MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN*

As a complex art form requiring the application of a number of spe- cialized skills for its creation and the legacy of a literary culture which gave it birth and sustained its existence into modem times, avidly in- scribing upon it the major and minor incidents of its passage, the - script affords a much wider range of insights into political, religious, economic, demographic and other aspects of society than most cultural artifacts. With the aid of codicology we can peal back the successive layers of written records to trace the book's peregrinations along the thoroughfares of war, commercial transactions, and pious donations back to its constitutive elements of wood, leather, hide, paper, silver, pigments, and the material culture of its place of origin. Although Hamsen represents a rather isolated enclave inland from the Trapezuntine coast and surrounded by thickly forested mountain chains, which allowed it to preserve its distinctive identity for so long, a perusal of manuscript catalogues reveals the wide dispersion its codices have achieved1. They form part of the four great collections of the Mastoc‘ Matenadaran in Erevan2, the Mkhitarist libraries of Venice and Vienna3,

* I wish to thank Hovann Simonian for his bibliographic assistance in completing this study. 1 For further details, see T‘.X. HAKOBYAN et al., Hayastani ev harakic‘ srjanneri te¥anunneri bararan [Dictionary of Toponyms of and Adjacent Regions], vol. 3, Erevan, 1991, p. 327-328 (= HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘). For the region's precise borders according to Ottoman defters, see R.W. EDWARDS, Hamsen: An Armenian En- clave in the Byzanto-Georgian Pontos. A Survey of Literary and Non-literary Sources, in Le Muséon, 101 (1988), p. 414 (= EDWARDS, Hamsen). For its location, see R.H. HEWSEN, Armenia: A Historical Atlas, Chicago, 2001, p. 211, map 201, and the overview on p. 212 (= HEWSEN, Armenia: A Historical Atlas). 2 O. EGANYAN et al., C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘ Mastoc‘i anvan Matenadarani [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Mastoc‘ Matenadaran], 2 vols., Erevan, 1965, 1970 (= EGANYAN, C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘). 3 For Venice, see B. SARGISEAN et al., Mayr c‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Matenadara- nin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Venetik [Grand Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mkhitarists in Venice], vol. 3, Venice, 1966 (= SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak) and S. C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Matenadaranin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Venetik [Grand Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mkhitarists in Ven- ice], vol. 4, Venice, 1993 (= C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak). Since the Venice catalogue is not yet complete, the potential exists for other manuscripts to come to light, as also in other public and private collections, which still await cataloguing. For Vienna, see Y. TASEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Matenadaranin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Vienna [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mkhitarists in Vienna], vol. 1, Vienna, 1895 (= TASEAN, C‘uc‘ak ) and A. SEK‘ULEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Matenadaranin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Vienna [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mkhitarists in Vienna], vol. 3, Vienna, 1983 (= SEK‘ULEAN, C‘uc‘ak). 152 S.P. COWE and the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem4, as well as the smaller, but still significant, holdings of the British Library5. One of them has found its way to the Free Library of Philadelphia6, another to the Oriental Insti- tute of St. Petersburg7, a third was catalogued in a private collection in Paris in 19478. The current whereabouts of a further codex cannot be ascertained: it was catalogued in St. Sargis (Sergius) Church of the village of Ge¥a- xor near Erzurum in 19129. The process by which these manuscripts reached their present destinations will be discussed toward the end of the study. The precise topical data manuscript colophons or memorials adduce act as a crucial supplement to the broader coverage of general histo- ries10. Their witness becomes all the more vital in the case of Hamsen since the district never became the subject of a more elaborate historical treatment devoted either to its noble families or regional significance11.

4 N. PO™AREAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘ Srboc‘ Yakobeanc‘ [Grand Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Saint James], vol. 5, Jerusalem, 1971, p. 417-418 (= PO™AREAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘). 5 F.C. CONYBEARE, A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1913 (= CONYBEARE, Catalogue). 6 A.K. SANJIAN, A Catalogue of Medieval Armenian Manuscripts in the United States, Berkeley, 1976, p. 677-684 (= SANJIAN, Catalogue). 7 I wish to express my thanks to Prof. Karen Yuzbasyan and Hovann H. Simonian for access to a pre-publication text of the colophon of St. Petersburg Oriental Institute Arme- nian manuscript A 72. 8 A. SIWRMEEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Ewropayi masnawor hawak‘um- neru [Grand Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of Europe in Private Collections], Paris, 1950, p. 54-69. 9 Y. K‘OSEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Arcnean Varzarani ew Karnoy giw¥eru [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Arcnean College and the Villages of (Erzurum)], Vienna, 1964, p. 66-67 (= K‘OSEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘). 10 For a study of the historical significance of such data, see A.K. SANJIAN, Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts 1301-1480, Cambridge MA, 1969. 11 With this situation we might contrast the coverage of Araruni clan history in provided by T‘ovma Arcruni and his continuators and that of the province of Siwnik‘ and its later princely house of the Orbelians composed by its learned scion Arch- bishop Step'anos Orbelian. For further details, see R.W. THOMSON, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Turnhout, 1995, p. 200-201, 204-205 (= THOMSON, Bibliography). Of the references to events in Hamsen by Armenian chroni- clers, one might cite the following entry by an anonymous eighteenth century compiler with regard to the year 1461: In this year Sahali seized the youth Vek‘e, son of Paron Vard, Lord of Hamsen, and handed him to Sofi, whom they called sheikh. And in the same year Sultan Muhammad took Trebizond with his hands by sea and land in the month of August. See N. PO™AREAN, Zamanakagrut‘yun (XI-XVIII dd.) [Chronicle (11th-18th Cents.)], in Banber Matenadarani, 9 (1969), p. 269 (= PO™AREAN, Zamanakagrut‘yun (XI-XVIII dd.)). See H. OSKEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Matenadaranin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Vienna [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mkhitarists in Vienna], vol. 2, Vienna, 1963, p. 670-672. Additional information on Hamsen is con- tained of folios 143v-144r of a geographical manuscript of 1831, on which see SEK‘ULEAN, C‘uc‘ak, p. 283. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 153

