn: 25/24.4 (88.15) Attikos, Patriarch of Constantinople: 17/16.7 (66.10) Ayrarat, district of: 9.3 (50.20); 12.3 (58.7); 20/19.3 (74.17) 27/26.2 (92.4) Babilas, Bishop of Edessa: 7.2 (46.13) Babylon (bib.): 2.10 (26.20) Baghas, region of Caucasian Albania: 18/17.7 (72.7) Bagrawand, district of: 25/24.1 (86.21) Bahram V (Vṙam), King of Persia: 25/24 (86.21); 30/29.1, 2 (98.19, 20; 100.3)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

246

I. Index of Proper Names

Bakur, King of Georgia: 16/15.4 (62.15) Benjamin, Caucasian-Albanian presbyter: 17/16.22 (68.25) Blrots‘k‘, village in Bagrawand: 25/24.1 (86.22) Borborites, Gnostic sect: 17/16.9 (66.17) Byzantium: 17/16.2 (64.18); 24/23.1 (86.10) Canaanite woman (bib.): 2.22 (30.14) Catholic Epistles (bib.): 2.26 (32.3) Christ: 2 (30.12, 17, 22; 34.1, 3, 6, 16); 4 (38.5); 5 (40.6, 10); 6 (42.6); 7 (46.15); 11 (56.5, 13); 12 (58.12); 13 (60.12, 14); 16/15 (62.10; 64.11); 17/16 (68.27); 18/17 (70.18; 72.4); 22/21 (78.18; 80.3, 6); 23/22 (80.17, 18; 82.5, 12; 84.20); 25/24 (88.3, 17); 27/26 (92.5,8; 94.3, 16, 18); 28/27 (96.10, 15); 30/29 (100.5); see also Jesus Constantinople: 17/16.6 (66.8); 20/19.5 (74.28) Danan, disciple: 17/16.23 (70.4) Daniel, Syrian bishop: 6.6–9 (42.16; 44.1, 4–6) Daniel (bib.): 2.10, 12, 13 (26.20; 28.4,6) David (bib.): 2.9 (26.18); 11.4 (56.2); 12.4 (58.10) Derjan, district of: 17/16.6 (66.5) Dustr, wife of Vardan Mamikonean: 25/24.3 (88.11) Edessa, city of: 7.1 (46.11); 20/19.3 (74.16) Egypt (bib.): 2.10 (26.19) Ekegheats‘, district of: 8.6 (50.3) Enoch, disciple: 17/16.23 (70.3) Ephesus, Council of: 20/19.6 (76.3) Eznik, disciple: 20/19.3, 5, 8 (74.17, 27; 76.9) Galilee (bib.): 2.13 (28.7) Gardman, district of: 19/18.1–2 (72.18, 19)

Georgia: 16/15.3, 7, 11 (62.14, 22; 64.7); 18/17.9 (72.16); 19/18.5 (72.25); 22/21.1 (78.13) Georgian language: 16/15.2, 7 (62.11, 20) Ghewondēos, disciple: 17/16.5 (66.3) Ghewondēs, disciple: 20/19.5 (74.26) Gint‘, Bishop of Derjan: 17/16.6 (66.5) Giwt, Prince of Goght‘n: 13.5 (60.14) Goght‘n, district of: 5.1–2 (40.2–3); 13.3 (60.9) Greek: 7.3 (46.19); 20/19.7 (76.7); see also Hellenic Greeks: 17/16.3 (64.20); 20/19.4–5 (74.22, 25) Habēl, mediator with Bishop Daniel: 6.8–9, 11 (44.3, 5, 9) Hats‘ekats‘, village in Tarōn: 3.1 (36.7) Hayk‘, see Armenia, Armenians Hebrews (bib.): 2.6 (26.3) Hellenic: 3.2 (36.8); 8.6 (48.15); 20/19.4 (74.23); see also Greek Hmayak Mamikonean, nobleman of the house: 27/26.7 (92.16; 94.4) Hoṙomk‘, see Byzantium Hovhan, see Yovhan Hovsep‘, see Yovsep‘ Hṙop‘anos, see Ṙ hop‘anos Israel (bib.): 2.20 (30.10) Jaghay, Georgian translator: 16/15.7 (62.20) James (bib.): 2.38 (34.8) Jeremiah, Bishop of Caucasian Albania: 18/17.2, 5 (70.15, 17) Jeremiah, disciple of Sahak: 25/24.3 (88.9) Jesus: 2.36 (34.6); 22.21.1, 3 (78.17; 80.6); 23/22.11, 17 (82.20; 84.12); 25/24.1 (88.5); see also Christ Jethro (bib.): 2.17 (28.21) Job (bib.): 2.16, 38 (28.16; 34.11) Jonathan, priest in the royal court of the Caucasian Albanians: 18/17.8 (72.11) Joseph (bib.): 2.10 (26.19)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