Consequently, we owe much of our knowledge of the area's civil and ec- clesiastical administration to the details gleaned from these primary sources12. Unfortunately, the information they now offer does not assist us in reconsructing the origins of the Amatuni principality in the final quarter of the eighth century13. An early Mastoc‘ (ritual book) of the ninth or tenth century that later belonged to a Hamsenc‘i, subject to the wear and tear of continued use, to which the beginning and end of the book are naturally more liable, is now incomplete, lacking the main colophon, and hence of little historical significance, though extremely important in researching the development of the Armenian sacraments and various sacramentary rites14. Chronologically the second manuscript pertaining to Hamsen to be preserved is a Gospel of 1240, which was copied in Rome by the scribe Vanakan at the request of the priest Step'annos Hamsinec‘i15. The infor- mation the colophon discloses concerning the latter is quite fascinating: it suggests that he was a member of an Armenian monastic brotherhood of the ‘voluntary poor' there with a hospice and Church of the Mother of God under the direction of Sargis. This evidence predates the main in- flux of Armenian monks to Italy by some thirty years16. It is uncertain whether the book ever reached Asia Minor. On the contrary, its utility lies more in its vignette of the distant connections Hamsenc‘is main- tained at this time. After a hiatus in the fourteenth century17, manuscript production is at- tested directly in the Hamsen region over the next three centuries with

12 EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 408-414. 13 For details, see HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, p. 327; EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 404; L. PETROSYAN, art. Hamsenc‘iner [Hamsenc‘ is], in Haykakan sovetakan hanragi- taran [Armenian Soviet Encyclopaedia], vol. 6, Erevan, 1980, p. 119 (= PETROSYAN, art. Hamsenc‘iner). 14 For a full description, see SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, coll. 1- 48. 15 A.S. MAT‘EVOSYAN (ed.), Hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner zhg dar [Armenian Manuscript Colophons: 13th Century], Erevan, 1984, p. 218-219. 16 For details of the early Armenian community in Italy, see L.B. ZEKIYAN, Le colonie armene del Medioevo in Italia e le relazioni culturali italo-armene (Materiale per la Storia degli armeni in Italia, in Atti del Primo Simposio internazionale di Arte Armena, Venice, 1978, p. 803 sq. For papal relations with the community, see S.P. COWE, The Role of Correspondence in Elucidating the Intensification of Latin-Armenian Ecclesiastical In- terchange in the First Quarter of the Fourteenth Century, in Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 13 (2004), p. 53, n. 13 (= COWE, The Role of Correspondence) and J. RICHARD, La Papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen-Âge (XIIIe- XVe siècles), Rome, 1977, p. 197. 17 The fourteenth century is also little attested in the regions surrounding Hamsen. See, for example, the single Gospel copied in two stages by scribes first in the village of Vardasen of Tayk‘ and then completed in the village of Kan near Bayburt (Baberd) in 1341. For the villages in question, see HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 4, 1998, p. 786, vol. 2, 1988, p. 933. 154 S.P. COWE five, thirteen, and one documents respectively being fashioned, most dated precisely by colophon, others more loosely by script, suggesting the richer level of resources locally available at that time18. The details correlate well with evidence drawn from other sources, which indicate a concerted Ottoman effort throughout the eighteenth century to convert the Armenian population of the area to Islam19. This in turn provoked a widespread relocation out of the region on the part of those unprepared to acquiesce. After a further hiatus, we note one final work from Hamsen in the nineteenth century (post 1812), which brings the record to a close20. As in the case of other East Christian communions, Armenian scribal copying and manuscript production was primarily a religious duty asso- ciated with the institutions of the church and monastery. Turning more specifically to the question of provenance of the codices presently under review, it is predictable that a high percentage derives from various monasteries of the region. Additionally, it is striking that whereas most of the manuscripts from the areas of Tayk‘ and T‘ort‘um hail from the fourteenth, fifteenth, and seventeenth centuries21, those of Hamsen are especially clustered in the sixteenth, overwhelmingly copied by the pro- lific scribe Karapet in the scriptorium of the Monastery of St. Xac‘ik the Father (Surb Xac‘ik Hor Anapat)22.

18 For a recent study of the development of the Armenian script, see M.E. STONE et al., Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus, 2002. 19 EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 420 and the literature adduced in n. 66. 20 For brief details regarding the final exemplar, see EGANYAN, C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘, vol. 2, col. 501. 21 Apart from the fourteenth century Gospel discussed above (n. 17), the Tayk‘ exam- ples include two nineteenth century works, one from the village of Az¥ur (HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 1, 1986, p. 48). A further series of three manuscripts from the T‘ort‘um region derive from the village of Vemagiw¥ (Id., vol. 4, 1998, p. 802), ranging from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, while the provenance of the final two (both from the fifteenth century) is Ag¢rki Monastery (Id., vol.1, 1986, p. 48). One fif- teenth-century manuscript is recorded from Bert‘ ak Anapat near Bayburt. Of those in the region of Trebizond, one fifteenth century exemplar was copied in St. Vardan's Monas- tery in the neighborhood of Sürmene (Id., vol. 4, 1998, p. 778), while another deriving from the All-Savior Monastery in the seventeenth century later came into the possession of the priest Yakob Hamsenc‘i (SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 470). In contrast, of the three manuscripts under consideration from Erzurum, two were produced in the sixteenth century, one from the village of T‘¢wanc‘ and the other from the village of Vaslvan near Kutrasen on the River C‘orox (on these, see respectively HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 1, 1986, p. 485, and vol. 3, 1991, p. 284). 22 HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 2, 1988, p. 669. The output of the scribe Ter Karapet at the main center of the Monastery of St. Xac‘ik, but also in neighboring Kutrasen (e.g. the copy of the Pauline Epistles from 1508), is the most prolific of all the Hamsen copyists we know about. His son Yovhannes Malaz or Mal¥i followed in his fa- ther’s footsteps as a scribe and is responsible for copying the Gospelbook of 1523 now part of the Venice Mkhitarist collection. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 155

Of those manuscripts connected with Hamsen two cannot be more precisely defined. In one instance the cause is the sixteenth century work’s generally bad state of preservation. Since a leaf has fallen out the final colophon is mutilated, leaving only the tantalizing information that the unnamed patron who commis- sioned it was an “excellent orator from Hamsen” (k‘aj hretom Ham- senc‘i)23. In the second case, the colophon does not supply sufficient data on provenance. From two fifteenth century manuscripts we learn of the monasteries of Xuzkavank‘ and K‘ostenc‘ in the region24. One fur- ther codex of the fifteenth century was copied in the village of E¥novit25. However, as stated above, the highest density of manuscripts, eleven in all, emerges from the Monastery of St. Xac‘ik the Father near that vil- lage in the sixteenth century. Their colophons adduce information re- garding its dedications, including three churches to the Holy Mother of God, Holy Sion, and the Holy Vardanank‘, its relics of St. Xac‘ik and the Vardanank‘ which, in the words of one scribe, are placed there “for the protection of our district of Hamsen”, a formula further elaborated by another copyist to read “as the boast and protection…”26. Another scribe seeks to rival this by summing up the monastery's virtues in the epithet “heavenlike” (erknahanget)27. In view of what was said concerning the mainly religious nature of Armenian manuscripts, the profile of those preserved from Hamsen is very typical. Most of them must have been designed to meet the regular needs of the local church. Scriptural readings are provided by two Gospelbooks and two Psalters. Similarly, the arrangement of the various saints’ days and other feasts and the hymns appropriate for each com- memoration are contained in a series of four Hymnals (saraknoc‘). The daily of services of the divine liturgy and liturgical hours is like- wise included in a manuscript of the Missal (xorhrdatetr) and Breviary (zamagirk‘), while the largest number of manuscripts, five in all, are de-

23 TASEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren, p. 402. 24 See respectively HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 2, 1988, p. 817 and vol. 5, 2001, p. 432. 25 HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 2, 1988, p. 191. This village remained one of the last strongholds of the Christian population in the district (see EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 421). 26 See respectively C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 152 and SANJIAN, Catalogue, p. 684. The reference is to Vardan Mamikonean and the Armenian troops who were mar- tyred on the field of battle at Avarayr in 451 in defense of their Christian faith against an offensive by the Iranian shah Yazdgerd II to reintroduce as the state reli- gion of Armenia. For the shrine, see H. OSKEAN, Barjr ‘i vank‘er¢ [The Monasteries of Barjr Hayk‘], Vienna, 1951, p. 184 (= OSKEAN, Barjr Hayk‘i vank‘er¢). 27 C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 152. 156 S.P. COWE voted to the other sacraments of the church in the compilation of the Ritual (mastoc‘) already encountered28. Apart from these codices directly related to the cult, four other manuscript types may be noted, though only represented by a very few examples. The first of these involves religious poetry, particularly that focusing on spirituality, and is exemplified by a copy of the Book of La- mentations (matean o¥bergut‘ean) by the illustrious tenth century monas- tic poet Grigor Narekats‘i and one of the Yisus Ordi (Jesus the Son) of the twelfth century catholicos Nerses Snorhali, which in turn was heav- ily influenced by the earlier work29. The second type treats the topic of more technical theological discourse of the sort that was taught at the medieval monastic academies and is exemplified by four excellent codices. The first forms a copy of the famous sermonary by Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (1340-1411), the value of which is heightened by the fact that, though partial, it was penned within about a generation of the book’s composition30. The scribe’s fascination with its contents is clear from his poetic flights in its praise, stating that “though its looks are not comely, yet its words are more estimable and lovely than precious stones.”31 Similarly, the second manuscript of the sixteenth century con- tains Tat‘ewac‘i’s Oskep'orik, a detailed treatment of the basic issues of Trinitarian theology, Christology and the incarnation with an elaborate dossier of patristic testimonies in support of the traditional Armenian anti-Chalcedonian understanding of the dogma, and a response to vari- ous Muslim queries regarding Christian doctrine32. The third manuscript,