I. Index of Proper Names Karapet (John the Baptist or the Forerunner) (bib.): 2.19 (30.8) Kerman (Bahram IV) King of Persia: 30/29.1, 2 (98.18; 100.2) Khordzean, district of: 13.2 (60.5) Khurs, Prince of Gardman: 19/18.2 (72.19) Koghb, village in Ayrarat: 20/19.3 (74.18) Koriwn, disciple: 20/19.5 (74.26) Luke (bib.)  2.26 (32.3; 34.6) Macedonia (bib.): 2.31 (32.20) Mamikonean(s): 12.8 (58.19); 27/26.4 (92.16) Mark‘, see Medes Masht‘ots‘: 3.1 (36.6); 6.11 (44.9); 13.1 (60.2); 21/20.1 (78.3); 24/23.2 (86.13); 26/25.1 (90.2); 27/26.9 (94.18) Medes (Mark‘): 5.4 (40.13); 14/10.1 (52.10) Mehekan, month of: 27/26.1 (92.6) Melitene, city of: 17/16.5 (64.1) Moses (bib.): 2.3, 17 (24.15; 28.18); 9.4, 7 (52.1, 14); 11.1, 8 (54.21; 56.11) Moses, Georgian bishop: 16/15.4 (62.15) Mother of the Lord (Mary) (bib.): 2.13 (28.7) Mushē, disciple: 13.2 (60.6) Mushegh, Bishop of Baghas: 18/17.7 (72.8) Nathanael (bib.): 2.20 (30.9) Nawasard, month of: 24/23.1 (86.22) Nicaea, Council of: 20/19.6 (76.3) Nimrod (bib.): 2.9 (26.17) Nor K‘aghak‘, the Arsacid capital Vagharshapat: 9.9 (50.21); 17/16.24 (70.7); 27/26.1 (92,4) Olives, Mount of (bib.): 22.13 (84.2) Ōshakan, village in Aragatsotn: 27/26.7 (94.8) Paghanakan house: 8.6 (50.4) Pakida(s), Bishop of Edessa, see Babilas

247

Pascha (bib.): 17/16.9 (66.14) Paul (bib.): 2.6, 23, 27, 39 (26.3; 30.17; 32.5; 34.16); 11.8 (56.12); 23/22.16 (84.10) Persia: 25/24.1 (86.21); 30/29.1 (98.18) Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, see Babilas Ṙ ah River: 9.10 (52.4) Rahab (bib.): 2.6 (26.7) Ṙ hop‘anos, Greek scribe: 8.6 (48.16) Ṙ otastak, territory in Goght‘n: 13.3 (60.9) Sahak, Catholicos of Armenia: 6.1, 11 (42.4; 44.9); 7.1 (46.8); 12.8 (58.19); 16/15.11 (64.9); 17/16.24 (70.8); 19/18.7 (74.6); 20/19.2, 7 (74.13; 76.6); 24/23.2 (86.13); 25/24.1 (86.19); 27/26.1 (92.3) Samosata, city of: 7.3 (46.19); 8.5 (48.13) Samson (bib.): 2.9 (26.17) Samuel, Georgian bishop: 16/15.10 (64.5); 19/18.7 (74.4) Shabat‘, Prince of Goght‘n: 5.2 (40.5); 13.4, 5 (60.11, 14) Sinai (bib.): 9.4 (52.1) Siwnik‘, region of Greater Armenia: 15/14.1–6 (60.18, 20, 22, 26, 28; 62.2) Sodom (bib.): 2.15 (28.15) Solomon, Proverbs of (bib.): 8.7 (50.5) Stephen (bib.): 25/24.1 (88.4) Syrian(s): 9.6 (50.13) Syriac: 7.1, 3 (46.11, 18); 20/19.3 (74.18) Tabor, Mount: (bib.)  23/22.12 (82.22) T‘adik, disciple: 27/26.3, 10 (92.13; 96.1) Tarōn, district of: 3.1 (36.6); 13.2 (60.6); 25/24.4 (88.14) Tashirk‘, district of: 19/18.6 (72.29) Testaments (bib.): 20/19.6 (76.4) Theodoros (Theodore of Mopsuestia): 24/23.1 (86.11) Theodosios II, Byzantine Emperor: 17/16.4 (64.25)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