28 Of these, two are linked with Hamsen through a later owner. See SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, cols. 4, 470. 29 For publication details see THOMSON, Bibliography, p. 128-133, 178-184. The Yisus Ordi manuscript type derives its name from the opening words of the epic poem with which it commences, but actually contains all of Snorhali’s poetic oeuvre. See SANJIAN, Catalogue, p. 678-682. The manuscript of the Book of Lamentation also contains a series of homilies. 30 On the author and his publications, see THOMSON, Bibliography, p. 134-135. 31 PO™AREAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘, p. 718. 32 Additionally the codex adduces a treatise on the same topics by the thirteenth cen- tury Cilician author Vahram Rabuni, on whom see THOMSON, Bibliography, p. 209. With this manuscript one might compare a late copy of 1840 from the neighboring region of Tayk‘, which is also significant for its witness to an important collection of three pivotal treatises compiled by the renowned thirteenth century Armenian scholar Yovhannes Erznkac‘i, whose colophon it also adduces (ibid., p. 221-222). It begins with the extensive refutation of the Chalcedonians by the tenth century author Anania Narekac‘i, on whom, see the groundbreaking monograph H.H. T‘AMRAZYAN, Anania Narekac‘i. Kyank‘¢ ev matenagrut‘yun [Anania Narekac‘i. His Life and Works], Erevan, 1981. As that scholar indicates, Narekac‘i’s refutation does not exist in its original form, but in a number of recensions, of which one has recently been published. See H. K‘YOSEYAN, Anania Sanahnec‘i, Ejmiacin, 2000. The collection then turns to the characteristically Armenian doctrine of the incorruptibility of Christ's flesh as delineated by the subtle eighth century MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 157 dating from 1500, is a theological miscellany containing a variety of ser- mons of different topics by Armenian and patristic authorities as well as Yovhannes Erznkac‘i’s popular canonical compilation from the second half of the thirteenth century33. The third type relates to the more popular interface between faith and superstition, focusing on apotropaic practices, prayers against the evil eye, and various kinds of healing. Two of the three manuscripts in this category date from the turn of the sixteenth century and as such are roughly contemporary with the first Armenian printed examples of such texts from the press of Yakob Me¥apart in Venice34. In keeping with the nature of these works, the scribes and patrons of the manuscripts ema- nate from the lower ranks of the clergy. Thus, one of the three codices combines a Kiprianosgirk‘ (Book of Cyprian) with an Urbat'agirk‘ (lit. Friday book). The central figure in the former is portrayed as a pagan magician, who sets about the seduction of a Christian virgin Yustiane, but is overcome in the attempt by the power of her faith and thereby moved to convert to her . As such, he then intercedes for those beset by demons and heretics through set prayer formulae35. The latter is similar in tabulating a series of prayers for different ailments such as snakebite, wounds, eye disease, fever, as well as complications in child- birth. As usual, the place for inserting the owner’s name in the prayers was originally left blank and filled in by a later hand. The second, a hmayil or prayer roll of 1499, is rather early of its kind, the form becom- ing widespread in the seventeenth century in both its written and printed theologian Xosrovik T‘argmanic‘. For a publication of his treatises on the basis of Erznkac‘i’s compilation, see G. YOVSEP‘EAN, Xosrovik T‘argmanic‘ ew erkasirut‘iwnk‘ norin [Xosrovik T‘argmanic‘ and his Works], Ejmiacin, 1899, and, for a recent study of the Armenian doctrine of incorruptibility, see S.P. COWE, Armenian Christology in the 7th-8th Centuries with Particular Attention to the Contributions of Catholicos Yovhan Ojnec‘i and Xosrovik T‘argmanic‘, in Journal of Theological Studies, 55 (2004), p. 30- 54. The collection then culminates in the thoroughgoing application of the doctrine of in- corruptibility to a number of theological issues by the early twelfth century scholar Yovhannes Sarkawag. For an introduction to this important text, see M. ARAMEAN, Yovhannes Sarkawag‘s “Concerning the Symbol of Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen [Fathers] at the Council of Nicaea”, in St. Nerses Theological Review, 4 (1999), p. 1-32. In a later publication, Tasean raises the possibility that the manuscript under discussion was copied not in Hamsen, but in one of the monasteries on Mt. Sepuh, near Erzincan. For the abbot Yovhannes Hamsenc‘i, see Y. TASEAN, Tayk‘, drac‘ik‘ ew Xotorjur patmakan-te¥agrakan usumnasirut‘iwn [Tayk‘, its Neighbors, and Xotorjur: a Historico-Topographical Study], vol. 2, Vienna, 1930, p. 46, n.45 (= TASEAN, Tayk‘). 33 See TASEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren, p. 483-486. 34 N. OSKANYAN et al., Hay girk‘¢ 1512-1800 t‘vakannerin [The Armenian Book Be- tween 1512-1800], Erevan, 1988, p. 1-3 for the Urbat‘agirk‘ and p. 4-5 for the Altark‘ astrological manual. 35 On this, see further S.J. WINGATE, The Scroll of Cyprian: an Armenian Family Amulet, in Folk-Lore, 41 (1930), p. 169-187. 158 S.P. COWE variants. Once again it is characterized by various readings and prayers to effect healing. Although such manuscripts often include miniatures of the evangelists and military saints like St. George, St. Menas, and St. Sargis, whose assistance is sought, this copy is more modest being adorned only with small headpieces and marginalia. The third, an astro- logical manual of the nineteenth century, attests that the popularity of this sort of manuscript was such that demand could not be sated by peri- odic reprints. As we have already had occasion to note with regard to the overall contents of the Hamsen manuscripts, they tend to manifest the needs and interests of the lower clergy. Indeed, of those items where a clear ascrip- tion of ownership is possible, the majority of the patrons emerge as dea- cons, some of whom are presumably still under instruction in prepara- tion for the priesthood. This may in part be the sort of context envisaged by the scribe of a hymnal of 1674, Deacon , who penned the work for his fellow deacon Awetis and refers to the mankunk‘ eke- ¥ec‘woy (lit. ‘children of the church’) as reciting and copying it36. In agreement with this, the second most frequent recipients of manuscripts are priests, whether celibate or married. In contrast, it appears from his description as an “excellent orator” that the learned patron of the sixteenth century copy of Tat‘ewac‘i’s Oskep‘orik is the only representative of the higher ecclesiastical rank of vardapet associated with this corpus, a finding congruent with its general profile. The case of the fifteenth century vardapet Yovanes Hamsinc‘i is instructive in this regard. The son of the local prince, he traveled to the monastery of Tat‘ew in the province of Siwnik‘ to receive his higher education, thereafter becoming the director of the thriving monastery of Awag Vank‘ near Erzincan, where he commissioned a manuscript of the Neoplatonic Dionysiac corpus in 146337. Similarly, the colophon in a

36 See R. KÉVORKIAN, Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, 1996, col. 156. For the origin of this term and its variant “uxti mankunk‘” (lit. “children of the oath”) see E.M. SHIRINYAN, Reflections of the “Sons and Daughters of the Covenant”, in Armenian Sources, in Revue des études arméniennes, 28 (2001-2002), p. 261-285. Similarly, the scribe Karapet Hamsinc‘i copied a manuscript of the Pauline epistles for the express purpose of “the training and admonition of my children” (i varzumn ew xrat zawakac‘ imoc‘). 37 See L. XAC‘IKYAN (ed.), ze dari hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner masn erkrord (1451-1480 t‘t‘) [15th Century Armenian Manuscripts Colophons Part Two (1451-1480), Erevan, 1958, p. 207 (= XAC‘IKYAN, ze dari hayeren jeragreri). For an edition and Eng- lish translation of this important corpus, see R.W. THOMSON, The Armenian Version of the Works attributed to Dionysus the Areopagite (CSCO, vol. 488, 489; Scr. Arm., 17-18), Leuven, 1987, for its impact on the curriculum at Glajor, COWE, The Role of Correspond- ence, p. 62-63, n. 77, and, for its influence at Tat‘ew, S. LA PORTA, “The Theology of the Holy Dionysius”, Vol. 3 of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Book of Questions, Ph. D. diss., Harvard, 2001. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 159

Gospel manuscript from one of the monasteries on nearby Mt. Sepuh from 1445 underlines the tendency we have seen emerging of local stu- dents leaving the region to further their studies, mentioning a certain Grigor Hamsenc‘i as one of the community38. In like manner, although there are a few earlier colophonic references to bishops, only one manu- script patron appears to belong to the episcopate39. The hierarch, who coincidentally is also the first medieval bishop of Hamsen to be recorded by name, acquired a theological miscellany in 1401 originally copied in 1322 for a Paron So¥omon in an unspecified location40. At the same time, perhaps the most interesting information available relates to the lay patrons of the 1420s-30s, the local gentry. Thus, the first part of Tatewac‘i’s sermonary completed in 1422 was commis- sioned by Arak‘el, designated as paronats‘ paron (lit. baron of barons), whose son Ter Sargis is referred to as bishop of the region41. However, the scribe’s final colophon of 1425 intimates that the lay leader is now Paron Dawit‘. Similarly, Paron Vard, son of Paron P‘ok‘r and “his mod- est, well-disposed spouse Mamaxat‘un” received the lectionary we en- countered in Pontus in 143242. As an expression on his piety, the prince echoes the standard formulae on the virtue of commissioning manu- scripts to lay up for oneself treasures in heaven and possess an offspring in Sion43. Turning to consider the typical profile of the copyists, the vast major- ity appear as priests, while only four style themselves monks (abe¥ay) and one as scribe (gric‘). Once again there is little reference to vardapets. In fact, only one is mentioned as engaged in copying a manu- script in Hamsen, and he is an outsider from New Julfa (Karapet Ju¥ayec‘i)44 who, in fleeing from the obedience in which he was set by

38 L. XAC‘IKYAN (ed.), Ze dari hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner masn arajin (1401- 1450 t‘t‘) [15th Century Armenian Manuscripts Colophons Part One (1401-1450)], Erevan, 1955, p. 589. 39 A Psalter of 1630 makes note of the contemporary bishop as Ter Awetis Pontac‘i. See V. HAKOBYAN et al., Hayeren jeragreri ze dari hisatakaranner (1621-1640 t‘t‘) [Ar- menian Manuscript Colophons of the 17th Century (1621-1640)], vol. 2, Erevan, 1978, p. 396-398 (= HAKOBYAN, Hayeren jeragreri ze dari hisatakaranner). 40 XAC‘IKYAN, Ze dari hayeren jeragreri, vol. 1, 1955, p. 18-19. 41 PO™AREAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘, p. 418. It was fairly normal practice for dioc- esan boundaries to coincide with the territories of the various the princely families, who would also direct their subjects’ spiritual life through their regular occupancy of the local see. For the possibility that the Paron Arak‘el alluded in this colophon is to be identified with the one referred to in Clavijo’s travelogue, see EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 416. 42 C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 758. 43 Ibid., col. 579. 44 Although the epithet Ju¥ayec‘i can also refer to Old Julfa on the Araxes, the note on his having studied with the famous vardapet Azaria Ju¥ayec‘i suggests that his association was rather with Isfahan. Scribes frequently commemorate their spiritual fathers in colo- phons (e.g. HAKOBYAN, Hayeren jeragreri ze dari hisatakaranner, p. 396-397). It is much 160 S.P. COWE

Catholicos Movses Tat‘ewac‘i in Ejmiacin, seems to have found the per- fect out-of-the-way place to lie low for a while. There he came across an excellent copy of the Psalter penned from the exemplar of the thirteenth century theologian Yovhannes Garnec‘i, whose original colophon he in- cludes45. The latter, in turn, had produced his copy from an older manu- script corrected by the scholar Yovhannes Sarkawag according to reli- able early codices available in the monastery of Ha¥bat in the north of Armenia. As a result, he has taken care to copy all its elements exactly and counsels later copyists to follow his example46. Fundamentally, the two basic materials employed for writing were parchment and paper. Most early Armenian manuscripts preserved are produced from the former, the earliest dated paper manuscript being Matenadaran MS. 2679 of AD 98147. However, from the Cilician period onward paper manuscripts begin to dominate the market. While parch- ment was more expensive, it was generally available locally, whereas paper, though cheaper, was not produced in Armenia during the medi- eval period and therefore had to be imported48. Manuscripts for public liturgical use, such as Gospels, which tended to be more luxury items subject to intensive illumination and often supplied with silver covers sometimes further enhanced by precious stones, were more conservative and retained their association with parchment longer, whereas school texts and other materials for private use were copied on paper from early on49. As a result, it is normal for the Hamsen theological miscellanies, sermonaries, astrological and poetry volumes also to be of paper. At the rarer to refer to a spiritual mother (e.g. A.S. MAT‘EVOSYAN (ed.), Hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner zhg dar [Armenian Manuscript Colophons: 13th Century], Erevan, 1984, p. 218-219 (= MAT‘EVOSYAN, Hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner). 45 Several other Hamsen manuscripts also allude to the fine quality of the exemplar on which they rest. See, for example, CONYBEARE, Catalogue, p. 67. 46 HAKOBYAN, Hayeren jeragreri ze dari hisatakaranner, p. 397. 47 For a recent facsimile edition of this manuscript, see A. MAT'EVOSYAN (ed.), Matean gitut‘ean ew hawtoy Dawt‘i k‘ahanayi [The Book of Knowledge and Faith of the Priest Dawit'] Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1995. 48 Some of the Hamsen manuscripts have typical notes acknowledging the role of as- sistants to the scribe who smoothed the paper and sometimes helped in the copying proc- ess. See C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 760 and CONYBEARE, Catalogue, p. 165. One of the manuscripts also makes a rarer remark on assistance with preparing the parchment for writing. See C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 134. 49 On this phenomemon, see S.P. COWE, A Typology of Armenian Biblical Manu- scripts, in Revue des études arméniennes, NS 18 (1984), p. 49-67. It is not uncommon for illuminators and binders to append their own colophons to the manuscripts they worked on. For examples associated with Hamsen, see MAT‘EVOSYAN, Hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner, p. 219 and EGANYAN, C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘, vol. 1, 1965, col. 967. For in- stances of silver bindings within our corpus, see EGANYAN, C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘, vol. 2, 1970, col. 234 and 389. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 161 same time, it is striking that not only are the Gospelbooks of parchment, but also all the hymnals and the mastoc‘ manuscripts, as well as the more popular Cyprian and hmayil texts. One factor possibly influencing these statistics is the fact that animal husbandry with its offshoot of leather production is listed as one of the prime local occupations, imply- ing that parchment would have been in reasonable supply50. However, the suggestion that this was not always the case is posited by the inclu- sion in our corpus of a palimpsest manuscript of the sixteenth century (Matenadaran MS. 6018). The text of a Gospel in rounded uncial (erkat‘agir) script has been erased in order to provide writing space for the same text now written in the miniscule script (bolorgir)51. Normally, this extreme measure was resorted to during an acute shortage of other suitable writing materials. Several examples derive from the famous col- lection of the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, which is situated far from major metropolitan centers and hence had to improvise new supplies in this manner. One well-known case of a Sinai manuscript with Georgian overwriting and an Armenian under-text now resides in the University of Graz52. Another also with Georgian overwriting, but with an under-text in Caucasian Albanian and in parts Armenian, has recently been discovered and is currently under investigation53. When older manuscripts became so damaged they could no longer function in their original purpose, they were often disbound and portions of the leaves rebound as flyleaves at either side of the new text block as an additional means of protection54. A careful study of these can often