248

I. Index of Proper Names

Tiberias, Sea of (bib.): 23/22.12 (82.24) Timothy (bib.): 26/25.1 (90.5) Tirayr, disciple: 13.2 (60.5) Tizbon, the Sasanian capital Ctesiphon: 28/27.2 (96.10) Truth (Jesus): 23/22.19 (84.17) Twelve Apostles (bib.): 2.19 (30.7) Vaghenak, Prince of Siwnik‘: 15/14.2 (60.20) Vahan Amatuni, Chancellor of Greater Armenia: 27/26.4, 7–8 (92.15; 94.4, 11); 28/27.3 (96.13) Vahrich‘, emissary of King Vṙamshapuh: 6.8 (44.2) Vardan, father of Mashtots‘: 3 (36.7) Vardan Mamikonean, Commander in Chief and later martyr: 12.8 (58.20, 21); 25/24.3 (88.11) Vardkan, see Vardan Mamikonean

Vasak Sisakan, Prince of Siwnik‘: 15/14.6 (62.2) Vṙam, see Bahram Vṙamshapuh, King of Armenia: 6.5 (42.13); 7.1 (46.10); 9.3 (50.22) Yazdgird I, King of Persia: 30/29.1–2 (98.19; 100.3) Yazdgird II, King of Persia: 25/24.1 (86.20); 30/29.1–2 (98.20; 100.2) Yovhan of Ekegheats‘, disciple: 8.6 (50.3) Yovhan the Confessor (Khostovanogh), disciple: 28/27.1–2 (96.7) Yovsep‘ (of Hoghots‘mants‘), disciple and patriarchal locum tenens: 1.1 (22.15); 27/26.3 (92.13); 28/27.1 (96.8) Yovsep‘ of Paghan, disciple: 8.6 (50.4); 20/19.3 (74.16)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

II. Index of Biblical Citations Biblical references are limited to those quoted in the Life. They are followed by parenthesized chapter and section numbers of the Matenagirk‘ Hayots‘ 2003 edition of the text, followed by bracketed page and line numbers of Abeghyan’s 1941 edition. Psalms 1:2  (20/19.10 [76.16–17]) 31:5  (30:6 LXX) (25/24.1 [88.4]) 45:10  (44:11 LXX) (16/15.8 [62.27–28]) 87:6  (86:6 LXX) (11.5 [56.4]) 102:18  (101:19 LXX) (11.4 [56.3–4]) 131:4  (26/25.3 [90.15–16]) Proverbs 1:2  (8.7 [50.6–7]) Job 1:8; 2:3  (2.16 [28.17–18]) Isaiah 8:1  (11.2 [54.24–56.1]) 30:8  (11.3 [56.1–2]) 30:15  (8.1 [48.4–5]) 30:25  (12.4 [58.10]) Ezekiel 28:3  (2.12 [28.3–5]) Daniel 9:23; 10:19  (2.13 [28.6]) Habakkuk 2:2  (11.3 [56.1–2]) Zechariah 13:1  (12.4 [58.10]) Matthew 8:10  (2.20 [30.10]) 15:28  (2.21 [30.15])

24:14  (11.6 [56.6–7]) 26:13  (2.21 [30.13–14]) 26:41  (23/22.14 [84.5–6]) 28:19  (11.6 [56.6]) Luke 1:26–28, 42  (2.13 [28.7–8]) John 1:47  (2.20 [30.9]) Acts 1:1  (23/22.11, 17 [82.19–20; 84.12–13]) 7:58  (25/24.1 [88.5]) 9:15  (2.23 [30.18]) Romans 8:26  (23/22.16 [84.10–11]) 8:27  (223/22.18 [84.14]) 8:33  (2.25 [30.24–25]) 9:2–3  (5.5 [40.17–18]) 1 Corinthians 14:1  (2.30 [32.18–19]) 2 Corinthians 2:14  (2 [30.21–23]) 12:9  (23/22.3 [80.17–19]) 12:10  (23/22.3 [80.16–17]) Galatians 4:18  (2.32 [32.22]) Ephesians 4:13  (2.39 [34.16–17])

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

250

II. Index of Biblical Citations

Philippians 2:5  (2.40 [34.5–6]) 1 Timothy 4:13–16  (20/19.10 [76.18–21])

Hebrews 12:2  (2.34 [34.2–3]) 13:7  (2.35 [34.3–5]) James 5:10–11  (2.38 [34.8–11])

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/09/22, SPi

Armenia and neighbouring lands in c. 387