50 PETROSYAN, art. Hamsenc‘iner, p. 119. 51 With this we may compare another palimpsest from the Matenadaran collection (MS no. 8624) copied near T'ort‘um in 1663. In this case the text of the underwriting has yet to be determined. In keeping with the time range of the manuscripts included in the Hamsen corpus, the vast majority are composed in the miniscule bolorgir script. Mean- while three manuscripts of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries were produced in the smaller notary script (notrgir), while one further nineteenth century manuscript was writ- ten in the modem cursive hand (s¥agir). For details on these forms, see A. ABRAHAMYAN, Hayoc‘ gir ev grc‘ut‘yun [Armenian Script and Scribal Arts], Erevan, 1973, p. 56-79. 52 For other early Armenian palimpsest fragments, see J. ASSFALG et al., Armenische Handschriften, (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 4), Wiesbaden, 1962, p. 114-121. 53 For a historical and paleographic review, see Z. ALEXIDZE - B. BLAIR, Caucasian Albanian Alphabet, in Azerbaijan International, 11/3 (2003), p. 38-56. A full edition of the materials is currently in press and should appear next year. 54 It is precisely because an older exemplar of the Pauline epistles at the Monastery of St. Xac‘ik the Father was old and tattered that the scribe Karapet Hamsinc‘i (one of sev- eral from the region to bear that name) embarked on a new copy in 1508, which is now housed at the Oriental Institute in St. Petersburg. For further details, see S.L.A. MERIAN, The Structure of Armenian Bookbinding and its Relation to Near Eastern Bookbinding Traditions (Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Columbia University, 1993). 162 S.P. COWE uncover interesting details. In our corpus, in addition to the usual range of flyleaf texts, two manuscripts evince texts in Georgian. In view of the proximity of Georgian monasteries in the neighborhood of Artanuij and Ardahan, one can imagine such codices as entering the libraries of Ar- menian monasteries and churches and ultimately serving to prolong the life of new indigenous texts being introduced into circulation55. As part of the background details of copying scribes frequently com- memorate their family members, beseeching later readers and copyists to remember them in prayer. The data they convey can be of importance for a number of social perspectives. One such area is the Armenian onomasticon, an issue well illustrated by the following excerpt from the colophon of the Deacon Abraham: … my wife Xanzat, and my father Ter Grigor, and my mother Anapxan, and my sons Geork‘, Sargis, Yarut‘iwn, T‘omas, Aharon, Nerses, and my daughter Hrut‘, and my other sons Kiwre¥ and P‘anos and Yap‘ei who are translated to Christ, and my brothers Baghtasar, Nahapet, and Sahak, and my sisters Margis, Hrip‘sime and Mart‘ay and all my blood relatives56. As occupations tended to be transmitted lineally, we note that the dea- con has been born into a priestly family, so that his father Grigor, who himself bears the venerable name of the establisher of the Armenian Church, has selected for his children names with a biblical and religious resonance and has been followed in this by his son. At the same time, it seems that both father and son married into lay families, who encoded a more secular status in their daughters’ names (Anapxan, Xanzat). Natu- rally, the same statistics are also of value in researching matters of fam- ily size and the incidence of mortality, especially in infancy. Manuscript colophons can also be of assistance in studying local de- mographic trends. Thus a later hand in a Gospel already discussed, which was copied in the village of T‘wanj near Erzurum in 1594, indi- cates that the priest Ter Karapet Hamsenc‘i with four households came to the village of Xac‘kavank‘, also in the environs of Erzurum, in185857. It seems that this laconic note is tabulating one of the last groups of Christian refugees to leave the region58. Indeed, a section of the indig-

55 Contacts with Georgia are further exemplified by a later colophon in a lectionary previously in the possession of Movses Hamsenc‘i in Baberd to the effect that it was re- paired and rebound in 1588 by Barse¥, bishop of the Armenian merchant community of Gori. See CONYBEARE, Catalogue, p. 166. 56 M. BROSSET, Notice sur un manuscrit arménien des Epîtres de St. Paul, in Bulletin de la classe des sciences historiques, philologiques et politiques de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 16/20-22 (1859), col. 351-352. 57 For the colophon, see K‘OSEAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘, p. 67. 58 EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 421. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 163

enous Armenian population of Xac‘kavank‘ had already emigrated to Axalk‘alak‘i in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829, while after the next Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 only four Arme- nian households remained there59. Like the population, which had given them birth, the Armenian manu- scripts connected with Hamsen also dispersed in the course of time by various circuitous routes, which now can only be partly reconstructed. As one might expect of the Mkhitarist monks, they have left us more detailed accounts of their manuscripts' accession history. The ancient Mastoc‘ later in the possession of an Armenian from Hamsen was found in the home of a family near Erzurum by an itinerant preacher of the or- der in 1775. The sum of sixty p‘aras was raised by two Mkhitarist sup- porters, and the volume shipped from Trebizond to Constantinople and then on to Venice60. Similarly, a hymnal copied in the Hamsen center of St. Xac‘ik the Father in 1528, which had later journeyed to Constantino- ple, was procured by representatives of the order in 1796 in exchange for a printed Gospel, a powerful illustration of the contemporary paradigm change from the individual labor-intensive process of manuscript pro- duction to the mass-produced medium of the printed word61. The foregoing has been an attempt to evoke Hamsen’s specific profile during the preceding period when that culture was experiencing its hey- day. The manuscripts created during that era remain as an enduring monument to the region’s material culture and unique way of life. Though that world has passed, these remnants still have much to tell us about that age and the community that made them.

Chronological List of Manuscripts Copied in Hamsen

Date Type Collection Scribe Provenance 1422/ Sermonary Jerusalem, Arm. Xac‘atur K‘ostenc‘ 1425 Patr. 1617 Monastery 1440 Ritual Erevan, Mat. 7263 Astuacatur Zuzka Monastery 1499 Hmayil Erevan, Mat. 4600 Karapet E¥novit village 1500 Hymnal Venice, Mkh. 474 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor (2062) Monastery 1500 Miscellany Vienna, Mkh. 170 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Monastery 59 HAKOBYAN, Hayastani ev harakic‘, vol. 2, 1988, p. 672-673. 60 SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 4-5. There it is also remarked that the family from which the manuscript was finally purchased had such veneration for the work that they had the custom of lighting candles before it on the eve of Sunday. 61 C‘EMC‘EMEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 149. 164 S.P. COWE

1503 Psalter Erevan, Mat. 1643 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Monastery 1504 Miscellany Erevan, Mat. 933562 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Monastery 1505 Hymnal olim P‘. Petrosian Karapet Xac‘ik Hor coll63. Monastery 1513 Hymnal Vienna, Mkh. 994 Lewon C‘mil village 1517 Cyprian Book Vienna, Mkh. 431 YovhannesXac‘ik Hor Monastery 1517 Gospel Erevan, Mat. 6018 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Monastery 1523 Gospel Venice, Mkh. 114 Yovane Xac‘ik Hor (166)64 Monastery 1525 Ritual Erevan, Mat. 9873 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Monastery 1526 Ritual London, B. L. Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Or. 2612 Monastery 1528 Hymnal Venice, Mkh. 478 Karapet Xac‘ik Hor (1114) Monastery 1528 Poems of Philadelphia, Free Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Snorhali Library 123 Monastery 1528 Ritual Paris, Private Karapet Xac‘ik Hor Collection65 Monastery 16th c. Oskep‘orik Vienna, Mkh. 119 (unknown) (unknown) 1630 Psalter Venice, Mkh. 52 Karapet Ju¥ayec‘i Hamsen (1652) Post 1812 Axtark Erevan, Mat. 7291 Yovhanes Hamsen

Manuscripts copied or owned by Hamsents‘is

Date Type Collection Scribe*/Owner** Original Provenance 9th-10th c. Ritual Venice, Mkh. 320 Islamicized (unknown) (457) Hamsenc‘i** 1240 Gospel Erevan, Mat. 218 Step‘annos Rome Hamsinc‘i** 1322 Miscellany Erevan, Mat. 732 Yovanes (unknown) Hamsinc‘i** 66

62 See OSKEAN, Barjr Hayk‘i vank‘er¢, p. 187. Subsequently the manuscript entered the private collection of Mr. G. Piloyian of Ardvin. 63 Ibid. 64 See OSKEAN, Barjr Hayk‘i vank‘er¢, p.188, and SARGISEAN, Mayr c‘uc‘ak, col. 503. 65 This information relates to the time of cataloguing in 1947. Present details are una- vailable. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 165

1464 Ps. Dionysiac Erevan, Mat. 1309 Yovhannes Awag Vank‘ Corpus Hamsenc‘i67 1464 Quaestiones St. Petersburg, Oriental Yovhannes Awag Vank‘ Institute, Arm. MS. 6 Hamsenc‘i**68 1476 Commentary on Olim Awag Vank‘ Yovhannes Awag Vank‘ Matthew Hamsenc‘i**69 1484 Gospel Olim St. Thaddeus Yovhannes Awag Vank‘ Monastery, Kamax Hamsenc‘i**70 1488 Menologium London, B. L. Movses Bert‘ak Or. 6555 Hamsenc‘i* Monastery 1494 Miscellany Erevan, Mat. 620 Hovhannes Kapos Monastery Hamsenc‘i**71 1495 Oskep‘orik Venice, Mkh. 241 (96) Nerses Kapos Monastery Hamsic‘i** (sic) 1496 Miscellany Erevan, Mat. 3495 Yovhannes Eke¥eats‘ Region Hamsenc‘i**72 1496 Psalter olim St. Thaddeus Yovhannes Kapos Monastery Monastery, Kamax Hamsenc‘i**73 1497 (unspecified) olim Kapos Monastery Yovhannes Kapos Monastery Hamsenc‘i**74 15th c. Gospel olim Mat‘usanc‘ village Movses (unknown) Hamsenc‘i*75 1506 Hymnal Erevan, Mat. 7056 Harapet Colonia76 Hamamasenc‘i*

66 In a colophon which Yovanes leaves on f. 211v. of the manuscript in 1401 he in- forms readers that he is bishop of the region. See XAC‘IKYAN, ze dari hayeren jeragreri, vol. 1, p. 18-19 and EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 409, n.18. 67 See TASEAN, Tayk‘, p. 44. Yovhannes Hamsenc‘i was abbot of the monastery of Awag Vank‘ near Erzincan at the time. 68 TASEAN, Tayk‘, p. 45. Quaestiones (lucmunk‘) is a genre of commentary highlight- ing the elucidation of cruxes and other problematic passages in a textbook. 69 Ibid., p. 46. The commentary was composed by Yovhannes Corcorec‘i, completing a work begun over a century and a half previously by Catholicos Nerses Snorhali. 70 Ibid., p. 47. 71 Ibid., p. 47. 72 Ibid., p. 48. 73 Ibid., p. 48-49. Tasean indicates that he possessed colophons from a further range of manuscripts commissioned by Yovhannes on which he does not provide specific de- tails (see p. 49). 74 Ibid., p. 47-48. No further information about this manuscript is available. 75 This manuscript was found in the possession of the priest Ter Mesrob in the village of Mat‘usanc‘ at the beginning of the 20th century. It can be dated to the 15th century because published citations from the colophon allow us to identify the scribe as Movses Hamsenc‘i, copyist of the Menologium cited on the line above. See M. SANOSEAN, hnut‘iwnner¢ [The Antiquities of Sper], in Arewelk‘, 29 May, 1904, p. 1. 76 EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 410, n. 23. 166 S.P. COWE

1508 Pauline Epistles St. Petersburg, Karapet Kotorasen O. I. A-72 Hamsenc‘i*77 1512 Hymnal Venice, Mkh. 477 Nerses Kutrasen (1548) Hamasinc‘i** pre 1621 Gospel olim Mat‘usanc‘ village (unknown) (unknown) (brought from Hamsen)78 1637 Ritual Venice, Mkh. 401 (648) Yakob Trebizond Hamsenc‘i** 1673 Ritual olim Erzurum, Karmir Vardan Erzurum Vank‘ Hamsenc‘i**79

Manuscripts Whose Contents Relate to Hamsen

Date Type Collection Scribe Original Provenance 1445 Gospel Erevan, Mat. 661 Yovannes Mt Sepuh80 1489 Gospel Erevan, Mat. 7638 Sarkawag Kornkan village in Sper81 1531 Lectionary Erevan, Mat. 627282 Mat‘os Ayrivank‘ 1594 Gospel olim St. Sargis Church (unknown) T‘¢vanc‘ village in Ge¥axor83

77 For a brief description of this manuscript, see M. BROSSET, Notice sur un manuscrit arménien des Epîtres de St. Paul, in Bulletin de la classe des sciences historiques, philologiques et politiques de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 16/ 20-22 (1859), col. 351-352. 78 According to published excerpts from the colophon, the manuscript was rebound in 1621. It was written in small uncial on parchment and has been tentatively dated paleographically from about the tenth century. It was brought to Mat‘usanc‘ village from C‘imil in Hamsen at some point, but it is uncertain whether or not it originated there. For details, TASEAN, Tayk‘, p. 48. 79 B. [KIWLESEREAN], C‘uc‘ak jeragrac‘ Ankiwrioy Karmir Vanuc‘ ew srajakayic‘ [Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Karmir Vank‘ (Red Monastery) of Ankara and Environs], Antelias, 1957, col. 997-1000. 80 The scribal colophon makes mention of a certain Grigor Hamsenc‘i as a member of the brotherhood of the monastery on Mt. Sepuh near Erzincan at the time of writing. See XAC‘IKYAN, Ze dari hayeren jeragreri, vol. 1, p. 589 and EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 410, n. 23. 81 The scribal colophon on f. 315r provides important information regarding the relo- cation of Dawit‘, Lord of Hamsen, to Sper in connection with Ottoman conquest of the region. For details, see EDWARDS, Hamsen, p. 411-412. 82 A colophon in this manuscript refers to an instance of devshirme (forced recruit- ment of non-Muslim boys for the Janissary corps) in 1531, which took place in the Black Sea coastal region including Hamsen. See M.K. ZULALYAN, “Devsirme”-n (mankaha- vak‘) osmanyan kaysrut‘yan mej ¢st t‘urk‘akan ev haykakan a¥byurneri [The “Dev- shirme” (recruitment of boys) in the Ottoman Empire According to Turkish and Arme- nian Sources], in Patmabanasirakan Handes, 2-3 (1959), p. 251. 83 The manuscript contains a later colophon of 1858 relating to Hamsen, which has already been discussed (see n. 57). The village of Ge¥axor is located near Erzurum. MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 167

1594 Gospel olim Catholicate of (unknown) (unknown) A¥t‘amar MS. 784 18th c. Chronicle Jerusalem, Arm. (unknown) (unknown) Patr. 370185 1831 Geography Vienna, Mkh. 154386 Po¥os Yovnanean Suceava

UCLA S.P. COWE Near Eastern Languages and Culture 295 Kinsey Hall Box 151105 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1511 U.S.A. [email protected]

Abstract — On the basis of data from extant codices and earlier descriptions of others whose current whereabouts are unknown this study seeks to recon- struct the profile of the Trapezuntine region of Hamsen from manuscripts lo- cally, supplemented by those copied or owned by Hamsenc‘is of diverse prov- enance, and others whose contents relate to the area. The significance of the political, cultural, religious, and economic information these documents attest is heightened by the fact that there exists no major regional history. With regard to typology, most manuscripts are liturgical, the majority being ritual books, and range chronologically from the 15th century till 1812, most emanating from the Monastery of St. Xac‘ik the Father near the village of E¥novit. Locally copied manuscripts generally belong to deacons and lower c1ergy, while those copied elsewhere by or for Hamsenc‘is reveal the tendency for local clergy to continue their education outside. The widespread use of parchment as the material for writing seems to cohere with the role of animal husbandry in the local economy.

84 A narrative entitled “History of the Holy Lance and the Other Dominical Attributes of Christ” in this manuscript records the tradition that the apostles brought to Hamsen. Jesus’ cloak, mantle, and the cloth on which his head had rested in the tomb (John 20:7) and set them on a high mountain shrouded in cloud and mist up to the present. See E. LALAYAN, C‘uc‘ak hayeren jeragrac‘ Vaspurakani [Catalogue of the Armenian manu- scripts of Vaspurakan], Tiflis, 1915, col. 738. See also OSKEAN, Barjr Hayk‘i vank‘er¢, p. 184. 85 For details, see PO™AREAN, Zamanakagrut‘yun (XI-XVIII dd.). 86 The manuscript contains a section on Hamsen on ff. 143v-144r. 168 S.P. COWE

ent.

1) Matenadaran MS. 1643, ff.12v-13r, a Psalter of 1503 illustrating the text of Ps. 13 and the opening of 14 [LXX].

The latter outlines the qualities of purity for one to enter the temple, an architectural theme developed in the marginal ornam MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HAMSEN 169

(xaz).

2) Ibid., ff. 250v-251r, pages from a hymnal displaying the medieval musical notation or neumes 170 S.P. COWE

ce

added above in later notrgir, and

(sic)

the seal of a later owner in the top right handcomer.

3) Matenadaran MS. 4600, ff.13v-14r, a Hmayil (prayer scroll) copied in 1499, with the opening of the Book of Cyprian.

Note the typical ornamentation of the ornithograph initial of the work and accompanying marginal palmette. See also the referen

to the priest Karapet (1.8) as the original recipient of the work, the addition of the name Sark‘is